Pros and cons
Al, if you should ever run into Jim Geraghty somewhere, try to be nice, okay? Ahem:
By the way, put me down as one of those guys who cannot comprehend the argument that conservatives ought to sit out this election to “punish” the GOP so that they’ll “learn a lesson” and get better/more conservative in the future.
To advocates of this position, I must respectfully ask… are you out of your flippin’ mind?
By what logic does a constituency become more influential and powerful by becoming less active, and demonstrating less capability to turn out the vote and influence elections?
Let’s say Congressman Tom Tancredo represents your views on illegal immigration. You’re angry at the GOP leadership for not espousing his positions; you’ve concluded that they don’t listen to him. Do you really think the ball will get moved in your direction by throwing the party that has Tancredo out, and replacing it with the party that doesn’t have a Tancredo figure in it at all?
Do you really think a Democratic Congress will get tough on illegal immigration? Yes, Howard Dean has said, “The first thing we want is tough border control.” He’s also talked out of another orifice about gay marriage on the 700 Club and blamed conservative Supreme Court justices for Kelo vs. New London when the four most conservative ones voted against it. (For that matter, you’re a conservative. Why the heck are you listening to and trusting Howard Dean?)
Or let’s say you’re unhappy about high federal spending. Your solution is to give Congress to Democrats, who have a long and well-established reputation for flinty tightfistedness on public spending and an ironclad commitment to spending taxpayer’s dollars wisely…oh, that’s right, they don’t! To deal with a Republican Congress that spends too much and a Republican President who won’t veto enough, your solution is to replace them with a Democratic Congress almost guaranteed to spend more, coupled with the President that doesn’t veto enough. How is that a win?
Yes, let’s punish the GOP for too much pork and earmarks by dis-empowering the Tom Coburns, John McCains, and pork-busting GOP House members. Sen. Robert Byrd will get a handle on this once he’s chairman of the appropriations committee!
And that’s not even getting to the topics where conservatives are happier with President Bush. What kind of Justice is likely to get on the Supreme Court between January 2007 and January 2009 if Democrats control the Senate? The John Roberts and Sam Alito kind, or the David Souter and Sandra Day O’Connor kind?
What kind of foreign policy statements do you expect from Democratic Majority Leader Reid and Speaker Pelosi, or Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Biden, and majority committee members John Kerry, Russ Feingold, and Barbara Boxer? How about “President Ahmedinjiad, we can work this out”? “Mr. Zarqawi, you can have Iraq, because we’re outta there”? “Kofi Annan, you’re doing a heck of a job!”
How big a fan of impeachment are you, since the rage of the left-wing blogs will drive Pelosi and Judiciary Chairman John Conyers to try to simultaneously impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney?
Yes, yes, I know the “I’m going to not vote, that’ll show ‘em” crowd is very, very angry. They also appear to be very, very under the influence of mind-altering drugs.
I’m still undecided on the matter, honestly. Being about as pro-freedom and therefore anti-liberal as they come, the thought of willingly turning over power to Democrats is, well, unacceptable. On the other hand, a vote for a RINO is a vote for a Democrat in all but name. I’ve always had problems with the Repubs anyway; I’m certainly not in agreement with most Republicans on the War on (Some) Drugs, abortion, questions of the separation of church and state, and the seeming willingness of a large part of the base to use the power of the government to butt into ordinary citizen’s private lives generally.
But yes, the Democrats are worse — very much so, in most every way. And if it’s all about sending ‘em a message, well, what kind of message is sent by putting more Democrats in office? Isn’t there a risk that the message is liable to get garbled and be interpreted as something like, “well, apparently most Americans want more liberalism, so we as a party ought to moderate our stance on the issues leftward”?
It’s a tough question, no doubt, and I expect I’ll do plenty more waffling before November finally arrives. Damn, I’m beginning to feel positively Kerryish here.
No wait, I take that back. Ahem.
- Entries
Yeah, sitting out the election is a gamble, to be sure. But I'm positive the Republicans need shock therapy. I'm not in it to give the Republicans wins, I'm in it to get conservative / libertarian wins. It's not happening with this bunch because no matter how pissed off we, the base get, there are people like Geraghty who insist the sky would fall if we had a Dem house and Republican President. Newflash folks: it might fall faster with the Dems, but it is still falling with the corrupt, fat, grafty Republicans. A little tactical sky falling between now and 2008 might not be a bad thing for the good of the country, and to get the Republicans back on track. Just my theory - it's possible the Republicans react like little babies the way so many Dems do when they lose an election, in which case it's better that we voters should know we can't trust them.
The major problem to GOP reform is, as I see it, twofold: incumbency and lack of competition. Look at a bloated pig like Trent "I'm damn tired of hearing about Porkbusters" Lott. Would he have the stones to piss off his constituents if he were faced, every election, by grassroots-supported conservatives who'd hold his feet to the fire? Or would he be such an arrogant prick if he were limited to two terms - no more, and no lobbying, no connection AT ALL with the federal government except to pay his income taxes and buy a stamp?
Geraghty's argument has traction because we don't want the party to get the wrong message. But not getting in their faces, not putting up (and supporting) conservative candidates - in short, not being an active, informed pain in the ass - gives us this rotten, suppurating cuttlefish of a GOP.
O.K. That's scary, and quite possible.
How about we cut out the Cherry retirement packages these guys get after even just one term, and insure that when they are done they return to the private sector to make a living.
Do you think you have a majority? I don't think that the majority of Americans are on the same page as the authors of ColdFury. I think that a good percentage finds something appealing in parts of the conservative agenda...such as fiscal responsibility.
I think a good percentage finds something appealing in parts of the liberal agenda...such as protecting the natural environment and keeping the federal government out of people's bedrooms and doctors offices.
