The Times casts about for heroes to applaud in anticipation of the Dem victory in the House next Tuesday:
THE last time there was a seismic upset in Congress, there was little doubt as to who was the hero on election night and who would lead the party for the next two years: Newt Gingrich.
Or should the lion’s share of the credit go to George W. Bush?
As the curtain falls on a spellbinding midterm election campaign, even the most superstitious of Democrats are awash in optimism. But a Democratic triumph, should such a rarity occur, will not necessarily provide a roadmap for the party’s future. And it almost certainly will not produce a new hero for the party.
When Democrats lost control of the House in 1994 after four decades of dominance, Mr. Gingrich clearly was the father of the takeover and could rightfully claim full credit. But this year, Democratic leaders could be tripping over one another on the way to the victory party.
Well before the outlook brightened for Democrats, episodes of bickering and elbow-throwing among party leaders were commonplace. The duo of Mr. Schumer, the New York senator and chairman of the senatorial campaign committee, and Mr. Emanuel, the Illinois representative who oversees the Congressional committee, frequently tangled with Mr. Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
Please - allow me to nominate Mark Foley.
Since the Times seems to have forgotten - when Congress adjourned they had just passed the detainee bill, prompting despair amongst libs (cf Jack Balkin, " Spineless Democrats Deserve to Lose"), and they had passed the immigration fence, which looked like a sure Republican base-pleaser.
And at TradeSports the probability of Republicans keeping control of the House had rallied from about 40% to 58% during the previous couple of weeks.
But before I had a chance to complete a little post describing how it was all coming back together for Team Karl, ABC News broke the Foley story and the back of the Republican rally.
Ancient history now, apparently - it is the story that Times forgot.
LONGER TERM MEMORY LOSS: It would take a person who doesn't own a gun, doesn't know anyone who owns a gun, doesn't know anyone who is interested in gun owner's rights, and thinks that gun control is an unalloyed Good - in other words, a typical Times reporter - to interpret the 1994 election as follows:
[National political waves] come about once every decade or two, the last time in 1994 when Republicans took Congress handily, capitalizing on public disaffection over the economy, the Clinton administration’s health care proposal and a controversy over gays in the military.
Can you say, and write, "assault weapons ban"? David Broder of the WaPo could: here is his third paragraph on The Morning After, explaining what happend to Dems in 1994:
Exit polls indicated that the push to the right was fueled both by the makeup of the electorate and by the issues that were uppermost on voters' minds. Those identifying themselves as born-again or Evangelical Christians accounted for more than one-quarter of the voters and went 3 to 2 for the GOP. Supporters of the National Rifle Association - which mounted a massive effort to punish Democrats who supported the Brady handgun law and the crime bill's ban on assault weapons - were even more numerous and more Republican.
Here is a follow-up on the now-lapsed ban:
The federal assault-weapons ban, scheduled to expire in September, is not responsible for the nation's steady decline in gun-related violence and its renewal likely will achieve little, according to an independent study commissioned by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ).
...NIJ is the Justice Department's research, development and evaluation agency — assigned the job of providing objective, independent, evidence-based information to the department through independent studies and other data collection activities.