What Bush and Iraq Mean For The GOP: Disaster In 2008

by DemFromCT

There is a 'lay of the land' (always a snapshot and never a guarantee) story in the LA Times that captures a bit of what we have been telling you here, lo, all these months.

President Bush's unpopularity and a string of political setbacks have created a toxic climate for the Republican Party, making it harder to raise money and recruit candidates for its drive to retake control of Congress.

Some of the GOP's top choices to run for the House next year have declined, citing what Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.) called a "poisonous" environment. And Republicans' fundraising edge, an important advantage over the last five years, has dwindled.

...

"The reality is the Republican brand right now is just not a good brand," said Tim Hibbitts, an independent Oregon pollster. "For Republicans, the only way things really get better … is if somehow, some way, Iraq turns around."

Jennifer Duffy of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report said the party was "desperately in need of some Prozac."

The GOP is having trouble with cash and candidates, according to the article. Just wait... between Bush, Iraq, Gonzales and the scandals bubbling up there's little good news on the horizon. The reality is, to agree with Hibbitts at a core level and not just as a marketing analysis, that the Republican brand right now is just not a good brand. They are advocating a toxic mix of poor judgment and incompetence (Iraq and Katrina response) while pushing ideology over skill and professionalism (Gozales, Rove and political minders in the agencies).

Every wistful look at Ronald Reagan (be prepared for a regular dose between now and 11/08) is an admission of a weak bench today. And the coalescing CW around the idea that Iraq will do to Republican branding on national security what Hoover did to the GOP on economics (ruin it for the next 40 years) is a remarkable comment on the  GOP's chances down the road (see today's Sunday shows).

Americans want out of Iraq. The GOP has an albatross around its neck. And comments about how 'Dems are divided'  are so much smoke and mirrors. The GOP is in disarray, and they've got no clear path as to how to get out of the hole they are in.

Comments

[Crab Nebula]

The only possible solution for the R's is an anti-war nominee who is reliably conservative in every other way, someone who could pave the way message-wise for downticket candidates.

Yet this is impossible. Their only possible meta narrative is, "the Democrats will make it worse; we'll be less-worse." Which is negative (not good for a meta narrative) and won't work on its face, anyway. They are screwed.

[ab initio]

After watching the Dem presidential candidates debate I am not very hopeful that it would matter that much that the Repub brand craters. We'll still get the Repub lite brand with the Dem triangulators. With Clinton and Obama continuing with the Repub frame of GWOT and each of them out hawking the other - the Dems will be continuing the care and feeding of the military industrial "national security" complex as a matter of most important national priority.

I wonder how many of the candidates would have showed their hands to the question of if they believe that a) habeas corpus is an anachronism now that we are in the GWOT b) its necessary to spy on citizens to keep them safe. But of course the corporate media that was deeply complicit in all this will not ask such questions.

[janinsanfran]

Agreed with the comment above. As long as they try to out butch each other, the people will continue to be screwed by leaders who think war bolsters their power. And the top Dems are playing that game.

[Davis. X. Machina]

The only possible solution for the R's is an anti-war nominee who is reliably conservative in every other way,

The Anti-Humphrey. He was for the war, but reliably liberal in every other way.

[Mimikatz]

It it really time for Pat Buchanan? ;-)

David Brooks gets it. It's funny that he describes all the GOP candidates as trying to be George Allen (!). And it's not Prozac they need, but Geritol.

I do think the zeitgeist is changing. Pople ar enot afraid of Bush and his popularity has sunk so it is almost only the Bushbots who support him. I expect him to break 30% soon. And with more and more coming out about scandals (f'r gods'sakes--it's only been 4 months and look at what's been uncovered) I still don't see how he finishes his term, if Cheney falls for some reason.

[DemFromCT]

Bush is at 28% in the harris poll, and at 41% in the too-stable rasmussen (which hit 36% on april 20.

[MikeM]

At the moment it's pretty likely that the Democrats will win (and possibly win big) in 2008. I think that the issue for the netroots is to make sure that the reform imperative stays front and center. It's too easy for them to become complacent and slip into their old habits. What's needed is a legislative agenda that moves democracy forward, e.g., starting with political campaign reform (not just by money restrictions, but perhaps by using the FCC, and by passing municipal ordnances requiring exclusive cable franchises to adhere to the same standards).

Whatever the steps, I'll be as suspicious of the Democrats if/when they control all the levers of power as I have been of the Republicans.

