Board Republicans: Where did it all go wrong?

[101A]

Cmon, lets get real here.

This midterm was not some big Democrat victory. It wasnt.

It was a declaration that most Americans dont approve of Bush or Iraq. The RNC just took the bullet instead of Bush. He is the sole reason that his party lost the seats it did.

People had to make a choice, status quo or change. They chose change.

Change just by proxy meant they voted Democrat, not necessarily they were Democrats.

Really, this is a good thing. No one party should control Congress and the WH, but I have a sinking feeling the Democratic leadership will squander this golden opportunity just like the Republicans did in 04.

The Dems will waste precious time and effort on tasks that do not further American interest, they will stake in partisan squabbles only with a bigger dog in the fight.

Although, in happy-world, they could be the bigger party, admit their previous shortcomings, forget the crap thats happened in the past, and reach out to the moderate right and get some things done.

The only "squabble" I agree they should turn stones over for is Iraq. Beyond that, let a sleeping dog lie. Dont, Dear God, even mention the "I" word. Let the past be the past, move forward, work together, and lets get some done.

But then again, this is politics. I forsee too many supeonas, too much back-biting, too many scores being settled.

Mark my words (and anyone else who has said the same thing), if the Dems squander this opportunity by going too far with the limited power they have been given, the RNC will have the ultimate laugh in 08.

Please, PLEASE Dems, dont get drunk with this and think this is some sort of revolution of ideals. Its not. Its change. Change is good. But temper it with progress and truly, TRULY reach across the aisle and hammer out some ideas and get some down around here.

Nice.

[boutons_]

"opportunity just like the Republicans did in 04."

We all know the Repugs lied about WMD and Saddam-WTC.

What I really want now, at a very minimum, is a tooth-y 9/11 commission to expose the Repugs' responsbility and truthi-ness in 2001 for permitting the WTC attack, such that the responsibility will be indisputably clear and forever branded on dubya/ head/rummy's and all Repug foreheads.

Apart from such investigations, it's clear the Dems don't have the power to do anything legislatively for at least 2 years. They can't remediate how badly dubya has ed up the Exec branch, nor have any influence on dubya's foreign policy.

[AFBlue]

Midterms = Moral victory...and since Congress and the Whitehouse have traditionally been opposing parties....it's at best a return to the status quo instead of the total vote of no confidence that Crats recieved in 04.



Seriously...don't let it go to your head. Not getting embarrassed in one of the most humiliating losses of face in American history, as the Crats suffered in 04, does not equal a great victory.

If you guys consider this a great victory there is absolutely no way you will regain the whitehouse.

I think it was a legitimate victory for the democrats, not because they won back congress, but HOW they won back congress. Iraq, be it the first or third reason, played a significant role in the eyes of voters across this nation. And no matter how much the republican party, and by extension the Republican nominee for President in 2008, try to seperate themselves, they will be linked to their support of that decision and of this administration.

So it is very conceivable that this round of elections was just the beginning of a widespread shift to supporting the democratic party. Then again, alot can happen in two years, and both parties will be judged on their performance going forward.

[whottt]

I think it was a legitimate victory for the democrats, not because they won back congress, but HOW they won back congress. Iraq, be it the first or third reason, played a significant role in the eyes of voters across this nation. And no matter how much the republican party, and by extension the Republican nominee for President in 2008, try to seperate themselves, they will be linked to their support of that decision and of this administration.

Um...the Democrats have no stance on Iraq...other than it shouldn't have happened....even though they all voted for it too.

So it is very conceivable that this round of elections was just the beginning of a widespread shift to supporting the democratic party. Then again, alot can happen in two years, and both parties will be judged on their performance going forward.

False...it's not an endorsement of anything other than ambivalence about the midterms.

How can it be an endorsement of a party that essentially stands for nothing right now?


The deciding voters are not straight Democrat or Republican...they are moderates...


Attacking the opposition party is never a platform it never causes big shifts in party affiliation.


Those same moderates that decide elections are moderate for a reason...they don't agree with everything either party stands for...and they never will. They just choose the lesser of two ups...in this I don't think it means the Democrats are less ed up...

