Let’s speak plainly. Republicans got their bleep kicked Tuesday night.
It was ugly. As I sat in a downtown D.C. coffeehouse on a cramped couch surrounded by bloggers blogging, I knew there’d be little good news for Republicans when the sun came up. The people spoke loudly and clearly: “You guys stink.”
In “Another Campaign Begins,” I tried to sum up, in 600 words, why I thought Republicans lost. While Americans voted for “conservative” policies, they rejected the men behind those policies. It is possible that people were so angry about the war in Iraq and recent scandals that they’ve indeed cut off their noses to spite their faces.
Self-mutilation isn’t illegal.
If former House Speaker Dennis Hastert had resigned after it was discovered that he’d known about former Congressman Mark Foley’s e-mails to underage boys for at least four years, would Republicans still be running things? Or if Bush had gone into Iraq more aggressively and cleanly? Or if Republicans had stuck to the “small government” principle? Or…who knows?
I can almost hear talk of socialized medicine, amnesty for illegal aliens (Bush must be in hog heaven!), more government regulations (interference is more precise), and appeasing Muslim terrorists and other murderous thugs. If Bush were a truly conservative president, I wouldn’t be worried. He still has the power to veto whatever he doesn’t like. But we know Bush isn’t a truly conservative president.
The Brits got it right on this one. The Democrats are directionless, and, after 12 years in the minority, out of practice. In another term or two, the people will sweep Republicans back into office. In the meantime, I’m going to enjoy blogging about Democrats’ missteps, of which there will be plenty, and defending conservatism from a “minority” point of view.
Today I’ll listen in on a blogger conference call about “GOP leadership.” Yeah, right. The last thing I want to talk about is Republican leadership. Let’s talk about conservative leadership, socially conservative leadership.
The sun has set on Republican rule. But it will rise again. Next time, I hope it’s conservatives, and not just Republicans, in charge of things.
Update: Impeachment talk? Surely not! [sarcasm off]
Update (3:21 p.m.): VA Senator George Allen has honorably conceded the race to James Webb.
Sources:
- Captain Ed says: No, let’s wait before we start campaigning…
- Money quote: “Couldn’t it have waited a day or two longer?”
- Meet the Blue Dogs: pro-gun, anti-abortion - and Democrat: Yes!
- A Loss’s Silver Lining: “First, they were punished not for pursuing but for forgetting conservatism. Second, they admire market rationality, and the political market has worked. Third, on various important fronts, conservatism continued its advance Tuesday.”
- OK, Democrats: Time to show your plan
- Conservatism Was Not Defeated
- Election Not ‘Voter Rebuke’ for Conservatives, Leaders Say
- We need humor!
LaShawn,
Will you be at the Evangelical Theological Conference in D.C. next week? The theme is “Christians in the Public Square.” Hugh Hewitt will be one of our speakers.
I greatly appreciate your calm, reasonable, and sanely written thoughts that emerge out of that intriguing but seductive place called The Beltway.
Your analysis of the election disaster matches my own.
Blessings!
Comment by A. B. Caneday — 11.09.06 @ 8:48 am
We won’t have a guest worker program with a path to citizenship. We will have almost immediate citizenship with perks, including forgiveness of past taxes, forgiveness for employers who KNOWINGLY hired illegals, and a host of other perks. English will not be our national language and you will see a whole new affirmative action program in hiring and school admissions for these poor, abused new citizens. Oh, and border security, hahaha.
We are looking at the birth of the North American Union and the death of the United States of America.
Comment by dianne — 11.09.06 @ 9:00 am
The only card Democrats could play was Bush is bad, and Iraq is Vietnam. They played that card four years ago, and they lost with it. This time for some reason or another it worked. The scandals in the House, and Republicans thumbing their noses to the people who put them in office didn’t help much either. Happy days are on the horizon though. Bush will be gone in two years, and Iraq just may be off the table. So with that being said, what will be the democrat platform for re election in 2010? The big bad Bush bogey man will be gone. If they run on what they really stand for, its over for the democrats.
Comment by tyrone — 11.09.06 @ 9:06 am
You may want to check out Senator Tom Coburn’s website http://coburn.senate.gov. He has a statement dated 11/8 about the midterm elections. He is one of my senators from OK. It is a good overview of why the Republicans lost. He is pretty hard core in trying to stand on the core principles of the Republican party. I suspect he is not well liked by the current weak rank and file of the party. He is also on the Judiciary Committee. I pray he stays there when the shift changes.
We did not have a Senate race this year. For the most part I like the stands that my HR John Sullivan stands for, particularly on the immigration issue which he has fought for ever since he was elected in 2000. He is not liked much by Pres. Bush. The only thing that I did not like was his support of Medicare D. Maybe he might reconsider supporting high spending programs that are cumbersome at best to implement and impossible to fund on a permanent basis.
I never thought of Bush as a conservative Republican. I voted for him both times because the alternatives were frightening to me.
Comment by Pamela — 11.09.06 @ 9:22 am
All this doomsday talk about life under Democratic rule is funny as hell to me. Ironically, I thought the same thing when the election was stolen in 2000 and guess what, the Earth did not stop turning and America did not fall off the map. I continued breathing and living my life and eventually the rest of you will too.
Comment by Tiffany in Houston — 11.09.06 @ 10:13 am
As I said in 2004 every time I thought about John Kerry becoming president, “I suspect I’ll live.”
Comment by La Shawn — 11.09.06 @ 10:16 am
The election was NOT stolen in 2000 and it’s high time the nutbars got over that nonsense! Several independent investigations have conclusively shown that the President WON Florida, despite Al Gore’s best attempts to maneuver a victory through the courts that he couldn’t win at the polls.
The Democrats, who managed to get through an entire election campaign with no agenda except “I hate George W. Bush” will now have to WALK THE WALK and I suspect they are incapable of doing so. Expect a complete reversal of anything that happened on Tuesday, come 2008. And if Nancy Pelosi’s reign (assuming she gets it) as Majority Leader in any way threatens Senator Clinton, Ms. Pelosi will find herself somehow stymied by her own party. ESPECIALLY if they actually attempt impeachment of the President. That would NOT work in Senator Clinton’s favor in any way, shape or form because it would remind everyone of what a moral degenerate she has (and KEEPS) for a husband.
If the Dems want to be taken seriously, they have to act like ADULTS and not petulant brats - which is what attempting impeachment would show them to be.
Comment by Gayle Miller — 11.09.06 @ 10:27 am
Gayle -
Get real. Like Democrats have the market cornered on acting like children. Like Democrats are the only party with ‘moral failings’.And that’s the problem with Republicans; ya’ll are in such denial. ALL POLITICIANS have issues. Get a CLUE.
LSB, you would be proud to know I voted about 70% Demo/30% Republican in my local elections.
Comment by Tiffany in Houston — 11.09.06 @ 10:35 am
Republican or Democrat I really does not matter much these days. I suspect unless there is a deep awakening things will pretty much stay the same. We will go Dem for a little while then GOP for a little while. It is kind of like when your feet are hurting so you shift your weight to one foot and then when that one starts to ache you shift your weight to the other one and so on and so on.
Comment by jluv1914 — 11.09.06 @ 10:59 am
Wimps! Rumsfeld, Bush, Rice, Cheney the whole lot of them. Not “one” true conservative amongst them!Iraq should have been a cake walk. Too few troops, a botched strategy (if any strategy at all), micro-management and tied hands of those doing the “grunt work”, led to the lack of will to win.
I’ve said all along that you can’t campaign on your opponents lack of idea’s. You have to campaign on your own accomplishments. Progress works! Results work! Close the American/Mexican border, take the gloves off in Iraq, get the faggots and crooks out of the GOP and you’ll start winning elections!
Comment by NeoLibertarian — 11.09.06 @ 11:04 am
The man in Washington that Democrats hate the most, blew this election: Carl Rove. The Democrats successfully made America tired with Iraq. They had oceans of help from the MSM. They painted Bush, in Pelosi’s words, as an “incompetent.” Or as Dean said, the most “incompetent” President of the last half century. (Are you listening Jimmah?, you have been moved to second place!)
