Some conservative's hope for Bush's Loss. (NOT BUSH BASHING I PROMISE)

[khirkhib]

OK OK this is from everybodies favourite newspater here the LA times but it isn't Bush Bashing.  Actually it is really good.  It talks about the different factions of the Republican Party and how they occasionally sacrifice a president to make the party stronger.  It is really good stuff and not partisan so read it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMENTARY
The Right Wing's Deep, Dark Secret
 Some hope for a Bush loss, and here's why.

By John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge, John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge, writers for the Economist, are co-authors of "The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America" (Penguin, 2004).


BOSTON — One of the secrets of conservative America is how often it has welcomed Republican defeats. In 1976, many conservatives saw the trouncing of the moderate Gerald Ford as a way of clearing the path for the ideologically pure Ronald Reagan in 1980. In November 1992, George H.W. Bush's defeat provoked celebrations not just in Little Rock, where the Clintonites danced around to Fleetwood Mac, but also in some corners of conservative America.

"Oh yeah, man, it was fabulous," recalled Tom DeLay, the hard-line congressman from Sugar Land, Texas, who had feared another "four years of misery" fighting the urge to cross his party's too-liberal leader. At the Heritage Foundation, a group of right-wingers called the Third Generation conducted a bizarre rite involving a plastic head of the deposed president on a platter decorated with blood-red crepe paper.

There is no chance that Republicans would welcome the son's defeat in the same way they rejoiced at the father's. George W. is much more conservative than George H.W., and he has gone out of his way to throw red meat to each faction of the right: tax cuts for the anti-government conservatives, opposition to gay marriage and abortion for the social conservatives and the invasion of Iraq for the neoconservatives. Still, there are five good reasons why, in a few years, some on the right might look on a John Kerry victory as a blessing in disguise.

First, President Bush hasn't been as conservative as some would like. Small-government types fume that he has increased discretionary government spending faster than Bill Clinton. Buchananite paleoconservatives, libertarians and Nelson Rockefeller-style internationalists are all furious — for their very different reasons — about Bush's "war of choice" in Iraq. Even some neocons are irritated by his conduct of that war — particularly his failure to supply enough troops to make the whole enterprise work.

The second reason conservatives might cheer a Bush defeat is to achieve a foreign policy victory. The Bush foreign policy team hardly lacks experience, but its reputation has been tainted — by infighting, by bungling in Iraq and by the rows with Europe. For better or worse, many conservatives may conclude that Kerry, who has accepted most of the main tenets of Bush's policy of preemption, stands a better chance than Bush of increasing international involvement in Iraq, of winning support for Washington's general war on terror and even of forcing reform at the United Nations. After all, could Jacques, Gerhard and the rest of those limp-wristed continentals say no to a man who speaks fluent French and German and has just rid the world of the Toxic Texan?

The third reason for the right to celebrate a Bush loss comes in one simple word: gridlock. Gridlock is a godsend to some conservatives — it's a proven way to stop government spending. A Kerry administration is much more likely to be gridlocked than a second Bush administration because the Republicans look sure to hang on to the House and have a better-than-even chance of keeping control of the Senate.

The fourth reason has to do with regeneration. Some conservatives think the Republican Party — and the wider conservative movement — needs to rediscover its identity. Is it a "small government" party, or does "big government conservatism" make sense? Is it the party of big business or of free markets? Under Bush, Western anti-government conservatives have generally lost ground to Southern social conservatives, and pragmatic internationalists have been outmaneuvered by neoconservative idealists. A period of bloodletting might help, returning a stronger party to the fray.

And that is the fifth reason why a few conservatives might welcome a November Bush-bashing: the certain belief that they will be back, better than ever, in 2008. The conservative movement has an impressive record of snatching victory from the jaws of defeat. Ford's demise indeed helped to power the Reagan landslide; "Poppy" Bush's defeat set up the Gingrich revolution. In four years, many conservatives believe, President Kerry could limp to destruction at the hands of somebody like Colorado Gov. Bill Owens.

When the British electorate buried President Bush's hero, Winston Churchill, and his Conservative Party, Lady Churchill stoically suggested the "blessing in disguise" idea to her husband. He replied that the disguise seemed pretty effective. Yet the next few years vindicated Lady Churchill's judgment. The Labor Party, working with Harry S. Truman, put into practice the anti-communist containment policies that Churchill had championed. So in 1951, the Conservative Party could return to office with an important piece of its agenda already in place and in a far fitter state than it had been six years earlier. It held office for the next 13 years.

