Redstate

Explain to me how a pro-life measure was defeated in South Dakota? I answer that... There are far more independents than Republicans. Just like in Indiana. Many people here in the Hoosier State are not as influenced by a party name. Bayh received more votes than George W. Bush in 2004 which shows that you can't judge a state by the color it goes in a presidental year.

For 2008, concentrate on replacing Hagel and Graham in the primaries. Keep the rest.
Challenge the Dem seats in LA, SD, IA, AR, MT, and WV.

How do we sweep North Dakota and South Dakota. There's no excuses for those states being anything but bright red.

The Democrats run faux-conservative Democrats in those states. It's a game they excel at. They run conservative, but then vote liberal. Assuming they maintain a relatively low profile they can play the game indefinitely. It blew up on Daschle because he had adopted such a high profile as Majority Leader. The stuff targeted for national consumption (as opposed to SD consumption) was leaking back into South Dakota and hurting him there.

A GOP Senator for a moderate to liberal state -- leave them alone (this includes Arizona as well as Maine (and Rhode Island for that matter).

I'm not sure AZ falls into the "moderate to liberal" category, but I got no problem with McCain in the Senate. I'd leave Maine alone as well, but I can't agree on Rhode Island. When a guy is that disloyal and that worthless, he is really no loss. The Maine twins can very occasionally be useful for something and haven't proven themselves to be disloyal to the party.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

It doesn't matter if "you" have a problem with M&K. McCain is up next in 2010, he might retire but he'll never be beaten in a primary.

Kyl is up in 2012. This mess will be long forgotten by then, and like McCain, he's unbeatable in a primary.

Bottom line there are no Republicans with statewide name recognition who would run against either and they couldn't beat them if they did.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

You really think he was such an exceptional case? You don't think LBJ and FDR did the same kinds of things? Or Bill Clinton for that matter? Now people are smart enough to not keep detailed records of their behavior, or at least lose them if those records do inadvertently get created.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I;m saying Republicans had the decency to turn on Nixon. When we turn on each other, it is the only time the MSM applauds. We should expect no such thing from Dems, or the MSM, otherwise.

is that we need to stop promoting people we think that can win and start to promote people we want to win. Like Fred D. Thompson.

"I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way."
John Paul Jones (letter to M. Le Ray de Chaumont,16 Nov.1778)

that consevitives lose elections when we compromise our core values and win when we stick to our guns. This will not win us every Senate seat but it will keep us in the majority and going the right direction. We lost this time around because you could not tell us apart from the Dems.

"I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way."
John Paul Jones (letter to M. Le Ray de Chaumont,16 Nov.1778)

Greiner

So what are those core principles you speak of?

Support of the President at all times?

Spending/outspending Democrats ?

A variety of Social Conservative positions seen over the previous 6 years?

As a cautionary tale, California used to have a pretty strong Republican party, now it can't get anyone, outside of a Republican outsider like the Governator to any statewide elected office. Even the darling of the conservative Republicans here in CA, Tom McClintock could not even win the Lt. Governor's office.

I'd also point out that Reagan won elections with the help of this strange creature called a Reagan Democrat, not just conservatives.

_______________________________
Fred...Fred...Fred..!

California used to have a pretty strong Republican party, now it can't get anyone, outside of a Republican outsider like the Governator to any statewide elected office. Even the darling of the conservative Republicans here in CA, Tom McClintock could not even win the Lt. Governor's office.

That's not because the Pete Wilson and Richard Riordan crowd is too conservative. I don't think anything will help the GOP in CA at this point. Changing demographics have put the last few nails in the GOP coffin. I don't think depending on RINO movie stars is an effective long term strategy for reviving the party. At this point I'm thinking you all wouldn't have done any worse sticking with Davis. What a huge disappointment.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

At this point I'm thinking you all wouldn't have done any worse sticking with Davis. What a huge disappointment.

I'm a big Arnie critic, but even I wouldn't go that far.

Had Davis stuck around, CA would have 1) significantly higher taxes, 2) driver's licenses (and more benefits) for illegals, and 3) actual gay marriage. And that's just off the top of my head.

Which is not to say that I really support Arnie. Just that Davis would have been much worse.

And yes - CA is out of the reach of the GOP (at least, to all but the most liberal Republicans/RINOs). So is NY. So is MA. Etc. And no - none of that is really the fault of the GOP. It's the fault of an electorate that has become predominately richie rich limousine liberal and almost dirt-poor poor, with virtually no middle class in between.

Want to turn a state reliably Blue? Gut its Middle Class. It's just that simple.

(Threadjack over...)

