Can somebody explain to me why the congressional Democrats think that it’s good policy to give in to a President with a ridiculous 26% approval rating? Also, as far as branding her campaign into people’s minds I don’t see how Sen. Clinton could do any better than President Clinton – it just screams “see, this is what a popular president looks like”.
I think the Democratic Party are so used to being attacked by the media when going against Bush they are a little gun shy.
They really need to learn to get over that.
I think it might have something to do with the fact that the President of the United States is, well, the President of the United States; and although he temporarily has been rated by 26% of 1,192 CNN viewers, or 902 Newsweek readers, as not going in the right direction, he was not ejected from office in November 2006, and the Democrats can’t very well get into the White House acting like the brown shirted jack – booted thugs they, in their heart of hearts, really are, until NOV 2008.
Finally, there may be a few Democrats who are interested in the future of the United States of America, rather than a successful lifetime career in Congressology.
Why are you so convinced that Democrats in Congress are idiots and/or cowards? Maybe they actually think its the right thing to do. After all, you guys lost in Connecticut to a DLCer.
Um, just a wild guess: Because Congress has a 14 percent approval rating?
“I think it might have something to do with the fact that the President of the United States is, well, the President of the United States…”
Frank, you are a fucking idiot, in (nearly) every way.
George W. Bush has had terrible approval ratings for a long time, the fact that you thinks you can wave this fact away by attacking the very reliable science of statistics shows how desparate you are.
“brown shirted jack – booted thugs they, in their heart of hearts, really are”
Projection, look into it.
“Finally, there may be a few Democrats who are interested in the future of the United States of America, rather than a successful lifetime career in Congressology.”
People who are interested in the welfare of the USA should do their best to limit the power of Bush and company as much as possible for the next 18 months.
“After all, you guys lost in Connecticut to a DLCer.”
Lieberman got his support from Republicans cause to them he is a useful idiot.
I think Ed has nailed it.
I think the Dem Leadership is thinking more long-term than George Bush.
Howard Dean has set forth a 50-state candidacy, and many Dem REps and Senators come from states that are just beginning to try on the fact that the GOP and the President they’ve been behind for so long was a waste.
I like this more measured approach. It is a sign of confident leadership rather than rushing to implement policies that will eventually be set in place with wider support anyway.
And don’t forget Bush stil enjoys considerable power: He is not running for ofice anymore, and as he has shown has the bully-pulpit and the ability to affect public perception on most issues.
He can also veto legislation, or let it be known he will veto, and we still do not enjoy a veto-proof majority.
I think REid and Pelosi are palying the GOP like a drum, and causing fear, alarm, and hatred among the GOP on a daily basis.
The polls? Aside from Frank’s rank ignorance of basic statistical science and his stupid comments, there is a mystery in there:
Even though Congress’ approval is in the mid-twenties, when you poll people on THEIR Rep or Senator, that margin is consoderably different.
The GOP has invested considerable capital in a scorched-earth policy; and its results are they have torched their own party. The only thing lower than COngress’ rating are the Congressional GOP ratings.
The GOP Congress’ legacy of do-nothing, corruption, and partisanship has become their brand. And that’s not going to change anytime soon.
There are a number of reasons why the Dems are not being more assertive:
1. If the CT DLC’er flips they lose control of the Senate
2. When your political opponents are self destructing you get out of the way
3. The myth of a liberal media is reflected in their low poll numbers
4. There are still enough Dems that agree with American Empire to further fracture anti-Bush coalitions – Hillary Clinton included
5. You have to pick and choose your fights, and divided government makes it impossible to get anything partisan accomplished (as our government should work)
The one thing in the equation that will continue to benefit the lowly rated Democratic Congress is that many Americans have awoke to the realization that electing Republicans is going to make things worse not better.
Maybe because when Congress has a 14% approval rating, 26% looks pretty good.
You know. Maybe you’re right and I was wrong.
Those Democratic congress people are idiotic cowards.