Rove and Mehlman decided that all elections are local and they misjudged the national campaign against Bush and Iraq.
The Democrats also worked at screwing up local ballots as in the case of Foley and DeLay. Republicans need to get into the hardball manipulation of the contest games in a more serious way.
Bush is not a conservative. His instincts are not much removed from those of his father. While he was willing to go to war in the Middle East, he would not consider protecting the border with Mexico.
I heard this morning that the Democrats have 12 very developed plans for Iraq which have been out there for a year, but ignored by the Bush Administration.
Welcome to the New Congress. They are going to spin like Dervishes and pick “mandates” out of the thin air. But can they protect us against the madmen of the world? The Egyptian Brotherhood is watching closely. The disgruntled Mullahs of Pakistan are measuring Pelosi’s drapes for her. The Indonesians know that Americans have “gone wobbly.” China is salivating over the return of its old business buddies in key positions. The Riady family is sending flowers. North Korea sees bilateral talks around the corner. Iran knows that the US will now defer to the European Union. Assad can breathe a sigh of relief knowing the pressure is off in Syria. Lebanon can kiss democracy good-bye as it returns as a sister state with Syria. Turkey will look to its own kettle of fish, and take strong measures to keep its Kurds from uniting with the Iraqi Kurds.
Meanwhile, Mexicans will pour into the US so as to be in place when amnesty breaks out.
Oh, yeah, and John Bolton is history. I suggest Bush appoint Al Sharpton to the UN. At least he thinks the same way they do. He could cook up a scheme that makes the Oil for Food scandal look like patty-cake.
Let the charades begin! What what they do, not what they say.
Comment by Heliotrope — 11.09.06 @ 11:29 am
I would have to agree with Tiffany.
The world is not going to end, all that happened was one set of clueless, corrupt, spineless busybodies was replaced with a different group of the same.
I just don’t understand how any intelligent person can’t see that there is not one bit of difference between these two parties.
Dems: socialized health care
Repubs: socialized prescriptions
Dems: tax and spend (hurt current generation)
Repubs: borrow and spend (hurt future generation)
Dems: ever increasing size of government and intrusion into social issues.
Repubs: ever increasing size of government and intrusion into social issues.
Dems: interventionist foreign policy (world police)
Repubs: interventionist foreign policy (world police)
They only differ in means and personality…
I could go on and on but I think I made my point.
The first thing that “conservatives” must understand is that true “conservatism” and “social conservatism” cannot exist together in political ideology. Just the term “social conservatism” in terms of politics, implies a standard for social behavior imposed from the central government through either tax manipulations or laws limiting individual freedom. That is counter to liberty (true conservatism) anyway you slice it. Those contradictions will continue to plague the Republican party until they decide whether or not they are a conservative political party (defender of liberty) or a conservative social organization (defender or morals), the latter should be no where near Washington, a Government budget, or legislative and enforcement power.
The Constitution guaranties and protects life, liberty, and property not feelings. No one is guaranteed not to be offended or disgusted.
If you want to know why the Republicans lost, and why the Democrats will lose in the not to distant future, and then the Republicans will lose again it is simple:
People don’t like being told what to do, what to think, and what to believe in.
While “social conservatism” may be an honorable trait, it is not something that can be legislated. I am a Christian, and if I’m not mistaken, mankind must seek the Kingdom of God, not have it imposed on them.
Social change, even with Christians, should happen through ministry and counsel, not through legislation and taxation.
To respectfully disagree with the learned author of the blog, the Republicans lost because of trying to mix political and social conservatism. But fear not, Democrats will try and mix political and social liberalism, and then they will lose. Then Republican will try again to mix, and lose, and the circle of life continues.
“Social conservatism” is not about legislating Christianity; it’s about encouraging people to rely less on the government and more on themselves. Social conservatism says that the man and woman who choose to have illicit sex and make lots of babies ought to be in a position to take care of them instead of relying on taxpayers. Social conservatism says it is counterproductive for an entire race of people to have babies at a rate of 70 percent w/o the benefit of marriage and a STABLE HOME. Social conservatism says that people ought to take responsibility for themselves and learn to live and deal with the consequences of dumb actions instead of the habitual pointing of fingers to some third party. Social conservatism says that government-mandated skin color preferences are abhorrent, and so on. I think you get the point. Although I support these ideals because I’m a Christian, the ideals themselves can be legislated without appealing to religion. But liberals like yourself don’t seem to understand that. - Admin
Comment by M Wooodward — 11.09.06 @ 11:31 am
LaShawn,
First, I am a libertarian. Libertartian and liberal are two totally different things.
To your arguement, if there is less government, there will be less reliance on government, no legislation needed for that. No welfare…no reliance on welfare.
Although it IS counterproductive to have %70 percent of babies to not have a stable home, can that be regulated? Should it be? Should you have to apply to the government for a license to have children? Who should be given those licenses and under what circumstances? I think you get my point. But, again, no welfare, no reliance on welfare maybe people start to think twice about having babies…no legislation needed.
Can people who scapegoat others for their own problems be legislatively cured? Can there be a law that says it is illegal to blame others for your problems unless you can prove that you are not at fault first?
If their was less government, their would have been no skin preferences and it would have been abhorrent to have brought it up in the first place…no legislation was needed there.
So aside from being labeled a liberal (why I don’t know), what you can see is that I am promoting “true conservatism”. Small government, period.
Comment by M Wooodward — 11.09.06 @ 11:56 am
Gee whiz LaShawn, why don’t you just kick my dog!
Comment by M Wooodward — 11.09.06 @ 12:01 pm
Pardon me for calling you a liberal! I know how insulting that can be.
I’m not advocating more government to advance social conservatism. It’s less government that I want, not more. By legislating, I mean enacting laws and creating policies that restrict government from using taxpayers’ money from programs that promote dependency and decadence. I won’t touch the license remark. Quite silly, as you know. The rest of your comment is sort of incoherent, and I’ve stuff to do, so…
Comment by La Shawn — 11.09.06 @ 12:07 pm
Interesting thoughts. Personally, i enjoyed being able to read something that wasn’t just an emotional rant.
I agree Bush never was a real conservative. He is probably what you would call a centrist–trying to keep both sides happy. His greatest failing is his inability to admit mistakes, or make corrections. That is also a large problem among Republicans in general, as you pointed out.
It will be very intersting to see if the Democrats do any better. Their track record is about the same on that score.
Comment by Coach Mark — 11.09.06 @ 12:55 pm
I am so sick and tired of all of the fingerpointing. When are we going to see accountability.
When are people going to stop blaming Republicans/Democrats for the ills of the country.
It is so tiresome and meaningless.
Comment by Jack — 11.09.06 @ 2:24 pm
La Shawn, good debrief on the election in the examiner. Bravo.
Just as Ol’ St Nick is making his list & checking it twice, I’d love to get a Conservative/Libertarian list of Congressional Critters and Contenders up and running. Instead of checking it twice, we’ve got the whole wide web, to highlight where they stand on the issues and contrast pros/cons of their voting & bills sponsored record.
But alas, I just don’t have the energy & time for something like that.
In any case, you’re right about ‘08 and with or without the GOP, we need a new, improved, Contract With America (i.e. Term Limits, Sunsets on various entitlements/subsidies, Repeal the 17th Amendment etc) as the litmus test of who gets our support.
Comment by Andy — 11.09.06 @ 2:37 pm
Andy,
You can start with this, at least for the current critters:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/uploads/ci-109-3.pdf
The “Conservative Index” according to The New American, “rates congressmen based on their adherence to constitutional principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility, national sovereignty, and a traditional foreign policy of avoiding foreign entanglements.”
Of course, the only person that rates a 100 out of 100 is Representative Ron Paul (R-TX).
I got that link from an article on LewRockwell.com (http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance86.html), in that article, the author noticed that in the Republican controlled Senate:
“The average score for the Republicans was a dismal 24. The Democrats at least managed a 29. The lone Independent scored a 30. Ten Republican senators scored a 0. None of the Democrats did.”
This is a conservative party?
Comment by M Wooodward — 11.09.06 @ 3:05 pm
Libertarians amuse me. They pretend to promote a minimum of government regulation, but they won’t quite admit that “no holds barred” fits their ideology.
So, what is the list of exceptions that prove the rule for libertarians? Surely they don’t condone stone cold murder. But do they consider rough sex between consenting adults that ends in one combatant ending up dead to be of no business to the state?
Libertarians, moderates and progressives have one issue in common: they are all moral relativists. The problem with moral relativism is that it reguires a referee du jour. So, libertarians, who do you turn to, if not the church or the state? The ACLU?
Comment by Heliotrope — 11.09.06 @ 7:37 pm
now it gets interesting. i haven’t quite given up on the gop just yet, but their actions over the next 2 years will determine if i ever vote for them again, or go the noble-but-pointless “libertarian” route.
for the next 2 yrs., the gop had better act just as the dems have for the last 12: block, delay, hinder, lie their butts off when necessary, & filibuster each and every little thing. and then blame it all on the dems.
the gop stupidity of the last 8 or so years is understandable, i guess. “power..corrupts..absolute…” you know. i can see how they got fat & happy and believed everything the yes-men told them. but playtime’s over now. time to go to work. and ‘work’ better mean ‘use their contemptible tactics on them, and make them pay’. it’s what the dems will be trying to do, you can be sure. politics is no place for sissies.
if the gop can’t manage to do at least that much, then they can burn in…uh….’heckfire’, for all i care. i’ll not waste my vote on a bunch of spineless sissy pantywaists.
PS - what exactly IS a pantywaist? have heard the word all my life; assumed it’s an insult….but don’t exactly quite know for sure what it is. anybody?
Comment by ed — 11.09.06 @ 7:50 pm
Ed, you appear to be writing from what some of us refer to as “opposite land”, where the GOP played nice, and did not try to marginalize and demean Democrats, or refer to people who did not agree with Bush as “traitors” or “Defeatocrats.”
You should consider joining this world for some time, or your advice will gain the Republicans a long, lonely walk in the wilderness. Or perhaps in opposite land, a return to power in glory.
Comment by Xanthippas — 11.09.06 @ 8:32 pm
Senator Lincoln Chafee, who was defeated by Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse on Tuesday, is not giving John Bolton his vote to become permanent US ambassador to the UN; as a result, Republicans will not have the needed votes to confirm him.
Now, is it any wonder why wimps like this lost on Tuesday? Good riddance!!
Pelosi and Bush do lunch…bi-partisans my eye. Bush gave the Dems Rumsfeld’s head on a platter, and Pelosi won’t help with Bolton. It’s going to be a bumpy ride.
Conservatism is the way; unfortunately, Bush is not.
Comment by Right Snipe — 11.09.06 @ 8:57 pm
LaShawn, I really like you. I read your blog quite often but as many Republicans, you have a skewed perspective of Democrats.
We don’t eat babies, I assure you. We prefer legal immigration to the illegal kind. We want to work for what we have, not have it handed to us - we’re just sick of being ripped off.
So I ask you, as one American to another, please believe me when I tell you that many of us are a lot more conservative than you think. We’re liberal conservatives or conservative liberals depending on the *issue*.
I don’t have a problem with rich people. I’m happy for them. I don’t even mind being poor, but I do mind being made to feel that if I’m not rich that there must be something wrong with me. There isn’t. I want what I have because what I have is enough.
We’ll never see eye to eye on everything, but that’s good. In America, our diversity is our greatest strength. Unfortunately, it’s also our greatest weakness. It’s time to heal our Achille’s heel and go back to being one country. United.
I appreciate that you read my blog often, but you’ve obviously never read the About page once. I’m not a Republican. - Admin
Comment by Unique — 11.09.06 @ 9:17 pm
—Economic Policy brought to you by the AFL-CIO.
—Socialized Medicine, in which we all go to the hospital in order to hasten our deaths.
—Trashing the Patriot Act, in which case we all die anyway…
Here come the Dems!
Comment by Glamchild — 11.09.06 @ 10:26 pm
On Tuesday, 59 percent of Wisconsin voters approved a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. But Democratic State Senator Jon Erpenbach is hoping to reverse the effect of the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage with ANOTHER constitutional change. He is preparing an amendment that would constitutionally ban “discrimination” claiming the marriage amendment that was approved by Wisconsin voters discriminates against sexual orientation.
The people have spoken loud and clear but the Democrats have their fingers in their ears.
Comment by shmopot — 11.10.06 @ 12:16 am
Let the games begin! We, meaning the “consumers” of the movement need to convene some sort of Town Hall meeting and hash out a manifesto for going forward. Sort of “our” Contract with America.
We didn’t lose our way, those knuckleheads in DC did- and I agree, Bush is not a conservative and never truly has been one. His comment that he now has a better chance of passing “amnesty reform” because San Fran Nan is going to be Speaker speaks volumes. The last time we got No Child Left Behind when he wanted to make nice.
Spare me, Mr. President. I’m tired of you and the Boy Genius.
Comment by Persecutor — 11.10.06 @ 7:59 am
To #22, do you remember Superman’s cousin, Bizarro? With the upside down S and basically the can’t-do-right superman look-a-like?
I think you’re referring to Bizarro-world…
In Bizarro-world, we have more than 2 parties, we have term limits, politicians who actually keep their promises. Oh and a scandal-free Capitol Hill.
Oh how I wish for a Bizarro world….
Comment by lukeNC — 11.10.06 @ 10:50 am
Dems Wearing Masks
Nancy Pelosi, the she-wolf left-winger who has never shown President Bush any respect throughout his presidency, and has made a career of spewing mud-splattering diatribes and criticism towards him is now poised to work with our president?
Trackback by Talkwisdom — 11.10.06 @ 11:38 am
M. Woodward, thanks for the link. I’m aware of thinktanks and other advocacy groups that publish indexes based on their agenda.
I’m thinking of something more dynamic. To wit, the recent website for Fed transparency in earmarks etc came about only from external pressure, mainly the bloggers. How about doing the same for this CWA Manifesto? Set up a repository ‘blog’ scaled to cover the national Presidential race all the way down to the tiniest local race for Podunk Council. Where as far as conservative/independent/libertarian blogsphere is concerned, we’re collaborating & shaping the document and holds everyone’s feet to the fire (name the race and willing bloggers can track that field)?
This isn’t a expansive, kumbaya type of platform, rather a distillation of 10 - 25 ‘articles of faith’ at the macro level.
For instance 3 key ingredients of an immigration policy: 1) secure border, 2) streamlined path to permanent resident/naturalization & 3) streamlined path to guest worker. In that order. The details are a matter of politics (from Bush’s comprehensiveness to Buchanon’s “keep ‘em all out” or Pelosi’s “let ‘em all in and vote”), but the 3 pillars are indisputeable. If a politican was only intresested in #1 or #3, he doesn’t sccore as well as one who will deal with all 3 in order.
The blogoshere’s role would be to birddog the elected and contenders to see if their record and/or talking points jive with what they claim to stand for. If they don’t, they’ll be called on it.
Comment by Andy — 11.10.06 @ 2:50 pm
All I want to know is where I can find Nancy’s ‘100 hour plan’, so I can keep track if she and the Dem’s keep their promises.
Or am I just deluding myself?
I honestly don’t know what to think about this election - I used to be a Democrat, but after getting married, having kids and becoming financially stable, plus Bill and Hill’s doing nothing against Islamofascism, I switched sides. I like a lot of what the Reps stand for, but the increase in government spending and the fact that the Taliban are gaining again in Afghanistan trouble me; but the Dem’s have moved so far to the left that I can’t go back to them, especially when former Dem presidents like Carter just can’t seem to keep their noses out of the current president’s business, or they embrace the Cindy Sheehans and Michael Moores of this world.
So what to do? I don’t trust Pelosi, and the rest of the 60’s radical holdovers that now control the Dems. I feel totally lost politically.
LaShawn, thanks for hearing me out.
Comment by Dawn — 11.10.06 @ 7:21 pm
Dawn,
Check the NY Times - I guess the economy is now good (no mention of hitting $12,000 before the election, of course), and Afghanistan has good news (only bad before the election, of course). So everything is once again rosy according to the leftist MSM.
