The latest Gallup poll shows Congress with an approval rating of 29 percent. This compares unfavorably with President Bush's approval rating, which stands at 33 percent according to the same poll. Moreover, Congress' 64 percent disapproval rating is one point higher than that of the last Congress just before the 2006 elections.
Why is this Congress viewed so unfavorably? Part of the explanation lies in the inherent unpopularity of the institution as it has evolved. At the beginning of the year, Congress' approval rating was only 37 percent even though every member of the House had just won the popular vote in his or her district.
However, the poor performance of the Reid-Pelosi Congress surely helps account for the decline since that time. As I noted the other day, Congress has started to resist the ethics reform it promised voters, legislation that might help reverse prevailing perceptions of Congress and make that body less inherently unpopular.
But it's not just Democratic addiction to the "culture of corruption" that's at work here. The fact is that this Congress has failed thus far to enact any high-profile domestic legislation. As the Washington Post puts it, "not a single priority on the Democrats' agenda has been enacted, and some in the party are growing nervous that the "do nothing" tag they slapped on the Republicans last year could come back to haunt the party."
Perhaps Nancy Pelosi should discontinue her foolish outreach program to anti-American Middle Eastern dictators and focus more on enacting the reform legislation she promised the American people.
UPDATE: John Hinderaker has more on this story at Power Line.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 5)
1. I hope this congress continues down the road its going, because it will assured that the republicans will regain control soon than later
tyrone wilson at 10:33AM on May 15th 2007
2. You're right. It's more of the same. A do-nothing Congress with their hand out. Here we go again. Vote out the Repub's one year and the next vote out the Demo's and back and forth. Maybe we need a Parliamentary form of Government. We give these weasles here, (sorry Weasles), 2-4 years to rip us off and we have to wait for an election before we can fire them. Something has to change before the country burns.
B.B. at 10:51AM on May 15th 2007
3. Wow. You make claims without anything to back them up. The Democrats pushed through a number of high profile reforms immediately after taking office. This is just someone spewing their unsupported accusations on a blog to get attention and have the lemmings on the right line up behind him.
Charles at 4:11PM on May 15th 2007
4. Paul, Paul, Paul - will you ever write an honest blog; and will you ever stop quoting yourself over and over. Dishonesty and your unilateral love of your own writing are what make your current blog about purported disillusion with Democrats the usual mess you produce.
YOUR CHOICE OF THE POLL THAT BACKS YOUR SLANT: Paul, I guess one Gallup poll about Congress means last week's Newsweek poll showing Bush's 28% approval rating and the fact that 71% of the nation are disgusted with the direction of the Republican agenda, no longer exists. I guess it also means that the approval rating jump for Congress immediately after Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria from 35% to a record high in recent years of 40% doesn't exist. Selective use of polls is, of course, a time honored way to present a false picture.
YOUR WASHINGTON POST CITATION: I'm glad you finally had the honesty to allow your readers to see at least a couple of the actual articles upon which you base your conclusions. For example, the Washington Post article you so slantedly cited also contains quotes which could support the following construction. [quotes from the article are in quotes, with my additions not in quotes]
The new Democratic Congress has certainly shown the nation that, surprise, more gets done when members of Congress actually work a five day week, as opposed to the only 110 days of work during the ENTIRETY of the last year of the Republican controlled Congress. Finally, bills are being passed, only to be obstructed by the Republicans in the Senate or Bush's veto pen. "House Democrats took just 10 days to pass a minimum-wage increase, a bill to implement most of the homeland security recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission, a measure allowing federal funding for stem cell research, another to cut student-loan rates, a bill allowing the federal government to negotiate drug prices under Medicare, and a rollback of tax breaks for oil and gas companies to finance alternative-energy research." "Bills and resolutions approved by either chamber totaled 165 during the first four months of this Congress, compared with 72 in 2005. And Congress recorded 415 roll-call votes, compared with 264 when Republicans were in charge and the House GOP leaders struggled to impose their agenda on a closely divided Senate."
