Morton Kondracke, in GOP hoping for "status-quo" election, 12/6/05 reports that the White House and GOP leaders expect to retain control of the House in 2006 elections.
As bad as Republican fortunes look at the moment, party leaders and the Bush White House believe the GOP will retain control of Congress in the 2006 elections.
In part, they think Democrats can't assemble an alternative agenda that's sufficiently attractive, and they think President Bush has a strategy to come back from the political doldrums.
Keys to the strategy include an effort to win back support for the war in Iraq and action to deal with border security and illegal immigration, plus a new domestic agenda to be unveiled in the State of the Union address in January.
But to retain control of Congress, the GOP also is counting on the gerrymandering of House districts, which limits the number of competitive seats, and its favorable prospects in a number of Senate races. A poll by the liberal Democracy Corps confirmed that, despite a collapse in support for Bush and congressional Republicans and tangible Democratic
Can this be true?
Continues:
advantages on key issues, Democrats still do not have enough public trust to secure a net gain of 15 seats for a House takeover.
"Voters are deeply discontented on Iraq, the economy, gas prices and health care, with corruption and (GOP) failure to address problems," Democratic strategists James Carville and Stan Greenberg wrote in a widely distributed memo Nov. 14.
And yet, in a generic congressional ballot test, Democrats lead Republicans 48 percent to 40 percent, "not good enough to win control," the strategists said.
Yikes, I did not realize that even James Carville and Stan Greenberg beleive the Democrats do not have enough of a lead to win control of the House in 2006. What would it take?
"Voters are deeply discontented on Iraq, the economy, gas prices and health care, with corruption and (GOP) failure to address problems," Democratic strategists James Carville and Stan Greenberg wrote in a widely distributed memo Nov. 14.
And yet, in a generic congressional ballot test, Democrats lead Republicans 48 percent to 40 percent, "not good enough to win control," the strategists said.
But this confirms my suspicious that many Democrats are dangerously complacent if they think we can merely sit back and wait for the GOP to self destruct and glide back into power.
Our unfavarables equal or favorables at 39%. As disgusted as voters are with Bush and the GOP they really don't have great feelings that the Democrats are that much better. We are 13% behind the where the GOP was in 1993 before they gain control.
Yikes, just as many American voters dislike the Democrats as favor us. We are no where near where the GOP was in 1993 prior to regaining control in 1994.
Democrats now are viewed favorably by 39 percent of voters and unfavorably by 39 percent, Democracy Corps reported -- well short of the favorable situation that prevailed in 1993 before the GOP took control of Congress in 1994. Then, favorable attitudes toward the GOP were 13 percent ahead of unfavorables.
Carville and Greenberg advised that Democrats combine attacks on GOP failures with a promise, akin to the one the GOP made in its 1994 "Contract with America," to pass an agenda within 100 days of taking control of Congress that includes an increase in the minimum wage, lower Medicare drug prices and a windfall profits tax on oil companies to fund alternative energy sources.
But in an interview, Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman told me that "if you look at the polls, you'll see that Democrats are not seen as having a clear agenda. In the last 20 years, every time one party has been down, the other party has been up. But not now. It's true, we have difficult poll numbers. We need to change the numbers. And we have a plan to do so. But the Democrats also have bad numbers -- just as bad. That tells you a lot about where they stand."
Mehlman suggests that the 2005 off-year election results were not actually that impressive.
Mehlman and other GOP leaders say the 2005 off-year elections showed no particular strength for the Democrats. Even though Bush's approval ratings were at or below 40 percent on Nov. 8, Democrats polled no better in winning the governorships of Virginia and New Jersey than winning Democrats did in 2001, when Bush's approval rating was near 80 percent.
In fact, Mehlman said that Democratic Lt. Gov. Tim Kaine won in Virginia by using "a model of victory that's just the opposite of the national Democratic Party and leaders like (Senate Minority Leader) Harry Reid (Nev.) and (House Minority Leader) Nancy Pelosi (Calif.). To the extent that Democrats want to have a big debate on taxes and health care, I look forward to that. We'll make this election a choice, not a referendum."
And the comeback strategy announced last month by Black and Galen of sending Bush to Asia and home for Thanksgiving to let the heat blow over seems to be working.
Republicans claim that Bush has already begun to recover on Iraq -- though it doesn't show in the polls -- by mounting a "push-back" strategy against Democratic charges that he deceived the country about weapons of mass destruction prior to the war.
They count it as a victory when the House rejected by a vote of 403-3 the idea of immediate troop withdrawals from Iraq -- meaning that Democrats were not willing to vote for an idea that many of them, deep down, presumably favor. (Democrats, of course, dispute this assessment, claiming that they simply would not go along with a GOP attempt to embarrass them.)
In the future, Bush plans more speeches on Iraq that include specifics about his political, military and reconstruction strategies and a stark description of the stakes in Iraq.
The White House also plans to upgrade its efforts to get the word about progress in Iraq to the American people, partly by ensuring that U.S. journalists can travel around Iraq more easily and partly by inviting retired U.S. generals and other "friendly skeptics" to visit Iraq and report back on what's happening.
Republicans also hope to benefit by reuniting their base on immigration. The White House is backing a House GOP move to strengthen border security through a combination of patrol agents, detention facilities, barriers and sensors (though not a "wall").
The legislation also will make it possible for the government to switch from a policy of "catch and release," whereby illegal immigrants caught at the border are allowed to skip on court dates and stay in the United States, to "catch and return," allowing for immediate repatriation.
Bush traditionally has favored comprehensive immigration reform that includes provisions for work permits for illegal immigrants and foreigners, but he's going along with the House's border-first approach to defuse conservative criticism that he's soft on the issue.
Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., has drafted a comprehensive bill for consideration early next year, and the White House would weigh in during House-Senate conference deliberations to work out a final bill.
Top Bush aide Karl Rove already is deeply involved in immigration strategy, which allies say is evidence that he's confident he won't be indicted in the CIA leak investigation.
When all is said and done on the policy front, however, Mehlman and others say they are confident about 2006, because they don't think it's possible for Democrats to pull off a 1994-style reversal. "In 1992, you had 42 House races that were decided by less than 5 points. In 2004, there were only nine, and only five were Republican seats," he said.
"There were 50 open seats in 1994, but there are only 20 open so far. There were 53 districts that went Republican in the 1992 presidential election that were represented by Democrats. This past time there were only 18 that are represented by Republicans that were carried by (Sen. John) Kerry." (D-Mass).
Eighteen seats, of course, would be enough to deliver control to the Democrats. But GOP leaders think they can make 2006 a "status quo" election. They like the status quo.
Morton Kondracke is executive editor of Roll Call, the newspaper of Capitol Hill and a commentator on Fox News.
But I hope this sobering analysis serves as a wake-up call for complacent Democrats who believe we've got 2006 and 2008 "in the bag."
Democratic leaders need to more agressively differentiate themselves from Republicans in as many ways as possible. We've already discussed here in the impeachement versus realignment debates that with a Republican dominated House there is not point or possibility of suceeding in impeachment efforts. And I can not even count the number of you that have written to me or commented, "don't worry, wait until after 2006 and then will start talking about impeachment."
My point folks is that if our leaders don't start to be more aggressive in demanding White House accountability there isn't going to be a Democratic majority in 2006 or 2008.
I do not sense any groundwell of true "excitement" for any of our worthwhile 2008 Presidential candidates. (Except Wesley Clark who toped my last 2008 Democratic poll with 30% But it's really hard to sense any such buildup outside of the Kos site super activists.)
A survey released today shows Bush in a dead tie with Kerry if the elections were held today!
How depressing.
What do we have to do? Obviously, a heck of lot more and some things really different than what we are doing so far.
Would it be too radical or impolite to suggest that it might partially be our own fault?
What about if our leaders really stood up strongly to the Bush White House and excercised true Congressional oversight?
Harry Reid got a lot of attention last month by bringing congress to a halt for an afternoon. Everyone here was congratulating ourselves for finally standing up and doing something. But what actually happened folks? Have you heard back from these famous 6 Senators? Where's the Phase 2 hearings or reports?
Is it actually true that any 5 Senators that want to can form a committee with subpoena power whenever they want to?
A singificant fraction of Democrats appear impotent and lackluster to many in our own party. Like why bother? Who cares. Do you remember when only one bothered to show up at Karen Hughes confirmation hearing and then didn't even bother to ask any challenging questions?
We missed an opportunity to get her into perjury traps by asking her under oath, "Is she aware of any efforts by Neocons or anyone else to withhold or manipulate intelligence from the Congress or President?" For goodness sakes, she was a central member of the WHIG for years and no Democrats felt it was even worth it to show up.
Can you blame the American public for lacking enthusiasm? Why would anyone expect now that electing Democrats in 2006 or 2008 would make any difference? The ones in office now are not sufficiently interested to show up to their own committee meetings or ask any tough questions.
My point about demanding impeachment hearing or at least Articles of Inquiry and making presentations to the House is that this would show some backbone and spirit even if all such calls were rejected.
We could then say. See are people are at least trying but because these dastardly Republican control the House and Senate we cannot acheive Justice!
This would be vastly more compelling and powerful than what is going on now. Do the Democrats still actually even go to work in Washington?
At least at Nuremberg military officers tried to get away with the "I was only following orders" defense. It was rejected but at least it was a good try.
What are the current Democratic leaders going to say? "Oh we were actually really upset and concerned but we didn't bother to say anything because we knew it wasn't going to make a difference anyway?" Wow, this is exciting.
Congratulation to John Kerry. He actually demanded today that Rumsfeld resign. Makes me proud that I voted for him in 2004.
Or how about the ever popular, "oh we don't want to offend the GOP with calls for White House accountability or impeachment because we are so wanting to develop cozy relationship for our "reallingment" efforts.
Realignment without more umph than we are seeing now is not going to amount to much in my opinion. And the so called "target Republicans" like Olympia Snow and Chuck Hagel are already well ahead of any Democrats in standing up to the White House and causing the GOP grief. I just read a Time Magazine article about how she single handedly trounced the GOP's bill in the Finance committee, is threatening to be troublesome to Alito in the Supreme Court confirmation hearings and a whole bunch of other inpiring stuff.
Ummm, I wonder? Do you think we could work this "realignment" angle enough to get Snow to run for the top of the Democratic Presidential ticket?
Perhaps, then the American voter will show a little more enthusiasm for our cause.
Let's hope something happens. Sorry if I seem glumy today. Don't worry. I will probably purge this myself before I am exhiled to the dreary hinterlands of Offsite Kosworlds. But am I the only one is whom is concerned about this situation and finding it to be depressing?
Good Luck Folks
A Depressed HoundDog
Cheers and Goodluck