Jump To » Mobile / Confirm Them / Right Shelf / Sports / State Blogs / About / Contact / Help / Posting Rules / Conservative Book Club / Human Events
Just a Company of American paratroopers, a guitar plugged
into the outpost's PA system, and a whole lot of demolitions.
Pointing Out That Not Supporting Candidates In Hostile Territory Is NOT How To Build A Majority Party ...
By Martin A. Knight Posted in Archived | expansion | hostile territory | ogonowski | Republicans — Comments (55) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
This comment on eabo-clipper's "Mr. Ogonowski Goes To Washington" diary is one of those bits of political conventional wisdom that I think, in the long run, turn out to be not so wise. A good thing I will say about it though, is that it gave me the impetus to diary something that's been on my mind for a while; getting back on offense.
Please, [NRSC Chairman, Senator John] Ensign ... no. The NRSC can't afford to dump money here. Ogonowski lost in the most conservative district of Massachusetts ...
With all due respect, I think this attitude needs to go.
It is not that I am entirely unsympathetic to the idea that we expend finite resources only on fertile ground, and up until a while back, I would have agreed a 100%.
Right now though, I think this strategy, carried over more than one election cycle and focused on more than a handful of states, is a classic example of being a penny wise and a pound foolish. Long term, this is a sort of bunker mentality that is going to kill us.
Note this; fertile electoral ground is something that is made, something that needs to be maintained - it doesn't just exist on its own.
So say whatever you want about Howard Dean, and much as I hate to accept that any of his ideas are good, his 50 State Strategy is one that can make the Democratic Party the majority party of America for the most part of the next five decades.
Democrats are increasingly investing resources to hollow out and weaken GOP stronghold states like UT, WY (where the Governor is a Democrat), ID, KS, TX, etc. And with some thanks to their natural media advantage (which exists at both the state and national levels), they've been successful in holding on and even expanding their elected numbers at the local level in what are supposed to be quintessential Red States like SD, ND, MT, NC, etc.
The fact is that they are regularly on the offensive and we are regularly on the defensive - each time a Democrat runs a slightly more-credible-than-expected race in a Red state or district, even if he/she loses, more and more people are made comfortable with voting for a Democrat.
We've now lost Dennis Hastert's seat, one which is supposedly reliably Republican. And chances are it will remain in Democratic hands until 2010 - or much longer if the local media is as Democratic as the rest of journalism.
The sad thing, is that if a seat were to open up in a district that voted for a Democratic Presidential ticket in the same numbers as Hastert's district voted for Bush in 2004, the GOP would likely not even contest it, or they would refuse to give anything more than token support to the candidate willing to try because they'd consider it a lost cause.
Consider this; Byron Dorgan, Kent Conrad, Max Baucus, etc. regularly draw no challengers. And yet a lot of people in the Party are confident that their successors would be Republicans. But let's suppose Dorgan's Chief of Staff, or his son/daughter, puts his name in to succeed his boss/dad, are we really that sure now - especially with Byron at their side?
Either way, what this means is that many good, viable and electable Republicans with aspirations for public office living in GOP hostile territory are far less likely than Democrats to throw their hats into the ring. They know that it will be a waste of their time because for there to be any chance for them to win, they must have party support, and they're not going to get it.
Make no mistake, this kills us. We either grow, expanding outside our strongholds, or we die. Running in hostile environments is a part of growth. Even if a candidate loses and loses bad, with a good well-run (even if doomed) campaign they can push the conversation in the right direction and over the long term, make a lot more people in that electorate comfortable with having a Republican representing them.
And let us not forget, that upsets are always possible. In 2002, John Kerry faced no opposition, imagine if a Spitzer-like controversy (though that sort of thing could very well make him more popular with the Massachusetts electorate, especially the Boston Press) were to have erupted and engulfed him at the time? And there was no Republican to capitalize on it?
Ultimately, I honestly believe that there are only a few districts and no states, lacking the requisite number of swing voters and Republican voters, where a standard issue Republican with the right mix of message, marketing, campaign savvy and the ruthlessness to fully capitalize on his opponent's errors and neutralize his own, cannot win or score in the high 40s, setting himself up for victory four years down the line. Pollyannish though this may sound, a Bobby Jindal can win statewide races in California, Maryland or New York.
And by the same token, from what we've seen, Ogonowski can make this a race. Even if Kerry destroys him in a landslide (what else is new?), he could very well provide a foundation for the next candidate to build on. And even with all this effort, it may still take a while - it may take ten, twenty even thirty years before a Republican is elected to the Senate or House from Massachusetts again. But it would certainly take much longer if we do not recruit, or refuse to support those who decide to try.
The GOP, not necessarily the NRSC, needs to spend money on this race even if only to start the long (and necessary) process of turning Massachusetts (and all the other Blue states/districts), some shade of purple. That it'll be a long hard slog doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
It means we should get started now.
Definitely true for the Senate
by KyleH
There is no excuse for not having Senate candidates for all contests. There are a lot less Senators and only about a third of the seats have elections every two years. For the House there are probably a few seats in expensive urban markets with high Dem make-ups where you might justify not running. On the other hand, one thing people forget about the elections of 1994 is that Gingrich wanted candidates in every Congressional district in the U.S. - not that they fully funded them all.
Funding isn't the big issue, recruitment is.
by St. Louis Conservative
As you said, Gingrich just wanted candidates, and he wasn't necessarily concerned about amassing a huge war chest for the NRCC.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
Challenging Ted Kennedy for reelection in Massachusetts would be regarded as a fool's errand, and Romney did indeed go down to defeat. However I think the exposure helped him win the Governor's race several years later.
In 2006, all the Deomcrats,
by swamp_yankee
In 2006, all the Deomcrats, even the KosKids, supported candidates tailored for their districts and they whooped us. Jim Webb was perfect for Virginia; John Tester was perfect for Montana; Bob Casey was perfect for Pennsylvania. Now, you know that the liberal establishment is not going to let these guys rule the hen house. They just needed them to obtain a majority and will do just enough to keep them in the tent.
Faction control is an eternal struggle in a bi-partisan system. There is no one uniform Republican or conservative position, but a collection of factions that make the Republican. Conservatives must engage in the struggle to control the Party, while expanding the memembership ofthe GOP to different factions.
I know when I look at Republicans running in the New England, I ask myself:
1) Is this politician going to advance the conservative dialogue;
2)Did this politician push the dialogue and politics of his or her respective district to the Right and;
2) When ideological issues arise that are of little or no concern to the pragmatic and apolitical mass of their respective constituencies, how will that politician lean
If there is an apostasy, its not so called RINOs; its the failure to nominate Republicans in Red state like Arkansas. It's the failure to win Senate sets in Red states like Montana and it's the failure to elect real conservatives in stated like South Carolina. That's the real shame. Not guys like Jim Ogonowski and Mitt Romney who worked their tails off and risk their poltical careers moving a Blue State to the Right.
Those candidates weren't perfect
by Balfour Conservative
Our guys ran terrible campaigns and give our party a bad name. Allen and Conrad were awful candidates who squandered away the Senate. Santorum never had a prayer of holding his seat, no matter who the Democrats ran.
“One element in the strength of any government is the patriotism of the people, their love for its institutions, their pride for its name and achievements.” ~ William McKinley
Not Necessarily
by Ihatepork
I disagree about Santorum. He did have a pray of holding his seat. He beat an incumbent to get it, granted that was in 1994. Then he beat a congressman to hold it. A big reason Santorum lost so bad is that Bob Casey is pro-life so Santorum couldn't count on one of his major strengths.
He would have lost anyway
by Aetius728
Trust me. If Casey weren't pro-life, it would have been a little closer, but Santorum still would have gotten beat. I'll continue to say it-economic populism is the biggest threat to Republicans in my area(PA/Eastern Ohio). This is the issue that Casey used to clobber Santorum to great effect, it is what cost Melissa Hart her seat in PA district 4, and it contributed greatly to Sherrod Brown beating Dewine for Ohio's senate seat.(I think he probably still would have lost as well, given the implosion of the GOP in Ohio.)
