Well said. I've got a libertarian aquaintance who thinks it's some kind of interchangeable checkers game--"a couple years in the penalty box will teach the GOP" to get back to what it's supposed to be about. But meanwhile we go farther into bloated government, universal healthcare, and the global warming dementia. Not to speak of other worse potentialities. It's absolutely not a price I'm willing to pay to "teach them a lesson." If it were only about *them* our votes never would've mattered in the first place. It's about what happens to *us* under their government. So some Repubs have lemming'd up to jump off the cliff. I'd rather that than moving all of us into the collective left-wing batcave.

I vote the person, for sure. And I'm not going to skimp my vote because members of the same party are disgraces to the name.

I would invert the statement to vote for the person and not the party. Person's rarely live up to an ideology that can be soundly carried by a group. Which party's ideology can take us into a future of liberty and safety. One party's liberties are extended largely to what they are (currently) condamning in the other; i.e. the purient and base liberties of self-gratification. The party under asault in the Foley matter wishes the individual to practice liberal but reasoned self constraint in the pursuit of life and happiness.

These abhorrent examples aren't the exception, but are a growing norm in the GOP. They present systematic problems that go hand in hand with the ideals, morals, beliefs and principals of the NEW Republican ideology, platform and value system that has taken over the party. Such recent events are a disease on our nation and malignant to our democracy. They stem from a party that hides and supports social disease and curruption among their own. The GOP has become the grandest of hypocracy. How could one ever be expected to trust this "club," which the evidence now truly shows is a hen house of denial, patronage and covering your own ass above anything else.

Our politicians are elected to focus on the needs of the nation and its citizens. The GOP has lost the ball entirely and it is time for a real change. As lost as the GOP has become, the GOP will lose the support of the nation.

Karol:

If the Republicans are not punished now for their misbehavior, why should we expect them to improve over the next two years? While I do not like the idea of Speaker Pelosi or Senate Majority Reid, America will survive. While I am no fan of Clinton, we at least had a balanced budget and no quagmire in Iraq back then. I am not convinced that it is only the Democrats who think that government is too small. If you judge a party by their (spending) actions, it is the Republicans who have been acting that government is too small. In my opinion, conservatives should stay home until they have a party that they can vote for.

Toby's right.

The Republicans are now the Party of Institutional Pork and Corruption.

Spending has been out of control for years. Republicans have been sleazy weasels on earmarks and pork for years.

Pedophilia and poker bans are not the issue. They are just the last straw for me.

So how bad does the Republican leadership have to get before it's okay to slap them one upside the head?

Listen: If the Dems take Congress in '06, Bush will still be President. If the Dems are stupid enough to try to impeach, Bush will end up still President and the Dems will look worse than ever. Their best Presidential candiate is Hillary! The Republicans have at least four potential Presidential candidates who will beat Hilary! handily. Therefore, chances are a Republican will be our 44th President as well. And chances are, Republicans take back Congress in '08.

In other words, the sky isn't falling. The idea of a Speaker Pelosi is scary, but just as Iraq ain't Vietnam, a Democratic Congress won't be able to legislate a National Malaise, no matter how hard they try.

After Lott and DeLay, Republican in both houses had the chance to elect Leadership that would steer them back to core values. In both cases they blew it. The Republican Congress has earned the mess it's in, and asking us to vote for more of the same isn't going to be a winning strategy, IMHO.

People are sick of the Republican party prior to the "incidents". There will be a period of change in politics in this county. The "you don't agree with me your stupid" Republican mantra is the reason I would never vote for them (and the reason I would never vote for a guy like Gore).

The administrations taking on of Iraq before finishing Osama/Al-Qada tarnished the Republican image of being strong on For. policy. The one bright spot is the economy, but good luck convincing the average Joe the economy is going great.

Republicans will win. The thought of Pelosi as speaker is too horifying for anyone.

Most of you commenting, with the exception of Toby, are pissed off because Republicans haven't been conservative enough. I just don't get how you all think that Democrats will be better in that respect.

Also, there are many good, conservative candidates. Find them and vote for them. Don't hold a Tom Feeney or Tom Cole accountable for a Tom Foley.

Karol:

What, exactly, would it take for the GOP to be bad enough for you to leave it in disgust? (I'm not saying you should have reached this point yet.)

Or, as long as they are more "conservative" than the alternative -- no matter how corrupt, hypocritical or unethical -- will you continue to support them?

I take it Karol means Mark Foley. And, with all due respect sam, I don't think most Americans have any idea who Nancy Pelosi is.

If it were just a few bad apples, as Karol, suggests....well maybe. But let's take a look at the roll call: Bob Taft, Bob Ney, Duke Cunningham, Tom DeLay, John Spencer, Schlesinger over in CT, George Allen who really has gone from 2008 contender to 2006 toss up in the blink of an eye, Bill "Let the Taliban have power" Frist (como se dice "cut and run"?), Kathrine Harris, Ernie Fletcher, the Grand Old Pedophile and his Grand Old Protectors in the House leadership, Don Sherwood, Mike McGavick....and the problem is they are bringing a lot of good people down with them.

Not to mention massive growth in the federal government.

Will the Democrats be better? No. But will gridlock be better? Maybe. Nothing will get done for two years and, at the federal level, that may not be a bad thing. A new leadership emerges in the Senate and the House.

One other thing. There seems to the recurring pattern in recent Amercian politics of hubris and nemasis. Look at 2004. Bush beat Kerry by the skin of his teeth on defense issues and the fact that John Kerry is pretty alien to most of America (though always remember so was Dukakis and that guy still got 45% of the vote). We instantly heard mandates and Social Security reform and we all love Bush so much that we will trust him to put a complete blank slate henchman like Harriet Meiers on the bench.....and we all know how that turned out. I suspect the Republicans had their moment of hubris and most now face nemasis. And I'm sure the dailykos crowd will have a moment of hubris as well when the Dems pick up some seats this November and call for Bush's impeachment. While Americans are not enamored of W., I don't think we want to see him yanked out of office. And by November 2008, the pattern returns as the Dems face nemasis.

And, with all due respect sam, I don't think most Americans have any idea who Nancy Pelosi is.

They do know the donks are weak on terrorism and she is one of the many reasons why they are.

Yes, I meant Mark Foley, I got carried away with the Toms.

Joe, I will nearly always vote for the most conservative candidate and the corruption you speak of is really limited to just a few people. Also, that corruption happens on both sides. All we can do is choose the best candidate from available options. That's what I intend to do, and I am recommending my fellow Republicans do the same.

The Reublican led gov't, President and Congress haven't done a great job in their "strong" area. They have done a good job domestically (I guess because they didn't do anything to ruin things as gov't does), for. policy has been a little bit of a disaster. Unfortunately, I'm sure the new terrorist groups in Iraq and the old ones throughout the rest of the world make sure there are plenty of headlines going into the election reminding everyone about the Republican strong area.

I haven't heard much about Bush's 39% approval rating much on this blog.

This really sounds like a desperate plea from a desperate partisan.

If the Democrats were having the exact same problem, how would you label this type of post?

The Republican party should be comforted by the fact that if the sink ships, you and Hugh Hewitt will remain aboard until the bitter end.

Fact is, the current Republican party in congress sucks on many levels, and conservaitves of all stripes should be disappointed by what the party has done once it's gotten into power.

This is the perfect time to teach the party a lesson. A speaker Pelosi will be be powerless with Bush in the white house. BUT, if we get two more years of the status quo, 2008 will usher in a Speaker Pelosi and a President Gore. How'd you like them apples?

Best thing for the party would be two years to regroup, return to principles and straighten out the leaderhip.

NYH, I wrote much the same right before Bush won re-election: http://www.alarmingnews.com/archives/001992.html

We weren't so desperate then.

Being in the People's Republic of Brooklyn, voting for any Republican is something of an empty gesture. What I can do (ineffectual though it may be) is agitate, and I will agitate against the Republican Leadership until it gets its act straight.

