Why Burns is still in office ( or what's Wrong with the Republican Party)
The Lamont/Lieberman primary has highlighted what is really wrong with the republican party and why Burns is still in office. There have been two posts in a row over at What's Rotten in Montana concerning the Lamont victory in Connecticut. The first one is titled Lamont Wins???. Discussions quickly devolve into "Democrats hate jews" rants. I cover my thoughts on that here and Mike at The Last Best Place discusses it here. Mike speaks with some authority on the subject, so give it a read.
The second post is titled Lamont Win - Worse than I Thought. The poster says
In short form, they got rid of Lieberman because he criticized his party.
That's your warning, Democrats. Never criticize. Never question. Do what you're told. Siddown, shaddup, and read from the talking points Harry Reid faxed in between free boxing matches.
Last night, I wasn't sure about Lamont. Today I feel better. A party that won't tolerate dissent is a party we can beat. If you kick out everyone who dares to disagree, soon enough you'll be a party of one.
Of course this is bogus and the pot calling the kettle black, does anyone remember James Jaffords or Lincoln Chafee? The part of this that bothers me the most is the idea that the voters of Connecticut decided that Joe Lieberman did not represent their beliefs, it was not the democratic leadership that made this choice.
When your leaders no long represent your beliefs it is not just your right to vote them out, it is your duty. That is the foundation of the democratic principle and the entire idea behind a representative democracy. The reason that Burns is in office is solely due to the fact that republicans don't seem to share this belief. For some reason or other, they seem to hold the notion that an office holder has the right to keep that office as long as they want it. If that were not the case, Tester would be running against Keenan right now.
8 comments:
What do you expect from people who rejected a well qualified candidate without criminal investigations or such a long record of failing the public interest?
Shane,
You keep trying to prove that Republicans are as intolerant of dissent as are today's Democrats, but you keep citing evidence that proves the opposite. You tried Specter as an example: still in office, still a Republican. You tried McCain as an example: still in office, still a Republican, AND he's the front runner for our party's presidential nomination. You tried Jeffords as an example: left the part of his own free will after Congressional leaders and even the President begged him to stay. You tried Chafee as an example: still in office, still a Republican.
If you won't listen to me, will you listen to yourself? You are busily making the case for Republican tolerance faster than I can.
Neo,
Thank you, you made my case perfectly. Republicans will tolerate people who do not represent them, is that what you are saying? That was the very point of my post. Like say... Burns? No matter how corrupt he becomes, as long as he is bringing home the pork, who cares if he is corrupt? One who holds office has a near blood right to it?
That is why the republican party has failed. That was the title of this post after all.
You make unique arguments. I'll give you that. Burns votes with the President almost universally. He's one of those few votes in the Senate who you can truly count on to oppose taxes (I can't even believe Dems are trying to call that into question). And somehow, he doesn't represent Republicans?
Burns ain't gonna be indicted. I can't claim you heard it from me first, since everyone knows it now, but get used to it. Calling Burns corrupt is just one more claim for which you didn't get your evidence in line.
Oh, come off it Neo. People in Montana aren't stupid. No matter if he is indicted or not, he stinks to high heaven of it. There is enough anecdotal evidence that each person everyone in Montana that has their eyes open smells it. You are not stupid, indictment or not, you know it counts.
I posted this on your site to neo, but I wanted it here for the record.
You know what, a simple fact is that opposing the war in Iraq is a mainstream belief.
BC/Washington Post poll found 59 percent felt the war had not been worth the cost, 64 percent felt the Bush administration had no clear plan for victory, and 53 percent felt the number of U.S. troops in Iraq should be decreased. By a plurality of 38 percent, respondents said that a congressional candidate who supports the Bush policy would be "less likely" to get their vote. Most remarkably, although 66 percent said that Democrats have no clear position on the war, a slight plurality of 43 percent said they trust Democrats more than Republicans to do "a better job" in Iraq.
The people in Connecticut voted with their conscience and removed someone who they felt did not represent their mainstream beliefs. The same thing will happen here in November.
Conrad Burns raised taxes on young people who are working to get ahead in life.
Guess he knows the ruling class cannot compete without a head start and handicapping the opposition.
Granny,
That is a common theme for Conrad and education. I documented it here and here. Burns is not a friend to education because a well informed and educated public is his worse nightmare.
Post a Comment