This is an interesting article on the aftermath of the election. Key Republicans seem to think that the Democrats won not because they were anyone but Republicans, but because the Republicans sold their souls, abandoned their traditional values, and lost the center. It's interesting how some here have denied this, while their elected leaders formally acknowledge it. Here are some excerpts:

<i>Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican whose presidential aspirations will give him a big role in reshaping the party, laid the blame for the losses at the rash of lobbying and sex scandals that had infected House Republicans and a wholesale abandonment by Bush and GOP leaders in Congress of the small-government philosophy that had united the party for more than 25 years since President Ronald Reagan.

The American public "believed we came to Washington to change government, and government changed us," McCain said, ruefully noting that he will probably lose the chairmanship he was ready to assume of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
...

(Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind) laid out the same arguments in a 2 1/2-page letter to colleagues announcing his candidacy for House minority leader.

"In recent years, to the chagrin of millions of Republicans, our Majority also voted to expand the federal government's role in education by nearly 100 percent and created the largest new entitlement in 40 years," Pence wrote. "We also pursued domestic spending policies that created record deficits, national debt and earmark spending that has embarrassed us and caused many Americans to question our commitment to fiscal responsibility."
...
Gay Republicans accused Christian evangelicals of extremism. Christian evangelicals said Republicans ignored them on same-sex marriage and let former Rep. Mark Foley run riot with teenage male pages. And libertarians blamed the party for spending at levels not seen since Lyndon Johnson's Great Society.

Outsiders blamed Karl Rove -- the White House political guru once hailed as a genius for animating the conservative base -- for abandoning the center, which Democrats quickly moved to claim.

"What we're seeing is the collapse of the Rovian polarization model," said Marshall Wittmann, a political analyst at the centrist Democratic Leadership Council and a former McCain aide. "They lost independents, they lost moderates, they lost the suburbs, they lost rural voters, and this in the past was their strength."

Wittmann called the election "an accountability moment."

"This election was a tale of two cities, Baghdad and New Orleans, and the failure of Republican management in those two cities in many ways led to this election result," he said. "In the past, Republicans were able to hold on to the majority primarily by using wedge issues and fear, but eventually accountability caught up with them."</i>

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/11/09/MNGTQM99IV1.DTL&type=politics

I think a more apt title would be the Decline and Fall of the Neocons.

This admin has allowed the DNC to claim the conservative mantle. Are there any true conservative Republicans left?

I think a more apt title would be the Decline and Fall of the Neocons.

Agreed.

-- Did you see/hear Limbaugh b!tching and moaning about having to "carry their water"? ...funny

Agreed.

-- Did you see/hear Limbaugh b!tching and moaning about having to "carry their water"? ...funny
...to me it sounded like he was admitting that he's a fraud and all his defending of the administration was nothing but BS. But then most intelligent people knew that already.:D

I'm a big fat liar and you know why? Because I have to cover for a bunch of losers.
and why? because the stakes are high (I'd rather my crooks stay in power)

nice ethics in broadcasting, straight up admission of being a propogandist

I'm a big fat liar and you know why? Because I have to cover for a bunch of losers.
and why? because the stakes are high (I'd rather my crooks stay in power)

nice ethics in broadcasting, straight up admission of being a propogandist

Rush has never denied being a propagandist. Actually, he embraces the fact that he is one, and routinely states the same on his show.

BTW, propaganda is not necessarily false. It is impartial and often appeals to raw emotion, but that doesn't mean the message itself must be flawed.

you know Rush sells his stuff as 'truthiness' I mean he and his ilk gave Colbert the concept for the word.

If Rush admits he was lying becuase he was having to carry the water for a den of thieves, by admission his propoganda was 'false'

Propoganda by nature is rarely impartial, propoganda always has a mission and thus its partiality is to achieve said mission. it is intended to attack the most easily swayed of instincts, emotion so by nature is a very base form of manipulation. I should know, I'm in advetising

you know Rush sells his stuff as 'truthiness' I mean he and his ilk gave Colbert the concept for the word.

