GOP Redefining '06 Election, Pt 3: "Will Ike, Tony or Ross Win in 2008?"

Will the next president be like Ike (Eisenhower), emerging as an attractive and experienced presidential choice to a nation weary of war?

Or will the winner in 2008 redefine their party as Britain's Tony (Blair) did in the mid-1990s, establishing the foundation for a new governing majority in America?

Or will a third party choice arise similar to Ross (Perot's) 1992 populist-driven candidacy, scramble the political matrix, and attract enough support to enable a candidate to win the White House with less than 45% of the popular vote?

These three wildly different scenarios were proposed recently by an influential political scientist as possible precedents for the 2008 presidential contests.

Join me below the fold to learn more.

This is the third of three posts reviewing conservative political scientist Michael Barone's cover story, "Open-Field Politics" in the current issue of The National Journal, in which he engages in a comprehensive effort to reframe the political outcome of the 2006 midterm elections.

Tragically, the Congressional Democrats' current timidity and lack of leadership show his efforts (combined with many others in the Right Wing's noise machine) are succeeding.

How did the Democrats move so quickly from November's euphoria over our historic victory to the place we are today?

I believe the answer can be found in Barone's article. Especially when you realize what's missing from the article.

The Democrats have accepted these "facts" about the 2006 midterm election results:

1. The electorate was rejecting GOP incompetence but NOT conservative ideology
2. The Democrats DO NOT have a mandate on any issues (other than Iraq & corruption) because the 2006 election was an "idea-free" campaign

These two "facts" are simply not true. But, because they have already become the "conventional wisdom" - particularly among the chattering classes of the DC cocktail circuit - the Democrats are on the road to failure.

For a complete analysis of the article, please see the preceding posts:

Part I: The Myth of the Bitter Divide, 1995-2005 discusses the revionism necessary to create what is widely accepted as political doctrine today: for a decade, America was an evenly divided nation. The Red Team vs. The Blue Team

Part II, "Why Do We Allow GOP Pundits to Define Our Victory?" looks at how Barone (and any other skilled propagandist) can look at hard numbers and spin them to tell the story they want.

An historic victory is dismissed as meaningless. The newly minted majority believes it has no power. And the conservative movement envisions its resurrection and prepares for another usurption of power.

Part III: Is the Precedent for 2008 Eisenhower, Blair or Perot?

All of this brings us to the last part of Barone's article - his "predictions" for the 2008 presidential contest. He reviews the current state of both the Democratic and Rebublican nomination battles (I'll spare you the details) and arrives at the conclusion 2008 is a wide open "presidential race different from any other recent presidential race."

He looks for historical precedent "to advance three possible scenarios for the 2008 results," specifically Tony Blair, Dwight Eisenhower and Ross Perot. He writes:

The Blair Scenario. In the early 1990s, Britain's Conservative Party was regarded as nasty but competent. Then in September 1992 Britain was forced to exit from the European Rate Mechanism; interest rates and mortgage payments shot up, and the Conservatives' reputation for economic competence vanished. The Labor Party went ahead in the polls, to remain there until 2006, an impressive 14 years. Under the leadership of Tony Blair, New Labor, as he called it, won a sweeping victory in 1997. The House of Commons shifted from 343-273 Conservative to 419-165 Labor. Prime Minister Blair's party won a similarly sweeping victory in 2001 and won by a slightly reduced margin in 2005.

In this scenario, the reader might assume Barone is envisioning the Democrats as poised for a long-term majority. Of course, Barone argues this isn't happening because the Democrats have rapidly been moving toward the left over the past six years. On top of this, the Republican candidates are all distancing themselves from the incompetence of the Bush administration and its policies. It's important to Barone's basic points:

1. The Democrats are too liberal for a conservative America - and by listening to their base, they're moving further from the mainstream (wait, didn't we just WIN an election? - oh, no, the Republicans LOST, that's it)
2. The failures of the Bush Administration are limited to the individual and not a result of the conservative ideology

He's reinforcing the message that the Democrats only hope is to move toward the center (and infuriate their base) and he's innoculating the Republican Party from the disease that is BushCo.

Barone's actually making the case that THE REPUBLICANS ARE DOING THE REBRANDING.

Goebbels would be proud.

