Posted on 03/07/2007 7:27:38 AM PST by sam_paine
November 7, 2006 - The American voters "revolted" and gave the Democrat Party control of Congress.
Four months out, what have the politicians and strategists learned?
Have they learned that "conservatism wins every time it's tried?"
Or have they learned that the right-wing coalition no longer holds enough votes for them to mount a successful campaign?
Did "staying home" send a message to politicians that got us better border security, less taxes, stronger military, less government control of schools...less abortion?
This thread, and subsequent "TEACHING THE GOP A LESSON" markers up until Nov 2008 should "log" as we go along just how well the politicians are (or are not) learning their lessons.
I really just want to do this periodically to link the stories which are likely fallout from the 2004 election (such as non-binding resolutions against the troops, minimum wage increase, etc) and more importantly to gauge the feelings of FReepers on the clear dichotomy between the message they think they're sending to the pols and the message that the pols are actually hearing.
You mean '06 election right?
Only WHINO wussies "sit it out"
Nothing.
No.
No.
No.
Not voting for a liberal candidate in a supposedly conservative party, does not constitute sitting out the election.
Calling Mr. Boortz, Mr. Neal Boortz, please pick up the white courtesy phone...
Yep. Ooops. 2006, of course.
I'm glad to hear you can be placated with words.
-the border has been tightened up and all illegals sent home
-spending has been completely reined in. No more pork!
This completely vindicates all the conservatives who decided not to vote for their Republican candidate because he was soft on immigration and loose with the purse strings. Sure taught him a lesson!
/sarcasm
No offense to you personally but I'm getting sick of this discussion. Very few "sat it out" to teach the GOP a lesson. Many in the voting population, unfortunately, were not given someone to vote FOR... only AGAINST... again.
Polling and cajoling the true believers and politically active isn't where the answer lies. You can't win if you only get your true believers. You have to sell yourself to the average schlub. The GOP (with the help of the MSM... or lack thereof) failed to do that. Politics is basic marketing... you have to differentiate your product. Growing the size of government, expanding entitlements, shamnesty, laziness and a host of other issues hurt the GOP... not the activists who tried to send a message.
It's not really relevant, nor interesting as to what we believe the "truth" to be when we're talking about politicians.
What's important to ask about what the pols think THEY have learned.
I think you're statement that the pols have learned "nothing" is unsupportable.
At least the leftists have "learned" that the "American voters have spoken for change."
Like it or not, that is certainly one result of the 2006 election.
Personally, I'm hearing it about the same now as I did before the election. Of course, how often we "hear" a phrase isn't really indicative of anything substantive. Governance is not about which phrases are uttered in public.
By the way I just noticed this thread: Dems to add billions to Iraq war bill
But at least you perceive yourself to be "hearing the phrase" 'fiscal responsibility' more often than you thought you were hearing it before 11/06!
While the voters were sending a message to the GOP, the lunatic Liberals think they won some sort of affirmation for their left-wing ideas that will lead to the destruction of our nation and policies that will leave us vulnerable to our enemies.
The last election was a repudiation of Republican politicians not being conservative enough not an affirmation of lunatics like Pelosi, Murtha, Kerry, and the rest of the anti-American crowd. The voters will turn on these idiots soon enough. Pelosi and her cohorts are hell bent on their acquisition of power while feeding their egos (evidenced by their thinking they're royalty) to realize that their anti-American, anti-military fringe policies won't pacify the American voter who are not Liberal.
Unintended though it may have been, what the results of the last election taught ALL politicians is that American voters apparently want liberals in power.
I guess it comes down to what each of us prefers. Do we prefer a Republican party that is out of power and pretends to be conservative? Or do we prefer a Republican party that is in power but increases the size and scope of government beyond the increases we saw from Democrats?
Tough choice.
A better question is - Did the GOP even run in the last election? It was yet another election where the GOP offered "Bob Dole" to its voters.
It is not the voter fault if the GOP cannot recruit and offer Republicans to vote for.
I didn't really want this to be a discussion....I really just want to log examples of what the election resulted in.
Your anti-Rudy tagline is a good example. I think one of the results of the 2006 election is that smokey room strategists in the liberal-wing of the GOP are emboldened, thus we get Rugy, Mitt, McPain etc---and little party money going to Hunter, etal.
Read the news and you will see immigrations raids happening at businesses which is a crucial element in the fight since the employers are part of the problem. No jobs, no welfare, no reason to come here.
The Senate Republicans are showing some spine as the minority party. Now, the rules of the Senate are such that the minority can control the agenda but at least the Senate Repubs are no longer willing to bend over for Harry Reid any longer.
We have a winner-take-all electoral system. This naturally leads to an equilibrium wherein there are two dominant parties who compete for the marginal voter. In practice this means, as you know, that in almost all elections there will be at most two candidates with a nontrivial chance of winning. Thus, if you want to vote at all, your choice boils down to which of those two you would prefer to win and/or which of those two you would prefer not to win. Whether you liked it or not, one of those two candidates was (probably) going to win; if you sat out or voted third-party because you didn't like that you were "only" given someone to vote against, it's precisely as if you didn't vote at all. Does not voting at all make you feel like you had a better choice than if you had gone ahead and voted for some (R) you didn't like all that much?