[priscianus jr]

Crab Nebula, Mimikatz,
"The only possible solution for the R's is an anti-war nominee who is reliably conservative in every other way, someone who could pave the way message-wise for downticket candidates."
Rep. Ron Paul (who has always been against the war, voted against the authorization) is running -- Buchanan isn't.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
...but I suppose the nomination of Paul would qualify for the realm of the "impossible."
I agree with Ab Initio and DemfromCT, the real danger is the Democratic nomination. After all, if the Dems are now out-fundraising the Republicans, you've got to wonder where all that money is coming from and what the donors expect for it. To some extent -- and certainly in the case of Hillary -- it's coming from the same wonderful folks that used to give more to the Republicans. True, there's significant $$ from the netroots for some of them. But like you, I'm not too thrilled and am keeping my powder dry so far.
Still, I don't want to equate the two parties. When the republicans are on top, as they have been for so long, the Democrats just settled into a passive role -- kind of like, why rock the boat, we like the weenies here in DC. If the Republicans wind up where they're now heading for, this will be part of such a fundamental shift that we may again see something resembling a real Democratic Party, something like what happened in 1932. But "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." People really are so sick of this never-ending garbage. It used to be possible for the grassroots to exert pressure. i don't see why under these circumstances it wouldn't be once again.

[DemFromCT]

David Brooks, apparently, does get the part that says the GOP is in big trouble for 2008.

At the University of Chicago there’s a group of scholars who are members of what is called the Rational Expectations school of economics. They believe human beings tend to anticipate unpleasant future events and seek in advance to avoid them. Their teachings do not apply to the Republican Party.

The Republicans suffered one unpleasant event in November 2006, and they are headed toward an even nastier one in 2008. The Democrats have opened up a wide advantage in party identification and are crushing the G.O.P. among voters under 30.

Moreover, there has been a clear shift, in poll after poll, away from Republican positions on social issues and on attitudes toward government. Democratic approaches are favored on almost all domestic, tax and fiscal issues, and even on foreign affairs.

The public, in short, wants change.

of course, since Brooks credits Newt Gingrich 9and his own misguided views) as being part of the answer, he misses the fundamentals, but still comes up with an interesting prognostic view:

Change could, miraculously, come soon. But the odds are it will take a few more crushing defeats before Republicans tear down the self-imposed walls that confine them.

I'm willing to test his theory.

[4jkb4ia]

:)

[4jkb4ia]

This will not bring Josh Hancock back to life of course.

[freepatriot]

IIRC, the Democrats had NO CHANCE of taking control of the Senate in May of 2005

and now, on the eve of May 2007, we're seeing reality creep into the reports about the repuglicans' chances in 2008

I think we're gonna see a 60 seat majority in the Senate, and about 150 seats in the house

so how's that :permanent repuglican majority" thing workin out kkkarl ???

and in a related not:

Representative Renzi is still critically alive

anybody need the "hearing impaired" version ???

[freepatriot]

make that 250 seats in the house

I got stupid fingers

[Sally]

Had the Republics embraced good government the way they embraced corruption, they would have been a permanent majority for a long, long time. There may be a moral there, Democrats.

[DemFromCT]

Had these republicans been decent people, doing the best job possible, putting country ahead of party, we'd be in a parallel universe.

[demtom]

Yeah, Sally, I think the very idea of good government conflicts with the GOP ideal of riches-for-the-rich. Ideological problems in the Republican philosophy have led to this collapse -- I don't see how a bit more honesty in performance would have helped them that much (though it might have headed off the seething rage many of their countrymen feel).

The LA Times article was mostly good, but they let the GOP quotees get away with something that drives me nuts -- the old "Bush won't be on the ballot in '08, so he's irrelevant". I always want to ask people who claim this, Can you find an example in history where an unpopular administration was succeeded by a replacement candidate from its own party? Was LBJ's war "irrelevant" to Humphrey's chances? Adlai Stevenson was considered a very strong candidate (Ike himself said if he'd known the Dems would field someone so solid, he'd have thought twice about running), and he was 100% separate from the scandals of the Truman adminstration -- yet he still suffered a 10-point loss for Truman's sins. Wilson wasn't on the ballot in 1920, but his massive unpopularity carried over to big Dem loser Cox. And William Jennings Bryan ran specifically in opposition to the economic policies of the Cleveland administration, yet still he was soundly defeated because of the hard times. Anyone who tells you Giuliani or McCain starts with a clean slate -- as if all presidential elections are jump balls -- is simply misinformed. Bush will still (barring miracle) be president next November, and on everyone's ballot by proxy.

I normally think David Brooks is useless, but he does make a good point, that all these candidates who could present a new profile for the party are indeed hobbling themselves by running as George Allen clones. But what's their alternative? The dark underside of Karl Rove's pandering to the base is, as Bush's support has shrivelled, it's become more uniformly Republican. The 30 or so percent Bush still now musters in polling is almost certainly the GOP primary electorate; the candidates have a Hobson's choice of decrying Bush policy and failing at nomination, or supporting it and making themselves unelectable in November.

Not that this bothers me, or anything.

[Melanie]

Dem,

It's a loooong way to the next election and the Rs have every reason in the world to get congruent with reality. Watch them all flee bush and this will change the dynamic.

[Jodi]

There is only a slight chance of something good coming out of Iraq, so there should be no turnaround in the Republicans fortunes.

I predicted for 2006 that the Democratss would take the House but I expected a bigger margin. I said that the Dems could take the Senate, and they did, by slight margin.

