Losing in 2006 to win in 2008

The Conservative movement may benefit by losing the House and Senate in 2006. I’m not advocating that we campaign to lose; however, if you look at the ramifications of losing in 2006 the Conservatives have a better chance of winning in 2008. Note: I didn’t say the Republicans I said Conservatives.

First, look at the current political landscape. The sitting Republican President is floundering and struggling to get his message out or even finding a message. His 2nd term started off bold; however, the Democrats have stymied any meaningful action for his 2nd term. It’s easy to be an opposition party when all you have to do is stick together to stop anything from happening. This is precisely what led to out of control spending. The Republicans can’t pass any meaningful legislation to appeal to their base because the Democrats are there to stop it by a filibuster. The only thing they can agree on is spending money, so they all spend money hoping to buy votes for the 2006 election. Conservatives although winning in elections are still losing where the rubber meets the road.

If Republicans hold on by a thread in 2006 there isn’t any precipice for real change, so it will be more of the same. Of course if the Republicans won a super-majority in the Senate and even a few more seats in the House, then that would be the best case scenario; however, that has a snowball’s chance in Hell of happening based on the current political scene, I’m not going to go in a race-by-race analysis here; however, most pundits are thinking a couple seats either way and for the sake-of-argument I’ll accept that analysis.

So if the Republicans continue on this path their base will not be motivated in 2008. The only motivation they’ll have is to vote against Hillary (or whoever the Democrats nominate). We all know you don’t win elections by voting against the other team (remember Dole in 1996 or the Democrats voting against Bush in 2004?). Something must be done to slap the Republicans out of their political haze—losing in 2006 will do just that.

By losing in 2006 they will realize they screwed up and they can’t govern playing softball with the opposition and even acting like the opposition. Losing has several benefits. One is that ideally the Republicans that lose will be the ones that haven’t been living up to their Conservative roots. By shedding the fat the Republicans can become a leaner, meaner conservative political party.

Another benefit of losing is that the Democrats will no longer be the opposition party. They will have to propose bills and take a stand on issues and not just stand opposed to the President. This in turn may wake up the President to actually veto a spending bill, since he won’t be buying votes for fellow Republicans he will be vetoing out-of-control Democrat spending. By losing we may actually be able to refrain from over spending.

Also there are quite a few Democrat Senators that want to be President. They’ll try to pass extreme liberal bills to motivate their base. In the past this was the formula for success--run hard to the left (or right) then run to the center after you get the nomination. This is no longer a winning strategy due to the Internet with bloggers and sites like the FreeRepublic—the new media will not ignore previous votes and history like the old media does.

If the Democrats remain completely out of power for another election cycle they will be desperate for a win in 2008 and will allow their politicians to campaign in the center, just so they can get a win. By giving them some power in 2006 they will go ravenous with their new found power and think their ideology has won. This will scare the Electorate away from the Democrat nominee.

Finally, this will validate the War in Iraq and take it off the table as a political issue in 2008. The Congress controls the purse strings and can stop funding the war effort at anytime. How can they attack Bush on the war if they were the ones funding the war? If they do vote to cut spending (which most likely won’t pass) they’ll be on record as part of the Left fringe not suitable for the highest office. One of two things will happen, either their extreme left base will lose enthusiasm because their party didn’t stop the war or mainstream America will be scared off of the Democrat party.

But what about Supreme Court nominees? Won’t this allow the Democrats to vote against all his nominees? Not necessarily. The first pick of John Roberts was a gem and the Democrats would have voted for him whether or not they controlled the Senate. The current pick is a bit too early to know which way it will go, but Bush has proven he won’t send up a true Conservative with a Conservative record (like Scalia or Thomas). He’s already picking nominees based on what the Democrats will say, so nothing is really lost when in regards to the Supreme Court.

I’m not trying to say it will all be roses. We don’t know what the future holds and what happens if we have another terrorist attack? Who knows what impact that will have on the President and Party in power. Typically you want your party in power during a crisis. There’s a good chance each party will blame the other just like 9/11.

The biggest downside that I see is that the President won’t be able to pass his agenda in his current term. But is that really a down-side? As mentioned earlier the opposition has already stymied his 2nd term agenda. A worst case scenario is that he’d agree to Democrat spending to get some of his initiatives passed and that’s a better situation than we are in today of out-of-control spending and no real reform.

