Posted on 10/17/2007 6:34:29 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - Republican strategists hope a volatile electorate will save the party from congressional losses in 2008 that appear possible due to a string of setbacks.
Democrats hold clear edges in raising money, limiting retirements and deflecting public anger.
In the latest sign, the party's House campaign committee said Wednesday it has about $25 million to spend on targeted races next year; its Republican counterpart is in debt.
Facing such news, the GOP's top House strategist summoned reporters to his campaign headquarters to put the best possible light on matters.
In short, said Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., people are angry at lawmakers and the Democratic-controlled Congress in general, and massive fundraising will not save Democratic incumbents from voters' wrath.
Voters "are in a firing mood," said Cole, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. When urging potential candidates to run, he said he tells them, "You ought to run against all of Washington, D.C., and that includes us."
The anti-incumbent mood may doom some GOP members, he said, but it poses a bigger threat to the party in charge.
The Democrats' response?
"He's spinning so fast he might take off," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., who heads the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "They claim everybody doesn't like anybody," he said, "but they doesn't explain why they are falling so far behind in key measures," such as fundraising.
Van Hollen said his committee raised $16 million from July through September, and has more than $25 million on hand when debts are accounted for.
Cole's committee declined to release its third-quarter summaries, but last month it reported having more debt than cash on hand.
"Right now we're in a race with ankle weights on," Cole said. "It's called debt." The committee's debt was considerably higher a few months ago, he noted.
In 2006, Democrats gained 30 House seats, taking control after 12 years in the minority. Some Democrats see 2006 as a warm-up for 2008, when public anger at President Bush and the Iraq war will drive party gains even higher.
Cole, a veteran campaign strategist, disagrees. Tuesday's special election in Massachusetts, where Democrat Niki Tsongas won by a smaller margin than some expected, was encouraging, he said.
"It shows that just running against the president, or running a 2006-model campaign, is not going to make it in 2008," Cole said.
Van Hollen said Tsongas' 6 percentage-point margin was respectable for the district. He predicted Bush's unpopularity will haunt Republican lawmakers who have stood with him on Iraq, children's health spending and other issues.
Polls show deep public disenchantment with Congress. Even though Democrats control the House and Senate, however, disapproval ratings for GOP lawmakers run higher than those for Democrats, a sign of Bush's impact on fellow Republicans.
Analysts say it may be difficult for Democrats to increase their 33-seat House advantage next year because few obvious opportunities remain. As Cole noted, 61 House Democrats represent districts that Bush carried twice, whereas eight Republicans are from districts that Bush lost in 2004.
But a dozen House Republicans have announced retirement plans, and Cole said there will be more. Several are from districts that Democrats believe they can win.
Only two House Democrats, in Colorado and Maine, have announced plans to leave, and both are running for the Senate.
Because incumbents enjoy such big political advantages, limiting retirements is crucial in most cases. But Republicans have urged some scandal-scarred colleagues to step down in hopes of saving their seats.
For example, Rep. John Doolittle, R-Calif., is under federal investigation in a lobbying probe, and his likely Democratic challenger has 10 times more campaign money on hand. While Cole declined on Wednesday to endorse Doolittle's re-election bid, a California colleague went farther.
"Certainly the polling shows that he's in a difficult position, and I do think it would be best if he didn't seek re-election," Rep. John Campbell, R-Calif., told The Associated Press.
___
Associated Press writer Erica Werner contributed to this report.
“and deflecting public anger”
When you lie in the opening of a piece... you cannot expect a thinking person to read further. 11% approval is not “anger”?
LLS
Also... if the RNC would fire Mel Amnesty Martinez, they would have full coffers.
LLS
AND THE NUMBER ONE ISSUE IS ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, NO MATTER WHAT THE DECEIVERS IN THE MEDIA AND CONGRESS TRY TO TELL US!!!!!
THE GOP BETTER WAKE UP AND REALIZE THEY MAY NEVER RETAIN POWER AGAIN IF THEY DON’T LISTEN TO THEIR CONSTITUENTS NOW.
Amen!!! Get a BULLHORN next time!
LLS
We shall see come November “08”.
Yes, AMNESTY Mel needs to go. Returning to conservative principles would help.
If you haven’t watched the Bush presser today, I suggest you do. When you get done you will be shaking your head and asking, where the hell were you six years ago. It was a press bash-a-rama.
the stupid party strikes out in 2008.
Nominate Duncan Hunter, win in a landslide.
I saw it!!! I am surprised you did not hear me cheering!
LLS
AMEN! KEEP SHOUTING! I WANT THEM TO KNOW THIS IS THE REPUBLICAN’S NO. 1 ISSUE OUTSIDE OF VICTORY IN IRAQ!
Is that what you mean by "THE GOP BETTER WAKE UP AND REALIZE THEY MAY NEVER RETAIN POWER AGAIN IF THEY DON’T LISTEN TO THEIR CONSTITUENTS NOW"?
That needs to be the mantra of every Republican running against a Democrat incumbent in the next election.
I wanna see Newt as head of the RNC..like yesterday...and I expect to see Tom Delay run for Senate in Texas....
Doesn’t George Bush understand that touting comprensive immigration amnesty makes people very mad by now? Even talking about it right now creates sour moods for people all day long and everywhere. Who’s advising him?
I thought that was you, although I watched it on TIVO replay ... I was stunned ... You wonder where this guy was. Bush slapped down the media like he meant it.
One thing Bush can do for the team is reclaim the conservative mantra over fiscal responsibility. If he really means what he said and vetoes these stupid Democrat socialist plans, maybe, just maybe ...
Now if he would only get right with the border fence.
Martinez is a Cuban guy. He doesn't have anything in this fight with this illegal alien crap from SA to begin with. Just by having a Spanish surname? That's stupid. I have little German in-laws in Spain that know a little German. Just Spanish and dirty English. The worst dirty English.
“Now if he would only get right with the border fence.”
Sing it from the mountaintops brother!!!
LLS
My you are uninformed. Mel Martinez is on record in 2004 at a speech to Republicans... swearing that he would never accept Amnesty... and he was one of the biggest proponents of Amnesty. Had you been involved in ALL of the immigration threads that I have... you would know this. Do your own research right here on FR or the Inet. Google Hagel/Martinez compromise Amnesty bill.
Here is a link to a page Mel deleted from his website to hide his reversal. It was archived because some Conservatives knew that people like you would try and rewrite history. Too late Mel... cached it was. It lays out his anti-Amnesty positions pre-election:
Here is a link and an excerpt on statements and votes in support of Amnesty... it is just the tip of the iceberg:
http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=13378
“His OFFICIAL Campaign positions are priceless.
“Our immigration policy, however, must first and foremost ensure the security of our great nation and its citizens.”
“I oppose amnesty for illegal aliens.”
“I support a plan that matches workers with needy employers without providing a path to citizenship.”
“Immigration to this country must always be done through legal means.”
How has Mel been voting on the immigration bill?
He voted against the amendment to put amnesty on hold until the border was secured but to get elected he said, “Our immigration policy, however, must first and foremost ensure the security of our great nation and its citizens.”
He voted against the amendment to strip the citizenship provisions but to get elected he said, “I support a plan that matches workers with needy employers without providing a path to citizenship.”
He is a sponsor of the current immigration bill even though he said, “Immigration to this country must always be done through legal means.”
I am no racist... above is proof that you slandered me... but you use the leftist tactic of attacking without truth on your side. Where is your proof? I feel a little bit like Rush... I wish that I could EBAY your post! :-)
LLS
11% is 11%, unless the rat is running the House. In that case the ratmedia wants to tell us it will ONLY hurt Republicans. A 36% (THREE TIMES higher) knocked out the GOP, but an 11% approval won’t touch the rat? I don’t buy it. I like our chances.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.