The Real Reason Republicans Lost

[The Paineful Truth]

Yes the war was an issue, especially in the Northeast, but this revolt was widespread. It wasn't about God, or abortion or stem-cell research or prayer in school. It's the economy stupid and Republican fiscal liberalism.

 

Victor Davis Hanson excerpt from last December:

Take the economy. In Bush's first term, the president ballooned the federal deficit. But that red ink wasn't because of too little money coming in. In fact, the ensuing growth of the economy produced more annual adjusted revenue for the Treasury than had been produced before the Bush tax cuts. This year there has been a whopping 14.6 percent increase in federal income over last.

 

No, the real culprit was overly liberal federal spending in Bush's first term. Not counting the war and domestic security, the president still increased discretionary federal entitlements on average by almost 9 percent a year — signing big-ticket items like the No Child Left Behind Act and a Medicare prescription drug bill. The president did not veto a single spending proposal.

 

So how does a big-government Democrat score points against a president who outpaced Bill Clinton 3 to 1 in increasing the rate of federal spending?

 

Democrats have tried the "tax cuts for the wealthy" approach. But, then, how is it that almost every American got some tax relief — and that most in the upper brackets still pay over 50 percent of their salaries when federal, state, local and payroll taxes are considered altogether? Furthermore, unemployment and interest rates remain low, while consumer spending and the gross domestic product soar.

 

Herman Cain wrote yesterday:

Bush has further abandoned fiscal conservatism on federal spending, one of the bedrock principles of conservative ideology. According to Richard Viguerie, author of Conservatives Betrayed, federal spending rose by 4.7 percent in President Clinton's first term, and 3.7 percent in his second term. Federal spending rose 19.2 percent in Bush's first term alone.

 

Bush has now all but said amnesty for illegal aliens is a done deal, and they just turned their heads when anyone mentioned tax reform. They barely ran on keeping the tax cut.

 

And guess who's receiving a lot of impetus for a run at the Republican nomination in '08? Newt. He's one of the few with any credibility left. He led the Contract with America takeover in '94, and is one of the few that didn't sell out due to all the bright lights, cameras and cocktail party invitations inside the Beltway. I'm far from deciding yet, but this situation was made to order for him. There'll be others like him popping up, in both parties.

 

The Democrats didn't win this election, hell they had no agenda. The Republicans merely sat on their star-struck asses and tossed it.

[garrisonjj]

Yes the war was

 

Clipped huge middle of a Full Quote with NO answer to it. Garrison,

Q U I T quoting the whole damn post above you without an answer to it.

I will not ask again.

 

kFL

The Democrats didn't win this election, hell they had no agenda. The Republicans merely sat on their star-struck asses and tossed it.

[trashy]

So, garissonjj - did you actually have a comment to make or are you just fond of repeating entire posts?

[trashy]

Economic impact on voting usually has to do with runaway inflation, lots of unemployment, high gas prices, etc. Think Jimmy Carter. Voters don't usually give a rip about the federal budget deficit or trade imbalance. Novak says it was all about the war. Cal Thomas notes that ONE-THIRD of white evangelicals voted Democrat, mostly due to perceived corruption in the GOP. Michael Medved points out that the Montana and Senate races had 3rd party conservative candidates who drew off many more votes than the margin of victory.

 

Of course, there is a LONG history of 6th-year election swings under two-term presidents. I think it's voter fatigue. Or maybe a whole lot of conservatives listened to NPR interviewing the author of Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone. Who knows.

[The Paineful Truth]

You're right that the economy is good, but fiscal conservatives turned on Republicans on Tuesday (while the so-called social conservatives sat it out), believing them to be the party of Big Government. Given the numbers, they'd be right. But they also know the Democrats are the party of Bigger Government given the chance. On his show, Rush was trying to convince people (in so many words) not to vote to purge the party. Looks like he failed, so now he's trying to give the defeat as much polish as possible.

 

I think most conservatives/libertarians feel it was either necessary now or at least better that it happened now, and get things overhauled by '08 instead of waiting till then to do it. I don't think it was part of the thinking that they'd loose the Senate too--leaving only Georgie and his new tone fear of using the veto standing in the Dems way.

 

(NPR? Nationalized People's Radio????? Of Big Government, by Big Government, for Big Government.)

[woodsmoke]

National Public Radio. The only major news outlet worth any mention or attention.

[The Paineful Truth]

If it's worth so much, why is Big Government's money necessary to keep it on the air? The most reliable, least biased, source of news and information we have is the Wall Street Journal.

[Dave]

.....The Democrats didn't win this election, hell they had no agenda. The Republicans merely sat on their star-struck asses and tossed it.

That the Democrats have no agenda is just another of the lies that the Republicans told until the ignorant believed them. The corruption, incompetence, and lies of the Republicans caused their own downfall.

[roman]

If it's worth so much, why is Big Government's money necessary to keep it on the air? The most reliable, least biased, source of news and information we have is the Wall Street Journal.

It's hard to believe, in this day and age, that anybody is ignorant of member-supported Public Radio (which also receives grants). Big Government, as you call it, hates NPR (this administration, anyway). I respect your choice of WSJ, but as for me and my house, we choose Public Broadcasting and Air America.

