(And, in Washington state, to Congressmen Inslee, Larsen, Baird, Dicks, McDermott, and Smith.) This was fast work.
The percentage of Americans with a "great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in Congress is at 14%, the lowest in Gallup's history of this measure -- and the lowest of any of the 16 institutions tested in this year's Confidence in Institutions survey. It is also one of the lowest confidence ratings for any institution tested over the last three decades.
Pelosi and Reid's ideological allies in the "mainstream" media are not doing very well, either.
Americans have relatively low levels of confidence in the Fourth Estate. Just 23% of Americans have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in television news, and only 22% express the same sentiment for newspapers. Neither of these two entities has done exceedingly well in Gallup's history, but both are particularly low this year.
It is only fair to add that confidence fell for almost all the institutions Gallup asked about, and that it is low in the presidency (25 percent), as well.
But the decline in the Congressional ratings does lead naturally to two questions: President Bush's opponents in Congress and the "mainstream" media often cite his low ratings as evidence of failure. If they make that argument, should they admit that they have failed, too? And, if they judge by these ratings, shouldn't they conclude that they are worse failures than President Bush, since they have even lower ratings?
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(Just so there is no misunderstanding, I will add that I do not think that popularity ratings are a good way to judge any of these institutions, and that I do not share the general pessimism found by the survey. But I also think that the Democratic Congress deserves its low ratings.)
Posted by Jim Miller at June 21, 2007 06:08 AM | Email ThisNow that the Ds are in power, their lower ratings were because of not ending the Iraq War which causes Ds to give them low marks. Of course, the Rs already had them low rated.
Congress' and the President's handling of immigration is the latest example of "tone deafness" of these institutions. This issue has caused Congress to sink lower this last batch of polls.
And yet, Dick Morris' book- Outrage- hasn't even been factored in. Nor, the silent treatment by the MSM by the trick maneuver (caught by the Rs) to insert billions of "earmarks" by the Ds at the last minute in one of the bills they tried to pass last week. So much for the promise of "no more earmarks", unless transparent.
Posted by: swatter on June 21, 2007 06:52 AMThe corporate press, perhaps with the exception of Tim Russert, has attempted to foist off on us this idea that the Iraq war was the defining issue of the 2006 election.
Corruption was the issue in 2006 and the Dems current numbers shows their honeymoon on that issue is over (and what a short one it was).
Is anybody out there able to network me into the Bloomberg organization?
Posted by: Douglas Tooley on June 21, 2007 07:58 AMhttp://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll513.xml
(Of course, RonPaultheBoomlet voted "no."
Posted by: steve miller on June 21, 2007 08:02 AMWe have a lot more pain to endure as a result of Bush's bungling and the shenangigans of DeLay, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al, not to mention the virtual (and inexplicable) capitulation of McLain, Graham, Kyl, and Lott to the DNC.
Let's just hope Chelsea makes a good HEW secretary (and that she's not gay...because she's being groomed for 2016, and that's the "breakthrough" that will finally put the USA down for good, like an old, lame, blind horse).
Posted by: Rey Smith on June 21, 2007 08:13 AMI wrote to the President and Congressman Norm Dicks on this issue and received a response from neither. My contention is that the amnesty bill being considered by Congress pacifies "mainstream" Democrats by legalizing a whole new class of victims who will eventually become Democrat voters. "Mainstream" Republicans like the cheap labor illegal immigrants provide for their businesses. Therefore the Bush/Kennedy collusion.
Conservatives such as myself want illegals rounded up and sent home and our borders secured. Most conservatives have no objection to LEGAL immigration or documented seasonal workers, but are concerned with the cost (in dollars and security) of having millions of undocumented aliens running around inside our borders. SAY NO TO AMNESTY!
Posted by: Saltherring on June 21, 2007 08:23 AM
The D's in congress are pretty lame, afraid to keep sending that timetable bill back for veto after veto. Like the R's did with welfare reform.
Pretty much all our leaders are lame.
Posted by: Seattle Democrat on June 21, 2007 08:35 AMJDH, my outrage with Congress is that family members get huge salaries while the electeds get their above average salaries. And those huge salaries are either paid by the lobbyists or by the Congressman's own personal campaign contributions (or payback). It stinks, but it isn't yet illegal.