I have zero love for the Democratic Leadership, and don't doubt that they would turn the next two years into an infuriating circus, but I've become convinced that would be no bad thing. Electoral disgust might actually reach levels where we could get a sea change in how the "business as usual" of American Politics works, and I have faith that the current gestalt can do better than the 70's gestalt that set the current standards.

Time for some creative destruction, I think. And
if I can't be a pox on both their houses, I can at least try to be a cold sore....

And yes, Karol, I agree, if there's a White Hat to vote for, then by all means do so. But if it's a Black Hat v. Black Hat race, then I propose voting for the new Black Hat. Because the status quo frankly sucks, and the Republicans need a wakeup call, and Democrats need the chance to flaunt their full foolishness for all to see.

Gonna be a long two years....

Wow, that's pretty emotional for AN! I like it.
Maybe you could blog about some of the candidates you like? I have no idea who's out there, and I'm too frustrated to bother and research, which I guess makes me not a very good citizen, but it seems like most people feel the same way.

It seems unfair that, when our politicians fail us, we need to step up and get involved - even though it's the good thing to do. But inlolvments has a price, with getting angry and frustrated. The whole 2004 campaign ordeal, with CFK and whatnot, almost made me an alcoholic, it was so intense, some of us couldn't handle it, we would turn into these crazy bitches, because emotions went through the roof.

It seems people do get involved when the other party pisses them off. In order to piss off Rep. voters, Democrats need to be in power. I don't want that to happen, but I suspect it will.

What happens if it in your district it is either a moron Republican/Open Borders/Pro-Terrorist or an eh-Democrat who wants borders sealed(as rare as it might be) and terrorism defeated(also rare)?

goes way beyond mark foley. goes right to the heart of the party. and beyond that, i, like most of us normal people, hate the game as well.

more often than not, the only way to get someone you care about to snap out of it is to send her the message in a language she understands. so, with all due respect and due disdain for both parties, i will not, i repeat not, donate or vote for the republicans this year.

and i defer to the more expertly-written column by thomas friedman in this morning's times, which says it better than i ever could: in order for this party to have any hope for the future, we need to lose this year.

only i would add one thing to his argument: lose, bigtime.

Karol,

It's pretty unbelievable to read some of these comments by Republicans who plan to stay home on election day in order to 'punish' the GOP for either not being conservative enough, or for having a few bad apples among the barrel.
They claim the republic will survive, blah, blah, blah.

All of that sounds like immature, unserious thinking.

We are embroiled in a struggle for civilization, and we cannot afford to transfer more power into the trembling hands of John Conyers, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, etc.
Many members of the other party do not take the Islamo-fascists at their word that they intend to destroy us.
In fact, many among the other party do not even believe the words spoken by the Islamo-fascists are even spoken by Islamo-fascists; rather, they believe Karl Rove is orchestrating it all via remote control from a wine cellar in Alexandria, VA.

The republic may not survive if we don't remain tough in the global war on terrorism.
If we run away as we did in Somalia, we will only embolden the Islamo-fascists to see us as a paper tiger as they did then.

Karol,

So you have had problems with the GOP for the past 2 years (at least) yet remain an ardent supporter. Why continue to put party ahead of principle?

I'm largely in agreement with Von Bek on this one even if we're coming from different sides of the political spectrum. I think gridlock now will ultimately be better for the country. Democratic control of the House, Senate or both will not somehow lead to Democratic control of the government (and as you think back to Clinton, remember that it was republicans who controlled both houses of Congress after 1994 - either the election isn't as important as you suggest or scaring folks about clinton may not be consistent with the point you're trying to make).

And perhaps the phenomenon to which Von Bek refers will be muted as a result (not sure if it's hubris but it's certainly similar), Bush may be forced to focus on the things that got him elected in the first place that the majority of Americans (and not just Republicans) supports (compare welfare reform for Clinton in 1996).

The bill frist link is poor taste.
Whoever/whatever hotair is should be ashamed of themselves.

HotAir is great. Allahpundit is great. Allow me to republish the Bill Frist link: Never Forget!

