Spot-On - Rachel Maddow : How George W. Bush failed the GOP

[kpete]

"Unlike the Reagan administration, the first Bush administration and the Clinton administration, the George W. Bush presidency elevated precisely no one to the ranks of national leadership who wasn’t there before. The 2008 Republican presidential primaries were like some odd eight-year cicada hatch in which the candidates went underground in 2000 and then birthed themselves after Bush and Cheney were gone, as if the intervening years had never happened."

The unpopular presidency of George W. Bush has proved to be a blackball on the résumés of a generation of Republican leaders. Maybe Cheney’s daughter Liz will break the pattern next year with a successful Senate bid in Wyoming, but if you made it through that sentence without spitting coffee out your nose, you’re in rare company.

The fascinating turmoil in the Republican Party since 2008 is not just a personnel problem — it’s also ideological. If you were putting together a legacy to inspire the next generation of conservatives, you wouldn’t pick the Bush administration’s trailing ends of land wars, budget deficits, torture, a crusade against gay rights and a financial collapse to rival the Great Depression. The isolationism and libertarian iconography of the Ron Paul wing of the party really does appeal to young people more than Bush-Cheney Republicanism. Social conservatives really do feel backed into a corner and ready to fight against a country that is turning against them faster than most pollsters can keep up. There really is something ripe for renewal in Republicans’ self-conception as fiscal conservatives, when the clear pattern is that budget deficits grow under Republicans and shrink under Democrats. The Republican Party is a churning swirl of conflicting ideological currents, and that’s going to take some time to work out.

..........

The collapse of national leadership prospects for the Republican Party is one of the greatest political failures and most important legacies of George W. Bush. Barack Obama looks less likely to repeat that fate, but it depends on a strong grove of nationally viable Democrats starting to grow now. The crescendo of attention to Sen. Elizabeth Warren is a healthy part of that process, as is the growing national interest in such diverse Democrats as Sherrod Brown, Claire McCaskill, Cory Booker, Wendy Davis, Martin O’Malley, Deval Patrick, Andrew Cuomo and Amy Klobuchar.


MORE:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/rachel-maddow-presidents-must-nurture-the-next-generation-of-political-leadership/2013/12/11/210bf702-60f3-11e3-94ad-004fefa61ee6_story.html

[Bandit]

1. If ONLY we had a thousand Rachels....

She is a fascinating lecturer. She keeps me enthralled.

[truebluegreen]

2. Claire McCaskill? Is she a Democrat?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

3. Yes

Why do you ask?

[truebluegreen]

4. Because imo she doesn't act like one.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

6. She's a Blue Dog, yeah

but she'll vote with us more than Todd Akin would have.

[truebluegreen]

7. True. I just don't like to see her being touted

as a potential leader of the party.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

5. We have lots of good quality potential candidates

The GOP has people like Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry. I'd say that the only real "prospects" they have is somebody like Chris Christie or John Huntsman but both of them would have to get through the teabaggers first, so either they will be able to overcome them electorally or wind up sounding like them to win in the primaries.