Can This Party Be Saved?
By Repair Man Jack Posted in 2008 — Comments (43) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
It’s not as if we haven’t tried this one on for size before. A GOP incumbent senator convinces himself he’s landed gentry, rather than a public servant. He disses his constituents and could care less what he at one time proposed a conservative should stand for. He then gets challenged in a senatorial primary and thanks to generous support from the NRSC, holds on by the skin of his teeth and runs in the general election.
This scenario has played out twice in recent election cycles. In 2004, Arlen Specter wore out his welcome with a baronial arrogance that made the greybeards believe that Lowell Weicker had moved south to the Keystone State and reentered the US Senate. Pat Toomey threw down the gauntlet to Snalin’ Arlen and nearly put him out of the GOP’s misery.
The Rhode Island RINO, Lincoln Chafee, displayed what the New York Times would call independence as a GOP Senator. Islamic scripture would more accurately characterize this behavior as Dhimmitude. He went so far as to vote against George W. Bush in the 2004 Election and to vote with his fellow partisans less than 50% of the time on major pieces of legislation before the Senate.
The Former Mayor of Cranston, RI, Steve Laffey, a Republican in real life, as well as in the newspapers, decided that he’d seen enough cheesy episodes of The Lincoln Chaffage Show and went after him in the GOP Senatorial Primary. With massive support from all two GOP apparatchiks in Rhode Island, Chaffey managed a 54-46 win over Laffey.
He then proceeded to convince the NRSC to drain serious campaign money from Jim Talent, Conrad Burns and George Allen. This was then squandered in defeat against Sheldon Whitehouse, a man seen more frequently on milk cartons than in the well of the US Senate. Meanwhile, George Allen, Jim Talent and Conrad Burns put together lost Senate races by fewer percentage points than Lincoln Chafee in 2006.
We now gear up for 2008. GOP incumbent Chuck Hagel has deported himself in a manner that leads me to compare him unfavorably with the humble catheter. The former was designed to aide in urination, Chuck Hagel is a p---ing tool just for fun. While Hagel’s voting record on some issues is vastly less toxic than Specter of Chaffey, his attitude and demeanor display a fundamental lack of respect for the rest of his party, and for the people who sent him to Washington, DC. He has grown insular and arrogant and has long outstayed his welcome.
His major disagreements with the Conservative Base Voter of the Republican Party are on issues that stand atop any list of key issues for 2008. He disagrees with us on Iraq and on Immigration. This, in and of itself, should not be an automatic firing offense. If we keep John McCain around after The Climate Stewardship Act, ideological disagreement alone does not provide just cause.
Hagel goes beyond that by calling anyone who disagrees with him a coward. We expect the Chicken Hawk taunt from Howard Dean of Kosland, or from Edward Kennedy (D – Chappaquiddick Harbor). We don’t expect that sort of asinine behavior from someone outside the Donkey Party.
Hagel has gone so far as to shoot commercials for MoveOn.Org about the War in Iraq. Becoming a guest employee of George Soros is a prime indicator that the time has truly come for a Republican Senator to move on. He’d have to help Michael Moore shoot his next movie to be any more blatantly rude and offensive.
Fortunately, purging Hagel from our body politic like the intestinal blockage he truly has become, does not imply handing his seat over to the dark side of the force. Nebraska State Treasurer Jon Bruning (Shameless campaign website plug inserted here) has decided to make this Republican Senate Seat once more Republican. He polls well against Chuckles, and is raising the money that Chuck Hagel wishes he could pick off an incumbency tree for a quixotic run at The White House.
So that brings us to the question de jour. Are Republican Senate Seats a viable vehicle to defend conservatism? If so, why do we have Chuck Hagel in one, instead of a conservative? These are questions we need to straighten out in the public mind.
Firing Chuck Hagel makes tremendous sense. It reassures the base that we aren’t Tweedledummer to John Kerry’s Tweedledumb. This Senatorial Primary gives the GOP the opportunity to assert internal discipline on our congressional caucus. As a wake up call to our arrogant senators, it would be even more effective than the recall of Gray Davis.
The GOP can actually become a conservative party. It has to start by selecting conservative candidates and requiring that they remain conservative throughout their careers. Firing Chuck Hagel prior to election 2008 would answer a very important question being asked all too often about the GOP. Can this party be saved?
to voluntarily limit its own terms in office.
"I have nothing but contempt for Representatives who only represent themselves." - H. Roe Bartle
Moveon.org is allying themselves with him, Harry Reid and Dick Durbin praise his "courage", and the drive-by media constantly laud his "independence" and "principled" positions. Doesn't he realize that each and every one of the aforementioned people/groups would LOVE to him defeated and replaced with a liberal Democrat in a heartbeat? They like him because he is sticking it to conservatives, but don't think for two seconds that they wouldn't do everything in their power to defeat him come election time.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
He's convinced that he's better than those 'little people' back in his home state. He's doing this whole schtick to run it in.
