archived: 2 - 8 Oct, 2005         Back                 Next

UPDATED:  October 6, 2005 

                        IT IS THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY STUPID . . .  

Bush’s “approval” rating continues at about 41% (see TPJ’s polling chart at the bottom of this section).   Republican Congressional “approval” is even below that of Bush as denoted in the Pew Poll below: -- Polling Report 

Republican anxiety must be reaching new heights as public polling is now consistently showing that Democrats are polling well above Republicans in the 2006 elections.   

Some Democrats are concluding from these numbers that the Democratic Party is set to make major gains in recapturing the House and Senate.  Sen. Nelson of Florida suggested this proposition in a recent interview: 

The nation has become fed up with Republican leadership and the United States can still free itself of foreign oil in 10 years if it focuses on alternative fuel like ethanol, Sen. Bill Nelson said Tuesday.

In a wide ranging interview with reporters, Nelson, D-Fla., cited Republicans' intervention in the Terri Schiavo case, the skyrocketing federal budget deficits and the war in Iraq as reasons why public opinion is turning against the GOP.

"It started with Terri Schiavo," Nelson said. "I think what you're seeing is a reaction -- that people are saying I have enough of this intolerance and trying to cram their agenda down the people's throats. People are getting tired of that. – Boston Globe 

Sen. Nelson’s conclusion is very premature – perhaps very wrong. 

Thirty-three Senate Senates will be conducted in 2006.  With Republicans at a low ebb, one would expect to see early polling in individual races demonstrating Democrats potentially picking up a substantial number of seats given Republican weakness.  Early polling suggests that assumption is incorrect.    

Zogby has polled a number of Senate races published with detailed charts in the Wall Street Journal.    Zogby’s polling of the races suggests that the Democrats, at best, would make only modest gains in the US Senate, perhaps two seats; Ohio, where the Republican Party at the State level has been exposed in one of the worst political scandals in history and Pennsylvania, where radical Rep. Rick Santorum is clearly in jeopardy.  Democrats are currently holding seats in Maryland, New Jersey and Minnesota; three seats where the incumbent Democrats are or may not be running for reelection.  Zogby polling suggests that these seats are not assured for Democrats. 

A special election was just held in California House District 48 to fill the seat of a Republican Bush appointed to a post in the Executive Branch.  California 48 is one of the most Republican districts in the United States.  No one expected the Democrat to win, but in an open primary where candidates of all Parties ran and radical and moderate Republicans fielding seperate candidates, some observers thought that the Democrats would improve their performance. The final results from CA-48 have the leading Democratic Party candidate at less than 9% and all four Democrats in the open primary polling slightly less than 17% of the vote: 

John Campbell (Rep)                             36640               46.0%
Marilyn C. Brewer (Rep)                         13272               16.7%
Jim Gilchrist (AI)                                    11490               14.4%
Steve Young (Dem)                              7110                  8.9%

Not the kind of results that would suggest a massive public repudiation of the Republican Party is in the offing. 

The message for Democrats is simple.  Despite the daily media headlines of Bush’s falling poll numbers and problems within the Republican ranks, Democrats have not yet captured the imagination and support necessary to regain control of the US House or Senate.  The same Pew polling report cited above that finds the public largely disapproving of Republican leadership in Congress found that Democrats ranked equally low: 

Voters in every election are faced with a choice based on a comparison of candidates and Parties.  Americans concerns of Bush are definitely mounting; Americans are obviously growing more concerned about the Republican Party as a whole.  The polling above suggests that Americans do not perceive Congressional Democrats as being significantly different than the Republicans. 

IT IS ABOUT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY STUPID . . .

_____________________________________________

UPDATED:  October 4, 2005 

                        REAL REASON FOR HARRIET MIERS NOMINATION
                        [Authored by Allen L. Roland*] 

Vice President Dick Cheney, right, and senior White House staff members, from left to right: Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove; Counselor to the President Dan Bartlett; Chief of Staff to the Vice President Scooter Libby; Deputy Chief of Staff and Harriet Miers. 

The real reason Harriet Miers was nominated by Cheney & Bush was to protect their legal rear ends.  Every person in the enclosed photo with the exception of Miers could be subject to a legal indictment once the Fitzgerald report is released later this month. 

In that regard, The Center for American Progress reported today that TOP ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS MAY BE INDICTED FOR CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY:  " On ABC's This Week, George Stephanopolous said the Plame leak scandal could become unmanageable for the White House if "as a source close to this told me this week, President Bush and Vice President Cheney were actually involved in some of these discussions."  This would help explain why Bush spent more than an hour answering questions about the leak with special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. But it would also explode the notion, carefully maintained by the White House, that Bush is merely a bystander who wants to “get to the bottom” of what happened." 

The most corrupt administration in our nation's history is circling the wagons in order to legally protect themselves from soon to be released well documented abuses of power -- and what better person, than a loyal partisan player like Miers, to be their ultimate protection on the Supreme Court. 

