Posted on 12/11/2006 11:06:46 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez
Our view: In Arizona and nationwide, voters rejected rigid ideologues in favor of those who promised moderation, dialogue.
The picture that emerged from last month's elections, at both the state and the federal level, showed a majority of voters weary of hard-line, intransigent ideologues on the far right.
We know that, because voters turned both houses of Congress over to the Democrats and for the first time in many years gave Democrats 27 of the 60 seats seats in the Arizona House of Representatives.
They also re-elected Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano, giving her a 27 percentage point victory over her ultra-conservative challenger, Republican Len Munsil.
And so there is some irony, to put it kindly, in the comments from some Republicans who believe the party suffered because its candidates were not conservative enough. That line of thinking suggests that what voters really wanted were tougher, more rigid conservatives. If that were true, then candidates like Republican Randy Graf, an aggressive conservative who was running for Congress in District 8, should have trounced his Democratic opponent, Gabrielle Giffords. But the opposite happened. Voters told Graf to take a hike and sent Giffords to Washington.
It is remarkable, then, to hear Republicans like Bill Montgomery, who did so poorly in his race against Attorney General Terry Goddard, declare: "The Republican Party took a hit because we strayed from the principles that make our party so strong and that serve to unify our membership, which consists predominantly of fiscal and social conservatives."
This is the same as saying Republican conservatives should stick to the principles that made them unpopular and that voters, for the most part, rejected.
Montgomery was quoted by reporter Daniel Scarpinato in a Star story last Wednesday. We are more inclined to agree with Steve Huffman, a Republican moderate who ran a primary against Graf and lost.
"I think the most important conversation we have to have right now is: 'Are we where the voters are?' " Huffman said.
It's an important, practical question that suggests that candidates should be responsive to voters' concerns. It makes perfect sense, and if other Republicans were to accept reality they would see that there was nothing mysterious about the election results. Voters rejected the fringes and moved toward the political center. The Republicans in District 8 who rejected Huffman didn't get it.
Many of them would undoubtedly agree with Montgomery, a political novice, who told Scarpinato, "I've always had a problem with the term 'moderate.' If you always take the middle ground, I don't see how that's a virtue. That's not leadership."
On the contrary, we would say that it is both a sign of leadership and a necessary asset to realize the wisdom in compromising on 10 or 20 percent of the issues in order to achieve success on 80 percent of the others.
Compromise is not a dirty word, nor is it fatal to try to understand another viewpoint in the hope of negotiating an issue that gives both sides some of what they're seeking. A case can be made that compromise is a sign of wisdom and maturity.
The point that hard-liners like Montgomery miss is that public service does not require rigid adherence to a personal ideological agenda. It requires an ability to remain flexible enough to respond to the people who elected you as their representative, not their emperor.
Failure to accept the fundamental message of the last election will eventually dilute Republican power at the state level as sure as it has at the national level. Voters want a change, not a restatement of the same old manifesto.
Bingo. Just look look at the election results here. In Illinois, the GOP establishment ran "electable moderate" Judas Barf Too-pinka, who's main strategy was to run as Dem-lite and campaign as "I'm less corrupt than Rod"
"Electable Moderate" Judas Barf Too-pinka got a whooping 40% of the vote statewide. (Incidentally, Rod got only 49%, so Judy WOULD have won if she merely captured all of the anti-Rod vote). She ran far behind "ultra right wing extremist" Congressman-Elect Peter Roskam and the pro-life, pro-gun, pro-family, anti-tax candidate for Cook County Board President.
Her campaign was so pathetic she got LESS votes statewide than Alan Keyes got two years ago when he ran against Obama. And unlike Keyes, Judy is a lifelong resident of Illinois and has held statewide office here for 12 years.
I am so sick of the "only RINOs can WIN!!!" crowd that gave us Judy. Can we please export these "electable RINO" losers to the country-club crowd who promotes them?
Let me ask you sonmething.
How do you advance conservative principles in government with Democrats in charge of both houses of Congress?
I'm not the minority, you are.
or you can try to persuade the voters
Astute analysis.
As for your claim that "it was not Iraq," I must strenuously disagree.
The entire month of October was filled with AP and network story after story about "record high US deaths" in Iraq, the "most since '03" or whatever it was.
There were countless Iraq misery stories, and no coverage to speak of about any good coming from the war.
Of course the Bush media response team either was awful, or ineffective, or was shunned by the news reporting media.
By reporting media, I mean the AP, Reuters, NYTimes, ABC, CBS, CNN, BCC, WASH-post, and even Fox to some extent.
Heck, I am a big supporter of the reason's behind the US Iraq war, and EVEN I was demoralized about what seemed to be an endless Iraq conflict.
By using the phrase, "Stay the Course," and "we have got to win", I feel Bush doomed the GOP by making it look like he was simply going to let hundreds of brave American soldiers get killed each month while REFUSING to consider any changes to US strategy.
Bush should have announced some general 'drawdown' timetable, and he should have said he expects the US to be out of the picture within two years, or whatever.
Then, if things change on the ground in Iraq, BUSH COULD ALSO CHANGE.
There would be no harm, I believe, in delaying any announced withdrawal.
But at the same time, it would have given millions of Americans, conservative and otherwise, HOPE THAT the war would not go on forever and ever.
Well that about sums up your posts.
Luis Gonzalez wrote: "How do you advance conservative principles in government with Democrats in charge of both houses of Congress?"
Good point. Now prove to me we advanced conservative principles in government with the Republican majority we held for the last 6 years, and don't give me some list of how we "tried" to do this or that. Show me actual results where it counts. Name those government agencies that were rolled back, the programs that were reduced or eliminated, the corporate welfare system that was slashed, the spending that was reduced, the legal system that was revamped, the immigration laws that were rigorously enforced, the abortions that were prevented, the disabled lady (Ms. Shiavo) who was saved, etc. You started by claiming we get 80% when we are willing to compromise the other 10-20%, but I think your math skills, with all due respect, are somewhat questionable. Show me that 80%!
I must add the fact that the GOP was absolutely AWFUL in how it handled the illegal immigration issue.
In fact, it (the GOP) angered both sides, conservatives AND liberals.
Conservatives were steaming mad (as was I) because the GOP congress in essence refused to build a southern border wall, and also refused to get serious about stopping the rampant illegal invasion.
Oh yeah, the GOP House eventually 'blocked' the GOP Senate's plan for amnesty.
And the GOP controlled House passed a plan to build a 700-mile wall.
But then it failed to fund it properly, which could have let a future Congress squash the whole thing.
So not only were lib-Dem weenies mad at the GOP over immigration, conservatives were also steaming mad.
I refused (and still do refuse) to donate one freakin' cent to the national RNC due to its idiotic stance on illegal immigration.
Again, if only 5-percent of the GOP base refuses to come out and vote, the Republican Party will lose many close races.
And that's what happened in '06.
The GOP lost all close races, and of course, some not so close.
the guy with 100,000 dollars in his freezer just got reelected.
2. Supports permanent elimination of the death tax. Yet failed to eliminate it in spite of having Republican majorities in both Houses for 6 yers.
3. Turned around an inherited economy that was in recession, and deeply shocked as a result of the 9/11 attacks. I'll give him this one.
4. Is seeking legislation to amend the Constitution to give the president line-item veto authority. Great but he wouldn't need it if he'd use that damned veto pen he can't seem to locate.
5. In process of permanently eliminating IRS marriage penalty. Not any more he isn't.
6. Increased small business incentives to expand and to hire new people. Which will also now expire.
7. Initiated discussion on privatizing Social Security and individual investment accounts. A very, very polite way of saying he failed to implement any reforms at all.
8. Killed Clinton's "ergonomic" rules that OSHA was about to implement; rules would have shut down every home business in America. Hyperbole, they name is whoever wrote this line. "Every home business in America"? Please.
9. Passed tough new laws to hold corporate criminals to account as a result of corporate scandals. One small quibble. Congress passes laws. The President signs them into Law.
10. Reduced taxes on dividends and capital gains. Temporarily. Couldn't get them made permanent in spite of having majorities in both Houses of Congress for 6 years.
11. Signed trade promotion authority. Whoopee! The President can give more money to Corporations!
12. Reduced and is working to ultimately eliminate the estate tax for family farms and ranches. Once again, only temporarily.
13. Fight Europe's ban on importing biotech crops from the United States. I notice that ban is still in place.
14. Exempt food from unilateral trade sanctions and embargoes. Great. We can import food. Yippee. I know I couldn't live without foreign produce.
15. Provided $20 million to states to help people with disabilities work from home. This kind of spending is authorized exactly where in the Constitution?
16. Created a fund to encourage technologies that help the disabled. Same question as 15.
17. Increased the annual contribution limit on Education IRA's from $500 to $2,000 per child. Thanks for the effort.
18. Make permanent the $5,000 adoption tax credit and provide $1 billion over five years to increase the credit to $10,000. Wow. Giving welfare to people who adopt. Yippee.
19. Grant a complete tax exemption for prepaid or college tuition savings plans. 20. Reduced H1B visas from a high of 195,000 per year to 66,000 per year. I'll give him this one.
Education & Employment Training
1. Signed the No Child Left Behind Act, delivering the most dramatic education reforms in a generation (challenging the soft bigotry of low expectations). The very liberal California Teachers union is currently running radio ads against the accountability provisions of this Act. I'm confused. Where exactly is 'education' found as an enumerated responsibility of the Federal Government. Reagan wanted to eliminate the Dept. of Education. Bush increased its budget.
