2006 Mid-Term Elections

[phil]

Still not convinced that's the way it will go down
but one can dream ... !!


America is finally revolting against the Republicans

Sex, money and Iraq are a triple-whammy of reasons for voters to turn against President George Bush and his party

Andrew Rawnsley in Washington
Sunday October 15, 2006
The Observer


It is one of George Bush's favourite frat boy pranks to grab people in a neck lock. That is appropriate because he and his party have had a stranglehold on America. The Republicans have occupied the White House since 2001. They've controlled the House of Representatives and for most of the time, the Senate as well. Thanks to the appointments made by Bush, the Supreme Court belongs to the right too.

Karl Rove, the grand wizard of strategy known as 'Bush's brain', seemed close to realising his ambition to create a Republican hegemony that would last for a generation. He had a dream of turning America into a one-party state and it was a dream that looked like becoming all too real. A country founded on the idea of the separation of powers has rarely witnessed such a concentration of might in the hands of one party.

Such hubris is always the midwife to nemesis. Suddenly that Republican domination is beginning to crack. This autumn the tectonic plates of American politics are beginning to shift under the feet of President Bush and an increasingly desperate Republican party. When I spoke to Stan Greenberg, the hugely experienced political consultant for the Democrats, he predicted an 'earthquake' in the mid-term elections for a third of the Senate and all of the House of Representatives. Even more tellingly, the Republicans themselves sound very scared that angry voters are about to punish them with a thrashing. Thomas Davis, a Virginian Congressman who is one of his party's most senior strategists, talks about the Republicans losing as many as 30 seats in the House, which would put that half of Congress into the hands of the Democrats for the first time in 12 years.

Some say it is the war. Some say it is the money. Some say it is the sex. Actually, it's all three, a triple-whammy of reasons for Americans to express their disgust with how they are being governed.

Let's start with Iraq. Any American with a television set and an IQ above room temperature has known for a long time that Iraq is far from becoming the pacified, liberal democracy that was promised in the original prospectus for the war. Most Americans were nevertheless prepared to tolerate the mounting carnage so long as they could believe that the ultimate outcome would be positive. There has been a big turn in the mood about the war in the past fortnight. John Warner, the Republican who chairs the Senate's armed services committee, came back from a visit to American troops in Iraq to warn that there had to be 'a change of course'. A commission chaired by James Baker, Secretary of State when Dubya's father was in the White House, is about to publish a report calling for a major recasting of strategy.

These rock-ribbed Republicans cannot be dismissed with the usual White House line that anyone who asks awkward questions about Iraq is an unpatriotic appeaser and fellow traveller of Osama bin Laden. Soaring up the bestseller lists is Bob Woodward's account of a dysfunctional administration presided over by a wilfully uninquiring Commander-in-Chief who will never acknowledge the scale of the blunders committed in Iraq.

President Bush has again tried to use national security as his trump card in this election. The terror of terror worked for the Republicans in 2002 and again in 2004. It is not working this time. The opinion polls all agree: a majority of Americans now feel that Iraq is getting worse, and that the war was a mistake which has left them less secure.

They still see Bush as a 'War President'. The difference now is that they see him losing his wars. The United States has invaded Iraq and not found any weapons of mass destruction while North Korea is acquiring the nuclear bombs which George Bush once pledged he'd prevent them from having. At a news conference at the White House, the President talked big about Kim Jong-Il but carried a small stick. The world's soi-disant hyperpower is reduced to suggesting that China should do something about it.

What is most alarming people, including senior members of Bush's own administration, is how the crisis over North Korea plays into the threat of a nuclear-tipped Iran. The more helpless that America looks in relation to North Korea, the more emboldened the Iranians will feel about defiantly pursuing their ambitions to join the nuclear club. The Bush presidency has expended squillions of dollars on warfare and military hardware. So much treasure and so much blood and Americans are left with a growing dread that they have ended up weaker in the world.

Then there's the sex. While his party shamelessly fanned homophobia to ramp up its vote, a gay Republican congressman was making advances to teenage male interns. Congressman Mark Foley has resigned his Palm Beach seat since his dirty computer messages were exposed and the fall-out from his cyber-stalking of teenagers could cost other Republicans their places in Congress.

As is so often the case, the Nixon rule of scandal applies. It is not so much the crime as the cover-up that has done the most damage. There has been a corrosive drip of accusations that the party leadership in Congress ignored warnings about Foley's behaviour. The Republicans are reeling from the impression that the self-appointed moral daddies of America harboured a sexual predator.

When I spoke to Andy Card, who for five years was Chief of Staff to President Bush, he calculated that the election would ultimately come down to which side could mobilise more of its supporters in the last 72 hours. The Rove vote machine has been heavily reliant on evangelical Christians, precisely the group most repelled by what it sees as moral degeneracy on Capitol Hill.

And then there is the money. A rising stench of corruption surrounds the Republicans. The scale of the kickbacks made to politicians by Jack Abramoff, the convicted lobbyist, are awesome even by the standards of American bribery scandals. A defining theme of the Bush era has been Republicans who preach fiscal abstinence while practising recklessly unprotected spending. The surplus inherited from Bill Clinton has been blown and turned into a staggering deficit. The richest and most powerful country on the planet is now in the strange and dangerous place of being hugely indebted to the rest of the world. Put it all together - and I get the sense that Americans are finally putting it all together - and the Republicans look like a party that is jeopardising their nation's moral, strategic and financial future.

You have to say, it couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch of people. Lynn Westmoreland is running for re-election as a Republican congressman in Georgia. His sole legislative initiative has been to press a bill requiring that the Ten Commandments be displayed in the House and the Senate. He then had to confess on television: 'I can't name them all.' In fact, he could barely name three of the commandments that he was so keen on. Voters in Iowa have on offer the Republican Steve King. He wants to keep out illegal immigrants by constructing a 700-mile wall along the border with Mexico. Better still, he built his own model of this 'Tortilla Curtain' out of cardboard and wire which he demonstrated to Congress in Blue Peter fashion. That is outdone in the crazy stakes by the Texan Republican Sam Johnson who offered personally to fly an F-15 to nuke Syria. Afterwards, he said he was: 'Kinda joking.' Don't you love the 'kinda'.

Don Sherwood, a Pennsylvania Republican, is famous for paying an undisclosed sum to his former mistress, who had accused him of repeated assaults, to settle her lawsuit against him. He has been forced to broadcast campaign ads denying that he tried to choke her. Down in Florida, Katherine Harris, who achieved world notoriety over the hanging chads which gave Bush the White House in the first place, is running for the Senate. According to her: 'God is the one who chooses our rulers.' Mmm. If the Great Returning Officer really does bother himself with deciding elections, then God must be mighty pissed with America to have chosen rulers like these.

A slew of recent opinion polls shows support for the Republicans plummeting and the Democrats gaining what should be a decisive edge. Gallup gives the Democrats a lead of more than 20 per cent among likely voters. Given such a toxic blend of policy failure abroad, financial and sexual scandals at home, compounded by discontent about the economy, in most democracies the governing party would be expecting a total meltdown. The purgative mechanism of the ballot would do its necessary work to kick the scoundrels out.

And yet you have to be a little cautious about predicting that the Republicans will suffer the sort of wipe-out that natural justice says they deserve. America is in a febrile state. There are three weeks left before election day and the polls have yo-yoed depending on the sleaze or terror headline of the hour.

While America's mood is volatile, its democracy is becoming atrophied. And by design. The gerrymandering of seats to permanently fix their political complexion has made it extraordinarily difficult to dislodge incumbents.

The story of this election is one of Republican collapse rather than any great enthusiasm for the Democrats. They don't have a clear message delivered by a popular and plausible leader. One of the Democrat's best hopes for the presidency - Mark Warner of Virginia - has just backed out of the race for 2008. It is in the nature of the American system that the executive can speak with a single voice - that of the President - while the opposition talks in a cacophony of tongues.

