Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Why Should Conservatives Cross The Road ...

One idea making the rounds in the conservative media is that the Republicans lost the House and Senate because they weren't conservative enough, and failed to energize the base.

The stats don't bear that out.

According to exit polls:

-- Compared with the midterm election in 2002, Republicans lost significant support among independents and suburbanites — prime groups of swing voters that both parties pursue. Young people, voters with college degrees and secular voters also moved decisively to the Democrats.

-- White evangelical Christians remained a bulwark: Seven in 10 voted for Republicans. (MSNBC reported 71% voted for Republicans in 2006, compared with 72% in 2004.)

-- Republicans focusing on issues important to the Christian Right, including banning same-sex marriage and embryonic stem cell research, apparently alienated less devout voters. Those who attend church only occasionally moved to the Democrats by 9 percentage points, compared with 2004. Those who never attend church moved away from the GOP by 11 percentage points.

So if the GOP wants to lose again in 2008, it should redouble its efforts to woo social conservatives -- and watch every other group of voters turn to the Democrats.

15 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let them double and triple their efforts to get their base... since it appears that's all they kept on election day anyway.

We'll go for everyone else.

Rp

3:00 PM  
Anonymous atommom said...

Shhh. Don't tell the Republicans!

3:00 PM  
Anonymous yellowcanine said...

Yes. Good idea. Line up Jerry Falwell, James Kennedy, and James Dobson to speak at the 2008 RNC.

Two stooges and a wiener dog abuser.

3:00 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Most Republicans who are very much into politics understand pretty well why we lost seats this time round. There are many reasons, and Hugh Hewett has written a good piece on the subject. I agree with a lot of what he says here.

http://tinyurl.com/ydamyy

4:56 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Hewitt's full of it as usual. Besides, a few days before the election he was still saying the GOP was going to only lose about three seats (or gain 3, I can't remember which). Either way, he's too bogged down in minutiae in that article, not seeing the forest from the trees. Most Americans don't remember the "Gang of 14" compromise which merely preserves the filibuster, which is of course just part of American political gamesmanship, whether used for good or ill. Nor would ramming John Bolton through despite whatever Chafee said have done anything, either. And he's nuts if he thinks giving Americans a measure of progress on how the war is going, when there's been no oversight for six years, was somehow a wrong move to, I don't know, "appease" the other side, that being Democrats, who in years past the GOP used to work with once in a while, back in the 80s, when both sides kind of worked together once in a while.

The GOP largely lost because the leader of the country is in denial and the rest of the GOP mostly stuck to his talking points almost until the end, and Hewitt somehow thinks that the right move would have been to march them even FASTER over a cliff? Sorry, but I don't believe it. Any suggestion that the GOP wasn't driving hard enough on most of what it wanted to do seems nonsensical, particularly as most desire for oversight or a reckoning on Iraq was ignored while a bunch of corrupt bozos in the House did nothing about, well, anything.

Whatever. Hewitt can continue to think this was lost at the margins, just as the Dems did in 2002 and 1994.

9:38 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Dave G. said...
" Most Americans don't remember the "Gang of 14" compromise"


Most conservatives will never forget it.

"...which merely preserves the filibuster, which is of course just part of American political gamesmanship, whether used for good or ill."

Not so. Nobody was trying to get rid of the filibuster in the Legislative Branch. Filibustering of Judicial nominees, however, is not constitutional.

The instances where a super-majority is required are enumerated in the Constitution, and the confirmation of a Judicial nominee is not one of those enumerated instances.

1:22 AM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Filibustering of Judicial nominees, however, is not constitutional.

Really? Where in the constitution is that? When has that ever been defined as unconstitutional?

10:04 AM  
Anonymous whoop4467 said...

trinity said...
Most Republicans who are very much into politics understand pretty well why we lost seats this time round. There are many reasons, and Hugh Hewett has written a good piece on the subject. I agree with a lot of what he says here.

http://tinyurl.com/ydamyy

I read this and it scares me more than the "terrorist"! You guys want to control everybody and everything and be damned with cooperation in a democracy of the people and by the people. I hope a lot of sane people read this and get the same feeling as I do. You repukes are really scarry!! Money, power and control is everything to you guys and be damned with America as a free republic! Just think, we went and invaded a country (Iraq)that had a leader that thinks the way you guys think! Hell now I understand why Bush never wants to find and kill OBL, he would be killing his brother and the repukes brother in spirit!

The republicans who are very much mostly into politics as you say should get more into being an American and support the ideals of democracy and ideals of the constituion!

I am a proud American citizen first and then I think about politics!

9:16 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

David R. Mark said...
"So if the GOP wants to lose again in 2008, it should redouble its efforts to woo social conservatives -- and watch every other group of voters turn to the Democrats."


Hmmm. I don't think so. Big government and out-of-control spending, etc. is not the conservative way. As has been said, Republicans not only lost their majority, they've lost their way. They need to correct that course.

It's a fact that every candidate who won his primary with the endorsement of the House Conservatives Fund went on to win his general election too. This demonstrates that conservatism is not the problem.

Also, the newly elected Democrat Congressmen that ran in more conservative districts don't seem all that much in line with their more radical leaders. If they want to be re-elected in two years, they'd be wise to adhere to the values that they professed to possess when they ran for office. If not, their careers may be short-lived.

4:38 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Dave G. said...
"Really? Where in the constitution is that? When has that (the filibustering of Judicial nominees) ever been defined as unconstitutional?


According to the Constitution, all judicial nominees are entitled to an "up or down vote on the floor of the Senate". To filibuster a president's choice of judicial nominee is a clear abuse of the judicial process, and violates the intent/design of the Constitution.

Never before in the history of our country had a Senate minority used the filibuster to block a federal appellate nominee. This is nothing for your side, nor for RINOs like McCain et. al., to be proud of, and it needs to be addressed.

1:46 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

According to the Constitution, all judicial nominees are entitled to an "up or down vote on the floor of the Senate".

Where does it say it. I want to know. I'm not being facetious. I'm looking, and I can't find that anywhere in the constitution.

3:17 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Dave G. said...
"Where does it say it. I want to know. I'm not being facetious. I'm looking, and I can't find that anywhere in the constitution."


Okay. What you will find in the Constitution is this: Article II, Section 2 says...

"[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United Staeds, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for."

To clarify the fact that it's within the President's power to nominate and appoint justices and judges, Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 66:

"It will be the Office of the President to nominate, and, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint. There will, of course, be no exertion of choice on the part of the Senate. They may defeat one choice of the Executive, and oblige him to make another; but they cannot themselves choose--they can only ratify or reject the choice he may have made."

So if there are objections to the President's choice for judicial nominee, without question, Senators have the right to vote that nominee down. If they approve, they can vote for him. What they cannot do is block him from receiving a vote, and the vote required is a simple majority.

7:30 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

That's the Federalist Papers. Not the constitution. And it never says anything so specific about using the filibuster. Sorry.

9:34 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

The first excerpt I posted was from the Constitution. The second was from the Federalist Papers, as I clearly stated up front.

What IS specific, Dave G., is that the Constitution clearly dictates exactly what circumstances require a super-majority vote, and the confirmation of judges is clearly NOT one of those times. I don't see what's difficult to understand here.

"The Framers of the US Constitution were absolutely specific about what actions under the Constitution would require a “super majority” vote. Those situations are rare and carefully laid out. Senate confirmation of federal judges is definitively NOT one of those situations. Any attempt to create a standard not specified in the Constitution, without amending the Constitution, is nothing short of a violation of the Constitution."

http://tinyurl.com/yj7b8q

Your reaction begs the question, where in the Constitution do you find the "right" to abortion? Just curious. Don't bother looking. I think you know it's nowhere to be found, whereas, the procedure to confirm justices/judges is definitely addressed, and filibustering, which would require a super-majority to end, is not in there.

In the name of consistency and fairness, how could you not acknowledge this point, David G.?

2:35 PM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Well, for one, I never said anything about abortion, one way or another, so it's completely irrelevant.

Either way, there's nothing that specifies an up-or-down vote on anything and says a filibuster cannot be used.

3:17 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares