The future of the GOP

[juggles]

So now that they've lost the White House and the congress and Karl Rove's vision of a permanent majority can be resoundingly dismissed, what's going to happen to the Republicans? My personal feeling is that they're ripe for a schism akin to what happened to the Democrats in the South when the Dixiecrats were doing their thing. It seems like the GOP has relied on an uneasy alliance between the fiscal conservatives and the religious right and I wonder if that will continue to hold up. Could be good for the Libertarians.

Thoughts?

[drougan]

I predict a decline in the right wing social platform and a resurgence of fiscal conservatism. I could be wrong though. There's a chance they're gonna play Palin on the national stage, let's see if she takes over Stevens' Senate seat. If that happens there maybe a broader party split between social and fiscal sides and some resulting friction.

It certainly won't be a complete split from social conservatism, but it might just be manifest in the dropping of a few key issues from the platform. (gay marriage, abortion). IF that happens, they would have a decent chance at hitting up the more urban, cosmopolitan voting districts.

[Lonestar]

Boy do I hope they rally around Palin for 2012.. come to pappa :D

[markalot]

Gay marriage won't be dropped, look at the national results. Gays will drop the M word, finally, focus on equal rights instead, and hopefully the issue will resolve itself.

If the repubs stick to 'Christian Conservatism', and that's NOT a knock against Christians, then I will remain out of the party.

Small, Smart Government and fiscal conservatism along with some social conservative aspects.

The wilderness is the only thing that can fix a party.

[akip]

i think they still all agree on fiscal conservatism in terms of lower taxes, lower spending, which is the basic platform that mccain ran on. it would be easy to tell the evangelical-style conservatives to back off. but the social conservative/economic libertarian/populist wing that scared off the educated suburban swing voters, as well as some educated repubs, really DOES seem to have been energized by palin and are looking to her to bone up on the issues and run again when she's better prepared to go on interview shows.

ex: i talked to my neocon brother---seems he and his wife have embraced her as THE answer to the country's problems. i think they felt betrayed by the repub intelligentia's (wolfowitz, greenspan) mistakes and have reacted by backlashing against the elites in their own party, rather than by blaming the decider-by-his-gut bush. as religious conservatives, they truly believe that undisciplined, immoral american culture is at the root of the country's problems, and that personal responsibility via libertarian economic policies is the ONLY way to go.

at the same time, the mortgage/credit crisis and events like katrina have pulled off a pretty big slice of the more moderate right-leaners who recognize at least SOME role for govt regulation. and those tend to be the voters who thought mccain was okay, but too old, and didn't like palin at ALL.

one of those southern conservatives---not trent lott, but someone in that camp---said this a.m. on npr that repubs have to go back to their true roots as strict fiscal conservatives. but is that enough for the evangelicals and other hardcore religious conservatives? i sort of doubt it.

maybe, like the left, they'll have to get sick of losing for 12 years to back down on the divisive stuff. and find a new charismatic leader who can deliver a visionary speech.

[Hogarth]

The real problem with the GOP is this: the states they used to count on for victory have changed.

My dad moved down to Charlotte, NC, a decade ago, and now when I visit, the city seems less and less southern and more like Columbus (take out the Buckeyes and insert NASCAR). More and more people have moved from the rust belt to places like NC, CO, and NM, and have taken their politics with them. And while Republicans like George Voinovich, who focus mostly on fiscal matters, appealed to these people back home, they find that southern republicans are a totally different animal. Repulsed, they then vote Democratic.

The trend in the south and west is this: as these areas become more urban and diverse, Republicans will continue to lose influence to moderate Democrats who can appeal to a broader swath of voters than just "real" Americans.

The way the trends are going, states like Georgia, Arizona, and Missouri will go blue like New Mexico, North Carolina, and Virginia.

[akip]

when i'm not so interested in what tom ashbrook's talking about on "on point" i've been switching to the rush rant for a few minutes. he's shifted from yelling how the election was "stolen" (:D) to hammering on the mccain campaign staff for throwing a sacrificial palin into the lion pit. how palin was the only true conservative in the election and the RNC were utter idiots to try to keep wall street repubs and moderates in the coalition.

does he really believe this, or is he just making sure all the truck drivers keep tuning in? seems like that'd be the sure fire way to lose this particular election.

[the_birds]

ex: i talked to my neocon brother---seems he and his wife have embraced her as THE answer to the country's problems. i think they felt betrayed by the repub intelligentia's (wolfowitz, greenspan) mistakes and have reacted by backlashing against the elites in their own party, rather than by blaming the decider-by-his-gut bush. as religious conservatives, they truly believe that undisciplined, immoral american culture is at the root of the country's problems, and that personal responsibility via libertarian economic policies is the ONLY way to go.

Republican Intelligentsia? Oxymoron of the day!

I was talking to my good friend and staunch fiscal Conservative about the state of his party and its in terrible shape Philosophically.

But realistically, when they dissect this election, its results, voting trends and demographics, they'll realize that they didn't do all that poorly. That mostly this election is more about a reaction to W. than a failing of the Republican Party machine.