The frustrating thing is that nobody seems to understand this. I watched add after add pounding all the above candidates for their support for tax cuts for the rich, tax breaks for the evil oil companies, sending American jobs overseas, etc. and not one Republican candidate responded in any way, or tried to explain their position to people, they simply ignored the issues. Until these issues fade, which is not likely in the near future, or we find a way to defuse them, even turn them around, we are going to continue to lose. I can be accused of being a broken record I suppose since this is about the 4th time I've written this same thing almost verbatim, but it is the truth. At least here in the Eastern PA/Western Ohio area.
The naive forgive and forget.
The foolish forget but do not forgive.
The wise forgive but do not forget.
I agree. And disagree...
by steve962
You're absolutely right - Santorum was doomed to lose. The Dems could have run Bozo the Clown against him and Santorum would have lost. But not because of economic populism.
I dunno about western PA, but here in the suburban Philly area, Republicans tend to be more fiscally conservative and less socially conservative. And Santorum, despite having campaigned in the past as being closer to our positions, had really stuck his neck out a *lot* during his most recent term, all on social conservative issues. He seemed almost completely apathetic to fiscal issues, and appeared to simply go with the flow as the Republican senate of 2005-2006 kept spending and spending. Add to that his tendency to stick his nose into things when inappropriate, and to stick his foot in his mouth, both of which happened more frequently as re-election got closer, and it's little wonder he couldn't get re-elected. I simply can't remember a time when a Republican candidate in my area was so widely disliked, both by Dems and Republicans alike.
Bob Casey simply was in the right place to fill in the void. Pity - I'm none too fond of him, either.
"Government cannot take care of you. You've got to take care of yourself." - Rudy Giuliani
Yes
by Bob Frazier
There should be a 50 state strategy. If you look at the results of the last presidential election by county, for example, most of the state of NY is Red. Does that surprise you? It should not surprise the leaders of this party. But I would not be surprised if it does.
So do we write off NY then for anything? Only if we are idiots.
Not If You Go By Population...
by cmugrad
....Kerry may have only won about 1/3 of the counties in New York state in 2004, but around 79% of the total population of New York state resided in those counties that Kerry won.
You can't just look at county results without considering the population makeup of the counties as well.
Martin -- Terrirtory?
by Lord_Vegas
my eyes -- my eyes!
===
This post has been brought to by Thorazyne and other psychotropic drugs -- better living through chemistry
I agree 100%
by E Pluribus Unum
It's a long, ongoing struggle, and the Republican Party is too timid, not tenacious, and not long-view-minded.
But it starts with us.
Kill the terrorists
Protect the borders
Punch the hippies -- Frank J
Well done Martin
by Tim Schieferecke
The GOP needs to stop "fighting" for victory like a 17th century British regiment fighting in a disciplined but highly predictable formation. We are in a philosophical battle for the future of America here, but the GOP refuses to see it that way. We need a lot more asymetrical strategies like Rush has shown us with his chaos theory. These jackasses are nothing more than a confederation of wacko socialists with a strong top down management structure that can never afford to have any type of infighting. They are falling apart, and the best thing we can do is goad them on and keep them attacking each other. It's the strategy of divide and conquer that Rome and the British used so effectively to gain their respective empires. It's also been the effective strategy the Dems have used against us to divide us with political correctness in all its devilish forms. It is now becoming apparent that it's also their Achilles heal so we need to keep them fighting each other while simultaneously exposing them as the true racists.
Tim Schieferecke
Absolutely
by GOPaisano
At this point, I feel like I need to convince the GOP they can support candidates in FRIENDLY territory. There is no reason Arkansas and South Dakota should go uncontested, never mind Massachusetts and New York.
(By the way--had we seriously fought Spitzer in 2006, that candidate would be in a strong position now. Not the case.)
No one of good character leaves behind a wasted life - John McCain
Rudy for governor in 2010?
by St. Louis Conservative
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
Completely agree.
by liandro
I have recently become very involved in primary elections for the same reason: it drives discussion that affects the way people vote in the future. If we want to push the value of conservative/liberterian/Republican values, we have to contest every race and make our arguments. At the very least we may be gaining votes for future state-wide offices or POTUS.
Well-done piece.
Amen
by dingo
As I - and others - have said many times before, we should have at least a strong second tier candidate in every potentially competitive area.
Ogonowski more than qualifies (I just wish MA were more potentially competitive).
