Interesting Analysis... Is This Guy A Student ???

[WillyT]

GOP is missing a successor to George W. Bush
By Anthony Cheng

<snip>

In 2002, according to White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, America watched the mid-term congressional elections “making history.” Even though the Republicans gained only six seats in the House and two seats in the Senate, the election supposedly heralded the conclusion of a major partisan realignment that started with the Reagan landslide of 1980. As conventional wisdom went, President Bush’s 9/11-fueled popularity had finally rendered Democratic New Deal liberalism obsolete. And bereft of a major party leader, the Democrats reinforced this conventional wisdom in their feeble opposition to the Iraq war resolution (296-133 in the House, 77-23 in the Senate) and their crippling reluctance to challenge the President publicly.

At this point, the 2004 election seemed already decided. President Bush seemed just as invulnerable as his father had after the easy victory of Operation Desert Storm. But now, 23 months later, the president has fallen behind in three major polls (50-46 in the AP poll, 47-45 in Newsweek, 46-45 from Zogby) to his challenger, Senator John Kerry, after an embarrassing showing in the first presidential debate. Even the president’s modest leads in other polls belie the fact that undecided voters, especially numerous in this election, traditionally break two-to-one for the challenger. Either he must carry a large lead into the final polls, which he has not yet done, or he will lose. So what happened to the realignment? It actually looks more like a different, quieter revolution is taking place, one that will bring the Democratic party into power for years to come. Conservatism may yet become the political philosophy without a voice.

The danger for the Republicans is that they have no definite future: President Bush has certainly rallied the right, but has drawn popularity and power strictly to himself, not his party. His steadfast refusal to admit the danger of potential failure in Iraq is a move partially to maintain support in the short term leading up to this next election. He must know full well that any political gains now will come at a heavy cost for his party later. With an administration that has proved so relentlessly political, it is possible that he does not care.

But the future weakness of the Republican party cannot all be blamed on Bush: There is simply nobody left after him to take up the party mantle. Who could run in 2008? Bill Frist has lost popularity in the drudgery and contention of running the Senate. Governor Jeb Bush will be tarred, not helped, by family association. Senator John McCain and Secretary of State Colin Powell, once hugely popular, have lost credibility by letting themselves be used for political gain by the President. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is not a native-born American citizen. Senator Chuck Hagel has little standing upon the national political stage. And Attorney General John Ashcroft has declared his interest in a 2008 run, but any such candidacy could be nothing but a joke. Only former NYC Mayor Rudolph Giuliani or New York Governor George Pataki could form truly viable candidates. Regardless of who wins this year, what with incumbent fatigue and Bush’s growing unpopularity, the 2008 Republican candidate for president will be much weaker than Bush was in 2000.

<snip>

Link: http://maroon.uchicago.edu/viewpoints/articles/2004/10/17/gop_is_missing_a_suc.php

Whaddaya think???

:shrug:

[Inland]

1. Bush Cult of Personality isn't movement or party oriented

Its all Bush is a leader, Bush is stubborn, Bush is sure, Bush never changes his mind if he uses it at all. How can a party take qualities of stubborness and certainty? Is that a platform you can run on? No, "I am for Bush as leader" is all the pubbies have. Elect me, I will be his tool. So of course it all disappears after Bush is out, and we are left with supreme court justicies and neocons in the rat holes.

And of course, that's exactly the way Bush wants it: it isn't enough for congress to be his party, it has to be his tool. He isn't concerned beyond his own power what happens.

[Demeter]

5. Mao Tse Bush?

George Stalin? God save this country, because the GOP sure won't!

Reagan Redux?

[Inland]

6. Ehhh....more like Franco and his Phalangists

He died, his government died and his party died.

[WMliberal]

2. i largely agree

however, I think he underestimates McCain. He's still largely popular with swing voters, as most americans don't follow news enough to see his support of * as inconsistent.
His assessment of Giuliani is correct as a candidate, but he neglects to say what either a Giuliani or McCain nomination would mean for conservatives, as those two are far less conservative than *.
I've heard George Allen's name bounced around as a GOP version of Edwards. (sidenote: :puke: :puke: :puke:) Perhaps some other unknown young face will emerge.
I think the author missies the point. There are possible GOP replacements, but not HARD CORE conservatives with such appeal.

[WillyT]

3. I Agree... But If The Coming rePuke Implosion Actually Occurs...

on November 3rd, neither side of the rift will have much support for the leaders of their side.

Damn... that was one horrible sentence, LOL!!!

:shrug:

[WMliberal]

4. that's what'll make the 2008 primary so interesting. they're gonna have

their best attack dogs on themselves. it'll be a race to the bottom, just like 2000. i think the uberconservatives will win, because they'll be willing to stoop lower than the moderates.