I was speaking with a Republican Senator just moments after Senator
George Allen (R-VA) conceded defeat to Reagan Republican - turned
Democrat James H. Webb, Jr. The Senator told me, "Perhaps we are better
off with Democrats' controlling both Houses than we would have been with
Republicans' holding on by virtue of Vice President Cheney's breaking a
tie." I think the Senator is correct. With only one vote clinging to a
majority there would have been an unreasonable expectation of what the
barely Republican Senate working with President George W. Bush could
accomplish. Now the Democrats are in control of both Houses. It is clear
cut. They are in charge. Since President Bush does not like to veto
bills (he has vetoed one bill in six years in office) you can look for
Bush now to seek compromise with the Democratic Congress.
Those compromises will be good for the Democrats but very bad for the
Republicans. Republicans only win when there are sharp differences
between the parties. That was one of the problems with this election.
The Democratic Party deliberately recruited Democrats who agreed with
the Republicans on certain issues. Inasmuch as voters only vote for
Republicans when Democrats are far too liberal, the strategy worked. If
Democrats play it right they can be in power for the next generation.
At a strategy meeting for conservatives, one Republican official went
down the list of new Democratic Members of the House who had won by
4,000 votes and under, then 2,000 votes and under and, finally, by a few
hundred votes. This official used this tally supposedly to show that the
Republicans can come roaring back in 2008. I disagree. Democrats are
skilled at teaching their Members how to solidify their districts. When
all is said and done I'll state here and now that I expect only a
handful of freshmen Democrats to be defeated in 2008. Many had
everything but the old kitchen sink thrown at them in this election.
They were running against incumbents and incumbents are difficult to
defeat. They have for the most part more special-interest money than do
challengers and they have millions of taxpayer money to use to help them
get reelected. The fact that so many Republican incumbents were
defeated is a testimonial to how strong the Democratic sweep really was.
January will begin my 40th year in Washington. Of course, I was only 12
when I came here. Seriously, I was 24 and took the job as Press
Secretary to Senator Gordon L. Allott (R-CO). I have continued to learn
every year I have been here. Every day is different. Every day presents
new challenges.
When there is a Republican wipe-out it takes years to climb back. Such a
wipe-out occurred the year I became acting chairman of a Republican
group in my home county, 1958. We didn't have a fun time because
Republican after Republican was defeated.
For those of us who are sick of around-the-clock campaigning this is not
a good era in which to live. We have six such news stations, which run
24/7 on cable. They must have something to run. For that reason Iowa
Governor Thomas Vilsack has filed papers with the Federal Election
Committee, announcing his Presidential candidacy for 2008. Likewise even
before the elections were held, Representative Duncan Hunter (R-CA),
Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, announced his intention
to run for the Presidency.
Neither of these men is likely to have any real chance to be elected
President. So what gives? Dark-horse candidates may be trying to raise
their profiles to attract sufficient attention of the Presidential
nominee that, against all odds, they might be a Vice Presidential pick.
Or if the candidate of their party wins they might be in for a cabinet
post. That's all well and good for them.
Vilsack is a term-limited Governor, out of office in January.
Republicans having lost their House majority, Hunter will become Ranking
Minority Member of Armed Services, no longer Chairman. No fun there.
Having just been re-elected for a two-year term, he can build name
recognition.
What about the rest of us? It was bad enough when politics began with
Iowa Caucuses in the January of the Presidential year. Now we have
candidates running more than two years before the next election. There
is no end to campaigning.
I think the Canadian system is to be envied in this one respect. An
election is called by the Prime Minister by dissolving Parliament. The
campaign is only about 60 days thereafter. The argument has been that
this is not enough time for the public to get to know those in the
minority. The minority in Canada tends to be higher profile than the
minority in the USA. Governments change hands. Brian Mulroney was twice
elected Prime Minister. Then the Conservatives got wiped out. They came
back briefly with a government lasting only a few months. The Liberal
Party returned to power for some terms. Now finally the Conservatives
are back, but with a minority government. The word in Ottawa is that the
Prime Minister intends to dissolve Parliament in the spring. He will
call for elections, hoping to vote in a majority government.
During the remainder of the time Parliament does its business. That is
hotly debated on radio and television but Members of Parliament are
dealing with issues. The time for campaigning is actually a relatively
short period and yet that short period has not cost the opposition the
chance to return to power.
I think the campaign for 2008 already having begun is much too much. Of
course, the fact that Vilsack and Hunter have announced will force other
candidates into the ring. They will be happily covered by not just the
cable news/talk channels but by the so-called mainstream media as well.
Senator John S. McCain, III (R-AZ) virtually lives at NBC. There is no
way under our system to cut down the duration of these campaigns. The
only thing we can do is to let the candidates know that we do not
appreciate their being out there this early. If enough of you agree with
me and we can convince others to deliver the same message astute
politicians will get the picture.