The Republicans Are In Real Trouble

[BHS]

Read this article. Follow the links where appropriate. Growing discontent in the Republican rank and file has exploded Spearker Hassert et als' support for Congressman William Jefferson. It's beginning to look like November could be a very ugly month for incumbent elephants.

[BHS]

Check out this bumper sticker. This will be particularly amusing for those who've been arguing against my position on the NSA programs.

[Liam]

Don't get your hopes up too high that the Democrats will take either house of Congress in 2006.

Since the change in congressional and state-level power to the GOP in 1994, the GOP has redistricted congressional seats so expertly that incumbents (of which the GOP is in the majority) will almost always be re-elected. There needs to be a tsunami-like sentiment among the national electorate to undo the GOP majority in either house. While I see plenty of voter anger out there, I don't quite see enough to make me think the Dems will be swept into control.

[Montgomery Burns]

I don't know if they will lose Congress, but the way they are pissing off their base regarding the illegal immigration issue, it seems they will lose ground. Idiots. They were close to getting a majority big enough to stop the filibustering and obstruction by the Dems and they are going to blow it.

[BHS]

Don't get your hopes up too high that the Democrats will take either house of Congress in 2006.

Since the change in congressional and state-level power to the GOP in 1994, the GOP has redistricted congressional seats so expertly that incumbents (of which the GOP is in the majority) will almost always be re-elected. There needs to be a tsunami-like sentiment among the national electorate to undo the GOP majority in either house. While I see plenty of voter anger out there, I don't quite see enough to make me think the Dems will be swept into control.

Interesting. The Dems have proven themselves quite expert a redistricting as well (when they get the opportunity) and yet seats in both chambers do change hands. If Democrats were truly concerned about the redistricting issue they make a major case out of it. But of course they don't, at least not above the grass roots level.

[BHS]

Just thought I'd revive this post, because it answers questions BD has been posting in the Joe Lieberman thread.

[Black Dog]

Just thought I'd revive this post, because it answers questions BD has been posting in the Joe Lieberman thread.

What questions? Like the "if Joe Liberman is such a liberal, why is the GOP carrying his water?"

Or are we talking about what issues other than the war were at play in this election. Personally, I don't buy it. No one but the wonkiest of wonks cares about some Congressman 's run in with the FBI. I'd be surprised if 1 out of 100 Americans could even remember the incident, let alone tell you who was involved. Immigration? Maybe. It's a tough one for the Republicans, torn as they are between their corporate paymasters and their redneck base.

Of course, many issues local and broad, were in play. But the big one was discontent with an administration that pile dfailure upon failure and no failure was more emblematic than Iraq.

[August1991]

It's good that BHS resurrected this prescient thread. It reminds us that a major problem was discontent among traditional Republican voters.

[BHS]

I'd be surprised if 1 out of 100 Americans could even remember the incident, let alone tell you who was involved. Immigration? Maybe. It's a tough one for the Republicans, torn as they are between their corporate paymasters and their redneck base.

Of course, many issues local and broad, were in play. But the big one was discontent with an administration that pile dfailure upon failure and no failure was more emblematic than Iraq.

True. Who cares about Jefferson? Did he get back in? Did he even run?

Your last paragraph is key, and I believe you're reiterating my point. The Dem's win had more to do with discontent with the administration's performance then it did with anything the Dems themselves did. The election was the Republicans' to lose.

In 2004 it was the same situation - the Dems ran on a "we're not Bush" platform but concern about terrorism and the importance of winning the war vastly overshadowed any other mistakes that the voting public may have perceived, and so the Republicans won.

In the intervening two years an Iraqi government has formed, American troops have been shifted into a support role on many missions, and a war-weariness has set in on the American public.

At the same time, Bushco and the Republican Congress have stepped in shit pies with nearly every step: from controversial Supreme Court nominations (but especially Harriet Myers), to Dubai Ports, to the illegal immigration embroglio, to defending William Jefferson's dishonourable conduct, to rolling over and playing guilty-as-charged in La Cage Au Foley, to playing down the great economic numbers. All of which and more are neatly summed up by Glenn Reynolds as "unforced errors". I mean, the Terri Schiavo thing (remember that?) was an ethical dog's breakfast, but to have that incident create the only truly pressing piece of legislation passed in the last term is ridiculous.

Together, these two developments spelt the end of the Republican Congress. Without the unforced errors things may very well have gone the other way.

[Black Dog]

Your last paragraph is key, and I believe you're reiterating my point. The Dem's win had more to do with discontent with the administration's performance then it did with anything the Dems themselves did. The election was the Republicans' to lose.

Well, that's obvious to anyone, and indeed, I never argued otherwise. Though I will dispute one thing and that's the idea that the Dems did nothing to deserve their gains. The Dems have a track record of blowing easy games (2004 is a prime example). This time out they cam eout swinging, inced no words and presented a more or less unified front. Without the Dems hammering every Bush and GOP f-up, it's likely the well-oiled Republican spin machine could have held on. The discontent was there, but the Dems' strategy was to fan the flames.

It reminds us that a major problem was discontent among traditional Republican voters.

I haven't seen anything on how Republicans voted. What I have seen is a swing from the so-called independent voters from the Republicans to the Democrats. That doesn't paint a picture of dicontent among the Republican ranks, or at least it didn't translate to the ballot box. I've used the sports fan analogy when talking about American politics, and I stand by it. It doesn't matter how bad the team sucks, Red Sox fans don't start rooting for the Yankees and Republican voters don't go Democrat. No, this election was the result of Bush and the GOP's relentless pandering to their base and almost total neglect of the middle, a bloc Bush and company would only address by waving the bloody shirt of 9-11 in their faces.

[Liam]

I think real conservatives were showing signs of discontent. We were looking at a GOP more interested in retaining power than in getting rid of a congressman who sends dirty IMs to teenage boys. We were looking at a GOP that bought the happiness of its corporate supporters through lucrative contracts. We were looking at a GOP that was so fiscally reckless that it doled out favors at the expense of our children and grandchildren. We were looking at a GOP more interested in scuttling constitutional rights (like habeas corpus) and more interested in fighting to become a nation that tortures rather than valuing the established rule of law. We were looking at a GOP that talked the talk of family values, yet decided to intercede and attempt to nullify a dying woman's wish to not be in a permanent vegetative state. We were looking at a GOP that when looking to fill government jobs considered party fundraising more than competence. We were looking at a GOP that was intent on tearing down the wall that keeps politics out of religion and religion out of politics.

Good, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan-type conservatives could not support the Republicans this year. Cynical, Jerry Falwell and Rush Limbaugh-type conservatives could and did.

[sharkman]

I think real conservatives were showing signs of discontent. We were looking at a GOP more interested in retaining power than in getting rid of a congressman who sends dirty IMs to teenage boys. We were looking at a GOP that bought the happiness of its corporate supporters through lucrative contracts. We were looking at a GOP that was so fiscally reckless that it doled out favors at the expense of our children and grandchildren. We were looking at a GOP more interested in scuttling constitutional rights (like habeas corpus) and more interested in fighting to become a nation that tortures rather than valuing the established rule of law. We were looking at a GOP that talked the talk of family values, yet decided to intercede and attempt to nullify a dying woman's wish to not be in a permanent vegetative state. We were looking at a GOP that when looking to fill government jobs considered party fundraising more than competence. We were looking at a GOP that was intent on tearing down the wall that keeps politics out of religion and religion out of politics.

Good, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan-type conservatives could not support the Republicans this year. Cynical, Jerry Falwell and Rush Limbaugh-type conservatives could and did.

Aren't those just Dem talking points? None the less, voter disenchantment with the Republicans won the day.

[Liam]

You're saying they're false? The truth is that a major reason the current GOP lost is that that they have strayed far, far, far away from the traditional conservatism they one championed. They've now become the party of Jerry Falwell and Jack Abramoff and Teri Schiavo. How else do you explain their loss of both houses of congress to a party that never went out of its way to publicize its positions on any issues?

Look, I voted D, make no mistake, but the truth is the GOP *lost* this election more than the D's *won*. They have only themselves to blame along with their mismanagement of Iraq and Katrina, their patronage, their corruption and their belief that they could do all this because they were infallible.

Or do you believe the Democrats presented a better substantive alternative to the voters?

[sharkman]

You never mentioned Iraq, which is what most pundits are saying is at the root of angst with Bush. Most of the other points you mentioned I remain unconvinced about.

In the Foley incident, maybe I missed something, but they got rid of him awfully fast, didn't they?

Fiscally speaking, I agree with you generally, although referencing children and grand kids seems a little over the top. Democrats have loved to claim Republicans were stealing from seniors as well, which is ridiculous.

More rabid Dem commentary with the claim that Republicans wanted a nation that tortures. Come on, what you refer to is very complicated and the offending phrase is only more fearmongering.

Family values includes a family's right to decide when to pull the plug, not have the state decide for you. Terry's case was sad, but this is a rare case when the family couldn't put her out of her misery. So the state starved her to death.

Before you talk about keeping religion out of politics, maybe you should read up on your founding fathers who prayed frequently when leading the nation. Most of them were Christians. Also, God is on your money, in your pledge of alligence, and in your constitution. You're in the wrong nation if you don't like it. I suppose you didn't mind whenever Clinton was seen swinging a bible outside a church, usually when he was in trouble!

I agree that the Republicans lost this election but it's actually no big deal. Historically, the ruling party loses big at the 6 year election. Clinton lost congress even earlier than that. What Bush has done, to have both houses for 6 years, is quite rare.

[jdobbin]

I agree that the Republicans lost this election but it's actually no big deal. Historically, the ruling party loses big at the 6 year election. Clinton lost congress even earlier than that. What Bush has done, to have both houses for 6 years, is quite rare.

Bush's popularity continues to plummet even after the election. Maybe *he* was the issue.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15667442/site/.../site/newsweek/

He doesn't have long to reach his father's low. Pretty soon after that is Nixon's and Carter's lows.

[BHS]

We were looking at a GOP that was so fiscally reckless that it doled out favors at the expense of our children and grandchildren.

I'm looking forward to the Democrats turning that trend around.

We were looking at a GOP more interested in scuttling constitutional rights (like habeas corpus)

You're going to have to refresh my memory here. I don't recall that happening in the US. I seem to recall some disagreement as to whether American Constitutional rights extended to everbody in the whole world, no matter what their location, though.

and more interested in fighting to become a nation that tortures rather than valuing the established rule of law.

As I recall, the Republican dominated congress won that fight by banning techniques that in no way would have been considered torture twenty years ago, let alone when the Geneva conventions were signed. So I guess the rule of law, um, rules.

We were looking at a GOP that talked the talk of family values, yet decided to intercede and attempt to nullify a dying woman's wish to not be in a permanent vegetative state.

So why weren't her wishes observed in the eight years between her accident and the time her husband decided to find another wife? Didn't that extended period of vegetative status quo have something to do with nullifying her wishes long before Congress got involved? As to the family values aspect, I recall that the Republicans were siding with Terri's blood relatives as opposed to her bigamist pseudo-husband.

We were looking at a GOP that when looking to fill government jobs considered party fundraising more than competence.

Again, looking forward to Nancy Pelosi's special brand of fundraising-be-damned decision making skills put to the ethical test. Backing one of the biggest pork-barrel earmarkers in the House for Majority Leader is a good start.

We were looking at a GOP that was intent on tearing down the wall that keeps politics out of religion and religion out of politics.

Whatever. Painting the Republicans as uniformly religious is unfounded, as is claiming the Democrats don't have any issues in the area of trying to codify their unfounded beliefs into law. And the Dems use for or against religion as the occasion suits them, so they're hardly trustworthy critics on the issue.

[Liam]

You never mentioned Iraq, which is what most pundits are saying is at the root of angst with Bush. Most of the other points you mentioned I remain unconvinced about.

In the Foley incident, maybe I missed something, but they got rid of him awfully fast, didn't they?

Fiscally speaking, I agree with you generally, although referencing children and grand kids seems a little over the top. Democrats have loved to claim Republicans were stealing from seniors as well, which is ridiculous.

More rabid Dem commentary with the claim that Republicans wanted a nation that tortures. Come on, what you refer to is very complicated and the offending phrase is only more fearmongering.

Family values includes a family's right to decide when to pull the plug, not have the state decide for you. Terry's case was sad, but this is a rare case when the family couldn't put her out of her misery. So the state starved her to death.

Before you talk about keeping religion out of politics, maybe you should read up on your founding fathers who prayed frequently when leading the nation. Most of them were Christians. Also, God is on your money, in your pledge of alligence, and in your constitution. You're in the wrong nation if you don't like it. I suppose you didn't mind whenever Clinton was seen swinging a bible outside a church, usually when he was in trouble!

I agree that the Republicans lost this election but it's actually no big deal. Historically, the ruling party loses big at the 6 year election. Clinton lost congress even earlier than that. What Bush has done, to have both houses for 6 years, is quite rare.

The points I raised were the ones that, as I know from talking to conservatives, caused them to back away from the GOP in the past year. Cronyism, failure to be fiscally responsible, bridges to nowhere, playing politics with the Schiavo family tragedy, losing its way on so many other topics (Katrina, Harriet Myers, torture, Mark Foley). Iraq, the right track-wrong track sense of America's direction, and government corruption were the biggest issues among non-GOP voters (Democrats and independents). Dems were already angry with the GOP for all the reasons I enumerated in my earlier post, but it was the rank and file conservatives (NOT "Republicans," because there is a difference) that got angry and disillusioned leading up to the elections.

Re: Schiavo. No, you have the facts wrong. Schiavo told her husband she never wanted to be kept alive. He held out hope for several years that Terry would emerge, but as time wore on and the medical news became more grim, he opted to honor her initial wish to not live like that. He tried to "pull the plug" but her parents fought him. The two parties wound up in a multi-year court battle and the husband won each and every legal battle to honor his brain-dead wife's wishes. The Republicans went into a furor over it. Bush flew back from vacation early all to sign legislation forcing another round of court activity in the Schiavo matter. Bush has/had never come back from vacation early for anything before or since this. It was all for naught. The husband again won the final round and was able to allow Terry Schiavo to die. Tom Delay threatened "activist judges" with retribution. The whole incident was a cynical ploy to curry favor with the Christian fundamentalists. It was not an exercise in conservatism. And it was entirely disrespectful of a family's internal struggle.

Regarding the Founding Fathers, yes, they prayed. Yes, they used the conventions of their day in addressing government matters (exhortations to the almighty and such). But are you saying that someone who prays cannot want or cannot design a government that is secular and not a theocracy? By the way, many of the Founding Fathers were followers of the Enlightenment and/or Deists. They were not "Christians" as we apply that term today (i.e., the Falwell mode of being one who adheres to the letter of the Good Book... or who claims to do so):

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin : "Although Franklin's parents had intended for him to have a career in the church, Franklin said that he became disillusioned with organized religion, after learning about Deism. "I soon became a thorough Deist." "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson : "On matters of religion, Jefferson in 1800 was accused by his political opponents of being an atheist and enemy of religion. But Jefferson wrote at length on religion and almost all scholars agree with Jefferson's claim that he was a deist, a common position held by European intellectuals in the late 18th century."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine : "He described himself as a "Deist" "

[Higgly]

I see Omert didn't bother to wait for the dust to settle before he went storming into the white house (his limo drove right up the the front door, no less) to make sure George Bush remembers who it is who is really sets US foreign policy in the Middle East.

Imagine being able to get a meeting with the president of the United States on short notice right after his party has just gotten its walking papers in both the Senate and the Congress. Omert was in the same line-up as Pelosi. Just incredible.

[Black Dog]

Rathe rthan start a new thread, I'm going to post this hhere. The following by ex-National Review trustee Austin W. Bramwell alludes to the fact that it is not the Republican party that is rotten and adrift, but the U.S. conservative movement.

Notwithstanding conservatives’ belief that they, in contrast to their partisan opponents, have thought deeply about the challenges facing the United States, it is they who have become unserious.

Whatever its past accomplishments, the conservative movement no longer kindles any “ironic points of light.” It has produced fewer outstanding books even as it has taken over more of the intellectual and political landscape. This trend will only continue. Worse, no reckoning will be made: they hope in vain who expect conservatives to take responsibility for the actual consequences of their actions. Conservatives have no use for the ethic of responsibility; they seek only to “see to it that the flame of pure intention is not quelched.” The movement remains a fine place to make a career, but for wisdom one must look elsewhere.