By David Epstein
Now that calls for Gonzales to resign are in full swing, everyone is jumping on the bandwagon, including Hillary (a sure sign that mainstream opinion is swinging that way). As this morning's Times story reports, even Republicans are getting into the act, with the soft-spoken Sen. John Ensign of Nevada telling us that he is now "very angry" and the blunter Sen. Tom Coburn from Oklahoma terming the administration's actions "idiocy."
(Ensign's statement reminds me of the scene in "Pretty Woman" where Richard Gere tells Julia Roberts: "I was very angry with [my father]. It cost me ten thousand dollars in therapy to say that sentence: 'I was very angry with him.'")
A typical analysis of the politics of the situation notes that this would all have blown over had the Democrats not taken over Congress in the midterm elections. Krugman's latest column, for instance says
The Bush administration has been purging, politicizing and de-professionalizing federal agencies since the day it came to power. But in the past it was able to do its business with impunity; this time Democrats have subpoena power, and the old slime-and-defend strategy isn’t working.
This is all certainly true. But it reinforces the notion that it's dangerous to have only one party control government, which is of course the mainstream view of why we have so much divided government these days.
If Democrats want to retake the White House in 2008 and keep Congress for a while too, they should leaven the conversation with a few more reminders to the public about how it's the Republicans that keep mismanaging the government and then lying about it. They need to emphasize that politics doesn't have to be like this, isn't always like this, and in fact wasn't like this when Democrats were in control. They made good policy and the country did well; the Republicans make bad policy and get us to where we are today.
What's that you say? The Democrats can't hit the Republicans too hard on this in 2008 because they have their own "baggage?" Nonsense. Clinton (Bill, that is) had a scandal during his presidency too, but it never had to do with his governing or policy making. That's why he had approval ratings in the 60's -- over twice our current president's approval level, mind you -- all the way through the impeachment proceedings/attempted coup d'etat.
This is what Gore didn't understand in 2000 (which is why he didn't really deserve to win, even though he really did win) and what Kerry refused to drive home in 2004 (because he couldn't bring himself to speak in simple, declarative sentences). The Democrats better hope that in this case, the third time is the charm.
Comments