Wouldn't Congress' approval rating go to around 55-60% if they started impeachment proceedings against Bush?

Question

I find it interesting that media people keep quoting poll numbers about Congress and no one mentions this.

People are frustrated with Congress because of their blatant disregard for their duty to hold the President accountable for his deception and not upholding the rule of law that is found in our country's constitution!!!

And the Republicans use the low ratings as a plus for their party!?

Doesn't anyone else see this?

Answer 1

In all honesty, if Congress dropped giving the war effort so much attention and began paying attention to needs here within our Country then their approval rating would climb far beyond a mere 55-60%.

Answer 2

The low Congressional polling numbers are based on the fact that Congress has done nothing at all since being seated. Couple this with the fact that the initiatives they have undertaken were very unpopular, like trying to ram a bad immigration bill down our throats. Those in Congress understand that in order to impeach first you require evidence, and second, you require a two thirds majority in the Senate. They possess neither and fully understand what an unpopular move this would be. Not to mention a colossal waste of time and money. As for Republicans using the numbers to their advantage that just politics in general and a move that Democrats use to their advantage whenever possible also. If Democrats don't like the low numbers, or the way they are portrayed then perhaps it's time they try undertaking some meaning attempts at legislation which will benefit the people of this country, rather than constantly trying to widen the divide with legislation that possesses zero chance of passage.

Answer 3

They did not lie to congress, a lie is the purposeful attempt at deceit; wmd came from reliable intel from our allies plus Saddam claimed to have had them. Try entering an airport these days and claim to have a gun. Your second paragraph answers itself "unreasonable", if a warrant was issued, reason was found. If you can't think for yourself, maybe it's time to turn off the radio especially if you choose not to get a real education. Andrew Johnson was impeached May 26, 1868 and later aquited. Bill Clinton was impeached December 19, 1998; no witnesses were called, he was later aquited February 12, 1999. Apparently the U.S. Senate does not want the U.S. presidential image soiled with an actual impeachment.

Answer 4

The reason no one mentions this is because it would actually be worse for Congress. Wasting valuable time and resources on something that could further embarrass this country is not a good way to increase approval ratings. So get over the impeachment calls already. It's not going to happen.

Answer 5

I find it amazing that you think you know more about government than the people running it.

The President has not done anything illegal.

Politics should not be a popularity contest. Some of the most important leaders in our 2000 year history were extremely unpopular in their time - only with the perspective that time gives has it shown how important their unwavoring stance was. Some of this worlds most horrilble leaders were popular with the people they lead - let's not forget Hitler was loved by the Germans.

Congress cannot impeach a President cause people don't like him - only if he breaks the laws he is sworn to uphold. Which he has not.

Answer 6

You could not be more wrong with your question/answer. Congress is at its lowest because of corruption and lies. The Republican party has no backbone and the Democrats cater to far left groups like moveon.org and the dailykos.

The congress won't try to impeach Bush because they know if they were in his shoes they would have to do the same thing. Listen to the presidential candidates in the Democrat party. When asked if they would pull all troops out of Iraq if elected they don't answer the question. In fact, in the debate last night the majority of them said they would have to keep troops there. If they really wanted them out they could simply vote to stop the funding, they won't because they know that the majority of Americans love our troops.

Answer 7

No, it wouldn't.

And since when did Congress uphold the Constitution? The majority of their spending isn't Constitutional.

And trying to dictate troop deployments is a gross violation of the separation of powers, and an underhanded attempt to usurp the President's authority.

Answer 8

It might climb a little bit once they started the proceedings, because poll takers question liberals more than they do conservatives. It would plummet to even lower levels than now once the liberals realize that they've been had, and there are no grounds for impeachment, contrary to what they've been led to believe. A little research and understanding of the rules of impeachment might save them some embarrasment. It might even be helpful to Newt.

Answer 9

That would be the dumbest thing that they could do considering there's no crime to charge him with. It's pretty obvious that you have no idea what impeachment is, which puts you in exactly the same intelligence range as Cindy Sheehan. Do you not see this?

Answer 10

If such procedings had been started earlier then popular opinion would go up but those who are actually in political positions may not approve so much because they are in the same political party as the President. With the elections coming in 2008 the best thing now is just to let him live his days in the white house w/o doing much besides bring troops home.