From David Frum in the Washington Post today, reasons to vote Republican:

Quote :

"It will be immensely tempting to officeholders in Washington to use that stake for political ends -- to reward friends and punish enemies. One-party government, of course, will intensify those temptations."

Quote :

"Second, the political culture of the Democratic Party has changed over the past decade. There's a fierce new anger among many liberal Democrats, a more militant style and an angry intolerance of dissent and criticism."

Quote :

"Unchecked, this angry new wing of the Democratic Party will seek to stifle opposition by changing the rules of the political game."

Quote :

"Otherwise, you're going to wake up two years from now and find out that a Democratic president, a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House have been funneling a ton of that money to their friends and allies."

Classic!

10/26/2008 2:52:38 PM

It's almost exactly why we were being flogged to vote for John Kerry in 2004! (Amazing!)

10/26/2008 2:57:51 PM

10/26/2008 2:59:33 PM

funny, cause this seems eerily familiar to what had been going on the 6 years before the desm took back the house and senate.....



(although there's something to be said for pretty much all politicians being in there purely to gain power and influence people....but alas, I digress)

10/26/2008 3:01:05 PM

what the fuck?? he seriously wrote that?

i'll be damned, Orwell was right. the Ministry of Truth is alive and well.

LOL... holy shit. i guess David Frum is basing his future fiction of the democrats on the past reality of the Republicans.

Looking back on 2000:

Quote :

"It was immensely tempting to Republican officeholders in Washington to use that stake for political ends -- to reward friends and punish enemies. One-party government, of course, quite intensified those temptations."

Quote :

"Second, the political culture of the Republican Party had changed over the past decade. There was (and is) an increasingly irrational anger among many conservative Republicans, a more militant style and and angry intolerance of any dissent and criticism, even (and especially) from within their own ranks."

Quote :

"You woke up six years later and found that a Republican president, a Republican Senate and a Republican House have been funneling a ton of that money to their friends and allies."

10/26/2008 3:53:06 PM

hmm i just read the actual article, and those quotes are seriously taken out of context scottncst8

Frum actually makes a good case. But you omitting the relevant context -- you selectively deleted key qualifications in at least one instance -- make it easy to for you to misrepresent (or at least for casual readers to misunderstand) the real point Frum is trying get at.

Quote :

""Sorry, Senator. Let's Salvage What We Can." David Frum, Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/23/AR2008102302081.html?nav=rss_print/outlook There are many ways to lose a presidential election. John McCain is losing in a way that threatens to take the entire Republican Party down with him. ... I could pile up the poll numbers here, but frankly . . . it's too depressing. You have to go back to the Watergate era to see numbers quite so horrible for the GOP. McCain's awful campaign is having awful consequences down the ballot. I spoke a little while ago to a senior Republican House member. "There is not a safe Republican seat in the country," he warned. "I don't mean that we're going to lose all of them. But we could lose any of them." ... In these last days before the vote, Republicans need to face some strategic realities. Our resources are limited, and our message is failing. We cannot fight on all fronts. We are cannibalizing races that we must win and probably can win in order to help a national campaign that is almost certainly lost. In these final 10 days, our goal should be: senators first. A beaten party needs a base from which to recover. In 1993, our Republican base was found in the states and the cities... I very much doubt that we will be able to show that same kind of local strength in 2009. The statehouses were the engine of our renewal in the 1990s; the Senate will have to play the same role after this defeat. That's especially true because of two unique dangers posed by the impending Democratic victory. First, with the financial meltdown, the federal government is now acquiring a huge ownership stake in the nation's financial system. It will be immensely tempting to officeholders in Washington to use that stake for political ends -- to reward friends and punish enemies. One-party government, of course, will intensify those temptations. And as the federal government succumbs, officeholders will become more and more comfortable holding that stake. The current urgency to liquidate the government's position will subside. The United States needs Republicans and conservatives to monitor the way Democrats wield this extraordinary and dangerous new power -- and to pressure them to surrender it as rapidly as feasible. ... I'm not suggesting that the RNC throw up its hands. But down-ballot Republicans need to give up on the happy talk about how McCain has Obama just where he wants him, take off their game faces and say something like this: "We're almost certainly looking at a Democratic White House. I can work with a Democratic president to help this state. But we need balance in Washington. "The government now owns a big stake in the nation's banking system. Trillions of dollars are now under direct government control. It's not wise to put that money under one-party control. It's just too tempting. You need a second set of eyes on that cash. You need oversight and accountability. Otherwise, you're going to wake up two years from now and find out that a Democratic president, a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House have been funneling a ton of that money to their friends and allies. It'll be a big scandal -- but it will be too late. The money will be gone. Divided government is the best precaution you can have."

this is actually a well-reasoned argument, and one that i think makes a lot of sense.

not that I'M going to be voting for any republican moonbat challengers to my Democratic incumbent congressmen (and not that in seattle washington, it would matter if I did ) but if i had a decent republican incumbent I would think long and hard about the folly of voting him/her out of office at this time.

