Posted on 04/13/2006 6:33:27 AM PDT by FerdieMurphy
With the Democrat Presidential primaries apparently already completed, and Hillary Clinton declared the uncontested winner, it might behoove Republicans to start pondering a workable strategy for the 2008 election cycle.
Thus far, it has been the “business as usual” wing of the party, with such notable past candidates as Bob Dole, who are working hardest to define the impending race. And true to form, if they continue to dominate we should resign ourselves to “President Hillary,” nationalized health care, and the grim eventuality of our children being raised by some bureaucratic monstrosity of a “village.”
The list of Republican names presently being floated as potential candidates contains some notables with substantial and creditable accomplishments (such as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and former New York Mayor Rudy Guiliani). Yet their support for a liberal social agenda constitutes an insurmountable liability.
Along with Rice and Guiliani is the standard litany of Republican imposters, chief among them being Senator John McCain of Arizona and Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, either of whom would drive the pivotal “values voters” of the 2004 election away from the polls in record numbers.
Romney has been weak and indecisive on such issues as traditional marriage, and the sanctity of life. And when politically expedient, McCain has been openly hostile to the Christian Right. Ultimately, this band of moderates is devoid of any who could connect with the conservative grassroots of “Red State America.”
To have any hope of a victory, Republicans must first recognize that they simply cannot triumph by adopting Democrat rules of engagement. No Republican candidate can prevail as a cheap imitation of his/her Democrat rival. The insipid “move to the center” strategy, which never served the Republican Party well in the past, will fare no better this time around.
Secondly, Republicans need to come to grips with the fact that their track record of success, for at least the past four decades, can be directly correlated to their ability to steadfastly advocate and advance the conservative message in the face of inevitable media attacks and character assaults.
The three issues that will define America in the coming decades, and are thus of primary concern to the electorate (despite any efforts of the liberal cabal to disparage such concerns as “narrow minded” or “simplistic”) are national security, national sovereignty, and restoration of the American culture.
Democrats can garner a sufficient plurality to secure a victory by running against such principles, as did Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, but only when facing weak Republican opposition. But any attempt by Republican candidates to waffle or “moderate” on these issues, or any past track record of having done so, will deal a fatal blow to their candidacies. Thus far, at least among the presumed Republican “frontrunners,” prospects do not look good.
Last minute, election year “conversions” by candidates seeking to appeal to the conservative base will be no more highly regarded than Hillary’s sudden advocacy of her version of “Christianity.” And while mainstream Democrat voters regularly ignore such duplicitous reversals, the “red states” are not nearly so forgiving.
Rampant government spending with the blessings of the White House, the lack of a veto of any measure no matter how adverse to conservative America, and perhaps worst of all, the immigration issue have left George W. Bush with no political “coattails.” As a result, the best approach for Republican candidates would be to treat him as an irrelevancy.
This being the reality of the current political climate, only a few individuals yet stand out. Senator George Allen, of Virginia is one such personality. And although Senators have not historically done well when attempting to ascend to the White House, Allen was also a very successful Virginia Governor. Overall, he can credibly campaign as a stalwart conservative. And that is a winning strategy.
One individual who embodies the qualities of principle and leadership so sadly lacking among the present cadre of GOP hopefuls is Representative J.D. Hayworth of Arizona. Admittedly, Congressmen have had even less success at winning presidential elections than Senators. Furthermore, to date Hayworth has shown little or no interest in running.
But he is a solid conservative and a fearless advocate of proper border control, and possesses the charisma and devotion to principle that are essential to brave the storms of “political correctness” currently decimating legitimate debate in Washington. He displays a clearer understanding of the immigration issue than anyone on the Senate side, and is spirited in his determination to confront and, more importantly, to fix the problem
The next presidential election cycle is looming close at hand, and Hayworth would have to move quickly to establish an organization sufficient for an undertaking of this enormity. But by so doing, he could completely change the political landscape.
The ongoing demonstrations throughout America by advocates of illegal immigration reveal an ominous and metastasizing threat to the country’s future. And whether it is Hayworth himself, or someone else with similar qualifications who will take the reins of leadership, the events of the past few weeks prove that such a leader is desperately needed.
At first glance, Mark Warner looks formidable. A Warner/Richardson ticket would have a chance, if the moonbats can handle voting for ppl with a shred of rationality.
I would have voted for Zell, too. Holwever, Zell couldn't get a nomination for dog catcher in NYC -- not commie enough for the democrats.
Is it possible that TX will turn into a blue state? I don't keep up on statewide elections and trends.
I like Kay too. We'll never get a candidate we agree with 100%. Not ever. Darn it :-)
So I look at the following:
Their electability. No sense throwing support/money/time to someone who has no chance. Maybe I'd vote for them in the primary but after that, whoever the Republican candidate is I'll support for their:
1) SCOTUS appointments
2) National Security interests
3) Fiscal soundness which hopefully includes tax cuts
4) Shrink the size of government
Not in that order either; just things that are important to me.
My feeling is that without national security, nothing we do domestically will matter one whit.
Reagan won me over the first time I ever heard him talk, on Death Valley Days. He was a Democrat then. He just needed to wait for the right time, the right place and the right party. MA is the only state that never went his way. That's why I will never trust Romney.
Then why should a Texan support a liberal who can win in NY? Let me tell you most I know won't.
There are more women voters than men, and many of them will feel "it's about time".
The Republicans only hope is to run either Dr. Rice or maybe Elizabeth Dole.
I know many conservatives will not like Dr. Rice because she doesn't want to repeal Roe vs Wade. I hope they like Shillary even better - because that's who they'll get if they don't support the Republican candidate.
Some people will never realize that politics is ALWAYS the lessor of two evils. Always has been and always will. Wishing it were otherwise is futile and self-delusional. No one candidate is going to please conservative - no one.
The best we can hope for is: who can beat the dems. That's ALL that counts. If you believe otherwise - you are being extremely naive, and your naivety can cost us the White House.
I wonder if Romney will stay in Mass once he leaves the Governorship. They tried to challenge his residence when he ran.
What is the point of electing someone for his SCOTUS appointments when he is pro abortion and pro gun control? We have the Democratic party for that.
The day the GOP nominates a pro-abortion guy for president, the party splinters. That's not a threat, it's a fact. Those advocating "winning at all cost" had better think carefully.
SD
Walter Mondale's home state of Minnesota is the only state Reagan didn't carry in his landslide re-election. (And DC, of course.)
SD
"Hmmmm... I'd say a GOP victory in '08 would be VERY difficult to achieve. "
Economy. Economy. Economy.
Your forgot the most important of all. And it is doing quite well, if that continues many of those other issues you list are yesterdays news.
Also, Governors/Ex Governors are the best candidates to run for the white house.
Senators rarely win, let the democrats run a a Senator.
If TX turns blue the devil is ordering woolins and space heaters. There is not a single state wide elected rat in teh state. Unless you count the governor who was a rat and ran as a republican. But the way he has governed is gettign people to scratch their heads.
His dad was the governer of Michigan when I was in grade school and living there. He didn't go to far as a presidential candidate either.
The Republican party is a big tent party and those issues don't resonate with some voters. I'm not saying they don't resonate with me, because they do, but the fact is that Reagan, for instance, drew a lot of Democrat support for his middling position on a variety of issues.
Oh, I must have misunderstood your previous post because it sounded like TX could turn blue and then you'd feel comfortable voting third party since a Republican vote wasn't going to be helpful anyway.
Perry was a Democrat? I didn't know that. I don't know much about him and only know that during Hurricane Katrina, when he was on television during the initial movement of people out of New Orleans, he seemed very organized and on top of his game.
bbl to see what you say about Perry, if anything.
I have to get some stuff done around here.
I knew it was one of the far left M states. I guess he had already freed up the money for the big dig by then. That's the only reason MA would have voted for him.
Sure, I'll explain that statement. Hitler, naturally, is not on the right of anything. A socialist cannot be a "rightist". I never said Hitler was on the "Right" side of politics, and never would (why,they'd take away my MA in History if I ever did that!).
However, there is a phenomenon in American politics these days that I like to call the "Wraparound Republican" which is someone who leans so far to the right he's in danger of "wrapping around" and becoming a leftist, at least in terms of his rhetoric.
For example: Hitler made the statement and executed a policy pedicated upon the premise that Jews were the source of all evils in Germany (unemployment, communism, defeat in the first world war, etc), that is, objectively, no different than Buchannan stating that US Policy should be to cease support for Israel because of all the evils it's brought to us (terrorism, miltiary action in the Gulf, having to tie ourselves to unreliable allies, etc).
That is a "Wraparound Republican". The differnce is that since Buchannan can claim that because he doesn't have any homocidal tendencies towards the Jews based upon race or religion, that he's making a reasonable argument. The principle at stake (supporting an allied democracy under seige) takes a backseat to his bread and butter (whipping up the lunatic fringe which buys his books).
A lot of the republicans in XT were rats, and soem still govern as a rat. The saw the changing tide and changed parties.
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.