Rough Road

Fred Barnes wrote in Weekly Standard Republicans should be worried about their White House prospects for 2008.... The 2006 midterm election? Republicans are likely to hold onto the Senate and House. But 2008 is another story. In the midst of a Republican era, Democrats stand a good chance of taking the White House then. Even Senator Hillary Clinton of New York--or perhaps I should say especially Hillary Clinton--has realistic prospects of winning.

What's the problem for Republicans? There are at least five of them. The field of Republican candidates is weak. Democrats will have an easier time than Republicans in duplicating their strong 2004 voter registration and turnout drive in 2008. Democrats, despite their drift to the left and persistent shrillness, barely trail Republicans at all in voter appeal. Besides, they may sober up ideologically in 2008. And the media, unless John McCain is the Republican nominee, will be more pro-Democratic than ever..... And aides to Jeb Bush say he has no desire to run in 2008, but might consider it in 2012.

That would be interesting: Bush41, Clinton42, Bush43, Clinton44, Bush45

That leaves the Republican party with a lesser field of candidates: McCain, Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Virginia Senator George Allen, and a few others. All of them have distinct handicaps. McCain's is that many Republican loathe him. Giuliani is a social liberal. Allen and Romney are inexperienced at the national level. Frist has a soft and blurred image.

The second reason for Republican anxiety about 2008 is organization. Democrats, with millions of dollars from limousine liberals such as George Soros, paid for thousands of campaign workers to sign up voters and get them to the polls.

Whether told to work by their unions or hired by Soros, the Dems have always had a lot of campaign workers. But the right wing side of the Blogosphere is stronger than the Left.

They produced a much larger Democratic turnout in 2004 than in 2000. Republicans used an army of 1.5 million volunteers to increase the Republican vote by even more. It was an enormous political feat.

And hopefully the Republican party will be able to repeat it, if not to elect a weak candidate for President, but at least to make sure that a Democratic president will have an even larger Republican majority in the Senate and the House to have to deal with.

But in 2008, there's a reasonably good chance Democrats will able to produce another great field operation. All they'll need is another infusion of money from rich liberals. But Republicans will have a harder time. The 2004 volunteers showed up because of their strong personal commitment to President Bush. Will so many volunteers work so hard for McCain or Allen or Giuliani or whoever wins the Republican presidential nomination in 2008? I doubt it

So they focus their efforts on winning from the legislatures, both Federal and State, and the Governorships.

..... So Republicans have a lot to worry about. George W. Bush's current troubles are small stuff compared to the party's prospects for losing the presidency in 2008.

BAH blogged Just as Ruffini left Newt Gingrich out of the roster on his "Main Ballot," so too does Fred Barnes not even make mention of him in his column. I regard that as a serious oversight. In my book, he's the sleeper candidate (currently testing the waters) who could resurrect the enthusiasm of the Reagan era and restore a capital "C" to the word Conservative.

I agree Gingrich is a sleeper candidate, and I have hopes that he will find the backing to emerge as the Republican candidate. 2008 is a long way off. And we could use Gingrich's help to strengthen our position in the House and Senate in 2006.

If the Democratic Party could ever find it within itself to jettison its far left, extremist fringe that continues to dominate the party, it might find some easier sailing in the roiled waters of a conservative movement that has lost its True North.

That has about as much chance of happening as pigs do learning to fly.

Betsy blogged If you're a Republican, Fred Barnes paints a very depressing picture for the prospects for a GOP victory in 2008. None of the choices are that exciting for the base and if the base isn't excited, will they turn out to help the candidate and help get out the vote? Perhaps, having Hillary as the Democratic candidate would be the best thing for the GOP since they would be motivated by the same negativity that got so many Democrats involved in John Kerry's campaign. It certainly wasn't enthusiasm for John Kerry.

And even if she does get the White House she should have a strong Republican House and Senate to contend with.