Warning: include(/home/annezook/public_html/sidebar.php) [function.include]: failed to open stream: Permission denied in /home/annezook/public_html/archives/002857.php on line 106

Warning: include() [function.include]: Failed opening '/home/annezook/public_html/sidebar.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/annezook/public_html/archives/002857.php on line 106
March 27, 2006
Had enough?

Republicans On The Run

As midterm campaigns gear up, Bush's party fears a backlash that could end its 12-year hold on the House

The midterm contests in a President's second term are almost always treacherous, but this time around, Republicans thought it would be different. The 2006 elections, coming on top of their gains in 2002 and 2004, would make history and perhaps even cement a G.O.P. majority in Congress for a generation. George W. Bush's credibility on national security and the states' aggressive gerrymandering, they believed, had turned the vast majority of districts into fortresses for incumbents. But that's not turning out to be the case. In recent weeks, a startling realization has begun to take hold: if the elections were held today, top strategists of both parties say privately, the Republicans would probably lose the 15 seats they need to keep control of the House of Representatives and could come within a seat or two of losing the Senate as well. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, who masterminded the 1994 elections that brought Republicans to power on promises of revolutionizing the way Washington is run, told TIME that his party has so bungled the job of governing that the best campaign slogan for Democrats today could be boiled down to just two words: "Had enough?"

Reading on, it seems like the answer, more and more as time passes, is a hearty yes!

Sadly....

[....] when those surveyed were given the choice between a generic Republican and a generic Democrat for Congress, the nameless Democrat won, 50% to 41%.

Now all we have to do is hope that we can do better than a generic candidate in '08.

(Hint: The name shouldn't be Clinton.)

It's a longish article, but worth reading.

Posted by AnneZook at 06:24 PM


Comments

"The name shouldn't be Clinton." -- What? Not even Bill?
I mean, don't you agree that our fractured base will turn out for him more solidly than for any of our other self-appointed/self-promoted "leaders"? And don't you think that the swift-boating/gloating attacks that BC would get from Machine Right will be no worse -- and maybe less punishing -- than whatever The Other Clinton will be in for? And as for the duh-factor Social Right, who are they more likely to accept, a man who has sinned and been punished, or . . .?

Posted by: Zuck at March 30, 2006 08:33 AM

The one thing Clinton has going for him is that, in the public's perception, he didn't cave in to the Republicans. So, on that front, I agree that he's going to be able to tap into more support than any of our current candidates.

However, on the same note, all another candidate has to do is to stand up and tell the truth, and sound intelligent enough to help us fix the mess the Rightwingnuts have gotten us into, and (s)he should be able to tap into the same enthusiasm.

On our part ("us" being the alert and interested Left at the moment), what we have to do is to keep our eyes open for said SwiftBoating tactics and counter them immediately and with a volume that even the MSM can't ignore.

(This, of course, will mean things that most of the otherwise "vocal" world o'blog rarely does, like taking an actual piece of paper and writing an actual letter to an editor, but we're about to find that point where the rubber meets the road, so to speak. As much fun as it might be to sit in front of our keyboards and post complaints on the internet, people have ot realize that it's getting off the 'net and interacting with the physical world that's going to make each individual contribution count most.)

Posted by: Anne at March 30, 2006 09:04 AM