“Clueless” Was A Very Funny Movie. In A Political Party… Not So Much

The following is an exchange of emails I’ve had recently with my US Congressman, Howard “Buck” McKeon.

This is the text of the opening salvo, which I sent to him via email through his website on January 14th:

buck“Well, Buck, I got your email a couple of weeks ago saying how you and your fellow Republicans had managed to cut a deal with Commissar Obama to avert the fabled ‘fiscal cliff’, and that you’d voted for it.

“Sadly, that deal didn’t include one penny of spending cuts that I can see, just some vague promise of maybe doing something about it somewhere down the road… maybe. In other words, you Republicans got snookered, plain and simple. You guys clearly don’t even know how to negotiate, let alone stand firm for any of the principles you CLAIM to represent.

“Now I’m reading in the news that Dear Leader is taking the position that spending cuts aren’t even on the table in the upcoming battle over raising the debt ceiling. And I have to tell you, if I were in his shoes with his goals, I’d be doing the exact same thing. Because from his point of view, he’s not facing any meaningful opposition at all. After all, the only thing you guys seem to know how to do is give up.

“So, what’s going to happen this time, Buck? You guys going to finally grow a spine – and maybe some balls – and actually stand firm for something? Or are you simply going to make a lot of noise just before you hoist up the white flag again? Isn’t that flag getting a little tattered by now?

“This is exactly why four years ago I gave up my GOP membership of almost forty years and re-registered as ‘Decline To State’, which as you know is this state’s equivalent of Independent. Because I’m a CONSERVATIVE first, and any party affiliation comes a distant second. And quite frankly, it’s reached the point where I see little correlation between traditional American conservatism and your political party anymore. Nor any appetite or ability for waging the requisite battle for principles.”

To which he responded with the following emailed letter (forgive the format errors in the letter, which occurred when I removed my mailing address for obvious reasons):

January 22, 2013Mr. Brian R. Baker

Dear Mr. Baker:

Thank you for contacting me in regard to   federal spending and the debt limit. It is a privilege to serve you in Congress   and I value your input.

First of all, as we begin this new   session of Congress, our government must work together to fix America’s   addiction to spending. I do not believe that the President should have sole   authority over raising the debt ceiling. This is a function and   responsibility of the legislative branch.

As we continue down this uncertain road,   we must keep in mind that raising taxes can only get us so far. We must   seriously address the out of control spending that is driving our debt. Already   in just the first two months of this fiscal year, we saw an increase of $57   billion in the federal deficit compared to this time last fiscal year.   Washington clearly has a spending problem that no increase in revenue could   possibly keep pace with. Unless we make serious institutional reforms to our   spending problem, we will never get our fiscal house in order.

As the 113th Congress begins, I can   assure you that I will continue fighting to get our nation’s serious spending   problem under control and get our nation’s economy back on track. I can also   assure you that I am working closely with the Speaker to come to a deal with   the President and the Senate that protects our troops and national security   from the devastating sequestration cuts.

For more information on my work in   Congress, please sign up for my E-newsletter and text message updates and visit   my Web site www.mckeon.house.gov.   You can also interact with me on Facebook, YouTube   and Twitter.   Thank you again for contacting me; please feel free to continue to inform me   of your views on issues important to you.

Sincerely, Howard P. “Buck” McKeon
Member of Congress

And here’s my response, sent today:

“Buck, thanks for your response letter, but I have to tell you that I’m very disappointed in what you wrote.

“I expressed some very specific issues and concerns, particularly about how you Republicans have become weak-kneed (to put it kindly), an opinion that seems to have been recently reflected at your own Williamsburg retreat when Bobby Jindal said – accurately – that you have become ‘the stupid party’. Yet you respond to me with boilerplate and standard-issue talking points that are NOWHERE backed up with any action that I can see.

“YOU VOTED FOR THE DEBT CEILING INCREASE! So where’s all this action on ‘out of control spending’ you wrote about, when you guys caved in without getting one single concession in return? Talk is cheap, Buck, and actions speak a whole lot louder than words. And now, apparently, you guys are ready to do it once again, with another three month extension, kicking the can down the road and simply bending over for the Commissar.

