Tight race: GOP incumbent Elizabeth Dole has a tough fight in North Carolina. (Jim R. Bounds/AP)
GOP warns of one-party power
Republicans hope to head off a filibuster-proof Senate controlled by Democrats.
By Gail Russell Chaddock | Staff writer/ October 27, 2008 edition
Reporter Gail Chaddock talks with CSMonitor.com's Pat Murphy about high-profile US Senate and House races this election season.
Washington
“No Checks. No Balances. No Stopping Them.”
That’s the new Action Alert from the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee – and a sign that some Republicans are now openly conceding the White House, but scrambling to keep a firewall on Capitol Hill.
That Democrats will roar into the 111th Congress with a majority is now conventional wisdom in Washington. The question is how much of a majority – and will it reach the 60-vote threshold needed to break a filibuster?
In the last days of the 2008 race, those 60 votes are looming large in races from Maine to Oregon, and nowhere more apparently than in North Carolina, once viewed as a safe seat for Senate Republicans.
Democratic state Sen. Kay Hagan wasn’t the national party’s first choice to challenge Elizabeth Dole, a former GOP presidential candidate and two-time cabinet secretary.
A former “working mom” (banker), Ms. Hagan wasn’t even that well known in North Carolina, where she spent 10 years in the state Senate, including co-chairing the budget committee.
But Hagan is now taking Democrats within range of the 60 votes they need for a filibuster-proof US Senate.
“People are ready for a change,” she said in an interview between events on Day 1 of early voting in North Carolina last week.
“People are worried about jobs, the economy, and desperate for someone they can trust with the issues,” she says. “And Elizabeth Dole was only in the state 13 days in 2006.”
To emphasize the point, Hagan appears on the campaign trail with a pair of red slippers – a reference to the ruby slippers that Dorothy used to get back to Kansas in the movie “The Wizard of Oz.” (Senator Dole’s husband, former US Senate Republican leader and 1996 GOP presidential nominee Robert Dole, is from Kansas.)
To appear out of touch with your state is a misstep that has felled Senate giants in the past, most recently in the stunning upset in 2004 of Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle. But in the current political climate – with a national economic crisis that most voters blame on years of Republican control – it’s an even bigger political liability.
“What made Dole vulnerable in the first place was that she just hasn’t had a strong presence in North Carolina,” says David Rohde, a political scientist at Duke University in Durham, N.C. “She was regarded as an attractive person when she first ran, and that was enough to get her through the first time in a much more hospitable political environment than what we have now.
“But the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee had enormous resources to put into races, including this one, very early,” he adds. “They went on the attack and really shaped the perceptions of Dole in the state. That’s a lot easier to do if the senator doesn’t have a strong presence.”
By contrast, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, once viewed as one of the most vulnerable Republican senators this cycle, appears to have sheltered her campaign from national storms by her relatively independent voting record and closely maintained relations with constituents.
Until recently, political handicappers put Democrats just out of range of 60 seats. But the deepening mortgage and credit crisis is changing that calculus.
If current trends hold, Democrats are on track to win Senate seats in Virginia, Alaska, Colorado, New Hampshire, and New Mexico. Four other races – in North Carolina, Oregon, Mississippi, and Minnesota – are in statistical dead heats. And, in recent weeks, Democrats have mounted strong challenges in GOP strongholds in Kentucky and Georgia.
“Democrats are in range of winning seven to nine seats,” says Jennifer Duffy, who analyzes Senate races for the Cook Political Report in Washington.
“From the beginning, Democrats had a lot of cookie-cutter messages, such as the ‘Bush-Dole’ economy, but the message got a lot more powerful when the markets started to go south,” she adds.
In a bid to roll back that wave, Republicans are launching new ads on the dangers of unified government in Washington. In North Carolina, a 30-second ad warns that “These liberals want complete control of government in a time of crisis…. If she wins, they get a blank check.”
While polls in recent campaign cycles signaled that the public did value divided government, it’s not clear that will be a convincing argument in the current political climate.
“There’s probably some sentiment that we want our government checked, but we’ve had a long period of divided government since the 1960s,” says Julian Zelizer, a congressional historian at Princeton University in Princeton, N.J. “More urgent is the idea of change and responding to the economic crisis, which doesn’t lend itself to divided government. That leads to gridlock in the minds of the public.”
“I don’t hear Americans saying, make sure you have balanced government, although they might believe that,” says Sen. Charles Schumer (D) of New York, who chairs the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. “They say, get something done to help me and stop the partisan gridlock.”
