Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Displeased with conservative apathy
Published on October 16, 2006 By Draginol In Republican

Recently Glenn Reynolds, webmaster of Instapundit.com, the world's most popular blog site and a conservative made the argument that if Republicans lose, it's because they deserved it.

Rush Limbaugh today struck back with the charge of "Do we deserve to have our taxes raised? Do we deserve a cut and run policy in Iraq? Do we deserve to have endless congressional investigations?"

The argument is strong but I think overlooks one thing -- we do have a Republican President right? Our taxes aren't going to be raised before 2008.

My view is the same as Glenn Reynolds.  The Republicans blew it. They became complacent and ignored their constituents. If they lose, I do think they lost because they deserved to lose.

Does that mean I agree with those who think we should have higher taxes or that we should abandon Iraq? No. But the Republicans losing the house (and even the senate) doesn't mean that's going to happen. It gives Republicans two years to clean up their act and make their case in 2008.

I say, let the Democrats win the house if that is how it's going to be and let them make the case that we need higher taxes, abandon Iraq to terrorists, etc.  Then in 2008, those issues will come up with a vote by the American people and Bush and the Republicans can demonstrate how they were able to block those policies in the Democratically controlled congress.

But right now, I have little excitement for Republicans. I don't feel they've held the principles they were elected on -- balanced budgets, securing our borders, etc.

Update 10/17: Rush talks more on this issue.

Update 10/19: My response to Rush.

Update 10/20: So now I'm a "Cut and Run" conservative?


Comments (Page 2)
on Oct 16, 2006
Glenn Reynolds is neither a conservative nor a Republican, and he assumes that the general electorate cares as deeply about boring policy wonkery as he does. I doubt 90% of registered voters could tell you who Harriet Miers was at this point. However, they *do* know that Nancy Pelosi was on Meet the Press promising to raise taxes to above Clinton levels and they *do* know that Murtha is promising to cut and run in Iraq.
on Oct 16, 2006
What no Instalanche?
on Oct 16, 2006
The problem with the Dems taking the house or the senate is they are the not-serious party. They aren't really serious about governing they just want the perks of the power.
on Oct 17, 2006
I'm sorry, I don't see the basis for confidence that if the Democrats take the House, there will be no real-world consequences for us.

First of all, their ability to distract and harrass the President (impeachment, anyone?) won't strengthen the President's negotiating position in dealing with North Korea or Iran. Who knows how that might play out. One possibility, though, is that the other side in a negotiation with these countries or with Russia or China might mistakenly view him as weak or crippled and refuse to negotiate the way they otherwise would have, pushing him to choose a military answer that might otherwise might have been avoided. If that happens, that's a consequence we'll all be stuck with.

As to taxes, again I don't understand why people are so confident that the President can or would singlehandedly prevent them from being raised. If, for example, the Democrats say that the only way they'll approve needed funding for the Iraq effort is if the President agrees to various tax increases, my guess is he'll go for the tax increases. Is that an implausible scenario? I don't think so.

Sorry, guys, I'm with Rush in this discussion, even if he's a blowhard. It's easy to wash our hands of this election, as if we the people have nothing at stake, as if the Republicans somehow "deserve" to lose and the Democrats reciprocally "deserve" to win. The Democrats might indeed take control of the House, but that's nothing for us to be happy, or even neutral, about.
on Oct 17, 2006
"If the Republicans lose it is because they deserve it." -Instapundit

This is a true statement

"If the Democrats lose it is because they deserve it." -Joel Mackey

This is a true statement

This is the sad state we find America in, a party in power who faces no credible opposition and thus squanders thier opportunity to effect needed changes. An opposition party lost in a losing paradigm.

God please have mercy on us, please.


Rush and republicans in general should focus on primaries to push out the entrenched incumbents, that would be revolutionary and effect real change.
on Oct 17, 2006
unfortunately every thing the dems would mess up they would blame on the bush admin.
on Oct 17, 2006
Huh? We have a Republican President and that means taxes can't be raised? I guess you missed what happened to the first President Bush : 'Read my lips..."

It's the legislative branch that controls much of this. The President can do one thing - veto something proposed by the legislature.

The power to raise taxes, to provide sufficient money to provide our soldiers with food, weapons, and everything material, will be voted on by the legislative branch. If they refuse to fund the war, the war will cease and may lead to a scramble to get out, much like we saw in the final days of Vietnam.

Oh, and by the way? That Democrat Congress you so long for will impeach George Bush, probably Cheney, maybe Rumsfeld. I doubt they'll impeach Rice, but they will smear her beyond redemption.

Get off your butts and vote GOP. It's not perfect, but the alternate is stagnation, corruption, and perhaps the end of the American Democracy.
on Oct 17, 2006
"Glenn Reynolds... made the argument that if Republicans lose, it's because they deserved it. Rush Limbaugh... struck back with "Do we deserve to have our taxes raised? Do we deserve a cut and run policy in Iraq? Do we deserve to have endless congressional investigations?"

