George W. Who?

[Arne]

BUSH WEAKENED BY MIDTERM LOSSES
George W. Who?
By Georg Mascolo in Washington

The Republicans' defeat in the House of Representatives is a disaster for George W. Bush. His political heirs now must distance themselves from him as he spends the next two years trying to define his legacy.

With heavy Republican losses on Tuesday, Bush may have a difficult time in the last two years of his term.
The first plane he used for an election campaign in Texas in the 1990s was dubbed "Accountability One" -- he renamed it "Responsibility One" in his first presidential campaign. George W. Bush liked to portray himself as someone who stands up for his mistakes.

He was among the first to cast his ballot. His timetable was changed at the last minute so that the morning TV shows would get footage of him. At 6:49 a.m. his motorcade drove past the barricades in front of his ranch in Crawford, Texas. "Do your duty," he called out as he left his local polling station in the Crawford Volunteer Fire Department.

Millions of Americans did spend the day doing their duty and it ended in a bitter defeat for Bush and his Republicans. It's a triumph for the Democrats who had started to look chronically incapable of winning elections. Bush himself wasn't up for election, so Americans delivered their message to him via hundreds of Republican candidates.

Bush's weakness guaranteed Democrat victory

Democrats have a proven knack for losing elections they had been predicted to win. But in this case Bush's weakness guaranteed them victory. With around 95 percent of votes counted the Democrats have 227 of 435 in the House of Representatives -- 218 would have been enough for a majority. The race is still undecided in the Senate although the Democrats have gained seats there too.
_______
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said Americans no longer trusted the president. In year six of Bush's presidency the world is a far more dangerous place than when he took office -- not just because of the actions of this president, of course, but partly. Iraq is a debacle, a war most Americans oppose and today regard as unnecessary. They gave him five years to wage his "war on terror" -- longer than the US fought in World War II.
_______

"National referendum on Iraq"

Now America has lost patience: even in a country where optimism is virtually a national doctrine, people have lost faith in the White House sugar coaters. Bill Frist, Republican Senate Majority leader, advised his party members simply to avoid the issue of Iraq. That proved impossible. At least many of the defeated candidates can console themselves with the fact that their defeat was less down to them than the president and his policy. "It was a national referendum on Iraq," said pollster John Zogby.

However, other important issues were no less damaging for the Republicans. Corruption was at the top of the list. There have been endless revelations about corrupt lawmakers and the influence-peddling network of convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff. One senior White House employee received a jail sentence. And recently even the chief of staff of Bush's campaign strategist Karl Rove had to go after getting tickets for concerts and sporting events from her ex-boss Abramoff. Republican Representative Curt Weldon, a member of the influential House Armed Services Committee, is another of the lawmakers under investigation amid reports that he used his influence to help his lobbyist daughter win contracts.

It was shortly after 11 p.m. when Karl Rove told the president the election had been lost. Bush let it be known that he was "disappointed." He will hold a news conference today at 1 p.m. EST (7 p.m. CET) to explain what he plans to do now.

He had fought until the last minute, travelling 10,000 miles on the campaign trail. His top button undone and sleeves rolled up, he was cheered in Montana, Nevada, Missouri and Idaho. But his very presence in those places was evidence of the imminent disaster -- Republicans had hoped they wouldn't even need to campaign in these conservative states.

In traditional swing states the party leadership discouraged the president from appearing, or they stayed away if he did come. On Monday morning, a day before the election, Bush's diary said he would be accompanied at an event in Pensacola, Florida by Charlie Crist, who is to succeed Jeb Bush as Florida governor. But Crist was a no-show, leaving Bush alone with his brother Jeb on stage, which sparked speculation that he did not want to be seen with Bush.

Last Sunday's conviction of Saddam Hussein had fuelled Republican hopes. Was the timing coincidence or was there a little pressure from the White House? "Are you smoking dope?" Bush's spokesman Tony Snow snarled at a reporter who had dared ask the question. The death sentence didn't bring a turnaround, not even a respite. The headlines were dominated by an Army Times editorial saying Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld "must go" and reports that Richard Perle and other conservatives who pushed for the invasion of Iraq were saying they would not have supported a war if they knew how poorly the Bush administration would handle it. Even Bush's ideological stormtroopers are distancing themselves from the Iraq debacle. With 103 American dead October was one of the bloodiest months in the whole war for the US.

Bush's image as tough crisis manager capable of steering America safely through troubled times had won him a second term in 2004. His authority in his own party was founded on his reputation as an election winner. This political sea change won't just change Congress and Bush's remaining 114 weeks in office -- it will also affect the 2008 presidential election.

Divided Democrats

Despite their election gains, the Democrats face an equally tough challenge. They are divided over the right strategy for Iraq. "We only have the choice between bad and very bad solutions," admits popular African American Senator Barack Obama. Until yesterday it was sufficient just to criticise Bush. The anger was enough to bring the turnaround, but it's not enough any more.

The Democrats are seeking a balance between cooperation and confrontation with the White House. The party leadership's line is: yes to investigations into the Bush presidency. No to impeachment.

They don't want to turn Congress into a court. On Tuesday night Representative Rahm Emanuel, the secret architect of the Democrat victory, offered Bush cooperation, saying the party was working towards the good of the nation. "We're more interested in political solutions than our own political advantage." That was the only way to achieve the main goal: victory in 2008, he said.

For many of the new Representatives in the 110th Congress such pragmatism is a question of political survival: they have won in conservative districts. To prevent their victories from being a one-off they have to shift to the right, where the majority of Americans stand. No race demonstrated this more clearly than the Senate election in Connecticut, where Joe Liebermann won as an Independent. The angry left of the party has mockingly labelled the former Democratic candidate for Vice President as "Bush Lite" because of his support for the Iraq war. But Lieberman won the Democratic state convincingly.