They are just ed up in a different way...and the country is choosing to have diversified up rather than straight party ups...

Moderates don't like a total swing and don't want one party to have absolute power...I am in favor of stem cell research, I like women having a right to abortion...I hate those things about the Republican Party...

I just hate the Democrats cut and run philosophy more than anything else.

IF the Democrats trot another cut and run candidate out there in 08, they will get their ass kicked again...

It's next to impossible to find someone with less charisma that Bush, but they managed to do it in 08.

My guess is that due to the Crats being more extreme than the Republicans at this time, that their candidate will again have to be incorportating extremists stances into his campaign, and they will again alienate the moderates.


This election essentially means ....the country doesn't like swining completely to one side...and it was time for a correction, it's not that the Democrats have done anything to earn it or deserve it, becauser they haven't...it's just that hte Republicans don't deserve total control of the country, and they were only given that due to complete and absolute Democratic failure.


Take heed from 04...Americans don't like the "we're the bad guys" stance of the Democrats...

And any Democrat that thinks that has changed is in for a rude awakening.

That'd be like Rush thinking that because the Republicans swept into power that the majority of the country is anti-abortion.....

[DarkReign]

"opportunity just like the Republicans did in 04."

We all know the Repugs lied about WMD and Saddam-WTC.

What I really want now, at a very minimum, is a tooth-y 9/11 commission to expose the Repugs' responsbility and truthi-ness in 2001 for permitting the WTC attack, such that the responsibility will be indisputably clear and forever branded on dubya/ head/rummy's and all Repug foreheads.

Apart from such investigations, it's clear the Dems don't have the power to do anything legislatively for at least 2 years. They can't remediate how badly dubya has ed up the Exec branch, nor have any influence on dubya's foreign policy.

But why, boutons? What does such a thing accomplish? Does it change the fact that we indeed invaded Iraq? Does it change that we currently have troops there?

Does it change the fact that if we leave Iraq immediately, the country will in fact tear itself apart in probably the worst genocide this side of Sudan?

Turning some stones over about Iraq's current direction is completely understandable (and expected). But to find out whether Bush "lied" or cherry-picked intel for invasion.....

What does that accomplish besides petty payback/revenge?

[01Snake]

..

What does that accomplish besides petty payback/revenge?

Thats all Croutons is looking for.

[boutons_]

"But why, boutons?"

To place the blame squarely for Iraq and WTC where it belongs.

Clintons got witch-hunted by the Repugs for 8 years for trivial bull while the Repugs commiting dereliction of duty in before 9/11 and starting a phony war, escape without blame to us up again?

Prosecuting the Repugs for WTC and Iraq won't distract anybody from losing Iraq. Iraq is done, gone, finished, LOST BY THE REPUGS. The only question is how soon can the US disengage from the Iraqi civil war.

The Repugs tough on crime? We need to be hard on the Repugs for their blatant crimes.

[101A]

Thats all Croutons is looking for.

...and he's not the only one. Dems with presidential aspirations who want style points with the radical base, will be out for blood.

[101A]

"But why, boutons?"

To place the blame squarely for Iraq and WTC where it belongs.

Clintons got witch-hunted by the Repugs for 8 years for trivial bull while the Repugs commiting dereliction of duty in before 9/11 and starting a phone war, escape without blame to us up again?

Prosecuting the Repugs for WTC and Iraq won't distract anybody from losing Iraq. Iraq is done, gone, finished, LOST BY THE REPUGS. The only question is how soon can the US disengage from the Iraqi civil war.

The Repugs tough on crime? We need to be hard on the Repugs for their blatant crimes.

If the dems try to blame the WH for WTC, it will backfire. Opening the wound will unleash maggots that will feast all over the beltway; don't fool yourself with partisan blinders.

The blame for Iraq IS on the WH; or have you not seen the election results?

[DarkReign]

Man, I sincerely hope the Dems dont think anything like you boutons.

You may be right about the RNC and Clinton. Fine.

But youre willing to lower yourself for a similar witch hunt for no other reason than "they did it first"?

[clambake]

He's just letting off steam. We have to look at today, boutons. This is critical. Move forward. Bush gets one more chance to do whats good for america. We can revisit later.

