Dems' Low Poll Numbers May Not Mean Defeat

Politico: While Public Disapproves Of Congress, Democrats Still More Trusted Than GOP

(The Politico)  By The Politico's John F. Harris and Jim VandeHei

---

Congressional Democrats certainly know the power of a throw-the-bums-out message. It vaulted them to power a year ago this week. Little wonder anxiety is boiling over inside the new majority as lawmakers ponder a succession of polls and reach an inescapable conclusion: Lots of people think they are bums, too.

The anti-Washington mood in the country - aimed at both a Republican president and a Democrat-controlled Congress - has reached breathtaking levels. One has to reach back almost 30 years, to the low points of Jimmy Carter’s presidency, to find a time when there was such simultaneous disdain for both the executive and the legislative branches, as measured by Gallup approval ratings.

Amid the bloodshed and flawed execution of the Iraq war, there is no question why Bush is unpopular.

The political problems of congressional Democrats are more debatable - both their origins and how serious they are likely to be a year from now.

Interviews with lawmakers and top party operatives make clear that the Democratic House and Senate caucuses are divided into two camps. One group views the numbers with concern. The other group views them with panic.

“There are a lot of Democratic members who are consumed with” the sour state of public opinion, said one top party operative who works closely with the Democratic leadership.

From the Democratic perspective, there is definitely a case to be made for alarm. It is based on the history of recent decades that shows whenever voters get this unhappy, unpredictable things can happen.

One person who knows that well - his Democratic clients were beneficiaries of the phenomenon in such politically seismic years as 1992 and 2006 - is pollster Stan Greenberg. He came back from the field in October with numbers for NPR that showed 69 percent of voters disapprove of the job Congress is doing - up 20 points from last January and the highest disapproval rating since Democrats reclaimed their congressional majorities. More striking than the data was a focus group Greenberg observed with James Carville, a fellow consultant for the Democracy Corps project and his partner in Bill Clinton’s first presidential campaign.

“We’ve never seen people as angry and frustrated as they are now, ... even more than in ’92,” he said.

As it happens, however, Greenberg is firmly in the stay-calm camp of the Democratic debate. Along with pollster Mark Mellman, who also consults with Democrats, he has been trying to reassure anxious members with this sunny-side-up message: The public dislikes Republicans even more than they dislike you.

“It’s certainly true that people are disgruntled with Congress and lukewarm about the Democrats in general,” Greenberg said, adding that, “However modest Democrats’ numbers are, Republicans’ numbers are much worse and dropping.

“The main story is Republicans are seen as backing the Iraq war, backing Bush and blocking change,” he said.

Greenberg’s favorability index (voters are asked to give the “temperature” of their feelings, from “very warm” to “very cold”) showed that the public had a negative perception of congressional Democrats by four points, and a negative perception of congressional Republicans by 17 points.

Mellman said that Democrats in part are confronting disappointment from their own backers, who are hoping for more immediate results from the new majority, particularly on Iraq.

According to Democrats who have seen a poll he conducted last week, however, Democrats in Congress had a 48 percent favorable rating, with 44 percent reporting an unfavorable opinion.

Republicans in Congress had just a 32 percent favorable rating, with 62 percent unfavorable.

Rep. Rahm Emanuel, who led the House Democrats’ campaign committee during last year’s election, said he can live with these numbers for now. “I would not call it a grand slam, but you are on a base,” he said Tuesday.

He appealed for realism: “If 70 percent of the country feels rotten about how things are going, you are not going to get them to feel positive about any institution or person.”

Mellman said history supports Emanuel’s confidence: “There’s no consistent relationship between congressional approval and electoral outcomes.”

Weak approval ratings for Congress did lead to a change in power benefiting Republicans in 1980 and 1994, and benefiting Democrats in 2006, Mellman noted. But Democrats scored big gains, even with lackluster approval ratings, in 1982, and suffered only modest losses despite abysmal ratings in 1992.

On issues such as protecting the environment (higher CAFE standards for automobiles) and product safety (cracking down on dangerous Chinese toys) and, above all, the war in Iraq, the public is much more sympathetic to Democrats than Republicans, Mellman’s data found.

That’s why Emanuel is urging his members and political reporters alike to take a breath. “The biggest problem for Bush and his party - besides his unpopularity - he has no agenda, and they have no agenda,” he said. “We are the ones proposing. ... Over time, that comes across. At least we are offering to do something.”

Still, Republicans know that dissatisfaction with Congress at least offers them a potential opening.

A survey by the Field Poll in California last week showed that in her home state, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for the first time in her new job has a plurality of voters disapproving of her performance - 40 percent to 35 percent.

And at a news conference Tuesday, House Republican Whip Roy Blunt (Mo.) chortled, “Never has a Congress spent so much time to accomplish so little.”