The Ike Scenario. In 1952 the United States was mired in a deadly conflict in Korea -- a conflict that took 10 times as many lives as Iraq has and that President Truman could not end. There emerged a candidate with a record of making life-and-death decisions in war: Dwight D. Eisenhower. Ike captured the Republican nomination from "Mr. Republican," Robert Taft, and then defeated a refreshing new face from Illinois, Adlai Stevenson, who had little military experience. At a time when Democrats had a big advantage in party identification, Eisenhower won the election solidly, and Republicans captured small majorities in both houses of Congress.

So, who is "Ike" in Barone's 2008 race? He suggests Rudy (he commanded a police force of 40,000 Barone tells us) or maybe McCain. Of course, none of the Democrats have the military background and gravitas necessary to fills Ike's shoes, with the possible exception being Richardson's foreign policy experience.

As far as I'm concerned this scenario is the least likely of Barone's three fantasies. Neither McCain nor Giuliani is advocating ending the Iraq fiasco and are members of the party responsible for launching this war. Now, if Wes Clark were to jump into the race this might be a viable scenario.

There is no "Ike" in this race.

This brings us to the most probable scenario, especially with today's news about Mayor Bloomberg. has changed his party registration from (R) to independent and his

The Perot Scenario. In February 1992 a short billionaire from Texas told CNN's Larry King that he might run for president. Perot had enough money (he ultimately spent more than $60 million of his own money) and enough celebrity to make an independent candidacy plausible. What made Perot appealing to voters tired of stale, bitter division were his calls for reform and an end to partisan wrangling.

The newly-independent Bloomberg has reportedly set aside $1 BILLION of his own fortune (rumors started by the Moonies at the WA Times, so, we have our large grain of salt nearby, of course) to finance a run for president. (What are we Italy, for crissakes??!!! Who does he think he is, Berlusconi???). Rasmussen recently offered analysis of Bloomberg's potential to affect the presidential race. This week, SurveyUSA released polling numbers showing Bloomberg's entry would hurt Giuliani more than Hillary in nine of the sixteen states polled regarding hypothetical two-way and three-way matchups.

Barone's Perot scenario doesn't identify the beneficiary of a strong third party candidacy in 2008. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that he made yet another omission.

And the only thing I can say is a third party candidacy will make an already interesting race more fascinating and entertaining.

I don't think I made myself enough popcorn for this feature, folks.

Cross-posted at Daily Kos , ProgressiveHistorians, and MyDD.

GOP Redefining 2006 Election, Pt 2 - A New Majority?

This is the second of three posts analyzing Michael Barone's cover story "Open-Field Politics" in the current issue of The National Journal. In the article Barone, lead author of the Almanac of American Politics, is working hard to rewrite history, diminish the importance of the 2006 midterm results, and resurrect the Republican Party.

It is important to note that Barone, a conservative political scientist, has undue influence on shaping the worldview of the 'Inside the Beltway" crowd. He claims to be the first pundit/political commentator to describe America as a 49% nation - a country evenly divided between two partisan factions. Through his writings in US News & World Report and The National Journal (not to mention his appearances on Fox News) he presents his conservative "spin" on election results, typically hyping Republican advances and diminishing Democratic gains. Often, these ideas become the conventional wisdom of the DC political class.

Why is this important?

When Democrats accept Barone's conservative framing of the political power balance, it leads to failure. Our confidence falters. Our leadership loses its way.

As stated in the previous post, Barone's article should be viewed as part of the ongoing effort to redefine conservatism and distance both the movement and the Republican Party from the failures of the Bush presidency. Glenn Greenwald discussed the GOP's efforts to repudiate George W. Bush as a real movement conservative two weeks ago.

Let's look at the "story" Barone tells about the midterm election in "Open-Field Politics."

In Part I: The Myth of the "Bitter Divide," 1995-2005, I examined Barone's omission of critical events (September 11th) and strategies that facilitated the creation of a Republican-friendly frame by establishing the following:

1. America has been bitterly and evenly divided between two parties
2. The conflict is rooted in the "culture wars" (guns, gays and abortion)
3. It is unclear as to which party is to blame, although if the MSM and American public believe the issues of guns, gays and abortion are the cause Democrats are likely to be blamed by swing voters

Part II: The 2006 Midterms - A New Majority?