I think those that really find their groove in the Libertarian views expressed here will forever be forming militias in Michigan, Oregon and Arizona.
Hmmm...president Hillary sounds more like a possibility every day.
Don't ever change, Zorro.
Do you really think they don't? Shall we look at elections since 1994, or polls concerning who self-identifies as liberal vs. conservative? (hint: countrywide self-identification polls sure as hell don't tilt "liberal") The country is moving irrevocably conservative. Part of that, the most deliciously ironic part, is due to "liberals" (commies) murdering their children in the womb instead of being human enough to bear them and raise them. Delicious, wonderful irony. Mmmmm, mmmmm, good! Or Karma, if you're the superstitious type. The Universe's way of saying "You suck!", if you're not.
And that's why you're in journalism, instead of a real job that deals with the real world. Around here, we call it "reality". Look it up. It's a real word.
While I'm sure everyone in America would prefer clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, and food grown in or raised on uncontaminated soil, most of the adults could give a rats ass about some damned snail darter, spotted owl, or tree hugging moron that won't shut up about the other two. As L. Neil Smith said (paraphrased) in The America Zone: "The only reason lefties love animals is because animals can't say Get a life, you idiot!"
That's the smartest thing you've ever said here. Most Americans still hate Abortion, though, and always will. We aren't overeducated so far beyond our intelligence that we can justify murdering a human being in the most innocent part of it's developement.
And the GOP is doing their damndest stop it. Bless them.
Repeat after me: Vote for the Elephant, not the RINO.
This is how I feel. Unfortunately, the analogy doesn't really hold, because in your personal life, if you throw your drunk boyfriend out, you can make a go of it yourself.
In our political system right now, if we throw out our drunk boyfriend, his violent, ex-con, crack-adidct cousin will move right into our house, and we'll be stuck with him for at least two years.
Bill Frist doesn't get it.
And Jim Geraghty doesn't get it.
In his May 12th article, entitled "Glenn, Helen, Ken, Michael, and the ‘I won’t vote’ crowd, he states: "To advocates of this position, I must respectfully ask… are you out of your flippin’ mind?"
What follows is a diatribe akin to the beltway media's scolding of American voters for 'throwing a tantrum' by removing the democrats from power.
Geraghty cites Pete Wilson's actions against illegals as the signal lesson as how coming down hard on illegals loses elections. This is false -- and really -- insulting to our intelligence.
First, California is not America.
It is, in a microcosm, what happens when the Left gets into power. California, with its heavy preponderance of fruits, nuts, leftover marxists and swamping illegals, the 'Left Coast' and not reflective of the USA as a whole.
A better lesson would be to draw on the experiences of how the Left treats its own and how the Right treats its own. After all, this is about votes, is it not?
For how the Left deals with those who stray off the reservation, I give you William Jefferson Clinton.
Is not the Left, the party of political correctness, of feminism? Ole' Slick Willy, a married man, could cut a swath through the willing and the unwilling, feel up an unpaid volunteer in dire need of work, engage in un-sex with an intern close to his daughter's age, and instead of howls of indignation that nearly Borked Clarence Thomas and unseated Bob Packwood, the Left's Distaff side continued to sing his praises. Nina Burleigh even offered her services, since the tradeoff would be 'worth it all.'
All that stuff about the tenets of feminism went out the window.
The Right, on the other hand, are pretty straight-forward. If you say you are asking for our vote to balance the budget, hold off taxes and defend the nation, by God, you'd better do so once you get to Washington.
George Bush senior forgot his fiery promise for 'no new taxes' and the Right stayed home in droves when he asked for an encore.
Remember that?
We smelt the same milqetoast Republican-in-Name-Only stench on Bob Dole, and, given the choice between voting for a democrat-lite and no one at all, the Right stayed home.
Republicans vote for a reason.
Holding our noses because of some fear of the other guys doesn't work. We *expect* the Left to screw America, ignore the Constitution, give away the Panama Canal, kowtow to our communist enemies and raise taxes.
What we cannot, and more importantly WILL not do, is tolerate it from one of our own.
Is it sinking in yet?
Illegal immigration, if it wasn't before, is NOW a core issue. If you screw America on this, it is not something you can finesse in November. What good are Republican incumbents if they give away the country to unworthy and non-assimilating illegal aliens? MILLIONS of them -- with a very foreseeable millions more on the way?
This is not a small thing. It is very big.
It is CORE.
It is president Bush, Bill Frist, the Vichy Wing of the GOP and folks like Geraghty that are playing with fire by kicking their core constituency in the teeth and expecting butterfly ballot support.
Ain't gonna happen.
You can't insult us by betraying the core principles of conservatism and expect conservative voters to play the Faithful Ho come November.
To get conservative votes you need to, first, do no harm. Eleven to twenty MILLION illegal aliens is the very definition of MASSIVE harm.
It has become abundantly clear that the White House and the Beltway GOP are intent on selling the country down the river, driving down wage scales, importing disease and a non-assimilating foreign underclass, all in the name of avoiding having to pay decent wages to American workers.
The Vichy Wing of the GOP are the ones on drugs here.
The Beltway Left and Right have whipsawed the tax-paying Middle Class on Immigration for years. With the White House ignoring its nose- diving poll numbers and dead-set on granting amnesty for millions of illegals, it richly deserves loss of power.
The Left will do whatever it is the Left does. We don't vote for them and never will. But we cannot and will not for those who betray our trust in them.
If Congress passes an amnesty for illegals, you can bet your bottom dollar that the conservative core will not be there in November. A line, used by Cromwell dismissing the "rump parliament" in April of 1653 comes to mind:
"You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"