David Frum argues that there's no hope for a McCain victory now, and that the GOP ought to throw what resources it has left behind salvageable Republican members of the Senate. Excerpt:
We need a message change that frankly acknowledges that the Democrats are probably going to win the White House -- and that warns of the dangers of one-party, left-wing government. There's a lot of poll evidence that voters prefer divided government. By some estimates, perhaps as many as 8 percent of voters consciously cast strategic votes in favor of division. These are the voters we need to be talking to now.I'm not suggesting that the RNC throw up its hands. But down-ballot Republicans need to give up on the happy talk about how McCain has Obama just where he wants him, take off their game faces and say something like this:
"We're almost certainly looking at a Democratic White House. I can work with a Democratic president to help this state. But we need balance in Washington.
"The government now owns a big stake in the nation's banking system. Trillions of dollars are now under direct government control. It's not wise to put that money under one-party control. It's just too tempting. You need a second set of eyes on that cash. You need oversight and accountability. Otherwise, you're going to wake up two years from now and find out that a Democratic president, a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House have been funneling a ton of that money to their friends and allies. It'll be a big scandal -- but it will be too late. The money will be gone. Divided government is the best precaution you can have."
It's the only argument we have left. And, as the old Washington saying goes, it has the additional merit of being true.
Can't disagree with that.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Cloture,
Thanks! I can appreciate that requiring a 3/5 majority is better and more achievable than a 2/3 majority.
And, on further consideration, I suppose a great many of the Framers would, in fact, have approved of gridlock, reasoning that it's better to make it harder for the government to do anything. After all, that's the kind of government they designed, and one of the reasons why we don't have a Westminster system.
Interesting argument and advice from Frum. It looks like some of the embattled Senate candidates (e.g. Dole in NC) are already beginning to make the same argument about the need for divided government in the face of an Obama election.
The "60 votes to end a filibuster" is a Senate rule. In theory, Senate rules can be changed by the majority. In practice, changing this particular rule would need a filibuster-proof majority (60 votes) to pass. See samefacts.org for more details on the advantages of a 60 vote working majority.
Ah, yes. It's always time for a divided government when it looks like the Democrats will take the presidency.
Oddly enough this appears to be the only time it applies.
I certainly agree that McCain is a goner - he twisted himself into pretzels on "Meet the Press" yesterday trying to explain how it is that Obama's advocacy for progressive taxation is socialist while McCain's past advocacy for progressive taxation was not socialist, and the bailout of Wall Street and the nationalization of U.S. banks was not socialist.
And Brokaw didn't even ask McCain how he could defend his hero, Teddy Roosevelt's support for progressive taxation. It showed, IMO, just how bogus and cynical the charge of socialism against Obama is.
As for the Senate, if the Democrats get control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency, then the Democrats will own the problem. Be careful what you wish for, Democrats. There are fault lines in the Democratic Party just as there are in the Republican Party.
If the Democrats don't do well, even if Obama turns out to be a good President, it is likely the voters will punish the Democrats at the next midterm elections.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.