Well said... as always
by Adam C
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
The problem is that the GOP
by dld1717
The problem is that the GOP needs to start garnering some strength in WV, AR, ND, SD, and MT because all these state vote Republican at presidential level and yet they mainly vote Dem on Congressional and State Level level
MT has deep bench of Democrats
ND the long time Congressman at Large waits in wings (GOP does not even challenge anymore)
SD congresswoman waits in wings
WV-minus Capito who do we have?
AR- is there even an AR GOP organization anymore?
The Gop needs some new life and it needs to be open to different voices too.
No Reason for a Seat to go Unchallenged
by Whitehorse
Several years ago we had a woman run for a state rep seat, spent $800 & won after the incumbent got into trouble. In this day & age, no congressional seat held by a democrat should go unchallenged. Heck, even a "sacrificial" candidate is better than no choice at all. It's a mistake that the democrats have corrected, & a mistake (looking at Pryor's senate seat) that the republicans are making today. I hope & pray for the future we learn to not make this mistake again. I know that funds have to be allocated to candidates that can win, however, having a choice in every race will cause the other side to look at all.
I find it hard to believe that the Republican Party is led by a group of idiots, who wander around party HQ with their pants around their ankles, drooling and going "goo goo goo."
Yet, by reading the comments to this diary, you'd come away thinking that that's the root cause of the GOP's problems---bad leadership at the top.
Let me advance some other reasons for why the GOP might be having troubles recruiting good candidates:
1) Unless you live close to DC, getting elected to Congress means leaving your home, career and (if you don't uproot them), family. I live in Arizona. My Congresswoman spends much of her time flying back and forth between Washington and her district. Plus, the fact-finding trips to Iraq and other fun places. I have to think that's part of the problem.
2) Cash. The Dems are floating in it. We're dying. Money used to be the big GOP electoral advantage. The one thing we had to give us a fighting chance against the unions and biased media. No longer.
3) Minority status. 28 GOP House seats are losing their incumbents this year, and many of those seats will flip D. The freshman Dems who won in 2006 have money flooding in. We, on the other hand, spend our energy sticking pins in Elizabeth Dole and Tom Cole voodoo dolls, and defacing/returning any GOP fund raising literature we don't throw in the trash.
So, if you do get elected to Congress as a GOP legislator, how can you hope to get anything done? Team Pelosi and Reid will keep you in a box and quash any meaningful legislation you propose. Then, when you go home, your constituents will blame YOU for NOT sealing the border/cutting taxes/saving FISA/filling the SCOTUS with Scalia clones/fill in the blank here.
Tell me...would you volunteer to run for Congress in an environment like this? Only a masochist would.
Perhaps if we spent a little less time insisting that the GOP find the candidates we want, and a little more time helping with the search, we wouldn't be in the same boat we find ourselves now: the virtual certainty of minority status on Capitol Hill for the next several years!
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
Helping find the candidates
by Neil Stevens
If the national party apparatuses didn't have track records of spending money to oppose grassrooots-favored candidates, the situation would be different.
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
Tipping at windmills is NOT
by RandomGuy
Tipping at windmills is NOT the way to build a party either.
Let him raise his own money. If he gets within striking distance of Kerry on his own, highly unlikely, then the money will flow. But it's about numbers, return on investment. This isn't complicated. We'd be foolish to dump money into the race.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
I'm sure you mean "tiLTing at windmills" ...
by Martin A. Knight
... but I get what you're trying to say.
But two issues you're ignoring here;
[1] Party support helps him raise money on his own. It's a chicken and egg situation ... which comes first? How many people would be willing to part with their hard earned cash when it's 50/50 that the party is going to come through for him?
[2] Following this strategy means that the GOP would consign itself to the status of a regional party. In case you haven't noticed, it's becoming so that the only safe seats for Republicans are R +7 seats, while Democrats are generally safe in D +3. The reason is that they're spending money and campaigning in our districts, even when it's obviously hopeless, while we're only focused on keeping our seats.
All defense all the time would fall to the opponent that employs both defense and offense. Let's stop being penny wise and pound foolish.