In making this case, the GOP has been getting a boost from Jay Leno, who mocked House Democrats in his monologue on Monday and Tuesday nights, in particular the recent news that Democrats are backing off their 2006 campaign pledge for longer workweeks. “I guess they realize they don’t need a full five days to do nothing,” Leno cracked. “They can now do nothing in four days.”

[nhprophet]

Clinton voted for the oxymoronically-named Patriot Act and for the war in Iraq, but so many Democrats are blinded by her cult of personality that they will overwhelmingly vote to put her crime family back in office. While I have made some progress in educating liberals as to the phony staged consensus of the left-right paradigm, the fact remains that a majority still see the White House as some kind of political Super Bowl, where the success of their "team" is the be all and end all - to the expense of America as a whole. The Punch and Judy show theatre of the troop surge debate characterizes Hillary''s role in hoodwinking Americans perfectly. The debate is framed as not whether the U.S. should get out of the Middle-East altogether, but the relative minutia of whether to feed thousands of more troops into the meat grinder or not. Clinton''s campaign manager compared Hillary to Margaret Thatcher. This translates as more war, more dead Americans, and a further desecration of the tattered shreds of what''s left of our Constitution. Clinton is the ultimate elitist and represents the Democrats supposed base, the poor and downtrodden, about as much as Lindsay Lohan represents grace and dignity. She was sure to inform the likes of David Rockefeller and Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands as to her presidential aspirations during her last visit to the Bilderberg Group conference in 2006. They have a proven history of acting as kingmakers.

[nhprophet]

Are we a Nation of Laws? Consider the Patriot Act. The Law is 342 pages long, or 57,000 words, making it a bit longer than Dostoevsky''s "Notes from Underground" or, if you''re partial to pigs, about twice the size of Orwell''s "Animal Farm." The Patriot Act is the reigning champion of our government''s un-American activities. When it was first paraded before Congress following the 9/11 attacks. Few, if any, Members other than Ron Paul voted against it because of it''s Draconian provisions. Most in Congress simply gave it their rubber-stamp of approval for fear of appearing "unpatriotic" to their constituents during our national moment of crisis. Now in effect, the Law wrecks a generation''s worth of constitutional protections against government snooping, legalizing police-state tactics in searches and seizures, criminalizing certain forms of speech and political activity, and opening the way for the mistreatment of foreigners in government custody and wholesale expulsions and imprisonment. It is a repugnant, unnecessary Law that goes against the very principles its name stands for. Yet, it remains unchecked and unbalanced by public opinion, lawmakers or the Courts. So, yes, we''re a nation of Laws. But the Laws aren''t much to speak of when they''re designed to hoodwink the public and win its docility. Neither is public responsibility much to speak of these days when its docility is secured with nothing more than a ploy-riddled play on the word "patriot."

[nhprophet]

Under The Patriot Act, the government''s law enforcement branches have used their prosecutorial discretion to target citizens who voice their dissent. The law enforcement targeting of citizens who exercise their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion since 9/11 is certainly no exception. The oxymoronically-named Patriot Act section 802 defines domestic terrorism so broadly that it could apply to an individual exercising his or her freedom of speech, expression, and assembly through acts of civil disobedience. In June 2004, Buffalo, New York, artist Steve Kurtz was detained by law enforcement and had his home searched by FBI agents. Despite finding only harmless paints, which Kurtz uses in his politically motivated art projects. The FBI proceeded with a Grand Jury hearing to indict Kurtz under the Patriot Act''s biological agents provision. The Justice Department frequently uses Section 805 of the Patriot Act, "Material Support for Terrorism," to imply that a person has some link to terrorism. Georgetown Law Professor David Cole''s May 5, 2004, testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary explains that "in many cases, those who have been charged with material support have done nothing more sinister than to exercise their first amendment right to freedom of speech or freedom of association."

[nhprophet]

With the full support of Senators Clinton, Obama and McCain, President Bush recently signed into Law the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007, which, according to Senator Leahy (D-Vermont), will actually encourage the President to declare Martial Law. It does so by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President''s ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions. Public Law 109-364, or the John Warner Defense Authorization Act (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the President on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of your Governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder." President Bush seized this unprecedented power on the very same day that he signed the equally odious Military Commissions Act. In a sense, the two laws complement one another. One allows for torture and detention abroad of those who resist, while the other seeks to enforce acquiescence at home, preparing to order the military onto the streets of America.

[nhprophet]

Section 1076 of the massive John Warner Defense Authorization Act, which grants the Pentagon another $500-plus-billion for its ill-advised adventures, is entitled, "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies." Section 333, "Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law" states that "the President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of ("refuse" or "fail" in) maintaining public order, "in order to suppress, in any State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy." For the current President, "enforcement of the laws to restore public order" means to commandeer guardsmen from any state, over the objections of local governmental, military and local police entities; ship them off to another state; conscript them in a law enforcement mode; and set them loose against "disorderly" citizenry - protesters, possibly, or those who object to forced vaccinations and quarantines in the event of a bio-terror event.

