There is one question on George W. Bush’s mind these days: Will the Republican Party ride his presidential coattails to a midterm election victory in November or will they be swept up in the undertow of an unpopular war in Iraq, economic worries, and corruption scandals?
In a sense, this is Mission Impossible. No two-term Republican president in the past 100 years has gained seats; all have suffered losses — including Ronald Reagan. Bill Clinton, a Democrat, however, fared much better.
By 1998, most Americans were fed up with Republican grandstanding and the failed impeachment bid. Despite Clinton’s lies and Monica’s dress, Democrats gained seats.
While the former presidents Bush and Clinton have forged a new alliance borne of disaster — tsunami relief in Asia then hurricane aid at home — the families’ political rivalry continues. In a CBS News interview prior to the State of the Union, Bush called Hillary a “formidable” candidate. He went on to point out that “this is the first time there hasn’t been a kind of natural successor in the party...two wide-open primaries with no sitting vice president running in either primary.”
The Bush-Clinton feud lives on. Imagine if Bush were to relinquish the White House to Hillary and Bill in 2008? No matter how many Middle Eastern baddies he manages to rout, the return of the Clintons would mar his legacy. The specter of such an outcome is the stuff of nightmares, and could hound him for years.
Bill Clinton has succeeded in reviving his reputation, just in time for his wife’s (possible) presidential bid. What if Bush’s approval ratings show less resilience?
Already, Republicans are feeling the pinch. Last November, in the hotly contested Virginia governor’s race, Bush lobbied for Republican candidate Jerry Kilgore just 10 hours before polls opened. Traditionally, Virginia leans Republican. Bush colored the state red in 2000 and 2004.
Kilgore lost. So did Bush. The White House gambled that Bush would galvanize his conservative base to defeat the Democratic candidate Tim Kaine. The vote was a referendum on Bush. The outcome there and in New Jersey, where a Democrat also won, did not bode well for 2006.
As one Republican consultant put it, “If both these races go south, in New Jersey and Virginia, that’ll be a real signal to Capitol Hill and that’s when the rats will really jump off the ship.”
Not quite.
Bush’s remaining strength is his ability to raise money, and lots of it, from the party faithful. The day after the State of the Union, he was at his folksy best in Nashville, Tennessee where he whipped up thunderous applause and standing ovation for his attacks on Democratic senators who dared defy him. The conservative mantra fuels the party coffers and political campaigns across the country.
Quite obviously, the Middle East is not the Midwest. What does Bush’s obsession with Congressional midterm elections mean for the region?
First, don’t expect Bush to apply pressure on Israel, even if Bibi Netanyahu scores another surprise win and Hamas capitulates. Bush’s base, particularly Christian fundamentalists, viewed Sharon’s unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip as betrayal. Pat Roberston’s intemperate remarks about Sharon’s health reflect the intense fervor of his followers.
The Washington plan to bolster Ahmed Qurei and Fatah came too late, appeared to reward corrupt or feckless incumbents and won more negative publicity than votes, including front— page exposure in the Washington Post just days before the election. Karl Rove should review Bush’s polling and America’s ratings in the Middle East as carefully as he does those from Ohio before designing campaigns for endangered allies. If Bush can’t get a Republican elected in a red state, did he really think USAID could do better in the Gaza Strip?
While the Hamas victory ruled out any appeal in the State of the Union for Israeli leadership to make sacrifices for peace, Bush could have chosen to highlight the importance of people-to-people confidence-building measures in securing partners for peace as Palestinian leaders sort out the political aftermath.
Hamas’ success is an excuse not the reason for Bush to go slow on a Palestinian state. For more than a year, the White House has deliberately emphasized the development of democratic institutions versus defining a state.
That’s a shrewd fallback position for an administration that is eager to erode Jewish support (and donations) for Democrats and maintain right-wing Christian allies. Neither is likely in the midst of robust road map implementation when Israeli settlers should be forcibly removed from illegal West Bank settlements and outposts. If Israel were forced to commit to the road map, Wednesday’s scenes of violence and mayhem in Amouna would be repeated daily. Reason enough for a troubled White House to go slow on the peace process.
Second, there is unlikely to be any significant new military engagement in the region. Despite fears of US intentions vis-a-vis Syria and Iran, Americans have no appetite for yet another war. Though Donald Rumsfeld staunchly denies his army is stretched thin, many of those who actually don a uniform and go into battle see things differently.
That hasn’t stopped the paranoid military leaders in Burma, which earned dishonorable mention during the State of the Union, from moving the capital in Rangoon to a rural location 400 km to the north. Damascus and Tehran are well advised to stay put.
Third, now is the perfect time for regional leaders to offer an alternative vision to Bush’s. The Indian government, media and public are outraged when a US ambassador suggests that India’s vote on Iran at the IAEA could decide Congress’ approval of a new bilateral program for civilian nuclear cooperation. Yet in the Middle East, mention any bold new regional policy initiative and the immediate response is, “What would Washington think? Would the White House approve?” Alternatively, a judgment call is made, “Washington wouldn’t like that.” Such nonsense gave rise to an idea that several neoconservatives latched on to in the run-up to the Iraq war. They argued that Arabs would respond positively to American dominance, that they would join our side as soon as we demonstrated our military might. Helplessness was mistaken for passivity.
Enough is enough.
