Time for Us to Go - Con pundits on why GOP should lose big time

[BR_Parkway]

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0610.forum.html

With Republicans controlling Congress and the White House, conservatives these days ought to be happy, but most aren’t. They see expanding government, runaway spending, Middle East entanglements, and government corruption, and they wonder why, exactly, the country should be grateful for Republican dominance. Some accuse Bush and the Republicans today of not being true conservatives. Others see a grab bag of stated policies and wonder how they cohere. Everyone thinks something’s got to change.

Now seven prominent conservatives dare to speak the unspeakable: They hope the Republicans lose in 2006. Well, let’s be diplomatic and say they’d prefer divided government—soon. (Perhaps that formulation will fool Dennis Hastert.) Of course, all of them wish for the long-term health of conservatism, and most are loyal to the GOP. What they also believe, however, is that even if a Speaker Pelosi looms in the wings, sometimes the best remedy for a party gone astray is to give it a session in the time-out chair.

Let's quit while we're behind
By Christopher Buckley

Bring on Pelosi
By Bruce Bartlett

And we thought Clinton[/i> had no self-control]
By Joe Scarborough

Give divided government a chance
By William A. Niskanen

Restrain this White House
By Bruce Fein

Idéologie has taken over
By Jeffrey Hart

The show must not go on
By Richard A. Viguerie

[Kashka-Kat]

1. What Ive been saying to my con acquaintances- you don't have to like

Democrats to believe in the fundamentals of our democracy and our checks and balances system. It really has served us well for many centuries. That and ages-old wisdom like "absolute power corrupts absolutely" can sometimes reach people where nothing else will.

[sweetheart]

2. political expediency

They're expecting the inevitable, to be pundits, looking in to the crystal ball at the war crimes trial.

[central scrutinizer]

3. opportunists

Sales of their books must be lagging. If Democrats take control of one or both houses, they can then rush to print with some new anti-liberal books and count on angry freepers buying more copies. I bet Rush is also secretly hoping for the same thing. Ranting about Hilary and Ted is kinda empty when they have no power to do anything. But let them become committee chairs, then boy-o-boy he will rant and splutter and the freepers will be all in a lather.

Plus, when anything goes wrong, they can blame the Democrats. Kinda hard to do that when your party has been in total control for six years. The blame Clinton for everything shtick is pretty threadbare these days.

[GOTV]

4. On a quick scan of these admissions...

... I don't see one that proposes any kind of action to undo any of the damage they've done with their support of Bush when they should have known better.

[apnu]

5. Damn, when Scarborough turns, the cons start to listen.

I remember him (unless I'm thinkling of somebody else) went ape-shit on CNN for a few days watching people drown in NOLA, and suddenly the GOP tune changed. And they barely managed to turn the national dialog on Katrina back in their favor (only by a small margin and just long enough for the American sheeple go to back to sleep)

[madmusic]

6. More propaganda for '08

They don't want Dems to control congress AND the whitehouse.

Worse, neocons don't care who is in control. As long as they control moral panic, they control everything.

[AllegroRondo]

7. OMG - Didnt Stephen Colbert say this 2 weeks ago?

he did a wonderful monologue about how he wanted the Dems to win this November, to "energize the base" and make Reps serious about 2008.