Part one of what's wrong in DC.
Orrin Hatch, R-UT was elected in 1976, to the US Senate. When he arrived he was a tireless warrior for the conservative movement. He is one of the people credited, or blamed, depending on your persuasion, for shutting down the ERA. For years he was reviled by the left for his championing conservative causes.
Marco Rubio, R-FL was elected in the Tea Party year of 2010, mostly riding on his anti-amnesty positions. He was a powerful Speaker in the Florida legislature prior.
John McCain, R-AZ, having lost the presidential election in 2008, mostly be being an establishment, beltway republican, saw the handwriting on the wall in 2010, and had a moderately serious challenger in the primary of J.D. Hayworth, a member of the US House. He was astute enough to see the Tea Party wave, and even though had consistently been an establishment type, needed to rebrand. He needed to look no further than his running mate for 2008, Sarah Palin, who was a leader in the Tea Party movement. She campaigned, and he won.
Joe Manchin, D-WV, was a former governor of the state, and is very famous for putting a bullet through the Cap and Trade bill. He won election in 2010, by supporting most of the things the Tea Party supported. Who says the Tea Party is partisan?
To be bi-partisan, can I include the President? He campaigned in 2008 as a "uniter, not a divider", and that there were no red states, or blue states, only United States.
So what happened? DC happened. I have no doubt that they all went with the best of intentions, no matter which party. Perhaps, not DC. Better said, would be the power, or authority in those positions. Senator, Congressman, President. Each brings trappings. the ability to affect change by lifting a telephone, regardless of the party in power.
With the exception of the President, I take at face value their desires to fix the machine, to make government work better, or maybe even reduce it. Why do I exclude the President? In the first congressional battle after his election, when his party controlled both houses of congress, he stated that "elections have consequences" and proceeded to ignore the Republicans, and refused to work with them. February 2009. ONE MONTH AFTER HIS INAUGURATION!. Nearly every major legislative victory he achieved was done with no Republican support. He gave the impression of having NO desire to reach across the aisle.
Would a Romney presidency have made any difference in 2012? I don't think he would have done any worse than the current occupant. He was a member of the "smaller big government" wing of the Republican party, so not sure. He of course could have fully assumed the role of fixer, and expecting to be a one term president could have made the difficult choices that few if any of the candidates this year (regardless of party), but I doubt it.
This is #1 of a 2 part series. While I have listed some by name, there are many, many others.
Marco Rubio, R-FL was elected in the Tea Party year of 2010, mostly riding on his anti-amnesty positions. He was a powerful Speaker in the Florida legislature prior.
John McCain, R-AZ, having lost the presidential election in 2008, mostly be being an establishment, beltway republican, saw the handwriting on the wall in 2010, and had a moderately serious challenger in the primary of J.D. Hayworth, a member of the US House. He was astute enough to see the Tea Party wave, and even though had consistently been an establishment type, needed to rebrand. He needed to look no further than his running mate for 2008, Sarah Palin, who was a leader in the Tea Party movement. She campaigned, and he won.
Joe Manchin, D-WV, was a former governor of the state, and is very famous for putting a bullet through the Cap and Trade bill. He won election in 2010, by supporting most of the things the Tea Party supported. Who says the Tea Party is partisan?
To be bi-partisan, can I include the President? He campaigned in 2008 as a "uniter, not a divider", and that there were no red states, or blue states, only United States.
So what happened? DC happened. I have no doubt that they all went with the best of intentions, no matter which party. Perhaps, not DC. Better said, would be the power, or authority in those positions. Senator, Congressman, President. Each brings trappings. the ability to affect change by lifting a telephone, regardless of the party in power.
With the exception of the President, I take at face value their desires to fix the machine, to make government work better, or maybe even reduce it. Why do I exclude the President? In the first congressional battle after his election, when his party controlled both houses of congress, he stated that "elections have consequences" and proceeded to ignore the Republicans, and refused to work with them. February 2009. ONE MONTH AFTER HIS INAUGURATION!. Nearly every major legislative victory he achieved was done with no Republican support. He gave the impression of having NO desire to reach across the aisle.
Would a Romney presidency have made any difference in 2012? I don't think he would have done any worse than the current occupant. He was a member of the "smaller big government" wing of the Republican party, so not sure. He of course could have fully assumed the role of fixer, and expecting to be a one term president could have made the difficult choices that few if any of the candidates this year (regardless of party), but I doubt it.
This is #1 of a 2 part series. While I have listed some by name, there are many, many others.
Comments
Post a Comment