The GOP’s emerging 2016 strategy has a good chance of working
What I mean is this: the Republican impeachment disaster ultimately helped elect George W. Bush. It did so in two ways. First, although Americans blamed Republicans more for the debacle, it made everyone in Washington look awful. Americans hated the partisan knife-fighting. They hated how small their leaders looked. All of which made them more receptive to an anti-Washington message than they should have been in 2000 given the booming economy. Running against a de facto incumbent in Al Gore, Bush put frustration with Washington at the center of his campaign. He boasted endlessly about how he had worked with Democrats in Texas, and promised to be a “uniter not a divider,” something Gore—who had been present for the impeachment train wreck—could not.
But the impeachment fiasco didn’t only make it possible for Bush to run against Washington. It made it possible for him to run against Republican Washington, and thus develop a brand separate from the national GOP. In 1996, Bill Clinton had tied Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole to Gingrich. But in 2000, Bush made that impossible by aggressively distancing himself from the Republican Congress. Bush’s disagreements with the congressional GOP were sometimes vague, but in keeping with his “compassionate conservative” mantra, he gave the impression that he considered Gingrich and company too punitive and exclusionary. And he got away with this triangulation because the impeachment disaster—and resulting GOP losses in the 1998 midterms—had left the congressional Republican Party so reviled that tweaking it didn’t engender resentment from the Republican voters Bush needed to win.
The fiscal cliff deal, and the budgetary mudwrestling to follow, lays the groundwork for another Bush-like Republican presidential campaign.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
an obama ball washer says what?
renalin on January 4, 2013 at 9:52 PM
Let. It. Burn.
John the Libertarian on January 4, 2013 at 9:52 PM
Bwahahahaha. Many they take us for fools, don’t they? 2016 strategy? This party is internally split on so many levels, all the way to the top. Give us a break with this crap.
SuperBunny on January 4, 2013 at 9:57 PM
Internally split? Don’t tell me you’re falling for the media spin. This party is lockstep.
Dante on January 4, 2013 at 10:00 PM
Uhuuh and who is this outsider that will win in 2016 by running against Dems and Reps in DC? The more I think about our chances in 2016 the more desperate it actually looks. Like last year there wont be a clear conservative choice. So conservative dwarfs will once again fight it out amongst each other and another lonely moderate will win by default.
Valkyriepundit on January 4, 2013 at 10:00 PM
Good luck purging the crazies.
Pablo Honey on January 4, 2013 at 10:01 PM
maxine waters has a hold no?
newrouter on January 4, 2013 at 10:03 PM
we needs some barney frank too
newrouter on January 4, 2013 at 10:04 PM
or some kerry to be merry
newrouter on January 4, 2013 at 10:05 PM
The GOP is finished – they did it to themselves. They are just as bad as the dems.
Panther on January 4, 2013 at 10:07 PM
dealing with reality is “crazy” i tell ya
newrouter on January 4, 2013 at 10:07 PM
The Democrats embrace theirs.
theotherone on January 4, 2013 at 10:08 PM
Any of our GOP Govs are positioned for that. Walker and Jindal in particular (and Christie but no way for him). DeMint could do it. Daniels, Santorum, and Pawlenty are still around too I guess. Although I’m not necessarily buying into this premise that Paul Ryan is purposely strengthening his primary challengers.
Otherwise, candidates running for President will try to position themselves as outsiders using a message of Washington being broken. You know… like happens every four years.
Gingotts on January 4, 2013 at 10:10 PM
With more ‘victories’ like “compassionate conservatism”, what could go wrong?
Fenris on January 4, 2013 at 10:20 PM
Dudley Winifred Thaxton-upon-Smythe Huntsman 2016!
Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on January 4, 2013 at 10:39 PM
The Clinton impeachment was only a “disaster” because the Senate didn’t have the balls to do their job properly and convict the SOB.
Kensington on January 4, 2013 at 10:44 PM
If the Republican party was in lockstep, Christine O’Donnell and Sharron Angle would both be sitting Senators right now. Likewise, Mitt Romney would be president. The base has started walking away from the party.
That’s just what the Republicans need right now with the social conservatives virtually expelled from the party and the fiscal conservatives now being labelled as lunatics and gradually pushed out – MORE party purges. You guys really would rather lose elections to keep pleasing the liberals, don’t you?
Doomberg on January 4, 2013 at 10:47 PM
Let’s get through 2014 first.
davidk on January 4, 2013 at 10:58 PM
Who are these “Americans” of which he speaks?
Bush won because the Republicans who usually stay home appreciated the Republicans’ moxie in impeaching the dirt bag Clinton.
Buddahpundit on January 4, 2013 at 11:23 PM
Walker: I think Walker could be the only convincing candidate for 2016, though he would leave office in the midst of his 2nd term.
Jindal: I have no idea what people see in Jindal. Yes I think he is a good Governor from all I hear, but everytime I see him give a speech Im extremely underwhelmed. I think he is the Southern Pawlenty: a reasonably good Governor, but a candidate that only looks good on paper.
Christie: If he runs he will be the Biff Huntsman of 2016
DeMint: I think he is done with electoral politics and Im not so sure that he ever had presidential ambitions.
Daniels: Too moderate on social issues. No fight.
Santorum: 2 time loser. Huckabee would have better chances to lead the socons in 2016.
Pawlenty: Good on paper, thats it.
Ryan: I dont see a congressman winning the nomination. Ryan probably knows that. He might have had a chance last year to be the nominee but we wont be as desperate in 2016. The field wont be good, but the candidates will look more credible than last year.
Valkyriepundit on January 4, 2013 at 11:50 PM
Interesting thesis from Beinart. Being the liberal that he is, he thinks, of course, that GOP oppo to Obama is a part of some malevolent genius plan to grind Obama down and take back power, rather than simply the desperate punch-throwing of a few conservative patriots heartbroken about their country. Anyway, it’s possible that engaging Obama in a series of knock-down fights will have the effect of turning people off washington and setting the stage for a conservative reformer.
My GOP 2016 quickie candidate analysis:
Christie: at times impresses with his comm skills and ability to break through the MSM filter with a conservative message; more often, he depresses with his loose-cannon-ness and triangulation against other conservatives
Ryan: solid communicator who proved himself a deft campaigner with skills better than his ticket-mate. Will struggle to keep himself in the news over the next few years. Needs to articulate a conservative vision beyond fiscal issues.
Rubio: at his best, he’s the best communicator in the GOP. Is adept at showing vision, but needs to do more to demonstrate his nitty-gritty policy bonafides. Also, he needs to show more toughness and leadership to offset concerns about inexperience.
Jindal: Is probably literally the smartest guy the GOP could nominate in 2016. He’s got a great governance record in Louisiana. Very quick on his feet and able to argue for conservatism both from fundamental principles as well as in policy details. Suffers from a weak TV image – needs to work on projecting a “commander-in-chief” mien. Also, needs to find a way to stay visible and to raise money to compete with those with stronger national profiles.
Walker: Probably not too early to label him the great potential dark horse of 2016. Could be a grassroots darling. Has a great personal story as well as governance story of taking the unions best shot and defeating them. Has a key biography flaw: never graduated from college. Tricky to see how that plays with an electorate steeeped in culture celebrating educational attainment. Could work to his advantage if he’s aggressive in defining himself before the MSM gets to work on him. Will face challenges raising campaign $$.
Perry: Increasingly looks like he will run again. Lost in his ’12 performance is the fact that the guy is a tremendous retail campaigner and is a full-spectrum conservative. Will have to go above-and-beyond in allaying doubts about his intellect for ’16.
Robert_Paulson on January 5, 2013 at 12:55 AM