Umm...

So what would a Bush Republican be? Maybe it is a republican someone who consistently sounds one way and consistently acts another.

I should also note that you could probably characterize a Clinton Democrat pretty easily. That whole DLC thing sums it up.

This point is well taken but one of the reasons people like Humphrey or Jackson don't get to be President is that they achieve things, take stands, make policy, etc., and in the process alienate either part of the electorate or of their own party. Nor is this a new phenomenon in American politics. Think about a major party nominating a Presidential candidate whose political background consisted of serving in the state legislature of a lightly populated, peripheral state, had one term as a back-bencher Congressional Representative, and failed in 2 senatorial elections. When much better known candidates fail because they are opposed by powerful enemies within their party, this true dark horse gets the nomination. This is Abraham Lincoln.

Instead of a "Kerry-democrat" I think the last election gave rise to the "anybody but Bush democrat."

A Bush Radical being a person who fails at everything he attempts in his life, needing his daddy's friends to bail him out? And who then goes on to perfect his skills in Windows Solitare?

Cranky

A "Gore Democrat" ought to have been descriptive. Sort of "neo-liberal" (doess anyone use that term anymore), Clinton moderate on defense, very outspoken on the environment.

But then, there was the Gore presidential campaign, where Gore became a Shrum Democrat. That has been followed by the Gore post-campaign, where Gore seems to have transmuted himself into a daily Kos Deemocrat.

Kerry was the anti-Bush. For me, that was enough, but that's no way to run a campaign that will get 51% of the vote.

The question is, will be people willingly identify themselves as Bush Republicans years down the road? Somehow, I don't see the free-spending deficit loving trash-talking being all that attractive as a positive label in 2025.

As the advent of the Bush Republican is still a source of some pain to me even as the definition of one has evolved, I may not be the best person to answer that question. At any rate it is a question for Republicans; I was only asking one of Democrats. Even I need to place some limit on the length of posts and the number of things they can cover.

The terms you identify (Humphrey D, Jackson D, etc.) are shorthand for portions of the party that essentially differed from the rest of the party on particular issues. With Humphrey, it was civil rights. With Jackson, national defense. So the better question for Republicans is not what is a Bush Republican (after all, he became President), but what is a Delay Republican or a McCain Republican? For the Rs, these labels and issues are going to become more important as we approach the '06 elections and certainly in '08.

There's no such thing as a Kerry Democrat or a Gore Democrat, but there is such a thing as a Dean Democrat, and many in the party do identify themselves in that way. For a politician to be the leader of a sub-movement, they have to differ from the party "average" in some significant way. Kerry and Gore are too average. Dean is not.

"The question is, will be people willingly identify themselves as Bush Republicans years down the road? Somehow, I don't see the free-spending deficit loving trash-talking being all that attractive as a positive label in 2025."

posted by: Appalled Moderate

Probably an attractive position just before that, given a two-term Democratic administration from '08 onward. That'd be long enough for people to forget about how badly Bush II has been. And to get bored/faux outraged with a boring fix-it-up president.