The highlights:
-Bush approval rating 43%
-Congress stands at 31%
-Only 35% of the population feels the country is headed in the right direction
Is anyone really surprised since the biggest issue of this past election was who did what (or didn't do what) in Vietnam, which happened over 30 years ago?
I am in the 65% majority who feel we are headed in the wrong direction, why?
I think Congress and the President have their priorities all mixed up. Neither party is doing us any favors, all they seem to be good at is attacking each other. I can give specifics, but I wanted to see what everyone else thought first.
KFLLCFII From United States, joined Sep 2004, 3071 posts, RR: 39 Reply 2, posted (4 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1219 times:
I agree that the petty squabbling is getting rediculous. I also believe that the decline in the numbers is partially caused by all of the negativism in the media, as seen by the uninformed poll-takers, with little or no mention of the positives (IE gas prices on a noticable decline in the past 1-2 months). If my sole source of current events is what's on the evening news and what's on the headline in the local paper the next morning, I'm sure as hell going to jump on the doom-and-gloom bandwagon!
"About the only way to look at it, just a pity you are not POTUS KFLLCFII, seems as if we would all be better off."
KC135R From United States, joined Apr 2005, 690 posts, RR: 8 Reply 3, posted (4 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1214 times:
Quoting KFLLCFII (Reply 2): I also believe that the decline in the numbers is partially caused by all of the negativism in the media
I actually think the media has been pretty kind to the administration lately. The coverage of Iraq has been cut back big time. I believe the media is afraid of being labeled "un-patriotic" or worse "anti-American" - this administration has been masters of doing just that, IMO. So I don't really feel this is the reason. I think things are headed in the wrong direction and people know it, not because of the media - in fact I would say despite the media. You'll barely hear these poll numbers mentioned, I had to dig it out of some Florida paper. The media may or may not like Bush, but they have been effectively tamed.
ANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (4 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1204 times:
The country as a whole should be ashamed of BOTH parties. Both are guilty of extreme partisan politics - with a few centrists left standing shaking their heads in disbelief - and getting nowhere fast.
I would bet a run of the poll numbers for the Democratic party approval as a whole at the moment might not be all that different than PotUS current approval ratings.
Most Americans IMHO, in some way, shape, or form, are thoroughly disgusted with American politics and politicians. I further believe that presidential elections (as well as most of the local ones) these days are not a matter of voting "FOR" someone, rather voting "AGAINST" the other person. . . .a lesser of two evils syndrome.
The political paradym in this country needs a serious shift to the middle from boths side. The extremists, Pelosi, Frist, Kennedy, Delay, and others, need to go away. Sooner or later the American public is really gonna be fed up with it all and then, as was said in one of my favorite movies "We will be in a World of Shit".
Perhaps it's time for term limits on the Congress and Senate as well.
KFLLCFII From United States, joined Sep 2004, 3071 posts, RR: 39 Reply 6, posted (4 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1198 times:
Quoting KC135R (Reply 3): The coverage of Iraq has been cut back big time.
Sure, the media has been so consumed with giving each other deep-throats over Deep Throat
Quoting KC135R (Reply 3): The media may or may not like Bush, but they have been effectively tamed.
I'm not sure I would call them tamed; More along the lines of a deer hunter perched in a tree, waiting for the next target to graze by. They just haven't had anything truly juicy to run with lately (with the exception of Newsweek, of course). Give it time...
"About the only way to look at it, just a pity you are not POTUS KFLLCFII, seems as if we would all be better off."
Captoveur From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (4 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1198 times:
"Perhaps it's time for term limits on the Congress and Senate as well."
Bad idea
You get rid of the good ones before their time... If people really think they are being so badly represented they need to get their asses out and vote..
The old people need to die sooner too, they are the only ones that DO vote and the young people end up getting screwed.
KC135R From United States, joined Apr 2005, 690 posts, RR: 8 Reply 8, posted (4 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1192 times:
Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 5): Perhaps it's time for term limits on the Congress and Senate as well.
Here, Here!!!!!
I agree 100% it's both parties. As anyone that pays attention can probably attest, the centrists who brokered the filibuster deal were attacked by their own parties hardcore left and right as being "accomodationists". Amazing huh? They can't even work in a bipartisan manner anymore without being attacked, by their own no less!
Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 5): Most Americans IMHO, in some way, shape, or form, are thoroughly disgusted with American politics and politicians.
Also agreed, the problem is most people are so disgusted they just tune it out, like I used to. It's overwhelming really, where do you begin? I'll tell you one thing, from now on I will try to cut through media spin, political bias, and outright lies to actually investigate candidates for office and vote not based on party or single issues - but for the person I think is best for the country (or state, county, etc). Now if everyone would try that...........
FlyingTexan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (4 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1179 times:
Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 5): I further believe that presidential elections (as well as most of the local ones) these days are not a matter of voting "FOR" someone, rather voting "AGAINST" the other person. . . .a lesser of two evils syndrome.
Well put, ANC.
Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 5): Perhaps it's time for term limits on the Congress and Senate as well.
Coincidently, I just read a piece on your home state’s senior Senator, Ted Stevens. He has been in the senate since 1968!!! And BTW, his rank assigned by Citizens Against Government Waste (pork watchdog group) is the lowest, 1.
B757300 From United States, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 34 Reply 12, posted (4 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1166 times:
Too bad the President doesn't care about polls and "approval ratings". Not only is he not going to be running for reelection but he knows that the media polls are designed to make news, not report on it. If he had listened to the polls then John Kerry would be President.
I predicted that if President Bush won the reelection that the media would constantly be putting out polls saying "Bush support tanking" "Americans negative on Iraq" etc etc etc. The media never fails to disappoint.
As for the poll on Congress, the funny thing is if they asked "do you approve of how your Congressman & Senator are doing?" you'll find that the numbers are usually 70%-90% for Representatives and 50%-70% for Senators.
Oh, and as for the comment that Americans want "moderates", that is just bull. Americans aren't going to vote for someone who has no core values which is exactly what moderate are. One who shifts with the most recent poll and makes whatever position they hope won't offend any one. The vast majority of the American people, whether Republican, Democrat, or Independent/Third Party want their elected leaders to actually take a stand on the issues and at least claim to believe in something. They won't vote for someone who changes their position based on the latest poll or a media attack.
KC135R From United States, joined Apr 2005, 690 posts, RR: 8 Reply 13, posted (4 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1154 times:
Quoting B757300 (Reply 12): elected leaders to actually take a stand on the issues and at least claim to believe in something.
Too bad they all lose their "core values" when they whore themselves out for reelection or money (for reelection). If you truly believe politicians have core values, you are sadly mistaken my friend - or naive. They change on a whim. The ones who act on core values as opposed to "the party line", like McCain for example, are attacked as being too moderate. How can anyone be too moderate?
Quoting B757300 (Reply 12): Oh, and as for the comment that Americans want "moderates", that is just bull. Americans aren't going to vote for someone who has no core values which is exactly what moderate are.
I disagree. I think most Americans are moderate, most Americans are not hard core left or right. I believe about 10-20% of the population are hardcore right and the same number is left. That still leaves the majority as moderate. Most people don't agree with either party 100%, they pick a party they think best represents them. Now if you listen to Hannity, Limbaugh, Al Franken, Randy Rhodes, etc, etc - then you are possibly hardcore left or right and you may well believe ALL AMERICANS can be defined as simply "red" or "blue", which is nonsense - or you just want to hear some political debate and take their views with a grain of salt, as in my case. A moderate is not someone without values, a moderate is someone who sees beyond party lines for the good of the country. Party lines do no good for anyone but the actual party. Partisan politics are tearing the country apart.
ANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (4 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1143 times:
Quoting FlyingTexan (Reply 11): Coincidently, I just read a piece on your home state’s senior Senator, Ted Stevens. He has been in the senate since 1968!!! And BTW, his rank assigned by Citizens Against Government Waste (pork watchdog group) is the lowest, 1.
Yup, I know Ted, and I know that less than adequate son of his (Ben, State Senator, R-ANC).
Ted was appointed to the Senate upon the death of Sen Bob Bartlett. He was later elected in his own right over and over.
His voting record in the Senate is exemplary. He is usually a fairly middle of the road Senator, and usually works well with both sides of the aisle, particulrly with Sen Daniel Inoye (D-HI). . . . with the recent exception of the judicial Fillibuster fiasco that is. He stuck with the party on that one.
He is currently President Pro Tempore of the US Senate, and thus, #4 (IIRC) in line for the Big Chair. He maintains Secret Service protection. I last spoke with him at Memorial Day Services at the Ft. Richardson Cemetary.
