GOP Post-Iowa: No Surprises
At Politico, the lead, post-Iowa headline concerning the Republican candidates makes this claim: “GOP race in total disarray.” At TMV earlier this morning, Shaun Mullen suggested it’s time for the GOP to panic. I respect the Politico and Shaun immensely, but I’m compelled to challenge both; the former more so than the latter.
To the writers of the Politico story, John Harris and Jonathan Martin …
Guys, I realize you may not write your own headlines, but your copy still leads us to the “disarray” conclusion … so no excuses. My question is this: Why is disarray in the GOP race considered “news”? For months now, fence-sitting, swing-voting Republicans in Iowa and nationwide have been telling anyone who will listen that they are confused, undecided, less-than-enamored with the entire field, and that they are more than willing to switch loyalties in a heartbeat for the latest poster-boy of the month. So why does it, then, apparently surprise you that a greater percentage of Iowa Republicans (vs. Democrats) stayed home and avoided the caucuses? Why does it seem to be a sudden revelation that this race is up for grabs?
To Shaun …
I don’t take any general exception with what you wrote. But I do wish you had added a sentence or two acknowledging what I think you (like me) already believe, namely that the time for the GOP to panic was years ago (in my view, somewhere around 2005 or earlier) — when a runaway power-concentrating Oval Office and drunk-spending GOP Congress was violating every core principle of the Party of Lincoln. I’m still angry about my own prior blindness to these matters; hell, I didn’t really wake up and realize what had happened to my Party until early 2006. But I will give you this much, Shaun: Maybe now, a majority of Republican voters, particularly those of the dual-moderate sort (inclusive on social issues; reasonable on foreign policy) — voters who I’m still convinced are the real base of the Party, despite their slumbering — will finally wake up and smell the coffee.
Face it, folks: McCain’s the only GOP candidate who could possibly keep pace with the eventual Dem challenger in the general election; but if that Dem challenger is Obama (as it increasingly looks like it will be), even McCain’s heroism and integrity won’t be enough. Accordingly, dual-mod Republicans will need to wait until at least 2012 to resurrect their party. And perhaps that’s a good thing. As slow as we’ve collectively been to recognize the crisis we’re in, the chances are damn good we’ll need another four years to make things right.
27 Responses to “GOP Post-Iowa: No Surprises”
Pete:
You are correct that we pretty much see eye to eye on this, including McCain being the only Republican to have a real chance next Novemeber. In fact, I might consider voting for him if the Democratic nominee is Clinton.
Where we differ ever so slightly is even noting that the time for the GOP to panic was circa 2005.
This to me is a non-starter because conscientious Republicans did not have the guts to speak up, whether on the floor of Congress or out on the hustings, although they knew that their president was a power tripper of profound incompetence and that their beloved GOP was heading for inevitable disaster unless enormous corrections were made.
Noting this coulda-shoulda aspect merely compounds the GOP’s shame.
I hate to inform you guys of something but:
The Gop was toast a long time before 1995. It was toast when the GOP turned, in a knee jerk reaction to Clinton, to Newt Gingrich in 1994 and turned politics into a Social agenda.
Once that happened the inevitability of failure was written upon the landscape.
Social issues MUST remain with the states. The government is about running this nation in a business like nature. The GOP seems to have forgotten that BECAUSE they reacted to the DNC’s perpetual inclusion to every pac group that formed, most of which had social agendas instead of agendas that moved this nation forward in a business like way.
So while I have always disagreed with “The LETTER” it was not because of what it said, but because it continued to advocate more of the same………Government interference in peoples lives……either by acts of commission or omission.
The government needs to run this country……….NOT OUR LIVES.
LOL – Somebody I agree with you 100%. But, the Republicans brought in the Religious Right starting in 1980, so even 1995 is off. Now your sounding like a BJ’s John Cole.
In 2012 the Republicans need to look at a Florida governor, and not another Bush. IMHO the Bush family legacy will rank with Hoover, and I mean all Bush’, not just the current POTUS. Crist is the face of real moderate Republicans. A pragmatist not a pandering…
[...] The Moderate Voice Face it, folks: McCain’s the only GOP candidate who could possibly keep pace with the eventual Dem challenger in the general election; but if that Dem challenger is Obama (as it increasingly looks like it will be), even McCain’s heroism and integrity won’t be enough. Accordingly, dual-mod Republicans will need to wait until at least 2012 to resurrect their party. And perhaps that’s a good thing. As slow as we’ve collectively been to recognize the crisis we’re in, the chances are damn good we’ll need another four years to make things right. [...]
Now your sounding like a BJ’s John Cole.
Don’t know him.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This has become the definition of politics in America.
The Religious right movement was born out of the Democrats embracing of pacs with social values that were equal and opposite to Christian values.
Gingrich was a reaction to Clinton. Reagan and the RR was a reaction to Jimmy Carter and his smiling BORN AGAIN CHRISTIAN VALUES.
Once the Democrats were trounced by Reagan…then a reassessment commenced and 12 years later they turned to Clinton. A moderate……..who attempted to keep politics MODERATE. The reaction to Clinton by the right was equal to the antiwars reaction to Bush on the left.
Create friction, make up stuff and scream really loud.
Polarization began…..not under Reagan but under Clinton by the GOP.
I am the first to admit that the polarization of American politics was started by the GOP but the Democrats have taken the ball and run with it.
I couldn’t agree more that McCain is the only one who has a hope of beating Obama.
However, I think there’s also some truth to the descriptor “disarray”, since it’s not impossible that Huckabee could survive the inevitable onslaught from the GOP establishment. If he does, we can likely expect chaos and splintering.
Not that the GOP doesn’t need this painful process. But today’s situation is the outcome of many years’ divisive tactics and unsuitable bedfellows, and the potential results make “disarray” seem a mild term.
It may be true that McCain is the only one capable of winning in ’08, but he has very lukewarm support from the party elite who despise him for voting against the Bush tax cuts, promoting Bush’s comprehensive immigration plan and passing campaign finance legislation. Compare that to an Obama who is on fire within the party.
McCain is more polarizing in his own party than he would be in the general election. Plus, his age would contrast poorly with Obama’s youth (though his national security experience helps him. He actually has a much better grasp on those kinds of issues than Giuliani, who is running on them.)
I was reading a Washingtonain magazine story about the New Hampshire primaries. In past elections, there was a month between Iowa and New Hampshire. Now there are a few days. Candidates who did not win in Iowa had a month to regroup. Now with the much larger media frenzies and the short time, it will be much harder for the runners up to play catch up in the Democratic Primary.
There is no disarray. It’s just a weak GOP field.
No surprises — you’re right, Pete. Huckabee was buoyed here in Iowa by a substantial Religious Right presence. To the extent that there is a negative reaction among the rest of Republican-leaning voters toward the Religious Right, we’ll soon see it, as soon as in New Hampshire.
I don’t like McCain, and others do not, but desperation among GOP-leaning voters may propel him eventually to first place or at least to a high place. He’s got baggage, but he’s likely seen as competent — and Huckabee has made some gaffes that probably remind voters too closely about Bush’s gaffes. Also, the party leadership as well as Wall Street and the business community will be aghast if Huckabee is the eventual nominee. Already there is talk about a McCain-Huckabee ticket (which makes me wonder if Wall Street is thinking back to VP Teddy Roosevelt and Hanna, updated: “Now that damn preacher is President!” would be possible).
Last of all: In an earlier election, Rush Limbaugh in full party-hack pre-election mode savaged McCain. Will he be a McCain booster this year?
DLS – Limpbaugh savaged Huckster this time and it had no effect.
Somebody – I believe your wrong on the RR being a more national power. Their origins were at a local level around the time of Carter. Their political power started at the grass roots level. Robertson and Falwell were national leaders of this grass roots movement after it started. Reagan and others cynically tapped into the movement. If I’m wrong, somebody show me otherwise.
[...] Right on. Write on, pundits, as the spin keeps right on going. On and on. And on. And let the polls continue. Clinton and McCain are ahead in New Hampshire. [...]
Great dialogue and impressive comments.
Shaun — you’re right, the time frame goes back farther than 2005, although I do think that’s the latest possible date when Republicans should have realized what’s going on.
Of course, by my own admission that I didn’t wake up until 2006, I’m among the guiltiest of the guilty.
And that’s why the R’s will lose this one, be forced to sit in the dark and use the 08-12 years to regroup, get right with the party’s historic principles, and (as another commenter wrote) start thinking about how to run the nation, not people’s lives.
Just wait. He could be worse. (Though he and his show are old and tired and maybe you’re onto something, other than support for Huckabee.) And I’d laugh if Limbaugh, who savaged McCain several years ago, now becomes his very best buddy this year, especially after (if) McCain is the nominee.
Pete,
An undiscussed bad effects of the Bush Administration’s incompetence is the complete failure to develop the next generation of Republicans. Look at the number of former Clinton staffers who are now in elected office. Very few people who served in the Bush Administration will ever be able to run for elected office.
If the repubicans are totally out of power for 8-12 years, then that gives them 20 years of not developing the next generation. Anyone with any interest in politics will have to become a Democrat. See states like Mass. or Maryland for a total lack of future Republican talent and extrapolate that to the national level. Since people will not be able to vote with their feet, they will have to find other means of dealing with a one party state.
