I’m sorry but this article is RIGHT ON THE MARK! Look at the 2006 election for clues to why this is on the mark! The U.S. is changing and unless we realize that - we will lose in 2008. This is not the 1990’s or 2000 anymore.
Or worse, winning with a liberal republican from NY
iraq has killed the republican party, and it will continue to kill them for years to come. the US hasnt changed that much in 4 years.
Only if you think the solution is for the GOP to run leftwards. That ain't gonna sell on a conservative website.
Look at the 2006 election for clues to why this is on the mark!
I don't see the 2006 election as vindication of the "leftward, ho!" agenda pushed by big-government Republicans.
2006 was a repudiation of the leftward drift of the GOP. You solution to 2006 is the same as liberal's solution to public schools - do more of what failed in the hopes that it eventually works.
Both are absurd.
Correct. Mitt is a great guy but somehow does not click with the BASE and the BASE, like me, wants a winner. We need a leader with policies which are Reaganesque but we know that the Reagan years are over. Tax cuts, strong national defense, good choice for SCOTUS that is the ticket we want. Now many want a purist. As a pastor, I know no one is pure not even conservative Christians like myself. I want a winner. I do not think the USA can stand a Quisling socialist pacifist as Dems are to lead this nation against Islamofascism. If Rudy G, Fred T, or even Mitt are perceived by the voters in our primaries as a leader who can beat the Dems, he will get my vote. So far, Rudy G has that vote though he is not’pure’.
It's not that big a deal to me whether Rudy or Hillary rams more socialism down my throat. If the conservative cause has lost it is time to start over and rebuild. Like Goldwater and Reagan did. Nixon won the Presidency. Was that good for Conservatives? The Republican party is a vehicle to move some agendas forward. If they are unable or unwilling to do so then I don't see the particular importance of them "winning".
Do you?
If you are correct, then the US is lost. We cannot recover from another era of government activism and surrender. The late sixties and early seventies was, imho, America's last shot.
The 2006 election showed the disgust for Bush
Big spending
Amnesty
Didn’t sell the war.
Not liberalism.
The 2006 election was an off year elction with a President in his second term. When you consider all the things that could be held against the GOP, i.e. Iraq, Katrina, out of control spending, corruption, the Foley scandal, banning online gambling, etc., the GOP losses were relatively modest.
Smackdown! By Independents & Moderates
"Why? Because exit polls show there's a large chunk of the electorate that is moderate, independent-minded and turned off by partisanship. In exit polls, 47 percent of voters described their views as moderate, 21 percent liberal and 32 percent conservative. And 61 percent of the moderates voted Democratic this year.
"On party identification, 26 percent said they're Independent, which is in line with recent elections. But this year, Independents went Democratic by a 57-39 margin. That's what gave the day to Democrats. In the 2002 midterm, by contrast, Independents went Republican in a 48-45 split."
The independents & moderates roughly split 3 dems to 2 pubbies.
Small 'l' libertarians and Libertarian Party members are, depending who you read, somewhere about 10 - 13 percent of the electorate. I remember reading about the gamblers organizing to defeat the GOP because of the online gamblng amendment. The number of votes for the Libertarian candidates in Montana and Virginia for the U.S. Senate was greater than the margin of victory of the dems over the GOP in those states.
They exploited ignorance in the debate about stem cells to get that Senate seat in Missouri.
Reading 2006 as a watershed election is really a stretch.
Frum’s an idiot and a lying weasel. He and his ilk are the reason Republicans lost Congress and the President’s approval ratings have tanked. What a backstabber...