I think what you're going to see is a wait-and-see approach to the 2012 Presidential race, really, there is an incredible onus on Obama for some measurable success. I'm thinking Obama knows this and its his reasoning for picking the seasoned, grizzled veterans of the Clinton Admin. But if Obama stumbles, watch for a huge push by Repubs to defeat him, otherwise, they might not try their best to beat him.

The Republicans also have to consider the future of the party in a person. Who is new face of the party? What will they stand for? The republicans are at an interesting crossroads. Will they go for unnecessary big changes, or will they bet harder on a more capable, less polarizing individual, e.g. a McCain w/o the get-your-war-on hard on?

The point is the Repubs have some time to figure it all out. Whatever it is its going to be interesting what comes out of their shop.

The best thing for the country is for Obama to take it up a notch. I hope that Obama runs a great term of successful legislation and general TCB with emphasis on results. Then, it would force the Republicans to come up with a more competent adversary and then, MAYBE we could get on a course for more capable, leaders, with less bullshit and more results.

But, no pressure Obama :D

[akip]

i hear that obama is seeking excellence over symbolic diversity, having studied clinton's early mistakes.

[berserkr1979]

If the repubs stick to 'Christian Conservatism', and that's NOT a knock against Christians, then I will remain out of the party.

I'll drink to that.

The Religious Right has been in bed with the Republicans for far to long. The party isn't even the same party that elevated Lincoln, not to mention Regan to the Presidency. The focus is all wrong and until they throw the Religious Right out in the cold, it'll be more of the same.

Small, smart, and fiscally conservative. That's the way it was and that's the way it should be again.

[Tweeks_Coffee]

I'll drink to that.

The Religious Right has been in bed with the Republicans for far to long. The party isn't even the same party that elevated Lincoln, not to mention Regan to the Presidency. The focus is all wrong and until they throw the Religious Right out in the cold, it'll be more of the same.

Small, smart, and fiscally conservative. That's the way it was and that's the way it should be again.

I second (third?) all that. Of course the party's tend to go through changes and evolve. One generation's Republicans is another generations Democrats. They aren't winning any new fans by pandering to the evangelical crowd, hopefully they learned that with Palin.

[Unrequited]

If they can't attract non-whites to the party, they are doomed. By 2050, whites will be a minority in America. Did you see McCain's Biltmore gathering? It looked like a crowd at a Hank Williams Jr. concert. And, coincidentally, Hank Jr. was there.

[butter_of_69]

Gay marriage won't be dropped, look at the national results. Gays will drop the M word, finally, focus on equal rights instead, and hopefully the issue will resolve itself.

You talk as though gay "marriage" and equal rights are mutually exclusive.

What will most likely happen is that the issue will ultimately end up in front of the Supreme Court. There will be states that allow gay marriage, and those that don't. Those that get married in the states that allow it will demand it be recognized in the states that don't under the Full Faith & Credit clause of the Constitution. THAT'S where this will ultimately be decided, in my opinion. Then, you will get into the issue of do some states have to recognize marriages that other states recognize but they don't?

[markalot]

You talk as though gay "marriage" and equal rights are mutually exclusive.

What will most likely happen is that the issue will ultimately end up in front of the Supreme Court. There will be states that allow gay marriage, and those that don't. Those that get married in the states that allow it will demand it be recognized in the states that don't under the Full Faith & Credit clause of the Constitution. THAT'S where this will ultimately be decided, in my opinion. Then, you will get into the issue of do some states have to recognize marriages that other states recognize but they don't?

It can't end up in the supreme court unless there is a federal law to dispute.

[drougan]

It can't end up in the supreme court unless there is a federal law to dispute.

Or state law where constitutionality is in question.

[clonE]

the GOP needs the Rapture to happen, that'll get the religious nuts out of the party [and I'll bet everyone will get along better after that!]

[the happy prole]

It can't end up in the supreme court unless there is a federal law to dispute.

That's not really correct... or maybe it's correct if you consider the Constitution to be federal law.

The S. Ct. has jurisdiction over any case involving a constitutional argument, even if it's a local law. In this situation there are Equal Protection issues which would bring it to the Supes.

Also, conflicts between states can go up to the Supreme Court, so a case where New Jersey won't recognize a Massachusetts marriage might get it there as well.

The Supreme Court is the highest level of appeal for the Federal courts so really, any case involving citizens of two separate states over $75,000 can end up there. They can also call up cases straight from state Supreme Courts without having them go through the Fed. circuit. In actuality though, it pretty much takes a constitutional issue-- even conflicts between states are generally decided under the Commerce Clause.

[akip]

i'm not sure they can get by just screaming "socialism!" at obama when it turns out 52% of voters from households earning over $200K voted for him---no doubt 'cause they're actually in a position to KNOW that an extra 3% is no sweat. ;)

[ICONOCLAST420]

the GOP needs the Rapture to happen, that'll get the religious nuts out of the party

I would say that the religious cultist hypocrites will still be here, and the televangelists would preach on as if nothing happened.

[akip]

pundits blabbing about this said the GOP has to recapture the educated suburban vote. two out of three said it's mitt next time.

[silentpaul]

The GOP has to worry less about the GOP, and more about America.

[juggles]

You don't have to thumb through the dusty scrolls to see history repeating here. Don't forget that the South was a Democrat stronghold that only shifted red after the civil rights act passed and LBJ continued to fight in Vietnam.


A little off-topic but-

It never ceases to amaze me how many people who should know better are unaware of this. And at the state and local level, the Democrats still have some pull. For example, in my lifetime Kentucky has only once elected a Republican governor.

It seems to me that where someone lives on the urban-suburban-rural spectrum is becoming more telling of their politics (or at least their voting habits) than what region of the country they live in. Using Kentucky as an example again, Lexington and Louisville are generally pretty blue while the rest of the state is red.

[the happy prole]

The problem is, losing the religious right does not necessarily mean they will regain the center. They've completely lost track of the message even on fiscal issues. Sure, they're still rabid about lowering taxes but there's no commitment at all on the spending side. Their international policy does not seem that strong at this time, either.

Moreover, there's just a complete dearth of competent leaders. As a Virginian, I can tell you that while the influx of Hispanics to NoVa has liberalized the area somewhat, the values here still run conservative.

The fact that Democrats hold the governorship, and both Senate seats is not so much do to change demographics but rather the fact that the GOP has been running a bunch of complete bozos.

Jim Gilmore's conservative socially but his main platform was fiscal. Namely he promised to eliminate the car tax. That plan was 1) a disaster, 2) never completed. Moreover, he appointed a bunch of nutjobs to high government positions who were arrogant, rubbed everyone the wrong way and had no idea what they were doing.

That's why the Republicans keep losing Henrico County. People there are mainstream conservative (probably representing the electoral pulse of VA), but they live close to Richmond and they see what these idiots are doing.

One of the guys the Republicans are trying to groom is Eric Cantor. And you know what? I liked the dude. Local kid, smart, ran as a moderate, came up through the House of Delegates so put his work in at the local level. Now he's the biggest partisan hack out there. He had this huge ad about how illegal immigrants were taking over the country... and he represents Henrico. What illegal immigrants live in Henrico? Plus he schills constantly for the religious right and Christian values.... and he's Jewish.

So, you can change your platform but what happens to Cantor? He's going to look like the biggest hypocrite in the world. You can try to change your positions, but it takes a long time to rebuild the party infrastructure and just as importantly, the general attitude.

It's not just religious viewpoints, it's the guys out there like Limbaugh, Cunningham, O'Reilly etc. that are assholes no matter what position they're taking. They are less about religion than they are just angry psychos. And while that might work at garnering votes from the public in an election, you keep it up and soon all you have are shrill, angry hacks in your party running for office.

[rcc94]

I've been trying to figure out the best place to post this, and this thread is perfect. Former Republican Congressman Mickey Edwards was on Fresh Air yesterday. It was a very interesting interview. His take was that with Gingrich, the GOP became more focused on supporting the Republican Party, rather than the United States. He's in favor of the checks and balances; the legislative branch isn't there to support the executive branch. He also described how the Bush administration and Republicans in Congress completely betrayed the constitutional and conservative principles of the "old" GOP: wire-tapping w/o warrents, holding people in jail without charges - things that really bother my libertarian views.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96648705

Other points he made that I really agreed with was that war should be the last option, protecting personal freedoms is important, and having an intelligent thoughtful leader is a good thing. This is the GOP I miss.

[the happy prole]

Here's something interesting from an AP article, also relevant here or talking about Rahm Emanuel or really in just about any thread:

In 2001, Bush set up shop in the White House with Republicans firmly in control of both the House and Senate.

His chief strategist, Karl Rove, envisioned building a long-term Republican majority by broadening the party's base in part by building support among women, labor groups and Hispanics.

Say huh? "building support among women, labor groups and Hispanics?!?" I'll also add that Karl Rove is also an agnostic.

Just goes to show it's not always someone's extremist positions that make them an asshole... and also how quickly plans can fall by the wayside.

[juggles]

It's not just religious viewpoints, it's the guys out there like Limbaugh, Cunningham, O'Reilly etc. that are assholes no matter what position they're taking. They are less about religion than they are just angry psychos. And while that might work at garnering votes from the public in an election, you keep it up and soon all you have are shrill, angry hacks in your party running for office.

Agree whole-heartedly with this and you need look no further than Michele Bachmann's rant for proof. I don't know if I can name names, but I sense that there's a group of post-Gingrich Republicans who came into the game in the world of shrill, divisive, power-mad talk radio and they think this is the way politics works. And it never occurred to them that their side could lose or that they might end up drowning in the shit they spewed.

[akip]

the GOP invested a lot of energy into trying to convince the public that democrats, especially liberals, were the root of all evil. then they forgot that finger pointers are supposed to hold themselves to at least a slightly higher standard. instead you had a lot of giddy trough-feeding and clumsy power sledge-hammering. which might get somewhat of a pass in good times, but when the plug comes out of the economy, look out.

[Hogarth]

by Robert L. Borosage
Huffingtonpost.com

Conservatives started spinning even before the dancing stopped on election night. Obama's victory is impressive, but "this is still a center right nation," went the mantra. "This was a good Democratic year, says Bill Kristol, "but this is still a center-right country. Conservative and the Republican Party will have a real chance for a comeback. National Review editor Rich Lowry is less sanguine, but concludes:

"Even in unimaginably challenging conditions for Republicans, the ideological composition of the election was essentially unchanged from 2004. Only 22 percent of voters identified themselves as liberals. The rest were moderates or conservatives. It is indeed, as conservatives have been insisting in recent days, a center-right country. The question is how to appeal to the center again."

Sure, this is a center-right country, but only if you substitute addition for analysis. There are more conservatives than liberals - as there has been for years. So add them to the 44% of the electorate that says they are "moderates," and you get a center-right majority.

But do a little analysis. "Moderate" isn't a place holder, as voters who describe themselves that way have attitudes on the issues of the day. And when you look at attitudes, rather than addition, there is no question: Conservatives have had their day. This is a center-left, not a center-right nation.

The Center for America's Future joined with Democracy Corps to do a nation wide poll on election eve (for full report and poll go here) and with an expanded sample, we could probe attitudes of voters by political identification. What we found was clear: on both values and issues, moderates line up with liberals to form a strong majority that isolates conservatives.

On national security, does our security depend on building strong ties with other nations or on our own military strength? Liberals say ties with other nations 76-20; moderates 63-31. Conservatives go the other way 51-43.

Should we begin to take troops out of Iraq or stay the course until we reach stability? Liberals 92-7 for getting troops out; moderates 64-33. Conservatives? By two to one -- 66-33 -- they would stay the course.

Does government regulation do more good or more harm? Liberals believe it does more good than harm by 75-18; moderates by 60-36. Conservatives go the other way, even after the financial collapse, 52-44.

Are you worried that we will fail to make investments we need to create jobs or worry that we will spend too much and have to raise taxes? Liberals worry about not making needed investments 73-23; moderates by 53-44. Conservatives worry about spending and taxes 69-29.

Did you worry more that Barack Obama would raise taxes or that John McCain would continue Bush's economic policies? Liberals by a margin of 58% worry about McCain; moderates the same by 29%. Conservatives by 46 - 70-24 - worry about Obama.

Should homosexuality be accepted or discouraged by society. Liberals say accepted by 82-17; moderates by 61-28. Conservatives want homosexuality discouraged by 63-31.

When we asked whether Republicans lost because they were too conservative or not conservative enough, or whether they should move to the center or reaffirm their principles and stay on the right, liberals and moderates were clear. They lost because they were too conservative and should move back towards the center. Conservatives, not surprisingly, reaffirmed the faith.

On issue after issue, moderates stand with liberals, not conservatives. This is a center-left nation.

Republicans are not only an aging, monochromatic, regional minority party. They not only must now suffer the circular firing squad that follows defeat. They not only struggle to find a compelling leader or a relevant agenda. They swim against the tide. They are a largely conservative party in a center-left nation. Obama's mandate is clear. And they'd be well advised to get out of the way.

[Hogarth]

Robert J. Elisberg
Huffingtonpost.com

Who knew?! According to razzle-dazzle conservative pundits, it turns out that the lesson of the 2008 election is that we are supposedly a "center-right" nation.

Yes, yes, I know, but stop laughing so that I can continue.

This reminds me of the joke about the definition of an economist. "An economist is a person who sees something occur in reality and doubts that it can happen in theory."

If Republicans want to doubt what theoretically happened on November 4, that's their right. But it doesn't change the reality.

In their theoretical world, John McCain likely won a sweeping landslide. Congratulations! Theoretically. But in the reality-based world, Barack Obama will be sworn into office on January 20, and Democrats had sweeping victories in the House and Senate in each of the last two elections.

That's how reality works.

Honestly, I don't doubt that a majority of people questioned could possibly have told some exit pollsters that their political leanings might have been center-right. It's absolutely possible. Of course, Ohio Democrats who voted in 2004 might remind you that exit polls aren't really all that reliable.

And pollsters will tell you that what question is asked can change what answer you get.

But far more importantly, what a person says they are can be worlds different from what they actually are. Y'know, that whole "actions speak louder than words," thingee? If a person says they don't like Italian food, but has a mouthful of pizza, you can make a pretty good case that they actually like Italian food. Kids probably would have told you they hate reading. And then "Harry Potter" got published.

