Republicans Worried About 2008
By Warren Mass
Published: 2007-04-12 16:15 Email this page | printer friendly version



ARTICLE SYNOPSIS:
In a series of April 10 interviews, Republican leaders across the nation expressed pessimism about the GOP's chances of retaining the presidency in the 2008 elections. Among the negative factors cited were public dissatisfaction with President Bush, disagreement with administration policy on the war in Iraq, and difficulties their leading presidential candidates are having generating enthusiasm among conservative voters.

Follow this link to the source article: "Some in G.O.P. Express Worry Over '08"

COMMENTARY:
The Republican outlook reported in The New York Times for April 10 appeared grim:

"My level of concern and dismay is very, very high," said Mickey Edwards, a Republican former congressman from Oklahoma who is now a lecturer in public policy at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton. "It's not that I have any particular problem with the people who are running for the Republican nomination. I just don't know how they can run hard enough or fast enough to escape the gravitational pull of the Bush administration."
"We don't have any candidates in the field now who are compelling," Mr. Edwards said, adding: "It's going to be a tough year for us."
A Republican county party leader in Spartanburg, S.C., Rick Beltram, expressed a tale of woe shared by many of the party's faithful: "I would say a lot of people are not turned on because they don't see a lot of bright spots out there. Home prices are going down. Gas prices are going up. And the war keeps dragging on."

The only common thread among the Republicans' statements that surprised us is that so many of them appeared so clueless about how to hold on to their tried-and-true, generally conservative-leaning constituents. Last November's elections should have settled — once and for all — how most American regard the Bush administration's policy on Iraq, yet the "leading" GOP candidates (McCain, Giuliani, and Romney, whom the media are so fond of quoting) insist on going down with the ship on this issue. All three back the Bush position on Iraq.

Also cited was the awkwardness with which the "leading three" attempted to overcome their previous liberalism on social issues in a feeble attempt to gather support among conservative voters. Former Republican senator Alan K. Simpson from Wyoming, lamented the awkward position into which his party's presidential candidates are placed as they try to establish rapport with conservative voters with strong views on issues like abortion and same-sex marriage. "These tests are destroying the Republican Party," complained Simpson.

Instead of trying to hammer the three leading Republican square pegs into conservative round holes in accord with most Republican voters' values, few of those quoted in the Times article suggested the logical choice: selecting one of the less publicized Republican candidates with a solid history on such issues, such as Colorado Representative Tom Tancredo, Texas Representative Ron Paul, or another principled candidate yet to be considered.

One of the more sensible statements quoted was from Frank J. Fahrenkopf Jr., former head of the Republican National Committee, who said that Republicans must find one winning issue in 2008:

"What Republicans have to do here in the next year is do something other than complain about the Democrats," said Fahrenkopf. "What they have to do is take an issue — and I happen to believe the issue is immigration — they have to push very strongly for it."
Fahrenkopf's advice is well stated, so long as the Republican nominee in 2008 does not take the same position on immigration as the increasingly unpopular George W. Bush, who has repeatedly called for amnesty for illegal immigrants under the guise of "guest worker" legislation and "comprehensive immigration reform."

http://www.jbs.org/node/3417