Rush is right. Ignoring the stakes of this election in a time of a terrorists war and immigration invasion is short sighted in the extreme. Also, the issue of judicial appointments will be looming. More liberal judges would not be beneficial to the country or the conservative viewpoint. I agree that many Republicans need reeducation, but making things bad just makes it all the more difficulty to reclaim our country and to prevail in the culture war.

I thought the perfect being the enemy of the good was a liberal/leftist failing. Guess it has infected some conservatives too.

I thought the perfect being the enemy of the good was a liberal/leftist failing. Guess it has infected some conservatives too.

That assumes congressional Republicans are "good".  Inadequate would be how many conservatives feel.

It won't end, but you'll see nationalized healthcare, tax hikes, 1 or 2 liberal Supreme Court judges plus who knows how many state and federal activist judges, borders even more open, increased spending on social programs and decreased military (especially WoT funding), and endless coddling of NoKo and Iran.

Willing to bet money on that? You think a slight Democratic majority will result in nationalized health care, tax hikes, and a couple of left wing supreme court justices?

The fact that u separated the War on Iraq from the War on Terror is liberal enough for me....you're just a male Hillary. Take that cross off boy!! It's gonna burn your skin!!

Wow. Nice conservative credentials, Mr. Purity. Rush really got you on this one. Your position isn't naive - it is idealistic, fantasitc, and unAmerican. It is unAmerican because our system is meant to frustrate all these conservative gimmees you are whining for - the Senate and our federal elections are supposed to get in the way of proud ideologues like you as much as it is meant to slow down the ambitions of the nutroots.
Send a message - don't vote. Here's how it will be interpretted - time to move to the center and capture more of the reliable moderates - more moderate and timid GOP machine inbred newbie candidates for us to twist into knots in '08. What's so funny is that you speak not just from utter desperation and lack of political sense, but you actually speak out loud the strategies of a muttering loser. Sure, they'll get your message loud and clear, Markos. You speak for the real America (Chevy country, keepin it real). Give me a break - you are actually an equal citizen with an equal voice and vote, despite your echo-chamber myopia - that is to say, you are a mere number like the rest of us; a mere demographic that will be interpretted in every which way by every crazy pundit over the next year. The only message for smart Republicans will be that the fringe is full of unreliable baby voters and that giving up the Wal-mart, Reagan-democrat, Oprah, hispanic votes to the Dems is not worth trying to throw these people a bone while working with an ambivalent inept President within this frustrating, corrupt system.
Like you, I also look forward to our chance in power. Finally Bush will be forced to finally bring a new tone to Washington and make some real concessions to the center, perhaps rolling back all those give-aways to the rich (like Haliburton). Your hero isnt going to veto everything the American people will have clearly mandated. Your savior will have to actually speak and be held accountable (the horror). We own Shrub now. We will actually get a moderate, open-minded judge on the court!!! I admire your delusional optimism I guess, but if you are going to put youself out there as more ideological than Rush Limbaugh, and some sort of e-pioneer demanding respect from the radio actor you assume is reading your blog right now, it really is my obligation as a human being and a morally superior moderate liberal to stop and point our how pathetic it all is and gloat as I watch you try to spin and reconcile your impending doom.
Keep pushing your message - perhaps if no one votes they'll all start letting you write their bills and speeches in '08.
Shouldn't a political observer realize how fluid and unpredictable politics are. Just because the Republicans can't manage in these times doesn't mean we won't be a breath of fresh air for 2 years. Who exactly is going to step up in the Republican party and voice a clear opposition? Bush? The Senate (if we don't take that too). We still will be the minority - the Republicans will still be nauseating and impotent in '08. A strong Dem opposition to this arrogant and complacent administration is exactly the campaign Hillary needs.
The messsage is clear - all Americans are sick of the Republicans, and will be for a while. And we will all enjoy, along with our Founders, knowing that extremist

Shaky "conservatives" like those who say "It's their own fault," and "it won't be that bad" are whistling past the graveyard. Tax cuts-bye bye and with it the booming economy. Tax raises on evil empires like oil companies and Wal-Mart and there goes our gas prices and food bills. No more confirmations of reasonable judges. No chance for John Bolton, who is doing an excellent job at the UN, to even get to a vote, so he'll be gone. They will insist that Rummy be fired and Condi too. If they have majorities in both houses insist will turn into "demand." Get used to the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" because you'll be hearing Pelosi, Biden, Kerry, and Conyers using that phrase without end. John "cut-and-run" Murtha as House MAJORITY leader will actually get to cut and run. The only bright spot I can see is it will be the end of Arlen Specter who is beyond worthless. The war will be brought back to American soil and our enemies will be encouraged. I wouldn't be spending much time in any potential target for terrorists because they WILL strike with impunity. And somewhere, Old Slick will appear in the midst of all the smoke, fire, and death, and say, "I feel your pain.

The Democrats, BTW- will NOT gain a majority in either house. Watch the Missouri race for senate. If Talent wins - which he will - its over. The next days and weeks will be all the "smart" people trying to figure out how the jackasses managed to loose again.

err... what am I missing here? For all of the doomsayers who think that even a one-seat Democrat majority will result in socialized medicine, tax increases, new regulation et al... have you forgotten about the power of veto?

Any legislative leftward lurching from a small Democratic majority can be mitigated by presidential veto, and that's assuming that they can muster enough lock-step voting to even pass such legislation to begin with.

A small Democrat majority is not a recipe for disaster, it is a recipe for GRIDLOCK. And that might not be such a bad thing these days... it would give the American people a chance to see what the Democrats are WILLING to attempt, even if they aren't successful. It brings the anti-Democrat warnings out of the realm of paranoia and into the stark light of day. It warns people what life would look like under a Democrat supermajority.

Any Supreme Court nominees under such a scenario will (in order to be confirmed) need to be mainstream, solid candidates, akin to John Roberts. I'm not terribly worried about the inability to pack the SC with hard-right-wing judges, as that's not a goal of mine. I don't consider the overturning of Roe v Wade to be the sole reason for living or voting.

Get a grip, folks. If the Dems get either majority, they will prove beyond a doubt that they are unfit to lead, and their time wandering in the wilderness will be extended much, much further thereby. We won't see any significant, meaningful changes implemented, because they'll lack enough power to do it. We'll get posturing from them, which will only cement their doom in 2008 and beyond.

In the meantime, the Republicans will be able to see this as the desperately-needed wakup call, and people will finally be mobilized in force well before the next primary process, and people will finally start to get the concept that if you want truly conserative representation, you need to abandon the concept of preserving incumbency-above-all. Throw out the weak-willed Republicans during the primaries, and make your voices heard loud and strong to the party that you won't tolerate protecting the RINOs at the expense of the implementation of truly conservative ideas.

As for the spelling snark above, the poster clearly hasn't read Hugh Hewitt, who Insty links to regularly. Hugh's a wonderful cheerleader, but he couldn't spell his way out of a paper bag.

Hah. I am finding it highly amusing that Glenn Reynolds, whose writings have appeared in the Wall Street Journal and who posits himself as a highly independent thinker, is now hiding behind James Taranto and some twit blogger who nobody ever heard of (that would be JoeUser) when confronted by Rush Limbaugh about his "pre-mortem" article which, let's all admit, was pretty stupid. The Republicans deserve to lose because of Terri Schiavo and Harriett Miers? For Pete's sake -- everyone in the country (except for Glenn, apparently) has forgotten them. The article was a mistake and demonstrated that Glenn is not really as smart as he would like us all to believe, which is why he is now backpedaling furiously, as any reader of InstaPundit can tell by his recent postings.

As to the spelling issue -- if you want to write in a public forum and be respected, then learn to write well. That includes spelling correctly, or use your spell-check.

"they didn't earn our vote"

Elected representitives don't "earn your vote", the idea is to elect people who won't screw things up. If your vote is for sale on some issue, what you favor is small scale corruption.

You sow the wind on this. "Punish" the country in a snit, take your vote and stay home and the next time it looks possible to put together a winnable coalition, you won't be included. Not with me anyway.

Anybody who says (like democrats do on foreign policy) "You need me to win and I won't help unless you do it my way" looses my trust forever.

The last time the Dems took over, it took 40 years to regain the house. I do not think I will be around to see the Republicans back in control, if they lose this time. I fear for how my children and grandchildren will live under socialism. Make no mistake about this. Socialism is what will be. After all, Nancy Pelosi, along with most of the Dems, is a socialist. Many are communist. The rest are just clueless.

