Bill Quick — the guy whose blog, Daily Pundit, permanently features a front-page image of the World Trade Center exploding — didn’t vote Republican in 2006. He explains why by linking to a list of issues that he says will inspire “large chunks of [the Republican] base and other normally dependable voters…to stay home in disgust.”
Hat tip: InstaPundit, who himself did vote Republican, albeit reluctantly — saying, “the Republicans don’t really deserve my vote…but nonetheless the Democrats have blown it again” — much to the chagrin of Andrew Sullivan (though said chagrin is apparently rather poorly informed).
Me? I’ll be voting for the Democrat for my local, hotly contested House race. (Heaven help the Democrats if Pelosi breaks her anti-impeachment pledge, because I’m depending on that, and they’ll lose my vote for a long, long time if they’re lying to me.) As for the Senate, there is no Democratic nominee running against Dick Lugar (R), so I have to decide whether to vote for Lugar, vote for Libertarian candidate Steve Osborn, or cast a write-in vote for Joe Lieberman — a protest vote, of sorts, against both major parties. At the moment, I’m leaning toward the latter option. After all, I did introduce myself to the senator last week as “the inaugural member of the ‘Indiana for Lieberman’ party.” :)
UPDATE: Instalanche! Welcome, new readers!
Glenn Reynolds characterizes my view as “Brendan Loy doesn’t care” about “what happens if Democrats win.” That’s not really correct. Don’t forget that I was a Democrat for most of my life, only very recently declaring my independence, so it’s not like I disagree with everything the party stands for. On the contrary, I am likely to agree with the sort of moves a Democratic Congress would likely make vis a vis social issues such as gay rights, stem-cell research, abstinence-only education, etc.
As for the hot-button economic issues…
Well, first of all, I am inclined to support an increase in the minimum wage. Yes, I know, it’s supposedly bad for the economy, it’ll increase the unemployment rate, we’ll all go to hell in a handbasket, blah blah blah. But you know what? The economy has survived previous minimum-wage hikes, and I think it will survive this one. I’m admittedly no expert on this topic, but if our economy is as strong as the Republicans who most vociferously object to an increase constantly insist it is, surely it’s robust enough to absorb a modest increase that will bring the minimum wage a bit closer to what is actually necessary to “get by” in this country.
What about taxes? I think Bush has gone too far in cutting taxes during wartime, and I think the Democrats will probably go too far in raising them. So, pick your poison. Personally, I’m more concerned about endless deficits stretching as far as the eye can see than I am about taxes. And since the Republicans are no longer the party of fiscal responsibility, it seems the only way to reign in deficits is to vote for the tax-and-spend party over the borrow-and-spend party. Again, the hue and cry from the Right is that raising taxes will destroy the economy. One commenter said, “You are an idiot - and I blame the upcoming economic collapse on you. Brendan, when the anarchy comes, I’ll be sure to make you one of the first up against the wall.” Heh. Sounds about as rational as something you’d read on Daily Kos or MyDD! Anyway, I’m just not buying it. As I recall, the economy was doing okay during most of the Clinton years, pre-Bush-tax-cuts, and I think it will do okay once some of those tax cuts are repealed. There will be a hiccup, but the economy will deal. That’s not to say I’ll agree with every decision the Democrats make. But I’m not buying into the doom-and-gloom nightmare scenarios.
Bottom line, I have a lot of faith in the American economy to absorb the vagaries of Washington politics and keep growing, subject to natural boom-and-bust cycles of course. If Nancy Pelosi was in line to become chairwoman of the Federal Reserve rather than Speaker of the House, perhaps I’d be more concerned, but as it is, I don’t think a Democratic Congress is going to destroy the American economy and bring about a “collapse” or “anarchy”… especially since President Bush will be there to veto anything overly crazy that they might try. We can revisit this issue in 2008.
Oh, and I read somewhere that Pelosi wants to cut interest rates on student loans. For purely self-interested reasons, I whole-heartedly support that. :)
Many of the other objections raised by Pete Du Pont at Opinion Journal seem rather disingenuous, in light of the Republicans’ shoddy record over the past four years, when they’ve had an uncontested majority with a GOP president in the White House. Du Pont worries that a Democratic Congress won’t fix Social Security, which is true, but neither has a Republican Congress, nor is their any reason to believe the next two years will be different. Likewise with energy policy — yes, we should build more nuclear power plants, but if the Republicans were going to do it, they would have done it by now. So, what’s the harm in replacing one party that won’t fix our energy crisis with another party that won’t fix our energy crisis?
That brings us to the really big issue(s) of Iraq and the war on terror. Here, my views are nuanced, deeply unsettled, and difficult to express in a few paragraphs, but overall, I think it’s fair to say that my views are generally closer to the Republicans’ than to the Democrats’. That’s certainly true to the extent that the Democrats’ views are coextensive with the views of the far-left netroots, the Kucinich/Dean/Lamont crowd. However, in light of the Republicans’ incompetent failure to put their ideals into action — and in light of the degree to which the “facts on the ground” raise doubts about whether those ideals are really the right ones — I’m not at all sure that two more years of undivided Republican power to conduct the war(s) is better than two years of divided power.
I feel like I’m choosing between two untenable alternatives here, and as such, the war(s) — as important as it/they are — sort of fade(s) into the background, ultimately having little effect on my decision. (Certainly, if the Democrats were actually going to abruptly cut off all funding for the war in Iraq, as Charlie Rangel has obliquely threatened, that alone would be enough reason to vote against them. But there is NO WAY THAT WILL HAPPEN, because it would be political suicide, and there wouldn’t be majority support for it anyway.)
Another reason why my concerns over the Democrats’ Iraq/terrorism policy (or lack thereof) is not dispositive to my decision is because this is a midterm election, not a presidential one. The reality is, the executive sets our military and foreign policy, and that’s not going to change. Nancy Pelosi simply would not have the power to, say, negotiate a peace treaty with Osama bin Laden, even if she wanted to (which she obviously wouldn’t; I’m purposely citing an absurd, extreme example). If this were a presidential election, I’d have to think a lot harder about whether the Democratic candidate is credible enough to earn my vote. But in light of the way our government works, the most a Democratic Congress can really do is obstruct Bush’s military and foreign policies, and pressure him to alter them somewhat; they cannot set new military and foreign policies of their own.
Now, certainly, the Democrats will engage in a certain degree of obstruction… but in light of the abject failure of many of Bush’s policies, I’m not entirely certain that’s a bad thing. In any event, I am confident that Bush will be able to react as needed to a genuine crisis (say, another 9/11 or an Iranian nuke going off somewhere) without Democratic obstructionism, because when such things happen, even Pelosi & co. will put country before party. Of course, I’d love to have enough confidence in Bush’s pre-emptive/preventative policies that I’d strongly oppose their obstruction, too, but in reality, I just don’t. Bush has had more than five years since 9/11, most of it with an undivided Republican majority, to make America safer, and I don’t believe he has particularly succeeded. He hasn’t given me much of a reason to vote for two more years of the same. (As for any Democratic attempts to make various anti-terror programs illegal, first of all, I’m not at all sure they’d get a majority; second, I’m not at all sure how I would feel about such pieces of legislation, until I’ve actually had a chance to read them and think about them; and thirdly, if they’re bad enough, Bush can still veto them! Again, we can revisit all that in 2008.)
So, like I said, the all-important Iraq/terrorism issue is pretty much a wash in my decision-making process… except perhaps for one consideration that militates for a Democratic vote, and that’s this: one of the worst things that can happen to the country, IMHO, is that the Democrats enter the 2008 election cycle consumed by anger, as they entered the 2004 and 2006 cycles. If that happens, the Democratic nominee for president will almost certainly be a bad choice (just as 2004 nominee was), leading to the possibility of a no-win situation in the general election (depending on who the Republicans nominate). Now, admittedly, the Daily Kos crowd will probably be angry no matter what; it’s in their nature. But more moderate Democrats will be considerably less angry, I think, if their party takes back some power in 2006. Oh, they’ll still be angry at Bush, but it won’t be quite as much of a blind rage. Moreover, to the extent that the electorate at large (including independents and moderate Republicans) is still in an anti-Washington mood in 2008, a Dem victory in ‘06 means that mood won’t redound entirely on the Republicans, since the Democrats will bear part of the blame, too. That means we’re less likely to make a bad choice for president on the basis of irrational anger. To the extent that our nation needs an anti-Republican (or anti-incumbent) spasm to restore balance to the Force, I’d rather do it in 2006, so that maybe, just maybe, we can have a more serious, less vitriolic discussion of the vital security and foreign-policy issues in two years, when it will really matter. (There’s also my pipe dream that anti-Washington sentiment in a time of divided government could lead the creation of a viable third party in the McCain-Lieberman mold.)
