Post Mortem-Forgot Conservatism

[rick]

Forgetting conservatism
By George Will
Thursday, November 9, 2006

www.townhall.com/columnists/GeorgeWill/2006/11/09/forgetting_conservatism

WASHINGTON -- At least Republicans now know where ``the bridge to nowhere'' leads: to the political wilderness. But there are three reasons for conservatives to temper their despondency.

First, they were punished not for pursuing but for forgetting conservatism. Second, they admire market rationality, and the political market has worked. Third, on various important fronts, conservatism continued its advance Tuesday.
Of course the election-turning issue was not that $223 million bridge in Alaska, or even the vice of which it is emblematic -- incontinent spending by a Republican-controlled Congress trying to purchase permanent power. Crass spending (the farm and highway bills, the nearly eightfold increase in the number of earmarks since 1994) and other pandering (e.g., the Terri Schiavo intervention) have intensified as Republicans' memories of why they originally sought power have faded.

But Republicans sank beneath the weight of Iraq, the lesson of which is patent: Wars of choice should be won swiftly rather than lost protractedly. On election eve the president, perhaps thinking one should not tinker with success, promised that his secretary of defense would remain. That promise perished Wednesday as a result of Tuesday's repudiation of Republican stewardship which, although emphatic, was not inordinate, considering the offense that provoked it -- war leadership even worse than during the War of 1812.

Tuesday's House result -- the end of 12 years of Republican control -- was normal; the reason for it was unprecedented. The Democrats' 40 years of control of the House before 1994 was aberrant: In the 140 years since 1866, the first post-Civil War election, party control of the House has now changed 15 times -- an average of once every 9.3 years. But never before has a midterm election so severely repudiated a president for a single policy.

The Iraq War, like the Alaska bridge, pungently proclaims how Republicans earned their rebuke. They are guilty of apostasy from conservative principles at home (frugality, limited government) and embrace of anti-conservative principles abroad (nation-building grandiosity pursued incompetently).

About $2.6 billion was spent on the 468 House and Senate races. (Scandalized? Don't be. Americans spend that much on chocolate every two months.) But although Republicans had more money, its effectiveness was blunted because Democrats at last practiced what they incessantly preach to others -- diversity. Diversity of thought, no less: Some of their winners even respect the Second Amendment.

Free markets, including political markets, equilibrate, producing supplies to meet demands. The Democratic Party, a slow learner but educable, has dropped the subject of gun control and welcomed candidates opposed to parts or even all of the abortion rights agenda. This vindicates the candidate recruitment by Rep. Rahm Emanuel and Sen. Chuck Schumer, chairmen of the Democratic House and Senate campaign committees, respectively. Karl Rove fancies himself a second iteration of Mark Hanna, architect of the Republican ascendancy secured by William McKinley's 1896 election. In Emanuel, Democrats may have found another Jim Farley, the political mechanic who kept FDR's potentially discordant coalition running smoothly through the 1930s.

Making the Democratic House majority run smoothly will require delicacy. The six elections beginning with 1994 produced Republican majorities averaging just 10 seats. The six elections prior to 1994 produced Democratic majorities averaging 44. Nancy Pelosi's majority will be less than half that. The most left-wing speaker in U.S. history will return to being minority leader in 2009 unless she eschews an agenda that cannot be enacted without requiring the many Democrats elected from Republican-leaning districts to jeopardize their seats.

This year Democrats tacitly accepted much of the country's rightward movement over the last quarter-century. They did not call for restoring the 70 percent marginal tax rates that Reagan repealed. And although Pelosi and 15 of the 21 likely chairmen of committees in the coming Congress voted against the 1996 Welfare Reform that has helped reduced welfare rolls by roughly 60 percent, Democrats this year did not talk about repealing it.

The property rights movement gained ground Tuesday as voters in nine states passed measures to restrict governments from exercising eminent domain in order to enlarge their tax revenues. In Michigan, opponents of racial preferences in public hiring, education and contracting easily passed their referendum, 58-42, in spite of being outspent more than three to one. In Minnesota -- the only state Democrats have carried in each of the last eight presidential elections, but one that is becoming a swing state -- Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty was re-elected. And come January, the number of Republicans in the House (at least 200) will still be larger than the largest number during the Reagan years (192 in 1981-83).

The country remains receptive to conservatism. That doctrine -- were it to become constraining on, rather than merely avowed by, congressional Republicans -- can be their bridge back from the wilderness.



George F. Will, a 1976 Pulitzer Prize winner whose columns are syndicated in more than 400 magazines and newspapers worldwide, is the author of Men at Work: The Craft of Baseball.

[rick]

Historic victory for Diebold!
By Ann Coulter
Wednesday, November 8, 2006

www.townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2006/11/08/historic_victory_for_diebold

History was made this week! For the first time in four election cycles, Democrats are not attacking the Diebold Corp. the day after the election, accusing it of rigging its voting machines. I guess Diebold has finally been vindicated.

So the left won the House and also Nicaragua. They've had a good week. At least they don't have their finger on the atom bomb yet.

Democrats support surrender in Iraq, higher taxes and the impeachment of President Bush. They just won an election by pretending to be against all three.

Jon Tester, Bob Casey Jr., Heath Shuler, possibly Jim Webb -- I've never seen so much raw testosterone in my life. The smell of sweaty jockstraps from the "new Democrats" is overwhelming.

Having predicted this paltry Democrat win, my next prediction is how long it will take all these new "gun totin' Democrats" to be fitted for leotards.

Now that they've won their elections and don't have to deal with the hicks anymore, Tester can cut lose the infernal buzz cut, Casey can start taking "Emily's List" money, and Webb can go back to writing more incestuously homoerotic fiction ... and just in time for Christmas!

But according to the media, this week's election results are a mandate for pulling out of Iraq (except in Connecticut where pro-war Joe Lieberman walloped anti-war "Ned the Red" Lamont).

In fact, if the Democrats' pathetic gains in a sixth-year election are a statement about the war in Iraq, Americans must love the war! As Roll Call put it back when Clinton was president: "Simply put, the party controlling the White House nearly always loses House seats in midterm elections" -- especially in the sixth year.

In Franklin D. Roosevelt's sixth year in 1938, Democrats lost 71 seats in the House and six in the Senate.

In Dwight Eisenhower's sixth year in 1958, Republicans lost 47 House seats, 13 in the Senate.

In John F. Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson's sixth year, Democrats lost 47 seats in the House and three in the Senate.

In Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford's sixth year in office in 1974, Republicans lost 43 House seats and three Senate seats.

Even America's greatest president, Ronald Reagan, lost five House seats and eight Senate seats in his sixth year in office.

But in the middle of what the media tell us is a massively unpopular war, the Democrats picked up about 30 House seats and five to six Senate seats in a sixth-year election, with lots of seats still too close to call. Only for half-brights with absolutely no concept of yesterday is this a "tsunami" -- as MSNBC calls it -- rather than the death throes of a dying party.

During eight years of Clinton -- the man Democrats tell us was the greatest campaigner ever, a political genius, a heartthrob, Elvis! -- Republicans picked up a total of 49 House seats and nine Senate seats in two midterm elections. Also, when Clinton won the presidency in 1992, his party actually lost 10 seats in the House -- only the second time in the 20th century that a party won the White House but lost seats in the House.

Meanwhile, the Democrats' epic victory this week, about which songs will be sung for generations, means that in two midterm elections Democrats were only able to pick up about 30 seats in the House and four seats in the Senate -- and that's assuming they pick up every seat that is currently too close to call. (The Democrats' total gain is less than this week's gain because Bush won six House and two Senate seats in the first midterm election.)

So however you cut it, this midterm proves that the Iraq war is at least more popular than Bill Clinton was.

In a choice between Republicans' "Stay until we win" Iraq policy or the Democrats' "Stay, leave ... stay for a while then leave ... redeploy and then come back ... leave and stay ... cut and run ... win, lose or draw policy," I guess Americans prefer the Republican policy.

The Democrats say we need a "new direction" in Iraq. Yeah, it's called "reverse." Democrats keep talking about a new military strategy in Iraq. How exactly is cut-and-run a new strategy? The French have been doing it for years. The Democrats are calling their new plan for Iraq "Operation Somalia."

The Democrats certainly have their work cut out for them. They have only two years to release as many terrorists as possible and lock up as many Republicans as they can. Republicans better get that body armor for the troops the Democrats are always carping about -- and fast. The troops are going to need it for their backs.




Ann Coulter is the legal correspondent for Human Events and author of Godless: The Church of Liberalism .