Comments
2. John G. | 10.27.08
I can’t be the only one who thinks this sky-is-falling rhetoric is one of the most ironic bits of political fear-mongering ever, can I? I mean, isn’t this exactly what we had with the Republican’s until 2006? They even had the Supreme Court on their side of the aisle. Agreed, their one-party rule was a disaster for the country, but for Republicans to issue this particular dire warning is sort of like the weasel saying don’t trust the fox. But hey, irony is lost on these guys. Besides, they’re shameless.
3. Kynn Jones | 10.27.08
Please, remind your readers of the fact that Republicans were perfectly at peace with a “one-party power” situation not too long ago, when it was they who were in power…
4. Elrond Hubbard | 10.27.08
Anyway, didn’t Republicans control the Executive and Legislative branches as “one-party” for the first 6 years of the Bush administration?
5. Paul Jordan | 10.27.08
Few do not fear a party majority in the executive and the congressional houses. We need a sensible Republican representative(if such a thing exists) or a sensibe Democratic representation(if such a thing exists) in one or the other houses. In the absence of that possibility, we need a sensible electoral citizentry(which seems to not exit) Therefore, we can appeal to divine intervention or to leave it to us which means inevitable self destruction.
What a choice?
6. daniel | 10.27.08
Warnings of one party power are fine, but I don’t remember the GOP warning about this when they were in control… and I also remember that during the judicial appointments process in early 2005, GOP senators threatened to do away with the “filibuster rule” so they could enforce their majority rule in the senate.
While I would rather have a rather even congress, I also have no sympathy for all the republicans that are about to lose their seats, based on their past behavior. This is one of those times where, unfortunately, I think a lesson has to be learned. What I mean is, if you are going to abuse your majority power, don’t complain when you lose your majority status.
7. Luke Banks | 10.27.08
Using the Republican parties logic…
just look at what happened when Republicans ran Congress and the White House! One party has done more damage to our country than the average citizen could EVER imagine. Our country has never been in worse shape, thanks to the Republican party! This is an indisputable FACT that republicans continue to dispute. The TRUTH is NOT a variable, based on convenience.
8. priscilla | 10.27.08
Elizabeth Dole-
Stood with George Bush 88% of the time.
Voted for Bush’s free trade CAFTA agreement that sent jobs over seas.
Voted 3 times to protect tax breaks and financial incentives for companies that outsource jobs.
Voted against the minimum wage.
Voted to deny health care to children.
Voted to cut six million workers from over time pay.
9. Libertarian Ken Blevens | 10.27.08
From the third party candidate, Libertarian Ken Blevens.
To appear out of touch with your state is a misstep that has felled Senate giants in the past,
To the voters of New Hampshire, remember that the two major party candidates
in the 2002 election supported President Bush and the war in Iraq. Now in
the 2008 election both candidates support troop movement from Iraq to
Afghanistan thus escalating the war and more deaths of Americans. This
bipartisan effort by Senator John Sununu and former Governor Jeanne Shaheen,
as well as the bipartisan vote for bailing out Wall Street, is absolutely
contradictory with the voters of New Hampshire.
Third party Candidate Ken Blevens wants to stop the killing of Americans by
not supporting the movement of the troops from one killing field in Iraq to
another killing field in Afghanistan. It is time to bring our troops in
both of these wars home.
Please stop the insanity.
10. Regus | 10.27.08
Republicans Mitch McConnel, Libby Dole, McSame and Bohrner, Bush controlled Whitehouse and Both Houses of Congress last 8 Years!
We can all be thankful that when George Bush was trying desperately to sell the idea of transferring the Social Security Trust Fund monies to private accounts, letting Wall Street or banks take care of our Social Security monies, Bush Failed! Because Wall Street would have taken ALL Americans Social Security savings!
The fact of the matter is that in 2008 the gap between the rich and the poor is widening every day in the U.S.A.
Only Mexico and Turkey Have Poverty Rates Higher than the U.S.A.!
11. Robert | 10.27.08
Republicans Mitch McConnel, Libby Dole, McSame and Bohrner, Bush controlled Whitehouse and Both Houses of Congress last 8 Years!
We can all be thankful that when George Bush was trying desperately to sell the idea of transferring the Social Security Trust Fund monies to private accounts, letting Wall Street or banks take care of our Social Security monies, Bush Failed! Because Wall Street would have taken ALL Americans Social Security savings!
The fact of the matter is that in 2008 the gap between the rich and the poor is widening every day in the U.S.A.
Only Mexico and Turkey Have Poverty Rates Higher than the U.S.A.!
A 30-country study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development showed: “The percentage of individuals earning less than 50 percent of the population’s median-income in:
12. SJ | 10.27.08
How Ironic….Don’t trust the Democrats in control of 2 branches of govt…, but it was completely OK when the Republicans did their bidding from 2000-2006.
13. Dr. Dave | 10.27.08
Ah, yes, the Contract ON America, engineered by that other hypocritical “family values” clown Gingrich.
There is still a Supreme Court, bought & paid for by the right wing. They may step in again…
14. Paul Stewart | 10.27.08
Clearly, America needs and is voting for change. The only way to get it is to get rid of the partisan gridlock. We know the Republicans are not capable of dealing in good faith on that. If there is a risk with giving Obama the House and Senate, it pales in comparison to the opportunity to put things right.
Obama is seeking change. Big change, but not to some new radical thing. The change he is seeking is to restore America to her fundamental values, to her strengths. To rejuvenate the founding principles, the moral principles, the principles of freedom, democracy and the American Way. It is incredible to witness that revolutionary change is needed to restore America to her own principles. To restore that shining beacon on the hill, to restore the American Dream…..
And America needs to move quickly, she is far behind, there is indeed a fierce urgency of now…..
15. Paul Stewart | 10.27.08
There is no stronger Nation than one with a well run economic engine. One that is fairly and sensibly regulated. One that shares the wealth equitably. One that is built on morally sound incentive systems for its operators. One with a collective advancement and support system for all its members.
Republicans as much or more than any others will tell you that you don’t send into battle men without protection and weapons. You don’t send men that are unskilled and untrained in the use of weapons. You don’t win battles by leaving your compatriots unprotected. And you don’t leave the weak and wounded behind. Their rescue is the mark of heroes. If its heroic in the battlefields of war, why not so in the battlefields of life?
America is indeed headed for a brighter future with Obama than with McCain.
16. Daniel | 10.27.08
One of the major damages wrought on our country during the last 8 years was the fact that weak legislative gave up much of its power to the executive. Congressmen and senators of both parties cooperated with that. Remember the patriot act?
There is no reason to believe that the next president won’t take advantage of this. The only way to stop this is not to vote in additional yes-men, but to vote for third-party candidates, for REAL mavericks, or at least, for a new generation of fresh, unbribed, and unbought politicians.
17. Paul Stewart | 10.27.08
“No Checks. No Balances. No Stopping Them.”
That’s the new Action Alert from the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee – and a sign that some Republicans are now openly conceding the White House, but scrambling to keep a firewall on Capitol Hill.
————————————
Clearly, America needs and is voting for change. The only way to get it is to get rid of the partisan gridlock. We know the Republicans are not capable of dealing in good faith on that. If there is a risk with giving Obama the House and Senate, it pales in comparison to the opportunity to put things right.
Obama is seeking change. Big change, but not to some new radical thing. The change he is seeking is to restore America to her fundamental values, to her strengths. To rejuvenate the founding principles, the moral principles, the principles of freedom, democracy and the American Way. It is incredible to witness that revolutionary change is needed to restore America to her own principles. To restore that shining beacon on the hill, to restore the American Dream…..
And America needs to move quickly, she is far behind, there is indeed a fierce urgency of now…..
18. Melissa | 10.28.08
Funny, everyone likes to point to the fact that the Republicans were in power for 6 of the last 8 years. It wasn’t until the Democrats took over Congress that absolutely NOTHING has gotten done and the Congressional approval rating is at an all time low. And who wants the Democrats in control when they were the primary party responsible for the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac disaster???
Doesn’t anyone worry about what will happen if the Democrats control everything when the president is clearly a proponent of socialism? I don’t know too many people who think that socialism works, including people who are living with it now. Frankly I can’t blame people for being scared if the Democrats control everything.
Unfortunately it seems the vast majority of the American public has either been fooled by the mainstream media or just doesn’t care about what Obama really stands for. And heaven forbid that anyone question his policies–he’ll cancel any campaign interviews with that reporter, or try to dig up dirty laundry on the “average Joe” and air it for the world to see. Whatever happened to freedom of speech? Why shouldn’t we be allowed to ask tough questions of the people that WE are electing to do a job?
Oh yes, the thought of an Obama presidency with unchecked power for the Dems is pretty frightening.
19. Anthony | 10.28.08
The republicans never had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, so it was never truly “one party rule.” As for the Supreme Court, there are 4 conservatives, 4 liberals, and one moderate that mostly sides with the more liberal members. One could argue that a majority of the problems of the past eight years could be the result of democrats trying to make the Bush administration the as ineffective as possible. Whether democrat or republican I think its horrible that people put party politics over what is best for the country.
