Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
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 4)
on Oct 17, 2006
They made this mess all on their own. Russ us wrong this time.
on Oct 17, 2006
They made this mess all on their own. Russ is wrong this time.
on Oct 17, 2006
They made this mess all on their own. Russ is wrong this time.
on Oct 17, 2006
" It was on-line conservatives that got Trent Lott out after his foolish remarks about Thurmond." - Yes it was. And while I never cared for Trent Lott as a leader in the senate I think he was very unfairly treated by the bloggers. And that is one reason I do now worship bloggers. Oh yes, blog sites have become my main source of news. But they are not God almighty, not in power and certainly not in wisdom. This little display of childish foolishness by certain bloggers is an example of irresponsibility and whether the design is to actually reduce Republican turnout the result will certainly be that. So if the Democrats win a majority position in the house or senate by a whisper you can blame these so-called conservative bloggers. While these bloggers show their "superior" wisdom and swell out their chest for being "right" the whole country will suffer - just as Lott suffered from their unfair attacks.
on Oct 17, 2006
Sorry folks. I misspelled "not" in my previous post and spelled it "now" by mistake. Certainly I DO NOT "now worship bloggers"!!!
on Oct 17, 2006
Rush is right. Ignoring the stakes of this election in a time of a terrorists war and immigration invasion is short sighted in the extreme. Also, the issue of judicial appointments will be looming. More liberal judges would not be beneficial to the country or the conservative viewpoint. I agree that many Republicans need reeducation, but making things bad just makes it all the more difficulty to reclaim our country and to prevail in the culture war.
on Oct 18, 2006
I thought the perfect being the enemy of the good was a liberal/leftist failing. Guess it has infected some conservatives too.

on Oct 18, 2006

I thought the perfect being the enemy of the good was a liberal/leftist failing. Guess it has infected some conservatives too.

That assumes congressional Republicans are "good".  Inadequate would be how many conservatives feel.

on Oct 18, 2006

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.

Willing to bet money on that? You think a slight Democratic majority will result in nationalized health care, tax hikes, and a couple of left wing supreme court justices?

on Oct 18, 2006
The fact that u separated the War on Iraq from the War on Terror is liberal enough for're just a male Hillary. Take that cross off boy!! It's gonna burn your skin!!
on Oct 18, 2006
Wow. Nice conservative credentials, Mr. Purity. Rush really got you on this one. Your position isn't naive - it is idealistic, fantasitc, and unAmerican. It is unAmerican because our system is meant to frustrate all these conservative gimmees you are whining for - the Senate and our federal elections are supposed to get in the way of proud ideologues like you as much as it is meant to slow down the ambitions of the nutroots.
Send a message - don't vote. Here's how it will be interpretted - time to move to the center and capture more of the reliable moderates - more moderate and timid GOP machine inbred newbie candidates for us to twist into knots in '08. What's so funny is that you speak not just from utter desperation and lack of political sense, but you actually speak out loud the strategies of a muttering loser. Sure, they'll get your message loud and clear, Markos. You speak for the real America (Chevy country, keepin it real). Give me a break - you are actually an equal citizen with an equal voice and vote, despite your echo-chamber myopia - that is to say, you are a mere number like the rest of us; a mere demographic that will be interpretted in every which way by every crazy pundit over the next year. The only message for smart Republicans will be that the fringe is full of unreliable baby voters and that giving up the Wal-mart, Reagan-democrat, Oprah, hispanic votes to the Dems is not worth trying to throw these people a bone while working with an ambivalent inept President within this frustrating, corrupt system.
Like you, I also look forward to our chance in power. Finally Bush will be forced to finally bring a new tone to Washington and make some real concessions to the center, perhaps rolling back all those give-aways to the rich (like Haliburton). Your hero isnt going to veto everything the American people will have clearly mandated. Your savior will have to actually speak and be held accountable (the horror). We own Shrub now. We will actually get a moderate, open-minded judge on the court!!! I admire your delusional optimism I guess, but if you are going to put youself out there as more ideological than Rush Limbaugh, and some sort of e-pioneer demanding respect from the radio actor you assume is reading your blog right now, it really is my obligation as a human being and a morally superior moderate liberal to stop and point our how pathetic it all is and gloat as I watch you try to spin and reconcile your impending doom.
Keep pushing your message - perhaps if no one votes they'll all start letting you write their bills and speeches in '08.
Shouldn't a political observer realize how fluid and unpredictable politics are. Just because the Republicans can't manage in these times doesn't mean we won't be a breath of fresh air for 2 years. Who exactly is going to step up in the Republican party and voice a clear opposition? Bush? The Senate (if we don't take that too). We still will be the minority - the Republicans will still be nauseating and impotent in '08. A strong Dem opposition to this arrogant and complacent administration is exactly the campaign Hillary needs.
The messsage is clear - all Americans are sick of the Republicans, and will be for a while. And we will all enjoy, along with our Founders, knowing that extremist
on Oct 18, 2006
Shaky "conservatives" like those who say "It's their own fault," and "it won't be that bad" are whistling past the graveyard. Tax cuts-bye bye and with it the booming economy. Tax raises on evil empires like oil companies and Wal-Mart and there goes our gas prices and food bills. No more confirmations of reasonable judges. No chance for John Bolton, who is doing an excellent job at the UN, to even get to a vote, so he'll be gone. They will insist that Rummy be fired and Condi too. If they have majorities in both houses insist will turn into "demand." Get used to the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" because you'll be hearing Pelosi, Biden, Kerry, and Conyers using that phrase without end. John "cut-and-run" Murtha as House MAJORITY leader will actually get to cut and run. The only bright spot I can see is it will be the end of Arlen Specter who is beyond worthless. The war will be brought back to American soil and our enemies will be encouraged. I wouldn't be spending much time in any potential target for terrorists because they WILL strike with impunity. And somewhere, Old Slick will appear in the midst of all the smoke, fire, and death, and say, "I feel your pain.

The Democrats, BTW- will NOT gain a majority in either house. Watch the Missouri race for senate. If Talent wins - which he will - its over. The next days and weeks will be all the "smart" people trying to figure out how the jackasses managed to loose again.
on Oct 18, 2006
err... what am I missing here? For all of the doomsayers who think that even a one-seat Democrat majority will result in socialized medicine, tax increases, new regulation et al... have you forgotten about the power of veto?

Any legislative leftward lurching from a small Democratic majority can be mitigated by presidential veto, and that's assuming that they can muster enough lock-step voting to even pass such legislation to begin with.

A small Democrat majority is not a recipe for disaster, it is a recipe for GRIDLOCK. And that might not be such a bad thing these days... it would give the American people a chance to see what the Democrats are WILLING to attempt, even if they aren't successful. It brings the anti-Democrat warnings out of the realm of paranoia and into the stark light of day. It warns people what life would look like under a Democrat supermajority.

Any Supreme Court nominees under such a scenario will (in order to be confirmed) need to be mainstream, solid candidates, akin to John Roberts. I'm not terribly worried about the inability to pack the SC with hard-right-wing judges, as that's not a goal of mine. I don't consider the overturning of Roe v Wade to be the sole reason for living or voting.

Get a grip, folks. If the Dems get either majority, they will prove beyond a doubt that they are unfit to lead, and their time wandering in the wilderness will be extended much, much further thereby. We won't see any significant, meaningful changes implemented, because they'll lack enough power to do it. We'll get posturing from them, which will only cement their doom in 2008 and beyond.

In the meantime, the Republicans will be able to see this as the desperately-needed wakup call, and people will finally be mobilized in force well before the next primary process, and people will finally start to get the concept that if you want truly conserative representation, you need to abandon the concept of preserving incumbency-above-all. Throw out the weak-willed Republicans during the primaries, and make your voices heard loud and strong to the party that you won't tolerate protecting the RINOs at the expense of the implementation of truly conservative ideas.

As for the spelling snark above, the poster clearly hasn't read Hugh Hewitt, who Insty links to regularly. Hugh's a wonderful cheerleader, but he couldn't spell his way out of a paper bag.
on Oct 18, 2006
Hah. I am finding it highly amusing that Glenn Reynolds, whose writings have appeared in the Wall Street Journal and who posits himself as a highly independent thinker, is now hiding behind James Taranto and some twit blogger who nobody ever heard of (that would be JoeUser) when confronted by Rush Limbaugh about his "pre-mortem" article which, let's all admit, was pretty stupid. The Republicans deserve to lose because of Terri Schiavo and Harriett Miers? For Pete's sake -- everyone in the country (except for Glenn, apparently) has forgotten them. The article was a mistake and demonstrated that Glenn is not really as smart as he would like us all to believe, which is why he is now backpedaling furiously, as any reader of InstaPundit can tell by his recent postings.

As to the spelling issue -- if you want to write in a public forum and be respected, then learn to write well. That includes spelling correctly, or use your spell-check.
on Oct 18, 2006
"they didn't earn our vote"

Elected representitives don't "earn your vote", the idea is to elect people who won't screw things up. If your vote is for sale on some issue, what you favor is small scale corruption.

You sow the wind on this. "Punish" the country in a snit, take your vote and stay home and the next time it looks possible to put together a winnable coalition, you won't be included. Not with me anyway.

Anybody who says (like democrats do on foreign policy) "You need me to win and I won't help unless you do it my way" looses my trust forever.