Posted on 11/08/2006 4:50:12 PM PST by Aussie Dasher
I don't think Bush and the Republicans ever made a strong, concerted effort to counter the 'Rat and MSM message of "disaster" in Iraq. If we don't learn that lesson from this defeat, we're just going to lose again.
Exactly right. Given a poor execution of the war, out of control spending, an open gangway to illegals, massive new entitlements, no exposition of conservative principals, 24/7/365 pummeling by a lying, distorting press, and piss-poor campaigns by most repubs its amazing the losses weren't much greater.
As an aside, the press has not been this venomous since the days of Nixon. Given that both Nixon and Bush did more or less what the left would do, (clean air act, educ. dept., OSHA, medicare D, etc.) it is odd that it seems to infuriate them when this stuff is done by a Pubbie.
Here in CT the republicans basically wrote off our senate candidate and campaigned for Lieberman. I almost drank the Lieberman Kool Aid because the only thing I knew about Schlessinger was he used a fake ID at Foxwoods. Finally, on election eve the local paper ran a side by side comparison on all the issues. Lo and behold there wasn't a dimes worth of difference between Lamont and Lieberman so I ended up voting for Schlessinger. Bottom line, if the republicans treated other races like they did in CT, its no wonder they got spanked.
You have to wonder how many of these close races the GOP would have won had only they stood for something.
Those weren't the reasons why they lost.
No, not true enough.
ACU Rating lifetime
Allen 92%
Burns 91%
Santorum 88% Talent 93%
ACU Rating 2005
Allen 100%
Burns 100%
Santorum 92%
Talent 84%
Rush is partly right, but conservatism doesn't sell everywhere, and instead of sneering "RINO," we need to recognise that in a lot of seats, our choice is between an R who votes as we would like 30% of the time, and a D who gives us 0% support.
That being said, the problem was far less not running on conservative principals, as not governing by conservative principals. You had too many candidates who could neither run on what has been happening in Washington, because conservative don't like it, nor run against what has been happening in Washington, because Rs have been in charge. They were left with the weak tea argument of "as bad as I've made things in Washington, they will be even worse if you don't send me back there for another term." We won't have that problem in 2008, but a whole bunch of "moderate" Ds will.
The War is neither popular, nor appreciated. Wars should not be popular, and when they are not, the public has to understand very well why we are fighting, and why, bad as body bags and maimed troops are, not fighting the war will be even worse. Bush has, by and large, done an awful job the past few years, of getting that message home to the public. Sure, Freepers who get news on the internet can lecture on this issue, but the average voter has spent the past few years hearing nothing but bad news. Even those who oppose cut and run are mad about the War.
And don't even mention how the MSM is working hand in hand with the D leadership to make the War unpopular and unappreciated. We all knew that was going to happen. It is just one more thing that Bush should have plugged into his calculations before this ever began.
The real reason is that the Republicans in the Senate gave them no good reason to vote for them except, "we suck less than dems." That worked in 2002 and 2004. It finally ran out of steam in 2006.
Look, I voted. In fact, I ran the GOTV effort for the southern half of a big county. Last night was the first night I have had more than three hours sleep for about a week.
The point is, I stayed involved. But, honestly, I can't blame the folks who didn't vote. Blaming voters for staying home is scapegoating the wrong folks. You need to blame the politicians that took power and then, instead of advancing the interests of their constituents, used it to shovel pork for four years and take payoffs from Jack Abramoff.
Even with that, the R's suck less than the dems. The dems are beyond awful, even if they were honest. But you want a big turnout? Give your base a reason to vote.
Then those who stayed home because of one or two issues that seemed to bother them have no one to blame but themselves.
Why? Because the House ain't likely to be Republican for a very long time.
The party as a whole, starting with the President, did abandon many of (what many of us thought were) its principles, notably the idea of limited government, even if there are some guys who are exceptions.
Add to this a war in which a decisive victory has not been achieved, and you've got defeat.
He just meant that the Dems followed Pelosi's strategy to achieve a Dem majority by running moderates (e.g. Jim Webb) instead of true liberals in key states.
As Thomas Sowell wrote Tuesday,
Democrats have learned to avoid admitting to being liberals and this year are running a number of moderate candidates. If these new moderate candidates are elected and give the Democrats control of Congress, that control will be exercised by senior Democrats who will hold leadership positions -- and all of them are liberal extremists, whether people like Nancy Pelosi in the House or Ted Kennedy and John Kerry in the Senate.Getting people to vote for moderates, in order to put extremists in power, may be the newest and biggest voter fraud
It worked in Virginia...
Yep, and sometimes the margin between liberals and conservatives is that fine...but don't worry, folks will remember your accomplishments for what they are.
Wow...for once Rushbo earned his pay this week and is right on the mark.
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.