I’m NOT Surprised
The Washington Times’ Donald Lambro is one of my favorite reads when it comes to the world of DC politics. This article is a good example of why he’s getting a strong reputation.
The Democratic Congress’ job approval score is now worse than President Bush’s, plummeting to 23 percent, a drop of eight points since April. House Democrats have been forced to retreat in the face of a furious assault by Republicans on pork-barrel spending, an issue that hurt the Republican Party in November. And Republican recruiting has produced plenty of candidates eyeing weak Democratic freshmen in Republican-leaning districts that swept them into office last year. “Republican recruiting seems to be progressing at a reasonable pace. GOP strategists have about half a dozen seats that they know the party should never have lost…and eight of the nine most vulnerable House seats currently are held by Democrats,” elections analyst Stu Rothenberg wrote last week in his Political Report newsletter.
Mr. Rothenberg is exactly right in saying that there’s about “half a dozen seats that they know the party never should have lost.” I’d say that Tom DeLay’s old seat, Bob Ney’s seat in Ohio, Mark Foley’s seat in Florida and Gil Gutknecht’s seat in Minnesota are seats that will return to the GOP in 2008. I’d also rate Heath Shuler’s seat as vulnerable.
As I’ve said before, people have noticed what the Democratic ‘do almost nothing congress’ has done. They’ve noticed that Pelosi’s group is long on wind and earmarks and short on accomplishments. Thus far, they’ve managed to rename several libraries and pass a minimum wage bill with tax cuts in them for small business That said, they had to tuck the minimum wage bill into the Iraq supplemental spending bill.
Strategists at the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) confirm that a larger than expected number of House seats are now being targeted by the NRCC and that a surprisingly larger-than-expected number of seasoned candidates from state legislatures and other elective offices are coming forward to challenge Democrats who took over Republican districts.
“A lot of Republican candidates are seeing an opportunity for higher office for the first time in a while. They’ve been waiting in the wings with a lot of pent-up ambitions, hoping that a Republican incumbent was going to retire, and now see that it’s held by a Democrat,” said NRCC press secretary Ken Spain.
“These candidates are smart and realize that 2006 was a wave election and it’s highly unlikely that Democrats will get back-to-back cycles like that in a row,” he said.
I suspect that GOP activists will be anxious to support fresh faces, especially if they campaign as tax-cutting fiscal conservatives. It sounds like a number of the people stepping forward have won elections and are seasoned legislators.
In a strategy aimed at blunting the Republican Party’s comeback bid, Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), “is focused on expanding the playing field,” said Jennifer Crider, the DCCC’s communications director. “There will be more than 60 seats in play in this cycle, and we already have more than 30 candidates who have filed,” she said. “When you look at the issues environment, whether the war in Iraq or Republicans trying to obstruct the mainstream agenda Democrats are pushing, like the minimum wage and fiscal accountability, the Democrats are going to have a formidable agenda to run on,” she said.
That’s some of the lamest spin I’ve ever heard. As Robert Novak points out here, President Bush plans on getting alot of mileage from his veto pen:
Addressing a Republican fund-raising dinner at the Washington Convention Center last Wednesday night, President Bush declared: “If the Democrats want to test us, that’s why they give the president the veto. I’m looking forward to vetoing excessive spending, and I’m looking forward to having the United States Congress support my veto.”
By vetoing a bunch of Appropriations bills, President Bush will get people’s attention. When voters look at the difference between President Bush’s budget and the Democrats’ budget, they’ll have to decide which agenda they prefer. I doubt that they’ll choose the party that wants to raise taxes on small businesses. By vetoing a number of bills, President Bush will cast Democrats in the image of spendaholics. I’d also say that it’s a stretch to call Pelosi’s Democrats as mainstream. They’ve got many miles to trek right before they’re mainstream. Many, many miles.
But Mr. Spain and Mr. Rothenberg also pointed to a change in the political environment that, if it continues into next year, would work to the Republicans’ advantage. “Recent polling suggests that [the Democratic] Congress’s standing has slipped again, and Congress’s apparent inability to deal with immigration reform could add to public frustration,” Mr. Rothenberg said in his newsletter. “At the same time, the defeat of immigration reform could well be a net plus for congressional Republicans, many of whom can and will run against ‘amnesty’ and illegal immigration next year,” he said.
If I were a Democratic strategist, I’d be very worried about immigration. Rasmussen’s polling shows that the comprehensive approach isn’t popular:
A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 51% would like their legislators to “take smaller steps towards reform” while 16% believe they should wait until next year. The survey was conducted on Monday and Tuesday night as the President was publicly attempting to rally support for the legislation.
Sixty-nine percent (69%) of voters would favor an approach that focuses exclusively on “exclusively on securing the border and reducing illegal immigration.” Support for the enforcement only approach comes from 84% of Republicans, 55% of Democrats, and 69% of those not affiliated with either major party.
Compare these polling results with where Congressional Democrats are at. Based on this information, I don’t see how immigration is a winning issue for Democrats.
In Florida’s heavily Republican 16th District, for example, where Democrat Tim Mahoney narrowly won the seat after Republican Rep. Mark Foley resigned in the House page sex sandal, the Republican Party is now widely favored to get the seat back.
