Republican And Conservative Commentary: A Sampler

by DemFromCT

This morning, we posted on media and the polls. Today, we'll look at an opinion sample of Republicans and Conservatives. Firstly, this comes from National Journal (subscription), the highly respected non-partisan weekly that all of DC reads. Each week, there's an "insider's poll" of staff, pundits, consultants and ousiders from each party. This weeks question:

On a scale of zero (no chance) to 10 (virtual certainty), how likely 
are the Democrats to take over the House in this year's elections?

Republicans (75 votes)
October 14
Average Score: 6.7
Low (0-3): 3%
Moderate (4-6): 37%
High (7-10): 60%

September 2
Average Score: 5.7
Low (0-3): 13%
Moderate (4-6): 49%
High (7-10): 37%

Democrats (75 votes)

October 14
Average Score: 7.7
Low (0-3): 0%
Moderate (4-6): 13%
High (7-10): 87%

September 2
Average Score: 6.6
Low (0-3): 0%
Moderate (4-6): 44%
High (7-10): 56%

That'll give you an idea of how much has changed since 9/2/06. Some of the comments by insider Rs are interesting as well (numbers refer to a 1-10 scale)

Low chance

3. "The Foley scandal will fade. It was leaked two weeks too soon."


Moderate chance

5. "Washington tends to overexaggerate trends."
5. "Big Media is trying to instill panic in GOP ranks. It is still 50-50."
6. "At this moment the GOP leadership is giving its supporters very little 
to work with."
6. "The Republicans needed to have the election in mid-September."

High chance

7. "House looks like a goner. The election appears to be what the Democrats 
wanted, a referendum on Republican leadership."
7. "We have now demonstrated that, as a party, we are unable to keep our own 
kids safe in our U.S. Capitol. Forget about worrying about Iraq; the boogeyman is us."
7. "Foleygate further suppresses our activist voter base. We lose 20 to 25 [seats]."
7. "Whether Republicans keep or lose the House, they'll need new leaders."
7. "This is clearly the most anti-Republican environment since 1982 and 1974."
8. "The Foley issue dominates media, depresses Republican turnout -- the final nail
in the coffin to an utterly incompetent GOP House leadership. It's hard to muster 
any sympathy for these guys."
8. "The incredibly inept handling of the Foley scandal by Speaker Hastert and his
staff has managed to convince a majority of the American people that the Republican
leadership tried to cover it up, and cares more about protecting its majority than
protecting underage children."
9. "On a race-by-race basis, the Republicans are in trouble."
10. "The Foley scandal and leadership mishandling pushed the GOP's chances to hold
the House under the bus."

For a Right blogostan conservative view, check out Instapundit, taking grief from the right for not being a cheerleader.

A GOP PRE-MORTEM:  So is it over for the GOP majorities in Congress? It's still too early to say, I guess, but when even John Hinderaker is sounding extremely gloomy that's certainly the way to bet.

What follows is a list of perceived GOP errors:

1. Terri Schiavo
2. Harriet Miers
3. Dubai Ports
4. immigration
5. Wm Jefferson
6. Foleygate

We wouldn't argue with the list, as they were all screw-ups for the GOP. William Jefferson is a special case, as he is a D lowlife defended by Hastert and Pelosi based on House privilege. Seems like everyone screwed up on that one.

Not everyone is convinced the Dems will take the House. Here's John McIntyre from RCP discussing what'll happen if the GOP hols the House:

It can argued both ways which party benefits more from winning control of the Senate or the House in 2006, but what really can't be disputed is given the expectations and hype that have preceded this election is that a failure of the Democrats to capture at least one chamber in the next Congress will be seen as a partial victory for President Bush. And if that were to happen that would make him in effect 4 for 4 in elections since 2000, something his critics should ponder.

Finally, here's Ralph Peters in the NY Post arguing for a Dem House, because R's need a good dose of castor oil, and because

our government functions best when one party controls the House and the other holds the Senate.

Why? Power corrupts. Fast. When either party - it doesn't matter which one - controls both houses of Congress, we get two very bad results. First, the party in power becomes arrogant and exclusive. Second, half of our population feels it doesn't have a voice in government.

The result is polarization of the sort we suffer now. Extremist voices are too influential in both parties and the rest of us - in the vast center - are treated as irrelevant. When either party controls everything, it ignores the wishes of the majority. A monopoly of power isn't democracy.

Rationalization of losing is pretty interesting. It'd be a slicker argument had it been made 4 years ago.

Comments

[Jodi]

The wheel turns.

[Jim Hill]

While we're gloating about Republican negatives, why are we so sure about Democratic positives? It seems to me that voters are likely to be fed up with both parties, given that the Dems seem to lack any really coherent ideas on how do to anything, and that has been one of their weaknesses since the 1990s health care fiasco.

If voters dislike Republicans but aren't at all excited by Dems, why won't they just stay home, playing to the Republican strength at getting out the vote?

[Jodi]

Indeed I expect the Democrats to start trying to make sure that their people don't stay home.

Still I expect that most of them will relish the idea of "stomping" the evil Republicans out of office, and will go early.

