RK ARCHIVE - ANALYSIS: Direct answers to the GOP using fear to scare their base to the polls!

Below are a series of articles from conservative blogger Brad Wardell who is very disillusioned with the GOP, who is actually standing up to Rush Limbaugh calling disillusioned Republicans who won't vote "Cut and Run Conservatives," and says things like:

"Let the Democrats win the house if that is how it's going to be" and "My view is the same as Glenn Reynolds. The Republicans blew it. They became complacent and ignored their constituents. If they lose, I do think they lost because they deserved to lose."

He also has an excellent answer to the GOP scare tactics that Newt Gingrich used in the latest RNC e mail where he said "A House under Speaker Pelosi and a Senate under Majority Leader Harry Reid would be a disaster for America:"

"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."
Even conservative Robert Novak made that same point on Meet The Press from Sunday, October 22 when he said this:

MR. ROBERT NOVAK: "Because if the Democrats win the House, as is, as is probable, then itGペsGГthey, they can pass a lot of legislation, get nowhere in the Senate. Senate is a very difficult thing to get through. And the president will suddenly discover his veto pen that he hadGГthat he had keptGГlost track of for six years.

So I donGペt think much is going to happen, substantively. It is a nice, itGペs a, itGペs a thing for Nancy Pelosi to be speaker of the House, but I donGペt think thereGペs going to be much action out of it."

Republican strategist Ed Rollins made a similar point and talked about the need for the two parties to come together in order to solve problems which I completely agree with:

ED ROLLINS: "My sense today is we've got to do something short-term to stop the problem. But as we sit here today, my feeling is that no matter what happens in this election, there's not going to be big enough margins on either side to move the Congress in any way, shape or form to solve these critical problems.

And I would hope that the two parties do something they haven't been able do for the last dozen years, and that's sit down and say, all right, neither of us can move or address any of these issues. And why can't we come together and why can't we face up to some of these very significant issues, like Social Security, like education, like health care and come up with a compromise?

Because Democrats aren't going to have enough votes, even if they win back the Congress, and Republicans certainly aren't going to have enough votes if they win the Congress. And we can't have another two years or four years of this chaos."

This is the bottom line of what will happen if Democrats win back at least one branch of Congress in November.

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WE MUST BE TELLING TO ALL DISILLUSIONED REPUBLICANS WHO WE TALK WITH RIGHT UP TO ELECTION DAY SO THAT THEY WILL NOT RELUCTANTLY VOTE FOR "MORE OF THE SAME" OF WHAT THEY ALREADY KNOW IS WRONG BECAUSE OF GOP PRESSURE AND FEAR TACTICS!

Please forward this on so that ALL Democrats will know how to credibly answer the GOP argument of fear when they talk to disillusioned Republicans. These are the main people who are in play and whose votes are up for grabs in this election:

RNC E MAIL WITH ANALYSIS: The main people who are up for grabs in Election 2006!

Please also show this excellent article to disillusioned Republicans to help keep them at home on Election Day if they will not vote for a Democrat:

This election is not just about getting out the Democratic vote, it is also about trying to suppress the GOP vote as much as we possibly can when so many Republicans are disillusioned and when the GOP has a very well organized and financed get out the vote program!

Disillusioned Republicans must understand that it is in their best interest for this extreme and arrogant Neocon GOP leadership to lose power in this election if they ever want to see the changes that they are looking for in the Republican Party!

http://www.securinga...
Listen to Gen. Wes Clark fight for Dems on Sean Hannity's radio program: An excellent example for all of us to follow and what we all need to be doing to help fight against extreme right wing Neocon smear propaganda which will help our local candidates to win their races!

By Draginol
Posted Monday, October 16, 2006 on Opinionated Techie
Discussion: Republican

Recently Glenn Reynolds, webmaster of Instapundit.com, the world's most popular blog site and a conservative made the argument that if Republicans lose, it's because they deserved it.

Rush Limbaugh today struck back with the charge of "Do we deserve to have our taxes raised? Do we deserve a cut and run policy in Iraq? Do we deserve to have endless congressional investigations?"

The argument is strong but I think overlooks one thing -- we do have a Republican President right? Our taxes aren't going to be raised before 2008.

My view is the same as Glenn Reynolds. The Republicans blew it. They became complacent and ignored their constituents. If they lose, I do think they lost because they deserved to lose.

Does that mean I agree with those who think we should have higher taxes or that we should abandon Iraq? No. But the Republicans losing the house (and even the senate) doesn't mean that's going to happen. It gives Republicans two years to clean up their act and make their case in 2008.

I say, let the Democrats win the house if that is how it's going to be and let them make the case that we need higher taxes, abandon Iraq to terrorists, etc. Then in 2008, those issues will come up with a vote by the American people and Bush and the Republicans can demonstrate how they were able to block those policies in the Democratically controlled congress.

