I think Republicans under estimate the anger this last election generated; then again, I may be overestimating.
You are probably not overestimating the anger of the leftists (maybe 1/3 of the electorate), but you are greatly overestimating the memory of the voters. In 4 years, half the country will forget who the Democrat candidate was in 2000.
Joe,
I would not count on that....nothing like this past election has happened in recent history. There are times when the American electorate gets motivated and I bet this is one of those times.
However, if my instincts are right, it would have served Bush well to create a gov't within which there was a good mix of Democrats.
By this I am assuming Ted Kennedy Democrats. People like Bennet, Jean Kirkpatrik, even Reagan himself were once Democrats.
I just don't see any reasonable scenario or reason for Bush to do this. It will not make you, or the rest of the 1/3 of the hard left vote for him, and I don't see how Teddy Kennedy would bring the 1/3 in the middle to Bush's column, so I just don't see the incentive.
The Republican Party is losing its constituency; its base is mostly rural, white, christian, upper middle class, older......hardly representative of the majority in this country. I would think that's all the incentive you would need.
Bush is IMO a conservative, but a very pragmatic one. Why should he throw it away, capitulate, and govern as a centrist or a liberal? That's not why he ran. I know you think that you think he is stupid, but he is not that stupid and do what you suggest.
I know this looks stupid to you but its called thinking outside the box, or vision, or progressive etc. He had an opportunity to expand the scope of the party; bring in new converts, modify its platform. But Bush has no vision and the ones who seem to have some....maybe McCain...are pushed aside by the party.
Frankly, I don't care....I would rather see the Republican Party die and a new one emerge that is more in step with this century.
ted |
