14%

[Yonivore]

'nuff said

[George W Bush]

I don't listen to polls.

[spurster]

But we keep electing the same people over and over again.

[smeagol]

If you are taking a shot at the Democratic dominated Congress, think again. It was 19% last year, when the Repubs were on top.

That poll in Argentina, for Congress. would yield numbers in the single digits

[xrayzebra]

[Yonivore]

If you are taking a shot at the Democratic dominated Congress, think again. It was 19% last year, when the Repubs were on top.

That poll in Argentina, for Congress. would yield numbers in the single digits

Well, 14 < 19 but, that's not really the point now, is it?

It’s so bad, it’s even ranking worse than HMOs.

I think it's sunk so low because Americans are realizing that the Democrats’ campaign rhetoric was loaded with empty promises and zero actual intention of addressing corruption…

Remember when Nancy Pelosi promised:

“We will bring transparency and openness to the budget process and to the use of earmarks,” Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi said in December 2006, “and we will give the American people the leadership they deserve.”

Of course, in that spirit of “transparency and openness”… she would not provide information on her earmarks.

Neither would most of Congress.

Despite the new Democratic congressional leadership’s promise of “openness and transparency” in the budget process, a CNN survey of the House found it nearly impossible to get information on lawmakers’ pet projects.

Staffers for only 31 of the 435 members of the House contacted by CNN between Wednesday and Friday of last week supplied a list of their earmark requests for fiscal year 2008, which begins on October 1, or pointed callers to Web sites where those earmark requests were posted.

Of the remainder, 68 declined to provide CNN with a list, and 329 either didn’t respond to requests or said they would get back to us, and didn’t.

So, let's look at what else Democrats promised:

With their votes, the American people asked for change. They cast their ballots in favor of a New Direction.

They called for greater integrity in Washington, and Democrats pledge to make this the most honest, ethical, and open Congress in history.

Here are some examples of that “greater integrity”:

1. Working with lobbyists like Jack Abramoff who Democrats used as a poster boy for corruption during the 2006 campaign season.

2. Awarding committee chairmanships to Congressmen being investigated by the very agencies he’d oversee.

3. Ranking members of the Judiciary Committee admitting to breaking ethics rules.

4. Members who chair subcommittees that appropriate billions of dollars to companies controlled by the member’s spouse.

5. Increasing the amount of contributions from lobbyists and special interests… above and beyond what the previous Congress accepted.

6. Balking at tough lobbying reforms.

7. Violating the very ethics rules put in place by your very own Congress.

8. Selecting a registered lobbyist, that represents the oil industry, the tobacco lobby, pharmaceutical industries and American Indian gambling interests, to run your PAC.

And, on top of the “greater integrity” they called for “greater civility”…

“The American people called for greater civility in how Congress conducts its work, and Democrats pledge to conduct our work with civility and bipartisanship, and to act in partnership - not partisanship - with the president and Republicans in Congress.”

And we see how well that’s working out.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I guess the anti-war wing of the democratic party is pissed. Since the dems haven't cut off funding for the war you'd think Yoni and the other dead enders would be staisfied. Of course not. They want to talk about the 95% GOP/Abramaff scandal.. yes 5% of dems are dirty.."culture of corruption" they clamor!!!

So now Yoni likes the same polls that indicate this country is fed up with the uncessary war.... of course my favorite poll was made last November

[George Gervin's Afro]

Well, 14 < 19 but, that's not really the point now, is it?

It’s so bad, it’s even ranking worse than HMOs.

I think it's sunk so low because Americans are realizing that the Democrats’ campaign rhetoric was loaded with empty promises and zero actual intention of addressing corruption…

Remember when Nancy Pelosi promised:


Of course, in that spirit of “transparency and openness”… she would not provide information on her earmarks.



Neither would most of Congress.


So, let's look at what else Democrats promised:


Here are some examples of that “greater integrity”:

1. Working with lobbyists like Jack Abramoff who Democrats used as a poster boy for corruption during the 2006 campaign season.

2. Awarding committee chairmanships to Congressmen being investigated by the very agencies he’d oversee.

3. Ranking members of the Judiciary Committee admitting to breaking ethics rules.

4. Members who chair subcommittees that appropriate billions of dollars to companies controlled by the member’s spouse.

5. Increasing the amount of contributions from lobbyists and special interests… above and beyond what the previous Congress accepted.

6. Balking at tough lobbying reforms.

7. Violating the very ethics rules put in place by your very own Congress.

8. Selecting a registered lobbyist, that represents the oil industry, the tobacco lobby, pharmaceutical industries and American Indian gambling interests, to run your PAC.

