« Pregnant Woman In PJs Arrested By Police In Terror Investigation | Main | Israeli Prime Minister Accepts Cease-Fire Deal »

GOP Base is Motivated and Ready to Go in November

Lorie Byrd writes in her column today that the Dems shouldn't be as confident of their performance this November because the unhinged members of their party just may blow it for them. In addition to far left taking over the Democratic party placing it in disarray, a GOP internal poll says that the Republican base is united and ready to take on the Dems in November:

Many Democrats may hate the war in Iraq and itch to dump the president, but a new GOP survey shows that Republican base voters stand ready to jam the November polls to return their team to Congress. A three-page-survey memo obtained by Washington Whispers reveals that despite reports of some dissatisfaction with the economy, the war, and President Bush, 81 percent of Republican voters are "almost certain" to vote and an additional 14 percent say they are "very likely." It goes without saying that they'll vote Republican: By a margin of 84 percent to 6 percent, they will pull the GOP toggle switch in the voting booth. And here is something you don't hear very often: 88 percent of Republicans approve of how the prez is handling his job. What's it all mean? Analysts say that GOP voters are ready to dig in and play defense against the charges Democrats are tossing at Republican candidates.

The kook far left has hijacked the Democratic Party while the Republican base is firmly behind the GOP. If the Democrats think that a win in November is going to be easy, they need to think again.


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference GOP Base is Motivated and Ready to Go in November:

» The LLama Butchers linked with Yeah, right

Comments (49)

By using this method of vot... (Below threshold)

By using this method of voting measurement then the Connecticut Democratic primary shows how much more the kooks have split their party rather than unify it.

It was basically split down the middle of the far left verses a known statesman.

Whereas Republicans stand poised to vote to quell this self proclaimed early victory.

Are there any stats on Democrats showing how motivated they are going to the polls?

"the left has hijacked the ... (Below threshold)
Drew E.:

"the left has hijacked the party? ...The just released AP/Ipsos poll shows Bush's approval rating down to 33%....62% now not only oppose the War in Iraq but believe we should withdraw within a year..
Frist couldn't even get the hallmark estate/death tax passed..

It has been frustrating being a member of the minority party and not getting what was important to us passed. How frustrating is it for many Republicans to have been a part of the majority party..and getting so little of their expected agenda passed?

The Fed passed on raising I rates because the economy is slowing..price of gas?

Rightly or wrongly the voters blame the majority party..pseudo issues like homophobia and abortion (see S. Dakota)are not enough...

I believe that the poll cited worked two years ago..but is now overly optimistic..

Gee, funny that Bush just j... (Below threshold)

Gee, funny that Bush just just dropped to a 33% approval rating. Guess they don't poll Republicans. 60% disapproval of Iraq, and on and on. I'm beginning to think it's you righties who smoke that funny weed.

Lorie, Take off the red gog... (Below threshold)

Lorie, Take off the red goggles and check your math. Those numbers are rosy even for a conservative blog.

It's kind of funny that you... (Below threshold)

It's kind of funny that you think abortion is a Psuedo issue. S.D. is the first state to challenge RvW, and many other states are just waiting to see how this all plays out. For an issue that has been very important in both party platforms for over thirty years, I'd hardly use the term Psuedo. As much as the left likes to show polls and opinion data, you'd think they'd look at the areas polled, political orientation of those polled, and the empirical data that goes along with said polls. I can tell you that very little to none of the polling that occurs happens in the midwest, even on a per-capita basis. Same is true for rural areas around the country. Yes, the president's approval rating among certain segments of the population is low, but so was Abraham Lincoln's (now one of the most revered presidents ever). He was also ridiculed and reviled by the press of his day, especially for the Gettysburg address. I'm not saying our current president is much for public speaking (he's no Ronald Reagan), but his actions show where he sits on the issues. I'd take him over a Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton, or John Kerry any day. And my vote will continue to back the candidates that prove they can get it done, not just talk about it. That's all I ever see from the libs in the comments. Talk.

Before you roll that 60% an... (Below threshold)

Before you roll that 60% and smoke it, remember that a good portion of that is dissassifaction with the "Politically Correct" running or the general running of the war and not the idea of the war itself.

The big question is what wi... (Below threshold)
USMC Pilot:

The big question is what will the more centrist democrats do? Will the taking control of the party by the extreme elements cause some to just forsake voting or switch to republican candidates, or will they remain loyal to the party and support the extreme left. In addition I would wonder if the self proclaimed independents will be effected by this shift, or vote as they ussually do, which is based on some sort of momentary impulse.

I am constantly amased at the number of people who claim to be undesided two or three days before an election. It's kind of like they are waiting to see who has the best hairdo on election day. If you can't figure out who to vote for after a couple of weeks of campain speeches, and looking at their past history, then I suggest you spend a little time figuring out what you believe in.

Chad:How's this fo... (Below threshold)


How's this for a midwest view of Mr. Bush?

"DES MOINES, Iowa - A majority of Iowans remain unhappy with the nation's direction under President Bush's leadership, with 61 percent saying the nation has gotten off on the wrong track.

The latest Iowa Poll indicated that Bush's overall job performance has plummeted to 37 percent, the lowest approval mark of his presidency in the poll. About 59 percent of Iowa adults do not approve of the Republican president's job performance, according to a copyright story in The Des Moines Register.

The Iowa Poll was conducted for the newspaper by Selzer & Co. of Des Moines, based on telephone interviews with 801 Iowans age 18 or older between Jan. 21-24. The margin of sampling error was plus or minus 3.5 percentage points."

