Posted on 02/25/2007 7:01:11 AM PST by kellynla
"Don't be afraid to see what you see," Ronald Reagan once said.
Today, many of his disciples are choosing not to see the obvious. Republicans in Congress cannot regain their majority merely by relying on a coalition of traditional conservatives and evangelicals. They must reach out to what I call "the fed-ups" -- a large and growing constituency of independent voters who have held the balance of power in every election since 1992, and will hold it again in 2008.
It was only 14 years ago that nearly 20 million voters rejected both Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush in favor of H. Ross Perot, a little man with big ears and a big idea. Perot's principal claim on their allegiance in the presidential election of 1992 was his insistence that government should be competent, sensible and honest about its finances. His supporters were mad as hell and weren't going to take it anymore. Those voters -- 19 percent of the electorate -- demonstrated that there was a potent political movement of fed-up Americans.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Year of the Fed-Ups!....I like that
"If Iraq would have been going as planned...."
What does that mean?
You are exactly right. I'm looking hard at throwing away my vote next time on the Constitution Party. At least I'll be able to put my head on my pillow at night.
All the GOP losses in the Northeast were due to Iraq, actually.
Yes. The single biggest problem the Republican Party has is the MSM. It's virtually all liberal, all the time. There's not even a pretense at objectivity any longer.
It's about the culture war and Big Media ain't on our side.
They ware down the voters. Anybody remember how great it was when Clinton bombed Serbia for weeks? The MSM loved it. Had it been Bush they'd have tried to impeach him.
I'm not sure how representative of the nation NH-01 was - but, man, there was no stronger antiwar revolution anywhere in the country than right here.
Voters who still recognize the distinction between public and private have become unable to cohabit with "social conservatives".
Any generalization is wrong. All politics are local. Weldon lost because of a scandal. Foley didn't run because of a scandal. Sherwood lost because of a scandal. Burns lost partially due to a scandal [Abramoff connection]. Allen lost due to a poorly run campaign and a strong Dem candidate. I could go on and on. Remember that 202 Reps were elected to the House in 2006 and 8 Rep senators reelected plus Corker to fill Frist's seat.
Yet Lieberman emerged victorious.
That potent political group of "fed-ups" is growing larger by the day and the GOP needs to realize that fast.
I just now scrolled down the thread to see if anyone had replied to my post. Without seeing who had posted, I knew in the first paragraph it was Johnnie boy. It appears you only listen to that little man inside you. Well, that little man inside you is just as nuts as you are.
BTW, I see you've learned a new word this morning. In some cases I believe you're trying to say "fantasize," although, I'm really not sure.
And who are most of those?
Traditional conservatives and evangelicals.
Serious question - What was the plan? What is the current plan?
Not looking for an argument here. I just simply don't remember. What delineates victory in the War On Terror, as envisioned by the "Powers that Be"?
The GOP has already written the Right off. They think we have no where else to go; and we don't. But that doesn't mean we will vote for a liberal. They have decided that this election will be won or lost in the left-center.
That's a huge mistake.
I said it was due "almost" entirely meaning there were other reasons just none as significant. I stand by that assessment, If Iraq was going well the Rs would at the least have kept control of Congress very possibly have gained.
Similar to my question {#22}.
We will agree to disagree. Historically speaking, I seriously doubt that we would have gained seats. Also, you fail to give credit to the Dems who did a much better job of candidate selection and voter turnout. We did not just lose seats in federal elections, we also lost 6 governorships and some statehouses.
I believe the initial intention was to establish a self substaining Democracy, an Iraqi army and police force capable of providing sufficient security for the populace from both interal and external threats.
All this was to happen within 2 1/2 years of the invasion. By this time (now) we would have a permanent base established with a contingent of only a 30-40000 soldiers deployed similar to the what we have in Korea.
The benefits of a permanent base in a stable moderately friendly oil rich ME country that happen to border Iran are obvious.
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.