Republicans: is it over?

From THIS blog, comes an article listing reasons for why America won't have another Republican president again, all things I've thought of in the past,  so I wanted to post it. 

Since I got this post ready, I got an email of rebuttals to the points so I'm including them in blue: Here's the piece:

Is it possible that George W. Bush could be the last Republican president ever, or at least for the foreseeable future?
Am I crazy to even formulate that question?
Maybe not and here are 10 reasons why.

1. Rapidly changing demographic trends that favor the Democrat Party.
Other trends, such as Mormon church growing 50% in 10 years show other signs that things are not so bleak. People who have children tend to believe in a future that will be better than the past. That is fundamentally a conservative value. The future belongs to those who show up and those having babies are those who are going to be showing up.

2. An education system controlled by liberals that churns out young liberals.
As a father of two high school age kids, I can tell you that the kids today have absolutely nothing but contempt for the system that has stolen their future. You have nothing to worry about here. Nothing makes a conservative faster than the experience of living in liberalism and the school system today is churning out thousands of kids who absolutely hate the liberal system. As a person who came into the political world in 1979, I can tell you that nothing made me a conservative more than the example of executive leadership provided by Jimmy Carter and I never thought I would say this, but I finally have seen someone in Executive Power that’s far worse at his job than even Jimmy Cater. Jimmy Carter was a paragon of competency by comparison to the current President.

3. A population with an ever increasing dependence on government in the form of entitlements and subsidies.
All of which are inadequate and require the user of such programs to be degraded and fed into systems that make a day at the DMV seem like fun. Again, if you want to see people who hate the government, go visit the post office or the DMV or the IRS.

4. A mainstream media that is overwhelmingly comprised of journalists who subtly and not so subtly spin the news in support of Democrats and liberal causes.
And they have never looked more ridiculous and without merit as a result. What used to be a respected calling now looks like World Wide Wrestling without the makeup. This would be a problem if the average person wasn’t already self selecting their own news in a way that was impossible even 10 years ago. rating up in liberal media land? or lower? More evidence? The Zimmerman case. The days of “journalism”, he would never have stood a chance. They would have had him convicted and thrown under the jail.

5. The influence of Hollywood, which makes it cool to be a liberal Democrat.
If this was true, Smoking would be increasing every year since every movie uses cigarettes as a character prop. And I would also submit the case that Hollywood tried like crazy to make anti-war movies that make money and yet, fails every time.

6. The growing power concentrated in local, state, and federal government worker unions, whose members actively campaign against Republicans on the taxpayer dime.  (See WI Governor Walker’s upcoming recall election for an active example of this.)
A recall election that his opposition is not even campaigning against his rebuke of Public Sector unions since its so obviously working to improve the State. And watch Scott Walker win that election too. I also reject the idea that Public Sector Unions are growing. Public Sector Unions are fighting for their lives in 40 of 50 states. The battle isnt over, but its going our way if for no other reason than the simple tyranny of budgetary math. Today people do not look at “Government” as their friend and helper as they did in the 1930′s. Now they look at Government as the enemy and the thing that is getting in their way.

7. A culture where non-traditional social and sexual behavior has become mainstream.
uhhhh. I dont know what you mean here. What does sex or sexuality have to do with the republican party and conservatism, except that we dont think that its any of your business one way or another. Move along…

8. A hatred for Republicans in general and a tendency to blame the party for “the mess we’ve inherited.”
I know! In 1984 that’s all I heard! “EVERYONE HATES REAGAN”!!!. I think he won 49 of 50 states that year. Everyone hates the Yankees too but that’s because they win most of the time. Look at it this way, everyone loves a loser. And by the way, keep repeating this meme “The Tea Party is all washed up” because that’s the same sort of message. Senator Lugar and a few others might have something to say in that regard.

