2006 Election Analysis
The 2006 election changed the direction of our country. The voters rejected the failed policies of George W. Bush in Iraq and elected to the U.S. Senate thoughtful and effective advocates of responsible national security priorities. These excellent additions to the Senate significantly increase the number of Senators prepared to work for a world free of weapons of mass destruction.
The biggest issues in the election were the war in Iraq and the performance of President Bush – and these two issues were interrelated. For once, the economy was not the primary issue. Rising employment levels and a growing stock market did not translate into votes for Republicans.
The failed war in Iraq damaged President Bush’s image as a leader and undercut the entire Republican Party. A New York Times poll released November 2 found that only 29% of Americans approve of the President’s handling of the Iraq War. Sixty nine percent of respondents felt that the President did not have a clear plan for dealing with the situation in Iraq. Clearly, Iraq was the number one voting issue.
Other factors affected the mood of the electorate. Historically, six years into an incumbent President’s term in office, the public tends to turn against the party in power. Corruption involving disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and the Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) sex scandal added to Republican woes.
High gas prices, the Administration’s sluggish response to Hurricane Katrina, the ballooning federal budget deficit and tax reductions for the wealthy have hurt the GOP reputation with middle class and low income voters.
There is hope that the new Congress will press President Bush to begin withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. Democrats who had been reluctant to tackle national security issues in 2002 and 2004 found their voices in 2006, labeling the Iraq war a failure and a painful example of disastrous Bush foreign policies. An October report by Campaign Media Analysis Group found that Democrats ran ads mentioning Iraq 46,402 times at a cost of at least $41.6 million.
Some Republicans may also look for foreign policy change. GOP office holders are likely to see the Iraq war as the major reason for their losses. With a nervous eye cast toward the 2008 presidential election, they will worry about further damage to the party if the war continues. Conservative commentator George Will wrote in the October 22 Washington Post that: "If in January 2009 more than 100,000 U.S. forces remain in Iraq, there might be 100 fewer Republicans in Congress. So ‘stay the course’ is a policy stamped with an expiration date.”
By the end of the year, new policy recommendations on Iraq will be offered by a bipartisan commission authorized by Congress and headed by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Representative Lee Hamilton. The pressures for an exit strategy are enormous.
The progressive Members of Congress will be eager to use their new strength to put a spotlight on the inadequacies of Bush’s national security policy. Through hearings, speeches, questions directed to the Executive Branch, press releases and investigations, Congress can build pressure on a President for a certain course of action. The President can choose to ignore Congress, as Bush has done for six years, but there will be serious political consequences in view of Democratic electoral victories.
The politics and policies of the next two years will be dominated by the maneuvering of the candidates for President in election 2008. In both Republican and Democratic parties, there will be hawks and doves as well as those who try to straddle. The leading candidates are in the U.S. Senate. In 2006, the voters clearly indicated they want meaningful change in direction. The nominations and the Presidency are likely to be won by the candidates who respect the decisions of election 2006.
