Posted on 07/27/2006 10:50:09 AM PDT by new yorker 77
When conservatives gathered in the nation's capital last Wednesday for a panel discussion on the 2004 election, they certainly didn't leave with good news about President Bush's re-election hopes. Even the conservative member of the panel said Republicans weren't excited by Bush.
"For all the talk about polarization, I find a startling agreement [from] everybody I talk to," syndicated columnist Robert Novak told the audience. "Nobody seems to like George Bush very much. The Democrats I talk to hate him and the Republicans aren't very enthusiastic about him."
The point of the discussion, sponsored by the Free Congress Foundation, was the impact of the traditional non-voter on the 2004 election. It turns out, according to the panelists, that Sen. John Kerry has an advantage with them because liberals typically don't vote as much as conservatives.
More bad news followed. Political analyst Stuart Rothenberg said it won't be easy for Bush to win re-election. In Rothenberg's view, Bush will either need to make Kerry seem so unacceptable that voters reject him or he must convince voters the country is headed in the right direction.
But Rothenberg surmised, "It's hard for me to see that at this point people are going to decide to keep the incumbent, vote for the status quo and vote for continuity, when they seem to be saying in response to other poll questions that they're not satisfied with the direction of the country."
Novak said the president needs to do a better job of strengthening his base, starting with his Sept. 2 acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention. Social Security and tax reform would be good agenda items to begin with, Novak said.
If the key elements of the base -- the business community and Christian conservatives -- give Bush the support he needs, the president has a solid shot of being re-elected, in Novak's opinion.
But at the end of the day, it's a Bush loss that worries Novak.
"If George W. Bush loses this election, you are going to find an implosion in the Republican Party," Novak said. "The Christian conservatives will be blamed, unfairly I think, by people who don't want them in the party."
Such an implosion might not seem possible for a president who has the support of 80 percent of Republicans. But the loss of the White House to one of the Senate's most liberal members would trigger what Novak calls a political realignment not seen in decades.
Political realignments don't happen often. While there is little agreement when such realignments begin and end, defining moments in the last century tell us that Franklin Delano Roosevelt's election in 1932 started a progressive movement that lasted for more than 30 years.
With the exception of Dwight D. Eisenhower, a Republican who was elected in 1952 more for his military accomplishments than his party status, the GOP didn't make a forceful return to power until 1968 when Richard Nixon was elected president.
"We are in the last stage of a massive political realignment that began in 1968," Novak argued. "It was not the kind of political realignment that we had in 1932 when it really came very suddenly. People didn't realize it was happening."
Barry Goldwater set the tone four years before Nixon's 1968 victory. Then, Ronald Reagan brought a Republican Senate with him to Washington in 1980. Today's Republican Party sits in control of the presidency and Congress.
But is that moment coming to an end?
It's no secret that liberals are organized like never before. At the "Take Back America" conference that ran simultaneously to the Democratic National Convention last month, participants bragged about their coordination on voter-registration drives and television ad buys.
Liberal 527 groups like the MoveOn.org Voter Fund, the Media Fund and America Coming Together have amassed a huge money advantage compared to conservative-affiliated groups.
Throughout the Democrat primary season, the opposition to Bush was consistently stronger than support for any of the Democrats in the race. Following a mostly successful convention, Kerry seems to have secured the liberal base that makes up his party.
Democrats, meanwhile, ignored most of the contentious social issues by focusing the party's platform almost exclusively on the war on terror and homeland security. There has also been a deliberate attempt to redefine Kerry as a moderate.
"John Kerry doesn't want to be called a liberal. George Bush wants to be a called a conservative," Novak said. "The worst thing that could happen to Bush is for people to say there isn't much difference and maybe we'll go with a guy with the long face."
(Robert B. Bluey is a staff writer for CNSNews.com.)
FYI
Bush wins by 3.5 million votes despite the 24/7 advertisements from the MSM for Kerry, despite Soro's millions, despite Moveon.org, despite the democrats lying, despite the democrats cheating at the ballot box, and despite a bloody (but necessary) war.
Novak is a petulant little retard. Was in 2004, and still is.
This is why selective amnesia causes undo stress.
THANK YOU!!! My point exactly about Robert Novak. He is a ratings grabber doomsdayer . He was wrong on his lame predictions in 2004 and will screw up 2006. Remember 2004 when he said John Thune would lose to Daschle, and predicted that Burr(NC), Demint(SC) and Martinez(FL) and Vitter in LA would lose.
And 2002:
Novak: Why GOP fears 2002 races (FLASHBACK to place near his 2006 piece)
The Chicago Sun Times via Free Republic ^ | November 26, 2001 | Robert Novak
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1673258/posts
I'm more worried about 2008 than 2006. I just wish some of our citizens would get their heads out of their @sses and pay attention to what Screamin Dean and his crazies want for this country.
Oh just to remind everybody, how quickly we all forget that the Dems have ALWAYS outspent the Republicans, ALWAYS. I realize that the Pubs have been spending, but they have been spending on Homeland Security, Defense, etc., projects that never existed before 9/11. Thanks to Clinton we are having to make up for 8 years of neglect. Keep that in mind.
LOL.
Whatever my issues are with President Bush's policies, they DON'T translate into Democrat votes.
And Novak is just as anti-Israel as his DC beltway counterpart, pat buchanan.
I aslo predicted the GOP takeover in in 1994. Doesn't make me Karmac the Magnificent.
The GOP chose the only viable candidate to beat Algore in 2000.
GWB is the reason that the GOP has held the majorities since, all the while with Novak dismissing Bush as some kind of neo-con lightweight. Novak is the lightweight.
The utter idiocy of the democrats has been on full display since the 1960s. Yet Reagan had only 2 years where the dems did not control the Senate and all 8 years of his term withe the quisling party in control of the house. Many governerships have gone to the GOP in recent years as well.
So if the GOP holds both the house and senate this time, I'll expect you can eat your shoe and admit that Novak is nothing but a bush hating hack.
The majority of people cheering on the Swifties were ALREADY going to vote for Bush.
I guess you get to grumble with Novak & Buchanan for the next year 2-1/2 years. Just get ready to eat your shoe in november.
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.