Ours is but to do or die?
. . . and water to go along with all those lemons we’ve been handed over the course of this primary can be found in Ben Domenech’s post over at Ricochet. He makes a strong case for the importance of conservatives remaining engaged rather than allowing apathy to keep them at home on Election Day and provides some much-needed motivation. We might as well face up to the fact that the presidential campaign isn’t going to provide a great deal of satisfaction for conservatives — at least not if things continue down the path they’re currently on. But, at the same time, it would be foolish to allow our disenchantment to rob us of perfectly good opportunities to advance the cause of conservatism, for which Ben helpfully provides examples:
To set the scene: The Democrats are defending horrid ground this cycle, truly horrid. They have seven open seats to defend, including two—replacing Nebraska Cornhusker Kickback King Ben Nelson and liberal bichon frise lover Kent Conrad of North Dakota—which are, barring the arrival of a sweet meteor of death, almost assured to end up in the Republican column.
And for the Republicans, the opposite is true – they have just two open seats to defend. The first is in the strongly red Texas to replace Kay Bailey Hutchison (where the powerful and rich as Croesus Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst is the significant favorite over rising conservative star and Tea Party favorite Ted Cruz). The second is in the significantly red Arizona, where Republican Congressman Jeff Flake is the near-certain victor, to replace conservative stalwart Jon Kyl.
Domenech goes on to highlight the five most important Senate races in this cycle, and the post is well worth the time and effort to read the whole thing. Not only will it do your heart some good, it’ll give you something to think about and focus your mind on something other than earnest prayers for the swift arrival of the SMOD.
Now, I understand that not all of the Republican candidates listed in the piece fall into the conservative category. In the case of Massachusetts, one would be hard pressed to come up with a convincing rationale for Bay State conservatives to show in support of Scott Brown. As I mentioned in the comments in reply to Truman North (who was kind enough to take a moment away from the moron hordes over at Ace of Spades HQ thanks to the beneficence of rdbrewer, who put a link to my last post on this subject in the sidebar), Brown’s conservative credentials were heavily oversold in the effort to gain national support in order to get him elected.
As much as I’ve railed against the GOP establishment in recent months, it’s not because I oppose “the establishment” in general. In fact, sometimes the establishment actually gets it right — hard as that may be to believe under the current circumstances. And, as far as I’m concerned, they got it right when they decided to make Scott Brown’s election a priority. After all, while it may not seem like it most of the time, the truth is that it’s better to have Brown occupying that Senate seat than to have Martha Coakley sitting in it for life. If nothing else, having a Republican holding that spot conditions Massachusetts voters to vote less reflexively for Democrats. And that can only be a good thing when we have a guy like Sean Bielat running for a House seat in such deep-blue territory.
Senate races — or White House races for that matter — don’t occur in a vacuum. Competitive races always come down to who is able to deliver their people to the polls. And when candidates in state-wide races are able to turn out their voters, people running on the same ticket in House districts tend to benefit from that higher turnout. So, in effect, the question for conservatives is whether or not it’s worth getting behind a guy like Scott Brown if it means you’ll have a better chance of getting a guy like Sean Bielat elected. More to the point, are conservatives doing themselves any favors in punishing a guy like Brown if it means a guy like Bielat will suffer the consequences?
That’s not such an easy question. There is a strong and eminently understandable desire among conservatives to deliver a reckoning to the GOP establishment given all that’s transpired over the course of the presidential primary. And there’s a perfectly reasonable case to be made for doing whatever it takes to make their wretched lives miserable for the pure satisfaction of seeing them brought down on Election Day for their treachery.
Unfortunately, Romney and his supporters have shown no sign that they care what conservatives in the Republican Party think. Romney’s scorched-earth campaign tactics against Newt Gingrich and the dismissive, snide treatment Romney’s apologists have given anyone who dares question The Mitt Romney’s conservatism (I’m looking at you, Ann Coulter and David Frum) doesn’t bode well for conservatives who hope Romney will listen to them. Furthermore, voting for Romney will hardly make him want to listen to conservatives. If anything, it will show that Romney can take conservatives for granted and still earn their votes.
Regardless of the ultimate results come November, the one thing that is certain at this point is that pro-Romney forces — whether you want to call them The Establishment or not — have needlessly and likely irreparably complicated what could and should have been a follow-up to the electoral rout of 2010. And through it all, they’ve draped themselves in the finery of sophisticates: The arbiters of electability, possessed of a knowledge denied those of us who toil in obscurity.
Well, we’ll just have to see about that. In the meantime, we can make an affirmative statement of principle by making a strong show of support for those candidates who represent our ideals. If it works to the benefit of an establishment flunky here and there, that’s fine. And if it doesn’t, that’s fine too. The important thing is that we get conservatives elected wherever we can, and in doing so, demonstrate that genuine conservatism and electability aren’t mutually exclusive concepts — contrary to the assertions of our betters.
smod 2012…according to the mayans it’s a done deal.
Y2k conga!
I just read that Gingrich is holding a press conference tonight at 11 PM, after the NV caucus. It would seem that he is going to suspend his campaign also. Santorum can’t compete against Romney, he will the next to suspend shortly I’m sure. That leaves the nation, after only 5 contests, with the same choices I have here in VA. Romney and Paul. I am about to puke or get drunk, and then puke again.
It is time to tell the Country Club Repubs where to put their chosen candidate.
If they both drop… its going to get interesting.
Republicans basically had a choice between a true conservative (as much as anyone, including Ronald Reagan) in Rick Perry and a man who is a soulless political whore with no chore beliefs, Mitt Romney (the same cannot be said about Obama: he at least sticks by his beliefs, misguided as they are). They chose the latter and now come election day I’m supposed to vote for Romney because he is a vote against Obama? My answer is republicans deserve Obama. Also, due to my personal convictions I cannot vote *for* a charlatan like Romney. That’s a very difficult thing for pragmatists to understand. But morals, convictions, beliefs and faith is all that I, an individual voter, possess. Also, since we elected all these new Tea Party congressmen the federal deficit in 2011 was greater than the two years prior. I’ll stay home in November 2012. I think Obama should own all the pain that is yet to come.
Andy Pandy, I understand [fully] how you feel. Romney, as well as Gingrich, is what is wrong with the current GOP. But I would ask you to consider this: what are the ramifications of leaving Obama in office? We would still have Eric Holder and things like the DoJ Civil Rights division that refused to prosecute the New Black Panthers, and if Fast and Furious is not reason enough to want to get rid of Holder, nothing would be. And don’t think that Issa can get rid of Holder. Issa’s investigation has been going on for ONE YEAR, and still, the DoJ stonewalls the Congressional investigative committee. Holder should have been prosecuted long before now for failure to cooperate with the Issa committee.
We will still have Janet Napolitano, who is the most inept human being to every walk the face of the earth, and who has made a mockery of DHS. Kathleen Sebilius will still be issuing her pro-abortion mandates. And while both Hillary and Geithner have said they will leave after the first time, we will wind up with someone equally disasterous, or worse.
It’s not just Obama we must rid this nation of, but his entire band of Merry Marxists. I cannot imagine that Romeny, or Gingrich for that matter, would be as bad.
The difference I see in Romney, who I despise, and Gingrinch, who I also despise, is this: Romney has no spine, and seems more malleable, subject to cave under pressure. This, with a Republican controlled House and Senate, could be a good thing. Newt, otoh, tends to dig his heels in, even when wrong, telling people that since he [thinks he] is the smartest man on earth, they are just wrong and should give him his head.
The choice of what to do, as a conservative, will be a difficult one.
I agree with YOU Andy Pandy. And also those who say a vote for Romney is a vote to show Romney and the GOP elite establishment that he/they can just continue to take us grassroots conservatives for granted. It will just encourage them to steamroller us in their continuing comfy big government agenda and won’t upset any of their established seats at the table.
Meanwhile, while I will, in all likelyhood, either abstain from voting for President or vote for a write-in candidate, I’m involved here in my own district in the re-election of my excellent Republican Congressman Scott Garrett. If you know anything about him he is one of the MOST conservative members of the House, (not only voted but led the group in the house who voted AGAINST the Bushie’s TARP bill), but a right-hand man to Paul Ryan on the Budget Committee. Formerly a shoe-in here in the conservative northwest corner of our State, Garrett’s district has been redrawn this year and now included a largely Democrat portion of the State. So we Garrett supporters can’t rest upon our laurels this time around.
This, for me, is one of the ”down ticket” MUSTS on the ticket this year and all of us supporting him are urging our conservative fellows to please make sure to get to the polls to support Garrett.
Meanwhile the Romney steam roller machine has made sure they don’t need our votes by the primary gets to our State, in June, so why should we support someone for whom we did NOT get a chance to vote in the primary????? Guess the Romneybots should be sure to get the votes of the people in New Hampshire and Florida who chose him. Apparently the GOP primary rules made sure that we, here in New Jersey had no say in the matter. So why should we support a few voters in other only a few other States in the general????
P.S. Don’t be fooled by those undercover Romneybots who try, now, to beat us about the head telling us we MUST vote for the pre-annointed Republican candidate, Romney, in the General because not doing so is a vote for Obama. It is NOT a vote for Obama. Abstention from voting for either/or is simply a real conservatives way of saying “I cannot, in all good conscience, vote for either of the above”!
ladyczarina, you looking to start another flame war by referring to “those undercover Romneybots who try, now, to beat us around the head” when everyone knows who you are talking about?
If you want to give the election to Obama, and see a continuation of the Obama, Holder, Napalitano cabal, fine, do it. Just remember, elections are won, or lost, on vote count, not your false sense of honor and sticking it to the “establishment.” Obama is hoping for millions, just like you.
