Actually, we might.
The problem is one we voted our way into, so the same could provide the solution.
It would require a fundamental shift in people's perception of what the government is for and how much power it should have.
It's not that we cannot vote in a manner that will remove the problem officials; it's that we don't.
I've posited before that 2006 was an early attempt to do something like that. Romney is an excellent example of my hypothesis.
I've said that I believe that we voted in a buttload of democrats in 2006 because we were shut out of the primary process on incumbent RINOs. If the party wasn't going to allow us to remove an incumbent via the primary process, we only had one other recourse: vote for the other team. 2008 showed us that the national "leadership" had not learned or even noticed when they selected McCain. They are showing us they learned nothing by attempting to put Romney up now. Even with the Marco Rubio lesson.
What happened in 2006-2008 was a rejection of RINO and not an endorsement of Democrat. The Democrats read it wrong too.
The process is broken and you need to get involved to fix it.
Click here to submit $0.00 US for a lifetime subscription
Posts
Comments
Neither party will ever reform itself. With the possible exception of labor unions, the Republican party and the Democratic party are owned by the same people. We need a viable third party to force the other two to behave. Or term limits. Fresh face every few years, in leadership positions, are more likely to be independent of the special interests. They might actually serve the people who elected them.
ReplyDeleteCorrect, they aren't going to reform themselves. The primaries are where we get to tell them the anointed candidate is unacceptable.
ReplyDeleteIt means getting off our asses; of course.
This is exactly how we got Rubio instead of Crist for a US Senator.
This is also why they blind sided us in 2007 with McCain by the time I got to vote for my primary candidate they'd fucked us.