Posted on 05/15/2006 6:22:08 AM PDT by 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.
Just where does the platform show an effort to defend individual rights? Seriously. Is it in there anywhere?
However IF the White House and RNC can manage to keep their noses out of the race this time then Ed Bryant {Conservative} will very likely win Frist seat and I will vote for him. He was one of the House Managers shafted by the GOP. Some how though some way I'm certain Washington DC can mess even this one up. On a positive note I see no links of Corker to Poppy Bush so maybe W will leave this one alone.
Voters need to send a loud and clear message to the RNC and White House no more business as usual. Be ready to do it again in 2008 as well. By 2012 No More RINO's should be the goal. Punish the RINO's by voting them out. If you can't vote a DEM fine also. Don't vote for either one. Send them a loud and clear message in November. Unless this is done ones like Hatch and Specter will stay there as long as Kennedy and Thurmond.
A value judgment, to which you are surely entitled.
When I consider and judge, I'm unable to be so dismismisive. However, I'm just a nobody who merely interprets what I read -- whose interpretation is obviously constrained by untold biases and limitations to which my betters are certainly not subject.
Many of the line-in-the-sand, conservative declarations I read, and falteringly interpret, strike me as honest expressions from straight shooters, i.e., "I can't take it any more" and "I won't vote for a RINO."
You say they are "obsessed and hysterical." Fine. You are clearly justified to ignore them... don't spend a minute trying to understand... mock and marginalize the people that try to explain their views. They are just the fringe... nothing to worry about.
No, I voted for Clinton cos I thought I was liberal at the time.
I know many Perot voters who went that way because they distrusted Bush.
It makes no sense to punish Republicans who are serious about border security. The problem is, only a handful of them are serious.
It will result in the defeat of conservative impersonators who whore for big business and use social issues to trick middle America into voting for them. These posers can't use the homosexual marriage issue this time.
B. Make sure that "the message" gets through (has any "message" vote EVER changed the party as the messengers intended?) and changes are made accordingly, and
I can only speak for myself. I'm not trying to send a message; I'm trying to purify the party of liberal contaminants. C. Guarantee that the Republicans of their choosing suddenly take back the Congress in 08 while keeping Hillary out of power
I can't guarantee anything other than that the Republican Congress you want to keep in power is going to get Hillary elected because of its blind support for Third World mass immigration. We lost California because of this.
Remember Congressman Bob Dorman of California?
He got voted out of office by a margin of 900...ILLEGALS. A liberal democrat now holds that seat. Be careful what you support. Now that these 12 million illegals have come out of the closet they WILL be voting in Nov. 2006 and they do NOT vote for republicans.
Make it known what you want for your vote, then vote. Vote for Republicans.
But the RINOs aren't the ones most at risk in this election--the true conservatives are. Poke around here and find a thread posted today that analyzes the at-risk seats. They're almost all Conservatives, with one or two RINOs.
So how are you goign to make sure on'y these "fake" conservatives are defeated while the real ones aren't in this election? And when your plan as described above backfires, as the facts in that article indicate, the message will be "Conservatives lose, RINOs win"--OK, so how are you going to spin THAT one? "Ooops, sorry, we REALLy want Conservatives to win, it's those damned RINOs who WON the election we don't like?
I can only speak for myself. I'm not trying to send a message; I'm trying to purify the party of liberal contaminants.
See my answer above and search the threads for that analysis. Your way isn't cutting off your nose to spite your face; it's cuttign off your head to spite your nose.
I can't guarantee anything other than that the Republican Congress you want to keep in power is going to get Hillary elected because of its blind support for Third World mass immigration. We lost California because of this.
And a Democrat Congress WON'T help get her elected?
Look at your last point again--I mean, come on, that doesn't even make sense. Putting in a Democrat congress will stop mass immigration HOW? And in the process destroy Bush, raise taxes, stop conservative SCOTUS picks...
In my post I said I was waiting for logical answers. Still waiting.
I know almost NO liberals who voted for Perot and I work in Massachusetts.
Not exactly. Parties understand that the nation has different mixes of political beliefs and that running the same candidate in Utah as in NY would like produce losses in each. Politics is the science of the possible and abstract ideals and principles are not always consistent with the possible. There is nothing wrong with this since Life forces all idealisms to accomodate its needs.
Our present Union was born through compromise of deeply held principles.
Though it may be that we are speaking of polarities and gradations along a line of principle. And the idea is to find that point of agreement on the line which will allow progress towards a goal.
BTW: the Dems will fix it so they can vote and legally apply for federal assistance. Count on it.
Take your marbles and go home if you want. I'm not ready to quit just because I can't have a whole loaf.
that was a pretty good shot. but you're still a stranger. always have been. always will be.
To those whom I do not wish to be a stranger I am not. "You're nothing to me Fredo."
and you are nothing to me. therefor your arguements are nothing. you have reached out and touched only the walls of your apt.
How will my heart ever stand up to the disappointment?
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.