Lately when we see Democrats leading Republicans in polls, it usually has to do with this year's midterm elections. But in , most Americans want a Democrat, not a Republican, in the White House in 2008:
"Now thinking ahead to the next presidential election in November 2008: In general, would you rather see a Republican or a Democrat elected as our next president in 2008?"
Republican - 31% Democrat - 50% Other Party - 2% Unsure - 17%
However, in almost every head-to-head match-up poll, John McCain beats every Democrat. Interesting how these polls often contradict one another.
Being that Democrats learned how the Clinton impeachment scandal backfired on Republicans, House Democratic Leader that impeaching President Bush is completely off the table:
Seeking to choke off a Republican rallying cry, the House's topDemocrat has told colleagues that the party will not seek to impeachPresident Bush even if it gains control of the House in November'selections, her office said last night.
Minority Leader NancyPelosi (Calif.) told her caucus members during their weekly closedmeeting Wednesday "that impeachment is off the table; she is notinterested in pursuing it," spokesman Brendan Daly said.
Some House Democrats, including ranking Judiciary Committee member JohnConyers Jr. of Michigan, have called for impeachment hearings intoallegations that Bush misled the nation about Iraq's alleged weapons ofmass destruction and that he violated federal law by approvingwarrantless wiretaps on Americans. In an interview with The WashingtonPost last week, Pelosi said a Democratic-controlled House would launchinvestigations of the administration on energy policy and othermatters. She said impeachment would not be a goal of theinvestigations, but she added: "You never know where it leads to."
I am sure that many progressive bloggers would disagree with me on this, but the Democrats cannot have this impeachment cloud hanging over their shoulders. The Republicans know that if they paint this scary scenario of the Democrats trying to impeach Mr. Bush if they win control of the House that it will hurt the Democrats this November. It is not a smart strategy for the Democrats to pursue impeachment. So by taking it off the table now, we're making this something that the Republicans cannot use as a weapon this campaign season.
Even taking this one step further, I am not thoroughly convinced that President committed an impeachable offense anyway. Maybe years from now we could find out that he did. But as of now, there is not irrefutable evidence supporting the claims of some on the fringe left. Of course, this does not mean that if the Democrats take back the House that they should not hold hearings. They should. We need to know how each dime was spent by the Pentagon in Iraq, especially with regard to military contractors. Second, we need to know more about what brought us to war in the first place. Third, we need to investigate the oil companies, and reveal the truth behind Cheney's secret meeting with oil company executives to craft the Administration's energy policy in 2002. Making this year's campaign about a promise to investigate the Administration, not to impeach its leader, is the better way to go.
Pelosi may have bombed on Meet the Press last week, but she is right about this strategy.
Newsweek's Howard Fineman released his weekly column today, and pretty much about the ugly-looking war that will be waged this November. As Fineman explained, "This fall's election season is going to make the past three look like episodes of 'Barney.'" :
The way I read the recent moves of Karl Rove & Co., they arepreparing to wage war the only way open to them: not by touting GeorgeBush, Lord knows, but by waging a national campaign to paint anightmarish picture of what a Democratic Congress would look like, andto portray that possibility, in turn, as prelude to the even morenightmarish scenario: the return of a Democrat (Hillary) to the WhiteHouse.
Rather than defend Bush, Rove will seek to rally the Republicans’conservative grassroots by painting Democrats as the party of taxincreases, gay marriage, secularism and military weakness. That’s wherethe national message money is going to be spent.
The Democrats need to be prepared to defend themselves against this GOP strategy -- and it does not start by sitting on the sidelines as they have. Independent voters usually do not vote for change unless they have an alternative. While the Democrats clearly do have an alternative, as on last Sunday's "Meet the Press", it has yet to be properly articulated. What we need are three or four stars of the Democratic Party to be the ones that will champion our message all over the nation. If the Democrats were really thinking with their heads, they would choose Barack Obama to lead that effort.
