Posted on 03/07/2007 7:27:38 AM PST by sam_paine
#2 and #3 are the predictable, likely outcomes.
Great post.
"Growing the size of government, expanding entitlements, shamnesty, laziness and a host of other issues hurt the GOP... not the activists who tried to send a message."
Yup. (Good tagline!)
I think that it is possible to disagree without descending into chaos as long as we keep our disagreements respectful.
As for the current crop candidates, none really excite me. I am hoping that someone like Fred Thompson will enter the race. After eight years of Bush, I long to support a solid limited government conservative.
I'm still not convinced there was an actual revolt. Really the whole thing swung on about a dozen elections which the GOP lost by razor margins. The GOP did pretty much nothing to help themselves out in 2006 (like making the Dems obstruct them on something so they had a good hook to nationalize the election on) and yet the Dems hit par for a year 6 mid-term. This just doesn't strike me as a revolt.
I think you have just crystallized the conditions that creates a RINO congresscritter.
A conservative expects that politicians should go to washington to vote against more government in our lives. Best thing a conservative can do is vote "no" on everything.
But if we really are expecting, as you let slip, that politicians are "supposed to solve our problems," then that is precisely the message they may have gotten.
Yes, I know he did and why do you think he did?
Merely to try and keep a majority so that he could get his agenda through.
You work with what you have and what he has are a bunch of turncoats joining with the democrats to get their chance at power (note the group of 12 senators who decided to grab control of the senate and make themselves the decision makers).
Many of you complained continually about President Bush. Yet, President Bush has been the ONLY ONE WORKING FOR US IN WASHINGTON. You never complained about the McCain and all of the times he chose the democrats over us, you never complained about the fact that nothing was done other then attack President Bush, call for investigations, and do all in their power to destroy the man.
Now we have the dems adding billions to the defense appropriation bill for the war. That is what the "show the GOP a lesson" crowd have given us.
Yeah, they showed the GOP - they are giving the current Republican Party exactly what they want - less fighting for conservatism and more spending.
But, mainly, they have given us defeat and the loss of workers and donations for the Republican Party.
But is congress (RINOs/CINOs/Leftists alike) convinced there was a revolt.
You still don't get it... We have at least 40% of the voting-eligible population in this country that doesn't bother to vote. In every poll of their behavior, their number one reason (by far) is that they don't see it making a bit of difference... politicians are politicians.
The current trend of Democrat and Democrat-lite is growing those numbers. Rather than courting American voters looking for real action on real issues, both parties take their bases for granted (and the mind-numb, CNN-watching Dems can do it more easily) and pander to minority groups.
I'm sorry but saying that it's just as effective to push someone to vote for your candidate as it is to court their support doesn't make it true. You can use that method on those that plan to vote because they just think they have to out of civic duty. You can't draw the disaffected and disenfrancised voter that way.
Guess what: the ranks of the disenfranchised are full of conservatives who see nothing but socialism in our two main political parties. If the GOP would get back on message and say it loudly, we could actually do something in this next election. If instead they give us a Rudy McRomney, you will see a low voter turnout and a Democrat president.
When I get a request from the RNC for a donation - I send it back with a note saying - you give me border security and I'll give you a donation.
Seems like a fair exchange.
The primary reason for a government is to defend the borders.
I don't understand conservative republicans who say: "There is no true conservative running."
Not true. There is: Duncan Hunter
(well, no one would have guessed that an unknown like Jimmy Carter would win either did they? or even a lesser known like Clinton?)
Hunter has a long voting record in the House. You can look at it - and decide.
Actually, I suspect you are right. But there is a significant faction on FR who did revolt or at least justify doing so. They may have had little effect but that doesn't make their ideas any less silly.
Look, I like President Bush personally and on a number of policy issues (WOT, economics, et al). However, he has also been a single-minded force behind one of the greatest increases in socialism through the Medicare Drug Program; not to mention CFR, the Farm Bill, the Education Bill, payments to families of 9/11, Harriet Myers, et al.
I praise him when he deserves praise and criticize when appropriate.
You never complained about the McCain...
Obviously, you're not talking about me...
The intellectually challenged and morally bankrupt Repubs. do not see the lack of conservative support as a threat. They think if the conservative support isn't there they only have to cater to the liberal voters. Look at all of the Rebubs. in office who are now more left leaning on issues. They are like chameleons, change their stripe to fit the landscape.
You may be right.
But, I am afraid the heads of the Republican Party are democrat-lite, not conservative and they are pushing their agenda. Now, this is not President Bush - these are the string pullers of the GOP.
We need to look at that. That may be where the trouble is coming from. Promise conservatives what they want, but push into office the democrat-lite candidates. When you have those candidates in office, just tell the conservatives, well, we need funds to fight a Hillary in office. We agree with your complaints but can you allow a Hillary into office?
What happens? They get funds to again further their agenda of democrat lite and they get to use our money for it.
I'm sorry, but I am relooking at what is actually happening with our politicians.
We should have stood firm and supported President Bush while we had the power - not continually join the democrats in pulling him down. We should have gone to the congress members who are the ones really selling us down the river for their own gain. But, no, it was far more fun to just sit and complain that Bush was responsible.
The congress people are the legislators and they have been allowed to sap our dollars, pad their own pockets and seek all manner of political manueverings for their personal careers. No where do I see them working for the country or to solve the problems of the nation.
I want to see how the discussion evolves as the next election approaches. If you start a ping list, I'd love to be on it. Otherwise I'll just watch carefully for the thread.
I doubt it. If there's one thing career politicians understand it's poll numbers, and a serious analysis of the numbers (both from Nov 2006 and historical election numbers) shows this to be a fairly normal mid-term beating. Also let's not lose the possibility of a throw, you have to lose periodically otherwise the population starts getting worried. And with the situation in Iraq 2006 was a good time to lose, with the Dems whining on and on about the administrations "mistakes" this is a good time to let them get some more power and put the onus on them to figure it out. Because Iraq is still probably going to be a situation in 2008 (normal insurgencies tend to last 7 years, so a wrap up before 2010 is highly unlikely) giving the Dems a chance to "fail" (actually they might really fail, but even if their ideas are good real success won't be visible by 2008) for two years greatly improves the GOPs chance of keeping the White House.
I'm sure there were pockets of revolt, there are pockets of revolt in every election. But many are trying to cast it as a general uprising from the base and the numbers just don't support that. I'm with you, lots of silliness.
pgyanke says that the 40% of voting-eligible population that does not bother to vote is " full of conservatives who see nothing but socialism in our two main political parties."
Perhaps? Is that what strategists think? I would think that most of that 40% is what you'd see in NOLA sitting in a FEMA trailer saying, "gimme my check." I think the large majority of remaining conservatives in America are either engaged, or are intentionally sitting out, and/or otherwise permanently disenchanted with politics.
Thus, the most expedient way for congresscritters to gain votes is to pander toward the left.
Rush has tried to coin the concept that "Dims own defeat."
I think this is wrong. Dims have solidly positioned this as "Bush's War." They are now in a position to make us lose, and also blame it on Bush, the Republicans, and conservatve principles in general--if the media play along (LOL).
There's even talk today of impeachment. Hard to see how that could be stopped on the heels of the Libby verdict. Not even clear that a trial in the Senate would be able to render a sensible not guilty.
So in this kind of climate, the anti-Hillary candidate says what? "More military spending! Tax cuts! Kick out the dirty mexicans!"
I don't think so.
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.