"Among all Americans, 19% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 77% disapprove. When it comes to Bush's handling of the economy, 14% approve and 79% disapprove.

Among Americans registered to vote, 18% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 78% disapprove. "

YES!!!

It's down to the 23 percenters! It's close enough to assume a small statistical error. Coupla of them were away from the phone or something. I didn't think it would happen, but it did. We now know there is a percentage of us who are gonna go down that road no matter what. Conviction off the charts, already there, no turning back, just following the dream right down the rat hole.

Nut-bags --all of them.

Remember those Resident President Bush Sucks Hard threads? Yeah baby, I do. Got called anti-American, fool, extremest, leftist, socialist, and a whole bunch of other highly entertaining crap.

Asked for the stories that supported goodness, got nothing. NOTHING!

Well just call it thearapy this morning! It's a done deal, over, known absolutely true, the myth of "MANDATE", "He's making us safer.", etc... all busted cold.

And a significant fraction of those just hate McCain too! Glorious!

Here it is... wait for it! Almost there! C'mon, you know it's coming, say it with me!

Bush really sucks green donkey dicks!

Wow! *BAM!* There is is! Yeah I feel better having said it, you? (Hope so)

"Nut-bags --all of them."

Yes. All all but one of my conservatives friends has admitted that Bush is a disaster. He's in the 23 percent crowd as well because he's not man enough to admit he's wrong in the face of overwhelming evidence.

We're living in historical times, unfortunately.

The difference is that (assuming an approx. 50/50 Dem/Rep Cons/Lib split in the country), more than half of Rep/Cons group realize what a disaster Bush has been whereas the remaining 17% still don't get it. So .... assuming that half of that group is Rep and half is Cons, that would mean in a group of 10 people (voters), there is one die hard Republican and one die hard Conservative and 8 people who understand what is really going on is bad news.

The leftist-controlled Congress still has only half of Mr. Bush's approval numbers:

"President Bush has doubled his approval rating over that of Congress by 17 points, and Americans' confidence in the future has risen to its highest level since last summer, according to results of a new Reuters/Zogby poll. Bush's standing rose to 34 percent, a 3-point increase since it was last measured in January. The poll also found a 7-point increase in the number of respondents who said they felt "very secure" in their jobs"

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0221/p03s03-nbgn.html

Herbert Huckabee

Congress consists of both Democrats AND Republicans. So, when comparing ratings between Bush (one person) and Congress (a group of people) you're not comparing apples to apples.

Good job though on your persistance to repeatedly pass off information that is purposefully meant to deceive people. But, that comes as no surprise based on your religious beliefs. That kind of behavior is cut from the same cloth.

No.

You continually complain how low Mr. Bush's ratings are.

The FACTS are that his ratings are far better than the democrat-led Congress, over which liberals constantly bleated their accomplishment in gaining control.

You can't have it both ways.

Herb

Well, when the two refuse to work together and compromise what the hell to you expect. Naturally both would suck swamp water in approval ratings when they never get anything accomplished. Let's just see what President Elect Obama can do with a Democratic Congress shall we! So Stick a Cork In It.

1.20.09

Herbie>> The FACTS are that his ratings are far better than the democrat-led Congress, over which liberals constantly bleated their accomplishment in gaining control.

The facts are the Republicans have been using filibusters at a record rate to block the Democrats and that is why Congress ratings are down. The Democrats need to get a filibuster majority.

http://kirkcaraway.com/03/12/2007/republicans_set_filibuster_record

Oh big time!

That's probably the most UNDER-REPORTED story of the year. After all the obstructionist crap, they've turned around and broke the record!

Herb, I want you to answer these two questions truthfully. Both of these questions are either yes or no.

1. Would Congress's approval be higher if Bush wasn't vetoing all the Democratic proposals?

2. Would Congress's approval be higher if Republicans couldn't fillibuster?

Yes? No?

"Well, when the two refuse to work together and compromise what the hell to you expect."

As RN used to say whilst wobbling his big ol' jowls: 'That's all very well and good.'