[woodsmoke]

If it's worth so much, why is Big Government's money necessary to keep it on the air? The most reliable, least biased, source of news and information we have is the Wall Street Journal.

 

 

You can't be serious.

[Piprus]

If it's worth so much, why is Big Government's money necessary to keep it on the air? The most reliable, least biased, source of news and information we have is the Wall Street Journal.

 

I'm skeptical on that one, Paineful...a medium, be it the WSJ, NPR, or Rush Limbaugh, plays to its audience or subscribership. Real objectivity is elusive.

[The Paineful Truth]

I don't believe objectivity is the problem itself, it's denying that it exists or that it is merely an obstacle to be overcome. The real test of objectivity here is not so much the lying, but how much of the opposing opinions you downplay or ignore. NPR (just another mouthpiece for the NYT, but on the government dole) and Rush (who admits to his bias but not how he implements it) both (all) do it. Rating them on a bias index, I'd rate the NYT at 30%, Rush at 55%, and the WSJ at 90%, not including the opinion sections, which accounts for the difference between Rush and the NYT.

 

The only difference between these estimates and nothing is that you can print them and then use them to prevent having to wipe your ass with your hand. But hey, then they have some value.

[Ex-COG]

The problem with objectivity is that its 100% unobtainable. We may all try to be objective, but our personal biases get in the way. The same goes for organizations and corporations as it does for individuals. The best thing to do is get your information from multiple sources with different viewpoints. The truth is usually between all of them.

[euphgeek]

True objectivity may be unattainable, but I read about a study a couple years ago that found that people who got their news from PBS tended to be better informed of the facts, as opposed to those who got their news from CNN or Fox News. Fox News watchers tended to be the least informed (big surprise).

[woodsmoke]

That reminds me of another study showing regular viewers of The Daily Show tended to be the most well-informed of those who regularly follow political news (makes sense, considering you have to be informed of current events to appreciate the humor).

 

Thing is, quite a few of those same Daily Show fans also stated they get their news primarily from NPR and PBS.

 

Rating them on a bias index, I'd rate the NYT at 30%, Rush at 55%, and the WSJ at 90%

 

Wait..

 

Are you honestly suggesting NPR is less objective than Rush fucking Limbaugh?

[euphgeek]

That reminds me of another study showing regular viewers of The Daily Show tended to be the most well-informed of those who regularly follow political news (makes sense, considering you have to be informed of current events to appreciate the humor).

 

Thing is, quite a few of those same Daily Show fans also stated they get their news primarily from NPR and PBS.

Yeah, I think it's great what TDS has done. They've basically made current events popular, something all young people like to watch. And in some ways they do a better job than the MSM. For example, exposing the lies of politicians by playing back their own words that they deny saying.

[The Paineful Truth]

woodsmoke wrote:

Are you honestly suggesting NPR is less objective than Rush fucking Limbaugh?

 

No, only that the NYT/NPR presents more of their opinion as fact than Limbaugh does. Unfortunately most of Limbaugh's critics base their criticism on hearsay--10th or 12th hand. But they do listen for 60 to 90 seconds once so they can say, "Yeah, I listened."

You can't be serious.

 

I didn't name it National PUBLIC Radio.

 

roman wrote:

but as for me and my house, we choose Public Broadcasting and Air America.

 

Air America. ............................................ it's worse than I thought.

 

Ex-cog wrote:

The problem with objectivity is that its 100% unobtainable.

 

Does that include the fact that a round wheel rolls and a square one doesn't? Or you got square wheels on your Prius, in your garage with 0 miles?

 

Piprus wrote:

I'm skeptical on that one, Paineful...a medium, be it the WSJ, NPR, or Rush Limbaugh, plays to its audience or subscribership. Real objectivity is elusive.

 

Note I said that none of them were 100% unbiased. It's a matter of degree. Of course, those who fail to correct back to course, sort of like the churches, are the greatest obstacles to the Truth.

[roman]

The problem with objectivity is that its 100% unobtainable.

Not true.

 

woodsmoke wrote:

roman wrote:

but as for me and my house, we choose Public Broadcasting and Air America.

 

Air America. ............................................ it's worse than I thought.

 

What is?

 

Why should I care what you think?

[Japedo]

woodsmoke wrote:

Are you honestly suggesting NPR is less objective than Rush fucking Limbaugh?

 

No, only that the NYT/NPR presents more of their opinion as fact than Limbaugh does. Unfortunately most of Limbaugh's critics base their criticism on hearsay--10th or 12th hand. But they do listen for 60 to 90 seconds once so they can say, "Yeah, I listened."

 

 

Here's a lil fact you've conveniently left out about Rush. He's an Entertainer and not a journalist. He makes his show on his OPINION and political spin.

 

The fact that you take him as a legitimate news source explains a lot of your posts and misconceptions about 'evil liberals', Even most ditto heads know he's an entertainer... for you to say he gives more facts then NPR is laughable. Rush wouldn't know the truth if it bit him on his formally nicotine stained,doped up ass. He's a GOP propagandist at best and a joke of an 'entertainer' .

 

 

(Yes his terminology is intentionally peppered thru my post so you couldn't claim I was a 30 second SoundBits listener )