« Carnival Interruptus at the Correspondents' Dinner | Main | On the Necessity of Impeachment -- Part IV »

May 02, 2006

Comments

Why desperation? why panic? Because if Dems get subpoena power, Bush and the corruption of power are fully exposed. Imagine public hearings about Bush's assertion he's above the law, or trashing of the FOIA.

Libertarian Republicans and indies would have just as much of a fit as we libruls.

Bush's job approval rating has dropped about one point per month, on average, over the past four years.

By them numbers, I get a president under 30% for my birthday!

Yay, me!

If the Dems get supoena power, people here and elsewhere will find themselves diligently urging them to use it -- not a done deal. But that is politics.

democrats would do well to pay attention to what carl forti is quoted as saying above:

"president bush is not on the ballot."


from my perspective,

it is entirely possible that the disenchantment with president bush will not necessarily translated into a disenchantment with a local Congressional incumbent.


consider the case of the corrupt sen. conrad burns of montana

or

congressmen ney of ohio or delay of texas.

there is a lot of tolerance,

something i have really never been able to understand,

in American politics,

for scoundrels.

maybe it's as simple as name recognition

or maybe

its the secret admiration for jesse james syndrome many of us harbor.

whatever,

gov edwin edwards of Louisiana was as thorough a crook as you could imagine in a novel, yet he was elected three times (i think) governor of Louisiana.

so where is this comment going?

i think it is really important for democratic strategists and candidates

to link the republican controlled congress, and their congressional opponent,

with bush.


this should be easy enough to do because the republican-controlled congress has repeatedly refused to challenge, check on, or discipline bush.

and the republican=controlled congress has supported some of bush's most egregious acts of (mis)governing, e.g., war and taxes.

in short:

a direct link has to be made

and then reinforced

between bush's performance and the lack of congressional challenge to bush's errors of governing.

Are you speaking of La Long Land?
====================

Now that's not likely, specifically because cornered Republicans have no where else to go - they are stuck with Bush, and will sink or swim with him

While I agree that's true of Republican elected officials, for voters expressing disapproval, I could see it going quite a bit lower. They may not have anywhere else to go, but they don't have to say they like him. Bush was never competent at actually doing much of anything other than looting the government for his cronies, but recently he seems to have lost his ability to appear to do something (perhaps because of Rove's distraction by the indictment threat.)

Case in point -- I think his numbers are particularly bad on gas prices because his announced action was to "look into" price gouging, and then a few days later, before any investigation, he declared that he didn't see any evidence of it, and he coupled that with reacting against the Democrats' proposed action. Back in the days of Clear Skies/Healthy Forests, they would have wrapped up their pro-industry actions in deceptive popular liberal rhetoric.

(22%? Maybe if Rove's indicted; I can dream...)

janinsanfran has it right. Victory in November is just the first step for those of us who want - demand - that the Dems use that subpoena power. But first things first. We've got six months to make that essential victory happen. I wish I could say my chosen challenger - Russ Warner - has a ghost of a chance of beating David Dreier. I'm afraid the burden is on others. DemFromCT, I trust, is helping Ned Lamont to give Lieberman nightmares.

The combination of dislike for the incompetent and petulant Bush and the gutlessness of the "Do Nothing" or "Rubber Stamp" Congress ensures that they sink or swim with Bush. There is nothing to separate the GOP Congress from Bush except on the wrong side--nativism, for example, that most people find distasteful. The $100 gas rebate is symbolic: they thought the voters could be bought off they way they themselves were. And today I see that they have backed off from any tax changes that might ruffle the profits of the oil industry. What a depressing bunch of corrupt mediocrities.

Joementum is not a happy warrior these days, having to scramble for reelection. let him have nightmares. But Intrade has Joe at 90, which gives you an idea of the likely results.

Ew,
Tried to post a comment on your Libby post but after trying twice and getting
"comments not allowed on this post" I thought I would try to reach you through this post and find out if you know that something is wrong there or it is a non-post deliberately.
Anyway, It is an excellent post.

DemFromCT, Intrade has Joe at 90. Those numbers can fluctuate a fair amount as new polls and other data on the race come out. I remember the day of the 2004 presidential election as the exit polls were supposedly analysed, Intrade had Kerry winning briefly.

Clearly the race is for Joe to lose. He has the power of incumbency, tons of money and name recognition. Lamont is basically an unknown with buzz mostly in the blogosphere. If Lamont wins its a hhundred year tsunami.

agreed, ab initio... it'd be a tsunami. Intrade predicted a close election in 2004 and it WAS a close election. Intrade is thinking this is not close for Lamont-Joe.

We'll see, but that's the CW - the smart money's still on Joe.

this is from today's Note:

Although 61 percent of Connecticut voters believe going to war in Iraq was the wrong thing to do, war-supporter Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) doesn't seem to be suffering too badly in his Democratic primary contest. The latest Quinnipiac University poll has him besting his opponent Ned Lamont 65 to 19 percent (margin of error: +/- 4.3%).

