Under Democratic leadership, Congress has gone from the brink of the abyss and leaped. Whee!
Pollster John Zogby broke down the numbers.
“The Democratic Congress gets poor marks across the ideological spectrum — just 21 percent of liberals and 10 percent of the very liberal give it positive marks, while 14 percent of conservatives and 14 percent of the very conservative give it positive ratings,” Zogby wrote.
“Among Democrats, just 19 percent give Congress positive marks, compared to 13 percent of Republicans and 8 percent of political independents.
“By way of comparison, the Republican Congress had a 23 percent positive job approval rating last October, just a week before voters tossed the GOP out of their leadership posts in both houses.”
After six months, Democrats do have one bipartisan accomplishment: Everyone hates Congress.
Not so George Walker Bush. Among Republicans, 63 percent still think he is doing an outstanding job
Congress now has no base outside of its staff, the reporters who cover it and Mom, and even she is wavering.
He doesn’t think this is funny.
Like everyone else, I’ve been bombarded with this “approval rating” stuff until my eyeballs have started bleeding. But the way this Reuters dispatch describes the ratings of the President, as well as Congress, gave me cause to ask new questions about it.
In the national survey of 1,012 likely voters, taken July 12 through July 14, about 66 percent said Bush had done only a fair or poor job as president, with 34 percent ranking his performance as excellent or good.
:
While 83 percent said Congress was doing a fair or poor job, just 14 percent rated it excellent or good.
Now, if you give me a truly perplexing problem that almost certainly can’t be resolved toward with a positive, pain-free solution…like the war in Iraq, or to cite another example, a large tax bill with late fees and penalties…perhaps I’ll delegate a professional to resolve the issue with as little pain as possible. Even though I do expect a LARGE amount of pain.
I might hold out some tiny smidgen of residual hope that the professional can pull a rabbit out of a hat. Maybe? One can always hope.
And I’ll probably be disappointed.
So then the professional failed to pull off a magic trick, that I didn’t expect him to be able to do in the first place.
Then you come to me, and ask me how good of a job the professional did. The President. Or the tax accountant. What am I going to say? I’ll say “fair.”
Would it be accurate to then conclude from that, that I “disapprove” of the job the professional did? Of course it wouldn’t. And yet that’s what this poll did.
I think this was, and I don’t intend a pun here, “unfair.” To both the President and the KOSsack Congress. A sucky situation, lackluster results delivered, lackluster results expected in the first place…these all contribute to a larger-than-normal chunk of the polled, answering “fair.” For reasons unexplained, this goes in the “bad” column. It may be necessary to maintain consistency with the way polls were done in the past, but it seems to me this is a tabulating method that deserves renewed inspection. I don’t think it leads to reasonable conclusions.
And anyway, common sense says the most sound conclusion, has to do with what Americans expect out of government overall — not about how we like President Bush’s policies or what our Congress is doing as they work with him. We’re just at a low nadir as far as our faith in government is concerned. And as politicians go, President Bush is doing a great deal better than most.
What a stunning achievement for the members of Congress!?!
If they wanted to demonstrate how dysfunctional they are, they have succeeded admirably.
Of course the whole tenor of the Democrat push is to stymy Congress and then pin the blame on the Republicans or their favorite target GWB.
As Clarence Darrow once pointed out:
“Sometimes the law is just an ASS!”
Of course this is useful as the Democratic symbol is after all the DONKEY.
Thus the solution to this impasse is for the ELEPHANT to spray the donkey with a good shower of used bath water to get the ASS out of its ill humour and cool off to salve its summer hot temper.
Thus the bath water will heat up due to Al Gore’s anthropogenic global warming and the Democratic congressional planetary fever will subside.
This will conclude the flora and fawna report from Congress this morning.
Cheers
Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht BGS, PDP, CFP
Commander in Chief
Frankenstein Battalion
2nd Squadron: Ulanen-(Lancers) Regiment Großherzog Friedrich von Baden (Rheinisches) Nr.7(Saarbrucken)
Knecht Rupprecht Division
Hans Corps
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
Are there any psychologists who happen to read/post at SDA?
I have an honest question: is the unbridled hatred of George W. Bush by a large number of people in the world, which seems to cleave along peoples’ political leanings (hello, left leaning liberals) indicate some sort of group neurosis? I’m making a distinction here between the disappointment conservatively minded people have with the Bush administration’s failings (federal spending, immigration) and the unmitigated hostility so many Democrats in the U.S.A. feel for Bush; add to that the Bush-hatred felt by so many people around the globe.
I pose the question WITHOUT tongue in cheek; my question is sincere. Nixon never got raked so bad… EVER, even as he was about to be impeached. I’m old enough to remember those times.
