Losing ground for the last few years and yet still pretend to be in control. Sad and arrogant. Then again DeanPats represents the ignorance of his own party pretty accurately. Good job Dean.
[QUOTE]In congressional races, Republicans are losing ground
By Gail Russell Chaddock
Mon May 12, 4:00 AM ET
The prospect of a special-election loss in yet another seat this week is fueling calls for House Republicans to radically shift course – or face losses in November that could lock their party in the minority for a generation.
Strike one: A Democrat wins the seat vacated by former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R) of Illinois, a March 8 stunner.
Strike two: A Democrat wins a May 3 vote in a Louisiana congressional district that President Bush in 2004 carried by a 19-point margin.
Tuesday's runoff election in Mississippi's First Congressional District could be strike three. Democrat Travis Childers already nearly defeated Republican Greg Davis in an April 22 special election to replace GOP Rep. Roger Wicker, falling just 410 votes short of a majority. The idea that a Democrat could win the runoff has shocked national party leaders into overdrive.
"This seat is a very important one. It's been in conservative hands for a long time, and we'd hate to see the liberals gain control," said Vice President Dick Cheney in a phone interview released by the White House. The vice president is headlining a get-out-the-vote rally for Mr. Davis in Mississippi on Monday.
[B]Citing recent special-election losses, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich issued a "Plea to Republicans" last week. "Without change we could face a catastrophic election this fall," he wrote in the conservative weekly Human Events. "Without change the Republican Party in the House could revert to the permanent minority status it had from 1930 to 1994."[/B]
This week House Republican leader John Boehner, who has been predicting a tough election for months, launches the long rollout of a new messaging campaign that has been dubbed by some party aides a "rebranding exercise."
For Republicans, the past 15 months have been mainly about "defining the Democrats," he says, citing their "very liberal agenda" and broken promises – especially the "Pelosi premium," a reference to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's failure to deliver on a promise to bring down high gasoline prices.
But the need now is for Republicans to get clear on their own agenda for change, says Representative Boehner. "While we'll continue to hold Democrats accountable, I think it's also time for us to define ourselves, in terms of what we would do if the American people would honor us with the majority," he said in a May 8 briefing .
Last week Boehner created a committee of House Republicans to "advise" the National Republican Congressional Committee, which is under fire within GOP ranks for the special-election losses.
"We can't just be against everything the Democrats are trying to do. We have to be for a positive agenda," says Rep. Darrell Issa (R) of California, a member of the new panel. "Bad times are a problem for those who are in charge. The 'Pelosi premium' is that the price of a barrel of oil has doubled since she said: 'Elect me and I have a plan to reduce the power of oil.' "
Even before special-election setbacks this spring, House Republicans faced a tough campaign. With nearly 1 in 8 in the GOP caucus retiring or running for higher office, Republicans are defending 25 open seats compared with Democrats' seven open seats. Analysts say Democrats stand a good shot at winning many of them.
Even with rebranding, "the fact is there's a lot that House Republicans just can't change," says David Wasserman, who analyzes House races for the Cook Political Report in Washington. "They can't do a lot about these Republicans who are retiring."
House Republicans also face shortfalls in fundraising, especially from within their own ranks. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has raised $44.3 million for the 2008 races, compared with $7.2 million for the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), the House GOP campaign arm.
Last week, House GOP leaders warned colleagues in a closed meeting that if they didn't step up fundraising for the party, losses in November could be severe.
"To be competitive, the members of the Republican conference must continue to support this institution [the NRCC] with their energy and resources," says NRCC spokesman Ken Spain.
In a May 3 memo, the NRCC said the lesson from the Louisiana special-election defeat is that last-minute ads linking Democrat Don Cazayoux with Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Barack Obama helped Davis gain "substantial ground." "This election speaks to the potential toxicity of an Obama candidacy and the possible drag he could have down-ballot this fall," the NRCC memo said.
But some Republicans say a strategy of linking Democrats to Pelosi and Obama will fail. "People are tired of President Bush and they want a change. You can see it by the turnout and fundraising for the Democrats," says retiring Rep. Ray LaHood (R) of Illinois.
"Every special election has its ... local elements to it, but when you start to lose a succession of seats that have been solidly Republican ... that's a big warning sign," says Norman Ornstein, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.[/QUOTE]
May. 11, 2008 12:00 AM
Regarding "The bell tolls for Clinton" (Editorial, Thursday):
Actually, the bells toll for the Democratic Party.
The party leaders have done what the Republicans have been trying to do for the last 50 years. They have killed it.
This was not done by Hillary Clinton, but by the liberal leaders - John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and the rest. They wanted the most liberal candidate they could find. So who was the most liberal senator in office? Barack Obama. They supported him and did everything they could to stop Hillary.
