May 15, 2007
Oh, no! The approval rating is down to 29%. Disapproval, 64%.
That's for Congress. Bush is hovering at 33%, where Congress was hanging alongside him last month. To be fair, Congress's average for last year -- per Gallup -- was 25%. People just don't like Congress too much. We're not crazy about the President either but -- again, to be fair to Congress -- it looks as though we're chronically down on the whole institution, whereas with the President, sometimes he's popular. So when the President is unpopular, we mainly don't like what he's doing. But when Congress is unpopular, it's mainly because it's Congress. Sometimes a few of us forget and think wow, Congress, and the number might get up to something like the 37% peak Congress hit this year when Congress was strutting around blabbing about its "mandate," but then, some time passes, and we're back to eh, Congress.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
30 comments:
Old boss is the same as the new boss.
I am disappointed that the New Congress hasn't done more to snip corruption from the DC cloth. Not altogether surprised, however.
I felt the Republicans should have been voted out for, inter alia, corruption, old style politics, pork, and generally a stupid agenda. I honestly thought the Dems meant what they said (the last residue of idealism within me). As it turns out we have exactly the same except change "R: to "D." Alas. The only difference seems to be no one in the MSM is covering Sen Feinstein's deals on the Mil App committe, or Speaker Pelosi's water adventure. But I didnt expect any difference there.
Same corruption, different parties.
whereas with the President, sometimes he's popular.
When, in recent memory, or even the past two years? He's been in the twenties or very low thirties for months on end.
Could these persistent low approval numbers be a result of modern media's 24/7 saturation coverage? Tony Blair, Jacques Chirac, and other heads of government have comparable poll numbers. Politicians who once appeared in short takes on the network news, or in carefully scripted and controlled settings, have now become grist for an insatiable media mill. Cable news has all those hours to fill, and it's easy to point the cameras at politicians, let them bloviate, and edit the results to highlight the more embarrassing misstatements. No wonder the public has lost so much respect for government.
Beth,
I think she was stating a general position.
That a President's rating goes up and down directly related to things that the country holds him responsible for (rightly or wrongly), like the war or the economy.
Congress on the other hand doesn't get much love regardless and people hold it in low regard as an institution, year in and year out. At the same time, they like "their" Congressperson. Go figure :)
Right now it is vogue to disapprove of Bush for one thing or the other. Every conservative splinter group despises Bush for their particular issue: be it immigration, spending, the war, etc...
Bush's approval rating would go up if the Congress passed something stupid like a tax increase or the Fairness Doctrine. We would be reminded that Bush is all that stands in the way of domestic doom.
Excellent point, but to go further: polls about Congress are a function of collective responsibility, especially in this era of close margins and gerrymandering. We can approve/disapprove of an individual Representative or Senator based on policy (ditto the President), but when we judge Congress negatively, it's usually because of their collective inaction.
Republicans will instinctively dislike Congress when Democrats have the majority, and Democrats will instinctively dislike Congress when Republicans are running things. But if the party in power doesn't accomplish much, neither that party's members nor independents will approve of Congress. A textbook example is the current Congress: most Republicans hate it for trying to end the war prematurely, and most Democrats dislike it because it hasn't ended the war already.
Beth said...
"When, in recent memory, or even the past two years [has the President been popular]? He's been in the twenties or very low thirties for months on end."
Echo the Sarge. I think she meant on an institutional level; Congress has always been the branch the people love to hate.
Through it all Bush is just one terrorist attack away from 90% approval ratings. Such are the vicissitudes and vagaries of approval ratings. And that's not even getting to the fact that the MSM in all of its corruptness, more than anyone else, is the keeper of the concept the rest of the time.
It will be interesting to see if the Democrats are able politically to undo any of Bush's policies if there is no terrorist attack on the United States from now until he leaves office (that is if the Dems win the white house).
The Dems proved in no-time-flat that they are more corrupt than the Repubs, though the GOP Congress set a dauntingly high track record to overcome. But Pelosi's greed and the unreported billion-dollar graft by Sen. Feinstein to her hubby's firm [and let's not forget Harry Reid and his in-house lobbyist kids] all combined to show Mitch McConnell and Tom DeLay that they were tyros in the peculation department.
And let's not forget Murtha and his brother Kit. Two real Irish mafia types.
At the same time, they like "their" Congressperson. Go figure :)
Just goes to show that all politics are local. Robert Byrd may be beloved in WVA by bringing home the Federal bacon but he doesn't do me any good either by his ideology or taking my tax dollars to erect another highway monument to himself.
Through it all Bush is just one terrorist attack away from 90% approval ratings.
Or 10% as it would more than likely be presented as proof positive of a failed policy against terrorism. I'm betting it will go down before it goes up in that respect.
Listening to the hearings on the District of Columbia representative, it's easy to see why. When Senator Collins raised constitutional concerns, Senator Lieberman dismissively thanked "Justice Collins" - because as we all know, the Constitution is the sole responsibility of the courts. Members of Congress have no obligation to concern themselves with such frippery. There may be good arguments on either side of the question, but to dismiss the question is unconscionable. Meanwhile, in a supreme act of logrolling, Senator Hatch is fully on board with the bill, because it gets Utah an additional representative.
