Democrat controlled Congress Approval Ratings

[AMDScooter]

Well we have a poll for GW's approval rating... and I must admit I started a bit of thread creep into Congress's job approval in that thread. SO.... let's see what TLR thinks of the job the newly elected Congressional and Senate majorities are doing. I'll preface this with a few of the "promises" they made...

(1) Earmark Reductions
Pelosi Breaks Her Promise On Pork

(2) Lobbying Reform
Democrat Commitment to Earmark Reform Dies in Hour 16

Lobbying Reform Losing Momentum in Congress After Democrats Touted It for 2006 Election

(3) Ethics Guarantees
Senate Votes Down Outside Ethics Office

***EDIT*** Oh... if a Mod stops in.. could you please make the results public... I forgot to do so. thxinadvance..

[Dutchcedar]

They suck and everyone with more than a bird's brain knows it.

Lying, thieving bastages they are.

[/\/\adGamer]

dirty rotten scoundrels

[Gator650]

I voted disapprove because of the stupid federal minimum wage thing, the stupid non binding resolution thing, the lack of immigration reform or tort reform, and the fact that it seems like half of them are spending half their term trying to get another job instead of trying to fix a problem.

Although I voted 'disapprove', I'm not sure yet how much more or less I disapprove of the Democratic congress over the Republican one. Same stuff, different color shirt.

[AMDScooter]

The nutroots ain't so happy either... Kos kiddies panties in a bunch also..

I will leave the party over this

I will leave the party over this
by VirginiaDem
Mon May 14, 2007 at 07:22:37 AM PDT

(House Democrats need to know we are watching them on this. They serve us, not lobbyists. They better get their priorities straight. To add -- the solution isn't to leave the party, it's to get rid of the dead weight with better Democrats -- kos)

There are a host of issues I'm sure a diary titles like this could apply to. If the Democratic party capitulates on our core principles, then what's the point, right? Well, right now, this strikes me as even worse than swinging to the middle on abortion rights or free trade or global warming:

After a midterm campaign cycle in which the GOP's "culture of corruption" played a major role, lobbying reform was slated to be a key legislative issue in the 110th Congress.

Interest in changing the way the system operates, however, appears to be waning.

Why is this worse?

* VirginiaDem's diary :: ::
*

Well, they freakin' promised us -- not more than seven months ago -- that our party was going to be tough on ethics. That it was the other party that was too cozy with lobbyists. And, as a result, we worked out butts off to fight against "culture of corruption" to give our party a new ethical congressional majority.

And then this?

House Democrats are suddenly balking at the tough lobbying reforms they touted to voters last fall as a reason for putting them in charge of Congress.

Now that they are running things, many Democrats want to keep the big campaign donations and lavish parties that lobbyists put together for them. They're also having second thoughts about having to wait an extra year before they can become high-paid lobbyists themselves should they retire or be defeated at the polls.

The growing resistance to several proposed reforms now threatens passage of a bill that once seemed on track to fulfill Democrats' campaign promise of cleaner fundraising and lobbying practices.

This isn't just waffling on an issue to me. Sure, being wishy-washy on our core progressive principles to pander to some mythical middle is bad enough, but to be wishy-washy on ethics to pander for free drinks or a cushy job just a few months after promising to be different is a deal breaker. If my party pounded the table about these critical lobbying restrictions neglected by the corrupt GOP for years, and then turned around and embraced the same damn corrupt revolving door and tossed out those promised restrictions like yesterday's rubbish, how could I support this party? Is "VirginiaIndy" taken as a Kos handle yet?

So, it's true what they say. Power corrupts. And boy, does is do so quickly. And this is where we -- the netroots -- really have to speak out. The congressional Democrats will hear us on Iraq and our core issues because, not only are the American people are behind us on those issues already, but these issues dominate the headlines and the kitchen table discussions. And almost all of those issues have their powerful special interest groups as well. But when it comes to the under-the-radar cocktail party circuit, the issue is too "inside baseball" for everyday Americans to exert real pressure on lawmakers. And ethics never had the most powerful special interest groups behind it, unfortunately. Indeed, the lack of pressure on the GOP regarding its ethical behavior is exactly what brought them to their grave -- years of calcified greed caked on top of itself until the DeLay machine brought itself down by its own weight.

