You think Bush sucks? Try this in the continuing saga of the least underreported polling story of the century:


Sinking Like A Stone (http://powerlineblog.com/archives/018000.php)

This is not what the Democrats had in mind: after five months in control of Congress, they have driven the institution's approval rating down to the lowest point ever measured by Gallup: only 14% of respondents expressed "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in Congress.

In the current survey, Congress ranks last among the institutions measured, just below HMOs. At the top, as usual, is the military, at 69%. Harry Reid might want to be careful about whom he's calling incompetent.

It's a mistake to put too much weight on a single poll of this sort, of course, but it's obvious that the Democrats have made a poor impression on the public so far. The conventional wisdom is that the Republicans have little chance of re-taking either the House or the Senate in 2008. That may well be right. But if the Democrats don't do something positive between now and then, the Republicans won't have to be any luckier in the close races than the Democrats were in '06 to recapture one or both houses.

At 29% that makes Bush's approval rating slightly more than double that of congress. How much farther can this Democrat-led congress fall?

Hello its:

I think they ALL suck. Certainly, the republicrats suck as much as the demopublicans - maybe even more. There ain't an RCH's difference in 'em.

It's the perfect time for Ron Paul.

excon

Whoa!! Congress actually has lower approval ratings than HMOs!? How the hell did they do that?

And imagine if the government is in charge of health care, as Hillary is pushing for! Then HMOs and Congress can have exactly the same approval ratings!!

Elliot

Hello its:

I think they ALL suck. Certainly, the republicrats suck as much as the demopublicans - maybe even more. There ain't an RCH's difference in 'em.

It's the perfect time for Ron Paul.

I don't know about Ron Paul, but it seems Nader might be thinking it's the perfect time (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections08/story/0,,2108468,00.html) for him again, lol.

Whoa!!! Congress actually has lower approval ratings than HMOs!?!?! How the hell did they do that?

Lied to win an election?

RRRRAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF!!

The reason for discontent of Congress was best expressed by Harry Reid

"I understand their disappointment. We raised the bar too high

Bwaaahaaahaaahaa!! More like they raised the bar just high enough to duck under it.

Hear the latest ? They plan on sneaking all the earmarks into legislation during conference committee sessions AFTER bills are voted for.

BTW The MSM isn't fairing very well in polls either . 23% of Americans have confidence in television news, and only 22% express the same sentiment for newspapers.

We raised the bar too high?? Too high for them to crawl under or what? I honestly don't believe Harry Reid has a clue. About anything. Or Pelosi for that matter - after getting booed and heckled over Iraq she offered this claim:


PELOSI: The biggest -- and so when we talk about conducting Congress in the highest -- to the highest ethical standard, with the most fiscal discipline, no new deficit spending and in the most civil way, we have to recognize that the biggest ethical challenge facing our country is the war in Iraq.

More info on the Gallup poll .

The institution that has the highest ratings by Americans is the US Military . (about a 5:1 ratio compared to support for Congress. )

Americans' Confidence in Congress at All-Time Low (http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=27946)

Also Under Sec Def Bill Carr pointed out in an interview that despite a continued low unemployment rate ;the active branches of the military have all exceeded their recruitment goals so far this year.

Vote them all out and start over anew. None of them care about the people only their own pocket.

Speaking of Speaker San Fran Nan

Did you see she wants to turn the Capital green ? (at tax payers expense of course )

Speaker Nancy Pelosi | News Room | Press Releases (http://speaker.house.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=0222)


First, since electricity use is the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions from House operations, the Speaker has directed that all purchased electricity must come from renewable energy sources (such as solar or wind power.) Buying from these clean sources immediately eliminates 57,000 tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually (equivalent to instantly and permanently removing 11,000 cars from the road).

This will do nothing except drive up the cost of electricity use in the Capitol . The electricity generated by power plants will just be sold to someone else.


The second effort designed to achieve carbon-neutrality calls for the House of Representatives to stop burning coal at the Capitol Power Plant. This action will reduce the emissions from the plant by 30 percent. The cost associated with switching to cleaner natural gas has already been placed in the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill that the House will vote on this week.

Besides costs issues of conversion and paying the extra $$ for natural gas ;which is costlier because supplies are no where's near as abundant as coal ;and the small fact that it almost achieves no real greenhouse emissions reductions... I don't have a problem with this . I would prefer that she would announce instead that they would continue to burn the coal ,but install state of the art scrubbers to clean the emissions .


The third pillar of the carbon-neutrality strategy, the buying of the carbon offsets, balances out the remaining 24,000 tons of carbon emissions still being released into the atmosphere by House operations. Offsets are credits that are purchased (in this case from the Chicago Climate Exchange) to offset carbon emissions through investment in other U.S.-based environmentally-friendly projects.

Pay carbon offsets!! To whom?? Al Gore??

This is the same person who wants to fly around on jumbo jets and to take family along on military provided free-rides .



the institution will dramatically reduce its overall energy consumption – by 50 percent – in just 10 years.

I can think of better ways to reduce energy consumption by Congress by 50% (and I'll resist the temptation to say they should just keep Teddy Kennedy's mouth shut :D ). Either turn off the A/C during the summer months or just go home for 6 months of the year . The mood of the nation is usually much better when they are on vacation anyway .

the Speaker has directed that all purchased electricity must come from renewable energy sources

Cool. Does she have wind turbines and/or the mass of solar arrays to power the capitol? I'm all for greening up the environment but this is for show. And I find these offsets are nothing more than a sham to make someone feel better... and someone else richer.

You guys missed the point... The article was talking about how Pelosi makes the Capitol green... as in sick to their stomachs.

Elliot

You guys missed the point... The article was talking about how Pelosi makes the Capitol green... as in sick to their stomachs.

It's not just the Capitol... remember those latest approval ratings?

someone gets rich off our energy consumption no matter what we do. Doesn't bother me if it shifts to a wind turbine company instead of Exxon.

Yeah, but not only is that jackass T. Boone Pickens trying to sell our water downstate, now he plans on building the country's largest windfarm (http://www.star-telegram.com/business/story/135616.html) in our backyard. I'd just as soon some people not get any richer.

Senate Democrats are crafting energy legislation to remove tax breaks enjoyed by the oil industry, including plans for $14 billion in taxes from oil companies over the next 10 years. This money would then be redistributed in the form of tax credits to renewable energy sources like wind, solar and biofuels.The legislation proposes $10 billion in royalty payments to be taken from companies that drill for oil and gas in federal waters.

Punishing high oil-industry profits is what is driving Evita Clinton and Chuck Shumer .(I did not hear them rushing to the oil industries defense when their profits plummeted in the 1990s) The tax breaks are being offered to companies that have yet to prove their market sustainability, while money that could be used to explore for more oil and natural gas on US territory is taken away because the oil companies make too much money.

Nuclear power also gets short shrift in the bill . It offers no tax incentives to companies to develop new plants to replace several facilities that will be going off line in the future

As a free marketeers I approve of plans to lift subsidies from the oil industry, but transferring those same subsidies elsewhere in the energy sector will only breed the same abuses that everyone complains of the oil industry. Yeah ;someone will make it rich ;but why do the tax payers have to add to the kitty ?

Sure I was . As much as I object to gas taxes I object to oil industry and agribusiness subsidies .