Time For Us To Go? Conservatives on why the GOP should lose in 2006.

[OrangeEmpire]

Sure, the neo-con faction with the Lowrys and the Kristols were the fastest rats off this boat, fleeing months ago, but some mainstream commentators are starting to speak out:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/...0610.forum.html

Could these two presidential terms and the leadership presiding over all three branches by the Republican Party, in critical historical review, be a sharp wake-up call to conventional conservatism?

 

[Lexvol]

I agree. I am amazed that both of the Bushes fail to take a play out of Reagan's play book and take the fight directly to the democrats by using the media to their advantage. I guess it speaks volumes to Reagan's communication skills.

He would have chewed the Deans, Schumers, and Clintons of the world up and spit them out. Of course this is also the price you pay for campaigning on the idea of "changing the tone" in Washington.

The bottom line is this, when you tax and spend you will lose your voting base.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

I guess it speaks volumes to Reagan's communication skills.

When asked about Iran Contra.....

I forgot.........................

But seriously, Clinton's communication skills made him who he was.

 

[therealUT]

I agree. I am amazed that both of the Bushes fail to take a play out of Reagan's play book and take the fight directly to the democrats by using the media to their advantage. I guess it speaks volumes to Reagan's communication skills.

He would have chewed the Deans, Schumers, and Clintons of the world up and spit them out. Of course this is also the price you pay for campaigning on the idea of "changing the tone" in Washington.

The bottom line is this, when you tax and spend you will lose your voting base.

Reagan might have been able to take the fight to the democrats, but to what gain? During the 12 years that Reagan and Bush #41 held office, there was never a Republican majority in congress. Reagan and Bush were not able to appoint the people they wanted on the Supreme Court and had to settle for moderates, which we are feeling the strain of to this very day.

 

[Lexvol]

Reagan might have been able to take the fight to the democrats, but to what gain? During the 12 years that Reagan and Bush #41 held office, there was never a Republican majority in congress. Reagan and Bush were not able to appoint the people they wanted on the Supreme Court and had to settle for moderates, which we are feeling the strain of to this very day.

Though Reagan must take some responsibility for that he was dealing with democratic house and senate members that were entrenched in their seats. It was also a period of history where the dems stilled ruled the south. It was only after Reagan's presidency that "southern democrats" realized how far to the left the dems were headed. One could easily credit Reagan's communication style with the strategy behind the now defunct "Contract with America" and the eventual taking of the Senate and House.

 

[CSpindizzy]

I think the Southern Democrats went for the survivability factor rather than fight for their party. You'd think this 'principled' region would have turned out some Southern Dems with cojones instead of watching them all defect. But when it comes down to it, the Southern Dems are technically still in office in the form of Southern Republicans. You still have social conservative fiscal moderates and liberals running the show. Look who has been running the show and look how this has turned out with bigger government, bigger debts, etc.