Souring on the GOP
Instapundit points to Mark Tapscott’s blog entry on why conservatives are leaving with the GOP. Reynolds also links to Bill Quick, who comments on the Bush administration’s collusion with Mexico vis-a-vis illegal immigration that I commented on yesterday.
Here are two choice excerpts, first from Tapscott regarding the GOP:
This is the kind of fundamental smoke and mirrors dishonesty that has helped fuel the biggest increase in federal spending and entitlements since World War II … under a Republican Congress and a Republican President, both of which were elected in great part because they promised to complete the job begun by Ronald Reagan in 1981.
…
In fact, they have run about as fast as their political legs would take them in the opposite direction, piling up thousands of special interest earmarks, adding the biggest expansion of entitlement spending since 1965, pushing failed federal programs in areas like education to record heights and increasing the national debt to previously unimagined levels.
…
That is what we get with incumbents who don’t have to worry about getting re-elected, thanks to all those incumbent protection measures they’ve passed over the years. It has produced a culture of political and legislative corruption that infects both major parties and renders Congress incapable of doing what the nation so desperately needs on critical issues.
And now Bill Quick regarding immigration:
George W. Bush supports a foreign power engaged in fostering a criminal invasion of our country over the very Americans trying to stop that invasion!
Breathtaking.
And this sort of discontent isn’t isolated. It’s happening all over the conservative blogosphere.
The GOP’s answer? Scare mongering. They hope that the prospect of a Democratic congress will frighten conservatives into voting this fall for Republicans. In fact, here is what scruff said to my recent post about Alberto “Corporate Tool” Gonzales:
Also, if you need a reason to vote for Republicans this fall, turn on C-Span while Feingold, Clinton, Dean, or Pelosi are speaking–three minutes, tops, and might change your mind.
And another commenter replied:
I have found this to be true on numerous occasions.
I respect that opinion, but frankly it is an excuse to vote for the GOP, not a reason to.
The prospect of a Democratic congress doesn’t scare me. Should it? Does George Bush, who wants Osama “dead or alive” and is willing to fight an unpopular war in Iraq, not have the huevos to face-off against Dingy Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi?
8 Responses to “Souring on the GOP”
Leave a Reply
note: by commenting, you indicate that you have read and accept all-encompassingly's comment policy. please print it and keep a copy of the document in your wall safe along with your living will or advance directive.
GOP serves their supporters: big business. Immigration is only the beginning. Where is the constitutional amendment against gay marriage? What about tax breaks for the lower middle class? Why can’t this administration control spending? The fact that moral conservatives are leaving the GOP is no surprise. Where to go from here? A multi-party system sounds better and better every day.
On a similar topic, I want to talk about George W. I believe him to be an honest, down to earth (maybe to down) man. If this assumption is correct, who is making the policy decisions? Are they using GW as a puppet? Perhaps my assumption is incorrect. Is George is a liar with $$ on his mind?
>>The GOP’s answer? Scare mongering. They hope that the prospect of a Democratic congress will frighten conservatives into voting this fall for Republicans. In fact, here is what scruff said to my recent post about Alberto “Corporate Tool†Gonzales…
I would’ve never thought that at age 24 I already would’ve acheived my childhood goal: becoming an official representative for GOP scaremongerers–and by extension, according to Briant, big business, too! Awesome.
Now all I have left to do is to write a screenplay, see Paris and “find myself.” Then I can die a happy man (scaremongerer).
I wonder, though, if GW Bush is as insincere and conspiratorial as this blog leads me to believe, then I have even more reason to fear a takeover by the Democrats this fall. Obviously, GWB is trying to overrun the country with Mexicans, right? (I bet he’s just using his unpopular war in Iraq to cover his endgame!) Once the Dems take control of Congress, something tells me their first priority isn’t going to secure the border. Think GWB is going to stand up to the party that has generally embraced open borders in the past (Hillary’s recent comments notwithstanding)?
If history is any guide, I’ll have a guest worker mowing my lawn by the next morning. All that money I save on lawncare probably won’t help, though, since I’m going to have to pay for the new gas taxes, capital gains rate increase and all the rest. Perhaps I need to go check Wikipedia again–after I read more about what the word “blogosphere” means–but I’m pretty sure the Democrats controlled Congress for, oh, about 40 years, a long stretch of time during which the size of the federal government, and the amount of money it spent, did. not. shrink. But I’m sure Reid and Pelosi have learned from the mistakes of Republicans and are eager to make some constructive improvements. Right after they impeach the president for “lying” into the war they voted to authorize. I bet they have the huevos for that.
Scruff, I didn’t mean to label you a scaremonger. I mentioned your comment, along with the other commenter’s response, to demonstrate that the GOP’s argument is effective (a lot of party loyalists buy it). I don’t think it is the “worst argument ever”, but in my view it isn’t a reason to vote Republican, it is an excuse.
I’m tired of supporting a party because I think the other party is “worse”. Especially when I’m not entirely convinced that it actually would be “worse” overall with Democrats winning back a few seats in congress. I think that the Democrats may actually help the conservative cause, especially in the long run.
Sorry for the link, but not everyone who reads all-encompassingly is familiar with “blogish” terms.
That would because of the amnesty that Reagan, an actual conservative, signed? Or the one that “conservative” Bush is itching to sign?
And? So? What?
We’ve had a GOP congress and a GOP president for only five years now and we’ve seen the biggest entitlement in 40 years get passed, huge expansions of federal government involvement in education, a climbing deficit, and a national debt with no end in sight. Welcome to limited GOP government!*
I support the Iraq War. I obviously wouldn’t have had we known there were no WMDs, but I supported it then thinking we did. And I remain supportive of our efforts to win the war, now that we are there.
