Ushering in a Republican age

Orlando Sentinel ^ | May 10, 2003 | Benjamin Shapiro, 19, is a junior at UCLA

[Cincinatus' Wife]

With the Democratic presidential candidates battling it out for a chance to be creamed by George W. Bush, reading the newspapers these days feels very much like 1972. The Democrats are moving left, the incumbent president is popular, and it looks like the Democrats may be out of power for decades. After 1972, the Democrats were bailed out by Watergate. This time, they'll need an act of God.

The parallels between 1972 and 2003 for the Democrats are striking. Even their candidates look the same.

Immediately following the 1968 election, the strongest Democrat was Teddy Kennedy. Then, Kennedy drove his car off a bridge on Chappaquiddick Island, drowning Mary Jo Kopechne. This scandal forced Kennedy to abandon his presidential ambitions, opening the door for a slew of candidates to jump into the nomination fray.

Immediately after the 2000 election, Al Gore seemed like the sure bet for 2004. But then the word came down from on high: Gore had to go. And go he did, announcing his intention to drop out of the presidential race and opening the door for a slew of lesser-known candidates.

Leading up to the 1972 Democratic primaries, 1968 vice presidential candidate Edmund Muskie of Maine looked like the new Democratic front-runner. Standing tall at 6 foot 4, with craggy good looks, the former U.S. Navy lieutenant cultivated an image as a strong, stoic politician. Political analysts called him "Lincolnesque."

[HiTech RedNeck]

With the Democratic presidential candidates battling it out for a chance to be creamed by George W. Bush, reading the newspapers these days feels very much like 1972. The Democrats are moving left, the incumbent president is popular, and it looks like the Democrats may be out of power for decades.

Yeah, then 1976 brought us Jimmy Carter.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

From the column:

But unlike 1972, there's no Watergate on the horizon. ..................

[I still care]

Thanks, CW. You always have good finds. An excellent column considering the writer is only 19.

It is strange the way history is playing itself out again.

[Jay D. Dyson]

Yeah, then 1976 brought us Jimmy Carter.

Had there been no Watergate, there would have been no Carter administration. The 1976 election wasn't about embracing Carter or his policies; it was about burnout the public had with politics. They elected a political outsider...and got their money's worth for their trouble.

-Jay

[bruinbirdman]

All hail to the hills of Westwood, to the mighty sea below

All hail to our alma mater, she will conquer every foe

yitbos

[mark beoluke]

The only problem now is the minority vote. Unless there is a major change in immigration policy or if somehow minorities start voting Republican( and voting fraud is greatly reduced), Republicans will have a hard time keeping in power. I know I am being pessimistic, but look at Grand Rapids Michigan. It used to be a strongly Republican city, but lately its been split evenly, probably because of increase in minority population and/or better turnout.

[Arkinsaw]

And in '76, even wimpy Gerald Ford, with all the Watergate baggage, put up a fight.

[the lone wolf]

"then 1976 brought us Jimmy Carter"

Yes. But Carter only won by 1%, and the Leftist media was almost unquestioned in America in 1976. The last time there was a close election, Bush II was the winner, because Fox, Limbaugh and the Free Republic were around to refute Leftist lies.

Next Presidential election, the Left are going to have to articulate their message in an environment that is at least partially hostile. They will never again get a free, almost unquestioned ride from Dan, Peter, and Tom, unless they are willing to settle for the 43% of the vote that Clinton got in 1992.

It is very bad news for them, and they are scared. Before 2000, they never had to struggle for votes on a level playing field. They always had a "home court" advantage. Those days are over, and they know it. That is why Hillary has talked about "regulating content" on the Internet (that means ending free speech for conservatives, such as Free Republic). It is why the DemocRATs want the so-called "fairness doctrine" to restrict talk radio (that means silencing Rush, or forcing some Leftist hack upon unwilling listeners).

The only reason ANY DemocRAT since Eisenhower was elected was due to Leftist Media Bias. JFK only won by a few thousand (stolen) votes. LBJ was elected because of the sympathy vote for the martyred JFK. Carter only won by 1%. Clinton only won because 43% was enough to win in a three-way race, and the third campaigner was running an "astroturf" campaign with the support of the Clinton News Network.

These tactics will not work in 2004, and the RATS are running scared.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Bump!

[Cincinatus' Wife]

The only problem now is the minority vote.

How about this?

They sit out this one.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

They need to split the vote to win. Divide and conquer, the LIBERALS best friend.

[I still care]

But the Conservatives are also growing. As a homeschooling mother, our group is 97% Conservative voters and we view children as a blessing.

My liberal acquaintances are all having 1-2 children and abortions, while my homeschooling friends are having 3 or more children - one member of our group has 15 (all adopted) and another has 9 (all hers.) And don't forget those that usually choose not to have children - homosexuals.

The liberals are self extinguishing. Between abortion, zero population growth and homosexuality, they have chosen the way of extinction. I just read an article on FR that France is now paying a bounty for women to have babies.

[latina4dubya]

John Kerry is handsome? yuck! and didn't the author take a risk calling Al Sharpton a "dark horse?" hahaha!

[SoDak]

Hubert Humphrey=Gebhardt? HH was a Dem, but taking him from then to now, he'd be at the very least as conservative as many mainstream GOP'ers. HH was one of the last honorable, and respectable high-level Dems, and may have been more conservative than Nixon on many issues.

[the lone wolf]

True. Abortion, perversion, drug abuse, birth control and "living for the moment" all tend to limit the supply of future Leftists.

However, only a relatively small number of Americans home school. The vast majority send their children off to government ran, NEA controlled brainwashing academies. The Left also imports as many new voters as they possibly can, both legally and illegally. These new Leftists are registered to vote at welfare and unemployment offices around the country, all funded by our tax dollars.

The struggle is long-term and the future is uncertain at best. Pleasr keep up the good work.

[bayareablues]

I love this article, I love this kid, I love UCLA. This is the best I've felt in 3 weeks.

He's drawn some astonishing parallels. No mention of a sleazeball ex-president's wife waiting in the wings however.

[mark beoluke]

Thanks, its good to know there are conservative groups which are growing in size, not shrinking. It irks me to hear some people who are personally conservative vote Democrat just because they are in a union or because their family always did. Hopefully they will see the light if Democrats keep moving to the extreme left.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

But the Conservatives are also growing.

I believe Bush will be getting a lot of the younger vote. There are a lot of LIBERAL campus activists and they always get a lot of LIBERAL media coverage but students, young workers and parents are thinking ahead. This stretches across a wide spectrum, including jewish, black and hispanic voters. After 9-11 and the way Democrats have denounced Bush's liberation of Iraq, I wouldn't doubt the Left has even lost a lot of the senior vote.