The Senate is the race to watch

By Paul M. Weyrich
web posted January 12, 2004

It's that time of the year to reflect, isn't it? Or perhaps that was
one of the many things I didn't get done at the end of last year.
Well, no matter. I'm going to reflect, anyway. Having survived
2003, I'm glad to be alive and reasonably well now that it is
2004. We news devotees can't ever get enough of breaking
stories, but I swear if there was one more breaking story last
year it would have been me who broke. Talk about overload. If
I was away from Fox News or the Internet for more than a
couple of hours, my associates would look at me as if I just
crawled out of Saddam's hole in Iraq. "You haven't heard..." So
the refrain would go. At times, believe me, I wanted to shout
"No, and I don't want to know". That would be the one time it
would turn out to be good news. It is no wonder projections
suggest that newspapers as we know them will not exist in a
couple of decades, maybe sooner. After all newspapers cannot
interrupt anything useful you are doing in life with "breaking
news".

I have to admit that I am a political junkie. I have been since I
was a freshman in high school and I went door to door for Ike
and Nixon in the1956 election.

It used to be, and indeed was even up until 2000, that I would
get especially enthused about Presidential elections. And in off
years, Congressional elections could produce a Pavlovian
response. Not this year. I can't put my finger on it but instead of
not being able to wait for the next "You Decide 2004" television
feature I have a real sense of dread about this election. In other
years we have had a paucity of good candidates. And in some
campaigns the charges got pretty nasty. There is something about
this Presidential election that makes me want to request a
medically induced coma now and have it reversed when this is all
over.

This election does have some vague resemblance to 1968 when
there was also a war on. But unless age has really done in my
memory, I don't recall a Presidential campaign where the climate
was as bad. During his time in office a lot of conservatives hated
Bill Clinton. Still, I don't think that level of hatred can hold a
candle to what is being exhibited in some liberal circles these
days. Perhaps I missed something, but I don't recall seeing any
conservatives who hated President Clinton so much that they
became totally irrational. True there were right-wing conspiracy
theories back then just as there are conspiracy theories on the
left today. I'm not speaking of that. When someone is hated, it is
not unusual for very reasonable people to speculate on the
darkest of motives of their opponents. My late father, God rest
his soul, used to tell me about the hatred some Republicans had
for FDR.  It reached the point that many were convinced that he
plotted for a couple of years to get us into World War II. No, I
am talking about a level of hatred which causes people to foam
at the mouth, to become unintelligible, to cease hearing anything
which might calm the rage. I have encountered this and it is ugly.

Whether you like President George W. Bush or not, whether
you think he "stole" the 2000 election or not, whether you
oppose the war in Iraq or not, whether you think the prescription
drug benefit is a great or a terrible move, whether large deficits
scare you or not, whether you favor a weak or strong dollar,
whether you live for free trade or think it is a fraud, whether you
believe anything George Bush does is political or not, is he worth
becoming mentally unstable over? What is there about this man
which causes some liberals to claim, on the one hand, that he is
the most stupid and uneducated President we have ever had,
while on the other hand claiming that the man is so brilliant that
he calculates to the nth power his every action, figuring down to
the day and time how each move will help him politically.
Choose one, because it can't be both. Or perhaps by insisting
that both are true some liberals have gone off the deep end
mentally.

So forgive me. I used to be almost childlike in my love for
Presidential contests, as I felt they were splendid examples of
how the democratic process worked.  I fear this election will be
messy and insubstantial.  I hope I am dead wrong. I hope 2004
will turn out to be interesting and fought out on issues rather than
ad hominum attacks. I fear my fear is right. Perhaps studying
Congressional elections instead can distract me. If the Supreme
Court upholds the Texas redistricting law, we will have to be
plunged into an economic depression for Democrats to take
back the House. If the Texas delegation has to run in its current
configuration, Democrats have a slight chance to regain control,
but it is hard to see how Republicans can't win at least 223 seats,
even if they blow things badly. Only 218 seats are needed for
control. The very able political scientist Larry Sabato of the
University of Virginia says if the Texas redistricting law is upheld,
Republicans could win as many as 240 seats.

If that happens Tom DeLay may replace George Bush as the
most hated man on the left. So if the House is uninteresting, what
about the Senate?  There is an outside chance that the
Democrats could take it back.  But that would mean holding all
five seats of the Southern Democrats who are retiring, plus
winning Illinois and/or Alaska and Oklahoma. That is a pretty tall
order. It becomes a near impossibility if the Democrats nominate
a Presidential candidate who is not attractive to as many as a
quarter of the party faithful. If they do nominate a candidate who
can unite the party, then it will take a close election for the
Democrats to win the Senate. Clearly, it is almost certain the
Democrats will win Illinois. It will be hard for them to win Senate
seats in Alaska and Oklahoma if Bush is carrying those states by
20 points as he did last time. But it might happen. Sen. Lisa
Murkowski is not pro-life the way her father was, and he suffers
from the nepotism charge since he appointed her.

While the Democrat candidate, two term former Gov. Tony
Knowles is also not pro-life, there is talk of pro lifers running a
third party candidate. Knowles was first elected Governor
because of that kind of split among the Republicans. So unless
Sen. Murkowski can dodge that bullet she might be defeated.
Right now in Oklahoma, former Oklahoma City Mayor Kirk
Humphries is running neck and neck with Rep. Brad Carson, the
lone Democrat in the Oklahoma Congressional delegation. Some
conservatives, worried that Humphries will not run an aggressive
enough campaign, are urging Rep. Ernest Istook to get in the
race as well. Istook took himself out at the urging of Senator Jim
Inhofe and others. But at the time he said he had closed the
door, but hadn't locked it. Istook is a very able campaigner and
would certainly give Carson a run for his money, assuming he
could defeat Humphries in the primary.

It will be hard for Democrats to hold on to all five Southern
Senate seats. Depending on the political climate in Florida, a
Democrat is more likely to hold on to the seat there than in any
of those Southern states. They have also demonstrated that they
can win tight races in Louisiana, having won a close run-off in
2002 for the Senate and an equally close Governors race in
2003. Senator John Breaux has been grooming Cong. Chris
John to succeed him, although Cong. David Vitter, if he makes
the runoff, will let Rep. John know he has been in a real race. If
Georgia produces the right result in the GOP primary, there is a
real chance to elect a Republican there, but if the primary goes
the wrong way, Georgia could well stay in the Democrat column.
North Carolina tends to elect Republicans to the Senate in
Presidential years. It will be tough for the Democrats to hold that
seat, but they might. South Carolina is now the most Republican
of the five states, but tens of thousands of jobs have been lost
there in the textile and other industries. There is also a potentially
divisive GOP primary.

With a skilled campaign, a Democrat might hang on there but it
will be tough. There is one other race where an incumbent could
be in some trouble. Sen. Patty Murray of Washington state is
being opposed by Congressman George Nethercutt. Nethercutt
ousted then-Speaker Tom Foley.  Right now, Murray is way
ahead but that is the sort of race that could have a strong finish.
Senator Barbara Boxer of California is also in some trouble but
unless the Bush campaign determines that they have a chance to
win California, a Senate candidate would be hard pressed to find
the resources to make the race competitive. In a late surprise
move, Thune is in.  Last month, Thune said he would not be a
candidate for his old job, but things have changed and the former
U.S. Rep. John Thune, (R-SD) will challenge Democratic Sen.
Tom Daschle.  This will be exciting because Thune can give
Daschle a real race. Of and by itself beating the Democratic
leader would be huge for Republicans, but it would also give
Republicans more control of the Senate.
   
In short, the Senate is the one place where the politics will be
interesting and hopefully not as vitriolic as the Presidential race.
Since there is a shot at Democrats taking back the Senate (right
now it is, for practical purposes 51 to 49 GOP), lots of
resources will be spent on both sides.

So, I guess I'll try to stay awake and satisfy my political cravings
by following the Senate very closely. Perhaps in doing so it will
help me filter out what I see coming at the Presidential level.

Paul M. Weyrich is Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress
Foundation (www.freecongress.org).

Enter Stage Right -- http://www.enterstageright.com