AP: Democrats Could Lose Control of House, Because Republicans Are... Confused 'n Stuff

Not really anything we didn't know, but still nice to see acknowledged. (Link at Riehl.)

Of course, this being AP, they propose a novel reason why the Democrats may lose.

Is it because Democrats are attempting to take this country in a direction the majority of the public rejects?

No. It's because Republicans are "confused" by Obama's health care proposals.

Not that we understand them and reject them. That we're confused.

And, by the way: Most independents are also against the plan, but oddly enough the AP doesn't deem them confused. Only Republicans.

Despite sweeping Democratic successes in the past two national elections, continuing job losses and President Barack Obama's slipping support could lead to double-digit losses for the party in next year's congressional races and may even threaten their House control.

...

From New Hampshire to Nevada, House Democrats also will be forced to defend votes on Obama's $787 billion economic recovery package and on energy legislation viewed by many as a job killer in an already weak economy.

Add to that the absence of Obama from the top of the ticket, which could reduce turnout among blacks, liberals and young people, and the likelihood of a highly motivated GOP base confused by the president's proposed health care plan and angry at what they consider reckless spending and high debt.

And angry, of course. I think that's correct -- we are angry -- but the MSM always endeavors to paint conservative motivations as emanating from the baser emotions of fear, anger, and hatred.

And confusion. Is confusion an emotion? Close enough.

Uh-Oh: Rasmussen Puts Support at ObamaCare at 51%: And support has been rising "consistently" since the speech, up five points from 46% at its low point.

Since the Democrats are likely to try to ram this through via the "reconciliation" process, Dafydd has written a great piece on what this process is, and the limitations on it.

There is one problem here. Many big procedural questions in the Senate are actually ruled on by the Parliamentarian, a citizen expert in parliamentary procedure as employed by the US Senate.

This position is ostensibly non-partisan but he's picked by whatever party is in control.

Further, his rulings are not binding. Typically, they are echoed by the Presiding Officer of the Senate (whatever Senator happens to be occupying that post at the moment).

Dafydd's post notes that reconciliation is not really applicable to ObamaCare and the parliamentarian should rule against most efforts to ram its provisions through. But that assumes 1) the Parliamentarian actually does his job rather than throwing the rules out for the Democrats and 2) whatever hyperpartisan Senator is serving as Presiding Officer follows the Parliamentarian's ruling.

I have small doubts about 1 and huge doubts about 2. I think they're determined to ram this through and they don't care about precedent or consequences.

posted by Ace at 12:43 PM

| Access Comments