Posted on 01/12/2013 1:39:44 PM PST by DanMiller
Reelection of its incumbents and power of course, but what else matters? Anything?
An article by Scott Rasmussen published yesterday contends that
Just a few days after reaching [the fiscal cliff] agreement, an inside-the-Beltway publication reported another area of bipartisan agreement. Politico explained that while Washington Democrats have always viewed GOP voters as a problem, Washington Republicans "in many a post-election soul-searching session" have come to agree. More precisely, the article said the party's Election 2012 failures have "brought forth one principal conclusion from establishment Republicans: They have a primary problem."As seen from the halls of power, the problem is that Republican voters think it's OK to replace incumbent senators and congressman who don't represent the views of their constituents. In 2012, for example, Republican voters in Indiana dumped longtime Sen. Richard Lugar in a primary battle.
. . . .
So, according to Politico, the Washington team is gearing up a new effort to protect incumbents and limit the ability of Republican voters to successfully challenge establishment candidates. (Emphasis added.)
That makes sense to those whose sole goal is winning a majority in Congress rather than changing the course of government policy. Seen from the outside, though, it sounds like the professional politicians are saying that the only way to win is to pick more candidates like the insiders. Hearing that message, the reaction of many Republican and conservative voters is, "Why bother?" (Emphasis added.)
That's why more than two-thirds of Republican voters believe GOP officials in Washington have lost touch with the party's base.
The Republican establishment has two choices. They can act as mature party leaders of a national political party, or they can protect their own self-interest.
There are good reasons for conservative voters to "bother." If we don't, who will? Party leaders won't; they seem comfortable with things as they are. When the time comes to vote, most "honorable members" leave their consciences if not their brains outside and do as their party leaders tell them to. Those who reject party control can be stripped of committee assignments and otherwise disciplined. Hence, few reject party control.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B55YgD1gr0c?feature=player_detailpage]
Here's another video. Relevant? Substitute "U.S. Senate" for "House of Peers" and it makes a bit of contextual sense. The Senate was, after all, modeled on the House of Peers as the House was modeled on the House of Commons.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeUAWXUw_iI?feature=player_detailpage]
Should the Senate emulate the House of Peers by doing nothing -- and doing it very well? The Senate has been doing a lot of that. However, since no legislation can pass without approval by both houses, doing nothing can be good or bad depending on what one wants done. Doing nothing well -- as in doing everything badly -- is a bit different; both houses do much of that.
More seriously, the Republican Party is evidently trying to appear "moderate" to appeal to more voters and thereby ensure the reelection of its favored incumbents. That requires it to move ever leftward in tandem with the Democrat Party. Former House Speaker Pelosi seems to like their strategy.
When fiscal cliff legislation passed with mainly Democratic votes, Republicans griped, “Who’s the Speaker?” It was humiliating for the GOP majority to play the handmaiden to minority leader Nancy Pelosi. Asked if the lopsided vote makes her the de facto Speaker of the House, Pelosi demurred, coyly saying “not quite,” and reveling in her renewed clout. After the Democrats failed to regain control of the House in last year’s election, Pelosi appeared headed for a largely symbolic role as leader of the minority party in a chamber where the majority rules with an iron hand.Republican infighting turned that assumption on its head with Pelosi suddenly looking stronger and more relevant than anybody anticipated, and not just because of Democratic votes that avoided the fiscal cliff. Unlike her counterpart on the Republican side, Pelosi is a leader with a firm lock on her caucus.
Does Speaker Boehner want President Obama to kiss him too? Sometimes it seems as though he does.
It can probably be arranged. For a price -- if we are willing to pay it and if we fail to be as effective in purging librul Republicans as Speaker Boehner has been in purging conservative Republicans.
Does Speaker Boehner want the Republican Party to move further and further leftward in tandem with the Democrat Party? If so, a strategy of appealing to the largest and most diverse audience possible makes sense, just as it would if the party were peddling soap or breakfast cereal. That may be its marketing strategy, but if conservatives are to have a strong voice in Government it leaves us with little choice beyond going elsewhere.
What should be the Republican Party's job?
As a minority party, its job should be to prevent the majority party from injuring America beyond restoration, using every lawful substantive and procedural ploy in its arsenal. That it can't do so perfectly is no excuse for not trying or for backing off when it becomes inconvenient to continue. As a majority party (should that ever happen again) its job will be to rectify mistakes made by the previous majority party, to make as few more of them as possible and to move the nation bit by bit to the right. Is the Republican Party as presently constituted capable of doing that?
Beyond that, its most important job, whether in or out of power, is to demand rigorous adherence to the Constitution -- the charter upon which our Federal Government was uniquely founded. It must do that not only when it is popular but also when it is unpopular. That's one of the reasons why we have a Federal Republic, rather than a democracy based on popular vote -- something modern technology has made it easy to have if we wanted it. We don't and shouldn't.
