Redstate

This is a site that places a premium on activism. At what point are you doing more harm than good by trying as hard as you can to tell people it's hopeless?

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

I don't think he was telling anyone that it is hopeless. Rather, he's telling you that things are bad and you're going to need to double down if you intend to remedy the matter.

You'll forgive me if I remind you that the voters have seen what you got with the Republican party controlling the executive and legislative branches for about six years. No disrespect intended (genuinely), but by and large the conservative agenda didn't move very far. You can make the case that you need to advance better candidates, and that's a fair point, but empirical evidence is what it is.

And "throw the bums out" can last longer than a single mid-term election.

Step 1: Admit you have a problem.

I don't think enough people have taken step 1. And I think McCain's competitive numbers will help people who don't want to admit that the party has a major problem.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

You're saying there's a tremendous party registration advantage causing the problem. I don't see how we could conceivably alter that in a few months. Do you?

By your analysis it's all over and there's not point in even trying in Congressional races, because we're going to be wiped out. Better off saving money to brace for the new, more-Democratic Congresses and their planned economic ruin.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

You could have asked instead of assuming I thought things were hopeless. I never made that argument and I'm not making it now.

I do expect Rs will lose SEN and REP seats in 2008 (but I assumed that in 2006 too). For one, the question is how many. If Rs lose 3 SEN and 5 REP seats, that's a good showing and keeps things close enough to come back in the medium run. If Rs lose 7 SEN and 20 REP seats, it will be very hard to get back to a majority in the next decade.

All of that matters on the margin.

More importantly, the party ID numbers should be telling Rs that they are doing something wrong (or more accurately, the Ds are doing something right b/c their numbers are at all time highs recently). In the short run, Rs may not be able to change that. In the medium run, they have to. So who is thinking about what changes need to happen? Which new voters Rs need to court?

On Kos, I see a lot of diaries about winning over rural voters or religious voters or other groups that have turned against Ds over the last generation. Here, most outreach ideas are looked down upon because the new voters wouldn't be conservative enough. On example is that Rs should be reaching out to Hispanics (in spanish-language ads as Bush did in 2004) but that would offend some in the party if it was widespread.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

NC

rodguy911
I read most of the posts on this thread and from my perspective we need to stop all the appeasing to the other side and act like Conservative Republicans for a change!

To begin with in 2006 the dems got many house seats by pretending to be us!

They ran supposed blue dog dem/rats who were supposedly consevative until they clashed with Piglosi and then they discovered that they really weren't as conservtive as they preteneded to be.

By busting budgets, not securing the border,along with a fence,supporting rino after rino, not standing up for conservative values whenever we get the chance, our party has all but self destructed.

Is it because we didn't cave to more groups like the dems do,hardly, it's becuse we were not more like Ronald Reagan, not less!
It's not rocket science, just go back to hardcore conservatism and we will be light years ahead of where we are now.
RG.

Most news for Rs right now is bad news. And yet a lot of people still hold onto the idea that Rs could win back the Senate or House this year. Many Rs seem to think if everyone ran to the right, they would win every seat.

I don't think people realize how bad things are for the Rs right now. I think that's definitely true of leadership but it's also true of activists.

I've argued for bringing back the big tent of the anti-liberal coalition. But many conservatives have grown used to being "the base" and scoff at the idea that moderates should even have a say in the choose of the Presidential nominee (see every thread complaining that McCain won "without" the "base").

I've argued a lot for a full abandonment of the Earmark Culture. I started blogging to support Coburn in his primary in OK because of his stanch stand against the DC culture of personal use of public funds to get re-elected. Rs are still associated with being reflexively anti-tax. They should also be reflexively anti-earmark. As long as they are open to the corrupting influences of pork barreling, they can't hold the mantle of fiscal responsibility.

I've argued that we should go back to the 1994 focus on good governance and reform rather than an agenda that (in many swing voters minds) focuses on gays, stem cell research, and Schiavo. Conservatives shouldn't mean you are a religious voter which is what it means to many people right now, especially younger voters.

