If there is any image of the problem with the Republican Party over the last few years it’s John McCain. I know, many thought I meant Bush, but even he was never the darling of the “We want to be popular” sycophants among the party leadership. John McCain has a made a career of bucking his own party’s principles to stand for whatever crackpot liberal idea came down the pike. Support for bailouts, amnesty, carbon credits, global warming, and the unconstitutional McCain Feingold shows part of the picture. The rest comes from his opposition to taxes—remember his opposition to the Bush tax cuts? Had I listed these positions before telling you of whom I was speaking, you would assume I meant a leftist Democrat—and you’d be right. Remember when it became obvious that McCain was going to lose the presidential primary to Bush. There was a big push to recruit him to run on the Democratic ticket. What made this so serious was how well he would have fit on that side of the aisle—he’ been little more than a Democratic mole for years.
Now, after fighting hard to get a conservative in the senate seat so long held by Ted Kennedy, those most responsible for the victory are being sold out by none other than their primary darlings. Senator-elect Brown has recorded phone ads for John McCain and Sarah Palin has announced her support for, and intention to campaign for McCain.
I found the following picture on the net. It was not credited so I don’t know the original person to atribute it to, but I found it on RedState.com and on TwitPic.
The colors may throw you off a bit considering this is the state of the Kennedy’s, Kerry and Barney Frank.
Looking around the blogosphere I am finding some interesting information on the Brown victory in Massachusetts. In case you are in liberal denial and feel this was a fluke with little meaning for the 2010 elections look at some facts I found from Ann Coulter:
“Coakley had already won two statewide elections, while her Republican opponent, Scott Brown, had only won elections in his district. She had endorsements from the Kennedy family and the current appointed Democratic senator, Paul Kirk — as well as endless glowing profiles in The Boston Globe.
“And by the way, as of Jan. 1, Brown had spent $642,000 on the race, while Coakley had spent $2 million.
“On Jan. 8, just 11 days before the election, The New York Times reported: ‘A Brown win remains improbable, given that Democrats outnumber Republicans by 3 to 1 in the state and that Ms. Coakley, the state’s attorney general, has far more name recognition, money and organizational support.’”
It appears that the best cure for what ails us was a strong shot of the Obama/Reid/Pelosi virus. I refuse to celebrate though. I am ever fearful that the GOP leadership will manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by fielding and supporting candidates that fit the mold of the kinder, gentler party. The GOP was never meant to be the kinder gentler party we are patriots who believe in freedom and refuse to give an inch on our principles. Only time will tell, because nothing can deflate a Republican groundswell like the beltway Bozos believing their own press.
Now we see the change that was promised and the only hope we have is a return to the freedoms that built this country. Obama sought to make this country more like Europe and with double digit unemployment and loss of economic freedoms he has succeeded. Hopefully, this Novermber we will see a return to sanity in Washington, but even with a major GOP win the freedom loving libertarian in me is skeptical.
Yesterday a miracle happened. No, a lion did not lie down with a lamb, the lame did not walk and neither did the blind see. Instead, a miracle of an unprecedented magnitude happened in the state of Massachusetts. A Republican was elected to fill the seat of Teddy “One-for-the-Road” Kennedy. To say that the left is in shock is an understatement.
The question I ask coming out of this election is how will the GOP read it? The election was spun by the left as a referendum on healthcare and that is exactly what won it for Brown. The people of Massachusetts came out in droves to vote against Obama’s plans to extend control over 1/7th of the US economy in the guise of healthcare reform. GOP leadership is of course ecstatic over the victory and they should be (heaven knows it’s been a while since good news involved the GOP). The danger to those of us who value freedom is a misread of Brown’s victory by party elites.
If party leadership reads this victory to mean people are so fed up with the Democrats they will vote for anyone wearing the Republican moniker the potential for big wins in 2010 will be lost. The Republican Party lost big in the last round, not because the country had shifted left, but because the Republican Party had shifted left. Under Bush it was hard to tell a Republican voting record from a Democratic one. Keynesian deficit spending alongside rampant Congressional corruption and moral turpitude produced a perfect storm for the left. The left won because the right stayed home.