And who knows, maybe some people said they considered themselves conservative and even believed that, just not knowing precisely what the dividing line between conservative and the next choice was. But when they vote for Barack Obama ("The Most Liberal Member of the Senate!"); and when they vote for 255 Democrats in the House, compared to 174 Republicans; and when they vote for likely 59 Democratic senators out of 100; and when they vote to have 28 Democratic governors but 22 Republicans -

- thinking that you're living in a "center-right" nation means that where you're actually living is in a Fools Paradise.

The Washington Post just reported that when Barack Obama takes office, he is looking at reversing many of the 200 executive orders that George Bush had signed, including policies on stem cell research, climate change, EPA standards, reproductive rights and more. This was the Democratic platform - the campaign went on for two years - the presidential debates and convention acceptance speeches were seen by largest audiences in history: people have a pretty fair idea what they were voting for. Anyone who thought they were voting for center-right Democrats is likely in for a massive shock. Happily, that's not a big problem, since the number of those people are mostly limited to Republican pundits trying to stay afloat.

Admittedly, though, it's somewhat amusing to watch, because Republicans calling something one thing and meaning the exact opposite has become standard operating procedure. "Compassionate conservative" and "Mission Accomplished" come to mind. Not to mention, the "Clear Skies Initiative" that increased allowable pollutants, the "Healthy Forest Initiative" that expanded logging, and the law that reduced personal freedoms, whimsically named "The Patriot Act."

Indeed this quaint habit reached "Alice in Wonderland" heights after the election, as we saw Republicans falling over themselves to say the very opposite of what they were insisting during the campaign -

We have Sarah Palin raising the alarm that Barack Obama was dangerously "palling around with terrorists" - and now after his election, asking us to "savor this moment," adding "God bless Barack Obama and his beautiful family."

We have Michele Bachman doing her Joseph McCarthy best to charge that Barack Obama "may have Anti-American views" - and now after his election lauding what "a tremendous signal we sent."

And so, amid all this, it is hardly surprising to find some conservatives desperately trying to convince anyone who'll listen that "we live in a center-right nation." The official name for this is "grasping at straws." (And it's "straws" only because the life preservers are all gone.) But honestly, people really aren't that stupid, no matter how much the Bush Administration played them. People understand they actually voted for the candidates and party who support ending the war in Iraq, bringing universal health care, reversing global warming, getting rid of tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans and on and on.

Then again, if some conservatives want to keep believing that America is "center right," that's fine - because they will continue to lose elections by not seeing the world as it actually is. They'll continue aiming their efforts at an ever-dwindling electorate. And the rest of the nation that has long-since shifted the other direction will leave them behind in the dust.

Calling this nation today "center-right" is the last-ditch effort of the lost. You only find your way out of the forest when you view the world clearly and understand where you are and how you got there. Fool yourself by pointing to all the polls you want, the rest of us will look at who sits in the White House, Senate, House and state governments.

Fool yourself more, and you get stuck with your Brent Bozell's telling Fox audiences in false comfort that "Barack Obama won as a conservative."

In the end, the only reasons some try to usurp other's values is because they have none of their own.

[Lonestar]

I say, let the repubs believe that we're a center right nation, as long as in doesn't influence the Obama administration. Let them elect Sarah Palin in four years and run an even more conservative, hateful, anti-science, anti-technology campaign. It will just be more of the same results.
I constantly see Palin talk down on 'bloggers'. Even though she's leading down the wrong path with that attitude I understand why. These 'bloggers' are a big reason why she gets exposed. These 'bloggers' and all their technology and internet organizing and online campaign funding were a huge contributer to the Obama victory. Palin sounds like she will never get this concept through her head. And I bet Palin hates it when she says things like, "harry potter books weren't even written when I was mayor", and an hour later there's some blog totally proving her wrong by siting (4) harry potter books released before she left Wasilla office..
And she's supposed to be one of the younger leaders of the future GOP party :confused:

[Hogarth]

The only Republican that scares me is Bobby Jindal, Gov. of Louisiana, who despite his conservatism struck me as competent and cool under fire during the hurricanes this summer. However, since he's tried to push a creationist agenda in the state's education system, I suspect his Palin-like nuttyness will be exposed as well.

[markalot]

We are a center / center right nation. The claims from both sides about what that means are preposterous.

All center right means is that most voters identify themselves as moderates or somewhat conservative. Many of these same people voted for Obama. The importance of center right is that anyone going to far right or left will lose, with left being ever so slightly more toxic.

Now we have partisans on the left and the right making ridiculous claims in order to protect or further their agenda. Basically the 20% on the right are arguing about the 20% on the left, with the 60% in the middle not giving a rats ass.

[Hogarth]

Reid Wilson – Wed Nov 12, 10:30 am
RealClearPolitics.com
A week and a half after Republicans suffered their second rout in as many election cycles, the party is looking for ways to regroup and rebuild. The first steps, planning for which began months ago, will take place this week as three groups of prominent Republicans meet separately to plot comebacks.

A gathering of the Republican Governors Association in Miami this week will attract the most attention and will serve as an unofficial cattle call for a number of potential presidential candidates. Hosted by Florida Governor Charlie Crist, the RGA meeting will also include Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal and a handful of other possible candidates. The RGA announced earlier this week that Alaska's Sarah Palin will attend the gathering, where she will give a speech and face the press.

