Republican "Fortunes" or "Woes" in 2006

Opinion Times ^ | 11/29/05 | Jim Pfaff

[HallowThisGround]

Republican fortunes are down, but Democrat ones are downer. The Republican plan ain't got traction and the Democrats can't even spell the word.
Is this good news for Republicans in 2006? The President is optimistic. Ken Mehlman says he has a yet unrevealed plan to maintain control of Congress in 2006. The fact that Democrats are doing worse in the polls than Republicans is a good sign for the Prez and the Chairman, but the risk of campaign failure is always high when the candidate(s) rely solely on such default realities. By doing so, they misinterpret public sentiment which always has an undertone of "show me the stuff."

All voters are looking for inspiration. Without it, they either stay home or search out smaller amounts of it elsewhere. And this is where the Democrats could find they have an advantage.

Republicans are certain their ideas resonate with the average voter, and as relates to content, they are right to think this. But Americans are still a self-sufficient, onery bunch. They prize action, and they appreciate those who appreciate them--and their varied opinions. This was Reagan's strength. For George Bush it's been a double-edged sword.

When national crisis comes, President Bush rises to the occasion with a dogged determination to succeed in the face of defeat which strikes a chord with the American persona. But that same stubborn, individualistic instinct has a way of drawing him into a quarrel with the American people. Reagan had an intuitive sense that Americans prize in their leaders tenacity and perserverance over stubborn determination. The latter stems from pride and gives the impression of arrogance; the former inspires confidence because it maintains a strong vein of humility. The President utilizes the latter far too often.

Peggy Noonan wrote in October:

George W. Bush has guts. It's the big thing his friends and supporters cherish in him. He will withstand the disapproval of the world to do what he thinks is right. He'll do it when he's wrong, too. He often has too many pots on the stove, but he can stand the heat and he will stay in the kitchen. . . . He's [also] stubborn. The smirk is sometimes real; he can be full of himself. He's impatient and peremptory. He believes his read of a person is the read.

I find this analysis correct, and as throughout history, the temperment of the President is largely the temperment of his party at the time as well.

Pennsylvania Avenue doesn't yet see it. RHC Headquarters on First Street must follow. Will Main Street accept it?

[Soul Seeker]

Noonan is the woman that wrote the vicious condesending (envious) piece after the President's Inaugural speech, that speech will be marked in time as among the best ever given, as containing too much mention of "GOD" (ridiculous coming from her) and disparaged the proven idea of freedom spurring democratic revolutions when given the opportunity. Sharansky would disagree with her.

I've no use for her, and that this author quotes her is telling.

Republicans' futures are in their and our hands. They can guarentee re-election by standing by the WOT. Confirming Alito. Tax cuts permanent. ANWR passed. Patriot Act renewed. Standing up to the Liberals and MSM.

Not doing this means it's on our back to balance whether '06 should be a teaching lesson for GOP elite, or suck it up for the WOT and to teach the Dems' treason doesn't prosper. Put that way it makes it sound like the latter choice is the right choice. But, that has been put in doubt by the Senate's cowardice with the Warner resolution. The House 403-3 vote has spared the House.

We'll see.

Preferably I'd like to see the GOP follow through on WOT, spine, tax cuts, ANWR, Patriot Act, and Alito. Do that and they win certain. Don't so it, and we'll see.