Reasons the Republicans lost the House:

Status
Not open for further replies.
I can tell you what happend.

I got up this morning and heard the bad news.

Then, I went and checked my mail. I hadnt checked it in a few days. I had a flier from the Texas Rupublican Party.

It said, "On Nov. 7th, your vote will decide..."

Then on the back it says "Which values guide the country..."

-Minor daughters informing parents about abortions
-Flag Burning
-Defense of marriage laws
-Laci Peterson laws to protect women from violence
-etc.

And I thought... THIS IS THE BEST THEY CAN COME UP WITH!?!?

THIS is what they run on? This is the best they can come up with...

Wow. No wonder we lost. Conservatives lost because the "conservative" party is full of crazies who think the majority of America CARES about this, much less wants this garbage.

We're doomed.
 
The senior citizen drug plan was arranged for the benefit of the drug companies and the insurance companies and to add yet another layer of dependency people have with the state.

There are ways to restructure health care to bring in market forces to control costs and make things much more efficient. But here again nothing was or is being done.
 
Malice you really hit it right on. The Republican machine sees their base as a bunch of simple good ole boys that are incapable of thinking about deep economic, constitutional or global matters. Wave the flag and spout off some stuff about hippies and homosexuals and the hicks will show up and vote you in every time.
 
One thing people have not mentioned that might have had an impact at the federal level is that just a few weeks ago the idiot Rs passed The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act .*

And Mister Bush signed it.

This caused numerous online gaming sites to deny access to people playing from the US. This, is turn, pissed A LOT of people off. Many of whom might have ended up not voting for their local R because of it.

How many people in this country played online poker in the US? About 23 million.

So the stupid Rs decided, in the very last stages of a crucial election cycle, to risk angering 23,000,000 people.

So good job there. Way to go. Anyone who pulls something like that is obviously not smart enough to be voted for.








*Now the bill was not about poker per se, it was about the funding of online gaming but it has had the effect of causing some online sites to deny access to those of us in the US.
 
So how do you explain Lieberman getting voted back in

I call it Connecticut's unchecked slide into becoming Massachusetts' even blander and nerdier cousin by re-electing the whiner with the personality of a wet noodle.

I really have no other explanation for that.
 
I believe that, in simple terms, the Republicans as a party have ceased being classically conservative. We refer to the likes of McCain and Specter as RINOs, as if "Republican" still means "conservative." Unfortunately, it doesn't. The likes of McCain and Specter are becoming "the party."

I see some real differences between Rs and Ds on some key issues, but the Repubs are no longer committed as a party to small government, free markets, and strong defense (despite all the rhetoric surrounding the Iraq war and the "War on Terror"). While there are more Republicans than Democrats who I might label classically conservative, the Republicans as a party can't even point to a consistent defense of the Bill of Rights. After only 12 years in power, they decided they were comfortable there, and tried to dole out our money to keep themselves in power!

I hate that the stupid voting machines provide the option of voting a straight party ticket. Everyone ought to be forced to make individual choices on every line. "The Party" ain't.
 
I hate that the stupid voting machines provide the option of voting a straight party ticket. Everyone ought to be forced to make individual choices on every line. "The Party" ain't.

Like it is easy to be well informed about every candidate for every office. I look at it as having generally less regard for one who would think of himself or herself as aligned with the opposing party. If they really cared about what is important to me, they would belong to my party. The parties are a lot more different than some propose.
 
I believe that, in simple terms, the Republicans as a party have ceased being classically conservative. We refer to the likes of McCain and Specter as RINOs, as if "Republican" still means "conservative." Unfortunately, it doesn't. The likes of McCain and Specter are becoming "the party."
Give that man a cigar. In the 60's GWB would've been electable as a Democrat. His platform; the aggressive spread of democracy, by force if necessary, expansion of entitlements, increased funding for social engineering projects, would've endorsed some version of gun control. That Bush is now considered "right wing" is a mark of how far left the political landscape has been moved. And the default coalition the Republicans had built was never well constructed; there was always going to be tension between social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, neocons and classical liberals. Say what you want about Reagan, but he found the sweet spot between them with a message that appealed to all those groups. The current group of Republican simply weren't good political technicians, and didn't understand the balancing act they had to do to keep their constituency together and motivated, or to expand it and poach enough swing votes to compensate for the malcontents. They ran into a no-man's land (no-voters land) where no one was happy with them - 2 years ago. They learned the wrong lesson from Bush's re-election; that they had a free ride on the back of their edge in national security issues and thought people were voting for them rather than against the other guy. Tuesday they paid the price for complacency, as people voted against them rather than for the other guy. The lesson they should take from this is the lesson the Democrats should have learned from '04; you can't just show up and count on the other guy sucking enough that you win by default.
 
RealGun, I don't disagree with you completely. But in NY, the parties had the opportunity to be more clearly delineated. In addition to the Republicans and Democrats, there were the Green Party, the Conservative Party, the Constitution Party, and a slew of others. In many instances, the Republican was also the Conservative nominee, but I could vote on the Conservative (or Constitution) line. One can still vote a straight party ticket, but I think voters should make each selection. Wish in PA those other parties were on the ballot ...
 
