Why R's must not get too overconfident following a 2010 win

Just want to rap about whatever you want and it doesn't fit any other category? Do it in here.

Why R's must not get too overconfident following a 2010 win

Unread postby Estil » Tue May 18, 2010 7:43 am

Now, as my fellow conservatives know, our main goal is to take back control of Congress so as to provide a proper check on BO's far left ideas. Not to mention I'd be pleased as punch to see one of the Big Three (Harry Reid) get the ol' heave ho, like Tom Daschlle did back in 2002/2004 (who if you recall was the leader of the opposition vs. Bush at the time). But even should we indeed prevail, we must not get too overconfident about our chances of unseating the Rock Star, the Chosen One, the Messiah in 2012. Why is that you might ask? I can give three examples:

*1981-1982--Ronald Reagan was having a pretty tough time with the big recession at the time (which arguably was just as bad if not worse than the current one believe it or not) and while for conservatives at least, Reaganomics ushered in the longest era of peacetime prosperity, it was a VERY tough sell when Reagan was first proposing it. Even his own VP called it "woodoo economics" back when he was running against Reagan for the R's ticket in 1980. As for the spending cuts Reagan believed were vital for achieving a balanced federal budget (which in his autobiography he said was the one main thing he regrets he was not successful in), his good buddy (and political rival) Tip O'Neill was standing in the way the whole time. Now, the R's may consider him great and destined for Mt. Rushmore or something now, but back then his chances of re-election looked pretty uncertain at best. But he went on to win 49 states.

*1989-91--George Bush was just coming off of an impressive victory in the Gulf War, was riding high on a near 90% approval rating, and it looked like he'd have no trouble at all getting re-elected. But then his breaking of his "read my lips" promise (well sort of, there weren't technically any NEW taxes) in 1990 caught up with him, not to mention Perot stole quite a few votes for him, and Bill Clinton went on to win, but with a quite meager 43% of the popular vote.

*1993-94--Bill Clinton was in major trouble at this time. His health care plan proposal was a total flop, he came under considerable fire for his handling of the gays in the miltary issue, and let's face it, that whole Waco disaster didn't help either. And let's not forget that big 1993 tax increase for everyone (after he promised tax cuts for the middle class) This lead the way to the big Republican Revolution in 1994 (which we hope to repeat this year). Looked like Clinton's goose would be cooked come re-election time, right? Nope. All he had to do was latch on to some of the R's proposals (especially welfare to work) that he knew was quite politically fashionable (as well as move more towards the center overall on economic issues), and of course was more than happy to give himself credit for them come 1996 election time. Not to mention the economy was doing quite well (which actually had it's beginnings near the end of the Bush 41 administration, but of course was too late to save him). Thus, he won re-election by roughly the same margin as 1996, but again without a majority of the popular vote (48%).

See what I mean folks? Even if the R's do indeed win big time in 2010 like we did in 1994, don't think necessarily BO's dead in the water. We absolutely must stay focused and keep our eyes on the prize (White House) in 2012), and it'll be quite interesting to see if BO will copy Clinton's strategery (of moving to the center) for political reasons. Or he could just remain an ultra liberal like always. I'm leaning towards the latter but I wouldn't exactly put it past BO to do the former either.
Estil
Media observer
 
Posts: 77
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 10:26 pm

Why R's must not get too overconfident following a 2010 win

Sponsor

Sponsor
 

Re: Why R's must not get too overconfident following a 2010 win

Unread postby yo08u34 » Tue May 18, 2010 8:14 am

Estil wrote:
*1989-91--George Bush was just coming off of an impressive victory in the Gulf War.


How do you define victory ?
I am the pacifier to all your problems :) btw, my name is David
User avatar
yo08u34
Media analyst
 
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 5:03 pm
Location: Where Bernie lives :)

Re: Why R's must not get too overconfident following a 2010 win

Unread postby Estil » Tue May 18, 2010 8:19 am

That we achieved our primary goal (booting Saddam out of Kuwait) in just a few days. As for why Bush didn't finish the job so to speak (overthrow Saddam) is a whole different debate.
Estil
Media observer
 
Posts: 77
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 10:26 pm

Re: Why R's must not get too overconfident following a 2010 win

Unread postby Cap'n Billy » Tue May 18, 2010 8:46 am

yo08u34 wrote:How do you define victory ?
Is this your idea of a substantial contribution to this forum? And where do you think you are, Jeopardy?
Edit: And to everyone else, just because this poster throws out inane questions to almost every poster doesn't mean you have to answer them.
"Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised and often condemned. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating or is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty." - Robert Heinlein (Truncated to fit)
User avatar
Cap'n Billy
Media GOD!
 
Posts: 1856
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 5:20 pm
Location: South Carolina

Re: Why R's must not get too overconfident following a 2010 win

Unread postby yo08u34 » Tue May 18, 2010 9:37 am

Estil wrote:That we achieved our primary goal (booting Saddam out of Kuwait) in just a few days. As for why Bush didn't finish the job so to speak (overthrow Saddam) is a whole different debate.


But once Saddam was thrown out, a cruel dictatorship took over Kuwait.
Last edited by yo08u34 on Tue May 18, 2010 9:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
I am the pacifier to all your problems :) btw, my name is David
User avatar
yo08u34
Media analyst
 
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 5:03 pm
Location: Where Bernie lives :)

Re: Why R's must not get too overconfident following a 2010 win

Unread postby yo08u34 » Tue May 18, 2010 9:39 am

Cap'n Billy wrote:
yo08u34 wrote:How do you define victory ?
Is this your idea of a substantial contribution to this forum? And where do you think you are, Jeopardy?
Edit: And to everyone else, just because this poster throws out inane questions to almost every poster doesn't mean you have to answer them.


Cap'n, I know I am not in jeopardy :) I am just curious about how people think :)
I am the pacifier to all your problems :) btw, my name is David
User avatar
yo08u34
Media analyst
 
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 5:03 pm
Location: Where Bernie lives :)

Unread postby Japanklet » Wed May 19, 2010 4:24 pm

Good post, Estil! Those are excellent points. Republicans should certainly keep those in mind lest they become over-confident. (My English teachers would be proud that I used “lest” in a sentence.)

If all goes perfectly this November and Republicans win a majority in both the House and the Senate, there’s a chance that it might actually help Obama in 2012. For the remaining two years of his administration, he’ll be constantly blaming Congress for everything that goes wrong. I can hear him now . . .

“The Republican Congress of ‘No’ has done everything it can to keep you unemployed, uneducated, hungry and poor! They have tried to stop and reverse all the progress that we made during my first two years in office, and they are going to take even more away from you unless you vote Democratic in all your local races and keep progressive leadership in the Oval Office for another four years!”

We’ll have to come up with an effective counter-strategy for that.

Ironically, one factor that might help Republicans in 2012 will be Hillary. A few months ago I would’ve laughed that off, but I’ve recently heard several pundits say that it deserves serious thought. They say that Hillary could decide that Obama’s eight years in office might damage the Democratic Party so much as to make a 2016 win for her very unlikely, and that her chances might actually be better in 2012, when independent voters might see her as a “moderate” alternative to Obama. The first indication of her intentions will be if she comes up with a “non-political” reason to resign her position in early 2011.

(The idea that Obama might make so many mistakes that the Democratic Party will draft Hillary in 2012 is, in my opinion, extremely unlikely, and I think Hillary would agree with me.)

Japanklet
Note: To cut down on screen clutter on my tiny monitor, my computer is set to block all pictures that appear in the signatures of other posters. Because of that, I cannot see them nor comment on them. Thanks.—Japanklet
User avatar
Japanklet
Media analyst
 
Posts: 254
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 2:00 am

Re: Why R's must not get too overconfident following a 2010 win

Unread postby Estil » Wed May 19, 2010 9:32 pm

Hilary challenging an incumbent President for the party nomination? TOUGH JOB. Now, Reagan just barely missed doing so in 1976, and the only other serious challenger I can think of in recent history was Pat Buchanan in 1992 (but that didn't make it all that far). Still, I don't think any President that faced a serious challenge for their party's nomination for re-election ever went on to win re-election. So if it does come to that, that's got to be a VERY good sign for either Palin or Ron Paul (I bet they'll both be on the R's ticket in 2012--now which one gets the top ticket is anyone's guess; while I'd love to see the first woman President and be on OUR side, I actually think Ron Paul with his libertarian leanings may actually match my overall political beliefs a bit more).
Estil
Media observer
 
Posts: 77
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 10:26 pm

Re: Why R's must not get too overconfident following a 2010 win

Unread postby tim.ned@gmail.com » Wed May 19, 2010 10:45 pm

Excellent points JP and Estil

I hope the repub's leverage some of the younger and brighter stars in the party. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin has laid out a plan clearly on his web site of what our nation needs to do. They need to look to Tim Pawlenty and observe how he has fought a very liberal legislature here and won. Newt Gingrich needs to be active and structuring the game plan and layout the ten major issues concerning Americans. He has written about these issues that are conservative values that 85 percent of Americans support. More importantly, the next republican candidate cannot be talked into debates on clearly left wing media organizations as McCain did.

Here is Paul Ryans strategy.

http://www.house.gov/ryan/PCA/

I agree with some of the foreign policies of Buchanan and Ron Paul but I can't support Paul based upon what I see as isolationist strategies.
"Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other." Ronald Reagan
tim.ned@gmail.com
Media GOD!
 
Posts: 1059
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:54 am

Re: Why R's must not get too overconfident following a 2010 win

Unread postby yo08u34 » Thu May 20, 2010 12:41 am

Estil wrote: I actually think Ron Paul with his libertarian leanings may actually match my overall political beliefs a bit more.


So you might vote for Ron Paul ?
I am the pacifier to all your problems :) btw, my name is David
User avatar
yo08u34
Media analyst
 
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 5:03 pm
Location: Where Bernie lives :)

Re: Why R's must not get too overconfident following a 2010 win

Unread postby Estil » Thu May 20, 2010 7:34 am

If you mean in the primary, I gotta go with my girl. :D But I think Ron Paul would be a totally acceptable alternative. His son will hopefully be our newest Senator after all. Bottom line, as long as we get a TRUE pro-life conservative this time, it's all good.

But still, after the D's made history in 2008 by electing the first biracial President, it would be super nice for 2012 to be OUR turn to make history, if you get my drift.
Estil
Media observer
 
Posts: 77
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 10:26 pm

Re: Why R's must not get too overconfident following a 2010 win

Unread postby Cap'n Billy » Thu May 20, 2010 8:11 am

This column should sober up some of us whose expectations may be too high for the GOP in 2010-12, and give us a few chuckles to boot. For example:
As Pat Caddell says, Democrats are whores, but they expect to be paid; Republicans' names are scrawled on the bathroom wall: "For a good time, call the GOP!"
"Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised and often condemned. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating or is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty." - Robert Heinlein (Truncated to fit)
User avatar
Cap'n Billy
Media GOD!
 
Posts: 1856
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 5:20 pm
Location: South Carolina

Re: Why R's must not get too overconfident following a 2010 win

Unread postby Media Rookie » Thu May 20, 2010 9:18 am

I personally do not think we should make broad predictions based on one part of the country. Everyone seemed to think Health Care would be stopped after Scott Brown's election. You see where that got us. In the case of Murtha's seat election, I listened to an interview with a blogger that lives in PA. According to her, the people of PA-12 are only interested in what their representative can bring home from Washington. There's no real industry and Murtha could call his constituents everything in the book, and he did, and they'd still vote for whoever brought home the bacon.

I live in Rep. Lewis district and I am hoping we can have him booted, but I'm not very hopeful. Even after not disproving the lie that he was called the n-word, people around here just vote for him b/c he was a Civil Rigts icon. And trust me I find that very admirable, but I think it foolish to vote for someone due to their actions 40 years ago. All he does now is vote party line and I don't want that regardless of parties.
"Well, today's eight-year-olds are tomorrow's teenagers. I say this calls for action and now. Nip it in the bud. First sign of youngsters going wrong, you've got to nip it in the bud." - Barney Fife
User avatar
Media Rookie
Media watchdog!
 
Posts: 854
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 11:45 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Why R's must not get too overconfident following a 2010 win

Unread postby 6079smithW » Thu May 20, 2010 10:41 am

I actually have to agree with most of you, counting the chickens in May is a bad idea.

There have been seven special elections for U.S. House seats since the president's inauguration 16 months ago: NY20, IL5, CA32, CA10, NY23, FL19, and PA12. Democrats have won all seven.

Apparently, there's an enthusiasm gap between charged up Republican voters, and Democratic voters who aren't sure that they care. But if "it's the economy, stupid," then Republicans probably aren't going to have much to work with by the Fall, other than "it should be even better." If only we had let all of the banks fail, and balanced the budget, back in January 2009, then everything would be perfect ... except for that whole "no job and no place to live" thing.

Time for all true patriots to join the Limbaugh/Beck prayer group, and plead with the Almighty for a massive terrorist attack by foreigners on American soil coupled with a double-dip recession. That's what patriots everywhere are praying for these days, to save us from Communism.
User avatar
6079smithW
Media GOD!
 
Posts: 1985
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 2:42 pm

Re: Why R's must not get too overconfident following a 2010 win

Unread postby Estil » Thu May 20, 2010 8:24 pm

Yes, you are right also; we do still have 5 1/2 months or so to go so we must keep our eye on the ball till Election Day too. My point is that even if we do indeed win big in 2010, we can't necessarily assume BO's done for in 2012. Not if there's three examples within the past 20 years showing why.
Estil
Media observer
 
Posts: 77
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 10:26 pm

Next

Return to General topics / current events

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron