President Bush has been a "total failure" in everything from the economy to the war to energy policy, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday.

...after her Congress decided to give in to his will on wiretapping, as they had on the war.

from page 2 of a GIS for "it takes one to know one"

Approval rating for Congress ≠ approval rating for individual Congresspersons.

You can bet Pelosi will be re-elected by a comfortable margin, as will way over half of the current crop.

I'm not really seeing the falacy here.

oldebayer: Approval rating for Congress ≠ approval rating for individual Congresspersons.

You can bet Pelosi will be re-elected by a comfortable margin, as will way over half of the current crop.

I know we're supposed to somehow feel better about that, but I fail to see how we should get hyped about the nine percenters keeping their jobs. At least the WH will be assured of some turnover...

I don't understand why Republicans are doing so much hand wringing over the '08 elections. With a 9% approval rating for the Democrat Congress, they're certain to win every single House and Senate seat and obtain a super-super majority.

Can we ban submitter from Fark for utter stupidity?

oldebayer: Approval rating for Congress ≠ approval rating for individual Congresspersons.

You can bet Pelosi will be re-elected by a comfortable margin, as will way over half of the current crop.

Yep. Unfortunately, we all hate those corrupt, lying, waffling, pork-barrel spending SOBs, except when they are our pork-barrel spending SOBs getting our local district more federal money for roads, military bases, infrastructure, security measures, schools, emergency services, law enforcement...

It is highly ironic that a politician would say something that matched her political agenda, even if the same logic might undermine their own position. This is a highly unexpected event, which is why politicians are virtually never accused of hypocrisy.

Nabb1

I know we're supposed to somehow feel better about that, but I fail to see how we should get hyped about the nine percenters keeping their jobs. At least the WH will be assured of some turnover...

I personally think it is tragic. I don't think even nine per cent of the current bozoes should retain their seats.

If the Founding Fathers got a load of the way politics is being done today, they would have almost all said, "Never mind" in 1776, and gone home.

sigdiamond2000: I don't understand why Republicans are doing so much hand wringing over the '08 elections. With a 9% approval rating for the Democrat Congress, they're certain to win every single House and Senate seat and obtain a super-super majority.

Uh, no.

These overall "Congressional approval ratings" are bullsh*t, because no one votes "for congress." They vote for their particular congresscritter.

By their own least-pessimistic estimates, the Republican leadership is hoping to limit their losses to about twenty seats in the House, and four in the Senate.

But good luck with your fantasy. Hopefully by November you will have a chance to work through the stages to reach "acceptance." Or at least far enough that you don't end up injuring yourself in despair.

/P.S. I believe the word you are looking for is "Democratic." Following Rush's marching orders just makes you look silly.

oldebayer: If the Founding Fathers got a load of the way politics is being done today, they would have almost all said, "Never mind" in 1776, and gone home.

Some of them, maybe. The Federalists and Anti-Federalists knew how to get nasty with each other, though. Although, I don't think they were on the grift as brazenly as these pigs and were actually driven by a desire to steer a new nation in the right direction.

co-conspirator: Uh, no.

These overall "Congressional approval ratings" are bullsh*t, because no one votes "for congress." They vote for their particular congresscritter.

By their own least-pessimistic estimates, the Republican leadership is hoping to limit their losses to about twenty seats in the House, and four in the Senate.

But good luck with your fantasy. Hopefully by November you will have a chance to work through the stages to reach "acceptance." Or at least far enough that you don't end up injuring yourself in despair.

/P.S. I believe the word you are looking for is "Democratic." Following Rush's marching orders just makes you look silly.



Dude...come on.

oldebayer: If the Founding Fathers got a load of the way politics is being done today, they would have almost all said, "Never mind" in 1776, and gone home.

You mean the founding fathers Adams and Jefferson who talked about American women being raped if the other was elected?

sigdiamond2000: Dude...come on.

"Come on" and what?

You clearly have some reality avoidance issues. We're all concerned for you because we love you, and it would be a terrible loss to the community if you were to stick your head in the wood chipper.

co-conspirator: These overall "Congressional approval ratings" are bullsh*t, because no one votes "for congress." They vote for their particular congresscritter.

By their own least-pessimistic estimates, the Republican leadership is hoping to limit their losses to about twenty seats in the House, and four in the Senate.

But good luck with your fantasy. Hopefully by November you will have a chance to work through the stages to reach "acceptance." Or at least far enough that you don't end up injuring yourself in despair.

/P.S. I believe the word you are looking for is "Democratic." Following Rush's marching orders just makes you look silly.

Are you going to post that in every thread on this?

Nabb1: Are you going to post that in every thread on this?

Was there anything incorrect in what he said?

Nabb1: Are you going to post that in every thread on this?

You haven't? Are you giving up your troll booth?

What does Pelosi's approval rating have to do with the accuracy of her statement?

co-conspirator: sigdiamond2000: I don't understand why Republicans are doing so much hand wringing over the '08 elections. With a 9% approval rating for the Democrat Congress, they're certain to win every single House and Senate seat and obtain a super-super majority.

Uh, no.

These overall "Congressional approval ratings" are bullsh*t, because no one votes "for congress." They vote for their particular congresscritter.

By their own least-pessimistic estimates, the Republican leadership is hoping to limit their losses to about twenty seats in the House, and four in the Senate.

But good luck with your fantasy. Hopefully by November you will have a chance to work through the stages to reach "acceptance." Or at least far enough that you don't end up injuring yourself in despair.

/P.S. I believe the word you are looking for is "Democratic." Following Rush's marching orders just makes you look silly.



"This baby is right off the charts, mm-hai!"

You know I love it when these farkers open their mouths and critisize Bush for all of these failures. Especially since many of them were the same people who pretty much gave him free reign to do whatever he wanted.

Then: You want to attack Iraq? Okey dokey!

Now: It was a horrible mistake to go into Iraq the President is bad. What's that you say? He wants more money for Iraq? Okey dokey!

Where was this backbone five years ago!

Nabb1: Are you going to post that in every thread on this?

Yup. I saw the other thread first, but it died, and this thread is the one that took off. The point was for him to see it. Why not reward such eloquent trolling with a well-deserved bite?

In the future I will try harder to meet your stringent standards for Farkworthy discourse. Mmmmm'kay?

DamnYankees: Nabb1: Are you going to post that in every thread on this?

Was there anything incorrect in what he said?

Was there anything correct? Come on, the Republican-led Congress that got tossed out in '06 was terrible, but these jokers aren't demonstrably better.

I approve of that statement

The thing about the pot calling the kettle black is, the kettle is black.

co-conspirator: sigdiamond2000: Dude...come on.

"Come on" and what?

You clearly have some reality avoidance issues. We're all concerned for you because we love you, and it would be a terrible loss to the community if you were to stick your head in the wood chipper.

It's difficult for me to believe that a sane person can look at that post of mine and not realize that it's sarcasm. This goes beyond having a broken sarcasm detector. You may need psychiatric help.

sigdiamond2000: It's difficult for me to believe that a sane person can look at that post of mine and not realize that it's sarcasm. This goes beyond having a broken sarcasm detector. You may need psychiatric help.

I took a chance you were serious. I'm happy to hear that you're not. I will accept the possibility that I confused you with one of the multitude of whistling-past-the-graveyard freeptards that are being paid to spam the threads and clog the queues.

As for my sanity, it's not in question; I am as mad as a hatter and quite happy.

DamnYankees: Nabb1: Are you going to post that in every thread on this?

Was there anything incorrect in what he said?



Jesus. I'm embarrassed to even be a part of this thread.

Nabb1: Was there anything correct? Come on, the Republican-led Congress that got tossed out in '06 was terrible, but these jokers aren't demonstrably better.

No one said they were. But that doesn't mean that polling approval rating of congress means anything.

It's pointless to ask people if they approve of the job done by 532 people they have no connection to at all and think it has any meaning to elections.

sigdiamond2000: Jesus. I'm embarrassed to even be a part of this thread.

You trolled, and you caught. Be proud.

DamnYankees: Nabb1: Was there anything correct? Come on, the Republican-led Congress that got tossed out in '06 was terrible, but these jokers aren't demonstrably better.

No one said they were. But that doesn't mean that polling approval rating of congress means anything.

It's pointless to ask people if they approve of the job done by 532 people they have no connection to at all and think it has any meaning to elections.

I don't think the submitter was projecting the election, but if the Speaker of the House is going to call the President a "total failure," I think it's fair to point out that the House over which she presides has a 9% approval rating itself. What glimmering successes can she point to as a point of comparison?

What does Pelosi's approval rating have to do with the accuracy of her statement?

Her approval rating, or more properly Congress', is the result of not fulfilling the 2006 promise to be the anti-Bush, to put an end to the "total failure." When Bush wants war money he gets it. When Bush wants retroactive authorization for wiretaps, he gets it. Her Congress has little to show for its two years, especially when measured against promises and expectations. She didn't even succeed in the fallback strategy of forcing a large number of vetoes to use on the campaign trail in 2008.

Takes one to know one.

Nabb1: I don't think the submitter was projecting the election, but if the Speaker of the House is going to call the President a "total failure," I think it's fair to point out that the House over which she presides has a 9% approval rating itself. What glimmering successes can she point to as a point of comparison?

Please explain how the approval rating of Congress has any direct connection to Nancy Pelosi.

For example, who is the most prominant current member of Congress? It's probably Barack Obama. Clearly, the 9% approval rating of that body is not the same as his personal approval rating. It's a ridiculous connection.

DamnYankees: Please explain how the approval rating of Congress has any direct connection to Nancy Pelosi.

She's Speaker of the House. I think you are a smart enough individual to not need an explanation why am abysmal approval rating of Congress might reflect poorly on the Speaker's leadership.

Nabb1: She's Speaker of the House. I think you are a smart enough individual to not need an explanation why am abysmal approval rating of Congress might reflect poorly on the Speaker's leadership.

If you think the Speaker of the House has that much control over Congress, you're insane. Also, even if she did have control, the approval rating of "Congress" is still not the same as her personal approval rating. As my Barack Obama example just showed.

The headline is a lie, and there's no way to avoid that.

DamnYankees: If you think the Speaker of the House has that much control over Congress, you're insane.

No, the Speaker does not have total control over Congress, but the Speaker is invariably an important figure in the majority party and has a lot of influence over the agenda in the House. People and history tend to remember Congresses in terms of the Speakers, like Tip O'Neil and Newt Gingrich (two of the more memorable House leaders in recent history). So, no, Pelosi herself probably enjoys a lot of popularity in her own district, but I don't think her Speakership has been particularly memorable to this point. Well, maybe memorable for being impotent even with the lamest duck of a President in recent memory.

Nabb1: No, the Speaker does not have total control over Congress, but the Speaker is invariably an important figure in the majority party and has a lot of influence over the agenda in the House. People and history tend to remember Congresses in terms of the Speakers, like Tip O'Neil and Newt Gingrich (two of the more memorable House leaders in recent history). So, no, Pelosi herself probably enjoys a lot of popularity in her own district, but I don't think her Speakership has been particularly memorable to this point. Well, maybe memorable for being impotent even with the lamest duck of a President in recent memory.

So you admit the headline is a lie and Pelosi's approval rating is not 9%?

Two questions:

#1: What is the highest recorded approval rating for Congress? Surely one of you stats-types can search that easily enough for us somewhere...

#2: Jughead's approval rating is up to 32%? Really?

Hmm, no mention yet of "Darth" Pelosi? No "Libs, Libs, Libs" guy yet? I also love how nobody is questioning the "total failure" comment, just questioning who said it.

Nabb1

What is Pelosis approval rating among her constituents?

Tabatha Static: #1: What is the highest recorded approval rating for Congress? Surely one of you stats-types can search that easily enough for us somewhere...

If anyone is willing to look into this, I'd like to know, if (in general) "congressional approval ratings" tend to be higher when congress and the president are from the same party?

Obdicut: What is Pelosis approval rating among her constituents?

Rasmussen has her pegged at a 40% favorable rating.

bulldg4life: Obdicut: What is Pelosis approval rating among her constituents?

Rasmussen has her pegged at a 40% favorable rating.

I give pegging a much lower than 40% favorable rating.

FTFA:

[Congress's]approval rating has hit a new low of just 18 percent, down from 23 percent last month, according to a new AP-Ipsos poll.

I probably just missed it, but where does the 9% come from? Is it 9% per house of Congress? Math is hard.

Yeah, but you see it's not *my* congressman that's farking things up, it's yours.

What is Pelosi's approval rating anyway?

The thing about the congressional approval rating is that everyone always hates every representative but their own.

sigdiamond2000: Jesus. I'm embarrassed to even be a part of this thread.

You trolled, you were being a right dick, and someone called you on it. So STFU.

Tabatha Static: Jughead's approval rating is up to 32%? Really?

LOL @ "Jughead". Excellent!

And on topic, regardless of Pelosi's own standing, she is right. This president is a total failure. With the exception of substantial funding to African aid (albeit hamstrung by his brainless petty ideology, like refusing to fund family planning clinics), I cannot see anything positive from this administration. The litany of FAIL is almost endless:

Failure at war
Failure at nation building
Failure at foreign policy
Failure to find Bin Laden
Failure to maintain the budget surplus
Failure to secure our ports
Failure to maintain a robust economy
Failure to maintain growth
Failure to ease poverty, here or abroad
Failure to provide healthcare, even for children
Failure to restrain political corruption
Failure to be responsible to the people
Failure on "War on Drugs" - and on drug policy generally
Failure to solve immigration problems
Failure to grow full-time employment
Failure to keep oil prices stable
Failure to do anything meaningful on climate change
Failure to maintain fiscal conservatism

The list really just goes on and on and on.

Total failure.

And-1: The list really just goes on and on and on.

You forgot his total failure to fix social security, which was his MAIN AGENDA after re-election. No one remembers it now, but that was the #1 thing he was doing in the summer of '05.

DamnYankees: You forgot his total failure to fix social security

Oh yes, I am assuming that my list is just a starting point. I doubt any one person could recite all the FAIL for which this administration is responsible. But yeah, social security is a big one.