The Next Hurrah: Fortress Bush Has Been Breached

« Updated: How Can They Protect Us? | Main | My Armitage as Mr. X Scenario »

March 12, 2006

Fortress Bush Has Been Breached

by DemFromCT

Ooooh! It's starting to get interesting. Once it's clear the emperor has no clothes, everyone gets to pile on.

The Republican rebellion that President Bush smacked into with the Dubai ports deal was the tip of an iceberg of Republican discontent that is much deeper and more dangerous to the White House than a talk radio tempest over Arabs running U.S. ports.

A Republican pushback on Capitol Hill and smoldering conservative dissatisfaction have already killed not just the ports deal but key elements of Bush's domestic agenda, and threaten GOP control of Congress if unhappy conservatives sit out the November midterm elections.

The apostasy in some quarters runs to heretofore unthinkable depths.

"If I had a choice and Bush were running today against (Democratic President) Bill Clinton, I'd vote for Bill Clinton," said Bruce Bartlett, a former Reagan administration Treasury Department official whose book, "Impostor: How George Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy," is making the rounds of conservative think tanks and talk shows. "He was clearly a much better president in a great many ways that matter to me."

Bartlett may lie at the extreme, but his critique taps into a strong undertow -- reflected in a sharp drop in Bush's support among his typically solid Republican base, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll released Friday.

"Bush's compassionate conservatism has morphed into big government conservatism, and that isn't what the base is looking for," said David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union. "The White House and the congressional leadership have got to reinvigorate the Republican base. In off-year elections ... if your base isn't energized, particularly in a relatively evenly divided electorate, you've got more problems than you think you have."

Any significant drop in GOP turnout in the November midterms -- when the party in power is historically weak -- could prove disastrous for Republicans.

It's the NY Times story, but an Indianapolis headline:

President's Sagging Popularity Shadows GOP Conference

Republicans gathered here this weekend for the Southern Republican Leadership Conference acutely concerned with the elections ahead and distressed by the White House's performance.

They listened as prospective presidential candidates wrestled with how much to associate their campaigns with an increasingly unpopular president.

Reflecting the political anxiety about the years leading into the 2008 election, the party's prospective presidential candidates who spoke to about 2,000 Republicans here varied markedly in their handling of President Bush as they began to struggle with what will be a central strategic challenge for them.

Republicans said the complication for these candidates was that Bush remained highly popular with the party's conservative base, even in the face of deepening concerns about the government and the policies he is pursuing.

I hope they stick to him like glue. Get pictures of them kissing, at least as friendly as Joementum is. Endorse his legacy. Swear fealty to the emperor. Kiss the ring, and get it all recorded. That's the best way to turn a close election into a rout.

March 12, 2006 at 08:01 in Bush/Republican Scandals, Contributor--DemFromCT, Elections--2006, Republicans | Permalink

Comments

For an interesting theory of when the fortress walls were erected, see Broder:

Boca Raton, Fla.: Mr. Broder,

First, I thoroughly enjoy reading your columns in The Washington Post.

As a Republican, I voted for the President in the first election because he convinced me that he would be able to unite Republicans and Democrats to get things accomplished.

He clearly has failed to do this and I am wondering what went awry? Perhaps you have some thoughts on the subject.

David S. Broder: I think many things went awry, but one of them was his reaction to the switch in party control of the Senate after Senator Jeffords of Vermont went from being a Republican to being an Independent who caucused with the Democrats. That made Tom Daschle the majority leader for a time, and Bush took that as a signal that bipartisanship--of the kind he had enjoyed on the No Child Left Behind Act and the first round of tax cuts would not be available. From that point on, he built his majorities almost exclusively among Republicans, and negotiations with the Democrats essentially came to an end.

Small men overreact. And small men try to bully.

Posted by: DemFromCT | March 12, 2006 at 08:15

stories about Republicans in Congress having so many fundamental differences with an unpopular Bush are a double edged sword

Posted by: jwp | March 12, 2006 at 09:28

I'm an Ohioan; I'm not convinced that the electorate has much to do with how elections turn out.

Posted by: cs | March 12, 2006 at 09:50

I'm from CT and I am.

