Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Yes, right-wingers can be as hysterical as the moonbats
Published on October 18, 2006 By Draginol In Republican

Given how often I get bashed for being a "right wing nut", being called a "liberal" dozens of times this week has made me conclude that I can safely say that my views are no where near the outter fringe of the political spectrum.

Some of the comments, let alone email I've received, to the recent blogs I've writetn regarding Rush Limbaugh vs. Instapundit have been astounding. I guess I'm simply not used to seeing conservatives behaving so much like left-wing fringe advocates.

When one is insulted, repeatedly, it becomes very tempting to lash back. I can't even fathom how people like Glenn Reynolds or Michelle Malkin or other highly respected, very popular, but regularly flamed conservatives handle it.  I had one guy go on over and over again because in my article I spelled repercussion wrong.  Yea, I spelled it repricussion. It wasn't a typo, I spelled it wrong. So sue me. I'm an engineer, not a journalist.

...So our story so far...

Instapundit, one of the world's most popular blog sites, wrote a pre-mortem about the election.  The point of it is that a lot of very hard-core conservatives (along with most other people) expect the Republicans to lose a lot of seats in congress and very possibly at least one of the houses of congress.  He was not writing that he hopes this happens only that if it does happen, the congressional republicans have no one to blame but themselves.

Yes. The Democrats are worse. No doubt about that.  But Republicans tend to hold their elected officials to higher standards. The Republicans have done a lot of foolish things that, as a result, have deflated a significant chunk of their base.

Rush Limbaugh, however, has tried to characterize Instapundit as being a quasi-moderate, liberal in sheeps clothing type site for daring blame Congressional Republicans because many feel the Republicans deserve to lose.  Rush apparently also read a link from Instapundit to here as well yesterday and paraphrased my blog and continued to generalize Instapundit. He typecast us as being either naive or not thinking about the big picture.

I can't speak for Glenn Reynolds on this part but my views on this do include the "big picture".  First, I am not suggesting conservatives should sit out the election. But I do think that congressional Republicans largely squandered their majority these past few years.  I'm not the only one either. Right Wing News, hardly a liberal, has made the same conclusions.  Given the strength of the economy and the general success of the war on terror, congressional Republicans should be in pretty good shape. But they have made so many missteps (from the border to out of control spending) that it has taken the wind out of the sales of many conservatives.

I don't like some politician thinking that I have to vote for them.  And that's where the gulf really comes in.  I personally do not think that the federal government has anywhere near the kind of power that some people think it does.  One commenter pointed out that Republicans were mad at Bush in 1992 and the result was Bill Clinton.  Did Republicans learn a lesson then and was it worth the price? Well, again, while I'm not a fan of Bill Clinton, the world did not end did it? And moreover, I believe the Republican loss helped send a clear message that conservative views should not be ignored because two years later came the Republican revolution. 

The biggest gulf though is the difference in opinion over how much affect the federal government has over our daily lives.  As someone who actually does pay 7 figures a year in taxes, I am very sensitive to taxes. I don't want them raised and I don't want the Bush tax cuts reversed. It was those tax cuts that provided the funding to open up as a community (by creating the jobs of the ASP developers who work on the site).  So I would be annoyed if taxes went up.  But I don't think that would happen if the Democrats got a slim majority and even if it did, while annoying, it wouldn't be the end of the world.  I have a very high threshold of what I consider to be "the end of the world" and a slightly less conservative supreme court justice nominee doesn't qualify as one (and even a slight change in the Senate power wouldn't likely have a dramatic affect there). I also don't buy into a slim Democatic majority translating into "cut and run". 2008 will be the deciding year for the War in Iraq in my opinion.

What I really am surprised at seeing is how the hard core right-wing can sound depressingly like left-wing moonbats in the comments section from yesterday. Any deviation from total obedience to "the party" and I'm to be cast off as a Hillary loving liberal. I haven't even mentioned who I'm voting for.  But by holding the view that my vote is not owned automatically by a political party and the zealots come out of the woodwork.  I think that the best thing that could happen for the Republicans would be for them to maintain control but barely. It might wake them up, without as many negative consequences, that they need to pay attention more to their constituents.

The congressional Republicans have, in my opinion, blown some huge opportunities and while I don't want the Democrats to win, if the Republicans lose, they shouldn't blame the voters, they should blame themselves.

Before Rush or anyone starts making sweeping generalizations of individuals or websites, they might want to spend a few minutes looking at the big picture that they are so certain we're not looking at.  They might be surprised.

Update: Here is a link to Instapundit's pre-mortem.

Comments (Page 2)
on Oct 19, 2006
"Sorry but you're wrong, but the VOTER is not required to vote in any election. If there is not a candidate worth voting for by what stretch of the imagination do you believe the VOTER has to choose between a bad candidate and an even worse candidate. If there's no one on the ballet I feel worthy of my vote I will pick non of the above."

Well, it all depends on whether you think power brings responsibility, and rights carry duties (i.e. whether or not you're anything like a conservative). Sitting at home is the baby's way to deal with things.

Oh, and a reminder from history: in 1986 the Democrats regained control of the Senate, and as a result we got "Justice" Anthony Kennedy, instead of Robert Bork.

Do you like the Kelo decision? Thank Kennedy. How many more Kelos do you want?

As a conservative, I realize the Supreme Court should NOT be the most important institution around.

As someone who pays attention to the world, I know that the only way to get the Supreme Court back to its proper level of importance is to get at least 5 real "conservatives" on it.

Which requires a Republican President, and a Republican Senate.
on Oct 19, 2006
Oh, and finally: I'm really ammused by all this huffing and puffing and "you can't tell me what to do" BS. This is a blog. Is it supposed to just be a circle jerk, or were you actually hoping to have good rational discussion?

"Rational discussion" includes people telling you you're wrong, and why. Reading their arguments, thinking about them, altering your position as necessary, and then responding, is great.

Whining "you're mean" or "you can't tell me what to do" is not.
on Oct 19, 2006
Whining "you're mean" or "you can't tell me what to do" is not.

Show me just "one" reply here, where either Draginol or DrGuy said anything like this!
on Oct 19, 2006
I'm not disputing the fact that the right wing can be loopy, but I think you have to take people like Rush with an even bigger grain of salt. They make BANK on being loopy. All that having steaks brought in to eat during his TV show back in the 90's wasn't politics, it was theater.

Now, with O'Reilly, Hannity and the rest, it's like you have to be a cartoon character in order to be polarizing enough to get noticed. Eventually you'll have to grow a little square mustache in order to say something right-wing enough to shock people. There is no level that Rush could stoop to that would surprise me.

Rush isn't a politician, he's the Howard Stern of political talk radio, and he's seeing people a tad more moderate than him making a killing doing what he used to do. It's no surprise that his answer will be to call them traitors and shove his schtick as far right as people can stomach. Voters who would really agree with 100% of it are politically marginal, but there's money in the rubber-neckers who like to wag their heads at a freakshow.