Maybe not at election time, but as far as the press and the opinions of the opposite side, they do.

I see this crap from both sides and sometimes wonder if people (particularly the media) see what little power the president actually has.

Example 1:  Iraq.

Bush promoted the idea.  Congress voted for it.  The left's reaction?  "Bush lied to congress."


Example 2: Obamacare

Obama promoted the idea (with Pelosi's help).  Congress voted for it.  The right's reaction?  "Obama and Pelosi blackmailed congress."

I think both of these excuses are loads of crap.  For some reason, people would rather hold the president accountable than congress.  I don't quite see why, as it is counter-productive.

But even if these scenarios were true (which i'm in no way implying)... the blame still sits on congress.  Congress shouldn't take a man's word for it that a country has WMD's.  If they didn't ask for documentation, etc that is THEIR fault.

If congress allows themselves to be blackmailed, again, that is THEIR fault.

So why do they keep getting a free pass/excuses made for them?

Oh, Congress is getting a pass all right -- but it ain't free!  Sorry mofos are gonna PAY at the ballot box this November. 

I'm going to have to take a second look at any incumbent's voting record before I decide. 

(Boy, am I a dangerous revolutionary!)
::)

Of Course!

Bush's Neo-Con Presidency was an inspiration of Richard Nixon and basically Obama has followed a new form called Neo-Libs, which started with Jimmy Carter and was passed on to Bill Clinton and now Obama!

I wouldn't say Congress gets a free pass, because, on average, Congress has a lower approval rating than the president.

A free pass? Not this year when the Dems lose 45-50 seats in the House!! :)

It just seems that the media loves to make excuses for poor congress who couldn't stand up to the evil president.  As if they're 5 year olds who don't know how to tie their shoes yet.

And I agree, the voters are a bit smarter than that.

It just seems that the media loves to make excuses for poor congress who couldn't stand up to the evil president.  As if they're 5 year olds who don't know how to tie their shoes yet.
And I agree, the voters are a bit smarter than that.
Yeah but Obama, Pelosi, and Reid agree pretty much on everything!

Congress stopped getting a free pass with me when it failed to pass the bailout bill until it had an extra $135B of pork added to it.  The delay didn't change the outcome of the recession, but the timing of the delay (combined with my naive assumption that Congress had been informed that this wasn't the sort of bill they had any right to delay, which meant that I left myself unhedged for a "no" vote) cost me a ~mumble~ years' loss.  I still remember bruising my fist on the table while screaming "Goldman Sachs didn't ASK them, it ORDERED them to pass this!  Paulson himself relayed the order!  How the (redacted) DARE they!"

(By the time the bill had enough pork to pass, it had been priced in, and the bill's passage resulted in an immediate 500-point plunge in the Dow, so at least there was some measure of revenge, but I digress.  This isn't about my whining :)


And I agree, the voters are a bit smarter than that.


I disagree.  If the voters were smarter than that, Republicans wouldn't be blaming "0bama", and Democrats wouldn't still be blaming "Busheeshler".  In reality, the President has relatively little power.  His real job is to be a punching bag (the term "bully pulpit" used to mean something, now it's a prime example of doublethink) for whatever the people who run Congress have already told Congress to pass.

If the voters were smarter than that, then the probability of an incumbent Congressman being re-elected wouldn't be we in the high-90% range - higher than than the incumbent re-election rates of the Soviet Union.

If the government doesn't have the stones to push Wall Street around, Wall Street will push the government around.  You get a vote with government.  You don't get a vote on Wall Street unless you're at hedge fund investment level.  Own some stock?  Got a 401K?  You're a mark, a shill, a sucker, but you're not necessarily a capitalist!
::)

If the government doesn't have the stones to push Wall Street around, Wall Street will push the government around.   ::)


And that's usually the way to bet!  I'm just bitter because the one time in recorded history it didn't work out that way was the one time I wasn't prepared to have it work out that way.  I wouldn't have minded half as much if the Congressdrones had told their friends to load up on put options (this form of insider trading would be jailable in the private sector, but is perfectly legal for Congresscritters), because at least someone would have profited off of it - but it seems that it took everyone by surprise. 

