December 21, 2005
'02 Redux?
The most common comparison made to the upcoming '06 midterms has been '94, when Republicans won 52 seats to take back the House. But could a more apt comparison now be made to '02?
In '02, the prevailing assumption heading into the midterms was that the Dems, as the opposition party often does, would pick up seats. And then, like now, there was a potent political issue over national security -- over the creation of the Homeland Security department. Before the midterms, Dems opposed the bill because they wanted protections for the union rights of homeland security employees.
The recent revelations that the Bush administration conducted eavesdropping without warrants bolstered the Dems' bluster. With the help of 4 GOPers, they are filibustering a long-term reauthorization of the Patriot Act. This may seem like smart short-term politicking, but could the GOPers portray the Dems as obstructing national security, if a reauthorization fails? Could national security trump domestic issues again in '06, and play in the GOP's favor?
Political strategists distinctly remember Saxby Chambliss' controversial ad that cycle, which pictured Osama Bin Laden alongside then-Sen. Max Cleland because he opposed the Homeland Security bill over its insufficient protection of worker rights. Many thought the ad would backfire, but the message resonated. If national security again plays a major role, the GOP might perform better than the gloomy predictions of present. [JOSH KRAUSHAAR]
Posted at 09:04 AM
Comments
That may be a real political argument, but if the media tells the whole story then the Dems will come off properly.
Feingold and his group have offered to support a three month extension of the Patriot Act as is, and the Bush/Frist side of the argument will not do it. The idea is to extend the time so that a more thorough discussion and bipartisan soltion can be worked out.
The Republican leadership is the one standing in the way of renewing the Patriot Act. The Democrats simply want to ensure it is the right bill that protects both our shores and our liberty.
NAR | 12.21.05 10:25 AM
 |
Before the midterm, the Democrats did not oppose the creation of a Department of Homeland Security -- it was their idea. An idea the White House vigorously opposed and that President Bush even threatened to veto.
Democrats opposed the substitute proposal from the White House that was designed to use the new structure as a way of eroding anti-patronage laws. (Hows that working out for you, NOLA?)
The White House gambled that they could take the idea and brazenly pretend it was their own while pretending Democrats opposed it. It was a bold move -- the kind of thing you could hope to pull off only if you were confident the press and the public had no short-term memory.
Hey look. It worked.
slacktivist | 12.21.05 10:37 AM
|
I don't think the Dems hysterical reaction to the wire-tapping imbroglio will help them if people remember their cries of "Why didn't Bush do something to stop 9/11" as clearly as I do.
I also don't think Repubs looking to send a message to the fiscally irresponsible GOP-ers (this would be me, BTW) will react well to Kerry stating that he wants a Dem majority in both houses so that he can drive impeachment against Bush. Sorry, Johnny, but that's a little too much message for me.
DaveG | 12.21.05 10:40 AM
|
The Democrats strategy for the past two months has been like watching a slow train wreck. Instead of playing to their strengths and focusing on domestic issues, they've focused on Iraq, the Patriot Act, and now spying--and they are on the losing side politically of every single issue.
For the Dems to regain Congress next year, they're going to have to re-take some currently red districts held by Republicans. How many middle of the road or red-leaning districts are they going to win with a platform of: (1) retreat in Iraq; (2) fillibuster the Patriot Act; and (3) impeach Bush because he listens to suspected terrorists without a warrant? Rove's attack ads are writing themselves. People aren't going to vote for a party that is weak on national security, and recent Democratic actions are just reinforcing their weakness.
Keith | 12.21.05 10:55 AM
|
There is a known memory defect that manifests itself as an inability to form long term memory of recent events. A couple of films were made about people who couldn't remember the next day what they had siad or done the day before.
I now propose to name a new memory defect: I define Democrat opportunist politically expedient memory (DOPEM) as an attempt to convince others that previously discussed and adjudicated issues about presidential powers under the Constitution have never come up before and, in the event, that they not only came up before but were raised under Democrat presidents then even pointing out hard historical references or previous contradictory statements by the Democrat who is involved in the contradiction is obfuscating the issue for political gain by the person pointing to the contradiction. That person is defined as a rational thinker or Republican.
Jack Lifton | 12.21.05 11:13 AM
|
We are further away from 9/11, so national security has become less of an issue. Bush's credibilty on this issue has taken a hit, and those ads that were effective in 02 could be countered with Big Brother is watching you ads, and Bush has wasted time and resources in Iraq while Osama has run free ads. I don't think the Republicans want to bring up Osama, Bush hasn't caught him, and I don't think he wants to remind everyone about that.
jbou | 12.21.05 11:15 AM
|
It's way too early to tell how '06 will play out. However, it is very dangerous for the Democrats to portray themselves as the party of terrorist rights.