[rick]

The Road Not Taken: Forfeiting a Majority
By Hugh Hewitt
Wednesday, November 8, 2006

www.townhall.com/columnists/HughHewitt/2006/11/08/the_road_not_taken__forfeiting_a_majority

The post-mortems are accumulating, but I think the obvious has to be stated: John McCain and his colleagues in the Gang of 14 cost the GOP its Senate majority while the conduct of a handful of corrupt House members gave that body's leadership the Democrats.

The first two paragraphs of my book Painting the Map Red --published in March of this year, read:

If you are a conservative Republican, as I am, you have a right to be worried. An overconfident and complacent Republican Party could be facing electoral disaster. Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, and a host of others could be looming in our future and undoing all the good we've tried to do.

It is break the glass and pull the alarm time for the Republican Party. The elections looming in November 2006 are shaping up to be disastrous for the GOP as the elections of 1994 were for the Democrats. Most GOP insiders seem unaware of the party's political peril. Some are resigned to a major defeat as the price we have to pay for a decade of consistent gains, which, they think, couldn't have gone on forever.

As cooler heads sort through the returns, they will see not a Democratic wave but a long series of bitter fights most of which were lost by very thin margins, the sort of margin that could have been overcome had there been greater purpose and energy arrayed on the GOP's side. The country did not fundamentally change from 2004, but the Republicans had to defend very difficult terrain in very adverse circumstances. Step by step over the past two years the GOP painted themselves into a corner from which there was no escape. Congressional leadership time and time again took the easy way out and declared truces with Democrats over issues, which ought not to have been compromised. The easy way led to Tuesday's result.

The criminal activities of Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney and Mark Foley were anchors around every Republican neck, and the damaged leadership could not figure out that the only way to slip that weight was by staying in town and working around the clock on issue after issue. The long recesses and the unwillingness to confront the issues head on --remember the House's inexplicable refusal to condemn the New York Times by name in a resolution over the SWIFT program leak?-- conveyed a smugness about the majority which was rooted in redistricting's false assurance of invulnerability. Only on rare occasions would the Republicans set up the sort of debate that sharpened the contrast between the parties. In wartime, the public expects much more from its leaders than they received from the GOP.

In the Senate three turning points stand out.

On April 15, 2005 --less than three months after President Bush had begun a second term won in part because of his pledge to fight for sound judges-- Senator McCain appeared on Hardball and announced he would not support the "constitutional option" to end Democratic filibusters. Then, stunned by the furious reaction, the senator from Arizona cobbled together the Gang of 14 "compromise" that in fact destroyed the ability of the Republican Party to campaign on Democratic obstructionism while throwing many fine nominees under the bus. Now in the ruins of Tuesday there is an almost certain end to the slow but steady restoration of originalism to the bench. Had McCain not abandoned his party and then sabotaged its plans, there would have been an important debate and a crucial decision taken on how the Constitution operates. The result was the complete opposite. Yes, President Bush got his two nominees to SCOTUS through a 55-45 Senate, but the door is now closed, and the court still tilted left. A once-in-a-generation opportunity was lost.

A few months later there came a debate in the Senate over the Democrats' demand for a timetable for withdrawal for Iraq led to another half-measure: A Frist-Warner alternative that demanded quarterly reports on the war's progress, a move widely and correctly interpreted as a blow to the Administration’s Iraq policy. Fourteen Republicans voted against the Frist-Warner proposal --including Senator McCain-- and the press immediately understood that the half-measure was an early indicator of erosion in support for a policy of victory.

Then came the two leaks of national security secrets to the New York Times, and an utterly feckless response from both the Senate and the House. Not one hearing was held; not one subpoena delivered. A resolution condemning these deeply injurious actions passed the House but dared not name the New York Times. The Senate did not even vote on a non-binding resolution.

Nor did the Senate get around to confirming the president's authority to conduct warrantless surveillance of al Qaeda contacting its operatives in the United States. Weeks were taken up jamming the incoherent McCain-Kennedy immigration bill through the Judiciary Committee only to see it repudiated by the majority of Republicans, and the opportunity lost for a comprehensive bill that would have met the demand for security within a rational regularization of the illegal population already here.

And while the Senate twiddled away its days, crucial nominees to the federal appellate bench languished in the Judiciary Committee. The most important of them --Peter Keisler who remains nominated for the D.C. Circuit-- didn't even receive a vote because of indifference on the part of Chairman Specter.

(The National Review's Byron York wondered why the president didn't bring up the judges issue in the campaign until the last week, and then only in Montana. The reason was obvious: Senators DeWine and Chafee were struggling and any focus on the legacy of the Gang of 14 would doom DeWine's already dwindling chances while reminding the country of the retreat from principal in early '05.)

As summer became fall, the Administration and Senator Frist began a belated attempt to salvage the term. At exactly that moment Senators McCain and Graham threw down their still murky objections to the Administration’s proposals on the trial and treatment of terrorists. Precious days were lost as was momentum and clarity, the NSA program left unconfirmed (though still quite constitutional) and Keisler et al hung out to dry.

Throughout this two years the National Republican Senatorial Committee attempted to persuade an unpersuadable base that Lincoln Chafee was a Republican. For years Chafee has frustrated measure after measure, most recently the confirmation of John Bolton, even after Ahmadinejad threatened and Chavez insulted the United States from the UN stage. Chafee was a one-man wrecking crew on the NRSC finances, a drain of resources and energy, and a billboard for the idea that the Senate is first a club and only secondarily a body of legislators.

It is hard to conceive of how the past two years could have been managed worse on the Hill.

The presidential ambitions of three senators ended Tuesday night, though two of them will not face up to it.

The Republican Party sent them and their 52 colleagues to Washington D.C. to implement an agenda which could have been accomplished but that opportunity was frittered away.

The Republican Party raised the money and staffed the campaigns that had yielded a 55-45 seat majority, and the Republican Party expected the 55 to act like a majority. Confronted with obstruction, the Republicans first fretted and then caved on issue after issue. Had the 55 at least been seen to be trying --hard, and not in a senatorial kind of way-- Tuesday would have had a much different result. Independents, especially, might have seen why the majority mattered.

Will the GOP get back to a working majority again? Perhaps. And perhaps sooner than you think. The Democrats have at least six vulnerable senators running in 2008, while the situation looks pretty good for the GOP.

But the majority is not going to return unless the new minority leadership --however it is composed-- resolves to persuade the public, and to be firm in its convictions, not concerned for the praise of the Beltway-Manhattan media machine.




Hugh Hewitt is a law professor, broadcast journalist, and author of several books including Painting the Map Red: The Fight to Create a Permanent Republican Majority .

[rick]

Notice just a few differences and contrasts between what happens after a republican loses an election and a democrat:

1. There is no longer a media cry about ballot fraud.
2. Allen is going to concede, not challenge the vote. Class Act!
3. Republicans blame themselves, not the democrats or others.
4. They don't cry about the results and constantly yell that the vote was rigged and hold a grudge against the opposing party until the next election.

[crusaderjoe]

2. Allen is going to concede, not challenge the vote. Class Act!

Please define the phrase "challenge the vote" as it relates to the entirety of your first statement in your post.

[rick]

crusaderjoe said:

2. Allen is going to concede, not challenge the vote. Class Act!

Please define the phrase "challenge the vote" as it relates to the entirety of your first statement in your post.

He's not going to do what Algore did. He has every right by statutory law to have a recount because the difference between the two was less than 1% of the total votes cast. And rather than put the country through another fiasco as did sorry-assed Algore, aka sore loser, Allen has conceded.

[valporun]

How much of his decision to concede was influence of members of the Republicans in the Senate who had already conceded that they lost power, and so he just gave up as they did?

[rick]

valporun said:

How much of his decision to concede was influence of members of the Republicans in the Senate who had already conceded that they lost power, and so he just gave up as they did?

I have no idea. I just know he decided not to put the state or country through a prolonged process of cross-eyed guys staring at hanging chads just so that he could win. And Algore's people tried everything they could to prevent the soldiers' ballots from overseas from being counted. He is a pathetic man who still hasn't gotten over his loss.

[crusaderjoe]

Rick, let me see if I can get this straight.

If a candidate has a legal right to request a recount, and exercises that option to do so, that action makes said candidate a “sore loser” because he has exercised his or her right to a legal challenge? You should be happy that you live in a democratic society which safeguards and holds the right to vote in such a sanctimonious manner that it allows the election process to contain procedural safeguards, such as recounts, or automatic recounts, which are there to exist to confirm that the true voice of the people have been heard. Don't blame the candiate for exercising that right. In 2000, that candidate happened to be Al Gore, a Democrat.