It hasn't improved since then.

Your Reps are getting delusional.

Just saw the results of a Z... (Below threshold)

Just saw the results of a Zogby poll of likely Dem voters from 8/9. 79% think Lamont's win was a good thing. 70% feel his win has made the party stronger heading into November. 78% say they want candidates who oppose the Iraq conflict.The likk is at The Huffington Post, for anyone curious enough to venture out of the tall weeds and take a breath of the fresh air of change.

Hmmmm.1. I was a r... (Below threshold)


1. I was a registered Republican.

2. I am a conservative.

3. I have not a single intention of voting for any Republican in November of 2006.

4. If I'm supposed to be required to vote Republican because of terrorism, then why aren't Republican politicians required to ditch their crazy amnesty plans for illegal aliens for exactly that same reason?

Sorry Lorie but there is practically nothing that could induce me, or a number of conservatives I know, to vote Republican this November. Believe otherwise if you like. But every single conservative I've heard from that said they'd vote Republican also stated that they did so in opposition to their beliefs.

That's a pretty shitty thing to depend on to remain in political power.

This is the critical factor... (Below threshold)
ken hupp:

This is the critical factor for holding Congress. If the base turns out in large numbers, Republican fortunes go up dramatically.
Bush for example, would likely see his job approval number rise to the mid-to upper 40's just by winning back Conservatives and Republicans who tend to support him, but are not currently doing so. Remember, Republican and Conservative turnout is what the MSM has breathlessly cited as the big reason that the Democrats will re-take Congress this year. We've heard never ending drivel about how the Conservative base is going to stay home and the Moonbats can't wait to go out and vote. Still, as Michael Barone pointed out, Conservatives keep going to the polls to vote in primaries and if you track the performance of Club for Growth candidates are removing Rinos and incumbents with the aroma and replacing them with true conservatives and more attractive candidates that increase the chance of higher turnout in November. Don't forget we've also heard about the internal squabbles the totally unified Democrats are having from Rahm Emmanuel not talking to Howard Dean to Steny Hoyer not wanting Nancy Pelosi to become House Speaker. Finally, let's not forget the problems Democrats are having at organizing their get out the vote effort. Just keep all this in mind as Looney Larry Sabato, Charlie Cook and others tell us that their precious Democrats have already won back Congress. Its not inconceivable that they could, but they haven't done so yet. Not by a long shot!


It takes more than the "bas... (Below threshold)

It takes more than the "base" to win an election. The Republicans are going to need some independents and maybe even some democrats...

They'll have to do something right. Calm the middle east and get oil prices lower. Win the war (rather than just declare that we are winning the war.) Help the economy in ways that include more jobs and higher wages (i.e. benefits that ordinary people can appreciate.) Maybe do something that makes healthcare costs manageable.

I don't think PR will do it. Good results from good governing is what is required.

Hugh: Bush is at 33% in onl... (Below threshold)

Hugh: Bush is at 33% in only one poll:

ABC News/Wash Post: Bush at 40%
CNN: Bush at 40%
LA Times/Bloomberg Bush at 40%
USA Today/Gallup: Bush at 40%
Cook/RT Strategies: Bush at 39%
Rasmussen today: Bush at 40%

I tried the Huffington Post... (Below threshold)

I tried the Huffington Post, groucho. I don't recall the subject but I do recall leaving a comment that the article was based on factual and logical flaws. (Made me think of PETA apologists who agree that the methods are deceptive and manipulative but the cause is just so it doesn't matter.) Maybe I just got a bad link for my first foray into the fresh air?

A majority of Democrats may think that Lamonts win was a gain for the party, making it stronger, but a majority of Democrats gave us John Kerry, so...

Thinking during primary elections is *usually* not about doctrinal purity but about which candidate is most likely to woo swing voters. Kerry resulted in a whole lot of people who would have *liked* an alternative to Bush to instead, "Vote for Bush while I hold my nose."

Bush's approval ratings being bad didn't stop the Democrats from chosing a candidate even worse. Leiberman might have been able to beat Bush in '04 and now see what has happened.

Bush's approval ratings among Republicans have to be viewed with two things in mind... quite a few disapprove of his *liberalness* about certain issues, mostly illegal immegration and big spending. And secondly... no one is being asked to vote for Bush.

ed,I can understan... (Below threshold)


I can understand frustration with the party. I remember being frustrated with the Reagan administration over the deficit even as I recognized Reagan was buying support from conservative democrats for a vigorous push in the cold war.

I don't know what part of the republican big tent you reside in. You may not like the increase in government spending especially for medicare perscriptions or no child left behind legislation, the lack of the GOP majority to push through democratic obstruction on issues like social security reform or judicial nominees. You may not like how vigorously the war on terror has been conducted or that abortion is still snuffing out millions of potential lives. You may just feel that the GOP hasn't moved far enough fast enough on simplifying and reducing the tax burden. Maybe you see a GOP majority in congress and wonder why we aren't drilling in the ANWR or are hamstringing refinaries and nuclear power plant construction with regulation. May you don't like the way the immigration debate is shaping up or how the campaing reform is limiting free speech. I don't know which or how many issues you have with the GOP.

But on any of those issues, do you really feel that a democratic majority in congress would do well? If so, what do you think they will do differently?

