Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

I think that you are overblowing the situation in regards to some wave of Republicanism sweeping the land.

In regards to the California recall election, to hold Arnold up as proof of GOP gains is ridiculous because first, he’s pretty far from the norm in regards to traditional GOP views. And secondly, the celebrity factor/brand name has tremendous influence. Were someone with the same creditentials and same platform to run as a Republican who was not a huge celebrity, he would not have won. This race was more about personality than political party.

Secondly, the elections of GOP governors in the south do not actually represent the shift to the right you suggest. In many ways, it’s actually indicative of the opposite! For decades, Democrats in the South were actually far to the right politically, even right of Republicans. These “Dixiecrats,” like George Wallace, Strom Thurman, Jesse Helms were Democrats because the Republican party was the Party of Lincoln. It’s only been in the past two decades they’ve finally begun to change parties and call themselves the Republicans they’ve always been. Today, we are getting races in the south where the candidates actually represent platforms much closer to those of the national party lines. In the past, a true Democrat wouldn’t have stood a shot of getting elected—at least now they can hold their own in elections. And in Louisiana, they even win!

The same could be said about Reagan in California.

Your buddy in Louisiana isn’t CLOSE to a mainstream Democrat. In fact, Republicans winning 3 of 4 gubernatorial elections midstream is huge, especially in areas that have typically voted Democrat. Whether you like it or not, these people have given a whole lot to the Dems as far as man power, even if they disagreed, on the Federal level. Losing these states is a much bigger deal and that is why Dean is responding in the way he is.

The voter turn-out for that election was one of the lowest in the nation. Depending on what source you use anywhere between 30%-40% of eligible voters bothered showing up to vote.

Here are two sources:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/state/20021115-1028-ca-electionturnout.html
http://tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/9344

Either way I’m not sure I would consider getting a majority of less than half of the eligible voters a becoming “more of a populist power”.

And lord help us all of G.W. gets a second term. But I’m sure Diebold will give it their best effort. At least George Soros is ponying up a few million to defeat G.W.’s re-election effort.

Pheldan,

Actually, it is relatively high voter turnout for the fact that this is a 2003 election. Midterm elections (representatives, some senators and some governors) have notoriously low numbers but this election only had a governor and maybe a side issue or two. Not too many elections other than Presidential consistently get over 50% voter turn out.

Those who bother to vote are the ones who count anyway. They are the educated and the interested and they have spoken.

I believe there is a Republican sweep taking place in the offices of government across this land. But, with equally divided registered voters in each major party, the sweep is not about winning hearts and minds over to conservativism. I believe it is all about presenting a focused, limited, and simplified agenda that is targeted to centrists of both parties.

It is this fact and party organization and management that account for the Republican sweep taking place. The Democrats simply have too expansive a list of agenda items, too many fringe interests which are touted, and too diverse a constituencey to permit a centralized and focused message to be presented by a handful of dynamic and charismatic spokespersons, as I see it.

If November 2004 maintains or strengthens the Republican presence in government, a unique opportunity will present itself for the Republican Party to take its’ current rhetorical metamorphosis as the people’s party, and complete the transition in reality by enabling policy and legislation that truly represents centrists of both parties and independents in large part. In other words, they will have the opportunity to open their umbrella and centralize their agenda and embrace diversity in the party. After all, that same strategy gave the Democrats a long lived dominance in the 20th century.

Will current managers of the Republican Party be able to see the wisdom of such a course of action or be willing to step aside for new managers who do? Well…since, I lost the puck to my ouija board, I am afraid I can’t answer that.

Revolution? He got into office, with an agenda not too much different from his opponent, aside from a few tax issues, and he did so in a state that has a significant republican and swing voter presence.

Plus, we are talking about an abnormal election. And an abnormal candidate, politically speaking.

I remember when revolution use to mean some radical sort of change. What’s radical about an actor turned politician, or a swing state electing a candidate who did his best to appear as a centrist?

Some revolution. The Senate just stomped his bond proposal and his proposed cuts in services to the poorest of Californians is nothing new.