[Storebought]

I already posted a thread about that phenomenon: "Michael Moore Conservatives", published in the non-trollish Weekly Standard.

And, on this forum, I'd venture that 3/5 of the "Republicans" desperately want Bush to lose this election. Killing terrorists here and now is less of a priority to them than cobbling together history's first theoretically perfect libertarian state.

Those ATF theoretical libertarians must have never examined the course of the French Revolution.

I support Bush when he exterminates murderers, so that's why I changed my registration from Atlas Forum "GOP" to Atlas Forum "Independent."

[khirkhib]

Which Republican Group will have the best/worst showing for George Bush. Who will punish him and who will reward him for his policies.

1.  anti-government conservatives
2.  social conservatives
3.  neoconservatives idealists
4.  Buchananite Paleoconservatives
5.  libertarians
6.  pragmatic Nelson Rockefeller-style Internationalists

and for what reason

1.  Bush increased Government size and spending
2.  Bush tainted the America's  international Reputation
3.  To create Gridlock between Congress and President
4.  To allow the Republican Party to regenerate and come back stronger than ever
5. To set up Bill Owens and/or other Republican for a stronger (Reagan-esqe) Presidency from 2008  through 2020

[Storebought]

Which Republican Group will have the best/worst showing for George Bush. Who will punish him and who will reward him for his policies.

1.  anti-government conservatives
2.  social conservatives
3.  neoconservatives idealists
4.  Buchananite Paleoconservatives
5.  libertarians
6.  pragmatic Nelson Rockefeller-style Internationalists

and for what reason

1.  Bush increased Government size and spending
2.  Bush tainted the America's  international Reputation
3.  To create Gridlock between Congress and President
4.  To allow the Republican Party to regenerate and come back stronger than ever
5. To set up Bill Owens and/or other Republican for a stronger (Reagan-esqe) Presidency from 2008  through 2020

I don't believe the GOP exists in those categories, so I will say no more about them.

1. Undeniable. If Bush were clever, he'd campaign on how much he will shrink government expenditure to the levels that current revenues allow.

But the more I consider it, the more I realize that Issue 1 is merely a red herring. Big government left-wingers care about Bush's spending increases only insofar as Bush funds the 'wrong kinds' of prescription drug coverage, educational reforms, etc.

What the Democrat left doesn't like to tell is this: for every piece of budget-inflating social legislation Bush has signed, congressional Democrats wanted to spend billions more.

When a Democrat left-winger speaks of himself as a 'fiscal conservative', he means to increase corporate and all brackets of personal income taxes to cover some of the costs of whatever scheme he's concocted.
 
2. No real Republican cares about what the French think of this country. "The UN out of the US" is much more popular among real life Republicans.

3. Important to a few Ron Paul-type ideologues, unimportant to the rest, especially now that the US is engaged in a War on Terror.

4. Political parties aren't starfish, or guppies, or any other creature meant to continually lose limbs to a predator. They are hierarchical organizations that place members thereof into positions of governmental authority. The sole pupose of a political party is to WIN ELECTIONS. This goes for any party, not just the GOP.
 
5. Only the fool thinks that by sabotaging the current leadership, some other 'more perfect' leadership will arise later. The Democrats didn't sacrifice Clinton in 1998; The GOP, against your hope, will not sacrifice George Bush in 2004.

[MODU]

Both parties have people wishing their party candidate would lose.  Heck, the head of the AFL-CIO was stating last week that he wished Kerry would lose, just so the Democrats would genuinely unite as a party, and not a collective of anti-Bush radicals.

[WalterMitty]

a lot of republicans are a-holes.  they deserted former president bush.  they deserted jane swift, george ryan, and now bob taft.

in sum, republicans arent good at loyalty.

[MODU]

I left to become a Reformist.    The the Reformists were absorbed by fanatics, so now I'm all alone.  WHAAAAA

My primary concerns which a candidate must address is M&M - Military & Money.  Kerry has the talk, but Bush has the action.  So . . . between the lesser of two evils, Bush wins my vote.