The proper way for the republican base to bring the party back to fundamental principles of the party is not to give control of congress to the democrats. Been there, done that and don't want to see it again. Voting for a third party candidate like Perot in 1992 or staying home and not voting in 1996 may have been emotionally satisfying, but it brought us Bill Clinton in the White House. It also opened the door to the possibility of Hillary Clinton in 2008.

The way for the republican base to move the republican party back to the fundamental conservative principles is to make calculated contests in the republican primary. Start looking now for races in 2008 or 2010 where new republicans can win primaries and the general election. The party didn't get here in one election and it won't get back in just one election. Trying to solve the issues within the republican party to quickly is likely to have unintended consequences.

Imagine the democrats winning a majority in either chamber of congress and stopping all funding to the military while we have troops in Iraq. Is that to hard to imagine? Now think about how many more terrorists get created around the world when the perceive the US to be running away after a few thousand casualties. Think about how many muslim nations will want to work with us (like Pakistan helping to foil the UK airplane bomb plot) when they see us leave the new Iraqi government in a lurch.

How many terrorist plots are we likely to stop in the future if the democrats have their way and stop programs like the NSA intercepts or the SWIFT finance tracking? We tried the democrats way to fight terror after the first world trade center bombing. It didn't protect America.

I have children. I don't see any way that the problems we have now don't get worse under the democrats. 911 was a wake up call to America that we either defend ourselves against the terrorists and the nations that help them or we can expect to end up like Israel where you never know if your family will be alive for supper that evening. I don't want this country to pay the price of another 911 because too many people forget that there are people out there who very much want to kill us. Is the satisfaction of staying home in November to send a message to the republican party worth several thousand more American lives to you? Because that may very well be the price.

You pathetic blowhard... (Below threshold)

You pathetic blowhards for the Democrats are nothing but lying incompetant losers. The only people who would vote Democrat are the ignorant , the deceived , the stupid liars that post their democratic bullshit and the over 80% of felons as stated by Fraud Kerry and Pig Hilary.

Your Rats Perpetual Fraud is blowing up in your face. CA-50 and 3% turn outs in your face. You self proclaimed Democrat loyalists are "NOT AMERICANS" , you are traitorous Democrats. That is why you are going to lose , cry and lie more and more than you are now.

I have no shame admitting that I was completly ignorant for voting straight democrat for nearly 20yrs. The instant I paid attention to politics and heard Fraud Kerry disrespecting President Bush on CNN, I knew something wasn't right. Nov. 2 2004 I voted for President Bush without question.

I was an ignorant American , not a Democrat.How easy it was to see just who the lying POS's were.


Hugh:The Iowa P... (Below threshold)


The Iowa Poll was conducted for the newspaper by Selzer & Co. of Des Moines, based on telephone interviews with 801 Iowans age 18 or older between Jan. 21-24. The margin of sampling error was plus or minus 3.5 percentage points."

It hasn't improved since then.

Your Reps are getting delusional.Who's delusional? You use an eight month old poll then make a tenuous connection to what the reality in Iowa is like today.

And then make a ludicrous assertion that things haven't "improved since then."

In case you haven't noticed, or so full of partisan BS it doesn't allow you to, polls have a sell by date of about one month or the next breaking news on CNN.

If all you got is months old data you would be better off to move on to another discussion.

And BTW... RobLACa, take th... (Below threshold)

And BTW... RobLACa, take that crap elsewhere. You do the Republicans no good posting tripe like that and only feed the trolls.

We don't need your type of help. Thank you very little.

ah all those polls showing ... (Below threshold)
Drew E.:

ah all those polls showing Bush at 40% seems like some form of vindication? ..ah that still means 60% don't support him...I will take 60% in any vote...go to the web sites for those Rebublicans running for office in your State...how many display Bush? If they don't write them and demand they do.

Give me one sign that we are "winning in Iraq"
Tell that to the wives of the Stryker Division in Fairbanks, Alaska. They were counting the hours till their husbands came home..Then, because we can't even contol Baghdad..they are extended until at least December.
(My son-in-law was a medic with them until his medical discharge this spring. My daughter just went back to offer her support to close friends.
I will not print the adjectives they use referring to Bush)

that aside..
Seriously..if you are lucky enough to have healthcare benefits how much have your costs risen in 6 years?...your Party has allowed this to happen sucking up to the Pharma's, unregulated Insurance Companies...HMO's
Go to the newspaper polls in your own State..is there one that shows a Republican incumbant increasing a lead they had 2 months ago?

Marc,Is this a lit... (Below threshold)


Is this a little better? From the Boston Globe today. Note the refernce to the midwest Chad.Ok tBig Mo I'll give you thaT wopping 40% just for arguments sake. Like I said, you folks are delusional. Your base may or may not be strong but you've lost just about everybody else.

"An Associated Press-Ipsos poll conducted this week found the president's approval rating has dropped to 33 percent, matching his low in May. His handling of nearly every issue, from the Iraq war to foreign policy, contributed to the president's decline around the nation, even in the Republican-friendly South.

More sobering for the GOP are the number of voters who backed Bush in 2004 who are ready to vote Democratic in the fall's congressional elections -- 19 percent. These one-time Bush voters are more likely to be female, self-described moderates, low- to middle-income and from the Northeast and Midwest."

yetanotherjohn,Excel... (Below threshold)

Excellent comments in reply to ed's frustration's, you left me nothing to say:-) So all I can do is second your thoughts.

USMC pilot,

I am an independent, never registered with either party who regretably voted for Perot.

I did so because while I liked Bush senior and felt very uneasy with Clinton, I felt that Bush 'didn't have a clue' as to how to get the economy back on track.

