Conservatives on why the GOP should lose in 2006

[Ivan Seeking]

Time For Us To Go

Conservatives on why the GOP should lose in 2006

With Republicans controlling Congress and the White House, conservatives these days ought to be happy, but most aren’t. They see expanding government, runaway spending, Middle East entanglements, and government corruption, and they wonder why, exactly, the country should be grateful for Republican dominance. Some accuse Bush and the Republicans today of not being true conservatives. Others see a grab bag of stated policies and wonder how they cohere. Everyone thinks something’s got to change. [continued with links to essays]

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0610.forum.html

On CNN's series, "Broken Government", the godfather of conservatism, William F. Buckley, describes Bush's escapade in Iraq as "looney".

The party needs to be reclaimed by moderates. As far as I'm concerned, presently they are the party of right-wing extremists; and in some cases, IMO, enemies of the Constitution. Speaking here most generally as a conservative, Bush - the actions and opinions of he and his adminstration - would top that list for me.

 

[Astronuc]

The GOP is certainly polarized.

The erudite William F. Buckley and GWBush are at opposite ends of the intellectual spectrum.

 

[matthew baird]

The erudite William F. Buckley and GWBush are at opposite ends of the intellectual spectrum.

That's for sure

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Neo Culpa
As Iraq slips further into chaos, the war's neoconservative boosters have turned sharply on the Bush administration, charging that their grand designs have been undermined by White House incompetence. In a series of exclusive interviews, Richard Perle, Kenneth Adelman, David Frum, and others play the blame game with shocking frankness. Target No. 1: the president himself.[continued]

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/12/neocons200612

 

[Astronuc]

Interesting article, Ivan.

"The levels of brutality that we've seen are truly horrifying, and I have to say, I underestimated the depravity," Perle says now, adding that total defeat—an American withdrawal that leaves Iraq as an anarchic "failed state"—is not yet inevitable but is becoming more likely. "And then," says Perle, "you'll get all the mayhem that the world is capable of creating."

Perle says, "The decisions did not get made that should have been. They didn't get made in a timely fashion, and the differences were argued out endlessly.… At the end of the day, you have to hold the president responsible.… I don't think he realized the extent of the opposition within his own administration, and the disloyalty."

"I think if I had been delphic, and had seen where we are today, and people had said, 'Should we go into Iraq?,' I think now I probably would have said, 'No, let's consider other strategies for dealing with the thing that concerns us most, which is Saddam supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. . . . . Could we have managed that threat by means other than a direct military intervention? Well, maybe we could have."

. . .

To David Frum, . . . "the insurgency has proven it can kill anyone who cooperates, and the United States and its friends have failed to prove that it can protect them." This situation, he says, must ultimately be blamed on "failure at the center"—starting with President Bush.

So it would appear that Woorward's book "State of Denial" is on the mark.

The current situation in Iraq was predicatable - but Bush et al wouldn't listen.

The Bush presidency is a "failed presidency."

Bush wanted to be like Reagan, and he is. Empty rhetoric and dishonesty.

Richard Perle: "Huge mistakes were made, and I want to be very clear on this: They were not made by neoconservatives, who had almost no voice in what happened, and certainly almost no voice in what happened after the downfall of the regime in Baghdad. I'm getting damn tired of being described as an architect of the war. I was in favor of bringing down Saddam. Nobody said, 'Go design the campaign to do that.' I had no responsibility for that."

That's like an arsonist saying I didn't make that huge fire, I just made a little one and the wind did the rest.

Or David Frum (one of Bush's speechwriters) -

if you could persuade the president to commit himself to certain words, he would feel himself committed to the ideas that underlay those words. And the big shock to me has been that although the president said the words, he just did not absorb the ideas.

i.e. empty rhetoric

At least Bill Clinton wrote some/much of his speeches.

Kenneth Adelman: "The problem here is not a selling job. The problem is a performance job.… Rumsfeld has said that the war could never be lost in Iraq, it could only be lost in Washington. I don't think that's true at all. We're losing in Iraq.… I've worked with [Rumsfeld] three times in my life. I've been to each of his houses, in Chicago, Taos, Santa Fe, Santo Domingo, and Las Vegas (5 houses). I'm very, very fond of him, but I'm crushed by his performance. Did he change, or were we wrong in the past? Or is it that he was never really challenged before?"

I am left wondering about Rumsfeld. I agree with him on the transformation of the military, but not on how he implemented it. I don't understand why he has done what he did with regard to Iraq (Woodward - "State of Denial"). Rumsfeld has been hugely successful, but how come he screwed up as Sec. of Defense? Five houses and lots of money. Why didn't he just stay home and enjoy his wealth, and leave the rest of us alone. Is it about power and ego? He very much wanted to be president of US - and maybe he is just taking advantage of his position as SecDef, the closest he will get?

 

[BobG]

Interesting article, Ivan.



So it would appear that Woorward's book "State of Denial" is on the mark.

The current situation in Iraq was predicatable - but Bush et al wouldn't listen.

The Bush presidency is a "failed presidency."

Bush wanted to be like Reagan, and he is. Empty rhetoric and dishonesty.

That's like an arsonist saying I didn't make that huge fire, I just made a little one and the wind did the rest.

Or David Frum (one of Bush's speechwriters) - i.e. empty rhetoric

At least Bill Clinton wrote some/much of his speeches.

I am left wondering about Rumsfeld. I agree with him on the transformation of the military, but not on how he implemented it. I don't understand why he has done what he did with regard to Iraq (Woodward - "State of Denial"). Rumsfeld has been hugely successful, but how come he screwed up as Sec. of Defense? Five houses and lots of money. Why didn't he just stay home and enjoy his wealth, and leave the rest of us alone. Is it about power and ego? He very much wanted to be president of US - and maybe he is just taking advantage of his position as SecDef, the closest he will get?

(emphasis added)
Perhaps the Bush administration has never been as united as it seemed? Rumsfeld would have made a great peace time Secretary of Defense. A lot of his failure as a war time SecDef is because hard decisions never have to be made.

You want military transformation? You got it.
How will this war impact military transformation? Um, you want military transformation, you got it. We'll do both.

You want tax cuts? You got it.
How will this war impact our tax cuts? Um, you want tax cuts, you got it. We'll do both.

These guys have never made a hard decision. Whatever they wish would happen, they assume will happen. The reason for that is because there isn't someone at the top of the chain demanding a little team discipline; no requirement that the members of 'the team' adhere to at least some semblance of reality.

And as far as Perle's comment about not blaming him: it's more like saying, "I think we need some light in here if we're going to find that gas leak" - that's not the same as saying, "Here, I'll light this match so we can see what we're doing." There is a difference. He saying he asked for more light; not asked someone to light a match.

 

[Astronuc]

And as far as Perle's comment about not blaming him:

Not sure I understand the statement. Does one mean Perle's not accepting some responsibility? Perle was "chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee," and he could have asked/insisted, "What the heck is going on?", "Why is Bremer or so-and-so doing . . . . ?". Perle had access to Rice, Wolfowitz, Powell, . . . . Nobody, including Perle, questioned thoroughly enough and got it to the president? If they did, then they were ignored. Then they should have gone to congress, which is supposed to provide oversight - not that this congress has been doing so.

Bush et al have mucked things up in Iraq and they have killed a lot of innocent people in the process. And that's what much of the world sees.

What good reputation the US enjoyed in the world has been trashed by the current administration.

 

[edward]

Not sure I understand the statement. Does one mean Perle's not accepting some responsibility? Perle was "chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee," and he could have asked/insisted, "What the heck is going on?", "Why is Bremer or so-and-so doing . . . . ?". Perle had access to Rice, Wolfowitz, Powell, . . . . Nobody, including Perle, questioned thoroughly enough and got it to the president?

The thing that this brings to mind is that those who questioned anything were not invited back to the next meeting. Most who were in a position to have done something seemed to be inthralled with gaining points from Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld.

Now Perle is trying to back pedal.

 

[Astronuc]

The thing that this brings to mind is that those who questioned anything were not invited back to the next meeting. Most who were in a position to have done something seemed to be inthralled with gaining points from Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld.

That's the impression I got.

I imagine that if the democrats regain the House, and certainly Senate and House, there will probably be a surge of backpedalling - and finger pointing.

And more denial at the White House.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

MARK SHIELDS: ... And I'll be honest with you. It wasn't just Republicans, although, I mean, George Bush, I think, was the leading instigator, and his language is just out of bounds at this point. I mean, he's gone kind of around the bend.

...George Bush's language, I mean, a vote for the Democrats is a win for the terrorists? I mean, this is going to be awfully tough when he has to deal with a Democratic majority in the Congress.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec06/sb_11-03.html

 

[Astronuc]

That's an interesting piece from the News Hour.

Tom Friedman's column was an apparent endorsement of the Democrats. Friedman apparently exploited a loophole in a policy that prohibits/discourages political endorsements. I think the editor can make endorsements however.

MARK SHIELDS: I think Tom Friedman was eloquent in what he wrote today. I do think -- I would differ and take it in a little different direction.

The apology that is owed is owed to American troops. It's owed to the American troops, not only for the incompetence of the leadership and the post planning, it's owed to them for the kind of arrogance that said you go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you wish you had.

I mean, we sent American troops into battle -- and pray God that the next Congress would look at this -- without adequate body armor, without armored vehicles. And we sent them into situations where they were at death's door because of the inadequacy and the incompetence of the leadership. And that's the apology that's really owed to American troops and American families everywhere.

DAVID BROOKS: I will say when, as I have been going around the country, most people at some point supported the war, 29 Democrats, most Republicans did. But when they talk about the war being fought -- and they talk about Iraq as a place in this election. It's not an ideological thing. It's, "We know how to do things in my company. They don't seem to know how to do things."

And so it is very much a competence issue when they talk about it, whether in Ohio or California or other places.

It does seem that the election will be decided on how people feel about the stewardship or lack thereof of Bush, particularly with respect to the war in Iraq.

 

[Skyhunter]

a vote for the Democrats is a win for the terrorists

And just when you thought he could go no lower...

Here is Tom Toles take.

 

[edward]

Will Karl Rove's promised October surprize come just two days before the elections?

The U.S.-backed special tribunal in Baghdad signaled Monday that it will likely delay a verdict in the first trial of Saddam Hussein to November 5. Why hasn't the mainstream media connected the dots between the Saddam's judgment day and the midterm elections?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/18/opinion/main2101605.shtml

When Saddam receives his guilty verdict, a lot of conservatives are going to be jubilant because it gives them a degree of vindication for the war. On the other hand that is when all hell is expected to break loose in Iraq.

 

[Astronuc]

I think it is a foregone conclusion in most of the world, certainly in the US, that Saddam Hussein is guilty of many crimes against the Iraqi, particularly the Shia and Kurds. I don't think that a guilty verdict is so significant with regard to the elections - maybe to some who ignore the reality of the situation in Iraq and the Bush administration's botched program.

At least some of the original supporters/promoters are expressing their anger that Bush put US troops in harm's way unnecessarily and avoidably. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld have put themselves ahead of the country and the US troops, and that shouldn't be.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

... This story is about one congressman’s mission to end earmarks that has pitted him against the House, in particular against members of his own party.

"Everyone bears some blame here but Republicans are going to be blamed disproportionately. And then I have to say we deserve it, because we’ve been in charge," says Rep. Jeff Flake, a conservative Republican from Arizona. [continued]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/02/60minutes/main2145860.shtml

 

[Astronuc]

I hope Jeff Flake ascends in the party. We need more political representatives like him.

As they work their way through Congress, earmarks are so shrouded in secrecy you often can’t tell who benefits from them, who sponsors them, or why.

Hopefully Flake and others will reform the rules that require 'any' appropriation to be defined and who sponsors them, or it does get in. We must have accountability, and this must be codified.

Also from the Constitution (Section. 9):

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another; . . . .

. . . . a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

Some/most earmarks may be unconstitional if they favor one port over others and there is not accounting. Unfortunately, the consitution is worded such as to allow for loopholes.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

From Meet the Press

 

[Astronuc]

Favors for campaign contributors, exemptions for polluters, shifting the costs of private projects on to the public -- these are the specialties of this Congress. They seldom miss an opportunity to impoverish the states we live in and up the bottom line of their campaign contributors. All this time -- while Congress did nothing about Iraq, Katrina, wiretapping, Mark Foley's boy-madness or anything else of import -- it has been all about pork, all about political favors, all about budget "earmarks" set aside for expensive and often useless projects in their own districts. In 2000, Congress passed 6,073 earmarks; by 2005, that number had risen to 15,877. They got better at it every year. It's the one thing they're good at.

Even worse, this may well be the first Congress ever to lose control of the government's finances. For the past six years, it has essentially been writing checks without keeping an eye on its balance. When you do that, unpleasant notices eventually start appearing in the mail. In 2003, the inspector general of the Defense Department reported to Congress that the military's financial-management systems did not comply with "generally accepted accounting principles" and that the department "cannot currently provide adequate evidence supporting various material amounts on the financial statements."

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/worst_congress_ever/page/7

Further down the page and over to the next page

"Each time you print it hurts my family And now I have lost them Along with Everything I have worked for during my 64 years of life," Cunningham wrote. "I am human not an Animal to keep whiping [sic]. I made some decissions [sic] Ill be sorry for the rest of my life."