Barone states "the 2006 election was at least somewhat different" from the five national elections that preceded it. Somewhat? Let's review the facts: Both houses of Congress switched party control, the Democrats won six of the seven closest Senate races, the margin between the victorious Dems and the defeated GOP in house was 6 points (similar to the margin in the 1994 GOP "Revolution) and not one Democratic incumbent lost their seat, an unprecedented feat.

How does this add up to somewhat different?

The numbers are difficult to deny, but Barone tries.

The Democratic capture of the Senate last year owed something to luck, as is often the case; Democrats won six of the seven closest races, and their candidates won in Montana and Virginia -- both long shots at the start of the year -- by a total of 12,891 votes.

The defeat of six incumbent GOP Senators is simply glossed over. These GOP defeats are not described as a repudiation of Republican incompetence or the Iraq War. Nope. It was merely luck.

Barone looks at the voting patterns of various demographic groups and there is not a single bright spot for the Republicans, except the ongoing participation and support they received from evangelical and born-again Protestants.

According to Barone's review, the bad news for Republicans is everywhere:

1. The GOP lost support across the ideological spectrum, most significantly among independent voters
2. Democrats defeated GOP House incumbents even in strong Bush districts when they ran strong campaigns (hey, there's that Fifty-State Strategy thing working again!)
3. The labor movement's GOTV effort was extremely successful
4. The new voters who contributed to a surge in voting in 2004 appear to have switched from Bush voters and supported Democrats in the 2006 House races

Despite this widespread GOP collapse, Barone states,

"The election was more a verdict on competence than on ideology, and it gave the Democrats an opportunity but, on most issues at least, not a mandate. (emphasis added)

As the liberal columnist E.J. Dionne wrote, Democrats got their votes on loan. It was a negative verdict on the conduct of the military struggle in Iraq and on the government's response to Hurricane Katrina. It was a negative verdict on a Republican Congress that seemed casual about corruption and complacent about wasteful spending. It was a clear victory won after a campaign that was conducted largely in an idea-free zone."

This is a very important and dangerous point. Democrats accept this message at their own peril.

Before I review the "lack of mandate" and "negative verdict" statements, I must point out Barone's cynical and misleading use of E.J. Dionne's writing to validate his conclusions. The wording of the excerpt above implies that Dionne makes these same observations. But, this is not the case. If you click on the link contained in the article, it takes you to the RealClearPolitics online posting of Dionne's Nov 9, 2006 opinion piece. The headline of the piece at RCP is indeed, "Democrats Won With Votes on Loan." But, there is a disconnect between the article's title and content. Here is what Dionne actually writes:

American voters, in their wisdom, ended an era on Tuesday. They rejected a poorly conceived war policy in Iraq that has weakened the United States. They rejected a harshly ideological approach to politics that cast opponents as enemies of the country's survival. They rejected a president so determined to win an election that he was willing to slander his opponents by saying: "The Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses.'' The voters decided there was no decency in that.

No longer will the national tragedy of 9/11 be used as a political currency. No longer will Democrats cower and invoke Karl Rove's alleged genius as an excuse for their mistakes. No longer will learned commentators be able to assert that conservative Republicans form a "natural governing majority,'' that swing voters aren't important, and that independents and moderates don't matter any more.

-- snip --

But many of the party's successful candidates ran as moderates, and Democrats hold power on the basis of a loan of votes from middle-of-the-road Americans who simply could not stomach Bush Republicanism anymore. The loan can be recalled at any moment.

The good news for Democrats is that their candidates, moderates and liberals alike, ran on two common themes: that the Bush Iraq policy had to change, and that the Washington Establishment simply does not understand the personal struggles and economic insecurities confronting so many Americans.

While Dionne describes the votes Democrats received from swing voters in 2006 as a loan, it is hardly the central point of his article. So, I thought I'd look at how it was headlined in Dionne's paper, The Washington Post, and, lo and behold, the WaPo has a far different - and more accurate - headline: Meeting at the Middle.

So, Barone incorporates Dionne into supporting his analysis, essentially using a headline that Dionne may have never seen to imply the two pundits reached the same conclusion. See? Barone isn't spouting conservative spin. He's just reinforcing the bipartisan consensus.

Now, back to dissecting Barone's conclusions: "The election was more a verdict on competence than on ideology, and it gave the Democrats an opportunity but, on most issues at least, not a mandate...Democrats got their votes on loan."

