Wednesday, November 08, 2006
|
|
An Overdue Reckoning
|
|
Posted by:
Dean Barnett at
10:02 AM
|
|
We lost the House. We lost the Senate. As we struggle to get through the morning after, there’s only one thing to do – summon the circular firing squad. Don’t worry, I’m kidding. Sort of. For this is indeed the time to take a hard look at what brought us to this sorry juncture.
The first thing I want to do is enumerate a few things that did not cost us this election. It wasn’t the media. We faced the same media in 2002 and 2004 and prevailed. And it wasn’t the savvy campaigning orchestrated by a suddenly gifted group of Machiavellian Democrats. That one doesn’t fly either. The Democratic Party remains the organization that allowed John Kerry access to a microphone a week before the election.
Most importantly, we didn’t lose because our countrymen suddenly misplaced the virtues that make America great. It is a distinctly liberal trait to blame “the people” when they don’t vote as one would dictate. I’ll brook none of that from our side. The fact is, we thought our country would be better off with a Republican congress. We made a case to the American people. They didn’t buy it because they thought it was a weak case.
And you know what? They were right. In the closing weeks of the campaign season, I felt like I was a lawyer who had a bad client while writing this blog. That client was the Republican Party which had broken its Contract with America from 1994 and had become unmoored from its conservative principles. As its advocate, I couldn’t make a more compelling case for Republicans staying in power than the fact that the Democrats would be worse. I believed in that case, but when that’s all the party gave its advocates to work with, you can honestly conclude that Republicans got this drubbing the old fashioned way – we earned it.
THE BIGGEST DISAPPOINTMENT OF THE past six years has been the White House’s ongoing inability to express the rationale for the so-called war on terror. For most of you reading this site, the rationale is obvious and well known: There exists an enormous segment of the Muslim world that seeks our destruction. Either we transform our malefactors, or the world’s fate will be unimaginably horrific.
This is a long war, and yet leading Republicans including the one in the White House have yet to articulate why it’s necessary. On the campaign trail, only Rick Santorum embraced the challenges that our country faces. Our other candidates and especially the Liddy Dole-led RSCC weren’t worthy of the era.
In the war of ideas, the White House has also been a disappointment. The president has never clearly acknowledged the stakes or even who our enemy is. At no point has President Bush called for sacrifice, or even encouraged more young people to join the military.
The president could have been using his bully pulpit to insist that all our universities welcome ROTC back on campus. He had an ally on that front in the departed president of Harvard who also happened to be a former Democratic Secretary of the Treasury. He eschewed this opportunity, and we can label it just one of the countless blown chances of the past five years.
The president could also explain, as Eisenhower did, that the economy has to stay strong for us to be able to prosecute this long war. Thus, tax policies that foster economic growth are not inconsistent with a call for sacrifice. Again, this is a case that has never been made.
You add it all up, and the people are right to wonder why our boys are dying in Iraq. Because the president hasn’t made the mission’s importance clear, it seems like a folly. It seems like vanity. It seems like pride. In truth it is a fight for our very survival, but this has been an argument left to the likes of the Weekly Standard, the National Review and Victor Davis Hanson to make. We’ve tried, but we preach mostly to the choir.
The president has had the chance to do more, but as of yet he hasn’t chosen to do so. Has he lost faith in the American people? If so, then he more than anyone else needs to look in the mirror this morning.
SO WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? The most important thing we can do as conservatives and as Republicans, starting today, is to show a seriousness of mission that has been conspicuously lacking the last couple of years.
That means that for the time being there are certain itches that we cannot scratch. I doubt many people reading this page are thrilled with the prospects of Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Dingell and Leader Reid. But you know what? They won, and they get the spoils. And we have to work with them and try to get this war moving in the right direction. There may come a time for partisan sniping, but that time is not this morning. Everyone involved in leading this nation now has the sacred duty to serve their country first, last and only.
If we can usher out the partisan rancor that has so marred the past five years, then we must. It’s here that George Allen can play a key role.
It’s no secret that I haven’t been a huge admirer of the Senator’s campaign. I thought it was beneath him, and beneath our political system. The fact that the Webb campaign was every bit as bad didn’t make the Allen campaign any nobler.
Now George Allen has a chance. He can announce that he will let the electoral process run its course but decline the invitation to lawyer up. And we can support him. The vicious cycle that began with Al Gore in 2000 can be ended. Graciousness can be returned to American politics. It is perhaps a deliciously ironic coda to this election season that the candidate who waged the season’s ugliest and most inept campaign can be the guy to restore class and dignity to the American political system. This is a real opportunity for Senator Allen, as it is for the rest of us.
There is pain this morning. The loss of good men like Rick Santorum and Chris Chocola hurts. But the good news is that now our party must return to ideas as our key to power. Political sleight of hand and the weakness of our opponents carried us through most of the decade. Indeed, given the remarkable number of close races on the board last night, the Rovian/Mehlman genius came quite close to saving our bacon once again.
At the risk of committing apostasy, last night’s defeat is good not only for our party but more importantly for our ideas and ideals. Those ideas and ideals have for too long taken a backseat to other less noble concerns. New leadership must emerge, leadership that understands our principles, can articulate them, and will not abandon them. A long overdue reckoning must now begin.
Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com
|
|
I disagree that Bush did not effectively express the rationale for the ongoing war on terror. There are only so many ways you can put it, and as I see it he's been trying to put it every which way over and over again.
My thought is that ironically the absence of a domestic terror attack has hurt his case, rather than helped it. The absolute quiet in the US front for the last few years has allowed citizens to let down their guard, relax and purposely focus on other things. Deep in their hearts they want this. After all, who would ever choose to live under such constantly stressful, watchful conditions as the Israelis?
Terrorism in the US is already becoming a remote theoretical because we have not been forced to repeatedly confront it as a reality. People want to forget, and Bush makes them remember. |
|
"The vicious cycle that began with Al Gore in 2000 can be ended."
That would be the one started by Bush. He was the first to "lawyer up" when the count didn't go his way.
It's telling that you can't even admit that, even after six years. |
|
Wow. Some of these posts fill me with delight. Thank you for reminding me how sick and twisted conservatives are and how happy I should feel today that you finally got your asses handed to you.
A couple notes:
The media is not liberal. There is nothing on the left than nearly equals the right wing bias of talk radio or Fox News. In fact, you've all been so successful in whining about this mythical left wing bias that the other networks fall over themselves to not appear liberal, resulting in a right wing angle from each of them. MSNBC is actually trying to compete with Fox for the mouth breather demographic.
There are more 'Islamofascists' (sic) now than there were four years ago, thanks to your war in Iraq. Kids who otherwise would have lived there lives normally in Islamic countries are now so enraged at the US over Iraq that they are potential future suicide bombers. So, the war you've supported resulted in 2,800 dead US troops, hundreds of $billions wasted, and increased the risk of terrorism. Nice job! Keep whacking that hornets next with the wiffle ball bat.
Finally, the reason you lost on Tuesday was because you SUCK. You sucked in 2002 and 2004 but were able to fool enough people to win. That time is over, the voters have wised up and you are done. The Republican party has done enough damage over the last 6 years to relegate themselves to backwater status for many years. Maybe you'll get the House again, in say 2034.
|
|
|
What is the future for people like Santorum, Talent, Allen, Chocola, Northup and Hart? I'm most sad that those people lost. |
|
You correctly analyzed why the Republicans lost, then ignore your thoughts which are dead on and push those that ignore the evidence. It's not because the administration didn't "express the rationale for the...war on terror", or that "(t)he president has never...acknowledged the stakes", or that "the president hasn’t made the mission’s importance clear". How dense and deaf do you think the American people are? The administration has given many rationale for what we're doing, and has repeatedly endlessly what the stakes are and why they're important. But you were exactly right when you said, "We made a case to the American people. They didn’t buy it because they thought it was a weak case."
The reason why the Republicans lost IS NOT one of communication. It's because more folks disagree with the arguments than agree. Anyone who hasn't heard what the stakes are over 100 times lives in a cave (and not Osama's, which probably has satellite TV). Exit polls from the election showed that the #1 concern of voters (40%) was terrorism. If Americans agreed with the President's approach, then that 40% would have been the baseline for an overwhelming Republican victory. The obvious conclusion is that Americans understand how important stopping terrorism is, but don't think the way we're going about is working, or is going to work.
The Republican party used to stand for realism and rational thought. Now, it stands for endless PR campaigns, focused on convincing others that you are right, rather than listening when the American people say, "I don't think so". If the Republican party is going to start winning elections again, they have to start listening to the American people rather than continuing to try to get the American people to listen to them. And most importantly, they need to listen to the people who DIDN'T vote for them, because those are the votes they'll need to win.
|
|
|
Great post. Republicans did not deserve to win and the President must accept his share of the blame. Too often, unless he is reading a well written, prepared speech, Bush has relied on repeating the same phrases over and over no matter where he is: On the campaign stump, at a press conference, in a TV interview. These phrases are usually simplistic in the extreme and very often I would gringe when he would stumble over questions asked by reporters. Is it too much to ask that the man who holds the most important job in the world develop a thorough and wide ranging understanding of the problems we face and be able to articulate those challenges in something more than a few old and trite statements? I voted for Bush but quite frankly I have been thoroughly disappointed in his lack of growth and a lack of curiosity about the rest of the world. |
|
this is one of the finest post-election posts I've read.
My only quibble, and it's a minor one is:
"It wasn’t the media."
While certainly not the sole reason, or even the main reason, I do think it's part of it. I agree that "We faced the same media in 2002 and 2004 and prevailed." So, and I think this is what you really meant, it is not an excuse. If the media was even half unbiased, I think the results would have been different, and as for 02 and 04, we would have won by wider margins. Like I said, minor quibble. I agree with all of the rest. My favorite paragraph?
"And you know what? They were right. In the closing weeks of the campaign season, I felt like I was a lawyer who had a bad client while writing this blog. That client was the Republican Party which had broken its Contract with America from 1994 and had become unmoored from its conservative principles. As its advocate, I couldn’t make a more compelling case for Republicans staying in power than the fact that the Democrats would be worse. I believed in that case, but when that’s all the party gave its advocates to work with, you can honestly conclude that Republicans got this drubbing the old fashioned way – we earned it."
Exactly! |
|
Some debate about that, but really, there's no way to tell. The GOP lost because, when you get elected by telling the voters you are going to do X, you have a certain amount of time to deliver on X, or you get kicked out.
Republicans in 1994 got elected by promising several things:
Smaller government
Balanced budgets
A Constitutional amendment limiting taxes
Term limits
Tort reform
Twelve years later, they have delivered on none of these things. Government expanded, deficits grew, tax cuts happened but were “temporary” only, tort reform was dropped, and far from enacting term limits, the GOP leadership became part of the corruption problem endemic to a perpetual political class. The only things they had any energy, enthusiasm or persistence about were bans on stem cell research and gay marriage. Now, those may or may not be worthwhile things (reasonable people can disagree) but that’s not what the GOP was sent to Washington to do. Along the way, a war came along and the GOP made another commitment – to keep the country safe from terrorism. Again, the foreign policy aspects are worthy of a debate, but the domestic performance was pathetic by any standards. A huge new bureaucracy was created (to consolidate, rather than replace, several bureaucracies that failed us on 9/11) and the most visible result was Grandma getting wanded at the airport. The dubious quality of our domestic anti-terror efforts called into question the quality of our foreign policy efforts, and, far from clearly making the case, the GOP leadership was mostly content with saying “trust us, we’re better than the Democrats would be.” Better or not, they didn’t make the case that they were good enough. Coupled with failing to deliver on anything else they'd promised, why would voters trust them?
So, although I expect Moderates will claim the GOP was too conservative and Conservatives will claim it was too moderate, the real problem is it was unreliable. Untrustworthy. What difference does it make whether they have the right ideals if they don’t follow through on them?
Time for new leadership with a commitment to articulating a plan that a majority of America will support, getting elected, and delivering ASAP on that plan.
|
|
I think he was being sarcastic by offering them the worst advice possible.
Sad part is, there will be some liberals, even high ranking ones, who will be tempted to do many of the things he was joking about. |
|
Just got done with sending e-mails to my congressmen as I mentioned in my first post of the day in here... I suggest everyone try this and see what they say. I also blogged what I wrote, in case I get responses.
To see it, click on my name or go to:
http://usabeliever.townhall.com |
|
Either you are a great comedian or you are one of the most dangerous liberals I have seen yet. Since this is the first time I have seen you post, I will pray that it's the first one and not the second.
If the second - how can you truly believe this is both a responsible and civilized behavior? Lighting cars on fire, Howard Dean... |
|
Please remember every slight you received over the last 12 years and try to pay each of them back. Remember impeachment. remember being ignored in the House. Remember the K street project! no slight must be too small in order for you to extract retribution.
Demand that the house start investigating Bushitler as soon as possible. Hold hearings. Preempt Oprah and the soaps in order to ensure maximum visibility. The public has a right to know! Hopefully these hearings will allow Conyers, Waxman, and, if God shines upon us, Maxine Waters, to be on TV each and every day. We will also need to see more Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden. And, Howard Dean must be on national TV AT LEAST 3x a week, preferably network. Perhaps that could be a law passed in your "100 hours" "The Dean Max Exposure act." (Better than the Kennedy one).
And, if your weak national leaders won't impeach the Republiscum, you need to take to the streets! Do sit down protests like in Mexico. Block traffic. Light a few cars on fire. And, please get as many 20 year old college students interviewed on TV as possible explaining that the disruption is needed to "take our country back." It is up to you to save the Republic, and you know what is best for the rest of the country. Make sure everyone knows this and spouts it like gospel.
You have to do this. You owe this to yourselves. Revenge must be yours.
|
|
A reasoned attempt to understand and accept the life cycle of an idea, in this case the attempt to govern from an uncompromising (and if truth be told) minority conservative ideology. This particular cycle, said the voters, is over.
We may be entering a time of greater political compromise, where ideas have to stand a more rigorous test than simply because they come from those who hold power. After all, it was the Great Compromise that gave us the US Constitution, and though not without flaws, it seems to have worked out well.
