"No matter how paranoid or conspiracy-minded you are, what the government is actually doing is worse than you imagine." - - - William Blum

November 08, 2006

The Republicans offer their excuse for losing:

What Went Wrong on Election Day

Richard Engle, President NFRA [National Federation of Republican Assemblies]

To put it plainly, nothing went wrong. The American voter made his collective decision deliberately. He had his reasons and he had the right to make his decisions in accordance with those reasons.

The voter cannot be blamed.

Did he make a good decision to overturn both houses of Congress? I don’t think so but I deny the premise that he made his decision for reasons that are wrong or insignificant. I also deny that he failed to become educated on the issues. He understood the issues regarding the candidates that were running. He saw commercials with handsome families and caring people in loving communities talking about just about nothing. He heard radio commercials doing the same thing. He got loads of junk mail doing the same thing. The Democrats almost admitted that they have no answer to how to conduct ourselves in the war, that they have no specific answers regarding any of the real or imagined problems caused by the GOP. They did a very good job complaining about how much the GOP is spending and a better job calling the Republicans hypocrites.

They offered no answers but neither did the Republicans.

Republican candidates wimped out and said they stood strong for local values and would fight to represent them but largely did so without any specifics. Oh yes, they are against bad things and very courageously favor good things but surprise, surprise so were the Democrats. For the first time in a very long time the Democrats could not be nailed down as liberal because they (those that were running against incumbent Republicans) had very little in the way of records to run against. Some would openly call themselves Christians and would even give lip service to being pro-life.

The voter who bought the line of the Democrat shared the frustration over the problems, didn’t like the excessive spending, and was not afraid of the lip service to social issues because he hasn’t been impressed with the GOP on those matters.

If there is a dimes worth of difference the voter only saw that one side had no agenda and admitted it, but complained as well as anyone could. The other side said they had a plan but did little to prove it.

Yes, there are exceptions to these generalities. In Connecticut, Senator Joe won reelection despite being denied his party’s nomination because he was willing to have a broad based agenda including one issue in which he was contrary to very many of the voters. Strong positive standards without apology win. Oh yes, the Senator in Missouri stood his ground on an issue that he assumed his state would agree with him on but failed to communicate how and why he stood as he did.

The voter made a decision that he could make. He chose from two candidates (in most states) who looked like high end used car salesmen. He could not pick someone who would not run or could not get the nomination. He wanted to make a decision on issues but the information presented to him made it a race based on “pink, puff and piffle” where content was skin deep and personality mattered more than truth.

Man, do they sound confused! On top of that, Engle insults used car salespeople. And of course, in the eyes of Republicans, Lieberman is the shining Democratic exception. And finally, notice the sexist slant in the writing style: the words "she" and "her" are nowhere to be found.

No comments: