[...] Another lesson: From Hugh Hewitt’s 2004 book, If It’s Not Close, They Can’t Cheat, pg77: Republicans need to keep a majority of Senate seats in Republican hands; thus, we need liberal GOP senators as well as very conservative GOP senators and all those in between. [...]

Like or Dislike: 0  0

[...] conservatives are skeptical of whether or not Senator McCain will keep his pledge to appoint justices in the spirit of Roberts and Alito. Especially if Republicans lose more House and Senate seats in November. But with Senator Obama, it [...]

Like or Dislike: 0  0

[...] not advocating that conservatives stay home in November and not vote for McCain, because I do believe that the war on terror and judicial appointments are more important than sticking it to the man that has stuck it to us for so long; but I do see the humor behind this [...]

Like or Dislike: 0  0

[...] it’s been pointed out previously, just why 2008 is an important one for the GOP to [...]

Like or Dislike: 0  0

jainphx, I understand your feelings. I think the thing is, one has to play “smart” politics. Certainly we don’t want a “big tent” party that is so big, so watered down of conservatism, that it becomes indistinguishable from the opposition party. But it should be big enough, as to allow some diversity. It’s important to build a coalition of voters who may not agree with each other on all things, but can support one another on most things. Otherwise, if there aren’t anything except conservative purists within the party, with those insufficiently pure being purged from its ranks and driven out of the party, then they will not have the numbers in votes to win elections. And like third parties, if you can’t win elections, you become irrelevant to actually putting into effect change and the advancement of conservative ideology.

Mike’s America wrote (comment #14):

Talk show hosts Rush, Hannity and Laura Ingraham today all struck a common theme: Hold your nose and vote for McCain or don’t vote for McCain

Speaking of those three, Rich Galen addressed them in a column, and had this to say, which is relevant to the SCOTUS topic in this post:

Rich Galen writes:

Democrats in the Senate holding up – according to the Wall Street Journal – 208 nominees: 180 nominees to executive branch positions and 28 nominees to the Federal bench.

If Rush, Sean, Laura and the rest wanted to really do a favor for America, they would get their tens of millions of listeners amped up about the nominees who are being held up – some for as long as two years – by Senate Democrats who will not allow the President to govern and will not allow the Judicial Branch to function.

I don’t think most conservatives sat out the ’06 Elections to “teach the Party a lesson”; I think there were other factors more heavily involved. But for those who keep talking about sitting out elections, please explain to me how losing majority seats in the midterm elections was a good thing for the conservative movement? If for nothing else, the conservative Bush critics should acknowledge that this president has been a huge success for conservatives in pushing through judges; that is, up until we lost House and Senate majority. More details in my previous post on why ’08 is an important election.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Wordsmith you may be right, but a turn to conservatism can only start by VOTING conservative, all else is just surrender. When you compromise you end up closer to the other position than your own.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

You’re shouting into the wind Wordsmith. Valiant effort nonetheless.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

We all should have seen this coming. The Republican National committee’s backing of Spector over Toomey.

Not trying to say you’re wrong on this, jainphx. I don’t know anyone who can stand Specter. But here’s a perspective to consider, at least…

From Hugh Hewitt’s 2004 book, If It’s Not Close, They Can’t Cheat, pg77:

Republicans need to keep a majority of Senate seats in Republican hands; thus, we need liberal GOP senators as well as very conservative GOP senators and all those in between.

Which brings me to the subject of incumbents, especially those of your own party that you don’t like much.

Throughout 2003, a small group of conservative activists attempted to rally support to the insurgent candidacy of Pennsylvania Congressman Pat Toomey, who declared against incumbent Republican Senator Arlen Specter- a liberal Republican.

The Toomey candidacy came very close to unseating Specter, but it failed by a few thousand votes because serious conservatives understood that Specter keeps the Senate in GOP hands. Even had Toomey won in the primary, he would have been left open to withering attacks in the general election- with no money and Specter “moderates” practicing paybacks- as well as leaving disaffected the GOP voters who have stood with the iconoclastic Specter for many years.

Similar efforts have been launched in the recent past, including one against John McCain by Arizona conservatives who believe McCain to be insufficiently pure.

All such efforts against incumbents of all ideological shades are ill conceived and harmful, with one exception: where an incumbent is too weak to win reelection.

This happened in 2002 in New Hampshire where Senator Bob Smith, the Senate’s oddest Republican duck and an unreliable Republican- he bolted the party once, only to return later- was trailing the likely Democratic nominee in polls. A congressman, John Sununu, took on Smith in a primary and won, and he went on to hold the seat for the GOP in the fall 2002 elections. It was the sort of challenge to an incumbent that made sense, but it is rare.

