Tuesday, July 08, 2008
It's Almost Impressive
The approval rating for Congress is in the single digits for the first time in history. That's a pretty mind-boggling achievement. It would be fun and easy to jab at the incompetence of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi (and point out that they have approval ratings below President Bush), but the truth is that the Democrats only finished the job the Republicans started in 2002 with their outrageous pork pigout. Our national legislature has become an embarrassment, but what is more worrying is the sense of fatalism that an approval rating this low suggests. The idea that politicians suck no matter what so it's not worth caring is a dangerous one.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
It suggests fatalism (and I'm much more of a political fatalist than a nihilist) but it also suggests a disenfranchisement with the Republican Party:
http://www.pollingreport.com/cong2008.htm
Which is probably why I laid much of the blame at the feet of the Republican Party in this post.
Balls... Harry and Nancy have had plenty of opportunity to call out GOP shortcomings and have done exactly zip. Minimum wage increase, BFD…
I blogged some time ago about how unsatisfying it is to see my Dem friends bumming about their parties failing in equal measure as the GOP. There's no satisfaction in the collective failure at all since, well, it affects us all.
My take is this… First, I think hardline conservatives see the wanton spending and pork grab by GOP reps as a venal sin against the core principles of the party. I also think the immigration bill last year hurt them badly, including John McCain.
Harry and Nancy failed to mount a single decent effort to bring troops home from Iraq as they promised when campaigning during midterms. Why? Were they thinking that by letting this thing drag on the way it was that the WH was would be that much easier to win? Was it because they knew that changing Iraq policy might work and they didn’t want to bare the responsibility of watching a ‘Killing Fields’ sequel play out in a premature Iraq pullout? Whatever they were thinking, they surely lacked a REAL policy that they actually believed in.
What that tells me about both party’s representation is that we ALL feel they are completely out of touch with the American people. Again, the immigration bill was the last straw in my mind. There were partisan dividing positions, but there was one piece the American people seemed to agree on: strict enforcement of existing law, both for employers and illegals alike. Forget walls and paths to citizenship, that’s what the bullshit press wanted us talking about because it sold papers, if an overwhelming majority of Americans wanted the current laws enforced why not focus on proposing legislation that does just that? Because neither party is really interested in solving the problem, at least that’s what I see as what the American people are thinking about this and many other issues.
If Reid and Pelosi REALLY thought yanking troops out of Iraq was actually the best solution to the mess at the time, I think they would have mounted the political effort over the last two years to make the withdrawal happen. They didn’t. They thoroughly deserve their single digit polling as much as the President does.
Tony -
I would suggest that many people are not even aware that the Democrats are in control of both houses of Congress and have been since 2006. Bush is such a lightning rod for controversy that I am sure many people don't grasp that the Dems have been in charge in the legislature for two years. Reid and Pelosi are both total failures. Pelosi in particular seems to have had no idea how to actually run the House.
But that doesn't excuse the horrific job the Republicans did before 2006. The notion that these guys were interested in limited government and a crackdown on spending is farcical. This is why you see a lot of conservatives hoping for an Obama victory because they think the party needs some time in the wilderness to get its bearings again. And believe me, I am furious with the party for the porkfest they created. But that doesn't mean that I think voting for the guy who is pledging to send Federal spending through the roof is the way forward. One of the things McCain has going for him is that he has been an early and aggressive opponent of pork.
BTW, StinkRock, I'd be wary of using the "generic" candidate polls as data points. Historically, they have tended not to correlate with actual candidate polls, particularly in House races where there is more contact with the candidates. Another thing to bear in mind is that McCain and Obama are in a statistical dead-heat now, vying for Independents - and late-deciding Indies have historically broken 2 to 1 in favor of the Republicans.
The pain McCain is feeling with the lack of trad conservative support is rooted in exactly what you mention. Pretty sad when large blocks of your own party think "wilderness" time is needed.
