If The GOP Loses...

[Annie]

Might not be all bad:

http://author.nationalreview.com/latest/?q=MjE5NQ==

September 15, 2006, 6:02 a.m.

Governing Realities
Where are the conservatives?

By Jonah Goldberg

Conservative Republicans have learned a painful lesson over the last few years. It turns out power isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.

Republican control of the White House and Congress hasn’t resulted in lights being turned off in Cabinet agencies or enormous garage sales of office furniture. Instead, Uncle Sam is still looking like Marlon Brando at the end of his career: bloated, sweaty, and slow moving. The GOP has become a Brando-like parody of its former self, reading its lines about cutting government without plausibility or passion.

The rub of it, from a conservative perspective, is that Republican control of the House doesn’t equal conservative control. It may not seem that way to liberals who think Joe Lieberman is right wing, but from the vantage point of the conservative movement, GOP dominance has been an enormous disappointment — good judicial appointments and tax cuts not withstanding. Our hopeful joy upon the 1994 takeover of Congress was like finding a new pony by the Christmas tree. Now it’s more like finding it slumped over dead on top of the presents.

This may be why some of us aren’t contemplating the possible, if not probable, Democratic takeover of the House with too much dread. (Losing the Senate would be something else.) Yes, the thought of Nancy Pelosi as House Speaker and John Conyers Jr., Henry Waxman and Alcee Hastings as potential committee chairmen does cause an involuntary gag reflex and a shudder for the future of the republic. And yes, the image of all those Democratic staffers returning to Capitol Hill like the marauding caddies during open-pool hour in Caddyshack does stew the bowels.

But what would actually happen? Well, the first thing we’d hear would be the metaphorical snap of the rubber glove as the House prepared to investigate the executive branch with a zeal and thoroughness normally reserved for prison guards who enjoy looking for contraband just a little too much. Subpoenas would fly. Perhaps printers would churn out bills of impeachment.

But as ugly as some of this might be, the silver lining would be fairly thick. First, as a matter of simple gitchy-goo good government, one has to admit that the executive branch could use an independent audit. Amid the orgy of spending and deal cutting, the GOP-controlled House has largely abdicated its oversight responsibilities. Someone’s got to check the receipts.

Second, as a matter of rank partisanship, letting the Democrats run wild could be good for both the GOP and conservatives, as my colleague Ramesh Ponnuru recently pointed out in the New York Times. If you think Americans are itching for change now, wait until they break into hives after two more years of Republican monopoly on power.

But a Pelosi-run House could so horrify voters that it would probably prepare the soil for a Republican presidential candidate in 2008. Pelosi is, if anything, a moderate in the Democratic caucus, but she is indisputably far to the left of the American center, in part because she and her colleagues mistake passionately angry bloggers for the mainstream. Letting voters see this crowd try to have its way for two years would only help the GOP in the far more important 2008 election.

Moreover, it could very well boost President Bush’s popularity in his final two years — popularity he would need to conduct foreign policy, which tends to dominate the final years of all presidencies.

It’s one thing to carp and snipe at the president as the party out of power. It is quite another to use congressional power to hobble a wartime commander in chief. When the economy was strong and the world was deceptively peaceful, perceived Republican overreach kept Bill Clinton’s poll numbers up. It’s entirely possible that similar behavior — behavior the Democratic base will doubtlessly demand — would have a similar effect on Bush’s popularity, especially with troops fighting overseas. A Speaker Pelosi couldn’t get left-wing legislation through, and nothing too terrifying could survive in the GOP-run Senate or be spared Bush’s veto pen, which, sad to say, still has plenty of ink in it. One exception might be immigration, but that would hand conservative Republicans a dream issue for 2008.

As for Iraq, antiwar liberals also would discover that having a majority within a party is not the same thing as controlling it. Democrats would not be able to force a withdrawal from Iraq, but they’d look even more McGovernite in the process.

I can’t quite hope the Democrats win. But I can’t bring myself to say I’d like more of the same either. As Henry Kissinger said in 1986 of the Iran-Iraq war: Too bad they can’t both lose.

 

[5stringJeff]

Might not be all bad:

http://author.nationalreview.com/latest/?q=MjE5NQ==

Too bad they can’t both lose.

That last sentence about sums it up for me. My GOP congressman is just now starting to vote conservatively so that his track record doesn't look so bad. But there's no way I'm voting for Mike "Senate-Amnesty" McGavik.

 

[Avatar4321]

The GOP will retain control of the House and I think we will gain seats. Unfortunately that doesnt ensure that conservativism will be advanced.

 

[5stringJeff]

The GOP will retain control of the House and I think we will gain seats. Unfortunately that doesnt ensure that conservativism will be advanced.

The only way to ensure the advance of conservatism is to financially support conservative PACs. I support the Club for Growth, which has done pretty well this year knocking off moderate/big spending Republicans and replacing them with fiscally conservative Republicans (and one fiscally conservative Democrat!).

I have quit giving money to the RNC, NRCC, and NRSC. Those dollars only go to support the party elite, not the grassroots conservatism that so many Republicans long for.

 

[Kagom]

The GOP will retain control of the House and I think we will gain seats. Unfortunately that doesnt ensure that conservativism will be advanced.

I hope not. But then again, we'll never see a third party controlled house.

 

[William Joyce]

The GOP could save itself and then some by hitting the immigration issue.

But they won't, except in rare quarters.

So eff 'em. They SHOULD lose.

How much worse could Democrats make it? I was going to ask the 30 illegal Mexicans swarming in the parking of the 7-11 in Annandale last night, but you know what? None of those prehistoric pieces of crap spoke English! Now, that's what our nation has become today. Democrap, Republicrap, whatever. The USA is run by Jews, and it shows. Jonah Goldberg is a ****, people. He HATES America. He HATES conservatives. But there's a little cash in it for fatboy, and he gets war on Arabs as part of the deal. So he comes out a winner. And you, white conservative, are a big, dumb loser. How's that feel? Tell Uncle William about it.

 

[CharlestonChad]

The GOP could save itself and then some by hitting the immigration issue.

But they won't, except in rare quarters.

So eff 'em. They SHOULD lose.

How much worse could Democrats make it? I was going to ask the 30 illegal Mexicans swarming in the parking of the 7-11 in Annandale last night, but you know what? None of those prehistoric pieces of crap spoke English! Now, that's what our nation has become today. Democrap, Republicrap, whatever. The USA is run by Jews, and it shows. Jonah Goldberg is a ****, people. He HATES America. He HATES conservatives. But there's a little cash in it for fatboy, and he gets war on Arabs as part of the deal. So he comes out a winner. And you, white conservative, are a big, dumb loser. How's that feel? Tell Uncle William about it.

Not only are you an idiot, but also a bigot (unless you're jewish, **** is not okay to say).

 

[Avatar4321]

Not only are you an idiot, but also a bigot (unless you're jewish, **** is not okay to say).

He doesnt see anything wrong with being a bigot. In fact, he is quite proud of it. So calling him one really wont do much. its a badge of pride for him.

 

[Kagom]

The GOP could save itself and then some by hitting the immigration issue.

But they won't, except in rare quarters.

So eff 'em. They SHOULD lose.

How much worse could Democrats make it? I was going to ask the 30 illegal Mexicans swarming in the parking of the 7-11 in Annandale last night, but you know what? None of those prehistoric pieces of crap spoke English! Now, that's what our nation has become today. Democrap, Republicrap, whatever. The USA is run by Jews, and it shows. Jonah Goldberg is a ****, people. He HATES America. He HATES conservatives. But there's a little cash in it for fatboy, and he gets war on Arabs as part of the deal. So he comes out a winner. And you, white conservative, are a big, dumb loser. How's that feel? Tell Uncle William about it.

You sir, are a bane to society and no one values you or your ultimately biased and bullshitted belifs.

 

[roadhouse158]

Ok..Here's my take. I am an AMERICAN...BUT---are you Republican or Democrat? That's all that seems to matter today. I'll stick with the first one. American. I hope that the Democrats do take over congress...Not so they can show they will or won't do any better. I am so fed up with the Red-VS-Blue. The reason I hope they win...Cause their is a Republican president. I like it when Congress and the President are two different parties. I think more get's done due to compromize. If one party holds control of everything you get what we have now. A pissing contest. Nothing really gets done. The majority of the controlling party will vote to pass, and the minority party, out of spite will vote against it. Then you have the few in the majority that sometimes vote for or against that determines the outcome...Unless you have a filabust...It's like Pre-School. I am a Republican. I'll spill that much. I believe Bush truly had intentions of bipartisan support. In Texas it worked, but now he's in the big leauges. They are way more immature at the Federal level than at the State level. Same goes for Clinton. The years he acclompished the most is when the Republicans took control of Congress. We are all Americans, and Politics are our national past time now. It's a joke. This is what seperation of church and state means...The biggest gap is between Liberals and Conservative. The not so religous - vs - the religous. It wasn't supposed to mean separation of church FROM state. Neither party is 100% right. If you think they are then you haven't studied them enough. Meet in the middle....That starts with us first. We do vote certain people in just because of their party. At least for Congress we do. When it comes to the President, I think we vote more for the person. We need to take more time with the other elected officials like we do the President. Maybe it's all do to laziness on our parts..I don't know.