This weekend, members of the Republican National Committee and party strategists will meet in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina for a conference on the party's future. Hosted by South Carolina GOP chairman Katon Dawson, RNC members will discuss the path back to power. The event is largely seen as a forum for Dawson, a leading candidate for party chairman, to gain access to many of the 168 voting members of the national committee.

In what may have the most immediate and obvious impact on the party, the depleted House Republican Conference will meet in Washington next week to elect leaders for the 111th Congress. House Minority Leader John Boehner is likely to keep his post as the chamber's top Republican, but Minority Whip Roy Blunt and Conference Chairman Adam Putnam are not running for re-election. That will open the door for Eric Cantor and Mike Pence, both of whom Republicans hope can infuse new life into a beleaguered and downcast caucus.

All three meetings are part of a larger move to rebuild a party that is now in trouble. While some conservative commentators take heart in the notion that the electorate, they say, is still best described as center-right, others are increasingly realizing that the results of the last two years suggest Republicans are no longer winning the center-right.

Republicans "are going to have to have essentially the Council of Trent, to get the popes and the cardinals together and figure out what it is they stand for," said longtime GOP consultant Craig Shirley. "The debate is going to boil down to this: The future of the Republican Party, is it based on Bushism or is it based on Reaganism? Is it based on a K Street access project where you tax cut, tax cut, spend and spend, elect and elect ... or is it going to be a populist type of conservative party that is going to take on the moneyed elites and the political elites?"

"We need to seriously look at a lot of the messages and tactics and all of the things we did not do and haven't been doing," added Chris Healy, chair of the Connecticut Republican Party. "The map is going to have to change. We have to build new coalitions. We do need to rethink some of what we're saying and some of what we're not hearing."

In fact, the debate over the direction of the party is largely shaping up as a contest over who can get back to the purest form of essential Reaganism. "The gold standard is Ronald Reagan," said Luke Esser, chairman of the Washington State Republican Party. "I think that the big shortcoming of the last few years, and not just from the Bush Administration but when the Republicans controlled Congress, was Republicans not governing in line with those principles."

"We didn't lose because we were too much for tax cuts. We didn't lose because we were against spending. We lost because we stepped out of an away from the Reagan vision," said Grover Norquist, the prominent Beltway-based Republican operative. "We have a winning vision, and that's Reagan's."

On the other hand, GOP strategists are increasingly open about what they see as the hole President Bush has dug- a hole out of which they now must climb. Several prominent Republicans cited an impending break with President Bush that, though they hope it stays polite, could be one of the more public divorces in party history. "With Bush gone, we're going to have to have a polite conversation about his failings," Norquist said.

Norquist, once a fan of President Bush, is increasingly open about his philosophical disagreements with the White House. "What does that mean?" Norquist asked rhetorically of the term "Bushism." "Spend too much? Occupy Mesopotamia endlessly?" Other Republicans, asked about President Bush, rattled off initiatives they see as major breaks from party orthodoxy that those in the White House will instead see as accomplishments. From an office of faith-based initiatives and intervention into the Terri Schiavo case to the No Child Left Behind act and the PATRIOT Act, few Bush actions, on reflection, have pleased party activists.

The soul-searching is nothing new for the Republican Party, an organization of individuals with a reputation for self-flagellation. And the party has largely settled on an answer, however vague and generic the concept of "Reaganism" may be.

The problem, though, is in the implementation. "What we had in 1977 was a philosophical and motivating leader in the guise of Ronald Reagan. We do not have that today, and that is always helpful to have someone to kind of crystallize the argument," Shirley said. "To be quite frank, if you compare the Republican Party to a Major League Baseball team, the team they're putting on the field in the majors is not very good, and their Triple-A and Double-A system is not very good either."

Republicans meeting in Miami, Myrtle Beach and Washington this week will begin three facets of the long and steep climb back to prominence. The RGA will showcase future national candidates while House leadership will select the most immediate new faces of the party. Both gatherings will have political implications for the next two elections, as Congressional leaders try to rebuild their shrunken majorities and as the nation's governors work from the ground up while several eye the White House.

But it may be Dawson's meeting in Myrtle Beach, to be attended by many other potential RNC candidates including Michigan GOP chair Saul Anuzis and Florida's Jim Greer, that may be the most important for the future of Republicanism as a philosophy. Whether the party figures out how to make a comeback with comity or riven by ideological disagreements will determine just how soon that comeback takes place. "Before we even think about 2012 or even 2010, we've got to think about what it is we stand for," Shirley said.



The thing that gets me is that they are all looking back to the past instead of adapting to the future: an America that is more urban, more diverse, and more informed. Keep looking back to Reagan boys, you can have the past. Duty Now For The Future.

