I think there's a big intangible this cycle: The repub party is a tarnished brand

and I don't see that it will be easy to clean it up in the next year. I'm not saying that voters even think this consciously, just that it figures somewhere in the process of making a choice. For years it was the word liberal that had that kind of tarnish on it, and liberal was a word closely tied to democratic party. The difference is that the tarnishing of the word liberal was undeserved.

heck of a job, bushie.

and may vote for someone more responsible, even if they won't admit it, though some have.

just as long as Hillary is the nominee. If not, they are screwed, especially if Obama is the nominee, a man whose candidacy is based upon reuniting America ---kind of the opposite of Rove's strategy. It would be hope vs. fear.

screwed no matter who the candidate is. I know you're invested in your candidate and he'd make a fine nominee, but any of them could likely win.

It's now a dirty word. Sucks for them that it's their PARTY as opposed to a philosophy. This in and of itself may be responsible for the complete destruction and actual dissolution of the Republican party, especially if they really get whollopped in '08 (which is looking pretty likely). If that happens, all bets are off and we may witness serious history in the literal disappearance of the Republican party from the political scene because it really will be no longer viable to be called a Republican.

A part of the tarnishing of the word liberal has been to lump all liberals together, regardless of actual association. When one liberal breaks the law or somehow gets into trouble, all liberals are associated.

For the name republican, however, they are quick to separate themselves, using the old "isolated incident" narrative.

Republicans have been moving away from their name for a while.

Larry Craig, Mark Foley, et al are just "rotten apples" that are quickly removed from the republican barrel. Those were the most visible, but does anyone remember this guy: http://wikiality.com/John_David_R._Atchison???

He was so not a republican that he never even reached "rotten apple" status.

In fact, the mass media never even mentioned his political affiliation (someone on Dailykos figured it out).

Eventually he committed suicide and the story died with him.

And so did the connection to the party he belonged to.

The way to assist the republicans with branding of their party is to refer to republicans as republicans.

Refer anything the Bush Administration does, not to the Bush family, but to their party. Anytime this current Department of Justice does something, don't blame Mukasey; credit his party.

Torture is not something Rumsfeld did, the republican party did it.

Dick Cheney doesn't break the law, the republican party does.

Rove is not corrupt, his party is.

Doing this achieves one important thing that cannot be done otherwise.

It reminds voters that republicans put their party before their country or constituency and it the crime to the party directly.

Just remember, when these guys are gone, people will believe their crimes will go with them, when we know full well a new generation of party operatives will just take over where their predecessors left off.

and I think I have some strong evidence on my side; the election of 2006 and sharp drops in repuke registration bear up my contention that the repuke party has been badly tarnished.

Yes, they have been tarnished, but I believe they've earned much, much more than what they've gotten.

Much more.

Does not the word "liberal" now have a rather POSITIVE connotation to it...as in CHANGE? Can this be?

Yes indeed, something has changed in America.

is tarnished. We have a ways to go, but I don't think liberal is the demonized concept it was just a couple of years ago.

They have a tarnished brand. We have no brand at all.

Their brand has been tarnished by their current crop of so-called leaders. But all they need is new leadership. And they can dust off all their bullshit and run on it just like its new.

For our side, once the GOP gets some fresh faces, we will be back in the minority - unless we get some leaders who are willing to strongly attack the GOP brand.

than being somewhat of a blank slate. And no, I don't think it's as simple as just brushing off their leaders, and moving on. It's not so easy as that. And yes, of course we need to elect a president who'll be willing to take on GOP bullshit, and hopefully get new leadership in the Congress, but it'll take a while for the repukes to recover. And I actually think there's a strong chance that they'll be beaten so badly next year, that a big shakeup and restructuring of the party will take place, with the few moderates remaining, wielding increased influence.

If the election were held tomorrow (or six months ago) the GOP might be in real danger of not being able to compete nationally for quite some time.

As I see it, the difference is that when we lose, we end up with more moderates who claim we need to move to the center. When the GOP loses, they end up with more right wingers, who claim they only lost because they weren't conservative enough.

That's why I say their brand is only tarnished by their present leadership. Win or lose, no one has told them that cutting taxes is often stupid. No one has told them that the White House is not a church. Etc. Until we deal with their garbage, the GOP will keep winning by putting new faces on the same bogus positions.

We do the opposite: we keep taking new positions but putting the same faces on them.


Anyway, I agree with you. Its possible that the GOP is in very very big trouble if they go into the home stretch in the same position they're in now.

Sooner or later, like other cockroaches, they will be back. And the tune will sound very familiar. God, guns and gays. Until we make a concerted, long-term effort to do something about it.

line again. Some Repug's may stay home. but they will never vote with us or for us.