Nov. 15, 2006
The Republicans Really Won
Contributor Lloyd Garver Warns Democrats Their Jubilation Could Be Short-Lived
-
Photo
(CBS)
-
Special Report
Election Results
Find out who won and by how much in the 2006 midterm elections.
-
Who's Who
2008 Republican Hopefuls
McCain and Giuliani head up the Republican pack chasing the presidency.
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
©MMVI CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.
- Latest in Opinion: Modern Times
- Kansas Seizes Title In A Game To Remember
- NCAA Final Four: They're Just Kids
- NCAA Final Four Update: Friday Night Fever
If there is no progress on the Iraq (and I think there will be) I doubt the Dem will be blamed for it. After all, gw is still in the whitehouse and still being obstinate. All the latest signs say he is refusing to consider talking to Iran or Syria, refusing to consider a time table, refusing to consider anything but the old stay the course.
I doubt it. You can't stop a war, like you can a recount, by pounding on doors.
I agree wholeheartedly with ainttaken. I'm sick of dynasties. No more Bushes, no more Clintons, no more Kennedys.
I just dont understand how the republicans lost so bad, it seemed like everyone in the democratic party was trying to lose this election....I mean John Kerry, Kennedy, Murtha, Pelosi, and Clinton....you wouldnt have these people in your party if you wanted to win a nationalized election.
However, you do have a point. I guess since the republicans "rig" all the elections (according to the dems) than they could have just as easily rigged this one to lose.
"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. "
Are you kidding me?? For 6 years the republicans have blamed Clinton and Democrats for everything from 9/11 to potholes.
"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!
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
And as regards " ... if the Democrats investigate other things
"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"
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.
-
by tan36-2009
November 17, 2006 9:03 AM PST
- 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.
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 26 Comments