Posted on 04/19/2006 6:48:57 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
Typically those who do what Rove does in campaigns never make the white house staff. They just run campaigns.
Rove is the first person to have both policy and campaign duties. But for elections he just does campaign stuff.
During the 2004 campaign he was working 80 to 90 hours a week on the campaign. Then after the election of 2004 Bush appointed him to the job he just resigned. He will be back on the white house staff in November.
LOL:-).......You are!
You are reacting emotionally and acting all insulted over something that has no bearing or effect on SBVFT.
Your take on 527's totally ignores the fact that Democrats invented them and at the time were kicking our ass with them. The RNC took a natural political position against them.
Lastly, before I die laughing, if you believe for one single second that Bush was giving Kerry some sort of compliment and dissing the SBVFT, you are more naive than I thought originally.
He was vectoring a position that said simply...."personal attacks are childish and unwarranted in any campaign". It is a common position used by both sides in every campaign. The first one to use it usually ends up on top and it is as common as church mice.
Your reaction as a victim in all this is comical. But, it is the era of victims regarding everything for race to petty words and simple actions, and it seems many here fit right in.
The comments I often see about a comparison between FR and DU have a great deal of merit, it seems. Just look at yourself, and maybe you will see something.
As for the 527, it is a symptom and not the disease. They are not what I want to see in campaigns. They were created to suspiciously affect elections, and use by the Democrats or Republicans is a direct result of McStain-Feingold, as you stated. But it does not make them right!
I participated in 2004 and supported one of them, only because the other side was doing the same, but not because I agreed with the idea. I find them to be a symptom of a disease, as I said, and I do advocate full disclosure and no laundry list of workarounds.
Now having said that, you are now going to accuse me of being anti-SBVFT and anti Vet when I am one!
That is what you appear to be saying about Bush, and it is wrong, wrong, wrong...........(I would not be surprised to learn that he sent them some money as well)
Lol.....Kerry was predicted to win. You really don't understand the electorate do you. They are petty and superficial. They react to every changing wind and smell.
The winner of a national election, all other things like funding being equal, is usually the one who escapes the campaign with fewer political bruises. Making it look like the other side is launching personal attacks, while surrogates continue to personally attack, is but one way to bruise a competitor for national office.
But in this current election cycle, the majority of the bruising is coming from within the party directed at the party and not from without. The democrats only need to watch as you poke holes in the glue that binds us together.
It's going to be a hoot to see all this play out from 06 to 08. Then will come the recriminations and finger pointing as to what and who was responsible for the losses.
I'll be here with my finger wagging and enjoying every second of it.
What was the RNC's position on McCain-Feingold? The RNC's position on 527's was not going to make any difference in 2004. The election was underway and there was no possibility that anyone was going to restrict or eliminate them. What is the RNC's position today about 527s? McCain-Feingold and the desire to eliminate 527's are restrictions on political speech. They favor the incumbents who win over 90% of the elections anyway.
Lastly, before I die laughing, if you believe for one single second that Bush was giving Kerry some sort of compliment and dissing the SBVFT, you are more naive than I thought originally.
Words have meaning. It doesn't take any delphic interpretation to understand what Bush said, i.e., "I think Sen. Kerry served admirably and he ought to be proud of his record." In contrast, the SBVFT said that Kerry was Unfit for Command . They condemned his service record as being a fraud and nothing to be proud of. Of course Bush undermined the SBVFT message when he made that statement in response to questions about the SBVFT ad, an ad he specifically condemned along with other 527 ads.
He was vectoring a position that said simply...."personal attacks are childish and unwarranted in any campaign". It is a common position used by both sides in every campaign. The first one to use it usually ends up on top and it is as common as church mice.
You are the one who is naive. You are trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. As I said, this nuance is lost on the average voter. The message was that the President condemned the ad and the attacks on Kerry's service were misplaced and incorrect. Personal attacks work. Vector that...
Your reaction as a victim in all this is comical. But, it is the era of victims regarding everything for race to petty words and simple actions, and it seems many here fit right in.M
Comical? A victim? You must be vectoring again. LOL
The comments I often see about a comparison between FR and DU have a great deal of merit, it seems. Just look at yourself, and maybe you will see something.
At last the ad hominen attacks, the last refuge of someone who can't defend an indefensible position.
As for the 527, it is a symptom and not the disease. They are not what I want to see in campaigns. They were created to suspiciously affect elections, and use by the Democrats or Republicans is a direct result of McStain-Feingold, as you stated. But it does not make them right!
So what do you propose to do about it? If McCain-Feingold remains the law of the land, it matters not what you think or want to see in campaigns. Bush wants to eliminate the 527s, which compounds the impact of McCain-Feingold. Trying to eliminate money from politics is a fool's errand and undermines our democracy. All we need is transparency, not more restrictions on free speech.
I participated in 2004 and supported one of them, only because the other side was doing the same, but not because I agreed with the idea. I find them to be a symptom of a disease, as I said, and I do advocate full disclosure and no laundry list of workarounds.
The SBVFT was a real 527. As I said previously, they would have gone after Kerry even if he were running as a Rep. A number of the SBVFT were Dems, including John O'Neill. I don't see how you can advocate the elimination of 527s as long as McCain-Feingold remains in effect.
Now having said that, you are now going to accuse me of being anti-SBVFT and anti Vet when I am one!
Did I ever accuse you of anything? You are the one playing the role of victim. I prefer to discuss issues without resorting to personal attacks and innuendo.
That is what you appear to be saying about Bush, and it is wrong, wrong, wrong...........(I would not be surprised to learn that he sent them some money as well)
Please reread my response again. I found fault with Bush's response about the SBVFT ad. He made some gratuitous remarks, which had the effect of undercutting the message. It was not necessary. I also believe he made a terrible mistake in signing McCain-Feingold. He could have vetoed it rather than sign what he said at the time was flawed legislation.
If Bush sent the SBVFT any money directly, it would have been disclosed. The bottom line is that Rove ran a poor campaign and the GOP was lucky to eke out a victory, thanks to the SBVFT.
Kerry was predicted to win narrowly based on the polls. The real question is why was Kerry predicted to win. How many times has an incumbent President during wartime with a booming economy been defeated? How could the most liberal senator from the most liberal state in the country win in a country that is not far left on the political spectrum? How could a junior senator with an undistinguished legislative record and less than charismatic style challenge a sitting President? How could someone with a phony war record who refused to release all of his military files; who met with the my enemy in wartime; who denounced before Congress his fellow veterans as war criminals and junkies; and who was a member of a radical organization that plotted the assassination of USG officials be even considered as a nominee let alone "predicted" to win?
I don't blame or look down upon the electorate at all. It is up to the political parties to make the best case for their candidates.
The winner of a national election, all other things like funding being equal, is usually the one who escapes the campaign with fewer political bruises. Making it look like the other side is launching personal attacks, while surrogates continue to personally attack, is but one way to bruise a competitor for national office.
No, the winner is the one whose message resonates with the majority of the people. The Dems always blame the fact that they have been losing recently because their message hasn't been articulated well enough. The truth is that most of the people are not buying the message.
But in this current election cycle, the majority of the bruising is coming from within the party directed at the party and not from without. The democrats only need to watch as you poke holes in the glue that binds us together.
I don't poke holes in anytthing. I am stating my views and hope the party reflects them. I was against the Harriet Miers nomination, McCain-Feingold, the immigration reform proposed by the WH, and the prescription drug program, and various other issues. The Dems are just as fractured as we are and probably more so. The Dem Party has been hijacked by the radical left. 2008 will show just how splintered the Dems really are.
There is plenty of shuffling around prior to 2008 because for the first time in a long time, we will not have an incumbent President or Vice President running for the Presidency. It is a wide open race for both parties.
It's going to be a hoot to see all this play out from 06 to 08. Then will come the recriminations and finger pointing as to what and who was responsible for the losses. I'll be here with my finger wagging and enjoying every second of it.
If that floats your boat, more power to you. If the Dems win in 2008 and become responsible for the national security of this country, I will not be "enjoying every second of it." Some things transcend politics.
What hurts the RNC is the same BS that hurts the DNC.
Both of them are now infected with this nonsense, and the judgment of the electorate will certainly be to re invoke power sharing, regardless of party. They have had enough of both now, and it was not I, who caused that to happen.
You reap what you sow.
You likely came into my party from the libertarian or populist side, expecting to change it from within. You failed, as is the case with every attempt. (ask Buchanon)
Unfortunately, you have wreaked havoc on the party as a result, and it is no longer, nor will ever be cohesive enough to keep the ground it has gained.
And so it goes....been there, done that before, after the Watergate mess. I suppose it is they way things will always be in a two party system.
There are enough of you to form your own party, but you are all so difficult to deal with and disagreeable that you cannot compromise on anything worthwhile, so you destroy the party you infect.
Since I've never met a single person on this forum that will admit what I have said, I don't expect anything but denials in reply and more attacks.
Carry on.........
Nixon was the first Rep I voted for in 1968. I was a 17 year old in 1960 and went door-to-door for JFK handing out election literature in upstate NY. I gathered you are opposed to my "contentions." Maybe I was just vectoring...
You likely came into my party from the libertarian or populist side, expecting to change it from within. You failed, as is the case with every attempt. (ask Buchanon)
No, I was a Democrat just like Reagan. I wasn't aware that you had a proprietary interest in the GOP. Are you the one I am supposed to get approval from in order to join?
Unfortunately, you have wreaked havoc on the party as a result, and it is no longer, nor will ever be cohesive enough to keep the ground it has gained.
There you go again, making unfounded and inaccurate assumptions. I don't want a party that demands orthodoxy to a narrow set of beliefs. The only reason that the GOP is one of the two major political parties is because it does tolerate differences of opinion on a variety of issues. There are plenty of small single issue parties like the Constitutional Party that can be supported by ideologues. Maybe you are the one that needs to look elsewhere for a new home.
There are enough of you to form your own party, but you are all so difficult to deal with and disagreeable that you cannot compromise on anything worthwhile, so you destroy the party you infect.
My, my. A bit testy are we. Compromise on what? Your virulent, intolerant attitude is more of a threat to the GOP than I am. I contribute time and money to the party and Rep candidates. I vote in every election.
Since I've never met a single person on this forum that will admit what I have said, I don't expect anything but denials in reply and more attacks.
Sounds like you are the odd man out. Perhaps if you were a little less judgmental and discussed issues without resorting to personal attacks, others might be willing to listen to you.
Carry on.........
You are dismissed.
LOL....Must be a political novice,,,,,eh?
I am a right leaning Conservative but more moderate than some. Bush and I are on the same page on nearly all issues. We have all stripes in the party and when it works, we are mostly agreeable, but that is not the case now. The far right is after the party moderates and it is a free for all with nothing sacred any longer.
The biggest difference between us is that I have read this book before. Not once, but twice!
The first time was in 1976 after Watergate when the party conservatives went on a "eat your own" spree that blew our chances for the majority and brought us Carter. The "Republicans eat their own again" quote comes from this era.
The second time was in 1992, or about 15 years later when Perot split the party and we got Clinton.
Well guess what?????? It is now 15 years later and we have the same type of situation with different faces.
Funny how history repeats every 15 years, but I learned from the first two events, as many in the party did. Reagan was fond of saying, "Republicans should not say unkind things about Republicans, and his comments were rooted in previous party blowups. The wise thing to do, is to listen to him, but it never happens.
I know how this story will end, and I don't think there is a damn thing I can do about it at this point. But I did try.....Now I accept the reality of it and am making plans for a post majority political landscape as reality and history plays out once again..
Yeah, I just got started late at 17. My grandfather was a ward healer for Mayor Hague in Jersey City.
I am a right leaning Conservative but more moderate than some. Bush and I are on the same page on nearly all issues. We have all stripes in the party and when it works, we are mostly agreeable, but that is not the case now. The far right is after the party moderates and it is a free for all with nothing sacred any longer.
I am a Conservative on most issues but I am more moderate on some social issues. I have lived abroad on and off for nearly 25 years in nine different countries.
The biggest difference between us is that I have read this book before. Not once, but twice!
I am only 63, so I guess I must be the young guy, old timer.
The first time was in 1976 after Watergate when the party conservatives went on a "eat your own" spree that blew our chances for the majority and brought us Carter. The "Republicans eat their own again" quote comes from this era.
