A definition: lose an election, blame the values and principles that motivated 57 million people to take to the polls, then sell out those 57 million for some pseudo-example of non-existant bi-partisanship by caving on those same values and principles, all in the name of a supposedly better America.
What is being defined? The Republican party, and the grassroots is not happy.
Sen. Saxby Chambliss, a Republican from Georgia whose name, loosely translated, means, “definitely going to get a primary challenge,” kicked it off by throwing Grover Norquist under the bus. Norquist, the founder of Americans For Tax Reform, has been asking candidates to sign a pledge to, basically, “…oppose and vote against tax increases.”
When asked about taxes in a post-election interview:
Chambliss said he cared “more about my country than I do about a 20-year-old pledge,” and he indicated he was open to voting for tax increases. Other establishment Republicans, such asWeekly Standard editor Bill Kristol, have also called on Republicans to cave on holding the line on tax increases.
Chambliss said he had a “disagreement” with Norquist on taxes and believed “Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down” while Chambliss was “”willing to do the right thing and let the political consequences take care of themselves.”
Agree or disagree with pledges (full disclosure, I disagree with them,) Chambliss’ comments go not to its worthiness. Rather, they show the twisted logic of Republicans who believe in compromise. That is, who believe in compromise the way Progressives dictate to them it should be. What is the value of agreeing, in any way, to tax increases when taxes are not the problem? What is the gain of compromise with a bad idea that doesn’t address the real problem, which is spending?
Certainly, elections have consequences. Yet the re-election of President Obama does not mean that he (Progressives!) get everything they want. Why?Because that is not the entire result of the election. Republicans control the House (and would have even more seats, if Democrats had voted for Allen West and Mia Love, instead of being racists!) If the Presidential election decides everything, then why have Senators or Representatives? Just elect one person, and let them do whatever they want.
That’s exactly what Chambliss is advocating, knowingly or not. And it will further motivate the grassroots to find worthy candidates.
And it won’t be just him. Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) stated:
“I agree with Grover — we shouldn’t raise rates — but I think Grover is wrong when it comes to we can’t cap deductions and buy down debt….but I will violate the pledge, long story short, for the good of the country, only if Democrats will do entitlement reform.”
Chambliss’ comments signal weakness that is not accepted by grassroots activists, nor by Americans. Graham’s comments signal an absolute lack of recognition of history. Modern history shows Democrats are untrustworthy when it comes to their promises - just ask Reagan about immigration reform. (That sound you hear is Ted Kennedy still laughing.) Do Chambliss and Graham think they were elected to make decisions based on what Democrats are willing to let them do?
Democrats don’t want compromise. They want to win. They want the world they want, and will do what they need to do in order to achieve it. Republicans haven’t learned that yet, but the grassroots has. They don’t want compromise that leaves them worse off. They don’t want to raise taxes. They want to end the four years of trillion dollar deficits, and the four years that
might will be coming. They want representation in Washington that will fight for their values, and do it proudly!
Chambliss and Graham think that compromise will get them chits that can be cashed in for favors from Democrats in the future. That’s like believing the hooker who says she’ll be right back with your change.
Chambliss has attempted to revise his remarks, stating that he is, “…not in favor of raising taxes. Raising taxes to pay for reckless overspending is bad policy….raising tax rates is (not) an acceptable option for dealing with our deficit spending.” The grassroots is doubtful to buy this “Let Me Be Clear” line from Chambliss, or from the GOP.
The grassroots fight with the GOP started in 2008, when then President Bush and former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson pushed through TARP, and Bush famously stated that, “I’ve abandoned free market principles to save the free market system.” In 2010, when Tea Party activists across the country swept the GOP back into power in the House, the GOP responded by saying “Thank You, now please go away.” They dismissed the grassroots in the 2012 election, with Gov. Mitt Romney making, literally, no outreach what so ever. Then, they pushed through Rule 12 at the RNC - a total assault on the grass roots. Now, Chambliss and Graham (and Rep. Peter King of New York) are dismissing the grassroots again.
The grassroots has long memories, and both Senators should expect primary challenges. Erick Erickson of RedState.com stated, “A conservative from metro-Atlanta could put Saxby Chambliss in peril and we should work to make that happen.” The grassroots will make that happen, and let it put the rest of the GOP on notice. You won the House, and you were voted into the Senate to do a job. You have power, and ability, and values. Use them, or the electorate will use our power, ability and values to elect people who will.