Congress at 25% - Bush at 29%

[red states rule]

the facts show otherwise.

If you are so sure, cite your figures.

And in any case, you still fail to answer the question: WHY?

Why have the republicans in congress consistently polled lower than the democrats since before the last election?

A 24.8% approval raiting is nothing to be proud of MM

 

[maineman]

A 24.8% approval raiting is nothing to be proud of MM

why do you avoid answering the question?

why, if your party has all the right answers and the democrats have all the wrong answers, why do your guys consistently poll lower than my guys?

can you stand still long enough to answer that question or will you continue to tapdance?

 

[red states rule]

Congress approval rating falls to new low, while Pelosi claims "we can only do so much."

In a story from Reuters, “Newly empowered Democrats draw wrath of voters,” it seems that the vast majority of American voters are dissatisfied with the Democrat controlled congress. The article is based on a new poll:

“A Quinnipiac University poll this month found Congress with an approval rating of just 23 percent . " People voted for change. But they don't think they got it," said Peter Brown, an assistant director of the poll.”

And who wouldn’t be dissatisfied with the current congressional leadership given quotes like these,

"I understand their disappointment," said Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada. "We raised the bar too high."

House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi said some Democrats understand " we can only do so much ."…"Others are just very unhappy. I include myself among them," Pelosi , of California, told The New York Times
http://www.tomdelay.com/home/congress-approval-rating-falls-to-new-low-while-pelosi-claim.html

 

[maineman]

why do you avoid answering the question?

why, if your party has all the right answers and the democrats have all the wrong answers, why do your guys consistently poll lower than my guys?

can you stand still long enough to answer that question or will you continue to tapdance?

still tapdancing, I see.....

 

[red states rule]

still tapdancing, I see.....

I thought you would enjoy reading the libs excuses for their failures

 

[maineman]

I thought you would enjoy reading the libs excuses for their failures

Actually, I am enjoying your tapdancing.

how do you DO that so well without a spine?

again...here is the question...it really is pretty simple.

democrats in congress have consistently polled higher than republicans since before the last election. WHY?

 

[red states rule]

Actually, I am enjoying your tapdancing.

how do you DO that so well without a spine?

again...here is the question...it really is pretty simple.

democrats in congress have consistently polled higher than republicans since before the last election. WHY?

another reason for the Dems falling poll numbers


More Games with Party Labeling in Yet Another Democratic Corruption Scandal
Posted by Lynn Davidson on July 13, 2007 - 19:21.

The indicted former Newark Mayor and current NJ state Senator Sharpe James sure is mysterious. According to the New York Times, WNBC and via the AP, the Wall Street Journal, Yahoo, Philadelphia Inquirer and the UK's Guardian, among others, James seemingly does not belong to a political party. Maybe he belongs to the same non-party as Rep. William Jefferson who was indicted on corruption and bribery charges earlier this year.

Strangely, after a little digging, I discovered that James is a Democrat and that according to the prosecution, some of his alleged expenses included costly trips to Jamaica, Rio De Janeiro and Puerto Rico on the taxpayer's dime, as well as letting a girlfriend buy city property at bargain-basement prices.

For some reason, the media seem reluctant to identify that James is a Democrat and even those articles which do, bury his affiliation up to 11 paragraphs down into the text as the AP did on ABCNews.com. Even Wikipedia. minimized James' connection to the Democrats.

Not surprisingly, the New York Times was the worst offender. In a detailed 29-paragraph two-page spread (on the on-line version), the Times just didn't see fit to divulge James' party, even though the first three paragraphs provided several opportunities:

The AP was just as bad. All the AP articles seemed to have been written by Janet Frankston Lorin and either did not reveal the party outright or buried it from seven to eleven paragraphs, with the Washington Post being the exception at three. Why Lorin would minimize and exclude such a significant piece of information is something that should be answered, particularly since the AP's own guidebook for journalists, the AP Stylebook, recommends including party when relevant. The AP tends to find party relevant when a Republican is caught in a scandal.

http://newsbusters.org/node/14089

 

[maineman]

you just can't quite muster up the courage to actually answer that simple question, can you?



again...here is the question...it really is pretty simple.

democrats in congress have consistently polled higher than republicans since before the last election. WHY?

 

[red states rule]

you just can't quite muster up the courage to actually answer that simple question, can you?



again...here is the question...it really is pretty simple.

democrats in congress have consistently polled higher than republicans since before the last election. WHY?

Dems are having problems and the roof is caving in on them

 

[maineman]

you bring up Reid's low numbers but never acknowledge that the Senate Republican leader has equally low ratings.... and Pelosi's approval is nearly double Boehner's!

can't quite stop tap dancing to answer why that is.....

pretty sad.

 

[maineman]

Dems are having problems and the roof is caving in on them

can you read? Can you read what my post said? are you capable of discussion or only one liners that do not further any discussion?

 

[red states rule]

can you read? Can you read what my post said? are you capable of discussion or only one liners that do not further any discussion?

Sorry to keep hitting you with facts

Why not go to bed, lick your wounds, and try again in the morning

 

[maineman]

Sorry to keep hitting you with facts

Why not go to bed, lick your wounds, and try again in the morning

why can't you address the facts about the congressional republican's consistenly lower poll numbers than congressional democrats?

Will you ever have the courage to explain that?

 

[red states rule]

why can't you address the facts about the congressional republican's consistenly lower poll numbers than congressional democrats?

Will you ever have the courage to explain that?

I have, but you ignore the truth

 

[maineman]

I have, but you ignore the truth

no...what IS your explanation for the consistently lower republican congressional poll numbers? you have never answered that question.

what "truth" did you pass on concerning that poll differential?

 

[red states rule]

no...what IS your explanation for the consistently lower republican congressional poll numbers? you have never answered that question.

what "truth" did you pass on concerning that poll differential?

Yawn..........

 

[maineman]

Yawn..........

is that your stock answer when you are painted into a corner?

explain why republicans consistently poll lower than democrats in congress.

or run away...

but jeez... quit tapdancing.

 

[red states rule]

is that your stock answer when you are painted into a corner?

explain why republicans consistently poll lower than democrats in congress.

or run away...

but jeez... quit tapdancing.

Dems down to 24.8% and dropping - live with it

 

[maineman]

Dems down to 24.8% and dropping - live with it

republicans ten points lower than that and dropping. suck on it.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

anybody wanna give me links, or are we just gonna call each other assholes again

republicans ten points lower than that and dropping. suck on it.