At any rate, best of luck with soul searching. |
|
of Muslims to be a huge problem. Here's the math for ya:
1 billion muslims worldwide
10% believe in Sharia law/attacking the Western way of life. (polls in Britain and elsewhere)
1 billion x .10 = 100,000,000 people willing to see us and our way of life die. Guess where they live?
Quit being so facile in your thinking. the Americans getting killed have rifles and training and you know it. They aren't just waiting for a bus or shopping at the mall.
By the way, genius, I guess Americans should pull out of Detroit, Atlanta, D.C., New Orleans etc since they are so dangerous and innocent American lives are lost daily.
We are trying to spread democracy so we can have an ally in the cuckoo Middle East, get it? See how that could be really helpful? Or don't you think A-rabs deserve the same way of life we have? |
|
I agree with your post in theory.
We'll see how things go in practice when the new committee chairmen start issuing the subpoenas, investigations, hearings, and of course posing for their soundbites accusing the Bush Administration of everything from hurricanes to starving children.
It takes two to tango. Please tell the other Democrats out there that your approach and thoughtful tone is the way to go. Hopefully they'll listen. |
|
SO impressed by your article, Dean, and also by Senator Santorum's concession speech, two remarkable examples of the decency and conciliation that remains in American politics.
There is a lot of sense (and a lot of nonsense, too) in the blogosphere, and I hope that the new balance of power in Congress forces not just the electeds, but the grassroots folks from both parties to start talking to (not at) each other.
|
|
>>Peacethrustrength
>>You are very silly.
Ouch. Stop using such razor-like wit to defend yourself, it is almost more than I can take.
Maybe when your side acts as interested in fighting this nation's enemies as it is in fighting Republicans, you guys will start to look like less of a gang of manipulative unpatriotic borderline traitors.
Funny how vigorously Democrats want to fight on after elections in the courts, spread their hate-speech about the President during a war, and label all Republicans as fascists who don't want to help people with deadly diseases...all while at the same time giving comfort and hope to insurgents in Iraq by declaring it a lost cause, and conferring U.S. Constitutional rights to terrorist enemy combatants.
We'll see just how long the American people put up with your gang of shakedown con-artists, pretentious thugs, and born liars. My guess is two years. |
|
So,
>I find your lack of faith in Western Democracy disturbing.
My faith in Western Democracy is rock solid, thank you. My fear is more about those in our country who would underestimate the capabilities of those who would do us irreparable damage (Please don't go off on the Irag quagmire - I get it.). If you really think that Islamofascism is no big deal, what do you think will happen if it is ignored? You poked at each of my positions but you didn't respond to my statement about the silence of the Muslim majority. Why aren't they speaking out? And if they are, why aren't we hearing about it? |
|
It's doesn't matter that you, in conclusory fashion, won't "brook" any blaming of voters--such doesn't make faults go away. The Democratic Party leadership is full of wicked liars and manipulators, not merely fellow Americans with a different view. Also, it appears that a majority of voters are stupid, selfish, and/or irrational and are easily manipulated. (E.g., voting against candidates because of "six-year itch" dissatsifaction or not getting everything they want; wanting to "punish" Republicans, even upstanding, dedicated conservatives, even if that meant rewarding those who are as far from conservative as possible; Rush Limbaugh's observation that sr. citizens voted against "visionary" Santorum because they don't care about 20 yrs. from now but wanted Iraq money spent on them; etc.)
As such, the Democratic Party leadership and the voters should be treated as the political enemy and fickle, easily-misled people who they are. It's one thing to lose on a rational debate on the issues, and people can make incorrect judgments sometimes, but the 2006 campaign showed that this was not the case. Rather, the Democrats decided to use misleading, emotional, manipulative ads rather than run a campaign on issues because the former works better. That you and many other commentators don't want to call the voters stupid because leftists do that or is somehow contrary to the spirit of the "great American democracy" or whatever is irrelevant--that perspective is the one thing the leftists got right, and they used it to their advantage.
As for your suggestion that conservatives should help restore civility by doing things such as Allen's dropping any court challenge is a bad idea. Pres. Bush only won in 2000 because he and others were willing to fight the tactics of the liberal Democrats, and Sen. Talent's withdrawal in the face of fraud in his race against the widow Carnahan did not encourage the Democrats to be civil in this year's Senate race. Indeed, one conservative complaint with Republicans is that they are civil and polite while the Democrats savagely attack them and conservative ideas and the former's unwillingness to fight back. |
|
Looks like Snaps/Salvage/Red Toxin is still with us, oh well, we'll get by even with their presence! Of course, the alternative is to measure them/him for concrete boots, assuming there's anything left after taking care of Frank J!
However, Conservatism today, conservatism tomorrow, conservatism forever, at least in my hopes; both the fiscal and social types of conservatism! Viva conservatism! Issued from the front door of my pad!
|
|
|
Great analysis and thank you. My husband and I are reeling from the blow(s) this morning. Just reeling. I stood in the freezing rain in Austin on election Tuesday night in 2000 after working myself into a fine pulp in the GOP at that time. I have been "busting my buttons" as it were as we have been painting the map red. This morning, I feel deflated. But, I agree with Chip and with Dahsi - perhaps this is the wake up call we need and ask a working couple now in Colorado (with a new lib gov) with moderate means and very little spare time, we're recommitted to redouble our efforts as we press toward 2008. |
|
|
Robert Gates has been nominated, MKH has a blog on it. See you guys over there as well. |
|
>(but the future's a bit unclear on the nuclear front, isn't it?).
Nope, I know it seems easy in Tom Clancy books but making a nuclear bomb, isn’t.
>Recent history has shown us that it doesn't take high tech weapons and large armies to shift a country off it's foundation.
Well I assume you’re talking the collapse of the Soviet Union and what shifted it off it’s foundation was there was no foundation. Communism sucks, it’ll always collapse in the end under it’s own corrupt weight. What makes Western Democracy great are those checks and balances. One of those laws v. men deals.
> You blame Bush for 9/11, but he wasn't one of the handful of terrorists that overnight changed America.
Blame is a tricky word, there are many ways something can be someone’s fault. Now I don’t blame Bush in the sense that if he wasn’t President 9/11 would have never happened. Of course it would with President Gore, Nader or Kang and Kodos. So in that sense Bush is blameless but it was still his responsibility, there are a lot of perks to being President but the downside is everything is your fault. That’s what leadership is about. Unfair sure but what are you going to do?
Oh and Bush got a memo a few weeks before saying it was going to happen and he did dick all about the Cole.
>Oh, and the Islamofascist movement didn't start when Bush was elected. You do know that, don't you? Do you think France, Britain, and the rest of Western Europe aren't different today as a result of radical Islam?
Uh no. Example?
>Those youth riots in Paris weren't waged by WASPs, and France is hardly a die-hard conservative country.
Did you know that Jerusalem is having some riots of their own? The fundies there are burning stuff over the gay pride parade. How many riots have their been in America again? I know a fair amount about France and I can assure you the riots have very little to do with what sky god they pray to and more about economics, race and French nationalism and history. See it’s easy to say “cuz they’re Muslim!” but the fact is for every Muslim youth burning down a taxi there are 100s of thousand more that are not.
As for the rest, don’t wet yourself, the same points you make are carbon copy of the mystical shrieks about the Yellow Peril and the Irish.
I find your lack of faith in Western Democracy disturbing.
Peacethrustrength
You are very silly.
|
|
|
...that a spokesperson for Rumsfeld has said this. Another person in the Pentagon could not confirm it, but perhaps the President will during his address. |
|
Blaming Bush for the GOP loss is simply a way for congressional GOPers to avoid looking in the mirror. They lost because they are corrupt, feckless, and unable or unwilling to meet the demands of our modern world. They failed the test of leadership.
The Dems will spend the next two years making the same mistakes, only more spectacularly. |
|
|
I think we all need to face the terrible truth. There are not enough of us who have conservative values to win anymore. We can blame the president or the media or whatever, I think we'd better take a very long look around. We may very well be the minority party (conservatives) for some long years ahead. I just can't believe what happened, but I have to accept the reality that enough Americans totally disagreed with us. Isn't that what we ought to be talking about? Well, after I mourn of course. First Rumsfeld, who next? |
|
Even if Bush dedicated more face time to explaining why we're in Iraq, he'd never get his message across. He and his speechwriters don't have what it takes to inspire America. They're stuck on platitudes that are so general as to ring hollow after the third or fourth repetition.
What the Repubs need to do is find a spokesperson amongst them (an elected official) who *is* articulate and get that person out on all the shows, all the time. We need an Aaron for our slow-of-speech Moses.
And I vote that Mark Steyn and Victor Davis Hansen write the speeches.
|
|
|
I just heard this on the radio. True? President Bush's news conference is just starting!! |
|
Well it’s “The Day After”, but the TV movie felt more hopeful. Today things are getting a little heated. Conservatives were blaming moderates, moderates blamed conservatives. Low-spending fiscal were blaming the religious-right. Immigration hard-liners were blaming the open-borders crowd, and they were pointing at J.D. Hayworth’s loss as a sign. Bush supporters were blaming Bush bashers, and vice versa.
The long knifes are out this morning across the republican landscape. Everyone is trying to cover their butts, and exclaim, “it’s not our fault”. Well it is everyone’s fault and everyone’s loss. We must now live with the results and solider on the best we can.
I urge everyone to “chill” and rest for the next few weeks and prepare for the war that begins in January when congress returns. Blaming each other will achieve nothing but more democrat victories. I am torn between overwhelming depression and blinding rage. I am angry at certain sects in the Republican movement, angry at Rove & Mehlman, furious at the media, but mostly angry with democrats.
We must begin the campaign to retake congress in January; the MSM will never go after the democrats or expose them. Witness the vast stories on Harry Reid’s corruption compared to republicans. It will be up to us and the rest of the “new media” and be ready for a street fight. We can’t afford to play by the nice guy rules anymore, if we get the chance to stab the dems in the back, we need to take it.
Remember the democrats are the enemy and they must be defeated. How did one person say it a few years ago, “ we all hang together or we all hang separately”.
So enjoy your turkey and buy an extra big tree for Christmas this year, tell your family you love them and prepare for next year.
The battle is lost but the war goes on.
|
|
"Now George Allen has a chance. He can announce that he will let the electoral process run its course but decline the invitation to lawyer up. And we can support him. The vicious cycle that began with Al Gore in 2000 can be ended."
We can also play by the new rules and fight to the end. Enough of playing nice guy, stab a democrat in the back before they get you.
|
|
I congratulate those patriotic independent voters who finally decided to stop swallowing George Bush's lies. The President's 'base' created a political 'welfare state' where the Republicans didn't have to work to get elected - they just had to lie and spin. I have never heard more hogwash in my life than the constant stream of 'talking points' that the Republicans have shoved down the maws of their blindly loyal base. The past ten years have been the most disgusting low point in American political history because Republicans governed by spin instead of by producing results - all that was possible because they had base voters willing to swallow anything they said.
And yes, Allen should concede because Webb is the better man by far. How coud anyone support a mediocrity like Allen over a great patriot like Webb? You got any more former Republicans like Jim Webb? They are more than welcome in the Democratic party.
I would like nothing more than for the Republicans to get back to producing true leaders like Nixon and Reagan - I might not vote for them, but they were competent to run the country. But if the Republican base will swallow any swill the RNC throws at them, all you will ever get is candidates like GW Bush. And Osama would like nothing more than more bozos like Bush running America. |
|
|
I even emailed it to myself (for re-distribution later). Thanks for the great perspective and bits to think about. |
|
Salvage wrote (a while ago...): "In fact an average of three Americans are dying a day as a result. And that is completely Bush's fault."
Wow. Three *whole* Americans? Three *thousand* Americans die every business day on U.S. soil because of pro-abortion laws and policies. And that is completely liberals' faults.
I will never vote for a democrat as long as they are in the hip-pocket of the pro-death, and in our current political atmosphere, being democrat is nearly synonymous with pro-abortion. |
|
I forgot earlier that Allen lost because the Wash Post went on a jihad against him for weeks that took him off message and showered Webb with praise.
Bush needs to pull a Clinton and start campaigning 24/7. That is what Clinton did after 94' |
|
|
This right here is the biggest difference betwwen Dems and Republicans. we are not here crying and whining about how it was stolen from us and demanding endless recounts. We are here licking our wounds, accepting defeat and putting the blame where it belongs, On ourselves. We belive that we are in control of our futures while Dems generally believe that everything is out of our control and they need to put laws in place to make sure no one gets hurt. We believe we are in control of our lives and take responsibility for how it ends up. |
|
Dean,
I disagree with your view on the media's role in the election. It was a huge factor in the election. The media set the stage and protected democrats. Hell lets talk about corruption but not mention Reid or Jefferson. Most people think the economy is bad because of the media. When your getting 80% positive coverage for dems and 80% negative for republicans it plays a role in elections. |
|
Your pontification on our punishment was, point by point, pitch-perfect (a little alliteration, anyone?) until the end of the column.
When many of us Republicans threatened to sit this one out as a way of telling the Republican Reps what we thought of them we were called stupid and cowardly. Now that the Dems have won we are told that it is what probably should have happened for our best interest. This is frustrating to us. We were right the first time, thanks.
anyway, we came out and voted because we are good people who care about the country. |
|
..it's time to start putting the issues at hard front. I will start out by saying I may be willing to compromise on some things, I personally will not be willing to compromise on national security including illegal immigration, government budgeting and spending, nor the mission in Iraq.
I do think it's time for us to get a clear objective from what the Iraqi government expects from our troops being there. Some of the posts here today have expressed the big points when it comes to Iraq. If the MSM is trying to show that we shouldn't be there, then let the Iraqi government explain why we should. If you have read my posts before, I'm all for what we are doing in Iraq - but as we have set our objectives, so must the Iraqis. It's time for them to draw a line and stand.
My biggest goal for the next 2 years - get more informed about the economy. I'd like to start my fresh look at this with a question to others: Where do you think the most excessive government spending has been? Defense? Iraq? And what are suggestions that you may have tossed around to solve that? Let's start talking about the issues again - that's the true way to learn from our mistakes in the past. |
|
I must say that it is also really good news that this is happening now instead of two years from now. What we do need to do is make sure that we are poised and posed in two years to take it all back.
Something fun to watch for in the interim:
News about the economy/jobs. Now that the Dems have the house back we will be hearing a lot more about the great economy we are in. |
|
|
I am also more of a Libertarian but vote almost exclusivly for Republicans. I voted for myself for Gov. of CA last night though ( had Arne been in trouble I would have plugged my nose and voted for him). We need to let the process of recounts run and then do what is right. End the law suits and lick our wounds and get ready to come back fighting. We need to get back to being fiscal conservatives. Bring back the Regan/Goldwater era Republicans. At least with the Dems in charge we get gridlock which is far supperior to what has been happening the last 6 years when Republicans turned into Democrats. I hate the fact a Limo Dem from SF can control the agenda but gridlock is better than the idiotic crap we have been doing. The only thing I ever agreed with Bush on was the war. I voted for him 2x because the alternative was completely repugnant and against the things I stand for (personal responsibility and a smaller government) |
|
The American voters clearly state they want a centrist approach to issues, and what do Townhall columnists think will save the GOP? Becoming MORE conservative!?! Barnett, Medved, and Ham are not in touch with reality.
Re: Loundry. Thanks -- you reminded me that I forgot my morning prayers to Gaia. I'm all for limited government, but keeping government out of our personal and spiritual lives is most important. Lastly, I happen to be the holder of an earmark grant and . . . it's GREAT!!! I conduct research in developing market-competitive solar energy products, so I feel the money is serving the public good. But knowing that every dime I spend makes the Townhall neo-cons squirm is really the icing on the cake!! |
|
have no problem sinking on the ship with a fine one like yourself...
we will rise again...
|
|
it is truly frightening that people like you are out there in this country. Seriously.
Yes, I am questioning your patriotism, since you cavalierly made such statements about President Bush being responsible for 9/11 and not caring about "daily" terror attacks. I'm honestly sick and tired of you liberals crying about your patriotism being questioned because of your disagreements with the President, then blaming him instead of the terrorists, while in the same breath acting like the threat is overstated. Your rhetoric proves you are NOT a patriot, you do NOT love your country, you have no clue about the agenda of radical Jihad, and your attacks on those in this country who don't share your sanguine view of the Islamic extremist terror threat can be described in no other way than BLAME AMERICA FIRST. Your comments about terrorists leave no doubt about how lightly you take their threats. You either sympathize with them in a very unhealthy way, or disregard them entirely as a small group of benign malcontents.
Obviously they don't have a military sophisticated enough to beat the U.S. on a battlefield. They also proved on numerous occassions in the last 15 years that all they need is a few well placed bombs, or civilian aircraft, to bring the financial capitol of this nation face to face with its own mortality. They are capable of a lot more horrifying acts too, even with their conventional military inferiority.
They don't have to destroy the U.S. militarily, they could destroy us economically by detonating a few large bombs in Saudi Arabian oil refineries. You don't think $150 a barrel oil would throw this country's economy and transporation/distribution infrastructure into chaos? Think again.
You're a fool. Go back to your Kos, Democrat Underground blogs where your anti-American views are embraced, you moron troll. |
|
|
|
I apologize as I normally don't do this, but for this topic, I will use the same post:
Good points...
It's not easy to accept the facts and release the hope after an election. Part of the election process is hope - hope that our interests will be best represented by those who share similar interests. A loss of our candidates may give a knee-jerk reaction by some to just drink the night away. But it's the real process of government that begins afterwards, when the House and Senate meet again to work on issues for our government.
So what do we do now? Whether your candidate won or not, why not send congrats to the winner? Introduce yourself to them, and kindly remind them that while they have been elected to office, their responsibility is to represent the views of their constituents. Ideally, it should not matter if they agree with them or not, and this is how you can start separating the good politicians from the bad. Try to keep an open line of communication with them - they are YOUR representative in government.
Realisically, I know of one example already where a local radio station wanted to interview a politician and they were simply laughed at and hung up on by an assistant. So not everyone is going to reply with a warm welcome to the invitation. But I would say to that, it's time to bring those individuals to light. For my part, e-mails will be going out today for those that will represent me. I'll let you know how those go.
Bottom line - Americans, beyond the politics and partisanship, should work together to try and reach a common goal. Some concessions may have to be made - it's the nature of the beast. I'm sure some things may happen that I don't agree with - as they have before and assuredly will again. But if you walk away from the elections and don't try to do your part to be active in your government afterwards, then you are only doing part of your duty as an American.
Don't give up your voice or your hope - and don't be willing to concede those because you fear those who represent you as an American may sneer or ignore you. Our individual voice is one of the greatest things a person has - make sure you hold on to yours.
Thank you for your time.
|
|
Let's move on and deal with the problems facing the US that can be addressed by the federal govenment.
Number one is the war in Iraq. We need to win it, and win it soon. Winning means Iraqi internal security to the point where women can visit the market without armed guards, where public infrastructure like power lines and oil pipelines doesn't get blown up or stolen over night. Winning means an native Iraqi government whose writ runs outside the Green Zone. Winning means catching the "sectarians", ie the the folk doing the "sectarian violence", and executing them in public. After a prompt public trial. Or shooting them while resisting arrest.
By all accounts the US isn't doing very well. Time for new US commanders on the ground who can do it. Time for the Army and Marines to put pacification ahead of war fighting and support and promote officers who do well at pacification. Make sure the officers on the ground have funds at their disposal for civil affairs work. Make sure the troops are out patroling and maintaining order rather than hunkering down in fortified camps and letting law and order evaporate. Time to deal with all those terrorists in US captivity. Trials, followed by acquitals or convictions. For the run of the mill terrorists in Iraqi slammers, what counts is doing something about them, convict and punish the worst offenders, acquit and release the innocent or the small fry. Keeping them locked up without trial or charges just turns them and their family into hard core terrorists.
Most of this is stuff the administration can do by executive order. But the administration has to do it now, before the voters loose ALL patience with the Iraq war. This election shows how thin the voter's patience has worn. Next election time it will be worse.
David Starr
|
|
I am a Libertarian, but I often prefer the Republicans (who have many free-market, limited-government members) to the Democrats (who have statists, Gaia-worshippers, and limousine liberals, thugs, deadbeats, losers, and little else).
I think it is clear why Republicans lost:
1. Republicans have competely abandonded small-government principles. Instead, they have increased the size, the reach, and the cost of government. Our children will pay dearly for this revolting hypocrisy.
2. Iraq (the war) was successful, while Iraq (the nation-building exercise) is a colossal failure. Why do Republicans think that "democracy" is necessarily going to yield a government sympathetic to US interests? This is such retarded hubris. The Iraqis will democratically vote for Shari'a just as the "Palestinians" democractically elected Hamas.
3. Republicans and espescialy George W. Bush have fully allowed and encouraged Mexico to invade the United States, and then insulted the intelligence of Republican supporters with the "comprehensive" bullsh*t. Everyone knew that this was just Republicans trying to throw their supporters a bone so that the invasion could continue!
4. Republicans have fully participated in an orgy disgusting earmarks for the purpose of buying votes. The "Bridge to Nowhere" is the enduring legacy of what used to be the Contract with America.
5. Jihad, hudna, taqiyya, jizyah, dhimmitude. Are the Republicans doing these concepts justice with a war on "terror"?
Why can't conservative pundits and writers address these points with the conviction that I have done? I'm so sick of hearing Hannity-style puff interviews with "conservative leaders" where they pretend that gay marriage and Terry Schiavo are somehow more important than ANY the issues that I've detailed above.
Republicans certainly deserved to lose the election. The sick joke is that Democrats did NOT deserve to win. :( |
|
Dean rote:
"Now George Allen has a chance. He can announce that he will let the electoral process run its course but decline the invitation to lawyer up. And we can support him. The vicious cycle that began with Al Gore in 2000 can be ended. Graciousness can be returned to American politics. It is perhaps a deliciously ironic coda to this election season that the candidate who waged the season’s ugliest and most inept campaign can be the guy to restore class and dignity to the American political system. This is a real opportunity for Senator Allen, as it is for the rest of us."
The only helpful thing George Allen can do is to STFU (shut the f**k up) and go away quietly after he loses the recount and any contest. If control of senate didn't hang on it, I'd just want him to go away. The man is FINISHED in politics and deservedly so for his inept campaign. |
|
Some good observations.
I agree the President Bush should bear a good part of the blame for last night's fiasco. Folks, Bush isn't a conservative in the sense that most people here are. I'm curious what the congressional leadership is supposed to do when the prez of their own party doesn't embrace their core principles? They got done what they could and it cost them big time. No child left behind? McCain-Feingold? Free drugs for older folks? A mess at the border? You also have to factor in that to the average Joe on the street, Bush's running of the war looks like a disaster and there looks like no good ways out of it.
Anyway, it's a sad morning here in Missouri, when a good man like Jim Talent pays the price for the weak leadership of the president. Sorry, but I'm p-o'ed about it. |
|
|
Your perspective is truly frightening. On the one hand you are correct; Islamofascists aren't a majority within the Islamic world, and they don't have battleships and atomic bombs at their disposal (but the future's a bit unclear on the nuclear front, isn't it?). And you are correct when you say they can't beat us. But, if you're saying they can't beat us because you believe they aren't a credible threat to our way of life, then you're even scarier than they are. Recent history has shown us that it doesn't take high tech weapons and large armies to shift a country off it's foundation. You blame Bush for 9/11, but he wasn't one of the handful of terrorists that overnight changed America. Oh, and the Islamofascist movement didn't start when Bush was elected. You do know that, don't you? Do you think France, Britain, and the rest of Western Europe aren't different today as a result of radical Islam? Those youth riots in Paris weren't waged by WASPs, and France is hardly a die-hard conservative country. If we pretend that Islamofascists don't aspire to destroy the Western Way of Life, in any way that they can, then we're fooling ourselves. So you're right, Islamists can't beat us, at least not by themselves. But I fear that with your help, through your misguided sense of blame, they will do more long-term damage than any of us can imagine. And if it really is only a tiny fraction of the Islamic world that's doing all this, then why is it the vast majority of Islam isn't repudiating it? |
|
"The vicious cycle that began with Al Gore in 2000 can be ended. Graciousness can be returned to American politics."
You really believe that? I believe it's the right thing to do ... but it's more to avoid more demerits for the Republicans rather than to set an example for the Democrats. They'll resort to viciousness when it suits them to do so. |
|
Someone please correct me if I'm missing the mark here, but, as my Black-conservative-Republican wife and I (I am a White-conservative Republican) watched the house (and, in all likelihood, too, the senate) tip more and more over to the Dems last night (Election Night, November 7) on FOX News, we saw many labeled and self-proclaimed "conservative-Democrats" take house seats away from Republicans (whether they called themselves "moderate," "conservative"--or, whatever--is not really relevant here, at this point).
The way this hardworking conservative-Republican (ME!)--and former military--sees it, we not only had the infamous cycle of the "six-year itch" of the body electorate working against us, but the president's insistence to NEVER really, truly bring the case for the war in Iraq straight, directly to the American people;, then, when it comes to border enforcement/illegal immigration and control/monitoring, there, too, the president--as well as the greater majority (now "minority") of the GOP just didn't seem to come down on this issue hard enough, or seriousness enough, to the public--at least, not to the degree where they (the president and the GOP) could be taken serious about enforcing our borders, then dealing with those illegals now here.
So, cutting through all of the "Blah! Blah! Blah!" of the so-called political pundits and prognosticators from last night and this morning, can we really say that conservatism is dead? Maybe Speaker Pelosi will have more of a fight on her hands than she initially forsees--that is, maybe some of the winning conservative-Democrats newly-elected to the house will stand up for conservative values, maybe not.
We've just got to do a much, much better job of bringing the significance of WINNING in Iraq and Afghanistan to the body electorate here at home! Then, when it comes to illegal immigration, that, too, has got to be hammered home. Everything good that's happened as of late (including the glowing reports of the economy's growth and such) has, also, got to be put out there and heralded, doesn't it?
Just some meager thoughts from a conservative-Republican whose wife is even more upset about what happened last night than her husband is. I guess the proberbial siler lining in all this is that it's a time for reflection in the GOP--more particular, what conservate values and principles are all about and if conservatisim still has a place in American politics, and in the GOP, for that matter.
I, for one, believe conservatism has a place in BOTH areas!
|
|
Dean:
You're completely wrong about the effects of the media. This is arguably the first Presidency of the Information Age. And the media are the communications arm of the Democratic party. They effectively won a battle in an Information war against us last night.
Half the voters, for example, have absolutely no idea the NYT admitted its exposure of the NSA program was wrong and they also don't know about the stunning information contained in the Iraqi Freedom documents that proved Saddam had WMD and was training terrorists. And all they myths they've spun about Bush are now commonly accepted as truth.
If we don't acknowledge this and get up to speed on communications, we'll lose again for the same reason, regardless of the merits of our case. |
|
I voted a straight Republican ticket yesterday, not because I was eager to do so but because it was a lesser of evils. Too bad our elected representatives have turned out to be weak-kneed panty-waists who apparently tried to please everyone and failed miserably to please anyone - especially the people who put them in office. I hope the GOP turkeys remaining in Washington are paying attention and reacquainting themselves with the notion of fundamental integrity.
We can survive this. But before 2008 we need a serious back-to-basics movement in the conservative ranks, and a damn good presidential candidate, or we as a country really will be in deep doodoo. |
|
The next two years will play out as W being a lame Duck. But so will this Congress b alame Duck. In some ways, this Congress will be more Conservative than the last.
Go figure to win the Dems had to pull in Conservatives. Yah Heath Shuller will be right behind Pelosi on her Stems Cell bill. Uh huh.
There will be plenty of infighting.
What is disturbing is that the Dems offered nothing other than "we aren't Republicans. "
The Republicans offered nothing but" we aren't Democrats."I love your laywer analogy.
What I find interesting is that with all the help the Democrats had, namely huge discontent amongst Republicans, and huge Media help, peppered with some corrupt players, and yet they win by a thread. Not to mention a 6th year midterm. They won With Conservatives that don't smell of Iraq and Bush.
I wouldn't expect much to change.
Bush won't cozy up because everytime he has he has been screwed by the Left in Congress. However, Bush hasn't seen a Bill full of Pork he hasn't liked. (ITs that compassionate conservative thing that got him elected that perhaps the base thought was just rhetoric).
The playbook has not changed for Libs to beat a Republican. I blog about it at http://www.untitled-document.org/ |
|
"the people are right to wonder why our boys are dying in Iraq."
And our "girls," too?
Our troops are men and women, not boys and girls. Show some respect. |
|
Dean - I admire you're thoughts on this issue, as on most; however there is one overriding factor in all of this: We're at War for our very existance. If it were only about healthcare and education, like the Dems think it is, this would just be politics and it wouldn't matter which party was in charge. On those issues there is only a competition to see which one can waste the most of our tax money the fastest. The Dems have demonstrated that they want to lose the war and now have the means to do so. Absent this factor, your analysis would be spot on.
I am not now and never have been, a Republican so I do not make this comment out of partisan rancor. |
|
DB:
All I see so far this morning are the same old tired Republican faces mouthing platitudes about a rehash of what got us where we are now, only they can do it better.
The party has no leadedrship, and that starts with 'W' and goes right on down. I agree with your points. Problem is that the right side blogs are only now laying the blame on 'W' (HH and others?) What would we be doing to 'W' this morning if we had won, canonization?
We got a long way to go and there ain't nobody to take us there. |
|
"The first thing I want to do is enumerate a few things that did not cost us this election. It wasn’t the media."
I couldn't disagree more. The conservatives had precious little coverage of their events that allowed then to frame the debate. A huge percentage of voters did not analyse the case for Iraq by reading or debating. They looked at Bumper stickers. They listened for one sentence blurbs that could help then form an opinion without effort. Hence the media effect. Also where was the journalistic challenge to obviously flawed political positioning. Did anyone ask Bob Casey in PA what his position on NSA wiretaps was? Yes they did and the transcript of the interview is hysterical. Did anyone hear about it...very few. The Democrats were allowed to have a 2 position platform throughout the election...We don't like Bush and we need a new direction. Did it occur to any rerporters that maybe we should know what that direction should be? Granted the Presidents not a gifted speaker but when your audience is limited to those in the room your effectiveness is more limited |
|
Like the detainees at Gitmo, libs and jihadists view our compassion as weakness. Bush is congratulating the Dems, as if they would demonstrate graciousness when defeated. It's a ratchet-up situation. Libs will never give an inch, while the Cons give up what little precious territory they have left. This election is a dark day, but only one out of many.
Bush has been a dismal failure with two exceptions--tax cuts and immediate reaction to 9/11. And for those two exceptions, it's been worth tolerating his ineptitude. Imagine Kerry or Gore at the helm during the past six years.
Until we treat the libs as the children they are, and engage in plain talk that exposes them as such, we will continue to wander into the politically correct fog. Bush has demonstrated he lacks the will to lead on that front. It will be interesting to note who jumps in front now. |
|
the flaws in my reasoning, the ill in my logic and the faults in my facts.
Oh no wait, all you did was insult me.
Try again, this time maybe you could, y'know, think?
Or not, you can't make a turtle quick no matter how much you grease it. |
|
Dean - You're being a bit hard on President Bush this morning. He is not without blame, but I really do believe that, contrary to your analysis, he HAS been making the case for the war that you say has not been made ... granted, he has not made the case consistently enough, but on the other hand the facts on the ground have not been inspiring either, no matter what he tells the American people. It does seem that George W. has made the case for his war policy only sporadically, such as whenever the opinion polls reached a new low, or whenever the news from Iraq was particularly disheartening, or during the final weeks of the 2004 and 2006 election campaigns. His main shortcoming, I believe, was that he failed to recognize that in this kind of very long term war of attrition, he needed to run a "permanent campaign" - much like Clinton did so effectively throughout his eight years in office, even extending to the six years since (as he helped pave the way for his wife to eventually succeeded him in office). Although even Clinton's permanent campaign proved of little to no benefit to his Congressional brethren.
Regardless of President Bush's performance, your emphasis this morning on the perceived failures of our President seems a bit misplaced. After all, the average opposition party pickup during 6th year elections over many decades has been around 31 House seats and 6 Senate seats - numbers that are pretty darn close to this election's results. So by comparison to historical norms, Bush has performed about par in leading his party's 6th year election campaign. If on the other hand Bush had led us to a complete bloodbath - say a loss of 50-60 House seats (about the same as the Republicans won during Clinton's first term in 1994) or a dozen Senate seats, then there would be good reason to levy proportionally more blame on the man in the White House. Clearly Clinton and his wife's botched plan to nationalize health care were the primary cause of his party's Congressional losses in '94.
I like Fred Barnes' reasoning in his two most recent articles posted this week on WeeklyStandard.com, wherein he places most of the blame for the election debacle on a do-nothing Republican House and Senate that could not deliver any meaningful legislative reform packages on the key issues before them, i.e., Social Security reform, immigration reform, and spending reform. Plus throughout the campaign most of the Republican candidates clearly ran away from their President and the Iraq theater of the terror war - hardly serving up a profile in courage or example of thoughtful leadership on a tough issue. If you're going to take a hit anyway over the situation in Iraq, at least take your medicine, and stand for something beyond personal popularity.
At the end of the day, if a majority of voters perceive no real payoff from Republican Congressional leadership, then it figures that those voters will look elsewhere. Particularly during a 6th year of a Presidency when the natural inclination of the average voter is to look for change.
Finally, as a practical matter, if we are going to point fingers mainly at the failures of President Bush, then where is the motivation for the Republican Congressional leadership to change its people or its performance during the next two years? If we don't change the formula that clearly didn't deliver positive results in 2006, then that is hardly the prescription for reinvigorating the base voters or persuading swing voters two years hence. The Republican House and Senate leadership really need to think long and hard between now and January about what they've been doing, and review the lessons learned, and based upon that figure out what they're going to do as the Minority for the next two years. And we need to recruit the right candidates to carry forth their plan, much as Rahm Emmanuel recruited his winning slate of "moderate" Democrats this year. To be completely honest, Republicans in many instances need better candidates. Simply being the anti-Democrat party is not going to be enough to persuade and energize a majority in 2008. We may well need a "Contract with America, Part II" that reaffirms the bedrock principles of the first Contract, but which is also updated to reflect today's realities of a world-wide Islamist terror war, a nearly bankrupt Social Security system, and an immigration problem that by no means has been solved with 700 miles of fence. |
|
|
well, we finally cut our noses off despite our faces. thus begins the long slow slog back to another 9/11. sad, very sad. All true Christians in this country should begin right now for God to lift up decent people to vote for in 2008. |
|
Oh no, wait, I am because I thought the original post was from Hugh.
