Redstate

There was another congressman (Revolution!) who was all against farm subsidies despite coming from a farming district, and I don't think his anti-subsidy stance seriously hurt him with the local farmers.

We are one nation---our elected representatives are supposed to do what they think is in the nation's national interest.

The Federalist Papers do not describe a system of government where everyone focuses on their own district. They are supposed to think about the national interest.

Then why didn't the founders see the wisdom of electing national Representatives and Senators. Poli Sci isn't the charter of Congress, but neither is the Federalist Papers.
It is called democracy. People elect Reps and Sens to represent them in Congress so that they interests are heard. Not all poltical issues pertain national headline issues. You can vote against their wishes, but you are not serving their wishes and in a democracy an opponent will exploit that. And voters will resent you.

They argued that Senators be appointed by State Legislators and Represenatives be elected.

This got changed in the 17th Amendment.

I want to say that that was Hearst's, but I'm not certain.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

We wouldn't be having this problem in the first place.

"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy

conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!

I think your right. The problem is the process itself. Not individual Congressmen. Once an issue becomes federal and money is going to be appropriated, Republican Reps and Sens have no choice but to fight for their fair share. To do otherwise, is to let all funding and attention go to Blue areas. Do we really need more Big Digs in Boston, while bridges are collapsing in rural Red America. If Republicans fought for their people as much as Teddy Kennedy fought for his people, we would have a lot of secure Republicans in office. As much as I dont like the guy. He was effective. Same for Barney Frank.

That's why we as a Party must offer something more substantial than a bribe to our constituents. We need to go beyond discussing the issues of today. We need to embrace true reform and a simpler federal gov't. We need to bring up issues that last beyond the 24hr news cycle and champion them as we once did in the beginning of the conservative movement.

"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy

conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

Then why didn't the founders see the wisdom of electing national Representatives and Senators.

Because we didn't have a welfare state in 1789. Our economic system was much closer to laissez-faire.

Back then, it was OK for a Representative to represent his district, because the idea that one-third of the national income would flow to the GOVERNMENT to decide how to dispense it was unimaginable back then. Thus "representing one's district" didn't devolve into the ripping off of billions of taxpayer dollars.

It's now clear that there are going to have to be caps and other constraints (such as public exposure) to prevent the unlimited disbursing of favors through earmarks.

"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy

conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!

True, we didnt have a welfare state, but regional interests abounded, especially with issues concerning tariffs and trade and infrastructure and banking. Obviously, the North and South issues and the ensuing Civil War epitomize this. They were not all citizen statesmen going to D.C. to do what's in the best interest of the country. Some were clubbing each otehr with canes as they were busy defending their constituents.

issues in terms of the national interest. As a rule, they couched their "regional" issues in terms of the national interest. It may not always have been genuine, but at least nobody blatantly disregarded the national interest.

when Republicans abandon their principles they usually take a bath at the polls, which is exactly why we are losing our ass lately.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

I agree, but I think some of the solutions posted around here are simplistic. Their is a sort of unsophisticated throw the bums out attitude. It's tough business winning seats and it's tough business building and sustaining majorities.

We can sit here on the internet miles away, but we are not in thier office listening to their phone rings off the hook by people who donated to their campaigns, held signs for them and grounded pound screaming and yelling at them for voting against the local interst. All politics is local and its too easy and poor to have a "throw all the bums out" attitude. Like I said we all dont have the comfort of being as secure as McCain or Coburn. Some are in the fight of their lives and must repsond to the voters demands. It's called democracy.

Look, we all understand that no candidate can get elected to the House by promising NOT to help his constituents get things accomplished in their district.

That's why there needs to be some more global solution. Perhaps a fixed national budget for various categories of earmarks, and force the representatives to fight within those limits (analogous to "cap-and-trade").

Just a database of earmarks, that could be browsed online by the citizenry, would offer enough public exposure to shame politicians into eschewing some of their wilder schemes.

Go to http://www.fedspending.gov/ and take a look at the "contracts" tab. You can look search by contractor, congressional district, or by which department the money falls under. This database tracks every federal dollar spent. And you will never guess who's legislation this was sponsored by.

...of breezily assuming ignorance in their opponents. Yes, we know that it's called "Coburn-Obama." Yes, it has the potential to be very useful. No, we're not impressed by your candidate anyway.

I'm quite serious. This is the second time that I've seen this in the last hour, and it wasn't amusing the first time. Shape up.

Moe Lane

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

He gets some kudos for sponsoring that bill, but he deserves contempt for supporting this farm bill. He is all "one step forward and two steps back" on fiscal responsibility.

Since I live and vote in the 21st District, I can and will continue to support Devin Nunes. As a third generation family farmer (yes, really), he understands what these big farm bills are all about: lots of money for the Midwest grain growers, who are already making more money than ever partially due to misguided government subsidies for ethanol. That doesn't help the citrus, stone-fruit and grape growers who dominate this region. We are the reddest district in a very blue state and he will continue to have the farmers' support: they know pork when they see it.

However, this was still a courageous vote: this district is now also the largest dairy producer in the US (Tulare County has more cows than the entire state of Wisconsin). I do not know the dollar figures, but I'm sure there are some milk subsidies tucked away in this bill (there always are).

Doesn't work quite as well as an argument as it did before November 2006.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

I hope he can do something about it if elected.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

How ironic of you that you're now hoping that MCCAIN can "do something" about the farm bill, having slammed him as a traitor to the cause of conservatism all this time.

The Dems had enough votes to override Bush's veto.

The way this election is shaping up, the next Congress will have even more Dems than this one did.

McCain won't be able to stop bills like this one. But at least he'll be able to negotiate a few changes.

Pathetic that I, as a fiscal conservative have to pin my slender hopes of something slightly positive on a big government rino.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

CFR, Amnesty, Spending, Corruption,
Earmarks, Socialized Medicine:
”Your Silence Is Your Consent!”

when he was getting all the love on shows like Hardball over the years.

I support McCain on this issue, but as McCain will soon realize, you need a team of non-mavericks to defeat the Farm Bill. Unfortunately, we do not have a such a team.

is that vetoing every bill with earmarks won't stop a thing. Congress is going to spend money--lots and lots of money. They can just load the actual bill up without earmarks. It takes a very principled president to use the veto effectively, and communicate the exact reasons why the veto was used, to get Congress to take the unnecessary crap off.

oh, and there may have been some phony corruption charges from a grandstanding AG involved too.

Do you have a link to the RNC phone bank scenario you described above?

Erik

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/05/31/shocka-rnc-donations-off-by-40/

Here's the moneyquote:

There has been a sharp decline in contributions from RNC phone solicitations, another fired staffer said, reporting that many former donors flatly refuse to give more money to the national party if Mr. Bush and the Senate Republicans insist on supporting what these angry contributors call “amnesty” for illegal aliens.
“Everyone donor in 50 states we reached has been angry, especially in the last month and a half, and for 99 percent of them immigration is the No. 1 issue,” said the former employee.

The RNC, of course, said that the firings had nothing to do with the drop in donations or the reports of why people were no longer donating.

Independence is Freedom. Dependence is Slavery.

to the farm bill isn't a convenient change of position. Contrary to Neil's assertions above, many of us who are conservative and object to calling McCain a conservative will truthfully mark McCain's votes on issues where we agree. McCain has consistently been against earmarks and this kind of bloated spending. That still doesn't make him conservative.

His position on gun control, while confusing, has also been consistent. He is better than either of the Desm, and no, I still don't like it.

McCain has not been "consistently" against earmarks. What do you call his funding of a Sandra Day O'Connor building?

There is PLENTY of bloated spending that the senate approves unanimously (research, universities, across-the-board welfare or benefits that some people could afford themselves, among others). I would argue the senate has not a single fiscal conservative, and I doubt I could even call any of them moderate.

Most of us do not have bad feelings about RP, but his followers, that is another thing! They spammed us over and over during the primaries. They were obnoxious to the extreme.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Ah, it's really only a couple of things, and most here would agree that his interest in preserving and honoring all things Constitutional was a good thing. But....

(1) the "illegal war"
(2) a large percentage of his followers were not actual conservatives or libertarians, but were in fact anti-war left-beyotches.

