Posted on 05/11/2006 8:25:42 PM PDT by Burr5
There has been a rising tide of opinion expressed these last few days on Talk Radio regarding the impulse to vote against Republicans in the upcoming congressional election in order to punish them for their whorish pandering to illegal aliens, their fiscal irresponsibility, and their general disregard of the demands of the conservative base. I have heard echoes of this on Rush Limbaugh, Mike Gallagher, Laura Ingraham, Glenn Beck and Bill O'Rielly.
We should be worried about this attitude. Especially those of us who remember 1992. In George H.W. Bush's second presidential attempt, a conservative rebellion (over tax policy) and the insurgent candidacy of a purported "economic conservative" (Ross Perot), resulted in the election of the most venal, irresponsible, demogogic criminal in the history of American politics. 43% of the electorate was enough to give us eight years of Clinton.
So would sitting this one out, or voting for a Libertarian get us closer to where we want to be? Everyone realizes that a conservative temper tantrum at the polls will only serve to grant power to the Democrats. Would this "teach the Republicans a lesson"?
Perhaps. But where would we be then? We are at war. The Democrats believe the war is Bush's fault. 9-11 was an aberation. It will not happen again even if we don't listen in on Al-Qaeda's phone conversations. We will be safe if we pull out of Iraq. There will NEVER be a justification for bombing Iran's nuclear facilities. There will be no more war for oil, and yet the Caribou in ANWR will still be safe from the predations of Exxon-Mobil.
Domestically, we can expect the likes of Charles Rangle and Ron "Red" Dellums to hold the reins of power in the House of Representatives. The Bush economy will not be destroyed; things will simply become more "fair" for women and minorities.
And, of course, the great gains we are making in the corrupt, tyrannical judiciary will come to a screeching halt. If you're alright with the "right" of irresponsible young women to hire doctors to shove a metal implement into the skull of their partially born babies, and to have them crack open the skulll, vacuum out the brain matter as the tiny arms silently flap around, and then throw the corpse into the trash, then the make-up of congress may not be of much importance to you when the next confirmation hearing comes around. Chairman Leahy- Say no more.
Politics is a TEAM SPORT, ladies and gentlemen, and one does not express one's dissatisfaction with the team's effort by aiding the opposing team.
Do not let the party of treason, greed, corruption, infanticide, demogougerey, hypocricy and judicial tyranny gain power.
It could take another forty years to get it back.
I guess I was under the mistaken impression that most conservatives were fairly bright.
What do you not understand about a 2 party system?
Only one of 2 partys will win. If you advocate the GOP losing - then you are advocating the DNC winning.
There is no third option.
You can talk about "hyperbole" and "that's not what I said" all you want - but the reality is a loss for the GOP is a win for the DNC.
How can you possibly not see that?
Of course, you want the GOP to "get back on track". I want there to be peace and happiness for all mankind, but the real world rears its ugly head. And political reality will rear its ugly head in November. Punish the GOP - reward the DNC. It's that simple.
Republicans have control of the Senate??
UHHHHHHHH...no.
If we had 60 reliable Republican votes, or if we had a coalition of 50 some odd Republicans plus a few Democrat Zell Miller/Ben Nelson types, then Republicans would have control of the Senate. There is simply no way Frist can get a bill out of there that the Dems are in lockstep against. And that is not spin, that is the truth. (I do not say that to support the "compromise" bill provisions; most of them I don't support). What Frist is trying to do, I think, is get a vehicle out of there to a conference with the House.
However, it's more to get the monkey of the Senate's back, appears to me, than to get a bill to the President, because the House Republicans have already declared their unyeilding opposition to the Senate bill's overall approach and most of its provisions.
We are due for a recession, will it be caused by this president, or the next? I believe it will be a result of cyclical forces, or is controlled at a different level than chief executive.
On the USSC, show me the difference it will make in fact not theory.
Whomever is in charge will not be allowed to stack the deck. If Bush appoints another judge, they will be a liberal, or one of those he has appointed already is going to reveal themselves to be one.
This President has been pursuing an agenda not conducive to sovereignty, and he refuses to enforce the laws of the land. I have no trust in this govt at all, they are corrupted. There is a slight chance that things will change, but not by the ballot IMO.
I didn't see anyone "forcing" the president to jump into this, and jump into it on the side of the senate bill. he could easily have diffused this whole thing, instead of pushing his own party to the brink.
"I know my local congressperson is against illegal immigration and against amnesty and espouses the same conservative views that I hold, and so is probably yours, how does punishing him help the overall party move forward?"
Has it ever occurred to you that the Party is moving in the WRONG direction?
the carrots already in the proposed compromise bill. practically speaking - some of the illegals currently here are going to be legalized, we all know that. the ones with children who are american citizens for example. I can accept some carrots so long as we actually had real border security and real employer sanctions. and so long as we had an enforcement period first, to discincentivize many of transient workers from staying - so they deport themselves.
Agreed. The key would be (though in this climate it may not be wholly realistic) to increase the GOP majorities in the House and Senate, THEN weed out the RINOs as necessary. That would make the 2 houses more conservative, and we'd still keep power...
Allowing the Dems to take control again could keep them, as the oroginal poster said, in power for another 40 years...
Consider the power of the MSM. Rumors of its demise have been greatly exaggerated, ESPECIALLY among wishful-thinking FReepers.
If the GOP isn't vocal as the majority in both houses and Presidency, then how would you expect them to be vocal as a minority party? You're dreaming. Think back to the confirmation of RBG. How many GOP votes against? 1? 3?
Which one is that?
"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."
--George Orwell (Animal Farm)
These single issue voters totally crack me up.
I agree. GO CONDI!
There are 2 choices come November. GOP, or Dems. Staying at home, or voting 3rd party, helps the Dems...
Jeez, some of you, with your single issue voting minds, are ridiculous. I'd rather have half a loaf, or more appropriate here, 80% of a loaf, than none at all.
Wake up folks, and realize that we need to INCREASE GOP majorities, THEN weed out the RINOs where we can (being pragmatic, Rinos are the only ones that can win on parts of the West Coast and Northeast).
You're making way too much sense.
I'm just hoping that this chest-beating will subside as we get closer to the election, and people come to the realization that there are really only 2 choices. PERIOD.
One of the most recent postings, ealier today...
But Jorge Arbusto is a Mexican agent, not a representative of the American people. He is bought and paid for by his big-money paymasters who want cheap labor. Why should we expect anything more from him?
What lesson will that teach the GOP? Please educate me Husker.
I think they want to "teach" the GOP how stupid some voters can be.
I'm amazed... This would only help Hillary and the Dems in '08. How could they not shiver at the thought of Rangel, Pelosi, Reid, Conyers, Schumer et al... in power?
Plus, Bush is so damaged that if this keeps up he will be a strong headwind against the 2008 nominee, whoever that is. Which means, President Clinton.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.