GOP Wannabes: I Just Don’t Get It
Even the Republican Party’s own pollsters say that it will take a miracle for the GOP to keep the White House, let alone regain control of Congress, in 2008.
Despite a slight uptick in poll numbers because of some success with the surge strategy, George Bush remains a deeply unpopular president and a substantial majority of Americans see the Iraq war for what it is – a failure.
Yet most Republican presidential wannabes are not only not trying to distance themselves from their president and his war, they are avidly embracing both, and in Rudy Giuliani’s case, he’s already jumped the foreign policy shark. (“Curtis LeMay without the experience” is how one blogger describes him.)
It has been noted by pundits far more sage than I am that this situation is a result of the candidates needing to play to the party’s base in a campaign that, after all, has nearly 15 months left to go. But the last time I looked at the GOP base it resembled a prune. And isn’t courting disaffected Independent voters and YouTube vidiots just as important?
Has the GOP simply become so ossified and out of touch that it’s fallen and just can’t get up? Or in terms that the older gents who comprise most of this demographically challenged field might understand, can’t get it up?
opinions powered by SendLove.to
39 Responses to “GOP Wannabes: I Just Don’t Get It”
Isn’t part of this the media’s fault because they keep covering the Republicans as if they really do have a chance to win? The MSM wants to present a rout as a horserace so that people will pay attention.
The two most important questions for the 2008 election is whether the Democratic party will control 60 seats in the U.S. Senate and what will the Clinton Administration look like.
If the Democrats get 60 seats in 2008, the Republican party will become irrelevent immediately. If not, then the Democrats just have to wait until 2010 to make it happen and the U.S. government has two more years of filibusters and limits on legislation.
The other question is whether all of the top level administration people in the next Clinton Administration will be retreads from the last Clinton Adminsitration or will their be any new blood?
Until they actually lose, why should Republicans demand anything different from what they’ve got. Unless–until?–they lose, they’ve got the White House and the ability to block legislation in Congress. The base is doing fine. Everyone ought to recognize that.
The GOP will, I think, have three arguments in 2008.
First, all parties are equally bad, so you might as well vote Republican.
Second, George W. Bush isn’t really a Republican (or Conservative), so don’t blame his failures on Republicans (or Conservatives).
Third, all those illegal immigrants!!!!
Also, if I remember correctly, George H. W. Bush had astronomical approval ratings in the aftermath of the first Gulf War. A lot of potentially serious candidates for the Democratic nomination decided to sit out the 1992 election. That ended up working out poorly for them.
As far as the media goes, the base have their own media telling them what they want to hear. Maybe they will demand a better media–let alone better politicans and policies–if they lose badly enough.
Until then, why should they change?
Since even bloggers who consider themselves moderate and centrist are more closely aligned with the left than the right, I’m sure this comment will be lost on many.
The GOP base is shriveled up, dried up. However, the vast majority of Republican and right leaning independents are not of similar mindset to the progressive and moderate progressive blogosphere. In other words, just because we tend to disapprove of Bush doesn’t mean that we assume that we have to move toward the opposite pole. When one thing is wrong, it doesn’t automatically make the opposite approach correct.
Most Republicans want a candidate who will continue to seriously address the global threat of Islamist terrorism; we don’t reject Bush’s overal policies out of hand, we just see that they’ve been executed very poorly.
Sometimes it’s just not about political gamemanship and positioning oneself according to the way the wind is blowing. I think these candidates know that in the long run, a conciliatory foreign policy will be prove to be a mistake and the positions taken by these candidates will put them in better stead in 2012 and beyond. That’s assuming that they don’t actually have a chance in ’08, though I’m not ready to completely write them off either. Depends on whether progress in Iraq proves to have some staying power; doubtful, but not out of the question that things could shift by next year.
Shaun- I think the answer lies with the president’s ability to raise campaign cash in private fundraisers for Republican candidates. He can’t appear in person with them, but he personally has already raised 55 million for the 08′ race. Cheney and Laura Bush also are prolific fundraisers.
In addition, Bush is still a powerful force within the RNC, who can withhold support from recalcitrant members who distance themselves or are critical of his policies . That is the only way to explain the voting records of the Republicans over the last 7 months. The big exception is, of course, immigration, where many in congress were forced to back down from supporting the WH, after visits home revealed a firestorm of opposition.
