For Republicans, DeLay adds to sea of problems

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
<font size="5"><center>Analysis:

For Republicans, DeLay adds to sea of problems </font size></center>


Robin Toner, New York Times
September 29, 2005

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- This is not what the Republicans envisioned 11 months ago, when they were returned to office as a powerful one-party government with a big agenda and -- it seemed -- little to fear from the opposition.

The indictment of Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas and the House majority leader, on Wednesday was the latest in a series of scandals and setbacks that have buffeted Republican leaders in Congress and the Bush administration and transformed what might have been a victory lap into a hard political scramble. Republicans are still managing to score some wins -- notably, John Roberts' expected confirmation today as chief justice of the Supreme Court -- but their governing majority is showing major signs of strain.

Leadership woes

In the House, DeLay's indictment removes, even if temporarily, a powerful leader who managed to eke out, again and again, a narrow majority on some very difficult votes. In the Senate, Republican ranks have been roiled this week by an investigation of Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., their majority leader, who rose to power as a telegenic heart surgeon and citizen-politician but is now under scrutiny for his stock dealings from a blind trust.

Moreover, the string of ethical issues so close together -- including the indictment and continuing investigation of the Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who was close to DeLay, and the arrest of David Safavian, a former White House budget official who was charged with lying to investigators and obstructing a federal inquiry involving Abramoff -- is a source of real anxiety in Republican circles.

"Even though DeLay has nothing to do with Frist and Frist has nothing to do with Abramoff, how does it look? Not good," said William Kristol, a key conservative strategist and editor of the Weekly Standard.

At the same time, the White House is grappling with a federal criminal investigation into whether anyone leaked the name of an undercover CIA operative -- an investigation that has brought both Karl Rove, Bush's top political adviser, and I. Lewis Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, before a grand jury.

And the Bush administration is struggling to steady itself after the slow response to Hurricane Katrina and defend itself from charges of incompetence and cronyism in homeland security.

The sheer scale and cost of Katrina has dramatically reordered the Republican agenda and created more fractures in the caucus and more discontent among the party's fiscal conservatives, who are appalled at the cost and the effect on the budget deficit.

Not unheard of

Analysts say this wave of internal trouble is characteristic of a president's second term -- all the more so when the same party controls Congress. "We know that second terms have historically been marred by hubris and by scandal," said David Gergen, a former aide to presidents in both parties who is now director of Harvard's Center for Public Leadership at the Kennedy School of Government. "We've seen the hubris," he added, alluding to Bush's attempt to restructure Social Security, now completely stalled. "And now we're seeing the scandals."

Ross Baker, an expert on Congress and a political science professor at Rutgers, argues that the lack of normal checks and balances -- with one party providing oversight from the Hill and an executive branch controlled by the opposing party, pushing back -- is also a problem. "What you're stuck with is oversight as a product of scandal, a product of catastrophe," Baker said. "It requires a blunder of major proportions, a calamity that is poorly addressed, before you get oversight."

http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/5641179.html
 
this wont be a problem for the republicans because the democrats are incompetent politicians. buried and under reported in news stories is how bush's aproval ratings are low but people have an even worse opinion of dems over how they act. polls show them as opportunistic.

sad how this will be a one party country like those shitty nations in europe.
 
Then again, some conservatives say:

<font size="6"><center>Rough Road </font size>
<font size="4">Republicans should be worried about their White House prospects for 2008 </font size></center>

The Weekly Standarad
by Fred Barnes
09/28/2005 12:00:00 AM

THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION of 2008 is a long way off, but Republicans better start worrying about it now. The 2006 midterm election? Republicans are likely to hold onto the Senate and House. But 2008 is another story. In the midst of a Republican era, Democrats stand a good chance of taking the White House then. Even Senator Hillary Clinton of New York--or perhaps I should say especially Hillary Clinton--has realistic prospects of winning.

