America's heartland sees little need for a political insurrection

Contrary to what some folks say about a general political uprising:

"QUEEN CITY, MO. -- It would seem like the wrong kind of year for Roy Blunt to go looking for a promotion.

The conservative Republican congressman is the picture of the Washington insider. Blunt rose through the House GOP ranks as the party's emissary to K Street lobbyists. His wife is a prominent lobbyist. He raises more money from lobbyists than just about any of his House colleagues and is unapologetic about wringing money from the federal budget to benefit his home state.

In other words, he is just the type of candidate voters are supposed to be shunning this year in favor of angry outsiders who say they will overturn the Blunt way of doing things.

Yet so far, this baggage doesn't appear to be hurting him. Blunt is running far ahead of his Republican primary challengers in the race to replace retiring Sen. Christopher S. "Kit" Bond (R). And polls show he is even with or slightly ahead of the Democratic candidate, Robin Carnahan. A seat that a year ago seemed to be one of the Democrats' best pickup chances is now viewed by both parties as up for grabs.

It could be that Carnahan, who is from a prominent political family, is viewed by Missouri voters as an establishment candidate herself. Or that Democrats are so unpopular at the moment in this all-important swing state that any Republican on the ballot would be running strong.

But it may be something else -- less apparent but more significant: that contrary to the simplistic "get rid of them all" narrative that has come to define news coverage of the 2010 elections, the voters here, and in nearby states, are more willing to trust veterans of the political system to sort out the nation's problems. "

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/03/AR2010070303110_pf.html

Very interesting, but I still don't see that the Dems will take a total loss in the November election......I do believe Americans are primed to throw almost anyone under the bus that is a Washington insider. Doesn't matter which party they are affiliated with.

The problem I see with all that is as soon as they land on Capital Hill the game must be played in order to stay in it. Washington corrupts most of them. Not to speak of the intoxicating power of the office, whichever office they manage to secure. The corruption now spans from the Oval Office right down to the counties and cities. The US has pretty much become a cesspool of corruption, that is in the process of helping to bring us down. Very few, if any, have purely noble goals in serving the American people be they Democrats or Republicans. Sad but true.

[quote="Teelynn, post:2, topic:204239"]

The problem I see with all that is as soon as they land on Capital Hill the game must be played in order to stay in it. Washington corrupts most of them.

[/quote]

I would say that DC seduces many of them with the well-known 'Potomac fever'. Aren't Tom DeLay and Cheney still in the DC area? They are not from there, I guess they like the climate.

[quote="Beau_Ouiville, post:1, topic:204239"]
Contrary to what some folks say about a general political uprising:

"QUEEN CITY, MO. -- It would seem like the wrong kind of year for Roy Blunt to go looking for a promotion.

The conservative Republican congressman is the picture of the Washington insider. Blunt rose through the House GOP ranks as the party's emissary to K Street lobbyists. His wife is a prominent lobbyist. He raises more money from lobbyists than just about any of his House colleagues and is unapologetic about wringing money from the federal budget to benefit his home state.

In other words, he is just the type of candidate voters are supposed to be shunning this year in favor of angry outsiders who say they will overturn the Blunt way of doing things.

Yet so far, this baggage doesn't appear to be hurting him. Blunt is running far ahead of his Republican primary challengers in the race to replace retiring Sen. Christopher S. "Kit" Bond (R). And polls show he is even with or slightly ahead of the Democratic candidate, Robin Carnahan. A seat that a year ago seemed to be one of the Democrats' best pickup chances is now viewed by both parties as up for grabs.

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/03/AR2010070303110_pf.html

[/quote]

Its more of a Carnahan repudiation. The Carnahans are the closest thing to a Kennedy family in MO, but MUCH more inept. Rep brother Russ has had a huge amount of backlash.

The picture is MO is more anti-Carnahan than anti-incumbent.

[quote="Teelynn, post:2, topic:204239"]
Very interesting, but I still don't see that the Dems will take a total loss in the November election......I do believe Americans are primed to throw almost anyone under the bus that is a Washington insider. Doesn't matter which party they are affiliated with.

The problem I see with all that is as soon as they land on Capital Hill the game must be played in order to stay in it. Washington corrupts most of them. Not to speak of the intoxicating power of the office, whichever office they manage to secure. The corruption now spans from the Oval Office right down to the counties and cities. The US has pretty much become a cesspool of corruption, that is in the process of helping to bring us down. Very few, if any, have purely noble goals in serving the American people be they Democrats or Republicans. Sad but true.

