September 13, 2007
62 Democratic Senators (Brent Budowsky)
The resounding Democratic victory in the 2006 Senate campaign creates a historic anomaly in which the Senate Democratic Caucus could increase to more than 60 senators, with historic implications for American politics and all three branches of government.
The media are simply focusing on the 22 Senate Republican seats at stake in 2008. But the Republican senators considering whether to retire, and the smart K Street money, are homed in on the 2010 elections as well, where another 19 Republican Senate seats are at stake.
Do the math. Locked into the fate of one of America’s most unpopular presidents in history, with the national mood favoring a tidal wave of change, with Republicans plagued by endless scandals, and with a president pushing a disastrous war onto the desk of his successor, 41 Senate Republican seats are in jeopardy in 2008 and 2010.
Of course, many of the most distinguished Republican senators choose to retire, fearing they will spend in the rest of their careers in a shrinking Republican minority.
Of course, the smart-money contributors on K Street increasingly tilt toward Senate Democrats, a trend that will accelerate going into November 2008 and skyrocket off the charts by 2010.
In Washington politics, if you want a friend, buy a dog, and if you want influence, don’t bet on the loser. With 41 Republican seats in jeopardy in the next two elections under extremely unfavorable circumstances, with business money wanting friends in the right places, and with a tidal wave of grassroots money from the often-maligned Democratic base, the money advantage to Democrats becomes exponential.
The actions of Senate Republicans on Iraq are inexplicable. Most of them believe the policy is a disaster and know that the overwhelming majority of military leaders (including the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. William Fallon and Gen. James Jones) privately disagree with the proposals of Gen. David Petraeus, and even Petraeus tells Congress that he does not know whether his proposals make America safer.
Nevertheless, close to 100 percent of the Senate Republicans have voted for the Bush blunders close to 100 percent of the time for 100 percent of the duration of the war. When the president puts the day of military reckoning on the desk of his successor in January 2009, he puts the day of political reckoning on the backs of Republicans in November 2008.
From the summer before the 2006 elections through Election Day in 2008 the Republicans endure a news-flow nightmare. From sex scandals to war scandals, from corruption in Iraq reconstruction to corruption on Capitol Hill, the nightmare escalates as the Bush years come to a close with score-settling daggers and scandal-revealing leaks that will reach a crescendo in November 2008.
The demeaning attacks on Democrats by Republican propagandists only backfire, with 70 percent of the nation disapproving their policies, and 60 percent of the nation distrusting their integrity. Giant swaths of American society, from homeowners to Hispanics to military moms, feel threatened by Republican rule.
Republicans think they demean Democrats; 70 percent of Americans think they are demeaning them. Republicans think they outmaneuver Democrats on the Senate floor with endless obstructionist filibusters, while in fact, they fall into the political trap set by Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and look to Americans like the party of incumbency blockading the nation’s hunger for change.
The president continues to try to exploit the Sept. 11 terror attacks while every American sees Osama bin Laden on television, intelligence reports detail al Qaeda’s resurgence on the Bush watch, analysts detail weaknesses in the Department of Homeland Security, and Petraeus struggles with the question of whether his plan makes America more safe.
The stage is set for a Senate tsunami.
If Republicans are smart, they will listen to Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), meet with Reid, respect the true opinion of the majority of military leaders, fight to change the policy in Iraq, and recognize that the carnage in Iraq is not only bad for the nation but a cause of the carnage that is headed for the Senate Republican Conference like a freight train coming around the bend.
Note: The preceding post originally appeared in The Hill's print edition on Thursday, Sept. 13, 2007. — Ed.
29 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Here's a question for you, Brent — How long do you think the American public will put up with a do-nothing Democratic controlled Congress? How long will they put up with promises unfulfilled? How long will they put up with an impotent leader, like Harry Reid?
The American public knows that Bush will be gone in 2008 regardless of who wins the Presidency. As much as liberals like you want to fool the public into thinking that Bush and his policies are relevant in the 2008 election, the fact is that they aren't.
Comment by John Simmons — September 13, 2007 @ 8:49 am
This aricle is like fresh coffee in the morning after some of rhetoric being bantered about Iraq and Iran lately. I can only look forward to the day when as a country we can focus on domestic issues like Health Care, take a leadership position in the world on Global Warming, and restore the integrity for which so many brave soldiers have given the ultimate sacrifice.
Comment by Sheri Ready — September 13, 2007 @ 9:26 am
We can focus on those issues now, Sheri. Unfortunately, Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi choose to ignore those issues either because they know they don't have the political clout to tackle the issues or because they just don't think the issues are very important.
Comment by John Simmons — September 13, 2007 @ 10:43 am
Wishful thinking Simmons. Shheeeesh!
Comment by Chris in NM — September 13, 2007 @ 11:11 am
[...] You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Leave aReply [...]
Pingback by BartBlog - The Blog of BartCop.com » Brent Budowsky : 62 Democratic Senators — September 13, 2007 @ 11:19 am
The alleged Democratic victory n soured after was soured before and after the fact. It was soured before the fact by Lieberman's success as an independent. It's been soured after the fact by failure to provide any forward progress on anything of substance. The Democrats have only lead the way on Earmarks, and the public is getting wise.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — September 13, 2007 @ 11:46 am
When American's see Reid they see weakness…
When American's think Iraq they want victory not retreat. The majority of American's don't want to run from the hard issues they want leadership they can trust. The media's coverage of politics sow the seeds of distrust because they do not report on facts, they report to support their causes. Hence the continued power swap from old to new media.
The American people want a senate that will restore the original intent which is to look at policy from a national level not a party level.
This system and these parties are so broken that I think projecting out into 2010 assumes no changes in the current political system which is on the brink of a collapse in trust and effectiveness.
You conveniently assume that because of the scandals in the R party people will move to the D party. The problem is the D party is just as bad.
There will be a sunami alright, but I suspect by 2010 it will be more than a simple transfer of power from the R's to the D's… Ask your K street bookies about that one…
Comment by Rich — September 13, 2007 @ 12:05 pm
Yes, the time of socialism is coming. Being able to tax and spend with abandon while ignoring the Islamic threat is a dreamy scenario. It feels so good to use the government as a tool for change! Obviously the private sector has failed.
Comment by Igor R. — September 13, 2007 @ 12:08 pm
The NeoCon political theorists are not idiots; they very well understand that transferring the wealth of the Middle Class and working poor to the wealthy elite will have serious political consequences even with total their control of the media.
General Petraeus appeared yesterday on CNN hyping war with Iran stating that Iranian weapons were killing American soldiers. Bush is going to unilaterally attack Iran and is going to use nukes to do it, those nuclear armed cruise missiles didn’t just happen to end up at the Air Force base that serves as the staging base for shipments to Iraq.
When Bush attacks Iran he’s also going to attempt to take out Russia and China’s nuclear weapons, Russia will probably take out a few American cities, Bush will declare a State of Emergency and any semblance that the United States is a democracy will cease to exist.
During the first six years of the Bush presidency every act was vetted for its political impact, for the last year Bush has ignored the political impact of his actions, commuting Scooter’s sentence before he ever served a day in prison, and waiting till the day after the election to dump Rumsfeld. In the face of loosing control of Congress Bush defied public opinion and escalated the war in Iran.
The economy sucks, inflation is lowering living standards, unemployment is understated by more than half, energy and food prices are soaring, two million American’s homes are soon to be foreclosed on and deflation of home values stand to destroy the biggest investment of most of the Middle Class, their home.
The NeoCon end game isn’t being drubbed in the elections of 2008 and 2010; it’s canceling elections forever in the wake of a Russian retaliatory nuclear attack.
Comment by Kevin from Indiana — September 13, 2007 @ 1:07 pm
The stage is set for a Senate tsunami.
I hope you're correct Brent. But events rarely proceed as expected. I'm sure the Republicans and their corporate masters have plans of their own. They're not going to hand over all the power they've accumulated without a (very dirty) fight. Remember, they control the media and the vote. If they take away the free open internet (net neutrality) we're all cooked.
Comment by Larry from C — September 13, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
If they try to 'take over the Internet' this late in the game, I think it would have the immediate effect of galvanizing the public to action. MUCH more realistic to invoke apocolytic 'end-times' scenarios because these fit the president and his adminstration's bible college profile so well.
What I learned on PBS this week: Burning hot airplane fuel can warp a steel building to failure, but it cannot melt steel. So what melted all the steel that stayed hot for weeks in those relatively isolated subterranean basements? Why or how would anything be burning way down there in the first place? Inquiring minds.
Enjoy.
Comment by Tim Fuller — September 13, 2007 @ 3:34 pm
Kevin, while the New York Times gives an EXTREMELY heavily discounted rate to MoveOn.org on an insulting "Betray Us" ad you claim that the dreaded "NeoCons" have total control of the media. This truth denial, typical of the hateful radical left, invalidates any further claims you may have in your post.
