October Surprise
In American politics, “October Surprise” is usually applied to a Presidential election, but this non-Presidential October has already had about a surprise a day - all to the deserved detriment of George Bush and the Republican party.
The release of the National Intelligence Estimate criticizing the conduct of the occupation of Iraq has prompted many top line generals who were involved and are now safely retired to come out and contradict the Bush lie about the generals being given all the troops they requested. The Dr. Strangelove clone Rumsfeld is the target of their most vehement shots, and his intransigent denials of the reality of the Iraq fiasco, mirroring his commander George, are seen by the majority of Americans as hitting the bulls eye.
Bob Woodward’s third book in his Bush trilogy, “State of Denial”, strikes such a blow to the Bush administration, one has to suspect the two earlier tomes were designed to set Bush up for a sucker punch. Bush himself may have seen it coming, since he declined to give Woodward an interview for the third book, but other administration sources seem to have willingly enabled the shot.
The Abramoff corruption scandal may not be a top story, but it continues to resonate in the background. Another top House Republican, part of the “reform crop” elected in 1994, Bob Ney of Ohio, has copped a plea to avoid having to stand trial.
The latest Republican scandal, over Congressman Mark Foley of Florida, may be the one to have the most impact on the election. We probably should not be surprised about that, since it involves a sexual hypocrite. Like most Americans, I did not know who Foley was. I don’t know to what extent Foley’s homosexuality was closeted, but if it was, that is not the concern. [I was slow coming to the story, so when I heard Foley was pursuing a teenage page from Louisiana, my initial reaction was that she was probably one of those uniquely Louisianan beauties]. The hypocrisy is that this man was a Congressional crusader against internet predators.
The House Republican leadership’s mis-handling of the Foley matter, as with most scandals, may prove to be more devastating politically than the initial offense. Incompetence was definitely involved, merely telling a possible predator to cease contact instead of checking further to see if more was involved. Keeping it quiet seems to have been the top priority, possibly abetted by a generous Foley contribution to Republican campaign coffers. Foley has skedaddled into hiding at an alcohol rehab clinic, blaming a previously unknown problem with booze rather than a predisposition to pedophilia. Whether there was an actual coverup is under investigation, though there can be minimal difference between quickly turning a blind eye and knowingly hiding what has been seen. Speaker Hastert is under great fire, which puts Republicans in a pre-election dilemma, whether to take his head with resulting party embarrassment, or to stall it out and add fuel to the coverup fire.
Hypocrisy comes easier to Republicans than Democrats. Claiming personal moral superiority and taking a macho stance against evildoers raises the claimant to greater heights from which to fall. Sometimes those who shout the loudest condemnation and urge the greatest attacks are trying to distract attention from their own secret guilt and fear. Foley is the latest in a string of Republican moral hypocrites. Most all the chickenhawks never wore a military uniform, though Bush himself occasionally strutted in the one that was finagled for him to avoid serving in Vietnam and he continues to wear uniform jackets for campaign appearances.
October is young and there are six days in November before the election, so more surprises may be forthcoming. Unlike the classic pre-election political surprise which a candidate wraps and opens for the gain of the candidate, this year’s packages so far have been garbage wrapped by the Republicans themselves who hid them in the closet, where the media has found and opened them. I expect the Rove-led scoundrels have had great trouble finding anything to wrap and proudly open, so they will try to revert to what they are best at, wrapping garbage, and trying to blame it on the Democrats.
2 Comments:
Tom,
Excellent summary of the difficulties faced by the Republicans in the upcoming mid-term election. Will the Republicans lose control of either House in November because of these difficulties? No. Why not? There is no credible alternative. The Democratic Party is dead, and the Republican moderate subgroup is crippled.
John from Phoenix
The main reason the Republicans might hold onto one or both houses is the incumbency factor, particularly with voters who are not party oriented. They may be unlikely to throw out their incumbent just because of party affiliation, if the incumbent is not directly involved in matters that the voter cares strongly about. However, if these voters feel strongly enough that the Democrats should control Congress, then they might vote against a Republican incumbent.
Fickle Republican voters might be so irritated at the GOP that they either switch and vote Dem, or not vote at all. The number of Democratic defectors should be as low as it gets.
If the Dems don't get one or both houses, they should make gains in both. Particularly in the Senate, where there have been many coalitions involving more moderate Republicans, just a few more Democrats can make a huge difference. Contrary to your ongoing funeral orations, the Democratic party is quite alive.
I have not researched the degree of moderation of the Republican nominees, but my sense is they have not moved to the right as a group. We know the GOP would rather have a moderate elected than a more extreme candidate defeated.
Post a Comment
<< Home