Democratic-Controlled Congress’ Approval Rating at 20%; 69% Disapprove

Congress’ Approval Rating at 20%; Bush’s Approval at 32%
by Joseph Carroll
Page:12PRINCETON, NJ — Gallup’s latest poll finds only one in five Americans approving of the job Congress is doing at this time. The public’s rating of Congress had shown slight improvements in recent months, but the current rating is down again and is among the lowest that Gallup has ever measured dating back to 1974. Americans’ assessment of the job President George W. Bush is doing is also quite negative and has shown little change over the past two months, with about one in three Americans expressing approval of him.

Congressional Job Approval

According to the Nov. 11-14, 2007, poll, 20% of Americans approve of the way Congress is handling its job, while 69% disapprove. Congressional job approval ratings tied their historical low point — an 18% reading in 1992 — in August of this year. Americans’ ratings of Congress showed some improvement in the following months, reaching 29% in mid-October before falling back again this month.

By historical standards, the current 20% approval rating is among the lowest Gallup has ever recorded. In fact, in the 173 times since 1974 that Gallup has asked Americans to rate the job Congress is doing, Congress’ approval rating has been at or below 20% only four times.

Republicans and Democrats do not differ much in their ratings of Congress at this time. Just 26% of Democrats say they approve of the job Congress is doing, while 20% of Republicans approve. Independents’ approval rating is lower still, at 14%.

Presidential Job Approval Ratings
Bush’s job approval ratings have shown little change in the past two months — 32% of Americans now say they approve of the job he is doing as president and 61% disapprove. Over the course of the year, Bush’s approval ratings have been fairly stable, averaging 34% and fluctuating between a high of 38% in April and his administration’s low point of 29% in July.

Combined Gallup data from the past two months show that ratings of Bush vary most by political attitudes:

Seventy-two percent of Republicans approve of the job Bush is doing, compared with 27% of independents and just 7% of Democrats.
A majority of self-described conservatives, 54%, approve of Bush, while only 25% of moderates and 9% of liberals do.
Among the combined party and ideology groups, conservative Republicans show the highest level of support for Bush, at 74%, while liberal Democrats show the lowest support, at only 4%.
Bush’s approval rating is higher among men than among women; among frequent churchgoers than among those who seldom or never attend religious services; among those living in the South than among those living elsewhere; among those in higher-income than among those in lower-income households; and among whites than among blacks. There are only minor variations in Bush’s approval rating by age and education.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/102829/Congress-Approval-Rating-20-Bushs-Approval-32.aspx?version=print

Congressional Democrats 0 for 40 on Iraq Retreat

Democrats zero for 40 on Iraq
By: Jim VandeHei and John F. Harris
November 13, 2007 09:46 AM EST

As the congressional session lurches toward a close, Democrats are confronting some demoralizing arithmetic on Iraq.

The numbers tell a story of political and substantive paralysis more starkly than most members are willing to acknowledge publicly, or perhaps even to themselves.

Since taking the majority, they have forced 40 votes on bills limiting President Bush’s war policy.

Only one of those has passed both chambers, even though both are run by Democrats. That one was vetoed by Bush.

Indeed, the only war legislation enacted during this Congress has been to give the president exactly what he wants, and exactly what he has had for the past five years: more money, with no limitations.

Disapproval of the Democratic majority in Congress has risen steadily, albeit with no corresponding increase in enthusiasm for Republicans.

Even more notably, public opinion about the war — while still dominated by opposition to a military adventure most people think was a mistake — has risen modestly in recent weeks, according to several nonpartisan polls.

Money woes keep GOP worried about 2008
Note to staffers: Trust your candidate
Rudy parody less than ‘glamorous’
Democrats plan to spend the December recess reviewing their strategy and determining if they missed opportunities to put limitations, even if they were smaller than war activists were demanding, on Bush’s war policies.

Some Democratic strategists are warning that congressional leaders are “muddling through” with a strategy that carries both political and military risks for the party.

John Podesta, who runs the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, is advising Democrats to try to shift war policy around the edges while carefully setting the stage for an easier withdrawal when the next president takes office.

There may well have been paths not taken this year that would have produced better results.

But what the year has mostly highlighted is that Democrats and anti-war activists were in the grip of two illusions after their triumph in the 2006 elections.

The first illusion is that taking power on Capitol Hill was by its very nature — no matter the precise legislation that emerged — something that would alter the basic dynamics of Iraq policy.

Instead, it’s now clear that even a weakened, and in many ways discredited, president remains the dominant policymaker on Iraq.

For 50 years, legislators of both parties have ceded war-making power to the executive branch, and there is no reversing that in a matter of months — least of all when the opposition party is itself divided over what to do.

What’s more, it turns out that Washington matters less than many Democrats and even many journalists supposed in determining political momentum in the Iraq debate.

Events on the ground — including regular, if still fragmentary, evidence that security is improving somewhat in the wake of the military’s “surge” policy — matter more.

The second illusion is that Democrats could stall substantively and still prosper politically.

A few months ago, many lawmakers were saying something like this: “It’s true we can’t force Bush’s hand on Iraq because we do not have veto-proof majorities. But the longer he sticks with an unpopular war, the better it will be for Democrats, and eventually the moderates and war skeptics in the GOP will stage a full revolt.”

This might yet come true by the next election, in 2008. For now, it looks like substantive weakness — the failure to drive policy changes on Iraq — has reinforced political weakness.

“Republicans (including the president) have made real progress in swaying opinion to their side, while 10 months of Democratic efforts have failed to persuade citizens that the war continues to be a disaster,” according to Charles Franklin, a University of Wisconsin political scientist who analyzed public opinion on the nonpartisan Pollster.com.

“The war of partisan persuasion has tilted towards the Republicans and away from the Democrats, at least in this particular aspect.”

This surprising turn has prompted a what-if debate among Democratic lawmakers.

Some of them have told us privately that their leaders botched a chance earlier this year — before the surge appeared to have some success — to work with Republicans on modest restrictions on the war.

House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) told us last week his biggest fear early on was that Democrats would seek compromise solutions with moderate Republicans on the war and other issues.

Blunt suggested the strategy probably would have worked.

But once Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.), a staunch war opponent, returned from a visit to Iraq and applauded the surge, any chance of a compromise clampdown ended.

Repeated predictions that GOP support was on the verge of collapsing never materialized, and Republican support for the war is probably stronger today than when Democrats took power.

Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, said the only strategic miscalculation Democrats might have made was “failing to grasp how much Republicans were willing to stick with the president.”

Still, he said Republicans pursued unity at their own peril.

“The Republicans own this thing, lock, stock and barrel.”

For the first time in years, Republicans are privately telling their members with a straight face that the war, in political terms, may be neutralized for next year’s election, which would have big ramifications for both sides.

A word of caution before we go into the numbers: Republicans remain broadly disliked, the war remains powerfully unpopular and opinion is prone to shift rapidly with events.

That said, 44 percent of Americans now believe the war is going “very” or “fairly” well, a high point in the past year, according to The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, a nonpartisan group.

At the same time, CBS News polling has found U.S. opposition to Bush’s troop surge softening a bit.

Yes, public opposition to the war remains high.

But there has been a small uptick even in the number of independents and Democrats who are optimistic the surge might work (though most remain pessimistic).

The Democratic base’s negative view of the war also has lessened of late.

This summer, CBS News found that 57 percent of Democrats thought the war was going “very badly.”

Today, the number has fallen by 12 points, to 45 percent.

The changing views probably have little to do with Congress, said Stephen Biddle, a senior fellow for defense policy at the Council on Foreign Relations.

“You have also had the near absence of the war coverage in the last months, and since the coverage is generally negative, the less coverage, the less negative communications that reaches people’s living rooms.”

Pew reported Friday that only 16 percent of Americans name the Iraq war as the news story that first comes to mind today — a huge shift.

In January, when Democrats took office, 55 percent of Americans said Iraq was on the top of their minds.
Pelosi is trying to end the congressional year on a familiar note.

She is pushing for a House vote on legislation that would directly tie new money for the war to specific troop withdrawals.

It would provide Bush only $50 billion of the $196 billion he requested for war operations.

And it has no chance of becoming law. Manley said the Senate would push similar legislation, likely next week.

Meanwhile, both sides must contemplate the most dispiriting piece of Iraq arithmetic of all.

At the start of the year, there had been 3,003 U.S. military casualties in Iraq.

Now there have been 3,860 — already making this the deadliest year of the five-year military campaign.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=3602EDC4-3048-5C12-005578659CDA41C0

KARL ROVE SAYS DEMOCRAT NANCY PELOSI’S HOUSE IS IN A MESS

A Failure to Lead

The Democratic Congress is more interested in acting out than in taking positive action.

BY KARL ROVE Friday, November 9, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST
This week is the one-year anniversary of Democrats winning Congress. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid probably aren’t in a celebrating mood. The goodwill they enjoyed after their victory is gone. Their bright campaign promises are unfulfilled. Democratic leadership is in disarray. And Congress’s approval rating has fallen to its lowest point in history.
The problems the Democrats are now experiencing begin with the federal budget. Or rather, the lack of one. In 2006, Democrats criticized Congress for dragging its feet on the budget and pledged that they would do better. Instead, they did worse. The new fiscal year started Oct. 1–five weeks ago–but Democrats have yet to send the president a single annual appropriations bill. It’s been at least 20 years since Congress has gone this late in passing any appropriation bills, an indication of the mess the Pelosi-Reid Congress is now in.
Even worse, the Democrats have made clear all their talk about “fiscal discipline” is just that–talk. They’re proposing to spend $205 billion more than the president has proposed over the next five years. And the opening wedge of this binge is $22 billion more in spending proposed for the coming year. Only in Washington could someone in public life be so clueless to say, as Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi have, that $22 billion is a “relatively small” difference.
Let’s also be clear about what it means to roll back the president’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, as the Democrats want to do. Every income-tax payer will pay more as all tax rates rise. Families will pay $500 more per child as they lose the child tax credit. Taxes on small businesses would go up by an average of about $4,000. Retirees will pay higher taxes on investment retirement income. And now we have the $1 trillion tax increase proposed as “tax reform” by the Democrats’ chief tax writer last month.

