Rush, Instapundit debate II

Bottom line: A Democratic victory would not be the end of the world

from JoeUser Forums

Today on Rush Limbaugh's show, Rush referred indirectly to yesterday's article about the Instapundit vs. Rush fallout.

From listening to the show, Rush clearly seems to think that conservatives, such as myself, are being naive or as he put it, should "expand their horizons" on what the repercussions of a Democratic victory in November would be.

Considerable time was spent on the premise that votes shouldn't be used to "teach a lesson".  Or more to the point, that a vote really can't be used to teach a lesson.  I disagree.  You can bet that if the Republicans lose, especially given how loud the right has been about its dissatisaction with Republicans in congress, that they will take it to hear.

The difference is that many conservatives, myself included, don't think the world will end if Democrats gain control of the house (and even the senate).  We're not like the hysterical left that thinks if its opponents win that the world will be destroyed. 

I don't think we'll see some massive tax increase, I don't think we'll "cut and run" from Iraq, I don't think Bush will be impeached, I don't think we'll lose the war on terrorism.  If the Democrats were about to get a big majority of congress, I might feel differently, but at most, the Democrats would have a tiny majority in both houses with a veto-wielding Republican in the white house.

If congressional Democrats start acting like kooks for all the American people to see, they'll suffer in 2008 when the stakes are much higher. 

And you can also be sure that congressional Republicans won't soon forget what happens in the age of the "new media" if you piss off your base.

So Rush, spare us the patronizing "we've been brainwashed by the 'drive by' media".  It was on-line conservatives that got Trent Lott out after his foolish remarks about Thurmond. It was on-line conservatives that exposed the forged documents on 60-minutes.  We don't get our marching orders from the MSM.  If anything, the marching orders to the MSM increasingly come from the blogsphere. Sites like Instapundit, JoeUser, and tens of thousands of others who in turn express the opinions of ordinary Americans.

We are unhappy with Republicans. That doesn't mean we'll vote for Democrats out of spite, they have their own constiuencies to deal with.  If Republicans lose, it's becauase they didn't earn our vote. And you can bet they will remember that. They will have plenty of statistical research to drive that point home.  And the world won't end.

Update: And no, I won't be "glad" if Republicans lose. I just think if they lose, they brought it on themselves..

Update: Yes, I understand there are lots of Democrats who act like kooks. And yet, when the senate was narrowly under Democratic control prior to 2004 it wasn't the end of the world. IF the Democrats win back the house AND IF they pass bills that Republicans don't find acceptable THEN Bush should use his VETO. IF he does not use it, then that speaks to a totally different problem.

Response: Rush discussed this on the show, here is a response.

republican
46,633 views 80 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Your first article sure garnered a lot of Anon comments, most of them pretty good.

And I agree with you for the most part. Perhaps it is time to punish the republicans. However, again I say we are punishing (or probably will) the wrong house since it is the house that has stayed closest to the base. But truth be told ,there is very little you or I can do. My congressman is a shoe in for re-election (it would take an act of God for him to lose). And my senator is one of the most conservative and true to his base, so I am voting for him as well (the other one is not running AND I would be hard pressed to vote for him again).

The MSM is trying to make this a national election, but the truth is is 469 local elections. Only a handful may actually be influenced by the actions, or inactions of the respective parties overall performance.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Teach the Republicians a lesson? Spend two years in hearing and impeach Bush efforts? Where can the war on terror go in two years? In the toilet and us with it. Two years under Dim controll of congress, either or both branches, and we will have an attack that will make 911 look small. Wake up before it is too late. Take a look at the Dims in the house who will control committees if they will the majority.
Start11 - Customize the Start Menu and Taskbar in Windows 10/11.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm still conflicted on this point, but the Democrats are campaigning on cut and run and letting Bush's tax cuts sunset. They don't need a large majority to do either. All they have to do is de-fund Iraq, the same way they de-funded our forces in Viet Nam in 74. 6 months later we'll be gone.