The lesson they should take from this is the lesson the Democrats should have learned from '04; you can't just show up and count on the other guy sucking enough that you win by default.
Yes! Absolutely!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Apart from only one Real exception (subtle enough? ), there has been a lot of wisdom expressed in this thread.

I too find a "Real" exception. Isn't it presumptuous to think that anyone would be concerned about whether you approved of their opinion? How does one differ with you without being slimed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I too find a "Real" exception. Isn't it presumptuous to think that anyone would be concerned about whether you approved of their opinion? How does one differ with you without being slimed.


I'm sorry you don't have a better sense of humor, RealGun. :scrutiny:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
At least in Virginia, once again the Republicans allowed the democratic candidate to divide the "gun vote" and they did it unchecked. Webb beat Allen to the "pro gun punch" at each and every step of the way. Webb's NRA survey out first, Webb promised legislation on issues first, and Allen only did it in reaction. BUT, critically, Allen did not "try harder" to get the gun vote, he simply rested on his reputation of support for NRA backed bills. That's all well and good but the NRA squandered 3 years for the sacrifice of the AWB, and protection of lawful commerce in arms which did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for gun owners, only the NRA and gun manufacturers. Had Senator Allen immediately come out and said:

I will introduce legislation to: repeal..., repeal..., repeal..., repeal...

that would have ended the debate right then and there.

Leaving the issue of firearms, Sen. Allen toed the party line well, unfortunately, Virginia didn't want him to do that on a few issues, and chief among them was Iraq.

Overall, we saw more than a few Dems who were polling as at least moderately pro-gun. Some of them are genuinely pro gun, but most are "just enough to split the vote". The party as a whole is realizing - just beginning to, anyway, that you can't ignore guns. As a demographic, we cannot carry an election by itself, but we can put you over the top, or not. This is a double edged sword because not only do we now have to work across party lines, but now the Republicans may not be so motivated to pursue the gun vote. Additionally, we still have the upper echelons of the liberal wing who will pressure these "new dems" to go their way. Only the constituents can prevent that. The republicans need to look to the past to get into power in the future. the '94 Contract with America worked, like it or not. They need to come up with a serious, conservative plan to overhaul government.
 
A few nights ago my wife and I were watching the evening news. A woman was being interviewed about her recently lost son to the war. I glanced over at my wife as she placed her hands over her face and moaned, "Oh, that poor-poor mother, what are we to do."
I knew, at that moment, we'd lost.
 
Why did the republicans lose? I think perhaps because the neo-cons and religious extremists in the party turned off a lot of people. People like Santorum. You have a very strong christian-taliban wing in the GOP that turns off 98% of the population who chooses to THINK.

The Repubs accuse Dems of "tax and spend" but the repubs "borrow and spend" to the same degree. The GOP has long abandoned it's fiscal conservative, small government stance, and has raped civil liberties and the constitution. Bush is all for passing the AWB is ever passes his desk.

So the GOP decided to become big government, rape civil liberties, borrow and spend, and kowtow to the religious-facists.
 
and protection of lawful commerce in arms which did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for gun owners, only the NRA and gun manufacturers

Huh? :scrutiny: So once all of the gun manufacturers and importers and dealers in the country were sued out of existence, or bankrupted in never ending (taxpayer funded) lawsuits, you would have bought your guns from who exactly?
 
Shamus, it is possible for candidates to appeal to Christian conservatives by merely being pro Constitution and pro federalism, which really amount to the same thing. Traditionally, this is what conservatism was about, and it appealed to both libertarians and Christian conservatives, because both would then get a chance to fight it out at the local level to affect change where they live and raise their families. Under true federalism, if you are a libertarian who lives in a Christian conservative town, and can't stand it, you can ultimately move to a town that allows, e.g., pot smoking, pornography, abortion and the like. If, on the other hand, you are a Christian conservative who lives in a libertarian town where pot smoking, porn and abortion are legal, you can ultimately pick up and move your whole family to a town with a rep for being full of Christian conservatives. This choice exists for you, if all else fails, under federalism.

This is why Reagan had such broad appeal. He espoused authentic conservatism, which has as its foundation federalism, i.e., give the power of controlling our lives back to us, in our communities. This was the vision of the Founders, and it was a great one, where the largest possible number of people could be happy and feel that those in government are representing their interests. When everything is handled in DC, however, and is applied universally across the whole nation, as the Neo Cons (the Bushes included), and the Leftists would have it, you get a sharply divided country, where half the country hates the other half of the country around election time (and beyond) because of where they want to take the country as a whole. Under federalism, in other words, you as a libertarian, might think those folks two towns over are quite odd and misguided, but you wouldn't necessarily hate them for having a cross on the water tower. Likewise, the folks in that town might think you all are a bunch of pagans and heathens, but they wouldn't necessarily hate you for allowing pot smoking, prostitution and the like. Yeah, they'd avoid your town, other than to send the occasional missionary in, but they wouldn't hate you. That's the beauty of federalism, and that's why Reagan had such broad appeal, winning in two landslide national elections.
 
