Posted on 11/10/2006 2:17:01 PM PST by RWR8189
The war in Iraq, President Bush’s sagging approval numbers, and a series of scandals are widely considered the major culprits behind Republican losses in the House and Senate yesterday. This analysis is correct, but is incomplete. Abandonment of the principle of limited government must be added to the litany of serious Republican missteps.
A poll commissioned by the Club for Growth in 15 key districts shows surprisingly severe damage to this aspect of the GOP brand (to see a summary of the results, see here). And it’s little wonder. From the last Farm Bill to the Prescription Drug entitlement to McCain-Feingold to runaway spending, Republicans in Washington stopped being the party of limited government sometime ago. And the American people noticed.
Once they lost their less-government, fiscal-discipline branding, Washington Republicans lost a big reason for their majority status. The survey we conducted two nights before the election shows that voters in swing districts no longer believed that Republicans stood for limited government and fiscal discipline. And those same voters overwhelmingly threw the Republicans out of office, and with them their majority.
For years, Republicans had successfully branded themselves as the party that wanted smaller government, less spending, balanced budgets, and low taxes. The brand sold because most Americans understand that governments are inveterate money-wasters and because people naturally want to keep more of what they earn. Voters used to think that Republicans meant what they said when it came to limited government. They don’t any more.
We surveyed 800 very likely voters across the 15 Republican-held districts we thought most likely to switch parties. We excluded those districts plagued by personal scandals. Since most of the fifteen seats did in fact switch from Republican to Democrat, clearly these were battleground districts.
We asked voters if they thought that, over the last four years, “the size and cost of the Federal Government has gone up, gone down, or stayed about the same?” Seventy-three percent recognized that it has gone up. And whom do you think they blame?
We asked voters whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement: “The Republican Party used to be the Party of economic growth, fiscal discipline, and limited government, but in recent years, too many Republicans in Washington have become just like the big spenders that they used to oppose.” An amazing 66 percent of the respondents agreed with that statement.
We asked which party is doing a better job “eliminating wasteful spending.” The Democrats led 39 percent to 25 percent. Which party is “the party of big government?” The Republicans, by an 11 point margin.
All of this is a big part of the reason the Republican party lost. Republicans squandered one of the very few valuable brands it established in voters’ minds over many years. And voters care about fiscal discipline and lower taxes.
In a question — the answers to which should embarrass even the most shameless appropriators — we asked:
“Which type of candidate for congress would you be more likely to vote for? A candidate who wants to reduce overall Federal spending, even if that includes cutting some money that would come to your district. Or a candidate who is willing to increase overall spending on Federal programs and grow the Federal budget, in order to get more federal spending and projects for your district?”
By more than 2 to 1, voters preferred the candidate who would cut spending. And keep in mind, these were swing districts in which Democrats outnumbered Republicans. Who says earmarks are the ticket to re-election?
Cutting spending and making the Bush tax cuts permanent would have been a better route to re-election for Republicans this year. By a margin of over 2 to 1, voters in these swing districts favored keeping the Bush tax cuts in effect on income-tax rates. The margin was 5 to 2 in favor of keeping the capital gains and dividend rates low, and people supported making the repeal of the death tax permanent by almost 3 to 1.
So if the Republican congress had followed our advice early last summer and abolished all earmarks; cut discretionary spending, even modestly, across-the-board; given the president the line item veto; and made part, any part, of the Bush tax cuts permanent; the elections may well have turned out differently.
Republicans won their majority in 1994 by offering the American people an idea, manifested with a promise. The idea was limited government. The promise was the contract with America. They never got around to fulfilling the promise. And when they gave up on the idea, the American people gave up on them.
— Pat Toomey is the president of the Club for Growth.
At least they're not stupid...
Well, great! We now have the party that cares more about small government and less spending in power! Woo hoo!! LOL
They're not stupid? They voted for Democrats didn't they?
The MSM had no hand in it whatsoever.
/sarc
DC Chapter short List ping.
To heck with toomey and all of the rest... barring Rush, Sean, Ann and a few others. We need new pundits because they are all nancy-boys when the battle is engaged. They run and hide or join the enemy's camp. I am done with the majority of them... NRO and Weekly Standard included!
LLS
Is he the same guy they threw under the bus in PA?
Good post.
Hah! I am with you, hate the whining, thats a liberal thing.
In the interest of disclosure, I voted straight "drunken sailor".
And too many "conservative" actively campaigned AGAINST this man?
Wow. Just friggin' wow.
Another generation of Americans are being confused by this Republican administration.
Conservatives are for SMALL government, STRICT immigration policies, INDIVIDUAL rights, and OVERWHELMING force in military conflict.
Under the BUSH administration, RINO's have us BIG government, LAX immigration, COLLECTIVE rights, and POLITICALLY-CORRECT military policy.
The Republicans lost not only an election, but squandered a glorious opportunity to guide the future.
The same.
Yes the same man the Bush adminstration and, for some unknown reason, Rick Santorium sandbagged in the primary in favor of that conservative stalwart Arlen Specter. So much for fighting your battles in the primaries, huh?
They're brilliant compared to Karl Rove. Karl isn't so magnificent anymore.
"Who says earmarks are the ticket to re-election?"
Earmarks repay lobbying interests. The money spent on lobbying comes back with a big return.
And in return the politico can count on nearly lifetime addisional sources of personal income. Out of office, he can join the very lobbying interests he used to cater to.
The People wanted limited government and fiscal restraint, and turned over the applecart in 1994 to get it.
They didn't get it. Not even close.
Yes, there are reasons, and, yes, electing the opposition is not even close to the answer.
But the way this inspired system is supposed to work is for the Representatives to be constantly in fear of their jobs, and on Tuesday the People turned up the fear factor.
The People had every right to be disappointed in the GOP majority.
Thank you for FR, and for allowing me to be here for 8 1/2 years.
To the contrary this message needs repeating over and over and over again until the Repubs get it right. Right now President Bush is making overtures to the ... DEMOCRATS! For criminy sakes!
Also add...the constant negative harping by the MSM. False reporting by the MSM. Animal Farm anyone? Dems are good... Repubs are bad.
You must be young.:)
49 years young.
Well, disappointed is certainly what I am. We just blew a once in a generation, maybe once in a century opportunity. And for what? To teach the GOP a lesson? Well, when do you think we'll ever get another chance to put the fifth constitutional vote on the bench?
Republicans may well have "squandered" their possibilities of ever returning to power given that the only bulwark against the Latino flood, the House, is now in the hands of those who desire, with the president, virtually unlimited immigration from Latin America. These new millions and millions will all be Democrat voters, illegal or legal, and they will vote.
Good post!
The same ones who were bashing the GOP and President Bush are now venting against same but whining about the democrat victory.
I wonder if they voted?
ping to muhself to show to others
I'm sick over the loss of Jeb Bradley in NH-01, especially because I am now represented by a Cindy Sheehan wannabe.
But that will not last beyond January 2009. My beautiful little girls are still beautiful, the New England Fall is still wonderful.
It's hard for me to be too critical of the People who did their thing. Your view and my view of Mr. Bush was very similar in 1999 - and there is a limit to how much "the other guys are worse" can carry the day.
On to 2008! We'll get 'em next time.
"The percent Conservative vote overall probably went down because they're probably thinking, if what passed the last 6 years is Conservative, then I must be something else."
Something doesn't mesh.
You don't know WHO exactly they voted for, they definetly didn't vote for the Rat.
The Republicans didn't win, bottom line. You can spin it until the cows come home or blame the Libertarians but the bottom line is that they lost, and that's their fault, not the voters.
That's probably easier said than done.
Pat Toomey for governor bump
Agreed it was death by 1000 cuts. We laughed at Plame, and all the other created scandals but the MSM held each wound open and allowed it to fester. The last two years also proved that the "New Media" can bleed the Republicans as much as the "old media". Can't fight the MSM/Dems and get beat over the head by the right and win.
The Rats held Congress for 40 years and the Republic is still here standing strong.
The GOP had 12 years to get something done and they completely blown it. BTW, every administration since WWII lost seats in their six-year mid-term election, so this really isn't nothing to panic over. The American people by their nature want to see new faces, and unfortunately a lot of them wanted new Rat faces.
Dude the election is over you can quit carrying the water now. I have.
We can figure it out.
We will figure it out.
Let tyrants shake their iron rods.
And slavery clank her galling chains
We fear them not, we trust in God
New England's God forever reigns.
Chester, the hymn of the Continental Army
I find that the creepiest reason. Like Tony Perkins dressing up as his mother.
You think everyone who identifies themselves conservative is conservative? That's why I wrote what I wrote. Remember what you wrote in Post 6? Some of those responding to exit polls misidentifying themselves.
Everything else - while true - is ancillary. Trust me.
"Bla, bla, bla, I could have written this."
Could have, yes. Already did, yes...
http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com/2006/11/its-corruption-stupid.html
"The big loser in the election is Big Government Republicanism, or "big Government conservatism", an oxymoron as unpopular as it is unwise: Here's one telling exit poll result: In battleground districts, only one in five voters said Republicans would do a better job to "keep government spending under control"; almost twice as many voters said Democrats would do a better job. Yet this week a separate poll found that 59% of Americans still favor fewer government services and lower taxes compared with 28% who favor more government services and higher taxes. "Big government conservatism" was a nice think-tank proposition; it merely lacks support from actual voters."
This needs to be pondered, considered and thought about seriously.
1) Bush and Congress decided to 'go to the middle' by matching the Democrats on spending: Highways, Medicae drug program, farm bill, etc.
2) The result was not more favorability for Republicans, but LESS. Fiscal conservatives peeled off into either libertarianism, apathy, and voting for democrats (since they saw no real difference on the issue, voted on other issues)
3) The only conclusion is the need to reclaim the fiscal conservative banner. And the only way to do that is to start talking about the programs we are paying for that we should cut and/or proposing less Gover
I support the following idea: THE 15% SOLUTION:
Federal Government spending should be reduced to 15% of GDP, and until that time should grow at a rate of no more than inflation and GDP.
We need to revive and animate fiscal conservatism or the Democrats will be running this country for the next generation.
They lost a historic opportunity.
Bush didn't fight for vouchers in his education plan, instead he yielded and let Fat Kennedy write the stupid bill.
Bush didn't fight hard enough for his Ownership Society. It was a great idea that reasonated with a lot of younger voters, but he let the Rats kill that too.
He never went out and championed the economic boom under his watch thanks to his tax cuts; again he let the Rats go on about "Jobless Recovery" and other talking points.
His amnesty scheme...New York Times leaking national security secrets...stupid Hastert defending crooked Jefferson...again crickets chirping from the WH.
Time to head out to Walter Reed. Later!
This is sheer stupidity. The Republicans have not limited gov't, they've spent like drunken sailors, makes me sick. (Voted straight R). But to think that Democrats would spend less or limit government? Who'd they ask, crack heads or meth tweakers?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.