George W. Bush and Karl Rove had the attitude that their Republican and conservative base had no choice but to vote GOP. Such arrogance resulted in Bush and Rove having a rude, 1992-style awakening.
Immediately after the 2004 election, many Republicans smugly predicted that the GOP would rule – as in, both houses of Congress and the White House – for fifty years. Well, this must be the year 2054, because it’s over. Republicans were crushed in House races, losing at least 23 seats, and even in the Senate, where although the dust has not yet settled, it looks as though the Democrats have also won the Senate.
Everything worked for the Democrats – gay-baiting, in the case of Cong. Mark Foley (R-FL), and race-baiting, in the case of Sen. George Allen (R-VA), the Jewish junior senator from Virginia. (Don’t accuse me of Jew-baiting – he’s one of my people!)
When Democrat congressmen sleep with underaged pages, they respond by showing contempt to Congress, running for re-election, and winning, but when a Republican congressman sends “salacious correspondence” to pages, he not only must resign, but be the target of a criminal investigation. If only Foley had been a socialist, he’d have been celebrated by the media and the Democrats, or at least given a pass. (After all, when a Democrat accuses you of lusting after young boys, he's complimenting you, the way tenured gay academics speak fondly of the late Aaron Copland's lecherous ways.) And as for racism, were Democrats held to the same standards, there wouldn’t be a Congressional Black Caucus. (I’m sorry, but there is just no clean way to talk about such garbage.)
The wrong conclusions are almost guaranteed to be drawn from this election. The media are not yet talking about the President’s base, which stayed home. I’ve been saying for months that George W. Bush holds his Christian Evangelical base in contempt. (May 28: "And to sweeten the pot for his social and religious conservative base (or as Karl Rove would call it, ‘the suckers’), he will propose a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.")
One month before the election, the Evangelical advisor who was one of the people who had initially run the White House’s faith-based initiative, came out with a book in which he told of White House aides rolling their eyes about Evangelicals, and speaking derisively of prominent Evangelical leaders as “nuts.”
I guess “the suckers” didn’t fall for GOP campaign posturing on gay marriage, and its supposed toughness on terrorism. So, who’re the suckers?!
And I guess that fiscally conservative Republicans and libertarians also found an alternative (i.e., staying home) to voting for a cut-taxes-and-spend GOP.
The media and other politicians are going to see this election purely as a referendum on the war, while ignoring the President’s Open Borders policy.
As Fox News’ Shepherd Smith observed late Tuesday night, once the carnage was unmistakable, “There has never been a civilization in history that has survived that hasn’t controlled its own borders.”
Smith also quipped, regarding the close Virginia senate race, in which conservative Democrat former Navy Secretary James Webb currently (2 a.m., Wednesday morning) leads neoconservative Republican Senator George Allen by 5,700 votes, “Virginia is for Lawyers.” “There will be a recount, and then there will be lawyers.”
As far as the war is concerned, will any of our best and brightest rethink their approach to warfare? Don’t hold your breath. If our leaders continue to construe “war” in such a vague, open-ended, utopian fashion (“nation-building,” “exporting democracy,” etc.), then no matter how many battlefield victories our side achieves, they will keep expanding the mission until we are defeated. And if we fight “multicultural” wars, in which the rules of engagement are perverted, and our troops require the permission of lawyers (female, natch), before they may fire on a terrorist leader; and our soldiers and Marines must stand by and watch while the streets erupt in chaos and looting, so that the media will not show American men killing Arabs; if the enemy is permitted to turn mosques into ammo dumps, troop depots, and embattlements, while our boys are handcuffed from fighting accordingly; and if we are not so much as permitted to name the enemy, or to even name our operations as we see fit, because it might offend the enemy, then we might as well kneel down to the Religion of Terror right now, because America will never win another war under such terms.
Yet another mistake was in claiming that all people, everywhere, want the same things we do (peace and democracy). Arabs will die before they’ll accept peace, and they will vote, if necessary, to end democracy.
