Ten Reasons Why the Republicans are Toast in ‘08
IGÇÖve always been a political bug.-á A couple of years ago, when I was still a Pastor, I took a large step back from political activism and IGÇÖm more convinced today that doing so was a wise decision than IGÇÖve ever been.-á That doesnGÇÖt mean IGÇÖm not still interested or donGÇÖt have opinions.-á It does mean that with a limited number of days in oneGÇÖs life, I donGÇÖt think spending a significant portion of them on politics is a wise choice considering the needs of this life and the things that will still matter in 1,000 years.
IGÇÖm asked all the time who I think our next President is going to be and I really donGÇÖt have to think about it long.-á I believe Hillary Clinton is going to be our next President.-á ThatGÇÖs not something about which IGÇÖm particularly happy, but neither does it mean that IGÇÖm going to slide into some sort of draconian morass of grief and hopelessness if IGÇÖm correct.-á I thought it was silly to hear the liberals say GÇ£IGÇÖm moving to Canada if Bush gets re-electedGÇ¥ -áand I think itGÇÖs equally ridiculous when I hear my conservative friends say that same thing about a Hillary Presidency.
But just for fun, allow me to put on my prognosticatorGÇÖs hat and tell you why I think weGÇÖll have our first female President in a little more than fifteen months.
Top Ten Reasons the Republicans are ToastGǪ..
[drum roll, pleaseGǪ.]
1.-á-á-á-á-á-á The best argument IGÇÖm hearing for Republican hope is that if Hillary gets nominated itGÇÖll stir up the base.
Sorry, pundits, but youGÇÖre out of touch again.-á The American population has a short memory and a shorter attention span.-á If the best argument the Republicans make for voting with them is that GÇ£Our candidate ainGÇÖt HillaryGÇ¥ then youGÇÖre smoking and inhaling some of President ClintonGÇÖs leftover cigars and they arenGÇÖt stuffed with tobacky.-á-á (Well maybe, whacky tobackyGǪ)-á Hillary is doing a masterful job of rehabilitating her image and the American population is falling for it.-á There is a major shift going on and people are giving her a second look.
2.-á-á-á-á-á-á Republican candidates are duds
LetGÇÖs face it.-á The Republican candidates are B-O-R-I-N-G.-á Fred Thompson has the energy level of a-átree sloth.-á Romney was elected the governor of Ted KennedyGÇÖs home state GÇô need we say more?-á (But if you want me to say more, IGÇÖm suspicious of guys that belong to cults that have special magical underwear you have to wear.)-á McCain GÇô cGÇÖmonGǪheGÇÖs just a cranky old geezer.-á-á Brownback has the charisma of a pet rock.-á HuckabeeGǪwhile I may like his positions, he-áis too small-time for todayGÇÖs political field.-á Giuliani is to real Republican conservatives as was Robert Casey to liberal Democrats.-á Ron Paul reminds me of a cult leader replete with a robotic sycophant base who apparently keep small shrines for him in their living rooms.-á Duncan who????-á If this is the best the Republicans have to offer, they are in really, REALLY bad shape.-á Collectively they are as inspiring as listening to Ben Stein read GÇ£War and PeaceGÇ¥. -á
3.-á-á-á-á-á-á TheyGÇÖve abandoned their conservative evangelical base
Can you imagine the Democrats treating their loyal base of African-Americans, labor unions or ACLU members the way the Republicans routinely treat the evangelical base that has put them in the White House six of the last eight elections?-á The Republicans consistently act embarrassed to be associated with the 40% of the electorate that considers themselves GÇ£evangelical/religious rightGÇ¥ types.-á TheyGÇÖve bought into the liberal hype of the mainstream media and inside-the-beltway pundits that say that they have to be GÇ£broaderGÇ¥ in order to be electable.-á Does anyone remember what happened to compromising, tax-raising Bush the elder or Bob GÇ£ViagraGÇ¥ Dole when they decided that GÇ£broaderGÇ¥ was GÇ£better?GÇ¥-á The evangelical base of the Republicans are totally ready to sit out this election.-á Totally.-á The way they can insure it is to put a pro-abortion candidate at the top of the ticket.-á The Republicans can’t win without strong support from the Religious Right, now matter what the media thinks.
