WHY WE LOST

Vanity | November 12 2006 | Nathanbedford

[nathanbedford]

WHY WE LOST

We have three important questions to answer: 1) What happened? 2) Why did it happen? 3) What do we do now?

1) What happened?

The Republican Party in general and George W. Bush in particular sustained a stinging rebuke from the American electorate. The Republicans lost control of the house and of the Senate. The agenda moves to the Democrats. The power of the purse moves to the Democrats. The power of the subpoena moves to the Democrats. The power to impeach moves to the Democrats. The power to affect foreign policy by, for example, defunding the war moves to the Democrats. The power to appoint conservative judges has been greatly compromised as has been the power to confirm appointments such as ambassador to the United Nations and Secretary of Defense.

The Republican Party has ruptured the bond that held it to the majority of the people of the United States since 1994. When the polls say that the people trust the Democrats more than Republicans on taxes, it means, as Newt Gingrich has said, they fired us because they don't trust us. It is as simple as that, the party has lost the trust of the people.

The Democrat party is extending its tentacles into the red states and the Republican Party is in grave danger of becoming a sectional party with an ever declining census and a bunker mentality.

2) Why did it happen?

[dmw]

"I won't either, but will not vote for Rudy. He is a neo con also. Maybe will have to vote for 3rd party conservative write in's. Tired of the moderate liberal pubs who are moving to the left."

I understand your sentiments. But if you do that then you are guaranteeing that Hillary will win the election. Just look back to what happen when Ross Perot ran as a third party. If your convictions are that strong that you'd risk getting Hillary as president then we know who our next president is going to be.

[Edit35]

You all just fired the ONLY people who were on your side in DC.

Yes, that really hurts.

But I agree with the logic of BedfordNathan's post: People saw their local Republican politician NOT as an individual, but as a member of a larger party which had become dis-connected.

I never believed, and have always argued AGAINST that old Tip O'Neill cliche that "All politics are local." (In fact, this election should put an end to that lie)

I have always sensed that voters will reject a local candidate if they think that voting for the other party's candidate will get them what they want.

It hurts to admit it, but about 10-percent of the Repub base were so demoralized over Foley, Abrahamoff, Dey, Cunningham, no border fence, and yes, the seemingly endless Iraq war, that they simply stayed home.

One more thing: Gays would never vote for a Republican candidate who says he or she supports gays.

Gay voters will overwhelmingly vote Democrat, time after time.

Likewise, black candidates will not vote for a black Republican candidate, as was shown on Tuesday in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Ohio, and other places.

Black voters will vote Democrat 95 percent.

[seppel]

With GW and friends doing everything in their power to push amnesty? Its a case of typhoid or cholera. What’s important is that strong measures came through in Arizona. It really does not matter who rules, what counts is that border-control measures are enacted, and the outsourcing of American jobs is stopped (min wage for instance). It’s a case of achieving better policies in spite of the politicians.

[seppel]

The GOP and MSM are also cozy. The MSM is paid for by Big Business which feeds the GOP. Same thing really.

[fortheDeclaration]

Last night I spoke to our local Christian Coalition leader, and she relayed to me how a large percentage of her members were totally demoralized over Republican incompetance and arrogance, and they simply opted to sit out this election.

Then they are immature babies.

Any Christian who doesn't know good from evil is a babe (Heb.5:13-14)

MNJohnnie is correct, all we heard on these threads was how good it would be for the GOP to lose,it would 'teach them a lesson'.

No adminstration is going to please all the Party, it will disappoint because it must deal with an opposition Party as well as Constitutional limitations.

The Democrats are already disappointing their Left wing base by putting a hawk, Liberman in charge of Homeland Security, and by stating that they not going for Impeachment.

You don't attack your President, you oppose him in the Congress, as we did on immigration, the nomination of Meir, AWB, etc.

Bush didn't try to twist arms, he accepted what the other two branches said on the issue.

The GOP is a Conservative Party, but it takes time to move the nation back after decades of Liberalism.

And all we ever heard is how Reagan acted.

I remember one of the battle cries back then was 'let Reagan be Reagan' because the assumption was that legislation was getting past that Reagan did not like but he was listening to his advisors, like Baker.

I remember libertarian Republicans quitting his adminstration in frustration over his acceptance of large spending, agreeing with the Liberal (his buddy Tip O'Neil),to get his own defense spending through.

