The Enemy Within (GOP Strategists: "If Election Were Held Today... 90% Chance We'd Lose the House")

OpinionJournal ^ | 05/08/2006 | John Fund

[LS]

1) I do believe the base is mad as hell.

2) Likewise, I also believe John Fund has been incredibly wrong on a lot of stuff for quite a while.

There is something about the ink-ocracy that gets in the Washington/NYC beltway and loses all proportion.

For example, I walked some streets for Ken Blackwell last week. Of all the people who were home (probably 50% on my list), judging from their response to Blackwell (a VERY conservative candidate), I could detect very little hostility to Bush/Republicans. I had NO ONE say, "I'm not voting for a Republican!" I had LOTS seem energized about Blackwell, who won the primary going away.

Further evidence: the two conservative senate opponents of DeWine (one of whom I voted for) only got 25% of the vote. There is no way DeWine loses in the general. If only HALF of those Republicans turn out to vote for him as a "lesser of two evils" candidate, we still have the numbers and win.

All of this is said with the understanding that NO ONE PAYS ATTENTION NOW, despite all the wailing and gnashing of teeth on FR. If you go back to 2004, in May we were all desperate that Bush was going to lose, and that Kerry had all this momentum, blah, blah. Six months is an eternity in politics.

For example, what happened to the "culture of corruption" in THREE months? It backfired on the Dems, with McKinney and Kennedy. Gas prices are coming down. Iraq is still looking very positive.

GOP nets one seat gain in the Senate, one to five in the House, but I may be bumping these predictions UPWARD. Stay tuned.

[L,TOWM]

the GOP better get off their behinds and demonstrate that they are DIFFERENT

That is a really nice thought.
Too bad it CAN'T (note that I did not use the word WON'T) happen.

[Mase]

Have you noticed that not a single one of them has addressed my points yet?

So many of us are getting caught up on one issue, which I also feel very strongly about, when there are so many others that are also extremely important.

They can't effectively respond to your questions because you just proved to them, in no uncertain terms, that there is a huge difference between the parties and there is more at stake here than just illegal immigration. Spending should always be an issue for conservatives but even with the spending on the WOT, rebuilding our military and 9/11, public debt as a % of GDP is lower now than it was under the Clinton economic miracle. Our economy is the envy of the world and our wealth just reached another all time high.

Splitting the party over one issue makes about as much sense as supporting third-party candidates. Hmmmmm, should I vote for this guy and get nothing that I want or, should I vote for this guy and get much of what I want? Unfortunately, for some, this is a difficult question.

[kittymyrib]

If nothing else, this will teach the GOP that conservatives are not like the clueless black voters that the Dems can abuse at will.

[Coop]

More name calling and refusal to address the points. Why not just wave a white flag and call it a day?

[longtermmemmory]

I don't buy it.

The Democrats, the MSM, and the DNC have a one sentence game plan, "Make the public hate GWBush."

From this they have push polled low numbers.
From this they have selectivly covered only bad news areas
From this they have created their "Agenda for Amerika" because they think the 'contract WITH America' won because the public hated clinton not agreed with ideas.

This is all symbolism over substance.

I have no doubt in my mind that we must all vote PERIOD. We have to keep pelosi and her ilk out of power longer and longer. They must retire out of power the same way Justice Marshal retired out of power and bitter.

[kenn5]

Good! They deserve to lose.

[Coop]

Then perhaps you can address my points in #42. Pretty please? The other "ain't no differ'nce a'tween the parties" mouthpieces have all gone AWOL. (Mind you, some are still squawking loudly as they retreat...)

[jpsb]

"Would taxes be lower under Dem or GOP control? GOP."

Which party proposes abolishing the progressive income tax and return to traiffs as a means of generating federal revenue?

"-Will conservatives be appointed to the courts under Dem control? No."

Was Harret Miers a conservative? Sandra Day O'Connor? Souter? Kennedy?

"-Will our military be strengthened financially, and perhaps more importantly through political backing and public encouragement, by the party of Kerry, Murtha and Durbin? Uh, no. "

Which party will return to the practice of banning queers from the militray, and banning women from compat roles?

"-Will our military be allowed to offensively fight terrorists, using intelligence assets (see NSA "spying"), restricted access to prisoners (see Gitmo, European prisons), and reasonable efforts (see panties on heads) under Dem leadership? Hell no!"

Which party will name the real enemy, Islam, and mobilize the country to fight the real enemy?

"-Will the slaughter of unborn children lessen or worsen under Dem control? Worsen."

Well, this time you got me, maybe, lots of pro abortion Pubies thou, so then again, maybe not.

Which party will return us to pre Wilsonian consistional government? Which party will end the state of emergences declared by FDR in 1933? Which party will abolish the department of Education? Transposrtation? Energy? Which party will end the federal Reserve?

