Novak: Bush unable to control Congress

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak06.html

The decline in President Bush's political fortunes fits the cyclic pattern of all presidents except for one constant that troubles Republicans. In nearly 41/2 years, Bush has not progressed in handling Congress. He seems as much at a loss in dealing with the legislative branch as the day he entered the White House.

Bush is the only Republican president since the 1920s to enjoy protracted control of both houses of Congress by his own party. Yet, he seems less able to direct the legislative branch than Republican predecessors who had to handle a Democratic-controlled Congress. With Congress in its lengthy Memorial Day recess, GOP legislators and lobbyists tabulated the scorecard on items large and small.

*The House passed a stem cell research funding bill marked by Bush for his first veto after GOP leaders made a deal with liberals to bring the measure to the floor in return for their votes on the budget.

*The Senate's highway bill exceeds the president's overly generous spending limits, peppered with pork projects earmarked by individual senators.

[Inland]

1. Bush now campaigning against Congress

His news conference last Tuesday was picked on a day Congress had off and the president made about ten statements about how much work reps have to do "when they came back to town".

But Bush is comfortable campaigning against Congress. After all, his supporters know that its easier for him to be a dictator, and Congress stands in the way of that--not very effectively given the membership, but it does, still.

[tsuki]

2. Earth to Novakula. The legislative branch is it's own branch.

Like Separation of Powers. They are not the employees of the pResident.

[Dawgs]

3. WTF!!!

"The decline in President Bush's political fortunes fits the cyclic pattern of all presidents except for one constant that troubles Republicans."

Can someone help me with this quote. I personally think it's bullshit and hate to see it used. It's an excuse statement and just wrong. For instance, compare Bush's approval ratings(as low as 43%) to Clinton's and his lowest(60%). Even Reagan had a high approval rating during his second term. These articles are letting him off of the hook, and I completely disagree. Bush's approval ratings are low because he sucks as a President, not because he is in his second term.

Am I wrong here?

[guruoo]

6. Bush's record low approval rating tells the tale

Approval ratings for presidents as
recorded by Gallup (all for March):
Truman, 1949: 57%.
Eisenhower, 1957: 65%.
Johnson, 1965: 69%.
Nixon, 1973: 57%.
Reagan, 1985: 56%.
Clinton, 1997: 59% .
Bush, 2005: 45% .
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000866232

End-of Presidency Job Approval Ratings
Poll conducted Jan. 11-15, 2001:
Bill Clinton (2001) 65%
Ronald Reagan (1989) 64
Dwight Eisenhower (1961) 59
John F. Kennedy (1963) 63
George Bush (1993) 56
Gerald Ford (1977) 53
Lyndon Johnson (1969) 49
Jimmy Carter (1981) 34
Richard Nixon (1974) 24
Story: >>>
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/poll_clintonlegacy010117.html

[geckosfeet]

8. Your'e right on. * is the villiage idiot. Who in their right mind

would willingly accept his leadership. Most congressmen are fairly educated and respect good leadership. Why should they listen to a sun burnt, wind stunted shrub?

If you ask me, shrub is lucky he has a$$holes like Novak around.

[bemildred]

4. The pResident is not supposed to control congress.

It works the other way, dimwit. Read the Constitution.

[hatrack]

5. Didn't know that was part of his job description . . .

STFU, Nofacts.

[geckosfeet]

7. STFU Novak you a$$hole.

[indepat]

9. W would never have been able to control the Congress had not large numbers

of Congressmen failed to uphold their oaths of office by relinquishing to him many of the powers and prerogatives the Constitution vests solely in the Congress, i.e., rubber-stamping in lockstep fashion.