Not Bush v. Not Obama

Whatever one thinks about Bush's decision to invade Iraq, it was a political disaster for the 43^rd President and for his party. Bush's approval ratings never recovered, even when his strategy began to work. The Democrats won two straight elections and, briefly, a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. The recent collapse of Democratic fortunes is happening in spite of the fact that the wounds suffered by Republicans as a result of the Iraq war have not yet healed.

In the short run, that might not matter much. Election analyst Charlie Cook makes an almost indisputable point: that the Democrat's health care reform legislation is Obama's Iraq: it has deeply wounded the Democrats, and the wound may be beyond healing. Here is a clip of Cook's interview with the National Journal. It's a strong shot of whiskey.

Here is the money quote:

I sort of reject the notion that there is a communications problem with President Obama. I think it's just fundamental, total miscalculations from the very, very beginning. Of proportions comparable to President George W. Bush's decision to go into Iraq.

How bad is the Democrats situation? Michael Barone and Democratic Pollster Stan Greenberg apparently agree on that. From Barone's blog:

I find it interesting that veteran Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg agrees with my Wednesday Examiner column that if the November elections were held today, Republicans would win control of Congress…

Greenberg compares the Democrats' plight with their situation in 1994. I believe it's actually worse. Back in 1994 I wrote the first column that appeared anywhere outside of explicitly Republican media arguing that Republicans had a serious chance of winning a majority in the House. It appeared in the U.S. News issue dated July 18, which was published (in line with magazine custom) on July 11. That was almost five months later in the 1994 cycle than we are in the 2010 cycle today. That means that Democrats have more time to recover than they did that year, but it also means that they are in far more trouble at this stage in the current cycle than they were 16 years ago.

As Barone points out, there is good news and bad news for the Democrats in that. Like a downhill skier, their party is dreadfully behind on the upper part of the course. Maybe they can ski really fast on the rest of the course. I'm inclined to doubt it.

Republicans are in a position to benefit from hindsight, if only they will look past their own hind ends. The Democrats didn't surge in 2006 and 2008 because the voters embraced their programs and personalities (well, maybe they did embrace Obama's personality). They surged because they were the party of Not Bush. That of course is how the two party system works. It's like a steering wheel, when you don't like what is to your right, turn the wheel to the left.

The GOP is right now in the same position as the Democrats after 2003. Republicans are not surging because the people have suddenly recognized the virtues of the party. They are surging because they are the party of Not Obama, Not Reid and Not Pelosi. That is especially true regarding the Tea Party Movement, which is all about what it is not in favor of.

The Republicans are doing just fine as the party of no, but if they do capture control of one or both houses, they will have to become the party of this. They had better be thinking about what this is. I am not optimistic about that. I am not confident that Republicans in general have the imagination to find an agenda that will solve the problems we face and satisfy the vast no vote in the electorate. Worse still, I am not sure that such an agenda is available.

Comments

[Erik Sean Estep]

KB: There is some good analysis, here. Strong Bourbon, indeed. To clarify, are you making the case that Obama overplayed his hand with Healthcare reform? Essentially, Obama tried a strategy of coopting the major stakeholders like the insurance companies and the medical industry, gave a vague idea about what he wanted and turned over effective leadership of the effort to Pelosi and Reid. Where Obama and company screwed up was in underestimating the counterpunching power of the GOP and the Tea Party anger. That being said, the elections ain't being held today. I still think that if the Dems can carve into the Tea Party base and peel off some voters with an economic populist message, there is some hope for maintaining control of Congress. What do you think of that narrative?