The willingness and ability of the president to play hardball with members of his own party has enabled him to escape lame duck status, but may, ironically, lead to its demise in ’08. This tactic was most likely orchestrated and systematically applied to maximize presidential power by the late great architect himself- Karl Rove.
The GOP will run against the “Do-nothing” tax and spend Democrats, who will be portrayed as preferring to investigate rather than legislate, and who insist on enabling illegal immigration.
The Dems should counter by emphasizing the GOP’s support for a failed policy in Iraq and highlighting their voting record which still is in line with Bush, and which unfailingly supports corporate America and the ultra rich over the poor and middle class.
Christine makes an important point, that not all Republicans are necessarily huge supporters of Bush and his war, but not necessarily ready to support the Democratic approach.
That being said, it’s important to note that Republicans who vote in the primaries tend to be more activist and ideologically conservative than your average Republican, so to win the candidates will have to be not only strongly pro-war but also pro-Bush.
It’s an unfortunate dynamic in America, where the most politically active citizens tend towards the extremes, while the more moderate citizens are less politically active. This trend, first noted in the 20′s, makes logical sense: The more strongly you feel about an issue the more likely your are to be invovled. Granted, you don’t have to have an extreme position to feel strongly, but that’s usually how it works out.
I think the GOP would like nothing better than to have the left write them off at this very early stage of the campaign. Any student of politics should realize it ain’t over until the official election results are in. Democrats should avoid arrogance lest they repeat historic political mistakes and underestimate their opponent.
The Dems have their own problems as well, as this very bright man point out.
Quoting C Stanley:
“Conciliatory”?
That’s a strong accusation. “Conciliatory” towards whom?
Perhaps CStanley misspoke. A “Conciliatory” policy isn’t a bad thing unless it leads to a policy of accommodation.
“Sometimes it’s just not about political gamemanship …”
So say we all, between elections. and particularly when one’s party of choice is out of power.
Come election time, however, we have to choose, and choice involves a lot of giving up of high principle in favor of political gamesmanship to achieve the ultimate rise to power of the ‘right’ party.
Come election time, priciples fly out of the window, and smear tactics ride in on a royal carriage. Anything to win power is the name of the game, only to be followed by anything to keep and expand power.
It’s political gamesmanship when, again and again, I end up voting for the least objectionable candidate instead of one who shuns political gamesmanship – because that person is never on the ballot.
And that’s why I vote for candidates and not parties, but, like you, I’m often dissatisfied with the choices the two-party system presents me. I either vote the lesser-of-two-evils or a third party/independent candidate, but even then the choice is not easy.
Actually CS did not say that Republicans don’t support the war, she just said they don’t support Bush’s execution of it.
Jim,
Define “support the war.” If “support the war” means that we should have a long-term military presence in Iraq then all the leading candidates from both parties “support the war.”
Unfortunate, and very true. We have seen over the years political gamesmanship replace substantive policy debate, and we are suffering as a nation from the cumulative results. The 24/7 PR campaign on cable and talk radio has replaced reasoned governance, with political hacks and connected cronies replacing policy wonks.
One prime example of this disturbing trend was the president’s choice to keep Karl Rove on as a top presidential aide after the 2000 and 2004 elections were over. Rove was a genius at politicking, but stumbled badly in getting key policy initiatives through Congress, especially during Bush’s second term.
The strategy of appealing to a conservative base and demonizing the opposition proved to be this administration’s downfall.
Entropy,
When you say that all candidates support the war according to your term please define long term presence. 2 years? 4 years? 6 years? 10 years?
Exactly. My point, which I thought was implicitly obvious, was that statements that a candidate “supports the war” or is “against the war” don’t mean much. Democratic candidates have stated they are “against the war” but their plans for Iraq involve extended military commitments there (they don’t define time-limits either, so the commitments are open-ended).
Use of such vague and misleading statements may be politically expedient, but only obfuscates.
Entropy–
Are you saying all candidates who are “against the war” actually “support the war”?
Not necessarily – I’m saying the terms “support the war” and “against the war” are meaningless without some context. How does one define those?
If a candidate supports some kind of long-term military presence in Iraq should they get elected, does that candidate “support the war” or is that candidate “against the war.” The answer, to me, isn’t obvious.
