WASHINGTON, May 18, 2008
GOP Hands Are Wrung Over Party Prospects
While Republicans Face Costly Losses In "Safe" Districts, Cuomo Deconstructs Voter Ire
-
Play CBS Video
Video
Republicans In Turmoil
Governor Charlie Christ (R.-Fla.) and GOP strategist Ed Rollins speak with Bob Schieffer about the current state of political disarray within the Republican Party.
-
Photo
Gov. Charles Crist, R-Fla., and Republican strategist Ed Rollins on "Face The Nation." (CBS)
-
Interactive
Campaign 2008
Profiles of the candidates, polls, fund-raising, blogs, video and more.
However, there are concerns among some Republicans about Washington-political-strategies-as-usual, such as tying local races to the Democratic presidential contenders (like the Republican attack ad tying Barack Obama to Mississippi House candidate Travis Childers).
The ad didn’t help. Childers beat his GOP opponent by 8 percentage points.
When asked by Face The Nation host Bob Schieffer what was wrong with the ad, Republican strategist Ed Rollins said, "Everything.
"First of all, Obama is not running down there. Obama is John McCain's problem. And I think to a certain extent, that's going to be a tough enough campaign as-is. [But] people in Mississippi - or in Louisiana or in Illinois, the three seats we lost - want to know, 'What are you going to do about gas increases? What are you going to do that's going to relate to my life and basically help me, help my kids?'"
Which means, while Democrats have a potent lightning rod for nationalizing races by running against George W. Bush's record, Republicans running alongside the President risk looking defensive.
"We need to, as a party, go back to our roots, if you will," said Gov. Charles Crist, R-Fla., "make sure we understand we're the party of Abraham Lincoln, the party of Teddy Roosevelt, the party of Ronald Reagan, who had that wonderful optimism that people looked toward and were excited about and understood that there was greater hope, greater opportunity for the future."
Rollins also said it was a mistake for President Bush to inject himself into the presidential race with his inflammatory comments during a speech before the Israeli Knessit (in which he compared Obama's stated intention to talk to anti-democratic world leaders with Nazi appeasers in the 1930s) because it suggests that John McCain is running for Mr. Bush's third term. "If it’s the Bush third term, John McCain can’t win," he said.
"This president has to realize that he is no longer on the ballot," Rollins added.
Also appearing on the show, Mario Cuomo, the former Democratic governor of New York, believed the Democrats - regardless of how their contentious primary battle shakes out - have an enormous advantage come November, in a nation where 82 percent believed our country is moving in the wrong direction.
"How do we make the most of the Republican problems, all of which are Democratic opportunities?" Cuomo said.
"America wants and needs everything that we have got from 1993 to 2000," Cuomo said. "You got 22 million new jobs. You got a balanced budget. You got a potential surplus of $5.4 trillion. You got an ascending middle class. You got a shrinking poor population - all in those years. You got peace. And that's what the United States wants again."
Read the full "Face the Nation" transcript here.
© MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Video and Galleries from Face The Nation
- Latest in Face The Nation
- Separating Icons From Heroes
- A Guide To A Successful Father's Day
- Remembering Tim Russert



- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- next
See all 188 CommentsPreying on the ignorance of the American people by running on fake issues like flag pins is a loser.
Big give aways to Oil companies disguised as a gas tax holiday is not going to work.
Running endless loops of something somebody''s paster said 7 years ago will not sway anyone.
Pretending that changing a failed foreign policy is akin to being a traitor and a Nazi appeaser is a mistake.
Running on smear masquerading as policy is going to backfire.
Pretend patriotism hiding behind flag burning issues when we are facing the worst crisis in 60 years in this country will get you a ride out of town on a rail.
He probably didn''t want to come out and say it, but the problem wasn''t just Shrub mouthing off was it? Wasn''t the problem that John McCain went into cheerleader mode and jumped on the bandwagon with both feet, rah rah? The moment came for cooler heads to prevail and McCain sort of just took the moment and let himself get swept along with the tide . . .
