Republicans: Changing The Subject (Again)

Republicans have a much tougher reelection struggle ahead this year than they were anticipating. But they have a plan- change the subject. Instead of defending their abysmal record, they'll just use the same old non-issues to scare people to the polls.

It's really all they have left.

Bush fanboy Fred Barnes discusses his party's plans-

If the debate in an upcoming election puts your party at a disadvantage, it makes sense to try to change the debate. At the moment, the 2006 midterm election is framed as a referendum on the Bush administration and congressional Republicans, putting Republican candidates on the defensive...

...There's another part of the 2006 Republican strategy. This spring and summer, Republican leaders in the Senate and House plan to bring up a series of issues that are popular with the Republican base of voters. The aim is to stir conservative voters and spur turnout in the November election. Just last week, House Majority Leader John Boehner and Whip Roy Blunt met with leaders of conservative groups to talk about these issues.

House Republicans, for their part, intend to seek votes on measures such as the Bush-backed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, a bill allowing more public expression of religion, another requiring parental consent for women under 18 to get an abortion, legislation to bar all federal courts except the Supreme Court from ruling on the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance, a bill to outlaw human cloning, and another that would require doctors to consider fetal pain before performing an abortion...

So let's see, with record deficits, failures of government at all levels, a losing fight in Iraq, massive corruption of party leaders, a betrayal of their base's basic values, the Republicans are ready to present a platform of... legalizing homophobia, separating the wall between church and state, taking down abortion, and worrying about the Pledge of Allegiance. Surprised? Didn't think so.

Barnes- Don't forget the Iran war rhetoric!!! That's gonna get real excitin'! After all, apparently to the Bush/GOP folks, 'national security' only means kicking the asses of Middle Eastern countries!!! It's not securing our ports, or reversing the failures of Homeland Security, or being prepared to respond when disaster strikes. I hope recent events have exposed this hollow definition of what true 'national security' is.

The big question is... Will voters continue to be hoodwinked by this transparent pandering and these non-issues? Gay marriage, abortion, and the Pledge of Allegiance have been used so many times by the right, one wonders how they can still have an impact on impressionable voters. Will they allow the party that has run this country for the last failures run away from their failures and pretend it's not all their fault? Will bigotry and the GOP's faux-morality trump deficits, national security, and incompetent leadership? The Republican Party is betting heavily that (as in previous election) it will.

[*insert rant about how backwards this country is*]

Meanwhile, Fred Barnes has his own thoughts on whether the Bush administration needs a major staff shakeup. He suggests a game of musical chairs- Condoleeza Rice replaces Cheney as VP, Cheney replaces Rummy as Defense Secretary, and Karl Rove becomes RNC chairman, while Ken Mehlman comes to work for the White House. This wacky idea would fit in well with Bush's attitude toward governing- the superficial over the substance.

Speaking of Mr. Mehlman, he asks conservative voters to ponder this question:
"The question is, who's on your side for reducing the size of government?"

Ummm, clearly not you guys.

Quote from this Washington Post article- GOP Struggles To Define Its Message for 2006 Elections

The Republican Party is running on ideological fumes. Let's pray the engine gives out soon.