GOP unease spreads to security issues

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
158
Spineless Republicans - more concerned about their own political survival than the security of the Nation. They make me ashamed to be a Republican, challenging our President. I hope the party finds a way to toss them out, if they want to act like Democrats let them be Democrats.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11612274/

More Republican lawmakers willing to challenge Bush

The first heading on the issues page of Rep. Mark Foley's Web site brags that he is "one of President Bush's strongest supporters in Congress." The Florida Republican voted for the president's legislation 90 percent of the time, according to the Web site, "the 3rd highest ranking among the Florida delegation."

Now the Florida delegation's third-strongest Bush supporter is on the front lines of the Republican revolt against the president on the deal to turn over key operations at six U.S. ports to a United Arab Emirates company. Republicans who once marched in lock step behind their president on national security are increasingly willing to challenge him in an area considered his political strength.

The signs of GOP discontent have been building in the past few months. Dissident Republicans in Congress forced Bush to sign a measure banning torture of detainees despite his initial veto threat, blocked renewal of the USA Patriot Act until their civil liberties concerns were addressed and pressured the White House into accepting legislation on its secret eavesdropping program. By the time the port deal came to light, the uprising was no longer limited to dissidents.

"We simply want to participate and aren't going to be PR flacks when they need us," Foley said. "We all have roles. We have oversight. When you can't answer your constituents when they have legitimate questions . . . we can't simply do it on trust."

The breakdown of the Republican consensus on national security both reflects and exacerbates Bush's political weakness heading toward the midterm elections, according to party strategists. Even as Republicans abandoned him last year on domestic issues such as Social Security, Hurricane Katrina relief and Harriet Miers's Supreme Court nomination, they had largely stuck by him on terrorism and other security issues.

Karl Rove, the president's political guru and deputy chief of staff, has already signaled that he intends to use national security as the defining issue for the fall congressional campaigns, just as he did to great effect in 2002 and 2004. But with Bush's numbers still falling, the Republicans who will be on the ballot have decided to define the security issue in their own way rather than defer to the president's interpretation.

‘Bad news after bad news’
The release of a new CBS News poll showing Bush's approval rating dropping to 34 percent, a low for him in that survey, sent tremors through Republican circles in Washington. Scott Reed, who managed Robert J. Dole's presidential campaign in 1996, called the results "pretty shattering." Most distressing to GOP strategists was that Bush's support among Republicans fell from 83 percent to 72 percent.

"The repetition of the news coming out of Iraq is wearing folks down," Reed said. "It started with women and it's spreading. It's just bad news after bad news after bad news, without any light at the end of the tunnel."

Bush shrugged off the poll numbers in an interview with ABC News yesterday. "If I worried about polls, I would be -- I wouldn't be doing my job," he said before leaving Washington for a trip to India and Pakistan. "And, look, I fully understand that when you do hard things, it creates consternation at times. And, you know, I've been up in the polls and I've been down in the polls. You know, it's just part of life in the modern era."

Yet at the White House, aides were decidedly downbeat, making dark jokes about the latest political trajectory and the Murphy's Law quality of life in the West Wing these days -- what can go wrong will go wrong. At least, some consoled themselves, Bush beat out Vice President Cheney, who was viewed favorably by just 18 percent in the CBS survey.

Others held on to the hope that this, too, shall pass.

"We've got a period of time when the news that's dominating the headlines is not good and some Republicans are going to feel free to distance themselves from the president," said a senior White House official who was not authorized to speak on the record. "But at the end of the day, I don't think the breach is deep or lasting because this is the president's strong suit. I think it's about this moment in time. I don't think it's fundamental."

If so, the moment may still last a while longer. Much of the dialogue in Washington right now centers on security disputes pitting Republicans against Republicans.

The Senate voted yesterday to clear the way for final passage today of a compromise version of the Patriot Act after a handful of Republicans in recent months insisted on changes to the law. But Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said he was still dissatisfied with the additional checks on law enforcement and introduced a new bill to set further restrictions on the collection of certain information in terrorism investigations without court orders.

Specter's committee also held another hearing yesterday into the National Security Agency's warrantless surveillance authorized by Bush. Specter and other Republicans are drafting bills to establish congressional or court oversight of the eavesdropping.

And it was clear yesterday that a fresh 45-day review of the ports deal might not satisfy GOP critics. Two Senate committees grilled administration officials and the chief executive of the Dubai company at the center of the dispute yesterday. A bipartisan group of senators, including Republicans Norm Coleman (Minn.), Olympia J. Snowe (Maine) and Tom Coburn (Okla.), is scheduled to meet today to discuss legislation giving Congress final say over the deal.

Beyond the politics, several of the disputes are about institutional prerogatives, the sort of natural executive-legislative tension that was subsumed in Bush's first term after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, when Republican lawmakers to deferred to the president.

James B. Steinberg, who was President Bill Clinton's deputy national security adviser, said Bush "just overstepped" and alienated allies by not involving Congress in the matter.

Responsibility for oversight
"Even if you're a Republican member of Congress, you don't buy the exaggerated view of the unified executive theory, in which the only part of the Constitution that matters is Article II," on presidential power, said Steinberg, now dean of the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin. "If you want them to be in on the landing, you have to have people there for the takeoff."

Rep. Heather A. Wilson (N.M.), who has emerged as one of the most active players on the NSA issue, noted that she has taken on the administration on a number of national security issues over the past few years but is now joined by more fellow Republicans. She said that owes more to administration mishandling than to a changing mood on Capitol Hill.

"We all agree that there has to be a single leader from the White House leading the armed forces," Wilson said. But "Congress has the responsibility to exercise oversight and ask questions," she said, "and I think you're seeing more members of Congress willing to do that."
 
Okay. How, exactly, is it spineless for them to actually stand up for something, instead of being a nodding bobblehead doll?

I'm GLAD when a Republican can disagree with the president. It's the ones who incessantly nod with "Yes sir, yes sir, of course sir, whatever you say sir, can I lick your shoes sir"...that scare the hell out of me.
 
I'm GLAD when a Republican can disagree with the president. It's the ones who incessantly nod with "Yes sir, yes sir, of course sir, whatever you say sir, can I lick your shoes sir"...that scare the hell out of me. - Manedwolf

You're right but then too quick to tag any form of agreement as belonging to this category. It would seem that what you really enjoy is any form of criticizing the administration and discrediting of any form of agreement with it. If you could find the middle ground, something objective, it all might seem more credible and less like Bush Bad Syndrome..
 
Funny thing. I thought congress critters were elected to represent their constituents, not to rubber stamp whatever the President wants. You think it's a bad thing for congress critters to pay attention to what the folks who elect them want? If that's your view, I will have to respectfully disagree.
 
Pres. Bush is at least ten times better than a Pres. Kerry would have been, but he has been very disappointing with his lack of defense of our borders, winking at illegal immigration by offering 'guest worker' status, calling the patriotic minutemen 'vigilantes', his reckless spending as if he's never heard of bankruptcy, and now this braindead idea of turning over US port security to a foreign tyranny which does not have our interests at heart anywhere near as much as Americans would.

Conservative, patriotic Americans need to either retake their Republican Party (probably the easier course) or move en mass to a third party in large enough numbers to beat the treasonous Democrats, imho.
 
"Merkin.Muffley" said:
Spineless Republicans - more concerned about their own political survival than the security of the Nation. They make me ashamed to be a Republican, challenging our President. I hope the party finds a way to toss them out, if they want to act like Democrats let them be Democrats.

Merkin, see my post about what McCain is attempting. He has a number of "Republicans" backing him. Can we say, "RINO"??

Manedwolf said:
I'm GLAD when a Republican can disagree with the president. It's the ones who incessantly nod with "Yes sir, yes sir, of course sir, whatever you say sir, can I lick your shoes sir"...that scare the hell out of me.
Maned, as I see it, therein lies the difference between a true Republican, a NeoCon, and the numerous RINOs we have elected into office. All too often, either party will toe the party line, even if it's against their better judgement. At least I think so. In one sense, I can respect them holding true to their party, but in another, where is their common sense?? Their job is to keep the President in line, advise him, and step up to the plate when he is wrong. I don't see that happening much.
 
why not challenge the president? The way I see it, whether a dem or repub, congress' role is to represent the people, not represent the president. This president absolutely needs to be challenged on his immigration policy, his overreaching of the executive branch powers, and his unwillingness to veto the ludicrous spending bills i.e. highway transportation bill.
 
The Dems backed off this issue because they were accused of hating Arabs and Muslims.

The only real opposition to the port deal now is Republicans.

And they are opposing it.
 
Some of you dismiss any criticism of the Bush administration as a symptom of the Bush Bad Syndrome, but if there is any psychosis going on here, it seems to me that it is on the part of those who make excuses for every single mistep this administration makes. It's freaky, like some kind of cult of pod people or something, and it's starting to creep me out.
 
Lobotomy Boy said:

Some of you dismiss any criticism of the Bush administration as a symptom of the Bush Bad Syndrome, but if there is any psychosis going on here, it seems to me that it is on the part of those who make excuses for every single mistep this administration makes. It's freaky, like some kind of cult of pod people or something, and it's starting to creep me out.

+1 hundred friggin' MILLION. The flaming hoops some people jump through to defend Bush and his insane policies just astound me.

(How're they insane, you ask? Simple. He claims he wants to secure America from possible terrorist attack, then pretty much ignores both borders, while at the same time making things that much less comfy for us real citizens (SEE: TSA, phone taps, etc.))
Those same people who leap to this president's defense sure don't have much to say in regards to his promise to renew the AWB if it got across his desk.
Unless you count excuses like "Oh, but he knew it wouldn't get to his desk."


In any case, seeing congress actually standing up to the pres is a good thing. Port security is a damned important thing, and simply selling out to foriegn powers that may or may not have terrorist ties, without further review, is just nuts.
 
What all the president's men do not understand is the GWB is political poison to the party. All the anger, hatred, indignation, and frustration he has been gathering will hit them, not him (he cares not), in the forthcoming elections. If they are any smart, they would distance themselves from him faster than you can say "lightning rod".

To see Reps taking a principled position against the dittoheads and GWB's entourage and their foreign friends, gives me hope that perhaps not all is lost and the republic can survive the imperial aspirations of a handful of elitist plutocratic miscreants.
 
The republican party is generating opportunities for the party members to show their indpendence from the bad bad presdient bush. And I would bet you that Rove and Bush are in on it.

The Miers/Alito revolt was a golden example of this in action. The ports is another good show. The simple fact is that Bush is expendable but the party will still be around when he is gone. The party is in its strongest position if the conservative base feels that the reps and senators are adhering to the right ideologies rather than "toeing the party line." Especially during an off year election. Expect more incidents like this where the republican congresspeople get to show how principled they are in an election year.
 
Threads that degenerate into nothing but Bush bashing get closed, so give it a rest. There is no debate, only exchange of insults.
 
You may be on to something, Beerslurpy. I can see Rove and Co. orchestrating something like this.

Threads that degenerate into nothing but Bush bashing get closed, so give it a rest.

In the words of the immortal Mr. Gumby, "Deja vu." No offense, RealGun, but your response is getting predictable as a parrot's: "Squawwwk! Criticizing the president. Close the thread! Close the thread!" I think you'd find China or Cuba to your liking.
 
I guess the is the umpteenth iteration of the Same Old Thing: I don't care who disagrees with whom as to policies or actions by any politician of whatever view, whatever position.

I'm flat fed-up with the substitution of name-calling for intelligent thought.

Simple example: This yowling, "Bush lied!" is boring. It's pretty obvious the man believes what he's saying. He may be wrong as can be, but he thinks he's correct--or that his advisors are correct.

You have reasons to believe he's wrong? Fine. Express your ideas.

Save the name-calling for the next session in the playpen, when Mommy sets you in it during the afternoon...

As usual, if the shoe doesn't fit, don't play Cinderella's step-sisters.

:(, Art
 
I guess the is the umpteenth iteration of the Same Old Thing: I don't care who disagrees with whom as to policies or actions by any politician of whatever view, whatever position.

I'm flat fed-up with the substitution of name-calling for intelligent thought.

Simple example: This yowling, "Bush lied!" is boring. It's pretty obvious the man believes what he's saying. He may be wrong as can be, but he thinks he's correct--or that his advisors are correct.

You have reasons to believe he's wrong? Fine. Express your ideas.

To repeat: It's not the idea; it's the way the idea is expressed. We're supposed to be proving to the anti-gun crowd that we're not knuckle-dragging Neanderthals. Or immature junior-high school teeny-boppers

:(, Art
 
"Funny thing. I thought congress critters were elected to represent their constituents, not to rubber stamp whatever the President wants. You think it's a bad thing for congress critters to pay attention to what the folks who elect them want?"

And if the voters want their elected representatives to support the President you're going to complain about what, their stupidity?

John
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top