Republicans in 2006?
By Robert Samuel
Are the Republicans in serious trouble in 2006?
No. Not at all.
Are the Republicans a sure thing again in 2006?
No. Not at all.
The Democrats and the media have been salivating over the combination of events that can easily lead one to perceive that the Republicans are in a state of meltdown. The horrible public relations of Katrina, the inflated gas prices, the CIA leak, the Tom Delay Investigation, and the continued violence in Iraq certainly give the Democrats something against which to campaign.
But if the Democrats somehow do regain a majority in either the House of the Senate, it will be for issues hitherto unimportant.
Katrina will not hurt the Republicans at the polls a year from now, and get this, it might actually help them. The immediate response to Katrina was purely awful by the Bush administration. While thousands were standing on a New Orleans bridge without food, water, transportation, or even direction as to what to do for days, Bush was talking about rebuilding Trent Lott’s porch. History will never forgive Bush for his lack of response, and the immediate post-Katrina days will always be a blemish on his record.
I believe that Bush was just not fully aware of the carnage occurring in New Orleans, and behaved the same way he did after the hurricanes in Florida a year ago. This is no excuse, either for Bush or his advisers. But it did provide a big enough wake up call that I believe a similar situation will not happen again.
Bush actually does have a plan to rebuild New Orleans. His ideas about tax-free zones and school vouchers for the displaced could very well show the merits of his compassionate conservative plan. And even if none of these proposals is realized, New Orleans is sure to be close to functioning again by next November, a clear sign of progress for all those responsible for the clean up. Also, in Gallup’s latest poll, Bush's approval rating is nearly identical to the days before Katrina, a sign that the storm will not have a lasting effect on Republican electoral prospects.
Gas and energy prices are the most troubling for Republicans. But they are a problem for Democrats, as well. This winter has the potential to be awful for all those in the lower income brackets. Heating prices simply could become unaffordable, and many will be forced to wear coats and gloves to survive inside their homes.
Bush has a temporary plan to deal with this crisis, as well. He has already agreed to release more of the strategic petroleum reserves if things get worse this winter, and there surely will be more proposals as the cold months arrive. For the first time, Bush has also shown real interest in investing in improving our refining capacity and alternative fuels. When the public learns that many supply problems have occurred because of regulations forced by zealous environmentalists, it will not hurt the Republican Party.
I really don’t think much is going to come of the CIA leak investigation. With all we know about the case now, it seems there is a prosecutor trying to prove quite a bit out of a small amount of evidence. If Scooter Libby is indicted, he will resign and not much will come of it after the 24-hour news cycle ends. A Karl Rove indictment is far more troubling, but only for the Bush administration, not Republicans as a whole.
The Tom Delay case should be over about six months before the election. Based on everything I have read about the case, Delay is likely to be acquitted. The fact that the prosecutor needed a “do-over” indictment only supplants my thinking on the case. If he is convicted, again, I don’t see a major effect on national elections in 2006. If one looks at opinion polls, Congress almost always has the least popularity. But most Congressmen and Senators are wildly popular amongst their own constituents. This “all politics is local” argument makes Delay’s effect negligible over individual races in places such as Pennsylvania or Nebraska.
Iraq is unlikely to effect American elections for two reasons: The Democratic establishment has largely supported the war and troop reductions are highly likely next summer. Over the next 3 months, Iraq will become a full democracy with complete control of its government. It will have a Constitution after October 15 and a fully elected legislature after December 15.
The United States will continue to provide troop support and Iraqi troop training, but its mission will be mostly fulfilled. Regime change will be complete, and the Bush administration will leave in just enough troops to maintain the stability of the government. The American military has recently become fond of T.E. Lawrence’s phrase, “Better the Arabs do it tolerably than that you do it perfectly.” Violence will continue in Iraq, but after the December elections, America’s role in the fight will diminish. It is unlikely the situation in Iraq will affect individual Congressional races.
If the Democrats pick up seats in 2006, it will be because of a renewed creativity in the Party or an issue that has yet to formalize, not because of the Republican’s temporary lack of popularity. The Republicans will have to work to overcome the mishaps of 2005 to add to their majority, but they are by no means facing an imminent election nightmare.
Are the Republicans in serious trouble in 2006?
No. Not at all.
Are the Republicans a sure thing again in 2006?
No. Not at all.
The Democrats and the media have been salivating over the combination of events that can easily lead one to perceive that the Republicans are in a state of meltdown. The horrible public relations of Katrina, the inflated gas prices, the CIA leak, the Tom Delay Investigation, and the continued violence in Iraq certainly give the Democrats something against which to campaign.
But if the Democrats somehow do regain a majority in either the House of the Senate, it will be for issues hitherto unimportant.
Katrina will not hurt the Republicans at the polls a year from now, and get this, it might actually help them. The immediate response to Katrina was purely awful by the Bush administration. While thousands were standing on a New Orleans bridge without food, water, transportation, or even direction as to what to do for days, Bush was talking about rebuilding Trent Lott’s porch. History will never forgive Bush for his lack of response, and the immediate post-Katrina days will always be a blemish on his record.
I believe that Bush was just not fully aware of the carnage occurring in New Orleans, and behaved the same way he did after the hurricanes in Florida a year ago. This is no excuse, either for Bush or his advisers. But it did provide a big enough wake up call that I believe a similar situation will not happen again.
Bush actually does have a plan to rebuild New Orleans. His ideas about tax-free zones and school vouchers for the displaced could very well show the merits of his compassionate conservative plan. And even if none of these proposals is realized, New Orleans is sure to be close to functioning again by next November, a clear sign of progress for all those responsible for the clean up. Also, in Gallup’s latest poll, Bush's approval rating is nearly identical to the days before Katrina, a sign that the storm will not have a lasting effect on Republican electoral prospects.
Gas and energy prices are the most troubling for Republicans. But they are a problem for Democrats, as well. This winter has the potential to be awful for all those in the lower income brackets. Heating prices simply could become unaffordable, and many will be forced to wear coats and gloves to survive inside their homes.
Bush has a temporary plan to deal with this crisis, as well. He has already agreed to release more of the strategic petroleum reserves if things get worse this winter, and there surely will be more proposals as the cold months arrive. For the first time, Bush has also shown real interest in investing in improving our refining capacity and alternative fuels. When the public learns that many supply problems have occurred because of regulations forced by zealous environmentalists, it will not hurt the Republican Party.
I really don’t think much is going to come of the CIA leak investigation. With all we know about the case now, it seems there is a prosecutor trying to prove quite a bit out of a small amount of evidence. If Scooter Libby is indicted, he will resign and not much will come of it after the 24-hour news cycle ends. A Karl Rove indictment is far more troubling, but only for the Bush administration, not Republicans as a whole.
The Tom Delay case should be over about six months before the election. Based on everything I have read about the case, Delay is likely to be acquitted. The fact that the prosecutor needed a “do-over” indictment only supplants my thinking on the case. If he is convicted, again, I don’t see a major effect on national elections in 2006. If one looks at opinion polls, Congress almost always has the least popularity. But most Congressmen and Senators are wildly popular amongst their own constituents. This “all politics is local” argument makes Delay’s effect negligible over individual races in places such as Pennsylvania or Nebraska.
Iraq is unlikely to effect American elections for two reasons: The Democratic establishment has largely supported the war and troop reductions are highly likely next summer. Over the next 3 months, Iraq will become a full democracy with complete control of its government. It will have a Constitution after October 15 and a fully elected legislature after December 15.
The United States will continue to provide troop support and Iraqi troop training, but its mission will be mostly fulfilled. Regime change will be complete, and the Bush administration will leave in just enough troops to maintain the stability of the government. The American military has recently become fond of T.E. Lawrence’s phrase, “Better the Arabs do it tolerably than that you do it perfectly.” Violence will continue in Iraq, but after the December elections, America’s role in the fight will diminish. It is unlikely the situation in Iraq will affect individual Congressional races.
If the Democrats pick up seats in 2006, it will be because of a renewed creativity in the Party or an issue that has yet to formalize, not because of the Republican’s temporary lack of popularity. The Republicans will have to work to overcome the mishaps of 2005 to add to their majority, but they are by no means facing an imminent election nightmare.
posted by Robert Samuel at 9:02 AM
4 Comments:
Robbie,
Couple of things:
1. I agree with your overall argument, but all you really needed to say was this: "The public, by and large, is stupid and easily manipulated." When the next Natalie Holloway disappears, most of the issues that you're talking about will immediately be bumped to page 3 to move more papers. And folks will miraculously forget.
2. That being said, I think you are taking an incredibly optimistic stance. That of course is fair, as most democrats are doing the same, thinking that recent republican difficulties will open the floodgates to a powershift. What conservatives need to do now more than anything else is allow for criticism. They need to regroup and stop playing fast and loose with the public's good will. I don't hold out a lot of hope for the aforementioned powershift, but if things continue to look bleak as you stipulated, I have to believe that there will be a negative effect on the GOP's congressional strangle hold because there is only so much that most citizen's, no matter their affiliation, will tolerate.
3. A question: When, if ever, does another voice from inside the republican party stand up against Bush, Rove, DeLay, et al. and trumpet their disagreement? I may be misguided in my estimations, but I have to believe that there a handful of republican senators and congressmen and women who aren't happy with the way things are being run. I would cite McCain here, but after his performance during the Bush 2004 campaign, I don't think he could be that voice. I might also cite my boy Spector, but I don't know that he has the national prominence to do much. Is there already this dissenting voice, and I'm just not listening?
