How to Win by Losing

NY Times ^ | September 13 2006 | RAMESH PONNURU

[bybybill]

No, going far to the left, losses elections. Just ask Presidents Kerry, Gore,and little Micky

[WOSG]

"Ramesh in the NY Times? WTH?"

UH, he counsels Republican defeat..

IMHO HE IS WRONG... IT IS MORE IMPORTANT TO DEFEAT THE ANTI-AMERICAN LEFT RIGHT NOW.

Forget pork barrelling for now, with the war on terror we have a fight for the civilized world and how we approach it, a fight that has impact in the next generation.

We cannot afford to blow it, and a Democrat victory now or in 2008 would be a disaster.

[nickcarraway]

That's only for Democrats.

[WOSG]

"The majority of the Republican Party is conservative, but the majority of the Republican Establishment is liberal. "

I dunno. We had Tom Delay and other conservatives have been in the leadership.

Our elite culture is far more liberal than the GOP base, and it has a gravitational pull on everyone in DC and New York.
Too many GOP leaders forget their roots is what happens.

Good reason to reconsider term limits.

[MNJohnnie]

Perhaps the Political Suicide Club might want to consider this little factual reality.

What do you suppose happens to the chances of Conservatives ever winning back the Congress if the Democrats reimpose the Fairness Doctrine, as they have said they would do, and totally destroy Conservative Talk Radio?

That right, they go from slim to nonsenxistant. Better be careful about the wild assumptions you all are making about ever winning again.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

Could it be the NYT has access to numbers that predict an actual INCREASE in the house??????

Given the stuck-on-stupid whiny little note Pelosi and Reid sent to the networks (basically bitching about how the networks must give Democrats more favorable coverage on national security issues), I would agree with you.

The Dems peaked early, and now they're starting to crash.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

What do you suppose happens to the chances of Conservatives ever winning back the Congress if the Democrats reimpose the Fairness Doctrine, as they have said they would do, and totally destroy Conservative Talk Radio?

Don't forget Hillary Clinton wanting editors to police the Internet.

[WOSG]

"The odds are about 80-20 against them wining back the Congress. This is the problem with the 100%ers. They would rather be Pure Losers then effective winners."

True.

There are million in PAC money that will go to the majority, this is why the Democrats had a durable hold on COngress in the 1980s even while Reagan won in a landslide. If the Dems can gerrymander a few more states, and had a majority... conservatives would be toast.

bye bye America.

Broken-glass time, Republicans! Save the Congress!

[mjolnir]

Challenge: Please post the actual voting ratings of any Republican members of congress, including whipping boy Chaffee (yuck) that are more liberal than Teddy's.

This whole "purist" BS movement is starting to remind me of the old bumper sticker:

"Save the Planet, Kill Yourself."

The last time this crud was in vogue in Republican circles was in the mid-60s. The Republicans were controlled by the most conservative wing of the party. Republicans held 33 Senate seats as a result, and we got the "The Great Society" shoved down out throats.

Well said. Ramesh is outsmarting himself--- not surprising, given that he is VERY smart.

As Mario Loyala puts it (rightly, imo) in NRO referring to Fukuyama (another very smart guy),

"There is an-all-too-common syndrome among policy experts in Washington, and especially among the ones who became famous while still very young: They often speak with exactly the same seriousness and authority the 80 percent of the time they know what they’re talking about as in the 20 percent of the time when they manifestly do not and would have been much wiser to remain silent."

Ramesh needs to stick to issues of conservative philosophy and Republican policy, and leave the tactics to others.

"Winning by losing"--- what utter crap! No wonder the times ran it!

[AGreatPer]

Thanks for the Ping.

Oh, it should be interisting.

[McGavin999]

Uh....yeah....and I'm sure the terrorists would be patient and wait until we decide to stop punishing the republican congress.

[Ouderkirk]

Do you honestly think that a RAT controlled congress is going to even allow bills on Iran, national security, border enforcement, or social securty reform to even come up for a vote? Not a chance.

So don't give me this politically ignorant mind BS.

So..... when the RATS want to grant amnesty to illegals, raise taxes, cut and run, and slash missle defense and legalize somomite marriages they should just sail right through.

Talk about a weak mind....

[S.S. Monkeyface]

I realize that to you , any crtiticism of any Republican makes one not conservative, but the fact is that the Republican leadership hass done nothing even to begin moving the ball in our direction. If they don't at least try to start the process of restoring Constitutional government, then what, from a conservative standpoint, is the point?

[California Patriot]

Ponnuru is full of crap. Republicans would not be straightened out by a loss. And the national security would be harmed, in wartime. And the Rats would be rewarded
for their disgraceful behavior and rhetoric. That's just for starters.

[S.S. Monkeyface]

Gridlock while trying to get a resolution thur dealing with Iran is going to be SO helpful to US National Security.

Resolutions ar emeaningless. What action ar ewe going to take?

Gridlock on a Border enforcement bill is such a good thing.

We effectively have that anyway with the split between House Republicans and Senate Republicans.

Gridlock on Social Security Reform is just so marvelous.

Well, the President abandoned his Social Security reform plan after it got just the slightest bit of fire, so we're not getting that done anyway. If the new "reform" is a tax increase like we have had in the previous "reforms" then yes, gridlock is a very good thing in that particular case. But it's not Democrats who ar epreventing the passing of real Social Security reform.

[S.S. Monkeyface]

Challenge: Please post the actual voting ratings of any Republican members of congress, including whipping boy Chaffee (yuck) that are more liberal than Teddy's.

12 percent. Lower than a dozen Democraats. Effectively, he is a Democrat, and if his vote is the one that decides control, he will be one officially.

[S.S. Monkeyface]

"Winning by losing"--- what utter crap! No wonder the times ran it!

True. However, in certain given circumstances, you may as well have a Democrat.

Chafee has a worse voting record than a dozen Dems. He has threatened to cross the aisle before, and I am convinced that if it's 50-50 (which is the only case in which his vote is crucial), he will do so. At least Sheldon Whitehouse is honest enough to admit he's a Dem.

Laffey would have been a different ballgame. But Chafee does zero, zip, nada, nothing for Republicans and even less for conservatives.

Then there are occasional casaes like Zell Miller. Zell was more conservative than the Republican who succeeded him. Unfortunately, there aren't many like him anymore.

But if you can bring down the Chafees of the world, put in other Republicans more in line with our beliefs, help the occasional Zell Miller type, we advance conservatism, which is much more important to me than advancing Republicans.

[Richard Axtell]

If we could just isolate issues so that other things simply don't happen during one of these "political experiments" that could conceivably be tried. Say for instance, for 4 years, there would be no foreign policy, the rest of the world would simply go away. Great, then we could prove for all time whether a Democrat House majority were better or worse for the budget and the economy. But the world will not go away, even if we start playing pretend just like the liberals. No, if Nancy Pelosi were to become speaker, there may not be any further agressive action against Islamo-Fascists, and we would be encouraging terrorism because of a perceived faliure of will. Disaster, across the board!

[mjolnir]

I have to doubt Chafee (who is a worm) has a worse voting record than a dozen Senate Democrats--- his ACU rating is 41. Is there any Senate Democrat other than Ben Nelson who has a better record than that?

Don't get me wrong--- Chafee sucks--- but I'm guessing Whitehouse would, like Jack Reed, have a zero rating.

[MNJohnnie]

S.S. Monkeyface Since Jul 25, 2006

Thank you for showing where you true allegencices lies. You can CLAIM anything, your actions tell us the real story. You do not understand If you have to lie about being a Democrat you have all ready LOST the debate.