PDA

View Full Version : Conservatives plan secret post-election strategy session


tony hipchest
10-29-2008, 05:56 PM
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/1008/Conservatives_plan_secret_postelection_strategy_se ssion.html?showall

Two days after next week's election, top conservatives will gather at the Virginia weekend home of one of the movement's most prominent members to begin a conversation about their role in the GOP and how best to revive a party that may be out of power at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue next year.

The meeting will include a "who's who of conservative leaders -- economic, national security and social," said one attendee, who shared initial word of the secret session only on the basis of anonymity and with some details about the host and location redacted.

The decision to waste no time in plotting their moves in the post-Bush era reflects the widely-held view among many on the right, and elsewhere, that the GOP is heading toward major losses next week.

One of the topics of discussion will be how to fashion a "national grassroots political and policy coalition similar to the out Reagan years," said the attendee, a reference to the development of the so-called New Right apparatus following Jimmy Carter's 1976 victory and Reagan's election four years later.

"There's a sense that the Republican Party is broken, but the conservative movement is not," said this source, suggesting that it was the betrayal of some conservative principles by Bush and congressional leaders that led to the party's decline.

But, this source emphasized, the meeting will be held regardless of the outcome of the presidential race. "This is going on if McCain wins, loses or has a recount -- we're not planning for the loss of John McCain."

Either way, Sarah Palin will be a central part of discussion. If the Arizona senator wins, the discussion will feature much talk of, "How do we work with this administration?" said the attendee, an acknowledgement that conservatives won't always have a reliable ally in the Oval Office.

Under this scenario, Palin would be seen as their conduit to power. “She would be the conservative in the White House,” is how the source put it.

Should McCain lose next Tuesday, the conversation will include who to groom as the next generation of conservative leaders – a list that will feature Palin at or near the top. (long article) i was gonna offer some commentary but alot of great posts after the blog beat me to it.... good stuff. "aint this about 2 months too late?" :chuckle:

anyways it seems the GOP is gonna build up relatively inexperienced sarah as the "hail Mary, full of grace" saviour of the party, much in the same way obama has been groomed in the past few years.

my question is, how many here (and everywhere) that have constantly and repeatedly quoted his lack of experience, gonna completely flip-flop on their hardlined stance, and be supporting palin in '12?

btw, i thought this post deserved highlighting-

Call me a crazy optimist, but as a lifelong Independent with many conservative leanings, let me enlighten you on the way to win the middle. 1) Take your party back from the religious right--they're a small portion of the folks you need to have to get elected, and they're not likely to vote Democratic anyway; 2) Learn to run a campaign that doesn't rely upon the personal villification of the opponent, but instead makes rational contrasts of policies (and no disengenuous 'commie hunting'; 3) Assume that your likely electorate has an IQ higher than the temperature in Wasilla; 4) Accept that 'regular' people in most of the US don't wake up in the middle of the night worried about capital gains taxes; 5)Recognize that when hard-working people are hurting because they've lost their jobs, their healthcare, their business, or their home, they'd like their government to help them reach a solution, not give more to the people who aren't hurting so much. You don't have to call it 'spreading the wealth,' you can maybe call it representing the majority. Maybe it'll catch on.:applaudit:

Vis
10-30-2008, 07:50 AM
There will be a fight for the party. There will be the Palin, anti-intellectual, Christian coalition faction against the Conservative Movement faithful who would rather lose an election to purify the party back to the core than continue selling out to any other ideology.

I say this as an outsider to the party, as some may have noticed....

xfl2001fan
10-30-2008, 08:05 AM
I say this as an outsider to the party, as some may have noticed....

WHAT????!!!?!?! :jawdrop:

:flap:

revefsreleets
10-30-2008, 10:21 AM
Palin already had a ton more executive experience than Obama before even this election. She'll have even more for the next election...

stlrtruck
10-30-2008, 10:53 AM
my question is, how many here (and everywhere) that have constantly and repeatedly quoted his lack of experience, gonna completely flip-flop on their hardlined stance, and be supporting palin in '12?


To be honest with you, if McCain doesn't win this election and she is the 2012 candidate, it would be difficult to cast a vote. But with that being said it would also depend on who she was running against. If it's Obama I would have to take into consideration what he's done for this country.

But I'll ask you the same question a little differently. If Obama wins and he makes a major mud hole of this country and Palin is running against him, how many would see her inexperience as a necessary change in government (ala Obama today)?

X-Terminator
10-30-2008, 12:05 PM
Let's just put it this way - if Palin runs and wins the R nomination in 2012, I will not be voting R.

revefsreleets
10-30-2008, 12:29 PM
I should clarify: I'm not a Palin fan, and while I wouldn't dismiss voting for her out-of-hand (Lord knows what shape we might be in after 4 of Obama), she would NOT be my first choice. There are still many, many, MANY potential GOP candidates better suited than her.

But she IS still more qualified, currently, than Obama.

Dino 6 Rings
10-30-2008, 01:03 PM
If McCain loses, which I'm not convinced of yet, then the fight for the right will be between the very conservative religious like Palin and Jindle from MO and on the other side will be the more socially liberal like Romney and Guilliani.

The GOP will have to make a choice between going with the far right religious or the more socially liberal republicans.

However, if Obama wins, I have a feeling that the ground swell on the Far Right Religious side of the GOP will be like nothing we have seen in a very long time. The Party may have no choice but to go the Palin Jindle route simply because of a surging tide of church goers and new found relgious folks jumping onto the Right side of issues.

Especially if Obama tries to pass some of his most socially liberal policies like the resinding of the Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy, The Repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, and the Freedom of Choice act.

Those 3 things could get more people going against the Dems more than any thing else.

tony hipchest
10-30-2008, 02:19 PM
Palin already had a ton more executive experience than Obama before even this election. She'll have even more for the next election...
lol. that and a dollar will buy her a cup of coffee. seriously? a TON more? youre not counting being president of the PTA and when she was president of her student council in high school or something are you? mayor of wasilla? :toofunny:

yeah, yeah, yeah, weve all heard it.... sarah has more executive experience than obama, biden, and mccain put together. :blah:

bush, cheney, and rummy, had a ton of it too, and look how bad they screwed things up.

speaking of blogs lets look at it spun in a different direction-

On the McCain Report, Michael Goldfarb writes that Sarah Palin "has more executive experience than Barack Obama and Joe Biden put together", a point that, by some strange coincidence, has popped up all over the conservative blogs. I think that the idea that Palin has an advantage over Obama in this area is completely wrong.

When this campaign started, one of my biggest questions about Barack Obama was whether he would be any good at managing things. The President is, after all, the head of a very large organization, and he had better either have good management skills or hire a chief of staff who does. The fact that I didn't know whether Obama had them didn't prevent me from voting for him -- none of the other candidates I might have supported had a track record in management either -- but I would have been happier had I known whether Obama was any good at running things.

I don't have that problem any more. Obama has spent the past year and a half running a large organization -- as of last December, it had "about 500 employees and a budget of $100 million" -- and running it very well. It's not just that he and his team beat the Clinton campaign, which started out with enormous advantages. It's not even that he often did so by building effective political machines from scratch in states in which Clinton had locked down the political establishment. It's that every account of the Obama campaign that I've read makes it clear that he has done an outstanding job of constructing and running a political organization. For instance, this account of Obama's campaign is very much worth reading, if you want to get a sense of how he runs things:


"The story of how Obama assembled his top advisers — and how he got them to work together as a team — offers a glimpse into his approach as a chief executive who manages an organization of nearly 1,000 employees. Obama has built "an amazingly strong machine," says Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, president of the Chief Executive Leadership Institute at the Yale School of Management. "People expected a more ad hoc, impromptu, entrepreneurial feel to it. It has been more of a well-orchestrated symphony than the jazz combo we expected."

Indeed, in merging the talents of powerful Washington insiders and outside-the-Beltway insurgents, Obama has succeeded at a task that has traditionally eluded Democratic candidates: forging an experienced inner circle who set aside their differences and put the candidate first. "The whole point is that it's not about any of these guys," says longtime GOP strategist Frank Luntz. "They feel blessed. They see it as how lucky they are to be working for this man, at this time, in this election. This is the dream team for the dream candidate. I waited all my life for a Republican Barack Obama. Now he shows up, and he's a Democrat.""


You can find more good descriptions of the Obama campaign here and here.


http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/08/executive-exper.html

i wonder what jeffery sonnenfeld and frank luntz would say about palins executive leadership?

revefsreleets
10-30-2008, 04:21 PM
Candidates don't run their own campaigns...not even close. But that's a nice retort. Obama selected a few key individuals, and they ran the campaign. They did two things correctly:

Internet (especially as a grass roots tool)- They used it better than it has been before, but that comes as a result of assembling younger, "more hip" campaign managers.

Money- He didn't take public financing. He's able to outspend McCain by a wide margin.

And if Obama loses given these advantages, that means his campaign was an abject failure.

Sorry, running a a government as the executive is just a microcosm at each level, and she's scaled up once already, from mayor to governor. The legislative is a different animal altogether. Apples to apples, she's got more experience.

Dino 6 Rings
10-30-2008, 05:46 PM
Dark Lord Cheney has lowered Gas Prices prior to the election to such low levels that even if the people on Walstreet are suffering, not everyone on Main Street is, and a lot of those Main Street voters...well...they will be pulling the R in the booth.

Just saying, the Sith have a sneaky way about them, don't count the Elephants out of it just yet.

revefsreleets
10-30-2008, 07:56 PM
Have you met Vis? You two should talk. The conspiracy theories you might come with boggle the mind...

The market drove gas prices down.

I'm not even gonna try, just let someone else explain this one.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/10/30/8391681/index.htm?postversion=2006101611

Why gas prices dropped
Trust us. It wasn't OPEC or Republicans trying to influence midterm elections.
FORTUNE Magazine
By Nelson D. Schwartz, Fortune senior writer
October 16 2006: 11:35 AM EDT

(Fortune Magazine) -- If the recent plunge in gas prices is the result of a conspiracy by President George W. Bush to help the Republicans retain control of Congress, as 42 percent of Americans believe, according to one Gallup poll, a lot of Wall Streeters wish they'd been in on the plot.
The end of oil's stunning ride

So what really drove prices down - if not an Oliver Stone-worthy scenario involving the Commander-in-Chief, the House of Saud and Secretary of the Treasury Hank Paulson cajoling his cronies at Goldman Sachs to sink the crude market?
Hedge funds get ahead of themselves
More from Fortune
Lazard chief warns of more pain
Call this a crisis? Just wait
Taming derivatives
FORTUNE 500
Current Issue
Subscribe to Fortune

By late summer, hedge funds and other investors had poured billions into long positions in oil, gasoline, natural gas and the rest of what traders call the "energy complex," all betting on a replay of the severe 2005 hurricane season that sent prices soaring in the wake of Katrina and Rita. But one day after oil reached a monthly high of $76.98 a barrel on Aug. 7, government meteorologists downgraded their hurricane forecast and cautioned that a repeat of 2005 was "unlikely."

That announcement, combined with the end of the summer driving season and a recalibration of the Goldman Sachs (Charts) commodity index that reduced the weighting of gasoline, prompted speculators to head for the exits even faster than they'd piled in.

