GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

GOP presidential victory in ‘08 inevitable?

by

If history is any guide, Republicans should again win the White House in 2008. You see, every time in U.S. history that Republicans have won successive presidential elections in years end in “0” and “4,” they also win the following presidential election — in a year ending in “8.”

1860 Lincoln; 1864 Lincoln; 1868 Grant.
1900 McKinley; 1904 T. Roosevelt; 1908 Taft.
1920 Harding; 1924 Coolidge; 1928 Hoover.
1980 Reagan; 1984 Reagan; 1988 H.W. Bush.
2000 W. Bush; 2004 W. Bush. . . .

Cheer up, Democrats, there’s always 2012. In only one of those aforementioned cycles, back in the 1800s, did the GOP win the election four years later. In 1872, Ulysses S. Grant was elected to a second term.

Comments

  4. KAtrina- Bush – James Nolan – Lourdes Muñoz
    12 Consejos en una catastrofe por James Nolan . Son las conclusiones de este escritor de New Orlenans después de pasar el Katrina, y especialmente de estar en una situación límite sin atención de las autoridades. A todos nos puede servir, ya que no sabemos que nos puede pasar, y sobre todo donde nos puede “pillar” una catastrofe.
    http://lourdesmunozsantamaria.blogspot.com/2005/11/12-consejos-en-una-situacin-de.html

  6. 1: McCain could have a shot at it as well, he appeals to a lot of people, republican and democrat alike. I don’t think Ms. Rice would have a chance though.

    C. Rice to congressional committee on 9/11: “I said no one could have imagined them taking a plane, slamming it into the Pentagon”

    My response: Seems to me we need people at the top levels of government who have better imaginations and not oil tankers named after them.

  7. I don’t think Condi *wants* to be president. Not even if you paid her. 😉

    Even if she did run, I don’t think she could win. Not unless things go seriously to heck overseas. Most likely by the time of the next Presidential election things will have calmed down a whole lot. So we won’t be voting for a “war time” President.

    McCain can’t win. If he somehow gets on the Republican ticket the Democrat will win. Seriously, yes, he appeals to a lot of people, but he’s not going to pull enough votes from the Democratic ticket unless they run Donald Duck.

  9. Count me as one of those who, unfortunatley for the Republic, believes that St. Hillarybeast will be elected in 2008 by default. So far, NONE of the floated Republican names…other than maybe Giuliani…can appeal to the moderate-Center and pull enough votes from both Parties. At present I dismiss McCain as a spent-force who will be too-old, and more importantly too-compromised, to be an effective candidate for 2008.

    The GOP needs to be out-of-power in order to reflect on their over-reaching mistakes of playing convenient extreme-Right of the Party, and to re-group with new ideas for a new century. I’ve been re-reading T. Roosevelt’s “The New Nationalism” speech where he outlines his Square Deal-philosophy, and Doutthat & Salam’s “The Party of Sam’s Club” essay that Uncle Andrew was touting a few days ago on his site. Print them both out and read them at the same-time. The problems haven’t changed. We need to step-back, regroup, and look in the GOP farm club for another Theodore Roosevelt. I’m becoming increasingly convinced through reading Theodore Rex and Kissinger’s Diplomacy that it’s already time to start looking past just the War on Terror to the fundementals of our National Self-Interests…be they immigration, health-care in an aging population, or living with China.

    The GOP leadership has become so intent over the last 30-years in getting into power, that they have forgotten what and why they were “Republicans”. They have sold the Party in market-square to the anit-abortionts, the religious fundementalists and the narrow self-interests of special interests. They gained power and are so desperate to keep it that they have compromised their principles for pork, illusory power, and five anti-abotion seats on the SCOTUS.

    Time to regroup and return to the party of Teddy Roosevelt and Barry Goldwater. Reagan, while a great man, did great long-term damage to the Party’s principles by his alliance-of-convenience with the Religious Right. And the unintended consequence is the fiscal and governance log-jam we have inherited. And sometimes the only way to clear a log-jam is with high-explosives, a sure balance, and sharp nerves.

  11. #9 — It’s difficult to imagine why Republicans would nominate a candidate (McCain) who has stabbed them in the back so many times on so many issues. He opposed tax cuts. He supports the Kyoto Treaty (which even the countries that ratified it are jumping off of.) He supports the censorship of political speech. His gang of 14 kept the filibuster alive. It’s easy to see why democrats love him so much. Much harder to see what he has to offer Republicans.

  12. Of the five examples listed, three died in office; Lincoln, McKinley and Harding. And Reagan surely would have died without the advances in modern medicine. And Grant, Hoover and GWH Bush were not stellar Presidencies, they were a bit of a muddle.

    When looking for patterns, look at the unintended consequences….Pres. Cheney?

  13. I think a Rudy Guiliani-Condi Rice ticket could win in November but the far-right Republicans who control the nominating process aren’t going to let Rudy get out of Iowa intact. (If he’s still breathing after New Hampshire, the GOP theocrats will make sure he’s done in down in South Carolina.)

    I’m sorry, Bruce, but streaks don’t last. Ronald Reagan — thank God — brought the string of presidents elected in years ending in zero dying in office.

