Limber Up, Republicans
'Cause Fred Barnes thinks Election Day 2006 will be the day we kiss our behinds goodbye:
Gee, do you think the compassionate conservatism crap The Weekly Standard and the rest of the RINO neocons have pushed might have anything to do with diminished enthusiasm on the part of rock-ribbed conservatives?
Maybe more of us would turn up to vote if we were in fact voting against the growth of the Leviathan (such as prescription drug coverage in Medicare), a weak national security policy (can Condi hold your coat for you, Mr. Ahmadinejad?), Supreme Court picks who are either liberals or liars, etc.?
This is the problem with the Beltway RINOs---they ignore and disparage the conservatives who voted them into power until they need bailout the 1st Tuesday in November.
That's okay---we can play the RINO game too: we'll see how many conservatives become Republicans-in-name-only this election day. After all, I'd be embarassed in front of my conservative friends to be seen pulling the lever for this crowd.
Not one dime more from me and absent some serious butt-kissing toward true conservatives on the part of the leadership between now and November the GOP won't even get me away from the dinner table on Election Night.
REPUBLICANS and conservatives, brace yourselves! Strategists and consultants of both parties now believe the House is lost and House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi will become speaker. At best, Republicans will cling to control of the Senate by a single seat, two at most. For many election cycles, Republicans have been the boys of October, using paid media and superior campaign skills to make up lost ground and win in November. This year, they were the boys of September, rallying strongly until that fateful day, September 29, when the Mark Foley scandal erupted. October has been a disaster so far. A strong finishing kick for Republicans, minimizing Democratic gains, is possible. They pulled one off brilliantly in President Bush's first midterm election in 2002. But recovery will be harder this time, a lot harder.
The press is fixated on the so-called generic ballot--Do you want a Democratic or Republican Congress?--as an indicator of Republican setbacks on November 7. But that gauge has rarely been predictive. Two others are more reliable: presidential approval and party enthusiasm. And they tell an ominous story for Republicans about the difference between 2002 and 2006.
Presidential approval correlates with how the president's party fares in midterm elections. It's simple: High approval is linked to election success, low approval to defeat. In October 2002, with Bush's approval at 62 percent in the Gallup Poll, Republicans won six seats in the House and two in the Senate. Now Bush is at 37 percent in Gallup. The inescapable conclusion is that Bush
lacks the clout with the public he had four years ago. To make matters worse, presidents associated with unpopular wars are historically a drag on their parties (Truman, LBJ).
The most overlooked election indicator is the level of voter enthusiasm. In every election from 1994 through 2004, Republicans were more enthusiastic than Democrats. That was a decade of Republican growth. This year Democrats are more excited. And it's measurable. In 2002, 42 percent of Republicans said they were more enthusiastic than usual about the election. Thirty-eight percent of Democrats said the same. In 2006, the numbers have flipped. Republican enthusiasm has dipped to 39 percent and Democratic enthusiasm has jumped to 48 percent. Enthusiasm affects turnout. Gloomy voters are less inclined to vote.
The Foley scandal did two things, both harmful to Republicans. It stopped Republican momentum in its tracks. (Also contributing to this were the negative spin on Iraq from Bob Woodward's book State of Denial and the faulty reporting on the National Intelligence Estimate.) And it changed the narrative of the campaign from one emphasizing national security, a Republican strength, to one emphasizing Republican malfeasance in Washington and dysfunction in Iraq.
Democrats were lucky, as they have been all year. They had fallen into a trap set by Republicans on the interrogation of high-level terrorist detainees. They voted against the compromise reached by the White House and Senator John McCain, choosing to protect civil liberties for terrorists over national security. That issue, a powerful one for Republicans, was pushed aside in the Foley frenzy.
Gee, do you think the compassionate conservatism crap The Weekly Standard and the rest of the RINO neocons have pushed might have anything to do with diminished enthusiasm on the part of rock-ribbed conservatives?
Maybe more of us would turn up to vote if we were in fact voting against the growth of the Leviathan (such as prescription drug coverage in Medicare), a weak national security policy (can Condi hold your coat for you, Mr. Ahmadinejad?), Supreme Court picks who are either liberals or liars, etc.?
This is the problem with the Beltway RINOs---they ignore and disparage the conservatives who voted them into power until they need bailout the 1st Tuesday in November.
That's okay---we can play the RINO game too: we'll see how many conservatives become Republicans-in-name-only this election day. After all, I'd be embarassed in front of my conservative friends to be seen pulling the lever for this crowd.
Not one dime more from me and absent some serious butt-kissing toward true conservatives on the part of the leadership between now and November the GOP won't even get me away from the dinner table on Election Night.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home