NationStates Jolt Archive

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1193633

"Politically, this is very serious for the president," said James Thurber, a political scientist at American University. "If the base of his party has lost faith, that could spell trouble for his policy agenda and for the party generally."

I agree. Are the Democrats getting stronger as the Republicans get weaker?
Karl Rove, Tom DeLay, Harriet Miers, FEMA... The Right seems to be losing faith in their Fearless Leader.

All your base are belong to us.

All your base are belong to us.
All his base are not belong to him!

Does Bush need a base? It's not like he can run again.

I mean at least with Clinton, he needed to keep his base somewhat intact for Hillary, but when 2008 rolls around Mr.B is done.

The other Republocrats need to worry about shoring up their base(es). Bush no longer needs one.

i dont think that bush's base is going democrat. i think its up for grabs to anyone who has the balls to try for it.

the husband and i were just discussing that one of the reasons that the major republicans are pissed at the miers nomination is because they were hoping for a fight that would make them look like they have the moral high ground and the dems are sucky obstuctionists. a more known controversial candidate would have given them that.

if he's not going to give his guys what they want-- a chance to look good-- then they will desert him totally.

Does Bush need a base? It's not like he can run again.

I mean at least with Clinton, he needed to keep his base somewhat intact for Hillary, but when 2008 rolls around Mr.B is done.

The other Republocrats need to worry about shoring up their base(es). Bush no longer needs one.
It's not only Bush. He's fracturing the entire party with his "from the gut" decisions.

I believe we're definitely witnessing a watershed moment of the GOP's Bush era. 2008 will be very important for the party -- will it keep sliding towards this far-right, Christian fundamentalist base, or will it lean back to the center, remembering its roots of fiscal conservatism and smaller government?

The times, they are a changing. It's just phenominal to see the GOP showing glimpses of fracturing -- one year ago I stood in awe of their monolithic, lockstep machinery.

I agree. Are the Democrats getting stronger as the Republicans get weaker?

Unlikely. The Democrats have squandered every oppritunity they have ever had in the past ten years. The Democrats are in the same position that many large businesses find themselves in: too big for their own good. Remember Sears a couple decades ago? In addition to their own department stores, they also made much of what they sold, and also had a financial busiiness. They had to spin that off because it was far too much for Sears to control. The Democrats are in a similar position.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1193633

"Politically, this is very serious for the president," said James Thurber, a political scientist at American University. "If the base of his party has lost faith, that could spell trouble for his policy agenda and for the party generally."

I agree. Are the Democrats getting stronger as the Republicans get weaker?
Karl Rove, Tom DeLay, Harriet Miers, FEMA... The Right seems to be losing faith in their Fearless Leader.

I wouldn't say that he's in trouble with the base yet, as after all the site does mention that fully half of his "base", or Republican women, southerners, and Evangelicals still "strongly support" the actions of the president. But it does appear as if his coalition is starting to collapse around him. His whole political scheme was built on the premise that you can simultaneously rally the base with what is at root a radically conservative agenda, while at the same time making his views seem palatable to moderates (made easier with some helpful demonization of Democrats). Well, he now suffers the problem of having to show support for a base that has grown even more conservative with each victory he hands them while at the same time moderates are increasingly alienated from the President and demonization is gradually losing its effectiveness. So while he hasn't jumped the shark yet, the ship of state is definately gunning the motor towards it at the moment.

That being said, the Democrats aren't really going to capitalize. For one thing, they are far too institutionally weak to do so, secondly gerrymandering districts has made continued Republican control of the House a virtual guarantee, and third, I don't think people are ever going to vote en masse for the Democratic Party until both the Dems and the people start believing in the idea that government can solve problems again, and most of those core groups of Bush's base simply don't believe that. As such, they are more likely to splinter among different factions of the Republican party than they are to jump ship to the Democratic party.

i dont think that bush's base is going democrat. i think its up for grabs to anyone who has the balls to try for it.

the husband and i were just discussing that one of the reasons that the major republicans are pissed at the miers nomination is because they were hoping for a fight that would make them look like they have the moral high ground and the dems are sucky obstuctionists. a more known controversial candidate would have given them that.

if he's not going to give his guys what they want-- a chance to look good-- then they will desert him totally.

Yeah... 'Cause republicans are loyal like dat. ;-)

Unlikely. The Democrats have squandered every oppritunity they have ever had in the past ten years. The Democrats are in the same position that many large businesses find themselves in: too big for their own good. Remember Sears a couple decades ago? In addition to their own department stores, they also made much of what they sold, and also had a financial busiiness. They had to spin that off because it was far too much for Sears to control. The Democrats are in a similar position.

And yet the Democrats held Congress for 40 years. Times change. Always. It seems to me that it's the Republicans who are the big, bloated, businesslike organization myself. They'll crumble once they're on the defensive, and it's already begun.

Evidently, all his base go with zig for great justice (?!)

And yet the Democrats held Congress for 40 years. Times change. Always. It seems to me that it's the Republicans who are the big, bloated, businesslike organization myself. They'll crumble once they're on the defensive, and it's already begun.
The Democrats had something then that they don't have now: unity. They were just as bloated and corrupt then as they were now, but they at least had an ideaological center, even if it frayed every now and then. The Republicans were a party of confusion, ossilating between Goldwater and Rockerfeller Republicans. Only when they unified sometime in the Reagan years did they have a shot at getting somewhere.
The Republicans are divided, but so are the Democrats. The Republicans have gained power these past couple of decades on the back of ideaological zeal, zeal they are rapidly loosing. But the Democrats cannot gain it. As I said, that party is like a conglomerate that was once successful, but now has its hands in too many things.

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_QQRRSNQ
This is what I mean regarding Democrats, summed up more eloquently that I could have done.

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_QQRRSNQ
This is what I mean regarding Democrats, summed up more eloquently that I could have done.
That's because most conservative Republicans have a way of insulting, then when someone argues their rants, they play the victim card while insulting again.

That's because most conservative Republicans have a way of insulting, then when someone argues their rants, they play the victim card while insulting again.
That was beside the point. The point was that the Democrats can't pick up where the Republicans are stumbing.

BTW, I wanted to clarify that I do not agree with the entire article, particularly the part about young Democrats moving the party leftward. They are, but only in their small niche. The Democrats have members with ideaologies that are mutually exclusive to these little socialists, like the labor unionists of the midwest, the blacks (who have a history of dispising both labor unions and socialists), and those that are simply looking for hand-me-outs. Some may even have more in common with many Republicans than with fellow Democrats.

i dont think that bush's base is going democrat. i think its up for grabs to anyone who has the balls to try for it.

the husband and i were just discussing that one of the reasons that the major republicans are pissed at the miers nomination is because they were hoping for a fight that would make them look like they have the moral high ground and the dems are sucky obstuctionists. a more known controversial candidate would have given them that.

if he's not going to give his guys what they want-- a chance to look good-- then they will desert him totally.
Meirs actually wasn't his first pick. Priscilla Owens flat out refused. I think there were one or two other candidates he asked, although I'm unsure. That said, there were still plenty of other, better people to choose from.

Meirs actually wasn't his first pick. Priscilla Owens flat out refused. I think there were one or two other candidates he asked, although I'm unsure. That said, there were still plenty of other, better people to choose from.
Yes, I'd read that Priscilla Owens refused as well. Any ideas as to why? Other than the obvious "I don't need this sh*t" from the confirmation process.

In general, most American's don't care for these parties anymore. They have to many goddamned problems, no solutions, and no real leaders.

Democrats - gun grabbers, big government and cure stuff with more bureacracy, interventionalist, to liberal with certain precedents (see gun grabbers), and have a history of corruption, and to politically correct instead of pragmatic.

Republicans - a party hijacked by religious fanatics, now are primarily big government, to many war-hawks and interventionalist, have SERIOUS problems with corruption, many of their comentators and vocal supporters are themselves fanatics, and imperialistic.

I'm independent, and I simply vote against the incumbant down the list no matter the party. I do try to vote independent and libertarian when applicable.

I'm independent, and I simply vote against the incumbant down the list no matter the party. I do try to vote independent and libertarian when applicable.

That's a good way to vote, in my opinion. I would love to see an election where EVERY incumbent lost...shake the system up a little and remind the politicians that there is STILL accountability in the system, even if it has to be administered by the people.

That said, I get the feeling that the Democrats won't be able to capitalize on the downward trend of the Republican party. 2008 is a long way away, but I can't see them doing much more than balancing out the Senate in the 2006 elections. The House will remain Republican, but the Senate has a shot of going 50-50, or even a Dem majority.

We'll just have to wait and see.

Probably more worrying for the American public would be the headline "Bush Losing his Hair!"

What is it about american politics that dictates every presidential candidate has to have a full set of lustrous locks? Given that hair and height are the two primary qualifications for high office in the US, it's a wonder that politics evokes so much passion over there.

Short bald people can have good leadership skills too you know. Look at Churchill.

I think what we really need is a good revolution. A few million armed citizens marching into D.C. That would teach em a lesson.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1193633

"Politically, this is very serious for the president," said James Thurber, a political scientist at American University. "If the base of his party has lost faith, that could spell trouble for his policy agenda and for the party generally."

I agree. Are the Democrats getting stronger as the Republicans get weaker?
Karl Rove, Tom DeLay, Harriet Miers, FEMA... The Right seems to be losing faith in their Fearless Leader.

Well if you're going to have a repressive regime, what do you think polls will say? On the oher hand why not make the repression equal across the country? Everyone will be equal FINALLY!

Vote Zod 2008! (http://www.zod2008.com/)
:p

Well if you're going to have a repressive regime, what do you think polls will say? On the oher hand why not make the repression equal across the country? Everyone will be equal FINALLY!

Vote Zod 2008! (http://www.zod2008.com/)
:p

Hm, I never knew he came to Philly. Too bad I missed it.

Probably more worrying for the American public would be the headline "Bush Losing his Hair!"

What is it about american politics that dictates every presidential candidate has to have a full set of lustrous locks? Given that hair and height are the two primary qualifications for high office in the US, it's a wonder that politics evokes so much passion over there.

Short bald people can have good leadership skills too you know. Look at Churchill.

John Howard, Bush's buddy in Australia is short and bald! A great leader for the 1950's.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1193633

"Politically, this is very serious for the president," said James Thurber, a political scientist at American University. "If the base of his party has lost faith, that could spell trouble for his policy agenda and for the party generally."

I agree. Are the Democrats getting stronger as the Republicans get weaker?
Karl Rove, Tom DeLay, Harriet Miers, FEMA... The Right seems to be losing faith in their Fearless Leader.

What does it matter? He's gone for good in 2008.

Does Bush need a base? It's not like he can run again.

I mean at least with Clinton, he needed to keep his base somewhat intact for Hillary, but when 2008 rolls around Mr.B is done.

The other Republocrats need to worry about shoring up their base(es). Bush no longer needs one.
One could make the argument that Bush needs to keep his base together for Jeb! in 2008, using your logic. But the big issue is that the Republicans in Congress would rather not have to run against their own president, considering how closely tied at the hips they are, and you can bet that the Democrats will try to use Bush as a millstone around their necks in 2006.

Does Bush need a base? It's not like he can run again.

I mean at least with Clinton, he needed to keep his base somewhat intact for Hillary, but when 2008 rolls around Mr.B is done.

The other Republocrats need to worry about shoring up their base(es). Bush no longer needs one.
Bush needs a base, but for different reasons than his first term. You see, this never comes in any politician's official literature, but they need it for money. Their campaign to get reelected causes huge debts, even those not reflected in official campaign expenditures. For instance, did any of you give any amount of money to Bush's reelection campaign? I did. I still get letters asking me for money.

What does it matter? He's gone for good in 2008.
It matters because he is hurting his own party in general.

It matters because he is hurting his own party in general.
Yeah, but depending on your point of view, that's a good thing.

Yeah, but depending on your point of view, that's a good thing.
I'm not saying it's not. Not in the least.
But it just shows just how poor a job Bush is doing.

I would say at this point Bush is not only losing his base of support but is building a negative base of support. Once it comes to election time, any candidate that is endorsed by Bush would receive the political equivalent of a death sentence.

It's not only Bush. He's fracturing the entire party with his "from the gut" decisions.

sounds like wishful thinking... not just by you, but i had to quote someone. the republican party is just fine. those in love with financial freedom will continue to vote for them, and those on welfare (and fans of welfare) won't. that won't change.

I'm not saying it's not. Not in the least.
But it just shows just how poor a job Bush is doing.
I think it shows more than that. When Bush was getting close to 40%, it meant that the smoke screens weren't working anymore. What breaking that barrier means is that Bush has pissed off his hardcore supporters and they're deserting him too. Some bloggers are calling it the Miers effect--his hardcores wanted a Brown or a Luttig and they're pissed because Bush showed he didn't have the stomach for a fight he would likely lose, so they're jumping ship too.

sounds like wishful thinking... not just by you, but i had to quote someone. the republican party is just fine. those in love with financial freedom will continue to vote for them, and those on welfare (and fans of welfare) won't. that won't change.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha! (wipes a tear from his eye.) Man, you Republicans sure do believe in Monolithic Party Ideas. Republicans are all for welfare too...it's just Corporate welfare (i.e., giving more money to those that already have more than enough...giving tax breaks to those whose money already has bought them accountants that allow them to pay much lower taxes, on average, than the middle class.) Do you know what Corporations do with those tax cuts? Hire workers? Ha! They use it to buy back stock and give bonuses to executives.

Do you know what causes businesses to expand? Increased demand. You know what increases demand? A vigorous Middle and Working Class.

It's not only Bush. He's fracturing the entire party with his "from the gut" decisions.

Yeah. Did anyone see Bill Maher last night?

When Anne Coulter thinks you've gone too far you know things are bad.

I would say at this point Bush is not only losing his base of support but is building a negative base of support. Once it comes to election time, any candidate that is endorsed by Bush would receive the political equivalent of a death sentence.

Sounds like that would still be a politically useful talent.

"OK Senators, I'm gonna endorse anyone who doesn't vote for legislation to have all the records from my presidency and my dad's locked up and then burned. heh heh heh."

What does it matter? He's gone for good in 2008.

Yeah, and then we'll get Jeb in 2012. Probably the only reason left to go Republican in 2008. Then Jeb will have to wait until 2016 to even run.

Yeah, and then we'll get Jeb in 2012. Probably the only reason left to go Republican in 2008. Then Jeb will have to wait until 2016 to even run.
Don't make me curse you in an ancient tongue.

I think what we really need is a good revolution. A few million armed citizens marching into D.C. That would teach em a lesson.

I like you. I like you a lot. Please tell me your a hot chick, otherwise I'd be gay.

Bush is losing his base because, as the left tends to fail to notice, W. is not a conservative. He gives conservatism a lot of lip service, but he does not follow the creed.

Examples?

He's raised domestic spending to degrees that would Clinton could only dream of.

The rules of engagement for US soldiers in Iraq are extremely restrictive. He's obsessed with the concept of "limited warfare", the same one that LBJ used to such a degree of success in Vietnam. He's trying to fight a war without offending anyone, and failing miserably on both counts. Also, he's miserably failing at the international PR war.

He has resolutely ignored the US-Mexico border.

He only meddles with some cultural issues like the Pledge of Allegiance and gay marriage, but completely fails to address the major moral issues of America, including the disentegration of honesty and morality in America's youth. He claims to be a social conservative, but really he's done little.

He's not losing base with all the party, just parts. And I'd say the libertarian wing was lost to the GOP long ago.

It's not only Bush. He's fracturing the entire party with his "from the gut" decisions.

That's not Bush either. The party has been in the process of fracturing along ideological lines for a good long time (at least 15 years). The neo-con and fundy wings are seen somewhat as upstart invaders taking over the party from the moderates, libertarians, and paleo-conservatives. If an equalibrium isn't reached soon, there will be a realignment of parties of some sort.

Bush is losing his base because, as the left tends to fail to notice, W. is not a conservative. He gives conservatism a lot of lip service, but he does not follow the creed.

Examples?

He's raised domestic spending to degrees that would Clinton could only dream of.

The rules of engagement for US soldiers in Iraq are extremely restrictive. He's obsessed with the concept of "limited warfare", the same one that LBJ used to such a degree of success in Vietnam. He's trying to fight a war without offending anyone, and failing miserably on both counts. Also, he's miserably failing at the international PR war.

He has resolutely ignored the US-Mexico border.

He only meddles with some cultural issues like the Pledge of Allegiance and gay marriage, but completely fails to address the major moral issues of America, including the disentegration of honesty and morality in America's youth. He claims to be a social conservative, but really he's done little.
Dude, the left has known that all along, and has been screaming it since 2000. It's the maintstream media and the Democratic party who have only recently picked up on it.

Dude, the left has known that all along, and has been screaming it since 2000. It's the maintstream media and the Democratic party who have only recently picked up on it.

And the real conservatives have been saying it as well, only to be ignored or worse. (I recall someone here trying to tell me Bush was a real conservative but Goldwater wasn't. :eek: I can't even see a point to trying to convince someone so wilfully ignorant of modern conservatisms roots.)

Dude, the left has known that all along, and has been screaming it since 2000. It's the maintstream media and the Democratic party who have only recently picked up on it.
Not really, considering that most really left wing elements villify Bush as if he was a theocratic fascist.

Hell, the people who most bash Bush aren't left wingers though: it's the Right. Listen to right wing talk radio, people, and notice whose name gets tossed around negatively most of the time...

And the real conservatives have been saying it as well, only to be ignored or worse. (I recall someone here trying to tell me Bush was a real conservative but Goldwater wasn't. :eek: I can't even see a point to trying to convince someone so wilfully ignorant of modern conservatisms roots.)
I know. It kills me, because I'm old enough to remember when real conservatives ran the Republican party. I could disagree with them, and could even come to some sort of working relationship with them, and most importantly, respect them. That's not the case with the current breed.

I know. It kills me, because I'm old enough to remember when real conservatives ran the Republican party. I could disagree with them, and could even come to some sort of working relationship with them, and most importantly, respect them. That's not the case with the current breed.
When was that? The age of the dinosaurs? ;)

I'm kidding, of course. Reagan was really the last true conservative President, and even then he failed to deliver on a lot of his promises to cut down government size, and he did little to deal with the culture war.

When was that? The age of the dinosaurs? ;)

I'm kidding, of course. Reagan was really the last true conservative President, and even then he failed to deliver on a lot of his promises to cut down government size, and he did little to deal with the culture war.
That's about when it would have been--but I think you miss the point on the culture war. The fact is that traditional conservatives are social libertarians, and despise the culture war, and honestly, that's where most of the head clashing between liberals and modern conservatives comes in. It's in culture war issues where the Republicans have lost their conservative soul to the radical right, because they deliver votes.

But now the traditional conservatives are in a quandary. They've just begun to realize that the lunatics are running the asylum now, and that they're being pushed out in favor of the Brownbacks and the Coburns and the Santorums. They can't give up the radicals because they vote en masse, but it scares them to think that they might have to deliver on the radical agenda that the radicals have been demanding.

The Republican Party is not going away and as much as people talk about it splintering off, there really is not going to be more than a two party system without some sort of run-off voting replacing our current system but I do hope, with all of my inner parts, that the disarray seen in the party today lasts until after the next presidential election. And if Jeb Bush runs for president, I'm moving to Canada and I'm taking Alec Baldwin with me.