I think the key moment making this election what it has been came last January, with the inability of the moderate Republicans to lever Cheney off the ticket and seize control of the information flow to Bush. That failure to return the Republican Party to reality is what made the stakes in this election so high:
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Contributors: The Revolution Will Be Posted: J. BRADFORD DELONG: Last winter a small group of moderate Republicans tried to dislodge Vice President Dick Cheney from the ticket. Reporters for The National Journal found senior Republicans trying to generate groundswells for Mr. Cheney's replacement by former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York; Secretary of State Colin Powell; Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge; the national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice; or Bill Frist, the Senate majority leader.
The hope, I think, was that with Mr. Cheney out of the picture, Mr. Powell could then be the grand vizier for a "reality-based" security policy, and somebody like the United States trade representative, Robert Zoellick, could then be the grand vizier for a "reality-based" economic policy. Something similar had been accomplished in the 1980's, when James Baker, Howard Baker and George Shultz were given new responsibilities midway through the Reagan administration.
In the 1980's the moderate Republicans tried and succeeded. In 2004 they tried and failed. And with their failure died the chance to drag the Bush administration out of incompetence and ideology.
The lesson that the Republican Party should draw from this election--win or lose--is a stronger version of the lesson reality taught the Democratic Party in 1980: Mammoth incompetence at governance in a president is not just bad for the country, it opens opportunities for the opposition party that it should not have had. I want the Republicans to have the following messages engraved on their foreheads after today: "ignoring your substance people creates lousy policies," "lousy policies create a lousy record," "a lousy record makes it hard to win," "no more candidates who are incompetent at governing."
Posted by DeLong at November 2, 2004 12:07 PM | TrackBackHOPEFULLY, the GOP will at LEAT jettison the Christian right. HOPEFULLY.
I think the Cato-types in the Republican Party have just about had it with Karl Rove-style base-stroking...
Posted by: Brad Reed at November 2, 2004 12:21 PMHOPEFULLY, the GOP will at LEAST jettison the Christian right. HOPEFULLY.
I think the Cato-types in the Republican Party have just about had it with Karl Rove-style base-stroking...
Posted by: Brad Reed at November 2, 2004 12:21 PMI think the key moment of this election was when the Kerry and Edwards campaigns simultaneously caught fire in Iowa, about a week before the caucuses.
I remember sitting here at my office computer, somewhere around January 14 or 15, watching their numbers move up, as Dean's went down. (I think Dean saved the Dems, but he was NOT the man I wanted as our nominee.) From that moment on, hope invaded my soul, and has never left since.
Posted by: RT at November 2, 2004 12:26 PMClinton straddled the two parties (like a colossus), served two terms, got a good bit done for a guy who faced a legislature in opposition hands and left office with very high approval ratings. Straddling the two parties was, I think, an important part of his success. That left him as the president of the country, rather than just one wing of it. Bush has been a war-monger, a pollution-lover and a class warrior. He wanted to prove that he was better than his middle-of-the-foad, smart daddy, and it looks like he failed. So both parties, back to the middle. Probably not in the House, but let's try to make the Senate represent the whole nation at the mid-term.
Posted by: kharris at November 2, 2004 12:34 PMSpring of 2003, when Bush and Co. decided to go for a tax cut on dividends. Did Bush understand that it wouldn't do much for the economy in the short run (i.e., before the election)? Did Glenn Hubbard really think that this would provide effective stimulus? Did they think that the economy was recovering enough that they could push through a long-run objective, and not worry about short-run stimulus? I'd love to hear the answer.
Posted by: Dave at November 2, 2004 12:36 PMI'll take the obvious answer: the first debate. Nine months, 100 million dollars and the finest Rovian handiwork down the drain in 90 minutes...
Posted by: jim in austin at November 2, 2004 02:17 PM"The best politics is doing a good job."