But look. I disagree plenty with our president. Like any commander in chief, he's been wrong on lots of stuff. But just looking at the facts, please explain why Mr. Bush would get a pass and why the Congress would not, when they refuse to compromise...especially on the order of 2 to 1, especially when Mr. Bush is a lame duck and promoting an unpopular war, whilst the economy is slowing down?

Herb

"Herb, I want you to answer these two questions truthfully."

I don't know if anyone has the answer to either question...it would be pretty subjective and speculative. Please read my above post.

Herb

It's dodgeball with Herb!!

I wonder if Herb can dodge a wrench?

He knows one thing.....

The HUCKster is toast!

Herb, you're a chicken. My two questions are simply a yes or no question. You're afraid to answer them, because if you answered truthfully, you'd be proven to be the liar you really are. If you didn't, well, then you a liar anyway.

Most people that would answer honestly would say YES to both questions, and when the results of the 2008 elections become final, it will be apparent that the answers are YES.

That is why people should not engage in conversation with the Troll, never answers anything directly. I still think to this day that Wayne and Herb are one and the same!

Where is the Wayner?

Same place Reinstatepete is....BANNED! Don't you remember the night those two got into it, it got ugly and they were gone shortly after that. But as I said I think Wayner was just an alter ego for Herb to stir shit up with.

"1. Would Congress's approval be higher if Bush wasn't vetoing all the Democratic proposals?

2. Would Congress's approval be higher if Republicans couldn't fillibuster?"

Fine. Here's why there is no real answer to your hypothetical.

It's not about passing some bills. It's about precisely WHAT bills get passed.

If Congress and the president could outlaw crime and have it stick, then I'm certain they would all see a boost in approval.

But for them to pass more meaningless drivel with little application to most folks, including a bridge to nowhere, means next to nothing.

Herb

Herb, you failed miserably. Yes or no?? Would Congress have higher ratings without Bush vetos or Republican filibusters?

You need to face the facts: The GOP's obstruction of the agenda the Democrats were elected to execute is the reason for the low ratings of Congress, a body that includes both Democrats AND Republicans.

And, my point will be proven to be valid when Democrats gain seats in both Houses and win the White House.

You're talking to someone who sometimes likes gridlock. It sure beats a bunch of bad bills. Besides, there's plenty of pork on both sides.

And the fact that shrill leftists are not in favour doesn't cause me to lose a lot of sleep.

Herb

Yeah, but a whole lot of people just don't like gridlock.

Basically 70 percent of us; thus, the ratings.

Herb, I understand you like gridlock. But, that's not my question.

I want to know your opinion on how the approval rating for Congress would change if it weren't for Bush's vetos and Republican fillibusters. Yes or no??

"...how the approval rating for Congress would change if it weren't for Bush's vetos and Republican fillibusters. Yes or no??"

If the bills were what the public wants: up.
If the bills were what the public doesn't want: down.
If the bills were what the public is lukewarm about: no change.

You parse it to single out republicans. The democrats have a responsibility for good bills. Write good, bi-partisan bills and problem solved.

Herb

So Herb did you say "I do" at the altar, or offer an entire lecture series on the question posed?

Herb, you're still playing dodgeball.

Look, here's the facts: Democrats were elected to the majority because this is what the public wanted. So, it stands to reason that the bills the Democrats are proposing are what the public wants, right? And it's the GOP minority that is filibustering and a GOP president that is vetoing these bills. If the public wanted what the GOP was selling, they'd have kept the GOP in office.

So, in summary, when you trot out the fact that Congress has a worse approval than Bush, what you're really highlighting but not acknowledging is that it's the GOP obstruction that is causing this low approval.

Herb knows that. He just won't admit it in a public forum. He doesn't deceive anyone except himself.

That's a laugh. Herb, The Great Deceiver.

"Rassa fracka fricka fracka"

Put it this way Herb, when the lack of a penchant to veto or gridlock dissolves come Jan. 20, 2009 - and congresses approval rating shoots up, what will you attribute that to?

I will attribuite to the lack of obstructionists and a President who vetoes things out of political and personal gain.

But really, if after Obama takes office, and the approval rating of congress goes up - what will you atrribute that to? A SUDDEN willingness to work together?

It's called checks and balances.

