PDA

View Full Version : The End Of "Compassionate Conservatism?" I Hope So.



ElMariachi
11-08-2006, 02:57 PM
After the election results from yesterday, I am hoping that this marks a rebirth with the Republican Party and brings them back to their Reagan-conservative roots. A party that focuses more on removing government from the equation, than adding on to it, a party that is fiscally responsible, and is against any and all adventures in radical socialism.

I was flipping through the radio today, and I heard Rush Limbaugh speak, and he made one really great point about the elections. "Conservatism did not lose last night, the Republicans did."

I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one that has noticed that to beat the Republicans, the Democrats themselves had to run on a conservative platform. Many of the candidates that were elected, ran as conservatives basically. There were many who ran on platforms that were pro 2nd Amendment, anti abortion and against tax increases. Now, of course, considering that you will be combining these new Democrats in with members of the extreme left like Pelosi, it will be dependent on these new Democrats to keep to the promises they made, otherwise, it will be a short stay for them in Congress, especially in districts like in Florida, where the Democrat only won because the other guy's(Negron) name wasn't on the ballot due to the Foley scandal.

In some cases, the Democrats that were elected, were more conservative than the Republicans they replaced. So I don't see what all this cheerleading on the extreme left is about. Liberalism did not win. This election was not a mandate on extending liberalism in this country, but rather on the Republicans straying from their true roots.

If Democrats had run strictly on a liberal platform, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of them having won this election, which is why they had to go out and find conservatives, former Republicans in some cases, military veterans and other types that would appeal to red state voters. Now if these candidates have any notion of betraying the ideals on which they ran upon, it will be a bloodbath in 2008, as people are going to hold these politicians at their word.


Some Republicans will undoubtedly see this election as a mandate that they need to FURTHER to the left, which would be a huge mistake. If the Republicans want to win, if they want to take back Congress, they need to do it by eliminating the gimmicks, stop trying to push wedge issues to get people to the polls, and instead rely on old fashioned, common sense conservatism, especially fiscally. I think if they stick to these principles, they can not lose, because the Republican base will be energized, and generally these values are more in line with mainstream America than the socialist agenda that some of the Democrats have in mind.




Also, Republicans need to learn a thing or two from the Democrats about playing politics.


They really ought to take the gloves off from now on. Republicans have been like that goofy little kid in the schoolyard, who is always trying to be everyone's friend, but for his attempts, he gets bullied and constantly is a victim of the "Kick Me" sign. Democrats went after every single miscue that the Republicans had, even the slightest offense was attacked. Republicans need to return the favor.


They could have seized upon Harry Reid's connections to Abramoff as a sign that it was a bipartisan issue, or they could have gone after William Jefferson(who was re-elected.....so much for the promised "integrity" in Congress) and many others.

If the Democrats want to play these games, then the Republicans need to engage them, instead of letting themselves be flayed in public, repeatedly, while not doing anything to shine light upon the many errors of the other side.

nonAtlas
11-08-2006, 03:00 PM
Actually it never had a chance, because bythe time President Bush came to town, the Republicans had become the Democrats. They promised to end the "department of education"...and spending on that is more than twice what it was in 1994. Doubling the size of government is not "conservative".

Dr.Strange
11-08-2006, 03:02 PM
I was thinking the same thing. Im curious to see how the conservative democrats will handle the very liberal leaders of the party..

Like what McCain said, the republican party needs to be truly fiscally conservative instead of spending money on bogus programs. He said that this election was expected and it should be a wake up call..

ElMariachi
11-08-2006, 03:04 PM
Here is an article from before the election that I felt was right on the money.




In their 2004 book, "The Right Nation," John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge chronicle America's rightward tilt. "If American politics is a seesaw, it is an unevenly balanced one. Imagine Dennis Hastert at one end of the seesaw and Nancy Pelosi on the other end, and you have some idea about which party is sitting with its legs dangling in the air. In the war between two Americas, Hastertland has been winning."

Until today, that is. This midterm election, in the view of many optimistic liberals, will be a forceful repudiation of the inevitability of American conservatism. A victory after so many years of losses will mark the beginning of the end to the country's nightmarish reactionary drift. According to Howard Dean, "The American people are fed up and want to change course. Democrats are offering the American people a new direction." But will it really be the dawn of a new day for the American left? After a cold look at the evidence, liberals might decide to take the champagne off the ice. The victory, assuming there is one, will hardly be glorious, and long-term trends are still distinctly right wing.

