Posted on 09/16/2010 7:33:42 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Is the Republican establishment losing it?
Is the party leadership capable of uniting a governing coalition as Richard Nixon did before Watergate and Ronald Reagan resurrected in the 1980s?
Observing the hysteria and nastiness of Karl Rove and the GOP establishment at the stunning triumph of Tea Party Princess Christine O’Donnell, the answer is no.
This party is not ready to rule.
Consider. In its grand strategy to recapture a Senate that George W. Bush and Rove lost in 2006, the GOP Senate leadership endorsed all its own caucus members for re-election, if they chose to run, then picked out all its favorite candidates for the open and Democratic seats.
Conservatives and tea party activists, however, had other ideas. They began to pick their own candidates. And, again and again, the Senate’s chosen were rejected in favor of tea party challengers who had the endorsement of Sarah Palin or South Carolina’s Jim DeMint.
Arlen Specter was rejected by the Pennsylvania GOP and left the party. Rand Paul routed Sen. Mitch McConnell’s man in Kentucky. Charlie Crist was challenged by Marco Rubio in Florida. Crist, too, departed. Sen. Bob Bennett was denied renomination in Utah. Sen. Lisa Murkowski lost her primary in Alaska to a little-known fellow named Joe Miller.
But Delaware was the stunner. Rep. Mike Castle, a former two-term governor who had been winning elections for 40 years, was a certain victor in November.
Challenger O’Donnell, however, ended all that.
Yet, though her conservative credentials are far superior to those of Castle, O’Donnell was made the object of a wilding attack by National Review and The Weekly Standard, Charles Krauthammer, who lashed out at Palin and DeMint for “irresponsbility,” and Rove, who on Sean Hannity’s show went postal as soon as the returns came in.
Now, on paper, O’Donnell is a far tougher sell in Delaware than is Castle. But her defeat is not certain. Not in this volatile year.
And what is the justification for the savagery of the attacks on her, from her own?
What has this woman done? Did she vote for Sonia Sotomayor or Elena Kagan for the Supreme Court like Lindsey Graham? Did she support the Obama stimulus like Olympia Snow and Susan Collins? What did she do to deserve the trashing?
The answer is not distant.
To the Republican establishment, tea party people are field hands. Their labors are to be recognized and rewarded, but they are to stay off the porch and not presume to sit at the master’s table.
And what O’Donnell did, with her amazing victory, is to imperil that establishment’s return to power. That is why these Republicans went ballistic.
O’Donnell’s conservative convictions and Castle’s social liberalism mean nothing to them. They are about power and all that goes with it.
And that raises a question too long put off.
What is the Republican establishment going to do, what are the neoconservatives going to do, if returned to power?
Are not these the same people who assisted George W. Bush in stampeding the nation into an unnecessary war that got 4,400 Americans killed to strip Saddam Hussein of weapons he did not have?
Are these not the same people who misled or deceived us about Iraq’s role in 9/11?
Are these Republican scribes and senators not the same folks who went all-out for NAFTA and GATT and the WTO and MFN and PNTR for China, those brilliant trade deals that gave us $5 trillion in trade deficits, wiped out 6 million manufacturing jobs and 50,000 factories in one decade, and put us into permanent debt to China?
Are these not some of the same folks who backed the Bush-McCain amnesty and did nothing for 20 years, as millions of illegals invaded America? Now that all America is on fire, they too want to “build the dang fence.”
Are not the National Review and Weekly Standard scribblers and their neocon comrades of the mainstream media not now drumming up another war for Americans to fight, against Iran?
Are these not the same folks who went along with No Child Left Behind and the biggest run-up in social spending since Great Society days?
Beltway Republicans say they have learned their lesson. But the tea party folks and conservatives who vaulted O’Donnell to victory are saying: You had your chance. Now, move aside for new leaders.
Why is the tea party wrong — and the establishment right?
The first tea party rebellion was the Barry Goldwater movement. When it triumphed at the Cow Palace, Nelson Rockefeller denounced the movement as riddled with radicals, baited the Goldwater people at the convention and refused to endorse the nominee.
A decade later, Vice President Rockefeller got his payback, when conservatives demanded that President Ford drop him off the ticket as the price of renomination. Ford agreed.
In its contemptuous response to O’Donnell’s victory, the GOP establishment of today looked like nothing so much as the Rockefeller Republican establishment of yesteryear. Its time is coming, too.
Keep in mind that it was not until the second half of the 20th century that presidential term limits were added to the Constitution. Our founders did not write it that way and all presidents subsequent to Washington merely honored the standard he had set. IMHO, term limits are one of those Catch-22's that doesn't resolve itself so easily. If we a had a responsible electorate, educated in how our government was supposed to operate, that would be all the term limitation we would need. By that same token, in a free country, people should be permitted to vote for the person they felt best represented them and the needs of their district. Finally, if honorable people were seeking public office, they would step down before their "career" in politics became an issue.
Nobody loathes political careerists more than I, and I certainly understand the frustration with seeing all the insiders continuously returned to office for life, but keep in mind that term limits cut both ways. If you have a representative or senator that is kicking butt and taking names, don't be disappointed when some non-starter takes his place because the good guy can't run again.
Rather than term limits, I think there are two things that need to be done to revitalize our body politic:
1. Repeal the 17th Amendment. Restore the concept of federalism by giving the states their direct seats in Washington.
2. Separation of Powers: Practicing lawyers are by definition officers of the court, and consequently, members of the judicial branch. Their participation in the legislature is a conflict of interest. Barristers should have to be out of the active practice of law for a set period of time (i.e. 5 years) before becoming eligible for legislative or executive office.
Implement the above two, and I don't think there would be any more need for term limits.
I would like to expand om Pat's thoughts with the following:
To the Political establishment, American people are field hands, to be seen, not heard. Their labors are to be recognized and rewarded, but they are to stay off the porch and not presume to sit at the master’s table.
Pat was very similar to the current crop of tea party supported nominees in that he tired of the Gag Or Puke party trying to change things. He went against the establishment, which up until that time had loved and supported him, and instantly was branded as anti-Semitical. Even as he won voters to his side, people that were his “friends” came public and stated that even if he won they would, and COULD NOT support him. This swift back hand from the old line Pukes both embittered him, and forced him to either crawl through barbed wire in a salt marsh, or push on to outside power channels. Everything I have read of his has been normal discussions of past present or future. It is his rock hard belief, that we were stampeded into the first World War....we were.....that caused the second World War....it was. Nearly all the things that garner him deep vitriol stem from this. Our entry into a centuries old feud between Germany, France and Britain in the early twentieth Century, actually caused the death camps, the huge loss of life etc. People perceive that as firing up the ovens in Buchenwald.
We all know why....Most of the insiders running the Republican party are a bunch of arrogant AHs that are only looking out for themselves...This is clear....These people would sell their conservative principles out to the highest bidder as they beg others to support their better evil.
That strategy has nearly left America and our economy, dead on the floor.
Yes. Stuart is a good guy. He deserves higher visibility. He is very well spoken.
Interesting reply.
The Founders did include term limits for the presidency -- a max of four. I believe Washington's choice to limit his service to two terms stemmed from his desire to return home, and his desire to not make the presidency seem like a kingship that lasts for a lifetime. Whatever, Washington's noble behavior showed he had greater wisdom than the bulk of the Founders in the regard of limiting term of service.
If we had a responsible electorate. The trouble is, we don't have that and likely never will. They are easily exploited by charming politicians, and most are more than willing to tap into their neighbors' wallets in an attempt to enrich themselves somehow or fix their problems. Much of that could be solved if the politicians and judges would allow only the enumerated powers at the federal level.
Term limits limited the damage Clinton was able to do, and it will limit the damage Obama is doing. I'm beginning to have some hope that the electorate will be wise enough to drop Obama after four years, and to limit the damage he can do in the last two of those years by saddling him with an opposition Congress. But, I'm not holding my breath.
Voting strictly for the best needs of one's district is not necessarily in the best interests of the nation. There needs to be measures that hold that impulse in check to some degree. Term limits help, because Congress would have less incentive to bring the pork home (perhaps not much less). Scrapping the seniority system in Congress would also help, and with term limits doing so would make sense. Let interested members run for such positions on their merits rather than on their ability to consistently bamboozle the voters in their districts.
I don't have the Amendments memorized, but I'm guessing the 17th is the one that made senators subject to popular vote. I agree strongly that it should be repealed. Exporting much of the power now focused in DC to 50 diffuse locations would have to be a good step, and it would make local and state politics much more interesting, as they should be.
I never thought about attorneys serving in the executive or legislative branches as a conflict, but it makes sense. Are they precluded from functioning as attorneys while doing so already? If so, a waiting period wouldn't accomplish much. Term limits and lower pay and perks would make it less attractive for someone to stay away from one's profession for a substantial length of time.
In a term-limited system there would be an incentive to arrange mentorships within parties in an effort to prevent a bozo from effectively take over from a good legislator.
Term limits have improved the executive branch, and they will improve the legislative. I think the most screwed up branch is the judiciary, and I'm not sure how to fix it. Perhaps a start is to not exempt them from lawsuits. If more attorneys and judges could be sued, we'd have a better society.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.