There was a realpolitik case to be made for war in Iraq, and I made it in early 2003. But I never supported a multicultural, humanitarian war.
Many conservative and Republican voters stayed home over immigration. While I can’t say how many did, it was enough to tip Congress over to the Democrats. The two geniuses, George W. Bush and Karl Rove, can take credit for that, though I doubt they will.
Far from ruling for fifty years, if an amnesty – “wearing such deliberate disguises” – goes through, the GOP may never control Congress again. But that would suit George W. Bush, who is busily at work abolishing America in favor of a North American Union, just fine.
Add1dda@aol.com
http://www.thecriticalcritic.blogspot.com/
Read more articles by Nicholas Stix
There is no doubt that George W. Bush betrayed conservatives on many key issues. However by staying home or voting for Democrats yesterday, conservatives have betrayed themselves much worse and ultimately, our country. Are any of you feeling a bit of buyers' remorse this morning?
The only thing standing in the way of open borders and blanket amnesty were House conservatives like (soon to be) former Congressman J.D. Hayworth. With Democrats now in control of Congress, watch the President make a deal on immigration with the liberals much as he did on education and Medicare. We conservatives have lost our voices and the defenders of our principles for the sake of smug and self-defeating ideological purity. Not only do we have speaker Pelosi and Chairman Rangel to undermine our national security, but the felon Alcee Hastings is poised to take over the Intelligence committee in the House! If you were outraged by the leaking of classified information before, you aint seen nothing yet.
Our troops fighting and bleeding in the Sunni triangle now have a Congress hostile to their Commander-in-Cheif and their mission. The rules of engahement in Iraq will become more restrictive as every contact with the enemy undergoes Congressional scrutiny; pressure will build for a phased re-deployment (read:surrender), and just as in Vietnam, our enemies can simply cool their heels until we pack up and leave, then undo all of our efforts there.
The deadly combination of our surrender in Iraq (though they'll euphemistically call it something else), the accelerated radicalization of the Muslim world which will result, and our open borders will lead inevitably to attacks on our own home soil. Offense will become defense. Defense will lead to appeasement. And appeasement means a repudiation of our Judeo-Christian principles. Welcome to Dhimmitude.
But hey, we sent a heck of a message didn't we?
Comment by Jeff Osonitsch | November 8, 2006
What can the ruling GOP elite say?
they failed us, again…
–miserable results in a war against terror. The only good thing was a relative benign period of no terror attacks on the homefront which we haven't even assured won't happen again in the near future. Even during the Clinton years we went 3-4 years between home front attacks. Yet elsewhere the GOP proved they can 'do Vietnam' just as well as the Dems.
How is that? They failed to put in place a winning Iraq and Afghan strategy. Putting boots on the ground is easy. We have overwhelming technological superiority but somehow the message that losing 22000 (killed plus wounded) troops to replace one cancer ridden old man and taking 5 plus years to train a police and military force with a nation's majority group of people did not go over well with the voters. Just how long does it take to train a police force Mr Rove and Bush? Just what is victory in Iraq; does it mean hanging on while losing hundreds of troops per month (not including the 200 or more who are permantently wounded) for a lost cause? Just how stupid does Rove and Bush think we are? Telling us to hang on while the average American conservative can look at Israel and Palestine and see no end in sight? The situation with the arab/persian muslims is a hopeless one. They do not possess the same type of personality as the average westerner. They are willing to blow themselves up and our strategy in both theaters does not deal with that mindset. Until we cause the average terrorists to fear the repercussions of his or her acts of terror so that even the average muslim will fear supporting terrorists because of what might happen to them, then we will continue to 'not win' in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush has not forced the pentagon lawyer types and top military commanders to deal with that fact. Why? Because he fell for the same trap the dems fell for in Vietnam and Korea; Limited war. Limited war does not work, period. It is a politicians way to have war and get to leave the bloody hands on the back of the troops while saying they were humane. No war is humane but limited war is the least humane. Why? Because it prolongs a conflict without getting a clear winner. you have to literally force the opposing citizens (not just military) onto their hands and knees to prevent them from ever fighting again. We did not do that in Korea, or Vietnam and now Iraq and Afghanistan. Oh well.
