A Solid Analysis & Some Perspective
Janet Dailey notes -- correctly -- that the Republican losses have as much to do with the abandonment of the mainstream conservative agenda as with the tough war in Iraq.
Even so, it is worth noting that -- given the traditional challenges of a mid-term second-term election, a disgruntled GOP base, an unpopular president, a difficult war, $3 gas only a couple months ago, ethics and sex scandals, and a MSM media effectively campaigning for the Democrats -- the Democratic gains seem less impressive than they otherwise might.
And note that in 1986 -- the first Senate election in which I was involved (the only one where Republicans won an open seat, and a Democrat's at that) -- Republicans lost 8 Senate seats (7 incumbents) leaving a total of only 45 Republicans in the Senate. There were only 177 Republicans in the House.
Today, under the "worst case" scenario, Republicans will have 49 votes in the Senate and (it appears) about 204-210 votes in the House.
Even so, it is worth noting that -- given the traditional challenges of a mid-term second-term election, a disgruntled GOP base, an unpopular president, a difficult war, $3 gas only a couple months ago, ethics and sex scandals, and a MSM media effectively campaigning for the Democrats -- the Democratic gains seem less impressive than they otherwise might.
And note that in 1986 -- the first Senate election in which I was involved (the only one where Republicans won an open seat, and a Democrat's at that) -- Republicans lost 8 Senate seats (7 incumbents) leaving a total of only 45 Republicans in the Senate. There were only 177 Republicans in the House.
Today, under the "worst case" scenario, Republicans will have 49 votes in the Senate and (it appears) about 204-210 votes in the House.
posted by Carol Platt Liebau at 7:19 AM
5 Comments:
You can't spend weeks trying to scare people about the damage the Democrats will do if they control the Congress and then pass out the "it's not so bad" balm.
The Republicans deserved to lose. "Stay the course" is not a strategy; it is a slogan. Stubborness is not resolution if you have no clearly understood goals or bedrock principles.
The Republican Congress has been profligate and has gotten what it deserves. I don't believe Republican "ideas" are any better if there is no intent to act upon them, not to mention a clear record of acting contrary to them (fiscal restraint, small government, federalism).
Know what you get when you don't get what you want? Perspective.
Carol, what exactly is "the mainstream conservative agenda?"
Do you mean indefinate detention of US citizens without recourse to lawyers or the courts--is that mainstream conservatism?
Is wiretapping of US citizens without a court order considered mainstream conservatism?
Torture--is torture a mainstream conservative value?
How about running $400 billion a year deficits--is that both mainstream and conservative?
Apparently "mainstream conservatism" isn't anything like Goldwater or even Reagan conservatism. Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan would be appalled by the mockery the modern Republican party has made of their ideals.
For the past six years the Bush administration and the rubber stamp Republican Congress have spit on the ideas of stewardship, fiscal restraint, and keeping the government out of people's private lives. For the past six years, Rush and Hugh and Sean and yourself have cheered them on.
Your last point...
The first Senate election in which I was involved (the only one where Republicans won an open seat, and a Democrat's at that) -- Republicans lost 8 Senate seats (7 incumbents) leaving a total of only 45 Republicans in the Senate. There were only 177 Republicans in the House.
Today, under the "worst case" scenario, Republicans will have 49 votes in the Senate and (it appears) about 204-210 votes in the House.
...has given me some hope. I thank you for it.
Good one, House!
Post a Comment
<< Home