I'm just the guy that can't stand cant. ___________

 
I have never thought much of most reporting on election campaigns. Such pieces tend to be shallow in their analysis and do little more than repeat conventional wisdom, cite a few scattered polls and throw in a jumbled historical reference. Exhibit A is today's Washington Post piece on the midterm Congressional elections. Claiming that "September has seen Republican prospects brighten," the Post summarizes the election as follows:

Democrats face an uphill battle to recapture control of the House in November's midterm elections, while Republicans have marginally improved their position in what remains a tense and wide-open fight for control of the Senate, according to party strategists, independent analysts and current polls.

As backup for this sweeping statement, the Post describes a few races considered to be tossups and quotes independent analysts Stuart Rothenberg and the Cook Report. However, the article simply ignores recent national polls indicating that Democratic Congressional candidates have actually gained ground in recent weeks. The Post even ignores its own recent poll which found that Americans polled Sept. 23 to 26 preferred Democrats for the U.S. House by a margin of 46 to 42 percent, a turnaround from that poll's results earlier this month, which Republicans led by a 49 to 41 percent margin. Similarly, the most recent Newsweek Poll found Democrats gaining ground and leading among registered voters polled Sept. 26 to 27 by a margin of 47 to 40 percent. The Post article would have been more substantive if it had at least attempted to analyze the midterm elections in light of these poll results showing Democrats gaining support.

The Post article's attempt to look at the Big Picture of historical election results was even more inept. For its historical overview, the Post stated:

One thing is certain: One party or the other will defy history's odds in House races. The party in control of the White House usually loses seats in midterm elections, but no party has gained seats since Republicans did it in the early part of the 20th century and Democrats gained in each of the last three.

The Post is simply wrong on its history. Not only did the Democrats gain House seats in the midterm elections of 1998 and 1934 while in control of the White House, but the Republicans have never gained House seats in any midterm election in which they controlled the White House.
posted by Gary at 12:08 PM

 
While I have not seen any polls on the subject, I would wager that the majority of Americans have never thought of Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) as a latter-day FDR. In fact, I confess that I had never thought of FDR and Congressman Tom Tancredo as having much in common. Until today that is.

Just as FDR broke the two-term tradition for presidents as America faced entry into World War II, so is Congressman Tom Tancredo breaking his two-term pledge for the safety of the nation as it faces the war on terrorism. As reported by the Washington Post:

Citing an ongoing "threat" to the nation, Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) said today he will no longer be bound by his pledge to limit himself to three terms.

....

"It is my deeply held, and now tremendously reinforced, belief that our nation is confronted with a physical, spiritual and philosophical threat that will require every ounce of our individual effort in its defense," Tancredo said.

I know that I speak for many Americans when I say I will sleep more soundly at night knowing that Congressman Tom Tancredo will continue to watch over the nation's security.

For those of you who think this is a cheap shot, you're wrong. I have long opposed term limits as fundamentally anti-democratic and have considered most term limits proponents who run for office to be hypocrites. The term limits movement of the 1990s was primarily a cynical ploy by Republicans whose views on the desirability of term limits "evolved" after they captured Congress and were faced with the prospect of term limits applying to them as well. I believe it is the patriotic duty of all Americans to ridicule term limits proponents who "selflessly" decide to break their pledges for the good of the country.
posted by Gary at 9:57 AM

 
Republicans are shocked, shocked (channeling Claude Raines in Casablanca) that Senator Daschle has interpreted President Bush's remarks that the Democratic controlled Senate is "not interested in the security of the American people" as a slur on the Democrats' patriotism. Expressing surprise that anyone would interpret Bush's statements as being negative:

The White House and Republicans insisted that the president's criticisms addressed just the fight over labor regulations that has stalled legislation for the proposed [Homeland Security] department, not Iraq policy.

In other words, Bush is only claiming that Democratic Senators are "not interested" in protecting Americans from terrorism on American soil, not that they are not interested in protecting America from Iraq. That's their defense of Bush's slurs on Democrats' patriotism?!

At times like these, I wonder if the Bush administration even bothers to think about what it is actually saying. I guess it's unrealistic to hope that Bush and his administration will listen to substantive critiques of their policies when they apparently don't even listen to what they themselves are saying.

Daschle is right. This is outrageous.
posted by Gary at 10:38 AM

 
While the Bush administration has probably been praying for economic news that would divert attention away from the plunging stock market, I don't think yesterday's Census Bureau report on poverty is quite what they were wishing for. Not only did the Bureau find that the poverty rate increased significantly last year, but it also found that middle-class incomes fell for the first time since the last recession ended, in 1991.

Not only is poverty up, however, but the gap between the rich and poor is growing. While the average income of Americans in most income brackets decreased or stayed about the same last year, the average income of the richest five percent of households rose by $1,000 last year, to $260,464. According to the Census Bureau, the richest fifth of Americans received half of total household income last year, up from 45 percent in 1985. The poorest fifth received 3.5 percent of all household income, down from 4 percent in 1985. The middle 60 percent of Americans saw their share of total household income decrease from 51 percent in 1985 to 46.5 percent in 2001. This income inequality will only worsen in future years as the Bush tax cuts are phased in with their inordinate benefits to the richest five percent of Americans.

At least Bush didn't respond to this bad economic news with a Hooveresque statement that prosperity is just around the corner. Or did he? Bush reacted to the report with a sunny comment: "When you combine the productivity of the American people with low interest rates and low inflation, those are the ingredients for growth." Thank goodness -- I was afraid Bush didn't have a plan to address our economic problems. Well, at least he didn't propose cutting the capital gains tax (widely reported to be about the only new economic initiative being contemplated by the Bush administration) as a way of fighting poverty. (We'll have to wait until after the midterm election for that proposal and the push to privatize Social Security.)
posted by Gary at 9:29 AM

 
I think the New York Times did a fairly good job of summarizing (though a bit too summarily) Gore's speech on Iraq yesterday. The New York Times piece went overboard in its analysis, however. The Times wrote:

His appearance here suggested a shift in positioning by Mr. Gore, who has for 10 years portrayed himself as a moderate, particularly when it comes to issues of foreign policy, and repeatedly invoked his 1991 vote on the gulf war resolution as a way of distinguishing himself from the rest of his party.

The Times gave no explanation how Gore's position is in any way inconsistent with his previous foreign policy positions or "immoderate." I have trouble recalling (sarcasm alert) exactly when Gore previously took the position that the American President should have a blank check to invade Iraq. Gore did not retreat from, or modify, his support for "regime change" in Iraq. There is nothing inconsistent about Gore's position that "regime change" is a secondary objective that should not derail our primary objective of fighting the war on terrorism. There is also nothing immoderate about Gore's position, unless one defines "moderation" as supporting each swing in the Bush Administration's foreign policy.

Not surprisingly, the GOP lived up to my prediction of yesterday that rather than engage Gore on the substance of his speech, it would engage in "ad hominem GOP attacks on the irrelevancy of Gore and boasts about how the country is behind the President in his war on evil." As the Times reported, Jim Dyke, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, stated "It seems to be a speech that was more appropriate for a political hack than a presidential candidate, by someone who clearly failed to recognize leadership." If the GOP and the Bush administration rose above the level of name-calling and actually engaged the substance of Gore's points, the country be far better served. Instead of being afraid to engage Bush in a debate on foreign policy (the all-too-common Democratic response), Gore set forth a more coherent and likely to succeed approach to the war on terrorism and Iraq. Gore's speech was simply excellent.
posted by Gary at 9:03 AM

 
I just read Gore's speech on Iraq. What a welcome change it is to read an adult, intelligent -- and intellectually honest -- discussion of a complex and dire problem. Gore's speech is the most reasonable and clear-headed analysis I've seen to date on Iraq and its relationship to the war on terror. Gore's speech makes the excellent point that giving Bush a blank check would not be the most effective way of combatting either terrorism or Iraq.

You don't have to be much of a psychic to predict the GOP's response. Rather than engage Gore on the substance of his criticisms, look for ad hominem GOP attacks on the irrelevancy of Gore and boasts about how the country is behind the President in his war on evil.
posted by Gary at 6:13 PM

 
In Memoriam
posted by Gary at 11:15 AM