Eight Issues That Will Shape the 2006 Elections

The Washington Post ^ | August 16, 2006 | Dan Balz

[Oakleaf]

The Wapo has this sidebar section on Elections 2006 entitled "Bellewethers: Key Issues in the Battle for Congress" with a sub-title: Eight Issues That Will Shape the 2006 Elections. Note well that "Gun Control" is not one of them.

[Oakleaf]

The gun-grabbers will never give up, we all know that, and these elections will still be a "close-run thing" as Wellington said about Waterloo.

But the fact remains that other than the occasional obsessive like Bloomberg the 'gun control' issue is not on the radar screen in most races and certainly not nationally. Yes, there are bills and speeches, there are always bills proposed with the full knowledge they have no hope of passing and there are speeches to the choir. But none of the Democrats are out there thundering about the need for 'gun control' and how it is a central part of their platform this election. If they are saying anything it is level three, low-keyed, mention only if you have to. There are those here who may disagree with me on the specifics of these broad statements, especially with regard to their local races, but I am trying to have us focus on the big picture.

Our victories have been significant: AWB expires, Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms act, "Castle Doctrine" laws, honest citizen carry concealed laws, etc. What I am trying to point out is how a major victory has been that gun control is clearly a loser of an issue for the Democrats and they know it. What I am also trying to do is to cut through some of the 'doom and gloom' regarding the 06 elections and point out that we have won many of the battles.

The old saying was that "Social Security is the Third Rail of American Politics" and I am saying that it is now "Gun Control". We don't have "President Gore", we don't have "President Kerry" and we haven't had a Democrat majority in the U.S. Congress since '94 because of this.

[Admin Moderator]

The title you created has been changed to the original published title. Please do not alter titles.

[John Carey]

The author used a basket full of words to circle around to this: " it's all about Iraq."

[sittnick]

Meanwhile, two other incumbents -- Democratic Rep. Cynthia McKinney of Georgia and Republican Rep. Joe Schwarz of Michigan -- lost their primaries, signaling that anti-incumbent sentiment can cut in both directions.

That is a dishonest statement. Schwarz got in because he was the lone "moderate" (meaning liberal) in a five or six way primary last time. This time the Michiganders made short work of him because they united on one candidate. McKinney punched a Capitol security worker AND was a moonbat even in terms of the Dems.

These attributes have nothing to do with them being incumbents.

[OldFriend]

Not gun control, not tax INCREASES, not UNIVERSAL health care either, to say the least.

[jmaroneps37]

I've got 45 reasons. If this guy thinks Iraq will be a big factor he has to answer why in Fox News open ended survey "Iraq" hit a big 14%. The sad truth is people just don't care enough about the war. This is an unintended consequence of the all volunteer army.

[LS]

But, that's a phoney number. If you add "War on Terror" AND "Iraq" together in almost any poll, you get close to 40 or 50%. The pollsters deliberately keep them separate.

[1066AD]

As much as one can find fault with GOP performance in congress, for thinking people there's little to discuss, only whether we need a bunch of leftist Dems in charge of key committees or not.

[absolootezer0]

yeah.. they lost primaries, not elections. i'd be willing to bet that the incumbant PARTY holds both of those seats.