When Ducks Can't Fly
Via Kevin Drum, John Podhoretz makes an interesting observation:
What's interesting about the stories [in Time and Newsweek] is that they suggest there's been a change at the Bush White House because they feature unnamed sources saying nasty things about the president. One of the remarkable aspects of this White House has been the fanatical loyalty its people have displayed toward Bush
Advertisement
As I recall from campaign 2000, there were a LOT of divided loyalties between Clinton people and Gore people, even though Gore was as much of a "standard-bearer" as you can pretty much get these days. I don't expect there to be much difference this time around, even if there isn't a standard-bearer.
Heck, I'll throw out there that it might even be BETTER without a standard-bearer, because the White House will officially have to remain neutral in the primary (absent a Rice or Jeb candidacy, which I don't see). And that excuse may allow at least some in the Administration to stay out of the primary.
September 12, 2005 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am reliably informed that McCain is attracting the support of numerous senior Republican political types. Not so Hagel.
September 12, 2005 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
For 2008, the real question is, "who will the moneymen anoint?" After the dust from the impeachment business had died down, suddenly everyone noticed that Bush had raised an incredible pile of money.
Those Rangers and Pioneers are going to be the ones who will choose the next GOP nominee. This is a party that anoints its presidential candidates; it doesn't like a real nomination fight.
My money is that their money will be on George Allen. Same mindless support of both the corporate world and the religious right; same mindless opposition to taxes and regulation. Same mindlessly upbeat personality. He's their perfect sock puppet.
It won't be McCain. Up until about 15 months ago, when he decided to drink the Kool-Aid, he used to routinely have independent thoughts, some of which would have imposed costs on business.
The Pioneers and Rangers haven't forgotten that, and my bet is they aren't willing to take the chance that it might happen again.
By early 2007, they will probably openly declare their allegiance through their contributions. Any 'competition' after that will essentially be kabuki: the competitors themselves might be sincere, but the fix will be in.
September 12, 2005 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think much hinges on 2006. If the GOP takes a beating in the midterms there will be somebody stepping up.
Bush showed absolutely no leadership in the Katrina disaster. And it is clear to most everyone not living denial from the left and the right. Senators Collins and Vitter, David Brooks, Joe Scarborough and others have asked some very substantive questions about the federal government's response...so the criticism is far from partisan.
Between the botched Iraqi invasion where for the most part there was no plans, and where there was the plans were so flawed it worsened the situation, plus now add Katrina to the mix, the waters have been poisened for future neocons. I see a true "small government" conservative or a moderate republican to step up after the midterms and assert him/herself. The people who have caught my eye have been Senators McCain, Lindsey Graham and Hagel. Bush has damaged the GOP's standing among the electorate. How much so, is up for debate. But I see the GOP looking to limit the damage and when (not if) Bush screws up again I foresee his own side taking him to task as much as I think the left will...
September 12, 2005 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would not have believed possible what I've been seeing lately. The masters of spin with the right wing's organizing abilities made me feel that what I am seeing would never come to pass. Is Bush going to be blamed for the fiasco of Katrina's aftermath?
It would fit right in with our current bizzaro world of the real world on TV and fantasy world in foreign policy. Bush deserves some sort of Fickle Finger of Fate award. No amount of truth seems to hurt him about Iraq, and no amount of truth will protect his legacy from the misconception that he failed to act in Katrina's aftermath. Am I really seeing this happen? Will the masters of spin with their sidekick, right wing organization, come in to save the day? Stay tuned.
September 12, 2005 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
While money is necessary to obtain the nomination, it is not sufficient -- as Presidents Steve Forbes and Phil Gramm showed. I would venture to say that there will be several well-funded candidates in the GOP primary. McCain showed in 2000 that he can raise money, so I don't think that will eliminate him. Also Giuliani should have access to a lot of money. Frankly, I doubt Allen could outraise either one of them, pre-New Hampshire.
September 12, 2005 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
just throwing this out, but it seems to me that lindsey graham has gotta be the odds on favorite to win the dark-horse conservative mantle.
he isn't exactly establishment GOP, but he also isn't exactly a renegade either. with SC strategically positioned for him, he can break big by breaking late.
not only that, this guy has a reputation for taken on GOP chiefs. he went after gingrich for tobacco subsidies, went after frist on the fillibuster, has an independent streak but the right accent to get some on the hard right to listen.
reason i bring this up, he's in my mind about the only candidate out there that can beat hillary.
September 12, 2005 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mathew, I notice you specify that things will get bad for Bush after the 2006 elections which is interesting because I have been wondering about the obvious question which is just how much will the Katrina disaster and Bush’s inept response to it affect the 2006 election.
My first thought is that it is too far in the future for Bush’s poor performance to affect the election but I am not so sure that that is correct.
That Bush has emphasized his strong leadership qualities rather than the content of his policies and goals as president I think is absolutely correct hence things like his wearing a military uniform and landing on the Lincoln in a jet and the ill-advised mission accomplished sign.
One thing is for sure, it will be interesting to watch how this all pans out and I sure hope you guys are right about the reporting getting more interesting because I think in this case it is better late than never because that might help some of the undecided voters make up their mind.
Another thing that is for sure is we should not underestimate Bush’s ability to take reality and stand it on its head or the ability of his hard-core supporters to remain loyal no matter what.
But if the press and Bush’s underlings do turn against Bush perhaps Bush’s new banner might be it is hard to soar like an eagle when you are surrounded by ducks (actually ducks fly much faster than any eagle can, around 60 to 70 mph if I remember correctly).
September 12, 2005 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
And don't forget that he was one of the few Republicans embarassed about the abuses at Abu Ghraib
September 12, 2005 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it possible that some junior staffer have some vestiges of humanity in them and the spectacle of an Emperor playing on a string instrument while as city is getting destroyed could be one spectacle too much?
I mean, what brownie points in his or her post-White House carrier can a staffer get for ANONYMOUS badmouthing of his boss?
While the drowning of New Orleans is sad, sad story, the fact that McCain had an important -- and rather despicable -- cameo role is a bit hopeful. The senior senator from Arizona have chosen rather bad time to drink col-aid.
September 12, 2005 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aren't Bush's sinking poll numbers another factor? Lots of Republicans who would have hidden behind Bush's high numbers are now running for cover. Aids who as many said above will soon be looking for new jobs might join those running. This could be self re-enforcing.
September 12, 2005 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone who is leaking out of the WH and wants to run for office in the future is taking a HUGE risk with Karl Rove. He is a seriel killer of political careers.
And. I was wondering if perhaps Cheney might step aside sometime in 07 (for health reasons) allowing the Republicans to "appoint" the next Republican president. It would be difficult for Dems to defeat an incumbent, especially a well liked one (McCain, Hagel, Rice).
IMHO I believe one reason the Republican Pornographers didn't force Clinton from office was because they would have had to deal with Al Gore as an incument President. And he was as smart and capable as Clinton.
September 12, 2005 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I have been wondering about the obvious question which is just how much will the Katrina disaster and Bush's inept response to it affect the 2006 election."
I think that Bush will make lemonade out of Katrina.
It pushes Iraq off the front pages. The recovery in NO appears to be going much better than the dire predictions: There will be much fewer than the 10,000 deaths predicted in NO, the dewatering of the city will be finished in less than a month, there will be a huge mati gra celebration next spring, ect., and Bush will be sure to be seen leading the whole thing. People won't remember the shaky start and after all they expect government to be bungling at times.
Democrats who are so inclined will be praying for the return of the daily car bombings in Iraq to the front pages.
September 12, 2005 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Robert, I am afraid that is probably a very accurate thumb-nail sketch of what will happen. The whole thing will be blamed on Bill Clinton, the poor who according to the mighty righties of the world will be getting what they deserve, and last but not least it will be blamed on the democrats because, well, they are democrats. And people will believe it.
September 12, 2005 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
No need to get down and dirty in the blame game, let all those nasty surrogates do that.
All Bush has to do is appear presidential and appear to lead the heroic recovery of NO.
September 12, 2005 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Robert, yup, Bush is great at looking presidential. I even came up with a plan that could be helpful to his image.
First we have him jump off the Hubble telescope (he has a space suit of course) and when he enters the earths atmosphere he will release a special high-tech parachute to slow his descent (don’t want a hot foot you know) and after dropping a mile or so into our atmosphere a U2 will fly by towing a cable. Bush then grabs the cable and the U2 will take him down toward the Lincoln. The U2 will do several loopty-loops after which Gorgeous Georgeous will let go of the cable, land on the Lincoln where he will proceed to a few thousand cartwheels (to show how fit and energetic he is, important for the teeming masses) all way around the deck of the Lincoln finally coming to rest in front of his mission accomplished banner. Should be a winner!
September 12, 2005 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink