A Drubbing the G.O.P. Could Use
MORE
Wise Guys
As of this moment, this election is shaping up as a thorough beating for the G.O.P. at the presidential and Congressional levels.
The good news for the Republicans, if they are defeated comprehensively this year, is that it will lead to a much-needed overhaul of the party.
The bad news: They could be out in the wilderness for a while. When the G.O.P. lost the House in 1954, for example, it took 40 years for them to win back the chamber—and the basic question of which faces and which issues would define a post-Bush (and post-McCain) Republican Party figures to prompt protracted, and probably contentious, soul-searching within the party.
After an ’08 drubbing, Republicans’ first opportunity to begin clawing back to power would come in the 2010 midterm elections. The last time they entered a midterm campaign without control of the White House and either Congressional chamber, the “Republican revolution” of 1994 was the result. But it’s highly unlikely that, as the minority party, the G.O.P. would be able to whip up a similar political tsunami in 2010.
In ’94, the G.O.P. benefited from a long-overdue partisan realignment in the South, the culmination of the one that L.B.J. famously forecast when he signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act into law. Republicans won House and Senate races across the country, thanks to the unpopularity of Bill Clinton, but their gains were most pronounced in the South, where Clinton’s perceived liberalism caused generations-old loyalties to the Democratic Party—once the party of segregation and states’ rights—to dry up.
Nothing similar seems to be on the horizon now. So even an unpopular President Barack Obama probably wouldn’t suffer the same midterm fallout that Mr. Clinton did. Plus, a strong Democratic tide this November—which now seems likely—figures to produce strong majorities for the party in both chambers (talk of 60 Senate seats is in the air again).
The Republican Party of ’94, especially at the House level, also benefited from a cohesive message. Since Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980, ideological conservatives from the South and the West had steadily replaced old-line Rockefeller Republicans as the party’s lifeblood, and they’d had a decade and a half to develop and perfect their message.
Heading into 2010, though, Congressional Republicans will have to redefine, for themselves and for voters, the very basic question of what conservatism means. Will democratization and interventionism, products of the Bush presidency, remain articles of faith, or will the party revert to its noninterventionist traditions? And will the populist resentment of the financial bailout that we just saw among House Republicans replace the instinctive support for big business that traditionally defined them?
Whatever the answers, new leadership for the House G.O.P. is likely if they suffer deep losses next month. Younger faces like 34-year-old Adam Putnam of Florida and 45-year-old Eric Cantor of Virginia passed on challenging the minority leader, John Boehner, and whip, Roy Blunt, after the 2006 debacle, but it’s doubtful they’d hold back after two straight drubbings. Senate Republicans would probably resist a shake-up—although they may have no choice if the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, loses his seat in Kentucky this year.
Then there’s the presidential race of 2012. The logical front-runner would be Mitt Romney, based on his strong showing in this year’s primaries; the potential breadth of his appeal within the party (and among independents); his money; his executive background; and his communication skills.
But Mr. Romney’s pathological desire to align himself with the prevailing views of his target audience (as opposed to leading them to his views) might leave him with little to say as the party searches for a new identity.
Other Republicans who’d figure to be interested in ’12 include Newt Gingrich, who made noises about running this year but held back (perhaps concluding the nomination would be of little value); Sarah Palin, whose shaky campaign-trail performance would probably render her a niche player with a following on the right, not a unifying leader with a legitimate shot at the nomination; and Mike Huckabee, who played that niche role this year (quite well) and is poised to spend the next few years trying to broaden his appeal beyond religious conservatives.
But none of that group is a presumptive heir, creating the wide-open circumstances for the party to produce a new crop of presidential prospects.
After eight years of George W. Bush, Republicans need to decide who they are and what they stand for. Nothing would jump-start that discussion more effectively than a drubbing next month.
skornacki@observer.com
Dude, dont speak so soon becuase its an't over by any means.
Obama and his socialist/Marxist ideas in the White House is the worst thing that could happen to America. We certainly don't need a 'drubbing" to understand the GOP needs a re-vamp! The GOP needs to get back to true CONSERVATIVE ideas. When they are Conservative they win!
