With the election results in, we appear to have an environment that has often proven diastrous for the party holding the White House. The pattern is one party in the last two years of a two term presidency and the opposing party holding both houses of congress. It occurred in the Eisenhour, Nixon/Ford and Clinton administrations. Each time the party controlling congress went on to win the subsequent presidential election. I don't recall if Democrats controlled both houses during Reagan's last term, since Senate control changed hands during his term. I believe Democrats did hold both houses then, however making his administration the sole exception. His successor, George Bush Sr, proved to be a one term president however. The potential good news for the Republicans is that Democrats' hold on congress may prove tenuous. Clearly the main issue Tuesday was Iraq, a situation that is likely to be resolved by the next election. Republicans were tainted by scandals which are unlikely to reoccur. Their core voters were annoyed with them and or demoralized. Two years of Nancy Pelosi are likely to get these voters motivated again. It will be crucial for Republicans to rebuild trust with their base. Immigration reform is the thin ice of that task however. If Bush's "comprehensive" immigration reform, also known as amnesty for 11 million illegals, passes and is signed, the Republicans could be staring permanent minority party status in the face. They would face the inevitable thrid party campaign of a Minuteman-backed anti-immigration campaigner. Republicans would have zero chance of winning the presidency and could easily lose more House seats.
Your analysis of the immigration issue is correct. The only way it becomes a non-issue is if we suffer multiple terrorist attacks here at home. At that point the borders will close tighter than a page boys a-hole. Not that I'd know how tight that is.
Two years is a short time for Replubican party to rebuild. I can imagine "big government conservatives" being targets for attack in 2008 and for many years afterwards. How long after LBJ did people continue to buy the attack "tax and spending liberals?" You can claim to be a "small government conservative" but after the Bush disaster how many people would believe you?
It's not just that republican leaders were bad and not conservative enough. The last six years clearly demonstrated that conservative philosophy itself is flawed, unreallistic and misleading. When conservatives were given a chance to practice what they preach their entire agenda collapsed like a house of cards that it was.
Playing the devils advocate, I don't think real conservatives would say their philosophy has been put into use, least in regard to the budget, and probably the whole nation building thing as well. I would tend to agree with them.
I am sure that's what they'll say, the thing is their philosophy has not been put into use (by Reagan, Bush Senior, Bush Junior and 12 years of republican congress) because it is NOT USABLE. It's as simple as that. It's easy to campaign using "small government" or "tax cuts" rhetoric, it does resonate with gullible, greedy and poorly educated people. The problem is that in order to shrink the government you actually need to eliminate departments, programs, services and this usually does not bode well with the public. People want small government but they also want a good and strong military, good public roads, a cop on every corner, EPA, FAA, SSI, CIA, NASA, FBI, FDIC, SEC, Homeland Security etc. And yeah, people want FEMA too. I am yet to hear what specific programs or services conservatives want to eliminate, there is a reason they always say they want a small government and never explain how they are going to get there. They can't.
The pressure for spending is steady and intense. When Republicans have tried to cut programs, they encountered rabid opposition from Democrats, advocates for the spending measure and spineless liberal Republicans. At the very least however, conservatives expect them to refrain from passing even more big government programs. Bush and this congress failed that test big time. The constituency for smaller govenrment is broad but diffused. The constituency for any spending program is focused and determined. They can all produce sympathetic victims who will be harmed if the program is cut. After Michael J. Fox, no politician wants to deal with that.
That's what I was thinking. These guys were conservative in name only, just like Bush. Can you imagine someone running on an agenda of eliminating a cabinet post, like Reagan did? Government will only get bigger. Other than for some emotional non-issues that fire up the base, There isn't a nickles worth of difference between the parties right now. Individual rights will slowly be shed in the name of "national security" for the Republicans and "for the children" for the Democrats.
Idiot Bush and majority of Republican politicians have nothing common with true conservatism. Party of small government my ass.
What programs have Republicans tried to cut? What would the effect of those cuts be on the size of the government? Were those programs popular with the public?