Pay Attention, National Republicans
National Republicans have been granted something of an image reprieve by the socialist overreaching of President Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats – but don’t think for a second that voters have forgotten the GOP betrayal of fiscal conservatism that ushered in the age of “The One.”
In fact, according to the results of a recent Rasmussen poll, GOP voters are still mad as hell at their “Republican” elected officials.
Those results – published Tuesday – show that a whopping 74% of GOP voters believe Republicans in Congress have “lost touch with GOP voters nationwide over the last several years.” Worse still, less than 18% of GOP voters believe that Republicans in Congress have done a good job “representing the base.”
In other words, when you hear one of these cookie-cutter Republicans bitching and moaning about Obamacare, et al., you might want to check their resume …
It’s easy to complain about the “other guy” wasting money, but the fact remains that 21st Century Republicans have yet to prove they deserve to be trusted with it, either.
Comments
By CNSYD on September 3rd, 2009 at 4:42 pm
As is true with the national media, when you exist within the beltway and only communicate with your fellow insiders, you THINK you know what America as a whole thinks. I believe many members were shocked when they had town hall meetings. Does this mean they will change? No, because when they get back inside the beltway they will revert to only listening to insiders.
By Gillon on September 3rd, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Sic Willie, I am generally sparing of praise,and disagree with you on a number of issues, but is good to see someone who “seen their chance and took it” and have grown in their position and gotten better. This is a good post, and your posts concerning the whole sordid Sanford affair have been insightful as well. Keep on having at’em.
By Cooter Brown on September 3rd, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Peoples will be mo’ likely t’ put a Ron Paul libertie type ‘ publican in oriface. Day is stirin’ up da partie, altho’ th’ partie is kickin’ an’ screamin’!!!! ‘course, one day dey mite see th’ game an’ finally vote a 3rd partie…
By rick on September 4th, 2009 at 8:13 am
Tell em’ Cooter. The pressure being exerted now needs to be continued. Until the pain exceeds K streets ability to “pay to make the pain go away”, both sides of the isle will continue to sell the American people down the drain. Keep bearing down America, use your vote in 2010 to bring some of these clowns back to their electorate for final dismissal.
By CNSYD on September 4th, 2009 at 9:22 am
Libertarians or those who claim to be will not make it. Their tact is that anyone who disagrees with them on any topic no matter how insignificant is a flaming liberal. Just read blog and/or newspaper story posts and you will see that those who claim to be libertarians are “out there”. They want to return to the tenants of the original Constitution. OK ladies prepare to give up the vote. All you folk who don’t own property, no vote for you. Clean the rust off all the chains as slavery will be back. Now any of you left who are now qualified to vote we can’t trust you to make the right choices for the Senate so it will be done for you. PS: If you won’t to at least try to win something don’t use a wacko candidate like Ron Paul.
By rick on September 4th, 2009 at 10:38 am
So CNSYD what do you propose. Within all parties you’ll have differing views. I don’t think the average Libertarian advocates rolling back the vote or a return to Slavery….once again you obfuscate and attempt to create confusion. Time to be a part of the solution instead of part of the problem….And returning to the constitution and the enumerated powers isn’t a far out anything, until the American people relearn what freedom and a small government is…they’ll continue on the path already established, a path that is leading to financial, moral ruin along with a continued loss of freedom.
By CNSYD on September 4th, 2009 at 11:23 am
rick, I propose sanity. Apparently you have not seen the response Libertarians give when you question their intent. They are inerrant and you are a liberal because you don’t buy into each and every word they say. Old expression but you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar. Exactly which Constitution and enumerated powers do you wish to return to? The existing one plus ALL the present ammendments? If you want to drop some what would you drop? Are there some you would like to add? If so what? So where should “power” reside? At the state level? County level? What power should the central government have? Please don’t blow that off and say just what the Constitution says because it becomes difficult to make it fit the 21st century where things are a mite more complex. I am sure you will say “the common defense” is one. Exactly what and who is being defended in Iraq and Afganistan? Are these US problems or world problems or just local problems? I am just trying to undersatnd what “libertarian” means.
By rick on September 4th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
CNSYD…probably the same ones the rest of us are trying to get our arms around. Yes, the world is a mite more complex, but thats no excuse to ignore or change the constitiution outside to mandated methodology enumerated in the constitution. All powers not specifically given to the federal government should remain with the state. Only a constitutional admendment should change that particular issue. We’ve bent and twisted the meaning and intent of the constitution to meet any definition we choose to attach to what we’re trying to accomplish. If promote the general welfare means providing health coverage to the general population , then I also believe that I’m entitled to food and shelter as well. Oh and that new plasma screen TV…I’ll have one for every room in the house thank you very much. The point is, the constitution is a specific document designed to provide a specific framework, but to change that framework you must get the consent of the governed. Its called admendments. Next, you’re right that Iraq and Afganistan shouldn’t be our problem to deal with. The overarching issue is prior to WWII we were an isolationist country that refused to get involved in other folks business…that didn’t work out so well did it? So at what point do we close down the state department and cancel our membership in the UN? While I have no use for the United Nations and would willingly forgo listening to a bunch of despots kissing each others butts, all the while spending our money and abusing our laws, I doubt that our elected representatives have a clue what the average American thinks of the UN. Sometimes talking just doesn’t get the necessary job done, and while I was against our involvement, much like sex we need to finish the task at hand. Believe me when I say, I’d rather a million of them (whoever them is) perish than one American be asked to sacrifice for anothers freedom.
By CNSYD on September 4th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
rick, I am afraid that Iraq and Afganistan will never be “finished”. Hearts and minds haven’t been changed and they won’t be. I guess I don’t understand all of what you said. We have a framework of representatives that we elect to vote on issues and a Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution. We may not like what they do or say but that is what the original framework is. How would you change that? IRT the 10th ammendment, it works fine until some state screws with liberty and that causes a federal law to come down to apply to all. I am afraid it is difficult to get 50 separate entities to not create problems. A growing example is whose water is it in the Savannah River? GA or SC?Should Atlanta be allowed to suck it dry?