November 08, 2006

What This All Means

You should have every expectation that the MSM and the Dems will try to spin this election as a rejection of "right-wing conservatism" and an embrace of "left-wing liberalism." I'm here to tell ya, folks: whatever this election meant, it DIDN'T mean that--at least, not in the way the MSM and the Dems will mean it when they say it. It didn't, for example, mean a rejection of a limited government or fiscal responsibility. It didn't represent a public embrace of socialism, and it certainly wasn't a referendum on whether we should continue to help the Iraqi people.

I went to a GOP "victory" party last night, and just everyone I talked to fell into one of two groups. The first group (the faithful) was depressed that the pre-election polls were actually on-target. The second group (the disgruntled) had long since resigned themselves to substantial Republican losses and had mixed feelings about those losses. In general, it was either "I can't believe this is really happening" or "Maybe they need to learn a lesson." Even at a collection of the faithful, it wasn't tough at all to find Republicans who'd been disgusted with their own party for years--and weren't at all too shy to talk about it.

You may BE one of the disgruntled Republicans, or you may HATE them, or you may be in the middle. For those of you who hate them, you can hate them all you want. You can think they're assholes, or that they're insane, or that they're high-maintenance bitches. None of that really matters. What matters is that they represent a huge chunk of the Republican base. If the GOP doesn't figure out how to bring these folks back into the GOP fold and give them some candidates to believe in, 2008 will look very ugly.

If you don't know what the lesson to be learned from November 7, 2006 is, it is this: a party can't disregard the interests and concerns of an entire chunk of its own base without paying a heavy price.

Posted by: Ragnar at 12:34 PM | Comments (30) | Add Comment
Post contains 345 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Ragnar:  "a party can't disregard the interests and concerns of an entire chunk of its own base without paying a heavy price."

I think you are entirely right.

May I add 2 more things that it might  mean?
1. There are alot of conservatives who believe that less government is better government - this "libertarian" arm of the GOP is growing.

2.  The  country is now more likely to face a nuclear battle against radical islam - making the fight so far pale in comparison.

Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at November 08, 2006 02:10 PM (bF+Yg)

2 Sure and Dewey beat Truman to become president. Dumbass.

Posted by: Greyrooster at November 08, 2006 02:21 PM (wkRws)

3 The Congressional Dems took that lesson to heart. They pandered to the moderate Republican and Democrat voters by posing as moderates themselves.

Every asshole who voted for them deserves what they get.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 08, 2006 02:30 PM (bLPT+)

4  Greyrooster: I vote Republican. I was hoping the MSM was wrong once again in their predictions.

Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at November 08, 2006 02:31 PM (bF+Yg)

5 I will vote for whichever party stands for unintrusive government, limits on  national debt, and  resasonable national defense. So did I win or lose last night?

Posted by: Gleep! at November 08, 2006 02:31 PM (UHKaK)

6 Gleep, define unintrusive and reasonable.  And therein lies the rub, huh?

Posted by: Oyster at November 08, 2006 02:48 PM (I+VdL)

7 >>>> If you don't know what the lesson to be learned from November 7, 2006 is, it is this: a party can't disregard the interests and concerns of an entire chunk of its own base without paying a heavy price.

Actually, I think he Republican downfall was precisely becasue they pandered too much to what they decided was their base.

For exampled, a big part of the conservative base is made up of evangelical Christians. To gather them, the Republicans took hard lines on stem cell research, gay marriage bans and other highly divisive social issues near and dear to the Christian right.
Whether it was merely lip service or not -- and much of it was -- those positions cost them the Sunday-go-to-church moderates and secular conservatives.

They've alienated other true conservatives to varying degrees with issues surrounding the WoT, the Iraq war, socio-economic policies, etc.

Rather than finding ways to make their base ever larger with good, solid ideas, the Republicans allowed themselves to follow the way of Rove and kept defining their base ever more tightly until finally, they became the ultimate special-interest administration. The electorate just got fed up and you had what you had yesterday.

This is not to say the Democrats don't do the same by working their base. This just goes to show you what happens when you work ONLY for your base.