Bush, of course, vetoed the stem cell research bill, even though most Americans want stem cell research. "The Medicare drug-negotiations bill died in the Senate, after Republicans refused to let it come up for debate. House Democrats are threatening to attach the bill to must-pass government funding bills." Moreover, President Bush has threatened to veto it because it would, he said, "create a new entitlement program." "The minimum-wage bill got stalled in a fight with the Senate over tax breaks to go along with the wage increase. In frustration, Democratic leaders inserted a minimum-wage agreement into a bill to fund the Iraq war, only to see it vetoed." In other words, something as simple as raising the minimum wage gets blocked again by Republican efforts to help the rich. It happened in the last Republican Congress too; when Republicans insisted on a minimum wage bill that also included incentives for the wealthy by relaxing estate taxes. "Similar homeland security bills were passed by the House and the Senate, only to languish as attention shifted to the Iraq debate." Moreover, the Republicans never adopted a suggestion to "fast track" homeland security legislation, and the Democrats are stuck with this Republican legacy. Republican obstruction on our most important national issue has also forced a slow down as Democrats struggle to fulfill America's wishes. The House and Senate have already passed a budget bill with timelines for withdrawal, something supported by the vast majority of American citizens, who saw their will obstructed by Bush's veto pen. America wants out of Iraq, and Republican obstruction of Congress' efforts to fulfill America's wishes have forced Congress to focus on somehow getting the Republican party and our Republican congressional members in sync with America and its most pressing desire.
YOUR SELF QUOTATION AS FACT AND SELECTIVE QUOTATION OF AN EDITORIAL AND TREATING IT AS FACT: Your mention of Speaker Pelosi's "foolish outreach program" consisted of a link on "foolish" to your own past hyperbole and the link to "outreach program" referred to an USA Today editorial, which also said "Pelosi said she made the trip because the bipartisan Iraq Study Group urged greater engagement with Syria. That argument is strengthened by the fact that Assad also got visits this week from several House Republicans, who defied White House requests they not go. "I don't care what the administration says on this," said Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va. "I want us to be successful in Iraq. I want us to clamp down on Hezbollah."
YOUR BOGUS SELF QUOTATION ON CORRUPTION: Paul, you state as fact that Democrats are addicted to a culture of corruption - but of course, once again, you rely on your own hyperbole and selective quotation by linking to your own defective past blog on the subject. At the time, I mentioned the litigation tactics you employed to support your ridiculous idea. First you talked about a hypothetical future event and treated it as a present reality, while at the same time purposely neglecting to mention the PROVEN PILE of corruption from the former Republican Congress. You quoted ABC but to this day have never provided a link to the actual ABC clip, article or transcript - and as we see today with your citation to the Washington Post, we can't trust your editorial process, we need to see the raw source. Then, of course, you used your seemingly favorite tactic of quoting your own slanted argument and treating it as established fact. Paul, your writing is not a FACT, its an OPINION. I know you love your writing, like some people love the sound of their own voice, but all of us do not have the same opinion.
Paul, I know you're a Republican spin machine - but is this the best you can do? Sounds to me like a lot of people will be hitting (D) on the voting machines next year.
Phil at 11:43AM on May 15th 2007
5. As I have noted before, the Bush bobbysoxers at Powerline apparently believe that if you write a lie but provide a hyperlink to the truth, you aren't lying.
Sorry Paul -- you're lying. And why bother? Some of the achievements Phil refers to above -- such as the minimum wage, homeland security, and student loans bills -- are well known to anyone who follows the news. You are either counting on the fact that your readers are a) abysmally ignorant or b)extremist ideologues such as yourself who believe that reality is the servant of ideology and truth is whatever you can sell.
The verdict on how well Congress is doping will come in the 2008 elections -- and right now, of course, the Republicans are terrified of further Democratic gains. Unlike you, they can't afford the luxury of lying, at least not to themsleves.
richter at 12:07PM on May 15th 2007
6. Phil, if you want your own blog why don't you create one? Your comments are always longer then the posts themselves.
Mel at 12:30PM on May 15th 2007
7. Phil, your post was absolutely excellent, excellent, excellent!
I must point out however that both sides of the political spectrum are equally guilty in the practice of promoting 'who is right'. I look forward to the day when 'what is right' takes center stage.
vegastracon at 1:06PM on May 15th 2007
8. Phil, your post was absolutely excellent, excellent, excellent!
I must point out however that both sides of the political spectrum are equally guilty in the practice of promoting 'who is right'. I look forward to the day when 'what is right' takes center stage.
vegastracon at 1:04PM on May 15th 2007
9. This congress is the worst we have had in years and years.They literally are going against the people in this country and doing nothing for us or anyone, other then themselves and their political agenda.
