10 Reasons Why Losing Was a Good Thing for the GOP

No one likes to lose, especially when the stakes are as high as they are now with huge differences between the two political parties on how the War on Terror ought to be fought; how to best protect the American people, etc. However, even a casual inspection of the outcome of this particular election shows that Republicans didn't actually lose that bad this time around. Here are ten reasons why...

1) Democrats are now in a position (majorities in the House and Senate) to be held accountable for the results or lack of results they produce.

2) George W. Bush made good on his promise to bring a new tone to Washington. He reached out to the democrats at every turn. He signed an education reform bill largely written by democrats. The first round of tax cuts was formulated on a by-partisan basis. In his full-court press to generate support for saving the social security system the president had his own ideas, but he also unremittingly asked the democrats to present their ideas as to how the government will keep its promise to all those who’ve paid social security taxes over the years and who expect the system to be there when they retire.

Not only that, President Bush has refused to return personal insults coming from the other side of the aisle or even comment on them. There isn't room in this blog to catalog the democrats' embarrassing list of vicious insults, partisan attacks, and dangerous compromises of our safety and security contained within every suggestion that Bush lied and got us into Iraq for illegitimate reasons... all while lamenting the absence of civility in DC politics and specifically blaming President Bush for the sharply negative tone in politics since he came to town --- a dichotomy that would be funny if we were describing children who are too young and immature to be aware of their own hypocrisy. And yet these folks do indeed seem to be completely unaware of their own hypocrisy! The party that is home to the folks that invented the strategy of personally destroying any and all enemies decries the politics of personal destruction. And they do so with a straight face!

But now they hold majorities in both houses of congress. Now they have no excuse (as if they had any before). If the Democrats continue with the personal attacks and the same level of partisanship that continues to impede progress (and I am not going out on a limb when I predict they will) they won't be able to blame it on their victim (minority) status. Now, in the sixth year of the Bush administration, the Democrats will hold a narrow majority in congress. Will they still decline the invitation to join the new tone that the President has held to? Yes, they will. Will they finally be held accountable? Yes, they will.

3) Like the proverbial dog that chases and finally "catches" the proverbial mail truck, the Democrats are, for the first time in at least six years, stuck. They are stuck trying to come up with a convincing answer to the perplexing question, ‘Now what do we do?’ Folks, the democrats really do not know what to do. And it’s no wonder; they’ve been so single-minded in their hatred of Bush and in their strident opposition to all things “neo-con” that they haven’t taken any time to come up with exactly what they are for. Up until now, they had their minority status to hide behind as an excuse for having no new ideas. During a photo-op in New Orleans, Howard Dean was asked why the Democrats aren’t offering any ideas of their own and Dean said, “We don’t have to. We’re not the ones in power.” This is good for America. Now that they are “in power” take a look at the democrats anemic list of six big ideas at http://www.democrats.org/agenda.html and, aside from their usual condescending “we-can-do-everything-better” attitude [for example, when they say, “We believe in a strong national defense that is both tough and smart,” read ‘Our national defense might be tough, but it hasn’t been led by people who are very smart. If we were to get our way, we’d be smart with the military’ (like Lynden Johnson, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton I suppose?)], none of the items of this six point plan really scream BIG NEW IDEA!

4) The deficit is shrinking much faster than initially predicted. The stock market (in which directly or indirectly 70% of Americans are invested) has reached a new all-time high. When was the last time the unemployment rate was this low? [And by the way, why the heck do we use the ‘glass half empty’ way of reporting the number of Americans working?! Over 95% of us are working, earning a living. It should be the employment rate, not the unemployment rate! Deal with it, all you left-leaning economists who hate to report good news when a republican is president.] Even trade deficits with countries like Brazil and China are going down. In failing to trumpet what good is going on out there – including the good developments in Iraq, for God’s sake – republicans were failing to show why they ought to stay in power. In so doing, among other reasons (such as the slower-than-anticipated progress in Iraq and Mark Foley), republicans lost the right to lead. They failed to stay on offence and they paid the price. The good news is that if they get on message their message is the message that the American people want to hear. The democrats won on the basis of whatever is bad for America is good for democrats – what a horrible calculation. Unfortunately for the democrats, by creating that dynamic by virtue of their crazy flip-flopping positions on the war in Iraq, they have sentenced themselves to the consequences of the mirror opposite situation; that as the insurgency in Iraq is put down and as the Iraqi military gets up to full strength and as its government begins to stabilize politically while taking over its own security challenges, this will be good for America and, by succession, good for republicans.

