posted July 14, 2007 02:06 PM            

We're not supposed to have believed a word demoscat said to get themselves elected. Too bad no one told American voters and citizens demoscats were all hot air and not to believe a word they said.

Gee, who would have believed Bush approval ratings would be 9 points higher than approval ratings for the demoscat Congress?

AP Poll: Public gives Congress low marks
By DARLENE SUPERVILLE
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

WASHINGTON -- In the eyes of the public, Congress is doing even worse than the president.

Public satisfaction with the job lawmakers are doing has fallen 11 points since May, to 24 percent, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll. That's lower than for President Bush, who hasn't fared well lately, either.

Bush has been taking heat over the Iraq war, his decision to spare a former top vice presidential aide from going to prison and his desire for an overhaul of immigration laws that critics said would give a free pass to illegal immigrants. His job approval rating in the AP-Ipsos survey remained virtually unchanged at 33 percent.

The 24 percent approval rating for Congress matched its previous low, which came in June 2006, five months before Democrats won control of the House and Senate due to public discontent with the job Republicans were doing.

Just two months ago, 35 percent of the public approved of Congress' work.

Poll respondents from both political parties say they're tired of the fighting between Congress and the White House, and want the two branches of government to work together on such issues as education, health care and the Iraq war.

"They don't approve of anything he does," Theresa Holsten, 55, a Republican and unemployed resident of Lawton, Okla., said of Congress. "He can't do anything right, according to what some people say. It irritates the living daylights out of me."

Tammy Lambirth, 42, a data researcher from San Antonio, disapproves of "all the fighting that they do all the time."

The latest tussle involves Bush's refusal to hand over documents and let former White House aides answer questions from the Democratic-controlled Congress about the firing of U.S. attorneys. The dispute could end up in federal court.

"The Republicans are just stonewalling everything, and the Democrats are just not stepping up and making them do what they need to do, especially about Iraq," said Lambirth, a Democrat. "They need to make our troops get out of Iraq."

While the public's approval of Congress has dropped 11 points since May, the percentage of Democrats who are turning up their noses at Congress - like Lambirth - nearly doubled. Among Republicans, though, not so much.

Approval among Democrats fell 21 points, from 48 percent in May to 27 percent.

It remained low among Republicans, at 20 percent, and has not changed significantly in the past two months.

Democrats won control of Congress on the strength of their promises to end the Iraq war, but so far have failed to do it. Bush vetoed one spending bill that included a deadline for ending the war, and Democrats don't have the votes to override him.

An increase in the federal minimum wage became law, but much of the Democratic agenda has cleared the House only to become bottled up in the Senate, where the party has a much narrower working majority.

Democrats need to be mindful of the public's satisfaction with Congress' productivity, especially as the party campaigns to win back the White House in elections next year, said political science professor Kenneth Sherrill.

"If you manage to persuade a very large number of voters, including an increasing percentage of people who associate with your own party that you're not capable of governing, you're in real trouble," said Sherrill, who teaches at Hunter College in New York City. "That is not a good message to send."

Among other survey findings:

-Bush's marks on his handling of the economy and domestic issues like health care, education and the environment, held steady, at 37 percent on the economy and 33 percent on domestic matters. Last month, Bush was at 37 percent approval for his stewardship of the economy, and 32 percent on domestic issues.

-On handling of foreign policy, including terrorism, 38 percent approved, compared with 35 percent last month.

-On handling the Iraq war, 31 percent approved, compared with 28 percent last month.

-One-fourth of the people, or 26 percent, said the country is headed in the right direction. Last month, 21 percent said the country was on the right track.

posted July 14, 2007 07:59 PM            

Oh.. is anyone else even remotely outraged at Edwards and Hellary trying to fix the election debates so that they can exclude certain candidates? Yeah... so much for playing fair...

Clinton, Edwards talk of limiting debate

Associated Press - July 13, 2007 2:23 AM ET

DETROIT (AP) - Democrats John Edwards and Hillary Rodham Clinton consider themselves among the top presidential candidates.

They were caught by Fox News microphones discussing their desire to limit future joint appearances to exclude some lower rivals after a forum in Detroit Thursday.

Edwards says, "We should try to have a more serious and a smaller group."

Clinton agrees, saying, "We've got to cut the number" and "they're not serious." She also says that she thought their campaigns had already tried to limit the debates and say, "We've gotta get back to it."

Others taking part in the forum sponsored by the NAACP were Senators Barack Obama, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden, Congressman Dennis Kucinich, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel.

