To my fellow Republicans

[Whacker77]

In 2004, I posted here quite often and in comparable numbers in 2006.  This year I have had little to say because I have been so depressed by the state of the race.  As I write today, McCain has fallen more than seven points behind in the RCP average.  My view is that Obama is over polling, but certainly not enough to change the state of the race.  To be sure, McCain is well behind and falling.

I reluctantly supported McCain in the primaries because I thought he was the only Republican who could win in 2008.  After having watched him campaign, I not so sure about that anymore.  To be honest, I have been horrified at the way McCain has run his campaign.  I'm not new to this idea either.  As early as March, I was worried that he was not unifying the base and developing an effective message.

McCain's most recent comments have all but confirmed my fear that McCain will not win.  At a townhall meeting this week, McCain told the crowd we should not be concerned about Obama's presidency or Supreme Court picks.  From a conservative perspective, that is hardly the way to inspire the base.  McCain's comments lead me to believe he has already been told he has no chance of winning the election.

Right now, we are headed to an electoral wipeout this November because McCain and Republicans have made no attempt to develop an effective message.  I'm hopeful that the tide will turn slightly at the end and save some of the Senate seats, but it's hard to be hopeful right now.  I fear the party is in the process of making itself irrelevant for a decade or more.

I hate to be so gloomy, but I see no reason to believe good news is waiting to pop.  My hope is that Republicans in the House and Senate realize they must develop a spine and a credible message they can take to the voters.  It's likely a rebuilding process is about to commence and I hope Mike Pence, John Shadegg, Jim DeMint, and Tom Coburn are at the front of that effort.

If any Republican can spin a positive message to me, I'm all ears.

[opebo]

Where've you been all this time, Whacker?  Whacking?

[JSojourner]

Hi Whack.  

Great post.  Don't be too discouraged.  It's all cyclical and that's probably a good thing.  Too much Democratic machination and the country rights itself in 1994.  Too much Republican, and it rights itself again.  But as a liberal, I well remember how discouraged I was 14 years ago.  

I think you are sounding a theme I am hearing from other Republicans.

Ford was a moderate. He lost.
Bush 41 ran as a moderate in 1992 and lost.
Dole was perceived to be moderate in 1996 and he lost.
McCain is thought to be moderate and he looks to be losing.

Nixon, Reagan, the first term for Bush 41 and both terms for The Decider...all ran as and were perceived to be conservatives.  And won.  (even if a couple of them governed from the center right.)

Whether there is anything to that or not, I really can't say.  After all, I am a liberal Democrat.  I can only say this:  your party has no shortage of top-drawer, intelligent and good-hearted conservatives. I know I'm a leftist an all -- but I have a hard time seeing DeMint and Coburn in that context.  Coburn wants abortion providers to be executed.  DeMint has sponsored legislation prohibiting people who happen to be gay from working in schools.  

You might be onto something with Pence.  ;-)

I'd think you folks could probably come up with better than Coburn or DeMint, however.  I mean, someone who is quite conservative.  But not -- well -- sick in the head.  Because that's what that is -- if you want to put doctors to death or if you think gays are also pedophiles.  That's in the same ballpark as "Jews control the banks" and  we should execute pharmacists for selling the morning after pill.

I still think Judd Gregg would be a great bet for Republicans.  He's reasonably conservative on social issues and very conservative fiscally.  Charlie Crist looks like a sharp guy.  I keep saying Mark Sanford because he seems like he's just as nice as the day is long, but folks who know tell me he's not interested.   Lugar's a gem but he's pretty long in the tooth now.  How about Huntsman?  What's his potential among conservative voters?

Just some random thoughts.  For the good of an honorable party, I'd really like to see the love affair with the extremist religious right come to an end.

[J. J.]

I will say to anyone who wins:  "After you the deluge." 


I frankly think that if Obama wins, 2012 will make 1980 look like 1932.  McCain won't do too much better.

[Joe Republic]

I will say to anyone who wins:  "After you the deluge." 

Heavens knows you've been practising already...

"After you the deluge."

I'll say to any candidate that wins, "After you the deluge."

After you, the deluge.

After you, the deluge.  One term, whoever wins.

I would say to President McCain:  "After you the deluge."

"After you, the deluge."

I will say to whomever wins "After you, the deluge."

I said "After you, the deluge," which is a play on the line by Louis XV.  I intend to say that to whoever wins.

I would not call 1968 and 2004 reaignments, though I think we are heading for one, hence my saying to whomever wins, "After you, the deluge."

"After you, the deluge," is what I will say to the winner of the 2008 election.

As I've said, I will tell whomever wins, "After you, the deluge."

I would tell any candidate elected, "After you, the deluge."

I would say to any candidate, "After us, the deluge."

Still, my "pigeon entrails" prediction was for a Republican victory in 2008.  "After us, the deluge."

I think if Obama wins, he's better turn to Michelle and quote Mdme. de Pompadour:

After us, the deluge.

It's literal translations is, "After me the deluge (flood, or storm)."  It is sometimes rendered as "After us, the deluge."

[J. J.]

I will say to anyone who wins:  "After you the deluge." 

Heavens knows you've been practising already...

"After you the deluge."

I'll say to any candidate that wins, "After you the deluge."

After you, the deluge.

After you, the deluge.  One term, whoever wins.

I would say to President McCain:  "After you the deluge."

"After you, the deluge."

I will say to whomever wins "After you, the deluge."

I said "After you, the deluge," which is a play on the line by Louis XV.  I intend to say that to whoever wins.

I would not call 1968 and 2004 reaignments, though I think we are heading for one, hence my saying to whomever wins, "After you, the deluge."

"After you, the deluge," is what I will say to the winner of the 2008 election.

As I've said, I will tell whomever wins, "After you, the deluge."

I would tell any candidate elected, "After you, the deluge."

I would say to any candidate, "After us, the deluge."

Still, my "pigeon entrails" prediction was for a Republican victory in 2008.  "After us, the deluge."

I think if Obama wins, he's better turn to Michelle and quote Mdme. de Pompadour:

After us, the deluge.

It's literal translations is, "After me the deluge (flood, or storm)."  It is sometimes rendered as "After us, the deluge."

Thank you for reminding everyone of that.  Needless to say, I'm not optimistic about the future of the winning party in this election. 

[Torie]

It's after me the deluge, not after you, ie "apres moi, le deluge."  Please make a note of it. Thanks.

[J. J.]

It's after me the deluge, not after you. Please make a note of it. Thanks.

It's actually, "After us the deluge,"  as the quote is attributed to Louis XV or Madame de Pompadour, but supposedly to them as a couple.

My knowledge of early modern French history will, no doubt, betray my actual feelings about the French and the huge sarcasm in my post. 

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I still think Judd Gregg would be a great bet for Republicans.  He's reasonably conservative on social issues and very conservative fiscally.  Charlie Crist looks like a sharp guy.  I keep saying Mark Sanford because he seems like he's just as nice as the day is long, but folks who know tell me he's not interested.   Lugar's a gem but he's pretty long in the tooth now.  How about Huntsman?  What's his potential among conservative voters?

I'd be willing to support Gregg if he ran; I'd also support Lugar, if he weren't already 100 years old

[Torie]

It's after me the deluge, not after you. Please make a note of it. Thanks.

It's actually, "After us the deluge,"  as the quote is attributed to Louis XV or Madame de Pompadour, but supposedly to them as a couple.

My knowledge of early modern French history will, no doubt, betray my actual feelings about the French and the huge sarcasm in my post. 

Apres nous le deluge? Peut-etre:

"After me the Deluge [“Après moi le Déluge”]. When I am dead the deluge may come for aught I care. Generally ascribed to Prince Metternich, but the Prince borrowed it from Mme. Pompadour, who laughed off all the remonstrances of ministers at her extravagance by saying, “Après nous le déluge” (Ruin, if you like, when we are dead and gone)."

Out there on the Fruited Plain, moi is much more the accepted currency of use  than the nous, for what it is worth. The vous  usage is something akin to a precious metal I guess.

[J. J.]

It's after me the deluge, not after you. Please make a note of it. Thanks.

