PSoTD

How Smart Is The Republican Party?

Paul Hackett was a pop quiz in supposedly one of the Republicans' best topics. The George W. Bush-lead Republicans were given a C minus. Apparently good enough to move on, but not something that the parents of the party should be happy with, nor should the student be comfortable with the mid-term coming up in 2006.

I would expect there's going to be a "revolution" brewing in the Party now - from the "parents". They have to be worried that the "student" is going to fail miserably in 2006 by continuing to depend on campaigns and politics of Bush bluff, bluster, bullying and bending the rules.

I don't think it'll be long before we hear Republicans crying that they need to return to their "core values", that they've gotten away from their traditional philosophies, etc., etc., etc.

I suspect that immediately afterward there will be retribution and a louder bullhorn blaring of the accomplishments and brilliance of the Bush Administration.

There's big trouble coming for the Republican Party. I don't see any evidence that the GOP is smart enough to fix it by 2006 or 2008. The real question is whether the Democratic Party will be smart enough to move forward when the Republicans fail with the electorate.

Posted by PSoTD on Wednesday August 3, 2005 at 9:28am |
Matt (mail):
Let's see...the Dems couldn't steal the 2004 election (though they tried) and now call a loss a victory?

An attractive, NRA member Democrat runs against a weak Republican who backs off her opposition to abortion, votes for state tax increases, and is opposed by traditional Republican groups. The Democrats ads make him look like a supporter of President Bush and don't mention his party. The national GOP virtually ignores the election, the Dems pour in money and support...the Democrat still loses. This should show how even a deceptive, Bill Clinton like Democrat, being all things to all people can't win.

2006 will bring gains of 2 or 3 in the Senate and 5 or 6 in the House for the Republicans.

I see historic parallels...From 1872 to 1896, no president won a majority of the vote..then McKinley did, ushering in Republican rule unbroken except with the split party in 1912 and the Depression. The next president from the Democratic party, if it survives, will not be until 2012.
8.3.2005 3:57pm
PSoTD (mail) (www):
Matt, you have to work on those comprehension skills. The post isn't about Dems calling it a victory. It's about a district that is about as Republican as it gets almost going Democrat. You want to claim it's the strength and "deceptiveness" of the candidate, fine. I'm sure the Party's "parents" will have other opinions.
8.3.2005 4:03pm
Rook (mail) (www):
I have several clients that work for a republican fund raising telemarketing firm. The word I get back is that there is chaos in the Republican ranks at state levels. There has been no move at all towards raising money for the 2006 elections.

In fact, they have been mostly focusing on non-election calling campaigns. Though no one seems to know for sure, it looks like they are scrambling to pay for advertising to counter the corruption and ethic problems sprouting up all over the place.

My guess, you will see less money for local campaigns, most of it already spent on damage control.
8.4.2005 12:26am
gbreez (mail) (www):
Maybe they know they will not need campaigns to win. If the voting machine trip is not addressed and fixed soon, they may be correct.
8.4.2005 11:41pm