 |
| IMHO, the Republicans lost because the sitting President is a Republican, and it was an off-year election. Most accurate comment in this thread. Occam's Razor to the rescue again! |
Posted on 12/11/2006 5:40:37 AM PST by Mike Bates
That was the question that began a week-long cruise of the Pacific with an all-star lineup of conservative thinkers and writers gathered to discuss politics, culture, the status of conservatism, radical Islam and the war in Iraq.
SNIP
Rich Lowry, the editor of National Review, which organized the cruise, said the lessons are to not be corrupt, incompetent and don't lose a war, or be perceived as losing a war.
In regard to the latter, the national exit poll found that 68 percent of voters considered the war in Iraq to be extremely or very important to their vote. A total of 59 percent thought the war had not improved the security of the United States, and 56 percent disapproved of it. Fifty-five percent wanted a withdrawal of some or all of our troops.
In addition to the impact of the war, Washington editor Kate O'Beirne said that the Republican brand name is out of favor, suffering from scandal and corruption fatigue.
Columnist and author Mark Steyn, whose new book America Alone, was the most ubiquitous of any on the cruise, said that rather than being the doctrinaire conservative that many in the media try to portray Bush, he in fact has turned out to be the "third way" president that Bill Clinton had only tried to be. Pointing to such issues as immigration, where Bush favors a form of amnesty, and prescription-drug benefits, an expensive and complicated program pushed by the President, Steyn called Bush Tony Blair with a ranch.
(Excerpt) Read more at aim.org ...
Illegal Immigration
"Why Did the Republicans Lose?"
Because Conservatives got sick of RINO's and only voted the issues and not the candidates.
Disraeli founded the first modern conservative party. It had thirty years in power. Among its core convictions was Disraeli's assertion that "passion" is what determined outcome and meaning in politics.
This makes good sense. Crowd psychology does not crave bone dry economic promises but a passionate conviction that everyone gets to play a part regardless of their station in life. This does not mean class war or egalitarian goals but the simple, passionate conviction that culture must be affirmed and extended and by doing so we find meaning in our political life.
Look for who is the most passionate in a contest and more likely than not that is the winner.
Wrong. The Republicans lost because they threw conservatives under the bus for moderates and spent like a bunch of Democrats. The lack of action on the border didn't help, either. Bush in turn threw his own party under the bus so that he could work with a Democrat congress to pass amnesty and keep his NAU on track.
Pubbie didn't lose--dims pulled a fast one on the ignorant.
Iraq, Iraq, Iraq.
Real Americans want a strong resolute government. They want an end to political correctness. They want an end to racial set asides.
Any party that offers this version of America will win in a landslide at all levels.
Most people would rather have the Dems fall on their faces in the hope that someone will come to the conclusion above.
The last thing anyone wants is a wishy washy Republican government.
Half-assed recruitment and a systematic media onslaught in favor of the opposition.
The democrat propaganda machine, the national media.
GOp lost cause American voters are dumbasses and the MSM is a propaganda arm of the democrats
Scandal-corruption
Yeah right
So the voters vote for the party that wrote the book on it
And the greyfoxx beat the OldEagle.
“rather than being the doctrinaire conservative that many in the media try to portray Bush, he in fact has turned out to be the "third way" president that Bill Clinton had only tried to be. Pointing to such issues as immigration, where Bush favors a form of amnesty, and prescription-drug benefits, an expensive and complicated program pushed by the President, Steyn called Bush Tony Blair with a ranch.”
However... electing Dhimmicrats or staying home on election-day are the actions of a fool. I pray to God we survive the next few years.
Yep. Once elected the only agenda the GOP republicans had was to stay in power. They did nothing with their years in power. The only time they were worth a crap was when Clinton was in office. They kept Clinton in check for the most part except when it came to judges.
Which is why Democraps won! Since They are not corrupt (Jefferson D-LA) Incompetent (Pelosi, Reid) and don't lose wars (Kerry, Murtha). Democraps were claiming we lost when we first got into the war. Load of crap! The reason Repulbicans lost was that there was that they did not lead and became Democraps with spending and immagration! People had no reason to show up to vote, which is why the Democraps only won on average of less than 2% of the vote overall!
Americans put the republican party in the majority and they had no idea what to do with that majority. They acted like a minority, they allowed themselves to be dominated by a 90 year old Democrat KKK'er and two buttheads from Massachusetts.