2. Announced "Jobs for the 21st Century," a comprehensive plan to better prepare workers for jobs in the new millennium by strengthening post-secondary education and job training, and by improving high school education. More spending.
3. Is working to provide vouchers to low-income students in persistently failing schools to help with costs of attending private schools. (Blocked in the Senate.) "Working to provide" is code for failed to do it.
4. Requires annual reading and math tests in grades three through eight. And gave them more money to do it. More spending.
5. Requires states to participate in the National Assessment of Education Progress, or an equivalent program, to establish a national benchmark for academic performance.Once again growing the power and size of the Federal Government in areas not specifically authorized by the Constitution.
6. Requires school-by-school accountability report cards. Great. My kids report card is now a Federal matter. See number 5.
7. Established a $2.4 billion fund to help states implement teacher accountability systems. More spending.
8. Increased funding for the Troops-to-Teachers program, which recruits former military personnel to to become teachers. And yet more spending.
Environment & Energy
1. Killed the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty. This treaty was killed by the Senate. Presidents have no authority to 'kill' treaties.
2. Submitted a comprehensive Energy Plan (awaits Congressional action). The plan works to develop cleaner technology, produce more natural gas here at home, make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy, improve national grid, etc. All of which involve more Federal spending.
3. Established a $10 million grant program to promote private conservation initiatives. More Federal spending.
4. Significantly eased field-testing controls of genetically engineered crops. I'll give him this one.
5. Changed parts of the Forestry Management Act to allow necessary cleanup of the national forests in order to reduce fire danger. Congress changes Acts of Law, not the President. But I'll give him this one.
6. Part of national forests cleanup: Restricted judicial challenges (based on the Endangered Species Act and other challenges), and removed the need for an Environmental Impact Statement before removing fuels/logging to reduce fire danger. See #5. 7. Killed Clinton's CO2 rules that were choking off all of the electricity surplus to California. A bit of hyperbole here, but I'll give it to you.
8. Provided matching grants for state programs that help private landowners protect rare species. Oh Boy! More Federal spending!!
1. Challenged the United Nations to live up to their responsibilities and not become another League of Nations (in other words, showed the UN to be completely irrelevant). And then sent an Ambasador to this 'completely irrelevant' institution and continued to fund it to the tune of billions.
2. Killed U.S. involvement in the International Criminal Court. 3. Told the United Nations we weren't interested in their plans for gun control (i.e., the International Ban on Small Arms Trafficking Treaty). * 4. The only President since the founding of the UN to essentially tell that organization it is irrelevant. He said: "The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of UN demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?" We all know the outcome and the answer. Actually every petty tyrant on the planet has been telling the UN that since its inception.
5. Told the Congress and the world, "America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country." And then promptly tried to get one anyway.
I know I missed a few, but formatting this on the fly is tedious.
L
It is way better to be one of the elite few who actually understand.
Tancredo/Buchanan in 2008.
L
Sorry to inform you, but anyone with half a brain could have stomped Carter and Mondale. Further, Reagan has zero coattails in both blowouts and these were blowouts of historic proportions.
Slow reader are you ?
Under GOP leadership, the country enjoys:
Record high stock market..
Record low unemployment..
Record high home ownership, among all segments of society, including African Americans and Hispanics..
Declining crime rates...
NO ATTACKS ON US SOIL for six years.
You cant get any more successful than that.
Yet, the media went out of its way to pound away at bogus stories of "dissatisfied" out of work hoardes, or America is NOT as safe as pre-9/11, or rising bankruptcies, or 'outsourcing' which of course is totally distorted issue, or "stagnating" wages, etc.
Admit it, there were NO stories, as there were during the Clinton 90s, about the "great" economy.
As a result, you STILL have most people thinking the US economy is awful, awful awful... all because the media TOLD them so.
Rush used to say stuff like "I have faith in the American people, that come election day, they are going to do the right thing", etc. Haven't heard that this time.
Now he says "Voters are voters. They are who they are, and you've got to go out and get them."
Lurker wrote: "I know I missed a few, but formatting this (list of ways Bush is NOT conservative) on the fly is tedious."
I was thinking of doing the same thing. I think I'll be generous and give the president a 10-20% conservative rating. I still don't see that glorious 80% of the conservative agenda those moderates are going to give us nasty conservatives if we only learn how to compromise, or am I missing something?
Here is a question for you.
Did conservatives win, lose, or draw in the 2006 election ?
And you need to pick one of the three possibilities.
Frankly, if you want to argue conservatives won in 2006, well, you need to check into the place where there are men with white coats.
I'm not sure how it is a draw, but I'm listening.
That would leave "conservatives lost" as the third choice.
So conservatism lost or not ?
From your comment, it seems you think conservatism is dead for a generation or two. In my book, that is not winning and if that is not losing, I'd be scared to find out what really losing is.
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.