How Angry Are Americans? We'll Soon Find Out!
Print Friendly and PDF

One of the most fascinating things to watch on November 4th will be how many entrenched incumbents are defeated because…well, just because they're entrenched incumbents.

If the Congressional approval rating is, as reported, a measly 10 percent that means that more than 400 hundred U.S. Representatives and 30 Senators should be looking for work come January. [Congress Approval Rating Just 10% As Bush Goes From 'Lame' to 'Dead' Duck, by Simon Tisdall, The Guardian, October 1, 2008]

Of course, this is unlikely to happen. While Americans do a good job of making noise about how angry they are, they rarely follow through at the ballot box.

You can see why Congressional approval is low.

Let's imagine that you're a San Francisco liberal Democrat living in California's Eighth District. For the past ten election cycles you have consistently, along with 80 percent of your neighbors, voted for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

And let's further assume—and it's not too much of a stretch—that you're fed up with San Francisco's sanctuary city policy, tacitly endorsed by Pelosi, that harbors criminals and endangers innocent citizens.

Such a person has two options:  

Unlike Pelosi's previous opponents, whom she ground into gravel, Walsh has significant financial backing. [Campaign Cash Flows to Pelosi's Republican Opponent Despite Difficult Odds, by Edward Epstein and Rachael Kapochunas, CQ Politics, July 21, 2008]

Walsh, who promises to work to enforce federal immigration law said:

"We need to remove the incentives for those who break our laws to enter our country: No welfare benefits, no drivers licenses, no free college tuition and no amnesty for illegal aliens."

But even though Pelosi is arguably  least effective House Speaker in history, Walsh and Sheehan remain long shots.

Since San Francisco Democrats outnumber Republicans 5-1 and with the Independent vote an intangible, upsets are tough to pull off.

Still…let's consider this possible (but unlikely) Eighth District scenario:

  • Every Republican and some disaffected Democrats unhappy with Pelosi (and disgusted by Sheehan for her remark that she is "proud" of San Francisco's sanctuary city policy) vote for Walsh
  • Sheehan, on the other hand, captures all the "angry about Iraq" voters abandoned by Pelosi.

In the unlikely event it plays out as I have described, then Pelosi could come in third in a three-candidate race.

Anything is possible…assuming, of course, that voters are not just posturing about their rage.

Regardless of the likely Pelosi victory, I give credit to Walsh for one 2008's greatest campaign lines:

 "I'm running against two of the most dangerous women in America."

Another example of someone who you'd think would have outworn her welcome: Democrat Nita Lowey, who has represented New York's 18th Congressional district for twenty years.

Over that period, she has consistently voted in favor of amnesty, more refugees, more visas, NAFTA, less interior enforcement, and less border security.

As illegal immigration has become a growing concern in Westchester and Rockland counties, Lowey's position is increasingly at odds with that of her constituents. [Lowey, Russell Spar on Issues Facing 18th District by Gerald McKinstrey, Journal News, October 14, 2008]

Lowey's opponent, Republican Jim Russell, introduced to VDARE.COM readers in my column here, outshone her in debate (Those that she shows up for. Lowey has cancelled two appearances). (See it here)

Finally, if "by their friends, ye shall know them", then Lowey might give voters even more reason for concern. Her campaigns have been funded in part by persons affiliated with Bear Stearns and the recently subpoenaed former Lehman Brothers CEO Richard Fuld.

In all, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, the 71-year-old Lowey has received more than $135,000 from the securities industry.

The irony is that Lowey, like Pelosi, is one of the richest women in Congress. Her net worth is estimated at $12 million; Pelosi's $19 million.

Another example: Looking back, can Arizona voters really say that they're happy that in 2004 they re-elected John McCain over eighth-grade math teacher and Democrat, Stuart Starkey?

Apparently not.

In a poll taken in July 2007, McCain's popularity hit an all-time low of 42 percent, down from 74 percent in January 2005. [McCain, Kyl Plunge in Popularity, by Paul Giblin, East Valley [AZ] Tribune, August 16, 2007]

The only politician less popular than McCain among Arizonans is Barack Obama. That reason, and that alone, is why McCain has a poll lead in his home state leading up to the presidential race.

The current crop of Senators is vulnerable as well. All across the map, voters will have a chance to dump many of them.

On the ballot, among others are, Ted Stevens (R-AK), Lindsay Graham (R-SC), John Kerry (D-MA), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Carl Levin (D-MI).

They're all bad on immigration, on non-immigrant visas and, let's be honest—bad on everything else.

All disgusted voters have to do is simply show up at their polling place and vote them out.

We'll soon find out how serious Americans are about getting even with a Congress they claim has sold them down the river.

Joe Guzzardi [email him] is a California native who recently fled the state because of over-immigration, over-population and a rapidly deteriorating quality of life. He has moved to Pittsburgh, PA where the air is clean and the growth rate stable. A long-time instructor in English at the Lodi Adult School, Guzzardi has been writing a weekly column since 1988. It currently appears in the Lodi News-Sentinel.
Print Friendly and PDF