PDA

View Full Version : Congress Approval rating at all time low - 14%


chagrin
06-23-2007, 08:39 PM
Haven't noticed any spin from the left on this woeful number...where are ya? I mean, you realize this poll is out there yet I see nothing. I have read over and over, the poll results you all seem to love, what do you think?

"OOPS!" Looks like the lousy left can't get shit done, their own people turning against them. Oh well, at least Madam Speaker got her Jet... :shake:

Oh noes! Sounds like an inside job, one Congresswoman quoted as saying "I saw detonators under Madam Speakers Chair"

CHIEF4EVER
06-23-2007, 08:44 PM
LMAO

Wait, you mean the Dem Congress is more effed up than Dubya?

LMAO

patteeu
06-23-2007, 08:46 PM
It's all OK because the Congressional approval rating is almost as low among democrats as it is among Republicans whereas the President's low approval ratings have a partisan edge to them. Or something like that.

HolmeZz
06-23-2007, 08:47 PM
What would you attribute the approval rating to? Not being able to end the War?

Mr. Kotter
06-23-2007, 08:51 PM
LMAO LMAO LMAO


But...but....BUT...chagrin...it's ONLY because those mean old evil Republicans (who no longer control Congress, btw) can't STOP the WAR.

Don't you understand, dude?....the WAR is all that matters. And people are pissed....PISSED, I tell you!!! :cuss: :cuss: :cuss:

HolmeZz
06-23-2007, 09:05 PM
LMAO LMAO LMAO


But...but....BUT...chagrin...it's ONLY because those mean old evil Republicans (who no longer control Congress, btw) can't STOP the WAR.

Don't you understand, dude?....the WAR is all that matters. And people are pissed....PISSED, I tell you!!! :cuss: :cuss: :cuss:

I asked what could be attributed to those ratings. You got anything else?

patteeu
06-23-2007, 09:06 PM
What would you attribute the approval rating to? Not being able to end the War?

I'd imagine that there are a variety of contributing factors. I'm sure the anti-war crew is upset that they haven't done more to end the war. The pro-victory crowd is upset at the folks who are fighting tooth and nail to raise the white flag. A bunch of people are outraged that they are trying to pass a comprehensive immigration bill instead of focusing on securing the borders. Quite a few others are no doubt disappointed that they can't get a comprehensive immigration bill passed. The people with short memories are upset that the democrats didn't usher in an era free of corruption. The people with long memories are upset that there is no prospect for reduced spending under the new majorities. Most taxpayers are upset that taxes are likely to go up substantially. Talk radio listeners are freaking out about the idea of reinstating the fairness doctrine. And I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons to disapprove of our Congressional reps and Senators.

BucEyedPea
06-23-2007, 09:12 PM
I asked what could be attributed to those ratings. You got anything else?
Pork, Immigration bill with amnesty, the war in Iraq, and more of the same on Iran.

In short doing nothing they were elected to handle....even though some consider Iraq already lost and some CIA say we are losing the WoT too.

If you select the right targets, and the right cause the problem should abate.
If it gets worse, then you haven't gotten the right things. If you do more of the same you make it even worse. We voted for change.

HolmeZz
06-23-2007, 09:18 PM
Pork, Immigration bill with amnesty, the war in Iraq, and more of the same on Iran.

In short doing nothing they were elected to handle....even though some consider Iraq already lost and some CIA say we are losing the WoT too.

If you select the right targets, and the right cause the problem should abate.
If it gets worse, then you haven't gotten the right things. If you do more of the same you make it even worse. We voted for change.

Immigration could play a part, I'll give you that. But I think it's more reflective of the War. Just like how Bush's ratings are so low because he doesn't have the full backing of the right, Congress doesn't have the full backing of the left because absolutely nothing has gotten done with Iraq.

irishjayhawk
06-23-2007, 09:19 PM
I was voting for change and I am disappointed too.

However disapproval in Congress in no way says that we approve Bush. It means people have lost faith in all of the government.