What I think may be happening is that certain Democratic candidates are selling themselves as “against the war” to people who believe that means “against all US involvement in Iraq.”
Likewise, I think some GOP candidates are issuing a “support the war” mantra to an audience that believes “victory” is attainable and that a change in strategic goals is not needed nor desirable.
When one looks at the plans for Iraq among the so called leading candidates from either party, they are more similar than different. In short it appears to me that each side’s rhetoric appeals to it’s base – an effort to win the nomination – while the details of their plans are much difference what what the “base” would like.
Ugh, sorry about that last sentence.
Entropy–
So, you’re saying all the leading candidates from both parties are being equally phony?
I wouldn’t use the word “phony” but they’re being a little economical with the truth imo.
Well, then…any of them you’d like to have a beer with?
Does Michelle Obama count?
And the Democratic candidates who belong to a Congress that seems to be heading for single digit approval ratings? I suppose they are gold.
In the end it won’t matter how unpopular the Democratic Congress is- their activists are still more enthusiastic about ’08, and they have outraised the GOP in fundraising. Which ties in with my other point that the GOP candidates still need Bush – and can’t afford to alienate him. The Dems can win by Bush-bashing as they did in ’06.
If that’s really what you believe, and if the Democratic leadership agrees with you, I fear for the Dems that they may be in for a surprise.
I am quite sure that it will not be enough.
The Republicans are making it easy right now. The leading candidates are all posturing themselves as tougher and more obstinate than George Bush. All they claim is that they can do things better. But they can’t complain too much about Bush’s execution either, because that will also anger the base.
Democrats just need to point that out.
The biggest advantage the Democrats have is the well of anti-Bush sentiment. If they tap into that, it will take them a long way. But, by saying that, I’m not suggesting that they should rely solely on it (because that would hurt the country if they don’t offer alternatives), just that its a huge advantage- and as Chris pointed out, having to present himself as mostly agreeing with Bush policies will be a disadvantage for the Republican candidate in the general election.
But, there has been much discussion over whether the Dems lost in 2000 and 2004 by appearing as policy wonks instead of appealing to voters’ emotions. This time I think they will use more of an emotional appeal.
Kim,
Good post, your comment #13. Somehow I’m having trouble reconciling it though with your post #4 in this thread where you lay out what the strategies of each party should be in order to exploit the other’s weaknesses, and your comment under Joe’s article about SCHIP where you practically got out the cheerleading pompoms for your team and declared how easy it will be for the Dems to paint the GOP as a bunch of rich ba$tards who don’t care about healthcare for children.
Re comments # 7 and #8, I’m not sure what the big difference is between the term I used “conciliatory” and Entropy’s “leading to accomodation”. So , I suppose I did mean it in that way but I’m not sure what other way it could have been interpreted.
I’d have a beer with any and all of them. Getting my vote is quite another matter.
You know, C Stanley, the question asked in comment #7 was, “Conciliatory†towards whom?
Help me understand your point of view.
Let’s see, according to TMV authorities, (1)Bush has set the course record for lowest approval ratings ever and therefore Bush-bashing is the obvious golden key to the ’08 WH, (2) everyone but immediate family members of Bush and Cheney are “against the war”, and (3) Bush controls the purse strings of Republican big check writers for ’08.
(1) After 6 months of 24/7 inculcating the American public to the sheer evil of Republicans, are the Dem candidates “winning in a walk” against all these Republican Bush-syncophants?……p.s. check pollingreport.com before answering. Why isn’t it 80/20 Dems ahead?? (2) perhaps many Americans are more against losing this war than actually just against war? (3) there have really been no “big asks” for money yet on the R-side. The fundraising thus far are “be-seen-at and with” affairs…..when crunch time comes, it is done by one-on-one contacts.
George: I didn’t have anyone in particular in mind, but I guess another way to phrase it would be the use of soft power without enough hard power to give leverage to diplomacy. I don’t have time to expound on it further- but I generally feel that a realistic foreign policy can’t assume that the US will be viewed benignly if we adopt a more conciliatory tone. Partly I think that the US is presumed guilty of belligerence, bellicosity and hegemony until proven otherwise, and partly I think we HAVE been guilty enough of those things in the past to have earned distrust. For better or worse, those are the operating parameters for the world’s sole superpower.