I based that perception in MSM reports showing Bush's astonishment at Grocey checkout scanners. Anyone remember that? It left me with the sense that he was 'out of touch' just as intended.

That is illustrative of the danger Republicans face in getting to the 'swing' voter. The MSM is NOT going to bring attention to the 'netroots' and the support many democrats extend to their extreme views.

It is imperitive that republicans realize and act upon this understanding. Political ads which educate the independent and 'undecided' voter to what the democratic party is becoming are critical to counteracting MSM manipulations of the truth.

I do believe that LARob is ... (Below threshold)
Drew E.:

I do believe that LARob is the rational voice of "todays" Republican Party

Drew E re: healthcare.... (Below threshold)

Drew E re: healthcare.

And the Democrats give us a candidate who made his living jacking up the price of malpractice insurance and generallly making it ever more expensive for falable human beings to provide medical care for normal folks.

Ed, I am interested in what... (Below threshold)

Ed, I am interested in what you mean by this: "But every single conservative I've heard from that said they'd vote Republican also stated that they did so in opposition to their beliefs."

Exactly what beliefs are you talking about? Tax Cuts? Bush/GOP has cut them 3 times. Conservative Judges? Bush/GOP has appointed them. U.S. Security? There has not been and attack in this country since 911 and as we have seen this week, that not by coincidence. The GOP controlled Congress has put in place methods to track and prevent these attacks.

I'm sorry you feel the way you do about the GOP because personally, I can't wait until November gets here and I can go and cast my vote for my Republican candidate and most people I know feel the same.

What is is specifically that has you so angered at the party? I'm not happy with everything the GOP has done, but then again I never have been ever since I begin following politics.


As far as the other moonbats who have posted here today calling us delusional about this poll when all the MSM media polls show the opposite, I just want to ask you how many times you guys are going to be suckered in by the media. You've been down this road in 2002 and 2004. The Dem's were proclaimed to have won the election months before a single vote was cast. The reality of the actual vote count came around to bite you in the butt. If you want to do it all over again be my guest.

It's also not too soon to get those excuses ready. What will it be this year: will we steal the election, will the exit polling be more accurate than the actual votes cast, will the voting machines malfunction, or will there be a new reason you guys lose?

All you Dems out there are ... (Below threshold)
Big D:

All you Dems out there are absolutely right. Bush WILL NEVER get re-elected to the presidency with these crappy polling numbers!

Oh...wait a minute. He's not running again? Not ever? Oh. Well then never mind.

Bush's polling number are entirely irrelevant right now. I know they give you warm fuzzies, and I appreciate how little you've had to smile about these last...coupla decades...but to win you Dems need a better platform than "I'm not Bush".

You might want to spend some time, you know, thinking about the issues a little bit. And no fair saying "We'll just do everything Bush did, only better."

Also, focus on the future. Yeah yeah. Mistakes were made. So, now what?

For example. Statements like "We'll get after Osama Bin Ladin" really don't help you very much. I mean how might that be accomplished? What exactly would you do different than what is already being done?

C'mon. You can do it. Concentrate and breath sloooowly....

I think that there are goin... (Below threshold)

I think that there are going to be some very surprised people in a few years when we discover that the rising dissatisfaction with Bush means that voters will be looking for candidates who adhere to more conservative beliefs.

"65% disapproval" says nothing about the reason for the feeling.

Ok, ok, ok....that rotten... (Below threshold)

Ok, ok, ok....that rotten MSM has gone and done it again. Kirktoe says the polls are the opposite of what I have been posting.

Ooops....here's one from the Faux, I mean, Fox News folk:

06/15/06 FOX News Poll: Dems Hold Double-Digit Lead in Congressional Vote
Thursday, June 15, 2006

Ooops that's only June 15......how about one from them today?

FROM Fox News - August 11, 226
"If the election were held today, 48 percent of Americans say they would vote for the Democratic candidate in their congressional district and 30 percent for the Republican candidate. This 18-percentage point edge is up from an 8-point advantage in mid-July and a 13-point lead in June."

You folks really out to stop smoking that funny weed.

I have to side with ed. Th... (Below threshold)

I have to side with ed. The Republicans are just building too many negatives for me. Condi's vote at the UN may be a deal breaker for me when added to all the rest.

Swing voters usually don't ... (Below threshold)

Swing voters usually don't show up for midterm elections. One must rally their base.

Hugh,In order for ... (Below threshold)


In order for those polls to mean anything, I think we have to buy the assumption that congressional preference in polling is consistent with that shown on election day. If I'm not mistaken, Reps were losing on the generic party preference question prior to the last 5-6 elections, yet still were able to hold on to the House. IOW, you're placing your faith in a tool that doesn't necessarily get the job done.

Now perhaps the margin is indicative, but I don't think you've shown that kind of nuance in your anlaysis.

Hey Hugh,Fox also ... (Below threshold)

Hey Hugh,

Fox also had a poll right before the 2004 election that showed Kerry winning 50-48.

As a liberal you think that a Fox poll showing Dem's ahead is doubly damaging because it comes from Fox, who you consider extreme right wing.

As someone said above, the GOP was trailing in the polls the last 3 election cycles and won everytime.



Great post!!! I've often thought the same thing myself particularly since I would fall in that category. The dis-satisfaction I have with Bush is that we're not being agressive enough in defeating the insurgents in Iraq. But he and the GOP are still the best option in handling the situation.

