Michael Gerson acts like President Bush won the 2000 election. It may be a permissible error if you are talking horseshoes and hand grenades, but he’s trying to use Bush’s campaign as some kind of template for GOP revival. He explicitly compares the 2000 rebranding effort of Bush to the 1992 rebranding effort of Bill Clinton. Insofar as Clinton represented a new brand for the Democratic Party, that is because he was part of a new institution (the Democratic Leadership Council) that had different ideas. His campaign’s focus on the struggling economy was strictly tactical (we were recovering from a recession). On substance, Clinton bucked the labor unions in favor of free trade. He espoused more business-friendly policies as part of a overall strategy to reach parity in fundraising again. But he also led with obviously progressive priorities like health care and gay rights in the military and gun control that actually drove a big wedge between the Democratic Party and a big part of Clinton’s winning coalition (much of which is now solidly in the Republican camp).
Clinton had some help from Ross Perot, too. It will never be completely resolved whether Clinton would have won in a straight-up contest against Poppy Bush. I doubt very much that he would have won states like Georgia or Montana in a one-on-one match. But, I’ll grant that Clinton rebranded the party. It’s just that he did it substantively.
Dubya distinguished himself from the cavemen who had impeached Bill Clinton by embracing a federal role in education and, eventually, providing a prescription drug benefit under Medicare. But his ridiculous campaign against Gore was only good enough for him to lose, and that isn’t a prescription for revival.
I know that Gerson isn’t arguing that the next Republican contender copy Bush’s policies, but what else is there to copy, really?
Maybe the trick is to just find one thing (or maybe two) that the candidate actually thinks the government should do. If it’s education, fine. If it’s a trip to Mars, fine. But there has to be something. Romney never found an issue he could be for. In 20 debates, Newt Gingrich is the only candidate I can remember actually having a constructive idea.
Anyway, Bush didn’t win.
GWB 2000 could be used as a template for Republican resurgence.
Now all they need to do is find a malleable scion of a political dynasty who has interpersonal skills uniquely honed to exploit the insecurities of the beltway press AND run him (or her, maybe) against a Democratic candidate inexplicably hated and unfairly trashed by that same press corps.
What could be simpler?
Here’s what i think. Someday we might see the extensive organizational chart and timeline that laid out the 2000 theft of American Democracy.
The game plan for the 2000 election was conceived long before the “accidental” butterfly ballot. Players like Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris in Florida; and, if needed, Jane Dee Hull (AZ governor who endorsed Bush over favorite son McCain), and Tommy Thompson, WI governor, were all situated to put the plan into action. The scheme worked quite easily in Florida, no doubt the most fortunate of the three anticipated scenarios: the other states were not needed.
The Rovian/Republican objective was two-fold: first discredit the electoral punch card system by exaggerating the problems of punch cards so the problems (poor ballot design and hanging chads) so the electronic voting systems designed and manufactured by loyal Republican enterprise would be universally mandated, owned and system would be that, once publicly uncovered, could have been addressed and second, install a bogus “elected” president. Bush V. Gore was the final step that may not have been necessary but was certainly not a surprise final solution.
Republicans, at least Rovian and corporatists, can relax and use voting electronic fraud in any sympathetic location, in any state and any election.
Probably need to call out Democrats who gloss over this too. This should continue to be bigger than Watergate. And no, we should not move on beyond this theft of an election. Especially as three of the perpetrators are rushing to do as much damage with the Supreme Court as they can.
or in Ohio 2004.
YES!! Resident Bush was not elected in both the 2000 and 2004 elections.
Stunningly, this is now a dead issue in American political life. And it didn’t have much traction even in Jan 2001!
Our brave DC Dems quickly decided not only to not raise a stink, but to act as though Cheney had actually won and was a thoroughly legitimate prez. And the corporate media never raised an eyebrow once the 5 Repubs on the Supreme Court stopped a state from counting ballots and preemptively ruled that (their) Repub had won.
Indeed, the corporate media “message” was that any dissent was just sour grapes and dissenters needed to “get over it”. This also signaled the crystal clear arrival of a new failed generation of phony “journalists”. A decade later it is now part of our routine political blather that there was nothing even remotely unusual about the election of 2000, as Gerson does above. Indeed, it can be used as a template!!
The Great Stolen Election of 2000 made clear that we were facing an actual American Fascist movement for whom “democracy” was meaningless. It turned me implacably against all Repubs in perpetuity. There was simply nothing “conservatives” would stop at to gain power. I haven’t had to revise my view one whit since then.
