Heck of an approval rating

For the General Assembly.

Georgia General Assembly
Approve: 29%
Disapprove: 44%
No Opinion/Don’t: 27%

But do people really even pay attention? Hell, they only meet a few months a year anyway. Towery adds this:

Voters cannot distinguish between Congress and state officials, hence the very low ratings for the General Assembly.

Are voters really that stupid?

18 comments

  1. Bill Simon says:

    Well…..actually….it’s not they are necessarily “stupid” but more of a situation of:

    Government (at ALL freaking levels) putting massive burdens of rules, regulations, taxes, fees, etc. on their lives and their businesses that they consider it MORE important to try and manage their own lives to keep above water than to stop and try and figure out which government ass*oles are screwing them that day.

  2. DoubleDawg3 says:

    Yeah, unfortunately they are. Seriously, most people in my town don’t know the difference between the state legislature and Congress and they don’t know who their reps are, even if they did know the difference.

  3. Doug Deal says:

    Indy,

    Hugo Chavez is backed by a press that actually loves their country good or bad. Our press, on the other hand, relish in our country’s failures.

    If those places in the world that truly have it bad had a truly free press, like we do, they too would have single digit poll numbers.

  4. IndyInjun says:

    Doug,

    Naah.

    If the GA had 1.5 trillion barrells of oil under the Satilla River and were lavishly spending the revenue on Peach Punditeers, the press would be irrelevant.

  5. rugby fan says:

    Hugo Chavez is backed by a press that actually loves their country good or bad. Our press, on the other hand, relish in our country’s failures.

    And conservatives wonder why the MSM would be working against them.

  6. Bill Simon says:

    “Our press, on the other hand, relish in our country’s failures.”

    Pick-up ANY newspaper owned by the Left: NY times, AJC, Washington Post, etc. and count the headlines that celebrate the good things about our country.

    Most of the things that are good are presented with the worst light possible.

  7. Bill Simon says:

    Oh, but it does, if you believe that is the only way to sell a publication.

    If “it bleeds it leads” is drilled into the mass-media newspapers owners until that’s all they believe, then they will not be able to recognize the “good” of society because they will think the “good” is useless in their world.

    They will HOPE and “prey” (and, I do mean to spell it that way because that is more apt a description) that only bad news happens and only failures happen because that is what their minds thrive on.

    Whereas, the Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times, Human Events, etc. thrive on writing stories that inform people. THRIVE on presenting the good. THRIVE on not presenting everything in a dark light.

    THRIVE by celebrating the successes and not just wringing their hands about some of the excesses.

  8. rugby fan says:

    Huh?

    I am trying to make sense of your post. Are you saying the vaguely applicable term of the MSM doesn’t do enough nice stories? The problem there is that even the NYTimes has plenty of human nature features.

    Are you upset about negative coverage? On the WSJ’s site, the most popular stories are overwhelmingly negative ones (which seems to suggest there is a reason for news-outlets covering “bad” stories).

    Maybe you are trying to suggest something about the inner psyches of editors and the socialization of the profession. My response to that is: I didn’t know you are a psychologist.

    As for the thriving part of WSJ et al, even their revenues are declining and staff are departing like crazy (most glaringly at the Journal).

  9. Bill Simon says:

    Rugby,

    I may not have the official designation of one, but I am a very good observer of human actions.

    I know…only libbies and leftists should be able to “understand” human nature, but, really, some folks are a whole lot smarter than you think.

  10. rugby fan says:

    I’m not doubting that and I never claimed that only “libbies” could understand human nature.

    Really Bill if you are going to be patronizing to your own cause and look down on the opposition, it might help if you read what you were criticizing.

Comments are closed.