Hastert Should Resign
And not simply because he handled the Mark Foley affair so poorly.
He has been a lousy Republican leader, possibly the worst Republican Speaker of the House ever.
He has no vision.
He has precious little political skill.
He has no ability to communicate.
And, as he amply showed by trying to defend Democrat congressman William "I have $90,000 in my House safe" Jefferson, he has no sense of honor, brains, or political antennae.
The man is a disaster, and he should go.
As to those who think his departure would hurt the GOP; they're crazy. We quite literally cannot do worse than go into the election with this moron out front.
He has been a lousy Republican leader, possibly the worst Republican Speaker of the House ever.
He has no vision.
He has precious little political skill.
He has no ability to communicate.
And, as he amply showed by trying to defend Democrat congressman William "I have $90,000 in my House safe" Jefferson, he has no sense of honor, brains, or political antennae.
The man is a disaster, and he should go.
As to those who think his departure would hurt the GOP; they're crazy. We quite literally cannot do worse than go into the election with this moron out front.
posted by Teflon at 4:32 PM
7 comments
7 Comments:
I agree. Republicans need real, conservative, principled leadership. I'm glad Frist is leaving. I think Hastert should go. I was thrilled when Tom Delay left. I wish we could get a real conservative president.
The shame of this is that it could take a decimation of the Republican party for them to come back to their conservative roots and to real accountability.
Ditto here too. I so fed up with the Republican leadership ... they've betrayed all of those principals that got them there. Fiscal restraint & limited government. They take control of both bodies of government along with the White House, and they go on a spending spree. Sigh.
Having said, I wouldn't ever give my vote to the Democrats. And I do like the job one of our State's U.S. Senators have done (Tom Coburn).
I think you're both spot on.
The question at this point for conservatives seems to be, "How do we get more Tom Coburns and less Frists and Hasterts?"
Part of the trouble is that in institutions where seniority matters, most of the leadership is going to come from the Bob Michel/Bob Dole Democrat Lite era.
As long as we've got go-along-to-get-along RINOs overinterested in what Pinch Sulzberger and Ben Bradlee think of them and inured to what conservatives prefer, we're not going to get anything else.
Hugh Hewitt's fond of waving the GOP jersey, but as a conservative I believe I had far more of my political wish list fulfilled with Ronald Reagan facing Tip O'Neill and George Mitchell in Congress than with George W. Bush never vetoing anything Hastert and Frist agree to. The tax cuts were bigger, the defense policy better, and there were less welfare state giveaways like Medicare prescription drug coverage. About the only downside was the 1986 illegal immigration amnesty bill, but Dubya's not been markedly better on that issue.
If all the Hasterts and Frists of the GOP care about is power, losing it because conservatives were pissed off might be exactly what the doctor ordered for a Republican caucus with backbone.
Besides, if the only difference between Republicans and Democrats becomes the former pays lip service to conservatives while the latter does not, what's the point?
The judges appointed by Republicans thus far have not proven reliably conservative, much less rolled back the judicial socialism of the past 60 years.
The budgets have ballooned, with domestic social spending (pork) far exceeding legitimate defense spending. Moreover, there have been no historic tax cuts. Even the odious estate tax remains today.
On national security, we have not won in Iraq, we have not eliminated Al Qaeda, and we seem to have no policy at all regarding nuclear proliferation by North Korea and Iran.
On immigration policy, we continue to be invaded by millions of undocumented aliens who evince no desire to assimilate yet have plenty of desire to make demands of the welfare state they don't support with taxes. All we've managed to do is to consider building a fence. Meanwhile, our politicians have to learn to deliver speeches in Spanish.
In short, everything we would told would happen when the GOP ran the show has failed to appear: strong national defense, free-market economic reforms, smaller government, a return to ethics in government, the replacement of judicial activists with strict constructionists. Anybody honestly think we're closer to any of these than we were when the Gipper left the Oval Office?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
The thing that worries me the most about losing the House is that the Republican-controlled House was the only thing holding up amnesty for illegals. The Senate already sold out on that issue because of squishy Republicans like McCain and Graham. El Presidente is in favor of amnesty. If we lose the House, say hola to another 60-100 million new "citizens". Our country will be forever damaged and it will be well on its way to being a welfare state. Oh, and Dems/libs will dominate for the next 100-200 years.
If we lose the Senate, we lose the ability to have some modicum of control over judges. That is still of critical importance for me -- even if the Republican-controlled Senate hasn't been as tough in pushing these judges through as I'd like.
I'm furious with these politicians in Washington. The Republicans had it all and they've wasted it.
I guess we have to face the facts -- the elites on the left and the right run the country. Welcome to America, Inc. Unless we can get the apathetic electorate in this country to go out and vote, we're pretty much toast at this point.
Hastert isn't the face of the House I want either.
BUT... I do NOT, repeat NOT, NOT, NOT want him to resign four weeks before an election.
The chaos in the House that would result would be a disaster.
We may lose the House anyway. But we would CERTAINLY lose it if Hastert gets thrown under the bus.
Plenty of time to change leadership if we hang on to the House.
Mike-
I'm not sure House leadership would change if the GOP holds on, even by a tiny margin, in 2006. Hastert represents the "pragmatist" wing of the House, the folks who opposed Shadegg and Boehner in the last leadership election (and don't I wish we'd chosen Shadegg now). He's essentially a Bob Michel Republican, perfectly willing to get rolled by Democrats and undermine the President if it means he gets good press.
This election is all about GOTV, which means conservatives. Conservatives are not going to come out in droves to support the current House leadership, which has done little more than protect themselves and spend our money this past congress. Hastert's defense of dirtbag Jefferson was a key indicator of what we can expect from him and his cronies going forward---Tip O'Neill-lite.
I think that a newly-installed true conservative with more media savvy than Boehner will ever muster would rally the base.
The problem, as you note, is pulling members back to vote 4 weeks before an election. At this point, it's probably too late, which means Denny Hastert will hang like an albatross around Republican necks as they get beat up for Foley again and again.
Sure, it's complete nonsense to think that the Gerry Studds/Barney Frank Dems are better on moral issues than the GOP, but the danger isn't that Republicans vote Democrat this time around; it's that disgusted conservatives stay home rather than support party leadership which has betrayed them at every opportunity.
Better hope for a sunny first Tuesday in November, because rain, sleet, or snow will likely equal Speaker Pelosi.
Post a Comment
<< Home