Instapundit, Rush Limbaugh and the demand for obedience...

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 JoeUser.com 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 1)

Greg D

on Oct 18, 2006

You are absolutely right: the world will not end if the Democrats get elected.

So what?

The world won't end if Washington DC gets nuked tomorrow.

Does that mean it's no big deal? Does that mean it's not a serious problem, to be avoided if at all possible?

We have an awesome economy, and it's not helping the Republicans. Is that because the Republicans are so bad? Or is it because the dishonest press are doing everything they can to surpess the information?

What's worse, the behavior of Republicans in the House, Senate, and White House, or the behavior of the MSM, and the nutroots?

Who do you want to be validated: Republican porkmeisters, or Mike Rogers and Glenn Greenwald. How much more "fake, but accurate reporting" do you want to see?

The Dems have been sucking up to the nutroots this election cycle. Do you want them to continue to do so? Then see them rewarded for doing so.

If the Dems win in November, the world will be a worse place than it will be if they lose. THAT is what's important, not whether or not the "world will end."

Cycloptichorn

on Oct 18, 2006

Nice article.

You are seeing the effects of a great amount of pressure being applied to the hardcore base of a party.

Part of the problem that Republicans are facing in the current election cycle is that they have strayed somewhat from the principles that put them in power. Anyone remember the 'contract with America?'

"On the first day of the 104th Congress, the new Republican majority will immediately pass the following major reforms, aimed at restoring the faith and trust of the American people in their government:

* FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress;
* SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;
* THIRD, cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;
* FOURTH, limit the terms of all committee chairs;
* FIFTH, ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;
* SIXTH, require committee meetings to be open to the public;
* SEVENTH, require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;
* EIGHTH, guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting. "

How well has that worked out, hmm?

The Republican party has, in large part, shifted from being a Conservative-based orgainzation to an Authoritarian-based one. It is amazing to me that the party of 'less government intrusion' supports unrestricted wiretapping of Americans with no oversight. That they would support a huge raise in the amount of money spent by the government, and the size of the government. That they would support the debt going up by 1/2 in just 6 years. But they do, in large part because many people trusted their president and other Republican leaders when they told them after 9/11 that they should be afraid. Afraid of terrorism.

What ever happened to 'we have nothing to fear, but fear itself?' Those in charge of the modern Republican party have skillfully used fear as a tool to pass many bills and laws which Conservatism doesn't support or agree with. Unfortunately, such tactics can only work for so long before the populace begins to question their validity.

This presents a huge problem for many Republicans, who have been such strident supporters of the Republican Cause for so long now, that admitting that things aren't going the way that they should is equivalent in their minds to admitting that they were wrong; and many will die before doing that. It is damaging to their psyche and self-image to think that they could have been decieved by those that they trusted, so they refuse to do so, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that this is true.

Those who attempt to point this fact out, such as yourself, are attacked as being 'weak' and 'defeatist.' Do you consider yourself 'weak' for holding the opinions that you do? No, of course not, and neither do I. Many people underestimate the level of strength neccessary to point out to ones' compatriots that they have lost the way on the path.

I salute you sir, for having the courage to do so.

Cycloptichorn

Cindy Munford

on Oct 18, 2006

I don't know how Republicans can say they are taken for granted, do you think a Dem president would withdraw a nominee to the Supreme Court if the devotees threw the fit that was thrown for Harriet Mehers? Not against the fit but it was a fit. How about the DuBi Ports deal? I think the great unwashed won that one. And then there is immigration, the fight is still on but we are getting more of what we want the W is. He has a whole different mind set, coming from Texas, you know but I think he has seen the error of his ways. What I am saying is at least our folks listen to us, Dems don't even listen to their own and it is a lead pipe cinch that they won't want to hear anything we have to say once they have the power.

Cycloptichorn

on Oct 18, 2006

Greg D says,
"We have an awesome economy, and it's not helping the Republicans."

That's because we don't have an awesome economy.

