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 ...
Good to see you, SG!
If they are right and the country is becomming more conservative (sometimes I wonder about that) then a lot of people will start to go balistic if these new so-called conservative dems start to side with Conyers, Rangel, Pelosi in their radical ideas which include dumping the Patriot Act and we end up with another attack.
Oh I agree. I'm waiting to see what happens before agreeing with Charles. It's too much of a risk. Though, a few of the blue dogs have already gone on record telling Pelosi no shenanigans.
I say Santorum lost because of his clumsy involvement in the sodomy law and Schaivo controveries.
He turned WAY too many people off and I predicted way back that he would lose his Senate seat.
How much attention will Bella Pelosi pay to a lot of freshmen? Now, if they are true conservatives and she thumbs them, maybe they can switch to the GOP?
I doubt a blue dog would switch. But if Pelosi pulls the liberal shite, they will fall in line with Republicans. I look at them all as potential Zell Miller's.
he other side put forward something to the voters.
What did they put foward ? Hate Bush , that's what . They have NO plan for ANYTHING , ZERO ! They will spend the next 2 years ( and taxpayers money ) punishing Bush and tearing apart anything and everything he ever touched. This is REVENGE TIME . Meanwhile the real problems will be, at best ,ignored.
Well... the principles of the formation and maintenance of the American republic are very well thought out, very well described, and to a great degree, exhibited in our history and documents.
Hardly meaningless.
Rush is right. The party has no leader and it didn't run on conservatism.
We don't....have a leader. Rather a ruderless ship.
:-D
I guarantee this will continue in every election from here on out. Senator McCain did his best to sabotage election reform in favor of liberalism and we have felt the effects.
The "middle ground" vote in 2006 is nowhere near 20%. It is somehwere around 6-8%. He's right that conservatives were not at all gentle in their criticisms. We are passionate people, but we should temper than passion with kindness. However, we are in politics for principled reasons, not reasons of power, and we want to see an agenda enacted.
...Hardly meaningless.
Your quote proclaims the meaning of "republicanism" as, basically, "the philosophy of a republican." It doesn't explain at all what that actually means, and as such is meaningless. Which, if you ask me, is the whole problem.
Republic and democracy are practically synonymous as democracy implies republic. However if we mean "republican" in the narrow sense we mean simply opposition to privet i.e. royal government. Such a position is equally meaningless because any number of different forms of government, from military dictatorship, to syndicalist anarchy, could fit the bill and be called "Republican." Quite simply, trying to determine the party platform from the name "Republican" is a useless gesture because as your def incidentally makes clear it's a vague term.
The principles of republicanism for an American (or American republicanism) are just about all that is necessary for a party platform.
Don't analyze by extracting concepts from their contexts. It's not like studying microbiology in a Petri dish.
My opinion? Those guys lost to RATs who actually ran using Pubbie talking points and some, like the RAT in AZ who beat Hayworth, used the very same words to describe his stance on illegals as Hayworth did, although the RAT had a pro-illegal history. I think the Pubbies were beaten by this kind of fraud and other kinds as well. Speaking of fraud, has anyone checked out the illegal Acorn outfit fined for registering thousands of dead voters across the nation? Many illegals with green cards (fake) also voted in many areas. I thought only citizens can vote.
One cannot simply depend on "conservative" democrats- there IS no such animal. It's the old threat "say anything you have to to get elected, but remember your place when you get here. I don't care how "conservative" some democrat may sound. Sooner or later, he/she MUST pay homage to the democratic platform. And he sure as h*ll better vote the way he is told by Pelosi and Kennedy if he wants more than one term.
Rush is not helping anything right now. The voters want civility and respect from both sides at the moment and Rush is trashing the President for doing just that.
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.