First of all I am only slightly disappointed in Scott Brown. He's not my Senator. There's isn't a snowball's chance in Austin (suspending that metaphor in the literal exception of about a month ago when we actually did get snow, or as I called it "evidence of global warming") that he'd ever be representing the majority of truly conservative minded people of Texas.
I can't say I necessarily saw it coming before the dust had settled on the special election results but in his Barbara Walters interview he denounced the Tea Party contributions of time and money that got him elected in the exact opposite way that Marco Rubio graciously welcomes their support and is honored to represent their beliefs for smaller government and reduced spending. He has apparently turned his back on the Tea Party again, refusing a recent invite and siding with the Dems (as well as Snowe and Collins) on a vote in the Senate. We'll see how well his reelection campaign is funded by the the jobless voters for whom he secured more benefits.
Brown is ready to produce an autobiography and that makes perfect sense. His fifteen minutes of fame will be gone in November when being #41 will no longer be significant and then he just becomes a footnote in most of the votes on the Senate floor. By 2011 he'll only be getting tea party invites from Snowe and Collins where they will actually drink tea and reminisce about their brief popularity. If he gets his book out by this summer then his second edition can contain an epilogue on what it means to be irrelevant.
I probably should have known Scott was a bit mushy in the middle when I heard Massachusetts voters calling in to a morning talk show making little rationalizations with themselves the day after the election. These were people who voted for him and it was apparent in their statements that they could never find a way to come ALL the way over to the other side. With Scott they could only get to the fence between Democrats and Republicans and look over. Like battered wives these life-long Democrats didn't want to admit to the abuse they had suffered. It was like they were standing there the day after the election with a black eye and a bloody lip pleading with the Democrat Party Police "Really, officer, he's a good man, my corrupt Democrat representative. He just loses his temper about these obstructionist Republicans he's forced to work with and sometimes he has to take it out on somebody. I voted for Scotty only because I was acting out. I didn't really mean it. I deserved to get hit for my infidelity to the party." In that sense Brown might not even get reelected. The conservative streak of Massachusetts voters is dubious to say the least.
My favorite comment made by more than one of them was that they voted for Brown because there needed to be checks and balances in our government. Because if you really agree with the Democrat's radical agenda, think they are moving in the right direction, are happy and enthusiastic about where Democrats are taking our country one's natural inclination is to . . . put on the brakes?! As a kid, when we were on our way to Disney World I could not get there fast enough. But by all means, let's slow down because I want it to take longer to get where we I'd really rather be. Oye! Only liberals can have such twisted logic and not see the contradiction in their own words. Because when you put that shoe on the other foot you'd never hear a Tea Party conservative say the same thing in the face of a conservative majority cutting government spending, reducing taxes and returning to our Founders vision of a Constitutional government. "We need to put some checks and balances on all of that. It's moving so fast. I don't know what to do with all my new found freedom!" You're just not going to hear them saying that.
Scott Brown's election had less to do with bringing some good national representation and common sense governance to the people of New England, because you can lead a horse or a Kennedy to water . . .
It had far more to do with who the elections was really about, in Scott's own words, "the people" as in "the people's seat." The election was a showcase for everyone everywhere else in this country taking political action and seeing the results play out in a manner that proves motivated and semi-organized citizens have the means to effect the outcome of an election. The left knows this too. They've only amped up their attacks on the Tea Party since January and are looking for every opportunity to vilify them and intimidate citizens willing to take political action and join their ranks. I hear reports of liberal saboteurs seeding (astro-turfing if you will) Tea Party gatherings and then shouting racial epithets so as to characterize these conservatives as racists. To me this is a true sign of desperation and fear of the Tea Party's power. Scott can say what he wants but I was on his web site the week before his election and they were not only soliciting donations from outside of the state at that time, they were actually setting up virtual phone banks from out of state supporters, and not just snowbirds from Massachusetts who were vacationing in Florida that week. He knows who got him elected and it wasn't that endorsement from John McCain either.
So that chapter has played out and the Winter of White House Discontent gave way to the Liberal Ram Through of Health Care Rationing.
So "Where's my Reagan?" seems to be the next sign of hysterical frustration. CPAC ended and I think deep down even some of the pundits expected the conservative leader for 2012 to emerge and bow his or her head ready to be anointed the once and future Reagan.
Let's start by saying Gingrich is off my list for many reasons. God forbid he becomes our only alternative to Obama in 2012. He sounds good when he knows he's in front of a conservative audience but he has demonstrated poor judgment and an over-eagerness to coalesce with the Democrats on too many occasions. I heard a replay of a commercial where he was sitting next to Nancy Pelosi saying they both agreed on the need for "urgent" action to abate Global Warming. This was before his Scozzafava blunder and it escapes me now but one more flash of liberal-think in his speeches, endorsements or actions and that becomes an undeniable trend in a direction we really don't want to go. But that appears to be where this guy is going.
He seems to have one good idea, which is more than most politicians throughout the ages. He was at the right place and time when he authored Contract with America and exploited a needy and politically savvy Bill Clinton. Times have changed and this same little trick would not play well when the roles are reversed. He would be the Chief Executive and someone else would have to be on the other side of the aisle as the Speaker of the House. In that scenario who's giving and who's getting what?
Then you have Mitt Romney. He's another one that can't seem to stay the course. Lets just say we ignore the fact that he's the least socially conservative Mormon east, west, north or south of Salt Lake City. It is still pretty hard to ignore the rest. As Governor he signed on to bring Universal Health Care to that same messed up state full of liberal rationalizers that elected Scott Brown. He was motoring along in the campaign of 2008 when it was really only him and McCain left running with any steam (because Huckabee, playing back-up saxophone in that jazz trio wasn't going to get much closer to the White House then a woman in a red dress not on the guest list, er . . . then a . . . you get the idea). So what does Romney do? He bows out gracefully against the mushier RINO moderate. You know, that old guy who almost didn't make it out of Iowa without first going bankrupt. The guy who, let me just say to you "my friend" was clearly not prepared to go the distance against Obama. That guy, McCain, who now faces a primary challenger in his own Senate reelection.
As much ballyhoo has been made of Sarah Palin resigning as Alaska's Governor when she had some really treacherous liberal character-assassins stalking and gunning for her every day, making her life miserable and rendering her ineffectual as governor, I find it mind-boggling that Romney doesn't receive any criticism for backing out of the race against the other guy in his own party. How can he still be a "viable" candidate if she isn't? More importantly, how can he represent conservative values when he gave up the fight so quickly and easily to an obvious "moderate" a.k.a. RINO like McCain?
And although I see him blend his charisma and his economic and analytic wonkiness in a way that could deliver some good results in our current crisis, I can't overlook the choices that again point to some really flawed judgment on his part.
Both of these guys are legendary DEAL MAKERS and frankly, that's the biggest problem with the Republican party over the last 20 years. Too many compromises is what got us where we are today and what drew too many Republicans into an unprincipled middle of the road with no real ideology supporting their thought process other than "we need a bigger tent". The middle of the road is not a safe place to be this political season. You will get run over by traffic in both the left and right lanes.
If you are reading the news, even wading through the irrelevant garbage of the mainstream Media, you are probably aware that we face a series of military and economic crises on multiple fronts. The situation that the 2012 President inherits will be far worse than the supposed "Bush" mess that Obamakins have been crabbing about incessantly. We are going to need someone who has a clear vision, moral courage and an ability to lead right out of the gates. I haven't seen that person yet. And although we would all benefit from the reincarnation of Ron W. Reagan, that just isn't going to happen. It certainly didn't happen at CPAC this year and maybe not even next year for that matter.
As I read Craig Shirley's book about a small portion of Reagan's great history I am reminded that he was self-made, but he was not made overnight. He had been on the political scene at state and national level for DECADES before he finally emerged as the leader we most remember in the campaign in 1980.
But then there is another thought, do we need another strong President like Reagan? After all the Executive Branch received it's power from NOT Article I but Article II of the Constitution. Our government was designed to rely on that Executive branch in a crisis and otherwise validate Congressional activity, ie. legislation. One could argue that the Constitution and therefore the Framers' intent defines the Executive office as one of the lesser of the three branches. Article I defines the Legislature. It is Congress that must be the initiator of change. And perhaps with ethical leadership in the House and Senate doing only what is essential and Constitutionally allowed for our country and no more, coupled with a Chief Executive who knows how to get out of their way if and when they are doing the hard and good work for our nation and a Judiciary that doesn't attempt to legislate from the bench, perhaps then we can avoid the real crisis looming large and near on our horizon. Pretty big wish list, I know. One wish at a time. Let's start with the big one in November.
Representative Mike Pence doesn't even want to move out of what is about to become a majority leadership position in the House to make a run at Evan Bayh's open Senate Seat. I see Congressman Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor more than I see Senators from my own state. Conservatism is back on the ascendancy. There are nearly 500 leadership positions in the Federal government and we need a majority of conservative and Constitutional leaders in those positions. 2010 can start to set that stage.