Sunday Open Thread

I hate to be the bearer of bad news

By Adam C Posted in Comments (212) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

But even Rasmussen has picked up the shift away from Rs and toward Ds over the past two year. The monthly survey found in April 2008, Ds outnumber Rs by 10.0%, in 2007 it was by 5.5%, and in 2006 it was 3.9%. For perspective, in November 2004, the D lead was only 1.6% and in November 2006 it was 6.1%.

So right now, Rs are just as numerous as election day 2006 but Democrats have added 4% to their numbers. This is the worst relative showing since Rasmussen started taking monthly samples in Jan 2004, beating out the last two months which were D +9.1 and D +9.7. Feb, March and April 2008 have been the worst months for Rs compared to Ds in the 4 year history of this poll.

Sen. McCain may be able to pull out a win by winning over sufficient I and D voters but the House and Senate will become increasingly Democrat if a ten-point party ID differential persists.

Republican leadership seems silent on the deteriorating position of the party. And there is not much effort to identify policies and ideals that will bring people to the Party.

Open Thread.


« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims?Comments (2) | Gray Lady strikes out with McCain?Comments (4) »
Sunday Open Thread 212 Comments (0 topical, 212 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

Second, what exactly do you propose? You speak of the leadership not being aware of the problem. What makes you think that they're not aware, and are not doing anything? I don't know the answer to either one.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

This is a site that places a premium on activism. At what point are you doing more harm than good by trying as hard as you can to tell people it's hopeless?

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

I don't think he was telling anyone that it is hopeless. Rather, he's telling you that things are bad and you're going to need to double down if you intend to remedy the matter.

You'll forgive me if I remind you that the voters have seen what you got with the Republican party controlling the executive and legislative branches for about six years. No disrespect intended (genuinely), but by and large the conservative agenda didn't move very far. You can make the case that you need to advance better candidates, and that's a fair point, but empirical evidence is what it is.

And "throw the bums out" can last longer than a single mid-term election.

Step 1: Admit you have a problem.

I don't think enough people have taken step 1. And I think McCain's competitive numbers will help people who don't want to admit that the party has a major problem.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

You're saying there's a tremendous party registration advantage causing the problem. I don't see how we could conceivably alter that in a few months. Do you?

By your analysis it's all over and there's not point in even trying in Congressional races, because we're going to be wiped out. Better off saving money to brace for the new, more-Democratic Congresses and their planned economic ruin.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

You could have asked instead of assuming I thought things were hopeless. I never made that argument and I'm not making it now.

I do expect Rs will lose SEN and REP seats in 2008 (but I assumed that in 2006 too). For one, the question is how many. If Rs lose 3 SEN and 5 REP seats, that's a good showing and keeps things close enough to come back in the medium run. If Rs lose 7 SEN and 20 REP seats, it will be very hard to get back to a majority in the next decade.

All of that matters on the margin.

More importantly, the party ID numbers should be telling Rs that they are doing something wrong (or more accurately, the Ds are doing something right b/c their numbers are at all time highs recently). In the short run, Rs may not be able to change that. In the medium run, they have to. So who is thinking about what changes need to happen? Which new voters Rs need to court?

On Kos, I see a lot of diaries about winning over rural voters or religious voters or other groups that have turned against Ds over the last generation. Here, most outreach ideas are looked down upon because the new voters wouldn't be conservative enough. On example is that Rs should be reaching out to Hispanics (in spanish-language ads as Bush did in 2004) but that would offend some in the party if it was widespread.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

rodguy911
I read most of the posts on this thread and from my perspective we need to stop all the appeasing to the other side and act like Conservative Republicans for a change!

To begin with in 2006 the dems got many house seats by pretending to be us!

They ran supposed blue dog dem/rats who were supposedly consevative until they clashed with Piglosi and then they discovered that they really weren't as conservtive as they preteneded to be.

By busting budgets, not securing the border,along with a fence,supporting rino after rino, not standing up for conservative values whenever we get the chance, our party has all but self destructed.

Is it because we didn't cave to more groups like the dems do,hardly, it's becuse we were not more like Ronald Reagan, not less!
It's not rocket science, just go back to hardcore conservatism and we will be light years ahead of where we are now.
RG.

Yup by Adam C

Most news for Rs right now is bad news. And yet a lot of people still hold onto the idea that Rs could win back the Senate or House this year. Many Rs seem to think if everyone ran to the right, they would win every seat.

I don't think people realize how bad things are for the Rs right now. I think that's definitely true of leadership but it's also true of activists.

I've argued for bringing back the big tent of the anti-liberal coalition. But many conservatives have grown used to being "the base" and scoff at the idea that moderates should even have a say in the choose of the Presidential nominee (see every thread complaining that McCain won "without" the "base").

I've argued a lot for a full abandonment of the Earmark Culture. I started blogging to support Coburn in his primary in OK because of his stanch stand against the DC culture of personal use of public funds to get re-elected. Rs are still associated with being reflexively anti-tax. They should also be reflexively anti-earmark. As long as they are open to the corrupting influences of pork barreling, they can't hold the mantle of fiscal responsibility.

I've argued that we should go back to the 1994 focus on good governance and reform rather than an agenda that (in many swing voters minds) focuses on gays, stem cell research, and Schiavo. Conservatives shouldn't mean you are a religious voter which is what it means to many people right now, especially younger voters.

I've argued that we should field diverse candidates depending on where they are running. Pro-choicers in CA and the northeast. Pro-immigration candidates in FL, CA and AZ. Etc.

I've argued that Rs are losing a lot of ground in the suburbs because they aren't seen as caring about the bread-and-butter issues but seem focused on ideological social fights. Ds can run on economics, education, and transportation and be much more in touch with those voters concerns. The Chicago, NYC, Philly, and DC suburbs are the biggest examples but they may have just been the early movers.

Finally, I think the R leadership is not aware because they haven't changed what they are doing in strategy or substance. That seems to suggest that they don't see any need to change. Maybe it will take a second walloping to wake them up.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Speaking as a Democrat, I would prefer to see a healthy Republican party rather than not. I don't care to see either party have overwhelming control of the government, as both parties do bring valid perspectives to governance. More to the point, they both represent large swaths of the electorate. However, the current Republican leadership is holding the bag for a party that enjoyed power so much they largely turned into the pack of bastards they replaced in 1994. I respect fiscal conservatism and efficient government. Earmarks offend the hell out of me, regardless of who pushed 'em. Your party should get back to basics and realize that there are a lot of people who simply won't vote [R] often if the most important issues appear to be social ones.

...and from what I can tell, his platform is pretty close to what you laid out. The presidential nominee and the RNC basically set the party platform - which means McCain controls it.

Second, I don't think earmarks are near as big an issue as you think so. It's definitely honorable to oppose them (as McCain does), and it's definitely good government, but I don't think it's a big time plank to hang a candidacy on. I could be wrong.

Third, I haven't heard anyone claim that the GOP will retake either House of congress this year. I think a "win" would be losing 2 seats in the senate, and less than 10 in the House. Certainly these special election losses aren't good, but there is a long way to November.

I'm doing my part by donating and volunteering. I'm well aware of the challenges, here. I care deeply about the future of this country, and I'm never going to give up. I hear enough doom and gloom from the MSM day after day after day. I know the numbers, and I know the mood of the electorate. I don't need to hear it again here. I'm not living in a cocoon and I'm not a pollyanna. That said, I think the GOP has a realistic shot at the White House.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

Then this info isn't directed at you. There are a number of people who are living in a cocoon in my experience. They think if Rs ran Woody Jenkins everywhere, they'd win every time. They think McCain is a weak candidate because he appeals to the middle of the electorate. They think Rs are destined to win back a lot of the 2006 losses and 2006 was just a 6-year itch election so, of course, it will bounce back the other way. They think losing the under 30 vote by 20 points is normal and how it's always been b/c we all "know" people get conservative as they get older, so there's nothing to worry about.

In fact, this same Rasmussen Poll was put on the front page when an outlier month occurred in Dec 2007 where Ds were up just 2.1%. Now that it's gone the other way for several months in a row, it is definitely comment worthy. If we only look at polls when they are good, people will get a distorted view of the world. I've seen people dismiss national polls because "there are more Ds than Rs in their sample." Well, if there are more Ds than Rs in the country, then there should be more in the sample as well. So it's important people know that Rs have to win more Is or Ds than the other way around if they are to win a national election.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Instead of beating the drums of doom in the generic, as a way of countering the people you disagree with, how about specifically highlighting these candidates, and demonstrating why they are good or bad?