How partisan is she? David Frum, White house speechwriter, reports, “In the White House that hero worshipped the president, Miers was distinguished by the intensity of her zeal: She once told me that the president was the most brilliant man she had ever met ." Now that statement alone is enough to raise red flags throughout the nation -- if not the world. 

Once again, this appointment has nothing to do with the sanctity and integrity of the Supreme Court -- this Cheney/Bush appointment is all about legal self protection. 

And Harriet Miers is well versed in that arena. 

Will Bunch, columnist for the Philadelphia Daily News, reports on his blog: 

"But she does know better than just about anyone else where the bodies are buried (relax, it's a just a metaphor...we hope) in President Bush's National Guard scandal. In fact, Bush's Texas gubenatorial campaign in 1998 (when he was starting to eye the White House) actually paid Miers $19,000 to run an internal pre-emptive probe of the potential scandal. Not long after, a since-settled lawsuit alleged that the Texas Lottery Commission -- while chaired by Bush appointee Miers -- played a role in a multi-million dollar cover-up of the scandal." 

We can no longer settle for the Cheney/Bush Doctrine of deception, mediocrity and cronyism --this nomination cannot stand. 

__________   

*Allen Roland was born in Boston, Massachusetts. He was a Navy fighter pilot for five years and a stockbroker for ten years.  He now resides in Sonoma, California with an active private mental health counseling practice in the San Francisco Bay Area.  Roland appears on radio, which is available on the internet, on the first Monday of every month at 7 AM and  4PM  PST, “TRUTHTALK,” on Conscious Talk Radio with Brenda Michaels & Rob Spears.  Click here for Roland’s webpage and link to his radio program – Allen Roland

_____________________________________________

                        WILL THE DEMOCRATS PRODUCE AN EFFECTIVE LEADER?
                        [Authored by Jay Greene*] 

Strategically and in every other way, Democrats in leadership positions are in a sorry state. They fail to lead.   They fumble, they cavil over the ninth part of a hair, as Bush's approval ratings sink, the situation in Iraq grows worse and the nation's debt (and dependence on China) grows.  While the party out of power has a natural disadvantage, to this handicap the Democrats add to their woes with their own efforts by passing up obvious opportunities and by sinking into their customary disarray ("I belong to no organized political party; I am a Democrat.").  Kerry's loss a year ago and the Bush-Rove-DeLay terror tactics against political opposition have neutered the Dems. 

No effort is made to speak with fewer than forty voices on the Roberts nomination.  No effort is made to argue cogently, responsibly and patriotically against the worsening situation in Iraq.  As polls show mounting popular disaffection with the war, Democrats cannot decide whether they approve of the rally on the Mall, or whether to be seen with Sheehan.  They seem to be clapping with one hand while holding their collective nose with the other.  Rank and file Party members are in despair.  They can see no effective efforts are being made against weakened Republicans. 

There is a strong case to be made against this administration and the case is that recklessness and zeal have weakened the nation at home and abroad.  Forget about whether a tight or loose money policy should be pursued; or fiscal and monetary policy should stimulate the economy directly or through trickle down; whether our foreign policy should pursue moral ends or be a force for stability in the world.  These are the broad questions around which Democrats and Republicans have danced for half a century.  Put aside those stale debates.  This administration has weakened the nation by a witless tax policy, by deliberately seeking to devolve federal authority to the states in environmental and disaster preparedness matters; and by seeking a utopian solution ("democracy in the Middle East") to intractable problems. 

The times are ripe, overripe, for someone in the Democratic Party to step forward and articulate, firmly, cogently, insistently, in what ways the present administration is anything but conservative and how a Democratic administration could apply common sense solutions to our many problems and restore both the nation's strength.  All it takes is one Democrat to step forward. 

The electorate will respond to clear leadership but who can claim that role?  Who can rally the Democrats?  Not Hilary, she's too busy trimming her sails.  Not Shumer; he can only kvetch.  Boxer has baggage, being seen as too long on the zany California left.  Biden?  He won't focus.  Patrick Leahy is everyone's stern uncle; hard to warm up to him, and I don't believe taking the initiative is his style. 

Howard Dean could lead, if he could escape the twin burdens of perceived stridency and chairmanship of the DNC.  Everyone knows party chairmanship is not where you look for political leadership.  Tedious and skillful organizing and fundraising work must be done there, but not political leadership. Richardson, currently governor of New Mexico, has potential. 

Sadly and to date, no Democrat has been willing to make the obvious case.  No one has a strategic sense. 

It baffles me: why are Democrats so weak in the face of blazing opportunity?  Are they craven, inept and dysfunctional all at once?  It would appear so.  Again, the minority party starts off at a disadvantage in our system but such an obstacle has been overcome before, most recently in '92 when Clinton was the only Democrat willing to take on an incumbent President who had just won a lightening, low cost war. 

If the object of the exercise is to retake back Congress in '06 and the White House in '08 - and this is the Democrats' first duty - then they must get cracking.  On every front the Bush administration and the GOP Congress are vulnerable and their errors of omission and commission are manifest. 