But right now, I have little excitement for Republicans. I don't feel they've held the principles they were elected on -- balanced budgets, securing our borders, etc.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Draginol
Posted Tuesday, October 17, 2006 on Opinionated Techie
Discussion: Republican

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.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Brad Wardell
Posted Thursday, October 19, 2006 on Opinionated Techie
Discussion: Republican

Since Rush Limbaugh referred to my article (and kindly linked to it on his site) I feel I should respond to some of his points.

I am not at war with conservative bloggers. I quote countless posts from many blogs on this program. I use them as resources. I'm referring to one blog post, and I don't even know who it is.

I use a handle on-line. Draginol. I probably should just use my real name -- it's Brad Wardell. Rush is correct when he refers to my blogs as amateur. But that doesn't make my observations invalid.

I don't feel I mischaracterized Rush's point of view: Politics isn't just some game. There are consequences for all Americans if the wrong people are in power. Withholding your vote to "teach a lesson" is unhelpful.

That's his position and it is only the last part I don't agree fully with. I am not going to withhold my vote on a candidate simply because of their party. But at the same time, I don't feel a candidate is entitled to my vote simply because they belong to a certain party. I also think that as a practical matter, in the age of detailed statistical analysis that short-term setbacks can have long-term benefits.

What made me talk about the influence of the blogsphere was that it certianly came across on his show that he thought a lot of people out there (on the blogs) have been essentially brain-washed by the "drive by" media. I, and many others online took offense to that comment because I don't think he's giving enough credit to the intelligence of the average American let alone conservative. I was NOT trying to argue that the blogsphere is "the future" or something. I was only addressing his insinuation that the blogsphere, the biggest source of conservative angst right now, is not easily influenced by the mainstream media and provided examples of where the blogsphere had a very active and influential role in shaping events.

I appreciate Rush clarifying what he meant. On a 3 hour radio show, it is easy to say something that is construed differently than intended. So let me clarify as well since my 3 minute blog was turned into a segment on a show listened to by millions of people: I am NOT hoping Republicans lose. I am saying that it will serve them right if they do lose and that if they lose maybe they'll learn to not ignore their base. I am certianly not advocating for anyone not to vote.

I don't like politicians feeling like they're entitled to my vote. I will be voting in the election but I'm not nearly as enthused about Republicans as I was 6 years ago or even 2 years ago. And I know there are millions of Americans out there who feel the same as I do and will take that one step further and simply not vote. Hence, if the Republicans lose, they deserve to lose. This is something that has been echoed for months on-line on the growing frustration many of us have with the seemingly increasing cronyism, pork, and lack of effective action.

Rush follows up here. He argues that when conservatives stay at home, bad things happen.

"Well, the Republicans abandoned their principles, and I'm not going to abandon mine, so screw them!" The last time this happened in significant numbers to deleterious effect was 1992, when a bunch of Republicans said to hell with Bush 41 and the no-new-taxes promise that he broke.

Let's look at this carefully. So, the last time many conservatives stayed home was in 1992 (incidentally, I did vote for Bush 41 in 1992). And so Bill Clinton was elected...and...? The end of the world? I don't think this is a very good example. Two years later, the congressional Republicans, having done a lot of statistical analysis on what issues their base cares about came up with The Contract with America. This led to a Republican take over of congress.

You can bet that there will be an immense amount of statistical analysis after the November election and you can bet that Republicans will take the issues of their base more seriously in the future.

To be clear: I do not hope that Republicans lose congress. But I also don't think it would be the end of the world. That is where the real gulf between Rush and those who agree with him and me and people who agree with me.

Most people don't lose sleep over the prospect of the Democrats having a slim majority in congress. We don't look back at the 8 years of Clinton as a national nightmare. And if hard core Republicans did, then shame on them for having nominated Bob Dole, who never had a chance, as the nominee (I'd never vote for Clinton but knew that Dole wasn't going to win early on -- just like most other people I knew).

You can't have it both ways. You can't say that it's a matter of life and death for the Republicans to maintain control and yet treat the actual job so casually while in office. If the free world hangs in the balance, then bloody act like that during your term and not just in the 60 days before re-election.

Oh, and btw, in response to some of the more colorful comments trying to guess what my background is, here is a blog I wrote that will give you a pretty good idea of where I come from

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Brad Wardell
Posted Thursday, October 19, 2006 on Opinionated Techie
Discussion: Republican

It is Day 4 of the Rush Limbaugh railings against frustrated conservatives who might sit out this election. And once again, Rush has tried to assign motive and intent to me and people like me (given that it was this article supporting Instapundit's premortem that helped set off this discussion).

My motive? Apparently it's about power. I want to wreck things for the Republicans so that if the Republicans lose in November I can say "See, look at my POOOWEERR!" If Rush bothered to do his research, he'd know that I am not going to any real effort to try to affect the election. I run sites that get over 3 million visitors per day and have over 6 million registered users and the only site I've even been writing about my frustration with Republicans -- and have been for over a year now -- is on my personal blog site on JoeUser.com which gets a trivial amount of traffic by comparison. What Rush simply refuses to accept is that a lot of bloggers, like most people, may care about politics but they don't care care. We're not on any sort of Jihad. It's not negative energy from conservatives that are causing problems, it's voter apathy.

Given this week's events, I think that it would be easy to get the non-crackpot vote to feel decidedly anti-Republican given some of the rather nasty insinuations Rush has sent my way. I can see it now:

I wrote a blog agreeing with fellow blogger Glenn Reynolds that if the Republicans lose in November that they deserved it and Rush then spent 3 days ripping me a new one on his show demanding in no uncertain terms that we will vote for whoever has an (R) by their name no matter what. In fact, he went so far today as to coin a new term for conservatives who dare not provide unconditional support to Republicans -- "Cut and run conservatives".

I seem to recall Rush and other Republicans ridiculing African Americans and the Unions for voting for Democrats time after time because the Democrats weren't doing much for them. I guess it's only idiotic to behave like sheep if it's for a Democrat but if you're a conservative, it's your moral duty.

By the way, I've got a new name for you conservatives who aren't going to vote out there: Cut-and-Run Conservatives. The Cut-and-Run Conservatives, one of their central themes is, "It's not going to be so bad if Democrats win. The world's not going to come to an end."

So let's define that: Cut-and-Run Conservatives are conservatives who choose not to vote this election cycle because of their frustration with the Republican candidate. What if they vote for the Libertarian candidate? Are they still cut-and-run? What about conservatives who do vote for the Republican candidate but also don't think that the world is going to end if the Democrats win?

While we're at it, let's flip it around: A TRUE conservative, according to Rush Limbaugh, is a conservative who blindly votes for THE PARTY and believes that should the Democrats win that the world will end.

Wow. I mean, wow. When the Democrats say things like that on DemocraticUnderground about Republicans we call them kooks.

Comments

Glenn Reynolds' article that Brad Wardell bases his work on: (Mitch Dworkin - 10/30/2006 1:00:16 AM)

http://instapundit.c...

October 14, 2006

A GOP PRE-MORTEM: So is it over for the GOP majorities in Congress? It's still too early to say, I guess, but when even John Hinderaker is sounding extremely gloomy that's certainly the way to bet.

So I want to stress, for the edification of any Republican leaders who might pay attention, that this is the result of a series of unforced errors on their part. Following is a (partial) list:

1. The Terri Schiavo affair: The bitterness it aroused, which was substantial, opened a fracture in the GOP coalition: Social-conservatives against the rest. And as I noted at the time, the social conservatives were pretty nasty to the rest. No, it wasn't really a case of "theocracy" at work, as people like Ralph Nader agreed with the social conservatives. But the haste to enact federal legislation over a matter of state law, and the mean-spiritedness with which those who disagreed were treated, did the Bush coalition no good. What's more, as I noted at the time (see first link above), this wasn't enough to make the social conservatives happy anyway. Politically, I think this marked the beginning of the end.

2. The Harriet Miers debacle: Plenty of warning in the blogs that this was a big mistake, but all ignored by the White House and Congressional leadership. Social conservatives were mad here, and so was anyone who cared about the credentials of nominees. The nomination was withdrawn, but the damage was done.

3. The Dubai Ports disaster: Here I think that the Administration was on defensible ground from a policy perspective, but its ham-handed approach -- once again ignoring early warnings from the blogs -- turned it into a mess, and cost it major credibility with its national security constituency. The Administraiton was bumbling and inept in addressing this matter, which gained currency because of its flaccid stance on the cartoon Jihad. The consequence: Lost faith from its strongest constituency.

4. Immigration: Another unforced error. The national security constituency once again lost faith in the Administration. You can't talk about secure borders when the borders are porous. The Administration also failed to make a strong clear argument for immigration, outsourcing that to the Wall Street Journal, which did its best but couldn't do the President's job. Again, the White House's position on immigration was defensible in the abstract, but favoring easy immigration is one thing, favoring easy illegal immigration is another.

5. William Jefferson: A Democratic Congressman is caught in a bribery scandal with a freezer full of cash, and Dennis Hastert backs him up, making clear that protection of insider privilege is more important to the Republican leadership in Congress than either party or principle. The White House, at least, intervened here, eventually. Add to this the GOP leadership's failure to follow through on promised ethics reforms, and its addiction to pork-barrel spending, and you've got lots of reason to think that they don't stand for anything except stuffing their pockets.

