| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Base to Bush: It's Over |
| 2007-07-09 |
| Let's say you're a Republican president, a bit more than midway through your second term. You're scrambling to salvage what you can of a deeply unpopular war, you're facing a line of subpoenas from Democrats in Congress and your poll ratings are in the basement. What do you do? You estrange the very Republicans whose backing you need the most. Republicans aren't mad at Bush for the same reasons that Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and the devotees of MoveOn.org are; there's no new anti-Bush consensus among left and right. Conservatives are unhappy because the president allied himself with Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) over an immigration deal that leaned too far toward amnesty for illegal immigrants. They're unhappy because Bush has shown little interest in fiscal responsibility and limited government. And they're unhappy, above all, because he hasn't won the war in Iraq. All of this has left Republicans saying, at least among themselves, something blunt and devastating: It's over. The problem is there for anyone to see: Bush's approval ratings could not have collapsed to 30 percent unless a lot of his base deserted him. In a number of recent polls, his job-approval rating among Republicans has been in the low- to mid-60 percent range. Despite all this, the president has behaved in recent weeks like a man with political capital to burn. On immigration reform, he defied the GOP base as if his well of support were so deep that he could draw out as much of it as he liked. He also gave himself the worst of all worlds in the case of Libby, Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff. By commuting Libby's prison sentence -- as opposed to pardoning him outright -- for perjuring himself to CIA leak investigators, Bush outraged his Democratic opposition while leaving his base vaguely disappointed. But for the base writ large, the case wasn't about Libby. It was about the politics of the Iraq war. A lot of conservatives had hoped for a full pardon because they wanted a strong White House statement that the CIA leak investigation had spun out of control, that it had grown from a set of crazy political circumstances and that the whole mad imbroglio should never have gotten as far as it did. In short, they wanted something like the impassioned statement President George H.W. Bush issued in December 1992, when he pardoned former defense secretary Caspar W. Weinberger, former national security adviser Robert C. McFarlane, former assistant secretary of state Elliott Abrams and three other participants in the Iran-contra affair. So the commutation won no more than tepid approval from the base. And it certainly didn't offset the terrible damage the president did to himself during the immigration debate by backing a bill that would have put millions of illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship. Many conservatives are still hopping mad over the president's description of the bill's opponents as people who "don't want to do what's right for America." Things got so bad that a top White House aide recently tried to reassure a group of conservative journalists that the president isn't out of touch. "He gets it," the aide said. "He gets it." But he didn't get it enough to avoid a major defeat -- one that probably sounded the official death knell to Bush's attempts to turn his brand of compassionate conservatism into law. So now the president has 18 months left in office, and they won't be quiet ones. Absent the committed backing of his party, he will be forced to exercise power based not on his political clout but rather on the authority the Constitution gives the office of the president: He is commander in chief. He can veto bills. He can issue pardons. And that's about it. The deterioration of the base will be particularly critical when it comes to the Iraq war. September will bring the most important moment of the president's second term, when Gen. David H. Petraeus is set to report to Congress on progress in Iraq, thereby starting an intense and protracted debate over funding and withdrawal timetables. If Bush cannot convince conservatives who are already unhappy with him about domestic issues that his Iraq plan is working, he'll see Republicans in Congress -- and on the presidential campaign trail -- peel away. That would put him in danger of losing control of the war. If Bush is energetic with his vetoes, he might see a bit more enthusiasm from the base. It's always good to have an enemy, after all. "These days, the only time he gets support is when Democrats attack him," says one Washington-based GOP strategist. But that will take him only so far. George W. Bush's time to get big things done has passed. Even his most ardent fans, the ones who wish him the best, are looking forward to Jan. 20, 2009. Byron York is National Review's White House correspondent and the author of "The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy." |
| Posted by:Pappy |
| #38 RUN FRED RUN |
| Posted by: mcsegeek1 2007-07-09 23:17 |
| #37 The problem with thbe gradual solution is that we don't have a party that will take advantage of the small victories. Both parties are against us. The only way to do that is rebuild one of the parties. No matter how loud we yell, the establishment trunks still think they're better than the people. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2007-07-09 23:03 |
| #36 My solution is worse than the Ted Kennedy aligned insiders? Worse than RINOS like Hagel stabbing our troops in the back? Worse than idiots like Lindsey Graham insulting the base over immigration? Nope - we can and MUST replace those defective republicans. Its not liek SC is goign to send a Dem to the senate, nor Missisippi if we can roll Trent Lott. Plus the "gradual" that you favor got us into this mess today. Some things need rapid change. This is one of them. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2007-07-09 22:36 |
| #35 #33: "Bush isn't running in 2008." Shhhhhh, AT1904 - we don't want the DemoncRats to find out too soon.... |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2007-07-09 22:19 |
| #34 This could get interesting. Maybe a couple hundred of the Rantburg Militia can make a difference. We should start a pool now on who we think will be candidate and who would actually make the best candidate. Winner gets all $8.32 in my pocket right now. |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2007-07-09 21:29 |
| #33 Bush isn't running in 2008. The approval rating of the Congress is lower than the president's approval rating(around 13%). Funny, this writer predicting doom for the GOP, failed to consider that it is the Congress, left and right, who is going into the next election wildly unpopular. Bush won't be running. It is up to all of us not to sit on our as@@es and to get involved in selecting new candidates for 2008 primaries. For this next election, we all have to do more than sit back and select from the bad choices presented to us in the primaries. We all need to get involved in who is placed on the primary ballot in 2008. I'm not sure exactly how to do that. But we all need to figure out how and make sure it happens. The Dems are in deeper doo doo than the GOP - a fact that this piece of Bush bashing, fair though it may be, fails to note. |
| Posted by: Angaiger Tojo1904 2007-07-09 18:51 |
| #32 Need to elevate those conservatives in the Senate who listened to the people both times that Kennedy and Bush tried ram the immigration bill down our throats. The Senators who stood up for the people were about Sessions, Hutchisons, etc, etc. Giving those Senators a promotion is what we owe them. They listened to us. |
| Posted by: Helmuth, Speaking for Chusoling1715 2007-07-09 18:48 |
| #31 Excellent post, JohnQC. You nailed all the high points perfectly. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-07-09 17:23 |
| #30 There are some basics that have to be: The defense of the country is paramount. The Democrats can't be trusted with the defense of the country. They can't even be trusted to respond if a 911 event comes along. The war on terrorism has to be won. Bush is correct that if we don't win, these people will be bringing the Middle East to America. The enemy on the home front has to be minimized. The main stream media are elitists and they are intent on shaping the world in a leftish image. The same for the Democrats. The economy has to remain vibrant and strong. We need someone to be able to communicate this war to the American people. Someone that doesn't try to sell us a bunch of self-serving bullshit. All the other issues such as the Democrats parading out distractions such as global warming are just sideshows and not particularly important. I think most common people see the threat of islamofacism. Old Spook is correct in that the elitists country club entitlement mentality set needs to be driven from Washington. We have too many politicians that gather moss in DC. There are too many that are not straight-thinking and straight-talking. They do not trust the American people. They don't level with us. They need to go. Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Bill Clinton, and Hillary Clinton, Murtha and others represent the leadership of the Democratic Party and are what's wrong with the Democratic Party. There is no will or backbone or ideas there. However, all that being said, I would make an argument for gradualism. Fred Thompson looks like a good candidate. He must be worrisome to the Democrats because they are beginning the demonization process already. He seems to stir something in the common person. He seems bright enough. He can speak and articulate positions. He has positions and doesn't stick his finger in the air to sample the win as the Clintons always have. He just might be the candidate with the greatest potential for winning in 2008. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2007-07-09 16:44 |
| #29 It's the primaries where the change has to be done. Goober Graham and Chuckles Hagel come to mind for stooges to dump. By next Spring the hit list of Rino's will be longer than the RNC can support with zero conservative donations. From there, it's off to the 'least worst' races.... |
| Posted by: Phinater Thraviger 2007-07-09 16:10 |
| #28 Against. Oops. |
| Posted by: Ice 2007-07-09 14:44 |
| #27 We left Bush on the Illegals issue, not the war again Islam. But then again WaPo can kiss by Norwegian ass. |
| Posted by: Icerigger 2007-07-09 14:44 |
| #26 Dittos, what everyone said! |
| Posted by: RD 2007-07-09 14:37 |
| #25 no mo, no cause to be skeered. Wistful is the last thing I am. The problem I see is too much of a concentration on the past. Reagan was the best president AFAIC of the last century (granted I only saw half of it). I, too, think that the Lebanon barracks thing was a mistake. In some respects Somalia was similar BUT Reagan always had to worry about the USSR!!!!! Clintoon had no such worry!!! The issue with Leb. versus Somalia is that they can't be compared. Anything the RR did has to be viewed through that HUGE microscope of the cold war. While it certainly can be brought up, and it certainly was a mistake, bringing it up now is pointless. Let's ditch all comparisons with anything that happend before the wall fell and concentrate on the 20 years since. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2007-07-09 12:54 |
| #24 Well, now it gets interesting, Rush was talking about Michael Yon's reporting and the baked kids. 20m+++ educated listeners. |
| Posted by: anonymous2u 2007-07-09 12:45 |
| #23 I concur w/DV. I was never a huge Bush fan myself (one of the worst speaking presidents I remember) though I did vote for him in both elections - I would've voted libertarian but they were anti-war and open border. Much better than either dem obviously. Two things he will be remembered for positively - peace and prosperity. Since 9/11 we have had no terror attacks in contrast to popular opinion that an attack would definitely take place by 2007. We have also had an unbelievable economic resurgence since 9/11 reaked havoc on our economy coupled w/the clinton hangover. I thank him for sticking to the tax cuts. OTOH - his immigration stance is insane - and Trent Lott can kiss my @ss. Talk Radio defended this ungrateful f*ck during his Strom Thurmond dixie-crat fiasco and now he's talking fairness doctrine - what a baby. I agree w/OS about having a goal of getting rid of these rino country club clowns. I may have some different views on the tactics to get there, but get there we must. We can either try to get there incrementally like GP suggests or go w/kicking out all the bums en masse like OS suggests. Both are frought w/their own merits and vulnerabilities. |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2007-07-09 11:55 |
| #22 Thank goodness we can choose our candidate in the primaries, otherwise Mr. Soros' bank account would have the White House sewn up. ;-) I agree with Frank G; the Washington Post is trying to pursuade the War Party that we've already lost. Whereas on NPR this morning they were agonizing over the fact that most of the troops are registered Republicans, and for whom will they vote this time round? I found that particularly interesting, 'cause in 2004 military votes had a tendency to be misplaced before they were counted. Excalibur dear, sadly for those of us who'd like to see a strong Democratic war candidate, Hillary Clinton is too polarizing even amongst the Democrats, and Barack Obama is awfully green... although admittedly he has gorgeous teeth. At this point the leading Republican candidates are Rudy Guiliani and Fred Thompson, both of whom want to prosecute the war much more aggressively than President Bush is doing. So the Republican ticket should come down to either the more conservative or the more centrist of the two warmongers. Versus a weak Democratic candidate. It's just that we Americans need to talk everything through -- passionately -- which can be distressing for observers. I shouldn't worry until the primaries are over and we see who the final candidates for each party are... about this time next summer. In the meantime try to relax and enjoy the show. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-07-09 11:42 |
| #21 #15 OldSpook's way of thinking will give us a matching set of President Hillary to go along with Pelosi and Reid. You have to win the small battles in American politics to achieve the big goals. Gradualism i.e. controlling the issues and shifting power in your side's direction beats revolution for getting what you want any day. And yes, sometimes you even have to hold your nose and pull the lever for the least bad real choice rather than cede authority to those who you know will lead us into disaster. |
| Posted by: Grumenk Philalzabod0723 2007-07-09 11:36 |
| #20 "Please tell me what the situation in the Middle East would be today if Gorbachev had been more like Brezhnev and NOT taken down (or allowed it to be taken down) that wall? What if the Soviets had really cracked down on the Poles and Solidarity?" This almost sounds wistful, AlanC. You're skeerin' me. Look, Reagan's handling of the barracks bombing in no way diminishes my admiration for the guy. He was a product of the times. But he definitely was part of the progression that led to today's ME situation, whether he had bigger fish to fry or not. Pointing that out isn't a hit on the guy, it's an historical reality. |
