On Election Day, Republicans in the House and Senate will take a shellacking. They need only look up Pennsylvania Avenue for the man responsible.
On Election Day, voters will take Republicans to the woodshed, and they can thank George Bush.
At some point, politicians have to deliver on their promise — not their shallow campaign promises — and deliver a government that reflects the aspirations of their supporters. For years, Republicans have boasted they can do a better job of defending American shores, managing the national economy, and shielding our civilization from the liberal social agenda embraced by the likes of John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi.
Whether we are talking about foreign affairs, the domestic economy or the culture wars, George Bush has disappointed the voters that put Republicans in the White House and in control of the Congress.
Without the missiles and European army of the old Soviet Union to worry about, no one can doubt the greatest threats to U.S. national security come from radical Islamic terrorism, nuclear proliferation and our tightening dependence on Middle East oil.
After Nine-Eleven and the invasion of Afghanistan, President Bush ignored the root sources of Islamic terrorism: Saudi Arabia and several other gulf states, where the Madrassas teach contempt for the West and oil wealth finances and provides safe passage for terrorists. Instead, the President trumped up intelligence and invaded Iraq, a country with a contemptuous regime but little documented connection to terrorism. Ultimately, President Bush has transformed Iraq into a country full of terrorists, and inspired hatred for Americans among disaffected young Muslims throughout the region. Americans are less secure, not more, for this misadventure.
On arms control, the President, earlier this year, gave India access to critical U.S. civilian nuclear technology, while ignoring its advanced nuclear weapons program. The President did not seek consent from the other significant signatories to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, like China, our allies in Europe, and Japan. Having unilaterally welcomed India into the club of nuclear weapons powers, is it even a small puzzle why President Bush is hamstrung in his efforts to do something about the weapons programs in Iran and North Korea?
Since Mr. Bush took office, our monthly bill for petroleum imports has nearly tripled, rising from $9.5 billion to $27 billion. Yet, a 2004 Rocky Mountain Institute study, endorsed by former Republican Secretary of State George Schultz, concluded the United States could eliminate most U.S. dependence on foreign oil, without sacrificing our SUVs. This could be accomplished by deploying technologies, such as hybrid engines and light-weight materials that are already at hand and could be built out fairly quickly at a reasonable cost. Instead, Mr. Bush’s dark alter ego, Vice President Cheney, cooked up an energy policy that makes Exxon and other oil giants happy, and increases the choke-hold the Saudis and other “friendly” Middle East states enjoy over U.S. foreign policy.
On the economic front, the President boasts creating 7.1 million new jobs and booming house prices on the East and West Coasts and in the Sunbelt. What he does not remind Americans is that, during his tenure, the monthly U.S. trade deficit has rocketed from $35 billion to $70 billion.
Americans have enjoyed a flood of cheap Chinese goods that benefit from government subsidies exceeding 25 percent from state banks that don’t expect loans to be repaid and an undervalued currency.
To finance the U.S. trade deficit, Americans borrow about $60 billion each month from China’s central bank and other foreign governments and investors, and that debt will top $6 trillion by early 2007. The interest the United States pays to China and others comes to about $2,000 a year for every working American, and that is quite a legacy to bequeath our children.
In the bargain, the United States has lost 3 million manufacturing jobs, and 7.5 million more adults have quit looking for work. Falling real wages, vanishing health benefits, and in several Mid-Western cities, collapsing housing prices bedevil working class families, even as the rest of the country boasts good times. Many of those jobs lost are in congressional districts that define the border between Red and Blue America, spanning from western New York and Pennsylvania to Michigan and down the Ohio Valley into the upland South. Enough Reagan Democrats will return to their roots in those districts to deliver a majority to the Democrats in the House of Representatives.
On social issues, the President has come up weak on affirmative action, Title 9 for gender neutral funding of college athletics, fringe benefits for gay partners, and just about every other issue, save stem cell research, that social conservatives care about deeply. Intellectuals and comfortable professionals can think what they like about those issues, but Republican conservatives are irked enough that many will just stay home on November 7.
On Election Day, Republicans in the House and Senate will take a shellacking. They need only look up Pennsylvania Avenue for the man responsible.
You know, there are plenty of things to take President Bush to task for without making stuff up or repeating leftist talking points. Bush isn't running for anything, but for some reason leftists want to keep him front and center with half truths, misrepresentations, and outright lies. Ultimately, I think this strategy will come back to bite them.
The author brings out the same tired litany that leftists have been parroting for years. He says, "…the President trumped up intelligence and invaded Iraq, a country with a contemptuous regime but little documented connection to terrorism… President Bush has transformed Iraq into a country full of terrorists…"
The President may have relied on intelligence that in hindsight was found wanting, but the assertion that he "trumped up" intelligence is absurd. This is the same intelligence that Britain stands by even today, the same intelligence that President Clinton accepted and the Democratic leaders in Congress cited as authoritative.
As far as creating terrorists, this also is absurd. Modern Islamo-fascist terrorism has been around since the 70s, they have been bombing us and others for decades, and they have become bolder and bolder in the face of no opposition until the Bush presidency decided to do something about it.
Whether the response was appropriate, correct, or adequately executed is a matter for historians to decide, but we can look at the history of terrorism today and discover quite easily that they have hated us since at least 1797, when the Treaty of Tripoli was ratified in an attempt to stop them from attacking our trade ships.
As far as the price of oil, anyone who would suggest that the President can or should control oil prices is not worthy of an article in intellectualconservative.com. This is space cadet territory, not worthy of a response.
Anyone who would stay home on election day and abdicate to the political left is betraying the principles of conservativism and giving the country over to those who will eventually destroy it. Has anyone noticed how ruthless the leftists are in this campaign? How they will do or say anything to get back to power? To them, the ends justify the means, regardless of what the means are. Is this something that we as conservatives are going to roll over on?
There are many good candidates out there who are standing firm on conservative issues, and they deserve our support. There are others who are not perfect conservatives, but they have done some good work. And finally, there are some candidates who we need to vote for despite their weak credentials, because the alternative is a leftist who must not be put into office.
Maybe there is a "hold your nose and vote" candidate on the Republican ticket, but does anyone really want to wake up on November 8th with Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton in charge?
I must agree with Mr. Morici title though his reasoning is certainly incorrect. President Bush is primarily responsible for the political woes of the republican party. The reason is not the following and I will state why;
Iraq- without Iraq this election would be worse. This is the reason he was elected President the second time and the majority of people that believed in this war then still believe in it today. Republicans are not cut and runners and have far less faith in government to get the job done correctly and timely than the liberal left. Most honest republicans knew exactly what we were getting into in Iraq- and believed that democrats and the main stream media would do all in its power to undermine this effort. Mr. Bush is not losing the war vote amoung republicans.
Affirmative action, Title 9- he hasn't lost a single vote an these issues he once had. He would lose votes by supporting such discrimination.
Now to the real reason the republicans and GWB are in deep trouble are somewhat touched by Mr. Morici, which relate to deficits, spending, and security.
I am a conservative, and when Mr. Bush sold me his label of a compassionate conservative, I thought I liked what I was hearing. If Mr. Bush ever lied to the American public it was when used the word conservative to describe himself. He is far from it. Here is why
Trade- free trade is a goal, but not with countries with the human rights record of China. We should not continue to borrow our country to one that slaughters its own. We must reach a trade equity with China if we plan on being the economic superpower we currently are.
Borders- I guess compassionate conservative means wanting to seal our borders, bu not doing anything about it.
Spending- Mr. Bush is the worst spender in the history of U.S. Presidents. Socialist should love this man and put him on the equal with Johnson and FDR.
These are the real reasons republicans will lose in November. Mr. Bush is responsible. He turned his back on conservative priniples and now he and fellow liberal-lites will pay the price. Mr. Morici, I am sure you are pleased with the demise of the GOP this election cycle, but I believe you would be making a grave error if you believe the electorate supports the goals of liberals. This election is a slap in the face of the work of GWB and Congress, not a pat on the back for liberals.
No offense Mr. Morici, but if Republicans take a whipping at the woodshed, it will have had little to do with Mr. Bush and more to do with Republicans being too lazy to argue against the lies of the left.
As the libertarian columnist Larry Elder noted, it's silly for those of us on the right to criticize Bush for what he has done in office, as he promised to do all of it. He promised us bigger government through policies like "No Child Left Behind" and the prescription drug acts.
