GOP, R.I.P.?
The Reagan coalition is down, but not out.
BY KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
OpinionJournal.com
Iowa Republicans went to the polls yesterday, and pity those who thought they were merely choosing a presidential nominee. Turns out they were taking a mallet to the modern frame of the Grand Old Party.
Or so goes the thinking of certain pundits and political gurus, who've taken the fractured state of today's Republican race as evidence the Reagan coalition is dead. The party is shrinking, its groups flying off in all directions, they say. "It's gone," says Ed Rollins, the former Reagan adviser and current Mike-Huckabee muse. "The breakup of what was the Reagan coalition--social conservatives, defense conservatives, anti-tax conservatives--it doesn't mean a whole lot to people anymore." It's time for something new, these people say. Though don't ask them what.
Or don't even bother, argue New Republic editor John B. Judis and think-tanker Ruy Teixeira, who claim it is simply too late for Republicans: The country is plodding toward a new era of Democratic rule. "Political, ideological, demographic and economic trends are all leading toward durable Democratic majorities in Congress, control of most statehouses and, very possibly, the end of the decades-old GOP hammerlock on the electoral college," they wrote recently.
True, the GOP is flailing. Congressional Republicans were tossed out for loss of principles. The nation is uncertain about President Bush's aggressive foreign policy and its mixed results in Iraq. Demographics hold big challenges. Tensions have flared among the party's wings. And, while the nomination race has churned up capable folk, none have so far demonstrated the force to calm the waters.
Yet the reports of the Reagan-coalition death are exceedingly premature.
BY KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
OpinionJournal.com
Iowa Republicans went to the polls yesterday, and pity those who thought they were merely choosing a presidential nominee. Turns out they were taking a mallet to the modern frame of the Grand Old Party.
Or so goes the thinking of certain pundits and political gurus, who've taken the fractured state of today's Republican race as evidence the Reagan coalition is dead. The party is shrinking, its groups flying off in all directions, they say. "It's gone," says Ed Rollins, the former Reagan adviser and current Mike-Huckabee muse. "The breakup of what was the Reagan coalition--social conservatives, defense conservatives, anti-tax conservatives--it doesn't mean a whole lot to people anymore." It's time for something new, these people say. Though don't ask them what.
Or don't even bother, argue New Republic editor John B. Judis and think-tanker Ruy Teixeira, who claim it is simply too late for Republicans: The country is plodding toward a new era of Democratic rule. "Political, ideological, demographic and economic trends are all leading toward durable Democratic majorities in Congress, control of most statehouses and, very possibly, the end of the decades-old GOP hammerlock on the electoral college," they wrote recently.
True, the GOP is flailing. Congressional Republicans were tossed out for loss of principles. The nation is uncertain about President Bush's aggressive foreign policy and its mixed results in Iraq. Demographics hold big challenges. Tensions have flared among the party's wings. And, while the nomination race has churned up capable folk, none have so far demonstrated the force to calm the waters.
Yet the reports of the Reagan-coalition death are exceedingly premature.
posted by Andy W. Rogers | 11:15 AM
4 Comments:
Kimberley is a fool.
The libertarians of the Reagan coalition, whom she addresses with the euphemism, "anti-tax conservatives," will not support Huckabee. He is at least a statist and probably a fascist to boot. While the so-called religious right and the social conservatives may be easily fooled by someone like Bush who regurgitates all the catch-phrases and platitudes correctly, the libertarians can smell a statist from a mile away.
From National Review Online:
Relax.
Huckabee will not be the Republican nominee.
The biggest beneficiary of the Huckabee win in Iowa is not Huckabee, it's Rudy. The biggest beneficiary of a McCain win in New Hampshire would be Rudy. Romney's strategy was to win Iowa and New Hampshire. He has now lost Iowa. Rudy is waiting to pounce in the next tier of states. That has always been his strategy.
Relax.
Huckabee will not be the Republican nominee.
The biggest beneficiary of the Huckabee win in Iowa is not Huckabee, it's Rudy. The biggest beneficiary of a McCain win in New Hampshire would be Rudy. Romney's strategy was to win Iowa and New Hampshire. He has now lost Iowa. Rudy is waiting to pounce in the next tier of states. That has always been his strategy.
I've always been skeptical of strategies that involve losing — not real common, and then there's the whole losing thing. Nice try, though; I'm sure Rudy appreciates it.
I almost fell out of my chair laughing at this one.
Yep, you can tell Rudy is winning by the way he is consistently losing ground in the polls and garnering single digits in the only actual vote so far. Yes, Iowa is largely meaningless to anyone but the pundits, but even Biden and Dodd were smart enough to know what 3% of the vote means.
Levin has been spending too much time on Free Republic. Then again, he never did have a very firm grasp on reality. I responded to one of his posts one time on FR, demonstrating that the statement he had made was not only wrong, but pretty stupid. The only response he could manage was to call me a malcontent and a paleo-con. The number of mental deficients who inhabit the right-wing pundit corps never ceases to amaze me.
Post a Comment
<< Home