Some doomsday scenarios envision a 45-seat shift in the House of Representatives and a substantial Democratic majority in the Senate. These predictions, when looking at the actual data, are probably unrealistic. My colleague Danny Hayes, a political scientist who studies polling, says that the most reasonable picture has the Democrats winning 20-30 seats and taking narrow control of the House, while failing to win the Senate. This assessment is consistent with what most mainstream pollsters are predicting.

No bloodbath--but still major progress for the left, right? Not really. We are in the midst of a deeply unpopular war, and an electorate in a foul mood. A Washington Post-ABC News poll last week found that more than 30% of likely voters planned to cast their ballots on Nov. 7 for Democrats specifically as a sign of opposition to George Bush. Congressional Republicans are hardly helping their own cause, between corruption and sexual misconduct. And the Republican Congress has so alienated authentic conservative voters with its porky profligacy that lots of Republicans will probably stay home.

By all rights, the Republicans left in Congress after this election should be able to pool to work in one minivan. Instead, they are probably facing a 10% setback in House seats--hardly a disaster by midterm election standards. What's more, many of the Democrats at the vanguard of today's political "revolution" are not exactly left-wing zealots. Robert Casey, who leads incumbent Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, opposes abortion rights. On issues of gun control and immigration, Senate candidate Harold Ford of Tennessee sounds like a Republican. James Webb, who seeks to unseat Virginia Sen. George Allen, actually used to be a Republican. The lesson is that Democrats can win modestly if the Republicans implode, and preferably if they look more or less like Republicans. This is hardly a mythic victory for the American left; indeed, the larger cultural picture--in which the election is but a minor political datum--remains strikingly bleak for American liberalism.

Consider the effect of religious faith, which endures as the most important cultural fault line. On the whole, America is fundamentally religious, with 85% of people expressing allegiance to an organized faith and a third attending a house of worship weekly. Secularism is an exotic taste--except on the political left. According to the General Social Survey, liberals are a third less likely than the rest of the population to worship regularly, and less than half as likely as conservatives. The percentage of self-described liberals who say they have "no religion" has more than doubled since the early '70s.

This cultural trend represents a growing political liability for the left. Only about one in four Americans currently say they believe that the Democratic Party is friendly toward religion, according to the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. The practical impact of this belief is nicely described by author Stephen Carter in his book, "The Dissent of the Governed." He describes two black evangelical women who change their affiliations from liberal political groups to conservative Christian organizations, explaining that "they preferred a place that honored their faith and disdained their politics over a place that honored their politics and disdained their faith." These women are part of a real trend among religious Americans: According to the National Election Surveys, religious Democrats are more likely than any other group to change their party affiliation. Between 2000 and 2002, they were nearly four times more likely to do so than secular Republicans.

There's certainly more to ideology than faith, of course. Another major cultural force is immigration, which--as liberals hope and conservatives fear --has the power to counteract the conservatizing effects of religion. "Today we march, tomorrow we vote," was the slogan chanted earlier this year by Latinos demonstrating in the streets against Republican-led immigration crackdowns. The warning made the blood of many conservatives run cold. It shouldn't have; the political mobilization of Latinos may actually expand the cultural dominance of the American right. According to the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey in 2000, while American Latinos are about as likely as non-Latinos to say they are politically conservative, those not (yet) registered to vote are significantly more conservative than both voting Latinos and the population at large. In other words, a growing, more politically active Latino U.S. probably means a more conservative U.S. as well.

This counterintuitive fact is good news for the cultural right. But can Republicans capitalize politically on this pattern? Some doubt it, given the party's perceived hostility to immigration and apparent willingness to overlook the racial insensitivity of Sen. George Allen's "macaca" remark about an Indian-American man at a recent campaign event.

So much for religious folks and immigrants. What about young people? Maybe the left can, like it always has, look to the culture of youth to jumpstart the progressive movement. But even here, things are going conservatives' way. The left's traditional edge among young adults shrank from 1974 to 2004, as the percentage of adults 18-25 who labeled themselves political liberals fell by 12%, and the percentage saying they were conservative rose by 143%.

