The Tea Party strikes again. Senator Orin Hatch of Utah is looking like he might lose his primary to Tea Party candidate Dan Liljenquist. After 36 years in Congress, Hatch may not be the poster child of everything that is wrong with Washington, but cutting him loose sends yet another clear message to our elected officials. Fail to cut the budget, and you are fired. Erode more civil liberties, and you are fired. Increase the size of government, and you are fired. Hatch, whose seat would be quite secure in Utah for the general election, is really only in a position to be removed by his own party. That is exactly what is happening. A few polls put out prior to today's primary had Hatch at 60% to Liljenquist's 21%, but a concerned Hatch filled the caucus' with his supporters. When the dust settled, Hatch got just 58% of the vote, forcing him to face a primary challenger this year. To hear Hatch talk about his loss, you'd think these weren't Republicans throwing him out of office. Astounding how Freedom Works, practically the founding funding for the Tea Party movement, is suddenly called a "Libertarian" group, rather than what it is. The Tea Party. I guess Hatch vs The Tea Party isn't really the type of political headline Hatch wants. Mind you, there is definitely a deep libertarian influence in the Tea Party, and perhaps we should all take a moment and thank Ron Paul for that. That aside, Hatch needs to get over himself. This is not about one man, or Dick Armey would be running for another seat in government. This is about real change. This is about holding politicians accountable to their actions and their voting record. Perhaps the most stunning thing about the referendum on Hatch is the willingness of Republican voters to throw one of their own under the bus for the 2012 Defense Reauthorization Act which, with some specific alterations made by the Obama admin, allows the US military to detain US citizens indefinitely without charge or trial. I only call it stunning because it seems the Democratic party is willing to stand behind their president even as he wipes his a$$ with the constitution. It would seem liberals don't care too much about liberty at all. In 2004, one would have thought the continued existence of Guantanamo bay was the only reason they needed to throw Bush out of office. Even the ACLU has come out against it, though they haven't filed suit against it like they have the laws in states who try and protect the integrity of their electoral process and borders.
Frankly that should be placed on a recording and sent out to each elected or appointed official as a wakeup call every damned morning. When GSA officials are jetting all over the country wasting money including multi-week personal trips to the south pacific for their wife's birthday at taxpayer expense, bailouts keep helping the very people that cause our problems while they give themselves bonuses with the bailout funds, the president's handing out sacks of cash in half billion dollar quantities to any loyal democrat that claims he has a green idea, the attorney generals crew is running guns to drug lords, and people have to go to the pawn shop if they want their gas tank full because god forbid we drill our own damned oil... I really dont want to hear about a fucking "fiscal crisis". The crisis is we keep electing people to DC who couldnt be trusted to babysit a dog. If the job isnt being done, remove them. Doesnt matter if theyre DNC or GOP... just remove them.
With the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, it received higher support from Republicans than Democrats. I can understand why he would think of someone against it as being Libertarian.
I guess I don't see the indefinite detention of US citizens as a libertarian issue. It is a direct violation of the Constitution. I also don't see "Well more Republicans voted for it than Democrats", as any kind of excuse. If anything, Republicans are thought of as foreign policy hawks, and Democrats are supposed to be about civil liberty. This makes the president who pushed it and every Democrat who voted for it a hypocrite, while Republicans can argue that they were simply providing the president the tools he needs to defend the country. Why aren't the Democrats cleaning house? Why are they pushing so hard to support a president who stands in direct opposition to a core value they claim to possess? There are other Republicans who voted for the NDAA who will not face a primary challenge for a variety or reasons. Lack of a viable alternative candidate, limited resources to fund the opposition. Mostly, Hatch has a voting record of supporting big government, so his NDAA vote is icing on the cake. Anyone remember this speech? This is the type of speech that had the president at such a high popularity rating a little over three years ago. [video=youtube;j024AGIIu9g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j024AGIIu9g&feature=fvwrel[/video] Apparently, going over the budget line by line yielded a 40% increase in the baseline federal budget. It would have been better if he had left it at the outrageously idiotic levels Bush had helped bring it to. More than that, one has to appreciate the blatant dishonesty and double speak.
It looks like many Democrats tried to fight it. If you look at the House vote (in my last link), over twice as many Republicans voted Yes for this, than did Democrats. I think it's the same with the Patriot Act. So, my point is just that if Hatch supported the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, he would be a typical Republican. Just like Romney, we've discussed this, he would have signed the NDAA too. I wasn't implying that it's only a Libertarian issue. But they are the most reliably opposed to the government instituting big government policies that sacrifice our civil liberty.
The Senate adopted the act in a vote of 98 to 1. I guess they didn't try too hard. The president threatened to veto without the clause allowing him to incarcerate without trial. He is the only person who, as an individual, could have made or broken the bills passage. Seriously Rebecca, if the Republicans in congress told me they "tried to fight" a bill that raised everyone's taxes and then later voted 98 to 1 to raise those taxes, I wouldn't be so willing to forgive them. Even more so of a president, as he is a one stop shop. Are you telling me that is somehow good enough for you?
At least Obama is cool, unlike Mitt Romney. [video=youtube;lhXGkeMdOJs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=lhXGkeMdOJs[/video]
Agreed. After November maybe the cool guy can go be a judge on American Idol or somesuch where being cool means something and leave economic and foreign policy to serious adults with business experience and a clue. Not sure we can afford 4 more years of "cool".