So, if social issues militate strongly toward voting Democratic, economic issues give a slight edge to the Democrats, and terror/Iraq issues are also basically a wash (with an odd bit a counter-CW strategic thought favoring the Dems), I’m left without a reason to vote Republican… with the possible exception of the one that everybody’s talking about, and the one that this thread has focused on, namely: the possibility of impeachment and/or endless investigations crippling the country.
This possibility is the only thing that would convince me to vote for Chocola or a third-party candidate, or to abstain from voting for the House altogether. But, thinking it through, I don’t see it as enough of a serious threat to change my vote. Various paranoid comments on this thread notwithstanding (cuz man, some of the Republicans coming over here from InstaPundit are just as wing-nutty in their partisanship as the Daily Kos crowd), a Democratic majority will not mean a loony-left majority. There will be plenty of red-state and purple-state Democrats who won’t be able to survive politically if they go along with any left-wing impeachment effort. To make impeachment politically viable would take more than a disingenuous claim that “new evidence has been found” — it would require the genuine finding of new evidence consituting a true “smoking gun” that would convince most Americans (perhaps myself included!) to support impeachment. Unless that happens, impeachment would be political suicide for the Democrats, ensuring their defeat in 2008, and they know it. When even Dane opposes impeachment, you know it’s not politically viable, regardless of what the “nutroots” might say. As I wrote in comments on my previous post:
[Abandoning the anti-impeachment pledge immediately after the election] would be exceedingly unwise. There are campaign promises and then there are campaign promises. “Impeachment is off the table” is a hard one to wriggle out of. When I vote Democratic on Election Day, I will do so with Pelosi’s promise in mind. If she breaks that promise, it will severely affect my willingness to vote Democratic in future elections. And I won’t be the only one. Remember “read my lips, no new taxes”? Say what you will about the general untrustworthiness of politicians, but when they make a major pledge — one that a large number of voters really care about, and that they can’t plausibly wriggle out of — they break it at their (and their party’s) political peril. And it’s not like pledging not to impeach Bush or Cheney is a minor pledge. It’s kind of a big deal.
Moreover, Pelosi is right: “too many flying subpoenas,” let alone impeachment proceedings, would make the Democrats “appear petty and revenge-hungry, obsessed with blaming Bush,” and would make the Democrats look like “obstructionists” instead of “leaders.” Barring some sort of “smoking gun” proof of genuine criminality that goes far beyond the sort of thing that Lamont supporters and their ilk regard as sufficient to impeach Bush, impeachment proceedings on the basis of wartime executive decisions would be political suicide.
It would be foolish to break her promise, both because she made a promise and because the rationale behind her promise is entirely correct.
As you can see, I’m not putting blind faith in Pelosi’s inherent trustworthiness, or the inherent trustworthiness of the Democratic caucus at large. I’m reaching the logical conclusion that breaking her promise would, for various reasons, be politically disastrous — and she seems to realize that. As such, I think she’ll keep her promise for pragmatic reasons, regardless of whether she wants to do so.
As for the investigations… sure, there will be some investigations… and I’m not convinced that’s entirely a bad thing! The Bush Administration has done some stuff that probably ought to be investigated! The key question is whether the investigations will spiral out of control and paralyze Washington. My inclination is to believe that they will not, for the same pragmatic reasons that impeachment won’t happen: it would be political suicide for the Democrats to let that happen, and for once, the party leadership seems to realize that. No matter what the netroots might want, the Democrats are not going to piss away their chance at true power (in 2008) by going into investigation overdrive. And if they do, well, I’ll be first in line to vote against them in ‘08. But I’m not going to hold them accountable for sins they haven’t committed yet. The Republicans, by contrast, have committed plenty of sins already that they richly deserve to be held accountable for — and, in the absence of any compelling motivation to do otherwise, that’s exactly what I’m going to do on November 7.
|
Categories: Joe Lieberman, Election 2006
|
October 24th, 2006 at 6:59:46 am
I’m voting D straight down the line, baby.
As for Lugar, he’s actually a good guy. Too bad he, Grassly, Graham, McCain, Hagel, Snowe and the other reasonable Republicans have little or no influence on the POTUS.
October 24th, 2006 at 7:01:50 am
Brendan, I ALWAYS take Democrats at their word (”Full Six Year Term” Obama). I know that they are honest (”Freezer” Jefferson) and trustworthy (Harry “Land Deal” GReid) and would never do anything underhanded (”Snorkel” Kennedy, “Impeached and Removed for Bribery” Hastings, etc.) Yup, if they say they won’t impeach someone, that’s good enough for me!
/gullibility
October 24th, 2006 at 7:15:34 am
Clyde, it’s not like Republicans are paragons of virtue, either. You can list Democrats who have broken their word, I can list Republicans who have broken their word. You can list corrupt Democrats, I can list corrupt Democrats. Hell, if we think really hard, I bet we can come up with a list of corrupt independents. :) Big deal. Obama promising to serve six full years is the sort of promise that should always be taken with a grain of salt, no matter which politician says it. But the possible future speaker of the House promising not to impeach the sitting president — saying “impeachment is off the table” and describing that as a “pledge”? That’s a bit more important and weighty, and a bit more likely to turn into a “read my lips, no new taxes” moment if she breaks it, than Obama saying he’d serve six full years. Get real.
October 24th, 2006 at 8:21:56 am
Brendan did you see this…
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061024/ap_on_el_se/connecticut_senate;_ylt=Ah1xCQnwVlx5c7uBvheETjyyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ–
So sorry Lieberman…LAMONT FTW!!!
October 24th, 2006 at 9:16:35 am
So Lieberman lost a debate. Will that erode the 10-17 point lead he enjoys? Not likely.
Oh Brendan, read Glenn’s post on his voting. Though he voted for Corker, the large majority of his voting was towards democratic and socially liberal/libertarian policies. I think its disingeuous to say he voted Republican when it was only one race of the ticket (albeit the most important one).
October 24th, 2006 at 10:24:57 am
(Heaven help the Democrats if Pelosi breaks her anti-impeachment pledge, because I’m depending on that, and they’ll lose my vote for a long, long time if they’re lying to me.)
What’re you a dope? Of course they’re lying. You can tell a Dems lying when their lips move.
October 24th, 2006 at 10:56:33 am
And you can tell Republicans are hitting on teenage boys and asking for bribes when their lips move?
Wheeeee, unfair generalizations all around!
October 24th, 2006 at 10:58:48 am
I’m voting D straight down the line, baby.
And I will be voting Republican down the line to offset morons like you.
October 24th, 2006 at 11:06:25 am
Heh. Perhaps unnecessary, JO. If past lawsuits are any indication, a not insignificant number of Dems are unable vote correctly anyway ;-)
October 24th, 2006 at 11:24:21 am
I think it would require a moron of the first order to vote for any Republicans…
October 24th, 2006 at 11:42:31 am
Cynical tip, if it is a politician moving his or her lips, they’re probably lieing…
October 24th, 2006 at 11:50:35 am
Wow, this has to be one of the least enlightening comment threads EVER on this blog. Did everybody wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, or is October 24 (aside from being the anniversary of my coronation) National Vacuous Insult Day or something?
Anyway, jc and bandit, I would encourage you to read comment #3, my response to Clyde, since I already addressed your points there, and you added nothing new to suggest you found a flaw in my reasoning, you basically just repeated what Clyde had said.
October 24th, 2006 at 11:58:39 am
Dane, you are so lame.
October 24th, 2006 at 11:59:54 am
you should cast a write-in vote for John T. Gunnigle. He’s initiated a write-in campaign.
October 24th, 2006 at 12:04:33 pm
‘unfair generalizations all around! ‘
Not so much - as the Dems proved with the impeachment and with the continued ’service’ of Sen. Kennedy, Reid, Alcee Hastings and Rep. Jefferson - they’re OK with the whole lying thing. Not to say GOP doesn’t do it but at least they try to hide it. I believe Rep Ney, DeLay, Foley are like gone now, no?