A senior member of the Clinton cabinet put it to me like this: 'The Democrats don't have one spokesman. They have 10 spokesmen.' There is no such thing as the Shadow President. If ever there was a country in need of a leader of the opposition, it is the United States today.

Even in the absence of one, George Bush faces a bleak closing chapter of his presidency. The Democrats need only gain control of one house to start launching investigations into 9/11, the Iraq war and its searing aftermath, the financial scandals, the sexual scandals - you name it, they can subject the White House to torture-by-inquiry. A Democrat majority in the House will almost certainly give the chairmanship of the judiciary committee to John Conyers who has previously called for the impeachment of the President.

George Bush is set to spend his last two years in the White House besieged by searing probes into his presidency. That would be a fitting fate for a President famous for his unwillingness or inability to focus on detail and his lack of curiosity about the consequences of his own decisions. The neck lock will then be on George W Bush.

[phil]

Any truth to the rumours that John Kerry is thinking
about making a second run at the presidency ... ?

Who do you think will be the candidate for Democrats ...

- Hillary Rodham Clinton (New York)
- Joe Biden (Delaware)
- Russ Feingold (Wisconsin)
- Christopher Dodd (Connecticut).
- Bill Richardson (New-Mexico)
- Even John Edwards (?) NorthCarolina

- Your own choice ...

[Galactus]

Yeah, I think Kerry's going to give another go but I don't think he'll get the nom. I think he's got the title of the wrong candidate who almost did...he's the example, people say "Kerry almost won, think what we could've done with a REAL candidate"

I thought Edwards was kind of fooling himself because he's really not all that popular around his home state but he seems pretty popular in other parts so who knows.

I think it would be huge mistake to run Hillary, she'll start strong but lose support the more visable she gets.

The others...it's just to early to tell...

[rockysigman]

Kerry and Hillary can't win for the reasons DED said.

I don't think anyone really likes Biden.

Feingold is a Jew. He cannot win. Sorry if I'm overly cynical about this, but I really feel as though this is still the reality.

Richardson could have a shot I guess, although I really don't understand why so many people are excited about him.

Edwards...I don't know. He couldn't get the nomination last time, and I don't see what has changed so that he would be able to this time.

I don't know a thing about Dodd.

[phil]

Don't mention the president: how Republicans hope to stay in power

Bush factor is proving a negative for voters and candidates along the campaign trail

Suzanne Goldenberg in Phoebus, Virginia
Tuesday October 17, 2006
The Guardian

The congresswoman curls her bare toes into the white leather seat of a Lincoln stretch convertible, and leans back to wave at the crowd lining the parade route, basking in the warm autumn sun and the attention of the two small grandsons riding in the car with her.

It rarely gets as good as this on the campaign trail for Thelma Drake, a first-term Republican member of Congress fighting for her political survival in the November 7 midterm elections. This was supposed to have been one of the safest seats in the country. "Borderline of vicious, that's how it's been," said her husband, Ted Drake.

The 2nd congressional district of Virginia is deeply conservative terrain. It is home to the world's largest naval base, and more than 20% of the population is military, on active duty or retired. George Bush carried 58% of the vote here in 2004. Ms Drake took her seat with a 10-point margin, and that was as a last-minute replacement for a conservative Republican who resigned after being outed as gay.

But in this election season, where opinion polls and analysts suggest the Republicans are in serious peril of losing control of the House of Representatives, the president is now seen as a liability for Republicans like Ms Drake who are in tight races. Mr Bush's image has been scrubbed from Republican television ads in all but the most secure districts - although he is everywhere in Democratic attack ads. When he goes out on the campaign trail, it's for closed door high-ticket fundraisers, with a guaranteed friendly crowd.

But even that was too much exposure for Ms Drake. The congresswoman was so nervous about being seen in public with an unpopular president that she stayed behind in Washington when Mr Bush visited the district last summer for a $5,000 (£2,700) a plate fundraiser.

Ms Drake's biggest challenge remains deflecting charges from her Democratic challenger, Phil Kellam, that she is a rubber stamp for the White House. "They are trying to say that I vote for President Bush all the time, but if I disagree with President Bush I don't go along with that," she insisted.