I’m so glad you will be able to feel good about keeping your honor and integrity by allowing Obama another 4 years to decimate this country.
In January of 2013 the Bush tax cuts expire and all our taxes will shoot up. Do you really think a 2nd term president Obama will have any motivation to not just let them expire when he faces no more election cycles?
Retiring Supreme Court Justices in the next 4 years will likely be liberals. Obama will replace them with other liberals. But even a moderate GOP president like Romney will nominate justices that, if not as conservative as we like, would be more conservative than the libs Obama will put in place. Romney nominations to the SCOTUS could change the makeup of this country for decades.
Think about it.. or not. Your choice.
The only supreme who will be retiring in the near future might be Ginsburg. In which case if Obama were President he would replace one liberal with another liberal. And if Romney were President he could do like Bush did and seek the advice of his good friend John Sununu as to whom he should replace her with. I mean, how did THAT turn out for us…….
ladyczarina, which Bush are you referring to? Bush I who gave us Justice Souter, but also gave us Justice Clarence Thomas, or Bush II who gave us Sam Alito and John Roberts?
Souter was considered a “swing” vote. But Thomas is predictably one of the most conservative, Constitutional orignalists on the court. I would rate the justices, from right to left, as Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts, Kennedy, Sotomayer and Kagan (tied) with Ginsburg being the most farthest left. Without the Bushes, we would not have had Thomas, Alito or Roberts.
Ginsburg is the oldest, at 78 with Kennedy and Scalia at 75. Three years. If Kennedy retires, you can bet that Obama will appoint another far left liberal on the court. That would give us a left/right split of 5/4. Scalia has said he has no intention of retiring anytime soon.
There is an excellent article in The American Spectator on this subject written by Geoffrey Norman. He describes the situation perfectly.
Sorry…. the title of the article is ”The Last Republican”.
ladyczarina, read your referenced article. And while it pointed out how bad Romney would be for this nation, if he takes the nomination and then the general election, no where does the author compare the alternative. I am sick of those who tell us we should not vote for one guy because their guy is so much better, but never tell us why their guy is so much better.
Do you really think that Romney would attack the Catholic Church as brutally as we have seen the Obama administration do in the last fews days, to the point that when Catholic bishops finally stood up to this administration, and issed a letter to all parishes, the military hiarchy, who are required to follow Oval Office directives, banned all Catholic chaplains from reading the letter in services this Sunday? Do you think that Romney’s Middle Eastern policy would be the abstract failure of the Obama policy, which is now giving us an Egypt controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood, a threat no only to Israel, but us as well?
I will ask you the same question I asked myself: if Romney takes the nomination, and I pray he does not, am I willing to do nothing and allow Obama a second term? That is the question being put to you. And if you think that Obama cannot do even more, and greater, damage in his second term, well then, you don’t know history.
It is really ticking me off that Newt and Santorum are still in …and are saying tonight they will stay in……
Neither of them have CLOSE to the qualifications, character, experience of Perry. It makes Perry’s early exit harder to take. WHY did he quit so soon? Soooo dispiriting.
Count me out for voting for Romney. I’ll “under-vote” meaning I’ll go to the polls and vote on the ticket below POTUS. If we continue to train the establishment that they can choose our candidates and force us to vote out of fear then we get what we deserve.
It is all about power. Those in power, Republican or Democrat want to keep it. If they put in their hand-picked make no waves candidate, they get to stay there. Things rock along a little to the right and then a little to the left. I want to go in and clean out the sewer. Term Limits is the answer. Let none of them stay long enough to make it a career. That includes their staffs and political appointees.
As for Obama’s re-election: If we have the House and the Senate which I believe we surely will, then we just tie the administration up in investigations like Clinton’s 2nd term. There are plenty of things already in the works. Fast and Furious, Crony appointments that then reaped bailout funds. Holder is probably a goner anyway.
I’m not going to be bullied out of fear to vote for someone that is only different in Obama by degrees. With Romney this country is still going to be Greece but just at a slower pace. Frankly, I just soon get it over with so we can start cleaning up the mess.
A GOP House and Senate can do nothing to extend the Bush tax cuts. They will expire on January 1st, 2013 without one line of legislation.
A GOP Senate cannot block Supreme Court nominations forever.
Otherwise you are correct.
Yes Rio2010. That is exactly why the GOP establishment pre-annointed Romney. Because he won’t rock their boat. And this, in addition, is why the GOP establishment, as well as the Dem establishment, made sure to crush Perry before he even had a real chance to get his campaign started. His ”I’m going to take a wrecking ball to Washington” scared them all to death. So he had to be cut off at the knees! So I say…. let those who like the status quo vote as they please and those of us who would like to have someone like Perry be able to successfully run in for 2016. Meanwhile those who want to vote for Romney or Obama can get what they want…. the status quo for 8 more years or the status quo for 4 more years. Doesn’t make much difference to some of us who prefer neither.