It's actually, "After us the deluge,"  as the quote is attributed to Louis XV or Madame de Pompadour, but supposedly to them as a couple.

My knowledge of early modern French history will, no doubt, betray my actual feelings about the French and the huge sarcasm in my post. 

Apres nous le deluge? Peut-etre:

"After me the Deluge [“Après moi le Déluge”]. When I am dead the deluge may come for aught I care. Generally ascribed to Prince Metternich, but the Prince borrowed it from Mme. Pompadour, who laughed off all the remonstrances of ministers at her extravagance by saying, “Après nous le déluge” (Ruin, if you like, when we are dead and gone)."

Out there on the Fruited Plain, moi is much more the accepted currency of use  than the nous, for what it is worth. The vous  usage is something akin to a precious metal I guess.

Après nous, le déluge  "After us the deluge."  You'll note I correctly cited it, in this context, in February. 
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Madame_de_Pompadour

[Whacker77]

Where've you been all this time, Whacker?  Whacking?

I work.  That's where I have been.  Thanks for the constructive comment.

[Whacker77]

JSojouner

I guess my concern is that we are facing one of those huge moments where the majority of the country goes one way.  The two election years I have had in mind all year for Republicans are a reverse of 1980 and 1932.  The 1932 election seems more concerning from a conservative perspective because the Republican party became irrelevant for almost 20 years.  Things certainly ebb and flow, but I think the wilderness may be in store for longer than my conservative and Republican brethren think.  Maybe a decade?  I think the tide and mood are far deeper than 1994.  JMO.

[tokar]

Thank you for reminding everyone of that.  Needless to say, I'm not optimistic about the future of the winning party in this election. 

Lets stop worrying about the 2012 election.  The 2008 election is in 3 weeks...

[BM]

Agreed. ANYTHING could happen between now and 2012. 

Republicans are so eager to write off Obama as a weak president and he hasn't even won yet!

[Person Man]

the time between now and election day in 2012 will be a huge gambit for both parties. I can see Obama becoming very powerful and failing miserably. This could make the Democratic Party irrelevant for a long time, if not forever. Then again, if he is popular and even polarizing and exploits a crisis like Bush and actually makes long-term gains with it...he could make this election look like 1980. Then again, if McCain wins, he may make the Democrats look irrelevant for not even winning when it was their best year in almost a century. However, if we get into double-digit inflation and unemployment, another war, and a soaring poverty rate and a national deficit higher than our annum GDP, his party may become irrelevant. However, if he is popular, or even polarizing, it could make the democrats irrelevant.

Basically, the question of the Democratic party's survival will be stop and go in the following months after Obama is beaten and not so much for the Republicans. However, after that, anyone could be facing extinction, or will have to be happy being a permanent minority only having power in either NYC, Boston, DC and SF or Oklahoma, Utah, Kentucky and Alabama.

This sounds like an amorphous doomsday message...a half-crazed call for a political apocalypse in Modern America....However, do you really think that after the last eight years we can go back to "politics as usual" that quickly and easily? America has been changed forever, my friends. (That old fu cker has me saying it now) For better or worse.

Here are some maps to droll over-

After Big O victory

As the next FDR- 2012

As the next "W"- 2012

As the next Jimmy Carter-

Micky C-

Fixing everything, or at least enough and becoming the next Reagan-

Able to get the mask back on our problems by 2010 or 2011 and/or is giving a reason for a war and takes it.  Dubya's 3rd term.

McCain being the next Hoover

[JSojourner]

JSojouner

I guess my concern is that we are facing one of those huge moments where the majority of the country goes one way.  The two election years I have had in mind all year for Republicans are a reverse of 1980 and 1932.  The 1932 election seems more concerning from a conservative perspective because the Republican party became irrelevant for almost 20 years.  Things certainly ebb and flow, but I think the wilderness may be in store for longer than my conservative and Republican brethren think.  Maybe a decade?  I think the tide and mood are far deeper than 1994.  JMO.

Could be.  And if we get eight years down the line and Democrats are still in control of all three branches, you may hear me endorse a lot more Republican candidates.  Not because I am enamored with the GOP, but because I don't trust my party or your party with a protracted stranglehold on power.