When I first started to rea... (Below threshold)

When I first started to read Ed's comment, I thought Moby was logging in. Then I read the whole thing and I have to agree with him. I would probably be one of the "disatified" if polled. Same reason as Ed. However, when it's time to vote, I just can't see myself voting for two years of useless impeachment hearings and two more years of complete inaction. So what do I do?

Buzz, you hit the nail on t... (Below threshold)

Buzz, you hit the nail on the head. President Bush and the Republicans, especially Senator's. Frist and McCain, have really upset me at times, but there is absolutely no alternative. I will vote Rep this fall, and then scream the next two years. Because, while the thought of the Dems impeaching President Bush even as we are at war is unthinkable, it is not unimaginable if the Dems take back the House! So Republicans hold your nose or whatever else you have to hold and vote, or this nation will be in serious trouble.

Say, maybe you moonbats sho... (Below threshold)
Jim Addison:

Say, maybe you moonbats should take your poll results to your local bank - or check-cashing service, if that's what you use - and see how much they will lend you with the polls as security.

Don't you remember how you were all touting the polls in 2004? in 2002? And then, when the actual results came in, your little hearts were broken, your dreams crushed, your evil plans foiled. Again.

Now, I've had some pups and kittens that I could play the same trick upon over and over, but eventually even they manage to figure it out. But then, they were probably a lot smarter than a moonbat.

Hello....I think you are mi... (Below threshold)

Hello....I think you are missing something. This is actually very bad news for the GOP.

Two polls out in the past few days (one being a FoxNews poll) show that the generic vote looking to this Nov. shows the Dems 18 points up on the Republicans.

Now we see polling that shows that Republicans are motivated and will vote.

What can one conclude from this set of polls? Only one explanation explains both. There are a significantly smaller number of Republicans these days. They may be motivated, but there aint too many left.

This is confirmed by other recent polling which shows GOP self-identification at its lowest level in a long time.

If only your poll had shown Republicans to be unmotivated. That then could have explained the generic vote. And it would have laid out a feasable plan for the next few months. Just go out and motivate the base. But if they are already motivated, and you cant get higher numbers, then I fear you have lost a lot of people. And those type of losses tend to be long term.

What exactly does "self-ide... (Below threshold)

What exactly does "self-identification" mean? It means, i.e., you ask a democrat, "How do you identify yourself?" and he/she answers, "Oh, as a democrat, of course." And you ask a republican, "Well, how do you identify yourself?" and he/she answers, "Oh, as a republican, of course." And at the end, the poll reflects, well 43% of persons polled identified themselves as democrats, but only 35% identified themselves as republicans.

And the liberals say, wow, not only do we have terrible job approval for Bush, anti-Republican waves and an 18-point advantage in generic voting, but persons are no longer identifying themselves as republicans.

Does anyone per chance see shadings of circular thinking?

(Let me connect the dots: If you sample 8% more democrats than republicans, this is the kind of responses you get)

I guess the irony of all th... (Below threshold)

I guess the irony of all those of you s poo-pooing my posts about polli that the piece written by Lorie was about an internal survey (poll )of the Repubs!!!! That's all I was responding to folks, not the righetousness of my beliefs or anything else.

The survey flys in the face of every other poll (survey) taken by any other organization. So you all can deny what you want but reality is what it is. True, the polls reflect today, not November. But what is going to change in the next 2 1/2 months to make things better? Congress has one mre short session and nothing will come from it. Obviously, Iraq can't dramatically improve either.

Moderates and independants are fed up. It has been a do-nothing Congress. You can holler all you want about "obstrutionism" (a silly and trite arguement) but the repubs have been in charge and , gee, the moderates and independants know that.

60% now disapprove of Iraq. How is that going to change? The Connecticut vote was a message and please don't argue that it was moonbats or lefties sending a message. There is so much anti-Bush, anti-Congress sentiment out there that isn't going to magically disappear.

[email protected] yetanother... (Below threshold)


@ yetanotherjohn

I can understand frustration with the party. I remember being frustrated with the Reagan administration over the deficit even as I recognized Reagan was buying support from conservative democrats for a vigorous push in the cold war.

1. I am in the Fiscal, Immigration and National Security branches of the conservative movement. Not a Social or Religious con.

2. Look. I've been with the Republican party for decades ever since Reagan. Prior to that I was a Democrat, along with the rest of my family. But enough's enough.

We were all told by the party leaders that control over the White House and both houses of Congress would give them the means of implementing the changes that are necessary for preserving the Union. Instead what it's done is give the party the means to basically *LOOT* this country at will. And there is nothing to show that this would change. If the GOP continues control over both houses of Congress then this will continue. So, as a Fiscal Con, the correct course is to see that the Democrats control one house of Congress and implement a split Congress which will turn back the clock to the 1994 point.

Even now Republicans are fighting tooth and nail against reform of earmarks. And this is to impress me?

3. I've stated a number of times that I frankly don't believe the Republican House has any intention whatsoever of implementing anything other than a general amnesty for illegal aliens. Republicans have had political power in Washington for over twenty years now and still haven't done anything. Even if the Republicans have sole political power in Washington for the next twenty years they still won't do anything other than grant a continuous roll of amnesties.

I'll point out that it was a Republican President, Reagan, that granted the first such amnesty.

4. Frankly any President that outright *refuses* to safeguard the borders in a time of war is guilty of such high crimes that he deserves impeachment.