As is too often the case, a poorly observed argument. Reynolds was speaking of the Republican PARTY, not Joe Voter. He made a narrowly-focused argument that the Party deserved to lose, not that the public deserved to have the unfortunate fallout Limbaugh SURMISES will occur as a result. If a few more Democrats are elected, does that mean taxes are going up for certain? That we'll pull out of Iraq? That politics as susal will change? Not necessarily. With Liieberman as an example of what happens when a Democrat (Lamont) kowtows to the loud, lunatic left, chances are good that many of the new majority will seek firmer ground. They'll gravitate to the centrist party of -guess who- Hillary. Considering how Limbaugh feels about her, perhaps his real, though unspoken, concern is that a Democratic majority would help Mrs. Clinton's presidential bid. (He's right, they would. This will be the beginning of the party's shif away from the left, which will surprise many benighted political observers.)
on Oct 17, 2006
People always deserve the government they elect. If people are dumb enough to vote for officials they don't deserve, then they deserve what they get. Duh! Heh.
on Oct 17, 2006

"Official" 9/11 story On Life support; The Truth is Taking Over

The gutless purveyors of fraud trying to shout down the 9/11 Truth movement are not going to like this news. The "official" story is on life support, and the prognosis is not good.


Talk about a "gutless" purveyor of fraud! Don't look in a mirror! Thanks for the laughs!
on Oct 17, 2006
I'll submit here an email I sent to Dr. Reynolds, which he didn't print, and which represents a perspective I don't think I've seen elsewhere:

"Regarding your list of Republican "failures", I think your attitude is of one failing to give credit where it's due, something I would think the media does a good enough job on. Will blogs follow in their grand tradition? Heh.

You yourself keep mentioning how well the economy is doing, and how the deficit target was hit years ahead of schedule. The deficit was a major conservative complaint for a while. Yet, when he kills it ahead of schedule, no credit for "listening to the base".

Harriet Miers is a dead deal... any conservative should be -thrilled- with how things turned out in the long run with judge picks, and personally I think the Miers pick was never really serious and was just strategery that got him to get Roberts and Alito in. In the end, we got as good judges as we could have ever asked for, and neither of them turned out to be wolves in sheep's clothing - but no credit for "listening to the base".

On border security, the fence deal - I -never- imagined it would happen, not even the little bit we've gotten. The borders debate has moved ahead lightyears further than anyone would've expected a year or two ago - but no credit for "listening to the base".

Foley - let's face it, totally contrived. If he'd been dismissed based on the initial emails, the screaming about anti-gay bigotry would've been huge.

That leaves Terri Schiavo - which I sided with the social conservatives on (I'm agnostic), and I think they were treated far far FAR more nastily than the reverse, would you like some examples of the venom they received? - and Hastert defending Jefferson, which you get no argument from me on, that was disgraceful. Oh yeah, and Dubai ports, which I think was a pretty contrived "scandal" as well.

I'm unhappy with a few things too, but I think Bush has paid a LOT of attention to the base, has given us a -lot- of what we've asked for, and is simply not getting credit for it. But then, certainly the media's not going to, why should we expect the blogs to? The MSM were just "ahead of the news cycle" once again."

on Oct 17, 2006

"Official" 9/11 story On Life support; The Truth is Taking Over

The gutless purveyors of fraud trying to shout down the 9/11 Truth movement are not going to like this news. The "official" story is on life support, and the prognosis is not good.


Would you like me to make tin-foil hat for you?


I'm unhappy with a few things too, but I think Bush has paid a LOT of attention to the base, has given us a -lot- of what we've asked for, and is simply not getting credit for it. But then, certainly the media's not going to, why should we expect the blogs to? The MSM were just "ahead of the news cycle" once again."


You know I am a staunch Bush supporter but....I'll have to agree he has messed up on somethings.
on Oct 17, 2006
Unfortunately, if the Dems take control of Congress, they can raise taxes and Bush can do nothing about it.
This is because Bush's tax cuts had sunset provisions in them. Thus, by doing nothing, the Dems could raise
our taxes.


You're incorrect on that. "Everything" that goes though congress hits his desk for final approval! Ever hear the word "veto"?
on Oct 17, 2006
it's hard to understand why a party that has been negligent in every way would receive ANY support. with massive debt hanging over both the country and its citizens, a worsening healthcare system, massive congressional corruption, massive militarism which has only weakened our ability to respond to REAL enemies, denial of an inevitable climate crisis, and massive cronyism is LESS important than a party's position on taxes. We are all truly doomed!
on Oct 17, 2006
I got the impression Rush was shooting before aiming, having mis-read the meaning of the term "pre-mortem." He's a busy guy, I figured he skimmed but did not study the "pre-mortem" posts.

Rush, don't beat us up for being defeatist, because that's not what's going on. We're conservative, we're feeling ignored, we don't like the current House leadership b/c we think they're pansies, and we wish we had Newt Gingrich running the store instead. Politics is the art of the possible, and a lot of Rush's preaching has made us believe some things are possible that just aren't happening.

This "pre-mortem" talk is exactly what we need right now. As Dr. Johnson originally said, the prospect of having Speaker Nancy Pelosi in a fortnight has the wonderful quality of concentrating the mind. The fact is that I'd rather have the Republicans who are running things sit down together and have a "come to Jesus meeting" and fix what's wrong NOW instead of AFTER the election. If you haven't read Newt's essay in Human Events, read it now. This election is winnable and Newt describes how in a clear, focused way.

Frankly, I believe the Republican chances are a lot better than what the "generic" polls tell us, because the only time a "generic" Republican runs against a "generic" Democrat is when two hacks have been annointed in two smoke filled rooms. Instead elections are between two people who stand and fall on the case they make to the electorate. So, Mr. Republican candidate, get out there and win some hearts. Fire up us Conservatives so we'll be working phone banks and putting up yard signs and crawling over broken glass to vote you.