GOP Leaders Discuss a W Loss: No Retooling of Party Extremism, No Move to Middle

Though the Bush-Cheney Campaign officials reviewing chances in Florida, Ohio and other key states remain apprehensive (according to the Washington Post), yet still reserve "grim" for next week's polling, some are beginning to chew openly on the forthcoming loss of George W. Bush and "stratergize" future losses to the increasingly moderate Democratic Party.

NYTimes.com

Republicans don't want to talk about it, but the question is already an awful thought not so far back in their minds: What happens to the G.O.P. if President Bush loses on Nov. 2?

For starters, Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's powerful political adviser, would no longer be called a boy genius, although party insiders insist there would be less blame of him and Mr. Bush than might be expected. Assuming that the party hangs on to the Senate, Bill Frist, the majority leader, would emerge as one of the most important Republicans in the country. So would Senator John McCain of Arizona, Mr. Bush's onetime nemesis. Paul Wolfowitz, the neo-conservative who urged the president into war with Iraq, would not.

But on the central question of whether a loss would shift the party more to the center, Republicans say no. Yes, there would be a huge fight over Iraq. Yes, there would be bigger fault lines between the tax-cutters and deficit hawks. And yes, the party would experience a massive depression as it picked itself up from the loss. But Republicans say that a defeat of Mr. Bush would not usher in a moderate new era.

"I don't think we have to overhaul the Republican party under any circumstance,'' said Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, who is writing a book on America in the 21st century.

You've got to love Newt. Why break up a winning strategy for losing?

The idea this time though will be to blame scapegoats. Not Bush. Not the party. Not the ideology. Not the failure to follow through on actually being fiscally conservative. Not the pandering to religious fundamentalists. Not the resolute extremists dividing America. Not the lack of intellectual curiosity about the changing world. No soul searching. And no soul to search.

"Generally it causes a great soul-searching within the party,'' said David R. Gergen, a professor of public service at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard and a veteran of the Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton White Houses. "I don't think that is going to happen. Conservatives will argue that it's not because of our conservatism that we lost. They'll look for scapegoats on the national security team. They'll say the war was a good idea, it was just poorly executed.''

Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz will be the GOP fall guys, though they will have resolute defenders dividing the party more.

Republicans agreed that Iraq would be the major post-election fight should Mr. Bush lose, with the neo-conservatives who pushed for the invasion as prime targets. "There will be firing squads and an attempted purge,'' said William Kristol, the editor of the conservative magazine The Weekly Standard and a longtime advocate of the war. "We'll fight back. It'll be fun.''

Libertarians, are your ears burning? The spoils of a GOP ideological civil war will be yours. Perhaps a Perot-like charge from nowhere in 2008 will be more than ripe for the taking of the White House after another one term blunder wonder from a twice-humiliated gene pool. (And can you believe a third of all RNC delegates still support Jeb for President in '08?) :shk:

But for the record, President (elect-to-be) Kerry is said to be discussing bi-partisan appointments with at least two moderate libertarian-minded (small "l") Republican Senators. So no fears of the GOP slipping into total isolation. Kerry continues to extend the hand to reunite this fractured America. Whether or not it's slapped away will be up to them.

I'd love to see a bi-partisan Kerry administration. End all this insanity once and for all.

Yes, my ears are burning, but only because you think that anything Kerry will do will truely affect America for the better.

I've said it once, and I'll say it again. Anyone who seeks to maintain (which is already expansion because of economic and populative growth) or add to the current government, is advocating global dominance.

We have spread overseas because we are unable to feed the system within our borders. But it can, and WILL, get worse.

As we stretch, much like the Romans, there will be growing anger on the part of other countries. We can knock down the pins one at a time with a smile on our face or a frown, and the only governments that will support us is those who gain because of it.

The people will not.

Welcome to funland.

Thanks for the link, nice article. And I agree 100% that a Bush loss will be scapegoated on the national security team. They will have missed the true reason for people fleeing the party.

The Republicans will fail to realize that many righties have moved towards 3rd party candidates (Libertarians or *gulp* Constituion Party) not because of the Iraq war problems, but because the Shrub AND the Republican Congress have increased the scope of the federal government at a rate more than twice that of Bill Clinton. (Can you say 'drunken sailor'? ).
www.harrybrowne.org...

Will this be a true opening for the Libertarians? I don't know, but if the results of the ATS poll are any reflection of the 'thinking demographic', then perhaps so.


As for 2008, I think the nation is collectively tired of political dynasties, but the two major parties, however, are not. Thankfully, a Kerry victory would mean that Hitlary will be sidelined in 2008, but will the Republicans listen to their small government wing, or will the party leaders continue to push up big-government corporate-crony stooges like Jeb or, God forbid, George P Bush? I suspect the latter.

Now if only the Libertarians could find an issue to grab national attention like Eminent Domain....

I personally think that two members of the same family ruling a country in a span of, say, 50 years, is enough. I would never have supported FDR Jr. for President in 1960, and, if RFK had lived and managed to win the election in 1968, I don't think a Ted Kennedy candidacy in 1980 would've been wise politically. So all this noise of a Jeb Bush candidacy in 2008 really alarms me - when you compare Jeb to Republican heavyweights like Rudy Giuliani or John McCain (who, by the way, will be 71 when 2008 rolls around), you see that he would be nominated mainly for his NAME.

It would not reflect well on democracy in America.

Interesting. No less than a day after this leak/revelation from a GOP campaign official...

The Republican official said polling for Bush showed him in a weaker position than some published polls have indicated, both nationally and in battlegrounds. In many of the key states, the official said, Bush is below 50 percent, and he is ahead or behind within the margin of sampling error -- a statistical tie.

"There's just no place where they're polling outside the margin of error so they can say, 'We have this state,' " the official said. "And they know that an incumbent needs to be outside the margin of error."

Drudge is scooping the morning news reality rebuttal...

SOURCES: VP Cheney Predicts on NBCNEWS TODAY SHOW Monday: Election Results Will 52% Bush, 47% Kerry...

Reversed confidence from old Doom & Gloom himself? Or just one of those ex-a-jur-a-shuns?

I'd call it a fatal tactical error actually, given that motivating get-out-the-vote efforts of Bush's base is his last best hope. And for Cheney to predict a big 5 point spread, on top of basically giving the go-ahead to undecided conservatives to VOTE BADNARIK is a double edged sword. You won't find such "no worries; stay home Nov. 2" speeches in the Kerry camp, but hey...Cheney never takes my advice anyway.

Meanwhile, Bush himself is confirming suspicions his campaign is looking for a backup plan for losing Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania (once considered both key and in-hand to Bush re-election).

Conventional wisdom has long held that the key to winning the presidential election is to take Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

President Bush says it's not so simple.

In an exclusive interview with ABC News' Charles Gibson, airing on "World News Tonight" and "Good Morning America," Bush notes the field of states that could help decide the election may be bigger than casual observers believe.

"I wouldn't discount Michigan," Bush says. "I wouldn't discount the influence of Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota and New Mexico. I think this race is a non-predictable race. I think people like to boil it down to one or two states. I think you're gonna find there's a lot of interesting states � not considered to be in play."

Okay, yes (in case you missed it) Bush will be on Good Morning America tomorrow calling the race "non-predictable," as Cheney is on the Today Show predicting the final outcome in no uncertain percentages, but mexed missages notwithstanding...

The fact is, Bush is right. There's more "battleground" states in play everyday (much to his chagrin).

And I'm dreaming of a Blue Arkansas.

Keep up to date on in-state polling here and remember Rove's Rule (circa 2000)...

When the incumbent party is polling less than 50%, challengers in rear view mirror are closer than they appear.







[edit on 25-10-2004 by RANT]

Rant, but wouldnt an attack turn things around for Bush?

Originally posted by dgtempe
Rant, but wouldnt an attack turn things around for Bush?

I'm sure every dirty trick Rove ever imagined is being pulled out as we speak. They did manage to get the Moonie Times to publish an incoherent narrative attempting to refute something Kerry said in one the debates, but it's so weak not even Drudge was willing to push top billing.

This particular piece has been the grin on every Freepers face for over a week talking about "The October Suprise" coming Monday. It's a bigger bust than that stupid Bush ad of puppies frolicking in the woods.

I'd say letting 380 tons of explosives walk out of occupation hands trumps whatever the heck they're talking about this week. They should stick to bashing Teresa. It's all they've got. And it suits them better.

Originally posted by RANT
And I'm dreaming of a Blue Arkansas.