Corruption: GOP can be just as corrupt as the Dems. The people saw that.
Unbridled Government spending. No excuse Jorge. You are the perceived leader, rubber stamping every congressonal spending spree.
Unbridled Gov. intrusion on our lives. No excuse Jorge.
If we could get a party with fiscal conservatives and less personal intrusion. They would win in a lot of southern and western states, maybe even California.
Sorry for the rambling style; the warnings were there but even the popular pundits refused to heed them.
Comment by Dean | November 8, 2006
The author makes some important observations.
I'd like to add that this election was clearly not a Democratic win so much as it was a repudiation of "mushy" Republicans. Many conservative issues won, and many of the winning Democrats had to present themselves as moderates or even Bible believing Christians (ala Webb).
Leftism still does not win elections, by and large. Leftists will say or do just about anything to avoid telling voters what they really believe.
So for me, there is still hope. Maybe the blue blood Republicans will get the message. Either that, or they're going to make losing an art form.
Comment by Mountain Man | November 8, 2006
"Leftism still does not win elections, by and large. Leftists will say or do just about anything to avoid telling voters what they really believe."
Mountain Man, I agree. I have said the same things in other forums.
"George W. Bush and Karl Rove had the attitude that their Republican and conservative base had no choice but to vote GOP."
In a sense Bush and Rove were right and that they were arrogant in their assertion, Mr. Stix was right. I don't think conservatives stood home last night though, we knew the stakes of this election and we voted accordingly and lost. I believe the swing voters who tipped the balance of power in the Republican's favor for the last 6 years, for whatever reason, probably because of the war in Iraq, tipped the power now in favor of the Democrats because they believe that the Democrats are more to the right than they really are.
It will only be a matter of time until they manifest themselves as the Anti-American party that they are. The only question is if the conservatives can put forward a Ronald Reagan like-candidate that can articulate the conservative message in a way that inspires the swing voters to vote conservative. It is not enough to have the right message unfortunately, it is also how you say it or convey it to others. Reagan was magnificent in this regard.
As Ellis Sandoz wrote in his book, "A Government of Laws", quoting Perry Miller, " A pure rationalism such as his (Thomas Jefferson's) might have declared the independence of these folk, but it could never have inspired them to fight for it."
I believe this country has a metaphysical problem. It is hard to convey a conservative message to a people who lack the convictions necessary to understand the foundations of such a message. You reject Jesus Christ and the whole Bible and all the contributions of Hebraic-Christian thought necessarily falls to the wayside, it's hardly understood. The silly argument over "gay marriage" is a perfect example. There is no such thing as "gay marriage" but without understanding where the foundation or basis of marriage comes from or Who ordained it and what are the divine obligations imposed on it, you can twist it into anything you want. Which is what is happening. Try to argue against "gay marriage" without mentioning its divine origins or try to defend "traditional" marriage without mentioning it's divine origin. Marriage is a God-ordained institution not a legislative, judicial, or executive -ordained institution. It never has been!
Comment by vinny | November 8, 2006
While I agree with the authors indignity and frustration with the policies of the Bush Administration on profoundly important social and national defense issues, I'm not sure I agree with the basic premise that this election was lost due to a conservative sit-out. I don't have access to the kind of information that would reveal just how intense conservative turn-out was but anecdotally, it seemed that Republicans of all stripes turned out to vote, yesterday.
Now in my mind, the reason that Republicans lost the election is that the party and the candidates, did not campaign vigorously and there was no effort made at the national level to focus efforts on the nominally red states in order to offset the inevitable loss of Republican seats in the People's Democratic Peace-loving Soviet Socialist Republics of New England and the Upper Mid-West.