For better or worse, abstract civil liberties has never been a winning political issue. The ads painting the Dems as more concerned about pampering terror suspects than protecting ordinary Americans -- using quotes from Howard Dean, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and their haughty French-looking '04 Presidential candidate -- are already in the can.
I don't see how this issue wins for the Dems. Between now and the '06 elections: No major terrorist incidents and the R's can argue that what they are doing is working. A major incident and it is doubtful that the voters will conclude that the solution is to do LESS, and to give more freedom and space to young Arab men attending radicalized mosques (on Saudi passports or other ties to Wahhabism). One major incident and the voters will want a more severe crackdown and the Dems have not positioned themselves (nor, realistically, could they) as the party to deliver those particular goods.
retrofuturistic | 12.21.05 11:20 AM
|
I don't understand why Feingold and the Dems need 3 more months to discuss and negotiate when they knew for 3 years it would come for renewal by the 31st of December 2005. This is what is called CYA in order to appease the voters in 06. "No I was not opposed to the extension, in fact, in the spirit of maintain our Nat.Sec. I offered to extend for 3 more months so we could jawbone this thing to death". It won't fly. Right now the Dems are doing everything in their power from Murtha, to Pelosi, to Reid, to Rockefeller, to Dean and now to Feingold to demonstrate once and for all that they cannot be trusted with Nat.Sec. This will come back to bite them real hard in 06.
Jack Lillywhite | 12.21.05 11:26 AM
|
The Dems lost in '02 because it was obvious they were putting union interests above national security. (btw, I bet New Yorkers LOVE unions right now.)
The average Americans knows his liberty is in no danger from the Patriot Act or NSA spying on terrorists. This is the Dems trying to shriek "McCarthyism!!" again... only there's no bullying McCarthy, no blacklist, no HUAC, no Hollywood Seven, just some terrorists being bugged.
When the hext terror attack kills Americans, castrating the NSA is not going to be a great selling point.
TallDave | 12.21.05 11:29 AM
|
Yeah, we'll put Feingold, possibly the greatest enemy of personal liberties, particularly the right to free speech (McCain-Feingold), out there as the poster boy for protecting our personal liberties.
nulfellow | 12.21.05 01:05 PM
|
In 94 the Republicans ran on the Contract with America and Dems and Mainstream Media basically ignored it thinking that the people would want to maintain the status quo of 60 years of governance. In 02 and 04 the Dems ran on that same old tired agenda and got beat. The Dems were no longer the progressives and the people knew it. To win in 06 the Dems will have to come up some truly progressive ideas like the Contract was. It is doubtful considering the Dems are still run by the old school contingent and any new thought will not be accepted unless it tows the party line. Look what happened to Zell Miller and Joe Leiberman.
Ron | 12.21.05 01:13 PM
|
Instead of playing to [Democrat] strengths and focusing on domestic issues...
I hear this line of reasoning over and over, but I still have yet to see proof that domestic issue are or should be a Democrat strength. The Civil Rights Act was passed by a Republican-controlled Congress, Republican President Reagan drove tax cuts through to end the Carter Malaise, a Republican-controlled Congress instituted welfare reform (a success for many previously perpetually unemployed) and Republican President Bush has over seen unprecedented war-time economic strength as well as educational achievement as driven and measured by the provisions in NCLB. The Democrats have in their bag the status quo of the welfare state (courtesy of LBJ), stale charges of racism and the increasing irrelevancy of the unions (ask NYC or GM about this "winner").
Please, someone explain how this equates to the Democrats being "strong" on any domestic issue other than talking a good game and getting favorable press.
submandave | 12.21.05 01:15 PM
|
Actually, if you ask New Yorkers, most of them are pretty understanding. Anyway, the major difference between '02 and '06 (for now anyway) is Bush's poll numbers.
ed | 12.21.05 01:27 PM
|
While a lot depends on individual races, the biggest problem for the Democrats is that they do not have a positive message, telling us what they would do if elected. All that we get is hatred of President Bush, and the Democrats letting us know that they won't be like him.
That might be a good message to get people to vote against Republicans, but where is the message to vote for Democrats?
Just being anti-Bush hasn't worked too well for them in the past.
Dana | 12.21.05 01:28 PM
|
"The Dems lost in '02 because it was obvious they were putting union interests above national security. (btw, I bet New Yorkers LOVE unions right now.)"