He has brought $billions to Alaska. He is a great supporter of the military and that's good in that Alaska is the number one state in the union per capita for military retirees.
As far as the other US Senators from Alaska; they pale in comparison to the accomplishements of Sen. Stevens. Including our current Junior Senator, Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) . . . be it known I did not vote for her, and won't in the future. Look up Bimbo in the dictionary, you're liable to find her photo in the definition.
His son is a State Senator from my District. His son, Ben, wouldn't make a pimple on his Daddy's posterior.
All that said, I'm still for term limits. Ted Stevens is a good man, and a good Senator. Alaska has done well by him. Certainly some of my Alaskan A-Netters might disagree, and that's okay. None will and none can deny the benefits Ted brought to Alaska.
LTBEWR From United States, joined Jan 2004, 9289 posts, RR: 7 Reply 16, posted (4 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1134 times:
There is a fast growing group of Americans whom are distancing themselves from politics, not following it. Those that do are from smaller groups of people whom have more interest than average. Many don't have the time to follow the political and government news. Our media also doesn't help either as they either play up the fights or ignore politics for missing women or criminal trials of child molesters. Many now figure they have no say as money is the way to access politicans and to get their attention to promote a view. This is further being compounded by the explosion in the monies spent to run for office, hence more need to listen to the rich's wish lists, not the middle and lower classes with some exceptions. Many also see the Federal Gov't not meeting their needs, such as protecting jobs, pensions, social security (the recent partial privatization proposals of Bush has been a major cause of his ratings drop). They also have serious problems with the decision to go into Iraq and remove Saddam. They also don't see the Beltway politicans caring about skyrocking medical costs to their families. They see their oil/gas prices going up and staying up a lot higher than in the past. They see their ability to have a good job going to China. They see they will never be able to live in a nice house they own, in the suburbs like they did as children. Despite 9/11, we are still starving our security needs within this country, and turned the funding system into a 'pork barral". The see schools starved for funding and their local taxes rising. They see illegal immigrants getting medical care but they have to go broke if they get hurt/sick and don't have enough insurance or lose their job and thus their health insurance. These and many other issues are making more people more cinical and dismissive of politics.
As to the idea of term limits, I don't believe in them per se, but instead believe that there should be a max age, like 75, that one could continue in major elective or appointive office in the federal government, including the President, VP, Senate, Congress. Cabinet Positions and all Federal Judges. Almost all corporations have 65-70 age limits on their executives or board members and many other line workers. Many states have age limits (usually 70) for one to continue to serve as state judges. This means you don't have people staying in office until senality or death kicks in naturally, offers more turnover of people, and the opportunites for both parties to appoint judges. What if such a law was in affect? Many in the Senate, the Congress or our Supreme Court would have been sent to pasture long ago and we wouldn't have the embarissment of a 99 y.o. Senator with a history of supporting segeration and others power happy or going senile. Some of the old school liberals and conservatives would have been gone long ago if such a law existed.
ANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (4 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1126 times:
Quoting FlyingTexan (Reply 15): In this article, it mentioned Senator Stevens was in a fatal plane crash at his namesake airport that killed his first wife.
Correct, nose gear collapsed. Not a pretty picture.
Quoting FlyingTexan (Reply 15): Look up the word NEPOTISM, find her picture. Her dad - the Governor – appointed her to fill a vacancy (his seat IIRC).
Correct again. Now Gov Frank Murkowski (R-AK) was the junior US Senator from Alaska until two years ago. He declared his intent to run for Governor and upon election resigned from the Senate. At that point, he was sworn in as our Governor - now affectionately knows as Frank the Bank and about the worst Governor we've ever had - appointed his daughter Lisa (a former State Senator) to the US Senate. There were infintely more qualified Alaskans to take that job, and this act of nepotism was the first really stupid thing Frank has done. Lisa was re-elected, by a reasonably slim margin, in the last election defeating Gov Tony Knowles (D-AK). I voted for Knowles. Like I've said before, I vote for the person not the party. Lisa has proven time and again she's simple a hanger-on, and caouldn't find her ass with both hands a squad of infantry.
By the by Texan, you sure know a lot about Alaska's senators, you sure you're not a closet Eskimo ?
Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 16): Many don't have the time to follow the political and government news.
And some of these are the ones that are the first to critisize a decision or a politician - and don't take the time to vote (Can anyone say MD-90??!!) No vote=No Dog in the Hunt. STFU.
Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 16): They also don't see the Beltway politicans caring about skyrocking medical costs to their families.
Because they don't pay for medical care . . . they have their own nice private wing at Bethesda NMC. Same with Social Security. They don't give a shit about that - they don't pay into it, and will draw a pension for life regardless.
I'm not sure I appreciate age limits exactly, but some type of limit obviously.
KC135R From United States, joined Apr 2005, 690 posts, RR: 8 Reply 18, posted (4 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1126 times:
Quoting Captoveur (Reply 7): You get rid of the good ones before their time
But you also get rid of the bad ones. The founding fathers intended our representatives to be citizens from the private sector that came, did the work of the people (there's a concept) for a while, then went back to their homes. Now we have career politicians. Look at Bush and Kerry - both have been politicians most of their lives. Bush had some stints in the private sector, but was not all that successful and became a politician. Kerry has been one since Vietnam, Bush is not far behind him (remember he "left" the ANG to go work on someone's campaign during that same era). The problem with career politicians is that they are always working for reelection. So they are always working to keep the party and the donors happy. Most Americans don't follow politics closely, so they simply vote for the D or R. Politicians are no longer looking out for our best interest, by and large - though some do. They should come for a while, then go home - like it was intended.
Which is what I hear too, but I also think he has funneled more than Alaska's fair share of federal money to Alaska, which I have a problem with.
Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 16): Our media also doesn't help either as they either play up the fights or ignore politics for missing women or criminal trials of child molesters.
BINGO!!! Like the runaway bride story - who the hell cares about that?? Meanwhile lots of other stuff was happening that was largely ignored.
FlyingTexan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (4 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1116 times:
Quoting KC135R (Reply 18): The problem with career politicians is that they are always working for reelection.
Nearly any politician is running for reelection.
Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 17): By the by Texan, you sure know a lot about Alaska's senators, you sure you're not a closet Eskimo
It’s not just Alaska – I happen to have spent a better part of a decade working in a swamp that attracts prostitutes, drug dealers, various vermin, and other low forms of life like politicians – Washington, DC.
I’ll take another stab at your politicos in the Land of the Midnight Sun – Frank the Bank first went to his Bank (Alaskan’s $$$) for a new private plane, IIRC.
Quoting KC135R (Reply 18): Which is what I hear too, but I also think he has funneled more than Alaska's fair share of federal money to Alaska, which I have a problem with.
Alaska does get more than a fair share of Federal funds, but the uniqueness of the state’s geography warrants more than average.
Cairo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (4 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1107 times:
I think we should eliminate Congress or seriously reduce it's function and time in session. It was created at a time when communication took weeks and access to government information was available only in Washington.
Take the cost of congressional salaries, staff, etc... and make sure instead everyone in America has an internet connection and a PC, then just simply let the people directly vote on all the issues. Let the President initiate legislation for direct voting, let the people vote directly on how the government should spend their money. Where would the special interests be then? We have the technology to vote directly on almost everything, we should get rid of the politicians and do so.
Also, we need to limit presidential campaigns to about 3 months and just a few million dollars: they are a huge waste of time and money.
SRQCrosscheck From United States, joined Mar 2005, 211 posts, RR: 2 Reply 21, posted (4 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1102 times:
Quoting B757300 (Reply 12): Too bad the President doesn't care about polls and "approval ratings".
You don't think the President cares about approval ratings? During his first term and during the campaign, whenever his numbers dipped a bit, don't you think it was in Bush's best interest to increase the frequency he used phrases like "war on terrorism," "protecting the homeland," "preserving freedom," "bringing democracy to Iraq"? Didn't it work?
Quoting KC135R (Reply 18): Like the runaway bride story - who the hell cares about that?? Meanwhile lots of other stuff was happening that was largely ignored.
Yeah, like the Downing Street Memo, the International Criminal Court and the genocide in Darfur, debt relief for Africa, upcoming elections in Iran and Germany (the latter may remove Shroeder)... OH! but a pretty, blonde American girl missing in Aruba and an alleged sex offender with serious self-esteem issues and weird fashon-sense overshadow everything else on CNN, MSNBC, and Foxnews. The cable news stations apparently live on a different planet.
