The MSM media is sure to go into a rabid feeding frenzy with the upcoming release of former New Jersey Governor and EPA Administrator Christie Whitman's new book, It's My Party Too: The Battle for the Heart of the GOP and the Future of America . In it the governor claims that President Bush's reelection last year will prove to be hollow because it failed to broaden the GOP's base. Her main argument is that the red state-blue state ratio barely changed from 2000 to 2004. This is only a limited portion of the 2004 election story, and it is flawed logic in more ways than one.
First of all, the president was able to strengthen his hold on nearly all of the Midwest and every south-western state with his victories in Iowa and New Mexico, states where he narrowly lost to Gore in 2000. The president was able to accomplish this by increasing his vote share by 20% from 2000, gaining among African-Americans, women, north-easterners, Jews, etc. He increased his votes in every north-eastern state except Vermont and New Hampshire (the only red state that turned blue in 2004), and most notably, was able to increase his vote share among Hispanics by nine points from 2000. With a few exceptions, President Bush made gains in nearly every category in 2004. To get a look at the complete array of numbers, click here.
Secondly, President Bush is the first president since FDR to gain reelection while also increasing his party's majorities in congress. The GOP's gains in the House and Senate mark the second consecutive election in which Republicans have increased their majorities in congress. Republicans also control the majority of governorships and state legislators.
All this evidence bluntly refutes the claim that the GOP didn't expand it's base and support, and it is really unclear what Mrs. Whitman is trying to achieve here, except possibly trying to become the Zel Miller of Republicans.
good points about CTW, but to call her the "zell miller of republicans" is, in my opinion, an insult to Zell
ReplyDeleteZell Miller always believed in the policies that he advocates now to a certain degree. The difference between him and Whitman is that at one time the Democratic party, i.e. the party of FDR, was a receptive home for a man like Miller. But is has left him behind - even FDR would feel uncomfortable with today's Democratic party wobbliness on foreign policy.
Whitman on the other hand, will claim that the Republican party rightfully belongs in the mushy middle and has left her behind. But with the exception of the wandering decades of the 50s-70s (even then the heart of the Republican party was not squishy, it was just in hiding), the Republican party is a conservative party.
Anyway, just my 2 cents.
nice blog
In no way do I believe that Whitman is a Zel Miller, I just said that she is trying to be. Trying and failing I might add.
ReplyDelete