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.)
I don't know who's ass you trying to pump sunshine up, but I seem to recall that Kerry came within 160,000 votes of winning Ohio and thus the presidency. It's the electoral college, not the popular vote that determines victory. If you want popular vote to count, you end up with Gore.
When you want to know what "real conservative" means, let me know & I'll fill you in.
And Bush came within 160,000 votes of winning 5 additional states which would have rendered Ohio moot.
Kerry won by less than that in Pennsylvania and Minnesota and Michigan.
Kerry cheated his way to winning Wisconsin by 11,000 votes, with Milwaukee having more votes than registered voters.
But I'm sure you'll be suprised when the MSM reports the "suprise" showing of the GOP in this years midterms.
Too late, you gave yourself away as a Novak fan. Your advice would be worthless to me.
Post # 3 says it all.
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.