Compare George W. Bush's popularity ratings to Congress'

this just reinforces the fact that the "mainstream media" is very biased...but the letter writer forgot to mention that gas has doubled since the demonratz took over...and what do they do to help out the working class they claim to represent...hold hearings on baseball...remember that they are up for re election every 2 years...it is very easy to get rid of any of them if we want to...in fact if we dumped them the message would be loud and clear...and that message is:

"you were elected to do what we tell you to do and if you don't your gone in 2 years" (or less if we recall you)

we the people need to take back the government

James,

You think all of the US's economic woes are attributable to a congress that's been sitting for less than two years and nobody's reporting this! How dare they, if James thinks its true then it must be. It is certainly not myopic finger-pointing but rather, lucid analysis.

Congress' approval rating was nearly as low for all those years the R's had total control of it. It sank lower out of frustration with the R's blocking every effort to undue the damage. Congress is still about 48% R, and not much can change until it's less than 35%, which should take place in seven months.

congress is about to go on vacation, i think we should double there wages and tell hem to stay on vacation permently.

The current Congress is indeed a lame duck one and largely deserves the scorn it is receiving. However, to justify--or even vindicate--Bush's low approval rating by Congress' lower rating is like bragging about the D on your child's report card because another kid got a D-minus, or arguing that shoplifting is morally superior to stealing cars.

HEY MIDDLE AMERICA wrote:

this just reinforces the fact that the "mainstream media" is very biased...but the letter writer forgot to mention that gas has doubled since the demonratz took over...and what do they do to help out the working class they claim to represent...hold hearings on baseball...remember that they are up for re election every 2 years...it is very easy to get rid of any of them if we want to...in fact if we dumped them the message would be loud and clear...and that message is:
"you were elected to do what we tell you to do and if you don't your gone in 2 years" (or less if we recall you)
we the people need to take back the government

How long has your head been stuffed up your butt?

Gas was $1.45 when Bush took office. It's now $4.

And you are ignorant enough to blame it on Democrats who have a 1 vote majority?? And the one vote belongs to Lieberman, who is really a Republican.

You belong in Florida. God's waiting room for the old and stupid.

Zonker wrote:

<quoted text>
How long has your head been stuffed up your butt?
Gas was $1.45 when Bush took office. It's now $4.
And you are ignorant enough to blame it on Democrats who have a 1 vote majority?? And the one vote belongs to Lieberman, who is really a Republican.
You belong in Florida. God's waiting room for the old and stupid.

it's the republicans that want to drill and it's the demonratz blocking that any way possible but usually by lawsuits...but most important is the fact that demonratz campaigned in '06 on lowering gas prices and they won...but instead of going down the price of gas doubled...if wilLIE didn't veto the republican bill to open anwar in the 90's...we would be using our own oil and we wouldn't be sending so much money overseas right now

Zonker wrote:

<quoted text>
How long has your head been stuffed up your butt?
Gas was $1.45 when Bush took office. It's now $4.
And you are ignorant enough to blame it on Democrats who have a 1 vote majority?? And the one vote belongs to Lieberman, who is really a Republican.
You belong in Florida. God's waiting room for the old and stupid.

and the republicans had only a 1 vote majority (it might have been tied with the veep as tie breaker) when they passed that bill in the 90's to drill in anwar

Zonker wrote:

<quoted text>
How long has your head been stuffed up your butt?
Gas was $1.45 when Bush took office. It's now $4.
And you are ignorant enough to blame it on Democrats who have a 1 vote majority?? And the one vote belongs to Lieberman, who is really a Republican.
You belong in Florida. God's waiting room for the old and stupid.

and the great ronald reagan had a demonrat congress and senate but still accomplished many things ...because he was a great leader...unlike the demonratz

HEY MIDDLE AMERICA wrote:

<quoted text>and the great ronald reagan had a demonrat congress and senate but still accomplished many things ...because he was a great leader...unlike the demonratz

When are you going to stop dodging the simple question: Has George W. Bush EVER done ANYTHING you disapprove of? If so WHAT?

