Time Mag: Republicans On The Run

[electropop]

As midterm campaigns gear up, Bush's party fears a backlash that could end its 12-year hold on the House
By KAREN TUMULTY, MIKE ALLEN
Considering that Vice President Dick Cheney had come a long way to help Florida Congressman Ric Keller raise $250,000 last week, the reception he got in the Sunshine State could have been a bit warmer. After extolling Cheney as "one of the most effective Vice Presidents in the history of the U.S.," Keller launched into all the times he had recently opposed the Bush Administration, including the deal to allow a Dubai company to manage operations at several U.S. ports. And then Keller went right for the punch line: "'Don't be too hasty,'" he claimed the Vice President had pleaded with him. "'Let's go hunting. We'll talk about it.'"

As the campaign season kicks into gear, Republican incumbents are having a hard time figuring out how close they want to be to the White House. Voters have plenty to take out on Republican candidates this year--ethics scandals, the G.O.P.'S failure to curb spending, the government's inept response to Hurricane Katrina, a confusing new prescription-drug program for seniors and, more than anything else, an unpopular President who is fighting an unpopular war. Iraq could make a vulnerability of the Republicans' greatest asset, the security issue.

The midterm contests in a President's second term are almost always treacherous, but this time around, Republicans thought it would be different. The 2006 elections, coming on top of their gains in 2002 and 2004, would make history and perhaps even cement a G.O.P. majority in Congress for a generation. George W. Bush's credibility on national security and the states' aggressive gerrymandering, they believed, had turned the vast majority of districts into fortresses for incumbents. But that's not turning out to be the case. In recent weeks, a startling realization has begun to take hold: if the elections were held today, top strategists of both parties say privately, the Republicans would probably lose the 15 seats they need to keep control of the House of Representatives and could come within a seat or two of losing the Senate as well. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, who masterminded the 1994 elections that brought Republicans to power on promises of revolutionizing the way Washington is run, told TIME that his party has so bungled the job of governing that the best campaign slogan for Democrats today could be boiled down to just two words: "Had enough?"

Iraq is driving nearly all the big indicators the wrong way for Republicans. In a TIME poll conducted last week, Bush's job approval rating was mired at 39%; 3 in 5 Americans said the country is headed in the wrong direction, and when those surveyed were given the choice between a generic Republican and a generic Democrat for Congress, the nameless Democrat won, 50% to 41%. The signs suggest an anti-Republican wave is building, says nonpartisan electoral handicapper Stuart Rothenberg, whose Rothenberg Political Report is closely followed in Washington. "The only question is how high, how big, how much force it will have. I think it will be considerable."

MORE:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1176997,00.html?cnn=yes

[C_U_L8R]

1. they can run but they can't hide

from justice

[WePurrsevere]

2. "Had enough?" Hmm.. so Newt reads DU eh? Well inspite of his borrowing it

I still think it's one of the best slogans anyone has come up with. B-)

[electropop]

4. Wasn't it Carville's?

I think that's his book title.

[WePurrsevere]

9. I guess I should have added a wink if I didn't. :-)

Although I know that Carville has a book out with that title I'm not sure if he originated it or if it's been around for longer.

There was a DU discussion a bit ago about a better Dem slogan and "Had Enough?" came up as what I thought was a very good one... I know at least one person still has it as a sig line and you can buy a bumper stick at Cafe Press with it. B-)

[aden_nak]

3. It's too late, Keller. You can't suck up for 5 years and run away now.

Every last one of these GOP swine are sweating in their suits over this mid-term election. And they'd damn well better!

[pretzel4gore]

5. time mag. is ratwing republican, and it's opinion taken serious?

that's like seriously considering what the kakaka thinks about the Martin Luther King holiday, or the flat earth society about the international space station, or a metalhead about amadeus mozart....

[electropop]

6. I think the point is, if even Time sees it, they're in serious doodoo.

[pretzel4gore]

8. why aren't they being rounded up?

believe me, the busheviks will do something before they lose power, and time mag knows it damn well.....while i agree it's a good thing that something like common sense is affecting their coverage of the news, finally, i also think they are bum criminals who are buying bush time by suggesting bush is 'in trouble' and normal politics will take care of him, when they know bush must violate alot more laws if he hopes to survive, which bush does. Thanks for the contri, electropop, but mark me down as too cynical to see time mag (and the rest of the pigmedia whores) as anything but self serving traitors and cowards

[rpannier]

7. Seems I've heard this drumbeat before

In '88 all summer every 'expert' predicted that Bush I was gonna get creamed by then Gov. Dukakis and in '98, every 'expert' saw big Senate and House gains for the Republicans. In the end, we all saw what happened. The supposed losing side got their collective act together, put together effective campaigns (you can argue the morality of some of those campaigns, but they did get the job done), while in the final weeks of the campaign the other side looked disorganized and desperate. Generally speaking, most people are satisfied with their elected representative, it's the other congressmen they hate. A better question would be, are you more likely to vote for "Your" congressman or his/her opponent? This shows up more effectively. Example, In Pennsylvania, people are more inclined to vote for Casey than Santorum. That is a good sign. If they said are you more likely to vote for a Dem over a Puke and the people said the Dem, this isn't always good, as the Dem nominee could turn out to be Fred Phelps, Neil Bush, or Lyndon LaRouche, in which case chances for the Dems taking that seat would probably be nil.
The Dems need to give people a reason to vote for them. Newt's "Had enough?" is a cute catch-phrase, but there needs to be substance behind it. I grow tired of reading the suggestions of the so-called experts, like Peter Crumb (Schrum) whose advice to every Democratic candidate for President he's advised is "Play it safe." (Hint: No one he's ever advised in Presidential campaigns have ever occupied the White House) Or, when they drag out someone from the DLC who says "We must move to the center." Their strategy (strategery for you trolls reading this) has lost us both Houses of Congress --yet their still hauled out by the media as experts on politics. Or, some guy who sat in Congress thirty years ago, but is still an 'expert.'