"I have nothing but contempt for Representatives who only represent themselves." - H. Roe Bartle
In this situation, Teddy Roosevelt said it best: “When they call the roll in the Senate, the senators do not know whether to answer 'present' or 'guilty.'”
“Quack remedies of the universal cure-all type are generally as noxious to the body politic as to the body corporal.” -Theodore Roosevelt
With Senator Chuckie...you might as well have a liberal Dem in there. He's broken Ronald Reagan's Eleventh commandment hundreds of times. What a loser!
Kram
www.FuzzySnake.com
But your blog title makes me wonder about the whole thing.
Can this arrogant wreck of a Republican party be saved?
Will NRSC funnel tons of money to Hagel too? Lindsey?
but Graham is taking a real pounding. He's gone from a 65% positive to 31%. I think (I hope) some of these guys are setting themselves up for private sector jobs.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
criticism about him, he's seemed to be a fairly reliable conservative.
Any word on a credible potential primary opponent? or a credible Democratic challenger?
The ability to quote is a serviceable substitute for wit. Somerset Maugham
Her tactical decisions since 2004 have been preposterous.
"I have nothing but contempt for Representatives who only represent themselves." - H. Roe Bartle
Ensign took over for Dole after 2004 went poorly.
So you can all stop kicking poor Liddy around - after all, she was *opposed* to the Amnesty Bill!
It is the "whole thing." These guys talk conservative, but vote liberal. But, the biggest problem is not what they are doing. It is in the White House. Bush and his cronies can dismantle the Republican Party, unless the Party gets out from underneath them. Bush et. al, are not true conservatives. They are wrapped up with an international and multi-national corporation new world order, or are busily defending themselves against incompetence, corruption, or cronyism charges. These guys are no help.
If we nominate Fred Thompson, can we use this issue AGAINST the Dems? Turn the table, so to speak...
Hillary and Obama both voted for illegal immigrants. This issue ALONE can win us the presidency!
And why can we only use "this issue AGAINST the Dems" if we nominate Fred Thompson? There are other presidential candidates who are against the immigration bill.
Don't get me wrong, I like Thompson...but this comment doesn't make sense.
When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail. -- Abraham Maslow
1) If you're in a moderate state/district that tends to lean Democratic, vote for the moderate in the primary (any port in a storm).
2) If you're in a conservative leaning to conservative state, nominate and vote in the primary for the conservative.
3) Vote for the Republican in the general.
4) Reward behaviour appropriately (i.e. Scream when they do the wrong thing, send them a small check when they do the right thing).
**************
Now, carrying this over to today, I would say that the Republicans that you go after in the primaries are Graham and Hagle and maybe we start thinking about Bennett. They are from conservative states and we can do better than RINOs.
I'd leave Kyl alone in the primary given that Arizona is drifting left.
Romney or Fred.
How do will get rid of Arlene Spectator...... he's disgusting, dumb dawn to dusk...... Need to drive a stake through his heart ( if he has one)
the only way he leaves the Senate is on a plank. Since 2010 is an "off year", there isn't much probability of him getting tossed by a national conservative wave and I doubt there's a credible challenger in PA.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
While we're at it, is it too late for Alan Keyes to move to Nebraska?
The more real conservatives that run in purple states, the better! (For me and my lib buddies, that is.)
Slip Caligula Rodham Clinton a Mickey Finn so that The Party of The Obstinate Barnyard Mammal runs the Kucinich/Gravel ticket in 2008, and I'll pay Keyes' moving expenses. He'd still be slightly less of an embarassment than Chuck Hagel.
"I have nothing but contempt for Representatives who only represent themselves." - H. Roe Bartle
Didn't he run on slavery reparations last time out? Didn't he get devastated by that empty suit Obama?
Run like Reagan!
One of the weirdest positions ever. If you didn't notice, though, Santorum sort of got destroyed last time too. I was being facetious.
Notice that the Democrats had to run an anti-abortion candidate to neutralize one of Rick's top issues.
Run like Reagan!
I'm guessing that a Toomey redux v Snarlin would result in a Snarlin landslide. He might have a better shot against Casey in 2012 (another guess).
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I don't know about a landslide for Arlen, but I would much rather go after Empty Suit Casey.
___________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson
But that is a hope against hope.
In war the only thing worse than defeat is losing.
-Me
We need credible candidates in order to beat incumbents. To get those we need to repeal campaign finance laws, so that incumbents will have to fear challengers regardless of the amount of time they spend raising money.
Term limits don't make incumbents afraid of anything.
Run like Reagan!
You lost me there. How can you have incumbents entrenched if you have term limits?
How does term limits reduce the quality of the challenger?
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
It doesn't matter if you're in for 2 years or 20: every incumbent has a big advantage, given our current campaign laws and the fact that incumbents have inherent advantages in name recognition and the newsmaking ability that comes with the office.
Term limits reduce the quality of the challengers in that we'll eventually burn through the best challengers once they get term limited out.
Statesmen don't grow on trees. We have a hard enough time finding them as it is, and you'd ask us to turn away the ones we do find after a few years.
Run like Reagan!
But term limits kick out the incumbent so they don't have an advantage.
I'd be willing to bet we can find a Jeff Sessions easier than we can kick out a Ted Kennedy.
A variation on term limits is set the limit at 1 or 2 consecutive terms but then the incumbent must sit out a term and then can re run. That can eliminate the incumbent advantage and for those stellar politicians they can run again.
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite
...has served ten. Is that too many? Just right?
Also, they are "the only solution"??? Wow. Not one single answer elsewhere in the world?
I wouldn't say they are the entirety of a solution or the only one. If term limits are to be a solution there needs to be something else to prevent power shifting to the permanent bureaucracy.
Just my two cents. I like term limits. Washington seems to have a bad effect on people not unlike any large metropolis that falsely thinks its the center of the universe.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I don't think the country has been ruined because of the term limits on POTUS. I don't understand why there is a problem with the congresscritters™ having term limits too.
"We should scrap this “comprehensive” immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders -- or at least made great headway."
Fred Thompson
1. We have a Presidential term limit
2. We haven't ruined the country
3. Therefore Congressional term limits should be done!
As far as I'm concerned, term limits address a symptom, not the problem.
Abolish Campaign Finance Regulation!
Run like Reagan!
You instead argue that term limits do not address the problem. From what you just posted I do not read any opposition to term limits because they do harm. So you are not against term limits per se you just want campaign finance regulation abolished. Why then don't we do both?
"We should scrap this “comprehensive” immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders -- or at least made great headway."
Fred Thompson
I'll tell you why not: Term limits drive out the good people from government, but don't prevent the voters from replacing the good and the bad with more bad.
I'd repeal the Presidential term limit, myself.
Run like Reagan!
You are asserting that term limits drive out the good preferentially. Is there anything to back this up ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
If we assume a Republic works, then we will favor electing the best. Those best will then get termed out.
Take a look at the California legislature. Long into term limits, we have no leaders. It's just a revolving door of people who stop in a few years to vote as the lobbyists suggest.
Run like Reagan!
We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think the 22nd amendment is as bad as the 18th amendment was.
"We should scrap this “comprehensive” immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders -- or at least made great headway."
Fred Thompson
Its not conclusive to me. The republic was founded with the idea that public service would be temporary and a way of contributing to the community. There is also the problem of gerrymandering and the fact that most seats are rotten boroughs these days.
I'll have to take a look at the california legislature. I didn't realize they had term limits. I also wonder if there are other factors.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Now that it's dead, what does this mean for Republicans in 2008? And going forward in general? USA Today is already touting that Hispanics are going for Hillary and Dick Morris says the GOP just cost itself 2008. I'm skeptical, but it begs the question, "what are the electoral consquences"?
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
The WaPo actually has a reasonably balanced article about the voting today. Check this part out.
Republicans on both sides acknowledged the immigration fight had riven the GOP. Republican Senate aides, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were divulging internal deliberations, said Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.) was furious with McConnell over the leader's refusal to confront the bill's most implacable opponents, who had virtually commandeered the Senate floor, blocking the introduction of amendments, refusing to offer amendments of their own and then complaining that an unfair process was preventing them from improving the bill.
Lott told McConnell that Sens. Vitter, Jim DeMint (S.C.) and Jeff Sessions (Ala.) were becoming the uncompromising faces of the Republican Party, a prospect that could set it back for years as the Latino vote grows in power.
McConnell went along with Reid's novel attempt at an end run around the triumvirate, collapsing 26 amendments into one giant "clay pigeon" and then splitting it apart into 26 distinct pieces to vote on. But when DeMint, Vitter and Sessions blasted Reid as unfair, McConnell stayed silent. Indeed, he virtually disappeared from the Senate floor, until he came to vote against the bill.
That show the longer an officeholder is in office, the more likely they are to throw money at problems to solve them. Seeing as the government spending money to solve problems that have never needed government money before is fundamentally a liberal concept. We can conclude the longer in washington the more liberal.
No matter what the case it doesn't hurt to remind our elected overlords that they can be given notice.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777