by Matthew Hay Brown

It happened in the thick of the Great Depression, and again while Americans were held hostage in Iran. Next year, Sen. Charles E. Schumer says, America could see another "seminal election" – and one that he hopes will usher in a new era of Democratic dominance in Washington.

"They occur about once a generation," Schumer said today. "They change the tectonic plates of politics and they create a generation for one-party governance. Nineteen Thirty-Two, Roosevelt did it. In 1980, Ronald Reagan did it. And we’re about at the tail end of the Ronald Reagan era, where his ideas – fresh, and even as a Demcorat, I’d say many of them needed at the time – have just lost steam, lost resonance, and people are ready."

Schumer, who chairs the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and Rep. Chris Van Hollen, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, met with reporters today to talk about the 2008 elections for the Senate and House, a little more than a year before voters head to the polls.

Their basic message: voters want change. Change represented by Democrats, who have been stymied in their efforts on Iraq, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, embryonic stem cell reseach and other issues by President Bush and his Republican allies on Capitol Hill. Change: a word spoken more than once a minute during the half-hour pen-and-pad session.

"Why is Congress in ill repute?" asked Schumer, a New York Democrat. "Because they’re not doing enough to stop George Bush and change the direction George Bush is taking America.

"When you ask the key question for Chris and I, which is: ‘Who would you prefer generically, a Democrat or a Republican?’ The numbers are at record levels for Democrats. Higher than they were on November whatever it was of ’06.

"People have begun to distinguish on both Iraq and domestic policy that we’re the party trying to bring change and they’re the party staying in place."

The National Republican Congressional Committee, the GOP counterpart to Van Hollen’s Democratic House campaign operation, responded with a statement detailing ways that Democrats had "failed to deliver" on the expectations of the voters who put them in the majority last fall.

"Democrats’ inability to get anything accomplished, coupled with their growing list of broken campaign promises, has left the American people exasperated with this majority," NRCC spokeswoman Jessica Boulanger said. "Only on Halloween would Democrats attempt to trick voters by masking their abysmal record and do it with a straight face. No amount of smoke and mirrors will prevent the American people from registering their disgust with the incompetence of Democrats in Washington at the ballot box."

The "Democrat failures" listed by the NRCC include a failure to complete work on any appropriations bill for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1, to pass legislation reauthorizing the State Children’s Health Insurance Program or to reprimand Rep. Pete Stark for saying that House Republicans were sending Americans to Iraq "to get their heads blown off for the president’s amusement."

Democrats have been touting their work to raise the minimum wage, increase college aid, require pay-as-you-go budgeting and pass the reccomendations of the 9/11 Commission. They blame Bush and congressional Republican leaders for blocking them on other efforts.

"You only have to look at a couple of the major vetos the president has issued recently," said Van Hollen, a Maryland Democrat. "SCHIP: The president vetoed it despite big bipartisan support in the House, in the Senate on that bill. Iraq: We sent the president a bill that would change direction in Iraq. He vetoed it. Stem cell: He vetoed it. …

"We’re frustrated at the slower pace of change, especially on big issues like Iraq. But if you’re a voter out there, and you’re saying, ‘Well, we want to change direction in Iraq,’ you understand that Bush and the House Republicans are not the answer. They’re not going to bring you change on Iraq, they’re not going to bring you change on SCHIP, they’re not going to bring you change on important domestic priorities."

Rep. Tom Cole, who chairs the National Republican Congressional Committee, offered his own overview of next year’s elections in a similar session earlier this month. The Oklahoman said 2008 is shaping up to be "an anti-Washington, anti-incumbent year," and that Democrats had "forfeited the opportunity to make a good first impression."

He cited the special election this month in the Democratic-leaning Fifth District of Massachusetts, where Jim Ogonowski didn’t lose to Niki Tsongas by as much as Republicans say he should have.

"We think this was as much a judgment about the Democratic Congress and how it’s being run as anything else," Cole said. "They no longer are seen as the agents of change. ...

"Also it shows that just running against the president or running a 2006-model campaign is not going to make it in 2008. I think you really have to adjust for a very different temperature in the electorate."

In the House, Van Hollen said, Democrats are staying on offense.

"We just came off a wave election," he said. "A lot of momentum, picked up a net of 30 seats in the House of Representatives. And typically, if you look historically after the big wave comes in, sometimes the wave recedes. … If you look historically at the numbers, you would say clearly that we have to beat history going into this next election."

Van Hollen acknowledged the challenge ahead: Democrats next year will attempt to defend seats in 60 districts that were carried by President Bush in the last presidential election. Republicans must defend only eight seats in districts that went for Sen. John Kerry.

But he added that poll numbers continue to favor Democrats. And with more than 40 credible challengers in districts now held by Republicans, he said, he sees an opportunity for more gains.

In the Senate, Schumer said, "the map is good." Only 12 Democrats are up for re-election, as compared to 22 Republicans. Five GOP senators have announced plans to retire at the end of next year.

The national House and Senate campaign committees typically have remained neutral while primary voters chose their candidates before becoming involved in the races. Schumer was asked whether his involvement in recruiting candidates to run for the open Senate seat in New Mexico signalled an approach he planned to use elsewhere.

"Some states yes, some states no," he said. "You know, last time, we recruited Claire McCaskill [who defeated Sen. Jim Talent in Missouri], we backed Jim Webb [who defeated Sen. George Allen in Virginia], went and recruited Bob Casey [who defeated Sen. Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania]. They proved to be good decisions.

"What Democrats have done in the past is sort of threw up the cards and see where they come down, without mixing in until after the primary. That led to us losing too many seats where often times the strongest candidate either didn’t run or didn’t win.

"And so we don’t always intervene. We don’t have an inclination to intervene or not intervene. The goal is to win."

Schumer also was asked whether Hillary Clinton’s high disapproval ratings would be a drag on Democratic candidates for the House and Senate if she were the party’s nominee for president. Schumer, who has endorsed his fellow New York senator, said Clinton would surprise voters.

"I saw Hillary Clinton work in Upstate New York in the year 2000," he said. "When she started out, those areas – which tended to be Republican or at least independent – were vehemently opposed to her. Much more than people in America are opposed to her today. And she won them over."

Bush will not be up for re-election next year. But apparently that won’t stop Democrats from running against him.

"There’s a reason the Republican candidates for president don’t mention George Bush much in their responses," Van Hollen said. "There’s a reason the Democratic candidates for president do. And it’s because people recognize that the Bush administration remains very unpopular for standing in the way of change.

"The fact of the matter is George Bush and his legacy will be on the ballot in 2008," he said. "The folks who continue to stay with the president are going to have to continue to take responsibility and be held accountable for that dismal record."