The Republicans Really Won (CBS News: Dem victory all part of Rove's greater accountability scheme)

CBS News ^ | Nov. 15, 2006 | Lloyd Garver

[presidio9]

Democrats stop celebrating, and Republicans, don't despair. I know the Democrats won the recent election on paper, but in the long run the Republicans just might be the big winners of Election 2006.

In fact, I think the Republicans set the whole thing up so the Democrats could fail over the next two years, which will bring about a big Republican presidential win in 2008.

What other explanation is there? I mean, do you think that Karl Rove and the rest of the Republican brain trust suddenly got stupid? I don't think so.

Iraq

Iraq looks like a no-win situation. And who knows this better than the current Administration? So, they're turning over the mess to the Democrats saying, "Here. If you think you're so smart, you fix it." And when the 2008 election comes around and we haven't gotten out of Iraq as easily as everyone hoped, who's going to be blamed: The Democratic majority.

Accountability And Revenge

Everyone is waiting to see how vigorously the Democrats will try to make the Republicans accountable for the mistakes that were made in dealing with Katrina and Iraq.

I guess the thinking goes like this: "If they could impeach President Clinton because he lied about his sexual exploits, shouldn't the Republicans be held accountable for lying (or at best, being mistaken or incompetent) about things that led to Americans losing their homes or their lives?"

I follow the logic, but this could be a trap set by the Republicans. If there are too many committees, too many accusations, and too many subpoenas, there is bound to be a public backlash. If Republicans are blamed for everything from the war in Iraq, to global warming, to the popularity of "Dancing With The Stars," Democrats will look like sore winners.

If the Democrats investigate other things — corruption and general sleaziness — they risk turning up evidence against themselves as well. On the other hand, if they don't try to put a stop to all the greed and sleaze in Congress, those who voted for them will feel betrayed. Is this another no-win situation engineered by the Republicans?

The Rumsfeld Factor

When I first heard that President Bush was firing — I mean, "accepting the resignation of" — Secretary Rumsfeld, I thought this meant the President was resigning, too. After all, a week before the election, President Bush assured us that Secretary Rumsfeld would continue in his position for as long as Bush was President. But people were so happy to see Rumsfeld go, that nobody made that big of a deal about the President's little fib.

Bush wanted to get rid of Rumsfeld for quite a while, but he couldn't just fire him after making so many statements supporting him. But after the election, the president could say that he was responding to the electorate since "the people have spoken." Score a big one for the Republicans.

Bringing In Daddy's Guys

And who did the president name as Rumsfeld's replacement? Robert Gates, the guy who was the head of the CIA during the first President Bush's administration. And who was brought in to help with Iraq policy? James A. Baker III, a good friend of President Bush I and his Secretary of State.

Baker last surfaced during the Florida recount in 2000, representing the Republican interests. If he could help pull off that victory, maybe some of his mojo can help end the war in Iraq. This might even be easier than 2000 — he won't have to worry about annoying things like election laws and "obstructionist" Supreme Court justices.

Other friends and associates of the elder Bush will be helping out, too. But I don't think this is just a case of a father bailing out a son. I think this is all part of a calculated grand scheme by the Grand Old Party to do whatever's necessary to keep the White House in 2008.

So, who do they plan on running for President in 2008? Let's see. Who's comfortable with all these friends and advisors of the first George Bush? Who has experience in waging war against Iraq? And who could become president without saying one negative word about the current president? There's only one man who fits this bill. That's right — George Herbert Walker Bush.

Why not? The President's dad served only one term, so constitutionally he's still eligible. And do you honestly think this scenario is any more far-fetched than some of the things we're going to see in politics over the next two years?

[DJ Taylor]

Of course the GOP didn't plan to lose, but now that the inmates have taken over the asylum, they can be blamed, but not by the MSM, for anything that goes wrong.No matter whose plan is being followed in Iraq during the next two years, there's a chance the country will still go to hell in a hand basket.

I'm watching this one very closely. The Democrats campaigned on the premise that they could "fix" Iraq, so they're obliged to at least try. I'm sure they would just as soon leave Iraq alone so they could continue to blame the situation there on President Bush clear on through 2008, and they know that if they put their hands on the handling of Iraq, they can be blamed if and when things continue to go badly.

So here's what I expect the Democrats to do. I think they will propose a solution to the war that is so bizarre that the President will refuse to go along with it. When the President does that, the Democrats can still blame the President for things in Iraq when they continue to go badly. They'll simply say, "If you'd done what we said, things would be going much better and we'd be out of there by now."

These Democrats better be careful. Because, if they try this ploy, the President just might say, OK, you got it. We'll pursue the plan you have recommended." When things go badly, and they will, no one can blame anyone but the Democrats.