If Rush admits he was lying becuase he was having to carry the water for a den of thieves, by admission his propoganda was 'false'

Propoganda by nature is rarely impartial, propoganda always has a mission and thus its partiality is to achieve said mission. it is intended to attack the most easily swayed of instincts, emotion so by nature is a very base form of manipulation. I should know, I'm in advetising


Well, if your interested in actually reading what he said, instead of going on 'what i heard' here it is.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_110806/content/rush_on_a_roll.guest.html

The fact remains that Republicans were sent to Washington for a reason, that they didn't fulfil their purpose didn't change the sentiment of the American public. Democrats didn't so much assume a mantle as fill a void. To this point, there is still a huge unknown involved with their party. Are they the party of Pelosi and Dean or of Lieberman, Hillary and Biden? They have an opportunity but not a particular mandate. What they do with it will determine their future strength. Republicans should look inward for the reasons for their losses this time around rather than point fingers outward. There were some very dirty tactics used against them, in my opinion, but they left themselves vulnerable to them and their individual conduct opened the doors to charges of corruption. the next two years will be interesting for observers of both parties.

For at least 6-8years........Maybe more. It all depends on the Dems.

I even saw it. Just because I was paraphrasing doesn't mean I didn't see the drug taking, marriage failing hypocrite spew the terms myself. He also looks like he's put back on a few pounds but maybe it is all the 'water weight' he's carrying.

The fact remains that Republicans were sent to Washington for a reason, that they didn't fulfil their purpose didn't change the sentiment of the American public. Democrats didn't so much assume a mantle as fill a void. To this point, there is still a huge unknown involved with their party. Are they the party of Pelosi and Dean or of Lieberman, Hillary and Biden? They have an opportunity but not a particular mandate. What they do with it will determine their future strength. Republicans should look inward for the reasons for their losses this time around rather than point fingers outward. There were some very dirty tactics used against them, in my opinion, but they left themselves vulnerable to them and their individual conduct opened the doors to charges of corruption. the next two years will be interesting for observers of both parties.

the Dem party is the party of all of them, big tent ya know.

for an avowed Bush/Rove fan you have no right to complain about dirty tactics. and sorry nothing was dirtier than the race baiting (by the RNC not the locals) in Tennessee.

their individual conduct left them open? are you defending Delay, Cunningham, Frist, Ney, Foley, Hastert, Abramhoff and the rest again?
These weren't charges of corruption, IT WAS CORRUPTION, you know convicted of crimes, serving jail time (or soon to be)

oh and it wasn't 'individual conduct', how many of these fellows received ethics violations from their party who headed the commitees? they came to clean up DC and dirtied it like never before.

you are waking up a bit but still have a couple layers of denial to get through. You are again blaming the media/liberals for Nixon so to speak.

The fact remains that Republicans were sent to Washington for a reason, that they didn't fulfil their purpose didn't change the sentiment of the American public.

The results are in, Snake. The sentiment of the American public has been made quite clear. I know it hurts, but your own party leaders acknowledge this. Why can't you?

Traditional liberal values and progressive ideas aren't cultivated by a steady stream of vitriol, fear, and hate. Nope, they come from going out into the world and seeing and experiencing life first hand, not sitting inside, behind gates, listening to AM radio.

Hate and resent Rush all you like, but his show will now have more to attack and go after now that the lay of the land has changed.

Why can't libs get any radio show going? Air America went bust and who do we blame for this? :confused: Rush is rolling is money (and drugs and prolly womin). :rolleyes:

to Clinton. I don't hate him I just think he's the sorryist form of hypocrite and now an admitted liar and coverup guy for a corrupt party

hmmm why don't libera;s get a good radio show?

lets see most liberals have jobs that don't put them near radios all day and intelligent fact driven political discussions don't make as good of entertainment as knee jerk name calling. Simple fact, the demograph available prefers the drama, whicxh again is a sad state for America.

The results are in, Snake. The sentiment of the American public has been made quite clear. I know it hurts, but your own party leaders acknowledge this. Why can't you?

What? Do you understand what I said or do you just automatically look for something contradictory in what I write? Republicans didn't live up to their billing, I said that. Still, the country elected them because they were supposed to bring conservative values to the job, Dems are there today because they didn't and because Dems have now promised to carry that banner. My only question is, will they? If they don't please the swing vote, they will wind up where they started, as have Republicans.

I am as sick as anyone else of the scandals we have endured and I long for some solution to Iraq, as do the rest of you. As things stand today, the jury is still out on whether Dems will be better at the integrity thing, they too have some history, and if you listen to your own party leadership, they acknowledge that we can't just drop our guns and run from Iraq. The idea that we haven't searched for solutions to that situation is simply political BS. The problem is that they have stayed within a framework that has proven to be slow at best and ineffective on the face of it. I don't think we are going to now see us abandon that framework though, just try to find a way to escalate results. I think you will hear that from the old guard and the new. Lets see?

