Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea
None of your questions nor analysis make sense.
You ask why Reps are not in open rebellion. That assumes you know what Reps want. Now I don't claim to know entirely, as I'm not in touch with the "religious, single issue component" but more in touch with the economic component.
You have yet to acknowledge it is perfectly pragmatic for the economic reasons to prefer those guys who, through the political machine, have slowed down as opposed to those of the Left who would destroy our economics.
What is so unreasonable about that? You haven't even acknowledge the pragmatism of that.
Furthermore, you've falied to recognize, Reps may becoming pragmatic, not dogmatic. Better a devil we know than one we don't. Conservative also means cautious. Most of us don't want "government solutions" which are actually problems waiting to burden us.
|
Here is why I disagree. You have a Republican president. He isn't going to allow Democrats to do what they want to do in Congress. What are you afraid of Democrats accomplishing? Do you think they will have a 2/3 majority in both houses to override a veto?
The worst that would happen for a Republican would be the absence of any meaningful legislation for a two year period. In the interim, a clear message would have been sent to the party that the base won't tolerate the ineptitude that was portrayed in this Congress. The end result ideally for Republicans would be a new slate of candidates in 2008 whose values are more closely aligned with the base (as I mentioned happened to put Reagan in power and to put the '94 Congress into power).
Your analysis assumes Democrats would do more harm to your interests than maintaining the current regime would. I fail to see how. The current regime could lose Republicans the White House and the Congress in 2008. Is it worth it to keep these guys in power now?