well food for thought I'd say....the newt congress misspent political capital the same way...does no one ever learn..?


Anger Mismanagement
July 6, 2007; Page A8

School is out, report cards are in. How fares the new Democratic Congress? Even with grade inflation, it's struggling to hit a gentleman's C.

The big question when Nancy Pelosi became speaker of the House was whether her party was up to the task of governing. Democrats wisely turned last year's election into a referendum on Republican competence. It was a shrewd strategy, though left unanswered was how they would use their new power. Could Ms. Pelosi and Senate Leader Harry Reid keep the party's angry liberal wing in check? Did Democrats have a big agenda around which they could rally?


Six months on, the country isn't much impressed. Congress's approval rating is drifting into the netherworld, having sunk to an average of 25%. One recent Gallup poll reported only 14% of Americans profess confidence in that institution, now run by Democrats. The numbers make even President Bush look good, an extraordinary achievement.


A half-year isn't usually a fair measure of a party's abilities, but then again, Dems have set themselves a high bar. Their goal, by the end of next year, is to have increased their majorities in both the House and Senate, as well as captured the White House. That's an uphill climb in any political climate, harder still given today's skeptical and unsettled electorate. Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid can't afford dawdling or division, not if they want to make a mark with voters.

Both leaders seemed to understand -- at least in the beginning -- that few things were more important than showing voters the party had a plan, and that it could get that plan passed. This philosophy was behind the "Six for '06," an agenda that was purposely small (minimum wage, college scholarships), so as to garner support from all party wings. Ms. Pelosi's first "100 hours" were then run with military precision, as she systematically passed items with unanimous support from her party, and Republican votes to boot. It was an impressive showing.

Then, with the first 100 hours done and gone, by mid-January the Democratic Party proceeded to fall apart. The crumbling has progressed along predictable lines.

For starters, the leaders have failed to keep the Bush-hating left under wraps. This crowd isn't nearly as interested in passing legislation as it is flooding the Beltway with subpoenas. By one count, the new Democratic Congress has held over 600 oversight hearings since assuming power. Given the Senate has only been in session 100 days (the House, 92 days), that works out to six hearings per day, or one every 1.5 hours. The bashing covers everything from wiretapping to President Bush's global warming science.


The events are primarily cathartic, designed to allow the base to work out its Bush anger. Yet many Democrats have also convinced themselves the hearings are smart politics -- that the way to increase their congressional majorities next year is to further paint Republicans as corrupt and incompetent -- and point to Mr. Bush's approval ratings as evidence it is working. Democrats' own (lower) approval ratings suggest voters have limited tolerance for such partisanship and would prefer to see the party implementing the "new direction" it promised in its campaign.


Yet even when the majority has found time to legislate, it has again perilously allowed its liberal wing to lead it astray. Instead of focusing on completing their "Six for '06" priorities, Democrats instead engaged in a long fight with the president over the war supplemental. This bloodletting pleased the MoveOn.org faction, but was a defeat for the broader party, which ultimately gave Mr. Bush all the money he'd demanded, with nary a timetable or withdrawal in sight.

"Six for '06" has similarly been crowded out by politically unpopular bills designed to reward left-leaning, special interest lobbies. The AFL-CIO's demand for a vote over "card check" never had a chance of passing the Senate, but did put Democrats on the record as opposing secret ballots in union elections (a position with which some 90% of Americans disagree). This fruitless dues-paying has taken time, and by the end of Democrats' first 100 days in office, Republicans were able to crow that of the 17 minor bills signed into law, 10 focused on naming post offices and court houses.


Much of the ideological agenda is being driven by the party's old Great Society bulls, powerful House committee heads such as Henry Waxman, Pete Stark or John Conyers. Ms. Pelosi has largely let them run wild, inviting embarrassment. Appropriations czar David Obey managed to single-handedly undercut most of his party's promises about earmark transparency, and only after Democrats had been slammed by most major newspapers in the country did someone at the top reel Mr. Obey back in.

