Lobbyist Logic

by emptywheel

I know you have all been worried at my seeming recovery from my obsession with Ed Gillespie. But worry not--the dearth of Gillespie posts was mostly explained by my travel schedule (which gets really bad again this week, then gets better), and not any disinterest in the guy who took over after they fired Bush's brain.

And this, I guess, is the kind of logic you get from the Lobbyist-in-Chief with which they replaced Bush's brain, from this NYT article chronicling how glum Republicans are at their diminishing (political) fortunes.

At the White House, administration officials urged Congressional Republicans to try to remain positive and ride out the current turmoil. Ed Gillespie, a senior adviser to Mr. Bush, told the visitors, according to multiple accounts, that had Republicans sided with Democrats on the health program, they would have opened themselves to withering criticism from conservatives and been in a worse position than they are now.

Let's see... "had Republicans sided with Democrats" on the S-CHIP vote. I wonder how Representatives Tom Davis, Heather Wilson, and Don Young feel about that assertion, since they were among the 45 Republicans in the House who voted for S-CHIP? Perhaps it's no accident that Tom Davis is one of the Republicans quoted as complaining about the Republican stance on S-CHIP.

“We need to be on offense,” said Representative Tom Davis, a Virginia Republican considering a Senate run.

Likewise, I wonder how Senators like Orrin Hatch and Kit Bond--and the 16 other Republicans who voted for S-CHIP--feel about Gillespie's suggestion that Republicans didn't side with Democrats on this bill. Last I checked, no one doubted that Orrin Hatch was a Republican, but I guess the Lobbyist-in-Chief knows better?

I'm also curious what Gillespie, who is himself Catholic, thinks about the campaign run by Catholics United, which is targeting 10 purportedly pro-life Representatives (including three in my heavily Catholic state!!) for their votes against S-CHIP. It seems to me that these 10 Representatives have "opened themselves to withering criticism from conservatives." But I guess that's not the kind of conservative that the Lobbyist-in-Chief had in mind?

In short, Gillespie's public accounting of the benefit that opposition to S-CHIP will have for the Republican party rings pretty hollow, if not outright false.

But I guess that's why Carl Hulse received "multiple accounts" of Gillespie's ridiculous comments?

Comments

[Jane S.]

Don't ever let anyone treat your OCD on Gillespie or anyone else! I just read the WaPo article on SCHIP but I was looking for a vote count--I'm just wondering how close we are to being able to overcome the veto. But I'm sure if I was enterprising, I could find this somewhere on the web but if anyone knows off the top of their head...

[emptywheel]

Jane S

I haven't seen a whip count. I think we've flipped two of the DEms who voted against, with Blue America's ads to go out today. I think I've seen one Republican we've flipped. That still puts us 12 short (I think), so we've got work to do this week.

[Ishmael]

Mitch McConnell was on This Week this morning, rebutting Speaker Pelosi on the S-CHIP matter and other issues, and was spinning the message that there would most assuredly be a "compromise" with the Democrats on the issue, and that they would not leave the children without coverage. I'm sure that the Republicans would love to have the Democrats bail them out of their situation that Bush and Gillespie have put them in - as a matter of politics and morality (strange bedfellows sometimes, but not always), let's let the Republicans and Bush Dogs continue to feel the political heat and make them choose between children and Bush. Let's not give them any cover on this, not when the number of Republican (and Democratic) holdouts is a fraction of the Republicans who did support the legislation.

[MarkH]

Let the Republicans choke on it.

[MarkH]

BTW, I forgot to mention this OT...

Think Cheney, Neocons, Pakistan, Nukes, whistleblower, coverup.

The man who knew too much | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited
http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Story/0,,2188777,00.html

[Jane S.]

EW--Thanks for the count. I read an FDL post that said one Bush dog had changed thanks to the Blue America ads and one was re-considering. So I'm hearted to hear the we may have converted 2 Bush dogs. 12 is still a high hurdle. Maybe some of the more sensible Repubs can change some minds...even if it is a matter of self-preservation at this point. Must feel so good to be a member of a party that doesn't care about giving poor children healthcare.

[Mad Dogs]

"I'm also curious what Gillespie, who is himself Catholic, thinks about the campaign run by Catholics United..."

Eddie is probably gonna sic Opus Dei on 'em. There are Catholics, and then there are Right Catholics.

[hardheaded liberal]

BTW, Gillespie does not even have a good grasp of the Bush "talking points" on SCHIP. Robert Siegal, on All Things Considered Friday (or Thursday?), contradicted Gillespie when EG said that the current SCHIP legislation includes adults. Siegal told Gillespie that the SCHIP legislation eliminates adults from the program, and Gillespie stuttered and fumbled and said, "That's the first time I heard that.... I'll have to check on that...."

How sweet it is when one of the lying liars can't remember all his lines!

[hardheaded liberal]

BTW, Gillespie does not even have a good grasp of the Bush "talking points" on SCHIP. Robert Siegal, on All Things Considered Friday (or Thursday?), contradicted Gillespie when EG said that the current SCHIP legislation includes adults. Siegal told Gillespie that the SCHIP legislation eliminates adults from the program, and Gillespie stuttered and fumbled and said, "That's the first time I heard that.... I'll have to check on that...."

How sweet it is when one of the lying liars can't remember all his lines!

[katie Jensen]

I still cannot get over the fact that so many republicans have managed to vote in block after block on this stuff. Wtf. Hitler had fear on his side. His power was based in the fear that this man would take you out if you crossed him. He did it repeatedly and was killing an entire ethnic group.

What power does Bush have? There is no true logic to the votes other than greed. My gut says that for some of these republicans that cannot be enough. Greed is a motivator but it isn't accross the board the way fear is.

What power does he have? Why do they fear him enough to hold the ranks, lock stock and barrel? If you think about it, we have seen military speaking out more than we do congressfolks. Why are they holding the line? What is in it for them to stand by him on this? How is this in any way good for them?

I still think we are missing a peice of the puzzle. It just seems illogical to me. Many will lose their seats over this.