9. A Republican Party that is growing increasingly white, old, southern, and male, while alienating majorities of younger voters, Hispanics, African Americans, gays, teachers, young professionals, atheists, unmarried women, and even suburban married women. (Z:  'alienating' through encouraging wholesome values, honesty, self-sufficiency, etc., of course)
Its also increasingly made up of ex military and technical business folk. Why? Because people tend to get more conservative the older they get( the school of experience has new graduates every day). Take a look around, the population is getting older and that means that things are getting better, not worse for the Republicans. Proof? Look at what the Tea Party has been able to do in 2010. You think that was a Democrat group? If your theory were right, that would never have happened and the youth sponsored OWS movement would really mean something. Frankly, I cant think of any other thing in recent memory that has caused more people to come over to the Republican side than the whole OWS movement.


10. The internet and the growing social media phenomenon that strongly tilts in favor of Democrats.
Together, all of the above reasons are reflected in the latest Obama vs. Romney Real Clear Politics Electoral College map.......

The internet is also a force that proven repeatedly to vex the statist desires of the left. We have proved repeatedly we can give as good as we get. Shall we go back over the long history of things that we on the right have dismantled and turned against the left with the internet? AP Photoshopping in Lebanon? Dan Rather and George Bush? Van Jones? And this latest gift from internet Gods, the “Julia” campaign which is so hokey that everyone on both sides is laughing at it. If there was ever a media that allowed a firehose of mockery to be turned on the left, its the internet.

Upon examining this lopsided electoral matchup, one could conclude that Romney is not the strongest candidate the Republicans could nominate to go up against Obama.  Sure, you could say that, but you would be wrong.
The truth is that Romney, at this time, is actually the best candidate the Republicans could have to spearhead the ticket. The reasoning is that since Romney is perceived as “more moderate,” he has a better chance of converting independent voters in those nine toss-up states with 115 electoral votes than any of his former GOP rivals. (Do you seriously think Gingrich, Santorum, Bachmann, Cain, or Perry would be doing any better?)
Romney’s problem with the electoral map is NOT Mitt Romney. But the attitude and composition of the voting electorate is trending away from what the Republicans, as a brand, have traditionally stood for — less government, traditional values, taking charge of your own destiny, strong defense, God, family, and apple pie.
Does anyone seriously have a plan to turn around current social and cultural trends?  Think about the 10 reasons at the beginning of this piece and it becomes clear that the Democrat voting mold is cast.
This pains me to write, but let’s just say the statistical chances of Romney winning 100 out of those 115 electoral votes prove to be too much and President Obama is re-elected.
What happens to Republicans as they try again for the White House in 2016?  Here is a preview.
Base conservatives who were against Romney and wanted a “true conservative” at the top of the ticket in 2012 will blame Romney for the loss and the cycle of finding a “Reagan conservative” leader will begin again just like it did after McCain’s loss to Obama in 2008.
Meanwhile, traditional Republican states like North Carolina, Virginia, and Arizona have become fierce battlegrounds, joining the usual battlegrounds of Ohio and Florida. Thus, the path to 270 for ANY present and future Republican presidential nominee becomes narrower and narrower while the Democrats have an increasing number of options.
Looking back, based on how much the demographic composition of the nation had changed, there are studies (by Democrat think tanks) that conclude John Kerry in 2004 and even Michael Dukakis in 1988 would have won the White House if they faced the same electorate then that President Obama is facing this November.  The Democrats know that today’s demographics are their destiny.
I wish I had better news to report, but based on the 10 reasons cited above I conclude that President George W. Bush and President Millard Fillmore might just have something in common.
Fillmore in 1850 was the last Whig Party president, and Bush re-elected in 2004 might be the last Republican Party president.
For the sake of this nation’s future, I hope I am wrong. However, when I look at all the young Democrat voters in my own family, I shake my head.The thought of any of them voting for a Republican president this time or anytime in the future is as unlikely as any one of them quitting Facebook.
It’s the culture, stupid.

Think this is wrong? I hope so....tell us why.   And, do you think the rebuttal in blue is right?   Please say "Yes", it'll cheer me up!

And I'd love to give credit to whoever wrote the depressing and optimistic parts, but THIS is the best I can do.  (thanks, Imp, for sending me the info)
z

Who won last night's debate?