One Republican, Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo, also participated.

------------------
Welcome back from the Sandbox Bear...I love you...Forever and a Day....

www.IMWITHFRED.com

posted July 15, 2007 01:40 PM            

quote:

---

Oh.. is anyone else even remotely outraged at Edwards and Hellary trying to fix the election debates so that they can exclude certain candidates? Yeah... so much for playing fair...

---

Not in the slightest. If I were a top tier candidate, and I wished to maximize my marketing through debate I'd want as much time to speak as possible.

posted July 16, 2007 12:14 PM            

That's been tried even here. Of course we know why leftists always try to shut everyone up who disagrees with them. Their ideas, ideology, statements and phony accusations cannot stand even the most casual scrutiny.

In the current congressional atmosphere, demoscats haven't accomplished a damned thing for all the hot air they vented out the wrong..lower, ofifice. That's why Bush has a higher job approval rating than congress.

Bush has accomplished a lot...tax cuts, almost full employment, corrupt corporate prosecutions, record tax revenues to government, and a wide list of social reforms and improvments...AND there have been no further attacks on the United States or our citizens since 9/11.

Demoscats on the other hand want to give terrorists the full range of civil rights as US citizens. They can't wait to surrender to international terrorism..in Iraq and elsewhere. These morons sing the terrorist anthem at every opportunity and it's sweet music to terrorist ears.

posted July 16, 2007 07:08 PM            

quote:

---

Edwards says, "We should try to have a more serious and a smaller group."

Clinton agrees, saying, "We've got to cut the number" and "they're not serious."

---

posted July 17, 2007 01:35 PM            

Exactly what the hell do you think it means when 2 leftist demoscats get together and talk about having "a more serious and smaller group"?

Or...ummm..."we've got to cut the number"...and they're not serious"? Ummmm

Let's see if I can clear up your concepts problem acoustic.

When the Breck Girl and Hillary talk about a "smaller group"..."a more serious group"..."a cut in the numbers", you probably think they're talking about reducing the number of people invited to the banquet...after the debates.

In reality acoustic, they're really talking about limiting the number of those who can be invited TO DEBATE.

You know acoustic, limiting the numbers to those who ARE SERIOUS candidates like the Breck Girl and Hillary....as defined by and identified by...the Breck Girl and Hillary

The convoluted minds of leftists are a scream Leftists are nothing like liberals who welcome debate, welcome the exchange of ideas and believe everyone should be able to express their own opinions and viewpoints.

posted July 17, 2007 02:32 PM            

You are exactly right. By limiting the numbers of those that are allowed to debate, they are able to decrease the number of challenging topics or points that may be introduced in those debates. Since Hillary, Edwards and Obama are so very similar, they don't want someone like Kucinich to bring up their past records or call them on their ever changing mind concerning the war.

------------------
Welcome back from the Sandbox Bear...I love you...Forever and a Day....

www.IMWITHFRED.com

posted July 17, 2007 07:10 PM            

quote:

---

Ummm acoustic, I already know you're definitions challenged. Now it appears you're also challenged by "concepts".

---

I've already proved this statement to be true only in the reverse. It's you who can't figure out what "all or most" means when used under the same column of a poll. It's you who didn't seem to understand that a lie is an untruth conveyed. Arguing words or language is an even worse endeavor than arguing politics with me.

quote:

---

In reality acoustic, they're really talking about limiting the number of those who can be invited TO DEBATE.

---

DUH!!!

Would you care to answer my question to you from my last post? Where exactly did they say that Kucinich shouldn't be heard?

Kucinich is free to set up his own debates. He's also free to lobby for his inclusion in future debates. No one is restricting him in any way. No one is "shutting him up."

quote:

---

By limiting the numbers of those that are allowed to debate, they are able to decrease the number of challenging topics or points that may be introduced in those debates.

---

Pid, you mistake Kucinich for someone like Ron Paul I'm afraid. If you knew something about Kucinich, you'd know why he isn't considered a "serious" candidate.

Also, by limiting the number of politicians at a debate each candidate gets more air time to talk about their own ideas. A candidate is right to be selfish with whatever exposure they can get. This is a marketing tool for them. It's not efficient to have the largest pool of candidates possible when the idea is to get your own message out.

The topics are chosen by the Moderators, so that's not an issue. Challenges from Kucinich would mostly be about the war (this is the Department of Peace candidate), so that wouldn't be anything new or challenging to politicians like Hillary or Edwards.

quote:

---

call them on their ever changing mind concerning the war.