I remember it well. I blame Nixon more than anyone else. He had a fatal flaw that destroyed the reputation and accomplishments of a very effective President. Still, Ford almost beat Carter closing fast in the last days of the campaign. Ford took the West including California, Illinois,Michigan, New Jersey, and part of NE. Those were the days when the South still voted Democrat.
The second time was in 1992, or about 15 years later when Perot split the party and we got Clinton.
Perot had a personal feud against Bush. He was able to energize some new voters and draw away some Conservative voters who were upset by the more moderate Bush and the breaking of his "Read my lips, no new taxes" pledge. Mary Maitlan also did a piss poor job of managing the Bush campaign. Lesson learned: Don't alienate your base.
Well guess what?????? It is now 15 years later and we have the same type of situation with different faces.
Maybe. If Bush 43 continues to alienate the conservative base by uncontrolled spending, porous borders, passing legislation like McCain-Feingold, and a sham immigration reform program, the GOP will pay a price.
Funny how history repeats every 15 years, but I learned from the first two events, as many in the party did. Reagan was fond of saying, "Republicans should not say unkind things about Republicans, and his comments were rooted in previous party blowups. The wise thing to do, is to listen to him, but it never happens.
Easily said, but impossible to do when you have a large national party that acts as a big tent over so many disparate elements and views. We have a Rep senator [Chaffee] who didn't even vote for Dubya and is proud of it. There will always be blowups in both parties. It is all about political ambition, power, and egos. Gong into 2008, there will be a power vacuum with both parties having internal battles to select a nominee.
You really can't compare the circumstances from one election era to another. The Reps finally took the House in 1994 after 40 years of Dem domination. The Dems have held control of the Senate to almost the same degree. When you go back to the 60s and 70s the Dems held huge majorities far greater than the razor thin edge the Reps now enjoy. The political battles were internal between the Southern conservatives and the Northeast liberals. Nixon and Reagan had to deal with a Dem contolled Congress for most of their administrations. They had to make compromises. Reagan sold us down the river on social security with his 1983 compromise that raised taxes, increased the retirement age to 67, and linked to cap to wage increases.
The Reps in Congress have never really seemed comforatable being the majority party, except for a rare exception like Newt or Delay. They allowed the Dem minority in the Senate to block legislation because the Reps couldn't muster 60 votes for cloture. They refused to use the nuclear option. So GOP voters say what is the use of being the majority if you are afraid to use the power. The Dems would have no compunction in using it, which is why they will do anything to get it back.
I know how this story will end, and I don't think there is a damn thing I can do about it at this point. But I did try.....Now I accept the reality of it and am making plans for a post majority political landscape as reality and history plays out once again..
Whatever doesn't kill you, makes you stronger. The GOP emerged from the crushing Goldwater defeat with the decisive Nixon victory in 1972. The Watergate debacle paved the way for Reagan and Bush 41. The Clinton win aided by Perot brought us control of Congress for the first time in 40 years followed by a two term victory for Bush 43. Whatever happens in 2008, the GOP will become stronger. You learn more from defeat than you do victory.
I think I'm getting a better idea where you are coming from with your criticisms of Reagan, Those are the criticisms issued by the right wing of the party at that time and I recall them well.
You are angry, and legitimately so, but you are standing in front of a D-9 bulldozer. There are some changes going on since Buchanon left the party, and there are more to come.
My analysis tells me that the Republican and Democrat party's, which have been gradually moving to the center to grab a ever more equally divided electorate will clash in the next two election cycles. Like two large tankers, they will rip each other to shreds and pieces of one boat will be on the other after it is over.
The Republican party has no choice but to scoop up as many disaffected Dem's as it can, and that will cost the party some of it's right wing.
The question is how the numbers will work out, and how the secondary party's of both political giants will split off or whether they can stay coherent. I think this time will be the best possible scenario for a new Conservative party, but that remains to be seen, as I do not have a clue as to how many will defect or when, but they will.
I hearken back to the Whigs and their problems, but the RNC is not going to be absorbed, it will do the absorbing.
I am quite at home with the party, although members have erred, the party remains the same as it always has been. It has always shed the right if it had to, and it has survived many of these inter party squabbles.