Some of the other possibilities have now burned themselves out - Chris Cox, George Allen. Swartzenegger no longer has a shot at the Senate.
Huckabee may be a darling of the evangelicals, but he underestimates the deep and abiding anger he's created among the non-religious conservatives, with his bigoted attack on Romney. If he's on the ticket, I'm voting against him no matter who's on the other side.
It may not matter. With an Obama Chicago Machine in charge, we'll never have a realistic Republican candidate again. They'll be destroyed before they're a threat. Look for Jindal and Pawlenty to be indited before the '10 elections, on whatever charges can be created out of thin air.
Some of the other possibilities have now burned themselves out - Chris Cox, George Allen. Swartzenegger no longer has a shot at the Senate.
Huckabee may be a darling of the evangelicals, but he underestimates the deep and abiding anger he's created among the non-religious conservatives, with his bigoted attack on Romney. If he's on the ticket, I'm voting against him no matter who's on the other side.
It may not matter. With an Obama Chicago Machine in charge, we'll never have a realistic Republican candidate again. They'll be destroyed before they're a threat. Look for Jindal and Pawlenty to be indited before the '10 elections, on whatever charges can be created out of thin air.
Jibreel is right- this thing ain' even close to over.
Not to mention that all the help Barry O gets via the MSM and Hollywood and the dubious voter registration methods of ACORN -- coupled with oversampled polls and McCain is within the margin of error scares the hell out of the libs.
The only way the libs can win is to lie to the people and have enough useful idiots to perpetuate the lies.
Good luck with that. If Obama wins this election and the Party of Pelosi, Murtha, Hastings, Sharpton, and Harry Reid manage to keep a majority in the House and Senate, this country is finished and any hope of a conservative direction is lost forever. Try to imagine the power of groups such as ACORN with the unlimited funding and complete lack of oversight under an Obama controlled Presidency and Democrat controlled House and Senate.
Try to imagine the unlimited power and funding by people such as George Soros and Hollywood gone wild.
No rules. No oversight. No accountability. No opposition allowed.
Try to imagine a Supreme Court with four Ruth Ginsburgs.
Elections will be bought and paid for throughout the next 100 years and the only way to change that future would be a violent uprising.
Unfortunately, conservatives have become lazy and now seem to believe that fighting for your country means sending nasty emails to Congressman in between the kid's soccer games. As a conservative protest organizer I've learned that while far-left liberals can send a text message and have 5000 people standing on a street corner within 30 minutes ... conservatives are lucky to be able to drag ten so-called patriots out of their hot tubs for a protest against illegal aliens, radical Islam, or the end of the world.
Good luck to all of you who felt the Sunday BBQ was too important to give up.
As cynical as this article is, there's a lot truth here. The fact is the Republicans have lost their way. There is not any core value or values driving a passionate movement. In the end, I believe a new conservatism will come out of the darkness. It will be a cross between the traditional Ron Paul libertarian views and the creative Newt Gingrich/Paul Ryan economic views. These will win out because the government is broke and both candidates are promising even more government. When it becomes very apparent that more government is the problem, the Republicans will have a resurgence. The rate to which this occurs depends on how bad the economic conditions are and if middle America rejects socialism. Otherwise, the Republicans could become like the Tories in the UK. The bright light there is conservatism is making a comeback in the UK after years of failed liberal Labour policies.
It's a little early to sound the death knell, but if Obama and his leftover lefty friends manage to squirm their way into the White House, it will take a lot of work from all of us to keep this country from being sold out from under. Just wait until the strikers decide that the looters have gone too far. Atlas Shrugged may not be pure fiction after all. Where is John Galt because we may need him sooner than we think.
Gregor is absolutely right. There is no "next year."
Hell, if Obama wins, I'll quit being productive. Period. It's against all my principles, but screw it. I'll be damned if I'm going to be a work horse for Socialism/Communism. Let them pay me to be a jerk off...