When liberals stop legislation with which they disagree, we hear all about checks and balances.

"...if after Obama takes office, and the approval rating of congress goes up - what will you atrribute that to?"

To the simple fact that approval ratings couldn't have gone much lower than what has been rock bottom for this democrat-led congress.

I don't expect democrats to like my answers.

Herb

I think this is one of those topics that are supposed to make Liberals feel good but actually achieve nothing.

Herb, the checks and balances that the GOP is applying why the rating is so low. It all comes down to the policy and agenda of each party. The ratings would be higher if Bush would quit vetoing and the GOP would quit filibustering the agenda that the Democrats were elected to push forward.

It's pathetic that you can't admit this. Everyone knows it and you do too, you just can't bring yourself to admit it.

And for the record, I will be here to remind you of this when the GOP gives up seats in both houses, as this will be the voters proving my point for me.

Has anyone here ever taken one of these polls?

"The ratings would be higher if Bush would quit vetoing and the GOP would quit filibustering the agenda that the Democrats were elected to push forward."

That's why we have checks and balances. Mr. Bush won TWICE. The congress has HALF of his approval rating.

Don't lecture conservatives about with whom the problem lies. If democrats would write good legislation, there's no problem.

Otherwise, it's exactly as the founders set it up. Checks and balances.

Gridlock ho.

Herb

Troll ho!

But for them to pass more meaningless drivel with little application to most folks, including a bridge to nowhere, means next to nothing.

Herb

The bridge to Gravina Island was cooked up by two Republicans.

Our government was brought to a standstill by the GOP in the 90s. Our current legislature is being brought to a standstill by many of the same mooks. This is not a purely partisan issue, but if you want to make it that way, your team is screwing with the country.

Actually coming into the topic only to call someone a name pretty much makes you the troll Skep.

Atleast Littlesongs was smart enough to actually argue herbs last post. You just thought it easier for names.

Our government was brought to a standstill by the GOP in the 90s. Our current legislature is being brought to a standstill by many of the same mooks.

Yet another reason for term limits. Please see other posts!

I added the bold for emphasis.

I'm with you on that Sky.

Bill, you and I have agreed to disagree on a few things, but we are definitely on the same page with a desire for term limits. It is still an idea worth exploring.

Herb, the debate is not on the merits of checks and balances, which I fully support by the way, the debate is WHY does the Congress have a low approval rating? And the answer, that you are still unable to utter, is because of GOP obstruction. So while you can claim checks and balances, it's the use of those checks and balances by Bush and a minority party that has led to such low ratings. Nobody's saying that they shouldn't have a right to do it, but at least be man enough to admit that this is the reason for the low ratings. Voters don't like gridlock, and those that embrace it will be punished via the ballot.

Voters don't like gridlock, and those that embrace it will be punished via the ballot.

Vitalogy spared your feelings. He did not mention that almost every American wants more than anything to dance a jig with their morning coffee on November 6th. So, be forewarned, that will not be an earthquake you feel. It will be an epidemic of Happy Feet!

"The bridge to Gravina Island was cooked up by two Republicans..."

Then the republicans were wrong to pack a bill with such pork. They might have thought they were serving their constituents, but they are not helping everyone else who has to pay for such largesse.

"Voters don't like gridlock..."

You've just made a majorly flawed assumption. YES, plenty of voters DO like gridlock, or don't really mind at all. If it mattered so much to voters, there would be a nationwide uproar. There isn't, except among radicals like the aclu and the nea.

You keep trying to push a view that republicans are to blame for the ineffectiveness of a democrat-controlled congress. Do you have any idea how lame that really sounds?

It has been put-up or shut-up for the braying left who thought they took over and now they've failed...against a lame duck president who's doubled their low approval scores. And the response from these one-note Johnny's: 'Blame Bush' of course!

If republicans pulled this stuff, the left and its media elites would call them on it.

Herb

I'm not convinced on term limits. Not against the idea, but just not sure it's both the only idea and a viable one right now.

It's gonna take some accountability at the ballot box to even get there. Not party accountability, but focused, as in, "Yeah, you! You are no longer welcome for that crap you pulled." type accountability.

Leaving primary politics as likely our best weapon for this kind of change.

"YES, many voters DO like gridlock, or at the very least don't care either way much."

Citation please?

You really do need to substantiate that, as it's the key to the rest of your points presented here.

Until that time, it's all BS.

I'm serious! Not just trying to derail this. That statement does not align well with my experience, nor with that of many people I regularly talk to.

If your statement were even close to the mark, I would clearly see more pro gridlockers out there, and I just don't. Again, most others I talk to don't either!

IMHO, you are referring to the 23 percenters. They do like the gridlock. For them, it's either advancing their cause, or just stopping things cold. They do not give ground pretty much ever.

To be fair, I think the 23 percenters could be characterized as 'many', depending on one's point of view. However, such a characterization really does not then lend support to your greater points.

"IMHO, you are referring to the 23 percenters."

That's plenty, particularly when Mr. Clinton won with around 43% of the vote.

Herb

" "Voters don't like gridlock..."

You've just made a majorly flawed assumption. YES, plenty of voters DO like gridlock, or don't really mind at all. "

Well for the record, I will be a little MORE pissed if Democrats implement gridlock and veto stuff so willingly. Not to sound overly noble, but frankly, I am voting for whom I am voting on a PROMISE to unite. Not just when it's easy. If that means we make some serious concessions and compromises, I see that as fair and good.

If Democrats start pulling anything that smacks of a smash and grab like we have seen ( and I'm referring to the level and the severity of important-to-me topics and bills ) then I will cop to it, express my disappointment and scream louder than I ever have for the change that is being PROMISED.

It's not overstating it to say that I feel like a promise is being made. It's important to really get it this time around. From everyone. But ESPECIALLY from those for whom I voted.

Are you listening, Obama? Work for it. Don't be stubborn. Use your veto powers EXTREMELY conservatively, please.

Which brings me to why I am voting for Obama; After 7-8 years of Bush literally sapping my drive to get involved on ANY level except bitching ( which I am embarrassed to admit that I do. It stems from frustration and getting squashed - but I take responsibility ), I am looking forward to and have been inspired to WORK for the real change promised.

We just need to keep him alive for 9 more years though. ( That's a whole other topic ).

Ok then.

IMHO, that's a bloc of people who do not play well with others, not some failure on the part of the Democrats to write good legislation.

It's also something we need more awareness of. Get out the vote efforts are very important, given this bloc and the problems it brings along for the ride.

All one has to do is trot out the pro-life red meat, and the support is there. Married a batch of times? Gay, but not experimenting? Repressed maybe? Married to in-laws, corrupt, cheat, smelly?

No worries because nothing else matters but eliminating Roe -V- Wade, keeping the Gay people from getting married, God in the White House, and Flag burning.

Well, there probably are a few others, but I think that's enough to make the point, don't you all think?

That bloc has demonstrated over and over they will let the nation burn if they think doing so gives them even a passing shot at their issues.

"...a PROMISE to unite."

I don't see the two as so mutually exclusive.

In fact, one of the reasons Mr. Obama is such a downright attractive candidate is in addition to not playing the race card, he's willing to work with republicans. He indeed sounds conciliatory.

So now I see where you guys are coming from. You think the republicans are being difficult just to be difficult. I don't know if that's so true. How can they get away with it unless their constituents agree with them?

Herb

"Well, there probably are a few others..."

Yeah, namely terror.

Herb

Agreed on Obama.

"Work for it." Yeah. That's exactly where I'm at too. I'm pretty sure Obama is there, or why else would he trot out "Yes We Can!".

I know it's silly, but that's quite possibly the most basic and American promise of empowerment I can think of. We need that big time.

Double the security on that guy please!

That 23 percent stands out for a reason. They are focused on a few things at the expense of all else --even themselves!

That's not indicative of most ordinary people, and therefore cannot stand as any sort of support for the idea that the low approvals are the fault of the Democrats, given they have posted up plenty of legislation most people would characterize as being good.

The GOP blocks this stuff because they know they've got the 23 percenters locked in. That means they can play dirty and not lose that, and only suck a little and have a solid shot at a win.