[boutons_]

"similar witch hunt"

absolutely not. Clintons were witch-hunted for trivial that all petered out, as did the impeachment.

The Repugs have the blood of 3000 dead US military on their hands, a phony war sucking $1T or more in the sands of Iraq, and a Repug-de-stabilized Iraq (and it oil) falling to radical Muslims.

Going after the Repugs is not witch-hunting (remember, there were no actual witches. The hunt was bogus, as with Repugs and Clintons), but bas -convicting for clear responsibility for their lies and murderous ups.

[101A]

You only got two years, Boutons - not enough time to do what you want done. In the meantime, Bush can pardon everyone involved; then resign a couple of hours early, and get pardoned by Cheney.

[Yonivore]

Where'd it go wrong?

Well, 26 or so House Districts wanted to change their Representative and 5, maybe 6 (have they decided VA yet?), States wanted a change in Senators.

Nice going Democrats, you focused on the right races.

I do find it hard to believe this was a referendum on the war when you've got Lieberman winning and Chaffee losing. But, hey, we'll see what happens next.

I predict two years of inaction and a more robust use of the Presidential veto. Unfortunately, that means inaction on making the tax cuts permanent.

The big winner? Illegal Immigrants.

So, I tip my hat to the Dems. Enjoy the Champagne and balloons.

[xrayzebra]

Well then the troops are ed then aren't they, but

1) it's all volunteer so nobody forced them to join
2) We have to win "no matter what the cost" American lives are a kind of cost so like the Alamo we can turn this loss into a victory.

You prove my point!

[boutons_]

November 8, 2006, 5:03 pm

Rove’s Losing Strategy


By Frank Rich, New York Times Op-Ed Columnist

George W. Bush is hardly the wittiest figure in American politics, but he did score a genuine laugh at his press conference today when he made his wisecrack about Karl Rove: “I obviously was working harder in the campaign than he was.”

Of all the bits of conventional wisdom that died with this week’s election results — all politics is local; Congressional corruption will affect only a few races; gerrymandering will limit G.O.P. losses — the biggest is the Beltway deification of Karl Rove. Don’t expect to hear anyone emote again any time too soon about how he is a genius, infallible, reinventing American politics, on his way to establishing a permanent Republic majority, etc., etc. In 2006 Rove revealed himself to be a one-trick pony. Rather than adjust to the reality visible everywhere (including in every poll), he refought the political wars of 2002 and 2004, doggedly insisting that his party embrace Iraq, play the fear card and constantly slur the opposition as cut-and-run Defeatocrat traitors. Not even the parade of conservative Republican candidates cutting-and-running from his strategy in the last throes of the campaign could deter him or the president from staying the course. The self-immolation of the campaign strategy was nothing if not a replay (albeit with only political casualties, not real ones) of the botched strategy in Iraq.

As a result, Rove ended up playing into the Democrats’ hands and realizing their political goal: he succeeded in nationalizing the election around the issue of a wildly unpopular war. He was so out of touch with reality — so eager to preserve the image of a resolute President certain of “victory” in Iraq no matter what — that he didn’t even see the political wisdom of having the White House string up Rumsfeld before the election rather than after. Had Rumsfeld been fired a week ago, it might have given some credibility to the White House talking points about “constantly adjusting tactics” and drowned out Cheney’s politically suicidal boast that it would be “full speed ahead” with current Iraq war policy no matter what the election results. A pre-election Rumsfeld firing would have taken some air out of the national wave that raised so many Democratic boats, even some fairly flimsy ones. It certainly would have had a bigger effect on the election results than two other developments that were widely thought to help the Republicans but apparently did not: the last-minute Saddam Hussein verdict and John Kerry’s “joke.” The joke, it turned out, was not on the Democrats but on the stay-the-course Republicans led into a political quagmire by Karl Rove.

[PixelPusher]

Where'd it go wrong?

Well, 26 or so House Districts wanted to change their Representative and 5, maybe 6 (have they decided VA yet?), States wanted a change in Senators.

Nice going Democrats, you focused on the right races.

I do find it hard to believe this was a referendum on the war when you've got Lieberman winning and Chaffee losing. But, hey, we'll see what happens next.