| Posted by: no mo uro 2007-07-09 11:26 |
| #19 I think the problem with Bush is that he thinks we elected him to be king - to make the big decisions. No. We've made the big decisions. We elected him to put into effect these decisions. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2007-07-09 11:26 |
| #18 "Choke the life out of the self-satisfied self-entitled beasts from the Country Club elite, and get the power back in the hands of the base, the Sam's Club Repubs - the ones Ronald Regan won with." This is the goal, and it's nice to talk about in quick sentences, but how to do it without giving huge power (even for two or four years) to the Dems, and perhaps wreaking irreparable harm to our nation and the West in doing so? If it weren't for a roaring economy, I can only imagine what the period 1993-1995 in those first Clinton years might have been like. The idea of a similar setup with perhaps another more left-of-center Clinton, compounded with Democrats in the House and Senate who are way more left-fringe than they were in 1992 and an uncertain economy, in power for two seconds, let alone two or more years, should give all of us a pause. I like your idea of winning through nominating better Repubs at the primary level. "Self-entitled beasts" is the perfect phrase, and they must go eventually. But savage them to the point where you hand total control to the Dems, and I think you have left the path of wisdom. |
| Posted by: no mo uro 2007-07-09 11:21 |
| #17 I really wish everyone would stop with the comments about Reagan and the Middle East. There was such a huge overriding difference in the world at that time that any comparison is pointless. The difference? It's spelled USSR. The best metaphor I can think of is.... "A man dying of thirst and a man with his house on fire put a different value on a glass of water." Yes there were seeds of the present situation sown then, but, there were much bigger things to think about and situations to imagine. Please tell me what the situation in the Middle East would be today if Gorbachev had been more like Brezhnev and NOT taken down (or allowed it to be taken down) that wall? What if the Soviets had really cracked down on the Poles and Solidarity? Twenty twenty hind sight is a wonderful thing. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2007-07-09 11:20 |
| #16 Bush is NOT a conservative - He's very liberal minded indeed, ......if you're a Mexican headed north. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2007-07-09 11:00 |
| #15 This isn't a hit piece for once. Its the truth. Bush is NOT a conservative - like his father, he never has been, never will be. Hi is done - put a fork in him. He's simply the latest "its your turn" establishment candidate to come out of the Country Club set (c.f. his father, and Bob Dole). Its the "its your turn" gang that never seems to change that is at fault here. Trent Lott and his ilk, 40 years in DC, they think they are entitled. Time to throw them all out. Starting with primary challengers. Hit their fund raising -that gets their attention. do not give a single dime to the RNC, the NRSC - they are the backers of the old-boy network - they funded Chaffee against his primary aopponent, etc. Choke the life out of the self-satisfied self-entitled beasts from the Country Club elite, and get the power back in the hands of the base, the Sam's Club Repubs - the ones Ronald Regan won with. Time to clean house, and it may cost us in the short run. But it has to be done. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2007-07-09 10:54 |
| #14 "A populist/realist President" "The big difference is that Reagan could communicate effectively to large numbers of people. Bush can't." Every president since Carter got it wrong in part about the ME, and has been at least in partial denial, including Reagan. W was the first to really start speaking language regarding what needs to be done, although he has dropped the ball. But Reagan was unique, because he was a populist who was also conservative. This combination is vanishingly rare, happening once in a lifetime or less. He pulled it off because, as noted, he was a terrific communicator. This is W's Achilles heel. If W was half the communicator that Reagan was, the WoT would be in a very different place now, I think. "Time for 'Extreme Party Makeover'tm? " Not even close. See the other threads today to see what would replace W et al should the D's take over. With rare exceptions even RINO's are preferable to this. Excalibur's right - staying home to make a point might have disastrous effects on Western civilization. I wish that weren't the case, but it's the reality we face. |
| Posted by: no mo uro 2007-07-09 10:45 |
| #13 And we Fixed it. |
| Posted by: Natural Law 2007-07-09 10:34 |
| #12 I could not agree more with the anger at the vacillation of this supposedly hard-line President. But for the love of God, as a foreigner who cannot vote in your elections, do not hand the White House over to the Dhimmis. Civilization is counting on you. |
| Posted by: Excalibur 2007-07-09 10:27 |
| #11 Byron York is a pinch-hitter this time, but the WaPo has been running a series of "why the Republicans are Soooooo screwed!" columns |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-07-09 10:26 |
| #10 I always turn to the WaPo, Eugene Robinson, E.J. Dionne, et al to find out what the Republican base wants and thinks. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-07-09 10:25 |
| #9 If you don't like the RINOs, vote against them during the Primaries. That is where the change needs to take place. Bush, for me has turned out to be a major disappointment, but he still is a hell of a lot better than Kerry would have been. He is still better than any of the dhimocrats running. Fortunately, we have another choice for the republican this time. We may be mad at Bush. We may be mad at the RINOs. But they are still better than the alternative. At this point. But the elites in DC need to understand that the majority of the Red state voters are really getting sick of their crap. And we are cleaning our guns and watching them. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2007-07-09 09:48 |
| #8 At the risk of being incendiary... guys, I did vote for Ron Paul during one of his previous forays for the oval office. And it didn't work. |
| Posted by: Abdominal Snowman 2007-07-09 09:16 |
| #7 Everybody get disgruntled and act like 8 year olds and punish the Republicans again next election and we can have a repeat of the result of 2006 You know at a certain point the rot is so deep, you may have to put up with the discomfiture and displacement for a while in order to rip the damn place down to the foundation to rebuild. When the building is no longer attached to its base, you probably have serious structural problems. Time for 'Extreme Party Makeover'tm? |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2007-07-09 09:08 |
| #6 As I recall Reagan was willing to do illegal arms deals with the Ayatollahs to supply freedom fighters in Central America. He was willing to deal with wacko Islamists through Pakistan to oppose the Russians in Afghanistan. When 271 Marines got killed living in an ineffectively defended hotel in Beirut, he turned tail and ran. Reagan was also pretty much a lame duck in his last two years. The big difference is that Reagan could communicate effectively to large numbers of people. Bush can't. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-07-09 08:58 |
| #5 A populist/realist President - Ronald Reagan - had cruise missiles lobbed directly at Gadhafi's residence, and leveraged the Soviets to reduce Euro-missiles. And he ordered invasions of Grenada and Panama, without even veiled notice to the UN. And he gained popularity for so doing. Would Reagan have allied with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia in the war on terror? Would he have nation-built in gutter states? Would he have declared that "islam is peace"? Would he have proferred a 2-state solution for the Israeli-Arab problem, in face of Paleo support for terrorists? Would Ahmadinejad be threatening to destroy Israel and the American homeland, and doing so with absolute impunity? Would CAIR be in existence? Would an invasion of Iraq be followed with 3500 US deaths? Would be-heading videos be sold a few blocks from a secure area (Green Zone) for US troops and diplomats? Would Venezuelan fascists be in power? Doubt it. |
| Posted by: McZoid 2007-07-09 08:37 |
| #4 The article states the obvious. What it doesn't say is that Bush is an elitist. So too are Kennedy, Pelosi, Kerry, Barbara Streisand, Alec Baldwin, Paris Hilton, Lindsey Graham, Trent Lott, and yes, even some of our presidential candidates. Therefore, we had better choose carefully who we want to lead us in the future. I'd say it's time to expose the elitists and replace them with normal people. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2007-07-09 07:52 |
| #3 In other words, ‘Suck it up. You have nowhere else to go. Who you gonna vote for - the Libertarian?” |
| Posted by: Pappy 2007-07-09 01:23 |
| #2 Everybody get disgruntled and act like 8 year olds and punish the Republicans again next election and we can have a repeat of the result of 2006. The image I will most remember that symbolizes 2006 is Rosie laughing at the GOP as she left for a Barbara Streisand concert. And then Pelosi was in charge. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2007-07-09 01:16 |
| #1 Save Baghdad, save the intervention. Allow the Tigris River to form an ethnic dividing line between Sunnis and Shiites. When that happens, Sunnis won't send suicide bombers into Shiite areas, and Shiites won't encroach. It is my belief - and there is evidence in Anbar and north Baghdad - that when ethnic conflict abates, locals will turn against the terrorists. It ain't over until September. Pullout would be catastrophic. Iran will move in and consolidate around Basra, and then move northward to the Kurdish oil patch. With little more than a tiny naval base in Bahrain, US forces couldn't prevent an invasion of the Saudi oil patch. Ergo: failure in Baghdad is NOT an option. |
| Posted by: McZoid 2007-07-09 01:08 |