Things look great when you are paying for everything on credit. Our national debt has gone up by 1/2 in the last 6 years. It took us 100 years to run it up to the point it was at in 2000, and just 6 to increase it by half. Any claim that the underlying economy supporting this massive increase in debt is sound, is ridiculous. If the debts we racked up were actually forced to be paid, our economy would look horrendous. If we didn't steal money from the Social Security Trust Fund, our deficit would be closer to double what they claim it is.

Median wages of the middle class haven't risen faster than inflation. We haven't significantly added jobs since 9/11. The only industries to see positive growth in our economy, in terms of numbers of jobs, are Healthcare and Housing, and Housing is going south quick.

The reason Republicans aren't seeing benefits, or credit, for the 'great economy' is that the average voter isn't any better off than they were when Clinton was in office, and many are far worse off. It's because the average pay for jobs has decreased, while health insurance costs have skyrocketed. It's because the median price of a home in the US is something like 270k these days, and people can't afford to buy homes without taking out murderous loans.

What parts of the economy are, in fact, 'awesome?'

Dr Guy

on Oct 18, 2006

I dont see most as demanding obedience (some are), but as pleading not to abandon their side. I can understand that. And while some have gotten nasty, not really many. All the articles have provoked some good debate.

Frankly, I can only cast one vote. And I will. So if the conservatives in Penn stay home, there is not a lot I can do about it, so why worry? I have to figure out this stupid AD problem at work, and soon! That has me worried!

Draginol

on Oct 18, 2006

Conservatives don't like entitlements. They don't like people who act like they are entitled to something.

The so-called Republicans who have been flaming me for asserting that if Republicans lose in this next election have no one but themselves to blame seem to be arguing largely that Republicans are entitled to our votes regardless of their behavior. I don't think so.

The responsbility is not on the voter to hand out votes to someone simply because of their party. The responsbility is for the candidate to earn the vote. And Rush-Republicans can scream all they want about the injustice, call people names all day but at the end of the day, the conservatives who expect a lot out of their elected officials hold the cards because conservatives such as myself are willing to suffer with a slight Democratic majority because we know, from history, that the Republicans will learn from it just as they did in 1992.

Dr Guy

on Oct 18, 2006

Conservatives don't like entitlements. They don't like people who act like they are entitled to something.
The so-called Republicans who have been flaming me for asserting that if Republicans lose in this next election have no one but themselves to blame seem to be arguing largely that Republicans are entitled to our votes regardless of their behavior. I don't think so.

Touche'!

lifehappens

on Oct 18, 2006

I heard Rush's comments....Kudos (after all, how many people do you know personally who managed to get Rush is a tizzy?)

And that is the point he missed.

lifehappens

on Oct 18, 2006

I heard Rush's comments....Kudos (after all, how many people do you know personally who managed to get Rush is a tizzy?)

And that is the point he missed.

Greg D

on Oct 18, 2006

"The responsibility is not on the voter to hand out votes to someone simply because of their party. The responsibility is for the candidate to earn the vote."

Wow, talk about an "entitlement mentality."

You are wrong. The responsibility is on the VOTER to vote for the best available candidate. It is the job of the politician to convince voters that he is the best candidate. The best way (IMHO) for him to do that is to say and do things that gives the voters positive reasons to vote for the candidate. The most common way, OTOH, is to point out to the voter why the other guy sucks.

Did the Republicans give you enough reasons to think they're great? Clearly not. So now they need to do plan B.

Do the Democrats suck? Yes, they do. Do they suck worse than the Republicans? Well, that depends:

Do you want Supreme Court Justices who follow the law and Constitution, or do you want ones that forces their personal whims and desires on the rest of us?

Do you want taxes to go up, or down?

Do you want the US to try to win the war on terror, even when doing so inconveniences the UN or the EU?

Do you want less government, or more? Yes, the Republicans have given us more government than many of us want. Can you name any case (outside of attempting to fight the war on terror) where the Democrats wanted to give us LESS than the Republicans did?

If you're a conservative, then the Democrats suck more. A LOT more.

Look, I was HAPPY when Bush 41 lost in 1992. We weren't at war then, we could afford to let the Dems screw things up for a while.

