Republican Party in danger of imploding?
So says Anthony Martin of The Examiner:
A series of circumstances are gradually emerging that strongly suggest that the Republican Partyis in danger of imploding, of destroying itself from the inside.
The proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back was Marco Rubio’s push to pass the new amnesty bill in the U.S. Senate. Radio host and attorney Hugh Hewitt discovered that the bill was actually written by the staff of Chuck Schumer, the ultra liberal Democrat from New York.
It is a well known fact among true conservatives who also happen to be attorneys that Schumer is one of the most diabolical members of Congress — and one of the smartest. The bill passed this week by the Senate that grants amnesty to millions ofillegal aliens is the brain child of Schumer. And it is very telling that some of the most well-known Republicans in the Senate supported it whole heartedly, such as McCain, Graham, Rubio, Ayotte, Alexander, Corker, Collins, Murkowski, and others who have been designated as part of the GOP elitist establishment.
But Rubio was a Tea Party backed candidate. So was Ayotte. And already they have betrayed the values associated with the Tea Party.
Further, it has not helped Republicans to hear the news that one of their favored potential presidential candidates for 2016, Jeb Bush, will present the Liberty Medal to Hillary Clinton. Such actions only seal and confirm in the minds of conservatives the suspicion that the country needs another Bush like it needs a hole in the head. And it needs another Clinton about as much as it needs two holes in the head.
I left after the 2012 election debacle.
One of the reasons that I have been against a “third party” is because there isn’t really room on the national stage for more than that. A while back, I wrote that there really doesn’t need to be a “third party” –the Republican Party needs to be killed and replaced:
Back in October of 2011, Joe and I were going at it pretty hot and heavy about the creation of a third party. As my esteemed granddaddy, Baker T. Goodwin, would say, I’m still agin it…but this time with one caveat – that this “third party” must be a replacement party for the GOP and the very, very few elements remaining in the Democrat Party that still appreciate Constitutionality – if there are any (if there are, they are kept carefully hidden from public view).
So I’m re-posting this part of our exchange because I believe that this theme is very true:
If conservatives don’t learn how to play the long game, we should get prepared to settle in for more Democratic presidents and Congresses for years to come. Then we can all come back here after 2012 and commiserate about how much losing sucks and bitch about liberals…or we can start working a plan so that our kids won’t have to have the same conversations. Our choice.
We simply can’t change to be Democrat Lite or we all might as well sign up for membership in Komrade Karl’s Kremlin Komedy Klub – the KKKK. His ideal features one party rule, too…
It is for this reason that I have advocated a two stage approach to building a conservative “third party” (really a “replacement” party) that includes activism within the Republican Party in the near term and a longer term strategy of electoral victories at a local and state level. In the near term, there is not enough differentiation of the policy stands to prohibit the Republican Party from co-opting conservative positions to dilute the impact of a conservative movement – the evidence is in full view with the adoption of many of the Tea Party positions in the 2010 mid-terms and the subsequent “watering down” of those positions to fit a more “establishment” mold.
If any political party is to have longevity, it must have the support mechanisms and the organizational support for the long haul. There must be a strong foundation, not only in ideology but on the operational side as well. We can be confident in our convictions but unless we can win elections, we will just be relegated to writing and talking about it – sort of like what I am doing now… This requires playing the long game. Flash mob politics won’t get us there and lasting parties can’t spring fully formed on the political landscape as if they were Athena springing from the cloven forehead of Zeus. They have to be built to last from the bottom up.
The liberals and Democrats understand the long game; they have been chipping away for decades. They don’t see change in 4 year presidential term increments, they look 40 years out. They realize that American politics are rarely an exercise in paradigm shifts, a rapid lurch to one side or the other. Political evolution, slow and steady, is the process by which long term change is implemented and cemented. Most conservatives want a tectonic shift in 2012 – ain’t gonna happen, folks. 2012 is just the next battle. It can start the transformation but it won’t BE the transformation any more than Obama was the singular liberal transformational event for the Democrats.
To support the “long game”, I also support the repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment of the US Constitution. This amendment changed the selection process of the Senators from a vote of the respective state legislatures to direct election by the electorate. It is my opinion that this diminishes the power of the states and dilutes the ability of federal reform and control to come from the state level. Repeal of this amendment would make the elections at the state level far more important in the national scheme and would provide the opportunity for the success of a “third party”. This would generate much more attention to the local ans state elections and but more local skin in the game with respect to who gets elected. Career politicians would not be able to camouflage their true colors until they got to the national stage the way that they do now. Until this happens, my opinion is that a “stand alone” third party is simply not possible at a national level.
Take for example the current makeup of the state legislatures – Republicans control 26 state legislatures, assuming that each would vote for 2 Republican Senators, the Republican’s would have had control of the US Senate since 2010 with at least 52 votes to go with a majority in the House. If you look at Republican “leaning” states, it is possible to contemplate that a 60 vote “super majority” wouldn’t be out of the question. Tell me that this wouldn’t be an attractive proposition for conservatives!
Voting for the lesser of two evils does guarantee the election of an evil, we do agree on that – and a two party system does propagate this potentiality. I will vote Republican in 2012, maybe not because I am fully supportive of the nominee but because of a more general support of a philosophy. I wish that were not the case but electability must be considered because if you can’t get elected, you can’t govern.
Kill it. RINO’s like McCain, Graham and now Rubio and his little cabal are all more comfortable playing with their little mates on the left than with “wacko birds” anyway.
Light the fuze.
Whigs in 2016.