By the way, since you decided to bring up former Vice President Gore, IMHO Mr. Gore had every right to request a recount initially after the first vote count. He chose to exercise his right to do so under Florida law. Let me remind you that it was President Bush who filed the first piece of litigation with respect to the Florida election, requesting that those initial recounts be stopped. So which party was it really who was challenging the election process?

The answer: both.

[rick]

crusaderjoe said:

Rick, let me see if I can get this straight.

If a candidate has a legal right to request a recount, and exercises that option to do so, that action makes said candidate a “sore loser” because he has exercised his or her right to a legal challenge? You should be happy that you live in a democratic society which safeguards and holds the right to vote in such a sanctimonious manner that it allows the election process to contain procedural safeguards, such as recounts, or automatic recounts, which are there to exist to confirm that the true voice of the people have been heard. Don't blame the candiate for exercising that right. In 2000, that candidate happened to be Al Gore, a Democrat.

By the way, since you decided to bring up former Vice President Gore, IMHO Mr. Gore had every right to request a recount initially after the first vote count. He chose to exercise his right to do so under Florida law. Let me remind you that it was President Bush who filed the first piece of litigation with respect to the Florida election, requesting that those initial recounts be stopped. So which party was it really who was challenging the election process?

The answer: both.

No it does not make one a sore loser if they decide to exercise their right for a recount. And Gore gave a concession speech after the results came in then changed his mind because he knew the democrats could make the chads say whatever they wanted them to say. A very subjective process ensued which was overseen by partisan democrats. Bush knew the recount would be a farce and the results fudged. Good for him for challenging the kind of recount that every other county in Florida would not have had the opportunity to do in the same manner in which is was being done in democrat controlled counties with democrats overseeing the process. We all saw on TV what a complete debacle and charade that was and how the opposition was bullied and not allowed to challenge that corrupt process.

The Constitutional issue arose because it wasn't fair to let the democrats recount the votes selectively determined in a manner that was not afforded other counties to do in the same way. The Supreme Court overruled the kangaroo liberals down there in Florida and the country was better off and the dumbocrats were prevented from stealing an election.

And Algore could have just had some class, as I believe Gerald Ford did when similar results occured during his election. Ford decided to do the right thing and not put the country through what Algore did. I am not proud of the damage he caused just so he could steal an election. He made our country a laughingstock around the world and brought shame upon himself, his party, and the country.

I am proud of Allen for not exercising his right to a recount and then going out to selective republican counties and attempting to do something dishonest as Algore did in Florida.
This is a stark contrast between the character of whining, conspiracy-minded, sore-loser democrats and republicans, who usually end up doing the best thing for the country, and not just for themselves.

[crusaderjoe]

Rick, we will have to agree to disagree on this issue. Mr. Gore had a right to request recounts in those counties at that time pursuant to Florida's statutory election protest provisions. Again, you are blaming a candidate for exercising his or her legal right to exercise statutory remedies, such as the request for a recount, that were available for use within the framework of State law.

While I would agree that the counties Mr. Gore chose were certainly calculated, this does not mean that the statutory remedies available to him were nullified as a result. And remember, this request was made after a mandatory statewide recount which lessened the margin between the two candidates by a total of about 500 votes, IIRC.

Of course, the whole discussion of Florida would have been moot, and we would not have been subjected to the "crisis", if Gore would have won and carried Tennessee.

[rick]

crusaderjoe said:

Rick, we will have to agree to disagree on this issue. Mr. Gore had a right to request recounts in those counties at that time pursuant to Florida's statutory election protest provisions. Again, you are blaming a candidate for exercising his or her legal right to exercise statutory remedies, such as the request for a recount, that were available for use within the framework of State law.

While I would agree that the counties Mr. Gore chose were certainly calculated, this does not mean that the statutory remedies available to him were nullified as a result. And remember, this request was made after a mandatory statewide recount which lessened the margin between the two candidates by a total of about 500 votes, IIRC.

Of course, the whole discussion of Florida would have been moot, and we would not have been subjected to the "crisis", if Gore would have won and carried Tennessee.

Agreed.

[rick]

From the Wall Street Journal:

www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009222

Bridge to Somewhere
The House GOP needs a new generation of leaders.
Friday, November 10, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

As they lick their wounds, Republicans are no doubt wondering what went wrong and what to do now. The answers aren't all that complicated: Revive the reform convictions that earned them power in the 1990s, and start that process in the House of Representatives by electing a new slate of leaders.
Twelve years ago, the Newt Gingrich-led Republicans swept into power as reformers who ran against corruption and pledged to make government "smaller and smarter." Somehow, across the years, that conviction was replaced by Tom DeLay and the quest for permanent incumbency, Appropriations Chairman Jerry Lewis and the "earmark" brigade, and a retinue of Beltway retainers symbolized by Jack Abramoff. The current leadership let it all happen, and if Republicans want a shot at regaining control in 2008 they'll turn to a new generation to lead them.

If we had to pick the precise moment when House Republicans lost their way, it would be three years ago during the floor vote over the Medicare prescription drug bill. So unpopular was the bill among conservatives, and rightly so, that House leaders kept the vote open for an unheard of three hours as they dragooned reluctant Members to vote aye.
The other great symbol of GOP failure is the proliferation of earmarked spending. In 1994 there were 1,500 such projects stuffed into Democratic spending bills, and Republicans called this a fiscal disgrace. This year Republicans approved closer to 15,000 earmarks at a cost of more than $10 billion. The current leadership defended this earmarking even after such embarrassments as the Alaska Bridge to Nowhere were exposed. When they finally agreed to minimal transparency, it was too late.

Here's one telling exit poll result: In battleground districts, only one in five voters said Republicans would do a better job to "keep government spending under control"; almost twice as many voters said Democrats would do a better job. Yet this week a separate poll found that 59% of Americans still favor fewer government services and lower taxes compared with 28% who favor more government services and higher taxes. "Big government conservatism" was a nice think-tank proposition; it merely lacks support from actual voters.

As a minority party in Congress, Republicans must operate as the party of change, not of Washington insiders willing to sign away their principles for a courthouse or swimming pool in the home district. This doesn't mean they shouldn't work with Democrats when it makes policy sense. But they need to reclaim their fiscal conservative birthright.

Republicans also need to rediscover an agenda for reforming government programs that don't work or threaten to bankrupt future generations. The Gingrich Republicans did that with welfare reform in the 1990s, and they tried with Medicaid. Then President Bush gave Republicans a once-in-a-generation chance to reform Social Security and health care along free market lines, but GOP House leaders fought him behind the scenes. For this alone, they should be returned to the backbenches.

The Senate GOP also committed some of these sins, but likely Minority Leader Mitch McConnell isn't among the big offenders. He's made his mark on policy by fighting for free speech, among other things; he knows the intricacies of the Senate and is likely to prove formidable as an opposition leader.

The problem is the House, where Speaker Dennis Hastert has already announced he won't stand for minority leader. Others in the leadership are claiming to have learned their lesson and promise a new beginning. That's for Members to judge. But we'd be wary of leaders who stake their claim to power on their ability to soak the lobbying mecca of K Street, or who refused to challenge the Appropriators who did so much to besmirch the image of the current, and soon-to-vanish, GOP majority.

Republicans might also recall what happened to Democrats when they tried to regain the House in 1996 by running with the same leadership and agenda that had been ousted in 1994. Those Democrats failed, despite Bill Clinton's victory at the top of the ticket, because too many voters saw the same old story. If Republicans lose again in 2008, they could be in the minority for a long time.

The good news is that a younger generation does seem to be stepping forward. Mike Pence, of Indiana, has already declared for minority leader, and John Shadegg of Arizona is seeking the number two job as whip. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, Jeb Hensarling of Texas and Jeff Flake of Arizona (see his essay nearby) are among the other Members who have tried to put ideas above mere incumbency. Republican Members will make up their own minds, but their willingness to consider new leadership will say a lot about the lessons they've learned from this week's drubbing.
Too many Republicans were corrupted and seduced by power and forgot why voters sent them to Washington. Winning back the majority requires new faces of leadership far removed from this year's debacle.

[rick]

crusaderjoe said:

Rick, we will have to agree to disagree on this issue. Mr. Gore had a right to request recounts in those counties at that time pursuant to Florida's statutory election protest provisions. Again, you are blaming a candidate for exercising his or her legal right to exercise statutory remedies, such as the request for a recount, that were available for use within the framework of State law.

While I would agree that the counties Mr. Gore chose were certainly calculated, this does not mean that the statutory remedies available to him were nullified as a result. And remember, this request was made after a mandatory statewide recount which lessened the margin between the two candidates by a total of about 500 votes, IIRC.

Of course, the whole discussion of Florida would have been moot, and we would not have been subjected to the "crisis", if Gore would have won and carried Tennessee.

Now this is the way conservative republicans act and is in sharp contrast to the way dems act.

WASHINGTON - Sen. George Allen conceded defeat in the U.S. Senate race to Democrat Jim Webb Thursday afternoon.

Webb edged Allen in Tuesday's election by roughly 7,200 votes out of some 2.3 million cast.

Because the results were within one-half of 1 percent, Allen could have called for a recount, which would have been paid for by the state.

He chose not to do so. Virginia has had two statewide recounts in modern history, resulting in changes of only 37 votes last year and 113 votes in 1989.

"It is with deep respect for the people of Virginia and to bind factions together for a positive purpose that I do not wish to cause more rancor by protracted litigation which would, in my judgment, not alter the results," said a misty-eyed Allen.

"I see no good purpose being served by continuously and needlessly expending money and causing any more personal animosity," he said. "Rather than bitterness, I want to focus on how best Virginians can be effectively served by their new junior senator as Jim Webb assumes and does his duty for the people of Virginia."

Allen spoke at an Alexandria hotel with his wife, Susan, and daughter, Brooke, by his side, along with Sen. John Warner, R-Va., his colleague in the Senate.

In a gracious concession speech that contrasted sharply with the biting rhetoric and missteps that sometimes marred his campaign, Allen said "the owners of government have spoken and I respect their decision."

"The Bible teaches us there is a time and place for everything, and today I called and congratulated Jim Webb and his team for their victory," Allen said, adding that he pledged his full cooperation in the transition.

[rick]

How Come I'm Not Devastated?
by Rabbi Aryeh Spero
Posted Nov 09, 2006

www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=17967

The Republicans lost big. I'm a Republican -- and yet I'm not devastated. For the first time, the loss doesn't feel personal. Why?

Because from President Bush on down, no one in the party seems to touch us the way some Republicans previously did. Many haven't gone out on a limb, in our behalf, to champion our causes. Many didn't respond to our offers of help.

Many of us who take the issues seriously were sickened every time Beltway Republicans and RNC leaders referred to those Democrats -- who mock us, and our country, and care more about terrorist "rights" than the safety of our families -- as "our friends" across the aisle.

It's hard to feel personal about elected officials who seem incapable of enunciating what I believe and what I stand for. If they understood what we hold dear and why -- who we are -- they would be able to express it themselves. Unless, of course, they really don't feel it. They don't seem to be one of us.

Fire begets fire. But this crop of Republicans seems unwilling daily to fight hard and say what has to be said. No passion. They leave us cold. What they do possess is loads of timidity and a pre-occupation with appearing "reasonable" -- Washington-like. It’s our party but not “our guys."

Never in my lifetime has the party been so bereft of individuals to whom one can feel a personal bond, an affection, a long-distance connection. Never before has the party been so comprised of colorless, political robots. The party has no personality. It has become a shell without a core, a hodge-podge without a germinating seed.

It has become a party of slogans, such as "stay the course" and No Child Left Behind instead of one with guts and patriotic heart. It is too globalist and Madison Avenue and not enough Main Street. They took our loyalty and belief in them for granted, giving themselves permission to prolong, much too long, Iraqi nation- building with American lives and dollars. Assured of our patience, they chose easy-way-out political-correctness.They didn't respect us -- until election eve.

They seemed so unrecognizable -- these pre 1980-like Republicans, as often does their President whose every other sentence starts with "compassion" as well as references that are alien to this life-long conservative. I often cringe.

It's a group who won't stand up for their own. The minute the media make a charge against a Republican colleague or supporter, they've shown they'd rather appease the media than stand by a brother. This is not an endearing quality. Nor is it manly. All along we’ve wondered: Would they stand up for us?

While we often find the party an ideological home in which to hang a hat, it seems to have lost the ability to touch us emotionally. Reagan did, as did “Bobbie” for the Democrats. Only that can explain why millions of die-hard conservatives are this afternoon, upon the heels of this week’s defeat, able to make reservations tonight for a dinner. We feel anxious about the country's possible new direction, but we aren't in mourning for friends. Too bad, unlike in the past, the loss doesn’t seem personal.

Rabbi Spero is a radio talk show host, a pulpit rabbi, and president of Caucus for America. He can be reached at www.caucusforamerica.com.