[Storebought]

I still support President Bush. But the AF GOP doesn't. If you want disloyalty, look in their direction.

[Giant Saguaro]

That's an interesting article. I know a few conservatives who feel that way - seems they're thinking is that maybe 4 years of Kerry will stop another 20 of GOP [fiscal] insanity. In other words, bring the GOP back to planet Earth as well as clear the path for some Reaganesque Republican to come along in 2008, but I think they're thinking is more the former than the latter. The latter I just think you don't do because you don't know what's going to happen. You have to play to win - it would be like a football team quitting 3 weeks into the season and losing the rest of the way so they'll get a good draft pick. You don't do it. Sometimes it "works out" that way in hindsight, though - like looking back in time to 1976, but I don't think you can plan for that. You can hope for it, but not plan - it's kind of a way to justify or make seem right a defeat too - "well, we'll get it in 2008 - wait till ya see who we run, this guy was weak, really wasn't a Republican, really wasn't a conservative - we're gonna get a conservative next time..." - that sort of thing.

[khirkhib]

I think that one of the major strengths of the Republican Party is the unity and loyality that they have amongst the very diverse factions.  It is something Democrats could  learn a lot from because we are a very diverse group and there is a lot of debate and fractioning going on when we put policy together.  That is why I was surprised to see how peaceful and United the party was at the Convention.  We are united in this one.  This article and others that I've read seem to indicate that the core of the Republican party may not be as unified as it seems this year.  But you guys think that the core of the republican party is unified with out any doubts?

[MODU]

They are united under the anyone but Bush banner, and not the canididate himself.

These 'factions' are a clear sign that we, as a nation, are ready to dump the two-party dominant system and open it up to more parties which more accurately represent our ideals and desires.

[khirkhib]

No Modu I don't think that is the case anymore.  The convention showed that the party is united under Kerry now.  We've converted the energy.  The base was solidified by Bush and is expanding through Kerry.  If had been ABB movement their it would have been angry and vile.  

Look for the ABBushers yelling at the gates of the RNC.  That is what I'm worried about now.

[classical liberal]

I only heard implicit references to the Bush administration.  Like Kerry implying that Bush doesn't believe that "America can do better".  The only times I saw references to Bush was the anti-Bush button sale in one corner of the floor, the three delegates with ABB stickers and Kerry's message to Bush.  Some low level people may have done stuff, but they're mostly under the radar screen.

[classical liberal]

Which Republican Group will have the best/worst showing for George Bush. Who will punish him and who will reward him for his policies.

1.  anti-government conservatives
2.  social conservatives
3.  neoconservatives idealists
4.  Buchananite Paleoconservatives
5.  libertarians
6.  pragmatic Nelson Rockefeller-style Internationalists

and for what reason

1.  Bush increased Government size and spending
2.  Bush tainted the America's  international Reputation
3.  To create Gridlock between Congress and President
4.  To allow the Republican Party to regenerate and come back stronger than ever
5. To set up Bill Owens and/or other Republican for a stronger (Reagan-esqe) Presidency from 2008  through 2020

I am a combination of GOP type 1, 6, & 4 in that order.  I hope Bush loses for reasons 1, 2, & 3 in that order.

[millwx]

Which Republican Group will have the best/worst showing for George Bush. Who will punish him and who will reward him for his policies.

1.  anti-government conservatives
2.  social conservatives
3.  neoconservatives idealists
4.  Buchananite Paleoconservatives
5.  libertarians
6.  pragmatic Nelson Rockefeller-style Internationalists

and for what reason

1.  Bush increased Government size and spending
2.  Bush tainted the America's  international Reputation
3.  To create Gridlock between Congress and President
4.  To allow the Republican Party to regenerate and come back stronger than ever
5. To set up Bill Owens and/or other Republican for a stronger (Reagan-esqe) Presidency from 2008  through 2020

I am a combination of GOP type 1, 6, & 4 in that order.  I hope Bush loses for reasons 1, 2, & 3 in that order.

I am a combination of 1, 5 and 6.  Bush is the antithesis of #5 and nearly as bad on #1... I passionately hope he loses, and he is one of the primary reasons I've dropped my Rep registration.

[Citizen James]

Which Republican Group will have the best/worst showing for George Bush. Who will punish him and who will reward him for his policies.

