New Gallup data show confidence in Congress at all time low
Just 14% of Americans have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in Congress.

This 14% Congressional confidence rating is the all-time low for this measure, which Gallup initiated in 1973. The previous low point for Congress was 18% at several points in the period of time 1991 to 1994.

Congress is now nestled at the bottom of the list of Gallup's annual Confidence in Institutions rankings, along with HMOs. Just 15% of Americans have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in HMOs. (By way of contrast, 69% of Americans have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in the military, which tops the list. More on this at galluppoll.com on Thursday).

This is a few weeks old.

Confidence in the Supreme Court is at an all-time low. Confidence in this President is at an all-time low. The issue is a lack of confidence in federal government, not just about Congress and|or the President's approval rating, though you wouldn't know it from some of the pundits. Actually, the polls suggest a deeper funk, despite the "booming economy" (don't let that boom hit you on the head):

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27946

The Supreme Court polling is the baseline, because most people don't have personal opinions about judges the same way they do about elected officials who put their faces out there.

NY Times/CBS poll out this morning has the Prez and Congress both at 29% approval ratings.

The gal I heard on the radio from the NYT said basically what Mxy just said...this is all about the war and the resulting distrust of the govermnment in general. For Bush specifically, it's about the war and corruption in his administration.

Congress appears to be taking a hit for not being able to defeat Bush's war policies and get the boys back home.

The reason congressional oversight exists is because it would be insane and terribly detrimental to the stability of the country for congress' only recourse against the Executive to be impeachment.

But the current President holds the belief that the US Presidency is a Unitary Executive, which rejects all oversight of its activities except that which it imposes on itself. Basically that leaves Congress only two courses of action against an out-of-control President: don't do anything, or put him to trial. Congress has decided to do nothing. This is apparently not the popular choice.

Does anyone here read Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com? That guy is incredible. He's probably one of the few non-sports blogs I ever read now.

NY Times/CBS poll out this morning has the Prez and Congress both at 29% approval ratings.
Gallup's standard for approval is a bit higher. Their threshhold is a "great deal" or "quite a lot of" confidence, so you're basically asking who gives 4 out of 5 stars. Here's some data to give you a fuller picture:

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=1597

Factor in the people with "some" confidence and things get interesting.

Another way to read the poll is to say that 46% of people have very little or no confidence in our president, and that's the highest "very little/no confidence" tally among all institutions surveyed.

Fun with numbers... joy.

While confidence in the president and confidence in congress is at an all time low, I'm wondering how everybody's self confidence is.

As in..."the President and Congress are a bunch of imbeciles. I feel pretty good about me though"?

And imo its that the Congress is so intent on getting Bush and the American peeps don't care. They didn't like wasting their tax money on going after Clinton and I think they could care less about some of the other so-called 'scandals'.

imo, generally the American peeps feel this is Bush's war, but the Dems were on board with this war at the begining. They claim high and mighty now, but I don't buy it.

Why wouldn't Bush getting any bounce from being a victim-in-chief, then? Remember, Clinton's approval rating (already high to begin with) took a boost as the result of impeachment:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/20/impeachment.poll/

I honestly think the sentiment is that Congress hasn't done shit. Congress gave the lowest 5% a minimum wage bump rather than play hardball on Iraq. Combine that with an economic boom that amounts to "screw the little guy", and there's a lot of anger. Support for the Supreme Court is at an all time low, too, but few are paying attention to that branch of government. <sigh>

If I rank 3 of 5 stars for a movie on Netflix, I'd take that to mean I liked the movie, but Gallup would release a survey implying that I didn't like the movie. It's really interesting poll language -- what's the difference between "great deal" and "quite a lot"?

As in..."the President and Congress are a bunch of imbeciles. I feel pretty good about me though"?

Exactly. Especially those who are too cool to vote.

And I'm with you, Tahoe, on my fellow Dems trying to take the high road now when they could have stopped Bush before Iraq.

Why wouldn't Bush getting any bounce from being a victim-in-chief, then?

Because Bush has his own problems...its called the Iraq war.

Because Bush has his own problems...its called the Iraq war.
Thats one he started on his own with his cornball ass.

Exactly. Especially those who are too cool to vote.

And I'm with you, Tahoe, on my fellow Dems trying to take the high road now when they could have stopped Bush before Iraq.

exactly how would the dems have stopped bush? they didnt have the votes then, and they still dont have them now (yet).

this is definitly not the dems war. the reason alot of people voted for it was because it was considered political suicide to go against the grain in the "lets roll" era. of course, you cant come out now and say "i voted for my career rather than what was right", but thats basically what they did. ironic that doing so cost john K and will hopefully soon cost hillary C.

I'll completely agree that this war was because of Bush. The Congress didn't start this thing, but they didn't do anything at the outset to stop it either when they had a chance.

I remember listening to them and it wasn't a 'we can't do anything so we might as well go along' type of thing. They were behind Bush. Thats all I was trying to point out. Now their position is 180% opposite. And thats ok with me, just don't act like you were never for the war, or giving Bush the powers to start the damn thing.

I think that the American peeps do actually hold Congress slighty responsible cuz of their votes at the beginging. Congress could have been a much better 'check and balance' at the time, but iirc, there was only 1 no vote.

BTW Pdid I know you weren't replying to me, but thought I'd throw in my 2 cents on this mess.

If the Dems would have been coalessed(?) like they are now at the begining of this thing, I think they may have been able to stop this thing before it got started.

i think thats a bit of revisionist history. in the house, they vote 126-81 against going to war.

the only recourse would have been to filubuster in the senate, but theres no way they could have kept the 41 votes needed to protect their fillubuster. and also, that would have been politically unfeasable. im not sure, but i suspect we've never avoided a war due to fillibuster.

this isnt the democrats war. saying otherwise is the ultimate in delusionment.

this isnt the democrats war. saying otherwise is the ultimate in delusionment.

Are you just making a statement? Or are you replying to something? If so, quote text where someone said its the Dems war.

the reason alot of people voted for it was because it was considered political suicide to go against the grain in the "lets roll" era. of course, you cant come out now and say "i voted for my career rather than what was right", but thats basically what they did.



So it would have been political suicide, why? Cuz the American peeps wanted to authorize it and it was only the Dems that knew what was really going on?

Wow. Let them off the hook with that rationale if you want. Your choice.

No Shit. The Dems could have united 100% against this fucked administration but did not, even if they didn;t have the votes to over ride a veto or whatever. They don't get a free pass simply because its easy now to look back on it and say, "Hey, this is crap!" I'll admit that even I bought into Bush's bullshit in Iraq, but then again, I was drunk for four years (make that 11 now).

well, i dont think the dems are getting a free pass. see kerry's election as an example of having to pay for that vote.

and like i said, the dems could not unite 100% to block the vote. they could have filibusters, but that would have been way way way extreme. besides, certain former senatorial majority leaders of questionable ethics even threatened to eliminate the filibuster over a few judge nomination votes.

the dems really did have almost no power in washington after 9/11. the republicans controlled everything, and due to a giant disaster a seemingly impotent president was suddenly given a mandate by the people.

once again, what could the dems have done to change anything?

incidentally, slightly related, you guys might remember last year right before congress adjourned in the fall they passed "the torture bill", which many poly scientists felt was another karl rove maneuver designed to force dems to look soft on terrorism or abandon values (theres been tons of these, the iraq war, the patriot act, wire tapping). well here's debbie stabenow's response to a letter i wrote her concerting her vote in favor of the bill:


Thank you . . .


. for contacting me about the Military Commissions Act of 2006. I understand your deeply held beliefs regarding this bill and your distrust of the Bush Administration which I share.

As you may know, the Supreme Court's Hamdan v. Rumsfeld decision found the President's military tribunals unconstitutional. This decision created a void with no judicial process in place for the detainees who our country has been holding indefinitely.

I understand the distrust of the Bush Administration which has frankly shown a flagrant disregard for the law. However, having no law in place would have given this administration continued justification to act without any accountability.

This proposal puts in place protections that do not exist today for detainees and is a better system than the one proposed by the President. I strongly opposed the President's attempts to undermine the Geneva Convention. This bill does not amend the Geneva Convention in any way. This proposal puts in place specific protections against torture, providing needed clarification on what constitutes war crimes and criminalizing specific interrogation techniques.

Could this bill be improved? Absolutely. I supported every Democratic amendment to tighten definitions and strengthen this legislation. Unfortunately, we lost them in close votes. I will continue to work with my colleagues to modify the law, and am hopeful that with changes in the new Congress, we will be successful in making these needed improvements.

There is no question that Congress will need to continue its oversight role of this Administration. While we may respectfully disagree about this bill, my vote was based on the sincere belief that ignoring the Hamdan decision and passing no legislation was not an option. If we had not passed this bill, our military would not have been able to move forward with trials against suspected terrorists now in U.S. custody.




