Amherst County Democratic Committee
To All Amherst County Democrats:
Dear Friends,
You've may have been wondering what's going on with Amherst Dems. Here's an update:
The Committee will meet at Amherst CVCC, Tuesday 9/14, 7PM. Everyone is welcome. It is especially important for Precinct Reps to attend (see list below). Skipper Fitts, Vice Chair, will preside.
While we have no Democratic candidates on the ballot for November, we should lend our support to our neighbor, Tom Perriello, in the 5th CD. The nature and extent of that support will be decided upon at the meeting next Tuesday.
Skipper has already been in touch with the Perriello campaign and they would welcome our support. A possible collaboration with Nelson County Democrats will be discussed.
Reminder that the Garlic Festival will take place Saturday October 9th and Sunday October 10th, 10 AM to 5 PM rain, or shine. Volunteers are needed.
Some members have suggested that we have a social event this fall. There may be an opportunity to cosponsor this event with the Sweet Briar Young Democrats. If so it could be held at the Elston Inn where we held events in 2008. Guest speakers and other details will be discussed.
On a personal note, I have been dealing with some health issues these last few months, and apologize to all for the lack of activity on my part.
The core of the Committee has always been a group of dedicated, generous, active individuals. They are the backbone of the Democratic Party in Amherst County. Please show your support by attending the next meeting.
Best Regards,
David Burford
434-841-7420
434-384-1731
dave_burford@verizon.net
www.amherstdems.org
101 - Wright Shop - Magnolia Braxton
102 - New Glas - Ned Kable, OPEN
103 - Coolwell - OPEN
201 - Court House - Mary Anne Hostetler, Alix Ingber, OPEN
202 - Temperance - Marvin Gilbert
301 - Monroe - OPEN
302 - Elon - Marita Taylor, Mary Truitt, OPEN
303 - Pleasant View - Curtis Johnson
401 - Amelon - Robert Perry, Jason Fleshman, OPEN
402 - Lonco - Francis Wayne
501 - Madison Hts - Jeff Price, Dan Hughes, Allen Freeman
You are welcome to attend the meeting if you are a Democrat who lives in Amherst County or Nelson County. It will be held at the Amherst Central Virginia Community College site ( Just East of the traffic circle in the same shopping center as Food Lion grocery store ), Tuesday Sept. 14th at 7PM. We look foreward to seeing you and will be pleased if you are interested.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Friday, August 27, 2010
Economic FUBAR
President Obama inherited a terrible mess: a $1.3 trillion deficit, two wars, rising unemployment (8%) and unprecedented crises in our banking system. That was 18 Months ago.
A rapidly weakening economy threatens to undermine President Obama's assertion that he has set the nation on a path to prosperity and, with barely two months until congressional midterm elections, Democrats find themselves with few options for reviving the faltering recovery.
The latest sign that the economy is losing steam: Home sales fell 27 percent in July, the steepest one-month drop since figures were first compiled in 1968, according to a report released Tuesday (August 24). Analysts had expected sales to decline following the expiration of a federal tax credit for homebuyers this spring, but the drop was nearly twice as large as forecast.
The housing report punctuated a wave of bad news that has been building all summer. The number of jobless claims has risen in each of the past four weeks and last week hit its highest point in nine months. Private-sector job creation is trending well below the level needed to keep up with population growth. Retail sales have also been disappointing.
Economists generally do not expect a dip back into recession, although many say the risk has grown with each new piece of disheartening data.
Obama and congressional Democrats have been working frenetically to counter the trend, winning a series of relatively small initiatives to extend unemployment benefits, avert state layoffs and cut taxes for firms that hire unemployed workers.
But with the budget deficit soaring and polls showing deep skepticism about the impact of Obama's economic policies, even many Democrats are reluctant to support additional spending on the economy. That has left Obama with few alternatives for improving the trajectory of the recovery and reducing a stubbornly high jobless rate, which was stuck in July at 9.5 percent.
"They have played their policy hand, and they've got to hope it's good enough," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics who has been advising congressional Democrats. Given the political environment, he said, "there's nothing they can do to make a significant difference in the next six months, or even a year."
Republicans quickly sought Tuesday to capitalize on the gloomy news. Addressing the City Club of Cleveland, House GOP Leader John Boehner (Ohio) blamed Obama for "an economy stalled by 'stimulus' spending and hamstrung by uncertainty." Casting the the November election as a referendum on Obama's "discredited" policies, Boehner urged the president to fire his entire economic team, starting with Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner.
"The American people are asking 'where are the jobs?' and all the president's economic team has to offer are promises of 'green shoots' that never seem to grow," Boehner said. Noting that Obama's budget director and chief economist have already announced their resignations, Boehner said Obama "should ask for - and accept - the resignations of the remaining members of his economic team," including Geithner and Lawrence Summers, head of the National Economic Council.
Boehner offered few ideas for turning the economy around. House Republicans have not released a detailed economic agenda, and Boehner's speech - delivered amid a bus tour of battleground House districts in Rust Belt states - did little to expand on the GOP's long-standing platform of lower taxes and less federal regulation.
Vice President Biden, who stood in for a vacationing Obama, derided Boehner's economic plan as a rehash of the laissez-faire policies the led the country to the brink of a financial meltdown in the final days of the Bush administration. "Mr. Boehner is nostalgic for those good old days, but Americans are not," Biden said during an event called to showcase the success of last year's $814 billion stimulus package.
His voice dripping with sarcasm, Biden also thanked Boehner for suggesting that the president fire his top economic advisers. "Very constructive advice," he said, "and we thank the leader for that."
Later, White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton defended Geithner and Summers, calling them "the people who made the tough decisions, who did the hard work to get the economy going again."
As recently as this spring, the U.S. economic recovery appeared to be accelerating. Many economists gave credit to the stimulus package and the $700 billion bailout of the banking system proposed by Bush and carried out by Obama.
On Tuesday, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office affirmed that view of the stimulus package, estimating that it added as many as 3.3 million jobs to the economy during the second quarter of this year and may have prevented the nation from lapsing into recession. The CBO also said the package will cost about $814 billion through 2019 - less than the $862 billion previously estimated.
But momentum is fading fast. On Friday, the Commerce Department will revise its estimate of second quarter economic growth. Forecasters expect gross domestic product to have risen at a 1.4 percent annual rate during the April through June quarter - far below the 2.4 percent rate first estimated and below the 2.5 to 3 percent level at which the U.S. economy should expand based solely on population growth and increased productivity.
Instead of gaining ground in the second quarter, the United States economy lost ground.
While many private and government forecasters still agree that growth will return to about 2.5 percent for the second half of the year, that consensus could soon change if the economy continues to deteriorate. And even a 3 percent growth rate is not strong enough to significantly bring down unemployment.
White House economist Jared Bernstein said the administration is "by no means out of bullets." He cited billions of dollars that have yet to be spent from last year's stimulus package and ticked off a list of policies the White House is pursuing, including a measure designed to encourage hiring by small businesses that has been blocked by Republicans in the Senate. Democratic leaders in the Senate say they hope to push the bill to final passage when
Congress returns after Labor Day. Congress should stay in session working 6 days a week with no vacations or holidays until the problems are solved.
Obama is also pressing for tax rebates for homeowners who invest in renewable energy projects and other green renovations, as well as for an extension of an existing tax credit for manufacturers of solar panels, wind turbines and other clean-energy equipment.
"We're continuously promoting the most effective ways to create the most jobs, and our agenda is demonstrably working to achieve that goal," Bernstein said. "The Recovery Act contributed to the turnaround from horrifying negatives to positives, and that's the momentum we are trying to build on."
He acknowledged that Congress had not approved all the stimulus money Obama had sought. But, he said, "In the world we live in, we're doing everything we can to create the conditions for greater job growth in key sectors of the economy."
