The networks are reporting to that effect, at any rate.
But at the same time, we also hear that Bush is a lame duck and our legislators aren’t afraid of him anymore. So how can Bush bend those guys to his will? Bush is so down in the public’s esteem, 58% of the population wish his term was over. For a president who has very little going his way in Iraq, he still has some big time clout with GOP Senators.
I have no idea what the answer might be, so I’m asking you here in GD, figuring the question might provoke a small debate, perhaps, and we’ll all be the better for it.
I wouldn’t think there’d be anything conspiratorial going on. A lot of senators have a lot invested in being pro-war, and the Senate is inherently less responsive to swings in the public mood than the House.
Even though certain congressional moneymen are gone, the system lives on. Most of the Publican campaign money flows through a small number of very big PACs. Centralization of the money flow means that any mavericks can be persuaded back to the herd with the stout lasso of campaign funds.
And for those that aren’t, the choice probably looks risky both ways. Unless things get to a point where GOP Congresscritters abandon Bush in droves, the handful who vote against the Iraq war are likely to hear that they’d better not expect any help from the party organization when re-election time rolls around.
I don’t believe for a second that Bush is pulling some puppet strings to make Senators vote against debating Iraq.
As stated, there are a number of Senators who are quite simply still in favor of the war. However, there is also a tactical issue at play here. Republicans want to guarantee a vote on a Republican version of a resolution on Iraq. If they voted for debate on the Democratic resolution, there’s no guarantee they would get a vote on their version.
Therefore, their only leverage to use to try to get a vote on their proposal is to vote against a debate until the Democrats concede to allowing them a vote. I think the dynamics here are more a lesson in why it pays (or sometimes backfires) for the minority party in the Senate to stick together, regardless of the issue, as opposed to a lesson in how the White House manipulates Congress.
Bush may be polling poorly in the general population, but I’ve seen articles which suggest he’s still got good support from the committed Republican voters - the ones who donate their time and their money to Republican candidates, and who subscribe to Ronnie Reagan’s 11th commandment. They’re not likely to take kindly to their local Republican senator or congressperson dissing Bush, and that could affect the chances of said local Senator or congressperson to win the local Republican primary next time they’re up for re-election.
(Sorry, no cites on the popularity issue - but I’ve seen references to this point from time to time. Maybe someone more skilled in google could come up with some info on this point?)
This post has been sitting here unchallenged for over a day.
In my opinion, if somone of a conservative bent had posted an equally absurd claim that FAVORED the administration, no matter how likely it was a joke, it would have been challenged, if not mercilessly shredded.
So I’ll just offer the polite observation that if this claim is anywhere near serious, it requires some citation to evidence
There’s a lot of dirt flying around in Washington these days. If the Libby case has taught us anything, it’s that the administration stands ready to use it.
I am absolutely sure he does, or if not him, some top lawdog in the admin. And for the Admin before that, and before that, and before that all the way back to Adam’s Admin. And they have files on the Dem’s too. Every Congressman and other top official has a file, and no one is 100% clean. They give out classified info to Congressmen and of course a complete background investigation is done.
However, I sincerely doubt they would be stupid enough to use these files for blackmail, as Squink seems to imply. Or that more than a handful has enough “good stuff” in their file to be blackmailed.
So now we must suspect that whenever republican senators vote for the war that the Bush Administration is doing something shady? Why can’t we just continue thinking that entire republican party is grossly incompetent?
I just think they don’t want to voice disapproval for the war. They have their reputations depending on the outcome of the war just as much as Bush does. Bush doesn’t have to twist their arm because the majority of the GOP are just as reluctant as Bush is to tell the public that they’ve lead them into a failing war.