Seeing Into The Future
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
So John Boehner, whose re-election to the leadership I condemned in my latest column, had this to say about Cao’s win:
[T]he Cao victory is a symbol of what can be achieved when we think big, present a positive alternative and win the trust of the American people.
Obviously the national GOP is going to spin this as best they can, and Boehner needs to make the most of what little good news he gets, but without taking anything away from Cao it is clear that this result was a repudiation of Jefferson and his corrupt dealings. Under normal circumstances, no Republican was going to win this seat, and everyone knows this. As even Cao’s most enthusiastic boosters acknowledge, his re-election in a majority black, Democratic district is going to be very difficult. This doesn’t necessarily say anything about the quality of Cao’s candidacy or his future in Louisiana politics, but the rapturous response to his win is beginning to feel a bit like the brief Ogonowski boomlet after the latter lost a special election by a smaller margin than some expected. The 2007 MA-05 special election was widely hailed on the right as proof that a GOP comeback was in the works–after all, a little-known challenger had run so well in Massachusetts of all places. Republicans then went on to lose another 21 seats this year. As for Ogonowski’s subsequent political career, well, the less said the better.
Cao is by all accounts impressive, intelligent and appealing, but the GOP is not going to rebuild its majority by running extraordinary candidates in deep-blue districts that will vote them out in another two years. They need instead to start recruiting decent candidates in marginal districts. It is telling that essentially no one in the party hierarchy was backing Cao and they didn’t even know who he was, which means that the most outstanding Republican House candidate this cycle was the one not actively supported by his party.
Filed under: politics
Daniel, why do you support Republicans? You writings say to me that you are not aligned with anything the party actually stands for, at least currently. The forseeable future of the Republican party doesn’t look any better, either. Why do you not consider the Democratic party and work to make your views more widely held?
I don’t necessarily support Republicans. It depends on the race in question. I haven’t supported many Republicans in the last eight years, and most of those I have supported have been at the state level because of the stranglehold the Dems have on New Mexico politics. On the whole, I vote against the incumbent party whenever I can, or at least I don’t vote for it. It’s true that I have very little sympathy for a lot of what the GOP considers its priorities these days, but I don’t see anyone comparable to Ron Paul on the Democratic side, either. One reason I don’t consider the Democrats is that I see even less potential there.
As for making my views more widely held, I doubt this would happen in either of the major parties.
Well, your last point is certainly true. And voting against incumbents is almost always a safe bet, at least if they’ve been incumbent long enough.
But libertarianism and Ron Paul don’t have that much to offer either. Though he might be better than anything the Republicans have put up in the last 40 years.
We live in a universe that requires checks and balances, and when we the people don’t provide them, the meta rule of consequences eventually does. Libertarianism is another vision of utopia, unachievable with real human beings.
You see less potential in Democrats? Potential for what, Daniel? Potential for disaster? Even the criminals on the Democratic side don’t start needless wars. At least so far.
They haven’t had control of the executive for a while. Last time they had it, they had more than enough needless wars and deployments overseas. People tend to forget about Kosovo because it didn’t result in that much calamity and death, but it was still wrong, illegal and unnecessary.
On policy, the Democrats are less likely to do most of the things I would like to see done, and they are more likely to do far more things that I think shouldn’t be done. So, there is less potential there for the sort of governing that I would like to see.
Kosovo was not a good thing. It was far from a disaster. I don’t know what kind of intervention was required, if any.
Do you have a mental list of things you would like to see done? At least one things to be done is on my list, too – get out of Iraq. Hopefully completely. I think we share that.
What else might we share, given that I think we should have universal health care and way more money spent in post-secondary education? Are you for weaning ourselves off of oil, at least mostly? What about the environment? Are you for it or agin it? :)
Money spent on turning college into the new HS degree is wasted money and will drives prices even higher than such policies have already done.
College is more expensive because of student loan programs, where nobody is spending their own money and also due to entitlement mentalities among many incoming students for expensive external perks.
College would be more, not less accessible if it was not awash in quasi-free loan money.
I’m waiting for the higher ed bubble to burst…
I like how Cao’s “law office became a hub for community organizing and assistance to hurricane victims.”
Went on a college tour with Kiddo in Nov. Colleges seem to have oceans of exercise machinery, among other luxuries.
Where are the ink-stained scriveners of yesteryear?
Grumpy Old Man, did you attempt to persuade Kiddo to go to any schools in particular?