No, the Dem lost in '02 because Republicans, did what they do best, playing politics with national security and instead of finding ways to protect our country (lets not forget on whose watch 9/11 happened) they were finding ways to score political points. Meanwhile democrats, the only party with actual principal (even if that means political suicide) stood strong and refused those elected fascist (Republicans) from destroying our democracy and freedom to organize.
gary | 12.21.05 01:46 PM
|
After their recent performances, I think that it's now the Democrats who had better hope that there is not another terrorist attack in the US. If there is, the reaction against them will be something to behold. And the results will enable the government to do things (with the blessings of the people) that will make these NSA actions pale in comparison.
Mike in Colorado | 12.21.05 01:50 PM
|
The really tragic thing about the Democrats is that by playing to their loony left they have abdicated their responsibilities as an opposition party to provide credible and reasonable opposition to measures such as the Patriot Act. If the Democrats were serious about trying to improve national security while protecting civil liberties, they should have been intensely negotiating modifications to the Patriot Act.
As a start, there is absolutely no reason to make any provisions permanent. Everything should sunset after a certain number of years (and in fact I would want to apply this principle to every piece of legislation on any subject). Force Congress to review legislation de novo and correct its mistakes instead of letting old mistakes fester and be agglomerated with new ones. That's Congress's job.
Second, strip out anything that doesn't specifically relate to terrorism. Using the Patriot Act to fight drugs or organized crime or anything else should be verboten. Provisions that allow the government to obtain and maintain records on firearms, in contravention of existing laws, should be deleted.
Third, add safeguards and oversight so that government excesses and violations can not be permanently covered up under the mantle of national security. People who have been spied upon, or who have had their computer data secretly copied or undergone other secret searches, have to at least eventually be informed about it. Those actions should not be protected by permanent gag orders so the targets never learn it even happened. There should be an independent oversight body which can review and act on behalf of targeted persons, and challenge the search orders, during the time when the targets themselves are being kept in the dark.
Daniel Wiener | 12.21.05 02:42 PM
|
The dems support Hollywood going after grandma for $400,000 when someone in her house downloads a song, and they snoop on her computer. Yet they are against going after terrorists? We now find out Clinton snooped without warrants on White Supremists and Aldrich Aimes. I will actually say, THANKS, BILL. They had the FBI going after anti-abortion groups without warrants, so why not terrorists?
Karen | 12.21.05 02:45 PM
|
I think the political trap is even worse for the Democrats than you imply. I think Bush will "give in" to the plan to extend the Patriot Act for 3 months and discuss it some more. Then, it will be extended again throughout 2006 in short increments.
This will mean that the news throughout the 2006 election cycle will be that Democrats could not come up with a better plan since the act was passed in 2001. They will routinely vote to extend it, but they sure like to whine about it.
The press framing the issue to help Democrats won't help them in the end. They'll just be confident they can do anything, and the MSM will say anything to support them. The Dems will look good in August, as they always look good in August, when the press is inventing fake scandals, and the Republicans are ignoring them. A few direct mailings and commercials starting in September will turn it around. Those ads will be completely factual with a plethora of quotes from leading Democrats.
Lewis | 12.21.05 02:52 PM
|
Saddams's trial was delayed again today as for the third straight day in a row it took a team 2 hours to remove Nancy Pelosi's lipstick from Saddam's ass.
R LaBonte | 12.21.05 03:40 PM
|
I don't think "Big Brother is watching you" will resonate with the average voter because there are no known abuses to point to in connection with either the PA or NSA warrentless wiretaps. Perhaps if some do surface, that situation will change, but for now most voters support both and don't feel that their civil rights are in any kind of jeopardy.
Kyda Sylvester | 12.21.05 03:40 PM
|
I think there is more than enough pure hate and distrust of bush/cheney/rove out here to more than make up for any repub spin put forth between now and election time.
badgervan | 12.21.05 09:09 PM
|
I dont think the donks are going to do well
at all in 2006. There platform is to run
against Bush.
His poll numbers might go south again.
But what would stop individual repubs from
'respectfully disagreeing' with the Prez?
Running against Bush to help themselves.
The donks will lose between 10 to 15 seats
in 2006.
anon | 12.21.05 10:55 PM
|
i think the elections may be about scandels.the dems will either take over congress or nothing much will change but the gop won`t make any gains.
a lot will also depend on iraq,if it`s a mess goodbye gop if it`s ok probably no big change.
joel | 12.21.05 10:56 PM
|
Anyone remember if a factor in the 2002 elections was the Democrats flip-flopping on the coming Iraq War, going from passing a resolution authorizing the use of force to saying that Bush was rushing to war?
Or did that only come after the election?
NF | 12.21.05 11:00 PM
|
I browse and saw you website and I found it very interesting.Thank you for the good work, greetings
Albert | 03.16.08 12:43 AM
|
Post a comment
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