To the extent that the Constitution is diminished so is the nation. It was intentionally made very difficult to amend. It can be amended if necessary, but in no event should it be evaded, avoided, ignored or otherwise treated as optional. We have seen the results when that happens. Want an example?
Venezuela -- a model democracy?
Anyone who hasn't been paying attention to the situation in Venezuela might want to go here and read a dozen or so recent articles. Need more? Here's an article I wrote in May of last year. Here's another.
When el Presidente Chávez took office in 1999, he began only slowly to implement his “reforms.” To a casual observer, few changes were apparent in Venezuela between 1997 when my wife and I first arrived and late 2001 when we left, probably never to return. We had a few concerns about the future of the country under Chávez but they were low on our list of reasons not to buy land and build our home in the state of Merida, up in the Andes. Mainly, we wanted to continue sailing and Merida is inconveniently far from an ocean.Chávez’ initiatives increased dramatically in number and in magnitude only when he was well into his seemingly endless terms in office. Maybe he had heard the story of the frog put into a pleasantly warm but slowly heating pot of water. The frog failed to realize until too late that he was being boiled for dinner. By then the frog had become unable to jump out of the pot.
Now in his second (and, one hopes, final term) President Obama has flexibility not dramatically less than did el Presidente Chávez once his power was well on the way to becoming firmly established. Perhaps the frogs are beginning to feel the heat; perhaps that will come later.
As Chávez steps into history, should Venezuela be our nation's role model?
h/t Devil's Excrement
Where are we going?
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBqjZ0KZCa0?feature=player_detailpage]
Even leaving the Constitution aside, how many others like this are there now? Somebody has to be held accountable and pay. But gosh darn! Who should it be? As they and others in comparable circumstances continue to multiply, how many more will there be as their children mature sufficiently to reproduce and for little else? And reproduce. And reproduce. Here's a longer version if anyone is interested.
How frequently is that pitiful scene repeated across the nation now? If spending on the welfare state continues to grow, how often will the scene be repeated over the next decade or two?
Personal responsibility? What's that? Who should take care of her children and other consequences of personal irresponsibility funded by a "compassionate" Government at the expense of us all? Should we ask el Commandante Chávez? As long as his now uncertain ability to care for his people continues, support for him can remain a viable substitute for personal responsibility. Should we ask El Commandante President Obama? He has many other important priorities.
Freedom cannot exist without personal responsibility. Illusions of freedom can but should be unacceptable.
An illusion of freedom can be seen as real no less than can a 3D motion picture; when the movie bad guy throws a knife into the audience, some may duck but even then they understand that the knife illusion can't hurt them. In that sense, the knife illusion is preferable to a real knife. Most who prefer the illusion of freedom to actual freedom are probably aware of the differences between a real knife and the illusion of one in a 3D motion picture. Do they prefer an illusion of freedom to its reality because reality includes the freedom to fail -- and to suffer the consequences -- as well as the freedom to succeed? The illusion of freedom increasingly causes the consequences of failure to be imposed on others. Some probably like that. Others perhaps prefer the illusion without thinking; or maybe they enjoy the illusion that they are thinking about it.
Recognition of the possibility of failure is an impetus to do the work needed to succeed. The chances of success for those who do not recognize the possibility of failure -- and hence the need to pay attention to what they have to do avoid it -- are slim.
A "compassionate" Government seeks to prevent the failure of its favorites or at least to cushion their landings. The leadership of the Republican Party should realize that it is fully capable of failure and that, unlike Democrat Party supporters, the consequences of their failures are unlikely to be cushioned by a "compassionate" Democrat Government. If the Republican Party has not already failed its chances of doing so are high and increasing. If it does not take remedial action, starting now, the rest of us need to prepare for its demise by birthing its replacement. That kid had better mature and take responsibility fast, because if he doesn't it will probably be too late.
Yeah that would be way cool Adele singing as they walk on to the stage..
I don’t have Hervé’s stunning physique.
I hate that chubby...
Start working out then.
I heard she has an insulin pump,like her now.
If they had Tom Jones sing Thunderball, I’d throw my skivies at him!
I didn't know you were GOPster's nephew, GSP.
Hey, that’s not me!
HEY!!!
That’s my nephew, NOT me!!!
Wha ?
My nephew is the pump freak...I have other proclivities.
I asked if GSP was your nephew because of that comment.
He’s not, Tattoo.
WE use the primaries to direct the party the direction we want to go and then use the general election to make sure we get ALL Republicans elected until we get another shot at a primary.
Craig should balance it on his head and try to keep it there while Connery and Dalton kick him in the balls.
