The Republicans Really Won

Contributor Lloyd Garver Warns Democrats Their Jubilation Could Be Short-Lived

(CBS)  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.

[tan36-2009]

I think this man is to arrogant to know what is best for the American public. The Republicans has made a HUGE mess of the system. You can't just blame or governor for the unemployment rate in the state of Michigan. It started somewhere else. Like that darned Fair Trade agreement! If Llyod Garver thinks any more Republicans will win, well you can count on ,it will not be from me.

[soxperk]

Relax everyone. Jeez, can't you see the smirk on Lloyd's face and the slight protuberence of the cheek caused by his tongue? Poppy for President would be perfect and allow the Republicans to bring back Warren Harding's campaign slogan -- "A Return to Normalcy." Let's cut to the chase and nominate the real power in the Bush Family - BARB. All of these Bushmen are really her lackies anyway.

[gdmoore2]

Wow. So Katie Couric must really be a plot to bring Dan Rather back, eh?

[huskerarmy]

Well I guess if war is peace, Brownie did a great job, giving to the rich is helping the poor and Iraq is 911, then loosing can be winning. Can't it?

[fallngempire]

"He has also read many books, some of them in hardcover." All you need to know to tell that this is a parody.

[radiob-2009]

This guy actually gets paid to write editorials?I could write one as equally biased for either party reason for winning.The truth is America voted for the centrist not a party.All one has do is look at the ideaology that was in the campaigns and the candiates who once were of the political flavour.America wants balanced goverment,the war in Iraq to come to an end,the economy to grow and at least a curtailing of corruption.There it is your editorial on the 2006 elections CBS where is my check?

[elliotorbit]

Lloyd, let it go. Face facts. The Republicans lost the 2006 election. The Dems do not official start governing until January 2007. What's that keep focused? Plz, I think we need to move on here. Rove is a hack. Bush is washed up. The middle class is sick of hearing all the propaganda *** the media has been perpetuating about the so called great economy, Iraq is moving in some direction, oh let me see, that's right the middle class didn't receive those trickle down benefits and Iraq is on cruise control!?!

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.

[egresor]

this article reminds of a quotation from Gulliver's Travels:
"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"

[decristo50]

Do you actually believe that the Republicans engineered their own loss to sicker the Democrats into flopping around regarding Iraq? Their crafty, those Republicans, but not that clever. And by the way, they didn't lose, they were "wupped" big time. And not because the Democrats were especially brilliant or or strategically saavy, although, in some races they were that too. The Republicans LOST, because the American people were tired of the poster-child-evil the Republicans represented in government.

And as regards " ... if the Democrats investigate other things

[egresor]

hahah....what twisted logic!

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!

[pendragon679]

While this article IS tongue-in cheek, the five most frightening words in the English language are: President George Herbert Walker Bush.

Fortunately, the man is well into his 80's (I believe he'll be 85 by 2008), and therefore not likely to run. And, if you don't think Karl Rove is currently working for John McCain, I'd like to know what color the sky is in your world.

[getcentered]

Tongue-in-cheek, yes I hope so too.

Prelgovisk, about your blanket statements.

Do you really think we have Iran surrounded?
Where do you think so many of the foreign fighters in Iraq are coming from?
Iran is a nuclear power now and they have to be dealt with in the same manner as all the other nuclear powers, though diplomacy.

I think that if we didn't waste so many resources in Iraq then we would have a much stronger and meaningful position over Iran.

[ademeyer]

LLoyd, are you drunk?

Republicans couldn't engineer a girl scout jamboree, let alone lose an election "on purpose." This administration has proved itself incompetent on everything from Afghanistan/Iraq to Katrina. 58 percent of the American people are glad the Republicans lost. 60 percent of the youth voted Democratic - a new generation of anti-Republicans created by the Bush administration's poor performance. Rove was always a simple, political hack, not some kind of genius. If he were a genius he would have signed on to work for McCain, not Bush. Because of Bush, Republicans won't be back in power for another forty years.

[ibcrazybones]

Folks, Mr. Garver is toungue-in-cheek here. I hope.

Anyway, some of his predictions may come true, but not because of any brilliant plan by Repubs.... This election was all about throw the bums out. It happens every so often to both parties.

[prelgovisk]

The Democrats lost Iran during the Carter administration.

Bush has contained Iran by placing US troops on the Western (Iraqi) and Eastern (Afghanistan) frontiers of that nation. Establishing a defensible Iraq would have helped hedge them in a bit.

We can now expect the party that lost a westernized Iran to unleash a nuclear Iran.

Some improvement.

[drsweener]

Why spend $billions to intentionally loose control of both houses for a chance at the executive branch in 2008? Do you forget the executive and legislative branches are equal? Control of both houses = same power as controlling the presidency.

[rharrin1]

It doesn't matter there isn't one republican that can win in 2008 you guys have to thank your party for that.
As for throwing the election forget that didn't you see bush walking out of a meeting with his staff, his nose was dragging on the floor. HA HA HA HA HA

[dogsoul]

Corporate/Republican media? Yeah right, I suppose if you're only taking into account FoxNews and talk radio - sure... but they're pittens compared to the Liberal Mass Media Machine beating their drums every day. And to those who think this Democratic victory was some sort of tsunami of vindication for the liberal way - think again, just examine history for a momentary change - the party of the presidential incumbency loses on average around 35 seats at the 6 year term mark... which puts these results almost squarely in the middle of the bell curve, despite the timely scandals along with a massive & prolongued liberal media campaign to demoralize the the American people against our mission in Iraq in order to secure partisan victories. It's certainly a victory for Democrats, but from an historical perspective neither impressive nor unexpected.

[kwch]

Angryliberal you say

"the republicans should know better than to put this country in hands of democrats because they are putting millions at risk"

You talk about risk! Look at the national debt and Iraq both due to republicans, you are a moron! Blithering idiots like you need to open your eyes!

[mjv2944]

The dems will not turn over too many stones as I am sure they will not like what they see hiding under them. Both parties are equally corrupt and Pelosi is living in a dream world if she doesn't think this. She is putting in the same ole bullsh*t politicians that don't understand anything put corruption and pork. I hope that when the next election comes, that we have some independents on the ballot or a strong third party comes to be. Dems or repubs, I am so sick of the same ole sh*t that I could puke.