The leftish bent has put on public display the party's disunity. Two recent examples: Democrats promised to fix the alternative minimum tax, which will soon hike the taxes of millions of middle-class Americans. The fixing task fell to House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel, who several weeks ago reverted to type and floated the idea of paying for his "reform" with a tax hike on higher-income earners. The Blue Dog coalition revolted, refusing to sign on to a bill that branded them tax-hike liberals.

Ms. Pelosi similarly promised earlier this year to produce an energy bill to make America "energy independent" by "Independence Day." The Fourth of July came and went, though what's left of Ms. Pelosi's energy bill is still mired in the House. She and fellow liberals refused to go along with those in her party who wanted a more flexible hike that would do less harm to Detroit.

The ideological back and forth has even caused Democrats to miss out on a proud signing ceremony or two. They easily had the Republican votes to pass a minimum wage hike, yet Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi instead allowed the party to engage in a food fight over a related tax-break package (liberals didn't want a "giveaway" to business). Desperate to get it done, the leaders ultimately stuffed the provision into the supplemental, where it was overshadowed and forgotten.

Democrats still have a little more than a year to prove their worth. The lesson of the past six months is that Americans want a mature party that leads, not angry liberals who investigate.

Potomac Watch - WSJ.com

__________________
Obama-e fungis nati homines....

I skipped most of the article because I'm not in the mood to do a lot of reading, but this last part caught my eye...
Dick Cheney claims he's not part of the Executive branch and the Dems didn't do anything about it. They want to hold hearings about Gonzo, but don't actually go all the way and have a formal investigation. They talk about handling the war, but keep giving Bushco all the money they want.

__________________
Is our children learning? -George W. Bush

"I think—tide turning—see, as I remember—I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of—it's easy to see a tide turn—did I say those words?"—Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

thats a lot of reading ..,..well, that explains a lot.....
nuff said...what the point eh? sorry I cannot keep it in little kibble in bits libs like the most. Dude...

__________________
Obama-e fungis nati homines....

Congress is getting low marks because it hasn't ended the war yet.
Do you think the people who are disappointed that Congress hasn't ended the war are going to vote Republican or Democratic?

__________________
“The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine.”

Senator Thad Cochran, Mississippi (R)
on McCain

“I decided I didn’t want this guy anywhere near a trigger.”
Senator Pete Domenici, New Mexico (R)
on McCain

“My anger did not help my campaign ... People don’t like angry candidates very much.”

McCain on McCain

soo doing zero regards the vaunted "100" hours has nothing to do with it?

please give me a break goober, come now....look at the stats..if NOT for dropping in the minimum wage into the war funding bill, they have accomplished nothing, except ratcheting up the partisanship.....is it any different(Given the Senate has only been in session 100 days (the House, 92 days), that works out to six hearings per day, or one every 1.5 hours. ) from the reps.??? NO, but, they are not in power anymore more my friend, so its YOUR turn in the barrel of ineffectuality....how does it feel?

__________________
Obama-e fungis nati homines....

Unfortunately there weren't enough voters pissed off at this administration, last election, to give the dems the super majority it needs to actually cut funding, and impeach the president. As long as the GOP holds their votes together in congress, the dems will be stuck chasing their tails.

I think it's unfair to put all the blame of congress' low approval rating squarely on the backs of the dems, I'm sure the disapproval goes all around. But I'm sure republicans are just sitting back figuring all the low numbers are because of the dems; the next election with tell that tail.

__________________
"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."

"An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power over his fellow citizens."

-Thomas Jefferson

So will the voters be more pissed at the people who couldn't pass the legislation they wanted or the people who blocked the legislation they wanted?

__________________
“The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine.”

Senator Thad Cochran, Mississippi (R)
on McCain

“I decided I didn’t want this guy anywhere near a trigger.”
Senator Pete Domenici, New Mexico (R)
on McCain

“My anger did not help my campaign ... People don’t like angry candidates very much.”

McCain on McCain

cause remember boys and girls it has shit to do with the country it has all to do with pary right goober???

Congress is never popular, no matter what party's in charge. This is largely because congress is a snakepit full of individuals who are largely dedicated to gerrymandering themselves into lifetime seats and voting themselves a new pay raise every year. If anyone actually thinks there's any real difference between the two parties on this, well, step into my office, I've got some beachfront property in Florida I'd like to sell you.

Actually, this forum is called US Politics Online. We discuss politics here.

The power comes from the people, now most of the time if you keep the people happy they will wink a lot of shit. But every so often an issue comes up that the people are serious about, and the Iraq war is one of those issues.
So asking the political question, which party will benefit when the GOP blocks the Democrats from enacting legislation that the majority of the American public wants, isn't unpatriotic, it's just what you do in a political forum.

So which party do you think will benefit from the blocking of popular legislation?

__________________
“The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine.”

Senator Thad Cochran, Mississippi (R)
on McCain

“I decided I didn’t want this guy anywhere near a trigger.”
Senator Pete Domenici, New Mexico (R)
on McCain

“My anger did not help my campaign ... People don’t like angry candidates very much.”

McCain on McCain

good question...one that ried made comment on ohhhhh last year, regards the rep. holding all the levers of power with little getting done...his point was, you are in charge lead....well, hes in charge..lead....re: who will suffer most? usually and rightfully so, its the party in power....there must be compromise, and that cuts across the aisles...that means the party in power making deals palatable to both to swing votes.....I hold both responsible to an extent, however, I think it is fair to say at this point, that given the record over the last 7 months the dems have not got much done, and though they can finer point all they want, cannot slip out from under entirely nor should they.

__________________
Obama-e fungis nati homines....

if its so popular then why did more dems cross to the no side last week than reps crossed over to vote yes? regards the war, lets be clear, the republicans will be held accountable no matter what win lose or draw....to an extent....but if the dems are seen as obstructionist regards pulling funding pulling troops etc. then that may boomerang on them and they know it....the American people indeed ar sick of th war, but neither do they think we should just up and out tomorrow....

__________________
Obama-e fungis nati homines....

As Tip O'Neill said "All politics are local".
America is not a homogenized mass of voters who feel exactly the same about the issues in the exact same proportions in every single district.
You could assemble a group of congressional districts where the majority of people were behind the president and the war, and you will be able to do that next year too, but the number of districts in that group is getting smaller, and the number of districts where the majority is against the war is getting larger.

So while there have been Democrats who favor the war, and some who still do, that's not the "new development". The new development is that Republicans are breaking ranks and moving to the anti war side, because the people they represent are moving that way.

In the end, it's the people who still influence what happens, because in the US the people don't follow the leader, the leader follows the people, or we get a new leader who will.

That's why the founders called the chief executive the "president" and not the "Leader". Because "preside" is not the same as "Lead", preside is a much weaker term, it implies that it's not the will of the leader that is choosing the direction, but a consensus of the people being lead.

__________________
“The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine.”

Senator Thad Cochran, Mississippi (R)
on McCain

“I decided I didn’t want this guy anywhere near a trigger.”
Senator Pete Domenici, New Mexico (R)
on McCain

“My anger did not help my campaign ... People don’t like angry candidates very much.”

McCain on McCain

Actually your wrong the reason some of the republicans are moving anti-war is they are attempting to hedge their bets. They think that if they take a dip in the anti-war pond that maybe that will secure them futur consideration for a presidential bid. Never underestimate the power of unbridled greed for power.

Further yes the democrats are losing ground there well could be a backlash on their inability to organize. Subsequently any democrat seeking election to the whitehouse is suffering for it.

Further I think many of you are saying everyone is focused on the war but take your blinders off. The real reason people are so disatisfied right now is the fact that nothing has been done regarding fema, healthcare costs, education and the economy. Right now the big hot button issue is education and the economy. Democrats are making the same mistake that the republicans made which is focusing every effort on foreign policy instead of looking more toward domestic concerns. Which could prove their undoing.

do i need to remind you by reposting your little gem about total power and gerrymandering of the votes