[uncbob]

I still say it was the MSM that won the election for the Democrats. With almost 80% of the news stories being negative against the Republicans and less than 20% against the Democrats, what do you expect?

Will not argue with that . But even further back it is when they left wing got control of the colleges that led to the media take over

[grids]

The electorate is a whole lot smarter than they're given credit for.

I respectfully but wholemindedly disagree. If the electorate had replaced the Republicans as majority with, say Libertarians, or Rastafarians, or Nefarians, maybe you could make that claim. But to replace Republicans with the only party who's demonstrated time and again that they govern even more poorly is the sine quo non of stupidity. Does anyone think that the Democrats will pull us out of Iraq cleanly, when they voted to give the President authorization to commit war, and when they overwhelmingly voted NOT to create a timetable for withdrawal in the House? I'm not arguing for withdrawal, but if this election were about replacing corruption with a wholesome, moral people, or about replacing the Party of War with the Party of Withdrawal, then the electorate most certainly got it wrong, and are stupid.

[cripplecreek]

Thats not even looking at the numbers of seats that changed hands in favor of pro border control candidates. Many democrats ran on a pro border security platform because a large portion of their constituency was screaming about it. Here in my Mi. congressional district we replaced a pro amnesty RINO with an anti amnesty conservative who was endorsed by the minuteman PAC.

[seppel]

I fully agree with you. What turned me off from Bush was not Iraq or the corruption in congress, but the immigration issue and his pandering to the lusts and deceits of Big Business.

However that would never translate into a Dem vote. At best abstention.

[Jim Noble]

Hopefully there will be enough Christians who will feel as I do and vote for Rudy if he does become the nominee.

I guess you had to grow up in New York, live through the fall of NYC 1965-1995, and live there afterwards, to understand how profoundly conservative Rudy is.

Please, all, don't re-post that I must be a homosexual cross-dressing baby killer. I'm sick of it.

The next President is going to be Rudy or Hillary.

Choose.

[seppel]

I'm from Germany. Merz, a leading pol here, said that a truly conservative party would get max 25% here in Germany. But that means it would become a swing party, which is much better than being a mushy "majority" party having to constantly water down policies, worrying about the "swing voters" or pandering to minorities.

[Edit35]

Next time we will counter them so fast,

How, specifically, can we do that?

[grids]

However that would never translate into a Dem vote. At best abstention.

Given that this wasn't an election directly involving Bush, but an election that involved the Republicans in the Congress ~ the only political source standing against Bush's amnesty immigration policy ~ abstention translates directly into a vote for the Dems.

[seppel]

This is the status quo in many European countries with 3+ parties. Your best bet is a strong conservative party in combination with a relatively well communicated moderate (liberal) outfit. The conservatives feel at home in their house and can drive politics. The worst situation is when the Marxists wax. Then you have what we had here in Germany under Red/Green. The SPD b.t.w. used to be "moderates".

[seppel]

Exactly. Its about policy and not party! And at a local level that is.

[seppel]

True. I have to admit I'm German so I did not vote anyway. But I was not surprised about the outcome. I follow US conservative news very intensely. The big issue in the West is immigration. If you cannot keep the non-Europeans out, you will either arrive at lower standards or Islamic control. Immigration is the first issue. It’s vastly more important than taxes or foreign wars.

[Malesherbes]

I think it will be easier to get the House back than the Senate. That one Senate seat is going to be hard to get, and after 2008 - if the Dims win - we'll need two not one. What really saddens me is that Montana, a naturally red state, now has two Dim Senators. The Dakotas, naturally red states, have three Dim Senators out of four, all relatively young and probably there for life.

[dmw]

"the electorate most certainly got it wrong, and are stupid."

You stated a very profound truth that I believe many people will minimize or say it is nonsense. That's exactly why I believe the Democrats won, in addition to the fact that the MSM helped them win by constantly beating up on the Republicans. It really is that simple whether people want to admit it or not.

[abclily]

I have a question. Would like to have an answer. What will be the exact count of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents in the Senate after the newly elected are sworn in next January?

[antisocial]

"What you saw on Tuesday was exactly that. Problem is the new leadership is Marxist where the old leadership was Conservative."

If you think the old leadership was conservative with the huge expansion of government and flagrant overspending, I think you need someone to explain the meaning of conservative to you.