Sure, it’s a victory for the GOP. But more importantly, it’s a victory for “just right of center” moderates and independents like me. Scott Brown’s astonishing defeat of Martha Coakley, the one “chosen” to replace the late Ted Kennedy, sends a dual message to both the right and left – don’t f*ck with the independents!
While it’s partly true that Democrats left the plane on autopilot, assuming a liberal state like Massachusetts was in the bag, Scott Brown also is a very effective campaigner. On the national stage, he found the right message to attract the right donors and supporters. But at the local level, he struck the right balance between “change” and “mutiny.” Then there’s that little issue of our fearless leader marching in to save the day with his elitist jabs at average everyday people who drive trucks.
But conservatives from outside the state could have just as easily screwed the whole thing up. After the way the tea party purists botched the NY-23 election in November, I was quite worried that the GOP would fracture and turn to cannibalism in an effort to weed out those they deemed were not falling in line. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that you can’t win elections by purging voters. But in November, it seemed as though logic was out the window when they literally handed a seat to the Democrats because a bunch of outsiders didn’t like the nominee.
Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh would never get behind a candidate like Chris Christie if given the choice between him and a much more conservative candidate. But had Steve Lonegan (the “conservative” choice) won the NJ primary, MSNBC would be talking to Gov. Jon Corzine tonight. Instead, Gov. Chris Christie was elected and today he was inaugurated.
When your car is out of control and veering to the left, your natural instinct is to jerk the wheel to the right. But in doing so, you make the problem worse and you may never regain control. So while there’s still a lot of work to do to restore balance to our government, today is a good day and 2010 is off to a great start.
Posts
What is your basis for saying Lonegan would have lost other than you hate conservatives? For Christie to win, he had to become Steve Lonegan. Who do you think elected him? Abortion loving liberals? Gay marriage advocates? Gun controllers? Public employee unions? Unfortunately for New Jersey, Christie is nothing more than Corzine without the beard and with his ultra-left-wing Democrat attorney general the only change are the people looting the treasury. Time will show that is true and the only “Republicans” who will benefit are those on the government payroll boosting their pensions. If you hate conservatives so much, you should switch parties because there is no room for liberals in the GOP.
2010-01-20 @ 10:09 am
I don’t hate conservatives at all. I personally identify myself as an independent conservative. As for Steve Lonegan, I don’t have a problem with him particularly. I just know that far right conservatives can’t win in blue states. I happened to like Chris Christie more and he won by a very decisive margin. Anyhow, I don’t really care whether or not you want guys like me in the party… I’m only a registered Republican because I want to participate in the primary process. But in general elections, I’ll vote for whoever the better candidate is. It just so happens that the one issue I take very seriously is one-party control.
But your last sentence pretty much sums up the whole point of my post – that litmus tests and purity arguments will only thin out, fracture, and ultimately destroy the party.
2010-01-20 @ 2:11 pm
Josh and Rick,
I think you’ve both fallen into the terminology trap that progressives (the leadership, not rank and file) are using to sow discord between conservatives (what ever the label) and control the debate to their advantage. By defining the terms of the debate (“litmis test”, “no room for liberals”) they move the debate from conservative vs. progressive/liberal principles (which are much easier to discuss rationally) to a finger pointing/emotional shouting match (“you’re mean and narrow minded!”, “you’re just a RINO!”).
Independents want to be open minded and progressive ideas often sound reasonable. Unfortunately, they are invariabley based on a false premise or bad prinicples and always come with a slew of unintended consequences that make the solution worse than doing nothing at all. Please name me one (just one) government program that 1) met its **stated goals**; 2) cost anywhere near what the estimated budget would be; 3) was completed anywhere near the scheduled date (I’m much more forgiving on this point); 4) went away if that was part of the sales pitch. I worked as a federal employee for 10 years and never saw one. Defense and aerospace do a slightly better job of this simply because they know to adjust things for the ridiculous levels of padding contractors are allowed to do. And even they have a lousy record of meeting schedule.
The “you’re just a RINO” crowd is fed up with republicans talking about conservative ideals and then voting like progressives on too many issues. They want to get rid of such hypocritical politicians. They rightly feel that these republicans have at least acquiesed to, and too often participated in, the slide to the left, away from constitutional boundaries, that our country has been in for so long.
Unfortunately, both camps seem to have forgotten that “we elected” these folks and have largely ignored what they do in Washington. Thus allowing them to politically “screw the pooch”. Also, in order to stay elected, they have to conform to what is politically acceptable by their constituents. They may (or at least say they do to the right audience) prefer to vote differently, but will take a pragmatic path rather than an idealistic one to keep from sharing a political version of Rasputin’s fate (poisoned, shot, beaten, drowned and sexually mutilated [first 4 are definate, the last just a rumor]).
Like you Josh I am a registered republican so that I can vote in primaries. I don’t feel a strong affiliation with either party, although I find myself voting for republicans because they come closer to what I believe than democrats. I am disgusted with voters who have abdicated their responsibility to send good people to DC and monitor them enough to know if they deserve a return trip. In the age of the internet, it isn’t that hard to do.
We need to add a good measure of rational analysis of the facts and the principles involved to the debate so that “We the people” not government programs can get us out of the pit we’re in.
We as a people have been so caught up in our own little worlds that we have allowed our elected representatives to virtually trash our constitution. I think that about 70-80% of what the government does is unconstitutional. I’ve heard all of the arguments, “we have to do something for “. I really have no problem with taking a proactive approach to many of our problems, but let’s do them within the constitutional framework or amend it to allow such things if we feel it is really necessary.
You cannot apply 20th or 21st century definitions to 18th century terminology and maintain the integrity of the contract between the people and their goverment. That is really what the constitution is, a contract between the people, the states and the federal government. The “general welfare” and “commerce” clauses have had modern definitions applied to their words and syntax to justify programs that the founders never intended. If you want the constitution to evolve, then amend it. The “general welfare” and “commerce” clauses were extensively debated and their meanings well established prior to ratification of the constitution.
I doubt that anyone would fail to see the illegality of a bank adding a balloon payment to a mortgage by re-interpreting the contract using changed word definitions. Yet people turn a blind eye to equivalent behavior by our govenment when a currently popular idea is conceived and implemented as yet another government program that will never die. By allowing judicial re-interpretation of the constitution to modify what is and isn’t constitutional for the last 78 years, we’ve damaged our country’s basic underpinnings.
I hope that we can recover from our own folly.
2010-07-19 @ 5:02 pm