Posted on 11/10/2006 4:29:40 AM PST by Molly Pitcher
In the end, the Republican "revolution" ran out of gas and out of vision. Too many congressional Republicans appeared to care more about maintaining power than using power to implement an agenda, which they also abandoned.
Republicans reverted to fear tactics about Democrats raising taxes and "cutting and running" from Iraq. Democrats probably will try to raise taxes (they call it "pay as you go") and introduce resolutions to withdraw from Iraq under cover of a "plan" that has little to do with victory. Investigations of the administration will be labeled "oversight," and headed by the most liberal members of the House.
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), a probable 2008 GOP presidential candidate, said on NBC Tuesday night that too many congressional Republicans had not been "careful stewards of taxpayer dollars," nor had they "adhered to conservative principles." He specifically mentioned such spending boondoggles as Alaska's "bridge to nowhere," numerous earmarks, pork barrel spending and scandals. When Republicans behave like Democrats, they lose. Why should people settle for counterfeits when they can have the genuine article?
Republicans can take some solace that President Bush might veto much of the Democrats' stealth agenda, which they hope he will do. Their objective is to win the White House in 2008 and they will turn the tables on the president if he vetoes their agenda, calling him an "obstructionist," a label he has tried to pin on them. The president would be wise to build relationships, at least with the conservative and more moderate Democrats, in hopes of isolating the liberals.
Republicans lost a significant part of their base in this election. Exit polls revealed nearly one-third of white evangelical Christians voted for Democrats, mostly because of perceived corruption in the GOP. They will continue to exercise influence within the Republican Party, but their days of veto power over policy and candidates may be over.
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said he wants to cooperate with Republicans and search for common ground. Voters, who have been sickened (again) by corrosive and negative campaign ads, would appreciate that. But Dean has called Republicans "evil," "corrupt" and "brain-dead." That's not the kind of language that is likely to produce conciliation and comity.
One top House Democrat, who asked to remain anonymous until he sees whether his strategy will work, told me he will ask John Boehner, the current Republican majority leader, for permission to address the GOP caucus. The purpose, he says, would be to build a new relationship and reduce inter-party acrimony. Most people would probably wish him well if it results in progress that would benefit the country.
There are serious issues that must be addressed and resolved. Nice talk won't replace important philosophical differences and differing objectives. Most Americans may be tired of the Iraq war, but our enemies are not tired of it. If the United States pulls out of Iraq before Iraqis are trained and equipped to stand on their own against the insurgent terrorists, the terrorists will inherit a base and export terror around the world, including to the United States.
Democrats pledge to do nothing about Social Security, but this is irresponsible because Social Security cannot be sustained without huge tax increases and/or a sharp reduction in benefits. That is a fact that is beyond debate.
The problem for Republicans is their loss of revolutionary zeal. When Newt Gingrich was forced out as speaker, Republicans lost the best idea man they'd had in years. Speaker Dennis Hastert was rarely seen in public (until the Mark Foley scandal) and he has been more of a cautious manager than a bold leader. The retiring Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has been uninspiring. What happened to eloquent Republicans?
Democrats recruited more moderate and even some conservative candidates to blur their left-wing socialist image. But their party leadership is overwhelmingly liberal. They include Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, the latter a self-described "pro-lifer," who voted against the nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, both presumably pro-life, to the Supreme Court.
Will liberal Democrats, despite all their talk of fiscal conservatism, ethical reform and seeking common ground with Republicans, be able to resist the temptations that come with power and privilege? They didn't when they ran the House for 40 years. Washington and its lobbyists have a way of repaving the road of good intentions for a new majority, as they did with the previous one. But that road can still lead to the same destination.
Good luck, Democrats. You'll need it. You have power now and can't blame Republicans (though you'll try) if you fail.
They also can't be against everything now.
In the end, the Republican "revolution" ran out of gas and out of vision. Too many congressional Republicans appeared to care more about maintaining power than using power to implement an agenda, which they also abandoned.It's an interesting theory, and one that many of us conservatives are clinging to, but how does it explain the election loss of Rick Santorum?
(Just asking.)
But that's to be expected. They provided little or no content during the campaign, so even the wrong agenda wlll provide some ideas for the Rs to bounce off....who must also become more content-driven.
"Republicans lost a significant part of their base in this election. Exit polls revealed nearly one-third of white evangelical Christians voted for Democrats, mostly because of perceived corruption in the GOP. They will continue to exercise influence within the Republican Party, but their days of veto power over policy and candidates may be over."
Bad logic. If anything this was an exercise of 'veto power' by the "white evangelical Christians". The only way the Republicans will have "lost a significant part of their base" is if they don't pay attention to the 'veto'. The GOP didn't lose the base, they ignored it.
I read yesterday that a number of GOP candidates that lost didn't even realize they were in trouble until a week or so before the election. That's an indicator of a failure to pay attention.
Soon, single payer health care. We are going to be taxed to death.
Santorum went in in 94 on an ant-Clinton wave. He was always to liberal for PA.I do not believe white Evangelicals voted for Dems. I believe people lie to exit pollers. Evangelicals can never vote for Dems because of one issue-abortion period. It would be a sin to vote for the party of murder.
I think it was a combination of his own falling out of line with his constituants - unfortunately cause I admire him so much - and the Dems nominating a familiar name and alternative.
There are "conservatives" here on Free Republic who actively sought to purge Santorum because he didn't endorse their boy in 2004. I'm hoping that when the Islamist nukes arrive here in America, those "conservatives" catch a 400-600 REM dose--so that they can die slowly and painfully in their self-righteousness.
The American people have chosen to once again dishonor their warriors and to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
And there's the scam, these "new" democrats will vote the radical left pelosi line.
The evangelical Christians got damn near everything they wanted, and then turned traitor. They stabbed the troops in the back because they didn't get every last little bit of what they demanded.
Let them ask the Democrats--the pro gay-marriage, pro-abort, Christian-hating Democrats--for political favors from now on. They have made their bed. Let them lie in it.
Nah, he's figuring out how to work with the liberals in both parties to get his shamnesty passed. So much for that.
Why did we lose?
My opinion, after seeing exit polls, is the "Soccer Mom", again.
Big majority of women voted Democrat. I think maybe they cant take the body count on nightly TV. I also think they truly believe the Katrina Hurricane disaster could have been avoided.
The Soccer Mom has kids getting old enough for war, and they do not like it.
Santorum is a unique case within the election. Pennsylvania is a very strong pro-life state, even within the Democrats. Santorum got that vote the last two elections. This time, the Dems nominated Casey, who is pro-life and the son of the last staunch pro-life Democrat. And Santorum could no longer count on that vote.
Throw in some stupidity of his own (such as not living in the state but having the state taxpayers foot the bill for his kids cyber-schooling), along with becoming more and more corporatist within a very blue-collar electorate, and he was doomed.
I had heard that many conservatives did not support Santorum due to Santorum's support in the primaries (2004) for Arlen Spector instead of Spector's opponent who was a conservative.
Do they really think that the jihadis will simply go away? Do they think that their children will be any less dead if it's of radiation poisoning here in America instead of over there, fighting the enemy?
This is the best argument for the successor state to America--whatever survives the coming harvest of Islamist wrath and Ahmadinejad's madness--to deny women the franchise. They simply cannot think.
When I read the headline I thought December 1944, the Battle of the Bulge.
It is now time for General Georgie Patton to readjust the direction of his attack and destroy the enemy. In the snow on impassable roads in gloomy weather he pressed the attack and prevailed.
Winning is not the objective. The complete destruction of the enemy in the field is the objective.
Who is our General Patton?
There are "conservatives" here on Free Republic who actively sought to purge Santorum because he didn't endorse their boy in 2004. I'm hoping that when the Islamist nukes arrive here in America, those "conservatives" catch a 400-600 REM dose--so that they can die slowly and painfully in their self-righteousness.That's a tad extreme, BeHoldAPaleHorse. Just a tad.
Santorum is a unique case within the election. Pennsylvania is a very strong pro-life state, even within the Democrats. Santorum got that vote the last two elections. This time, the Dems nominated Casey, who is pro-life and the son of the last staunch pro-life Democrat. And Santorum could no longer count on that vote. Throw in some stupidity of his own (such as not living in the state but having the state taxpayers foot the bill for his kids cyber-schooling), along with becoming more and more corporatist within a very blue-collar electorate, and he was doomed.That answers my question. Thanks.
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.