The Democrats used the filibuster quite a bit, they just used it to stop judicial nominees.
It’s a standard talking point among Republicans and their allies in the blogosphere: The president’s approval ratings may be low, but Congress’ approval ratings are even lower.
We’ve always thought it was a meaningless, if not misleading, claim: Yes, the public holds Congress in relatively low esteem, but it’s easy to find a gigantic majority of unhappiness on a subject so broad and undifferentiated. When people say they disapprove of Congress’ job performance, do they mean that they disapprove of the agenda the Democrats are pursuing and that they wish Democrats would do more to, say, stop the war? Or do they mean that they’re angry about the way the Republicans are obstructing the Democrats’ agenda or, say, handling the likes of David Vitter and Larry Craig?
The media often exacerbates the problem. The Associated Press reported earlier this year – and this is a pretty frequent phenomenon – that “people think the Democratic-led Congress is doing just as dreary a job as President Bush.” But the poll question on which the AP based that conclusion didn’t say anything about the Democrats or their control of Congress. What it said was: “Overall, do you approve, disapprove or have mixed feelings about the way Congress is handling its job?” Lots of people said they disapproved, but the question in question didn’t ask why and didn’t focus on the Democrats’ control.
All of which is a long way of pointing to a new Washington Post/ABC News poll out today. The poll puts President Bush’s approval rating at just 33 percent, tied with his “career low” in the Post/ABC poll. The White House and its blogging allies can still take comfort in the fact that Bush’s number is better than the 29 percent approval rating Congress gets, but only until they read the next paragraph in the Post’s report:
“Despite discontent with Congress this year, the public rates congressional Republicans (29 percent approve) lower than congressional Democrats (38 percent approve). When the parties are pitted directly against each other, the public broadly favors Democrats on Iraq, health care, the federal budget and the economy. Only on the issue of terrorism are Republicans at parity with Democrats.”
Short version: Congressional Democrats’ approval ratings are, in fact, higher than the president’s.
Now, a five-point lead over rock bottom is hardly reason to celebrate, especially in light of the fact that congressional Democrats’ approval ratings have been dropping pretty steadily since they won control of the House and the Senate in November. But the Post/ABC poll does rebut the GOP talking point, and it sheds at least a little light on the more specific views underlying the general approval/disapproval ratings. Fifty-five percent of the public say that congressional Democrats haven’t gone far enough yet in opposing the war in Iraq; only 35 percent say they’ve gone too far. And of the people who say that Congress has accomplished “not much” or “nothing” this year, 51 percent put the blame on Bush and the Republicans in Congress; only 25 percent blame the Democrats.
The Democrats do indeed need to do more to let the public know that the Republicans are the ones keeping us in this godawful war.
Oh, fuck Congress. Bunch of whiny, crybaby, impotent cash whores. They’re all happy to unite in a condemnation of Rush Limbaugh but they can’t get their shit together to do one useful thing. If you think their current track record will result in Democrats gaining additional seats in the next Congressional election, I think you’re going to be bitterly, bitterly disappointed.
On the other hand, I look forward to hearing Hillary and Obama attempt to defend their parts in the Rush Limbaugh thing during their next debate.
But noun, what’s the alternative? More Republicans? C’mon. Rush Limbaugh/MoveOn whatever. Crappy as the Democrats are at least they’re not the sockpuppets for Bush the Republicans have been for the last six years. And that calculation is, sadly, why they’re not doing anything worthwhile now. They know they’re on top of the curve as it is and the Republicans have nowhere to go but down. Actually doing something could backfire!
So, again, fuck all ya’ll in Congress, Democrats and Republicans. And don’t forget to vote Democratic in 2008. Just like me. Fuck me too. But what choice is there?
It is kinda sad that American politics is crippled by the two-party system.
The nuclear option, requires the backing of the VP. I don’t think that Dick will support it anymore. I know, I know he is a man of conviction, a man who stands on principles, but I don’t think he will continue to support the nuclear option for reasons that seem unclear.
Nah, it’s the only way to work it. Haven’t you ever played a 3-way, free-for-all RTS? Two people slug it out while the third person turtles. Then after the two guys have weakened each other enough the turtle comes in mops up them up.
And Lieberman.
Related exchange in Froomkin’s (ongoing) live chat at the Post today:
Houston: Dan, I don’t understand the Democrats’ unwillingness to use the power they have. When they were in the minority, the story was that “there’s nothing we can do.” Now that they control both Houses of Congress, it’s still “there’s nothing we can do.” So the Republicans can do plenty whether in the majority or the minority, but the Dems can do nothing with either? What do these people use for a spine?
Dan Froomkin: I don’t write about the Democrats either. Or at least, I don’t pretend to understand them.
That said, allow me to mention a very thoughtful e-mail I got from a reader yesterday.
Allan Donsig wrote to me about the “Washington Wisdom gets set on its head” item in yesterday’s column, in which I noted that while the Washington elite considers cutting funding for the war to be the ultimate political suicide, a new Washington Post/ABC News poll shows that fully 70 percent (70 percent!) of Americans think that would be a good idea.
Donsig wrote that my item was “not entirely fair. Surely what matters is not the current opinion polls but the opinion polls after a well funded ‘Swift-Boat-type’ media campaign. (Similar calculations seem to be behind a good part of Republican support for SCHIP.) It is probably also worth pointing out that the Republican Party’s ability to carry out such a a campaign is steadily declining, along with their credibility, but it’s not yet clear that such a campaign won’t work.”
That perhaps gives you some indication of what’s motivating the Democrats.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/10/01/DI2007100101382.html
You can have more than two parties, but you need at least five, each with a realistic chance of getting 10% of the vote. The only foreseeable way that could happen in the US is if the House of Representatives was replaced with a Parliament.
Oh sure, you can expect a poll drop if you’re completely incompetent at responding to totally stupid attacks. Way to go, DC Democrats.
Hmm why do you need 5? And why do you need a parliament? Why wouldn’t the the house of representatives continue to serve it’s purpose just fine with 3, 4, 5, or 500 political parties?
Because house of representatives (and senate, and stage legislatures, etc) are on a winner-take-all model. That naturally leads to 2-party dominance. To promote a multi party system you need an election system that rewards someone for coming in a narrow 2nd place.
Canada’s Parliament is winner take all. I fail to see why that will neccessarily result in an immutable two-party system (since it obviously hasn’t, here).
I don’t know shit about you Krazy Kanucks. You don’t have to have a Parliament, but two-party systems (and in the US especially) are generally and obviously the default in a winner-takes-all system.
Five parties with solid constituencies is simply the number that smart people have assured me you generally need to create a stable system with >2 parties. Anything less will typically, over a long enough time period, end when one party becomes dominant and the other parties merge together, either with the incumbent party or into an opposition. Proportional parliaments just make it easier to form temporary alliances between parties.
Ah I see what you mean, what I really mean about the American two-party system is that it seems immutable, whereas Canada’s system is much more dynamic, where even long-established parties can get destroyed and replaced by new blood, or smaller parties can merge and become significant entities, or new parties can spring into being from humble roots.
I suspect this has something to do with the relative level of entrenchment of the parties in each system and the barriers to entry of new parties, rather than whether you are parliamentary or republican in your government structure (which is more to do with the relationship between parliament (or congress) and the executive).
I think?