Failing to pass a budget, proposing a huge spike in federal spending and offering the biggest tax increase in history are not the only hallmarks of this Democratic Congress.
Beholden to MoveOn.org and other left-wing groups, Democratic leaders have ignored the progress made in Iraq by the surge, diminished the efforts of our military, and wasted precious time with failed attempts to force an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. They continue to try to implement this course, which would lead to chaos in the region, the creation of a possible terror state with the third largest oil reserves in the world, and a major propaganda victory for Osama bin Laden as well as for Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah.
After promising on the campaign trail to “support our troops,” Democrats tried to cut off funding for our military while our soldiers and Marines are under fire from the enemy. For 19 Senate Democrats, this was simply a bridge too far, so they voted against their own leadership’s proposal. Democrats also tried to stuff an emergency war-spending bill with billions of dollars of pork for individual members. Now the party’s leaders are stalling an emergency supplemental bill with funding for body armor, bullets and mine-resistant vehicles.
After pledging a “Congress that strongly honors our responsibility to protect our people from terrorism,” Democrats have refused to make permanent reforms of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that the Director of National Intelligence said were needed to close “critical gaps in our intelligence capability.” Their presidential candidates fell all over each other in a recent debate to pledge an end to the Terrorist Surveillance Program. Then Senate Democratic leaders, thinking there was an opening for political advantage, slow-walked the confirmation of Judge Michael Mukasey to be the next attorney general. It’s obvious that this is a man who knows the important role the Justice Department plays in the war on terror. Delaying his confirmation is only making it harder to prosecute the war.
Democrats promised “civility and bipartisanship.” Instead, they stiff-armed their Republican colleagues, refused to include them in budget negotiations between the two houses, and have launched more than 400 investigations and made more than 675 requests for documents, interviews or testimony. They refused a bipartisan compromise on an expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, instead wasting precious time sending the president a bill they knew he would veto. And they did this knowing that they wouldn’t be able to override that veto. Why? Because their pollsters told them putting the children’s health-care program at risk would score political points. Instead, it left them looking cynical.

The list of Congress’s failures grows each month. No energy bill. No action on health care. No action on the mortgage crisis. No immigration reform. No progress on renewing No Child Left Behind. Precious little action on judges and not enough on reducing trade barriers. Congress has not done its work. And these failures will have consequences.
Democrats had a moment after the 2006 election, but now that moment has passed. They’ve squandered it. They have demonstrated both the inability and unwillingness to govern. Instead, after more than a decade in the congressional minority, they reflexively look for short-term partisan advantage and attempt to appease the party’s most strident fringe. Now that Democrats have the reins of congressional power, their true colors are coming out and the public doesn’t like what it sees.
The Democratic victory in 2006 was narrow. They won the House by 85,961 votes out of over 80 million cast and the Senate by a mere 3,562 out of over 62 million cast. A party that wins control by that narrow margin can quickly see its fortunes reversed when it fails to act responsibly, fails to fulfill its promises, and fails to lead.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010843

Democrats Plan a Shorter Workweek

Democrats Plan a Shorter Workweek
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
WASHINGTON, Oct. 26 — Shortly after winning a majority last year, Democrats triumphantly declared that they would put Congress back to work, promising an “end to the two-day workweek.” And indeed, the House has clocked more time in Washington this year than in any other session since 1995, when Republicans, newly in control, sought to make a similar point.
But 10 months into the session, with their legislative agenda often in gridlock with the Bush administration and a big election year looming, the Democrats are now planning a lighter schedule when the 110th Congress begins its second year in mid-January.
The House majority leader, Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, told fellow Democrats this week that the House would not be in session next year on Fridays, except in June for work on appropriations bills.
Explaining that decision to reporters, Mr. Hoyer said, “I do intend to have more time for members to work in their districts and to be close to their families.”
His comments drew snickers from Republicans, who are quite happy to share their view that the American people did not get much value for all the extra time lawmakers spent in Washington.
“Is this a reward for our accomplishments in 2007?” asked Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the Republican whip.
And on Friday, President Bush once again hammered Congressional Democrats, accusing them of failing to meet basic responsibilities like approving annual budget bills and confirming his nominee for attorney general, Michael B. Mukasey.
“This is not what Congressional leaders promised when they took control of Congress earlier this year,” Mr. Bush said. “Congress needs to keep their promise, to stop wasting time, and get essential work done on behalf of the American people.”
The Democrats, by contrast, say that after 10 months of putting in longer days and weeks, they have made significant gains. They cited legislation, including an increase in the minimum wage and new ethics and lobbying rules, as well as in the nitty-gritty work of House committees, which they say has provided much-needed oversight of the Bush administration and will also set the stage for an ambitious agenda next year.
And they blame Mr. Bush and Republicans for Congress’s low approval ratings, which they say will only help the Democrats expand their majority in 2008.
“Certainly, it has been a sprint and a marathon at the same time this year,” said Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “We have accomplished a lot, especially on the domestic front.”
Mr. Van Hollen said he was not worried about Congress’s low approval ratings. “Every one of those polls also shows much stronger support for Democratic leadership than Republican leadership,” he said. “The president is lashing out because he recognizes that people see the White House as an obstacle to change.”
Still, Democrats conceded that the hectic pace had taken a toll, especially on lawmakers who must travel long distances home and who have small children. And members of Congress have not gotten a raise or cost-of-living increase this year.
On Wednesday, the House cast its one-thousandth roll-call vote of the year, the first time that it reached that mark since the Constitution was ratified. Democrats hailed the occasion, while Republicans sniped that only 106 of the votes were on bills ultimately signed into law, and that 45 of those bestowed names on post offices or other property.
“Unlike Congress, the American people do not mistake motion for progress,” said Representative Thaddeus G. McCotter, Republican of Michigan. “They want results. And given the approval ratings, they are certainly convinced they aren’t getting them.”
Mr. McCotter said changing the schedule was an example of Democrats’ breaking promises. “They said ‘five-day weeks,’ ” he said. And he scoffed at the notion that Mr. Hoyer was also responding to Republicans who wanted more time in their home districts.
“I wish he had that much concern and was as responsive to Republicans’ calls for input on major legislation,” Mr. McCotter said.
Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democrat of Florida, said the Democrats had to put in the hours to make up for Republican failings last year. “There was so much left undone by the 12 years of Republican control of the Congress, it was absolutely essential that we put our nose to the grindstone,” she said.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz has three children, 8-year-old twins and a 4-year-old. “It’s tough,” she said in a telephone interview from Orlando, where she had taken the children while she attended the Florida Democratic Convention there this weekend.
Mr. Blunt said he thought Democrats would regret this year’s schedule, which he said had distanced lawmakers from constituents.
Still, he said he and his colleagues would appreciate the Fridays out of session next year. “I would welcome, as I am sure all of our members would, a schedule that is more reflective of how the Congress should work,” Mr. Blunt said. “Rather than how it has worked in the last year.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/27/washington/27cong.html?ei=5065&en=439f1f8fa2e28929&ex=1194148800&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