Dem from CT and others interested in the fortunes of Lieberman/Lemont...

Lemont apparently has acquired a very interesting Campaign Team -- the one that did the Wellstone Campaign in 1990. Specifically, they have acquired Bill Hillsman to do the advertising, so you are in for a treat. Hillseman is a lot like Stephen Colbert -- his advertising is pure irony wrapped in a very few of the conventions of political advertising. In 1998, for instance, he did the Jesse Ventura Campaign famous for the advertisment that morphed the Wrestler into Rodan's "The Thinker" -- The Thinker as a bobblehead on Jesse's torso. In 1990 the Wellstone Campaign actually financed the last week of the campaign by selling the video of Hillsman's two and a half minute re-do of Michael Moore's "Roger and Me" which was called "Looking for Rudy" -- in which Wellstone searches for a connection to opponent Rudy Boschwitz so they can talk about thinking about scheduling some debates. Hillsman busts giants with his stuff, he does not work for incumbants, only in situations where he personally believes someone needs to be taken out. Along with Hillsman apparently they have also hired many of the field workers -- the Wellstone back room. Some of them are actually originally from CT, and have family there. The key to any Wellstone Campaign was always field organization, frequently working through existing organizations for the temporary requirements of a political campaign. The connections probably will not be heavily advertised -- it will look on the surface as if Lamont's people organized it themselves -- but Lamont has done something very bold.

There is a huge backstory here, and perhaps I'll post it as an article later if Lamont seems to be properly moving forward. And while I think the book is out of print the best description of how this gang works is in Duane Smith's "Professor Wellstone Goes to Washington" -- U of Minnesota Press.

Anyhow, keep us informed about what is visable of Lamont's campaign tactics.

Absolutely... it's still very early and the CW is often wrong.

Lieberman, btw, is plastering CT with TV ads. They basically say "I know you disagree with me on Iraq, but let's agree where we can and agree to disagree where we can't".

He's spending a fortune on those ads. Noe opf them have Joe hugging Bush.

Lieberman has tons of money to throw away -- precisely what Boschwitz had -- he had eleven million in the bank at the start of the campaign, Paul was renting a broom closet at the Marydell LeSeure House -- an Augsberg College student activist center -- where we hooked up an answering machine to a phone, and every day someone went over and changed the tape and transcribed the phone numbers of the callers who wanted to volunteer. We also kept our early model Apple Computer there, which allowed us to mock up lit pieces for Paul's appearances, and run round the corner to Kinko's to make copies. I mean it was bare bones. Eventually we spent just over a million dollars while getting Boschwitz to waste all his money on dirty negative ads -- and we won. Sounds like Lieberman's advertising is standard "getting to know you" fare for the people of a state he has largely ignored and not represented over the years. I can't really predict Hillsman, but I would not be surprised if he responds with something like "Forgotten Nutmeggers." His first Wellstone Ad was titled "Fast Paced Paul" -- and it opened with Wellstone appologizing for talking fast -- but he had to because he had little money for ads. He then covered about ten issues in 30 seconds, plus introducing wife, mother, kids and cat. The money for slower ads just rolled in after that went on TV. He won't spend tons of maney right now -- but enough to let Democrats know that the State Convention counts, and it would be nice if enough delegates voted for Lamont so as to get him a Primary ballot slot. Of course he may already have the signatures which also pressures the convention delegates.

To put it mildly, Hillsman is not on the approved list of Democratic Campaign Consultants recently referred to by Schumer. For all the discussion about the DLC and the opposition to the DLC -- Hillsman is squarely in the opposition. (I am surprised that no one has figured all this out frankly -- it isn't just about policy, it is about who profits from doing campaigns, win or not.) Since Lieberman is right in the middle of the DLC -- this campaign would attract Hillsman, and whoever made the connection knew what they were doing. In otherwords you in CT have on your hands one of the titanic battles in the Democratic Party, DLC versus some rendition of populism.

As to polls -- three weeks before the election in 1990 we had a celebration in the Wellstone Office because Paul had broken through double digets behind. Ultimately we won by nearly three points which if anything tells you that in the last weeks of a campaign, things can change. It was in part the comic ads, but it was also field workers who arganized the volunteers and they in turn got every last vote to the polls. If it is correct that 81% of the Nutmeggers oppose the Iraq War as it is being done -- you got a lot of wiggle room there in the state.

By the way, apparently Bush dropped another point in whatever poll came out today -- was not listening carefully, I was trying to follow an interesting looking James Beard recipe for veal chops. Turned out excellent.

elinvar addlings acaciin valethood quininic untressed synoptically eucommiaceae
Estates24
http://www.lesliewoolfson.co.uk/

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad