On the bright side, it might make for some interesting threads. I recall some spirited discussions here on candidates like Hayworth, Angle, O'Donnell, and of course Palin. I sense it won't be an echo-chamber here in the coming months. :pondering:Pretty much agree with all you wrote, and the entertainment value of the upcoming primaries may be the only value to find.
One big problem is that too many people don't realize how impotent the minority party is. Unless a party has 2 of the three law making positions (House, Senate, and Presidency) they don't have power to do anything. Sometimes they can say no and have that stick, and other times they may get a concession or two. But that's all they can do.Very true. In many ways the House is the least effective branch to hold. The Senate confirms nominees, and the Prez issues executive orders. We must take the Senate in Nov.
And it does no good for us in the electorate to whine about how little they've done, when we haven't done the most important thing which is to give them majority positions.
If we won't use our power, they won't have any.
One big problem is that too many people don't realize how impotent the minority party is. Unless a party has 2 of the three law making positions (House, Senate, and Presidency) they don't have power to do anything. Sometimes they can say no and have that stick, and other times they may get a concession or two. But that's all they can do.Point taken, but there have been times when the party has refused to use the power they do have... such as the authority they and they alone have as ruling party of the House to write the budget.
And it does no good for us in the electorate to whine about how little they've done, when we haven't done the most important thing which is to give them majority positions.
If we won't use our power, they won't have any.
Very true. In many ways the House is the least effective branch to hold. The Senate confirms nominees, and the Prez issues executive orders. We must take the Senate in Nov.
We hold primaries for a reason. If moderates can't stand up to the party faithful and make their case then they deserve to lose. I strongly object to those who would like to just allow the GOPe to anoint their nominees and be done with it. Usually, the reason moderates are so fearful of "Tea Partiers" is that their own positions are so compromised as to be indefensible.
But without winning, as in this Fall, all the principles and lines in the sand are worthless.
Point taken, but there have been times when the party has refused to use the power they do have... such as the authority they and they alone have as ruling party of the House to write the budget.
The House has passed a budget every year. Harry Reid refuses to bring it to a vote in the Senate. The House has no authority to force him to do it.Then that is the Senate's problem. The House can, as I discussed once before, use censure to reprimand those members of the Senate (theoretically they can censure anyone) who refuse to cooperate.
Then that is the Senate's problem. The House can, as I discussed once before, use censure to reprimand those members of the Senate (theoretically they can censure anyone) who refuse to cooperate.
While I agree, there is only so much a party can do with one house of Congress (hence why elections are so important), there are things they can do.
We hold primaries for a reason. If moderates can't stand up to the party faithful and make their case then they deserve to lose. I strongly object to those who would like to just allow the GOPe to anoint their nominees and be done with it. Usually, the reason moderates are so fearful of "Tea Partiers" is that their own positions are so compromised as to be indefensible.
Then that is the Senate's problem. The House can, as I discussed once before, use censure to reprimand those members of the Senate (theoretically they can censure anyone) who refuse to cooperate.The US House of Representatives voting to censure a Senator? Simply never heard of such a thing.
While I agree, there is only so much a party can do with one house of Congress (hence why elections are so important), there are things they can do.
The reason why the goofball parade is continuing to gain traction is that mainstream republicans are seen as little more than enablers of an out-of-control fiscal snake-pit. And to be sure, they seemed to roll over on debt ceilings and continuing resolutions, all of which should have put them in a fair bargaining position. Of course it's not all the fault of the GOP. The House continues to send bills to the Senate, but Reid routinely shoves them into the shredder before the ink dries.
Primary challenges are usually a good thing; issues raised and debated, personalities brought out. But cross-party voting can propel an incompetent featherbrain into the general election as we saw in 2010.
And far more in the GOP are disenchanted with the direction of the Country and of their party than Democrats, thus much more in the hunt for some new blood. Serious talk of going 3d party isn't helping. And the simple solutions being touted to some of the most complex issues including taxes, spending, immigration and of course health care can be very popular, giving some candidates a larger podium than they might have the competency for.
On the bright side, it might make for some interesting threads. I recall some spirited discussions here on candidates like Hayworth, Angle, O'Donnell, and of course Palin. I sense it won't be an echo-chamber here in the coming months. :pondering:
con·serv·a·tive
kənˈsərvətiv
adjective
1. holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.
synonyms: traditionalist, traditional, conventional, orthodox, old-fashioned,
I keep thinking back to this quote by President Reagan:
"Government is not a solution to our problem government is the problem."
There is so much undeniable truth in that statement. No matter how many times I read that, I know that Reagan was absolutely right.
Then comes time to elect new public servants, and we discuss the merits of one candidate over the other.
This guy over that guy.
This Party over that Party.
Then it hits me.
This guy, that guy.
This Party, that Party.
They're all "government".
They are the problem, not the solution to the problem.
Winning the GOP Senate Races, Everything Old CANNOT Be New Again
We are the Party of "everything that's old is better".
How do we campaign against the very definition of who we claim to be?
I recall Luis, when you asked the question on another site a few years ago. "What is a conservative"? You got a few varied responses, which I'm not sure answered the challenge, but I will say it's not always the loudest self-proclaimed "true conservative".
Indeed, but in reality none of us wants the alternative to government.
"...I just want an alternative to THIS government."
hear, hear!
I don't see us making great strides in 2014 until someone addresses the matter of FRAUD.
And I'm not talking just about the old home garden variety "I found these votes in the trunk of my car" type of fraud. I'm talking about the type when dims support a faux libertarian to run and take away 5% of the votes which is just enough for our guy to lose. Witness the Virginia governor's race.
Any close race automatically goes to the dim.
What are we going to do about that? Are any of our leaders even going to talk about it?
When I say "this government", I include both parties.
I no longer see this as being a Republican vs Democrat thing. I see it as people vs government thing.
No one has clean hands in the mess that this nation finds itself in right now.
When I say "this government", I include both parties.A B S O L U T E L Y !
I no longer see this as being a Republican vs Democrat thing. I see it as people vs government thing.
No one has clean hands in the mess that this nation finds itself in right now.
When I say "this government", I include both parties.I believe we are well past the people vs government thing. A Washington Post article talking about Romney's 47% detailed the issue. Romney was right, but the numbers are even worse. Half of the population live in homes where at least one resident receives direct government benefits. Add to that expectations of defense, clean air, clean water, roads, etc, and I'm just not sure the people are going to want to see the government shrink much. Oh, they'll take shots at socialist initiatives, but take the benefits nonetheless. They'll question the right's efforts at hindering abortion, but still after 40 years of polling by a 2 to 1 margin want to allow abortion only under certain circumstances.
I no longer see this as being a Republican vs Democrat thing. I see it as people vs government thing.
No one has clean hands in the mess that this nation finds itself in right now.
We want to see term limits, but they already exist, and we keep on electing the same folks. They must be doing something we like... :whistle:
Congressional approval ratings are about as low as they can get yet you're right. We keep electing the same people over and over again.
There may be a really simple explanation for that.
People disapprove of the OTHER guys in Congress, not THEIR guy.
THEIR guy brings the bacon home.
When I say "this government", I include both parties.
I no longer see this as being a Republican vs Democrat thing. I see it as people vs government thing.
No one has clean hands in the mess that this nation finds itself in right now.