You got it granny.
It amazes me how many people bray about third parties. You can look at 1912 (or Canada from 1993-2004) to see what that would mean. If conservatives can’t take over the GOP then we sure as hell can’t start a third party and drive it out of business either.
I’m really amazed how often people bring up this idea that would magically “restore the Republic” especially considering it has as much a chance of ever happening as Sarah Shahi inviting me to her Golden Globes after party and when I get there it’s just her and she’s wearing a dress made only of whipped cream.
Wanna restore constitutional government? Process isn’t the problem, leftists are.
Wanna repeal an amendment? How about the 16th?
Or how about the the 19th? Just kidding ladies!! (or am I?)
Also repeal section 2 of the 21st amendment. There is a lot of Byzantine corruption in those states with onerous liquor laws, distribution monopolies, ect. And violating section 2 is only way an ordinary citizen can violate the constitution other than enslaving someone, think about that.
That's just part of their faulty judgement. The other is that these so-called leaders of these pure parties are also human like everyone else and it wouldn't be long until those involved with these pure people would become disenchanted with them, too. It's human nature. We had better figure it out that we only have one viable way to deal with this: First, vote for the most conservative, that can win, in the primary and after that, vote straight Republican. There is no other sane method.
Part of the problem is the anti-17th amendment crowd wants to live in their "tonight we're gonna party like it's 1789" fantasy and not take into account that the state legislatures themselves have changed VASTLY from what they were when "the founders" wrote that amendment. If James Madison or Thomas Jefferson could arrive in a time machine and see the way state legislatures are run TODAY, I doubt they'd trust these people to elect the Senate's dog catcher. For example, the Illinois State Senate is vastly different from the U.S. Senate is because the Illinois State Senate is drawn solely by population, so Chicago-based districts make up half the seats. Under the "1 man, 1 vote" rule, you can't design the Illinois Senate to look like the U.S. Senate and be based on geographic interests, so Chicago gets overrepresented in BOTH houses at the expense of the rest of Illinois. Unless you can return the state legislatures to the type of government they had when "the founders" wrote the constitution, repealing the 17th wouldn't accomplish anything except giving crooked politicians more power.
>> Wanna restore constitutional government? Process isn’t the problem, leftists are. <<
The ridiculous thing here is there are a lot of realistic things that conservatives COULD accomplish at the state level to prevent numerous problems from the 2012 election from occurring again. For example, the constitution is silent about how states can allocate their electoral votes, so in the swing states where we're repeatedly failed to win statewide because of the RAT's GOTV urban machines, the state legislators could adapt the Maine/Nebraska system by majority vote. I believe there's at least four swing states right now where we have a GOP majority in both houses to do this (Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, etc.) It would instantly give us access to numerous electoral votes in 2016 in those states when we're gotten a big fat 0 electoral votes out of them ever since 1992.
But are conservatives talking about and organizing reforms like that? No, they're passing meaningless secession petitions, calling on Obama to be impeached, demanding the 17th be repealed so corrupt RAT legislators can appoint Senators for life, etc., none of which has a snowball's chance in hell of happening. They might as well pass a resolution declaring Ronald Reagan is the "honorary" President now so they can feel good about their circle jerk.
>> Wanna repeal an amendment? How about the 16th? Or how about the the 19th? Just kidding ladies!! (or am I?) Also repeal section 2 of the 21st amendment. There is a lot of Byzantine corruption in those states with onerous liquor laws, distribution monopolies, ect. And violating section 2 is only way an ordinary citizen can violate the constitution other than enslaving someone, think about that. <<
They can blather on all they want about "the founders", it doesn't change that it goes against Conservatism 101 to claim politicians make better decisions for us than the individual does. If the argument is "the founders were ALWAYS right!!" then they might as well add in a repeal of the 12th as a package deal and start demanding Mitt Romney get sworn in as veep because "the founders" thought it was a good idea. They need to start writing talking points about how "our Republic was destroyed" because Al Gore didn't get to be Bush's veep. The rebuttal to the "runner up candidates make bad veeps" response can be "If you don't like the Vice President, MOVE!" Let's be consistent after all. ;-)
But if we wanna have fun with meaningless exercises to "repeal" amendments, then at least focus on repealing amendments that ALL conservatives would agree on That means the 16th for sure. Also, repeal the 23rd, I'm pretty sure all conservatives could get behind that one, even if AuH2ORepublican's proposal for a "state of new Columbia" with the liberal Virginia and Maryland suburbs isn't addressed. In any case, just repealing the 23rd on its own would "disenfranchise" those hard-left socialists who live in D.C. and that's music to my ears. No electoral votes for you!
::insert graphic of Nelson from the Simpsons pointing and laughing::
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.