5) Anyone who watched Howard Dean’s appearance on the November 12, 2006 edition of Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace would have noticed a real difference in Dean’s attitude. To his credit, immediately after the election he doesn’t appear as though his head is about to explode. No name-calling, no conspiracy theories. For the first time after a number of national elections, the leader of the Democratic National Committee wasn’t even questioning the election results! What was going on? Here’s what was going on: Howard Dean knows that though the republicans took a thumpin’ in terms of the number of seats that went to the democrats, the election was, nonetheless, razor thin. Because of this they know they have to be nice. This is revealing of their true convictions. They know that their true agenda has no hope of being furthered; not until they win more seats and, they hope, the White House. This weakness on the part of democrats is an opportunity for conservative republicans who are ready to renounce excessive spending, stay tough on border security until the border is secure, and continue to seek to work with their colleagues on the other side of the isle, which is exactly what the American people want. That, and winning the War on Terror. If the conservatives in congress seize this opportunity, the 2008 elections will be good for republicans (and incumbent democrats who came to do the work of the American people).

6) The democrats didn’t really win; the republican’s lost. Those who say this is a distinction without a difference are missing the fact that this is a big distinction. We have already made the point that democrats are the party of personal destruction, that they have spent the better part of six years being obstructionists, that they have not offered any real ideas of their own, and that eventually – IF the republicans stay on message – they and the president will get due credit for things like the ever-shrinking deficit and the ever-expanding economy. This increases the pressure on the democrats not to mess with what is going so well. I predict that the democrats will not be able to restrain themselves; that they will mess with what is going so well, and that they will pay the price for it, politically.

7) The Democrat Party is the party of scandal. When democrats are in power – whether in the White House or in one or both sides of the legislature – there is no such thing as the passing of a six month period of time where some democrat in Washington is not revealed to be embroiled in some kind of scandal. Even when they aren’t in the majority, democrats appear to be unable to keep themselves out of tawdry messes. It took 9/11 to finally knock Gary Condit off the front pages. Representative William Jefferson from Louisiana has been indicted for taking some $100,000 in bribes (some of which he hid in the freezer of his New Orleans residence). Yes, we have our Duke Cunningham’s and Bob Ney’s. Three important points: 1) democrat scandals outpace republican ones by a three-to-one margin, 2) on balance, democrat scandals tend to be much more serious and egregious than republican scandals, and 3) as a rule, democrats react to the revelation of a scandal by denying it and/or deflecting it (how many times have we heard sanctimonious pronouncements like ‘this is nothing but a right-wing witch hunt --- let’s get back to the real problems that the American people sent us here to solve’), and/or destroying the messenger (real or imagined), whether it be the media outlet that broke the story, the specific reporter, evil republicans in general, evil republicans specifically named (Bob Barr, Henry Hyde, etc.), or a special prosecutor with an extreme right wing agenda. They circle the wagons. They often refuse to resign in disgrace, but rather wear their new victim status as a badge of honor. Ted Kennedy is considered by many to be the most powerful senator in Washington. Barney Frank continues to be re-elected by his constituents. And Bill Clinton was defending the constitution, don’t you know.

Republican’s who go the way of scandal, on the other hand, tend to resign in disgrace. They apologize. They face the music. They take responsibility. They plead guilty. They willingly receive the consequences of their actions without blaming others.

Of course, there are exceptions to every rule. But I’m not talking about the exceptions here. I’m talking about a historical, verifiable, documented stark contrast between the two major political parties; a difference that goes to whose version of morality, in times when politicians commit minor indiscretions or major violations of the law, better represents the highest ideals of the American people.

When the next democrat scandal breaks, and it will, tell your democrat friends that a republican, if caught in the same unfortunate situation, would not launch a Deny, Deflect, & Destroy Mission as the democrat most certainly will do. Do some homework. You will be able to prove it.

8) Once all the votes were counted in this election that lost the republicans nearly thirty seats in the house and six in the senate, if we were to look at the balance of power as a continuum – with the far left on one side and the far right on the other – we would see that the House of Representatives made a decisive shift to the right. That is a good thing for America. Many of the democrat contenders for house seats that were held by incumbent republicans, some in decidedly “red” districts, won on the basis of their agreement with their opponent on issues like illegal immigration, keeping taxes low, and staying in Iraq until the job is done.

