> <http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=156238>
>
> John Podhoretz writes in his New York Post column, that much
> like when he had to withdraw Harriet Miers' nomination in the
> face of Republican revolt, President Bush may emerge the
> victor from the demise of the Dubai ports deal by taking the
> issue off the table long before the midterm elections. LINK
>
> The Washington Post's Peter Baker calls the port deal
> collapse a "singular failure" for President Bush but he's not
> so sure that Democrats can capitalize. LINK
>
> "By turning against Bush," writes Baker, "some GOP
> strategists believe Republican leaders may have saved
> themselves a worse fate."
I doubt they were ever threatened. I think they have a solid support regardless of how Bush is percieved, and this year's election will not change that very much. There are several reasons for that:
1. Many, if not most conservatives, are not for Bush but against "liberal elites." They might consider Bush a bumbling idiot but will vote for him as long as he continues "kicking liberal ass" - or at least so appearing. Actually, looking like a bumbling idiot may even win him support of the anti-intellectul crowd, which is quite large.
2. The recent advances in gerrymandering gave the repugs an upper hand, which Democrats cannot counter without gerrymandering of their own - which as a minority party they are not in the postion to do.
3. Repugs appear to have a plan, perhaps not th emost popular but a plan nonetheless, wheras Democrats seem completely clueless; so when people feel threatened or uncertain, they are more likely to turn to someone who at least appears toknow what he is doing, rather than someone who appears to be way in the left field.
4. Repugs have much more money than Democrats. Money talks, bullshit walks.
Wojtek