[toddlintown]

If you don't know whether or not your going to sit out the next election, watching Russert interviewing Pelosi on Sunday was the cold water that woke me up.

The Dem plan is simple. Take control and then begin an endless series of investigations and hearings of Republicans. As for her insistence that impeachment is not on the agenda, watch how fast that stance changes if she becomes Speaker of the House.

[jpsb]

Perhaps I should post 27 gloating comments directing you to my 70? Well maybe just one, unfortunately for you, you ran into the Big Dog. LOL.

[Coop]

Thank you! Finally, someone willing to stick around and address the points! I applaud you, even if I find your arguments rather weak.

Which party proposes abolishing the progressive income tax and return to traiffs as a means of generating federal revenue?

Answering a question with a question. Cute. But it doesn't negate my point. Taxes are lower under GOP leadership. Period. (And yes, I think tariffs are a bad idea.)

Was Harret Miers a conservative? Yes Sandra Day O'Connor? Not really Souter? Hell no Kennedy?Perhaps at one time, but no longer

But again, you've done nothing, except tap dance, to counter my point. Name a few conservatives appointed to the courts by Dems in recent memory. There may well be some, but I can't think of any. Shall I list off a stream of conservatives appointed to the bench by the Pubbies? How about a few more held up by the Dems (Kavanaugh, Bork, Estrada)? And there is still no argument that the GOP will put more conservatives on the bench than Dems. Period.

Which party will return to the practice of banning queers from the militray, and banning women from compat roles?

Weak, irrelevant.

Which party will name the real enemy, Islam, and mobilize the country to fight the real enemy?

The GOP. Not the Dems, not by a long shot.

Well, this time you got me, maybe, lots of pro abortion Pubies thou, so then again, maybe not.

First time you didn't answer with a question. Good. And more importantly we've established that there is a difference between the parties. Amazing!

Which party will return us to pre Wilsonian consistional government? Which party will end the state of emergences declared by FDR in 1933? Which party will abolish the department of Education? Transposrtation? Energy? Which party will end the federal Reserve?

To all of the above - not the Democrat, Libertarian or Constitution parties. Your question is once again a red herring, but if any party were to end these things (and that's a HUGE "if"), it would be the GOP. But don't hold your breath.

[Coop]

"Dog pile" is more accurate, but whatever floats your boat.

[Tokra]

In fact a LIBERAL REPUBLICAN (i.e., McLame, Snowe, Collins, Chaffee, etc.) is more damaging than a LIBERAL DEMOCRAP because he is assumed by the majority of voters to be supportive of his Majority Party.

You are dangerously wrong. The Democratic Party will surrender the War on Terror to our enemies and the terrorist attacks will return, because the Jihadists know the Democrats have no guts to fight a war.

The Democratic Party will not only continue to allow illegals to pour into the country - they will allow them to receive welfare benefits, give them drivers licenses and probably allow them to vote.

The Democratic party will raise taxes and increase the deficits beyond anything the GOP is capable of.

If you really think there is no difference between the 2 parties - you have a very short memory.

[Ron in Acreage]

Not only has the GOP leadership become complacent, they have become outrite arrogant. I'm disgusted with them.

[longtermmemmory]

I am really starting to believe those who say there is no difference between the parties are Moby accolites or third party delusionists.

It is all about depressing the turnout.

Next we will the the MSM propaganda stories about "split government" is good and split government made Reagan a success (as opposed to Reagan making Reagan).

The MSM is busy spinning PERCEPTION into REALITY.

[Coop]

I am really starting to believe those who say there is no difference between the parties are Moby accolites or third party delusionists.

Many of them are. A few others are just caught up in emotion and need a perspective refresher. Heck, it's good to lean on the politicians and hold them accountable. But threatening to put liberals back in power because you want a safer country, lower taxes, lower spending, whatever... well, that's just downright silly.

[jpsb]

"Your question is once again a red herring"

No my question is my point. I believe in Constitutional government. In 1783 We the People signed a contract with the Federal Government, and I want it's terms enforced! Neither party will return us to constitutional government, both parties are only interested in gaining power and keeping it. Republicans talk like conservatives and govern like liberals. Democrats talk like liberals and govern like liberals. Whats the diference? Well maybe every now and then an R will appoint a judge that actually beleaves in the US Constitution, maybe. Lincoln threw troublesome Supreme Court judges in jail. Want to impress me? Impeach the ACLU b*tch judge, then I will be impressed. Nominate an old pal, cronism, Harret Miers, and I am so not impressed. Most of the judges on the SC were nonminated by R's, is the SC conservative? LOL.

[JFC]

I get so tired of the sky is falling thinkers.