In the Monday morning edition of the New York Times, is to scare voters by warning them that if Democrats take majority in the House and Senate, legislators like Representative John Conyers and Senator Patrick Leahy will bog down the legislative branch of government with hearing after hearing -- amounting to nothing getting done:
White House and Republican officials, trying to turn vulnerabilityto advantage, say conservatives could be united and re-energized by thepossibility that Democrats could put Mr. Bush and his policies onpolitical trial by winning control of even one chamber of Congress.
SenateRepublicans sent out a fund-raising letter this week seeking to usethat possibility to fire up the base, warning that a Democraticmajority would put fighting terrorism "on the back burner" and that"our worst fears" could be realized.
The appeal is just oneindication of how hard the White House and its Republican allies arelikely to fight from now through Nov. 7 and of the challenge Mr. Rovefaces in what could be the last campaign he orchestrates with theparty.
In the past, the Democrats have been weak in responding to attacks like this. When the swift boaters attacked John Kerry through negative television and radio ads, the Democrats rolled over and played dead until rhetoric like that destroyed their White House chances. We cannot let the same sort of scare tactics ruin our chances with the legislative branch.
Instead of dodging the question, Democrats ought to use their persuasive skills for a change. Nancy Pelosi had that problem on Sunday's Meet the Press. When asked whether Democrats will use subpoena power and increase the negative Congressional partisanship if they became a majority, .
If Russert asked me that question, this is how I would probably respond:
"In any ways, American families and Democrats have had a lot in common over the last several years: we have been out of the loop on Iraq. We have been out of the loop on the secret meetings that Vice President Cheney had with his oil company friends to help craft the White House's bad energy policy. We have been out of the loop about the reasoning behind the Republicans' failing Medicare strategy. Democrats, like all American families, want answers. And yes, we will hold hearings, not to impeach the President. We will hold hearings because the American people deserve to be in the loop about how their government spends their money. A vote for the Democrats in November is a vote for full disclosure, because only when we get the truth can we make adjustmentsand build towards the future."
Hillary Clinton and John Kerry are polar opposites these days. John Kerry leads every other potential 2008 Democratic candidate in donations, :
Since losing to President Bush, Kerry’s political action committee,Keeping America’s Promise, has given about $1.2 million to candidates,far more than the leadership PACs of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton(D-N.Y.), former Senator and Kerry’s 2004 vice presidential runningmate John Edwards (D-N.C.), Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), or any of theother potential White House hopefuls.
Usinghis federal campaign account, his old presidential primary account andhis e-mail list, Kerry has donated, raised or helped Democrats collectmore than $7.5 million since November 2004.
“Give me five moreJohn Kerry’s,†says Democratic Congressional Campaign CommitteeChairman Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.). “He’s a fighter, and he puts his moneywhere his mouth is.â€
Please tell me something: why is it that in the first quarter of 2006, yet Senator Kerry has donated more money than Hillary to other candidates? There is something wrong with that! 60% of all the money Kerry has raised through his PAC has been distributed away to help other Democrats. Now there's a team player! I wish Hillary would learn from him.
A few of the 2008 Democratic potentials are in the news:
Mark Warner is in the Middle East right now as he continues a week-long schedule of policy briefings with leaders in the region. , Warner met with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, and will fly to and Lebanon and Jordan to get briefed by the leaders of those countries as well.
Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack is backing a $50 million water quality campaign in his state, . This will be a difficult challenge for him because the Republicans hold control in the state House. "This is a watershed moment for the environment," Vilsack said.
, 2008 presidential hopeful Evan Bayh explained what he thought Democrats need to do if they intend to win the presidency the next time around: "We need to make this election a referendum on the future of thecountry. What it's going to take to make that future what it ought tobe for the middle class in America. That's going to involve growing theeconomy. Restoring our finances. Improving our energy situation andproviding security for this country in a way that is both tough andsmart. We also need to reach out to people in the Midwest andthe South and let them know that we are not cultural elitists. We sharetheir values."
In other campaign news, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and John Kerry round out for the Democratic nomination:
Listed as the favorite by 37 percent of Democrats, Clinton leads bothmembers of the party’s 2004 ticket: Former Sen. John Edwards of NorthCarolina got 23 percent, while 19 percent said Sen. John Kerry ofMassachusetts should get a do-over.
And today, about how the Democrats might want to learn from the FDR nomination:
Democrats who today despair of finding a leader should take heart fromhow unpopular FDR was within the party before he became president. In1932, he was seen as weak and not especially bright, so unprincipledthat he was dubbed the "corkscrew candidate" for acting as if theshortest distance between two points was a corkscrew. He flip-floppedon the League of Nations and so straddled the Prohibition issue that hewas labeled neither a "wet" nor a "dry" but a "damp." All of the toppundits thought he was the worst possible candidate for the Democratsand a likely loser to Herbert Hoover. The New York delegation to the1932 Democratic Convention was so opposed to its own governor that hiscampaign manager, Jim Farley, couldn't even get a seat in thedelegation. (Can you imagine the same thing happening to Karl Rove inthe 2000 or 2004 Texas delegation?). When he was (barely) nominated forpresident on the fourth ballot, the galleries booed.
I guess FDR didn't turn out so bad! In other words, some of the most unpopular individuals within a party might sometimes hold a party's best answer to solving all of its problems.
are in for the Democratic primaries in 2008 -- and we know they don't mean anything yet:
"Now, suppose the 2008 Democratic presidential primary were being held today between Hillary Clinton and [see below], for whom would you vote?" If unsure: "Which way would you lean as of today?"
Hillary Clinton - 57%, John Kerry 30%, Unsure - 11%
Hillary Clinton - 52%, John Edwards - 33%, Unsure - 12%
Hillary Clinton - 66%, Mark Warner - 15%, Unsure - 17%
Hillary Clinton - 57%, Al Gore - 29%, Unsure - 12%
This poll was only given to registered Democrats.
You can pretty much bet that by the end of next year many more people will know who Mark Warner is.
The Democratic National Committee staged on Thursday as a "beauty contest." With the new Democratic Party rules going into effect, four states will be moved up near the top of the 2008 primary calendar. Two of the four will likely hold their contests for the Democratic presidential nominee sometime between the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire primary. The other two will go right after New Hampshire holds its primary. Because of the influence of Michigan Senator Carl Levin, the state of Michigan will probably be one of the four:
It was Levin's criticism that prompted the DNC to create acommission to study the calendar. That group made its recommendationslate last year, tossing the delicate issue to the DNC's Rules andBylaws Committee, which must make recommendations to the full DNCmembership and to DNC Chairman Howard Dean later this year.
Brewermade clear that Michigan will do almost anything to get one of theslots. Some states said they wanted to hold early caucuses; some saidthey want to stage early primaries. Brewer said Michigan will doeither. "You tell us where to go, and we will conform to therequirements," he said. Asked how many steps a Michigan caucus processwould include, he replied, "However many you need."
The problem with having a total of six states hold their primaries over only a two week period is the fact that it disproportionately benefits the candidates with the most money. The farther the states are located from one another, the more expensive air travel will be for the candidates. If it is the DNC's goal to give Hillary Clinton the nomination, then this primary schedule hands it to her on a silver platter.
I might be somewhat biased in saying this, but if I were in charge of the whole schedule I would leave the Northeast out of the picture for the first few weeks of primaries. No offense New Hampshire! Population statistics show that states like New Mexico, Arizona and Nevada are growing faster than any other region in the country. In 2004, -- many of them in those three states. With the Latino population growing fast, Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico are all going to be swing states and could determine who becomes the next commander-in-chief. I would hope that Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico will be strongly considered by the DNC as states that need to move up in the primary order.
Recent Comments