In Georgia’s 8th District, Democrat Jim Marshall squeaked through with less than 1,800 votes in what Mr. Spain called “the worst Republican environment since Watergate.” The Republican Party is rallying behind Rick Goddard, the former commanding general at the Warner Robins Air Logistics base, who is expected to give Mr. Marshall a tough race.
These are just a few of the seats the GOP should take back.
“In order to win back the majority, we don’t have to conquer new territory. We just need to reclaim old territory,” Mr. Spain said.
Exactly right, Mr. Spain.
Technorati Tags: Stuart Rothenberg, Donald Lambro, Robert Novak, President Bush, Fiscal Responsibility, NRCC, DNC, Do Nothing Congress, Election 2008
Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog
June 18th, 2007 at 2:29 am
[...] Cross-posted at California Conservative Categories: GOP, Media, House of Representatives, President Bush, DNC, Pelosi, Conservatism, Taxes, Election 2008 | [...]
June 18th, 2007 at 6:59 am
Democratic agenda is to “mainstream” as KoolAid is to good, healthy nutrition.
‘Course, they drink enough of it that they wouldn’t know mainstream if it slapped them upside the head. Like in the next election.
Vipers.
June 18th, 2007 at 8:35 am
Well, thats fine, but Republicans have always been good at talking the talk, but disappointing in walking the walk. They have one hell of a lot more walking to do for me.
June 18th, 2007 at 9:19 am
BOTH parties are completely broken and BOTH need to just GO AWAY!
Thomas Jefferson was soooooo right…..
Before you get too carried away perhaps you should consider what the “Independents” are going to do…
Two issues that could sweep the Republicans into power for years to come. Bear in mind the priciple philosophy of the Republican Party “used” to be Individual Responsibility, PERIOD.
1. That said, the Repubs need to get over Roe vs Wade. The attitude flies in the face of the MAIN republican principle. Educate people then they wont want/need an abortion. Making more laws does not work and everyone knows it.
2. The War on Drugs. Once again the Republicans insistence in the face of common sense that “The War on drugs works” makes them look foolish as the dems. The evidense is SO CLEAR it’s sickening that my tax dollars are spent without reason battling something that is completely un-winnable and gives the power to the scumbag drug dealers. Once again look to the founding principle of the Republican party first for salvation….
June 18th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
T.A.: I don’t believe I was exonorating the Republicans. The jackass-wannabes have been as deplorable as the donkeys, they just say the “right” things. That is despicable in my book. At least the donkeys tell you they’ll be stealing from you, both money and rights.
And Mitch: So you want to eliminate legal responsibilities to make people more responsible? Somehow that doesn’t add up or make sense. Maybe you could elucidate some, or explain away the inconsistencies.
What I would like to see is the elephants who run and win stick to their guns in spite of political expediency and stop giving my money away to every Tom, Dick, Juan and Ahmed every chance they get (all in the spirit of “compromise”), make the individual more responsible for his/her own actions, and get big guvmint outta my knickers.
June 18th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
Carlos, reading comprehension isnt your strong point huh? A few really big words make up for that failure though, eh..
Just another example of affirmitive action gone awry.
June 19th, 2007 at 8:54 am
Gosh, Mitch, I’m sorry I’m just a country boy. Oh, I also read at about 3000 wpm w/98% comprehension. Not good enough for your writing, though.
And affirmative action? Sorry, Bud, but I went through the public school system a decade before anyone was stupid enough to believe in their wildest dreams that might work.
Words? Heck, I can use 15 cent words with almost the best of them what usually comment in these here blogs.
Bottom line, sir, is that trying to make any sense of what you wrote, starting and ending from where you did, doesn’t make a lick of sense. To begin with, Roe v. Wade isn’t just some thorn in the side of some folks who will eventually “get over it.” There are, surprisingly to some people, folks who really do believe that life begins at conception, and that the murder of any human life is wrong. Whether you believe that or not is irrelevant because we don’t answer to you, nor do we answer to the Supreme Court about the morality of this issue.
If life begins at birth, not conception, what is that anomalous bundle growing inside the womb? A self-replicating blob of dead tissues? And if it is alive, then it does have life, period.
The only question, then, is, is it human life? Well, at this point I will only offer anecdotal evidence, but I can’t remember too many times when a human mother gave birth to a monkey, bear cub or shark. Just a guess, understand, but I’d be willing to bet the ranch that hasn’t happened more than once or twice in the history of mankind.
And as for drugs, you obviously don’t live in an area where the property crime rate has skyrocketed because of the “need” of junkies to get their fix. Oh, you say legalize drugs and the problem will disappear? Yeah, right. Like it has in The Netherlands. Oh, that’s right, you don’t get to hear about that because the guvmint there doesn’t want anyone to know that the crime rate has gone up since legalizing dope and worker productivity has plummeted at approximately the same rate. Wonder of wonders. Who’da thunk?
Yes, Mitch, my reading comprehension is fine. And it’s fairly obvious I think a little bit beyond the sound bites you do for my beliefs. I enjoy most of your posts, but for this one you must have just finished one of your recreational toys.