Should Conservatives vote in the November Elections?

My opinion is, no they should not. But given I don't like what Conservatives want to do for America, you have to take that with a grain of salt.

On the other hand I'm pretty enthusiastic that Republicans feel that this is an issue worth discussing at all. One would hope you would take it for granted. But apparently not.

Note to evangelicals: it will be harder to get your agenda passed by exercising a strategy that allows political friends to be defeated for reelection. Then you’re left with an uncooperative and unpopular president, minorities in Congress, and no friends in those minorities.

On a macro-level, Republicans are already in danger of losing their majorities, but dismal turnout by base Republicans will make Democratic takeovers near-certainties. Then, conservative evangelicals would have no hope of getting their issues passed and would be lucky to get a meeting with the new majority, let alone private nurturing.

That's from Nathen Gonzales's latest article. Let me take a moment and marvel at the subtext behind the phrase "private nurturing."

There are many now arguing that even if we had to endure two years of Speaker Pelosi or Majority Leader Reid, it would pay off in the long run, perhaps as the first two years of the Clinton administration resulted in the 1994 Republican landslide. Well, this is not 1994. Even two years of control of one branch of the government could do irreparable harm at a time when the outcome of the mission in Iraq and the status of judicial appointments is at such a delicate and critical point.

From Lorie Byrds latest article.

I'm struck by the plaintive tone in these two articles; these people are genuinely worried that their base is going to screw them in November.

Can't say that bothers me all that much.

Tony Snow and the Washington Press Corps

It's a brand new month and here we go.

Tony Snow, a former journalist, is the new commentator at Fox News. Surprisingly this is not likely to pacify Snow's former colleagues. Rather it's likely that the White House Press Corps will continue to ask hard questions (occasionally). There are a number of articles on this phenomena. Suzanne Fields suggests, for example, that "We won't get snow jobs on this watch." That seems overly optimistic.

Nathan L. Gonzales takes a more serious look at what the job of being President Bush's press secretary entails.

Out-going Press Secretary Scott McClellan was actually a better choice for the position. He was bland and as energetic in front of the camera as John Kerry at a Bush reelection party. McClellan's job was to prevent any breaking news at the briefing.

He succeeded more often than not, and that's why the press corps didn't like him.

Even though Snow as been promised a more "inside" role in the West Wing, he will still be forced to deliver the same message and same administration policies that McClellan did, the same policies that incite an antagonistic press corps.

Both the White House and the media appear to have a false sense of hope about Snow's upcoming tenure. Tony Snow works for President Bush, and he is now a former member of the media who is being paid to present the Bush administration's message. He will only be as open and forthcoming as he is told to be.

That's interestingly direct. The Press Secretary's job isn't to provide information to the Press, but rather, to keep from giving them too much information. Kind of comforting isn't it?

But that's a reflection of the Conservative mindset - the Press can't be trusted to give information to the people. Far better that the people simply ignore the press and listen to the President and his favorite commentators (like, for example, Rush Limbaugh).