Oh yes. If by throw in the towel you mean they think it significantly more likely that the WH is lost next election along with both houses. Are you actually not getting any sense of this?
Eh, no. I don't much care what the current polling is showing; it is WAY too early to throw the towel in the ring. Do you honestly think Hillary is a fore drawn conclusion if she wins the nomination? Frankly; I find that position preposterous. For that matter; Obama's still Black and Edwards is still a scumbag... and regardless of who wins the nomination (s)he'll still have the 527's to contend with. This race is far from over, and while I can understand your embrace of the current polls, Thomas's surprises me.
blatham wrote:Oh yes. If by throw in the towel you mean they think it significantly more likely that the WH is lost next election along with both houses. Are you actually not getting any sense of this?
blatham wrote:Oh yes. If by throw in the towel you mean they think it significantly more likely that the WH is lost next election along with both houses. Are you actually not getting any sense of this?
Listen closely, my friend: Bush isn't running. Neither is Cheney. It will surprise me not at all if the Republicans take another hit in Congress, but the sky is not falling. Our current Congress is pleasing no one and contrary to the desires of every Democrat in the country right now; Americans don't decide President's based on Party. They're going to pick the guy they like best... or dislike least... like they always do. Watch. Quote:The hottest fires in hell are reserved for those who remain neutral in times of moral crisis.
But the significance of that would have to be only analogous for you, yes?
Bill
As you note, Bush and Cheney won't be running. Your inference there is that this is a good thing for Republican electoral chances. Hard to deny, given every poll and indicator one might survey.
But the problem, for Republicans, is much more general than that. Look again at the polling I posted a couple of pages back. Or the recent Rasmussen poll finding that significant numbers of Americans believe now that the Supreme Court has moved too far to the right. The negatives that cover the Bush administration reflect a significant change in attitude NOT just to those two men. There's no question that those two men have done enormous damage to the Republican/conservative 'brand'. That's why you infer a positive from their absence in the next election.
But inevitably, as they (and all the pr machinery in support of them) invested so heavily in defining them as 'real conservatives' or 'ideal republicans' or 'perfect examples of american government' or 'CIC with the stature of Churchill' not to mention as 'honest and credible' etc (through enforcing solidarity of message, punishing anyone on the right who spoke against them, and enormous marketing efforts) they now represent, paradigmatically, the party and movement.
Were you out at Alpine Valley last night watching Jimmy Buffet in your favorite wish-Jerry-Garcia-was-still-alive outfit? The R PR machine barely got the team re-elected and while there will be some temporary residual damage, its half-life will be short. If someone tried to feed you a dog-turd by telling you it was the best wedding cake available; that doesn't mean you'd swear off wedding cake. You can enjoy singing that little bit of nonsense along with the rest of the Left-Wing choir just as the Right-Wing choir will pretended America ever really bought into the self-righteous claptrap they were peddling in the first place. The truth is; those of us who reside in the middle, who actually decide Presidential Elections, will continue to see both sides as the delusional, conniving, self-serving posers that they are, while hoping beyond hope that at least one side will forward a candidate we actually like. It's been a while, so do wish us luck.
Bill,
The candidates have a real problem - do they stick to Bush, or do they move away from him?
Essentially, while Bush and Cheney aren't running for office, their ideas are. Republicans are going to be constantly and continually challenged to either support or deny their positions over the next year.
You forget two things, I think -
First, the current environment which is toxic for Republicans? It isn't going to go away. I predict that things in Iraq are worse next year then they are this year, and that Corruption hurts the Republican party much more in the next year then it does the Dems - there are only about 15 Republican lawmakers under investigation for corruption right now... I don't see what is going to happen to turn the current meme around. So the 'toxic environment' is likely to be just as present next year as this year.
Second, Loyalty is one of the, if not the, highest Republican virtues. The candidates are trapped, in a way; they can be loyal to Bush, and lose. Or they can be disloyal to him, criticize the job he's done, and lose a certain percentage of his base who has been die-hard for him the whole time. Just how many percentage points do you think the Republican candidates can afford to lose, and still win a national election? I submit, not even one. And that would have been back during the last two elections, let alone now, when the tables are tilted much more in favor of the Dems.
"Loyalty..." It matters almost not at all that criticizing Bush will upset the few million people who identify themselves as hard-core Bush backers. The vast majority of those will turn out just as surely to vote against Hillary. Consider who you're considering and snap out of it. The far right is the far right by definition and like the far left will vote accordingly. These are not votes that need to be pandered to against the current odd's on favorite; one Hillary Clinton. Watch.You continually ignore the downsides for the Republicans in this election. I know it's still a year away, and a lot can happen - and I agree that Republicans have a real opportunity to go dirty on Hillary - but I'm not sure what could happen to turn this thing around for the GOP.
Cycloptichorn
