The State Of The Opposition

David Corn

February 01, 2006

David Corn writes The Loyal Opposition twice a month for TomPaine.com. Corn is also the Washington editor of The Nation and is the author of The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception (Crown Publishers). Read his blog at  http://www.davidcorn.com.

Pop quiz: this is the week most Americans will be fixating on (a) the latest twist on American Idol; (b) anything involving Oprah; (c) the Super Bowl; or (d) the presidential State of the Union. Answer: all of the above except (d).

Every year, in late January, the politerati obsess over the president's Big Speech. In the run-up, there's speculation about what themes and proposals he'll toss out. Afterward, there's much analysis over his rhetoric and policy suggestions. (And was that a kiss he planted on Joe Lieberman's cheek or what?) Then it's back to business, as if the speech hadn't occurred. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in recent years no SOTU had much of an impact other than the post-9/11 "Axis of Evil" edition (which essentially said, "Saddam, I'm coming.")  Remember Bush's call for a Mission to Mars in SOTU 2004? I'm still waiting. Last year's long riff on Social Security led to nothing—and many Americans are grateful for that. So I'm going to flip the switch and take this occasion—when Bush's standing in the polls is lower than that of other recent two-term presidents at this point in their presidency (except for the Watergate-burdened Richard Nixon)—to evaluate the state of the opposition party.

Some Democrats have been crowing recently about their prospects in 2006. Bush's misadventure in Iraq is currently unpopular with the American public. The Jack Abramoff scandal keeps spreading like a toxic oil spill. An indicted Tom DeLay had to abdicate his throne and faces a tough reelection showdown in his own Texas district. Other GOPers on the Hill are hiring defense attorneys. Dick Cheney's most senior aide was indicted. Michael Brown—the symbol of Bush's botched response to Hurricane Katrina—remains a national punchline. A recent Washington Post/ ABC News poll found that 51 percent of respondents believe that Democrats have better ideas, compared to 35 percent who fancy the notions of Republicans. According to a Cook Political report survey, Americans would prefer a Democratic congressional candidate to a Republican contender 51 to 39 percent. In political terms, that's a titanic gulf. "Any reasonable reading of the trends would suggest that Democrats can expect significant gains in November," Democratic pollster Paul Harstad told The Washington Post.

But where have I heard this before? I recall talking to Terry McAuliffe, then-Democratic Party chief, in the spring and summer of 2004, and he was always saying, "Boy, I wish the election was today." But that "today" didn't come. And with Karl Rove signaling that he will once more—for the third election in a row—accuse the Democrats of being too wimpy (and too concerned with civil liberties) to kick ass in the war on terror, Democrats should realize that the other side knows how to do whatever it takes just in time for E-Day.

Rove-inations aside, Democrats have other worries, including some that are self-inflicted, wittingly or not. On the two most important issues of recent weeks—the Iraq war and the Samuel Alito nomination—the party has been split. To top it off, the party leadership has alienated the base on these hot topics. Polls show most Americans believe the war was not worth it. But the Democrats are divided; there's no consensus Democratic response to Bush's blunder. Some Dems want to pull out right away, some want to disengage more slowly, some want to get it right. This may reflect the state of public opinion; even though most Americans have soured on the war they do not back withdrawal (or "cutting-and-running," as the war backers call it). So it's hard for the Democrats to address (or take advantage of) the dissatisfaction caused by Bush's invasion. Moreover, while polls show the public feels that Democrats can handle Iraq better than Republicans, they also find that Americans believe that Republicans are stronger leaders than Democrats. While 53 percent consider Bush to be neither honest nor trustworthy, a majority views him as "a strong leader" who can be trusted in a crisis and approves of his management of the war on terror—even as 60 percent disapprove of his handling of the war in Iraq.

The big picture: Many—if not most—Americans don't mind having a cowboy in the White House. And without a clear position on the war, the Democrats, as a party, will have a hard time using the war to argue that the cowboy's posse in Congress ought to be chased out of town. This is especially so because the divide appears to be growing between get-out-now Democrats (particularly those at the grassroots) and those Democrats who are ducking the debate or advocating staying the course. Hillary Rodham Clinton was booed by anti-war activists in Oregon. Cindy Sheehan has said she may run against Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein because DiFi has not called for withdrawal. Such outbursts are not yet a major concern for the party. It's not quite 1968. But they are signs of potential trouble. Parties don't tend to do well in elections if they are alienated from die-hard supporters.

Which brings us to Alito. On Monday this week, several Democratic senators, led by John Kerry, tried to mount a last-minute and poorly planned filibuster. Yet, the homepage for the website of the Democratic senators said absolutely nothing about the Alito confirmation (which almost every Democratic senator opposed). That's because the caucus was yet again divided. Most Dems were opposed to Alito, but only 24 of 44 Democratic senators ended up supporting a filibuster that many grassroots Democrats craved. This is not to suggest that an Alito filibuster would have lead the Democrats back to majority status in the Senate. In fact, some Democrats were griping than the filibuster would harm the party's prospects in November. But a party that keeps splitting on critical issues has a tough time producing an effective meta-message that—theoretically, at least—can bolster its chances of making national gains in an election composed up of almost 500 individual contests.

The meta-message the Democrats have been pushing of late is this: we're not sleazebags like the Republicans. They have been trying to cash in on the GOP troubles with Jack Abramoff and other lobbyists. There are two problems with this game plan. The public—so far—doesn't care that much about Abramoff and his congressional partners in crime. That Washington Post /ABC News poll asked people what priority they attached to key issues. Iraq, terrorism and the economy—unsurprisingly—topped the list of 14 choices. Lobbying reform was dead last—behind global warming, immigration, federal disaster preparedness and deficit reduction. And most Americans—rightly or wrongly—tell pollsters they believe there's not much difference between the parties when it comes to engaging in corrupt behavior.

Here's the other problem for the Democrats on lobbying reform. Their package of reforms—which does go further than the GOP grab-bag and which is not so bad—ignore the real issue: the nexus between lobbying and financing campaigns. Why do lobbyists get special access on Capitol Hill? Why does a member of Congress do special favors for lobbyists and their clients? It's not because an influence-peddler takes the lawmaker out to lunch. It's because the lobbyist can raise tens of thousands of dollars for the campaign treasure chests of legislators. The Democratic reform plan doesn't touch this. It would force outgoing members of Congress and senior staffers to wait two years (instead of one) before becoming a lobbyist. It would ban legislators from accepting gifts, meals and travel from lobbyists. It would force lobbyists to disclose more information about their activities. But the corrupt power dynamic would not shift. Just the other day, a lobbyist for a public entity (not a corporation) told me that recently he went to see a Republican House member to discuss an issue. Minutes into his presentation, the legislator asked, “How much money can you raise for me?” This lobbyist replied, "I work for [Name Deleted by Author]. We don't raise money." The lawmaker nodded and immediately referred the lobbyist to a junior staffer. This exchange encapsulates what's wrong on the Hill. And the Democrats, with their reform plan, have nothing to say about that.

I'm not saying all is doom and gloom for the Dems in the coming elections. (We haven't covered, however, how brazen gerrymandering has stifled competition in all but a small number of congressional districts or the fact that the GOP has six times the cash on hand as the Democratic Party, with the elections only nine months away.) But while Bush and the GOPers have screwed up on many fronts, the Democrats have not yet figured out how to shine on their own. And in politics, it often doesn't matter how bad one side looks if it knows how to hurl the mud well. So as a seemingly weak Bush tries this week to define his presidency in terms that will enhance the electoral prospects of his fleeing-from-prosecutors Republican comrades, there ought to be no chortling among Democrats. The state of their party is unsettled as well.