Man, my keyboard would hardly let me type that. But I said it. I was wrong. The great Dugger was wrong – first time.
Because Congress has a 14 percent approval rating?
I don’t remember voting for or against “Congress” in the last election. I voted for my Senator at the time, who’s a Democrat enjoying a healthy approval rating.
Not to burst the kneejerk reaction bubble (though I admit it’s a refreshing reprieve from mentioning Ted Kennedy or Robert Byrd as your excuse for everything) but if “Congress” is so hated, that’s probably a problem for the 2-1 ratio of Republican Senators defending their seats next year.
“Um, just a wild guess: Because Congress has a 14 percent approval rating?”
This was also true just before 2006 elections, yet the winning percentage of the incumbents was still huge.
I wonder why that is?
The answer’s simple. When 28%… sorry, 26% of the country thinks the congress should just given into Bush and 50% or so think they should start impeachment proceedings on Bush, it’s hard to satisfy many people.
This has been true for a long, long time and is why that number is next to useless.
Ed and Farris: the 14% number is a “confidence” rating. My understanding is that that same poll also asked for approval, which was 24%, not abnormal for Congress, which tends to have dismal approval ratings even in good times.
Congress always has “dismal” approval ratings, but not this low. They haven’t been at this level since 1994. Need I remind you what followed?
People aren’t happy with government: Republicans or Democratics. It’s even to the point that the two people NOT running for President (Thompson & Gore) are the ones leading at the polls. I would also note that a general distrust in goverment would tend to favor conservatives, though whether it actually will remains to be seen.
Democrats can’t very well get into the White House acting like the brown shirted jack – booted thugs they, in their heart of hearts, really are, until NOV 2008.
Finally, there may be a few Democrats who are interested in the future of the United States of America, rather than a successful lifetime career in Congressology.
These two statements seem to be in conflict with each other.
Not really, Scotty.
The first statement may be true, or the second may be true.
If the second is true, the BSJBT are a minority.
If the first statement is true, then the BSJBT are a majority.
It’s even to the point that the two people NOT running for President (Thompson & Gore) are the ones leading at the polls.
What the hell are you talking about? Show me a single credible national poll saying Al Gore is in the lead. Thompson took the lead in the first national poll EVER with YESTERDAY’s Rasmussen, where he’s within a margin of error with Giuliani.
FUCK CONGRESS’ APPROVAL RATING CONGRESS ARE NOT THE PRESIDENT AND FURTHERMORE THEIR RATING DROPPED SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE THEY CAVED INTO THE PRESIDENT JEEZ
(I didn’t tone that down because it’s my birthday)
Gore’s not leading any polls, Farris, he’s just doing surprisingly well in them considering that he’s not even running.
Nim, Happy Birthday.
Frank, so which is it?
Farris, you could probably get a ham sandwich to poll well if you asked the right people. Let’s try to stick to the folks who are actually applying for the job, M’kay?
OK, Scotty, let’s recap:
Clem says:
I think the Democratic Party are so…
Jun 22, 2007 6:03:25 AM
So I say: I think it might have something to do…
[and / or implied]
… there may be a few Democrats who are interested …
Jun 22, 2007 6:43:24 AM
Then YOU say
Democrats can’t very well …
Finally, there may be a few Democrats who are interested …
These two statements seem to be in conflict with each other.
Jun 22, 2007 12:46:19 PM
And I say:
Not really, Scotty.
The first statement may be true, or the second may be true.
If the second is true, the BSJBT are a minority.
If the first statement is true, then the BSJBT are a majority.
Jun 22, 2007 12:56:55 PM
Then YOU say:
Frank, so which is it?
Jun 22, 2007 1:48:45 PM
Well, since I made exactly one thing slightly unclear, I will clear it up now, and be done with this thread. [Never let it be said that Scotty wasn't a worthy replacement for Paulie, i.e., very good at forcing me to defend points I didn't make.]
I never said, or intended to say that every single Democrat in office carries around within him the spirit of a brown shirted jack booted thug. I firmly believe most liberal democrats and other left wingers do, and most firmly believe that the Democratic Party is, at this moment chock full of liberals and left wingers.
Secondly, even in this group there are undoubtedly a few that are truly concerned with the future of the United States as most in and around the middle conceive of it, and always have; and not intent on creating a socialist – styled dystopia
All of this returns to the point that perhaps the Democrats don’t see U.S. politics as a battle to the death. More cynically, you don’t want to reduce the Presidency to a post not worth having.
One of Oliver’s current posts calls President Bush “our crap stain of a President”. How vile! Never have I heard of a President being referred to in such crude and vulgar terms.
Even a President such as Clinton who made a mockery of the Presidency in his very attitude and bearing was never referred to in such terms.
If the Democrats were to go far in besmirching the President as Clem suggested originally, they might produce just that effect: making the Presidency undesirable.
I hope you’re done, Scotty.
Happy Birthday, Nimrod!
Out of puberty yet?
One of Oliver’s current posts calls President Bush “our crap stain of a President”. How vile! Never have I heard of a President being referred to in such crude and vulgar terms.
Really? I guess you didn’t watch much TV during the 1990s then.
very good at forcing me to defend points I didn’t make.]
You brought it up. I have great respect for the Office of the President. This President does not deserve such respect. time and again, he has broken his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution from threats both foreign and domestic.
From one side of your mouth you call Liberal Democrats “Jack-booted thugs” and then say that some have the best interest of the country in mind. I’m pretty sure I can speak for all of the liberals here when I say we have the best interest of the country in mind.
You want jack-boots, go over to stormfront.
And please don’t call me Scotty. My grandma calls me that, and you ain’t her.
Quaker: I watched television in the 1990’s.
“Crap stain” didn’t come up much.
Duros:
I have great respect for the Office of the President. This President does not deserve such respect.
Then you respect the man who occupies that office. If you don’t, you don’t, but say so.
I am perfectly willing to say that Pres. Clinton disgraced the office of the President, but I wouldn’t call him a Chimp, or a shrub, or an idiot, or a moron, or a crap stain.
I started calling you Scotty when I was trying to be Lysander II and you were one of the people calling me Frank.
Little things mean a lot, eh?
Remember this when the horses’ asses around here call me Frankie.
I’ve had a personal rule for many a year: If you didn’t know before I was 13, you don’t call me Frankie.
Having said that, watch what happens over the next few days.
Say “Hi!” to Grandma for me.
I’m one of those disaffected ones who was thrilled to see the Dems achieve majorities in both houses, then became deflated watching them wimp out.
And as for this from Farris: “I would also note that a general distrust in goverment would tend to favor conservatives, though whether it actually will remains to be seen.”
Says who? The Republicans are the pariah party of America (the Dems are very close behind). No one, and I mean NO ONE (well, that pesky 26%, representing the country’s village idiots, maybe), wants to see another Republican takeover of our government.
“Crap stain” didn’t come up much.
Perhaps not (though I wouldn’t wager on it). However, many other “crude and vulger terms” were employed with regularity.
Neither did the Blogosphere, but I guess things change.
The worst I can recall is the Philanderer – in – Chief, which is mostly true, and scarcely vulgar/
Oh, yeah, there was “Boy Clinton”.
Anybody remember anything in the same NEIGHBORHOOD as “crap stain”?
“Anybody remember anything in the same NEIGHBORHOOD as ‘crap stain’?”
Yes. How about serial rapist and murderer. There were also charges that Clinton was involved in cocaine trafficking.
“Crap stain” may sound vulgar, but what Clinton was called was libelous… or slander, depending if it was in print or not. And that is much more serious, don’t you agree?
“If the Democrats were to go far in besmirching the President as Clem suggested originally, they might produce just that effect: making the Presidency undesirable.”