6. Foleygate: Not much of a scandal in itself, but the last straw for a lot of people. As Rich Lowry noted, a long chain of missteps and self-serving actions has exhausted their stock of moral and political capital, leaving them vulnerable to, well, almost anything. This was probably enough.

At the end of this process, the Republicans have managed to leave every segment of the base unhappy, mostly over things that weren't even all that important. It's as if they had some sort of bizarre death wish. Looks like the wish will come true . . . .

As I've said before, the Republicans deserve to lose, though alas the Democrats don't really deserve to win, either. I realize that you go to war with the political class you have, but even back in the 1990s it was obvious that we had a lousy political class. It hasn't improved, but the challenges have gotten greater. Can the country continue to do well, with such bad political leadership? I hope so, because I see no sign of improvement, no matter who wins next month.

As I wrote earlier, in suggesting that the GOP deserved to lose:

http://instapundit.c...

FINALLY, FINALLY: Here's a Bill Quick post on the war that further illustrates what some emailers said above: Bush has indeed lost many of his former supporters on the war, but in many cases it's because they don't think he's fighting the war aggressively enough, not because they've somehow become antiwar.

posted at 04:10 PM by Glenn Reynolds

Alexander Haig quote: "neocons that hijacked my party" (Mitch Dworkin - 10/30/2006 1:18:25 AM)

This is perfect to show to disillusioned Republicans about why the GOP leadership in Congress MUST lose power in this election (and that especially goes for their 2008 poster boy George Allen in my opinion):

http://transcripts.c...

CNN LATE EDITION WITH WOLF BLITZER

Aired October 22, 2006 - 11:00 ET

BLITZER: And many military commanders in Iraq themselves acknowledge that the great threat to the U.S. is not necessarily from the Al Qaida operatives but from the sectarian violence, the Shia and the Sunni who hate each other and who are killing each other and, as a result, are killing American troops.

AL HAIG, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: Well, first, I think that this is a conflict that's essentially political. It's not just purely military. It's political and religious and ideological. And it was driven by the so-called neocons that hijacked my party, the Republican Party, before this administration...

BLITZER: Name names, Mr. Secretary. Who are you talking about?

HAIG: Well, I'm talking about...

BLITZER: Because a lot of our viewers hear the word "neocon" and they don't know what you're talking about.

HAIG: Well, they're a group of people who are ex-Democrats. Many of them hovered around the Seattle Conservative Democrats some years ago, who...

BLITZER: Who specifically are you referring to?

HAIG: I'm talking about Wolfowitz. I'm talking about Richard Perle. I'm talking about some newly-made ones. I'm talking about the former editor of the Wall Street Journal.

These people are very, very deeply embedded in Yale and certain intellectual circles. And for years, they've been against NATO...

BLITZER: But did they hijack the strategy, the policy, from the president of the United States, the vice president of the United States?

HAIG: Yes.

BLITZER: The secretary of state, the secretary of defense?

HAIG: Well, no, not the secretary of state, but he sat there and had to be a passenger on a train that he wasn't driving?

BLITZER: Was Rumsfeld a neocon?

HAIG: I wouldn't say he was. I wouldn't say...

BLITZER: But was he in charge of the military strategy?

HAIG: No, no. The outcome of the strategy was to create democracy with a bayonet.

BLITZER: Is Cheney a neocon?

HAIG: I think so.

BLITZER: So he's part of that neocon conspiracy, or cabal, or whatever?

HAIG: Those around him were, if he wasn't.

BLITZER: And they could basically influence the president and dictate to the president what to do, in terms of going to war against Saddam Hussein?

HAIG: Well, I'm not here to talk about that. There were a lot of influences on the president, but he's the president, and he's responsible.

BLITZER: So what do you think of this argument?

Because you hear it all the time, Dr. Brzezinski, that there were these group of of neoconservatives in there, like Paul Wolfowitz, who has the deputy secretary of defense; Richard Perle, who wasn't even in the government but he was an outside adviser, who were effectively shaping U.S. strategy.

Do you buy that?

BRZEZINSKI: I buy a great deal of that. I think Al Haig is absolutely right.

We had, at the top a president, who was essentially uninformed about foreign policy, and then top policy-makers like Rumsfeld and, of course, Cheney who are, kind of, traditional, quote, end quote, "realists," hard nosed types.

But the guys who provided the strategy and made the argument that we have to go into Iraq, that we have to link the war on terror with an attack on Iraq, were the guys that Al Haig is talking about.

They provided strategy. They provided the argument that we would be greeted as liberators, that this would be a cake walk. And they have devastated American national interests as a consequence.

BLITZER: Do you agree with that assessment?

HAIG: Well, that was a term that Wolfowitz used twice, "cake walk."

BLITZER: I don't know if he specifically used that term, but others suggested...

HAIG: Yes, he did.