If republicans are blocking measures needed to get people back to work or otherwise heal the economy the President should mount his soapbox and inform America of the republican roadblock. If spineless democrats are blocking progress the President should inform the American public of that also. The President has the soapbox but shows no interest in using it to whip his opposition into shape.
The Senate has become non functional and useless, they do nothing except run for reelection. They seem to have a desire to remain in the Senate until they die drawing the pay and benefits for nothing. This FUBAR needs to be eliminated.
A rapidly weakening economy threatens to undermine President Obama's assertion that he has set the nation on a path to prosperity and, with barely two months until congressional midterm elections, Democrats find themselves with few options for reviving the faltering recovery.
The latest sign that the economy is losing steam: Home sales fell 27 percent in July, the steepest one-month drop since figures were first compiled in 1968, according to a report released Tuesday (August 24). Analysts had expected sales to decline following the expiration of a federal tax credit for homebuyers this spring, but the drop was nearly twice as large as forecast.
The housing report punctuated a wave of bad news that has been building all summer. The number of jobless claims has risen in each of the past four weeks and last week hit its highest point in nine months. Private-sector job creation is trending well below the level needed to keep up with population growth. Retail sales have also been disappointing.
Economists generally do not expect a dip back into recession, although many say the risk has grown with each new piece of disheartening data.
Obama and congressional Democrats have been working frenetically to counter the trend, winning a series of relatively small initiatives to extend unemployment benefits, avert state layoffs and cut taxes for firms that hire unemployed workers.
But with the budget deficit soaring and polls showing deep skepticism about the impact of Obama's economic policies, even many Democrats are reluctant to support additional spending on the economy. That has left Obama with few alternatives for improving the trajectory of the recovery and reducing a stubbornly high jobless rate, which was stuck in July at 9.5 percent.
"They have played their policy hand, and they've got to hope it's good enough," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics who has been advising congressional Democrats. Given the political environment, he said, "there's nothing they can do to make a significant difference in the next six months, or even a year."
Republicans quickly sought Tuesday to capitalize on the gloomy news. Addressing the City Club of Cleveland, House GOP Leader John Boehner (Ohio) blamed Obama for "an economy stalled by 'stimulus' spending and hamstrung by uncertainty." Casting the the November election as a referendum on Obama's "discredited" policies, Boehner urged the president to fire his entire economic team, starting with Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner.
"The American people are asking 'where are the jobs?' and all the president's economic team has to offer are promises of 'green shoots' that never seem to grow," Boehner said. Noting that Obama's budget director and chief economist have already announced their resignations, Boehner said Obama "should ask for - and accept - the resignations of the remaining members of his economic team," including Geithner and Lawrence Summers, head of the National Economic Council.
Boehner offered few ideas for turning the economy around. House Republicans have not released a detailed economic agenda, and Boehner's speech - delivered amid a bus tour of battleground House districts in Rust Belt states - did little to expand on the GOP's long-standing platform of lower taxes and less federal regulation.
Vice President Biden, who stood in for a vacationing Obama, derided Boehner's economic plan as a rehash of the laissez-faire policies the led the country to the brink of a financial meltdown in the final days of the Bush administration. "Mr. Boehner is nostalgic for those good old days, but Americans are not," Biden said during an event called to showcase the success of last year's $814 billion stimulus package.
His voice dripping with sarcasm, Biden also thanked Boehner for suggesting that the president fire his top economic advisers. "Very constructive advice," he said, "and we thank the leader for that."
Later, White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton defended Geithner and Summers, calling them "the people who made the tough decisions, who did the hard work to get the economy going again."
As recently as this spring, the U.S. economic recovery appeared to be accelerating. Many economists gave credit to the stimulus package and the $700 billion bailout of the banking system proposed by Bush and carried out by Obama.
On Tuesday, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office affirmed that view of the stimulus package, estimating that it added as many as 3.3 million jobs to the economy during the second quarter of this year and may have prevented the nation from lapsing into recession. The CBO also said the package will cost about $814 billion through 2019 - less than the $862 billion previously estimated.
But momentum is fading fast. On Friday, the Commerce Department will revise its estimate of second quarter economic growth. Forecasters expect gross domestic product to have risen at a 1.4 percent annual rate during the April through June quarter - far below the 2.4 percent rate first estimated and below the 2.5 to 3 percent level at which the U.S. economy should expand based solely on population growth and increased productivity.
Instead of gaining ground in the second quarter, the United States economy lost ground.
While many private and government forecasters still agree that growth will return to about 2.5 percent for the second half of the year, that consensus could soon change if the economy continues to deteriorate. And even a 3 percent growth rate is not strong enough to significantly bring down unemployment.
White House economist Jared Bernstein said the administration is "by no means out of bullets." He cited billions of dollars that have yet to be spent from last year's stimulus package and ticked off a list of policies the White House is pursuing, including a measure designed to encourage hiring by small businesses that has been blocked by Republicans in the Senate. Democratic leaders in the Senate say they hope to push the bill to final passage when
Congress returns after Labor Day. Congress should stay in session working 6 days a week with no vacations or holidays until the problems are solved.
Obama is also pressing for tax rebates for homeowners who invest in renewable energy projects and other green renovations, as well as for an extension of an existing tax credit for manufacturers of solar panels, wind turbines and other clean-energy equipment.
"We're continuously promoting the most effective ways to create the most jobs, and our agenda is demonstrably working to achieve that goal," Bernstein said. "The Recovery Act contributed to the turnaround from horrifying negatives to positives, and that's the momentum we are trying to build on."
He acknowledged that Congress had not approved all the stimulus money Obama had sought. But, he said, "In the world we live in, we're doing everything we can to create the conditions for greater job growth in key sectors of the economy."
If republicans are blocking measures needed to get people back to work or otherwise heal the economy the President should mount his soapbox and inform America of the republican roadblock. If spineless democrats are blocking progress the President should inform the American public of that also. The President has the soapbox but shows no interest in using it to whip his opposition into shape.
The Senate has become non functional and useless, they do nothing except run for reelection. They seem to have a desire to remain in the Senate until they die drawing the pay and benefits for nothing. This FUBAR needs to be eliminated.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Dummest Quitters Excuse Ever
Dr. Laura and the Dummest Quitters Excuse Ever
Dr Laura Plays the Victum Card as large advertizers desert her sinking radio show and the republican half term gov and ultimate top quitter Sarah Palin tells her not to retreat but to to reload. Dr Laura spread her filth on 200 radio stations coast to coast and her audience and sponsors objected to her conduct and she cries that her first amendment rights are being restrained. The people have rejected this foul mouthed woman. Dr Laura is almost as crazy as Palin. The following comes from Taylor Marsh and starts with a direct quote from Dr Laura.
“I want to regain my First Amendment rights,” she said. “I want to be able to say what’s on my mind and in my heart and what I think is helpful and useful without somebody getting angry, some special interest group deciding this is the time to silence a voice of dissent and attack affiliates, attack sponsors. I’m sort of done with that.” – Dr. Laura Schlessinger to End Radio Show.
(Come on Dr Laura. You made a fool of yourself talking to one of your listeners not with a special interest group trying to silence you. Your sponsors ran away from you because you came across as a bigoted fool doing a Lenny Bruce Bit from the 1950's.)
The lady wants to be free to be as bad as her toxic self can be, free to hurl “n” word invectives into the void without being called on her vile agenda while she does it. Good riddance. Her departure cannot come soon enough.
The decaying medium of wingnut radio has shed one of its most toxic voices. After an “n” word blizzard, Dr. Laura is calling it quits when her contract ends later this year. Like Sarah Palin, who finally admitted to Tucker Carlson’s Daily Caller that she just couldn’t take the media pressure, Schlessinger is running as fast as she can off the radio stage.