How? How does attacking one president for being incompetent, corrupt, etc. affect the office of presidency? You are equating the man with the position in order to defend the man, which is equal parts pathetic and desperate.
And that is much more serious, don’t you agree?
No, I don’t. Shooting someone with a derringer may kill them, hitting someone with a lead pipe may not.
Shooting someone with a derringer is genteel by comparison with hitting someone with a lead pipe, n’est-ce pas?
You are equating the man with the position in order to defend the man
And if you continue to attack the man, you risk attacking the position.
Do you know what meme is starting to circulate? “Please, not another Clinton”.
Me: “And that is much more serious, don’t you agree?”
Frank: “No, I don’t.”
That’s cause you are a moron.
Frank: “Shooting someone with a derringer may kill them, hitting someone with a lead pipe may not.
Shooting someone with a derringer is genteel by comparison with hitting someone with a lead pipe, n’est-ce pas?”
This is so stupid it may have the power to cause cancer in lab rats.
Me: “You are equating the man with the position in order to defend the man”
Frank: “And if you continue to attack the man, you risk attacking the position.”
There is no risk, Frank. The office will survive as long as the country does. The only way to truly damage the office is to let the current occupant get away with being incompetent, corrupt, etc.
‘If Bush can be president, than anyone can.’
Frank: “Do you know what meme is starting to circulate? ‘Please, not another Clinton’.”
Yeah, that meme is being circulated by Republicans who remember how popular the previous one is.
And if you continue to attack the man, you risk attacking the position.
That’s a risk I’m willing to take.
Do you know what meme is starting to circulate? “Please, not another Clinton”.
So what? “It’s a trap”, “The goggles do nothing”, “WRYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY”, and pretty much anything else posted on YTMND are also memes. They don’t mean anything.
Even so, I have NEVER heard that “meme” before.
WRYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
YTMND
It’s a trap
The goggles do nothing
I have never heard these, either…
And I wasn’t referring to “You’re the Man Now, Dog”
How old are you? My kids visit that site and their teen agers!
How old are you? My kids visit that site and their teen agers!
A. I’m not letting someone like you get a hold of imformation like that.
B. I don’t visit YTMND, but you can’t go far on the internet with encountering the memes that it spawns.
C. My point was that memes are completely meaningless and trite, and that using a meme (that probably doesn’t even exist) in place of an arguement doesn’t exactly help strengthen your position.
that probably doesn’t even exist)
You saying I made it up?
Well,then, fuck you.
End of discussion.
The discussion ended, Frank, when you explicitly stated that the rules are different for Democratic presidents.
Zython: “that probably doesn’t even exist)”
Frank: “You saying I made it up?”
No. There’s probably a few fucking losers like you who think the same. But to describe the rantings of a few deranged lunatics a meme is not strictly accurate.
See here:
http://www.oliverwillis.com/2007/06/rudy-giulianis-.html
Frank | Jun 23, 2007 2:16:24 PM
“See here:”
Ignoring us means not posting. Or are you truly functionally retarded?
“I will simply do my best in the future to ignore you”
Calling people “functionally retarded” is exceptionally low – classed, even for you, the lowest of the low.
Me: “I will simply do my best in the future to ignore you”
Frank: “Calling people “functionally retarded” is exceptionally low – classed, even for you, the lowest of the low.”
I’ll put this exchange through the Frank-o-matic and let’s see what come out.
…
“I never called you functionally retarded. I merely asked if you were.”
There you go.
By the way, good job on ignoring me. Is this really your best, or should I add that to the list of lies?
It’s hard to ignore someone who’s constantly pestering you.
Even my children, when they were toddlers, knew that if they bothered me long enough, they would eventually get my attention.
You’re acting like a child; I’m treating you like one.
“It’s hard to ignore someone who’s constantly pestering you.”
Responding to you is not the same as pestering you. Even you must no that.
“You’re acting like a child; I’m treating you like one.”
You’re acting like a fucking asshole, a retarded one at that; I’m treating you like a fucking retarded asshole.