Yes, we got trouble right here in Potomac River City.
That starts with "T" and that rhymes with "D" and that stands for "Democrats."
As President Barack Obama’s once seemingly-unassailable popularity wanes and public anger grows over the failing economy and issues like health care "reform," the party of the jackass sees trouble with voters on the horizon.
Democrats aren’t paranoid. Voters are out to get them. The same voters who threw the bums out in 2006 and 2008 now consider Obamacons the bums and they want change.
Today, the energy that powered Obama to victory has begun to dissipate. Some of his supporters remain on the sidelines; others are, if not disillusioned, questioning what has happened to his presidency. As they look toward 2010, Democrats are nervous. Gov. Bill Ritter, appointed Sen. Michael F. Bennet and at least one Democratic member of the House will probably face difficult election campaigns next year.
Roy Romer, a former Democratic governor, called the state of play "very much tougher" for Obama and the Democrats than it was a year ago. "The slippage is there, and it’s because things are tough and solutions aren’t easy, and they [voters] don’t see progress toward solutions," he said.
"The political environment is tough for Democrats, tough for incumbents, tough for all politicians," Mike Stratton, a veteran Democratic strategist based in Denver, said a few days ago.
The Obama of 2008 seemed perfectly attuned to a state known for its youthfulness, future-oriented outlook and positive spirit. If he struggled at times with older voters in Rust Belt states, he always found a welcome in Colorado, easily defeating Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Democratic caucuses before cruising past McCain in the general election.
Today, Coloradans appear more downbeat. Anxiety has replaced optimism. The recession has changed habits and attitudes. Obama’s agenda has raised questions among independent voters because of its ambitious scope and potential impact on the deficit. His style has left some original supporters concerned about his toughness.
Obama’s many missteps are only part of the problem. Democratic leadership in both the House and Senate is lackluster at best. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid find themselves increasingly under fire from within their own party.
To make matters worse, the ethics problems that hounded the Republicans is the last two elections now threaten Democrats. Longtime Democratic Congressman Charles Rangel of New York is under fire for serious ethical lapses and Pelosi seems reluctant to do anything about it.
Why is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi refusing a growing chorus of calls to drop the hammer on ethics-challenged Charlie Rangel?
Because, at the moment, doing nothing creates a lot less trouble for Pelosi than doing anything, current and former House aides tell POLITICO.
Stripping the Harlem Democrat of his chairmanship of the House Ways and Means Committee would force Pelosi to make a series of unpalatable decisions about Rangel’s successor that would create a ruckus in the Democratic caucus.
It would also infuriate the Congressional Black Caucus, which is still sore over Pelosi’s decision to strip committees from former Louisiana Rep. Bill Jefferson – even after Jefferson had been found with a wad of tainted cash in his kitchen.
“Unless they find $90,000 in his freezer, like they did with Jefferson, we’re going to wait [for the outcome of a House ethics probe],” said a Democratic aide familiar with Pelosi’s thinking on the matter.
Voters thought they were opting for change when they put Democrats back in charge of Congress in 2006 and Obama into the White House in 2008.
Now they wonder is all they did was change faces.