Anyway, this is all an inevitable, predictable outcome of the fact that we have winner-take-all elections. By complaining that you were "only" given someone to vote against, you are complaining about this natural outcome of our electoral system. Are you advocating a switch to proportional-representation elections?
Polling and cajoling the true believers and politically active isn't where the answer lies. You can't win if you only get your true believers.
Neither can you win if the true believers engage in a masochistic, senseless "revolt" that accomplishes nothing.
Politics is basic marketing... you have to differentiate your product. Growing the size of government, expanding entitlements, shamnesty, laziness and a host of other issues hurt the GOP... not the activists who tried to send a message.
Come on. Both hurt the GOP. It's not either/or.
It's way too early to tell whether the conservative will pay off. If the conservative movement can regroup and come up with a slate of candidates who are committed to the conservative cause, then it will have worked. The idea is not to teach the current GOP leadership a lesson, but to replace them with committed conservatives. This is a long term approach.
Are you planning on starting a ping list for this discussion?
Further still, we can all agree that the liberals ARE in charge now (Bush is having trouble even speaking up against global climate whatever.)
IF putting liberals in power is the best way to get the public on our side, then we should also see the liberal's popularity polls fade over the next months/quarters.
But in that this strategy didn't work very well over the 40 year Tip Oniell era....
Exactly. What the pols (left AND right, I would say) have "learned" is that the Iraq war was bad bad bad and they should badmouth it and distance themselves from it.
That's the "lesson" that true-blue conservatives "taught" the RINOs they hate so much: that they need to distance themselves from Bush and Iraq.
That's great. You must be very happy!
Absolutely, right to the point. I know many folk who could not stomach some of the Republican candidates in 2006, but none of whom were focused on teaching anyone a lesson. When you do not vote for someone who is not palatable, or actively work against someone who is not palatable, your primary purpose is serving your conscience. Your one vote is hardly seen as a teaching tool.
I realize that some career politicos see everything through very subjective eyes, and do not understand those who vote principle over job seeking. Yet, if they would look a bit closer, they might actually draw some more realistic conclusions. But that would be self-education!
Cheers!
Bill Flax
This is because of Congress?
I was just thinking of posting every month or so a set of stats (Pelosi pop ratings, spending vetoed, #'s of abortions...) That kind of thing.....something to measure the mood by.
I guess I could ping people that posted on previous threads?
Hadn't really thought of that.
I hear very little of that, and nothing on securing the borders of the United States. Nor do I hear anything about deporting those here illegally.
Now as for repealing abortion or at least stopping partial birth murder?
There is a whole slew of conservative measures these RINOs ignore cept at election time.
Well, I didn't sit out the election. But then, I had a true conservative to vote for: Duncan Hunter.
This doesn't mean that I wasn't heartily fed up with how much the Republicans didn't get done in the past 12 years and especially since Bush became president and they had all three houses of government.
What did we get? Two Supreme Court Justices - good thing.
Education bill crafted by Ted Kennedy.
No immigration bill.
Very little - and very late - border security.
No social security choices.
No school vouchers.
Ear marks from - ear to ear and then some.
Scandals one on top of the other. Scandals that Hastert and DeLay (himself part of the problem) knew about and did nothing. They all knew about Cunningham, Nye and the House page pusher.
Frist wouldn't push the button on making a final point that Supreme Court nominations shouldn't be fillibustered.
Couldn't get Bolton confirmed because of a REPUBLICAN senator.
Many conservative judicial nominees simply quit after years of not being given even a chance to come up for confirmation.
What's to vote for? Had Hunter not been my congressman - I might not have shown up at the polls. So, there - I said it.
Will I vote for Guiliani if he gets the nomination? Probably - but I would surely be wishing for somone I could really really support.
All in all, except for Bush's steadfast stance on the War - I'm heartily disappointed in him even though I worked in both his campaigns.
The last election I felt good about was 1994 - but the Republicans from Gingrich on down really mucked that up.
I hope that the dissension on these threads will be an indicator or reality.
There are really three outcomes:
1) Be more conservative. (We hope)
2) Run more liberal. (I'm afraid)
3) Chaos and disagreement on the right. (I expect)
I think, so far, #3 is proven day after day on FR in the internecine Rudy-vs-Hunter flamewars.
#2 -or- #3, IMO, are good for the leftists.
Well, here is what has happened to me. Don't know if other conservatives feel that way or not. I had just posted this on the Chuck Nagel - Impeachment coming thread.
"He and the other turncoats in our congress are the very reason I no longer contribute to the Republican Party. My money will never go to a Hagel, McCain, Lott, Snowe, Specter, Collins, or any of the others that decided to work against this administration instead of pushing through our agenda.
As far as I am concerned, we do not have ANY on our team in Washington other than the Bush administration.
What good did it do us to give the Republican Party money when it went to the likes of these weak turncoats?
I thought they were supposed to solve our problems, immigration, social security, etc., but all we get for our tax dollars are political maneuverings for their own gain, attacks against this president and his efforts to defend us, and we enabled them to socialize with their "friends across the aisle"-on our tax dollars and donations for the conservatives.
A bunch of political hacks - nothing more. Just seeking to get access to the "goodies" up there including the lifetime salary for doing absolutely nothing of any value.
I have really progressed from being willing to work and donate to absolutely giving up and giving it to the democrats. Apparently, that is the way our congress likes it, doing the bidding of the democrats."
I would suppose there are many others feeling as I do because all of the donation seekers mention they are hearing such from others. But, of course, nothing is done about it.
Perhaps I chose the title poorly. Whether it's "teaching the GOP" or "what the GOP learned" the intent is to figure out what the intentional or unintentional lessons learned are.
I think you're right about introspection, and that they will do it....except....that being creatures of incumbency...all they want to do is get reelected.....even the bright-eyed "Mr Smith goes to Washington types" have to contend with getting enough votes to get there and stay there.
And by that measure, what they are learning is that the Iraq war, social security, border security and tort reform are all high voltage do-not-touch issues.
President Bush championed some of those names on your list in their elections. Remember the Specter debacle in PA?
No they don't. Either works, truth be told. We have a winner-take-all system and thus 2 major parties. Push or pull, both can work.
Stop berating those that "sat out". They didn't affect as much of the outcome as those that weren't drawn to a candidate.
They affected the outcome precisely the same: not at all. Sitting out, "not drawn", whatever - if you don't vote, it's the same thing. The difference is that many of these people who "sat out" would have likely voted Republican if they had voted; whereas, those in the general public who just "weren't drawn to" anyone could have flipped either way.
#2 and #3 are the predictable, likely outcomes.
Great post.
"Growing the size of government, expanding entitlements, shamnesty, laziness and a host of other issues hurt the GOP... not the activists who tried to send a message."
Yup. (Good tagline!)
I think that it is possible to disagree without descending into chaos as long as we keep our disagreements respectful.
As for the current crop candidates, none really excite me. I am hoping that someone like Fred Thompson will enter the race. After eight years of Bush, I long to support a solid limited government conservative.
I'm still not convinced there was an actual revolt. Really the whole thing swung on about a dozen elections which the GOP lost by razor margins. The GOP did pretty much nothing to help themselves out in 2006 (like making the Dems obstruct them on something so they had a good hook to nationalize the election on) and yet the Dems hit par for a year 6 mid-term. This just doesn't strike me as a revolt.
I think you have just crystallized the conditions that creates a RINO congresscritter.
A conservative expects that politicians should go to washington to vote against more government in our lives. Best thing a conservative can do is vote "no" on everything.
But if we really are expecting, as you let slip, that politicians are "supposed to solve our problems," then that is precisely the message they may have gotten.
Yes, I know he did and why do you think he did?
Merely to try and keep a majority so that he could get his agenda through.
You work with what you have and what he has are a bunch of turncoats joining with the democrats to get their chance at power (note the group of 12 senators who decided to grab control of the senate and make themselves the decision makers).
Many of you complained continually about President Bush. Yet, President Bush has been the ONLY ONE WORKING FOR US IN WASHINGTON. You never complained about the McCain and all of the times he chose the democrats over us, you never complained about the fact that nothing was done other then attack President Bush, call for investigations, and do all in their power to destroy the man.
Now we have the dems adding billions to the defense appropriation bill for the war. That is what the "show the GOP a lesson" crowd have given us.
Yeah, they showed the GOP - they are giving the current Republican Party exactly what they want - less fighting for conservatism and more spending.
But, mainly, they have given us defeat and the loss of workers and donations for the Republican Party.
But is congress (RINOs/CINOs/Leftists alike) convinced there was a revolt.
You still don't get it... We have at least 40% of the voting-eligible population in this country that doesn't bother to vote. In every poll of their behavior, their number one reason (by far) is that they don't see it making a bit of difference... politicians are politicians.
The current trend of Democrat and Democrat-lite is growing those numbers. Rather than courting American voters looking for real action on real issues, both parties take their bases for granted (and the mind-numb, CNN-watching Dems can do it more easily) and pander to minority groups.
I'm sorry but saying that it's just as effective to push someone to vote for your candidate as it is to court their support doesn't make it true. You can use that method on those that plan to vote because they just think they have to out of civic duty. You can't draw the disaffected and disenfrancised voter that way.
Guess what: the ranks of the disenfranchised are full of conservatives who see nothing but socialism in our two main political parties. If the GOP would get back on message and say it loudly, we could actually do something in this next election. If instead they give us a Rudy McRomney, you will see a low voter turnout and a Democrat president.
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.