Reply
Fri 4 Nov, 2005 04:59 pm
By DOUG THOMPSON
Nov 4, 2005
Quote:A growing number of Republican leaders, party strategists and political professional now privately tell President George W. Bush that his presidency "is effectively over" unless he fires embattled White House advisor Karl Rove, apologizes to the American people for misleading the country into war and revamps his administration from top to bottom.
"The only show of unity we have now in the Republican Party is the belief that the President has failed the party, the American people and the presidency," says a longtime, and angry, GOP strategist.
With the public face of support for Bush eroding daily from even diehard Republicans, the President faces mounting anger from within his party over the path that may well lead to loss of control of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections and the White House in 2008.
"This presidency is in trouble," says a senior White House aide. "Even worse, I don't know if there is a way out of the trouble."
Congressional leaders journeyed to the White House before Bush left on his South American tour this week to tell the President that his legislative agenda on the Hill is dead, his latest Supreme Court nominee faces a tough confirmation fight in the Senate and he is facing open revolt within party ranks.
"The Speaker is having an increasingly difficult time holding his troops in line," says a source within the office of House Speaker Dennis J. Hastert. "Anger at the President grows exponentially with each passing day."
At a recent White House strategy session, internal party pollsters told the President that his approval rating with Americans continues to slide and may be irreversible, citing his failed Iraq war, the failed Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers and his failure to deal decisively on a number of fronts, including Hurricane Katrina, the economy and the Valerie Plame scandal.
In meetings, leaders and strategists have suggested a number of things that Bush must do to try and save his presidency and GOP prospects in upcoming elections, including:
* Apologize to the American people, Congress and our allies for misleading them on the reasons for invading Iraq;
* Revamp the White House staff from top to bottom;
* Fire Rove.
"We keep coming back to Rove," says a GOP pollster. "He has escaped indictment, so far, but the feeling within the party is that another shoe is ready to drop and the longer he waits to jettison Rove the greater the damage. As long as Karl Rove remains at the President's side, the Bush presidency is effectively over and he is just riding out the days until the nation elects a Democrat to replace him. Even with Rove gone the damage may be irreparable."
Bush, however, has dug his heels in on Rove. When a GOP strategist suggested last weekend that the President fire Rove, Bush exploded.
"You go to hell," he screamed at the strategist. "You can leave and you can take the rest of these lily-livered motherfuckers with you!" The President then stormed out of the room and refused to meet further with any other party leaders or strategists.
Bush's escalating temper tantrums and his intransigence on political issues increase Republican worries about the long term effects on both his presidency and the party's prospects in upcoming elections.
"Right now, George W. Bush is the Republican Party's chief liability," says a GOP strategist who has advised Presidential campaigns for 30 years. "The entire political future of the party and perhaps the nation now rests on the shoulders of a President that no one - Democrat or Republican - believes in or trusts."
capitolhillblue
While I'd love if all this happened as described, I notice that all these details are attributed to anonymous sources. Makes me wonder a bit.
Not to mention, as sozobe noted, Bush saying "lily-livered." Shades of the Old West. That varmint!
Maybe the GOP has lost its nerve in thinking that its getting re-elected is more important than anything it can think of.
Unless he resigns, dies or is removed, it is quite hard to fathom that the country will be subjected to more than another three years of this chaos.
sozobe wrote:"Lily-livered"?
Don't know what it means, or just stunned?
It's a fine old insult, I must say.
Oh, I love it.
But, from Bush?
It's just an eyebrow-raiser.
the man who shot liberty valence?
Can anyone please tell me where the term ' lilly livered' came from ?
: : Thanks in advance.
: : Pauline
Quote:: Lilies are usually white, liver is full of blood and should be dark red/brown. to be "lily-livered" is to be lacking in full-bloodedness, sangfroid or other attribute based upon being bloody, bold and absolute. doubtless The Bard made reference to it.
He's lily livered is a saying used to describe a coward or weakling. The ancient Greeks used to sacrifice an animal before battle. The liver was regarded as a prime omen; if red then all was fine but if pale then this signified bad tidings. By extension the liver of a coward was thought to be pale and lily livered was one of the ways of describing this. Others were "white livered" and "pigeon livered".
Follow Ups:
http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/31/messages/837.html
I can't attest to the veracity of this post, but it sure is inneresting, podner!
A "lily-livered coward" was someone whose liver contained no blood. The Greeks and Romans sacrificed animals to the gods before going into battle. When the liver was examined, if it was healthy and the blood was bright red, a victory was promised; if it was diseased or the blood was pale, defeat was predicted.
How good is this guy's (Thompson) record?
Is he just a partisan "ranter", or does he have real sources?
In Oz, this stuff might really get said if the party, or a rival candidate, is gunning for a Prime Minister because they believe they will lose the next election with that person as leader, or if they genuinely believe the leader is doing terrible things.
But...here, you CAN replace a leader without the tumult and terribly negative and long running process that the US needs....so I would consider it unlikely, prima facie, that such leaks would be occurring.
Informed comments?
Not informed exactly, but I could see it going either way. I could see that things really are this bad and that staffers know that if they get caught saying so they're toast (ample precedent) and so refuse to go on the record.
I can also see it being some combination of disgruntlement and bad journalism -- don't know anything about Thompson.
But I definitely don't think it impossible that leaks of this type would occur, as a general concept, from people who are appalled but don't quite have the fortitude/ resources to just quit.
Doug Thompson
Doug Thompson of Fayetteville covers politics in fast-growing Northwest Arkansas. A native Arkansan, Thompson covered the Northwest region for the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette for three years before he and his wife, Lisa, left to join Stephens Media Group in February 2002. Lisa is now managing editor for The Morning News.
Well, again, here, these leaks are often a way of informing leaders, who do not want to know, of what is happening. They are often a political tactic aimed at engineering change in government policy.
Also, here, the more a government leaks, the more it is in trouble.
This is interesting, if this fella is not just an uninformed ranter.
Yes, BBB, I read that. It tells me nothing about his journalistic credentials.
It might tell YOU something, if you know about the papers concerned, but I be a furriner.
I re-read with an eye to political motivation for the leaks -- the only one I could come up with (again, not claiming to be informed here, just guesses) is that it's part of the pressure to fire Rove.