- Justin Webb
- 26 Oct 06, 10:16 PM
Are the making the same mistake the Democrats did in 2000?
I know plenty of Republican candidates do not want to be seen with the president, and the Democrats have been using the Bush visage in their adverts - but isn't it time to tackle this in a Rovian way and turn the apparent weak card into the Ace?
I remember one trip with President Bush during the 2002 midterms. We seemed to dot around from event to event in a dizzy pace for days, and - apart from lack of sleep and too much fried food - what I recall most strongly was the sheer excitement these events generated.
And the fact (and it is a fact) that the man himself looked a million times better and more comfortable in his own skin in this environment than in he does in DC.
So if I were advising the Republican party - Hell, no, I am advising them - I would say get your man out there and never mind the downside with the moderates and swingers, most of whom anyway. Concentrate on the magical powers he has over the base. If you need them this time, and you do, you need to let them know.
The Gore queasiness about Clinton cost him the 2000 election, and - let's face it - for similar reasons: The party was uneasy about its main asset and refused to overcome that uneasiness even though its core supporters would have loved it. History is repeating itself.
Justin Webb is the 大象传媒's chief North America radio correspondent.
- Lourdes Heredia
- 26 Oct 06, 05:04 PM
Immigration stirs so many emotions that it is hard to have a constructive debate about it - just ask , who had a special programme last night on CNN.
It is so controversial that it divides the members of the same party, so it should be no surprise that Congress was unable to come up with a compromise after studying immigration reform for five years.
Hours before Congress closed up shop so lawmakers could focus on getting re-elected, they approved the "", a law which President George W Bush signed today.
Some say that he waited to sign it until just days before the elections - an effort to change the focus from Iraq to security, in order to benefit the Republicans. But I am not sure that changing the debate to immigration will benefit anyone in these elections.
As I wrote in a previous post, this "secure fence act" has been called an "eggshell" law by some experts because they consider it hollow. It does not include enough funds to construct the fence, which will cover only one-third of the Mexican border - and none of the Canadian border.
Some readers said that was irrelevant.
"Why should it include a fence along the Canadian border? Illegal immigration from Canada is simply not a problem," JNG wrote.
Cruzer, another reader, also said there was no need for a fence in the north: "My dear, we don't have 12 million Canadians working in the kitchen."
Well, then, don't you think they should call this law the "Anti-Illegal Immigration Act" rather than the "Secure Fence Act"?
Whatever side you take in the debate, something does have to be done about immigration.
It has to be done for the people who feel their country - and its expensive social services - are being overwhelmed by illegal immigrants.
It has to be done for the people who live in the shadows, who are human beings and not "illegal aliens" as if they were from another planet.
It is such a complex, deep, emotional problem, that I just wish politicians would not use it in their campaigns. Why don't they use the energy they are spending now on the campaign to come up with reforms in immigration?
Lourdes Heredia is Washington correspondent for the 大象传媒's Latin American service.
- The Reporters
- 26 Oct 06, 03:45 PM
New York Times: The strain of the race is showing in gaffes and angry words, just when potential voters are paying the most attention.
USA Today: The New Jersey Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage may give a boost to campaigns to outlaw it in eight other states.
St Louis Post-Dispatch: The Democrats are trying to get sympathetic voters to the polls with another ballot measure in six states, on the minimum wage.
- Katty Kay
- 26 Oct 06, 12:52 AM
Two weeks to go and Washington has election fever. Party strategists, pollsters and journalists are thinking of nothing else.
The world is about to change. Or is it?
I'm starting to get the depressing feeling these much-heralded elections might not change very much at all here in the city of political stagnation.
Democrats can taste victory and are thrilled at the prospect of winning something, anything, after so many years out of power. Desperate to woo moderate voters they promise, brows furrowed with earnest sincerity, that if they win they will not spend the next two years investigating the Bush administration.
Whether those moderates can keep a lid on the likes of , who has already suggested impeachment hearings for the president and would become head of the if the Democrats win, is unclear. The Republicans have certainly used the spectre of endless investigations for their own political means during this campaign.
But that's not what depresses me most. No, it's the lack of ideas and leadership which is really dispiriting this election season.
The Republicans are stuck in the gloom of Iraq and tumbling poll numbers. Policy ideas? You must be joking. It's all they can do to keep off the front pages.
Given the GOP doldrums, you'd think the Democrats could seize on this vacuum of ideas and come up with some eye-catching proposals of their own. I'm afraid not. The Democratic party is an ideas-free zone at the moment. Plenty of criticism, not much originality.
On both sides it's as if the paralysis caused by Iraq has infected all other areas of political life.
If the Democrats win big, the impeachment-wing of the party will feel emboldened. The result: lots of investigation, not much legislation. If the result is close neither side will have the clout to enact radical change. The result: lots of in-fighting, not much law-making.
The time is ripe for a real leader to emerge. For the past couple of weeks I've been asking people in both parties whether they can see any such figure. Is there someone new out there, someone we perhaps haven't heard of yet, who could pull the country out of logjam? So far I've only received sad shakes. No, no-one they can think of.
This 109th Congress has been aptly described as the "" Congress. Its successor could well be the do-less-than-nothing Congress.
Katty Kay is a presenter on
