We all know that, with less than 4 months to go, George Bush is a lame duck president.
But the magnitude of his being a lame duck (lame duckness?) became even more obvious this past week when the country didn't seem to listen to him as he made several pleas for the Paulson-Frank-Dodd plan, his cabinet was either missing in action or ineffective as public spokespeople, and House members from his own political party had no problem ignoring him.
Then CBS released a poll yesterday showing in numerical terms how much of lame duck Bush has become. The president's job approval rating has fallen to 22 percent, a 5 point drop from the previous week and his lowest ever. Almost eactly 7 years ago, it was 90 percent.
Here's the money quote:
...the Bush approval rating now is the lowest. His current job approval rating of 22% matches Harry Truman’s previous
all-time low recorded by Gallup in February 1952, while his 70%
disapproval rating is higher than any measured since Gallup began asking about presidential job approval in 1938.
In case you're tempted to think of this as an outlier, a Time poll showed similar results this week.
President Bush is not the ony one who suffered significantly in the polls this week. The CBS poll also showed that Congress is not doing well either. Here's the money quote:
Only 15% of Americans approve of the way Congress is handling its job the lowest ever recorded since CBS started asking the question in 1977. A majority of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents all disapprove.
What's most interesting about this drop in Congress' ratings is that, for the first time in quite a while Congress acted in the way that we have been told people want itto act: bipartisanly. The vote against the Paulson-Frank-Dodd plan the House and the vote for Son of Paulson-Frank-Dodd last night in the Senate didn't just cross party lines, it obliterated them.
There is a difference between an approval rating for an individual and an institution. The individual is held personally responsible for his or her actions, but it is not at all clear that individual senators or representatives are held responsible for their institution's rating. In addition, with carefully drawn congressional districts and the huge advantages incumbents have when running for reelection, it's not clear that low job approval ratings for Congress as a whole translate into massive election turnover for senators and House members.
Congressional approval and Lame ducks
The same people, in Pew polls, generally rate their own congresspeople much higher than "Congress" overall. Our general contempt for committees, and, today, a complete disgust with the performance of government overall, taints people's opinion of Congress.
It's a bit like flame email -- you can "hate" congress, heap imprecations on it, without ever calling out anyone in particular. The president, however, is a different story; it's completely personal. At least half of the people who disapprove of him today voted for the guy...that's ugly.
When they update the dictionary definition of lame duck, George II will be the photo. The country had buyer's remorse about 6 months after he won in 2004...which was followed by the Terry Schiavo scandal (we really don't mean all that state's rights stuff, and we can spend all of our time during a war focusing on this poor family) and Katrina (the single greatest government failure in the last 50 years). We then threw out a bunch of Republican incumbents in Congress (who needs term limits?) to emasculate him...and you wind up with the greatest lame duck in history.
We don't all love our congress critters
"The same people, in Pew polls, generally rate their own congresspeople much higher than "Congress" overall."
I rate my rep a zero. I went to the debate last night, and listening to her is like hearing nails scrape across a blackboard. She rattles . . . outright lies and no depth. My favorite line from her: "We have more oil in the US than in Saudi Arabia." Drill, drill, drill is her solution to the energy crisis.
The room was packed, with people standing several deep along the walls and in back. Most were anti-incumbent, and all were angry.
She's totally out of touch with the district . . . it was the first face-to-face forum she's had with constituents since being elected in 2006 (she does phone-in "town hall meetings", which are mostly her supporters getting on a conference call that is carefully orchestrated (only questions from her shills are accepted)). When she mentioned last night how incredibly effective this "phone it in" strategy was everyone in the room laughed.
We'd actually be better served by no rep at all.
Sorry about your rep
In really small states the house rep is a statewide office, and you generally get higher quality people, even if they are ideological. There's no doubt that you can get some real losers in larger communities. But at least 50% of you voted for her, so there's likely to be some residual good feeling...more than 15%, anyway.
Energy Crisis?
Gas prices have fallen in my neighborhood. If greedy oil companies cause prices to rise, who causes them to fall?
Speculators caused oil prices to rise
Maybe we'll get more regulation on that market now?
Deregulation went too far. We all paid for that.
Who are they?
Hate to repeat myself, but it is on point--
22% of Americans approve W; 15% approve Congress.
Who knew they had that many relatives!
(Seriously, can you think of why ANYONE would approve the job that these people are doing? I'm amazed that the numbers are that high. And, yes, I voted for W. Twice.
And given the same choices, I'd probably do it again.)
Post new comment