Posted on 03/04/2004 9:54:39 AM PST by Fishface
Republican malaise Robert Novak (back to web version) | Send March 4, 2004
WASHINGTON -- At 1 p.m. on Feb. 25, some 15 prominent Republicans invited to be surrogates in the coming presidential campaign gathered at Bush-Cheney headquarters in suburban Northern Virginia for a private briefing. Less than two hours earlier that day, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan detonated a political bombshell. To judge from the bland and uninformative briefing, nobody on the president's campaign team heard the explosion.
Former Montana Gov. Marc Racicot, a Washington lawyer-lobbyist who last year resigned as figurehead chairman of the Republican National Committee to become figurehead chairman of Bush-Cheney '04, led the precisely orchestrated, one-hour briefing. He did not mention that Greenspan had just testified to Congress advocating reduced Social Security benefits. Racicot might be excused for being silent and unaware of the central banker's latest political mischief, since it also escaped the attention that morning of key Bush policymakers.
The invited advocates were handed a thick batch of talking points to ingest by the campaign's appropriately named chief of surrogates, Julie Cram. Nowhere in the handout did the forbidden words "Social Security" appear. "The president's opponents are against personal retirement accounts" is the closest the briefing material came to the dreaded subject. Many prospective surrogates left campaign headquarters profoundly depressed by the mediocre briefing and the material given them.
This fits the deepening malaise among Republicans in the capital. They are neither surprised nor terribly worried by polls that temporarily show George W. Bush trailing John Kerry. What worries the GOP faithful is the absence of firm leadership in their party either at the White House or on Capitol Hill.
The lack of a ready response to Greenspan, while Democrats quickly turned his comments into an indictment of President Bush's tax cuts, was not an isolated failing. Today, Republicans on either end of Pennsylvania Avenue seem to be going in opposite directions.
-- Disagreement between congressional Republicans and Bush over the size of the highway bill reflects mutual recriminations over runaway federal spending in general. While the president's aides are angered by the lawmakers' addiction to concrete, conservative lawmakers are furious that Bush's budget has preserved and actually increased federal funding for the arts.
-- Bush's call to make his tax cuts permanent and to repeal the estate tax for all time leaves Republicans in Congress perplexed about how they will be able to write a budget without a massive increase in the huge deficit that never will command a majority vote.
-- House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert and his allies are bitter that they received no backing from the president and administration in their efforts to keep the independent 9-11 investigation from extending into the campaign season.
-- The president came out for a constitutional amendment to bar gay marriage without consulting congressional Republican leaders, which helps explain the unenthusiastic reception from his own party on Capitol Hill.
-- Congressional Republicans still have not recovered from the shock of the President's Economic Report extolling the outsourcing of industrial jobs -- good economics perhaps, bad politics definitely.
The disaffection is such that over the last two weeks, normally loyal Republicans -- actually including more than a few members of Congress -- are privately talking about political merits in the election of Sen. Kerry. Their reasoning goes like this: There is no way Democrats can win the House or Senate even if Bush loses. If Bush is re-elected, Democrats are likely to win both the House and Senate in a 2006 midterm rebound. If Kerry wins, Republicans will be able to bounce back with congressional gains in 2006.
To voice such heretical thoughts suggests that Republicans on Capitol Hill are more interested in maintaining the fruits of majority status first won in 1994 rather than in governing the country. A few thoughtful GOP lawmakers ponder the record of the first time in 40 years that the party has controlled both the executive and legislative branches, and conclude that record is deeply disappointing.
But incipient heresy also reflects shortcomings of the Bush political operation. Its emphasis has been on fund-raising and organization, with deficiencies in communicating and leadership. The president is in political trouble, and his disaffected supporters who should be backing him aggressively provide the evidence.
It is your relative's responsibility to keep his position secret, and not blab it around at cocktail parties, as Joe Wilson did about his wife.
So, it hardly surprises me that some of the congress critters are thinking about that too. Otherwise, I've said several times recently that events such as the FMA announcement have been amongst the most poorly organized political maneuvers that I've ever seen.
|
LOL!! I've never voted for a Democrat in my life!!! Where in hell do you get the idea I'm a Democrat?
BTW, if you're going to slime me, at least ping me and let me know you're doing it, cowboy.
Right after WWII, the Republicans controlled both houses during the 80th Congress (1947-1948), with a 245-188-1 margin in the House and a 51-45 margin in the Senate.
Maybe I should have put that differently:
Sinkspur is NO Democrat now or EVER!
Exactly. These damned professional politicians always have an excuse why we can't have our liberty and earnings back. The excuses usually come down to buying their next reelection.
Screw them. I'm waiting for the big crunch and hopefully a rebuilding if Americans aren't too stupid by now to rebuild.
You're young, aren't you?
You just offended over half the people on this forum.
That's not exactly correct. Every one of the below polls - and none of them are Rasmussen - shows a statistical tie. And Brit Hume last night mentioned a new FNC/Opinion Dynamics poll showing a 45-45 tie. Kerry's not ahead.
White House 2004: General Election
All data are from nationwide surveys of Americans 18 & older.
-----------------------------------------------------
Polls listed chronologically.
Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates. Feb. 24-29, 2004. N=749 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 4.
"Suppose the 2004 presidential election were being held TODAY, and the candidates were George W. Bush, the Republican, or John Kerry, the Democrat. Who would you vote for?" If "Other" or "Unsure": "As of TODAY, do you LEAN more to [see below]?" Names rotated.
George W. Bush John Kerry Other/Unsure % % %
2/24-29/04 44 48 8
2/11-16/04 47 47 6
CBS News Poll. Feb. 24-27, 2004. N=1,294 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all registered voters).
"If the 2004 presidential election were being held today, do you think you would probably vote for George W. Bush or probably vote for the Democratic candidate?"
George W. Bush Democrat Can't Say Until Chosen None/Won't Vote (vol.) Don't Know % % % % %
2/24-27/04 43 48 5 2 2
2/12-15/04 42 47 6 0 5
"If the 2004 presidential election were being held today and the candidates were [see below], the Democrat, and George W. Bush, the Republican, would you vote for [see below] or George W. Bush?"
George W. Bush John Kerry Won't Vote (vol.) Depends (vol.) Don't Know % % % % %
2/24-27/04 46 47 2 1 4
2/12-15/04 43 48 1 3 5
Please excuse the lazy formatting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.