As the Democrats Try to Undermine America’s Military, Support Wanes in House for Genocide Vote

Support Wanes in House for Genocide Vote
By CARL HULSE
WASHINGTON, Oct. 16 — Worried about antagonizing Turkish leaders, House members from both parties have begun to withdraw their support from a resolution supported by the Democratic leadership that would condemn as genocide the mass killings of Armenians nearly a century ago.
Almost a dozen lawmakers had shifted against the measure over the last 24 hours, accelerating a sudden exodus that has cast deep doubt over the measure’s prospects. Some representatives made clear that they were heeding warnings from the White House, which has called the measure dangerously provocative, and from the Turkish government, which has said House passage would prompt Turkey to reconsider its ties to the United States, including logistical support for the Iraq war.
Until today, the resolution appeared to be on a path to House passage, with strong support from the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi of California. It was approved last week by the House Foreign Affairs Committee. But this evening, a group of group of senior House Democrats had made it known they were planning to ask the leadership to drop plans for a vote on the measure.
“Turkey obviously feels they are getting poked in the eye over something that happened a century ago, and maybe this isn’t a good time to be doing that,” said Representative Allen Boyd, a Florida Democrat who dropped his sponsorship of the resolution Monday night. .
Others who took the same action said that while they deplored the mass killings of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire, beginning in 1915, the modern-day consequences in the Middle East could not be overlooked.
“We simply cannot allow the grievances of the past — as real as they may be — to in any way derail our efforts to prevent further atrocities for future history books,” said Representative Wally Herger, Republican of California.
“I think it is a good resolution and horrible timing,” said Representative Mike Ross, Democrat of Arkansas.
The Turkish government has lobbied heavily against the resolution, which is nonbinding and largely symbolic. But lawmakers attributed the erosion in support mainly to fears about a potential Turkish decision to deny American access to critical military facilities in that nation and its threat to move forces into northern Iraq to attack Kurdish rebels.
“This vote came face to face with the reality on the ground in that region of the world,” said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus and an opponent of the resolution.
The Bush administration and top American generals have been vocal in warning that passage of the resolution could cause great harm to the American war effort in Iraq and have put significant pressure on Republicans to abandon their support for the measure. President Bush called Ms. Pelosi today and asked her to prevent a floor vote on the resolution.
“The president and the speaker exchanged candid views on the subject and the speaker explained the strong bipartisan support in the House for the resolution,” said Brendan Daly, a spokesman for Ms. Pelosi.
The Democratic leadership has been examining the exact level of that support to gauge its next step, but lawmakers and officials said it was now unclear whether the resolution could be approved, given Republican resistance and Democratic defections. “We will have to determine where everyone is,” said Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the majority leader.
Ms. Pelosi, who has promised a vote on the resolution if it cleared the Foreign Affairs Committee, said she was leaving it to its chief backers to round up votes. “I have never known a count,” she said.
Backers of the resolution, which has the fervent backing of the Armenian-American community, described the loss of support as slight and attributed it to the intense lobbying by the Turkish government, the Bush administration and their allies. They said they would try to change the minds of some of those who were wavering.
“This is what happens when you are up against a very sophisticated multimillion-dollar campaign,” said Representative Brad Sherman, Democrat of California, who chided the Turkish government. “Since when it has become fashionable for friends to threaten friends.”
But he acknowledged there was little margin of error for backers of the resolution, which had once boasted 225 co-sponsors. “If the vote were held today, I would not want to be my house on the outcome,” he said.
Mr. Sherman and others noted that Turkey, at the start of the Iraq war, had refused to let American forces operate from its territory, and that Turkey’s intentions toward the northern border of Iraq had clearly captured the attention of Congress.
American military officials in Iraq and in Washington said today that they were concerned about possible Turkish military incursions into northern Iraq against the Kurdish rebels, which the Turkish government blames for a wave of attacks in eastern Turkey.
At the moment, these officials said, they did not see many indications that Turkish military was preparing for large-scale incursion into the mountainous strongholds of the Kurdish rebels. They d expressed hope that diplomatic efforts under way between Iraqi and Turkish officials would ease the crisis.
“We see no signs that there’s anything imminent by Turkey,” one senior military officer said. “So there’s time for the diplomacy to work for a few more days, if not weeks.” But, he added, the situation could get “ugly” if Turkey sent troops across the border and they clashed with Kurdish militias or Iraqi forces.
The biggest fear, several former officials said, is that Turkish forces could push past the border and head for Kirkuk, forcing Iraq to respond and presenting the United States with mediating between two allies and a decision about whether to commit American troops. Such a crisis could also draw in Iran, which has also had growing problems with Kurdish groups crossing into its territory from Iraq.
In addition to the potential movement of Turkish forces, opponents of the Armenian genocide resolution continued to point to Turkey’s role as a prime staging area for moving American military supplies into Iraq.
“This happened a long time ago and I don’t know whether it was a massacre or a genocide; that is beside the point,” said Representative John P. Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who is urging Ms. Pelosi to keep the resolution from the floor. “The point is, we have to deal with today’s world.”
While the resolution enjoyed more than enough support to pass earlier this year, about two dozen lawmakers have removed their names from the official list of sponsors of the resolution in recent weeks as a vote on it grew more likely and the reservations grew more pronounced.
“I think there was genocide in Turkey, in 1915, but I am gravely concerned about the timing,” said Representative Jane Harman, a California Democrat who said she would l remain a co-sponsor of the resolution but at the moment would oppose it were it to reach the floor. “I see no compelling reason to do this right this minute.”
Representative Doug Lamborn, a Colorado Republican who dropped his backing of the measure today, said, “Nothing changes the fact that mass killings and unspeakable acts of brutality occurred. However, passing this nonbinding resolution at this critical time would be a destabilizing action when the United States needs the help of its allies, including Turkey, in fighting the global war on terror.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/17/washington/17cnd-cong.html?ei=5065&en=20af3ab48140086a&ex=1193198400&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