What really cynched my disappointment with this congress is when they voted to give Millions to their special interest group the Peanut and spinach Insdusty, while advocating not funding our Military. To me that was the ultimate disgrace.
This congress is self centered, and out only for themselves and winning the next election. They are trying to con the public so that they can win votes.......this congress is not remotely focused on our serious issues or helping anyone. Down with the liberals after this!@@@@@@@@@
Emily Cinicola at 2:40PM on May 15th 2007
10. Phil, I thought you had given up reading Paul’s posts. I hope this means you’re feeling better.
As always I disagree with just about everything you write. Simply getting things done in Congress is not necessarily a good thing. Republicans are blocking laws not because they are obstructionists, but because they believe the laws introduced by the Democratic Congress are bad for the nation. The Minimum wage you cite is a good example. This is an unnecessary law that will only have a negative impact. Shouldn’t people have the right to enter into employment contracts of their choosing?
As far as Washington corruption goes I think Democrats have been every bit as corrupt as Republicans. Sen. Feinstein, for example, is every bit as corrupt as Rep. Cunningham was only she has been able to get away with it. Democrats ran in the last election on the disingenuous theme of Republican corruption and promising to make changes. Paul is correct to point out that they are wavering when it comes to implementing those changes.
Good day
Greg at 2:29PM on May 15th 2007
11. I just do not understand how you can make these statements about a "do nothing" Democratic congress. Apparently you have forgotten that whatever the congress might get passed, must be signed by a refusnik Republican president, and/or his veto must be over-ridden by congress which does not have a sufficient majority to be veto=proof. It just looks like we will have a stagnant legislature until the next election when hopefully the congress and/or the executive branch will be more in tune with each other.
Chuck at 2:39PM on May 15th 2007
12. Phil --
Dude, nice job! An awful lot of us with no time would love to be able to respond to the sophistry of the polemics & screeds written by "professional bloggers;" but since we can't, it's nice to know there are conscientious readers/writers out there to bitch-slap bloviating media bitches like Paul!
Well done!
Hugo at 2:39PM on May 15th 2007
13. Mr. Mirengoof -
If you think this Congress is bad you should have seen the one before it - too bad you missed it. Bridges to nowhere, subsidies for the oh-so-needy oil companies (see how kindly they are paying us back at the pump), and a giant payday for the pharmaceutical and insurance oompanies courtesy of the prescription drug bill. A lobbyists dream performed by the likes of Abramoff, DeLay, Cunningham, Ney, and the rest who lined their pockets at taxpayer expense while running up the national debt to 9 TRILLION DOLLARS. You can see why there wasn't time for tough questions from this bunch on Iraq before the war - Congress was just too busy with "other priorities" to do their job as prescribed in the Constitution. Other priorities such as taking care of themselves at taxpayer expense. Mission accomplished.
max at 3:11PM on May 15th 2007
14. If Paul were as well educated, as proficient a writer and as well versed in political operations as he thinks he is he should submit his book-length diatribe to a publisher...or keep it to himself in his own dreamworld. Paul, it is my opinion that your long, complex sentences filled with grandiose verbosities do little to disguise the fact that you are just another "get Pres. Bush" screamer with little actual knowledge of the real world of bipartisan politics. I suggest that you look closely at both sides of the story before you direct your next "book" at another person's opinion.
"Doc"
"Doc" at 3:21PM on May 15th 2007
15. CORRECTION: My previous blog should have used the name "Phil" rather than "Paul". In evidence of the confusion and length of Phil's "blook", I lost my mind in regard to the names. Sorry about that!
"Doc"
\\\ at 3:31PM on May 15th 2007