I’ve been reading lots of excellent commentary today, but one of them really stood out. The writer says that the only thing that can win against a “religious” opponent is another “religion.” And he says Christianity in the West is too weak and dedicated Christians to few to do anything about Islamofascists. He’s basically saying we’re finished as a culture. And I couldn’t think of any powerful arguments to rebut his reasoning.
Which goes back to our selection of the Democrat party to run things. We will leave Iraq soon and without any decisive win - but there are no boats to carry the poor Iraqis who trusted us out of the country to another place (even though they might die in the try). I just hope we don’t have to watch news reports showing people desperately climbing fences around our embassy while we leave them to the terrorists. That seems to be the only thing we’re good at these days.
Watch and pray.
Comment by Donna Goddard — 11.10.06 @ 8:30 pm
Of course Democrats will try to impeach Bush, La Shawn! It is the only idea they have.
Meanwhile, the Islamofascists lick their chops in anticipation……
Comment by Mwalimu Daudi — 11.10.06 @ 9:21 pm
The post-election analysis reminds me of Richard Nixon claiming a “mandate” the night of the 1972 election. As soon as I heard that, I wanted my vote back. I had voted against McGovern and had no illusions about Nixon. Already many defeated Senate and Congressional candidates are blaming George Bush. They forget that Congress did worse in the polls than the President. Senator Specter is telling Conservatives that they must become “more progressive” [more like Democrats]. He ignores the fact that many Democrats who were elected ran as conservatives. Speaker-to-be Pelosi is calling for the President to be Appeaser-in-Chief [which is better than the far Left’s wish to force the President to be Surrenderer-in-Chief].
What I find troubling about this turnover as opposed to the one in 1994 is that the Democrats did not have to offer any specifics as the “Contract with America” did. They blamed Republicans for not raising the minimum wage but did not say how much they want to raise it to or who would be covered by it. They did not offer a plan for Iraq. Perhaps like Nixon they have a “secret” plan. They talk of “ethics reform” but unless all relatives of an elected official are banned from serving as lobbyists, I will consider the plan a sham. For the good of America, I pray they accomplish worthwhile goals.
It’s ironic that this election seems to prove that President Bush was right in trying to establish a democracy in Iraq. Democracies are very impatient with war and disinclined to go to war. I can’t agree with my friends who believe that Muslims are incapable of establishing and maintaining a democracy. Also, it is possible our government is being punished for it’s own success. No attacks have occurred on our homeland since 9/11 and our collective memory seems short.
It will be especially interesting to watch the supposed Conservatives who ran as Democrats. How will they be treated by the Liberal leadership of their party? How will they be treated by the media? Every media person seems to have a list of Republicans that can be counted on to criticize President Bush and the Republican Party. Will these newcomers be as popular with the media? I can’t help but wonder.
Comment by Evon — 11.10.06 @ 11:22 pm
yesyesyes, that’s all very nice: “republicans”, “elections” and all that stuff. but what we need here is the definition of “pantywaist”. doesn’t ANYONE know what it means? c’mon now, people! focus!!
Comment by ed — 11.11.06 @ 2:10 am
Tiffany, I’ve got to hand it to you for your willingness to mix it up with us Conservatives and that you continue to read this blog. About the so-called “stolen election.” In all the recounts Gore never was ahead in counted votes. If candidate Gore had won his HOME STATE of TENNESSEE, he would have been elected President and we never would have had to think about chads–hanging, pregnant or otherwise. I have a suspicion that Democratic leaders keep mentioning this to give Democratic voters a reason to think it’s OK to cheat at the ballot box. Also, people whose reasoning and research seemed sound to me believe that were not for voter fraud, George W. Bush would have won Wisconsin’s electoral votes in 2000 and 2004.
Comment by Evon — 11.11.06 @ 2:08 pm
#36.
Evon, with respect, what’s the difference between a Democrat citing voter fraud, and a Republican citing voter fraud? Do two ’sides’ of America really deeply distrust the ‘other half’ or is it just reading these blogs that gives a strong partisan whiff of distrust and generalizing?
Comment by JohnD — 11.11.06 @ 3:41 pm
He is probably what you would call a centrist–trying to keep both sides happy.