The amazing thing about Cunningham's letter is not his utter lack of remorse, or his insistence on blaming defense contractor Mitchell Wade for ratting him out ("90% of what has happed [sic] is Wade," he writes), but his frantic, almost epic battle with the English language. It is clear that the same Congress that put a drooling child-chaser like Mark Foley in charge of a House caucus on child exploitation also named Cunningham, a man who can barely write his own name in the ground with a stick, to a similarly appropriate position. Ladies and gentlemen, we give you the former chairman of the House Subcommittee on Human Intelligence Analysis and Counterintelligence:

"As truth will come out and you will find out how liablest [sic] you have & will be. Not once did you list the positives. Education Man of the Year...hospital funding, jobs, Hiway [sic] funding, border security, Megans law my bill, Tuna Dolfin [sic] my bill...and every time you wanted an expert on the wars who did you call. No Marcus you write About how I died."

How liablest you have & will be? What the **** does that even mean? This guy sat on the Appropriations Committee for years -- no wonder Congress couldn't pass any spending bills! [on time and within budget]

This was last week by the way

The greed and laziness of the 109th Congress has reached such epic proportions that it has finally started to piss off the public. In an April poll by CBS News, fully two-thirds of those surveyed said that Congress has achieved "less than it usually does during a typical two-year period." A recent Pew poll found that the chief concerns that occupy Congress -- gay marriage and the inheritance tax -- are near the bottom of the public's list of worries. Those at the top -- education, health care, Iraq and Social Security -- were mostly blown off by Congress. Even a Fox News poll found that fifty-three percent of voters say Congress isn't "working on issues important to most Americans."

Add to this the lack of oversight -

. . . . In the Clinton years, Republicans chucked that long-standing arrangement and issued more than 1,000 subpoenas to investigate alleged administration and Democratic misconduct, reviewing more than 2 million pages of government documents.

Guess how many subpoenas have been issued to the White House since George Bush took office? Zero -- that's right, zero, the same as the number of open rules debated this year; two fewer than the number of appropriations bills passed on time.

And the cost? Republicans in the Clinton years spent more than $35 million investigating the administration. The total amount of taxpayer funds spent, when independent counsels are taken into account, was more than $150 million. Included in that number was $2.2 million to investigate former HUD secretary Henry Cisneros for lying about improper payments he made to a mistress. In contrast, today's Congress spent barely half a million dollars investigating the outright fraud and government bungling that followed Hurricane Katrina, the largest natural disaster in American history.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/worst_congress_ever/page/5

 

[Astronuc]

Conservatives on the Couch
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2638882&page=1
Dazed and Confused, Republicans (and Others) Are Finding Talk Radio a Cathartic Experience; Is Rush the New Dr. Phil?

By ROBERT GARCIA (ABC News)

Nov. 8, 2006 — Anyone who has ever participated or invested emotionally in a partisan political campaign knows the feeling of defeat, especially if it's a convincing one.

It is a shattering, depressing, numbing experience. And so it is today, that the legions of conservative talk-radio listeners around the nation are feeling the sting of Tuesday night's verdict by American voters in red and blue states alike.

In the venues of both local and national talk radio, they're undergoing a cathartic mass therapy session, with the hosts playing the role of psychologists.

Many are throwing their planned topics out the window and are allowing their listeners to simply vent their emotions.

Of course, there's been the occasional interruption of fast-breaking news developments, like the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Rush Limbaugh's response (spoken like a true political strategist): "Why didn't they do this LAST week?"

As for the big-picture new political landscape they awoke to this morning, there is much introspection.

Some conservative listeners are angry at President Bush for not articulating his stand on Iraq more clearly or with more force. Some offer their share of invective at the winning political side. But more often than not, the reactions have been subdued and stunned.

Rush to Judgement

The granddaddy of the nationally syndicated talkers, Limbaugh is leading the way in striking a self-analytical tone. He says that until conservatives start examining what's wrong with themselves they're never going to fix their problems.

"When things go wrong, you must examine why. It would be foolish to assign blame to the voters and the media and the Democrats," he said.

I'll agree with Rush on the last couple of statements.

But then one could ask - "Why didnt' the voters to this 2 years ago?" The politicians just voted out are the same ones in office two years ago.

 

[McGyver]

Things are not as they appear. Ask yourself "why" did Bush/Rove allow his presidency to sink the Republican's in Congress? Why did Rove seem to roll over in the three months leading up to the election?

Also - the White House had to know about Mark Foley. Why didn't the White House tell him to stop. Foley went on for 1-2 years. Unlike Rove not to intervene. Perhaps it was the White House that ratted him out!