  14. #13 I suppose that time will tell. But I will say that I’m related to people who vote for the *truely* right winger religious candidates, and during the primaries, they aren’t as influential as you may think. In fact, their candidates never have won. If Guilliani (barring unforseen big screw-ups) fails to get the vote it will be more about moderate primary voters second-guessing the religious right than about the religious right itself.

  15. Amasing how people freak-out over Christers when modern history has shown that over the past 80 years the Religion of Atheism under Progressive Left-wing Stalinism executed millions of innocent non-Atheist victims around the world.
    That said, the Nazism also removed Christ from Christmas and began using the term Yuletide. Sounds much like the Progressive Left-wing Stalinists in America who are demanding our culture change Christmas season to Holiday season. The Religion of Atheism at work one PC word at a time.

    I will vote for anyone who stands against the destructive force of Progressive Left-wing Stalinism anyday.

  17. I guess I don’t fear HillBeast as much as some do. For one thing, Hillbeast has supported every democrat filibuster that’s happened since she was elected. What leg will she have to stand on when her own initiatives are filibustered in the Senate?

  19. I’d have to put my money on McCain in ’08. His only problem is winning the nomination, but if a ton of people run I think he’d have enough votes to win, since the hardcore conservatives would be split amongst a bunch of other candidates. From there, I think its almost impossible for him to lose the general election.

  22. Synova in #14 — The people won’t elect the candidates of the religious far-right? Where have you been the last two elections?

    George W. Bush is owned lock stock and barrel by the far-right and greatly beholden to the Republican Party’s theocratic wing. The general election electorate wasn’t aware of it in 2000 and in 2004 attention was focused on the war on terrorism and Bush’s job as commander in chief.

  24. Ted B., #9 — I hope you’re still checking comments for this post. If you’ve checked out this website very long you might remember that I strongly believe the Republican Party’s problem is that it no longer stands for what Barry M. Goldwater believed in.

    I think you’re being a little too hard on Ronald Reagan. If there was an alliance-of-convenience with the theocrats, it was between Reagan’s associates and the far-right nutjobs. The consequences of that alliance were, I want to believe, unintended on Reagan’s part. He was such a trusting, decent man I don’t think he recognized how evil Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Alan Keyes, Gary Bauer, et al, are.

    I think the opposite is true of George W. Bush. He knows full well just how evil James Dobson, Tony Perkins, Sean Hannity, Sam Brownback, Lou Sheldon, Rick Santorum, et al, are, and he doesn’t care; he’ll give them what they want. I just can’t decide whether it’s because Bush agrees with them or simply because he needed them to get elected and stay in power.

  25. #22 I guess my “far right” is farther right than yours. I really don’t see how you can claim that the Republican ticket has been won by the Republican primary candidates who appeal best to the religious right. Is there any poll data kept about the demographics during political primaries?

  26. Basically, the left defines ‘far-right theocrat’ as someone who doesn’t object to the Ten Commandments in public or ‘Under God’ in the pledge. The Religious Right is basically the Republican equivalent to the Democrats’ African-American voting bloc. They’re both constituencies the party can’t win without, so the party throws them some symbolic bones, without really doing anything substantive to advance the agenda.

    I think you could make a much better case that the Democrats are owned by the Far Left. Take, for example, the case of two extremists who ran for their respective party’s presidential nominations and failed to win a single primary. Pat Robertson now hosts a talk show with a smaller audience than Al Franken. Howard Dean is the leader of his party.

  30. CONDI CAN’T RUN AND WIN – FIRST OFF IS SHE MARRIED? DOES SHE HAVE A BF ? NO-ONE KNOWS ENUFF ABOUT HER – PERSONALLY — LET’S FACE IT – AMERICANS ARE NOOZY! THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A WOMAN, LET A LONE A SINGLE WOMAN PRESIDENT…LOL

  32. #31 LOL. Possibly true, and funny because of that.

    #27 I really don’t know why they wouldn’t. Why do you think they wouldn’t? Now I’ve said that I don’t think that Condi will run or can win, but I don’t think that’s because she’s female. I think that it’s because the war (even if we still have bases and troops over there) will be effectively over and even the hawks will want to put it behind them. Condi is too close to the war.

    Since I’ve been in high school I’ve been saying that the first female president will be a Republican because no one can possibly think that she got where she is by anything other than her own merit. In this respect the rhetoric about the Republicans being anti-woman helps. (Now, Hillary may prove me wrong, I don’t know. But for all that the Dems seem to talk the talk, they have just as few female primary candidates as the Republicans do.)

    #30 Being single may prove to be an asset for a female candidate. It’s really an old school sort of thing, *way* old school, women have always had greater freedoms while single, property and business ownership, employment, etc. A spinster or widow had quite a bit more autonomy than a married woman, who often even lost control over her own property and her own money just because she got married. If a female presidential candidate is not married, the traditional sorts won’t feel uncomfortable about her husband being less powerful than his wife.

  33. Remember last week when the house lefties were praising Jimmah Cahtuh for taking credit for the peace deal that Israel and Egypt worked out? Wonder if those same lefties will give props to the deal Condi brokered between Israel and the Palestinian Party People? Or, will they just make fun of her teeth?