I've argued that we should field diverse candidates depending on where they are running. Pro-choicers in CA and the northeast. Pro-immigration candidates in FL, CA and AZ. Etc.

I've argued that Rs are losing a lot of ground in the suburbs because they aren't seen as caring about the bread-and-butter issues but seem focused on ideological social fights. Ds can run on economics, education, and transportation and be much more in touch with those voters concerns. The Chicago, NYC, Philly, and DC suburbs are the biggest examples but they may have just been the early movers.

Finally, I think the R leadership is not aware because they haven't changed what they are doing in strategy or substance. That seems to suggest that they don't see any need to change. Maybe it will take a second walloping to wake them up.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Speaking as a Democrat, I would prefer to see a healthy Republican party rather than not. I don't care to see either party have overwhelming control of the government, as both parties do bring valid perspectives to governance. More to the point, they both represent large swaths of the electorate. However, the current Republican leadership is holding the bag for a party that enjoyed power so much they largely turned into the pack of bastards they replaced in 1994. I respect fiscal conservatism and efficient government. Earmarks offend the hell out of me, regardless of who pushed 'em. Your party should get back to basics and realize that there are a lot of people who simply won't vote [R] often if the most important issues appear to be social ones.

...and from what I can tell, his platform is pretty close to what you laid out. The presidential nominee and the RNC basically set the party platform - which means McCain controls it.

Second, I don't think earmarks are near as big an issue as you think so. It's definitely honorable to oppose them (as McCain does), and it's definitely good government, but I don't think it's a big time plank to hang a candidacy on. I could be wrong.

Third, I haven't heard anyone claim that the GOP will retake either House of congress this year. I think a "win" would be losing 2 seats in the senate, and less than 10 in the House. Certainly these special election losses aren't good, but there is a long way to November.

I'm doing my part by donating and volunteering. I'm well aware of the challenges, here. I care deeply about the future of this country, and I'm never going to give up. I hear enough doom and gloom from the MSM day after day after day. I know the numbers, and I know the mood of the electorate. I don't need to hear it again here. I'm not living in a cocoon and I'm not a pollyanna. That said, I think the GOP has a realistic shot at the White House.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

Then this info isn't directed at you. There are a number of people who are living in a cocoon in my experience. They think if Rs ran Woody Jenkins everywhere, they'd win every time. They think McCain is a weak candidate because he appeals to the middle of the electorate. They think Rs are destined to win back a lot of the 2006 losses and 2006 was just a 6-year itch election so, of course, it will bounce back the other way. They think losing the under 30 vote by 20 points is normal and how it's always been b/c we all "know" people get conservative as they get older, so there's nothing to worry about.

In fact, this same Rasmussen Poll was put on the front page when an outlier month occurred in Dec 2007 where Ds were up just 2.1%. Now that it's gone the other way for several months in a row, it is definitely comment worthy. If we only look at polls when they are good, people will get a distorted view of the world. I've seen people dismiss national polls because "there are more Ds than Rs in their sample." Well, if there are more Ds than Rs in the country, then there should be more in the sample as well. So it's important people know that Rs have to win more Is or Ds than the other way around if they are to win a national election.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Instead of beating the drums of doom in the generic, as a way of countering the people you disagree with, how about specifically highlighting these candidates, and demonstrating why they are good or bad?

I really think that for someone who applies the kind of analytical thought you bring to politics, it's beneath you a bit to keep being so generic and national in your thinking about local races.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

I think the evidence backs up the idea that the country has shifted from R to D, the question is by how much. I'd guesstimate 3-5 points but it could be worse.

In 2006, most of the districts that were competitive were R+1 to R+5 districts. There have been 10 special elections since 2006 and the only competitive ones were IL-14 (R +7) and LA-06 (R +5). In MS-01, it's R +10.

Looking at the competitive seats in the Fall election, they are also mostly in R+1 to R+5 districts like AL-05, NC-08, KS-02, NV-02, NM-02, AZ-01, AZ-03, AZ-05, AZ-08, PA-06, PA-03, etc.