How about the "Party of Failure" or just simply, the "New KKK", the Party of Non-Inclusional Toe-Tapping Inbred Knuckle-Dragging Family Values!
WAS THIS THE PARTY IN POWER THAT DISBANDED THE UNIT HUNTING BIN LADEN?
YOU MEAN THE PARTY WHO PREACH MORALITY THEN ARE CAUGHT IN BATHROOM STALLS WITH MEN,
OR CHASE UNDERAGE MALE PAIGES AROUND THE HALLS OF CONGRESS?
MAYBE THE REPIGS THAT PREACH MORALITY FROM THE PULPIT AND ARE HIRING MALE PROSTITUTES?
IS IT THE SAME REPIGS THAT LIED A NATION TO WAR AT THE COST OF TRILLIONS AND LIVES OF THOUSANDS?
HOW ABOUT THE REPIGS THAT BLOCK EVERY DOMESTIC SPENDING PROGRAM FOR THE POOR STOPPING HEALTH CARE FOR CHILDREN AND THE ELDERLY?
OR MAYBE THE PARTY THAT TOUTS SUPPORT THE TROOPS THEN BLOCK BENEFITS FOR VETERANS?
MAYBE THEY SHOULD BE TRIED FOR WAR CRIMES OR GROSS NEGLIGENCE!
WHY ARE THESE GUYS WORRIED?
So what do we have now? We sure as h*ll don''t have Republicans any more. That''s why the radical Repugnicans, as they should be called, are going down in flames this November. Until they go back to their true conservative roots, they are DOOMED. They are going to get totally and truly waxed. It''s what they deserve and it''s what they''re going to get.
''Nuff said
YES!
"the party of Teddy Roosevelt,"
YES!
"the party of Ronald Reagan"
OOPS!!
Americans have spent $1 trillion dollars just paying the INTEREST on the Reagan debt since he left office. That''s 1 trillion wasted dollars into the pockets of rich Republicans (yes, rich people are the only ones with the ability to loan America money, why do you think Republicans prefer deficit spending?). It didn''t buy roads, bridges, sewer systems, even ''security''. It bought a feeling of ''morning in America'' thirty years ago.
You cant buy ''morning in America'' with a credit card. Until the Republican Party realizes that, they will continue to find themselves on the margins of modern American society.
Posted by IRLiberal
All These Negative Democrats cannot answer why John McCain is polling even or ahead in most major polls. IF all Americans hate Republicans the Democrats think, then why the poll numbers. Its because the DNC is where Democrats get thier info. All Democrats are full of Hate and Anger and They only listen to other Democrats who are full of Hate and Anger. John McCain has not said a bad word about anyonw while O''Bama talks Hate and Anger every day.
McCain/Bush and his family were all over this and it cost the American tax payer over $1.4 trillion dollars!
It stems from deregulation of the S&Ls.
Do some research.
Posted by demslie at 05:45 PM : May 18, 2008
That''s because he''s not.
And all the men and women merely players,
They have their exits and their entrances.
William Shakespeare, As You Like It, 2 7
I have no objections to a true debate between Democrats and real Republicans. What I think you misunderstand is that what we have today in no manner,shape, or form are REAL Republicans.,. The name has been highjacked.
Granted, the Demos of the period you refer to did go a little overboard. That in no way diminishes the HUGE swing the Neocons have imposed on our government.
These Aholes have nearly brought our nation to ruin. It''s time for the TRUE Republicans to take back their party, so that we can have an honest and productive debate.
Posted by demslie at 05:45 PM : May 18, 2008
That''''s because he''''s not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by SgtRDS-E4 at 05:52 PM : May 18, 2008
+ report abuse
*******************************
LOL, Sarge. Good answer. I love to see the rabid-right shaking in their boots. It is so crazy, that our Republican senator from Kansas is attacking McCain on the Boeing contract fiasco. Of course, he is doing that to protect HIS seat. You know it is bad with a Republican is attacking their own candidate for president.
From the experience of the past we derive instructive lessons for the future.
Of the two great political parties which have divided the opinions and feelings of our country, the candid and the just will now admit that both have contributed splendid talents, spotless integrity, ardent patriotism, and disinterested sacrifices to the formation and administration of this Government, and that both have required a liberal indulgence for a portion of human infirmity and error%u2026%u2026
Excerpt from the Inaugural Address of President John Quincy Adams
March 4, 1825
That''s right. They know that there is really only one way left for a republican to have a decent chance of winning any election this fall and that''s to switch parties and become a Democrat.
;-)
He didn''t want to count existing votes.
...and he originally WITHDREW HIS NAME from the ballot in Michigan-- WHEN THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT TO DO SO-- AS A STRATEGY--BECAUSE HE DIDN''T WANT TO BE SEEN LOSING THAT STATE!!!
Repeat after me,
"Michigan and Florida"...
Conservatism was betrayed from the moment Reagan''s economic brain trust--a motley collection of Rockefeller assets and powerless ideologues--sat down to continue the destruction of the American economy with what came to be known as "Reaganomics".
Obama has already been made out a liar by his advisor Austan Goolsby who told the Canadians to ignore Obama''s anti-NAFTA rhetoric...it was just politics... it was just lies to win those union votes from the very pro NAFTA Clinton.
That the Repubican Party would have a problem defeating either of the lying, corrupt Democrats is testimony to how utterly corrupt both parties are... The slogan "My Lying Thief has more experience than your lying thief" is not very inspiring.
Don''t waste your vote on Demopublican scum!
Now, we have William Kristol, the founder of the pro-Iraq war of aggression PNAC saying that he prefers Obama over Clinton....Don''t you find it the least bit curious that Kristol backs the allegedly anti-war Obama over the woman who voted for the war?!!
I have been a republican for most of my life and I''m voting for Obama out of total disgust with the GOP''s arrogant pursuit of their own open-border agenda and their shallow self-serving actions directly in oppostion to the will of "We the People". I really don''t see much difference whether McCain gives these criminals amnesty or Obama does. I''ll just have to sell off my portfolio prior to the massive tax increase we''ll get from the Dems. This country is in big trouble except for those who can insulate themselves and hang through the civil unrest. If I hear dail 1 for English much longer, I''ll never wote again. Where''s the fence??????
Senator for Israel Joe Liebermann of Connecticutt backs John McPampers...the man Bill Clinton says is Hillary''s best friend in the Senate...Isn''t that cozy?
Both support the war...and Obama said in 2004 that his position on it and George Bush''s position were about the same. Tell me, would you then vote for George Bush as an anti-war candidate? Don''t tell me that is a silly question when you are thinking about supporting a man whose views on the Iraqi war are about the same as George Bush''s--Barack Obama!!!
Only as*sholes or idiots multi-post their garbage over and over like that. Which one are you?
---------------------
Reading his post, I suspect both...
Lincoln was the 1st Republican, and although he was exactly what the country needed, his assassination gave him too little time to set peacetime policy after the Civil War ended. Nevertheless, he was far more effective than Shrub. If his generals weren''t producing results, he sacked them. He won the Civil War in less time than Bush''s fake war is taking.
Roosevelt would have been considered a leftist liberal by today''s standards. Roosevelt was a conservationist and a trust buster. He raged against the hegemony of big business and when Congress did nothing, he sued the trusts. After his second term, he supported Taft''s successful run in 1908. But by 1912, fed up with Taft and business as usual, Roosevelt ran for president against Taft, then split from the Republicans and created the Progressive Party, and switched his Presidential candidacy from Republican to Progressive. He didn''t win, but he got more electoral votes than Taft. Wilson, the Democrat won in what become a case of the incumbent coming in THIRD place.
BULLY for Teddy Roosevelt! The most Democratic Republican we ever had! If Republicans would embrace Teddy''s values of conservationism, standing up for the little guy and fighting against big business that only cares about profit, then I would probably become that kind of Republican. Then again, I already am. I''m a Democrat.
Many middle-class conservatives have been suckered into believing that this ultra-wealthy Republican core serves them, as well, but that assumption has shown itself (again and again) to NOT be the case - and thus they become deeply disillusioned, and eventually re-brand themselves as moderate "Independents" in protest.
Those new Independents, more often than not, find that the Democratic positions are actually much more in line with their own interests.
That ultra-wealthy 1% (the REAL Republican core) has very little, if anything at all, to actually offer ANY middle-class voter, and that fact is finally becoming painfully clear to many [former] middle-class Republicans and Independents.
No hard-working middle-class voter wants to be used by the ultra-wealthy in this way, or serve as a powerless pawn to those that would do nothing for them but exploit them for their votes.
That''s why the Republican Party is in such deep trouble right now: 99% of us are simply not rich enough to benefit from Republican policies, which are always tilted toward the ultra-wealthy, not the middle-class
Roosevelt made it possible for Woodrow Wilson to reach the presidency...The Roosevelts were a banking family with ties to the East India Company''s opium dealing in China...and the banking interests of New York were keenly interested in the Warburg plan to create a private central bank, the Federal Reserve. Wilson supported this...afterall, this pig was painted in Progressive colours so the mincing little Princeton perfesser could support this avant garde notion.
Taft had announced that there would be no central bank!! That is why Roosevelt ran against him. He talked a good game against the corporations, but he was not looking out for the little man. He was constantly calling for the US to join the British (with whom Dutch bankers are closely tied) in the war against Germany.
NO MORE CONS
NO MORE RepubliCONS
NO MORE CORRUPTION
NO MORE LIES
NO MORE CORPORATE CEOS running OUR COUNTRY
NO MORE GREASY OIL BARONS
NO MORE GREEDY PIGS
It should be against the law to vote for these kind of beings.
---------------------
Reading his post, I suspect both...
Posted by Prinzowhales at 06:45 PM : May 18, 2008
Considering he continues to do it, I''d have to agrre with you. Both.
Democrat: How can we make this country better? Inclusive, as in we are all Americans, rich, poor, black, white, 1st generation, 6th generation, we are all in the same boat.
Republican: What%u2019s in it for me?
Read any post on this site and tell me I am wrong.
In a February 1991 article for Life Magazine, Atwater wrote:
My illness helped me to see that what was missing in society is what was missing in me: a little heart, a lot of brotherhood. The ''''80s were about acquiring -- acquiring wealth, power, prestige. I know. I acquired more wealth, power, and prestige than most. But you can acquire all you want and still feel empty. What power wouldn''''t I trade for a little more time with my family? What price wouldn''''t I pay for an evening with friends? It took a deadly illness to put me eye to eye with that truth, but it is a truth that the country, caught up in its ruthless ambitions and moral decay, can learn on my dime. I don''''t know who will lead us through the ''''90s, but they must be made to speak to this spiritual vacuum at the heart of American society, this tumor of the soul.
(CONT)
Shortly before his death from a brain tumor, Atwater said he had converted to Catholicism, through the help of Fr. John Hardon, SJ,[5] and, in an act of repentance, Atwater issued a number of public and written letters to individuals to whom he had been opposed during his political career, including Dukakis. In a letter to Tom Turnipseed dated June 28, 1990, he stated, "It is very important to me that I let you know that out of everything that has happened in my career, one of the low points remains the so called ''''jumper cable'''' episode," adding, "my illness has taught me something about the nature of humanity, love, brotherhood and relationships that I never understood, and probably never would have. So, from that standpoint, there is some truth and good in everything."
(CONT)
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- next
See all 188 Comments