FT160: “Why would Democrats want to help Republicans appeal to more voters when they want to beat them in elections?” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 8th, 2013

Fundamental Truth

The Power Brokers in Washington dismiss the Rand Paul Filibuster as another Kook Libertarian/Tea Party Thing

The Rand Paul filibuster caused quite the stir.  For it’s been a while since we had an old-school talking filibuster on the Senate floor.  Senator Paul was delaying a vote on confirming John Brennan as CIA director.  Over the drone policy of the Obama administration.  He talked for about 13 hours.  All to get an answer from the Obama administration.  He wanted the administration to answer definitively that the U.S. would not kill American citizens on U.S. soil with a drone strike without due process if that American citizen posed no imminent threat.  But getting that admission was akin to pulling teeth.

Rand Paul is the son of Ron Paul.  Who is a libertarian.  And a bit of a kook to the Washington establishment.  Both on the Left and the Right.  Because he goes on and on about the gold standard.  The Constitution.  And America fighting wars we shouldn’t be fighting.  If it were up to him he would bring all American forces home.  And he would stop those drone strikes.  Both Ron Paul and Rand Paul are/were members of the Republican Party.  Constitutional conservatives.  And libertarians.  Who the Washington establishment looks at as kooks.  Rand Paul is even worse.  For he is a member of the Tea Party movement.  A group of people the Washington establishment also looks upon as a bunch of kooks.

So the power brokers in Washington look at Rand Paul as just another kook.  And were quick to dismiss this filibuster as another example of how crazy these libertarian/Tea Party kooks were.  But there was only one problem.  Was someone who was trying to get an evasive government to admit that they wouldn’t kill Americans on U.S. soil without due process even if that American posed no imminent threat a kook?  This was something the Left was supposed to do.  Speak truth to power.  To protect American citizens from an out of control federal government.  And here was Rand Paul fighting that fight.  A Tea Party Constitutional conservative libertarian.

The Republican Old Guard is trying to Distance Themselves from the Tea Party and the Constitutional Conservatives

The Left attacked the Bush administration over the Patriot Act.  Which included those warrantless wiretaps on Americans who were speaking to known terrorist threats in a foreign country.  They assailed George W. Bush and Dick Cheney over the water-boarding of three terrorists.  Including one who gave up information that led us to Osama bin Laden.  Now it was their president whose administration appeared out of control.  Whose attorney general would not come out and say that they would not kill Americans on U.S. soil with a drone strike without due process even if they posed no imminent threat.  Something was very wrong with this picture.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart owes its success to the Republican Party.  For the show’s one purpose in life is to attack and belittle Republicans.  Which their liberal audience enjoys.  Responding with enthusiastic applause and laughter whenever Stewart skewers any Republican.  Or any institution or cause that is important to them.  However, Jon Stewart, even though he disagrees with pretty much everything Rand Paul stands for, did not ridicule Senator Paul for his filibuster.  For the Obama administration’s unwillingness to state for the record that they would not kill Americans on U.S. soil with a drone strike without due process even if they posed no imminent threat clearly bothered him.  Even if it didn’t bother the Washington establishment.  Including the Old Guard of the Republican Party.  Who did ridicule Senator Paul.

The Republican Old Guard is trying to distance themselves from the Tea Party.  And the Constitutional conservatives.  Instead they endlessly bend over backwards to try to get the opposition to like them.  Always unwilling to rock the political boat.  They won’t criticize the president.  Or do anything that may upset the Independents and moderates.  Such as saying the president is going to kill Americans on American soil with drone attacks.  Which really wasn’t the issue of the filibuster.  It was the administration’s apparent desire to have the legal right to do so.  This is what upset Senator Paul.  As well as Jon Stewart.  The ACLU.  Code Pink.  And Amnesty International.  Who found the Obama administration’s evasive answer on the subject disturbing.  Putting the Republican Old Guard on the wrong side of this issue.

The Democrats are Playing the Republican Old Guard to Advance their Agenda

So why is the Republican Old Guard on the wrong side of this issue?  Because they listen too much to their friends in the Democrat Party.  Who are always giving them advice on how to appeal to more voters.  To attract more women.  Blacks.  Hispanics.  People who typically vote Democrat.  And how can the Republicans get these Democrat-voting people to vote Republican?  Easy.  Just act more like Democrats.  Hence their not criticizing the president.  And why they are distancing themselves from the conservative Republican base.  The Tea Party.  And the Constitutional conservatives.  Because that’s what Democrats do.  And Democrats are getting more women, blacks and Hispanics to vote for them.  Ergo, if the Republicans just act like them they will get more women, blacks and Hispanics to vote for them.

Anyone see the flaw in this plan?  If these people typically vote for Democrats why would they vote for Republicans acting like Democrats when they can just as well vote for the people they typically vote for?  Democrats?  For a Democrat is unlikely to stop behaving like a Democrat.  But is a Republican as unlikely to stop acting like a Democrat?  When there are Tea Party and Constitutional conservatives out there that may be vying for their seat in the next primary election?  If we’ve learned anything from the 2012 Republican primary election it’s this.  Republicans try to move farther to the right than their primary opponents.  To appeal to the Tea Party and Constitutional conservatives in their base.  And the more they act like Democrats while in office the harder that will be to do.  Something no doubt Democrat voters keep in mind when they consider these Democrat-light Republican candidates.

Does anyone see another flaw in this plan?  Of Democrats helping Republicans to get more women, black and Hispanic voters?  Granted the Democrat Party is the party of altruism and welfare.  They’re the ones who want to offer a hand-up.  To feed the hungry.  To house the homeless.  To be the father/husband for single mothers.  To provide free preschool.  Free school lunches.  And breakfasts.  Free health care.  Etc.  They just want to give and help as many people as possible.  But do they really want to help Republicans?  Their political rivals?  Those people who vote against handouts (what others call a hand-up), food for the hungry, houses for the homeless, fathering/husbanding single mothers, free preschool, free school lunches, breakfasts, free health care, etc.  Of course they don’t.  The Democrats are just playing the Republican Old Guard.  Getting some of them to vote their way to attract the voters that will never vote for them.  To advance their agenda.  While using them to marginalize their greatest threat.  The Tea Party.  And Constitutional conservatives.  Anyone who doubts this just needs to ask themselves one question.  Why would Democrats want to help Republicans appeal to more voters when they want to beat them in elections?  They wouldn’t.  Something everyone can see.  Except the Republican Old Guard.  Who are so blind that they choose the wrong side of the ‘killing Americans on American soil without due process’ issue.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Battle to Raise the Debt Limit Begins

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 11th, 2011

Like Sumter, the Budget Compromise is only the Beginning

The next big congressional battle will be over the debt ceiling.  Which will set the stage for entitlement reform.  And being that this is the sesquicentennial of the opening shot of the Civil War, how about a little Civil War analogy?  About 150 years ago today General Beauregard ordered his canon to open fire on Fort Sumter.  The Union surrendered the fort.  There were about 10 casualties.

The first major land battle of the Civil War was the First Battle of Bull Run (aka, the First Battle of Manassas).  The military then still used Napoleonic tactics.  Armies formed in line, fired and advanced with bayonets amidst cannon fire, drums and regimental colors.  It was quite the spectacle.  The good people of Washington DC planned to make a picnic of it.  They would watch a couple of musket volleys and charges, see one army retire from the field of battle and then go home.  The battle did not progress quite that way.

Though we were still using Napoleonic tactics, we were not using Napoleonic smooth bore muskets any longer.  The effective range of the new rifled muskets was almost three times that of the smooth bores.  So as these men marched to close ranks with the enemy with their bayonets at the ready, the enemy fired accurate volleys into their lines.  The picnickers were shocked by the carnage.   When the Union Army was driven from the field of battle, the roads back to Washington were jammed with picnickers and soldiers alike fleeing for their lives.  There were just under 5,000 total casualties.  A pall hung over the nation.  No one expected the war to be this bad.  Then, about 9 months later, the Battle of Shiloh (aka, the Battle of Pittsburg Landing) saw just over 23,000 total casualties in two days of fighting.  Three months later, the Battle of Antietam (aka, the Battle of Sharpsburg) saw just over 22,000 casualties in a single day of fighting.  About a year later the Battle of Gettysburg saw close to 50,000 in total casualties over three days.

Now comparing political debates with Civil War battles dishonors those who fought those battles.  But because it’s the sesquicentennial, I will do so just for history’s sake.  Besides, politicians like to use war metaphors all of the time.  Even those opposed to the military.  The budget deal recently passed is like the Battle of Fort Sumter.  The battle over the debt ceiling will be like the Battle of Shiloh.  And entitlement reform will be like the three days of Gettysburg.  In other words, though they act like they just went to hell and back over this budget compromise, they ain’t seen nothing yet.

You Fix a Spending Problem by Spending Less, not More

House Speaker John Boehner pulled off a miracle of compromise.  Or some are saying.  While others are saying he caved (see John Boehner’s real tea party test by Chris Cillizza posted 4/11/2011 on The Washington Post).

House Speaker John Boehner is being widely credited as having emerged victorious from last week’s budget showdown — receiving kudos for extracting nearly $40 billion in budget cuts and uniting a fractious tea party behind the compromise bill.

But, the real test of Boehner’s abilities as a party leader will come next month when Congress begins debate on raising the federal debt ceiling.

Because of a fractious Republican Party.  The Tea Party wants serious cuts.  Because that’s why they got elected.  Meanwhile, the old guard doesn’t.  They may disagree with the liberals in theory but they want to be part of the same Washington establishment.  The liberals have the best parties.  With the best celebrities.  And the old guard wants to enjoy that life.

On this issue, at least, the American people side with the Tea Party.

In an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released last week, just 16 percent of people said the government should raise the ceiling while 46 percent opposed the idea and 38 percent said they didn’t know enough about it to offer an opinion.

Probing deeper, just 32 percent agreed with the statement that the debt limit increase was necessary to avoid the country being “unable to pay the nation’s bills” while 62 percent said that [they] agreed with the statement that such a vote would “make it harder to get the government’s financiaol [sic] house in order”.

Some may not understand the intricacies of the federal budget.  But they do seem to know that when you have a spending problem, you don’t solve it by asking the credit card companies to raise your credit limit.  People know that you fix a spending problem by spending less.  Not more.

But, judging from the concessions people like Rubio have laid out for a deal to be done — tax reform, regulatory reform, a balanced-budget amendment and entitlement reform — it’s hard to imagine the White House being able to give enough to make that sort of compromise possible.

And, all of that means that the burden will presumably be on Boehner to cut a deal that can garner 218 votes in the House while also avoiding a potential filibuster in the Senate from the likes of Rubio or South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint.

President Obama is a tax and spend liberal.  He’s not going to cede any ground on big cuts.  So Boehner will have to see how little in cuts the Tea Party will accept to vote to increase the debt ceiling.  And that will be a tough sell.  Because they want meaningful cuts.  But that’s something a tax and spend liberal just can’t do.

So as the nation is jubilant over the budget compromise that kept the federal government open, a longer, more bitter and far more partisan battle awaits them.  Which means the sides will entrench.  They will refuse to give ground.  And the compromise we’ll probably get will be similar to the many ones reached over slavery.  Which made the ultimate day of reckoning on that issue far more costly than anyone had ever imagined.

A History of Kicking the can down the Road

With sesquicentennial fever in the air, a 4th grade teacher tries to bring to life the issue that caused the nation to go to war (see Va. teacher holds mock slave auction by Kevin Sieff posted 4/33/2011 on The Washington Post).

Trying to bring a Civil War history lesson to life, [a] teacher…turned her fourth grade Norfolk classroom into a slave auction: She ordered black and mixed race students to one side of the classroom. Then, the white students took turns buying them…

Sewells Point’s fourth grade class is about 40 percent black and 40 percent white.

Though an interesting experiment, she unfortunately made it purely a racial issue.  Which is historically wrong.  There were a lot of whites in the south.  But only a few of them owned the big plantations where the majority of slavery existed.  She should have had only a few of the white children buying slaves.  And she should have identified them as the rich planter elite.  Who was also the driving force behind southern politics.  The other whites should have been identified as poor southerners working on small family farms without any slaves.

Then she could have pointed to the planter elite and said their wealth and political power depended on slavery.  Because all that cotton wasn’t going to pick itself.  Which is why they cited the North’s hostile attitude toward the institution of slavery in their secession documents.  They told everyone else it was about states’ rights.  But it wasn’t.  For the planter elite didn’t respect states’ rights in the North.  The North didn’t want to return fugitive slaves.  So the planter elite demanded the federal government pass the Fugitive Slave Act to override states’ rights in the North.  And force them to return their slaves. 

The debate over slavery was always controversial.  The Southern economy was entrenched in it.  The only way they’d join the Union was with their slaves.  So the issue was tabled for 20 years.  The Founding Fathers hoped the institution would just go away.  And it might have.  If it hadn’t been for Eli Whitney‘s cotton gin.  Because of the amount of cotton it could process, the southern plantations grew.  As did the number of slaves.  And the problem just continued to grow.  The cost to reimburse the plantation owners for the slaves they purchased legally grew too great to even consider.  The North didn’t want to pay that cost.  Slavery was a Southern problem.  And the slave population grew so large that no one wanted to address a post-slavery biracial society.  Because there were none then.  But there were slave uprisings.  And the South feared that a freed slave may try to exact a little revenge on their former master.  So the problem was kicked down the road for someone else to solve.  Until it couldn’t be kicked anymore.

This is where we are in our budget debate.  We’ve kicked that can down the road so many times that federal spending has grown out of control.  Now we’re entering European sovereign debt crisis territory.  And we’ve seen what has happened over there.  It’s a little different over here, though.  Germany and the other financially strong members of the European Union can bail out a Greece, an Ireland, a Portugal, etc.  But who is going to bail out the world’s largest economy?  Don’t spend too much time on that question.  Because there isn’t anyone big enough to bail us out.

Unfortunately, you win Elections with Spending, not with Spending Cuts

History often shows us that the longer we wait to address a problem, the harder and more costly it is to fix that problem.  And yet here we are.  With far too many people in Washington willing to just keep kicking that can down the road.

Interestingly, two who support raising the debt ceiling now were dead set against it at an earlier time.  When George W. Bush was in the White House.  Of course, then Senator Barack Obama was playing pure partisan politics and attacked George W. Bush on everything.  He regrets that vote now.  Because his hypocrisy makes him look partisan and naïve.  Harry Reid also had a hypocritical partisan position on this issue.  Bush spent irresponsibly and it was wrong to raise the debt ceiling.  Obama has spent even more in less time.  But now raising the debt ceiling is the right thing to do.  Go figure.

That recent budget compromise?  It was but a minor skirmish in a long war to come.  And though there was a lot of nasty political rhetoric, the battles to come won’t be as nice.  The Republicans will try to make meaningful cuts.  And Democrats will say that they just want to kill women, children and the elderly.  Knowing full well that the cuts being requested by the Republicans are necessary.  But you don’t win elections with cuts.  You win them by spending money.  So they will resist those cuts.  And try their damnedest to kick this can down the road.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

LESSONS LEARNED #33: “The Founding Fathers weren’t perfect but they were closer than most.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 30th, 2010

Anarchy Averted

Washington men didn’t live long.  And George Washington thought about that.  A lot.  He loved his Mount Vernon.  His garden.  And he longed to retire there to spend out his years in peace under his vine and fig tree.  But he gave up that dream when he accepted command of the Continental Army.  He was already at that age when a lot of Washington men died.  So when he left, no doubt he thought he may not return.

The Revolutionary War lasted 8 long years.  And Washington spent those years with the army.  In the field.  He was at Valley Forge.  He didn’t leave to go home to see Martha.  No.  His wife came to Valley Forge to see him.

Washington was a wealthy man.  He didn’t need to make these sacrifices.  A lot of wealthy men didn’t.  But he did.  And he sacrificed a lot.  Even his eyesight.  When the army officer’s wanted to mutiny over a long list of failed promises (pay, pensions, etc.), Washington pleaded with them.  To not throw away the thing they’ve fought so long and hard for.  As poorly as the Continental Army was treated, those words did not move them much.  Then Washington pulled out a letter from a congressman to read to them.  But couldn’t.  After stumbling over a couple of words, he stopped.  He then pulled out a pair of spectacles.  No one had ever seen the great George Washington in such a public display of weakness.

“Gentlemen, you must pardon me,” he said.  “I have grown gray in the service of my country, and now find myself growing blind.”

Some cried for the old man who had given so much.  When he no doubt had so few years left to live.  If their commanding general could make such sacrifices, so could they.  So there would be no Caesar.  No Cromwell.  No armies would march to the seat of power.  This republic would not collapse into anarchy as history often scripted her republics.

The Most Powerful Man in America Surrenders His Power         

But would he be king?  He could have.  Easily.  He had the power.  And the love and adoration of the people.  In fact, some were begging him to become king.  Others, though, questioned his intentions.  They looked at the army with a nervous unease.  They were, after all, a nation built primarily from English stock.  And they knew their English history.  Of Oliver Cromwell.  The New Model Army.  Just what were his intentions?

He still stayed in touch with his officers (and later would go on to be the first president of the Society of the Cincinnati).  This seemed a bit ominous to some.  This is why once the war was over, people tried to forget about and disband the army as quickly as possible.  To renege on the promises they made to these veterans.  They just wanted these soldiers to go away.  There were too many bad memories of standing armies in their midst.  Whether they wore a red coat or a rag, they just wanted them gone.

Even King George questioned his intentions.  Few give up power.  If he did, it would place him in the pantheon of greats.  But would he?  Yes.  He would.  And did.  Washington would be a Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus, the Roman farmer who walked away from his plow to assume dictatorial powers to help save his nation.  When the threat was past, he returned power to the Senate and returned to his plow.  And so did Washington.

Answering the Call of Duty.  Again.

Then the nation called for their Cincinnatus once again.  There were problems with the Confederate Congress.  It was having difficulty governing the peace.  There were state rivalries.  Their finances were in a mess.  And there was no national identity.  There used to be.  British.  And the European nations treated with that singular entity.  Great Britain.  Now that the mother country was gone, there was no singular entity.  No unity.  Everyone was for themselves.  And the European powers had to make multiple treaties with the multiple states.  If they wanted to go through that headache.  And many did not.

Some called for a revision to the Articles of Confederation.  But it was difficult to get the states on board.  A weak confederacy favored the individual states.  And the individual states liked that.  But it also limited their potential as a nation.  Some feared the inter-state rivalries would balkanize the nation.  Make the New World a repeat of the Old World.  To bring the nation together would take an extraordinary effort.  Or an extraordinary man.  George Washington.  Who agreed to attend the Philadelphia Convention in 1787. 

After a long and hot summer, the Philadelphia delegates produced a constitution.  With James Madison being the primary architect.  They then sent it to the states for ratification.  At which time James Madison and Alexander Hamilton began a writing campaign to urge its ratification.  (John Jay contributed to this campaign, too, but not as much as Madison and Hamilton).  Once ratified, it came time to populate the new government.  Some competed with each other for some positions.  But for one of the positions there was unanimity.    There was but one man the people would trust with the most powerful office in the land.  Their Cincinnatus.  George Washington.  But would he do it?  Would he leave his blissful retirement beneath his vine and fig tree?

Yes.  Not because he wanted to.  More than 10 years had passed since this old man had agreed to command the Continental Army.  He had outlived many Washington men.  The way he saw it, he was living on borrowed time as it was.  And there was another consideration.  Against the greatest of odds, he did NOT lose the Revolutionary War.  He had made mistakes in his life, but his name was safe for posterity.  But if he took a risk now he could lose the good name he built.  And if there was anything soldiers (and politicians) worry about, it’s their legacy.  (That’s why they write memoirs.)

Another Long 8 Years

When it was clear that he was, in fact, the indispensable one, he sacrificed his personal want for the public need.  Again.  And again, serving a second term as president.  He was ready (and looking forward to) retirement after one term.  But the party politics were threatening to tear apart the new nation.  The rift between Jefferson and Hamilton had grown.  It was splitting the government into two camps.  The Federalists (led by Hamilton) and the anti-Federalists (led by Jefferson).  They pleaded for Washington to serve a second term as he was the only one who could hold them together.  He consented.

That second term was particularly unpleasant for Washington.  Party attacks turned into personal attacks.  Even against Washington.  And the ugliness got really ugly over the Jay Treaty.  Many wanted war with Great Britain.  But having actually fought a war with Great Britain, Washington favored peace.  Yes, the treaty favored Great Britain.  And, yes, it tied American interests to Great Britain, not her war time ally.  France.  The Jeffersonians unleashed an unfettered vitriol on the Federalists.  Including Washington.  But Washington bet on the right horse.  Great Britain proved to be the dominant European power.  And her Royal Navy came in handy protecting U.S. trade with her.  Over a decade of peace and prosperity followed. 

After 8 years, though, there was no persuading Washington for another 4-year term.  He had grown ever older in the continued service of his country.  Now he felt it more than ever that his days were few.  Rarely did he know happiness like he felt at the inauguration of the 2nd president, his vice president, John Adams.  Adams wrote that after he took the oath of office, Washington said, “Ay! I am fairly out and you fairly in!  See which of us will be happiest!”  He may not have actually said this but he no doubt felt the sentiment.  And with that, he returned to his plow.  Cincinnatus had come home.  Where he would happily live out his remaining years.  All two of them.