One can argue that every one of the competitive races in 2006, 2007 and 2008 was so because the individual R stunk. But I think the more probable explanation is that Indie voters went from 55D/45R to 65D/35R pretty much across the country.

As for candidates, I've done that and still am doing it. I've spent a lot of time stumping for McCain on here during the primary in part because he has the chance of winning swing voters including Hispanics in a way that others don't. He may not succeed, but at least it is possible.

I've written extensively on SEN races and been let down by the recruitment. I probably said Huckabee for Senate!!! more times than I've said anything else on RedState. But when the R brand stinks, it's hard to recruit people like Huck into tough SEN races.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

of the possible scenarios. But I think that's about as likely as this being a good year for the R team. On the plus side, unlike the Ds in 1993, Rs don't have 70-100 districts that have been voting for Presidents of the other party for a decade. Rs have about 10 of those and another 20 or so that barely went for Bush.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Here is a comment from today on RS:

We were in the ascendency during those years, and even continued in that mode thru 2004 due to dem weakness on defense. In fact, even 2006 was a unique year six greivance election in which the dems underperformed in historic terms.

The fact is that this remains a center right country, and the fact that the center right does not own congressional majorities is due to gop spinelessness in the face of the lib pc msm media and their between election polls.

That is the type of attitude that I am worried too many activists have. It starts with the assumption that everyone agrees with R principles but Rs are losing for some other reason (i.e. bad candidate, bad media, 6 year itch).

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

rather, the assumption IS that when an effort is made to explain conservative principles to the public in a comprehensive and methodical manner, the public can be persuaded.

There is little conservative leadership in Washington. Bush jetisoned much of his conservative ideas in order to try and get leverage in dealing with Iraq. National security and 9/11 have clouded the absence of conservative leadship on domestic policy. Now we are in a mess, but the way out is the applicaiton of conservatism to solve problems.

Bush took leadership on stem cells, on the FMA, and on pro-life policies. He took leadership on the GWOT and the War in Iraq. He took leadership on reforming Social Security and immigration.

I know a lot of people want to throw him under the bus and disown him. But Bush was a conservative leader. The problem is that conservative now means "social conservatism" to most of the country, including Pres. Bush.

I'm not sure how the GOP's leadership on Schiavo, stem cells, or global warming has helped the GOP win over voters. I'm not arguing what was right or wrong. But your contention that "explaining conservatism would win votes" would mean that those acts should have won over voters b/c those are the things associated with conservatism today more than small government and good governance.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Spending, taxing, and regulating. In most elections, economics is the key battleground.

I agree that Bush has been more loyal to social conservatives than he has been to economic conservatives. He made some compromises on the fiscal front that did not result in any corresponding compromises from the left.

I am not a person who throws Bush under the bus. One of my concerns with McCain is that he MAY ultimately prove significant worse than Bush, a premise on which I know you disagree.

The Democrats are the party of "Tax and Spend". Right now the Republicans are the party of "Spend and Spend Even More", and neither party is the party of "Don't Tax and Don't Spend". Well, I guess the Libertarians qualify there, but that just shows that there's not particularly a mandate for that position.

As for regulating, there's no consensus on that either. McCain's a mixed bag on this issue, but in general, he seems to see government as the provider of solutions, not the cause of problems.

As conservatives, we have the problem that conservative ideas really only sell well when people have been forced to live under the problems caused by liberal ones.

I see a big problem is that right now, Republicans are on the losing side of several issues such as global warming, gay marriage, and health care. The country is with the Democrats. Americans want everyone to have health care, they want to decrease our dependence on fossil fuels, and they don't have a problem with civil unions. Combine that with the utterly mismanaged and unpopular war and a flailing economy that many Republicans failed to even acknowledge (most especially the ex-presidential candidates) and you get our current scenario.

On principle Americans have always been anti-tax, strong on defense, and religious, but that's not enough. We need to offer conservative solutions that can serve as alternatives to the Democrats' spend-free pro-government solutions. We need to support candidates that appeal to a wide range of voters. What we don't need are Rick Santorums or morally objectionable Larry Craigs.

....is that we are creating an electorate that has no skin in the game. Between conservative tax cutting and liberal welfare impulses we have about 50% of the population paying ZERO income taxes. How do you appeal to someone on "tax and spend" issues when they aren't paying for any of it. If you pay no taxes, or virtually no taxes (and with the EITC there are plenty of people who don't even pay payroll taxes), then why would you care if spending goes up - especially since those are the people most likely to receive the handouts. A family making $60,000 a year is fine with big-government health care because nobody is proposing to raise taxes on that family to pay for it (not even the loose definition of "rich" used by most Democrats reaches that far down the income ladder). Decreasing greenhouse emissions sounds good but we have done nothing to talk about costs and translate the proposed solutions into dollars and cents and, more importantly, the jobs that will be lost as a result.

There are too many people who have become lazy and complacent - they are more than happy to see someone else do things for them. It's much easier to support government health-care, where you get to just show up and not worry about a bill, than to arrange for insurance and deal with the paperwork and headaches (even where you have the money to afford whatever coverage you like). Part of the problem is in the very constitution of the populace and the decay of the kind of values that made people prefer self-reliance to a hand-out. People are becoming to attracted to the "something for nothing" mentality that has produced booming lottery revenues and the treatment of the tort system as a retirement plan. If we don't combat that, we will lose more ground for no other reason than our arguments cease to have any relevance for people.

We have to remember that Reagan won, not by being the conservative in the race, but by bringing the entire conservative coalition together. Moderates, conservatives and libertarian minded Republicans have to respect that in parts of the country other parts of the coalition are going to be more successful. As a party, we must recognize that and run the candidates that have the best chance to win in their areas.

The problem with McCain (for me personally, anyways, but I suspect I'm not alone) was never that he's not a true-believer conservative. If that were the standard, exactly one Republican nominee in my lifetime qualifies, Ronald Reagan.

The problem with McCain was that he was actively hostile to conservatism for so many years. It's kind of hard to, as you say "bring the entire conservative coalition together" when you've shown them disdain and contempt for over a decade. And in fact, McCain isn't bringing them together. The Democrat candidates are.

"I'm sorry to say the mantra of the '06 election, "We s**k less", "Stay the course", were real loosers, and it was reflected in the outcome."

Yup, that's the problem. I think without 9/11, Rs would have lost power in 2002 or 2004 (including perhaps the Presidency). Since 1998, Rs have lost ground in the House regularly. The dam just broke in 2006.

The problem with "It's the ideas stupid" is that people still remember Republican control of Congress. They remember the corruption, the pork barreling, the issues that were actually "addressed." That's why I'm worried it might take Ds controlling Congress for a while and doing some dumb things themselves.

Ds are already just as big of porkers, but Rs have no credibility to say they'd be different if they were elected. Maybe after a new set of Rs get elected or if McCain starts vetoing pork, that will become a good strategy. But right now, Rs can't win ground on D pork-barrel corruption because most swing voters see no difference between the parties on those issues.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

was like, when democrats were in charge of congress.

I don't think I really started to care much about politics until Clinton was elected and two short years later, the GOP took control of the house.

The only thing many voters in their 20's and 30's know is a house and occassional senate controlled by the GOP.

The GOP branded itself as just as willing to pork barrel their way into power, and now they carry the brand.

I think it is going to take a while for the GOP to ditch that brand. The GOP got power, and they essentially blew it in order to spend their way into more power. It is really hard for the GOP to point at the democrats and say "tax and spend" when they just did the same thing. That message, even if there is some truth to it, isn't going to fly very far.

I do agree with you that you can't elect the same kind of conservtive everywhere-but I do think the one principle that we have to get back to is being the gate keeper on spending. Earmarks in the big picture may not be huge amounts of the budget, but I know when it comes to the family budget it is the little things that add up and where the fat can be cut the easiest, when the budget requires it.