‘I already addressed your points there,’
No you just reiterated your stupidity in ‘depending’ on Mrs. Pelosi’s ‘pledge’ Check with Marty Meehan about his ‘pledge’.
October 24th, 2006 at 12:13:59 pm
Check with Marty Meehan about his ‘pledge’.
You mean his pledge not to serve more than four terms?
I REPEAT: Obama promising to serve six full years is the sort of promise that should always be taken with a grain of salt, no matter which politician says it. But the possible future speaker of the House promising not to impeach the sitting president � saying “impeachment is off the table� and describing that as a “pledge�? That’s a bit more important and weighty, and a bit more likely to turn into a “read my lips, no new taxes� moment if she breaks it, than Obama saying he’d serve six full years. Get real.
Replace “Obama” with “Meehan” and “six full years” with “no more than eight terms”; rinse and repeat. As I said: that sort of “pledge” should always be viewed skeptically, and is NOWHERE NEAR as important as a pledge to not impeach the president.
Rank cynicism is not what this country needs, nor is blind partisanship. If it’s as bad as you say, then there’s no point in voting, because we can’t trust anything that anyone says. (Well, you would say we can’t trust anything Democrats say. Any rational person knows that there is no inherent moral virtue in Republicanism that makes them more likely to lie than Democrats, so extrapolating from your comments and grounding them in actual reality, rather than partisan la-la-land, “we can’t trust Democrats” turns into “we can’t trust anyone.”) In reality, though, politicians — of both parties — know they’ll suffer consequences if they don’t stick to their BIG promises, so they generally do. And if they don’t, then voters like me, who trusted them, will make them suffer the consequences!
October 24th, 2006 at 12:40:36 pm
P.S. To be clear: I’m not defending Meehan. Obviously, he should have kept his promise. I’m just saying, it makes much more sense to be skeptical of pledges by politicians along the lines of “I promise to limit my own personal political power in the following way” than to blindly dismiss far more important and substantive pledges like “read my lips, no new taxes” or “impeachment is off the table.”
October 24th, 2006 at 1:12:55 pm
Thanks Becky. I love you too… shhh, don’t tell Brendan.
October 24th, 2006 at 1:19:43 pm
LOL. Dane, despite her frequent use of the word “lame,” I’m pretty sure Anonymous isn’t Becky, since she’s at work right now, and I don’t think she has Internet access at the day care/preschool where she works. :)
October 24th, 2006 at 1:48:38 pm
NOT VISITING BRENDANLOY.COM
Me? I won’t be visiting this site, baby. (Heaven help this site if Brendan Loy continues to hold his breath at the Rebublicans until he turns blue, because I’m depending on that, and this site will lose my visits for a long, long time if he’s lying to me.)
But I won’t be holding MY breath waiting for this protest action to force this site to come back around to my liking.
October 24th, 2006 at 1:48:44 pm
Brendan, Pelosi IS lying to you. And if she isn’t, she won’t be speaker long enough to keep her pledge.
October 24th, 2006 at 1:50:40 pm
California voters have long ago learned that California Democrat politicians cannot be trusted to keep their word. They will say anything to get elected. They know that each contest is another spinning opportunity. Voters do not remember the past promises kept or broken. Each election is the opportunity to create a fantasy of Utopia and sell it.
Pelosi says “No Impeachment”… She didn’t say anything about the non-stop investigations from EVERY committee… And IF there is a Democrat Senate then; she’d have to forward her evidence for a trial wouldn’t she?
Are you truly that niave?
October 24th, 2006 at 1:54:44 pm
So the author of this blog tells us he doesn’t think, he reacts. Based on emotion.
Fine. That’s his prerogative.
It’s also the Road to Sullivanism.
Remind me again why I should care one iota in the future as to what the author of this blog writes.
October 24th, 2006 at 1:54:51 pm
Marty & Lojo, I watched that debate last night and Lieberman did not lose it. Located smack-dab in the Center both philosophically and per on-stage placement, each time he gets blasted from the Lamonty Left and the Republican Right he takes their Fire with unflinching aplomb, and Wins. :)
Granted, this time Joe’s win was greatly Enhanced by the antidemocratic antics of neo-stalinists in the audience who tried, repeatedly and at length, to drown him out while moderator George Stephanopoulos dithered & Ned Lamont sat stunned with his trademark deer-in-the-headlights Look. :> Finally it took a menacing Advance & a mighty Roar by the large & stentorian Republican candidate Alan Schlesinger, God bless him :) ~ “LEAVE THIS HALL! SHOW SOME RESPECT FOR SENATOR LIEBERMAN!” ~ to shut the littlebaby fascists up. Apparently they were then, belatedly, escorted from the theatre, presumably shuddering in Shock & Awe. :)
October 24th, 2006 at 1:56:21 pm
If the Dems take the house and don’t satisfy their base, they’re toast in 2008. They know it.
In order to satisfy their base, they will have to impeach Bush and de-fund Iraq and Afghanistan, empty Gitmo, de-fund surviellence and rendition, provide massive food aid to North Korea and cut off Pakistan. Hastings is chair of intelligence, that means there won’t be any intelligence for 2 years.
That means Iran moves full steam ahead with nukes (not that Bush has done much to slow them down, but I still hope) and proxy war through Hizbullah and Hammas.
The only question is when, exactly, NY, Washington, Tel Aviv, Brussles, Los Angeles, Paris, London and Barcelona vanish in a flash. Will it be during Bush’s term, or after?
I’m just as pissed at the GOP as you are. But it’s like the old joke about the ethnic man who comes home and finds his wife in bed with another man. He pulls out a gun and puts it to his head. His wife screams “Don’t!” He replies “Shut up, you’re next!”
October 24th, 2006 at 1:57:47 pm
if they’re lying to me
They, being DHIMMIcRATs.
Oh please, sir. If their lips are moving, they’re lying to you. How many times do you have to slam your forehead into the brick wall of reality?
If you’re going to play this game, at least have the sanguinity to play it despite the fact that you know full well that these folks can’t stop themselves from lying.
October 24th, 2006 at 2:05:10 pm
“Heaven help the Democrats if Pelosi breaks her anti-impeachment pledge, because I’m depending on that, and they’ll lose my vote for a long, long time if they’re lying to me.”
She will, they don’t care, and they are.
Your choice.
October 24th, 2006 at 2:07:34 pm
Making a “protest” by voting Dem is a foolish and futile gesture. If you vote Dem, then you’re only saying that you LIKE what they’re doing.
Want to register your disapproval of both the Depublicans and the Remocrats? Vote Libertarian. I know, I know, the Libs “can’t win”, so you’d be “throwing your vote away”. But the Libs don’t HAVE to _win_ in order to have great influence. As soon as any Libertarian candidate gets more votes than the DIFFERENCE between the Rem and the Dep, it will encourage BOTH of the “major” parties to start taking Libertarian ideas seriously.
No Libertarian ever needs to be elected to make a difference; all we need is to have Libertarian ideas to be coopted by both sides for us to achieve our REAL victory.
October 24th, 2006 at 2:07:48 pm
Does anyone think that the Democratic party base is not going to demand impeachment, or that Pelosi is going to be able to resist that faction? I am amazed that she made that pledge, I will be even more amazed if she is able to keep it.
October 24th, 2006 at 2:10:05 pm
I can’t believe you’re actually betting on Pelosi telling the truth. If you vote Democtatic and they win, you’ll be getting exactly what you deserve, the congress tied up for weeks and months on impeachment. And you think Pelosi can stop it?
October 24th, 2006 at 2:16:23 pm
There’s such a thing as being old enough to recall pre-’94, and to recognize the lesser of two evils when one sees it.
October 24th, 2006 at 2:18:41 pm
Sometime around Feb 1, Ms. Pelosi’s position will be that “new evidence” has altered the situation to the point that she can no longer keep impeachment “off the table”. When you’re a little past 24, you’ll learn.
October 24th, 2006 at 2:19:22 pm
Why is everyone so convinced that Pelosi is a liar? Can someone point out evidence that leads them to believe this other than “she’s a Democrat” or “all politicians lie?” I’m honestly curious because I don’t know much about her career, nor do I have the extensive knowledge-base that everyone else seems to have. I do think the Dems are going to investigate the hell out of the Bush administration, but the Republicans have really blown it and a lot of Americans who now intend to vote Democrat know that too.