This Bush hatred is just, well, weird. The “group neurosis” phrase seems to be the best way to describe it… listen to Keith Olbermann for 2 minutes… it’s just plain strange. Isn’t it?
Where have you been, Joe? It’s called Bush Derangement Syndrome, and some folks, like the 9/11 “truthers” have it real bad.
The basic symptom is an apparently unshakeable belief that all evils in the world can blamed upon George W. Bush.
gordonkneehill – I think that joe is quite aware of ‘Bush Derangement Syndrome’. He’s asking why people are deranged in such manner.
Why weren’t they deranged over Nixon? Johnson? Why has this syndrome appeared?
I wonder if it has to do with the emergence of Islamic fascism in the world, a movement that is pure evil and that isn’t tied to a single person, to a single nation, but seems to be almost like a plague. But the type of plague that people in the medieval period experienced, i.e., they didn’t know the causes of this violent malady.
When such a non-material, non-physical expression of evil emerges, an evil that we don’t know how to control or defeat – we get angry at our leaders. The US is the most powerful nation in the world; why has it ‘allowed’ this new plague, Islamic fascism, to emerge? So- we blame the US and Bush.
We have trouble even defining the disease. It’s only recently that people have started to even call it fascism. Before, it was ‘retaliation’ for colonialism – a rather weak analysis. Or, a favorite is ‘it’s because of Israel’- an equally invalid argument. It’s only recently that we’ve begun to understand the tribal reality of Islamic ideology, an ideology that enforces a medieval lifestyle and have understood that the reaction to this tribalism – is Islamic fascism. This is something that the West cannot easily control; it’s internal to Islam and Islamic nations.
But most people haven’t picked up on the real cause of Islamic fascism and are still frittering away with the false reasons. And, are frightened and angry because, if these false reasons are ‘the right ones’, then the West CAN do something about them – and why hasn’t the US done this.
Interesting also that no-one blames the UN or expects the UN to do anything.
But it’s fascinating to hear/read how even the leftists expect the US to ‘save the world’.
Joe:
Regarding your question,
Please see this link and check out the rest of her blog while you’re at it:
http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2005/11/lets-discuss-bush-derangement-syndrome.html
gord… (4:16PM)
Everyone’s heard of “BDS” (may I use the acronym?), certainly. But, why did it start? What was its genesis? The GWOT?
“The basic symptom is an apparently unshakeable belief that all evils in the world can blamed upon George W. Bush.” I understand this, you bet, but is seems to me we should analyze why this derangement exists; clarity is a good thing, no? ET takes my meaning (thanks ET).
I have a theory that, as far as the fight against tyranny is concerned (and it IS a fight against tyranny… end of story), there are too many opinions, expressed through too many outlets (TV, radio, print media, blogs, documentaries), on how to fight the tyranny. Forget those in denial about the tyranny; you know, those people who don’t even admit its existence, which clearly is an unsupportable position, obviously (might as well deflate the trolls before they post on the wacky notion tyranny doesn’t exist, and no, don’t flash the “stupid” card about American-imperialist-Bush-Cheney… what a hackneyed proposal that one is). After all, our parents and grandparents had Ernie Pyle, we have CBS-21ST century (ditto the CBC). Even Lorne Greene (The Voice of Doom) wasn’t as depressing… and certainly not biased in the least… as today’s media mavens. Is it this divergence of opinion on how to fight (Invade Iraq? Bomb Iran? Initiate the Patriot Act?) that is causing so many people to act so irrationally as regards this Bush derangement?
Frankly, FDR would have gotten the same as Bush at the hands of the popular, unhinged neurotics we have today. “Fahrenheit Guadalcanal” anyone? Or maybe “Bowling For Pearl Harbor”? Is there ANYBODY out there who doesn’t believe Michael Moore would not have made such films were this 1941, 1943?
Smash’em (5:49PM)
That’s a great link… thanks!
My favourite paragraph:
“What is most funny is that these psychologically naiive individuals simultaneously think of Bush as this “criminal mastermind”–a genius of evil; and also as a complete moron who isn’t capable of uttering a sentence without making a hash of it; or that his brain is controlled by the equally evil Karl Rove.
The cognitive dissonance required to have all these contradictory beliefs swirling around in one’s brain is astonishing. But besides the primary function it serves to erase from consciousness what is happening in the world today, it is serving a secondary purpose–it makes them feel in control of what might come.”
The thing that I don’t understand about BDS is that Bush is quite a moderate president which should come as no surprise as he ran on a platform of “compassionate consrvatism”. He has increased the size government in not just defense but almost every other department including health and education. He has increased federal intrusion into state jurisdictions with programs such as no child left behind. He is soft on crime – his latest immigration bill would have awarded amnesty to 20 million law breakers. Many of his appointments have been based not on competence but diversity as he has put more blacks, women, hispanics, etc into senior positions than any previous president.
