Baby, Bathwater

OK, you may consider this to be just so much…uh…“self-abuse.” And you’d probably be correct in your assumption. However lame the whole debate is (and I submit the basic premise is pretty damned lame), there seem to be a lot of folks on the right that are buying into the argument. What argument, you ask? Well, it all started with this, authored by Mark Tapscott, a well-respected conservative thinker. Basically, Tapscott speculates a Republican loss in this year’s congressional elections wouldn’t be all that bad, and that some real good could come of it. And thus a firestorm was born. Thankfully, many on the right have risen to Tapscott’s bait and said, in no uncertain terms, a Republican defeat in November wouldn’t be good at all, it would be catastrophic. Here’s part of the Anchoress’ May 17^th post (which I linked, previously):

Professor Bainbridge writes: I’m with Tapscott, subject a qualification.

Suppose 2006 is as bad as 1974, when the Senate went from a Democrat majority of 56-42 (with 2 independents) to 61-37 (ditto) and the House went from a Democrat majority of 242-192 to 291-144. Six years later we got Ronald Reagan in a landslide. Granted, I don’t see another Reagan on the horizon, more’s the pity, but the larger point is that the country managed to muddle along. Maybe partisan politics just doesn’t matter as much as those of us in the blogosphere like to think it does.

(!) “the country managed to muddle along…” Egad! I’ll tell you what, I’m getting a little scared, now, if anyone seriously thinks that we can risk a “muddle along” these days. This is NOT 1974! I cannot forget that in that time Jimmy Carter was elected, interest rates went sky high, we had endless gas lines (remember, back then we were going to end our dependance on foreign oil!) we had dim, short-sighted policies, the same spineless gasbags we have now in both houses, but now they’re older and more spineless, more afraid of the tiniest raised eyebrow from the press. We had hostages, etc, etc…communications are different and instantaneous. Weapons are different. Democrats are talking regulation of free speech! I’m not willing to take that chance and “lose to win.” The press that exists today is not the same press it was 30 years ago; they are now a wholly-owned subsidiary of the left, with taste for mendacity and a demonstrated willingness to remain patently uncurious about any Democrat misdoings, and a further willingness to carry their chosen one on their shoulders with many puffball questions and nary a doubt, which will invite nothing less than tyranny.

She’s right. And if the foregoing isn’t enough, the other recurring memes in this debate are the clinchers, to wit:

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
Chairman of House Judiciary Committee John Conyers

How’s that for starters? I don’t know about you, but the thought of those three useful idiots in charge of anything (beyond the minority, where they’ve done enough damage, thank you) scares the BeJeebus out of me.

Stay home in November? Throw the bums out? I don’t think so. While there's a lot not to like about the current "conservatives" in Congress, the alternative is worse. Much worse. Baby, bathwater. QED.