Where is Our Cincinnatus?

Today it’s about money and power.  Not duty.  Today, people want to be full-time politicians.  For the money and power.  And the elitist status.  People get into Congress and they just don’t want to leave.  Should we vote them out of office, they have a tantrum.  They call their constituents stupid for not knowing who the better candidate was.  And they won’t go quietly.  Some will change parties.  Or run as an independent.  Or as a write-in candidate.  Anything to stay in Washington.  To hold on to their power.  To stay among the elite.

The nation has deviated far from the path of disinterested public service of the Founding Fathers.  The anti-Federalists would be shocked to see what became of the government they helped create.  Even the Federalists.  Even Hamilton.  Not even he, the champion of a strong federal government, would approve of the federal government today.  His mercantilist polices had the goal of making the nation rich and powerful.  Not to suck the wealth out from the private sector.  Which began in earnest with Wilson.  Then picked with FDR.  Then ramped up further with LBJ/Nixon/Ford/Carter.  Had Hamilton lived in the 20th century, he would have earnestly campaigned for Ronald Reagan.  To put an end to the public sector’s pillage of the private sector.

And now we find our nation adrift again.  But who will step in and stop it today?  Who is out there?  Willing to put down their plow for disinterested public service.  And by ‘plow’ I mean any real job.  Worked by someone who is not part of the Washington establishment.  Where is our George Washington?

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Delaware – Small State; Big Stakes

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 18th, 2010

If Charles Krauthammer told me I was spelling my name wrong, I’d change the way I was spelling it.  The guy’s smart.  Put him in a room full of people and he’ll always be the smartest one in there.  Karl Rove got George W. Bush elected twice.  Of course, you could argue he did that against two weak candidates.  Dick Morris did the impossible.  He got Bill Clinton reelected after a ‘vote of no confidence’ in the prior midterm election.

Delaware.  The Republican primary.  Tea Party (Christine O’Donnell) versus the Republican establishment (Mike Castle).  Ideology versus pragmatism.  Conservative versus moderate/liberal.  The prize?  Joe Biden’s senate seat. 

The conservative O’Donnell defeated the liberal Castle.  Now she will face off with the very liberal Chris Coons in the general election.  In liberal Delaware.  So, yes, there’s cause for concern.  If you’re a Republican.  The Obama administration is perhaps the most liberal ever.  And the nation is suffering.  Record unemployment.  And an abysmal economic outlook.  A liberal Republican versus a liberal Democrat would have been a slam-dunk.  A sure senate win for the Republicans.  Perhaps giving them that coveted 51st seat.  A majority.  To stop Obama.  And the far Left.  From further destroying our economy.  So what if we have to give a little on some social issues?  At least so goes the argument put forth by Krauthammer and Rove (and many others).  They see the O’Donnell win as a gift to the Democrats.  Because liberal Delaware will not vote conservative.

Dick Morris sees it differently (as do others).  If the economy was good, the social issues would take center stage.  But it’s not.  So the economy takes center stage.  And what fixes the economy?  Jobs.  And who creates jobs?  Businesses.  And which is the party of business?  That’s right.  Republicans.

Of course, general elections are not primary elections.  Turnout is a lot bigger.  Which means there are a lot more people to vote against you.  But they can also vote for you.  Ronald Reagan won over the Reagan Democrats.  Dick Morris got Clinton reelected by moving him to the center.  We elected Obama because he said he was going to govern from the center.  (Which he hasn’t.)  History has shown that running as a true liberal does not do well at the ballot box.  At the national level, at least.  And how will they chose in Delaware this fall?  Well, I guess that depends on the economy.  And their patience.  If the economy has recovered they’ll probably vote liberal.  If not, and they’ve tired of waiting for Obamanomics to kick in, they may opt for the tried and true.  And vote conservative.  They may not like it.  They may not have liked Reagan or Bush.  But they had jobs.  And, sometimes, having jobs is enough.

The Washington establishment needs to be disestablished.  But is this the time?  Guess we’ll find out in November.  And let us hope that – I never thought I would utter these words – Charles Krauthammer is wrong.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,