[frizgolf]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Prescott_Bush

[drougan]

Well...Third time could be the charm, or it could be a further step down. :p

[frizgolf]

It would be the arrival of the third leader of all those end-of-times prophecies I've heard mention of. Was it Nostradamus or something...?
Folks were freaking that it might be the Kennedys for a while.
It's the Bushes.

[Lonestar]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Prescott_Bush

America electing another Bush would be a bigger achievement than electing the first black president.

[frizgolf]

America electing another Bush would be a bigger achievement than electing the first black president.

His mother is Mexican. He's 32.
It may seem shallow, but I think he'd carry a huge female vote as well.
http://blogs.tampabay.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/07/24/georgepbush_2.jpg

[Hogarth]

It may seem shallow, but I think he'd carry a huge female vote as well.


Isn't that what they said about Sarah Palin as well?

[frizgolf]

Isn't that what they said about Sarah Palin as well?

That was supposedly for different reasons.
I did say I thought it might be shallow. Image is everything...

[AvatarOfVishnu]

imo:

Sarah Palin will fade away - her 15 mins is nearly up...Mike Huckabee is the future of the "values crowd"...he's got charisma (like Palin) but meets the minimum gravitas threshold that Palin never will...however Huckabee is NOT really a fiscal conservative & will have many lining up to be the ANTI-Huckabee in 4 years:

Mitt Romney?, Tim Pawlenty?, Bobby Jindal?, Charlie Crist? - none of these guys seem very interesting, but i bet they are all candidates in the 2012 primaries

Then there is Rudy Guiliani, pretty much the opposite of Huckabee in every way...in fact these 2 could likely split the party w/ 1 of the factions starting a new 3rd major party. Will the GOP give either of them a shot & risk the schism? If not, I think they will continue to wander in the wilderness for quite awhile because nobody else in sight seems to have the political acumen to lead the party back to prominence.

Oh, then there is Ron Paul...he might as well just join the Libertarian Party already

[cuneyt81]

Vishnu's assessment is pretty spot on, I think. I'll just keep it short and sweet. The GOP, if it wants to be back in the spotlight anytime soon, needs to get its shit together.

Not that I mind if they don't, mind you.

[the happy prole]

The Libertarians have their shit together even less than the GOP.

I just don't get it. All these years the Libertarians could have voted Republican (or perhaps Democrat) and settled for some guy who was closest to, but not really anywhere near their views.

Instead they played it hardcore by voting third party even though it meant "wasting" a vote. Which is fine. Except then Bob Barr runs and they vote for him. I mean, if you'll vote for Bob Barr you might as well have been voting GOP this whole time. Dude is probably less Libertarian than McCain.

And if you're going to vote for a candidate just because they belong to a certain party, you're doing exactly what you've been criticizing everyone else for doing all along.

I think the GOP is doing the right thing trying to push guys like Cantor. But I think they still expect him to cater to the hard right. They need to realize that they actually have to jettison some views. They can't just try the same thing with a new face; it's beyond that point.

Yes the US is centrist, possibly center-right given where the Democrats are. But that doesn't mean that the GOP just ran the wrong guys or it's Bush backlash. The party or at least too many supporters are way too far right, and that hurt McCain. Politically, he was in the right spectrum but he still couldn't win.

Palin is an example of an attempt to put a palatable face on a far right regime. It's not going to work.

[classicgrrl]

I am the future of the GOP.

Resistance is futile.

[purple_octopus]

Instead they played it hardcore by voting third party even though it meant "wasting" a vote. Which is fine. Except then Bob Barr runs and they vote for him. I mean, if you'll vote for Bob Barr you might as well have been voting GOP this whole time. Dude is probably less Libertarian than McCain.
Not all of us. Shlep and I certainly didn't vote for Barr. After all, there was already a Republican on the ticket if that was how we wanted to vote. Most Libertarians I know were upset by Barr's nomination and felt betrayed by the party. Other than a handful of Libertarians that held their nose (which I'd agree makes no sense), most of the people I personally know who voted for Barr this year were the disgruntled Republicans who couldn't bring themselves to vote for Obama. (Republican Friend: "Hey! I'm voting Libertarian this year!" Me: "That's nice, but not really.") Barr pulled in just over 100,000 more votes than Badnarik did in 2004, and I would bet those votes were cast by Republicans, not Libertarians. I find it quite amusing that the LP is calling itself "the Party of Principle". It makes me laugh so hard, my sides are hurting!

[the_birds]

Interesting report on NPR about the future of the GOP, talking to Republican Governors at their convention.

I'll tell you one thing that must die, can't die fast enough for the GOP, is the Rovian Politics of Hate. The White only demographic is a losing proposition. That America is fading fast.

[TheMapman]

I'll tell you one thing that must die, can't die fast enough for the GOP, is the Rovian Politics of Hate. The White only demographic is a losing proposition. That America is fading fast.

True, although I wouldn't call it "Politics of Hate".

They need to move slightly to the center, embrace some government power, and focus on foreign policy and fiscal conservatism. McCain was on the right track. The party needs to catch up to him, and they need to find someone who can run a freaking presidential campaign. If McCain's campaign staff is ever involved in another bid, I'm not voting for that candidate. What a train wreck.

In this election the GOP was fucked the second the economy tanked - the incumbent party almost always is.

[the_birds]

from today's NYT - rather appropriate

November 13, 2008
Op-Ed Contributor
An English Lesson
By JONATHAN FREEDLAND

London

REPUBLICANS looking for a friendly shoulder to cry on in the coming months could do worse than look up their ideological cousins across the Atlantic. For the Conservative Party in Britain knows what it feels like to be wiped out in a watershed election by a charismatic opponent whose victory brings jubilant scenes on the streets and heady talk of a new dawn.

For the Tories, the cataclysm came 11 years ago when Tony Blair buried them in a landslide. Since then, they have suffered two more general election defeats, enduring their longest spell in the parliamentary wilderness since the mid-19th century.

What might panicked Republicans learn from the Tory experience? That apparently the first response to electoral disaster is denial. In the immediate aftermath of 1997, a few brave Tory souls dared venture that the party would have to undergo radical change, that it had to inch toward the center and demonstrate that it was not as out of touch as the critics alleged.

The party’s new leader, William Hague, duly tried to prove his credentials as a modern chap by wearing a baseball cap — a curious definition of modernity, admittedly, but let that stand as evidence of how passé the Tories circa 1997 seemed — and by attending the Notting Hill Carnival, a big event for black Londoners. It was “compassionate conservatism,” British-style.

But when the polls failed to budge, the brief flirtation with modernizing moderation ended. Under pressure from the Tory right in Parliament and the press, Mr. Hague adopted a “core vote strategy,” aimed chiefly at enthusing the Conservative base. He pressed the right’s favorite button, hostility to the European Union — the British equivalent of opposition to abortion — warning that Labor would abandon the pound in favor of the euro. The response was an electoral walloping nearly as brutal as the one the Tories had suffered four years earlier.

Now the Conservatives faced a clear choice. In seeking Mr. Hague’s replacement, they could pick one of those who had first called for a change in direction, like former defense secretary Michael Portillo, who offered a William Weld-style blend of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism and urged the party to abandon the culture wars and rediscover tolerance as a conservative virtue. Or they could retreat further into the comfort zone, electing a leader with no following in the country but deemed sufficiently hawkish on Europe.

They chose retreat, heeding Britain’s near-equivalents of Rush Limbaugh and anointing one Iain Duncan Smith. He had none of Sarah Palin’s stardust, but the Tory base saw him the way hard-core Republicans now see the Alaska governor — as a true believer. Mr. Blair brushed him away like a crumb on his lapel.

After two years of plunging poll numbers, Mr. Duncan Smith was toppled in an internal coup and replaced by Michael Howard who, à la Mitt Romney, promised economic competence, soundness on the right’s pet issues and an ability to unite the fractious ranks of British conservatism. This approach did for him what it did for Mr. Romney in the Republican primaries: in the summer of 2005, Mr. Howard led the party to its third national defeat in eight years.

Only then, staring oblivion in the face, did the slow stirrings of recovery begin. A senior Conservative official, Theresa May, had already warned that the Tories had to shed their image as “the nasty party” with few women or members of ethnic minorities in Parliament. Now, at last, that message began to be heard. A younger, fresher face emerged and overtook more established rivals for the leadership: David Cameron.

Mr. Cameron’s candidacy was built on a simple premise: modernize or die. He told the Tories they had to look as if they actually liked the country they sought to govern, rather than wishing they could turn back time. They could not hope to form a winning coalition without appealing to the Britons whom Mr. Blair had made his own: women, suburbanites, the highly educated. Relying on angry old white men was never going to get the Conservatives much beyond 33 percent.

To that end, Mr. Cameron set about decontaminating the Tory brand. Central to that mission were forays into two areas of political terrain previously deemed forbidden zones. First, he signaled comfort with gay rights, ditching the party’s previous support for laws restricting sexual equality. Second, he championed environmentalism. He may have endured news media mockery when he took a dogsled ride to inspect a Norwegian glacier in 2006, but it did the trick, confirming that the Tories were changing.

Mr. Cameron’s efforts have paid off: recent polls suggest a Conservative victory at the next election. Of course, the lessons of one society can never fully apply to another. But the Tory experience suggests that a defeated party of the right has to move toward the center, abandon divisive social issues and elect a leader who looks as if he or she actually belongs in the 21st century. With Arnold Schwarzenegger ineligible for the presidency and no other accommodating figure on the horizon, the Republicans might have a bumpy decade ahead.

Jonathan Freedland is an editorial page columnist for The Guardian of London.

[Lonestar]

Interesting report on NPR about the future of the GOP, talking to Republican Governors at their convention.


I thought this was a good piece too. One of the governors (can't remember who) talked about Obama's remarkable ability to raise money online and then said their candidate didn't even know how to use a blackberry..

[juggles]

As various high-flying Republican governors come crashing back to Earth, it seemed like a good time to BUMP this thread.