Are you going to be a benchwarmer this election?

Posted: Oct 20, 2006 12:03 AM

Last week I argued that conservatives and evangelicals really have but one logical choice in the upcoming election – to reelect a Republican majority in Congress. In some cases, it’s certainly not a pleasant choice, but it’s one that must be made in order to give our conservative principles a fighting chance over the next two to ten years.

Dozens of readers responded. Most conceded that a choice must be made, many agreeing with my argument. (One reader, who said he was going to vote Republican, called it “hold-your-nose-voting.”) However, many others stated that they weren’t just making a “lesser of two evils” decision on Election Day. Several said they were placing their bets on the Libertarian Party, assuming that Libertarian leaders would be immune from whatever infects elected officials from other parties once they get elected.

Slice it up any way you like it: in each race, it comes down to a Democrat and a Republican, and the history on protest votes isn’t a pretty one – can you say Perot and Nader?

For those of you considering sitting on the sidelines this November, I offer a small portion of the commentary on choosing between Republicans and Democrats this fall. Many fall short of full-fledged endorsements, but they are clear about one thing – conservatives can’t afford to sit this one out.

Star Parker starts us off by asking, “Must things get worse in order to get better?”

“Republicans and conservatives are fed up with their party and their representatives. But can it be that anything is better than what we now have?

I've gotten letters telling me that I've sold out because I've written that we should not abandon the Republican Party because at least there is a chance of fixing it. What do we gain by allowing Democrats, who are wrong on everything, to regain power, just to express anger at wayward Republicans?” (more)

Hugh Hewitt says that as goes Montana, so goes the Supreme Court.

“If Montana re-elects Conrad Burns, not only will the Senate almost certainly remain in Republican control, nominees like Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito will continue to receive a yes vote from Burns, just as he voted yes on both of President Bush's nominees.

If Montana lurches way left and sends Jon Tester to D.C., not only will he vote to put Vermont's radical Patrick Leahy back in charge of the Judiciary Committee, Tester will support the obstruction that killed judicial nominee after nominee during Leahy's stretch as chairman.” (more)

Mike Gallagher thinks it’s just laughable to think Democrats should be in charge.

“The suggestion that recent polls indicate that more Americans think the Democratic Party is better equipped to deal with issues of morality than the Republican Party is funny.

Not “mildly-amusing”-type funny. I’m talking “fall-off-the-chair-roaring-with-laughter-and-rolling-around-on-the-floor” – type of funny.

Let’s look at five prominent Americans who could quite accurately be described as bastions of the Democratic Party: John Kerry, Barbra Streisand, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, and Ted Turner.” (more)

Michael Medved reminds us that economic and religious conservatives are united, not divided, by core values

“Yes, economic and religious conservatives may emphasize different priorities: Christian activists will care more passionately about abortion, while money-minded reformers might stress retooling Social Security or cleaning up our lawsuit-riddled judicial system. But the two wings of the GOP and the conservative movement nonetheless pursue goals that are not only complementary, but utterly dependent on one another.

The economic conservatives want to shrink government and encourage personal responsibility. Religious right-wingers seek to strengthen the family, and to affirm its independence. These two aims naturally, inevitably, go together. “ (more)

Cal Thomas laments that Republicans are gasping for air, but says that Democrats are in worse shape.

“In former days, Republicans had ideas. They even had an ideology from which those ideas sprang. They forced the media and liberal Democrats to debate those ideas and the country was better off for it. Now, in just 12 years of majority status, they may be about to do what it took Democrats 40 years to achieve - disgust the public to the point that it wants to clean house (and possibly the Senate, too).

The problem is Democrats have fewer ideas than Republicans. They, too, crave power for its own sake and would return to their failed class warfare of the past, the only warfare they support. They will grow government even more than Republicans have and they will raise taxes and retreat from engaging America's enemies, thus encouraging those enemies to come after us with renewed zeal and an assurance that God is on their side. “ (more)

Tony Blankley says the Democrats just haven’t done the preparation necessary to be the ruling party again.

“Rarely in the annals of American politics has an opposition party been less well prepared for governance than today's congressional Democratic Party. They have not used their decade in the wilderness constructively.

Instead of going through a period of self-assessment, reappraisal, re-organization and thoughtful reconsideration of their views on the great issues of our time (as the congressional Republicans did in the decade prior to their re-taking the House and Senate in 1994), the congressional Democratic Party has indulged in a decade of power envy, scandal mongering and vicious internecine fighting and name calling.” (more)

Blankley continues in his next piece with some hints on how to spot the stay-at-home-on-Election-Day crowd:

Get Ready For Apocalypse Ruth
Kurt Schlichter

“Here are some telltale signs of the sort of person who would vote (or not vote) to cause the election of a party that would act to defeat every value and interest he holds dear (merely because the party that will at least try to advance most of those issues has not done as well as he might have hoped):

1) When offered by a car dealer 25 percent off on a car, he insists on paying the full factory-recommended retail sticker price -- because he is damned if he will accept 25 percent when he deserves 30 percent off.

2) When the prettiest cheerleader asks the nerd to take her to the prom, he turns her down -- just because he can.

3) When stopped for doing 70 in a 65 zone, he tells the trooper that's not possible because he had the cruise control set on 90 -- he just resents being falsely charged.

4) When diagnosed with a serious illness, he promptly cancels his medical insurance -- in order to save the cost of premium payments to help pay for the upcoming hospital stay. “ (more)

And to sum it all up, Bishop Harry Jackson Jr. lists the consequences of Democratic control:

“As a black evangelical, I’ve had to think about the unpleasant prospect of a Democratically-controlled House and Senate. If the Democrats are in power, the following problems will occur: 1) There will be no protection of traditional marriage, 2) Abortion-on-demand will be encouraged, 3) Religious freedoms will be attacked, 4) The tax-exempt status of many Christian organizations will be revoked, 5) Massive amnesty will be given to illegal aliens, 6) Border protection will not be enforced, 7) We will lose clear and consistent vigilance on the war on terror, and 8) Abandonment of the Iraq war will occur without strategic understanding.” (more)

In a free democratic society, exercising our voting rights may be easy to do, but nobody promised it would be an easy decision. Conservatives and religious voters face a choice this November. The Democrat leadership and their liberal allies know which choice they want you to make. Do you?