I really think that for someone who applies the kind of analytical thought you bring to politics, it's beneath you a bit to keep being so generic and national in your thinking about local races.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

I think the evidence backs up the idea that the country has shifted from R to D, the question is by how much. I'd guesstimate 3-5 points but it could be worse.

In 2006, most of the districts that were competitive were R+1 to R+5 districts. There have been 10 special elections since 2006 and the only competitive ones were IL-14 (R +7) and LA-06 (R +5). In MS-01, it's R +10.

Looking at the competitive seats in the Fall election, they are also mostly in R+1 to R+5 districts like AL-05, NC-08, KS-02, NV-02, NM-02, AZ-01, AZ-03, AZ-05, AZ-08, PA-06, PA-03, etc.

One can argue that every one of the competitive races in 2006, 2007 and 2008 was so because the individual R stunk. But I think the more probable explanation is that Indie voters went from 55D/45R to 65D/35R pretty much across the country.

As for candidates, I've done that and still am doing it. I've spent a lot of time stumping for McCain on here during the primary in part because he has the chance of winning swing voters including Hispanics in a way that others don't. He may not succeed, but at least it is possible.

I've written extensively on SEN races and been let down by the recruitment. I probably said Huckabee for Senate!!! more times than I've said anything else on RedState. But when the R brand stinks, it's hard to recruit people like Huck into tough SEN races.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

of the possible scenarios. But I think that's about as likely as this being a good year for the R team. On the plus side, unlike the Ds in 1993, Rs don't have 70-100 districts that have been voting for Presidents of the other party for a decade. Rs have about 10 of those and another 20 or so that barely went for Bush.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Here is a comment from today on RS:

We were in the ascendency during those years, and even continued in that mode thru 2004 due to dem weakness on defense. In fact, even 2006 was a unique year six greivance election in which the dems underperformed in historic terms.

The fact is that this remains a center right country, and the fact that the center right does not own congressional majorities is due to gop spinelessness in the face of the lib pc msm media and their between election polls.

That is the type of attitude that I am worried too many activists have. It starts with the assumption that everyone agrees with R principles but Rs are losing for some other reason (i.e. bad candidate, bad media, 6 year itch).

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

rather, the assumption IS that when an effort is made to explain conservative principles to the public in a comprehensive and methodical manner, the public can be persuaded.

There is little conservative leadership in Washington. Bush jetisoned much of his conservative ideas in order to try and get leverage in dealing with Iraq. National security and 9/11 have clouded the absence of conservative leadship on domestic policy. Now we are in a mess, but the way out is the applicaiton of conservatism to solve problems.

Bush took leadership on stem cells, on the FMA, and on pro-life policies. He took leadership on the GWOT and the War in Iraq. He took leadership on reforming Social Security and immigration.

I know a lot of people want to throw him under the bus and disown him. But Bush was a conservative leader. The problem is that conservative now means "social conservatism" to most of the country, including Pres. Bush.

I'm not sure how the GOP's leadership on Schiavo, stem cells, or global warming has helped the GOP win over voters. I'm not arguing what was right or wrong. But your contention that "explaining conservatism would win votes" would mean that those acts should have won over voters b/c those are the things associated with conservatism today more than small government and good governance.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Spending, taxing, and regulating. In most elections, economics is the key battleground.

I agree that Bush has been more loyal to social conservatives than he has been to economic conservatives. He made some compromises on the fiscal front that did not result in any corresponding compromises from the left.

I am not a person who throws Bush under the bus. One of my concerns with McCain is that he MAY ultimately prove significant worse than Bush, a premise on which I know you disagree.

The Democrats are the party of "Tax and Spend". Right now the Republicans are the party of "Spend and Spend Even More", and neither party is the party of "Don't Tax and Don't Spend". Well, I guess the Libertarians qualify there, but that just shows that there's not particularly a mandate for that position.

As for regulating, there's no consensus on that either. McCain's a mixed bag on this issue, but in general, he seems to see government as the provider of solutions, not the cause of problems.

As conservatives, we have the problem that conservative ideas really only sell well when people have been forced to live under the problems caused by liberal ones.

I see a big problem is that right now, Republicans are on the losing side of several issues such as global warming, gay marriage, and health care. The country is with the Democrats. Americans want everyone to have health care, they want to decrease our dependence on fossil fuels, and they don't have a problem with civil unions. Combine that with the utterly mismanaged and unpopular war and a flailing economy that many Republicans failed to even acknowledge (most especially the ex-presidential candidates) and you get our current scenario.

On principle Americans have always been anti-tax, strong on defense, and religious, but that's not enough. We need to offer conservative solutions that can serve as alternatives to the Democrats' spend-free pro-government solutions. We need to support candidates that appeal to a wide range of voters. What we don't need are Rick Santorums or morally objectionable Larry Craigs.

....is that we are creating an electorate that has no skin in the game. Between conservative tax cutting and liberal welfare impulses we have about 50% of the population paying ZERO income taxes. How do you appeal to someone on "tax and spend" issues when they aren't paying for any of it. If you pay no taxes, or virtually no taxes (and with the EITC there are plenty of people who don't even pay payroll taxes), then why would you care if spending goes up - especially since those are the people most likely to receive the handouts. A family making $60,000 a year is fine with big-government health care because nobody is proposing to raise taxes on that family to pay for it (not even the loose definition of "rich" used by most Democrats reaches that far down the income ladder). Decreasing greenhouse emissions sounds good but we have done nothing to talk about costs and translate the proposed solutions into dollars and cents and, more importantly, the jobs that will be lost as a result.

There are too many people who have become lazy and complacent - they are more than happy to see someone else do things for them. It's much easier to support government health-care, where you get to just show up and not worry about a bill, than to arrange for insurance and deal with the paperwork and headaches (even where you have the money to afford whatever coverage you like). Part of the problem is in the very constitution of the populace and the decay of the kind of values that made people prefer self-reliance to a hand-out. People are becoming to attracted to the "something for nothing" mentality that has produced booming lottery revenues and the treatment of the tort system as a retirement plan. If we don't combat that, we will lose more ground for no other reason than our arguments cease to have any relevance for people.

We have to remember that Reagan won, not by being the conservative in the race, but by bringing the entire conservative coalition together. Moderates, conservatives and libertarian minded Republicans have to respect that in parts of the country other parts of the coalition are going to be more successful. As a party, we must recognize that and run the candidates that have the best chance to win in their areas.



Now also found at The Minority Report

The problem with McCain (for me personally, anyways, but I suspect I'm not alone) was never that he's not a true-believer conservative. If that were the standard, exactly one Republican nominee in my lifetime qualifies, Ronald Reagan.

The problem with McCain was that he was actively hostile to conservatism for so many years. It's kind of hard to, as you say "bring the entire conservative coalition together" when you've shown them disdain and contempt for over a decade. And in fact, McCain isn't bringing them together. The Democrat candidates are.

Adam

Ask yourself this question: "What do Republicans stand for"?

Sense Newt and his band of merry men and women swept into office on the Contract with America, the Republican party has not stood for much in my view. I'm sorry to say the mantra of the '06 election, "We s**k less", "Stay the course", were real loosers, and it was reflected in the outcome.

If Obama specifically is running on a message of change and of "Hope", and exciting a large amount of the population, what's the big ideas that are driving the Republican party now days?

Eat your spinach it's good for you. YIKES

If anything, the mantra for Republicans ought to be, "It's about the ideas stupid".

______________________________________

Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

"I'm sorry to say the mantra of the '06 election, "We s**k less", "Stay the course", were real loosers, and it was reflected in the outcome."

Yup, that's the problem. I think without 9/11, Rs would have lost power in 2002 or 2004 (including perhaps the Presidency). Since 1998, Rs have lost ground in the House regularly. The dam just broke in 2006.

The problem with "It's the ideas stupid" is that people still remember Republican control of Congress. They remember the corruption, the pork barreling, the issues that were actually "addressed." That's why I'm worried it might take Ds controlling Congress for a while and doing some dumb things themselves.

Ds are already just as big of porkers, but Rs have no credibility to say they'd be different if they were elected. Maybe after a new set of Rs get elected or if McCain starts vetoing pork, that will become a good strategy. But right now, Rs can't win ground on D pork-barrel corruption because most swing voters see no difference between the parties on those issues.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

was like, when democrats were in charge of congress.

I don't think I really started to care much about politics until Clinton was elected and two short years later, the GOP took control of the house.

