Richard Morin and Dan Balz write in today’s Washington Post:
Public confidence in GOP governance has plunged to the lowest levels of the Bush presidency, with Americans saying by wide margins that they now trust Democrats more than Republicans to deal with Iraq, the economy, immigration and other issues, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll that underscores the GOP’s fragile grip on power six months before the midterm elections.
Dissatisfaction with the administration’s policies in Iraq has overwhelmed other issues as the source of problems for President Bush and the Republicans. The survey suggests that pessimism about the direction of the country — 69 percent said the nation is now off track — and disaffection with Republicans have dramatically improved Democrats’ chances to make gains in November.
Democrats are now favored to handle all 10 issues measured in the Post-ABC News poll. The survey shows a majority of the public, 56 percent, saying they would prefer to see Democrats in control of Congress after the elections.
The catch, say Morin and Balz, is that the voters aren’t all that wild about Democrats either. There is widespread dissatisfaction with incumbents of all species. The numbers reflect a backlash against right-wing mis-government, not a conversion to the Democratic Party vision, whatever that is. Of those surveyed, 52 percent said they didn’t see much difference between the two parties.
Meanwhile the alleged front-runner for the 2008 Dem nomination, Senator Hillary Clinton, cautiously practices “tactical bipartisanship” to win approval of some mythical “center.” Robert Kuttner writes,
With the Republicans in free-fall, national problems continuing to mount, and a rising national chorus begging the Democrats to stand for something, Senator Clinton has come to epitomize why the Democrats may yet fail to rise to the occasion and lead. …
… If she keeps transparently cozying up to the right, Senator Clinton could easily lose what faltering affection she retains from Democratic voters, but without impressing the center. Democratic operative Donna Brazile contends, too charitably, that Murdoch’s support shows that Hillary has ”crossover appeal” (sure, as in crossing over to grab whatever isn’t nailed down).
Back to Morin and Balz. “The public mood indicates that the midterm elections are likely to be a referendum on the president and his party,” they write. But the GOP still has more than five months in which to demonize their opposition, a tactic that has worked brilliantly for them in the past. Once again, the Dems’ failure to define themselves give the GOP the opportunity to define the Democrats.
On the bright side, today the Hartford Courant is running an op ed by Lowell Weicker endorsing Joe Lieberman’s challenger, Ned Lamont. (Yay!) Writes Weicker,
The majority of Democrats say they support Sen. Joe Lieberman in spite of his backing the war, since Iraq, after all, is only one of many issues facing voters.
Hello! To characterize the most monumental screw-up of our times as “only one of many issues” is like admiring the theater marquees on Broadway with King Kong on the loose.
And here’s a big ray of hope — last night brother blogger Chris Bowers of MyDD won election to the Pennsylvania Democratic State Committee. Chris’s election means that an establishment Democrat has been replaced by a sure-enough leftie blogger. “The city, the state, and the nation will change as a result,” writes Chris. “I promise everyone that. … We will all win, eventually.” We just have to keep pushing.
Lowell Weicker quoted a couple of lines from the abolitionist poem “The Present Crisis” by James Russell Lowell, written in 1844. (Some readers might recognize the poem as the lyrics for “Once to Every Man and Nation,” sung to the tune of a Welsh hymn, “Ton-y-botel.” I think “ton-y-botel” means “tune in a bottle,” but I’m not going to swear to that.) If you think “Iraq” where Lowell wrote “slavery,” some of these lines seem appropriate now:
Slavery, the earth-born Cyclops, fellest of the giant brood,
Sons of brutish Force and Darkness, who have drenched the earth with blood,
Famished in his self-made desert, blinded by our purer day,
Gropes in yet unblasted regions for his miserable prey;-
Shall we guide his gory fingers where our helpless children play?Then to side with Truth is noble when we share her wretched crust,
Ere her cause bring fame and profit, and ‘t is prosperous to be just;
Then it is the brave man chooses, while the coward stands aside,
Doubting in his abject spirit, till his Lord is crucified,
And the multitude make virtue of the faith they had denied.
Cowards, stand aside.
Update: They’re starting to sound like us — this guy (a rightie) thinks it would be better for Republicans in 2008 if Dems take back Congress in 2006. Heh.
The left speaks of needing Dems to win in ’06 and ’08 as if this will cure what ails the U.S. Dems won’t continue to dole out earmarks in an effort to placate local constituencies? Dems won’t game and manipulate the campaign finance system to maintain an edge in funding and electioneering? Dems aren’t personally just as greedy, self serving and chiefly interested in getting reelected as Republicans? Sure, there are areas we can hope for a different approach to governing. The judiciary and the enviroment would likely be treated far differently. Foreign interventionism might be reined in a bit. Reproductive rights might be maintained. These aren’t minor concerns and improvement would be appreciated. Nevertheless, I think expectations might be set too high for the electorate by touting how much things will change and get better under Democrats. At heart they’re the same bunch of money grubbing politicians we see on the right side of the aisle.
At heart they’re the same bunch of money grubbing politicians we see on the right side of the aisle.
You must be new here, or you’d know I already agree with you. I harp frequently on the theme that it’s not good enough just to elect Democrats. We’ve also got to effect fundamental changes in the Democratic Party. Things will NOT change all that much under the current crop of Democrats in Washington.
However, if Dems gain control of at least one house of Congress they get power to subpoena. They can finally initiate substantive investigations of 9/11, Dick Cheney’s energy task force, manipulation of intelligence that got us into the Iraq War, the NSA wiretap program, etc. etc. They can pry a lot of the dirt in the White House loose. I see this as a kind of political first aid, to stop the bleeding that is going on now with Bush in charge.
I realize it’s entirely possible that the current crop of Dems will drag their feet on investigation, because they’re a collection of spineless wimps. Even if we get a Democratic majority in one of the houses we’re still going to have to hold feet to the fire. As I say, the long-term solution is to reform the Dems and the way politics is conducted in Washington. I have some thoughts on that I want to blog about today or tomorrow.
“As I say, the long-term solution is to reform the Dems and the way politics is conducted in Washington. ”
BULLSEYE! If all of the energy that is bound up in frustration, anger and retailiatory impulse can be directed to this broad goal, then not just progressives, but the country as a whole will benefit. We must not discharge work energy into outrage and more of the attack, counter-attack, please, please.
It is the structure of money-funneling [k-street, phony ‘non-profit’ front organizations, earmarks, and so forth] that needs to be dismantled so that neither party can grab and hold onto incumbency without delivering to ‘we the people’.
I once wrote a scathing letter to my Republican US House representative when I heard that Democrats were shut out of important decision-making in Washington. Now we have [in Illinois] a Democratic majority state government after so many years of Republican control and sleaze. I just heard that Republicans were being shut out of state budget decision-making!
This structure of decision-making is appalling! Roughly half the citizens have no voice if their [minority status] representatives cannot even attend legislative meetings which certainly affect everyone in the state, or the nation, as the case may be.
The question exactly is: How to effect the reforms needed? Seems to me that the politicians who cozy up to this system and learn how to win using the system as it is……are by definition already co-opted. “The means we choose form us in the end”.
I personally would appreciate merely some improved level of competence. Face it politicians are crooks, but by default the Democrats have to be more competent than the GOP. Personally, I think the most fundamental problem that needs to be addressed is to get our fiscal house in order. That means getting out of Iraq, reducing the defense budget, cutting the pork and raising taxes. If we do not fix the fiscal mess, nothing else can get fixed.
This brightened my morning, thank you. Very glad for Chris Bowers, as Pennsylvania is my home state, and I’m all too familiar with the mushy middle it represents, with old style labor democrats on one end and rabid anti-abortionists on the other. This should be a warning sign for triangulating cowards like HR Clinton and the inept Donna Brazile.
I agree; what we need is, like, full-scale upheaval. I think it’s pretty likely that the Dems will take a few seats (by default, basically, if the righties sit this one out as they’re threatening to) but… then what? I don’t need to tell you that things are bad. I’d like to be voting for a Senator that actually stood for something, but I’ve got… Hillary.
Not related to this post, but related to some Mahablog themes generally: there’s an article in today’s WaPo called “Permanently Pregnant” about new federal health guidelines to treat all women of childbearing age as if they are about to become pregnant as a way to decrease infant mortality rates. (The very faulty logic being that, because US infant mortality rates are embarassingly high, and because half of all pregnancies are unintended, the way to decrease infant mortality rates is to ensure that all women are healthy enough to bear children at any time. And here I thought Handmaid’s Tale was dated.)
Of course, the solution to the infant mortality problem is a better healthcare system (and in particular giving poor people access) and not treating women as incubators, but why actually do something when you can write a few new guidelines and call it a day. Thanks, Government!
OFF SUBJECT – BUT –
I just saw Bush on CNN with his little “speech” about tax cuts before he signed. During his talk –
WHO WAS STANDING BEHIND HIM??!!%%
Kathleen Harris who is now congressman from FL and
who signed off in FL for 2000 election when she was Secretary of State! and handed him that state.
NOW, she is running for Senator!
Last week, the CNN showed her just popping in when Dubya was in FL at airport with brother Jeb. CNN or one network stated that she was met with a “cool reception” by the brothers.
If true, I bet they were spitting nails at Broomzilla standing behind Bush. I can’t stand to look at the ugly bitch.
If you caught Saturday Night Live this last Sat., you would have seen the skit with her and Jeb. She has BALLS!
If she wins, it will totally suck!
Also, former Mayor Rudy of New York is going to be in Atlanta for a fundraiser tomorrow night for Ralph Reed – the religious guy with connections to Jack Abramoff or whatever his name is. I just got an e-mail asking for money to run an ad. Ralph is running for Lt Guv of Georgia.
Ooops! the ad money that they were asking me for was an “ANTI-AD” I hate Reed! The request for funds was from a PACACTION group.
In regards to comment #1. You might be right on a lot of what you say. But ,we need those Democrats right now (as much as we might not like them). First we need to get the majority if we are going to stop the bleeding that is going on under the current administation. Until we take back control of either the House or Senate we will be powerless to change anything.