As a Democrat, I watched in horror, but with a grudging respect, the impressive degree of discipline the GOP displayed during the last election. They were in step, they were on message, and they were, obviously, unbeatable. The extreme right held its tongue as a parade of moderates got prime time slots during the convention. The moderates parroted without choking that it wasn't important that those in the GOP had ideology differences, that the tent was big enough for all of them.
Well, now, it seems those tent flaps may just blow wide open and release a stampede of angry pachyderms charging off in all directions:
President Bush's second-term plans to reshape Social Security, immigration laws and other domestic programs are facing a stiff challenge from a group that was reliably accommodating in the president's first four years: congressional Republicans.
After essentially rubber-stamping much of Bush's first-term agenda, many House and Senate Republicans plan to assert themselves more forcefully to put their mark on domestic policy in the new year, according to several lawmakers.
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) has privately criticized White House handling of the recent intelligence bill and Bush's plan to postpone tax reform until 2006 or later. Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.) and others have publicly complained about the political and fiscal hazards of overhauling Social Security. Several senators, including a few 2008 presidential contenders, are rushing to promote their own Social Security plans to compete with Bush's.
And a number of conservative Republicans such as Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), who are concerned about states' rights, are threatening to derail the White House plan to impose federal limits on medical lawsuits. "It's one of the worst bills going," Graham said.
But the first big dispute is predicted to be immigration reform
"If the president wants to maintain credibility with House Republicans, he has to be engaged and willing to pass immigration reform that conservatives want," said Rep. Ray LaHood (Ill.), one of 57 House Republicans who voted against the intelligence bill Bush just signed into law. "If he does that, he will build a bridge" that could open the way to far-reaching changes to Social Security, the tax code and other policies, LaHood said. "If he's missing in action on that issue, he's going to have big problems."
So much for being in step.
Another sign of the GOP's rank-and-files' plans to push their weight around is the pot shots random Congressmen/women are taking at Rumsfeld. The Administration came out with a vote of confidence in the SecDef, and a few Senators have fallen in line, but overall the debate over Rummy's performance and future hasn't abetted:
The continuing debate among Republicans over whether Donald H. Rumsfeld should remain as defense secretary grew more fractious on Sunday, as two prominent senators argued that removing Mr. Rumsfeld would disrupt the coming Iraqi elections, while a third, Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, said he had "no confidence in Rumsfeld's leadership."
So much for being on message.
The next four years may be much more fun that I had previously thought.
I hope you're right. It would be nice if the loyal opposition to Bush turned out to be Republicans as well as Democrats.
Posted by: wilfred | December 20, 2004 at 10:31 AM
With "fun" like this, who needs fun?
Posted by: John Thullen | December 20, 2004 at 10:50 AM
A dollar short and a day late. Principled Republicans should have been vocal years ago.
I'm really curious about the attacks on Rumsfield. Is it because his disdain for the troops was embarrasing to the Republicans? His responsibilities for Abu Graib, covering up Abu Graib, bad post invasion planning, collaboration with war profiteers etc. should have brought principled Republican wrath down upon his head long ago but there wasn't a peep before the election. Are the attacks a sign of stored up discontent? or was the dissing of the soldiers just too embarrassing to be tolerated? Are the attacks a sign of the moderate Republicans finally re-emerging? (I kind of don't think so since Trent Lott is one of the attackers). I don't have much faith in the Republican party's ability to clean house. The Christian Dominion types have a lock on the grassroots even in liberal states like Washington. They will attack and attempt to distroy any moderate Republican who tries to get on the ticket during the primaries. At the national level what few moderates still exist have been very quiet. I appreciate Schwartzeniger's ( spelling?) remarks, but he would have shown more courage if he had spoken up before the election. Well I'm rambling here so I will stop.
Posted by: lily | December 20, 2004 at 10:51 AM
A dollar short and a day late. Principled Republicans should have been vocal years ago.
Principled Republicans were vocal years ago, and especially vocal in the weeks before the November 2 election this year. Good for them!
These Republicans are, well...
Still, in practical terms, the more people who get up and say that Bush is an unprincipled dishonest useless disaster area, the better.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | December 20, 2004 at 10:56 AM
I'm really curious about the attacks on Rumsfield.
I believe (as several pundits said yesterday) that his answer to the armor question was inexcusable to many of them. Many folks are making a big deal out of those who were at the answer and question session not agreeing that the SecDef got grilled, but I think they're missing the point. It wasn't the question that raised all the eyebrows, it was the dismissive response.
We, as a nation, are asking our military to put themselves in harm's way for a war of choice. There is absolutely NO EXCUSE for not giving them the very best of everything we can afford. Now word comes that they're increasing the production of armored Humvees...NOW????
Rumsfeld should resign because he's too arrogant to understand the most basic part of his job...he has the lives of American's husbands, wifes, father, mothers, brothers, sisters, etc, in his hands. He needs to display a great deal more respect than he's doing.
Posted by: Edward | December 20, 2004 at 11:00 AM
I happen to think that William Kristol's recent criticism of Rumsfeld was because the neocons are upset that the military situation in Iraq has made it unlikely that the invasion of Syria and the siege of Tehran will be accomplished in Bush's second term. Color me cynical.
Posted by: JerryN | December 20, 2004 at 11:59 AM
Beyond cutting taxes and rewarding campaign contributors, the GOP has no real core values.
But JerryN has hit the nail on the head; Kristol is upset with Rumsfeld because he has failed to successfully complete the neocon science experiment in the ME. As one of the primary architects of this failed neocon experiment, Kristol is looking for scapegoats.
Posted by: Jadegold | December 20, 2004 at 12:41 PM
some of those GOP moderates want to move to the left.
Posted by: cleek | December 20, 2004 at 12:53 PM