GOP Presidential Candidates: Prove To Me You Aren't A Cowardly Candidate
By Erick Posted in 2008 — Comments (14) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I'm going to speak my mind and leave no stone un-thrown. (Rare of me, ain't it?!)
I realize the Presidential candidates for the GOP have their master strategies and don't want to burn bridges, etc. But, I also see the Republicans in Congress and, perhaps excepting those in the new Reagan 21 Caucus, they really are freakin' clueless about how angry a lot of us still are with them.
The Candidate Cowards running for President need to be more aggressive in actually asserting the need to clean up our own house. Come on people!
If you aren't out on the campaign trail actually speaking the names Don Young, Ted Stevens, John Doolittle, and Jerry Lewis -- saying how unacceptable it is that these men remain in the ranks of Republican leaders, you really are pathetic.
The Republican voter is fed up. We're fed up recognizing the virtual impossibility of winning in 2008, because the Republican *minority* in Congress won't clean up their act and the Republican Presidential candidates -- vying for the top job in the party, are going no further than talking about speaking up for the Republican wing of the Republican party (to his credit, at least Mitt's gone that far). Zero leaders on the issue that actually got the GOP thrown out of office last year.
Let me be the leader on this issue. It is totally and completely unacceptable for Don Young, Ted Stevens, John Doolittle, and Jerry Lewis to maintain the level of influence they do on the Republican congressional leadership.
And it's about time our Presidential candidates say so, because Mitch McConnell, Trent Lott, and John Boehner either don't mind or are too scared.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | A useful tool — Comments (6) »
GOP Presidential Candidates: Prove To Me You Aren't A Cowardly Candidate 14 Comments (0 topical, 14 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
HTML Help for Red Staters
Erick, the problem that I see here is that McConnell and Lott are part of the problem, and therefore will never help to clean up the mess. I don't know about John Boehner, so I am reserving judgement on him, but I have watched McConnell and Lott for years. We need to get new leadership in the Senate.
Erick's right, this needs to come from the guys running for the other branch.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
A few of them have nudged in this direction - Rudy ripping the Congressional GOP on spending, Mitt running an ad that basically suggested that corruption was a problem. But they could all be doing more to force the housecleaning now rather than later. You would think Fred, who made his name as an anti-corruption guy in the 70s, 80s and 90s would be able to do this. Or McCain, granted that McCain still has to work with these people in the Senate.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
What about Trent "Tracktrack to Bagdad" Lott?
Are ya saying HE should clean up Washington? Maybe if he left Washington, that would do it.
Jim Tomasik
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
And Erickson too, I guess. Maybe we should write the governor for a sheriff.
The time has come for us, Americans all, to be as concerned about the means we achieve our political results as with the results--and I don't mean just the way campaigns are conducted. It means the way the legislatures--local, state, federal--operate.
It means criticizing our own when they stray--and Erickson knows I walk that walk, because I just sent him an email blasting him on his whole "Paultard" tomfoolery.
For our politics is at a problematical turning point. While there was never any golden age of public-spirited leaders--except for the Founding--today's Washington politician is as likely to be a true "leader" as I am to be Emperor of China. This must change. There have to be limits, and pols must be willing to set them at times--even if it means an election.
Now, I don't dream of some utopia. Politics isn't beanbag. Cicero and Cato, after all, got themselves killed despite all their noble speeches. And though I like sausage, I don't go around thinking there is some better way to make it.
But on the other hand, if the American experiment is not to die, then we must retain some measure of Republican virtue (both big and little r's). And so I'll put my marker down here--if regaining a majority means that I have to continue to put up with the antics of a Young, Stevens, or Cunningham, then I would rather not have it.
One of George Washington's favorite plays was Cato, by Addison. There is a phrase from it, paraphrased, that goes a little something like this:
"We cannot command success. But we can do more. We can be deserving of it."
Neither side has been deserving of success recently.
The issue must be raised at the GOP primary level starting with SOMEONE RUNNING AGAINST THESE INCUMBENTS! Otherwise the Dems will be more than happy to team up to beat GOP incumbents with disgusted GOP voters and we'll be left with more members of "Team Pelosi" pushing for surrender in Iraq, higher taxes and more "gay rights".
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
I am, for full disclosure...
Fred's not come out for their expulsion or beaten them from pillar to post, or called them spineless incompetent corrupt dipwads in public... is that what is wanted? I'm not saying that would be bad, especially for Young & Stevens (the higher-profile folks) but how do you want it done? Should they be tarred, feathered, & pilloried - or should they be called down soberly & somberly for their screw-ups?
Tarring and feathering may be a very effective deterrent...
But perhaps all a candidate needs to do is something along the lines of:
"Once elected, I will expect Republicans in Congress to work with me toward our common goal of reducing unnecessary government spending. One way we will meet this goal is through the elimination of expenditures on local projects that are best funded at the State, City, and County level. Such local projects are most often associated with "pork" and "earmarks", made infamous by the excesses of [insert infamous names here]. I will veto any bill sent to me that includes an earmark introduced by any Republican, but it is my belief that I will not have to take that step, because inauguration day 2009 will mark a new beginning for consistently principled Republican stewardship of our federal government. Together we will demonstrate which party really takes the interests of the American people seriously."
Seems like a longshot but we should keep poking these candidates until they get a clue.
It's time to tear down the Congressional Good Ol' Boys network. There is a chronic lack of stones in the GOP right now, and it starts at the top, in the White House, and trickles down through every branch and every candidate out there. It's like they think they'll get kicked out of the frat if they don't stick together.
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
This is the reason for my rant against Kit Bond. I expect better from the guys on my side. I do not want to vote for watered down Ds.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.