Rush, Instapundit debate II

Bottom line: A Democratic victory would not be the end of the world

Published on October 17, 2006 By Draginol In Republican

Today on Rush Limbaugh's show, Rush referred indirectly to yesterday's article about the Instapundit vs. Rush fallout.

From listening to the show, Rush clearly seems to think that conservatives, such as myself, are being naive or as he put it, should "expand their horizons" on what the repercussions of a Democratic victory in November would be.

Considerable time was spent on the premise that votes shouldn't be used to "teach a lesson". Or more to the point, that a vote really can't be used to teach a lesson. I disagree. You can bet that if the Republicans lose, especially given how loud the right has been about its dissatisaction with Republicans in congress, that they will take it to hear.

The difference is that many conservatives, myself included, don't think the world will end if Democrats gain control of the house (and even the senate). We're not like the hysterical left that thinks if its opponents win that the world will be destroyed.

I don't think we'll see some massive tax increase, I don't think we'll "cut and run" from Iraq, I don't think Bush will be impeached, I don't think we'll lose the war on terrorism. If the Democrats were about to get a big majority of congress, I might feel differently, but at most, the Democrats would have a tiny majority in both houses with a veto-wielding Republican in the white house.

If congressional Democrats start acting like kooks for all the American people to see, they'll suffer in 2008 when the stakes are much higher.

And you can also be sure that congressional Republicans won't soon forget what happens in the age of the "new media" if you piss off your base.

So Rush, spare us the patronizing "we've been brainwashed by the 'drive by' media". It was on-line conservatives that got Trent Lott out after his foolish remarks about Thurmond. It was on-line conservatives that exposed the forged documents on 60-minutes. We don't get our marching orders from the MSM. If anything, the marching orders to the MSM increasingly come from the blogsphere. Sites like Instapundit, JoeUser, and tens of thousands of others who in turn express the opinions of ordinary Americans.

We are unhappy with Republicans. That doesn't mean we'll vote for Democrats out of spite, they have their own constiuencies to deal with. If Republicans lose, it's becauase they didn't earn our vote. And you can bet they will remember that. They will have plenty of statistical research to drive that point home. And the world won't end.

Update: And no, I won't be "glad" if Republicans lose. I just think if they lose, they brought it on themselves..

Update: Yes, I understand there are lots of Democrats who act like kooks. And yet, when the senate was narrowly under Democratic control prior to 2004 it wasn't the end of the world. IF the Democrats win back the house AND IF they pass bills that Republicans don't find acceptable THEN Bush should use his VETO. IF he does not use it, then that speaks to a totally different problem.

Response: Rush discussed this on the show, here is a response.

Comments (Page 3)

Cycloptichorn

on Oct 17, 2006

You think I'm posting here, that I found this place, because I am an 'MSM sheep' who doesn't know what is going on in reality? I know about the things you list. You say not to play equivalence games, preemptively, because you know it would end badly for anyone taking the Republican side in such games; these days, at least.

It isn't that Democrats are squeaky clean. They aren't. Noone in Washington is; in order to get elected to office these days, you need millions of dollars in donations and support (just to buy TV time if nothing else!). So everyone is in someone's pocket, right off of the bat. I take it as a given that there will be a certain level of corruption in government, trying to stamp it all out is as bad as having too much. But, enough is enough! Between Abramoff, Foley, Cunningham, and Noe, you have a huge number of Republicans who are implicated in serious scandals; several of them, in fact. It is difficult to say that more investigations SHOULDN'T be going on.

When I talk about investigations, it isn't into other members of Congress, though, it is into the Bush Administration and the things that have gone on since 9/11. As I said above, even if you agree with the goals of the Bush admin, I think most Conservatives know deep down that investigations will reveal aspects that will not be acceptable to the American public.

You're right, the Republicans aren't doing investigations right now. During the Clinton administration, they spent hundreds - thousands - of hours investigating allegations of improper sexual relations between the Executive and an intern. Here, we have a massive military undertaking involving a huge amount of taxpayer money and the lives of our troops, and what oversight is being done? What is being investigated? Is anyone even looking into fraud by contractors, into money missing, into taxpayer dollars which are being siphoned off and wasted, instead of helping the troops fight? Into intelligence failures? Into propaganda and deception? Nope. Noone is.

I wouldn't be proud of the fact that the Republicans aren't investigating anything these days, if I were you. It is a mark of shame that a party which used to stand for personal and fiscal responsibility, now eschews both in the name of Authoritarianism.

