« Al Gore's Speech at the United Nations 9/24/07 (Audio - 19:25) | Main | BIl Clinton on the MoveOn Petraeus Ad »

How The Republicans Will Throw Away The 2008 Election

The Republican Party seems to have conspired against itself to make every attempt to lose the 2008 election possible. Nothing that the Democrats could have planned to counter the Republicans can match their own self-defeating plans for 2008. Here's the details:

The Republican Party could rally behind an electable moderate-conservative like Rudolph Giuliani and win the election with a moderate like this similar with the appeal of Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon or Gerald Ford, but likely party conservatives will tilt the primary victories to the wholly unqualified TV bit-actor Fred Thompson, solely because he is seen as the most conservative of the main candidates. Even James Dobson and Donald Trump consider Thompson to be an embarrassment to the party.

The continued race-baiting antics of the Republican Party conservatives on the immigration issue will only mean one of the lowest vote totals for GOP candidates in years by Latin Americans. Many formerly Red states may come into play in 2008 for this reason, and many Blue states may become more solidly Blue as well. This could save the Democratic nominee expensive funds to nail down close Blue states and spend more on possible wins in former Red states.

Christian voter strength for Republicans has likely badly eroded for 2008 because of the continued corruption antics by figures like Larry Craig as well as the multiple marriages of many GOP hopefuls in the presidential race. Any "family values" standard for the GOP has eroded under the conduct and lifestyles of some leading GOP figures.

Only 19% of Republican Party voters seemed satisfied with their choices of presidential candidates so far, leading to a weak and demoralized party. Even political contributions are in a serious slump as well. Republican phone banks struggle with a shrinking pool of aging and demoralized voters to tap for funds.

Many GOP lawmakers have turned down every invitation to speak to labor audiences, and now in 2008 find themselves in a poor position to compete for the votes by working Americans. In Oregon, Senator Gordon Smith only recently accepted an invitation by a labor audience to speak, but is facing a possible tough re-election despite a relatively moderate and positive voting record.

But the biggest 800lb. gorilla will be the Iraq War issue and the George Bush legacy in 2008. Both of these big issues will be virtually impossible for the Republican Party to overcome in 2008. The real kiss of death for any 2008 Republican ticket will be the support of George Bush. The more George Bush is seen as supporting the GOP ticket, the worst their chances in November 2008 will be.

While Hillary Clinton could unite some anti-Hillary Republicans to some extent, still the best evidence is that Clinton will win both the Democratic nomination and the 2008 electon as well. Even in some normally Red Southern states such as Arkansas, Virginia and Florida, Clinton currently leads in the polls, endangering the normal GOP base in the South.

There is little reason to expect that Republicans can win in 2008. Republican donors are better off to keep their funds in their pocket instead of losing funds on a certainly losing effort in 2008, and wait for their fortunes to change once the bad taste of George Bush and his Iraq War wears off.


Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!

  • Currently 3/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 3/5 (8 votes cast)


Comments (9)

Lee Ward:

Good post, Paul. It does seem as if they are intentionally throwing the election. If so, my guess is that they want the Democrats to get stuck with cleaning up the huge morass in Iraq, and then hope that four years from now the GOP can come back, blame the Dems for the genocide, and retake the White House in 2012.

They can throw this election easily enough just by throwing the black and brown vote away -- as you point out. The GOP's disrespect for people of color is continuing with very concrete, very real evidence of this conscious choice to ignore a significant segment of the American population.

In this election cycle, "Right America" is clearly "White America." They are solidifying their rich, white, racist, bigoted base and will attempt to rebuild beginning in 2009.

They screwed this country with Iraq, they know it, and Bush has no intention of trying to fix it.

Allen:

OT, I see where Rush Limpdick called some of our combat soldiers "phony soldiers."

But I sure don't see any puggies decrying him like they did with Moveon.org. Wonder why? Guess it only applies when some lefty does it, and the righties get a pass. Think wizbang crew will post anything about this?

ke_future:

i have a few nits to pick with your post.

being opposed to illegal immigration is not race baiting. it's being opposed to people entering our country illegally. this is not a problem for the republicans, per se, since a vast majority of voters are opposed to people entering the country illegally.

secondly, what happens to your 800lb gorilla if things continue to improve in Iraq? american's like a winner. and if by this time next year, it looks like the good guys are winning in Iraq, i think that you'd see more people, once again, thinking we had done the right thing.

while Hillary looks, at this point, like she will have the democratic nomination, i think you discount just how high her negatives are and how deeply entrenched that antipathy is. and it's not just among republicans. i have several good friends who are life long Democrats and definitely tilt to the left who say that they would vote for Rudy before they would vote for her.

i would argue that the is a very good chance for a republican to win in '08. none of the Democratic candidates have really caught fire either. and the democratic congress is not winning any converts.

and lee, if a demo does win in 08, pulls our of iraq, and there is a genocide, guess what? they WILL be responsible.

Ke_Future, the illegal immigration issue has often gone way past any normal concerns for border security for the U.S. and has degenerated into a merely racist rant by many on the right. Certainly this turns off Hispanic voters in droves who are legal citizens and suffer from discrimination created by this openly racist climate.

And the Bush Administration has no real plans to actually "win" in Iraq either. Their plan is to leave the problem with the next president, likely a Democrat, and then complain for years if the outcome is not very good. Iraq is a big nation of over 27.4 persons, and the tiny American force with a peak strength of just 160,000 troops is wholly inadequate to provide security to this nation. Even with a 180,000 civilian contractors and security forces and Iraqi military and police, there is an inadquate force. 1,000,000 American troops and a return to the draft would really be needed to police a nation this large with such a high violence level. Vietnam only had a population of about 17 million, and over 600,000 American troops was inadequate to win that war. In the battle of Iwo Jima, over 100,000 U.S. marines were required to suppress a Japanses force of around 20,000.

The Bush plan from the beginning was to engage in Iraq "on the cheap" and hope for the best. But there is not enough troops to even secure the borders and prevent a flow of foreign fighters or arms from nations like Iran or Saudi Arabia.

If Iraq was really as important as Mr. Bush claims, then a far larger U.S. military force would be required to keep order there and secure the borders. The only solution at this point is a political solution in Iraq to calm the sectarian violence and for Iraqi security forces to police their own nation at some early point. The Iraq War is simply too much of a drain on the federal budget at the expense of health care for children or education(Only about 43% of American students now graduate high school, and only about 33% of grade school students can read well)as well our all-volunteer military.

The advantage the U.S. has in high tech push button warfare, but in a low tech war like Korea, Vietnam or Iraq, the U.S. still has great difficulty. Without this high tech advantage the U.S. has little chance to actually "win" in Iraq unless there is about 8 times the U.S. forces there. This is the cold reality.

If there is actually some Republican plan to "win" the war in Iraq, then let's see it.

ke_future:

i can't deny that there are racists out there, on all sides of the political spectrum. however, every argument that i have heard a republican actually make has been based on the illegal aspect of the illegal immigration. honestly, they only time i've seen race brought into the argument is when those on the left claim that republicans are race baiting. the interesting thing i have noted is that a lot of people i know who have gone through the process to become legal immigrants are greatly opposed to the amnesty deals.

As far as Iraq goes, do you ever read anything by Yon or Totten? They are a couple of embedded web journalists in Iraq right now. They are independent writers/bloggers who are financed by donations. I'd suggest that you go read them before you blithely assume that things aren't getting better over. They offer a perspective that is different, but more convincing than what you find in the mass media. Neither of them are painting a picture that it's all roses and candy. But there is certainly reason to believe that we're making progress.

I think Bush wants to win. He also realizes that it will take more than one administration before Iraq will be stable. Do you know how long it took the US to become the US from the time of the revolution til we were indeed a nation under our current constitution? We, as a people, have been spoiled by instant gratification. Some things are hard, drawn out, and expensive undertakings. Are they worth it? Sometimes. Do I think that making the effort in Iraq is worth it? Yes I do. Not just for the sake of the US, but for the sake of the world, there needs to be more stable, democratic, and non-aggressive muslim nation in middle east. Right now, there's Turkey, and it really isn't an inside player in the Arab world.

BTW, the comparisons you made to Vietnam and Iwo Jima, I find to be weak. Iwo Jima was not a police type action. It was an assault on a heavily bunkered and fortified military objective. By that comparison, we did much better in Iraq than we did on the island.

Vietnam is a much more interesting comparison. Did you know that we never lost a major battle in Vietnam? That where we failed was in the public relations? The Tet offensive? Militarily speaking, we won. PR-wise, we lost. There is the risk of that happening in Iraq, but I think that is getting less every day.

By the way, I don't think that anyone has ever claimed that Iraq did not require a diplomatic aspect. I think the difference is that some people think that all it ever takes is diplomacy. I think that view is wrong. And I have history on my side.

Where did you get your stats on education, out of curiosity?

Baggi:

Great post Paul.

Keep em coming.

As a Republican, I don't do anything without checking to get advice from Wizbang blue first.

FMK:

Hooson's posts are always full of facts, links, and properly attributed 'quotes'.

Dear Baggi, I think that I'm pretty safe in disclosing any of my election insights becauseI believe that many Republican candidates are simply too stubborn to make theimportant changes necessary to win an election.

By the way, I'm a former campaign manager for an exploratory committee for a candidate for public office, so if any candidate could use a good campaign manager, I'm for hire.

FMK, I write opinion and commentary features almost exclusively, relying on my own insights and opinions. News features require a different standard.

Baggi:

Allen wrote:

But I sure don't see any puggies decrying him like they did with Moveon.org. Wonder why?

Yeah! And why didn't we decry it when Rush Limbaugh said President Clinton was an adulterer, or when Rush Limbaugh said President Bush's tax cuts were going to bring us out of our economic dulldrums we were in in 2001-2002, or why didn't we decry Rush Limbaugh when he said just about everything he's said that was true.


Oh.... wait.... I forgot, Jesse Macbeth is a phony soldier.

What's to decry here exactly? I await your command to decry.


Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

bluetips@wizbangblog.com

Advertisments

Categories

Archives

Technorati



Add to Technorati Favorites

Credits

Publisher: Kevin Aylward

Editors: Lee Ward, Larkin, Paul S Hooson, and Steve Crickmore

All original content copyright © 2007 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark. Wizbang Blue™ is a trademark of Wizbang®, LLC.

Powered by Movable Type 3.35

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.