“This is the era of the Internet,” Dr. Laura admitted on Larry King’s show last night. A sign that whatever talk radio is today it’s long past its zenith and on the decline.
Readying to move onward, the worst “advice” talker on radio has finally been revealed for what she is. Another toxic gasbag who is lauded for opinions that have been foundational to our moralistic June Cleaverism, which should have died out with the turn of the century.
Having been tangentially involved back in the ’90s in opposing Dr. Laura’s TV show, when John Aravosis and I first crossed paths on this campaign, though we didn’t know it until years later, I took on Dr. Laura in my writings back then. Her anti-gay tirades and moralistic judgments on women as insulting as the “n” word monologue that caused her demise on radio.
This leads me to another development, this one regarding WND, who has dis-invited Ann Coulter as keynote speaker because she’s headlining “Homocon.” It’s quite a conservative collision amidst confusion that reveals the dying power of the toxic right-wing branch of the Republican Party, which doesn’t know which way to turn to stay relevant.
Don’t look now, but between the wacky Tea Party candidates and Sarah Palin, Laura leaving while Ann Coulter stands beside gay Republicans, the spineless Democratic elite and a diminished Pres. Obama, all of whom are facing a restless populace, out of these conflicts a new political landscape is going to eventually emerge. I truly hope part of it includes a vibrant Independent political wing, organized or not and wider than Crist and Bloomberg, to challenge the lumbering, corrupt big two parties.
Part of the shift will manifest this November when quite a few toxic Blue Dog Democrats are going to be defeated by card carrying Republicans, but like it or not, Tea Party candidates, no matter how few, will be part of the mix. Losing Blue Dogs would be a very good sign for the Democratic Party for reasons too numerable to mention. You movement progressives out there please opine in the comments, because I’m sure you have a lot to say on this issue.
Rep. Henry Waxman certainly did recently, though he was also cajoled into walking it back, though the verdict had already been laid. “I think a lot of the House seats we’re going to lose are those who have been the toughest for the Democrats to pull into line– the Democrats that have been the most difficult,” Waxman said. – Via Howie Klein
As an aside, the mosque fury is now pitting Republicans against their Tea Party wing, which is causing quite a fight, with so called mainstream Republicans (both of them) seeing an opening to reclaim conservatism from the way out Right. Activist wingnuts, however, are looking to use it for short-term 2010 gain.
Dr. Laura’s departure from wingnut radio leaves many other strident personalities left to rant their hatred, but any time we lose one this big it’s a sign that the decaying medium is losing out, as Dr. Laura admitted, to the era of the Internet where truth at least can be found if you search.
by Taylor Marsh who works out of DC
http://taylormarsh.com/
Now if we can find a couple of hundred spines that will fit Democrats it all might work out ok.
Dr Laura Plays the Victum Card as large advertizers desert her sinking radio show and the republican half term gov and ultimate top quitter Sarah Palin tells her not to retreat but to to reload. Dr Laura spread her filth on 200 radio stations coast to coast and her audience and sponsors objected to her conduct and she cries that her first amendment rights are being restrained. The people have rejected this foul mouthed woman. Dr Laura is almost as crazy as Palin. The following comes from Taylor Marsh and starts with a direct quote from Dr Laura.
“I want to regain my First Amendment rights,” she said. “I want to be able to say what’s on my mind and in my heart and what I think is helpful and useful without somebody getting angry, some special interest group deciding this is the time to silence a voice of dissent and attack affiliates, attack sponsors. I’m sort of done with that.” – Dr. Laura Schlessinger to End Radio Show.
(Come on Dr Laura. You made a fool of yourself talking to one of your listeners not with a special interest group trying to silence you. Your sponsors ran away from you because you came across as a bigoted fool doing a Lenny Bruce Bit from the 1950's.)
The lady wants to be free to be as bad as her toxic self can be, free to hurl “n” word invectives into the void without being called on her vile agenda while she does it. Good riddance. Her departure cannot come soon enough.
The decaying medium of wingnut radio has shed one of its most toxic voices. After an “n” word blizzard, Dr. Laura is calling it quits when her contract ends later this year. Like Sarah Palin, who finally admitted to Tucker Carlson’s Daily Caller that she just couldn’t take the media pressure, Schlessinger is running as fast as she can off the radio stage.
“This is the era of the Internet,” Dr. Laura admitted on Larry King’s show last night. A sign that whatever talk radio is today it’s long past its zenith and on the decline.
Readying to move onward, the worst “advice” talker on radio has finally been revealed for what she is. Another toxic gasbag who is lauded for opinions that have been foundational to our moralistic June Cleaverism, which should have died out with the turn of the century.
Having been tangentially involved back in the ’90s in opposing Dr. Laura’s TV show, when John Aravosis and I first crossed paths on this campaign, though we didn’t know it until years later, I took on Dr. Laura in my writings back then. Her anti-gay tirades and moralistic judgments on women as insulting as the “n” word monologue that caused her demise on radio.
This leads me to another development, this one regarding WND, who has dis-invited Ann Coulter as keynote speaker because she’s headlining “Homocon.” It’s quite a conservative collision amidst confusion that reveals the dying power of the toxic right-wing branch of the Republican Party, which doesn’t know which way to turn to stay relevant.
Don’t look now, but between the wacky Tea Party candidates and Sarah Palin, Laura leaving while Ann Coulter stands beside gay Republicans, the spineless Democratic elite and a diminished Pres. Obama, all of whom are facing a restless populace, out of these conflicts a new political landscape is going to eventually emerge. I truly hope part of it includes a vibrant Independent political wing, organized or not and wider than Crist and Bloomberg, to challenge the lumbering, corrupt big two parties.
Part of the shift will manifest this November when quite a few toxic Blue Dog Democrats are going to be defeated by card carrying Republicans, but like it or not, Tea Party candidates, no matter how few, will be part of the mix. Losing Blue Dogs would be a very good sign for the Democratic Party for reasons too numerable to mention. You movement progressives out there please opine in the comments, because I’m sure you have a lot to say on this issue.
Rep. Henry Waxman certainly did recently, though he was also cajoled into walking it back, though the verdict had already been laid. “I think a lot of the House seats we’re going to lose are those who have been the toughest for the Democrats to pull into line– the Democrats that have been the most difficult,” Waxman said. – Via Howie Klein
As an aside, the mosque fury is now pitting Republicans against their Tea Party wing, which is causing quite a fight, with so called mainstream Republicans (both of them) seeing an opening to reclaim conservatism from the way out Right. Activist wingnuts, however, are looking to use it for short-term 2010 gain.
Dr. Laura’s departure from wingnut radio leaves many other strident personalities left to rant their hatred, but any time we lose one this big it’s a sign that the decaying medium is losing out, as Dr. Laura admitted, to the era of the Internet where truth at least can be found if you search.
by Taylor Marsh who works out of DC
http://taylormarsh.com/
Now if we can find a couple of hundred spines that will fit Democrats it all might work out ok.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Fox Donates $1 Million to RGA
Fox News Donates $1 Million To Republican Governors Association
Now in addition to 24 hour a day, 7 day a week attacks on President Obama and the Democrats Fox seals the deal with the republican party and removes the little remaining doubt that Fox is the Media Arm of the GOP.
There's no hiding or denying it any longer, there is no fair and balanced, Fox is the media arm of the republican party and no longer needs to be treated with the respect due a news organization. Fox is a propoganda outlet for the GOP and nothing more. After all these years Fox comes out of the closet.
News America Inc. the parent company of Fox News has further confirmed their conservative stance and donated $1 million to the Republican Governors Association.
Fox News, which is the home to conservative commentators like Bill O' Reilly and Sean Hannity, has always been a staunch supporter of the Republican Party.
This donation from News America has allowed the group to double its fund raising for the second quarter of the year. Filings show that the RGA raised $58 million between Jan. 1, 2009, and June 30, 2010. The Democratic Governors Association raised $40 million during the same period.
