Replies

One of the consistent problems on FR is the idea that most of the american electorate is as conservative as FR is. It's nowhere close, and the more narrow the Freeper conventional wisdom gets, the more it deviates from having a clear evaluation of the general electorate.

There were Freepers insisting to the very end that the 2006 elections would actually show stunning GOP gains. Others assured themselves of an upset in the Florida Senate race. Denial ain't a river in Egypt.

You know, that post was good enough to post twice. :-)

You continually surprise me with your thoughts.

One of the consistent problems on FR is the idea that most of the american electorate is as conservative as FR is.

True enough, but it goes even deeper. Most people are a mix of being conservative on some things, liberal on some, libertarian on some, and collectivist on some. How do you appeal to a Hispanic Catholic Union member with a mortgage with a simple throwaway label like "conservative" or "moderate"? The labels aren't enough; you have to define what they encompass, or the opposition will define it for you.

The GOP needs to define what it is. So far, the responses I've gotten on this thread are A) it isn't the Dems. B) it is what it is. and C) it is whatever it will be.

One of the consistent problems on FR is the idea that most of the american electorate is as conservative as FR is. It's nowhere close, and the more narrow the Freeper conventional wisdom gets, the more it deviates from having a clear evaluation of the general electorate.

You're absolutely right about that. America isn't Free Republic. Most people, though they may have conservative values and instincts, aren't conservatives per se. I believe that we are facing a different situation than in 2000 and 2004. Americans in general are disenchanted and their patience is running thin, i.e the war in Iraq and problems at home.

Conservatives sat it out last November to teach the GOP a lesson, and if their demands aren't met in 2008, they will teach the GOP a bigger lesson.

Jim Nussle describes best this point in the letter he sent to Rich Lowry from the National Review, let me post an excerpt:

“Perfect” has become the enemy of the “good”, and we saw that borne out during this past November’s elections. I am hopeful that our Party will avoid needless debates over a non-existent perfect candidate.
It is true that Mayor Giuliani and I don’t agree on every issue. My support for a person who doesn’t see eye to eye with me on all issues doesn’t mean that I am turning my back on those beliefs. But our country is at a crossroads and we cannot forsake progress for perfection.
I have chosen to support Mayor Giuliani because I believe we need to embrace the ideals and the values that unite us. It is the only way we can successfully move forward as both a Party and a country.
Today, America needs to make progress in so many difficult fronts. While addressing challenges with philosophical absolutes makes for good rhetoric, it oftentimes achieves little by way of results.

One of the consistent problems on FR is the idea that most of the american electorate is as conservative as FR is.

It isn't even as conservative as Mitt Romney is, and he is reviled here on FR as the worst sort of liberal Trojan Horse. I think a lot of posters here live in rural, conservative areas and have a difficult time understanding just how swing voters in the Great Suburban Sprawl think these days. It's the inverse of the old Pauline Kael line about Nixon: "But I don't know a single person who voted Democrat!"

I'm trying to figure out whether Hillary or Al would do the least damage. I'm leaning toward Al - he'll be so happy just to be President, it will take two years before he stops basking in the glory and starts to actively screw things up.

But Hillary will be running for Queen of the World from day one. ;)