<p>The true irony is that the tactics Rove used in his attempt to build a permanent Republican majority have crippled the Republican party.</p>
<p>The strategy of building the party around a Southern white base driven by the politics of wedge issues and using evangelical churches as a get-out-the-vote mechanism has left the Party horribly positioned for the country’s 21st century demographics.</p>
<p>Rove’s politics of hate have essentially wiped out the Rockefeller Republican wing of the party, almost to the point where all that’s left is the southern conservative base.</p>
<p>As long as the Democrats play their cards right (go centrist), the Republicans are in for tough time.</p>
<p>ellemenope–I have to agree with you. As a lifelong Dem, I’ve watched in frustration as my party shot itself in the figurative foot too many times to count. But after eight years of this extraordinarily mean-spirited, authoritarian, secretive, downright scary bunch of hypocrites polluting the White House, I’m hoping the electorate will be ready to move on.</p>
<p>My guess is Rove will stay out of limelight in the ’08 race. </p>
<p>He will probability go on the high dollar speech circuit, starting in late October. He will give speeches to corporate groups who want to curry favor with the Rs; this will be done in a way that will gather little public notice. After the two party’s nominees are known some time early next spring, I expect he will go on a few talk shows and tell people what he thinks will happen and why. Being on TV will up the speech invitations and fees for him. It will also help with book sales. Look for a very high dollar book deal from the Rupert Murdoch controlled publisher, in mid-November, I can’t remember which publishing house RM owns, but it is the one that will pay the top dollar to Rove.</p>
<p>After the election, if the Rs lose, Rove will then be ready to say “what they should have done.” More TV, more speeches, more money. He may also try to help rebuild the R party, but the party may not want anything to do with him…we’ll have to wait to see. For Rove personally the worst thing that could happen is for the Rs to win in ‘08, he would immediately become a has been, fewer speeches for less money and a book no one cares about. No one in the new Republican administration would want to remind the American people about the old Republican administration other that to say “we’re not them.”</p>
<p>After 1964 the Rs kicked the “Rockefeller” Rs out of the party, the R party may now have to go about bringing the Rockefeller Rs back in. Bringing back the Rockefeller wing runs counter to the Rove idea of the R party. If the Rs can’t or won’t bring the middle of their party back into “the big tent” we could see the major parties re-alignment Rove is always talking about, but with the Rs in a minority position for a generation or more.</p>
<p>“After 1964 [1968] the Rs kicked the “Rockefeller” Rs out of the party, the R party may now have to go about bringing the Rockefeller Rs back in.”</p>
<p>They must have had a funny way of showing that the Rockefeller group had been “kicked out”. Is it normal for the namesake of the kicked out group to be appointed VP?</p>
<p>This wonderful brain was so astute politically, so able to manipulate the political processes, so adept at divide and conquer, that he was able to implement Social Security reform, major tax reform, immigration reform, health care reform, education reform, and a successful end to the occupation of Iraq. The only thing he didn’t accomplish was the capture of Bin Laden.</p>
<p>Rockefeller was named VP because he was about the only person who could get confirmed by the senate…They dropped him the 1st chance they had…are you trying to say the Rockefeller wing of the party still has standing within the party? If so show me how. If not tell me why you posted the above.</p>
<p>While “Rockefeller” Republicans have lost some of their status in the Republican party, it is a stretch to say that they have been “kicked out”. Also to say that “they were kicked out” in that timeframe is wrong. Certainly Gerald Ford was a “Rockefeller” Republican and one could easily make the case for Nixon to also be in that camp. </p>
<p>It really wasn’t until Ronald Reagan emerged in 1980 that the conservative branch of the party came into prominance. But even then, to say that the social liberals/moderates have been driven out is wrong - just look at the current leader in the Republican race for the WH.</p>
<p>It’s too bad that he wasn’t a uniter like James Carville, Paul Begala, Sid Blumenthal, Harold Ickes (fill in your favorite Democrat operative here).</p>
<p>There are somethings that I didn’t like about Rove such as immigration reform, the Harriet Miers debacle, and the Medicare prescription drug plan.</p>
<p>I did like the way that he drove the left nuts though - and still does.</p>
<p>By the way what ever happened to the frog march?</p>
<p>He didn’t need to unite - he had Republican majorities in both Senate and House. That’s why he was able to implement Social Security reform, major tax reform, immigration reform, health care reform, education reform, and a successful end to the occupation of Iraq.</p>
<p>(He actually wasn’t very good at what he was paid to do.)</p>
<p>Giuliani is leading in many polls but his support is a mile wide and six inches deep. According to the polls, Republicans are deeply unhappy with their choices and in a couple of polls that asked the questions, “None of the Above” won.</p>
<p>Giuliani is indeed somewhat liberal on the social issues but many Republican voters at this point don’t know that. It will be interesting to see the campaigns unfold. Giuliani’s whole campaign is built around “the hero of 9/11” and on that score he’s just another blustering neocon thug, which is why a lot of Busheviks like him and are willing to overlook both his heterodoxy (I <em>think</em> all his doxies were hetero) and his, ah, colorful personal marital and moral background. Like most deals with the Devil, payment eventually will become due.</p>
<p>I don’t know whether Giuliani will get the nomination or not. My hunch is that he’s going down. But this GOP field is the most difficult I’ve ever had to handicap and I can give you reasons why each of the 4-5 leading contenders can’t get the nomination. </p>
<p>One amateur analyst whom I respect very much says that the GOP is between a rock in a hard place: Bush & Rove kept the corporatists, the dominionists, and the nativists locked together in an uneasy alliance. He doesn’t see any of the front runners who won’t cause a large fragment of at least one faction to sit on their hands. And in the Rovian 50+1 stragegy that’s been successful during the last two elections, there is no margin for error.</p>
<p>All that said, there is virtually no telltale, from fundraising to polling data to candidate recruitment that I don’t like for the Democratic chances across the board next year. If anything, the Democratic wave could be bigger than 2006.</p>
<p>^ Unfortunately, the Democrats also have a very unpopular “front-runner” who happens to be trying to ride that wave! Not sure how “deep” her support really is yet either. </p>
<p>“who is that current republican leader in the run for the white house?”</p>
<p>Mitt Romney won the Iowa straw poll. The rest may be sheer speculation I think.</p>
<p>That’s a big “as long as”. The dems are bending over backwards to follow the nutroots into the far left fringe of the party dominated by the dailyKos. The real irony is that what they claim to be the negatives of Karl Rove (too divisive, too ideological) is exactly the course that they are advocating for the Democratic Party. History has a tendency to repeat itself, only this time, if the nutroots get their way and take what can be perceived to be a soft view on terrorism and if the unthinkable happens, they may be as relevant in the future as the Whigs or the Bull Moose Party are today.</p>
<p>well, many republicans weren’t even in the straw poll, so that vote was a joke, to take it seriouslly is like voting for a spice girl with no Posh Spice in the race</p>
</p>