No, most of that 20% drop must come from the widely held perception that Congress caves to dictators. So even when Congress is reviled and the Democrats with it, it's likely disgust for Republicans that drives it. And still no one stands up to them.

And yet it was disgust (real or manufactured) with Republicans that won the Congress back for the Dems. The Alaska Pork Brigade, demonizing conservative gays, and "Macaca" being the essential Democrat platform. But the real plaint here is that "no one stands up to them."

Perhaps you should consider that while Republicans are willing to stand on principle, Dems for the most part are not - and in the pursuit of their own self interest have a better feel for what their constituents think than anyone here. Should anyone contest my characterization of Dems, remember it's not mine, it's yours. The converse argument is that Dems in Congress do stand on principle, but don't oppose Bush because they know something you don't. How silly. The commenters here know all, see all, and can predict the future after the fact with devastating clarity. So cowardice is the default position for Dems, and just another reason not to trust them for BOTH sides.

Which brings up an observation about the declining approval of institutions. Perhaps you folks should consider that the unrelenting scorn heaped upon Congress, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court, is having an effect upon the young and less intelligent. Nearly a decade of withering criticism of the three branches of Government is obviously undermining the regard of those branches and the document they were formed with. For the young and unintelligent that would be the Constitution.

Rather than having the ideals of our system supported and taught to the young growing up here, they are fed a daily diet of why our Government and the leaders within are deficient. While it may be true to one degree or another, no system can withstand the daily assault to it legitimacy such as found here, and continue.

No matter which side you're on, it's time to consider why the press used to think that covering up JFK peccadilloes was a good thing, or why Rehnquist's failings were not made public until after his death. Like an economy, the only thing that holds a political system together is confidence. Destroy that confidence, and destroy the system. Politicians come and go, but the system must remain. Perhaps Glenn and you commentors should look past your immediate desires for a change. Your efforts to win votes by denigrating the people occupying an office have the effect of denigrating the office as well.

As always, it's much easier to destroy something than build it.

Quick!!! Kill it, throttle it, stomp on it, shoot it, defame it. For the love of whatever, DON'T LET IT OUT TO DESTROY OUR ATTEMPTS TO DESTROY!!!!! LOL.

More on Glenn's knife job regarding the "war lovers" and purveyors of "adolescent war pornography" later. And to think Glenn wonders why Petreaus won't give him an interview. Heh.

Terrible results impugn the judgment of the war supporter. A stable or even flourishing Iraq does not impugn the judgment of the war opponent.

So are you opposed to war categorically, or just against this war?

You: So are you opposed to war categorically, or just against this war?

Glenn:Except when they have attacked us or pose a direct threat to our security, we don't have the right to go around invading other countries with our military force, bombing their cities and changing their governments -- even if we think we can make nice things happen by doing so.

hth, Gordon Ginsberg

Thanks for the effort Gordon, but that doesn't really help much. We invaded Iraq because of a percieved direct threat to national security. Confusing the issue was the liberal support of invading Afghanistan which certainly wasn't a threat to us.

Even more confusing is this other quote from Glenn....

Glenn: Even if one disagrees with their desire for an ongoing military presence in Iraq, one can at least respect the intellectual honesty and principled stand of those pro-war advocates who acknowledge that we are far from ready to leave Iraq right now, and that achieving the original goals will require an ongoing, sustained commitment to a prolonged occupation. Having supported this war and subsequent invasion on the ground that U.S. national security will be improved if we create a stable, democratic government in Iraq, they commendably insist on staying and trying to "finish" what is so clearly an unfinished job, notwithstanding the fact that a prolonged occupation will subject Republicans to serious political difficulties, to put it mildly.

Needless to say that sounds exactly like the guys he's pounding for being boisterous warlovers. Let's wait and see if Glenn clarifies his stance.