"I have found it difficult in the past several weeks to reach a conclusion as to what a citizen should do with respect to this fall's forthcoming congressional elections. I am a Republican, intend to remain a Republican, and am descended from three generations of California Republicans, active in Merced and San Bernardino Counties as well as in the San Francisco Bay Area... It has been difficult, nevertheless, to conclude as I have, that the Republican House leadership has been so unalterably corrupted by power and money that reasonable Republicans should support Democrats against DeLay-type Republican incumbents in 2006. Let me try to explain why..."Good reasons, good read, good man. Left of center blogs like Stupid Evil Bastard, Seeing The Forest, Huffington Post, and Suburban Guerilla, take note and find reason for confidence in the prospects for November. But Pete McCloskey is too easy to dismiss. For many Republicans, he is the ultimate RINO, as he supported Kerry for President in 2004. Moreover, he was just soundly defeated in a quixotic attempt to unseat incumbent Richard Pombo in the CD-11 Republican primary, and can be easily painted the color of sour grapes.
More difficult to dismiss is uber-conservative William Buckley, who was complaining last week on CBS that George W Bush is not a real conservative:
"I think Mr. Bush faces a singular problem best defined, I think, as the absence of effective conservative ideology — with the result that he ended up being very extravagant in domestic spending, extremely tolerant of excesses by Congress," Buckley says. "And in respect of foreign policy, incapable of bringing together such forces as apparently were necessary to conclude the Iraq challenge."
Asked what President Bush's foreign policy legacy will be to his successor, Buckley says "There will be no legacy for Mr. Bush. I don't believe his successor would re-enunciate the words he used in his second inaugural address because they were too ambitious. So therefore I think his legacy is indecipherable"
David Broder takes the search for disgruntled Republicans to a new level. He does not even need to walk out the door to find one. He has a disgruntled Republican as a houseguest and writes about it in hs Washington Post column:
"My weekend visitor was one of the founders of the postwar Republican Party in the South, one of those stubborn men who challenged the Democratic rule in his one-party state. .. "They spend like fools, they run up the deficits and they refuse to give a raise to the working people who are struggling. How the hell are you supposed to live on $5.15 an hour these days?"
"If it wasn't for Pelosi," he said, "I'd just as soon the Democrats take over this fall. Get some checks and balances and teach these guys a lesson."
"If it wasn't for Pelosi..." In other words - No matter how far the Republicans have strayed from bedrock "limited government" conservative principles, no matter how rampant the corruption, no matter how important it is to restore checks and balance between the executive and legislative branches, the disgruntled Republican cannot get past these words: "Speaker of House - Nancy Pelosi." And if the disgruntled Republican cannot get past those words, then when the disgruntled Republican gets in the voting booth in November, the disgruntled Republican is going to vote Republican.
This then is the problem for Democrats in November:
From the Brodie column again:
"In the past two elections -- 2002 and 2004 -- Karl Rove, Ken Mehlman and the rest of the Republican leaders demonstrated a superior ability to locate and turn out their voters. But in neither of those years did they face the formidable barriers in place this year, starting with the weariness with the war in Iraq. The last thing they need is the disaffection now being displayed in their own ranks. This looms as the supreme test of their political skills."
Evans Novak Political Report - The Absurd Report
Republicans Ace in the Hole - Mike's America
Did I wake up and its November already? - Carolina Conservative
Note, I am not commenting on Nancy Pelosi, her politics, or fitness for the role of Speaker of the House. I am merely observing that she is a hurdle for conservatives and disgruntled Republicans who would otherwise be reluctant to continue supporting this crop of big government, big spending Republicans. There are two possible cures for this particular electoral virus. The first cure is the divided government voting strategy - which can innoculate the conservative voter against this Roveian infection, with the white blood cells of historically documented fact: Divided government restrains government spending. I submit, that the divided government rationale can get conservatives over the Pelosi hurdle, essentially givng conservatives permission to vote Democrat. The reason for conservatives to vote Democrat in '06 is purely to cast a tactical vote to secure the objective of restraining spending thorugh the documented mechanism of divided government. Conservatives should also recognize that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is not as so bad, when you consider the other cure:
My preference ...