I've voted for statewide republicans in the recent past: incumbents who have a history of rational and competent performance. I could possibly do it for a national candidate, if we had one that was actually a non-moonbat, fiscal conservative.

unfortunately out here, all I get are a plethora of republican challengers who vie to unseat the dem incumbents by out-moonbatting each other on religious lunacy issues.

But, David Frums argument has a lot of merit. those selective out of context quotes are misleading at best. if intentional, it's a disingenuous attempt to twist words in the same manner that the fascist wing of the GOP is famous for.

10/26/2008 5:57:08 PM

Quote :

"funny, cause this seems eerily familiar to what had been going on the 6 years before the desm took back the house and senate....."

the real interesting thing is that the Republicans never had a super majority. hmmm...

10/26/2008 11:47:39 PM

I had no idea the government could be self-serving.

10/27/2008 12:03:22 AM

Frum makes a good point but to me voting for people because of "meta-reasons" is a bit self-defeating. It's a bit like the stock market advice that tells you to buy a given stock because of overall predictions about market conditions. Of course market conditions are very turbulent -- you should look for great companies and invest longer term. Likewise, if we elect a bunch of rotten Republicans (or whomever) now just to keep Democrats out of power, how well will that serve us down the road?

It's not a convincing enough argument to stem the tide. I'd suggest as an alternative that people look deeply at candidates and pick the person who most closely matches their values. That is the best we can do in a democracy.

10/27/2008 1:12:23 AM

house+senate+president isnt the super majority??

10/27/2008 1:15:40 AM

Super-majority is filibuster proof numbers. Although it's only a slight improvement from controlling both houses of Congress and the Presidency. They basically did anything they wanted to for 6 years.

10/27/2008 2:10:32 AM

Or better yet, don't vote republican so they have real incentive to get back to being republicans the next time around, instead of these caricatures of republicans that you have running the party right now.


(or maybe they will double down on Karl Rove, Ann Coulter, and Sarah Palin. In that case, RIP)


[Edited on October 27, 2008 at 2:40 AM. Reason : Anyone remember when republicans spent less than democrats?]

10/27/2008 2:37:14 AM

^

10/27/2008 2:39:07 AM

^^

10/27/2008 3:11:05 AM

lol tkeshultz thinks the dems are gonna win 9 seats?

10/27/2008 3:12:07 AM

^^^^ that's my plan, too

10/27/2008 4:11:00 AM

Quote :

"Or better yet, don't vote republican so they have real incentive to get back to being republicans the next time around, instead of these caricatures of republicans that you have running the party right now. (or maybe they will double down on Karl Rove, Ann Coulter, and Sarah Palin. In that case, RIP)"

10/27/2008 7:14:20 AM

^I like that. Punish the party for betraying its ideals of fiscal conservatism and individual liberty so hard they either have to mend their ways or will be replaced as a party by something that has what the democrats lack. Then maybe in 2012 or 2016 we can punish the democratic party for losing its way in the interim. Just maybe we'll have two parties have clearly different but clearly valuable visions by 2020 or so. It would make an amusing pun in history books at least.

10/27/2008 7:23:40 AM

that was an awful pun.

10/27/2008 7:25:26 AM

Then bend the course of history to the better pun.

10/27/2008 7:41:41 AM

historically, the only time a new party EVER comes into power, is when it replaces one of the current parties.

The current Democratic Party essentially replaced the Democrat-Republicans

Whigs replaced Federalist Party after a brief intermediary of National Republicans.

The current Republican Party directly replaced Whigs after their collapse.

...

maybe its time for the Libertarian Party to replace the Republicans?

10/27/2008 8:51:21 AM

Where's that leave the Pat Robertson aligned part of the right? I think I could see the Republican party splitting into a libertarian and a theocratic part before I could see it completely being replaced by one or the other. Neither would really fit under the democratic umbrella.

10/27/2008 8:58:57 AM

The Republican Party can't split because it relies too heavily on the Christian Right. People are leaving the party in droves though and they can't function because they've become too far right. Until the fundamentalists get their shit together and into the 21st century the Republicans are going to have problems.

10/27/2008 9:27:17 AM

Quote :

"maybe its time for the Libertarian Party to replace the Republicans? "

Not likely.

Looking to the gov't to provide health care. Expecting the president to create "good-paying jobs" for everyone. Embracing the "spread-the-wealth-around" mind-set. Bailing out the Wall Street gamblers with tax-payer money. Corporate welfare. Forcing banks to give loans to the poor. Allowing gov't to steal people's land and property through the Kelo decision.

