[Reagan Man]

The question is this: Do we want do the stay the course or do we want to want to return to the “Party of Reagan?”

Easy choice. Return to the Party of Reagan.

[EagleUSA]

Easy choice. Return to the Party of Reagan.
-----
In spades. Easy choice.

[flashbunny]

republicans need to learn you can't out liberal a liberal

[Brad’s Gramma]

glockeroonie ping!

[xcamel]

"No Chit, Chirlock..."

[tennmountainman]

"Easy choice. Return to the Party of Reagan."

So right.

[shield]

Who led the charge that regained the House for Republicans? NEWT did...so as I look back, he may be the man to run for our NEXT President...he was all over fiscal responsibility...balancing the budget, cutting big spending and big government...

[GoldenPup]

Remember the sign in Clinton's headquarters?..."IT'S THE ECONOMY, STUPID".

GWB should have posted a similar sign in the oval office reading, "IT'S THE WAR, STUPID".

[Prime Choice]

Return to the Party of Reagan.

Darn right! And make it plain to the liberals that they're welcome to go right back to the Democrat ranks from whence they came.

[IronJack]

the American people have come to view the conservative movement and the Republican Party as one and the same. Indeed, they are not.

Bears repeating ad infinitum.

[GregoryFul]

Everyone's got an opinion...

Mine is that so many of the electorate are ignorant so that any informed vote is overwhelmed by an avalanche of democrat biased noise. As exhibited by Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity in their man in the street interviews - typically the "victims" cannot identify people below the office of president in government - but will identify themselves as democrats - I guess it is just cool.

I wouldn't consider the results of close elections as very meaningful, at least of the voter intention. Of course, it will be very meaningful for the future of this nation.

I guess I'm just cynical, I laughed at the old, miserable people who complained about their confusion about the butterfly ballot in the 2000 election. Idiots! Who wants to hear from you anyway!

[gondramB]

We would do well to remember that President Reagan's legacy is based on the whole 8 years - the way he was viewed by the general public after 6 years and after 8 years is/was quite different.

[umbagi]

Easy choice. Return to the Party of Reagan.

And his Eleventh Commandment: "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican."

Its violation helped defeat Goldwater in 1964, and assured our loss of both House and Senate in 2006.

[Tamzee]

Thanks for the compilation to FreeReign:


Republican Incumbents Who Lost in the House:

Jim Ryun (KS) - ACU rating 98
J.D. Hayworth (AZ) - ACU rating 98
Richard Pombo (CA) - ACU rating 97
Chris Chocola (IN) - ACU rating 95
Gil Gutknecht (MN) - ACU rating 94
Charles Taylor (NC) - ACU rating 92
Mike Sodrel (IN) - ACU rating 92
Melissa Hart (PA) - ACU rating 91
John Hostettler (IN) - ACU rating 90
Don Sherwood (PA) - ACU rating 87
Anne Northup (KY) - ACU rating 86
Clay Shaw (NC) ACU rating 82
John Sweeney (NY) ACU rating 77
Jeb Bradley (NH) ACU rating 71
Charles Bass (NH) ACU rating 71
Curt Weldon (PA) ACU rating 70
Sue Kelly (NY) ACU rating 65
Mike Fitzpatrick (PA) ACU rating 60
Nancy Johnson (CT) ACU rating 47
Jim Leach (IA) ACU rating 43



Vacated Republican seats lost

DeLay (TX) ACU rating 95
Beuprez (COL) ACU rating 93
Green (WI) ACU rating 88
Nussle (IA) ACU rating 86
Ney (OH) ACU rating 86
Foley (FLA) ACU rating 78
Koly (AZ) ACU rating 74
Boelert (NY) ACU rating 40


Democrat Incumbent seats lost

None.


+++

Republican Incumbents Who Lost in the Senate:

Burns (MT) - ACU rating 91
Allen (VA) - ACU rating 92
Santorum (PA) - ACU rating 88
Talent (MO) - ACU rating 93
DeWine (OH) - ACU rating 80
Chafee (RI) - ACU rating 37


Democrat Incumbent seats lost

None.

[Sam Hill]

"Sadly, it seems that the “Party of Reagan” has been hijacked by the neo-cons, the big government crowd and the pragmatists."

Reagan increased the size of government, grew the deficit spectacularly, raised taxes -- and signed off on amnesty for millions of illegal aliens.

He also "cut and ran" from Beirut.

He had bigger fish to fry, which he did -- which made him the greatest President in generations.

The author is an uninformed buffoon.

Of course using the expression "neo-con" is a dead giveaway of buffoonery.

[ConservaTexan]

The "R" used to stand for Republican. In the 80s it stood for Reagan Conservative. Leading up to this election it stood for Reelection. The latter is best evidenced by the party's support of Lincoln Chaffe over a more conservative candidate in the Republican primary. When they get back to the principles that Reagan stood for, they will become a relevant party again. Until then they deserve election results like they just received

[Aikonaa]

This analysis makes no sense. Most of the Republican losses occurred in

1) Wealthy NE suburban and exurban districts where moderate Republicans and independents threw the GOP overboard due to social liberalism and opposition to the war in Iraq. This explains the losses in CT-02, CT-05, NH-01, NH-02, NY-19, NY-20, NY-24, PA-04, PA-07, PA-08 and PA-10. The GOP was wiped out in the North East. These losses were an explicit denunciation of social conservatism and the Iraq war. This thesis is further supported by the fact the GOP support among economically successful and wealthy males fell from 60% in 2004 to 46% in 2006.

2) Mid-Western (upper South) districts populated by Reagan Democrats who wanted more economically liberal policies (opposition to free trade etc.) and were opposed to the Iraq war. This explains the losses in IN-02, IN-08, IN-09, KY-03, NC-11 etc.

3) Districts with incumbents connected to scandals and corruption; FL-16 (Foley), AZ-05 (Hayworth), CA-11 (Pombo), TX-22.

These examples constitute a bulk Republican house losses. Frankly, I'm most concerned about the loss of Republican support among successful, wealthy upper-middle class males (small businessmen, professionals etc.) who have traditionally been the backbone of Republicanism and provided much of the grass roots funding for the party.

[TAdams8591]

I agree with much but not all in the article. I support the war in Iraq, and would support other military intervention elsewhere. It has become clear in a post 9/11 world that when democracy is planted in other places throughout the world, not only would it be a stabilizing improvement for that country, and that area of the world, but America would be much safer.

I believe Ronald Reagan, btw, would also support the war in Iraq.

It will be wonderful to hear and see our leaders again set an agenda which would obtain a smaller government. Immigration both legal and illegal is way, way out of control and must be totally revamped.

A return to the conservatism of President Reagan and away from the so-called "compassionate conservatism" of President Bush is an absolute necessity, if Republicans as well as conservatives wish to regain power.

Thank you for the post, Reagan Man.

[republicanwizard]

Yeah, cuz Reagan led us to two resounding defeats and two resounding wins. Bush led us to three wins.

I'll take Bush over Reagan anyday. And in terms of the Senate, Bush's 2006 performance is still a million times better than Reagan's 1986 performance.

[ladyinred]

This is at least the 30th reason republicans lost. They lost mostly due to lies from the leftists through their mouthpieces the media who bashed them for years, who never told a good story from Iraq and who made sure no one knew any thing good the President did. Give me a break with these stories.

[Stultis]

Republicans lost because the Bush Administration and the Republican leadership too often cavalierly abandoned the populist conservative message and policies of President Ronald Reagan.

Sorry. Can't stand by and see the (IMHO, somewhat odious) adjective "populist" applied to Reagan.

Reagan's principled position on trade, his "supply side" economic philosophy, not to mention his views on immigration, where all markedly, even radically, opposed both to the tenets of classical political populism, and to any contemporary or recent incarnation thereof.