---

posted July 18, 2007 12:28 PM            

Duh... in your definition of "most"...it could mean "all" but the words have different meaning...as you would discover acoustic if you ever looked in a dictionary to overcome your statue of being "vocabulary challenged".

quote:

---

Kucinich is free to set up his own debates. He's also free to lobby for his inclusion in future debates. No one is restricting him in any way. No one is "shutting him up."...acoustic

---

Yeah, a one man debate sounds very interesting. In politics acoustic, they call that making campaign stops..at diners, at people's homes and elsewhere.

What they don't call a one man discussion or speech acoustic...is a "debate".

posted July 18, 2007 12:43 PM            

83% now say congress is doing a poor or only fair job. Going down........B for basement.

Voters unhappy with Bush; Congress: Reuters poll By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent
Wed Jul 18, 8:13 AM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Most U.S. voters think the country is on the wrong track and remain deeply unhappy with President George W. Bush and Congress, but still feel good about their finances and optimistic about the future, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.

Eighteen months before Bush leaves the White House, nearly two-thirds of Americans say the country is headed in the wrong direction and give the president negative marks for his job performance.

An even bigger majority, 83 percent, say the Democratic-controlled Congress is doing only a fair or poor job -- the worst mark for Congress in a Zogby poll.

But despite their dim views of government, majorities of Americans remain upbeat about their personal finances and security, and nearly two-thirds are very or fairly confident their children will have a better life than they do.

Pollster John Zogby said the split between voters' views of government and of their personal well-being has grown in recent years, particularly after the failed federal response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

"Americans feel their government is not accomplishing the people's business," Zogby said. "They feel the system is seriously broken."

In the national survey of 1,012 likely voters, taken July 12 through July 14, about 66 percent said Bush had done only a fair or poor job as president, with 34 percent ranking his performance as excellent or good.

That is up slightly from his low of 30 percent in early March and in line with other national polls showing Bush's approval ratings lingering at or near historically low levels amid continued chaos and bloodshed in Iraq.

But the marks for Congress, mired in gridlock over a series of partisan political battles after Democrats took power in the 2006 elections, continued to drop.

While 83 percent said Congress was doing a fair or poor job, just 14 percent rated it excellent or good. Last October, in its final days, the Republican-led Congress earned ratings of excellent or good from 23 percent of voters.

"There is a growing sense that people voted for change in 2006 and they aren't getting it," Zogby said.

The poll showed only 26 percent of Americans thought the United States was on the right track and 64 percent thought it was on the wrong track.

Americans also have little confidence in U.S. foreign and economic policy. Two-thirds of those surveyed, 66 percent, said the direction of economic policy was fair or poor, and 76 percent said U.S. foreign policy was headed in a fair or poor direction.

But on a personal level, Americans feel relatively secure and comfortable with their own finances and safety. Nearly 82 percent of Americans said they feel very or fairly safe from "threats from abroad," and nearly 70 percent feel very or fairly secure in their jobs.

While 14 percent rated their personal financial situation as excellent and 10 percent as poor, the vast majority found themselves in the middle. About 43 percent rated their finances as good, and 43 percent as fair.

"Americans have made a serious adjustment. Their expectations have been tempered," Zogby said. "With little faith in government, you feel you are pretty much on your own."

Several years of headlines about possible torture of U.S. detainees, treatment of prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay detention center and international anger over the Iraq war has not dented the pride of Americans.

About two-thirds of the likely voters surveyed said they were "very" proud of the United States, with 22 percent saying they were "fairly" proud and 8 percent saying they were not very proud of their country.

posted July 18, 2007 01:02 PM            

You're saying that if Kucinich were to try to set up his own debate that no one would show up, is that it? Well, why would that be? Because they're scared of the big, bad Kucinich?

Do I need to remind you that the field of candidates is quite large enough to accomodate debates with different candidates present. Hillary, Edwards, and Obama could debate by themselves, and you'd still have at least 4 candidates (Kucinich, Dodd, Gravel, Richardson, Biden?) left over to create a debate with.

posted July 19, 2007 12:58 PM            

It's those debates which will be carried across America and it's those debates from which the Breck Girl..John Edwards and the corrupt Hillary Clinton..wife of former Commander Corruption...ARE attempting to exclude others from being heard. Further, they seem to wish control over deciding what qualifies others from participating in the organized debates. Very nice and typical of leftists who always want to shut others up.

Your arguments are almost always off point acoustic. You seem to have a gift for that

posted July 19, 2007 03:30 PM            

He is, isn't he?

Ok, that's it. Debate over. I win.

This loose, subjective perspective where you infer something that obviously isn't true or justifiable is true is moronic at best. There's no way around the fact that Kucinich still has every right that every other candidate has, including the right to decide who he wants to debate with.

posted July 20, 2007 01:57 PM            

There are debates every election cycle..usually well publicized and put on by a small circle of groups...moderated by well known news or other personalities.

These are the debates which count, the debates which are carried on network television and these are the debates the dud duo want to exclude others from participating in. This is just a floating of the trial balloon..before the main challenge to what Billary and Breck Girl consider the main events.

Why can't you stay on point acoustic? This thread is about the dud duo caught in the act talking about excluding others from debating them over issues.

posted July 20, 2007 04:04 PM            

Yes, there are debates every election cycle. Yes, they are typically sponsored through news media. So what? Neither of these facts affect the outcome here. They're mere convolutions in an attempt to subvert the story into meaning what you desire for it to mean. Plain as that.

Debates held on national television do count. Obviously. So what if Clinton and Edwards say they'd rather not have the fringe candidates participate? The sponsors have to then decide whether to honor these candidates wishes, or to be totally inclusive at the risk of not getting Clinton and Edwards to participate. Either way, it's immaterial. Why? Because Kucinich can still set up his own debates, and try to find a national television company to carry them. There's no obstruction from him doing that, is there? No, absolutely none. I'm sure Fox would love to sponsor a Democratic fringe candidate debate. What better way to put Democrats in a bad light? It doesn't take a genius to figure this sh!t out, Jwhop.

quote:

---

Why can't you stay on point acoustic? This thread is about the dud duo caught in the act talking about excluding others from debating them over issues.

---

Edwards says, "We should try to have a more serious and a smaller group."
Clinton agrees, saying, "We've got to cut the number" and "they're not serious."

Less people = more air time

It's as simple as that. All politicians know this. That you're acting like you don't is quite frankly pretty opportunistic, moronic, and transparent. It doesn't escape me that you've never had a kind word for Kucinich in your whole life.

quote:

---

Your arguments are always off point, nibbling around the edges because you are unable to address the main points..the core of issues...which you must concede. Now that's not true of only you acoustic..it's the leftist standard and it doesn't work

---

That's really all you can do at a stupid person's attempt to subvert the conversation. I've addressed the issue more thoroughly than anyone else here, and quite a bit more than anyone should have to. It's only your stubborn idiocy that keeps this going. You can pretend that you have a point all you like, but only the highly subjective mind could possibly agree with you.

posted July 20, 2007 04:05 PM              

I bet their ratings are not as low as Bush's I.Q
http://youtube.com/results?search_query=bush+dumb

Injured Iraq war vets sue VA over delaysStory Highlights
Group accuses VA secretary of breaking law by denying them disability pay

Vets accuse VA of allegedly working with Pentagon to misclassify PTSD

VA spokesman says he can't comment on pending lawsuit

VA backlog of disability payments now between 400,000 and 600,000
Next Article in U.S. »

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Frustrated by delays in health care, a coalition of injured Iraq war veterans is accusing VA Secretary Jim Nicholson of breaking the law by denying them disability pay and mental health treatment.

VA Secretary Jim Nicholson announced last week he's returning to the private sector.

The class-action lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, filed Monday in federal court in San Francisco, seeks broad change in the agency as it struggles to meet growing demands from veterans returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Suing on behalf of hundreds of thousands of veterans, it charges that the VA has failed warriors on several fronts -- from providing prompt disability benefits, to adding staff to reduce wait times for medical care to boosting services for post-traumatic stress disorder.

The lawsuit also accuses the VA of deliberately cheating some veterans by allegedly working with the Pentagon to misclassify PTSD claims as pre-existing personality disorders to avoid paying out benefits. The VA and Pentagon have generally denied such charges.

VA spokesman Matt Smith said Monday he could not comment on a pending lawsuit. But he said the agency is committed to meeting the special needs of Iraq war veterans.

"Through outreach efforts, the VA ensures returning Global War on Terror service members have access to the widely recognized quality health care they have earned including services such as prosthetics or mental health care," he said. "VA has also given priority handling to their monetary disability benefit claims."

The lawsuit comes amid intense political and public scrutiny of the VA and Pentagon following reports of shoddy outpatient care of injured soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and elsewhere.

Don't Miss
Special Report: Coming Home
VA secretary resigns
TIME.com: Who Will Run VA?
Veterans Affairs
Disability Rights Advocates
"Unless systemic and drastic measures are instituted immediately, the costs to these veterans, their families, and our nation will be incalculable, including broken families, a new generation of unemployed and homeless veterans, increases in drug abuse and alcoholism, and crushing burdens on the health care delivery system," the complaint states.

It asks that a federal court order the VA to make immediate improvements that would speed disability payments, ensure fairness in awards and provide more complete access to mental health care.

Earlier this month, a federal appeals court in San Francisco issued a strong rebuke of the VA in ordering the agency to pay retroactive benefits to Vietnam War veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange and contracted a form of leukemia.

"The performance of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs has contributed substantially to our sense of national shame," the opinion from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals read.

Nicholson abruptly announced last week he would step down by October 1 to return to the private sector. He has repeatedly defended the agency during his 21/2-year tenure while acknowledging there was room for improvement.

More recently, following high-profile suicide incidents in which families of veterans say the VA did not provide adequate care, Nicholson pledged to add mental health services and hire more suicide-prevention coordinators.

Some veterans say those measures aren't enough. In the lawsuit, they note that government investigators warned as early as 2002 that the VA needed to fix its backlogged claims system and make other changes.

Yet, the lawsuit says, Nicholson and other officials still insisted on a budget in 2005 that fell $1 billion short, and they made "a mockery of the rule of law" by awarding senior officials $3.8 million in bonuses despite their role in the budget foul-up.

Today, the VA's backlog of disability payments is now between 400,000 and 600,000, with delays of up to 177 days to process an initial claim and an average of 657 days to process an appeal. Several congressional committees and a presidential commission are now studying ways to improve care.

"While steps can and will be taken in the political arena, responsibility for action lies with the agency itself," said Melissa W. Kasnitz, managing attorney for Disability Rights Advocates, in a telephone interview. Her group is teaming up with a major law firm, Morrison & Foerster, to represent the veterans.

"We don't believe the problems will be fixed by the VA if we wait for them," she said. "In the meantime, it is veterans who risk their lives for our country who are suffering the consequences."

The lawsuit cites violations of the Constitution and federal law, which mandates at least two years of health care to injured veterans.

The veterans groups involved in the lawsuit are Veterans for Common Sense in Washington, D.C., which claims 11,500 members, and Veterans United for Truth, based in Santa Barbara, California, with 500 members. E-mail to a friend

posted July 21, 2007 01:11 PM            

Too bad leftists live in their own little dream world but that's their reality. It's not even possible to rouse them from their sleep as the real world passes them by.

Leftists think when they say...end of the story...that's really the end. Perhaps for them it is but that's dreamland stuff...nighty night.

The Breck Girl and Hillary Clinton were caught red handed on an open mike talking about getting rid of other candidates in the debates and appearances before demoscat groups.

posted July 23, 2007 02:12 PM            

The bottom line leftist boy is that your idols got caugth attempting to fix the debates and shut outhers out.

If you had an ounce of intellectual honesty acoustic, you would simply admit that was and is their purpose. Of course, there is another possibility and that would be that you don't have the intellectual capacity to understand that's what the Breck Girl and Hillary are trying to do.

posted July 23, 2007 04:29 PM            

We're making progress here finally with your long awaited concession. Now let's work this to the logical conclusion.

posted July 23, 2007 04:44 PM              

it's all POwer, excluding the lesser One's, that's Wrong, AG, don't you see that!

LOve and Reverence to ALL. ...

posted July 23, 2007 06:03 PM            

As I've said previously, Jwhop's never had a nice word to say about Kucinich, so really he's just clinging to this story for the opportunity to attempt to slander Democrats. It's a cheap, transparent, opportunistic shot devoid of any merit.

posted July 23, 2007 06:59 PM            

Say he does get locked out of the next major debate, and he goes and tries to market his own debate, will it be fair if the television networks aren't interested in sponsoring his debate? Yes. It's supply and demand. There's no demand for Kucinich. If there was, there would be some sort of uproar over this, and there's not. None but the self-righteous of the Right care about this story.

Now, if it were Edwards and Obama having this conversation, and they were talking about excluding Hillary, then you'd have a story. Why? Because Hillary is a credible competitor. Hillary can compete with both of those fellas. Then you'd see people up in arms.