Running Against Congress

Harry Truman is famous for three things: using the atomic bomb against Japan; firing General Douglas MacArthur; and upsetting Thomas Dewey by running against a "do nothing" Congress. Thus far the Obama strategy is to propose "tax the rich" legislation which knows will fail, making no effort to find compromises - hopefully he won't resort to Truman's other highlights. Here are a few facts usually ignored in the main stream media's "anti-Congress" story line:

1. Currently 6% of likely voters rate the job being done by Congress as good or excellent; 68% view it as poor. That compares to favorability ratings in the low teens during the 2007-2010 period when Democrats controlled both houses. Bad ratings can mean "too conservative"; "too liberal"; "ineffective"; "corrupt" or all of the above. Whatever - a bad place to be in politics and a good target.

2. The media assumes that a low rating means an anti-Republican attitude, and that is clearly what the President wants. With the Republicans holding a 48 vote majority in the House and the Democrats holding a 6 vote majority in the Senate, the logic of blaming Republicans for gridlock breaks down. The reality is that voters prefer Republicans to Democrats for Congress by a 43 to 38% margin. Reasons are complex, but include personalities (Democratic leaders Pelosi and Reid are among the least liked politicians in the country) as well as policies, (in)effectiveness, and the President's rhetoric.

3. Those watching closely understand that the 2012 Republican budget proposal was defeated by the Senate which offered no alternative and has not passed a budget in almost three years. (They did vote down the President's proposal 97 - 0). They also understand that the Senate is currently sitting on 25 jobs-related bills passed by the House, most having to do with regulations and taxes. When the Republican candidate is selected, expect a clearer advocacy for popular conservative House measures.

Given the choice between running on his record (real unemployment; debt; "green energy" scandals; health care cost increases; ongoing anger about Wall Street; Iran; Israel; whatever) and running against a Congress with a 6% favorability rating, the decision is easy. (Unfortunately for Obama, "blame Bush" has reached its expiration date.) By trashing Congress, however, he hopes to attract all of the Democratic money and makes no effort to create Democratic legislative allies to help him actually govern. He makes no effort to align with Democratic incumbents.

- In the House the Democrats would need to gain 26 seats to put Pelosi back as speaker. Thus far they have had 17 announced retirements as compared to nine for the Republicans. (All nine of the Republicans are running for higher offices; eight of the Democrats are.) One can assume that Barney Frank would not retire if he thought that he could get his House Financial Services Committee Chairmanship back. Republican gains look likely.

- In the Senate there are currently 51 Democrats, 2 Independents (who vote Democratic), and 47 Republicans; thus the Republicans need to gain four seats to assume control. In this cycle the Democrats must defend 21 seats, the Independents two, and the Republicans ten. Six incumbent Democrats and two incumbent Republicans will not run. Analyses by left-leaning Charlie Cook and right-leaning Stu Rothenberg (the two gurus) show that the Republicans would have the necessary four gain if they take a few of the tossups. Neither party can reach a filibuster-proof 60 seats.

The Obama plan is simple: keep advocating tax increases on the rich which the public likes and the Republicans will refuse; keep the focus on the House rather than the Senate; suck up all of the Democratic contributions so that he can spend a billion dollars trashing whoever the Republicans nominate; get ready for four more years of golf. We can all support the golf.

-----

This week's video is a non-endorsement of Newt Gingrich by one of my heroes, Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.

bill bowen - 12/09/11

Comments

[Harrycat]

Again off point, but a situation that I hope will never become important. If it does the US might have a really big problem:

It is an central position for evangelicals and the Christian right that support for Israel be strong and unconditional. We have seen that in all of the debates. I believe some of this involves end-of-times theology.

There is some chance that Israel will make a pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuclear capacity. There certainly is an element within Israel that would support a unilateral strike. What would Iran do in return? What would any nation do in return?

The problem then is escalation involving perhaps all the middle east and areas beyond. If the US is seen as unconditionally supporting Israel's strike then the world becomes a very dangerous place for us. What would Russia do? What would China do? Very dangerous indeed.

