Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: NeoCaveman

I disagree with your assessment. I think the war was the big factor (with some exceptions). I don't think people were necessarily voting against "big government". Of course Republicans were identified with big government, they were the government. Swing voters are only socialists when they are hurting. The economy has been good so that wasn't a factor now. Compassionate conservatism is a loser NOW. It was a winner in 2000. The times were different then.


57 posted on 11/09/2006 6:03:07 AM PST by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies ]


To: rhombus

OF course the war was a factor and given the closeness - if it wasn't for the war, we'd still have the Senate at least. Heck, if we didn't spend so much money in Rhode Island, we might still have the Senate.

And no compassionate conservatism was not a winner in 2000. Clinton fatigue was the factor - and even that was only good for 48.5% of the popular vote.

Conservatism wins big (1980,1994) nonconservatism loses or wins barely (1996,2000,2004) but with that said, it has to be done in a way that appeals to the individualistic nature of the American people.

Let's just take this as the pause that refreshes and find our identity again.


60 posted on 11/09/2006 6:09:35 AM PST by NeoCaveman (If you don't study hard and try to be smart....you wind up stuck as an editor for the NY Times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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