Not a Fact to Drink
Polls are nice. Polls are helpful. Polls are good only if you know what questions were asked. Polls, polls everywhere. If you have some time and are really, really interested in the current landscape of the political debate as it concerns the 2002 Congressional elections, see Democracy Corps's most recent survey. They have yet to post their analysis, but I have my own questions for the Democratic leadership based on this poll. The two greatest concerns the people polled have are "Terrorism and security" and "The economy and jobs." These are then followed by Democratic bread and butter issues Education, Health Care, Social Security. News reports suggest that Democrats would like to focus back on domestic issues. Interestingly, the most vital domestic issue, the economy, does not poll well for the Democrats. They are also not trusted on taxes. This is the result of the greatest p.r. botch-job in recent memory. That the Democratic leadership has failed to convince the electorate that their party is far superior in terms of economic stewardship given the prosperity of the Clinton years bookended by two Bush family recessions is pathetic at best. Of course, there was a time when the Dems were trusted with the economy. They've lost that trust. They can get it back again. Now if they can get this back again, why can they not make in-roads on the other big issue that concerns the electorate, Terrorism? Can they win the issue outright by November? No, but they can certainly take a mighty chunk out given that our current FBI director seems to be conceding our lives to the terrorists and the proposed bloated defense budget does not seem to target the true (read: systemic) reasons why the 9/11 attacks succeeded. Our vulnerability was not a lack of money, it was a lack of management and focus. We know the W administration put terrorism as a low priority when they entered office, but they seem to want to solve the problems by increasing the size of the bureaucracy.

The country is behind W because he has shown them that, in their eyes, he can lead. The Republican revolution of 1994 was led by Gingrich. He put a face on the entire party's campaign. He didn't run for president in 1996. The lesson here is this, the democrats must annoint a leader to mount a comprehensive challenge to the republicans on all fronts including taxes and defense. They must be unrelenting and respond in kind to all attacks levied against them. If he were up to the challenge Gore would be a nice person for this. He went to Vietnam and he voted for the Gulf war. Moreover, he is a direct link to a former administration that was far more focussed on terrorism.

Making slim majorities in both houses of congress your election year goal is a good way to set yourself up to lose. You have to set your goals high and address the most pressing concerns of the nation if you want to lead. Does anyone want to lead?
- posted by levinson @ 5/23/2002 08:38:00 AM