October 24th, 2006 at 2:21:52 pm
Your argument that Pelosi’s pledge is weightier than the usual political promise is, well, idiotic. First, there are hearings, just to find out the “truth,” then the shocked “discovery” by the Speaker that matters were far worse than anyone could have expected, then the reluctant decision to proceed with impachment because justice and the american people demand it. Phooey.
You’re having a snit and you’re simply rationalizing away the lack of responsibility the snit entails so that you feel righteous either way things go. This is the first I’ve seen of your blog, and I’m not favorably impressed by it or you.
October 24th, 2006 at 2:23:06 pm
I am confused as to why anyone would not vote for a particular party simply because that party doesn’t “deserve” their vote. Especially when, of the two dominant parties in our electoral system, that party is by far closer to the person’s political ideology. That thinking is fundamentally backwards in its logic. Not voting for the party closer to one’s political ideology is effectively the same as voting for the opposing party and thereby the opposing political ideology. But they don’t “deserve” your vote? Please, forget about them, what about you? What about America? Don’t you and America, the world’s last best hope, deserve to be led by the party more serious about the long war we are now engaged in?
October 24th, 2006 at 2:24:59 pm
I’m not convinced you really understand the driving force behind the Democrat Party base if you believe Pelosi will keep her word about not impeaching Bush.
Svolich stated the obvious; Pelosi is going to have to satisify the hate that’s kept her in power.
Besides which you were successful in cutting the pork and preventing Miers, so what really is the problem?
If it is about how aggressive the war has been waged I agree but how can we fight an aggressive war when we have the media, hollywood, Nannyist and Ivory Tower’s politically correct thought police working on behalf of aiding the enemy? Beating up on the Republicans only leads to further empower the forementioned anti-American activities. If you want aggressive war then go after the Lawyers who continue to provide civil liberties to Jihad terrorist.
October 24th, 2006 at 2:25:41 pm
Brendan,
Just 2 years ago, the President won re-election, the first candidate to win a majority of the popular vote since 1988. The Republican House won additional seats as did the Senate. Since the last election, by Pelosi decree, she has mandated a scorched earth resistance to the President and told her House caucus not to cross over to the other side of the aisle to produce legislation. If Democrats were to gain control of either body of Congress, why should Republicans be expected to cooperate with her? What bipartisan authority has she built as Minority Leader to expect bipartisanship as Speaker? Much of what has hampered Republicans, has been the uncooperative insurgency by Democrats. Why would you reward leadership that put Party before country?
October 24th, 2006 at 2:25:50 pm
What about the Supreme Court? The Republicans gave us Roberts and Alito. Give the Senate to the Dems, and there’s no way they’re going to let through an Originalist next time. We’ll get either a liberal or another wishy washy moderate who could be on the court for another thirty years. And there may be more than one Justice retire in the next two years considering the ages they are now.
That means more Kelo decisions and their dreadful like, if you vote for Democrats. Isn’t an Originalist Supreme Court worth “holding your nose” for and voting Republican?
And then there’s Illegal Immigration. The House of Representatives is currently the only thing stopping the McCain amnesty from becoming law. The Senate passed it. Bush wants to sign it. The House did the right thing and has said “No” to it.
All that will change immediately if you hand the gavel to Nancy Pelosi. The Democrats like the amnesty bill - they’ll pass it, Bush will sign it, and we’ll have a disastrous new Amnesty law, bringing in at least twice as many illegal immigrats per years as we have coming in now, with virtually no enforcement mechanism.
And once that thing gets passed into law, you know how hard it will be to go back - almost impossible. Immigration is a huge issue for many, and is a big reason many are made at Republicans.
But Republicans in the House did the right thing on Immigration, and they are the only thing standing in the way of the McCain amnesty bill now - so why punish them for it?
I just don’t get it.
The time to raise this kind of a stink was in the primaries - not now, when the Supreme Court, our Nation’s borders, and our National Security hang in the balance.
October 24th, 2006 at 2:28:17 pm
Brendan,
Serious question. What’s up with this thread? Every once in a while you have a thread where a bunch of amateur republican hacks seem to come out of the woodwork, all spouting essentially the same talking point. Where do they come from?
October 24th, 2006 at 2:30:34 pm
Re: impeachment, Check my congressman Nr. Conyers. he still seems interested.
October 24th, 2006 at 2:30:47 pm
In the New York 11th CD, there was an open seat for the primary (the general election always goes Democrat). There were two issues that mattered: 1) A local eminent domain issue. 2) Will you support the impeachment of Bush.
The bottom line is that if the Democrats take the house, Pelosi won’t be able to stop the movement to impeach. Too many Democrats are too invested in it. At best, they will launch endless investigations, and never actually bring impeachment to a vote.
Is there really a difference?
October 24th, 2006 at 2:35:29 pm
Dear God. You know how you can tell when a Democrat is lying? Their lips are moving!
October 24th, 2006 at 2:38:10 pm
Spiteful idiots like you will do far more damage to the nation than you realize.
Speaker Pelosi comes with Charman Conyers, Rangle etc.
Do you honestly believe that 2 years of statist radicals running loose the government will be easily reversed?
You are an idiot - and I blame the upciming economic collapse on you.
Brendan, when the anarchy comes, I’ll be sure to make you one of the first up against the wall.
October 24th, 2006 at 2:39:43 pm
Got an ulcer? Drink some Drain-O. That’ll cure it. I PROMISE!
October 24th, 2006 at 2:43:33 pm
Brendan, I can understand frustration with the GOP. But I can’t understand why you’d vote for Donnelly and validate his misleading smear-job of a campaign.
The latest pathetic Donnelly ad nearly made me hurl a brick through my TV. It (badly) attempts to subtly reference the Foley scandal by saying “While Chris Chocola takes money from the special interests . . . who’s looking after your children?
I could see myself not voting for the GOP candidate in the general sense, but I actually like Chocola and intend to vote for him. But no way in hell would I endorse someone who’s campaigned in such a disgusting manner as Joe Donnelly.
Butters still can, though. He’s a cat.
October 24th, 2006 at 2:43:44 pm
‘In reality, though, politicians â€â€? of both parties â€â€? know they’ll suffer consequences if they don’t stick to their BIG promises, so they generally do. ‘
Show me where a Dem has suffered the consequences? Every election I still see Frank(D) on the menu. And every third election I get to see Kennedy(D).I’m not saying for 1 second that GOPers don’t lie or even that they lie less but explain where any Dem has suffered the consequences of breaking a promise.
October 24th, 2006 at 2:48:32 pm
So Brendan, do you mind if I blame you when they raise our taxes? And not keep the tax cuts permanent?
Can I blame you if I lose my job because raising taxes kills the current economy?
October 24th, 2006 at 2:50:05 pm
I would vote for the Republican candidate in the House because they rightly forced the issue of illegal immigration
to the fore as opposed to the Senate and Administration and as not reported by the MSM. Have your way with the Senate
candidate though.
October 24th, 2006 at 2:56:21 pm
Brendan - SLOVICH (Comment #25) says it all. You can hate these weasels for everything they (haven’t) done but the Democrats offer nothing but two years, at least, of impeachment and various other hearings that will cripple our country and expose us to Iran, NoKo and every other hater out to get us. I join you in your disgust towards these clowns, but putting Conyers in a position of authority is not the answer. Of course, I went to B.C., so your results may vary.
October 24th, 2006 at 3:01:39 pm
I understand how you feel, Brendon. There have been many disappointments under Republican leadership but unlike you I guess I’m not willing to take a chance on what impeachment would do to the war effort. In fact, even if there isn’t an impeachment, you know there will be talk about impeachment and movements toward impeachment and … you fill in the blank. Lawsuits, maybe? Do we want Bush to spend all his time (more than the vast amount he already has to spend) fighting off BDS and impeachment?
October 24th, 2006 at 3:02:38 pm
Brendan, why is it so bad if they impeach Bush? Do you think Clinton should’ve been impeached? For lying? Has Bush not lied, and lied repeatedly, and about slightly more significant things?
I realize you have an antipathy towards Democrats, like many of your commenters, but your heart is leading you true. The fact is that the GOP has screwed the pooch and needs to be taught a lesson. If that lesson includes the sub-lesson that you can’t lie about why you’re invading a country, ooooh, good lesson! With the serious problems the country is facing domestically–stagnant wages, low job growth, failing education system, failing industrial sector, carbon emissions, energy consumption–do you really think we need to protect the holy right of the Bush-Cheney administration to continue lying about everything, including war?
