Posted on 11/13/2006 6:46:36 AM PST by Small-L
Bill Clinton, whom I despise with every fiber of my being, is absolutely right about this.
It was a debacle for one and only one reason: the mess in Iraq. Those conservatives who spoke out against the Iraq debacle, such as Ron Paul and Walter Jones, or Democrats who sounded anti-Iraq war Democrats who sounded conservative themes, won handily. Hence, the GOP's best bet for 2008 is to run a small government Iraq skeptic, like Chuck Hagel.
When Bush allows Rove to protect a crooked Illinois Republican pol why is anyone suprised.
I don't believe the public is against our being in Iraq. They are against our not kicking ass decisively there.
Then why did "kick ass" candidates like Santorum lose?
DC Chapter short list ping
Couldn't agree more. The Islamists don't understand our "compassionate" handling of Sadr City, the prisoners, ... A 10,000# "daisy cutter" on Al Sadr would make more of an impression than all the building of schools, water systems, and power stations.
I agree. It's either kick ass or pull out. I don't think people have the stomach for the in-between.
So now the question remains.......
How do we get the hardheaded Republican politicians to admit to themselves the real reason they lost? Case in point, the President should be able to see that it was his actions on illegal immigration and spending that in great part angered Republican voters, but he apparently doesn't see that at all since he is going ahead with pushing the amnesty bill.
They lost because they are Republicans. Because they represent the party that is running the Iraq War - and not winning it decisively. IMO, of course.
Yes, I did hear Glen Beck saying that Santorum is the only senator who understands the dangers we face from Islamic terror. Blut I think between their big government stance and Iraq, the country is fed up with Republicans. It's understandable as far as I can see. Although I voted a straight Republican ticket, I feel that way myself.
In any case, my belief is that if we hadn't been letting the insurgents run us around for four straight years, there wouldn't have been an election debacle. I think the people may instinctively understand how encouraging it must be to Islamic terror that they have demonstrated some capacity for resisting us. Which is exactly the opposite point that we went into Iraq to make.
In simpler terms: guilt by association.
Why did Lieberman win in Connecticut? Arguing why Santorum lost in Penn is like arguing why Kennedy and Kerry win in Taxachusetts. We were fortunate to have a strong conservative representing Penn as long as we did. There is a very long list of reasons why the Repubs got their butts kicked in '06. It didn't help that, as a whole, the party abandoned their principles. Some of those good conservatives who lost were collateral damage with respect to the public's overall dissatisfaction with the GOP.
Wasn't it about a year ago that the Repubs proposed some sort of gas rebate program to give people discount coupons, instead of drilling new wells in the Arctic and offshore?
Are you serious? Hagel is useless.
Santorum needs to move to Arkansas. He can win there.
When Churchill lost office in 1945 Britian wasn't faced by Islamic lunatics armed with nuclear, bio, and chemical weapons.
1) We have been in Iraq for 3 years, 7.5 months.
NOT 4 straight years.
2) "Insurgents" have not been running us around for all that time.
3) In terms of casualties, the country was quite calm for the first year. Then the foreign terrorists began flooding the country in an effort to stop the elections and the establishment of a democratic form of government.
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.