News America Inc., the parent company of Fox News is a subsidiary of Rupert Murdoch's media conglomerate News Corp.
Hypocrisy at its worst, it is a sad day for all who believe that an independent and impartial media is vital to our democracy. Fox and republicans are willing to destroy the American system of Media fairness to aid their political ambitions. Any way you measure it republicans and Rupert Murdoch enjoy a bottom feeders view of life.
Now in addition to 24 hour a day, 7 day a week attacks on President Obama and the Democrats Fox seals the deal with the republican party and removes the little remaining doubt that Fox is the Media Arm of the GOP.
There's no hiding or denying it any longer, there is no fair and balanced, Fox is the media arm of the republican party and no longer needs to be treated with the respect due a news organization. Fox is a propoganda outlet for the GOP and nothing more. After all these years Fox comes out of the closet.
News America Inc. the parent company of Fox News has further confirmed their conservative stance and donated $1 million to the Republican Governors Association.
Fox News, which is the home to conservative commentators like Bill O' Reilly and Sean Hannity, has always been a staunch supporter of the Republican Party.
This donation from News America has allowed the group to double its fund raising for the second quarter of the year. Filings show that the RGA raised $58 million between Jan. 1, 2009, and June 30, 2010. The Democratic Governors Association raised $40 million during the same period.
News America Inc., the parent company of Fox News is a subsidiary of Rupert Murdoch's media conglomerate News Corp.
Hypocrisy at its worst, it is a sad day for all who believe that an independent and impartial media is vital to our democracy. Fox and republicans are willing to destroy the American system of Media fairness to aid their political ambitions. Any way you measure it republicans and Rupert Murdoch enjoy a bottom feeders view of life.
Wedge Issues and Anchor Babies
The New York City Mosque and Anchor Babies
First of all, wedge issues are emotional in appeal. They bypass the cognitive function of the brain and go right to a subconscious emotional response. Name any Republican wedge issue from immigration, to abortion, to gay marriage, to flag burning -- not to mention the granddaddy of them all: "the war on terrorism" and FEAR -- and you run head into an emotional, not a reasoned, hook.
In short, the Republicans are tremendously skilled at employing the art of the demagogue to get Americans -- around half at any given time -- to avoid reasoned discussion of public policy. They do this by appealing to emotional, instinctual reactions that are not processed through a thoughtful process. It's called pressing a hot button.
Second of all, the Republicans use wedge issues to, essentially, pickpocket the American public and dismantle the American government.
While they have the public and the media distracted with red hot emotional topics, they go off and make the wealthy wealthier, increase our national debt, dismantle the Constitution, and take away government social services. Wedge issues are a powerful distraction -- and allow the right wing to accomplish their goals while the public is preoccupied with some trumped up emotional issue that the Busheviks could care less about.
Finally, wedge issues are a tremendous fundraising tool for the right wing. In fact, the campaigns of right wing candidates were financed by the money generated by right wing wedge issue direct mail. Richard Viguerie was the guru who started the direct mail juggernaut for GOP candidates -- and organizations -- and he's still going strong. It shouldn't be forgotten that Rove came to the fore in Texas politics as a direct mail consultant.
In short, wedge issues that press the hot buttons of right wing donors sell big time. We heard Viguerie speak recently and he referred to "pre-sold" wedge issues. In essence, these are topics like "gay marriage," "abortion," and "war on terror" that you include in the first sentence of a GOP direct mail piece and you are guaranteed a good response because they have such visceral impact on Stepford GOP followers.
Progressives and Democrats have far fewer "pre-sold" appeals -- except for the mention of Bush and Cheney -- because progressives and Democrats think more before acting. That may sound snobbish, but it's true from a direct mail perspective.
Basically, the Republican "rule by emotional appeal" boils down to a big brother elitism whose message to Americans is simply this: "Don't think. We'll do the thinking for you. Just follow."
Thanks to Eleanor Clift and Newsweek for the following.
If the voters fault President Obama for dropping the ball on job creation and spending too much time on passing health-care and financial-services reform, what will they make of Republican efforts to gin up a debate about the 14th Amendment and the constitutionality of awarding citizenship to babies born on American soil to illegal immigrants? Feckless is the word that comes to mind. With voters wanting elected leaders to chart a path out of the economic doldrums, an effort to inflame passions about so-called anchor babies looks like another one of those wedge issues that Republicans are so good at finding every election season.
At a breakfast with Republican leader Mitch McConnell organized by The Christian Science Monitor, the issue of the GOP’s intentions came up in an exchange with The Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s Cynthia Tucker, who prefaced her question by noting that she grew up in Alabama in the era of Jim Crow and that African-Americans view the 14th Amendment’s extension of equal-rights protection as the Republicans’ greatest achievement. With Republicans talking about congressional hearings to examine the 14th Amendment, Tucker wanted to know if the debate would end there, or do hearings suggest there is something wrong with the amendment that must be addressed?
McConnell defended the idea of holding hearings to examine what he called “a burgeoning and unseemly business” of illegal immigrants flying to the United States to give birth and then getting back on the plane confident their newborn is a U.S. citizen. There is an industry of travel agencies and hotel chains catering to “baby tourists,” according to a report on ABC, but they cater to high-end moms with packages that cost $45,000, and they don’t constitute a widespread or worrisome phenomenon. If these babies are meant to anchor a spot in the U.S. for their parents, the child would first have to reach age 21, which is really planning ahead. These aren’t the folks Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham and others who first raised this issue have in mind.
They’re aiming their divisive rhetoric at the babies born to illegal immigrants, mostly from Mexico, who are already in the country and whose children are American citizens, thanks to the 14th Amendment. It is the latest iteration of the anti-Hispanic sentiment that has gotten the GOP into political trouble in California and elsewhere with this fastest-growing segment of the population. It also speaks volumes about what the GOP thinks of its prospects for getting African-American votes, since the 14th Amendment is sacrosanct to them.
Narrowing the discussion to “birth tourists” is McConnell’s effort to pull his party back from the precipice where Republicans further alienate Hispanic voters. This is “base talk,” says Simon Rosenberg, an immigration expert with NDN, the New Democrat Network. Republican primary voters care a lot about immigration, but it’s not a voting issue for the broader public in an election where jobs are the priority. Besides, he says, Republicans are already so motivated to vote this November “it’s like pouring a gallon of fuel on a massive fire.”
McConnell in person comes across as far more reasonable and analytical than the pursed-lipped leader of the Party of No who appears on television. When he mentioned that he had met with President Obama on Wednesday at the White House to discuss possible areas of agreement, a reporter asked why it took so long for the two men to get together. McConnell pointed out that when Obama took office he was sitting on 70 percent approval, a 40-seat House majority, and he was on his way to 60 votes in the Senate. “He felt he didn’t need us, and I don’t fault him for that,” McConnell said. But with Republicans poised to pick up a significant number of seats in November, there will be a midcourse correction, he said. “The president is a really smart guy, and he figures he’s going to see a lot more of me,” McConnell smiled, anticipating a Senate more evenly balanced, perhaps 55 to 45 instead of the current 59 to 41.
If Obama wants to pass anything, he’ll have to strike bipartisan deals that are center-right, McConnell said, adding that he hopes Obama will become a “born-again moderate” in the mold of President Clinton after Democrats lost the House and Senate in ’94, prompting Clinton to declare in January ’95, “The era of big government is over.” Areas of agreement McConnell said he discussed with Obama are enough to make liberals wonder who’s really president: trade deals with Colombia, Panama, and Peru; nuclear power; electrification of cars and trucks (that one’s OK); and of course, that golden oldie, keeping the Bush tax cuts for the top 2 percent of wage earners in place.
