The Republicans Really Won
Etan Patz, Pedro Hernandez
Democrats stop celebrating, and Republicans, don't despair. I know the Democrats won the recent election on paper, but in the long run the Republicans just might be the big winners of Election 2006.
In fact, I think the Republicans set the whole thing up so the Democrats could fail over the next two years, which will bring about a big Republican presidential win in 2008.
What other explanation is there? I mean, do you think that Karl Rove and the rest of the Republican brain trust suddenly got stupid? I don't think so.
Iraq
Iraq looks like a no-win situation. And who knows this better than the current Administration? So, they're turning over the mess to the Democrats saying, "Here. If you think you're so smart, you fix it." And when the 2008 election comes around and we haven't gotten out of Iraq as easily as everyone hoped, who's going to be blamed: The Democratic majority.
Accountability And Revenge
Everyone is waiting to see how vigorously the Democrats will try to make the Republicans accountable for the mistakes that were made in dealing with Katrina and Iraq.
I guess the thinking goes like this: "If they could impeach President Clinton because he lied about his sexual exploits, shouldn't the Republicans be held accountable for lying (or at best, being mistaken or incompetent) about things that led to Americans losing their homes or their lives?"
I follow the logic, but this could be a trap set by the Republicans. If there are too many committees, too many accusations, and too many subpoenas, there is bound to be a public backlash. If Republicans are blamed for everything from the war in Iraq, to global warming, to the popularity of "Dancing With The Stars," Democrats will look like sore winners.
If the Democrats investigate other things — corruption and general sleaziness — they risk turning up evidence against themselves as well. On the other hand, if they don't try to put a stop to all the greed and sleaze in Congress, those who voted for them will feel betrayed. Is this another no-win situation engineered by the Republicans?
The Rumsfeld Factor
When I first heard that President Bush was firing — I mean, "accepting the resignation of" — Secretary Rumsfeld, I thought this meant the President was resigning, too. After all, a week before the election, President Bush assured us that Secretary Rumsfeld would continue in his position for as long as Bush was President. But people were so happy to see Rumsfeld go, that nobody made that big of a deal about the President's little fib.
Bush wanted to get rid of Rumsfeld for quite a while, but he couldn't just fire him after making so many statements supporting him. But after the election, the president could say that he was responding to the electorate since "the people have spoken." Score a big one for the Republicans.
Bringing In Daddy's Guys
And who did the president name as Rumsfeld's replacement? Robert Gates, the guy who was the head of the CIA during the first President Bush's administration. And who was brought in to help with Iraq policy? James A. Baker III, a good friend of President Bush I and his Secretary of State.
Baker last surfaced during the Florida recount in 2000, representing the Republican interests. If he could help pull off that victory, maybe some of his mojo can help end the war in Iraq. This might even be easier than 2000 — he won't have to worry about annoying things like election laws and "obstructionist" Supreme Court justices.
Other friends and associates of the elder Bush will be helping out, too. But I don't think this is just a case of a father bailing out a son. I think this is all part of a calculated grand scheme by the Grand Old Party to do whatever's necessary to keep the White House in 2008.
So, who do they plan on running for President in 2008? Let's see. Who's comfortable with all these friends and advisors of the first George Bush? Who has experience in waging war against Iraq? And who could become president without saying one negative word about the current president? There's only one man who fits this bill. That's right — George Herbert Walker Bush.
Why not? The President's dad served only one term, so constitutionally he's still eligible. And do you honestly think this scenario is any more far-fetched than some of the things we're going to see in politics over the next two years?
E-mail your questions and comments to Lloyd Garver
Lloyd Garver writes a weekly column for SportsLine.com. He has written for many television shows, ranging from "Sesame Street" to "Family Ties" to "Frasier." He has also read many books, some of them in hardcover.
By Lloyd Garver
Copyright 2009 CBS. All rights reserved. In fact, I think the Republicans set the whole thing up so the Democrats could fail over the next two years, which will bring about a big Republican presidential win in 2008.
What other explanation is there? I mean, do you think that Karl Rove and the rest of the Republican brain trust suddenly got stupid? I don't think so.
Iraq
Iraq looks like a no-win situation. And who knows this better than the current Administration? So, they're turning over the mess to the Democrats saying, "Here. If you think you're so smart, you fix it." And when the 2008 election comes around and we haven't gotten out of Iraq as easily as everyone hoped, who's going to be blamed: The Democratic majority.
Accountability And Revenge
Everyone is waiting to see how vigorously the Democrats will try to make the Republicans accountable for the mistakes that were made in dealing with Katrina and Iraq.
I guess the thinking goes like this: "If they could impeach President Clinton because he lied about his sexual exploits, shouldn't the Republicans be held accountable for lying (or at best, being mistaken or incompetent) about things that led to Americans losing their homes or their lives?"
I follow the logic, but this could be a trap set by the Republicans. If there are too many committees, too many accusations, and too many subpoenas, there is bound to be a public backlash. If Republicans are blamed for everything from the war in Iraq, to global warming, to the popularity of "Dancing With The Stars," Democrats will look like sore winners.
If the Democrats investigate other things — corruption and general sleaziness — they risk turning up evidence against themselves as well. On the other hand, if they don't try to put a stop to all the greed and sleaze in Congress, those who voted for them will feel betrayed. Is this another no-win situation engineered by the Republicans?
The Rumsfeld Factor
When I first heard that President Bush was firing — I mean, "accepting the resignation of" — Secretary Rumsfeld, I thought this meant the President was resigning, too. After all, a week before the election, President Bush assured us that Secretary Rumsfeld would continue in his position for as long as Bush was President. But people were so happy to see Rumsfeld go, that nobody made that big of a deal about the President's little fib.
Bush wanted to get rid of Rumsfeld for quite a while, but he couldn't just fire him after making so many statements supporting him. But after the election, the president could say that he was responding to the electorate since "the people have spoken." Score a big one for the Republicans.
Bringing In Daddy's Guys
And who did the president name as Rumsfeld's replacement? Robert Gates, the guy who was the head of the CIA during the first President Bush's administration. And who was brought in to help with Iraq policy? James A. Baker III, a good friend of President Bush I and his Secretary of State.
Baker last surfaced during the Florida recount in 2000, representing the Republican interests. If he could help pull off that victory, maybe some of his mojo can help end the war in Iraq. This might even be easier than 2000 — he won't have to worry about annoying things like election laws and "obstructionist" Supreme Court justices.
Other friends and associates of the elder Bush will be helping out, too. But I don't think this is just a case of a father bailing out a son. I think this is all part of a calculated grand scheme by the Grand Old Party to do whatever's necessary to keep the White House in 2008.
So, who do they plan on running for President in 2008? Let's see. Who's comfortable with all these friends and advisors of the first George Bush? Who has experience in waging war against Iraq? And who could become president without saying one negative word about the current president? There's only one man who fits this bill. That's right — George Herbert Walker Bush.
Why not? The President's dad served only one term, so constitutionally he's still eligible. And do you honestly think this scenario is any more far-fetched than some of the things we're going to see in politics over the next two years?
E-mail your questions and comments to Lloyd Garver
Lloyd Garver writes a weekly column for SportsLine.com. He has written for many television shows, ranging from "Sesame Street" to "Family Ties" to "Frasier." He has also read many books, some of them in hardcover.
By Lloyd Garver
Do this math with the increase in housing prices, tuition costs, energy, utilities, food & other items how did the average american fair compaired to their tax cut? My calculator only shows numbers, but my mind reads only letters...SCREWED...
Get back to work, & focus on the present instead of ding dong hypothesis based on merely scenarios you have quirked up in your head; Maybe instead you should focus on how Mr. Bush wanted to ramrod warrantless wiretapping on Americans in this lameduck congress before the end of the year--Merry Christmas indeed.
Get a grip...
My thanks to the Amerian voter. We stopped a dangerous slide towards facism, and no Karl Rove is no genius, he just read 1984 too many times. Remember how Bush said it's his job to spread the message so he has to repeat many many times? Brain-washing works the same way, oh, unless you are wearing your IPOD. The voter has moved on, maybe you should do the same.
"Honesty has no fence against superior Cunning"
without a doubt the current republican leadership are more cunning. they are also more unscrupulous in their tactics.
they are ideologues who don't care what the 'real' effects of their policies are. they didn't work under reagan. they didn't work under daddy bush and they certainly haven't (and cannot work) under the extremes of the current bush. who went so much further that reagan looks like a centrist in comparison!
to paraphrase something from a speech by bill clinton.
"A conservative finding he's dug himself into a hole will ask for help out of it. An ideologue will ask for a bigger shovel"
And as regards " ... if the Democrats investigate other things
yes---the dems could most definitely screw things up. both in trying to clean up the messes bush will leave. if they don't find another clinton and institute some sound policies---the dems will fail and get some of the blame.
strategic by rove and the reps? no! the reps wanted to retain power, but could not because of their corruption and utter incompetence. both in iraq and equally importantly the economy.
the economy is in very poor condition. no matter what the spin doctors may try to tell you. soaring deficits have to be addressed sooner or later and the national debt is the monster under the bed. 12% of all gov income goes to interest payments! ouch!
take a look at what clinton accomplished compared to bush!