I noticed back in April or so they, meaning the talking head top DC democrats + Gore were trying to make "Bush" the issue. McAufliffe basically said it outright. It failed to get traction then, and just sounded silly.
I thought the strategy came from the limitations of their experiences as talking-heads on a 24 hour news cycle. Also there was a meanness to it. Maybe the "science" behind the attacks was the theory that midterm elections go against the party in the executive seat, so attack the executive.
Then, over the summer, there was not much DC-centered politicking.
A few months ago they started making noise about consulting congress about Iraq, using, for one, the ridiculous "unilateralism" rhetoric of the Eurocentric elites. So Bush did this dog and pony show with Blair, getting Italy, etc., on board, leaked stuff about WMD, even nukes, and even agreeing to get the UN somehow involved.
Then, over the past few weeks, fear must have re-arose in them. And the Bush-centered attack plan came out again. Da$chle made his economy speech on the floor of the Senate with charts, etc. And he seemed perturbed that it didn't make more than one night's news. Very egocentric and self-important man.
Next, they scaremonger about the Iraq bill - using the old rhetoric about "allies" and the UN. They appeared to have not done anything but look in the mirror for the past months since Bush was putting together for public show the "allies" and such. (I believe Russia and France extracted extra concessions seeing this domestic disarray)
For support, they bring out Byrd and Kennedy, who just embarrassed themselves. Any person who quickly reads USA Today is more informed about Iraq than them spouting off "unilateralism". My bet, som West-Wing type hack with no foreign policy experience clipped pet phrases from various lefty news stories and put them together as a "policy." Or Rob Reiner and folk are reading the UK Guardian on the web - which they poorly imitate, BTW.
Anyway, Daschle gets upset about the "War Talk" he himself fomented. He combines that with a huffy temper tantrum on the Senate floor about insults by Bush and Cheney that didn't exist or are of the variety politician say about their foes everyday. He adds that Bush is contriving to take the public's mind off the economy by the Iraq stuff, as if Daschle couldn't make the economy the "issue" himself. He wants the issue to be Bush.
The temper tantrum and speech were contrived, as shown by Gore's calculated resurrection where he said much the same the next day. But Gore also sounded ignorant, and petty. Defaming the US efforts in Afstan as easy, then taunting Bush's father, it was like a 10 year-old boy.
Then more Daschle about the economy - not what he would do about it, but that Bush is stopping discussion about it.
That's how I recollect the Beltway "debate". Blowback might be a good term to describe the Demo dilemma. Maybe they feared a war before election day. Maybe some Saudi money (they want the status quo in Iraq) fueled some of the opinion makers in the Demo party establishment. (Bonior will probably get some arab-related consulting job on the backside after his term ends this year)
But I see a lot of egos who think the election should be about themselves, and are disconnected from the people and the issues. I don't know anyone whose voting for the congressman about Iraq. They want to hear other things. What's coming out of DC is a circus.
The Dems seem to be whipping up their base, but they are losing credibility with their middle by the day.
Clinton was very good at positioning himself to keep the loyalty of his followers.
Bush seems to be very good at inducing the left to self-destruct. The contempt and poisonous attitude toward Bush are palpable not only among public figures, but also among otherwise rational acquaintances of my own. The illogic spawned by their hatred is not serving them well
Could we have 60 Senate seats by 2006? 2004?