The Iowa caucuses are still weeks away, but those in search of a hotly contested GOP election need look no farther than the Capitol this Tuesday, when Senate Republicans will select a new vice chairman of the GOP conference.
What may seem like a relatively mundane affair (vice chairman of the conference is the lowest-ranking leadership position), some are billing it as a monumental struggle for the very soul of the Republican party. RedState founder Erick Erickson, for example, is touting the race, which pits Sen. Ron Johnson (R., Wis.) against Sen. Roy Blunt (R., Mo.), as “the most important fight for conservatives in America.”
Advertisement
Erickson and other conservative activists are aggressively backing the freshman Johnson over Blunt, who is also a first-term senator, but whose 14 years serving in the House of Representatives (including a brief stint in leadership) classify him, in their eyes, as a member of “the GOP establishment.”
“I like both senators tremendously,” Erickson writes, “but for conservatives, Ron Johnson is a no-brainer here. Senator Blunt’s thinking is the same thinking that has plagued Senate Republicans for a decade now — the same old ideas and same old strategies.” Brent Bozell, chairman of ForAmerica, concurs. Johnson, he argues, is “a champion for the principles of conservatives,” whereas Blunt is a “creature of the establishment.”
Johnson supporters are quick to point out the senator’s conservative credentials via the Heritage Action for America congressional scorecard: He enjoys a 91 percent rating, compared with Blunt’s 64 percent. (Heritage Action is a notoriously tough grader; Paul Ryan rates just 78 percent.)
That said, conservative support for Johnson appears to derive less from his voting record than from his status as a true political outsider — in other words, his relative lack of political experience. Johnson, who has never held political office until now, touted his extensive private-sector experience — 31 years as an accountant and plastics manufacturer — to great effect in his campaign to oust incumbent senator Russ Feingold (D., Wis.) in 2010. In doing so, he was able to win broad support within the GOP, from both “the establishment” (the National Republican Senatorial Committee) and the Tea Party, in year that saw a fair amount of infighting between the two factions.
“I thought it was important for people from the private sector, citizen legislators, to bring that valuable perspective to Congress,” Johnson tells National Review Online. “I’ve exported products. I’ve actually created jobs. And now that I’m here, I think I can bring that valuable perspective to the leadership in the Senate.”
The case for Blunt, meanwhile, emphasizes his congressional experience. During his time in the House, which included brief tenures as majority whip and majority leader, Blunt developed close working relationships with Reps. John Boehner (R., Ohio) and Eric Cantor (R., Va.). Blunt’s supporters argue that his ties to the current House leadership would be a valuable asset when it comes to the relationship between Republican leaders in the upper and lower chambers, particularly in the (likely) event that the GOP wins control of the Senate in 2012. “Since when did experience become a negative attribute?” asks one Senate aide. “You know, it actually tends to come in handy around here.”
I know we're all frustrated with the incumbent monopoly, but I'm not sure that the solution is to put all your trust in freshmen.
Like a lot of ideas bred from frustration, term limits has not yielded reform. Instead of sitting for city council for 16 terms, career politicians try two terms as a state senator, then as a congressman, then mayor, etc. They just change jobs every few elections and collect more pensions when they retire.
It's a healthy debate, but let's be thankful that we have two good candidates to choose from. www.ReasonableViews.com
Go, Johnson! We need something to shake up those who have been in D.C. too long. We don't have time for the go-along-to-get-along thinking that permeates the Beltway. A few outsiders in key positions is a good thing. Experience is good, but different kinds of experience is also good.
The rate of incumbent victories in any election is substantial. Most elected officials are very experienced. And yet they have practically run this country into the ground. We are in the mess we are in today because of "experienced" politicians. That's why experience is a negative attribute. It means you have helped put us in the dire straights we are in now!
Both are good men, but Ron Johnson has been speaking out on spending and economic issues in a way which resonates with Conservatives disgusted with today's fiscal mess - and the Republicans' hand in it. For the good of both the Party and America, we need to put more men like Johnson in leadership positions.
If the Republican Party really wants to court conservative and Tea Party voters and get them excited for the 2012 election, it would be wise to put people like Johnson, Rubio, etc. front and center. Their fresh, non-insider perspective, courage, and willingness to speak their minds is a breath of fresh air in a party gone stale.
The establishment fights conservatives harder than the Left and then they whine, we only control 1 branch of Congress. I wish they would spend their time calling out Reid for sitting on bills and not even allowing debate. POTUS attacks the do nothing Congress when it's Reid sitting on legislation. the media cheers on the President and McConnell / Boehner play weak defense, it's time to go on Offense! Fight to get the bills to the floor, debate, propose amendments, vote...you know just like your high school civics class taught you...but that's not the way DC works.
I used to get upset when I'd hear commentators or acquaintances say that the Democrat party and the Republican party were essentially the same; that there was no difference between the two parties.
Much to my dismay and disappointment I eventually found that it was true. I found that both parties swelled government and focused on consolidating their power rather than adhering to the Constitution. Both parties spent incredible amounts of money, perhaps the only difference was were it wound up.
From the Right's perspective this is the difference between Republicanism (as it applies to the Republican political party) and Conservatism. Republicanism and Conservatism are not the same. Conversely, the Democrat party is much more in tune with their ideology (Statism) than the Republican Party is with Conservatism.
The Tea Party wishes to change that; and what a monumental task that is because they will experience resistance from both Democrats and "establishment" Republicans.
Good Luck Tea Party, but remember how you eat an elephant. . .one bite at a time.
Being from MO I am pulling HARD for Johnson. We all held our noses and voted for Blunt last time, but he needs to go, "experience" nonwithstanding. It's time the Tea Party took over and for good or until we act sanely again, whichever comes first.
Well, I think it will be a more important election when the Republican nominee for President fails and therefore the Republican Party looks to Congress for leadership.
"Experience is what really counts," said the Leadership Dinosaurs, calmly over-grazing on taxpayer resources as they had for eons, while ignoring the looming comet in the sky. "That Ron Johnson guy is an insignificant little newcomer mammal and can be ignored."
We all know what happened next. The mammals are still around; the dinosaurs, only as fossils in museums.
Come to think of it, the current Senate *is* a bit like an old museum full of immobile fossils. If any of the critters could move, I guess they would have passed a budget.
On attending my first TP event (at the Arch) I saw a Blunt tent, and a while later handed a copy of the Constitution to the Senator himself. I was new, so not surprised at my confusion at the apparent endorsement of Blunt. since I have learned of, and agree with the TP open arm philosophy. Yet should Blunt become the vice-chair, I will remind him of his exploitation of us at that event and of our goal of limited giovernment. I was put off by his predessor who bragged on getting a million of federal tax dollars for a new pedestrian bridge to the zoo here in St Louis. A worthwhile project, to be sure, but paid for by 50 states? I don't think so. Win or lose this, and many other contests to come, we must be adamant in support of our ideals, and remind officeholders of our past support.
[blockquote]
"I know we're all frustrated with the incumbent monopoly, but I'm not sure that the solution is to put all your trust in freshmen."
[endquote]
To "inwarresolution":
There's nothing in this article that even implies that the choice is, or should be, either for an all-freshmen Republican leadership or not. That's a badly-constructed straw-man in support of a poor argument. EFFECTIVE leadership should be the desire and longevity in a position, especially in a political cesspool like Washington, cannot, ipso facto, convey it. If anything it would tend to be a contra-indicator.
There is no longer ANY question that ALL of our "leadership," both Democrats and Republicans, have lied, cheated, stolen, and/or generally oppressed us in the case of the former, or neglected, ignored, timidly submitted, and/or too-often betrayed us in the case of the latter. Thus, it is LONG overdue for Republicans to at least turn over their own (supposed) leadership.
Does anyone really seriously believe that the Teaparty freshmen can do worse than the bums that have been leading us down a garden path for years if not decades. PULEASE!! The logic of that argument is so counterintuitive so as to be self-defeating.
There is ever-greater anger within the electorate regarding how the current Republican leadership have handled themselves... at least since the 2010 midterms (I think I'm being kind here... how about since Reagan!!??). The previous-to-Gingrich monthly jumping from one "favorite" Republican Presidential candidate to another isn't because people have suddenly become fickle.
NO!! They're po'd that these sons o' bxxxxxs have, once again, squandered a grand (if not ideal) opportunity to strongly, fully, and effectively challenge the country's enemies, both within and without (something that Gingrich, btw, has been very effectively doing which is why he is still in the lead and will be, barring stupid missteps, the next POTUS).
We've seen what our open enemies - the Leftists, the Democrats (but I repeat myself) - have in store for us. That's now obvious to even the meanest intelligence after only 3 years of the most radically leftist U.S. Administration since Woodrow Wilson. But what is much less obvious, but no less important (thank you, Mr. Stiles), is the all-too-common betrayal by, or complacency of, the Republican leadership. The last year of Republican Senate leadership has been like watching Obama kill-in-it's-crib the golden opportunity to effectively oppose Iran vis-a-vis the now all-but-dead Green Revolution.
If Senator Johnson shows even the merest glimmer of a hope to overturn the business-as-usual Republican Establishment then I'm all in.
And that's what I believe the electorate is currently expressing with our aggregate desire to THROW ALL THE BUMS OUT!!
If Republicans want to
win they're gonna need to be represented a whole lot better than Democrat-lite. Such complacency in the face of Democrat aggression is a recipe for more of the same and, thus, no friend of the electorate. Republicans need strong soldiers in their fight, not weaklings and traitors.
Follow
