I really just want to do this periodically to link the stories which are likely fallout from the 2004 election (such as non-binding resolutions against the troops, minimum wage increase, etc) and more importantly to gauge the feelings of FReepers on the clear dichotomy between the message they think they're sending to the pols and the message that the pols are actually hearing.
You mean '06 election right?
Only WHINO wussies "sit it out"
Nothing.
No.
No.
No.
Not voting for a liberal candidate in a supposedly conservative party, does not constitute sitting out the election.
Calling Mr. Boortz, Mr. Neal Boortz, please pick up the white courtesy phone...
-the border has been tightened up and all illegals sent home
-spending has been completely reined in. No more pork!
This completely vindicates all the conservatives who decided not to vote for their Republican candidate because he was soft on immigration and loose with the purse strings. Sure taught him a lesson!
/sarcasm
No offense to you personally but I'm getting sick of this discussion. Very few "sat it out" to teach the GOP a lesson. Many in the voting population, unfortunately, were not given someone to vote FOR... only AGAINST... again.
Polling and cajoling the true believers and politically active isn't where the answer lies. You can't win if you only get your true believers. You have to sell yourself to the average schlub. The GOP (with the help of the MSM... or lack thereof) failed to do that. Politics is basic marketing... you have to differentiate your product. 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.
Unintended though it may have been, what the results of the last election taught ALL politicians is that American voters apparently want liberals in power.
A better question is - Did the GOP even run in the last election? It was yet another election where the GOP offered "Bob Dole" to its voters.
It is not the voter fault if the GOP cannot recruit and offer Republicans to vote for.
It's way too early to tell whether the conservative will pay off. If the conservative movement can regroup and come up with a slate of candidates who are committed to the conservative cause, then it will have worked. The idea is not to teach the current GOP leadership a lesson, but to replace them with committed conservatives. This is a long term approach.
Are you planning on starting a ping list for this discussion?
Well, I didn't sit out the election. But then, I had a true conservative to vote for: Duncan Hunter.
This doesn't mean that I wasn't heartily fed up with how much the Republicans didn't get done in the past 12 years and especially since Bush became president and they had all three houses of government.
What did we get? Two Supreme Court Justices - good thing.
Education bill crafted by Ted Kennedy.
No immigration bill.
Very little - and very late - border security.
No social security choices.
No school vouchers.
Ear marks from - ear to ear and then some.
Scandals one on top of the other. Scandals that Hastert and DeLay (himself part of the problem) knew about and did nothing. They all knew about Cunningham, Nye and the House page pusher.
Frist wouldn't push the button on making a final point that Supreme Court nominations shouldn't be fillibustered.
Couldn't get Bolton confirmed because of a REPUBLICAN senator.
Many conservative judicial nominees simply quit after years of not being given even a chance to come up for confirmation.
What's to vote for? Had Hunter not been my congressman - I might not have shown up at the polls. So, there - I said it.
Will I vote for Guiliani if he gets the nomination? Probably - but I would surely be wishing for somone I could really really support.
All in all, except for Bush's steadfast stance on the War - I'm heartily disappointed in him even though I worked in both his campaigns.
The last election I felt good about was 1994 - but the Republicans from Gingrich on down really mucked that up.
Well, here is what has happened to me. Don't know if other conservatives feel that way or not. I had just posted this on the Chuck Nagel - Impeachment coming thread.
"He and the other turncoats in our congress are the very reason I no longer contribute to the Republican Party. My money will never go to a Hagel, McCain, Lott, Snowe, Specter, Collins, or any of the others that decided to work against this administration instead of pushing through our agenda.
As far as I am concerned, we do not have ANY on our team in Washington other than the Bush administration.
What good did it do us to give the Republican Party money when it went to the likes of these weak turncoats?
I thought they were supposed to solve our problems, immigration, social security, etc., but all we get for our tax dollars are political maneuverings for their own gain, attacks against this president and his efforts to defend us, and we enabled them to socialize with their "friends across the aisle"-on our tax dollars and donations for the conservatives.
A bunch of political hacks - nothing more. Just seeking to get access to the "goodies" up there including the lifetime salary for doing absolutely nothing of any value.
I have really progressed from being willing to work and donate to absolutely giving up and giving it to the democrats. Apparently, that is the way our congress likes it, doing the bidding of the democrats."
I would suppose there are many others feeling as I do because all of the donation seekers mention they are hearing such from others. But, of course, nothing is done about it.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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."