On the NewsHour last night, Republican David Brooks and Democrat Mark Shields ran down their lists of "winners" and "losers" during 2005. Aside from leaving out three of the biggest winners - Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, Virginia Gov.-elect Tim Kaine, and the little website that "blogged Tim Kaine into the governor's mansion" (ha ha, just kidding!) - I thought they made some interesting points. In particular, David Brooks was scathing on his own Republican Party:
DAVID BROOKS: I have a small group of losers, being the Republicans and Democrats. The Republicans, the biggest loser in part because of the failures of Social Security, in part because of the drift, in part because of the sleaze that is encompassing. It has been just a horrible year for the party.I would say the Democrats have failed to take advantage of that and really hurt themselves in the last month with the NSA scandal and with the desire to, on some of the people, including Nancy Pelosi, to withdraw from Iraq. I think that is a long-term loser because their biggest problem on a national level is are they weak on national security, and I think in the past month they have underlined that, which is not to say the Republican Party is not a much, much, much bigger loser than the Democratic Party this year.
Will 2006 get any better for Republicans? Not likely, according to Brooks, thanks in large part to indicted former Republican lobbyist, Jack Abramoff:
I think there is an expectation there will be a lot of members of Congress or at least several members of Congress. Here is a guy who dragged candy canes through the halls of Congress, bent the rules and broke the rules. The expectation is there are a fair number of people who grabbed those candy canes.And the other thing I would just like to say is that there is also a few people in the executive branch, there are also people in the activist community --Glover Norquist was a college Republican friend of his, Ralph Reid, there are some columnists who have already been found to have accepted money from him.
Oh, and for those of you who think that the Abramoff corruption scandal touches Democrats and Republicans alike, that "they all do it," and that - as President Bush said the other day - Abramoff was an "equal money distributor" (that's a blatant lie...yet another from a guy who seems incapable of telling the truth on ANYTHING), try this from Mark Shields:
...Jack Abramoff was a Bush pioneer having raised 100,000 for the president's reelection by mid 2003, and upwards of six figures in personal contributions, he never gave a dime to a Democrat.So this is a Republican problem. And David's right, I mean the Ralph Reed thing affects the lieutenant governor's race in Georgia; Grover Norquist has been an organizing force for the conservative kind of coalition in this town. I mean, there's a lot of people who are uncomfortable tonight.
Next, Brooks and Shields were asked about George W. Bush's presidency as he ends 2005 - just one year after being inaugurated for his second term on a high note of popularity and optimism. First, Mark Shields:
George Bush is happy to have 2005 over. It's not been a good year for him. He has spoke of his political capital when he began the year; it was expended in a feckless and fruitless attempt to change the one policy, the one program in America that has never bounced a check, never missed a payday, Social Security that saved Americans, a lot of Americans from insecurity. And he never really got his stride.[...]
Voters do not find him as honest, as strong and as decisive as they had. And the questions of his honesty dogged him as he's tried to defend his policy in Iraq.
Now, David Brooks:
I give Bush a C minus D+ for the year and I'd rate him non-F because I think he has been stubborn on the war, and properly stubborn.
Not good.
Finally, in the interest of being "fair and balanced," let me quote Mark Shields - one of my favorite political analysts of all time - on my party, the Democratic Party:
I'm disappointed in the Democrats. They are running ten points ahead of the Republicans in the four major nonpartisan polls held in December for 2006. But I think they missed the chance. I think they missed a golden opportunity. It's still there.But in the midst of this sea of sleaze not to become the reform party, Tom Allen of Maine, Barney Frank of Massachusetts, Dave Obey of Wisconsin, and Dave Price of North Carolina, introduced a reform package, a very straightforward reform package, no more room, board and tuition from Jack Abramoff or any other lobbyists, no lobbying by former members on the floor during votes or anything of the sort - I mean, just kind of straightforward things.
And the fact that the party has not embraced it and made it its own and become the reform party tells you something that there is something missing there in the Democrats.
In sum, the Democrats were big losers in 2005. The Republicans were far BIGGER losers in 2005. And, of course, the American people were the biggest losers last year (unless you're a multi-millionaire, of course). Luckily, here in Virginia, we beat back a man (Jerry W. Kilgore) who would have been an utter disaster as Governor and elected Mark Warner's loyal lieutenant, Tim Kaine, to lead us the next 4 years. However, in the rest of the country, things didn't look too good in 2005 politically or economically (check out the end-of-year stock market indices...blech!). And for that, I blame the Republicans first and foremost, since they control all three branches of government. Frankly, they've got no excuses and nobody to blame but themselves.
It will be fascinating to see whether or not the Republican Party goes to complete meltdown in 2006 when Jack Abramoff, Michael Scanlon and other members of "Team Abramoff" start squealing (as early as this coming Tuesday). However, if Democrats think they can just sit back, relax, and watch the Republicans self-immolate, I think they're making a terrible mistake. Instead, I believe it's high time for the Democrats to seize the mantle of reform (starting with COMPREHENSIVE LOBBYING REFORM), of Progressivism (think Teddy Roosevelt, JFK, RFK), and of Populism (as in John Edwards' "Two Americas" speech). If they do that, the Democrats can become the majority American Party for years to come. If not, they will have squandered the opportunity of a generation to turn the tide of Conservativism once and for all. I sure hope the Democrats make the right choice.