What The Numbers Mean
By Ted West
MTW contributing writer
In the latest Zogby Poll, Congress' approval rating is, appropriately, barely post-pubescent. Or as Zogby puts it: "just 14 percent rated it excellent or good."
This begs the question: what kind of a mind could rate the job Congress is doing as excellent?
On the other hand, such a low figure probably has a lot of Republicans saying, "I told you so."
Well, don't smile when you say that, okay?
Zogby theorizes that people were voting for change in the last election, and that they aren't getting it.
Sure they are, Zog, it's just that what they were looking for was -improvement-. How naive the electorate is.
But that's exactly why Republicans shouldn't be thrilled. Because while approval ratings for the Democrat controlled Congress are a third lower than what "won" Republicans a minority position, that 23% rating for the last Congress is what voters considered to be, in technical language, rotten.
So instead of salivating at the prospect of returning Congress to GOP control, voters, and especially Republican voters, should consider the implications.
The way I see it, nothing has changed on the Republican side. If anything it's worse than before as evidenced by the attempt to force-feed us the immigration bill. And have any Republicans stood up and said "HELL NO" to earmarks?
Well, yes and no…
"You want my money, my money?" asked Rep. Don Young (R-Ala.), a.k.a. Mr. Bridge-To-Nowhere, of his fellow Republicans on the House floor. Young was reacting to an amendment by Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) to strike money for native Alaskan and Hawaiian educational programs.
The news report about this said, "Young suggested Republicans lost their majority because" of Republicans like Garrett, who, "had challenged spending during the GOP's tenure."
You got that? The Republicans lost (thinks Young) because they didn't spend ENOUGH!
So to those who think that returning control to Republicans is the lesser of two evils, be aware that "lesser" is still very evil.
Isn't a divided government better? Right now, it's doing nothing, which when it comes to Congress, is almost never a bad thing.
And remember this; the Dems may be craven traitors, but the President seemed only too willing to "stay the course" in Iraq, and the Republican Congress seemed perfectly willing to let him do that. If the Democrats hadn't gained control of Congress in '06, would Rumsfeld have been replaced? Would the "surge" ever have happened? Maybe, but my guess is that we'd still be speculating as to when.
As it stands, we probably have the best configuration possible: Republican President, Democrat Congress. Second best would be a Dem Prez and GOP legislature, and if I'm permitted to fantasize, best of all would be to give each of them an all expenses paid trip back home.
Leave a Reply