His conservative pluses are the tax cuts and the appointment of 2 constructionist supreme court judges which he almost blew with Harriet Miers.
The war on terror and the invasion of Iraq are not really left or right issues. Clinton was the one who made regime change in Iraq official american policy and he said more nasty things about Sadam than Bush did. If Clinton would have invaded Irag the dems would support it.
I guess our relativistic friends on the left will now have to concede that Bush is soaring in the polls — relatively speaking, which of course everything is.
Regarding BDS: it is basically a “liberal” thing. Note that in the liberal’s present plane of existence if everything is GWB’s fault then “they” cannot possibly be held responsible for anything that happens. Simplistic? Perhaps. True? I fear so.
Note the predictable failure of the Dems since they have come to power. They requested, no… demanded, power be given to them. But what they were really asking for was authority, without accountability. If it is ALL GWB’s fault, well then, they can’t be held accountable for the results of their actions. Therefore the required result within the ranks of the faithful is a mental meltdown, aka BDS.
Authority without accountability; it’s the liberal’s Holy Grail.
Excellent points Fritz, at July 21, 2007 7:14 PM. I’ve wondered about this myself. I think the BDS is double-bigotry: 1) anti-Tex-cowboy and 2) anti-Christian-born-again. Bush also is a truly empathetic individual as anyone can see when he interacts directly with the public, which is something to behold consdering his blueblood background. Mind you, I think there’s a bit of anti-pops in this too.
I have a good friend who had a very bad case of BDS but who seems to have calmed down a bit. The pro-immigration stance is probably the reason. And Bush is a sentimentalist too — according to Steyn his position is informed by affection for a Mexican nanny.
“I have an honest question: is the unbridled hatred of George W. Bush by a large number of people in the world, which seems to cleave along peoples’ political leanings (hello, left leaning liberals) indicate some sort of group neurosis?”
“Unbridled hatred” is a strong word. Still it’s pretty clear that most of the world dislikes the man. Rest assure everyone else is evil, stupid and crazy. Only you and people just like you are good, rational and beloved by god.
Case in point
Smash’em…
Point taken. Good call, by the way.
Smash’em/ Joe B,
You can’t base your thoughts about BDS on Jose. He pretty well pushes the zenith on stupid on every topic he chooses to post on.
I doubt “most” have heard of GWB (3,301,112,088 people) … maybe if you count the children being fitted with suicide belts …
DOWN DOWN DOWN DOWN GRAVITY. iF THOSE DEMACRATS SINK ANY LOWER THEY WILL NEED LADDERS FOR GET OUT OF THE WAGON RUT THEIR IN
63% support among Republicans is a remarkably low number for GWB. In his own party, that figure was comfortably over 90% for a long time.
Shawn: ” … that figure was comfortably over 90% for a long time.”
Sources?
Why do the leftovers hate Bush? Pretty simple, they hate anyone that does something. Look what most of them are, simple servants of one kind or another or union sheep. These people are followers in every sense and this quote fits them to a tee. I often wonder what the unproductive would do if the productive said go to hell, do it yourself. These people suck on the productive as any parasite does. There are very few self-made individuals among them, they are mostly lazy dreamers.
et, it’s a complete lack of critical analysis skills
Joe B and Morgan Freeberg-Thank God there are some with clear reason and accurate memory, thank you gentleman, a blind faith that over time sesibility prevails and neurotic hysteria withers (a la dutch tulip craze, mad stalinist, mao pol pot, aimless murdering, toronto’s stupid miller robbing producers to buy the desmiscados votes, etc, etc. mcginty ruining a proud provices future, now screaming like the other hind tit sucker provinces, for more more from the feds (i.e. us)
But be of good cheer, we shall prevail!
I have a hunch, or pet theory, about the rise in world hatred for President Bush, on the assumption that he’s hated as a symbolic figure. It has to do with an archetype that could be called “Person USA,” and how this archetype is viewed in the rest of the world.
Put simply, Person USA is viewed in the same manner as a mesomorph views an endomorph: agreeable, prone to “fat and happy,” complacent by nature, a pushover. Despite the American ballyhoo, Person USA is viewed as basically weak.
Then along comes the War on Terror. Despite the enduring difficulties, Person USA made short work of two bellicose states. One of them, Afghanistan, is all-but-unconquerable according to military lore.
Person USA, though doing so, has roundly shown up everyone who though he was somewhat of a weak dumpling (geopolitically.) How do people react when someone they despise shows them up hand-down?
Through outraged superiority, if not an outpouring of plain hatred?…