Posted on 11/13/2006 7:13:48 AM PST by truthfinder9
Now that Republican senatorial candidate George Allen has conceded defeat in Virginia, the U.S. Senate, like the House before it, has been delivered to the Democrats. Pundits are poking through the entrails of the exit polls in search of reasons for the GOP debacle, and many are obvious: the fact of the seemingly intractable Iraq war; the fact that, for the past decade, Republican congressmen have allowed themselves to be seduced by the Dark Side of politics, and have thus abandoned their principles for perks and pork; the fact that, even with total control of all three branches of the federal government for years, the Republicans have failed utterly to accomplish much of anything -- except to balloon the size and power of the state to proportions not seen in Karl Marx's wildest wet dreams; etc.
But did the congressional Republicans have to lose everything to the Democrats (not a single one of whose incumbents was unseated)? For instance, did they have to lose the U.S. Senate -- and therefore, vitally important control over the appointment of federal judges? The Dems now run that body by virtue of a single vote, 51-49. This means that had the GOP held onto only one seat in any of several very close senatorial races -- e.g., Virginia, Montana, Missouri -- the balance would have tipped the other way. There is plenty of blame to go around for this sorry mess. But let me single out a previously uncited person to blame for the loss of the Senate: Rush Limbaugh. Yes. Rush Limbaugh. Let me explain. By now, just about everyone knows of Limbaugh's self-indulgent, mocking tirades against actor Michael J. Fox on the issue of federally-funded embryonic stem cell research. Fox suffers from advanced Parkinson's disease, and exhibits obvious tremors and shaking that have ended his acting career. For Fox and people like him, a cure is possible only through medical research; embryonic stem cell research is one promising area that scientists are probing for a medical breakthrough. However, many conservative Republicans (including Limbaugh) took a stand of blanket opposition to all embryonic stem cell research as such, on religious grounds that the embryo is a person. This viewpoint, also reflected in general conservative "right-to-life" opposition to abortion, is justifiably rejected by most Americans. For example, in South Dakota, a ballot measure this November that would have banned all abortions except to save the life of the mother went down to defeat by a comfortable 56-44 percent margin. This vote is consistent with national polls on the subject. Most Americans believe (sensibly) that we should not sacrifice actual human lives to potential human lives. For that same reason, they tend to support embryonic stem cell research. In any case, the issue prompted Fox to hit the campaign trail on behalf of government-funded research and candidates who support it. A pivotal state in this regard was Missouri, where Democrat senatorial candidate Claire McCaskill endorsed a state ballot measure promoting such research, while GOP candidate Jim Talent did not. The actor, shaking uncontrollably, appeared in TV ads on behalf of McCaskill and the ballot measure. Enter Limbaugh, who draws a bigger audience than any radio talk show host in America. On his national radio show -- portions of which are also available online as video downloads from his website -- Limbaugh decided to attack not Fox's views, but his sincerity. "He is exaggerating the effects of the disease," Limbaugh claimed concerning Fox's tremors in TV ads. "He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an act." Not only did Limbaugh claim that the hugely popular and tragically afflicted actor was faking his tremors, he actually stooped to lampooning and imitating Fox's uncontrollable spasms. This caused a justifiable national uproar against Limbaugh -- and, in my humble estimation, a measurable political backlash against Republicans. The Missouri ballot measure favoring stem cell research won by a narrow margin. Even some Catholic voters supported the measure, tipping the vote toward its margin of victory:
Much more significantly, however, Democrat Claire McCaskill beat Republican Jim Talent, who had publicly opposed embryonic research, by a very narrow 49-47 percent margin. That single, razor-thin victory gave control of the U.S. Senate to the Democrats. Would anyone care to dispute the likelihood that Talent's defeat -- and the consequent GOP loss of the Senate -- hinged on a one-percent swing of voters toward the Democrats because of Rush Limbaugh's highly publicized and grossly offensive personal attack on Michael J. Fox? Not only was Limbaugh's mockery of a sick man disgusting, it was incredibly stupid. Rather than focus the debate on the narrower question of whether such research should be government-funded, he and other conservative Republicans chose instead to mock Fox, and to hinge their case on faith-based "right to life" premises that every poll shows that most voters reject. As columnist Ilana Mercer points out today in a scathing column:
There is an irony here, one that I hope conveys a lesson for "conservatives." Rush Limbaugh's influence was widely credited with inspiring the "Republican Revolution" of 1994, leading to the GOP takeover of Congress. But at that time his message -- and that of the GOP conservative candidates -- had focused on limiting government intervention into our lives. By abandoning its core principles of individualism and limited government in the decade since, the Republicans in Congress have been fired by American voters. Likewise, by focusing stupidly on the alleged "rights" of embryos rather than the actual rights of living citizens -- and by substituting cruel personal attacks for principled arguments -- Rush Limbaugh has now helped engineer his party's crushing defeat. My further thoughts about the philosophical collapse of the Republicans can be found here. UPDATE -- While we're spreading around blame, we can equally blame the Libertarian Party for throwing the U.S. Senate to the Dems by siphoning off enough votes to defeat the GOP candidate in Montana. Hope you idiots enjoy the next few years under the Socialist Party. UPDATE #2 -- One of my favorite pundits, Charles Krauthammer, carefully studies the cloud formations after the election and finds several silver linings. I feel better. Well, for the moment....
