“undefended except by the dishonest and the duped”
Robert Novak reports on the lack of support for President Bush on Capitol Hill. He writes: “In half a century, I have not seen a president so isolated from his own party in Congress — not Jimmy Carter, not even Richard Nixon as he faced impeachment.” The administration has left the Congressional wing of the party in the lurch so often that it no longer trusts the president to give them political cover. Congressional Republicans are growing bolder in using the I-word (incompetence) in describing the administration. “We always have claimed that we were the party of better management,” one House leader said to Novak. “How can we claim that anymore?” The party is also becoming more willing to “leave [the president] to his enemies,” as Zach says, especially with regards to Scooter Libby and Alberto Gonzales. The president is increasingly alone.
Sounds like self-preservation to me.
It’s also noteworthy that for at least a half-century or so, we have not had the situation we have now: a President in his second term with no obvious successor within the executive branch. Therefore, there is no political cost for the Congressional GOP to abandon the President.
Let’s see, in terms of obvious successors in the wings:
2000 - Clinton to Gore.
1992 - Bush I lost after one term.
1988 - Reagan to Bush I.
1980 - Carter lost after one term.
1976 - Ford lost after one (unelected) term.
1974 - Nixon to Ford (via resignation).
1968 - Johnson to Humphrey.
1963 - JFK to Johnson (via assassination).
1960 - Eisenhower to Nixon.
1952 - Eisenhower defeats Adlai Stevenson.
So, I guess in this respect, anyway, the Bush administration is in about the same situation as the Truman administration circa about 1951.
Upon further review, Truman might not even cut it for two reasons:
1. Truman was running for re-election in 1952;
2. After Truman lost in the New Hampshire primary, Truman dropped out and Truman’s vice president gave it a shot, but lost to Adlai Stevenson.
Going back further, we have:
1945 - FDR to Truman (via death).
1928 - Hoover loses to FDR after one term.
Apparently Hoover was not supported by his predecessor, Calvin Coolidge, in any case, there does not appear to have been an heir apparent at the end of the Coolidge administration. So, it’s probaly more accurate to say that the Bush administration is about in the position of the Coolidge administration circa 1927 (except that the country appeared to be in relatively good shape when Coolidge was winding down his administration.)
“The administration has left the Congressional wing of the party in the lurch so often that it no longer trusts the president to give them political cover.”
Not just Congress, but conservatives in general. The GOP was moderate/left in the 70s, so Ford and Nixon didn’t alienate their base much. The party shifted right in the 80s, and Reagan’s main policies appealed to that shift.
Both Bushes are a disappointment to the GOP base. But Bush 41 didn’t have as long a string of policy gaffes - the other spent too much, actually cooperated with Ted Kennedy on one of those binges, offered up the underwhelming Harriet Miers nomination, went softer than the Pillsbury dough boy on illegal immigration enforcement, does little to report on the progress in Iraq, including that of the troop surge, appears to be soft on Israel’s war on terror, and pulls waaaay too many punches with the Democrats.
The difference between Reagan’s and Bush’s second-term relationships with Republicans in Congress is that policy-wise Reagan was a lot more in sync with them than Bush is. Also, in 1984 the GOP maintained Senate majority with only two lost seats while gaining 16 in the House; in 2006 the GOP lost majority status of both houses. Bush bears part of the blame, even if not most of it, and Congress knows it. Second-term Reagan was not a liability to Congressional Republicans as Dubya is.