The Conservative Cave
Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: HAPPY2BME on October 04, 2017, 10:22:39 AM
-
October 03, 2017
If the latest report from The Hill newspaper is to be believed, it appears establishment Republicans in Washington, D.C., didn’t get the message from last week’s Alabama Senate primary runoff election.
As The Hill reported Tuesday morning:
Establishment Republicans are skeptical that former judge Roy Moore’s victory in last week’s Alabama GOP primary runoff means that an alliance of insurgent conservative groups, led by former White House chief strategist Stephen Bannon, is about to knock off more Republican incumbents.
Bannon and his allies have used Moore’s Tuesday night victory over the establishment-backed Sen. Luther Strange (R-Ala.) as a springboard to float challenges against a fleet of Republican incumbents. Bannon and his allies see the wind at their backs after a unified and high-profile push, arguing that the win means that no incumbent is safe.
But some establishment Republican strategists aren’t buying it. They argue that the influence Bannon and his Breitbart News outlet had on Moore’s victory is overblown and that the unique set of circumstances that won Alabama won’t be easily transferable to other primary challenges across the country.
“Moore was leading this race long before Bannon got involved and he won this race for reasons that have nothing to do with Bannon’s involvement,” said Alex Conant, a strategist who worked on Sen. Marco Rubio’s (R-Fla.) presidential campaign. “There were a lot of extenuating circumstances that made it difficult for Sen. Strange to win.”
The report states the GOP establishment believes the Alabama race “hinged on several factors that are unlikely to reappear the next time” the grassroots mounts a challenge.
In other words, Strange was the “wrong candidate”—an oft-repeated refrain anytime they have attempted to explain a disastrous electoral loss.
http://www.trunews.com/article/the-hill-gop-establishment-still-doesnt-get-it
-
The establishment critters think they are immune to being voted out. they need to learn the lesson the hard way by getting fired.
-
There wouldn't be an establishment if we had term limits...
-
There wouldn't be an establishment if we had term limits...
We have them. They are built into the Constitution for all elected offices at all levels.
-
We have them. They are built into the Constitution for all elected offices at all levels.
While accurate, FD, that isn't the reality.
Those who are in elected political office have the power of the party behind them (as long as they're playing the game of their masters) and the money to go along with it. That power and influence isn't usually there (yet) for the politician looking to win office for the first time.
Yes, it's possible to defeat incumbents, but it's usually an uphill climb and takes significant grassroots efforts. Those at the top of the political shitpile (McLame, McConnell, Ryan, Pelousy, et. al.) have even more power than the normal career politician.
-
While accurate, FD, that isn't the reality.
Those who are in elected political office have the power of the party behind them (as long as they're playing the game of their masters) and the money to go along with it. That power and influence isn't usually there (yet) for the politician looking to win office for the first time.
Yes, it's possible to defeat incumbents, but it's usually an uphill climb and takes significant grassroots efforts. Those at the top of the political shitpile (McLame, McConnell, Ryan, Pelousy, et. al.) have even more power than the normal career politician.
That is a problem with the American people, not with the governmental structure.
-
That is a problem with the American people, not with the governmental structure.
I'm not so sure.
Those in power tend to become corrupted by that power over time. COTUS is silent on the idea of "term limits" but that doesn't mean the FF weren't completely aware of the problem with power and those who wield it.
Over time, those with that power tend to build their own safety nets and security apparatus, without necessarily the people knowing about them and what those power mongers are doing.
For example, on the subject of congressional pay increases, there used to be a time when Congress had to go on the record to award themselves a pay increase. But since 1989, such pay increases are automatic. If they want to appear something like benevolent and "set the example" they can then vote to decline the pay raise.
Howzat for "appearance"?
Congress sets its own rules in terms of procedure, and that is where a significant amount of power rests. There isn't a damn thing the voters can do about that.
Though, I will grant you, that complacency is a huge problem.
I'd very much like to see an end to career politicians. It isn't what the FF wanted, but that's what we wound up with.
-
40 some years ago when I was young, energetic and "idealistic", I was out trying to get votes for a candidate. A number of people would say; "I can't vote for that guy because I never heard of him". I gave them information and they would say; "I don't want any of that "stuff" ". Meanwhile I have seen people vote for someone who had the same last name but was not related to the original fellow with that last name. :thatsright: :thatsright: :thatsright:
Too many people are stupid, ignorant and want to stay that way. :censored:
Just another reason democrats do not want people to prove they are eligible to vote by having a photo ID.