Posted on 11/09/2006 9:38:57 PM PST by Logic Times
Rush Limbaugh has it wrong. He stated Wednesday that "[c]onservatism did not lose, Republicanism lost last night. Republicanism, being a political party first, rather than an ideological movement, is what lost last night." (here) This statement – a statement echoed by Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and other conservative pundits to whom a nation of shell-shocked conservatives turned for cathartic analysis – fails a simple test. If the electorate was demanding conservatism, then why did strong, principled conservatives lose? Incumbent conservatives such as Rick Santorum, George Allen, J.D. Hayworth and Curt Weldon to name a few. Superb conservative newcomers such as Ken Blackwell and Michael Steele.
The actions of the electorate last Tuesday was an indiscriminate firing of Republicans, not a thoughtful weeding out of RINOs. It is true that Republicanism lost on Tuesday, but it lost in all its forms – and that included the exact form of strong, clear conservatism that the movement desperately needs.
(Excerpt) Read more at logictimes.com ...
how did they run as conservtives?
The democrats triangulated the republicans. The author has it 100% wrong.
The lesson is that a DINO trumps a RINO.
Ummmm. We tried to run a conservative, Pat Toomey, in PA against liberal Republican, Arlen Specter. President Bush pressured Rick Santorum to support Specter. So this argument against "conservative revolt" falls flat -- at least in Pennsylvania.
Rudy? Then get used to life in the minority. Blackbird.
Politics has become a cult of personality. See the governor of California.
With the taste of defeat still fresh in your mouth, you'd settle for this? Strange to say the least. If the RNC puts RATpublican's out front, expect to have your hat handed to you again. Blackbird.
Santorums opponent is just as socially conservative as Santorum.
Nowhere in this thread does the name "Hastert" appear. His biggest flourish in the media this season came was when the DOJ raided William Jefferson Democrat Louisiana's office, and he was all pisced. Taking the side of a corrupt Democrat, was the message that sent to many. That kind of speakership doesn't serve Newt's legacy well.
R's haven't at least appeared to hold W accountable enough, (Sen Warner tried but too little too late) and all the good apples allowed themselves to be tainted by the 2 bad ones, and didn't effectively counter the MSM anti-war propaganda blitz.
Common sense, yes! Maybe Bush was so anti-border fence (Mexico), he refused? It would have proved that you can protect a border. Something Dennis Prager brought up was why we didn't immediately take over the media. It was a hole that Iran soon filled.
Pretty astute comment. It may have been an unwinnable election, when you consider that the turnout on our side was extremely high for an off-year election. So obviously many of "our" people did not vote for Rs. Turnout, for example, doesn't explain in any way why Blackwell got beaten so bad---only other factors, such as scandal of the Taft administration.
I do think some races were just lost by scandal/outright stupidity (DeLay, Foley, Ney, Weldon). But it's hard to argue that the party needs to be more "moderate" when the RINOs got killed even worse than "conservatives."
I'm an ASU alum. Has it become that sick?
For the most part, the jaw bone media echoed that sentiment. Yes, there were times they have been critical. But had the exact same issues that this administration and congress put forward were democrats, the jaw bone media would have been obsessed and crying to throw the bums out instead of touching on it for a few days and moving on.
The days before and after the election has really displayed how honest and truthful the jaw bone media has been with their listeners.
sherrod brown?
I have not heard one true conservative say they voted dem.
[quote] The only person I can think of with Reagan's "likability" is Rudy(HE isn't a "Conservative" but he has "it") IF he can position himself correctly with States rights issues and such, smooth sailin'
[/quote]
Romney loses in a LANDSLIDE... He wont even win his home state against Hilary.
McCain loses by a few more States than Kerry and Gore lost by. Namely because Hillary will likely win several states in the South (Arkansas and maybe Florida and Republicans CAN NOT WIN without sweeping the South.)
Rudy WINS. And he KICKS HER &%$ ALL across America...
MOST IMPORTANTLY, he wins New York... NO DEMOCRAT WINS without winning NEW YORK... It would be an early evening if Rudy is the nominee.
Rudy is a native son of New York. Hilary is a carpetbagger. He will win the entire state EXCEPT MAYBE for Manhattan where he makes it real close if not a win... He wins the rest of the Burroughs, and all of Upstate. And doesn't get his teeth knocked in ANYWHERE in the state, which is enough for a win.
Plus he forces her to BLEED money IN NEW YORK, which leaves less money for the states that have been "Battlegrounds" for the last two elections. Rudy wins Pennsylvania & PROBABLY OHIO. Rudy wins much of the Northeast except for Mass & Vermont. Rudy wins most of the Midwest except for Illinois & maybe Minnesota. Rudy wins most of the traditional central "red states". Hilary MAY pick up a couple of these, New Mexico & Colorado. But after losing New York, it doesn't matter... By the time those polls close, nobody is watching.
Reagan won as a CONSERVATIVE because he was running against a FAILED LIBERAL. That is not going to be the case. Its an open seat... To win you have to move DRASTICALY to the center. 2008 is NOT the year to make a last stand on principles...
But wait, that razor thin winning margin was seen as a mandate in 2000 when the President took the White House. Charles is rationalizing. Neither that election nor this one was a mandate for radical change.
Horse hockey. The base did vote. It just wasn't big enough to do the job. When the base realizes there's a difference between making the message palatable to the moderates and independents, then in times of change or close elections they still can win. They didn't lose conservatives. They lost the middle.
Now THAT would be idiotic. If anything, likely they stayed home
You still stayed home in their view. Or should have voted more than once to show your support.
Im sorry if I made it sound like they conservatives actually went out and voted for democrats out of anger. I dont think that happened.
They just werent there for the party
Bingo! Rush was around 20 million listeners in 1994. He's down to around something less than 14 million now. In 1994 if Rush told conservatives to assemble in Times Square naked, they would extend from one end of Manhattan Island to the other with all the bridges and tunnels choked with people trying to get in. Today, the porta potties needed to take care of the crowds would amount to about 5. In the 90's Rush made a success of a brand of beverage called Snapple. How many meat packages have you bought from Allen Brothers?
I don't know if he realizes it, but I do. He and his clones no longer can influence the public like they once did.
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.