And you're assuming a Democrat majority in the house would care about the presidential race in 2008. They aren't going to anger their base in order to get Hillary elected. They'd rather keep their phony balony jobs.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

What is a "repricussion?" Do you mean "repercussion?" If you want to have a blog, you might at least learn to spell first.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Oh, so now if you ever mis-spell a word you can't have a blog? Who died and left you in charge of that? Get a life, loser!
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
"If the Democrats start acting like kooks..." What, you mean, Charlie Rangel, John Murtha, and Russ Feingold haven't already started? Look, let's just cut the crap and get as cynical as possible. It simply isn't rational to sit out an election simply because you'd be forced to select the lesser of two evils---because sitting out is effectively a vote for the winner. And if the winner is indeed the greater of two evils, well, congratulations, you blew it.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
OK, to put it more clearly, I'm surprised that Glenn Reynolds, for his primary defense, links to a blog where the author doesn't even know how to spell "repercussion."
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
You have the same problem with the Democrats that the Left in general has with Islamism - in both cases they've told us very clearly in advance what they want to do to us, and in both cases there's no reason not to believe them, but yet they're ignored or pooh-poohed.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
"If Democrats start acting like kook," Joel, with the exception of 10%, the Democrats cannot help acting like kooks. Get real!
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
"If Democrats start acting like kook," Joel, with the exception of 10%, the Democrats cannot help acting like kooks. Get real!
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
"If Democrats start acting like kook," Joel, with the exception of 10%, the Democrats cannot help acting like kooks. Get real!
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well said, Draginol. Although I still plan to vote republican this fall, and would prefer for the republicans to win, the world will not end if democrats win and in fact, if this allows republicans to focus on their mistakes of the past several years, could be useful to the overall conservative movement.

Like you, I believe that one of the benefits of our system of government is its self-regulating nature. If democrats take over this fall and govern in a responsible manner, they will continue to gain seats in '08 and could possibly take over the white house. On the other hand if they win this fall and then behave like Rush and many of the hard-core republicans fear, they will quickly be voted back out of power.

On a personal basis what I most dread about democrats winning this fall is the obnoxious triumphalism that will be spouting from lefty sites for the next year or so...
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
My only bristle is that when folks talk about punishing "them" they are including me in the mix. It is like the stupid teacher making everyone do a punitive paper because one kid was talking out of turn. (Now if the schools allowed the other kids to beat the crap out of the offender, then a lesson may be learned... but that no-tolerance thing gets in the way.) But in this instance, MY kids will be put at risk with the lax Dems approach to terror, MY kids will continue to go to schools where 50% of the kids don't speak, or care to speak, english. MY kids will suffer the repercussions of tax plans which will surely be somewhat initiated. I and MY family will pay the price.

I don't like that. It isn't fair. And it isn't fair to the good, solid conservatives, who would remain. And, btw... who are we really punishing? Aren't we the ones that put them there in the primaries? We decided the fools among them. We did. Republicans voted them into the primaries and now we are going to punish the ones that are actually trying to do something. Non-sensical in my opinion.

If the Dems win, they will start to institute as many plans as they can to make sure they never lose again. I really hope everyone understands that. NEVER lose again. Fairness doctrine, lawsuits for 'slander' and 'liable', stacking the court with leftists... Good Grief man, we are going to pay a hell of a price if this happens.

Quoteth Pogo: I have met the enemy and it is us. Alas, that is a shame.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
There are major reasons not to "teach Republicans a lesson" with this upcoming vote. The states are simply too high.

1. Supreme Court. The biggee. We could have anywhere from two to four judges, possibly, retiring in the next two years - but almost certainly at least one, considering the ages on the Court. A new member of the Supreme Court could last thirty years or more these days, and if the Republicans lose you can bet we're not going to get good justices through the Senate. We have a hard enough time doing that even with a 55 seat majority. We'll get O'Connor types - wishy washy "moderates" that are very likely to "grow in office"(Kennedy anybody?) and start voting outright liberal as they become enmeshed the Beltway culture. This would simply be a disaster - especially since we are so close to actually remaking the Court.

And we so desperately need it - or do you want even more cases like the property rights rewriting of the Constitution we got last year? And the thousand other horrible decisions we were dealt last session...

2. Taxes - all they have to do is sunset. Set up a bunch of new Democrat incumbs and it will be that much harder to get the majority back and make the tax cuts permanent.

3. Committe Chairs - this is huge, as well. We'll get new rules that will be hard to undue. They'll drive the agenda. We'll get "paygo" schemes which will put the tax cuts on the chopping block.

4. National Security - the defunding of Iraq, like they did with Vietnam, is a very real danger. Also, having the Democrats in control simply cannot be good for many other aspects of the War on Terror - such as the terror detainee bill we just signed. That could've gone very differently if they had been in charge. And these things are crucial.

5. Endless hearings and the possible Impeachment of Bush. They've threatened it, and if they get a majority, they'll almost certainly do it.

I could go on and on, but the Supreme Court and the War alone should be reason enough to want to claw and hang on to a Republican majority. We should take care of bad Republicans in the primaries, not take it out on them in general elections when the entire country might suffer for decades to come as a result.

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
"I don't think we'll see some massive tax increase, I don't think we'll "cut and run" from Iraq, I don't think Bush will be impeached, I don't think we'll lose the war on terrorism. If the Democrats were about to get a big majority of congress, I might feel differently, but at most, the Democrats would have a tiny majority in both houses with a veto-wielding Republican in the white house.

If Democrats start acting like kooks, they'll suffer in 2008 when the stakes are much higher. "

That's about as well-put and succinct as it could be. And yes, Limbaugh IS condescending.

The lefties will crow about their huge moral victory. I'm reminded of what Bellichick and other perpetually-winning coaches tell their teams when they score a touchdown: Act like you've been there before. The left has 'been there' so rarely, I guess we have to forgive them.

What I expect to see is a pull, within the party, away from the hard left. This will cause a good deal of infighting and realignment amongst the Dems. Lieberman (whether he likes it or not) will become a lightning rod for the disaffected. The Republicans will (let's hope) do some soul-searching. There may be some consolidation around potential candidates like Guiliani.

This is how change happens. If we don't refuse to support bad policies, we should expect more bad policies. Republicans who keep their seats will feel they deserve them. A party that remains in control will stay the course.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
Problem is, people who think like you (and InstaPundit) are liberals in conservative clothing.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
Who would have guessed that a Democratic majority of 1 or 2 seats in either/both houses would spell the end of civilization as we know it- even, as one poster said yesterday, of *democracy*. And Don G. says that we have to understand that the dems will fix it so that they will NEVER lose again. It's not as if the repubs haven't been doing the same thing for the last 6 years- and it's not as if the dems could succeed. And Don, do you *really* believe that either party is going to materially change the number of kids in your local school that don't speak english? do you not realize that your tax situation is going to get worse in the next few years no matter who wins?

Do your homework. If the dems win they will have a razor thin majority and history says that they will lose that and the house in 2 years. And yes, the thought of Pelosi as speaker is repellent- even to my demmie friends (yes, I have some), but living with the triumphalism is something that the repubs probably need to do- a taste of one's own medicine. Of all the mistakes that have been made, the biggest one is to make politics nastier than it has been in decades. It is ironic that the party so associated with Christianity has no sense of the golden rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. To quote the Economist, one of the best things about a democracy is that you get to throw the bums out every so often. Time for some fresh faces that will get back to the business of running an efficient, accountable, government.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

Problem is, people who think like you (and InstaPundit) are liberals in conservative clothing.

..Right.

Let's see..

Supports War on Terror. Check.

Supports War in Iraq. Check.