The switch in Goldman's basket of commodities had been previously announced by the firm, but that didn't stop the conspiracy theorists. "Hmm, what a coincidence, luring Goldman's top dog to take a HUGE pay cut by becoming Treasury's top dog, and then Goldman Sachs makes this unexpected decision, serving to dramatically drive down gas prices," said the Grey Matter, a liberal blog. But the grassy-knoll crowd didn't bother to crunch the numbers.

According to Joel Fingerman of Chicago-based OilAnalytics.net, between the peak of $77 a barrel in August and the October low of just under $58, traders dumped nearly 40 million barrels (a 20 percent drop) from their long positions. The volatile gasoline market showed an even sharper decline - with traders cutting long positions from 32 million barrels in midsummer to just 1.7 million in October.

"Whatever you want to call it - speculators, fast money, hot money - a big part of the drop in crude that we've seen this year is because of selling by hedge funds," says Merrill Lynch technical analyst Mary Ann Bartels.
Betting billions on liquefied natural gas

That avalanche of cash also explains what's got the paranoid types talking - not merely the timing of the plunge in prices but its rapid speed. "Speculators create more velocity around existing trends," says Bartels. "Things are happening a lot more quickly in these markets than they used to."
The losers

Some traders were lucky and got out in time; most weren't. Implosions like the collapse of the $9.2 billion Amaranth fund seem spectacular, but the fund was merely caught in a bigger and badder bet than others hoping for another Katrina. Amaranth trader Brian Hunter bet the farm that hurricanes and a cold winter would push up natural gas prices, but, says Bartels, "a lot of people were caught by surprise."

The average energy hedge fund dropped 4 percent last month, according to Joel Schwab, a managing director of Hedgefund.net, which tracks fund performance. "They were having a great year, then things fell apart in September when they were caught long," says Schwab.

Even broader index-type funds that invest in a wide range of commodities and are open to individual investors are down. Manager John Brynjolfsson's Pimco Commodity Real Return fund is now off 5.6 percent for the year, after being up 1.4 percent before the summer rout.
The winners

One trader who's been luckier is Julian Barrowcliffe, manager of the $500 million Anglian Commodities fund. He has managed to eke out an 8 percent gain for the year by avoiding bets on which way crude would go, instead playing off the spreads between different products, betting on how, say, heating oil would move if gasoline prices went down.

"Anytime you have a big reversal, the guys who follow the trends get killed trying to get out quickly," says Barrowcliffe. As for those conspiracy theories, Barrowcliffe insists he wasn't tipped off. "It's ludicrous," he says. "Maybe 42 percent of Americans think Elvis is alive too."

Ironically, the current price for crude - $59 a barrel - is roughly where oil insiders have been predicting it would be if it weren't for all that hot money flowing into commodities. Last spring, energy consultant and Deloitte advisor Joe Stanislaw told Fortune that fundamental supply and demand factors suggested a price of about $50 a barrel, with geopolitical factors adding $10 and speculators putting another $10 on top of that.

Unfortunately for drivers, Stanislaw doesn't expect the premium caused by worries about tensions in key oil-producing countries like Iran, Iraq, Venezuela and Nigeria to fade anywhere near as quickly as all that hot money did. And there's no reason that money won't move back into energy if sentiment turns and there's a new trend to play.

Right now, the latest bet by traders is for a normal winter - if there's a sudden cold snap before Thanksgiving, expect a bump in crude. So enjoy the low gas prices while they last. You can be sure the White House will, even if it didn't orchestrate them.

_____________________________

fugawzi
10-30-2008, 09:18 PM
Palin already had a ton more executive experience than Obama before even this election. She'll have even more for the next election...

No she didn't. PTA member, mayor of a town with less people than this forum, and Governor of the 48th most populated state for less than 2 years isn't exactly a resume with a ton of "executive experience".

HometownGal
10-30-2008, 09:31 PM
No she didn't. PTA member, mayor of a town with less people than this forum, and Governor of the 48th most populated state for less than 2 years isn't exactly a resume with a ton of "executive experience".

