So, this erstwhile Cosmo centrefold (seriously), assuming that he is in, what's he going to do, then? Not "What is he not going to do?", vote for the not-very-good-anyway Senate Healthcare Bill. What is he going to try and get onto the Statute Book while busily not voting for that Bill?
Closing the borders and enforcing immigration laws? Opposing the use of American troops as the world's police force, instead only putting the military in harm's way when American territory or lives are in jeopardy? Making America energy independent? Opposing any treaty or organisation that seeks to undermine American sovereignty or weaken the Constitution? Making English the official language of the United States? Opposing the bailouts? Fair trade, not "free" trade? Auditing the Federal Reserve? Repealing the Patriot Act? What, exactly?
After all, which of these would Obama veto? The anti-war ones? The fair trade ones? The energy independence ones? The anti-bailout ones? The repeal of the Patriot Act? The immigration control and English as the official language ones, causes very dear indeed to black hearts? The auditing of the Fed, a cause very dear indeed to all hearts?
Or is sitting around not voting for the Healthcare Bill sufficient in itself? It looks to me that this person is going to be drawing a salary from the taxpayer for doing nothing, which is hardly very conservative. Before losing his seat at the first opportunity.
It is not even as if healthcare is going to go away; it will just be brought back over and over again until it is passed out of nothing more than exhaustion or sheer boredom.
Not much a victory at all, all things considered. If it has happened at all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I see that Brown opposes the tax on Big Banks that is designed to get money back from TARP and curb the outrageous compensation packages in the banking industry. Ugh. When will populist Republicans realize that the GOP doesn't care about them? I know the Democrats are often not much better, but come on! The taxpayers saved the Big Banks from their own greed and gross incompetence, and yet we are supposed to believe that these massive compensation packages are necessary in order to continue to attract the "best and the brightest" into the banking industry. If these guys were the "best and the brightest" I'd hate to see the dunces! We miss you William Jennings Bryan. Too bad I can't conjure your ghost to tell people what's what.
ReplyDeleteThe Republicans may have won this election (if they have), but they don’t really come out of these farcical proceedings any better than do the Democrats.
ReplyDeleteKnowing that they stood a chance of winning in the current climate, they could have run a candidate in favour of immigration control, a strong defence capability used sparingly and for its strictly defensive purpose, energy independence, national sovereignty, English as the official language, no bailouts, fair trade, auditing the Fed, and restoring constitutional liberty by repealing the Patriot Act, as well as in favour of the traditional Catholic moral values that run so deep in this particular state.
Do they believe in these things, or not? Apparently not.
And such a candidate’s victory would have sent a signal to the Democrats: if you had run someone like that, but also in favour of things like universal public healthcare and the Employee Free Choice Act, then you would not now be one vote down on things like universal public healthcare and the Employee Free Choice Act.
The Republicans have missed this opportunity. Will they take the next one, by nominating Luksik rather than Toomey in Pennsylvania? If they do, then I hope that she beats either Specter or Sestak, as the case may be.
But if they don’t, then who cares whether Toomey, Specter or Sestak is elected? Who would even be able to tell?
Good point. To some degree I would not mind seeing the Democrats suffer some losses in the next major election, in 2010, as it might be a wake-up call that "business as usual" New Democrat policies are not the way to go. Obama and the Democrats owe their 2008 victory to socially conservative, working-class voters, especially those from the Midwest and South, the traditional heartlands of American populism. But these folks have not gotten that much in return, yet.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Republicans, I am not optimistic about the possibility of that party turning towards a more Buchananite or Paulite orientation, at least on the things I agree with Buchanan and Paul on. On the other hand, there seems to be some indication that the Tea Party movement within the GOP may be for real. I hear Tea Partiers have been working to unseat mainstream Republicans in local positions. But beyond the issue of whether the Tea Parties are as grassroots as they might seem, I am not encouraged by their continued praise for laissez-faire capitalism. In this sense, the Tea Parties represent a sort of right-wing populism that attacks both big business and big government. And while I agree that the people must be protected from abuses by both big business and big government run amok, I get the feeling this right-wing populism is more about returning to the “good old days” of pre-Keynesian laissez-faire capitalism, when the economy was in recession for close to half of the time, and the recessions were deeper and longer than in the time period after the adoption of Keynesianism. I want no part of that kind of populism.
Note: Although I don’t agree with him all the time, Thomas Frank is in good form on the topic of right-wing populism in this article of his in the Wall Street Journal (!): http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703436504574640580953121784.html