Oh, and did I mention...
(3) the incessant screeching that we were in Iraq illegally and
(4) the irrational, nutty view that if we just leave those poor terrorists alone, they won't come after us.

Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO

I agree that it is not an "Illegal War". However, having served in the military for 20 years (79-99), and have taken an oath to defend and support the Constitution, I believe our Congress should not just give up their responsibilities to the President. If they want to go to war then vote on it. Maybe if that happened, people would actually support the war. Our history shows that we don't seem to do a good job at these "undeclared wars"
Small Government is Beautiful.
-Carla Howell

Granted, it didn't begin with "I declare war on...", but Congressional authorization to use force against Iraq was voted on and passed, see supporting links.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_publi...

"Honor is self-esteem made visible in action." - Ayn Rand, West Point, 1974

They authorized it in explicit terms. It was passed with overwhelming majorities in both houses in a bipartisan way. The reason the war is not supported is a combination of 2 things:

(1) by The Democrats in league with the Treason Media have perpetrated a non-stop, virulent campaign of obscene lies, distortions, and very convenient selection of facts in a deliberate attempt to (a) subvert and negate whatever successes take place, and (b) turn the American people against the war.

(2) George W Bush and his administration have been TERRIBLE in terms of defending the war, the tactics, and the successes, in the face of that treasonous campaign of lies and distortions. Instead, they have hunkered down, said practically nothing, and allowed our military, Republicans, and Americans to twist in the wind.

I took that same oath, and served in the USAF for 8 years. So did John Murtha, and he should be in prison.

Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO

I guess you have a different view of freedom than me.

Small Government is Beautiful.
-Carla Howell

Lose the attitude, by the way.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

I was referring to his Murtha comment. I'll worry about my attitude, you worry about yours.
Small Government is Beautiful.
-Carla Howell

If you had, you might have known that you were technically under a ban the second you started talking about Ron Paul. Mouthing off to a site moderator was merely the garnish.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Although he is correct by the letter of the law that we did not Declare War and therefore the war is not constitutional, He should have never equated the war to being immoral. His supporters and the "troofers" who tagged along with them killed any chances that Ron Paul had. At least that's my take on it.

"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy

conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!

Not to take this thread in a whole other direction, but I don't mind Ron Paul except for three big things:

1.) The war

Sorry, abandoning Iraq is NOT a good move. End of story.

2.) Removal of the CIA.

Also kind of a 'tin foil hat' type move. It serves no purpose as far as I can tell.

3.) The ties to racist groups.

Now, I'm not saying that Ron Paul is racist, I don't know him. I am suggesting that he has not distanced himself from radically racist white supremist groups. He took their money and refused to distance himself from them, that's just not good in my mind.

Independence is Freedom. Dependence is Slavery.

and ideologues tend to ignore real world intrusions into their theories. I have a friend who' brother emailed him 20 or so talking points from the Paul campaign. Of the 10 my friend didn't demolish when replying to both his brother and I, I knocked out 5 more. The 5 that were left weren't much of a platform.

I'd love to see these talking points and how you "demolished" them.

"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy

conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!

Rank and file Republicans ALSO are frustrated with our government. Colossally. Epically. But that hasnt' served to drive us to Mr. "Illegal War".

Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO

I would argue that nominating McCain shows that rank and file Republicans aren't frustrated enough. Now, that's a subjective claim, but it's where I stand on it anyway. I'm not going to give my vote to any candidate who wants to keep increasing the size of government, and I'm not going to give my vote to a candidate that doesn't know even the basic principles of economics.

There's a great deal of controversy, on RS and everywhere else conservatives gather, regarding how the McCain nomination came to be. You can argue that rank and file Republicans got him the nomination, and I'd argue otherwise. I'll drop it here, lest the entire site re-kindle some of the nastiness we've had over that very question.

But at the end, I still contend rank & file Repubs are very restless and very interested in a 'back to what made us great' movement.

Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

there are others. Nowhere near enough, but we got em.

Unfair. Unbalanced. Unmedicated. -- IMAO

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

As I mentioned above, don't leave out Sam Johnson.