We don't have that luxury any more. Not only do we have a war going on, the Dems are even worse than they were in the 1990s. You reward them with victory, you WILL regret it.

It's not a "demand for obedience." It's arguments. Conservatives are supposed to be able to handle those, and not obsess about their feelings.

Your argument basically boils down to the ridiculous (the world won't end, therefore it's not a problem at all), and the childish (they made me mad, so I'm going to go off into the corner and sulk). Sorry you've gotten some childish responses in reply. But childishness does seem to beget more of the same.

FUZZ

on Oct 18, 2006

that the Republicans will learn from it just as they did in 1992.

Just because YOU didn't learn from 1992 doesn't mean the rest of us didn't.

feisty_in_ohio

on Oct 18, 2006

I heard Rush read your blog today. It caught me by surprise - you're famous.

I like your articles. it's reassurring to know you've been called both a right-wing & left-wing nut job.
In a way it proves you think about each issue and call it as you see it.

It looks like Ohio is going to be another "battleline" state. Our Govenor Bob Taft (R) is an "asshat" (thanks for the adjective MasonM) . The election is between Blackwell (Ohio Secretary of State) and Strickland (US Congressman).
There's some weird stuff about Strickland not supporting a US House resolution against a study that said pedophilia might have "positive effects" for children.
Blackwell certified the 2004 election - Bush winning Ohio. Plus there's some weird stuff about Blackwell associating with a white supremacist (Blackwell is an African-American).
I scratch my head - What the heck is going on here? It's going to be a nasty race.

Senator Mike DeWine is up for re-election against Congressman Sherrod Brown.
Brown is firmly left. I've hacked-off some e/mails to him. Sometimes (not always) his staff responds - but I don't think they've read what I wrote.
DeWine is center to right (one of the "gang of 14"). I can at least give his staff credit for reading my tirades and responding every time I wrote one. He also is on some important committes.
We actually met DeWine at one of our local festivals - he talk to us for about 5 minutes(even though a reporter was waiting to see him). He listened with interest about our oldest (he's in Iraq). My Husband says Mrs. DeWine has nice legs and she smiled at him - so he's sold.

My guess - the news media will be up late on election night. I enjoy lying to exit pollers!

RaHarakhte

on Oct 18, 2006

I thought the source of Limbaugh's facile bloviations on this subject sounded awfully familiar.

Brad, as one of those Christian conservatives you hear about, I want to congratulate you on this recent series of posts. You have expressed an opinion shared by many with a clarity of vision that would bedazzle a blind man.

Neither side has given a real reason for one to vote for them this season; Dems have no ideas, and Republicans have become so drunk with power that they've forgotten the idea that have led to victory. In their hearts, I think every conservative voter knows this to be true. Even Limbaugh's words damn him in this case. With that in mind, where does this leave conservatives who, as you say, expect more from their elected officials? How are we supposed to react to years of being strung along on things that actually matter like border security and spending, for pity's sake?

Oooooh, the pages I could write about all this nonsense. Hey ho. As you also say, this too shall pass.

Taranis

on Oct 19, 2006

"You are wrong. The responsibility is on the VOTER to vote for the best available candidate. It is the job of the politician to convince voters that he is the best candidate. The best way (IMHO) for him to do that is to say and do things that gives the voters positive reasons to vote for the candidate. The most common way, OTOH, is to point out to the voter why the other guy sucks."

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.

And I'm sick to death of the political election tactic that (You should vote for me because my opponent is way waaaay worse then I am), I don't want to pick the least evil of two candidates. I want to pick a good candidate and I only want to hear his/her views on the issues not why the other guy is really bad, and I expect that candidate to follow through with what he/she promised. If they do that I will vote for them again, if not I might choose not to vote or vote for the other candidate.

I will be voting this election for the candidate I feel will stay true to their election promises on the issue's that matter to me, whatever party they belong too! But I wont vote for someone that I feel is not worthy of holding that position just because they happen to belong to the party I mostly agree with!

Dr Guy

on Oct 19, 2006

I enjoy lying to exit pollers!

A most noble endeavor!

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!