.....had HUGE advantages. Chiefly, he had the advantage of running against Democrats, who controlled all three branches of government in 1994. Literally every single problem could be laid at the feet of the Democrats, similar to how the Dems are doing it now to Repubs. Clinton and the Dems also passed a huge tax increase in 1993 that enraged voters and Gingrich was able to position the GOP as the anti-tax and anti-spending party.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Many will recall that the Republican House and Senate did attempt to reform government and significantly reduce government spending. Not just earmarks, but the big stuff, including the biggest program of all . . Medicare.

Clinton triangulated, and used the MSM to beat the Republicans like a drum. That marked the beginning of the end in my view.

Republicans learned the wrong message in 1996. We lost the media battle in 96, and have been on the retreat ever since.

Just_Me

I cringe every time I see someone start the discussion about how to fix the Republican brand with any commentary about what things were like under the Democrats. That is the "We S**k less" argument in a nutshell and it's a terrible thing to sell.

Take the Contract with America...please.

It wasn't beating up Democrats, it was stating a bold vision for where the Republican party wanted to take this country, and you know what, it resonated with the American public.

Alas, it takes courage to stand for a set of ideas, and frankly about the only thing it seems a large percentage of Republicans in Congress stand for is keeping their sorry a**es in Congress.

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

argument isn't going to fly. And I think a good bit of it is because we have controlled congress for more than a decade and proved ourselves in capable of doing anything we stood for.

I think right now the GOP is missing its vision. And I think a lot of people in the GOP are still hung up on the "we suck less" belief.

Shoot I still believe that even at its worst, when it comes to spending, the democrats would still do much worse, because they view the government as a tax funded Santa Claus out to grant every voter their every wish.

But I don't think you can win elections on that argument.

I think you have to put together a vision of what the party stands for, and what that vision looks like when implemented. Newt did a great job of packaging a vision in 1994. They were able to implement some of it, got blocked in other ways, and then eventually I think got consumed with power and how to keep it.

Just_me

I hate to tell you this, but there are many many Republicans that think the Federal Government is Santa Claus too. Maybe one that does not fund Midnight Baskeball, grants to the NEA but Ted Stephens and the Alaskan Bridge to No Where is nothing to be proud of.

I'd like to see a vision of Tax and Spending coming from Republicans that recognizes that not all taxes are evil and not all spending is bad, but the light of day and sunshine provisions on legislation is a good thing.

I'd like to see Republicans come up with a solid answer to how to deal with health care into the future. If Hillary Care, and Obama care is bad, what's good? Do nothing...give everyone in the country a bottle of aspirin and a box of band aids ?

Energy policy, does anyone really believe that in 10 years, in 20 years in 30 years the energy needs of this country are going to become even more problematic and drilling for oil is not probably a long term answer. Where's the bold effort along the lines of the Apollo program to develop new and clean sources of energy? Nuclear, fission, solar, is the free market going to provide the answer or is government leadership and our tax dollars needed for finance that future.

Real issues, real opportunities for real leadership on these and other issues that can differentiate Republicans from Democrats. Not a gun, gay or abortion among them by the way.

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

Then say hello to President Obama in the fall. Since that's McCain's unofficial campaign motto. When I see taglines, not here, but many other places, with things like "I love my country more than I hate John McCain" and "Vote McCain, the least objectionable Democrat still running", that's exactly the sentiment.

But there's a problem in putting together a vision as to what the party stands for. That problem is that there's no agreement at all on what that vision should be. There are basically no ideas that you could get general agreement on in the party that are going to be something we can run on.

GWOT? General agreement there, but the war isn't popular. Not a winning issue.

Corruption? General agreement, except by the 'win at all costs' leadership who doesn't care how corrupt someone is if they have an R by their name.

Small government? You might get some agreement there, except that there's been no evidence that the Republicans are good on this issue. And the presumptive nominee is explicitly not a shrink the size of government guy.

War on Drugs? Significant parts of the National Review crowd and the libertarian leaning wing are pro-legalization, so no real consensus here.

