Conservative Battle Fatigue? The Responses Just Keep Rolling In
NRO's Jim Geraghty does the campaign research and finds extensive and credible evidence of the horrendous consequences of Democratic ascendancy following the November elections and draws the conclusion that it is foolhardy for conservatives to do anything that helps the other side win.
Jim has thus provided the best articulation I've yet read of the Rovian argument that the country simply cannot afford to let the Demcorats back in power. Read and heed, as virtually everything he says is almost unchallengeably true:
"If the GOP base doesn't show up in Minnesota, you get Amy Klobuchar instead of Mark Kennedy (90 rating lifetime, 84 in 2005).
"If the GOP base doesn't show in Maryland, you get Ben Cardin (lifetime rating of 6, 2005 rating of 0!) or Kweise Mfume (lifetime ACU rating of 4) instead of Michael Steele.
"If the GOP base doesn't show in Tennessee, you get Harold Ford (19 lifetime, 21 in 2005) instead of Ed Bryant (lifetime ACU score of 98!) Van Hilleary (lifetime score of 97!). Another GOP candidate is Bob Corker, Chattanooga mayor.
"If the GOP base doesn't show in West Virginia, you get Robert Byrd (lifetime rating of 30, 20 in 2005) as Appropriations Committee Chairman, instead of businessman John Raese.
"If the GOP base doesn't show in Washington, you keep Maria Cantwell (11 lifetime, 8 in 2005) instead of businessman Mike McGavick.
"Okay, maybe Chafee goes down. But you've lost how many solid conservatives to remove this one guy?"
It's tough to argue with facts like those Geraghty marshall's but it is possible and I will have a response to the TKS post later. In the meantime, please let me know if you have posted a contribution to this discussion that I can link to here.
Meanwhile, Tradesports has the odds of the GOP keeping control of Congress at less than 50-50. No, I am not a betting man but it is worth noting.
UPDATE: Geraghtyites vs Tapscottians
Hugh Hewitt does have a way with words, doesn't he? Do you detect a certain Swiftian tone to his title for the ongoing discussion about conservatives and the GOP? Is Hugh really a closet Straussian?
Whatever he is, Hugh is as always on top of everything Blogosphere-wise and politics-wise, so no surprise that he cuts to the chase on the issue before us:
"One question for my pal Mark: If the GOP loses three net seats in the Senate (or more), and with it the ability to break filibusters of SCOTUS nominees (or even get them out of a Leahy-chaired Judiciary Committee), will the 'message' that you want to send be worth the cost of the postage?
"When you write that 'I am no longer convinced that it makes a sufficiently critical difference in the day-to-day function of government that the Bill Frists, Trent Lotts, Jerry Lewises and Bill Youngs are in control of Congress instead of Harry Reid, Teddy Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi,' have you thought through the implications for SCOTUS?"
Now I know what Aristotle must have felt like when Plato responded to one of his queries with a look of patient resignation that the kid just doesn't get it. Well, okay, probably Aristotle never got that look, but the guy always sitting in back named Donkeycles (a lesser known Platonic student whose tenure at the Academy was, shall we say, not as extensive as others) probably did on more than one occasion.
This American Donkeycles will have a response later.