GOP 4 EVER
Tim Cavanaugh | February 2, 2006, 8:20pm
Time for another Cavanaugh prediction:
The Republican Party will retain control of both houses of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections.
As always, I'm making the prediction at a time when I can't be said to be jumping on favorable polls—specifically, when the Republicans are bleeding like Chuck Wepner and Gallup shows them in an even worse spot than the Democrats were in prior to the 1994 Republican Revolution. As always, if I'm right I'll preen like John McLaughlin and if I'm wrong I'll just huff and clear my throat like Jack Germond.
Explanation: The Democrats need to pick up 16 seats in the House and six in the Senate. Conventional wisdom is that the former is likely and the latter is an outside shot. History is on their side: Since World War II, much larger turnovers have been common in the House and not unheard of in the Senate. That goes for midterm elections too, although in those cases large turnovers tend to happen with a president in an unusually vulnerable spot (Truman in 1946, Ford in 1974, and maybe Eisenhower—because of the health rumors—in 1958).
But if historical trends were a guide, Bush would already be facing a massively hostile Congress. He has beaten the odds laid down by almost every president, including Reagan, by consistently picking up seats in his mid-term and re-election cycles. And he's got a great advantage this time in that this will not be a passionately fought election. The Democrats had their chance to harness the anti-Bush groundswell in 2004, and instead they nominated John Kerry. That chance won't come again in a mid-term contest.
The problem for the dems is that they have nobody capable of doing what Gingrich did in 1994: defying Tip O'Neill's law and conceptualizing 435 separate contests as a single national referendum. The only Democratic legislator who gets anybody's body heat up to room temperature is Barack Obama, and he is a) not yet old enough to see an R-rated film without accompaniment and b) in the Senate, where revolutions never occur, and where any attempts at energizing the troops will be blocked by DINOs Clinton and Lieberman.
That leaves the House. Fortunately for the Dems, they don't have as tall a task as Gingrich faced in '94. Unfortunately, they also don't have a Gingrich. They don't even have grich, or gin or even a ngr. They have Nancy Pelosi, the most incompetent politician in the western hemisphere. There are certainly more than 16 vulnerable House seats around this great land of ours, and to the extent those contests get decided locally, there's a chance the Democrats may get a turnover in spite of themselves. But to the extent that any change in the House majority depends on good organization, a strong message, or inspired leadership from above, the Democrats are sunk. Nancy Pelosi is good at one thing—nothing.
I would put even less money on this than on my other predictions. But there you have it. Discuss or ignore, as you see fit.
Greg D | February 3, 2006, 12:45am | #
Bush has had incredible good luck and profited from events well beyond his control.
Yep, you're right. That idiot Bush keeps kicking his enemies' butts because he's a lucky dog. Nope, he hasn't done nothing to get those victories, it's all just luck.
You just keep on telling yourself that. Whatever makes you fell good.
As for the 2006 elections, I'm not even goign to make you all buy a clue, I'll give it to you for free:
The Democrats aren't going to win sh!t until they figure out how to stand
for something, not just against.
The Contract with America worked because it offered the American people a chance to vote for things that they wanted, and that the Democrats were blocking. What are the Democrats goign to run on, raising the minumum wage?
Further and finally, the US is at war. No matter how much lefties want us to lose, the plain fact of the matter is that a solid majority of American people want the US to win. Until the Dems tell the lefties to STFU, and decide that
they want to see the US win, too, they're going to continue to lose.
Oh, BTW, the policy that "we're going to lose elections, therefore it's good when "judges" rewrite the law to our advantage" is a real loser of a campaing slogan. Because it tells voters that the ONLY way their vote will count, is if Republicans are appointing the judges.
Ed Burhop | February 3, 2006, 1:33pm | #
Five words will define these midterm elections:
"We killed the PATRIOT Act."
yes Isaac, they will - and that is what is going to SINK the democrats. People want a lot of things - but if you remember Maslovs(sp?) hierarchy of needs, the first is security. Well, people want security. The rediculousness that passes for democratic rhetoric about this issue rings hollow to most people. When GWB says he is listening in to 30 people talking to Al-Qaida operatives outside the US and then the Dems say that infringes on civil rights, most people think - what the heck are they saying, that tommorrow they are going to be tapping my wifes phone to listen to her talking about yesterdays "Days of our Lives" with her girlfriend? No way. In fact they think - that makes a heckuva lot of sense, it is what I would do. Most americans are sick of the coddling we do of the GUILTY, and the way people get off on technicalities, and how stupid laws tie the hands of our intelligence commmunity and cause things like 9/11 to happen. The Dems are digging their grave here.
