Blinding Anger
Jim Geraghty:
He makes a good point. It is a dilemma a lot of conservatives find themselves in. On one hand, the Republicans haven't exactly been acting like the conservative leaders we voted for. On the other thand, "punishing" them with our votes (or lack of votes) means putting the Democrats in charge of spending and the war on terror.
The idea of my vote (or non-vote) putting liberals in charge is even less savory than the idea of the conservatives I do vote for acting a little like liberals. Which should send a message to the Democrats: The path to being the majority party in this country lays not through becoming more liberal (which has only served to marginalize the Dems) but through becoming more conservative. Americans aren't happy because they didn't get the small government, tax-reforming conservatives they voted for. If the Dems moved to the right they could pick up a lot of voters.
I'm not sure it wouldn't be a bad thing for the GOP to go through a bit of blood-letting this election cycle. Maybe lose a few seats in the House to push them back to their conservative roots.
Angry GOP grassroot voter: I’m mad as hell at the Republicans in office! They’re terrible on immigration and spending! I’m staying home this year to teach them a lesson!
Jim: You realize that there’s absolutely no chance that a Democratic-controlled Congress will seriously crack down on illegal immigration.
Angry GOP grassroot voter: Yes, but I’m really angry!
Jim: And you realize that despite your dreams of a paralyzing gridlock, there’s almost no chance that a Democratic-controlled Congress would spend less than a Republican one?
Angry GOP grassroot voter: Yes, but I’m really angry!
Jim: And you realize that putting Robert Byrd in charge of the appropriations committee to fight pork and earmarks is like putting Bill Clinton in charge of babysitting your hot teenage daughter?
Angry GOP grassroot voter: Yes, but I’m really angry!
Jim: And you realize that the Democrats’ first order of business in the House would be impeaching Bush and Cheney simultaneously?
Angry GOP grassroot voter: Yes, but I’m really angry!
Jim: And you realize that any future Supreme Court nominees until at least January 2009 would be whiny moderates who “grow” into liberals once they’re on the Court?
Angry GOP grassroot voter: Yes, but I’m really angry!
Jim: And you realize that the proper stance in the war on terror and/or Iran under Speaker Pelosi is to put your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye?
Angry GOP grassroot voter: Yes, but I’m really angry!
Jim: And you realize that you’re also kinda retarded.
He makes a good point. It is a dilemma a lot of conservatives find themselves in. On one hand, the Republicans haven't exactly been acting like the conservative leaders we voted for. On the other thand, "punishing" them with our votes (or lack of votes) means putting the Democrats in charge of spending and the war on terror.
The idea of my vote (or non-vote) putting liberals in charge is even less savory than the idea of the conservatives I do vote for acting a little like liberals. Which should send a message to the Democrats: The path to being the majority party in this country lays not through becoming more liberal (which has only served to marginalize the Dems) but through becoming more conservative. Americans aren't happy because they didn't get the small government, tax-reforming conservatives they voted for. If the Dems moved to the right they could pick up a lot of voters.
I'm not sure it wouldn't be a bad thing for the GOP to go through a bit of blood-letting this election cycle. Maybe lose a few seats in the House to push them back to their conservative roots.
