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

Skip to comments.

The Democrat Counterrevolution
Townhall ^ | 11/09/06 | Cal Thomas

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.


TOPICS: Editorial; Extended News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: congress; howardean; iraq; johnmccain
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 next last
To: Molly Pitcher
That's funny, coming from McLame. Why didn't he bring up all the comments about pork on the floor of the Senate, like Coburn? AFAIK he didn't say a word. And while his fellow Senators are padding Senate bills with all their favorite projects for their home states, McLame does nothing for his state. Uh, besides Campaign Finance Reform, I mean.

The man is such an opportunist. He cares about himself, not Arizona.

41 posted on 11/10/2006 5:45:34 AM PST by IrishRainy (The only way BJ Clinton would have nailed bin Laden is if Ossama had been a White House intern.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

I suspect you'll see a lot more of Newt in the future. I've noticed he's been on TV a lot more lately. And, I suspect, his consulting business phone is ringing pretty steady.


42 posted on 11/10/2006 5:50:50 AM PST by DugwayDuke (Stupidity can be a self-correcting problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Molly Pitcher
You (democRats)have power now and can't blame Republicans..

I am frustrated.

Just as Clinton ascended to power in 1992 just as the economy, thanks to Pres. G.Herbert W. Bush, was surging ahead... so the DemocRats are coming to power now right when the economy is reaching its zenith.

They will bogusly claim credit, no doubt.

It's like the idiot who stands on the shore and orders the tide to rise and fall... and then believes HE is the cause.

It is crystal clear that GOP policies continue to improve economies.

It is frustrating to see how the craphead media constantly twists the facts to attempt to give credit to the Dems.

43 posted on 11/10/2006 5:52:06 AM PST by Edit35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: samtheman

It seems to me that many on this board have, in my opinion, forgotten that it is the actions of Congress as a legislative body that is most important. Santorum, even though he is a terrible loss, could not overcome the inaction of the Republican congress by saying "I tried but they wouldn't do anything". The knee jerk reaction of the people... was to kick him out to punish the rest of the group. He is as much a victim as we are. Boy do I hate to use the term victim. Even Elizabeth Dole on Fox News Sunday had bigger ones than Bush and Hastert, to sacrafice Rumsfled after the fact is pure stupidity and pandering at its worst. The best defense, in most cases, is a good offense (in this situation it is probably a trite expression) and we should be reading Machiavelli instead of turning the other cheek. We must fight in the primaries and before to get the best candidates and then stay united until the next primary. We don't have to abandon principals to maintain power, but we sure don't have to commit suicide. With the Muslim Jihad in progress we can't take any more chances. If we do I'm afraid we will loose our heads in more than one way.


44 posted on 11/10/2006 5:55:46 AM PST by A Strict Constructionist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MojoWire
I hate to be repetative, but as long as the bulk of the sheepsh%t media continue to promote the claim that the Democratic party is "for" women, then easily-duped women will continue to flock to the Dems.

Wait until the Oprah puts on the full court press for Obama.

45 posted on 11/10/2006 5:57:46 AM PST by MMcC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: samtheman
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?


Although Santorum is obviously vastly superior in every aspect, note that Casey actually ran on a platform which contained conservative elements most Democrats won't touch, pro-life, generally low taxes, finish job in Iraq, etc. Perhaps the most conservative platform a democrat candidate has run on for the Senate in a long time. If anything the Penn race showed that conservatism is necessary to win elections. There are many close races in Penn politics, unfortunately the last ~6 years it is treading blue. A very corrupt democrat governor Rendell, beat Swann in the state as well. Casey's father was an extremely popular governor [also an (oxymoronic statement: pro-life democrat)] in the state. Casey had name recognition before the race ever started. It also should be noted that Philadelphia is notorious for voting count irregularities in nearly every election.
46 posted on 11/10/2006 5:59:29 AM PST by FreedomProtector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nyconse

Catholics vote for Dems..it is a mistake to think evangelicals are any more or less devout than those; it is impossible to know what is in the heart. People will decide their greater loyalty- to principle, to life, to blood, to faith, to union, to country, to party, to race, to class- and then try to rationalize the petty decision. Voters like all of us overlook the important in favor of the urgent.


47 posted on 11/10/2006 6:19:09 AM PST by steve8714 (Study hard, if you do you'll do well..if not, you'll be stuck in the Senate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: samtheman
. . . how does it explain the election loss of Rick Santorum?

