A Question For “Bush Cult” Advocates
Here’s a question for anyone who cares to answer it, though of course we would welcome some insight from those of the ‘progressive’ slant: regardless of the merits of the individual arguments, how does the continued willingingness of prominent Congressional Republicans to buck Bush on such items as terror detainees and immigration fit in with the theory that Republicans are braying sheep who don’t think for themselves, have drank the kool-aid of the party, joined the Bush cult, etc., etc.?
Or to state it another way: when the facts don’t fit your theory, are you big enough to change your theory and admit you’re wrong?…
I wouldn’t call it “continued willingingness” — I would call it new-found willingness.
I think that the combination of Katrina, Harriet Miers, the Ports deal, and low approval ratings for Bush combined to make the former willingness of Congressional Republicans to vote in lockstep with the administration inoperative (to use a word from bygone days).
People like McCain and Chafee have always gone their separate ways — but it is thrilling to see someone like Senator Warner speak truth to power (there, I said it — is it like hearing someone scratch fingernails on a blackboard?)
Willingingness?
Never should have done control C & control V
Harriet Miers and the Ports deal are examples of exactly what I’m talking about, Peter; you can’t use Republicans going against Bush as the reason Republicans are willing to go against Bush…that’s called circular reasoning, as I’m sure you know…
No — my point is that until Harriet Miers, the ports deal, etc., the challenges to Bush were few and far between — it was this confluence of events that showed even staunch Republicans that following Bush blindly was no longer the right path to take —
As a partisan, I would say that the fact that the emporer is wearing no clothes was finally revealed beyond a reasonable doubt — or as a realist I could say that Bush’s leverage was diminished and the Congressmen did not want to be put in the position of defending Katrina, the ports deal, etc. — but last fall was when Humpty Dumpty fell off the wall –
sorry, emperor — one of those words which looks wrong no matter how you spell it –
Nevertheless, certain prominent progressives continue to push the theme, as recently as the last couple of days right here in my own comments section, that Republicans are a breed of no-thinking yes men with a monolithic message brought down from on high; I notice none of these progressive (who mostly flew in for a one-shot visit after another link from Salon’s Daou Report, admittedly) has either (a) defended that charge with evidence, or (b) answered my challenge to admit that theory is bogus and present a new one…
[...] Now forget about the lawyers. Is the jury still out on this? It’s time for a decision: ” . . . how does the continued willingingness of prominent Congressional Republicans to buck Bush on such items as terror detainees and immigration fit in with the theory that Republicans are braying sheep who don’t think for themselves, have drank the kool-aid of the party, joined the Bush cult, etc., etc.?” [...]
(it’s an interesting topic you’ve presented, so I figured it’d be better [for me, if not for anyone else] to just think aloud, under the assumption that something I blather out will capture the sense of the CoB)
The theory was good for the time; as the public has turned against Bush, more and more people are willing to separate themselves from the cult, if you will. The theory is becoming (slightly) less relevant (although only a handful of senators, that have never really been parts of the cult to begin with, have been opposing Bush more openly on a handful of issues).
But has the cult ever been about issues and policy? It seems like it has aways been more of a Fisher King logic: as the President’s stature goes, so goes the nation. In keeping with that, the theory is operative at the rhetorical level rather than the level of policy.