The State of the Republican Party

[Sam Spade]

Sam Spade and Reagan Raider, while I appreciate your replies, I think you both sort of misinterpreted what I was saying.  I wasn't asking whether the GOP was dying.

Whether your question was whether "the GOP is dying" or "the GOP is in shambles" or in "serious trouble", to quote your earlier comments, my response would have essentially been the same. 

I also think my response may have confused you a bit too.  One can look at the present date and assume a lot of things incorrectly about the future.  The GOP is in shambles for this election, I would agree. 

But whether this has any effect in a future election is totally up in the air.  In fact, I would graciously say that, no, it most likely will not have an effect on a future election.  Why?  Because political parties, after grave defeats, have a tendency to regroup and reform themselves around a new set of principles and coalitions.  They tend to reassess their values and make the correct adjustments.  They also find new leaders and fresh faces with new ideas and changes.

The fact that the GOP appears to be in "serious trouble" or in "shambles" right now has little to do with how it will appear in a year.  Right now, we may acknowledge that their less socially conservative, more fiscally conservative base is having doubts about GOP governance.  However, in a theoretical situation, by next year we could see a Democratic Congress passing a bill repealing the Bush tax cuts, which Bush then proceeds to veto and fight.  And most likely these same GOPers will rally back around him and the Republican party again.

And to finish my point and agree with you about something, the GOP is in more serious trouble than the Dems were in either 2002 or 2004 (they were not in trouble after 2000, which was an excellent election for them, other than losing the Presidency).  But why are they?  Because unlike the Dems in these past elections, they don't have opposition to a President to fall back upon.  After this election, they will need to do two things to regain strength:  Stand in opposition to the Democratic Congress on issues that galvanize the base elements of the GOP; and formulate a new coalition that can appeal to different elements of the country than presently are.

I think in my next post I should go on about what the Democrats need to do after taking control.    If anyone wants to hear that.

[dazzleman]

I think in my next post I should go on about what the Democrats need to do after taking control.    If anyone wants to hear that.

Definitely.  Let's hear it, Sammy....

[Platypus]

The GOP ought to be massacred at this election...except their opposition is the democrats. The Republicans will certainly lose overall, although the gerrymandering and the opposition make a massacre unlikely. Still, the house will be lost and maybe the senate too.

[Sam Spade]

Let's say the Democrats get control of the House and the Senate is, for all purposes tied (which is probably close to where it will be), here would be my plan of attack, keeping in mind two things:  We still have a President with a good amount of power to stop the legislative agenda, and who will probably use in his status as a lame-duck (if he learned anything from Eisenhower 1958), as well as 40 conservative Republicans who will be headed by someone who actually knows procedural rules (unlike Bill Frist).

If I were the Democrats I would start off with some popular initiatives (like raising the minimum wage) which would either be passed or cause the other side some problems.  And yes, the stem-cell bill should be within those initiatives, though Bush will veto it and it will improve Republican standing among social conservatives, but this is not necessarily bad.

Second, I would step up the heat on Iraq and see if the President budges (which I think he will if the Republicans lose in a few weeks), and press for some type of general withdrawal, but without specific guidelines (trying to play both sides of the issue).  A non-binding resolution in the House and Senate would be smart.

I would also not interfere with the recent MCA Act concerning detainees or defense appropriations, but I would start investigations dealing with the Iraq effort, either in the past or in the present.  I think this is somewhat of a dangerous road to hold, but it is necessary to keep the left-wing base from losing enthuasism.  The danger is in either doing too much or nothing at all.  In addition, I would bring forward a bill instituting the 9/11 commissions suggestions, because it's a good way to cut into others' support.

The most prominent battle will be within budgetary concerns, and quite frankly, this will be the toughest part of the action.  The Democrats should reinstitute pay-as-you-go, mainly to deflate fiscal hawk Republicans more than anything else.  Next, I see an attempt in cutting back the Bush tax cuts and raising social spending (like getting the government to negotiate for the Prescription Drug Act for seniors).  I maintain that this will be very tough to do without reanimating the fiscal hawk part of the Republican base, so what I would do is attempt to cut back the Bush tax cuts and ignore raising social spending.  I think this is most logical, and wait for social spending increases later (when gaining stronger control)

The problem is that I have just laid out three real things the Democrats have at their disposal to do.  Reenact pay-as-you-go rules, repeal Bush tax cuts and raise social spending.  I can't see more than two of these three things happening, frankly, and certainly not repealing the tax cuts and raising social spending, as that opens Democrats back up to the old tax and spend arguments.  And reenacting pay-as-you-go rules and raising social spending are incongruous, so that's out.