According to a Freeper who met him at a GOP event back in 2004, Santorum knew he was toast more than two years ago. He supported Specter over Toomey because he knew there was no way in hell anyone more conservative than Karl Marx was going to have a very difficult time winning in Pennsylvania.

PA is a very old (I believe it has the highest or second-highest median age of any state in the country) and increasingly dysfunctional state. Take a ride through the state on any of the major interstate highways (I-70/I-76, I-81, I-80) and you'll understand what I mean.

48 posted on 11/10/2006 6:25:46 AM PST by Alberta's Child (Can money pay for all the days I lived awake but half asleep?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: spkpls4

Maybe so. But see Post #48 for an interesting take on this.


49 posted on 11/10/2006 6:26:35 AM PST by Alberta's Child (Can money pay for all the days I lived awake but half asleep?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: samtheman
"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?"

He ran on a Conservative agenda in the middle of liberal La La land.

Just was not gonna last.

50 posted on 11/10/2006 6:28:56 AM PST by Mad Dawgg ("`Eddies,' said Ford, `in the space-time continuum.' `Ah,' nodded Arthur, `is he? Is he?'")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Molly Pitcher; All
"In the end, the Republican "revolution" ran out of gas and out of vision."

Actually, the Republicans were diverted from the continuing battle against Marxism by the War on Islamism. Unfortunately, both wars need to be waged. The obvious connections between the two need to be framed in a way that will bring back the moral clarity of the real fight.

51 posted on 11/10/2006 6:29:15 AM PST by sageb1 (This is the Final Crusade. There are only 2 sides. Pick one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

The first paragraph of my Post #48 doesn't make sense, but you know what I mean. LOL.


52 posted on 11/10/2006 6:30:21 AM PST by Alberta's Child (Can money pay for all the days I lived awake but half asleep?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Molly Pitcher

The basic premise of this article is incorrect. Tuesday's election was hardly a "counter-revolution" in any sense of the word -- any more than Olympia Snowe's victory in Maine was a sign of conservative GOP strength in New England.


53 posted on 11/10/2006 6:32:31 AM PST by Alberta's Child (Can money pay for all the days I lived awake but half asleep?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Molly Pitcher

btt


54 posted on 11/10/2006 8:16:36 AM PST by Cacique (quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bert

"Who is our General Patton?"

He isn't even a General these days. Not enough political correctness to pass the Pentagon tests.


55 posted on 11/10/2006 8:22:20 AM PST by Ex-Democrat Dean
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Molly Pitcher
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.

Good. Having hardcore religious fundamentalists appearing to run the party has hurt us far more than it has helped us. There's not much you can do when the person you're trying to persuade to vote GOP says, "Sorry, but I'm just not comfortable having evangelicals telling me how to live my life." (And I've lost count of how often I've gotten this line over the last six years.)

56 posted on 11/10/2006 8:26:00 AM PST by Dont Mention the War (Republitussin D: The Left Suppressant!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Molly Pitcher

I'm usually a Cal fan ... not so much now, but this sentence sticks out as anive in the main: "Democrats ... You have power now and can't blame Republicans (though you'll try) if you fail." Cal doesn't seem to realize that the propaganda arm of the DNC (the entire of alphabet net work leftists) will make sure Democrats are never blamed for their failings over the next two years. Since 2000 we've had a democrat party functioning to accomplish only one thing in order to empower themselves/their party, OBSTRUCTIONISM at any cost, even America's safety and our courageous military being trashed by fools like Kerry. We've seen how the media leftists have painted the truth as anything but the actual truth. It will not get better now that their efforts have been rewarded by duped voters.


57 posted on 11/10/2006 8:35:35 AM PST by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dont Mention the War

You're either a liar or a liberal in liberal circles, to hear such drivel 'so many times'. But that was a nice try at pushing your anti-God agenda. You probably think Barry Linde is a Christian conservative.


58 posted on 11/10/2006 8:39:12 AM PST by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

...to say nothing of staunchly supporting Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey...though I'd have to question the conservative's credentials who'd vote Dem or stay home to help the Dems on that issue alone...


59 posted on 11/10/2006 9:06:43 AM PST by IrishBrigade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

Comment #60 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 next last

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.

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