Well, I don't consider it 100% certain that an election for president will actually be held in 2012 and/or 2016. The number of Democrats who demonstrate respect for our Constitution is at an all-time low, and it is easy for me to conceive that Obama will not offer to give up true power voluntarily. At an absolute minimum, I would expect an attempt to overturn the rule that a president can only serve two terms.
I think you're selling Palin way short. Absent some horrific gaffe or revelation, she will come out of this campaign a star, suffering no blame for McCain's loss. In fact, she'll be credited with making it closer than it would otherwise have been. She will effectively be the front-runner for the 2012 GOP nomination starting on November 5, and from that point it will be hers to lose.
Why? Because, simply, the Republican base adores her (check out not just the size of the crowds she gets, but their energy level). Crucially, that includes both social conservatives and fiscal/small-government conservatives. Neither Romney nor Huckabee, her two main rivals, can claim that level of support from the base. Romney has the respect of the fiscal cons but is distrusted by the social cons, while Huckabee is just the opposite. In effect, each is half a Palin, and neither can afford to attack her overtly.
After this campaign (assuming McCain loses), she will go back to Alaska and finish out her term as governor, leaving office in January 2011. That's just in time to begin the exploratory committee kabuki for the 2012 election. She will also spend much of the next four years on the GOP rubber chicken circuit, speaking before standing-room-only crowds, fundraising and networking. Wherever she goes she will get a rockstar reception, Every GOP candidate in the 2010 mid-terms will want her to come campaign with them. She will rack up stacks of IOUs.
Now, Palin can certainly self-destruct (or voluntarily take herself out of the running—fat chance!). But it would be foolish to bet against her. She nailed the two high-profile veep events of the campaign season—her convention speech and the debate—while facing intense pressure. Forget the Gibson and Couric stumbles. They were calculated gambles designed to give her a few at-bats against live pitching, and both networks highlighted her worst moments from much longer sessions, artificially magnifying their scope.
Remember, this is someone who clawed her way from "PTA mom" to the governorship of her state almost solely on her own efforts. She will have survived a brutal presidential campaign despite being thrown into it with little warning and almost no preparation. No governor has the foreign policy knowledge or experience with national issues to run on a national ticket without a lot of prep work. Bush, Clinton and Carter had months to do this before they announced their runs. Reagan prepared for years. Palin, on the other hand, did it from practically a standing start and is living to tell the tale. Simply remarkable.
"Well, I don't consider it 100% certain that an election for president will actually be held in 2012 and/or 2016."
Oops. I think I must have clicked on a link to the Daily Kos by mistake.
The writer is under the impression that we Republicans are just going to lie down after or if the Dems win. What he fails to realize is that EVENTS are the mother of Politics. No one knows what may happen in the future (Terrorism, War, the economy) and I can see the Dems Blowing things and making them worse like they generally do. We will be fine over here. We just need to get raid of the weak knee media friendly type conservatives.
Hey Richard R - for the record some of us born again Christian conservatives despise Huckaphoney because he is a phoney not only a RINO who made McCain possible by fooling some Christians but a CINO as well. Sarah is more than nich she should be the front runner for 2012. Unlike Newt she would not be caught dead on that couch with Nancy, which Newt should never ever be forgiven for. At least this drubbing will rid us of that idiot McCain who most of us are voting for to stop the Marxist Muslim Dear Leader Comrade Obama.
I doubt if the Republicans can win again. In four years, Everybody will be drawin' a government check. Buys a lot of votes, just like today!
If democrats take control of the country we are deep trouble. I think some one in Iran said when Obama wins the election the muslin flag will fly in the white house. I have a gut feeling this guy know something we don’t. Since a lot of the money Obama is getting comes from the Middle East.
Bobby Jindal.
Well apart from the fact that you somewhat pre-mature, especially as regards the Presidency, the prospect of the GOP waiting "in the wilderness" for 40 years is a pipe dream.Four years of Larry,Curly and Moe...sorry...Pelosi,Reid and Obama would make 2012 a bullish year for Republicans
You people are all idiots. Socialism. Communism. Liberal. All just BS rallying cries. Try doing something good for our country vice being a bunch of hate-mongering piss ants.
