Posted on 11/15/2006 6:31:19 AM PST by TSchmereL
The facts, not myths, are that "The GOP didn’t lose the election with its base, but with independents, who broke against them 57 percent to 39 percent. . . . [O]nly about five of the 29 Democratic winners in the House can be considered social conservatives. . . . [and] The rebuke to Bush was unquestionably an expression of voters’ frustration with the progress of the war, but they are not ready to give up yet."
This does not sound like a myth to me. I think most people believed that Republicans weren’t fiscally conservative enough.
Maybe Rich Lowry thinks that the Republicans did not deserve to be perceived that way, but he does not explain why.
Oh, I totally disagree with you. That's like important to you and 100 others.
It was the war and nothing but the war.
But, I still think it was local and nobody realized the awful possibility of what we have now--a bunch of really weird, clueless, classless and confused leaders in the congress.
Most independent voters listened to the MSM baloney and voted the GOP out of office as a result. Well guys, you got what you deserved.
You hit the nail on the head. Spot on.
Lowry correctly identifies the "myths" (especially "the Republicans/conservatives didn't turn out the base" myth). Unfortunately, even he misses the reason they lost: a good economy that was perceived as "bad" because of higher gasoline prices (yeah, I know, the prices came down just before the election, but a lot of the electorate believed that "Bush's oil company buddies" lowered the prices just for the election). James Carville may look like a fool, but "it's the economy, stupid" is still one of the most valid political maxims ever. We can "read and heed", or live in denial.
Or maybe he doesn't see how anyone could actually quarrel with
high and higher government spending.
Light and shadow were defeated by smoke and mirrors.
The Republicans did little to advise the general public of very real gains of substance during their most recent run-up of reign of power, relying instead entirely upon the capacity of the general public to judge for themselves how well the the Republican programs were working. Thus, they only put out light and shadows, without in-depth explanations of their objectives and achievements.
The Dem'crats needed only hold up smoke and mirrors to deflect this play of light and shadow, and any effective reform done by the Republicans was effectively obscured from anyone's sight.
And since the Republicans "didn't do ANYTHING", the Dem'crats do not have to do very much to LOOK like they were "doing something". Mostly undoing.
Yes but I dont believe independents were that concerned about being fiscally conservative. I think they just saw the Republicans behavior as another sign that they were corrupt, just looking out for themselves and whoever was funding their campaigns. I think the lack of results in the war combined with a do nothing congress, working a few days a week, spending money on bridges to nowhere but not even addressing issues of importance to the public such as immigration and the cost of heath care, energy, and education.
That's what I was saying until I saw the turnout numbers. Now I have to revise that and say "It was the war and nothing but the war - and low turnout for the GOP".
I think they lost because the president said the Sec. of Defense would be in place until the end of his presidency. ?????
Thanks ANGGAPO,
I agree that the MSM pulled out all the stops and made every effort to sway public opinion in favor of Democrats.
I saw something on National Review that claimed the base turned out but the independents tuned out.
Now I remember where I saw it! Here.
True as far as it goes. But does the electorate really think that the democRATs are more fiscally conservative than the republicans??? That's like saying you want a teetotaller in office so Mr. Republican is out because he took a drink and we'll replace him with Otis the drunk democRAT. If the voters were mad at the republicans for not being conservative enough, how on earth did they expect the democRATs to be the answer? THAT's the explanation I want to hear. Did NO ONE ask, "what's the alternative?"
In other words, they heeded the MSM and failed to realize that Abromoff was almost equally involved with Dems, that the Foley mess was a total put up and not to be compared with Studds and Franks Dem scandals concerning members STILL in Congress, believed the pious piffles put out by Dirty Harry, and swallowed whole the denials of good economy and smears about Bush and his oil buddies.
In still other words--the independents weren't too independent, but a bunch of sheeple following the braying of the asses in the press.
vaudine
Republicans lost because they weren’t fiscally conservative enough.
His attempt to wave away the 800-pound gorilla is particularly pathetic when he argues:
Which cuts in government would have, in and of themselves, increased the party's popularity? Expanding the widely unpopular gap in coverage in the Medicare prescription-drug bill — the so-called doughnut hole — to produce entitlement savings?
Well... how about not creating this bureaucratic mess in the first place? It bleeds red ink, and turned into a net political liability for the GOP (figuring out how to get any useful benefit was worse than filling out your income tax paperwork, and the complications were widely -- and perhaps correctly -- seen as a scheme to hide corporate welfare for the pharma industry).
The GOP was too socially conservative for voters.
The GOP has not only failed to dispel the old fear of government interference in voters' personal affairs, but has actively reinforced it (from the Schaivo political circus to the ban on Internet gambling -- the latter was the last straw for at least one person I know).
The fiscal conservative portion of the GOP base stayed home out of disgust for drunken-sailor spending, and out of irritation at the GOP leadership for giving the social conservative faction the sun, the moon, and the stars while giving them the cold shoulder, the back of the hand, and the deaf ear.
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.