I just got a ridiculous e-mail from the RNC touting the new Valentine’s Day cards you can send to friends. Make no mistake, they’re all lame, but there was one that really struck me as completely missing the point and at a fair distance from the prevailing view of the majority of Republicans.
At what point did the Republican Party decide that a lot of time in Washington was a GOOD thing? Last I heard, we were still the party that would close the mother down and put locks on most of the doors if we could? Aren’t we the party of Goldwater and Reagan?
‚ÄúI have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is “needed” before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents “interests,” I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.‚Äù – Barry Goldwater
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’ – Ronald Reagan
Do either of those quotes sound like the words of men who believe that the length of time you serve in Washington somehow makes you MORE qualified to lead?
Maybe I missed the meeting where they took a vote and decided that a lifetime in the Senate was a net positive. It’s certainly a far cry from the party that included the Citizen Legislature Act in its Contract with America. That bill would have limited the tenure of both Senators and Representatives to twelve years.
So three years is not enough, but twelve is too much? Is that the takeaway?
For the folks over at 310 First Street, you should get out of the building more often and talk to real people who don’t live in DC. You’ll find they’re pretty pissed off at the party for abandoning the tenets of fiscal discipline. I don’t know that they’ll take kindly to the sudden embrace of career legislators.
I’d also like to make two other points about your campaign strategy.
First, the “he doesn’t have enough experience” attack isn’t working too well for Hillary. I hope we have something better in the can for the general election. If not, Obama may well beat us just as he’s beating her.
Second, Reagan had ZERO years service in the Senate, and that was enough to get him a 10-point win and 489 electoral votes. Are we really prepared to place that bet? America hasn’t elected a Senator in 40 years. What makes you think they’ll go with the one who has been there more than half that time instead of the new guy? They clearly don’t have a lot of respect for the office.
My advice, you better be thinking long and hard about a line of attack other than “he’s only been in the Senate for three years.”