Posted by: Gleep! at November 08, 2006 02:59 PM (UHKaK)

8 Unintriusive means a government that barely intrudes in your life and how you choose to live it. Reasonable means what a reasonable citizen steeped in the American way of life can expect from their government.

Posted by: Gleep! at November 08, 2006 03:01 PM (UHKaK)

9 Well guess what. You were wrong you faggott.

Posted by: Greyrooster at November 08, 2006 03:03 PM (wkRws)

10 >>>> If you don't know what the lesson to be learned from November 7, 2006 is, it is this: a party can't disregard the interests and concerns of an entire chunk of its own base without paying a heavy price.


 
Gleep! sed:
 
Actually, I think he Republican downfall was precisely becasue they pandered too much to what they decided was their base.
 


You're largely correct, but you write that as if it contradicts what I said originally.  It doesn't.  If you think it does, read my comment again.

Posted by: The All-Seeing Pirate Ragnar at November 08, 2006 03:09 PM (c/4ax)

11 Ragnar, you are correct; I misread who you were referring to as the "base." My bad!

Posted by: Gleep! at November 08, 2006 03:13 PM (UHKaK)

12 It also means that alot of Republicans didn't learn the lesson of 1992 w/H. Ross Perot. 

Posted by: RepJ at November 08, 2006 03:43 PM (T3Wz2)

13 The GOP deserved to lose, and We the People deserve what comes next, because we didn't hold government or the media accountable for their collective treason. Democracy means that the innocent minority must suffer for the sins of the majority who, on the average, have demonstrated that we no longer have a rightful claim to the Liberties entrusted to us. We're screwed, but we've worked for it, so I'll just look forward to that beautiful day when New York, Los Angeles, or DC disappear under a mushroom cloud.
Congratulations; we've proven that we're as stupid as the goatfuckers think we are, and we shall now pay the price.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 08, 2006 04:04 PM (Oew5j)

14 Otherwise how's your day going?

Posted by: Gleep! at November 08, 2006 04:16 PM (UHKaK)

15 The greatest victory is tha the FAITH over FACT crowd were handed their butts last night. Abortion ban - DEFEATED  2 Parental notification bills - DEFEATED  Funding for embryonic stem cell research - PASSED. It's hard out there for a Republican these days!!!! SCIENCE may finally triumph.

Posted by: Jenny at November 08, 2006 05:10 PM (3Ah+H)

16 Impy's having a bad hair day and his eye twitch has kicked in.
DOOMED! WE'RE ALL DOOMED!
AWMMAGODTHERESATERRORISTRIGHTBEHINDYOU!

Posted by: Chicken Little at November 08, 2006 05:15 PM (v7DMp)

17 Gleep:

The conservative Christians are exactly who stayed home, you raging ignoramus. You just cant hide your hateful bigotry, can you? You're such an asshole.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 08, 2006 05:46 PM (bLPT+)

18 Jenny:

According to you, the faith side won and the science side lost. There's nothing scientific about abortion, parental notification, or the notion that embryonic stem cells have led to a cure for anything.

Talk about a fanatic.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 08, 2006 05:52 PM (bLPT+)

19 Chicken Little Dick:

Terrorists have been murdering Americans for over 25 years. Only a lying moron could claim that they aren't a threat and that the Dems don't enable them.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 08, 2006 05:54 PM (bLPT+)

20 Love you too Jeff

The example of the evangelicals was raised merely as an example of identifying what you believe to be your base and addressing their needs to the detriment of other members of your potential electorate. There are other examples that have nothing to do with religion. No bigotry took place and you know it. Hell, even Ragnar agreed with the gist of my comment.

Now, you're right, Bush lost the evangelicals he courted because he did so inconsistently and didn't follow through on his promises, such as funding faith-based initiatives. That doesn't change the fact that instead of making the tent larger, Republicans have kept on finding new ways to chase certain people out--including secular and fiscally conservative Republicans. Far-left Dems do the same. Centrist tend to win out in the long run the majority of the time. 

