The Next Hurrah: Chickens Come Home To Roost

« Polling Interlude | Main | Dick Cheney, Hunting the Truth »

February 15, 2006

Chickens Come Home To Roost

by DemFromCT

What's the Bush Administrations's strongest point supposed to be? National security? I don't think so, and neither, apparently, do other Americans.

Americans have less than ample confidence in either the Bush administration or the United Nations to handle the seemingly dicey situation concerning Iran's nuclear aspirations. According to a Feb. 9-12, 2006 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, only 45% of Americans are either very confident or somewhat confident about the administration's ability to handle the current situation in Iran; 47% express these levels of confidence in the United Nations. Only a small handful of Americans are very confident about either entity's abilities; the majority are generally not confident about either.

Note that Bush ranks below the UN on this topic (hey, David Gregory, ask Scotty Mac what Bush thinks of this poll?). Well, after the screwups in Iraq and NOLA, the question is how did he do as well as he did?

There'll be more of that today as Wednesday brings us staff staff fights in the WH over the shooting, and analysis of the FEMA mess (including the bullshit reforms suggested by a challenged Chertoff at DHS). There's not such great news about NSA probes, but I wonder that the erosion of trust in Bush hasn't penetrated the thick Republican skulls of Senators like Snowe. 2006 may prove to be a surprise for those who aren't paying attention. But as Gallup notes, the American people are.

February 15, 2006 at 07:41 in Bush Administration, Contributor--DemFromCT, Foreign Policy | Permalink

Comments

I love this one:

Troubling Questions About Cheney's Boss Why is the vice president getting nearly all the blame for keeping his shooting escapade secret last weekend? President Bush either kept it hidden just as long--or, equally disturbing, maybe he did not find out about Cheney's role as shooter until much later.

See, stuff like this is why americans doubt Bush is up to the job.

Posted by: DemFromCT | February 15, 2006 at 08:04

That seems to be the choice--either Cheney didn't notify Bush at all, because he is really the #1 and not the #2 guy here, or Bush did know, and didn''t tell his press secretary or anyone else except perhaps Karl Rove.

Both are pretty damning.

Posted by: Mimikatz | February 15, 2006 at 13:08

I'm always amazed, well, not amazed really because that indicates surprise, and I am never surprised anymore, so what I mean to say is that I'm always shocked to find out not how much Americans disapprove of Bush and his Administration's inabilities to do anything right, but rather how big a percentage STILL thinks after all that has happened that he's got a handle on things.

Meanwhile, the chances of turning these mediocre poll numbers into something meaningful get some cold water from Charlie Cook over at the National Journal yesterday.

Political parties always try hard to win as many races as possible in each election. What might be in their best interest is sometimes a different story. So the question arises: Do Democrats really want to win majorities in the Senate and the House in 2006?
As ridiculous as that question may sound, consider the following: Let's say Democrats are able to defeat Republican Sens. Conrad Burns in Montana, Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island, Mike DeWine in Ohio, Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania, and Jim Talent in Missouri, plus win the Senate seat being vacated by Bill Frist of Tennessee, plus hold on to every one of their own seats, including the most problematic -- an open seat in Minnesota and Maria Cantwell's seat in Washington. Those successes would give the Democrats the barest, 51-vote majority and, along with it, the power to investigate and subpoena. But they could do very little else, particularly with President Bush in the White House.

And what if Democrats captured all 21 of the House seats that Republicans seem in danger of losing and kept all 11 Democratic seats that now appear vulnerable? They would have a microscopic, five-seat, 223-212 majority.

Notice that in both scenarios, I deliberately avoided the word "control." A Senate majority with 51 seats or a House majority with 223 is hardly in control of anything. Again, Democrats would gain the power to subpoena and investigate, but little else.

Could Democrats win larger majorities? In the Senate, only one other GOP seat is even theoretically vulnerable, that of Arizona's Jon Kyl. So 52-48 is the very best the Democrats could possibly do. In the House, another half-dozen GOP seats might flip, but that is very unlikely as long as the number of Republican retirements stays low. Democrats have been unable to recruit top-tier candidates to challenge some of the most potentially vulnerable Republicans, leaving incumbents such as Anne Northup (KY-03) and Jon Porter (NV-03) to face second-rate Democratic opponents.

The worst situation for any party in a legislative chamber is to have the responsibility to govern without the power to do so. If Democrats gain a majority in each chamber, they'll find themselves sharing blame with President Bush.

When voters are upset and when one party controls the White House, the Senate, and the House, fingers can point in only one direction. If Democrats gain a chamber, some of the air will start leaking from that "time for a change" balloon, and it would be awfully hard to reinflate.

Sheesh.

In an aside, Kos said yesterday that he hasn't yet made up his mind whether a bare majority for the Republicans would be better than than a bare majority for the Democrats come January 2007.

One would think that this would be a no-brainer. But it truly depends, I think, on whether Democratic leaders in the House and/or Senate can do a better job of exerting party discipline from a position as majority leaders than they have done as minority leaders. Would 51 Democratic Senators have stopped Samuel Alito, for instance? Anybody want to make wagers on that? I'll cover some of that money if you are.

In a way, short of a '74 or '94 style blowout, which only the most starry-eyed are suggesting is even remotely possible, staying in minority might seem to make more sense until a bigger gain can be made. But, the vagaries of elections aren't such that the party leaders can exactly calculate how to win just enough seats to tighten the margin without crossing the line, can they? And, if the Democrats can't win majorities based on those awful polling numbers Bush is showing, then when can they?

Posted by: Meteor Blades | February 15, 2006 at 14:31

I can understand being ambivalent about Dems having a majority (and thus a share of responsibility) without true control – especially given the Quisling tendencies of Lieberman and gang. However, a few thoughts:

1) The pure shock of a Dem landslide – which winning so many seats in the teeth of Gerrymander Era would have to be considered – might have its own effect, on both wavering Dems, and surviving worried moderate Republicans. The election of ’80 brought the Pubs to a bare Senate majority (52, I believe), and kept them still minority in the House…but the extent of the electoral wave (47 House seats, double-digits I can’t quite recall in the Senate) persuaded remaining Dems – especially Southern ones – that big bad Ronnie would come and get them the next time if they didn’t play ball. (The Dem pickup of 28 House seats in ’82 finally ended that fear, too late) I’d think people like Bill Nelson et al. would feel empowered by a big Dem night, and Susan Collins/George Voinovich would be made fearful.

2) Would we really have to worry so much about defections in the House? It seems to me the extinction of most boll weevil Dems has had an upside: making the partisan representation there far closer to ideological than the old arrangement. I’ve been impressed by how much of her caucus Pelosi has been able to keep in line on most votes. Why not assume she can do the same with the additional votes, especially if they’re coming aboard in a wave of triumphalism?

3) Cook omits the biggest benefit of such control: the ability to push legislation before the president and make him say yea or nay. I see no downside to Dems putting out bills that, say, raise the minimum wage, or propose fixing the Medicare benefit (which should have party-wide appeal), and daring Bush to veto them.

4) I wish I had the historic record in front of me. My recollection is, Dems were too far back after ’28 to take actual control, so even massive gains in ’30 only brought them to the “perfect” situation Cook describes (close enough to screw the president, but without control to get blame). However, my other recollection is, the Pubs did take control of Congress in ’18, and it didn’t hurt them in ’20 – Wilson was still held responsible for the nation’s problems, and GOP control was extended, along with the presidency.

Posted by: demtom | February 15, 2006 at 15:11

As always, demtom, you've got a better handle than I on these subjects. Thanks.

Posted by: Meteor Blades | February 15, 2006 at 15:15

Cook omits the biggest benefit of such control:
Actually, demtom, the biggest benefit is arguably the power of the subpoena. Without the ability to investigate, Bush has gotten away with murder.

Posted by: DemFromCT | February 15, 2006 at 16:16

I would put more credence in Charlie Cook's assessment but for two things. First, as his article pointed out, in 2008 the R's will have 21 Senate seats to defend to the Dems' 12. That is the post-9/11, pre-Iraq war midterm class. As Demtom points out, a Dem takeover, even by a bare majority, is going to shake up those 21 Senators, and will help Dem recruitment. By the same token, a Dem win or close to it in the House would probably encourage more R retirements (and I don't think we have by any means seen all of them for 2006) and improve Dem recruiting for the House.

Second, Bush has been such a polarizing presence that even if the Dems had a bare majority, the contrast between the two, and what they are trying to accomplish, would still be very strong. This might to some extent offset pinning responsibility on the Dems. And I agree that the opportunity to put a series of Dem core issues to the Pres, or at least to a vote, such as minimum wage and fairer tax policy, is worth having to take some responsibility.

But I disagree with his remark that "the worst situation for any party in a legislative chamber is to have the responsibility to govern without the power to do so." I would argue that the worst situation is having the power to govern without the ability to do so. That is what we are seeing now.

Posted by: Mimikatz | February 15, 2006 at 16:19

Meteor Blades, you make me blush.

I did what I should have done earlier: Googled and got some factual Congressional results.

The GOP Senate gain in 1980 was net 12, for a 53-47 margin.

Nothing on 1930/32, but, courtesy of someone's thesis, I found that Dems and Pubs were at rough parity after 1916, Pubs took clear control of both houses in '18, and extended it in '20.

I posted this on the previous threda, but, more and more, I'm coming to see the Wilson inter-regnum as extraordinarily analogous to our current position. Bush and Wilson were both elected in flukes (the Roosevelt-Taft war/Florida), and returned to office by almost identical, slim margins; held moralistic views about foreign policy, and got the country into unpopular wars (though at least we won WWI); trampled on civil liberties. If Dems take both houses this November, the comparisons will become quite striking.

Posted by: demtom | February 15, 2006 at 16:22

Thanks for the interesting post/thread...

I understand Cook's point, but I still have to agree with others here that controlling an agenda (and supoena power) in a house of congress would be, on balance, hugely beneficial for the dems, IF they continue to learn how to be an opposition party, rather than thinking 'well, we're winning again, so things are back to their natural state'. After all, the GOP STILL acts like an opposition party 25 years into its rule. Winning a house of congress, by no matter how slim a margin, would for the dems be a means of pushing the rest of the GOP out of power.

I'd guess that the post-midterm session is the 'shorter' session in a sense, because of the looming pres. election. So, while it would be nice for the dems to try to pass nice legislation, they can't forget that they're in a war, and the gop needs to get pushed out all the way - they are The Borg. Try and pass reasonable legislation, and it will get tabled or neutered in the Senate, or Bush will sign it and ignore it, or, etc. The GOP must go in '08. There's no way around it. I can hear Publius shouting pretty clearly, despite the din.

And in the age of Abramoff, extra-FISA, Iraq, the supoena power is worth it by itself. The whole structure of our current gov is a doddering shit-tower. It needs a push.

Posted by: jonnybutter | February 15, 2006 at 17:46

Apropos of the above discussion comes word from Hotline On Call that Bill Jenkins, R-TN-01 will retire and from MyDD that Joel Hefley R CO-06 is thinking of retiring. Both are solid R districts, but open seats are generally harder to defend than incumbents.

Posted by: Mimikatz | February 15, 2006 at 18:44

i've been saying for a while now that the only upside in dems winning control of one or both houses of congress is the power of subpoena.

otherwise, i see no benefit at all, and i don't think that's enough.

there are going to be loads of chickens coming home to roost in the next 3 years: iraq; a recession; inflation; the medicare drug fiasco. at this point, the dems are clean.

as soon as they gain control of one or both houses, they're complicit, and it doesn't matter how much they "learn" to be an opposition party, people like lieberman and nelson in the senate and their equivalents in the house will sell them out. it's the worst of both worlds.

i think a 50-50 senate and a 218-217 gop house would be just fine: it would block the worst excesses of bush-ism without leaving any fingerprints....

Posted by: howard | February 15, 2006 at 22:02

it doesn't matter how much they "learn" to be an opposition party, people like lieberman and nelson in the senate and their equivalents in the house will sell them out.

So I guess you're saying that the dems won't learn to be an opposition party no matter what. If that's the case - and it may be - then you and Cook are right (although it would be the same kind of dead end to come into power by default in '08). But I do think there's hope in the House. There's no fake 'comity' in the house. Even cheesy bluedogs want to be in power.

Posted by: jonnybutter | February 15, 2006 at 23:21