Did the white house "throw" the '06 election.

Was posting on a thread about gun control and got to thinking about this.

I think most pundits expect a democrat president and a democrat congress in 2008.

One of the things republicans were complaining about last summer was that Bush basically took no steps to make life easy for republican congressmen. He kept talking about messing with social security, which must have frustrated the hell out of them, since the topic is a LOSER for republicans. Basically did NOTHING his party members could take home to their districts.

Here's what I'm thinking: Every congress is a reaction to its immediate predecessor. Did Bush (Rove & Cheney) decide that, if the republicans were going to lose control of congress sometime, that it would be better to have it happen in 2006, than in 2008, a presidential election year?

As it is now, the tax breaks Bush put in place will all expire by '08. So everyone's taxes will have gone up (mine by about $2000!), the economy will have peaked, and the democrats will have been in power for 2 years . . . Forcing the Democrat nominee to run against Congress in their bid for the white house. . . .


Now, democrats will say this is a waste of a thread, that Bush and the republicans were basically doomed to be lame ducks because of various policy failures. ---But that's not my argument. I'm saying Bush & Co. basically gave up, and sold out their party members in congress, for the sake of an eventually comeback in 08, and making it harder for a Democrat to take the white house.


But that would only make sense if the Reps have someone to run. And I can't see that they have any aces left. Bush has basically done nothing to groom the next republican. The rep field is even more wide open than the dems; there's not even a "hillary" the republicans can hold up to rally the troops.

He didn't throw it. They pulled out all stops. The 20 year old focus group fodder just didn't work anymore.

Face it, if your one philosophy is Government is pointless and doesn't work, elect me and I'll prove it is all ya got, then that's all ya got. It was impossible to blame Dems for anything after a half decade of Republican utopia.

But I like this thread and bumped it because I have a new appreciation for G Dub. I do think he has an FU element going on to his own party now. Especially his supporters. And he aint done. Amnesty. Jesus. Amnesty!?

In 5 years they'll be blaming that one on NCLB Ted Kennedy too, but I know who's in charge.

I don't think it was done on purpose. I think they saw the inevitable and ran with it. The timeing couldn't have been better. Congress now has job approval ratings lower than President Bush. Mrs. Bill Clinton is still on pace to become the Democrat nominee, which makes any Republican the favorite.

This is all adding up to another Republican president in 2008, with a Republican majority in the House and Senate.

Originally posted by RRconservative
This is all adding up to another Republican president in 2008, with a Republican majority in the House and Senate.

President maybe. But only since ya'll are running liberal Dems for President this time trying to take back the center. Democrats govern, Republicant's rail. You can Pres-e-dent all ya want, but the House is ours.

posted by dr_strangecraft

I think most pundits expect a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress in 2008. Bush has basically done nothing to groom the next Republican. The GOP field is even more wide open than the Dems; there's not even a "Hillary" the GOP can hold up to rally the troops The economy will have peaked, and the Democrats will have been in power for 2 years . .

One of the things Republicans were complaining about last summer was that Bush basically took no steps to make life easy for Republican congressmen. He kept talking about messing with social security, which must have frustrated the hell out of them, since the topic is a LOSER for Republicans. He basically did NOTHING his party members could take home to their districts.

Here's what I'm thinking: Every congress is a reaction to its immediate predecessor. Did Bush, Rove & Cheney decide that, if the Republicans were going to lose control of Congress sometime, that it would be better to have it happen in 2006, than in 2008, a presidential election year? [Edited by Don W]

People who climb to the top of the ladder do not easily give up. No president wants a Congress in the hands of the other party. What may be hard when on your team may be impossible when held by the other side.

Just look at the Iraq Supplemental budgetary dispute that goes on every day. Bush43 would not have “slacked” off nor would he have said “better today than tomorrow” instead, he would not want it either today or tomorrow. Losing is never as good as winning.

I thought at one time - the night of the election - that maybe Bush43 had called George Allen and told him to throw in the towel. But then it turned out Allen lost by 8,000 votes, not 537 as Bush43 won by in 2000. The Allen-Webb race was not even close. Speaking of the Senate, it does not look like Sen. Johnson of SD will ever return. He will remain “in office” until there is either a Democrat governor of SD or 2008 election gives the Dems some more Senate seats. As long as he does not die, the Dems control the Senate but you can see it is not worth a lot. You need 60 votes in the Senate to make it go.

Democrats will say this is a waste . . that Bush43 and the Republicans were doomed to be lame ducks because of various policy failures.

I disagree. It was I R A Q that cost the GOP its Congressional majorities.

I'm saying Bush & Co. basically gave up, and sold out their party members in Congress, for the sake of an eventual comeback in 08, and making it harder for a Democrat to take the White House.

No. I disagree for the reasons recited above. Bush43 had it too sweet to ever voluntarily give that up. No president in my memory ever had a more complaint Congress that the GOP Congress from 1994 in the House and from 2003 in the Senate. Dennis Hastert thought he was Mighty Joe Cannon reincarnated. Bill Frist thought he was Speaker of the House. It will take a long time before the institutional harm done by those two is overcome. Bush43 had a cake walk. His last 2 years will be two years he will never forget.

It ain’t like signing death warrants in Austin, of which he signed 154 in 6 years. One every 2 weeks on average. Wow! A record that will never be broken, I assure you.

[edit on 5/20/2007 by donwhite]

Originally posted by RANT
President maybe. But only since ya'll are running liberal Dems for President this time trying to take back the center.

100% correct.

That is, unless Paul proves he can do more than raise internet and phone poll numbers.

Of course, he is number 4 in fundraising, and that before his shootout with Giuliani. Thats gotta say something. Man, talk about a wild card. He can sink to the bottom (where some think he is) or rise to the top (I think he is almost there) real fast.

So far as the Rep. Party sacrificing congress, I have thought about it and agree that it is possible. There is no better way to show just how stupid someone is than by allowing them to take power for a while. That, of course, crosses all part lines.