You Just Know the Republican Party Will Screw this Up
If the GOP can’t make some hay out of this, then they need to fire every single strategist, adviser, and media guru they have:
If they could vote to keep or replace the entire Congress, just 25% of voters nationwide would keep the current batch of legislators.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 57% would vote to replace the entire Congress and start all over again. Eighteen percent (18%) are not sure how they would vote.
Overall, these numbers are little changed since last October. When Congress was passing the unpopular $700-billion bailout plan in the heat of a presidential campaign and a seeming financial industry meltdown, 59% wanted to throw them all out. At that time, just 17% wanted to keep them.
Admittedly, that means some Republican members of Congress have to go but, honestly, I wouldn’t mourn terribly the loss of Lindsey Graham, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and John McCain. Perhaps the GOP can find its lost conservative principles and run on them in 2010. I’m not holding my breath, since it’s not like the GOP is out there backing highly-principles candidates, but you never know. A miracle might occur.
(via memeorandum)
UPDATE: Here’s an interesting tidbit:
Here’s what I get out of it — even at the height of Obamania, 53% of the country thought it was always better to cut taxes than increase government spending.
No wonder Obama ran on a middle class tax cut.
No wonder he lied.
Are you paying attention John Cornyn?
Other Posts of Interest:
- Tax Day Tea Party Roundup (With Links, and Rove!)
- Thank You, Republicans, for Our New Treasury Secretary, Fraudy McTaxCheat
- Not One Red Cent Post: Crist is Not So Conservative
Category: The Republican Minority
Again, the systemic problem is that the Dems and GOP are a permanent, Progressive, political class.
Returning to any conservative, Federalist principles means that the alcoholic has to "go cold turkey on the kickin' chicken" of power.
It wouldn't be a bad idea if, while we were mucking the Congressional stables, we made sure they were a bit less amenable to a lengthy stay. I say a severe salary, benefit, and pension cut is in order.
So that the chance to grasp the reins of power is the _only_ incentive to work in politics? Are you sure that's going to attract a better kind of candidate?
Better to impose term limits outright, I would think. State by state, if necessary.
I'd use my first suggestion as a starting point. Limited government makes a political career in Washington less attractive.
I'm still not sold on term limits. There's something to them that strikes me as a cop-out, to give us a reason to pay less attention to the people we elect. Still, passing them may end up being the only viable option we have.
Lindsey Graham has a life-time ACU rating of 90%. I gather that is not conservative enough. Funny thing, Fred Thompson's lifetime rating was just 87%. Lindsey is more "pure" than Fred Thompson, but you don't slam him.
Strange, isn't it?
SJR
The Pink Flamingo
And in 2004, his rating was a 92 (compared to an 82 in 2008), which means that he's slipped 2 1/2 votes to the Democratic side in just four years.
There's a clear trend that he's running away from conservative values (Bush judicial nomination compromises anyone? Justice Sotomayor?) and toward his own counsel.
[...] who is calling the shots on just which Republican is “Pure” and just who isn’t? Case in point. Lindsey is treated like dirt by conservatives who absolutely adore Fred Thompson. [...]