Thursday, September 14, 2006
GOP loss in 2006 -- a victory for conservatives?
The Washington Monthly has an interesting feature this month, in which six prominent conservatives make the case -- compellingly, cogently, and passionately -- that a GOP defeat this November is the outcome that would most favor conservative government. The National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru made a similar argument in the New York Times earlier this week. I do think that conservative government would be better served by divided government -- a divided government can accomplish less, and the less government does, the better ...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I would agree, but not while we're fighting the Jihadists. If the Dems were at all serious about national security, I would love to see some gridlock.
But with majorities in Congress Dems will cut funding for the war effort, attempt to impeach the President, and otherwise undermine a war effort against an enemy they don't think exists, or is a serious threat.
Further, if people thought they were bad about blocking qualified conservative federal judges before by refusing to cast cloture votes, just wait until they can block candidates outright with an up or down vote.
If this were Harry Truman's Democratic party, I would be all for it. But the looney left has taken over the party, and the damage they could cause in two years is not something I'm willing to cast my vote for, even if it would benefit conservatism in the long term.
The problem is that many Democrats would prevent the President from even looking at the conveyor belt of threats. If John Kerry had won, and had kept all of his promises regarding surveillance programs and national security, there's simply no reasonable doubt that those airliners over the Atlantic would have been destroyed this summer. The programs that uncovered it have been overtly attacked by Dems for years. And that is a threat I think is unacceptable.
I'm fine with oversight, but not with irresponsible oversight. And the current MoveOn.org Democrats are simply not responsible. The current "threats" to our civil liberties just aren't. Anyone who thinks the USA PATRIOT Act or the Religious Right are bigger threats to us that Islamo-Fascism (or even in the same ballpark, league, or sport) just isn't looking at all the facts, and cannot be trusted with our national security. And that unfortunately is the current state of the Howard Dean led loyal opposition.
It's a one issue election for me - who's serious about killing the enemy, and keeping them at arms length? If you don't have that, you have nothing.
But even beyond the security issues that are my concern, this article does a fantastic job rebutting the assumption that a Dem victory in 2006 would be anything but a disaster for small government, low taxes, or spending reform.
There is plenty to be frustrated with about the current GOP. But they and their many imperfections are better for America - both at home and abroad - than the current Democratic party in power in congress would be.
Post a Comment