It may be possible for the GOP to go one cycle or perhaps two with the old practice of running RINOs and Rockefeller Republicans. It is possible the electorate, shocked by the abuses of a strong Democratic majority, will vote for any elephant walking down the street, but this will not last long. Unless the party of Reagan returns to its base it will find itself exiled from power again and again. If this happens it is not the Republican leaders who will suffer but the American people who are forced to watch more and more of their freedoms wheedled away by misguided apparatchiks.
Recently a friend sent a list of ideas to reform Congress. I told his that most of the ideas would not work and pointed out that many of the ideas were based on myths about Congress—such as the old claim that Congress does not pay into Social Security. This was changed in the 80’s. My friend’s response was to ask for my ideas. I don’t know why in this country we have adopted the ludicrous idea that one cannot point out problems of an action without also laying out a better plan. We saw this in the healthcare debates when the Democrats belittled Republican opposition with the accusation that they had not given a better plan. One does not have to have a better plan to be able to recognize a bad plan. Despite this, I put together my usual list of appropriate fixes. You will not that none of them are the usual fluff floating around conservative circles.
Since only Constitutional Amendments cannot be overturned let’s start there.
First, repeal the XVII Amendment. In the Constitution, the Senate represented the state governments so Senators were elected by the State Legislatures. This was changed to popular election by XVII. We have such a bloated federal government because no one speaks for the states in Congress. With this small change there will never be another unfunded mandate, the X Amendment will be uplifted, and state governments will be empowered to stand up to the federal juggernaut.
Second, repeal the XVI Amendment. This aberration allowed the federal government to tax the people directly without apportionment by census figures. This would abolish the income tax. If you want to limit a government you must keep a tight grip on its ability to raise funds.
Third, further define the treaty making process. The Constitution empowers the President and the Senate to ratify treaties. This is fine with the repeal of XVII since the Senate would once again represent the state governments. The problem is that all bills for appropriation of money are constitutionally required to start in the House. What happens if a treaty is signed that requires the raising of an amount of money? Does the house have to raise the money? If so this is in effect an appropriation started by the Executive branch and the Senate sunning roughshod over the people’s representatives. There needs to be more definition. It must be stated that even if the President and Senate approve a treaty, the House still has the right to refuse to pay for it, by withholding the appropriations. This would handicap much of the feared results of Kyoto, UN mandates, etc. This does not violate the president’s power of foreign diplomacy, but it would limit his ability to enact harmful legislation under the guise of diplomacy, and protect the sovereignty of the American people.
Fourth, the war powers of the president need to be amended. Yes, the president is Commander-in-Chief but the power to send troops outside the US borders to engage any force or nation must be limited to those engagements where Congress has passed a declaration of war. In the case of Afghanistan this would not have been a problem because one could have been passed within hours of 911. However, this would have prevented many problems with Korea and Vietnam because the war could not simply be handed off to blame the president because Congress’ own votes would have been a matter of record. The American soldier should never be sent into harm’s way without the recorded agreement of their representatives. Voting to fund is not enough; it must be a declaration of war.
Fifth, there must be a Constitutional definition of Executive orders. As it is right now the president can make what is in effect law through these monarchical pronouncements, without Constitutional limitation. These orders are necessary for the operation of the executive branch to carry out its duties, but for now there is nothing to limit them. In this way the president is without the limits of checks and balances in executive orders.
Sixth, repeal the XXII Amendment. While others are proposing term limits for Congress, I see presidential term limits as detrimental. Limiting the president to two terms places the executive at a disadvantage in dealing with Congress, because this person’s political career is over. This in effect removes part of the checks and balances over Congress. During a second four year term Congress can force through many things that would never be possible without an emasculated president. Yes, some may point to the danger of ending up with an unbeatable president doing popular but unwise things such as FDR. However the New Deal was long after the passage of the XVI and XVII Amendments. With these repealed FDR would have been powerless.
