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.

I voted in 2006, and I voted Republican as I always have. I was reflecting my irritation with Republicans that are out there acting like RATs. I wake up every day and hear about one more Republican who has cut and run from the President. I want Republicans to stand by some conservative principles. The only candidates we hear about for 2008 are very center. No matter what, you can accuse me of a lot, but if you read most of my posts around, they are conservative. I believe the homepage for FR says something about FR and people sharing conservative principles. I don't think I have to be pleased with pretend Republicans.

"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."

They are dangerously close to becoming the Bob Michaels type of gee, will they ask me to go golfing with them If I am nice to them Country Club Republicans.

With their support the war waining, lack of leadership in the house, and Martinez as head of the RNC, I see things getting much worse before they get any better. The only leadership that many that post here would agree with would be McConnell in the Senate and the President.

I see the GOP repeating 1964 through 1980 all over again and I hope it doesn't take that long. The next Goldwater, mark my words, Newt. we will wonder in the desert (politically) until another Reagan like figure appears.

Historically, these "purges" take a while. If you go back to the post-Civil War Republicans, they were still putting forth former officers well into the 1890s. The Dems, on the other hand, couldn't seem to shake William Jennings Bryan. It took the assassination of McKinley (for worse, IMHO) to shift control of the GOP to TR; then TR's third party run in 1912 to open the door to the Wilsonians.

Those in the Revolution of 1994 who are still "true believers" are few and far between. Newt personally has way too much baggage, both personal and political, to hope for the presidency. All the other so-called leaders, as you point out, are either leading the wrong thing or aren't leaders at all.

Sadly, there are several media realities as well: a "leader" today must have a certain Hollywood charisma. Lincoln, Grover Cleveland, even Washington would never have stood a chance today.

Disagree. Maybe not next election, but you never know.

The point of my post was that many are followers, and their positions rapidly shift behind a truly great leader. I just haven't seen the right one yet.

As for the Dems, no, they didn't hold a monolithic view over the last 12 years. In fact, quite the contrary, the Clinton/Gore wing were originally the Dem. Leadership Conference's choices, and that whole idea was based on "appearing to be centrist" or "moderate." Clinton often pulled it off.

That wing has been completely buried and, in the case of Gore, has gravitated heavy left. It would be more accurate to say that the Dems that we NOW see have only been monolithic in the last six years, since Bush won. At that point, they decided to rally around stopping him at every turn. They failed with the WoT and Iraq initially, and it cost them about four years, but their party line---as you correctly point out---did do its damage, repeated as a mantra over that time.

That said, I think they have a massive fundamental weakness which is that deep down they HATE AMERICA and that hate slips out quite easily. It won't take much for the right Republicans to shatter their image, but it will take the right Republicans and I don't see that person or those persons on the horizon right now.

"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."

Hmmm. I find that a little bit of a negative assessment, especially considering the caliber of presidential candidates running for 2008.

"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."

Not necessarily. There's still a good chance that President Bush will get to replace a liberal's seat on SCOTUS before his term expires in 2009. And - don't forget - the conservative wing of SCOTUS is now much younger than the liberal wing. In fact, 3 justices (Alito, Roberts and Thomas) are well under the age of 60, meaning it's very conceivable - and indeed likely - that they'll still be in power in 10 years. Even Scalia would be only about 80 at that time (young when you consider where Stevens stands).

Sometimes conservatives extremely negative assessment of the future of our country is not such a special read.

Lincoln, Grover Cleveland, even Washington would never have stood a chance today.

A very perceptive -- and meaningful -- observation.

As was your comment about "purges" -- these things take time. This was clearly a case of the 1994 "Republican Revolution" running out of steam -- spent because, given a lack of leadership, the Republicans forgot what it was that brung them.

It will (and should) take time for the party to examine itself and regain conviction as to its principles and direction. And, once it has rediscovered its core principles, a leader like Newt needs to emerge.

I don't believe this can be done in two years. I just hope it doesn't take forty-two...

And I hope that, in the interim, the GOP is strong enough on defense that the Democrats don't get to play out their nihilist fantasy.

I am most irritated with all of them. Our system anymore is about getting elected only. One campaign is over and immediately these crocks of crap are watching polls and trying to figure out what side to take to get reelected. As far as listening to their constituents, forget it. They show up at this SOTU address in their peacock clothes in order to be noticed. They are sickening, fawning over the Prez and then stabbing him in the back.

I am not too happy with GWB, I voted for him both times and I DO support him on the war and other issues. His illegal amnesty and phony border stance is disgusting. But, I guess what US citizens want, like no amnesty, enforcing laws etc. is not going to happen. I am tired of the price for illegals getting thrown in the laps of Americans who are forced to pay for what illegals get for free.

Gee, thanks for letting me rant.

What happened to Rumsfeld really pisses me off.

Before the election there was a WA state freeper who was very upset with Mike McGavick. McGavick, who was running against Maria Cantwell for Senate, had called for firing Rumsfeld and that was the final straw and that freeper wasn't going to vote for him.

I bet that freeper (can't remember who, too bad cause I'd love to ping him) is even more upset than you.

"Sometimes conservatives extremely negative assessment of the future of our country is not such a special read."

Our country is resilient so I do not have a negative assessment of it. What I do believe is that the Republicans will not hold the house, senate, and presidency earlier than (at minimum 12 years from now.

What amazes me is that all of the leaders in power, all of them both democrat and republican, from the president to the house to the senate, can't figure out, with a staff of probably 500,000+, how to win a war with barbarians! Further, what amazes me is that the rest of the world, many nations with which we do business, watch and condemn each false step that the US makes to defeat the barbarians that affect not only us but also them too. And then, there is that loveable, and very functional, body known as the United Nations that has a handle on everything (that is of value)...........

Actually, I believe we have won the Iraq war. When Sadamn was chased into hiding and his regime fell, the Iraq war was over. GW announced that moment with 'mission accomplished' aboard a boat.

Then came the 'keeping the peace' phase of the reconstruction of Iraq. Here we are not doing too well.....

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.