Posted on 08/06/2014 12:00:35 AM PDT by nathanbedford
The news that just came across my screen on Fox that incumbent Senator Pat Roberts has prevailed in his primary for reelection to the Senate from Kansas (or in his case from Arlington, Virginia) is heartbreaking.
The implications are dispiriting. His victory implies that in the American heartland the Republican Party cannot reform itself when confronted with an egregious example of elitism. If the Republican Party in Kansas (Kansas!) cannot reform itself there, how can it expect to prevail in purple states? How can we expect to carry a message to Reagan Democrats and Independents if The Tea Party cannot even convince Kansas farmers that their absentee senator of 36 years no longer remotely represents their interests in Washington?
If The Tea Party in Kansas cannot penetrate the consciousness of staunch conservatives where can it prevail? If the apparatus of the Republican machine in Kansas can prevail with a flat-out Rino whose very connection to the state is so patently fraudulent over a genuine grassroots conservative, a physician, how can the GOP establishment be reformed anywhere?
Before I give in to despair I will await the postmortems which will no doubt tell me that Pat Roberts flooded the zone with money, beat us on the airwaves, that our candidate was somehow flawed, that the challengers simply did not have the infrastructure and the ground game etc.
But I fear that even in these parlous times of malaise at home and failure everywhere abroad, the ideal constituency of The Tea Party was indifferent to the current state of affairs or was somehow behind the power curve and utterly ignorant of the facts of Pat Roberts residence and voting record. Somehow, the message in this case cannot be said to have been wrong, at best we can hope that the cause was a failure of execution. I doubt such a best case but I await the details.
Finally, this defeat for reform is alas not an isolated setback. We have seen that the Republican establishment apparatus is so powerful in Mississippi that it can set aside a decisive Tea Party victory in a primary by hijacking the runoff. We have seen what has happened in South Carolina, Kentucky and what will happen in Tennessee. I hope we get enough data out of these primaries to tell us what went wrong. With luck we will find that we simply do not have the infrastructure to prevail in an election on a statewide basis because a reform movement cannot hope to prevail once every six years with a top-down effort against a well entrenched, fully financed Republican establishment. No matter what the data tells me, however, I am discouraged by the tone deafness of Republicans everywhere.
I do not support Lamar Alexander in his primary later today, I have been speaking against him for months.
Enzi, and certainly not the solidly conservative Roberts do not compare to him. They are NOT in the same boat, not to me, Enzi is much more conservative than Lamar and Roberts is more conservative than Enzi.
And who the opponent is MATTERS, A LOT, not a little, not hardly at all like Enzi’s opponents pretended (they rarely defended or even MENTIONED Liz, just attacked Enzi), A LOT. Liz Cheney over Enzi? Hell no! If someone to his RIGHT had run, I probably would have supported him/her. Cheney is to his left. And if Roberts isn’t from Kansas anymore she sure as hell isn’t from Wyoming, she should have run in Virginia where I would certainly support her over liberal rat Mark Warner.
Some random doctor running a campaign made of hot air against proven conservative Roberts? Hell no.
As for Mitch McConnell, his opponent Bevin was a Paulbot loser who lied about his education, I certainly would have supported someone BETTER than McConnell rather than some bum who would have lost badly to the rat, Alison Grimes and would vote like Ron Paul if he had somehow miraculously won (he polled ahead of her only because she hadn’t starting attacking him yet, he would have had close to no chance, especially after that cockfighting nonsense). It’s a testament to McConnell’s lack of popularity than he did as well as he did, he was never someone that could take out a Senate leader.
I did not support Graham, who richly deserved defeat, but no one capable of beating him ran in the primary, his easy win was to be expected.
I did not support Cornyn either but his main opponent, Steve Stockman, is a sleaze-bag (look at how he filed on the last day to try and help a crony win the nomination for his House seat) who never had a chance so HIS easy win was to be expected as well.
Joe Carr, Lamar’s primary opponent is a GOOD candidate and he’s running against someone that actually deserves to be replaced. That makes all the difference to me. I also supported McDaniel, a good candidate, against Cochran, a lousy Senator who deserves to be replaced, unlike Roberts.
I don’t go in for this blanket beat all the incumbents stuff, especially if the primary opponent is WORSE than they are. I see a lot more nuance here than you do. Putting Roberts in same boat as Lamar! and pretending that just anybody would be an improvement, doesn’t fly with me.
Well stated.
We have a God-given document in the Declaration and the Constitution. We have the same via scripture. All three have been totally distorted and ruined by the actions of men. What in modern man makes you think we could improve on any of those?
Take a look at the history of the Amendments to the Constitution. Which have not been abused? The 14th made a mess to fix one. The 18th helped enrich organized crime and corrupted our politics beyond belief. The 21st reversed and in some ways worsened the situation by way of section 2. The 11th laid the foundation for the abomination of sovereign immunity. Then there is the 23rd and 26th neither of which worked to improve our republic. Need I mention the 16th and 17th?
At the heart of liberalism is the rush to “make things better”. I’m a Burkean when it comes to public policy. We need to build upon the good traditions while undoing the bad and replacing them with the better. We have a process in place for this. If conservatives rush from bandaid to bandaid we’ll just get more of a mess. I don’t see any history of changes to the Constitution which makes me confident that we’ll get there.
You are correct.
Good points, but the older Roberts gets the easier it is to compromise and take the cash.
Very good and it will be a generations long process. We have the advantage in that the enemy has lied and lied. The truth is on our side and we can get it out there via facts and logic. Millenials seem to be getting it at least on economics. That’s a big start. Big government is in disgrace and it’s not going away anytime soon.
Here’s my reply to the same ping from bedford: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3189490/posts?page=84#84
How about the bill of rights?
How about the 13th amendment abolishing slavery?
Meanwhile, your Constitution is being amended everyday by stealth and by maneuver. The choice is to take part in shaping the Constitution or be shaped by stealth.
I think what we have here (in this race) is a demonstration of how the simplistic principle of “vote conservative” is not the only way to political salvation.
There needs to be more definition given to what it means to be “conservative” if there are going to be fights as this after elections like this.
This race is emblematic of a real problem in the conservative movement (beyond not being willing to put small matters aside) and that is the simple fact different people define “conservative” differently.
In races where it’s clear, for example Eric Cantor’s loss, the Tea Party movement does have success. But in races in Kansas where the lines are a bit blurrier, there will sometimes be outcomes like this.
Ultimately, is it a bad thing? I don’t know but it seems to me we have two choices:
1. we can argue even more, further dividing the movement, if there is no ultimate decision forthcoming (and I don’t see how there could be, since the Tea Party movement has no leader or even leadership).
2. If no leadership is forthcoming, then there is no point in dwelling over results like this because really, who’s to say who’s “right”? The people who voted for Roberts? The ones who voted against him? It should be obvious to anyone who is reasonable that without a leadership to make such a decision, any fights along these and similar lines will only weaken the movement over something that ultimately has no resolution. At least not on a national or even state level. So it’s best to just move on.
It thus seems to me #2 is in order. Or else factionalism will rule the day, which is really what the leftists want.
What’s the ultimate message here? Unless there is some way to agree upon basics beyond mere platitudes like “vote conservative”, then there are going to be times as this where we are going to be FORCED to be pragmatic. I know some around here recoil in horror at that term but this is simply the reality of the situation.
I’ve read this thread; both “sides” have good points for their arguments. There is no clear contrast like there is between simple conservatism and liberalism. So we can either spend this time tearing each other apart or both “sides” capitulate, and concede there are valid points from the other, and then just move on.
It’s either that or we are forced eventually to accept a “Romney” again as we busy ourselves with minutia such as this, the elitists benefit from the distraction and sneak in another lukewarm national candidate. And then the pragmatism becomes nauseating.
The Constitution itself was shaped by stealth. We barely got the Bill of Rights added. You named a single good Amendment. What’s the ratio of good to bad Amendments post the original Bill of Rights, not just by number, but by damage?