It's time for the court to retire the presumption of constitutionality.
I'm so confused, aren't you a Democrat?
Are we now going to see these numbers trumpeted on the evening news?
I'm sure all the reporters and congressmen and women will be chewing over the numbers over "meals and drinks" or that "friendly round of golf" this week.
The corruption is systemic. I wish we could dump them all and start over.
/via instapundit
"..earmark directing the secretary of the Army to conduct a feasibility study for a project on flood control of the San Francisco Bay’s south shoreline, restoration of the bay’s salt ponds and “other related purposes, as the secretary determines to be appropriate.” No amount of federal tax dollars are authorized for the project.
...there are 35 other earmarks in Title IV of the WRDA, 27 of which similarly do not specify an amount of federal tax dollars to be spent.
The fact that no specific spending amounts are specified for these earmarks makes many of them essentially blank checks that senators are being asked to approve, in effect while wearing legislative blindfolds."
http://www.examiner.com/a-728436%7ESenators_spending_like_blindfolded_drunken_sailors.html
As far back as I can remember, whenever these polls are taken people say they dislike congress but either like or even love their own congressman.
Yeah, Congress is like lawyers. You hate lawyers, but you love your own lawyer. It's a compliment for lawyers, but it really isn't for Congress.
The corruption is systemic. I wish we could dump them all and start over.
The Army Corps of Engineers, for better or worse, is responsible for inland navigation and flood control projects. It has been this way for a very long time, almost since the founding of the country. They also built roads in the 19th century, the Panama canal, and supervised the construction of the transcontinental railroads. The Army (through a separate office that was later merged into the Corps) also surveyed and platted most of the U.S. west of the Appalachian Mountains, following in the footsteps of George Washington who surveyed areas of Pennsylvania for the British Army when he was in it.
So I don't quite understand your (or Instapundit's) objection to these items in the Army's budget.
Sloanasaurus said...
"Bush's approval rating would go up if the Congress passed something stupid like a tax increase or the Fairness Doctrine. We would be reminded that Bush is all that stands in the way of domestic doom."
Ya' know Sloan, I've been reading you bilge on here and in particular the last couple threads and two things are blindingly obvious:
1. You got no game.
2. You talka' too much.
Ann....It is ok to hate lawyers. At $350hr I can hate as much as I want to. But I only mildly dislike my lawyer. I actually have admiration for a couple law profs who I've bent an elbow with. Some of them actually write very well and think too. Amazing.
Not to seem a suck up but actually over the months Ann, I've grown to like your style. You have a keen eye and a pretty nice way of expressing yourself.
As to congress...what can I say, as long as there are Republicans elected to it then there will be loathing.
Contrary to opinion, Bush isn't one terroriest attack from 80%. After all the crap that he has pulled, all the money he has pissed away, all the useless mouthings and moronic statements and half gestures, he would go to 2% if there is another attack. He knows it. We all know it.
Please remember that the last one was on his watch and as time goes by, even more blatantly, under his radar.
When, in recent memory, or even the past two years? He's been in the twenties or very low thirties for months on end.
With the exception of brief spikes (post-9/11, immediately following the 1994 Republican takeover, etc) Congress has had approval ratings less than 50% for decades. It is also very rare for approval ratings to exceed disapproval ratings. That's what Ann was getting at. We basically never like Congress. On those rare occasions when we do it is usually because history is being made.
I still don't understand why anyone would make a big deal about polls, which IMHO should only be enjoyed for their entertainment value--much like the daily horoscope. (Both of those things have about the same amount of credibility in my book.)
I won't go into my entire explanation, since I've posted about it here, but the gist of my point is this: Since there's no way to poll the entire country, the only way in which these things would really work is if people behaved in groups according to some combination of demographics. Count me in as one who doesn't agree with that particular idea.
(And as more of the population gives up their land lines in favor of strictly cell phones, these polls, even if they did work, would reflect an even smaller sample of the people.)
Freder: So I don't quite understand your (or Instapundit's) objection to these items in the Army's budget.
When I said the corruption is systemic. I wish we could dump them all and start over I was talking about Congress, not the Army.
Just look at a seemingly insignificant perk: Revise and Extend. Congress-criters routinely say one thing on tape, then go back and edit the paper record to say the opposite. If it later becomes a campaign issue, they claim whatever position is most advantageous. Its a cheat.
And don't even get me started on earmarks or pork barrel. How is it that Jefford's isn't in prison? I don't trust the Dems to reform, and after the last cycle I certainly don't trust my own GOP congress-critters.
Burn it to the ground and start fresh.
So I don't quite understand your (or Instapundit's) objection to these items in the Army's budget.
Oh I see what you meant. The objection is: The fact that no specific spending amounts are specified for these earmarks makes many of them essentially blank checks
Okay, got it. Congress always unpopular, President sometimes gets a round of applause.
Some mention the "I hate lawyers but love my lawyer" perspective; I lack this. I can't think of anyone representing my state in Washington who has my unfettered respect. I have brief moments of approval for Mary Landrieu once in a great while, but nothing lasting.
hdhouse: Thanks.
Post a Comment