20. Peg a leg | 10.28.08
Give me a break! I am hopeful NONE of this rhetoric about “one party rule……how dangerous etc.” falls upon deaf ears..as it should. This conservative/Republican administration has been in power for over 6 years and created havoc in every area of our free world. Let the Dems have complete control for a few years to undo their damage. As the author of this article says, “If there is a risk with giving Obama the House and Senate, it pales in comparison to the opportunity to put things right.”
Obama/Biden 08
21. Tommy | 10.28.08
A lot of these comments seem to confuse a majority with a filibuster proof majority. This story is about the latter, and your cries of hypocrisy around one party rule only make sense if it were about the former.
22. ghk | 10.28.08
The reality is that demographics is definitely not on the Republican side, it is hard to see them ever getting a majority in the future again. America will shift into one party state mode, with Democrat victories guaranteed the leadership battles will happen less on election days and more behind closed doors.
If Americans want a banana republic, then let them have it.
23. RJCogburn | 10.28.08
I would not take a moment to defend the GOP and certainly notGWBush, arguably the worst President in our history. But I am more than amused by those comments that suggest that what was the GOP majority is the equivalent of a filibuster-proof Dem Congress.
Certainly the folks who made those comments here are smart enough to know the difference. Aren’t they?
24. Gary | 10.28.08
Hmmmm….if the shoe were on the other foot, would the republicans THEN be warning us of “one-party rule”?
25. Bill C | 10.28.08
The difference is that the Republicans never had fillibuster proof control of the Senate. That requires 60 Senate seats and they never came close to it. So the Dems always could stop things if enough of them agree to join a fillibuster. So, no, the Republicans didnt have the kind of control that is being discussed in their release.
26. Exredstater | 10.28.08
With the mounting bad news for their campaign, McCain/Palin will have no choice but to go increasingly negative in their attacks. Anybody else see this leaked 527 spot?
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Leaked_Pro_McCain_527_Negative_Ad_Small_Town_Fear_Itself/
27. CP | 10.28.08
Many of the comments to this article are based on emotion, not facts. So before those of you who are wanting the Dems to get control, do your homework and look at the history (pro’s & con’s) to a controlling party. And by the way, the Democrats have had control of congress since 2006 and their approval rating (from public opinion) is the lowest (about 9%) since Gallup started tracking Congressional polls. So… if the current Democratic Congress is viewed so poorly by most Americans, how is Obama’s victory going to change that? Nancy Pelosi is third in line to be President no matter who wins. Now that’s scary!!!!
28. Tommy | 10.29.08
Whether six or eight years, the Republicans never held a majority in Congress. My concern is that a liberal leaning Obama, with liberal leaning leaders in both Houses of Congress, could hold majority control. Their propensity for redistributing the wealth could become a reality. I have worked years to attain my “wealth”. I willingly contribute to worthy charities. I am not willing to give the government the right to give a part of my “wealth” to those who have not earned it for themselves.
29. JK | 10.29.08
It will take more than 4 years to undo the damage that Bush and the republicans have done to this country. I hope that the citizens of this country have some patience.
30. Dan | 10.30.08
Mark my words…Mitt Romney will win the presidency in 2012. Americans will see what Change Obama meant all along and things will only get worse between now and the election in 2012. Americans will turn to whomever they view as the most qualified to turn the economy around and Mitt Romney will doubtlessly be the man for the job. I just hope the United States isn’t too far gone by then…
31. Old Artillery Man | 10.31.08
As one who grew up in the Great Depression and still have vivid memories of it. I watched as FDR fought republican opposition to get the nation going in the right direction. It will take a democrat-controlled administration to right the destruction that the Bush republican administration has wreaked on this nation.
32. Bill | 11.14.08
Some of you folks have no clue. The Republican majority was never a filibuster proof majority. And for the most part, they couldn’t even get all the Republicans to vote one way much less get over the obstructionist policies of the Democrats who also used the filibuster to great advantage. A filibuster proof majority is the closest we can come as a country to a dictatorship. So beware of what you ask for, you may just get it.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. CitizenMcMan | 10.27.08
The Republicons know all about the perils of one party rule, don’t they? Maybe when the Dems are in total control, as the Repugs were for the last 8 horrible yrs, they will be able to undue at least SOME of the destruction that the Repuglish ‘Party of Fools’ has foisted on the US.