To whom will the divided House fall?
Published by LDiablo October 18th, 2006 in This Weblog[Author’s prelude: Nate has invited me to contribute to his blog, since I seemed to take liberty with his comments sections on a regular basis. I’m humbled by the invitation and sheepish to admit that I probably won’t be as regular a contributor as I am a commentor. That’s just too much work and this gig doesn’t pay enough. But I’ll blame that on a Republican administration. Please, read on, and feel free to slam me in the polls.]
In the wake of so much bad news for Republican candidates, the latest sheepherder cry to come out of the GOP is a sky-is-falling approach to motivate conservative voters: “Democrats may take the House!”Six months ago, observers scoffed at the notion. There was a particular early campaign in California for a replacement for the seat of Duke Cunningham that was looked to as a bellwether for the ’06 Congressional races. Many suggested that if the Democratic candidate could win the seat of the disgraced Republican Cunningham, that it might signal hope the Democrats could do the unthinkable and regain control of the House. Then Democrat Francine Busby lost to Brian Bilbray and the whole notion of a change in Congressional majority sort of petered away. Fast forward a few months to a time when the war in Iraq continues to drag on, Bush’s popularity still stinks, and Rep. Mark Foley besmirches the Republican party leadership with a scandal involving lurid remarks with underage, male interns that made Bill Clinton seem like much less a creep (Monica, after all, was a consenting adult female).So what is the latest battle cry we’re hearing from Republicans? The Democrats are going to take the House! The Democrats are going to take the House!Don’t believe me – read what’s being said and written:– Van Taylor in a recent debate at College Station asked Chet Edwards whom he would vote for as Speaker of the House if the Democrats were to win majority. He couldn’t throw in enough Republican hot-button words like Nancy Pelosi, liberal, etc. – The Hill.com quotes House Speaker Dennis Hastert’s spokesman: “We have 20 days to get our message out,” Hastert spokesman Ron Bonjean said. “Our focus will be to expose that a Democrat majority would stand for higher taxes and national security policies of weakness and appeasement.”
– Good old “sources said” report that the NRCC has shifted planned campaign media funding out of the TX-17 race to fight fires in other contests. Some say this is because Van Taylor got so much early help that he’s off to a great start and doesn’t need it; realists say that they’re writing him off as a lost cause. Oh, but now the President and First Lady have endorsed him. Have they sent a check? – A letter to the editor in Tuesday’s Waco Tribune Herald (which isn’t included in the online version of letters) had one writer lamenting Taylor’s poor campaigning tactics and says he doesn’t like them. Then says he’s voting against Chet anyway because we can’t have a the Democrats control Congress.I doubt the reality of a House majority for Democrats, though stranger things have happened. It just really grates me to see this used as a gimmicky way to get votes from lemmings. More annoying is the fact that the Republicans have had, what, six years of majority in Congress and the Presidency and they still haven’t accomplished much. Dang straight they should lose it. I just don’t know how realistic that is, even given the wave of disdain for Republicans. And now they’ve even begun stacking the Supreme Court and, God forbid, the ramifications of that kind of control. It didn’t work in the administration’s favor when Bush had American citizens spied on. Yet, he’s got a great record of making up executive privilege as he goes along to fit the misdeed.Back to this majority issue – I strongly believe that a balance of powers is not only favorable, but necessary, for a successful Democracy. And having the same party in control of all the powers (judicial impartiality hollow argument aside) just ain’t right.So for Republicans to be sounding the battle cries that the Democrats are about to take over seems so irrelevant that who would believe it? Then I think about the triangulation tactics the Republicans have used on other issues (Gay marriage - how does that affect most people’s daily lives?) and think, well, they did fall for that. Democrats need something of their own to rally voters. Wait, there are several: North Korea, deficit, volatile fuel prices, Iraq, terrorism. I’m sure there are others. They’re called issues. Maybe that’s why the Republicans seem so jittery these days. Too bad they don’t concentrate on those.
0 Responses to “To whom will the divided House fall?”
Please Wait
Leave a Reply