WSJ asks the RWers not to be Naderites

[question everything]

who "stood on principle" and gave the Presidency to Bush. That's my interpretation as I was reading the editorial:

(snip)

We doubt that Messrs. Boehner, Wildmon, Perkins, Bauer and Weyrich will feel as politically cleansed as they seem to be this week if they wake up November 8 to a House run by Ms. Pelosi and Messrs. Rangel, Murtha, Dingell, Waxman, Obey and Frank. And if the pundits are right, the Foley wilding may even give them a Harry Reid Senate.

Certainly there are plenty of reasons for the right to be upset with this Congress. As these columns described Monday in "The GOP Record," the flops of the party now in control of Congress have been significant: Taxes, health care, Social Security, immigration, earmarks, Abramoff. All this is enough to bring the charge that Speaker Hastert has been an absentee landlord. But if it's enough to justify his removal -- and it may well be -- the time for doing so is after the election, win or lose. We are hard put to see what these conservatives think will be gained by burning down the entire coalition before the election over Mark Foley.

(snip)

Let's imagine, for instance, that a seat on the Supreme Court opens up next year with a Democratic House and GOP Senate majority called Lincoln Chafee. Approve another Alito? The diminished GOP Senate would be lucky if it got someone as conservative as Harriet Miers. Think Son of Souter.

(snip)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116001268633883282.html?mod=todays_us_opinion (subscription)

[Frances]

1. This editorial is saying that people should vote

for Repubs even if they did protect a child molester because the tax cuts for the rich and another Alito on the Supreme Court, are more important than morality.