What happened in Florida is a perfect example. JEB Bush (Governor) actually made public that he would not and the party should not support Katherine Harris despite the fact that no one was, at the time, opposing Democrat Bill Nelson, but her. Clay Shaw, and Negron (Foley seat) were not given the national support they needed to retain those seats where the margin to do so was attainably small. Katherine Harris may not have been a darling of cynical politicians, and may have made some verbal gaffs, but there is no doubt how she would have voted on taxes, abortion, judges, support for the war, immigration, or any other reform bill with conservative bonafides. And its how she votes that counts, and those nincompoops should know that.
However, the most significant factor in this loss has nothing to do with the failures of the Republican leadership or the management of the national campaign. Simply, its the ignorance of voters. The average American is pathetically ill-informed on any issue of substance, they don't pay attention, and by-and-large, they don't care. They care in passing, but only so much as it effects them and in the most small-minded of ways. So, the idiots and morons have spoken. All the average American knows about immigration, the war, Islam, the economy, or any other issue is from sound bites and CNN (Commie News Network) or the op-eds of their favorite celebrity. Americans don't read to inform, they don't care to know, and they don't think to judge. So nominally democratic voters returning to vote for Democrats in a largely democratic state when the news about Republican policies is bad, was as obvious as daylight.
Therefore, the loss of red seats in blue states was as foreseeable as the sun rising on the eastern horizon tomorrow. There should have been money pumped into the red states to retain seats and oust the Dems in those red states. Too much emphasis was placed on retaining Republicans in whatever district or state they were from, rather than a focused effort to redden the red states. Frankly, I'm thrilled to see Mike Dewine, and Lincoln Chaffee gone. They were absolutely no help to conservatives nor to the party generally. Too bad we couldn't have lost Hagel, McCain and Graham too.
Comment by Julian Cate | November 8, 2006
when you have GOP leaders, ala Bush, Rove, etc along with certain Legislators telling the conservative voters that this is the choice and to deal with it, well, I guess a lot of conservatives did, by staying home. Sad but true. Immigration, the failing Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns, gov. spending, the ethanol scam, etc. Who is willing to bet that the now slight minority of Republicans cave in further to a slight majority of Dems? I bet they will cave in even more to a screaming 1 or two vote majority of dems. unlike the past 6 years when it was the other way around. Why? Because republican leadership both elected and non elected suck. they are always behind the power curve on what their constituents want. They react nicely to the opposition's desires but turn a blind eye to their base supporters on important issues time and time again. Oh well. Maybe in two years the republicans will hire some intelligent strategists. And the Iraqis will suddenly lay down their arms and peace on earth will reign.
Comment by Dean | November 8, 2006
Yes definitely a limited war is impossible to win,
and who is always demanding hysterically the US fights limited-politically-correct wars?
the left of course.
So the right fights a war by the politically-correct rules of the left,
and because of those politically- correct limited-war rules "imposed" by the left,
the right can not make the troops who's hands are tied win the Iraq war ( or any war since Vietnam)
and what do voters do?
they elect more leftists.
So whatever does not work , the voters want more of it,
or a worse version of it.
Same thing with illegal immigration,
the right is soft on this issue because the left will blow a gasket if they aren't soft on illegals.
so what do voters do?
They elect more leftists who will be way more soft on illegals.
So whatever does not work , the voters want more of it,
or a worse version of it.
I can only conclude that the average voter is either very ignorant and knows nothing about the left ,
is too stupid to understand or care about any of that,
or is both ignorant and stupid.
Oh yeah,
and anyone who still believes the Katrina mess is all Bush's fault but not mayor Naggin's fault,
not Governor Blanco's fault,
not people who refused to leave's fault is definitely ignorant.
The Iraq war , Illegals and Katrina.
Those are the main 3 things that made people elect more Democrats.
And those people know nothing about those things - nothing!
Frankly I'm not so sure people so misinformed should even have the right to vote.
Comment by Friend of USA | November 9, 2006