Conservative Crackup: RIP GOP

[Nbadan]

How the neocons have developed a political exit strategy.


Oct. 12, 2005 - President George W. Bush may have no military exit strategy for Iraq, but the “necons” who convinced him to go to war there have developed one of their own—a political one: Blame the Administration.
Story continues below ↓ advertisement

Their neo-Wilsonian theory is correct, they insist, but the execution was botched by a Bush team that has turned out to be incompetent, crony-filled, corrupt, unimaginative and weak over a wide range of issues.

The flight of the neocons—just read a recent Weekly Standard to see what I am talking about —is one of only many indications that the long-predicted “conservative crackup” is at hand.

The “movement” —that began 50 years ago with the founding of Bill Buckley’s National Review; that had its coming of age in the Reagan Years; that reached its zenith with Bush’s victory in 2000—is falling apart at the seams.

In 1973, Karl Rove met George W. Bush, and became the R2D2 and Luke Skywalker of Republican politics. At first, neither was plugged into “The Force”—the conservative movement. But over the years they learned how to use its power.

By the time Bush was in his second term as governor, laying the groundwork for his presidential run, he and Rove had gathered all of the often competing and sometimes contradictory strains of conservatism into one light beam. You could tell by the people they brought to Austin.

To tie down the religious conservatives, they nudged John Ashcroft out of the race and conducted a literal laying on of hands at the governor’s mansion with leaders such as James Dobson.

For the libertarian anti-tax crowd, they brought in certified supply-sider Larry Lindsey as the top economic advisor.

For the traditional war hawks they brought in Paul Wolfowitz, among others, go get Bush up to speed on the world.

For the traditional corporate types—well, Bush had that taken care of on his own.

But now all the constituent parts are—for various reasons—going their own way. Here's a checklist:

Religious conservatives

The Harriet Miers nomination was the final insult. Religious conservatives have an inferiority complex in the Republican Party. In an interesting way, it’s the same attitude that many African-Americans have had toward the Democratic Party over the years. They think that the Big Boys want their votes but not their presence or their full participation.

And what really frosts the religious types is that Bush evidently feels that he can only satisfy them by stealth—by nominating someone with absolutely no paper trail. It’s an affront. And even though Dr. Dobson is on board—having been cajoled aboard by Rove—I don’t sense that there is much enthusiasm for the enterprise out in Colorado Springs.

Continued:Fineman, Newsweek (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9674425/site/newsweek/)

Fineman nails it. The Conservative movement is dead. The Neocons have laid waste to the old Republican guard and have left the administration to deal with the headaches it has created.

[Marcus Bryant]

Wishful thinking. About the only group pissed at Bush are economic conservatives and that is a relatively small constituency, especially relative to the social conservatives.

Fineman can put his cock down.

[xrayzebra]

Wishful thinking. About the only group pissed at Bush are economic conservatives and that is a relatively small constituency, especially relative to the social conservatives.

Fineman can put his cock down.

MC, no sweat. Wishful thinking, for goodness sake look he quotes: Newsweek. I wonder why they didn't get Father Walter Cornkick to second the motion. He said Americans are to dumb to vote. Not there is a real American for you.

[Extra Stout]

The Miers nomination was a mind-boggling error by the Bush team.

Economic conservatives already were angered by the profligate spending. Social conservatives (not so much me) already were angered by his support for affirmative action and his immigration policy.

Conservatives concerned about security had to look at DHS's response to Katrina and be concerned about how we would respond to a terrorist attack.

What was keeping it all together was the promise that, at long last, conservatives would get their own kind appointed to the Supreme Court. No more Sandra Day O'Connors or David Souters.

There was even an "All-Star team" of conservative jurisprudence, a couple dozen deep, diverse. One would think that somewhere in that group Bush would find someone to his liking.