As a result of the stolen election of 2000, it would be unimaginable to vote for anyone who associated themselves with the anti-American Repub party. They made what they really are absolutely undeniable for anyone with eyes and a functioning brain. So much for “getting over it”, ha-ha!
“New brand?” Only to Democrats and liberals not half as smart as FDR who had their number in 1940:
There’s a long tradition of Democratic opposition to the New Deal, but to date the most successful in destroying significant key elements is Clinton. But that legacy may be eclipsed by Obama if he gets his “Grand Bargain.”
Do you honestly believe Obama wants to take down the New Deal? The man is pragmatic but definitely a progressive. If he cuts a deal, it will be a good one.
We had a “Grand Bargain” (except for UHC which the AMA fought against and won) for decades. The banksters were contained, corporations weren’t allowed to behave too badly, progressive taxation prevailed, and ordinary Americans participated in the rewards of economic prosperity.
If you think Simpson-Bowles, charter schools, drones, etc. are good for this country, you are either woefully uninformed or blinded by idolatry.
It will never be completely resolved whether Clinton would have one in a straight-up contest against Poppy Bush.
Bill Clinton vs. Poppy? Please. Clinton would have won handily with or without Perot. The guy was the most talented Dem politician since LBJ.
That’s not saying much. His competition is Carter, Mondale, McGovern (for Christ sakes!). Bill was skillful but in a slithery way. I much prefer Barack Obama for his skill combined with honesty. He is a truly great man. Bill was a great politician.
That Bill has lesser competition for the title doesn’t take anything away from his once-in-a-generation talent. I prefer Barack too, on many levels.
But Bubba would’ve smoked Poppy either way. Perot was just a distraction.
Perot was the distraction that forced Clinton rightward from what he had been in Arkansas.
Agreed.
Bill was the most talented since JFK. Both quantitatively — going 2 for 2 in pres’l elections vs Johnson’s 1 for 2 — and qualitatively as he had to run the first time with his own personal baggage to explain plus the dismal prior record of Dem nominees — 3 losses in a row by considerable margins.
He also had to thread the needle in 1992 going up against one clear opponent while not antagonizing the other. Much tougher than Johnson’s easy 1964 victory that could have been phoned in with the same results.
As for 1992, I tend to think, had Perot not run, that the very smart Bill with his talented campaign team — the best electoral politics talent since Bobby ran his brother’s 1960 campaign — would have adjusted accordingly and gotten the job done. And it tends to be a change year traditionally after one party has been in the WH for 3 conseq terms. Plus Poppy wasn’t particularly liked by the public, and the hard conservative wing of his party was always lukewarm.
But as to what happened Perot did help, not only by making a strong case against Bush’s economic policies, but by helping to demoralize the Rs — leading to less turnout — while also taking some of the (personal) heat off of Bill. The numbers I recall also suggested that, by Election Day, Perot drew from about equal #s of Rs as Ds, thus bringing down Bill’s and Poppy’s final numbers in roughly the same proportion. So I conclude Bill was helped by Perot but not sufficiently by itself to throw the election to the D.
Johnson’s victory in “64 was greatly aided by the martyrdom of the newly sainted President Kennedy. That Republicans chose to run a loon (charming though old Barry was) only made it that much easier.
Before Perot got in the race, Clinton was running on healthcare. He and/or his team was savvy enough to appropriate Perot’s theme/focus on the economy. Thus, had there been no Perot and the GOP not stage managed its convention stage to look like a Hitler rally, GHWB would probably have won.
The one that the Democratic Party let get away was in 1988. The country was weary of Reagan and GOP economic policies. Unfortunately, just when the country was in need of more social democracy, the DLC took over the party — leading to the guaranteed to fail Jesse Jackson campaign as the antidote.
1992 — the Repubs needed to throw some raw red meat at their RW base. If Pitchfork hadn’t delivered, Poppy or Danny Boy would have been required to do the feeding. It was gonna happen.
Also of note that year: no Lee Atwater for Poppy. And the last-minute James Baker seemed a reluctant manager.
1988 — Not so much the DLC taking over as Dukakis taking over the campaign. With his peculiar notions of running a nationwide campaign both from his governor’s office in Boston, and from the turret of a tank.
17-point post-convention lead squandered, all bec Mikey decided he didn’t want to “get down in the mud” with the Republicants. One of the most inept political campaigns in the history of the planet.
The 2000 election should never have been close enough to steal. That Gore ran away from the Clinton-Gore eight year record apparently because of his disgust with Bill’s BJ makes me wonder if he ever really wanted to be President, i.e. did he have the fire in the belly?