NYT: Some See Risks as Republicans Revel in Power

[DeepModem Mom]

Some See Risks as Republicans Revel in Power
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and RICHARD W. STEVENSON

Published: January 24, 2005


WASHINGTON, Jan. 23 - President Bush begins his second term with the Republican Party in its strongest position in over 50 years, but his clout is already being tested by Republican doubts about his domestic agenda, rising national unease about Iraq and the threat of second-term overreaching, officials in both parties say.

With this election producing a second-term Republican president and solid majorities in both the Senate and the House, Mr. Bush's party is more dominant than at any time since Herbert Hoover was elected in 1928. As Mr. Bush embarks on an explicit effort to put an imprint on politics and policy that will long outlast his presidency, his advisers are heady over what several described as an opportunity to make a long-lasting realignment in the nation's political balance of power.

But even those advisers said Mr. Bush had at most two years before he faced the ebb that historically saps the authority of a second-term incumbent, a relatively short time to sell his far-reaching agenda. And Republicans say his situation could be complicated by the absence of an obvious heir, opening the way for competing wings of the party to battle over details and tactics on the very issues Mr. Bush is embracing.

Richard Norton Smith, a presidential scholar who is director of the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum, said the Republican Party had "come closer now than they've been at any time in my lifetime" to being the nation's majority party. But Mr. Smith said historical cycles over the past century suggested that its dominance might be coming to a close.

"The calendar alone tells you this conservative cycle is long in the tooth," he said. "Add to that the divisions, or latent divisions, that exist with your own coalition. Once Bush is removed from the scene, and once he becomes in effect a lame duck, all those tensions are there."...


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/24/politics/24repubs.html

[llmart]

1. I don't even give him the two years.......

I think the public is already seeing what a fuck-up his policies of the first four years were. It just took them a long time to see how they have had a horrendous effect on our country. I say let's make him a lame duck right off the bat!

[OldVlad]

23. Best of luck with that

I think the public is already seeing what a fuck-up his policies of the first four years were. It just took them a long time to see how they have had a horrendous effect on our country. I say let's make him a lame duck right off the bat!

Remember what happened a few months ago? They chose this chimp even though things were terrible in Iraq, and all his other policies. There is no "seeing" going on, I'm all for optimism, but we're in the minority, lets not get carried away.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. when you mention Herbert Hoover in an article

I immediately think about what happened during his term, and how ineffectual he was in dealing with it. But at least HH was a humanitarian (helped with refugees, etc, after WWI)who believed in our Constitution. If we have a catastrophe as big as the'29 Crash, I wonder how Shrub will handle it.

[annabanana]

3. he'll "pull the wagons into a circle"

And start shooting.......

Anyone looking for an epiphany in this guy is nuts.

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

8. Hoover...

...trusted the infinite business sense (sarcasm) of Sec of the Treasury Mellon, who considered economic "cleansing" to be needed and that it would "fix itself". Kind of reminds one of the way GW operates by not being into "intellectual things".

[genieroze]

18. If we have a catastrophe as big as the'29 Crash, I wonder how Shrub wil

handle it. Want to bet he will give the rich another tax break?

[shrike]

22. More Hoover stuff ...

According to historian Robert Caro, Hoover was assured repeatedly by "market" economics that living conditions in America were not that bad, that the poor and unemployed were lazy, and that prosperity was just around the corner.

When Hoover began his campaign for re-election he was shocked by the mobs that formed at each of his campaign stops, shouting, "Hang, Hoover!"

[NJCher]

4. some real gems in this article

Some passages in this article will make you :):

Democrats, even while struggling with their own party divisions and confusion, are showing signs of coalescing into an aggressive opposition party, especially on issues like judicial appointments and Social Security.

This one especially interested me:

"It is now fair to say that today the Republican Party is the dominant party in America," said Ken Mehlman, the new Republican National Committee chairman. "It's not a deep majority, it is not a broad majority, but it is a very strong majority."

Do you think he means "strong" because they know how to steal elections?

These are just a few of the interesting comments--there are plenty more toward the end.


Cher

[wildwww2]

7. Yes, exactly. They are strong because they steal elections. And will

continue to do so. This monarchy will have to be overthrown by the people. There is no doubt in my military mind about that. I hope some of the military will be there to help us. Instead of just shooting us down. For the sake of their King George.
Peace
Wildman
Al Gore is My President

[AndyTiedye]

15. That Is Why They Are Building a Theocracy

No theocracy has ever been overthrown by the people.
Anywhere. Ever.

