aujourd’hui<\/a> :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00abNow the party leadership’s alleged cover-up of an email sex scandal involving a gay Republican congressman, Mark Foley, could deliver the coup de grace.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbIn stark terms, that may mean the loss of the House of Representatives to the Democrats, who must gain 15 seats to win, and possibly the Senate, too. The electorate’s sour mood is being compared to 1994, when Newt Gingrich capitalised on widespread throw the bums out sentiment. Then, Republicans gained 52 House seats and routed Senate Democrats in the so-called Republican revolution. Twelve years on, it’s payback time.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbUntil the Foley flap unfolded, most analysts had assumed it would not be quite as bad as that this time. Only about 40 House seats are in play, compared with over 100 in 1992. Competitive Senate races are far fewer and even tighter. But in Foley’s wake, political calculations are changing. Now, twin nightmares keep the lights burning late in the West Wing.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbOne is that the Foley affair may accelerate the alienation of the socially conservative, evangelical Christian base which represents the Republicans’ core support. The other is the prospect of a Democrat-controlled Congress turning President George Bush’s final two years in office into one long, multi-pronged investigation into the propriety, legality and honesty of his administration’s actions since 9\/11, particularly over Iraq.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tCe rappel de novembre 1994 est compl\u00e8tement remarquable et significatif. Le vote mid-term<\/em> de 1994 repr\u00e9senta le plus fondamental changement de majorit\u00e9 dans le cours d’une pr\u00e9sidence qu’aient connu les USA dans les 50 derni\u00e8res ann\u00e9es. Ce fut, du point de vue du fonctionnement du gouvernement, une v\u00e9ritable r\u00e9volution. L’impact psychologique fut consid\u00e9rable. Toute la machinerie de l’administration s’arr\u00eata apr\u00e8s le vote, en attendant l’arriv\u00e9e du nouveau Congr\u00e8s (janvier 1995), pour voir l’attitude de la nouvelle majorit\u00e9.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tUne telle perspective, quelle qu’en soit la cause (le scandale Foley \u00e9tant dans cette occurrence une malchance bien plus qu’un \u00e9v\u00e9nement politique significatif), entra\u00eenerait un choc psychologique de m\u00eame ampleur, sinon d’ampleur plus grande. Dans le climat actuel suite de 9\/11, guerre contre la terreur, Irak, d\u00e9sordre washingtonien les cons\u00e9quences pourraient \u00eatre consid\u00e9rables et, surtout, impr\u00e9visibles. On est effectivement en train d’assister \u00e0 une dramatisation de ces \u00e9lections mid-term<\/em> qui constitue un ph\u00e9nom\u00e8ne nouveau, un ph\u00e9nom\u00e8ne sp\u00e9cifique.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\tMis en ligne le 6 octobre 2006 \u00e0 16H56<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Simon Tisdall, l’\u00e9ditorialiste du Guardian, tente d’\u00e9valuer l’impact du scandale Foley sur les \u00e9lecteurs r\u00e9publicains (\u00abFoley’s folly could cost Republicans dear\u00bb. Il \u00e9crit aujourd’hui : \u00abNow the party leadership’s alleged cover-up of an email sex scandal involving a gay Republican congressman, Mark Foley, could deliver the coup de grace. \u00bbIn stark terms, that may mean… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[5986,3285,5985,3471],"class_list":["post-68074","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-5986","tag-congres","tag-foly","tag-scandale"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68074","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=68074"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68074\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=68074"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=68074"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=68074"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}