4. Another question: As a conservative, what are your thoughts on Harriet Miers?
I've been enjoying the bracket. Keep up the good work.
as regards #3, the Republican Study Committee in the House is threatening to petition for new leadership elections if the current posse won't push for spending cuts. that's at least one bloc that's dissatisfied. chuck hagel's voiced his concern with many policies as well. there is internal opposition, it's just not been significant enough to be effective. hopefully, the republicans will be punished for their disregard of genuine small government conservatives and that will shake-up the leadership in time for '08, '10.
as regards #3, the Republican Study Committee in the House is threatening to petition for new leadership elections if the current posse won't push for spending cuts. that's at least one bloc that's dissatisfied. chuck hagel's voiced his concern with many policies as well. there is internal opposition, it's just not been significant enough to be effective. hopefully, the republicans will be punished for their disregard of genuine small government conservatives and that will shake-up the leadership in time for '08, '10.
Hey buddy,
I respect your optimism, but I respectfully disagree here. The Republicans are facing losses in 2006, and Republicans know it. You lamentably mentioned the "media" as contributing to this feeling, which is true--but this includes all forms of media, right-wing and left-wing and centric. You mentioned that Democrats have also pushed this fear. So, too, are Republicans. Here we go:
"n Monday, Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) bowed out of a race next year against Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.). Late last week, Gov. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) said he wouldn’t challenge Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) next year.
The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), which Dole chairs, has failed to recruit candidates it considers top-tier in Michigan, Florida and Vermont; no one is challenging Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.); and Republicans are embroiled in primaries in Nebraska and Rhode Island.
Tennessee, which has twice backed President Bush, is giving some Republicans heartburn, with the GOP Senate contenders attacking their opponents’ conservative credentials while Rep. Harold Ford (D-Tenn.) outfundraises his Republican rivals and aggressively canvasses the state.
Even in Washington state, where Dole helped recruit Safeco CEO Mike McGavick, there are signs of Republican splintering: Diane Tebelius, the state’s Republican national committeewoman, and Susan Hutchison, a former Seattle television reporter, are considering primary bids against McGavick.
“Nationally, overall, their recruiting has not been as strong as it was in 2002 and 2004,” Republican pollster David Johnson said of the NRSC. “They have missed a lot of chances in recruitment.”
Johnson acknowledged that the NRSC faces a tough political climate in which Bush’s poll numbers are sinking, the Iraq war grinds on and millions remain displaced by Hurricane Katrina.
Johnson has conducted polls on Senate races in Pennsylvania, Florida, and Washington, among other states."
This article, from The Hill, continues:
"Many conservatives, dismayed by the president’s willingness to expand the federal government, say that months, if not years, of growing discontent may finally take its toll in 2006, when they expect Republican House members and senators to face unexpected primaries from the right.
Not only should obvious, less conservative targets expect a primary — for instance, Sen. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio), reviled by right-wingers for his position on the president’s judicial nominees — but also prominent party leaders such as Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Penn.), Johnson, the GOP pollster, said.
The president’s announcement Monday that he is nominating Harriet Miers to succeed Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor had fueled conservative anger with the administration, Johnson added.
“They feel she’s going to be another David Souter,” he said, referring to a Republican nominee who has come to embody much of what conservative activists despise about the judiciary branch."
To be fair, the article cites a Republican pollster that plays down all of the fears listed, and notes that Democrats are also having recruiting problems in various states.
But the myriad problems facing Bush and his party are worthy of more than just a shrug of the shoulders.
-DeLay's political clout has been hampered significantly, regardless of the outcome of the pair of indictments now under his name. And the longer it plays out, the less likely it will be that DeLay returns to his pedestal atop the House. This will in fact have a considerable impact on Republicans nationwide, which is evidenced by the fact that many House members are giving back the money they had been given earlier by DeLay's PAC.
-You neglected to mention Senator Frist's problems with the SEC. Ho hum, he may have utilized insider trading to save 2-6 million dollars.
-The CIA investigation is finally beginning to get somewhere, and the fallout of that remains to be seen. But George Stephanopolous' admission on Sunday that sources had indicated that Bush and Cheney could be tied to knowledge of the outing of Plame are noteworthy and ominous, not to mention Karl Rove's integral role in the entire scenario.
-Just recently, the Bush Administration's $250,000 payment to journalist Armstrong Williams was deemed illegal by the GAO. This illegality, on top of payments to a handful of other journalists, and the distribution of government-made "news" broadcasts, constituted "covert propaganda." The American people won't forget that, either.
-You are also very quick to shrug off the political ramifications of Hurricane Katrina. While I agree with you that the White House responded horrendously (not only was Bush talking about Trent Lott's mansion, he also talked about how he used to party in New Orleans, and had a photo op of him looking out of an airplane at a city in ruins, having had played the guitar and eaten birthday cake with John McCain in the first days of the disaster), I disagree that people will so quickly forget. In six months, when the election nears, Democrats will be pounding away on the ineptitude of our preparedness to disaster, which had supposedly improved dramatically in the wake of 9/11. The U.S. now knows that isn't the case. That's not something that is easily forgotten, either.
Post a Comment
<< Home