Instead, immediately after drawing sharp criticism for appointing political cronies to head agencies like FEMA, INS, etc. he names his longtime personal lawyer, who looks astonishgly unqualified. It's another "stealth" pick... just like Souter... just like O'Connor. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice... uh, uh... can't be fooled again. Try to fool me three times? Go to hell.

So conservatives have to be asking themselves, why do we support this guy again? What's the payoff?

So they look to Bush for some explanation, and the best he can give is "trust me."

Huh?

Then, in a fit of pique, the White House decides that these critics -- most of whom are his bedrock conservative supporters -- are just "sexist" and "elitist."

Ed Gillespie flies that line in a strategy meeting and nearly gets his head ripped off by activists.

Then Laura Bush goes on the "Today" show and agrees with Matt Lauer that conservative skeptics of the nomination are "sexist."

I fail to see the political genius in attacking the ideological leadership of your own party.

Then Bush gets the idea that if he just "reveals" the "secret" that Miers is an evangelical Christian, that everybody will be happy. Instead, a lot of evangelical Christians feel patronized.

I mean, geez, Karl Rove gets tied up with this grand jury investigation for a few weeks and has to leave Dubya unsupervised, and the next thing you know, he's brought the whole damned conservative movement to its knees. I guess the guy really is just a chimp in a suit.

[gtownspur]

The Conservative movement is far from dead. Its the left who have been dying a slow death.

[Vashner]

Get the fuck over it ... Bush owns NBADan.. .and owns him fucking bad..

Every night Bush is crawling under this asswipes skin....

How does it feel to be a looser... looser?

[SWC Bonfire]

That's spelled loser. Looser implies something else.

[SpursWoman]

Diareahha-ish or slut-ish -- not an appealing choice. Or combination. :lol :vomit

[Cant_Be_Faded]

That's spelled loser. Looser implies something else.


What do you expect from an 'accomplished' veteran who scoffs at a general. :rolleyes

[JoeChalupa]

I'm a Democrat...that's my party and I'm stickin' to it!!

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!

[boutons]

washingtonpost.com

How the Republicans Let It Slip Away

By David Ignatius
Wednesday, October 12, 2005; A17

Watching the Republicans floundering over the past week, I can't help thinking of a school of beached whales. The leviathans of the GOP have boldly swum themselves onto this patch of dry sand, and it won't be easy for them to get back to open ocean.

The Republicans come to their present troubles from different directions: President Bush thought he was making a safe, pragmatic choice in nominating Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, but this soulless maneuver enraged the party's right wing and set it on a fratricidal binge. Tom DeLay thought he was ramrodding a permanent Republican government, but he managed to get himself indicted and, well before that calamity, had angered House Republicans who concluded that "The Hammer's" leadership style was marching them off a cliff. Looming over all these little problems is the crucible of Iraq.

What's interesting is that most of these wounds are self-inflicted. They draw a picture of a party that, for all its seeming dominance, isn't prepared to be the nation's governing party. The hard right, which is the soul of the modern GOP, would rather be ideologically pure than successful. Governing requires making compromises and getting your hands dirty, but the conservative purists disdain those qualities. They swim for that beach with a fiercely misguided determination, and they demand that the other whales accompany them.

The bickering over the Miers nomination epitomizes the right's refusal to assume the role of a majoritarian governing party. The awkward fact for conservatives is that the American public doesn't agree with them on abortion rights. A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll in late August found 54 percent describing themselves as pro-choice and only 38 percent as pro-life, roughly the same percentages as a decade ago.

That's the political reality that Bush has been trying to finesse with his nominations of John Roberts and Miers. That's why he said in the 2000 primary campaign that he wouldn't impose any litmus test (when other Republicans were demanding one) and would instead focus on a nominee's character and judicial philosophy. The realist in Bush understands that he can't easily force a nominee who is openly antiabortion on a country where a solid majority disagrees.

Bush has been successful when he has connected with the American center. Political scientist Gary C. Jacobson notes that after Sept. 11, 2001, Bush "enjoyed the longest stretch of approval ratings above 60 percent of any president in 40 years." In that post-Sept. 11 period, when Bush was fulfilling his campaign promise to be "a uniter, not a divider," his approval rating among Democrats soared to an astounding 81 percent.

Bush and the Republicans had a chance after 2004 to become the country's natural governing party. They controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. The Democrats were in utter disarray, leaderless and idea-less. When Bush took the podium in January to deliver his soaring second inaugural address, the future seemed to belong to the Republicans.

Bush squandered this opportunity by falling into the trap that has snared the modern GOP -- of playing to the base rather than to the nation. The Republicans behave as if the country agrees with them on issues, when that demonstrably isn't so. The country doesn't agree about Social Security, doesn't agree about the ethical issues that were dramatized by the torment of Terri Schiavo, doesn't agree about abortion. Yet, in a spirit of blind partisanship, House Speaker Dennis Hastert announced last year that bills would reach the floor only if "the majority of the majority" supported them. That notion of governing from the hard right was a recipe for failure.

What you sense now, as conservative and moderate Republicans alike take potshots at their president, is that the GOP is entering the post-Bush era. A war of succession has begun, cloaked in a war of principles. The cruelest aspect of Bush's predicament is that the conservatives are treating him with the same disdain they showed his father. What a denouement to the West Wing Oedipal drama: A son who did everything he could to avoid his father's humiliation by the conservative wing of the party is now under attack by the right himself.

Principles are a fine thing, but a narrow, partisan definition of principle has led the Republicans to a dead end. Their inability to transcend their base and speak to the country as a whole is now painfully obvious. Like the Democrats in their years of decline, they are screaming at each other -- not realizing how far they have drifted from the mid-channel markers that have always led to open waters and defined success in American politics.

[email protected]

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

[Nbadan]

Bush squandered this opportunity by falling into the trap that has snared the modern GOP -- of playing to the base rather than to the nation. The Republicans behave as if the country agrees with them on issues, when that demonstrably isn't so. The country doesn't agree about Social Security, doesn't agree about the ethical issues that were dramatized by the torment of Terri Schiavo, doesn't agree about abortion. Yet, in a spirit of blind partisanship, House Speaker Dennis Hastert announced last year that bills would reach the floor only if "the majority of the majority" supported them. That notion of governing from the hard right was a recipe for failure.

What you sense now, as conservative and moderate Republicans alike take potshots at their president, is that the GOP is entering the post-Bush era. A war of succession has begun, cloaked in a war of principles. The cruelest aspect of Bush's predicament is that the conservatives are treating him with the same disdain they showed his father. What a denouement to the West Wing Oedipal drama: A son who did everything he could to avoid his father's humiliation by the conservative wing of the party is now under attack by the right himself.

Principles are a fine thing, but a narrow, partisan definition of principle has led the Republicans to a dead end. Their inability to transcend their base and speak to the country as a whole is now painfully obvious. Like the Democrats in their years of decline, they are screaming at each other -- not realizing how far they have drifted from the mid-channel markers that have always led to open waters and defined success in American politics.

This isn't surprising at all if you think about it. I've been saying for years that Republicans will fall for their own spin, and it doesn't matter what consequential evidence anyone else produces to prove them wrong. Worse yet, the bad spin builds upon itself. Take for instance today, the new kid on OAI was spinning that Democrats were seeking unqualified Iraqi-war veterans to run against Republican members of the House and Senate, he was using Paul Hackett as an example. I guess someone forgot to tell the new kid that the Democrats also have their own candidate running against Hackett in the Senate primary.

:lol

[jochhejaam]

How the neocons have developed a political exit strategy.



Continued:Fineman, Newsweek (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9674425/site/newsweek/)

Fineman nails it. The Conservative movement is dead. The Neocons have laid waste to the old Republican guard and have left the administration to deal with the headaches it has created.