The only thing many voters in their 20's and 30's know is a house and occassional senate controlled by the GOP.

The GOP branded itself as just as willing to pork barrel their way into power, and now they carry the brand.

I think it is going to take a while for the GOP to ditch that brand. The GOP got power, and they essentially blew it in order to spend their way into more power. It is really hard for the GOP to point at the democrats and say "tax and spend" when they just did the same thing. That message, even if there is some truth to it, isn't going to fly very far.

I do agree with you that you can't elect the same kind of conservtive everywhere-but I do think the one principle that we have to get back to is being the gate keeper on spending. Earmarks in the big picture may not be huge amounts of the budget, but I know when it comes to the family budget it is the little things that add up and where the fat can be cut the easiest, when the budget requires it.

.....had HUGE advantages. Chiefly, he had the advantage of running against Democrats, who controlled all three branches of government in 1994. Literally every single problem could be laid at the feet of the Democrats, similar to how the Dems are doing it now to Repubs. Clinton and the Dems also passed a huge tax increase in 1993 that enraged voters and Gingrich was able to position the GOP as the anti-tax and anti-spending party.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

Many will recall that the Republican House and Senate did attempt to reform government and significantly reduce government spending. Not just earmarks, but the big stuff, including the biggest program of all . . Medicare.

Clinton triangulated, and used the MSM to beat the Republicans like a drum. That marked the beginning of the end in my view.

Republicans learned the wrong message in 1996. We lost the media battle in 96, and have been on the retreat ever since.

Just_Me

I cringe every time I see someone start the discussion about how to fix the Republican brand with any commentary about what things were like under the Democrats. That is the "We S**k less" argument in a nutshell and it's a terrible thing to sell.

Take the Contract with America...please.

It wasn't beating up Democrats, it was stating a bold vision for where the Republican party wanted to take this country, and you know what, it resonated with the American public.

Alas, it takes courage to stand for a set of ideas, and frankly about the only thing it seems a large percentage of Republicans in Congress stand for is keeping their sorry a**es in Congress.

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

argument isn't going to fly. And I think a good bit of it is because we have controlled congress for more than a decade and proved ourselves in capable of doing anything we stood for.

I think right now the GOP is missing its vision. And I think a lot of people in the GOP are still hung up on the "we suck less" belief.

Shoot I still believe that even at its worst, when it comes to spending, the democrats would still do much worse, because they view the government as a tax funded Santa Claus out to grant every voter their every wish.

But I don't think you can win elections on that argument.

I think you have to put together a vision of what the party stands for, and what that vision looks like when implemented. Newt did a great job of packaging a vision in 1994. They were able to implement some of it, got blocked in other ways, and then eventually I think got consumed with power and how to keep it.

Just_me

I hate to tell you this, but there are many many Republicans that think the Federal Government is Santa Claus too. Maybe one that does not fund Midnight Baskeball, grants to the NEA but Ted Stephens and the Alaskan Bridge to No Where is nothing to be proud of.

I'd like to see a vision of Tax and Spending coming from Republicans that recognizes that not all taxes are evil and not all spending is bad, but the light of day and sunshine provisions on legislation is a good thing.

I'd like to see Republicans come up with a solid answer to how to deal with health care into the future. If Hillary Care, and Obama care is bad, what's good? Do nothing...give everyone in the country a bottle of aspirin and a box of band aids ?

Energy policy, does anyone really believe that in 10 years, in 20 years in 30 years the energy needs of this country are going to become even more problematic and drilling for oil is not probably a long term answer. Where's the bold effort along the lines of the Apollo program to develop new and clean sources of energy? Nuclear, fission, solar, is the free market going to provide the answer or is government leadership and our tax dollars needed for finance that future.

Real issues, real opportunities for real leadership on these and other issues that can differentiate Republicans from Democrats. Not a gun, gay or abortion among them by the way.

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

Then say hello to President Obama in the fall. Since that's McCain's unofficial campaign motto. When I see taglines, not here, but many other places, with things like "I love my country more than I hate John McCain" and "Vote McCain, the least objectionable Democrat still running", that's exactly the sentiment.

But there's a problem in putting together a vision as to what the party stands for. That problem is that there's no agreement at all on what that vision should be. There are basically no ideas that you could get general agreement on in the party that are going to be something we can run on.

GWOT? General agreement there, but the war isn't popular. Not a winning issue.

Corruption? General agreement, except by the 'win at all costs' leadership who doesn't care how corrupt someone is if they have an R by their name.

Small government? You might get some agreement there, except that there's been no evidence that the Republicans are good on this issue. And the presumptive nominee is explicitly not a shrink the size of government guy.

War on Drugs? Significant parts of the National Review crowd and the libertarian leaning wing are pro-legalization, so no real consensus here.

Pro-life? As I read polls, the dominant position in the US is 'Abortion should be legal, with reasonable restrictions'. So the party's position on this isn't a winner either.

The Contract With America had a bunch of commensense reforms, combined with votes promised on 10 bills, which mostly failed to become law. I doubt that you could get general agreement on even 5 bills today.

skey

You make the assumption that the MSM's and the Liberal elite's fascination will be enough to sell Obama to the American public, it won't.

Obama is a Liberal's liberal, and the country is really not all that liberal. During the general election, when McCain and yes even the MSM gets around to exploring the Obama record, which is very Liberal, the wheels will come off the wagon.

I'm not talking about the usual social conservative buttons, just the whole picture of Obama as a classical big government tax and spend liberal. In the general he will be shown to be out of the mainstream and middle class America will turn their back on him.

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

Heh by skey

You actually inadvertently make my point for me.

Me: "If 'we s**k less' doesn't fly, say hello to President Obama."

You(paraphrasing): "But we s**k less, so obama can't win".

The two aren't mutually exclusive. All I said was that unless it works, Obama wins. And there's very little that can be done about this, at this point.

I'm not worried about McCain much. He's got a great shot at taking this thing. As for the House and Senate races, I'm not so optimistic. We're going to lose seats; the only question is how many.

Is that too many people now get to see what politicians get bought for and it rankles.

The bridge to nowhere.
Eminent domain abuse.
The coconut road.
The Mickey Mouse copyright act.
The DMCA
The FCC not doing its job creating net neutrality and broadcast access problems

Its been real obvious that the best we have gotten with our party is little better than the Dems.

If you are pro small government and pro federalism you have been getting sold a bill of goods. If you are big government federal union employee its been all a feather bed.

What's amazing is that we have lasted so long without delivering the goods.


"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Precisely whom are you calling a crook here, sir? And with what evidence?

Let's not throw around vague, unsubstantiated accusations of felonies.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

And there are a bunch of Rs who use public funds to buy votes. Even if it's legal, it's ugly and unethical.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

... look again.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

The Democrats don't represent good government, small government or clean government. They don't have to be good on these issues we do.


"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

When it comes down to one-on-one elections, "better" is what matters (e.g., McCain vs. HillObama). When it comes to evaluating performance, representing the people who elected you, and remaining true to the things you claim to stand for, we are -- and should be -- held to a higher standard. "Better than the D counterpart" isn't good enough -- only good is good enough.

And one way we can counter that is by being more active in the primaries. Doolittle was gone, as being not good enough,even though he was surely better than Charlie Brown. But Eric Egland pre-primaried him, and now we're sure to win regardless of whether Ose or McClintock gets the nomination.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

"Second, what exactly do you propose? You speak of the leadership not being aware of the problem. What makes you think that they're not aware, and are not doing anything? I don't know the answer to either one."

Very simple; they collectively are silent on both points. Hence, why would anyone think they're aware, or doing anything about it? There was a time when Republican leadership was front and center on important issues (e.g. earmark reform, energy, health care, etc). Somewhere in these past few years, they have decided it's no longer important for them to demonstrate leadership, and they've opted for every man or woman for him or herself. Thus, 2008 is not going to be a very good election cycle for Republicans; and it will well deserved.

for the Republicans is simply in the PR/propaganda department. The party never seems to fight back against the media/Democratic Party talking points. How do they sit by silently for decades as the Democrats intentionally cripple our energy production? Would it kill someone to point out that cities controlled by liberal Democrats (I'm looking at you New Orleans) are disasters. Earmarks and stuff like that are just trivia for political junkies. People see gas prices are high and the media is telling them that evil oilmen and Republicans are behind it and eventually enough people will believe it.

