Wednesday, December 31, 2014

Re-Republicanization in Arizona: McCain Fights Back Against the Tea Party

Senator John McCain is making a concerted effort to oust Tea Party operatives from the local precinct apparatus of the Arizona Republican Party, and replace them with Republicans.  This is good news for those who wish to see the two parties return to working together in order to govern.

McCain was censured by his own party by the anti-government activists who had taken over Republican precinct offices, and he faced a serious challenge in the Republican primary when he ran for re-election.  The senator was determined not to have that happen if (when) he seeks re-election in two years.

One particularly promising aspect of the re-Republicanization campaign: McCain has mobilized the Vietnamese-American community in Arizona, who are threatened by the anti-immigrant Tea Party.


Barry said...

As a John Sherman Cooper/ Nelson Rockefeller progressive republican, I trust that this will make the party acceptable to me again. The republcian party has almost forced me out. In the current party, Karl Rove is seen as a centralist. In the late 20th century, the democratic party allowed the far left to select their canidates in the presidential primaries with results such as McGovern etc. The most acceptable, capable, inspiring, and best governing leaders come from the gruntled center

gruntled said...


Anonymous said...

These party insiders vs. the grass roots fights are going on all over the place. I can't speak for other States, but in Virginia the insiders won short term gains by manipulating party rules and putting people in place contrary to the will of the local majorities. Then the majorities found ways to take control et voila, Eric Cantor, the House Majority Leader, lost his job.

gruntled said...

It is very hard, in the American party system, to purge an enemy party if it infiltrates your own. The best way for Republicans to get the Tea Party to leave is to stick to Republican principles of responsible government. I blame Reagan for inviting the anti-government cuckoos into the nest in the first place.

Barry said...

One can make all of the comments on liberty and inefficiency, however in a civilizated society, an effective government is necessary for controling the excess of everything for the overall general public good. If one desires guns, religion, and no government, try Somilia or Yemen

Mac said...

" If one desires guns, religion, and no government, try Somilia (sic) or Yemen."

It is this sort of elitist comment that defeats polite political discourse. I am a retired officer of Marines who has led Marines in combat. I believe that the Second Amendment was adopted by a nation that had just won its independence from a tyrannical monarchy and Parliament. In the words of a University of Pennsylvania professor writing in a ten-part series in the Philadelphia Inquirer during the bi-centennial of the Bill of Rights: We have all seen the bumper sticker that reads "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." The Framers would have written "If guns are outlawed, only government will have guns," a prospect that terrified them. (I do not recall the Professor's name, but that sort of language in a Democratic Party-leaning newspaper really surprised me.)

I am a Ruling Elder in the Presbyterian Church (EPC), and have no problem with the First Amendment's protection of all religions from government censure. But the current liberal mind-set that has changed "freedom of religion" to "freedom from religion" and approves of all religions except Christianity, I believe that we need to return to protection from oppression rather than protection from some religious views that are not acceptable to secular humanists.

(I'll continue in another pane.)

Mac said...

I believe, as did Paul writing in Romans, that a civil magistrate is necessary for the purposes of protecting the nation, enforcing necessary laws, and maintaining order in any nation, including our country. I oppose the modern idea that only the federal government can address the interest-of-the-day. The federal constitution instituted a national government of limited powers: national defense, common currency, single foreign policy, national post office and system of inter-state roads, and tariffs and trade. It created a congress that was intentionally designed to be slow and cumbersome, where one house of duly-elected members could interpose (and was expected and intended to interpose) itself between the executive and the other house, if necessary, to ensure that only needful federal laws were enacted. It was essentially designed to be a government that "governs less." It was left to the States or to the People to care for, e.g., the education, health, and welfare of their respective citizens, including the truly poor and infirm. And it included the freedom of people to move from one State to another for any lawful reason, including a desire to participate in social programs that had the blessing of another State, but not their own. In other words, if you live in Mississippi (or better yet, Oklahoma) and you want to go to California to enjoy its welfare state, go right ahead. But California has no right to make Oklahoma adopt California's social programs.

Th Framersy would have been appalled by the New Deal move towards overly-broad laws that were to then be implemented by millions of unelected bureaucrats through regulations that were not subject to constitutional adoption by the congress and signature by the executive.

And they would have been sickened by the assertion of modern presidents of both parties that they possess some sort of monarchical power to thwart the design of the Constitution by implementing agendae through fiat when the Constitutional process works as it was intended to but not to suit them personally.

So, having sworn, for over half a century to protect and defend the Constitution, and having actually done so, I choose not to take the flippant and demeaning suggestion that I go to Somalia or Yemen, thank you very much.

Rather, I will stay right where I am, arguing with those in my own party who I believe are wrong when I believe they are wrong, and agreeing with the other party when their proposals strike me as both constitutional and wise, but strenuously opposing them when they propose to replace the Constitution with their own "better judgement."

And believe me when I say that contemptuous, demeaning language from the fringe of either party--whether it be Tea Party-Republicans (an oxy-moronic term) or the more dangerous "useful idiots" (an historical phrase--you can look it up) of the "Elizabeth Warren" Democrats--will serve neither group to change my opinion or gain my respect.

Michael R. McCarty, JD
LtCol, USMC (ret)

Barry said...

Congratulations on finding a typing spelling mistake on Somalia. How elitist this must feel. For those with a dimished sense of humor, perhaps some elaboration is appropriate: One could try Somalia or Yemen if you are interested in automatic weapons on every corner, theocracy, and the lack of a governed, civilizated, well functioning society

Mac said...

Sorry. You typed the quoted sentence. I didn't. If that is the only comment you can make, then you have proven my case. Don't ask for reasoned, courteous discourse between opposing views unless you want it. Otherwise, it is just another case of "if you don't agree with me, shut up," which is the liberal/"progressive" norm in this country today. And I will also admit to poor proof-reading. The Framersy didn't do anything; but the Framers surely did, and they would not recognize the governing scheme into which their wonderful Constitution has been bashed and beaten.