May 30, 2006

Bush, Republicans Lose Edge On National Security
— Ace

So says one poll.

For the first time since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, national security is no longer President Bush's trump card.

With violence grinding on in Iraq, a majority of Americans have been telling pollsters in recent weeks that they trust Democrats as much or more than Bush or his Republican allies in Congress to protect the country, combat terrorism and run a sound foreign policy.

"The advantage the president has had on national security is either much smaller now or is perhaps gone," said pollster Scott Rasmussen. "What has been new in the last few months is a decline in support among the Republican base. Republicans are beginning to have doubts about the connection between Iraq and the larger war on terror. And they are less confident that we are doing well in the war on terror."

That makes the Democrats' and media's salivating over the possibility of a November blowout more likely.

For those who want the GOP punished and chastised for their errant ways-- well, that's going to happen. You don't need to avoid voting; the GOP will probably lose one or both houses of Congress this November.

But maybe disaffected GOP voters should consider making sure they vote in record-high numbers-- to avoid a wholesale bloodbath.

Posted by: Ace at 08:04 AM | Comments (34)
Post contains 226 words, total size 2 kb.

1 You're way too gloomy Ace. These polls are always skewed and always favor the Dems. The 2006 election will be based on local politics more than national. Incumbents have a huge advantage and as soon as the Dems come out and say what they stand for, they lose the masses. Troops will be coming home before the election, the economy is good and as long as the Reps turn out to vote, all will be fine.

Posted by: Patrick H at May 30, 2006 08:10 AM (vIarL)

2 I take the middle ground. I think we're going to lose enough seats in the House so it's almost tied or goes to the Dems. The crappy Senate will stay in the Republican corner (at least on paper).

The base isn't going to work very hard to keep this batch in office. Unfortunately, the House will get punished for the Senate and the Pres's betrayal.

Posted by: adolfo velasquez at May 30, 2006 08:18 AM (eUpRc)

3 To hell with the Republicans. I don't vote for them just so they can be ubber-Democrats. Why do I care if it's Denny-we'reabovethelaw-Hastert or Bella-Lugosi-Pellosi runs the show. They are both crooks!

If they want to do that, let them get elected by Democrats.

I'm staying home!

Posted by: Reddish Jode at May 30, 2006 08:22 AM (KeOQp)

4 If the House Republicans hold the line on immigration, they'll win hands down. They might even gain.

Posted by: Iblis at May 30, 2006 08:26 AM (9221z)

5 Not too late for the naughty gop to change it's ways. Why aren't people asking them to get with the progam instead of the rank and file being asked to take it up the you know what once again?

Posted by: shawn at May 30, 2006 08:28 AM (lw1AE)

6 If the House Republicans hold the line on immigration, they'll win hands down. They might even gain.

There's only a small handful willing to be point men on this though. Most are cowering flacid bowls of quivering jello unwilling to risk "offending" the illegals.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at May 30, 2006 08:29 AM (gf5iT)

7 If we enforce the law, it won't matter a whole hell of a lot what illegal aliens think about American politics, now will it?

But I agree that Ace is unduly pessimistic.

Posted by: lauraw at May 30, 2006 08:34 AM (zn1Sk)

8 Much as the media seems to want this to be about Iraq (and thereby a vindication of their stance thereof), common sense tells us this is not where the disaffection is coming from - instead it is due to F'N BORDER F'N SECURITY.

Ever since the Dubai deal-that-almost-was, people have been watching Bush's and the GOP's work on border security, and feeeling an increasing sense of helpless dread. Which translates into low confidence on national security.

Not rocket science, but as usual the MSM never gets closer than 90 degrees to the truth.

Cause for alarm? Sure. But I'm afraid that bailing the GOP out now is just going to make it continue its blithe slide into RINO-dom. The GOP majorities were supposed to be like Blair; a kickass sidekick to help Bush with the hard work we all thought he was going to do, not the pathetic prevaricating mass of bumblers they have turned out to be.

I'll be sitting this one out, and if the GOP takes a tumble, maybe it will give a new generation of politicians a shot - one who pays closer attention to their base and the blogs instead of treating us like the kids in the backseat yammering "are there yet are we there yet are we-".

Blah.

Posted by: Scott at May 30, 2006 08:35 AM (f8958)

9 I'll be sitting this one out, and if the GOP takes a tumble, maybe it will give a new generation of politicians a shot - one who pays closer attention to their base and the blogs instead of treating us like the kids in the backseat yammering "are there yet are we there yet are we-". -- Scott

Sorry, Scott, that will not happen. Conservatives sitting out the election will send the opposite message to the Repubs...the message that the conservative base doesn't matter, because they aren't voting.

I will vote for conservatives first, Repubs second, when I can. If the Dems get back into power, and roll back the tax cuts and do other damage, it won't be my fault.

Posted by: JannyMae at May 30, 2006 08:38 AM (LfIsL)

10 The bill will pass the House. You wait and see. The gov't is gearing up to shift the burden on the middle class to support a new class of poor people coming across the border(s). They know we're not going to vote for them (everyone is stating that they'll stay home) so they need a new class of voters.

These lackeys in the House and Senate don't care either way. You think they'll pay more in taxes? I don't think so. Taxes are going to have to go thru the roof to support the system the immigrants will require: SS benefits, healthcare, education, EIC - you name it.

Every year this country produces less raw materials or finished products. However, we produce more kids who don't speak our language, support our nation or purchase what products we produce. All the dinero goes back to la familia.

Aren't you tired of asking the person in front of you at the supermarket to move forward, only to have them stare at you blankly, turn around and go back to yammering at his/her boyfriend/girlfriend?

Posted by: Pixelflash at May 30, 2006 08:43 AM (O+1/6)

11 I'll be sitting this one out, and if the GOP takes a tumble, maybe it will give a new generation of politicians a shot

Yeah, or maybe give the demos a shot at control for a generation. Along with control coming supreme court nominations, gerrymandering, etc., ensuring the affects of that control will last much longer.

Posted by: Slatz at May 30, 2006 08:56 AM (aBntd)

12 Whether or not the pollsters have an agenda, I think the real point is that election polls this far out are mostly meaningless because the average voter hasn't even *started* thinking about the election. They may be both "honest" responses and have virtually zero to do with their eventual voting decision.

Or from a slightly different angle, I vividly recall the MSM (which, then, was simply M) telling us in 1988, at about this time of the year, how Bush didn't have a prayer of stopping the inevitable Dukakis juggernaut, who all the polls showed winning in a landslide.

I still think, simply because any time the Conventional Wisdom is so unanimous about a predicted outcome (catastrophic GOP defeat, here), the Conventional Wisdom won't just be wrong (as it always is), but *spectacularly* wrong.

Posted by: David C at May 30, 2006 09:12 AM (9DumO)

13 Dukakis couldn't recover from the one-two of the photo of him in a tank and the Willie Horton debacle.

A powerful one against any Rep that didn't vote down the bill will be families running across the Rio Grande.

More power to the Paul Revere riders!

Posted by: Pixelflash at May 30, 2006 09:39 AM (O+1/6)

14 Just remember, loss of control of either house of Congress will:

1. Be regarded by the Dems as not just a repudiation of the Repubs, but also as validation of the Dems' positions, so say hello to attempts at (i) increased taxes, (ii) impeachment, (iii) global warming nonsense, (iv) internet censorship, (v) truly run-away spending and (vi) amnesty for illegal immigrants - the very issue that may cause Repubs to stay home and thus produce the very result they're angry about. (When I say this, I'm assuming that the House will not pass the Senate's amnesty bill before the election.)

2. Be a huge victory for the msm in its war against President Bush. For this reason alone, I'm going to continue to support the Repubs no matter how angry I am at them.

And I have to ask all of you who are saying you're going to stay home in November - Do you want the nyt, cbs, cnn etc. to win in November?

Posted by: max at May 30, 2006 10:11 AM (210f1)

15 Slatz is right. If the democrats get in, they'll further arrange things so we'll be hard-pressed to get them out again.

Posted by: Cindi at May 30, 2006 10:15 AM (asVsU)

16 1. Be regarded by the Dems as not just a repudiation of the Repubs, but also as validation of the Dems' positions, so say hello to attempts at (i) increased taxes, (ii) impeachment, (iii) global warming nonsense, (iv) internet censorship, (v) truly run-away spending and (vi) amnesty for illegal immigrants - the very issue that may cause Repubs to stay home and thus produce the very result they're angry about. (When I say this, I'm assuming that the House will not pass the Senate's amnesty bill before the election.)

2. Be a huge victory for the msm in its war against President Bush.

If Bushco doesn't care if this happens, why should we? I mean, really, put the pressure on those who deserve it, because this blackmail tactic is not going to work.

Posted by: shawn at May 30, 2006 11:58 AM (lw1AE)

17 If Bushco doesn't care if this happens, why should we?

1. Some of what Bush is doing we don't like, but that doesn't mean he's 'not caring'; it's just that we disagree with him - see amnesty.

2. We should care because we are going to have to live with the results - and they're not going to be pretty if the Dems and the msm win in November.

3. In addition to the items I mentioned above, a Dem victory in November will be perceived by the enemy as an opportunity to get us to withdraw from Iraq and to leave Iran alone. It will be a major setback in the ongoing war on terror (which we've all forgotten about while we're having hissy fits) and will be treated by both our enemies and the msm as meaing America should withdraw from the world stage as it did after Vietnam.

Or to put it another way, if you can't defeat America militarily, castrate it psychologically - and that's what a Dem victory in November will do in terms of our willingness to project American power to protect us and the rest of the free world.

Posted by: max at May 30, 2006 12:40 PM (ZliJM)

18 Well, gee, Max, you better hurry and convince Bush to act like a republican and protect our sovereignty. Otherwise, the republicans are going to lose big time in 2006.

Posted by: shawn at May 30, 2006 01:07 PM (lw1AE)

19 At least vote, REPUBLICRATS. Don't let yourselves or AMERICA down. I KNOW there ain't nothing much to choose from, vote anyway. Write in Mickey Mouse or Goofy if you have to but don't cut AMERICA short. VOTE!!!

Posted by: Mike Meyer at May 30, 2006 01:17 PM (9QW/U)

20 Bush IS acting like a Republican. He may not be conservative enough for many people on the issue of border security but I'm not sure he realistically could be conservative for many.

Bush is getting pummeled in the polls by mostly the dems (almost universal) and by the unaffiliated mostly because of Iraq. Yet he has risked his Presidency by standing fast on this issue seeing it through. Funny, but I remember a good many conservatives who were standing with Bush when he said that terrorism was a generational problem and would be a fight we would have for potentially decades but one we would not abandon. Wonder what happened to their backbone.

The simple fact is that there are not enough conservaties who favor a very draconian approach to the issue of border security to win an election for just about any politician. Thats just what is and jumping up and down with anger at politicians who understand and actually need to get re-elected to do anything won't change this.

It took us generations to get into the mess we have with our southern border. Its not going to change in one election cycle. I for one am not going to stay home but will vote for people who I agree with on judicial appointments, taxes and for the most part national security. I will continue to advocate for stronger enforcement of immigration laws and enforcement of hiring practices. What I won't do is help turn the Congress back over to people who don't represent my views in the least.

anid if the Congress goes to the dems, I for one will know it won't be because of anything I did.

Posted by: JackStraw at May 30, 2006 01:24 PM (rnOZq)

21 if the Congress goes to the dems, I for one will know it won't be because of anything I did.

A-fucking-men.

Posted by: Meekrob at May 30, 2006 01:30 PM (mA9tr)

22 Back in 1992, Republican, Bob McEwen, was running against Democrat, Ted Strickland, in my house district.

McEwen was a blow dried piece of shit who talked a good game on cutting spending while working overtime to bring home the bacon to his own district. Further, he was one of the many Reps caught up in the House checking scandal.

I held my nose and voted for Strickland, who won. 4 years later, I was able to vote for Republican, Frank Cremeans, who beat Strickland narrowly to regain the seat.

The point is, unless you vote out the Republican piece of shit RINOs, you'll never get anyone better in those seats. Me, I'll never vote for a Democrat again, but I will either abstain or vote Libertarian for DeWine's seat in the Senate. He fucked us on immigration so I'm gonna fuck him out of his job.

Posted by: The Warden at May 30, 2006 02:28 PM (rkK3q)

23 I just hope the Democrats believe their own distortions...

Posted by: Steve O at May 30, 2006 02:59 PM (R0Csm)

24 We are going in the right direction, but that will never be good enough for those who insist on ideological purity.

When politicians pander to illegals by providing them with tax-payer funded government $ervices while making only ineffective, token gestures toward securing our borders they are, in fact, forcing their constituents to fund the destruction of their economic system and culture.

Of course, they could give a shit how this affects you and your family. They'll always be safe and secure in their gated communities, holding the reigns of power and using their influence to enrich themselves and their loved ones.

Open up those pocket books, party-firsters! Make sure you keep those vote-pandering RINOs in office. Otherwise something bad might happen!

Posted by: The Warden at May 30, 2006 05:54 PM (cMMJ/)

25 I really feel that people STILL ARE NOT READY to trust Democrats with the keys to this country right now. I think the Republican will not lose that many seats. It will, however, be enough to scare a few "Gang of 14" type douchenozzles(Yes Lindsy Graham, i'm lookin' at you) into toeing a straighter party line. Or so I hope.

Posted by: The Drizzle at May 30, 2006 08:07 PM (UygmY)

26 I held my nose and voted for Strickland, who won. 4 years later, I was able to vote for Republican, Frank Cremeans, who beat Strickland narrowly to regain the seat.

Thats great but not the norm. The average length in office for a Congressman is 9 years. The average length for a Senator is 11 years. In reality there are very few swing districts in either house with the vast majority being safe districts one way or the other.

For every Strickland who can be defeated there are 5 Nancy Pelosis who can't.

I'm sorry but I still don't get the logic that says I am not happy with many of the things my rep has done so I am going to vote for someone who will do things that I absolutley hate across the board. You guys keep acting like you are punishing the reps alone without acknowledging that you stand to lose at least as much. More really.

Posted by: JackStraw at May 31, 2006 12:21 AM (rnOZq)

27 Sorry, Scott, that will not happen. Conservatives sitting out the election will send the opposite message to the Repubs...the message that the conservative base doesn't matter, because they aren't voting.

I will vote for conservatives first, Repubs second, when I can. If the Dems get back into power, and roll back the tax cuts and do other damage, it won't be my fault.
One of the major problems I have with the idea of amnesty for felonious aliens is a deep-set aversion to rewarding bad behavior.

This is every bit as applicable to the current crop of Republican lawmakers.


Posted by: apotheosis at May 31, 2006 05:52 AM (KpdET)

28 Well, I'm damn well turning up this Fall, so I can vote against that uber-RINO Chafee. Once, if I'm lucky. Twice, if not.

What is it the South Park guys said? No matter what, elections always turn out to be a choice between a giant douche and a shit sandwich.

Woohoo! Go giant douche!

Posted by: S. Weasel at May 31, 2006 06:17 AM (rasT+)

29 You guys keep acting like you are punishing the reps alone without acknowledging that you stand to lose at least as much.

Sometimes when your house is messy, you have to make an even bigger mess in the process of cleaning it up.

Keeping RINOs in office is not in my long-term best interest. I honestly believe that both parties are taking us down a path of destruction with their immigration policy and spending on entitlements. Why should I care if one road brings me to the destination slightly faster than the other?

Posted by: The Warden at May 31, 2006 07:31 AM (rZ5uY)

30 My house is on fire. Why should I bother putting it out? I mean, no matter how much of it burns I'm going to get the insurance money anyway. So let it burn flat. I'll have to rebuild the whole house instead of just a few rooms, and it'll be expensive, but what the hell, it's not worth the effort to save anything.

Posted by: Michael Andreyakovich at May 31, 2006 07:48 AM (9pkhB)

31 My house is on fire. Why should I bother putting it out? I mean, no matter how much of it burns I'm going to get the insurance money anyway. So let it burn flat. I'll have to rebuild the whole house instead of just a few rooms, and it'll be expensive, but what the hell, it's not worth the effort to save anything.

Sorry, that's not even close to being analogous to the situation at hand. Here...

My house is on fire. Hmm, whom should I call to put it out? Here are my choices:

The people who set it on fire

The people who fan the flames

Decisions, decisions...

Posted by: bbeck at May 31, 2006 08:00 AM (qF8q3)

32 ...because there is no such thing as a third party. Pay no attention to those other candidates who may represent your views!

Posted by: Roy at May 31, 2006 08:08 AM (2XXia)

33 ...because there is no such thing as a third party.

...because there's no such thing as a successful third party.

Pay no attention to those other candidates who may represent your views!

And since when did any third party candidate represent my views?

Regardless, the point is escaping you. There are people here advocating conservatives vote for the Republican candidate for the purpose of keeping the Republicans in power. That's what the analogy above addressed.

NO ONE has said ANYTHING about NOT voting for a candidate who actually represents your views.

It would be wise for people to READ the comments before adding to them.

Posted by: bbeck at May 31, 2006 08:24 AM (qF8q3)

34 Voting for a candidate whose views you do not agree with simply to maintain a majority sends them a clear message: you've acknowledged that they've got you bent over a barrel, and they can count on your vote regardless of your disagreement.

At that point, they're free to pander to whatever special interest group offers the best benefit package.

Your vote is, in the end, the one and only thing you have to hold over their heads. Email, outraged letters, repeated phone calls to their offices - all these things, they can afford to ignore, so long as they know you'll vote for them anyway.

By all means, support those with whom you agree. But don't willingly discard the only effective and reliable tool you have - your VOTE - out of blind loyalty to a party that isn't serving you. Yes, I agree the other side of the aisle is worse, but how much worse? And more to the point, how are things supposed to improve if they're allowed to stagnate in the relative comfort of the status quo?

Posted by: apotheosis at May 31, 2006 08:40 AM (KpdET)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
96kb generated in CPU 12.77, elapsed 10.3068 seconds.
62 queries taking 9.6961 seconds, 270 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.