Rush Limbaugh, yesterday:
This month, just 9% say Congress is doing a good or excellent job. Most voters (52%) say Congress is doing a poor job, which ties the record high in that dubious category." Now, amidst all of this, with a 9% approval rating, an all-time low, the media template is still what? That the Democrats are going to pick up all these seats in the House and they're going to pick up all these seats in the Senate. It's a foregone conclusion. Now, if people are this upset with Congress, and the president's numbers are higher — you know, this is a risky thing to try to analyze. You have to ask how many Americans understand that Congress is now run by Democrats? How many of them think that Congress is just an extension of the White House and are blaming it on Republicans? Well, you don't know. But I think one of the keys here in every call I get, and every comment I get from people talking about this, whether it's here on the program or in my highly focused personal and private life, it's the gasoline price. The gasoline price is the root of everything because that affects the cost of food, the cost of leisure time activity, the cost of entertainment, and it's a gold mine. It is simply a golden opportunity for the Republican Party here to really make some big hay.
I wholehearedly agree with the idea here.
This is what frustrates me about the Republicans.
1) FACT: Democrats control Congress.
2) FACT: Approval of Congress is even lower than approval for Bush (9% this month).
3) MY OPINION: I think that if you poll a random person in the street and ask him/her who controls Congress, half of them would say the Republicans.
McCain is starting to put together an energy plan to help offset the gas price increase, and he's starting to call Obama "Dr. No" because Obama is against any of those proposals(increased drilling, nuclear options, incentives for battery development, gas tax holiday, etc.).
But it's not enough. Every single Republican out there should hammer these themes over the next 4 months:
1) Gas prices have skyrocketed - hurting everyone's pocketbook
2) The Democratic controlled congress has done NOTHING to help you
3) Here is our 4 point plan (mirroring McCain's plan)
4) Democrats - including Obama - have opposed every point of our plan
5) In fact, Democrats - including Obama - don't have a plan to decrease prices (as evidenced by ZERO action in Congress)
6) So who are you voting for? A party with new ideas on tackling skyrocketing prices, or the party who opposed any and all solutions?
That can be a winner. Why the Republican party - and Bush - doesn't embrace this chain of thought is beyond me.
I still have vivid memories of Bill Clinton HAMMERING Newt and the Republican Congress every single day from 1995-2000. Every Single Day. Clinton never stopped reminding people who was behind the congressional policies he opposed. For instance, the budget shutdown - Clinton successfully turned the tables and blamed Congress for the shutdown. Classic politics in action.
Why the Republicans aren't doing the same and placing a lot of the political blame of higher gas prices on Pelosi and company is beyond me.
3 comments:
Higher gas prices are here to stay. Low cost oil is over and done with. We knew this was going to happen but nobody since Carter has ever tried to do anything about it. What bugs me is that Bush and the Republicans keep harping on ANWR as a solution to our problems. Fact 1: Peak production there (and offshore) would only account for 5% -10% of our daily consumption today. Fact 2: that's 10 years out from now if we opened it up today. Fact 3: there's another reserve (NPR-A) to the west of the ANWR that the oil companies have basically ignored and now is being held up in the courts. Fact 4: oil is a limited resource. Fact 5: just because oil companies can drill for oil here doesn't mean it's going to be cheaper. It's a global commodity and they'll still sell to the highest bidder.
Now, I'm not opposed to drilling in Alaska if it's done in an environmentally safe way. But, I'm not delusional in thinking that it would eliminate our reliance on Middle Eastern oil or that it would drop gas prices back to $1.50/gallon. It just bugs me that this country thinks in the short term and how it's going to affect my pocket book today. We're fucked and I don't see any end to that. Fucking politicians just confuse the issues. Some days I wish we had a benevolent dictatorship.
Of course I disagree with you, Eric. (I've missed saying that over the last 4 months...)
I think the 9% reflects more on the Rs than on the Ds. Americans voted D overwhelmingly in 2006 because they didn't like the way congress was run (crazy spending, lack of oversight, corruption) and (I assume) because they supported the D agenda. But, since pretty much every vote is along party lines, Ds lack a veto-proof majority. Look at some of what the Ds passed but Bush has vetoed:
-stem cell research
-extended health insurance for kids
-ban on waterboarding and torture
-troop rest and readiness
The Rs come off as obstructionists and congress as a whole is ineffective. Thus, the 9% approval. It's unfortunate, but these days very little gets done unless the senate, house and president are all controlled by the same party. If the country is as gaga over "change" as they appear to be, expect people to vote overwhelmingly D in order to get things done.
In terms of the gas prices, I actually think that $4+ gas is great. (and not just because I have a 15 minute commute to work...) FIrst, it wakes people up to the fact that we can't and shouldn't rely on foreign countries to support our oil needs. Second, it'll promote conservation, which can only be good for the environment and national security in the long run. And third, it'll be a huge boost for new technology and cleaner energy solutions. If gas remained at $1.50, what would be the incentive to change anything?
Laura:
I'm sorry, I don't have time to break down your comment, but this sentence of yours just stood out:
"In terms of the gas prices, I actually think that $4+ gas is great."
Two thoughts:
1) I know what you are trying to say - but it comes off BAD. Elitist bad. Let's just say that if Obama said this, he'd lose 35 states.
2) I disagree with you - pain now is acceptable for the "longer term" view. Why is it an either or? Why can't we strengthen the dollar (and take other measures) to get gas back down - and get the economy back together again - and then work on teh long term plan?
I don't agree that we need to inflict pain for good in order to enact policy. It's awfully close to an analogy about war argument - some want/need America to lose to be proven right about the principle in the first place.
We don't need to suffer $4 gas forever to know we have got to do something in the future.
Now that we know what our future could be, let's a) relieve the pain and b) work toward avoiding it later.
Post a Comment