SEPTEMBER
5, 2006 --
The
front page of The Washington Post, September 3, declared (col.
1) that Republicans, this November, face the loss of their
majority in the House of Representatives and holding "at
best a slim majority in the Senate, according to strategists
and officials in both parties."
The lead story in The New York Times, September 4, declared:
G.O.P.
FACES PERIL
OF LOSING HOUSE,
STRATEGISTS SAY
The
Times story stated that Republicans were "in serious jeopardy" of
losing House control and faced "the possibility of major
losses in the Senate."
These predictions were attributed to "analysts and strategists
in both parties...."
LPR will not snipe that The New York Times seems to have become a rewrite
of The Washington Post -- on national politics, at least. Actually,
in LPR's
view, one does not have to be a party official, analyst, or strategist
to sense that the Republicans are vulnerable this election day. (One
might, however, pine at not receiving the stipends enjoyed by party
officials, strategists and analysts."
LPR has long advised the GOP to follow the guide of Federalist 57,
and to be more assertive in responding to demagogic
attack from Democrats.
Last week, the proprietor of a local coffee shop said that people tell
him to vote
for his representative and he then asked: "Who is my representative?" -
adding he does not feel anyone represents him.
But we do not hear Republicans
pledging to follow Federalist 57 and to represent the people for the
common good, not seek to rule them -- the preference, I believe, of
Democrats.
Perhaps Republicans listen only to highly-paid analysts, strategists
and consultants, and don't have time for free and gratuitous suggestions.
Well then, is there a high-paid politico to blame Republicans for the
refusal of Democrats to work with them for the common good.
|
|
Republicans,
unable to gain popular support beyond their 1994 House totals,
have, by their narrow wins since then have, arguably, encouraged Democrats,
to adopt an opposition by obstacle political stance.
Republicans seem preoccupied with concern that the media will denounce
them 24/7/365. Goodness, the GOP
should expect biased and distorted reporting from the media. And deal
with it.
Has a Republican
responded to phony Democratic claims of civil liberties abuses
reminded voters how Patricia Mendoza was treated for shouting a somewhat
offensive term at President Clinton?
Arrest -- and later, dismissal of the charges.
Or reminded people of the similar experiences of William J. Kelly, and
Rev. Rob Schenck? Not to my knowledge.
The Republicans, I believe, have retained narrow majorities in Congress,
only through the intervention of a Divine Providence that continues to
look kindly on the American people and protect them, still, from the
party of arbitrary rule and ruthless ambition.
Still, perhaps even the patience of Divine Providence can wear thin.
LPR believes it is not enough for the GOP to run on a fear campaign (perhaps
the person who should most fear a Democratic Congress is the president).
The GOP ought to be positive -- and assure voters that it will follow
the counsel of Federalist 57 that officials should serve the common good
and stay close to the people -- or tyranny happens.
LPR here presents this Freedom of Information question to the GOP --
are you committed to represent the people as
provided by our Constitution, or do you see no difference between representing
the people -- and ruling over them?
Yes, Republicans, the media will be rooting for the Democrats; will you
let the Democrats root you out?
|
|