Grab your closest Democratic congress-person by the lapels. Shake him or her really hard, right now. And tell them: we put you in the majority to be different. Vote for the lobbying reform that you promised us. Because if they're willing to let the lobbying snakes in the door now, this party is over already.

[BlackDragon24]

Its just a big scam, everyone knows that. The only reason why the dems are in office is because the people thought they couldn't do a worse job than the repubs....now people are realizing that they all suck....the only reason I'm happy the dems are in office is because now GWB and his oil cronies don't have a blank check on anything they do any more. But other than that, I can't say that the dems are really better or worse than the repubs in congress....same shit different day.

The state of our political system can be summed up just by looking at the potential candidates who will be running for pres in 08. Does anyone actually like any of these losers as a candidate? On either side? Sheesh, what a nightmare.

[Big B-man]

No kidding. Our choices will come down, not to the best candidate, but the lesser of evils.

The current crop thinks they're so great, but don't seem to understand why they're in power. They don't get it: the American people will give them the boot just as they did the last group.

[AMDScooter]

Its just a big scam, everyone knows that. The only reason why the dems are in office is because the people thought they couldn't do a worse job than the repubs....now people are realizing that they all suck....the only reason I'm happy the dems are in office is because now GWB and his oil cronies don't have a blank check on anything they do any more. But other than that, I can't say that the dems are really better or worse than the repubs in congress....same shit different day.

The state of our political system can be summed up just by looking at the potential candidates who will be running for pres in 08. Does anyone actually like any of these losers as a candidate? On either side? Sheesh, what a nightmare.

^^^ Say BD... could you please make the voting results public? Thxinadvance.


I hear ya.. but I saw soo many touting the "newness" and how things will change if the Dems got the majorities pre-November and I was thinking....
are you effin serious? For the most part we are talking about lifetime politicians running both the majority and minorities. How is switching one for the other possibly going to institute change? Now here we are nearly 6 months into the "new" majorities and it's business as usual or worse on the hill.

Though.. I must admit.. the Dems seem proficient at changing the names of federal buildings, post offices and national recreation areas.... which accounts for half the legislation they have passed to date. Running a country... not so much..

[Nate]

Disapprove. All those Dems got elected on the ticket that they're going to pull the US Military out of Iraq.(which I don't agree with)

Our boys are still there. I didn't realize congressmen were such liars!

[Orangutan]

"Congress/senate"?

[Orangutan]

No kidding. Our choices will come down, not to the best candidate, but the lesser of evils.

[AMDScooter]

Democrats Back off on House Rules Change... For Now

Democrats Back off on House Rules Change... For Now

Yesterday was a good day for House Republicans, who threw a spotlight on the attempt by Democrats to change House rules to avoid tough votes. Simply put, the 'motion to recommit' allows the minority to force a vote on any germane amendment to a given bill. The move by House Democrats would have dramatically narrowed the scope of what could be offered. This is particularly important in the context of the new House rule that blocks enactment of legislation that would increase the deficit. Democrats would be required to spell out spending cuts, or go on the record in support of tax increases to pay for new programs

But faced with the prospect of the House floor blowing up in their faces, Democrats backed down--for now, at least. It's very likely that they will try to change the rules again--perhaps in a matter of a few weeks.

The whole incident led to this great piece in the Politico:

Democrats are wielding a heavy hand on the House Rules Committee, committing many of the procedural sins for which they condemned Republicans during their 12 years in power.

So far this year, Democrats have frequently prevented Republicans from offering amendments, limited debate in the committee and, just last week, maneuvered around chamber rules to protect a $23 million project for Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.)...

The Democratic spokesman for the Rules Committee sees it differently.

"We've passed a lot of bills, and we've passed them through the committees," said spokesman John Santore. "We're operating in an objectively fair way..."