Legal (because guess who'd have to pass the law to ban it?) Congressional insider trading enables them to outperform their private sector counterparts by levels that would put Warren Buffett to shame.  The Congressdrones who refused to follow their orders were so stupid that most of them didn't even realize how much they could have personally profited from it.

They screwed their real constituents (Wall Street, to whom they answer), they screwed their nominal constituents (the people, who ended up just as screwed either way), and by missing an opportunity on a par with buying put options on airline stocks the week before 9/11, they even screwed themselves.

I can give evil a pass.  Given a suitable number of beers, I can even admire certain forms of evil.  But I cannot give stupidity a second pass. 

And that's usually the way to bet!  I'm just bitter because the one time in recorded history it didn't work out that way was the one time I wasn't prepared to have it work out that way.  I wouldn't have minded half as much if the Congressdrones had told their friends to load up on put options (this form of insider trading would be jailable in the private sector, but is perfectly legal for Congresscritters), because at least someone would have profited off of it - but it seems that it took everyone by surprise. 

Legal (because guess who'd have to pass the law to ban it?) Congressional insider trading enables them to outperform their private sector counterparts by levels that would put Warren Buffett to shame.  The Congressdrones who refused to follow their orders were so stupid that most of them didn't even realize how much they could have personally profited from it.

They screwed their real constituents (Wall Street, to whom they answer), they screwed their nominal constituents (the people, who ended up just as screwed either way), and by missing an opportunity on a par with buying put options on airline stocks the week before 9/11, they even screwed themselves.

I can give evil a pass.  Given a suitable number of beers, I can even admire certain forms of evil.  But I cannot give stupidity a second pass. 


No pass for evil.  I'll give stupidity a pass.  However, obdurate stupidity is another form of evil!

On topic, I charge global warming-denying scientists on the payroll of think tanks and petrochemical corporations with obdurate evil!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/disgust.gif

I disagree.  If the voters were smarter than that, Republicans wouldn't be blaming "0bama", and Democrats wouldn't still be blaming "Busheeshler".
If the voters were smarter than that, then the probability of an incumbent Congressman being re-elected wouldn't be we in the high-90% range - higher than than the incumbent re-election rates of the Soviet Union.



I wouldn't say Congress gets a free pass, because, on average, Congress has a lower approval rating than the president.



So I *hope* this is a question of which data is more reliable.   If congress has a lower approval rating than the president, but a high-90% range of incumbent re-election, that really says something about the people of this country that I'd rather not try to fathom.   :-\\

I am conservative, but I still believe in balance.  If there is a right congress/right senate, I think a left president is a good thing, and vice versa.   When you have all left or all right, there is no longer any real representation of the people, since it all boils down to who has enough to meet the majority, and screw everybody else.

Which is why, I find it so counter-productive to blame the president for everything, what they should be doing is pointing out all the stupidity coming out of congress.  

Pelosi's bit about "We know you don't want this but we know what's better for you than YOU do" was disturbing... but as the speaker, that is what she's supposed to do, in a sense.  The fact that so many congressmen fell right into it (on their own, not via blackmail) is the real problem.

(Sorry for the anti-left slant there, I'm sure there are plenty of anti-right examples as well but I think you get the idea)

So I *hope* this is a question of which data is more reliable.   If congress has a lower approval rating than the president, but a high-90% range of incumbent re-election, that really says something about the people of this country that I'd rather not try to fathom.   :-\\


Naw, it's much simpler than that: "Those Congressbastards!  They're all corrupt.  Except for my Congressman.  I hate the (Senator/Rep/Male/Female), but at least he brings the pork to our (district/state).  That's what they're supposed to do, right?  I mean, if I voted for (non-incumbent, but still an R-or-D-approved candidate), I'd be throwing away years of experience in navigating the hierarchy, my (district/state) would be deprived of pork in favor (district/state) next door, because 'my' Congresscritter would be the low (man/woman) on the totem pole.  Screw it, I'll vote for the one whose name I remember."

