The complicated election politics of Iraq for Republicans
The WaPo has a front page article discussing Republican "cohesion" on Iraq framing it as an unwillingness by Republican pols to face an unwavering, war supporting constituency.
This raises an interesting question to me. Have Karl Rove's divisive "base politics" come back to bite them on the ass?
A majority of Republicans still support this president and this war, and the hardcore base, the more likely primary voters, support it even more strongly.
In the 2004 and 2006 election, the Republican machine spent great effort trying to turn Iraq into a Republican "litmus" issue either you're for the war, like our candidates, or against America, but, as we saw in 2006, if the independents don't support that position, that leaves the Republicans as a "base only party."
If Iraq is the top issue in 2008, Republican candidates will have to somehow placate those who support the war and the president to win their primaries. What does that mean for them when they face general elections?
(This presumes that the Democrats don't do anything or say anything that gets them out of the mainstream on Iraq.)
This raises an interesting question to me. Have Karl Rove's divisive "base politics" come back to bite them on the ass?
A majority of Republicans still support this president and this war, and the hardcore base, the more likely primary voters, support it even more strongly.
In the 2004 and 2006 election, the Republican machine spent great effort trying to turn Iraq into a Republican "litmus" issue either you're for the war, like our candidates, or against America, but, as we saw in 2006, if the independents don't support that position, that leaves the Republicans as a "base only party."
If Iraq is the top issue in 2008, Republican candidates will have to somehow placate those who support the war and the president to win their primaries. What does that mean for them when they face general elections?
(This presumes that the Democrats don't do anything or say anything that gets them out of the mainstream on Iraq.)
posted by mikevotes at
8:22 AM
2 Comments:
Not related directly, but...
More tremors in Turkey.
I know I keep coming back to Turkey like a homeless man carrying a "Then End Is Near!" sign, but it seems to me the domestic pot continues to move from simmer toward boil...
I really don't know a damn thing. I've just got the nagging sense of foreboding regarding the situation in Turkey vis a vis the rising conflict between secularism and sectarianism... As well as the Kurdish issue.
By
-epm, at 10:36 AM
I saw that, too.
Actually, I've relaxed on it a little bit.
The army is the guardian of secularism in the country, and they still seem to have sway with a significant portion of the people.
There is definitely a growing Islamic movement, but for the most part it sounds like, at this point, we're talking about pretty minor stuff they want.
It seems to me that the recent Army threats to imminently invade Kurdistan might well have been an effort to use the issue to put pressure on Erdogan.
As PM, he can't say that and maintain relations with the US, so the Generals attacked him on that front trying to use nationalist emotions to undermine him.
There is a crisis in Turkey and their stock market has suddenly fallen today, so I may be reading this wrong, but to me, I don't feel that crisis point anymore.
The conflict seems pretty well circumscribed and that will add to stability so long as both sides stay within the boundaries.
But again, I could be wrong. The fact that money is pulling out definitely indicates a percent chance of instability.
What that percent is....?
I'm actually far more worried about Pakistan. That bombing this weekend came very close to their interior minister.
By
mikevotes, at 11:03 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home