Veterans of Capitol Hill will notice 'the dog that didn't bark' in this statement. When speaking about rules, the key descriptor is 'open' or 'not open.' Even the Democrats' chief spokesman can't bring himself to say that the Committee is operating in an 'open' way--because it's not. Of course, that was their campaign promise.

Not only are Democrats not running the House in an open way, they're operating it in a less open way than the people they tossed out:

But Democrats this year have brought a greater percentage of bills to the floor under a totally closed rule that prevents members of the minority from offering amendments--45 percent under Democrats, compared with 35 percent under Republicans.

On earmarks, ethics, House rules, and other process issues, the Democrats are falling far short of their promise to improve the way Washington does business. Not only is it not better, it's arguably worse. Lamentably for them, they're not producing anything of substance, either. As I covered here last week, they're essentially without any major legislative achievements--so far.

This Congress is not even five months old, but already it looks like Democrats need to think about changing course.

[JungleMan]

Independent/Disapprove, though I didn't approve much of the Republican congress either. Pelosi's talk of "a new direction" is nothing more than meaningless rhetoric, and once the Repubs regain congress (whether that is in 2008 or 2018), they will probably spew the same tired and meaningless words, and Congress will still be fiscally irresponsible and morally defunct. Truth be told though, I will disapprove of any Congress who does not collectively vote to have a zero tolerance policy for illegal immigrants, regardless of their party.

Given the choice, I'd rather have the Republican congress back since at least they didn't try to micromanage the entire US military...

[/\/\adGamer]

Given the choice, I'd rather have the Republican congress back since at least they didn't try to micromanage the entire US military...

Indeed

Id rather have bad than Worse !

[AMDScooter]

Good blerb about the stunt Pelosi and Co tried a few days ago.. They must think everyone is as dumb as they CLAIM GWB is if they think this type of activity goes unnoticed..

House rules, or Pelosi's rules?

This week's attempted quashing of longstanding House procedures is a sign of serious disarray in the Democratic Caucus. The motion to recommit, on the books since 1822, is a tool for the minority to offer alternative legislation which dates to the James Madison administration. One would think that the "most honest and most open" Congress in history would need to honor it to keep its self-appellation intact. And yet, the threat this week from the House leadership, before its exposure by the minority on Wednesday, was to rewrite the rules as no Congress before it to rid the leadership of this literally ancient mechanism of accountability.

For a sense of how the motion to recommit is used in this Congress, consider terrorism-tipster immunity legislation. The House's Democratic leadership prefers open season in civil court on tipsters, who would risk a lawsuit if the information they pass to authorities is wrong. The motion to recommit spearheaded in late March by Rep. Peter King, New York Republican, showed that a majority of the House opposes this idea. A majority would rather protect good-faith tipsters than have them risk financial ruin, all for trying to thwart terrorism. There are other examples.

The light that this episode sheds on the House leadership shows a more encouraging picture for conservatives than some will admit. Never during the recent Republican majorities was this idea considered -- not even in the darkest hours. And it was not until well into the Republican Revolution that the House leadership began regularly blocking the minority's floor amendments, as this Congress is already doing.

So, in that respect, this episode is a sign that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi lacks the requisite political skill to keep the majority together through conventional means. This resort to unprecedented means of thwarting Republicans would not be necessary for a speaker who knows how to call in her chits, or even has those chits to begin with.

But let no one think that this episode is primarily about political tactics. It is a sign of the divisiveness of the agenda which the House's Democratic leadership is promoting. The "100 days" is no Contract With America. From Iraq to taxation to terrorist surveillance, this leadership pushes a narrow agenda which leaves the moderate wing of the Democratic party in the lurch, to say nothing of Republicans and the few remaining conservative Democrats. This fact is made clearer each time a Republican motion to recommit cleaves off a few dozen Democrats who prefer a more reasonable approach.

In the larger picture, this resort by Mrs. Pelosi and her allies to an extraordinary and unprecedented measure is a sign of the strain of an unworkable agenda which cannot win the consensus of a majority.