Posted on 05/31/2007 8:53:31 AM PDT by kellynla
‘Kerry based his campaign on a single plank, his four months in Viet Nam with the Swift Boats.’
Actually, he based his entire campaign on ‘Anybody but Bush’.
I disagree but only to a small degree, Rove did have an amazing 4 year run, we added to our majorities and that had not happened during a same party presidential term.
For example in 1984 Republicans actually lost Senate seats during Reagan’s electoral landslide victory of 49 states to 1 state. Rove not only kept that from happening, he actually added seats to the “R” column.
But he did that mostly based on the War on Terror and our strength on military issues, that issue is fading from the public’s mind, and we need a new strategy to deal with the changed landscape, ala Newt’s running against GWB strategy in 2008.
That strategy can work, but is sucks to stab GWB in the back to get elected to GWB’s own party.
That is life on the political stage on a National Level though, either that or chain ourselves to a Prez with a consistent 30% approval rating..that would be disaster just ont he Amnesty proposal alone.
” unmistakably revealed during the last year of baby Bush”
I fear you are right.
Also- this is why I am trying to decide how much money to win on Hillary’s election.
It is a certainty.
20 years of bush/clinton/bush with eight more coming is no accident.
One world.
Yippee.
I am bigoted against people who break the law.
The American public needs to know that Newt the magnificient is out for himself, and himself only. I do not appreciate his mouthing off on everything, especially when his trouser snake got him in so much trouble he couldn’t walk right, much less do a damn thing to help the public out. Newt ought to STFU, and now!!!! Tell Newt to go bang another intern and compare notes with Billy Clinton on it ‘cause I don’t care what that pompous a$$ says.
Exactly opposite, Newt’s programs and ideas were always Reaganite, and he stated that and gave credit to Reagan on many occasions, including in 1994 call to Nancy Reagan : “We stand on his shoulders”. Newt actually wants to energize and bring back Reagan Democrats and separate them from national Democrat party, and broaden GOP with conservatives that are “stuck” in Democrat party.
Bushes, despite having Reagan to thank for their victories in 1998 and 2000 (”W is not like his Dad, he’s more Reaganite”) and 2004 (shortly after Reagan’s death reminded conservatives of what their goals are at SCOTUS and elsewhere, along with anti-Kerry vote turnout) have always tried to set themselves apart from Reagan (”kinder and gentler”, “new tone”).
Newt is a strategist, not tactician, like Rove.
And, I'm divorced, too.
When should I announce?
“Karl Rove’s political strategy for President Bush’s 2004 re-election campaign was “maniacally dumb,” declares Newt Gingrich – who says the right can’t retain power if it alienates the center.”
Sounds like Gingirch is maniacally dumb. While the statement on the face of it is correct, neither Bush nor Rove are raving right-wingers, nor was their administration.
What Gingrich should have said was “Karl Rove’s political strategy for President Bush’s 2004 re-election campaign was “maniacally dumb,” declares Newt Gingrich – who says the Republican center can’t retain power if it alienates the right.”
Hasta la Vista Gingrich. I think the Dems turned you into a capon when they had you removed.
But Bush won, so Newt’s comment is silly.
“I wouldn’t be shocked if we find out Rove and Bush worked against a few of the these people?”
well we know J.D. Hayworth lost his reelection.
Rove made or implied promises to the socons that he had no intention of keeping. In fact, there is evidence that the WH inner circle holds socons in contempt.
But, he was right that more votes - in fact, many more votes - can be gotten out by stirring up the socons.
Of course, he did not recognize that stirred up socons can change the liberty faction into Democrats damned fast.
And his plan to replace small government folk with illiterate Mexican peasants is maniacally dumb.
Overall, Rove did his job - get the frat boy reelected with the votes of serious patriots.
But it was a one-off, and has split, and will now ruin, the party.
-OR- The White RINO House is/are Donkeys wearing Elephant costumes... And even Newt is afraid to say it.. Call me for the Civil War that terminates this Costume Ball/Party in Foggy Bottom..
Hadn't heard that. Doesn't surprise me. It would be very hard to tell the difference between someone who had "a problem with brown people" and JD, particularly now that he's on the local radio station during evening drive time.
I held my nose and voted for him, but the majority of people here in AZ know that his ideas for immigration won't work (obviously, since he lost). Labeling any idea short of rounding up and deporting people as "amnesty" makes it pretty obvious what JD wants. Since deportation just won't happen, then the idea appears just irrational, even if it might be emotionally satisfying to round up 12 million people and ship them home.
Yeah, yeah, his opponent was supposedly more anti-immigrant than he was. But who believes that kind of thing when a Democrat says it?
JD appeard mean and nasty during the election, and I'm sure it cost him voters in the center, and those are the voters that decide elections.
Bush has been pretty solidly conservative socially, so I'm not sure what you think was promised that didn't occur.
In fact, there is evidence that the WH inner circle holds socons in contempt.
What evidence?
But it was a one-off, and has split, and will now ruin, the party.
If anything is ruining the party, it's the RINOS who support Rudy and the like, all the while indicating that they'd just as soon the social conservatives left the party. That has nothing to do with Bush.