Waning youth support for the left may be partly due to the adroitness of conservative causes. But it probably also has to do with liberal inability or unwillingness to build an authentic youth grass-roots movement. A new and hotly debated book by Columbia University sociologist Dana Fisher documents the fact that most liberal political groups have dismantled their grassroots operations since the mid-'90s and subcontracted their activism to a small group of for-profit and nonprofit companies. In other words, the Republican canvasser at your door is a volunteer and true believer. But the kid asking for your signature and contribution for the local Democratic Party is probably a paid employee. This may be evidence that the left can no longer build grass-roots support to maintain itself, or that it has cut corners and sent its support-building mechanisms ideologically offshore. Either way, it bodes ill for progressive causes.

These are just three examples of the cultural patterns that continue to strengthen the right in America. Many more can be found in fertility patterns, the effects of education, and elsewhere. They tell us that conservatives have much to smile about, no matter what happens today at the polls. Reasonable people will disagree as to whether this is grounds for celebration or a call to fight. Either way, however, it is undeniable that the true ideological battle in America goes far deeper than a midterm election.



I believe that conservatism is here to stay, but true conservatism, not this neo-con garbage that we've been fed recently. Why the Republican Party insists on dismissing their base, I don't know, but the reason the Democrats have succeeded, is because they continue to appease the unions, the lawyers, and everyone else under their umbrella. Republicans need to stop trying to act liberal for popularity points, and run as conservatives, judging by the trends in this nation, if they did that, focusing on limited government, lowered taxes, more overall freedoms, and not just lip service, they would have no problem winning elections.

xer0xed
11-08-2006, 03:05 PM
George Bush killed the Republican Party... and he's a true destroyer of conservatism.

I think a lot of the democrats that won were preaching a lot of the same positions as George W. Bush. If they act the same way in office, we're in some severe trouble. I wish Limbaugh would have talked about all the voter fraud today, pretty odd he wouldn't even mention it. Also, he was whistling a very different tune about how conservatives had to vote Republican regardless in the elections, and today he switches to how the Republican isn't a conservative party anymore. Well, duh? I just don't trust the guy or put much stock in what he says.

ElMariachi
11-08-2006, 03:13 PM
Yet another great article from yesterday.


As this is written, we do not know the outcome of Tuesday's elections -- and may not for some days, due to recounts and court challenges. Nevertheless, we can safely predict certain things will occur on Wednesday.

First, if Democrats don't at least retake the House, many pundits will say that the whole party might as well close up shop. With such an incredibly favorable political environment, they will say, Democrats will never be in a stronger position to regain control. Therefore, failure to do so must mean that the Republican advantage is so strong in terms of money, organization and gerrymandering that Democrats could be locked out of control for perhaps decades to come.

Second, anything less than a blowout victory of, say, 40 seats in the House and six in the Senate for the Democrats will be viewed as a de facto victory by Republicans. If Democrats only get the 15 seats they need for control of the House and don't get the Senate, Republicans will portray this as a massive defeat, since they should have done so much better given their advantages.

Third, the "Blue Dog" Democrats -- moderates and conservatives from red states -- will suddenly find themselves to be the most popular guys in town. There were 37 of them in the last Congress and there probably will be more in the new one. Therefore, the Blue Dogs will hold the balance of power. They can all expect many invitations to the White House over the next two years.

Fourth, there will be much talk about Republicans raiding the Democratic side for votes from members in red states and possibly putting together a conservative coalition that could effectively run the House despite Democratic control, as was the case in the 1950s. Expect Republicans to shine the glare of publicity on Nancy Pelosi and make her a foil the same way Democrats used Newt Gingrich. As representative of possibly the most left-leaning district in America, it is inevitable that she is going to say and do things that are going to make every red state Democrat cringe.

Fifth, Republicans will repeatedly proclaim that they still control the White House and therefore the national agenda. The experience of Republican control of Congress during the last six years of the Clinton administration shows that it is a poor substitute for having the presidency. And Republicans have lots of experience controlling the White House while Democrats had Congress. Presidents like Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan had little difficulty pursuing their agendas despite Democratic control of one or both houses of Congress during their administrations.

Sixth, expect President Bush to remind Congress that he has veto power. Republicans undoubtedly will retain enough seats in both the House and Senate to sustain all such vetoes. Or they may simply kill Democratic bills in the Senate with filibusters, just as Democrats have been killing Republicans measures for years even though Republicans today have a bigger margin than the Democrats will have next year.

