Rove: Election Could Mean Decades of GOP Rule

NewsMax ^ | 11/7/04 | Carl Limbacher

[fortheDeclaration]

I think the biggest threat we face in 08 is another third party run, by McCain.

That is what TR did against Taft and it got Woodrew Wilson in.

The Democrats cannot win head to head against us, but watch for them to encourage a break-away RINO to take away independents away from us.

[highflight]

I'm thinking "BELL CURVE".....Rove pointed out that over the past 200 years, different political parties reach a power peak and then fade. He quoted a biblical parable, I believe.

The Democratic Party will likely keep moving to the left/socialist and remain out of power, or a third party will emerge over the next 10-20 years.

I won't be here!

[dufekin]

Hillary wasn't even as popular as Gore in New York--and that was four years ago. Her popularity has been overestimated in many quarters. She, moreover, is not loved by women because she remained married to a known sex offender. And detestable? She's detested as much as Bush is loved in the Red States. The electoral map remains very polarized and incredibly stable. Hillary just won't win electoral votes in states like Oklahoma or even Arkansas. Bank on it.

[BushCountry]

I am praying for a Hillary/Dean ticket!

[Darkwolf377]

I heard all this when GHWBush won. It's a nice idea, and Rove must say it politically, but yer dreamin.

[eagle11]

This is the reality they've been denying for many years. It's possible there will be a labor/SDP/Green party in the making. The GOP could take on more social conservatives from the Democrat base and hopefully listen more to the Libertarians on the economic issues. But clearly the majority accept the Reagan and Bush approach to national security.

[the Deejay]

Yes, and I said to my son the other day, "I can hardly wait until the '06 primaries and election of locals. It's going to be a long 2 year wait for me."

I was energized with this election, even more so now.

[Callahan]

Yes, if you see the Repubs gain any more power than they already have, you will see cracks start to form as the social cons demand their reward.

But right now, the Dems are the ones in danger of a fatal split. They just don't seem to be able to repeat what they did with Clinton. Now the faithful are demanding a move farther left, while the DLCers are out in the cold.

[oceanview]

we better plan on hanging our hat on more then that:

http://biz.yahoo.com/ft/041107/257979a6_30f4_11d9_a595_00000e2511c8_1.html

[Fiddlstix]

BTTT

[mlocher]

"It depends on how Republicans act in office," the White House political guru said.

our fate is in our own hands! mcauliffe's replacement will have little impact. if the dems actually follow a model of true leadership, then they will have to state what their values and principles, as well as strategies for implementing them. this will turn off more americans than anything i can think of, except in california, of course.

[Cobra64]

Will take that long to wash the clintoons out of our hair and the bad taste left in our mouths.

Is that a quote from Monica?

[Inyokern]

After the election, the Democrats frantically try to determine where they made a wrong turn

[Sam the Sham]

The screeching about "stolen election" on DU reflects that the Michael Moore secularist gay wing of the Democrats refuse to accept that they lost. They will NOT roll over for a Southern moderate four years from now.

The Democrats could go the way of the Federalists. The party of New England stuck on the wrong side of cultural and demographic shifts.

But look for trade and outsourcing to be sleeper issues. These cut both parties along class lines. There is room for an economic nationalist party that declares the cultural issues as best left to the states. But the Michael Moore Left would never go along.

Looking at DU I saw fury on Iraq and gay marriage. Nothing about trade or outsourcing.

[Soul Seeker]

Depends on what happens in the next four years and the result of the next two elections in '06 and '08.

We won a major battle this year. Whether Republican majority will become permanent is dependent on substantive policies advanced in the next four years, judicial nominations, and a good selection of candidates from the local level to the next candidate for President.

It is also imperative we keep a firm grip on red states, tighten up any leaks (Taft in Ohio) and seek to continue advancement into "blue" states, particularly in the midwest. With an increasing nuMedia and imcreased public activism by conservatives and Republicans, this can occur.

It isn't going to be easy, and it isn't yet determined. It is possible.

[wagglebee]

Here is the perfect scenario that I envision for 2008:
1. The main problem that conservatives have with Rudy Guiliani is that he is pro-abortion. Even if he claims to have a "conversion" and become pro-live, many would not believe him.
2. The SCOTUS is split on abortion. Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas are firmly in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade. Kennedy will go along with them if it is the majority opinion; however, unless there can be a majority, there is no point in bringing it up. That makes the real problem O'Conner, NOT the POTUS>. Rehnquist will almost certainly retire within the next few weeks and it is likely that Scalia or Thomas will be elevated. O'Conner has been ill and probably realizes that she will need to retire, probably after the 2005 Court term. Stevens will hold on as long as he can, but he will eventually be forced to acknowledge that he can't hold on for four more years. With all of this in mind, I see a strong possibility of Roe v. Wade being overturned in 2006 or 2007. This will not ban abortion, it will simply leave it up to the individual states; this is the Constitutional issue, not the morality of abortion.
3. When abortion is returned to the state legislatures and state courts (most state constitutions have the "right of privacy, the US Constitution does not), there will be a deep divide among states which continue to allow abortion and those which don't. But is will no longer be a federal issue.
4. With abortion no longer a federal question, it no longer matters what views the President or any Presidential candidate has. (I actually think a lot of Democrats will become more open about pro-life feelings, and some Republicans will admit that they were always pro-choice.) Once this is accomplished, the Republicans can nominate Guiliani and he will have the complete support of conservatives. As of now, there is no member of the Bush administration who has the popularity of strength to mount a challenge to Hitlery, Guiliani may be our only hope of escaping another Klintoon regime.

[cynicom]

Rove is smoking some real good stuff.

[liberallarry]

"It depends on how Republicans act in office," the White House political guru said.

In some sense that's true...but not entirely.

It depends on what happens in Iraq and what happens to the economy. Politicians have only limited control over those things, even though they take credit and earn blame.

If the Administration succeeds in the Middle East and the economy prospers the Democratic Party might indeed disappear.

But if Bush is perceived to have failed in Iraq while the economy collapses it will be the Republicans who are driven from power for decades.

[wagglebee]

Read what I wrote in #36.

[viaveritasvita]

>>>the Democrats will effectively disappear<<<


Well, God knows lots of us are praying for that! However, I'm reminded of something Rush said once about the fall of Soviet Communism. He said that, yes, communism may have been defeated there, but the Commies are still with us. In fact, I do believe he made a case for the rousted Soviet Commies coming to American and infesting the 'RAT party. I kid you not. A core group of 'RATS will always be with us. Who knows where or in what shape (the shape changers!) or in what numbers they'll show up next.

<><