Key word being "executive" fugawzi. Obama has almost 4 years of legislative experience. There is a world of difference.

cubanstogie
10-30-2008, 09:32 PM
quote:
my question is, how many here (and everywhere) that have constantly and repeatedly quoted his lack of experience, gonna completely flip-flop on their hardlined stance, and be supporting palin in '12?

I would vote Republican regardless, its about philosophy's and beliefs for me. Although I myself don't make 250 g's there is something wrong with a multi tiered system. Doctors put themselves through med school with 12 years of school and huge bills and when they finally get to reap the benefits Obama wants to screw them. How is that the American dream. I don't like handouts, therefor will probably never vote democrat.Or someone who builds a business over a lifetime and finally is successful after years of long hours and struggling is now taxed up the a ss. Total BS. This year I will make 30,000 in overtime on top of my salary, I worked my but off and should not be penalized if I were to go over 250,000. I get angry just thinking about it.

tony hipchest
10-30-2008, 09:55 PM
Sorry, running a a government as the executive is just a microcosm at each level, and she's scaled up once already, from mayor to governor. The legislative is a different animal altogether. Apples to apples, she's got more experience.

sorry, that sounds all great on paper (or a MB) but there are sour green apples, delicious reds, and poisinous crabapples.

managing the local 7-11 (or any other corner store) is a microcosm of managing a grocery store. that doesnt mean that after 2 years at the corner store and being promoted to manager of a chain grocery store for another 2 years, one should be elected as the next potential CEO of WAL-MART.

i understand theres a difference between the executive and legislative branch (the judicial branch too).

just like there is a difference between attending 4 community colleges to earn a degree vs. harvard. just like theres a difference between being a lawyer and professor at a major institution vs. a po dunk town sportscaster.

all i know is that if palin has to vacate the alaskan gov's seat in january, jillian barberie and lisa guerrero both have job in waiting up north. not only would they win by a landslide, they would become known as the NEXT "most popular gov in america."

seriously, going by the arguments i am hearing i could conclude that hillary clinton had the most executive experience simply for being married to a governor and president for so many years.

but that would be an extreme reach.

revefsreleets
10-31-2008, 08:35 AM
Horrible analogy. Managing one store and managing 10,000 are apples and oranges.

More apropos would be saying Sarah went from Store Manager to Regional Manager, and now she's stepping up to EVP of Store Ops.

fugawzi
10-31-2008, 08:51 PM
Key word being "executive" fugawzi. Obama has almost 4 years of legislative experience. There is a world of difference.

I think we're all somewhat cherry picking about this Palin experience thing. If you see some of my other posts here, you'll see I actually feel that the best presidents aren't necessarily the most experienced. In other words, I don't think experience equates to a good president. Obama isn't terribly experienced and neither is Palin. There's a great article supporting this here:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Info/experience.html

That said, regarding Palin, I will post some quotes I found. Here's one from Kenneth Duberstein, a former REAGAN (conservative Republican) Chief of Staff:

"I think it has very much undermined the whole question of John McCain’s judgment. You know what most Americans I think realized is that you don’t offer a job, let alone the vice presidency, to a person after one job interview. Even at McDonald’s, you’re interviewed three times before you get a job." On whether Palin is ready to be president “in an emergency on day one,” Duberstein said: “People have resoundedly said ‘don’t think so."

Wow. McDonald's. That's rough. Duberstein has endorsed Obama.

Here's another quote from a conservative Republican. Lawrence Eagleburger, who served as Secretary of State under the first Bush (Republican) had this to say about Palin and her readiness to serve as president should that be required of her:

"I don't think at the moment she is prepared to take over the reins of the presidency. I can name for you any number of other vice presidents who were not particularly up to it either." He later appeared on FoxNoise, I mean FoxNews, and tried to cover up his tracks by saying he thinks she's a "quick learner".

So this isn't just liberals, Democrats, or others from the "left" saying she isn't prepared for the job.