Posted on 11/10/2006 5:33:32 PM PST by Pokey78
And, as someone pointed out, this is about normal for a second-term President's mid-term election. Imagine what might have been if not for the Iraq war!!
Owen you are absolutely correct.
Today I am thinking Pataki would be a good choice. I haven't heard much about him. He would absolutely thrash Hillary or any Dem on the east coast and he would win the South. I will have to do more reading on him and find out where he stands on the issues.
It feels like I am living in the Twilight Zone......I just can't get my arms around this empty feeling.
There is a time & season for all things and prayerfully this time to mourn won't last long!!
You make a good point I have been reflecting on for some days. Our grandparents won a World War in 4 years. Sure, millions of people were killed but we won the damn thing. The lesson here is no future president can afford to conduct a war in the way we have been for decades. Dragging things out in an effort to save as many innocent lives as possible. Any future war will have to be OVER before the next election, no matter how many millions die and no matter how many millions more are displaced.
Just going into the "Lessons Learned" file. Next to "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished."
I doubt it. The Weekly Standard is steadily becoming more representative of the squishy middle.
1. We are at war.
2. The press is lined up on the side of the enemy.
3. Conservatives everywhere are tending towards turning the other cheek (eg George Bush, Fox News)
4. Once in office, the RATS can rig the rules so they won't lose again (illegal aliens will get the right to vote)
5. For 6 years we had a majority and did precious little with it.
6. We are at war.
One thing he's right about, it was unlikely we were going to keep power for 40 years like the democrats did. We are all too smart and computers are two easy to use. Voters can be targetted, and if you just want a majority in your party and are lucky enough to have a really potent non-partisan issue (like being for or against the war) you can get otherwise "republican" people to run as democrats for example, and attack your opponent by spliting the electorate.
In fact, the democrat in Oklahoma is more conservative than some of the republicans in Connecticutt, for the obvious reason that this splits the electorate better.
No party wants to be out of power, it's how we ended up with RINOs but took a majority of the Senate. We were never going to take a majority of the senate with Santorum clones, because at this point in history there aren't enough americans who feel that way.
And if they did, we would likely go even more conservative, or the democrats would come more over to conservative, to get that 50% number again.
I've got to get some sleep, I think my writing was almost incoherent....
Stocks in drugs and alcohol on the rebound due to Democratic gains.
one more reason
more demorats to hate!!
If there were some threshold of losses below which the American people would support indefinite operations, then military skill or strategy might enter. There isn't, so they don't. The operative logic is not military but political - the opposition will not decline the opportunity to blame the continuation of the state of war - however necessary or high the stakes or well run or low the costs - on the party running it. And the people will agree with them, not accepting anything less than victory and renewed peace on very short timescales.
Since whether war is a permanent condition or an exceptional one is a pure strategic choice for any politico-military force, that means we can be defeated at will. At a cost, to be sure - it isn't pattycake to take what the US can dish out in those limited periods. But everyone knows all that have to do is ride out the punches and they will win in the end.
Not a recipe for war as an exceptional condition in the world...
What you say is true, but consider this also.
If national security is something not to be tinkered with or over-politicized, then so too we cannot expect the national security issue to 'save our bacon' when we have corrupt politicians trying to hang onto power. We cannot use that as a crutch to cover for ethically-challenged incumbents.
Of the seats we lost, at least 8 were directly related to corruption or scandals:
- Foley/FL-16, DeLay/TX-22, Ney/OH-19, Sherwood/PA, Taylor/NC-11, Weldon/PA-8(?),etc.
Corruption was a #1 concern. They are claiming the silver lining is that there might have been worse times to lose to Democrats ... probably true; and that the results are actually comforting to conservatives in that what was repudiated was the big-spending Republicanism, not conservatism.
The Iraq war negativity hurt us, but mainly because the continued violence in Iraq made it difficult to portray the Republicans as *effective* in winning the war on terror, even if we are definitely more *serious* about it.
Add to that spending and immigration, where Congress failed to be more conservative, and you have a Republican Congress that 'lost its edge'. I for one wondered during the campaign: Why isn't the President and Congress making a greater effort to take credit for the good things they did? They lost their edge in terms of ethics, lost their edge in terms of legislative zeal and effort. Yet ...
Had the Foley scandal not exploded at the time the Soros "CREW" planted it, our losses would be far less, we probably would have held on to the House. Foley unfortunately reignited the corruption questions.
Unfair? Yes. Do I blame our fellow conservative / Republicans for 'friendly fire'? Not really, although the Standard was very unhelpful and naive during the immigration debate catering to open borders lobby. Who should we blame? Well, the left did what they could to win. The GOP leadership didn't do as well to not let them. The biased media was far more effective this election cycle than they have been since ... oh, since 1992!!! And for similar reasons:
WHEN THE REPUBLICANS AND CONSERVATIVES RUN OUT OF IDEAS AND AGENDA, THE LIBERAL MSM SETS THE AGENDA FOR THE COUNTRY AND PUTS THEIR PRIORITIES FRONT AND CENTER. WHEN THEY DO, IT IS A PRETTY HARD HEADWIND TO FIGHT. Only when we force *our* issues out there and force the MSM to get those out there do we win.
"I have an acquaintance here in Indiana who says he voted for Richard Lugar, and then all Democrats. He is pro Second Amendment. He was adamant in stating his opinion that the government works for the people and not vise versa - which is not just his opinion but is how this country works."
That is very general motherhood-n-apple-pie statement.
The way I see it, the GOP is the party that understands it and respects taxpayers, and the Dems are the party that rapes the taxpayers and acts like people ought to be working for the govt. Within 100 hours they plan to repeal Bush's key tax cuts. That doesnt just go after taxpayers, but hurts those who might benefit from the job creation that came from Bush's tax cuts.
"One has to have some understanding that, despite the radical tendencies of the left, there are some Democrats who, at core, are conservative enough to reject the Michael Moore elements. It's possible we may have some good conservative gains through bipartisan efforts over the next years."
I wish you/we could explain to such people that there are really no "reasonable" Democrats, especially at the national level. "bipartisan' means getting Republicans to agree to liberal Democrat plans. These Dems, whatever warm fuzzies they give to voters, are in hock to Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat party and the liberal funders of their campaigns.
In short, they are liars.
They will be just conservative enough to survive re-election, but will be there in the clinch for their leftist Democrat overlords.
To think that anythign conservative will happen in this Congress is quite the Pollyanna position.
"
At the same time, I despise politicians who are incapable of enunciating and sticking to principles, and who abuse their power."
Enjoy despising the Nancy Congress then. So we feel good about voting the Dems into a majority so the impeached bribe-taking Judge, Alcee Hastings, could become a committee chairman now?
Pataki? NO WAY. He is a big spending Republican, not the sort we need. He gave one of the wimpiest speeches in the 2004 convention.
The War on Terror was in the balances and these morons played political games with it.
The democrats? That's because they don't really REALLY believe we are at war.
The Republicans? If that's what you mean...how so?
"If national security is something not to be tinkered with or over-politicized, then so too we cannot expect the national security issue to 'save our bacon' when we have corrupt politicians trying to hang onto power."
QFT
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.