Only 12 percent of Americans now have confidence in Congress

[Lemon law]

Once the democrats got the majority in the legislative branch, at least the Republican rubber stamp congress got replaced by somewhat of a grid lock congress.

Because while the republicans are somewhat toothless in the house, as long as they have 40 plus seats in the Senate, they can block any legislation in the Senate.

The democrats have somewhat rightly or wrongly concluded, that a too direct confrontation with the executive branch would do more overall harm than good to this country.
On one hand it does reduce the harm GWB can do, on the other hand it does not please people like me who would like to see more congressional action against the policies of GWB. And in terms of impeachment and subsequent conviction against GWB&Cheney, poll after poll show at least majority public support, but from a realistic point of view, it only takes 34 of 49 GOP Senators to block conviction in the Senate.

The real question is, how will this translate out in terms of blame when the American people go to the ballot box on 11/4/08. It already was apparent after 11/6/06, that the American people somewhat had a referendum on GWB, and GOP congressmen and Senators got punished for the policies of GWB&co. In 11/06, GWB&co popularity was well North of 30%, now its some 10 points lower and it will likely be even lower than that by 11/08. Its very difficult to conceive that the GOP legislators will be rewarded for their role in perpetuating the stinking policies of GWB&co.

Bottom line thread lesson over----class dismissed.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Craig234
I think a successful impeachment of Bush/Cheney would shoot their numbers up. The Republican congresses had higher numbers because they had the same 26% for Bush are for them, while the current congress loses them plus the democrats aren't thrilled with how little they seem to block Bush on some issues.

Would be the best thing the republican party could do for itself. Bush is republicans Carter but worse - I think it will take 20 years for them to recover.

That's nothing. I think it will take FORTY years to recover!

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Craig234
I think a successful impeachment of Bush/Cheney would shoot their numbers up. The Republican congresses had higher numbers because they had the same 26% for Bush are for them, while the current congress loses them plus the democrats aren't thrilled with how little they seem to block Bush on some issues.

Would be the best thing the republican party could do for itself. Bush is republicans Carter but worse - I think it will take 20 years for them to recover.

That's nothing. I think it will take FORTY years to recover!

It's be great if that were the case, but I don't think so. The public has a short memory.

The backlash for Watergate was strong in 1976 - then Reagan was elected in 1980.

 

[SigArms08]

Originally posted by: Rike

Originally posted by: eskimospy
What is left out of this is that while institutionally people find they don't like Congress, they tend to like their individual representative quite well. Since the whole country likes their reps and doesn't like the institution, what does this tell you? It means that people have a chance to bitch and whine about an institution without having to compromise their partisanship and adherence to their candidate. This is not possible for the presidency.

In general if you check the approval ratings of Congress, they tend to really suck. This is a big reason why.

That's it right there. You'd get the whole story if you asked people about their rep and senators first and then ask them about Congress in general. Generally, you can drive a Mac truck through the gap between those two ratings.

But the public was sold on the belief on sweeping changes if the Dems won. In the business world, if you don't produce and/or deliver to the stockholders, you're done. With politics, people like you offer endless excuses as to why things aren't, and can't, improve. You seem very satisfied with it. Most of the US is not. Party politics is supposed to be about teamwork.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Craig234
I think a successful impeachment of Bush/Cheney would shoot their numbers up.

Good fucking lord... It would take longer than the six months he has left to impeach him. What's the point of that? Right now impeachment would have the same relevance as the congressional hearings into steroids in baseball. Hmm... maybe I'm on to something there... Maybe congress should look into the NBA ref thingy... o wait. :disgust:

Let it go...

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Yet another reason why we should ratify term limits for those in congress. Some members have been in so long as to become institutions themselves. People in those individual districts either keep electing them to "bring home the bacon" or because no viable alternative exists. In other districts, people may vote for change but find that the resulting new congress (with many new members) is just as ineffective as the last one due to the influence of the older members and the institutionalized power of seniority. Congress deserves its low approval rating, imho. They have yet to realistically act on any of their mandates with other than ceremonial/token opposition to the actions of the previous one.

Term limits are a terrible idea. Campaign reform is the answer, not term limits. We benefit from great long-time legislators like, say, Henry Waxman who have the decades of experience needed to provide effective oversight, not being 'new' legislators the permanent bureaucracy can dodge. Having a lot of new fresh faces the public only knows through marketing will only increase the power of the smoke-filled room operators who decide who gets the party endorsement, and leave the public voting for strangers who owe the people who got them the nomination more than they owe the voters, where the voters get little more than slick advertising campaigns over and over. Legislators who earn a long-time standing with the voters get some autonomy to vote how they think is right, not to need to do as they're told by the party as much.

