Hasn't the Republican National Committee seen "Office Space"?

If they had, they'd have seen Peter Gibbons (played by Ron Livingston) tell the "efficiency experts" looking to cut a bunch of jobs at his company this little gem:

"My only real motivation is not to be hassled; that, and the fear of losing my job. But you know, Bob, that will only make someone work just hard enough not to get fired."

The RNC should know that fear is a card played by liberals, not conservatives, but they don't. What's worse, these idiots played the fear card when they were winning elections...and they wonder why donations to the RNC dropped like a stone. Fear only really works when there is something to fear, and even then it's impact is limited in a "boy cries wolf once too often and no one comes while he gets devoured" kind of way. When you get frontrunners in each political party (Clinton or Obama vs. John McCain) who are so close on so many issues (illegal immigration, glow-bull warming, class warfare, opposing tax cuts) as to be virtually indistinguishable, then fear is utterly powerless. Leaving aside all that I just mentioned, anyone with any self-respect, any sense of pride, any courage of their convictions whatsoever will not and should not allow their votes or their lives to be governed by fear. Since I can't say it better than Mychal Massie at World Net Daily (Hat Tip: Emperor Misha), I will let he who says it best say it loud. Read the whole thing.

"Fear Doesn't Control My Vote"
By Mychal Massie

"It seems to matter little where I go or who I am with, the question I am repeatedly asked many times with breathless anticipation is: "What do we do if Hillary Clinton wins the presidency and/or who can beat Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton?"

Those of you with whom I correspond already know my feelings, but for those who do not, let me make my position unequivocally clear. I don't care who wins the Democrat presidential nomination, and I don't care, as such, if Obama or Clinton win the Holy Grail of politics. I care that the Republican Party doesn't have a candidate I can support as a true conservative left in the race.

I am a conservative, but I'm not an ideologue – nor is my vote governed by fear. That is to say, I will not vote for a Republican nominee to whose positions I am vehemently opposed and/or whom I do not trust, just to keep Obama or, more likely, Clinton out of the White House.

Fear is a powerful motivator that can be used to coerce well-intentioned persons, groups or even the entire nation into making incredibly poor decisions – and the Republican National Committee is not above using same. The idea that I must abandon my moral compass and vote for a candidate I could not find more objectionable – in order to shut out a liberal candidate who bears little or no substantive difference to the one I voted for – is offensive to me.

Some have told me they will vote for whomever the Republican candidate is, for fear of those whom a Democrat president will appoint to the Supreme Court – to which I respond: Who was the president that appointed Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor? Who was the president that appointed David Souter, and who appointed John Paul Stevens? Here's a hint – they weren't Democrats.

Under which president has the federal government grown exponentially? Which president thumbed his nose at the voters and arrogantly pledged his support for an amnesty bill for illegal aliens? Which presidents supported abortion, race-based preferences and race-based affirmative action? Which president signed McCain-Feingold? Which president's attorney general vigorously opposed the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative? Which president's attorney general dropped the ball in Lawrence vs. Texas, which opened the door to homosexual marriage and the undermining of the family? Which president campaigned vigorously for Arlen Specter when, in fact, Pat Toomey was the true conservative? Which president had his Justice Department undermine a lower-court ruling in the District of Columbia pursuant to the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment? Want a hint? Once again, they weren't Democrats.

Voting, in my opinion, is one of the most important acts of citizenship an American can perform. The value of that act should not be taken lightly or under duress.

As my grandmother used to say, "No good is no good," to which I add, my voting for one "no good" over another "no good" doesn't make same less "no good." Thus, as I have been forthright in stating from the beginning, I plan to write in the name of my choice, devil be damned, if Democrats win in the meantime. I survived Carter and Clinton. I can endure whomever and whatever they come up with this time, including the certainty of their punitive tax increases.

Former RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie is to be credited, in part, for the calcification of my position. While still RNC chairman, Gillespie, referencing a possible Giuliani-Clinton New York senatorial contest, dismissed conservative concerns pursuant to Giuliani by insisting the conservative base would support Giuliani just to keep Clinton out, even though he favored all that we opposed. I found his arrogance indefensible then, as I do the same mindset that embodies the party today.

I am well aware that many will disagree with me for an avalanche of reasons – that said, so be it. The battle lines must be drawn somewhere. I believe the future of our party depends on it. The party cannot continue in the state of decline it now experiences. Where are the substantive differences that set us apart during the Reagan years? How offensive it is to his memory and to the movement he set in place when we hear liberal Republicans and/or Republican charades claim to be in the image of Ronald Reagan.

I agree with Thomas Sowell and others calling for a revolution to reclaim the Party of Lincoln. Obviously, the RNC has not taken the lessons of 2006 to heart. Perhaps a few more defeats will jar them into listening to us."