A New Direction For Congress

by DemFromCT

Watching Rahm Emmanuel take the weak GOP talking points apart on This Week (hint to GOP: don't try to blame the host for Democratic scandals if you want a sympathetic hearing), it's clear that the Republicans are in an indefensible position. TIME captures why:

"If I fold up my tent and leave," Dennis Hastert told her, "then where does that leave us? If the Democrats sweep, then we'd have no ability to fight back and get our message out."

That quiet admission may have been the most damning one yet in the unfolding scandal surrounding Florida Congressman Mark Foley: holding on to power has become not just the means but also the end for the onetime reformers who in 1994 unseated a calcified and corrupted Democratic majority.

I can't predict elections or seat changes, but what's clear is that the rationale for the existence of the Contract For America class is gone. That means nothing to us (we've known it was nonsense in most areas and too real in others), but it means a great deal to to those who voted for them. This is one of those "the victors write history" thing. The Contract was delivered late in the cycle, no one read it point by point, but it meant one thing:

If you think politicians clinging to power isn't big news, then you may have forgotten the pure zeal of Gingrich's original revolutionaries. They swept into Washington on the single promise that they would change Capitol Hill. If you think politicians clinging to power isn't big news, then you may have forgotten the pure zeal of Gingrich's original revolutionaries. They swept into Washington on the single promise that they would change Capitol Hill.

Democrats reprsent change and at this moment, that's more than enough to garner votes.

Meanwhile, as mentioned several tims before there's a heads I win, tails you lose component to the House leadership scandal. While the win for Dems is the kindling of desire for change, fueled by Iraq and fed by Katrina, the loss for the Republicans is the ability to propagandize from the WH about national security and everything else. Oh, they still tell whoppers on a daily basis but no one can hear them. From the WaPo:

Rep. E. Clay Shaw Jr. (R-Fla.) was trying to talk about security Friday at bustling Port Everglades, but with planes roaring overhead and containers slamming onto trucks, nobody could hear him.

That's a common problem for Shaw and Republican candidates around the country these days -- trying urgently 30 days before Election Day to frame a winning message but finding their efforts drowned out by the furor over former representative Mark Foley (R-Fla.).

Time and money are precious commodities as the election draws near. More importantly, this is when the majority of voters, most of whom are not political junkies, make up their mind. What they are hearing is that Iraq policy is a failure, Iraq is in civil war, and by the way, all the GOP cares about is themselves. The GOP fiddles while Iraq burns (aka State of Denial).

Here in CT, the three GOP House incumbents are running ads about how independent thay are and how party doesn't matter. They are not running commercials touting their votes for Denny Hastert. Does it work? Cokie Roberts, the voice of America's scolds, sums up: "America's mothers are furious". "The silliest response from old men" "have we learned nothing from the catholic Church?" etc. If the only reason Hastert is still here is because it's worse for him to leave (for the GOP), that won't wash. And give her credit: counting on voters hating the media and Democrats more than sexual predators is a losing hand. It was refreshing to hear someone say that, even if it was the media.

Comments

[Crab Nebula]

For months I was spending a few spare moments here and there wondering how we, could manufacture a change mindset in the electorate since enough people weren't hurting.....but wonder of wonders, external circumstances delivered us a change mindset.

The big challenge for Democrats, assuming we win, is how we adapt to an increasingly negative economic situation. I think responding to Iraq (where consensus continues to grow that it's a disaster) is actually easier. Democrats haven't taken a serious populist step in many a moon; voters will have to be decisively shown who Democrats are. I hope Pelosi, Emmanuel, and Reid know this.

[Petey]

"I can't predict elections or seat changes"

I can. More than 25 seats.

And to go out on a limb, we'll pick up fewer seats in CT than in PA or IN or NY due to the 8/8 folly.

[mainsailset]

For me, Peolosi's 100 hour plan went a long way in demonstrating Dem leadership's awareness that should they gain a majority (and subpoena power) there's a lot of hard work to be done. Based on their muddled history, it was a brilliantly focused promise. Of course the MSM didn't give it play, but for one brief shining moment, her promise was lit up with fireworks.

[DemFromCT]

Petey, the RNC did a money dump into all 3 CT races. While farrel and Courtnry are the more likely pickups, Johnson is in real trouble.

[Kagro X]

Is that really much of a limb? There are only 3 seats (though I guess you could argue there are 4) to "pick up" in Connecticut.

By the way, here's something that jumped out at me from the Time article:

One of the victims may turn out to be campaign chairman Reynolds, who suddenly found himself running as many as 8 points behind in his upstate New York House-seat re-election bid, which had appeared fairly safe a week earlier. Hastert's job seems secure for the moment, barring any big new revelations, in part because the House Speaker is not merely a party leader; the role was established under the Constitution. It would be difficult to replace Hastert without summoning Congress back into town from the campaign trail.

That's just pure spin. It doesn't matter that the Speakership is a Constitutional office. It can be vacant, just like any other. Especially when Congress is out of session. There's literally nothing about the Constitutional nature of Hastert's job which should be seen as making him safer. The House has provisions in place for dealing with the ministerial functions of the Speakership in case of a vacancy, not that they'd even be necessary during such a long recess. Other than that, the only issue would be presidential succession, which would just skip right over a vacant Speakership to the Senate President Pro Tem.

Whoever bought that line at Time is a fool.

[Mimikatz]

I've been predicting seats for weeks, and I'll say that it now looks like 24-28 seats, and if the R's can't do something to turn it around, it could go as high as 40 seats. That would have been unthinkable 3 weeks ago, when my charts show I was thinking 15-18 seats, maybe 20 if we were lucky.

The latest Cook Political Report competitive House race chart shows 174 safe R seats, down from 178 in the last two reports (Dems have 185, the upside of gerrymandering). That means 59 competitive R-held seats, up from 55.

But the really bad news is that they now list 3 R seats as lean Dem and 25 as toss-ups, an increase of 8 over the last month, with 4 new seats in play.

The Dem is leading in at least one recent poll in every one of those 28 seats, although in some cases (like CT-02 and 04, and PA-06) there have been conflicting polls, and in one or two there are no independent polls.

But if there is a wave, then some of the "lean R" are certainly going D, like CT-05, CA-11, CO-04, NH-02 and NY-29, even NJ-07. So are a few of the "likely R," such as ID-01, NC-08, NY-25, OH-02 and WY-AL, and some not even on Cook's radar, like CO-05, WA-05 or even IL-14. After all, Tom Foley lost in 1994.

That's how we could get to 40.

[Mimikatz]

Ruy Teixeira has a really good analysis of the "macro" and "micro" pictures and how they are aligning. He says the Dems now have a huge lead among independents, larger than seen in any Congressional polls in recent years.

[DHinMI]

mimikatz, can you try that link again? As great as Dem's post is, I'd like to see that Texiera piece. ;-)

[Mimikatz]

Weird. Sorry. Here's the Teixeira link. it's part of the Washington Monthly's new election coverage.

[Jodi]

The cycle continues. The rude fat Republican hogs are pushed away from the trough, some gorged so much they can hardly waddle, and put up only a feeble dribbling fight.
The lean and and hungry Democrat hogs move on up to the eating positions hardly able to contain their appetites. At long last!

The Republicans are out. The Republican renew their committments to good government, and lean policies that will enthuse their consitutents.

The Democrats are in. It is a time to feast, to distribute favors to the favored. To taste a bit of that oh so sweet corruption, much as a Peking duck.

As a popular book would say The Wheel of Time Turns once again.

[DemFromCT]

As great as Dem's post is, I'd like to see that Texiera piece. ;-)

me, too!

[DemFromCT]

if that's all it was, sure. but you don't understand the K street projct, Jodi. This is corruption on steroids. it'll take some committee work and subpoenas for you to understand, but this doesn't simply flip to the D side. What DeLay created was unique.

[ab initio]

Thanks Mimikatz for the Texeira link.

"On the get better for the GOP side of the argument, there are limited possibilities. One, of course, is some unforeseen event that allows the GOP to change the subject. Not much one can say about this other than it could possibly happen.

Then there is the vaunted GOP turnout machine (but polls have generally shown Democrats more enthusiastic about voting this year and the Foley scandal seems likely to have a further negative effect on GOP voting enthusiasm) and their ability to spend a lot of money in the last days of the campaign. This may be their last and only hope of avoiding a very bad election. The Democrats, however, will not be standing idly by while the GOP tries to muscle their way out of bad situation, so it should be a very interesting last several weeks."

All the more reason for the Dems to prepare their base for a Repub "surprise" and for all of us to work even harder and contribute as much as we can to aggressively take down the Repub abuse of power. I feel confident the Dem donors will be adding to their contributions and those donors "concerned" about a Dem takeover may want to hedge their bets by contributing to the Dems.

I wish the election is next Tue!

[Jodi]

ab initio

typically the "important donors" always hedge their bets.

I was reading in a historical account that at one time there was a "scandal" in the newspapers that Howard Hughes's Corporation had donated money to the Republican Party. It was illegal then for Corporations (Publically held companies) to give money to candidates.

So of course there was an Outcry and INVESTIGATION.
Well it turned out to be true and so they thought "wow, we got Hughes (the dirty sick recluse)and the evil Republicans also."
But then it turned out that Howard was the "Corporate Sole" and that it was perfectly legal for him to give money.

And then even more embarassing for the eager newspapers and investigators, as they uncovered more dark Hughes secrets.

The vile sick recluse had donated money also to the Democrats, and it was a miracle, he suddenly was a fine, genteel visionary man, as the Democrat candidtates said "whoa, back off on our fine friend."

As DemFromCT might (or might not, depending on his mood) say "K street wants access and sway. Anyone can spend their money. Any wife can have a nice job."

[Mimikatz]

The 'Pubs should be careful what kind of surprise they plan. The problem with losing of credibility is that no one believes you. I think that attacking Iran would mean a GOP loss of 50+ seats. No one will support another war unless we are attacked, and I think that now it would be difficult to convince a majority that the Iranians had attacked us if they try to stage a "sinking of the Maine" or Gulf of Tonkin type incident. And another attack in the US means that Bush has failed in the one thing he said he would do.

In a congressional race an "October Surprise" attack on the Dems is much harder because there isn't one candidate, and after Foley, how many independents would believe them? Or would this just be for the base?

One more thing I have been wondering is how much the GOP is hurting because of the disabling of Abramoff's money machine. The Dems are probably going to report raising more cash in the upcoming FEC reports.

[Kagro X]

Interesting. Peking duck is well-known to be a Bush family favorite. Washington, D.C. area Chinese restaurants compete vigorously for visits and signed photos from both Bush 41 and 43, and advertise themselves as having a Bush-favored hoisin sauce.

[DemFromCT]

Jodi, Dms aren't corruption-free, and money is corrosive. But the scale is vastly different for the two parties. One side has potentially sloppy individuals and the other has a systems-driven corrupt business practice.

[ab initio]

"In a congressional race an "October Surprise" attack on the Dems is much harder because there isn't one candidate, and after Foley, how many independents would believe them? Or would this just be for the base?"

Mimikatz, at this point I think the Repubs will just play to their base and try to drive the negatives on individual Dem candidates through attack ads, push polls and all their usual tricks. As Texeira points out the Dem base is energized. The Chris Matthews show this morning focused on the impact of the Foley scandal on the Repub base. The Repub base is in the early stages of fracturing. The corporatists vs the christian fundamentalists. Neither of them are happy. The fundies have provided the boots on the ground and Foleyiasco is dampener.

Jodi, even at their worst the Dems corruption did not have the scale and magnitude of tragic outcomes as the Repub corruption and abuse of power over the past 5 years. Corruption is not to be excused but let's not forget the sheer scale of abuse and lives shattered not just here in the US but across the world under Repub absolute power.

[kaleidescope]

Well, modern systems-driven corrupt business practice politics was practically invented here in California by Democrat Tony Coelho. Check out Brooks Jackson's, "Honest Graft: Big Money and the American Political Process" if you want to see just how innovative old Tony was.

[Jodi]

What am I? Some kind or Reality Check Gong today?

"dong" ( a quiet gong for those of sensitive hearing )

The corporations, conservatives, fundamental religious, pro-life, gun rights folks, anti-Hillary, have no where else to go for any period of time.

The same for the Homosexuals, Affirmative Action, Abortionists, Unions, News Media, and many people into the Government till.

There are other segments, that need more description, I leave off.

This group [Next Hurrah]doesn't need me to explain which party gets which group.

I have an uncle, my fathers brother. He is a big, big Democratic Liberal or maybe a Liberal Democrat. (How do you get the best empahasis there?) He went into education when my father went into medicine. He actually accused my father of wanting to be rich. Of course Dad has been in the military for all his career, and isn't rich but with mom working we always did pretty well, and I considered myself blessed.
My uncle on the other hand first became a teacher, then a big professor, published,lectured, and now University big shot., etc. Even married very well (money also).
He is the reason I know so much about Liberals, and Democrats. He still carries on about the sacrifices he has made for his beliefs, and when (more or less) is gently chided by being asked what sacrifices, he mentions some marches, voting drives, demonstrations, Chicago(?), sitins and that kind of stuff.
He is certainly a popinjay to the nth degree. But I love him dearly. He was always generous with the Christmas and Birthday presents. So there you see I have learned first hand that Liberal Democrats can be nice to favored nieces, and even my dumbhead brothers I suppose.

Anyway summarizing succintly as I actually do have a reputation for doing,
DON'T EXPECT EITHER PARTY TO LOSE TOO MUCH SUPPORT FOR ANY LENGTH OF TIME. You might see a lack of spirit this 2006 election, but nothing much has changed.

It is all about those middle voters (including me) whose alliances may change for longer periods of time. Foley-Hastert is just a blip for them. They actually vote on the issues that they see as ever changing. Parties that are ever changing. Candidates that are ever changing.

[DemFromCT]

LOL. We hear you Jodi, but don't get too far out in front. Voters like you tend to go with whoever's in power unless there's a reason not to.

[Jodi]

DemFromCT,

I don't know what "like you" means exactly. It probably means you have a model of me in your minds eye, but I think you need to blink that eye a bit and maybe apply some eye wash.

I am a conservative typically. Usually the Republicans are closer to what I want, but if that isn't the case Democrats, or in the extreme case, Mickey Mouse. I have written in a lot by the way.

Still like you said there are a lot of reasons not to NOT VOTE FOR BUSH EXACTLY LIKE I DID IN 2004, when I voted for probably loser in Kerry rather than a proven loser like Bush.

reasons --
Iraqi war aftermath.
Social Security Privitization
Dick Cheney
...
Refusing to use a Seeing Eye Dog or a good Hearing Aid.
...

[DemFromCT]

By "like you" I mean center-right indie voters not committed to a party. You lean R but if a D was in power where you live and doing a decent job, you'd vote incumbent.

I'd, otoh, have a hard time voting for Chafee because he votes for Frist. even if I agree with Chafee's positions, he enables the Frist position and that's what gets out of the Senate.

[Jodi]

DemFromCT

That reminds me of something. My father and mother are steadfast Republians, but once they faltered, wavered.

There was a guy (not sure, a governor or senator) Eugene McCarthy, a Democrat.

They have spoken of him a few times. They said he was so refreshing, so honest and forthright, that they would have voted for him, but he didn't win the Democratic nomination. He was "like a sunbeam breaking through black clouds" or something like that. My mom is poetic.

Think of that! And I remember it well.

A sunbeam!

Well, DemFromCT I am watching and waiting for the next sunbeam.

But for now, we have to weed out the worse of the poisonious/prickly/ugly plants to find something for the beef to graze on. And watch out for the jimpson (loco) weed.

Another bit of Western trivia, that is the only (non illegal drug) plant that a landowner is required by law to eradicate.