Campaign 2010

Sep 08, 2006

Emanuel Statement on a GOP Divided

DCCC Press

Sep 8, 2006

Emanuel Statement on a GOP Divided

(Washington, D.C.) – Today, Congressman Rahm Emanuel, Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee released the following statement today in response to widespread divisions and disarray within the Republican Party.

In recent days, news reports have painted a picture of a Republican Party divided on the big issues of the day: Civilian and military leaders within the Republican Party are divided on military tribunals; Republicans in Congress and across the country are split on whether Donald Rumsfeld should stay or go; With continuing violence in Iraq and still no strategy for success, the GOP is split on how to proceed. With regard to the recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, some Republicans feel pressure to implement them but the party leadership and the White House have resisted a vote on them for 14 months.

“These days, when Congressional Republicans talk about sectarian fighting and the need for a ceasefire, they’re describing their internal meetings. They know that most of the country is opposed to their stay-the-course ‘leadership,’ and yet their disarray is keeping them tied up while Americans continue to feel bogged down,” said Congressman Rahm Emanuel, Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “The GOP is now divided on military tribunals, divided on Rumsfeld, divided on how to proceed on Iraq, and divided on how to keep our country safe. The result is fighting and chaos and nothing accomplished for the country. It’s time for a new direction.”

New York Times: “Lawyers and G.O.P. Chiefs Resist Proposal on Tribunal”: “The Bush administration’s proposal to bring leading terrorism suspects before military tribunals met stiff resistance Thursday from key Republicans and top military lawyers who said some provisions would not withstand legal scrutiny or do enough to repair the nation’s tarnished reputation internationally.” [New York Times, 9/8/06]

FOX News: “Subtly, Some GOP Candidates Are Changing Their War Message”: “As Republicans try to maintain majorities in the House and Senate in November, some members of Congress who are seeking re-election are starting to distance themselves from the Bush administration on the war in Iraq.” [Fox News, 9/6/06]

Washington Post: Divide Is Sharpening Among Republicans: “From immigration policy to energy to emergency spending, House Republican leaders are publicly breaking rank with their counterparts in the Senate, fearing that Senate efforts at compromise are jeopardizing the party's standing with conservative voters.” [Washington Post, 5/15/06]

Philadelphia Inquirer: “GOP trio in Pa. now cool to Bush”: “Mike Fitzpatrick has labeled President Bush's stay-the-course policy in Iraq ‘extreme’ in a campaign mailing…Jim Gerlach ran a television commercial calling Bush "wrong" on immigration…Curt Weldon describes himself on his campaign posters as an ‘independent fighter for us…’ And all three are distancing themselves from the president, downplaying their GOP credentials, and stressing their independence from national party leaders. On their campaign Web sites, the word independent pops up more often than Republican.” [Philadelphia Inquirer, 9/5/06]

New York Times: “Interrogation Methods Rejected by Military Win Bush’s Support”: “Many of the harsh interrogation techniques repudiated by the Pentagon on Wednesday would be made lawful by legislation put forward the same day by the Bush administration. And the courts would be forbidden from intervening.” [New York Times, 9/8/06]

AP: Republicans Divided on Rumsfeld – Should He Stay or Should He Go?: “Some Republicans, such as John McCain, R-Ariz., have been sharply critical of Rumsfeld. And GOP candidates Tom Kean of New Jersey and Stephen Laffey of Rhode Island, who is giving Sen. Lincoln Chafee (news, bio, voting record) a very difficult race for renomination, have called for Rumsfeld's resignation.” [AP, 9/5/06]

New York Times: “Candidates of Both Parties Turn Criticism of Rumsfeld Into Political Chorus”: “Democrats and at least some Republicans appear to agree on one thing as the election approaches: Attacking Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is a way to lift them to victory…For a small but growing number of Republicans, attacking Mr. Rumsfeld is a way to criticize how the war has been conducted without turning against the war itself.” [New York Times, 9/7/06]

Connecticut Republican Chris Shays’ Flip-Flop-Flip on Rumsfeld:

August 28, 2006: “Let me first be clear. I don‘t support Rumsfeld. I was someone who said he needed to step down.” [MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 8/28/06]

September 3, 2006: On resignation – “Well, you know what, I'm not his biggest fan, but I'm not sure that, with two less years left in the administration, he should.” [CNN, 9/3/06]

September 5, 2006: “I don’t like the guy — I simply don’t think he has measured up on running the war in Iraq…Would I vote for a no-confidence resolution on Secretary Rumsfeld? Yes.” [New York Times, 9/5/06]

AP: Republicans Run Away From Bush on Iraq: “But except for seeking Bush's help in raising campaign funds, Republican incumbents are eager to emphasize their independence from him and his prosecution of the war.” [AP, 9/3/06]

Wall Street Journal: “Cracks in a Republican Base”: “This year, the immigration debate is straining that bond. In an election with control of Congress at stake, the spat could cost Republicans support in key districts. Business groups' rankings have fallen for Republicans who support beefed-up border security but reject expanding legal immigration. [Wall Street Journal, 8/24/06]

Christian Science Monitor: “GOP's family feud over spending”: “Just 35 hours after they passed a $2.8 trillion budget for FY 2007 with zero Democratic votes, House Republicans ran into a wall: the division between appropriators and fiscal hawks in their own ranks…But as the GOP braces for fall elections that threaten its majority, rifts in its ranks are risky, especially when they involve cutting military projects during wartime.” [Christian Science Monitor, 5/22/06]