Over at TKS, Jim Geraghty (why on earth does National Review have so many blogs?) argues essentially that it can never make sense for conservatives to vote against the Republican Party. He does this, in part, by pointing out that the Democrats who would win the House and Senate in 2006 would have lower "conservative" ratings from the American Conservative Union than the Republicans they would defeat.

‘Tis true.

But under this logic, how would a disaffected coalition member within either of the major parties ever express their displeasure with a given nominee or incumbent? It’s true that in one particular election, conservatives staying home could result in the election of a liberal Democrat. But the idea is to make sure that the GOP doesn’t put forward too many insufficiently conservative candidates. Sure, it would be better to win these fights in the primaries, but, yes, sometimes parties have to be "taught a lesson." Nominate someone acceptable to us, or else.

As for whether Republicans could win the House or Senate back in 2008 after having been taught a lesson by their base in 2006 — well, I suspect many conservatives don’t give a rat’s ass. I know I don’t. So long as we don’t have a Democratic supermajority, I’m happy to see utter gridlock reign.

It worked in the ’90s.

UPDATE: Geraghty makes some solid point in this follow-up post.

Donate to people you like, expect politicians to be mixed bags and get involved early in the 2008 GOP primary. All fair enough. But there’s still no reason staying home shouldn’t be a part of the annoyed conservative’s arsenal.