And since the Republic's been dead since before any of us were born, nothing of value was lost.

It's a one party state with the media controlled by the government.

Jerry Brown said so in 1992!

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/tophat.gif

It's a one party state with the media controlled by the government.

Jerry Brown said so in 1992!

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/tophat.gif


Ah, then he should *love* Fox News... obviously *not* controlled by the government.  :D

Ah, then he should *love* Fox News... obviously *not* controlled by the government.  :D


FOX News is controlled by those who control the government.

Naw, it's much simpler than that: "Those Congressbastards!  They're all corrupt.  Except for my Congressman.  I hate the (Senator/Rep/Male/Female), but at least he brings the pork to our (district/state).  That's what they're supposed to do, right?  I mean, if I voted for (non-incumbent, but still an R-or-D-approved candidate), I'd be throwing away years of experience in navigating the hierarchy, my (district/state) would be deprived of pork in favor (district/state) next door, because 'my' Congresscritter would be the low (man/woman) on the totem pole.  Screw it, I'll vote for the one whose name I remember."
Nicely put.

So I *hope* this is a question of which data is more reliable.   If congress has a lower approval rating than the president, but a high-90% range of incumbent re-election, that really says something about the people of this country that I'd rather not try to fathom.   :-\\

I am conservative, but I still believe in balance.  If there is a right congress/right senate, I think a left president is a good thing, and vice versa.   When you have all left or all right, there is no longer any real representation of the people, since it all boils down to who has enough to meet the majority, and screw everybody else.

Which is why, I find it so counter-productive to blame the president for everything, what they should be doing is pointing out all the stupidity coming out of congress.  

Pelosi's bit about "We know you don't want this but we know what's better for you than YOU do" was disturbing... but as the speaker, that is what she's supposed to do, in a sense.  The fact that so many congressmen fell right into it (on their own, not via blackmail) is the real problem.

(Sorry for the anti-left slant there, I'm sure there are plenty of anti-right examples as well but I think you get the idea)

No, Pelosi is really unique I mean she really keeps the Democratic Caucus in the House together which allows her to get the needed votes she needs on a bill.

Congress stopped getting a free pass with me when it failed to pass the bailout bill until it had an extra $135B of pork added to it.  The delay didn't change the outcome of the recession, but the timing of the delay (combined with my naive assumption that Congress had been informed that this wasn't the sort of bill they had any right to delay, which meant that I left myself unhedged for a "no" vote) cost me a ~mumble~ years' loss.  I still remember bruising my fist on the table while screaming "Goldman Sachs didn't ASK them, it ORDERED them to pass this!  Paulson himself relayed the order!  How the (redacted) DARE they!"

(By the time the bill had enough pork to pass, it had been priced in, and the bill's passage resulted in an immediate 500-point plunge in the Dow, so at least there was some measure of revenge, but I digress.  This isn't about my whining :)

I disagree.  If the voters were smarter than that, Republicans wouldn't be blaming "0bama", and Democrats wouldn't still be blaming "Busheeshler".  In reality, the President has relatively little power.  His real job is to be a punching bag (the term "bully pulpit" used to mean something, now it's a prime example of doublethink) for whatever the people who run Congress have already told Congress to pass.

If the voters were smarter than that, then the probability of an incumbent Congressman being re-elected wouldn't be we in the high-90% range - higher than than the incumbent re-election rates of the Soviet Union.
It depends what district your talking about though I mean some districts are swing districts, very republican distructs, and very democratic districts. Remember the Dems won alot of Republiican districts in 2006.

The Republicans lost 51 House Seats combined the last 2 election cycles I think too.