Am I to believe that the GWOT is of such a dangerous nature that I needs must vote Republican in November? And yet that same GWOT is NOT sufficiently dangerous that this nation must have it's borders guarded?

You explain that one.

[email protected] kirktoe</p... (Below threshold)


@ kirktoe

Ed, I am interested in what you mean by this: "But every single conservative I've heard from that said they'd vote Republican also stated that they did so in opposition to their beliefs."

1. There are many conservatives that I know who would willingly abandon the Republican party completely *except* for some specific issues. On the basis of those issues alone they'll hold their nose and vote Republican. But once those issues no longer command loyalty, they're planning on abandoning the GOP.

A. Securing the victory in Iraq so the sacrifices of American soldiers isn't in vain.

B. Guarding the country against the GWOT.

Of these the first won't last more than a couple years. The second won't last more than a couple years because the level of discontent is rising each and every single day. Once the level of discontent exceeds the will towards loyalty, then even these conservatives will abandon the GOP.

And there are even more that I've heard from, exchanged emails with or debated on blogs. Perhaps they'll change their minds on election day. Perhaps more will vote this year. But Iraq won't last forever. And the political impact of the GWOT won't last forever either.

Ever since my kidneys failed I've been astonished by how malleable humanity is. How much the concept of "normal" can change over time. America is undergoing the same process that the Israelis have done. We are becoming more and more accustomed to terrorism both as an action and as a concept. It won't be all that much longer before banging the GWOT drum won't accomplish anything more significant than a yawn.

And without either Iraq or the GWOT as major issues, the Republican party doesn't have a damn thing left with which to either entice or control conservatives.

2. The tax cuts aren't permanent.

This is so the Republicans can continue pounding that drum every few years. I'm not impressed.

3. It's nice that conservative judges have been appointed. But I also remember Harriet Miers and wonder just how many are really conservative.

4. As for US security. Just how secure is America when terrorist can, and *have*, crossed the border with Mexico.

5. I've already stated a number of times why I'm pissed off at the Republican party:

Fiscal insanity. Anybody remember the $300 million dollar bridge in Alaska for 50 people?

Immigration: Anybody remember that the House Republicans were desperate, absolutely desperate, to eliminate a couple amendments that actually gave their immigration "reform" bill teeth? The Democrats blocked that so that they could use the bill as a club to beat the Republicans with.

The original House bill was intended to be as squishy as the Senate one.

National Security: Don't tell me that this nation is secure with it's borders in a state of utter crap. Don't tell me that the Republican party is serious about national security when they try to pass the bullshit that a wall won't help.


Frankly I think the GOP has long ago come to the conclusion that the conservative vote is as captive to them as the African-American vote is captive to the Democrats.

They are wrong.

Response to Ed's points:</p... (Below threshold)

Response to Ed's points:

1 - A. - We are winning the war in Iraq and the soldier's sacrifice is NOT in vain. We've had 3 elections over there Ed after 30+ years of dictatorship. Sure there is still some bad things going on there, but that's the nature of war. You are being suckered in by the media's "everything is going to hell in a handbasket" template.

B. In case you missed it Ed, we just foiled a major terrorist plot. We've done that mutliple times the last 5 years. Ther's been no attack on our soil since 911. Bush is doing a damn good job of protecting the country.

2 - Nothing is EVER permanent where government is concerned. That is a misnomer. But as far as the GOP using it as a tool to get re-elected, that's what politics is all about. Your naive if you think it isn't. The difference is that the GOP has at least implemented tax cuts unlike the Dems's who simply use issues to criticize Republicans.

By the way, the GOP tax cuts are DIRECTLY responsible for the economic growth we are having. So stop whining.

3 - You or I have no idea what Harriet Miers would have been like because people like you buried her before she ever had a chance. She may have indeed been a conservative (and I think it's most likely she was). I found it very hypocritical of those on the right who always said that all judges should be allowed an up or down vote (rightly so) but didn't want Harriet Miers to have that opportunity.

4 - There is not one single shred of evidence that ANY terrorist has crossed the Mexican border. That's just a tool to use to try and bolster your argument that has no validity. Read Richard Miniter's book and you'll understand this.

Having said that, I'm not that crazy about the GOP's apathy towards the issue either. But I'm not going to stay at home and not vote because of it. And the House is the one leading the enforcement part of the bill.

5 - You're living in a dream world if you think that the government is going to consistently cut back on spending. What happened in mid 1990's is the EXCEPTION not the rule. Spending went up under Reagan also. People in their own districts are always going to want their congressman or Senator to bring home the pork to their community. That's the way it is. This is a non-issue for me.

You obviously have strong feelings here. My advice would be to vote for conservative candidates in the primaries if you're dis-satisfied with what you already have. Staying home in November only helps the Democrats and puts this country at risk. If you can't see that then nothing else I could say would be enough to change your mind.

I love Ed! Go, go, go! He... (Below threshold)
Ed Groupie:

I love Ed! Go, go, go! He speaks so eloquently that which I feel as well. When I previously tried to push similar discussion on RedState, I was banned (pointy sticks, you know). RedState is no longer a conservative site, IMHO, and I don't visit it anymore.

I'll say it once and say it again. Come November, moderate Republicans and those that wish to remain in power simply because the "Dems would be so much worse" will experience a reckoning. Votes matter and must be earned. This conservative continues to sit out this year.

Don't worry about the "political impotence" argument. Sitting out is simply the beginning. Post election, the conservative base will clean house of what's left of the RINOs (and the impeachment hearings will only support that cause). And if that doesn't work, look for a real, sustainable third party to rise in 2007. P.S. John McCain won't be leading it.

Ed,Thanks for resp... (Below threshold)


Thanks for responding. I don't think we sit to far apart in the GOP big tent.

I agree that the GOP is not walking the talk on fiscal conservatism. But what I haven't heard from you is how the democrats would be better. The solution is to prune the GOP in the primaries. In some places, you just aren't going to be able to get better than we have. In other states and districts, we can and should be able to put up more conservative members. In addition, we need to grow the majority. One of the problems is that the margin for the majority is small enough that you can't have to many people bail out or you lose the vote. So congressman pigsnout knows that his vote is needed for a national security legislation and he does some log rolling. I'll be in your majority, but I want a new highway or whatever for my district. Look back at some of the earmark legislation. Some of those votes were very close (whether they stopped or allowed earmarks). Now imagine if you could take out 15% of the democrats and replace them with reliably conservative votes. Suddenly those earmark votes wouldn't be so close.

I understand the concept of the split congress. It has some merit. But it also has a big downside. Think about the obstructionist tactics of the democrats. Social security keeps getting to be a bigger problem. Do you really think a split congress is going to be able to tackle a piece of legislation like that? What will happen is the split congress will punt and the problem will get larger and harder to deal with.

Another thing on the earmarks. I looked at the breakdown on some of the votes. Yes, there were republicans that voted for every earmark. But there was a higher percentage (in absolute terms and in terms of the republican/democratic breakdown percentages) of republicans voting to stop the insanity. There were some democrats who voted on all the votes I studied to stop the insanity. Some times the republicans would vote to stop earmarks on 2 out of 3 or 1 out of 3. There were always more republicans voting to stop earmarks at every level of voting. So I see the solution is not sit out and watch the train crash, but put more republicans in there. Even if some go bad (and some as I said voted for every earmark) your odds of stopping the earmark goes up for every D you remove and add an R in their place.

I see the immigration a bit differently than you. Are their republicans who want a no enforcement all amnesty approach? Sure. But again, more democrats than republicans are in that camp. Do you really think that a split congress is going to act on this in a rational manner? The split congress is good for keeping the status quo. But again, think about a congress with another 15% republicans, all good conservatives. Then you can start to marginalize the amnesty only people because you don't need to get the majority.

Bottom line on immigration is you are right that a GOP majority is no guarantee of any change on immigration. But a democratic majority or a split congress is a pretty good guarantee of no change or if there is change it will be in the direction of more amnesty.

As a conservative, I don't just look at the world as I want it to be, but also look at in terms of reality. The GOP is not perfect, but you need to make a stronger case that a democratic majority or a split congress would be better.

On the other hand, the right republican president in 2008 willing to wield a veto with a grown republican majority looks to me to be the best solution to the issues you are describing. The odds of the right legislation getting implemented go up and the odds of the wrong legislation getting through goes down.

As far as the GWOT, are you planning to fly on any airplanes in the next 6 years? If the democrats get their way to cut down on NSA intercept or SWIFT finance tracking because they see them as a threat to civil liberty, then your own personal chances of survival goes up under the GOP.

In short Ed, while not perfect, the alternative is a lot worse. If you can get over the fact that the GOP is not hitting on all cylinders, I think you will see that the alternative is much worse. And as party of the party of individual responsibility you will bear part of the blame for it getting worse if you don't work to keep the worse alternative out and to improve the GOP from within.

I just wanted to say it's n... (Below threshold)

I just wanted to say it's nice to see a real debate in the last few posts. A nice change from the usual invective. I disagree with lots of things said, but I can read what you have to say when there is no invective.

Thanks guys. Too bad the leaders on both sides can't do the same.

You've been watching Fox Ne... (Below threshold)

You've been watching Fox News too much. I am a cradle republican and (almost) all of the people in this neighborhood are republicans. But every one of us is mad at the GOP. And many (most ?) are voting for the democrats this fall to protest.

If we repubs get beat this fall, and it looks like we will, it is our own fault. We have to take a look at what we are doing wrong, fix it, and get ready for 2008.

As a liberal, I envy the Re... (Below threshold)

As a liberal, I envy the Republican party--their fringe base (the authoritarian cultists) appear to be a majority of their party, unlike with the Dems and actual liberals ("unhinged moonbats").

November 2006, suckas. We'll see.

I'm a democrat and—locally—... (Below threshold)

I'm a democrat and—locally—I tend to vote Republican because locally the democrats are too entrenched. I feel the Republicans nationally are too entrenched.

It's bad when politicians are in power too long—they think that the power is theirs. They forget that the power is on loan from the people (us!). So, I can related to ClearwaterConservative, even though my political views are different from his...

Man oh man...I revisit this... (Below threshold)
Drew E.:

Man oh man...I revisit this after a couple of days and find something rare on ANY blog. Actual reasonable dialouge. It is possible. The irony is that although we want it all, we don't need it all.
Our needs are similar. We disagree on the methods.

This thread demonstrates we can venture out of our idological houses every once and awhile. It is kinda uncomfortable territory...but how refreashing..

ClearwaterConservative,... (Below threshold)


Sorry if this sounds harsh, but I don't see how anyone who claims to be a conservative could possibly think about voting for a Democrat this fall. Staying home and not voting at all I could see (although I disagree with it). There is not one Democrat I am aware of who espouses conservative views in this election. So voting for them is just plain stupid. You would not just be punishing the GOP you would be punsihsing the whole country.

You're either a liberal posing as a conservative or you're what I am discovering is a conservative who is taking things way too personally. I've seen this a lot in the last year from the likes of Anne Coulter and Laura Ingraham.

I know one thing, if the Dem's do win this fall I don't want to hear one little peep out of you or Ed when the Dem's start enacting their agenda and it hurts you.

Fortunately for you you won't have to worry about it because the Dem's aren't going to win.

[email protected] kirktoe<... (Below threshold)


@ kirktoe


1 - A. - We are winning the war in Iraq and the soldier's sacrifice is NOT in vain.

A. Winning is not the same as *won*. If you disagree I'll point out the vast number of instances where the side that was winning the respective war, actually ended up losing the war.

My point had nothing to do with whether or not Iraq was being won or lost. I thought I had been very clear on this point but if I wasn't, I'll expound on it again:

My point is that Iraq, or at least our direct military involvement with Iraq, won't last much longer. In a couple years the US military will be out of Iraq, and at that point the GOP will lose that issue as a means of drumming up support.

B. And my point, re-iterating again, is that the impact of such acts of terrorism upon the American people will lessen over time. One of the biggest impacts of 9/11 was that most previous acts of terrorism happened overseas, and now that's no longer the case.

Additionally the Democrats will realise soon after the 2006 election, or perhaps the 2008 election if they're really slow on the uptake, that the rabid left is not just lousy at campaigning, but lousy at getting elected. In part the Republican party is extremely dependent upon the DailyKos/DU crowd without which you could hardly tell the difference between a Republican or Democrat politician. With the rejection, and ejection, of the idiot Left, the Democratic party will adopt more sensible positions on fighting terrorism, although I expect they'll never accept Iraq, and thereby shift towards a more acceptable position for voters overall.

Once the American people become inured to acts of terrorism and the Democratic party ejects the idiot Left from major influence, then a large portion of the GOP's influence on the conservative base will evaporate.

Frankly I'm rather amused that the Democratic party fears the influence of DailyKos while the Republican party is almost entirely dependent upon it.

As for the "we haven't been attacked since 9/11". That's nice. Really it is nice. But:

If the GWOT is so important to this country, then why is the Republican party deliberately atagonising the conservative base with it's positions on illegal aliens and the failure to safeguard the borders? Is defeating terrorism so vastly important? Sure it is.

Now explain why defeating terrorism is so important, yet not important enough to build a wall.


... But as far as the GOP using it as a tool to get re-elected, that's what politics is all about. ...

So you expect me to give the GOP all sorts of kudos for deliberately trying to manipulate me and other conservatives in such a bald-faced manner?

Not hardly.

I know a stripper at a local skin club is trying to manipulate me into putting cash into her g-string, amazingly similar to the political process btw (including the song and dance, in a political sense), that doesn't mean I'll fall for it each and every time.

Well unless she flashes some boob. Cheney does that and I might reconsider. But no g-string please. :)


By the way, the GOP tax cuts are DIRECTLY responsible for the economic growth we are having. So stop whining.

Not hardly. Economics isn't some sort of simple process that can be driven by just one principle. It's a complex system with many circular references and interdependencies. While I enjoy pushing the "tax cut driven economy" meme myself, mostly to irritate the hell out of liberals, I don't really believe it myself.

Actually the primary economic engine currently is a combination of low interest rates for housing and real estate speculation. The tax cuts in comparison to the vast amounts of wealth generated from those two things amounts to less than a fart in a hurricane.

Case in point one of my former co-workers sold his house and made a $180,000 profit, and decided to take a year off from working to spend time with his son. Quite a few people have made money off of selling or re-selling houses and this wealth has generated additional GDP activity. Then there's the tapping of equity by Americans as they refinanced their homes.

Our current economy is based on the inertia resulting from that windfall, not really from the tax cuts.


3 - You or I have no idea what Harriet Miers would have been like because people like you buried her before she ever had a chance.

There was absolutely not one single thing in her professional or public background that would show that Harriet Miers was in any way, shape or form a conservative under any definition that wouldn't include Sandra Day O'Connnor.

If you have proof to the contrary, the present it please.

And btw that "opportunity" was for *life*. Giving someone a position for *life* is not an "opportunity". Would you say that Fidel Castro has had an "opportunity" to be a meglomaniacal dictator? It doesn't really flow does it?


4 - There is not one single shred of evidence that ANY terrorist has crossed the Mexican border.

Well that'll be difficult to refute.

Google: "Farida Goolam Mohamed Ahmed"

Thank you.


5 - You're living in a dream world if you think that the government is going to consistently cut back on spending.

Perhaps I am living in a dream world. But on the other hand the Republican party ran on the principle of smaller government right up until they got into power, then they basically trashed the whole idea.

c.f. bald-faced cynical manipulation.
re: Republican party.

If you run on a platform and fail to deliver, then I certainly can hold that against you. Unless it's your position that I cannot hold a political party's failure to abide by it's own stated, and promoted, principles against it.

Which would be a rather curious bit of logic.


Actually I don't think putting the Democrats into power would be a risk. It's one thing to snipe from the sidelines, it's quite another to be the one responsible for any failures. So fully expect that if the Democrats were to gain more power that they would certainly move away from the idiot Left and towards the center.

Which is certainly as valid as any other political theory expounded here. And at least it offers an alternative to the current "STFU I'm busy here spending your money, and you'd better vote for me 'cause of the GWOT" attitude of the Republican politicians.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy