Brownstein: Elect more red state Dems, blue state GOP
- From: "Halcombe" <halcombe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 11 Sep 2006 07:19:15 -0700
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-outlook10sep10,1,6422726.column?coll=la-headlines-politics
RONALD BROWNSTEIN / WASHINGTON OUTLOOK
'06 Campaign Cry: Public First, Party Second
Ronald Brownstein
Washington Outlook
September 10, 2006
As campaign 2006 heats up, the first important new theme of the 2008
presidential election may be emerging.
running against the relentless partisan conflict that now defines lifeFrom Washington state to Maryland, candidates in both parties are
in the nation's capital. In an era when party-line voting in Congress
has reached the highest level, by some measures, since the 1890s, a
growing number of office-seekers are pledging to operate as an
independent voice and a bridge between the parties if voters give them
a ticket to Capitol Hill. In the process, they are honing arguments
likely to be common in the race to succeed President Bush.
In Missouri, Republican Sen. Jim Talent has run television
advertisements in his reelection campaign highlighting the legislation
he co-sponsored with Democrats. "Most people don't care if you're red
or blue. Republican or Democrat," an announcer says. "They care about
getting things done."
In Minnesota, Republican Rep. Mark Kennedy, who's seeking a Senate
seat, has aired an advertisement promoting his willingness to break
with the GOP on education, the environment and pension protection. "I'm
not afraid to work with the other side," he says in the spot.
In an ad in Maryland, Republican Senate hopeful Michael Steele looks
earnestly into the camera and promises: "I'll talk straight about
what's wrong in both parties."
Because so many GOP candidates have struck these notes, political
analysts primarily have viewed them as attempts to separate from Bush
as his approval ratings remain weak. And candidates such as Talent (who
voted on Bush's side 91% of the time in 2005, according to
Congressional Quarterly) and Kennedy (87% support for the Bush
position) clearly are displaying more enthusiasm for independence on
the campaign trail than they have most days in Congress.
But there's more to the dynamic than Republicans ditching Bush. For one
thing, Democrats such as Senate challengers Jim Pederson in Arizona and
Bob Casey Jr. in Pennsylvania are emphasizing their willingness to work
across party lines. Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, trying to hold
his seat as an independent after losing the Democratic primary last
month, is centering his campaign on a promise to transcend partisan
differences.
More important, the candidates in both parties using these arguments
are raising issues much broader than the proper level of loyalty to a
president; they are indicting the entire system of lock step partisan
allegiance - and reflexive partisan confrontation - that now drives
so much of the Washington debate.
Mike McGavick, the Republican challenging Democratic Sen. Maria
Cantwell in Washington state, is among the candidates questioning that
system most fundamentally. McGavick, the former chairman and chief
executive for the insurance giant Safeco Corp., has had a rough few
weeks. Recently, he preemptively released information on a number of
embarrassing episodes in his past, including a 1993 drunk driving
arrest in Maryland - only to face persistent questions about the
accuracy of his recollection that forced him last week to issue a
second statement clarifying his description of the arrest.
But McGavick has developed a sophisticated critique of the way
Washington works - or doesn't. The intensifying pressure for party
unity, he argues, makes it impossible for Congress to resolve difficult
problems. Republican unwillingness to compromise, he maintains, is
preventing action on immigration, just as the Democratic refusal to
negotiate doomed any possibility of restructuring the Social Security
system.
Just as important, he argues, the growing tendency toward party-line
voting compromises legislators' ability to represent their states. By
definition, he says, members of Congress who vote with their own party
almost all of the time are elevating partisan over local interests. "I
vowed to my state that I want to be thrown out if I am voting with my
party 90% of the time," McGavick says. "Because [if I do that], I
cannot possibly be representing my state well."
It's no coincidence that these arguments are being raised most
forcefully by candidates caught behind enemy lines: Republicans,
including McGavick and Steele, running in Democratic-leaning blue
states, or Democrats such as Pederson in Republican-leaning red states.
Cooperation with the other party is unquestionably most attractive for
politicians who need votes from the other side to win.
But that's nothing new. Historically, the best bridge builders in
Congress have been politicians facing electorates that lean toward the
other party - former senators such as Republican Jacob K. Javits of
New York or Democrat John B. Breaux of Louisiana. Compromise in
Washington would almost certainly come easier if voters elected more
cross-pressured legislators - red state Democrats and blue state
Republicans - compelled to balance partisan demands against local
opinion.
It's not clear how many of the candidates promising more independence
will get a chance to demonstrate it. Apart from Talent - and perhaps
Lieberman - the Senate candidates emphasizing that theme are clear
underdogs. And the danger of too often actually breaking from the party
mainstream in office was evident in Lieberman's primary defeat - and
the possibility that Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) could lose a GOP
primary Tuesday on similar charges of disloyalty.
But the candidates pledging more cooperation are tapping into what
polls show is public exhaustion with the bruising collisions between
the parties that dominated most of President Clinton's term and have
consumed almost every day of Bush's presidency.
Whatever happens to McGavick and the others, they are blazing trails
presidential contenders from both parties are likely to follow. These
'06 campaigns are an early signal that in '08, many Americans may want
a president who, as someone once put it, will govern as a "uniter, not
a divider."
*
ronald.brownstein@xxxxxxxxxxx
Ronald Brownstein's column appears every Sunday. See current and past
Brownstein columns on The Times' website at latimes.com/brownstein.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Breakup of Iraq would make the Middle East more stable
- Next by Date: Re: Why The Media Embraced '911 Truth'
- Previous by thread: Why The Media Embraced '911 Truth'
- Next by thread: 9/11 Christmas for Conservative Condescenders
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
