The numbers do not lie.
I’ve indulged in some hyperbole here before, but as I see 2008 coming into focus it is clear to me that Castle will lose regardless of whom he faces off against. He might even decide to call it quits.
Here is the deal.
Right now Mike Castle is pushing the bogus ISG Recommendations that, as has been pointed out, are complete bullshit. He might have gotten away with his advocacy of this openly fraudulent piece of nothing a decade ago befor Al Gore invented the internets – but now he is simply looking foolish. But not only is he trying to pretend the ISG is real, he is doing so while trying to keep a couple of other very heavy balls in the air.
1) That he could change his mind about supporting the President in September.
Please. Mike Castle knows that nothing is going to change in September. Bush will say that the surge needs more time (or that it has not really started in earnest yet) and the (now fully Bush-icized) pentagon will say that they just caught a number three from Al Quida – or that Iran is getting super scary and Castle will change his mind about changing his mind. Saying, “While I believe strongly that we must change course in Iraq and bring our men and women home, however, blah, blah blah..”
2) That he is a really effective moderate voice in Congress.
I think that is going to be a tough sell in 2008 for a couple of reasons. Nobody at the News Journal editorial board seems to notice, but voters have picked up on the fact that for all his moderation and “effectiveness” he could not get his stem cell bill signed. Also, it is dawning on many that being moderate enough to say you oppose the President, but not moderate enough to vote against the President is not moderation at all.
Finally, it is now widely accepted fact of life that “moderates” (if he were a moderate) are pretty useless now that Bush has turned every issue (down to funding for children’s health coverage) into irreconcilable “black vs. white” ideological struggles.
While riding his reputation as a moderate worked on some Democrats the last time around, it is only because the stroke allowed him to run out the clock on Iraq and avoid talking about his record in public. A few of the Dem sleepwalkers who absent-mindedly crossover to vote for him woke up, but not enough to make a difference.
As far as his Republicans “base” is concerned, the Business Republicans think that his famous “moderation” is great if by “moderation” you mean keeping the corporate welfare pipeline open. He will always have them (the same voters who Jan Ting rode into office).
But for the Wingnut Republicans his moderation PR is an anathema. The stem cell advocacy alone has the power to bring out the wingnut protest voters and possible the ability to draw Christine O’Donnell into a primary. O’Donnell is regarded as a one issue candidate but you don’t have to listen to her very long to hear her say something soothing to wingnuts about how “congress (e.g. Mike Castle)” is losing the war in Iraq by not supporting the President enough. So if Castle keeps saying that he opposes the President he is handing O’Donnell a shelieghlie. And keep in mind, O’Donnell does not have to win a primary to win her objective – which is keeping a high profile and leadership position in the CPM (crazy persons movement).
But what about the Independents – isn’t it the “swing” voters who pick in the end? Well, that kind of thinking has been pretty well debunked, as it seems that “swing” voters don’t swing nearly as much as they like to think they do. But for the sake of argument, let’s look at what the independents have to say in a recent Washington Post survey:
The responses to the poll’s three Iraq-related questions reveal that independent voters are aligned with the Democratic base and want action on Iraq.
The three critical questions:
#36/37: “All in all, considering the costs to the US versus the benefits to the US, do you think the war with Iraq is worth fighting, or not? Do you feel STRONGLY that way or NOT?“NOT WORTH FIGHTING” Responses: Indies 67%, Dems 85%, GOP 28%, Overall = 62%
#38: “Do you think the goal of bringing stability to Iraq is still possible, or not?”
“NOT POSSIBLE” Responses: Indies 62%, Dems 73%, GOP 35%, Overall = 58%
#39: “Do you think (the US must win the war in Iraq in order for the broader war on terrorism to be a success) or do you think (the war on terrorism can be a success without the US winning the war in Iraq)? (answers rotated)
“WINNING IRAQ NOT NECESSARY” Responses: Indies 62%, Dems 70%, GOP 35%, Overall = 56%
On EVERY Iraq-related question, nearly 6 of 10 independents are in the “anti-war extremist camp.”
So say you are Mike Castle looking down the road at 2008 and doing the math, “Tom Carper, check. Business Republicans, check. Wingnut Republicans, nope. Moderate Democrats, nope. Progressive Democrats, Oh hell no. Independents, Oh cripes!! Jane !!!!! Jane, get your ass in here!!!
How would you feel about taking that long vacation in Tuscany we always talk about?“