Gay Patriot Header Image

Conservatism Still Ascendant even if Democrats Prevail

As the woman who would be Speaker should the Democrats win a majority in Congress remains virtually invisible, the New York Times reports (via Best of the Web) that “Democrats have turned to conservative and moderate candidates who fit the profiles of their districts more closely than the profile of the national party.

Indeed, some of these candidates “have views on issues like gun control and abortion that are far out of step with the prevailing views of the Democrats who control the party. On some issues, they may even be expected to side with Republicans and the Bush White House.

Should enough of these candidates prevail next week, the Democrats will indeed recapture the House of Representatives. And while that would certainly be a defeat for the GOP, it would not be a defeat of conservatism — nor necessarily a victory for liberalism. Despite winning its majority on conservative ideas in 1994, in the most recent Congress, the GOP has hardly governed as a conservative party.

At the same time, as Republicans have moved away from the small-government ideas which have defined our party at least since Ronald Reagan’s victory in 1980, “a new CNN poll finds most Americans still agree with the bedrock conservative premise that, as the Gipper put it, ‘government is not the answer to our problems — government is the problem.’” (Via Instapundit).

Given that “54 percent of the 1,013 adults polled said they thought [government] was trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses,” it seems the the GOP might be in a stronger position to retain control of Congress had congressional Republicans promoted more policies to reduce the size and scope of the federal government.

That a number of Democrats are running on conservative ideas — and that the GOP has, in large measure, run from such ideas at least in terms of domestic policy — a Democratic victory next week, as I’ve said before, will hardly represent a realignment. Instead, it will show that more than a quarter-century after the Gipper’s election, his ideas continue to appeal to the American people.

And maybe a GOP loss (or a narrow victory) will convince Republicans to return to the ideas which have so helped our candidates in the past.

UPDATE:  In a great piece in the Wall Street Journal, with a theme similar to that of this post, Michael Barone, perhaps the shrewdest analyst of the American political landscape writes, “ideas are more important than partisan vote counts..”  He doesn’t “know what the results of the midterm elections of 2006 will be. But I doubt that they will have the sweeping partisan or policy consequences of the midterm elections of 1874 and 1894, or 1938 and 1994.”  Now that I’ve whet your appetite, as with anything by Barone, just read the whole thing.

UP-UPDATE: Looking at the same articles, Captain Ed finds that this “shows the success of the Reagan message, and once again underscores the profound impact he had on American politics” and observes that if:

the Republicans find themselves in trouble at the midterms, it may come in reaction to the extent that they have failed to grasp the Reagan message. The smaller-government message will still win elections, but the question may be for whom it wins those contests when the GOP fails to tend to its Reagan legacy.

Read the whole thing!

Share

33 Comments

  1. In 70% of the country Democrats must run as conservatives to win. In about 12 of these potential House races Tuesday they are trying to run to the right of their opponents. After being sucked up by the liberal leadership in the House, how do they win re election in ’08?

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — October 31, 2006 @ 12:53 am - October 31, 2006

  2. And maybe a GOP loss (or a narrow victory) will convince Republicans to return to the ideas which have so helped our candidates in the past.

    I sincerely hope so! At some point, I want to be able to vote for candidates I like, and who want my vote, and who have a chance of winning. 🙂

    Comment by kdogg36 — October 31, 2006 @ 12:56 am - October 31, 2006

  3. Funny how in a NYTs article about conservative democrats, gay marriage or even the word gay isn’t even mentioned once.

    Comment by John in IL — October 31, 2006 @ 1:17 am - October 31, 2006

  4. Interesting, John. Duly noted.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — October 31, 2006 @ 1:25 am - October 31, 2006

  5. As the woman who would be Speaker should the Democrats win a majority in Congress remains virtually invisible,

    Rush has an Amber Alert.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 31, 2006 @ 3:13 am - October 31, 2006

  6. I think you guys are over-analyzing re: Nancy Pelosi’s disappearance. Did you guys check the calendar? I think she’s too busy leading children into her gingerbread house to campaign.

    Comment by V the K — October 31, 2006 @ 6:36 am - October 31, 2006

  7. -But I doubt that they will have the sweeping partisan or policy consequences of the midterm elections of 1874 and 1894, or 1938 and 1994.“-

    Considering that the ’94 Republicans are now (possibly) being ushered out of office because of the same huge spending and endless scandals that doomed the Democrats, it won’t take much for any “wave” election this year to have more sweeping consequences than the ’94 group.

    The potential big lesson in this is that if Republicans had stuck to their conservatism and simple, common sense values on all these issues, they would be doing fine this year. Instead they let people like DeLay, like Musgrave, like Ney, like Jean Schmidt and Rick Santorum and so many others, become the face of their party.

    Comment by Carl — October 31, 2006 @ 8:17 am - October 31, 2006

  8. From that NYT article:

    -Despite his lack of political experience, polls indicate that he has pushed the Republican incumbent, Mr. Taylor, into a dead heat.-

    Actually, a number of polls have shown Shuler ahead, not in a dead heat, but I don’t expect the “liberal” NYT to say that. Funny how they also don’t mention Wall Street Journal’s scathing expose on Charles Taylor a few weeks ago.

    You should have seen the hysteria this NYT article caused at the far left MyDD. They said they would form a chain of human bodies to rise up and defeat Ellen Taushcer in 2008, or something along those lines. They are outraged that “their” party might be taken over by moderates. What they don’t seem to remember is that the election isn’t even here yet, and they may end up still in the minority, as always.

    Comment by Carl — October 31, 2006 @ 8:23 am - October 31, 2006

  9. Meanwhile, John Kerry Shows His Contempt for Soldiers Once Again

    Speaking before California students at a Democrat rally on Monday, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) again denigrated US troops. “You know education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. And if you don’t you get stuck in Iraq.”

    Note, he didn’t say, “And if you don’t, you get to go on welfare, collect food stamps, and have my party bus you around to several different locations on election day to vote.”

    Comment by V the K — October 31, 2006 @ 9:32 am - October 31, 2006

  10. Thanks, V, for starting the discussion on Lurch’s latest bout of verbal diarrhea. I’m very surprised that neither Dan nor Bruce have posted on this already.

    Good to be beack home, by the way…

    Eric in Hollywood

    Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — October 31, 2006 @ 11:52 am - October 31, 2006

  11. Speaking before California students at a Democrat rally on Monday, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) again denigrated US troops. “You know education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. And if you don’t you get stuck in Iraq.”

    Note, he didn’t say, “And if you don’t, you get to go on welfare, collect food stamps, and have my party bus you around to several different locations on election day to vote.” – V the K

    While I think Kerry’s vile comment deserves a post, you should do it on your own blog, or ask the GP’s to make one here for you. Or ask them to make you a Revolving BlogPatriot. Don’t hijack the thread.

    -But since you already have…;-) Kerry is an asshole. You know, even in the days of the Vietnam draft, the military wasn’t filled with idiots and people with without any education. Its even less that now.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — October 31, 2006 @ 11:55 am - October 31, 2006

  12. I got a better idea, Gryph. Why don’t you just play Thread-Nazi on your own blog and let Bruce and Dan police their own. (Typical leftie, always thinking he knows what’s best for everybody.)

    Comment by V the K — October 31, 2006 @ 12:45 pm - October 31, 2006

  13. Getting back to the original thread…

    Let me get this straight: so giving more seats for a party that you do not believe in – simply because you are more upset at the party that you share more in common with for not doing everything that they set out to do – will somehow make the leadership in Congress better?

    Sounds like “fuzzy math” to me.

    Then again, it looks as though the Dhimmicrap “tsunami” is turning out to be a washout. Check the following link for evidence:

    http://www.cqpolitics.com/2006/10/special_report_the_battering_r_1.html

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 31, 2006 @ 1:16 pm - October 31, 2006

  14. #12 – You’re the devil, V – ‘You made him do it.’ LOL

    Comment by Calarato — October 31, 2006 @ 1:26 pm - October 31, 2006

  15. You’re the devil, V

    Yes I Am!

    Comment by V the K — October 31, 2006 @ 1:41 pm - October 31, 2006

  16. Cute pic 🙂

    Re: Dan’s topic… I think it will be fascinating, IF the Dems win the House, to see how the fair-minded majority of Americans react to 2 years of pointless / abortive impeachment attempts in time of war.

    Re: Kerry’s new slam on our troops… GatewayPundit has a vid clip, a mini-roundup of a few blog reactions, and a link to a nice Armed Forces Press Services refutation of Kerry’s claim: http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/10/democratic-leader-john-f-kerry-trashes.html

    Comment by Calarato — October 31, 2006 @ 1:44 pm - October 31, 2006

  17. caption 6 – They Might Be Giants? (Particle Man?)

    Comment by Calarato — October 31, 2006 @ 1:47 pm - October 31, 2006

  18. IF the Dems win the House, to see how the fair-minded majority of Americans react to 2 years of pointless / abortive impeachment attempts in time of war.

    And how Americans react to surrender in Iraq, (Call it “redeployment all you want, but the fact is, when you do what your enemy wants you to do, that’s a surrender), and watching any judge who isn’t left of Ruth Bader Ginsburg get shot down, and don’t forget that Trillion dollar tax increase Charlie Rangel wants. (Rangel wants to repeal all Bush tax cuts, including the Child Tax Credit and other middle class tax relief. [We can’t all be like Claire McCaskill and have million dollar off-shore money laundering operations to avoid paying taxes. We can’t all be like Harry Reid and let our developer cronies pay our taxes for us.])

    Comment by V the K — October 31, 2006 @ 1:54 pm - October 31, 2006

  19. Yeah, that’s “Particle Man.” Also, imagine two years of that shrill Botox Bolshevik wielding the speaker’s gavel. After two years of that, will Americans really elect Hillary and face the prospect of a government run by two screeching leftist harridans?

    Comment by V the K — October 31, 2006 @ 1:59 pm - October 31, 2006

  20. #19 – “Also, imagine two years of that shrill Botox Bolshevik wielding the speaker’s gavel. After two years of that, will Americans really elect Hillary and face the prospect of a government run by two screeching leftist harridans?”

    EEEEEEK!!!! V da K, that is the SCARIEST image I’ve received this Halloween!!!

    Well, except for maybe that picture of Barbra Streisand on stage with that faux Bush, but we won’t go there. (Erase, erase, erase…)

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 31, 2006 @ 3:54 pm - October 31, 2006

  21. 5: Nice that you link to a mean spirited jerk who makes fun of someone with a debilitating disease. Bet you conservatives miss true, thoughtful people like Barry Goldwater

    Comment by Kevin — October 31, 2006 @ 7:07 pm - October 31, 2006

  22. 20: Isn’t interesting that when there are women you don’t like, they are constantly referred to as shrill or shrieking. Thanks for the dose of misogyny.

    Comment by Kevin — October 31, 2006 @ 7:11 pm - October 31, 2006

  23. Maybe you’re confusing cause and effect, Kevin?

    Comment by Frank IBC — October 31, 2006 @ 8:40 pm - October 31, 2006

  24. Of course, when lefties like Kevin make fun of Ann Coulter or Condi Rice, THAT’S not misogynistic.

    And this:

    Nice that you link to a mean spirited jerk who makes fun of someone with a debilitating disease.

    Nice try, Kevin.

    However, the majority of us have caught on to the Democrats’ game of trying to exploit the respect that people have for those who are veterans and those with disabilities as cover for spouting their party line and lies.

    Turns out Michael J. knew nothing about the amendment for which he was shilling; he only knew that he was asked to show up and shake and jive for the Democrats, so he did it.

    Since he’s already admitted in his own biography that he will go off his medicine for effect, I fail to see your point as well.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 31, 2006 @ 9:14 pm - October 31, 2006

  25. That sucking sound you just heard was ND30 taking the wind out of another windbag’s sails with pinpoint accuracy.

    As far as the “shrill” comment, shrill is as shrill does. Please get off the soapbox; the high altitude of the moral high ground is rather rarefied air, and I fear you will pass out from hypoxia.

    Checkmate.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — November 1, 2006 @ 12:51 am - November 1, 2006

  26. Haggard, Haggard, he’s our man. Another faithhead bites the dust. Bush sure can pick his advisors.

    Comment by Clarence — November 2, 2006 @ 8:20 pm - November 2, 2006

  27. Clarence (or should I call you Lumpy?), please provide evidence that Haggard was one of Bush’s advisors. I for one don’t think he ever set foot in the White House to talk to the President.

    I mean, it’s not like when Nancy Pelosi marched in the SF Gay Pride parade with the guy from NAMBLA, is it??

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — November 2, 2006 @ 8:49 pm - November 2, 2006

  28. Well, on Monday I was in the World Prayer Center and my cell phone rang. It was one of the special assistants to President Bush calling from the White House. It turns out that when the President was reviewing the list of those attending the signing of the partial birth abortion ban, he asked why I wasn’t attending and asked that they call me. So the White House staff got onto the phones and were calling the NAE Washington office, our church office and my cell phone at the same time trying to see if I could come to the signing.

    Comment by Clarence — November 2, 2006 @ 10:01 pm - November 2, 2006

  29. Of course I could. So I rearranged my schedule (thank you to those of you whose appointments got changed) and flew to Washington on Tuesday to be at the signing on Wednesday. I sat with those from the Senate and House who voted for the bill, and afterward was escorted to the President’s motorcade and taken to the White House. I and seven others were able to spend 55 minutes with the President in the Oval office discussing any issue we liked. It was incredible. I’ll tell you about the discussion in church.

    Comment by Clarence — November 2, 2006 @ 10:04 pm - November 2, 2006

  30. Jeff Sharlet reports that Haggard “talks to… Bush or his advisers every Monday” and opines that “no pastor in America holds more sway over the political direction of evangelicalism…”….. Jeff Sharlet (2005). “Soldiers of Christ: I. Inside America’s most powerful megachurch”. Harper’s 310

    Comment by Clarence — November 2, 2006 @ 10:52 pm - November 2, 2006

  31. Lumpy, why do I get the feeling that you are full of it? And that you are basically telling untruths?

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — November 3, 2006 @ 12:54 pm - November 3, 2006

  32. ya right, why do you suppose his church just fired him for “immoral conduct”. You need to sit down and take a good long, long look in the mirror bud. My empathy to the haggard family for the turmoil they are enduring.

    Comment by clarence — November 4, 2006 @ 5:49 pm - November 4, 2006

  33. […] Conservatism Still Ascendant even if Democrats Prevail (October 30, 2006) […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Posts* Where We Criticized GOP on Spending in Bush Era — April 17, 2009 @ 12:45 pm - April 17, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.