Also, in 12 years the percentage of the U.S. that is white will be even smaller. The Republicans are fated to fade away because there no future demographic groups that they do not have now that they will be able to compete for. Also, in 12 years there is a great than even chance that the Democrats will pass illegal immigration amnesty and create million more automatic Democratic voters.
Pete,
I don’t think the Republicans are capable of regrouping and rethinking that quickly. The people with all the power now never admit any error except that they just didn’t communicate their message properly. The concept that there is a core problem with their stances does not occur to them. How many times have we heard variations on “The American people agree with (insert list of supposed Republican values here), we just have to communicate better.”?
Superdestroyer — I actually meant 2008 to 2012, i.e., four years to regroup, not eight to 12. And while I don’t agree entirely with your conclusion, I would agree that if the R’s did wait 8-12 years to get their act together, they might not be toast, but they’d definitely be very crispy around the edges.
Jim — You’re right. It’s not just a communication problem, it’s also a policy problem, i.e., it’s both. Bill Clinton proved that to the Dem’s between 92 and 00. Will R’s eventually get it; will they eventually find their Bill Clinton? I still think they will. But I’m stubborn, albeit not stubborn like GWB. Stubborn more like the pedestrian pundit I pretend to be.
Jim, the problem is that even if most people do agree with many of these espoused values, there is a disconnect when it comes to translating these values — no matter how well communicated — into programs and policies that positively effect the populace at large. Time will tell if it’s because of temporary competence or something structurally deeper…
Pete, I agree with you that Republicans will find that person. The Democrats spent a long, cold time in the post-Jimmah wilderness before hitting on someone palpable to the masses… If the public repudiates Republicans wholesale come November, given time and unforseen events known as the future,they’ll invariably tire on the Dems and seek an alternative as well.
Idiosyncrat,
There is nothing inevitable about the Republicans coming back. This is especially relevant given the failure of the Republicans to compete in so many congressional races or challenge the Democrats in the Senate. Bill Clinton came to power in a conservative state that was dominate by Democrats. There is no situation anywhere similar for a Republican to come out of.
A real question is whether there are enough voters e who would even consider supporting conservative principles such as small government or balanced budgets to even make the future of the Republicans possible. Given the fast growth in the Hispanic and black populations, I doubt that a truly fiscal conservative party can survive. That just leaves two political parties fighting over who gets how much of the government’s largess. Such a situation will quickly lead to a single party state such as Mass. or Maryland.
[...] Martin (dogging the R’s). And I’ll continue reading this site, even though I thought their lead GOP headline today was a little [...]
Superdestroyer–
As to the one-partyness of Massachusetts and Maryland, they both had Republican governors until early 2007. 2007–that was just last year, you know.
They were Robert Ehrlich of Maryland and from Massachusetts…wait for it…Mitt Romney.
Facts being the stubborn things that they are.
George,
Ehrlich accomplished nothing in maryland and had most of his veto overridden by the Democratic controlled legislature. Ehrlich was totally ineffective and lost his re-election in a rout. From what I understand, Romney spent most of his time in the state house having his veto’s overridden.
In addition, the state house in Maryland was more Democratic after Ehrlich’s time in office. The Maryland Republican Party is so poor now, they are having problems generating enough funds to maintain a full time office.
The day after both Ehrlich and Romney left office is was like they never served. That is a fair indication of a true one party state.
Even if the GOP completely implodes, the voters they represent aren’t going to just disappear. They’ll rally behind someone or form a new political party. And even if that doesn’t happen, I’m willing to bet that within a generation, the Democratic party winds up splitting into two very distinct factions, and probably 2 separate parties. We’ll have progressives and small ‘s’ socialists on one side, and the blue collar socially conservative Dems on the other.
Ironically, it’s the younger generation that is likely to be most receptive to small-government arguments someday, once the Baby Boomers have retired in large numbers and the costs of (and taxes for) Social Security and Medicare reach previously unknown levels.
* * *
Meanwhile, back in the present, there is this, from Pew:
I think its safe to say that it would have been better for the GOP if Hillary had won Iowa. Many who are sitting on the sidelines would have jumped on the bandwagon to support even a McCain or a Huckabee, if they were the last resort. Many right wing talk radio hosts have already mounted an anti-Hillary campaign, and would not have as easy a target with Obama or Edwards. The Republican party needs an enemy to unite its disparate factions.
Yep. As you pointed out, it’s not “pro-X” this year but anti-Hillary insofar as the GOP vote goes. (Pat Robertson endorsing Rudy Giuliani is nothing but.)
And to attack Obama would be called “racist” [sic].
Hi,
This is very interesting story. I like this very much. Provide more information related to this story. I want to knoe more from this story. Thanks for giving this opportunity.
_________________________
Joel
iowa drug rehab