On judges, I think the Democrats will continue to react strongly against conservatives.  I have always held this is a dangerous tact to take, but I don't see any changes in that.

On moral issues, pass some that you think that your constituents would like and ignore others.  This is not news.

Just some food for thought.  Oh, and most importantly.  Find a better candidate for 2008. 

[bullmoose88]

Let's say the Democrats get control of the House and the Senate is, for all purposes tied (which is probably close to where it will be), here would be my plan of attack, keeping in mind two things:  We still have a President with a good amount of power to stop the legislative agenda, and who will probably use in his status as a lame-duck (if he learned anything from Eisenhower 1958), as well as 40 conservative Republicans who will be headed by someone who actually knows procedural rules (unlike Bill Frist).

Who is it? McConnell? Santorum if he pulls a miracle and then some?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree, but is it wise to blow your entire load? why not save some contentious issues for early 2008 to throw on the GOP then?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes. Very Smart, thank god you aren't working for the democrats Sam, or I'd have to disappear you.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Agree, question is, there have to be a few Jfern type dems in the caucuses who are chomping at the bit to fix what they see as bad law, how do you keep em under control?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Very DLC of you...question is, the dems have been out of power for a long time, people have to be paid off...how do you stagger that and keep the tax and spend portion of the party..say...responsible/in check?

[Sam Spade]

Let's say the Democrats get control of the House and the Senate is, for all purposes tied (which is probably close to where it will be), here would be my plan of attack, keeping in mind two things:  We still have a President with a good amount of power to stop the legislative agenda, and who will probably use in his status as a lame-duck (if he learned anything from Eisenhower 1958), as well as 40 conservative Republicans who will be headed by someone who actually knows procedural rules (unlike Bill Frist).

Who is it? McConnell? Santorum if he pulls a miracle and then some?

It's going to be McConnell, regardless of what Santorum does.  KBH will be second-in-line if Santorum loses.  No chance of it being any other two, frankly.  McConnell is not a great media type but knows Senate procedural rules better than anyone except for Byrd.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree, but is it wise to blow your entire load? why not save some contentious issues for early 2008 to throw on the GOP then?
[/quote]

First, you do this to consolidate power by fostering goodwill.  These are not contentious issues, that's the reason why I brought them up first.  I would wait on the contentious issues until I have a more power, most likely, with certain exceptions. (you have to keep the base in line)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Agree, question is, there have to be a few Jfern type dems in the caucuses who are chomping at the bit to fix what they see as bad law, how do you keep em under control?
[/quote]

Let them keep chomping, feed them with other meat, like investigations on Bush's Iraq policy.  Balance, balance, balance.  You have to attack Bush, but you can't give the other side too much, otherwise Republicans will reenergize.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Very DLC of you...question is, the dems have been out of power for a long time, people have to be paid off...how do you stagger that and keep the tax and spend portion of the party..say...responsible/in check?[/quote]

I understand what you're saying and its the toughest part of the program, but the strong point of the Democratic approach in the last decade has been to keep fiscal conservatives in check (and there are a lot of those in the country-club areas you and I know well), making the Republicans campaign on social/military issues.  You go against this approach and you risk that problem opening up yet again.  Besides, with the amount of power the Democrats are going to have in 2006, you have to know how far you can go and how far you're going to run into trouble.  That was the great Republican lesson of the 1990s.

I'm not saying that you can't insert some social spending here and there, but massive programs are going to open this weakness up to Republican attack, especially when you're the one promoting the programs.

[Democratic Hawk]

No, national security holds it together

Dave

[jokerman]

No, national security holds it together

Dave

And Dave nails it, in my opinion.

This shows why the Republican Party would stay completely intact and motivated with someone like Rudy Giuliani nominated.