It is easy to spin the results of yesterday by noting that it is normal for the administration's party to lose off year elections and the losses, while dramatic, are clearly in line with the average result over the years. I think that kind of thinking would be a big mistake for Republicans. One reason is that they were not so much defeated by the Democrats as abandoned by their own voters. The party bosses have had a tendency to blame the voters for problems, such as with the anger over immigration. That kind of attitude now could turn potential and former Republican voters off for good, returning the party to its permanenet minority status. I think the Rumsfeld canning was a good start. Clearly Iraq is the font of most of the administration's problems and he is the face of that war. I don't think it goes far enough however. I think Bush should clean house in his administration. At a minimum, I think Mike Chertoff, the head of Homeland Security should get the axe, if for no other reason making me wait in line and kowtow to moronic screeners and doing nothing about border security. Attorney General Al Gonzales should also get his walking papers. He has presided over a sleepy department that managed to let the William Jefferson corruption case go quiet before the election, even as they prosecuted and demanded long sentences for two Border Patrol guards who seemed to be just doing their jobs. Sec. of State Condi Rice has run a sloppy ship. Could anyone name a diplomatic success on her watch? A supposed Russian expert, she has let this most important of relationships turn sour for us. I could go on, but what's the point? It is vital that voters perceive that the Republicans hear their discontent and pay attention to it. Of course, the "leaders" of the Republicans in the House and Senate should also step down for their slovenly leadership. Rush Limbaugh made the disturbing observation that Bush may adopt the "rope a dope" strategy for his last two years. Go along with whatever the Democrats want to avoid partisan bickering, as Clinton was perceived to do. No odubt there would an implicit bargain that the Dem's would not pursue impeachment or other aggressive investigations. I know there must be a tremendous temptation for Bush to do just that. He has been soundly repudiated, and he has zero chance of doing anything productive for the rest of his term. Facing impeachment and disgrace is not a pleasant thought. Even Reagan was accused of doing something similar, under the influence of his wife. I hope Bush has too much backbone and grit to go along with that strategy. It would be totally demoralizing for Republicans and would pretty much doom their hopes in '08. Instead, he should be Commander Adama and rally what is left of his world, get them organized and in fighting shape and ready to battle for the principles that unite the party.
One issue holds tremendous peril for the Republicans, immigration. Bush angered a lot of the party's core supporters by backing an amnesty plan, which also had the backing of the Senate. With Democrats running the House, an amnesty plan could likely pass both houses and land on Bush's desk. That would be a disaster of cataclysmic proportions for the Republicans. Bush would likely sign such a bill, as he supported it before he decided Kerry-like that he actually opposed it. In that event, an awful lot of Republican voters will feel totally sold out. Since they can't direct their anger at Bush, they will pick the next closest target, John McCain, who is a big supporter of amnesty. That could have the effect of destroying the chances of the Republicans' best hope for '08. Somehow McCain needs to convince some hard core conservatives in the Senate to filibuster this bill, even as he makes a show of supporting it.
So you get your political thinking from watching Battlestar Gallactica and listening to Rush Limpdick... That explains a lot....
Not sure "backbone" is the right word, but perhaps stubborness and arrogance will be replaced by CYA for a while. Nixon dumped everyone until there was no one left to go but him. I doubt that Bush will be impeached, the dem's aren't going to want to get labeled as vengeful (as much as they might like to impeach). Lose Rummy and Rove (BTW, Mr. President, you can't fire the VP last time I checked, LOL). My respect would go up for Mr. Bush if he could make a serioius effort to work with' a bipartisan team. Of course he has to use the rhetoric, the losing party is always quick to say that they want to strive for across the aisle peace for the benefit of the Country. Americans are pretty quick to forgive and forget, and Bush has one thing in his favor, no one really thinks he was the culprit in everthing that may have wrong. I feel the same way, his "advisors" led him down a bad path (primarily the war, of course). He could end up with a decent legacy vs. near disgrace. It'll be interesting for a while now. c
I think that is the crux of the problem. If he adopts a go along to get along strategy, as Rush suggested he might, he sells out the party's core supporters. Wooing them back after pissing on them is not easy. He could ask his dad. I have to disagree about one thing. I think people really, intensely do dislike him and blame him personally. They took it out on individual republicans, but their real anger is reserved for Bush. He put us in Iraq.
I agree with much of what you said in your thread opening post, but I wouldn't blame the Russia situation on Rice. Putin is a walking disaster- an Orwellian nightmare of a leader. <b>Nobody</b> gets along with Putin.
Myself my family and most of the people I play tennis with at the tennis club would be the core support republicans could have. They mismanaged their time in office and were so bad at governing I did not here one person say vote for republicans. they did say you cant vote for democrats. The republicans absolutely sucked when they had a time to lead. Where is the tax code reform, the secure borders, the lower spending or at least cuts to match the spending. they sucked and now the dems will suck.