Two in particular are Pelosi, Reid, Feinstein and Hastert.
Posted by: swatter on June 21, 2007 09:30 AMWhere's Walt Kelly?
Posted by: John Bailo on June 21, 2007 09:46 AMWe like it when congresscritters are corrupt for our own likings. Democrats stuff bills with earmarks? Cool! I'm a liberal! Republicans stuff bills with earmarks? CORRUPTION! Call the media!
We only grumble about congresscritters. But we don't actually do anything but write e-mails.
What congresscritter is really scared his/her constituents might revolt? None.
Posted by: steve miller on June 21, 2007 09:53 AMI agree with you on your comments. But, Bush is responsible to run the government and enforce regulations. He hasn't.
Posted by: swatter on June 21, 2007 10:57 AMLet me guess: you are referring to the border agents who broke the laws about attempted murder, destroying evidence, and lying to their superiors. How is that "doing their jobs"? Those aren't jobs I want my government doing.
start acknowledging English as the language of our land
Anyone who think this needs further "acknowledgment" is severely disconnected from reality.
and insisting everyone use it
Should we change the constitution to also "insist" that people say the right things, or should we let them say anything as long as it's in English?
Posted by: Bruce on June 21, 2007 11:03 AMPress one for English.
Posted by: katomar on June 21, 2007 11:34 AMSome people may like that, of course, but you criticized the Congress as being a "do-nothing" Congress. Under Paul it would do less.
Posted by: pudge on June 21, 2007 11:43 AMIt seems that's what this country needs, someone to shake things up. W. went from the highest approval rating on record to the lowest on record in just a few short years.
The deeper you look into the Iraq war the more you see failure at just about every level of his Administration. From planning to execution it's been botched the entire way through.
It's time for a revolution in this country and the only true revolutionary running for office is Ron Paul. It seems to me that only he can lead this country back to the greatness it once possessed.
Ron Paul definitely got my vote!
Bruce @ 17 and katomar @14 & 18: I agree with katomar that English should be the language of the land. That said, take a moment to view a few listings on craigslist and scrutinize the capitalization, spelling, word usage and punctuation. Is this what the language has become? Are these people employed? Did any of them complete the third grade? My God, how fast and far this country has fallen.....
Posted by: Saltherring on June 21, 2007 12:18 PMBut is there really any doubt that English is the language of the land? Our Declaration of Independence is in English. Our Constitution is in English. Our laws are in English. The entire establishment -- public and private sectors -- speaks English. English is everywhere. The media and internet have helped promote English throughout the world, even in countries where it's not the official language. Every immigrant in the US knows that to get ahead, he/she must learn English.
This is not seriously a question of protecting your English-speaking heritage, is it? It's a question of discomfort with people who are different, who haven't yet found the time or money or school or ability to learn English as well as you or they would like. Such people are painfully aware of the handicap they face every day. As a decent human being, I want to help people communicate, just as people throughout the world have patiently spoken English with me because I didn't speak their language. English-language laws are just a way of sticking it to people who are trying to get by in difficult circumstances. They may sound good in theory but they are mean in intent and damaging in effect.
Posted by: Bruce on June 21, 2007 12:53 PM"sticking it to people who are trying to get by in difficult circumstances."
Yeah, like entering and living in a country illegally?
Posted by: Saltherring on June 21, 2007 01:12 PMWhat the hell. We'd all just live forever, anyway, and get to watch the Olsen twins sworn in as Presidenttes.
Posted by: Rey Smith on June 21, 2007 02:44 PMBsidez, txtN shud b d official USA lngwij...LOL!!
Posted by: Cato on June 21, 2007 02:46 PMIt has been scientifically proven that anytime someone puts LOL in reference to something they are writing, it is never funny despite the writer's assertion.
Have a nice day. LOL!!
Posted by: LOL on June 21, 2007 03:13 PMHypocrits
Posted by: GS on June 21, 2007 06:43 PMNever mind, I don't really want to know.
Posted by: pudge on June 21, 2007 08:24 PM"The troops support congress and want them sent home now"
Anyway, I would consider it an honor and a privilege if you would add my blog "The
Tygrrrr Express" www.blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com to your list of linked sites
if you feel the quality is high.
I came across your blog through Michelle Malkin's website, since I enjoy her
writing.
Happy summer.
eric