>If you don't think they seek our destruction, before and after the election, YOU are a fool.
Now who are "they" exactly? Every Muslim on the planet? No. A majority? No. A minority? Warmer. A itsy-bitsy tiny fraction? Yes.
Could they destroy us?
No.
>I'm sure you will also be among to first to blame Bush when there is another terror attack.
I'm sorry, did Bush take some sort of oath about protecting America when he got the job? I seem to remember something like that. So yeah, I blame him for 9/11 and I'll blame him for the next attack if he's President. Because that's the job, sorry but I have this goofy idea of holding people responsible for their work.
>Don't think there will be another terror attack?
I think there are terrorist attacks against Americans everyday that Bush is doing nothing about. In fact an average of three Americans are dying a day as a result. And that is completely Bush's fault. |
|
He has done a lot of great things, and keeping the majorities in this long has been his doing, and now of course his undoing.
And on Amnesty if you were from California or Texas like he is and I am you would no that is most likely the only workable solution.
There are roughly 9 million illegal immigrants here who have jobs that most people will not take, rounding them up sending them back and buildign a fence is not a solution. 80% of them are in 2 states, neither of which you heard much debate on this issue. |
|
I agree with 99% of your post.
The only thing I disagree about is giving the Democrats any benefit of the doubt or respect at all. Yeah sure, say it is the proper thing to do in public, act bi-partisan and eager to see them succeed in order to elevate the political discourse.
By next March, it's going to be time to give them a big dose of what they've been dishing out for the last 6 years. While I admit it is difficult for most of us on the Right to stoop so low, or to be as creative as Democrats in their smear tactics, they have a big payback coming their way.
Remember what they did to Newt from 94 to 98? I suggest that when the House inquisitions of DOD and DHS officials begin next Spring, and when the subpoenas of White House staff start flying, not only should Republicans take the gloves off, but we need to draw blood like the Democrats did to Bush and Newt before him.
Let's not kid ourselves that the Democrats should be played pattycake with. Within a few months this whole thing is going to be about 2008 anyway. It will be a lot better to have Democrats walking wounded and limping into 2008 than to embolden them by playing nice.
They need to learn to take it as well as they give it. |
|
I don't claim to be a Republican although I almost always vote that way. I claim to be a fiscal conservative who is interested in a smaller, more limited federal government. Obviously there has not been much overlap between the two during the last six years.
I have been distressed by Bush and the Republican Congress' anti-conservative agenda for the last six years. Their agenda has included record spending growth, record budget deficits, record numbers of special interest earmarks, record numbers of no-bid contracts to favorite cronies, record numbers of guilty pleas for congressmen and their aides, record numbers of illegal immigrants and record trade deficits. The Republicans' agenda also included expensive and inefficient new LBJ-type programs such as No Child Left Behind, and Medicare Drugs.
In 1994, I wholeheartedly supported the Republicans' Contract With America. Given that we have had a Republican President and Congress for almost six years, I wonder whatever happened to the Contract with America’s promise for cleaner government and a balanced budget amendment. How many Republican Congressmen that were elected in 1994 are still running for re-election despite the Contract with America’s 12 year term limits pledge?
I sure don't consider myself as a card carrying, vote-for-anything Republican. I think that it will be good for the Republicans to spend some time in the wilderness so that they can figure out who they really are and whom they represent. Right now they represent K-Street lobbyists.
I am hoping that a Democratic Congress will provide some checks and balances to this wacky White House. Maybe Bush will finally start vetoing some of the Pork-laden spending bills if they have Democratic earmarks instead of Republican earmarks. Back in 1987, President Reagan vetoed a transportation bill because it had 152 Congressional earmarks for PORK projects. In 2005 Bush signed a transportation bill that contained nearly 6,500 Congressional earmarks for PORK transportation projects.
With his No Child Left Behind and Medicare Drugs Bush reminds me more of LBJ, without the good parts. Bush's Iraq war also reminds me eerily of LBJ's Vietnam misadventure. Maybe a divided government will force some sanity into the governing process.
|
|
|
But I wonder if the Republican survivors are up to the challenge. |
|
|
couple of spelling/grammar issues there... |
|
Absolutely right, the ideas that the Republican party SHOULD embrace are good ideas. Republicans fail to do so at their own risk.
Bush would be wise to take the next two years to ensure that the next Republican candidate for President and the next election for legislatures is NOT a referendum on him.
Finally, it was easy to comport ourselves with dignity when elections went our way, to point out the idiocy of lawyering up elections, to criticize logjam politics of filibustering nominess. We should stay true to these structural rules and play a fair game for our principles. We must remain dignified.
|
|
you're the total bonehead, not Dean.
The terrorists in the Islamic world didn't wake up to the election results this morning and decide this Jihad thing is no longer necessary now that the Democrats won in the U.S. Congress.
If you don't think they seek our destruction, before and after the election, YOU are a fool. Toss around paranoid bigot type names all you want, I'm sure you will also be among to first to blame Bush when there is another terror attack.
Don't think there will be another terror attack? YOU are the bonehead then. |
|
|
... and I give my take on it at my blog. |
|
... this is by far the best post I've seen, period, on the election. I disagree with roughly 95% of what you write, but your gracious in defeat and a very funny writer. Your FAQs in particular are fantastic.
When you wrote last night, "Consider yourself duly notified," I had to laugh out loud. Not out of spite (well, not ENTIRELY out of spite), but out of respect for your sense of humor, even in the face of defeat.
Believe me, we libs know how it feels. All. Too. Well.
Looking forward to more, my fellow Bostonian. |
|
|
I'm with you Dean. I'm new to conservatism having only recently embraced reality and shaken the liberal dust out of my clothes. My new found zeal took a pretty big hit last night, but I'm optimistic still and ready to help. So, what do you think that I as a regular working guy can do with my modest means and limited free time to help get things back on track? |
|
Great post. I agree 100% regarding the President's inability to forcefully articulate why we are in Iraq, how important it is and how it all relates to what happened on September 11.
I just don't get it.
|
|
You said: "It’s no secret that I haven’t been a huge admirer of the Senator’s [Allen] campaign. I thought it was beneath him, and beneath our political system."
That was one of the most perplexing campaign performances in recent memory. Was he channelling Admiral Stockdale or what? |
|
Or will he pull a Clinton?
Bush had damaged the party big time. Just how much more damage can he do or will he be able to salvage a crippled party for a comeback in 2008?
I have a feeling that Bush will do more damage, especially if he and the dems get their amnesty bill signed into law. |
|
|
We, unlike our dem opponents, know how to lose and I mean that in the truest sense of a VERB. We know how to adjust, align, tweak, re-align, and much more. I will always be a GOPer for the obvious reasons yes, but for the more subtle as well: because for all of it's Foleyesque nonsence, the GOP is not a metro sexual, can be counted on in a fight and in short, is made of tougher stuff. I pray, I give at church, I forgive, I forget, I trust God: but I am and will always remain a Republican. Looking back: I am surprised, by the way the media made this about Bush (dazzling), it wasn't worse. |
|
|
|