I think this is what you were hearing about.

We need to do a few things. First we need to set out clear suggestions for a positive way forward. We also need to call people on their misinformation and disinformation and hold them accountable for it. Make THEM defend their lies and gossip. Too often we complain about “the AP” or “the NYT” or “the WaPO” but those articles have byline. Call out the “journalist” by name, make them defend their piece. Hold that person’s feet to the fire. Mention their name in public. The Republicans have been allowing these people to hide behind their organizations as they spread gossip and rumor as truth. It is a rather simple matter to hold them personally accountable for what they write.

Be positive, be responsible, demand responsibility and accountability from the other side. That is how you win.

Conservatism wasn’t the problem. Only 9% thought the Repub party was too conservate. The rejection of the Repub party had to do with a view of “incompetence”.

I also think this statement from RiehlWorldView Blog says alot:

excerpt:

Serious fiscal conservatism, an appreciation for some standard of social values that doesn’t argue for a government that tries to legislate morality, but argues certain questions are democratic in nature and need to be resolved by the states through voting and legislation locally, would sell in Blue states, as well as Red.

What it most needs is an effective leader who can expound upon it in a positive manner without being painted as a caricature…..

One of the Right’s biggest mistake has been to allow the liberals to frame the argument, leaving us always looking as though we are in opposition to everything and for nothing at all.

Human nature has not changed that much. We need to be for individual freedom in a civil society, a strong, competent military, low taxes and a government that doesn’t over-spend, nor over-reach. And I don’t believe there is a state or ethnic group that wouldn’t support a government that actually tried to deliver it for a change.

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2008/11/whats-possible.html

Republicans Pull within Two on Generic Congressional Ballot

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Following an historic election in which Democrats won the White House and increased their control of Congress, voters appear to be adopting a wait-and-see attitude on granting ongoing control to the victorious party.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that, if given the choice, 43% of voters would choose their district’s Democratic candidate, while 41% would choose the Republican candidate. That’s the first post-election edition of the generic Congressional ballot and it’s the most competitive the Republicans have been in a couple of years. In the week leading up to Election Day, the Democrats held a six point advantage.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_ballot/generic_congressional_ballot

Blazing Saddles contributed this:

WE DON’T NEED NO STINKING MANDATES

WASHINGTON, Nov 10, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ — A nationwide survey of actual voters reveals that Americans strongly support immigration enforcement, and that less than one-third of Obama voters favor granting amnesty to illegal aliens. The poll conducted by Zogby International on behalf of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) on November 5 and 6 also found that a decisive majority of voters believe that an illegal alien amnesty would “further harm the interests of struggling American workers.” Among the key findings of the poll are:

Only 32% of Obama voters considered his support for amnesty as a factor in their decisions to vote for him. 67% said it was either not a factor at all, or they voted for Obama in spite of his stance on amnesty.

60% of voters said reducing illegal immigration and cracking down on employers who hire them is important to them, while only 21% supported “legalizing or creating a pathway to citizenship” for illegal aliens.

57% of voters stated that amnesty would harm American workers and further strain public resources, while only 26% believe amnesty would aid economic recovery and ease public burdens.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Zogby-Post-Election-Poll-Reveals/story.aspx?guid=%7B9845720F-066E-4CC5-826F-4A60B0621A02%7D

I accept biological evolution but am tired of hearing the creationists bashed and discriminated against.

That was a mistake. Conservatives need to find a way to articulate their message without running people off.

I don’t blame McCain for the loss of the election. It is my opinion that once the financial meltdown took place the election was lost.

And people blamed it on free markets, capitalism. All that. People need to feel that conservatism offers them a chance to a better future and right now they just think conservatism is about the rich getting richer.

Not good.

And there has been to much emphasis on social issues. Most people do not want government involved in every facet of their lives, especially their personal lives. And they find the whole creationism thing to be cult like.

Want to speculate on Gitmo? they’ll bring them to the US, but not to Chicago. Somebody is going to be faced with the reality that if they are released, it will be in the USA and will probably get legal status as ‘freed’ (read innocent) terrorists.

In your own post, you say conservatives wanted to round up “IMMIGRANTS” and deport them.

Let’s get this straight. Illegal aliens. They broke our laws (and yes, it actually is a crime to enter the United States illegally) and quite frankly, I don’t think giving citizenship to those whose first act in entering this country was to commit a crime is a great idea, in fact, it is national suicide.

I know, harsh, so be it. The whole concept of nation and borders tends to make me that way.

Now, did the right’s opposition to unfettered illegal immigration cost us support in the Hispanic community, probably some, but there are other issues that conservatives have in common with Hispanics that we failed to capitalize on.

Moderate conservatives do not, no, they cannot express conservative ideas that are proven winners:

- Hispanics are socially conservative, moderate Republicans failed to capitalize on that.
-Hispanics have a reputation of hard work. Moderate Republicans couldn’t convey the connection between individual rights, limited government, and personal success if they tried. We are the party of success.
-Hispanics are the victims of poor schooling. Yet moderates can’t stand the idea of school vouchers and wouldn’t promote them if a gun was held to their head.
-Hispanics know that big government is bad, yet our moderates racked up trillions in debt, promoted cap and trade, wouldn’t stand up to illegal immigration despite that fact that it is the party of national security….

