Election results
Well, the election is over and results are pretty bad for the Republicans. I'll admit there have been some times in the preceding months that I have felt despondent for the future of the party, and the country too for that matter. But I'm not going to go out and start a web site apologizing to the Iraqis for letting them down. To those who say that this was a stunning loss for the hawks and a slap in the face for conservatism. You may want to check again.
Some people are trying to paint this as a referendum on the war, well explain this. How come in the race where a liberal Democrat who voted for the war faced a liberal Democrat against the war, the pro war candidate won? Why did one of the few Republicans to oppose the war lose? The war was a factor but so was corruption and fiscal responsibility.
Some folks are talking about radical reforms. Well, look at Nancy Pelosi's entry on Huffington post. Minimum wage increase, tweaks to Medicare, handouts to college students, blocking subsidies to big oil, keeping social security on the dead end track it is already on, enacting 9/11 committee recommendations and increases to stem cell research. None of this is radical. Heck much of it isn't even contrary to traditional conservatism. This election was won on the backs of some very conservative democratic candidates and those guys aren't just going to go away now that the election is over. This was an undeniable defeat of a party (Republican) but not quite so clearly the defeat of an ideal (conservatism). I'm OK with that.
In fact, I think that there is a lot to be optimistic about. I'm not one of those conservatives who hoped that the Republicans would get their heads handed to them because it would lead to a rethinking of the agenda for 2008. I think that what happens in the next two years in Iraq, Pakistan, Iran, Lebanon and other hot spots is too important and will require a president with a strong hand. But now that they have been handed that defeat I have to admit that it is fortuitous timing for the party.
Some people are trying to paint this as a referendum on the war, well explain this. How come in the race where a liberal Democrat who voted for the war faced a liberal Democrat against the war, the pro war candidate won? Why did one of the few Republicans to oppose the war lose? The war was a factor but so was corruption and fiscal responsibility.
Some folks are talking about radical reforms. Well, look at Nancy Pelosi's entry on Huffington post. Minimum wage increase, tweaks to Medicare, handouts to college students, blocking subsidies to big oil, keeping social security on the dead end track it is already on, enacting 9/11 committee recommendations and increases to stem cell research. None of this is radical. Heck much of it isn't even contrary to traditional conservatism. This election was won on the backs of some very conservative democratic candidates and those guys aren't just going to go away now that the election is over. This was an undeniable defeat of a party (Republican) but not quite so clearly the defeat of an ideal (conservatism). I'm OK with that.
In fact, I think that there is a lot to be optimistic about. I'm not one of those conservatives who hoped that the Republicans would get their heads handed to them because it would lead to a rethinking of the agenda for 2008. I think that what happens in the next two years in Iraq, Pakistan, Iran, Lebanon and other hot spots is too important and will require a president with a strong hand. But now that they have been handed that defeat I have to admit that it is fortuitous timing for the party.
posted by Doug at 1:51 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home