I think the Republicans have been stumbling badly. They were on the wrong side of the Schiavo issue. They’re on the wrong side with filibusters. And whether or not Tom Delay is guilty of malfeasance, he’s a very unappealing face for the party. Bush’s social security plan is mediocre at best, and he’s done a terrible job of marketing it. The John Bolton nomination is in disarray, and the Republicans and the President have been awful in defending the nomination. Total disarray.
And their biggets failing is that, even though they have majorities in all branches of government, they’ve still been completely unable to reign in spending. The judicial thing is a bit of a distraction to the real issue - that the Republicans, the traditional party of small government, is now presiding over a huge expansion of government, both domestic and military.
Now you just have two different factions of technocrats arguing over how to run everyone’s lives.
They’ve been unable to? Hell, they haven’t even tried. Saying they’ve been unable to reign in spending is kind of like saying that I’ve been unable to vacuum behind the couch.
Besides being “the traditional party of small government”, what have they done since January 2001 to make you think they have any interest in small government?
Dubya and his party inherited a full piggy bank and all they’ve done is do their best to spend it as fast as they can and dig the biggest hole they can as fast as they can.
Anyone know the status of those Patriot Act sunsets?
I think that Bush is having some trouble with a few issues. But, more importantly, he’s been cautious and seems to be taking his time with things, especially Social Security. This has the effect of making him seem stalled, when in reality I don’t think things are as bad as they seem.
Bush has been more clever here than most give him credit for. If Bush came up with a comprehensive plan for SS and then revealed it then it would have been a disaster. His political enemies would have a plan to tear apart, and the voters wouldn’t have been ready to hear about details yet anyway.
Instead, Bush has simply been making the case that there is a problem. This does two things: 1. It prepares the way for a plan by making people aware of the many flaws with the existing system. 2. It weakens his opponents because they are wasting a lot of energy doing battle with a plan that does not yet exist. The Democrats and the AARP have made it clear that they are against any plan to fix SS. They look obstructionist, and people are that much less likely to listen to them later when a specific plan is on the table.
I also disagree with your inference that younger Americans aren’t eager for a plan.
84% is a huge number. It’s hard to imagine more support from “younger” workers. (Younger being defined as under 55, which is certainly generous.)
The key up to now has been selling the idea of reform. This has been a success. Now that people want it, especially younger workers who will actually be affected by it, Bush can proceed to creating a plan with specifics.
This is a problem for the Republicans, certainly. I do think that they have done the right thing by defending Delay. He hasn’t done that much, but certainly does walk the line as you say. But, until some clear evidence of law breaking comes into light, they should stand by him. Loosing a leader based on nothing solid just makes the republicans look weak and empowers the democrats.
I think the Democrats do look obstructionist right now. The “nuclear option” as the dems call it is simply an up or down vote. This was stated by Bush last night and has been repeated a lot by conservatives lately. This message is getting through.
I agree that making the dems actually do a fillibuster would be a great idea. It helps to make them even more obstructionist. They are great at threatening it, lets make them do it.
I was against what the republicans were doing regarding Schiavo. But, everything they did was within the law. They took it as far as they could and then let it go. I don’t see this hurting them too much. I would have been much more offended if they went the whole “activist judge” route and found a conservative judge willing to legislate from the bench about the issue. But, this didn’t happen. Their attidude came across to me as non-political. Even though I disagree with them, It doesn’t bother me too much.
Most of the people really inflamed by this are liberals who wouldn’t vote republican anyway. Plus, don’t forget, this is red meat for the conservative/religous base voters.
Remember, Bush is only a few months into his presidency. There’s plenty of time to get things done.
Think of the alternative. If Bush were being more aggressive in promoting his agenda, then we would have people complaining about that. I don’t think it’s time to write off his second term just yet.
Starting from this: “This should be a winning issue with younger Americans at least”.
Is what you said not what you meant? Is the fact that your OP asks about leadership, not substance, not a suggestion that you accept the substance? Oh well, you’ve always been flexible.
This isn’t a failure of salesmanship. It’s simply harvest time.
