We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Thursday, September 16. 2010
In the run-up to the 2006 elections, I posted a widely followed debate among some prominent bloggers about – in light of discouragement or disagreement with President Bush’s second term immigration, Supreme Court choice, profligate budget policies -- whether to sit out the 2006 election, or start a third-party, or – in my opinion – to bite the bullet and get active against current and coming Democrat excesses. I called the first two positions "conservative battle fatigue." At other forums, like National Review, others joined in.
I’m not from Delaware, moreso from Missouri (“show me”), so looking back over the past four years I’d say we were all correct and all wrong.
Divisiveness and dispiritness among Republicans, coupled with energy and major media hawking among Democrats, led to the 2006 Congressional majority and 2008 Presidency for Democrats. We’ve all paid the prices. The establishment Republicans for the most part continued in their path of feebleness, until the Tea Parties released the energy and eagerness for reform among rank-and-file Republicans and Independents. Then, the Republican establishment was bestirred, kicked in the butt, to jump on board.
The 2010 elections and primaries demonstrated the synthesis of the three views from 2006: Don’t sit out an election but, instead, change their course by active participation, including overthrowing the more feckless members of the Republican establishment when able.
Now, we have a new debate which essentially pits those either clinging to the Republican establishment, or at best arguing for possibly greater electability in some left-leaning states of a weaker principled Party, against those who are more determined to stem and reverse the Democrat excesses of the past four years and launch a political party rebirth.
Some among the Republican Party establishment, however, go beyond the debate to defection. Florida’s Crist is the prime example, to his rue after being given a hearty attaboy by liberals and his liberal reposturing being rejected in the polls.
Muckraker Tim Carney, whose entire column at the Examiner should be read, criticizes the defenders of the establishment for bemoaning a possible loss in Delaware while ignoring that if not for the Tea Party enthusiasm and turn-out more gains would not have been made in other states. Carney doesn’t let excess on the Tea Party side escape criticism, but concludes: “By crossing the Delaware, the Tea Party has crossed the Rubicon.” On the other side is a revived, more principled political party that can provide real choice about America’s future.
Ed Morrissey’s post today warns:
All should heed what they’ve seen. We all should be from Missouri now.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
A third party, a real, legitimate one, is needed. One which supports a broad fiscally conservative (truly fiscally conservative) agenda, backed by a mildly liberal social viewpoint.
Abortion isn't the issue it once was - but it's still AN issue. Let's say that we agree to keep it legal, with limitations - as it is now - and have the states themselves sort out the limitations (states' rights to a large degree).
Gay marriage is a big issue - so let's say we agree civil unions are acceptable and the government will back them. But do NOT force this on states - let the states dictate the limitations and role they want to play. Don't use the term "marriage" - its religious overtones will turn people off. Most people can accept a gay civil union - and the gays will get all their rights.
Scale back spending, particularly in entitlements and civil service pay packets. These are both overboard. In scaling these back, we will determine where taxes will need to be raised (or hopefully cut).
Push through an amendment which limits deficit spending to a distinct % range of the GDP. Do the same with the size of the overall US budget. Let the size of this rise or shrink depending on the state of the economy so MILD Keynesian stimuli can be applied WHEN NEEDED.
And so on. There are few exciting, let alone viable, Republicans out there. Obviously, the Democrats are without any viability at this time.
I forgot to mention...a legit 3rd party would wind up being pretty big, if done properly. Many Dems are simply fed up with their Socialist leaders and independents/Libertarians could be convinced of its viability.
It's worth a shot to bring order from the chaos.
I'll take a third party that tears off the right half of the Republican Party while leaving behind most of the Christian Coalition. We would gladly welcome any sane Libertarians, and fiscally conservative Democrats (if there is still such a thing).
I agree with Morrissey. I usually agree with Charles Krauthammer but her is absolutely wrong about O'Donnell. Tea Party candidates are the only thing keeping me mildly interested in the GOP. Castle was a horrendous candidate - no better than Olympia Snowe or Lindsey Graham.
Candidates like Castle (career politicians indistinguishable from Democrats) will destroy the Republican Party far more effectively than a few Tea Party types.
The crux of the argument against O'Donnell is that she is not "viable" in the general election.
That is a naked judgment call. I appreciate the years of experience in these matters from the GOP Establishment but the voters are the ultimate authority. The Republican primary votes seemed to differ in opinion by taking action and actually VOTING.
This election season could well prove the voters right and the Establishment wrong. Strategic voting makes sense some of the time but not all of the time. I believe now is the latter.
Republicans and Democrats suffer from the same basic problem, which is a lack of recognition of humanity. The Democrats don't recognize the individuality and differences among people that make them poor subjects for massive governmental control.
Republicans recognize and celebrate individuality among their countrymen, until it gets down to their political party, and then they suddenly don't recognize differences at all, but want purity of ideals and ideas, and engage in endless battles over who has the correct amount of devotion to their principles, without recognizing that while abortion is the number one issue for some, it is not for others who care about national security or those who are fixated on spending.
We're all flawed. We know a lot about some subjects and nothing about others. We're quick studies, or we don't read at all. Just human.
Take it from me and my 60 years of political observation ... Third parties always always screw up elections, steal votes from the party which could re-balance the republic when it has gotten off course, and delay disastrously any real recovery.
I wish that those who hold social conservatives in distain would truly reveal their true colors as dhimmierats. One cannot embrace fiscal conservativism while arguing for a larger government voice in public affairs.
As for Libertarians the only thing that concerns them is having enough drugs to consume. I hope they do join with the "Republicans" who wish a third party.
I hope they take the Rove-Krautheimer axis route.
John Cornyn stepped back from the brink, with his election-night hesitation, followed by his decision the next morning to swallow his pride and get behind the candidate the voters favored.