In the two counties where me and my daughter live we have got a lot of people to vote Libertarian, it will not change the election but its a start. We done it by appealing to the Hispanic vote and the college vote. If things go well within a couple elections Northwest Arkansas will be Libertarian

.
Im not a complete libertarian, especially interms of the environment, but it would be refreshing to have Americans start thinking interms of Self-reliance again. The government is Not our Church or BigDaddy provider. Mostly it should be less pompous and more utilitarian.

Americans are Not special. We have to do the work to make this nation a success. In the past we have been lucky in that we have had abundant natural resources to exploit. The government is there to be an enabler, We have to be the ones that dream and do.

One size does NOT fit all. Religion, Lifestyle, etc.

My honest thought is Bush will win. Regretfully so. He may even show/have some humanity for a short period, because of such a close hard fought election, but then he will like everyone does sink into his old habitual ways.
More Corporate blood sucking, more degradation for the American worker and employment prospects, more erosion of confidence in the Dollar and American economy, more sliding into a religious, police state government.
.

Originally posted by Amuk

Originally posted by RANT
And I'm dreaming of a Blue Arkansas.

In the two counties where me and my daughter live we have got a lot of people to vote Libertarian, it will not change the election but its a start. We done it by appealing to the Hispanic vote and the college vote. If things go well within a couple elections Northwest Arkansas will be Libertarian

That'd be fine by me. But look what's Cheney's saying...

"52% Bush, 47% Kerry... "

He's leaving 1% for Nader and completely discounting Libertarians. Are you that invisible to the GOP? Surely they know you can pool together a half million to a million votes to get on the national radar? If not more.

Maybe it's just wishful thinking on their part. Cover eyes and ears and pretend everything's okay. Never retool. Never compromise. Full extreme ahead.

They deserve this loss. Big time.

Originally posted by RANT
. Are you that invisible to the GOP? Maybe it's just wishful thinking on their part. Cover eyes and ears and pretend everything's okay. Never retool. Never compromise. Full extreme ahead.
They deserve this loss. Big time.

They dont want to admit we are here because they know sooner or later we will be taking all those disapointed Republicans that keep waiting for that smaller government that they promise and NEVER produce. Even during the RR years government still grew bigger and bigger and Bush has laid the ground work for a police state.

They hope by ignoring us, chanting the wasted vote song and scaring everyone that they can keep us off the rader.

In Arkansas the vote will go to Bush but if you talk to people NONE are happy with the Republicans BS.

And what will you do rant, when Bush wins?
Will you blame it on "dirty tricks" and "stealing the election" Or will you admit that America chose Bush?
When Bush wins will kerry admit defeat like a man or whine and cry like a gore?
The people will choose bush regardless of what the pundits say.

Originally posted by slank
My honest thought is Bush will win. *snip* More Corporate blood sucking, more degradation for the American worker and employment prospects, more erosion of confidence in the Dollar and American economy, more sliding into a religious, police state government.

Much as I hate to say this, I agree with you, slank. My gut feeling is that Bush will go back in -- Americans have swallowed the "only Bush can protect us from the terrorists" propaganda hook, line and sinker. I live in one of the reddest of the red states, and people here are basically saying, "I don't particularly like Bush, but Kerry will be weak on national defense." The American people as a whole are not yet pi$$ed off enough about Ashcroft's incipient police state to run the bums out of town.

damn it's gonna be a close election. It's going to be right down the wire the way things are going IMO.

The only thing that can lose Bush the election is the Libertarians. If the Libertarians just get a small amount of the primary vote they can screw the republican party.

On National Defense - I think in the past 3 weeks Kerry is looking much stronger on this and I think the propaganda offensive has worked to an extent, though Bush still holds the superiority in this area. I think the work the Kerry team have put into National Defense and Terrorism over the past 3 weeks has stopped a potential Bush landslide on Nov 2.

I know a lot of people won't agree with this, you either love him or hate him but Michael Moore has been a key figure in this years elections. Fahrenheit 9/11 and his "slacker" uprising tour has contributed greatly into making this election will be undoubtedly popular. Even if it only has affected a small amount of the population, the ramifications are absolutely huge. Michael Moore has contributed greatly to the election frenzy.

On the Iraq side, if there is nothing but disaster in the news in Iraq, this will work against Bush. If there is a terrorist attack in Europe or in the United States, this will work in Bush's favour.

I think there will be a lot of American voters who are gonna turn upto the poll and may be swayed at the last second before selecting their choice. And there's going to be many many factors to contribute to their choice.

thanks,
drfunk