Yawn.
We've seen this canard before. There's a difference between approving of a nameless, faceless body and approving of the individual members of that body.
Approval ratings for
actual members of Congress: (
source)
Alabama: Shelby 60%, Sessions 56%, Bush 45%
California: Feinstein 49%, Boxer 50%, Bush 31%
Iowa: Grassley 69%, Harkin 54%, Bush 28%
Kansas: Brownback 55%, Roberts 50%, Bush 39%
Kentucky: McConnell 57%, Bunning 49%, Bush 37%
Massachusetts: Kennedy 60%, Kerry 52%, Bush 22%
Minnesota: Coleman 48%, Klobuchar 62%, Bush 32%
Missouri: Bond 55%, McCaskill 51%, Bush 30%
New Mexico: Domenici 63%, Bingaman 58%, Bush 39%
New York: Schumer 61%, Clinton 52%, Bush 26%
Ohio: Voinovich 46%, Brown 50%, Bush 31%
Oregon: Wyden 61%, Smith 45%, Bush 32%
Virginia: Warner 59%, Webb 51%, Bush 30%
Washington: Murray 57%, Cantwell 53%, Bush 30%
Wisconsin: Kohl 58%, Feingold 56%, Bush 34%
Of the states SUSA sampled last month, Bush's
best performance was in Alabama, where he tied the
worst-performing Senator, Gordon Smith. House numbers are hard to come by, but even the vilified-from-the-right Nancy Pelosi routinely scores in the mid-40's.
Of course, there's a certain homestate pride in these results. You might interpret these numbers as, "Congress sucks, but
my congressperson is okay." Not true: When pollsters ask these questions to a nationwide audience, the "Don't know/Never heard of" numbers go up, but the approval/disapproval numbers maintain their relative parity: For example, in this nationwide poll of
Senator Feingold, his approval rating is 50% when the "don't know" responses are excluded.
Joe Biden? 44%
Chuck Hagel? 52%
A low approval rating for the thing called "Congress" isn't comparable to the president's
personal approval ratings.