What about immigration reform? Except for more border security, the debate is frozen, McConnell said. And good thing too, because hearings on possible abuses of the 14th Amendment really don’t fit the GOP message for the midterm election, which McConnell sums up as spending, debt, and big-government takeovers. He knows Republicans stand to lose far more than they can gain if they get swept up in an effort to disenfranchise babies.
First of all, wedge issues are emotional in appeal. They bypass the cognitive function of the brain and go right to a subconscious emotional response. Name any Republican wedge issue from immigration, to abortion, to gay marriage, to flag burning -- not to mention the granddaddy of them all: "the war on terrorism" and FEAR -- and you run head into an emotional, not a reasoned, hook.
In short, the Republicans are tremendously skilled at employing the art of the demagogue to get Americans -- around half at any given time -- to avoid reasoned discussion of public policy. They do this by appealing to emotional, instinctual reactions that are not processed through a thoughtful process. It's called pressing a hot button.
Second of all, the Republicans use wedge issues to, essentially, pickpocket the American public and dismantle the American government.
While they have the public and the media distracted with red hot emotional topics, they go off and make the wealthy wealthier, increase our national debt, dismantle the Constitution, and take away government social services. Wedge issues are a powerful distraction -- and allow the right wing to accomplish their goals while the public is preoccupied with some trumped up emotional issue that the Busheviks could care less about.
Finally, wedge issues are a tremendous fundraising tool for the right wing. In fact, the campaigns of right wing candidates were financed by the money generated by right wing wedge issue direct mail. Richard Viguerie was the guru who started the direct mail juggernaut for GOP candidates -- and organizations -- and he's still going strong. It shouldn't be forgotten that Rove came to the fore in Texas politics as a direct mail consultant.
In short, wedge issues that press the hot buttons of right wing donors sell big time. We heard Viguerie speak recently and he referred to "pre-sold" wedge issues. In essence, these are topics like "gay marriage," "abortion," and "war on terror" that you include in the first sentence of a GOP direct mail piece and you are guaranteed a good response because they have such visceral impact on Stepford GOP followers.
Progressives and Democrats have far fewer "pre-sold" appeals -- except for the mention of Bush and Cheney -- because progressives and Democrats think more before acting. That may sound snobbish, but it's true from a direct mail perspective.
Basically, the Republican "rule by emotional appeal" boils down to a big brother elitism whose message to Americans is simply this: "Don't think. We'll do the thinking for you. Just follow."
Thanks to Eleanor Clift and Newsweek for the following.
If the voters fault President Obama for dropping the ball on job creation and spending too much time on passing health-care and financial-services reform, what will they make of Republican efforts to gin up a debate about the 14th Amendment and the constitutionality of awarding citizenship to babies born on American soil to illegal immigrants? Feckless is the word that comes to mind. With voters wanting elected leaders to chart a path out of the economic doldrums, an effort to inflame passions about so-called anchor babies looks like another one of those wedge issues that Republicans are so good at finding every election season.
At a breakfast with Republican leader Mitch McConnell organized by The Christian Science Monitor, the issue of the GOP’s intentions came up in an exchange with The Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s Cynthia Tucker, who prefaced her question by noting that she grew up in Alabama in the era of Jim Crow and that African-Americans view the 14th Amendment’s extension of equal-rights protection as the Republicans’ greatest achievement. With Republicans talking about congressional hearings to examine the 14th Amendment, Tucker wanted to know if the debate would end there, or do hearings suggest there is something wrong with the amendment that must be addressed?
McConnell defended the idea of holding hearings to examine what he called “a burgeoning and unseemly business” of illegal immigrants flying to the United States to give birth and then getting back on the plane confident their newborn is a U.S. citizen. There is an industry of travel agencies and hotel chains catering to “baby tourists,” according to a report on ABC, but they cater to high-end moms with packages that cost $45,000, and they don’t constitute a widespread or worrisome phenomenon. If these babies are meant to anchor a spot in the U.S. for their parents, the child would first have to reach age 21, which is really planning ahead. These aren’t the folks Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham and others who first raised this issue have in mind.
They’re aiming their divisive rhetoric at the babies born to illegal immigrants, mostly from Mexico, who are already in the country and whose children are American citizens, thanks to the 14th Amendment. It is the latest iteration of the anti-Hispanic sentiment that has gotten the GOP into political trouble in California and elsewhere with this fastest-growing segment of the population. It also speaks volumes about what the GOP thinks of its prospects for getting African-American votes, since the 14th Amendment is sacrosanct to them.
Narrowing the discussion to “birth tourists” is McConnell’s effort to pull his party back from the precipice where Republicans further alienate Hispanic voters. This is “base talk,” says Simon Rosenberg, an immigration expert with NDN, the New Democrat Network. Republican primary voters care a lot about immigration, but it’s not a voting issue for the broader public in an election where jobs are the priority. Besides, he says, Republicans are already so motivated to vote this November “it’s like pouring a gallon of fuel on a massive fire.”
McConnell in person comes across as far more reasonable and analytical than the pursed-lipped leader of the Party of No who appears on television. When he mentioned that he had met with President Obama on Wednesday at the White House to discuss possible areas of agreement, a reporter asked why it took so long for the two men to get together. McConnell pointed out that when Obama took office he was sitting on 70 percent approval, a 40-seat House majority, and he was on his way to 60 votes in the Senate. “He felt he didn’t need us, and I don’t fault him for that,” McConnell said. But with Republicans poised to pick up a significant number of seats in November, there will be a midcourse correction, he said. “The president is a really smart guy, and he figures he’s going to see a lot more of me,” McConnell smiled, anticipating a Senate more evenly balanced, perhaps 55 to 45 instead of the current 59 to 41.
If Obama wants to pass anything, he’ll have to strike bipartisan deals that are center-right, McConnell said, adding that he hopes Obama will become a “born-again moderate” in the mold of President Clinton after Democrats lost the House and Senate in ’94, prompting Clinton to declare in January ’95, “The era of big government is over.” Areas of agreement McConnell said he discussed with Obama are enough to make liberals wonder who’s really president: trade deals with Colombia, Panama, and Peru; nuclear power; electrification of cars and trucks (that one’s OK); and of course, that golden oldie, keeping the Bush tax cuts for the top 2 percent of wage earners in place.
What about immigration reform? Except for more border security, the debate is frozen, McConnell said. And good thing too, because hearings on possible abuses of the 14th Amendment really don’t fit the GOP message for the midterm election, which McConnell sums up as spending, debt, and big-government takeovers. He knows Republicans stand to lose far more than they can gain if they get swept up in an effort to disenfranchise babies.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Happy 75th to Social Security
On August 14th Social Security was 75 years old
and for 75 years republicans have tried to kill it.
Here are two numbers that should warm the heart of anyone who wants to end sectarian bickering and build a bipartisan consensus for change:
68% of likely voters polled believe that we should not cut Social Security and Medicare to reduce the deficit.
60% of Republicans agree.
These figures are from a new poll conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner on behalf of the Campaign for America's Future and DemocracyCorps, with support from MoveOn.org. They tell us that the Democrats have a winning issue for November's elections. All they have to do is strongly reaffirm the President's campaign pledges for Social Security.
As Robert Borosage explains, the poll shows overwhelming support for a progressive political agenda not unlike the one described by President Obama last year as a "New Foundation" for growth. There are those who have suggested that the Democrats should downplay progressive policies, because only 20% of people polled describe themselves as "liberals." But these numbers show that there's overwhelming support, often even among Republicans, for policies that are typically labelled "progressive." It turns out that the new political truism is correct: When it comes to good economic policy, the old labels of "left" and "right" don't apply.
We'll focus on Social Security here. A recent AARP poll echoed Greenberg's findings: Voters strongly oppose Social Security cuts, and all segments (including younger voters) would rather pay more in taxes to protect their benefits. Democrats are sending a decidedly mixed message on this hot-button issue, and these poll findings show them a way forward. If the President reiterates his campaign promises -- lift the payroll tax cap, with no benefit cuts -- and if House and Senate candidates do the same, that could put them on the road to political recovery.