1.  anti-government conservatives
2.  social conservatives
3.  neoconservatives idealists
4.  Buchananite Paleoconservatives
5.  libertarians
6.  pragmatic Nelson Rockefeller-style Internationalists

I see myself as primarilly comming from 6 (I switched parties when it was clear the party was increasingly under the control of 2 and 3 - and the DLC seemed similar enough), with perhaps a few 5 leanings.

[millwx]

millwx- Who do you now support? Are you backing Kerry or some other candidate?

I am backing Kerry, but solely out of support for the defeat of Bush.  Of course, in my state, it's largely irrelevant.  I could (maybe should) support who I can in good conscience.  I most approve of Badnarik.  However, I find that most Libertarian supporters are less than even-handed in their Libertarianism, and, thus, so are the candidates they choose to represent the party.  In short, I absolutely do not agree with Badnarik on all issues.  Nonetheless, he's the candidate I'm most aligned with.  Still, I'll vote Kerry.  My hope is that that in 2008 the Republicans will then put forth someone more reasonable.  I'm doubtful, but that's what I'm hoping for.  The alternative frightens me... If Bush wins re-election, the Reps will tend to run another clone out there in 2008... perhaps even Jeb Bush... or at least someone of that ilk.  And who will he run against?  Probably Hillary.  Good God, that's a choice from hell.  Kerry keeps Hillary out and runs an outside chance (I admit, unlikely) of prodding the Reps to change direction a bit.

[AuH2O]

Look, Bush was a mistake... the GOP thought no one else could beat Gore, they didn't know how strong McCain would play (and even if they did, he is a loose cannon).

The GOP pioneered the idea of rigging the primaries, by picking a strong establishment candidate and discouraging competition. The Democrats even copied the idea this time around with Kerry, narrowly avoiding disaster when Dean pulled a McCain.

In this election, I'll vote 3rd party... but at the end of the day, I would pick Bush over Kerry for the reason of judicial appointments (I think judges should use the law to make decisions, not Mao's Little Red Book).

2008 will be better from the GOP side... JEB will not run (the GOP is not that dumb, trust me, JEB will probably just go to the Senate and hang out for a couple decades). Right now, Mitt Romney appears to be the leading choice of the establishment (after Owen's divorce and otherwise lackluster existence)... he would be quite strong. Actually, the party looks to have a lot of good options, unlike 2000... Romney, Hagel, Pawlenty (?), Allen, Ehrlich (?)... (?) denoting questions regarding their political intentions.

[Niles Caulder]

Well, I think the dynamic of the Right Wing scuttling the Republican coalition used to be a real issue, most notably in 1992 with the Buchannan rebellion against "King George" mirroring Teddy Kennedy's assault for the nomination in '80 against the incumbant Jimmy Carter.

But I think this author is missing the much more plausible causes:  It wasn't Ford's demise that cleared the path for Reagan.  It was Carter's.  It wasn't George Sr.'s demise that paved the way for the Gingrich revolution...it was the vacuum of effective leadership demonstrated in Clinton's first two years in office.

It's not nearly as much about ideology as it is about smelling blood.  When a leader starts to appear weak, it's not just the "opposition" that attacks...it's time for the pack to fight for the spot of top-dog before the enemy gets there.  Yeah, in the 90's the Republicans were getting grouchy...but in the Historical perspective they've got no comparison to Democratic infighting.   (One of my all-time favorite quotes: "The only difference between a liberal and a cannibal is a cannibal won't eat his friends."  --LBJ)

Bush may not be down, but he has been staggared...and to many appears vulnerable.  But if anything the conservative base is relatively resigned and morose...not fiery or zealous.  Perhaps they won't come to the polls in numbers to save Bush, but they're not feeling betrayed by a leader in any large number--not fracturing off to a fourth candidate or struggling for the reigns of the Party.  They're demoralized by the realization that the Reagan era is long gone...and the Republican platform and its nationwide conventions don't belong to them anymore.  (Liberals are in the same boat, albeit with a lazer-beam hatred of the incumbant boosting turnout--except true to form, they've got Nadar to sluff off the gains.)

And of course gridlock is not a Conservative ideal...nor a liberal one.  It's a centrist one:  the usual consensus of the country preventing either wing to get its agenda pushed through.  Either wing prefers gridlock over the other party's dominance, sure...but I fail to see how the Conservative base is motivated to split the one-Party control their party now enjoys out of the principle of gridlock.  Scuttling the Bush campaign will lose them the executive funding prohibition to abortion-counseling medical outreach programs, more stem-cell research, etc.  Bush may be dissapointing to them...but Conservatives are still civic enough to know he's the best game in town--for now and the Party's uncertain future.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Which Republican Group will have the best/worst showing for George Bush. Who will punish him and who will reward him for his policies.

1.  anti-government conservatives
2.  social conservatives
3.  neoconservatives idealists
4.  Buchananite Paleoconservatives
5.  libertarians
6.  pragmatic Nelson Rockefeller-style Internationalists

My head is spinning.  I doubt these are separate, distinct categories.  AND, you missed the most important group (7.  rich dudes).  BUT, hey, I live for this sort of thing so:

1. Luke-warm for Bush (reason 1)
2. Rabidly pro-Bush
3. Rabidly pro-Bush
4. Bush is lesser of two evils (reasons 2,4,5)
5. Bush is lesser of two evils.. a few will go Badnarik (reasons 1,6)
6. Will vote Kerry/stay home in droves (reason 2)
7. Rabidly pro-Bush

You also have the non-partisan (and even Democrat) sportsman and gun enthusiasts who will come out very strong for Bush (nods to West Virginia).

and for what reason

1.  Bush increased Government size and spending
2.  Bush tainted the America's  international Reputation
3.  To create Gridlock between Congress and President
4.  To allow the Republican Party to regenerate and come back stronger than ever
5. To set up Bill Owens and/or other Republican for a stronger (Reagan-esqe) Presidency from 2008  through 2020

6. Ashcroft's attack on civil liberties

Never, never, never underestimate the rabidness of his support among religious conservatives.  They see him as a man of great faith and moral courage - a "true believer."  He's their boy, and they will fight to keep him in the White House.

[millwx]

Actually, the party looks to have a lot of good options, unlike 2000... Romney, Hagel, Pawlenty (?), Allen, Ehrlich (?)... (?) denoting questions regarding their political intentions.

Your definition of "good" options varies wildly from mine.  Allen and Ehrlich are also severely libertarian-challenged.  Romney and Hagel are better, but "good"?  Ehhh... I dunno... mediocre... I might vote for them depending on what the competition is.  I don't know Pawlenty... whoever that is.

[TomC]

I would expect if Bush wins reelection, and keeps policies pretty much as is, that the Congress is likely to go DEM in 2006. Under Kerry, I see the congress staying REP, unless Kerry really wins big this year and some Southern states go for Dem senate candidates.

There's a small- very small- part of me that would prefer DEMS get control of Congress before winning the White House back. But actually, there's zero part of me that wants Bush to win, so nevermind.

[khirkhib]

Beef very astute.

How could I forget the super rich.

As far as the gun-toters I'm not sure.  If they feel they won't get the guns taking away and they wouldn't and they especially wouldn't because the house and senate are controled by republinas they might vote on their secondary issues, economy, defecit.  etc.

[The Vorlon]

As an Ayn Rand Crazy type I used to support that breed of Republicans that believed that Government should take as little in taxes as possible and then spend it wisely when they did.

I would like any current Bush supporter to explain to me why the $500,000,000$540,000,000 seniors drug bill is anything other than a $ Half Trillion+  give away to the drug companies.

If the Dems threw away that kind of cash bribing the Unions (a Standard Dem practice via so called "prevailing" wage rules) the GOP correctly would pop a valve.

The GOP is now similar to the Dems - they just use taxpayers money to bribe different people.

[classical liberal]

As an Ayn Rand Crazy type I used to support that breed of Republicans that believed that Government should take as little in taxes as possible and then spend it wisely when they did.

I would like and current Bush supporter to explain to me why the $500,000,000 seniors drug bill is anything other than a $ half Trillion  give away to the drug companies.

If the Dems threw away that kind of cash bribing say the Unions (a Standard Dem practice via so called "prevailing" wage rules) the GOP correctly would pop a valve.

The GOP is now similar to the Dems - they just use taxpayers money to bribe different people.

The drug bill will cost us 540b not 500b.

It's not the GOP that has become a bunch of liberals, it's that the GOP Leadership has become a bunch of liberals.