I did read your post, but I just went back and read it again. I now realize that I misread the line in your post about American sentiment. My comment was therefore unwarranted. I apologize.

"In the past, Republicans were able to hold on to the majority primarily by using wedge issues and fear, but eventually accountability caught up with them."

Truer words were never spoken. The chickens came home to roost. We'll have to wait and see if the Dems can do any better. Here's hoping they do no worse.

They have an opportunity but not a particular mandate.

The Democrats came out of this with more of a "mandate" than Bush had in 2000....

. Are they the party of Pelosi and Dean or of Lieberman, Hillary and Biden?
All of the above, plus Murtha.

This admin has allowed the DNC to claim the conservative mantle. Are there any true conservative Republicans left?
Some pundits have saying that this election has been not so much about the Dems winning it but about how the Repubs gave it to them. I say the Pubs abandoned the moderates in favor of their hard right base and the Dems had the mettle to fight for the center and win.

(Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind) laid out the same arguments in a 2 1/2-page letter to colleagues announcing his candidacy for House minority leader.

"In recent years, to the chagrin of millions of Republicans, our Majority also voted to expand the federal government's role in education by nearly 100 percent and created the largest new entitlement in 40 years," Pence wrote. "We also pursued domestic spending policies that created record deficits, national debt and earmark spending that has embarrassed us and caused many Americans to question our commitment to fiscal responsibility."
...
Gay Republicans accused Christian evangelicals of extremism. Christian evangelicals said Republicans ignored them on same-sex marriage and let former Rep. Mark Foley run riot with teenage male pages. And libertarians blamed the party for spending at levels not seen since Lyndon Johnson's Great Society.

Outsiders blamed Karl Rove -- the White House political guru once hailed as a genius for animating the conservative base -- for abandoning the center, which Democrats quickly moved to claim.

"What we're seeing is the collapse of the Rovian polarization model," said Marshall Wittmann, a political analyst at the centrist Democratic Leadership Council and a former McCain aide. "They lost independents, they lost moderates, they lost the suburbs, they lost rural voters, and this in the past was their strength."

Wittmann called the election "an accountability moment."

"This election was a tale of two cities, Baghdad and New Orleans, and the failure of Republican management in those two cities in many ways led to this election result," he said. "In the past, Republicans were able to hold on to the majority primarily by using wedge issues and fear, but eventually accountability caught up with them."</i>
It's been a strange reversal these last few years. The normally conservative Repub party became the "spend and spend" party. They became the party of interventionist wars in the ME with no viable plan for paying for the war

Indeed Baghdad and NO played huge roles in this election. But if I were a Pub I would be demanding Rove's scalp. In 1994 the Pubs were finally able to wrest control of congress from 40 years of Dem domination. Here it is only 12 years later and because of Rove's neglect of moderates in favor of the hard right base, congress as well as state governorships have gone back to the Dems.

Some pundits have saying that this election has been not so much about the Dems winning it but about how the Repubs gave it to them. I say the Pubs abandoned the moderates in favor of their hard right base and the Dems had the mettle to fight for the center and win.

here here.....the fear mongering, "values" party was shown for what it really has become, a corrupt morass of failed policy...the chickens came home to roost and the apologists are on their heels sputtering like a drunkard who's lost his bottle....the extreme right has taken a direct kick in the jimmyz

I thought David Brooks' column in the NYTimes today really nailed it:

http://select.nytimes.com/2006/11/09/opinion/09brooks.html

Free times select this week!

Silas

I thought David Brooks' column in the NYTimes today really nailed it:

http://select.nytimes.com/2006/11/09/opinion/09brooks.html

Free times select this week!

Silas

I thought the sexy sexy Maureen Dowd's column was pretty amusing...but yes...David Brooks is probably pretty near to the truth in his.

By the by...anyone that is associated as a borrower at a library that subsribes to the internet version of the NY TIMES already can get Times Select.

Some pundits have saying that this election has been not so much about the Dems winning it but about how the Repubs gave it to them. I say the Pubs abandoned the moderates in favor of their hard right base and the Dems had the mettle to fight for the center and win.

This is why I don't think the win is a "large" as it's being made out to be. Had this been 2004 all over again, it would have been 2004 all over again. The Pubs did everything they could to blow this election.

I'm not saying that I'm unhappy with the outcome though. The balance has been restored and that's good for everyone.

