In a word, dismal. Here is the conclusion:
I think Republicans desperately need a group that will do for them what the DLC did for the Democrats. Unfortunately, I see no such organization or any resources available for those that might start one. Those with such resources are either turned off by Republican pandering to its right wing and have left the party or they agree with it. Either way, no one in the Republican Party seems to have any interest in victory, and they prefer to wear defeat as some kind of badge of honor.
Eventually, Republicans will tire of being out of power just as Democrats did, and they will do what it takes to win. But I fear that Republicans will have to at least lose in 2010 and again in 2012 before they start to come to their senses. Perhaps by 2014, some leader with maturity, resources, vision and discipline will find a way of leading the GOP out of the wilderness. But I see no one even in a position to start that process today.
Read the whole thing.
This is an example of overreacting.
TPM consistently makes solid, albeit partisan, points as it analyzes the political and policy scenes. Along with similar blogs that favor the opposite side of the aisle, I find it must reading.
But it's way too early to get upset or to assume that there's a conspiracy at the Sunday talk shows because they booked Republicans this weekend. Why?
The Republican coalition from the 1980s and 90s of social and financial conservatives has always been a marriage of convenience.
While there is some overlap between the two groups, for the most part the two lead very separate lives, sleep in separate bedrooms, and do very different things. They joined together in political matrimony and were seen together in public because that was the easiest way for each one to have a chance at being in and exercising power.
So what happens when that chance decreases or collapses and severe troubles develop between the two previous marriage of convenience partners? First, marriage counseling. Second, either a reconciliation or divorce.
A new book has moved to the top of your fall term reading list: Reclaiming Conservatism: How a Great American Political Movement Got Lost--and How It Can Find Its Way Back by Mickey Edwards. I picked it up after seeing Edwards appear on Bill Moyers Journal (watch it here). In this interview, he posed a simple question for people like me who fancy themselves to be conservatives, "How did the Republican Party get from 1964 to here?"
In my day job, I'm the director of the Nelson A. Rockefeller Center at Dartmouth College. Tomorrow marks the 100th anniversary of Rockefeller's birth. To commemorate the occasion, The New York Times published an op-ed by noted historian Richard Norton Smith, who spoke at our Centennial events back in April. Smith's conclusion is one with which I wholeheartedly agree:
Three decades later, “Rockefeller Republican” is widely seen as a contradiction in terms. Largely forgotten is the original meaning of the phrase, a counterintuitive coupling of late ’50s fiscal responsibility and early ’60s social justice — the same formula espoused by a majority of today’s electorate, for whom solving problems and forging consensus takes precedence over ideological purity.