Posted by Curt on 13 May, 2006 at 2:14 pm. 5 comments already!

UPDATE BELOW 5/14/06

Great points made by Jim Geraghty having a discussion about the “mad as hell” Conservatives:

Permit me to offer a meaner, less civil version of an argument I put forth on TKS recently:

Angry GOP grassroot voter: I?m mad as hell at the Republicans in office! They?re terrible on immigration and spending! I?m staying home this year to teach them a lesson!

Jim: You realize that there?s absolutely no chance that a Democratic-controlled Congress will seriously crack down on illegal immigration.

Angry GOP grassroot voter: Yes, but I?m really angry!

Jim: And you realize that despite your dreams of a paralyzing gridlock, there?s almost no chance that a Democratic-controlled Congress would spend less than a Republican one?

Angry GOP grassroot voter: Yes, but I?m really angry!

Jim: And you realize that putting Robert Byrd in charge of the appropriations committee to fight pork and earmarks is like putting Bill Clinton in charge of babysitting your hot teenage daughter?

Angry GOP grassroot voter: Yes, but I?m really angry!

Jim: And you realize that the Democrats? first order of business in the House would be impeaching Bush and Cheney simultaneously?

Angry GOP grassroot voter: Yes, but I?m really angry!

Jim: And you realize that any future Supreme Court nominees until at least January 2009 would be whiny moderates who ?grow? into liberals once they?re on the Court?

Angry GOP grassroot voter: Yes, but I?m really angry!

Jim: And you realize that the proper stance in the war on terror and/or Iran under Speaker Pelosi is to put your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye?

Angry GOP grassroot voter: Yes, but I?m really angry!

Jim: And you realize that you?re also kinda retarded.

Cam:

[…]Just playing devil?s advocate here, it seems like what you?re suggesting is that as angry as conservatives are, they need to suck it up rather than send a message. Or at least the message that they send shouldn?t be to allow Democrats to take over either the House or the Senate.

The problem with that, of course, is that many conservatives are feeling that the Republicans aren?t all that conservative these days. They don?t see much of a difference between putting the Democrats in charge of appropriations and pork projects and the current state of affairs.

Jim:

As angry as conservatives are, they ought to realize that the best way to advance a conservative agenda is to replace a not-conservative Republican with a conservative one in primaries (like Laffey vs. Chafee, or Toomey vs. Specter), not to replace a Republican with a Democrat. (Okay, once in a great while, you will encounter a conservative Democrat against a liberal Republican, like Joe Lieberman vs. Lowell Weiker a few years back.)

I don?t see the choice between a GOP Congress and a Democratic Congress as the lesser of two evils. I find it a choice between a sometimes flawed, frustrating, and incumbentitis-plagued majority against a potentially-entrenched Congressional majority that is pretty much diametrically opposed to all of my priorities.

[…]What?s really stunning is this 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.

Do you have any idea what lengths Democrats will go to in order to keep power once they?ve got it? Does the ?Fairness Doctrine? ring a bell? Got any doubts that Pelosi and Reid wouldn?t try that tactic to shut down conservative talk radio? How about McCain-Feingold 2.0, with a particular focus on controlling ?unregulated speech? on the Internet and blogs?

[…] am continually stunned that this all-or-nothing mentality is so widespread. 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.

These people who want to sit at home and let the Democrats win “to send a message” make no sense to me. Sure your frustrated about Immigration and spending. But Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Kennedy will help solve those things how?

How will ensuring out party is less powerful solve this? It wont. We will lost he majority and if you think it will be easy to take it back then you are outta your freakin mind.

UPDATE

Found this at The Anchoress that pretty much sums up everything I have been trying to say, but much more eloquently:

But as I put the subject away, I just have to ask all of you people – on every side – who have decided that immigration is one man?s burden, and that every good thing President Bush has done is to be negated because he hasn?t snapped his fingers and done what YOU think is the solution to the immigration problem?what did Clinton do about immigration, what did Bush 41 do? What did St. Reagan do? What did Carter do? What has any president, congressperson or senator done about immigration for the last 30 years, except kick the issue down the road for someone else to deal with?

Reagan, if you remember, was the amnesty president. Clinton was the ?borders? What?s borders, everyone is our pal? president.

Lots of bills that were ignored by past presidents, particularly during our ?vacation from history? have come due on Dubya?s watch. The whole world seems to be coming due on his watch, and damn him for not handling everything perfectly. What a loser, eh? And it?s easy to kick a guy when he?s down, isn?t it? AJ is getting weary of it, too.

Energy. We were promised back in the 1970?s by President Carter that we would cease to be dependant on Middle East for our energy. How?s that been working out, all these years, all these presidents, later? Oh?Bush DID try to get a comprehensive energy bill passed in congress. No go. Congress kicked it down the road for someone else to deal with. Whatever happened to expanding and strengthening the grid? What will we say this summer when the blackouts and brownouts occur? That bastard Bush?he didn?t fix this. No mention that congress kicked and kicked that ball away.

Social Security. We?ve been told it?s the ?most important issue? – or at least we hear it every election year?but everyone knows it?s going to hell. Oh?Bush DID try to get a comprehensive reform of Social Security passed in congress. No go. Congress kicked it down the road for someone else to deal with. Social Security is a joke, but it?s a joke with a lockbox, and the key?s long throw-away.

Terrorism. We?ve essentially been at war with Islamofascism since our countrymen were held hostage for 444 days, since our soldiers were slaughtered in their barracks. Since Saddam tried to kill a former president. ?This will not stand,? yeah, yeah, yeah?we heard it all. What did Carter do about it? What did Reagan? What did Bush 41? What did Clinton do – particularly when AlQ began to attack American interests, holdings and naval vessels on an average of every 20 months? What? Are those crickets I hear chirping?

Finally after 3,000 of our countrymen died action was taken, and the action continues?and Bush has worked very hard to keep us safe and to destroy the infrastructure, funding and communications of Al Qaeda and their ilk, but?you know?it?s a bad thing for us to monitor the calling habits of AlQ and their co-horts. That would be an awful abuse of power, wouldn?t it? Right up there with accessing FBI files on political opponants and other Nixonian tactics, right? Better to completely mischaracterize what he?s doing and call a hero a tyrant and a traitor a hero?because?because?well, because the truth is Bush is doing the job on terrorism too damn well, and we can?t bring ourselves to report that.

And now, immigration?one man is to blame, one man is at fault, one man must find the Solomonic solution. And if he doesn?t, he?s a bum no matter what else he?s done. Meanwhile, the press can?t get over the president who smiled and cried his way through two terms, and they still work on his legacy. Can you ever recall a time in history where 6 years after an administration ends, the ex-president is still breathlessly being polled-on, still being given (on most days) as much press as the current president? I can?t.

When Clinton was being waylaid, his party closed ranks. Now Bush – a good man despite his flaws, (and what president is not flawed) is being attacked on all sides, and his party just jumps in with both feet and kicks away. It just doesn?t seem right to me. And I know, I KNOW?he?s been a job to defend for all these years against unprecedented attacks – I?m tired, too. But I cannot go along with the ?get Bush? mentality from the right.

[…]I wonder who all those principled conservatives are going to vote for in ?08. We did this ?he?s not conservative enough for me, I?ll vote principles or stay home? thing once before, in 1992, didn?t we? How?d that work out for you?

[…]Some emailers are telling me that various lefty blogs are carrying on that ?The Anchoress is ?packing it in? because Bush is toast.? Apparently my citing the latest ?Clinton-Bush? poll convinces them of this fact; the poll merely made me roll my eyes and wonder what past administration has ever been so incessantly written about and polled-on, fully six years after its demise, but whatever. I?m not fed-up with Bush. I suppose if you want to wilfully misread me, you can come to that conclusion, but I like and admire him, and I am glad he is our president.

Bravo, this nails it!

0 0 votes
Article Rating
5
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x