Posted on 05/17/2006 5:06:46 AM PDT by Peach
While many (by "many" I am referring to those normal, non-political junkie types) think politics is dry and boring, there is actually lots of drama involved – especially recently. I'm not even talking about bimbo eruptions, intern encounters, or escort services. No, I'm referring to the classic drama that is the family fight. In the past year alone, the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, the Dubai ports controversy, out of control spending, and now immigration have disrupted sweet harmony in the conservative Republican family.
Perhaps emboldened by the outcome of the Miers nomination, some conservatives that issued ultimatums and threats to never vote Republican again until Miers withdrew, are now going so far as to talk about impeachment in the current debate over immigration policy. Many argued both during the Miers debate and the current immigration debate, that it might be a good idea to just sit out the upcoming elections to teach the president and the squishy Republicans a lesson.
My opinion of that strategy is in line with Jim Geraghty’s assessment:
By the way, put me down as one of those guys who cannot comprehend the argument that conservatives ought to sit out this election to "punish" the GOP so that they'll "learn a lesson" and get better/more conservative in the future.
To advocates of this position, I must respectfully ask… are you out of your flippin’ mind?
By what logic does a constituency become more influential and powerful by becoming less active, and demonstrating less capability to turn out the vote and influence elections?
Let’s say Congressman Tom Tancredo represents your views on illegal immigration. You’re angry at the GOP leadership for not espousing his positions; you’ve concluded that they don’t listen to him. Do you really think the ball will get moved in your direction by throwing the party that has Tancredo out, and replacing it with the party that doesn’t have a Tancredo figure in it at all?
Do you really think a Democratic Congress will get tough on illegal immigration?
Geraghty later did an analysis of upcoming elections and the scenario he presents shows evidence that the likely result would be more Democrat and Republican-in-name-only candidates winning, not more conservative candidates who are better on the issue of immigration.
There are many now arguing that even if we had to endure two years of Speaker Pelosi or Majority Leader Reid, it would pay off in the long run, perhaps as the first two years of the Clinton administration resulted in the 1994 Republican landslide. Well, this is not 1994. Even two years of control of one branch of the government could do irreparable harm at a time when the outcome of the mission in Iraq and the status of judicial appointments is at such a delicate and critical point.
Evidently some found the attacks on Miers so successful that they have decided the same tactics should be used against the president anytime there is a major disagreement with him. Those following the Miers model should remember, however, that many of those attacks were made on Miers individually (her education and experience), and she is gone. Her image was forever damaged by those attacks.
What makes the current debate over immigration or spending different from the Miers case is that there is no other individual that can simply withdraw to solve the problem. The president is the one that would be damaged, and unless someone impeaches him, he isn't going anywhere for a while and he will be addressing other issues such as the war on terror, Iraq, taxes, social security reform, and judicial appointments.
Voicing opposition to your president or party should not be discouraged. The fact that we have that freedom is one of the things that makes this country great. I was not opposed to those conservatives that split with the president over Miers vigorously fighting that battle. Most did so in a civil and fair manner. There were some, however, that used the dispute to call for the destruction of the Republican Party. I fear that some are now presently pursuing that course over the issue of illegal immigration.
Disagree, dissent, march, email, telephone the White House and the Congress, heck, even mail a brick, but it doesn’t make sense to completely destroy the man who will be leading the country for two more years, or to destroy the Republican Party unless you are ready to accept the agenda of Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid.
Geraghty later did an analysis of upcoming elections and the scenario he presents shows evidence that the likely result would be more Democrat and Republican-in-name-only candidates winning, not more conservative candidates who are better on the issue of immigration.
BTTT
I live in Texas. I will vote Republican as always.
It's funny, this article reaches out to mainstream Republicans.
But according to some Freepers, anyone who opposes Bush's open borders policy is a "DU troll" or the like. Go figure.
Guess that's not true after all.
Bullhockey. There's not a shred of evidence to support this assertion. The Senate can't affect the Iraq war one tittle or jot. Bush Sr. managed to get Clarence Thomas confirmed when the Dems held the Senate, so that's a canard as well.
Her (Miers) image was forever damaged by those attacks.
I'll dispute this one as well. Miers didn't have an 'image' before she was nominated and I'll go further and say she doesn't have one now. I feel sorry for a lot of people in this world. Harriet Miers ain't on that list.
There are 55 people who need replacing in the US Senate. Most are Dems but a disturbingly large number are liberal Republicans. Every single one of them needs to go at the earliest opportunity.
If I'm given the opportunity I'll trade a Zell Miller for an Arlen Spectre any day of the week.
I imagine most folks around here would, too.
L
Great article.
Listen, don't lecture.
Oh come now. And according to OTHER Freepers, anyone who does not pile on Bush or blames the Senate more than Bush is considered a Bush-bot, a RINO, or worse. This has worked both ways between the Hatfields AND the McCoys. The best advice Bush has given is let's be civil about this. Go figure.
Well said.
Did they ever truly support him to begin with?
Too bad Zell Miller is not running against any of the 18 liberal Republicans - if your choice instead is between a liberal Republican and a liberal Democrat, I hope you woul bite the bullet - the Senate can affect Impeachment at least ; )
Bush's poll numbers after 9/11 were in the 90's, so yes, I think everyone except James Carville and his mother back in New Orleans "supported" him back when - not now that the going gets tough.
Thanks for a voice of sanity. The premise of the article is wrong--that those who have finally had enough BS are to blame for the coming GOP debacle, without acknowledging that the debacle is squarely on those dispensing the BS, and their fawning enablers.
The republican party is a coalition of Big government conservatives and Classical Liberals. The Big Government side completely dominates the party. A coalition needs to share power or it falls apart. Blame the greedy Big Government conservatives if that happens.
No doubt that would be a good trade but that trade isn't on the block and never has been. Zell Miller is retired. Can you name a current Democrat you'd support? I can't but I'll listen if you have someone. I do disagree with you that thge Senate can't affect the Iraq war. They can certainly cut off or obstruct funding for the effort. Perhaps we could count on the House to counterbalance that but I'm not so certain. As for getting Clarence Thomas through...well the Democrats have broken new ground in obstructionism since that time. If they controlled the Senate now, I'd be willing to bet we'd never see a Thomas even put up for a vote.
I have two years until I get to vote for a Senator of any party. Right now mine are Durbin and Obama. It's hard to imagine anyone worse.
My choices for Governor are equally bad. Judy Barr Topinka and Rod Blago. I'm leaving that spot on the ballot empty.
So to answer your question, I can't name one right now. That doesn't mean there won't ever be one. For example in the last IL Governors race I did vote for the Dem.
Yea, that's right. I voted for a pro-concealed carry, pro-life Dem over an anti-gun, pro-abortion Republican. But this is Illinois which is about as close as you can get to actually living in Supermans Bizarro world politically speaking.
L
Really?
So on Monday night, when the President stated
"I support comprehensive immigration reform that will accomplish five clear objectives.He was lying? Isn't that treason?
First, the United States must secure its borders. This is a basic responsibility of a sovereign nation. It is also an urgent requirement of our national security. Our objective is straightforward: The border should be open to trade and lawful immigration, and shut to illegal immigrants, as well as criminals, drug dealers, and terrorists...
The men and women of our Border Patrol...over the past five years, they have apprehended and sent home about six million people entering America illegally...
...increase federal funding for state and local authorities assisting the Border Patrol on targeted enforcement missions. We will give state and local authorities the specialized training they need to help federal officers apprehend and detain illegal immigrants...
...we must ensure that every illegal immigrant we catch crossing our southern border is returned home...
I think the attacks by republicans who cannot fathom someone who simply votes their conscience rather than by party is having a negative effect as well.
I will support republicans who are strong on the illegal alien issue. Which means of course I cannot support my own republican senator, Martinez. I will NOT vote for him, regardless of what names people want to call me.
susie
All other things being equal, I can understand voting for the pro-life Dem over a pro-abortion Republican - let me know when that happens in a Senate or Presidential race.
Excellent point! yes, I am angry as is evident by my posts
over the illegal alien invasion, and all I want is to keep this great nation sovereign BUT you are correct on one thing, and everyone better hear it...
We would never be better off with any other party, our Republican Party is the best there is bar none, in our anger (and I had regretted many things said in haste and anger) we must never advocate voting out our side because the alternatives are so much worse.
I am very strong against illegal immigration but have never and will never give into the socialist left.
Peach is right Tancredo, Sessions, Kyl, J.D. , Cornyn, have an (R) after their name.
Some of us who now question what on earth he's thinking on the border issue were formerly called Bushbots. My blood is as American as yours, and I'm tired of people questioning that because we disagree on this issue. I'm also tired of hearing that because I strongly disagree with Bush on this issue that I'm not a republican, not conservative, hate bush, blah blah blah.
susie
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.