Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Big Losers
Fred Chittenden

Posted on 11/10/2006 9:17:18 AM PST by drfredc

The big losers in the 2006 election are, hmm... hold on, is the glass half full or empty? Oh, well, before getting lost on that sidetrack, the big losers in the 2006 election would seem to be the RHINOs and the pantywaste senatorial leadership. Why would anyone continue to follow this group of pandering losers as leading 2008 Presidential candidates?

Oh sure, McCain will probably survive. However, his media clout/face time will fade. It won't take long for the PRESSident (aka -- driveby media) to realize that continuing to give him the spot light may only enable him to work at peeling off a few (non-existant?) Democrat senators to some moderate silliness. The PRESSident's saving grace here is there probably are no moderate Democrat Senators, except during election cycles...

Which brings us back to half full glass... The GOP faithful shouldn't have to waste much time, energy and resources on which of these Senatorial losers to prop up as 2008 Presidential candidates. However, the key word here is 'shouldn't'.

At some point, the PRESSident will do it's best to prop up one or more of these senatorial losers as the GOPs best choice to lose to Hillary in 2008 -- as if the PRESSident has the best interests of the nation's conservatives and GOP in their hearts...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: elections; losers

1 posted on 11/10/2006 9:17:19 AM PST by drfredc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: drfredc
The big losers in the 2006 election ... would seem to be the RHINOs and the pantywaste senatorial leadership.

Do you mean like Pa. Sen. Rick Santorum, or AZ Rep. JD Hayworth, or my local Congressman Michael Fitzpatrick.

Fitzpatrick, a one-term conservative, father of six, devout Catholic, married, squeaky clean, pro-life all the way, pro-Iraq war, environmentally friendly (he devised a plan to save thousands of acres of farmland for open space).

For 10 years before becoming our Congressman, Fitzpatrick was elected County Commissioner in landslide after landslide as he was liked by both Republicans and Democrats.

On Tuesday, he was swept up in this tsunami.

Unfortunately, as a pro-Iraq war person myself, in hindsight I realize the Bush Admin failed to placate the population on exactly how he planned to get out of the Iraq war.

Saying "we have to win" was not good enough.

A large portion of conservative Republicans, according to our local exit polls, simply did not come out to vote.

2 posted on 11/10/2006 9:31:13 AM PST by Edit35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MojoWire

because our party became filled with RHINOS.. these past couple of months we did not see a Republican party... what we saw was an ugly morphing of it into the one thing we despise..largess in social programs spending.. illegal immigration absorbtion, and a politically correct style of fighting the WOT.. that is not what we voted them in for last time


3 posted on 11/10/2006 9:38:16 AM PST by Cinnamon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: drfredc

The biggest "losers" from the election are the troops and they are the ones working the hardest for the country.


4 posted on 11/10/2006 10:03:18 AM PST by madison10 (Live your life in such a way that the preacher won't have to lie at your funeral.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cinnamon
because our party became filled with RHINOS

I'm just ticked and frustrated because two of the most ethical, conservative politicians in the country - PA Sen. Rick Santorum and House Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick -- lost on Tuesday.

Not because they were "RHINO's" like you said.

In fact, let me ask you why these good conservatives lost.

Fitzpatrick, who liked to call himself "independant" over GWB, is staunchly pro-life, a strick constructionist judicially, a married father of six, devoutly Catholic, strongly for low taxes, etc.

And this district has a Republican voter registration edge, 186,000 (R) to about 158,000 (D) !!!

I further believe this election puts the lie to the old Tip O'Neill cliche that "all politics are local", because they aren't.

The Dems NATIONALIZED this election by creating the perception of an endless Iraq war, corruption and big spending, and lack of GOP leadership.

And you know what. There's some truth to all those accusations, I'm afraid to say.

And I am a conservative through and through, to the point I go into depressions whenever a conservative Republican loses an election.

I've barely eaten since Tuesday, and I have a hard time sleeping.

5 posted on 11/10/2006 10:08:07 AM PST by Edit35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MojoWire

The conservatives who lost did so largely because the PRESSident cherry picked what the conservatives said and did so that very little good came through to the public.

Where the liberals get a free pass to the PRESSidential podium to say most anything they wish (which the PRESSident will then edit out the booboos), conservatives get cut and pasted at their worse.

Also, most of the time, conservatives get some PRESSidental media babe or dude paraphrasing what they said or did, particularly if it was something good. Which means the good things don't get a conservative face, they get a PRESSidential face. When liberals do something good, their own words and speech are put out, which gives them a face and PRESSidential media recognition.

Solutions? The PRESSidential media is a tough nut to crack. It doesn't help things that so many conservative politicians are virtual computer and web illiterates when it comes understanding how to to utilize these growing alternative resources to get their words and actions out. Clearly, Mr Dean and the Dems have something going here, at least as far as keeping in contact with and motivating their far left base...

The Freepers (and their cousins) are fine and dandy resources. However, they (or something like it) isn't utilized by the party or conservative politicians to any significant degree as a means to access and motivate their base.


6 posted on 11/17/2006 1:48:34 PM PST by drfredc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: drfredc
Solutions? The (PRESS....) media is a tough nut to crack. It doesn't help things that so many conservative politicians are virtual computer and web illiterates...

I attended a sort of 'goodbye' gathering last night for our local Republican Congressman --- who despite being an excellent conservative pro-life, low taxes, supports the WOT, etc. --- LOST by about 1,000 votes to a newby thuggish type Democrat who never held office, and did nothing the entire year but throw bombastic hate-Bush statements.

Anyway, last night I spoke with our COUNTY GOP officials about launching a local daily or weekly newsletter, with REAL balanced news about all things political.

(yeah, and maybe some other stuff just to break up the monotony.

The main problem, as I see it, is my Congressman was NEVER able to get out any credible news about himself, his votes, his political views, or his REAL opinions on national issues such as Iraq, immigration, unemployment.

That's largely because our local newspaper, where I worked as a reporter for six years during the 1990s, is stuffed to the gills with hard-left rabid liberals.

I know that sounds cliche, but make no mistake, I heard the daily banter from the top editor, and 90-percent of the 'hard news' reporters, all of which accused Republicans of "all being a bunch of senile old white men', and other such statements.

The reporter who COVERED my about-to-lose Repub. congressman the days before the election accused me (in the middle of the newsroom) of being a hate-mongering racist .... all because I said I would prefer a flat tax rather than a graduated income tax.

"All you flat tax people just want to take away welfare from African Americans," she bellowed in my face. I am not kidding.

Anyway, back to the point.

Given that no Republican in my area can overcome the embedded bias that comes through daily in the newspaper, I can only think that some type of Internet news site, or weekly mailing will be effective in blunting some of the slant.

I ran a news site in the late 90s (after I was fired by this local newspaper), and it is not that difficult if you have several people willing to help.

I eventually had to shut it down cause I wasn't making money, and had to go back to a real job.

Still, I suggest that conservatives who really want to make a difference can start some type of daily or weekly newsletter in their particular area, in hopes of combating press bias, which not only is REAL, but it is getting worst as years go by.

Who knows, you might even be able to make some money if you find an advertiser or two.

7 posted on 11/18/2006 10:54:16 AM PST by Edit35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MojoWire

You're on the right track with seeking alternative media outlets as probably the most viable option to getting balance.

IMHO, a lot of this would go away if advertizing on any mass media (reaches XX,XXX people) that didn't have a reasonable political balance to it's news reporters and editorial staff would be NOT be tax deductible. Shows and sites, with a disclaimer that views expressed on this media don't necessarily reflect the views of the broadcaster or it's advertizers would be OK. Sort of turning the Dem's fairness doctrine on it's head...

As it currently stands, the PRESSident (drive-by-media) uses the dominance of it's political affliation in reporters and editorial staff to leverage (unpolitically biased) advertizing $$ towards the PRESSidential political perspective without a disclaimer of their reporting/editorial bias -- which seems wrong.

However, don't hold your breath on anything like this out-of the-box balancing act ever happening. The PRESSident would veto it by every possible means at their disposal.

Currently, the best balance in mass media is the FOX network with the caveat that outside of a few nationally balanced FOX news/editorial shows there lurks tons of left wing bias in local FOX network new and editorial staffs.


8 posted on 11/18/2006 5:56:49 PM PST by drfredc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: drfredc
Currently, the best balance in mass media is the FOX network ...

Two things: First, this 06 election showed that Fox News, and the radio talk show world, doesn't have as much influence as they (and I) thought they did.

And that's because, when you really analyze the "hard" news reporting system, it is wire services such as the AP, Reuters, the BBC, and now Google and Yahoo news, etc. which are REALLY in charge of 'breaking' news. And that means THEY can put THEIR initial SLANT on 95 percent of the news from the US and around the world.

Even if a story is initially written by a local newspaper, (or perhaps released by the military press in Iraq) the AP writers then take that story, re-write it and then upload it onto THEIR wire service where it's fed to outlets around the world.

Even Fox News, which is more of an analytical/punditry type news service, is usually relegated to RESPONDING to or REPEATING already released news stories rather than breaking 'new' news.

Oh sure, once in a while Fox will come up with their "Fox Exclusive", and thus a Fox Exclusive banner across the TV, but it is rarely the norm.

And even when they do, it is rarely a major news story that then gets repeated by the AP, CNN, etc.

As someone who has been in the news reporting business (newspapers) for 12 years, I am constantly shocked and re-shocked at how the AP and Reuters, ABC, CBS etc. so non-chalantly puts their slant into EVERY story, and yet the public at large (even myself sometimes) is so unaware.

And believe me, AP is even worst than CNN and CBS in its pro-liberal anti-Republican slant.

And even when an unslanted story is initially submitted to the AP by a fair and balanced newspaper or media organization, the major newspapers or TV networks "down the line" often dont pick it up.

There are so many ways to slant the news, its not funny.

I get really depressed because I cant see how we will be able to purge these hard leftists from the reporting services anytime soon.

Murdoch's Fox News is great. (well, it's OK) And so is the NY Post. But they attract only perhaps 4 or 5 percent of the news audience.

Until we get some parity approaching 30 or 40 percent, we as conservatives will be relagated to RESPONDING to slanted news rather than getting news stories that are, pardon the cliche, fair and balanced.

9 posted on 11/18/2006 8:16:23 PM PST by Edit35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson