Civil Wars in the Republican and Democrat Parties
 

I think both parties will be doing some cleaning up at this point.

The Democrats will do 3 things.
1) Blame Kerry
2) They will stop blaming Kerry and then blame voters...calling them stupid, etc.
3) They will start blaming themselves.

Stage 3 is where it gets interesting. DC is considered more liberal usually than the base of the party but now things are inverted.

The base wants to move towards adopting left-wing policies and not anything centrist (centrist includes Clinton, Lieberman, and Bayh).

The Republicans have several things to reconsider now. I think now that the election is done, they are more free to attack certain policies.

1) Attack the high spending. We all know that we're the party of fiscal conservatives and that there was a war and 9/11, but it is not acceptable to swing away from our policy. A deficit is acceptable, a crushed economy where every country in the world owns more of our country than the people inside the country is bad.

2) The war. No matter how justified this war is to some, it is still upsetting. It is a war and not a birthday party will balloons. In addition, it is an expensive war. We need to win ASAP and hand over control.

3) There are other smaller policies that may be addressed but not really. The whole gay marriage issue was never important in the beginning to either party and sadly became solely an election issue.

There you have it folks.

-Rudey

F*ckin' A right well said, Bubba!

For all intents and purposes, Kerry will have to live the rest of his political career in the Senate, where he'll be reelected as long as he's breathing and doesn't piss off his constituents. No way in hell he'll come back to run in 2008.

As for Hillary? She'll run for - and win - reelection to her 'carpetbagger' seat in the Senate in 2006. I wouldn't be surprised if she's gonna plant some feelers to test the waters for a run in 2008. Unless the Democrats stop their intra-partisan bickering, I don't know who else can they put up for President in 2008.

I would be very, very surprised if Bush didn't bring in Democrats more into his administration. The country is too divided and now Bush really has to worry about how Republicans will be perceived in the next election as well as his own legacy.

-Rudey

Potential Democratic contenders for 2008:

H. Clinton
Dean
Edwards
Obama
...Powell?
Bayh

Strike Powell from that list because you're being ridiculous.

Strike Bayh because I am betting that the Democrats will completely abandon DLC members even though Bill Clinton was embraced.

I would also strike Clinton because I bet the Democrats are not going to be willing to put in a high risk candidate. The same goes for Obama.

I really don't know who the DNC will put forward.

-Rudey

Re: Civil Wars in the Republican and Democrat Parties
 

I think if the staunch Dem supports would take a moment, they'll see that even in defeat there are huge gains made in this election . . .


Totally agree - the Republican economic plan is being run over, and there needs to be some reins pulled . . . it's no better or worse than overspending on any other gov't program, the hallmark of what fiscal conservatives have rallied against forever. A great sticking point for Democrats when pushing policies.

Plus, Bush's conciliatory promotions of unity while maintaining a hard line (essentially the same as Kerry's stance) will force a more centered, bipartisan approach lest he be slaughtered in the press and popular opinion.

After many states roundly demolished gay marriage at the polls, this becomes a Supreme Court issue more than anything, and from what I've read they don't want to even touch it - sad, really, b/c it seems like such a potential non-issue; who is really going to protest if those rights are allowed (or rather not explicitly denied)?

I think some of the battle will be fought in the Pentagon. I know Rumsfeld want to turn the military into a smaller, more mobile elite force where they can enter and leave an area quickly. Then you have Wolfowitz, et al who's entire doctrine is about nation building. Those two can not be sustain and one of them has to go. It will be interesting to see if anybody will be leaving.

If I had to guess, I'd say neo-cons will sadly get massacred.

-Rudey

Re: Re: Civil Wars in the Republican and Democrat Parties
 

I don't see the "big gains". Did Kerry gain any state Gore didn't win in 2000? Did more Senate candidates win? Did more House candidates win?

Here in GA, which had been totally Democrat controlled from the 1870s thru 2002, is now totally Republican: Gov., both houses of the legislature, both US Senators, most US Representatives.

What gains have you seen?

Name a spending program, and a spending increase, (except for the military) that the Democrats don't love.

Three and a half years of being slaughtered in the media wing of the Democratic party, and years of entending hands to ungrateful Democrats (remember Kennedy and the education program), is not leading to a more bipartisan approach.


The nation seems to have spoken on this.

Re: Re: Re: Civil Wars in the Republican and Democrat Parties
 

bahahaha, hoosier, you obviously don't pay any attention to the "names at the top of the posts" brotha . . . anyway:

OK - this is non sequitur at best, but is a vague continuation of the point I was making.

The rest of what you wrote is tripe, the sort of stuff that gives my party a bad name. Thanks.

I had an interesting "discussion" with my ex tonight while we were waiting for parent/teacher conferences. This seems to be the best thread to share it...

He said he voted for Bush (a given, he's always been a Republican) but that he can't stand him (huh?). He has always been pro-life and that is the main issue that he votes on so I told him he should be happy because Bush should get to appoint enough Supreme Court Justices now to overturn Roe v. Wade. He said "Well, I hope they don't make it totally illegal. Some people should be able to get abortions" (new spin from him, before it was NEVER, not in rape, incest, health of mother, etc.) BUT, then he said "Once they overturn that, I'll be voting Democratic". He went on to say he was against the Iraq War, upset about the federal deficit (he's a financial analyst, MBA in finance), worried about the privatization of Social Security, worried that we'll take on more countries militarily, etc. On and on and on...

So, from his take, once the abortion thing isn't an issue anymore, he'll be a Democrat.

Dee

"Mr. Bush's victory appeared to clear the way for a reshuffling of his cabinet, with John Ashcroft, the attorney general, and Tom Ridge, the homeland security secretary, likely to leave for personal reasons, according to administration officials."

This is the start of major political bloodshed.

-Rudey

You think it's going to get ugly? I have a feeling that there is a struggle between the Christian rights and the old school conservatives.

Re: Re: Re: Civil Wars in the Republican and Democrat Parties
 

Faith-based initiatives!

Just don't send his sorry butt back to PA. Please, please, pretty please.

This is an interesting thread. I agree with everything Rudey has said so far. I think the Republicans have a lot of answering to do. I think they realize that they need to maintain a course of moderation and answer some big gaping questions to maintain legitmacy in 2006 and beyond.

I do agree that despite whatever qualities H. Clinton or Obama might have, they will not be nominated except maybe as running mates. The Dems are too nervous right now to take big risks.

Although, strangely, a few conservative friends I know adore Hillary. Our next door neighbor back home on the farm is a very, very countrified conservative religious right-winger with questionable views about minorities and women... And for some reason this man is in love with Clinton. He calls her "Miss Hillary" and thinks she is the greatest. So who knows.

In terms of democrats and blame, I think they are going to place blame on the 3 parties mentioned, and as a democrat I disagree with these strategies:

Blaming Kerry--he's not charismatic, I know, but he tried hard and really did turn his campaign around in the last 2 months. Scapegoating him is not the answer and solves nothing.
Blaming voters--This happens and it's not right. Saying the electorate is stupid seems to me to be bringing democracy up for questioning
Blaming ourselves--there's a lot of bitterness and self-hatred going on right now. We could have organized better particularly in places like VA. So yeah. This one is valid.

I believe the civil war within the Republican Party has started already. With Specter taking the first shot. Look like it's going to be the Christian rights vs. the fiscal conservatives.

As for the democratic party, I sense there is going to be trouble before the end of the year. going to be an interesting 4 years to watch.

RC, I see that there were major gains in this election.

It's way too early to even talk about 2008--had any of us thought about John Kerry or even Howard Dean in 2000? The Cabinet shakedowns and midterm elections will give us a better idea of how things will be in 2008.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/08/op...rint&position=

November 8, 2004

The Great Mentioner
By WILLIAM SAFIRE

Washington — The terrorists' Ramadan offensive escalated last weekend, inviting martial law in Iraq and our counterattack to oust the occupiers of Falluja. A pitched battle where firepower is decisive is a loser for guerrilla fighters. Iraq will then proceed to elections, the U.N.'s unhelpful Kofi Annan notwithstanding.

Thus the public side of the Bush administration's internal transition - that unnamed 80 days of relief, regeneration and reaching-out between re-election and second inauguration - will be overshadowed during what we hope will be climactic fighting.

As soon as it ends, expect intense inside jockeying and outside speculation as the president begins to reshuffle his deck and recast some of his characters to keep campaign promises. Unlike Nixon after his landslide re-election, Bush will make no demand for mass resignations (luckily, I got mine in and made it out the door just before Watergate broke). Nor is a sudden exodus in store.

But that will not silence the Great Mentioner.You know how some people go through life basking in the glory of having been "mentioned for" some high post? My old colleague in Times columny, Russ Baker, conjured the oracle: the Great Mentioner. Today that crystal ball is in my court.

The first slot eagerly anticipated to be open by the glum 48 percent of voters is secretary of defense. They will be disappointed anew. Donald Rumsfeld should remain as secretary of defense at least until the backbone of the insurgency is broken, and until his reshaping of our military has taken hold under Marine General Peter Pace, to become Joint Chiefs chairman next fall. Rumsfeld's deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, is likely to become SecDef unless he is moved into the national security adviser's job.

- which is currently held by Condi Rice, a frequent mentionee for the top slot at State now filled by Colin Powell. But Colin, who knows how dreary a book tour can be, may not be as ready to bail out as most Atlanticist pragmaticists like to think.

With Middle East progress possible with the replacement of Yasir Arafat, and with the leaders of the permanent members of the Security Council eager to establish rapport with the re-empowered U.S. president, the job of secretary of state may be far less frustrating. On a competitive level: if you were Powell, would you want to surrender the Bush foreign-policy field to your bureaucratic rival, Rumsfeld?

In the terror war, a new job will be created atop the intelligence world during the lame-duck session: Czar of All Spooks, though stripped of the too-powerful budgetary control the 9/11 commission wanted. Porter Goss, the new C.I.A. chief, has not run an organization larger than a Congressional committee staff, and as management gurus say, "people who have run something are better running things than people who have not." National intelligence director? Here's mentioning the shockingly awesome retired general Tommy Franks.

With moralism redeemed, John Ashcroft can confidently return home. Representative Chris Cox of California, a savvy former White House counsel, is mentionable for attorney general, and that state could use another high-profile Republican. Another prospect is Ted Olson, former solicitor general, unless he is to be Bush's first nominee to the Supreme Court, where he was this generation's most persuasive advocate. Then there are the two Larrys: Larry Thompson, Ashcroft's former deputy, and Laurence Silberman, senior Court of Appeals judge now co-chairing an intelligence commission (unless he gets the czarship I've given General Franks).

At Treasury, John Snow will get a huge new tax reform rolling, perhaps with a bipartisan commission headed by the former senators who pulled off the amazing 1986 tax bill, Bill Bradley and Bob Packwood. In the Treasury wings are Bill Donaldson, after he averts potential disaster in the huge hedge-fund world, and Steve Friedman, now on the Bob Rubin track inside the White House (and the only Bushie capable of wrestling Rumsfeld - both were college stars).

Legacy Project No. 1 is providing Social Security for the post-boomer generation. Needed are a couple of centrist Democrats who know their stuff on this. They are Louisiana's John Breaux, just retired from the Senate, and Charles Stenholm of Texas, just ousted from the House.

And while I'm on heartland Democrats, one mention of a 2008 bumper sticker: Keep Your Eye on Evan Bayh.

-Rudey

Well Sheila, if he comes back to PA, it won't be in the public sector. Recall his reasons for leaving- having to put his children through college. Which is apparently impossible on the pretty little salary he makes (while I know his salary isn't huge, it's much more than working families who send their kids to college somehow). Hmmm... perhaps he's looking back and regretting what he could've done to improve the PA higher educational system.

/PA former governor rant hijack before Rudey screams at me for going off topic in his thread