Why would any logical voter vote for a party that can’t articulate its values and does the exact opposite of what it stands for?

It wasn’t the right’s opposition to amnesty that alienated the Hispanics, it was the fact that our leadership stood for nothing and when it did act, it acted like Democrat Lites.

Why buy an pale imitation when you can get the real thing?

God, country and a family isn’t a vice, it is what made Republicans successful for a time.

Pandering, triangulating, and sticking our collective finger in the air has been our undoing. And McCain-Kennedy was pandering, triangulating, and sticking our finger in the air at its worse.

That’s almost a libertarian viewpoint, with a strong conservative tilt. Sort of like being a social liberal and a strong fiscal conservative. That being said, why do Republicans consistently dwell on the social issues, such as, creationism, abortion, education, etc.? The hard right stance of basically legislating morality doesn’t get votes – it does just the opposite.

Why not deal with these issues as they should be dealt with – through Federalism; turn them over to the states as it should be. I am personally abhorred by abortion, I think it is the wrong choice 99% of the time (the 1% is the life of the mother), but if I were running for office, my stance would be that I think it is wrong, it is a bad choice and Roe v Wade is a bad decision and should be overturned, but it is a bad decision because it has no place in the Federal courts and should be returned to the state legislatures.

My point is that personal preferences on social issues should not dictate public policy. There is a system to deal with these issues and they should be handled, debated and voted on by the people they impact – the citizens of the individual states.

Illegal immigration is another non winner. We are not going to round up and deport millions (however many millions there are) of illegal immigrants. And a fence is not going to stop those that have the drive to come here. Logical policy is simple; make illegal immigration vs legal immigration fiscally inhospitable. MO now requires you to show proof of citizenship or legal residency to obtain a driver’s license – no license- no insurance, no insurance-no license plates. You also target the employers providing jobs- 1st offense, fines of ten times the wages paid to illegals; 2nd offense, fines of 20 times the wages paid and prison sentences.

If you want to address those already here who have children and own property, you could simply say that they have to return to their native country, apply for immigration proving that they have children who are citizens and/or provide proof of property ownership and then give them expedited processing.

I just think that the basic conservative message appeals to a vast majority of the public – if you get the message out and you live up to the message.

I think you are missing the most important issue when it comes to religions people’s attitudes towards science and evolution. Here is an article about “The New Atheism” http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2006-11-21.

This article demonstrates the extreme anti-religion attitude amongst some of the most vocal and visible proponents of science and evolution such as Richard Dawkins (author of ” The God Delusion”), Daniel Dennett’s (author of “Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon”), and Sam Harris (author of “Letter to a Christian Nation”).

These men are militantly against religion and they bring science and evolution to the battle to prove that religion is not only wrong but “evil”. They are quite clear that belief in evolution equals disbelief in God.

For example: “On the link between evolution and atheism, for example, Dawkins is unrepentant and direct–evolutionary theory must logically lead to atheism.”

Mr. Harris argues that religions belief must be eradicated; ridicule is a primary weapon. Mr Harris hopes that “[a]t some point, there’s going to be enough pressure that it is just going to be too embarrassing to believe in God.”

With all that, do you wonder why people of faith are skeptical of of scientists and evolutionists? The “war between science and religion” is being waged by the scientists who want to eradicate faith and religion. You ask “Can conservatism end its fight against science and evolution…?”. Oh, you want us to surrender to the condescending atheists like Dawkins, Harris, and Dennet? NEVER!!!

I am an independent have do not have any trouble making a decision or standing by it. I refuse to have to bow down to the most extreme positions or impatient advocates.

Independents are not ‘moderate’ or less passionate. In fact, they tend to be less moved by the mob or popular opinion and are willing and able to stand on their own and fight the battles on their own.

If you think otherwise then you don’t get the problem and won’t find a solution.

That depends on where you’re willing to draw the line. If this is the leadership the mainstream so “fervently” wants, are they worth regaining at the expense of conservatism?

OBAMA WILL NOT ATTEND WASHINGTON FINANCIAL SUMMIT
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE4A95CG20081110

“CHICAGO (Reuters) – President-elect Barack Obama will not attend the global financial summit in Washington on November 14-15, an aide said on Monday.

The Bush administration has called the summit of the countries representing the world’s leading economies to begin thrashing out a strategy for dealing with the global financial crisis. Obama takes over as U.S. president on January 20.”

It must by now be crystal clear where His and Their priorities lie, and don’t lie (all puns intended).

When/IF the Helter Skelter mainstream ever wakes up to what they’ve really done, they’ll be the ones seeking to regain what they have lost, namely their senses.

It’s unwise to save a drowning man who does not want to be saved. But you can provide safety lines, beacons, and safe harbor should they ever choose to change their mind.

Regroup, reground, rebuild.

Conservatives should be ready when they are.