So the next best option is to use the remaining weeks and days to make this a choice between the parties and not a referendum on the GOP alone — to focus voters on the Democrats’ weaknesses on national security, judges, and the economy. The best things the GOP has going for it is that despite all its disappointments, the Democrats actually pull off being worse. That has to be conversation topic number 1, 2, and 3 every day left. I’d bet money on some candidates doing that, but none on the media covering it aggressively. ~Gerard Alexander

First off, Mr. Alexander wants something that isn’t possible.  He wants midterm elections to be about the opposition party, which is never what midterm elections are about.  Especially in unified government, and especially in a second term of unified government, it will necessarily be almost entirely about the people currently in charge.  That is a rule of midterms.  Republicans succeeded by that same rule in the past (usually), and they have benefited from that same rule when times were good for them (’02, ’04); they will now suffer when times are bad.  The GOP can no more “make” this election about the future Democratic majority in the minds of disgruntled voters than they can make it rain.  Everybody knows that the Democrats are what they are, but the beauty of being deeply disgruntled is that it makes no difference because, almost by definition, the people who are not in power cannot appear worse than the folks who have caused you to be disgruntled.  Even when they are worse, and it is not exactly obvious to me that there are enough sharp differences between the parties in terms of what they actually do to make that claim. 

Oh, yes, Republicans believe in the sanctity of life.  That’s excellent.  Except, that is, when it comes to launching an aggressive war, which is less admirable.  Republicans, unlike those death-cultist Democrats, value the dignity of the human person.  Also excellent.  Except, that is, when said person is an accused terrorist and needs to be tortured, er, “coercively interrogated.”  They guard the Canadian border, they guard the American dream, as a famous “poet” once said.  But they are moved to guard the Mexican border only in an election year and, even then, fail to achieve even that, prompting the desperate half-measure of the Secure Fence Act which, as of right now, still has not been sent to the White House because the House GOP believes it can maximise its advantage by delaying it until closer to the election.  In other words, even when they get the policy right, they treat their constituents like chumps and delay enacting some small part of what they should already have achieved in order to dupe people into voting for them so that they can continue to pass half-measures and quasi-amnesties.  This feels like trickery and dishonesty, even if it is just ordinary politics.  If the Sensenbrenner bill were law right now, they might have proof of a real, significant accomplishment.  It isn’t, and they don’t.   

Why would the GOP want to run on the economy?  Yes, the stock market has hit new highs, which is fantastic if you own a good deal of stock.  For people who own only a little or none (and these people still make up a sizeable portion of the population), the gains they may have seen because of a strong market may not be enough to make up for other costs. Whether it is stagnant wages or suffering from the conseqences of offshoring, there is a sizeable number of people who may not be all that badly off right now but who feel as if they have been gipped.  The party that waves the flag of “free trade” ueber alles is the party that is going to take a hit in this environment.  The party that makes fun of “protectionists” on the other side will receive the reply, “At least protection is better than abandonment!”  Bragging about DJIA numbers to these people will likely make them want to take a swing at you. 

The economy, by all technical standards, is good, but tell people in Ohio how good it is.  Job insecurity in Ohio is a powerful factor in driving people towards the populism of Sherrod Brown.  Brown “gets” this and is winning in a walk.  DeWine doesn’t get anything (on the illegal surveillance controversy, he famously said that he didn’t think we should worry too much about things like constitutionality–we’re at war, after all!), and will shortly be returning to Ohio permanently.  Even though unemployment there is “only” a point above the national average, that doesn’t convey the sense of upheaval and instability that faces people in Ohio; it certainly doesn’t match up with their sentiments.  It doesn’t matter whether Sherrod Brown’s economics are garbage or not, whether his policies will make things better or worse; he is playing up Ohioans sense of grievance and their feeling that they have been done wrong by somebody…and it might well be the Republicans whom they choose to blame, especially in a state where the word Republican = dirty, rotten crook these days.  

Albuquerque is a booming, thriving city.  Economic woes are not even the main issue.  So why is Heather Wilson in trouble?  Republican incompetence on the war certainly is a big issue, though, so whenever the GOP brings up “national security” (at which point the Democrats remind voters who it was who wanted the Dubai ports deal) voters think, “Oh, yeah, Iraq.  Iraq is a gigantic mess!  Too many Americans are dying.  Maybe things should change in Washington and we might get a better strategy, or maybe we need to leave and we should start thinking about how to do that.”  The public mood has shifted and people who talk of remaining in Iraq virtually indefinitely (or whenever the Iraqis get their act together, which is as good as forever) are going to be run out of town.  The Foley business has certainly hurt Wilson as well, but it was simply the confirmation of a growing sense that Wilson wasn’t doing the right sorts of things.  But “national security” doesn’t work very well for her as a general theme since she voted against the Sensenbrenner bill, which was the GOP caucus’ one real claim to decent legislative accomplishment.  It may not be fair that the House majority hinges on “moderates” such as Heather who don’t represent most Republicans on immigration, but you fight elections with the corrupt majority you have, right? 

These reactions to GOP failure and current state of affairs are not ridiculous and they are not, contra Blankley, stupid.  It is the rational selection of a new configuration of power in Washington that might possibly get the job done better.  Things were good under divided government, people will tell themselves, and things have tended to be less than good under unified government.  Maybe letting one party make all the important national security decisions is a bad idea…maybe letting the other party avoid responsibility for those decisions, even those with which they have agreed, is also a bad idea.  Keeping the GOP in power after the messes it has made?  Definitely a bad idea.