The Race Begins: Cantor For Status Quo
Who Cares What the Voters Said
By Erick Posted in 2006 — Comments (17) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
While the Republicans are talking a good game this morning about how they need to grow a pair, act like conservatives again, etc. Eric Cantor has apparently not really learned that lesson.
After leaving the distinct impression some weeks ago that he wanted to be Minority Leader, Eric Cantor has decided he does in fact want to do that. He's also pushing for Roy Blunt to remain as Whip. Such a pair would be a vote for the status quo, something voters rejected last night.
While I'd generally be amenable to both Cantor and Blunt for those positions, I think it sends a very bad and strong signal to the base that yesterday sent a very clear message demanding institutional reforms of the GOP in a conservative direction.
Roy Blunt, to be sure, did yeoman's work trying to keep the majority. But, it is time for fresh faces and conservative faces at the top of House Republican Leadership food chain. Mike Pence as Leader, John Shadegg as Whip, and someone like Marsha Blackburn as Conference Chair would send a strong signal that the GOP actually heard the voters on Tuesday night and intends to learn a lesson.
Cantor as leader would just be more of the same, something even Republican voters last night said they did not want.
« When Negative Ads Backfire — Comments (4) | Some Good News out of Ohio — Comments (4) »
The Race Begins: Cantor For Status Quo 17 Comments (0 topical, 17 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Rumsfeld to step down and be replaced with Lieberman. That'll give us the Senate by 1. I'm really just guessing there but that seems to be appropriate.
Read this in a couple places as well; it sure would be interesting to see happen, but I don't think it has the slightest possibility.
43 has consistently supported and lauded the performance of Rumsfeld, as little as days ago. To follow this speculation, he'd basically be saying that Lieberman is outright and obviously a better person to hold that position - making the change in a time of war, in the middle of the mission... 43 would have to make a case that Lieberman is soooo much better than Rumsfeld, even though Rumsfeld hasn't made any mistakes and has had the President's consistent support. Or he could just say the only reason he's doing it is to retain a (R) senate, and then make it look like he's placed that above the success of the mission.
For Lieberman, maybe he's a ruthless self-promoter at the core, but I still can't fathom how he'd have any credibility left if the day after his re-election he essentially snubs (D)'s who voted for him by refusing to take the senate seat he was just elected to, thereby putting a (R) in office instead. (R)'s don't like him, and now (D)'s wouldn't like him. It would be the last high visibility government job he'd ever hold again... he probably wants more than that.
It just makes zero sense for either of the two participants who would have to affirmatively participate in such a move.
I'm afraid that Republican leadership is likely to believe that "salvation" comes by moving to the middle rather than by becoming more conservative.
The Washington Times is reporting that one of the few "winners" yesterday on the GOP side was John McCain. As I was afraid, this election loss seems to have energized him and pushed him solidly toward the '08 nomination.
Add in George Allen's apparent loss (or at best a squeaker win), and a dollop of at least subconscious blame of conservative and religious right voters who "abandoned" the GOP in droves in their hour of need and I think it is easy to see why we are hearing talk of Cantor and Blunt and a "stay the course" sort of leadership option.
I'm hoping that Pence and Shadegg mount a successful challenge, but I'm not overly optimistic at the moment.
I think McCain was one of the few 'winners' on our side last night. We want to hold the white house and McCain is our best candidate.
This obsession with playing musical chairs with leadership positions serves no useful purpose.
Republicans seem fixated on the notion that if they just find the right person to lead them, all problems will be solved. That strikes me as a non-conservative outlook on things.
Our problems do not lie in the House leadership. They lie in the White House.
I don't understand the obsession here with getting rid of Blunt, or with promoting Mr Amnesty to the leadership role.
Is he a fighter? That's all that really matters.
You see, we like Giuliani because he's a passionate fighter for our side, even when we don't always agree with him. The last thing we need is another Bob Michel.
What matters is his principles. Blount has none to speak of. Hastert has earned his place on the scrapheap of history. Cantor needs to shut up and watch.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Cantor has been a very impressive member of leadership. He is conservative. He has built bridges to other conservatives, and he has shown leadership in both tax policy and foreign policy. I like Pence too, but either would be great.
BTW, my immediate thought this morning is that we need a great campaign chair and my mind came immediately to Cantor.
He's part of the leadership team that FAILED. You point out the problem when you note that he's built bridges to conservatives. We don't need bridge builders, we need leaders. Conservative leaders. Cantor goes.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Im on board with Pence, but you are oh so wrong about shadegg.
Use your head. Discarding Blunt would be an uber bad thing (tm).
When you are talking about the whip position, you are talking about counting and keeping votes in line. Blunt does a great job on that.
Minority Leader Pence, Minority Whip Shadegg is the only way forward.
Cantor is also part of the RSC. I have no sense of how a Pence candidacy will play inside the caucus. Just don't try to make Cantor sound like a disaster. It's ridiculous. His record is absolutely as strong as Pence's.
If you ask me, RINO Mehlman needs to go. He did a terrible job this election cycle. We wasted money on races, in blue states, like New Jersey and Maryland, where those resources should have been spent on Virginia and Montana. It would have made a difference. Then we would still have control of the Senate. Instead of wasting millions trying to get Texas voters to write in Sekula Gibbs, we could have saved any number of House seats that we lost by narrow margin. The money we wasted trying to save Foley's seat would have ensured pick-ups in GA-8(we came up less than 1,000 votes shy), and GA-12(Lost by about 2%), which would have added two very conservative Republicans to our ranks in Washington. Bur instead Mehlman decided that those two symbolic victories would be vital to our party...both of which we lost anyway. Mehlman is an amnesty-supporting, affirmative action-backing hack. Newt wants to run for President. He won't win. But he is the best campaigner, fund-raiser, organizer, and policy writer that our party has. He is also a real conservative, unlike Mehlman. Newt would be the best RNC chair we could hope for. Down with Mehlman, up with Newt.
Just Say No To Amnesty: http://www.fairus.org
Wonder if Karl Rove is leaving or something like that??
Go Dawgs, Sic em' Woof Woof