Lodinews.com

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

Joe Guzzardi Can Democrats repel a Republican surge?

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Joe Guzzardi

Posted: Saturday, October 30, 2010 12:00 am | Updated: 7:23 am, Sat Oct 30, 2010.

Earlier this week, I spent a few days in Washington, D.C. The Capitol Hill buzz is that as Election Day draws closer, the Democrats are closing the gap against the Republicans. The suggestion is that the Democratic Congressional wipeout may not be as bad as earlier feared.

I don't believe the spin. Democrats control Washington and have a sympathetic press to deliver their hopeful message. The election boils down to two simple questions: Why would the electorate vote for an incumbent? And doesn't almost any challenger look better than the incumbent?

Most voters, I'll wager, share my own attitude, which is dismissive of all the slings and arrows thrown against Republican challengers. For example, in Nevada, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's camp is having a tough time selling the allegation that Sharron Angle is "extreme." Going into the final days, Angle maintains a several-point lead over Reid.

If I lived in Delaware, I'd vote for Christine O'Donnell for Senate whether she practiced voodoo in her kitchen or not. O'Donnell's opponent is lawyer Chris Coons. Since the 60 lawyers who run the U.S. Senate have done a poor job, I favor trying someone new like O'Donnell. Who knows? Maybe the witchcraft that Democrats claim O'Donnell experimented with is the answer.

In Pennsylvania, where I do live, voters finally got rid of 40-year career politician Arlen Specter, who despite his tenure as both a Republican and a Democrat had no significant Congressional successes to point to.

Several House Democrats are so afraid of being swept out that they have started to campaign vigorously on the promise to remove Speaker Nancy Pelosi if voters return them to office. Two of the most recent on the anti-Pelosi bandwagon are Peter DeFazio (D-OR) and Jim Marshall (D-GA).

One Congressional Democrat who may not go back to Washington is California's 11th District's Jerry McNerney, who is locked in a tight race against Republican David Harmer.

Just four years ago, McNerney, then a virtual unknown, ousted Republican Richard Pombo. One of voters' concerns that ultimately dragged Pombo down was that he had lost touch with his constituents.

If Pombo was out of touch with his constituents, the same can be said about McNerney, who has supported all the legislation that voters opposed, including George Bush's TARP, Barack Obama's stimulus packages and Obamacare.

McNerney, who attended West Point for two years and whose son is in the armed forces, also supports the controversial Afghanistan War. If voters are weary of the Obama/ Reid/ Pelosi leadership style, then, by extension, they're tired of McNerney, too. McNerney's voting record indicates that he's been a faithful White House ally.

Analyzing the San Joaquin Valley, it's hard to make a case for reelecting McNerney. Up and down the valley, unemployment ranges from 15 to 20 percent, and the foreclosure rates are among the nation's top 10.

Voters are demanding more of their representatives, and finally waking up to the "throw him out" philosophy that is long-overdue.

Pombo, for example, tried to resurrect his career during the June primary when he ran in the 19th Congressional District to fill retiring Republican George Radanovich's seat. But even a different district didn't help Pombo. Getting only 21 percent of the vote, Pombo finished a distant third.

Harmer's biography isn't that comforting, either. What's best about Harmer's resume is that he's not a Democratic incumbent. However, he's a lawyer, twice defeated in earlier Congressional bids, and a former banking executive at Washington Mutual, sold to JPMorgan Chase during the 2008 bailout.

Voters are looking for someone who will make a difference. They know McNerney hasn't been able to. If Harmer doesn't either, he'll be out of Washington by 2012.

Joe Guzzardi ran for California governor in the 2003 special election. He's a Senior Writing Fellow for Californians for Population Stabilization. Contact him at joeguzzardi@capsweb.org

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don't pretend you're someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don't insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.
  • 9 Don’t be a troll.
  • 10 We reserve the right, at our discretion, to monitor, delete or choose not to post any comment. This may include removing or monitoring posts that we believe violate the spirit or letter of these rules, or that we otherwise determine at our discretion needs to be monitored, not posted, or deleted.

Welcome to the discussion.

3 comments:

  • Manuel Martinez posted at 10:35 am on Sun, Oct 31, 2010.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    Are you serious?! That is your criteria for being qualified to be a Senator? "she is not a professional politician or lawyer... to me, because she has the best interest of Americans at heart and is fairly intelligent, as well as other attributes"

    I find it pathetic that you accuse me of being naive, and yet, the candidate you support has no reputable qualification, and it is because she lacks that which is generally seen as beneficial to administration(what idiot would opt out of knowing the law?), that you deem her capable of representing the people of Delaware in the Senate; All under the perception that she has the best interests of Americans at heart....(I won't even touch the fairly intelligent comment, that is too easy.). You really are full of it.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:37 am on Sun, Oct 31, 2010.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9403

    .Manuel stated...Whatever credibility you had before this column, it has now been shattered...

    Manuel, please... why make it look like this article influenced your position even in the slightest way... This author had zero credibility in "your mind" long ago. This was just another opportunity for you to step on Joe’s neck (in your head) with your heavy boot and rub it in... Your comments actually result in shattering any credibility you had in objectivity.
    O’Donnell is well qualified to be in the senate as she is not a professional politician or lawyer... to me, because she has the best interest of Americans at heart and is fairly intelligent, as well as other attributes, it is irrelevant if she could not name the 5 freedoms of the first amendment, at one particular moment. If the politicians, who are currently in office, could ram health care reform down Americans throat without even reading the bill, without knowing the harm they were creating, then your concerns and measurement of this politician seems so petty and small… in fact it seems absurd and ridiculous.

     
  • Manuel Martinez posted at 9:39 am on Sat, Oct 30, 2010.

    Manuel Martinez Posts: 641

    A sympathetic press? Poll numbers are poll numbers, the likes of which show a neck and neck trend among some races. It is not biased to point this out.

    I will submit that I think the Republicans will take the house and come close in the senate. A part of me wants them to become the majority, so they can no longer complain about "the elites" in power and own up to their own failures 2 years down the line.


    "If I lived in Delaware, I'd vote for Christine O'Donnell for Senate whether she practiced voodoo in her kitchen or not. O'Donnell's opponent is lawyer Chris Coons. Since the 60 lawyers who run the U.S. Senate have done a poor job, I favor trying someone new like O'Donnell. Who knows? Maybe the witchcraft that Democrats claim O'Donnell experimented with is the answer."

    Whatever credibility you had before this column, it has now been shattered. Christine O'Donnell isn't fit for the senate; not because she practiced witchcraft, but because she claims to follow the constitution to the letter and yet when asked, she could not name the 5 freedoms of the first amendment; among other clauses.

     

Recent Comments

Posted 1 hour ago by Simon Birch.

article: We won’t repost Sandy Hook hoax comments

Andrew, Here's the exact statement from the blog post: "In fact, we’d like to guide comments away from conspiracy theories, preferab…

More...

Posted 8 hours ago by Thomas Heuer.

Posted 8 hours ago by Thomas Heuer.

article: Letter: Obama may be protecting his chi…

[thumbup] Thank you Mike and Walter I do feel the nonsense has exhausted any point of relevance here. Nobody cares or should I say nobody…

More...

Posted 12 hours ago by Christina Welch.

article: Letter: Obama may be protecting his chi…

Gee, Andrew, why is this the first time you are mentioning that the symbol was removed nearly a year ago? You really could've saved me a l…

More...

Posted 12 hours ago by John Kindseth.

article: Letter: The people are better off becau…

Mr Chang, I read your posts, but none of them make sense.

More...

Video

Popular Stories

Poll

Loading…

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists