Posted on 03/07/2007 7:27:38 AM PST by sam_paine
November 7, 2006 - The American voters "revolted" and gave the Democrat Party control of Congress.
Four months out, what have the politicians and strategists learned?
Have they learned that "conservatism wins every time it's tried?"
Or have they learned that the right-wing coalition no longer holds enough votes for them to mount a successful campaign?
Did "staying home" send a message to politicians that got us better border security, less taxes, stronger military, less government control of schools...less abortion?
This thread, and subsequent "TEACHING THE GOP A LESSON" markers up until Nov 2008 should "log" as we go along just how well the politicians are (or are not) learning their lessons.
The way I see it the sooner a socialist gets into office the sooner things will change for the better. The citizens of this country really need to be pushed to implement change. Hillary Clinto through her socialist policies would more than likely serve to wake everyone up. This in turn would bring a sort of renaissance to the US, and bring us back to better times.
I think you meant it in a different way, but if you read your post literally, it says Hillary would bring us back to better times. It's cut straight from a DU post! Could you perhaps rephrase your point?
One of the things the Dems ran on was that Bush didn't know how to handle the Iraq situation, that was one of the reasons the whole advisory council got formed and made their report. Now they're opposing one of the recommendations of the council (the troop surge), but they can't even get their ducks in a row to make their opposition to this official.
And if they go for impeachment that's only going to help the GOP. Impeachment doesn't play well with the middle, they don't like bitter revenge driven politics. The impeachment of Clinton really hurt the GOP in 96, and if the Dems go down that path we can use the exact same campaign in 08 they used in 96, hammer them for distracting the goverment from important thing and wasting time and money on political vengeance.
Will do. Actually, I think one interesting stat will be to tally up how many posts are for "One taste of Hillary will bring America around to conservatism" vs. "We have to vote for RINOs if that's all there is..."
"We?" You mean the beleagured GOP? I've never seen the GOP use a hammer to do anything but smash their own thumb.
"better border security, less taxes, stronger military, less government control of schools...less abortion?"
Better border security? Are you kidding me? President Bush and the Republican Senate were the ones pushing Shamnesty. Bush appointed prosecuters are going after Border Patrol Agents. Tony Snow goes on TV and knowingly distorts the truth about ongoing court cases. If that is what the Republicans call border security, then we're doomed.
Less taxes. Okay, here's the thing about less taxes that Ronald Reagan was a genius about. He knew that in addition to cutting taxes, you had to cut spending. That has clearly not been the case. More pork than ever. I'm with you, I want taxes cut as well. But, I'm a lot younger than the typical freeper, and I'm going to be the one who gets hurt the most by the deficits and pork in the future. If I balanced my checkbook the way the government has for the last 6 years, I'd be in debtor's prison.
Stronger military? Okay, I'll go with you on that one. :-)
Less government control of schools? Let's see, the NEA is still in place. And that shining example of liberal legislation co written with Ted Kennedy entitled "no child left behind". Who wrote that with the "liberal lion"? Oh yeah, President George W. Bush.
Less abortion? Abortion has been trotted out to energize the base during election years, and that is all. Over the last 2 years, Republicans have had control of the executive branch, both halls of Congress, and an edge on the Supreme Court. If EVER there was a time to reverse the abortion trend, let alone overturn Roe v Wade, it was then. However, bridges to nowhere were obviously more important. And now, the Republican Party is pushing forward Rudy, who is about as liberal on abortion as is possible.
I don't know about the value of sitting it out, but I do know this. The people have not left the Republican Party, the Republican Party is leaving the people.
If you don't represent me and the issues I care about, then I'm not going to vote for you and I don't give a rats patootie what letter you have after your name. The Republicans didn't lose control of the congress... they gave it away.
Just as they did with the unions, the judicial system, the public schools and universities, the left has infiltrated the Republican Party.
To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, "I didn't leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left me."
The GOP did a good job in the 02 mid-term (first Republican to gain seats in a mid-term), they did an excellent job of nationalizing the election in a way that played on Bush's public perception strengths. They even did a good job in 94, for all of its broken promises the Republican Revolution got the votes and broke the Dem hold on power. I know we all like to bitch and moan about GOP missteps, and certainly there are plenty to complain about, but the reality is they actuall do know how to win elections, there's a reason we've held the White House for 7 of the last 10 elections.