As for the President's "dark alter ego" running the show, making gas companies happy, what would you suggest? Car manufacturers have been in a tizzy making more fuel efficient vehicles and hybrids, after all those who bought monster SUVs that got 6 miles to the gallon suddenly complained about gas prices. Ethanol alternatives are being experimented with. The private sector has responded and offered alternatives, instead of the federal government sticking it's nose in. And the price of gas has dropped almost a dollar a gallon, due in some small part to the government cutting taxes on "big oil". As for the suggestion that we could reduce our dependance on foreign oil…whenever those of us on the right side of the aisle suggest ANYTHING other than oil, the left goes hysteric. Nuclear power? TOXIC FUMES! Water power? The dams will screw up the matings habits of fish. Wind power? Birds will die from the blades. Drilling for oil in Alaska? What about the poor carabo? There is no suggestion that the "reduce foreign oil reliance" crowd will accept.
The inconvenient truth about globalization is that to compete, we need to make goods cheaper. This means that many will lose their health care. Sad, but unavoidable. Between unions and governmental interference in health care, companies are going to have to start making choices. Bigger workforce with less benefits…or provide everything the unions want and lay off workers.
And then there's Iraq. Even conservatives now parrot the pathetic line that "Bush may have been wrong…but…" There is no Bush may have been wrong. The standard talking point when someone brings up the "bad intelligence Bush gave us", should be for the conservative to stand tall and say "Yes, well, while you are entitled to your opinion, there was no bad information. We have found over 500 munitions in Iraq that fall under the classification of Weapons of Mass Destruction that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Saddam was not complying with UN sanctions to destroy his old munitions. We have a prominant Iraqi general George Sada telling us exactly where in Syria they shipped the WMDs that George Bush knew they were making. We have satelite photos of the convoys leaving the inspection sites. There was NO mistake in information. Saddam had WMDs, and we just gave him all the time he needed to get rid of them."
As for the contention that somehow Iraq has made us "less safe", that is categorically nonsense. It's little more than a lazy talking point by the anti- Bush crowd with nothing to back it up. Pardon me for scratching my head in bewilderment at the silly idea that somehow taking the fight to them and making the battleground Iraq, as opposed to America, has made us less safe. Moving on.
The economy is doing just fine, and considering that the loss of Manufacturing jobs began in ernest under Clinton, it's nothnig new. Economic doomsay warnings are always overblown, and seek to make things sound so awful, when they're going good.
In short, every election we hear how conservatives are so disenfranchised that they'll stay home in droves…or vote for the liberals in protest. And everytime, the conservatives always hold strong. This time we may lose a couple seats, but not enough to worry about. And in the end, the only point that I agree with in this article is that…the few seats we may lose, it's our fault. Not because conservatives aren't doing their best with a bad situation, but because they simply would step up and frame the debate with the truth, and instead simply try to tap dance around the liberals misinformation. That, and nothing else, is their failing.
Bravo to WolvenBear for retorting another Bush-hating rant from the halls of left-leaning academia.
George W. Bush, in spite of his shortcomings, deserves BIG respect and credit for realizing the importance of, and having the fortitude to take the ultimately critical battle with our mortal enemies TO THEM preemptively.
Those who expect the republicans to be "shellacked' just don't get the fact that the Americans do NOT want their taxes raised.
There is a lot I could say in respone to this article. But I will stay with a couple of concepts many people seem to ignore.. First, is that a president inherits a lot from the previous office holder. Many of the mistakes of an administration do not come home to roost until the next poor guy has to take over the house cleaning.
Second: I can think of no other president who has had to deal with the plethora of serious issues that have been faced by the current administration. We are doing pretty well, all things considered. Look at things from a historical perspective. Sometimes I want to ask the critics: "What do you want, egg in your beer?" I do not think even Lincoln or FDR had the complexities we have today.
I live in South Alabama. Even the "poor" in America have houses, cars and pickups, cable TV, and maybe a bass boat. The fact of the matter is that we are spoiled rotten. Too many Americans want to have their cake and eat it too.
The fault does not lie with Bush. The fault lies with too many pundits and journalists who find the dark side to everything and refuse to give credit due to the context of the problems being faced. I shudder at the thought of what some of the other yahoos seeking the highest office in the land would have done with this time in history.