Republicans should Worry?

From Instapundit.com:
--------------------------------

WHY THE REPUBLICANS SHOULD BE WORRIED, and the Democrats should be seizing opportunities: Driving in to work this morning, I heard this guy talking on the Hallerin Hill show, and he noted that he votes for the Republicans because of their stance on money and taxes, but that he agrees with the Democrats on a lot of other issues. If the Democrats would just lose their hostility to the idea of people getting rich, he said, they'd have his votes and millions of others.

I think that's probably right -- and I'd guess that Gene Sperling does too. That's why, as I suggested in my column yesterday, it's important that the pro-growth Democrats get a hearing. And while Republicans might prefer that they lose out, the truth is that sooner or later the Dems will be back in, and we'd rather see them sensible on economic matters when they are.

Of course, there's still the whole national-security issue, which for me is more of a dealbreaker than the economics. But I'd like to see more sense on that front, as well. Karl Rove may prefer the Democrats to chase the Democratic Underground vote and marginalize themselves, but I think the country would be better off if they moved in the other direction.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Now with a highly-touted win by a pro-life, pro-growth Democratic governor in Virginia, perhaps the party can drop its hostility to people of faith, be reclaimed from the MoveOn.org and KosKids loonies, and become a serious rival to the Republicans in 2008.

Or maybe not.

I see insurgencies springing up in both parties in the next few years. In the Republicans, the resurgence of the conservative, small government deficit hawks are breaking from the Bush "compassionate conservative" crowd. But Bush is unable to run again and he won't be able to appoint a successor like Reagan did Bush 41, so the primary process should be a good test of which way the active, engaged voters lean. I don't see "social conservatives" running the tables, though they are a big block and will be tie-breakers.

On the Dem side I see the Blue Dogs sending the moonbats into a frenzy and the moonbats trashing anyone to the right of the late Paul Wellstone in a contest that will test the stretch of the tent fabric. I think that the days of courting the hate vote are ending. Edwards will run again (oh, please!) but will try to decouple himself from the Kerry debacle. Hillary Clinton seems more and more likely.

But until the Dems are able to articulate a foriegn policy and defense policy more comprehensive than, "We were brainwashed by Rove's secret mind rays!" They won't be taken seriously by the majority of the electorate. To me the bellweather is Howard Dean. If he is still running the DNC in late 2006, the Republicans have only themselves to blame if they can't elect Barney Bush.