Wow. Now that is optimism. I think any reasonable review of the Social Security Road Show has been that it is a miserable failure. No meaningful change in expressions of support among representatives and senators has been achieved. Bush’s approval ratings for his handling of SS have dropped 10 points in the last year (http://www.pollingreport.com/social.htm) according to ABC News Polls, and have declined in most polls generally. Support for a privatization plan fell from 53 to 45 percent. Remarkably, during his road show, the percentage of people who think that SS will have enough money available to provide benefits they expect for retirement has gone UP two points, according to CBS News Polling.
If his effort is to convince people that there is a problem, it doesn’t seem to be working. If his effort is to convince people that he is the man to deal with the problem, it isn’t working either. It has only been through arm twisting that he has made his own party leaders move away from their statements that they won’t even pursue the matter this year.
Sure, it could be an incredibly clever rope-a-dope move. Or it could be that a little leadership on the other side is finally bringing the truth into the light. Whatever it is, Bush’s plummet appears to be picking up steam rather than diminishing, and his desperate attempt to staunch the bleeding last night seems to have gone over like a lead turd.
As far as the Democrats, they do have a plan. They call it: SOCIAL SECURITY.
Well, now, be fair, Johnny. If you say something should be a winning issue, you do imply some approval. Like when I say someone should do this and shouldn’t do that, I am implying judgement. Without a clarifying caveat, the failure to communicate rests with you.
If such is the case, it calls for a shrug and a correction, not a rebuke.
John, you’re actively *refusing * to clarify which part of your OP consists of “substance” and which does not. Until you do so, you’re not in a good position to say anyone else who’s trying to figure it out is “yammering”, eh what?
Now why did you say that the Bush SS proposal “should be a winning issue” if you meant the opposite?
Another possibility for both parties on such nominations would be to take the words of the constitution “advice and consent” literally. In other words, go to the Senate for advice on what sort of nominee is acceptable. The current practice for both parties seems to be “I’ll nominate whomever I want and I should get my way.”
The Judiciary is a coequal branch and is not part of the staff of the President. It seems to me that as such it deserves the cooperation of the other two branches in the naming of judges, not a continued political fight as happened in the Clinton administration and as is happening now.
Not at all. “Winning” means most people (or in this case, most younger people) will agree with it. That doesn’t mean I will. Being against SSM is a winning issue right now, but I favor SSM. Being for the death penality is a winning issue, but I’m against the death penalty. Being for the war in Iraq was a winning issue back in '02, but I was against the war.
So, if by “approval” you mean I think it’s a good political move, then OK. But just because I think something is a good political move doesn’t mean I agree with it on principle.
Except that most of them were elected on some combination of platitudes, mud-slinging, war-mongering and image campaigns, not on specific policy proposals. Once they start getting into policy specifics, it’s a new ball game.
On a presidential level you have a point. But when you look at Congress, the overwhelming majority of Representitives from both parties come from safe, gerrymandered districts. If there’s anything to this ‘red / gray / blue state’ demographic, the odds are fairly high the Senate will become even more Republican in 2007 - no matter how slick each individual campaign is run.
What Social Security plan? I think you’re falling for some liberal talking points here, Sam. Bush hasn’t come out with a plan. He’s simply saying that the program is broken and heading for bankcuptcy. Also, it’s flawed in that younger workers can’t control their investment choices and take advantage of compounding interest. He’s claiming to be open to any plans that don’t increase the payroll tax from either party.
Saying that his plan is flawed can’t be accurate since he hasn’t decided on a specific plan yet.
I’ve wanted to respond to this for a few days now, but my membership was locked due to a technical error! Frustrating.
I meant the private accounts plan. As a conservative, it sounded good to me in broad strokes, but the actual implementaton details looked like a nest of red tape and conditions.
Do you have a link to this plan? I wasn’t aware that there was one.
Bush has said that he wants to change SS, and this change would involve private accounts. That’s about all I’ve heard. I was expecting him to lay out more of the details in his press conference the other day, but he did not.
You take that as a given. But yet it’s not happening - could it be that “younger people” are a little smarter, or perhaps cautious, than you’re giving them credit for? I did try to open that topic earlier, before your complaint about any challenge to your preconception being “lack of substance”. Perhaps you can do a little better than that?
Sam, how can you be in favor of a plan that doesn’t exist? Is your faith that solid?