All of your theories and polls don't mean diddly-squat if you aren't able to run a viable candidate for the Presidency.
With the Democratic Party having been totally hijacked by the Liberal Left that's not gonna happen any time soon.
We'll label that demise as the Democratic Party Crackup.

[Extra Stout]

It's true that the Republican Party more or less has run aground.

The question is whether Democrats have the werewithal to take advantage of it.

It's not as if they have a clear direction for their party or the country.

If the Democrats were a coherent, organized party, getting back both houses of Congress in 2006 would be a shoo-in. Instead, they're scratching their heads about how to capitalize.

[Marcus Bryant]

By this time next year the GOP base will be mobilized and will turn out again. The chattering class is pissed at Bush right now but I do not see that disrupting the electoral status quo.

[Hook Dem]

Another one of Dan's wet dreams!! :lol

[Extra Stout]

By this time next year the GOP base will be mobilized and will turn out again. The chattering class is pissed at Bush right now but I do not see that disrupting the electoral status quo.
There has to be something to mobilize them. Mid-term elections are difficult for the party in power anyway. In 2002, there was the after-effect of 9/11. What has the GOP done right since the 2004 elections? What's going to motivate people to go to the polls? Right now, between Bush's hamfisted series of mistakes, the failure of SS reform, the ethics cloud hanging over the GOP Congress, the indictments pending in the White House, the runaway spending, and Iraq fatigue, I'm failing to see the electoral momentum.

A lot can change in 13 months, but the GOP will have to build up speed from a dead stop. In quicksand. With four flat tires.

[Marcus Bryant]

By that time there will be a political firestorm going on related to one of the following general topics: abortion, faith, gays or guns. That'll motivate the base, yet again.

American politics today is centered almost exclusively around cultural topics. It's why you have a GOP president orchestrating the largest increase in the federal government ever and a GOP controlled Congress going along for the ride.

[Extra Stout]

By that time there will be a political firestorm going on related to one of the following general topics: abortion, faith, gays or guns. That'll motivate the base, yet again.

Well, with this Miers nomination, the GOP has thrown a rod on the first two items in your list. Bush lost credibility, and every word that has come out of his mouth on the subject has only made it worse.

What Bush has done is give the impression that the GOP's pro-life stance is nothing but lip service, and that faith to them is nothing but patronizing identity politics.

There are still some voters who will fall for it, because there are a lot of pretty stupid white evangelicals around. But the base is being hewn roughly in half.

The Democrats pretty much have capitulated on the Second Amendment issue already. That leaves the homosexual agenda as the remaining cultural issue that Republicans can ride.

[Marcus Bryant]

That's today. Next year this will be forgotten and it's back to Amerian politics as usual.

I don't think it really matters if there is any substance to the controversy at hand. "Guns" will still resonate with a good portion of the base.

People may be disappointed today, but come tomorrow they'll be suckered back in.

[Marcus Bryant]

Slightly off-topic but the Demo hot button issues devoid of substance are, in my estimation: abortion, environment, racism and war. Problem is, the sheer size of their base is much less than the GOP. But the Democratic Party plays the same game, no matter how much the Left-wing intelligensia would like to believe they are immune from being used.

[Extra Stout]

Slightly off-topic but the Demo hot button issues devoid of substance are, in my estimation: abortion, environment, racism and war. Problem is, the sheer size of their base is much less than the GOP. But the Democratic Party plays the same game, no matter how much the Left-wing intelligensia would like to believe they are immune from being used.
I can say this -- the Republicans may survive this storm and hold on next year -- but it won't be because they do anything right.

The Dems may just be so utterly incompetent that they cannot capitalize.

Remember that execrable game back in 1996-97 when the Spurs beat the Cavs 64-59? Yeah, like that.

[Marcus Bryant]

It's not surprising that a majority of voters usually stay home.

[Dos]

The last two presidential elections have left Democrats indulging in ritualistic navel-gazing, and other meaningless endeavors. Some said that they planned to leave the country. Others have been diagnosed with Post Election Selection Trauma (PEST), and are undergoing therapy sessions.

Losing elections is nothing new. In every election, there is a winner and a loser. Expecting to win every election is foolhardy. But, the last two presidential elections have left the Democrats in a quandary. In February, Democrat party insiders will host a meeting to decide which direction the party should take. Should the Democrats moderate their positions, or continue navel gazing?

This isn't the first time the Democrat Party has battled over the direction the party should take.

On January 4, 1947, Democrats gathered to save American Liberalism. Many Democrats were opposed to the cozy relationship other Democrats had with the Communist Party. Only the Union for Democratic Action (UDA) denounced the Communists, and banned them from their organization. The UDA was later renamed the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA).

The New Leader divided American Liberals into hard and soft Liberals. The ADA believed that anti-Communist was a fundamental litmus test, and just being non-Communist was not enough. As a result, they were labeled "hard." The "soft" by contrast, were Communist appeasers, and could be characterized as the "fellow travelers."

Control of the party has been a continuing battle for Democrats. Throughout the 60s and 70s, prominent Democrats like John Kennedy, "Scoop" Jackson, and Sam Nunn battled the extreme Left. But, the forces on the Left were relentless, and kept moving the Democrats further and further left. Life-long Democrat Senator Zell Miller wrote about this ideological battle in his current book, A National Party No More.

Since the Lyndon Johnson election victory forty years ago, the Democrat Party has struggled with their identity. After that 1964 election, Democrats had 2 to 1 majorities in both houses of Congress, and led in Governors, 33 to 17. Since 1964, the Democrats have only elected two Presidents, and continue to lose ground in Congress. Now, Republicans control both houses of Congress, and a majority of the governorships.

Democrat leaders claim that they haven't got their message out. Facts don't support that claim.

[boutons]

"the sheer size of their base is much less than the GOP"

the 2000 pres voting was a dead heat

the 2004 pres voting was lost by dubya by 600K votes

How dubya's "base" so much bigger than anything else when more people vote against him than for him?

[Marcus Bryant]

"the sheer size of their base is much less than the GOP"

the 2000 pres voting was a dead heat

the 2004 pres voting was lost by dubya by 600K votes

How dubya's "base" so much bigger than anything else when more people vote against him than for him?



:spin

[Extra Stout]

"the sheer size of their base is much less than the GOP"

the 2000 pres voting was a dead heat

the 2004 pres voting was lost by dubya by 600K votes

How dubya's "base" so much bigger than anything else when more people vote against him than for him?The point is that the conservative base is larger than the liberal base.

Democrats tend to get more moderates. However, they still don't get enough of them to win.

That party has to establish credibility on national security and culture. They are perceived as soft on the former and excessively libertine on the latter. On national security especially, they don't have much of a message and don't like to talk about it. However, they are coherent on domestic policy, even if you don't agree with them.

[Marcus Bryant]

You can use the party affiliation of members of the House of Representatives as a proxy for base strength. Also, in the last election Bush ended up with something like 3 million more votes than Kerry.

Base. Strength.

[boutons]

"in the last election Bush ended up with something like 3 million more votes than Kerry."

??? It was one of the few pres elections where the winner of the popular vote (Kerry by +600,000) lost the electoral vote.

[Marklar MM]

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/

According to CNN, Bush had 62,040,606 votes-58%. Kerry had 59,028,109 votes-48%

[SWC Bonfire]

"in the last election Bush ended up with something like 3 million more votes than Kerry."

??? It was one of the few pres elections where the winner of the popular vote (Kerry by +600,000) lost the electoral vote.

You got that mixed up with Gore in 2000.

[boutons]

correct.

shrub won the 2004 popular election by 3.5%, the lowest percentage for a sitting president since Woodrow Wilson. Without the Rove re-election ploy of the BS Iraq war, dubya would have been defeated in 2004.

[Marcus Bryant]

"in the last election Bush ended up with something like 3 million more votes than Kerry."