October 24th, 2006 at 3:02:40 pm
Brendan,
I call bullsh1t.
“I REPEAT: Obama promising to serve six full years is the sort of promise that should always be taken with a grain of salt, no matter which politician says it. But the possible future speaker of the House promising not to impeach the sitting president â€â€? saying “impeachment is off the tableâ€? and describing that as a “pledgeâ€?? That’s a bit more important and weighty, and a bit more likely to turn into a “read my lips, no new taxesâ€? moment if she breaks it, than Obama saying he’d serve six full years. Get real.”
There have been DOZENS, nay HUNDREDS of Democrat “read my lips” moments that went unnoticed in the old media, and barely registered a blip in the blogosphere. If it had been a prominent Republican doing the Obama dance, would we not have heard of that for weeks?
And if Nancy Pelosi got to the Speaker’s Chair (my stomach just did a loopty-loop just typing it), the hue and cry from the rabid moonbat left of her party would just move her to do it. She’d only be listening to the little people, you understand. Just doing what she was elected to do.
Meanwhile, any sensible attempts at legislation to secure the borders or improve national intelligence-gathering would be out of the question. And we’d give the jihadists a published schedule to plan their holidays - just get back to Iraq on the 24th of March in 2008 (on the 18 month timetable), and we’ll be all gone. Then you can overrun the government and pop a few Ba’athists out of prison to start up the shredders again.
Apparently, the fact that the President has shown little spine has robbed many of my fellow Conservatives of their sense.
October 24th, 2006 at 3:08:35 pm
Hypocrisy reigns on both sides of the aisle, there is no doubt, and that issue should not lean anyone towards voting for one party or the other. But the party ideas should. I get the frustration with the Republicans - I share a lot of it myself, but we’re in dangerous times, and it seems wholly irresponsible to usher in Democratic control when their best plank for running is, “We’re not the Republicans!”
As a society, as we all make our own individual choices, we’ll reap what we sow. With Nancy Pelosi at the helm of the House, that cost just may be too much to bear.
What a disappointment.
October 24th, 2006 at 3:10:07 pm
Brendan.
The general election is not the time to teach a lesson. That’s what the primary is for. Getting rid of the bad for the even worse isn’t punishing the politicians, it’s punishing all of us.
If conservatives stay home in some sort of group temper tantrum, the government they get will be much, much worse than what we’ve had lately.
“What we have isn’t perfect, let’s let the guys who are against everything we stand for have a go at it to prove how ideologically pure we are.”
That is not a good idea. It is definitely better to hold your nose and pick the candidate that is closest to what you believe. Giving the democrats, who have told us outright how unserious they are about the war on terror, and how raising taxes will somehow ‘fix’ an economy that is not only not broken, but working beautifully thanks to lower taxes, is a recipe for disaster.
Casting republicans into the political wilderness for not being conservative enough, in favor of people that are even less conservative is not sound judgement.
You are greatly underestimating how easy it will be to dislodge democrats if they become incumbents. It took 30 years from Goldwater to 1994 to get this conservative majority. Are you ready to wait that long to teach someone a lesson?
You want to teach a lesson? Teach it to the democrats who are a much worse alternative at this point in history.
October 24th, 2006 at 3:12:32 pm
Aaron -
Insta-lanche, Baby!!
Elder Loy -
I caught that whole Heckler thing after I posted. And let me tell you that I hope we see him in politics later on after he loses this race. I didn’t really see the debate but played off the assumed Lieberman’s losing of it. So I’ll plead ignorance to his performance there of. My point was even if he pulled an Ozzy and bit the head off a dove, I don’t really think even that would have taken away his entire lead right now.
Lamont is simply not doing it and falling into the background. Unless Lieberman folds like the back cover of a MAD magazine, I think he has this locked up.
And to all those saying Brendan needs to vote for his party -
Brendan is a declared independent. He can vote how he wants and I see nothing about his vote that suggests it is a protest or done in spite. I vote republican, but it doesn’t make me a non-republican if, should she have been up for re-election, I voted against Elizabeth Dole. My concerns with her are local and confined outside the national race. And to me, that is the best way to look at it. I don’t bemoan looking at the big national picture, but I am not going to vote in a clown like Vernon Robinson just so I can get my ‘I Voted the Big Elephant’ sticker for my notebook.
October 24th, 2006 at 3:12:46 pm
Brendan, I won’t ever forget that the democrats, earlier this year, had an agreement with Arlen Specter to bring a justice, Alito I think, to the floor in a certain time frame. Specter was annoyed when the dems didn’t allow that and mentioned that he had the dems “word”, whereupon Sen. Leahy said that it wasn’t in writing, so there was no real agreement. I will never forget that and will never vote for any of these cynical democrats again. The dems will have to have an entire new generation of reps and senators before I give them further consideration. I am voting republican because I am concerned about the Supreme Court nominees in the future. No more nominees like Roberts or Alito if republicans don’t have the house or senate.
October 24th, 2006 at 3:14:54 pm
By the way. All of this talk of conservative voters staying home is driving me nuts. Is it a Rovian twist. As a conservative, I’m going to make a donation to a couple of my favortite conservative candidates today and find out if Santorums local office needs any help over the next couple of weeks. Got to make up for the people who are willing to throw away their vote to ‘prove a point’ to people who won’t be in office anymore to respond to their lesson, if enough of them do so.
October 24th, 2006 at 3:15:35 pm
And just how screwed will you be if Pelosi doesn’t keep her promise, but Charlie Rangel and John Conyers do?
October 24th, 2006 at 3:18:43 pm
SURPRISE! A Democrat announces that he’s voted for, hold your breath now, Democrats.
Here’s a quote from a Sept. 06 post on this site: “I’ve been calling myself a Democrat since I was ten years old, when I marched around the schoolyard in fifth grade chanting “Jerry Brown! Jerry Brown!â€? and, later, played the part of Bill Clinton in a sixth-grade mock debate. At the age of 13, I threw my hands up in dismay when the GOP took over Congress. When I turned 18, I registered without hesitation as a Democrat. I proudly cast my ballot for Al Gore in 2000, and â€â€? somewhat less proudly â€â€? for John Kerry in 2004.”
If you read other posts you’ll find that Brendan’s mommy and daddy are also, Surprise Coming - Democrats. Very big Joe Lieberman supporters.
So now I read that a kid who voted for Gore and Kerry has chosen to vote for Democrats. I’m just astounded!
October 24th, 2006 at 3:21:08 pm
“Me? I’ll be voting for the Democrat for my local, hotly contested House race. (Heaven help the Democrats if Pelosi breaks her anti-impeachment pledge, because I’m depending on that, and they’ll lose my vote for a long, long time if they’re lying to me.)”
Heh. Good luck with that, let me know how it turns out.
October 24th, 2006 at 3:21:15 pm
Lojo,
Ah yes. I should have known.
October 24th, 2006 at 3:26:21 pm
Um, why would anyone in power care how you vote? If you’re not especially loyal, then your vote isn’t worth earning by any permanent change in policy. Policy change at the national level is very difficult, since you have to achieve consensus with millions of voters. The Republican Party, for example, has to build consensus with arrogant twentyish libertarians and church-going sixtyish schoolmarms who want their husband’s pensions protected. That’s very hard, as you might know if you’ve ever tried to build a consensus among more than about 5 people about anything more serious than what to have on the pizza.
No party would risk its governing coalition by altering national policy unless it could count on any new votes it gained through thick and thin. They would have to be reliable votes. They can’t merely be part of the vast fickle muddled middle, who say tra-la-la, my vote is not for sale, and I will not commit to anybody before two weeks before election day, if then. Those votes are essentially bought and sold in the few weeks before election day by the latest miniscandal, or an onslaught of talking heads on the tube. They’re worth spending advertising dollars on, yes, but not worth any kind of serious long-term recruitment.
It’s like this: if you recruit a bunch of guys to play on a hockey team, in a league, and one of them won’t commit, says he’ll come or not based on whether he liked the way everybody played during the last game — do you want this guy on the team? Do you move the practise times (pissing many of the other guys off) just to get him to sign up? Nah.
October 24th, 2006 at 3:31:26 pm
Oh and one more thing…. but for 2 heartbeats, Speaker Pelosi would then be President Pelosi. Somewhere out there is a BDS sufferer with the smarts to figure that out.
October 24th, 2006 at 3:34:03 pm
Brendan, you are a Democrat. That you are going to vote that way shouldn’t be a surprise to anybody who has read your blog for any length of time.
October 24th, 2006 at 3:37:52 pm
Brendan-
Thank you for an interesting issue and the sometimes overwrought comments it received. I know that some of the comments are simplistic and snarky but many of the comments have some serious points on the probable results of your “protest” vote. Things like chairmanships to people like Rangel and Waxman, the perception world-wide of America’s seriousness in the face of Islamic terror and the effect of new taxes on the economy.
What I was really wondering is if these serious comments have had any effect on your decision. Have the points resonated with you or have you already considered them in your original decision??
Thanks again for raising this issue in such a powerful way.
October 24th, 2006 at 3:51:08 pm
“Heaven help the Democrats if Pelosi breaks her anti-impeachment pledge, because I’m depending on that, and they’ll lose my vote for a long, long time if they’re lying to me.”
I agree with Liz; even if Nancy means it now, she won’t be able to keep her leadership position if she bucks the nutroots. (The nutroots have no power to elect anyone in the generals, but they’ve proven they can ensure the defeat of a non-BDS sufferer in a primary, so “Hard to Port, Ms. Pelosi! and load Impeachment Tubes 1, 2, 3, and 4!” will be the hue-and-cry from the Kos-committed).
OTOH, that’s a feature, not a bug, and something I’m counting on. Actual power is going to cause the engine of the Democratic Party to fly apart like an old Yugo revved to 10,000 RPM. Hopefully whatever replaces it in 2010 will be something actually constructed to 21st century tolerances. In the meantime, the Democrats as currently constituted will find their slim majority and their inability to play nicely with others will keep them from botching things too badly. With luck, this will destroy the nutroots, and in the process shake up the Republicans to the point that they actually start acting like Republicans again.
The next two years will be painful, but hopefully both parties come out stronger.
October 24th, 2006 at 3:54:03 pm
Brendan @ 07:15 - congrats on managing to astonish me !
You are customarily one of the more rational commenters here (in your own blog (grin)) and yet you surely kwaffed-the-klear-Kool-Aid on this one … Bandit covered the gist, in that most of the Dems listed are still deemed members in good standing of the current Dem leadership, whereas the GOP ones (interestingly enough referenced as a class but not specifically) are most likely resigned or prosecuted …
What astonished me was to see you going the “Well, the Republicans do it, too !” route …
October 24th, 2006 at 3:56:46 pm
Bill Quick is a fucking dipshit and so are you.
October 24th, 2006 at 3:58:54 pm
Brendan, you are a Democrat. That you are going to vote that way shouldn’t be a surprise to anybody who has read your blog for any length of time.
Heh. That’s funny, considering how many of my regular readers reacted to my divorce from the Democrat Party by telling me that I’m really a Republican, and have been for months if not years.
Truth is, I’m an independent. Whether my decision to vote Democrat for House is a surprise or not, well, that’s in the eye of the beholder, I suppose.
Anyway, I haven’t had a chance yet to read all these comments, and I’m in class right now, but I intend to post an update to the post later. Stay tuned.
October 24th, 2006 at 4:04:19 pm
This-explains quite a bit-
Brendan Loy-
October 24th, 2006 at 4:07:30 pm
a I fail to see what impeaching Bush at this time would actually accomplish. I mean yes the man is a total moron. But so is the vice president. And the idiots only have two years left, less by the time you go through the process. Much better to win the Senate and the house and try and stop the insanity.
October 24th, 2006 at 4:12:02 pm
I know this is a cliche, but you are “cutting off your nose to spite your face.” Take that, you stupid Republicans.
Unforunately, with National Security and the economy at stake, I can’t see voting for a Democrat, no matter how hard it is to vote for the Republican candidate.
October 24th, 2006 at 4:17:53 pm
Any rational person knows that there is no inherent moral virtue in Republicanism that makes them more likely to lie than Democrats, so extrapolating from your comments and grounding them in actual reality, rather than partisan la-la-land, “we can’t trust Democrats�
No -try again - GOPee-ers aren’t any less prone to lying thru their teeth than Dems BUT show me where the Dems have ever suffered the consequences for lying. Every election I still see Frank(D) on the menu and every third one I see Kennedy(D). Just explain where once a Dem has suffered the consequences of lying?
October 24th, 2006 at 4:20:35 pm
There is no such thing as voting against a party. All the parties understand is “mandate” - either a party has one, or it does not.
All the Dems will understand is “mandate” to govern as Dems. Either you want 2 years of Dems in the HofR, or you want 2 years of Reps. Pick one.
October 24th, 2006 at 4:21:48 pm
I can’t go along with the “teach ‘em a lesson” plan. For punitive discipline to work the one receiving the discipline must both understand the perceived wrong as well as the punishment. When talking about as large an organization as the Republican Party and as diverse a set of grievances as individual voters have this is impossible. Without understanding not only that they are being punished but also understanding why the “teach ‘em a lesson” plan looks more like spite than constructive action. In essense, you are willing to trade what you perceive to be poor behavior and actions by the Republicans for whatever the Democrats will do. In this choice the only relevent question is “will the Democrats do better or worse?”
Without a doubt, I see not only the spectre of endless investigations (payback for Clinton and 2000/2004 rolled into one) but the possibility of trying to act on their platform of turning Iraq into Act 2 of the Great American Retreat coupled with the do-nothing tax increase that is guaranteed by not continuing the Bush tax cuts makes a package that is much more distasteful then anything I’ve seen from the Republicans over the last four years.
October 24th, 2006 at 4:30:23 pm
One more thing: for a fair ways back in US and Canadian politics, the party that has grown lazy and corrupt in power hasn’t been turfed until the competition has recovered from its own previous hangover and offered up serious, constructive alternatives. This means the new governing party understands it has been rewarded at least in part for its new and useful ideas. This is an interesting experiment you propose: to reward the party currently out of power while it is in its “recovering alcoholic, pandering to the fringe” state.
October 24th, 2006 at 4:37:19 pm
How is a promise not to hold the office of the presidency accountable for treason a “good thing”? I guess when the majority of voters are republicans.
October 24th, 2006 at 4:55:19 pm
I’m not happy with the Republicans myself, so I won’t debate your overall stance. But I’ll address this one point -
“if Pelosi breaks her anti-impeachment pledge”
If? They’ll present some evidence they didn’t know about before (wink, wink), say they can’t ignore it, and go ahead. They’ll say saving the country is more important than a promise made with incomplete information.
“That’s a bit more important and weighty, and a bit more likely to turn into a ‘read my lips, no new taxes’ moment if she breaks it”
Not for the vast majority of Democrats. Other than yourself, of course.
I respectfully suggest that, on this point, it is you who are being unrealistic.
October 24th, 2006 at 4:58:28 pm
How can you vote for a Democrat(defacto pro-abortion)if you are a Catholic? Are you another one of those “Cafeteria Catholics” ( John Kerry, Mario Cuomo, et al..)
October 24th, 2006 at 4:59:40 pm
Brendan,
Your Freudian slip is showing. RE: #3 “You can list corrupt Democrats, I can list corrupt Democrats.” I just can’t believe nobody noticed before now!
October 24th, 2006 at 5:22:27 pm
Brendan, go ahead & vote for the dems. Conservatives don’t need you anyway. dems. will continue to lose because they abort the future crop of liberal lunatics. There is a silver lining to even the murder they perpetrate. Their poor unborn babies are better off in heaven than if they were raised to continue that shameful legacy.
October 24th, 2006 at 5:28:29 pm
Skeptic ! I don’t know how that one slipped by me, but it did !
ROTFLMFOWEST !
October 24th, 2006 at 5:32:55 pm
Adult intelligence tests used to ask examinees to define what is meant by a common saying. Brenden, what does the saying “Don’t cut off your nose to spite your face” mean?
October 24th, 2006 at 5:35:53 pm
I have come to the realization that the Republican Party is really the only option. Pelosi is clearly insane and will recklessly cripple this country. Why do Democrats hate freedom so much? They may have been tolerable in past years, but 9/11 changed everything.
Bush being impeached? Give me a break. He just did the best job he could do to defend this country. Bush didn’t lie like Clinton, he did what he had to do to preserve our liberties. It’s not like he constantly switched the rationale for invading Iraq. We “stayed the course.” The last thing we need is Democrats coming in and investigating so-called torture policies and the bungled handling of Iraq. We’re at WAR! You’re either with us or against us. Freedom must prevail.
Republicans have f***ed up this country over the last six years. Just look at what I believe now.
“Just explain where once a Dem has suffered the consequences of lying?
Bandit â€â€? Tuesday, October 24, 2006 @ 4:17:53 pm ”
Um, Clinton being impeached?
October 24th, 2006 at 5:48:07 pm
I am likely to agree with the sort of moves a Democratic Congress would likely make vis a vis social issues such as gay rights, stem-cell research, abstinence-only education, etc.
I don’t even care about those issues at the federal level. It’s all peanuts next to the looming Medicare and Social Security implosions. Taxes and spending are going to affect me a helluva lot more than anything else. Tied into that are the war and illegal immigration. As pissed as I am at Reps, the Dems fail on every one of those issues.
October 24th, 2006 at 5:56:14 pm
Brendan, what if they don’t seek to impeach him, but simply run out investigation after investigation after investigation as Sam Donaldson reported this past Sunday? I believe that the Democrats are trying to hamstring and hinder Bush and they could do that almost as effectively without impeaching him. Would that get you mad and lose your vote? How about another Plame investigation? WMD? Katrina? Stolen election in Fla ‘02? Stolen election in Ohio ‘04? etc.
Don’t be fooled ,the Pelosi pledge is a dodge. Consider it before you vote.
October 24th, 2006 at 5:56:55 pm
OK I apologize-I didn’t know he was a Democrat to start with…but honestly-you believe that Pelosi won’t be moved to break her promise?
The Democrats have all but promised the party faithful (that got there before you) open uthat they will *investigations*.
The party faithful-that have paid their dues with the Democrats are not going to be threatened by the late comers.
Let see the comment I made about Brendan being young-well-I know plenty of younger kids who through experience have become less enthralled with the Democrats.
College Democrats actually paid to have Al Franken come and give a speech at their school. They were very excited and had a lot of detailed and varied questions to ask him.
To make the story short the College Democrats actually went up to the College Republicans and apologized because they were *shocked* by how unserious and unprepared he was.
That isthe Democratic party.
October 24th, 2006 at 6:18:13 pm
Well, got to hand it to you Brendan, you know how to generate traffic.
And, maybe all that time as a Dem has left you a little, almost, dare I say…deceitful ;-) A post titled “Not voting Republican” implies that that was your original intent (voting Republican). Correct me if I’m wrong.
I know my own partisan biases make this hard to evaluate, but I do believe on average that Repubs are more honest than Dems. R’s certainly are more straightforward on what they believe in. D’s try to make you believe they stand for things that they don’t (ex: Michael Moore’s foundation has/had investments in Halliburton).
BTW, here is Honest Abe Pelosi:
“…I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. … Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons.” 2002
“The President led us into the Iraq war on the basis of unproven assertions without evidence; he embraced a radical doctrine of pre-emptive war unprecedented in our history…” Tuesday, January 20, 2004
October 24th, 2006 at 6:23:08 pm
Brendan, go ahead & vote for the dems. Conservatives don’t need you anyway.
This is the sort of rhetoric I got from an awful lot of liberals when I blew a gasket after Lieberman lost the primary. At the time, conservatives’ comments were a lot more logical and reasonable… but of course, I was saying stuff they agreed with. I guess the “we don’t need you anyway” line of argumentation/insults/bullying isn’t unique to the Left, after all. There’s an awful lot of ugly partisanship and irrationality in the comments on this thread.
October 24th, 2006 at 6:29:55 pm
A post titled “Not voting Republican� implies that that was your original intent (voting Republican). Correct me if I’m wrong.
You’re wrong. :) I can see why you’d think that, but it’s honestly not the case. I titled it that way because my original intent was to talk about Bill Quick’s post (and InstaPundit’s post and the Insta/Sully snipe-fest). I only added my own voting plans as an afterthought — and then, after writing that paragraph, I thought, “Gee, InstaPundit might like this,” so I e-mailed him. The rest is history. But none of that played into my decision in titling the post.
As for my “original intent”… I didn’t have an original intent, to vote either Republican or Democrat. I was on the fence, wanting to vote for the Democrat but dreading the possibility of having an impeachment on my hands. Pelosi’s comments swung me in favor of the Democrat. (As I’ve stated in earlier posts, for me, “all politics is national.” I’m not voting between Chocola and Donnelly, really — I’m voting between a Dem majority and a GOP majority. That’s how I think of it.)
October 24th, 2006 at 6:33:36 pm
Brendan, it’s like this: If Representative Pelosi should become Speaker of the House (God forbid!), she would be second in line if anything should happen to the President. Any loony left politically-motivated impeachment hearings would no doubt include BOTH President Bush and Vice-President Cheney. If they both should be removed, what happens then? President Pelosi. She could beat Hillary! to the title of first woman President under that scenario. Scary, but true.
I don’t trust her as far as I could throw her.
October 24th, 2006 at 6:41:19 pm
No Brendan. You were deceitful. You make your post sound like you’ve always voted Republican when, in fact, according to your other posts on this site, you’ve voted Dem. Anybody who voted for Kerry has to be a strong liberal because Kerry is a closet socialist who collaberated with the North Vietnamese. Some people call that treason.
You gat mad at the Dems only 2 months ago, and ONLY because Lieberman lost the primary. If he’d won, you’d still be a happy Dem. with the exception of Iraq, Lieberman is a died in the wool liberal - supporting every silly thing they come up with and taxing us to death.
So now, less than 2 months after proclaiming your “divorce”from teh Dem party, you proudly declare that the Republicans have “let you down” and you’ve voted to “punish” them. Wrong! Nothing’s changed in that time. You just came home to roost.
October 24th, 2006 at 6:51:46 pm
“In any event, I am confident that Bush will be able to react as needed to a genuine crisis (say, another 9/11 or an Iranian nuke going off somewhere) without Democratic obstructionism, because when such things happen, even Pelosi & co. will put country before party.”
That’s where we differ. I don’t want the President to react to an Iranian nuke going off. I want it to be prevented.
October 24th, 2006 at 6:59:06 pm
Johnboy, that’s not true at all. Show me where I “make [my] post sound like [I’ve] always voted Republican.” You inferred, I did not imply. I have never been dishonest about my political leanings — and it would be foolish to do so, since they’re all right here on my blog!
Anyway, if you actually read my post about “divorcing” the Democratic Party, you’d know that it’s not “ONLY because Lieberman lost the primary.” That was just the “last straw.” In any event, I never pledged to vote for Republicans from here on out, nor did I pledge never to vote for Dems again - I simply said I was an independent, that I wouldn’t institutionally associate myself with either party anymore, or call myself a “Democrat” (or a “Republican”). So it’s ridiculous for you to pretend like this decision to vote Democratic in a particular election is somehow a betrayal of my previous “divorce” from Dems. It’s not. At all.
In short, your calling me “deceitful” is a low personal attack. There is NO basis for it. I’m being completely honest in expressing myself here. You right-wing idiots (not all of you, just the ones who are being overly partisan and personally abusive) are being just as vile as the crazies from Kosworld, from whom I expect such nonsense. I disagree with you politically on something, so you attack me personally and respond with emotional, irrational anti-Democratic vitriol. For shame. You are a pox on the body politic, just like they are. And that’s precisely why I’m an independent — I don’t want to be associated with the partisan idiots on either side.
Svolich, I want it to be prevented, too. Duh. But I don’t think EITHER party has a viable plan for preventing it. Bush’s plan has FAILED. North Korea has nukes and Iran is about to get one. The Dems don’t have any better ideas. Nobody has any ideas for how to fix it. So, how is that an argument for voting Republican??
October 24th, 2006 at 7:14:49 pm
A vote for the Democratic Party is a vote for Alcee Hastings. Congratulations. The Rebublican Party is better without you.
October 24th, 2006 at 7:18:55 pm
I am very sorry that you want to act so foolishly. The very least we should do is vote Republican with the hope that a near loss will reform them. It is not worth the risk to let a Democrat controlled legislative body go after the President. A Democrat Senate would just tear apart most nominations to the courts. I and my house will not go there.
October 24th, 2006 at 7:25:37 pm
The Rebublican Party is better without you.