9) And then there was Joe Lieberman. Democrats put a lot of time, talent, and money into the Connecticut Senate race. They were ready to declare Ned Lamont’s victory a stunning indictment against the war in Iraq. The only problem with that plan: Lamont lost. Joe Lieberman; liberal democrat who, nonetheless, is a principled staunch supporter of the War on Terror everywhere it is being fought; won re-election. Lamont’s web site said it all: “A vote for Ned Lamont brings real change and accountability in Washington. A vote for Joe Lieberman means more war.” True, Joe Lieberman’s position is indeed for more war; fighting the war until we win; a concept that is such an antithesis to the average liberal’s mindset that when they say that voting “for Joe Lieberman means more war”, they mean it in a negative sort of way. So, many of the same democrats who campaigned against him will see Joe Lieberman back in the senate every day. Now that democrats failed to present a united front against the war in Iraq (many democrats in the House have supported the war; several more were just elected), the republicans ought to declare that the war in Iraq, as the central front in the War on Terror, ought to be free of partisanship and ought to be committed to by politicians on both sides of the isle until it is won. With the re-election of Joe Lieberman, republicans have been given a stronger voice to do just that … if they are willing to use it.

10) It’s about the War on Terror, stupid. Ever since September 11, 2001 America has been engaged in a war that its elected leaders from both political parties had, until then, refused to acknowledge was being waged against us for more than twenty years. But now we’re in it and we are in it to win it. Just like in WWII when the murderous Nazi socialist fascists promised to take over the world, the uncompromising murderous Islamo-fascists of today do not give us any other options: we must beat them, both on the battlefields of the world, wherever the terrorists are planning and scheming against us, and in the even tougher battlefield represented by the hearts and minds that have been so polluted by an ideology some will still maintain to be a religion of peace.

America cannot long afford to keep elected leaders who largely agree with the terrorists.

Liberal democrats and terror propagandists agree: George Bush is a war monger.

Liberal democrats and terror propagandists agree: George Bush is a liar.

Liberal democrats and terror propagandists agree: the war in Iraq is “creating” more terrorists.

Liberal democrats and terror propagandists agree: George Bush and the republicans are stupid.

Liberal democrats and terror propagandists agree: the prisoners at Guantanamo have been tortured and horribly mistreated.

Liberal democrats and terror propagandists agree: the prisoners at Guantanamo ought to be given constitutional rights.

Liberal democrats and terror propagandists agree: the American military is an occupying force in Iraq, not the welcome liberators Bush and Rumsfeld said they would be.

Liberal democrats and terror propagandists agree: the war in Iraq is just like Vietnam and just like in the case of Vietnam and Lebanon and Somalia (where the American military pulled out under pressure to do so), the American forces must leave Iraq before the stated mission has been completed.

Liberal democrats and terror propagandists agree: the American military has specifically targeted innocent civilians in Iraq and has purposely killed tens of thousands of them and has terrorized many more.

Liberal democrats and terror propagandists agree: George Bush and the republicans are too pro-Israel.

Liberal democrats and terror propagandists agree: the Democrat Party is the political party that ought to be the majority political party in the United States of America.

We simply cannot afford to be led by a group of folks who reflect so many points of agreement with our enemies. On positions that can either cast the U.S. in the role of “good guy” or “bad guy”, liberal democrats and the terrorists agree: the United States of America is the bad guy. Good grief; democrats appear to agree with al Qaeda more frequently than they agree with republicans!

Neither should we allow ourselves to be led by spineless Neville Chamberlain’s of the 21st century; too arrogant for their own good and too naïve for ours. If for no other reason, the fact that the most powerful members of the democrat party (the folks that are so much smarter than the rest of us) cannot acknowledge that Iraq is the central front in the War on Terror; even though Osama bin laden says it is, even though al Qaeda’s second-in-command Ayman Al-Zawahiri says it is, even though Zarqawi (al Qaeda’s leader in Iraq before he went to hell) said it is, and even though the soon-to-be-dead new al Qaeda leader in Iraq, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, unequivocally confirms that, yes indeed, Iraq is the central front in Islam’s violent struggle against the West; democrat leaders disqualify themselves as credible advocates for victory in the War on Terror.

Therefore, the American people should not give them more than two years to confirm all of the above. When it comes to our money and our security, we cannot afford to keep democrats in office after 2008.