Supports tax cuts. Check.

Supports strict constructionist supreme court justices. Check.

Supports secure borders. Check.

But if I don't blindly pull the Republican trigger, I'm really a liberal. I thought it was only left-wingers who blindly obeyed the party line...

Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
OK, after my negative kvetching above, let's get positive for a second. It is important to point out that there ARE entirely appropriate venues within which to "punish" the Republican party for its drift away from conservatism. Those venues are, of course, the primaries. And while incumbents enjoy a considerable advantage in primaries that exceeds even what they have in the general, they are NOT invulnerable: Both Cynthia McKinney on the D side and Joe Schwarz on the R side fell this year. And Laffey came tantalizingly close. If conservatives were to form an organzied coalition to engage in dedicated GOTV efforts during primary season, I really do believe that they can effect change in the party.

But primary season is over, folks, and to abandon your party in hopes that maybe they'll learn a lesson is simply counterproductive. Power switches are not gradual events, they are seismic shifts, and it is far easier to hold onto power and extend it than it is to regain it.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
What really makes me laugh, is how afraid the average voter is of Pelosi et al holding 'investigation after investigation' into the Bush admin.

Why is this such a big deal, to Conservatives? Surely if the Bush admin had done everything on the up-and-up, it would be easily shown.

The truth is, down deep - really deep, farther back than most Republicans would like to admit - they know that Bush's administration will not survive the investigatory process. That they will be shown to have done things which are not conducive with the way most Americans believe things should be done. And they are afraid of this.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
What really makes me laugh, is how afraid the average Republican voter is of Pelosi et al holding 'investigation after investigation' into the Bush admin.

Why is this such a big deal, to Conservatives? Surely if the Bush admin had done everything on the up-and-up, it would be easily shown.

The truth is, down deep - really deep, farther back than most Republicans would like to admit - they know that Bush's administration will not survive the investigatory process. That they will be shown to have done things which are not conducive with the way most Americans believe things should be done. And they are afraid of this.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
"If the Democrats start acting like kooks, they'll suffer in 2008 when the stakes are much higher."

What do you mean by using the word 'start'? When North Korea sets off a nuke, they obsess over the scandel-de-seur with Foley. They are kooks. They just might sober up after twenty years of stinging defeats, that's what it's going to take. The reps will sober up after one unfavorable election.

Best possible scenerio is that the reps learn their lesson by ALMOST losing the house. They've got enough sense of self-correcting behavior that this would be possible. Don't give up on that.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
Oh please, that's just stupid. Investigations are only a "concern" because 1) you can't count on Pelosi, Reid & co. to conduct any such hearings honestly; and 2) they would further obstruct the ordinary conduct of Congress.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Mature and rational adults vote for the representation that they think can represent them the best. Adults know that sometimes life is unpleasant that way and the best is far from great or what we would wish for - especially in a time of world wide war. It demonstrates how spoiled and lazy some republican voters have become that they have even come to thinking this way.

For those saying the world will not end, no matter who leads this country, I sincerely hope you are right, but I am pretty sure you're wrong. Even with the best we can elect, doing their best, we will still lose a tragically large number of brave people, and many innocents will die.

Eventually we will be attacked in the US with nuclear weapons, and that day may come in the next two years - no one can say. The day we wake up to hear that New York and Washington are not there anymore, I do not want the grief and shock to be compounded by hearing that President Pelosi is on Air Force one deciding how to respond.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
What 'ordinary conduct' of Congress would they be disrupting, exactly?

Would they get in the way of massive earmarking?
Perhaps they would drop the ball on Electronic Voting reform.
Maybe they would mess up Immigration reform.

There is no substantial reason to believe that the Dems wouldn't run any investigations 'honestly.' You certainly haven't provided any, merely asserted that they 'can't be trusted.' Why is any voter to believe that they can be trusted less than the Republicans who currently are making a mess of the 'ordinary conduct' of Congress?