Very articulate articles, and man, I reeeeealllly hope that second one is correct. But my Economics degree and my career as a financial analyst tell me no. This is for a few reasons:

1. It's all wishful thinking. No liberal "Rove is an evil Sith Lord" in their wildest fantasies would credit Bush with such economic control. What happens when China is finished siphoning our manufacturing by holding their exchange rate? Their strategy is to steal our manufacturing base, and then slowly float the rates, so that they can demand more and their central bank is not as heavily subsidizing their industry. When they are content, they will cease to buy our debt with such fervor. Interest rates will rise, and high.

2. Government spending is, in general, not good long term for industry. It crowds out enterprise, and discourages innovation.

3. The strategy WILL lead to tax increases, or at worst derail any tax reform agenda. Okay, so this guy is giving up the ghost on small government, but what about private property? How about eliminating redistributive policies? That sure would be an easier sell without such high deficits.

4. If this is the strategy, why aren't we spending less on the arts and more on defense? Many of the expenditures of the Bush presidency have purchased him very little in the way of political capital. Clinton couldn't have passed the Medicare bill Bush did, and the dems made him look in the end like he hates old people. He gained zero. I f you are going to spend like a sailor on leave, how about increasing military pay and benefits, eliminating military income taxes, increasing incentives to join, increasing weapons R&D? It is no grand strategy, it is an attempt at appeasement

5. It is defeatist at best, corrupt at worst. At one time in the article it sounded like "well let's spend on our stuff so they don't spend on theirs." Well I've got news for you: WE ARE SPENDING IT ON THEIR STUFF! At another time it sounded like: "let's punt on small government, and keep power." That isn't lazy, that's evil. Since he is a freeper, I am sure that's not what he meant, but it sure is a stone's throw away.

I'm sick to death of being blackmailed by you people; sick of it.

I'm sick of that as well but I'm sicker of those that through their steady criticism of the President seek to weaken him and then wonder why he doesn't bring the fight to the Democrats, why he doesn't wage a better public relations battle, why he doesn't do this that or the other thing. Everything is a damn fight for Bush and his so called army (from the whining individuals to the talking head conservatives) abandon him at almost every tough juncture.

I don't know what I make of this nominee but it's my belief still that the President does feel a sense of responsibility for the trust we gave him on issues he explicitly campaigned on and there isn't another nominee he could have made that he would know better. Is that a lot of trust to put in him? I don't know but I do know that his critics can't even get themselves elected to the position to make these decisions and have failed miserably in providing the political support that may have made another pick possible.

Get new blood Republicans, OK.

All that does is buy you a little bit more time though. As we elect more and more not-so-Conservative Republicans or "new blood Republicans" as you call them (a good phrase), then the party is going to keep moving away from Conservative beliefs.

I don't want to guess anybody's age, but I would almost guess that many of those Conservatives who are unhappy with the GOP are older.

If you are under 35, all you've known is Clinton and Bush. In that case, Bush is going to look very Conservative, and the GOP is going to look Conservative to you, when measured against Clinton and the liberals.

I have this quote that I saved from Jim Robingson, from years ago - please understand it's way out of context, but it sometimes sums up what I feel these days:

Well, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. You people are sick! Conservatives my ass. You people are nothing but a bunch of non-thinking hypocrits! You're a shame and a disgrace to the Republic.....Elect another one and I'll tell you what. I'll be ready for war! It'll be time to take up arms and run the filthy lying bastards out!

It was from somewhere in this thread (I remember it, because it was one of the last threads I participated in under an old handle, before I went overseas to an area where I didn't have internet access for a few years), and I think I actually mangled two quotes of JR's, but anyways, the thread was about these very same issues - the changing of the GOP. I don't know how far down JR's quotes were, or even what context - it started out about the allegations surrounding President Bush and cocaine, but then partially turned into a much more relevant argument of how the GOP was changing.

The thread was from 1999, and there were much earlier threads here on FR, and on usenet, about how the GOP was changing and had been changing.

My point in bringing it up, is that we've been facing this "changing of the guard" for quite some time. I voted for Bush even after that thread and others where I said I was going to support more Conservative candidates, when I should have been voting for somebody else.

I feel that if we don't get the GOP back to it's Conservative roots, another six years will slide by, and where will we be?

Wow. I'm surprised/impressed. I was really under the impression that a lot of the die-hard Conservatives were older.

Nobody has touched upon it, but in many ways Conservatism in the GOP was subverted when there was this push towards "compassionate conservatism" - that was the writing on the wall. It's reinforced by programs/etc. that tie into that, such as the "No Child Left Behind", which went against traditional Conservative beliefs against federal interference with local issues. There was a clear break with Conservative beliefs at that point.

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.