There would be an neo-con uproar if someone posted up blown up bodies of U.S. soldiers in Iraq every day reminding people of the soldiers we're losing (or even pictures of flag covered coffins). The major difference being we CHOSE to be in Iraq we did not choose to be bombed on 9/11.

Pictures like that shouldn't be used within the context of policital posturing.

If that was your Father you wouldn't like that picture so much, asshole.

No, if it was my father, I would want everybody to see the horror of his death so they would never forget the evil of the people we are fighting and how ill equiped the Party of Cut & Run (that's you, jackass!) is to fight the WoT.

bad boy in a suit,

you, your clash of civilizations, and the general misinformed, unintelligent, wildly ridiculous terms that the republicans have set for this election year are precisely the reason why i am voting democrat.

you can insult us all you want, but you'll only lose us faster.

enjoy your self-righteousness!

You don't even know who we're fighting. Your own party leaders say the we should give up in Afghanistan and let the Taliban into the gov't. That's cut and run.

Karol,

I hate to say it, but I disagree. Alow me to repost something I wrote at Ace's:

You know, I've been a Republican all my life.

I remember the '80s, thinkin' "if we only had both houses of Congress, we could really pare back the size of government!".

Then in '94 it was "Great! Now we have Congress, and all spending bills originate in the House!" Of course, Congress always lost when they tried to stand up to Clinton. But I'm thinking "Well, if we had a Republican president, we wouldn't have these confrontations, we could just make the cuts and there's not much the Dems could do about it.

So the Republicans have controlled both Congress and the Presidency for six years. How much did the fedal gummit shrink in that time? Huh? They grew the government by nine percent this year alone. NINE PERCENT! In one year! And it's not about the defense budget either, it's just naked attempts to buy votes.

So Friday, at the behest of the Vegas Casinos, they outlawed online poker in a sneaky end-of-session parliamentary move. With no debate. I really enjoy online poker. I guess I could understand if it was really about protecting the public, but it isn't. They traded away my right to do something I like so they can bombard me with campaign spots. Thanks, guys.

I feel like the high school nerd who keeps doing the hot girl's homework. Sure, she's sleeping with the entire football team, but real soon she'll see I'm the one for her and we'll live happily ever after. You know, at some point you have to grow up and face facts. You people do what you want. This election I'm voting Constitution Party.

Sorry, Candy, I agree with Bad Boy. I have another post about this coming up but if Republicans lose then the headlines the day after election day will all focus on Iraq and how the American people are over it. There would be massive pressure to withdraw our troops. I think it would be a disaster and I think Somalia is a good comparison.

Eric, vote Constitution Party if the candidates in your area are the Republican louts who don't keep their promises. Also, I understand Third Party voting a helluva lot more than I understand voting for Democrats in some kind of rebellion against Republicans not being conservative enough.

There would be massive pressure to withdraw our troops. I think it would be a disaster and I think Somalia is a good comparison.

So how much of a coward do you think Bush is? Why should he bow to the pressure? And why do you think he will?

I don't think he's a coward, but it will be hard to withstand the pressure if it seems Americans are on board with withdrawal.

Karol,

I admit it's a pretty empty gesture in my case, since I live in the SF bay area. I could hold the Northern California Republican convention in my living room. But still.

No political party can please everyone.
To paraphrase what President Reagan once said, "getting 70% of what you want is better than getting nothing of what you want."

If you're a Republican who is bailing on the GOP this election because you feel the party is not conservative enough, it makes no sense to transfer power to the party which is.....even LESS conservative.

That would be like if I complain to my buddies that my current chick doesn't want sex as often as I do, so to resolve the problem, I'm going to dump her for another girl who has...taken a vow of celibacy !

We just cannot afford to empower the current Democrat leadership during this global war on terrorism.

I know that post-modern irony is the hot thing in the burroughs, but when there are suitcase nukes and mushroom clouds hovering over NYC, Chicago, and LA, that'll be the end of irony---as well as the end of a lot of other things.

