Why Republicans Lost…
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 2008 Election, Republicans
…and why they’ll continue to lose if they continue to push the same tired, bogus memes like “media bias” instead of taking responsibility for their shoddy policies and hyperpartisan, win-at-all-costs behavior.
Succinctly described here by John Cole…
The Republicans did not lose because of media bias. Dan Rather wasn’t in New Orleans knocking water bottles out of people’s hands at the convention center. Brian Williams didn’t crash the stock market. Keith Olbermann didn’t invade Iraq. Chris Matthews doesn’t run OPEC.Republicans lost because they were in charge of the country for the better part of the last decade, and their governance has been an unmitigated disaster. This is not rocket science. You can argue that democrats should share some of the blame for some of the policies, and you would not get any disagreement from me, but that does not change the fact that the Republicans were in charge, and blew it.
Democrats have taken note of the Repubs failures. Particularly Obama.
And this is probably why you’re seeing Obama come out of the gates immediately with a balanced cabinet full of moderate voices. It seems like he’s determined to change the tone immediately and strike a fair balance between the two parties when it comes to governance.
Sure, more liberal economic policies will be the order of the day in the first couple years, but don’t be surprised if Obama becomes a deficit hawk towards the end of his first term if the economy starts getting better.
We shall see…
This entry was posted on Wednesday, December 3rd, 2008 and is filed under 2008 Election, Republicans. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:43 am
No argument here. So can we lay to rest the whole, “social issues killed the Republican party” meme? In fact, new data from Gallup shows that Black Democrat voters are aligned with Republicans on all significant social issues.
Obama was in the right place at the right time.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:54 am
Come on Jimmy, it was more than that. President-Elect Swoosh is truly a gifted politican, orator and marketer. Someday my children will be buying t-shirts with Obama on the front and Che’ Guevara on the back. (Do you think William Ayers wishes he could be a member of the “sexy” terrorist club?)
Oh man, that is AWESOME … my Che’/Obama t-shirt has already been done, check it out:
http://patriotshop.us/product_info.php?cPath=35&products_id=731
http://www.zazzle.com/che_obama_t_shirt-235412047001588266
President-elect Swoosh is so dreamy — I’m truly inspired
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:57 am
I think it also bears noting that while media bias didn’t cause the Republicans to lose, it does exist. It’s just a simple fact of life that any conservative candidate will need to deal with. Win in spite of the media, not lose because of it. The media doesn’t see themselves as liberal, they see themselves as mainstream. Normal. But compared to the average American, the gatekeeping they engage in, the editorial tone, is decidedly left of center.
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:19 pm
I know the following “skepticism” goes against the grain of so-called Centrists who helped elect Obama and have succumbed to wishful thinking on “pragmatic appointments,” (and there’s no doubt the Republican Party shows no sign of learning anything). But based on his track record and continuing rhetoric, I see no reason to doubt his determination to turn the country’s direction with a Hard Left (nothing to do with media bias). Here’s a related column: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/02/brace-for-the-change-you-do-not-believe-in/
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:47 pm
No sale, Jimmy. There are too many mods like myself who voted against socon policies as much as for Obama for your argument to hold water. And most black folks I know (and I know a lot, all over the country) may be against gay marriage but certainly aren’t against the right to choose abortion.
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:47 pm
It’s just downright dumb to take a position where you insist that all of your side’s explanations are right and all the other side’s explanations are wrong.
I think most of the explanations shopped in the election post-mortem period contain grains of truth. Folks eager to dismiss them are eager to do so because they are loath to concede that there’s any truth to a notion which threatens their base reality. For example:
• Media bias may not have caused the GOP loss, but it sure didn’t help. Obama got fairly kid-glove treatment from the majority of the press, comparatively speaking. IMO, denial of this is evidence of a willful blind spot.
• the ongoing prominent display of social conservatives with the GOP may not have caused the GOP loss, but it sure didn’t help the GOP attract the support of a broad spectrum of moderates. You either find a way to >50% of the votes, or you don’t.
It’s also pretty easy for me to notice that folks’ views on whether Obama will steer us toward the center or towards the left are a function of where they themselves sit on the political spectrum. Righties are certain Obama is headed left, and lefties think he’s headed to the center or through the center. Moderates hope he’s headed right at them.
Experience tells me that the rationales for the actions of sitting Presidents tend to be at least as much circumstantial as ideological. My sense is that the majority of the so-called “hard left” moves Obama adopts will be substantially accounted for by economic circumstances. But I don’t expect that to be of any consolation to conservatives, even though I doubt any President facing this kind of negative economic volatility would have the sang froid to adopt the kind of laissez-faire approach many conservatives favor.
The post-mortem spin I find most unsupportable is the progressive view that virtually all of the current negative economic circumstances we currently face can be placed almost solely at the feet of a dominant ruling cabal of conservatives. I find this view idiotic on too many counts to even begin to enumerate.
But I think it relates to that “threat to one’s base reality” thing I mentioned previously. It’s as though some folks willfully refuse to see a substantial portion of the world in all its richness and complexity. When they do see it, they only look at it long enough to explain it away as a chimera.
December 3rd, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Seems to me the real difference is that the networks all blur the distinction between editorializing and reporting. A lot of this originally came from the media strategy put forward by Fox, causing the media to drift quite rapidly to the right in the 1990s. Then the other networks followed suit, dropping journalism and replacing it with ill-informed op-eds. In short, the left of center element in the networks dropped to the same level of unprofessionalism as the right.
Blame whichever side you like, the real problem is straightforward poor quality journalism. The networks get all excited about what a politician is eating for breakfast and then all the rest cluster around the subject for fear that they’ll be scooped. The result: a whole bunch of poor journalists running around like headless chickens… too busy to stop and actually look at what’s going on in the world. This love-in with the president-elect is just the latest manifestation of babbling instead of journalism.
And the bottom line: the viewers are to blame, since the networks are only doing what’s proven to sell.
December 3rd, 2008 at 2:48 pm
The Rep’s lost because they have no platform. Their platform in 2008 consisted of name calling, blame shifting, lying, fear mongering, and running from the truth. The journalists by and large lean one direction or another - we all know this. Most of us (those who read this blog certainly) look at other news sources both right and left and we generally come to a fairly accurate determination of the truth - despite what the media says. The truth is the Republicans screwed up - huge - and still won’t admit their incompetence. Until they are willing to do that, and be honest about it, the party will never recover - and will continue to lose elections. They don’t stand for anything - and they haven’t for years. Conservative - we have a deficit that proves otherwise. Strong on the military - we have a military that’s nearly broken and stretched to capacity. Small government - it’s never been larger, but at the same time it’s never been more impotent and incompetent. They did this to themselves. The Republican party had EVERYTHING in 2002 and they blew it all just as quickly. Blame the media, blame anyone you want - but be sure not to blame anyone that actually had anything to do with this fiasco because that would indicate someone actually taking responsibility. Who is the Republican base these days - they don’t have one - they are just a disparate collection of angry white people. Where’s the policy unencumbered by partisan drivel and beefed up with intellectually appealing issues that actually move the country forward?
December 6th, 2008 at 8:13 am
How is the media biased when it reports on gay, corrupt and fanatical politicians? I suspect the real reason Republicans will lose even more senate seats in 2010 is due to voter bias. The Republicans clearly lost because their view of society tends to be evil. They are not unlike Demons.
December 15th, 2008 at 7:17 am
Republicans lost because they seem like such angry people, John McCain often looked as though he might explode at any moment. The thing is that Republicans are angry whether they’ve won or lost. Even when they took over the House and the Senate years ago they seem to just be in constant need of Anger Management.
God Help this Country if it is ever just one party or the other.
Dean
Friends don’t let Angry people get in charge of the Nukes.