Republicans Worried About November

Republicans Worried About November


Senior Republican Party leaders are quite alarmed that the party lost a special election in a Mississippi congressional district that was once considered solidly Republican (the district went for George Bush in 2004 by a 25 point margin). While some Republicans have tried to rationalize away the defeat, National Republican Congressional Committee chairman Tom Cole issued a blunt statement that said, in part:

Tonight’s election highlights two significant challenges Republicans must overcome this November. First, Republicans must be prepared to campaign against Democrat challengers who are running as conservatives, even as they try to join a liberal Democrat majority. Though the Democrats’ task will be more difficult in a November election, the fact is they have pulled off two special election victories with this strategy, and it should be a concern to all Republicans.

The political environment is such that voters remain pessimistic about the direction of the country and the Republican Party in general. I encourage all Republican candidates, whether incumbents or challengers, to take stock of their campaigns and position themselves for challenging campaigns this fall by building the financial resources and grassroots networks that offer them the opportunity and ability to communicate, energize and turn out voters this election.

The message to incumbent Republicans seems to be: don’t assume you’re safe. Even though the Democratic Party leaders are still solidly liberal, the party has smartly recruited qualified centrist and even right-of-center candidates to run in Republican districts and take advantage of the national dissatisfaction with GOP leadership.

There is reason to think that, if the economy continues to slump, gas prices continue to rise and the Iraq conflict continues to remain unresolved, the Democrats could find themselves with the presidency and a powerful congressional majority come November. A Republican Party which once fought so hard for limited government may have, through its own greed and incompetence, created a situation that will usher in a Democratic majority large enough to dramatically expand federal government programs, handouts and socially liberal initiatives.

The Republicans have under six months to figure out how to stop that from happening.

Previous articleJim Webb For VP?
Next articleQuote Of The Day
  • gerryf

    “…will usher in a Democratic majority large enough to dramatically expand federal government programs, handouts and socially liberal initiatives….

    Kind of biased language, don’t you think?

    Handouts? Coming on the heels of eight years of Republican leadership that saw endless “handouts” to the rich, corporations, and assorted friends of Bush, that kind of statement elicits a chuckle.

    It really is time to put the laughable GOP myths of small government, fiscal conservatism, and staying out of individual’s lives to bed. Since 1980, Republicans have been all about spending, bigger government, meddling, constitutional flaunting…

    The only President to even attempt to do these things was Clinton, a democrat. How about we vote in a Democratic majority large enough to undo all the madness and nonsense of the last 8 years?

  • Alan Stewart Carl

    What, you’re surprised I’m baised towards smaller government? Of course I am. But note that I called Republicans greedy. I think they’ve completely abandoned the notions of smaller government. I’m not sure anyone in power really stands for that ideal in any practical way anymore.

  • Adam

    If you want a “small government” Republican partly, wouldn’t it be better for them to be absolutely destroyed in November so the ghost of “Big Government Bush” can be put away and the opportunity for a party rebuild be presented?

  • gerryf

    No, not surprised you’re biased toward smaller government–just biased toward a party that laughs at the notion of smaller government. Time to come over to the “dark side”

  • C Stanley

    Adam: no, because govt programs are almost impossible to stop or dismantle once they’re put in place or expanded, and we can’t afford the spending over the next four years.

    gerryf, please. Bill Clinton downsized some things, but only after the ’94 routing which brought the GOP Congress to town. If you want to argue that only divided govt has any fiscal restraint, then you’d be absolutely correct, but trying to claim that a Democratic president took it upon himself to reduce spending is laughable.

  • MsSwin

    “The Change You Deserve”


    The new and improved Republican Platform Prescription XR for America produces side effects including but not limited to generalized anxiety disorder, social anxiety disorder, panic disorder, nervousness, yawning, and/or sweating.

    Studies have shown a propensity for abnormal vision, impotence, nausea (31%) and constipation (10%).

    Also revealed were increased instances of depression, decreased libido, agitation, nightmares, delirium, blurred vision and difficulty focusing.

    Known to cause loss of appetite, cold feet, postural hypotension and hemorrhoids (see Bend Over For Bush Syndrome).

    Most common side effect is flatulence and political irritability.

    Less common side effects include acne and/or pustular rash.

    Not a controlled substance and has not been studied in clinical trials regarding potential for abuse.

    For further information see Effexor XR for additional warnings.

    Consult your family doctor if symptoms persist for more than four years


  • gerryf

    What I said, C. is that Clinton was “the only President to even attempt”–I am not even claiming he did a great job at it, but he did say prior to the Republican congress coming in that he wished to engage in welfare reform.

    The Republicans love to take the credit for it curbing spending and shrinking government, but when a GOP president got in the white house all pretense went out the window. The pork barrel spending as careened madly.

    The difference between the Dems and the Repubs is that the Repubs “claim” to be about something, but do the opposite. The Dems make no claims, but have been far more fiscally responsible.

    In the entire history of the US, the deficit is about $9 trillion – half of which was incurred with a Bush in the white house. Add Reagan, and fully 70 percent of that $9 trillion was incurred by Republicans.

    That’s since 1776!

    Those numbers are staggering and scream to the lie of GOP fiscal responsibility. Please explain to me how you can continue to believe the fantasy that it was only the GOP forcing Clinton to reduce spending, when the GOP at every opportunity has spent like drunken sailors on shore leave whenever they could.