I've been reading John Cole's Balloon Juice for years now. He's a conservative who's given up on the GOP in its current state following the Schivo fiasco (that obscene intervention and Bush's public creationist belief claim do it for me). I think he's gone off the deep end a bit, but most of his ranting against the GOP is on the mark (often funny too).
The question for conservatives is what will the post "wilderness" GOP look like? Can the party somehow return to it's core priciples without the bullshit Christian zelots in tow? I see a big crack forming between believers and non-believers amongst the GOP base. Can the GOP dominate w/o the wack jobs?
I'm not sure...
And I'd be wary of linking to a post that contains a link to poll results that echo my point. (It's the first link in the 7th paragraph.)
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_ballot/generic_congressional_ballot
Mike -
I didn't say your data was forged or fraudulent, I said that one has to be wary of data that asks the generic party question. You seem to think by pointing out that there is a link to the generic party question on the Rasmussen page that I have somehow been caught out. What is the inconsistency exactly?
As always, I'm not sure what you are arguing against. I posted a poll on the lowest approval ratings in Congressional history and then proceeded to say, "Yes, Pelosi and Reid have been disasters, but that doesn't excuse the Republican-led congress that preceded them." You posted a poll that asked the generic party question and I pointed out that, historically, those polls are hard to correlate with results from polls about actual races. The fact that Rasmussen has such a poll on that page doesn't make that fact go away or force me to suddenly say, "I linked to it, therefore I totally believe in the generic party question poll now because it's in the 7th paragraph."
I love you Mike, but you expend an extraordinary amount of energy in the comments arguing against straw men you built. It would be nice to have a back and forth where you are responding to what I have actually said instead of whatever pops into your head after you've skimmed the post. I don't mean that to sound harsh, but it seems like we have a lot of these back and forths where you are attacking all kinds of things I've never said.
Dave--
I'm not looking to have a back and forth with you. Arguing with you about politics is very low on my priority list.
It makes no sense, to me, that you would link to a poll that shows disdain for Congress that suggests in the very same post that party politics are part of the reason, yet you come to a completely independent conclusion ("the sense of fatalism"). It's bullshit, in my eyes.
Frankly, I find it bizarre that you fight every comment that doesn't agree with your position. Write your blog, and say your piece. Accept the comments, or monitor them. Garner discussion.
Mike -
Here are the relevant grafs that support the fatalism conclusion:
"Just 12% of voters think Congress has passed any legislation to improve life in this country over the past six months. That number has ranged from 11% to 13% throughout 2008. The majority of voters (62%) say Congress has not passed any legislation to improve life in America."
"Most voters (72%) think most members of Congress are more interested in furthering their own political careers. Just 14% believe members are genuinely interested in helping people."
Again, you post the straw man argument that I don't think party has anything to do with, when I blamed the Republicans in the post and in my comments. There is plenty displeasure with Republicans, but Democrats control both house of Congress, Mike, and since they took control in 2006 the approval rating has absolutely plummeted. You can't just say this is anger at the Republicans.
As for your problem that I respond to comments: get over it or stop posting comments. Seriously, I'm getting fucking sick of your whining about this.
I have no idea why you think you can come here, argue against straw men you attribute to me and then not have me respond. If you want to say something in this forum, be prepared to defend it with something a little more persuasive than a whine that I am responding to you. If not, don't post. For a guy who claims that talking politics is such a low priority, you expend a lot of effort coming here and posting. And stop telling me how to run my blog.
"It would be fun and easy to jab at the incompetence of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi (and point out that they have approval ratings below President Bush), but the truth is that the Democrats only finished the job the Republicans started in 2002 with their outrageous pork pigout."
What a condemnation of the Republicans. The Democrats went scot-free.
You also wrote:
"Here are the relevant grafs that support the fatalism conclusion:" which is ironic, because the comment of mine that set you off also said:
"It suggests fatalism."
I'll take your word that party polls are inconclusive. I guess what I was saying was that Bush's presidency impacts both polls, the party polls and more importantly, the distrust in federal government. I didn't make that clear.
Post a Comment