Posted on 09/24/2009 4:54:15 AM PDT by Kaslin
The D.C. pundits think they have it nailed. Sure President Obama and the Democrats have slipped from their mighty post-election high approval ratings. But the Republicans have no message and no candidates, and are a party that has allowed itself to become marginalized because of an over-reliance on the support of Southern whites.
Wrong.
For starters, no Republican has a prayer of capturing the White House without running the table of some large Southern states. Florida, Virginia and North Carolina all went for George W. Bush in 2004 and then for Barack Obama four years later. Recapture these states, and a Republican nominee is halfway to winning in 2012. So dismissing the importance of Southern support for the GOP is misguided analysis. The region is their base, and no party wins without first holding its base.
Next consider states such as Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico. They are less populated than the Southern states just mentioned. If they all go Republican in 2012, however, their cumulative electoral impact could make the presidential race highly competitive. Then the battle for the great swing state of Ohio begins. Suddenly the race is up for grabs, and the supposed marginalized "party of Southerners" grows viable again.
Another false charge is that the Republicans have no message. None other than Bill Clinton dismisses that thinking. In a recent interview with NewsMax CEO Christopher Ruddy, the ex-president in essence said that there are scenarios in which the GOP could retake the presidency in 2012.
Clinton admitted that his own health care reform efforts as president played a role in the Republicans' taking of Congress in 1994. And I'll add that no opposition policies the Republicans had that year compare with the assortment of potential policy missteps the Obama administration and the congressional Democrats have already "given" to the GOP in a matter of months.
Yet Clinton attributes more of the Republicans' 1994 success to the GOP's "Contract With America" than to any of his own mistakes. He in fact credits his White House with implementing some of the better parts of the Contract. Would you expect him to say otherwise?
Clinton's point (and mine over the years) is that ideas carry weight -- and elections. But ideas don't always have to mean new government programs. They can also mean reductions, eliminations, restrictions and limitations. Current polling suggests that Republican candidates that run on a platform of "less is more" won't necessarily be seen as being negative, but rather as constructive. Less spending, less interference with the free-market economy, and fewer new White House advisors and "czars" -- those are some of the ideas that might make a solid platform from which a Republican might launch a successful campaign for president in 2012.
Another swipe at the GOP is that it has no new faces or fresh blood to enter the political arena. That's off-base too. Early polling shows that former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is a likeable new player in GOP politics. And then there is the intense support for former vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin. That breadth and sustainability of that deep support is hard to quantify right now, but Palin can hardly be dismissed, as some pundits do.
Also telling for Republican voting trends going forward were the results of a lightly publicized special election for state Senate in Florida earlier this month. (I wrote about it in a recent column.) The Democrats put forth no viable candidate in the race, so the race was effectively decided in the Republican primary.
Thanks in large part to a voter turnout that was nearly twice as high as expected in this northeast Florida primary, it was the veteran ex-speaker of the state House who won by a fairly decisive margin. He bested a relative newcomer candidate whose best-known political ties were to the recent "Tea Party" efforts, and to those within that movement who are generally anti-tax, pro-business voters.
He finished ahead of other candidates who had previously held elective office. That's important in this conservative area of a bellwether state for conservatives. It showed that "Tea Party Republicans" can be a force. But it also showed that these voters want elected officials with experience.
This stands to reason when you consider that many Americans say in public opinion polls that they are concerned about the lack of experience of President Obama and of many working in his White House. People want a workable mix of ideology and experience in their leaders. That should be good news to Republicans like Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich.
Above all, this much is near-certain: Current trends tell us that the Republican Party's best chance to regain power is to put forth the philosophy that elevated the GOP starting with the rise of Ronald Reagan, and that somehow got lost in the George W. Bush years: to the greatest extent possible, keep government out of our lives.
So, does Sarah run as a Republican or Independent? If Independent, does she split the vote and put Obama back in office in 2012?
If anything, the pols in DC should understand that the status quo is over. Accountability is sinking in. WE THE PEOPLE are making ourselves heard, and the results could have an adverse affect on those who live off our taxes.
Frankly, if the Dems achieve health care reform and cap and trade it won’t matter whose nameplate is on the door.
The real question is purging the current Repubs for better fiscally responsible candidates for 2010. Retake the House and Senate, and end the insanity that is this administration and nightmare.
Emphasizing state sovereignty has got to be part of the mix. Republicans or Independents need to actively work to weaken the federal government.
If you told me in 1994 that would happen, I'd never have believed it.
Your post is so far the best one and right to the point
We don’t want a third party. That would just be a losing proposition.
What we need is to reclam the GOP and boot out the RINOs and any other socialist leaning influences.
You are correct. We should more concentrate for now on the 2010 election instead the presidential election in 2012. Ignoring the importance of the 2010 election will guarantee the rat’s power for years to come. This must be stopped in 2010
Anyone believing anything can run as a Republican. I don’t see why she shouldn’t.
You don’t know your GOP history. It, starting with Lincoln, has always been a big government, big tax, private profits for public debts party. There is no ‘reclaiming’ it.
We have to take it, by political force.
(Coolidge and Reagan aside)
Unfortunately, the US does not have a parliamentary system that would enable us to dump BO and his mob of merry Marxist professors by the end of the year with a vote of “no confidence.” He will have torn the nation into shreds by 2012, and the USA will look like his model, Venezuela, unless patriots, particularly those who have taken an oath to defend the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic, stand up against this power grab.
The only problem with this thesis is that we’re talking about Republicans, who never let a opportunity to fail go to waste...
I have seen this argument time and again here on FR. Since I could vote I have been a card carrying member of the GOP/RNC. They gave me Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, the Contract with America, McCain and also Voinovich. As I watch politics today, it is the Voinoviches that destroy our country and party. The strategy of pulling the polling lever for a candidate simply because they claim to be an (R) is over.
I won't pull the lever for just any pretty face with an (R). If that means I get stuck with a liberal democrat and an out of control congress ...so be it. The advantage for the real republicans is we are not saddled with an incumbent RINO in 2-4 years. Voinovich has been a known RINO for a long time and yet was reelected for decades. His presence and consistent voting with liberals has contributed to the agenda we now see being implemented before our very eyes. It is my contention that if we had, had a democrat instead, our likelihood of a stronger more conservative Republican party would exist today. It would have been easier to turn the seat than dealing with a RINO incumbant.
It is time to realize that the strategy of pulling the lever for the (R) has hurt our party and our Nation.
Then we have these screwballs like Glenn Beck going around saying that John McCain would have been worse than Obama. That doesn’t help at all.
People will think we may as well keep Obama and not worry about it.
Exactly. If the Republicans had stuck to that philosophy, we wouldn't have this hard-core clueless Marxist in office now.
Not good thinking at all. One does have to pick the lesser of 2 evils.
John McCain would not have been pushing the Health Care and had the huge out of control stimulus bill. Remember he would have vetoed any bill with pork in it. I agree that sooner or later he would have probaly liked the cap and trade and amnesty but everything else would not have been worse.
He would not be on a an apology mission and would not have made that embarrassing speech yesterday.
Lets hope not and lets also hope that stupid Huckabee stays out of it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.