As for the increase in the number of Democrats, while certainly a problem, is mostly from the prolonged battle for the nomination. Yes, it's hurting the chances for them in the presidential race, but a black man versus a woman sucking up all of the attention is a very exciting thing. People are having to register as Dems and vote in states that haven't mattered in the nomination process for decades.

And we have the misfortune of being in year 8 now of one of the most disastrously pathetic PR administrations in memory.

Outside that, conservatives simply seem to lack vision and willingness to do anything. Where's our MoveOn.org? Where's our 527 that will point out the things you mentioned above?

We have one (Freedom's Watch, dedicated solely to the GWOT), and it has been a miserable failure. I don't know what they're spending their money on, but sure isn't anything worthwhile or effective.

easy for so long, when it came to winning.

Losing, and wanting power back I think was a huge motivation for what the democrats, or at least organizations that democrats most closely represent motivated the creation of a lot of those groups.

I think Adam is probably right-a lot of conservatives have deluded themselves into thinking that 2006 was just a little hiccup and things will get back to normal come this election year. They don't see the writing on the wall, which says the GOP brand is a negative one for he majority of voters right now. And the main argument I see from the GOP is "tax and spend democrats" which I think isn't a lie, but the perception most voters currently have of the GOP is that they are more than happy to spend as well.

The GOP needs a vision. That is the one thing the GOP had in 1994-they knew what they stood for and where they wanted to go. They didn't get everything, but as time passed, the power became more important than the governance.

Well by skey

As a general rule, advocacy groups like that are typically founded and funded by angry people. And conservatives, as a general rule simply aren't angry. I'm not angry about the coming disaster this fall, I'm simply saddened by it.

Also, as I recall, at the time that Moveon started pushing candidates, Republicans had the advantage in traditional fundraising, so there wasn't especially a need for a Republican counterpart. It's only as the Republican brand has been trashed that there's a need for a counterpart, and honestly, what exactly would that counterpart be pushing right now? Cleaning up the corruption in Washington? Pushing smaller government? In both cases they'd be actually hurting the Republican brand, making things worse for the party, because the Republicans simply no longer stand for either of those.

The Israelites had to wander around in the desert for 40 years for their sins. I hope for the sake of the country that the Republicans won't have to do so for quite that long, but I see no way to avoid some wandering, until the leadership changes.

"After two years in Washington, I often long for the realism and sincerity of Hollywood." -Fred Dalton Thompson

....is embracing new technology. Libs totally dominate the internet, youtube, and are 100 times better in online fundraising. All it takes is the RNC hiring a crack staff of techies to put it in place.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

Yup by Adam C

And I hate to say it, but perhaps bringing a few of the more sane Ron Paul people into the Big Tent would provide some help there. The few people in the r3volution seem to be batting way above their weight in the online/youtube/facebook/blog part of the world.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

You do know that vastly superior technology was critical in the outstanding Bush turnout machine in 2004, right?

The fact that our party base doesn't include the umemployed with time to waste on Youtube isn't a sign of anything but the fact that the Democrats do well among college students.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

A group of school kids call out Detroit City Councilwoman Monica Conyers.


h/t Gateway Pundit



Now also found at The Minority Report

Is just the perils of being in power. Parties ALWAYS suffer major losses when they are in power.; Bush's losses have actually been relatively minor for a two-term President. He's just the first President to be covered by a 24/7 news media, and by constant public polling.

Adam is also right -- but for 9-11 we would have suffered major losses in 2002. Again, because the President's party almost ALWAYS suffers losses in a midterm election.

If the Dems take full control of government in 2008, they will have about a three month honeymoon, before they begin to be weighed down by incompetance and the fact that their agenda isn't supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans. Which given redistricting in 2010, isn't the worst conceivable outcome.

http://www.myelectionanalysis.com

what Adam is talking about. We are not just in trouble because of Republican fatigue. We are in trouble because we have failed to provide solutions to the problems facing our country. We are facing a serious crisis in the years to come if we do not take on the problems that our country is facing and reach out to moderate and independent voters.

49 comments so far and not one has mentioned the word "Iraq." 4,071 Americans have died in that war so far, and hundreds more of our allies. Our international reputation has been trashed, and we have borrowed something like 500 billion from the Chinese to finance the war, sending the dollar to historical lows against European currencies.

Bush, who is most associated with the war, is below 30% approval in 7 of the last 9 polls listed on pollingreport.com. He is the most unpopular president in modern US history.

The first poll listed on pollingreport on Iraq right now shows that 68% of Americans now oppose the war.

When the rare Republican says he opposes the war, he gets primaried (Walter Jones, Wayne Gilchrest).

The American public is actually more opposed to the war than Democrats in Congress. When the question is asked are Democrats doing enough to oppose the war, 55% said they are not opposing it enough.

Right now the media if focusing on Obama's blue collar cred, not really a good issue for him. When it turns its attention to the 2008 general election, the focus will be again on Iraq, as well as health care reform, another issue where voters trust Democrats much more than Republicans.

Check out this poll:

Do you think it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have health care coverage, or is that not the responsibility of the federal government?

Is: 64%
Is not: 33%

One potential issue you guys might have had against Obama was immigration, but you blew that by nominating an open boarders candidate. Now I wonder how many Republican votes Bob Barr is going to peel off in 2008 on that issue.

Second, that is a totally useless poll. What does that question mean, anyway? It can mean any one of a number of things to different people.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

What am I missing? Where did they die?

-exits

I don't think that is correct.

My computers broken...

Ah....I understand now
A pothead....
Smoke up johnny.....
Dude...It's like so cool to be a stoner....
by MrSyHastings

spill bong water on your keyboard??

LOL

What are your veiws on Med marijane?

"40 million American households with Carnitas are generally happier
than those people in households that don't have Carnitas."

Regardless, why should I bother responding to a pothead troll??

My "veiw" is that pot makes peeple stuppid....

You've done a great job reinforcing my "veiw"...

LOL

Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity

Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity

...wants to know precisely what is going on here.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Didn't mean to get in the way...

Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity

...what's going on, here.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

I really wanted an answer but he got upset.

This goes back to the McCain VP thread....where specialist was trying to use his sockpuppet for reasons only he can explain. Then it moved on to the "Man" thread where his love of weed came up. I have a big problem with druggies....especially druggies who use sockpuppets to troll folks that don't fall down agreeing with everything that they post.

I'll be ignoring specialist starting now.
I won't let the sideshow happen again.

You may start ignoring specialist after you apologize to him for the repeated insults.

Next post, please.

Moe

PS: I don't care. Next post, please.

PPS: You should have emailed the Directors. Next post, please.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

I guess you are a druggie too huh??

LOL

Nice job self-destructing.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

Yes Moe.
You go fuck yourself.
:)

Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity

Moe is going to delete all of this...but it is the best crash and burn I think I have ever seen.. Classic stupidity.



Now also found at The Minority Report

Kind of reminds me of that Will Farrel movie Anchorman.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

Yes very entertaining... I think many are on the edge lately.

Nahh this is a weak suicide by Moe
This is kind of lame. no subtlety no ambiguity
Shame he had been doing well with the site up till now.
AHH well just Zugzwang for him I guess


"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

It's always nice to have this kind of vulgar backup if and when somebody checks my work.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

I've been watching his skills for 2 years.

...got away with something that he had been banned for doing himself (yup, he was a retread).

[Looking around, but carefully not looking at anyone specific] Which is why we don't let people do that, all right?

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

That was my only meatpuppet RIP

Personally I see as much stupidity from the can't-reason-with-them anti-drug types as I do those that partake. Maybe more-- and they don't have the excuse that the drugs help make them stupid.

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity

Libya surrendered, and britain and France and Germany elected Bush clones.

The international leftist press trashes us, and when was it when they didn't, and for what reasons?

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

that Africa loves George W Bush too.

___________________________________
Just like PayPal, except it's free and a $25 bonus to sign up!

and Mexico loves us so much, that the whole nation is moving here.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

....since Germany and France wanted...and still want nothing to do with Iraq. And Britain is reducing their participation in Iraq.

.

the vague question you rely on to support your position.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

....in Iraq is not a poll...it is a fact.

.

taking a hard line against the narco-terrorists in Mexico, too.

When asked "who do you trust to deal with Iraq?"

McCain outpolls Obama and Clinton by a good margin. So it doesn't seem like everyone wants to quit if that means leaving chaos. It seems a good chunk want stability in the region and an end to the violence. McCain's support for the mission but critique of the strategy seems to resonate with a lot of people in the middle.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

They won't trust him once every American has heard his "bomb bomb bomb Iran" song and "why not 100 years" line 100 times each.

Obama is going to get a bounce after securing the nomination and lead for the rest of the race.

Right now most Americans think of McCain as "maverick" and "war hero." Soon the flood of commercials will be coming attacking the two-headed beast "McCain-Bush", just like Bill Clinton's "Dole-Gingrich" ads tied Dole to the much less popular figure in his party.

McCain's long Senate record has yet to be attacked from the left either. Opposing Martin Luther King Day. Opposing tough air and water pollution laws. Voting to cut social security, medicare, and education. Opposing middle class tax cuts. Fighting against a minimum wage increase.

Then there are the flip/flops. On immigration. On Roe v. Wade. On Jerry Falwell.

Whatever your politics, you have to admit these are very effective ads.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/candidates/campaign.96/wrong.past.mo...

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/candidates/campaign.96/counting.mov

I also liked Clinton's 1992 ad "We can't afford 4 more years." Indeed, we can't afford 4 more years of failed George Bush-John McCain policies.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=21G4AcJI86c

start to run with Obama and Wright with Ayers and their own words and tie Obama to the hard core left anti American marxist ideology that Obama loves that McCain will look like a godsend. Get ready for it because it's coming....just so you are aware Republican 527's are flush and ready for this general as well.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

All you have are personal attacks on people other than Obama? McCain associates with a lot of unsavory characters as well. Abramoff, Hagee, Charles Keating (who stole about 5,000 times more money from banks then the Weather Underground ever did!)

These stories will all be old news 6 months from now. As much as the media likes the Wright story, even they will be tired of it soon.

years of his adult life with his children and McCain was absolved in the Keating 5 or did you forget that? Obama has taken money from the same law firm that Abramhoff was with...do you really want to go there? Obama is through...this country is no where near that far to the left...Hillary stands a much better chance against McCain...but you libs go ahead and absolve yourself of "white guilt" and give that marxist a shot at the Presidency....we wait with baited breath!

Oh and by the way McCain loves his country so much his children are in the military....Obama couldn't beat that with a 10ft Wright!

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

Who knows maybe Obama will be able speak off the cuff in 6 months(Without looking like an idiot he can do the other already)


"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

not to scratch his face with his middle finger during a debate.

Then again, he may not be able to help himself when under pressure.

If AlGore was "The Teacher's Pet From H3ll", then Obama may be "The Class Clown..."

And I welcome it being run.

As to the rest well 8 years of bill clinton wishing things were so gave us 2 wars we didn't want, a nuclear north korea, and an Iran on its way to joining the nuclear club.


"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Born Infant Alive Protection Act
William Ayers
Rev Wright (sorry, this issue won't die)
Raising taxes
Tony Rezko
Auchi (Iraqi billionaire)

...just off the top of my head.

The bottom line is that Obama is a totally manufactured candidate. There's nothing authentic about him. He can't talk unless he has a teleprompter in front of him and he has an audience of slobbering sycophants. What little substance that is there is far the left of the mainstream, and the GOP along with various 527s will see to it that he is defined accordingly.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

Latest poll shows Obama up 11% over McCain. The bitter/Wright/Pennsylvania is now over.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/04/opinion/polls/main4069259.shtm...

the general election pdf it showed them 45 to 45....

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

From the link:

On one key measure, Obama has seen a big reversal since his denunciation of Wright’s remarks on Tuesday. He now leads presumptive Republican nominee John McCain in the hypothetical fall contest by eleven points, 51 percent to 40 percent. That compares to a tied match-up in a CBS News/New York Times poll that was released last Wednesday.

n/t

"40 million American households with Carnitas are generally happier
than those people in households that don't have Carnitas."

they get so emotional and that makes me smile!

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

If the multicultral leftist utopia of London can elect a conservative mayor, I think there's always hope for the good ole USA. On the whole, the USA still has a healthier conservative movement than does western Europe, where virtually all of the left-wing anti-American governments have been replaced in recent years.

There will always be down years, but there will also always be motivated, freedom-loving conservatives like our fellow Redstaters.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

A "conservative" mayor. In the US, this site would savage someone with Boris' views as a "RINO" and dismiss him as "moderate" at best. I mean he supports public transportation, he's an environmentalist, and he's fine with major government involvement in the health industry.

In other words, he's pretty much the Arnold or London. So we could rephrase your statement "if the multicultural leftist utopia of California can elect a conservative governor..."

As someone who is glad Arnold is with the R tent, I'd agree it's a good thing but many here would not. But I don't think Boris' victory signals much in the way for a Thatcherite rise in England.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

even though he endorsed the incumbent democratic governor of NY. I am glad Arnold is in the R tent as well, although his last couple of years have been a disappointment. When he took on the government unions, he was actually being the most aggressively conservative governor in the country (that I was aware of).

We are not quite as myopic in our thinking as you suggest. I for one support moderate candidates when they are worth having (Chafee was worthless except in voting for majority leader).

However, a Presidential candidate is different and leadership of the national party is different than being a New England Republican. Should I pretend otherwise?

You will note that Democrat Blue Dogs did not run for the Dem nomination.

My point was that pointing to Boris' win as evidence of conservatism making gains is similar to claiming that with Arnold winning in CA.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

he just isn't governing as a conservative at the moment or since his ballot initiatives got squashed.

Your comment was that conservatives criticize moderates who get elected from Blue voters. My point is that we are actually quite supportive of moderates who get elected by Blue voters because we are not myopic.

A Presidential election is different. At the state and local level, we embrace many many moderates. And with the exception of Chafee, I personally am in favor of keeping the Snowes and Specters around.

Mccain is from Arizona, a red state. Lindsey Graham is also from a red state. Snowe, Spector, Rudy, etc. are not, and I embrace them all.

Most conservative criticism is leveled at moderates from states that are more red than the politician. I think in part that is why McCain gets so much grief.

when the unions started spewing out media money, the elites, and the media started bleating and wailing, and he looked around and didn't have a friend in the World. All the people who were telling him, foolishly, naively, in my mind, to go toe to toe with those unions simply vanished and acted like they didn't know him, many even turned on him.

And it isn't just a CA thing; I've been through it here too. I've never been nor wanted to be an elected official, so I'm pretty mercenary; I'll do pretty much whatever somebody will pay me to do. I did one gig with the AK Legislature where they wanted to go toe to toe with the unions; they wanted to kill people they were so mad. But when it came down to it, their spines turned to linguini. I got paid, so I didn't much care. When I was an appointee with the power to actually do something, I was dealing with all the rock ribbed fiscal conservative types who wanted to go rape and pillage the unions. I just got my quality time with the Gov and COS and convinced them that if they listened to them, all Hell would break out, and the people who were egging them on would be on TV calling for "reaching out" and a "nuanced approach." When you find somebody who can get elected to office and still maintain some semblance of principle, let me know. I've only known, from afar, two: Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, and even they had to compromise, sometimes heavily, on lots and lots of things to be able to hold the course on the principled things that were most important to them.

In Vino Veritas

Arnold screwed up his timing. That's what stopped him. Calling for the special election in an off-year, AFTER he had over a year of sky-high approval ratings was a huge mistake.

Being an off year, the Unions had nothing else to spend their money on, had no other issues to distract them, and allowed them to focus only on destroying Arnold and the initiatives.

Had he done it in 2004, when the Unions were distracted with the Presidential race, Congressional races, etc. and when he still had crazy-high approval ratings, they not only would have won, but they would have won comfortably IMHO.

They castrated the man in one swift stroke. He's never been the same since. He OWNED them if he had played their cards right. He bet on the exact wrong hand.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

If we want to redefine conservative that much, that's fine. But let me know when people start calling McCain a conservative much less Arnold or Bloomberg. Those are closest things we have to Boris. I'm a big tent guy. I'd like those two to stay in the Party.

But if that is your evidence of rising conservatism, it may be worse than some of us think.

OTOH, the elections in France, Germany and Italy are quite reassuring with respect to European politics. The fact that Canada, the US and Mexico all have center-right Presidents (or PMs) right now is good news. And the fact that Mexico has twice in a row rejected leftists is good news indeed especially as South America has taken a jolt to the left.

Internationally, the Sarkozy election is probably the best indicator that Europe is not as lefty as some in the US fear.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Not an ideologue, but a conservative nonetheless.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

"It is time to reassert British values…That means disposing of the first taboo, and accepting that the problem is Islam. Islam is the problem. To any non-Muslim reader of the Koran, Islamophobia — fear of Islam — seems a natural reaction, and, indeed, exactly what that text is intended to provoke. Judged purely on its scripture — to say nothing of what is preached in the mosques — it is the most viciously sectarian of all religions. The trouble with this disgusting arrogance and condescension is that it is widely supported in Koranic texts, and we look in vain for the enlightened Islamic teachers and preachers who will begin the process of reform. What is going on in these mosques and madrasas? "When is someone going to get 18th century on Islam’s mediaeval ass?"

I don't know about his other positions, but he doesn't sound like a squish on things like PC and national security.

Second, yes, I could see Boris is a Rudy-type mayor.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

Holy crap. This is one guy to definately watch.

Thanks to Grover Norquist and his boatloads of Saudi money, you won't here a mainstream Republican politician talking like that.

Here is W on Islam:

The Islam that we know is a faith devoted to the worship of one God, as revealed through The Holy Qur'an. It teaches the value and the importance of charity, mercy, and peace."
President George W. Bush's Message for Ramadan
November 15, 2001

"...they know what I know -- that the Muslim faith is based upon peace and love and compassion."
September 28, 2001

"America treasures the relationship we have with our many Muslim friends, and we respect the vibrant faith of Islam which inspires countless individuals to lead lives of honesty, integrity, and morality. This year, may Eid also be a time in which we recognize the values of progress, pluralism, and acceptance that bind us together as a Nation and a global community. By working together to advance mutual understanding, we point the way to a brighter future for all."

Presidential Message Eid al-Fitr
December 5, 2002

"Islam brings hope and comfort to millions of people in my country, and to more than a billion people worldwide. Ramadan is also an occasion to remember that Islam gave birth to a rich civilization of learning that has benefited mankind."

President's Eid al-Fitr Greeting to Muslims around the World
December 4, 2002

SD_Donk

Can you give us some information on how bought and sold the Clinton's along with middle east money funding the Little Rock presidential library? I figure you're an expert and this sort of information on the Democrats would be right in your wheelhouse.

You're enlightening us, so go ahead and thrown in some information on that as well on Obama's supporters and endorsements from Hammis.

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

Hamas cares nothing about US politics.

I have no idea about Bill Clinton, for all I know he's just as bad.

But Bush's fawning statements about a religion that has been bent on destroying the West for more than 1000 years is sickening.

As are photos of him holding hands with various Saudi princes.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

SD-Dem you will just say anything that pops into your noggin. But hey go with it. It's lightening up my day.


"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

SD_Donk

You're such an expert on these matters and such an expert on the Middle East and President Bush's involvement, you should be able to pontificate on how the Democrats play the same game.

You're not going to tell us that you're just a garden variety "Bush Lied" idiot are you....well maybe you've already answered that.

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

way Obama want to play kissy face with those who have been trying to kill us for 1000yrs the President does not!

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

President Bush refused to meet with Arafat until that evil troll died. Clinton treated him like a guest of honor at the White House.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

I think this is going too far. The problem with what he's saying, is that even if he's right (there's truth in it, but he's way over-the-top), it's counter-productive to say it.

Daniel Pipes, hardly a squish, opposes these sorts of arguments because he realizes that the only way to deal with the Islamic threat is to moderate Islam. Mass conversion is impractical, genocide is wrong by any standard. You are left with having to moderate Islam. You cannot moderate Islam by trashing all of it.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

By which I mean we do not truly believe in government the way Democrats do. I'll use the broad stroke and postulate that this is a large part of the reason that Republicans are more "successful" in the minority than in the majority. Given the permanent Dem-friendly leftiness and pro-government attitude of the media, the fact that Republicans in general and conservatives in particular believe in less/smaller/more efficient government is not to our advantage, particularly when added to our failure to uphold the ideals on which we run. We have standards and principles, the current crop of Republicans to a large extent has abandoned or betrayed them, and we are seen as failures by our enemies and ourselves. Dems believe in big government, high taxes, social welfare, etc., and deliver effortlessly when in power unless effectively opposed by Republicans. Democrats hold themselves to NO standards, and thereby cannot be accused of hypocrisy. The past few years the parties have been in collusion to pass legislation and spend our tax dollars in ways we find unforgivable. Dems want the power back and many Republicans are so disgusted we almost don't care if they get it.

Add to this the advancing of the boomer generation into elderly dependence status and even our moderate relatives and friends have become avid suckers of the government teat or want to be.

I think the only thing that speaks to the country as a whole anymore (excluding possibly illegal immigration) is defense. To rely on another attack to bring our party to strength again is a pretty damning and hideous thought, yet this is what I believe it would take. People are complacent and complacency leads to lazy, fat Dem government.

I've been listening to Rush who I know is as popular as ever and yet he's starting to lose everyday Repubublicans on the principles of conservatism. There is a true failure of ideological leadership in our party. McCain eschews ideological leadership. This Republican ship will remain a rudderless failure until either something awful enough happens to this country to turn our heads around, the boomer generation dies off, or the Dems just do things that are so damaging to the country that the tide turns, again. But that last option has happened (1994) and Republicans ultimately squandered the opportunity to remake government when they had the opportunity because they fell in love with the trappings of political power. How to lead and not become that which you despised? I don't think it can be done longterm.

Conservatives hate government and are bad at it; liberals love government and are good at it (I define government as pretty much the taking of our money by those we elect for purposes which frequently abuse us). Argue with this all you want but in my opinion the evidence is overwhelming.

You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.

Outside of the White house, we *governed* in the 90s, and even in Washington we ran the Congress. And we were good at it. Welfare reform, crime reduction, economic prosperity, tax cuts, deregulation, everything we touched turned to gold.

We did so well that for the most part we eliminated our own issues. Crime isn't something you can win on anymore because crime was cut so much. Welfare has been reformed, and it's not coming back the way it was before. Taxes were cut. Regulations were reduced. The economy boomed.

It's hard to run on "let's keep on keeping on," so we've fallen off a bit.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

....is lower today in real terms than it was 8 years ago.

"Keep on keeping on" is not a message that resonates with the middle class these days.

.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

....I am just relaying the standard Census Bureau measure of median household income.

However, since the last WSJ poll a week or so ago showed that 73% felt that this country was on the wrong track, I suspect the number is fall smaller than you seem to believe.

.

I want a source.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

From the Census Bureau's Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States for 2006 , page 37 :

Media Household Income (2006 year dollars)

2000--- $ 49,163

2006--- $ 48,201

.

(Psst, page 37 contains a few footnotes. You mean page 29?)

Anyway, even when we find what you actually meant, it is true that your source shows real median rates start to fall before the Clinton recession (as is easy to see on the chart on page 4), remain stagnant after 9/11, but rebound and grow again when Bush got re-elected and we got a big Senate majority. However you were misleading in several ways:

1) Your source says nothing about 2007 or 2008 rates, contrary to your claim about eight years ago from today.

2) You cherrypicked a misleading number. Starting in 2000 has no relevance to the topic of the Gingrich 90s, which is the era I referred to when governed nationwide after the 94 landslide, during which median income went from 43,405 in 1994 to a high of 49,204 in 1999. Yes, we were tailing off STARTING in 2000 to 49,163.

3) The declines were worst during the Jeffords/Daschle Congress, in whcih median income lost about $1,600 from 200 to 2002. The decline slowed when Republicans regained the Senate, and bottomed out in 2004 at $47,323 for a decline of $200 in that stretch. That went up after the election to2006's $48,201

Any bets on whether that number has a net up or down during the Pelosi/Reid days?

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

....of the Adobe document.

There is no corresponding data for 2007 and 2008 yet. The Census Bureau report is published in August of each year and cover the prior year. So the 2007 data will be out in about 3 months or so.

Given what has happened with the economy since the housing meltdown in 2007, are you expecting the 2007 data to show an improvement in median income.

As to my claim, I did misspeak as to the time frame of the median income data. I should have been more precise and said that median household income was lower in 2006 than 2000.

There is no "today" for median household income data.

.

...if the "Gingrich era" is responsible for the rise in median household income in the 1990's, then the "Gingrich era"...or more precisely the Republican Congress...is responsible for the recession...not Clinton..

.

Then what's your point? Quit wasting our time.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

..that "keep on keeing on" will give Republicans the exact same result that they got in 2006.

IMO.

YMMV.

.

You tried to slip in a lie, and got caught. So now you have nothing to say but meaningless platitudes.

Does that mean if the Republicans keep on, you people are going to run anti-gay campaigns every time, like you did in 2006?

Heh.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

But households are smaller too. What numbers are you referring to exactly because per capita income is significantly higher. If median HH is down, I'm guessing it's due to a rise in single person homes which is a long run trend that has lowered median HH income even while median individual income has risen.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

....is not a good measure because it is skewed by the unequal distribution of income.

A median statistic is a much better measure of what most people think of as "the average" than a per capita statistic.

.

But using HH has the problem the HH are smaller than they were.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

How on earth is this a useful measurement? We're counting equally some 19 year old in an apartment making minimum wage, who mooches off his parents whenever he can, with a family of five.

How is that useful?

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

....while I agree that over the last 20 or 30 years that family size has decreased, I don't believe that family size would have changed enough between 2000 and 2006 to have a meaningful impact on the median household income data.

.

I'm looking at the census site and get different numbers:

1999: 41,994
2006: 48,451

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

The 2000 says "dollars." I'm not sure what they adjusted the 2006 number to... 2000 is often the standard but not always.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

the single fastest growing portion of compensation. cmugrad please use total compensation from now on. Wages have been slow to grow or falling because of offsetting compensaiton.



Now also found at The Minority Report

although I'm not sure how fringe it is...i guess that's a matter of perspective



Now also found at The Minority Report

executive governance, not so much. All during the GWB years, the Ds haven't dared take him on in policy. Even in the one area they tried, the War, they failed miserably. Their emphasis was on competence, cronyism, and corruption. Never mind that much of it was hypocritical, contrived, or outright false, we gave them plenty that was all too real. The typical R doesn't want to be a bureaucrat when he or she grows up. The Ds have little baby directors, commissioners, and secretaries all through government from clerk and janitor on up. When they're in power, they can run things smoothly. When they're out of power, they can leak, thwart, and sabotage. Republicans are so worried about being perceived as "mean" that they won't hunt them all down and shoot them like dogs in the road at a change of administration, so we stuff like the Plame affair. You've heard this rant before, but if we ever want to hold power for long, we need to develop a bench that knows where the light switches and restrooms in government offices are.

In Vino Veritas

rodguy911
Great post and I agree with much of it.

We are a small govt. party and like it that way. Our form of government as conservatives is basically "captialism". There's is socialism. The two were never meant to merge and never should.

The poster who pointed out that 2/3 of a poll all wanted cradle to grave health care forgot that any poll that asks "would you like something if its free" will always get a resounding vote.

It's human nature to pick up the fiver laying on the ground and then start looking to see if there are any more free lunch tickets just laying around.

That doesnt make it right.

Our Republican ship may be rudderless right now, we do need a RR II, be it David Petraeus, or yet another undiscovered conservative who believes in God, country and the Conservative American way of life.
He's(she's) out there we just have not found him yet. We will.
RG

a second Ronald Reagan. Our platform should be good enough that anyone can rally behind it. We can't just wait for the coming of the next conservative savior. There's a flaw with what we've been doing and it extends beyond the lack of leadership.

but I disagree. It is critical for conservatives to have an ideological leader in the trenches (and ultimately in the WH or a Newt-type figure in Congress) who can articulate our principles and the reasons why they are best for this country. Conservatism is hard, liberalism is easy. Libs don't need convincing and standards/principles, they need pabulum for brains. I have been there and I know. Given the lefty brainwashing that goes on in schools from pre-school now on up through college, plus the media, the easy path is mindless big-goverment-is-here-to-solve-all-your-problems socialism. Then all it takes is some dictator-like Dem leaders and voila.

I see a conservative ideological leader on the horizon and his name is Bobby Jindal. He connects with voters, Republican and Democrat alike, in a way I doubt we have seen in a generation. THIS is what I mean by leadership. This is an example of excellence in Republican governance.

You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.

The two biggest drags on the Republican brand are Bush and Iraq. Once this election is over, these issues are going to nearly disappear, and the Democrats are going to lose their two most potent (only) issues, and I see a Republican resurgence, especially on National Security issues.

In 2002 and 2004, I gleefully thought the Democrat Party was on its way to being a minority party for the next generation. It's amazing how quickly political fortunes can change. Republican registration also shot up around 10 points nationally during this time. Now its the Republicans that are "on the ropes."

McCain is a good candidate to have at the top of the ticket during this difficult transition, but he will not be the savior of our Party.

As far as winning the next generation of voters, the biggest stumbling block in my view is the Republican Party is its religiosity.

Younger voters are much more secular, and even though many have libertarian-leanings, they feel the Republican Party is the "Church Party", and cast their votes with the Democrats, even though they disagree with the Democrat's Big-Government agenda.

I certainly agree with the top part..but

"As far as winning the next generation of voters, the biggest stumbling block in my view is the Republican Party is its religiosity.

Younger voters are much more secular, and even though many have libertarian-leanings, they feel the Republican Party is the "Church Party", and cast their votes with the Democrats, even though they disagree with the Democrat's Big-Government agenda."

I don't think young people are paying attention to that..They are clueless about "Church Party" and "the Democrat's Big-Government agenda"..believe me I have a 22 year old that goes to UC Santa Cruz ...they are getting Brainwashed.

"40 million American households with Carnitas are generally happier
than those people in households that don't have Carnitas."

"the biggest stumbling block in my view is the Republican Party is its religiosity" I'm not sure what that means.

Young people will always tend to be more liberal. They are idealist. Trying to court young voters is a waste of time. People do however become more conservative with age. The Republicans great battles ae always convincing self-identified Democrats, who associate with the Democrats because of their youthful days and because of old loyalities, to look at the Republican Party. This is what happened with Reagan Democrats, the South, new school union voters, entrepeneurial and business minded black and so on an so forth.

They get conservative with age, but still vote Dem out of habit.

As far as winning the next generation of voters, the biggest stumbling block in my view is the Republican Party is its religiosity.

Well, I'm glad you qualified that with "in my view".

So, you know, the biggest stumbling block wouldn't be:

--the fact that Republicans in Congress spend like sailors on shore leave?
--their congenital inability to "get a little dirty behind the schoolbus" (SWAT movie) in response in kind to routinely low-down, dishonest, and sleazy Democrat tactics?
--their seeming inability to communicate an obviously superior agenda to American blacks?

No, it's religiosity. Yep. Um, other than your personal observations, what do you base this on? And do you have any idea how many Americans have traditional family values (i.e., that 'religiosity' you speak of?

Have you noticed, in passing perhaps, all the states putting "marriage = 1 man + 1 woman" constitutional amendments - many of them being BLUE states? Did ya notice that those measures are not exactly passing by 51-49 margins?

You just go ahead and hang the 'relgiosity' thing around the necks of Republicans.

And as for 'calm down', there are no Republicans threatening riots at the GOP convention this year. ust a thought.

Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies
-- Frank J

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

You seem to have gotten a little upset with my post.

The ideal Republican I'm guessing for you is a Rick Santorum. I would argue this is exactly the kind of Republican that will lose the next generation of voters. You're free to disagree, but you can't argue that Santorum lost in a landslide election that was mainly a result of his wearing his religion on his sleeve.

Even though I'm sure a lot of voters leaned his way on many of these hot-button issues, he overplayed these issues. Pennsylvania is a good bellwether state of where the nation stands, and for a well-established incumbent Senator that significantly outspent his (idiot) challenger to lose so spectacularly should give these type of Republicans pause.

A candidate like Santorum would do great in Alabama or Mississippi, but the rest of the country tends to loathe moralizers in political positions.

Another Republican a lot of social conservatives rallied around was Mike Huckabee. Even though I'm sure a lot of Americans agree with many of his positions, at the end of the day, a lot of voters are turned off by a preacher-turned-politician. I know I was, even though in principle I agree with most of his social conservative stances.

The gay marriage issue is just one issue out of many hot button issues, and it's one of the few that usually breaks our way. However, bans on gay marriage don't pass in every state, it failed in Arizona, for example, which isn't a blue state. It went for Bush by nearly 10 points in '04.

Pork-barrel spending has very little to do with Republican's current woes. It's a good minor issue to beat Democrats over the head with now, but how many voters do you really think decided to vote Democrat in 2004, the party of big-government, instead of Republican because they thought the Democrats would be more thrifty? I'm sure there are a few, but the main stumbling block for Republicans then and now is the Bush Presidency.

Once Bush gets further in the rear view mirror, things will get better for the Party.

