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.
At least we have a great governer that knows what to do..:)
Jeb 2008!!!
I hate to recycle a post, but this is apropos:
The Democrats flare up an issue they know will be controversial amongst conservatives -- the ports, immigration -- and then fan the flames to pit conservatives against one another and against the President.
I can't believe how many FReepers fall lock, stock and barrel for this obvious strategy.
As Rush always says: "Being Conservative wins every time it's tried."
Not ALL Republicans ARE....
I see Tancredo's name posted all of the time...and yet it would not help him at all for the House to go to a Majority Dems...
There are many other Republicans that are fighting very hard...and you want to reward them by letting the Dems take over???
Why should THEY fight then??
[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...]
I've got a better idea. We could vote for those PARTICULAR members of congress who did what we asked of them and we could vote out the PARTICUALAR individuals who did not.
This idea that "The Republicans" betrayed us is ludicrous when there is such a wide range of congressional performance among them on diverse issues of both economic and social importance.
As I've often said before, it's not that I'm about to pull the lever for a Libertarian or something. But if I'm feeling discouraged about Bush, and if many Freepers are discouraged about him, as they clearly are, then there's a problem.
The problem is that even if we hold our noses and vote Republican next November, many millions of conservatives who don't usually vote but who turned out in the last election will simply stay home.
No use preaching to the converted. I hope most of us are sensible enough to hold our noses and vote for the available Republicans. But the most effective thing would be to persuade Bush, Rove, and the Republicans in congress to mend relations with their base, or else whatever we may think, will nevertheless soon be out of power.
I still like Bush. I think he could be doing a lot better. That was what I felt about the Miers episode. I wanted to say to him, "Don't do it. It won't work. You're just damaging yourself for nothing."
I'm sure the great majority of Freepers would rather see the old Bush of his best moments come alive again, rather than vote for someone else. But Bush has been a political disaster for most of his second term. The only really good thing he has done was the Roberts and Alito appointments, and maybe the tax cut extension. Those two supreme court appointments were great. But why didn't he follow up on them with more appointments, and use the momentum before he lost it again?
*yawn*
Of course some of the Republican base feels a sense of futility, and for very good reason. And yes, some of it will either make a protest vote for the American equivalent of the Monster Raving Loony Party (oh, wait - Dean's kind of got that one locked up, doesn't he?) and some will sit it out and it will be difficult for the Republicans to maintain the slender majority they've enjoyed and used not as well as they might have. All that is given in the state of eight-year incumbency. Clinton's boys felt it too.
This will serve as a corrective to complacency on the part of the Republicans and to the superficial reactionism we have seen on the part of Democrats who ought to know better. Who learns first will be elected.
" DO you think the opposition is going to address ANY of the conservative issues that might be dear to you???"
I get nasty FReepmail every time I say this but if illegal immigration were abortion, Jorge never would have been elected.
(For the bot minded, "Jorge" is an intentional poke at El Presidente's failure on the border)
What do you have in mind -- Senate Majority Leader Reid or Speaker Pelosi? I wish some folks would quit complaining and elect real conservative Republicans (through organizations like the Club for Growth).
what is the "Bush plan"? the senate bill?
I guarantee you, if that passes - all of the beneficial elements will materialize - guest worker plan, amnesty in the form of a legal path to citizenship for those already here. and none of the security measures, even though they are in the "compromise" law, will ever materialize - no border security, no employer sanctions, zip.
I remember 1992. I voted in 1992. And blaming Ross Perot is a red herring. Bush didn't do what he promised and he didn't fulfill his campaign promises. Your argument boils down to we should have continued to vote for Bush even though he didn't do what he said solely because he was on the 'right' team.
Contrary to the argument of the faithful, this is not a damned team sport. It's not 'us vs. them'. It is stepping into the booth and remembering the privilege the Framers bestowed upon us. The right to vote for who we believe supports our views the most and will represent us best. I did not believe Perot or Bush or Clinton would represent my views. IIRC, I voted Libertarian that year. When you step in that booth, you are supposed to vote for what you believe, not against another candidate. Of course this is probably why the Framers never intended for us to popularly elect Senators or Presidents. Because the intellect of the average citizen of a respective state only goes so far before it devolves into simplistic emotional arguments that can't be supported by the Framers' intent but rather by group think
REPUBLICANS brought up the anesty bill.
Not Democrats.
Stop the denial.
If they don't do the right thing on behalf of their base, they won't be in office, which means the moneymen will be bribing their replacements instead.
There goes the Catch 22, right out of the voting booth.
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?
I don't know why you would think that, because I don't. I want the republicans to get back on track and do the right thing. I'm not advocating turning things over to the RATs.
If they get their s#@t together you won't have to.
First, there's no H in "RINO", so perhaps you should learn that before you put your nomination in.
Second, we have every right to call out a politician who gets himself elected into office on a traditional, conservative ideals, and then turns around and betrays said ideals once comfortably ensconced in DC.
Conservatism does not stand for allowing criminal tresspassers into our nation the right to become a citizen. Conservatism does not advocate runaway pork spending.
To me this thread hijacking is getting old. Yes we have a border problem ok, but HELLO THERE ARE OTHER ISSUES BESIDES THE BORDERS!!!!!
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.