BucEyedPea
06-23-2007, 09:21 PM
Immigration could play a part, I'll give you that. But I think it's more reflective of the War. Just like how Bush's ratings are so low because he doesn't have the full backing of the right, Congress doesn't have the full backing of the left because absolutely nothing has gotten done with Iraw.
Oh it's definitely reflective of the war....but not that alone.
Our govt no longer reps the people. Most of those Dems were supposedly Blue Dog dems who are hawks. Ya' know the so called "moderates." It's the left wing of the party that is anti-war. Just as it's the far right of the GOP, a much smaller group. Those flanks,unusually are on the side of 70% of the American people on this war issue and want troops home now. They need to restudy the Declaration of Independence.

BucEyedPea
06-23-2007, 09:28 PM
BTW Holz, I've a friend who has enough guns to register as an armory and wants to nuke the whole mid-east....but he still feels the current govt both WH and congress are in treason to the American people and should all be shot for it. That's because of immigration including the Muslims like Somali's etc coming in when we're at war with such people.

ClevelandBronco
06-23-2007, 09:33 PM
I'd imagine that there are a variety of contributing factors. I'm sure the anti-war crew is upset that they haven't done more to end the war. The pro-victory crowd is upset at the folks who are fighting tooth and nail to raise the white flag. A bunch of people are outraged that they are trying to pass a comprehensive immigration bill instead of focusing on securing the borders. Quite a few others are no doubt disappointed that they can't get a comprehensive immigration bill passed. The people with short memories are upset that the democrats didn't usher in an era free of corruption. The people with long memories are upset that there is no prospect for reduced spending under the new majorities. Most taxpayers are upset that taxes are likely to go up substantially. Talk radio listeners are freaking out about the idea of reinstating the fairness doctrine. And I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons to disapprove of our Congressional reps and Senators.

And the other 14 percent aren't sure what a Congress is.

Pitt Gorilla
06-23-2007, 09:33 PM
Most of those Dems were supposedly Blue Dog dems who are hawks. Ya' know the so called "moderates." That's what many Righties were claiming after the election. Perhaps people don't like them either?!?

BucEyedPea
06-23-2007, 09:36 PM
That's what many Righties were claiming after the election. Perhaps people don't like them either?!?
I'm not following your point. Could you rephrase another way pitt?

BucEyedPea
06-23-2007, 09:39 PM
Pitt, are you referring to folks like Peloisi capitulating too?

Pitt Gorilla
06-23-2007, 09:45 PM
I'm not following your point. Could you rephrase another way pitt?After many Dems won spots, all sorts of Righties were claiming that these newly-elected Dems were actually very conservative (that's why they won). I actually have no idea, but I have no reason to doubt this.

Mr. Kotter
06-23-2007, 09:47 PM
Pork, Immigration bill with amnesty, the war in Iraq, and more of the same on Iran.

In short doing nothing they were elected to handle....even though some consider Iraq already lost and some CIA say we are losing the WoT too.

If you select the right targets, and the right cause the problem should abate.
If it gets worse, then you haven't gotten the right things. If you do more of the same you make it even worse. We voted for change.


Nicely done, BEP. ;)

CHIEF4EVER
06-23-2007, 09:51 PM
However disapproval in Congress in no way says that we approve Bush. It means people have lost faith in all of the government.

Ding ding ding! We have a WINNER! What a ****ing shame eh? :shake:

Mr. Kotter
06-23-2007, 09:53 PM
That's what many Righties were claiming after the election. Perhaps people don't like them either?!?

:spock:

Links? :shrug:

BucEyedPea
06-23-2007, 09:54 PM
After many Dems won spots, all sorts of Righties were claiming that these newly-elected Dems were actually very conservative (that's why they won). I actually have no idea, but I have no reason to doubt this.


I remember hearing that, just not "very" conservative....more that they were not far left. I guess it depends on what their options were in their area. Mine wasn't...I voted for a rabid socialist. And you know what else....I don't even know her name. LOL! I was just so po'd!!! But the Pub won anyway. So my vote didn't have much effect.

Webb is on the people's side and he's a former Pub who ran as a Dem.

Raimondo is making some excellent arguments on his site about how there's little difference. And he backs it up. Just on Friday he had a report, which I didn't read, I only saw the title was that both Pubs and Dems want to and are going to increase the size of the army now. Wonder if that's what they're going to use all the illegals for?

Anyhow, there certainly ARE liberal hawks and Dem hawks. It's not true the Dems are wussies who won't fight. It's a bipartisan fix it seems.

HolmeZz
06-23-2007, 10:00 PM
:spock:

Links? :shrug:

You mighta been hibernating or something. There were all kinds of justifications for the Republicans losing the election. One point that was made that the Democrats only had candidates who won because they ran traditional moderates.

ClevelandBronco
06-23-2007, 10:02 PM
Anyhow, there certainly ARE liberal hawks...

NeoCons.

Mr. Kotter
06-23-2007, 10:02 PM
You mighta been hibernating or something. There were all kinds of justifications for the Republicans losing the election. One point that was made that the Democrats only had candidates who won because they ran traditional moderates.

Then I'm sure it won't be any problem for you and Pitt to give us some links to back that up.... :hmmm:

:shrug:

ClevelandBronco
06-23-2007, 10:04 PM
Then I'm sure it won't be any problem for you and Pitt to give us some links to back that up.... :hmmm:

:shrug:

I remember hearing what Pitt is claiming, but I don't remember hearing what Holmezzz is saying.

BucEyedPea
06-23-2007, 10:05 PM
NeoCons.
LOL! Reportedly they are in both parties. Only the Dem ones don't label themselves as conservatives typically. But I remember being on my first BB before we went in on a Buc board....and there were liberals who were for going into Iraq.

HolmeZz
06-23-2007, 10:06 PM
Then I'm sure it won't be any problem for you and Pitt to give us some links to back that up.... :hmmm:

:shrug:

"The GOP was too socially conservative for voters."
This chestnut is trotted out every time Republicans lose an election. This time it is even less plausible than usual. Seven out of eight constitutional amendments banning gay marriage passed this year, often outperforming Republican candidates. That Democrats went out of their way not to antagonize social-conservative voters this year was one of the keys to their success."

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=M2UwMjlhNjY1ZTMwNzc5OWM1ZDQ5YTIwOGJiZDM5MDg=

HolmeZz
06-23-2007, 10:08 PM
I remember hearing what Pitt is claiming, but I don't remember hearing what Holmezzz is saying.

Maybe I'm not being clear, but I'm saying the same thing Pitt is. Atleast I'm trying to. :p

WoodDraw
06-23-2007, 10:19 PM
It's all OK because the Congressional approval rating is almost as low among democrats as it is among Republicans whereas the President's low approval ratings have a partisan edge to them. Or something like that.

I'm being quoted. Out of context maybe and a little off on the wording, but still, I'm honored. ;)


I never said that it's OK that Congress's has low approval ratings. The only good thing about them is that voters might vote in new people in '08. Congress is doing a poor job, which is why they have a pathetic job approval. I do think the comparison between the President and Congress is interesting, although maybe not all that relavent.

ClevelandBronco
06-23-2007, 10:20 PM
Maybe I'm not being clear, but I'm saying the same thing Pitt is. Atleast I'm trying to. :p

Pitt called them conservative. You called them moderate. I remember them being called conservative.

patteeu
06-23-2007, 10:25 PM
LOL! Reportedly they are in both parties. Only the Dem ones don't label themselves as conservatives typically. But I remember being on my first BB before we went in on a Buc board....and there were liberals who were for going into Iraq.

The reason this is possible, as I've tried to point out to you before, is because the ideas that make someone a neocon are predominately (maybe even exclusively) related to foreign policy. There is no neocon view on SS reform or tax policy for example. Often, foreign policy issues are paramount to neocons so they may be more willing to compromise on domestic issues than those with whom they tend to agree on those issues. You see this as a sign of a somewhat hidden agenda of socialist values when it comes from a neocon who is conservative on domestic issues, but it's not.

HolmeZz
06-23-2007, 10:27 PM
Pitt called them conservative. You called them moderate. I remember them being called conservative.

Meh, more or less semantics there. The general point originally being made was that the Dems won because they ran candidates who didn't alienate conservative values.

patteeu
06-23-2007, 10:30 PM
I'm being quoted. Out of context maybe and a little off on the wording, but still, I'm honored. ;)


I never said that it's OK that Congress's has low approval ratings. The only good thing about them is that voters might vote in new people in '08. Congress is doing a poor job, which is why they have a pathetic job approval. I do think the comparison between the President and Congress is interesting, although maybe not all that relavent.

I know. I'm just giving you a hard time. I almost added the :Poke: smilie but I was afraid that Chagrin would think it was aimed at him.

I did add the "or something like that" to make it clear that I wasn't accurately quoting you.

On a more serious note, another thought I had regarding your comparison between the makeup of the approval ratings is that the Presidency is 100% controlled by one party while Congress is basically a near 50/50 split. It makes sense to me that approval/disapproval numbers for the president would tend to be more partisan than those for Congress although I don't have any historical data backing up the idea that this is normal.

BucEyedPea
06-23-2007, 10:36 PM
Pitt called them conservative. You called them moderate. I remember them being called conservative.
I think it would be safe to say a conservative Dem isn't like a conservative Pub, generally. I think it we can say they weren't far left Dems that got in. Would you agree with that?

ClevelandBronco
06-23-2007, 10:38 PM
I think it would be safe to say a conservative Dem isn't like a conservative Pub, generally. I think it we can say they weren't far left Dems that got in. Would you agree with that?

Absolutely.

BucEyedPea
06-23-2007, 10:42 PM
The reason this is possible, as I've tried to point out to you before, is because the ideas that make someone a neocon are predominately (maybe even exclusively) related to foreign policy. There is no neocon view on SS reform or tax policy for example. Often, foreign policy issues are paramount to neocons so they may be more willing to compromise on domestic issues than those with whom they tend to agree on those issues. You see this as a sign of a somewhat hidden agenda of socialist values when it comes from a neocon who is conservative on domestic issues, but it's not.

I disagree partly. FP is more important but they are the compassion-cons too.
And there ARE NC views on tax policy and ss. That's just false. It was Bolton who nixed the Fair Tax in the WH.

BTW if a NC's lips are moving....they're lying. ROFL

WoodDraw
06-23-2007, 10:45 PM
I know. I'm just giving you a hard time. I almost added the :Poke: smilie but I was afraid that Chagrin would think it was aimed at him.

I did add the "or something like that" to make it clear that I wasn't accurately quoting you.

On a more serious note, another thought I had regarding your comparison between the makeup of the approval ratings is that the Presidency is 100% controlled by one party while Congress is basically a near 50/50 split. It makes sense to me that approval/disapproval numbers for the president would tend to be more partisan than those for Congress although I don't have any historical data backing up the idea that this is normal.

Yeah, I was just messing around.


The Congress vs. President comparison is definetely more complex than I presented it now that I've thought about it. Congress never does well with the public, although never this bad. Both parties are represented like you said, so you can disapprove of Congress without disapproving of your party. And Congress generally isn't know for one specific issue, so support is harder to show. Still, it's a pretty big devide. If I had a stats degree and a lot of money, it'd be interesting to study. I'll look around for some polls later on and see if they break down the data further.

Pitt Gorilla
06-24-2007, 12:05 AM
:spock:

Links? :shrug:Good Lord, don't you have an intranet? Of course, righties here at CP suggested as such, but here are a few "national-type" folks.

Rush Limbaugh:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/11/8/155121.shtml

Jim Wooten:
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/shared-blogs/ajc/thinkingright/entries/2006/11/16/blue_dogs_win_pelosi_democrats.html

Bill Bennett: What I think is, the Democrats have an advantage. A lot of circumstances. A lot of -- they've run a lot of good campaigns. They have a number of people running in some of these House races who, except for the "D," you would think are conservative Republicans. These are in many of the important districts.

Laura Ingraham: So, the Democrats who I think are perhaps on the verge of doing something amazing for the Democrat Party, are actually, you know, looking fairly conservative.

And, I don't know what that says about the future of the Democrat Party. But, as a conservative I think Ronald Reagan is up there smiling down on us right now saying that all things considered, conservatism isn't doing so bad.


Glenn Beck: Are Dems Turning Conservative?

Aired November 6, 2006 - 19:00:00 ET

But first, here`s the point tonight: the Democrats will win tomorrow. But, contrary to everybody`s opinion, the upcoming election is not a rejection of George Bush and traditional conservative values, nor will it be a referendum on the war.

Now here`s how I got there. Everybody is saying how the Saddam verdict is going to change the election in favor of the Republicans. I think that`s ridiculous. Everybody`s also saying "it`s the economy stupid". Even with the Dow as high as it is and unemployment as low as it is -- 4.4 percent, that`s almost employment -- that is not going to have an impact.

Even though these factors should add up to a Republican victory tomorrow, they`re not going to, most likely.

