Let me start by saying that I was not surprised by the results of the House races. Congressmen have to run every two years, and less than two years of the Presidents' personality defects and policy decisions were more than what the country needed to determine that they didn't like the direction we are headed in.
A lot of liberals, who were prancing around less than two years ago celebrating the death of conservatism and capitalism with permanent democrat majorities as far as the eyes could see - suffered a collective Divide by Zero error the other night. Had anyone suggested at the Presidents inauguration that what took place was coming - no rational person would have ever believed it.
The taking of the House itself did not make me feel any happiness.
I am more pleased because the Republicans are acknowledging publicly that they were not elected by virtue of their own history of being stewards of our tax payer dollars. The have admitted that they were brought back to power because the President and his fellow democrats have been so wantonly reckless, abrasive and condescending towards the American people that they were willing to give Republicans a chance they absolutely do not deserve. For as much as I and other conservatives, libertarians and other constituencies do not have any reason to trust the Republicans worth a damn, Democrats have managed to demonstrate that they deserve our trust even less, and that is saying something.
The reason why I remain somber and not the least bit elated over the results is not just because I see our country in very dire financial straights. There were things that I took note of that took place prior to and after the elections that left me feeling disgusted at the state of electoral politics.
One of the fundamental reasons why the Republicans lost the House and Senate back in 2006 was because they had done nothing to adhere to the principals of their party. Sure, President Bush was not popular and charted a financial path that was reckless - but the Republicans in the House and Senate had an opportunity to demonstrate that they were not anything other than a bunch of liberals with an (R) next to their names - and they paid a heavy price. In truth - their malfeasance cost the country even more, because their unwillingness to say no to President Bush or restrain the growth of government allowed democrats - full of devout, Big-Government-We'll-Wipe-Your-Ass-For-You liberal moonbats like Nancy Pelosi - to run conservative campaigns promising a reduction in spending, smaller government, cutting waste, eliminating earmarks and Pay-as-you-go spending rules. They won the House and Senate, and ever since she became speaker - our deficit has gone up almost $5 trillion, with roughly $3 trillion of that having been added in the past 20 months.
Despite the acknowledgement on the part of Republicans of past wrongs and lessons learned...knowing their return to power is a byproduct of epic-fail democrat policies...I am upset with Republicans for a pattern of behavior I see coming from members of the establishment - patterns of behavior that I believe cost them potential Senate seats.
I'll go over a few examples:
- When Christine O'Donnell ran against Mike Castle in Delaware, she easily defeated him in the primary race. This came as little surprise because Mike Castle had a very liberal voting record, and as a much more conservative trend was being demonstrated by voters across the country - they were in no mood to casually vote in another RINO that was simply going to serve as another mouth piece for President Obama. The Republican establishment not only immediately started criticizing her, they initially announced that they would be withholding party-backed financial support for the November elections. This generated an outpouring of grassroots support, and over a 3.8 million dollars came pouring into her war chest in just one month. Karl Rove - for reasons that have to be personal somehow - took to the television and proceeded to lambaste and discredit her as an illegitimate candidate. Apparently, after 8 years as Delaware governor and 17 years in the House, Mike Castle was favored by party leaders despite a pledge made by Mr. Castle to Harry Reid that he would vote for Obamas Cap and Trade energy legislation. It was only after an outpouring of angry letters, phone calls and email to the RNC did they backtrack and pledge support to O'Donnells campaign. She was called unethical by Rove because the IRS had filed a tax lien, a procedure not only executed against millions of other Americans, but was retracted once the IRS admitted to having done so in error. Party members questioned her religious beliefs as being extreme and that she didn't stand a prayer in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans almost 2:1. The damage was done. Using these cues, she was attacked by liberals for her religious beliefs, called a tax cheat and was slandered as an unstable religious nut on a daily basis. Even though she shellacked Chris Coons in a debate where she accurately framed her personal beliefs and the constitutional basis of those views against his indefensible support of policies in diametric opposition to constitutionally backed freedoms, the RNC gave no defense or spoke on her behalf. When a libelous gossip column was released by Gawker by an anonymous source featuring a drunk and naked Christine O'Donnell on Halloween, the RNC offered a muted response. When a public television station claimed to have forgotten to run a 30 minute infomercial twice when she paid to have it televised, the RNC said nothing regarding the blatant, partisan shenanigans behind such an obvious attempt to deny her an opportunity to make her case. When O'Donnells campaign started, she was several points ahead of Chris Coons. By the time the election was over, she lost by 17 percentage points. With all the political demographics of Delaware aside, the point was made clear: The RNC, having fumed at the lose of a liberal Republican insider - was far more interested in quelling conservatives views being squared one-on-one against the pandering of a liberal like Chris Coons. To the RNC - a Castle win could have potentially been an additional number in their win column - but would have done nothing to reverse the very trend that made Republicans lose the House and Senate in 2006 to begin with.
- Senatorial candidate Joseph Miller, backed by conservative voters - defeated establishment Senator Lisa Murkowski in their Alaska primary. Murkowski, who had waffled on her position to repeal Obamacare - was also ready to compromise on Cap and Trade. Despite her pledge to back whoever the winner of the primary was, Murkowski reneged and opted to threaten to split the vote by running as a 3rd party candidate. Initially, it was discovered that she tried to attain the endorsement and support to run under the Libertarian Party ticket, but when they rebuked her she opted instead to run as an Independent write-in candidate. The Republican Party - who under normal circumstances would have been obligated to immediately strip her of her positions on the various appropriations and energy committees she belonged to - broke party rules and initially refused to enforce her removal, only opting to do so weeks later after intense scrutiny. They not only did not try to convince her to stand by her word to support the nominee, insiders ended up admitting prior to the election to abandoning Joe Miller in an effort to keep Murkowski in office. She, of all things - painted Joe Miller (a Fairbanks attorney) during campaign as an outsider! As of this entry - Write-in ballots outnumber Joe Miller's 41% to 34%. Unless there are a lot of ballots for people outside the scope of the known campaigners (or a lot of people spell Murkowski wrong), she will be the winner. While she pledges to caucus with the Republicans, her reaching out to democrat voters to defeat Joe Miller because of his Tea Party support, her past voting record and lack of trustworthiness to vote along conservative lines makes her potential victory a Pyrrhic one. Had the Republican Party establishment demonstrated the slightest intention of listening to the will of the voters - they would have kicked her ass to the curb the moment she threw a fit. Again, the establishment protected one of their own.
- In Nevada, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was in the fight of his political life. He was overwhelmingly unpopular because of his ties to the President, and his public demeanor was exceedingly scornful towards opposing points of view. After her primary win, Sharron Angle was leading Senator Reid by a margin of 50% to 39%. She was subsequently attacked by Bob Cashell(R), mayor of Reno who endorsed Reid after calling her an ultra-right winger. Nevada State Senator and Minority Leader William Raggio(R) and former Lieutenant Governor Sue Wagner(R) also attacked her candidacy, calling her views extremist. Less than one month after divisive attacks on the part of establishment Republicans against Angle, polls showed her down by 7%. That 18% shift was not only the largest and quickest shift than in any other Senate race ever recorded - it would never have been possible had establishment, RINO Republicans not contributed towards assisting Harry Reid in attacking the chosen primary winner. Angle, in mid October - trounced Harry Reid so badly in a public debate that commentators took notice at how he was barely able to keep his balance, and that all attempts he made to demonize and disparage her were completely unsuccessful. Some even expressed incredulity at how such a man was ever elected to public office, let alone had somehow managed to become Majority Leader of the Senate. This - from a woman who was a political outsider running in a state where the Republican party is so disorganized and ineffective that it is considered a joke. She was even endorsed by Nevada's largest newspaper, the Las Vegas Review-Journal. On election day, Reid was down by at least 4 points in every poll. In the end, Sharron Angle lost by 5 percentage points. Aside from the voter stories concerning voting machines selecting a straight democrat ticket even after pulling a straight Republican one, or people walking in to cast their vote only to find the machines with Harry Reids name already selected, Reid was able get the unions to bus in Hispanic voters like cattle with instructions to vote for Reid. Casinos also played a roll by "encouraging" their members to go out and vote for Reid. Regardless, once again - it was Republicans who played the biggest role in an all out attempt to stymie the election of a conservative outsider.
It wasn't until November 1st - the day before the elections - that Michael Steele, head of the RNC, finally got the balls to publicly tell the Establishment Republicans to shut up.
Here is a few slices of what he said:
"These Republican leaders who don’t put their name in print but make comments in the shadows need to shut up. We need to focus on winning elections tomorrow night. I need every Republican in the country, whether they are in the shadows or not."
"I don't know who these Republican leaders are, but they need to be focused on winning the election and not trying to gerrymander the outcome."
"The Tea Party is an organic movement. You can't tell them who to vote for or who not to. That is anti-American. The people want to take creative control of the election," said Steele. "Again, that is what frustrates Republicans within in the party - it's establishment types who think they know more than the people about who they want to lead them."
Now, everything he said there was correct. But where was this when conservatives like Senator Jim DeMint were being castigated as a troublemaker when he was leading the effort to finance this grass-roots movement? Where was this reminder to establishment types to put up or shut up when Sarah Palin was the most active person in attempting to make conservative principles the bedrock of this movement? Where was this kind of reminder when establishment Republicans played a part in undermining every single race I mentioned above?
Yesterday, Trent Lott and Lindsey Graham - the epitome of establishment Republicans, had the unmitigated gall to blame Senator DeMint and view the results of the election as a loss because they did not win back the Senate.
A LOSS!?!? +61 House seats, +7 Governorships, and at least +6 Senate seats. The President and the democrats had their collective balls whacked with a political hammer, and instead of concentrating on the obvious shortcomings of liberal policies and voting records, they want to instead blame conservatives for a loss that didn't happen?
After all, they said - had more competitive (i.e. liberal) Republicans run in the races I mentioned above, they might have been able win back or tie the Senate. Forget that there is no guarantee of anything in politics, these ingrates are more concerned with party leadership positions and chairmanships than they are in correcting the problem for which these two numb-nuts are culpable in contributing to: the very losses that gave the House and Senate to liberals back in 2006.
Had it not been for the efforts of Senator DeMint, Rep. Mike Pence, Sarah Palin, the Tea Party movement and the collective grass-roots work of all conservatives who contributed towards Tuesday's results - the likes of Graham, Lott, Snowe and every other limp-wristed spineless RINO would never have ever done a single thing to stem the tide or reverse the policies that are destroying this nation from within.
Establishment Republicans have demonstrated that they have no interest in winning by defeating liberalism or reversing the nature that its destructive policies have on our nation. They need to be given a choice, to either be hounded and driven out of office, or live with having their feet held to the fire with regards to living and practicing the policies of the party and people they chose to represent. If they think conservatives were fed up with liberalism's bullshit before Tuesday, they had better check themselves.
The days of them enjoying the type of blind loyalty that allowed them to permit the erosion of our liberties is over. Republicans no longer deserve the benefit of the doubt. Not be me, and not by any other American.
No comments:
Post a Comment