Pro-life? As I read polls, the dominant position in the US is 'Abortion should be legal, with reasonable restrictions'. So the party's position on this isn't a winner either.

The Contract With America had a bunch of commensense reforms, combined with votes promised on 10 bills, which mostly failed to become law. I doubt that you could get general agreement on even 5 bills today.

skey

You make the assumption that the MSM's and the Liberal elite's fascination will be enough to sell Obama to the American public, it won't.

Obama is a Liberal's liberal, and the country is really not all that liberal. During the general election, when McCain and yes even the MSM gets around to exploring the Obama record, which is very Liberal, the wheels will come off the wagon.

I'm not talking about the usual social conservative buttons, just the whole picture of Obama as a classical big government tax and spend liberal. In the general he will be shown to be out of the mainstream and middle class America will turn their back on him.

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

You actually inadvertently make my point for me.

Me: "If 'we s**k less' doesn't fly, say hello to President Obama."

You(paraphrasing): "But we s**k less, so obama can't win".

The two aren't mutually exclusive. All I said was that unless it works, Obama wins. And there's very little that can be done about this, at this point.

I'm not worried about McCain much. He's got a great shot at taking this thing. As for the House and Senate races, I'm not so optimistic. We're going to lose seats; the only question is how many.

Is that too many people now get to see what politicians get bought for and it rankles.

The bridge to nowhere.
Eminent domain abuse.
The coconut road.
The Mickey Mouse copyright act.
The DMCA
The FCC not doing its job creating net neutrality and broadcast access problems

Its been real obvious that the best we have gotten with our party is little better than the Dems.

If you are pro small government and pro federalism you have been getting sold a bill of goods. If you are big government federal union employee its been all a feather bed.

What's amazing is that we have lasted so long without delivering the goods.

Precisely whom are you calling a crook here, sir? And with what evidence?

Let's not throw around vague, unsubstantiated accusations of felonies.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

And there are a bunch of Rs who use public funds to buy votes. Even if it's legal, it's ugly and unethical.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

... look again.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

The Democrats don't represent good government, small government or clean government. They don't have to be good on these issues we do.

When it comes down to one-on-one elections, "better" is what matters (e.g., McCain vs. HillObama). When it comes to evaluating performance, representing the people who elected you, and remaining true to the things you claim to stand for, we are -- and should be -- held to a higher standard. "Better than the D counterpart" isn't good enough -- only good is good enough.

And one way we can counter that is by being more active in the primaries. Doolittle was gone, as being not good enough,even though he was surely better than Charlie Brown. But Eric Egland pre-primaried him, and now we're sure to win regardless of whether Ose or McClintock gets the nomination.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

And we have the misfortune of being in year 8 now of one of the most disastrously pathetic PR administrations in memory.

Outside that, conservatives simply seem to lack vision and willingness to do anything. Where's our MoveOn.org? Where's our 527 that will point out the things you mentioned above?

We have one (Freedom's Watch, dedicated solely to the GWOT), and it has been a miserable failure. I don't know what they're spending their money on, but sure isn't anything worthwhile or effective.

easy for so long, when it came to winning.

Losing, and wanting power back I think was a huge motivation for what the democrats, or at least organizations that democrats most closely represent motivated the creation of a lot of those groups.

I think Adam is probably right-a lot of conservatives have deluded themselves into thinking that 2006 was just a little hiccup and things will get back to normal come this election year. They don't see the writing on the wall, which says the GOP brand is a negative one for he majority of voters right now. And the main argument I see from the GOP is "tax and spend democrats" which I think isn't a lie, but the perception most voters currently have of the GOP is that they are more than happy to spend as well.

The GOP needs a vision. That is the one thing the GOP had in 1994-they knew what they stood for and where they wanted to go. They didn't get everything, but as time passed, the power became more important than the governance.

As a general rule, advocacy groups like that are typically founded and funded by angry people. And conservatives, as a general rule simply aren't angry. I'm not angry about the coming disaster this fall, I'm simply saddened by it.

