[nathanbedford]

It seems me there are two schools of Republican thought about how to win national elections: the Ronald Reagan school and the Carl Rove school.

The Carl Rove school structures an election in a way similar to what Obama is doing this cycle, by paring down the electorate to 50% plus one vote in the electoral college. In the process Rove gave Bush (barely) two terms in the White House. The first term, you will recall, was one as a minority candidate because Gore actually exceeded him in the popular vote total.

In the 2004 election, Rove ran on the Iraq war succeeded in nationalizing the election on that basis and increasing Bush's popular vote and electoral vote count. Thereafter, and even beginning in 2004, Rove sacrificed the Republican hold on Congress to his minimalist approach to the campaign. In effect, Bush sacrificed the Congress to maintain the war.

The other approach was demonstrated by Ronald Reagan which is to dominate the game and attract the electorate to a new vision. That is what Obama did in 2008. It was so sweeping that the vast middle of America never looked behind the empty rhetoric of "hope and change" which articulated the so-called vision. But the principle remains, Obama swept all before him with his vision, however bogus.

I believe Gingrich is in the Reagan mold and Romney is in the Karl Rove mold.

[Darkwolf377]

The other approach was demonstrated by Ronald Reagan which is to dominate the game and attract the electorate to a new vision.

I don't know if any Republican has the courage of their spouted-conservative convictions to carry it off. I don't see any of those running--Gingrich included--having the cohesive and COHERENT vision that is needed now. The Republicans running seem to have very ragged, malformed 'conservative' visions that finally are half-baked and thus not what is needed to transform the mess we're in. What is needed is a kind of conservative theory of everything that would indeed transform the mess in Washington. I don't think these candidates have that.

Reagan wasn't a policy wonk but he had the large view that cut through all the pet projects and local-political stumbling blocks these people can't free themselves from. His certainty carried along democrats and republicans and independents, eventually.

I'm not expecting another Reagan. I am expecting intelligent, articulate conservatives who live by their convictions and whose lives embody the values they will bring to the White House.

I don't see anyone like that in this bunch.

Nathanbedford, I hope you had a merry Christmas and have a happy New Year.

[Caipirabob]

I would feel more at home if you'd occasionally scream "RINO" or "TROLL" at people in your posts.

Kidding - thanks for the perspective. Love reading your posts.

[sphinx]

The first term, you will recall, was one as a minority candidate because Gore actually exceeded him in the popular vote total.

I always tell my liberal acquaintences that Bush very likely had a majority of the popular vote if you take vote fraud out of the equation. Bush would also have won a majority of the popular vote had it not been for the scandalous early call on Florida, which was made during prime voting hours in the west. The bad call left people thinking for several hours that Gore had already won. This suppressed the Republican vote, cost Bush the popular vote win, and probably cost Slade Gorton his Senate seat, which ultimately cost the Republicans control of the Senate.

I try not to be pedantic about it, but whenever a dem starts ragging about Bush-Gore, it's an effective way to switch the discussion to vote fraud and rock 'em back a bit.