How is it that the party that I don`t think stands for anything is in the lead? Well, that`s because they`re running against another party that also stands for nothing.

I do believe that the Democrats will win tomorrow, but not the Nancy Pelosi/Howard Dean Democrats. The Democrats of 2006 are slowly starting to resemble my grandfather`s Democrats, those JFK Democrats. The party that represent the working man, God, conservative values.

If this election truly was, as Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi put it, a referendum on the president and the war, well, then how do you explain someone like Joe Lieberman who appears to be cruising to a victory in Connecticut? He voted with Bush on the war and he stands by it.

Some other key races seem to suggest that Democrats who embrace, not reject, conservative values, are leading as well.

For instance, in Montana, Senate candidate Jon Tester -- he`s a Democrat -- he holds a slim lead. He says he would have voted against the Patriot Act. Now when I read that, I thought, well, of course, no surprise there. But the reason he said he`d vote against it is because he believes it would restrict people`s access to guns. He`s a Second Amendment guy.

He also opposes amnesty for illegal immigrants. I don`t know if you`ve checked in the last couple of years, many Republicans aren`t that conservative. I don`t think he`s going to be having lunch with Nancy Pelosi discussing these issues any time soon, but still.

The point goes on. In Pennsylvania, the Democrat Bob Casey beating incumbent Senator Rick Santorum. Well, guess -- guess which candidate is pro-life and who said he would have voted to confirm Supreme Court Judge Alito? Yes, you`re right. Both of them.

In my opinion, Rick Santorum is the Churchill of our times. That`s the guy I would vote for. But to the average person, Casey is not a nut job Democrat. In fact, women`s organizations originally protested Casey`s candidacy.

Wait a minute. I thought he`s in the party of Nancy Pelosi.

And in Indiana, congressional candidate Brad Ellsworth has signed a pledge promising no tax increases, saying that more than enough money comes in to the federal government. What upsets people is how the government spends it. Sounds almost Reagan-esque, doesn`t it?

These candidates are not by any stretch of the imagination textbook conservatives, but they seem, at least on the surface, to be reasonable on core issues.

What these and other races around the country indicate: that Americans by and large have centrist values which lean conservative. Values like small government, low taxes, and standing up for what`s right, as opposed to standing up for what`s left or right.

Americans are not necessarily against the war. I really truly believe they`re against fighting the war incorrectly or without a plan. The most important message that is being sent this election is this: Republicans, if you would have stood for these positions, we would have voted for you again. If you won`t stand for them, we`ll vote for someone who claims they will and give them a spin.

So here`s what I know tonight: Republicans are probably going to lose tomorrow, but not because of the war, not because voters are rejecting conservative values. They`ll lose because they`ve lost their virtue. They are seen as greedy with power, the same way the Democrats were seen when they got demolished in 1994.

patteeu
06-24-2007, 07:19 AM
I disagree partly. FP is more important but they are the compassion-cons too.
And there ARE NC views on tax policy and ss. That's just false. It was Bolton who nixed the Fair Tax in the WH.

BTW if a NC's lips are moving....they're lying. ROFL

Neocons have personal views on tax policy, but there isn't a characteristic tax policy that helps define neoconservatism. After you said that about "Bolton" in the other thread, I googled for a while trying to find a John Bolton (the neocon Bolton) statement about the FAIR Tax but had no luck at all. I just spent a few minutes trying to find a John Bolton comment about US tax policy in general and had no luck. I'm extremely skeptical about this. I think it's more likely that your source was talking about the President's chief of staff and former budget director, Josh Bolton, who is not a neocon. Effort to google a connection between Josh Bolton and the FAIR tax was also fruitless, so it's hard to know what his reasons for opposing it would be (ideological or practical politics), but it makes more sense that a director of OMB or a chief of staff would have an impact on tax policy than it does for a career-long diplomat.

BTW, the guy who wrote the book about "compassionate conservatism" is a religious conservative not a neocon (Fundamentalist Christian, Marvin Olasky). Olasky's take on compassionate conservatism is the intellectual underpinning of GWBush's compassionate conservatism. Olasky has been described in various places as the guy who coined the phrase, but he says that he didn't (although I think it's still quite fair to say that he defined it in the way that it is currently used). Here is what Olasky said (http://villagevoice.com/blogs/bushbeat/archive/2005/02/dear_bush_beat_9.php) about the term's origins:

People who used the words, probably without knowledge that others had, include an Arkansas legislator in 1977, Jack Kemp, Karen Hughes, Michael Savage, me, and a host of others. The meaning of the words varied, though.