And, on top of the “greater integrity” they called for “greater civility”…


And we see how well that’s working out.

Why do I have the feeling if I wanted to waste my time I could find numerous GOP members who are guilty of the same things Yoni is throwing all over the Dems? I guess he could to but then that would make him look like a hypocrite AGAIN..

Yoni the master of the caveat.. please caveat the differences between the GOP s and the democratic s ...to justify your slective outrage


"I am a uniter not a divider" was promised before someone came into office but since it was Bush Yoni won't touch that.

[PixelPusher]

Thank God the Democrats took over Congress in '06, or Yoni would have gone another 2, 4, 6, 8 years without realizing Congress was corrupt and unpopular.

[FromWayDowntown]

I just don't believe that most of those surveyed are responding based on the sorts of things that Yonivore cites. That would suggest that our American Idol-centric culture is somehow suddenly concerned with the daily operation of the Legislative branch. I might be too cynical, but I don't think that a poll of average Americans would find too many digging as deep as Yonivore has.

Frankly, I suspect that the disapproval rating has significantly more to do with a macro view of Congress, and specifically, the inability of a Democratically-controlled Congress to bring an end to the war in Iraq.

[xrayzebra]

I just don't believe that most of those surveyed are responding based on the sorts of things that Yonivore cites. That would suggest that our American Idol-centric culture is somehow suddenly concerned with the daily operation of the Legislative branch. I might be too cynical, but I don't think that a poll of average Americans would find too many digging as deep as Yonivore has.

Frankly, I suspect that the disapproval rating has significantly more to do with a macro view of Congress, and specifically, the inability of a Democratically-controlled Congress to bring an end to the war in Iraq.

"concerned with the daily operation of the Legislative branch."

Or the lack thereof. Remember something, Congress is
an all encompassing word, it takes into account both
Dimms and Pubs. There is no operation going on and
remember something else. The dimms have been
opposed to every action taken in the Bush admin,
whether it be nominations or legislation. And now
with the no new energy, energy bill, immigration and
Iraq crap going on, people are fed up. They expect
the Congress to work on problems and attempt to solve
them, not work on agenda items and political power.

[FromWayDowntown]

"concerned with the daily operation of the Legislative branch."

Or the lack thereof. Remember something, Congress is
an all encompassing word, it takes into account both
Dimms and Pubs. There is no operation going on and
remember something else. The dimms have been
opposed to every action taken in the Bush admin,
whether it be nominations or legislation. And now
with the no new energy, energy bill, immigration and
Iraq crap going on, people are fed up. They expect
the Congress to work on problems and attempt to solve
them, not work on agenda items and political power.

1. My observation had nothing to do with separating Democrats and Republicans. I think most average people wanted the War in Iraq to end when the Republicans controlled Congress. When the Republicans didn't do that, those same average people voted for Democrats. Democrats haven't done it yet either. Hence, a lot of people are angry with Congress.

2. Otherwise, thank you for echoing my larger point.

[Ocotillo]

There is a solution for Congress. Elect more Democrats in '08 to the Senate. While House Dems have control, the Senate is another beast indeed which I believes results in the high dissatisfaction with Congress as reflected in the poll.

Reid has 49 Democrats to work with in the Senate. Tim Johnson is rehabilitating and Joe Lieberman is unreliable and no longer a Democrat. The Republican party has been stripped of it's moderates (and the trend will continue) thus Reid despite being "Majority" leader, does not have the strength to overcome the far right Republicans who while they lack the numbers to be a majority, have the numbers to prevent any legislation from reaching the President's desk that either they or he don't want.

What we have is a Democratic House, a tied Senate and Republican president. In that scenario, the executive branch remains stronger because of the ability to apply gridlock in the Senate.

I count myself among those dissatisfied with Congress but that is different from being dissatisfied with Democrats. Other polls reflect the Democratic brand outpolling the Republican brand.

"Nuff said."

[Yonivore]

Why do I have the feeling if I wanted to waste my time I could find numerous GOP members who are guilty of the same things Yoni is throwing all over the Dems? I guess he could to but then that would make him look like a hypocrite AGAIN..

Maybe you could...who knows?

But, the object of the post was to point out that less than a year into the new, improved, corruption-free Democratic Congress, they're just a freakin' bad -- and, according to the poll, worse -- than any prior Congress, including Republican ones.

Yoni the master of the caveat.. please caveat the differences between the GOP s and the democratic s ...to justify your slective outrage

GOP S is in prison, voted out of office, or sanctioned. Most of the Democratic S is still in office.

"I am a uniter not a divider" was promised before someone came into office but since it was Bush Yoni won't touch that.

What, exactly, has Bush done to divide Washington and make it more partisan?

[Yonivore]

Why do I have the feeling if I wanted to waste my time I could find numerous GOP members who are guilty of the same things Yoni is throwing all over the Dems? I guess he could to but then that would make him look like a hypocrite AGAIN..

And, back to this point; it's likely you'd have less problem finding reports of GOP corruption than of Democratic corruption but, that may not be because there's more of it.

MSNBC.com has posted an "investigative report" on journalists who have recently made political contributions. Analyzing records from the Federal Election Commission (FEC), the website identified 144 reporters, producers, anchors, copy editors, columnists and other members of the Fourth Estate who gave money to politicians over the past three years.

We'll give the website (and its reporter, Bill Dedman) some credit for tackling a subject the MSM studiously avoids. After all, how many times have we been told that journalists are "objective;" whatever their political affiliations or leanings might be, they can still cover stories fairly and accurately. Riiiighhhhht. Funny, but we thought the MSM's left-wing bias has been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt, thanks to books like Bias and Coloring the News.

But I digress. Dedman and his colleagues also deserve kudos for contacting (or attempting to contact) the media types who made those contributions. Some of their "excuses" or explanations are particularly revealing. A sampling is provided below:

ABC News, Mary Fulginiti, "Primetime" correspondent, Hollywood, Calif., $500 to Gov. Bill Richardson, Democratic presidential candidate, 2007. Before she joined ABC in November 2006, lawyer Fulginiti gave $6,000 to Democratic candidates.

ABC forbids political activity by journalists.

"A friend asked me to contribute" to Richardson, Fulginiti said. "This is not a reflection of my political views. Look, I've made a mistake here. I'm a legal analyst — this is all new to me. I have been politically active in the past. This is when I was just starting out at ABC. I was still thinking as a lawyer."

...

CBS News, producer, Edward H. Forgotson Jr., "CBS Sunday Morning," $1,000 in June 2006 to Patrick J. Kennedy, Democrat, the Rhode Island congressman and son of Sen. Ted Kennedy. The donation was made two weeks after Kennedy pleaded guilty to driving under the influence of prescription drugs in an accident on Capitol Hill.

A CBS spokesman said the network's policy was tightened in September 2006 to forbid contributions to political campaigns. Previously, there was a bit of wiggle room.

"My donation pre-dates the clarification of CBS News policy," Forgotson said. "I've made no contributions to any candidate or party since."

...

CNN, Guy Raz, Jerusalem correspondent, now with NPR as defense correspondent, $500 to John Kerry in June 2004.

Raz donated to Kerry the same month he was embedded in Iraq with U.S. troops for CNN. He also covered reaction to Abu Ghraib and President Bush's policies in the Middle East. In 2006, he returned to NPR, and covers the Pentagon.

"Yes, I made the donation," Raz said in an e-mail. "At the time, I was a reporter with CNN International based out of London. I covered international news and European Union stories. I did not cover US news or politics."

Both CNN and NPR prohibit political activity by all journalists, no matter their assignment.

...

MTV News, Gideon Yago, "Choose or Lose" presidential correspondent, $200 to Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark in January 2004; $500 to America Coming Together, which campaigned against President Bush, in September 2004; $250 to the Democratic National Committee in September 2004; $250 to VoteVets, which is running ads against the president's handling of the war, in March 2006, and $250 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in October 2006. He said he is no longer at MTV News.

Gideon Yago, raw:

"I don't understand. Things that I do as a private citizen?

"We're not a traditional news network in the sense of NBC or Fox or CBS.

"We're sensitive about equal time or fairness. We're non-biased.


"I mean, what the f---, man?

...

The New Yorker, Hendrik Hertzberg, senior editor, $2,000 to John Kerry in three payments in 2004. Hertzberg often writes the Comment in the front of the magazine, and was a speechwriter for Jimmy Carter.


Hertzberg, in answer to the question whether he made these donations, sent this reply: "Damn right."

...

The New Yorker, John Lahr, theater critic, $200 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in June 2006, $250 to the Democratic National Committee in September 2004, and $500 to John Kerry in March 2004.

Sometimes Lahr works an anti-Bush quip into his work. (Such as, to the president, "thinking is a fuse that has to be blown in order for him to do what he wants to do.")

"The whole point about criticism is to stimulate debate," Lahr said. "My biases are transparent, because I express them. One of the implications of your question is that people have no integrity — that people wouldn't be fair.

"What would you have me write? It would be hard to find a sentient person who could take a strong position for what the Republicans have done in the past six years. What are you going to do, take a position for their position on global warming or the war in Iraq? C'mon!

"This is a Puritan folderol. If you scratch farther into the people who make these rules, say at The New York Times, they're all in somebody's pocket."

In fairness, MSNBC actually found a few journalists who gave money to Republicans, but they are decidedly few and far between.

And that brings us to an observation about their investigative report. While the website dutifully places a "D" or "R" in front on each journalist donation that was discovered in the FEC records, they never get around to actually tabulating the results, which (surprise, surprise) confirms an overwhelming bias for Democratic candidates and causes.

So, in the interest of full disclosure, I stole someone's analysis. If you doubt it, you're welcome to do your own calculations. Of the 144 journalist contributions listed by MSNBC, 126 went to the Democratic Party, 88% of the total.

Why is that figure significant? It tracks very closely with previous surveys of political preferences among reporters, beginning with Robert Lichtenberg and Stanley Rothman's landmark study, "The Media Elite," published in 1981. They found that 81% of the nation's most influential journalists voted for the Democratic Presidential candidate between 1964 and 1981.

Similar trends were also noted in a 1995 poll of White House correspondents representing major media organizations (conducted by U.S. News and World Report), and a 2004 survey of campaign journalists, organized by columnist John Tierney of The New York Times. While the U.S. News and NYT surveys weren't scientific, they confirmed a heavy bias in favor of Democrats. Tierney's poll revealed that journalists outside Washington, D.C. favored John Kerry over George W. Bush by a 3-1 margin, while reporters inside the Beltway favored Mr. Kerry by a 12-1 margin.

But remember, they're "sensitive about equal time or fairness." They're "non-biased."

Riiiighhhht...

[Jamtas#2]

"D.C. favored John Kerry over George W. Bush by a 3-1 margin, while reporters inside the Beltway favored Mr. Kerry by a 12-1 margin."

So are you saying that those with the reporters with the most interaction and experience within Washington favor the Democrats?
Being a Republican, does that make you feel better about your party?

[George Gervin's Afro]

And, back to this point; it's likely you'd have less problem finding reports of GOP corruption than of Democratic corruption but, that may not be because there's more of it.

MSNBC.com has posted an "investigative report" on journalists who have recently made political contributions. Analyzing records from the Federal Election Commission (FEC), the website identified 144 reporters, producers, anchors, copy editors, columnists and other members of the Fourth Estate who gave money to politicians over the past three years.

We'll give the website (and its reporter, Bill Dedman) some credit for tackling a subject the MSM studiously avoids. After all, how many times have we been told that journalists are "objective;" whatever their political affiliations or leanings might be, they can still cover stories fairly and accurately. Riiiighhhhht. Funny, but we thought the MSM's left-wing bias has been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt, thanks to books like Bias and Coloring the News.

But I digress. Dedman and his colleagues also deserve kudos for contacting (or attempting to contact) the media types who made those contributions. Some of their "excuses" or explanations are particularly revealing. A sampling is provided below:


In fairness, MSNBC actually found a few journalists who gave money to Republicans, but they are decidedly few and far between.

And that brings us to an observation about their investigative report. While the website dutifully places a "D" or "R" in front on each journalist donation that was discovered in the FEC records, they never get around to actually tabulating the results, which (surprise, surprise) confirms an overwhelming bias for Democratic candidates and causes.

So, in the interest of full disclosure, I stole someone's analysis. If you doubt it, you're welcome to do your own calculations. Of the 144 journalist contributions listed by MSNBC, 126 went to the Democratic Party, 88% of the total.

Why is that figure significant? It tracks very closely with previous surveys of political preferences among reporters, beginning with Robert Lichtenberg and Stanley Rothman's landmark study, "The Media Elite," published in 1981. They found that 81% of the nation's most influential journalists voted for the Democratic Presidential candidate between 1964 and 1981.

Similar trends were also noted in a 1995 poll of White House correspondents representing major media organizations (conducted by U.S. News and World Report), and a 2004 survey of campaign journalists, organized by columnist John Tierney of The New York Times. While the U.S. News and NYT surveys weren't scientific, they confirmed a heavy bias in favor of Democrats. Tierney's poll revealed that journalists outside Washington, D.C. favored John Kerry over George W. Bush by a 3-1 margin, while reporters inside the Beltway favored Mr. Kerry by a 12-1 margin.

But remember, they're "sensitive about equal time or fairness." They're "non-biased."

Riiiighhhht...

So I guess your implying that if you contribute to a political party you lose all of your objectivity? If you and all of the dead enders on the right are correct all of these journalists are overtly biased because they are democrats. Their proffesionalism is trumped only by making Reublicans look bad?

[Yonivore]

So I guess your implying that if you contribute to a political party you lose all of your objectivity?

It's the reason most news organizations prohibit political activism.

If you and all of the dead enders on the right are correct all of these journalists are overtly biased because they are democrats. Their proffesionalism is trumped only by making Reublicans look bad?

That makes little sense. Care to try again?

[George Gervin's Afro]

It's the reason most news organizations prohibit political activism.


That makes little sense. Care to try again?

ok I'll slow down for you. my mind works much faster than I can type. If am to agree with you and the other dead enders I would have to accept the following:
Journalists don't go to school to study journalism. they go so they can get jobs and then bash republicans

if we accept your implication we must accept that these journalists don't care about proffesionalism they just want to make political statements

Anyone with a rational fram of mind can see that these 2 statements are ridiculous yet they are your points to prove the medai is biased..

[Yonivore]

ok I'll slow down for you. my mind works much faster than I can type. If am to agree with you and the other dead enders I would have to accept the following:

Journalists don't go to school to study journalism. they go so they can get jobs and then bash republicans

Or, they go to journalism school because they're fed the pap that they can change the world and, thus, carry their ideologies with them. They're no longer told to report the news, they've gotten into the business of making the news.

if we accept your implication we must accept that these journalists don't care about proffesionalism they just want to make political statements

I'd say that is true of many. Dan Rather, in his "fake but accurate" moment, is a rather high-profile and previously-respected example of such. Why would we expect any less from the less experienced among the press corps?

Anyone with a rational fram of mind can see that these 2 statements are ridiculous yet they are your points to prove the medai is biased..

I consider myself rational and, yet, can see many examples in the media that validate such statements...

[FromWayDowntown]

Even taking the implication that Yoni assigns to the MSNBC report at face value, I'm skeptical of a hypothesis that only the foibles of Republicans are reported. If you consider the blogosphere and talk radio as just a small portion of the existing media committed to issues of national governance and politics, I think we've probably reached a partisan equilibrium when it comes to coverage. I don't think the assumed relative ease in finding stories of corruption or unethical behavior among Republicans is somehow a function of an allegedly-biased main stream media.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Or, they go to journalism school because they're fed the pap that they can change the world and, thus, carry their ideologies with them. They're no longer told to report the news, they've gotten into the business of making the news.


I'd say that is true of many. Dan Rather, in his "fake but accurate" moment, is a rather high-profile and previously-respected example of such. Why would we expect any less from the less experienced among the press corps?


I consider myself rational and, yet, can see many examples in the media that validate such statements...

Yoni I'll give you that their are biased reporters out there who make news rather than report it! What I find preposterous is that you find it easy to generalize that all media is biased therefore anything they write is incorrect and untruthful.

[Yonivore]

Even taking the implication that Yoni assigns to the MSNBC report at face value, I'm skeptical of a hypothesis that only the foibles of Republicans are reported. If you consider the blogosphere and talk radio as just a small portion of the existing media committed to issues of national governance and politics, I think we've probably reached a partisan equilibrium when it comes to coverage. I don't think the assumed relative ease in finding stories of corruption or unethical behavior among Republicans is somehow a function of an allegedly-biased main stream media.

Of course you have to reach beyond what is supposed to be "objective" news reporting into the opinion-based blogosphere and talk radio in order to support your hypothesis.

That you had to do that tells me you believe "legitimate" news organizations -- how did you say it? -- "reached a partisan equilibrium when it comes to coverage" through the self-imposition of talk radio and the blogosphere (neither of which pretend not to be ideologically or politically biased).

Let me know when the News Departments at CBS, NBC, CNN, ABC, PBS, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, MSNBC, etc...
reach a partisan equilibrium with right-leaning news organizations and you might have a point.

[Yonivore]

Yoni I'll give you that their are biased reporters out there who make news rather than report it! What I find preposterous is that you find it easy to generalize that all media is biased therefore anything they write is incorrect and untruthful.

Well, you know...once you've lost your credibility, everything you report should be viewed as suspect.

They donate to Democratic causes 9 to 1...many in the face of company policies that prohibit political contributions of any kind. That says it all to me.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Well, you know...once you've lost your credibility, everything you report should be viewed as suspect.

They donate to Democratic causes 9 to 1...many in the face of company policies that prohibit political contributions of any kind. That says it all to me.

Got it. So anyone you use as a source has never had their credbility questioned? Got it. I would assume that if they had credibility questions in the past I suspect you would hold them to the same standards you put on the media you don't like.

So anyone who contributes to a political camp loses all resemblence of objectivity. Got it.