The Collapse of the Congressional GOP?

From the Washington Post's coverage of the House and Senate maneuvers to undercut the president and the troops:

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) took to the Senate floor yesterday to implore his colleagues not to go through with a vote on any resolution of opposition, calling the effort "pernicious" and "very, very dangerous."

House Minority Leader Boehner's decision to break with the president yesterday, and the desperate attempt of John Warner and some of his Senate colleagues to split the difference between defeatist Democrats and round-heeled Republicans underscores that the GOP is now close to splitting on the war.

Parties do split, and the Congressional Republicans seem headed toward such a breakdown. The Congressional Republicans are putting forward positions that were not part of the party's agenda in the fall, and not part of the leadership elections that followed either. They are positions far removed from the party's core commitment to national security and an aggressive war against terror in Iraq and elsewhere.

These resolutions have nothing to do with the party of Reagan, and everything to do with political opportunism that will long be remembered as a low point in the party's fortunes.

At a minimum the RNC, the NRSC and the NRCC will be stunned to watch the money dry up, and the contempt that will be heaped on the defecting Republicans will be far greater than they imagine.
You can contact House Minority Leader Boehner's and Senate Minority Leader McConnell's offices via the switchboard at 202-225-3121. If the Republicans on the Hill cease to support the war, the troops, and the president, I will cease to support them, and I hope you do as well.

Victor Davis Hanson, on yesterday's program, voiced the concern that many Americans, including the defecting Congressional Republicans, seem to have lost the will to persevere in the war:

I’m very worried, because in some sense, the jihadists are just a rag tag bunch of failed extremists. They don’t compare with the Wehrmacht, or they don’t compare with 7,000 nuclear weapons, but then you stop and say well, wait a minute. They did what none of those people did. They took out 3,000 Americans at the heart of American military and economic power in Washington and New York, and then you realize as you start thinking about it, this is a worldwide ideology that transcends countries, Indonesia, Philippines, Iran, all these places. And then more importantly, in the age of globalization, miniaturization, and nuclear proliferation, you really don’t need those assets that threatened the United States before. And then you add one other wrinkle to it. Never in the history of the United States, as I see it, have we had an elite who are more diffident and conflicted about "Is the United States different?" Is it exceptional? Is it better than the alternative? Is it worth defending? And at this sort of perfect storm, bin Laden and these people have come along and said "You know what? We can wage a psychological terrorist war against the people who don’t think that they really deserve to continue as a people in the way they had before."

See also Jules Crittendon's State of the Union speech that the president should deliver (HT: Instapundit.) Key excerpts:

Didn’t you learn anything from Vietnam? Didn’t you see what happened when your predecessors in Congress, disgruntled and responding to public opinion polls just like you are, voted repeatedly to undermine an ally that was fighting for its survival and making headway against evil? There, I’ve said it again. Millions of people were murdered or imprisoned...

Now, you want to negotiate with two of the world’s primary sponsors of terrorism, who are directly involved in support of the terrorists who murder our soldiers. You want to make an arrangement by which we will exit Iraq, and leave it to them. To loot, to murder, to fight over, while the rest of the world’s evil regimes look on, see our weakness, and plot their own moves.

You can try that, with resolutions, by cutting spending for troops in the field, as you seek the short-term satisfaction of withdrawal. But I remain President of the United States, and as long as I am, I will be no lame duck in this fight.

I will engage evil directly where I find it, in Iraq and in Iran. With an aggressive and ruthless new strategy and a plan to build our army as we should have a long time ago, I will show the American people that we can fight and we can win. I expect that the American people, though misled by their press and many of their elected representatives, will see results and will get it. Because the American people are a people who in the end don’t give up, don’t stop fighting, refuse to lose, and will choose to win. I have faith in them.

The president, the polls say, is supported by less than 40% of the people. That's probably 85% of the GOP, however, and both numbers will grow as the focus on the Democrats' fecklessness increases, and all the more rapidly if serious people join the president in discussing again the perils we face as a nation.

The Republicans who cut and run on the war now --and make no mistake, a yes vote for the Warner resolution, just like support for Boehner's "benchmarks" is a vote to cut and run-- will not live down the vote in the eyes of the serious people. It will not be forgotten that when the political going was toughest (and still far, far easier than the easiest day the troops ever have) some Republicans folded. Tax cuts, market solutions to health care, spending discipline etc. etc. --all are important.

But victory against the enemy is the overriding issue of our time. House and Senate members can be right on every other issue, but if get the war wrong, their "record" will be as disatrous as Baldwin's and Chamberlain's.

And, as with anything, what happens is that there is a core (maybe 20% of the people in any organization---in Congress, for ex.) who are committed. Then there are all the flipfloppers who, when the numbers change, go wobbly. This is why Sam Houston destroyed the bridges behind him when he attacked Santa Anna, or why George Washington stationed some of his best shots BEHIND the army, to "encourage" the men to stay with it.

So this is why elections are so important: no, Chafee wasn't a conservative. But when you get a majority, the "wobblers" have more incentive to stand their ground. The closer you get to a 50/50 vote, the more clout the wobblers on each side of the aisle have.