The downside of that is obvious. If things go badly in Iraq, things go badly for our National Security, and I don't think the President would allow that to happen.

[jonascord]

Let's suppose, just for the sake of argument, that the Palestinians buy a nuke from the DPRK and detonate it at 31st and Broadway in Manhattan. What will happen to the Dem's chances of being reelected to ANYTHING? Over and above the fact that the military will finally be allowed to switch from a law enforcement styled response to Irag and Afghanistani resistance to a military response. A military response would entail simply pouring rifle fire at all available openings of a suspected leader's building until you can get close enough to use a flame thrower, torch the place and shoot anything that comes out, and when the flames die down, bulldoze the shell. Then, move on to the next building.... When the leadership, both secular AND religious, all sects, realize that THEY are number one on the list, I wonder how fast they will be willing to negotiate?

[samtheman]

It could be that way (a planned Republican tactical defeat). On the other hand, it could also be that W, like his father before him, just got tired of fighting and didn't really try that hard. In '92, HW clearly lost interest and let the Klintoon win by default.

[samtheman]

I think your scenario nails it. The problem is, that intial detonation at 31st and Broadway (or wherever). It's going to be unpleasant in these United States for many years after that... not to mention in the greater tri-state area.

[SuziQ]

In fact, I think the Republicans set the whole thing up so the Democrats could fail over the next two years, which will bring about a big Republican presidential win in 2008.

Brilliant!!

[listenhillary]

Lynne Cheney!

[bondjamesbond]

...I understand (Huckabee) has a one man crusade going against smoking in Arkansas so hes looking like a nanny stater.

Huckabee really has the zealousness of the converted when it comes to health issues. Apparently he dropped something like 130 pounds over the past few years, so he is really keen on health issues.

Hopefully he can be convinced to lead by example, rather than through compulsion.

[Nascar Dad]

bttt

[FastCoyote]

"Iraq looks like a no-win situation. And who knows this better than the current Administration? So, they're turning over the mess to the Democrats saying, "Here. If you think you're so smart, you fix it." And when the 2008 election comes around and we haven't gotten out of Iraq as easily as everyone hoped, who's going to be blamed: The Democratic majority."

That actually makes a lot of sense to me and mirrors my thoughts. If we pull out and a million die in civil war, it is now the Dems fault.

[perez24]

I've revealed too much already.

[jonascord]

Sometimes you have to whack the mule between the eye bones with a 2x4 to get it's attention. The results of the last election sharply indicate that a great many people, apparently, a majority, don't take this war, and it's possible hazards, seriously.

Personally, I'm rather relieved that I live a looong way from any likely urban target... Dumpwater, Olkahoma is not high on Allah's hit list.

[WashingtonSource]

Someone forgot to take their meds.

[samtheman]

Anywhere in Oklahoma is looking real good to me right now. What's the job situation there?

[William Tell]

bondjamesbond said: "What do you know about Huckabee? "

I believe that I have read that Huckabee is very pro-gun. That's a good thing.

[bondjamesbond]

That's a good thing, indeed. And increasingly rare in certain circles.

[graf008]

Sadly, this sounds like a lot of the commentary put forth by the Dems back in 1994.

[pawdoggie]

I'm watching this one very closely. The Democrats campaigned on the premise that they could "fix" Iraq, so they're obliged to at least try. I'm sure they would just as soon leave Iraq alone so they could continue to blame the situation there on President Bush clear on through 2008, and they know that if they put their hands on the handling of Iraq, they can be blamed if and when things continue to go badly.

I like your "conspiracy theory" better than the CBS variant, but the Democrats said they could "fix" more than just Iraq. If the President and the GOP hold their feet to the fire (which is always a big "if") the Demos are now the "blame line" for energy (i.e. gas prices), for health care, for political corruption and for education (e.g. test scores). If there is no measurable improvement in any or all of those areas (to include Iraq and the WOT), then even Rove's younger, stupider brother could beat the Democrats in '08.

[DejaJude]

Personally, I'm rather relieved that I live a looong way from any likely urban target... Dumpwater, Olkahoma is not high on Allah's hit list.

I'm close to a major metro area, an Air Force Base and a nuclear power plant. I don't take that lightly.

[jonascord]

Dell opened a service center in OKC not too long ago. A Chinese company bought MG Motors and is opening an assembly plant in Ardmore, next year. I keep getting calls for contract jobs, locally, (OKC). It's a CCW state, and votes consistently Republican, nationally, while there are a lot of Yellow Dog dims who vote Democrat, locally, because that's what Grand Dad did.

[GOPJ]

Holy crap, this will send the moonbats into orbit!

On that note, I'm a believer. It's was a Rove plan all along...