With President Bush's approval ratings below 40%, and the Congress' approval ratings in that neighborhood as well, Congressional Republicans are going back to the well they're always going to - pushing the emotional buttons of their followers over irrelevant issues that don't have any effect on them whatsoever. The AP reports that their plan is to go for votes on two constitutional amendments this summer, one on flag burning - *yawn*, stop me if you've heard this before - and one on gay marriage. Because God knows that stopping flag burning is an important issue. And all hell will break loose if the gay couple down the street gets to have a wedding.
And the fact is that they've got a serious problem to be worried about, as another AP article details:
An AP-Ipsos poll this month found that just 30 percent of the public approves of the job performance of the GOP-led Congress. By a 49-33 margin, the public favored Democrats over Republicans when asked which party should control Congress. That was the largest margin the Democrats have enjoyed in AP-Ipsos polling.
Personally, I don't want either major party in charge, but since realistically one of them is going to be, I at least want divided government. Having one party in control of both the Presidency and the Congress is the worst possible option. If the Democrats had been in charge of just one chamber of the Congress, that Medicare prescription bill boondoggle that is going to cost us hundreds of billions of dollars would never have even made it out of committee, much less passed.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
I cannot remember the exact numbers but polls are clear that the public is not behind a constitutional definition of marriage. And I am pretty sure that taking up a ban on flag burining will have an adverse effect on their attempt to raise their numbers.
I have been hearing a lot of rhetoric about the need for the dems to take "our" government "back." That is usually said in the same breath that claims they will push for publicly financed campaigns. While I think that public financing of campaigns would be a great way to eventually break the republicratic stranglehold on our democracy, I am pretty certain they won't push for it, because it would break their part of the stranglehold on our democracy.
I'm with Ed on this one. I want the government divided. There needs to be checks and balances and right now I see little of it.
What? Not fall back on the old emotional ploy: "the terrorists will kill you and your family if you elect the Democrats"?
The Republicans are losing their edge.
While it would likely help the country to have the Democrats take control of congress, I doubt that it will happen. Americans rate Congress low, they have for generations giving it its status as "most reviled branch." The problem is, while they dislike congress as a group, they continue to reelect their congressmen at ridiculous rates. Over the last 50 years the reelection rate for incumbants is over 90%, approaching 95% over the last few years. The Democrats need 6 seats in the Senate (without losing any), and 16 seats in the house without losing any. The numbers are thus:
Senate: 55-44-1
9 Democatic seats are considered potential seats for change, 8 of them are leaning Democrats, one is a tossup.
6 Republican seats are considered potential seats for change, 3 of them are leaning Republican, 3 of them are considered toss ups.
1 independent seat is leaning Democrat.
That means, best case scenario the Democrats are likely to gain 4 seats. Leaves the Senate in Republican control 52-48.
In the house there is a similar picture. The House is 231-201-1 (with 2 vacant seats)
There are 19 Republican seats open and 9 Democratic seats open with an open Independent. One of those seats is actually more likely to stay Republican than it would have had its incumbant not retired (Delay). Because of Gerrymandering, unequal funding, and the ability of congressmen to use their office staff as part of their reelection campaign, it's unlikely that the Democrats will gain control of either house.
I'm not sure who you're counting among Democratic Senate seats that are potentially changeable, but you should also be counting Joe Lieberman (CT). He's facing a primary challenge this year that's a bit of a toss-up. I happen to be from CT and greatly prefer the challenger (Ned Lamont), but I have extremely little faith that he would win the general election as Lieberman enjoys huge support among CT Republicans. It seems he'd be willing to change party affiliation to Independent and if he did so, he could win, and we'd end up with another Independent in the Senate. Just one more thing to take into account...
Sure, flag burning and homosexuality aren't -by themselves- issues, but what about sin synergy? (Sinergy for short.) It's like when you take two drugs at once, and go nuts. Seriously, can you -imagine- a world where gay men burn flags?
It's fairly evident that the Republicans are trying to distract voters' attention away from Bush's Iraq debacle. That's the obvious point of their beating on the illegal immigration issue, which has been around since before Bush was in office (and which they have done nothing about. And it's the obvious point of their beating on the flag desecration and marriage issues.
The irony about the flag desecration issue is that most of the US flags are made in China.
A few quickies.
+ This assumes the other issues Republicans run on aren't emotional ones.
+ That the Democrats are capable of capitalizing on the opportunity.
+ Divided government is preferable, but Repubs successfully rebranded the last ones as Demo screw-ups/ do-nothing/ grid-locked. The governator tried the same, except surprisingly his initiative election campaign last year was ill-conceived and ill-executed, like, er, well, the Democrats.
Imnimo
My sources say Ed has it wrong. Actually, the Repubs will only propose one amendment, making flag burning a felony only for gay couples desiring to be married. There was an internal party power struggle over this. The losing side wanted an amendment that would allow gays to marry, but require every ceremony include a flag burning, which would send the newlyweds of to fed penitentiary, separate quarters required, for 5-to-10. That way, proponents argued, "We could get all those anti-family, anti-flag, deceitfully pro-marriage fags at once." Ultimately the psychomarketers nixed it.
According to my sources, that is.
raj
My sources also tell me to expect a Republican call for tax incentives to revitalize the American American flag manufacturing sector.
James Dobson is certainly doing his part--foaming at the mouth this morning on his radio show, complaining about the California State Government passing a bill requiring public school curricula to acknowledge the contributions to society of gays, lesbians, and transexuals. (I somehow doubt it's a simple as that, but that's the way he put it.)
Being typical Dobson, this comes as no surprise, but then he couldn't resist a swipe at all the pastors who recently lined up behind the issue of threat of global warming, saying they should not be wasting their time with something that might not happen when the homosexuals are taking over the country (or words to that effect).
Pathetic.
My sources also tell me to expect a Republican call for tax incentives to revitalize the American American flag manufacturing sector.
I'm pretty sure there isn't such a sector any more. I fear all teh American flags are now made in China. . .
They always play the heart against the head.