The certainty of support for Israel under any condition shown by the debaters could get us in very serious situation. But how should the US feel about unconditional support for Israel? Certainly Iran poses an existential threat to Israel, but, also certainly, not to us. Can we be allowed to tie ourselves to Israel at that level.

If the debaters were taken at face value by either Israel or Iran, and one of them were elected President, there is potential for great harm through miscalculation. The likelihood of any if this happening is small, but the downside of mistakes by us or others is huge.

I support Israel. I am sure that Israel should continue to exist. But the debaters can give me shivers in their support of Israel at any cost.

[DickG]

AlB.: Thanks; that is pretty astounding, to say the least! Researching the 'Intermediary' (if one existed)would be interesting. As these Lefty 'Players' come to light; a common 'thread' starts to surface. I think the Country has absorbed all of the stellar Harvard types it can handle.

[Al B]

Hello, Dick G. My understanding is that Soros money was on the other side of MF Global's miscalculations on Europe. That made sense because Soros is a real smart dude having special expertise in relative currency valuations. If I gave the impression I hold that against him, I do not. It is the capitalist way. It is ironic, however, that Soros has a world view that government beaurocrats would do a better job of running a world economy. I did not think of fact checking Soros role, which might be hard to do. It made sense when I heard it on radio, specific news source forgotten, but it was not a commentator (i.e., not Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Savage,et al). I also am reasonably certain that it was not Rachael Maddow or Chris Matthews.

PS: Do you think that Corzine will get a pass til after the election? There is some similarity to the stalled pipeline?

[DickG]

SOROS CONNECTION; Al, what was the connection that Soros profited by ? I've been listening to Corzines testimony and he's pulled the 'Clinton card'; "I can't remember". Three hours wasted.

[Al B.]

Please forgive 2 off-subject questions that baffle me:

1. Why does MSM characterize Jon Corzine's involvement with the MF Global bankruptcy and missing billions as being "tragic"? Isn't this the same Jon Corzine who cosponsored Sarbanes/Oxley responsibility of CEOs and CFOs for financial performance of their company? Isn't this the same Jon Corzine who was CEO of Goldman Sachs? Isn't George Soros the $2 Billion profiteer of Corzine's "tragedy"? Is Global MF going to get bailed out by Geitner as being "too large to fail"? Will our illustrious Attorney General turn a blind eye to prosecution? And, will our President pretend that nothing happened? Cannot easily blame this one on Bush/Cheney/Rove. So MSM and the Obama Administration will pretend that it did not happen?

2. Bill M.--You seem to have some insights on Harry Reid's thinking. And, thank you for your favorable comment on my earlier post. Do you have any explanation for his successful opposition to nuclear power? Obama opposes the Canadian oil pipeline and recovery of natural gas by fracturing rock strata,coal generation of power, oil recovery in Alaska/Gulf/USA mainland,
hydroelectric, etc. The only politically "viable" energy sources seem to be solar (oops, Solyndra just lost the taxpayer billions) and wind turbines (closed down on Cape Cod because they made too much noise). In your opinion, do Reid or the administration have a viable vision of an energy source for the next 20 year transiton period in the USA?

Al B.

[DickG]

"FAILURE IN NOV. IS NOT AN OPTION": One 'look' at Sen. Tom Coburn, Mr. 'NUTS & BOLTS' of the Senate,you realize it can't be Newt G. In fact we may not have the luxury of waiting for Nov.. If they can get Holder Impeached; then double down. Fraudulent incompetance should never have been allowed to stand this long.
The Europeans are further from a German agreement. The future of the 'EURO' in doubt. Germany's Standard of Living may not be as dependent on Western Europe as people think. To complicate matters, a German 'Bond Auction' failed recently.
The 'US' needs a 'Special Representative', like Irskine Bolles ,and/or the former Comptroller General to represent the Country in future discussions.