An interesting article in today's Washington Post outlines the ramping up in Congress of several investigations into the practices of the Executive Branch. You'd have to be living in an underground bunker in Iraq not to have noticed that since power changed hands beneath the capitol dome there has been a dizzying flurry of activity in the area of oversight. In the past week alone, we've witnessed enlightening hearings on the Pat Tillman cover-up and the Justice Department's handling of the prosecutor firings. Yes, Democrats are flexing their constitutional muscles, readying more subpoenas, and drawing up a list of which rocks to turn over next.

Of course, this check to his power is not exactly a welcome development for the president. In the six years that he governed before the Democrats re-took control of Congress, Bush could simply laugh off requests for information from Capitol Hill. After all, he knew full well that his Republican colleagues would not legally compel him to cooperate with the minority parties' toothless requests. Indeed, elections do have consequences.

Since Democrats assumed control of Congress in January, they have hired more than 200 investigative staffers for key watchdog committees. They include lawyers, former reporters and congressional staffers who left oversight committees that had all but atrophied during the six years that the GOP controlled Congress and the White House.

The next time you hear of the current Congress referred to as "do-nothing," tell the person who said it that they have done quite a lot -- they have managed to weaken our national security to the point that we are sitting ducks.

It started with their initial push to extract out troops from Iraq. It continued when Nancy Pelosi went on her whirlwind tour, visiting dictators who despise America and attack their neighbors without fear, thus showing said dictator that he can do what he wants whenever he wants. They also want our borders left wide open with free and open access to anyone who wishes to come through: jihadists, drug runners, etc. leaving us open to attack from within.

This week, they've finally gone for the gusto:

Apart from prosecuting the global war on terror, creating a comprehensive missile defense shield is the Pentagon's most important job in the 21st century. Yet some in Congress are trying to kill it.

Why is Congress trying to defund the U.S. missile defense shield in Eastern Europe - where it will protect not just our allies but the U.S. as well?

Bob Novak has a very good piece up this morning on how unions and union leaders, specifically the AFL-CIO's John Sweeney, runs the show in the Democrat Congress. With union membership dropping to record lows (12%), oddly mimicking Congress' approval ratings (14%), it's good to know that union leaders still have someone doing their bidding -- Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats.

This latest fiasco has to do with reneging on trade agreements that were already approved by all parties including the Democratic Congress:

That deal seemed too good to be true May 10 when it was unveiled. On that date, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel and his trade subcommittee chairman, Rep. Sander Levin, announced approval of labor and environmental provisions in the Peru and Panama trade pacts. Their statement also opened the door to possible future approval of the Colombian trade agreement.

It was approved, that is, until the AFL-CIO gave its marching orders:

Gallup conducted their annual poll of Americans' confidence in major institutions last week. The institution that America has the lowest confidence in? Congress at 14 percent. The institution that Americans have the most confidence in? The military at 69 percent.

The general pattern of confidence in institutions has remained similar in recent years. There are three institutions tested this year in which a majority of Americans express a great deal or quite a lot of confidence: the military, small business, and the police. Two institutions tested have confidence ratings in the 40% range -- the church/organized religion and banks. All other institutions generate a great deal or quite a lot of confidence from less than 40% of the American population. The five institutions at the bottom of the list -- each with confidence ratings below 20% -- are the criminal justice system, organized labor, big business, HMOs, and Congress.

For the record, the presidency, even with the incessant attacks on President Bush from the mainstream media and the Democrats, still polls higher than Congress, television news, newspapers, organized labor, big business, and HMOs (Teddy Kennedy's creation).

Oh, and Congress polls lower this year under Democratic control than it did last year under Republican control.

A new Gallup Poll released today has President Bush's approval rating steady at 33%, while Congress' approval rating has dropped to 29%. I relay this info with the usual caveats -- the linked article doesn't include either the questions asked or hard numbers on the participant ideological breakdown, so you really can't determine if the poll is fair to all concerned. However, with Gallup's history, and with the way the article reporting the findings is written, I'm certain that the author and the organization is disappointed that they couldn't manipulate the numbers to show the Democrat-led Congress doing any better.

A new Gallup Poll finds continued low levels of public support for both Congress and President George W. Bush. Twenty-nine percent of Americans approve of Congress, down slightly from last month's reading (33%) and this year's high point of 37%, while Bush's approval rating is holding steady at 33%. Both the ratings of Congress and the president are slightly lower than their respective 2007 averages.

Congress' approval rating "down slightly" from last month? That 4 point drop represents a little over a 12% drop in overall approval in one month. That's significant, and Gallup would have called it significant if it happened to President Bush's approval rating. That's what I mean by saying that Gallup is trying to lessen the shock as much as possible for the Democrats. Either that, or they don't trust their own numbers.

President Bush held a news conference today that, although it was supposed to focus on the economy, had a few other interesting tidbits as well. One of the first questions asked was about a statement made a few days ago by Rep. Don Young (R- Alaska).

