Posted on 03/19/2006 9:21:33 AM PST by Cannoneer No. 4
The authority of the Bush Administration is falling apart - in its heartland.
With almost three years of George Bush's presidency to go, most Republicans in Congress have one political goal before the mid-term congressional elections in November: desert him as fast as they can.
The discipline of the first Bush Administration is gone. The Republican-dominated, rubber-stamp Congress is no more. Every day, another Republican member of Congress declares that Bush is a great guy, that they love him dearly, but that he has lost the plot.
Sack people they say. One day it's Donald Rumsfeld. The next day it's Dick Cheney. A day later it's the whole White House staff. Do something, Mr President, they say. And by the way, they say, we love you dearly, but most of your policies stink.
Come to think of it, it's all of them, from immigration where they reckon Bush wants to flood the country with illegal immigrants from Mexico, to the Medicare prescription drug plan for America's seniors that is out of control in terms of its cost and which is so complicated that elderly Americans can be seen weeping at pharmacy counters across the country.
No opportunity by Republicans to criticise Bush - with a heavy heart of course - is missed. When commercial radio shock-jocks suddenly discovered that the Bush Administration had approved the takeover of six American ports by a Dubai company - by Arabs! - the Republican leaders in Congress were in danger of causing each other injury as they made the dash for the TV cameras and microphones to say, in essence, that Bush had lost his marbles.
The Democrats, meanwhile, are more or less all over the place on more or less every issue, except the Arab takeover of those American ports where their outrage was outrageous and, frankly, racist. The Congress of the world's sole superpower appears to be an undisciplined rabble.
On the key issues that Americans are really worried about - and Iraq is overwhelmingly the most important one - neither Republicans nor Democrats in Congress have a clue what to do.
Neither does Bush, who increasingly looks and sounds as if he is weighed down by the relentless bad news from Iraq and the daily crises and political missteps that have plagued his second term.
It was in this political environment that the Republican Party's Southern Leadership Conference met last week in Memphis. The highlight of the two-day conference was a straw poll of the 2000 or so Republican Party activists and supporters of the leading candidates for the party's 2008 presidential nomination.
The one candidate who wasn't in Memphis and was not part of the poll was former New York City mayor Rudi Giuliani who, in poll after poll, is far and away the people's choice - that includes Republicans - for the Republican Party's 2008 nomination.
Most political analysts seem to agree that Giuliani represents the Republican Party's best hope of winning in 2008, but they also agree that he has a snowball's chance in hell of winning the nomination.
This is not because he is seen as wishy-washy on the war in Iraq, the war on terror or even on the need to cut government spending programs, including welfare.
He's not. Indeed, in some ways, he's a more orthodox conservative than Bush. But Giuliani is pro-choice on abortion, which for many conservative Republicans means he's in favour of murder and therefore unfit to be president. And he's "soft on gay marriage".
For the Republican Party's social conservative base, those people who turned out in great numbers in 2004 to give Bush a clear if narrow victory, "values issues" are those that energise them.
That's why at that Republican conference in Memphis, Iraq was hardly mentioned while abortion and the moral threats posed by Hollywood and gay marriage were discussed endlessly.
If no pro-abortion politician has any hope of winning the Republican Party's 2008 nomination, no anti-abortion politician, so the conventional political wisdom goes, has any hope of being the Democratic candidate. The liberal wing of the Democratic Party is the mirror image of the Republican Party's social conservatives.
The culture wars in America are real and alive and remain potent politically. The culture wars have pushed the Republicans to the right and the Democrats to the left, which means neither party has a substantial moderate wing.
On many issues, neither party has the support of the majority of Americans. On abortion for instance, a majority of Americans believe abortion should be legal in many - but not all - cases.
A number of conservative states are planning abortion laws that would make abortion illegal no matter what the circumstances, including rape and incest and a serious risk to the woman's health.
By next year, when the Supreme Court comes to consider constitutional challenges to these laws, abortion will be a major political issue. And not because it is a vote-decider for most Americans, but because it energises the bases of both parties. The party that gets the vote out is the party that wins.
So not only is Congress a rabble, not only are Republicans running away from Bush as fast as they can, not only do the Democrats seem a lot like the Labor Party, but it is a real possibility that both the November elections and the 2008 presidential election could be decided on "values issues" that don't matter a hill of beans to many Americans.
Michael Gawenda is United States correspondent.
IMHO, the problem is that the Republicans failed to recognize how dangerous RINOs are. Freedom would probably be safer with 49 conservative Republicans and 51 Democrats in the Senate, than with 49 conservative Republicans, 2 RINOs, and 49 Democrats.
The problem is that, as the Gang of 14 illustrated, it's possible for a RINO minority to hijack an entire party. If the conservative Republicans had no pretense of being a majority party, they wouldn't have to acceed to anyone's demands. But when a group of RINOs has the power to render a majority party into effectively a minority party, they can force their will even more effectively than would a 51-vote majority of Democrats.
It's true that one program or another was going to be enacted, and that we asserted our majority, not to kill it, but to enact a Republican version that relied on market forces and it's ability to create entities to manage it. This keep the socialized medicine idea at bay for a few more years.
I disagree that opposing the program in all it's versions would have been a viable alternative. Had we not done it, the media would have it as a lead issue going into this election and they would be showing video of dead and dying or starving seniors because they spent every last nickle for lifesaving meds or they could not purchase it at all. Also, don't forget about the runs to the Canadian border. Note that all those stories have completely gone......(you know I'm right about the results) I saw no choice and it made sense to do it, but the cost is a big issue.
The failure of a Republican Senate to do it's work and enact some simple reductions and program cuts, after totally blowing away any possible social security reforms has upset any possible improvement in entitlement spending.
We elected these people to do the job and to not be affected by public dissents and pressures of various groups, and we expected much better from them, but they have failed.
I noted through all of this, that self proclaimed conservatives did not blink an eye and proceeded to attack Bush on border issues, abortion, Miers, ports, air port security and now they are upset that Bush's polling numbers are low and that some of us are blaming them as well as the Democrats.
You have to be careful as to how you describe a Republican moderate. here on this forum it is a dirty word, but frankly like most labels it is inaccurate and insufficient. There are as many versions of moderate as there are races, and no two moderates are alike. They simply are not extremists and they are willing to listen and compromise. That is one of the definitions of politics.
The art of compromise.
I consider myself to be moderate in some respects, but that is a function of my understanding of political realities, and not how I think things should be. certainly their are some called moderates who are really liberals with a "R" attached, but that is often a electoral and constituent reality.
Republicans coined the term "big tent" and they truly are a collection of various beliefs and understandings, but there is a core collection of people who have always manage to come together for the big show, and the important issues that affect the big picture.
In recent years there came a couple fringe groups of what I call unappeasables who cannot or will not compromise and never will under any circumstances, even if it means destroying a presidency. This happened before and will always happen, It has also happened to the Democrats, but their hated of all things Bush will hold them together for the next three years, where we will no doubt fragment.
That's the political reality and that is why all the candidates who move center will have a better chance of winning. The support for the hard right conservative or even the wacky liberal will not happen under these conditions.
That is what McCain sees, and what Hillary sees, and what all the candidates will be advised to do this season.
Forget the fringes...move and capture the center. The fringes are at war with their own party and without the moderates cannot win.
It's really pretty simple. They will throw a bone or two, but the votes are in the center and when the slate for the general election is clear, the unappeasable fringes will defect, as they always do.
There is one thing we can do. All Freepers should send one message to the RNC or the RCC. That message is, "I will not vote for any Republican who turns on President Bush." If the GOP doesn't hang together, they will surely hang separately.
Just close your eyes and repeat: "All that matters is the War on Terror. All that matters is the War on Terror. All that matters is the War on Terror."
Then you should have no problem voting for a socialist. ;-)
LOL!!
Why should I support a globalist, free traitor, rockefeller republican who wants open borders like Jorge Arbusto?
To get the full intended effect of this article, as you read it imagine a stopwatch swinging in front of your face and a soothing voice whispering, "You are getting sleeeepy.....sleeeeeeeeepy".
Because you don't want a Democrat congress and senate that will double your taxes and give you even more socialism. ( I presume)
The reason for my posting on this issue.
But I've been warning about this since the very public and widespread attacks on Trent Lott occurred. This is where the self destruction began. As much as I differed with Lott on his handling of the Senate, the quotes he was attacked for were ridiculous and were not the real reason for the attacks. This is where the right began their attacks on the center of the party.
Unfortunately, it has accelerated since then and shows no sign of stopping. Not for anything, including the loss of everything.
I don't like much of what President Bush is doing, but that is not an excuse to abandon the Republican Party. Learn from the wisdom of the Great Man. When Reagan was offered the chance to go third party and run for President in the 70's, he refused the opportunity. Rather, he worked from within.
Similarly, the Republican Party needs to be renewed from within. That means working the primaries hard - developing a conservative caucus which will take the battle to the RINOs.
Regards, Ivan
Socialism slow (respendicans) or socialism quick (rats) what is the big difference?
Wish I had time for debate, but I have to run. Church dinner.
To be accurate, liberal Republicans coined the term "big tent".
Which makes it ironic that y'all are always trying to kick out the ideological tent poles...
But I knew you would.
Yeah, that is still the only answer.
If one or more of three lines are crossed that will change, though: 1) If pro-life is removed from the platform. 2) If the presidential nominee is not solidly pro-life. 3) If the vice-presidential nominee is not solidly pro-life.
If any of those three are violated, 'turn out the lights, the party's over'.
There are other things that can take the GOP down too...they'll just take longer.
Your view of history and the current status of things is twisted.
It's the epitome of RINO thinking.
I've always been astonished by the ability of RINOs to take the 180 degree wrong lesson from any bit of history.
Sell out conservatism...lose...scapegoat conservatives.
That's your infernal formula.
"Appears to be"???
I agree. Let's not make the same mistakes the Dems made in 2000 concerning gun control (Gore) and 2004 concerning "electability" (Kerry).
That paragraph is breathtaking in its disingenuousness...considering the fact that the negatives you point out were mainly forwarded by 'moderates' in Republican leadership.
And, the protection of innocent human life and American national security hardly amounts to some kind of 'emotional chess'. It is the primary responsibility of everyone who takes the oath.
Wrong formula, my friend.
The right one is for conservatives to send this message to leadership: "I will not vote for any Republican who turns on conservative principles."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.