Also, as I recall, at the time that Moveon started pushing candidates, Republicans had the advantage in traditional fundraising, so there wasn't especially a need for a Republican counterpart. It's only as the Republican brand has been trashed that there's a need for a counterpart, and honestly, what exactly would that counterpart be pushing right now? Cleaning up the corruption in Washington? Pushing smaller government? In both cases they'd be actually hurting the Republican brand, making things worse for the party, because the Republicans simply no longer stand for either of those.

The Israelites had to wander around in the desert for 40 years for their sins. I hope for the sake of the country that the Republicans won't have to do so for quite that long, but I see no way to avoid some wandering, until the leadership changes.

nt

And I hate to say it, but perhaps bringing a few of the more sane Ron Paul people into the Big Tent would provide some help there. The few people in the r3volution seem to be batting way above their weight in the online/youtube/facebook/blog part of the world.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

You do know that vastly superior technology was critical in the outstanding Bush turnout machine in 2004, right?

The fact that our party base doesn't include the umemployed with time to waste on Youtube isn't a sign of anything but the fact that the Democrats do well among college students.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

what Adam is talking about. We are not just in trouble because of Republican fatigue. We are in trouble because we have failed to provide solutions to the problems facing our country. We are facing a serious crisis in the years to come if we do not take on the problems that our country is facing and reach out to moderate and independent voters.

Second, that is a totally useless poll. What does that question mean, anyway? It can mean any one of a number of things to different people.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

What am I missing? Where did they die?

-exits

I don't think that is correct.

My computers broken...

Ah....I understand now
A pothead....
Smoke up johnny.....
Dude...It's like so cool to be a stoner.... by MrSyHastings

spill bong water on your keyboard??

LOL

What are your veiws on Med marijane?

"40 million American households with Carnitas are generally happier
than those people in households that don't have Carnitas."

Regardless, why should I bother responding to a pothead troll??

n/t

My "veiw" is that pot makes peeple stuppid....

You've done a great job reinforcing my "veiw"...

LOL

n/t

Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity

n/t

n/t

Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity

...wants to know precisely what is going on here.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Didn't mean to get in the way...

Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity

...what's going on, here.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

n/t

I really wanted an answer but he got upset.

This goes back to the McCain VP thread....where specialist was trying to use his sockpuppet for reasons only he can explain. Then it moved on to the "Man" thread where his love of weed came up. I have a big problem with druggies....especially druggies who use sockpuppets to troll folks that don't fall down agreeing with everything that they post.

I'll be ignoring specialist starting now.
I won't let the sideshow happen again.

You may start ignoring specialist after you apologize to him for the repeated insults.

Next post, please.

Moe

PS: I don't care. Next post, please.

PPS: You should have emailed the Directors. Next post, please.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

I guess you are a druggie too huh??

LOL

Nice job self-destructing.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

Yes Moe.
You go fuck yourself.
:)

:)

Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity

Moe is going to delete all of this...but it is the best crash and burn I think I have ever seen.. Classic stupidity.

Kind of reminds me of that Will Farrel movie Anchorman.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

Yes very entertaining... I think many are on the edge lately.

Nahh this is a weak suicide by Moe
This is kind of lame. no subtlety no ambiguity
Shame he had been doing well with the site up till now.
AHH well just Zugzwang for him I guess

It's always nice to have this kind of vulgar backup if and when somebody checks my work.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

I've been watching his skills for 2 years.

...got away with something that he had been banned for doing himself (yup, he was a retread).

[Looking around, but carefully not looking at anyone specific] Which is why we don't let people do that, all right?

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

That was my only meatpuppet RIP

n/t

Personally I see as much stupidity from the can't-reason-with-them anti-drug types as I do those that partake. Maybe more-- and they don't have the excuse that the drugs help make them stupid.

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity

Libya surrendered, and britain and France and Germany elected Bush clones.

The international leftist press trashes us, and when was it when they didn't, and for what reasons?

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

that Africa loves George W Bush too.

___________________________________
Just like PayPal, except it's free and a $25 bonus to sign up!

and Mexico loves us so much, that the whole nation is moving here.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com