Democrat Nancy Pelosi Blames Senate for Slowdown

Pelosi sours on Senate
By Mike Soraghan and Manu Raju
October 17, 2007
Frustrated by lack of legislative progress in the Senate, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is increasingly touting Democratic achievements in the House.Her statements represent a significant shift from the stance she took six months ago. In March, the Speaker celebrated the first 100 days of the congressional majority by stating, “Democrats have brought the winds of change to the Capitol.”
These days, she’s confined to claiming those winds are blowing on her side of the building. In the minds of her caucus members, the Senate is in the doldrums and House members are paying the price for Senate inaction on Democratic priorities.When pressed on the slow progress of spending bills during ABC’s Sunday morning talk show “This Week,” Pelosi passed the buck to the Senate, saying, “In the House we’ve passed every one of our bills.”The change in talking points at the top reflects a deepening frustration among House Democrats, who are irritated with lack of progress in the Senate and are starting to publicly press their Senate counterparts to stop letting Republicans use procedural tactics and instead force Republicans to carry out a filibuster, if that’s what it takes. Pelosi’s shift in rhetoric is also strategic. There are 61 House Democrats serving in districts that President Bush carried in 2004, and many will face challenging reelection races. Senate Democrats have less to worry about as only a couple of them are considered serious targets this cycle.“I think it would be important for the American people to get a more concrete understanding of the lengths Republicans will go to in order to hold these things up,” said Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.). The comments also signal a growing unease within the House Democratic Caucus about the difficulty Senate Democrats are having in attracting sufficient GOP support for controversial bills. The Senate gridlock is undermining Democrats’ ability to tout the first Democratic-controlled Congress since 1994 and is playing a role in the public’s disapproval of the legislative branch. “It seems like the only way to do things is the Senate way,” Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-Fla.) said.Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), said, “Sen. Reid understands their frustration, he’s frustrated as well.”Manley said that Republicans have threatened 48 filibusters, which he added was on pace to break a 2-year record of 61.House Democrats emphasize that they voted to bring troops home from Iraq, finished their spending bills on time and passed an ambitious children’s health insurance plan. The Senate not only failed to pass an Iraq withdrawal bill, it came up short in trying to win over Republicans to support a plan that would have given troops more training and rest time. And the realities of the Senate forced House Democrats to scale back their plans to expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) from a nearly $50 billion-boost to the program to about a $35-billion increase over five years.“Our leadership’s caution is dictated by the Senate,” said Rep. Artur Davis (D-Ala.).Looking ahead, Democrats in the lower chamber see more unpalatable compromises on issues like tax policy, where they are disappointed to see their goals in the hands of cautious centrist Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.). House Democrats say on tax issues, they are constantly told that nothing can get off the ground unless nine or 10 Republican senators will agree to it.“Everybody says, ‘What can we get in the Senate?’” explains Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.). “So we have to go over to Max Baucus with hat in hand.”Senate Democrats claim they have made substantial progress, pointing to their ability to push through a sweeping package of ethics reforms, implementation of the 9/11 Commission recommendations and an increase to the minimum wage as well as plans to send at least one of the 12 annual appropriations bills to Bush as early as this week. Also, Senate Democrats note they — unlike the House — have the votes to overturn Bush’s veto on the SCHIP legislation.Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), who sits on the Finance Committee, said Senate Democrats were prepared to expand the SCHIP program further but recognized that it had to be trimmed in order to secure enough votes for passage.“There are different rules and different chambers, and a different political reality that we have to deal with,” Salazar said. “I think what ends up happening is that we play a constraining force on the House of Representatives given our rules and traditions of the Senate.”But Senate Democrats mostly complain that even on routine matters, such as proceeding to take up a bill, scheduling votes on amendments or naming senators to sit on conference committees, Republicans have objected and forced them to get the 60 votes needed to override objections – a tough task in a chamber where Democrats hold a 51-49 advantage. “The fact is it’s been hard,” said Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), who served in the House from 1980-92 and is now in his party’s leadership team as chairman of the Democratic Policy Committee. “The Republicans have been objecting even to motions to proceed of even to going to appropriations bills, so it’s not been an easy time for us. But we’re getting things done.”Republicans reject that criticism, maintaining Democrats have been stymied because they are regularly overreaching instead of compromising.“Let me get this straight: When they were in the minority, it was the majority’s fault when their agenda failed,” said Don Stewart, a spokesman for Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). “And now that they’re in the majority, it’s the minority’s fault? Seriously?”House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) complained last month about a “Republican-controlled Senate” and hasn’t backed down since. He agrees that Senate Democrats should force votes, rather than simply backing down when Republican senators use procedural maneuvers to block legislation.“If we don’t go to conference, there’s really no need to legislate anyway,” Rangel said. “I do believe if you let them have a couple of filibusters, instead of these agreements, you’d at least know the people’s House is in business.”But the sentiment is not universal. Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.) says he’s frustrated with the Senate, too. Yet, he added, “The Senate rules are the Senate’s rules.”During their 12-year reign from 1995-2006, House Republicans repeatedly criticized the Senate. But now confined to the minority, they have expressed admiration for the Senate GOP’s defensive maneuvers. Most of the anger that exists in the Democratic Caucus boils down to Iraq. Recognizing the Senate is far short of the 60 votes needed to bring troops home from the war, some House Democrats complain that even on measures that would chip away at Bush’s Iraq strategy, the Senate has been slow to act. For instance, when the House passed a bipartisan bill by a 377-46 vote, ordering Bush to report on his Iraq withdrawal plans, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) signaled he was in no hurry to bring that bill to the floor.The House overwhelmingly passed legislation in July that would ban permanent bases in Iraq, and roughly three months later, there has been scant action in the Senate on the issue. Similar language is included in the House’s defense spending bill, which is undergoing bicameral talks.Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) dismissed the House Democrats’ concerns, arguing that had it not been for House opposition in the past, there would already be a law on the books governing security outfits like Blackwater USA, which has come under withering criticism for a recent controversy involving shootings on Iraqi civilians. The House has since followed course, overwhelmingly approving a bill this month to provide more accountability for contractors.“We’ve been kind of ahead of the curve on that,” Levin said.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pelosi-sours-on-senate-2007-10-17.html