That doesn’t mean that I advocate using b, b, and h in most situations, but I feel that in some quarters there is too much advocacy for the opposite, the use of soft power over hard in virtually every situation except a direct response to an attack.
I am of course speaking in generalities of the type of foreign policy that most GOP voters would not endorse; I’m not accusing any or all of the Democratic candidates of espousing that extreme position. I do, however, see liberal/progressive bloggers who would wish for such a candidate.
Again, sorry I don’t have more time to get into it…will see if there’s an appropriate time to bring it up in another thread, another day if possible.
Christine- I can see where my comments might get a little confusing. I can play strategy for both sides without putting out my ideal outcome- which would be what I discussed in comment 13. Since we are operating in less than ideal circumstances, I believe this is how the Democrats can win. That doesn’t mean that I like the partisan gamesmanship- but politics has become more about spin than substance. Until that changes, I do still want my party to win- just as you do.
Yes, I do want conservatives to regain prominence, Kim- and to some degree we all tolerate some gamemanship (part of that, after all, is the ability to ‘sell’ a message and that is important in a legitimate way as well as a tactical one). But I never was happy with GOP campaign tactics which demonize Democrats or impune their motives and I refuse to cheer them on when they do this. There’s nothing wrong with criticizing the opposing party’s policies but as soon as one party or the other uses rhetoric that implies that the opponent has an intent to do harm (as in saying the Dems want the terrorists to win, or that the GOP wants kids to be without healthcare) then the voting public gets the short end of the stick because real discussions about the issues is impossible in that frame of mind. To me there is a very real problem with the ends not justifying the means in those cases- we may want our candidates to succeed but not at the cost of substantive policy discussions for voters to actually understand the issues and policy proposals.
So, no, I do not concede that you and I are two sides of the same coin on this because I don’t see you holding the Democrats to that standard.
“To me there is a very real problem with the ends not justifying the means”
What does crticizing campaign tactics really amount to, when on election day one rewards bad tactics by voting the practioners into office, anyway?
Unless bad politicking is punished at the polls, all this high-minded philosophizing is worth no more than a hill of beans.
I can’t even resolve this for myself. The third party solution suggested by many, would not work for me unless I really believed in the platform of such a party and their campaign tactics remained on the high ground. Not voting at all could result in the worst possible candidate winning. I don’t see any way out. But I don;t fool myself into thinking that I’m ‘better’ because I have qualms I’m part of the gamemanship.
CS- I don’t like the gamesmanship-but it is the public who will have to demand more from their politicians in the way of substance. Until they do, we will have more of the same. What do you suggest we do besides making high-minded statements that don’t change anything? Because, in the end, you may not like their tactics, but you will hold your nose and vote for a conservative candidate at the ballot box, because overall that person is more in tune with your values.
Most people vote from their gut, and don’t really look into the substance of claims made by the politicians during a campaign. It’s sad, but what can we really do to change it?
Kim,
Ever heard the quote from Gandhi: “Be the change you wish to see in the world?”
You say that the public will have to demand more- well guess what? You and I and a collective whole lot of other you’s and I’s are the public. So when you make statements to people you know in your everyday conversation, when you make comments on blogs, when you vote a certain way, when you watch certain pundits who speak a certain way- you are sending a message to politicians about what you will tolerate and approve.
Sometimes I do vote for the lesser of two evils, other times I abstain from voting as I did in the last election when I didn’t cast a vote for my Congressional rep. It wasn’t anything to do with him personally, but a vote of no confidence based on the performance of the last GOP Congress. He won reelection anyway, but I feel better knowing that I didn’t enable bad behavior.
Christine- wouldn’t it have said more to write him personally? I write my reps all the time- and they almost always write back- Sens Mikulski and Cardin have both replied to my e-mails.
I look at their individual votes rather than the party’s rhetoric when evaluating them- because both sides spin events to represent what they want their reality to be. As a political junkie, I am very interested in what works in elections (which surfaced in my prior posts)- as a voter, I find I have to delve past the soundbites to get the real deal. Its not perfect, but I don’t think I’m making bad decisions at election time either.
But the comments may be difficult to reconcile because some represent my Political Science background vs others which express my wishes for the future of the US.