Mr Kellam is scornful. "She just blindly follows the president and hasn't asked the tough questions," he said.

Such exchanges are being played out in dozens of congressional districts across America in an increasingly competitive election. Larry Sabato, a political analyst at the University of Virginia, believes as many as 50 seats could change hands in these elections, of which 42 are held by Republicans. For Ms Drake and others who are locked in tight races, being seen with Mr Bush is just not worth the risk.

With the president's approval ratings hovering in the low to mid-30s, many Republican candidates are finding it necessary to dissociate themselves from Mr Bush. "Republicans are trying to run not as Republicans, not as surrogates for Bush, they are trying to run as themselves," said Stuart Rothenburg, who publishes a well-regarded political newsletter in Washington.

Ms Drake was not the only candidate to flee when the president came to call. (In her defence, Ms Drake said she stayed behind to vote on a bill that would direct projects to her district. The bill passed 395-0).

Michael Steele, who is running for a Senate seat in Maryland, left for Las Vegas when Mr Bush visited his state for a fundraiser. Tom Kean, who is running for the Senate in New Jersey, did not go to those extremes - but he made sure not to turn up at his fundraiser until the president had left.

"I think the country is upset with the president. It's making Republican races throughout the country very tough," said Tom Gear, the local representative to the Virginia house of delegates, who is also a Republican.

Republicans are also giving a wide berth to their party leadership in the House of Representatives following reports that the speaker, Dennis Hastert, tolerated for years the behaviour of a Florida congressman who made sexual overtures towards teenage congressional pages. Would Ms Drake welcome a campaign swing by Mr Hastert in the final heat of the campaign? "That is something we have to decide, whether he can do an appearance," she said. "We are down to a time crunch."

While Republicans such as Ms Drake may be camera shy when Mr Bush is around, they continue to rely on the campaign funds that the president and the house leadership can provide. Mr Bush has personally raised more than $180m for candidates this year, and his White House is more actively engaged in the congressional elections than any other in recent memory.

If Republican candidates need to step away from the administration to win re-election, Mr Bush, it appears, is willing to turn the other cheek. The disavowals of Mr Bush are a radical departure from the 2002 congressional elections. In those midterm elections, 20% of Republican candidates relied on images of Mr Bush in their campaign ads, said Joel Rivlin, of the University of Wisconsin project on political advertising.

This time around, Republicans are keen to flaunt their independence. In Minnesota, Mark Kennedy, a Republican fighting for a seat in the Senate, has gone out of his way to point out his disagreements with the White House. "I am not afraid to work for the other side," his ads say.

In Pennsylvania, Republican congressman Jim Gerlach has run ads claiming: "When I believe President Bush is right, I'm behind him. But when I think he is wrong, I let him know that."

Other candidates have tried a stealth approach by removing references to the Republican party in television advertisements. When it comes to posting pictures of Republican leaders on their websites, they are careful to choose mavericks such as the former mayor of New York, Rudy Giuliani, and the Arizona senator John McCain.

Some candidates have stayed away from humans altogether. In Maryland, Mr Steele tried to pre-empt Democratic attacks on his proximity to Mr Bush by appearing with a puppy in his arms.

The tactic didn't work. The Democrats snapped back immediately with a television ad showing Mr Steele and Mr Bush, locked together within a heart-shaped frame. "Michael Steele. He likes puppies, but he loves George Bush," the voiceover said.

Explainer: The crucial seats

At stake in the congressional mid-term elections on November 7 are all 435 seats in the House of Representatives, 33 Senate seats, and 36 governorships.

In the house, the Republicans hold 231 seats, the Democrats 202. The one independent usually votes with the Democrats. One seat is vacant. The Democrats need a net gain of 15 seats to win the house, and more than 40 Republican seats are thought vulnerable, compared with nine Democrat. The battlegrounds are in the east: Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, New York and Florida.

In the Senate there are 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats and one independent. Of the 33 up for election, 15 are Republican-held, 17 Democrat, and the independent seat, Vermont, is almost certain to go Democrat. The Democrats must make a net gain of six seats to win. There are eight vulnerable Republicans: in Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, Tennessee, and Arizona. The Democrats' most vulnerable seat is in New Jersey.

The Republicans have 28 governors, the Democrats 22. Of those up for election the Republicans have the most to lose. Five states seem to have slipped from their grasp - New York, Ohio, Arkansas, Colorado and Massachusetts. Maryland, Nevada and Minnesota could go either way. Democrats are in danger in Iowa, Michigan, Oregon and Wisconsin.

Interactive guide to the midterms

[phil]

Don't know for sure if it's a good idea
for the Crats to win the midterm elections
because if they do, the american public will have
two full years before the presidential election to see
that they can be as dysfunctional as their republican opponents ...

[Galactus]

phil said:

Don't know for sure if it's a good idea
for the Crats to win the midterm elections
because if they do, the american public will have
two full years before the presidential election to see
that they can be as dysfunctional as their republican opponents ...

This is actually a really good point...and the pubs are way better at the blame game too. The best way for the GOP to hold onto the WH in 08 might be a huge win for the Dems now. I mean think of all the things they could blame on Dems if they were actually in a position of power...

[phil]

The Pubs and the Crats ...

You gotta love those guys !!

[Dr. Drum]

Somehow, based on their record in opposition, I don't think it's going to come as any surprise to anyone that the Dems can be every bit as dysfunctional as their Republican opponents.

[Galactus]

I was feeling left out...so many other states had crazy motherfuckers running for seats and while we had more our share of disappointing prospects, it wasn't until today that I found our crazy motherfucker.

www.10zenmonkeys.com/2006/09/27/awesomest-congressional-campaign-ever-vernon-robinson-nc/

[shin]

There are 4 political signs on my block. Two are for Jim Matheson, the current Democrat representative for Utah's second district, one for Pete Ashdown, a democrat running against Orrin Hatch, and LaVar Christensen, a Republican running for Matheson's seat. Yes, it's only my block and it's only 4 houses that are broadcasting their views, but I wasn't expecting 75% visible support for Democrats anywhere in suburban Utah. Something to consider.

[shin]

To contrast, one strech of a busy commercial road near my house has like 6 consecutive signs for a particular Republican candidate and all of the billboards in town advertise Hatch. I've never seen one Ashdown or Matheson public sign/billboard.

[Mary]

Did you all know about this Rick Santorum dead baby thing?? I hadn't heard about this at all, but came across a reference to it today in some magazine I was reading on my airplane to SF... then looked it up online as soon as I got to the lovely wireless cafe where I am presently seated:

In his Senate office, on a shelf next to an autographed baseball, Sen. Rick Santorum keeps a framed photo of his son Gabriel Michael, the fourth of his seven children. Named for two archangels, Gabriel Michael was born prematurely, at 20 weeks, on Oct. 11, 1996, and lived two hours outside the womb.

Upon their son's death, Rick and Karen Santorum opted not to bring his body to a funeral home. Instead, they bundled him in a blanket and drove him to Karen's parents' home in Pittsburgh. There, they spent several hours kissing and cuddling Gabriel with his three siblings, ages 6, 4 and 1 1/2. They took photos, sang lullabies in his ear and held a private Mass.

"That's my little guy," Santorum says, pointing to the photo of Gabriel, in which his tiny physique is framed by his father's hand. The senator often speaks of his late son in the present tense. It is a rare instance in which he talks softly.

He and Karen brought Gabriel's body home so their children could "absorb and understand that they had a brother," Santorum says. "We wanted them to see that he was real," not an abstraction, he says. Not a "fetus," either, as Rick and Karen were appalled to see him described -- "a 20-week-old fetus" -- on a hospital form. They changed the form to read "20-week-old baby."

Holy fucking shit that's batshit insane. It sounds like something out of a David Lynch movie.

Cheers,
M

[Galactus]

Yikes...Santorum is almost as entertaining as Katheran Harris, it'd be funny if it weren't real.

[rockysigman]

I'd heard that about Santorum before. That guy is nuts. One day he will be President.