[nhprophet]

The John Warner Defense Authorization Act, supported by Clinton, Obama and McCain, also facilitates militarized police round-ups and detention of protesters, so called "illegal aliens," "potential terrorists" and other "undesirables" for detention in facilities already contracted for and under construction by Halliburton. That''s right. Under the cover of a trumped-up "immigration emergency" and the frenzied militarization of the southern border, detention camps are being constructed right under our noses, camps designed for anyone who resists the foreign and domestic agenda of the Bush administration. The Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security International recently reported that "global engineering and technical services powerhouse, Kellog, Brown & Root announced in January 2006 that its Government and Infrastructure division was awarded an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity contract to support U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities in the event of an emergency." "With a maximum total value of $385 million over a five year term," the report notes, "the contract is to be executed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers," "for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to augment existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations - in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs."

[nhprophet]

In addition to authorizing another $532.8 billion for the Pentagon, including a $70-billion "supplemental provision" which covers the cost of the ongoing, mad military maneuvers in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places, the John Warner Defense Authorization Act, signed by the president in a private White House ceremony, further collapses the historic divide between the police and the military: a tell-tale sign of a rapidly consolidating police state in America, all accomplished amidst ongoing U.S. imperial pretensions of global domination, sold to an "emergency managed" and seemingly willfully gullible public as a "global war on terrorism." Make no mistake about it: the de-facto repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) is an ominous assault on American democratic tradition and jurisprudence. The 1878 Act, which reads, "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both," is the only U.S. criminal statute that outlaws military operations directed against the American people under the cover of "law enforcement." As such, it has been the best protection we''ve had against the power-hungry intentions of an unscrupulous and reckless executive, an executive intent on using force to enforce its will.

[nhprophet]

Within every generation our country has had its share of weird and backward laws, the sort of legal aberrations like the Patriot Act and the John Warner Defense Authorization Act, which Senators Clinton and Obama fully supported, that make it more expedient for a President to wield power and for a lazy Congress to seem assertive. John Adams had his Alien and Sedition Acts, which invited suspicion of immigrants and criminalized any critical opinion of the government. Massacring Indians was a favorite sport of Andrew Jackson''s, but in order to indulge it he had to act as if Supreme Court decisions had the legal standing of a fugitive slave. His contempt was infectious. "The farce of dealing with Indian tribes," as Jackson put it, meant that none of the 374 treaties signed with Native Americans by 1868 were worth more than the feathers they were inked with. By then the nation got busy dealing with the farce of Reconstruction, when lawmaking turned its deceptive wiles on blacks, a political pastime that continues to this day with such legal sophistries as affirmative action and the gerrymandering of "majority-minority" voting districts -- two effective ways of patronizing black participation in society while isolating it in politics. All legal, all seemingly constitutional, for now.

[nhprophet]

Within every generation our country has had its share of weird and backward laws, the sort of legal aberrations like the Patriot Act and the John Warner Defense Authorization Act, which Senators Clinton and Obama fully supported, that make it more expedient for a President to wield power and for a lazy Congress to seem assertive. John Adams had his Alien and Sedition Acts, which invited suspicion of immigrants and criminalized any critical opinion of the government. Massacring Indians was a favorite sport of Andrew Jackson''s, but in order to indulge it he had to act as if Supreme Court decisions had the legal standing of a fugitive slave. His contempt was infectious. "The farce of dealing with Indian tribes," as Jackson put it, meant that none of the 374 treaties signed with Native Americans by 1868 were worth more than the feathers they were inked with. By then the nation got busy dealing with the farce of Reconstruction, when lawmaking turned its deceptive wiles on blacks, a political pastime that continues to this day with such legal sophistries as affirmative action and the gerrymandering of "majority-minority" voting districts -- two effective ways of patronizing black participation in society while isolating it in politics. All legal, all seemingly constitutional, for now.

[nhprophet]

Following the Reichstag Fire, a historically-proven act of False Flag Terrorism his own party staged to encite fear in the German population, Hitler promoted the Enabling Act, which is quite similar, in many, many ways, to our own Patriot Act and to the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007, which gives the President the power to suspend Congress, The Constitution, and to impose Martial Law following any event he or she deems an "emergency." Here''s what Hitler told the German people:

"The government will make use of these powers only insofar as they are essential for carrying out vitally necessary measures...The number of cases in which an internal necessity exists for having recourse to such a Law is in itself a limited one."
- Adolf Hitler

Does that ring any bells? It should, folks. It''s nearly the same words George Bush used to support of the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007, one of the many Orwellian Laws which Senators Clinton, Obama and McCain all supported.

"Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal."
-- Martin Luther King Jr.

"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home."
- James Madison

"We have nothing to fear but fear itself, and those who would exploit our fear for power and their own personal, selfish, cynical gain."
- Franklin D. Roosevelt