Conservatives sitting out 2006 hurts the GOP’s right, not the RINOs

National Review ^ | 05/15/06 08:39 AM | Jim Geraghty

[isaiah55version11_0]

I doubted the strategic wisdom of conservatives sitting out this election to “teach Republicans a lesson”; several bloggers have responded.

There are still doubters and skeptics, though. What’s really stunning is this absolute certainty of angry conservatives that A) Republicans will learn the right lessons from the defeat, and not, say, respond in a panic by embracing their inner RINO and flailing around for MSM approval and B) that the Republicans can easily win back Congress in 2008, just by stiffening their spines and pledging to return to their conservative roots.

I have my doubts on both counts. For starters, why would Republicans get the message that “we need to be more conservative” in a year that conservatives were knocked out?

Who are the Republican lawmakers most angering the conservative base? Well, let’s say Sens. Trent “I’m tired of hearing about Porkbusters” Lott, Ted “Bridge to Nowhere” Stevens, John McCain for cosponsoring Kennedy’s immigration bill and campaign finance reform, Arlen Specter for being a pain in the tushie over judges, Chuck Hagel for being the New York Times’ favorite Republican senator to criticize Bush, and other minimally-conservative Republicans like Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. Well, they’re not going to lose in 2006. Most of ‘em aren’t even up for reelection this year.

Look at the Republicans most in jeopardy in 2006. (I’m using National Journal’s most recent rankings.)

In the Senate, a bad year for the Republicans would mean the loss of Rick Santorum (who has lifetime American Conservative Union rating of 88 out of a possible 100, and a 92 in 2005) in Pennsylvania, Jim Talent (93 rating lifetime, and a 96 in 2005) in Missouri, Conrad Burns (91, and a perfect 100 in 2005) in Montana and Mike DeWine (80 lifetime, only 56 in 2005) in Ohio. Of course, Ohio voters who sit this one out will replace DeWine with Sherrod Brown, who has a lifetime rating of 8 and 4 for 2005. And they won’t get to revisit that decision until 2012.

If the GOP base doesn’t show up in Minnesota, you get Amy Klobuchar instead of Mark Kennedy (90 rating lifetime, 84 in 2005).

If the GOP base doesn’t show in Maryland, you get Ben Cardin (lifetime rating of 6, 2005 rating of 0!) or Kweise Mfume (lifetime ACU rating of 4) instead of Michael Steele.

If the GOP base doesn’t show in Tennessee, you get Harold Ford (19 lifetime, 21 in 2005) instead of Ed Bryant (lifetime ACU score of 98!) Van Hilleary (lifetime score of 97!). Another GOP candidate is Bob Corker, Chattanooga mayor.

If the GOP base doesn't show in West Virginia, you get Robert Byrd (lifetime rating of 30, 20 in 2005) as Appropriations Committee Chairman, instead of businessman John Raese.

If the GOP base doesn't show in Washington, you keep Maria Cantwell (11 lifetime, 8 in 2005) instead of businessman Mike McGavick.

Okay, maybe Chafee goes down. But you've lost how many solid conservatives to remove this one guy?

In the House, I'm looking at the vulnerable incumbent Republicans, according to the Hotline.

There’s Bob Ney, who has a lifetime ACU rating of 86, and 88 in 2005. I realize he has ethics issues; the voters in his district will have to decide whether the allegations are serious enough to disqualify him from office. (Presuming a prosecutor doesn't say something first.)

There’s Jim Gerlach of Pennsylvania, with a 67 lifetime and 56 in 2005. Let’s observe that Kerry carried Gerlach’s district, and Al Gore did as well four years earlier; each of the last two cycles Gerlach has carried 51 percent of the vote. So Gerlach may be as conservative a lawmaker as you can elect in this district.

Down the line of the National Journal list, you see fairly conservative to very conservative GOP lawmakers at risk this year: Shaw of Florida, 82 lifetime, 71 last year. Heather Wilson of New Mexico 82 lifetime, 75 last year. Mike Sodrel of Indiana, 92, only served one year so far. Davis, Kentucky 88, another first-year guy. Hostettler of Indiana, 90 lifetime, 100 in 2005. Pryce of Ohio, 79 lifetime, 83 in 2005. Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania, (Mr. Able Danger!) 70 lifetime, 65 in 2005. Charles Taylor of North Carolina, 92 both lifetime and 2005.

Yeah, maybe if conservatives stay home, they’ll knock out liberal Republican Chris Shays of Connecticut. Whoop-de-doo. Who’s going to be left standing?

Trent “I’m tired of hearing about Porkbusters” Lott, Ted “Bridge to Nowhere” Stevens, John McCain, Arlen Specter, Chuck Hagel, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins.

Nice job, guys. Your effort to re-conservativize the Republican Party in Washington by staying home this year will have the effect of massacring the actual conservatives and empowering the moderates who you disdain. Perhaps we can call this counterproductive maneuver “RINO-plasty.”

But that’s okay, the staying-at-home-conservatives insist. The GOP will win back the House and Senate in 2008, establishing a true conservative majority.

Maybe. But as I mentioned, what kind of lengths do you think the Democrats will go to in order to keep power once they’ve got it? Does the “Fairness Doctrine” ring a bell? You think Pelosi and Reid wouldn’t try that tactic to hinder conservative talk radio? How about McCain-Feingold 2.0, with a particular focus on controlling “unregulated speech” on the Internet and blogs?

Think the MSM was cheerleading for Democrats in 2004? How much more fair and balanced do you think they’ll be when their task is to defend Democratic House and Senate majorities AND elect President Hillary Rodham Clinton? My guess is, they’ll make the CBS memo story look accurate and evenhanded by comparison.

Think the GOP can prevail in close races once they’re out of power? Ask the members of the military who had their ballots in Florida blocked. Ask Doug Forrester how well his anti-Torricelli campaign worked when he suddenly faced Frank Lautenberg at the last minute. Ask Dino Rossi. Ask Democrat Tim Johnson if he’s glad the last county in South Dakota to report its results just happened to have enough of a Democratic margin to put him over the top in 2002.

Once the Democrats regain control of Congress, a GOP takeover is going to be exponentially harder than it was in 1994. You’re never going to catch the Democrats as flatfooted again.

Why are so many conservatives hell-bent on cutting off their nose to spite their face? Are they really willing to throw away a decade’s worth of work and go back to square one?

We usually like looking at the Daily Kos crowd insisting for an immediate pullout of the troops or impeachment hearings right this second and we laugh at them for their ludicrously unrealistic expectations.

But apparently the Kos are not the only ones with an all-or-nothing mentality. Sometimes in life you have to use the West Coast offense, nickel and diming your way down the field instead of going for the long bomb. If I want a more conservative government, I get it by electing the more conservative of the two choices, even if he isn’t as conservative as I would like. I do not get it by sitting on the sidelines and pouting, and letting the less conservative guy take the reigns of power.

For this I get labeled a “bamboobzled [sic] boob” by the likes of Bill Quick. Yeah, I’m the unreasonable one.

[isaiah55version11_0]

Please read the whole thing before you start flaming.

[theDentist]

On the other hand, you can vote for them, and they can then continue ignoring you for another two years.

[The_Victor]

Please read the whole thing before you start flaming.

Good GOP reality check. No flame from me.

[SShultz460]

Good Stuff from Jim.

Thanks, I'll reconsdider Shrugging Atlas this year

[308MBR]

The GOP "leadership" should have thought about this before they started legislating and spending like socialists.

Let the RINOs have the GOP. They have already taken it over.

[rhombus]

Sorry, I don't feel ignored. I didn't get all the candy I wanted but I sure as heck felt MORE ignored by liberals (not to mention demonized too).

[cripplecreek]

Allowing millions of new democrats to flow across the border won't exactly help the GOP either but they've already chosen their scapegoats.

[Buffalo Head]

Right on! It's such a shame that too many 'conservatives' would rather be 'right' than effective in politics.

[rhombus]

but they've already chosen their scapegoats.

Huh?

[prion]

Okay, maybe Chafee goes down. But you've lost how many solid conservatives to remove this one guy?

I can't decide if this is disingenuous or merely clueless, but it certainly makes me look sideways at the rest of the argument.

There's a good chance Chafee goes down if conservatives show up this time, since he's got a Republican primary challenger. His best chance is for conservatives to sit out the primary but show up in droves, hold their noses and vote for him in the general election. Does that sound like a plausible scenario?

[xzins]

There is something bad broke in the system used by the Senate, in particular. Basically, once they get into office they are accountable to no one for 5 out of 6 years.

The silly traditions (rules) of the Senate are stacked against decision and solidly in favor of procrastination.

[JamesP81]

The problem is that we have this iron-bound party system. The RINOs are doing what they are doing with the blessing of the RNC, and people know this. The perception among the public, therefore, isn't that they are punishing specific republicans, but that they are punishing the whole party for not doing what it promised.

Right or wrong, if the GOP doesn't get its head out of the sand over immigration they are toast, and protestations to the unfairness of it are going to do nothing. We can't deal with the world the way we wished it was; we deal with as it really is.

This whole situation is the best argument for term limits I've ever seen.

[TomGuy]

Vote for the same, you'll get more of the same, whether party or politician.

American needs a vast change, and neither Dem nor Pubbie Party offers it. Both have moved further and further to the left, to bigger government, to more government, to more government control.

The GOP is showing its historic true colors as the party of big-business (and screw the little guy).

[L.N. Smithee]

In other words, Geraghty sez: Forget fiscal responsibility, forget immigration reform, forget paring bureaucracy, forget rejecting cronyism. Rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy it.

Thanks, Jim.

[justshutupandtakeit]

No voice of SANITY can expect to receive any response but howling absurdities from the "base". Once the baying-at-the-moon pack starts to run it is hard to stop.

[Brilliant]

I think they way you cast a protest vote is to vote against the incumbent in the primary.

[rhombus]

We can't deal with the world the way we wished it was; we deal with as it really is.

Honestly, I'm not sure that is the case with Conservatives these days. They want what they want and they refuse to compromise. That's a good action when you have majority opinion on your side and this is indeed the case with SOME issues that are important to Conservatives. However, that is NOT the case with ALL the issues that are important to Conservatives. Refusal to compromise is not dealing wht the world as it realy is.

[G.Mason]

"If I want a more conservative government, I get it by electing the more conservative of the two choices, even if he isn’t as conservative as I would like. I do not get it by sitting on the sidelines and pouting, and letting the less conservative guy take the reigns of power."

History does not back up this assumption.

People traditionally sit back until it becomes obvious that a drastic change needs to be made. Hence the French Revolution, our own Civil War, etc..

I, for one, will listen tonight. What is said, and not said, will determine my participation in any further election nonsense.

I'm afraid reality is beginning to set in on this tired old voter.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Conservatives sitting out 2006 hurts the GOP’s right, not the RINOs

Isn't that the point? After the elections, they can gripe louder.