Will the Democrats try to impeach Bush for “lying”? Who knows…maybe…but I doubt it. Nevertheless, I’m not going to shed tears for any president who made as big a mistake as Bush did. Knowing what we know now, I just think it was a dumb move. It may turn out to be OK. I hope that it does. A lot of good can come out of having a democracy there. Anyways…this is a topic for another post.
I don’t think that the Democrats will try to do impeach him on the war, precisely because of what you cited: they voted to authorize it.
*Oh yeah…we did get tax cuts.
Doug, you overestimate the ability of Democrats to think logically and act consistently. Yes, they voted to authorize to the war, which I mentioned only to highlight the irony of their apparent desire to impeach Bush. Given the chance, they will most certainly move ahead with such a move, following the game plan already well established in Leftist media (and previewed by Feingold). And, yes, by Leftist media I mean the NY Times, Newsweek, etc. Heh.
They will simply assert, as they’ve already done, that Bush not only lied to them about the implications of the intelligence but also that he manipulated the data and had much better access to it in the first place. They will do this regardless of whether or not it’s true, claiming that the war has served only to further Bush’s own interests rather than national security.
Even the MSM has picked up on this theme and noted the likely reality of its occurance if the Dems control Congress. Pelosi hinted at the possibility just last weekend (though I doubt anyone else will highlight it any more than necessary, as I think the idea is seen as having the potential to backfire during an election year). Assuming the Dems takeover, they will abandon any pretense of reticence they may have shown towards the idea. Don’t expect any sense of ethics/logic to hinder a move that the Left has desperately wanted–lusted over, frankly–for quite a while. Obviously, as your posts about Republicans make clear, logic is not much of a force in D.C.
That said, despite my comments above, I don’t have much sympathy for Republicans in the House and even less for those in the Senate. Though I seem like an apologist, I don’t really feel like one. In fact, I’m also a disappointed conservative–conservative first, Republican very much second…or tenth—trying to think strategically (and realistically). I just worry about the impact their removal would have on the war, mostly, and I also doubt the effectiveness of handing the reigns to Dems. Will it send the GOP back to its roots? Maybe. Or it won’t, and the GOP will just go farther off the farm in order to win back voters while the Dems wreak havoc on the few things that would be within their control (e.g. judicial nominations and the whole impeachment scenario). Think of Arnold in CA. Many thought his refferendum defeats last fall would embolden him to take a more conservative path when, in reality, it did the exact opposite. Similarly, Republican losses post-Gingrich are what propelled the GOP in a more “compassionate” direction to begin with.
You express very little concern over the implications of a Bush impeachment. Whether or not his move was as dumb as you say is the subject of another post (as you also say). Many people disagree. Regardless of WMD–which real or not real, were at least a real possibility, now and in the future–we will not be able to fully judge how justified this war really was for a while. In the meantime, an impeachment would undercut the effort so badly that it would be nearly impossible to continue fighting. Impeachment = repudiation. Why continue with a war that was based on a lie? With Bush impeached there’s little chance we’d do much more than pull-out, if not immediately, very soon. If you’re ok with that, fine. But there’s no denying that impeachment would seriously imperil our mission in Iraq. Feeling bad for Bush is the least of it. The ramfiications would extend to our entire approach of world affairs. Bush may have F’ed up, though I don’t think he did, but impeaching him will only turn this war into the Veitnam the Dem’s have always claimed it was.
Either way, I agree that if the Republicans fail to hold onto Congress this fall–very unlikely, considering gerrymandering, incumbancy, etc.–then they have only themselves to blame.
So while I can understand your point that it might make little sense to leave them in, I’m much less hopeful that kicking them out, were that to happen, would help rather than hurt long-term. I could be wrong. I don’t know. But I don’t think the country is as conservative as I’d like it to be, particularly when it comes to the size of government, so I’m not putting much stock in the idea that the GOP will suddenly buck up once they “get” the message. Like I said before back in the Gonzalez-is-a-tool-thread, I hope I’m wrong. Over at the Cato Institute blog a lively debate on this subject is going on that is worth checking out.
P.S. I was not referring only to the amnesty that “conservative” Reagan signed (if even Reagan merits the scare quotes, then NO ONE will ever be conservative enough for you, dude), though it is one of many measures passed over the last 50 years that have enabled increased illegal immigration. Even so, what’s your point? It is more likely, not less, that immigration “reform” (guest workers, etc.) will pass under a Democrat-controlled Congress, especially since Bush seems to really believe, rightly or wrongly, in his approach. Just sayin that it immigration is the #1 concern, and if its as urgent as issue as I’m being told it is by much of blogosphere, then putting Dems in charge won’t help.
PPS. Since you’re down in Argentina, I’m curious, have you been to Santiago? I’m starting in an internship there next week.
doug, excellent post, worthy topic.
There is much discontent at present in the GOP, but the same goes for the DNC.
Both parties use “Scare mongering”, that’s nothing new; it’s a tried-and-try tactic used from day one in U.S. politics. So I guess I’m confused why the concern now?
My major concern for a “Democratic congress” is that it’s hard enough to get things done now, and it will be impossible to get things done with a Democratic congress. Add to that the ugly reality that the Dems will issue investigations and subpoenas and impeachments without restraint. That would be tantamount to having Michael Moore or George Soros as majority leaders! If the Dems got power now, they will make our Government and its processes a mockery.
And I am truly scared of that. The DNC is the fang-and-foam party. Now they have power to bark. Imagine giving them the power to bite. They will draw blood at every opportunity. In the end, that can’t be good for our country.
So count me in as one afraid of the Dems at the moment.
[...] –Scruff and LDS Patriot, comments, May 2006 [link and link] You have to realize there is not even a glimpse of the Great Peacemaker’s teachings in this blog of yours. [...]