Posted on 06/27/2014 4:03:16 AM PDT by Hojczyk
On balance the Republican “establishment” has done fairly well this primary season. Its favored candidate in the Nebraska Senate race lost, and of course Eric Cantor went down to defeat, but Thad Cochran, Lindsey Graham, and Mitch McConnell all hung on. So, all is right in the world, right?
Not really. It is important to differentiate the candidates challenging the establishment from the voters backing those challengers. The candidates are either amateurs with no political background or upstarts who refuse to wait their place in line.
They often have fewer funds, employ less experienced consultants, and lack the personal assets necessary to campaign effectively. Occasionally, a virtuoso rock star like Marco Rubio emerges, but the typical insurgent is lucky just to know how to hold the guitar.
The problem for the Republican party writ large is that the Cochran-type does not seem like an outlier. People do not see the GOP as a party out to make the government “smaller and smarter,”
The party’s leaders need to ask themselves: if their purpose is to perpetuate interest group liberalism, why should anybody vote for them? There is already a party whose central purpose is to carve up the federal pie for its clients/voters. It is called the Democratic party, and nobody does interest group liberalism better than it does.
People do not see the GOP as a party out to make the government “smaller and smarter,” to “celebrate success, entrepreneurship, and innovation.” They certainly do not see think it is trying to “lift up the middle class.” They see a party that perpetuates and expands government as it suits them, often to the benefit of the well-heeled interest groups that have descended upon the nation’s capital.
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
I give the American Conservative Union (ACU) some credit for knowing the difference between "conservative" and "not-conservative".
You can find their reports here.
ACU ranks seven Republican and every Democrat Senator as "less conservative" than Mississippi's Thad Cochran.
Indeed there are no Democrats -- none -- who are more conservative than even the most liberal Republican -- your own Senator Collins.
By the way, ACU ranks McConnell at 92% last year, and his fellow Kentuckian Paul at 90%.
So don't believe everything you read about them.
Of course, the fact that some Republicans are less conservative than we like is a matter of serious concern.
But the places to fight those battles are the primaries.
If we lose in the primaries, our recourse is not to throw out a less-than-ideally conservative Republican in favor of a radically liberal Democrat, but rather to vow to work harder the next time.
Of course, if you wish to join a genuinely conservative political party (i.e., the Constitution Party), I'd say that' fine.
But then don't expect to elect any candidates, or effect the course of government.
Cboldt: "You are the one questioning my sanity.
I don't question yours, I just see you (approximately) as an enemy.
Not that I see you as a personal threat, just we don;t agree, and so what to that.
I'll not count you as a friend, anyway."
FRiend, I don't question your sanity, I'm suggesting you should question your own, if you find yourself wishing to throw out a less-than-perfect Republican in favor of some lunatic liberal Democrat.
By the way, speaking of Collins, I notice now she's up for reelection this year, and since I don't follow Maine politics, maybe you can tell us how she's doing?
Is there a primary with a Tea Party candidate?
Besides yourself, are there any other real conservatives in Maine?
Oh, and one more thing: I said before you could well argue that R-Collins is no better than D-Manchin, but that is actually not correct.
Despite similar voting records & ACU rankings, there is a hugely significant difference between Collins and Manchin, a difference which can be summed up in two words: Harry Reid.
So, even a "moderate" RINO like Collins is still vastly superior to any Democrat alternative.
Just to be clear: The ACU has become a RINO operation, bestowing its highest 100% rating on MITCH McCONNELL just last year. MITCH McCONNELL!
FRiend, that's a very astute observation, and more-or-less defines our basic political problem: even when people switch parties, they often bring their old values (i.e., Big Government) with them, and expect to see those values expressed by their new political representatives.
For example, many of the so-called "Reagan Democrats" still want to see the Federal Government solving all their problems.
mazda77: "In 2006, the Republicans were thrown out of control of both houses because they just could not help themselves."
Sorry, but that argument makes no sense, when you consider: immediately after Democrats took charge, they began a spending spree which made Republicans look like pikers.
So the bigger cause of Republican downfall was simply the War on Terror, especially Iraq, which had not gone as well, or ended as quickly, as the Bush people had lead people to expect.
Indeed, consider this: there's virtually nobody today who, had they been told of conditions in 2014 back in 2001, would have voted for the course laid out.
Of course, we don't know now how it will all end, but as of today, sure looks like a lot of serious effort, blood and treasure are being p*ssed away.
mazda77: "There is an old saying that the truth shall set you free, but most have no idea what the rest of it is.
It follows with but at first it will drive you insane."
Here is the full context for your quote from John 8:32.
You'll notice Jesus says nothing about driving somebody insane.
A distinction without a difference.
-- speaking of Collins, I notice now she's up for reelection this year, and since I don't follow Maine politics, maybe you can tell us how she's doing? --
Or maybe you could just look it up. United States Senate Election in Maine, 2014.
-- Besides yourself, are there any other real conservatives in Maine? --
Yes.
-- So, even a "moderate" RINO like Collins is still vastly superior to any Democrat alternative. --
True, at least for Maine. I think not necessarily true, overall. Each candidate stands on his or her own positions and actions.
On the whole, the Maine GOP, like the Maine DEM party, is a group of moneyed insiders, out to feather its own nest. Le Page is doing a nice job up here in the governor's spot. I'll vote for him.
I use news reports and ACU ratings (and other written material like pundit remarks, blog posts, etc.) as a "lead" for doing my own research. After following the US Senate closely, for a few years, it is a no-brainer for me to conclude that the news reports are incomplete at best, and generally misleading. I feel the same way about ACU summaries. My opinion of McConnell is informed by a years-long period of observation.
Sorry, my mistake, misread the ACU numbers.
For 2013, McConnell ranks 90% and Paul 96% -- not the 90% I reported.
Yes, both ranked 100% in 2012, but Paul's lifetime score is 99% compared to McConnell's 90%.
ACU puts Coburn, Cruz & Lee at the top of the 2013 Conservative class, with 100% scores.
Twenty-one Republican senators scored 80% or higher, including McConnell, Paul, Rubio, Thune and my own Toomey.
Among the lowest scoring Republicans are Maine's Collins and Kirk from Illinois.
So those ACU ratings seem to reflect reality pretty well.
Do you know of a service which does the job better?
Please note my correction in post #46 above.
McConnell & Paul both scored a perfect 100% in 2012, but in 2013 McConnell fell to 90% while Paul maintained 96%.
So, seems to me, both fall into the category of "solid conservatives", and I get the feeling McConnell is receiving a bum-rap.
His overall score is not as bad as the vitriol directed at him suggests.
Can Republicans do better than McConnell?
Maybe -- I would vote for leadership by somebody with a perfect 100% or near perfect score.
But I'm not going to howl protests against somebody who's "only" 90%, if that's the best we can do, politically.
So here's my question to you: if you dispute ACU's scores, which organization do you suggest does a better job of it?
Only Jesus like purity will be acceptable. Any thing short is unacceptable
We can be silly, or we can look for flawed men who yet have the spirit of Christ obviously operating in their lives.
There is a larger issue than political parties going on in this country. We are engaged in a cultural war for the soul of the country and the restoration of the constitutional republic.
This country is split down the middle between two diametrically oppsed points of view; big government socialism/communism and small government conservative democracy if you will. The only resemblance to 1850 or 1861 is the level of animosity and vitriol. Even higher that before the Civil War IMO.
This conflict will not be settled at the ballot box due to the fact that the level of corruption and criminality has reached too high into both parties. Since our system of government does not lend itself to a third party you will not see a strong third party emerge. It will not happen.
What you will see is one of two things:
1. A resolution conflict ending in a climactic shakeup of our entire government and a restoration of the constitutional republic.
2. A resolution conflict ending in a coalition of separatist regions.
I am personally hopeful for #1. I could live with #2. I cannot abide the status quo.
We are one Bundy ranch away from the kickoff of a resolution conflict. The powers that be in the Federal government and both parties are completely aware of this. That is why you don’t see the GOPe doing anymore than the Dems to roll back the militarization of the DHS and other govt agencies as well as the police forces around the country.
That is the only reason to fight for the election of guys like Cruz, Lee, Paul, Gomerht, Gowdy, Sessions, Hunter et al is so there will be enough good guys around to make sure we put the puzzle back together after the fire.
For Heritage only Mike Lee scores 100%, though Cruz, Paul & Roberts all score above 90%.
Clearly, Heritage sets the bar higher than does ACU.
I say: that's all good, and we should pick our leaders from the top of such lists.
Further, we should take careful note of what I call the Mainstream Republican Career Line -- true in virtually every example (except old Ron Paul) that I've looked at.
It is that these guys most all start off young-and-conservative, but over time grow to be old-and-"moderate".
Just like Thad Cochran, they slip-slide their way down the slippery slope toward "moderate" liberalism.
That's an argument for term-limits, but also stronger primary challengers.
Of course, if an old Thad Cochran uses skullduggery to defeat his primary opponent, it gets frustrating.
But I surely would not turn the state over to a Democrat senator.
The phrase "cutting off your nose to spite your face" comes to mind.
When the issue matters to me, I do my own independent research.
So, you consider Rand Paul a solid conservative?
ACU scores are based on votes on pending legislation. A candidate's inclination is more than that. Plus, the ACU ratings reflect the makeup of Congress, which for the past 20 or so years, probably more, has been approximately liberal on both sides of the aisle. Of course there is a difference between the parties. That's what energizes the public. But if neither major party is willing or inclined to rein in the federal government, which party actually advocates conservative principles?
It’s important to examine the details of such ratings.
Conservatives who back open borders (it’s not really amnesty either) will never get the chance to prove their conservatism in a meaningful way. Millions of new Democrat voters will see to that.
I don’t really trust Heritage either, but it seems to comport better with the reality I see.
-—— skullduggery——
Age and treachery
overcome youth and skill
(since the beginning of time)
1. A resolution conflict ending in a climactic shakeup of our entire government and a restoration of the constitutional republic..."
Those will not happen, any more than Bill Ayres 1960s era bomb making and thousands of hippie demonstrations shouting "what do we want? Revolution! When do we want it? Now!"
They didn't get violent revolution.
Instead they got Bill Clinton and Barak Obama for presidents and Obama-Care's medical "revolution".
Today there is not yet a critical-mass of citizens in favor of conservative reforms, but November could be a big step in that direction, and if so, the next two years will get very interesting indeed.
I like your posts!
Is that a quote, or from your own store of pithy wisdom?
“Today there is not yet a critical-mass of citizens in favor of conservative reforms”
And there never will be. That is just not reality.
Throwing down the gauntlet there?
(since the beginning of time) is my wisdom.
The rest is on a sign posted over my desk
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.