In recent weeks, we've seen two incumbent Republicans get the axe by their party. One, Charlie Crist, governor of Florida, has chosen to run as an Independent for the vacant senate seat in Florida. The other, Senator Robert Bennett of Utah will probably decide to retire.
Both of these incumbents have fallen victim to the "Tea Party Movement" that is working to get those, who are not conservative enough, removed from office, or beaten in the next election.
While Nevada Senator and Majority Leader Harry Reid and I are on completely different planets when it comes to political philosophy, he is currently behind in his election race to a person who said we should barter chickens as a partial answer to health care. That's what you get when you're against something, instead of for something.
While personally leaning conservative, I believe the Tea Party is as close to a lynch mob as we've seen since Senator Joe McCarthy roamed the halls of Congress. Parading "Joe the Plumber" and former half-term Governor Sarah Palin as beacons of intellectual honesty and integrity scares the hell out of me.
With the nomination of Elena Kagan as the next Supreme Court justice, these opposition victories will serve to create an even greater rift in the arguments leading up to the confirmation process.
Those moderate Republican lawmakers, who might have voted for nomination, will now have to reconsider if this vote will cause the tea partiers to shine their light on them, and ultimately cost them their seats.
This leads to an interesting argument. Should moderates change their votes to match those of these Tea Party constituents, while believing something else? Or, should they vote with their hearts and minds and let the process take its course?
Food for thought...as always!
ReplyDelete