Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Stingy Republican Senators

It turns out that liberal Democratic senators are much more generous than conservative Republican ones, at least when it comes to giving to their party’s candidates. The rather incredible stinginess of safe-seat Republicans may have cost their party the Senate. More evidence still of the power-for-power’s-sake complacency that brought our party down...

Discussions - 22 Comments

Republicans whom I know, friends and acquaintances, did not give to the party as they had in years past and did not because they were disappointed in the party and those of the party previously elected to office. The general sense of the thing was that they would be throwing good money after bad, results of previous giving being a disappointment to them. This article suggests to me that even those incumbents were similarly disappointed in each other. How could it have been merely "complacency" when every poll, every article, very blog, for goodness’ sake, indicated that Republicans, even incumbents, desperately needed help? Did Republicans give up on themselves this year? Was it looking about and seeing certain defeat and thinking to save up resources for a better year? I guess my question is, was this complacency or defeatism or practical economic judgment?

Kate--Well, good distinction. Maybe it was every man for himself...which is also power-for-power’s-sake.

What was it Franklin said about all hanging together or all hanging separately?

Come on, it was George Walker Bush that cost the GOP their majority. It wasn’t for want of money. And it wasn’t the "6 year itch" excuse either.

It was George Bush’s style, his personal tics, his communication team, his personnel selections, it was Scott McClellan, Andy Card, it was his studied refusal to do the ordinary things that successful politicians do. It’s him, and him PERSONALLY. It’s not just the war. Watching him at a press conference is a cross, a cross. He’s charted THE most difficult foreign policy course in American history, and the man is BOTH UNABLE AND UNWILLING to fully, persuasively, powerfully and REPEATEDLY explain his decisions.

Lastly, his constant repetition of the "islam is peace" nonsense, {the one thing that he has repeated...} which flies in the face of everything that Americans are seeing on their televisions, AND HAVE BEEN SEEING on their televisions ever since the invention of the television, that repetition every time it’s made bespeaks a man whose lost touch with reality. It makes him look a nut. Only a nut would have considered that ports deal, and only a political numskull would have been willing to go the mattresses over it.

George Bush is floundering, floundering badly. And now, in his desperate throes, he’s reaching out to the establishment for guidance. Which means he’s reaching out to the Dems. God help us. The very people who have demonstrated utter cluelessness since 1968, he’s reaching out to them. It’s a pathetic disgrace. How is it that this guy could have so lost his moorings in two brief years? I think he needs to resign. If he’s serious about winning this war, then he needs to come clean with the American people, tell them the criticism has gotten to him, would have gotten to anyone, that he’s lost his confidence, that he’s lost his appetite to close with and destroy our enemies, and thus, he’s resigning.

He needs to resign. We can’t afford two more years of Presidential drift. He’s already afforded Iran another five full years in their Manhattan Project. We can’t afford hand-holding George Bush through the next two years. He’s got to go. And that means prominent Republicans have got to impose their will upon him, and make sure that he goes. He should resign before the state of the union.

George Bush is floundering, floundering badly.

Agreed.

He needs to resign.

Do not agree. You’re going to have to make a better case than you did. Would Cheney as President do better? You do realize who’s next in order after that, don’t you?

Presidents don’t resign when they are unpopular or in a foreign policy pickle. Not even Democrats would wish for the constitutional consequences of such a course.

We need the Bush Doctrine, not the Ford Option.

Our guys lost the plot. Bush and the Republican congress sometimes brought out the worst in each other. We need a return to clear conservative principles, cos when Republicans act like Democrats, a lot of voters say ’The hell with it--let’s try the real thing.’

The case for change is rock solid, air tight, and it’s all around you. The nation has turned him off.

It’s true that we don’t have a history of men resigning when they’re floundering badly. That’s nothing to brag about. If we had such a history, we might have been able to force Carter out before all of the damage he did to the country. Steve, there aren’t any Constitutional consequence flowing from a President resigning, because he’s lost the appetite for the job, and because he’s been ripped apart by criticism as few men in history have. He’s a man, he’s not superman, and this level of towering, overpowering criticism has clearly taken a toll. That’s another thing that GW failed to call to the mind of the American people. He ALLOWED this overwhelming partisan bitterness to develop, and he didn’t do much to stem it.

As for Cheney, he’d be much better than GW, for the simple reason Cheney doesn’t give a damn about the establishment. The Bush family, father and son, clearly do, and that’s the problem. The establishment doesn’t desire the US/Saudi nexus severed, and so it hasn’t been. The establishment desires to dodge a confrontation with Tehran, thus we continue down this path of dither and drift. Noel is dead right. Ford was part of the problem. Ford was the type of Republican that made sure we stayed in the minority for decades. Ford was PRECISELY the type of Republican that Reagan ran against, and had to drag kicking and screaming over the finish line to victory in the Cold War, economic prosperity and majority status. Ford was a disaster. As Bush’s second term is also proving.

All Bush needs to do is cut the new tone crap, start governing consistent with the GOP platform, cut the open borders crap, cut the hiring of incompetents crap, and get out there and win the damn war. It isn’t rocket science.

And STEVE,

the President isn’t simply in the midst of some "unpopular" foreign policy. He’s in the midst of a war we DARE NOT LOSE, and he’s well on the way to actually losing. He’s allowed the idea to gain currency that the ENTIRETY of our war effort is confined to Iraq. And thus failure there, means failure everywhere. He’s not simply losing Iraq, but he very well might lose Afghanistan thereafter. The whole object lesson we supposedly inflicted upon the enemy after 9/11 will be lost. Instead of a credible American military response, we’re witnessing failure and drift. Instead of purpose and strength, we’re seeing pusillanimousness and sloppiness.

The best thing he could do to advance the war effort is to go. Chamberlain went, and now it’s time for GW to go. His five years of drift and wishful thinking about Tehran ALONE warrants his resignation.

He’s no longer the man we thought we knew two years ago. It’s as if he’s scared to death to do anything. A leader would lead, chart a bold course, and force his political opponents to agitate for defeat, failure and withdraw. He’s letting the Democrats get away with being a party of despair. Ronald Reagan would never allowed the Dems to get away with such a thing.

One thing more, isn’t it amazing how larger in retrospect looms the Presidency of Ronald Reagan. Compare his icy calm, his robust, infectious optimism, his command of the English language, to this administration oozing panic, oozing failure, oozing ineptness, oozing incompetence.

I must say I don’t understand it. The whole purpose of Iraq was to provide a stable, prosperous society that would destabilize Tehran, and thus accomplish indirectly the collapse of the Tehran regime. How is it possible that this administration didn’t understand that the Iranians would do everything possible to prevent the emergence of a stable Iraq. How could they NOT foresee that, how could Iranian destabilization efforts catch them unaware and unprepared.

No wonder men like Ken Adelman and Richard Perle are livid with this administration. They must be sick to their stomachs over this entire debacle. And the thing is, it’s not too late, it can be salvaged, we can still make it work. But we’re going to need a leader, and one who won’t bother repeating politically correct banalities.

1.) The point is moot; Bush will not resign. We do not have a parlimentary system.

2.)Nor should he resign, as it would be taken as an act of American weakness throughout the world and doom the Republican Party to permanent minority status.

3.) You misunderstood me; I knew and respected President Ford, even if I often disagreed with him.

4.) Yes, we need Bush to return to the Bush Doctrine, to speak out often and forcefully, to change the rules of engagement to restore order in Iraq, make our enemies fear and obey us, particularly Syria, Iran, al Sadr--and the Sauds. But a resignation would doom any such possibilites.

I pretty much agree with Noel. I’d add that the "Bush Doctrine" needs to be articulated more coherently, with means matched to ends and vice versa.

To get back to the subject of this thread -- stinginess toward their party by Republican senators: Republicans in generally aren’t as good at team play as Democrats. Among Republicans senators, the lack of team play is a virulent disease. If this doesn’t change, the outlook for 2008 (electorally) and 2007 (legislatively) isn’t good.

10: Delta, you are largely right. I would add, however, that it’s time to put GWB behind us and focus on the future.

I pretty much agree with Noel. I’d add that the "Bush Doctrine" needs to be articulated more coherently, with means matched to ends and vice versa.

Steve, if you’re putting your hopes in Bush articulating clearly, then you are surely already doomed.

Daniel K - Not me, us.

But are we bitter about this? Ha!


So, looking ahead, as is suggested, who is most coherent, articulate potential candidate for the Republican nomination? (Oh, yes, and a team player.) I have been reading that whoever is the candidate, he must have his campaign in place by this spring. Is that true? What good are national conventions, anymore? Everything seems to be settled in presidential elections so far ahead of time. I do not see that this brings us the best candidates, either.

Yes, for better or worse, we now have in effect three primaries: the money primary, the staffing primary, and the electoral primaries. The first two come early. Especially for the Democrats, they are all initiated by candidate self-selection. And the games begin!

Re GW’s proposed resignation.

Please check out David Frum’s blog today over at National Review Online.

Mr. Frum lays out the air-tight case for this "exhausted" President to step down.

This isn’t a stylistic problem anymore. Bush’s lack of executive energy and imagination is now reflecting itself in policy prescriptions.

And check out too The Corner, for there you can see Bush’s State Department has now TENDERED the economic incentives that the we previously offered UPON THE CONDITION that Tehran give up its enriching program.

Incoherence upon incoherence, cluelessness, cluelessness squared, what’s more, cluelessness CUBED!

Now I ask you, in all good conscience, can the free world afford two MORE years of Presidential drift, ON TOP OF the 6 years we’ve already had.

The GOP presented Nixon no choice, and now it’s time for George Walker Bush to be dressed down by the party, and told to tender the seals of office, for the good of the country, for the war effort, and for the party. He’s got to go.

Resignation? Don’t be silly. While I think Dick Cheney is a wonderful fellow, his health has always been an issue, and if his health fails, what have we got? No. Thank you.

I agree that talk of resignation is silly, but remember that we’d also have a new, appointed VP. His name, we presume, would not be Rockefeller.

Maybe it is the remembering of Rockefeller that makes the idea of an appointed VP so unappealing.


Of course, then we’d have the fun of dissecting potentials as ruthlessly as we currently discuss 2008 presidential possibilities.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/8099