Neither Specter nor McCain is a weak incumbent in general elections. Conservative purists should not only leave both men alone; they should enthusiastically support their reelection efforts. All the money and effort that goes into campaigns to push them out would be far better spent on helping folk like John Thune in South Dakota, a more conservative candidate than either McCain or Specter, but also a Republican running against a powerful Democrat- Tom Daschle.

Please absorb this basic fact about American politics: majorities, not individuals, govern. Without an understanding of this, the GOP’s return to near permanent minority status- and the powerlessness it includes- is all but guaranteed.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

We all should have seen this coming. The Republican National committee’s backing of Spector over Toomey. Mel Martinez as chairman, all indicators that we were being ( conservatives) shoved aside. No one can tell me that the Nomination of McCain was accidental. The Republican machine was a stealth component in all this until it was to late to react. We have been had and it’s now McCain or else. What a stinking choice.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Suek wrote:

Or will they allow personal animosity and selfish reasons dictate their decisions over the larger picture?

Imo, this is an inaccurate characterization. They are no more acting out of personal animosity and selfish reasons than you are when you say “I trust McCain more than I would trust Hillary or Obama,”.

The kind of people I refer to are selfish voters. Example: This morning I listened to Laura Ingraham while on the road, and a caller mentioned that under no circumstances will he be voting for McCain, because he felt personally insulted by McCain and Lindsay Graham, saying they called guys like him “racists”. I vaguely remember Lindsay Graham possibly referring to bigots who were anti-immigration bill; but does anyone know the exact quote? I’d feel more comfortable with an accurate citation and context. I believe this is what Lindsay Graham said, that the caller might have found so offensive: “We are going to solve this problem. We’re not going to run people down. We’re not going to scapegoat people. We’re going to tell the bigots to shut up, and we’re going to get this right.”

I think there are some that are bigots. But most aren’t. Lindsay Graham was out of line, and only inflamed the issue and blurred the substantive criticism of the bill.

But back to point, let’s say the caller is right, and McCain labeled those opposed to the bill, “racists”. Does the caller think McCain and Graham were referring to all conservative critics of the bill? Does the caller see truth in the words? If not, then he needs to grow thicker skin. And over this, he says he will not vote for McCain. To me, that is a self-centered, narcissistic voter who is willing to throw the whole country down the toilet over a feeling of personal insult. That is just petty and juvenile. Out of all the GOOD, thoughtful reasons, he could have mentioned on why he would not be voting for McCain, come general election, his was that he felt personally insulted.

Suek wrote:

Rush brought up a good point also today – that with a Dem majority in Congress, McCain could nominate till he’s blue in the face and they wouldn’t get out of the Judiciary commitee. What do you think?

Aside from the Presidency, the other important win is majority rule in Congress; the party that controls Congress, is the party that gets to legislate.

That’s the lesson that some conservatives who sat out the ’06 mid-term Elections still haven’t learned, when they talk about sitting out ’08.

Congressional seats appear to be in danger in ’08 for Republicans, as well:

the political geography of the Senate races (with 21 of the 33 races involving Republicans) and the current states of those Senate races, and Democratic gains in the Senate are predicted almost universally. The debate is by how much the Democrats are likely to expand their current 51-49 majority. Republican seats in Virginia, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Colorado, Alaska, Oregon, Minnesota and Maine are all in serious peril. On the other hand, the only Democratic seat in any kind of trouble appears to be Louisiana. A net gain of 5 for the Democrats is very possible, a net gain of 3 seems conservative, a net gain of 8 certainly not unlikely. We’re looking at a Senate that could be as bad as 59-41 Democratic.

Even if a Republican miraculously wins in November, that Republican President will therefore face a firm Democratic majority in the Senate. A liberal majority, indeed, that is approaching filibuster-proof strength.

Suek wrote:

I think conservatives have made the mistake of assuming that the Republican party _was_ the Conservative Party. It may have been at one time, but it seems that it no longer is – we need to either reclaim the party or break away. I also see reclaiming the party as preferable, but maybe not possible.

Reclaiming is the only option that I deem realistic and desirable. The option of “breaking away”…that would be disastrous as a civil war would only insure Democratic wins for the next several decades. It is far easier to change a party from within, rather than start a new one from the ground up. In American politics, third parties are nothing short of a joke.

Like or Dislike: 0  0