IDIOT

The GOP does not deserve to lose. No one deserves to lose. If you do not like what is happening then vote another Conservative in. Get rid of the one that irritates you.
We do not need Tax hikes, more Liberals on the SCOTUS, and a cut and run program in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yes we will see massive tax increases, Clinton taught us that and he made it retroactive. Charles Rangel said it a number of times, he will roll back the tax cuts. That's massive. They will try to Impeach President Bush. Pelosi has stated as much as has Conyers.
We will definitly lose out on the war on terror as the Dems have no battle plan merely one of appeasement.
The GOP is not doomed but you're not helping with a Pre-Mortem which is ridiculous. You bury a body after it dies not before. I read this blog and use it sometimes as a source for my own arguements. Yours, concerning burying the body prior to death, is absurd.
P.S. Rush was not even thinking of you when he made his comments.

Mr. Purity. Rush really got you on this one. Your position isn't naive - it is idealistic, fantasitc, and unAmerican. It is unAmerican because our system is meant to frustrate all these conservative gimmees you are whining for

Given that it is Rush, not me, that is complaining about Republicans possibly losing control of congress I don't really see how I'm the one frustrated.  We're a representative republic. I vote for candidates that I feel will best represent my views. If no candidates are doing that, I don't feel obliged to vote for anyone of them. Millions of other conservatives feel the same way.

"It's a damm poor mind that can only think of one way to spell a word" --Andrew Jackson

Hah. I am finding it highly amusing that Glenn Reynolds, whose writings have appeared in the Wall Street Journal and who posits himself as a highly independent thinker, is now hiding behind James Taranto and some twit blogger who nobody ever heard of (that would be JoeUser) when confronted by Rush Limbaugh about his "pre-mortem" article which, let's all admit, was pretty stupid. The Republicans deserve to lose because of Terri Schiavo and Harriett Miers? For Pete's sake -- everyone in the country (except for Glenn, apparently) has forgotten them. The article was a mistake and demonstrated that Glenn is not really as smart as he would like us all to believe, which is why he is now backpedaling furiously, as any reader of InstaPundit can tell by his recent postings. As to the spelling issue -- if you want to write in a public forum and be respected, then learn to write well. That includes spelling correctly, or use your spell-check.

For a guy who's handle is a single letter, you certainly are pretty arrogant.  I wasn't aware that fame was indicative of correct or not.  But let's go with that for a second -- you are even less known than I am therefore why should I or anyone care what you think?

If only myself and Glenn Reynolds felt this way, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The Republicans wouldn't be in trouble and your assertions would make perfect sense.  However, unfortunately for you, millions of Americans who are conservative are put off enough by the congressional nonsense that it may affect voter turn out.  Incidentally I didn't say I wasn't going to vote, I am saying that I don't automatically hand over my vote to someone simply because they have an (R) badge by them. I, along with millions of others, can choose to withold our vote as well if we feel we're not adquately represented.

(BTW, if you check my real name, you'll find that I actually have appeared in Time Magazine, The Wallstreet Journal, US News and World Report, CNBC, MSNBC, CNN, and elsewhere for whatever that's worth -- which in my view is nothing at all).

As much as I would like to think that we should punish CERTAIN Republicans for their stupididty, there are others who deserve our whole-hearted support. Centrist buttbiters like John McSwine and Spectre-defectre out to be tossed out on their traitorous stinking useless lying butts.

BUT, we are looking at Supreme Court changes, tax code issues, AND A WAR (for GOd's sake!!) to deal with in the next couple of years and we can not afford to have that commie concubine PelHOsi, killer Kennedy, and Charlie "so-called terrorists" Rangel to have shot at truly screwing this country up.

We have a shot at ending abortion. We might get to fix Social Security. Most importantly the REPUBLICANS in the house have done a little bit about the border andWe have a shot at actually winning against Islamists and Fascists but we have to act quickly and if Bush is spending his time answering subpeona's and being impeached we not only won't get anything done and opportunites will be lost, but what other country, whether ally or enemy, is going to do anything that we ask or try to force them to do because an impotent Bush (or Cheney or even God forbid President Pelosi!!) say so.

I don't think we'll see some massive tax increase

Some of the Bush tax cuts will expire if the Democrats get control in 2006. Any tax increase is too much, IMHO.

I don't think we'll "cut and run" from Iraq

You don't think the Democrats will vote to cut funding? You expect Bush to spark a Constitutional Crisis by ignoring them?

I don't think Bush will be impeached

It only takes a majority of 1 in the House to Impeach a President (it takes 2/3 in the Senate to remove him). The Democrats have been voting in lockstep for the last 6 years, what makes you think that will change if they win?

I don't think we'll lose the war on terrorism

Lose the "war"? No. Lose battles, battles that would have been won if we had a Congress that wanted victory?

Yes.

How many battles are you willing to lose in order to hopefully "teach the Republicans a lesson"?

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.

The Stakes are already high, and they consistently act like kooks now. What realistically makes you think that will change?


You want the Republicans to learn something? Great! Do what I'm going to do: Join the 72 hour effort to get out votes for a Republican you support. While doing that, and afterwards (esp. if he / she wins) amke the point that this is the last time you're going to do that unless the Republicans get back to acting like real Republicans.

That's making your voice matter.

If your local Republicans suck, don't work for them. If you can't find a single national Republican in "trouble" who you want to win, then you're not really a Republican, and all this is a pointless waste.

Let's try this again:

I don't think we'll see some massive tax increase

Some of the Bush tax cuts will expire if the Democrats get control in 2006. Any tax increase is too much, IMHO.

I don't think we'll "cut and run" from Iraq

You don't think the Democrats will vote to cut funding? You expect Bush to spark a Constitutional Crisis by ignoring them?

I don't think Bush will be impeached

It only takes a majority of 1 in the House to Impeach a President (it takes 2/3 in the Senate to remove him). The Democrats have been voting in lockstep for the last 6 years, what makes you think that will change if they win?

I don't think we'll lose the war on terrorism

Lose the "war"? No. Lose battles, battles that would have been won if we had a Congress that wanted victory?

Yes.

How many battles are you willing to lose in order to hopefully "teach the Republicans a lesson"?

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.

The stakes are already high, and they consistently act like kooks now. What realistically makes you think that will change?


You want the Republicans to learn something? Great! Do what I'm going to do: Join the 72 hour effort to get out votes for a Republican you support. While doing that, and afterwards (esp. if he / she wins) amke the point that this is the last time you're going to do that unless the Republicans get back to acting like real Republicans.

That's making your voice matter.

If your local Republicans suck, don't work for them. If you can't find a single national Republican in "trouble" who you want to win, then you're not really a Republican, and all this is a pointless waste.

Willing to bet money on that? You think a slight Democratic majority will result in nationalized health care, tax hikes, and a couple of left wing supreme court justices?

If losing a tax cut counts as a tax hike (I think it does), then slight Democratic majority will result in tax hikes, an illegal immigrant amnesty, and blocking of all good Supreme Court and Appeals Court judges appointed in the next two years.

I'll put money on that. Would you bet money against that? How much do you want to lose?

Ok, I give, how DO you mark off quoted text from other text?

Ok, I give, how DO you mark off quoted text from other text?

With the tags [ quote ] and [ /quote ] (without the spaces of course).

Greg D: You are entitled to your opinon. I am entitled to m ine.

I also didn't claim to be a Republican. I clamed to be a conservative. 

If the stakes are truly so high, which, as I said, I don't think they are but you are entitled to your view, then congressional Republicans should be more effective at making that case. 

Someone said earlier that look what happened in 1992 when conservatives, unhappy with Bush, stayed home. Yea, the result was 2 years later conservatives took control of Congress and we had a balanced budget within a few years after that and the end of welfare as we know it.

I don't think we'll "cut and run" from Iraq

I don't think Bush will be impeached

Major Democrats have already stated they will do both if they can gain control.

"It was on-line conservatives that got Trent Lott out after his foolish remarks about Thurmond". This sentence made me laugh out loud. Bloggers can get rid of conservatives. Yeah Bloggers! What power! Get rid of a Democrat now and than, than I'll be impressed. I'll be breathlessly watching at what you inflict on Harry Reid. What? You say he isn't gone yet? He hasn't even reached page A10 of most newspapers?? Where is that power Bloggers wield?

And Major Democrats have already stated a lot of other things. Doesn't mean it'll happen.