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

National Reviews ^ | May 15, 2006 | Jim Geraghty

[FairOpinion]

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?

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.

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.

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.”

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.

[robowombat]

I voted for George Bush to be the President of the United States, not the President of Mexico. The problems of the Mexicans are the problems of the Mexicans. Not mine, not ours. If they have a screwed up dysfunctional incompetent culture that keeps them miserable and poor amid a country full of riches it is their problem not ours. I frankly don't care how poor the Mexicans are. Let them stay in their country and deal with their problems not criminally trespass on mine and proceed to steal and carpetbag my country. If the man who is the President of the United States can't see that and has such an excess of sympathy for the plight of those south of the Rio Grande that he puts their interest on the par or superior to your family and mine then he ought resign and pursue some sort of charitable work because he is violating his oath of office in a profound and truly insulting manner.

[buwaya]

Am I my brothers keeper ?

Is this part of the American ideal or not ?

[robowombat]

I really don't care what happens to foreigners. I know they wouldn't move an inch to help us if we were in distress. Mock us and move in for the kill is more like it. I care about my country and my family. The rest should look after themselves and not expect me or mine to be there to wipe their noses.

[Hop A Long Cassidy]

>>>You LOVED both terms of the Clinton administration, didn't you.

Bush is shaping up to be WORSE than Clinton in terms of domestic policy... and SPENDING. Do you like the spending under Bush? How many times did he veto spending bills?

If Bush keeps our troops in Iraq to the elections or if Iraq's alleged democracy collapses (it will) before the election then Clinton might go down as being stronger than Bush in foreign policy. I supported going in to Afghanistan and acquiesed to going in to Iraq because I believe they were conspiring with al Qaeda. Still do. But Bush should have partitioned or appointed a new Iraqi dictator for 10 years after we toppled Saddam and his likewise evil sons.

>>>You also simply adored 40 years of the Dems control of both Houses as well, I guess.

It's appearing that the Republican party is best relegated to counter-punching as a minority party. Gingrich is an excellent example of that. Bush gets everything going well for him, then he blows it and antagonizes his supporters in the last 2 years. He loves to spend other people's money. This time its the GOP's credibility.

>>>Okay, answer me this...WHY DIDN'T YOU THROW A HISSY FIT AND BAIL ON THE GOP, WHEN REAGAN GAVE BLANKET ANMESTY?

I was against it. But, "Fool me once, shame on you! Fool me twice, shame on me!" This is the second time (actually the second BIG time). So I realize that I need to point out what a travesty this amnesty is.
~What do you get out it?
~Why are you so for it?
~Will the security of our country be improved by 10 - 100 million illegal aliens, a good percentage of them Other Than Mexican?
~Why should they be allowed to have TWO CITIZENSHIPS and why should Fox and other Mexican politicians be allowed to come here and campaign for the DOUBLE VOTE back in Mexico?
~Why should we reward lawbreakers and people who have short-circuited the immigration waiting, jumping in front of millions of others?
~Why should we accept those who are a drag to our economy; why don't we recruit Mexico's engineers, doctors, managers; why do we let the illegals be "the deciders" instead of us?

This amnesty deal has already been shown to be a bad deal: for the country and for the GOP.

[Fruitbat]

You have to be stark raving insane to believe that a loss is EVER a good idea with a "silver" lining.

I've also been insane hoping that people that run on on tenet actually follow through on that. ; )

[Antoninus]

This is 100% correct. I'm not sitting out this election. I'm voting for conservatives. If the GOP can't be troubled to field conservative candidates (I live in NJ) then they shouldn't count on my vote. I don't vote for liberals--of either party.

[Fruitbat]

You say you don't see how the Dems controlling one House can hurt much. If they do, they will control every committee and that is a big deal.

I'm not seeing much conservative coming out of many committees. Some yes, but others no! Quite frankly, I see very little difference between this Senate and the ones that served under say Reagan. These Senators just don't know how to lead.

Name five strong leaders in the Senate!! I'm all ears! Hell, name two or three! The House is schooling these clowns in leadership but unfortunately they're in the House, where the clout of one Congressman doesn't come close to equalling that of a Senator.

I've never seen a bigger bunch of [w]ussies than what we have in the Senate now.

Either way, the GOP isn't doing squat to prevent this country from being overrun by Mexicans. What, a bunch of token National Guardsmen who serve a few weeks out of the year sitting there patching up tinfoil walls and jersey wall? Boy howdy!

Just don't come a cryin' when this nation is half Mexican and you're scrambling to find a nice place to live where English is the predominant language. Remember me and the rest of us when you're scratching your noodle over that one.

This nation simply cannot stand if we replace half the population with people that have absolutely no interest in America's welfare or any knowledge of its history. Yet, that's exactly what's on tap here both formally and implicitly. I realize that may be a tough concept for you and others to grasp. Why is beyond me. It's a simple, very simple in fact, numbers exercise.

But that's right, keep sticking your head in the sand like so many in the past have done. That stuff up your nose is sand.

[Fruitbat]

You think it's bad now? Just give the libs and moderates some more power and see what kind of insanity you can get (government funded abortion on demand, assault weapon and other gun bans, Kyoto, World Court, open borders, etc).

We didn't sign Kyoto or World Court under Clinton. Open borders are what Bush wants. This country has slipped more and more liberal politically even since Bush took office!!!

The populace has perhaps gotten more conservative, but who gives a damn when politicians all do whatever the hell they want anyway. Right!

Wake up!

[Fruitbat]

The silver lining in a 'few' GOP losses in '06 will be Speaker Pelosi. And its not enough silver to kill a vampire like her. If we are going to lose anybody, lets lose them because they lost to a better candidate or a better campaign and not just because we were pissed off and wanted to send a message by sending another democrat to Washington. A democrat here and a democrat there and we lose the tax cuts and the war in Iraq.

A Bush here and a Bush there and before two more decades are up, you'd better know your Spanish!

Tax cuts are great, but if the populace is 50% Mexican, who cares? How do you think "formerly illegals" are going to be voting? For tax cuts and those that support them? Highly unlikely!

The shortsightedness on this single issue is absolutely stunning. Someone asked me whether I enjoyed history in another unrelated thread. Some people here really, really, really need to brush up on history here and see what happens to nations that are care free in the defense of their pasts! Even the founding fathers knew that to keep this nation afloat the way that they had intended, a Christian morality would need to be the guide. The more illegal foreigners we allow in, the more this nation slides to the left (and it's on a grand pace now) morally, the less and less viability we have. It is that simple.

I hear all this about a GOP controlled this and that. Then WTH is our nation continuing to slide to the left politically, educationally, societally? Gay marriage is on the doorstep of many states and legal in some. Our public educational institutions are indoctrination centers for immorality. Our supposedly conservative politicians, particularly senators, are geldings more concerned with "getting along" with their liberal counterparts than they are about ramming through conservative legislation!

When that all changes, then wake me up and someone restate the counterargument.

[Fruitbat]

Not if the Dims control the house enough to rewrite the Constitution in that amount of time. Imagine a new law "The FReeper Registration Act" or perhaps "Elimination of the Electoral College Act"...

Anyone believe for a second the RINOs wouldn't side with a "Constitutionally Questionable" law or that the President wouldn't sign it?

My points exactly. But let me ask you, how much would you wager that something(s) such as that wouldn't pass with the current Senate?

You couldn't get me to wager a plug nickel.

[MaineVoter2002]

Although I think this year is very different because the "man on the street" co-workers...etc seem to reflect the bad polls, here in FR and other conservative boards there existed the same sentiment about the GOP around this time in 2002 and 2004. I think once the primaries are over the conservatives will re-group and unite (if it is just another 2002 and 2004). I do think it's different this year. The immigration/borders bill in the senate may hurt the GOP in november if it passes.

It's one thing to be angry over high taxes or a lie a republican told or something a republican may have done that's liberal. It's another story when they redefine out nation's citizenship, border rules and mess with our sovereignty.

That being said, there are some who really mean what they say about not voting for republicans this time and there are others who know our leaders read FR and they want to make sure our leaders know how they feel even if it all is a bluff. In other words, some angry posters are communicating with the GOP leadership in the 3rd person. It's healthy.

[Fruitbat]

That's an interesting outlook. Did you feel the same way during the presidential campaigns of 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2004?

Nope, sure didn't. Then again, we didn't have an attack on our soil, we didn't have Mexicans by the millions coming here in exponentially increasing numbers every decade, now threatening millions annually if we're not already there.

Clinton's slackness paved the way for much of the morass that we are now in. But the GOP is doing nothing to alter it's course.

Now, let me ask you; According to the stats and data, there's absolutely no reason to believe that we won't see an influx here over the next few decades of I'd say between 20 and 50 million illegal Mexicans. Some estimates and political "plans" accommodate even many more. So that's conservative.

I also don't think that it's a real stretch to assume that at some point someone's gonna figure out that they can make a real haul by selling "entries" into the States for anyone around the world with a certain amount of cash. I also don't think it's a reach, in fact I do think that it's all but a foregone conclusion, that Mexicans are going to continue to come here illegally just like water over the levees in N.O. as they broke, once they see that we really aren't serious about the problem.

Factor in the loss of the baby boomers and older (or do you think they'll all live to 200?), the much higher birth rates among those that come here illegally, making that a swing of somewhere between 120 and 200 million over the next 30 years by most estimates, and in a population that is currently slightly less than 300 million, again, a swing of say 150 million, and the question is...

...are you really that gullible to think that such a circumstance can't possibly have a historical altering impact on our nation?

[jazusamo]

But that's right, keep sticking your head in the sand like so many in the past have done. That stuff up your nose is sand.

For all of your negativity I still don't understand how you think we would be better off with libs controlling the Senate and House. You have many of the arguments from lib forums down pat, maybe you are posting on the wrong forum. I don't mean to imply you are a lib or a troll but campaigning on this forum by saying there might be a silver lining in us losing control of one or both houses is ridiculous.

[Fruitbat]

For all of your negativity I still don't understand how you think we would be better off with libs controlling the Senate and House.

I'll tell ya what, shoot me a note and I'll wager you a hundred bucks that you can't find one single post of mine that says what you just said that I said!

Deal? Or no deal?

Otherwise please give it a rest, permanently!

[jazusamo]

I will never vote Dim. But perhaps a GOP loss in one of the two houses may be a silver lining for '08.

I stand corrected, you didn't say the loss of both Houses would be a silver lining, you only said one House.

BTW, I won't be giving it a rest temporarily or permanently. That was another standard line from the lib forums.

[Fruitbat]

Well, I'm not a lib.

BTW, did ya ever think that some lib didn't coin "give it a rest?"

[Souled_Out]

"BINGO! The latest Dem win - strategy, and it seems to be working."

---

You guys are clueless.

[jazusamo]

Well, I'm not a lib.

To be honest with you, I didn't think you were but it reassures me to hear it.

Peace.

[Fruitbat]

; )

[bpjam]

100 Correct! (or 'Correcto' as it will soon be). And our primaries are where we should be waging our battles so we don't end up with weasels or cowards to choose between every other November.