As presidential contenders vie to position themselves as best able to bring change to Washington, members of Congress and their top advisers are taking note: Theirs is a profession that has reached the nadir of its popularity, and because of negative feelings toward the Beltway and Congress, their jobs are on the line. In the next year, many insiders say, members of Congress will begin running against themselves and arguing that they, too, came to Washington to make a change.
An informal survey of top Congressional spinmeisters and communications strategists suggests both parties will seek the change mantle. And in both cases, the parties have compelling reasons why their pitch will work.
For Democrats, the argument is easy. President Bush has been in the White House for seven years, and his record is as unpopular as any chief executive's in recent history. His approval ratings have been in negative territory for years - the last poll that showed more people approved of his job performance than disapproved, conducted for The Hotline, came out in December of 2005.
While more Americans are beginning to believe the surge is working, ratings of Bush's handling of the war in Iraq remain near record lows; it seems that even with good news, public opinion has solidified against Bush too much to recover. Add to that a rapidly stagnating economy, which voters are beginning to say is more important to their vote than the war, and Bush appears destined to remain in negative territory for the remainder of his term.
Electorally, it makes sense for Democrats to label any GOP rival as a "Bush Republican." Anyone who stands behind such an unpopular president risks such an association. Democratic insiders say lines of attack against their Republican foes will include surgical strikes, naming specific members of Congress as Bush Republicans, and broad strokes calling the entire caucus "Republican rubber stamps."
The rubber stamp label is commonly applied to any party that controls White House, but this time Democrats hope it will have an extra layer. Americans, they hope, are frustrated with the direction of the country, and House and Senate Democrats will assert that they are as well. Give Democrats a bigger majority, they will argue, and they will change that direction.
Republican press aides are under no illusion about the popularity of their president; virtually every GOP flak surveyed predicted that Democrats would attack them most with the word "Bush." "Everybody's been watching the same White House press coverage for the last seven years," said one top GOP communications strategist, granted anonymity to speak freely about his party's situation.
That recognition lends itself to an opportunity, though. Many Republicans predicted that Democrats would have a difficult time running on a change platform. It is difficult to convince voters that a challenger's candidacy will bring change if the challenger intends to join the current majority, the GOP believes. Republicans are in a unique position to cast themselves as outsiders, and once a presidential nominee is selected, the party's loyalty to the unpopular incumbent could begin to unravel.
In fact, that possibility is aided by the party's front-running candidates this year. Whether they select a self-styled maverick, like John McCain, or someone whose political career has been spent outside the Beltway, like Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee or Rudy Giuliani, Republicans will have someone able to credibly carry the mantle of change and draw distinctions between themselves and the current administration.
GOP officials suggest, too, that they will try and make an issue from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the San Francisco Democrat Republicans love to vilify. The only city that gets the GOP base more up in arms than Washington, they hope, is San Francisco. Pelosi's elevation to Speaker last year was a gift to Republicans that would not have existed had she represented any other city in the country.
Republicans, in essence, may try a reverse triangulation strategy: Instead of elevating the presidency above Congressional bickering, as Bill Clinton did, House and Senate Republicans - along with their new presidential nominee - may seek to elevate themselves above battles between Nancy Pelosi and President Bush.
When the top Democrats and Republicans secure their party's nominations, they will run against a common enemy. Washington is not a popular city in the minds of either party's voters. Both recognize that the path to victory next year depends on who best embodies the possibility of changing the nation's capitol. Thanks to Bush's poor approval ratings nationwide, Democrats begin with the upper hand. But Republicans recognize, at the very least, that theirs is a struggle that may require creating some distance from their party's standard bearer.
If the party as a whole accepts that unprecedented mission, they may avoid another tough year at the ballot box, like 2006. If Democrats succeed in pegging every member of the Republican Party as in lock step with the president, November's elections could be as difficult for the new minority as the last time the GOP faced voters. Which scenario takes place will depend on whether Democrats or Republicans successfully convince voters that theirs is the version of change the American public prefers.
An informal survey of top Congressional spinmeisters and communications strategists suggests both parties will seek the change mantle. And in both cases, the parties have compelling reasons why their pitch will work.
For Democrats, the argument is easy. President Bush has been in the White House for seven years, and his record is as unpopular as any chief executive's in recent history. His approval ratings have been in negative territory for years - the last poll that showed more people approved of his job performance than disapproved, conducted for The Hotline, came out in December of 2005.
While more Americans are beginning to believe the surge is working, ratings of Bush's handling of the war in Iraq remain near record lows; it seems that even with good news, public opinion has solidified against Bush too much to recover. Add to that a rapidly stagnating economy, which voters are beginning to say is more important to their vote than the war, and Bush appears destined to remain in negative territory for the remainder of his term.
Electorally, it makes sense for Democrats to label any GOP rival as a "Bush Republican." Anyone who stands behind such an unpopular president risks such an association. Democratic insiders say lines of attack against their Republican foes will include surgical strikes, naming specific members of Congress as Bush Republicans, and broad strokes calling the entire caucus "Republican rubber stamps."
The rubber stamp label is commonly applied to any party that controls White House, but this time Democrats hope it will have an extra layer. Americans, they hope, are frustrated with the direction of the country, and House and Senate Democrats will assert that they are as well. Give Democrats a bigger majority, they will argue, and they will change that direction.
Republican press aides are under no illusion about the popularity of their president; virtually every GOP flak surveyed predicted that Democrats would attack them most with the word "Bush." "Everybody's been watching the same White House press coverage for the last seven years," said one top GOP communications strategist, granted anonymity to speak freely about his party's situation.
That recognition lends itself to an opportunity, though. Many Republicans predicted that Democrats would have a difficult time running on a change platform. It is difficult to convince voters that a challenger's candidacy will bring change if the challenger intends to join the current majority, the GOP believes. Republicans are in a unique position to cast themselves as outsiders, and once a presidential nominee is selected, the party's loyalty to the unpopular incumbent could begin to unravel.
In fact, that possibility is aided by the party's front-running candidates this year. Whether they select a self-styled maverick, like John McCain, or someone whose political career has been spent outside the Beltway, like Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee or Rudy Giuliani, Republicans will have someone able to credibly carry the mantle of change and draw distinctions between themselves and the current administration.
GOP officials suggest, too, that they will try and make an issue from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the San Francisco Democrat Republicans love to vilify. The only city that gets the GOP base more up in arms than Washington, they hope, is San Francisco. Pelosi's elevation to Speaker last year was a gift to Republicans that would not have existed had she represented any other city in the country.
Republicans, in essence, may try a reverse triangulation strategy: Instead of elevating the presidency above Congressional bickering, as Bill Clinton did, House and Senate Republicans - along with their new presidential nominee - may seek to elevate themselves above battles between Nancy Pelosi and President Bush.
When the top Democrats and Republicans secure their party's nominations, they will run against a common enemy. Washington is not a popular city in the minds of either party's voters. Both recognize that the path to victory next year depends on who best embodies the possibility of changing the nation's capitol. Thanks to Bush's poor approval ratings nationwide, Democrats begin with the upper hand. But Republicans recognize, at the very least, that theirs is a struggle that may require creating some distance from their party's standard bearer.
If the party as a whole accepts that unprecedented mission, they may avoid another tough year at the ballot box, like 2006. If Democrats succeed in pegging every member of the Republican Party as in lock step with the president, November's elections could be as difficult for the new minority as the last time the GOP faced voters. Which scenario takes place will depend on whether Democrats or Republicans successfully convince voters that theirs is the version of change the American public prefers.
By Reid Wilson