KC135R From United States, joined Apr 2005, 690 posts, RR: 8 Reply 22, posted (4 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1092 times:
Quoting Cairo (Reply 20): Also, we need to limit presidential campaigns to about 3 months and just a few million dollars: they are a huge waste of time and money.
That might be worth looking into. When Blair got reelected just recently I thought I heard them say in England they only have a 30 day campaigning, can anyone verify? Anyway this would cut down on some of the BS I think. Our most recent election started about a year ahead of the actual election, so they have to find things to argue about for a full year.
Quoting FlyingTexan (Reply 19): Nearly any politician is running for reelection.
I know that. But a career politician wants to spend his/her life in office and always operates that way. Looking for money from big donors (and acting in their interests to get it), towing the party line to keep party support. The Presidency is term limited, why not the rest?
Seb146 From United States, joined Nov 1999, 6338 posts, RR: 23 Reply 24, posted (4 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1058 times:
Does anyone remember Bush saying something to the effect that we will catch Osama dead or alive? I think that was something like 2 1/2 years or more ago. Where is Osama? People work two or three low wage jobs because the cost of day-to-day living is skyrocketing for us workers.
About Congress: Am I the only one who heard about the Judiciary Committee testimony on the Patriot Act being shut down? From what I understand, the party that calls the hearing is the only ones allowed to adjourn the hearing. A Republican adjourned the hearing and that was that.
WhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 25, posted (4 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1050 times:
Quoting KC135R (Reply 22): When Blair got reelected just recently I thought I heard them say in England they only have a 30 day campaigning, can anyone verify?
Thirty days roughly, from the Prime Minister asking the Queen to dissolve Parliament and the election happening. It's one of her remaining constitutional duties.
I'm not sure if there is an exact number of days in the law but that's how it goes.
26 ANCFlyer: Yes, he did. He wants a JET! Intra-state transportation for him is provided by the Department of Public Safety. They own two King Air aircraft. He wa
27 Seb146: Re: Walter Hickle I was in Alaska in the '90s when he was governer. Didn't he win by a slightly shady means? I thought I heard he declared himself gov
28 ANCFlyer: Not at all Seb - the Repubs and the Dems were mad as hell because neither of them had a candidate worth a shit, and Hickel (a Republican) agreed to r
29 B757300: Something else not mentioned in this poll. No surprise since it would show how biased this poll really is. Surveyed 1,001 adults. This could be anyone
30 WhiteHatter: Because it didn't kiss the right ass for you? You need to read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Pavlov You might recognise someone. Your respon
31 KC135R: Sadly, that's how you become successful in American politics these days. It's no longer "here's why I will do more for America then the other guy"; i
32 Searpqx: Nah - if they were going to go back to any of the old Govs, then Hammond would be my vote. Under Hammond it was made very clear that the Permanent Fu
33 B744F: The same McCain who went around trying to get people to vote for Bushs social security plan?? Yeah his core values also lie in the almighty dollar, j
34 PA110: My honest gut feeling is that politics started to become truly divisive back in the 80's when conservative preacher wing-nuts like Jerry Falwell, Pat
35 B744F: If you use emotional issues you can blind most of the people to vote for you. Take guns, christianity, and abortion. If you throw those 3 things out o
36 KC135R: Admittedly, even he is not free from partisan slavery at times. I doubt he was thrilled about campaigning for Bush this past year either. You could a
37 ANCFlyer: I like Jay Hammond. I liked what he did as Governor . . . That said, this state has $20+ BILLION dollars in the bank and can't pave its roads, fix br
38 Searpqx: Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the PF shouldn't be accessed. Heck I was probably one of three people in 1982 saying screw the annual payouts, put
39 ANCFlyer: Perhaps we're more on the same track than I surmised . . . I agree some of the horsecrap uses for $$$ coming out of Juneau are bizarre. Every time Ben
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Apr 2005, 690 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Here, Here!!!!! 
knows as Frank the Bank and about the worst Governor we've ever had - appointed his daughter Lisa (a former State Senator) to the US Senate. There were infintely more qualified Alaskans to take that job, and this act of nepotism was the first really stupid thing Frank has done. Lisa was re-elected, by a reasonably slim margin, in the last election defeating Gov Tony Knowles (D-AK). I voted for Knowles. Like I've said before, I vote for the person not the party. Lisa has proven time and again she's simple a hanger-on, and caouldn't find her ass with both hands a squad of infantry.
? 
Printer friendly format 