We’re winning, despite your misgivings. The TEA Party isn’t even a party and it’s feared by both sides. Its message is one that resonates with voters. We’re winning on jobs, immigration, gun liberty, abortion, debt, forced unionism, etc.
Keep in mind that we’ll never find a perfect union til Christ comes to reign.
In your penultimate post you assert, "I don’t see any history of changes to the Constitution which makes me confident that we’ll get there." When we point out that the 13th amendment seems to have worked out rather well by abolishing slavery and we assert the Bill of Rights we get the following response:
We barely got the Bill of Rights added.
We got the Bill of Rights added in ways that were laid down in the Constitution. Do I conclude then that some amendments you like but some amendments you don't like? Or is it you simply won't countenance any amendment? The target keeps moving because previously you said, "We have a process in place for this." Presumably you were speaking of the amendatory process embraced in the original Constitution in Article V for there is no other constitutionally ordained method.
Those of us who advocate the orderly process for amending the Constitution, outlined in the Constitution itself, are the very people who are objecting to the stealth amendment that is going on every day to our Constitution being done ultra virus the Constitution.
It is at this point that we have our grossest disagreement. For reasons expressed in a previous post which I will take the liberty to reproduce here I believe the country is headed for a crackup and certainly we are headed for a society less free because of the stealth amendments being worked against our Constitution. You disagree, you say:
We’re winning, despite your misgivings.... We’re winning on jobs, immigration, gun liberty, abortion, debt, forced unionism, etc.
I do not think we are winning, I think we are losing and I believe most conservatives would agree with me for the reasons expressed in this reply which I reproduce here:
Nathan Bedford's first Maxim of the American Constitution:
The Constitution has become so distorted in interpretation and application that it has become at best ineffective in protecting liberty and at worst an instrument inflicting tyranny.
Nathan Bedford's second Maxim of the American Constitution:
The American Constitution is being amended everyday without the consent of the governed.
In order to believe that a Convention of the States presents a greater threat to liberty than our current state of politics one must believe:
1. The Constitution is not being amended by three women in black robes +1 liberal in black robes +1 swing vote on a case by case basis.
2. The Constitution is not being amended at the caprice of the president by executive order.
3. The Constitution is not being amended at the caprice of the president when he chooses which laws he will "faithfully" execute.
4. The Constitution is not being amended daily by regulation done by an unaccountable bureaucracy.
5. The Constitution is not being amended by simply being ignored.
6. The Constitution is not being amended by international treaty.
7. The Constitution is not being amended by Executive Order creating treaty powers depriving citizens of liberty as codified in the Bill of Rights.
8. The Constitution is not being amended by international bureaucracies such as, UN, GATT, World Bank, etc.
9. The Constitution is not being amended by the Federal Reserve Bank without reference to the will of the people.
10. The federal government under our current "constitutional" regime has suddenly become capable of reforming itself, balancing the budget and containing the debt.
11. The national debt of the United States is sustainable and will not cause the American constitutional system and our economy to crash and with them our representative democracy, the rule of law, and the Constitution, such as it is, itself.
12. The Republican Party, presuming it gains a majority in the House and the Senate and gains the White House, will now do what is failed to do even under Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush and balance the budget, reduce the debt, stop regulating, reform the tax system, end crony capitalism, appoint judges who will not betray us and, finally, listen to the people.
13. That a runaway Convention of the States will occur, that it will persuade the delegates from conservative states, that it will be ratified by three quarters of the states' legislatures among whom conservatives control a majority, that we will not be able to carry 13 legislatures in separate states out of 99 legislatures in 50 states, and the end result will somehow be worse than what we have now.
14. If we do nothing everything will be fine; if we keep doing what we have been doing everything will be fine; we have all the time in the world.
I agree, with the caveat that history always has a knuckleball in store for humans. I think improvement will come, but I do not have a clue in what form. Remember Abraham Lincoln lost the last political race he was in prior to the presidency, and was so depressed he could have said “You won’t have Abe Lincoln to kick around any more.” Remember that US public opinion polls were 70% against entering WW II . . . on December 6, 1941. Things can change in a heartbeat. This illegal immigration stuff is enormous, and may force the RINOs back on their heels for a very long time.