Lower Taxes, less goverment involvment (in everything), strong defence.
We could go on and on for each point, but I feel this sums it up.

"I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way."
John Paul Jones (letter to M. Le Ray de Chaumont,16 Nov.1778)

I do not think supporting any President blindly is at all a conservative value.

Cut the spending. The President has only dissapointed me on this.

I think Reagan won out with the blue dogs because he cut spending, lowered taxes, kept our military strong and made esay to be pro-life.

As for CA. I don't know. They seem like a strange bunch to me.

"I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way."
John Paul Jones (letter to M. Le Ray de Chaumont,16 Nov.1778)

That's the problem - I am not sure I see anyone on the bench. It will take the coyrage not to worry about the savagery you will suffer as a true conservative that makes a difference. I'll post more on my idea of a conservative after golf.

I think there is pretty wide support for sensible policy like fiscal conservatism and national-defense conservatism. But very few people want a president who believes he's going to disappear in The Rapture. We've let the evangelicals tarnish the Republican party by taking over school boards to teach creationism and pushing other nutty and devisive issues. Even in the red states, the voters kicked out those school boards. Goldwater warned us about this years ago.

Don,

You take my desire for a move to more moderation on the social issues diet served up by the party to an extreme point that is frankly as bad as something I would read over at KoSville.

In my book, a person of faith is neither automatically qualified nor disqualified for public office, and your condescending comments about the religious dogma and beliefs of others is just plain bigoted.

I find your comments so far over the line that I'm just going to stop right here on commenting on what what is just a disgusting comment.

_______________________________
Fred...Fred...Fred..!

You just insulted probably 80% of the people on this board. If you'd like to see the evangelicals leave the Republican party, then fine - we'll leave. But you can be guaranteed of minority status indefinitely, until you and your ilk pull your head out of (name your location) and get a clue. Because the evangelicals have historically been the most supportive of the GOP agenda.

I'm doing everything I can to keep from throwing a few insults your way, to avoid the Wrath of Moe. Just be reassured that I"m thinking them.

to support it? And I'd like to see a list of the school boards that have been "taken over" by the folks you describe. I'm aware of one in Kansas.

Oh, and with respect to having a POTUS who is going to disappear in the Rapture, what's the big deal. Let's just make sure we have a balanced ticket and the VP isn't a believer. See how easy that was to solve.

Oh yeah, one more thing. Quote Goldwater with care. In his dotage, he said lots of things that, put in context, you be embarrassed to be associated with. He certainly wasn't Jimmy, but was working on it some days...
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

You can pin that on the guy in the White House. He's the guy who sets the agenda and the priorities and the party follows his lead. W is a big government guy. That's what the "compassionate" modifier means to him. And even his his case, no, Republican does not equal Democrat. I don't regret voting for him either time... I just wish there was a better option.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I would say the war in Iraq has influenced this shift from majority to minority.

The only part of the Iraq war that I feel helped us along to the minority is the namby-pamby way we've fought it. If we'd gone in with the notion that in order to win the war you have to burn the village, we'd be done by now and the threat of terrorism would be greatly reduced. That's a big part of what turned off the conservatives who sat out the last election.

the complete lack of defense of the rationale for the war in the first place. GWB has let Murtha, etal get away with attacking the war for about five years and has done nothing but praise their patriotism.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

GWB has been steadfast. But the country was not prepared what we potentially getting into. The orginal plans called for 30,000 troops in Iraq after a short while, no insurgency of consequence and a functional democracy getting in place.

It was unrealistically optimistic and impossible to live up to. Everything viewed thru that filter is able to be spun as failure - even when we are ultimately on the path to achieving our goals.

His job is to stand firmly on the steps of the White House and piss into the wind, which is exactly what he's been doing for the last five years.

His job is to prepare the country, sell the people on war, and make war effectively. The plan is HIS. Not only didn't he sell it, he let the enemy (Murtha etal & the NYT) undercut his strategy and sell out the war effort without so much as a whimper.

His performance has been not just mediocre, it's been disgusting. He's more than willing to risk my son's life (willingly offered, BTW) but he's not willing to say anything that might hurt Jack Murtha's feelings. And he's not willing to stop the CIA and NSA from leaking classified information to the NYT.

This President has been the poster child for how NOT to lead a country in time of war, and his conduct of the war will be the reason historians rank him right down there with Jimmy Carter.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Go in and burn a village? Yeah, that would go over great in the Muslim world & would really promote democracy.

In that scenario, what exactly is victory?

the contention that we should have aggressively gone after the militias very early. For instance, when Mookie's boys were using mosques as staging areas and snipers were occupying the minarets, we should have flattened the compounds from the air and made sure none of the occupants survived. And then there's Fallujah. First time around, when they hung the contractor's bodies from the bridge, the city should have been reduced to rubble.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Thank you

but what would victory have been?

Was it to bring democracy and freedom to the middle east? To show them there was a different way to live and co-exist?

Don't forget at that time, to suggest there was an insurgency was a figment of the MSM attempt to discredit the president or so we were told.

Destroying the enemy, and more than a few civilians, didn't work in Germany or Japan either. I forgot. Sorry.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

So since the war is against radical islam, i guess your "destroy the village" would have to be export to Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Egypt, Lybia, Spain, Germany, Pakistan, Detroit, London, West Bank, Indonesia etc. etc. etc. etc.

That's a lot of village to destroy - agreed?

the cold war. Where you contain the enemy and use our dramatically better structure of society to outlast them. The only way we could have lost the cold war would have been to get in a Nuke war.

Freedom is the ultimate trump card is a war like this.

You've got it all figured out, champ!

____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

The point of "total war" is to make attacking me so expensive that you won't do it.

Would I export it from Iraq? Absolutely. Especially in the Middle East. I would have put much more emphasis on patrolling the borders and I would have paid no attention whatsoever to the actual border lines to stop people and equipment from coming into Iraq. The munitions plants in Iran that are manufacturing shaped charges would have been shaped like a deep hole in the ground a long time ago.

The Saudis are actually doing a fair job against AQ. They are still supporting Wahabbism and we need to do something about that, but doesn't necessarily require shooting, yet.

Spain, Germany, etal can deal with their local terrorists any way they want. In the US, we need to be more effective, but we're doing a B- job as it is.

But, as a general rule, any nation that supports terrorists and attacks us, I would turn large portions of it into rubble. Rule of thumb says if you want to live in peace with me, even a really strained peace, I'm good with that. I'll trade with you, I'll work really hard to find things we can agree on and promote mutual understanding through those things. Want to shoot at me, you are bringing a stick to a fight with big guns. If I were to authorize the use of military force, there would be very little "policing" done because there wouldn't be many people left to police.

I think Attila, LeMay and Patton generally had the right idea.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

You are contradicting your own doctrine. On 9-11, the terrorist were mostly from and funded from Saudi Arabia, but they are "doing a pretty good job"

Help me here, if a cell of Canadian born Muslim's sneak into Buffalo and blow up a car bomb, we turn around and turn Toronto, Montreal and Vancover into a pile of rubble?

you are being an idiot. I was clear about what to do about Saudis and internal US issues. We have ability to bring pressure to bear on the Saudis without going to war with them. We generally don't have those options with Iran, Syria and Lebanon.

With respect to 9/11, see our response to 1978 Tehran, pulling out of Lebanon after the Marine Barracks bombing, stopping the IDF from wiping out the PLO when they had them bottled up - ALL of them - in Beirut, Clinton's responses to Mogadishu, the first WTC bombing, the African embassies, the Cole, etc. 9/11 happened, in large measure, because they weren't afraid of us. Note that Lybia ceased to be a major provider of help to terrorists right after Reagan went after Momar.

And, if the Canadian government declared that the US was the Great Satan and we should be wiped off the map and began actively funding terrorist organizations, arming them and helping them to infiltrate into the US... You bet I'd wipe the nearest Canadian city off the face of the earth. In the scenario you mention, I would work with the RCMP and the Canadian government to find the perps and their support network. The Canadians are, in case you missed it, our allies and are very cooperative. Unlike the Iranians.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

coming from the American leftist terrorists supporters and it would end the conflict a lot sooner. Every time an American politician says we must help the terrorists achieve their goals by leaving Iraq, it increases the influence of the terrorists. Plus it tells any one that is thinking of helping America that they better not do that because the first thing the terrorists will do if we pull out is destroy those locals that assisted us.
Want proof of that statement, look at the murders of Vietnam citizens,by the Communists. once the US pulled out.

being unwilling to take the fight to the Democrats.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

he was savvy enough to realize that we could not simply march into Iraq and "Burn the villages". To have done that would have been to leave behind a pile of seething rubble and millions dead (with hostile oil owning neighbors all around). Worse, burning the village of Iraq (to further torture your metaphor) may have temporarily made the US somewhat safer from terrorist attacks based in Iraq, but the question of "now what?" still would have arisen.

Terrorism does not stop at national borders in the middle east. The aftermath of massive destruction would have been more more hatred and planned attacks by hostile muslims.

Regardless of how widespread you were willing to make your village burning, the anti US terrorism would have begun at the first village that was not burned unless we made the efforts to control the government of that village.

As far as I can tell, GWB's goal in invading Iraq was to destroy the threat from WMD's and install a more pro-western regime. He was trying to do so in a way that would leave some semblance of a modern country that could participate in world affairs (and sell us badly needed oil)_. In this regard, his mistake was not in failing to burn enough villages, it was failing to realize the magnitude of the task he was trying to accomplish, and woefully underplanning and underestimating the amount of troops and money that would be required to establish a pro-western state in a hostile part of the world.

says it all.

Without regard to our differences over how a war should actually be conducted in the field, you've made my point about GWB's failure to define the war for those of us at home.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

I would go further and submit to you that his failure to define the war for us at home was because he really had not defined the mission for himself. In other words, our president literally did not know what he was doing when he invaded and occupied Iraq. Now here we are, stuck with either admitting defeat in the battle of Iraq (viewing it as single battle in the overall GWOT) or with infusing massive resources to turn the situation around.

This surge we are currently attempting seems to be a muddled half baked last ditch attempt to turn the situation around. It may be temporarily successful as far as damaging terrorist personnel and resources, but so far it shows no progress at all as far as making the Iraqi government or military any stronger. As soon as we withdraw troops, the terrorists will rush back in to fill the vacuum left by the weakness of the pro US Iraqis. This is the latest example of the military incompetence of GWB.

____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

costs you friends, let me know. I'll call you nasty names next time you post... :>)
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

nt

another possible outcome: that in sticking it out we will actually kill enough serious jihadis that if/when we "leave" what remains will be weak enough that a less than perfect Iraqi government and military will be able to deal with them.

It is a fools errand to expect the Iraqis to meet the goals that the left want to set, that objective will always be out of reach; they simply can never be that good, H*ll we probably can't be as good as the left's moving goalposts. But the Iraqis may turn out be good enough.

The war has been badly muddled from the get go. But that is most assuredly not a justification for losing.

John
----------
Modern Art: Created by the untalented, sold by the unscrupulous, purchased by the unknowing.

the most optimistic outcome. I don't think it's realistic, because I think we've done nothing more than reinforce the original idea that we are spineless wimps. (A correct view of our our political leadership, IMO)

Second paragraph is absolutely 100% correct. As is the third.

Did AE vet your sig line?
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Maybe the mission was defined, but it was defined based on some pretty optimistic scenarios. Paul Bremer's decisions were no help, and Rumsfeld's insistence on troop numbers hurt.

I'll tell you what hurt most of all, and the moment the war turned against us - mbecker alluded to it above. When the four Americans were hung off the bridge in Fallujah, and we waited hours to have IRAQIS go in and cut them down, the terrorists saw the "weak horse" again. If we had made it rain down hell-fire, and killed every man, woman and child within five miles of the bridge, starting with everyone on the bridge, and left Fallujah as burning rubble, we would have gone a long way to avoiding the problems we have now.

We need to be peaceful until it is time not to be peaceful. When we go to war, we need to go to war. Half measures based on political needs will not cut it, but I am afraid we will never again be able to wage war like it should be waged.

As a result, chalk one up for the libs, and as usual, the consequences not be immediate, but will be disastrous.

____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

How is this mess "Chalking one up for the libs?" President Bush got every dollar, every soldier, every bullet he asked for, and until very recently the Democrats and liberals were unable to locate anything resembling a spine as far as real resistance to this war (actually they STILL haven't). Liberals and democrats did not stop our Commander in Chief from responding more strongly to Fallujah. He is our leader, and he bears responsiblity for the consequences of his failed choices.

This mess lies at his feet and the American public knows it. At this point GWB's continued bumbling has robbed him of the credibility that is needed to rally the country sufficiently to pour in the money and men needed to fix the mess. Liberals who can read public opinion now feel safer about putting forward the notion of just getting out, but they have not changed US policy one iota up to this point.

There have been 3 main options put on the table in this thread:
1 Ramp up our military efforts BIG TIME to finally take control.(See above paragraph regarding the liklihood of GWB accomplishing this)
2 Hope the current surge miraculously results in a competent and strong Iraqi government and military. Lets keep in mind that the surge costs money and more importantly, the lives of American soldiers.
3. Admit that we either *&** or get off the pot. If we are gonna get off the pot, then pick the best way out, and figure out how to re-position ourselves.

