Soccer Dad

Referendum on history

Helen Thomas declares confidently The vote will be on the War

The war in Iraq is the issue in the critical Nov.7 election - and it should be.
Voters surely will want to have a say on the national policy that has taken a huge human toll of casualties, both American and Iraqi , and is draining the U.S. treasury.
Although they are not on the ballot, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are running scared, with Bush warning that the Democratic approach means that "the terrorists win and America loses."
It's a rare opportunity to weigh in on the nation's foreign policy and to send a message to the president who led the country into an unnecessary war.

Charles Krauthammer differs. In a Duel, but not decisive (or here) he argues that the losses that Republicans are facing fit with past historical patterns

What to say about such a victory? Substantial, yes. Historic, no. Before proclaiming a landslide, one has to ask Henny Youngman's question: "Compared to what?" (His answer to: "How's your wife?") Since the end of World War II, the average loss for a second-term presidency in its sixth year has been 29 House seats and six Senate seats. If you go back to Franklin Roosevelt's second term, the House loss average jumps to 35. Thus a 25/6 House and Senate loss would be about (and slightly below) the historical average.

and that in quite a few cases, the reasons for a Republican loss are not attributable to the war in Iraq.

Yes, the campaign has been nationalized. But will the results be? In the House, a good five seats (Bob Ney, Tom DeLay, Don Sherwood, Mark Foley, Curt Weldon) are likely to be lost to scandals having nothing to do with Bush or Iraq. Of the losing Senate races, only Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania can be said to be dying for the sins of their party.

The other races, if lost, will be lost largely for local reasons. In Ohio, the state is rocked by an enormous Republican scandal at the gubernatorial level that is taking the whole party down with it, Sen. Mike DeWine included. In Montana, Conrad Burns is in trouble because of his association with Jack Abramoff, not George Bush.

In Virginia, a state that should not even be in play, George Allen has run the worst campaign in living memory, stumbling onto one ethnic land mine after another -- "macaca," the Yiddish mama, N-word allegations. And in New Jersey, the one Democratic seat that could conceivably go the other way and save Senate control for the Republicans, the drag on Sen. Bob Menendez is the very nonnational issue of official corruption.

("Macaca," it would appear, is this year's equivalent of "putzhead.")

So not too much should be read into the results:

The election will be a referendum of sorts on Iraq. But it will be registering nothing more than uneasiness and discontent. Had the Democrats offered a coherent alternative to the current policy, one could draw lessons as to what course the country should take. But if either friends or enemies interpret the results as a mandate for giving up, they will be mistaken.

One thing that Krauthammer mentions, is that both Mayor O'Malley and (though Krauthammer didn't mention it) Representative Cardin have been running against President Bush much more than their own opponents (Gov Ehrlich and Lt Gov Steele.)

In particular, I've been very put off by Cardin's ads. Here's a guy with tremendous legislative experience and his commercial don't focus on his accomplishments, but on portraying Michael Steele as being in President Bush's pocket. The stupidity of Cardin's campaign strategy is one reason the race appeas to be so close.

Cardin's strategy is reflective of the Democratic failure to promote any national agenda during the campaign. He may win, but his mandate will not be clear.

See Buzztracker.

Technorati tags: Election 2006, Charles Krauthammer.

Posted by SoccerDad at November 3, 2006 5:29 AM