Those here said that it all proved Rove had failed. I rather believe that except for him there would be many more Democrats in Congress right now. I believe the Republicans will see it that way too.

Barring bright news from Iraq, I predict that in 2008, the Democrats will gain more in the House and Senate, but only modestly.

I predict a Democratic President in 2008. I think now it will be Obama, but it is way too early to predict.

In 2008, the Democrats will inherit Iraq. And that will be a real problem for them. The left base will say "out, out, out" but the people that decide (Democrats) that will have to live with that decision, will say "go slow" and be careful.

Terrorism will not go away with Democrats taking charge in Washington, no matter whether America leaves Iraq.

Those foolish terrorists will think they also have won when the Democrats take charge.

2010 the Republicans will regroup.
2012 is anyone's guess.

[P J Evans]

Optimistic troll.

It's going to be more than two years before the Republics regroup, because people have long memories for bad times.

I'd prefer two generations; then we'd have a chance that people would have forgotten how to lie, cheat, and steal their way to high office, and continue doing it while in office. (One generation isn't enough. See Watergate.)

[J-Ro]

I'm with Melanie. We've got a long way to go. Honestly, nothing scares me more than a rational, reality based Republican candidate. Some who is against the war but can speak clearly about the R base's core issues. I think there is a lot of room, especially in the current R field of candidates, for a come from behind, out of nowhere R candidate with some charisma and some new ideas. Keeps me up at night, really!

[Neil Sagan]

Most of what has occurred in this country under the Bush presidency has been effectively concealed -- mostly due to a broken, corrupt media and a malfeasant Congress -- but all of it is beginning to emerge, and the consequences will likely be as extreme as the corruption and deceit itself have been.
- Glenn Greenwald link

[Sara]

test

[Jodi]

Naw, P J,

Nov 2009 (2010) is actually about 4 years less 6 months away.

First things aren't so bad as WaterGate despite attempts to paint them so. (Some say that Ford would have won if he hadn't pardoned Nixon. I don't know much about it.) Only the people that would never vote Republican believe that things are that bad, with the one exception being Iraq, a raw wound.

Now if the Democrats can take care of Iraq, and stop Terrorism in the world, then that is great.

I think though they will have a rough time because they are quite divided about it, and they will be on watch next time. Of course we will be a few scandals down the road by then as well.

[Sara]

Sorry bout that, but comments has not worked for me since Friday, and it is a bitch writing out something and then find it is lost.

Here in Minnesota, and most of the upper mid west, Republican Party ID is down by about 20 points since their high point in 2002. Democratic and DFL ID is up by the same amount -- they are not just moving to the middle.

The Republican Party's problem is that the organization is "owned" by the far right -- the Christian Coalition and Neo-con leadership and organizations, and over the years they have alienated so many republican leaning independents and more moderate Republicans, that it will take a few cycles to change that mix. The ideological right that dominates party organization is not going to recognize the problem and change gracefully. They will fight for every precinct chair spot, every county committee spot, so as to control the endorsements, platform and message, and above all, the money. It may take several cycles to work this through and it could get fairly bloody. The Republicans actually have to fight a cultural war with themselves.

I think, played right, we could be looking at a mandate election in 08, not just something that just makes the Electorial College numbers, and holds the House and Senate. A possible danger for Democrats is something like the Peroit candidacy that splits the center with some sort of third party alternative message. For this reason we have to keep the candidates focused on solid pragmatic solutions to real -- encountered in actual life -- problems. Sadly, I think Edwards and Obama are running on themes, and while I still have many reservations about Hillary, (I prefer Gore), she is catching the popular demand for practical problem solving.

Our real problem as activists on line may be about finding agreement on priorities, and not getting into a frazzle if pet concerns are not immediately put up front. Mandates can be extended if what gets done in the first 100 days or so appeals to the greatest span of our electorate, but caution is taken to make certain no one gets left out given their issues. The last Mandate the Democrats had was 1965-67, and well before November of 1966 we had a mess on our hands. FDR had essentially a four year mandate -- 33-37, but after that he could do nothing that the Southern Racist Committee Chairs did not approve. (meaning no more social programs likely to upset the south's particular arrangements.) A Mandate Election can be a wonderful thing --you can pass tons of backed up legislation in a very short time span -- but you need to know precisely what you are doing if you want to extend it beyond a two year cycle. What should be priority needs very thorough discussion, as does the discipline to carry it off.

Now let's hope this posts...

[Chris Loosley]

Sara, sorry to hear about your problems. All Web-based interfaces are inherently fragile, because of the way the underlying technology works. They can lose track of your session, especially if you remain connected for a long time, as one might do when composing a post in a comment or email window.

So if you have spent a long time composing something, it's safest to grab a copy and paste it somewhere else on your computer (like Notepad) before you click on a Preview, Post, or Send button in a Web interface, just in case the Web application swallows your input. After working with computers for 40 years, I've learned the hard way to save early and often.