Rather than showing their "true colors," some of the Republicans are simply blowing in the wind so as to always feel like they are on the "right" side of an issue---because they HAVE no "true colors."

I love the Pres., but he has absolutely brought ALL of this on himself with that idiotic "new tone." It had it's time---perhaps the first two years---but after that, you must enforce party discipline or you have none.

It was Ronald Reagan that attracted Democrats like my family to vote for him. Even though I remember my folks bitching about, "tax cuts for the rich," they still voted for him. Why, because "he had balls." I am worried that GWB is the strongest we will ever get on the War on Jihadists

Yep. That's why, at this point, the ONLY guy I see anywhere on the horizon at all is Rudy. Don't get me wrong, I HATE his social positions, but he's the only one out there I think would have the cajones to be serious about the Islamists.

I'll agree with an upper limit of two years for the "new tone," after all the bile it bought GWB, but when we had the "hammer" in the House, we got Medicare Part D and budgets with almost no fat to cut or veto, save one stem cell bill. As far as the Senate, I don't know what I like least, its rules or the 17th Amendment.

A typical partisan screed trying to rally the troops to save a lame-duck presidency. I don't think accusations of regicide are especially helpful to either Bush or the party.

Sometimes in politics, lame ducks really are lame ducks.

Circle the wagons! The Redcoats are coming! etc...

If the Republicans on the Hill cease to support the war, the troops, and the president, I will cease to support them, and I hope you do as well.

When you consider that the source is Hugh Hewitt, this is quite a statement.

Please be aware that this is from a blog and you can therefore go to it and post your comments directly to Hugh.

These resolutions have nothing to do with the party of Reagan, and everything to do with political opportunism that will long be remembered as a low point in the party's fortunes.

Unfortunately, most of the politicians in the Gutless Old Party are no different than most of the politicians in any other party: once they get elected, their number one priority is to get re-elected. If this means abandoning their principles, then so be it.

This is townhall.com. I don't think the writer wants the GOP to go down in flames. But in order to fix any structural problems that existed in the party, mixing it up is probably not only a good thing or a necessary thing, but inevitable. Unhappy voters and politicians bring about change and happy-go-lucky ones don't. Even with the state the Bush administration and the Republican minority is in, I think the Democrats could blissfully walk into some deep pits as well, particularly if events overtake what's happening within the beltway. If Bush and the GOP were right to obsess over the war on terror up to Nov 2006, that's another reason to expect the winds to change very quickly.

The Republicans have the potential to once again wander in the desert for 40 or so years while the loons run the asylum. Sad but true.

The American people have the attention span and stamina of a 1 year old suffering from advanced bronchitis. Again sad but true.

And I've, at least, concluded that another major attack here in the US is now all but inevitable. Sad though I hope not true.

Again, clever, but that's exactly what the Dems were saying 8 years ago. Reversals happen quite quickly. No one really knew who Newt was yet within five years he had achieved something of a revolution.

Wasn't trying to be "clever".

Merely pointing out what appears to be a fact of life, at present. The party's lack of spine and the absence of leadership is regrettable...but true.

Like you, I'm hopeful somebody (like Newt) will emerge and lead the party out of this feckless morass it has made for itself.

Certainly, there is an ample number of followers within the GOP Congressional minority.

Rebuilding is what the headline should be about. Not the collapse there of, the GOP. I for one am tired of the sensational play on words our so called brothers in the media use, the habit of the left wing MSM.

Headlines can damage moral, rebuilding gives incentive.

I stand by my post.

"Anybody remember the "death of the democratic party" stuff a few years ago?"

The notable difference has been that since Newts revolution the Dem's hung together and NEVER lost site of who they are. No matter how we disagree with their core beliefs their base stayed with them and energized their efforts these last 13 years.

The Republicans took a big hit and half of the elected officials are ready to throw in the towel. Their voters see this and so they lose some of their energy. Maybe this will be the best thing for now.

Some of the weak kneed will fall out. Way to many RINO's in there now. It does not help that much of what the President says seems to be bending with the wind also.

"things can turn on a dime, and on a single election"

Yes but that single election victory did not happen over night.. or in a week.. or even a year. Since their big loses in the early 90's they stuck to their party line. Even to the point of forcing out or muzzling those who took even a slight right turn.

By maintaining their core beliefs, and their voting base they only needed to find the right lines/lies to sway the spineless among the undecided and the weaker in the Republican base.

So it was not a turn in 1 election, it was a concerted effort and unified front over 12 years. They had the will and stuck to the same positions over those 12 years and by their consistency they won.

Republicans will not come back strong in the next election. Excluding a major screw up by the Dem's or a victory in Iraq, we are 10 to 14 years out from where we were 2 years ago.

"The Republicans have the potential to once again wander in the desert for 40 or so years while the loons run the asylum. Sad but true."

I agree. My thought has been that at best we are 10-14 years away from having power again. What scares me is if the country and it's foundations stand even that length of time.

Even 10 years means a totally new Supreme Court that slants way left. This election cycle destroyed our party more than what happened to the Dem's under the win because of Newt's Contract with America.

That gave the county nearly 12 years of protection from the schemes of the left. We NEED a Newt type figure or we may be headed to the 40 years you speak of.

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.