[neverdem]

Nailed it, IMHO.

[dirtboy]

This cuts both ways. For every conservative gnashing teeth over RINOs, we have moderates backstabbing candidates like Randy Graf.

Time for both sides to shut up and vote for the pubbie nominees, and save the infighting for the next round of primaries.

[showme_the_Glory]

No matter how bad it gets on this side, I will never root for the side that wishes our enemies win.

[kesg]

[Skooz]

Nice article, but many are so enamored with their Gottadamarung complex they won't care.

[savedbygrace]

Nah, all of his analogies are extremely poor. This one's closer:

If your son were behaving badly, messing up his life and creating deep debts that you and your family are obligated to pay for, and inviting criminals and beggars into your home without permission, giving them the unfettered run of the place, would you continue to reward him with bonuses and increases in his allowance, because "another son would be worse"?

[Eagles Talon IV]

Yup, I hope the fools who populate this forum and spout that "we need to lose" crap read this and have the capacity to understand it.

[Wallace T.]

So, a setback for the Republican Party is a setback for conservatism

If only most Republicans were conservative in the areas of limiting Federal spending, cutting back on Federal authority in areas they should not be in according to the original intent of the Constitution, and insisted that our borders be protected from illegals, this statement would be correct. Most Republican congressmen and senators are like the liberals of the Kennedy-Johnson era. True conservatives in the Taft-Goldwater mold are rare. Their only saving graces are their strong support of national defense and their moderation in comparison to the socialists and perverts who dominate the Democratic Party.

[jazusamo]

Nailed it, IMHO.

Exactly!...Right On The Head.

[Sister_T]

Seems to me the time to "punish" those with whom you disagree is in the primaries. When the primaries came here in Ohio, I voted for some guy named Pierce over DeWine. Mr. Pierce lost. Now, between DeWine and Sherrod Brown, I will be voting for DeWine, holding my nose while I do it. I hate being put in this position because it seems neither candidate wants to secure the borders but I will not vote for a DemocRAT! They want to get U.S. killed with their sycophantic molly-coddling to these terrorist swine!

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

Political parties are coalitions held together by compromises.

In Canada, infighting on the right kept the Lieberals in power for 16 years -- while the "conservative" vote was split between two parties. Sometimes you have to chose between ideological purity or power.

[Tarantulas]

This is exactly what I've been arguing on another board with a bunch of conservatives who are also a variety of moonbat. They say the Republican party has deserted them so they are going to not vote, or vote Democrat, or vote for a Libertarian or the Constitution party or some other tiny splinter party with no chance of winning. My recommendation to them was to become active in the Republican party and make it into what they want it to be instead of trying to defeat it. Fortunately (I hope), weirdos like those guys are very small minorities who won't have much effect overall.

[x]

Good arguments, but it looks like the Bush administration has been a real milestone. For fifty years Republicans have been saying that electing a Republican Senate and Congress would help Republican Presidents keep taxes, spending, deficits and the national debt down.

That's probably true for taxes, but it's not true for deficits and indebtedness. Republicans all around means lower spending than Democrats in control of everything, but higher spending than divided government. So divided government is starting to look good to many voters.

The defeatist arguments are unfortunate, but they're a clear indication of a big change in political thinking. There are other good grounds for keeping the Democrats out, but it will be a long time before we'll be able to contend seriously once again that giving a Republican President a Republican Congress will keep spending down.

You can see this as a milestone comparable to Lyndon Johnson's administration which killed the Democrats argument that "breaking the deadlock" with liberal Democrats in control would mean "completing" the New Deal and bringing prosperity for all. Since Johnson, voters have been justifiably afraid of ever giving liberals or Democrats the power that they had in 1936 or 1964 ever again. They may draw a similar conclusion about Republicans, at least until we prove that the party has changed.

[Gone_Postal]

conservative > republican
if you call yourself a republican it dosen't always mean your a conservative.
for the math impaired
= equal
< less than
> greater than

[D.P.Roberts]

The writer doesn't understand bottoms and how they change behavior.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Cutting off their nose to spite their faces is what some do BEST. It is a wonder any Republicans ever win.

[Atlas Sneezed]

If I had 10 sons in school, and some were prone to be slackers, I'd take the first opportunity to ground (or otherwise memorably and unpleasantly punish) the one who slacked the worst, while giving the rest a treat. Let them all learn consequences from straying from family principles.

If I coddle them all, they will all be tempted by the benefits of straying.

If I am strict with the individual, all the rest will take the lesson.

Granted the analogy is flawed (as is the author's) because politicians are replaceable, and sons aren't.

But I'm happy to hope that a few unprincipled RINOs lose, and let the others take a lesson and be more stoutly conservative.

[SolidSupplySide]

Why do we have Republicans publicly hoping that the GOP loses in order to, "teach them a lesson?"

Because "Republican" and "conservative" are not synonyms.

Conservatives want to enact conservative policies. Some Republicans resist these policies. Therefore, conservatives want to get those RINOs out of Congress and replace them with real conservatives.

Dirtboy suggests that the proper venue to remove the RINOs is in the primary. Unfortunately, Republicans don't like to challenge incumbents in the primary. Consequently, getting rid of the big spenders in the primary doesn't work.

[TAdams8591]

"There's an assumption that lost seats can easily be recaptured in another election, that spending would go down if Democrats ran the House, and that the Democrats can't do that much damage if they're in office. None of these assumptions is necessarily or even likely true."

Agreed.

[Hop A Long Cassidy]

Current GOP leadership:

"Vote for me, or I'll shoot this puppy."

[WestVirginiaRebel]

The problem is that being the majority party for so long has made the GOP complacent. When they were the minority party, at least they acted like Republicans. I'd also say another Newt Gingrich might be in order to remind them of what they're supposed to be about.