[Kevin Hayden]

Certainly, the Beltway Dems will need scrutiny and pressure to avoid a return to complacency. November is only a beginning.

However, I refute the notion that a Dem House and Dem Senate creates crookedness. If the GOPundits want to make that case, they'd better show some past examples to back up that dubious claim. But when the GOP controls both, there's plenty of history, which remains a key difference between the two.

[DemFromCT]

Jim Hill, to paraphrase Harry Truman, we're just telling the truth and it seems like gloating.

But if you read fred barnes at the Week;y Standard, you'll see he highlights a huge enthusiam gap in the polls... for the first time in 10 years, Ds are more enthusiastic about voting than R's.

Those that say the dems do not have a plan,etc. seem to know very little about modern campaigning. Defensive campaigning is a staple. Concrete plans will be less and less presnted pre-election in favor of principles to avoid million dollar attack machines. It won't change without election and campaign finance reform.

[Jodi]

DemFromCT,

Fred is wise.

And the Democrats don't have a plan.

Two truisms there!

[DemFromCT]

And the Democrats don't have a plan.

A plan for what? They have a process for planning, far more important. What you mean is they don't have a slogan. Fat good it did the GOP. Stay the course. Fight them over there... feh. Marketing garbage.

[Jodi]

So DemFromCT,

the Dems don't have a plan but that is ok, because they have a committee, a study group, and a whiteboard with a structure tree.
Heck maybe a shoebox with tattered index cards. Did you say that?

Next I see brainstorming, sticky notes, flip charts, team building, ...

And there in the distance, a ... a,..., WHAT??

(If you can't tell me a plan, and can only refer to a "process" I shudder. What have they been doing these last years out of office?
Just waiting for the Republicans to mess up so badly that once again the wheel turns and it is time to "throw the rascals out.")

Yes in one of the Oriental books on warfare that we sometimes look at for strategy hints, it says something like

~~~ If you sit on the bank of the river long enough, the body of your enemy will come floating by. ~~~

The Democrats have been sitting so long, they all fell asleep, but wait here come some bodies.

[Redshift]

Jodi -- you didn't answer: A plan for what?

Iraq? What's the Republican plan for Iraq? "We're confident things will get better"? Their "plan" from the beginning there has been "we refuse to consider the possibility that anything could go wrong."

Anything else? The modern GOP has no interesting in governing, only in ruling. So the only plans they ever have are ones to keep themselves in power.

"The Democrats have no plan" is yet another empty GOP slogan, a shiny bauble designed to keep anyone from asking too many questions about the Republican "plans."

[Jodi]

Redshift perhaps you need to speak to DemFromCT about the plan. He says:
""And the Democrats don't have a plan."
A plan for what? They have a process for planning, far more important"

And then you say the the Republicans don't have a plan for Iraq. Well indeed they did. "Mission accomplished."

What you forget is that I say the WH and Bush were stupid with the Iraqi plan. Or the NO PLAN. Or the plan for happy liberated Iraqis to take over and plant flowers everywhere, as they danced through their new Democracy.

What concerns me now is the next plan which will probably come from the Democrats, and I, DemFromCT, and you, Redshift don't seem to have a clue as to what it is, or might be.

Or WHY THE HECK DON'T YOU TELL ME WHAT IT IS.
EASE MY MIND AND WORRIES Redshift. The same to you DemFromCT.
What's the plan, man?
What's the plan?

Come on, give me a hint. Please.

"To govern?"
"To have a process?

That sounds awful hollow.

Frankly it sounds laughable. A new bunch of clowns, taking over from the previous bunch of clowns that fell out of their shiny little truck onto their little painted heads.

(Sorry but I do think a bit of scarcasm was called for there.)

WAKE UP DEMOCRATS!
WAKE UP.

For God's sake, wake up.

[DemFromCT]

Jodi, you're foolish about this and you still haven't answered the basic question. A plan for what? Iraq? Governing the house? And are you talking about electioneering or governance?There's a few plans for each one. Deriding the process is foolsishly wanting daddy to solve your problem for you - the major reason R's vote for the GOP.

There are plans for everything (the DoD has myriads) but they mean nothing without a process. See Iraq. Learn. Think. Plan, Do, Check, Act.

[Jodi]

DemFromCT,

I see that I am only scraping the bottom. Maybe getting a grating sound.

In parting this thread which is due to disappear from the sidebar (the list really should be longer - and yes I know it is in the archives) I will only say.

Yes a plan on Iraq.
Yes Governing the House
Yes Social Security
Yes Medicare
Yes Pension Reform
Yes New Orleans
Yes Airport Security
Yes TRue Lobbyist Reform
Yes TV Ad reform
...

But I don't expect anymore that you will give what should be obvious.

I have to say I am surprised. All you had to do was throw in a wish list, a laundry list, a State of the Union, or something, but your reluctance to do so shows that the Democrats generally and even one of their great intelligent (and I mean that) advocates, DemFromCT, is running on empty. Just coasting slowly down the road to the finish line while the Republicans are laid up in the ditch.

It does not portend well.
Not well at all.

:(