Update [2005-6-24 12:22:33 by Armando]: From the diaries by Armando
When you slip to 40-60, it's time to renew the battle lines that made it 50-50...
Immediately after the election, there was much speculation as to what would become of the "values voters" who were claiming credit for Bush's re-election. Of course, since then we've all come to realize that this term essentially referred to wingnuts like Falwell and Dobson, not some demographic which just happened to have more values in their souls than the rest of us. But what has become of these folks and their claim to dominance over the Republicans? Seems like a question all those speculators might want to answer at some point.
Well, they haven't really had to do a lot of work. Reason being that the Congress is led by two men who, each for their own personal reasons, have taken pandering to them to new heights. Frist sees them as
his ticket through the Republican primary in '08 (and McCain's demise), DeLay sees them as a
bludgeon he can use to keep his fellow Republicans in line.
Now Rove is reaching out to the same base, perhaps a little broader than the other two. As Atrios aptly puts it, he wants to renew this spirit:
Those of you who haven't blocked it out remember the Clear Channel organized "pro-war" or "pro-America" rallies that happened in the days before the war started. What was notable at the time (and Digby did note) was that the truth was that these were not pro-war rallies or pro-America rallies. In truth, they were anti-American rallies. The enemy to rally participants was not Saddam Hussein or al Qaeda, it was the Dixie Chicks. It was liberals. It was "the freaks in the limousine, the ones with the hairy armpits and the lesbian, whatever that is." In other words, it was other Americans - not Americans with actual political power, just normal Americans who they disagreed with.
This is what we're getting more of now. Under the guise of patriotism, the "enemy within" is being attacked. Now, apparently, according to senior Republicans, the enemy within is all who question Dear Leader. These people hate Americans.
Indeed, and I discussed that less concisely and less eloquently yesterday. But just as when Frist and DeLay pandered to the base, there's something more to it as well. In all three cases, it is an attempt to shackle their own party.
To explain, the sudden smorgasbord of political difficulties that Rove and friends are facing is not primarily with Democrats. Republicans don't even need Democratic votes in most cases. You can go down the line and it's all about lame duckitude within his own ranks...
Social Security Privatization: More Republicans have come out solidly against it than have come out solidly for it.
Stem Cell Research: 50 House Republicans spit in the face of Bush's veto threat. Specter claims the majority of Republicans in the Senate will do the same.
Ethics: Rebellions from Hefley, several retired Republicans, a few conservative editorial boards, and to a lesser extent the mealy-mouthed Chris Shays sealed the deal and forced them to reverse course.
Iraq: Of course this is the most central to the issue at hand. Without a doubt, the thing that has made Iraq a 24-7 story again is the marked change in attitude from Republicans. One could not watch the man who conceived of "freedom fries" calling for a timetable without realizing that a giant shift was underway.
As we've said before many times, as soon as there is a diversity of opinion within the Republican Party, they're all toast. The alternate Republican universe depends on near-complete unity of message, and when an alternate position becomes a viable option, the whole system breaks down (free will takes down the matrix).
To get a sense of it, consider the reaction that Walter "freedom fries" Jones met when he announced his legislation:
Having mulled it for a day, Onslow County commissioner Joe McLaughlin changed his mind and said Wednesday that he won't ask U.S. Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., to quit Congress. A day after he suggested Jones must either stop his campaign to set a timetable for the military's departure from Iraq or resign from the House of Representatives, McLaughlin decided to temper the tough talk. He still wants his fellow commissioners to support a proclamation that sternly calls on the congressman to back off, but an updated draft, which McLaughlin gave to the board and the Daily News on Wednesday, omits the earlier clause demanding Jones' resignation.
It's been replaced by a passage reading "stop ... such actions will only undermine our national policy, demoralize our troops and strengthen our enemies."
"When people are speaking from the heart, it's better to (confront them) with logic and reason rather than a baseball bat," said McLaughlin, a fellow Republican. "I felt I needed to smooth a few rough edges."
The first attempt at a resolution regarding the issue declared also that setting a timetable for pulling troops from Iraq "will only embolden and invigorate the enemy" ... "action (that) comes close to providing aid and comfort to the enemy," a turn of phrase used in the U.S. Constitution to define treason.
Sounds quite a bit like our good friend Karl, no? By reigniting the lines that Atrios described, a large part of the idea is probably to up the ante on anybody thinking about following in Jones's footsteps. Indeed, it was clear from Cheney's flank in this offensive that this was a goal:
Cheney also said he thought Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a fellow Republican, was "wrong" when he told U.S. News and World Report the White House was "disconnected from reality" about how the situation was deteriorating in Iraq.
"[Washington has] got a lot of people in it who were armchair quarterbacks or who like to comment on the passing scene," he said. "But those who have predicted the demise of our efforts since 9/11 -- as we have fought the war on terror, as we have liberated 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan -- did not know what they were talking about."
So it is now, with Cheney, Rove, McClellan, and Mehlman all saying the same thing, more or less officially enshrined in the Republican Party platform that those who question or oppose the White House policy in Iraq are "motivated" by a desire to see more dead US soldiers, wanted to give Al Qaeda "therapy" after 9/11, and generally "did not know what they were talking about."
Shorter Rove to the Republican rank & file: Sit down and shut up, or go down in Republican history as traitor to both party and country.
Shorter Jesse Lee to the Republican rank & file: You've already given up all claim to being independent public servants, you've already swallowed and voted for more garbage than most people see in a lifetime, you've already completely abandoned any pretense of oversight on the Executive, and the White House has already shown a total disregard for your re-election by holding your hands to the third rail of politics for months with no benefit to you.
How much more humiliation will you take at the hand of Karl Rove, probably the slimiest dirty trickster in the history of American politics?
UPDATE: Hope I'm not breaking any etiquette rules, but just wanted to thank Armando for the promotion again, you da man. Also, I see comments asking what to do next. Now that there's a wider audience, I might suggest anybody from Rhode Island, Arizona, Nebraska, or hey, even Pennsylvania call their Republican Senators and get them on record specifically as to whether Rove should apologize. Given that McCain demanded an apology from Durbin not five days ago on MTP, he has little excuse not to do the same here. I'll try to keep an eye on comments for anybody who gets an answer. Thanks again, everybody.