It has to get worse before it gets better is what I meant.
They learned what they wanted to learn. Which was wrong, conservatism did not lose, but republicanism did.
True. A predictable outcome of our electoral system. If you want to couch your entire strategy on getting the apathetic 40% to vote for your side... geez, good luck. But I'm not holding my breath.
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.
That's not what I said. I said that courting people to vote for your guy, and scaring people into voting against the other guy, are equivalent and equally-effective (when there are 2 major party candidates & winner-take-all elections).
You can't draw the disaffected and disenfrancised voter that way.
Like I said, I'm not holding my breath re: the prospect of grabbing a lot of votes from the "disaffected" either way. Indeed, I believe any political strategy which relies on this... hope?... to be doomed.
Guess what: the ranks of the disenfranchised are full of conservatives who see nothing but socialism in our two main political parties.
If that is true such people should have the maturity and brains enough to recognize that (D)s are generally worse than (R)s on that score (even if (R)s are quite bad!), and vote accordingly. If they don't, I have to wonder about the rationality and sincerity of the motivations they supposedly have.
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.
I don't think you are right, I think that Rudy Giuliani could very well win (if he's nominated). We'll see who's right, though, right?
****The way I see it the sooner a socialist gets into office the sooner things will change for the better. The citizens of this country really need to be pushed to implement change. Hillary Clinto through her socialist policies would more than likely serve to wake everyone up. This in turn would bring a sort of renaissance to the US, and bring us back to better times.*****
We already tried that in 1994. We got both houses of congress after a couple of years of Clinton (both of them) being president.
And then what happened?
The GOP went wobbly - and finally fell over.
Been there, done that.
"...then we should also see the liberal's popularity polls fade over the next months/quarters."
No, it didn't work very well and I think the libs, with their eye on the WH in 2008, will keep their powder dry for awhile.
And besides, they control the polls.
I guess you missed the point of my list.
I am asking ---after--- handing the congress over to the Democrats, did that gain us better "border security, less taxes, stronger military, less government control of schools...less abortion?"
Obviously, of course not.
The further question is, what will this teach the GOP for 2008? I suspect it will teach the GOP to run farther left.
My last point on this and then I'll let it go. Most of the country isn't FReeping. They are watching the MSM... even those of conservative bent. They rail against the Dan Rathers of the world but still rely on them to know what is going on. What's the effect? I can tell you from friends and family, they are depressed with both political parties. Hell, even I was depressed over Thanksgiving when all I had was the MSM at my relative's house... the war's a mess; the GOP is riddled with scandal; there's no hope... yuck!
Rudy is our annointed choice because the MSM sees him as easily torpedoed. All they have to do is sing his praises as the second coming for the "stupid" party to see him as their most electable choice. Then, in the general election, they can discuss his liberal-leanings on the issues... even in positive terms. The Dem voters will still vote for the (D) but the (R) base will split.
You can't cheat an honest man. Putting up a real conservative is the MSM's biggest fear. For one, he's boring and bad for ratings. For another, lack of dirt is a lack of ammunition to help the Dems.
That's the way I see the world. I'm done now. God bless you.
" American voters apparently want liberals in power."
A conservative SC, republican White House, and both halves of Congress republican --- there is no better platform with which to show the benefits of conservative governance. The republicans showed instead a fear of governing. The NEA, CPB, and NEH got increased funding instead of extinction, and we got open borders plus govt bloat.
Who can blame the voters for opting out?
Gotcha.
Sorry, I had to get my "I'm disgruntled" post for the day out. It just so happened this was the first thread I placed my crosshairs on.
Just another note for the next installment.
After noticing some of the "don't or die" anti-big tenters here, what exactly is the mindset there?
-Some- not all, of these folks are actually smug in their determination to vote purist come hell or Hillary.
Is there a difference between this smug "they'll be sorry they didn't cater to me" attitude and the outcry from a suicide threat?
If so, what does a politician need to do to talk them down off this ledge?
Sad.
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.