Posted on 10/03/2005 7:57:40 AM PDT by for-q-clinton
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.
Yes. You do need to give up some battles to win the war. But winning the war by BECOMING the enemy isn't what we need either.
We have to be PRAGMATIC and COMPROMISE.
Something you tunnel vision people haven't realized yet is required to get yourself in a position to actually DO something.
You just don't understand the strategy. You need to purge all the wishy-washy moderate types from the party, so that there remains a smaller, purified core which lacks the votes to win elections except by, ummm, reaching out to the middle, or something. :o)
BLACKMAILED BY US!!!!???? Are you F*&%ing kidding me?!!! We are the ones who get blackmailed every election when you nominate weaklings and we have to vote for them or suffer the Democrats.
Yes, I think I get it now! ;-)
Maybe 2006 is the year to vote for a 3rd party to send a message.
No, they survived, unlike others that have implied they'd rather their party die. You're sharp.
Guffaw! Guffaw!
Like what? Increase the federal budget in record numbers? Allow an opponent to write the education bill? Allow millions of illegals to stay? Tacitly invite millions more illegals with the promise of amnesty? Appoint moderate conservatives to the Supreme Court?
Yes, he's doing something all right!
Under that logic then why not just continue to water down the party with moderates and big government spender?
Tunnel vision? Better than losing sight of the goal. Better than "compromising" on principle to gain an office and then turning on your base. What good is it electing a Republican if they aren't going to be a CONSERVATIVE? If we want liberals, we'd just vote Democrat.
Screw you and the rest of the sellouts out there. You are sick of being "blackmailed" by those of us who want limited government, lower taxes, better border control and more fiscal discipline on the part of those spending our hard earned money???????
What a f*&%^%'en joke!!!!!
It's all about going along to get along instead of demanding better of the people you put into office. The Republican party is moving further and further away from its principles of smaller government and you can't see it. Too many people see this as a "Keep Hillary Out At All Costs" regardless of what happens.
AMEN
You nailed it IMHO!
Obviously you must not be referring to me or you don't know my history. I've been a pretty staunch Bush supporter. The one time I was sort of waivering was early on, but I said I'd defer opposition until the mid-term elections. If he delivers the House & Senate in the mid-term election in 2002, I'd stay on board. The thought was that with a Senate & House he'd at least pick true conservatives with a conservative record (as Reagan did) to the Supreme Court. But he's more like his father everyday. And he keeps helping Bill & Hillary take the white house in 08. He spends like a drunken sailor...not even a symbolic veto to cut $1 of pork.
I like the guy personally. But I'm not thrilled with his tactics and his inability to drive our message forward. As you can see I'm looking for reasons why we should care in 2006, not more reasons why I shouldn't care. I've seen one decent response as to why I should care to win in 2006. Instead of bashing me, try influencing me to your way of thinking.
Very good insight. I appreciate your post. As I mentioned I'm looking for reasons to vote for Republicans in 2006. And your response gives me some understanding of why we need to try to win (even if it means more spending). It's a long term approach.
Yeah, but Conservatives would have to be IN POWER to lose power. We aren't in power. The Republicans are. Some of them are Conservative; others aren't. Shedding the excess RINO fat would help us.
I'll vote for the person at the local level who has the guts to do the following:
1) Limit growth of government spending
2) Limit interference of government in business
3) Support a strong national defense
4) Vote for immigration law enforcement efforts
5) Carry out their Constitutionally Appointed Duties
6) Support efforts to reform SS spending and allow me some freedom to invest my own money like an adult
A rhetorical question. Food for thought. And it's not direct campaigning to lose. It's campaigning for a message not a party. Campaigning to lose is putting people like McCain up as our Presidential nominee.
The Internet has changed the game. No longer is the Media able to dictate the news. Remember RatherGate? Hell even Monica was first broke on the Web. It's only going to get bigger. The genie is out of the bottle.
I wouldn't say having Specter there is a "WIN". I'd say it's more of a draw.
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.