Can it get back in gear by 2012? I think so, but I do not know what the damages will be by 08. Right now it looks bad and I think the right will stay home in 08 because of a centrist candidate. We shall see how it all works out....
Too young to be so cynical
My analysis tells me that the Republican and Democrat party's, which have been gradually moving to the center to grab a ever more equally divided electorate will clash in the next two election cycles.
The Dem party is being hijacked by the radical left, e.g., moveon.org, environmental wackos, Soros, etc. Moderate Dems like Liberman are now considered as pariahs. The Dem party has been moving further and further to the Left during my lifetime and the process is accelerating. The Southern Democrats used to be a moderating force to the Northeast liberals. Now, moderate Dem politicos must either move with the herd to the left or die. Their rhetoric has gotten more extreme witness the calls for impeachment of Bush and resignation of Rumsfeld, killing the Patriot Act, pulling the troops out of Iraq, comparing the US military to the Nazis, Pot Pol and the Soviet gulag, and the spouting of various conspiracy theories about 9/11, Katrina, why we went into Iraq, global warming, etc.
I think this time will be the best possible scenario for a new Conservative party, but that remains to be seen, as I do not have a clue as to how many will defect or when, but they will.
That would be a disaster for the GOP. The demographics call for a united party in the face of a growing minority population. One in every three Dem voters is black or hispanic now. The Dems will continue to garner the lion share of the minority vote.
The GOP is still the party of ideas. The looming train wreck on SS is coming and can't be avoided. By 2008, the SS "surplus" starts declining, which means less tax revenue that must be found elsewhere or spending cuts. By 2017, SS goes from being a cash cow to a growing liability. As was the case when that happened in 1983, action must be taken regardless of who is in power. Hopefully, the Reps dig their heels in this time and demand real changes, including personal accounts, which will less the USG's future liabilites and reduce dependence on the USG. The Dems will fight tooth and nail to kick the can down the road once again by rasing taxes and reducing benefits. Medicare and Medicaid are in even worse shape. I suspect right after the 2008 election, SS will be back on the front burner.
The challenges ahead are daunting. Having the Dems in charge will make meeting them just that more difficult. They are the past, we are the future.
Absolutely, but because of a sequence of devastating errors, some of them a bit comedic, the Republican party has driven a huge nail through it's own foot. The last debacle was the "ports" nonsense and the parody of talking heads who rallied the faithful populist's and demagogue the issue in spite of the danger. Beginning with the Trent Lott fight, through the killing of the Social Security reform effort to Schiavo and the ridiculous attempt to Federally control a State Department of Justice to press a social issue and then Miers and the laming of president (Duck) Bush before he had barely started his second term.
How do you think the average "Joe Blow" views the Republican control of all three branches, a gift that was given in good faith............How do they see us now?
Yeah.....we are in deep doodoo....The MSM is never going to let Bush out of this hole and there is really no way he can change this situation. He will just have to deal with it as best he can, and hope Rove can pull a rabbit out of his hat, but I think we ran the rabbits off the farm when the major Republican's in the House and Senate decided to distance themselves from the president they previously shot and wounded.
Ahhh....but as you said so clearly, the Democrats moved left and this has left their right flank exposed. Our strategy guys saw this a while back and they have vectored the party to do a couple of left hand jogs to cover that exposed flank.
You can bet that this has not and will not sit well with our right wing, and they will retaliate. They, the purist's, do not understand the strategic goals of the party and how we won in 2000. This won't be like the 2004 election where a slew of Conservative issues were driving the politics. This will be a battle for Democrat defectors at the cost of some on our right, but not all. The smarter pundits, like Rush and other analysts with try to hold things together while Hannity, Levin and others defect any try to reenergize the Constipation Party or create a new one. You can see it coming,,,,,,,Or at least I can.
I can't find any way around it..
I've enjoyed the conversation. We got started off on the wrong foot, but that happens often enough with me. I have male posters who think I'm a pompous ass and females who think I'm a misogynist. It is probably the way I write. You can't see the body language, and I don't make much effort to show my expression. I just try to be as concise as I can with my opinions. I am a retired electrician who is quite happily married to my wife of nearly 30 years. Three kids and and three grandchildren. A broken glass Republican.
See you later.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.