After six years of disastrous rule, many conservatives are coming to the obvious conclusion that the Republicans need to be checked. The reasons are many; the war in Iraq, insane spending even the Democratic Party would be ashamed of, expanding government, and some of the most impressive corruption since the Tea Pot Dome Scandal. In the latest Washington Monthly, seven true conservatives explain their reasons for wanting the Democrats to win the 2006 elections.

How bad do you have to be for the people in your own party to want you tossed out? Real bad. And they all have different reasons. According to Christopher Buckley it’s Bush and his crazy religious beliefs.

Who knew, in 2000, that “compassionate conservatism,” meant bigger government, unrestricted government spending, government intrusion in personal matters, government ineptitude, and cronyism in disaster relief? Who knew, in 2000, that the only bill the president would veto, six years later, would be one on funding stem-cell research? A more accurate term for Mr. Bush’s political philosophy might be incontinent conservatism.

Bruce Bartlett thinks the Republicans need to lose, for their own good.

As a conservative who’s interested in the long-term health of both my country and the Republican Party, I have a suggestion for the GOP in 2006: lose. Handing over at least one house of Congress to the other side of the aisle for the next two years would probably be good for everyone.

Joe Scarborough cuts deep with his article “And We Thought Clinton Had No Self-Control.” Being called worse than Clinton? Ouch.

After six years of Republican recklessness at home and abroad, I seriously doubt Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid or the aforementioned Bourbon Street hookers could spend this country any deeper into debt than my Republican Party. With any luck, Democrats will launch destructive investigations, a new era of bad feelings will break out, and George W. Bush will stop using his veto pen to fill in Rangers’ box scores and instead start using it like a conservative president should.

William A. Niskanen has come to the conclusion that our government should always be divided. That would be the only conclusion you could reach after your party takes over the entire government and is a total embarrassment to democracy.

Our federal government may work better (well, less badly) when at least one house of Congress is controlled by the opposing party. Divided government is, curiously, less divisive. It’s also cheaper. The basic reason for this is simple: When one party proposes drastic or foolish measures, the other party can obstruct them.

Bruce Fein wants to restrain George Bush from destroying the government that our Founding Fathers set up.

But a Republican Congress has done nothing to thwart President George W. Bush’s alarming usurpations of legislative prerogatives. Instead, it has largely functioned as an echo chamber of the White House. Republicans in Congress have bowed to the president’s scorn for the rule of law and craving for secret government. They have voted against Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold’s resolution to rebuke Bush for violating federal statutes and crippling checks and balances.

Jeffrey Hart thinks Bush is a looney.

Today, the standard-bearer of “conservatism” in the United States is George W. Bush, a man who has taken the positions of an unshakable ideologue: on supply-side economics, on privatization, on Social Security, on the Terri Schiavo case, and, most disastrously, on Iraq. Never before has a United States president consistently adhered to beliefs so disconnected from actuality.

Richard A. Viguerie puts a number to the angry Republican masses and says, quite simply, that the Democrats must take over the House.

Conservatives are as angry as I have seen them in my nearly five decades in politics. Right now, I would guess that 40 percent of conservatives are ambivalent about the November election or want the Republicans to lose. But a Republican loss of one or both houses of Congress would turn power over to the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Dare we risk such an outcome? The answer is, we must take that chance.

And to all of these gentlemen I say, "Oh Really!."