I don't like any of these choices either, but don't blame liberals for putting our country here. Until very recently, they haven't had the brains or the cojones to affect US policy

WSJ may be liberal on immigration but they do not have a liberal editorial page overall. If Murdoch takes over and succeeds in changing anything, it will be to the detriment of the WSJ. He would probably turn it into USA Today... a dumbed down and worthless news outlet just like FNC. He's already said he thinks the articles are too long. I'm sure he thinks a lot of them are on boring topics nobody cares about anyway... they should really spend more time on Paris Hilton.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

editorial page- I was talking about their news content, especially the Washington Bureau. Those are the people you see now on CNBC and probably MSNBC, and will eventually be seeing on Fox News if the buyout goes through. That's what I mean about Fox going further to the left. The public never sees the editorial boys on the tube so what good are their conservative leanings?

that the news content of the WSJ leans liberal. Here's a study that demonstrates it:

http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htmf

That study has caught criticism in some circles, but it is the only study of its kind that I've been able to find that makes a reasonable attempt at objective measure of bias.

I typo'd the URL. Here's the right one:

http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm

dunno how the "f" got on the end...

Maybe even Fox is smarting from the hatred. Makes the Fox table at the press club dinners a little lonely.

As an example - on the website, Roger Friedman's entertainment column is a sickening lovefest for Rosie and Michael Moore.

And Rightly So!

...do you have any evidence to back it? Because every bit of press (yeah, I know it's coming from the MSM) shows that the results in 2006 were a response to the Iraq war and a perception of Republican corruption. There was no indication in exit polling or anywhere else that I'm aware of to indicate that "the brand of Republicanism that was rejected in November 06 was becoming the brand of imposing a code of moral authority from the Federal level,". In fact, if you reflect back on the 2004 elections, morals (family values) appeared to be a fairly significant factor in the outcome. Now there is certainly a chance that things have changed since then, but I've seen no indication of it.

was what got GWB elected.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

mbecker

Yes and six years later, some would argue that without a great deal of competency in running a war in Iraq, responding to a national disaster in New Orleans and a few other missteps, people began to ask; is that all there is. The publics memory is short, and the mantra is what have you done for me lately?

Perhaps to those that place moral issues as more important that most other issues that is enough, I believe that Reagan Democrats, us RINOS and others said thanks, but no thanks.

_______________________________
Fred...Fred...Fred..!

bs

Yes the 2004 elections were a reflectional on family values, but I would point out that the electorate is fickle and perhaps get tired of a high moral fiber diet. A diet which was being force fed to the American people by the likes of Congresscritter Foley, Congresscritter Delay and Dennis "FBI Don't go into a Congresscritter's office" Hastert.

Nothing wrong in my book with some moral fiber in the national public debate, but when it's all fiber all the time, the hair shirt begins to scratch a bit.

I'll refrain from pointing out some of the instances of aggressive force feeding moral fiber into the public debate, those debates often time turn to food fights, but I do believe that the American public were and are turned off by a constant diet of moral fiber served up by Republicans. The Democrats will suffer over the long haul because there is virtually no moral fiber in their national debate diet, but it will take the American people a while for that to become obvious.

As to the other issues, including Iraq, I would also fault Republican Congresscritters for being too passive with the President, too undemanding for explanations and accountability of the conduct of the war in Iraq, the conduct of Federal Government in response to Katrina and a host of other issues where some hard but honest questions were not asked by members of the majority party of their leadership.

_______________________________
Fred...Fred...Fred..!

...I'd be open to your assertion if I saw some documented evidence that there is measurable pushback to some of the policies that you consider "moral fiber," especially if it comes from the community that originally voted for GWB and those who ran on a pro-values platform.

bs

Elections count. I'd assert that the elections in November 2006 pretty much make my point. You can assert other motives for the losses in November, and you may be right, but I think in part that the "brand" of Republicanism based on a high moral fiber content was also part of the rejection seen in November.

One other thing, I am not advocating that Republican politicians drop all moral aspects of who and what are core principles of being a Republican means. I'm just in favor of a return to law and order values, keeping the Federal Government out of people's lives and businesses, fiscal conservatism, and basic competency of running the government. I'm real big on the 10th Amendment, I'm real big on a line item veto, and I'm real big on enforcing the current immigration laws on the books right now. Go back and read the Contract with America, it was a pretty good starting point for core values in my view.

_______________________________
Fred...Fred...Fred..!

if you look at the Wikipedia entry on the 2006 elections:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_general_elections,_2006

and read the section titled "Reasons for Democratic win", you'll note that the article states "public opinion polling conducted during the days just before the election and the weeks just after it showed that the war in Iraq was considered the most important election issue by the largest segment of the public.

A look at various exit polling sites on the net back this assertion.

I don't think the 2006 elections make your point at all. The fact that we lost seats in 2006 does not mean it is because of moral issues, unless you count the moral failures of guys like Mark Foley...