Rush Limbaugh Has It Wrong

Logic Times ^ | 11-9-2006 | Dan Hallagan

[Logic Times]

Rush Limbaugh has it wrong. He stated Wednesday that "[c]onservatism did not lose, Republicanism lost last night. Republicanism, being a political party first, rather than an ideological movement, is what lost last night." (here) This statement – a statement echoed by Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and other conservative pundits to whom a nation of shell-shocked conservatives turned for cathartic analysis – fails a simple test. If the electorate was demanding conservatism, then why did strong, principled conservatives lose? Incumbent conservatives such as Rick Santorum, George Allen, J.D. Hayworth and Curt Weldon to name a few. Superb conservative newcomers such as Ken Blackwell and Michael Steele.

The actions of the electorate last Tuesday was an indiscriminate firing of Republicans, not a thoughtful weeding out of RINOs. It is true that Republicanism lost on Tuesday, but it lost in all its forms – and that included the exact form of strong, clear conservatism that the movement desperately needs.

[joesbucks]

From what I have read it's the independents/middle that the Republicans lost. We had high turnout here in my area (Western Michigan) and the Republicans candidates running for Governor and Senate lost by more votes than Bush did in 2004. As for Limbaugh, I turned him off when he said he was liberated. The man inserted himself into the national media as the ugly face of conservatism with his remarks and antics about Fox.

Don't confuse us with facts. We need to blame the cranky conservatives so we can really miss what happened.

[Dolphy]

You, like most, probably didnt hear the context of his comments and are speaking from ignorance.

That could be, I turned him off when he began to rant on a faulty premise. For the most part I like Rush but he's as much a huckster as those he derides and his reaction was purely emotional, something else he is quick to criticize.

[Fury]

Conservatives stayed home.

And they will regret what their inaction will bring...

[NCLaw441]

You said: They were the same, but the constituencies they represent changed, and they didn't change with them, so they lost. We are not going to be able to replace those seats with MORE conservative candidates. That will merely intrench the Democrats who won.
***

I agree with your statements above. The question then becomes, should conservatives/republicans modify their positions so as to enhance their chances of being elected, or should they maintain their conservative philosophy and values, arguing for same and hoping for a return to sanity of the citizenry?

I support the latter course. What I disliked most about the democrat campaign was the absolute refusal to take principled positions on any issues, choosing instead to run on a "change" platform, without advising the electorate as to what kind of "change" was planned. (I think we know what change was planned, but voters don't seem to ask this question.) I hope that republicans don't modify their positions solely to get elected, but then, they are politicians, who see their job as doing what is necessary to get elected. If there is any reason for despair, that is it.

[joesbucks]

Conservatives stayed home.

I can't find any real evidence of that. Did you stay home?

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

You've got it. Also, 6 years of hatred from the Dems wore down the moderates who wanted a change from all the vitriol.

Also, if conservatism did not win on Tuesday, can the author of this article tell me which Dem candidates won by running on a liberal agenda? None. The only thing close was the out-of-Iraq demand. Other than that, most Dems who won are fairly conservative compared to the Pelosi wing of the asylum. In fact, did anyone notice how quiet and unseen Pelosi was for the last two or three weeks before the election? Where was the Hollywood crowd and their oh-so-insightful pronouncements on Letterman and the other DNC shills?

I think Rush is right. What happened Tuesday was a cleansing of RINOs. Some conservatives went down because of the left unleashed the dogs of war in their effort to assassinate their characters.

Hatred of mischaracterized candidates or of the "status quo" (which has been fairly to the left) drove most of this election. Not love of liberalism.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

Well put. That's the way I see it, too. Tuesday may well prove to be a blessing in disguise, especially if it keeps the Queen of Cattle Futures out of the White House.

[NCLaw441]

You said, in part: Reagan won as a CONSERVATIVE because he was running against a FAILED LIBERAL. That is not going to be the case. Its an open seat... To win you have to move DRASTICALY to the center. 2008 is NOT the year to make a last stand on principles...
***

I could not agree with you less. It is not, or at least should not be, only about winning. The GOP could probably run a "moderate" (i.e., liberal) candidate and win the presidency, but what would we have won? Politicians seek to win. Conservatives should seek to govern with conservative policies. If the electorate doesn't get it, they eventually (as they did beginning in 1980) will. I oppose softening our positions solely in order to win.

[MHGinTN]

It is vital NOW to paint this election as conservative democrats getting elected, that way, when Mortician Reid and Pelicanosi and the leftist running the democrap party spend two years pushing only liberal leftist agenda, in '08 the Republicans can make a very good case for booting out the leftists running the democrat party that is ignoring the conservative desires of their voting blocks.

[TAdams8591]

"It is true that Republicanism lost on Tuesday, but it lost in all its forms – and that included the exact form of strong, clear conservatism that the movement desperately needs."