This is why I don't think the win is a "large" as it's being made out to be. Had this been 2004 all over again, it would have been 2004 all over again. The Pubs did everything they could to blow this election.

I'm not saying that I'm unhappy with the outcome though. The balance has been restored and that's good for everyone.

How could this not be viewed as anything but a HUGE repudiation of Rove/GWB/NeoCon
policy. Was this not a shift of historic proportion? Not one Dem seat changed hands.....

Time will tell whether the Dems can capitalize...

I did read your post, but I just went back and read it again. I now realize that I misread the line in your post about American sentiment. My comment was therefore unwarranted. I apologize.

De Nada. :) We can get all nasty again pretty soon, I'm sure.

I thought the sexy sexy Maureen Dowd's column was pretty amusing...but yes...David Brooks is probably pretty near to the truth in his.

By the by...anyone that is associated as a borrower at a library that subsribes to the internet version of the NY TIMES already can get Times Select.

Maureen is always good for a self-reassuring nod and a chuckle, but I never found her that insightful.

Brooks is good because I seem to agree with him 1/3rd of the time and have to work my brain around how we drew the same conclusions from drastically different points of view, always interesting.

If you haven't already, Safire's column is a hoot:http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/09/opinion/09safire.html
He is beyond optimistic...seems to think this loss means that the republicans have a better chance in two years time. I guess the further you fall the more you can rise up???

I get the op-eds free through factiva news at work, but not all the little times select bonus bits, which are pretty interesting. May need to sign up,

Silas

Hate and resent Rush all you like, but his show will now have more to attack and go after now that the lay of the land has changed.

Why can't libs get any radio show going? Air America went bust and who do we blame for this? :confused: Rush is rolling is money (and drugs and prolly womin). :rolleyes:
...the Jerry Springer of politics.

With all due respect to you keepers of the faith here (snake, jbrumm, etc.), I think that the Republicans have been plagued by corruption lately because Republicanism itself is corrupt. Look no further than the self-proclaimed conservatives who constantly strum the "Since Reagan" harp, as if Reagan is the Patron Saint of Small Government.

AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO REMEMBERS THAT REAGAN RAISED TAXES AND INCREASED SPENDING?

If you claim to be a conservative and you hold up Reagan as your shining standard, you are either a fraud or ignorant.

I know I come across around here as one of the libbies, but that's only because I find the GOP so repugnant. I am a fiscal and social libertarian. The GOP pisses me off because they claim to stand for fiscal libertarianism while delivering exactly the opposite. At least the Dems are somewhat honest about what they are. As for the Libertarians, well, they are just ridiculous but that is another subject.

I just don't feel like I can trust the Republicans. And why should I?

With all due respect to you keepers of the faith here (snake, jbrumm, etc.), I think that the Republicans have been plagued by corruption lately because Republicanism itself is corrupt. Look no further than the self-proclaimed conservatives who constantly strum the "Since Reagan" harp, as if Reagan is the Patron Saint of Small Government.

AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO REMEMBERS THAT REAGAN RAISED TAXES AND INCREASED SPENDING?

If you claim to be a conservative and you hold up Reagan as your shining standard, you are either a fraud or ignorant.

I know I come across around here as one of the libbies, but that's only because I find the GOP so repugnant. I am a fiscal and social libertarian. The GOP pisses me off because they claim to stand for fiscal libertarianism while delivering exactly the opposite. At least the Dems are somewhat honest about what they are. As for the Libertarians, well, they are just ridiculous but that is another subject.

I just don't feel like I can trust the Republicans. And why should I?

Phew! Thank goodness that forums such as this exist. Keeping all that bottled up inside is not healthy. I'm glad you got it off your chest.

If you claim to be a conservative and you hold up Reagan as your shining standard, you are either a fraud or ignorant.

I know I come across around here as one of the libbies, but that's only because I find the GOP so repugnant. I am a fiscal and social libertarian. The GOP pisses me off because they claim to stand for fiscal libertarianism while delivering exactly the opposite. At least the Dems are somewhat honest about what they are. As for the Libertarians, well, they are just ridiculous but that is another subject.

I just don't feel like I can trust the Republicans. And why should I?

republican presidents
Nixon - watergate - Constitutional crisis, civil rights stepped on, spent alot
Reagan / HW Bush - Iran Contra - Constitutional Crisis, civil rights stepped on (war on Drugs excuse) spent more than all Presidents before them combined (Bush raised taxes)
W. Bush - Iraq War, Multiple Constitutional Crisis' , civil rights stepped on (war on terror excuse) spent more than Reagan and Bush

why should you trust them? I've been asking the same question since the 70's.
I can't believe how short American's political memories are

I'm glad you got it off your chest.Me too. Otherwise I would have had to beat my kids or something :thumbsup:

BTW, that's not exactly the reaction I was hoping for out of you. I was expecting something along the lines of:


My goodness you are right. What have I been thinking all these years. I am a dolt.

How could this not be viewed as anything but a HUGE repudiation of Rove/GWB/NeoCon
policy. Was this not a shift of historic proportion? Not one Dem seat changed hands.....

Time will tell whether the Dems can capitalize...

I agree with the significance as you put it. This election was not a vindication of the DNC platform or candidates, it was a repudiation of the current admin. In many cases, voters likely figured that the Dems just couldn't make things much worse so why not give them a shot. In the end, the senate majority was won by less than 10000 votes. I think that is significant in and of itself. Take that and that a lot of people like me voted Dem for no other reason than to restore the balance. It had nothing at all to do with platforms.


Again, I'm in now way unhappy with the results. They are exactly what I had hoped for.

How could this not be viewed as anything but a HUGE repudiation of Rove/GWB/NeoCon
policy. Was this not a shift of historic proportion? Not one Dem seat changed hands.....

Time will tell whether the Dems can capitalize...
Clinton's strategy was to go for the moderates. Rove/Bush's was to go for the evangelicals and superimpose PNAC politics over them. This election was won with the Clinton strategy.

This is a first for me: The election results? It's all Clinton's fault! :D

Me too. Otherwise I would have had to beat my kids or something :thumbsup:

BTW, that's not exactly the reaction I was hoping for out of you. I was expecting something along the lines of:

I wrote that in all sincerity. I've used the board to get things off my chest, and I appreciate it when I see a fellow member doing the same.

Be careful with attributing words to me that I didn't write using a quote box. Dr Hoo will get you.

The reason I didn't write something like that is this. I don't run around saying Regan this Regan that. Further more, I'm not a big fan of the way the Repubs have been running the country. Tax cuts good, spending bad.

I do agree with Bush that we need to take the fight to the enemy, but I would have fired Rummy a long time ago.

I do agree with Bush that we need to take the fight to the enemy, but I would have fired Rummy a long time ago.

as taking the fight to the enemy meant Afghanistan. and if that's what ya mean, then we agree.

With all due respect to you keepers of the faith here (snake, jbrumm, etc.), I think that the Republicans have been plagued by corruption lately because Republicanism itself is corrupt. Look no further than the self-proclaimed conservatives who constantly strum the "Since Reagan" harp, as if Reagan is the Patron Saint of Small Government.

AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO REMEMBERS THAT REAGAN RAISED TAXES AND INCREASED SPENDING?

If you claim to be a conservative and you hold up Reagan as your shining standard, you are either a fraud or ignorant.

I know I come across around here as one of the libbies, but that's only because I find the GOP so repugnant. I am a fiscal and social libertarian. The GOP pisses me off because they claim to stand for fiscal libertarianism while delivering exactly the opposite. At least the Dems are somewhat honest about what they are. As for the Libertarians, well, they are just ridiculous but that is another subject.

I just don't feel like I can trust the Republicans. And why should I?

Well, Ronnie did have a Cold War to win.

Be careful with attributing words to me that I didn't write using a quote box. Dr Hoo will get you.Sorry. I know you get it but for anyone else who happens upon this thread and doesn't, my fake jbrumm quote was meant as good-natured sarcasm. :thumbsup:

Well, Ronnie did have a Cold War to win.

to win that one?

hmmm all I seem to remember about that era is a bunch of crooked rich guys making a buttload of money with shady business deals that had to be bailed out by the American taxpayer. Oh and them serving little time and paying little fines

gee come to think of it W does emulate the gipper.

...
This is a first for me: The election results? It's all Clinton's fault! :D

ROTFLMFAO!!!

What motivated the Republicans to create their "Contract with America"? The perceived corruption of the Democratic led Congress.
I'm under no illusions here. I believe with lobbyists, special interests, pork, power hunger, backroom deals, etc., Congress breeds corruption, both on an individual and party level. Republicans only have to wait a couple years when the voters associate ongoing corruption with the Democrats, then the wheel makes another revolution.