Herding Self-Neutered Cats Is Impossible, Even When They Are Retiring
By Erick Posted in Republicans — Comments (7) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
After years of selling out the GOP on core issues and fights with the Democrats, it would be nice if Ray LaHood, Ralph Regula, Tom Davis, and others would suck it up and side with the GOP one a few good issues before they retire. After all, it's not like they are going to be accountable any longer.
But instead, they are showing their true colors. They are, in fact, true statists, gladly siding with the government over the individual.
Republican Reps. Vito J. Fossella of New York, Ray LaHood of Illinois, Jim Ramstad of Minnesota, Ralph Regula of Ohio and Jim Walsh of New York all crossed party lines recently to join with Democrats on a tight vote to extend unemployment insurance — even though they won't be around to suffer the potential political consequences of voting no. After two contentious votes in which key retiring Republicans defected, the plan ultimately passed the following week in a lesser form as a bipartisan compromise attached to the war funding bill.
Retiring Republicans crossed over to vote with Democrats last week on federal parental leave and in previous weeks on union authority, expanded children's health insurance, women's rights and an expansive new GI Bill. Outgoing Republican Reps. Dave Hobson and Deborah Pryce of Ohio, Rick Renzi of Arizona, Tom Davis of Virginia and Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland have all bucked the party on key votes.
"It's not helpful," said a frustrated Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), "and you can use that quote."
As I said the other day, leadership is herding a number of self-neutered cats. We might be a smaller coalition in the House after they are gone, but good riddance.
« Burn the Witch — Comments (18) | The GOP is the Party of Freedom of Choice: The Party that Believes in Your Right to Direct Your Life — Comments (284) »
Herding Self-Neutered Cats Is Impossible, Even When They Are Retiring 7 Comments (0 topical, 7 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I've been posting for quite some time that this is the fundamental problem the Republican party has been facing over the last 8 years. Too many RINOs and everybody in leadership positions afraid to discipline them. In the process the Republicans have lost their brand.
Minor nit: I know that in a certain sense, 'statist' conveys totalitarian methodologies, but I've recently come to realize that we ought to be using the right old words for these things, even if they have been temporarily appropriated by the left. Call them fascists because that goes to the heart of the issue. The "experts" might have trouble trying to define exactly what fascism is, but that's because they keep trying to graft it onto the wrong things. The only guaranteed example of fascism is Mussolini. He defined it as everything for the state and nothing outside the state. This is the same meaning as statist. So use the correct word and begin to reclaim our language from the left so their words can no longer mean exactly what they choose them to mean.
Erick, you act like any of this is out of character for them. I would say that these men (and women) have always been for far more governmental largesse and state direction of life. The very fact that they DID have to stand for re-election was what kept them from voting like Lincoln Chafee. Most of these guys have ACU ratings in the 60s and 70s (I'm kind of guessing of that - for comparison I believe Chafee had a number under 50) - and that's only because their need for electoral money and support from the Party kept them in line when we really needed them. Now they don't need the Party and so they can do what they want. This kind of behavior is exactly why the Founders did not institute term limits and believed they were unnecessary and destructive - they remove any and all restraint - anything is game as long as the official in question won't get arrested.
I wish I could feel as "betrayed" as Rep. Blunt - or even you - but I'm not at all surprised by this. Sadly, this bodes poorly for us in upcoming cycles - one thing that I always loved about the GOP pre-1994 was how united in the minority it was - there was always such impressive cohesion on the big ticket items. And that was part of the reason why we could develop a Contract with America and run on it - the caucus was in general agreement. Now we can barely agree on anything and we can't even hold the caucus together on critical issues - that leaves me feeling like a unified "platform" like the Contract is impossible - we won't even be able to get it out of the gates.
(except McCain of course). Look, we are at a very low point right now, going a little lower if it helps in the long run is OK with me. We should just git rid of all those who do not want to play ball and agree with the party at least let us say 75% of the time. That should be the minimum.
Kick them out of the party and withhold all party funds.
Use those funds to back young, conservative challengers.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
It's the basic lesson of all economics. Incentives work, as do disincentives. "Republicans" moving to the left, or starting out there, get few downsides, and many upsides, even in core conservative districts.
Until there are negative consequences for this behavior, it will continue.
It's mostly a symbolic act at this point, but since they've done so much to make our political lives uncomfortable, the least we can do for the remainder of their stay is to return the favor.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.