Voters across the board believe that Social Security and Medicare benefit cuts should not be used to balance the budget. 65% of voters polled support lifting the cap on Social Security payroll taxes (which currently apply to the first $106,000+ of income) rather than cutting benefits, while an equal number (65%) oppose increasing the Medicare eligibility age for 65 to 67.
Voters also oppose increasing the Social Security retirement age, yet John Boehner floated the idea of raising it to 70. And he's not the only Republican on the anti-Social Security warpath: Rep. Paul Ryan's alternative economic plan would slash benefits from 16% to 28% long-term, while Dick Armey and a host of other Republicans are pushing for privatization plans that would cut guaranteed benefits.
You'd think this would be a winning issue for Democrats. Nancy Pelosi apparently agrees, since House Dems have made Social Security a core campaign theme for House Dems this year. The GOP assault on Social Security may help explain why, despite a terrible economy and the anti-incumbent trend for off-year elections, the Republicans aren't getting much traction with voters. A new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll suggests that, in Ezra Klein's words, "voters don't like anyone." Their enthusiasm for both parties is low. They disapprove of the President by 48% to 47%, but -- in an intriguing finding -- 58% say he's doing about as well as expected and 12% say he's doing better than expected.
The implication of the NBC/WSJ poll is that voters don't believe that anybody in Washington is representing them. That's understandable: The Greenberg poll shows widespread hostility toward Social Security benefit cuts, yet virtually everybody in one party wants to cut them while the other party is sending mixed messages.
Speaker Pelosi has been trying to pull her party in the right direction. She made a good statement when the annual Trustees Report was released, and her comments at Netroots Nation were powerful and effective: "When you talk about reducing the deficit and Social Security, you're talking about apples and oranges." Yet her statement last month on the topic seemed a bit more ambiguous: "We remain dedicated, in FDR's words, to providing 'some measure of protection' to our workers for the long term."
And, at the same time, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer has been strenuously undercutting the Speaker's position on this issue. He's been saying things like "everything needs to be on the table" in Social Security discussions.
Raising the eligibility age is a benefit reduction -- as Dean Baker explains, raising the retirement age to 70 would be a 15% benefit cut. Yet Hoyer continues to express sympathy for the idea, and has even goes so far as to express openness to privatizing the plan (which would have left many seniors destitute if Bush had succeeded in implementing it in 2005).
The Greenberg poll suggests that beleaguered Congressional Democrats would benefit from defending Social Security, and in Shermanesque terms. Rep. Earl Pomeroy, Chair of the Social Security Subcommittee, offers a good example of how it can be done. "Even a phased-in adjustment in the age would change the terms of the deal," says Pomeroy. "That is completely unacceptable... it would be a breach of faith with 53 million present ...... recipients and tens of millions to follow." That message will resonate strongly with Congressional voters this fall -- including Republicans and independents. More Dems should follow Pomeroy's lead.
The President's has an ambiguity problem on this issue, too. His Deficit Commission has become a political liability for him, since its chairs persist in sending the signal that Social Security cuts are on the table for them -- and therefore implicitly for the President.
Even more "moderate" Commission members are stoking fears about the program while taking Candidate Obama's preferred solution -- raising the tax cap -- off the table.
The President himself was explicit about his intentions for Social Security during the campaign. He called for lifting the cap on payroll taxes, which would solve Social Security's (relatively minor) financial problems for the foreseeable future, and explicitly rejected either benefit cuts or raising the retirement age. These new poll
results show he got it exactly right.
Social Security offers an opportunity for Democrats to persuade swing voters while at the same time reassuring and pleasing their base. Robert Gibbs' "professional left" controversy led to him to make the comment, presumably on behalf of the White House, that liberals in Obama's base will show up to vote in 2010. But will they? While Democrats still approve of the President by a vast majority, Gallup's tracking polls for the last nine months show
him slipping from a high point of 87% to 80%, a 7-point drop.
Approval among self-described liberals, a core Obama constituency, has slipped from a high of 80% to the current 72%. 71% of Democrats oppose raising the retirement age to 70, while 65% want to see the payroll cap raised - and the vast majority of those who hold these opinions feel "strongly" about it.
Imagine: Politicians can energize and reinforce their base, while at the same time attracting indepentents and persuadable members of the other party -- using the same issue. It's like a gift from the gods. All it takes to accept that gift is firmness and clarity.
Senate Democrats met recently to reinforce their campaign strategy against the Republicans: "Contrast, contrast, contrast." They were handed pocket cards that highlighted their talking points: "Democrats are on the side of the middle class." The ideal way to support their strategy, and their party's overall goals, is by defending Social Security - clearly, unequivocally, and forcefully.
That's the political dimension of this issue. But the best news of all is this: It's good policy, too.
Richard (RJ) Eskow, a consultant, writer and a Senior Fellow with the Campaign for America's Future. This post was produced as part of the Strengthen Social Security campaign.
and for 75 years republicans have tried to kill it.
Here are two numbers that should warm the heart of anyone who wants to end sectarian bickering and build a bipartisan consensus for change:
68% of likely voters polled believe that we should not cut Social Security and Medicare to reduce the deficit.
60% of Republicans agree.
These figures are from a new poll conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner on behalf of the Campaign for America's Future and DemocracyCorps, with support from MoveOn.org. They tell us that the Democrats have a winning issue for November's elections. All they have to do is strongly reaffirm the President's campaign pledges for Social Security.
As Robert Borosage explains, the poll shows overwhelming support for a progressive political agenda not unlike the one described by President Obama last year as a "New Foundation" for growth. There are those who have suggested that the Democrats should downplay progressive policies, because only 20% of people polled describe themselves as "liberals." But these numbers show that there's overwhelming support, often even among Republicans, for policies that are typically labelled "progressive." It turns out that the new political truism is correct: When it comes to good economic policy, the old labels of "left" and "right" don't apply.
We'll focus on Social Security here. A recent AARP poll echoed Greenberg's findings: Voters strongly oppose Social Security cuts, and all segments (including younger voters) would rather pay more in taxes to protect their benefits. Democrats are sending a decidedly mixed message on this hot-button issue, and these poll findings show them a way forward. If the President reiterates his campaign promises -- lift the payroll tax cap, with no benefit cuts -- and if House and Senate candidates do the same, that could put them on the road to political recovery.
Voters across the board believe that Social Security and Medicare benefit cuts should not be used to balance the budget. 65% of voters polled support lifting the cap on Social Security payroll taxes (which currently apply to the first $106,000+ of income) rather than cutting benefits, while an equal number (65%) oppose increasing the Medicare eligibility age for 65 to 67.
Voters also oppose increasing the Social Security retirement age, yet John Boehner floated the idea of raising it to 70. And he's not the only Republican on the anti-Social Security warpath: Rep. Paul Ryan's alternative economic plan would slash benefits from 16% to 28% long-term, while Dick Armey and a host of other Republicans are pushing for privatization plans that would cut guaranteed benefits.
You'd think this would be a winning issue for Democrats. Nancy Pelosi apparently agrees, since House Dems have made Social Security a core campaign theme for House Dems this year. The GOP assault on Social Security may help explain why, despite a terrible economy and the anti-incumbent trend for off-year elections, the Republicans aren't getting much traction with voters. A new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll suggests that, in Ezra Klein's words, "voters don't like anyone." Their enthusiasm for both parties is low. They disapprove of the President by 48% to 47%, but -- in an intriguing finding -- 58% say he's doing about as well as expected and 12% say he's doing better than expected.
The implication of the NBC/WSJ poll is that voters don't believe that anybody in Washington is representing them. That's understandable: The Greenberg poll shows widespread hostility toward Social Security benefit cuts, yet virtually everybody in one party wants to cut them while the other party is sending mixed messages.
Speaker Pelosi has been trying to pull her party in the right direction. She made a good statement when the annual Trustees Report was released, and her comments at Netroots Nation were powerful and effective: "When you talk about reducing the deficit and Social Security, you're talking about apples and oranges." Yet her statement last month on the topic seemed a bit more ambiguous: "We remain dedicated, in FDR's words, to providing 'some measure of protection' to our workers for the long term."
And, at the same time, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer has been strenuously undercutting the Speaker's position on this issue. He's been saying things like "everything needs to be on the table" in Social Security discussions.
Raising the eligibility age is a benefit reduction -- as Dean Baker explains, raising the retirement age to 70 would be a 15% benefit cut. Yet Hoyer continues to express sympathy for the idea, and has even goes so far as to express openness to privatizing the plan (which would have left many seniors destitute if Bush had succeeded in implementing it in 2005).
The Greenberg poll suggests that beleaguered Congressional Democrats would benefit from defending Social Security, and in Shermanesque terms. Rep. Earl Pomeroy, Chair of the Social Security Subcommittee, offers a good example of how it can be done. "Even a phased-in adjustment in the age would change the terms of the deal," says Pomeroy. "That is completely unacceptable... it would be a breach of faith with 53 million present ...... recipients and tens of millions to follow." That message will resonate strongly with Congressional voters this fall -- including Republicans and independents. More Dems should follow Pomeroy's lead.
The President's has an ambiguity problem on this issue, too. His Deficit Commission has become a political liability for him, since its chairs persist in sending the signal that Social Security cuts are on the table for them -- and therefore implicitly for the President.
Even more "moderate" Commission members are stoking fears about the program while taking Candidate Obama's preferred solution -- raising the tax cap -- off the table.
The President himself was explicit about his intentions for Social Security during the campaign. He called for lifting the cap on payroll taxes, which would solve Social Security's (relatively minor) financial problems for the foreseeable future, and explicitly rejected either benefit cuts or raising the retirement age. These new poll
results show he got it exactly right.
Social Security offers an opportunity for Democrats to persuade swing voters while at the same time reassuring and pleasing their base. Robert Gibbs' "professional left" controversy led to him to make the comment, presumably on behalf of the White House, that liberals in Obama's base will show up to vote in 2010. But will they? While Democrats still approve of the President by a vast majority, Gallup's tracking polls for the last nine months show
him slipping from a high point of 87% to 80%, a 7-point drop.
Approval among self-described liberals, a core Obama constituency, has slipped from a high of 80% to the current 72%. 71% of Democrats oppose raising the retirement age to 70, while 65% want to see the payroll cap raised - and the vast majority of those who hold these opinions feel "strongly" about it.
Imagine: Politicians can energize and reinforce their base, while at the same time attracting indepentents and persuadable members of the other party -- using the same issue. It's like a gift from the gods. All it takes to accept that gift is firmness and clarity.
Senate Democrats met recently to reinforce their campaign strategy against the Republicans: "Contrast, contrast, contrast." They were handed pocket cards that highlighted their talking points: "Democrats are on the side of the middle class." The ideal way to support their strategy, and their party's overall goals, is by defending Social Security - clearly, unequivocally, and forcefully.
That's the political dimension of this issue. But the best news of all is this: It's good policy, too.
Richard (RJ) Eskow, a consultant, writer and a Senior Fellow with the Campaign for America's Future. This post was produced as part of the Strengthen Social Security campaign.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Suprises For The Mid Terms
Everyone knows the Democratic Party is unpopular and that it stands to lose a substantial number of House and Senate seats come November, perhaps even control of one or both chambers.
But in fact, the public thinks worse of the Republicans, according to a new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll. The poll shows 24 percent of Americans view the Republican Party positively, an all-time low in the poll’s 21-year history. That compares with a 33 percent positive rating for the Democrats. The negative ratings are comparable – 46 percent unfavorable for the Republicans, 44 percent for the Democrats.
Those numbers do not foretell major losses for the Republican incumbents. Generalized unhappiness with the GOP does not necessarily mean discontent with one’s member of Congress. Most important, the Democrats control both Congress and the White House, and voters will take out their frustration over the state of the country on them. In particular, a well-documented enthusiasm gap, demonstrated most recently in Tuesday’s higher turnout numbers for Republicans over Democrats in the primaries, means GOP voters are more motivated to go out and vote against Democrats than Democrats are to support their own party.
The 'short fuse' electorate
But these numbers present a warning to Republicans: Voters may support them in November and give them big gains, but if they don’t deliver, they could be in trouble. This is particularly so if the Republicans take over at least the House and don’t accomplish much, they could be short-timers. After all, it’s only been three-plus years since the Democrats took over both houses of Congress, and the pendulum has already swung sharply in the opposite direction.
“The public’s on a really short fuse nowadays,” says Steven Schier, a political scientist at Carleton College in Northfield, Minn. “And it’s because times are bad. We’re at war, the economy is terrible.”
Democratic pollster Peter Hart, codirector of the NBC/WSJ poll, calls it a “JetBlue election.” “Everyone is frustrated,” Mr. Hart told NBC. “And everyone is headed for the emergency exit.”
A GOP campaign agenda: Does it matter?
Congressional Republicans have yet to come out with a policy agenda to run on in the November midterms, but they are promising to do so next month. For now, they’re on a listening tour.
But Mr. Schier isn’t sure a 2010 version of the Contract With America – the GOP’s list of 10 action items released in the run-up to their successful 1994 takeover of Congress – will have much lasting impact for the Republicans. Even in 1994, most voters weren’t aware of the Contract when they handed the Republicans a 53-seat gain and control of the House.
An agenda for 2010 “could help them short-term in the cycle, if the specifics are well received, and certain candidates use them as a message in certain districts successfully,” says Schier. But, he adds, there’s little Republicans can do about their brand until they have a presidential candidate.
In a bit of hopeful news for the Democrats, the NBC/WSJ poll shows that the public generically prefers congressional Republicans over Democrats only in the South, where it’s 52 percent to 31 percent. In the Northeast, the Democrats lead 55-30. In the Midwest, they lead 49-38. And in the West, they’re up by one, 44-43.
“Yet do keep this caveat in mind,” says the analysis on MSNBC.com. “Many of the congressional districts Republicans are targeting outside of the South resemble some of those Southern districts they're hoping to win back in November – where you have whiter and older voters.”
The conventional wisdom on the midterm elections has been that the House is vulnerable to a Republican takeover, but the Senate? Not so much.
It’s still true that the Republicans have an easier path to a House takeover, with so many Democratic-held seats in play. But with strong challenges emerging against two Senate Democratic incumbents previously seen as safe – Patty Murray of Washington and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin – and the national atmospherics heavily favoring the Republicans, Democrats increasingly have their work cut out for them to save control even of the Senate.
Add to that the possibility that one or even two senators currently in the Democratic column could flip to the Republican side if the GOP gets close to a takeover on Nov. 2. Let’s say the Republicans make a net gain of nine seats – one short of the 10 they need for a majority. Speculation will then immediately turn to Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, a conservative Democrat from a red state who sometimes sides with the Republicans. Less likely but still conceivable as a party-switcher is Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats but is seen by some Democrats as not completely with the team.
If the Republicans get close to a majority and offer one or both of these senators a committee chairmanship, that could sweeten the deal.
“So you’ve got two on the Democratic side you’ve got to worry about,” says Peter Fenn, a Democratic communications strategist.
Senator Lieberman already chairs a committee for the Democrats – Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs – but in politics, there are no guarantees. The Democrats still have to wonder if they might lose him under certain circumstances.
