I think in a normal year, the ethical troubles of Charlie Rangel — coupled with the reports of the Sestak and Romanoff job offers and the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, and other lingering scandals — could be a potent political message, on par with Democrats’ 2006 “culture of corruption.”
But this isn’t a normal year, and I figure that while voters will not approve of Rangel and the rest, the impact on most races outside the political figures caught directly in scandals will be minimal. The economy and jobs loom too largely in the public’s mind; they’re worried about how they’re going to pay the rent or mortgage and whether their job will be around next year. They may not like Charlie Rangel ignoring the rules everyone else has to follow, but his misdeeds will seem far away compared to those pressing worries, other than the fact that it’s further evidence that members of Congress are more interested in helping themselves than helping a troubled country.
What’s rather fascinating about 2006 in retrospect was how the Democrats persuaded the country that a dramatic change was necessary, even as U.S. economy performed pretty well:
The U.S. economy turned in a surprisingly strong performance last year, new data show, growing 3.4 percent despite higher interest rates, high oil prices and the sharpest housing downturn in 15 years.
The report from the Commerce Department, showing that economic growth picked up in 2006 from the 3.2 percent growth of 2005, dispelled any lingering doubts about the momentum of the economy going into this year. Many economists predict growth will slow this year, but gone are the recession worries of last summer.
“Nothing, other than an external shock, will derail the economy this year,” said Eugenio J. Alem?n, senior economist at Wells Fargo. “The economy’s in good shape.”
Unemployment and inflation fell last year while wages and salaries rose at their quickest pace in five years, according to a series of recent government reports.
The unemployment rate in 2006? Between 4.9 percent and 4.5 percent. That sounds like paradise right now.
Yet 50 percent described the economy as “not good” or “poor,” and those folks voted, 77 percent to 21 percent, in favor of Democrats in House races. Another 49 percent described the economy as “good” or “excellent,” and those folks voted 70 percent to 28 percent in favor of Republicans in House races.
After the 2006 election, Pelosi pledged, “we pledge to work for an economy that enables all Americans to participate in the economic success of our country.”
Has there been any polling data showing that voters are starting to view Democrats as more unethical than Republicans? The last time I saw any, Dems still had an advantage; people still viewed Republicans as more corrupt. To be sure, Ensign, Vitter, and Sandford are still in office, and Vitter is likely to be reelected this year. So, we still have issues with sexual corruption. However, when it comes to quid pro quo issues, tax cheating, and underhanded legislative maneuvering, it seems to me a lot easier to name Democrats currently in office than Republicans currently in office. The Republicans who had such issues sticking to them were almost completely washed out in 2006. Of course, Republicans are already in good shape heading into November even if they are viewed no more positively on the ethical front than Democrats and I don’t think Republicans should make Democratic corruption that big an issue so long as we have so many legitimate issues to run on (the economy and healthcare especially), but I am curious to see if the poll numbers on which party is more ethical change much by election day. Obviously, the MSM will always try to hype Republican corruption and downplay Democratic corruption, but that’s a lot tougher for them to do now than it was four years ago. Republicans are not giving them nearly as much ammo, which means we probably won’t be hearing much about corruption on anyone’s part. But if a consensus grows that the Democratic party isn’t not just governing badly and out-of-step ideologically with the average voter but is blatantly corrupt, the most ridiculously optimistic projections for Republican victories in November won’t seem that ridiculous anymore.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs Dan Sahagun, Zoe Lofgren's GOP opponent in the 16th District of California pointed out, the House Ethics committee under Lofgren has a very bad batting record: Conyers, Waters, Sestak, Jefferson, Rangel and Blogojevich. Seems that Zoe Lofgren never asks any questions if a Democrat is involved in scandal.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse'Lamestream' media viewers are a lot like sheep, and such media hype GOP transgressions and spike Democrat transgressions: Hence the selective indignation on the part of the public.
And what the heck is the "Converse" spam? It has the opposite effect on me, from the one they want, I'll tell you that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe biggest difference is not Dem-friendly media (not that the media are unbiased). Republicans tend to resign after being caught. Democrats steel it out. E.g. Nixon vs. Clinton. And that is largely because Republican colleagues urge them to resign. Democrats just shrug and wink. Does anyone doubt that Rangel will be re-elected if he is not expelled? Waters seat is safe, too. Democrats do not punish corrupt Democrats (Traficant being an exception, but he was more Martian than Democrat).
This is the main reason I doubt I shall ever vote for a Democrat again.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse