Tuesday, July 8, 2008

Congressional Approval Rating Drops - It is FAR Below Bush's

President George W. Bush, we all know and we're reminded constantly by the press, is not a popular president.  According to Rasmussen Reports, his job approval rating fell to a record low in June.  Just 32% of Americans approve of the way President Bush is doing his job.

That's not great, but surprise . . . President Bush is more than three times as popular as the Democrat-controlled Congress!  The same polling organization, Rasmussen Reports, announced today that just 9% of voters rate Congress as doing a good or excellent job.  52% of the country believes that Congress is doing a poor job.

Why doesn't this get banner headlines across the country?  That's easy.  Big media is trying to throw this election to the Democrats, just like it threw the Republican primary to John McCain.  But nobody intelligent enough to read this blog needed me to tell them that.

Why aren't the American people champing at the bit to throw the Democrats out of Congress?  That one I need help with.

3 comments:

Dameon said...

Because when the president and congress are on the same side, then we get into situations like the Iraqi war, illigal wire taps, CIA torturing people, dogs and cats living together, etc., etc.

It always seems we get into trouble when one party is in control of the legislative and executive branches.

The tide won't turn in congress until there is a Demacrat in the White House.

Latinmassgirl said...

Hello Dameon?! The Congress is now controlled by the Democrats! And if you remember correctly, the war was supported by many of the Democrats also - even liberal Hillary Clinton!

The fact that we haven't had one terrorist attack since 911 should be a thank you to all who had the sense to see the threat of a Iraq, a country that literally trained and grew terrorists!

As far as tortures by the CIA? It is called defending our Nation- we don't even know what real torture is in in the USA, the media perpetuated a myth!

Now that the liberals have their way by Judicial tyranny, the ACLU is hiring high powered attorneys to defend known terrorists in custody of the US! One such terrorist went back to Iraq and used himself as a bomb. You can bet the other terrorist who will be freed because of the ACLU will go right back to their crimes against humanity!

I just hope the American people are smart enough to give the Democrats the boot!

Dameon said...

LMG, I see you've been drinking the Cheney koolaid.

The terrorists were trained in Afganistan prior to 9/11, not Iraq. I've not seen one reference to a training camp within Iraq prior to 9/11.

Did Saddam need to go? Yes. Was he in any way involved in the 9/11 attacks? I don't know. But he ran Iraq with a firm, secular government and was not in bed with fundamentalists, and was a Sunni, not a Shiite as the fundamentalists are.

As for torture, there is no one who denies that waterboarding is torture, and there is also no one denying any more that some of the terrorists suspects were waterboarded. Therefore, it is a fact that the CIA did engage in torture, not a myth. There is also no denying that the CIA had secret prisons in third party countries, a violation of international law. And if a foreign government did that to U.S. soldiers or citizens, the U.S. would be crying foul as well.

The only question about that is, was it justified? And, do these terrorists deserve the rights granted prisoners of war? And I am arguing neither of those points, and will reserve my opinon on those.

As for congress, the question was, why aren't the American people champing at the bit to throw out the Democrats, and my answer was, because they don't want to go back to a republican congress and a republican president, because of all the republican agenda items passed through between 2002 & 2006. Yes, some Democrats voted for the war, based on information, which we know was somewhat questionable if not outright lies, from republican cabinet members put in position by a republican senate.

Do I blame this on the Republican party? No, I blame it on a few people in positions of power.

Any time there is a single party in control of both the executive and legislative branch, we have straight party agendas pushed through with no resistance, and whether it be a far right or far left position, neither is good for the country, and that is my point. A democratic government is about finding common ground.

As for there not being any terrorists attacks since 9/11 in the U.S., some of that is because they were on the run in Afganistan, some of that is because of better security messures put in place in the U.S. But much of that is because they have been focused on getting the U.S. out of Muslim territory rather than bringing the fight to the U.S. homeland. Al Queda wasn't in Iraq until the U.S. invaded.

But as I said, was Saddam a problem - yes. But we should have been looking for terrorists in other middleastern countries before turning to Iraq. I can think of at least three who's governments are much more friendly to Islamic fundamentalists than Iraq was when Saddam was in power. He was a threat to the U.S., but not a terrorist threat, but a more traditional threat.

Did the invasion of Iraq keep the terrorists out of the U.S.? Yes, but so would an invasion of Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia, Turkey, Egypt, or any other Islamic country, because Al Queda focused all it's efforst on expelling the infidels rather than regrouping and attacking the U.S. homeland.