Now, that said, let me say this: how you can engage people who's opinions you differ with on this site is your business. It's a blog and blogs aren't like tea parties or the Welcome Wagon. But you know, you may want to entertain the thought of doing it as an adult rather than a pissed-off teenager. There are plenty of opinions out there and some of them may even (gasp) differ from the great Jeff Bargholz. That doesn't make them morons or raging ignorami.

And I call no one here an asshole except you, because frankly, you act like one. Do what you will.


Posted by: Gleep! at November 08, 2006 07:55 PM (a7sMc)

21 Creep:

Fuck me, but your stupid. I'm not a Congressman so I don't have any consituents.

The Republicans tried to appeal to the left, you hopeless moron. That's why they lost.

You wear your anti-Christian envy and bigotry like a kick me sign.

You misunderstood Raggy's story and comment, because you're a fool.

The Republicans lost the Conservative Christians (every Christian on the planet is an Evangelical, you ignoramus,) because they didn't court them. Bush wasn't running for office, retard.

Many centrists voted for the Democrats, but the democrats are about as centrist as the ACLU.

Spare me the priggish routine asshole. The only reason you come here is to troll, and I stomp on trolls. You don't have an opinion. You just regurgitate DNC talking points like a trained parrot.

The only people who hate everyone with a different opinion are leftists like you. purveyors of projection, all.

Christians make up over 90% of the country. That's a lot of people to hate, little man.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 09, 2006 02:22 AM (bLPT+)

22 Heroic Dreamer: Post # 2 was not posted by me.  Just some coward who is to sissy to use his own name.

Posted by: Greyrooster at November 09, 2006 05:47 AM (dk0ga)

23

Neither was Post # 9.


Just some libturd attempting to ruin this blog. Why Rusty doesn't trace him down I don't know. If they continue to get away with commenting under others names perhaps we should all do it. The chaos that follows would be pretty funny. Up to Rusty and group.


Posted by: Greyrooster at November 09, 2006 05:51 AM (dk0ga)

24 Gleep! -
Until we replace most of the congress with folks like Sen Tom Coburn (R-OK) we all lost. I say no Elected official should be allowed to raise money in DC. They should do it at home among the people they represent.

Posted by: Ronson LeVau at November 09, 2006 07:55 AM (tBLyx)

25 Not priggish; well-mannered and civil - a trait you have yet to master. I leave you to yourself. Yuk.

Good luck with all those SoCal women.

Posted by: Gleep! at November 09, 2006 04:34 PM (UHKaK)

26 Ronson - I agree, I think Coburn is the kind of pragmatic politician for which this country screams.

His anti-pork barreling stances and apparent dis-interest in the politics of being a politician are refreshing.

Posted by: Gleep! at November 09, 2006 04:47 PM (UHKaK)

27 Gleep : Did you win or lose? Even if I hadn't looked at the results I could have told you that you lost

Posted by: Granite at November 10, 2006 03:34 PM (E7FBk)

28 Ronson:

I beg to differ with you about the campaign financing.

I would say that as long as campaign finances and money spent are the overwhelming factor in who gets elected, we are royally screwed no matter where the money comes from.

I blame MTV and the 'We don't care who you vote for, or why, or even if you know which candidates died last week, or if you pay attention to what the people you elect do, just go out and vote. Going out and voting is what's important.'

If I were the conspiracy type, I might look at the political leanings of the groups that wanted massive numbers of uninformed voters to go out and vote, and maybe draw conclusions about who they thought the uninformed voter was going to vote for.

Posted by: Granite at November 10, 2006 03:38 PM (E7FBk)

29 Granite - why do you say that?

Posted by: Gleep! at November 10, 2006 07:16 PM (a7sMc)

30 Bargholz the attack dog: Calm down and stop your adeolescent namecalling. I'm sure you have something to do other than deride, condescend and bully your political opponents...wait, no.
so keep up the good work Bargholz, I guess.

Posted by: John Smith at November 20, 2006 04:03 PM (+/ws4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
44kb generated in CPU 0.0159, elapsed 0.0802 seconds.
34 queries taking 0.069 seconds, 185 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.