Republicans and conservatives who voted at least have a clear conscience, we did our duty.
The Dems turned out their people, they wanted to win, you can't blame them for that.
But Republicans and conservatives who didn't bother voting are directly responsible for the current Dem Congress.
Bullcrap. The GOP is directly responsible for losing. They gave little reason for voters to support them. They abdicated just about every conservative principle and then wonder why folks ain't motivated to show up for them?
Keep it up. Your blame-the-stupid-voter approach is a sure-fire way to keep the GOP in the wilderness. Newt Gingrich, who masterminded the GOP majority, puts the blame where it belongs - on those who were more interested in earmarks than conservative benchmarks.
Michael Weiner fans...
Ditto on that, out of 4500 voters in my precinct only about 970 voted. Of those 970, about 65 percent are republican. It was a very poor turnout in precinct 347 of Austin, TX.
Worthy of shunning, dismissal of their opinions and thoughts on any subject.
Self important demoncrat stooges.
To all Republican who stayed home and didn't vote, you're going to get what you wanted. Bad government, higher taxes, weakened national defense and worst of all, Bush will have a hard time getting conservative judges on the bench now.
For ex., if 1 million Republicans in NY and CA stayed home, that would be much different in its impact than if 1 million stayed home in OH, IN, WY, VA, and so on, where we lost a dozen races by something like 20,000 votes.
1) Ohio did not have GOP increases. But we did at mid-day. That tells me that the motivated Republicans were up voting, early, and that was that. Apparently after 2:00, we were all voted out. So apparently a lot of Republicans stayed home, despite early indications (by 1:30, 33% of our voters had voted, putting the number at over 60%, or an increase, if it had been sustained).
2) There was a decrease of overall voter participation in MD. Interesting. Perhaps too early to prove it, but it does indicate that while blacks maybe did not cross the line and vote for Steele, they did not vote for the D.
3) What am I missing that NE had the highest proportional Dem increase? What was there that caused Nebraskans to vote in record numbers?
4) Fairly significant Dem decreases in the South. Anyone who thought this election showed the South "turning" to the Ds is wrong. However, the Ds do show significant new turnout in OH, WI, VA, NH. Three of these were red, and this suggests that suddenly they are bluer. Not good.
The Republicans didn't deserve to win, but neither did the Democrats.
I predict the ideological Dems in the party power structure will misread the vote and overreach as usual. They've got pent up demand from the moonbats to try to get as many of their pet projects through as possible. Two years of the Dems stinking up the place should bring the disaffected Pubbies back home, especially if the Dems nominate Hillary in '08.
Unless McCain's the nominee, in which case we will see historically low Republican turnout and the Dems will take it all.
A couple of disturbing signs: CO had low R turnout; AZ had low R turnout, where we lost Hayworth by a few thousand votes.
Potential good news? The votes are still there for a Republican party that appeals to them. Turnout is still king in most states. New York gets bluer, the South gets redder.
A preview of coming attractions...
Homeschoolers have a heavy load of responsibility these days. But there aren't enough of them yet.
I'd say 35,000 illegal regristrations in one state alone by a nationwide lib organization helped them out, too.
The two most important, and most blatant errors in judgement, with the most long term and most disasterous consequences that the stay-at-home Conservatives GAVE TO THE COUNTRY will be that THEY, PERSOPNALLY will have given the country the Senate's traitorous "comprehensive" unenforceable, defacto-open-borders immigration bill, and Bush may have trouble getting another Alito through the Senate - leaving the liberals in a majority there, with an unknown 2008 POTUS ahead, when a few more liberal justices can be expected to resign due to age.
The consequences of both of those things will, in the long run, be far more serious and long lasting for the nation than simple over-spending, excesses in health care entitlements, unethical legislators, or WOT issues - non of which will receive any improvement from the Dims.
Thus, the erroenous idea that not voting was a "corrective" action is manifested in the fact that it will correct absolutely nothing and it will create great harm for the nation as well.
Stupid is stupid, no matter what the motivations are; there is never any victory in defeat. Something the Dims have always understood.
The two most important, and most blatant errors in judgement, with the most long term and most disasterous consequences that the stay-at-home Conservatives GAVE TO THE COUNTRY will be that THEY, PERSOPNALLY will have given the country the Senate's traitorous "comprehensive" unenforceable, defacto-open-borders immigration bill, and Bush may have trouble getting another Alito through the Senate - leaving the liberals in a majority there, with an unknown 2008 POTUS ahead, when a few more liberal justices can be expected to resign due to age.
The consequences of both of those things will, in the long run, be far more serious and long lasting for the nation than simple over-spending, excesses in health care entitlements, unethical legislators, or WOT issues - non of which will receive any improvement from the Dims.
Thus, the erroenous idea that not voting was a "corrective" action is manifested in the fact that it will correct absolutely nothing and it will create great harm for the nation as well.
Stupid is stupid, no matter what the motivations are; there is never any victory in defeat. Something the Dims have always understood.
When you lead a nation into war making all kinds of optimistic claims about the outcome, and then it becomes evident that every strategic benefit that was supposed to result, from a stronger Israel on the verge of lasting peace, to a chastened Iran wary of the pincer of Afghani and Iraqi American military bases, turns out to be exactly the opposite, you can't expect those who put you in office to be full of praise about your leadership. Add to that the drunken sailor spending habits of this administration and the Republican congress, immigration leadfootedness, and the moral turpitude of Haggard and Foley, and you've got a dispirited base unwilling to check the box next to your name.
Can you blame them?
When a "Republican" is pro-abortion and anti-gun, how can you convince Americans not to vote for a Democrat who, in many cases this year, was pro-life and pro-gun? RINOs kill turnout.
In addition, how can Republicans who want to defend the border, like J.D. Hayworth, possibly overcome the fact that the leader of the party--the President himself--wants open borders and amnesty?
You are exactly correct.
Voter info ping.