“Roberts is the poster boy for why the Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was such a terrible idea.”
Wow, thanks for your comment! I was beginning to worry that “Kansas58” and “Durus” were in the majority here on FR. I am simply amazed that they hold the views that they do, and with that in mind, are able to vote.
To me, the are representative of what’s wrong here in America today. They actually belief that they owe some sort of “debt of gratitude” to Pat Roberts simply by reason that the old coot has been in office for 47 years. Never mind that whatever contribution he may have made in his early years, is now some miniscule dot on the butt of history. And it does not bother them that he doesn’t even meet the minimum requirements for residency and bunks with some friend rather than own any real property in the state he supposedly represents. As for Kansas58 in particular, he/she claims to be a former treasurer of the GOP in Kansas, so there’s the link to the GOPe. I saw the same $hit here in California when I was on the Central Committee. Just a bunch of mostly old farts (one guy was a retired army colonel who now reminds me of Gen. Martin Dempsey) all of whom had a vested interest in the preservation of the status quo and absolutely nothing else saving putting on a successful GOP Barbeque every year where the “inbred party leaders” got a chance to make some money off of the dumb schmucks who bought the tickets to get the chance to scmooze with them.
Well, there you go. These troglodytes spend 2/3 of their life in Washington DC, don't even LIVE in the states they're supposed to REPRESENT, and because they continue to do things that benefit the ruling class (and trickle-down some crumbs to the great unwashed), their electorate is expected to hand them the golden scepter, election cycle after election cycle, until they die.
That's not the representative republic that the founding fathers intended, it's an oligarchy.
Straw man argument.
Not ONE Roberts supporter here has claimed we "owe" him a "debt of gratitude" for being in office in 47 years or that he's "entitled" to another term. The Liz Cheney fanclub (most of whom are are also Milton Wolf supporters and have now flip-flopped 180o degrees on their "principles" about whether a politician should have a track record of living in the state they're running from), made this straw man argument about Enzi, and it wasn't true then, either.
What we actually SAID was that if you put up a candidate who is a PROVEN reliable conservative and we know would vote BETTER than the incumbent, then we'd have reason to get rid of the incumbent.
But since all you can find are creeps who put X-rays of autopsy photos on the internet for laughs and market themselves because of they're distantly related to Obama, your candidate is simply NOT an improvement over the incumbent. Find one who IS and we'll support them. The concept is not that hard to understand.
Carr is a clear improvement over Alexander but the Levin crowd won't lift a finger to support him. Does that mean Mark Levin thinks we "owe" Alexander a "debt of gratitude" for being in office since 1978? Levin hasn't said so, but going by your "logic", if he's not sold on Carr, he MUST think Alexander is "entitled" to a lifetime career, right?