I’ve never seen Bush as anyone trying to keep the other side happy, he’s definitely not a man who cares about his approval rating, and sometimes not even how many people even of his own party disagrees with him. Even though I don’t agree with him about a lot of stuff, I admire his stick-to-your-belief approach,(even though admittedly, he does have a hard time admitting his own mistakes). I’m an African American single mother raised in the ghetto to “ALWAYS VOTE A STRAIGHT DEMOCRATIC TICKET!!”, who voted Republican in the last 3 presidential elections,(I know the dirt in my daddys grave is probably smooth from all the spinning) with no regrets about that decision. However I will only do that as long as I believe that party to most align itself with Biblical principles. Of coarse they have scandal too, but we must deal with the scandal, meaning taking disciplinary action, including firing people when necessary, (one of the things Bush doesnt seem to be willing to do) but not get distracted from the issues at hand. I live in Missouri and it breaks my heart that Amendment 2 passed, allowing cloning in the name of medicine and so-called healing to pass, which if Our Lord doesn’t return soon will only add to the millions of unborn HUMAN BEINGS already being SLAUGHTERED LEGALLY in the Greatest Nation in the World. But this is why I vote Republican(this and many other issues), but only as long as their conservative stance continues on the issues, will I continue to do so.
Comment by deborah — 11.11.06 @ 6:59 pm
Good morning, all. Hope everyone has/had a blessed Sunday!
Tiffany: I respect your 70/30 voting. Seems you’re open to making up your own mind, not swallowing talking points. Republicans can be just as ethically-challenged as Democrats; however, the difference appears to be that when Republicans become “Republicrats” their base is at least willing to make them pay a price for it. The Democrats base appears to be genetically-wired to vote for their candidates, even if they don’t particularly agree with their views, or even like them very much.
WRT the difference between the parties the day after election, I submit that the ability to concede a lost election without court action may be one difference. Also, perhaps the confidence that the US, in 2004, could monitor and police its own national elections, as opposed to strident Democrat calls for “assistance” from bastions of democracy such as Bulgaria, Albania, etc., may be another.
Personal opinions aside, we need to pray for and support our elected representatives as they try to get past 2-years’ accumulated venom and work together (for a change). Frankly, I think the person needing the most prayer will be Nancy Pelosi. Her party cultivated the strident devils on the far left at the same time it was opting for rather conservative Dems to run in the targeted races…victory may have been easier to win than hold. The loud voices on the far left will not go quietly into the political night when the party moves to the center. And the unions won’t throw confetti when immigration/amnesty raises its head. I suspect Ms. Pelosi will find her biggest problem will be maintaining party discipline and subduing the recalcitrant elements in her own party…dealing with the Republicans will be a comparative cakewalk.
And here’s a freebie. Everyone wonders why the President fired Don Rumsfeld the day after the election, rather than earlier, when it would have “helped” Republicans. Do any of you really think that would’ve been interpreted as anything other than the President caving to Democrat pressure, and that it would’ve been seen as a further sign of Republican disarray? Party politics is a rough game…you have to deal from strength, not weakness. Rumsfeld’s head was the price Pelosi and Reid demanded for their cooperation–it was a negotiation, where each party had to get something it wanted. Democrat leadership can now show a victory to their partisans, and the President will be able to show something to his partisans when Congress reconvenes. What it may be remains to be seen, but I suspect immigration/amnesty may be it. That’s the way it was done in the remote past (i.e., LBJ, Ronald Reagan). Does anyone think that negotiated settlements of thorny issues isn’t a better way to go than the partisan madness that’s produced two decades of gridlock? If you’ll read the Federalist Papers you’ll see that this was exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind.
Nice to share with you folks again after a protracted absence…Have a great day, everyone!
Cheers//Hektor
Comment by Hektor — 11.12.06 @ 8:57 am
And So It Begins!
It’s going to be two years of interesting blogging! Like La Shawn Barber, lots of us throughout the blogosphere will be watching for missteps from the Democraps. We will have pleny to write about, for instance this;
Trackback by Dagney's Rant — 11.12.06 @ 2:26 pm