Bush Approval Falls to New Record Low: 24%; Congress 11%

Voters unhappy with Bush and Congress
Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:21am EDT
By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Deepening unhappiness with President George W. Bush and the U.S. Congress soured the mood of Americans and sent Bush’s approval rating to another record low this month, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.
The Reuters/Zogby Index, which measures the mood of the country, also fell from 98.8 to 96 — the second consecutive month it has dropped. The number of Americans who believe the country is on the wrong track jumped four points to 66 percent.
Bush’s job approval rating fell to 24 percent from last month’s record low for a Zogby poll of 29 percent. A paltry 11 percent gave Congress a positive grade, tying last month’s record low.
“There is a real question among Americans now about how relevant this government is to them,” pollster John Zogby said. “They tell us they want action on health care, education, the war and immigration, but they don’t believe they are going to get it.”
The dismal assessment of the Republican president and the Democratic-controlled Congress follows another month of inconclusive political battles over a future path in Iraq and the recent Bush veto of an expansion of the program providing insurance for poor children.
The bleak mood could present problems for both parties heading into the November 2008 election campaign, Zogby said.
“Voter turnout could still be high next year, but the mood has turned against incumbents and into a ‘throw the bums out’ mindset,” Zogby said.
The national telephone survey of 991 likely voters, conducted October 10 through October 14, found barely one-quarter of Americans, or 26 percent, believe the country is headed in the right direction.
The poll found declining confidence in U.S. economic and foreign policy. About 18 percent gave positive marks to foreign policy, down from 24 percent, and 26 percent rated economic policy positively, down from 30 percent.
A majority of Americans still rate their personal financial situation as excellent or good, although the number dipped slightly this month to 54 percent from 56 percent. In August, 59 percent rated their finances as excellent or good.
“Americans are still feeling good about a number of things in their lives, but not about the government’s leadership,” Zogby said. “They are giving up on this government.”
The Index, which made its debut last month, combines responses to 10 questions on Americans’ views about their leaders, the direction of the country and their future. Index polling began in July, and that month’s results provide the benchmark score of 100.
A score above 100 indicates the public mood has improved since July. A score below 100 shows the mood has soured, and a falling score like the one recorded this month shows the nation’s mood is getting worse.
The RZI is released the third Wednesday of each month.
In the 2008 White House race, Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York tightened her grip on the top spot in the Democratic nomination race with the support of 46 percent, up from 35 percent last month.
Her top rival, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, was at 25 percent, moving up slightly from last month’s 21 percent. Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina was third with 9 percent, and about 12 percent of Democratic voters were unsure of their choice.
Among Republicans, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani expanded his lead over Fred Thompson, the former senator and Hollywood actor. Giuliani led Thompson 28 percent to 20 percent, compared to last month’s 26 percent to 24 percent.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney jumped from 7 percent to 14 percent and moved past Arizona Sen. John McCain into third place. McCain fell from 13 percent last month to 8 percent.
More Republicans, 18 percent, said they had not made up their mind, leaving room for more shifts in the field. “We still have one in five Republicans undecided. That race is really up in the air,” Zogby said.
A majority of voters asked about former Vice President Al Gore said he should not run for the White House in 2008 despite winning the Nobel Peace Prize. About 51 percent said he should not enter the race and 40 percent said he should.
The Nobel award on Friday came halfway through the polling period. The Gore question was asked of 485 likely voters with a margin of error of plus or minus 4.5 percent.
The rest of the national survey had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.2 percentage points.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1624620720071017