Again with the vitriol. If you think I’m wrong, why not try to persuade me, instead of insulting me? I am deeply disappointed to hear this rhetoric coming from InstaPundit readers, who I’ve never found to be anything but reasonable and decent in the past. I guess that was only when I was agreeing with them. Looks like you guys are just as bad the Left when people deviate from your own personal “party line.” Pity.
October 24th, 2006 at 7:26:18 pm
And you have not answered this question by #79 SirPatrick: How can you vote for a Democrat(de facto pro-abortion) if you are a catholic ?
October 24th, 2006 at 7:31:09 pm
From what did you conclude that I am a Catholic? Or did you merely assume?
I am an agnostic who was raised sorta-kinda-Catholic, never confirmed, and was married by a sorta-kinda-Catholic “priest” (see here for details). I do not make political decisions on the basis of Catholicism, and indeed, I disagree with the Vatican on a lot of things. I personally oppose abortion in most circumstances, but I favor a woman’s legal right to choose for various reasons unrelated to any religious beliefs. I have no desire to get into an abortion debate here, but since you asked, now you know.
Now, let me ask you a question. What practical significance does a House candidate’s views on abortion have? It’s the Senate that confirms judges. It’s the state legislatures and governors that will decide the legality of abortion if Roe v. Wade is overturned. I fail to see how the House would ever become involved. And all I’m talking about here is the House race; as I said, Indiana’s Senate race is basically uncontested, and there IS no Democratic candidate for me to vote for.
Why would you — why would anyone — decide whom to vote for in the House based on their views on abortion? Aren’t there about a thousand more issues, including “Catholic” issues, that are more relevant?
October 24th, 2006 at 7:39:48 pm
I don’t insult you. You sure are a bit thin-skinned. But you have’nt answered about Alcee Hastings.
October 24th, 2006 at 7:41:17 pm
In the end, Pelosi’s pledge is only as good as her ability to remain leader and become speaker. Given where the base of the Democrats are, they would probably vote not vote for her as speaker if she won’t agree to impeachment in the afterglow of electoral victory.
October 24th, 2006 at 7:44:44 pm
You misunderstand me, dom. I’m not personally offended by your comments, so it’s not a matter of being “thin-skinned.” I just find it deeply unfortunate that your response (and the response of various others above) is, “The Republican Party is better without you.” That’s precisely the sort of attitude I got from the Left when I wrote my rant against the Democrats back in August. Back then, lots of conservatives from InstaPundit and elsewhere criticized the liberals for being so uncivil and treating anyone who disagrees as the political enemy, easily cast off and mocked. Now you guys are doing the exact same thing, for the exact same reason, instead of recognizing that, hey, I’m a moderate, I’m a swing voter, I am — in fact — precisely the kind of voter the Republican Party does need! It’s sad. By noting that you’re insulting me, I’m just calling a spade a spade, not expressing vast personal outrage.
October 24th, 2006 at 7:45:25 pm
P.S. I’m not happy about Alcee Hastings. But I need to look into that further. I only just found out about it today. I don’t like it, but I’m not sure it single-handedly switches me into the Republican column.
October 24th, 2006 at 8:04:58 pm
You’re not a moderate swing voter. You amy well think that you are. And in a university type setting, you may well APPEAR to be the voice of reason and moderation. But you aren’t. That’s cool. Lots of good people are lefty-liberals. They’re good people who just have different priorities than me and see the world differently than I do. Just have some honesty — self-honesty — about who you are.
Here’s my problem when you stomp your feet on the ground and cry “I hate you!” at the nearest Republican elected official: You made a great big show just a few months ago about how the Dems let you down and that they weren’t your party anymore. Now, you go all dramatic on us and tell us: “I’m not voting for a single one of those vile Republicans. I’m voting Democrat!” Which way will the wind blow tomorrow in your neighborhood? Wild vacillations do not make one a centrist — no matter how many times the pendulum swings through that particular point.
October 24th, 2006 at 8:11:15 pm
In response to WA (Say WA???)
Spiteful idiots like you will do far more damage to the nation than you realize.
President Bush comes with Cheney, Rumsfeld, Haster, etc.
Do you honestly believe that 2 years of right wing facists running loose the government will be easily reversed?
You are an idiot - and I blame the upciming economic collapse on you.
WA, when the dictatorship comes, I’ll be sure to make you one of the first up against the wall.
See, its fun to take the most extreme partisan position possible :D
October 24th, 2006 at 8:12:46 pm
…in a university type setting, you may well APPEAR to be the voice of reason and moderation. But you aren’t. That’s cool. Lots of good people are lefty-liberals.
That’s funny, considering my Republican/conservative friends — people who know me well — are always telling me I’m moving closer and closer to “their” side, and my Democratic/liberal friends — people who know me well — are always telling me they don’t think I’m really a liberal/Democrat anymore. I guess I should ignore their impressions, and my own, and trust random InstaPundit readers’ impressions based on a single post.
you stomp your feet on the ground and cry “I hate you!â€? at the nearest Republican elected official … you go all dramatic on us and tell us: “I’m not voting for a single one of those vile Republicans.â€?
I did not say either of those things. Please try again, with a valid argument based on things I actually said. Thanks. (Hint: I revealed my vote for my local U.S. House race. That’s it. And I didn’t say I hate anyone.)
I suppose you think Bill Quick is a “lefty-liberal” too?
Really, it’s HILARIOUS that InstaPundit readers are now calling me a liberal. HILARIOUS. After all these months of being called a Republican, it’s refreshing to know I can still rile up both sides. This just confirms that I really am a moderate/centrist, after all.
October 24th, 2006 at 8:15:32 pm
That will be a good thing for you seeing which kind of crooks you are going to be associated with when you are voting Democrat. Even if that does’nt switch you “into the republican column”.
October 24th, 2006 at 8:25:00 pm
How can you vote for a Democrat(defacto pro-abortion)if you are a Catholic? Are you another one of those “Cafeteria Catholics� ( John Kerry, Mario Cuomo, et al..)
Well since Brendan has pointed out above he is not really a Catholic, not practicing atleast, and well, I am, and also have voted for and will likely in the future vote for Democrats (i’ve also voted for Republicans, albeit not as often) I’ll take this one up.
First, as Brendan points out, given the position he is aspiring too I think voting for a Democrat in this case is going to have little to no effect on the abortion debate.
Second, shockingly there are those of us who base our electoral decisions on MORE THAN ONE ISSUE. Yes you could point out the abortion issue as a major one, but then i’d point you right back to thing like capital punishment, social justice, minimum wage, etc. There are a myriad of important issues to consider as a Catholic based on ones faith. How can you, Sir Patrick, as a Catholic vote for a Republican who supports capital punishment, which according to the teachings of the Church is just as wrong as abortion? How can you vote for a Republican who doesn’t support a minimum wage that supports a persons actually being able to live above the poverty line? See, i can point to various issues that Republicans fail and fail miserably from a Catholic perspective too.
Honestly as far as i’m concerned NEITHER party does a perfect job of aligning their values with mine. So what do I do? I pick the one that i feel is the better fit. Now you may feel that abortion is such an important issue that it overrides other issues, and thats fine, thats your choice, but frankly i think its ridiculous for you or anyone to use single issues like that when there are plenty of other issues that should be considered. Especially in a case where the candidates stance on the issue is completely irrelevant to the position they will be in should they win.
October 24th, 2006 at 8:35:44 pm
Unforunately, with National Security and the economy at stake, I can’t see voting for a Democrat, no matter how hard it is to vote for the Republican candidate.
Frankly I can’t see how you can vote for a Republican given their abject failure over the past 6 years to do anything to actually improve national security. Lets take a look shall we?
Iraq War - A quagmire based on trumped up intelligence, where the President ignored warnings of its questionable nature, that has led to a decrease in available troops, a waste of billions of dollars, and decreased the likelihood of cooperation and goodwill from foreign allies. A war that even our own intelligence estimates say has created a terrorist breeding ground.
Afghanistan - An initial success that has seen setbacks (increased Taliban presence, resurgency of other anti-American, anti-West factions) largely due to the unavailbility of adequate troops (see Iraq War for reasons why).
Osama bin Ladin - The mastermind behind the worst terrorist act commited against this country, still at large
Port Security - Still woefully underfunded
Homeland Security - Due to what can only be seen as incompetence, midwest cities with little strategic significance were granted more federal funding than potential terrorist targets such as New York, DC, L.A., Seattle, etc.
Warrentless wiretaps, secret prisons, torture etc - Programs who the President claims are necessary for our national security with little to n