Bill Clinton, as a president, was not the liberal they wanted. He did more for the country than had been done since Harry Truman.
So with a Black candidate, they knew that the Blacks would vote for him just because he was Black, not that he could do the country any good.
Now it looks like they have what they wanted, a very liberal candidate who has no program except change, and even these men should know that you don't get anything done in Washington unless you know how to play the game. Clinton did, and all of the good Democrats have done so, but now we want change.
Two years ago, everyone was talking about Hillary as the next president; that would have worked.
I guess we will have just the one party to vote for from now on, because the leaders of the Democratic Party don't know how to win. They have all lost many times before and will bring on another loser.
Obama should do better than Parker did in 1904, but he will still lose. - Jack McGaw,Sun City West[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]RUSH: And see, that's my point. I worry about that. I think it's an automatic election of either Hillary or Obama, whoever surfaces on that side. That's just me. I could be wrong. That is just me.
CALLER: All right. What do you make of the head-to-head polls that say McCain is the best one to beat Hillary or Obama?
RUSH: Same thing I made of the polls in New Hampshire that said Obama was going to beat her by 5 to 12 points. The polls taken on an election in November of this year, polls taken today, mean nothing. If polls six, seven months out meant something, Rudy Giuliani would be the party nominee today, and the primaries would have confirmed that, because six months ago -- well, seven now -- Rudy Giuliani owned everything. Now, he was the Republican nominee and nobody was even close, and this was before Huckabee had officially gotten in it. I'm telling you, polls right now are being driven by the Drive-Bys. The Drive-Bys, in their own Poll-It Bureau, and their purpose of polls is to make news and shape public opinion, not reflect it. I'm telling you, all you need to do, check out who the Drive-Bys think our stars are and go the opposite way. They are not interested in promoting conservatism or conservatives. They want to destroy it. Our guys don't get this. They want to defeat conservatives.
They want to get rid of us as a competitive force. We ought to have the same attitude about them. We don't. We're trying to find ways to make them understand us. We're trying to make inroads so they like us, so they might even join us, when they're not even interested in that. How many of you in your personal life know somebody that hates you, or dislikes you? We all have that. How much time do you waste trying to figure out why? It's a lost cause, unless of course happens to be your spouse, then you gotta deal with that. But somebody at work, they hate you, and you go nuts trying to figure it out. The biggest mistake you can make is trying to be what they want you to be after you think you've figured it out. That isn't going to work and it certainly doesn't work because you're not being who you are. I told you, I ran across this little one-sentence saying the other day and it really made an impact on me, and I think that there is some validity to it in a lot of applications. And it is this: "Remember, people who hate you really want to be you." And that's probably closer to the truth than the fact that they genuinely hate you.
Some of you people, I'm sure, are genuinely hateful and worthy of being hated. There are some bad actors in every group of people. But most of you aren't. And yet somebody still hates you. If you're going to worry about why -- and that's what our party is doing -- why do they so misunderstand us? Why do they think we're racist and sexist? Then we got people who want to go out to prove to the genuine racists and sexists that they're not. Can I give you an example? The 1996 vice presidential debate, Algore, the incumbent, and Jack Kemp who ran along with Bob Dole, do you remember what Algore did in that debate on many things? He singled out Kemp. I'm going to have to paraphrase this, he singled out Kemp, he said, "By the way, Jack, I want to congratulate you for not being one of the bigots and racists in your party." And Kemp said, "Thank you, Mr. Vice President." There was smoke. There was smoke all along the Washington-New York Axis and all over the country. We got too many people on our side who want that kind of approval from the people who are the real racists, bigots, sexists or what have you. It's just maddening. Trying to get these people's approval cements the fact that we think we're a minority; we have to explain ourselves; we're always on defense. You can stuff that.
[QUOTE=Riggins44;2536673]Unfortunately, I agree with you. Matter of fact, did you notice how McCain, once again, started openly touting his very unpopular illegal alien amnesty schemes and was photographed just about every he went with former Democrat V.P. candidate Joe Lieberman once Hillary got trounced in North Carolina and the media pronounced Obama the certain winner in the Dem race?
It's almost like he knows Hillary would wipe the floor with his sorry a$$ and he's exhaling because he knows he's dodged another huge bullet...so he's coming out of the "liberal closet" again.[/QUOTE]i don't know if hillary would have beat him but we'll never know.but he's still gonna have a Demoratic House and Senate so he's gonna have work those boweavel dems big time.
The Republicans should put Newt in charge of the party. He looks like a cartoon character and I doubt he could ever win the Presidency, but he has more vision for the party than any of the hacks we read about daily.
[QUOTE=fukushimajin;2538264]I think everything is fine in the Republican party if they just hang tough and remember the keys to victory are:
1) Keep saying that Americans won't elect Obama (presumably because he's too black & muslim-like)
[COLOR="Blue"]I don;t think Republoicansd s ay this, but I do think they feel it. Obama does have many holes that can be exploited ........ particularly in the same states that you would figure might be more prone to have "caution" when electing a man with a Muslim name.[/COLOR]
2) Keep saying that all the Democrats want to do is raise taxes and ramp-up the debt.
[COLOR="blue"]it is always effective to broadcast that your opponent wants to raise taxes. Alone it might not win, but to many people, this can tilt their opinion. [/COLOR]
3) Keep insisting that our energy problems will be solved by ethanol and ANWR oil exloration.
[COLOR="blue"]Both parties blow it here. You can bet the Republicans will say they want nuclear power, hydropower and more and the environmental wing of the DEms will cry foul. [/COLOR]
4) Keep saying that universal health-care is socialist and un-american
[COLOR="blue"]If you know what socialist programs are, then you know that universal health care provoded through t he gov't follows socialism. If something is socialist, it is unAmerican as we are capitalists. That said, you are right....... people would like a better alternative. But I know that people who have and pay for health insurance do not want to pay even more so that others can have it.[/COLOR]
5) Keep pounding on the evils of latino immigration and Gay Rights.
[COLOR="blue"]Virtually everyone in thiscountry is concerned with immigration and latino is hardly what is being pounded - it is just the border with Mexdico that is drawing the most present concern. By the way, don;t yuo thinkt he party that yields to the popular call for true immigration reform will get a huge leg up in the election? If McCain announced today that he was in favor of a fence and no amnesty, he'd add bunches of points in the polls.[/COLOR]
6) Keep talking about appointing more Scalia-like "strict constructionists" to the Supreme Court.
[COLOR="blue"]This is the most important thing they can do because it ebergizes the base. More than any other issue, this got Bush elected. Any political pundit will tell you that to win, you have to keep your base energized. Pro traditional family and strict constructionist judges are keys to this. He won;t win without it ............. he would lose a huge chunk of the conservative vote. Ther are three main resaons many conservatives like me would consider voting for McCain....... judges, family values, lower taxes. Honestly, there's not much else about him to like imo.[/COLOR]
With these 6 pillars supporting them the Republicans can expect to be a part of a great electoral victory in November which will change the country forever.[/QUOTE]
Time will tell.
But have you considered the flip side. Obamam's keys to losing? How many candidates do you know who win election that support partial birth abortion, raising taxes and can be linked to antiAmerican rants like thoise of Rev Wright all while having a name that sounds much like our enemy? That is a tough sell to many parts of our country.
But have you considered the flip side. Obamam's keys to losing? How many candidates do you know who win election that support partial birth abortion, raising taxes and can be linked to antiAmerican rants like thoise of Rev Wright all while having a name that sounds much like our enemy? That is a tough sell to many parts of our country.[/QUOTE]
Sure Obama has vulnerabilities, but right now the Republicans' holes are so large you can drive a truck through them. If the Dems had nominated a white man named Bob Frank who was identical to Obama in every other way -- it would be a 40 state blow-out. Its not McCain's fault, but he's going to have an impossible time reassuring the base while not freaking out the middle and left who are just on fire right now. And let's not forget that for the first time in modern history, the Dems will have more $ to drop on advertising than the Repubs. Put that on top of their other problems and wow...
My only point is that those things I listed above used to be winners for the Republicans and just about all of them have to be tossed or re-packaged and that takes, minimum, two years to accomplish.
I think McCain actually has a good chance to win IF AND ONLY IF he shores up his base.
I think people are upset more with Bush personally than the conservative agenda that got him elected. Most Americans tend to be in favor of family values, God, lower taxes (even the patriot act) and (basically) a rejection of what has been modern liberalism (to which they will try strongly to tie Obama.) The quandary McCain finds himself in is very simple........... in many ways, he can be portrayed (pretty accurately) as anti-Bush, but part of that ability includes the fact that he is not considered a true conservative. Consequently, many of we Conservatives are considering not voting at all, handing the election to Obama, praying to God he does not screw the country up royally and letting the Republicans know that if they don't find candidates true to the vision of the base, the voters will not turn out. The hope would then be that Americans would learn that higher taxes and hte liberal agenda do far more harm than good (please remember, that's the thinking and time will tell if it would work.)
If McCain does indeed land Huckabee for VP, it would energize virtually all of the former Bush supporteres who are considering sitting this election out. If McCain chooses a VP with less appeal to the base, I think he will be in a lot of trouble.
Changing the base is not the agenda. Fulfilling promises is. Most conservatives against Bush are not as livid over the war as they are his runaway spending and imigration failures.
I happen to like some of Obama's personal qualities, but I disagree with his politics. If hillary ran, our resentment of her personally is so high, we would definitely vote for McCain and would never consider sitting this one out.