Comment by Igor R. — September 13, 2007 @ 3:41 pm
Igor, the tax and spend slogan is no longer valid. We have found out, and paid a dear price, that much worse than that, the policy of no tax and still spend is a real killer.
Also to the ditto head who writes about the do nothing Congress: Turn off FOX and step into the real world. The only thing that the Democrats have not accomplished, in this short period, are the things that President Stupid has vetoed, like stopping the senseless slaughter of our national treasure for lies, stem cell research to save Americans from dying from fatal diseases, and shutting down the insane profits of the oil and pharmaceutical companies.
You see, the Right and the Republicans are all about death. They love death. They sentence our precious youth to death in hell for no reason. They would prevent research to save dying American citizens. They would rather have seniors, many of whom fought for this country, go into bankruptcy or death, so that their corporate pals can continue to make huge profits. They "love the fetus, but hate the child" with their insane intrusion of the privacy of a woman to do with her body what she wants. Their thirst for death would love to have these women endanger their lives with back alley abortions, just like their good old days.
Look at what the moron Boehner said today. These senseless deaths in the desert are "worth it". How many of his kids are there to make it worth it?
They love death.
Comment by Chris Calbi — September 13, 2007 @ 4:24 pm
Chris, I'm totally for stem cell research as I have no religious beliefs or fears of fooling with nature, humanity, etc., but shutting down the profits of any companies not engaged in commonly understood criminal corruption is a recipe for creating shortages. You don't seem to believe that the free market even under imperfect conditions can work better than government interventions, but I do. Try reading "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism" by Robert Murphy to get a new perspective.
Equating support for any war with love of death is very curious, because radical Islam is often referred to as a cult of death and indeed many Islamists boast of loving death as much as westerners love life. What if you imagine for a moment that someone really does think that this war is about survival: would their support still equal to loving death?
Comment by Igor R. — September 13, 2007 @ 5:15 pm
Mr. Budowsky,
One key point: the opinion of the majority of military leaders, whether or not it is what you say it is, does not override the fact that they are not in command in Iraq. General Petraeus is, put there by the President, his appointment assented to unanimously by Congress, and he remains in place with the continuing assent of his commanders and the Joint Chiefs. Petraeus himself said he presented his recommendations to his commanders and the Joint Chiefs. Since there was no public repudiation of his recommendations by the military and he remains in command, the only logical conclusion one can draw is that he has the support of his military chain of command and the Joint Chiefs. What you refer to as the "true opinion" of the military therefore carries no weight.
Comment by JO Elias — September 13, 2007 @ 6:04 pm
That is just more Republican nonsense Rich~~~you and they just keep pronouncing "vctory" but neither you nor they can define what that means, pertaining to Iraq….and Mr. Budowsky is 100% correct…and as long has the Republicans continue to drink from Bush's Koolaid…..and rely on meaningless, mindless rhetoric…they will indeed remain a minority……
Comment by LucieLee — September 13, 2007 @ 6:39 pm
But will Senator Clinton still be there:
Before his forced resignation last week, Norman Yuan Yuen Hsu sat on the board of trustees of the liberal New School university in New York with former Loral Corp. head Bernard L. Schwartz, who was allowed to transfer restricted satellite and missile technology to a People's Liberation Army front after contributing a record amount of cash to President Clinton's 1996 campaign.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57450
Oh yeah, I'm sure she would be totally surprised to hear about such an amazing coincidence!
Comment by Igor R. — September 13, 2007 @ 9:30 pm
It has become obvious Bush is a "sissy". He has delegated his 'Commmander In Chief' duties to Patreus.
So, not only is Bush a LIAR, he is now officially a SISSY.
Bush dodged the draft, created a "war" with lies, and now selectively delegates his authority as "Commander In Chief".
In Bush's case it is, "Commander In Thief". Bush has handed off "the Iraq problem" to the next administration. That is just what a yellow-bellied sissy would do.
Comment by Chris in NM — September 13, 2007 @ 9:49 pm
the inevitable and necessary end to the GOP as a legitimate party (a major party that doesn't believe in global warming?) is being unnecessarily extended by the GOP talk radio monopoly.
the same propaganda machine that gave rove the uncontested repetition he needed to make goebles look like a piker still keeps the MSM and GOP reps in line.
and all progressives running against the GOP have to do is quote the attacks, lies, distortions, and threats and wear them as a badge of honor in their ads and on their web sites.
citizens may have to go to their local radio stations and wave signs and boycott the local sponsors of this crap before enough GOP reps give the Dems a veto-proof majority.
one thing is for sure- until then Bush's opponents will continue to play politics without a front line.
