Where you surprised that the 2000s were more or less a Republican decade?

[Reaganfan]

Between Republicans holding Congress going into 2001, winning the White House from 2001 to 2009, and winning the majority in the 2002 and 2004 races, were you surprised at how conservative the 2000s ended up being, especially coming off of the liberal 1990s?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

The 1990's were not liberal.

[Scam of God]

The 1990's were not liberal.

And the 2000s were more liberal than the 1990s in terms of public sentiment.

[Alexander Hamilton]

The 90s were much more conservative than the 00s. The 00s were just more reactionary.

[Mr.Phips]

The last "liberal" decade we had was the 60's. 

[ChrisJG777]

NO cause the country is republican

Beg pardon but I'm afraid the above statement just doesn't seem to compute.  Would you care to elaborate on your claim please?  This of course considering that Obama won 28 states, 365 EVs, 52.9% of the popular vote and that the Democrats hold 60 out of 100 seats in the Senate plus 255-257 seats in the House, of course, alongside controlling a majority of state legislatures and governors' mansions too.

[cannonia]

NO cause the country is republican

Beg pardon but I'm afraid the above statement just doesn't seem to compute.  Would you care to elaborate on your claim please?  This of course considering that Obama won 28 states, 365 EVs, 52.9% of the popular vote and that the Democrats hold 60 out of 100 seats in the Senate plus 255-257 seats in the House, of course, alongside controlling a majority of state legislatures and governors' mansions too.

QED

[Lief 🗽]

No. The Republicans successfully exploited their failure to keep the country safe into a good half decade of electoral success.

[Reaganfan]

No. The Republicans successfully exploited their failure to keep the country safe into a good half decade of electoral success.

Um...correct me if I'm wrong...but weren't we safe from attack after 9/11 until the present under mostly Republican leadership?

[Franzl]

No. The Republicans successfully exploited their failure to keep the country safe into a good half decade of electoral success.

Um...correct me if I'm wrong...but weren't we safe from attack after 9/11 until the present under mostly Republican leadership?

Under whose leadership did 9/11 occur?

I'm not necessarily blaiming it on that leadership, but it's incredibly hypocritic to come with the "he kept us safe" bull without regarding that simple fact.

[Reaganfan]

No. The Republicans successfully exploited their failure to keep the country safe into a good half decade of electoral success.

Um...correct me if I'm wrong...but weren't we safe from attack after 9/11 until the present under mostly Republican leadership?

Under whose leadership did 9/11 occur?

I'm not necessarily blaiming it on that leadership, but it's incredibly hypocritic to come with the "he kept us safe" bull without regarding that simple fact.

Gimme a break, Franz...those guys were making their marydr videos in January 2000, that attack was in the planning stages going back to the beginning of Clinton's second term.

[Franzl]

No. The Republicans successfully exploited their failure to keep the country safe into a good half decade of electoral success.

Um...correct me if I'm wrong...but weren't we safe from attack after 9/11 until the present under mostly Republican leadership?

Under whose leadership did 9/11 occur?

I'm not necessarily blaiming it on that leadership, but it's incredibly hypocritic to come with the "he kept us safe" bull without regarding that simple fact.

Gimme a break, Franz...those guys were making their marydr videos in January 2000, that attack was in the planning stages going back to the beginning of Clinton's second term.

I repeat, who was in power when the attack happened?

And again, that isn't saying all that much, but please don't start with the bulls**t about Bush keeping us safe when it's perfectly clear that he did not, in fact, actually do that.

[Lief 🗽]

President Bush was in office during the greatest attack on American civilians in American history. Thus he objectively did not keep us safe.

[Meeker]

No. The Republicans successfully exploited their failure to keep the country safe into a good half decade of electoral success.

Um...correct me if I'm wrong...but weren't we safe from attack after 9/11 until the present under mostly Republican leadership?

Under whose leadership did 9/11 occur?

