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 3)
on Oct 17, 2006
The problem with asserting that Republicans "deserve" to lose because they have failed to address conservatives' concerns is that the cause of that failure was the RINO's in the Senate with an occasional slip up by Bush. The idea that they were compacent or corrupt is laughable. The truth is that they had to deal with too many liberals who call themselves Republicans.

The Republicans really don't have a majority in the Senate. Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Lincoln Chafee, Arlen Spector and Gordon Smith aren't moderates, they are moderate liberals. They wouldn't allow the tax cuts to be permanent, they balked at social security reform, immigration reform, etc. The Republicans have failed because they have too many liberals who stand in the way of the conservative agenda. Giving power to Democrats isn't going to solve the problem, it will just make it worse. In addition, they have McCain who is a narcissist with Presidential aspirations who will do anything to curry the media's favor and Chuck Hagel and Lindsay Graham who seem to need to be contrary no matter what the issue is.

The Republican party has failed because it isn't conservative enough. Contrary to what you read in the main stream media, conservative positions on enforcement of immigration laws, low taxes, strong defense, eavesdropping on terrorists' phone calls, protection of heterosexual marriage and reforming social security are popular. They just couldn't get those things done with the Hagels and Spectors in the Senate.

That being said, the problem boils down to weak leadership by George Bush. I think he is a good man but he is a horrible politician and a horrible leader of the Republican Party.
on Oct 17, 2006
Any party that makes torture, oh excuse me, "stressful interrogation techniques", the official policy of my country, the United States of America, deserves to lose and lose big! And every Democrat that voted for that "compromise" deserves to lose as well! And just for good measure, a few more things the Repubs have bungled:

1. Ignored the advice of the military and committed far too few troops to the Iraq war.

2. Failed to provide any sort of logical plan for a transition from Saddam's iron hand (which, onerous as it was, managed to keep Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds from engaging in the civil war which is now brewing) to a democratic government.

3. Squandered heaven knows how much public money to pay private contractors for projects and infrastruture repair in Iraq that either has not been done or has been done in such a shoddy manner that it cannot be used. (See stories about the police station with the leaky roof).

4. Passed a medicare prescription drug plan which threatens to bankrupt the system.

5. Injected the federal government into what should have been a family and/or state question in the Schiavo affair. (And this from the party which claims that government should be LESS intrusive)

6. Is involved in a planned campaign to increase executive power to the point that Congress becomes, if not meaningless, then a mere rubber stamp for Presidential desires. Incidentally, that one is going to bite them on the arse the next time a Democrat is elected President.

7. Virtually obliterated all Congressional and Executive oversight, thus making it a virtual certainty that the Delay, Cunningham, Foley, Weldon (I could go on, but you get the idea) fiascos would occur.

8. Gerrymandered electoral districts to a degree not seen for generations in order to provide Repubs with a permanent electoral edge.

9. Became entwined with K Street to the point that they were even insisting that lobbying groups hire Repub staffers so that only the Republican party would be the recipient of lobbying largesse.

10. Refused to draft any serious plan to free this country from foreign oil even though they give lip service to it and the technology exists right now to do it.

I could go on. I won't, however, because I think that's probably enough. I will just add that more civil liberties have been tromped on in the name of national security under this administration than were curtailed during World War II. I have voted mostly Republican in the last two elections. I'm very sorry I did that now. I have never in my life voted a straight party ticket, but I will be voting a straight Democratic ticket this year, not because I think the Dems are going to be great, but because I've had all I can stomach of this bunch of creeps.

Incidentally, Instapundit is not alone in thinking the Repubs deserve to lose. Check out the Washington Monthly web site for the essays written by such conservative luminaries as Sean Hannity and others on why they think the Repubs should lose too.

on Oct 17, 2006
Sorry, not Sean Hannity. Joe Scarborough was the one I intended to mention above.
on Oct 17, 2006
As usual, Rush is absolutely correct. Too many folks are tossing in the towel before the battle is joined. In the middle of a war, with national survival at stake, we discuss petty "nickle and dime" things, and consider placing the obstructionists and appeasers back in power. We will prevail in the war against terror simply because we are too wealthy and powerful not to, but control by the Dems will cost a lot of blood and treasure to get there!
on Oct 17, 2006
the President's negotiating position in dealing with North Korea or Iran.


LMAO! President's negotiating position? Our president "don't need no stinkin' negotiating!" Bush negotiate! OMG that is so funny. And they call me a comedian!

That Democrat Congress you so long for will impeach George Bush, probably Cheney, maybe Rumsfeld.


About the only downside I can see to that is "President Pelosi."

I have voted mostly Republican in the last two elections. I'm very sorry I did that now. I have never in my life voted a straight party ticket, but I will be voting a straight Democratic ticket this year, not because I think the Dems are going to be great, but because I've had all I can stomach of this bunch of creeps.


Ditto.

I took the derision of being a Republican in the entertainment industry, but for the first time I am embarrassed and ashamed of the name. I'll never be a Democrat, but I'll be damned if I remain a Republican.

on Oct 17, 2006
The tax bills have already been signed! The susnset goes into efect without any action by anyone! Don;t you get it????
on Oct 17, 2006
you said:
You're incorrect on that. "Everything" that goes though congress hits his desk for final approval! Ever hear the word "veto"?

There is nothing to sign. "Sunset" makes taxes go up. That's the law as ALREADY signed by the Prez. The Dem's don't have to do a thing!
on Oct 17, 2006
My favorite part of Bush and Cheney's consipiricy on 911, the ultimate ironic FU to America, was when they arranged to have Bush reading "My Pet Goat" to pre-schoolers when they put the plan into effect. How cool was that! Genius, it was sheer genius!
on Oct 17, 2006
John J. Jenerik


John Generic?

Aren't the real conspiracy nuts enough of a joke themselves?

It would be nice if Cheney would just totally disrupt a news conference by scratching his ass with the pointy tail already, though.



"Why, Mr Cheney, are those horns or are you just happy to see me? OH MY GOD! They ARE horns!!!"
on Oct 17, 2006
One does not listen to Rush Limbaugh for accurate news. One listens for the entertainment value he brings to whatever pseudo-news there is.
on Oct 17, 2006
Um, the Instaman said "they'll deserve it if they lose." That's entirely different from saying "I want them to lose", or "I'm working to help the Democrats win."

I think the Republicans will deserve it if they lose. But I'm working to see that they win anyway, because I don't believe that _I_ deserve what wll happen if they lose.
on Oct 17, 2006
My experiences with Limbaugh have been completely opposite of yours, over a 15 year period and running. In fact, I haven't found any other political/social/everything pundit who has been proven so right over time...almost all of the time! One problem you may be be experiencing (like I did) is that Rush stays committed to bedrock principles, even during volitile times like election run-ups and war. During these times, I have often found myself looking for quick, easy answers to calm any uncertainty on my part. During these same times, I often find myself (susceptible?) to doubt over accusations from opposition, whatever they may be. Case in point - Gulf War I. I was so wrapped up over the dire predictions that the major networks were claiming we would face, that I was listening to newsradio 24/7, found this "insensitive" guy Limbaugh who was laughing at these predictions and was claiming the opposite of almost everything they were saying. Guess who was right? If I think back over the years, I could probably think of numerous times that Rush has been proven correct, not that day, but rather over time.
on Oct 17, 2006
"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."

I don't understand WHY PEOPLE BELIEVE THEIR TAXES ARE BEING LOWERED WHEN GOVERNMENT SPENDING HAS GONE UP EVERY SINGLE YEAR. Would you all be interested in my plan to lower your electric bill by plugging in an air conditioner and a heater in each room and putting it on your home equity line of credit?
on Oct 17, 2006
Great. Ok - let's think this through. For the sake of discussion, let's assume Democrats will act on only 3 of the most common issues that are near and dear to their base.

If Democrats win the House and Senate, there are 3 congressional agenda items that will be a given simply because Democrats have stated them repeatedly at various fund raising events.

1) they will repeal the Bush "tax cuts for the rich".
2) they will bring the troops home.
3) they will hold investigations on the administration for "war crimes".

Item 1 occurs just by maintianing sunset provisions, so taxes will increase automatically. Demorats can legitimately say "we didn't raise taxes, that was already in the tax code". Item 2 will occur simply by limiting funding for troops deployed overseas " I voted for it before I voted against it" sound familiar. Item 3 is what is bringing in cash at fund raisers and enabling 9/11 conspiracy loonies posting here and elsewhere. When it occurs though, it will limit the ability of all future Presidents in time of war and crisis. The doctrine of advise and consent has always operated (intentionally) as advise and dissent. But to place the President on trial for war crimes in the middle of a war that the MAJORITY of Democrats authorized is a recipe for foreign policy disaster, especially in the times we live in.

Add to the pot there are 1-2 supreme court justices postponing retirement until Democrats are in a position to affect who will be confirmed and the true issues really become more clear.

Finally, as others have posted, I may hold my nose in the voting booth, but we're still better off with the GOP. At least when their guys screw up, they get tossed out, as opposed to dealing with 1 excuse after another as to why they need to stay (it's a private matter, just look at all he accomplished for his district, he really tried but just couldn't help it, etc.)

on Oct 17, 2006
1) One of the things that might make me vote Democratic this election is all the stupid morons
talking about "raising taxes". Those fools don't realize that "Borrow and Spend" is just as bad as "tax and Spend".
2) Bush's latest budget shows that the federal debt in 2008 will be $9.9 TRILLION --$3.8 TRILLION more than what he promised back in 2001 and $4.2 TRILLION more than when Bush entered office. Most of those TRILLIONS were taken out of the Social Security/Medicare Trust Funds. When the baby boomers retire in a few years, Bush's IOUs will have to be paid back. ( No government will survive telling the AARP to eat dog food--especially when AARP members are just asking for the money that they have paid into their accounts over the past 45 years.)
3) The money to pay off Bush's debts will have to be a budget surplus --over and above the normals expenses of today's government. There are only 61 million households available to pay off Bush's debt (the other 50 million US households make less than $40,000 per year and can't pay squat.)
4) $4.2 TRILLION divided among 61 million households yields $70,000 per household. Throw in the debt approved by Bush 1 and Reagan ($3.3 TRILLION) and you have a total of $124,000 owed per household.
5) What posters here don't yet realize is that their LIFE SAVINGS ARE TOAST. Future governments, no matter who they are, are going to levy VERY HIGH TAXES on 401K and IRA withdrawals.
6) Maybe the purpose of Homeland Security is not to protect us from a few hairy-assed primitives from third world countries. May Homeland Security exists to protect the Republican leadership from the rage of 50 million middle class Republicans when those middle class supporters realize just how badly they've been screwed.

7) Several years ago , I've might have suggested that they're worried about armed members of the National Rifle Association.

But the NRA leadership has shown that it is the biggest pack of PUSSIES around. The same NRA leaders who, a few years ago, waved obsolete firearms over their head and raised millions from people like myself in the name of "FREEDOM". They argued that we need firearms in case a dictator ever tried to take over the USA in the distant future. They talked about the "jackbooted federal thugs" who enforced a search warrent issued by a judge at Waco.

Then the NRA leadership turned around and elected a Republican President, a Republican Congress, and Republican Supreme Court that is creating a dictatorship TODAY. That has just given the next Clinton the right to imprison US citizens without a warrent-- to deny US CITIZENS the right to trial by jury -- and to torture US CITIZENS at will.

That the next time a Ruby Ridge occurs, the Clintonian Government will NOT have to answer to Congress and to the Courts.

8) But hey, maybe we're all such fucking morons that we deserve to be screwed like dogs.