Thuglicans upset with Bush

Some Republicans are getting upset that Bush doesn't seem to have a plan in place for what to do if Democrats win back one or both Houses of Congress in November:

Some Republican strategists are increasingly upset with what they consider the overconfidence of President Bush and his senior advisers about the midterm elections November 7–a concern aggravated by the president's news conference this week.

"They aren't even planning for if they lose," says a GOP insider who informally counsels the West Wing. If Democrats win control of the House, as many analysts expect, Republicans predict that Bush's final two years in office will be marked by multiple congressional investigations and gridlock.

"The Bush White House has had no relationship with Congress," said a Bush ally. "Beyond the Democrats, wait till they see how the Republicans–the ones that survive–treat them if they lose next month." GOP insiders are upset by Bush's seeming inability to come up with new ideas or fresh approaches. There is even a heightened sensitivity to the way Bush talks about advisers who served his father.

At the president's news conference on Wednesday, allies of his father complained that the president seemed dismissive of former Secretary of State James Baker, who remains close to his dad and is cochairman of a bipartisan panel studying the war in Iraq.

"I think it's good to have some of our elder statesmen–I hate to call Baker an elder statesman–but to go over there and take a look, and to come back and make recommendations," Bush said. Baker fans felt this made the former secretary seem part of a bygone era. There is also considerable criticism of Bush for making little or no news in his 63-minute encounter with the press.

"He had nothing to say at the press conference," says a prominent GOP insider. "My question is, why call it?"

Frankly, while I hope this is correct, I find it hard to believe that Rove & Co. don't have a very well articulated contingency plan in place. They've never been without a contingency plan for elections before. Remember back in 2000. Then, they were preparing for the possibility that Bush would win the popular vote but lose in the electoral college. The plan was to launch a massive fifty-state spin campaign to paint the whole election as unfair. The effort was going to be to force one or more of the electors to switch their votes to reflect the true "will of the people," the popular vote. They were digging up dirt on all the likely Democratic electors so they could blackmail them into switching their votes. They were planning huge rallies and demonstrations of "public sentiment" against allowing electors to "steal the election from the people."

Of course, 2000 turned out exactly the opposite. Bush lost the popular vote but claimed to have won (sort of) in the electoral college. So, the massive PR campaign was turned on its head, trying and succeeding in portraying Gore as a sore loser. Enlisting the top legal talent in the party to fight through the Courts and to pressure the Supreme Court to vote for Bush, etc., etc.

It was a "heads, I win, tales, you lose" strategy. And, I have no doubt they're planning to use something like it again.

The point here is that I very much doubt Rove/Bush will accept a defeat. If they lose, they will blame it on fraudulent voting, Mexican illegals, bad voting machines, you name it. They will try to convince the public that this was a stolen election. And, I certainly would not put it past them from trying to declare the elections null and void if they lose. The only thing that would stop them is if they don't think the military will stand behind them to support it. Luckily, the military might well break ranks with the President if he tried that. So, we'll see.