Usa, opposizione, Irak, guerra Nyt 05-11-20
CARL HULSE
Tra le cause della perdita di consenso dei repubblicani:
– la risposta abborracciata all’uragano Katrina;
– il conflitto interpartitico sui finanziamenti per i guasti dell’uragano;
– l’incriminazione del deputato DeLay, corruzione, legame con il lobbista Abramof… ;
– l’aumento de costo del combustibile;
– una nomina non accettata alla Corte suprema;
– accuse federali contro un assistente della vice-presidenza sull’intelligence pre-guerra;
– crescente tensione pubblica per la guerra e i suoi caduti;
– vittorie dei democratici nelle elezioni di mezzo termine.
Ventidue repubblicani hanno votato con i democratici contro la legge di bilancio per sanità ed istruzione, la prima sconfitta di un decennio per la maggioranza repubblicana; 14 repubblicani si sono opposti ai tagli di $50mn. nei prossimi 5 anni.
L’asprezza del conflitto politico è emersa oltre che nel dibattito sulle legge fiscali anche sulla proposta del democratico Murtha di ritiro delel truppe dall’Irak. [vedi artt. WSWS]
Al senato i repubblicani sono invece riusciti ad avere l’appoggio dei democratici per tagli fiscali e un voto bipartisan per spingere l’amministrazione ad una maggiore determinazione per creare in Irak le condizioni necessarie al ritiro delle truppe.
Il senato è diviso al suo interno.
In occasione della battaglia sulla proposta di Murtha, i democratici si sono mostrati divisi nell’atteggiamento verso la guerra in Irak, consapevoli della vulnerabilità sulle questioni di sicurezza nazionale e del loro ruolo nell’approvazione dell’uso della forza in Irak. Per ora cercano di sfruttare la divisione interna ai repubblicani, anziché presentarsi con una posizione politica autonoma.
Nyt 05-11-20
Session Exposes Political Risks Ahead for G.O.P.
By CARL HULSE
WASHINGTON, Nov. 19 – It was a bitter and fitting final note for a discordant Congress.
The ugly debate in the House on Friday over the Iraq war served as an emotional send-off for a holiday recess, capturing perfectly the political tensions coursing through the House and Senate in light of President Bush’s slumping popularity, serious party policy fights, spreading ethics investigations and the approach of crucial midterm elections in less than a year.
Capitol Hill was always certain to be swept up in brutal political gamesmanship as lawmakers headed into 2006 – the midpoint of this second presidential term and, perhaps, a chance for Democrats to cut into Republican majorities or even seize power in one chamber or the other.
The ferocity of the fight in the House over a measure to withdraw American troops from Iraq shows that the war may command the high ground in the coming electoral contest, and that the course of events in Iraq – whether a new government takes hold, whether the violence continues, whether American troops are still committed in large numbers and still being killed by the scores each month – will be of prime political consequence here.
But when lawmakers return next month they face other, immediate challenges that also carry substantial political risks. Some are matters related to the war, like the continuing debate on the treatment of detainees in the campaign against global terrorism. Others are the kind of domestic pocketbook issues that Congress must deal with every year – including contentious tax and spending measures – but have been impossible to resolve this year, even with one party in control of both houses.
Not just the war, but a whole series of events have turned what would have been a tough season for the Bush administration and the Republican majority into an extremely daunting one, sowing dissent among the majority’s rank-and-file and providing opportunities for Democrats, who continue to have problems of their own.
Among developments that have knocked Republicans badly off course: The botched response to Hurricane Katrina. Party conflict over paying for the storm. The indictment of Representative Tom DeLay. Soaring fuel costs. A failed Supreme Court nomination. Federal charges against a vice presidential aide in a case related to prewar intelligence. Growing public unease about the war and its death toll. Off-year election victories by Democrats.
The litany has members of Congress taking stock of their own political fortunes and acting accordingly.
"Bad poll numbers on your side unite your opponents and divide you a little bit," said Representative Roy Blunt, Republican of Missouri and a man in the eye of the Congressional storm as he fills in for Mr. DeLay in trying to hold House Republicans together.
Both of the responses cited by Mr. Blunt were on display last week in an unusually messy Congressional windup. United Democrats forced House Republicans to look solely to their own membership to win approval of spending and budget measures that carried a political price given their reductions in spending on an array of social programs – cuts ready-made for campaign attacks.
As a result, some Republicans chose to part company with their colleagues. Twenty-two defectors joined with Democrats to send a major health and education spending bill to a stunning defeat, the first such loss in a decade for the take-no-prisoners Republican majority.
Fourteen Republicans opposed $50 billion in spending cuts over five years despite major concessions by their leadership to win moderate support. They acted partly out of fear that a vote for the cuts would expose them to Democratic political attacks, a fear well founded. Within hours of the vote, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sent out news releases to the districts of 50 lawmakers who backed the measure to make sure voters back home heard that their representatives had "blindly rubberstamped" the leadership’s plan.
The rising political animosity was evident in the tone of the House debate on the fiscal bills and Iraq. The chamber
rang with name-calling, taunts, ridicule and jeers. The exchanges over the war after a call by Representative John P. Murtha, Democrat of Pennsylvania, for a rapid withdrawal of troops from Iraq were poisonous as bottled-up sentiment on the conflict boiled over. Some lawmakers saw it as a new low.
rang with name-calling, taunts, ridicule and jeers. The exchanges over the war after a call by Representative John P. Murtha, Democrat of Pennsylvania, for a rapid withdrawal of troops from Iraq were poisonous as bottled-up sentiment on the conflict boiled over. Some lawmakers saw it as a new low.
"We can do better," Representative Tom Osborne, Republican of Nebraska, scolded his colleagues.
The troop withdrawal measure, brought forward by Republicans to put Democrats on the spot, was defeated, 403-to-3 late Friday night.
"It is a reality that no one is finished debating the war," Representative Jack Kingston of Georgia, vice chairman of the House Republican Conference, said Saturday, adding that he expected the passions evoked Friday to cool somewhat over the recess. But Mr. Kingston said Republicans forced the vote out of frustration with Democratic tactics. "We had just had it with Democrats running around saying President Bush lied. It was time for us to call their bluff."
The atmosphere and progress in the Senate, often the graveyard of legislation, were noticeably better than in the House. Republican senators set their sights lower on their spending cuts and approved their budget bill weeks ago. They were able to attract significant Democratic support for tax cuts and even had a bipartisan vote pressing the administration to move more aggressively to secure Iraq to allow a troop withdrawal.
But the Senate has serious divisions of its own. Just a few months ago it was on the brink of a historic rules showdown over judicial filibusters, a subject that could resurface should Democrats chose to block Mr. Bush’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. Democrats also infuriated Republicans by forcing a closed-door session on the use of prewar intelligence, and ill feelings linger over that episode and the subject itself.
Though Democrats see political openings, they have handicaps. The battle over Mr. Murtha’s proposal showed that the party remained conflicted over its approach to the war in Iraq, aware of vulnerabilities on national security issues and the role of Democrats in approving the use of force in Iraq. Democrats have yet to produce their own policy argument for why they should be awarded control of the House and Senate, preferring to concentrate for now on exploiting the Republican struggles.
And Republicans do not have easy days ahead. When the House and Senate return in December, they will have to reconcile differing budget bills or face the humiliating prospect of falling short of the cuts sought by conservatives. They intend to take up the politically charged issue of immigration, an issue that divides their party by ideology and geography.
What may be equally troubling for Republicans is the filing on Friday of a criminal conspiracy charge against a former senior Republican House aide, Michael Scanlon. Mr. Scanlon was once a spokesman for Mr. DeLay and was a partner of Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist who is the subject of a federal investigation and had close ties to some House Republicans. The charges hint at potential legal exposure for lawmakers who were wined and dined by the two, adding to Republican ethics cases.
Republicans acknowledge that the recent months have been trying. But they believe they can hold off Democrats with the built-in advantages of incumbency and by producing results on legislation that appeals to their conservative base and the business community while propelling what they believe is a thriving, underappreciated economy. And House members are looking toward possible leadership elections early next year to bring some stability at the top should Mr. DeLay be unable to resolve quickly his criminal charges in Texas.
Representative Thomas M. Reynolds of New York, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said he remained confident of the outcome of next year’s elections.
"We’re going to be in the majority," Mr. Reynolds said. "I just can’t tell you how many."
Others say the political future may be out of the hands of either party.
"I think the maneuvers of this week probably aren’t going to help either side in the election," said John J. Pitney, professor of government at Claremont McKenna College in California. "What’s really going to matter is what happens on the ground in Iraq. If there is good news out of the ground in Iraq, then Republicans will benefit. If there is bad news, then they will have even deeper problems."
"Bombs in Baghdad," Mr. Pitney said, "are going to have a lot more impact than speeches in Washington."
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company