It might be too late for the country to return to a philosophy of liberty and individual responsibility.

10/27/2008 9:57:01 AM

I've been discussing this election year with some of my friends who have political jobs, both in the Republican and the Democratic parties. We pretty much all agree that the Democrats have a pretty solid track record in recent years of fumbling the ball, so we'll see.

Quote :

"maybe they will double down on Karl Rove, Ann Coulter, and Sarah Palin."

Palin sees her self as the new face of the Republican party. Through her guidance and the prayers of Jesus we'll see a new revolution.

Parties arose and died on a regular basis in the first 100 years of our nation. We haven't had a serious new party essentially since the 1850s. It would take a cataclysmic shift in the next few years to change that. That being said, I'm ever hopeful. The two party system is only one party away from a one-party system.

10/27/2008 10:39:26 AM

Quote :

"Looking to the gov't to provide health care. Expecting the president to create "good-paying jobs" for everyone. Embracing the "spread-the-wealth-around" mind-set. Bailing out the Wall Street gamblers with tax-payer money. Corporate welfare. Forcing banks to give loans to the poor. Allowing gov't to steal people's land and property through the Kelo decision. It might be too late for the country to return to a philosophy of liberty and individual responsibility. "

This is my biggest fear, which is coming(faster) and greeted with cheers.

10/27/2008 10:44:20 AM

Quote :

"Parties arose and died on a regular basis in the first 100 years of our nation. We haven't had a serious new party essentially since the 1850s."

eyah... that's a pesky flaw in my Libs > Reps scenario.

to be sure, the Christian Extremists have taken over the Rep Party. which is the cause, i think, of most of the Repubs problems. the zealots will have to go somewhere. I dont think the Libs have a strong enough message to combat their brand of superstition and fear.

maybe the Repubs can adopt more of the Libertarians platform?

but then my question is, do the Repubs have the balls to boot out the extremist religious-right, and will the Repubs then have the strength of message to keep whatever new party the Christian Right forms from taking over their slot?



[Edited on October 27, 2008 at 12:20 PM. Reason : ]

10/27/2008 12:18:13 PM

Quote :

"Or better yet, don't vote republican so they have real incentive to get back to being republicans the next time around, instead of these caricatures of republicans that you have running the party right now."

This is essentially my position on this election cycle, in a nutshell. While I wholeheartedly reject what Obama is offering, I feel like the only way Republicans can (or will) regain their conservative roots is to suffer a devastating loss in November, to the point of having little or no control over government. Obama must be the Jimmy Carter to our Reagan. Who "our Reagan" is, at this point, probably won't be known for a long while.

10/27/2008 5:10:53 PM

isn't that what people were saying in 2006?

so how did that work for us?

vote Republican

10/27/2008 6:38:46 PM

hey, ^ & ^^, and the rest of you fiscal republicans....

here's your next job: boot your moonbat christian extremists, racists, homophobes, fascists and other assorted nutballs out of your party.

now since you, personally, cant physically boot anyone out you'll have to do your part in shouting them down. if you want a template to practice with, try this:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Muslim-McCain-Fans-Confront-Intolerance-At-Rally

remember: intolerance deserves no tolerance.

so go get busy, and we'll see you back here in '12... er, well, probably '16. y'all got some big messes to clean up.







[Edited on October 27, 2008 at 6:47 PM. Reason : ]

10/27/2008 6:44:46 PM

Quote :

"Or better yet, don't vote republican so they have real incentive to get back to being republicans the next time around, instead of these caricatures of republicans that you have running the party right now. (or maybe they will double down on Karl Rove, Ann Coulter, and Sarah Palin. In that case, RIP)"

Great Post.

I am surprised the pundits have not figured this out yet. It seems like everyone on TV either represents one extreme or the other and is incapable of thinking practically.

^ lmfao

10/27/2008 6:50:32 PM

Quote :

"lol tkeshultz thinks the dems are gonna win 9 seats?"

wrong tke

10/27/2008 6:59:45 PM

it's fucking dnl

10/27/2008 8:18:48 PM

lol its a fucking tke...i was close enough

10/27/2008 8:22:14 PM

nobody's surprised you have the reading comprehension of a 6 yr old.

That being said, I'm shocked to say I agree with almost everything the liberals in this thread have said. Most of the comments in this thread have given me strong thoughts about voting for Obama, but I just don't think I can bring myself to do it. But I am sick and fucking tired of the Republican party. I'm registered with the GOP, but they're not the GOP I want to align myself with. That party doesn't exist anymore.

10/27/2008 8:45:15 PM