11/11/2006

Where to go, what to do




The midterm election results made one thing painfully clear: voters wanted Republicans out. Liberal Republicans like Lincoln Chafee and conservative ones like Rick Santorum were both given the boot, as were GOP incumbents all throughout the House of Representatives.

These few days after the election have been a time for Republicans to point fingers, place blame, and theorize as to why this happened. Karl Rove says it's more about a perception of corruption, as well as the Foley and Haggert scandals, that did them in. Rush Limbaugh says it was the failure of candidates to stand for what they believe with any believability. Pat Toomey of National Review says it's due to the GOP's rejection of limited government. Ann Coulter says it's because Democrats like Webb, Casey and Tester basically ran as Republicans. Charles Krauthammer says it's Iraq, stupid.

As exit polling data and future polling results come in, we may get a better explanation as to why the country abandoned the Republicans. The best indication of the answer lies in the fact that self-described moderates and Independents went overwhelmingly for the Democratic Party.

This should be the key for the losers on Tuesday. The Democrats won because the Republican Party had been hijacked by extremists: divisive, arrogant, and corrupt far-right politicians whose blunders and sins were limitless. Chaffee lost simply because of the sins of this party. Unfortunately, the party wasn't even very good at appealing to their extremist base. Evangelicals were almost evenly split between blue and red.

This should be a sign for 2008. No George Allen, Sam Brownback, Bill Frist, or Jeb Bush for the Republican nomination, please. The country doesn't want 'em.

6 comments:

Michael Corcoran said...

And no Mitt Romney

Jeff said...

No Condi either... Please...

prp said...

"Extremists"? Only an extremist on the other side of the aisle would consider any out-going Republicans to be extremist.

Romney wouldn't be bad.

Patrick Boyle said...

Phil,
Give me a break.

George Allen:

--From the New Republic: "Campaigning for governor in 1993, he admitted to prominently displaying a Confederate flag in his living room. He said it was part of a flag collection--and had been removed at the start of his gubernatorial bid. When it was learned that he kept a noose hanging on a ficus tree in his law office, he said it was part of a Western memorabilia collection. These explanations may be sincere. But, as a chief executive, he also compiled a controversial record on race. In 1994, he said he would accept an honorary membership at a Richmond social club with a well-known history of discrimination-- an invitation that the three previous governors had refused. After an outcry, Allen rejected the offer. He replaced the only black member of the University of Virginia (UVA) Board of Visitors with a white one. He issued a proclamation drafted by the Sons of Confederate Veterans declaring April Confederate History and Heritage Month. The text celebrated Dixie's 'four-year struggle for independence and sovereign rights.' There was no mention of slavery. After some of the early flaps, a headline in The Washington Post read, 'governor seen leading va. back in time.'"
--Opposes sexual orientation being protected by civil rights laws.
--Opposes spending to stop global warming.
--100% rating from the Christian Coalition.
--0% APHA rating (an anti-public health voting record).

Rick Santorum:
--From wikipedia: "In response to a question about how to prevent sexual abuse of children by priests, Santorum described homosexual acts as part of a class of deviant sexual behavior that is "antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family". Santorum further stated that he does not agree with the extension of privacy rights dependent on Griswold v. Connecticut.

"Santorum said the priests were engaged in "a basic homosexual relationship" with "post-pubescent men", and went on to say that he had "a problem with homosexual acts"; that the right to privacy "doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution"; that, "whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, whether it's sodomy, all of those things are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family"; and that sodomy laws properly exist to prevent acts that "undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family".
--Also 100% Christian Coalition rating, 0% labor, 0% environmental blah blah blah

Conrad Burns:
-- Called Muslims "ragheads." Does that mean he's an extremist? I don't know, but he is an asshole.


Oh, I didn't include Tom Delay, Bob Ney, or Randy Cunningham in this list.

prp said...

Uh, and I'm certain that most every one of those sentiments are far from "extremist" in many parts of the country. They're just unsavory in Yankee New England. And even then, I remember soon after 9/11, a Sihk (Sikh?) man was arrested in supposed connection to the attack at a Providence bus station and was nearly carried off by an angry mob. "Raghead" is common everywhere, and I even see the Stars n Bars in New Hampshire sometimes.

Patrick Boyle said...

Phil,

Whether or not the things I listed are acceptable in "many" (as of yet undefined by you) parts of the country is kind of irrelevent. When I think extremist, at least in terms of defining candidates in an election year, I think people who are too extreme for most of the country, or most of their constituency. To say that Santorum's comments about gays, Allen's relationship with blacks, Burn's comment, and all of their policies, are only unsavory in the Northeast is not only incorrect, it's insulting to the untold millions in the rest of the country (including, yes, the South) who aren't backwards hicks.

And to say that anti-Muslim or Arab sentiment immediately following 9/11 in some way makes Burn's "raghead" comment acceptable or mainstream is laughable. I mean, "'Raghead'" is common everywhere"? Really? Everywhere?