Congress falters in public satisfaction survey

phoenix80

Banned
AP poll shows America’s approval rating for lawmakers has fallen to 24 percent

By DARLENE SUPERVILLE - The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — In the eyes of the public, Congress is doing even worse than the president.

Public satisfaction with the job lawmakers are doing has fallen 11 points since May, to 24 percent, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll. That’s lower than for President Bush, who hasn’t fared so well lately, either.

Bush has been taking heat about the Iraq war, his decision to spare a former top vice presidential aide from going to prison and his desire for an overhaul of immigration laws that critics said would give a free pass to illegal immigrants. His job approval rating in the AP-Ipsos survey remained virtually unchanged at 33 percent.

The 24 percent approval rating for Congress matched its previous low, which came in June 2006, five months before Democrats won control of the House and Senate due to public discontent with the job Republicans were doing.

Just two months ago, 35 percent of the public approved of Congress’ work.

Poll respondents from both political parties say they’re tired of the fighting between Congress and the White House and want the two branches of government to work together on such issues as education, health care and the Iraq war.

“They don’t approve of anything he does,” Theresa Holsten, 55, a Republican and unemployed resident of Lawton, Okla., said of Congress. “He can’t do anything right, according to what some people say. It irritates the living daylights out of me.”

Tammy Lambirth, 42, a data researcher from San Antonio, disapproves of “all the fighting that they do all the time.”

The latest tussle involves Bush’s refusal to hand over documents and let former White House aides answer questions from the Democratic-controlled Congress about the firing of U.S. attorneys. The dispute could end up in federal court.

“The Republicans are just stonewalling everything, and the Democrats are just not stepping up and making them do what they need to do, especially about Iraq,” said Lambirth, a Democrat. “They need to make our troops get out of Iraq.”

While the public’s approval of Congress has dropped 11 points since May, the percentage of Democrats who are turning up their noses at Congress — like Lambirth — nearly doubled. Among Republicans, though, not so much.

Approval among Democrats fell 21 points, from 48 percent in May to 27 percent.

It remained low among Republicans, at 20 percent, and has not changed significantly in the past two months.

Democrats won control of Congress on the strength of their promises to end the Iraq war, but so far have failed to do it. Bush vetoed one spending bill that included a deadline for ending the war, and Democrats don’t have the votes to override him.

An increase in the federal minimum wage became law, but much of the Democratic agenda has cleared the House only to become bottled up in the Senate, where the party has a much narrower working majority.

Steve Wofford, 46, of Scottsdale, Ariz., a moderate Republican who runs a software consulting company, said having a Congress and presidency controlled by opposite parties generally is good, but apparently not in this case.

“They’re not addressing the issues that are worth addressing,” he said. “They seem to be more interested in fighting over Libby, or something like that.”

Lewis “Scooter” Libby is Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff who was convicted of lying and obstructing justice in the investigation into the leaking of a CIA operative’s name to a journalist. Bush recently let stand Libby’s conviction, probation and $250,000 fine, but commuted Libby’s 30-month prison sentence. Congress is investigating that, too.

Among other survey findings:

Bush’s marks on his handling of the economy and domestic issues like health care, education and the environment, held steady, at 37 percent on the economy and 33 percent on domestic matters. Last month, Bush was at 37 percent approval for his stewardship of the economy, and 32 percent on domestic issues.
On handling of foreign policy, including terrorism, 38 percent approved, compared with 35 percent last month.
On handling the Iraq war, 31 percent approved, compared with 28 percent last month.
Just about one-quarter of the people, or 26 percent, said the country is headed in the right direction. Last month, 21 percent said the country was on the right track.

The telephone survey of 1,004 adults was conducted July 9-11 by Ipsos, an international public opinion research company. The margin of sampling error was plus or minus 3 percentage points.

http://www.thestate.com/nation/story/118306.html
 
Not that I think the Dems are doing such a great job in Congress, but its true historically that Congressional polls follow Presidential polls. If the president is unpopular so is congress, even if its the opposition in power. This also happened with Truman, Nixon, and Carter.
 
Not that I think the Dems are doing such a great job in Congress, but its true historically that Congressional polls follow Presidential polls. If the president is unpopular so is congress, even if its the opposition in power. This also happened with Truman, Nixon, and Carter.

If the US Congress would start doing its job and Impeach the US President I believe the Poll numbers for the US Congress would go up dramatically.
 