Mr. Kotter
06-24-2007, 08:02 AM
Good Lord, don't you have an intranet? Of course, righties here at CP suggested as such, but here are a few "national-type" folks.
...

I thought you were referring to "righties" here...and I simply didn't recall anyone, prominently, making that case here--as you seemed to be suggesting.

BucEyedPea
06-24-2007, 09:45 AM
Neocons have personal views on tax policy, but there isn't a characteristic tax policy that helps define neoconservatism. After you said that about "Bolton" in the other thread, I googled for a while trying to find a John Bolton (the neocon Bolton) statement about the FAIR Tax but had no luck at all. I just spent a few minutes trying to find a John Bolton comment about US tax policy in general and had no luck. I'm extremely skeptical about this. I think it's more likely that your source was talking about the President's chief of staff and former budget director, Josh Bolton, who is not a neocon. Effort to google a connection between Josh Bolton and the FAIR tax was also fruitless, so it's hard to know what his reasons for opposing it would be (ideological or practical politics), but it makes more sense that a director of OMB or a chief of staff would have an impact on tax policy than it does for a career-long diplomat.
You really crack me up sometimes. So if it's not on the net it isn't true? Yeah right.

You won't find inside direct contact data like that on news lines or the net. That was the type of data that's delivered personally from personal individual contact. This guy goes to dinner with these folks. You're either naive or live in a black n' white world where these men have no other opinions on any subjects. This man is a trustworthy honest man. He also supported going into Iraq initially.

I know the domestic policy views of the NeoCons. They have other views.

BTW, the guy who wrote the book about "compassionate conservatism" is a religious conservative not a neocon (Fundamentalist Christian, Marvin Olasky). Olasky's take on compassionate conservatism is the intellectual underpinning of GWBush's compassionate conservatism. Olasky has been described in various places as the guy who coined the phrase, but he says that he didn't (although I think it's still quite fair to say that he defined it in the way that it is currently used). Here is what Olasky said (http://villagevoice.com/blogs/bushbeat/archive/2005/02/dear_bush_beat_9.php) about the term's origins:

So. Didn't you also admit earlier that you knew Bush was NOT a conservative when you did not vote for him in 2000?

It works for the NeoCons too because many of them are Christians.

Direckshun
06-24-2007, 09:54 AM
Haven't noticed any spin from the left on this woeful number...where are ya? I mean, you realize this poll is out there yet I see nothing. I have read over and over, the poll results you all seem to love, what do you think?

"OOPS!" Looks like the lousy left can't get shit done, their own people turning against them. Oh well, at least Madam Speaker got her Jet... :shake:

Oh noes! Sounds like an inside job, one Congresswoman quoted as saying "I saw detonators under Madam Speakers Chair"
Link?

noa
06-24-2007, 10:49 AM
Honestly, the only time I would expect Congress to have good approval ratings is after an event like 9/11 or at the beginning of a war, and even then its usually just nationalist sentiment rather than real approval of anything they've done. I just don't see what any Congress, Democrat or Republican, has accomplished to deserve positive approval ratings.
Both parties always run on lofty goals, and only a tiny fraction of those actually get accomplished before they start repeating the same crap over again: insert pork, get wined and dined by lobbyists, alienate the minority party, and fail to tackle the big issues at hand.
During any given year, I would expect Congress to be about as popular as Rosie O'Donnell at the Republican National Convention.

mlyonsd
06-24-2007, 11:23 AM
I'm glad to see the public is smart enough to see thru the democrat's little game of pretending to want to stop the war but claim they can't do anything about it.

patteeu
06-24-2007, 11:49 AM
You really crack me up sometimes. So if it's not on the net it isn't true? Yeah right.

You won't find inside direct contact data like that on news lines or the net. That was the type of data that's delivered personally from personal individual contact. This guy goes to dinner with these folks. You're either naive or live in a black n' white world where these men have no other opinions on any subjects. This man is a trustworthy honest man. He also supported going into Iraq initially.

I know the domestic policy views of the NeoCons. They have other views.

