Sometimes it helps to have a visual aid. We keep reading shallow analysis about how bad things are for the Republicans. These pieces are potentially useful for a variety of reasons. They discourage and demoralize Republicans, making them less likely to run for office or to donate money and time to those that do run. But it seems as though they are having a negligible effect on the Republicans that are in office and making policy. The Democrats have not exactly given up on ending the war…they have moved to a strategy of creating a terrifying threat of landslide elections in 2008. The hope is not just that this landslide will happen and allow the country to change course. It’s also part of the strategy that, if the threat can be made manifest enough, the Republicans will finally crack and break with the president and his war. So far it hasn’t worked, but the threat continues to grow.
For example:
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which focuses on fundraising for House races, has almost a 14-to-1 lead in cash on hand over its Republican counterpart, and a recent Gallup Poll showed Americans favor Democrats over Republicans by 15 percentage points.
Add to this that is far more likely that the Democrats will gain a filibuster-proof 60 seats in the Senate than it is that the Republicans will gain back the two seats they need to retake the upper chamber. Add, also, the huge fundraising advantage the Democratic presidential contenders are enjoying. Toss in retirements, scandals, some unfortunate deaths, and horrible recruiting, and the prognosis for the GOP has never been so bleak. In fact, in my entire lifetime neither party has ever faced such a dismal future.
But…again…saying it is one thing, and seeing it is another. Let’s take a look at the Republican members of the Senate committee on Homeland Security & Government Reform, (you can see their jurisdiction here).
Listed by seniority
Ranking Member
Sen. Susan Collins (ME): she is up for re-election and is facing Rep. Tom Allen. Rep. Allen already represents half the state of Maine and was re-elected in 2006 with 61% of the vote. Collins is in the fight of her life and probably is not helped by the fact that this committee’s chairman, Joe Lieberman, is fundraising for her.Sen. Ted Stevens (AK): Stevens is under a rigorous FBI investigation for potential bribe-taking. He was born in 1923. He may retire. Regardless, he will find it extremely difficult to get re-elected.
Sen. George Voinovich (OH): Voinovich is not facing re-election until 2010, but he is widely believed to be the most vulnerable Republican up for reelection in that cycle. The GOP in Ohio is in freefall.
Sen. Norm Coleman (MN): Coleman’s one term in the Senate was largely a fluke resulting from the untimely death of Paul Wellstone and his controversial memorial service. His approval rating is an anemic forty-five percent, compared with Sen. Klobuchar’s 61%. Coleman’s chances are further diminished by the fact that 2008 is a presidential election year.
Sen. Tom Coburn (OK): Coburn is the only seemingly safe member of this committee and could well be the only member still serving in 2011.
Sen. Pete Domenici (NM): Suffering from age-related illness and scandal, Domenici is not seeking re-election. The Democrats should be slightly favored to take over his seat.
Sen. John Warner (VA): Warner is retiring. The Democrats are heavily favored to take over his seat.
Sen. John Sununu (NH): Sununu is up for re-election and is widely thought to be the most vulnerable member of the Senate. Fmr. Governor Jeanne Shaheen has a huge lead in the polls.
This is just one committee, but it is not unlikely that Voinovich and Coburn will be the only members remaining on it in 2009. And Voinovich will struggle to hold on in 2010. These are the Republicans specifically charged with protecting our Homeland Security and providing oversight of government affairs. Clearly they have not been doing a good job on either front.
Maybe when the Republicans see their future in a visual form they will be a little more inclined to get off their butts and get pro-active.
Democrats would use a few visual aids as well. Who said Hillary is going to change course? She is talking change then providing positions that say just the opposite. And how many other Democrats voted for Lieberman-Kyl? Was that thirty Democratic Senators with Hillary leading the way?
It used to be Slick Willie. Now it is Slick Hillary.
link
And who doesn’t like the makeup of those NAYS? They are the Left. The rest are….well you provide the adjective. I would probably misspell it anyway.
Hey sher- how about this. You keep ripping hil and the goopers win and then SCOTUS needs two appointments- What then you fool. Go buy some clothespins, pin them on you nose and go vote for whoever the dems put up. Or, pack your bags!
A vote of Hillary is a vote for Bush.
Do you think Romney is worse? I don’t like stinkin Democrats, just plain old ordinary Democrats, of the kind FDR, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson were made of. Our dilemma is that Gore ain’t running, and Obama is Black. Shit! Either one would make my day.
A vote of Hillary is a vote for Bush.
This depends completely on the issue being discussed.
In the case of endless War in the Middle East, this may be true.
In the case of pro-Big Business agenda – I remain unconvinced that this is true. At the very least, I think Clinton will be better for Small Business owners than Bush because Democrats are ALWAYS better than Republicans for Small Business Owners. If they’d wake up as a collective whole and realize this, Republicans would never get elected.
In the case of abortion rights and gay rights – again, unconvinced. Clinton will appoint pro-gay, pro-choice, pro-corporate judges to the bench. Bush appointed anti-gay, anti-choice, pro-corporate judges to the bench. The GOP candidates other than Giulianni would attempt to put far-right anti-gay, anti-abortion judges on the bench, and Giulianni would attempt to put pro-fascist judges up there if he could get away with it.
On the whole, Clinton would be better than Bush – unless your only issue is the War for Resources in the Middle East. Then they’re about equal. All things considered, if the choice is Bush-lite (any current GOP candidate) versus Clinton, Clinton would be better. Of course, if there are other Dem candidates who would be better than Clinton on the War and on other issues they should be supported in the primaries (frankly, the only Dem candidate who looks better than Clinton on the War for Resources front right now is Kucinich, and as much as I like his rhetoric I have serious doubts on his ability to deliver. As much as I hate to say it, the rest of the pack all look like Clinton-lite right now – saying roughly the same things but without her ability to actually fight for what they want. That doesn’t mean I’m supporting her by any means, but damn, if Edwards, Obama, or anyone else wants to actually beat her they should try to differentiate themselves a little bit more.).
Your points are well made, especially concerning which Democrat will do the best job for the liberal Democrats.
I wonder if other approaches are available. Clearly we have the Bush Derangement Factor types, those committed and deranged about Bush and his ideas, and who will go down with the ship. Those are the Repukeliscum elected officials.
There are thousands of lower-level people. I wonder if something could be said like, “When we win, we are coming after YOU, because we know that you broke the law. If you wish, you may begin NOW to cooperate with us, and we will use that information…”
It’s a threat, but we need something right now to slow down the entrenched Repukeliscum.
I wouldn’t think Coburn is all that safe. His likely opponent in 2010 is the very popular Gov. Henry, who passed on challenging Inhofe in 2008.
That’s why I said ‘seemingly’.
this is what i call a visual for GOP doom;
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/1008072scuba1.html
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/1008072scuba2.html
alone, suffocating, hands tied behind their backs, dildo in their ass.
Okay Anna.
We know the GOP is filled with hypocrits. That’s not our problem. We knew that all along.
It is the Democratic hypocrits that I am worried about. They may not have dildos up their asses, but it is possible that too many, trying to be Republicans, have their heads up there. Now that bothers me. The notion that the country has moved to the right is presently old hat Clinton, and our boy needs a history lesson, one just going back seven years.