Respectfully, can you say WHAT exactly the GOP Senate should have learned from the drubbing they took last week?
AFAIC, there was no "message" sent by the voters. Certainly there was no clear message about the war in Iraq, as the DBM would have us believe; Lieberman's win proves that. Nor was there any consistent rejection of RINOs (as opposed to conservatives), as some conservative commentators wishfully concluded.
Rather, I think most losses were due to the "six-year-itch" and to highly individual situations in many races.
If anything, the public's perception of "corruption" is now emerging now as perhaps the single most decisive factor, if there was one, in GOP losses. (Never mind that the Dims were even more corrupt, the public doesn't know that.)
I don't have a dog in this fight. But I have to say that if the contest was between Trent Lott and Lamar Alexander, I don't see a lot of difference there.
Neither are fresh faces and neither seems to me outstandingly conservative.
I think it was two things.
First, the GOP gave a large portion of the electorate a reason to vote against it (Iraq).
Second, the GOP provided no compelling reason for anyone to vote for it. Traditionally those reasons would be things like limited government, lower taxes, less spending, etc. The best they could muster was "we're not as bad as the Dems", which is a pathetic strategy.
And do you really believe Lott represents limited government, lower taxes or less spending? That's why people are angry.