[/quote]

I'm guessing that the way Washington "works" is something that has developed over the decades since the first Congress, and probably, it actually works pretty well and there are good reasons for why things are done the way they are done.

New people come to town with grandiose plans of re-writing the procedure manual, and then when they discover that the manual has already been written and that it's actually a pretty good plan and doesn't need drastic changes. The new people realize that they were ignorant and naive, so they back off and settle in and get to work and try to ignore it when people accuse them of betraying their vision.

I'm guessing that Pres. Obama made that discovery early on. All his talk of not doing things the "same old way" in Washington turned out to be just naivety on his part.

It's not the methods that corrupt people. People become corrupt because of their own sins.

[quote="scipio337, post:4, topic:204239"]
Its more of a Carnahan repudiation. The Carnahans are the closest thing to a Kennedy family in MO, but MUCH more inept. Rep brother Russ has had a huge amount of backlash.

The picture is MO is more anti-Carnahan than anti-incumbent.

[/quote]

But Blunt is not running against Carnahan but against a anti-Washington Republican. And he is a consumate insider.

"When it comes to the Republican primary, Blunt says he's in good shape — and he points to a campaign contribution from Sarah Palin, whose endorsement Purgason hopes for.

"She's obviously an important figure in American politics today and everybody would like to have her help," Blunt says.

Blunt says he doesn't see the Tea Party movement as antagonistic to him as a longtime lawmaker.

"I think we're going to do very well among members of the Tea Party movement, and I think we'll be able to keep those people energized — not just up through Election Day but, just as importantly, after Election Day, as we really do try to deal with the spending problems, with the focus problems, with the definition problems of the federal government."

npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127990023

So, the tea parties are not really insurrectionists against all Washington insiders.

[quote="Beau_Ouiville, post:6, topic:204239"]
But Blunt is not running against Carnahan but against a anti-Washington Republican. And he is a consumate insider.

"When it comes to the Republican primary, Blunt says he's in good shape — and he points to a campaign contribution from Sarah Palin, whose endorsement Purgason hopes for.

"She's obviously an important figure in American politics today and everybody would like to have her help," Blunt says.

Blunt says he doesn't see the Tea Party movement as antagonistic to him as a longtime lawmaker.

"I think we're going to do very well among members of the Tea Party movement, and I think we'll be able to keep those people energized — not just up through Election Day but, just as importantly, after Election Day, as we really do try to deal with the spending problems, with the focus problems, with the definition problems of the federal government."

npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127990023

So, the tea parties are not really insurrectionists against all Washington insiders.

[/quote]

Blunt is running against Carnahan. They're the only candidates with a given chance.

Purgason is a candidate from a rural district, with limited statewide recognition.

I would say : "the tea parties are not really insurrectionists against all Washington insiders in this particular race, or at least view Blunt as the lesser of a Washington insider in this race.

Maybe it’s because the heartland is hardly the problem. It’s the east, more specifically the northeast, and west…with the exception of Illinois. Northern MO. has gotten pretty liberal from what I’ve heard as well. The more liberal this country gets the bigger our problems become.

Consider the source.

[quote="Beau_Ouiville, post:1, topic:204239"]
Contrary to what some folks say about a general political uprising:

"QUEEN CITY, MO. -- It would seem like the wrong kind of year for Roy Blunt to go looking for a promotion.

The conservative Republican congressman is the picture of the Washington insider. Blunt rose through the House GOP ranks as the party's emissary to K Street lobbyists. His wife is a prominent lobbyist. He raises more money from lobbyists than just about any of his House colleagues and is unapologetic about wringing money from the federal budget to benefit his home state.

In other words, he is just the type of candidate voters are supposed to be shunning this year in favor of angry outsiders who say they will overturn the Blunt way of doing things.

Yet so far, this baggage doesn't appear to be hurting him. Blunt is running far ahead of his Republican primary challengers in the race to replace retiring Sen. Christopher S. "Kit" Bond (R). And polls show he is even with or slightly ahead of the Democratic candidate, Robin Carnahan. A seat that a year ago seemed to be one of the Democrats' best pickup chances is now viewed by both parties as up for grabs.

It could be that Carnahan, who is from a prominent political family, is viewed by Missouri voters as an establishment candidate herself. Or that Democrats are so unpopular at the moment in this all-important swing state that any Republican on the ballot would be running strong.

But it may be something else -- less apparent but more significant: that contrary to the simplistic "get rid of them all" narrative that has come to define news coverage of the 2010 elections, the voters here, and in nearby states, are more willing to trust veterans of the political system to sort out the nation's problems. "

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/03/AR2010070303110_pf.html

[/quote]

Regardless of aht kind of spin the Washigton post puts on things come November the Democrats are going to find the light at the end of the tunnel is a train.

[quote="bbarrick8383, post:8, topic:204239"]
Maybe it's because the heartland is hardly the problem. It's the east, more specifically the northeast, and west....with the exception of Illinois. Northern MO. has gotten pretty liberal from what I've heard as well. The more liberal this country gets the bigger our problems become.

[/quote]

Trouble right here in River City with a capital T! Run for the hills.

[quote="bbarrick8383, post:8, topic:204239"]
Maybe it's because the heartland is hardly the problem. It's the east, more specifically the northeast, and west....with the exception of Illinois. Northern MO. has gotten pretty liberal from what I've heard as well. The more liberal this country gets the bigger our problems become.

Consider the source.

[/quote]

Not sure what you consider "northern Mo". Definitely the Mo part of KC tends to be Democrat, and St. Louis City is always heavily Democrat and, of course, many more votes are cast there than there are voters. The remainder of the St. Louis metro area can go either way. The county where the U of Mo is, is Democrat. Otherwise, it's pretty much a Republican state, including the whole "Little Dixie" area along the Mo River, long a Democrat stronghold, which is rapidly turning Republican. Mo. did go for McCain in 2008.

Blunt is from the 7th District, farther south, which is exceptionally conservative, and which any Republican has to win big in order to overcome St. Louis City. Blunt is pretty conservative, but he is definitely "establishment" Republican. He has been a member of the House forever.

Democrats can't win as liberals in Mo, and have to be conservative or pretend to be, in order to win. I'm not sure Robin Carnahan can pull that off, but she might. Blunt is a very clever politician, and it would be foolish to count him out just because he's "establishment".

[quote="Beau_Ouiville, post:1, topic:204239"]
Contrary to what some folks say about a general political uprising:

"QUEEN CITY, MO. -- It would seem like the wrong kind of year for Roy Blunt to go looking for a promotion.

The conservative Republican congressman is the picture of the Washington insider. Blunt rose through the House GOP ranks as the party's emissary to K Street lobbyists. His wife is a prominent lobbyist. He raises more money from lobbyists than just about any of his House colleagues and is unapologetic about wringing money from the federal budget to benefit his home state.

In other words, he is just the type of candidate voters are supposed to be shunning this year in favor of angry outsiders who say they will overturn the Blunt way of doing things.

Yet so far, this baggage doesn't appear to be hurting him. Blunt is running far ahead of his Republican primary challengers in the race to replace retiring Sen. Christopher S. "Kit" Bond (R). And polls show he is even with or slightly ahead of the Democratic candidate, Robin Carnahan. A seat that a year ago seemed to be one of the Democrats' best pickup chances is now viewed by both parties as up for grabs.

It could be that Carnahan, who is from a prominent political family, is viewed by Missouri voters as an establishment candidate herself. Or that Democrats are so unpopular at the moment in this all-important swing state that any Republican on the ballot would be running strong.

But it may be something else -- less apparent but more significant: that contrary to the simplistic "get rid of them all" narrative that has come to define news coverage of the 2010 elections, the voters here, and in nearby states, are more willing to trust veterans of the political system to sort out the nation's problems. "

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/03/AR2010070303110_pf.html

[/quote]

It's no surprise that Blunt is miles ahead of any other Repub contender. The huge Repub vote is in Blunt's district, and no Repub can win a primary without it.

Insurrection will probably begin in the Gulf States.

[quote="Ridgerunner, post:11, topic:204239"]
Not sure what you consider "northern Mo". Definitely the Mo part of KC tends to be Democrat, and St. Louis City is always heavily Democrat and, of course, many more votes are cast there than there are voters. The remainder of the St. Louis metro area can go either way. The county where the U of Mo is, is Democrat. Otherwise, it's pretty much a Republican state, including the whole "Little Dixie" area along the Mo River, long a Democrat stronghold, which is rapidly turning Republican. Mo. did go for McCain in 2008.

