2008 Conservative strategic options

Bruce Bartlett is a wicked smart guy when he does not have to write about economics at the National Review. If he is writing economics anywhere else, he is a wicked smart guy, and his politically commentary is always interesting, including his National Review work. He has an interesting piece today on potential GOP/conservative strategic thinking for the 2008 election and how today's conservatives can maximize the probable conservative outcome from the 2008 election.

it becomes increasingly clear that the Democrats will win the White House next year. It's not quite 1932, but it's getting close to a sure thing. All the energy is on their side, they are raising more money from more contributors, and there is little if any enthusiasm for the Republican candidates — even among Republicans.....

But sometimes the trend in one party's direction is so strong that even the grossest incompetence can't keep it from winning. I think 2008 is shaping up as that kind of year for the Democrats.....

I think there is a good case for participating in the Democratic
nominating process.

Here's why. Although all the Democratic candidates are more liberal than all of the Republicans, they are not all equally liberal. Among the Democrats, some are more to the right and others more to the left. It is a grave mistake to assume, as most conservatives do, that they are all equally bad and that it makes no difference whatsoever which one is elected.

To right-wingers willing to look beneath what probably sounds to them like the same identical views of the Democratic candidates, it is pretty clear that Hillary Clinton is the most conservative. John Edwards is the most liberal, and Barack Obama is somewhere in between.....

At some point, politically sophisticated conservatives will have to recognize that no Republican can win in 2008 and that their only choice is to support the most conservative Democrat for the nomination.....

I agree with this analysis. The Democrats will need to undergo a collapse in the second half of this year similar to the Patriots in the AFC Championship game or the Red Sox during most Augusts to make the 2008 elections competitive. The major Democratic candidates are supported by numerous and motivated followers, their base is willing to go to bat for them and also allow policy free passes, and their issue and position space on the high salience issues are in firm agreement with the overwhelming majority of the American public. Finally, they have done a good job of not being photographed of being hugged by George W. Bush. All of the major Republican candidates have several liabilities from the above categories.

Some Republicans and conservative activists are already making this jump. The New York Sun is reporting that several major Bush donors and fundraisers have jumped to both the Clinton and Obama campaigns. Some of this transition may be due to personal ties to either the Bush family which prompted earlier donations or ties to either Senator, and some of the
change is due to significant policy/reality recognition disagreements such as the handling of the Schiavo incident. However a portion of this switch in behavior ia probably strategic in nature.

As a committed liberal and Democrat, I understand strategic gamesmanship and the need to expand probable winning coalitions. However I would fully support well researched and fact checked attack ads if one Democratic candidate or another's fundraising base is disproportionally composed of former Bush donors. I am a firm believed that candidates who win usually dance with the ones that helped them to get into office, and I want the winning coalition to be as liberal as possible. I believe that most Bush Pioneers and Rangers are not amicable to that goal.