Democrat Nancy Pelosi Wastes Time Having Meetings About Meetings

Pelosi turns Dem caucus into ‘meet market’
By: Ryan Grim Oct 10, 2007 05:56 AM EST
For the House Republican leadership when it was in the majority, meetings were often a formality. Decisions were made at the top, and after a perfunctory debate, members were informed how they were expected to vote. The new House majority has a different operating philosophy — one that requires more meetings. A lot more. “We do have an enormous number,” said Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.).
“There are a lot of meetings,” agreed Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), an ally of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). The large number of meetings says something about the kind of inclusive regime Pelosi intends to build. It also drives staffers nuts. One leadership aide said that Pelosi schedules meetings to talk about the agenda for the next meeting, leaving no time to get anything done. Those complaints fall on the deaf ears of members of Congress not forced to attend. “That’s because they have to go to the meetings,” said Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), explaining the staff gripes. “If they’re not worthwhile, I just don’t go,” said Frank, conceding that it’s a luxury his staff doesn’t have. Keeping them all straight can get tricky, even for Pelosi herself. Asked at a luncheon Tuesday about tax policy, she seemed to struggle while piecing together a packed schedule. “There are some other tax initiatives that I will check up on when I meet with my chairmen tomorrow morning, two different chairmen,” she said. “The chairmen meeting — all chairmen — then the energy bill chairmen. I referenced that meeting. That’s a different meeting tomorrow.” Partly, the tendency to hold tons of meetings is in the Democratic DNA. “We’ve always been less disciplinable,” said Frank. “That’s always been the Democratic way — I mean, Democratic as in Democratic Party — to get everybody in and get agreement and not just impose a position,” said former Rep. Marty Meehan, who recently gave up his Massachusetts seat to become chancellor at the University of Massachusetts, Lowell. “The Democratic Party is very diverse, with varying views on a host of issues: Iraq, health care, education. The speaker is trying to develop a consensus.” Conyers, Waxman and Frank also cited Pelosi’s desire to reach a consensus and said that the meetings are part of her leadership philosophy. Pelosi has aimed to strike a balance between party discipline and the flexibility to accommodate the political needs of a diverse caucus. The GOP has a fair measure of political diversity in its ranks, too, but consensus is generally reached with a hammer — and still is, despite the loss of The Hammer himself. “I just spoke to a Republican member who told me, ‘I’ve got to vote to recommit, but I really don’t support it,’” Conyers said after an Oct. 3 vote to increase the independence of the Government Accountability Office. Not a single Republican opposed the motion, as is often the case.
Pelosi: Iraq war is ‘biggest challenge’
Meanwhile, 80 Democrats broke with their party, giving the GOP a win on the vote. But such victories come at a cost, said Democratic leaders. “You imperil your members with strict discipline, and our people ran against them successfully,” said Frank. The desire to be open and reach consensus may be real, but the political strategy Frank refers to is a significant driver of the Pelosi policy. By allowing moderates, especially vulnerable freshman in districts that trend Republican, to buck her on small votes, Pelosi gives them the ability to tell constituents back home that they vote independently and are not under the thumb of the liberal woman from San Francisco. What’s more, the high number of meetings can have a psychological benefit for a party frustrated by its inability to end the war that is increasingly unpopular with the public. The meetings are a chance to vent and be heard. Waxman credited the meeting mentality for helping push Pelosi’s floor agenda. The speaker, after forcing strict discipline to accomplish the “100 hours” agenda at the beginning of the term, has passed every appropriations bill and allowed members to occasionally break with the party line. Pelosi herself has even broken with the caucus position on votes to fund the war. “I think that’s why we’ve had so much success on the floor,” Waxman, a Pelosi ally, said of the more open process. It’s not just the nature of the members and the party, but the agenda itself requires more meetings, said Frank. “We’re more activist than they are,” he said. “You need more meetings to say yes. The easiest thing to say is no.” Difficult as it may be to say yes, a House GOP leadership aide said excessive meetings have led less to consensus and more to stagnation. “That explains why they can’t get anything done,” he said.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6274.html

Democrat Nancy Pelosi refuses to allow "God" on flag certificates

Pelosi defends refusal to put “God” on flag certificates
Posted by Sabrina Eaton October 09, 2007 16:28PM
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi today defended the Architect of the Capitol’s refusal to permit use of the word “God” on official certificates enclosed with flags flown over the U.S. Capitol.
Dayton-area GOP Rep. Michael Turner and more than 100 of his Republican colleagues sent a letter to Pelosi last week after an Eagle Scout in his district asked that a flag flown over the U.S. Capitol be sent to his grandfather with a certificate inscribed with the message: “In honor of my grandfather Marcel Larochelle, and his dedication and love of God, country, and family.”
The boy and his father contacted Turner’s office after noticing the word “God” was left off the certificate included with the flag. Outraged upon learning that the acting Architect of the Capitol, Stephen T. Ayers, won’t allow religious expressions on flag certificates, Turner sent a protest letter to Pelosi.
“The Architect’s policy prohibiting “God” from appearing on certificates for flags flown over the U.S. Capitol puts at risk our religious freedoms and heritage,” said the letter, which also was signed by Ohio Republican Reps. Steve LaTourette of Bainbridge Township, Patrick Tiberi of Genoa, Jim Jordan of Urbana, Steve Chabot of Cincinnati and Jean Schmidt of Miami Township. “The Architect’s policy is in direct conflict with his charge, as well as the scope of his office and brings into question his ability to preserve a building containing many national religious symbols.”
Asked about the issue today at a press luncheon, Pelosi said the architect’s policy was adopted because “people were asking for statements that not only were religious, beyond using the word God, but political as well.” She said the official policy is to send a certificate that lists nothing beyond the date the flag flew over the Capitol and the name of its recipient. She said that members of Congress who request flags on behalf of constituents can “add whatever they wish” to the certificates, “whether it is a political statement or a religious statement.”
“It’s not about being anti-religion,” Pelosi said, noting that each day in the Capitol starts with a prayer. “It is just about what the architect thought was appropriate for him to proclaim in a certificate.”
Turner said Tuesday that he will continue seeking more signatures for his letter asking Pelosi to overturn the policy, and “if the speaker and the architect continue to implement their censorship program, we will drop legislation to compel the architect to return to granting inscriptions permitting the acknowledgement of God.”
He said members of Congress vet the appropriateness of messages constituents request with the flags, and their discretion should be sufficient.”We have the responsibility for these common sense issues that might arise with flag inscriptions and this one is basic,” Turner said. “The architect has decided the word ‘God’ is offensive. This rule should not be allowed to stand.”

http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2007/10/pelosi_defends_refusal_to_put.html

