George Will explains how not to win red America. True and well put; much of it, inevitably, amusing. Newt Gingrich, surely one of the smartest guys around--and the one most responsible for completing this rolling realignment--explains that if Republicans do three major things, they will be the governing majority for a generation to come. His points have to be thought through. James Q. Wilson thinks that it wasn’t the so called "values" that got Bush re-elected. While his piece is a bit ambivalent, it merits reading and thinking about. Carlos Watson, perhaps representing the more ordinary and establishment opinion at CNN, thinks that Bush’s political genius has been overlooked. I agree. Mark Steyn thinks we just weren’t dumb enough to vote for Kerry. John Podhoretz explains why Bush won a mandate by comparing this election to 1984 when Reagan won decisively, but without a mandate.
And Jay Ambrose thinks that the Hollywood Lefties (and especially Michael Moore) had a lot to do with getting Bush re-elected, and he delights in their failure.
James Carville agrees that it is about values.
" He (Carville)said he is considering writing a book about what direction Democrats should go. One possibility, he said, was to embrace a reform-oriented, anti-Washington agenda. That would require the ability of members of Congress to reject pork projects for their districts and stake the party’s fortunes on fiscal discipline."
It is clear that the values that the GOP has embraced are the values of America.
John
Robert Reich was on FOX News and just like all of the other liberals tried to take the post-modernist stance of re-defining or expanding definitions of morals and values issues to include a minimum wage, high corporate salaries, and the environment. This neo-Marxist attempt to divert attention away from real moral issues will not convince the silent majority in America who don’t think that abortions or gay marriage or taking the words "under God" out of the Pledge are good things. George Washington in his Farewell Address wrote that republican self-government is rooted upon virtue and morality, of which the source is religion (not Christianity, but religion). He did not say, "What is morality?" The secular and relativist Left does not understand that most American people would agree more with Washington’s sentiments than the Left.
Tony - Great summation. I noticed the same thing. It makes me wonder if Mr. Reich, and those that beleive as he does, know or even understand the differnece between morals (religion based) and ethics, or what Washington called virtue (which can be religious based, but not always).
If Carvile and the leaders of his party manage to re-tool for ’08, they have a bigger problem than they may realize. For many years now, the democratic party has fostered the hate-Bush and hate-republican message. It is embedded so deeply that they not only have to re-tool the message, they have to un-learn the average democrat. A party that embrasses Moore, Soros, Hollywood, and big city elites will have a terrible time now saying "we have a new message". They have spent a lot of time making this election about being emmotionaly, "morally" right - meaning Democratic morals, the RIGHT jobs, the RIGHT government program, Mr. Reich’s views, and such. Republicans see those issues in light of common sense, ethics, and vitures. If we disagree with a democrat, we just think they are wrong. If a democrate disagrees with us, they think we are immoral, evil, hatefilled, and all the descriptives associated with a religious war. They have a tough road ahead. Better them than us.