I'm not so much doubting that your source told you it was Bolton as I am doubting that you understood correctly which Bolton it was. I'm not calling you a liar, but I'm very confident that you've made a mistake here.

And you don't know the domestic policy views of the neocons because they don't have them. Not as a group anyway. It's all part of you lack of understanding of the term.

So. Didn't you also admit earlier that you knew Bush was NOT a conservative when you did not vote for him in 2000?

It works for the NeoCons too because many of them are Christians.

I don't really think "admit" is the right word. I agree that I never considered Bush a small government conservative (the kind of conservative that I am when it comes to domestic policy). Nor do I consider him a movement neocon although he's certainly been heavily influenced by them. I do believe he is a religious/social conservative in his heart though even though I think he's probably a moderate social conservative on gay issues (meaning live and let live and maybe even civil unions, but not gay marriage).

Pitt Gorilla
06-24-2007, 01:55 PM
I thought you were referring to "righties" here...and I simply didn't recall anyone, prominently, making that case here--as you seemed to be suggesting.Kotter, you should check out the search feature. I don't wish to belabor the point, but about 5 seconds with the search feature produced this thread:

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=151697&highlight=conservative+democrats+election

And this quote, where you didn't exactly disagree with the notion:

Quote:Originally Posted by dirk digler:

Aren't you happy Rob it looks like alot of conservative/moderates Dems won last night?


Kotter: I'm reserving judgement, and am cautiously optimistic.

Mr. Kotter
06-24-2007, 02:11 PM
Kotter, you should check out the search feature. I don't wish to belabor the point, but about 5 seconds with the search feature produced this thread:

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=151697&highlight=conservative+democrats+election

And this quote, where you didn't exactly disagree with the notion:

Quote:Originally Posted by dirk digler:

Aren't you happy Rob it looks like alot of conservative/moderates Dems won last night?


Kotter: I'm reserving judgement, and am cautiously optimistic.

:spock:

I see, in Gerrry's world:

"being cautiously optimistic (about moderates winning)" = "Righties were claiming that these newly-elected Dems were actually very conservative"

ROFL

banyon
06-24-2007, 02:29 PM
I'm definitely part of the 86% that disapproves.

I knew that Pelosi would make a spineless shill of a leader for the Party. She was a horrible choice to be Speaker. Congress needs about 50 reps with half the stones that Russ Feingold has and maybe Congress would quit sniveling in the corner afraid that Republicans are going to say that they hate the troops. They might also quit licking Bush's boots on the guest worker immigration BS.

Pitt Gorilla
06-24-2007, 03:58 PM
:spock:

I see, in Gerrry's world:

"being cautiously optimistic (about moderates winning)" = "Righties were claiming that these newly-elected Dems were actually very conservative"

ROFLI thought it was funny.

ChiefsfaninPA
06-24-2007, 04:41 PM
Sign me up for being pissed at both parties. At this point they are both fu@k ups and not getting anything done. How stupid are the people of this country? No need to look further than the people who we elect to represent us.

BucEyedPea
06-24-2007, 07:23 PM
I'm not so much doubting that your source told you it was Bolton as I am doubting that you understood correctly which Bolton it was. I'm not calling you a liar, but I'm very confident that you've made a mistake here.
Well then I will confirm with him which one it is and get back to you.
BTW, I forgot Cheney does support it.

And you don't know the domestic policy views of the neocons because they don't have them. Not as a group anyway. It's all part of you lack of understanding of the term.
That's not true. Bill Kristol has elaborated some of them on Fox, because I HEARD him when asked directly about this very question. They support many of the key planks of the welfare state and have no desire to downsize it. And his father has written the same. You knows things like making our bureaucrats entrepreneurial ( Gingrich style). Bennet accepting a position as head of the Dept of Ed instead of abolishing it ( Fed seizure of Ed) because he could infuse it with conservative principles. Kemp going to HUD and making it more market orientated. They are supporters of the mixed economy/central planning along with social engineering abroad. Sorta like making the welfare state aka socialism work better like Gorbachev used capitalism to make socialism work better. LOL.


I think you're right about Bush on the social issues though. But a NC is still a type of conservative so I don't see that as big of a conflict as they use the state for conservative principles. They just don't reduce the state...in fact expand it.


BTW Olasky, said: "I haven't claimed to be the originator of the term "compassionate conservative." According to your link he's a former communist. Sounds like the profile of a first generation NC to me.

StcChief
06-24-2007, 08:54 PM
14% they can go lower.... single digits by fall.

jAZ
06-24-2007, 11:09 PM
It actually doesn't mean anything.

Look at the approval ratings of the individuals up for election. That is what matters.

People don't elect "Congress". They elect representatives.

Calcountry
06-24-2007, 11:36 PM
You mighta been hibernating or something. There were all kinds of justifications for the Republicans losing the election. One point that was made that the Democrats only had candidates who won because they ran traditional moderates.The reason the dems won, is because they register the immigrants to vote faster than Republicans.

Logical
06-25-2007, 12:15 AM
It actually doesn't mean anything.

Look at the approval ratings of the individuals up for election. That is what matters.

People don't elect "Congress". They elect representatives.

Sure I elect congress don't you jAZ.

jAZ
06-25-2007, 12:46 AM
Sure I elect congress don't you jAZ.
You elect 1 person in the house and 2 people to the senate. Not "Congress" as a whole (as the approval rating poll is presented).

Were they to poll approval for each Senator and Representative seperately and average out the results, I'm sure using that technique the total would be far higher.

The same would be true for the Republican congress from years past. This isn't a defense of the Dems, it's a comment on the importance (or relative lack of) of the number.

I'd guess the average approval rating of any given senator or representative is about 50% rather than 14%.

ClevelandBronco
06-25-2007, 12:56 AM
You elect 1 person in the house and 2 people to the senate. Not "Congress" as a whole (as the approval rating poll is presented).

Were they to poll approval for each Senator and Representative seperately and average out the results, I'm sure using that technique the total would be far higher.

The same would be true for the Republican congress from years past. This isn't a defense of the Dems, it's a comment on the importance (or relative lack of) of the number.

I'd guess the average approval rating of any given senator or representative is about 50% rather than 14%.


Jaz makes a good point. Does anyone think that only 14% of Congress would be reelected if they ran tomorrow? My view of Congress isn't necessarily tied to my representaive and my senators.

(BTW: My Rep is doing fine, but I'd like to have never heard the name of one of my Senators. He'd be a political footnote if I had my way.)

Bob Dole
06-25-2007, 04:33 AM
However disapproval in Congress in no way says that we approve Bush. It means people have lost faith in all of the government.

Then our government is representative of our population. Cool.

Direckshun
06-25-2007, 08:22 AM
You know, it's common practice that if you're going to claim something historic is happening, you provide a link.

Where's the link. There's no link in this thread.

jAZ
06-25-2007, 08:30 AM
The reason the numbers are low is lack of an ability to pull the troops out in the first 6 months of being in office.

This level of polling doesn't likely impact any election activitiy. It's mostly (from what I understand) a result of the Dem-base being pissed about not being able to force a change in Iraq policy.

IMO Bush's Iraq policy going forward is almost half political. In affect a "slow bleed" (both in soldier's blood and in Dem political capital in the Congress) mixed with a "we aren't admitting any mistakes on our watch... that's for the next president" plan.

Problem with this plan is that it's going to impact the Republicans in Congress as well. Which is why there is a whole additional layer of Republicans set to break with the "surge" in September. Bush will ask for more time and 10-15 Republicans will change their position and start putting pressure on the WH.

I'm not entirely sure what legislative moves are left to take at this point, but I'm sure there's something in the works.

Cochise
06-25-2007, 08:38 AM
I can't wait until the thoughtcrime, I mean, fairness droctrine starts getting pushed. Single digits might be possible.

Calcountry
06-25-2007, 11:00 AM
You elect 1 person in the house and 2 people to the senate. Not "Congress" as a whole (as the approval rating poll is presented).

Were they to poll approval for each Senator and Representative seperately and average out the results, I'm sure using that technique the total would be far higher.

The same would be true for the Republican congress from years past. This isn't a defense of the Dems, it's a comment on the importance (or relative lack of) of the number.

I'd guess the average approval rating of any given senator or representative is about 50% rather than 14%.And you 2wice elected a commander in Chief to be President, and he will pull the troops out when he decides it, that is, unless Congress has the balls to cut the funding.

Obviously your pussies in congress do not.