Thread: Republicans Worried About 2008

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

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.


Sometimes it is like spitting into the wind!
I just think they have lost touch with the voters to such an extent that they can no longer hear us!
I am a life long Republican. But I made a decision after the last election.
I will never ever vote by party again. I know, I know what they say about the importance of getting Repubs in office so they can put judges in the courts etc...but I am not buying anymore and I am not sacraficing my vote any more. I won't settle. I would rather lose with the right guy then win with the wrong guy. They left the party, not ME. So what is the point of voting for them. They are only Democrats in Republican suits...blech!

The American people are screaming about immigration! They are furious. Is it being addressed? NO.
Did you notice that it wasn't even mentioned in the paragraph above?
THEY are blind and deaf by choice or stupidity. I don't know which.
The American people, I beleive are disconnected from the Repub party because it uses us to gain power and then ignores us. Well no more. AND for the record...I don't think the Dems are any better!
I am sick of all of them. I am sick of their blatant disregard for the will of the people and the good of this country. They can all go take a flying leap. You want MY vote? Take care of my country. PERIOD

The American people are crying out for candidates who have not sold their souls to the globalists, the CFR, the UN, and who truly care about the welfare of Americans and this country.

Using this criteria, the only candidates (Republican or Democrat) left standing are Tancredo, Paul and Hunter.

Immigration will be the defining issue in '08 because how one proposes to deal with the illegal immigration issue clearly spells out the candidates' priorities and how they view this country and its citizens.

Those candidates (Clinton, Obama, Edwards, McCain, Guiliani, Romney) who would support amnesty, "comprehensive immigration reform", & massive guest worker programs are basically telling Americans that they don't care if they bankrut this country and saddle citizens with trillions of dollars of new debt and higher taxes, or that our population will balloon to half a trillion people in a couple decades, or that we won't have enough water to support the population, or that we will lose our soverignty and personal freedoms as we are overrun with a third world populace in the North American Union.

As long as their globalist buddies get theirs!

This is what all of these candidates support but don't want you to know.

Look to the immigration issue. How they propose to solve this will tell you all you need to know.

DAMN, PAF!!!

Well said!!!

I never thought I'd become a single issue voter, but I have, and I will not vote for anyone supporting legalization in any form whatsoever. You're right, PAF, they are turning a deaf ear to the legislation the states are passing, etc...

They tell you right to your face, well go ahead, don't vote Repulican and see how you like immigration under Hilary. I'm sooo sick of that worn out tactic. If Republicans pass any current immigration plans they might as pack up and go home now, there won't be enough left after 2008 in Congress to make a difference.

Folks I hate to tell you this, but I've said it before and I'll say it again - the House Republicans are the only reason we don't already have a full blown amnesty for 20+ million criminal aliens. This is the kind of talk I heard a lot of when our cause (anti-illegal immigration) lost the majority in the U.S. House of Representatives during the last elections. Don't let the trees block your view of the forest. Regardless of the bad apple Republicans (a lot fewer than the Democrats), the majority of the Republicans in the House have been our saving grace up to this point. I for one am grateful for those "Republicans" on our side on this issue. How many Democrats do you see fighting tooth and nail against amnesty? I challenge you to name one Democrat that has been vocal against amnesty in the media.

Oh, and for the record, historically most third party candidates side with the Democrats on the issue of border security and immigration.

Every night before I go to bed I thank the good Lord for the likes of Republican's Hunter, Tancredo, Paul, Poe, Bilbray, King, Sensenbrenner, Hastert, Lamar Smith, Royce, Deal, Paul, and other Republicans in the House. Without House Republican support we would definitely be fighting a lost cause (actually there wouldn't be a fight). We don't have the support necessary in the Senate - that's already been proven.

By all means, pound the individual Republicans that deserve it, but don't condemn the whole party based on folks like Flake and Guiterrez.

Just something to think about.

Originally Posted by MW

Folks I hate to tell you this, but I've said it before and I'll say it again - the House Republicans are the only reason we don't already have a full blown amnesty for 20+ million criminal aliens. This is the kind of talk I heard a lot of when our cause (anti-illegal immigration) lost the majority in the U.S. House of Representatives during the last elections. Don't let the trees block your view of the forest. Regardless of the bad apple Republicans (a lot fewer than the Democrats), the majority of the Republicans in the House have been our saving grace up to this point. I for one am grateful for those "Republicans" on our side on this issue. How many Democrats do you see fighting tooth and nail against amnesty? I challenge you to name one Democrat that has been vocal against amnesty in the media.

Oh, and for the record, historically most third party candidates side with the Democrats on the issue of border security and immigration.

Every night before I go to bed I thank the good Lord for the likes of Republican's Hunter, Tancredo, Paul, Poe, Bilbray, King, Sensenbrenner, Hastert, Lamar Smith, Royce, Deal, Paul, and other Republicans in the House. Without House Republican support we would definitely be fighting a lost cause (actually there wouldn't be a fight). We don't have the support necessary in the Senate - that's already been proven.

By all means, pound the individual Republicans that deserve it, but don't condemn the whole party based on folks like Flake and Guiterrez.

Just something to think about.

Well put MW. You're right, don't let a few bad apples spoil the bushell.

Sensenbrenner is a globalist as well. Why else would anyone push for a North American Real ID?
King is a globalist as is Poe,Hastert, Lamar Smith, Royce

Ron Paul gets the Highest Score, Hunter Is a Patriot, and Deal

This web site shows 160 Patriots to 272 Globalists. There are a few good ones in there but not enough.

http://www.globalismscorecard.org/

I'm sorry jp_48504, but we can't cure all the ills in our country overnight. I don't care for globalist anymore than you do, but right now my main concern is illegal immigration and border security. I'll grant you, weak border security and illegal immigration are symptoms of the globalist agenda, but IMO this is a situation where we must treat the symptoms first. Doing so will make it easier to deal with the underlining illness which is the globalist agenda you speak of. FYI: Sensenbrenner probably did more than any one individual did to stop the last amnesty attempt.

Excerpt from Sensenbrenner speech:

The fact that I wrote the bill (referring to House enforcement bill)to fix a broken immigration system last year made me the target of the illegal alien rallies around this country demanding amnesty. I was vilified by the left and my face became the second most recognizable American politician in Mexico, behind President Bush. There were loud marches and cries about injustice. But, I held tight and won. And I will strenuously oppose any attempt by Democrats, or even by my fellow-Republicans, to pass amnesty legislation this year.

http://sensenbrenner.house.gov/News/Doc ... ntID=59555

Excerpt:

Speaker J. Dennis Hastert's insistence that major legislation reach the House floor only if it appears to be backed by a "majority of the majority" could throw a high hurdle in front of efforts to reach a House-Senate compromise on immigration later this year, lawmakers said. Hastert (R-Ill.) has invoked the policy in blocking bills that appeared likely to win approval from more than half of the House's 435 members but less than half of its 231 Republicans.

http://www.parapundit.com/archives/003476.html

I'm not going to bite the hands that sustain our cause. Solving the border security and criminal alien problem is an issue that needs dealt with immediately (our childrens future depends on it). Furthermore, satisfying this issue to our liking will be a setback for the globalist. Globalist or not, there is no denying what people like Hastert and Sensenbrenner have done to keep us in the fight against amnesty. Without them (and Repbulicans like them), you and I would be choking down a dish of amnesty with a side order of open borders right now.

I read the link you provided, jp_48504.

http://www.globalismscorecard.org/

Unfortunately a lot of those folks that are listed as patriots also support amnesty and are weak on border security.

Please don't misunderstand my position. I will not vote on a globalist for President of the United States (too much power), but I will side with them against illegal immigration and for tighter border security.