What’s more, it’s looking increasingly possible, though still not likely, that the Republicans could take over the Senate without the help of party-switchers. In the event of a tsunami-size wave of voter discontent, the Democrats’ large majorities in both houses – 59 to 41 in the Senate, 256 to 178 (and one vacancy) in the House – could easily be swept away. Typically, Senate races are not as vulnerable to the national mood as House races, but in this cycle, Republicans believe they could be.
A survey by Republican pollster Glen Bolger released Tuesday shows that in 13 states with competitive Senate races, the Republican candidates are leading on average by a margin of 47 to 39 percent. Candidates’ names were used in the poll (except in the few states with primaries pending), so it was not a generic test. In the eight seats currently held by Democrats – Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Washington –the Republican leads by an average of seven percentage points. In the five Republican seats – Florida, Kentucky,
Missouri, New Hampshire, and Ohio – the GOP lead is eight points.
The poll was commissioned by American Crossroads, an outside Republican group that is fundraising to help GOP candidates.
“Senate races across the country appear to be drawn into the same national vortex that is impacting House races, as an earlier battleground survey that was conducted by Glen Bolger and others demonstrated fairly clearly back in June,” Steven Law, president of American Crossroads, said in a conference call Tuesday.
With 1,300 voters surveyed across 13 states, the sample size was not large enough for individual state results to hold credibility. But the larger trend in favor of Republicans taken as a whole is unmistakable. Independents are backing Republicans in these 13 states by a margin of 47 to 25 percent. And in a sign of a significant enthusiasm gap, “high-intensity voters” support Republicans by a 52-to-36 margin.
Still, there are almost three months to go before Election Day. The national mood is not likely to change, but developments could alter the dynamic in individual races. And Republicans are guarded about not raising expectations to unreasonably high levels, in which anything less than a full takeover of both houses of Congress is seen as a failure.
“A Senate takeover is just a possibility, it’s not a given,” said Mr. Law.
By Linda Feldmann
But in fact, the public thinks worse of the Republicans, according to a new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll. The poll shows 24 percent of Americans view the Republican Party positively, an all-time low in the poll’s 21-year history. That compares with a 33 percent positive rating for the Democrats. The negative ratings are comparable – 46 percent unfavorable for the Republicans, 44 percent for the Democrats.
Those numbers do not foretell major losses for the Republican incumbents. Generalized unhappiness with the GOP does not necessarily mean discontent with one’s member of Congress. Most important, the Democrats control both Congress and the White House, and voters will take out their frustration over the state of the country on them. In particular, a well-documented enthusiasm gap, demonstrated most recently in Tuesday’s higher turnout numbers for Republicans over Democrats in the primaries, means GOP voters are more motivated to go out and vote against Democrats than Democrats are to support their own party.
The 'short fuse' electorate
But these numbers present a warning to Republicans: Voters may support them in November and give them big gains, but if they don’t deliver, they could be in trouble. This is particularly so if the Republicans take over at least the House and don’t accomplish much, they could be short-timers. After all, it’s only been three-plus years since the Democrats took over both houses of Congress, and the pendulum has already swung sharply in the opposite direction.
“The public’s on a really short fuse nowadays,” says Steven Schier, a political scientist at Carleton College in Northfield, Minn. “And it’s because times are bad. We’re at war, the economy is terrible.”
Democratic pollster Peter Hart, codirector of the NBC/WSJ poll, calls it a “JetBlue election.” “Everyone is frustrated,” Mr. Hart told NBC. “And everyone is headed for the emergency exit.”
A GOP campaign agenda: Does it matter?
Congressional Republicans have yet to come out with a policy agenda to run on in the November midterms, but they are promising to do so next month. For now, they’re on a listening tour.
But Mr. Schier isn’t sure a 2010 version of the Contract With America – the GOP’s list of 10 action items released in the run-up to their successful 1994 takeover of Congress – will have much lasting impact for the Republicans. Even in 1994, most voters weren’t aware of the Contract when they handed the Republicans a 53-seat gain and control of the House.
An agenda for 2010 “could help them short-term in the cycle, if the specifics are well received, and certain candidates use them as a message in certain districts successfully,” says Schier. But, he adds, there’s little Republicans can do about their brand until they have a presidential candidate.
In a bit of hopeful news for the Democrats, the NBC/WSJ poll shows that the public generically prefers congressional Republicans over Democrats only in the South, where it’s 52 percent to 31 percent. In the Northeast, the Democrats lead 55-30. In the Midwest, they lead 49-38. And in the West, they’re up by one, 44-43.
“Yet do keep this caveat in mind,” says the analysis on MSNBC.com. “Many of the congressional districts Republicans are targeting outside of the South resemble some of those Southern districts they're hoping to win back in November – where you have whiter and older voters.”
The conventional wisdom on the midterm elections has been that the House is vulnerable to a Republican takeover, but the Senate? Not so much.
It’s still true that the Republicans have an easier path to a House takeover, with so many Democratic-held seats in play. But with strong challenges emerging against two Senate Democratic incumbents previously seen as safe – Patty Murray of Washington and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin – and the national atmospherics heavily favoring the Republicans, Democrats increasingly have their work cut out for them to save control even of the Senate.
Add to that the possibility that one or even two senators currently in the Democratic column could flip to the Republican side if the GOP gets close to a takeover on Nov. 2. Let’s say the Republicans make a net gain of nine seats – one short of the 10 they need for a majority. Speculation will then immediately turn to Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, a conservative Democrat from a red state who sometimes sides with the Republicans. Less likely but still conceivable as a party-switcher is Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats but is seen by some Democrats as not completely with the team.
If the Republicans get close to a majority and offer one or both of these senators a committee chairmanship, that could sweeten the deal.
“So you’ve got two on the Democratic side you’ve got to worry about,” says Peter Fenn, a Democratic communications strategist.
Senator Lieberman already chairs a committee for the Democrats – Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs – but in politics, there are no guarantees. The Democrats still have to wonder if they might lose him under certain circumstances.
What’s more, it’s looking increasingly possible, though still not likely, that the Republicans could take over the Senate without the help of party-switchers. In the event of a tsunami-size wave of voter discontent, the Democrats’ large majorities in both houses – 59 to 41 in the Senate, 256 to 178 (and one vacancy) in the House – could easily be swept away. Typically, Senate races are not as vulnerable to the national mood as House races, but in this cycle, Republicans believe they could be.
A survey by Republican pollster Glen Bolger released Tuesday shows that in 13 states with competitive Senate races, the Republican candidates are leading on average by a margin of 47 to 39 percent. Candidates’ names were used in the poll (except in the few states with primaries pending), so it was not a generic test. In the eight seats currently held by Democrats – Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Washington –the Republican leads by an average of seven percentage points. In the five Republican seats – Florida, Kentucky,
Missouri, New Hampshire, and Ohio – the GOP lead is eight points.
The poll was commissioned by American Crossroads, an outside Republican group that is fundraising to help GOP candidates.
“Senate races across the country appear to be drawn into the same national vortex that is impacting House races, as an earlier battleground survey that was conducted by Glen Bolger and others demonstrated fairly clearly back in June,” Steven Law, president of American Crossroads, said in a conference call Tuesday.
With 1,300 voters surveyed across 13 states, the sample size was not large enough for individual state results to hold credibility. But the larger trend in favor of Republicans taken as a whole is unmistakable. Independents are backing Republicans in these 13 states by a margin of 47 to 25 percent. And in a sign of a significant enthusiasm gap, “high-intensity voters” support Republicans by a 52-to-36 margin.
Still, there are almost three months to go before Election Day. The national mood is not likely to change, but developments could alter the dynamic in individual races. And Republicans are guarded about not raising expectations to unreasonably high levels, in which anything less than a full takeover of both houses of Congress is seen as a failure.
“A Senate takeover is just a possibility, it’s not a given,” said Mr. Law.
By Linda Feldmann
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)