Comment by trank — September 14, 2007 @ 12:04 am
Thanks Igor for that old bromide, but speaking of taxes, how do YOU think we should pay for this war, YOUR pResident thinks selling T bills to the Chinese is the way to do it. I personally think letting ANY foreign power own trillions of our DEBT is a really REALLY bad thing. Go ahead tell us … we are waiting…you see TAXES is how GOVERNMENT pays its debts, but this president cuts taxes to the RICH in time of war.
Comment by Tom Ross — September 14, 2007 @ 12:26 am
President Bush’s Message, “Not on My Watch”
That should be the media’s headlines over the weekend after hearing the President make his 8th primetime television speech about Iraq to the American people.
While I’m not a supporter of John Edwards, he said it best tonight during his paid for commercial that was aired not long after the President spoke.
"In January, after years of evidence that military actions cannot force a political solution, the president announced a military surge to force a political solution. In May, he vetoed a plan to end the war, demanded more time to show the surge could work, and Congress gave it to him. Now, after General Petraeus reports the surge has produced no progress toward a political solution, what does the president want? More time for the surge to work, when all of us know it won't."
The President informed the nation tonight that he expects to leave a U.S. presence in Iraq way beyond his presidency. He said Iraqi leaders "have asked for an enduring relationship with America.” The mission keeps changing, have you noticed?
What happened to, “Missions Accomplished” Mr. President?
Democrats have once again walked into the GOP Trap, unless they stand up and fight back.
Con't…..
Coonsey's View
http://www.freewebs.com/coonsey/
Comment by Connie Manes — September 14, 2007 @ 12:47 pm
Tom: Since the lower 50% of wage earners pay virtually no taxes, who else can you cut taxes for except those who actually pay?
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — September 14, 2007 @ 1:50 pm
Tom Ross, I believe that the non-military portion of the budget should be reduced. Bush did not fulfill the hopes of conservatives in keeping government spending (and I'm not talking here about the war) under control. But about the debt, as we found out in the mortgage debacle it's just as much in the interest of the debt holders to keep the party going as it is in the debtors' interest. I hope the Chinese will figure out how to feed their population with these T bills if they threaten the United States with them. Don't forget, they have tens of millions of rural young men joining their labor force every year and there is not much for them to do but to labor on producing exports to the United States, lead paint an all.
Comment by Igor R. — September 14, 2007 @ 2:20 pm
trank, GOP will end over it's lack of belief in global warming? There is no proof of man-made global warming, and just like 1 billion children believing in Santa Clause wouldn't make him real, neither will 100 million Al Gore supporters make man-made global warming real either.
Comment by Igor R. — September 14, 2007 @ 4:47 pm
It is easily observable that Igoe and Rosencrats live in a parrallel, alternate, neocon universe.
RR says 50% of wage earners pay no taxes. Put down the crack pipe Rosencrats.
Comment by Chris in NM — September 14, 2007 @ 9:08 pm
Igor we agree on Radical Islam, but where we differ is that I see your crowd as birds of a feather with them. Just like their leaders, you would call for others to use jet airplanes as bombs against buildings, but you won't be the ones flying the planes or sitting in them.
Comment by Chris Calbi — September 16, 2007 @ 8:22 am
Ok Chris, and Al Gore really like private jets, so there. The idea that anyone not fighting a war is not allowed to be for it is just so strange. So if I'm for flat tax I'm not allowed to have that opinion unless I'm either a lobbyist for the cause or I put a huge cross on my tax return and write "14%"? Or to use a common liberal opinion, a woman who's had five kids can't possibly be pro-abortion rights? How can this make sense?
Comment by Igor R. — September 17, 2007 @ 4:54 pm
From the beginning this war was a boondoggle to the intellegensia, artistic, and Progressive communities. We knew that then. FOX and most of the other mainstream media cranked up the rest of america, and the Bill Kristol's of the world just sat back and laughed.
I said from the beginning that, because this was so obvious, those that believed in the cause should have offered up their treasure. They all have sons and daughters who could go and fight the optional choice war.
Also, those that believed in this should have been the ones to fund it. It's a check box on your tax return. I love war, gets checked off, and you get the tab, shared with your other misguided brothers.
What have you sacrificed? What part of that "small price to pay" have you participated in?
You're a smart man, obviously. You saw something different from me and mine, I guess.
Comment by Chris Calbi — September 18, 2007 @ 7:30 pm
Chris, what about the tab for all the income transfer payments?
Comment by Igor R. — September 19, 2007 @ 2:12 pm