I'm not necessarily blaiming it on that leadership, but it's incredibly hypocritic to come with the "he kept us safe" bull without regarding that simple fact.

Gimme a break, Franz...those guys were making their marydr videos in January 2000, that attack was in the planning stages going back to the beginning of Clinton's second term.

And it could've been stopped on numerous occasions in the immediate months prior to the attacks had the Bush Administration been concerned with terrorism and not their silly missile defense shield.

[nhmagic]

I dont know if Id qualify the decade as republican just by elections, technically, it wouldnt really be all that republican of a decade if you did that.  Dont forget:

2000 - lost 4 senate seats, lost popular vote, won electoral vote
2002 - made incremental gains, picked up 2 senate seats, some house seats
2004 - big year for us, 4 senate seats, bushs reelection, good house seats
2006 - lost 6 senate seats and just about everything else
2008 - blew it big, 8 senate seats and Zero

More than half of the decade was won by liberals.  Also, remember that Bush was not a conservative, he was an economically liberal republican, with the rhetoric of a social conservative.  The only thing he was closely conservative on was national defense.  We got lucky to be awarded with 2 conservative judges (and we almost got Harriet Miers, uggh).  If anything, this decade will be far more conservative/libertarian than the 2000s were, especially with Zero in office.  There will be such a reaction to the hard line left policies of Zero that will witness a revival of true conservatism in this country, it is already beginning.  The gains of the left were just revealing pent up anger at successive faliures and incompetencies of the Bush administration - faliures and incompetencies that Zero is embracing and expanding. FYI, if the left is getting ready to bash this post, truthfully ask yourself how many Bush policies our dear leader has dismantled, how many wars we are out of (I think we are past the August 2009 Iraq deadline as promised in the state of the union), how much of the Patriot Act is still in place, why he isnt supporting gays, and the list goes on and on...

[Badger]

NO cause the country is republican

Now that you came out of your time capsule from mid 2006, read some newspapers.

[Psychic Octopus]

It wasn't a GOP decade....

[President Mitt]

You could classify the 1990's as a "Conservative" year in my opinion. (Not Republican Obviously, look who was President), but you had a Republican dominance of Congress, and a President who practically signed every bill that came from the Republican Congress.

Now look at 2000's. I cannot see how this is a Republican decade. An incumbent President, even though there had been an attack on US soil, and despite being the "Party of National Security" Bush won the slimmest reelection since Woodrow "McFascist" Wilson against a man who had the personality of a plank of Wood. The Republican Party grew too accustomed to being in Power, and squandered it.

Not to mention I haven't seen one piece of really "Small Government" principles being passed across Mr. Bush's desk.

Bush = Nixonian Liberal

[Badger]

Bush = Nixonian Liberal

An insult to Nixonian liberalism.

[nhmagic]

You could classify the 1990's as a "Conservative" year in my opinion. (Not Republican Obviously, look who was President), but you had a Republican dominance of Congress, and a President who practically signed every bill that came from the Republican Congress.

Now look at 2000's. I cannot see how this is a Republican decade. An incumbent President, even though there had been an attack on US soil, and despite being the "Party of National Security" Bush won the slimmest reelection since Woodrow "McFascist" Wilson against a man who had the personality of a plank of Wood. The Republican Party grew too accustomed to being in Power, and squandered it.

Not to mention I haven't seen one piece of really "Small Government" principles being passed across Mr. Bush's desk.

Bush = Nixonian Liberal

And you know the sick thing that is guaranteed to happen, once a real conservative republican president is elected in the future (12 or 16), in order to attack that president, they will say how much they admired GWBs policies - just like they heaped praise on his liberal father to attack GWB.  They will praise the bailout and TARP packages, praise the healthcare bill he created together with the late Teddy (I killed a girl once) Kennedy.  You know, because it was good, good for the nation.  They will say that his immigration plan was great and that had it been enacted there would have been great changes made.  They will use their Iraq votes to pretend that they actually supported the war so they look strong on national security again.

[Mechaman]

I dont know if Id qualify the decade as republican just by elections, technically, it wouldnt really be all that republican of a decade if you did that.  Dont forget:

2000 - lost 4 senate seats, lost popular vote, won electoral vote
2002 - made incremental gains, picked up 2 senate seats, some house seats
2004 - big year for us, 4 senate seats, bushs reelection, good house seats
2006 - lost 6 senate seats and just about everything else
2008 - blew it big, 8 senate seats and Zero

More than half of the decade was won by liberals.  Also, remember that Bush was not a conservative, he was an economically liberal republican, with the rhetoric of a social conservative.  The only thing he was closely conservative on was national defense.  We got lucky to be awarded with 2 conservative judges (and we almost got Harriet Miers, uggh).  If anything, this decade will be far more conservative/libertarian than the 2000s were, especially with Zero in office.  There will be such a reaction to the hard line left policies of Zero that will witness a revival of true conservatism in this country, it is already beginning.  The gains of the left were just revealing pent up anger at successive faliures and incompetencies of the Bush administration - faliures and incompetencies that Zero is embracing and expanding. FYI, if the left is getting ready to bash this post, truthfully ask yourself how many Bush policies our dear leader has dismantled, how many wars we are out of (I think we are past the August 2009 Iraq deadline as promised in the state of the union), how much of the Patriot Act is still in place, why he isnt supporting gays, and the list goes on and on...

You could classify the 1990's as a "Conservative" year in my opinion. (Not Republican Obviously, look who was President), but you had a Republican dominance of Congress, and a President who practically signed every bill that came from the Republican Congress.

Now look at 2000's. I cannot see how this is a Republican decade. An incumbent President, even though there had been an attack on US soil, and despite being the "Party of National Security" Bush won the slimmest reelection since Woodrow "McFascist" Wilson against a man who had the personality of a plank of Wood. The Republican Party grew too accustomed to being in Power, and squandered it.

Not to mention I haven't seen one piece of really "Small Government" principles being passed across Mr. Bush's desk.

Bush = Nixonian Liberal

And you know the sick thing that is guaranteed to happen, once a real conservative republican president is elected in the future (12 or 16), in order to attack that president, they will say how much they admired GWBs policies - just like they heaped praise on his liberal father to attack GWB.  They will praise the bailout and TARP packages, praise the healthcare bill he created together with the late Teddy (I killed a girl once) Kennedy.  You know, because it was good, good for the nation.  They will say that his immigration plan was great and that had it been enacted there would have been great changes made.  They will use their Iraq votes to pretend that they actually supported the war so they look strong on national security again.

You know azmagic, sometimes I don't give you enough credit.

[phk]

You could classify the 1990's as a "Conservative" year in my opinion. (Not Republican Obviously, look who was President), but you had a Republican dominance of Congress, and a President who practically signed every bill that came from the Republican Congress.

The 1990s were an economically conservative era, but it occurred in the midst of increasing social openness at the same time (issues like the environment, LGBT, AIDS) all materialized and came to the forefront.

[Nym90]

If the 2000s were such a Republican decade, you'd expect Republicans to hold more seats in Congress at the end of the decade than at the beginning, rather than far fewer.

Or perhaps you'd expect that Republican candidates would've cumulatively gotten more votes for President than Democratic candidates throughout the decade, rather than far fewer (even if you make an "inflation" adjustment for the increased size of the electorate in 2008).

To cite just a couple of examples that immediately come to mind.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Between Republicans holding Congress going into 2001, winning the White House from 2001 to 2009, and winning the majority in the 2002 and 2004 races, were you surprised at how conservative the 2000s ended up being, especially coming off of the liberal 1990s?

How were the '90s liberal? They weren't. (Remember Newt?)

[Derek]

1990-1994 was a liberal era
1995-2004 was a conservative era
2005-2009 was a liberal era
2010- will be a conservative era