Posted on 11/24/2006 9:46:54 AM PST by Guenevere
It was only the third day after the election, just a few minutes before supper, when the phone rang. "Good," I thought, in one of those strange convolutions one's mind goes through at such times. "At least and at last it will be someone I know, and not a pollster or a fundraiser or a be-sure-to-vote-for-our-cause activist."
Wishful thinking. "Mr. Belz," the unfamiliar voice said, "the results of the election are so profound, and the need for our response is so clear, that we are coming to you right away to ask for your generous help."
"How could you?" I thought. "How dare you?"
For three days, my mind had been reeling-trying somehow to piece together the meaning of all that had happened the previous Tuesday. What on earth were the American people saying? What direction was our nation heading?
The signals had been so contradictory. And I didn't like it that someone else found it so easy to interpret what was still so confusing to me.
I was baffled that the same day's voting would tell cause loyalists like Rick Santorum and Jim Talent that their role in the U.S. Senate was over, and at the very same time send several party traitors (like Lincoln Chafee) packing. On the social conservatism front, I was puzzled that in seven out of eight states where bans on homosexual marriage were being proposed, the voters got it right and upheld the bans-but that in two cases where abortion and embryonic stem-cell research were the issue, voters couldn't get through their heads how pivotal the measures were.
Big spenders of the public purse were both penalized and rewarded on Nov. 7. Some analysts said Republicans didn't take the immigration issue seriously enough, while others claimed they took it too seriously. It's hard to discern a pattern.
Even with reference to the war in Iraq-supposedly the granddaddy of all issues-the message was mixed. President Bush and his war cadre were blistered not just by those who said the war was wrong but by others (even among the Democrats) who said the war hadn't been pursued vigorously enough and that the United States had been too timid. We should have had even more troops in Baghdad, such folks said.
All of which prompts me to say to my late afternoon phone caller-and to everyone else who wants to make politics an all-important, all-consuming, full-time occupation:
"Give me some space! Give me some quiet time. Give me a chance to sort things out. I know the issues are urgent, and I sense that these are desperate times. But I'm not sure that direct mail and phone robots are the surest route to the solutions we all need."
Admittedly, such a time of thoughtful reflection may prove costly for the Republican Party.
Evangelical Christians who only one or two election cycles ago thought they had no choice but to vote a virtually straight ticket for the GOP were, on Nov. 7, given a good excuse to rethink their options. Republicans themselves opened that door with the incredibly dismal record of so many of their candidates: personal sexual scandal, dalliance with political financial corruption, voracious commitment to pork barrel spending, disdain for the big three social issues (abortion, marriage, embryonic stem-cell research). Add to that record of recklessness a handful of winsome Democrats, at least a few of whom sounded like more consistent evangelicals than the scoundrels they were challenging, and you're holding a recipe for dramatically reshaping the political landscape. What seemed so assured for the GOP after the 2004 election now seems more like a distant dream.
That's not by any means a bad thing for our nation. It is, in fact, most unhealthy for any political party or machine to be able to take for granted the en masse votes of big blocs of sometimes unthinking people. It hasn't been healthy for the nation to let the Democrats through the years assume they automatically own the votes of most African-Americans or of most labor union members.
But it's no more healthy for Republican candidates to assume they have evangelical Christians in their pockets.
So please don't call me this week if all you've got in mind is to enlist my support for your latest campaign. I just need a little time to think.
Unfortunately ... you are exactly right
Doesn't matter what the other options were. 6 years is too long, whoever the president is. If I had my choice, we'd amend the Constitution tomorrow. One 4-year term per President is long enough.
Our country is full of them!
Sadly enough, our system has been played by career politicians very effectively and those "true" leaders are rendered unelectable.
I see said the blind man to his deaf wife as he picked up the hammer to saw.... ; )
No, Sandy, I am not and never was, "sick" of President Bush, The band wagon of "Hate Bush" rolls right along and I chose not to get on it. Too many folks that ride that band-wagon of "Hate Bush", want to blow me and my loved ones to Kingdom Come. "You can choose a man who boozes by the company he chooses."
My view of what happened on Nov. 7 will not show up in any polls. I have found elements of this in the people I have spoken to and it makes sense to me.
Many voters went to the polls with the attitude that they wanted to send a message to the Republican party. They figured that it was either too corrupt, too spineless, or something else was wrong with it. They also figured that if they did not vote for their own Congressman, they would signal that displeasure. Some even voted Democratic. In these cases they did not like the Democrat more. But they figured that the one seat they could effect would not matter. Or that the one Senator they could effect would not matter. The cumulative result mattered.
Sir Lancelot and King Arthur stayed home on Nov. 7th. The knights of the round table voted third party.
Mordred ( Obama) and his mother ( Hillery Clinton) are preparing for the final battle at Camlan.
If Merlin can get out of the RNC offices to empower Tancredo and Tom DeLay, all will not be lost.
The Republicans have abused the conservative wing of the party, its 2004 mandate, and now the jig is up.
Either the overly aristocratic RNC gets it or it doesn't:
Republicans cannot regain power without a conservative agenda, and the necersssary true , loyal men who will pursue it unapologetically. Otherwise welcome to minority status for the next 20 years.
Political DEATH to ALL RINOs! Let the games begin.
P
A
C
E
Ha ha. We're tired of chickens who eat too much and don't lay eggs. Let's get some wolves in the chicken coop.
I posted a long thread about my theory, which is that the democrats tailored each race for the voters of that particular congressional district or state. In areas where gun rights were important, they ran a pro-Second Amendment type. In areas where Right to Life was important, they ran a pro-life candidate.
Coupled with scandals, increased youth vote, and a divided Republican party, they managed to squeak out enough votes to take control of the House and Senate.
In my opinion, this election wasn't a triumph of ideology, whether left, right, or middle. It was simply a case of a good election plan being beaten by a better one. Those who claim a mandate for their particular cause are either foolish or deliberately demagoguing the situation.
I find it interesting that what prompted this column was a phone call for a donation, right after the election. Conservatives are too often the targets of those who use our heart-felt beliefs as a motivator for donations. How much money have some of these 501c3 organizations raised without any appreaciable progress, except for stirring up people's fears and anger? Our money would be better spent on our churches, charities, and saving for the future.
That's just my opinion, but I think it one people should consider.
Actually in the sixth year of reagan's Presidency, the GOP lost 8 Senators(compared to 6 in Bush's 6 the year).
The Gop lost only 5 house seats in 86, but by that time GOP represention in the House was about as low as it could go, since Reagan and the GOP suffered a masscer of 26 seats lost in the House in 82.
I really get a kick out of how people just bring up reagan's name without any historicial context.
It's just one of those things that happens in elections, and with the media running full-tilt against us we couldn't afford any mistakes, and we had quite a few.
Also I always get a kick of the deifiication of Ronald Reagan. Reagan would be the first one to say he wasn't perfect. Reagan and the GOP suffered big losses in Reagan's midterms and remember in 87 when Daniel Inouye was chomping at the bit to impeach Reagan for Iran-Contra and they held those grandiose hearings.(that actually made Oliver North a "star", for lack of a better term).
I read your excellent post....and replied :)
I agree. I do not think this was a case of people deciding to vote Dems in or throw the Republicans out.
Not at all.
I think these were individual races where the candidates appealed to the voters because they took locally popular stands. This along with a general feeling of malaise trumped up and pounded on my the DBM and MSM.
I doubt if any of these voters thought, omgosh, I'm voting Nancy Pelosi in as Speaker. That just happened to be the result...
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.