On the surface the claims made here seem quite reasonable. In fact, I'd argue that they are already generally accepted in the DC political cognoscenti circles, if not the nation at large. But, let's be clear, the development and dissemination of this view is designed to hamstring the Democrats in Congress.

Let's look at three problematic components of Barone's review of the 2006 midterms:

• The election was about Republican incompetence and not ideology. Yes, it was primarily about GOP mismanagement, but it was also about ideology despite Barone's claims. If we define ideology as how we view the role of government in our society, then one could argue the GOP's approach of a smaller government reliant on a private/public sector partnership has been rejected. While many Americans may not be paying enough attention to connect the dots, FEMA's incompetent and tragic response to Hurricane Katrina was a result of this ideology.
• The Democrats may not have a mandate on most issues because the campaign was run in an idea-free zone. The 2006 campaign was dominated by Iraq and the multiple Congressional scandals. On these issues Democrats did receive a clear mandate from the voters. This "lack of support" mantra also ignores polling data. Rasmussen Reports' tracking polls show the public trusts Democrats over Republicans on all ten key issues facing the nation today. Media Matters' recently released report "The Progressive Majority" effectively dispels the belief that America is a fundamentally conservative country. And, one other thing: wasn't it the GOP spinmeisters telling us prior to the election that House races are always about local issues? Didn't they deride the Democrats' efforts to nationalize the election? The voters knew what they were voting for when they gave the Democrats the majority.
• The election was a negative verdict on the GOP; Democrats got their votes on loan. Every election provides the nation to issue a verdict on the incumbent party's performance. When parties get ousted from power, it is usually a result of a "negative performance review" issued by the electorate. As far as this idea the Democrats got their votes "on loan," I respond: Isn't this true of every election, especially when we're talking about the all-important swing voter? Isn't convincing the middle-of-the-road voter you can do a better job than the other guy what campaigns are all about?

Six months into a Democratic Congress approval numbers are plummeting into the basement. Much of this can be attributed to the Democratic leadership accepting and operating within the frame created by Barone and his colleagues in the conservative spin machine.

The American electorate voted for change. Thus far, the Democrats are failing to deliver.

GOP Redefining 2006 Election, Pt 1 - The Myth of the Bitter Divide

This week's National Journal cover story, "Open-Field Politics" is written by Michael Barone, long-time author of The Almanac of American Politics. It is a lengthy article that merits considerable discussion and analysis among politically active Americans. He makes some broad observations about recent election results, the current presidential campaign, and the new political playing field that may have emerged from the 2006 midterm results.

Barone is a member of the DC punditocracy and in recent years his analysis has become increasingly biased toward conservative partisan views. He is a semi-regular Fox News talking head and he posts over at Townhall.com. This fact makes it all the more important to review his article, as it reveals how the conservative "thinkers" are hard at work framing the current political climate.

The article should be viewed as part of the ongoing effort to redefine conservatism, reposition the Republican Party, and distance both the movement and party from the failures of the Bush presidency. Glenn Greenwald has discussed the GOP's efforts to repudiate George W. Bush as a real movement conservative.

This is the prism through which Barone's article should be viewed: How is Barone working to frame the midterm defeat and new political realities in a manner that does not doom the Republican Party to minority status?

This analysis will be divided into three posts:

Part I: The Myth of the Bitter Divide, 1995-2005
Part II: The 2006 Midterms - A New Majority?
Part III: A Look to the Future

Part I: The Myth of the Bitter Divide, 1995-2005

When Barone reviews the period between 1995-2005 he engages in a subtle yet thorough revision of recent history. The primary tool he uses is the omission of vital events. He disarms and engages the reader in a manner that should be familiar to any of us who have watched the conservatives manipulate the MSM and pulic opinion in recent years.

He sets a rather disarming tone from the outset. The first two paragraphs of the article begin with the same phrase, "we seem to be entering a new period." Why does he choose this "weak" phrasing? This is rather uncharacteristic, particularly in this bombastic era of the 24-hour cable channels. Is it meant to show less confidence in Barone's analysis? Or, is it an effort to disarm the reader, who after years of screaming talking heads declaring, expects declarative, argumentative statements in our political dialogue?