Which candidates won because of the "issues" that Conservatives voted?
Uh, not enough people voted for their candidates, ya think?
/sarc
As I used to tell my boys when the completed on karate - "If you don't win decisively then don't complain about the results."
Why did the Republicans lose ? Well:
a) they didn't get rid of the death tax, as promised ( the one year phase-out doesn't count );
b) they spent money like drunken sailors ( Mr Boehner's earmarks everywhere );
c) weak leadership, particularly in the House, and they've re-elected most of them;
d) neo-"conservatives" are not conservatives at all, but lilly-livered moderates ( see the current crop of potential '08 GOP presidential candidates ).
e) The Contract For America was just a lot of hot air, which has dissipated in the wind.
You don't have to go on a neo-con cruise ship to figure out that the Republican Party is NOT conservative.
Therefore, people will always vote for Democrats by default unless another party offers a compelling argument in their favor. Republicans have to stand for something, because their default promise of national security and economic prosperity just isn't as compelling as the dream of a free ride the other side pushes.
In 2002 and 2004 that message was "Only Republicans can keep you safe from terrorism", but by 2006 the fear of 9/11 had largely worn off. Bush was a victim of his own success is suppressing domestic terror attacks, in some ways. Looking over the Republican message other than anti-terrorism and not really finding one, the voters chose to return to their natural habits.
The challenge for strategists in 2008 is going to be coming up with a compelling national Republican message, to give candidates in all of those close districts something positive to run on.
"Which candidates won because of the "issues" that Conservatives voted?"
That's my point. They didn't. Conservative issues passed overwhelmingly yet "many" Republicans in those areas lost. You won't see that in the NY Times or CNN.
Good points.
It's the economy stupid.
I can't tell you how the whole country is doing, but I can tell you how NE Ohio is doing. Lousy.
I have 4 siblings, and out of the 4, 2 are struggling. One of my sisters lost her job, (a marketing type position), and had to take a position paying much less. She's up to her ears in debt, (due to a run in with breast cancer and being a single mom). Now she's looking into selling her home. My nephew, who sells real estate said it will be tough going, and she'll take a beating on price. My real estate agent neighbor confirms this is the slowest she's ever seen the housing market.
My other sister's husband is a programmer. Lost his job, and will be forced to take a position for much less, if he can find one. His skill set is reasonably current. He's over 50 and would rather not uproot across the country.
Both siblings will do what they have to, and survive. But the choices aren't good. And those who know them sympathize, and may face similar situations.
My 401k is doing awesome. Investments are doing great. But investments don't vote. If a politician would stand up for American workers, he or she would win handily in my neck of the woods.
You just described Newt Gingrich. Or Mike Pence. Or Duncan Hunter. Or Ronald Reagan.
Social Conservative: "Because they weren't socially conservative enough!"
Social Liberal: "Because they were too socially conservative!"
Paleocon: "Because of their handling of Iraq!"
Neocon: "Because of their handling of Iraq!"
Border Obsessive: "Because they were soft on the border!"
Open Border Lobbyist: "Because they alienated Hispanics!"
Fiscal Conservative: "Because they spent too much money!"
Fiscal Sailor On Shore Leave: "I'm George W. Bush, and I approve this message."
IMHO, the Republicans lost because the sitting President is a Republican, and it was an off-year election.
If it is, you should put it on your profile page! Great!
The contract with America accomplished what I described.
We had exactly the same thing happen here in Ontario when a true conservative had the courage of his convictions and won back to back majorities in this supposedly liberal province.
The same thing happened in both cases, the modrates slowly took over and destroyed the party.
Agreed, agreed, agreed.
Well I am at least glad that some people are taking this serious enough to start asking internal questions. Republicans lost everyone's vote, and probably most important their own. The reason for losing everyone's vote is indicated in much of what these people had to say.
From the article, FWIW:
The White House claims that, historically, the sixth year of a two-term presidency results in significant losses to the party in power. But that is really not the case. The sixth years of the Reagan and Clinton presidencies saw few or no losses to the party in control of the White House. So the fact that voters turned against the Republicans in 2006 is a major setback for the GOP. There is no other way around it.
Maybe, but CNN's poll found that the economy was pretty much a wash this election, with 49% of those who voted thinking the economy is excellent/good and 50% believing the economy is not good/poor.
Excellent list, IMHO.
|
| IMHO, the Republicans lost because the sitting President is a Republican, and it was an off-year election. Most accurate comment in this thread. Occam's Razor to the rescue again! |
The Republicans lost becausethey abandoned their principles. When tehy find them again, they'll win again. It's that simple.
Dubya expended his "political capital" and paid the price.
But sadly, he's probably happy now that those pesky "law and order" Republicans
in the House can't stand in the way of Dubya, Pelosi and Reid ramming
through open-borders and unending Amnesty for everybody.
Bilhosty, Right on the money ! (which didn't get to good conservative house cadidates) I say the same thing in the blog section of my website,
http://www.theusmat.com/home.htm.
But I also examine other profound influences in my post 06 analysis that future campaigns must consider. Use of media. In order to get that message out relying on single media buys ("free" TV) is going to have to supplemented with the old fashioned print barrages in targeted areas. This is where that print review, text size, print page, print, buttons on the computer and a ream of 8X11 can come in handy.
Which is more important ? Party labels, or the direction the ship of state is heading ?
If you feel the Bush plan for amnesty is a disaster for America then go outside the box and hold those house "Blue Dog Democrats" feet to the fire. Encourage those conservative "talkies" to feature them on their talk shows. While I can see some will take the strict Republican party line and criticize the talkies for doing so. The device I suggested to be used against those liberal house dynos "Democratic Liberals Obstructionism" will be used in the 08 election against all Republicans. By following that suggestion that will blunt that attack
TIME TO THINK
WHATS GOOD FOR U.S. STUPID
http://.www.theusmat.com/
Dump the "comprehensive immigration reform" snake oil, it’s got only corrosive ingrediants: 1) laws? what laws? it ain't illegal if you've got a business making money with it and 2) stop calling them ILLEGAL and start calling them guest workers.
The Rats (formerly the traditional, patriotic Democrat Party) are running DINOs and they are winning the votes of the apolitical folks.
Get your act together, you internationalist Rockefeller Republicans, or you will be crushed again by another Reagan who can get the base and the apolitical and easily defeat Rats.. wait! on second thought. . . .
The GOP lost because it had been in power for to damn long and replaced it's direction with business as usual. It also lacked an agenda that appealed to both moderate and Conservative voters(contrary to popular opinion here you have to do both).
Agreed.
I would also add that the GOP ran a terrible campaign. We win by setting forward the best ideas, not by demonizing the opposition. Whoever bought all the anti-Pelosi adds hurt the cause immeasurably.
Scandal-corruption
Yeah right
So the voters vote for the party that wrote the book on it
``````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Yep.
MOST voters do not begin to pay attention until the last six weeks of the campaign.
The media saturated the airwave with attacks on the corrupt and immoral actions of Republicans. Stupidly enough, the actions of a few Republicans gave the media all the material they needed, only the timing was critical.
At least one candidate shot himself in the foot, politically, and the stink of macacca will follow Allen like the Dean Scream. Stick a fork in him, he's done.
The Democrats co-opted the Republicans' platform planks and ran on them as if they were their own, enabled by Republicans who had given the impression of having become soft on the border and moral issues.
This enabled the Dems to come off as more conservative than the Republicans in a number of races, at least for the critical six weeks leading up to the election.
While the Dems overall performance on a sixth year midterm was lackluster in comparison to the historical norms for gaining seats from the party in the White House, they did manage to scrape together the critical mass to gain control of both houses.
They targted specific races, and poured sufficient assets (both economic and media saturation-gratis) into those races to win, and it worked.
If Republicans are feeling particularly stung by the results, maybe they had best learn from them.
In short, back candidates who are doing well and not in any wishy-washy fashion. Some races are not going to go your way, period, so put the money where it will do the most good. Triage.
Be media savvy and don't give them sound bytes they can use against you. No one recording anything is your friend, and if you can't handle that heat, get out of the kitchen.
Remember your base, grow a set, and stick to your guns. Remember you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all of the time.
So, once you talk the talk, you had better walk the walk or your days are numbered.
You will be held to a higher standard, people expect Democrats to lie, but not Republicans. So it goes.
Good answers. The Republicans need to fight back harder, also. They let too many media attacks stand without repelling them effectively. They need to understand that the media is the ENEMY and act accordingly.
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.