Posted on 11/09/2005 4:50:09 PM PST by zbigreddogz
Let's just be honest about it: 2005 was a disaster for Republicans and conservatives.
No, we never really had a chance in Jersey, even though it looked like it, but we got beaten even worse then we should have.
Kilgore blew the Virginia race. Yes, Warner's popularity was big, and yes, it's an off year election, and no, Bush isn't at the height of his popularity, but this race was mainly Kilgore's fault. Why did this happen though? What made him think he could run Hitler ads and piss off the NRA and get away with it?
California was almost a complete disaster. We lost every initiative. Sure, we made the Unions blow their wad to beat it, but they got what they paied for.
Washington State was a disaster too. I-912, repealing the outrageously expensive gas tax hike to fund undefined, unaccountable transportation projects appears to have lost, and King County Executive Ron Sims, who essentially fixed the last Governor's race for Christine Gregoire (D), was re-elected as well.
Sure, there were bright spots. Bloomberg coasted to re-election (yes, I know he's a RINO on a lot of issues, but he's still FAR better then NY D's.), we won the Mayor's race in San Diego, which isn't a small matter, and the Manchester, NH mayor's race is very interesting too, seeming as how Kerry, Biden and such campaigned for the D.
But all said and done, it seems to me that this was a much worse year for us then 2001. This is like 2003 was for the Dems. Sure, they got a few neat things (Lousiana Governor's mansion, although I think they regret that now, and Philadelphia Mayor's race), but overall, it was a good year for us going into a very important year. It seems to me, we need to think of the implications of this year, and figure out what do to from here.
I don't think I'm being overly pessimistic, I'm not. I don't think the Dems are going to get either house back next year, but to make sure they don't, I think we need to reflect a little. These aren't simple 'Drive the RINO's out!' questions, or 'Run more moderates' or any such BS. Top down, what do we need to do differently?
Nothing to see here-absolutely nothing. Let's just chuckle and move on as the Dems and their MSM, try to spin this smidgen of belly button lint into a ball of yarn.
They, like you, just don't realize that the only place the Dems have turned a corner is in their own fevered brains.
Most of the electorate was not engaged in this election, leaving the field to the liberal kooks to thump their chests and pretend they were really tough. I've seen this time and time again from the left, only to watch them get steamrollered the next go-round when the electorate is fully engaged.
What they don't seem to understand is that campaigning AGAINST somebody (Bush) or something (the war in Iraq) will only get you so far. To be truly successful you have to persuade people you have a positive vision for America.
Dems have no vision. They are bankrupt morally and intellectually. All of Soros' billions cannot buy for them optimism and smart workable ideas about this country and its people.
Shades of 2001.
Besides, I would take the California proposition results for the Ohio proposition results any day. How often does a Republican Pres nominee lose Ohio and win the election?
The unions are doomed, they just need to be pursued to extinction and this is not the time to give up, this is the time to really get going on them.
They were greatly financially weakened by this and with elections in 2006, they will be further weakened by another election with massive spending.
Republicans need a good ass kicking to come back to their senses. This wasn't it.
That is your second post on this thread saying absolutely nothing but complaining about the intitial post which you didn't have to read anyway. Why don't you post something intelligent instead of being so damned pompous about vanities and how you don't like it around here lately.
What's unusual about a Repub Gov getting a fight from a state full of commie pinkos?
Those Dem Gov wins aren't that impressive either. Corzine's vote total was 3% under McGreavy's and Kaine was 1-2% under Mark Warner's.
This is at a time when Bush's approval ratings are at an all-time low.
So WHY aren't the Dems numbers SOARING? :-)
Let me get this straight. If a democrap is fills a seat previously held by a democrap, It is a landslide of epic proportions and Bush is totally discredited. But if a Repub wins a democrap seat, it is a temper trantrum.
My thoughts are that you are the one getting the thwacking!
LLS
You have got to be kidding ... do you have any understanding of what up in California... first all the ballot initiatives were going to be and uphill fight to pass and, as usual the state GOP sat on there ass while there was a full on blitz from the state worker unions for "No" across the board
If you think any of the initiatives would be an ease pass your spoiled from the recall momentum....add in that Arnold has proved to be a MAJOR dud of a politician and leader... he's spent all his movie star good will over a year ago and he's been used, flanked and snookers by the Dem political shark's in Sac for a while now
Ahhnold may have bled the unions out and left them anemic and groggy before the BIG game.