On some of the worst party votes, we've seen the party leadership threaten members if they vote the other way. Do we want legislators who can say no to that pressure?

You can make the same argument about the executive as well. However, after four terms of FDR, it was clear that even the best politicians shouldn't stay in office forever. It is good to have experience in office, but past a certain point it becomes detrimental. I do advocate term limits, but not necessarily 2 terms/10 years like the president currently has. Congress should obviously have longer limits. I'd propose something like 5 terms for the House as they serve 2-year terms. That would be a decade, which I think is reasonable. Senators, 3 terms, which is nearly 2 decades. Of course what time limit you set is debatable, and it is a debate worth having.

 

[Fern]

The citizenry is badly polarized, and neither side is happy with their party (or the other of course).

E.g., the Dem side wanted an (immediate) end to the Iraq *war*, impeachment and no immunity etc and hasn't gotten any of it. Most on the Repub side hate the spending (the Dems too), open borders, proposed give-aways to Countrywide and others. And everybody hates high gas prices.

What's to like?

Fern

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Fern
The citizenry is badly polarized, and neither side is happy with their party (or the other of course).

E.g., the Dem side wanted an (immediate) end to the Iraq *war*, impeachment and no immunity etc and hasn't gotten any of it. Most on the Repub side hate the spending (the Dems too), open borders, proposed give-aways to Countrywide and others. And everybody hates high gas prices.

What's to like?

Fern

Plus it's easier to blame an institution than an individual. I forgot where I saw this, but there was a study that said that the vast majority of people rated their happiness with their individual representatives MUCH higher than their happiness with Congress as a whole. And there is also the political angle as well. Republicans responding to the survey could be talking about Democrats in Congress, and Democrats could be talking about Republicans. The question is too vague.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Fern
The citizenry is badly polarized, and neither side is happy with their party (or the other of course).

E.g., the Dem side wanted an (immediate) end to the Iraq *war*, impeachment and no immunity etc and hasn't gotten any of it. Most on the Repub side hate the spending (the Dems too), open borders, proposed give-aways to Countrywide and others. And everybody hates high gas prices.

What's to like?

Fern

Plus it's easier to blame an institution than an individual. I forgot where I saw this, but there was a study that said that the vast majority of people rated their happiness with their individual representatives MUCH higher than their happiness with Congress as a whole. And there is also the political angle as well. Republicans responding to the survey could be talking about Democrats in Congress, and Democrats could be talking about Republicans. The question is too vague.

The funny thing is, the Republicans give this Democratic Congress a higher rating than Democrats give it. However, Bush's approval comes almost 100% from Republicans.

 

[Rike]

Originally posted by: Cairoswordsman

Originally posted by: Rike

Originally posted by: eskimospy
What is left out of this is that while institutionally people find they don't like Congress, they tend to like their individual representative quite well. Since the whole country likes their reps and doesn't like the institution, what does this tell you? It means that people have a chance to bitch and whine about an institution without having to compromise their partisanship and adherence to their candidate. This is not possible for the presidency.

In general if you check the approval ratings of Congress, they tend to really suck. This is a big reason why.

That's it right there. You'd get the whole story if you asked people about their rep and senators first and then ask them about Congress in general. Generally, you can drive a Mac truck through the gap between those two ratings.

But the public was sold on the belief on sweeping changes if the Dems won. In the business world, if you don't produce and/or deliver to the stockholders, you're done. With politics, people like you offer endless excuses as to why things aren't, and can't, improve. You seem very satisfied with it. Most of the US is not. Party politics is supposed to be about teamwork.

I didn't offer an excuse, but an analysis of reality. Politics is not business, even though they overlap frequently. And I said nothing about my level of satisfaction with government.

Getting upset with our structure of government is like complaining that a barn doesn't make a very comfortable house for people to live in. Of course it doesn't, that's not what it was built to do. You could turn it into a nice place for people to live, but that will require some significant and substantial changes to the most basic functioning of the structure. Once you've made the changes, it can be very nice for people, but then you don't have any way to fulfill the functions that the barn provided.