[patcox2]

24. I think Cromwell and the English Revolution might be the analogy.

I mean, when was the last "theocracy" in the western world? Are you just referring to governments with an official, established religion? Thats not a theocracy. And in any event, plenty of countries with established religions have seen succesful revolutions which then instituted separation of church and state. The American revolution would be one, the french revolution another, the bolshevik revolution another.

I don't beleive there has been a real theocracy in any industrialized country in history.

But I think there is a parallel with Oliver Cromwell. My understanding of that revolution was that a fairly moderate, but Catholic, king was overthrown by fundamentalist protestants just like John Ashcroft (they promptly banned all theatrical plays, for example). It might look like it was simply catholic vs. protestant, but it was really just that the fundamentalists used the catholic vs. protestant conflict to their advantage, by no means were the majority of Brits fundies.

Anyway, in my argument, the Bushies are the cromwellians, the parallels are enormous, in terms of the social conservatism and religious fundamentalism and even the aggressive foreign policy (the conquest of Ireland).

But the thing is, England did not put up with Cromwell for long.

[happyslug]

26. Yes, Three years after he died the English finally overthrow him.

First Charles I was a Tyrant, he wanted to rule as an absolute monarch. When he had to call Parliament (To raise Taxes) and Parliament started to demand other reforms, Charles went to Nottingham and openly went to war with Parliament.

Cromwell was a back bencher at that time, but ended up leading the Parliament Army. After Defeating the Forces of Charles I, Cromwell had Charles I executed and than disbanded Parliament. His Army was his power base but like most revolutionary armies had become more radical than the country as a whole. Cromwell thus ruled England through his Army till he died. His son ruled for another three years till the cost of keeping the Army became so high that Parliament was reformed to raise the money to pay off the Army (and to dissolve it). Charles II had access to European Money to do this thus was invited back to be the King. Parliament permitted generous pay to the Army and even offer to ship any of them to New England free of Charge (Many took up the offer).

Yes Cromwell was a dictator, but he was tolerate of all religions (Including the Jews but Excluding Catholics through the Opposition to Catholics was more Political than Religious in Nature). The Jails were empty under Cromwell (When Compared to Charles I) but full compared to what happened under Charles II.

I will not go into the "Real cause" of the English Civil War (Which has to do with the fight between the emerging Middle Class and the old ruling Nobility of England more than it had to do with Religion).

[AndyTiedye]

27. I Need to Find Out More About Cromwell

I mean, when was the last "theocracy" in the western world?

I would also consider Israel to be a theocracy, or close to it.
Its established religion is the entire reason for its existance,
and members of that religion have rights under law that others don't.

Back a few hundred years, and MUCH closer to home...

They had a pocket theocracy going in the Massachussetts Bay Colony
for a while when the Puritans were running it. You may have heard
of the Salem witch trials. They were only brought to an end when
the Governor used the authority of the English Crown to halt them,
and that only happened when the witch-burners accused the Governor's
own wife of witchcraft.

Are you just referring to governments with an official, established religion?

No. There are many of those (including modern-day Great Britain)
that are not theocracies. It depends on how much power the established
church actually has over day-to-day life. In the Middle Ages, the
established churches had as much power as the King, if not more. Under the Spanish Inqusition, there would have been no doubt that there was
a theocracy in place, and that continued as long as the Church had the
power to burn "witches" and that sort of thing. The theocracies of
the Dark Ages persisted for nearly 1000 years. The only reason they
ever ended was because those leading the Fundies of that time actually
led troops into the Crusades themselves. These wars went increasingly
badly for the Crusaders, and after the 7th and most disasterous of
the Crusades, there weren't very many religious nutcases left in
positions of authority because most had gone on the Crusade and never
returned.
Those in control of the modern-day Fundies are in no danger of making that mistake. They force others to fight their Crusades for them.

I don't beleive there has been a real theocracy in any industrialized country in history.


I already mentioned Israel. Iran is a much more clear-cut case,
and so is Saudi Arabia. Theocracy is also likely coming
soon in Iraq, thanks to Boosh**. Iraq may not qualify as an
industrialized country any more, but it was before we invaded it.

