[The Hollywood Conservative]

I agree 100%...

One cant look at Santorum and Hayworth and Allan and say "They just weren't conservative enough to energize the base".

They were the same, but the constituencies they represent changed, and they didn't change with them, so they lost. We are not going to be able to replace those seats with MORE conservative candidates. That will merely intrench the Democrats who won.

[MaineVoter2002]

Santorum's campaign message was "my opponent is more pro-life than I am"

[MaineVoter2002]

Hayworth was an Iraq War casualty

[kuma]

I don't agree.

Hayworth isn't out of the running yet. There is an article on FR about over 150,000 or more ballots still needing to be counted and Hayworth is only 5,000 behind.

Santorum's loss isn't about his conservative ideals. The Dem who won against him ran pro-gun/pro-life and on his dead Daddy's name who was once a very conservative Governor. This was also during our Governor race and the (R)'s ran a non-campaign. Philly, Gov Rendell's home turf, re-elected him and those votes carried over to Casey. PA voters didn't vote against a conservatism but against the (R).

The Allen race I don't know enough about.

[bybybill]

We lost because the experts in selling stuff, the MSM lied about the war since the day it began.

[ashtanga]

I tend to think that the reason for the Republican loss is mathematical: There are more citizens belonging to the parasite class than the productive class. Ah, but I grow cynical in my old age.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"...the constituencies they represent changed, and they didn't change with them, so they lost. We are not going to be able to replace those seats with MORE conservative candidates. That will merely intrench the Democrats who won."

Exactly.

[frankensnake]

One cant look at Santorum and Hayworth and Allan and say "They just weren't conservative enough to energize the base".

I don't know enough about Hayworth, but Casey in PA is not exactly a liberal Democrat. He's a lot more conservative--pro-life, pro-gun, etc.--than the RINOs. And don't forget that Jim Webb used to be a Republican and worked for Reagan. He used that to his advantage to establish conservative bona fides. Same things can be applied to Southern Democrats like Heath Shuler.

In my own district, Richard Pombo (R) lost and I do attribute that to some changing demographics. But it's still a conservative district. There was just a general malaise in the Republican party here. I don't know why really. Arnold didn't energize us because let's face it, he's only nominally a Republican.

[NCLaw441]

You said: They were the same, but the constituencies they represent changed, and they didn't change with them, so they lost. We are not going to be able to replace those seats with MORE conservative candidates. That will merely intrench the Democrats who won.
***

I agree with your statements above. The question then becomes, should conservatives/republicans modify their positions so as to enhance their chances of being elected, or should they maintain their conservative philosophy and values, arguing for same and hoping for a return to sanity of the citizenry?

I support the latter course. What I disliked most about the democrat campaign was the absolute refusal to take principled positions on any issues, choosing instead to run on a "change" platform, without advising the electorate as to what kind of "change" was planned. (I think we know what change was planned, but voters don't seem to ask this question.) I hope that republicans don't modify their positions solely to get elected, but then, they are politicians, who see their job as doing what is necessary to get elected. If there is any reason for despair, that is it.

[kabar]

One cant look at Santorum and Hayworth and Allan and say "They just weren't conservative enough to energize the base". They were the same, but the constituencies they represent changed, and they didn't change with them, so they lost. We are not going to be able to replace those seats with MORE conservative candidates. That will merely intrench the Democrats who won.

Disagree. The mentioned Reps lost to opponents who tried to be more conservative than them and were anti-Bush. Casey was campaigning as a pro-life Democrat and fiscal conservative. Mitchell tried to be even further right than Hayworth on illegal immigration and claimed to be a moderate Dem. Webb was a former Rep who served under Reagan as SECNAV. He was an USNA grad, Navy Cross winner, and had a Marine son in Iraq. Add to that other candidates like VADM Sestak who beat Weldon.

The Dems believe they have found the secret to beating us, i.e., just masquerade as a moderate or conservative Dem. The War, Rep uncontrolled spending, corruption [Cunningham, Ney, Foley, Abramoff, etc.], and the demonzation of Bush by the MSM were just too much. Most of the elections were very close. It didn't take much to tip the balance.

[Mr Rogers]

In the case of Hayworth and Allen - their opponents were running as conservatives.

Webb was Reagan's SecNav, and ran as a conservative populist. Allen was hurt by a poor campaign and incredible media bias, but Webb's victory was hardly a call for liberal government!

Hayworth's opponent imitated Hayworth's positions on some issues, and ran as a conservative democrat untouched by the corruption in Congress. Hayworth may yet win that race, but if he loses, it won't be due to his conservative positions.

Even Santorum was hurt by having an opponent who ran on A) his Dad's name, name, name, and B) pro-gun, pro-life, fiscal conservative.

Admittedly, their elections put hard core liberals in power - but they hardly have a mandate for liberalism.

And I think the dems will soon find Webb to be a very mixed blessing. A year of his company might make them wish Allen had won!