Have you wondered about Bush’s “uncontested” status…?

[KansDem]

I know this might sound naive, but are there Republicans out there who see the US heading in the wrong direction, but don't want to challenge the Bushistas? They could oppose the Iraq war, huge deficit spending, and similar major Junta policies, but choose not to. Let’s put the obvious aside (party unity) and ponder if:

1. The Bushistas have made it clear they will not tolerate any challenge to their authority within the Party. This could be done quietly, perhaps one-to-one, so as to not alarm the general population (the “F*ck with us and we’ll kill you” argument). Perhaps Republican challengers are too afraid for reasons of personal safety or political career.

2. Monied-Republicans (“Pioneers”?) are supporting the Bush Junta, and don’t really care about other Repubs, such as the Fundies, middle-class Repubs, working-class Repubs (there are some. I’ve seen them), “family-values” Repubs, etc. They care mainly about their own wealth and power, and only tolerate these other Repubs for their votes by emphasizing single “hot-button” political issues. (“Yeah, yeah, sure…”we” oppose abortion. *wink, wink, nudge, nudge* That “conviction” should be good for wyz million votes. Now, get out of our face until the next election”).

3. Sensing the “invincibility” of the “Bush Juggernaut" (media lapdogs, Supreme Court partisans, Diebold shenanigans), potential Republican challengers, who have issues with the Junta, have adopted a “go along to get along” philosophy. Like the Democrats and the Medicare bill, they feel they could “fix” any damage done now at a later time, when the Bushistas are "out of power."

Are there other reasons…perhaps variations on these stated?

Remember how Bush was essentially unchallenged (John McCain was an exception) since he announced his candidacy in 1999. Might this condition have existed since then and even long before?
:dem:

[MuseRider]

1. Welcome KansDem!

From another Kansas Democrat. I had not seen you around until just now. Where are you? I am in Topeka. There are a few of us from Kansas around this board so welcome to the DU!

[KansDem]

6. Johnson County...

Prairie Village to be exact.

Thanks for the welcome!

[YNGW]

2. Incumbent Presidents.....

....generally run unapposed. Don't read too much into it beyond that. You put the "obvious aside", and you're just grasping at straws.

[theboss]

3. Read history

Incumbent Presidents generally do not face insurgencies in their parties. Only LBJ in '68, Carter and Bush I are exceptions. (Ford doesn't count since he was barely president and wasn't elected). It should also be noted that they are the only recent incumbants to lose. Clinton ran unopposed, as did Reagan, Nixon, LBJ in '64, Eisenhower, Truman (I think), and Roosevelt. Kennedy would probably not have been opposed in '64.

And Bush was actually challenged in '99 through 2000. McCain attacked him from the left and Steve Forbes attacked him from the right. Alan Keyes also stayed in the race til the end. And he had to deal with Buchanan as well.

[KansDem]

7. “Incumbent Presidents generally do not face insurgencies in their parties”

I agree with your assessments. Most of the incumbents mentioned ran on records of peace & prosperity, and certainly the “threat of communism” factored greatly into many unopposed campaigns. Those who were challenged generally had records to defend: LBJ and the Vietnam War, for example.

Conversely, Nixon used the Vietnam war to win election in 1968 (“Elect me and I’ll end the Vietnam War”—it worked so well he used it again in 1972, only by then it took on its “peace with honor” veneer).

I just a little bewildered about the lack of an insurgency regarding Bush, the Unelected. Consider his record: he came to power due to fraud, presided over the worst attack on US soil and is now actively thwarting any investigation into that attack, invaded a sovereign nation based on lies, has entangled the US in a never-ending un-winnable war, and is engaging in unprecedented deficit spending generally to enrich his supporters, to name only a few. Am I to believe the average Republican considers these to be positive “accomplishments?”

I would think Bush’s record would spark a challenge from within his party. Since it apparently hasn’t, I can only surmise that the “culture war” is greater than I imagined.

[AntiCoup2K4]

4. I'm still hoping Pat Buchanan jumps into this thing

Hell, if they hadn't cancelled the Washington State primary, I'd even vote for him, just to help him siphon votes from Junior :evilgrin:

Go Pat Go!!

[PATRICK]

5. Incumbency haven, but,

There are deeper, instictual reasons for the GOP to circle their wagons around whatever succeeds, no matter how bad it is in any way.

Loss of power and even extinction. I have watched what JFK called "party trajectory" since Nixon. Looking back before Nixon also confirms the "ptrogressive" movement of the GOP toward two kinds of self-destruction- the electoral or the soul. Being materialists even in their religion they easily chose what most power animals would.

Yet betrayal by idealists from their own upper class(Roosevelt, JFK) and the surging numbers for populist democracy enhanced by increasing Hispanic and non-Anglo newbies not only continually stokes the pressure cooker against the staid rule by the few with the means of the antiquated, but can be blown off at any time. We see veneer of fraud constantly paved over with a verbal Matrix of lies, subversion and a web of crime and complicity that could make their fall even harder than the depression they subjected the nation to. Do they dare look into their own smoky mirror?

The pyramid scam can always collapse quickly. The Republican base is filled with traditionaslists NOT involved in the power, not aware of the consequences, not aware of their own manipulation by the ruling elite, not benefiting from the loot, not members of various fanatical or amoral groups cobbled together for the "Dark Empire".

Instinctively though, they uphold the hand by which they rise life Milton's Satan- or fall just as dramatically. The sycophants and myth caretakers, even centrist Democrats are being sucked spitefully into this black hole.

Bribery, fear, power or extinction. This fantasy skates on the thinnest ice, but the power is very real for now. Most of the GOP has realized it has gone too far to turn back from old fashioned tyranny. Most cannot cope with the future other than making a buck. Needless to say they are not sympathetic to the people values of democracy or the real meaning of America- when they themselves are threatened.

There are larger consequences for humanity, the world and the present economic system that probably underlie such a feeble thing as party affiliation. The bifurcation of a social moral split in the electorate I think shows the greater power of the present and upcoming changes.