December 2, 2013

A pointed — almost rhetorical — question from the vilified Senate Conservatives Fund

…The outfit Mitch McConnell and Karl Rove find much more important to hector, malign, and vilify than they do Democrats — who as we know by now, the convenient myth-making and propagandizing to the contrary, are Democrats only in the sense that they aren’t establishment Republicans.

Establishment Republicans are the new Democrats (mostly of the JFK variety), while today’s Democrat party — often unbeknownst to those who vote for it out of traditional, laziness, or rote fidelity — is the product of the New Left’s takeover over the Party that, a mere 40 years ago, they decried as hopelessly bourgeois and ideologically putrid, impotent, and vapid.  Asks the Hobbity arsonistic anarchist terror-front on the fringes of society:

As the 2014 Republican primary elections near, an interesting question has been raised in party politics.

Should all Republican senators be re-nominated after each term?

The Republican establishment in Washington thinks so. In fact, the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) recently announced it will oppose all conservative candidates who challenge Republican incumbents in primaries regardless of the circumstances.

RINOThe NRSC believes that once a Republican is elected to the U.S. Senate, that senator should be re-nominated after each term. They don’t think voters should ever elect someone new who better reflects their views.

They don’t care how long the senator has been there, what their record is, or if they’re unpopular back home and could cost the party the seat. They believe in lifetime nominations and would probably eliminate primary elections for incumbents altogether if they could.

The goal of the NRSC is no longer to win back the Senate, but rather to protect incumbents no matter how liberal they are and regardless of whether they are likely to be defeated by a Democrat in the general election.

Instead of building a new Senate, they’re working to protect the old one.

What do you think? Take our short “Republican Primary Survey.”

PRIMARIES ARE GOOD

We strongly disagree with the establishment. We believe primary elections are good for the party because they empower voters with choices.

We also believe primaries are good for incumbents because they provide accountability. As Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) said, “primaries are good” because “they make us all better.”

We don’t object to the establishment taking sides in primaries, but we believe it’s bad for America when they blindly support all incumbents.

Being a U.S. senator is not an entitlement; it’s a privilege that must be earned in each election.

Some senators have been in office for decades and have lost touch with the voters and their principles. Many have voted for bailouts, more debt, tax increases, and funding for Obamacare.

If we want to save this country from the career politicians who are destroying it, we must elect new leaders. It’s that simple.

Change in Washington means changing the people we send there, and that sometimes means changing the Republicans we send there.

This is what we believe, but we want to know what you think.

[...]

We also want to know which Republicans should be replaced by conservatives and whether you think conservative Americans should refuse to donate to the NRSC given its bias against principled candidates.

Your feedback will help guide us as we make more candidate endorsements and work to change the Senate in 2014

We needn’t continue to fool ourselves with labels –nor let those invested in “rebranding” old labels confound us or confuse us with their rhetorical sleight of hand:  Karl Rove and his attendant corporatists – many of them tech industry liberals, many of them big business lobbyists looking to work with whatever party to diminish their own competition and lobby for propitious law and regulation to solidify their power and profit — have taken to forming groups with the name “conservative” in the title.  Jeb Bush, who not too long ago noted that he used to be a conservative (that is, until the TEA party extremists coopted the title from him), is now once again calling himself conservative — as is Governor Chris Christie — this despite the fact that they represent big government solutions, embrace the idea that “compromise” is an end in itself, are enamored with “across the aisle” coalition building with rank leftists that forever move a conservative country leftward, and are distrustful (and often openly hostile) to the base of the Republican party who make up the majority of actual conservatives and erstwhile Reagan Democrats, the very constitutionalists and adherents to a stable rule of law and checks on government and the separation of its powers that today marks them as “potential domestic terrorists.”

The modern GOP ruling class is shameless and shameful.  And this insipid and rather hamfisted attempt to simply start calling themselves conservatives — with the express intent to “rebrand” center-right big government statism as “conservative” while marginalizing the conservativism of constitutional government, free market capitalism, individual autonomy, federalism, and a tri-partite separation of powers that are at odds with one another, creating stalemates and impinging on change (as the Framers hoped would be the case in an adversarial system) that is based in classical liberal philosophy and Enlightenment principles, not the debilitating and proto-authoritarian projects of a permanent entitled ruling class and their army of bureaucratic social engineers.

 

Posted by Jeff G. @ 9:57am
6 comments | Trackback

Comments (6)

  1. Conserve what? has always lurked in the background. Conserve conserving gets to be ridiculously simple, sooner or later, becoming completely devoid of content. We’re there already.

  2. I’ve long believed that every election should be contested, including primaries — even if the elections board has to find candidates the way they populate the jury pool.

    Even if I regard my congressman as the greatest thing since sliced bread, there may be somebody out there who would be the greatest thing since whisky.

  3. …and if some dude goes and invents sliced whisky, the whole damned scale will need to be recalibrated.

  4. I’m working on it, John, I’m working on it.

  5. sliced whisky

    Well, ok, sliceable — though I can’t for the life of me see why I’d want to do that.

  6. sliced whiskey

    Yes, folks. You can get tanked on cake.

Leave a Reply