The GOP has become a big government, big spending party. They had the chance to keep the Democrats out of power for decades but pissed it away by taking a balanced bugdet in 2000 and giving us trillions of dollars of new debt. Bush and those that blindly followed him have destroyed this party. I live in a strong Republican district and the Democrat will win this year for the first time in 50 years or more. People here have had enough of the big spenders. They vote for Republicans to cut taxes, cut spending, balance the budget and reduce the size and scope of government. The bunch in office now has failed to deliver for 8 years. I am going to vote for my second Democrat just to get rid of the moron in office now. I can put up with 2 years of crap to get a better candidate.
Why the GOP is losing?
by robertallen
Hell, that is an easy one. Gas prices. The War in Iraq. I mean we can "explain" the deeper meanings and draft beautiful essays surrounding those issues, but when the American people are paying $50 to fill up their vehicle and see both personal and governmental deficits galore while spending (eventually) a trillion dollars on the War in Iraq...elections get hard to win for a Republican. Of course, Black Republican had a brilliant idea, we should start supporting homosexual marriage. I think the goal there is to be in sigle digits in terms of US Senators by 2010.
But the point that failing to pander to the Fiscal Conservatives and the Libertarian Conservatives in order to really, really pander to the Social Conservatives and the Hawkish Conservatives has resulted in a great many "What have you done for me *LATELY*?" kinda diaries from Social Conservatives.
Now, maybe Fiscal Conservatives/Libertarian Conservatives would act the same way but... I guess we'll never know.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
I plan on following through in my threat of not voting for McCain if he picks Huckabee. I'm sick of the far right single issue values folks thinking that they have some kind of monopoly over the rest of the party, and I'm really really tired of the pandering to them exclusively by everyone. Anti gay marriage does not make you a conservative, but it does make you get someone like Pastor Huckabee who couldn't find Afghanistan on a map. I really having gotten tried of compromising for them to keep whining. I switched off of Rudy to Mitt for the sake of the coalition, in retrospect I regret it because of what spoiled brats that wing of the party is.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.Let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."-Barry Goldwater
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.
Pastor Huckabee
by robertallen
Should run for office in California or, you know, any of the other 30+ states who have either votes for a Constitutional amendment or law outlawing homosexuals marrying. Where he wouldn't be welcomed is those bastions of democracy, the Massachussetts and Vermont Supreme Courts. I don't think you could win a seat on either Court without embracing the brilliant idea of supporting homosexuals being allowed to marry.
Pastor Huckabee should work on his ethics
by BlackRepub
And perhaps work on leaving the furniture in the governors mansion. Although you're right-he'd do great in California. He can pick his tax and spending habits right here the Governator's leaving off and continue having no knowledge of foreign policy and the economy other than whatever pdf file he's downloaded that morning.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.Let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."-Barry Goldwater
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.
So he's "Pastor" Huckabee
by robertallen
because he's a tax and spender? And you are sick of single-issue Republicans like him who support tax and spend policies? That's a curveball.
No he's Pastor Huckabee because he's a Pastor
by BlackRepub
And someone who wants to amend the constitution to fit God's standards, and his whole platform was going to consist of pushing 3 constituional amendments, when its unlikely he was going to get even one, not to mention the fact that he was clueless on the other two legs of the stool.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.Let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."-Barry Goldwater
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.
Yeah, after all these years of delivering for social consers
by robertallen
You know on passing that Marriage Amendment, abortion, school prayer, all the herculean efforts on those issues the past 7 years, you would think the SoCons would be happy. It's almost as if no progress has been made on those points the way those ingrates act. Meanwhile the poor FisCons have been hammered with those massive tax increases and the tight rein on corporate profits the past 7 years.
sarcasm aside, there has been ONE winner the past 7 years and it relates to the 2 reasons we are losing. We are kicking butt in the Middle East! Thanks Neo-cons.
Oh please, you got the biggest SoConPresdient in history
by BlackRepub
Roberts and Alito, the Presidents first veto was ESCR, he's spoken to the NRCL every year, and signed into law the PBA. Not to mentio the fact that he campaigned hard for FMA, and it didn't make it out of the Senate. You sound like a baby that's ignoring his new bike because he didn't get a new computer too.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.Let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."-Barry Goldwater
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.
And no doubt the reason Bush's popularity is low
by robertallen
Is because of nominating Alito and Roberts and his vetos of those acronyms. Wouldn't have anything to do with the crowd pleasing efforts on gas prices and the War in Iraq. Surely not, people understand why we are still in Iraq and why they pay $50 to fill up their tanks, just ask them, or better yet look at the 2006 election results.
Clearly what he should do is hope to be able to appoint a pro-homosexual marriage Justice, demand a homosexual marriage bill on his desk and go on a last minute state tour criticizing efforts to put such anti-homosexual marriage amendments on the ballot.
Your reading comprehension is worse than my students
by BlackRepub
Go through my diary again, with both eyes open this time, slower this time and find me where I said gay marriage should happen by judicial fiat. Perhaps you should get off the anti-gay train and look at the exit polls that showed we lost the moderates because of spending and corruption scandals. But I'm glad you would give up on national security for the sake of the polls. You are a classic Huckabee supporter.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.Let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."-Barry Goldwater
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.
No question the Foley scandal hurt.
by robertallen
I was against the expansion of the Medicare program. That's not why we lost though. As a fiscal conservative, I WISH that is why we lost, but as a realist, I KNOW that's not why we lost.
The Porkers in the GOP hung themselves becasue they don't get anything but spend, spend, spend and pork. Otherwise the Democrats wouldn't have been running so hard to the right on every issue-the Blue Dogs ran as small government Democrats. Tester, Jim Webb, Shuler,Harold Ford Jr,-all these were running as social convservative Democrats who would do a better job to shrink the government.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.Let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."-Barry Goldwater
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.
C'mon BP
by robertallen
I don't live in Virginia (Webb) or Montana (Tester), but they were both, particularly Webb, running on getting out of Iraq. It's true they (Shuler in particular here) did not run as social liberals, but that's the broader point. The successful Dems ran against Iraq and NOT as social liberals on issues like homosexual marriage...and they won. What you are suggesting is we run as social liberals on homosexual marriage and for the War in Iraq. Where is the winning formula in that?
None ran on the direct pledge to raise taxes, but many ran on "reversing the Bush tax cuts" using the class warfare language of "helping the Middle Class", but that rhetoric was clearly second (or less) fiddle to opposition to Iraq.
I would also suggest the Foley scandal cut x times deeper than the Abramoff scandal. As a party we take the wildly popular position against homosexuals, and here in our midst is a homosexual trying to seduce a teenage boy. That might help in Gerry Studds-world, but it didn't help in the election of 2006.
Also we have a policy against using neocon on RS
by BlackRepub
to mean conservatives I don't like. I'd advise you to not do it again. What's mroe if you think HLA and a school amendment would pass, to quote becker, you are a complete idiot. You're complaining as if these sorts of things can make it through Congress. GW Bush was a social convservative and you know it, and he did the best he could for all of you. The rest of us got saddled with big government and pork, pork, and more pork.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.Let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."-Barry Goldwater
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.
Who said I didn't like them?
by robertallen
I'm just saying that important group of Republicans, and we know some enjoy segregating Social Conservatives into -Con groups, have no reason to complain about the past 7 years.
The neocons are the problem.
by birdmojo
Making the Republican Party into a place where Christopher Hitchens felt comfortable, a place where authoritarian lefties felt at home, a place where people who relish the thought of how to tell other people how to live their lives, raise their kids, spend their money, and think their thoughts...
That's part of the problem.
They're why the Republicans, who used to be oh-so-very-good at being Conservative are now wondering why there is not a permanent Republican majority after years and years and years and years of the democrats proving that their theories do not work. Why did it last only 6 years?
The neocons.
Now, don't get me wrong, I think that the folks like Christopher Hitchens and Irving Kristol are very, very good when it comes to foreign policy. Exceptional, perhaps.
I am not saying that there are not areas where I agree with them on domestic policy either... but their methods preclude their goals ever being met. Their methods pretty much guarantee that their goals never will be.
And that's my theory as to why the Republicans lost the House and Senate in 2006.