What's the problem for Republicans? There are at least five of them. The field of Republican candidates is weak. Democrats will have an easier time than Republicans in duplicating their strong 2004 voter registration and turnout drive in 2008. Democrats, despite their drift to the left and persistent shrillness, barely trail Republicans at all in voter appeal. Besides, they may sober up ideologically in 2008. And the media, unless John McCain is the Republican nominee, will be more pro-Democratic than ever.

Let's look at each of these reasons briefly. The strongest potential Republican candidates are Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. None of them is running and Cheney and Rice are downright adamant about it. I've asked Cheney about 2008 on three separate occasions. He gives absolutely no indication of changing his decision not to run. And he says his health isn't the reason. He just doesn't want to be a candidate and won't do it, he insists, even if President Bush asks him to.

Rice is just as negative on the idea of seeking the presidency. And aides to Jeb Bush say he has no desire to run in 2008, but might consider it in 2012. Besides, he looks worn out after so many crises (hurricanes, Terri Schiavo, the 2000 recount) during his two terms.

That leaves the Republican party with a lesser field of candidates: McCain, Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Virginia Senator George Allen, and a few others. All of them have distinct handicaps. McCain's is that many Republican loathe him. Giuliani is a social liberal. Allen and Romney are inexperienced at the national level. Frist has a soft and blurred image.

The second reason for Republican anxiety about 2008 is organization. Democrats, with millions of dollars from limousine liberals such as George Soros, paid for thousands of campaign workers to sign up voters and get them to the polls. They produced a much larger Democratic turnout in 2004 than in 2000. Republicans used an army of 1.5 million volunteers to increase the Republican vote by even more. It was an enormous political feat.

But in 2008, there's a reasonably good chance Democrats will able to produce another great field operation. All they'll need is another infusion of money from rich liberals. But Republicans will have a harder time. The 2004 volunteers showed up because of their strong personal commitment to President Bush. Will so many volunteers work so hard for McCain or Allen or Giuliani or whoever wins the Republican presidential nomination in 2008? I doubt it.

In 2004, John Kerry was a heavily flawed Democratic candidate. He was a northeastern liberal who hardly inspired trust or persuaded voters he would be a strong leader. Yet if 60,000 voters in Ohio had switched from Bush to him last year, he'd be president today. He was that close. Thus a more attractive Democratic candidate in 2008, including Hillary Clinton, has a strong residual Democrat base to build on.

And what if Democrats check their emotions at the door and clean up their political act? I think this is more likely than not. All Democrats can't be as self-destructive as Howard Dean, their party chairman. Some of them--Kerry's 2004 running mate John Edwards comes to mind--are clever. At the moment, Edwards is running to the left of Hillary in the embryonic 2008 campaign. But once nominated, he surely would make a beeline to the political center. As a Southerner, he might be able to pull it off.

Finally, there's the media, more aptly called the Republican-hating media. We've already seen what they are willing to do to protect Hillary Clinton. They trashed a perfectly respectable, though highly critical, biography of Hillary by veteran newsman Ed Klein. It got so bad that conservatives, too, began attacking his book. If this is happening in 2005, imagine what lengths the press will be willing to go to in 2008 on Hillary's, or another Democrat's, behalf.

So Republicans have a lot to worry about. George W. Bush's current troubles are small stuff compared to the party's prospects for losing the presidency in 2008.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/133mmdsn.asp
 
both of these articles seem to be saying that this country's political dominance is the republicans to lose.

can you believe the incompetence of the opposition party that no matter how bad things get no one thinks the dems can capitialize.

if we can just get the dem base to stop being kooks and stop being in denial that they did indeed lose the election and it wasnt stolen. they do indeed have a minority opinion in this country and no matter how much sense it makes to them it can still not be the majority's opinion. its not really such a remarkable thing. someone has to lose every election

its funny that the only way they can explain the battle of ideas is the election must have been stolen. its the only logicial excuse. imagine the vanity.

this board is a perfect example. instead of concentrating on how to win in 2008 they are still trying to beat bush. bush aint running in 2008. all the focus in 2005 is how to win in 2004. mccain is going to coast into office in 3 years.
 
Back
Top