And what exactly in your grand thinking should he be impeached for?

Come on give me the same old lines of bull shizzle....
 
And what exactly in your grand thinking should he be impeached for?

Come on give me the same old lines of bull shizzle....



lieing to the world about the reasons for invading Iraq would be a good start.


managing to unilaterally piss away all the sympathy and support the global community had for the US immediately following 9/11


IMO
 
lieing to the world about the reasons for invading Iraq would be a good start.


managing to unilaterally piss away all the sympathy and support the global community had for the US immediately following 9/11


IMO

First of all he did not lie to the world get that news media mind control thought out of your head...

Now try again :)
 
First of all he did not lie to the world get that news media mind control thought out of your head...

Now try again :)



alright then, if it wasn't an outright lie, it was at best an ill informed decision in the extreme.


tony blair got raked over the coals regarding the intelligence estimates, and there is still no reasonable explanation of how they cocked it up so bad.


IMHO going to war with such shoddy information made out of wild guesses and shonky assumptions would be reason enough to ****-can a leader.

hey, but thats just me as an outsider looking in
 
You're too shallow, I believe. WMD was one of the many reasons for liberation of Iraq.

Read the whole thing before ranting
 
lieing to the world about the reasons for invading Iraq would be a good start.


managing to unilaterally piss away all the sympathy and support the global community had for the US immediately following 9/11


IMO

If it were my call, I'd start with United States Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 115, § 2388, Activities affecting armed forces during war, whcih clearly states that Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies shall be fined under said title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

Furthermore, the Title states that if two or more persons conspire to violate subsection (a) of said section and one or more such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be punished as provided in said subsection (a).

I would point out that the United States of America was already actively engaged against a legally declared enemy (al Qaeda, and the de facto government of Afghanistan, the Taliban) when falsehoods were put forth by the current Administration to make Saddam and Iraq out to be a more dangerous Threat to the United States Military. Thus Combat Troops needed in the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban were taken off the Battlefield and a declared enemy of the United States of America was allowed to fight on.
 
Last edited:
You're too shallow, I believe. WMD was one of the many reasons for liberation of Iraq.

Read the whole thing before ranting


now now...stay away from name calling if you want to discuss things at the big boys table


the only legitimate reason for invading iraq was that saddam was a bad man...everything else doesn't stack up. now i'm sorry but i have real trouble believing that the US intelligence community (as well as those of anyone else keeping even a passing eye on iraq) honestly thought that iraq was close to a bomb....they weren't close when they invaded kuwait.


now, as gator has stated...invading iraq took troops away from the legitimate hunt for osama, and the smashing of both the taliban, and al quida

so now not only is the US getting kids killed in a new vietnam, but the have the destabilised the whole middle east, pissed away foriegn relations, propped up even more dictatorships (Uzbekistan for one)...and the taliban is still fighting...and bin laden is still at large.


i cant believe that more Americans aren't up in arms about this.
 
Do you consider yourself a big boy? Really?! Ahahahahahaha

One of the strategic goals to invade Iraq was to distract the Al-Qaeda from its main target which is the main US soil and take them in Iraq, trap them and kill all of them to the last man.

Why don't you get it?

Plus the Dem run US congress can't run the war too. Its own image is worse than that of Bush. 14% of people approve of Congress.
 
Last edited:
One of the strategic goals to invade Iraq was to distract the Al-Qaeda from its main target which is the main US soil and take them in Iraq, trap them and kill all of them to the last man.



REALLY????


lol


i dont get it because it's a load of bollocks
 
If you think Al Qaeda or any terrorist organization is stupid enough to fight the US head on Iraq with its entire organization, you're underestimating our enemies. Killing lots of insurgents in Iraq won't kill them all, there will always be more in other countries planning direct attacks against America and Israel.

All we are doing in Iraq is killing replacable people and giving them AMPLE material with which to recruit new terrorists.

America would be better off if Iraq had never been invaded.
 
Last edited:
Do you consider yourself a big boy? Really?! Ahahahahahaha

One of the strategic goals to invade Iraq was to distract the Al-Qaeda from its main target which is the main US soil and take them in Iraq, trap them and kill all of them to the last man.

Why don't you get it?

Plus the Dem run US congress can't run the war too. Its own image is worse than that of Bush. 14% of people approve of Congress.

Hahahaha, drop this post in the humour section will ya.
 
Back
Top