I was reading David Remnick’s (editor of the New Yorker) take on Bush’s performance and wondered if there will really be any political price to be paid for this. Bush is a lame duck, people may beat on him, but how, really, can any of this criticism affect his longer term plans or the plans of the GOP?
People may be pissed, but is there any political price that will be paid beyond some administrative re-shufflings?
Brutal. Accurate, but brutal.
I think so. It has been a rough year for them. Terry Schiavo, Cindy Shaheen, and now this. Plus the GOP has had problems with Bob Taft, Ernie Fletcher, and there is still Tom Delay to deal with. Louisiana is a swing state that went for Clinton in 1992 and 1996, I think it can be in play for the Democrats in 2008.
If Bush’s image becomes really damaged, I do think he might be a liability instead of an asset for Republican candidates in '06 and '08. If your party has the sitting President, as a candidate you expect to have the President help out, maybe showing up at a campaign event or something. If he’s an albatross instead, yeah, it does hurt. Gore felt he couldn’t rely on Clinton’s support, and that hurt him.
There had better be a price. If the past week hasn’t convinced Americans of their emperor’s nakedness, nothing will.