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.
Troubel ahead for the American middle class
Free Republic | may 16, 2006 | jim shirreffs
Posted on 05/16/2006 9:05:47 AM PDT by jpsb
I have for many years now, been warning of the age old battle between the super rich and the middle class. Only in the usa during the 19th and 20th century, did the middle class win that battle. During the 19th and 20th century in the usa the power of the super wealthy was curtailed. Government enacted laws that protected the middle class and encouraged exspandsion of the middle class.
Anti-trust laws prevented the super rich from gaining control over entire industries. Today these laws are ignored. Labor laws enabled workers to bargain for a living wage. Today these laws are ignored. Trade laws protected American manurfacturs and labor from unfair foreign competition. Today these laws are ignored.
The super wealthy gained control of the government via lobbyists arguing corporate interests over middle class interests.
Also interesting to note that the poor class always sides with the super rich, since the super rich give the poor bread and circus.
Why do the super always fear the middle class? Because a middle class can threaten the interests of the rich. A middle class that has it own means of generating wealth is not dependent on the rich, it's a wild card that might very well sack the rich.
Ever wonder why the wealth generating machines of the usa (manufacturing) are being moved overseas? Wonder no more, the rich want to break the back of the American middle class by taking away the middle classes ability to generate wealth. Ever wonder why the rich want to flood the usa with uneducated poor from totarian nations? Wonder one more, these people will be the hammer that will enforce the policies the rich (government) want enforced. Publicly objects to government policies like bilingualism or immigration or entitlements for the poor and you will get your ass kicked by the "new" Americans.
This is what is happening, the global monied elites do not give a damn about the usa or it citizens. The global monied elite in control of our government see the uppity American middle class and it quaint Constitution as a threat. We that believe in the Constitution, G*d and the rule of Constitutional law are about to be made extinct so that the world will be a safe place for the elite families of the world and thier coporate/government servants.
"they deserve at least one congressional house flipping to the Dems."
You absolute fool. I'll make sure to remember this post when the libs take over and push through REAL amnesty for illegals, gay marriage, liberal federal court judges, higher taxes, and capitulation in the war on terror.
By the way, this latest assault from the libs (divide and conquer from within by fomenting discontent and pretending to be disaffected conservatives) is by far the most effective, and insidious.
How many FReepers are smart enough to recognize it? Judging from your post, not many.
and just so you understand. The faggots in the elite media ride the coat tails of the super rich like lizards basking on the walls of the high haciendas.
Glad to hear you understood at least half of it.
If anyone is a fool, it would be the person totally ignoring Jim Robinson's admonitions against personal attacks. Of course, what would one expect from someone who has a god complex.
Since you're no rocket scientist, let me explain this in simple terms. Flipping one congressional house to the Dems for two years gets none of the above accomplished when the other house and the President are Republican. Thank you for playing. Try again when you have a clue as to the checks and balances between the legislative and executive branches.
A parade of imaginary horribles is no basis on which to cast one's vote...although you're certainly trying to scare FReepers into believing it.
And how, pray tell, do you mean to control which house of congress flips? If you "disenchanted conservatives" do stay home in 2006, what's to stop us from losing both houses?
Even if you could engineer a single house flipping, which one would you choose? Giving the libs control of either house would be an unmitigated disaster for legislation and the president's agenda, most of which is a HUGE SUCCESS FOR CONSERVATIVES.
Have you ever heard of the phrase "going from the frying pan to the fire?" What do you think will happen when you eliminate Republicans because they're not conservative enough for you, knowing full well that they will be replaced by Democrats, who are far more liberal?
You are MUCH closer to REAL amnesty for illegals, gay marriage, liberal federal court judges, higher taxes, and capitulation in the war on terror if the libs take over one house, let alone both. What part of that don't you understand?
Also, did you view the 8 years of Bill Clinton as a "parade of imaginary horribles"? I know that I didn't.
Giving the Dems a slim majority in the House would benefit the GOP on several fronts.
1. It wouldn't affect judicial confirmations (done by the Senate).
2. The GOP would get a wake-up call...particularly the RINOs who appropriate like Dems.
3. President Bush might find his veto pen and use it on runaway spending.
4. The Dems would overplay their hand in the House by talking impeachment, etc...giving the GOP something to run against from the right in '08.
5. As for controlling which house flips, the current makeup is such that it is much easier for the House to change hands than the Senate. There'd have to be a successful WMD attack on the U.S. for both to flip hands...and in such case, the GOP would deserve it for playing fast and loose with border security.
6. As for your other post, Bill Clinton's presidency is irrelevant to this topic. The Dems with a slim majority in the House is not the same thing as a corrupt Dem President.
Delusionary nonsense of the highest order. Devoid of understanding history, or economics but perfectly fine for the paranoid conspiracy freaks.
I understand that you are clueless in every important issue.
Jim Robinson says "he will crawl through broken glass to prevent these monsters from regaining power." Foolish posts that encourage political suicide help no conservative goal.
so you are flaking for the federales.
even the mexican leftists get it.
////////////////////////////////
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060516/us_nm/usa_immigration_leftist_dc;_ylt=AqHQrX35zKeSbhOSy_maIEKs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MjBwMWtkBHNlYwM3MTg-
Immigration is Mexico's disgrace: leftist candidate
By Alistair Bell Tue May 16, 12:17 PM ET
MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - Illegal immigration to the United States is "Mexico's disgrace," caused by the government's failure to create enough jobs, the country's leftist presidential candidate said on Tuesday.
ADVERTISEMENT
Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, who trails conservative Felipe Calderon in polls ahead of July 2 elections, accused President
Vicente Fox's administration of causing the flight of millions of Mexicans to the north, which prompted
President Bush to order National Guard troops to the border.
"They are the ones mostly responsible for what is going on because there is no employment, there are no jobs in Mexico so people need to emigrate," Lopez Obrador said on his morning television show."
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.