Lieberman at 17
Lets just get it straight for the record: I am going out on a limb now and saying I don’t think the Democrats will take control of congress in the upcoming elections. Why? Read on.
The last I heard, Joe Lieberman is up by 17 in Connecticut. This is really pretty astonishing. I seem to remember quite a bit of hubbub when his party leadership turned their back on him, supporting Lamont in the primary. When Lamont won that primary, there were endless sound bites about this really sending a message about the mood on the Iraq war.
Well what now? Obviously the only message that can be drawn here is that the Democratic leadership was way out of touch with their plan to “off” Lieberman.
What does this mean in the larger sense? Frankly I have said it all along. I don’t think there is any parallel whatsoever between now and 1994. The year the Republicans won control of the house and Senate for the first time in 40 years. I don’t think the Democrats will seize control of both houses. What were some of the differences between then and now?
1) One big issue had aroused a lot of Democrats and Republicans alike. That issue was the “Assault Weapons” ban. It passed by two votes in the house and only with major back room arm breaking. Bill Clinton himself has said that issue cost the Democrats congress.
2) The Republicans then had a far better wedge issue then than the Democrats do now. That issue was National Health care. The closest thing the Democrats have now is the Iraq war. With health care the Republicans could quite clearly take a stand, and they did, they clearly said they would vote against it if it ever came up. For all their posturing there isn’t that tone at all from the Democrats on the war. Precious few of them are willing to say they would cut off funding tomorrow. When a bill came up for that recently in the Senate I think it got one vote. However dissatisfied the American people are with the war, the Democrats don’t seem very willing to act on what they say. The so called “cut and run” strategy.
3) All the major News outlets are pretty much in consensus. The Democrats will seize control of the House and Senate come November. Nancy Pelosi is already considering her Presidential run. This is the exact opposite of 1994. Back then the only person I know of who called it right was Bob Novack on “The Capitol Gang”. Why does this mean anything? Well, the out of power party typically does well in mid terms because generally it is thought the base really shows up. I don’t think this is the case here. The base showed up for the Republicans because of ire at National Health care and the Assault Weapons ban.
So that’s my analysis. While I do think there is malaise about the Iraq war, I don’t think that translates into “the Democrats have a solution”. I don’t think the Democrats even believe it. If they did they would be running on the issues rather than Mark Foley, they wouldn’t need him. My guess is the Republicans will hold on to their majorities in both houses by a slim margin.
Lets just get it straight for the record: I am going out on a limb now and saying I don’t think the Democrats will take control of congress in the upcoming elections. Why? Read on.
The last I heard, Joe Lieberman is up by 17 in Connecticut. This is really pretty astonishing. I seem to remember quite a bit of hubbub when his party leadership turned their back on him, supporting Lamont in the primary. When Lamont won that primary, there were endless sound bites about this really sending a message about the mood on the Iraq war.
Well what now? Obviously the only message that can be drawn here is that the Democratic leadership was way out of touch with their plan to “off” Lieberman.
What does this mean in the larger sense? Frankly I have said it all along. I don’t think there is any parallel whatsoever between now and 1994. The year the Republicans won control of the house and Senate for the first time in 40 years. I don’t think the Democrats will seize control of both houses. What were some of the differences between then and now?
1) One big issue had aroused a lot of Democrats and Republicans alike. That issue was the “Assault Weapons” ban. It passed by two votes in the house and only with major back room arm breaking. Bill Clinton himself has said that issue cost the Democrats congress.
2) The Republicans then had a far better wedge issue then than the Democrats do now. That issue was National Health care. The closest thing the Democrats have now is the Iraq war. With health care the Republicans could quite clearly take a stand, and they did, they clearly said they would vote against it if it ever came up. For all their posturing there isn’t that tone at all from the Democrats on the war. Precious few of them are willing to say they would cut off funding tomorrow. When a bill came up for that recently in the Senate I think it got one vote. However dissatisfied the American people are with the war, the Democrats don’t seem very willing to act on what they say. The so called “cut and run” strategy.
3) All the major News outlets are pretty much in consensus. The Democrats will seize control of the House and Senate come November. Nancy Pelosi is already considering her Presidential run. This is the exact opposite of 1994. Back then the only person I know of who called it right was Bob Novack on “The Capitol Gang”. Why does this mean anything? Well, the out of power party typically does well in mid terms because generally it is thought the base really shows up. I don’t think this is the case here. The base showed up for the Republicans because of ire at National Health care and the Assault Weapons ban.
So that’s my analysis. While I do think there is malaise about the Iraq war, I don’t think that translates into “the Democrats have a solution”. I don’t think the Democrats even believe it. If they did they would be running on the issues rather than Mark Foley, they wouldn’t need him. My guess is the Republicans will hold on to their majorities in both houses by a slim margin.
posted by R Huse at 9:41 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home