The reality here is that with all of their HUGE warts(overspending for sure), the republicans look good compared to the democrats. The only thing worse than a republican running as a conservative and going to washington and spending like a drunken sailor is a Democrat doing it.
With the democrats, you get about the same thing as the republicans, but with higher taxes, and so much WHINING and Bitching (see comments on Nancy P above).
On top of that, the unemployment rate just dropped to 4.7%, and wage growth is accelerating. Now matter how hard the media tries to talk down the economy, it is not working. By November, the unemployement rate will be 4.2%, and the Dems are sunk.
Just my take on it. And to be honest, I prefer a split government, it is the only way we seem to be able to balance the budget.
Just a side note - I stumbled on this Blog - but I would like to comment that it is the most civil and least one sided I have seen on a blog. I think I will be back.
Ed
Gordo | February 3, 2006, 6:10pm | #
ChicagoTom
You wrote:
Blah blah blah... the right loves to trot this crap out in order to justify crap like Faith Based initiatives and mandatory prayer in schools.
The bottom line is that the GOP doesn't want to treat all religions equally. We are not a Christian Country. We are a melting pot of cultures and religions and only bigots believe that the USA is a Christian Country.
------
I will follow the thread better if you will make an attempt to understand what I've been saying. I've been quite clear.
You will note that nowhere did I use the word Christian. That's the whole point of the 1st Amendment, not to make any one religion above another. 90% of the American people believe in God. There are three monotheist religions: Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. The remaining 10% are atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, etc and all are welcome under our constitution.
The other mistake you make is to assume that all Christians are of the Falwell/Robertson variety. They represent only a small segment of the Christian population and most Christians I know do not want to impose their beliefs on others. That small segment has organized politically and that's their right, but don't use a broad brush because you would be wrong.
The third mistake you make is to assume that the Faith Based Initiative is a Christian-only policy position. Its not, but it is true that Christian churches far outnumber Muslim mosques and Jewish synagogues. That's just the make-up of our country.
In fact, if you did some research, you might be amazed at the out-reach and help these three faiths provide to their communities. But many people, including possibly you, can't see through their hatred of faith. Bush's view is to support these outreach efforts because, simply, they are very effective and on a dollar to dollar basis provide much more value than what the government provides. That's particularly true in inner cities. Black churches are hugely effective and should be supported. Since you are in Chicago try meeting with a local pastor on the south-side. You might get an education. The policy is inclusive, not for Christians only.
With respect to the average Christians out there you might also be amazed at the extent of the help and outreach world-wide. For example, the Methodist church was the second largest non-governmental relief organization for the tsunami victims. And, guess what, no strings attached. There were no Christian Armies of prosletyzers or converters, just love and help (to Muslims no less). I didn't see the agnostic and atheistic organizations provide a "red" cent.
You also might want to note on a red state/blue state analysis with respect to charity giving, that the red states blow the blues away. The highest ranked blue state was number 44. The highest givers were in the south. So, before, you crucify the red-neck bible thumpers you may want to give thought to who really puts their money where their mouth is. And these are not rich people, but hard-working lower and middle class folks. Our compassionate liberals don't give squat but they talk a good game. The hypocrisy is considerable.
---
You wrote:
How exactly is the GOP different? They don't espouse empty rhetoric? The GOP wants power consolidated in the executive brach instead. Funny how States Rights talk goes out the window when it comes to things like Medical Marijuana, or Gay marriage. Spare me the bullshit please.
----
Once again you didn't read closely what I wrote. I put out what I believe, I was not defending the GOP. I have significant problems with the GOP trying to expand the role of the federal government and increase spending. As I said, I want power in the hands of the people. As a practical matter then I have to choose which party best represents my views. I can tell you it certainly isn't the party of so-called compassion and giving. I have a better chance of my views getting some support thru the GOP. The Dems are a lost cause.
With regard to medical marijuana I have no problem with giving marijuana to very ill people as long as its tightly controlled. But marijuana is not a benign drug (as a former weed-head I know whereof I speak). If you disagree go to a couple Marijuana Anonymous meetings, they are all over the place (including Chicago) and filled with people who's lives have been ruined by too many bong hits.
Regarding gay marriage, I fully support civil unions but do believe the definition of marriage should be for marriages between men and women only. This is not a distinction without a difference. One produces life, the other cannot. You may not find that significant but I do.
God Bless
