The Republicans are back!

Just a year ago, as Barack Obama was taking the oath of office as the 44th president of the United States, the Republican Party was struggling on the brink of irrelevancy. Today, we have regained footing.

But can we stay here?

First, we need to understand what caused the change. In 2008, voters showed that they wanted to move away from the politics of divisiveness and the hyper-partisanship that was defining Washington. They were tired of out-of-control spending and the ever-increasing reach of government. They were tired of war. Voters wanted a new approach and Barack Obama articulated that message in a way that appealed. He wasn’t George W. Bush and that was enough for many.

Unfortunately, the Democrats interpreted their victory as a mandate to move the country to the left in accordance with their long pent-up frustration with Republican policies. They felt — and feel — they know best and their goals would be achieved by acting fast without hesitation.

The warning signs started to appear right away but, in the echo chamber that is our nation’s capitol, they were dismissed as the uninformed grousing of the far right. The fact that Republicans allowed themselves to be portrayed as the party of “No” only gave more momentum to House and Senate leadership.

Now we have an unanticipated shake-up that even the hierarchy in D.C. cannot ignore.

Republican victories in New Jersey and Massachusetts (and less so in Virginia) have reshaped the landscape. But before the Republicans get too comfortable and certain of this rebirth, it would behoove us to take a good, hard look at just what happened and why.

To begin, we had two good candidates in Chris Christie and Scott Brown. They were articulate and knew their state’s voters and issues. They worked hard and took nothing for granted.

There is no denying, however, that the Democrats’ agenda in D.C. played a large role in voter anger — especially in Massachusetts, with Scott Brown’s promise to kill health care reform.

Far from getting the open government that we had been promised during the presidential campaign, major bills were passed with little time for discussion. Instead of reaching out to Republicans, the Democratic majority used their power to almost gleefully ignore the opposition party.

And instead of trying to control spending, Washington seemed to be on an even greater spending spree than in the past. The voters wanted to be heard in D.C., and New Jersey and Massachusetts gave them a voice.

This is the perfect time for the Republicans to seize the initiative. Rather than just stop the health care reform bill, they should now push their version — calling for reduced costs to make care more affordable, addressing tort reform and stripping out the pork for Louisiana and Nebraska.

They can look responsible, focused on pocketbook issues and dedicated to solving an issue that needs work. In short, they can look like leaders.

On the political front, these recent victories mean we can win back House and Senate seats and we can return control of many state governments to the GOP this November. If Republicans field good candidates, giving voters men and women who reflect their constituents’ values and who articulate a message of fiscal responsibility and a limited, yet well-defined, role for government, we can win.

What we cannot do is field only the candidates who pass “purity tests.” If we want to be successful, we cannot pose a litmus test on 10 items expecting to reflect the country at large.

As Henry Barbour, a committee member from Mississippi and former Republican National Committee Chairman Haley Barbour’s son, noted in Wednesday’s Washington Post, “We need to stick to our conservative principles without telling folks in the Massachusetts GOP that their choice for a U.S. Senate nominee cannot receive funding because of some litmus test.”

Scott Brown was wise when he said, “This Senate seat belongs to no one person and no one political party — it belongs to the people of Massachusetts.” Each seat represents a different set of people; ignore those voters — who have demonstrated they will act when necessary — at your own peril.

Our country needs a vibrant two-party system. We’re close to having that again, but how we handle this opportunity in both Washington and across the country in candidate recruitment will determine whether or not the Republican Party is that second party.

Christie Whitman was the 50th governor of New Jersey and the first female to head the state (1994-2001). She ran the Environmental Protection Agency from 2001 to 2003.

Kidding right 1 Wednesday, 03 February 2010 16:59 Diogenes of Hudson
No they are not - you have that view because of the stuff in the water in blue blood Somerset. Obama turned out to be a great public speaking con man, owned & paid for Wall Street. His left butt cheek say “Owned & paid for by Goldman Sachs”. His healthcare insurance reform, instead of addressing the issue and expanding Medicare for everyone, became the “Medical Industrial Complex Profit act of 2010″, he extended the “Military Industrial Complex War Profiteering opportunity Act of 2002 (if it’s truly a war draft people, but it’s not a war is a war profiteering event), his economic & banking reform became “Medieval Financial Aristocracy & Debt Serf Institutionalization act of 2010″.

I’m an independent & voted for him in the primary & the general elections because I though Hillary was going to be like “this”. One of your conservative columnist, Brooks from the NY Times, made a point in an article about the “Saner Perot” being out there, asking questions & trying to decide. Just like Diogenes, we the independent will go on looking for an honest man, I know is impossible.

Obama’s election showed 2 things. 1-Both political parties are a different side of the same turd. Both are owned & paid for by corporate interest, different corporate interests, but still the same crowd. Because, they are the only way to fund elections and pay for all the political operative vampire class that has arisen to live well as pimpers of the electoral process. 2-Because of this, we are at a Teddy Roosevelt like moment. Either a third, fourth et al party shapes up & wrestle away at this corrosion by kicking in public funding of campaigns only or will cross the Rubicon in the public’s open interpration that the system is not viable.

The question is if we get a FDR like (I’m personally for drafting any closest/direct living relative of Teddy or Franklin into politics -as they have the genes for the right stuff vs. the Bushes- which have the moron&crook genes; or a cesspool stasis is going to set in, just like Mexico with its 70+ yrs of PRI party, with all hope gone.

Remember only 40% of military personnel said they would shoot at American civilians. A sizeable percentage of grunts in the military are minorities. The question is how soon are we to a system reset. Because a United States of Goldman Sachs is not going to last. May I remind you of the words below.

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

- Jerzy Macchievelli

Related Posts:

• Don’t worry……We’ll bail you out.
• Ah yes, the laughable, last hour “gains” yesterday were a clear signal that the fraud would continue into today…
• Is Obama Insane?!?!
• Geithner requested congress to raise debt limit
• SCENARIOS: How soon will U.S. jobs come back?

Leave a comment