Two articles in the Washingon Post today raise the possibility that George Allen - and possibly other Republicans in Virginia this year - could be dragged down by the widespread, intense unpopularity of George W. Bush. The first article, "Anger at Bush May Hurt GOP At Polls: Turnout Could Favor Democrats," notes that the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll indicates a whopping 47% of voters STRONGLY disapproving of President Bush. In contrast, only 20% strongly approve. And, as Republican pollster Glenn Bolger points out, "Angry voters turn out and vote their anger." The article further points out that:
The intense opposition to Bush is larger than any faced by Clinton. For all the polarization the 42nd president inspired, Clinton's strong disapproval never got above 37 percent in Post-ABC polls during his presidency.
Rahm Emanuel, who leads the Democratic Party's effort to take back the House this year, adds that "In a midterm election, motivation is the biggest factor." And boy, are Democrats motivated!
The questions are: a) will this anger last through Election Day; and b) will it translate into 1994-level gains for Democrats. If "a" and "b" are correct, then people like George Allen could be in big trouble, especially if Democrats are smart enough to nominate super-strong candidates like Jim Webb. Let's hope they are!
Meanwhile, another article in today's Post - an op-ed, actually - postulates that America is turning "pink" or even "powder blue" politicall, as President Bush's popularity takes a steep and sustained nosedive into oblivion. According to the article's author, Richard Morin:
States that were once reliably red are turning pink. Some are no longer red but a sort of powder blue. In fact, a solid majority of residents in states that President Bush carried in 2004 now disapprove of the job he is doing as president. Views of the GOP have also soured in those Republican red states.
Morin proceeds to analyze poll numbers indicating that President Bush is losing popularity even in states like Utah which went overwhelmingly for him in 2004. And the "blue" states are now "a deeper, bolder and angrier blue." You can see it in the polls, and you can see it in the blogs. The amount of energy on the angry, even enraged "blue" team is far higher today than on the demoralized, uncertain "red" team. Even old "red meat" standbys like "marriage amendments" and other such cynical malarky are not sufficient this year to motivate the Republican "base."
Will all this translate into big losses for Republicans this November, including George Allen - and Thelma Drake, and Jo Ann Davis, and possibly even Tom Davis, Virgil Goode, etc? Hard to say, but as Morin points out:
Closer to home, Bush easily carried Virginia, by eight percentage points, two years ago. But a Post survey two weeks before last November's gubernatorial election found that Bush's job approval rating among likely voters in the commonwealth had fallen to 44 percent, while 55 percent disapproved of his performance.That's one big reason Republican gubernatorial candidate Jerry Kilgore behaved so oddly toward Bush late in his campaign last year, first deciding to be conspicuously absent when the president came calling in Norfolk only to invite him to a big election-eve rally a week later. The president may expect similar ambivalence from GOP office-seekers in tight races as this year's campaign unfolds.
Today, we've got Republican "culture of corruption" incumbents like George Allen, Thelma Drake, Virgil Goode, Eric Cantor, Jo Ann Davis, and Tom Davis who are even MORE closely tied to George W. Bush than Jerry W. Kilgore ever was. I mean, Kilgore was bad enough, but he wasn't in Congress the past 6 years. In contrast, Allen, Drake, Goode, Cantor, Davis and Davis have been largely rubber stamps for Bush during that period - and we've seen the results (Iraq, Katrina, budget deficits, scandal).
The bottom line here is that if you are one of the 20% who feel strongly about Bush in a POSITIVE way, you should DEFINITELY vote for Allen, Drake et al. If, on the other hand, you are one of the 47% who are strongly NEGATIVE towards Bush, you should vote to throw all his "mini-me's" out the door. If that happens, we could very well see "red" Republicans singing the "blues" this election night. And Democrats could be feeling very much "in the pink!"
I have met Harris Miller. He seems extremely nice. However, I do not think he can overcome his record as a lobbyist, indeed the tag his occupation gives him in brief references.
Jim Webb may have a trail of statements made because he is a widely-read author, statements that can be taken out of context like the foolish charge that he is "anti-affirmative-action." Harris Miller's problem is not limited to words. He has a record of opposing amendments and bills in Congress that would protect workers' rights, make it harder to ship tech industry jobs overseas, and limit visas for foreign tech workers coming to America to work for much lower wages. He even testified in favor of the Bush administration bill to limit overtime for working Americans. Where are the Democratic Party positions for this man? Sometimes, he makes the DLC seem worker-friendly!
Twice now, I have seen both men referred to with photos in The Roanoke Times. On each occasion, Miller was identified as "a former lobbyist." Webb was identified as "former secretary of the navy." If you were a person voting, who would you think was the better of the two? After all, the tags for the men are absolutely accurate.
That should make Miller's problems glaringly obvious in a year where Republicans are tied to Jack Abramoff, likewise identified as "lobbyist," albeit one under indictment.
There was a video of this at crooksandliars.com for a while. Apparently, it was part of a newscast and the way it was edited was hilarious. Bush talked about his trip to South America with his wife and how romantic it was. Then there was cut to rioters burning the US flag.
The bottom line is this. If Kilgore's campaign was ailing before Bush's visit, it was DOA afterward. After that fear began to spread among Republican lawmakers that Bush would show up at local campaigns in this condition. Allen has to be worried about this.
Why, oh why, when there are so many issues of substance, policy and character to discuss, would somebody bring up such foolishness and, in so doing, make the loyal opposition look like kooks? We can do so much better.
Are you a mole?
Only one third of alcoholics who go to AA and get treatment recover. That means two thirds relapse, and that is WITH treatment.
Go watch this thing. Either he is wrecked or he hasn't slept in 48 hours. You need to watch it at least twice to get the full flavor of the slurring, inappropriate syntax, the appearance of the eyes, the halting walking co-ordination when he moves down the stage and stops only to find Kilgore about 10-12' away. Yep, if a cop pulled over a guy like this, he'd likely be asked to step out of the vehicle and do a few field sobriety tests.
Democrats need to nationalize this election and make it a referendum on Bush and the Republican party.
Give the people a clear goal and a good candidate to vote for and we WILL take back Congress this year.