More Opinions Columnists

• V.B. Price: Preserving our water is greatest challenge the city, state faces
• Jeffry Gardner: End of The Trib is part of the demise of serious journalism
• Katherine Augustine: Time with friends from Japan provides treasured memories

MOST RECENT TRIB STORIES

• ABQTrib.com to remain available
  08:48 a.m., February 25, 2008
• Congressman is indicted
  08:37 a.m., February 23, 2008
• Series of attacks target Green Zone
  08:36 a.m., February 23, 2008
• Iran is defying U.N., agency says
  08:35 a.m., February 23, 2008
• Waterboarding approval probed
  08:34 a.m., February 23, 2008

TRIB IN THE BLOGOSPHERE*

• Ty Murray Invitational thrills fans in Albuquerque
• Is Rome Burning?
• Ominous Skies
• The Road to Invalidation
• Albuquerque company participates in “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition”

*Note: The Tribune does not create and is not responsible for the blogosphere's headlines and stories. These links to blogs talking about ABQTrib.com are automatically generated. Use them at your own risk.

STORY TOOLS

• E-mail story
• Comments
• iPod friendly
• Printer friendly

SHARE THIS STORY [?]

A friend proclaimed to me over the phone last week that he was predicting the end of the Republican Party.

"I think we're witnessing it," he said, almost giddy at the thought. "The (2008) elections will put it to rest."

I reminded him that Republicans were saying the same things about the Democratic Party in 1991. Then President Bush had an 80 percent approval rating, plus or minus, and all appeared golden.

But Bill Clinton came along and, with the help of Ross Perot, put the defibrillators to the body of the party and brought Democrats back to life. Sort of.

Recent events have Republicans thinking perhaps all's not lost. Certainly, the war hangs over us.

But the French just rose from the grave and made a conservative their president. Nicolas Sarkozy not only won, he defeated a socialist female and did so by carrying the female vote. If that's not heartening for stateside Republicans, what is?

In England, the leftist Labor Party just took a huge bath in municipal elections around the country - a trend predicted to continue into their national elections in 2009.

Republicans are mindful that of the 35 new house seats won by Democrats last fall, only five were taken by genuine liberals. The others might well have been mistaken for Republicans if the "D" had been removed their places on ballots.

In much the same way George W. Bush and Karl Rove thought they actually won in 2004, Democrats are increasingly believing they won in 2006.

While Bush did win a sizable popular vote, it's important to remember just how bad John Kerry's campaign was. Remember? It was awful.

Many of Kerry's problems in 2004 carried over into 2006. Specifically he and his Democratic comrades had no agenda. The presidential race highlighted Kerry's arrogance and lack of vision.

In 2006, with races spread far and wide, the absence of a genuine agenda didn't hurt too much. And when you win a House seat with a few hundred votes here and there your shortcomings are easier to ignore.

But in some cases the lack of agenda couldn't be camouflaged. Running solely against the war and the president didn't work for Patricia Madrid, for example.

Today, Senate Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada and House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California are working overtime to pay their bills. That is to say, their party is financed largely today by the far left, a constituency that is demanding its pound of, er, hearings and a retreat from the war.

Democrat leaders are staking their future on what might be termed an "anti-agenda" - a litany of votes and moves designed to pummel Bush further.

But sooner or later, the public will realize Bush isn't up for re-election in 2008, and Democrats will need to present a few ideas of their own. It remains to be seen if they have any.