From: hheagy@delphi.com
Subject: Re: CHANGE ISN'T BAD
On 1997-10-09 Mike Freeman said:
MF>Hmmm ... I beg to differ with you.  Didn't the Republicans win
 MF>both houses in 1946?  The Demos took the House, at least, back in
 MF>1948, I believe, but the Republicans again controlled both houses
 MF>from 1952-1954.  the 22nd amendment was ratified in either '52 or
 MF>'53, if I recall.
I can't speak for 1946 to 48, but I don't believe the republicans
took both houses until the 1954 election because when they took
both houses in 1994 it was widely said that this was the first
time the republicans would control both houses of congress since
1955 when the elected congress of 1954 was actually seated.  So
if that is true, they couldn't have taken control back in 1952.
 MF>Absolutely.  My opinion as to why he did not is that he sensed
 MF>that he was beginning to slip a bit intellectually and wanted to
 MF>leave while he was in good shape and before he did the country
 MF>harm.  Listen to the speech before the Demos in which he announced
 MF>he would not run again and compare that with, say, the news
 MF>conference wherein he announced McArthur's firing and you will
 MF>notice a slight difference in style -- he is not as dynamic in the
 MF>former case as in the latter.
Maybe so, but there were also other factors.  He barely beat
Thomas E. Dewey in 1948.  We all know the famous Chicago Tribune
headline," Dewey Defeats Trueman," so he came from behind and won
but it was not a pretty win as they say.
Also his firing of McArthur, right or wrong was not a popular
decision with the American people, and I think he sensed
the Eisenhower popularity and knew he could not overcome it.
Eisenhower had his eyes on the Whitehouse at least as early as
World War Ii and he won big in 1952 defeating Stevenson twice in
52 and 56 essentially ruining his chances of becoming president
because he wanted it in 1960 but the democrats knew they wouldn't
win with him again and it would be a third loss if they
renominated Stevenson.
 MF>Incumbents definitely have the edge.  However, I would dispute
 MF>your claim that the longer they remain in office, the more
 MF>powerful they become.  Tell that to Tom Foley!
Foley ran into the anti-incumbent sentiment and if I'm not
mistaken he had problems at home.  As powerful as Dan Roustencowski
was he still was defeated due to his scandalous behavior in that
postoffice scandal.  No one can win if they are hopelessly
crippled by scandals.
On the other hand, Ted Kennedy seems to behave as scandalously has
he wants to and still gets re-elected although Nick Romney gave him
a close run in 1994.
Harvey
Net-Tamer V 1.09  - Registered
---
---------------