Thanks for sharing your views with me on this legislation. As always, I welcome your input.

Sincerely,

Debbie Stabenow

United States Senator

Yup, that was her form letter. Voting for something worse than useless instead of just staying with the status quo of "useless" -- brilliantl.

I've never cared for den leader Stabenow.

You can say the Dem leaders went from being wrong to being right on this issue, but below are their votes.



Measure Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Alphabetical by Senator Name Democrats
Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carnahan (D-MO), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Cleland (D-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Corzine (D-NJ), Nay
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
Dayton (D-MN), Nay
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Edwards (D-NC), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Graham (D-FL), Nay
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Jeffords (I-VT), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nickles (R-OK), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea
Wellstone (D-MN), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Nay

Wasn't that vote taken after they were all told that our intelligence showed WMD's were without a doubt in Iraq?

Minor detail.

Add to that the fact that Bush did everything that he could to tie Saddam to 9/11 and the vote was a foregone conclusion.

I agree on that somewhat, they were being lead around by their nose-rings for a while there.

And they did find some WMD, iirc, not the stockpiles that everyone believed.

Because Bush has his own problems...its called the Iraq war.


Thats one he started on his own with his cornball ass.


I'll completely agree that this war was because of Bush. The Congress didn't start this thing, but they didn't do anything at the outset to stop it either when they had a chance. .
Thats fine, but doesnt make the move any better. I hate when you argue things like i care about dems vs repubs beef. Again the original point was that Bush put that shyt on himself, and unfortunately the people of the U.S... no deflecting to how congress shares blame for that. They hold blame for something else(not having any back bone to question the post 9/11 exploitation by the white house). And that blame goes to congress as a whole dems and repubs. Because in reality alot repubs werent sure about the war either, but most of them wasnt mustering up any nuts to challenge bush as a fellow repub. And its moments like that, that i laugh at the idiocy of holding allegiance to a party.

I wasn't replying to you and No, the original point was Confidence in Congress at an all-time low.

I agree on that somewhat, they were being lead around by their nose-rings for a while there.

And they did find some WMD, iirc, not the stockpiles that everyone believed.
but not enough to warrant war by a long shot. saddam must've run out of flour to make enough yellowcake

http://www.uncoveror.com/niger.jpg

What kind of WMD's did they find? Some old cannisters of mustard gas? Come on, be real.

Glen, I just heard something that I agree with. The Congress is taking much time and putting in much effort on all their votes concerning Iraq now. This 'expert' said, he wishes they would have put this much effort in the begining when they originally voted for the war.

133 house of reps voted against the war. 126 were dems, 6 republicans, and 1 was independent.

23 senators voted against it. 21 dems, 1 republican, and 1 independant.

Glen, I just heard something that I agree with. The Congress is taking much time and putting in much effort on all their votes concerning Iraq now. This 'expert' said, he wishes they would have put this much effort in the begining when they originally voted for the war.
you mean when the fabricated evidence of WMD's looked like a possibility? I wish the same. But I wish the repubs woulda stood up to Bush also. If the old school true conservatives woulda expressed more patience back then, it would've made a big difference imo.

What kind of WMD's did they find? Some old cannisters of mustard gas? Come on, be real.

i believe the "wmd"s were a little bit of tubing which, was part of the puzzle. but the tubing was too small for wmds, it was just the right material.

im sure unclemxy can do more than talk out of his ass on this one.

What kind of WMD's did they find? Some old cannisters of mustard gas? Come on, be real.

I thought they did find something. Quick Google shows nothing on my end.

This is the vote in the Senate that I posted the Dems votes on. Yea's included Clinton, Reid, Biden, Dodd.


U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 2nd Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate


Vote Summary

Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 )
Vote Number: 237 Vote Date: October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Joint Resolution Passed
Measure Number: H.J.Res. 114
Measure Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Vote Counts: YEAs 77
NAYs 23

I thought they did find something. Quick Google shows nothing on my end.


I think they found missles, that if modified with pieces Iraq did possess, would have violated the length of missles that Iraq was OKed to have.

But I wish the repubs woulda stood up to Bush also. If the old school true conservatives woulda expressed more patience back then, it would've made a big difference imo.

I don't care about Rep or Dems. :)

Seriously, Like someone else said the mindset at the time in this country was much different than it was today. We were attacked and many felt like another attack was coming. I think going on the offensive was in a lot of peeps minds. Going into Iraq doesn't seem to be working out too well.

I just have a hard time condemning the Dems for their votes(because of hindsight) and I don't think Bush lied to get us into the war. I honestly believe he did what he thought was right to protect the American peeps. We can judge it now, but I don't buy into all the lie stuff.

I just have a hard time condemning the Dems for their votes(because of hindsight) and I don't think Bush lied to get us into the war. I honestly believe he did what he thought was right to protect the American peeps. We can judge it now, but I don't buy into all the lie stuff.
Well i cant be that naive and ignore his father's history with Iraq, the fact that it was suggested to him to invade almost immediately after 9/11 in Iraq before Afghanistan, the sloppy job they did in leaving Afghanistan for Iraq as if it were a job well done w/o anymore work required, the fact that he said fuck the U.N. rather than coming to a resolution, the fact that he's associates with the saudi arabian leaders who would love nothing more than to see Iraq out of the picture at the time, the lack of legitimate connections of Osama bin ladenand Iraq, the fact that the 9/11 hijackers were saudis(not iraqis), the fact that osama bin laden is from saudi arabia, and plenty more things that the average person would have trouble over looking.


How does he not lie to get us into war unless he's a complete idiot who believed in what was horrible evidence? which is just as bad to me. You find resolution to your issues you dont make these types of quick bad decisions that costs people lives. People are too caught up in parties, popularity of being the commander in chief, and the media's presidential jokes to realize how fucked up the Iraq thing is and how fucked up his way of going to war was for someone who has way to much at stake in his decisions to act first before getting his shit straight.

PS-Please stop saying peeps. You're making me think you're Christian from WWE wrestling. [smilie=peepwall.gi:


Seriously, Like someone else said the mindset at the time in this country was much different than it was today. We were attacked and many felt like another attack was coming. I think going on the offensive was in a lot of peeps minds. Going into Iraq doesn't seem to be working out too well.
Yea it was different, it was soft, mad, and ripe for the taking. Its silly because its like some star wars shit. Emperor/Leader using peoples anger and emotions to sway them into his favor, then flipping the shit on everyone's heads when they hand over right to challenge him w/o incident.

I caught alot of flack for calling him out right after 9/11 as still the same fucktard he was before hand. People looked at him as untouchable, and now its turned into a mess.


But let me say one thing, as much as congress dems and repubs lost their dignity bending over for him. The people of this country who blindly supported him are just as shitty imo and have some blood on their hands too. They would never want to admit that. But imo its the responsibility of the citizens of this country to support the well being of our troops first and foremost. not just blindly say support the troops then let them go get slaughtered w/o taking the time to make sure they are doing the right thing.

the last part is jmho. but the rest is truly why i cant say much of anything good about bush. throw whoever you want in the boat with him. but it'll never redeem him.

There were some chemical weapons found that could reasonably be construed as inert WMDs, but no great stockpiles or or buildups. It was just enough for a few wingers like Hoekstra to say "see, we were right" and get laughed at:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15134719/site/newsweek/

Initially, prior to the AUMF vote, I figured we had definite intelligence that there were WMDs in Iraq, but it wasn't publicized because it'd trip political landmines. My pet theory was that the U.S. and champions of industry sold them WMDs during the Reagan-Bush years as part of sticking it to Iran. Why I bring this up is that's where the few basically-dead WMDs that were found above came from. By the time of the AUMF vote, it was clear that sane folks like Levin were against, and that was the end of my speculation.

Bush's posse really really REALLY wanted to go into Iraq. They were looking for any excuse they could get, and it was delivered in the form of 9/11. The actual vote almost made sense in theory. If you want to best negotiate for peace, you should be empowered to make war if need be. The practicality is where things break down. Giving a doofus like Bush that power was dumb, and I condemn both Democrats and Republicans who erred here.

Giving a doofus like Bush that power was dumb, and I condemn both Democrats and Republicans who erred here.
Seconded

But to add, voting for him was almost as dumb imo. I think alot of people should look in he mirror when they see this on tv representing them while their family is getting killed overseas.

http://content.ytmnd.com/content/3/a/6/3a65fbad9a981edf5ff7d990597a366a.gif

Frontline did a great show on how Rummy, Chenney and Wolfie had the plan pretty much put together and even gave it to Clinton to peruse and hopefully act on. Clinton didn't bite. Dubya did.