Note to Angry Republicans: Stay Angry, But Vote Republican

Post-9/11 Era Forum

By Dennis Prager
Tuesday, October 31, 2006


One repeatedly hears that some conservatives and Republicans will either vote Democrat or not vote at all -- out of anger at the Republican Party.

According to these Republican holdouts, the Republicans have governed as Democrats-lite by greatly increasing government spending and doing little about illegal immigration. Accordingly, it is better to have liberal government under liberals than liberal government under Republicans, and the Republicans need to be taught a lesson so that in the future they will govern as authentic Republicans.

Conservatives should file this thinking under the heading "Cathartic," but not under "Smart."

One of the great realizations one comes to as the years pass is how small a role reason plays in most people's decisions. From choosing products based on their packaging to deciding how to vote, passion and emotion usually eclipse reason.

Any Republican, let alone conservative, who votes Democrat or stays home out of pique with the Republican Congress or the president has chosen emotion over reason.

Have the Bush administration and Republican Congress spent too much money? Of course. And it really is quite annoying. Nothing unites conservative and moderate Republicans as does opposition to big government.

So it is not surprising that so many Republicans are furious at the increases in government spending, such as the staggeringly expensive Medicare prescription drug plan.

Add to this the fury of the conservative base of the Republican Party at the administration's apparent apathy toward illegal "immigration," and you have an Election Day problem.

Now, regarding spending, I share Republicans' anger. Republicans who don't control government spending do far more harm than Democrats who don't. Why? Because when the smaller-government party expands government, those who believe in smaller government have nowhere to turn.

Nevertheless, if it were not for the Bush administration, we never would have gotten the substantial tax cuts that have led to such a robust economy (especially impressive in light of the costs of the war in Iraq and of Katrina).

As for illegal immigration, here, too, I identify with those who are frustrated that Republicans have not done more while in control of both the executive and legislative branches of government. But at least President Bush has signed a bill authorizing the building of a 700-mile fence along the U.S.-Mexico border. No Democratic president would do that. If you care about reducing illegal immigration, isn't that reason enough to prevent the Democrats from gaining power?

And what about the single most important reason to elect Republicans -- the appointment of judges, especially justices to the Supreme Court? What sort of reasoning would lead a conservative to conclude that it is more important to express anger at Republicans than to prevent Democrats from appointing Supreme Court justices and other judges?

And taxes -- what rational conservative would prefer tax increases, one of the major goals of the Democratic Party?

As regards national security, what sort of Republicans are so angry at the Bush administration and/or the Republican Congress that they would want to replace the party that made the Patriot Act and NSA wiretapping possible with the party that opposes the Patriot Act and NSA wiretapping? And doesn't the Bush administration deserve credit for the absence of a single terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11?

How about Social Security? Why would a rational Republican want to reward the party that opposed any attempt to fix a system that will fail the next generation of Americans -- and hurt the Republican president who bravely, if ultimately futilely, spent political capital trying to fix it?

And what about tort reform? Republicans have begun reducing abuses of the legal system by passing some tort reform legislation. With Democrats in power, such achievements will be reversed, and trial lawyers and legislators will be empowered to continue to damage this country through law. That is, after all, why trial lawyers are among the biggest donors to the Democratic Party.

Finally, please remember that it was disaffected Republicans who voted for Ross Perot who helped elect Bill Clinton president, and it was disaffected Democrats who voted for Ralph Nader who helped elect George W. Bush president. Unless you run yourself, dear annoyed Republican, you will never find an ideal candidate. Compared to you and your conservative principles, real-life Republicans are indeed a failure. But compared to real-life Democrats, they are almost giants.

End the Fear 'N Smear.

http://www.inreview.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=678675

-HECK!

Damn, the desperation is oozing all over this board. Show some dignity man.

-HECK!

I'd vote Repub this year, I'm happy with them, but there is no one to vote for in Oklahoma, we are out of the cycle. We got Senators and Congressmen two years ago.


It aight though, I got all my Nancy Palosi cartoons ready to go...

I've always voted the candidate. Even though I lean more to the left than right, I can't understand just voting along party lines. I think it's foolish.

In Cali, I'm voting for the Senator Feinstein (D), but I doubt she's in trouble of losing her job.

I will be voting for Schwarzenegger (R), he's done a good job. Angelides (D) does not impress me.

My congressman is a republican and the democrat challenger came out of nowhere and has done diddly squat to campaign so I don't know what the hell he is about. So I'll probably vote republican on that one... but a part of me wants the Democrats to take over the House so they can stifle Dubya. It sucks to vote like that, but you gotta do what you gotta do.

-HECK!

It will nice to be on the offense for a change, now I can post long winded rants about the Democratic leadership.


Our Governor is a Democrat, but he is against gun control, has lowered taxes. I didn't vote for him, but I don't mind him.

Like I've said before, I don't care which party is in office. So long the heads get removed from some dark places I'm just dandy.

-HECK!

I am still trying to master my cartoon posting skills...

http://www.inreview.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=678738

-HECK!

Dude, your heart is in the right place, but Kathy aint exactly a man toon. It's for loser fat chicks with no boyfriends.


You need a Dilbert or Farside toon.

Not only does Kathy/Cathy have fat thighs, and no man in her life, she is part of the vast right wing conspiracy that Hillary Clinton spoke of.

Cathy did a two month internship during the Clinton years, I will let you figure it out.

http://media.salemwebnetwork.com/TownHall/Car/b/Shelton_C20061106.jpg

.

.

.

Were those last three posts inspired by the Republican party?

I think those were inspired by the "angry" Republicans.

For all the lost homies.

-HECK!

I vote for the person NOT a party.

This election has proven that politicians are mostly all scumbags.

The nature of all these TV ads, hard copy mail has proven to me that politicians have no respect for themselves or other people.

That's how it's always been. That's why I don't belong to either party. They are a joke... full of scum bags, liars, and people who have the same agendas... but go at it a different way.

I always vote the candidate. But unfortunately the only way to get some semblance of stability in our government the Dem's need to get some power on capital hill.

-HECK!

The "average joe" I agree... there should be more people like that.

And the reason was clear: Dubya done fudged up for the last time.

-HECK!

And the American people have spoken!

Oh wait... it must be all of us NON-Patriots that have spoken, right?