Draginol

on Oct 17, 2006

The democrats aren't going to win back either house.

Personally I hope not. But I think it would be good for the Republicans to sweat it out but still squeak by. That would be having ones cake and eating it too.

Draginol

on Oct 17, 2006

When I talk about investigations, it isn't into other members of Congress, though, it is into the Bush Administration and the things that have gone on since 9/11. As I said above, even if you agree with the goals of the Bush admin, I think most Conservatives know deep down that investigations will reveal aspects that will not be acceptable to the American public.

No, actually I don't think any rational, objective investigation would uncover anything significant that would be unacceptable to the American public.

Cycloptichorn

on Oct 17, 2006

Then you shouldn't fear it in the slightest, and Conservatives shouldn't be holding 'investigations' up as a reason not to let the Dems take over the house. Yet, I see it listed as a reason over and over again. While you may not be afraid, it seems that many of your compatriots are afraid.

In fact, if you truly believe what you write, you should be welcoming investigations. It would be a golden opportunity to show off what a good job the Bush admin has been doing in several different areas of governance, and make the Dems look like idiots at the same time.

Would you like to know what one major difference between the Democratic run House and the Republican run House will be? The Democrats will swear people in when they testify. Something that hasn't happened in a long time under the current bunch.

mcg

on Oct 17, 2006

No, Cycloptichorn, I am not "proud" that they aren't investigating anything. There's no reason for them to be investigating, so there's nothing to be "proud" of. And actually, there have been investigations into some of the very things you ticked off; that you are not satisfied with the results must be disappointing to you. I also agree with Draginol that the other investigations you seek will not prove particularly enlightening to the American public.

And frankly, you gave up the ghost the minute you conceded that the Democrats are "corrupt too". None of us in this thread is disagreeing with the notion that we have to clean house---the question is how. Simply substituting one corrupt party for another, when said replacement will pull us further from the needs of this country, is not the right approach. Just as scandals themselves do damage to the party and assist our opponents, so does a propensity to throw up our hands and give up on the party instead of working to fix it from the inside.

Tennwriter

on Oct 17, 2006

I didn't hear Rush's statements on the radio today.

I did see Insty's premortem as a 'this is why you lost' and so 'therefore become a good libertarian like me to win next time', but then Insty gets his nose mauled a bit by Rush, and Insty is considering retreat.

If Insty had made a list that did not include Terri Schiavo, and included Pork, he would have made a far stronger case. BTW, socons are the reason the R's are a Big and a Big Tent Party--I'm willing to listen to listen and deal with people whose ideological purity is suspect which is in ways the heart of conservatism--that is the knowledge that everyone is a sinner.

If we lose, it won't be because the libertarians bolted over TS, it will be because the base of the party was disheartened by a feeling of the lack of bold leadership. We truly would like to see more, but Bush has done a fair bit.

Actually, probably the smartest comment was 'if the R's ALMOST lose' they will self-correct. This is the ideal scenario. Get serious about immigration reform, cut pork (I'm more than willing to toss a big bone the Libertarians way, besides I don't like pork either), un-sunset the tax cuts, and invade or otherwise topple the Iranian government.

If they had been pushing these hard, there wouldn't be a problem now. Oh, the Dems would have howled, but it would have been an impotent wail.

Dr Guy

on Oct 17, 2006

And you're assuming a Democrat majority in the house would care about the presidential race in 2008. They aren't going to anger their base in order to get Hillary elected. They'd rather keep their phony balony jobs.

Great point!

skymuse

on Oct 17, 2006

The conservatives felt betrayed in 1992 and voted with their feet; that is, they largely stayed home on election day and a few misguided rebels cast their lot with Perot. Many conservatives commented that it was time to teach the Republicans how to be conservative again, and that a little time out of power would do them some good. They *DESERVED* to lose.

But did the rest of us deserve to lose? With the Clinton presidency we were treated to decisions such as the appointments of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer to the US Supreme Court, along with many hundreds of liberal activist judges at all levels of state and circuit courts. We were perilously close to having 11% of our economy nationalized into the HillaryCare healthcare scheme. We watched as the fiasco at Waco unfolded directly due to incompetence at the upper levels of the Justice department. We saw the first bombing of the World Trade Center and various other terrorist attacks on US interests and assets around the world for the next 8 years. We got tax increases and increased regulation of business and environmental interests. We stood idly by while Iraq armed itself, and then we actively helped North Korea develop rudimentary nuclear techniques. We gave China the ability to accurately shoot a ballistic missile. We got a First Lady who is now a New York senator and probable presidential candidate who is cut straight out of the Marxist/Leninist mold. We got a depleted and dispirited military that was forced to be a social experimental lab vis a vis gays and women.

This isn't a ballgame; if the other team wins they get homefield advantage for all of next season and get to hire the umpires.

Dr Guy

on Oct 17, 2006

Great Debate! I am impressed with the level of civility and overall comments. Score another for Brad!

Cycloptichorn

on Oct 17, 2006

So, you really think that those who act in unethical manners, and ALMOST get punished for it, change their ways very often?

Really?

I'm not sure what process the Republicans will 'clean house' with. The leaders are knee-deep in the problems. They sure won't clean themselves out of office. And they control the money machine. So it will be difficult to replace them in the primaries - look what happened to Laffey, he was ten times the conservative as Chafee! It's merely wishful thinking that the party will self-police.

TheVespucian

on Oct 17, 2006

The Reps have had legislative power for 12 years, and 6 with both Congress and the Executive. And what have we gotten for it: runaway government spending; half-hearted immigration reform; tariffs on steel; huge increases in future entitlements that will bankrupt us all; Sarbanes-Oxley to cripple American business and destroy our competitiveness. Sorry, both sides deserve to lose, but the Republicans deserve it more. The world will not end with a Democrat Congress; Reagan was most effective when he had to deal with a Democrat-controlled Congress. Maybe losing this year will concentrate the Stupid Party's mind. But I won't hold my breath.

skymuse

on Oct 17, 2006

"The world will not end with a Democrat Congress"

It won't end, but you'll see nationalized healthcare, tax hikes, 1 or 2 liberal Supreme Court judges plus who knows how many state and federal activist judges, borders even more open, increased spending on social programs and decreased military (especially WoT funding), and endless coddling of NoKo and Iran.

It is not ideal with the Republicans, but you'll not only get more of what you already don't like, you'll get a lot of what you absolutely will hate.

The worst RINOs have more in common with conservative beliefs than the best dems. Compare Chaffee's conservative rating with Lieberman's. I'll take feckless Republicans over hostile socialist Dems any day of the week.

chickenlittle

on Oct 17, 2006

Go ahead, vote dhimmicratic to teach "the base" (rhymes with al Qaeda). Allah will be pleased

NuclearPhysicist

on Oct 17, 2006

Conservatives and Republicans have become far too critical and negative during this election cycle. Perhaps they are paying too much attention to the gloom and doom that is being pushed daily by the MSM. Looking back over the past six years, there is plenty to be happy about. Bush and the Republicans have done much for conservative causes in spite of themselves. Sure, they are imperfect and don't always do what we would like, but steady progress has been made and can continue to be made during the next two years, if the Republicans hold on to their majorities in the House and Senate. Many conservatives like to harp on bad spending policies, but it is not the discretionary budget outlays that are really hurting us. It is the lack of reform in the entitlement programs that is threatening to kill us economically and Democrats are the main proponents of either leaving them the same or expanding them further. What we really need is more Republicans and moderate Democrats that will work together to solve these looming problems. At least the Republicans are supporting policies that keep us safe and promote growth in the economy. In the short term, only sustained economic growth can reduce or eliminate the budget deficits, as we are already seeing. Letting the Democrats win for even two years is not worth it and is far too risky. As far as immigration goes, we do have a border-security-only bill that will be signed into law this month and we don't have amnesty for illegal aliens. That is a good thing and we should be happy that grass-roots efforts have worked. The MSM wants us all to see our glass as half-empty, so we will abandon the Republicans and give the Democrats another chance to turn America into a socialist country. Even though I doubt that they can succeed in doing this, I am not willing to take even a small risk. It's far better to stay with the smelly Republicans and use grass-roots efforts to move them in the right direction.

granmary

on Oct 17, 2006

Rush is absolutely correct in calling you & Instapundit on your idiotic rationale that by letting the Republicans lose we will teach them a lesson! It will be alittle late to regret this foolishness after the dems. stop funding the war, gut the border security bill before it can be implemented, repeal the tax cuts & so on. What conservative supreme Court nominee could possibly get through a Leahy run Senate? It is possible that another Supreme Court vacancy will come in the next 2 years. Again, Rush is correct in calling tantrum pitching weak conservatives naive. I personally think naive is too polite a term to describe " give me everything I want NOW or I'll quit playing" types like Instapundit & yourself.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!