The Democrats can win the Congress and the White House.  To do so, they must remind the country how radical and reckless policies have led us down a perilous path and how prudent and sensible steps can reduce debt and lessen our exposure abroad and how necessary is our reinvesting in domestic needs. A forceful and inspiring Democrat can capitalize on the Republicans' irreversibly weakened position. 

A great gap has opened in the enemy's lines but the Democratic standard wavers.  A resourceful leader must snatch the banner from faltering hands and, as did Harry at Harfleur, push forward and exploit the breach. 

________ 

Junkie:  Amen, Jay. Amen! 

* Jay Greene is a regular contributor to TPJ.  Jay graduated from Dartmouth.  He entered upon a career in Pacific Coast shipping and was a principal and executive with General Steamship Corporation at the time of his retirement in 1985.  He resides in St Helena, California, and involves himself in community affairs, politics and the arts, while continuing to read history with enthusiasm and profit.                        

                        BUSH’S SEPTEMBER 

Jay Greene’s assessment as to Bush’s standing with the public is correct.  Bush’s poll numbers at mid-September demonstrated a precipitous fall from his August monthly average.  See: TPJ, BUSH POLL NUMBERS   

Bush has regained a bit of ground during the latter half of September as TPJ’s most recent plot below demonstrates.  But, Bush’s “approval” rating is nearly 10% lower than the beginning of 2005 and his “disapproval” rating is some 9% higher during the same period. 

With numbers like these, Jay Greene’s call for one national Democrat to stand up is apropos.  

                        OBAMA  

Sen. Barack Obama takes those progressive Democrats who are assaulting Democrat Senators who voted for Roberts’ confirmation as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court to task.  Sen. Obama offers a perceptive analysis of how Democrat Senators viewed the nomination: 

According to the storyline that drives many advocacy groups and Democratic activists - a storyline often reflected in comments on this blog - we are up against a sharply partisan, radically conservative, take-no-prisoners Republican party.  They have beaten us twice by energizing their base with red meat rhetoric and single-minded devotion and discipline to their agenda.  In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone, give as good as they get, brook no compromise, drive out Democrats who are interested in "appeasing" the right wing, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda.  The country, finally knowing what we stand for and seeing a sharp contrast, will rally to our side and thereby usher in a new progressive era.

I think this perspective misreads the American people.  From traveling throughout Illinois and more recently around the country, I can tell you that Americans are suspicious of labels and suspicious of jargon.  They don't think George Bush is mean-spirited or prejudiced, but have become aware that his administration is irresponsible and often incompetent.  They don't think that corporations are inherently evil (a lot of them work in corporations), but they recognize that big business, unchecked, can fix the game to the detriment of working people and small entrepreneurs.  They don't think America is an imperialist brute, but are angry that the case to invade Iraq was exaggerated, are worried that we have unnecessarily alienated existing and potential allies around the world, and are ashamed by events like those at Abu Ghraib which violate our ideals as a country.

It's this non-ideological lens through which much of the country viewed Judge Roberts' confirmation hearings.   A majority of folks, including a number of Democrats and Independents, don't think that John Roberts is an ideologue bent on overturning every vestige of civil rights and civil liberties protections in our possession.  Instead, they have good reason to believe he is a conservative judge who is (like it or not) within the mainstream of American jurisprudence, a judge appointed by a conservative president who could have done much worse (and probably, I fear, may do worse with the next nominee).  While they hope Roberts doesn't swing the court too sharply to the right, a majority of Americans think that the President should probably get the benefit of the doubt on a clearly qualified nominee.

A plausible argument can be made that too much is at stake here and now, in terms of privacy issues, civil rights, and civil liberties, to give John Roberts the benefit of the doubt.  That certainly was the operating assumption of the advocacy groups involved in the nomination battle. 

I shared enough of these concerns that I voted against Roberts on the floor this morning.  But short of mounting an all-out filibuster -- a quixotic fight I would not have supported; a fight I believe Democrats would have lost both in the Senate and in the court of public opinion; a fight that would have been difficult for Democratic senators defending seats in states like North Dakota and Nebraska that are essential for Democrats to hold if we hope to recapture the majority; and a fight that would have effectively signaled an unwillingness on the part of Democrats to confirm any Bush nominee, an unwillingness which I believe would have set a dangerous precedent for future administrations -- blocking Roberts was not a realistic option.

In such circumstances, attacks on Pat Leahy, Russ Feingold and the other Democrats who, after careful consideration, voted for Roberts make no sense. – Daily KOS (Sen. Obama’s post has generated over six hundred responses that are fascinating to read.) 

TPJ’s perspective is rather simple.  Progressives successfully galvanized in opposition to Roberts, but were unable to fashion a strategy to galvanize moderates against the nomination.  As Sen. Obama poignantly notes, many Democratic Senators were unwilling to risk a vote against Roberts when the public was not opposed to the nomination. 

Progressives should consider Sen. Obama’s views carefully.    

NEXT- MICHAEL CARMICHAEL

Last Update: 03/23/2006