There are 500 bridges around the country similar to the Minneapolis span, and "these are potential deathtraps," says Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, former chairman of the House Transportation Committee. "We have to, as a Congress, grasp this problem. And yes, I would even suggest, fund this problem with a tax," he says. "May the sky not fall on me."

President Bush was more gracious than I would have been in the same situation. While not dismissing a possible gas tax hike out of hand (contrary to the title of the CNN article on the presser, Bush dismisses gas tax hike for bridge repairs), he did say (correctly) that Congress needs to look at itself first before considering any other solutions to the infrastructure problems.

Apologies for the Valley Girl-speak, but the term "Radical" might return to the political landscape if a Democrat gets elected in 2008.

I'm referring to the prospect of a Congress at odds with a president from its own party. This happened after the Civil War, when the struggle between Radical Republicans and Pres. Andrew Johnson led to the latter's impeachment. (The Radicals lost by one vote.)

I'm not saying that a "Radical" Democratic Congress irate over Iraq would impeach a President Obama, President (Hillary) Clinton, or President Edwards for not getting us out of there fast enough. The current Congress, after all, doesn't even seem to want to impeach anyone from the opposing party; look at how little support Dennis Kucinich is getting.

But it does seem like what Pat Buchanan predicted could come true with a Democratic victory in 2008: Iraq will split the party. Once dragged into supporting President Bush on Iraq, Congress is now led in the opposite direction by Speaker Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Reid, and the conscience of the Capitol, Rep. Jack Murtha.

A possibility exists that could guarantee gridlock when a Democrat steps into the Oval Office: an anti-war Congress arguing with a president who either voted for the war as a senator (Clinton, Edwards) or who said in John Kerry style "that while he would have voted against the war in 2002 based on what he knew at the time, he could not be sure that classified intelligence reporters made available to senators wouldn't have changed his mind" (which the Boston Globe describes Obama as frequently saying).

Should Clinton, Edwards, or Obama win in 2008, they will need all the political talent of an Abraham Lincoln to escape this scenario.

The party of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid is learning the hard way that power without leadership isn't enough to win over the confidence of the American people. According to the latest Gallup poll, a mere 14% of Americans have confidence in the new 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.

Clearly, Democrats have proven an inability to lead, and the public is noticing. One can't help noticing that that the last time the confidence rating was nearly that low was just before the Republican Party tookover Congress in 1994.

What does this mean? It means that the Democratic majority is not guaranteed for longevity. Low approval (or in this case, low confidence) can only spark an interest in new, strong leadership. If the Republican Party unites behind a common agenda that is popular with most Americans they could easily win back the majority

That didn't take long. John Edwards just released a new ad targeting the veto by President Bush of the Iraq spending bill. Take a look:

The "We the People" spot features nine supporters who urge Congress to not back down. It suggests members just keep sending Bush "the same bill, again and again." The commercial is primarily a Web-based initiative, though it will air on TV in the Washington, D.C. area.

We all know that Web 2.0 interactivity and social networking sites are all the rage for the 2008 election. John Edwards is trying to take that model to the next step in his planned follow-up ads. From the AP:

The ad will also run on the Edwards' Web site as well as on YouTube, the popular online video site. Edwards wants viewers to post their own personal messages to Congress about Iraq. The campaign will then incorporate those messages into future Web ads.

Do you think it will work? Talk about the ad in the comments below...

The media is all over the supposed 'showdown' on spending for the war. Will Bush blink or will Congress be wussies and give the president what he wants. That's how they are framing it, but as often happens, they missed the story. Bush got his money for the troops. He just doesn't want any strings attached. Things like benchmarks or accountability. Bush wants what he always wants -- to do whatever he wants for as long as he wants, no questions asked.

Kevin Drum gets it exactly right

This is no place for politics. President Bush has a chance to sign a bill that contains every dollar he's asked for, along with sensible, flexible benchmarks for standing up Iraqi troops and finally bringing our soldiers home. In a time of war, it would be irresponsible for the commander-in-chief to veto this legislation while our troops in combat are waiting for the funds.

Snap! That's what this legislation is about. It's what the American voters want. For that matter, it's what many Republicans in Congress want. Watch and see. If Bush vetoes and denies the troops needed supplies (by July not April btw) we will see real bi-partisanship in Congress. As many as 17 Republican senators will bail on Bush and vote to end the endless war. It's over, its just a matter of when and whether more troops are sacrificed for sheer stubbornness or saved. Let's have many more reunions. Then the hard work of re-integration begins. First, let's stop the Republican led war that is hurting us.

There's another story in this morning's Providence Journal that pretty interesting: Democratic leaders push mental-health insurance parity bill. It concerns the Democrats' attempt to force insurance companies to handle treatments for mental illness the same as treatments for other major illnesses. The bills doing so are being sponsored by Patrick Kennedy in the House and his father Ted Kennedy in the Senate. When passed, it will represent a significant step forward in health care nationwide. The Republicans would be foolish to oppose it.

Anyone who knows people with mental illness (not those just "feeling sad") are familiar with just how devastating and debilitating it is, both for the patients and their family and friends. The question before us as a society is not whether or not too many people are calling themselves depressed when all they're experiencing is just the "blues," but how you care for people with real mental illnesses.

To someone with mental illness, it's a sickness as real as any other chronic disease. Sometimes even worse, because of the stigma attached. It's time for insurance companies to realize that. Except in one or two cases, they haven't -- so now it's time for Congress to act.

There's a new Quinnipiac University Poll out that holds a few surprises, as one can tell from the title of the release announcing the results: Voters Back Supreme Court Limit On School Deseg 3 - 1 Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Approval Of Congress Drops To Lowest Point Ever. I proceed with my usual caveats to you about poll methodology. Quinnipiac has both the methodology and the poll questions posted at the link above. They historically have done a pretty good job -- I encourage everyone to read the release in its entirety.

The Supreme Court response is particularly notable - the libs and most Democrats in Congress called the vote to limit desegregation a strike-down of Brown v. Board of Education and a sign that "we've reached an Orwellian state". That's not what the voters think, be they Republicans, Democrats, or Independents:

By a 71 - 24 percent margin, American voters agree with a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that public schools may not consider an individual's race when deciding which students are assigned to specific schools, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today. Republican voters agree with the decision 79 - 17 percent, while Democrats agree 64 - 30 percent and independent voters agree 71 - 24 percent, the independent Quinnipiac University poll finds.

And Congress hits a new low, even among the Dems:

Taegan Goddard's Political Wire points us to something I missed in my post a few days ago about Congress' 14% approval rating in the latest Zogby Poll. That is how the voters viewed both Congress and the president on the immigration issue. Again, Zogby polls left, and the position of the majority of the activists on the Left and of President Bush were nearly identical, at least when the bill was introduced. Bush's position didn't change during the debate, while the Left in Congress (led by the unions, originally supporters of amnesty) gradually took the view that the bill wasn't generous enough to illegals. Regardless, the response of the voters to everyone was abysmal -- and Congress once again polled worse than the president:

A Zogby Interactive survey in the midst of the wrangling over that bill showed Congress' job approval rating specifically in its handling of immigration reform stood at just 3%, while Bush's rating on the same subject stood at 9%.

Let's do a bit of very non-scientific analysis spin musing on this result. I highly doubt that the voters who disapproved of the handling of the immigration bill that came before Congress hated it because they favored open borders and no enforcement. As other polls seem to suggest that nearly everyone thinks that illegal immigration is a problem, that tells me that an incremental solution, as opposed to the "comprehensive" solution offered by Congress, is the way to go. Whichever party in Congress first proposes to strengthen immigration policies and close loopholes, while at the same time saying to the voters that if we can prove to them that we can control our borders some sort of an amnesty program would and must follow in another legislative year, will be the ultimate winner in this debate.

Reuters, of all news agencies, has a story out on the latest Zogby Poll on American voters' views on politics, personal finance, and the future. I never quote Zogby, because I think he's probably the most biased left-leaning pollster out there. But as his results are ominous for Democrats, and in the past he's favored Democrats, I'll make note of the results here.

First, it seems that most voters "feel good about their finances and optimistic about the future". But when it comes to politics, watch out. As in the latest Gallup and Rasmussen polls, Zogby shows President Bush inching up in approval. However Congress continues in a free fall, and Zogby places the blame squarely on the new guys in town:

An even bigger majority, 83 percent, say the Democratic-controlled Congress is doing only a fair or poor job -- the worst mark for Congress in a Zogby poll.

...While 83 percent said Congress was doing a fair or poor job, just 14 percent rated it excellent or good. Last October, in its final days, the Republican-led Congress earned ratings of excellent or good from 23 percent of voters.

"There is a growing sense that people voted for change in 2006 and they aren't getting it," Zogby said.

I can't wait to see the polls after the Senate All-Nighter stunt...

Public approval ratings: President Bush: 29%. Congress: 11%.

That is the result of a recent Zogby Poll.

So what can you say about a situation that words can not aptly describe? In essence, you have two competing forces -- the Bush administration and the Democratic Congress -- in control of the Executive Branch and the Legislature whom the public absolutely despises? How about "You need to get your act together. Both of you."

It is difficult to pinpoint any one particular issue that has led to this drop because most of the problems are so voluminous that it's getting to the point where the public is longing for the good old days when King George ran the show. You have the emergence of a mortgage crisis that no one seems to know how to address; the current attempt to pass a piece meal amnesty program, the DREAM Act, in bold defiance of the public's will; the Democratic leadership getting lumped in with the far, far left due to the now legendarily disastrous "Betray Us" ad; the President planning on vetoing the bill that will de-fund the incredibly anti-union/anti-middle class Mexican truck program; refusal to deal with the importation of unsafe goods from China; and on and on and on.

While few assumed that President Bush's approval ratings could get worse, they have and the Pelosi/Reid Congress has been an absolute, unmitigated failure. 11% is the lowest approval rating in the history of the United States.

Let's put that into perspective: Bush is right up (down) there with Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter and this Congress is less popular than the Congress that served during the time when half the country seceded from the union and a war broke out that saw 600,000 casualties.

Will things get better? Can they get any worse?