THE PLANK MARCH 29, 2007
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
A liberal-blogger cause du jour is to smack down talk that Democratic oversight hearings risk a backlash-inducing overreach. I don't think we're close to that point yet myself. But it clearly is a potential danger--even Henry Waxman told me so shortly after the election. And although poll numbers like these do show public satisfaction with Democratic investigations thus far, the obvious point is that Democrats want to be ahead of such polls, not following them. You can't wait until voters think you've gone too far to dial it back; by then the damage has been done. (Go ask ex-senator Al "Whitewater Show" D'Amato.)
Some of this is just tonal. I'm pretty sympathetic to the oversight hearings I've seen thus far. But I've also seen some gratingly self-righteous grandstanding (usually by back-bench members reveling in the spotlight) which, to the extent the average citizen notices, can't be helping the party.
It's also worth noting that, despite support for oversight specifically, the overall approval numbers of Congressional Democrats have declined since the election. One friend on the Hill argues that's a reflection of general disgust with Congress and Washington than any opinion on Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi specifically. It's still not good news for Democrats.
--Michael Crowley
6 comments
I think most of the increase in dissatisfaction came during the period where Congress appeared to be twiddling its thumbs about Iraq. Let's see what happens now that Congress and the president are about to utt heads. More generally, in a two party system, we face a zero-sum electoral game, and I can't imagine most of these scandals are really helping the Republicans with respect to the Democrats. Even if they don't make you look particularly good, they make your opponent look much worse, and continue the developing meme of Republicans as the party of institutional corruption.
- jfabermit
March 29, 2007 at 8:31pm
Over a decade in the minority and you would have the figured the Dems learned a few lessons about pissing away tax payers money. Negative. Right back to pork spending and earmarks. I guess it doesn't matter who's in charge, these guys can't help themselves. Time for term limits.
- mpatrickhendri
March 30, 2007 at 8:55am
and required to maintain our system of democratic government. If the Democrats uncover genuine wrong-doing in these investigations [and what serious person believes they will not?] then the public will support them. The public turned on the GOP because they conducted 6 years of expensive and exhausting investigation and came up with one fat chick giving the president a few hummers. If the Democrats can't do better than that, the public will punish them. But who really thinks that's going to happen? The Bush admin is rotten to the core and everyone knows it. Investigate. Investigate. Investigate.
- Fairfax
March 30, 2007 at 8:58am
...that the low numbers are likely because the Dems appeared to be doing nothing on Iraq. That's a big reason - much bigger than corruption - that they were put back into the majority last Fall...people want that mess cleaned up and ended. I think they also want to see corruption curtailed so the oversight is good...and good for the country. But Iraq is issue #1 for most voting Americans.
The way I figure, Dems, Repubs and Indies were and are mostly, to a greater or lesser extent, disenchanted with their elected federal officeholders. The post-11/06 bump for Congress was likely less because of anything they did (numbers started to go up even before the new members took office) but because of what some indies and most Dems hoped they would do - take care of Iraq. They got a 2-3 months grace period. When it started looking like business as usual, indies and Dems became disenchanted again...not as many as pre-11/06 but also not an insignificant number. I expect they'll come back now that Iraq bills have been passed in both houses, regardless of what Bush does with them. But the president told me that if he vetoes those bills, the American public will know who's to blame...and it's not him. So we'll see....
- shamey73
March 30, 2007 at 11:13am
It's all about Iraq. Even when the Democrats do something, it is either symbolic or larded with pork -- or the timelines stretch out into infinity. End the war now. Neil
- purcellneil
March 30, 2007 at 11:51am
One should also take into account the fact that the media, along w/Pelosi & Reid & most of the Democrat congressional candidates oversold their ability to rein in a rogue administration. As long as Nicholas (er, Bush) II continues to go, "So, what are you going to do, impeach me??" the machinery of government, which may take "direction" from Congress but gets its jobs and paychecks from the Executive, will follow the boss wherever that may lead. Since Dick Chaney has been Dubya's insurance policy since Day 1, impeachment is a non-starter unless both of them go. One can say anything about how you are going to change the Beltway during a campaign, but the fact of the matter is that since we have a divided government rather than a parliamentary system, practical power resides in the Executive Branch, & other than "investigations" and playing chicken with the Prez over budgets and supplementary funding bills, there is really little that can be done to stop the Administration from leading the rest of us lemmings over the cliff.
- CMars
March 30, 2007 at 8:51pm