"Is Bush Expendable?"

Chicago Sun-Times ^ | 3/4/04 | Robert Novak

[M. Dodge Thomas]

"...Today, Republicans on either end of Pennsylvania Avenue seem to be going in opposite directions.

- Disagreement between congressional Republicans and Bush over the size of the highway bill reflects mutual recriminations over runaway federal spending in general. While the president's aides are angered by the lawmakers' addiction to concrete, conservative lawmakers are furious that Bush's budget has preserved and actually increased federal funding for the arts.

- Bush's call to make his tax cuts permanent and to repeal the estate tax for all time leaves Republicans in Congress perplexed about how they will be able to write a budget without a massive increase in the huge deficit that never will command a majority vote.

- House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert and his allies are bitter that they received no backing from the president and administration in their efforts to keep the independent 9/11 investigation from extending into the campaign season.

- The president came out for a constitutional amendment to bar gay marriage without consulting congressional Republican leaders, which helps explain the unenthusiastic reception from his own party on Capitol Hill.

- Congressional Republicans still have not recovered from the shock of the President's Economic Report extolling the outsourcing of industrial jobs -- good economics perhaps, bad politics definitely.

The disaffection is such that over the last two weeks, normally loyal Republicans -- actually including more than a few members of Congress -- are privately talking about political merits in the election of Sen. Kerry. Their reasoning goes like this: There is no way Democrats can win the House or Senate even if Bush loses. If Bush is re-elected, Democrats are likely to win both the House and Senate in a 2006 mid-term rebound. If Kerry wins, Republicans will be able to bounce back with congressional gains in 2006.

To voice such heretical thoughts suggests that Republicans on Capitol Hill are more interested in maintaining the fruits of majority status first won in 1994 rather than in governing the country. A few oughtful GOP lawmakers ponder the record of the first time in 40 years that the party has controlled both the executive and legislative branches, and conclude that record is deeply disappointing…"

[M. Dodge Thomas]

Novak's unstated question is an interesting one: Is Bush Expendable?.

Seems to me that Novak's Republican sources, though they don't explicitly say so, are advancing their own version of an argument frequently made by left-leaning Democrats: that Kerry is going to catch hell for what they see as Bush's excesses, heat Democrats feel Bush and his party ought to own.

IMO from the standpoint of the folks who have been the big *economic* winners for the last there years it's a argument that makes some sense – likely they have received about all they are going got this go-around, and it's better to let the Democrats take the heat for the inevitable backlash while enticing them to vie for the support of big-money donors.

OTOH from the standpoint of *social* conservatives a Bush defeat would be a disaster; the demographic tide is running against them on just about every issue central to their concerns and they MUST have two or three Republican SC appointments ready to stand with them or their program is doomed sooner rather than later.

Then, there are the Senators and representatives, Republican and Democratic alike, who are waking up with one awful deficit hangover and the realization that the hair of the tax-cut dog that bit them is not going to help - that they have tax-cut themselves right out of the cash with which to buy votes (Oops).

[WestTexasWend]

FWIW, here's the note I sent Novak:

So Republicans on the Hill are upset with Bush? Well, sometimes I am, too, but the boys on the Hill have been a constant disappointment. Apart from the RINO sector, there's precious little "leadership" in the GOP. In the House, there's only Tom DeLay, who has no visable means of support from fellow Republicans, and, as usual, there is NO conservative leadership in the Senate. These "Kerry Republicans" will find a way to be useless regardless of who is in the White House. I wouldn't trust them to pick up my dry cleaning.
The "disaffected" had better know that they are far more expendable than Bush. They need to focus on their own responsibilities and let the president deal with his.
He shouldn't be expected to feed, burp and diaper these self-absorbed whiners.

[John Beresford Tipton]

""...Today, Republicans on either end of Pennsylvania Avenue seem to be going in opposite directions."

LOL,
well guys, a little late in the day to wake up and look at the calendar.

[EllaMinnow]

When I hit the link, I get a different title.

[M. Dodge Thomas]

> When I hit the link, I get a different title.

Sorry, I'm new to FR, and I'm still learning the ropes here.

On some other sites when you start a thread you pick a topic header which can be different than the headline of a piece you are referencing - if using the exact headline when starting a thread with a link is the convention here I'll do so in the future.

[AntiGuv]

...if using the exact headline when starting a thread with a link is the convention here I'll do so in the future.

It definitely is. When a mod drops by, this thread will get either retitled or deleted.

[AntiGuv]

If you want to add an editorial comment, the convention is to follow the exact title with a bracketed remark.

By example: Bush, GOP Congress not on the same page ["Is Bush Expendable?"]