There is no mystery surrounding the liberal leanings of ridiculous Republican senators such as Maine's twisted sisters. Most now know that there are certain Republican Senators who will be more comfortable leaning left than right on too many occasions, perhaps for no other reason than to garner the praise of the liberal media and the powerful Dem politicians. John McCain, when not in campaign mode, his pet Goober, Dick Lugar, and perhaps Scotty "The Body" Brown (any professional wrestling fans from the 80s out there?) fall into this category. I say perhaps with regard to the pretty boy from Taxachussets because there is a strong indication that he will fall more in line with the Maine malignancies.
There is also little mystery about the existence of a candidate to replace former Dem who would not admit his true affiliation, Arlen Specter as the third leg of the dependable RINO stool (or unofficial Democrat Caucus). Cap and Traitor Mike Castle of Delaware hopes to defeat decent candidate Christine O'Donnell to join fellow Cap and Traitor Mark Kirk in attempting to obtain the coveted "third leg" status. Perhaps if Castle and Kirk both win, despite their grotesque flaws as candidates and as human beings,they can engage in a head to head battle for the title.
So why then, is the case of the Senate Repubes curious given this lack of mystery? I'm glad I asked. The small number of full or part time Repube enemies of common sense and liberty are pretty well known. The curious part is the motivation of other members of the Republican caucus. The mystery, to me, is what is their ultimate goal? Is politics what they practice in order to achieve their goals or is politics the goal?
Are the trappings of power and the thrill of being lobbied the ends for our members of the world's foremost deliberative (or is that debilitating?) body? Are these politicians sent to this body to get along and develop relationships which can be advantageous should they decide that a career in lobbying is more lucrative than an effective life term in the Senate? What guides them on their journey? What is their preferred destination?
I suggest that the senators' reaction to the pressure applied, to whatever debatable degree it is applied, by Tea Party activists serves as an indicator of each senator's sense of purpose. Please do not mistake this as a claim that Tea Party activists necessarily beyond reproach or that all have the best of intentions. The general motivations shared by most Tea Partiers would logically be shared by Republican senators if they were faithful to the platform and to common sense limits on the federal government. Viewed through this lens, how are the Senate Republicans performing?
Erick Erickson at RedState has an enlightening post with the brutally blunt headline, "Senate Republicans to Tea Party Activists: Go To H - E - Double Hockeysticks". It is not just the current Senate Republicans who despise or at least fearfully annoyed by Tea Party activists and the candidates they support. Noted lobbyist and former senator who toyed with supporting the "Fairness Doctrine" to aid the passage of the 2007 McCain-Kennedy-Bush Comprehensive Amnesty Free-for-all, Trent Lott weighed in. Erickson refers to a Washington Obamost piece by Shalaigh Murray, "Republican lawmakers gird for rowdy tea party" in which former Senator Foghorn Leghorn Lott the lobbyist sheds a little light on the motivations of the Senate Repubes.
Apparently Tea Party backed candidates hold "provocative views":
Paul, the GOP Senate nominee in Kentucky, floated the idea of forming an official caucus for tea-party-minded senators in an interview in the National Review as one way he would shake up Washington. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), one of the movement's favorite incumbents, filed paperwork on Thursday to register a similar group in the House "to promote Americans' call for fiscal responsibility, adherence to the Constitution, and limited government."
Can't have that! To paraphrase Bush 41 as played by Dana Carvey, "Not gonna do it. Wouldn't be prudent." Are Senate Repubes frightened by the thought of being overrun by senators who adhere to such radical ideals?
Repube recruiter extraordinaire John Cornyn, who thought a supporter of partial-birth abortion who voted for Cap and Trade (among many other liberal agenda items) would be a tremendous candidate for Senate, apparently excels at wobbling on the fence.
"The candidates are not ours to choose," said Cornyn, chairman of the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee. "They're the choice of the primary voters in the states, and I think we should respect their choices."
Thank you Senator Cornyn! I know these candidates are no Mark Kirks or Mike Castles, but thank you for tolerating a few with a respect for freedom! The NRSC can't always get its way, I suppose.
Yet some Republicans worry that tea-party candidates are settling too comfortably into their roles as unruly insurgents and could prove hard to manage if they get elected. Paul, who beat GOP establishment favorite Trey Grayson in Kentucky's primary, told the National Review that he would seek to join forces with GOP Sens. Jim DeMint (S.C.) and Tom Coburn (Okla.), "who are unafraid to stand up" and who have blocked numerous bills advanced by both parties deemed by the pair as expanding government.
Things are going swimmingly in our nation's capitol. The legislation, regulation, and domination disseminated by the denizens of the murky depths of the D.C. abyss leave nothing at all to be desired! We, therefore, do not require any change to the status quo (as President Half-A-Cracker likes to mention). What we need, at this time of unquestioned prosperity, are more senators who would rather reach across the aisle to their "friends" on the other side. We need more Mark Kirk types who will give Constitution shredding intrusions upon the electorate a nice bipartisan zip!
I have not forgotten the loquacious lobbyist who would prefer conservative opinion be silenced:
Former Senate majority leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), now a D.C. lobbyist, warned that a robust bloc of rabble-rousers spells further Senate dysfunction. "We don't need a lot of Jim DeMint disciples," Lott said in an interview. "As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them."
But Lott said he's not expecting a tea-party sweep. "I still have faith in the visceral judgment of the American people," he said.
Lobbyist Leghorn is a fine example of the very need for a Tea Party inundation of our federal government! I would suggest the weasels by far outnumber those who are there to serve with a faithful adherence to the governing document. I further suggest that Republican accomplices are not much better than Democrat criminals.
The challenge is monumental to those who seek to maintain what freedom remains and perhaps regain a portion of what has been lost. The challenge is magnified by the angst over the means to the end. Can one expect to have an impact working outside the Republican Party? Can one expect to have an impact working inside the Republican Party? It is indeed difficult to know the answer, especially when so many Republican senators seem to be in their positions for the wrong reasons.