Too many people were yelling "the war on terror is the only thing that matters!" and the politicians started acting like the only thing that mattered was the war on terror and now... you've got fiscal conservatives upset that spending is out of control (and social conservatives are yelling 'but you got tax cuts!'), social conservatives are upset that we still have abortion and no Constitutional Amendment protecting The Traditional American Family (and fiscal conservatives are yelling 'but you got your justices!'), and the Libertarian Conservatives are wondering if Gridlock would really be worse than the Democrats... as it seems that the Republicans were worse than Gridlock (and hawkish conservatives can yell 'But we haven't been attacked!' at them).
And I hope that the election is still far enough away that Cassandra diaries are still welcome rather than being seen as "part of the problem".
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
an overused boogey man word. As a libertarian conservative I pretty much abhor what we have become. Main problem is that I don't see much change on the horizon.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
I was using it very precisely.
by birdmojo
When people call Cheney a "neocon", that pretty much tells me that they have no idea what the word means.
The spit "neocon" the way they used to spit "conservative".
And, confusingly, at the exact same people.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
"Lifelong Republican", huh. Nice try, pal.
by St. Louis Conservative
We've seen this schtick before.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
St. Louis-he's less than 1 hour.
by c17wife
Care to give an over/under?
Truth has no time limit
by Jagman
So I can't express opinions because I am new to this site. Is there some sort of union-like hierarchy the the old farts get to pass judgement. The value of the opinions be damned.
Jag-you are dropping little turds on
by c17wife
the carpet without any support to back you up. Granted, you do have a few points to make. However, when you come in here and start calling the Republican nominee for POTUS, a nominee this site has endorsed, corrupt without any proof, we are going to cry foul on the stench.
Ouch - he stepped in it...
by DGaines
In a proverbial sense and with the pun intended of course.
No, there is no time limit. Correct.
by St. Louis Conservative
But when you pop in here and immediately make wild statements like "I've been a registered Republican for 50 YEARS!!" and then say you're voting Democrat, it's a little hard to believe.
Second, I am not saying that a Republican would never vote for a Democrat, but I just don't believe that a 50 year registered Republican would cast their first Democrat vote for Hillary or Obama. Sorry, I just don't believe that.
I don't know a single "lifelong Republican" that would do that.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
I am registered GOP
by Jagman2
I can prove it if that appeases you. But not 50 years, only 24. My first vote was for Reagan in '84. And I will vote for a Democrat for congress this year to get rid of the big spender Republican I have now. This party must be purged of these kind of Republicans. Unfortunately, the party leaders always support the incumbent no matter how bad they are. I tried to get good Republican in the primary but he lost (very close though).
Identify the Congresscritter, why don't you?
by Martin A. Knight
Part of me is starting to think
by lawguy9801
that the best recruitment tool for Republicans is to let the American people see what living under the Democrats and their high-taxing, white-flag-loving ways.
blog advertising is good for you
Human Events
Recent comments
The situation isn't as desparate as that
by tcgeolThe Pile on is desperation
by JoliphantThank you for setting the record straight
by civil truthThe Real Jesse Helms
by William DaltonWhat did I do on Independence Day?
by LRAdamsReally?
by Jack Savageyes, he has come back
by David HinzPatton returns to address the War on Terrorism
by civil truthI always wondered why he never tried to come back
by Jack SavageBrooksy lurks here -- he checks us nearly every day
by David HinzRemember this?
by jonlesterNo huhu
by Neil StevensSorry Neil, spoke before I registered what you said.
by jonlesterThat's one department when it's pleasant
by jonlesterHTML cleanup in progress...
by Neil StevensThe extra 7 cents is for the Spam trademark <nt>
by jonlesterAnd I thought I was causing HTML disorder <nt>
by jonlesterOh for crying out loud ...
by LeverkuhnCampbells n/t
by Joliphant
blog advertising is good for you
get your job site
at simplyhired.com
The DNC has a 50 state strategy and the RNC has an 8 state strategy. The RNC runs around and tries to pick off swing districts here and there. The DNC puts pressure on EVERY Republican - one need look no further than IL-14 for this.
You're also right about Ogonowski vis a vis John Kerry. Even if Ogonowski loses (highly likely), if he runs a spirited campaign, that can go a long way towards party building.
I guarantee you that the DNC would not allow a Republican to run unopposed in a state that Kerry & Gore won, yet this is exactly what the GOP is doing in Arkansas.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”