_________________________

Joel

iowa drug rehab

better for the GOP if Hillary had won

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].

Even if the GOP completely implodes, the voters they represent aren’t going to just disappear.

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:

Fully 70% say they are especially looking forward to the November election, which is comparable to the proportion in January 1988 that said they were highly anticipating the presidential contest (74%).

A smaller majority (54%) says they are looking forward to the presidential primaries. …

Far more Democrats than Republicans say they are looking forward to the 2008 election, especially the primary contests. Roughly three-quarters of Democrats (74%) say they are especially looking forward to the primaries, compared with only about half of Republicans (49%). This is consistent with previous Pew surveys showing higher levels of political enthusiasm and satisfaction with the presidential candidates among Democrats than among Republicans.

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.

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.

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.

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.”?

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…

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.

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.”?

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.

Limpbaugh savaged Huckster this time and it had no effect.

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.

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.

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.

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?