This is not good politics for any of us, but those 23 percenters and large corporations.

Now, a part of that low approval is tied to the Dems. It's for not stepping up and kicking a little more ass.

At least you took ownership for part of it.

The republicans aren't pure either. But with all the negatives they've been dealing with, this should not be that hard for the liberals. They're either bad bill writers, or they have an overblown sense of what it means to win in an off-year election.

Herbert Huckabee Milhous

Herb, terror is a non-partisan issue. Just because a Republican administration allowed it to happen on their watch does not make it their own personal political football. I am mystified that an entire party could get so much unrepentant mileage out of the intense suffering of their nation. Do you really believe that every person died that day for a mandate?

For the millionth time, I will suggest that you remember Jack Graham. Terrorism is not a new thing at all, nor is it always tied to ideology. In fact, it often boils down to greed. Knowing that greed is a factor, how does it change your view? Is it possible that people profited from the attack?

The actions of the GOP over the last six years tell me beyond a shadow of a doubt that profit is a factor. The dividends have paid mightily in both political and financial capital. Your party being entrenched is a direct result of that senseless horrible tragedy.

There is still a big hole in the heart of New York City. Why Herb? Is it because of gridlock? Yes. Is it because of the need to sift for gold instead of remains? Yes. Is it because it makes a convenient backdrop for press conferences and interviews? Yes. Frankly, your party has had their wheels lubricated by the tears of widows long enough.

"Is it possible that people profited from the attack?"

After the attack, sure. And that includes the left, who for a while tried the patriotic bandwagon. Then when it called for them to provide more than lip service, they were gone.

I understand Mrs. Clinton did not attend a single 9/11 funeral service.

The Herbster

I had to step away.

What I meant was kicking ass politically, as in making the GOP get up there and filabuster and obstruct full on the record, no easy cheezy auto-filabuster crap.

Reid is a puss. That's where I was headed.

Terror and what to do about it is an entirely different topic.

"You think the republicans are being difficult just to be difficult."

Absolutely not. Although in reading my own rhetoric, I can see why you think that. Perhaps I didn't state it accurately. But I will admit that I believe the old school players have it SO ingrained in them to be obstinate - and that Democrats are enemies - that yes, it does happen. I'll rethink how to say it. But neither of us are too far off.

"I don't know if that's so true."

Me either. But it sure FEELS that way sometimes. And not because I am intellectually lazy or easily influenced to think that way.

"How can they get away with it unless their constituents agree with them?"

Excellent question. My best answer is is two fold; #1. It takes too long for people to get a chance to fix ( vote ) the hange they want.

#2. They don't get away with it. Re; 2006 election.

That's the best answer I can come up with; Getting burned and having to wait 2 - 4 years is a long time and a lot of damage can be done in that time. And then getting voted out.

I understand Mrs. Clinton did not attend a single 9/11 funeral service.

The Herbster

You understand wrong. I know that Fox said it, but is it true?

No surprise, it is not true.

Hillary Clinton did attend funerals, including victims that she knew personally.

If you stop looking at the world through that translucent Chinese-made flag my friend, the truth will set you free.

" I understand Mrs. Clinton did not attend a single 9/11 funeral service."

I can't tell you how little I care about that. Nor do I care that someone attended more than anyone else. It doesn't really mean anything to me. The implication that she didn't care is false.

Everyone did and does. EVERYONE.

Absolutely Chickenjuggler! We were united then, and we are still united. Our national bond was not made in the darkness of fear, but in the light of liberty. Our brotherhood and sisterhood is hardly the result of one day of horror, but over 200 years of hard work and struggle.

Obama is a unifier and a negotiator. He represents the leading edge of a growing wave of change. Any status quo, black and white, either or, scratch my back, pork barrel, lazy ass with lobby built policies is gonna be in trouble this fall. Both parties would do well to get their sails in the winds of change, or they will capsize in a very rough sea of voters.

"YES, plenty of voters DO like gridlock, or don't really mind at all. If it mattered so much to voters, there would be a nationwide uproar."

17% is not "plenty". 83% disapproval spells uproar if you ask me. The uproar will peak this fall and produce results you won't like.