There are some comments on the debate in the post below this (from last night, which you might want to read and weigh in, too, by the way), but I'd like to see who you thought did the best in the debate last night in S. Carolina and why...........
Thanks!
z

Pawlenty.............in Thomas Sowell's opinion

June 14, 2011 12:00 A.M.

Is Pawlenty Plenty?

He lacks charisma and pyrotechnic rhetoric. And that’s a good thing* (Z:see below)

The Republicans’ confused assortment of announced presidential candidates — as well as unannounced candidates and distant possibilities of candidates — seems to be clarifying somewhat. The withdrawals of Donald Trump and Mike Huckabee, as well as the withdrawal of much of Newt Gingrich’s staff, seem like a much-needed weeding out.

Although Mitt Romney has been leading in the polls, his lead over other potential rivals has been slim. Being a “frontrunner” this far ahead of next year’s nominating convention would not mean much, even if Governor Romney’s lead and his support were much bigger than they are.

The albatross around Romney’s neck is the Romneycare medical plan that he signed into law in Massachusetts. His refusal to repudiate Romneycare means that, as a presidential candidate, he would forfeit one of the strongest arguments against Barack Obama, who has Obamacare as his albatross. Nor is an about-face on Romneycare a viable option for Mitt Romney. He has already made too many other about-faces for voters to trust him after another. He has painted himself into a corner.
The articulate Newt Gingrich might be the best Republican to go toe-to-toe with Obama in presidential debates — and a lack of effective articulation has been the Republicans’ big weakness for years. Try to name a Republican renowned for fluency besides Ronald Reagan, Theodore Roosevelt, and Abraham Lincoln.
While Newt Gingrich is not at that level, he is definitely a cut above most Republican candidates in talking. He also represents a cherished moment in Republican history, when the GOP took the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years as a result of Gingrich’s “Contract with America” election strategy.
But that was back in the 1990s, and many younger voters today may have no idea what that was all about. Worse yet, the former Speaker has shown too many signs of opportunism — including his wholly unnecessary swipe at Republican congressman Paul Ryan’s attempt to bring some fiscal sanity to Washington — to be trusted.
His own staff should know him better than the rest of us. Their recent resignations should mark the end of a very promising career that did not live up to all its promises. Even so, Gingrich performed a real service to the country as Speaker of the House of Representatives, which brought federal spending under control and produced what the media chose to call “the Clinton surplus.”
Among the other announced Republican presidential candidates, former governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota talks the most sense and shows the most courage. It takes guts to tell people in a corn-producing state like Iowa that you want to cut back on ethanol subsidies, because Iowa will also produce the first results in next year’s primary campaign season. And first results, like other first impressions, carry a lot of weight.
But somebody has got to talk sense about our dire economic problems — and it is painfully clear that Barack Obama will not be that somebody. The fact that Pawlenty has put his neck on the line to do so is a big plus.
Tim Pawlenty cites his track record to back up his statements. That includes reducing ethanol subsidies when he was governor of Minnesota and cutting the growth of state-government spending from just over 20 percent a year to under 2 percent a year.
Governor Pawlenty fought Minnesota’s transit unions over runaway pensions and hung tough during a long strike. “Today,” he says, “we have a transit system that gives commuters a ride, without taking the taxpayers for a ride.”
Some fear that Governor Pawlenty doesn’t have the charisma and pyrotechnic rhetoric that they would like to see in a candidate. Charisma and rhetoric are what gave us the current disastrous administration in Washington. Charisma and rhetoric gave people in other countries even bigger disasters, up to and including Hitler.
Politicians and the media may want a candidate who uses verbal fireworks, but the people want jobs. As Tim Pawlenty put it, “Fluffy promises of hope and change don’t buy our groceries, make our mortgage payments, put gas in our cars, or pay for our children’s clothes.”

* Z: I think it's only a "good thing" if we can reeducate millions of Americans, unindoctrinate them, and get an honest, unbiased media within six months.  Which can't happen.   But, we can dream.
Please send this to your friends;   they need to learn more about Pawlenty.
(thanks, Beamish)

— Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. © 2011 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

z