The Republicans now know they can't win any more elections with this president. His heirs will have to distance themselves from him. Popular senator John McCain's chances have improved. Controversial though the Bush opponent is among the grass roots, a middle-of-the-road candidate like him might just avoid defeat in 2008.

Desire to leave a big footprint

And Bush himself? The president had hoped to have at least his own supporters behind him as he defines his political legacy. His political fate looks sealed, his room for manoeuvre has been narrowed. Arnold Schwarzenegger, re-elected as California governor on Tuesday, owed his success to a turnaround in policy and an apology to the people of California, saying he had "made mistakes."

The stubborn Bush seems unlikely to take that route. He is too convinced of his historic mission. The president wants to leave a big Reagan-sized footprint on the world. He feels committed to laying the foundation for a decades-long dispute between Islamic fundamentalists and the West. He has already told the Iraqi government that the midterm elections will have no impact on US foreign policy.

The big ego and the conviction seem intact, and prospects for a change of heart seem slim. Future presidents will be grateful to him, Bush told a group of conservative columnists ahead of the election, flanked by busts of his role models Lincoln and Churchill.

Vice President Dick Cheney went hunting on Election Day for the first time since February when he accidentally shot and injured a fellow hunter. He explained how things will go on: "We don't have to be re-elected, we're doing what's right."

[MavsX]

hmmm interesting

[jacktruth]

Pondering this question. . .
The reality is that a person's authority, leadership ability, and "power" is not ever demonstrated when everybody agrees with them. That has been Ws situation the last 6 years. We are about to see what he is made of. I personally like his chances against Pelosi.

We see a change in defense secretary, a "timeline" approach to Iraq, and an energized Iraqi people. This president appears to be one step ahead of the democrats on that front, and on the border security front. We also have a Democratic party suddenly in a putup or shutup situation. Unfortunately for them, they don't have ramrod power in the senate, and the reality is that they don't have a plan, they just have a fickle public that wants something different. But if different means worse, the democrats will hang themselves on the rope. They need Bush for them to be successful. If they launch a monster investigation campaign against the white house, they will certainly bounce themselves right back to the basement. They still can't get 2/3 majority, and it's mighty difficult to overrun a successful executive. No, he's not currently successful, but if he ends up stabilizing Iraq and bringing the troops home by 2008, the dems will struggle to make more gains.

Should be an interesting new political season. I don't really consider it a complete democratic victory. It's simply a passage of time and a cyclical trend in politics. They haven't held the house in 12 years, they couldn't beat Bush from a second term and they soundly lost the last two elections. It's not a victory if you have every historical factor on your side. A victory is winning when you shouldn't. They are hardly in a position to assume a mass shift to the left of the American people. In reality, what turned this election was Foley/Hastert scandal, and George Allen's racial slur. It was not exclusively Iraq. That is just one man's opinion.

[Usually Lurkin]

anyone know how often in history a president's political party has maintained congressional majority for an entire 8 years?

Nobody's talking about the "need for change for the sake of change" factor in these 6 year mid-terms.

[MavKikiNYC]

Originally Posted by jacktruth

Pondering this question. . .
In reality, what turned this election was Foley/Hastert scandal, and George Allen's racial slur. It was not exclusively Iraq. That is just one man's opinion.

More or less agree with the line of thinking you express, although I believe the deciding issues were bigger than these two events. Frankly I don't think the Foley think had much effect at all, and George Allen's mouth had gotten him into trouble even before 'macaca'. But those events were symptomatic of bigger problems with the Republican majority.

As for Iraq, I know at least as many people who support a continued presence in Iraq, perhaps even a bigger presence if it means moving toward resolution more quickly. And this is true among people who wanted to see a course correction on domestic issues, even a course correction imposed on the Bush administration by electoral losses. It's a decidedly minority opinion that wants a complete cut-and-run pullout. Fortunately most American seem to have more brains AND balls regarding this issue than other observers (cf the europeans).

[dude1394]

I think Iraq was the main issue, federal spending was the other(this is republicans only, the dems really don't care that much about expanded guv, imo).

Many have been frustrated by what seemed a "non-war" war. If it's war, you go there and kick everyones' ass until they cry uncle. If that means you lay waste to the place then you do it. No half-measures...If anything has been learned it's that you can't get into a low-sustained conflict with countries(peoples) that have nothing that they care about losing.

I believe it was more half-measures than the actual fact of being there at all. Most folks supported the action (and many still do the intent) but if you aren't going to prosecute it to the fullest extent, it's very difficult to accept american deaths. I know I've had a problem with it.

I don't think the initial plan should have had any bigger a footprint to be honest than we had as obviously it wasn't needed. However it does appear that after that you have to grab complete and pretty brutal control of the country. Dubya/Rumsfeld and it seems many of the military leaders argued against that, I can understand their concerns, but no one gives a crap about iraqi's (or the worlds) sensibilities when they continue to see americans dying.

[Epitome22]

My goodness, how the rhetoric of freedom around here has changed since 2004.

[dude1394]

Hmm...I don't really know if that is the case. Breaking the totalitarianism of the middle east still imo will be the only long-term soluiton. If not they will either continue to be run by secular strongmen or islamic strongmen.

Either way if we leave without leaving a standing iraq this will not be the last chapter.

If a more forceful metodology would have been used the intent would have still been to stand up a democratic government and leave, that hasn't changed a twit.

It's the more UN-ish methods of getting there that I'm talking about, not the goal itself.