But I think there is a parallel with Oliver Cromwell. My understanding of that revolution was that a fairly moderate, but Catholic, king was overthrown by fundamentalist protestants just like John Ashcroft (they promptly banned all theatrical plays, for example). It might look like it was simply catholic vs. protestant, but it was really just that the fundamentalists used the catholic vs. protestant conflict to their advantage, by no means were the majority of Brits fundies.

Anyway, in my argument, the Bushies are the cromwellians, the parallels are enormous, in terms of the social conservatism and religious fundamentalism and even the aggressive foreign policy (the conquest of Ireland).

But the thing is, England did not put up with Cromwell for long.

But how was he removed from power? The accounts I have read are rather
muddy on that point.

[0007]

5. This just goes to show ya how the media is failing the general

public these days. The White House is controlling the media with an iron hand.

[dusty64]

6. With the extreme rightwing

owning the voting machines I predict this "conservative cycle" to last as long as the rethugs want it to.

[Pam-Moby]

9. We shall overcome!!!!

Lets see what they are saying after the 2006 and 2008 elections when we take back both the house and senate and also appoint a progressive democrat as the leader and chief of our nation. Then we can start correcting all of their f*ck ups!!!!! And once again be respected worldwide!!

[tanyev]

10. Sound observation.

Mr. Bush's party is more dominant than at any time since Herbert Hoover was elected in 1928.

And what happened next?

Upon accepting the Republican nomination for President in 1928, Herbert Hoover predicted that “We in America today are nearer to the final triumph over poverty than ever before in the history of any land. The poorhouse is vanishing from among us.” Hoover won the presidency that year, but his time in office belied his optimistic assertion. Within eight months of his inauguration, the stock market crashed, signifying the beginning of the Great Depression, the most severe economic crisis the United States had ever known.
http://www.americanpresident.org/history/herberthoover/

I'm surprised the writer of this article got away with the comparison to Hoover. Lately the RW spin has been to call Dubya the next FDR.

[Coastie for Truth]

11. Social Security "Rescue" and Iraq

will quickly diminish Bush's apparent power. And don't forget "Health" ("Malpractice" and "Tort Reform" will only reduce health insurance costs by 2-3% - max. Search on "Woolhandler" at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi
- for the contribution of "malpractice" and "defensive medicine" including links to several extensive Harvard studies are buried in several of her 60+ papers; the gist of the Woolhandler and Himmelstein studies is that only "single papyer" will wipe out the 25%-30% of health care costs that are "fraud, waste, abuse, bureaucracy, duplication, malpractice, and defensive medicine" - check out the Woolhandler and Himmelstein studies. )

There is wavering within his own party on Iraq, and Social Security.

[depakid]

12. Of course N'gourney misses a key point (as usual)

The far right has a stranglehold on the media AND controls every branch of goverment. That is unprecedented and trumps any talk about the usual cycles and tensions.

Moreover, it assumes that the Dems are capable of mounting some kind of unified opposition- which is (if one looks at the state of the party over the past decade- highly unlikely).

[Disfronted]

14. I'm an optimist

I am still optimistic that after 4 more years of Bush's domestic terrorism the people will wake up.

Yeah right.

On a more likely note, 2008 will be a prime time for the Democrats to recapture the White House, since the country will be sick of Republicans, and the Republicans do not have a viable candidate for 2008.

[genieroze]

19. They were sick of rethugnakins this year, they rigged this election. eom

[DeepModem Mom]

21. Thanks for posting, Disfronted -- and welcome to DU!

[The Zanti Regent]

20. Adam is the good little Pre$$titute

You can always count on that liar to write whatever Master Karl tells him to.

[sidpleasant]

13. "competing wings of the party"?

What "competing wings" of the Republican party are they talking about? Are Nagourney and Stevenson living in the 1970s when there were still relatively liberal Republicans like Rockefeller and Dirksen? As far as I can tell there are only power - mad extremely right wing Republicabs bent on establishing a one - party state.

[One_Life_To_Give]

16. Absolute Power Corrupts, absolutely. n/t

[NewYorkerfromMass]

17. Just like Herbert Hoover in 1928?

I'd say we are at the precipice then and teetering on the brink of the abyss.

[Arkana]

25. "Some" see the risks?

I think everyone with a functioning brain could see that the Repubes are power-hungry, snarling, ravening wolves.