Posted on 08/28/2006 8:56:25 PM PDT by Rawlings
There seems to have been a change in the political winds. They've been blowing pretty strongly against George W. Bush and the Republicans this spring and early this summer. Now, their velocity looks to be tapering off or perhaps shifting direction.
When asked what would affect the future, the British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan famously said: "Events, dear boy. Events." The event this month that I think has done most to shape opinion was the arrest in London on Aug. 9 of 23 Muslims suspected of plotting to blow up American airliners over the Atlantic.
The arrests were a reminder that there still are lots of people in the world -- and quite possibly in this country, too -- who are trying to kill as many of us as they can and to destroy our way of life. They are not unhappy because we haven't raised the minimum wage lately or because Bush rejected the Kyoto Treaty or even because we're in Iraq.
They've been trying to kill us for years, going back at least to 1983, when a Hezbollah suicide bomber killed 241 American servicemen in Lebanon. Then they attacked the World Trade Center, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the USS Cole in Aden -- all while Bill Clinton was president. Sept. 11 woke us up to the threat. The political acrimony of 2004 and 2005 and this year made it seem remote. The London arrests reminded us it's still there.
We've had other reminders, too. For four years, Hollywood has seemed mostly uninterested in the war on terrorism -- in vivid contrast to its enlistment in World War II.
But this year, we've seen the release of "United 93," and, in "World Trade Center," Oliver Stone presents us not with one of his conspiracy theories but, instead, a story of heroism. On Sept. 10 and 11, ABC will devote six hours of prime time to "The Path to 9-11," a fast-paced, bracing docudrama that tells the story of the terrorists and the people who tried to stop them, from the first WTC bombing in 1993 to 9-11 itself. And this will be only one of many commemorations of the fifth anniversary.
As it happens, the London arrests came almost exactly 24 hours after antiwar candidate Ned Lamont, flanked by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, claimed victory over Sen. Joseph Lieberman in the Connecticut Democratic primary. The Lamont victory -- and the rejection of the party's 2000 vice presidential nominee -- sharpened the contrast between the two major parties.
One, it seems, would withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible without regard for the consequences -- an initially popular position for those who consider our effort there either misbegotten or hopelessly bungled. The other, it seems, would stay the course until we achieve our goals -- one that may become more acceptable if people come to think that withdrawal would not make us safe. The London arrests seem to have accelerated this thought process.
Polls since the London arrests suggest what has been happening. Bush's job approval was up significantly in the Gallup Poll, usually the most volatile of national polls, and the Democratic margin in the generic question (Which party's candidate for the House would you vote for?) was sharply reduced. There was a similar trend in generic vote in the Rasmussen poll, which is ordinarily much less volatile than Gallup.
Connecticut polls showed Lieberman, running as an independent, ahead of Lamont, with Lamont having strikingly high negatives for a candidate with such limited public exposure. It seems to be a fact -- remember the Paul Wellstone funeral in 2002? -- that when most Americans see the hard left of the Democratic Party in action, they don't much like what they see.
Of course, they don't like to see violence in Iraq, either.
But the sectarian killings that flared up in Baghdad in June and July have been reduced -- by 30 percent, says ABC News -- by intensive patrolling by U.S. and, more importantly, Iraqi troops. It's not clear, of course, whether the reductions will continue. Other threats still exist, like Iran's nuclear program.
Earlier this summer, I thought that voters had decided that the Republicans deserved to lose but were not sure that the Democrats deserved to win, and that they were going to wait, as they did in the 1980 presidential and the 1994 congressional elections, to see if the opposition was an acceptable alternative. Events seem to have made that a harder sell for Democrats. A change in the winds.
I was, and am, right when six months ago I said the GOP would not only not lose seats, but would GAIN at least one in the Senate and one to five in the House.
Burns, Talent, Santorum will win. Kean and either Kennedy or McGavick or Steele will win. Net gain in the Senate=1.
+1 to +3 in the House. It would have been more if not for the DeLay screw up.
# or more pickups in the Senate? Almost impossible. We'd have to hold all our seats and pick up 3 out of 4 in MD,NJ,WA,MI, all blue states.
I'm at breakeven to pick up One.
+5? That would be a clean sweep of NJ, MI, MN, MD, and WA (all blue states) plus Burns and Chafee hanging on.
Imagine if the GOP had recruited well then (WI,ND,NM,WV,FL) might have been in play.
Don't be so sure it can't happen. As often occurs the elections are won in tides. By that I mean most house races will break one way. Increasingly it looks to be the GOP's way. The Senate is a little more fickle but I'm not very concerned about it. (And after all, we 60 seats for a real majority and that won't happen this year.)
You mentioned something else that has not been mention - here - and may play a part. Gas prices are going down! They are not nearly as low as this time last year, but 25 cents is 25 cents. And what if they go down nationwide another 30-40 by November? Would that not be good news for the Pubbies?
I think we have more to fear from losing hardcore conservative voters than we do squishy RINO voters. I see no evidence of RINO's suddenly backing Dems on Iran if they haven't been turned off to the Administration already, but I've read a LOT of conservative displeasure with Bush here, including calls to "teach them a lesson". We can't blame RINos and Dems for every single thing when we have some conservatives actively pushing to "teach them a lesson" this fall.
I don't know, but I hardly think gas prices "only" being higher than they were this time last year isn't much of a plus.
the winds against the republicans was nothing but mainstream media hot air...
It's way too early, but the recent generic ballot of likely voters -- buried by the MSM -- showed a tie between the GOP and the RATS, which is a huge movement, if it holds.
Gas prices are heading down and will drop further. That's very good for the GOP.
The economy is holding up, notwithstanding the slowdown in housing. That is good for the GOP.
The wild card is getting Iraq calmed down, and the MSM will do everything in its power to help the RATS. Nasty "October surprises" are coming, none of them favorable to the GOP.
Yah, that's why I said they should be kicking themselves about ND, WV, and FL especially, which were winnable.
I have a bad feeling that some terrorist attack or some other extraneous thing will motivate them before election day.
for example this is the spin the NY times is trying to put on Iraq now:
Iraqi Death Toll Rose Above 3,400 in July By EDWARD WONG and DAMIEN CAVE Published: August 15, 2006 July appears to have been the deadliest month of the war for Iraqi civilians, reinforcing criticism of a new Baghdad security plan.
But this is the story the times wants to bury:
By ROBERT BURNS AP Military Writer WASHINGTON Aug 25, 2006 (AP)— The death toll among National Guard and Reserve troops in Iraq has plunged this year as citizen soldiers play a smaller combat role against an insurgency that increasingly targets Iraqis. Thus far in August, five members of the Guard and Reserve have died in Iraq, compared with 44 at this point in August 2005, the deadliest month of the war for the Guard and Reserve. The number of Guard and Reserve deaths for the year totals 54 less than one-third of the 189 recorded at this point last year. In the comparable period in 2004, the death toll was 92, according to Defense Department casualty records.
this is why the democrats want us out of Iraq so badly now, if we stay much longer it will become clearer and cleareer that we are WINNING!
What needs to be driven home is that the Lamont win signals the death of the Democrat Party, now the Soros Party. America must be told who they're really voting for if they vote Democrat.
"I think we have more to fear from losing hardcore conservative voters than we do squishy RINO voters."
____________________________
All indications seem to be that the Pubs figure they have the hard core conservatives no matter what. Why else do they seem so willing to move to left of center.
My point is, the only people who've said they may not vote for the Republicans this year are hardcore conservatives who see the R's as moving left. I haven't read similar thoughts about RINOs voting for Dems, or at least no more than usual.
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.