That was a factor as well. Spending. Attaching earmarks to war appropriations bills.
As well as Hastert ripping into the FBI for searching Jefferson's office. Abramoff. Foley.
Every election, the party in power has to make the case why they should stay in power. It's pretty hard for swing voters to take a pro-war party seriously when they add pork to war approprations bills.
I believe 2006 shows the beginning of the end for the "vote for our candidate or else you get worse" philosophy. No matter what you blame the shift in votes on, it comes down to this: fear of Democrats does not motivate enough voters for Conservatives to win if they or the party are not seen as representing Conservative values.
Let's go to the front page:
"Free Republic is the premier online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America. And we always have fun doing it. Hoo-yah!"
JimRob has made his position on social conservatism very clear on the Rudy threads and I respect him for it.
But notice what the first two points are on the front page. The first refers to government spending; the second to fraud and corruption. Forget liberal, conservative, social conservative, economic conservative, paleoconservative, neoconservative, CINO, RINO, whatever -- the fact is that the 2005-6 Republican Congress deserved a "F" for those two key issues and deserved to lose power.
We didn't deserve Pelosi and Reid, but that's the price paid when our guys "F"d up.
Fat, dumb and corrupt is no way for Republicans to hold onto power.