Piling On The GOP

by DemFromCT

Something's in the water. From the LA Times to the OC Register to 60 Minutes, you can't avoid the stories of a GOP in trouble, mostly over Iraq. This is Dick Polman in the Philly Inquirer, nicely summing up the situation:

By launching a war of choice for dubious reasons, and without the requisite resources to win the peace, he has been the chief architect of his own political demise. Simply put, most Americans have gotten fed up with his empty assurances: "It's slowly but surely making progress" (July 2003); "We're making steady progress" (September 2004); "Iraq has made incredible political progress" (September 2005); "Iraqis are making inspiring progress" (October 2005); "There's progress" (January 2006).

So it's no surprise to discover that, in the latest NBC-Wall Street Journal poll, Bush's war stewardship is viewed favorably by a mere 27 percent of the citizenry.

In a British-style parliamentary system, he would be gone by now. But even a politically weakened American commander in chief can still play a strong hand - which is why, at least for now, the congressional Democrats are doomed to fail in their current bid to legislate an end to the war.

Public sentiment is irrelevant; all that matters, in this hardball political moment, is the stubborn stance of the Decider and the math on Capitol Hill. Bush will veto any spending bill that contains a pullout timetable, and the Democrats lack the votes to override him. Later this spring, they'll probably wind up giving him the war money he wants, absent any pullout timetable, in part because they don't want to be tarred as being "against the troops," particularly on the eve of an election year. (Indeed, a CBS News poll reported this month that only 9 percent of Americans favor cutting off all the war money.) So, looking down the road, it's a cinch bet that our soldiers will still be dying on the day Bush fobs off the disaster on his successor.

But the Democrats are prodding Bush anyway and will continue to do so, because they have the wind at their backs.

They know they'll lose the current skirmish, but so what?

Okay, okay, mainstream and not surprising (but on the mark). So who did this one?

General Petraeus is a wonderfully commanding figure. But if the enemy is in the nature of a disease, he cannot win against it. Students of politics ask then the derivative question: How can the Republican Party, headed by a president determined on a war he can't see an end to, attract the support of a majority of the voters? General Petraeus, in his Pentagon briefing on April 26, reported persuasively that there has been progress, but cautioned, "I want to be very clear that there is vastly more work to be done across the board and in many areas, and again I note that we are really just getting started with the new effort."

The general makes it a point to steer away from the political implications of the struggle, but this cannot be done in the wider arena. There are grounds for wondering whether the Republican Party will survive this dilemma.

Yep, that'd be Bill Buckley, asking if Republicans can survive Iraq (the answer, Bill, is no). Hey, what about about this one?

"So," said Hagel, "when I hear people say, 'Well, if we leave them to that, it will be chaos.' What do you think is going on now? Scaring the American people into this blind alley is so dangerous."

These judgments come from someone credited with rebuilding Nebraska's Republican Party who has a lifetime American Conservative Union record of 85.2 percent. Hagel represents millions of Republicans who are repelled by the Democratic personal assault on President Bush but deeply unhappy about his course in Iraq.

Ah, that'd be Robert Novak. You see, when the Democrats voted to end the war in Congress, it changed everything. It opened the floodgates and allowed everyone who isn't a dead ender (the 33% of the population who think Iraq will be judged a success) to be honest about where things stand. Whether it's on the left or the right or the center, George Bush has the support of only the GOP, and that only because they don't know how not to support him (see Novak's comments about backing him because Dems don't). But what's lost in all of this is that the Bush dead enders do not matter. They cannot win national elections on 33% support. And they cannot win future elections when the third of swing voters in the electorate agree with Democrats and disagree with Republicans on the issues  - virtually all the issues. Making the dead enders happy is the job of the Republican primary candidates, but it's not the job of those who want to be elected next time around.

That's the making of a realignment election. And the way this is going, that's what's shaping up in 2008. George Bush's legacy may well be not just the ruin of Iraq, but the ruin of the GOP, as Buckley suggests. From the LA Times:

When voters five years ago were asked which party they identified with, neither Democrats nor Republicans held an advantage. Now 50% of voters say they are aligned with the Democrats, and 35% with Republicans, according to a survey released last month by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.

And in New Hampshire, nonpartisan pollster Dick Bennett said the atmosphere was so sour that he was having a tough time getting Republicans to participate in surveys. The war, high gas prices and unhappiness with the Bush administration have dampened their interest sharing opinions, he said.

A few years ago, "they would make arguments in favor of the president, and they don't anymore," Bennett said. "They don't defend the president on anything."

Now, the GOP can claim W will be soon history. Again, the LA Times:

"No question, the president's gone through a rough patch. But the central figure for the Republicans next year is not going to be George Bush," said Oklahoma Rep. Tom Cole, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee.

Don't you believe it. America will not be forgiving this President any time soon, and the GOP knows it. How utterly conventional of us to say so, but the fact is, it's the truth. So,while the Dems will certainly need to do everything right to win, Bush has given the GOP every reason to lose.

                                                        

Comments

[DemFromCT]

Polman again:

Longer term, the Democrats still need to work out some serious issues (what's the most responsible and feasible plan for managing Iraq, in the wake of a massive troop pullout?), but most Americans seem prepared to give them a chance to make their mark on national security. For that opportunity, the Democrats can thank George W. Bush.

And for those who just want to do the right thing and decry the politics (especially on the right), fuggedaboudit. Bush and the GOP are incapable of doing the right thing. he's too stubborn, they're too tied to his being president.

Democrats figure that ongoing Bush obstinacy and GOP fealty will benefit them politically. Swing-voting independents bailed out on Bush several years ago, and they haven't returned: In a recent Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll, 80 percent of independents said that Bush's "surge" has either had no impact or made matters worse. Every poll indicates that roughly 60 percent of Americans favor tying the war money to a troop withdrawal timetable (again, with independents tipping the balance). And there's even broad support for Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid's recent contention that the military war in Iraq has been "lost": An NBC-Wall Street Journal survey, conducted after Reid spoke, suggests that most Americans, by 55 percent to 36 percent, believe that victory in Iraq is no longer possible. In other words, Republicans seeking reelection next year are stuck with a defiant president who still fires up the conservative base - but alienates almost everyone else.

[Publicus]

I've got a problem with Dick Polman. He thinks that Democrats shouldn't cut off funds. In fact, that's the ONLY way they can end the war. They don't have the votes to override a veto. They can't legislate us out of the war.

But they can take away the money.

No money, no war. Let Bush explain why he vetoed the spending bill leaving our troops allegedly unsupported. (Of course, Congress is happy to provide funds to bring them home—that's what people elected a Democratic Congress for...to end the war, and bring our troops home.)

[Jodi]

Publicus

Do you suppose the Democrats are no more united than the Republicans?

Perhaps they too are politicians.

[Sick Puppett Too]

Jodi is a sock puppet.

[Pete]

Publicus has it exactly right. Altenately, the Dems should pass a bill which includes funding for the war (and the war only), and attach language which says that they will not be passing any more Iraq war funding bills in the future.

[hauksdottir]

Every single funding bill MUST include timetables and benchmarks, as well as designated funding for body armor and veterans' care. After Bush vetoes the third funding bill, the Democrats can quite rightly say that there will be no more appropriations for the Bush/Cheney adventure. Cut the purse-strings. Hang the responsibility for the disaster firmly around his neck and use a dab of superglue to keep it there.

If the Democrats offer to fund the war until September and the preliminary estimate of the effectiveness of the escalation, Petraeus will delay the accounting and the Democrats will be pressured to fund for a few more months, and a few more after that... and the escalation will continue.

How may F.U.s does it take before even the generals figure out that the war was lost before the first bomb was dropped, the first woman raped, the first man tortured, the first museum looted, the first town leveled into rubble? It was lost when they went in without cause except to show the world their military might. Well, "shock and awe" obviously wasn't a winning ploy, but hubris in any form never is.

An unnecessary war is a great evil, and the price will be paid for decades.

[oldtree]

how we have become stuck in the mire. where expectations are lowered. standards are reduced. nepotism before competence, no child left behind.
it is a simple world. believe in religion because there is no reason behind it. eat the dead, because they no longer care. kill the invader, because it will take your stuff. distrust everyone that doesn't talk just like you do. we have a moron as a mouthpiece and he doesn't even know what is going around him. it is a perfect choice by those that would want a shadow government. people got tired of a president that could express emotions, and most assuredly, that could inspire the masses. that they could not tolerate under any circumstances. they quickly grew tired of their first leader that wasn't a moron for 12 years.
our congress is a conspiracy to promote only one thing. their continued employment. otherwise, why would they still support the most criminal regime we have ever had? why is no one asking?

and does anyone really believe the bushit is going to veto the only bill he will get? if this congress puts forth any legislation that has been changed from this original, washed out and watered down as it is, then I would have to accuse congress of all being traitors and clearly not on the same side as the people of this country. are these little part humans really going to go back and give this subhuman what it wants to continue killing and lying and destroying the planet? that the hell kind of sense would this make? how would you explain this to any sentient being?

[Chris Loosley]

oldtree, I think one reason for such seemingly inexplicable attitudes is that over the last 50 years the majority of US citizens have grown to expect a comfortable standard of living as their right. Today fewer people face the kinds of real hardships that were much more common before WWII. As a result, people in general have forgotten (or, for most, never had to learn) what politics is really about, and why it matters to them. So instead of interest and participation, the predominant attitude is disinterest until things are plainly and irretrievably awful, followed eventually by anger, frustration and rejection.

But it is not at all certain that, after their anger and rejection has led to a change in government, whether it will then be followed by a renewal of interest and participation in politics and the processes of government. If people come to regard the events of present administration as historical aberrations caused by "a weak/poor/bad president," and nothing worse affects their lives, then little will change for the better. They will soon go back to sleep until the next crisis.

Things have to get worse before they can get better. And (sadly), despite all his failings, I don't think Bush will be really bad enough to produce the kinds of changes that are needed to fix the problems you are describing. Eventually, of course, reality and the rest of the World will prevail and people in the US will be forced to cooperate and share the resources more fairly. And ironically, the World's reaction to Bush and his blunders is going to help us move in that direction. But I doubt that his malign influence will be enough. I hate to be so pessimistic, but that's how I have come to see things lately.

[Mimikatz]

There are two funding bills involved. The Supplemental is for the remainder of FY 2007 (Oct 2006-Sept 2007) and then the regualr Defense Appropriations Bill is for FY 2008, which runs from Oct 2007-Sept 2008.

The Bush Admion never put the wars into the regular appropriations bills because it would have busted the budget, they didn;t want to reveal what long wars they were planning for, and there are hearings and muich more scrutiny in the regular approps bills.

So every year at some point they conme in with an "Ooops!" supplemental bill asking for money they didn't accurately budget for, and insist it is an emergency. This is the war funding for the remainder of the fiscal year, but they probably pad it a bit.

So really Congress doesn't have to fund for more than to September, when Petraeus says he will be reevaluating etc. They can move the debate to the regualr Defense Approps Bill and conduct hearings etc. The Supplemental isn't all there is. In the regular approp bill they can add all sorts of qualifications and timetables and Bush would be facerd with vetoing the WHOLE defense budget just to perpetuate his war. This is probably the end game.