|
Seems as though everyone is still looking for a lamb to knife.
He had me until that. I don't suspect I'll be any more miserable under Socialist Democrats than I was under Socialist Republicans. Being called names over and over again by "conservatives" for having voted my conscience only steels my resolve. Next time I won't waiver and switch my vote to Republican like I did on at least one race (the Governorship of GA).
Comments like that, and like those of many of my fellow FReepers, just make me want to tell the Republican party to kiss my ass.
You just said it. Attacking Limbaugh will do nothing, its just what the other side wants. Its probably time to quit all of the attacking each other for the loss for which there are many reasons. The Democrats do use people that we are made to think cannot be attacked and Rush was right in pointing it out. If the vote would have went the other way. Rush would have been the hero.
Regardless of what Rush did or did not do, what was said or not said, this played terribly for the Republicans. I talked to quite a few people before the election and staunch Republicans were incensed by what they saw, which was Rush mocking a handicapped person. We know the story behind it, but most don't and they were offended. I think it was devastating.
Actually, it's people like Robert who cost us elections. His attitude in this little keyboard tantrum is proof enough.
> UPDATE #2 -- One of my favorite pundits, Charles Krauthammer, carefully studies the cloud formations after the election and finds several silver linings. I feel better. Well, for the moment....<
And if you'll check out this excellent analysis by Hugh Hewitt, I think you'll feel even better:
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/7f2e821f-f574-498c-9da5-c4466688b2bb
Bottom line: It was entirely a matter of turn-out.
You are correct. Only research work could elucidate that answer. Ban the research, and you will never know. The lack of research results is not a valid indicator of the potential for embrionic stem cells.
Rush took credit in 1994...I guess he can take blame for 2006.
I say we all write in Rush's name for POTUS in 2008!!!
Me thinks that truth finder needs a new posting name.
===It wasn't one particular thing, it was a "death by a thousand cuts." Limbaugh was just another straw, along with Foley, Katrina, Iraq, etc. There were not enough GOP "wins" to overcome all of that.===
That an a lack of statesman-like (or even demogogic style) strong leadership in the house and senate...
The repubs are that weak.
They can be brought down by words. Can you say Macaca.(George Allen) Can you say Putz head.(Alophonse Damato) - tom
What did Hastert do, other than defending William Jefferson, D-LA?
I think most are missing a key point.
When it come to the media
It is not FACTS of the augument that count ...
it is the SOUNDBITE
And Rush handed the media a gem
I remember cringing the moment he said it. I knew immediatly that it was a disaster ... no matter what was said later.
Rush should have known better
Yes. The same simile has occurred to me. It's an accurate simile. Our ship's aground, and too many people want the blame placed on everyone except the skipper and his officers.
While I can understand the families wanting their loved ones home .. the military is a lifestyle .. not a go when you want to and stay home when you don't. If they didn't want that lifestyle - then why are they there ..??
Also .. to vote for Webb means that you're taking the chance the dems will use the same methods on your military member that John Kerry used on Vietnam vets. If I were a military family (and I have a newphew about to deploy), I'd never vote for a dem and watch as they humilited my family members' sacrifice and service.
I listened to Rush and I agree with your post. However, with such a narrow defeat for Talent, as well as such narrow races around the country, even if 1 in 20 listeners beleive that Rush was objectionable, that would be enough to swing races. The discussion of Fox, as accurate as it was, may better have been left undisturbed by our esteemed host simply because even a tiny fraction of controversy could swing the election. When things are that close, you don't want any intensification of controversy. Or if the controversy came from someone who is very good at spearheading controversy. Anne Coulter would have been a much better conservative point-person against Fox. She is very good at breaking the ice on cotroversioal, sensitive subjects so other people can more openly talk about them.
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.