Posted on 01/31/2007 10:06:06 AM PST by rellimpank
Conservatives blame Republicans for losing Congress. Are they right?
Conservatives are offering a curious explanation for the drubbing they took at the polls: they blame the Republicans. The 2006 elections were not a conservative defeat, you see; they were a Republican one, a rejection of a party that had strayed too far from the conservative path. John McCain put the point nicely: "Americans had elected us to change government, and they rejected us because they believed government had changed us."
The corollary is that McCain--along with many other, more reliable conservative spokesmen--believes that most Americans remain quietly conservative. But this latent center-right majority, he argues, needs reassuring that in 2008 the GOP will once again hew to true-blue (pardon the term) conservative principles.
In their hearts, he knows they're Right.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
This isn't at all bad and should have been expected. After a defeat and with no conspicuous front runner or heir apparent the party is sorting itself out. This is the first step in reconstituting the party. It is healthy.
People are desperately looking for what will make itself apparent in due time. It's a fight for the future direction of the party and it won't be decided here but in the country at large.
That's one of the most intelligent posts I've seen on FR in at least a week or two! I've said the same thing, but much less eloquently.
We just finished getting the computer mostly set up. I can post but still can't find my e-mail icon. LOL
Also, I'm not in love with the keyboard.
Thanks, I do my best. ;-)
"...cocopuff conservative land that is FR 2007."
LOL...that is a great description.
You are making some great points on this thread, thank you.
Thanks. ;-)
"instead of getting more from the GOP, you're gonna get LESS."
I hope the powers that be are not so stupid as to take that advice, if they do, they will absolutely be finished as a party.
For, if a voter has a choice between Liberal Lite and a Real Liberal, they'll always vote for the real thing, not the pretender-to-the-throne.
Ed
It's not advice; it's reality.
The GOP more than likely has gotten sick and tired of begging the "real, true" conservatives to support them.
I saw on another thread that a very smart freeper (I've forgotten which one) made note of the fact that Newt's Contract with America didn't contain a single social issue. Not one.
Good stuff here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/user-posts?id=8080
Compared to Democrats, Republicans are too gentile in the political arena.
With the MSM fully in the liberal corner, these panty-waisted Republican Congressman have absolutely no guts to confront the treasonous bastards on the other side of the aisle.
Finally, with President Bush not having to run again, to see him silent on the Liberals damning country and soldiers...makes me sick to my stomach.
I'm sick to death of this. I'm glad I'm sixty and not in my thirties....I'd be going to jail.
That is some good stuff. And to the freeper who said the GOP pandered to the social conservatives, agreed 100%. It turned off a lot of long-term Republicans including my parents in their 70's who haven't ever voted for a democrat.
Well, with the last batch we got lower taxes but the rest of it kind of went to hell.
Albert Einstein said something like...Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results.
We've been using gentlemen-like persuasion since 1994..and despite a roaring economy and no attacks since 9-11,...pick up any paper or tune to any newscast and we Conservatives are pariahs and Republicans are dangerous.
Where is the rock-star Republican to match Obama? Christ, they nominated Bob Dole to run against Bill Clinton!!!
But what is the meaning of being a Republican, then??
If the candidates all reject positions of the legacy GOP like low taxes, no gun control, anti-abortion, small government, freedom of the press, freedom of association and freedom of political discourse, why...what, then, is left?!
What would Joe Six Pack think, looking at two candidates: one, the Dem, is pro-choice, pro-tax increase, pro-government regulation of everyone and everything, wants to limit guns, thinks people's views should be limited to private expressions lest they become hate crimes or campaign finance abuse, and he calls for the little guy, students and the middle class to be protected.
Then Joe S. looks at the Pubbie candidate: he, too, is pro-abortion, anti-gun, supports more taxes and government regulation of everything, supports hate crime legislation and CFR, yet instead of supporting students, families and the middle class he supprts outsourcing, high CEO wages and tax breaks for big business.
Who do you think Joe S. will support?
How do YOU see the difference between the parties, once the GOP strips us "legacy" Pubbies and our beliefs from the body politic?