4.-á-á-á-á-á-á Republicans have earned their reputation for being moral hypocrites
Sure Democrats have their drunks, their gay icons, their serial adulterers, their string of pecadillosGǪbut theyGÇÖve never claimed to be the party of GÇ£traditional valuesGÇ¥ and GÇ£morality.GÇ¥-á The Republicans have and then promptly trashed their reputations.-á Foley, Vitter, CraigGǪ.the list is long and sullied.-á Any claim to the moral high-ground was given away in instant message texts, brothels and airport bathrooms.-á When it comes to moral turpitude, a GÇ£tieGÇ¥ benefits the Dems.
5.-á-á-á-á-á-á RepublicanGÇÖs spending habits are not all that discernibly different than the DemocratGÇÖs
Nine trillion in debt.-á ThatGÇÖs rightGǪ.nine TRILLION.-á ItGÇÖs been the Republican failure from Reagan to Bush the YoungerGǪ.the complete and total inability to rein in government spending.-á The tax cuts always worked to stimulate the economy, but the corresponding follow-up of reducing government spending and entitlements always required more of a political price than they were willing to pay.-á As a result, the so-called GÇ£Smaller Government/Cutting WasteGÇ¥ plank of the Republican party was shown to have termites.
6.-á-á-á-á-á-á The war with Iraq
LetGÇÖs face it.-á It IS Vietnam d+¬j+á vu.-á Weapons of mass destruction that werenGÇÖt there.-á A civil war that is there.-á American boys are dying for Muslim extremists.-á ItGÇÖs a sad, sticky morass with no easy solutions.-á Fair or not, the Republicans are getting the blame for this war and with no end in sight, itGÇÖll be around to impact the next election for sure.
7.-á-á-á-á-á-á The GÇ£courtsGÇ¥ are a weak argument
One of the popular arguments for electing Republicans is the Supreme Court.-á Republicans have had their chance to select a solid conservative majority and what do we have?-á Souter?-á Kennedy?-á OGÇÖConner?-á At best, we have a 50/50 chance of getting a legitimate conservative on the bench under the best of times even when a Republican is in the White House.-á With a Democratic senate, hell-bent on putting up a litmus test on abortion, getting another Thomas, Scalia or Roberts confirmed is a long-shot at best.-á So whatGÇÖs the difference?
8.-á-á-á-á-á-á Failed to project an image of what they are GÇ£forGÇ¥, not simply GÇ£againstGÇ¥
Having given away their edge on moral issues, size of government, fiscal discipline and international relations, why is it again that conservatives are to vote for Republicans?-á Oh yeah, they arenGÇÖt Hillary and there might be a Supreme Court vacancy.-á Hardly inspiring rallying cries for a campaign.-á What are the Republicans going to do if they get the White House again?-á Reform Social Security?-á Yeah right.-á Stop abortion?-á Yeah, right again.-á Set good fiscal policy?-á Can anyone say GÇ£Ted StevensGÇ¥?-á They arenGÇÖt even giving the country a reason to vote for them.
9.-á-á-á-á-á-á Money, money, money
Follow the money.-á Republican coffers are low and itGÇÖs because no one wants to give money to a loser or worse yet, turncoats.-á The liberals and lefties are foaming at the bit in anticipation and they are writing checks likeGǪ.well, the federal government.-á Money follows power and opportunity.-á Guess whoGÇÖs ahead in that department right now.
10.-á-á The Demographics of a Clinton/Obama ticket
YepGǪ.IGÇÖm guessing itGÇÖll be Clinton/Obama.-á Think about the coalition that such a ticket will inspire.-á Democrats, liberals, African-Americans, Women/Feminists and anti-war activists.-á TheyGÇÖll take every state (easily) that Kerry won in GÇÿ04 and knock off a couple of more close ones.-á Republicans will win a handful of Southern and Western states with a couple of Midwestern states, but not a lot.-á The Dems will sweep the Northeast and left coast.-á TheyGÇÖll take out Colorado, the Northern tier and multiple Midwestern states.-á They have a chance in Florida, Virginia, North Carolina and a smattering of Southern states.-á They are simply unbeatable.
ItGÇÖs still early and a lot of things can change from a terrorist attack to a stock market crash.-á But I think most folks need to practice saying it.-á CGÇÖmonGǪ.altogether nowGǪ GÇ£President Hillary Clinton and the First HusbandGǪ.BillGÇ¥.-á
Can anyone make an argument that IGÇÖm not right?-á PLEASE?-á
CMoore said,
October 15, 2007 @ 9:59 pm
Thanks for the support. I love when my candidate’s percieved weakness is that his supporters are so adamant about the opportunity Paul’s Presidency symbolizes for all free peoples on Earth.
Peace and Free trade
CMoore
Dan Burrell said,
October 15, 2007 @ 10:46 pm
And thank YOU for proving my point so quickly!
Frank Sansone said,
October 15, 2007 @ 11:06 pm
Dan,
I think that you are pretty close to right on this. I don’t like it, but there is nothing I see right now to make me disagree with much that you have written.
Of course, you never know with politics. I don’t know of any exciting conservative Republicans who are sitting on the sidelines waiting to ride in and save the day, but mayber there is someone out there that will suprise us all. There could always be something unusual happen, but I can’t imagine what it would be. Until Perot came around, 1992 looked like a lock for Bush the elder.
The only major area where I think you are off on your assesment is in the issue of judges. While it is true the chances of getting solid conservative judges appointed are (as you said) “at best 50/50″, however, if the Republican lose the chances of getting a solid liberal judge is probably about 100%. We really don’t need two to four new judges appointed by Hillary with a willing Democratic Senate. I would much rather take my chances with someone who has a 50% chance of getting it right than with someone who has a 99.9% chance of getting it wrong.
Let’s hope (and pray) you are wrong.
Frank
Brian McCrorie said,
October 16, 2007 @ 12:07 am
Dan, my friend, of course you are wrong on this, as always!
I guess I’ll have to enlighten you once again!
I’ll give you two words to support my positive attitude: Mitt Romney.
Those of you who are awaking to smelling salts after my pronouncement need not be so surprised. As anyone who follows my blog knows, I am supporting Mike Huckabee for the Republican nomination. My support for him will drop after he loses significant ground in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. While I really like Mike, I don’t believe he is a viable candidate. All the big money people and influential elected officials have already chosen their guys and Mike isn’t one of their guys. It’s too bad…
That’s why I am also a contributor and supporter of Mitt Romney’s campaign. That’s right: Mitt Romney. Yes, he’s a Mormon. Yes, LDS is a cult. No, I don’t agree with his theology, not one bit.
However, I am electing a President, not a pastor, and Romney is someone who has both the means and the charisma necessary to energize the Republican base. Don’t believe me? Don’t have to.
BTW, if Giuliani wins the primary, he has my support, 100%. While Rudy may be many things, he is not soft or liberal when it comes to law enforcement. He has stated publically that he will name judges to the bench like Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts.
If for no other reason, the nominating of Supreme Court Justices is a valid reason for both concern and activism when it comes to this election. It is possible that 5 of the 9 justices could retire or die in the next 4 years. A court packed with Hilary justices could mess things up for the next 30 years. It is right to be alarmed.
And do we really think our nation will be defended by a Hilary government? The defense of the country is one of the chief and biblical reasons for government in the first place.
As far as money goes, Romney is doing just fine and has some of his own to put up against the likes of George Soros and the Dems.
Demographics are important. The Dems only really need to win Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado. Ohio is a given, at this point. Virginia will probably go too. Colorado has a fighting chance based on the defeat of Referendum I in the last election. I think that we are still a red state, but it’s really close. So what does that mean? It means that Republicans must turn some blue states red. We can do that in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan.
Okay, before I go on and on in an endless droll, do you want to rebut?
billy bob said,
October 16, 2007 @ 12:34 am
on your first point, people seem to be forgetting that hillary is the faithful spouse. you can’t tar her with bill’s infidelity. she had plenty of reasons to divorce him, but she didn’t.
Dave Hosaflook said,
October 16, 2007 @ 5:20 am
Of all R candidates, you nicest words were for Huckabee. You write, “HuckabeeGǪwhile I may like his positions, he is too small-time for todayGÇÖs political field.” I like Mike, too. Not only his positions, but his calmness under pressure, ability to communicate and even inspire, ability to manage, and his relative success with minimal resources compared with the top-tier millionaires.
He’s the only candidate with consistent consevative views that will energize the base we need to win the election. Bill Clinton was once “small-time,” too. If guys like Dobson, prominent SBCs, and Burrel would get behind him instead of backing Romney or third-party nonsense, Huckabee would fly quickly into big time. Come on, Dr. Burrell, let’s take a chance and persuade our folks to back Huck — he may be our only chance to avoid Hillary.
Don said,
October 16, 2007 @ 8:14 am
Hi Dan,
I’m afraid you are absolutely right. I cant even bring myself to use the argument about voting for the lesser of two evils.
Don
Rus Hardin said,
October 16, 2007 @ 8:23 am
Dan,
I can’t disagree with your assessment. But really, did you have to put the picture of Bill and Hill laughing on the post? It’s just…so wrong!
Joshua said,
October 16, 2007 @ 8:58 am
Really about the war in Iraq, ” It IS Vietnam d+¬j+á vu”. The only reason this statement is true is because the democrats have made it so. Things are going great there now and if the democrats were to acknowledge this, then their chances of being elected would be over. So instead they behave as if was a “quagmire”. The truth needs to be told sure there were mistakes, everyone makes them, but it is defeating when the war in Iraq becomes a “political war” here in the U.S.
David Stertz said,
October 16, 2007 @ 10:02 am
I think you have fallen into the trap of predicting the election way too early. The election is still over one year away! I think it would be a much better exercise to focus more on the Republican field (other than one sentence sound bites) than to predict doom for the party.
As far as your specific arguments go, the whole “we can’t have Hillary” argument is not the only argument out there. I don’t know whom you are listening to or reading, but I think you are misinterpreting the arguments being made. I agree with you that Hillary will be the nomination for the dems. So any comparison we make in trying to distinguish ourselves from the dems is going to be made based on Hillary being the nomination. So if you look at taxes, which one of the candidates of the Republicans are worse than Hilary? What about issues such as the war, health care, social security, Medicare, ect… Which one of these does Hillary come out on top on? So when a person says, “We can’t have Hillary” I think they are right in saying so.
You say that the Republicans have earned the reputation as moral hypocrites. You list three examples. Can you list more off the top of your head? The media has “given” republicans the reputation. I agree that this is a problem, but I don’t necessarily agree that this is the Republican’s problem.
The war issue is sticky - there is no doubt about that. However, there is still a lot of time between now and the election and lot of things could go right. A lot of things could go wrong as well. But let me just point out this: there are glimpses of things going right and if things even appear better by the time of the election, the war will be less of an issue.
The difference in spending is very noticeable between dems and rhinos. It has been fairly well documented that if you take out the war, we would be running close to meeting budget if not having a surplus right now. Dems would raise spending and taxes. We would be in no better position than we are now.
The courts are not a weak argument. I don’t know where you come off saying that we only have a “50/50″ shot. What about Roberts and Alito? I think they have turned out pretty good (so far). I can tell you this much, we would have a 100% shot of getting bad justices in if the dems are in control.
I could go on to talk about more of your specifics but my main concern is that many of the Republicans have bought into the media’s assessment of the election so far removed from the election itself. I really prefer Brian’s optimism to your pessimism so far removed from the election. You may be right, but this is a column that should be written 100 days before the election, not 100 days before the primaries.
Tim Lee said,
October 16, 2007 @ 10:44 am
Oh, ok. I thought it was more than a year before the election,however since you have called it and crowned Hillary Queen,err, President I will just stop concerning myself with this process we call nominating candidates and go on to something else.
I can see Hillary and Howard Dean screaming all the way to the White House right now. First we are going to New Hampshire then to South Carolina and then to Florida. GET OUT THE MEASURING TAPE FOR THE NEW DRAPES NOW!! YEEEEAAAAAHHHHHHHH
fishon said,
October 16, 2007 @ 11:57 am
Dan,
This small town preacher believes you are right on. I believe the best man for the job is Alan Keyes, but that will never happen.
Romney: No. I don’t trust him as far as I can run–I have a hard time walking. I would never vote for a cult member. Might as well vote for a Baal worshiper.
Giuliani: Now let me get this straight; he is for a women’s right to choose, but he will appoint judges to take away a women’s right to choose? Doesn’t anyone see something wrong with that thinking. Sounds like John Kerry. “I voted for the war, but I am really against it.
Call me radical, but as a Christian, I will NEVER vote for someone who will not take a clear stand against killing babies.
Looks like I may not be voting for a Pres. this year. No doubt I have made voting mistakes in the past, but when I have a choice between the lesser of 2 evils, and I know it, I refuse to vote for any evil. Then again, I will probably pencil in “Keyes.”
fishon
Rob Davis said,
October 16, 2007 @ 12:49 pm
Hi Dan. Interesting post and I enjoyed the wisecracks. : )
I know that your post was meant to be a prophecy and not an evaluation but I always struggle when people bemoan the lack of charisma demonstrated by the Republican candidates. IsnGÇÖt it superficial to decide on a candidate based on how exciting they are? Surely there are other qualifications that are more important. When you were behind the pulpit at NBC I remember you preaching a sermon on GÇÿstyle over substanceGÇÖ. Should that come into play here?
Great thought provoking stuff!
Norm said,
October 16, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
Dan,
I suppose I will just get it out on the table. If this country wants one “global village”, a “united North America”, English as the second language, and a culture whose moral compass has no “true North”, then I suspect you may be right. However, my hope, desire and deepest prayer is that we will not spend eight or more years traveling down that road - toward that end - on the apron strings of Hillary.
Dan Burrell said,
October 17, 2007 @ 12:14 am
David wrote…”You say that the Republicans have earned the reputation as moral hypocrites. You list three examples. Can you list more off the top of your head? The media has GÇ£givenGÇ¥ republicans the reputation. I agree that this is a problem, but I donGÇÖt necessarily agree that this is the RepublicanGÇÖs problem.”
Dan replies…
Bob Livingston, Strom Thurmond, Newt Gingrich and Ted Stevens come to mind immediately and I didn’t think very long….
Dan Burrell said,
October 17, 2007 @ 12:20 am
Rob wrote…”IsnGÇÖt it superficial to decide on a candidate based on how exciting they are? Surely there are other qualifications that are more important. When you were behind the pulpit at NBC I remember you preaching a sermon on GÇÿstyle over substanceGÇÖ. Should that come into play here?”
Yep…it is superficial, but it’s also reality. (Sadly, it’s also reality in churches also which is why some of America’s greatest Bible preachers have small congregations or are regularly run out of their pulpits by people looking for “trendier” and “hipper” guys.) In our post-modern world, shallowness prevails and in few places outside of Hollywood and New York is that point more obvious than it is in Washington.
But you’d think that with as many Republicans as there are in the world, we could find someone with a Reaganesque blend of personality AND intellect. And there is something to be said for a confident personality that inspires others to follow someone’s leadership. Whether we call it “vision” or “passion” or “charisma” — it is an undeniable factor.
But particularly in our pulpits there is a HUGE need for substance over style because theology is much, MUCH more important than politics.
Good point, though.
Gene said,
October 20, 2007 @ 10:24 am
Just a thought,
That late John Newton, converted slave trader who is the author of the familiar hymn “Amazing Grace,” wrote:
The kings of the earth and continually disturbing the world with their schemes of ambition. They expect to carry every thing before them, and have seldom any higher end in view, then the gratification of their own passions. But in all they do they are but servants of this great King and Lord, and fulfill his purposes, as the instruments he employs to inflict prescribed punishment upon transgressors against him, or to open a way for the spread of his Gospel…They had one thing in view, he had another.”
Proverbs 16:9 “In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps.”
Looking Unto Jesus!
Gordon Cloud said,
October 22, 2007 @ 10:24 am
In a recent survey discussed by the Weekly Standard, a poll of Republican voters in Iowa showed Huckabee in a close third behind Romney and Thompson. Maybe he can pick up enough steam to become a player.
Otherwise, I would say you are exactly right.
braedon wilkerson said,
November 21, 2007 @ 7:36 pm
The number one reason the Republicans are toast in `08….. George W. Bush. My canidate is John McCain. He`s a born again christain, POW, and he`s a real man of integrity. A “Reagan” in the making. Lets pray the GOP chooses him not those other guys or where in for it. Hey Dan is there a website you have with just miscelaneous ideas like this one? I`d like to talk with you about the issues. You seem like my kind of guy. John McCain `08!
Ten Reasons Why the Republicans are Toast in ‘08 « ChrisEller said,
March 1, 2008 @ 12:08 pm
[…] in Dan’s top ten list and why he believes Hillary Rodham-Clinton will be our next president, here’s the post. del.icio.us Tags: Hillary,Republicans,Dan […]
Ten Reasons Why the Republicans are Toast in ‘08 « ChrisEller said,
March 1, 2008 @ 12:14 pm
[…] in Dan’s top ten list and why he believes Hillary Rodham-Clinton will be our next president, here’s the post. del.icio.us Tags: Hillary , Republicans , Dan Burrell , […]