[/quote]

Come to think of it, it was a few years back, I'm pretty sure it was there I was driving through anyway. One of the locals told me that the southern half and conservative folks were fighting off gambling among other such things that were taking over in the northern half.

[quote="bbarrick8383, post:14, topic:204239"]
Come to think of it, it was a few years back, I'm pretty sure it was there I was driving through anyway. One of the locals told me that the southern half and conservative folks were fighting off gambling among other such things that were taking over in the northern half.

[/quote]

I can understand that as a shorthand way of expressing it. It is true that the southernmost third or so of the state is the most conservative, particularly the SW part, which is Blunt's district. But outside of maybe five counties, the whole state is pretty conservative and might be getting more so in voting pattern as the Democrat party keeps redefining itself more and more leftward. Possibly the biggest changes in that way have been the "Little Dixie" area along the Missouri River (which is pretty far north) and the "Delta country" in the southeast. They used to be solidly Democrat, but aren't anymore, particularly the former.

It's interesting though, that when it comes to gambling, that comes up every now and then in Branson, but gets defeated. There is gambling in the SW portion, but it's all Indian casinos. As in Ok, the locals have no say in that.

The way I see it, there will be no real insurrection because it is counterproductive. Much of a candidate's popularity will be based not on decreasing taxes and spending in Washington but on bringing as much of the "bacon" back to his or her home state. Those best at bringing this pork product home are the established political insiders. You can get elected as a newbie and push for hard-core fiscal restraint and responsible debt payback, but if the seasoned senator from the next state takes both his share of the revenues and yours, you lose.

Until America elects a Congress and Senate who ALL agree to decrease the size of government and put the responsibility for getting things done in the hands of individuals, there will be no turning back from this mess. Unless everyone agrees to do this, there will always be someone who is going to selfishly maneuver for the lion's share of what tax revenues are coming in, and anyone else not playing this game will be considered a fool.

Things will always need to be done. The choice is, self-sufficiency vs. government delivery. I think the majority will choose government, because they have lost the sense of their own capability and responsibility, and lost faith in themselves as individuals.

[quote="timotheos, post:16, topic:204239"]
The way I see it, there will be no real insurrection because it is counterproductive. Much of a candidate's popularity will be based not on decreasing taxes and spending in Washington but on bringing as much of the "bacon" back to his or her home state. Those best at bringing this pork product home are the established political insiders. You can get elected as a newbie and push for hard-core fiscal restraint and responsible debt payback, but if the seasoned senator from the next state takes both his share of the revenues and yours, you lose.

Until America elects a Congress and Senate who ALL agree to decrease the size of government and put the responsibility for getting things done in the hands of individuals, there will be no turning back from this mess. Unless everyone agrees to do this, there will always be someone who is going to selfishly maneuver for the lion's share of what tax revenues are coming in, and anyone else not playing this game will be considered a fool.

Things will always need to be done. The choice is, self-sufficiency vs. government delivery. I think the majority will choose government, because they have lost the sense of their own capability and responsibility, and lost faith in themselves as individuals.

[/quote]

I don't know what our future holds. But it sure would be neat to travel back in time to see what was being said in the pubs during the 1700's.

[quote="Seamus_L, post:13, topic:204239"]
Insurrection will probably begin in the Gulf States.

[/quote]

Or Arizona.

The midterm elections will be a vote against the Democratic majority not a vote against incumbency. Anyone saying otherwise is in denial.

[quote="Ocean52680, post:19, topic:204239"]
The midterm elections will be a vote against the Democratic majority not a vote against incumbency. Anyone saying otherwise is in denial.

[/quote]

The Washington Post had an Article the other day about Whites abandoning Obama. You can see the theme for the democrat defeat is already being constructed:

  1. Racial Backlash against Obama
  2. Anti-incumbent sentiment 3, Failure of the people to understand their accomplishments

What you will not see is the democrats admitting there is little support for their radical agenda. Instea,d after calling us all racist ,they will wring their hands and moan about how Right Wing talk radio distorted their accomplishments and if people just understood what a great job they had done they would have won

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.