??? It was one of the few pres elections where the winner of the popular vote (Kerry by +600,000) lost the electoral vote.


Are you new to this country? this world?

[SWC Bonfire]

correct.

shrub won the 2004 popular election by 3.5%, the lowest percentage for a sitting president since Woodrow Wilson. Without the Rove re-election ploy of the BS Iraq war, dubya would have been defeated in 2004.

He also got the most votes of any president, ever I believe. You can throw out little factiods about the election for both sides, but the fact remains that a lot of people voted for both, but more voted for Bush.

[boutons]

"He also got the most votes of any president, ever I believe. "

yes, with wars going on, a bogus hot war and a polarizing, cultural war, plus the fresh memory of those 600K meaningless votes in 2000, the 2004 turnout was bigger, the total US poplulation was bigger. No credit to dubya in causing a higher turnout, except as a lying, polarizing divder.

The absolute qty of votes cast is comparatively meaningless vs the historically tiny %age margin of victory.

[Marcus Bryant]

Funny. Despite a larger turnout in '04, Bush received more votes, received a larger (hell, positive this time) margin in the popular vote and in the electoral vote.

[Nbadan]

He also got the most votes of any president, ever I believe. You can throw out little factiods about the election for both sides, but the fact remains that a lot of people voted for both, but more voted for Bush.

No, many people voted for Bush because Kerry votes in Ohio, Florida and other key states were switched by treasonous E-voting equipment supplied by companies who's CEO's openly support W, and who use proprietary software that can be hacked with Microsoft office and a modem. It is estimated that in Columbus Ohio alone, 100,000 votes were somehow magically switched from Kerry to Bush, and yet no one investigated.

[scott]

No, many people voted for Bush because Kerry votes in Ohio, Florida and other key states were switched by treasonous E-voting equipment supplied by companies who's CEO's openly support W, and who use proprietary software that can be hacked with Microsoft office and a modem. It is estimated that in Columbus Ohio alone, 100,000 votes were somehow magically switched from Kerry to Bush, and yet no one investigated.

No... many people voted for Bush because Kerry has the charisma of an oak tree.

The Democratic party needs to learn that you can't fight shit with shit and expect to win.

[RandomGuy]

Wishful thinking.


:rolleyes Wishful thinking because you waved your hand and went "bah"?

um, yeaaaahh.

The guy has a pretty good point. The "conservative" movement is simply maturing and splintering, just as the "liberal" one did a while back.

Nothing earth-shattering, but hardly something most would want to admit.

The "conservative" viewpoint will splinter and bicker, even more than the liberal one, because in the end, it is less moral.

[Nbadan]

No... many people voted for Bush because Kerry has the charisma of an oak tree.

The Democratic party needs to learn that you can't fight shit with shit and expect to win.

You would have a point if the election was just about John Kerry, but it wasn't. Even in 04, public sentiment was already turning against the Iraq war and the Bush Junta needed to do something to reassure a war-weary nation that despite the lack of presence of WMD's, and any certifiable links between Saddam-Iraq and international terrorism, let alone Al-Queda, by the 911 Commission, the Iraq War was still a worthy cause despite the dynamic justification by the administration, and the daily losses in troops we were sure to keep suffering as a result.

So Diebold, ECS and other E-Voting companies sympathetic to the NeoCon cause, maliciously planted malfunctioning voting booths in heavy democratic districts that would automatically count each 2nd, 3rd, or 4th vote for Kerry as a vote for Bush instead. This happened in every state in the Union which used these companies’ machines and left no paper-trail to recount the votes later, so you can see how votes for Bush added up quickly, and the NeoCon’s consequently got their justification for continuing this losing war. This is why Dick and Rummy kept repeating that W's victory in the 04 election was a yes-vote for continuing the Iraq war at the time, even though the polls were already saying different about public sentiment.

[Marcus Bryant]

:lol

Perhaps, Kerry lost the election. But the vote is only manipulated when Republicans win...