Before anointing, or evening looking towards, any new leaders within the GOP, the party would do well to have them check their conservative credentials at the door my friends. Come to find, the "fresh new faces" aren't all that conservative either. Thus, there will cease to be an opposition party.
The Washington, D.C. newspaper The Hill featured an interview the day before yesterday with Republican minority whip Eric Cantor of Virginia. Cantor, an apparent "up and comer" if not golden boy within the GOP cheerleading corps, when asked by The Hill "Is the Earth warming or cooling and is the problem man made?"
Had this to say...
Cantor: "Well, I think that everybody — well, I don’t know if everybody, but most people have sort of come to the point at which the fact of carbon emissions is not something that is a good thing, necessarily, in excess. So I think we can all agree on that principle [???!!!!], and so … we all agree [???!!!]that we need to basically clean up our mess.
Who the hell is going to take on the Sierra Club greenies??? This is supposed to represent the opposition???
The Republican party is adrift BIG TIME. And pretty soon, if they don't get it together and start challenging this nonsense, they will indeed be dead in the water.
21 comments:
What a wuss.
I'm saying...
Fancy that, after he and Camp were personally attacked on the House floor by what's-his-name for their amendment to Porkulus, and Cantor changes his tune....
I used to think there might be one or two "representatives" that were worth a nickel - I see they've proven me wrong.
I'm afraid it is at present merely two sides of the same coin.
Yeah, a double-headed quarter.... Two faces (or two rear ends, I guess in this case). And they'll tax it coming and going every time they flip it.
I'd say he said something that was factually correct in the wrong way, i.e. accepting the premise that we have to "do something" to fix it.
Nevertheless, triangulation pisses me off.
As it is, I don't trust anyone who's in the upper echelons of the GOP leadership. They've forgotten what principles look like.
Well said Patrick. I can tell you this much with regards to my local Senate district though...
The stark contrast between what we are advocating and promoting and what the National GOP is doing is like fucking night and day.
On a National level I wouldn't say I'm a Republican in the least.
On a local level, while I'm still reserved, it makes it a much easier thing to admit.
While I should be rejoicing the demise of the republican party, I'm sad to say my local democrat party will be in the same funk.
But you do have that going for you. No matter how bad things get, the other side will screw up and your guys are back in the game.
A win by mere default is hardly a win if we've not cause to advance.
Soapmatic: A win by mere default is hardly a win....
Isn't that how the GOP got saddled with McCain?
You may pass GO and collect $200!
Well here's where it's at soapie imo. The conservative's main thing now seems to be to go after David Letterman, don't diss Sarah Palin...who really cares about this stuff? I never actually registered as a Republican in my entire life. First it was RTL but that's kinda narrow so then I became some sort of Independent and now I'm an official member of my NY State Conservative Party but Republican? never!
I've no party affiliation personally. I'll give money directly to a Republican candidate (namely a one Grant Cermak) but never to the party.
On a personal level, I've no party affiliation really. I prefer to take it on an issue by issue basis but that said, the overriding philosophy dictating my positions is personal freedom and personal liberty.
Beth and I were talking on the phone once about the different blogs out there, blogging in general and she made a point that I agree with. She said you're consistent, one of the most consistent out there imo even when we might occasionally disagree.
Thank you Z. That means alot to me. I've spent the better part of life in that endeavor. I've been less and less concerned with the answers I seek and instead much more focused on the equation or the manner in which I arrive at those given answers. If the equation is flawless in its application, the answers are merely secondary.
Add to that a healthy dose of objectivity, and I certainly am (if nothing else) objective, and you've got a recipe for success.
Needless to say, I'm pleased with the results thus far.
Too bad we couldn't teach that process to a few of our "representatives," eh?
I'm afraid so Angie. I think Barry Goldwater summed it up perfectly when he said:
“I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is ``needed'' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents "interests,'' I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.”
I wonder if Goldwater ever read the constitution. The preamble says:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Liberty is one value among a number of values that are enshrined in our constitution. This includes promoting the "general welfare." To promote Liberty to the exclusion of all other values is simply a misreading of the constitution, pure and simple.
Poor poor brando. You've fallen into the welfare trap I'm afraid.
You'd do well to focus your attention on the first portion of your comment wherein you stated correctly that the very things which you put forth are in the PREAMBLE to the Constitution.
The document does not end there dear boy. In your want to make the case for constitutional welfare, you ignore flat out the wrest of that very document. The remainder of the document proceeds to lay out with absolute clarity what the Federal Government can then do with respect to those very things.
If the general welfare clause was to be interpreted as loosely as you've attempted to assert, there would be absolutely no need for our Constitution to state anything beyond the Preamble.
What's more, it is said to "promote" the general welfare. That is quite a different thing than "PROVIDING" the general welfare.
Well, Massa Soapbox, I expect you are preparing to take your "case" to the Supreme Court, then? You should have an easy go of it, i reckon, given that the document lays everything out with "absolute clarity".
In the mean time, I am going to go out and drive my car on an unconstitutionaly provided federal highway, while it is still here, and get me a donut and coffee. Cheerio!
Simply because the Supreme Court renders opinion does not that opinion make true. Why, the Supreme Court too is equally culpable in shredding the very document of which this once great nation was founded upon.
Post a Comment