And when Democrats fail to act on Republican initiatives, expect Bush to denounce the do-nothing Congress as Harry Truman did back in 1948. Moreover, Bush can create showdowns with Congress on issues where he has the stronger hand, as Bill Clinton often did, putting Democrats into no-win situations that will quickly erode their support.

Thus, we see that even if Democrats retake control of the House and maybe the Senate as well, there are many challenges that await them. The Republicans will still have a lot of leverage against Democratic initiatives. And let us not forget that everything that goes on in Congress the next two years will be against the backdrop of a presidential election in 2008. It is quite possible that a Democratic victory in Congress this year will actually forestall what otherwise would have been a White House victory in 2008.

Many political observers believe that voters basically like gridlock, with different parties controlling the White House and Congress. Thus, ironically, Democratic control of Congress for the next two years may give Republicans just the edge they need in 2008 -- especially given the president's overwhelming role in foreign policy and the importance of that issue in today's world.

Remember, too, that Democrats thought their Senate victory in 1986 marked the beginning of the end for Republicans. They quickly moved to investigate Iran-Contra and pass liberal legislation. But the hearings went nowhere and the bills were vetoed. Two years later, voters elected Reagan's vice president, George H.W. Bush, to the White House. I believe that they did so in part to put a check on the Democratic Congress, as they did so often in the postwar era. Indeed, [b] I think that Democratic control of Congress has the potential to rejuvenate Bush's presidency, just as Republican control gave new life to Clinton's. [/b[


I think a conservative coalition is possible. There are more conservatives in the Democratic Party than there have been for years. If they hold to form, then bipartisanship will be quite in reach. However, this will only anger the far left, the Moveon.Org, the Soros people, who think they now have a mandate to push their radical agenda upon America, including high taxes, fulfilling issues like reparations and so on. This will not sit well with the American people and will only guarantee a swift departure from the leadership of Congress.


Nancy Pelosi will be the new Newt Gingrich. If she fails to make efforts to cooperate and compromise, and insists on acting like a true San Francisco Democrat, she will be called on it. America knows relatively very little about this woman, and if people get the sense that she is just muttering one talking point after another, her stay as the Speaker will be quite tenuous as well.


The Democrats ran a bunch of conservatives to beat these Republicans, if they want to keep them in office, they need to strike a balance between the fringe left, and the conservatives who appealed to so many red state voters.

Republicans need to discover some new leaders, people need to step up, like Inhofe of Oklahoma, and McCain, who have been against massive pork spending and have been advocating fiscal responsibility for years. Republicans will decline to listen to these voices of reason at their own peril. If they continue in this mold of trying to be Democrat-Lite, or even conserative-lite, they will continue to lose elections, and watch as the Democrats take the presidency in 2008. History bodes well for the Republicans to take the presidency in 2008, but its up to them to reinvent the party, to get away from this neoconservative legacy, and start a new one that will attract independents, an agenda that does not focus upon exclusion, but inclusion, that focuses on fiscal responsibility, diminished overall government influence and maintaining strict guidance from the Constitution, as should be.



Once again, if Republicans stop running like neo-cons, or neo-liberals, if they return to their conservative roots, put the social agenda on the backburner compared to the fiscal agenda, they will not lose the next election, will this happen? Only time will tell, but they know what must be done now, last night was a wakeup call to them, hopefully, someone received the message.

Jeremy1
11-08-2006, 03:20 PM
Limbaugh.......I just don't trust the guy or put much stock in what he says.

Pretty interesting op. ed.
http://oldright.com/pundits/2006/10/politics-of-rush-limbaugh-gloomy.html

xer0xed
11-08-2006, 03:28 PM
Pretty interesting op. ed.
http://oldright.com/pundits/2006/10/politics-of-rush-limbaugh-gloomy.html

Heh... it's hard to think of him as anything other than someone paid to placate the conservative base after reading that. o_o

ElMariachi
11-08-2006, 03:50 PM
I think Republicans can take two messages from this election.



A. We are not liberal enough, obviously the public wants us to be more liberal, that will earn us higher poll ratings, gain us favor with the media and give us a better chance to save our jobs.

This sort of mediocrity will result in a depressed poll turnout in 2008, the Republicans losing the presidency and falling further behind in the Congress and the Senate. This election was not a mandate on liberalism, but one on change from the status quo, providing some ideas, and not just defending the same old policies and irresponsible spending that simply has not worked.


