I have a novel idea. How about the Republicans in Washington not give their base a reason to do such things.
Just a thought.
Who even cares any more. They had their chance and they blew it. Only insane people keep doing the same thing and expect a different result. Time to try something new.
If the 'Pubbies don't get with the program, they will go down to ignominious defeat in November, and they will deserve every bit of it.
Don't forget that if the Republicans lose the majority, amnesty WILL get passed!!!
Now that would be some real nasty punishment.
I agree with you 100%.
But try this experiment -- ask people, not what they think about "Congress" but about their own representatives.
The answers are different, is my experience.
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.
[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.
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
Good piece, I couldn't agree more. This is a team effort and when it comes down to the general election we have to band together and vote Repub. We have to maintain the majority or we'll lose much of what we've gained. I would prefer all Conservatives but being realistic I know it won't be that way.
Why not just change your registration to Democrat and get it over with. You quite obviously want the Democrats to win.
I'm seeing insults, attacks, condemnations and demands to act like mindless sheep, all in response to genuine concerns for the state and direction of our country. One party states do such things, just check your history. Party shall pass and be forgotten, country lasts.