E!! The True Conservative Story™

National Review Online editor-at-large Jonah Goldberg just emailed me to point out that Reid could screw Lieberman on committee assignments, seniority, etc. 

(I suppose Lieberman might prefer a broken leg or two to being shut down in the Senate…)

One of today’s Roll Call alerts leads with this opener:  “With the controversy surrounding Sen. Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.) speaking at the GOP presidential convention and his name being floated as a potential GOP running mate, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) maintains that there will be no consequences for the Independent-Democrat.”

What “consequences” would there BE…? 

Does this mean Reid has called off his privately funded band of mercenary thugs?  Or changed his mind about bribing a Senate dining room server to poison Lieberman’s lunch?

And is this anything like Jack Nicholson’s order (in the film A Few Good Men) that Private So-and-So was “not to be harmed”?

As I noted in a post the other day, Republicans have historically tended to be more reliable voters than Democrats, i.e. they show up at the booth with a lot less prompting and prodding.  This is a factor that cannot be left out of the registration equation.  Democrat campaign managers need to figure out how many registered Democratic voters are needed to equal/exceed one Republican vote.  Because it is an issue of quality over quantity, it is not going to be a one-to-one correlation.

On this subject, NV Senator Bob Beers has some comments on all the media attention the voter registration issue is getting.  He notes that while much Ado has been made about the voter registration gains made by Democrats in the past year (here and here and here), some Republicans see it another way:

The hyper-aggressive Democrat voter registration program, funded by Harry Reid’s millions in advance of his 2010 re-election or election of his son in his place, seems to have been focusing on that peculiar brand of ultra-transient new resident, most of whom have probably moved home in the wake of the flattening of Nevada’s once-thriving job market.

Some contend the Democrat voter registration program has become so aggressive that it has taken to registering people who do not actually exist.

The majority of existing voters who are changing their party affiliation to Democrat had been registered Non-Partisan. Those people probably were already voting Democrat, so changing their registrations won’t have much impact on November end-of-season voting, though it will cause an increase in the raw number of Democrats who vote in primaries.

As case-and-point, Beers points to the primary balloting…particularly in the Porter-Titus congressional district, where more Republicans voted than did Democrats.  26,892 Republicans voted compared to 26,241 Democrats despite all the buzz re: the massive registration lead Democrats had supposedly built in that district.

Below Beers shows the trend in some other districts where there was both a Democrat and Republican primary:

Lately I’ve been reading a lot of commentary suggesting that Conservatives need to get angry about the frightening Leftward socio-political swing our country is in danger of taking no matter who wins the election this fall – and to do/say something about it.  For a little taste of what this might look like, click below for my recent column/rant in Liberty Watch Magazine:

 http://www.liberty-watch.com/volume04/issue04/trueconservative.php

I think we must stick with the traditional ingredients of cold-filtered Conservatism and persuade people - through the intelligent and passionate presentation of facts and ideas - that it is well worth preserving.

In re: to my comments and questions about voting Independent/Libertarian vs. Republican this fall, reader Nicky Cheese made these comments:

I’ve never bought into that “spoiler” rhetoric. More choices are better than less, no? 

Individuals ought to vote for the candidate they believe best represents them. A vote is a reflection of one’s values. Utilize the full range of potential choices in order to affirm what is closest to your values.

Movements are long-term.

More choices are better than less.  But is it really a “choice” when we don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of actually getting what we chose?  If a vote for Barr or Paul still gets us McCain or Obama, as we all know it does, what good was our principled selection?

And is the spoiler argument really just rhetoric?  In the Bush/Gore contest, Gore lost Florida (and the whole enchilada) because of the votes that went to Nader.  No doubt the Naderites were “voting their values.”  But what about the prudence of picking what’s better when you can’t have what’s Best?  I’d sure like to ask those Nader voters what they’d choose if they had a Do-Over. 

The argument that gives me greater pause – i.e. that I think is more compelling – is that of long-term vs. short-term thinking.  As we consider the coming decades, what will best stop our slide to the Left and the disturbing hyper-expansion of the State? 

Do we stand on principle and vote ultra-conservative or libertarian every two years, win or lose, with the hope of steering the GOP to the right and/or bolstering what might someday become a viable Third Party?  And if we don’t, what will compel anyone to consider our cause?

Please chime in and pass along this post so we can hear from more folks.  I’ll post the best remarks up front to spark further discussion!