B. They go back, and like I've written, they return to their fiscally responsible roots, as the party of limited government interference in people's lives. This will take some retooling, discovering some new leaders, and proposing a new agenda, an agenda that they can remain true to, a conservative agenda based mainly around national security, and reducing the size of the federal government, as well as overall spending.


If they go and do this, I think the 2008 election would be a blowout. This sort of leadership would bring independents and libertarians into the fold and would make it difficult for the Democrats to counter with anything worthwhile, even if they tried running as moderates again.

Dr.Strange
11-08-2006, 04:04 PM
I think Republicans can take two messages from this election.



A. We are not liberal enough, obviously the public wants us to be more liberal, that will earn us higher poll ratings, gain us favor with the media and give us a better chance to save our jobs.

This sort of mediocrity will result in a depressed poll turnout in 2008, the Republicans losing the presidency and falling further behind in the Congress and the Senate. This election was not a mandate on liberalism, but one on change from the status quo, providing some ideas, and not just defending the same old policies and irresponsible spending that simply has not worked.


B. They go back, and like I've written, they return to their fiscally responsible roots, as the party of limited government interference in people's lives. This will take some retooling, discovering some new leaders, and proposing a new agenda, an agenda that they can remain true to, a conservative agenda based mainly around national security, and reducing the size of the federal government, as well as overall spending.


If they go and do this, I think the 2008 election would be a blowout. This sort of leadership would bring independents and libertarians into the fold and would make it difficult for the Democrats to counter with anything worthwhile, even if they tried running as moderates again.

They need stay the hell away from every single social issue. I think this is only hurting them. Well perhaps...

Then again, the evalangical people make up a huge voting pool.

The Republicans need to try very hard to stay away from any further military conflicts. That might provide a challenge considering the Iran and N.Korea ordeal.

Thinman
11-08-2006, 04:16 PM
They need stay the hell away from every single social issue. I think this is only hurting them. Well perhaps...

Then again, the evalangical people make up a huge voting pool.

The Republicans need to try very hard to stay away from any further military conflicts. That might provide a challenge considering the Iran and N.Korea ordeal.

I agree. I think alot of people over estimate the voting power of the religious right. I want to see moderate people in there, regardless of party. I want to see the parties work together to solve the many problems the country faces. Who cares about issues like gay marriage. It really isn't that big of deal.

okdude
11-08-2006, 04:17 PM
They need stay the hell away from every single social issue. I think this is only hurting them. Well perhaps...

Then again, the evalangical people make up a huge voting pool.



Hijacking god, one branch of morality and injecting them into social issues has definitely hurt them. Of all groups, they chose the most intolerable ones as their base.

user437490845hjgd
11-08-2006, 04:52 PM
It isn't the end of "compassionate conservatism" aka socialism with mint lubricant. It has already been trumpeted from the rooftops that the republicans lost the election because of Iraq and perverted instant messages. That should tell you how they are likely going to go about "correcting course" for 2008. Hide/handle the scandals better, force more dem scandals to a head, drag the democrats into a supporting role in Iraq (share some of the heat), and make sure to bash gays a bit more (because that brings in that tasty 5% extra). No need to sacrifice those valuable kickbacks.

There is no evidence of any push within the Republican party, thus far, to go back to its laissez-faire economic roots. I'm not talking about their words (campaign as libertarians, govern as socialists), I'm talking actions. They had basically carte-blanche for 6 years, and what did they do? One piddly tax cut (a start) combined with huge spending increases - not just military spending increases, but spending increases across the board, from education to healthcare. Did a single program lose money? Aside from condoms in Africa. :rolleyes:

Republicans change for the better? I have no faith in that happening anytime soon.

ElMariachi
11-09-2006, 07:15 PM
This guy has the right idea. Brand new article today. I guess I'm not the only who is hoping for a quick demise to "compassionate conservatism."


Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, likely new House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and the media will portray Tuesday's takeover as a repudiation of President Bush's leadership on the war in Iraq. The public's media-tinted perception of U.S. progress in Iraq, and its subsequent willingness to vote for Democratic House and Senate candidates does not, however, fully explain the switch in party control. No explanation of the Democrats' takeover is complete without laying partial blame on President Bush's so-called compassionate conservative agenda.

The term compassionate conservatism was coined by University of Texas professor and World Magazine editor Marvin Olasky in Olasky's 2000 book titled Compassionate Conservatism: What it is, What it Does, and How it Can Transform America. In an October 21, 2006 Wall Street Journal profile, Bush's former chief speechwriter Michael Gerson described the president's governing philosophy this way: "Compassionate conservatism is the theory that the government should encourage the effective provision of social services without providing the service itself."

Bush's big-government policies have certainly transformed America, but they are not even in the same neighborhood as true limited-government conservatism. Worse, the president, his advisors, the Republican National Committee and Republican leaders in the House and Senate have alienated the party's conservative base of activists and voters.

Compassionate conservatism first brought us the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. NCLB further consolidated federal oversight of education in an era when local control was the mantra of conservative voters and Republican congressional candidates.

Compassionate conservatism gave us the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003. A Heritage Foundation report on the Medicare trustees' estimates finds that "Medicare's long-term debt, based on a 75-year actuarial projection, is now estimated to be $32.4 trillion. Of that amount, $8 trillion is directly attributable to the Medicare prescription drug entitlement." The prescription drug bill is one of the largest expansions of the entitlement state in our nation's history.

Bush has further abandoned fiscal conservatism on federal spending, one of the bedrock principles of conservative ideology. According to Richard Viguerie, author of Conservatives Betrayed, federal spending rose by 4.7 percent in President Clinton's first term, and 3.7 percent in his second term. Federal spending rose 19.2 percent in Bush's first term alone.

Too many Republicans in the House and Senate have enabled the compassionate conservative ruse by refusing to lead on true conservative solutions. The flawed structures of the Social Security and Medicare programs continue to consume a larger portion of federal tax receipts and will soon go bankrupt. The federal income tax code is an unfair burden on every taxpayer, yet few Republicans have joined the march to replace the code with a consumption tax. Our energy prices remain largely at the mercy of Middle East sheiks and South American madmen, yet our political leaders lack the will to authorize consumption of our own abundant oil and natural gas resources.

Now that Democrats have seized control of the House, and possibly the Senate, the president is poised to deliver the knockout blow to conservative voters, the conservative movement and the very Constitution itself. In a most bitter twist of irony, Democratic control of Congress would finally allow Bush to enact his amnesty scheme for the tens of millions of illegal aliens within our borders. Amnesty for illegal aliens is not compassionate, nor is it conservative. It is unconstitutional.

Compassionate conservatism failed America and cost Republicans control. Bush's guiding philosophy attempted to co-opt the liberal Democratic strategy of campaign to the right, and govern from the middle. To accomplish that feat one must pander to all interest groups, and hope the traditional base stays home on Election Day. If you recall, Bush's predecessor in the White House utilized the exact same strategy. He called it triangulation.

Conservative voters do not support moderate policy solutions, and they reject moderate Republicans who masquerade as conservative voices. Soon after Fox News declared Pennsylvania Democrat Bob Casey, Jr. the victor over Republican Senator Rick Santorum, Fox election analysts called Santorum a "compassionate conservative" who looks for government solutions to issues. Republican In Name Only senators Mike DeWine (R-OH) and Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) were similarly ousted in the Tuesday Night Massacre. Moderate to conservative-leaning Democrats also replaced many Republican House members.

Republican candidates lose when the party apparatus, whose goal is to win elections, abandons the conservative base, whose goal is conservative policy solutions. Just two years ago Bush and Santorum unconscionably endorsed liberal Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), who was in a primary race with conservative Congressman Pat Toomey. Specter won the primary, but Santorum ultimately paid the price. In this year's Rhode Island Republican Senate primary, the RNC openly supported liberal Senator Lincoln Chafee against his more conservative opponent, Steve Laffey. Sen. Chafee is one of the most liberal members of the Senate and refused to vote for President Bush in 2004, writing in the president's father instead, yet the RNC still paid for ads in his primary race. Rhode Island voters were not likely to nominate or elect a conservative, but the RNC's actions were heard across the fruited conservative plain. Tap the brakes, Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman. You're not king makers.

Compassionate conservatism completely betrayed conservative voters and their decades of grassroots activism. Fortunately, all is not lost for the true conservative movement. Every House and Senate seat lost this year is an opportunity for conservatives to re-educate the public on true conservative policy solutions. The coming Republican presidential primary offers a similar chance for renewal and the possible emergence of a genuine successor to Ronald Reagan.

No voter turnout machine put in motion over a three-day pre-election period could have overcome this slap in the face to the Republican Party's base. Undoing compassionate conservatism's wreckage will take years, not 72 hours.






"What is compassionate conservatism? Kind of sounds like a Volvo with a gun rack!"-Robin Williams

Gunsgirlsnglory
11-09-2006, 07:39 PM
After the election results from yesterday, I am hoping that this marks a rebirth with the Republican Party and brings them back to their Reagan-conservative roots. A party that focuses more on removing government from the equation, than adding on to it, a party that is fiscally responsible, and is against any and all adventures in radical socialism.

I was flipping through the radio today, and I heard Rush Limbaugh speak, and he made one really great point about the elections. "Conservatism did not lose last night, the Republicans did."

I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one that has noticed that to beat the Republicans, the Democrats themselves had to run on a conservative platform. Many of the candidates that were elected, ran as conservatives basically. There were many who ran on platforms that were pro 2nd Amendment, anti abortion and against tax increases. Now, of course, considering that you will be combining these new Democrats in with members of the extreme left like Pelosi, it will be dependent on these new Democrats to keep to the promises they made, otherwise, it will be a short stay for them in Congress, especially in districts like in Florida, where the Democrat only won because the other guy's(Negron) name wasn't on the ballot due to the Foley scandal.

In some cases, the Democrats that were elected, were more conservative than the Republicans they replaced. So I don't see what all this cheerleading on the extreme left is about. Liberalism did not win. This election was not a mandate on extending liberalism in this country, but rather on the Republicans straying from their true roots.

If Democrats had run strictly on a liberal platform, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of them having won this election, which is why they had to go out and find conservatives, former Republicans in some cases, military veterans and other types that would appeal to red state voters. Now if these candidates have any notion of betraying the ideals on which they ran upon, it will be a bloodbath in 2008, as people are going to hold these politicians at their word.


Some Republicans will undoubtedly see this election as a mandate that they need to FURTHER to the left, which would be a huge mistake. If the Republicans want to win, if they want to take back Congress, they need to do it by eliminating the gimmicks, stop trying to push wedge issues to get people to the polls, and instead rely on old fashioned, common sense conservatism, especially fiscally. I think if they stick to these principles, they can not lose, because the Republican base will be energized, and generally these values are more in line with mainstream America than the socialist agenda that some of the Democrats have in mind.




Also, Republicans need to learn a thing or two from the Democrats about playing politics.


They really ought to take the gloves off from now on. Republicans have been like that goofy little kid in the schoolyard, who is always trying to be everyone's friend, but for his attempts, he gets bullied and constantly is a victim of the "Kick Me" sign. Democrats went after every single miscue that the Republicans had, even the slightest offense was attacked. Republicans need to return the favor.


They could have seized upon Harry Reid's connections to Abramoff as a sign that it was a bipartisan issue, or they could have gone after William Jefferson(who was re-elected.....so much for the promised "integrity" in Congress) and many others.

If the Democrats want to play these games, then the Republicans need to engage them, instead of letting themselves be flayed in public, repeatedly, while not doing anything to shine light upon the many errors of the other side.
I hope so and i know you already said it but wishy washy Republicans are no longer wanted. Its going to suck listening to Pelosi but hopefully a strong Republican with some balls and brains will emerge.

xer0xed
11-09-2006, 07:40 PM
I've said it many times; Bush is a phony conservative. =)

BringtheNoise
11-09-2006, 07:46 PM
Also, Republicans need to learn a thing or two from the Democrats about playing politics.

They really ought to take the gloves off from now on. Republicans have been like that goofy little kid in the schoolyard, who is always trying to be everyone's friend, but for his attempts, he gets bullied and constantly is a victim of the "Kick Me" sign. Democrats went after every single miscue that the Republicans had, even the slightest offense was attacked. Republicans need to return the favor.

I agree with most of what you said, but this is so ass backwards it's not even funny. Have you ever heard of a guy named Rove? Here is an example of "playing politics"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lglTUspyeus&eurl=

If that's with gloves on, I really would rather they don't come off.

stevothedevo
11-10-2006, 12:32 AM
Sorry, but I've never heard such evasive philosophical bull**** in all my life....

Republicans were hammered because of an illegal, unnecessary, lie riddled slaughter occurring in a big hot sand pit a long way away from home costing stupid amounts of money and taking precious young American lives.