It's amazing how you posters can sound the death knell for the country after Obama is elected after watching the wholesale sodomization of everything in this country for the past 8 years. Partisanship clearly poisons the mind of you poor souls.
"Well, I don't consider it 100% certain that an election for president will actually be held in 2012 and/or 2016. The number of Democrats who demonstrate respect for our Constitution is at an all-time low, and it is easy for me to conceive that Obama will not offer to give up true power voluntarily. At an absolute minimum, I would expect an attempt to overturn the rule that a president can only serve two terms."
Wait, the current Republican administration started spying on Americans without warrants and claim they can imprison people with no recourse, and it's the Democrats that have an all-time low respect for the Constitution? The Constitution is just a piece of paper to Bush and his administration. They're strict constructionists alright -- they strictly ignore the Bill of Rights and construe their power to be practically unlimited.
Apparently you also don't understand the Constitution's plain words either. Changing the two-term rule would require repealing the 22nd Amendment. If Obama actually is so popular that he can get the Constitution amended to stay President beyond a second term, then Conservatism would be dead and buried in the minds of the vast majority of people anyways.
Good god... Is it hard being a gaggle of incredibly paranoid idiots? I mean, do you guys stay up at night practicing or what?
Carter wasn't the end of the world, neither was Reagan, Clinton or W Bush. You people seriously overestimate how important you and your pet obsessions really are. Get some perspective before you pop an artery fuming about Muslim conspiracies and Randian power fantasies.
Is there a wonder his country is in such need for correction? I read the stupidity that most have posted here. W has been in office for 8 yrs and the sky didn't fall despite the incredible blunders we have witnessed. All of a sudden it is going to fall bacause someone else will be president.
This is the USA. God's own country. Not your ill-wills, bone-headed ideas expressed here, nor the acts of our enemies will bring this country down.
I agree completely with this article. The conservative movement needs some shaking up. It'll settle back down and this country will be a whole lot better for it.
If the Republican Party was smart (and that's not certain), it would recognize the inevitability of this Presidential election and devote what campaign funds remain in an attempt at limiting the damage in the House and Senate. As a moderate democrat, I don't want to see a veto-proof senate.
I don't understand the venom with which both sides - Left and Right - attack the other side. As my boss keeps reminding me... As long as you take the paycheck, you agree to the situation here.
So what are you left and right wing extremists going to do? Move out of the country? Buy guns and revolt? Give me a break. In another post, one guy said it right... "Look... we'll still have our guns... but right now, I need a steady paycheck and a more secure financial future..."
We'll have to see how the red states fair in the downturn. While the blue states have has massive deficits, the red states have had massive surpluses in their budget.
California is so deep in debt and their budget is in such shape, that they just signed a budget and now they are in the red. Meanwhile the second poorest state, Mississippi, had a surplus, a governor was elected that created a massive deficit and a new governor was elected and now the state has a surplus again. While the blue states go through a fiscal meltdown, the red states might be able to escape a downturn disaster. Now what do blue states do when there is a budget shortage? They tax or add fees, which makes the red states the place to be and California is already seeing people leave to red states. The red states then become richer and more populated while the blue states become poorer and less populated. This would eventually change the electorial vote counts, a population shift in the House and give the Republicans a better money advantage.
Schwarzenegger was not born in the USA, which I believe is a requirement or US presidents...
The outright bigoted ignorance of Right Wing nutcases who post here is astounding. Your boy McCain just signed onto a 700 Billion dollar bailout, and wants to buy all the bad subprime mortgages, but in your infinite, agressive stupidity, you want to sit behind your keyboards and tell us about Marxist/Socialist Democrats.
Do yourselves a favor and go read some history. Look up Karl Marx, and while you're at it, google Benito Mussolini and the definition of Fascism. Your brand of "patriotism" would get you instant party membership in any Fascist/National Socialist party. Shame on you- you are the best definition of Un-American.
The definition of a Habitual Liar is someone who choices to LIE even when there is no apparent reason to.
Sarah "The Witch Hunter" Palin is a Habitual Liar...