And Bush and the war are so unpopular in national polls that the Democratic voters would be up in arms if their party gave in without a fight. The only support he still has is among partisan Republicans who wouldnt’ vote for the Democrats in ‘08 anyway.

Reagan and Bush 41 were presidents that Democrats were able to work with- 43 is on his own planet. He needs to learn to compromise if he wants to get anything done before he leaves.

BTW, there wasn’t a whole lot of Republican support for the president’s social security plan either- it was very lukewarm, so you can’t blame the Democrats entirely.
See how you blame the Democrats for obstruction but turn around and blame them again when they dont’ get their agenda passed because of Republican obstruction? You can’t have it both ways.

And the Democrats have tried to work with Bush on NCLB and on immigration. But he has given nothing in return on any of the issues they have tried to pass. So why should they bother? If you go by the amount of donations, Democrats are outraising Republicans 2:1, which indicates that the country would still rather have them in charge. Most people realize that it just needs to be with a different president- not one who is stubborn and immovable on his positions and his ideology. The most successful presidents were also the most flexible. Bush will leave office with no accomplishments beyond NCLB (a mixed bag) and Supreme Court picks that are highly controversial, but whom conservatives approve of.

Their ratings will go down if they remain as combative toward Bush as Bush is toward them

I’m going to have to call bull on that one. Exactly what Bush policies are popular and should be continued, not opposed?

Also, forgot to mention that Congress’s approval ratings-which are usually very low, fell after they failed to get anything done on the war.

Their ratings will go down if they remain as combative toward Bush as Bush is toward them — and it’s not that they haven’t done anything on the war that is important so much as they have done, they have accomplished, nothing.

Also, don’t forget that the 2006 election results were a thumbs-down on the Republicans as well as on the war effort and it was thumbs-down on the Republicans for their behaving as Democrats have long behaved in Washington — too happy with Big Government (too large a federal government, by far), too happy with Business As Usual and even a celebrity culture within the sealed environment of Washington, and too happy to avoid becoming corrupt. Who needs Dems Lite?

kritter – why do so many of the commentators here like to talk about Bush’s low poll ratings, as you just did, as some kind of justification for Congressional obstinance towards Bush and his policies?

The poll ratings weren’t even an issue when the Congressional Democrats were obstinant about Social Security. Their deliberate obstructionism in addition to their negligence in saving the program made them once again toxic waste to better people.

Harry Reid is simply worthless here and should be ignored.

Good luck to the Dems after 2008 when they will likely have more Congressional seats and the White House, if 2006 is any indication. Then they will be even more put to the test, because they will no longer have their position as “the opposition” as their excuse for their obstructionism and yes, obstinacy (as much as Bush and his adminstration shows toward Congress). What did they do about Social Security? a) Nothing positive; b) They simply opposed whatever Bush or anyone else had suggested. They had no excuses, they were wrong, they disgusted better people, and they will be even more subject to criticism when they have more power.

To be fair, the Republicans only demanded ‘up OR down’ votes on judicial nominees. Republicans demanded the up OR down votes because it is not clearly stated in the constitution that a 60 vote majority is required for judicial confirmations. Of course, that would not agree with your argument, but don’t let pesky facts get in your way.

Remember that the individuals in DC (the staffers and think-tankers) are much more partisan than the rest of America. Thus, the staffers and aides of the Democrats still think in terms of harming the president.

The Democrats are of course foolish to pursue such a strategy. The Democrats are going to win big in 2008 without the stunts. But the hardcore partisans just cannot change their thinking.

It also shows you how little the media report in that the FY 2008 DoD budget is never discussed.

Reid’s actions won’t hurt Bush with his base, who support his war efforts and the surge. He is taking action in response to enormous public pressure to change the Iraq war strategy, which even influential Republicans like Lugar, Warner and Voinivich, are admitting isn’t working in our best interest.

I assume it is political payback from the last Congress. I also assume it is because the Democrats have decided to use virtually very bill as a vehicle for embarassing the Republicans.

However, the Democrats control the budget bills. There is a deadline of September 30 for them to be passed. Then the Republicans have to either allow votes or to allow the Democrats to pass continuing resolutions with all sorts of restrictions.

The Democrats have complete control of the purse strings but refuse to use. The Democrats seem so scared of the public service unions that they would rather give President Bush what he wants rather than close the government for a single day.

kritter – why do so many of the commentators here like to talk about Bush’s low poll ratings, as you just did, as some kind of justification for Congressional obstinance towards Bush and his policies?

Democracy is indeed a bitch Austin.

Calling for them to do so, or for them to actually do so, strictly for policy disagreements is intellectually honest and completely defensible.

But if polls and approval ratings are the criteria, then Congress polls even lower than Bush, so by those standards they should be following his lead!

Why aren’t you up in arms about the obstructionist Republicans who have used the filibuster more than 40 times since January? Isn’t that a political stunt to make the 110th Democratic Congress look like the do-nothing 109th? The goal is to make voters think there’s no difference.

However, the would rather score political points rather than accomplish one of the few things that the Constitution requires them to do.

I suspect that what Reid really wants is to find a way to harm President Bush the most while trying to ensure that the Iraq issue is overwith beofre January 2009 and the Democrats gain control of every branch of the government.