November 19, 2010
A Cautionary Note for Republicans
A self-reinforcing ailment appears to be involved with Nancy Pelosi's retention of her leadership role in the U.S. House:
"She is the face that defeated us in this last election," declared Florida Rep. Allen Boyd, who was among those who lost re-election fights. However, Pelosi, who presided over big Democratic gains in the 2006 and 2008 elections, remains popular among the liberals who dominate her caucus more than ever. Dissident moderates could not find enough votes to force her aside.In fact, the Democrats kept their entire leadership team intact despite election losses that President Barack Obama called "a shellacking." They elected Steny Hoyer of Maryland to keep the No. 2 post and Jim Clyburn of South Carolina to hold the third-ranking position, which will be renamed "assistant leader."
As Democrats in less-liberal districts lose their seats with the shift of independents back toward Republicans, the liberals' voice in the national party will become more overwhelming. That doesn't mean that certain scenarios wouldn't lead them back to dominance of the House, but it does mean that the competition will remain the Republicans' to lose. Americans, generally, don't like what they've seen in the Democrat Left.
Republicans should learn an additional lesson. Among the reasons they lost Congress and the Presidency over the last decade was their drift from principles of limited, transparent government. Sticking to that unifying theme doesn't mean — as libertarians, liberals, and "moderates" like to aver — that elected officers should suppress the issues of their conservative base. But it does mean that conservatives shouldn't allow short-term victories on their issues to overwhelm the message or the practice. They can and should work to control immigration, stop the advance of same-sex marriage, and end the practice of abortion, for example, but they shouldn't, like the Democrats, throw the rules of government out the window and ignore clear messages from voters in the process.
They certainly should not make abortion and same sex marriage a priority if they want to keep the independents. Most voters in the middle are apathetic to both sides of those arguments.
Posted by: G-Man at November 19, 2010 11:31 AM If the incoming Republicans are as obsessed with stopping same-sex marriage as Justin is, they will lose their new majority.
It was easy to unite Republicans behind the common goal of defeating Democrats. But if they're foolish enough to garrot Scott Brown and Olympia Snowe because they're not anti-gay enough...I so see it coming.
If the incoming Republicans are as obsessed with stopping same-sex marriage as Justin is, they will lose their new majority.
It was easy to unite Republicans behind the common goal of defeating Democrats. But if they're foolish enough to garrot Scott Brown and Olympia Snowe because they're not anti-gay enough...I so see it coming.
""stop the advance of same-sex marriage, and end the practice of abortion""
Not going to happen...never
Your day dreaming
I am 100% pro-life
Posted by: Sammy at November 20, 2010 12:20 AMThe only thing that is left to do about abortion is to make sure Federal funds don't get sneaked in.
Roe v.Wade isn't going to be overturned-I may not like that but it's a fact I accept.
Just like the social engineers have to accept Heller and McDonald.
It is also imperative that no minor undergoes an elective procedure without parental notification.That goes way beyond the issue of abortion.There is no justification to sidestep accepted medical practice for politicaal expediency.
Republicans are for limited gov't right?
Then why do they feel the need to intrude on a woman's and a gay couple's life.
That and their religous zeal turns me off.
I do despise Democrats, though,
so I'm a Republican with an asterik beside it.
1. Women — and men — have no right to kill other people, regardless of the location of that person, except in self-defense.
2. Truly limited government requires the culture to do some of the work maintaining morality, and marriage is a key institution toward accomplishing that — not having anything to do with homosexuality, but having to do with the relationships of adults who can create children within their relationships and (of course) the children thus created. It does not interfere with "a gay couple's life" to acknowledge that their relationship is not the same as a heterosexual couple's in a very specific way.
The first thing the Republicans want to do is make sure their wealthy patrons are served. That includes first and foremost the extension of the huge tax revenue looting that is the so called Bush tax cuts and then it'll be the dismantling of the new financial reforms. But then and only then will the rubes get their sideshows of investigations. Once a week Monique and Marc and others here will delight in the details of the investigations of maybe the New Black Pathers and of course Acorn. As billionaires grow richer and richer and are not restrained from doing more damage to the economy , you'll have your circuses.
Justin writes " They can and should work to control immigration, stop the advance of same-sex marriage, and end the practice of abortion". Why would they touch these issuses? They come in handy at election time.