I predict two years of inaction and a more robust use of the Presidential veto. Unfortunately, that means inaction on making the tax cuts permanent.

The big winner? Illegal Immigrants.

So, I tip my hat to the Dems. Enjoy the Champagne and balloons.

From the same distorted and severly limited sense of reality that brought you...

So, how's that "Foleygate" working out for the Democrats?

and

Wow, I hope the pharmacies have stocked up on Zoloft. (responding to Zunni post "Yup. The Senate probably won't, but the House is almost a lock to switch control.")

and of course

You're absolutely right. However, I do wonder why you're so happy about the House and Senate remaining in Republican hands.

[ploto]

I think it was a great deal about who DID vote-- the youth of America.


In Election 2006, voters under the age of 30 once again showed more support for Democrats than did older voters. According to the exit polls on election night by the National Election Pool (the network consortium of the five networks and the Associated Press), 60 percent of young people voted for a Democratic congressional candidate, compared with 52 percent of older people. In Election 2004, young voters also gave more support to the Democratic candidates by about eight percentage points—55 percent, compared with 47 percent Democratic support among older voters.

A new study by Young Voter Strategies suggests even more good news for the Democrats. Youth voter turnout increased from about 20 percent in 2002 to 24 percent in 2006. According to this study, the youth vote cons uted about 13 percent of all voters, up by about two percentage points from 2002.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/...lling_results/


Republican pollster Ed Goeas said young voters could have swayed a number of tight races on Tuesday, noting that of 28 seats Democrats picked up from Republicans in the 435-member House of Representatives, 22 were won by less than 2 percent of the vote and 18 were won by just 5,000 votes or less.

"The increase in the youth vote did come into play," he said.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2639565

[CharlieMac]

Getting Rummy to resign a week earlier would have been nice.

[101A]

I think it was a great deal about who DID vote-- the youth of America.


In Election 2006, voters under the age of 30 once again showed more support for Democrats than did older voters. According to the exit polls on election night by the National Election Pool (the network consortium of the five networks and the Associated Press), 60 percent of young people voted for a Democratic congressional candidate, compared with 52 percent of older people. In Election 2004, young voters also gave more support to the Democratic candidates by about eight percentage points—55 percent, compared with 47 percent Democratic support among older voters.

A new study by Young Voter Strategies suggests even more good news for the Democrats. Youth voter turnout increased from about 20 percent in 2002 to 24 percent in 2006. According to this study, the youth vote cons uted about 13 percent of all voters, up by about two percentage points from 2002.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/...lling_results/


Republican pollster Ed Goeas said young voters could have swayed a number of tight races on Tuesday, noting that of 28 seats Democrats picked up from Republicans in the 435-member House of Representatives, 22 were won by less than 2 percent of the vote and 18 were won by just 5,000 votes or less.

"The increase in the youth vote did come into play," he said.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2639565

The Youth voting Democratic is certainly no surprise to me; assuming, of course, that the education my children are receiving is a representative sample..

My son's 6th grade history textbook's first sentence in the chapter on the Vietnam war:

"The Vietnam war is a conflict which the United States blundered in, blundered around, and finally blundered out."

When history is taught from that perspective (and pretty much all the other subjects as well); the results are predictable. (understanding of course that most posters here will have no problem with a history book including that statement on Vietnam - of course most of y'all are probably young enough to have experienced that same "education")

[boutons_]

"The Vietnam war is a conflict which the United States blundered in, blundered around, and finally blundered out."

Sounds about right, but hindsight is easy.
VN was not a threat to the USA.
The VN war accomplished absolutely nothing.
The VN war cost 50K lives and 250K injured, all wasted.

What's your single sentence of (re)writing the story of the VN war?

=========

The phony Iraq war was one in which the WHIG/Repugs lied the USA into it, ed around, and left Iraq more ed up than under Sadam.

The Repugs have lost Iraq. There's no way to win. Baker's commission will present a plan for disengagement. "Some say" that Baker took the role on the comission on the condition that Rummy would be gone, aka, not around to shoot down and/or poorly execute Baker's Iraq plan.

There is no Iraq state there and nobody capable/willing to try to build an Iraq state.

[ChumpDumper]

The Vietnam War conflict which the United States won handily and turned the country into a land of fluffy bunnies who drive Tahoes and listen to Toby Keith.

[BIG IRISH]

....

My son's 6th grade history textbook's first sentence in the chapter on the Vietnam war:

"The Vietnam war is a conflict which the United States blundered in, blundered around, and finally blundered out."

When history is taught from that perspective (and pretty much all the other subjects as well); the results are predictable. (understanding of course that most posters here will have no problem with a history book including that statement on Vietnam - of course most of y'all are probably young enough to have experienced that same "education")

If I may be so bold I would suggest that you Have your son read the Pentagon Papers and how the American People were lied to by 5 different Presidents, My Son did in his 2nd year of college and he began to change his opinions from the late 70's. What a great weekend that was, It was when I realized he was growing up, and he realized he had been taken. If possible have your son learn a second language, it is amazing to learn HISTORY from a different point of view.

[BIG IRISH]

"The Vietnam war is a conflict which the United States blundered in, blundered around, and finally blundered out."

Sounds about right, but hindsight is easy.
VN was not a threat to the USA.
The VN war accomplished absolutely nothing.
The VN war cost 50K lives and 250K injured, all wasted.

What's your single sentence of (re)writing the story of the VN war?

=========

The phony Iraq war was one in which the WHIG/Repugs lied the USA into it, ed around, and left Iraq more ed up than under Sadam.

The Repugs have lost Iraq. There's no way to win. Baker's commission will present a plan for disengagement. "Some say" that Baker took the role on the comission on the condition that Rummy would be gone, aka, not around to shoot down and/or poorly execute Baker's Iraq plan.

There is no Iraq state there and nobody capable/willing to try to build an Iraq state.

The Vietnam war was about the american people being lied to by 5 different Presidents. on a personal note:

Long as I remember
The rain been comin' down.
Clouds of myst'ry pourin'
Confusion on the ground.
Good men through the ages,
Tryin' to find the sun;
And I wonder, Still I wonder,
Who'll stop the rain.
I went down Virginia,
Seekin' shelter from the storm.
Caught up in the fable,
I watched the tower grow.
Five year plans and new deals, .
And I wonder, Still I wonder
Who'll stop the rain.
Heard the singers playin',
How we cheered for more.
The crowd had rushed together,
Tryin' to keep warm.
Still the rain kept pourin',
Fallin' on my ears.
And I wonder, Still I wonder
Who'll stop the rain.

Has any song hit you that way? Or am I alone? Or have I gone soft?
/
It is all about character and 98.2% Politicans, don't have any and Manny if
you read this maybe you will admit we had better song's in the 60's.

[AFE7FATMAN]

Irish, here is a song the gets to me from my past

Still in Saigon

As Performed by the Charlie Daniels Band (1981)


Got on a plane in 'Frisco and got off in Vietnam
I walked into a different world, the past forever gone
I could've gone to Canada or I could have stayed in school
But I was brought up differently -- I couldn't break the rules
Thirteen months and fifteen days -- the last ones were the worst
One minute I kneel down and pray and the next I stand and cure
No place to run to where I did not feel that war
When I got home I stayed alone and checked behind each door
'Cause I'm...
CHORUS:
Still in Saigon,
Still in Saigon
I am still in Saigon
In my mind
The ground at home was covered in snow and I was covered with sweat
My younger brother calls me a killer and my daddy calls me a vet
Everybody says I'm someone else, that I'm sick and there's no cure
Damned if I know who I am -- there was only one place I was sure
When I was...
CHORUS
Every summer when it rains,
I smell the jungle, I hear the flames
I can't tell no one -- I feel ashamed
Afraid someday I'll go insane
That's been ten long years ago and time has gone on by
But now and then I catch myself, eyes searching through the sky
All the sounds from long ago will be forever in my head
Mingled with the wounded cries and the silence of the dead.
'Cause I'm...
CHORUS
Still in Saigon,
Still in Saigon
I am still in Saigon
In my mind

the War in IRAQ brought this one back, I heard it when they called my son to Active Duty, Thank God he went to Ft Sill OK as a DI.