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.

It's not that I've left the GOP after over three decades of voting, supporting, and volunteering for them, it's more like they've left me.

Uh oh, the "my party before my beliefs" crowd will now be assailing you. Better get your asbestos suit on.

Not if it fails to build consensus, or builds a consensus for the other side.

Also, you have to understand that the american public isn't nearly as conservative as we on FR. I think they just don't pay much attention to this type of stuff, and when something catches their attention, I think a consensus leans conservative but not overwhelmingly so.

There isn't a strong conservative mandate in the usa just as there isn't a strong liberal mandate in the usa. Our goal is to build consensus and move things closer to where we want them to be.

Republicans for all their problems move things closer to where we want them to be. Even if it's not exactly where most Freepers want things to be, they must never forget that if most Freepers ran for office and were completely honest, forthright, and blunt in their campaign, they would have a hard time winning.

Stay the hell home; then we'll know exactly who to blam when the next Clinton is elected.

I agree. I'll be blaming those that put party before principle and allowed the party to slide into that kind of disaster.

We are the ones who get blackmailed every election when you nominate weaklings and we have to vote for them or suffer the Democrats.

Sounds to me, then, that you don't have the votes to get your candidates through the primaries.

Something you tunnel vision people haven't realized yet is required to get yourself in a position to actually DO something.

Really, I thought one of the biggest conservative points was less spending smaller gov't. Where do we compromise to get one of our biggest points enacted?

Or by compromise do you mean sell out and become a moderate democrat.

We can win just like the democrats are "winning". If we ran hard to the right, sure we may not win all elections, but those that were elected could tie up gov't and force less spending and get no new garbage laws passed (like federalizing disaster response). So our principles will actually win, not our politicians.

Under that logic then why not just continue to water down the party with moderates and big government spender?

Gosh, I can choose between a big-tent party which controls both houses of congress, or a True Conservative minority which can't pass their legislative initiatives and gets steamrolled by the majority leftists. At least with the latter, I can console myself that my True Conservative candidate beat the RINO in the primary. (rolls eyes)

The 3rd party need not win to send a message. They only need enough votes to have allowed the losing party to have won.

For example, take Libertarian party. If they have 3% of the vote and the republicans lose by 1%, then they'd realize they need to do some things in the Libertarian platform to win next time.

So I suggest considering a party that more closely matches your beliefs. BTW: My beliefs change from state level to federal. At the federal level I'm more Libertarian (or federalist). But at the state level I'm a conservative.

I am not denying that. That is exactly why I am frustrated. We are angry because so many so-called conservatives vote for moderates in the primaries.

What drives me crazy is the fact that so much of the population is going to oppose us whether we put a moderate or a conservative. I truly believe a conservative could win the general election, just not the GOP primary.

It's a long term approach.

Exactly. The Democrats achieved what they did by advancing their agenda incrementally over decades. We likewise need to be willing to accept small victories and gradually steer things in the right direction.

gets steamrolled by the majority leftists

Actually that's not the case. There are many true conservatives in Congress. Enough to stop any steam rolling and enough to pretty much stop most congressional garbage.

I believe conservatives may be better off just stopping the slide into liberalism/socialism than by helping move it along at a slower than normal pace. Take back the Minority! (sounds funny but it has advantages).

It is strange to me that so many republicans are so afraid to lose that they take zero risks. I don't understand. It is NOT good politics if you waste political capital. Good politics is getting 51 votes on your conservative justice. If you get 49, try again. Don't go for 80 - that is just weak. It reminds me of when Bush begged Kofi and Co. for a year to wage war in Iraq. He legitimized the UN, as well as Foreign and domestic dissent to US policies. In the end, Paris and Moscow voted the same as they ever would.

Margaret Thatcher once stated that Consensus was the abdication of leadership.

WE DO NOT NEED "MOST" of congress on a given bill, or nomination. We need a slim majority.

But some are so afraid to lose that they will conceede everything. Meanwhile, most dems will vote dem anyway, we just let them draw us left.

I challenge anyone who thinks that the GOP has not moved left in the time of their control of congress.

This is not a long term plan. This is a slow death.

Back in 1994 a flood of Republicans were elected to office with a mandate to stop the Clinton's drive to socialize medicine, raise taxes and ruin the country. They forced Billy BJ to reform welfare, keep government spending in line and we saw some good returns from their efforts.

In today's day and age I can choose between two big spending parties who are out buying votes. One party just looks a little more PC for some people on this board.

Uh oh, the "my party before my beliefs" crowd will now be assailing you. Better get your asbestos suit on.

I'm surprised, it's been fairly tame.

I'm just one of those people that doesn't believe in sacrificing beliefs or principles just to gain a victory, because it would be a very hollow victory.

It is a bit disheartening that some here feel that they don't need Conservative votes to win, but I know they are only speaking for themselves and not the GOP as a whole.

I truly believe a conservative could win the general election, just not the GOP primary.

I used to think that, but I'm not so sure anymore.

A large part of the election process is buying votes.

Sure, nobody is slipping a $10 or $20 to people in the voting lines, but they are buying votes by the kinds of programs they pledge to support, and the kinds of policies they plan on supporting or implementing.

The easiest way to visualize it is this: Think about two candidates running for Congress.

Candidate A is going to bring home the pork - he/she is promising to bring some project from NASA or the DoD into your area, which means an increase in jobs, which means an increase in customers for you, more sales taxes to (in theory) help improve your area, etc. etc.

Candidate B is vowing to reduce government spending and to stop the pork, the wasting of tax money, etc. This could lead to job cuts in your area (say there is some kind of government-funded project going on there, and it really is a waste of money), or lack of future jobs in your area.

Most people are going to vote with their wallets. It's the nature of the game these days. It explains how liberals can continue to win elections, and it explains why we have such a huge government.

The only problem is that if we offer 10 million, the democrats offer 20 and call us stingy and racist. I don't think even moderate republicans will survive long term with such compromised positions.

We might as well stand for something.

The only problem is that if we offer 10 million, the democrats offer 20 and call us stingy and racist.

So long as the Democrats are kept in the minority, they are unable to deliver on their promises. A bird in the hand is better than two in the bush.

That is exactly where we differ. In the above example, you think if we win we saved 10 million. I think we lost 10 million.

I understand your point, but I respectfully disagree. If you are in power, but allow yourself to get pulled by the opposition, you are potentially worse than a self-serving democrat. Case in point: Clinton would NEVER have gotten through the spending increases that Bush has.

I believe that if we got a conservative to the general election, we could win. Perhaps not a member of the most conservative portion of the party, but certainly far more conservative than we have seen. If we would just put a relatively principled person up there, and put the strength of the GOP behind them, I think we would lose some fence sitters, but gain some real socially conservative democrats. I am talking about the working class, churchgoing, taxpayer who does not seem to realize they are throwing their vote away on a party that fails to represent their beliefs. We could redefine the lines of battle. But instead we compromise with the left and spend billions on the weak-minded sheep who can be persuaded either way every single election.

I agree with maconservative on his point. With Clinton we got welfare reform and less spending than we currently have.

The opposition has more power than most realize. Sure they can't "get" their way all the time, but they can stop the party in power from doing just about anything. With that tool they can get parts of their agenda passed with minimal compromising (if they play their part right). If they overplay their hand then they're hosed.

BTW: The democrats got their education bill passed. But one may not realize it because after getting it they immediately said it wasn't enough. I'm still waiting for us to get our reduced gov't.

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.