Only 3% approve of Congress' handling of the war. YES 3%

[twa]

When was the last time we saw real leadership from Congress on any issue?

I am genuinely trying to understand exactly what the Congress is supposed to do with the mess the Administration has been allowed to brew up.

>>>>

Perhaps our dialogue and answers in ES will lead the way to be a better America, so let's dialogue

Perhaps we (and they) could start with accepting it is OUR war,not Bush's,nor the Reps or the Dems....The majority of elected representatives authorized this and we are all in it together with Our men and women dying and being crippled.

Both sides have been guilty of using this war as a club to score political points,which needs to stop.

Leadership begins with accountability and a eye for the welfare of this country and it's interests.

[portisizzle]

Murray, I am not a Congressman. But if I were I would want the Congress to come to some decision as to how our country must finish what has been started. Congress is not in session to screw around. Debate, discuss and then wake up and make some decisions to help our country WIN this war.

Is that too much to ask for our representatives? No it is not.

[Larry]

I suspect that what it means is that the country is fragmented into several factions, and all of those factions are pulling on Congress to go their way, and getting ticked because they're not winning the tug-of-war.

(Or, another way of looking at it: Nobody can agree on what should be done about the war, but everyone is certain that their idea is the right one.)

[NoCalMike]

It's not that unbelievable given the situation with the Occupation in Iraq.

Republican voters/pollsters are going to dissapprove of congress simply because they are controlled by the Democrats(which Dem voters would likely do in the reverse situation)

And Democratic pollsters are mad at the congress because they haven't taken a hard enough stance against the war.

Basically the Democrats won the last mid-term election because the presented a hard opposition to The War in Iraq, by election time, even a lot of republicans/conservatives were tired of the war.

Fast forward to today, and the war is still going on, the situation is a bad as ever, and there is still no end in sight, with the war almost assured to be handed over to the next President in January 2009.

Now, you can filter this through the right wing talking heads as "OMG People hate liberals, people want a right wing revolution blah blah blah" but it simply isn't true.

If you polled the same people, on individual issues, such as the raise in minimum wage, illegal wire tappings, if they want an exit strategy in Iraq etc etc....then I can almost guarantee that it won't be only 3% polling with the Democrats.

The problem I fear is that the war is being used as a political tool. If the Democrats keep it going, and give Bush all the funding he wants, and the war remains a mess, then it sets them up for the Whitehouse. On the other hand if you are a republican, you know the Dems don't have ENOUGH control to override anything Bush wants to do, so they can use 2008 as an oppurtunity as saying the Dems failed to get much of anything done.....

Both sides can benefit politically from the war continuing on.....I just hope this isn't the case.

[RabidFan]

Yep ,we have achieved a near perfect state of gridlock...kind of a perfect storm scenario.

If "gridlock" achieves measurable checks and balances then i'm all for it. the last 6 years have been scarily Yosemite Sam'nesses....without any repercussions and checks and balances....it seems the gov't worked better with Clinton in office and reps holding congress but when reps held everything corruption ran abundant and still is. So just because i hate this admin and have since the egregious sales job of the war have.....it might best the country if each party holds a portion...course if it is as now where the executive branch feels it has autonomy and absolvement from any checks or balances...eff that...gimmie all dems and i'll live with it.