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.

For Saint Paul, the road to Damascus was the road to Christianity and, from his point of view, the road to eternity.

For Nancy Pelosi, the road to Damascus is the path to peace. But since there is no way to envision "peace" being dispensed by a vicious, terrorist-supporting dictator like Bashar Assad, we have to conclude that Pelosi is putting us on.

I suspect that Pelosi sees the road to Damascus as the way for Democrats to seize the White House in 2008. In short, our burka-wearing, San Francisco grandmom is not doing foreign policy but domestic politics.

Lighting political matches in the oil-drenched minefields of the Middle East--It may or may not hurt the Republicans, but it's a heck of a way to treat America's national security.

It's so easy to call all your enemies terrorists and then feel proud that you're not talking to them. But it is also incredibly foolish. We asked the Palestinians to have elections. They did. Hamas won. Then like little children, we took our ball and went home. We told them that we won't be talking to them anymore.

There are benefits to withdrawing some money from the Palestinian territories if Hamas wins. You provide an incentive for Palestinians to elect moderate leaders as opposed to fundamentalists. But if you tell them to take a long walk off a short pier after they win the elections -- elections that you've been hyping up for the last six years -- then you look ridiculous, and get nothing accomplished.

Carrots and sticks. I feel like we have to re-explain the wheel to these guys. It's circular, goes around and around, and makes transportation easier. In negotiations and diplomacy you offer incentives and disincentives for the behavior you want to encourage or discourage. You don't walk away like a jackass, because then no one wins.

Israeli Prime Minister told Nancy Pelosi to pass a message to the Syrians that Israel is open to dialogue. This might have gotten him in some political trouble at home, so he felt a need to issue a clarification.

The clarification was that Israel and Syria are not allies and that Israel still considers the Syrians bad guys. Wow!!! You don't say. We still consider Syria the bad guys -- that doesn't mean you shouldn't talk to them. We have talked to our adversaries for time immemorial -- that's how you do diplomacy.

Conservatives these days think that just labeling someone an enemy is good enough reason to never talk to them again. Third graders across the country agree. "Suzy told Johnnie that I like him, and I don't, so I'm never going to talk to her again!"

Why is Nancy Pelosi in Syria? Because George Bush isn't. If he would just do his job, we wouldn't have to send U.S. Representatives to the region to let everyone else know that there are at least some sane people left in the country.

Every sane president has done diplomacy and negotiations with our allies -- and our enemies! Ronald Reagan met with and negotiated with the Soviet Union countless times. And they were the evil empire!

Is Nancy Pelosi, or the three Republican Congressmen that were also in Syria, going to get a deal with Bashar al-Assad? Of course not. But that's not what they're there for. They are there to simply open up a dialogue which can one day lead to a reasonable agreement.

In fact, Israel's Prime Minister asked Pelosi to pass a message along for him. Since Bush the Child is not playing with Assad anymore, Ehud Olmert had to find some way to get a diplomatic message to Syria. So, he chose the one responsible senior US stateswoman going there -- Nancy Pelosi.

Is it entirely surprising that Nancy Pelosi is in Syria and just met with the country's ruler Bashar Assad and several of his henchmen? Consider Assad's credentials:

a) He is a vicious dictator

b) He is vehemently anti-American

c) He backs terrorist groups both of the Sunni and Shia variety, like the insurgents in Iraq, Hamas, and Hezbollah

No wonder Pelosi thinks Assad can be helpful in solving the Iraq problem. At first glance this seems ridiculous. What exactly can we expect from this man? Sure enough, conservative commentary has focused on exposing Pelosi's naivete.

But this criticism of Pelosi is itself naive. It assumes that Pelosi and the conservatives have the same goals, which clearly they do not. Yes, both want to solve the Iraq problem, but "solving" the problem for Pelosi and her fellow Democrats means embarassing President Bush by defeating his Iraq policy. This is the objective.

To this end Assad is indeed an ally of the liberal Democrats. By bringing to the table a secular dictator devoted to undermining the elected Iraqi government and helping our enemies, Pelosi and her fellow-travelers ensure that America's position in Iraq is further weakened. Then they can set about blaming Bush for getting us into Iraq in the first place.

If you assume that Pelosi is trying to bolster America's position in the Middle East, her actions become virtually incomprehensible. On the other hand, if you assume that she's trying to give President Bush a political black eye, and thus clear the way for a Democratic contender to take the big prize in 2008, her actions make perfect sense.

So Nancy Pelosi's in the middle east. Am I the only one who's reminded of the Sally Field classic "Not Without My Daughter"?

Speaker Pelosi, be advised that Democrats will not be able to regain the White House without support from the middle of the country. Next time go with a "Places of the Heart" look. Maybe a "Norma Rae" look. (I'd love to see her stand on a chair in the well of the House Chamber and slowly turn around with a sign reading "Withdraw" held up high.) Oh, what about a sexy "Smokey and the Bandit" look?!

(To those who think I'm mocking Speaker Pelosi: Not so. I like her. I really like her.)

So which Sally Field character would you like to see Nancy Pelosi dress up as next?

(Photo: AP)