Over the long haul, some "victories" can prove to be worse than losing.
I think there has been a "tipping point", but not in the way that the media thinks there has. I think it is that the conservative base is getting a bit tired of being treated as the African-Americans of the Republican party, courted at election time but ignored for the other 3 and a half years of the cycle.
What I think you're liable to see in the future is conservatives beginning to sit out those races where all that's offered is a moderate or RINO and where the only reason to vote FOR someone is that at least he or she isn't a Democrat. (And no, that isn't a wasted vote - politics, like many things in life responds to supply and demand - if the Republican party comes to the realization that RINOs can no longer get elected dogcatcher, then they'll be forced to actually run principled conservatives). I think you're going to see conservative money start going less and less to the Party structure and more to the individual candidate, simply because the Party doesn't care about principle but only electing someone with the right letter after their name (the Chafee primary in Rhode Island is a primary example of that at the moment).
The New Jersey race is a good example. The Republican Party ran a Democrat in Republican clothing. During the campaign, when he wasn't engaging in negative personal attacks against Corzine (I'm all for "negative" campaigns that examine the candidate's record, but come on....commercials featuring the ex-wife of your opponent is just a tad sleazy and desparate), Forrester was trumpeting the fact that he holds no Republican positions. There was a thread earlier this morning trying to make the claim that Forrester got a higher percentage of the vote than previous Republicans in New Jersey. The reason everyone was supposed to be happy with Forrester was that only a RINO had a realistic chance to beat Corzine. Well, Forrester got 43% of the vote to Corzine's 54%. Bret Schundler, an actual conservative, got 41% to Jim McGreevey's 56% and Schundler in that campaign was being savaged by the RINOs in the press as well as by the Democrats. (Even President Bush lost only by 240,000 votes to Kerry in 2004 in NJ, by a 53-46% margin.)
In Virginia, while Kilgore was a conservative, he apparently ran a really stupid campaign, complete with Hitler commercials and by ticking off the NRA. So, at least in that case, it was more a matter of shooting himself in the foot. This is similar to our last campaign for governor in Pennsylvania when the Republicans ran a candidate against Ed Rendell that made Al Gore look positively animated!
The trend it shows is that the further the republicans stray from conservative values, the less republicans will GOTV.
Why should I spend my time or money when they don't do anything conservative when they get elected?
They've got a problem with oomph.
But they can easily turn it around by 2006 elections. Easily.
I don't view this as such a big win for the dems.
The threat to republicans is themselves.
The Republicans campaign like conservatives and then they govern to appease the Democrats' leftist base. I just posted a reply however, that addresses your later points, I think. We are in agreement over those.
Well, the voting for RINOs provides absolutely no incentive to the Republican Party to run actual conservative candidates. Not voting or voting actively against RINOs will accomplish that through simple supply and demand.
No thwacking going on here in PA.
We voted out the Dem judge and came close to ditching the Rupub one. (both OK'd the pay raise for our politicians)
Other than that, not much changed. Less voters came out this time than last. (so I heard)
After all, it's a bunch of off year, local races. BFD!
Hasn't happened yet, but if they hadn't cheated in Wisconsion, we wouldn't have needed it. And we also wouldn't have needed it if we had won New Hampshire or Pennsylvania, both of which were closer for Kerry then Ohio was for Bush.
You're talking like a third party advocate.
I can;t name one elected official with whom I agree 100%.
It's an US or THEM proposition.
Just like RWR opined. He'd rather have GOP folks elected who voted with him 60-80% of the time, than democrats who never voted with him.
"3. Unleash Cheney on the Dems.
4. Have Bluto speeches at every local Republican club before the 2006 midterms: "REID, he's a DEAD MAN, KENNEDY, DEAD! PELOSI, DEAD!"
Is there a fund set up to make sure these things happen? If so, I'll donate. Until then, my pocketbook stays locked up tighter than Algore's Lockbox. ;)
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.