Exactly, Republicans were thrown out indiscriminately. Precisely the reason it was the Party and it's leadership who were repudiated, not conservatism. Rush is right.

Reagan used the term conservative all the time, in most every speech and several times throughout the speech. How often do you hear President Bush, or anyone in his administration, use the term conservative?

[The Hollywood Conservative]

[quote]
I agree with your statements above. The question then becomes, should conservatives/republicans modify their positions so as to enhance their chances of being elected, or should they maintain their conservative philosophy and values, arguing for same and hoping for a return to sanity of the citizenry?

I support the latter course. What I disliked most about the democrat campaign was the absolute refusal to take principled positions on any issues, choosing instead to run on a "change" platform, without advising the electorate as to what kind of "change" was planned. (I think we know what change was planned, but voters don't seem to ask this question.) I hope that republicans don't modify their positions solely to get elected, but then, they are politicians, who see their job as doing what is necessary to get elected. If there is any reason for despair, that is it.

[/quote]

I say its the former... And you're not abandoning your principles. You're waking up to the reality that politics is a two way game. Constituents seek to mold their representatives to their way of thinking (this is after all a REPRESENTATIVE form of government) and representatives seek to convince their constituents of the rightness of their policies (this is called leadership). In the end, a successful politician finds a balance between the two. In the end though, you don't get to engage in either exercise unless you WIN ELECTIONS.

EVERYBODY has to be willing to be flexible to a degree... As voters, we have to be flexible enough to realize that NO OTHER PERSON, not our parents, our children, our spouses or OUR REPRESENTATIVES are EVER going to feel EXACTLY the same way about EVERY topic that we do. We have to pick our battles. We have to know which issues we can give a little on, and which issues to fight on. And we have to know when SIMPLY SURVIVING TO FIGHT ANOTHER DAY is a victory. For me, the biggest issue is general CONTROL of all three branches of government by Republicans, because otherwise we get ZERO of what we want, and worse, we get what we don't want crammed down our throats.

[hosepipe]

[ If the electorate was demanding conservatism, then why did strong, principled conservatives lose? ]

America is becomeing more socialist not LESS.. Conservatism is becoming a socialist enterprise.. Conservatives are very confused.. Social Security(SSA) is is exactly pure socialism.. not like socialism; but exactly express socialism..

[Wuli]

I got the same sentiment from many neighbors here in blue New Jersey. All the Dim ads for Dim individuals were on a national theme (bash Bush) while Kean et al had no over-riding theme to tie their own campaigns to, and help voters identify with them - and how could they, what would they have used: "hold the line on spending", "check the growth of government", "immigration that is secure and not amnesty"????? Yea, right!

[LS]

Excellent point, and I do think Hannity and Limbaugh, contrary to what some of those posting here have said, are responsible in a different way, in that they were hyper-critical of the spending, the gang of 14, the illegals, and the Schaivo. I do NOT mean these should not have been dealt with, nor that the radio guys should be "cheerleaders," only that you can't bash people constantly without having some electoral fallout.

[kabar]

One cant look at Santorum and Hayworth and Allan and say "They just weren't conservative enough to energize the base". They were the same, but the constituencies they represent changed, and they didn't change with them, so they lost. We are not going to be able to replace those seats with MORE conservative candidates. That will merely intrench the Democrats who won.

Disagree. The mentioned Reps lost to opponents who tried to be more conservative than them and were anti-Bush. Casey was campaigning as a pro-life Democrat and fiscal conservative. Mitchell tried to be even further right than Hayworth on illegal immigration and claimed to be a moderate Dem. Webb was a former Rep who served under Reagan as SECNAV. He was an USNA grad, Navy Cross winner, and had a Marine son in Iraq. Add to that other candidates like VADM Sestak who beat Weldon.

The Dems believe they have found the secret to beating us, i.e., just masquerade as a moderate or conservative Dem. The War, Rep uncontrolled spending, corruption [Cunningham, Ney, Foley, Abramoff, etc.], and the demonzation of Bush by the MSM were just too much. Most of the elections were very close. It didn't take much to tip the balance.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Rush, since when did you become such a shill for the GOP? (from Alan Keyes's site)

I hope he keeps shilling. God bless him.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Phony conservatism won the day on Tuesday. Your brand and my brand of conservatism lost.

[Arizona Carolyn]

I'm very familiar with Duncan Hunter... he's a good man.

[Arizona Carolyn]

A strong, religious, conservative will not beat Hillary. There isn't enough of us to elect him or her and the majority of the electorate is closer to the center, so unless we get a center right, articulate as well as brillant and charismatic candidate we lose. If we insist on being purists in '08, we'll have our pride that we stuck to our principles, but say hello to another 8 years of Clinton Rule....

[Arizona Carolyn]

We'll see. I don't believe it.