Democrats trying to keep disillusioned Republicans at home on Election day if they will not vote for a Democrat when there are so many upset Republicans out there is key to Democrats winning back at least one branch of Congress along with Democratic Get Out The Vote efforts!
There are MANY disillusioned Republicans out there which can be very clearly seen in this excellent documentary that CNN did:
CNN LIVE EVENT/SPECIAL
Broken Government: Where the Right Went Wrong
Aired October 27, 2006 - 20:00 ET
Disillusioned Republicans staying at home on Election Day because they are upset with the Republican Party is something that the GOP greatly fears now! Here are two examples from the extreme right wing NewsMax to verify that:
Tuesday, Oct. 31, 2006 11:20 a.m. EST
Dick Morris: GOP Base Key to Elections
"If the Republican base wants the Republicans to keep control of Congress, they will...
"The Republicans can still win this election if they are able to bring the base back," he said."
Zogby: GÇÿRepublicans Are on the Ropes'
Dave Eberhart, NewsMax.com
Thursday, Nov. 2, 2006
"Make no mistake about it, Republicans are on the ropes," declares John Zogby, president and CEO of Zogby International, the hottest pollster in the country today.
But in an exclusive interview with NewsMax, Zogby acknowledges that the GOP could still make a late comeback as various Republican-leaning groups "come back home."
Zogby also tells NewsMax that the Democrats could win by a landslide if the GOP base stays at home."
Right below is the CNN transcript of Alexander Haig saying that "And it was driven by the so-called neocons that hijacked my party, the Republican Party, before this administration..."
Below that is the CNN transcript of conservative Andrew Sullivan saying that "Republicans deserve to lose control over Congress over this one single issue of Iraq:"
ZAHN: So Andrew, do you think the Republicans deserve to lose control over Congress over this one single issue of Iraq.
SULLIVAN: Yes. Someone has to finally be held accountable.
Finally below that is the CNN transcript of former House Majority Leader Dick Armey criticizing the Republican Party.
Please forward this on because it is very important that disillusioned Republicans see this kind of information coming from conservatives and Republicans so that they will understand that it is clearly in their best interest to stay at home on Election Day if they will not vote for a Democrat!
The information in this link will show any sound thinking moderate and disillusioned Republicans that they have absolutely nothing to fear from Democrats winning back Congress:
ANALYSIS: Direct answers to the GOP using fear to scare their base to the polls!
The bottom line of what disillusioned Republicans must be aware of is that if they vote to keep the current GOP Congressional leadership in power in this election by voting for ANY GOP Bush rubber stamp candidate, then they are only voting for "more of the same" of what they are already upset about and they will have no right to complain after the election if they are not happy with what Bush and the GOP do if the GOP leadership stays in power in Congress and rubber stamps whatever Bush decides to do!
This is also cross posted with comments on Gen. Wes Clark's blog:
Mitch Dworkin
http://securingameri...
ANALYSIS: The 2006 Elections are "An Accountability Moment!
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!
http://securingameri...
Gen. Wes Clark's endorsement of Jim Webb against George Allen
--------------------
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.
-----------------------------------------------
THE SITUATION ROOM
President Bush Gives Vote of Confidence to Rumsfeld, Cheney; Florida Republicans Have Another Controversy; Will Kerry's Apology Be Enough?
Aired November 1, 2006 - 19:00 ET
ZAHN: Andrew Sullivan, did the president make a mistake and will that drive some of these voters away from Republicans in a tight contest?
ANDREW SULLIVAN, AUTHOR, "THE CONSERVATIVE SOUL": Well, look, here's a president who said that Michael Brown was doing a heck of a job with Katrina. And now he's the president saying that Donald Rumsfeld has done a fantastic job in Iraq. It's the same denial. If you believe that Michael Brown did a heck of a job with Katrina, then you maybe believe that Donald Rumsfeld has done a great job in Iraq.
It's unhinged. In my view, it suggests this man has lost his mind. I mean, no one objectively can look at the way this war has been conducted, whether you were for it, as I was, or against, and see that it's been done well. It's a disaster. And for him to say it's a fantastic job, suggests that this president really has lost it. I'm sorry. There is no other way to say it.
ZAHN: Christopher, I see you smiling subtly as Andrew said that. Are you going to go that far out on a limb, the president's lost his marbles by pledging his support?
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS, "VANITY FAIR": Look, the nicest way I have ever heard it put by people who do admire the president and who know him a little, which I do not, is to say one of his great vices, which can masquerade as a virtue, is that of loyalty. He's not very good at getting rid of people.
Look how long he took to get rid of George Tenet, for example. And even then, rather than tell him he was fired or should be impeached for his incompetence, gave him a Medal of Freedom, that's supposed to try to make him feel better.
He gave a Medal of Freedom to Paul Bremer, universally agreed to have been calamitous viceroy in Baghdad. It's an odd thing that the president seems to be soft, Andrew would say, in the head.
SULLIVAN: I would say what this shows to voters and should tell anybody is that, if you think Katrina was a success, Iraq is now Katrina. Iraq is the foreign policy version of Katrina. And this president cannot handle the reality. And so we have to -- this is not an election anymore. It's an intervention. This man is so in denial. We need to intervene.
ZAHN: So Andrew, do you think the Republicans deserve to lose control over Congress over this one single issue of Iraq.
SULLIVAN: Yes. Someone has to finally be held accountable. I mean, I know these people don't want to hold anybody accountable, but the secretary of defense is accountable. The president is accountable. John Boehner is wrong. It is not the military generals who are to blame for this. It is the president, the commander-in- chief. He gets the credit if he wins, he takes the blame if he fails. He has failed. And voters must take it into account.
-----------------------------------------------
THE SITUATION ROOM
John Kerry Apologizes For Controversial Remarks; Interview With Ann Coulter
Aired November 1, 2006 - 20:00 ET
BLITZER: A dozen years ago, Republicans took control of the House and Senate in a midterm landslide. Six days from now, will they watch Democrats take power in the same way?
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BLITZER: Joining us now, the former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, he was one of the architects of that Republican revolution, which he now says went astray. Congressman, thanks very much for coming in. A lot of talk about that article you wrote in the "Washington Post" last Sunday.
Among other things, you wrote "Republican lawmakers forgot the party's principles. Became enamored with power and position and began putting politics over policy. Now, the Democrats are reaping the rewards of our neglect, and we have no one to blame but ourselves." Those were very powerful words, congressman. So where did the Republicans go wrong?
DICK ARMEY (R), FORMER HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER: Well, if you look back at how we took the majority, unexpectedly after four years was because we nationalized the vision of our party. And we committed and told America we commit to doing big things about this country in the future. And made it very clear it wasn't about ourselves. We were bold, we were innovative, we were creative, and people said hey, yes, let's go with these guys.
They really have something they'd like to accomplish. What has happened over the course of the years ensuing is the Republicans in the majority are more and more attendant to become preoccupied with my position, my next committee assignment, will I win my next election. Instead of long-term policy commitments, they became more and more enamored of short-term political actions, oftentimes in terms of what do we put on the floor, and why do we do it.
It was more about the political consequences and the next few months. They forgot the governing adage of behavior and the legislative body. If you're a small government conservative, good government makes good politics. And they just, they just got too insecure about their own retaining their own majority.
BLITZER: And you also complain that Republicans got too enamored with the religious conservatives. You write this, "America's Christian conservative movement is confronted with this divide. Small government advocates who want to practice their faith independent of heavy-handed government versus big government sympathizers who want to impose their version of righteousness on others through the hammer of law." Explain your concern here.
ARMEY: Well, first of all, let me again, remind you the winning coalition for conservatives is small government conservatives whether they be on the social policy issue or the economic policy issue. That are sort of bonded together by a commitment to individual freedom and relief from big government. What happened on the social policy side and the Schiavo case is probably the best example. Is the social policy conservatives said let's use the power of the government.
Let's preempt the historic separation of powers. Let's embrace judicial activism when it is in fact ordered by a legislative power to compel the judiciary to impose a concept of morality that we happen to believe in. That's a horribly dangerous precedent. It's certainly counter intuitive to any devotion to liberty.
And while it did very little to endear the Republican to the already existing base of evangelical supporters, it deeply offended a very broad spectrum of other voters that were otherwise available. Said no, wait a minute, these guys are supposed to be about liberty, appreciation for the constitution, separation of powers and against judicial activism. So it was a clear choice to say we think righteousness trumps freedom in political -- in public policy. And that of course is a politically losing proposition.
BLITZER: Here's what James Dobson from the group Focus on the Family said reacting to your criticisms. "He could be trying to reposition himself as an erstwhile Republican leader by discrediting the Religious Right, hoping to step into the vacuum after the upcoming election. Come to think of it, that may explain everything." You want to respond to James Dobson?
ARMEY: Well, again, I think Dr. Dobson who happens to be a very good family therapist apparently and so forth, has been one of the more aggressive voices pushing Congress into such decisions as the Schiavo case. My own view was it was a misjudgment in terms of what is the legitimate role of a legislative body, a role of the federal government relative to the judiciary.
It was a misjudgment in terms of the extent to which the American people would rather embrace freedom in our constitutional traditions than the morality play that was being worked out in Florida at the time. And quite frankly, I think if I'm trying to position myself, around an idea, the idea being freedom works.
Let's remain devoted to freedom. Let's put principles of freedom and restraint of big government. Lower taxes, let's put that out ahead of all of our short run concerns about our own political destiny, and we will prosper as we did after the contract with America, with Ronald Reagan, and even in fact of the aftermath of Barry Goldwater.
BLITZER: Congressman Dick Armey, always outspoken. Thanks very much for coming in.
(END VIDEOTAPE)