Think the Democrats never stand up to Bush? The numbers say otherwise.

http://www.cqpolitics.com/2007/09/bush_success_rating_at_histori_1.html

President Bush’s success rating in the Democratic-controlled House has fallen this year to a half-century low, and he prevailed on only 14 percent of the 76 roll call votes on which he took a clear position.

The previous low for any president was in 1995, when Bill Clinton won just 26 percent of the time during the first year after Republicans took control of the House. If Bush’s score holds through the end of the year, he will have the lowest success rating in either chamber for any president since Congressional Quarterly began analyzing votes in 1953.

A study of House and Senate floor votes, compiled by CQ over the August recess, also showed that House Democrats have backed Bush’s legislative positions this year only 6 percent of the time, making for the strongest opposition from either party against a president in the 54 years CQ has kept score.

A separate analysis of so-called party unity votes, in which a majority of one party votes against a majority of the other, showed the possibility of another historic first for House Democrats. So far this year, Democrats have backed the majority position of their caucus 91 percent of the time on average on such votes. That marks the highest Democratic unity score in 51 years.

Although any president can count on a certain amount of discontent from the opposing party — especially one that controls Congress — Bush’s low success rating and his low support scores among House Democrats are a direct result of disagreements with him over the Iraq War and spending priorities, according to a review of votes.

SNIP

numbers include those of the dead and wounded in Iraq, and the amount of money being "invested" in that war of occupation. When one considers the most recent votes on funding the president's insanity in Iraq, I think it is safe to say the democrats in congress have not stood up to Bush in the most important way.

g o.

Concise and to the point.

You need 60 votes in the Senate (unless you don't want to pass -any- funding bills, which polls say people don't support and is an easy PR victory for the GOP). If you don't have those votes (you don't), what then? There's a lot to be said for ceasing funding on principle, but it will be tremendously unpopular. Many of those who don't support the war will fall for garbage about "not supporting the troops," "not giving the troops the equipment they need," etc., etc. If you believe they will understand somehow the larger issue, I wonder if you've paid attention to what kind of political PR the public has consistently fallen for throughout much of our species' history. :D

roll call records indicate something, but not everything.

The ability to shape legislation, to decide which bill will be called for a vote and which will be submarined, THAT is the real power of the leadership. Nancy and Harry have shown little inclination to stand up to Bush where it counts. FISA, Iraq funding, Surge, Impeachment?

this sounds like a friend of Nancy trying to provide her with political cover just as she prepares to bend over on Iraq again. And FISA. And Impeachment. And Health Care. And NAFTA. and Unions. And Workers Rights. And more and more and more and more

It should be a slam dunk decision to oppose almost everything these rightwing idiots try to get through. But what rank & file dems see as MOST important is "off the table."

stand for any good news for Dems.....they just attack them, most are green trolls or repuke trolls...no good news is going to get posted without at least 6 or more of these same people raining on our parade...

and if you go back thru the post you can see some of these people are the ones who were/are supporting Cindy Sheeham against Nancy Pelosi.

hold tight to that comfort thought.

put down dems go to the site that is not to be mentinoned....and not you personally....

is a freeper?

And as I am a consistent critic of the corrupt War Party Duopoly in Washington, yes you referred to me personally.

Sorry but I will not cheer the 'accomplishments' of this congress as I am bitterly opposed to the illegal occupation of Iraq and to the continual erosion of our constitutional rights at home. Those are the major accomplishments of the Congress we elected last year. Why are you cheering?

are not the Democratic Party, WE are. If they aren't doing what the people want they are the ones that aren't dems, don't blame those who disagree. They are supposed to representing us, we aren't the blind followers.

to include conscious and country? :thumbsdown:

A better country can't be built without tools. To build a party requires compromise. If conscience means each person deciding on their own what they think is right and not compromising to accomplish what is possible, then conscience means abandoning good that could be done in exchange for individual self satisfaction. That's not my definition of conscience.

The good and possible trump what is perfect and impossible.

Got any numbers, secret tapes, inside information, anything in writing to back up your happy ass? No, I didn't think so. You're just another fucking hypersensitive Dem who can't bear the thought that a *gasp* fellow Dem would dare take the party to task for their mistakes, missteps and misdeeds. Fuck that! Get this through your head, there are many, many lifelong Dems, both here and out in the real world, who have become utterly disgusted with the party and its so called leaders over the past few years(or even longer). They are tired of the ever rightward drift that the party has been taking for the past thirty years, they're tired of inordinate amount of influence that corporations have over the party and its members. They are tired of being ignored, maligned, marginalized, pushed away in favor of lobbyists and corporate shills.

I am more that willing to stack my Democratic credentials against yours anyday pal, and twice on Sunday, dollar for dollar donated, hour for hour worked. I've been doing party work since I was eleven years old, working the McGovern campaign. What have you done, except being a keyboard commando?

Your dismissal of party critics is laughable, and sadly pathetic at the same time. You are exemplifying the exact same behaviors that have and are driving so many people from the party, a fascist loyalty of party uber alles, no matter what heinous stance they take, and if somebody dares criticize, out come the bully boy tactics. Fuck that pal, tell you what, put up or shut up, what the hell have you done for the party besides being a yapping voice of unreason?

And remember this, it is people like you, with your bully boy tactics, who are actually driving people away from the party. Congratulations, you've become part of the problem, not part of the solution.

statistics lying? If the votes were weighted as to what was most important it would be quite different. This Congress is the most disappointing crew to be elected from the top down. Have they even voted on impeachment? Nope it's 'off the table', that's how they got their score, eliminate the difficult and most important votes.

this certainly has the smell of some carefully chosen statistics.

:kick:

This article is moot. He should have been removed from office by now, and in jail.

The response was mixed, at best. :)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3496242

:eyes: A whopping 18%. :thumbsdown:

According to SurveyUSA.com, approval ratings for individual members of Congress are pretty high on average, especially compared to the overall Congressional rating. Voters tend to approve highly of their own and disapprove of the rest. Nothing new there.

I love my congressman but i don't trust congress?????

It's often about money (surprise!)

Voters tend to think that their Congresspeople are directly responsible for protecting their financial interests and funding local and state projects, etc., so they approve of them as a result.

They don't approve of overall spending (and Congress, in extension), because they deem much of it as unnecessary because it doesn't affect them.

In other words, Congress is bad because they aren't pandering to me like my local reps do.

What matters is how people feel about their own actual Congresspeople, and in the case of Democrats, the approval is much higher.

A year ago, they were in the same position, and could have hidden behind the same faulty logic. Truth is, when a Congress is polling so low, and held in such comtempt, it could be a sign of a change election where the bulk of them are thrown out. Nothing to do with local politics. Just a national wipeout.

In that context, that 18% is a huge, huge issue.

And 'standing up to Bush' on most minor issues while caving in on all the big ones is not the answer.

voters polled about their own Democratic representatives -- as opposed to their vague perceptions of Congress as a whole.

Why do the rich get richer and why are Mexican truckers allowed to truck in the US?

such as minimum wage and children's healthcare. While admirable, giving the green light to the war and warrantless wire-tapping of Americans in comparison leaves nagging doubts about this Congress' ability to discern and work on the most pressing issues.

they did not stand up.

They gave him what he wanted.

Throw us crumbs, and collude with the corporatocracy on the important issues.