When Karl Rove told J.D. Hayworth that he, Hayworth, “just had a problem with brown people”
“Hadn’t heard that.”
“Since deportation just won’t happen?”
well I guess you also “hadn’t heard” GWB tell us that SIX MILLION ILLEGALS had been deported since he was in office...
Kerry was a poor candidate, the least poor candidate was GW...if I had to do it over, knowing what I know now, a Kerry President may have saved the ‘06 R Congress and even possibly the GOP.
Now we are seeing the real GW in action....
Not as dumb as Newtie in congress from ‘95-’98.
I’m not looking to pick a fight or show anyone disrespect, but here’s my 2 cents:
Gingrich is clever and very self-interested. That’s fine, and Gingrich’s analysis is right, but not for the reasons he’s using. And he’s certainly no “strategist.”
Rove’s tactics in 2000 were very good for an outsider candidate running against an incumbent VP whose Administration (the only smart thing I give Clinton credit for) had secured the most important electoral state (CA) with uncounted political visits. The money involved in challenging Gore in CA (because of media TV ad costs) were virtually insurmountable.
Add NY and a couple other large states in contention (IL, PA, IL) and Bush faced a large strategic problem. Rove’s strategy to play small-ball and engage in a tactical campaign was key and won Bush a very narrow electoral victory.
Rove’s mistake (and the Democrats stupidly followed) was to approach 2004 with the same tactic (something about ‘fighting the last war’ rolls in my brain), but Bush eeked it out.
With an incumbent president Rove should have switched to a national, strategic plan that made CA and other large states competitive. He didn’t, he won, but w/out a ntaional mandate for the war in Iraq or tough, key domestic policies like entitlement reform (Social Security, etc.).
After all, the only dem candidate to win w/ more than 50% of the vote for the last 40 or so years was Carter (w/ Vietnam and Watergate lending a huge assist)
Hopefully, with Rep. Duncan Hunter (CA) or Fred Thompson, the GOP will compete in CA and nationally, rather than tactically, to win with a mandate.
As far as Gingrich and 2004, I certainly appreciated his leadership and efforts over the then-House Minority Leader (big squish) Bob Michel (IL).
Anyway, here’s how the Contract w/ America was created and Gingrich took credit for in 1993:
NRCC fundraising “Guru”: At the NRCC there was a fundraiser who cared nothing about conservatives and barely understood conservative principles. His main job was to come up with ways to scare people into making contributions so he could have a good quarterly report and spin it so he looks better than the equally non-conservative fundraiser during the same period last cycle. (”Kennedy’s coming to get you — boo! Now send us your rent money”)
“Guru” had a ‘real original idea’ to send out a political fundraising mailer with a top ten list of things a GOP congress would achieve. He tasks a a confused lib GOP-want-to-be lackey from some liberal arts school, who thinks abortion is great and tax cuts terrible, to come up w/ said list.
NRCC lackey has no clue, gets frustrated w/ his lack of understanding of issues (’no template’ for mailer), and so calls the Heritage Foundation (conservative GOP Dc think-tank).
Heritage actually takes the idea seriously. Employees are asked to submit serious suggestions, policy analysts’ thinking is engaged (some screw around like the very lib GOP chick I know who worked there who suggested legalizing marijuana, ect.) and they come up with the main structure of the ideas behind the Contract.
Contract is submitted to NRCC. “Guru” says great, put it into bullet points, all this policy crap can’t fit on a mailer, I have important people to smooze for my next job. Mailer is sent out.
Mailer gets a ‘huge’ return. I forget what the specs are for successful mailers, but if I remember right (depending on prospecting, the quality of the mail list or whatever) 4-5% is good. The Contract mailer got well above this.
Gingrich (who was chairman of the NRCC at the time IIRC) sees the obvious positive reaction. He is clever, but certainly not a strategist. You would have to have been blind not to see it.
Gingrich gets polling charlatan Frank Luntz to smooth out the words, they poll it, get great returns, so Gingrich (as anyone else w/ a golden goose dropped in his lap) makes it a centerpiece of the GOP 1994 agenda.
The only problem is, while popular with GOP voters, the media pretty much ignores it. GOP took over in Congress in 1994 because the dems under clinton had an easily definable image as ‘wrong’ for America.
This resulted in Nixon’s “Silent Majority” and “Reagan Democrats” voting in large numbers similarly in congressional campaigns as they had in presidential elections. This had been trending for awhile (see TX from 1980-1994 at a state and local level).
IMHO, the corrolary will be true in 2008. Democrats got away without having to define themselves (and the GOP could not effectively define them) in 2006. That’s no longer the case.
And besides, the dems have to prove they can field a candidate who can win 50%+ in a presidential election w/out Vietnam/Watergate or Perot. They’re trying real hard to recreate the Carter phenomenon, but there’s no guarantee they’ll succeed.
Anyway, sorry for the rant, I’m just a little tired of inside the beltway types like Gingrich getting away with enjoying ‘strategist’ labels when they actualy had very little to deserve it (or our support).
Attention Newt. That's the argument 'conservatives' have been using for at least 10 years. It's not a vote for your representation, it's a vote to keep the other guy out.
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.