Last edited:
When everything is handled in DC as the Neo Cons (the Bushes included), and the Leftists would have it, you get a sharply divided country, where everybody hates everybody else because of where they want to take the whole country.

Didn't Lincoln and the first Republicans do the same thing?
 
Didn't Lincoln and the first Republicans do the same thing?
Good thought. In his defense, though, he didn't actually do anything to cause the South to secede. The Southern States just assumed he'd do something, and seceded preemptively. Federalism, however, is the cure for secessionist inclinations. Had Lincoln been perceived a strong federalist (i.e., someone who shares Madison's vision of our national republic), there would likely have been no Civil War.
 
Hawkeye got this right - the Republicans lost because they deserved to. They did a lousy job and got fired for it - good.

I haven't a smiggen of faith in the Democrats, but let's hope they take a moderate course and keep '94 in mind.
 
I wonder how I would feel about the Democrats if they just left the 2nd alone? Scary thought before bed.
 
The RealHawkeye is correct, I hope the Republicans see what happened. Federalism is the answer. It allows everyone to have their own little places to stay, with their own little prerogatives, and best of all, it makes everyone responsible to pay and live with their decisions. Such is the essence of original Conservative values. Conservative values are actually much more Libertarian than you would believe.

The Republicans misinterpreted their electorate. They saw their voters coming from "God's Country" and thought they were ignorat rednecks that really cared about whats happening in San Francisco. They don't. They could care less if the San Franciscans marry boy-boy or not as long as they aren't forced to. As long as their communities aren't forced to accept it.

For too long our country has operated under the principle of the Federal government supreme in all things. And that attitude has infiltrated all portions of American life, and beliefs. There were supposed to be 50 laboratories in government instead of one all power government deciding what everyone was going to do.

The handfull of issues that are undoubtdetly federal the Republicans messed up. Border security and the war. Yes, many Conservatives are upset with the War in Iraq. Many are rah-rah. But ultimately none of us want the US there 20 years from now. Bush's stances, and his ignorant explanations for them made Americans cringe, liberal and conservative.

cbsbyte doesn't get it. Liberals only won in places that Liberals have taken. Connecticut and northern Virginia are now liberal. Simple as that. Other than that, Conservatives either stayed away from the polls, or voted Democrat or Libertarian. Can you blame us considering what we have been offered?

Meanwhile, many Republican pundits and experts still don't get it.

This could turn out just fine. It could. Atleast now, there might be gridlock. (I ain't holdin' my breath seeing as how we are talking about Bush).

But let us see here. You have a South that is increasingly a different place than the North. You have the Western states becoming (due to California exodus, and illegal immigrants) more polarized but roughly 50-50. And all sides hate each other.

The Liberals are convinced the Conservatives wish to place them in a Christian Shari'a, and the Conservatives think that the Liberals want them to subsidize things they look at as a violation of G-d's will.

Moderates get in office in a variety of battleground states, but only because they are able to effect the very small percentage of independent moderates that swing. Meanwhile the left and right each become more extreme, and desperate.

You think this is over? The Democrats will alienate their base if the moderates go with the Republicans, and they will vote Green or fail to show at the polls.

PS.

Something to ponder. During the last civil war, the North and the South had several intractible issues, which they were willing to shoot each other over. And in the West, you had states more or less in a civil war within themselves amongst those who had just moved in from either the north or the south.

Now you have a North and South with several issues which are like big wedges dividing them, and bitterly divided Western states which are getting closer to 50/50 splits largely made up of new folks from the other states. Dangerous storm clouds on the horizon? Do you see them, or is my tin foil hat just on too tight? :D
 
I agree fully with the starter post - and could add many other reasons. There has been a "republican" pres and a "republican" majority in Congress that did nothing that really needed doing for a great number of years.

But it is only really a continuation of the greatest show on earth; G W Bush stated that (in effect) he hoped both parties would avoid being "partisan" and "work together on the problems facing the nation". Well George, the dire problems facing the nation are those created by the antithesis of conservative party principles. They are inherently "partisan" in nature.

This is like the surgeon proposing that the way forward for a medical team in the interests of the patient is to avoid the subject of removing the appendix, because some kooks on the medical staff claim that the acute appendicitis is not life threatening to the patient, but "beneficial".

---------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
 
My Take:

1) Lack of leadership in Iraq (I am for the war, but it should have been much better run)
2) Big spending (what happened to 'smaller government'?)
3) corruption
4) personal scandals
5) border hypocrisy (I am sad to say I think we will get nuked eventually because of this)

6) last, but certainly not least: What have they done for their supporters?!?

-no gun control repealed
-nothing passed for the Bible belt (I am not religious but the Christian supporters expected something)
-no reward at all for those that voted for them; the threat of 'oh no, vote for us or else the Democrats would be in power' only lasts so long. Show me the money.
 
After reading the whol thread, I have to agree with The Real Hawkeye. The lack of Federalism is what is causing major tensions in this country.

If only the "Justices" discovered the Ninth and Tenth Amendments...or the Second, or the whole Constitution...:(
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top