Here's the crux of the matter in politics, the basic structure and rules of politics in a country dictate a majority of the form politics will take in that country. For example, the things we don't like about Congress are largely the result of the way that Congress is chosen. I don't vote for Congress as a whole,; I vote for my rep and two senators and I, like most people, will vote my own self interest. And thus the major concern of my rep and senators is the interest of their constituents. Not every member of Congress sees things that way, but most do. So why would it come as a great surprise to anyone that most people disapprove of Congress when only 3 out of the 535 people in Congress actually care about what any particular person in the country thinks? A non-parliamentary, locally chosen representative legislative body with separate branches of government is never likely to have a very high approval rating, regardless of the particular policies it implements. However, as I said before, if you ask the individual voter how he or she feels about the three members of Congress they get to vote for, you'll see, on average, vastly higher approval ratings.

All of this has nothing to do with me being in favor of or against "change," or "fixing the mess in Washington." These are structural issues and are at the heart of how politics work.

 

[Cold Steel]

Originally posted by: Craig234


Term limits are a terrible idea. Campaign reform is the answer, not term limits.

I agree that term limits are a bad idea. I also agree that campaign reform is SOME of the answer, though I'm pretty sure that we'd disagree about the details.

I don't think anyone running for office should be able to raise their own campaign funds. It should come from a general fund that's set up for all those running. Everyone who meets some sort of minimum criteria, a certain number of support signatures or something along those lines, gets the same amount. Obviously, running for president should get a larger amount than a congressman, etc. But that's the general idea.

Also, the campaign season should be curtailed significantly. Something like one month for congressmen, two months for senators, three months for president. Doesn't have to be those specific numbers, but again that's the general idea.

This would allow a greater chance for non-encumbents to challenge successfully. It would eliminate the payback for contributions and it would limit the time the encumbent spends campaigning instead of doing his/her job.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Cold Steel

Originally posted by: Craig234

Term limits are a terrible idea. Campaign reform is the answer, not term limits.

I agree that term limits are a bad idea. I also agree that campaign reform is SOME of the answer, though I'm pretty sure that we'd disagree about the details.

Good to hear. What do you see other than campaign finance reform?

I don't think anyone running for office should be able to raise their own campaign funds. It should come from a general fund that's set up for all those running. Everyone who meets some sort of minimum criteria, a certain number of support signatures or something along those lines, gets the same amount.

A problem with this is that on the one hand if the bar is too easy, you get too many candidates and not enough ways to sort them out, and if the bar is too difficult you're right back where you started that candidates need money to get the name recognition and image established. For there to be any meaningful sorting out, the evaluators need enough info about the candidates to evaluate them, and that's expensive with a lot of candidates (and encourages the worst sorts of pandering if not dishonesty in the campaigns).

It may also give an advantage to those with established names like Arnold Schwarzeneggar.

The best systems I've come up with involve where you take a statistically significant sampling of voters and educate them on two or more candidates and poll them. But at that point you're really getting into a micromanaged system that raises issues with the freedom of the voters to pick who they want. So, we may need to settle for a less perfect but simpler system that curbs some abuses.

Also, the campaign season should be curtailed significantly. Something like one month for congressmen, two months for senators, three months for president. Doesn't have to be those specific numbers, but again that's the general idea.

And what do you do with the ways they work around the rules, like 'issue stories' that just happen to interview the same person, but not referring to him as a candidate? If Al Gore wanted to run for president, would his visibility as a leader on Global Warming have to be stopped or would he get the big advantage over candidates who did not campaign?

This would allow a greater chance for non-encumbents to challenge successfully. It would eliminate the payback for contributions and it would limit the time the encumbent spends campaigning instead of doing his/her job.

Those are good goals, the trick is how to do them. We like to see the result Obama has got, a grass roots campaign, but he's the exception - if we require that, it won't work. Usually, the candidates with special interest money would have beaten the ones without. How about if we let PBS have a big budget for educating the public on the candidates, once we figure out how to get a short list?

 

[Cold Steel]

The trick is definitly how to do them. I admit my solution is far from perfect. It's more a thought process right now. There's tons of details that you correctly point out that would need to be solved. It's more of a concept on my part.

I would like to open up campaigning to more candidates so the encumbents don't get so entrenched. I would like to see the payola stopped so the candidate wouldn't feel the need to pass legislation that may favor a large donor. I would like to see a shorter campaign season just because it goes on way too long, the encumbent ends up spending way too much time glad handing for cash and not doing the real job of legislating. That's the gist of it.

Edit:
I also realize that none of this will ever happen. Too bad, in my opinion.