Posted by: DemFromCT | March 12, 2006 at 09:58

"Fortress Bush"?

I am trying to remember where in the Bible is the parable about castles made of sand or built on the sand falling into the sea.

If ever there were a metaphorical/political fortress made of sand, it is this Presidency.

Provided that he does not destroy the Republic in the process, wouldn't it be kind of neat to watch him and his gang fail with such an obvious warning coming straight out of the Bible?

Posted by: Tug | March 12, 2006 at 12:14

The SF Chronicle story you initially quote from also traced a large amount of conservative discontent to the budget debacle--the extent to which spending has increased and revenues declined--that I wrote about in my Ides of March piece yesterday about raising the debt ceiling. The Chronicle article continues:

"Although the Iraq war is hurting Bush with all voters, the deeper conservative discontent is with the spectacular growth of spending during the last five years that rivals that of a famously free-spending Democrat, President Lyndon Johnson.

"Frustration over spending now threatens to overshadow Bush's accomplishments that conservatives love: his first-term tax cuts and his nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.

"'I think it's the biggest reason our base is so disenchanted with Republicans right now,' said Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz. 'The president has been great on tax cuts, and been great on a few issues, economic growth, pretty good on trade -- little hiccup on some steel tariffs there -- but I think most of us recognize that these tax cuts are increasingly difficult to defend politically because of the increase in spending.'"

Posted by: Mimikatz | March 12, 2006 at 12:52

I think that's right... the rigid fiscal conservatives don't see enough rigidity in Bush and that's what turns them off. The rest of his disaster administration they're fine with... WOT, breach of trust with NSA, Iraq debacle... becuase they're authoritarian at heart. But he's not true to the principles of St. reagan, and that burns them.

They are not a majority, but their stay-at-home attitude about 2006 will be a big deal. it will force a rewriting of the narrative. Now, i don't think for a moment progressives are a majority either. most Americans are pragmatic and will do whatever works. That's why Bill Clinton was so popular. That's another thing that drives these base conservatives into apoplexy.

Both elements (Clinton hatred and fiscal conservatism) were on display at the straw vote. The fiscal piece wasn't enough to help McCain, who is pretty good at voting against spending.

Posted by: DemFromCT | March 12, 2006 at 13:11

All you elites with your noses buried in the NYT and the like completely missed something important in the WWNews*:

Washington DC - Beset by scandals, war and low poll ratings, the Republican Party is in trouble.
"All they've got to throw against us in November is fear", said Andrew Spitz, a leading Democratic strategist. "They intend to win like they won in '04, bogusly pitching Democrats as weak on terror. This time, we'll be ready for that baloney."

Perhaps. But will they be ready for this? Insiders say that the latest idea to help resurrect the party is to resurrect former president Ronald Reagan, and make him a candidate for the 2008 presidential election.

"The technology is in place", said a chief Republican strategist, who insisted on anonymity. "First we restore Reagan's body, then we reboot his mind, then we return him to office."

"It's a natural. What's the slogan? 'You can't keep a good man down'. Well, Reagan was a great man, so why shouldn't he rise again?"

Republican strategists are jubilant at the prospect.

(.....)

One potential roadblock is the 22nd Amendment, which limits a candidate to two terms as president. But Republicans see it differently.

"It's two terms during one's lifetime", said the strategist. "If we bring Reagan back, it's a different lifetime, so there are no obstacles."

Democrats are disgusted at the prospect.

"We see what they're doing," said Spitz. "They're trying to solidify their radical right-wing base by equating Reagan with Christ. Well, it won't work. People are smarter than that."

"Well, maybe not those people, but some people are".

"Those are the words of a panicked strategist", said the Republican insider. "Can you imagine a resurrected Reagan running under the slogan 'Bring America Back to Life'? It would be a bigger landslide than Mr Reagan got the first two times!".

(*Weekly World News)

Posted by: jonnybutter | March 12, 2006 at 15:23

LOL. You're right. I didn't see it coming. Then again, I didn't see it coming the first time either.

Posted by: DemFromCT | March 12, 2006 at 17:28

demfromct, since it's a david broder theory, we know it's not true.

what is true is that karl rove thinks that winning big is for wimps: that the best thing to do is win 'em close, but win 'em. winning big requires you to make concessions to the other side, and there's nothing bush lives by more than "never negotiate against yourself."

as for the voter who deluded him or herself that george bush would unite dems and republicans on anything, nothing went "awry" othat then the thought processes of the voter. no one who paid any attention could possibly have concluded that george bush would unite dems and republicans.

Posted by: howard | March 12, 2006 at 22:52

The election results and subsequent polling proves you wrong, howard. I live in conservative NE republican territory. They hate him now, were wary of him them, but voted for him in 2000. They were paying attention. They just didn't realize what you and I realized, though they do now.

Posted by: DemFromCT | March 13, 2006 at 10:05

Rasmussen breaks down today, 42-57 from yesterday's 44-54, with "somewhat" outnumbering "strongly" approves.

Previous break (Mar 4) didn't hold ... we'll see.

Posted by: RonK, Seattle | March 13, 2006 at 12:49

And Gallup approval at 36% ... down 2 points from previous ... and breaking his all-time 37% "Harriet Miers bottom".

Posted by: RonK, Seattle | March 13, 2006 at 16:28

RonK, the disapprove in Gallup is up to 60% if I caught that right.

Posted by: DemFromCT | March 13, 2006 at 17:43

demfromct, i don't mean to battle this out indefinitely, but i'd be curious as to what polling data you are referring.

because i can understand the notion of being "wary" of bush and voting for him anyhow, but i can't understand how you can combine the concepts of being "wary" of bush and still believing that "he would be able to unite Republicans and Democrats to get things accomplished."

look, people convince themselves of all kinds of things, but to convince yourself that bush would united republicans and democrats, you really had to be ignoring reality. the people i know who voted for bush weren't big fans of his in 2000 either, but they voted for bush because they were republicans and he was a republican, not because they thought he was going to usher in some era of bipartisan comity in the interests of "getting things done."

anecdotes aren't data, i fully realize, but do you have data in support of the notion that there were lots of people who believed that bush "would be able to unite Republicans and Democrats to get things accomplished?"

Posted by: howard | March 13, 2006 at 18:01

Sure. Look at 12/03 compared to 6/05. the election was 11/04. of course. And look at the second poll, Jan 01. But prior to 2000, there was hope he'd unite people like he did in Texas. Now, you and I both know he united conservative Ds with conservative Rs, but still there was hope, and Bush in fact ran on that 'achievement'. Only in 2004 did (half) the country catch on.

"Overall do you think Bush has done more to unite the country, or has done more to divide the country?" Options rotated

Unite Divide Unsure

6/2-5/05
43 55 2

4/04
50 48 2

3/04
48 49 3

12/03
58 36 6

Would you describe George W. Bush more as a uniter or a divider?" Options rotated

.
Uniter Divider Unsure
% % %

1/14-16/05
49 49 2

10/22-24/04
48 48 4

1/15-16/01
58 36 6

Posted by: DemFromCT | March 13, 2006 at 22:11

That second poll was CNN/USA Today/Gallup, btw.

Posted by: DemFromCT | March 13, 2006 at 22:15

demfromct, you're citing polls from the wrong election. the broder letter-writer was referring to the "first" election, meaning 2000.

(i had a longer response, but it was eaten by a server error, but this will do.)

Posted by: howard | March 13, 2006 at 22:52

well, actually, demfromct, i think maybe on reflection i should add back in one more comment: to some degree, we are having a semantic and not real difference of opinion here. my comment was "no one who paid any attention could possibly have concluded that george bush would unite dems and republicans." you seem to be suggesting that no one did pay attention, and you may be right, but i'd still conclude that that means the thought process of those who convinced themselves in november, 2000 that bush could "unite" were what went awry, not the bush administration (or broder's response, the jeffords defection).

Posted by: howard | March 13, 2006 at 22:56

howard, see the second poll:

1/15-16/01
58 36 6

it's there. If you're trying to say that those numbers radically changed in 3 months (Oct '00- Jan '01), fuggedaboutit. That why the trends over years are provided. They didn't change (50-50) until '04 (see the '03 numbers) and didn't tank until '05.

Posted by: DemFromCT | March 14, 2006 at 13:41