Posted on 11/09/2006 9:38:57 PM PST by Logic Times
Rush Limbaugh has it wrong. He stated Wednesday that "[c]onservatism did not lose, Republicanism lost last night. Republicanism, being a political party first, rather than an ideological movement, is what lost last night." (here) This statement – a statement echoed by Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and other conservative pundits to whom a nation of shell-shocked conservatives turned for cathartic analysis – fails a simple test. If the electorate was demanding conservatism, then why did strong, principled conservatives lose? Incumbent conservatives such as Rick Santorum, George Allen, J.D. Hayworth and Curt Weldon to name a few. Superb conservative newcomers such as Ken Blackwell and Michael Steele.
The actions of the electorate last Tuesday was an indiscriminate firing of Republicans, not a thoughtful weeding out of RINOs. It is true that Republicanism lost on Tuesday, but it lost in all its forms – and that included the exact form of strong, clear conservatism that the movement desperately needs.
(Excerpt) Read more at logictimes.com ...
Then they can stay home and sulk.
Myself, I'd rather have some of our agenda forwarded than none at all.
Then why is Al Sharpton running around telling everyone that he can go to EIB anytime he'd like because he claims Rush offered to teach him the ropes in broadcasting?
You have to look at the alternative and Rudy beats Hillary. Just my opinion(but i think the stickler R's that don't vote for Rudy he would pick up plenty of I's and D's to more than make up for it)
Then they can stay home and sulk. Myself, I'd rather have some of our agenda forwarded than none at all
I guess that depends on what you mean by our agenda
You mean Hillary Clinton's and Nancy Pelosi's agenda?
Because that's exactly what we're getting for the next two years because of their sulking
I understand what you mean. Again, Im not anti-Rudy. But on tuesday I did look at the alternative and I voted all R's and look what I got.
I think Rush is yearning for the "days of Newt," before Newt screwed himself.
Most of US here voted All R, unfortunately we also need I's and we "US" to actually vote, that didn't happen... look at the overall votes cast and you will see a very LOW turnout.
re: closing Iraq's borders
Have you ever heard anything about his option and why it wasn't one of the first things that was done when it became evident that Iran and Syria were stirring the cauldron? Seems like such a common sense step to take.
Corker, the Republican candidate for Senate in Tennessee, ran a tasteful (at least as tasteful as Ford) but smash-mouth, in your face campaign. He was a gentleman, but didn't try to play the usual Republican old boys' club wink and nod, above all that sort of hardball fighting sort of thing. Corker fought back and used every credible weakness of Ford, and the corrupt Ford Tennessee dynasty, and won. His campaign was exceptionally good.
I explained it to someone the other day that it's like you're flying from point A to point B. Along the way you determine the wind is blowing you off course, so you make some adjustments to your heading to correct for the wind. You are still going to point B, but you've changed the course to take into account conditions you encountered along the way. "Stay the course" was probably a bad choice of words. I'm afraid too many people took it to mean the President was satisfied with the situation and had no intentions of changing anything. That was not the phrase to have used. Besides, it was the catch phrase of a campaign several years ago and old campaign slogans don't usually work. Someone needed to remind the voters every day that getting to point B is a worthy goal and although the course is being altered a bit, we're still on our way to point B!
re: when the guy lets me down, which has been often, I'm going to express disagreement.
Amen! I can't tell you how many people I heard make the point that even though they disagreed with Bush on lots of things as long as he was doing well with the WOT they would tolerate the shortcomings. The problem, seems to me, is that recently the perception has become that he's lost his way on the WOT, and if that's the thing that kept most conservatives going then losing it left them with nothing to vote for this time.
Like Mao did in China and Lenin did in Russia, you mean?
I don't know enough about Hayworth, but Casey in PA is not exactly a liberal Democrat. He's a lot more conservative--pro-life, pro-gun, etc.--than the RINOs. And don't forget that Jim Webb used to be a Republican and worked for Reagan. He used that to his advantage to establish conservative bona fides. Same things can be applied to Southern Democrats like Heath Shuler.
In my own district, Richard Pombo (R) lost and I do attribute that to some changing demographics. But it's still a conservative district. There was just a general malaise in the Republican party here. I don't know why really. Arnold didn't energize us because let's face it, he's only nominally a Republican.
ping
Talent lost in missouri because the campaign was a bomb outside of St Louis. The talent campaign didnt open an office in kcmo. The talent campaign was a st louis type operation with distain for western missouri. As long as pubbies are too lazy to meet the dems head on and compete in a political slugfest, the pubbies will not get reelected.
Millions and millions of immigrants, both latino and muslim voted.
Our side didn't play to win the election, they played to not lose it.
And that "strategy" just about guarantees you a loss every time out.
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.