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.
Civil War II between the Red and the Blue states.
If the 17th amendment had never happened the Senate would be Republican and more conservative. FACT.
It might be more Republican at present, but how’d you like a Senate full of country clubber big gubmint accommodationists ? That’s what you’d have. Ted Cruz ? Nope. Kentucky would’ve been sending Democrats, because the KY House is still majority Democrat. No Rand Paul but those typical Southern-fried “fake” Conservative Democrats of the Manchin (or worse) vintage... if not Robert Byrd.
Of course, you being a Virginian, I can understand your frustration having a GOP legislature with two execrable urban leftist Democrat Senators and that the 17th would stop that dead in its tracks. Problem is, again, you’d have John Warner types or more like my 2 Senators in TN, the epitome of the party establishment (and those two would be easily elected by the state legislature, no question, though we would not have had a GOP Senator elected from the 1870s until 2009 with the 17th repeal — and you guys wouldn’t have had them from the Readjuster period until the ‘90s).
It is not a zero sum game. If the 17th were repealed then state politics would get the attention it deserves, most people don’t even know the name of the state representative. Repealing the 17th would change that if that state rep was selecting your US Senator.
Nope. Saying it's a FACT doesn't it one (another anti-17th amendment conservative told me it was a "FACT" the Senate would have never passed Obamacare if there was no 17th, and that certainly wasn't a fact since the majority of state legislatures in America were Democrat at the time Obamacare was being considered by the Senate, and they would have thus appointed socialist Obama flunkies)
If you're talking about the overall Senate makeup since 1913, it definitely wouldn't be a "FACT" since Democrats had firm control of a majority of state legislatures at numerous times since 1913.
If you're talking about this exact moment, yes, there would be more Republicans in the Senate at present than there are under the popular vote method. But it is not a fact they'd be more conservative. The GOP establishment party bosses in most states are warily of "tea party types" they can't "control", and the vast majority of appointed Senators chosen by state government has been mostly low-key, don't-rock-the-boat party hacks and yes-men. I believe the most likely scenario is most of the appointed Republican Senators would be less conservative than their elected counterparts.
My state rep would have no say whatsoever in selecting my US Senator. Illinois Speaker of the House Mike Madigan would pick one behind closed doors, and she would duly rubber stamp whoever he told her to.
Well because YOU live in a corrupt state doesn’t mean we all have to see it YOUR way from Yankeeland. I couldn’t live there, It is a sh1t hole up there.
I live in a gerrymandered state house district that is 80% suburban and 20% urban. The 20% urban portion are improvised black neighborhoods full of violence that vote 95% Dem and have nothing in common with the rest of the district but have an huge influence in the results overall because their overwhelmingly Dem tilt.
Why would repeal of the 17th cause them to "pay more attention" to who the candidates are? Right now their own concern is locating which one has a "D" next to their name. (Ideally they'd prefer a black state rep., however due to demographics, Madigan ensures a white suburban Dem in the RAT candidate).
Look at the 2008 and 2012 election results and tell me how many of the states voted AGAINST the communist upsurger? It seems a clear majority of them did, including your "conservative" state. Why is that? Just because you want to PRETEND most states aren't corrupt and filled with vote fraud, doesn't make that a reality.
Who cares? Illinois is going to have 2 liberal Senators anyway. You live in a one party corrupt state, similar to most Yankee states, so quit imposing your crap on the rest of us. Repealing the 17th would vastly improve the Senate for most of the non corrupt sates. My advice get out there. Move to Texas or somewhere south. Shouting from inside the toilet that is smell like crap is stupid, get out of the toilet.
I hate that. While I may or may not agree with 1 man 1 vote in principle it would be extremely helpful to us to have State Senates based on areas of geographic interest. The dems would have no chance at the Illinois Senate.
>> 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 was all over the idea of the splitting up the electoral votes, it was brought up in PA I think.
PA and MI for sure should have done it. Honestly they are morons for not doing so just and Nebraska was idiotic for not abolishing it there where it is not helpful. The democrats aren't in any similar position in any state to be able to retaliate.
Romney would have got 9 votes from Michigan (he carried every GOP seat and probably saved Benishek and the Paulbot in the 11th from losing).
My source has not finished doing the numbers from PA but I presume he took every GOP seat in PA as well since he did get the 6th and 8th. That's another 10. 19 extra votes. If you had WI do it as well that's 5 more votes, 24.
Add that to stolen Florida and you have 259, just 11 short of victory. Get on it, morons. Heaven forbid 1 of the Governors isn't reelected in 2014.
>>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!<<
I forgot about the 23rd amendment. If a democrat ever wins 270-268 cause of that stupid shite you will be able to stick your head out your window and hear me screaming from 20 miles away. There were not a lot of GOP legislatures when that was ratified so we couldn't have stopped it probably but every GOP controlled chamber voted it in (and Alabama did so in 2002 for some reason, probably cause some blithering idiot made a stink).
Imagine the democrats giving 3 electoral votes to a tiny GOP city-state. That would happen as soon the rats in my neighborhood start crapping gold ingots instead of rat crap.
Nothing will make the sheeple democrap voters pay attention to the state leg, nothing.
And God forbid they do, they may decided their guy isn’t Marxist enough!
Remember we are not dealing with 19th Century America here, that is the most important point. The people are flipping stupid, they are the problem, process is not the problem. A different process cannot fix the problem.
Stop comparing your state with other states. The 17th amendment was passed during a very progressive era. You are defending the progressive agenda.
The 17th amendment was passed during a very progressive era.
So what, not everything is bad cause it was passed in the 1910's.
HA-HA, you sound like me, let me guess, they will repeal O-care once more then get nothing out of the debt limit after all their boasting on TV.
I think that for it to be sound strategy for GOP legislatures and governors to switch to a ME/NE system there must be enough states doing the same thing so as to make it unlikely that the move would bite the GOP in the behind. I count 6 states where the GOP controlled both houses and the governorship both prior to November and currently and which recently have voted Democrat in presidential elections: FL, PA, OH, MI, VA and WI. Had all 6 switched to the ME/NE EV allocation method prior to November, and had the vote been exactly the same as it was in November (a HUGE “if,” since obviously the Obama campaign would have targeted marginal CDs in, say, PA, instead of just making sure to get out the vote in Philly), then Romney would have picked up 16 EVs in FL, 13 in PA, 12 in OH, 9 in MI, 7 in VA (it should have been 8, but Rigell’s VA-01 gave Obama a 50-49 victory) and 5 in WI, which would have given Romney 268 electoral votes, one short of throwing the election to the House (and two short of a majority). And had Romney been able to carry one of those states, he would have reached 270 EVs (since the statewide winner gets 2 bonus EVs under the ME/NE system), so we wouldn't have the anomaly of having the switch cost the Republican the election.
Of course, Romney was very fortunate to carry all those marginal CDs in FL, PA, OH, VA and MI, and had Obama done a smidgen better in the suburbs he would have flipped a handful of EVs, but had that been the case Romney would have had no chance with a winner-takes-all system either.
So I think that the GOP legislatures in FL, PA, OH, MI, VA and WI should consider switching to the ME/NE system, but only if all of them are willing to do it. It wouldn't guarantee a GOP victory in 2016, but it certainly would make it an easier road to 270.
Peter Fitzgerald
U.S. Senator from Illinois, 1998-2005
Conservative Republican
Elected to office
Everett Dirksen
U.S. Senator from Illinois, 1951-1969
Conservative Republican
Elected to office
And that's not even counting the RINO Senators from Illinois during recent decades (Mark Kirk, Chuck Percy, etc.) who would have never been Senators if Speaker-for-life Mike Madigan got to make the pick instead of the voters.
Tell me again how repealing the 17th "wouldn't matter" in majority Democrat states?
Bush was elected President twice without a single EV from Pennsyvania (although admittedly by the skin of his teeth in 2000)
I think a more likely problem is that if GOP legislatures in swing states dropped the "winner take all" system because they never win statewide in Presidential elections, Dem controlled legislatures would neutralize the effect by doing likewise.
The good news is my first glance at the map shows there's not many areas where they could do so in order to erase new electoral votes the GOP would get out of FL/PA/OH/MI/VA/WI. The Dems could probably pick up quite a few electoral votes out of right-of-center moderate southern states if they switched to the Maine/Nebraska system, but those states are currently controlled by GOP legislatures so they'd stick with winner-take-all. The Dems would have the most to gain from changing Texas, at least on paper, since they virtually zero chance of carrying it statewide in a presidential election right now, but due to sheer population and congressional districts they could gain quite a few EVs by allocating them based Congressional district winner. There are large swaths of Dem-controlled areas in Texas, like the panhandle by the Gulf of Mexico and most of the major cities. However, the state legislature would never play ball and switch from winner take all. Arizona, same problem for the Dems on a smaller scale. The only state where they could use the legislature to change the system and might benefit is West Virginia, but it only has five electoral votes so at most they'd gain 1 or 2 EVs by that method.
The advice of the anti-17th amendment crowd is always "if you don't like your state legislature, MOVE!", so I will use your own logic and return the favor. If you don't like the way the U.S. Senate is chosen, my advice is to move to Canada or someplace north. Then you can rest assured that politicians will choose your Senators for you. Canadians hate their system, so feel free to go up there and champion how great it is to have politicians appoint Senators for life with no accountability from voters.
I find it curious that the arguments of the anti-17thers are full of rank speculation with little substance. I’ve laid out the specifics for what it would mean in reality repeatedly, but have yet to find anyone who can substantively refute them. In this very thread, one of your compatriots couldn’t even make the argument beyond “I’m right, you’re wrong.” Is that a logical and substantive discussion ? Most of what you yourself are putting forth are red herrings.
That there would be this “sudden interest” amongst low or no information voters is also absurd and without a shred of proof beyond rank supposition and hope. You seem to think we’ll magically go back to the late 1700s/early 1800s in types of statesmanship. How is that going to happen ? It won’t.
Again, don’t take this for challenging you as a person. I know you want a better and more accountable government with people fully engaged. I want that, too. But repealing the 17th won’t do that at all. It will merely serve to disenfranchise voters like me, as it is one of the few offices I have any input in (being in Democrat legislative districts, whose members willfully ignore voters like me). I do not want legislative hacks (of either party) choosing my Senators.
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.