That would be like if I complain to my buddies that my current chick doesn't want sex as often as I do, so to resolve the problem, I'm going to dump her for another girl who has...taken a vow of celibacy!

No, it's more like if your current chick keeps lying to you and blowing random guys she meets in bars.

Eventually, you have to say, "Get the F out, B!"

If you really love her, you can consider letting her back in after a couple years of lonely contemplation and penance.

dK,

Firstly i'm voting the big R, but you have to admit the congress is a disgrace. They have become everything that they rallied against. They are as corpulent, corrupt and stinking as the democrats ever were.
It's not so much republicans jumping ships as a voting public jumping ships. Americans have short attention spans. In my life time we've gone from a phone and broadcast TV to Digital cable with highspeed internet access that taps us in to a world wide network with dozens of ways to communicate to people. Yet we keep on choosing the same old stuff. The scandal rag, it's still a rag but now it's electronic and instant rag.
We have become a voting public that is as informed as the last scandal. So when your the party that is " Pro Marriage " and " pro Child " and you have a prominent FL rep passing saucy IM's and emails to underage young paiges 5 weeks before elction day things aren't going to go well for you.
The American Voter is not a long term thinker. The Dems for all there faults did grasp the idea of media control long before the Republicans did; and the Republicans are still playing catch up. So The 24 hr newscycle is going to go monkey shit wild with this one. The Republicans have no one but themelves to blame. It's not a hatchet job, the republicans look like Amoral, greedy and corroupt it's because a few of them have been acting that way, and the rest of them did nothing or worse about it.
There is an upside if the Republicans do lose and it's looking that way. They won't be out of power for long. Despite it's lefty bias the 24 hour scandal machine must be fed and nothing whets it's appetite more than tearing down the powerful.

Bad boy that's the rhetoric that worked last time. Fool me once, err I'm a... err can't fool me again twice. Don't be shocked that people don't want to eat that shit from the Republicans anymore.

If the Karol's of the world can convince everyone that voters should be focusing on the Economy and that's the reason Republicans should get re-elected I believe they have a chance. Focusing on Terror and Iraq only points out the administrations difficulties. Not capturing Osama and finding out that Iraq was a lot tougher than planned for (or in the worst case not even necessary).

To say if Democrats get elected Nukes will go off is preposterous. There's nothing being done now that could stop that.

If I was a betting man I'd be buying stocks like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and selling the Hal's and Ratheon's.

bye bye Republican's.

well, the chorus of hard-liners agreeing doesn't do much for bringing moderates into the fold. i stand by what i said: if the republican party doesn't change, i don't want anything to do with it anymore -- which leaves me no place to go. it would be a violation of all that i believe in to offer a vote of confidence to this administration. period.

anyway, nice try, but if your story is supposed to make me and the rest of us moderates vote republican, then you've lost at least one (and maybe for good). not that you care.

I'm not sure if your comment is directed at me, Candy, as I'm unclear to which story you refer.

What, exactly, do you want the Republican party to change into?

I don't quite understand why "CandyGirl the Moderate" is moaning about my position, when I was very explicitly addressing Republicans who are straying from the GOP in order to punish the GOP for NOT being conservative enough.

If CandyGirl thinks the GOP is ALREADY too conservative, then that would suggest I'm talkin' 'bout apples and she's complaining about oranges.

And I think "Dan-the-x-Republican"'s claim that I believe nukes will go off if Dems are elected is a bit of a stretch of what I actually wrote.

However, there does exist a huge gulf between the GOP & the Donkeys in attitudes toward a nuclear Iran and North Korea, and I'm not willing to take the risk.

The Clinton administration allegedly already dealt with North Korea, and here we are again in 2006.

But I'll repeat myself again; my posts were directed toward those who are considering abandoning the GOP this November in order to punish the Republican party for NOT being conservative enough---not folks who believe the GOP is already too conservative.

But I'll repeat myself again; my posts were directed toward those who are considering abandoning the GOP this November in order to punish the Republican party for NOT being conservative enough---not folks who believe the GOP is already too conservative.

Mine too.

How about the bad apple part (doesn't work into the argument anymore?????).

Are they bad apples or is the party rotten to the core. "Is it time for a change?", that is the question voters are asking themselves. The Republican response is to pound the war drum and try and scare voters. I don't think that tactic will work going forward.

I'm not pounding any war drum. I'm for the Iraq war, I was for it when it began and I'm for it now. Even if you were/are against it, you have to admit that a troop pullout now would be a disaster. And, if the Democrats win, there will be serious consideration given to just such a move. I'm not telling you that we're going to get nuked, or that terrorist attacks are more likely, but it's a fact that the withdrawal from Iraq is much more likely to happen too soon on the Democrats' watch than on the Republican one.

During the election, Andrew Sullivan gave his word (eyeroll) that if we voted for Kerry, he would see the Iraq war through and not pullout (http://www.alarmingnews.com/archives/002002.html). Is there anyone who believes that would've been the case today?

Karol:

What is your definition of "disaster"? A pullout from Iraq will mean that American troops will no longer be killed by insurgents in Iraq and the Americans taxpayers will save a lot of money. Those are two big pluses. What are the negatives that are going to outweigh that? A pro-Iranian Iraqi government? An Iraqi civil war? Those things are probably inevitable anyway so that should not deter us from withdrawing.

Karol,

I definately think Iran part II is not in the LT interest of the United States. Shiaa and Iranian control may be inevitable through the Democratic process however and that should've been considered prior to the invasion. Of course the invasion was based on the "facts" that Saddam had WMD's and could pose a Nuclear or Gas threat to the United States (or Israel/Europe/SA). Not to disimilar to what Bad Boy in a suit is saying about Nuclear suitcases now. I don't think using the "imminent danger, must re-elect" argument will work this time.

I really think the best argument the Republicans have is the robust U.S. economy. I'm not sure how that can be stressed more though. Not withdrawing from Iraq anytime soon isn't exactly a great campaign slogan.

The Karol double team....hahahah.

WE LOVE KAROL!!!!!!

The two-Dans-both-of-whom-are-ex-Republicans double team, oh no.

What is your definition of "disaster"? A pullout from Iraq will mean that American troops will no longer be killed by insurgents in Iraq and the Americans taxpayers will save a lot of money. Those are two big pluses. What are the negatives that are going to outweigh that?

Dan I, The negative is that we'll have to go back there within the decade when they're back to having a maniacal dictator bent on getting nukes. Or, when the region collapses into all-out war and America is blamed. Or, when Iran annexes Iraq, turns its people into slaves all the while continuing its nuclear weapon program.

Dan II, there is no doubt Saddam had WMD. None. There's no doubt because he USED THE WMD on the Kurds. You can't use something you don't have, etc. We gave him almost a year to hide or move the weapons. "Shiaa and Iranian control may be inevitable through the Democratic process however and that should've been considered prior to the invasion." I'm ok with that. Then the people can be held accountable for whom they elect. They can't just play innocent and say the leadership was foisted on them.

Karol I agree with you that he "had" WMD's but did not have the effective use of them at the time of the U.S. invasion (Now that is a FACT). Shame on us for not knowing. The merits/case for invasion were strong w/o using faulty info on the U.S. people.

The U.S. military would rather "invade" again in 10 years then act as cops and targets for the Iraqis, (who don't deserve our soldier's sacrafice) for the unforseeable future. Israel has been fighting these bastards (or these types of bastards) for generations and they know occupation (with kid-glove civilian treatment) cannot be done w/o significant casualties.

I don't see invading Iraq as a strong arguing point to support the idea that Republicans are strong on terror. I think it has the opposite effect.

Wait! I thought of a saying..."It's the economy, stoopit!"

BTW, you forgot to mention Saddam used WMD's on Iran...But I guess that doesn't support the case for taking him out.

Rummy in Action

THE REPUGNACANS ARE TEH BOMB

THEY LOVE TO TOUHC TEH YOUNG BOY WEENER

HA HA HA HA HA