Essentially, it comes down to whether you believe that we are in a phase of our American history which amounts to politics as usual. If you look at my exchange with 1010RD he says in his last reply:
We’re winning, despite your misgivings.... We’re winning on jobs, immigration, gun liberty, abortion, debt, forced unionism, etc.
I do not think we are winning I think we are losing and unless we overcome at least two perils we will certainly lose much of our liberty and probably face a fiscal crackup and serious dislocation. I cite the coming demographic tsunami which is bound to turn the country to the left because the old saw has it right, demographics is destiny. The second peril as to do with our raging deficits and our accumulated debt now in excess of $17 trillion; we literally have no idea how big our unfunded liabilities reckoning is.
If these two problems are not properly dealt with we are going to lose and lose very, very big.
In keeping with that background I wrote in my reply #91 the following, a tease of what one must believe about our current state of politics in order to be content enough to oppose and Article V reform:
12. The Republican Party, presuming it gains a majority in the House and the Senate and gains the White House, will now do what is failed to do even under Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush and balance the budget, reduce the debt, stop regulating, reform the tax system, end crony capitalism, appoint judges who will not betray us and, finally, listen to the people.
I obviously do not believe that. In another post I asked concerning the defense of moderately conservative senators, "what have they done?" Meaning, what did they do to address the debt, did they add to it or do they subtract from it. If you say they subtracted from it we have a factual argument. If you say they added to it, then I beg to know why you think it is preferable to have one moderately conservative Senator in place who has contributed to the problem over another moderately conservative Senator who promises to help solve the problem. If you do not think the nation is in trouble, then we should split hairs about which candidate is more or less conservative than the other because we are going into the arena to do business as usual.
I do not think we can afford to carry on doing business as usual. That means on the one hand we need an Article V solution and on the other hand we need warriors not placeholders in office, at least from safe seats. If we must shoot a few "to encourage the others," so be it. We are not talking about moving the decimal point up and down the gross domestic product curve, we are talking about survival. I don't give a damn about the survival of these placeholders I care whether the candidate will shut the border down, whether he will get spending under control whether he will wage war and move heaven and earth to do so. I do not believe that the people who brought us to this place by their profligacy have suddenly experienced an epiphany. They are what they are and have always been.
Thank you again for your reply.
Thanks and believe me I share your frustration. I would only additionally submit (in addition to what I’ve already posted here) that once a battle such as this is fought and lost (if that is indeed the case here but just accepting it is a loss for the sake of argument) then the two choices I elucidated remain.
Besides, the TEA parry movement is not completely defeated by what happened in Kansas (if again that really was a loss for conservatism which again is debatable.).
The Eric Cantor defeat was a crushing blow to the elitists, it certainly raised my spirits. I would have been quite dispirited if even that stark contrast wasn’t seen by the voters. It gave me hope.
It’s a long road and there will be times as this. No war was won by winning every battle.
If anything, Cantor’s loss should be more encouraging than Robert’s victory is discouraging (if even that) because Cantor lost in Virginia which has been recently infested with liberal leftism. More so than Kansas.
Granted not so much in his district but Robert’s victory wasn’t as resounding as one would expect if his constituency were completely satisfied with his performance. He got the message I think.
It’s not a complete loss (even if the arguments in favor of Roberts are completely discounted which again I don’t think they can be).
Did Eric Cantor win?
Did Eric Cantor win?
You’re a good thinker with a clear vision of the long game. I agree with you. The danger of democracy is a fickle public. Things are always going to be difficult and change moves at a glacial pace, until it suddenly doesn’t. Take care.
Thanks but “What have they done”? “What have they done”?
More than one person has repeated that line, someone on the radio must be using it a lot.
What as Roberts done? Voted conservative for his entire career.
What has Wolf done? Flapped his gums, looked in the mirror and wished he was a Senator, and joked about people’s x-rays on the Internet.
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.