We seem to be entering a new period in American politics. We have come through a
period of trench warfare, in which two armies of approximately equal size faced each other across the battlefield and tried to rally their sides to achieve the incremental gains that would make the difference between victory or defeat. There were few defections from either army in this culture war, and almost no one crossing the lines. Like the trench warfare of World War I, our politics in this period, which stretched from 1995 to 2005, was a conflict of many bitter battles and no final victories.

Now we seem to be entering a new period, a period of open-field politics. It seems to be a time when there are no permanent alliances, when new leaders arise with new strategies and tactics, when the voters, instead of forming themselves into two coherent and cohesive armies, wander about the field, attaching themselves to one band and then another, with no clear lines of battle and no landmarks to rally beside.

The "weak" opening sentences contrast starkly with the martial metaphor Barone chooses to use in describing the political climate of the past decade. Also, notice the year this "trench warfare" begins. The government shutdown marks the start of this stalemate. While the terrorist attacks of September 11th occurred shortly past the midpoint of this period of stalemate, Barone fails to mention this event.

Barone makes no mention of the fact that Americans of all political persuasions rallied to the support of the president. This seems peculiar and outrageous. He neglects to mention that one side in this "bitter battle" was silent, laid down their arms and failed to engage the other side for more than a year. The GOP entered the 2002 midterms full steam ahead, fully engaged against an adversary that actually believed "9/11 changed everything."

It is disingenuous to talk of the trench warfare arising from the culture wars without acknowledging the terrorist attacks. This is pure revisionist history at work. One could argue that without 9/11, the Democrats would have retained control of the Senate, and possibly gained the House in the 2002 midterms. And, it is very likely Bush would have followed in his father's footsteps as a one-term president. Ah, but maybe he'll address this later in the article. Wanna put money on it? In fact, Barone will only mention 9/11 twice:

1) He references the 2006 Democratic platform promise to enact the 9/11 commission report's suggestions into law
2)Reinforces the Rudy as strong leader meme in acknowledging Giuliani's viability in 2008 is a result of his high-profile performance in the days after the attack

We should also note what Barone determines as the cause for this stalemate: the "culture wars" are to blame. He does not mention tax policy, jobs, or the economy. Nor does he identify foreign policy, military intervention, education or health care. The parties have clearly divergent views on many - if not all - of these important questions. But, he singles out the "culture wars" precisely because these are the wedge issues the Republicans have used against Democrats to win close elections. A coincidence? I think not. He is subtly shifting blame for the stalemate toward the Democrats, at least in the minds of the "values voters."

It is also noteworthy to recognize the dates and events that bracket the decade of division. In 1995, the government shutdown marked the beginning of the bitter battles between the two parties. According to Barone, this period did not end until the devastation of New Orleans by Hurricane Katrina. He does not attach any responsibility for either event to a particular party. Simply another harmless omission?

Barone reviews the percentage each party received in the House elections between 1996-2004, repeats the "culture war" argument and then says, "Elections became less a matter of persuading movble voters in the center and more a matter of turning out the party faithful on Election Day." Now, wasn't it Karl Rove that articulated and implemented this "divide and conquer/50% plus 1" strategy? Barone fails to mention this. He wants Americans to assign blame equally between the two parties.

This new period, which Barone describes as "open-field politics" is fluid, with no permanent alliances. The voters are less attached and have no real "landmarks" - or issues - to rally around. Now, does that sound like America today? Perhaps someone should remind Mr. Barone about Iraq. His description of this new period is more applicable to the current state of the Republican Party, not the nation at large. But, it is simply too dangerous for conservatives to acknowledge the schisms are limited to within the GOP.

These serious, pervasive and obvious omissions invalidate much of Barone's analysis. But, to dismiss this writing would be foolish and irresponsible.

The Republicans are in the process of convincing the public and media the following:
1) America has been bitterly and evenly divided between two parties
2) The conflict is rooted in the culture wars (guns, gays and abortion)
3) Neither party is clearly to blame, although if the MSM and public believe the issues of guns, gays and abortion, then Democrats are more likely to be viewed as responsible

All of this must become part of the conventional wisdom for the GOP to remain competitive in upcoming elections.

America has gone through periods of open-field politics in the past, most recently during 1990-1995, Barone states. These periods are marked by unpredictability. Again, this is vital for the GOP to sustain the hopes of their grassroots and financial backers to remain viable.

Cross-posted at Daily Kos and MyDD.