THE NEWS BLOG

 
Steve and Jen bring you this daily review of the news
Premium Advertiser

News Blog Sponsors

News Links

BBC World Service
The Guardian
Independent
Washington Post
Newsday
Iraq Order of Battle
Agonist
NY Times
LA Times
ABC News
CNN
Blogger

 
Blogs We Like

Daily Kos
Atrios
Digby's Blog
Skippy
Operation Yellow Elephant
Iraq Casualty Count
Uggabugga
Media Matters
Talking Points
Defense Tech
Intel Dump
Soldiers for the Truth
Margaret Cho
Juan Cole
Tbogg
Corrente
Gropinator
Just a Bump in the Beltway
Baghdad Burning
Wonkette
Howard Stern
Michael Moore
James Wolcott
Cooking for Engineers
There is No Crisis
Whiskey Bar
Rude Pundit
Driftglass
At-Largely
Crooks and Liars
Amazin' Avenue
DC Media Girl
The Server Logs

 
Blogger Credits

Powered by Blogger

Archives by
Publication Date
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
Comments Credits
Comments by YACCS
Saturday, May 13, 2006

Disaster?


Change of ownership possible

SHIELDS BOMBSHELL: "30 seat loss" says GOP Member Hotlist
by The Crusty Bunker [Subscribe]
Fri May 12, 2006 at 06:45:44 PM PDT

Sweet jumped-up Jeebis in a sidecar--I had to get the transcript just to make sure I heard this right on tonight's PBS Newshour, but I did. Mark Shields, whom I respect and always have for not over-reaching or over-reacting, actually said that a GOP legislator was already anticipating a loss of "30 seats in the House." Read on, MacDuff ...


I'm doing this one quick and dirty and may update it later with sage observations (or maybe not), but I just want to see that the news gets splayed all over the Kommunity ASAP:

MARK SHIELDS: The gloom is there. It's on the Hill. It's wherever two or more Republicans gather in [Bush's] name, I mean, really. I mean, the president's name comes up.

And there was one number -- I was talking to, probably, in my judgment, the most able Republican campaign legislator in the business -- and probably I'm giving away his identity by saying it -- and he said he thought that Republicans would lose right now 30 seats in the House.

What's interesting here is that one of the stories that Newshour featured had some good news for the White House, in that there is actually some positive diplomatic engagement on Darfur--not that most believe it will work. But neither a Darfur breakthrough, nor appointing a batch of conservative judges, nor a drop in gas prices, nor trumped-up spying polls can turn the tide, and here's why:

And the intensity, Ray, is all on the Democratic side. And it's an anti-Bush intensity. There was a question asked: Do you view your vote in the fall as a vote against President George W. Bush or a vote for President George W. Bush? And by a two-to-one margin, it was considered by voters who made that decision a vote against President Bush.


Whoever Shields has for a source, that source knows a lot more than we do (like who's hired a lawyer, who's missing meetings, who's putting a home up for sale, who's drinking earlier in the day, etc.), and I've had a theory all along: No matter how bad we see things are for the GOP in Congress, it can only get worse, worse, worse. I think it is being borne out with every new revelation, now coming at times at a two-a-day pace.
The FBI is having a happy dance searching the number 3 man at the CIA, which means steak dinners and beers all around. Karl Rove probably won't escape next week with his WH job, Michael Hayden is gonna be broasted before Congress next week, and it's only May.

Oh yeah, 29 dead in Iraq this month and Cheney's now dozing off in public.

Worse? We haven't seen worse, yet
.
No president has kept his job with ratings under 30 percent. Truman and Nixon left office within a year, and Carter was defeated in a bid for reelection.

Bush has always acted as if he could govern to serve his base, which means he was unconcerned about 50 percent of the country. Without the war, John Kerry would be in the White House. Even with the war, he was barely reelected.

The president has to govern with the consent of the people, not just those who voted for him. He has steadily refused to deal with those who opposed him, except to explain how he was right, regardless of the facts. Bush has tried to bully the rest of us into compliance.

But that can only work when you are successful. When you are failing across the board, refuse to change direction (tax cut, not so bright), and people start going to jail, you're going to lose power.

What the DC Dems don't get is how alienated Americans have become with Bush and the GOP. They are begging for aggressive leadership, and people are still worried about NASCAR dads.

Folks, you need to worry about Walter Reed dads. They want the war to end, they want a resolution to the War on Terror and not the ham handed methods Bush is using. Americans,
for the most part are non-ideological. Most ideology is phrased in social issues, not politics. Bush and The GOP won because they convinced people that they were level headed good managers.

The opposite is true, inept criminals usually don't win the hearts of people. The GOP has mangled every chance, every thing they touched.

Dean is right, the Dems can win on the coasts, but they need the center to govern with the consent of the people.

Bush can only save his presidency by radical changes in direction. Bush is psychologically incapable of both flexibility and mercy. Anyone who thinks Bush is going to pardon people need to talk to Katharine Harris. Despite placing her name and reputation on the line, the Bushes now want her to go away. Who else is going to jump into a losing race, after all, Bush hatred is exploding, and take a bath. Why not repay Harris's loyalty with support?

That is a grim indicator for Rove and Libby.They don't care what you have on them, they're the Bush family. They are not going to be rescued, for if they aren't loyal to Harris, who will they be loyal to?

posted by Steve @ 12:09:00 AM

12:09:00 AM

The News Blog home page





 

Editorial Staff
RSS-XML Feeds

Add to My AOL

Support The News Blog

Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay Learn More
News Blog Food Blog
Visit the News Blog Food Blog
The News Blog Shops
 
 
 
Operation Yellow Elephant
Enlist, Young Republicans