 

[Annie]

Perhaps things are looking up?

http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/ByronYork/092106.html

If Republicans can pull this one out ...

Forty-four percent!

A Gallup Poll, taken Sept. 15-17, finds that President Bush’s job approval rating has soared to 44 percent, the highest since the president virtually touched the sky at 45 percent in September 2005.

Of course, other polls have placed Bush a little lower; the Real Clear Politics average of presidential polls puts him at 40.8 percent.

Still, that beats Bush’s low point of 31 percent in a Gallup Poll last May.

And he’s in good company. Everybody who is anybody in the presidential world has been at 44 percent.

According to Gallup records, Bill Clinton was there a bunch of times — in May and August 1993; in June and September 1994; and then in March, April and September 1995.

George H.W. Bush hit 44 in February 1992.

Ronald Reagan was at 44 in April and June 1982, and in July and August 1983.

Jimmy Carter was at 44 in June 1978.

Gerald Ford was at 44 in April and October 1975.

Richard Nixon was at 44 in May and June 1973.

Lyndon Johnson was at 44 percent in October 1966, June 1967 and December 1968.

Of course, some were on the way up, and some were on the way down. We’ll know more about Bush later.

Whatever the case, it appears his campaigning for Republicans in the House and Senate is beginning to help the GOP cause, not hurt it.

In the new Gallup survey, there are a several results that suggest the war on terror is playing a bigger part in voters’ minds these days. Among people who are likely to vote, terrorism is the second most important issue (after Iraq). That puts it above the economy, health care, and illegal immigration.

And as much as Democrats hate it, in those voters’ minds, Republicans still have a substantial lead when it comes to keeping America safe.

Gallup asked, “What impact do you think this fall’s elections will have on terrorism in the U.S.? Do you think the country will be safer from terrorism if the Republicans keep control of Congress, would be safer from terrorism if the Democrats gain control of Congress, or would it not make a difference either way?” (In its questioning, Gallup rotates mentioning the Republicans or Democrats first.)

Forty-four percent say it wouldn’t make any difference. But 31 percent say the country would be safer if Republicans keep control, and 21 percent say it would be safer if Democrats gain control.

Then Gallup asked, “Would you be more likely to vote for a candidate for Congress who supports President Bush on terrorism, more likely to vote for a candidate who opposes President Bush on terrorism, or would that not make much difference to your vote?”

Forty-five percent of likely voters say they will vote for the candidate who supports Bush.

Just 28 percent say they’ll vote for a Bush opponent, and 26 percent say it doesn’t make a difference.

But what about the Democrats’ contention that the war in Iraq is a distraction from the real war on terror, that we need Democratic leadership to bring America home from Iraq?

Well, Gallup also asked, “Would you be more likely to vote for a candidate for Congress who supports President Bush on the war in Iraq, more likely to vote for a candidate who opposes President Bush on the war in Iraq, or would that not make much difference to your vote?”

The numbers were extremely close: 39 percent say they’ll vote for a Bush supporter, 40 percent will vote for a Bush opponent, and 20 percent say it doesn’t make a difference.

But that means that even on Iraq — surely the president’s most vulnerable issue — Democrats have no clear lead.

By the way, 67 percent of those polled believe Democrats have no clear plan for what to do in Iraq.

As for their own preferences, they don’t appear to be leaning toward Democrats. Gallup gave respondents four different possibilities for the U.S. in Iraq — withdraw all troops immediately; withdraw all troops by a year from now; withdraw troops, but take as many years as needed to do it; or send more troops.

In the latest poll, 51 percent chose either withdraw, but take as long as necessary, or, send more troops. Forty-eight percent favored withdrawing immediately or within a year.

In July, when Gallup asked the same question, the numbers were quite different. Just 41 percent favored a long withdrawal or more troops. Fifty-five percent favored withdrawing immediately or within a year.

Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) and Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), the leaders of the Democrats’ efforts to retake the House and Senate, have made clear they believe Democrats can take Republicans head-on on the issue of national security, arguing that GOP rule has made America less safe.

Certainly they believe that. But if this new poll is correct, with nearly seven weeks left before the election, they haven’t been able to convince most voters.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Perhaps things are looking up?

http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/ByronYork/092106.html

I bet Reagan, Carter, Clinton, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, and Bush 41 didn't view 44% as a good sign.

 

[Annie]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/pr...s/2006/09/the_tortoise_and_those_democra.html

There are links

September 21, 2006
The Tortoise and Those Democratic Hares
By Victor Davis Hanson

Despite their dreams of recapturing one or both houses of Congress this November, the Democrats seem determined to reprise their poor showings in 2002 and 2004. Now, as then, they are dozing in the campaign's homestretch, like Aesop's hare, lulled by rosy predictions and the premature applause of Hollywood and the mainstream press. Soon, however, they may awake to discover that while they snoozed before the finish line, George W. Bush hunkered down in his tough shell, kept his slow legs moving, and inched them out.

The president has had a rough year since his reelection. But the furor is now subsiding, and once again, turtle-like, his poll numbers are creeping forward. The economy continues to grow. Interest rates, unemployment and inflation remain manageable. Gas may fall to $2 a gallon. It matters little whether the president is as responsible for the price decline as he was for its rise - the public feels better all the same.

In hindsight, Hurricane Katrina is increasingly seen as the singular natural disaster it was - made worse by lapses in government at all levels. And too much federal largess, rather than too little, is the new worry.

The line between the supposedly good "multilateral" war in Afghanistan to remove the Taliban and the bad "unilateral" one that ousted Saddam is blurring. Suicide bombers and improvised explosive devices are the terrorism of choice in both theaters. In some weeks, more are killed in Afghanistan than in Iraq. And al-Qaida, unlike the American media, sees both as integrated jihadist struggles against the infidel.

When the smoke cleared in Lebanon, Israel had not lost to Hezbollah - but gained even more support from the American people, according to most recent polls. Nor did the elected Lebanese government collapse. Indeed, rumor has it that Syria, Iran and Hezbollah are much less pleased with the result of the war than Western journalists had supposed. And Iran appears to be backing down somewhat from its nuclear agenda.

America has not been hit again since 9/11. And, perhaps preferring to err on the side of safety, most Americans continue to back interrogations and detentions at Guantanamo. For now, most still believe it is jihadists - not their own president - who pose the real threat to their way of life.

The Europeans are no longer smug in the belief that the Islamists are incited only by the cowboy George Bush. They are weary and increasingly angry over the Danish cartoon hysteria, Dutch murders, French riots, London and Madrid bombings, foiled plots in Britain and Germany, and the most recent threats to the pope. Terrorist communiques allege anger over Iraq - but also Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chechnya, Gaza, Kashmir, Kosovo, Lebanon, the Philippines, the West Bank, and on and on.

Despite their troubles, the Republicans remain more unified and pragmatic than their opponents. The party establishment stood behind the often anti-Bush Sen. Lincoln Chafee in a tough but successful reelection fight in Rhode Island. In contrast, the Democratic establishment watched in horror as the party's activist wing drummed out their own moderate, Sen. Joe Lieberman, as a turncoat.

In the past, leftist shrillness - whether it was Michael Moore calling Iraqi terrorists "Minutemen" or Cindy Sheehan pronouncing an American president "the world's greatest terrorist" - hurt the Democrats, who came across as amused by the noise of these supportive public megaphones.

Once again such rhetorical craziness is turning off moderates. A film has just been released imagining the assassination of a sitting American president. On the Democratic side, only Sen. Hillary Clinton has denounced such creepiness; other Clintonites were far more worried only about looking bad in the recent docudrama "The Path to 9/11."

Democrats denounce the conduct of the war against terror. All well and good - but they also must explain how they would snatch Osama Bin Laden from his friendly tribes in Islamic and nuclear Pakistan. They rail against the Iraq war, but they cannot agree on when - not to mention whether - to depart. They lament appeasement of Iran, but they offer no military or political alternative to the ongoing multiparty negotiations.

The Democrats claim that Bush is not protecting us at home and is battling the wrong enemies abroad. But even of those sympathetic to such a message, how many believe that Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy are better suited to fight a war against terror? And where the president is vulnerable - illegal immigration, continual energy dependence, spiraling debt and profligate federal spending - the Democrats' solutions are even more at odds with public opinion.

The result is that Bush, tucked into his shell, keeps lumbering forward, grimfaced - resisting withdrawal from Iraq and warning against Islamic fascism. And the more the Democratic hares yawn and snore - the more this unfazed turtle keeps moving toward the November elections.
Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and author, most recently, of "A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War." You can reach him by e-mailing [email protected].