I can't help but feel sorry for my old Republican friends in Congress who are fighting for their political lives. After all, it must be tough explaining to voters at their local Baptist church's Keep Congress Conservative Day that it was their party that took a $155 billion surplus and turned it into a record-setting $400 billion deficit.
How exactly does one convince the teeming masses that Republicans deserve to stay in power despite botching a war, doubling the national debt, keeping company with Jack Abramoff, fumbling the response to Hurricane Katrina, expanding the government at record rates, raising cronyism to an art form, playing poker with Duke Cunningham, isolating America and repeatedly electing Tom DeLay as their House majority leader.
How does a God-fearing Reagan Republican explain all that away?
Easy. Blame George W. Bush.
He goes on to say:
If I were a GOP candidate this year, I would not call the president an idiot (he isn't). But I would spend the next 50 days of the campaign telling conservatives and liberals alike that even though I voted for this war once and this president twice, time has proved that Bush and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld were wrong to think that the nation could win Iraq on the cheap. I would also look them in the eye and say that our president was wrong to believe that the United States could fight a war, cut taxes and increase federal spending, all at once. I would castigate my president for claiming to support homeland security while allowing our borders to remain wide open.
Sounds like a winning message to me. And it has the advantage of being ... true. Of course, the voters might well say, "How convenient that you waited until now to figure out how crummy the leadership of the country has been for so long." But then they turn and look at the lack of much of an alternative on the Democratic side, and that just might be enough to win Republicans a desultory vote. Or two. Enough to hold on to the House, anyway -- though count me among the conservatives who believe it'd be better for the GOP to lose the House and get busy reforming itself to be ready for 2008.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
I don't have a problem with Republicans saying what they'd do differently. I get frustrated with the Democrats who won't say what they'd do differently. I would love to see one ad or get one mailing that didn't say anything about the opponent but would say who they are and where they stand on the issues. It's like both sides have this way of talking and campaigning that doesn't really tell me anything.>
watsy, exactly.>
Well mercy sakes, what on earth has gotten into Joe Scarborough? He's beginning to make sense. Maybe I'll have to start watching his MSNBC show, instead of surfing past it after about two minutes, which is usually about all I can stand.
Joe Scarborough making sense? What could possibly happen next? Tom DeLay getting a conscience? Pres. Bush saying "nyu-clee-ar"? We can but hope...>
Blame Bush:
http://blamebush.typepad.com/
(Warning: this blogger can be off color at times, but he's quite hilarious.)>
I'd agree that it'd be better for conservatism for the GOP to lose the House- which has made me decidedly conflicted as recent polls suggest that they've got a good shot at retaining their majority. On the one hand, I cannot but rejoice at the idea that the Democrats can't even win in circumstances such as these; on the other, I think continued control of House, Senate & Presidency will make it harder to hold onto any of them come '08.>
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.