Ah, our virtual village idiot has once again leaped like a decerebrated plague locust to the defense of his beloved simian President with the gutter approval ratings. Yes, Hey Middling America, with six solid years of a Republican majority and a Republican administration to go with it (never mind for the moment that it has been ostensibly lead by a drooling imbecile), it's all the Democrats' fault that we haven't completely polluted our Gulf coastline yet. We already know that you can't punctuate or spell; let's see if you can count the seats in congress between 2000 and 2006 and explain how the loyal opposition managed to stymie all the grand plans for world dominance the Chimp brought to Washington from his playpen in Austin.

Perhaps the Republican congress was just waiting, along with its corporate wh*remasters, for the nitrates, assorted fertilizer runoffs and other industrial waste drizzling down the river systems while the Bush EPA hung out at the World Series of Poker to finish off the fisheries and kill the swimmin' areas with dinoflagelli and bacteria. That way, there wouldn't be a lot of protest by the time they started punching holes in the sea floor, since there was nothing to lose anymore. Or perhaps they were waiting for Bush's Smarter Younger Brother (comparatively speaking - which ain't much) to leave office with his shoplifting wife and the daughter he drove to dope so he wouldn't become collateral damage.

Who knows? One thing the Lake Worth Lamebrain read somewhere and repeated here as if he thunk it up hisself, though: if the Democrats had half a backbone and a quarter of a brain between them, we wouldn't be here having this ridiculous conversation about the desirability of shooting ourselves in the environmental foot yet again.

HEY MIDDLE AMERICA wrote:

<quoted text>and the great ronald reagan had a demonrat congress and senate but still accomplished many things ...because he was a great leader...unlike the demonratz

So by using your example, the idiot bush must be a really bad leader. As he is unable to get any of his stupid ideas passed. There is enough land owned by the oil companies to explore for oil on. The oil companies DO NOT belong off the coast of Florida. We depend on our beaches to help bring tourists to the state and cannot risk them if there is an oil spill.

Ironman Carmichael wrote:

The current Congress is indeed a lame duck one and largely deserves the scorn it is receiving. However, to justify--or even vindicate--Bush's low approval rating by Congress' lower rating is like bragging about the D on your child's report card because another kid got a D-minus, or arguing that shoplifting is morally superior to stealing cars.

Good analogy. Sort of a variation on the "2 wrongs dont make a right" saying.

Ironman Carmichael wrote:

The current Congress is indeed a lame duck one and largely deserves the scorn it is receiving. However, to justify--or even vindicate--Bush's low approval rating by Congress' lower rating is like bragging about the D on your child's report card because another kid got a D-minus, or arguing that shoplifting is morally superior to stealing cars.

I guess in So Florida, a D grade is something for parents to celebrate

Old Gator wrote:

I am going to pick up on several previous comments on this thread in my reponse to you.

Both ANWAR and coastal drilling came up multiple times in the six years the Republicans had a majority. However, the efforts were stymied in the Senate by Democratic lead filabusters. Drilling in ANWAR was vetoed by Cinton.

Second, don't you distinctly remember Pelosi and Reid claiming, just prior to the 2006 elections, they had a "common sense" plan to reduce gasoline prices. Now would be a good time to trot that plan out. Oh wait, there wasn't any such plan. Does that, then, count as a lie?

Any complaint you have about runoff into the rivers, is not some new complaint. That complaint has been ongoing through all administrations and Congresses. So, to argue that this is some new plan is absurd, although, I realize it was mere hyperbole.

What is going to be interesting is September 30. Since Pelosi refuses to do anything about spending bills this year (now, do you really want to compare the incompetence of the Speaker with that of the President?), the spending authorizations will all expire. What also will expire with those authorizations are the prohibition on drilling in ANWAR and, I think, the prohibition on coastal drilling. That is why Bush lifted the executive order. The ball will be solely in Pelosi's court. Pelosi also refuses to allow an energy bill to come to the floor because whe knows a drilling amendment will be offered and that it will pass. So, her strategy is to do nothing, but that strategy will end on September 30. It will be fun to watch all the thrashing about. BTW, the coastal drilling prohibition comes from a blowout off Santa Barbara in 1966. There have been no other blowouts since then. So, we have a policy that is based on one accident 42 years ago.

Another part of the energy puzzle is nuclear energy. That has been opposed by Democrats since forever. Now, they complain about coal, but favor wind (as long as it doesn't affect the sailing, ya' know) and solar, but neither of those is going to scale. The T. Boone Pickens wind farm will probably help, but there aren't many places for wind like West Texas. Besides that, we will still need fossil fuel plants both as backup (for when the sun don't shine and the wind don't blow) and for peak load. It is nearly impossible to store electricity for later use. It is generated on demand.

And, yes, I do blame all this on Democrats. The reason I do so is that their consituency depends on people who oppose nuclear and fossil fuels (as well as lots of other things). Even if it is good for the country, the Democrats will say "no" because they need those people to win elections. But, you can only say "no" so long before the chickens come home to roost (hmmm, who else used that phrase). Those chickens are home now and it is time to do something besides say "no". But, the Democrats won't.

I do believe the Democrats will maintain both the House and the Senate this year, but I doubt they will get 60 votes in the Senate. I also predict that with their current leadership, they will prove to be just as inept as they have been for the last two years and, at the same time, try to overreach so that they will lose their majorities, if not in 2010, then 2012, when there will be beaucoup Democratic Senators up for reelection. If Pelosi continues in her wanton ways, the "blue dog" Democrats will be toast. Why? Because they voted to put her in charge. Plan on it. Pelosi will become as reviled as Newt. Reid is nothing more than a big fat zero (or as they say in web programming, a "404". Mike Royko used to say "You can look it up" ). Besides that, he is a crook. I predict he will go the way of Tom Daschle in his next election in 2010.

Rick

Native Floridian wrote:

<quoted text>
So by using your example, the idiot bush must be a really bad leader. As he is unable to get any of his stupid ideas passed. There is enough land owned by the oil companies to explore for oil on. The oil companies DO NOT belong off the coast of Florida. We depend on our beaches to help bring tourists to the state and cannot risk them if there is an oil spill.

Actually, Bush won far more than he lost. In spite of all the noise, what did Pelosi and Reid get through? A bloated farm bill, ethanol subsidies, and a minimum wage bill. Tell me again how the Democrats did in their fights against Iraq, SCHIP, etc, etc.

Rick

HEY MIDDLE AMERICA wrote:

<quoted text>and the great ronald reagan had a demonrat congress and senate but still accomplished many things ...because he was a great leader...unlike the demonratz

I love it when the intelligence-impaired invoke the name of St. Ronnie...the President who so adamantly believed that Ketchup is a vegetable that he became one himself!

Rick - we'll have to agree to disagree about that. My premise here is that Republican reps also had large constituencies opposed to offshore drilling and had to watch their steps - especially here in Florida, where Jeb was prudently unsupportive of as well. It's a given that Clinton would have vetoed it; my point was that during the six years of Republican administration and congressional control, nothing got done. I would also blame that joke of an "energy policy" that the Cheney working group produced, one that was so lopsidedly weighted in favor of continuing our petroleum addiction that it even embarrassed Republicans. If it had recognized and encouraged much more work on solar, wind and geothermal energy - not to mention investment in hydrogen-power technology - there would have been some negotiating room across the aisles. Something might have gotten done. As it was, nothing did.

But as you know, there's not much for which you could criticize the Democrats that I'd disagree with. It seems like I wake up every morning to another inane comment by Pelosi or some dithering neither-either by Reid that makes me want to tunnel under my dog and try to get back to sleep/

Oh, yeah - and let's see who's got anything intelligent to say about this corn ethanol fiasco we're both so **** off about. I supported - and still support - a functional biofuels program, but the ethanol program as currently constituted is just more sugar for a diabetic economy.

So you are happy that the president, although a totally disliked screwup is not as totally disliked as congress, who has been stifled by his vetoes, and party line votes by Repugnicans holding just enough of a majority to cause all the woes you site. And still you blame the Democrats, who have tried to pass legislation to help the country but are blocked at every turn. Including impeaching Bush and Cheney.