Many Conservatives want Republicans to lose in 06

Washington Monthly this month has put together an interesting set of articles by conservative writers who want the Republicans to lose in November.  They call it  Time For Us To Go.  Some of them write that it's bad for the country if all the power in Washington - the President, the House and the Senate are all in the hands of the same party.  Others say that Bush and his administration are not "real" conservatives, and they miss the days of Eisenhower, Reagan, and George Herbert Walker Bush.  Still others think that liberals should be given the power back, just so American can be reminded how "bad" liberals are - and want conservatives back again.  They each have a different point of view, but they have one thing in common - they want the Republicans (at least these Republicans) out of power.

In Let's quit while we're behind , Christopher Buckley, who was a speechwriter for George Herbert Walker Bush asks "What have they done to my party?" and "Where does one go to get it back?"  

It's time for a time-out. Time to hand over this sorry enchilada to Hillary and Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden and Charlie Rangel and Harry Reid, who has the gift of being able to induce sleep in 30 seconds. Or, with any luck, to Mark Warner or, what the heck, Al Gore. I'm not much into polar bears, but this heat wave has me thinking the man might be on to something.  

My fellow Republicans, it is time, as Madison said in Federalist 76, to "Hand over the tiller of governance, that others may fuck things up for a change."

 
 In Bring on Pelosi,  Bruce Bartlett  writes that he thinks that handing over at least one house of Congress to the Democrats in 06 will be a good thing for the country and will increase the chances for the GOP in 08.  

...on a purely partisan level, I believe that loss of one or both houses will strengthen the Republican Party going into 2008. It will force a debate on issues that have been swept under the rug, such out-of-control government spending and the coziness between Republicans and K Street, home of Washington's lobbying community. Afterwards, the party will emerge stronger, with better arguments for keeping control of the White House. Also, Democrats may well be placed under so much pressure from their left-wing fringe that they'll be forced into politically self-destructive acts such as trying to impeach President Bush. Every Republican I know thinks Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are the best things they have going for them. Giving these inept leaders higher profiles would be a gift to conservatives everywhere.

In And we thought Clinton had no self-control, Joe Scarborough give a much more honest and introspective appraisal of the Republican's performance.  He starts out with:  

When The Washington Monthly reached me at my office recently, a voice on the other side of the line meekly asked if I would ever consider writing an article supporting the radical proposition that Republicans should get their brains beaten in this fall.

"Count me in!" was my chipper response. I also seem to remember muttering something about preferring an assortment of Bourbon Street hookers running the Southern Baptist Convention to having this lot of Republicans controlling America's checkbook for the next two years.

In Give Divided Government a Chance,  William A. Niskanen  writes about the virtues of a divided government.

For those of you with a partisan bent, I have some bad news. Our federal government may work better (well, less badly) when at least one house of Congress is controlled by the opposing party. Divided government is, curiously, less divisive. It's also cheaper. The basic reason for this is simple: When one party proposes drastic or foolish measures, the other party can obstruct them. The United States prospers most when excesses are curbed, and, if the numbers from the past 50 years are any indication, divided government is what curbs them.

Restrain this White House by Bruce Fein also talks about the necessity of a divided government and the dangers of the president abusing his power unchecked:

But a Republican Congress has done nothing to thwart President George W. Bush's alarming usurpations of legislative prerogatives. Instead, it has largely functioned as an echo chamber of the White House.
Republicans in Congress have bowed to the president's scorn for the rule of law and craving for secret government. They have voted against Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold's resolution to rebuke Bush for violating federal statutes and crippling checks and balances. They have resisted brandishing either the power of the purse or the contempt power (with which it can compel testimony) to end the president's violation of FISA and to force full disclosure of his secret foreign-intelligence programs.

In Idéologie has taken over, Jeffrey Hart writes about the dangers of having an ideologue in power, and how Bush has "poisoned" the meaning of the word "conservative".

Perhaps most damaging to the ideal of conservatism has been the influence of religious ideology. During the fight over whether to remove the feeding tube of Terri Schiavo, a Florida woman who had been in a vegetal state for 15 years, politicians began to say strange and feverish things. "She talks and she laughs, and she expresses happiness and discomfort," Majority whip Tom DeLay said of a woman for whom cognition of any kind was impossible. (Oxygen deprivation had liquefied her cerebral cortex.) Senate Majority leader Bill Frist examined Schiavo on videotape and deemed her "clearly responsive." As Schiavo's case fought its way through the courts, Republicans savaged judges for consistently sanctioning the removal of Schiavo's feeding tube. "The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior," threatened DeLay.

And in The Show Must Not Go On, Richard A. Viguerie  writes about how Republicans presently in power do not deserve the support of conservatives, because they are not real conservatives:

Conservatives are as angry as I have seen them in my nearly five decades in politics. Right now, I would guess that 40 percent of conservatives are ambivalent about the November election or want the Republicans to lose. But a Republican loss of one or both houses of Congress would turn power over to the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Dare we risk such an outcome?

Sometimes a loss for the Republican Party is a gain for conservatives. Often, a little taste of liberal Democrats in power is enough to remind the voters what they don't like about liberal Democrats and to focus the minds of Republicans on the principles that really matter. That's why the conservative movement has grown fastest during those periods when things seemed darkest, such as during the Carter administration and the first two years of the Clinton White House.