Ed
1. It is quite possible that Dole ran and accepted the nomination because Clinton was so darn popular (undeservedly, of course) that everyone knew that the Republican nominee would lose, and he "took one for the team."
2. George Bush WON by being nice rather than obnoxious and belligerent; remember Gore's "fighting" and Kerry's "not gonna put up with" attitudes?
3. The demographics of the country are changing. We are, unfortunately, reaping the consequences of 50 years of liberals running academia, Hollywood, and the television networks. When I was a young woman the word "abortion" wasn't even uttered in polite company. Look where we are now.
There is nothing more that I would like than to punch Harry Reid in the schnozz, even if it landed me in the slammer. However, all that would happen is that a minority of Americans would cheer while the media convinced a large majority that a crazed grandmother had attacked poor old Harry because he wanted to help kittens and puppies.
To me, the standard on how all of us should behave is Tony Snow, who is able to stand up to the media while being polite and charming. In my opinion he should give classes to all Republicans.
Where we are now is that we have to convince people that the media interpretation of us is wrong. We are better off than we were 10 years ago, due to Fox. Talk radio needs to get smarter and quit making issues out of small-potatoes stuff.
I have taken a lot of flak here for not criticizing the President. No one knows what letters I send to the White House, or to my senator and congressman. I don't criticize very much in public because I do not like to illustrate wedge issues for the left. I wish more people would understand this principle, particularly talk radio, because any issue panics our weenie congresscritters and they go off the reservation rather than working for a good solution.
I don't have all of the answers, but I do think that anger doesn't do us any good; instead we need to calmly look at what things we can do to move us toward our goals.
House.gov: Republican Contract With America
VALUES are the key. Persuasion only works when there values for the long haul to stand upon when doing the persuading.
Still need the persuadin' to get the vote.
Informericials can be quite persuasive. And they sell overpriced, overblown stuff meant to give the proprietor a quick buck.Sometimes yes, sometimes no. But they still need to persuade, to get the sale, the vote.
But you don't get many repeat customers. You are basically looking for one-time suckers.
Would not that depend entirely on what you personally have to sell? I mean, what if you are a person of integrity, have a good product, is this mode of sales (presuasion) not a valid avenue to use?
Now, if you are selling a quality product, you attract buyers AND retain them.
Can this person not use informercials?
... He BELIEVED in those things. And from that position, he was able to PERSUADE people to come to his point of view - voters that that were considered unreachable for the GOP, such as centrist Democrats.
I think his persuasive powers were what persuaded the voters, regardless of his beliefs. That they were persuaded is because they liked what they heard, ie, he was able to sell his ideas to a receptive voter block. There are those who can do this even without core convictions, witness the clintons, and other democrats. The persuasion is the key, not the beliefs.
And until they get it back - that they give voters a reason to BELIEVE in them, instead of just saying vote for us, we ain't as bad as the other guyz - they will continue to flounder.
You choose not to be persuaded, because what they have to sell does not interest you. You have a set of values, of beliefs, that you use to check off possible candidates, and those that make the cut, you may vote for, otherwise, you give no support. The operative point being, you are not sold, not persuaded. If someone were to tell you what they believed, and they then went on to orate as to how much they believed this, and those stated beliefs were in line with your core values, you would then support them. What if they were lying to you?
(its the coffee kicking in :-)
You don't really believe that, do you? I was buying the theory that his seniority and gravitas demanded he have it...with a beautiful charismatic wife to boot.
2. George Bush WON by being nice rather than obnoxious and belligerent; remember Gore's "fighting" and Kerry's "not gonna put up with" attitudes?
You can still respond directly and bitingly to outright lies and bias in your face everyday. They have the bullypulpit but don't use it enough. Tony Snow isn't reaching anybody if the MSM isn't covering the press briefings.
Now Hillary Clinton has decided to start a class war...today taking on the oil companies and their profits.
John Kerry called us an international pariah...a #@%$% US Senator in a time of war...OUTSIDE OUR COUNTRY!!!
And you suggest we remain gentlemen and adult-like. ;^)
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.