Despite Promises, Democrat-Controlled House Operations ‘As Partisan As Ever’

Partisanship rules panel
By Jackie Kucinich
October 04, 2007
Despite Democratic promises that the House Rules Committee would operate much differently in the new majority, it is as partisan as ever.
Furious with how the powerful panel has been directed this year, all four Republican members of the Rules Committee took to the floor Tuesday night to air their grievances publicly.During his speech, ranking member David Dreier (R-Calif.) lambasted Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) and Democratic leadership for failing to deliver on promises of an open, bipartisan legislative environment.“I have to say that when we look at this record over the past nine months, it is, to me, a very, very sad commentary that every single American has had their rights undermined on dealing with substantive public policy issues,” Dreier said, noting that a new website launched by the minority members would help document perceived abuses of power and procedure.While it can be argued that Tuesday’s floor speeches were just the latest in a series of public spats between the majority and the minority on the Rules Committee — where bickering has been a constant for decades — some members say that the atmosphere is sinking to new lows.Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass.), a committee member, laid the blame on both sides of the aisle.“Look, I think it’s fair to say that we could be a better majority, but they could also be a better minority,” McGovern said. “Republicans have tried to use the amendment process as a filibuster. If that is their tactic then we have no other choice than to structure the rules.”Longtime members, such as former ethics committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), expressed concern that the conduct of members in the Rules Committee could begin to make a large impact on the House as a whole through the denial of minority input and the rejection of amendments offered by the minority.Panel member Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) on Tuesday night cited a recent example: Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) was not permitted to enter the committee room when he was late to file his second-degree amendment, which is an amendment to an amendment.Caught in the crossfire are the panel’s four freshmen, several of whom went directly from contentious races to the House’s pressure cooker.“It’s not really my style,” said freshman Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.). “I just find some of the internal arguing a mystery to me.”Welch said he sometimes feels as though he is a part of two Congresses, one in the committee room and the other on the floor of the House, though he added he largely enjoys working on the panel for its attention to process and detail.He praised Slaughter’s leadership of the committee and said she fulfills the major requirement: to keep legislation moving through her committee and onto the floor.Rep. Michael Arcuri (D-N.Y.), a former prosecutor who is used to heated debates, said, “What is troubling is that regardless of how good an idea is, there generally is [dissent]” and partisan posturing.Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) said her former role as a local legislator prepared her well for the committee’s climate. “I come from local government … Unfortunately, my local county commission on which I served was noted for its personal attacks and dysfunction. I think I was elected because my constituents saw I could rise above that.“So the Rules Committee is quite tame compared to where I came from.”Upon her appointment to the head of the Rules Committee, Slaughter’s hopes were high for a more bipartisan panel.“I am going to work to restore civility, responsibility and accountability to the political process in the House of Representatives,” she said in an interview with The Buffalo News late last year.“We intend to put that olive branch out there and keep it out,” Slaughter said early this year, according to the Gannett News Service. “We want to make sure that good legislation gets to the floor, whether it’s from Democrats or Republicans. In the past, the Rules Committee has been used to kill some good legislation. We’re not going to do that anymore.”Months later, incivility thrives. Tempers still flare, the now-Republican minority feels slighted and the Democratic majority is accused of having the heavy hand.Last week, Republicans found an unlikely champion in Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who expressed frustration on the House floor with Slaughter’s decision to close a rule on a bill reported out of his committee, despite his request that the rule remain open for amendments.“I told her I was unhappy and that I thought it was a bad idea,” he said last week. “She said she thought it was a good idea.”In August, an exchange between committee member Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) and Slaughter turned ugly after the Texas lawmaker was cut off and told his speaking time was being given to another member seeking recognition, according to Sessions.Sessions then stormed from the room.“She no longer has the capacity to serve as chair[woman] of the committee,” he said later that afternoon.From a historical perspective, Slaughter is merely following precedent. Lawmakers have been leaving the tiny room angrily for generations, irritated by partisan rulings and a perception of actions that benefit only one side of the aisle.After one such partisan happening in the 1980s, then-House Minority Leader Bob Michel (R-Ill.) fumed, “They screwed us” as he strode angrily down the tiled hall, according to John M. Barry’s book The Ambition and the Power.In Walter J. Oleszek’s A Pre-Twentieth Century Look at the House Committee on Rules, he quotes then-Speaker Jim Wright (D-Texas) as saying, “The Rules Committee is an agent of the leadership. .. The rules of the House, if one understands how to employ them, permit a majority to work its will on legislation rather than allow it to be bottled up and stymied.”The Rules Committee is often referred to as the Speaker’s committee, and the majority members outnumber the minority 9-4. So it is not a surprise that there is a high level of partisan sniping, and reports of the clashes between Slaughter and Dreier are numerous, lending credence to the widely held contention that all majorities are alike. Democrats are quick to mention that the GOP majority in the House called late-night meetings and routinely denied amendments.Asked whether the venomous relationship between Dreier and Slaughter — she once referred to him as a “p—-k” in a New York publication — was a large part of the problem, a top Democrat who requested anonymity said yes.Republican members have repeatedly accused Slaughter of dismissing their concerns as “whining,” and they have decried her management style as rude and caustic, frequently cutting off GOP members.“The Rules Committee should be judged by the actions of the House and the strong record of bipartisan legislation that has passed the House,” a Democratic Rules Committee staffer said.While the bitterness runs deep for many on the committee, McGovern remains hopeful that a truce can be struck between the warring political factions, adding that he believed Slaughter was doing well at her post.“I’m an optimistic guy. I know a lot of Republicans who do not like the tactics of their party,” he said.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/partisanship-rules-panel-2007-10-04.html