Reader Elmer sends today's Corning Leader report (page A3 [pdf], jump [pdf]) from Randy Kuhl's Thursday press conference. Kuhl is frustrated with the pace of legislation in Congress. He thinks the budget might not be done until after October 1, and Congress might not adjourn before Christmas.
Judging how "fast" or "slow" Congress is working is difficult, but let's start with some facts. During the last non-election year (2005), the Republican-led House had voted 485 times by September 21. This year, the House has voted 890 times. In 2005, the House adjourned on December 19.
Here's what then-Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH-8) said in 2006 about adjournment dates:
It means nothing [...] You all know it means nothing because it really does mean nothing. Anyway, there is no reason to have a target adjournment on the schedule.
Comments
It seems that the GOP talking points now include criticizing Congress for not doing enough. I guess its an effort to jump on the public dissatisfaction shown by polls, and to muddy the waters. It's ironic that the slim Democratic majority's lack of "progress" is seen as a bright spot by Republicans heading into the elections of '08. What would constitute progress is another matter.
If that's the case, they need to take a closer look at the polls. They're driven in large part by dissatisfied Democrats who want Congress to do more.
Also, this week's events in the Senate have shown that nothing can get done in the Senate unless there's a 60 vote majority. I think the Republicans may regret driving that message home.
If people were reasonable, they would draw that conclusion, but given the hype during last fall and winter about how things were going to change as a result of the '06 election, they, and especially Democrats and Independents, are understandably disappointed. The Republicans may be smart to capitalize on that letdown and blame it on the "politicians in Washington," i.e., those who oppose the President's policies and insist on all those time-wasting investigations.
Politics brings out the child in all of us. The Daily Show made that point well the other night (Crazytown). The GOP's message is that even though the Democrats are in charge of congress, because they are inherently weak, they can't get things done. Republicans are generally successful in painting liberals and Democrats as Mommies and Republicans as the Daddies.
You may be right. Stewart said something like "Next week the Democrats will vote about whether to let the Republicans have half or all of their lunch money." And a lot of the press coverage focuses on votes that are "lost" rather than the use of the filibuster threat to obstruct.
But, on a state-by-state basis, if the election were held today, it looks like the Democratic majority in the Senate will grow, and the same is true in the House. So, even though there's overall dissatisfaction with Congress, when it comes down cases, the Republican strategy hasn't worked (yet).
I like the Democrats' veto-proof majority strategy in the legislative campaign. I keeps the emphasis on the intractability of the President and congressional Republicans. Of course, if a Democrat is elected president the issue will be moot, but it's a good counter to Republican blame game. (I love the way they cry while they win.)
BTW, I see that Fox is testing the Petraeus waters -- he traded an exclusive interview for a a "life and times" bio show. As you said months ago, he's smart and has come out of this with his reputation intact. Of course MoveOn has helped him along as well.
Perhaps the Republicans are winning at the moment, but I think the Republican "victories" are minor, almost completely tactical, and probably ultimately pyrrhic.
There are two key points that the Democrats need to drive home: 1) The US must broaden focus from Iraq to overall national security. Iraq has made us less secure - we need to get out of there to be more secure. 2) The only way to end the war, and make our country more secure, is to stop the Republican obstruction by electing a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and a Democratic president. In other words, "It's security, stupid".
As for Petraeus, it's probably worth comparing him to two examples of Generals who became politically active: MacArthur and Eisenhower. Petraeus strikes me as more of an Eisenhower (humble demeanor, measured rhetoric, reflective) than a MacArthur (arrogant, blowhard, reactionary). But even though Petraeus may be more of an Ike than a Mac in personality, in situation, he's more of a Mac. Mac was relieved after his insubordinate over-reach in Korea led (in part) to the entry of China into the Korean war. Even though Mac had a triumphant return to the US and was a potential presidential candidate, in the end, his support wasn't there, in part because he was associated with the stalemate in Korea. Barring a miracle, Petraeus will be associated very closely with a debacle in Iraq, and I don't know how he will get past that.
Petraeus has an appeal to the 10% of us who would bankrupt the country to avoid the dishonor of a military defeat, the 10% who just can't believe that our leaders can be wrong, plus the 2% who are neocons and war profiteers, plus the 30% who will believe anything that the mainstream media feeds them.
He has articulated a plan that could quell the violence in Iraq if we were willing to pay the price. Whether he deep down believes that it would be worth the cost is another story. The advantage that he has over the current Republican contenders is that he has intelligence, integrity, and a reasonable, documented plan. If he decides to ride the victory line to the White House, there is no doubt that the money would be there. His campaign could run on an ambiguous war plan like "We will secure Iraq and bring our people home in my first term as President," sort of the Nixon strategy -- it worked in '68. Hey, then he could double cross his backers and just pull out of Iraq after being elected. Right. Either way, it would cost him his reputed integrity.
I agree with you that Petraeus would loose if he had to compete with the Democratic candidate using arguments that are reality-based. Zinni and Wesley Clark failed that test before getting started. Like Ike, or Grant, for that matter, generals compete well in the military culture, but need a political machine to get them elected president. They don't have the kind of knowledge and skills needed to mount a campaign on their own.
I'll buy the 10/10/2, but I don't see the 30% sheep vote. Maybe I should be paying more attention to the hagiography, but I don't see how he's an attractive enough candidate for the media or media followers to develop a crush.
The reality of his testimony was that it was steady but completely uninspiring. Was there one single decent sound bite? Most of it was heavily qualified army-speak. Also, the 2008 field is pretty locked - even Fred Thompson is having trouble - so by 2012 the reality of Iraq will dominate our perception of Petraeus.