-You seem to have gotten..
-I'm guessing for you..
-You're free to disagree, but you can't argue...
-Even though I'm sure...
-Pennsylvania is a good bellwether state of where the nation stands...
-but the rest of the country tends to loathe ...
-Even though I'm sure a lot of Americans agree..
-a lot of voters are turned off...
-Pork-barrel spending has very little to do with Republican's current woes...
-I'm sure there are a few, but the main stumbling block for Republicans then and now is the Bush Presidency...

Very weak sauce. Anything you would like to add?

"40 million American households with Carnitas are generally happier
than those people in households that don't have Carnitas."

I'm making points and counterpoints, I thought this was a discussion.

Do you really think by cutting up my sentences and putting them next to other cut up sentences, that it proves anything.

I'm in awe of your brilliance

You do not have the blogcred here to insult other posters, and I am specifically telling you never to do it again.

Moe

PS: Life Is Not Fair, but you are perfectly welcome to complain to the Directors if you don't like this.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

No, just refuting it. Your are full of opinions that don't have facts attached - including your suppositions about me - I'm 'upset with your post', and 'Rick Santorum is my ideal Republican'.

How about doing some listening before casting your brilliance so freely before all the swine. I'm mildly annoyed with your first post (and with this one) because they are above-average ignorant of facts on the ground (both in identifying social conservatism as some major divisive issue, and in your characterization of social conservatives as judgmental hillbillies), while taking an unwarranted superior tone. Not 'upset', not deeply offended, not morally outraged.

The ideal Republican for me - well research me and take your guess. Everybody on RedState but *you* knows who my ideal Republican is - and he ain't exactly a SoCon. But it's nice of you to have me so completely figured out and all.

Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies
-- Frank J

The reason that people are leaving the Republican Party is b/c we have governed poorly over the past 8 years. Across the board our fiscal, foreign and military policy has been abysmal.

Our deficit has practically doubled, our economy is probably headed into a recession, food and gas prices have skyrocketed. Health care, even for the insured, is burdensome. We have the greatest military in the world, yet we've been fighting Islamic extremists longer than we fought the Germans in WWII.

When Reagan ran for president he asked folks if they were better of currently, than they were before. Most Americans are not better off now than they were eight years ago. That is the main reason why we're loosing support.

There's a feeling among alot of folks that we're headed in the wrong direction. McCain needs to acknowlege this and come up with solutions to address these problems. He could pull it off, with his record on fiscal responsibility and supporting the surge.

"there’s more to conservatism than low taxes, Jesus, and waterboarding at Gitmo." P.J. O'rourke

I'm tired of people who call themselves conservative not acknowledging the obvious and not coming up with solutions based on conservative principles.

Why couldn't we cut non-military related spending when we had a Republican house, senate and president?

Why has the deficit ballooned over the past eight years with little to show for it?

Why is the Taliban resurging?

Why don't we do anything about Iran working with Iraqi insurgents to kill our soldiers?

One reason I support McCain is I think he'll be more conservative than Bush in a coventional sense. Especially when it comes to fiscal responsibility, balancing budgets and competence in managing our military and foreign policy.

"there’s more to conservatism than low taxes, Jesus, and waterboarding at Gitmo." P.J. O'rourke

Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies
-- Frank J

I thought you were an Obama guy, no?

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

I'm more of a McCain supporter than most of the folks here on Red State. Not an Obama supporter b/c of his lack of experience and his liberal policies. However, I'm an old school conservative and believe in fiscal responsibility as well as compentence in military and foreign policy matters. John McCain is the right man to restore these three pillars of conservatism.

"there’s more to conservatism than low taxes, Jesus, and waterboarding at Gitmo." P.J. O'rourke

"We have the greatest military in the world, yet we've been fighting Islamic extremists longer than we fought the Germans in WWII."

The rest of your comment was moby lite, but that statement is gonna get you some attention. I suggest you brush up on your WWII history for a few minutes, with an eye towards writing an essay for Moe or Streiff. Just a hunch.

Why is it considered provacative to be upset at the mistakes made in fighting the GWOT. What is wrong about being upset that the Taliban has been on the rise in Afghanistan? What is wrong with criticizing this administration for going soft on Iran as they arm and train Iraqi extremists to kill our soldiers?

We mobilized as a country to defeat the Japanese and Germans in WWI, who were a much more serious military threat to our Republic. Why can't we defeat a less serious threat in a similar time frame?

"there’s more to conservatism than low taxes, Jesus, and waterboarding at Gitmo." P.J. O'rourke

Therein lies the crux of the problem.

Nancy Pelosi

Tom Daschle

International ANSWER

Code Pink

FISA fiasco

Gitmo histrionics

Vandalizing Recruiting Centers

Attacking campus ROTC

And that's just the short list.

Funny how you left Japan out of your canard. I guess you would have to be in favor of using nukes and internment camps if you included Japan. Apparently you are only nostalgic for saturation fire-bombing of civilian populations.

It's one thing to argue that we should never have gone to Iraq, or that we need to change tactics. It's quite another to undermine the war effort at every turn and then complain that the war is taking too long.

London's new mayor Boris Johnson was born in the US and says he really wants to be POTUS someday. That got me thinking about the VP debates for the general. Can you imagine how his Dennis the Menace moptop would throw off the D's concentration? He looks like Chris Matthews after he dried his hair in a wind tunnel!
Tim Schieferecke

I like Johnson, if only for the fact that he beat Red Ken. Unfortunately, he has a lot of personal baggage that won't stand up well to the media scrutiny here in the US

"there’s more to conservatism than low taxes, Jesus, and waterboarding at Gitmo." P.J. O'rourke

For what it's worth, I'll throw in a few random comments about this & that from the thread.

"Physician, heal thyself!" We should not look for a saviour, another Reagan. It is unfair to the candidates that will come, & to Reagan himself. WE are the "saviours" of the party & conservatism. We should work in the grassroots & spread the message. That way our candidates will have that strong foundation from which to work.

The democrats gained majorities in 2006 by carefully targeting districts, and ran conservative candidates against the incumbent republicans. I'm not saying that we should run liberals, however we can target districts that are competitive. There are some (inner-city Memphis, for example) where a conservative will not win.

The republicans lost control of congress because too many "went native" to the Washington mindset. They spent too much money & did not govern effectively. The democrats have done as bad or worse since they took control, & show no signs of getting their acts together. This could lead to a rift in the democrats between the leadership & the more conservative democrats, & portend opportunity in 2010 & beyond. It seems that the republican leadership is content to hunker down & try to lose as few as they can in 2008. I don't like to say it, however it may be the best they can do right now.

As for conservatism, I challenge each of us to put pen to paper & codify what we believe. This can help us individually when elections don't go our way & focus us on the future.

"What is wrong about being upset that the Taliban has been on the rise in Afghanistan?"

Every spring the Leftstream media says that the Taliban is "resurgent" or making a "comeback" and it's just as laughable everytime. It's like the "brutal Afghan winter" or the "worst economy since the Great Depression which only happens when Republicans are in the White House." It's wishful thinking/propaganda. Come on dude, this is pretty basic stuff.

"We mobilized as a country to defeat the Japanese and Germans in WWI, who were a much more serious military threat to our Republic. Why can't we defeat a less serious threat in a similar time frame?"

Skirmishes always take longer than the bloodbath/conventional wars. Personally, I prefer the less bloody way without the carpet bombing and nuking.

Repubs

Here are a couple of points I would like to add:

1) I think we have a good shot to dodge a Dem Presidency this time due to the poor dem candidates.

2) We have lost house and senate seats due to retirements, old age and voters but the dems will be losing quite a few seats to old age going forward as well.

3) McCain has been a pain to many times but may be very useful this time.

4) The real conservative voters need to find and support the real deal and we need to get back to our core ideals, this will require us to fight back and defend ourselves as well as be more aggressive.

My two cents
NorCal

1) Poor candidates or not, we are severe underdogs. It is going to take a lot more than "they suck more than we do" to win this time around. There is a lot of R fatigue right now.

2) The Dems seem to be able to hold onto seats forever (see Kennedy and Byrd). They almost never retire by choice.

3) Agree, he may be the only R this year to avoid the R fatigue. [Unless the Bush III theme sticks with the voters]

4) "Real" conservatism will not win in every distict. LA will not vote in rock ribbed conservative. We need to remember that this party is a coalition. We have to be willing to run moderates where the political landscape deems it so. The coalition should be built on an overall conservative philosophy, but should allow for variation of policy.



Now also found at The Minority Report

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service