-Bill Lockyer, CA attorney general
Posted by: Jay at November 2, 2004 02:30 PMIf Bush loses, then I can't wait to see who he pardons on his final day in office. It will be quite a crew. If Bush loses, then the Democrats must expose, to the extent the law allows, all of or as much information as they can about how the Bush Administration operated -- especially information about the war. This is a time for garlic, stakes, silver bullets and most importantly, daylight, to be used against hacks and ideologues.
Posted by: Cal at November 2, 2004 02:32 PMIf Bush loses, then I can't wait to see who he pardons on his final day in office. It will be quite a crew. If Bush loses, then the Democrats must expose, to the extent the law allows, all of or as much information as they can about how the Bush Administration operated -- especially information about the war. This is a time for garlic, stakes, silver bullets and most importantly, daylight, to be used against hacks and ideologues.
Posted by: Cal at November 2, 2004 02:33 PM" Do the elites indirectlly influence the guys in truck stops in Ohio? That's another question."
And if they do, how fast does the influence take effect?
I think pointing to single factors of the level of a magazine article is futile. And for a really pathetic wxcuse see Glenn Reynolds' attempt to blame it (prospectively!) on the media. I wonder what the weather is like on his planet (which, in deference to our host, we assume to be in the Gamma Quadrant).
I think that the key moment was when Howard Dean first showed that he could get traction by attacking Bush. Before then, the tone of the Democratic campaigning was set by Joe "Just Like Bush Only a Democrat" Liebermann -- Bush was popular, you can't attack Bush, yadda yadda yadda.
Dean showed that a lot of people were starting to realize that Bush's policies were not only "suboptimal" but downright braindead. And that there were an awful lot of people who didn't like Bush one little bit, and a candidate who was "just like Bush" was a guaranteed loser.
Thanks, Howard.
Posted by: lightning at November 2, 2004 03:07 PMI think that the key moment was when Howard Dean first showed that he could get traction by attacking Bush. Before then, the tone of the Democratic campaigning was set by Joe "Just Like Bush Only a Democrat" Liebermann -- Bush was popular, you can't attack Bush, yadda yadda yadda.
Dean showed that a lot of people were starting to realize that Bush's policies were not only "suboptimal" but downright braindead. And that there were an awful lot of people who didn't like Bush one little bit, and a candidate who was "just like Bush" was a guaranteed loser.
Thanks, Howard.
Posted by: lightning at November 2, 2004 03:19 PMAnother thank you to Howie.
I don't know if the al-Qaqaa story did much, but it would be fitting if that was the trick.
Saddam lost power, after all, because he couldn't prove he'd destroyed Iraq's weapons.
Posted by: Josh Narins at November 2, 2004 03:24 PMI think that the key moment was when Howard Dean first showed that he could get traction by attacking Bush. Before then, the tone of the Democratic campaigning was set by Joe "Just Like Bush Only a Democrat" Liebermann -- Bush was popular, you can't attack Bush, yadda yadda yadda.
Dean showed that a lot of people were starting to realize that Bush's policies were not only "suboptimal" but downright braindead. And that there were an awful lot of people who didn't like Bush one little bit, and a candidate who was "just like Bush" was a guaranteed loser.
Thanks, Howard.
Posted by: lightning at November 2, 2004 03:25 PMAnother thank you to Howie.
I don't know if the al-Qaqaa story did much, but it would be fitting if that was the trick.
Saddam lost power, after all, because he couldn't prove he'd destroyed Iraq's weapons.
Posted by: Josh Narins at November 2, 2004 04:03 PMI think that the key moment was when Howard Dean first showed that he could get traction by attacking Bush. Before then, the tone of the Democratic campaigning was set by Joe "Just Like Bush Only a Democrat" Liebermann -- Bush was popular, you can't attack Bush, yadda yadda yadda.
Dean showed that a lot of people were starting to realize that Bush's policies were not only "suboptimal" but downright braindead. And that there were an awful lot of people who didn't like Bush one little bit, and a candidate who was "just like Bush" was a guaranteed loser.
Thanks, Howard.
Posted by: lightning at November 2, 2004 05:12 PM