“You state that you ‘… will continue fighting to get our nation’s serious spending problem under control…’. Well, at exactly WHAT point do you guys plan on starting to put up that fight, if ever?

“Pathetic, Buck. Simply pathetic.

“I’ll be posting this exchange on my blogs so all of my readers can enjoy the spectacle of another wimpy GOP political hack twisting in the wind, talking tough while cowering in the corner. All hat, no cattle. Talking the talk, with no idea how to walk the walk.

“Here are the links:
https://theviewfromtheisland.wordpress.com/
http://viewfromtheisland.blogtownhall.com/

“I hope you enjoy reading about yourself.

“Brian Baker”

sighThis perfectly illustrates the problem with the GOP. In its perpetual stupidity and uncanny ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, the drones who run it refuse to learn the very simple lesson of history – that real conservatism sells – and keep nominating candidates who aren’t in the least “Reaganesque” or conservative. Dole? Bush? McAmnesty? Romney? You kidding me?

The “country” isn’t electing Obama and other socialists. Conservatives aren’t voting at ALL, in huge numbers, because there isn’t anyone worth showing up at the polls for. It’s THAT simple.

Run a REAL Reagan conservative and see what happens. Can anyone say “landslide”?

Instead we now have Boehner and McConnell and a bunch of other wimpy, weak-kneed, spineless jellyfish so afraid of their own shadows that they give away the store at every opportunity. And my own congressman, McKeon, seems to fit right into that mold.

Where is a GOPer who will stand up and tell it like it is? Who will actually FIGHT for their principles, without worrying about what the NY Times and Washington Post have to say about them?

I see a VERY few. Rand Paul’s been sounding good (not wacky like his dad). Jindal. A few others.

The rest of the Establishment GOP hacks? A bunch of hot air generators who fold like laundered sheets when it actually counts.

© Brian Baker 2013

Advertisements

40 comments on ““Clueless” Was A Very Funny Movie. In A Political Party… Not So Much

  1. gunnyginalaska says:

    Solid gold brother. The GOP is the Gutless Old Pukes and have been since they got old and sodded after Bush 41. There ain’t a dime’s bit of difference between them and the Democraps. BOTH parties are on their way out, IMO. The Dems are fragmented and held together by spit and gimmedats and the GOP are simply olf tired fuckwits like Saxby, who have done nothing but feather their nests at our expense.

    As I have said for a very long time now, WE the MAKERS are NOT represented in a government that only looks out for the TAKERS.

    • BrianR says:

      Thanks, Gunny.

      Yep, you’re right, and I have to say, I am TIRED of them pissing on my leg and telling me it’s raining.

  2. captbogus@yahoo.com says:

    Seems every politician votes with one eye on garnering as much of the 47% as they can and the rest of you… well… you don’t really count any more.

  3. The Tea Party insurgency of 2010 in the US Congress has been completely crushed. Why? Lack of leadership and organization.

    If the representatives we send to Congress can’t get organized and lead then there is no chance of offering an effective response to the Democrat Party.

    The re-election of Barack Obama signaled that the Tea Party America established in 1776 has collapsed. We now live in a post-constitutional America and there is no going back.

    Sad to say that the Conservatives we send to Congress are nothing but stooges who either do what they are told or else they are marginalized and rendered impotent.

    • BrianR says:

      Yep, it’s a pretty grim scenario. Reagan fought for smaller government, but since him the GOP has left the field, so there’s absolutely no one really fighting government bloat and power grab.

      The Tea Party made inroads, but as you said, they weren’t really organized, and so have faded. It’s a real shame, because we were (and still are) at a point in history analogous to the 1850s when the GOP replaced the WHIGs, but there’s no one poised in the wings right now to do the same thing to the GOP. That’s really what needs to happen.

      Thanks for taming the time to comment, BTW.

  4. garnet92 says:

    I have to disagree with “the rabbit hole guy” who apparently believes that the Tea Party coalition is dead. I do think that we got kicked in the balls this past election (after believing, via the polls, that we could/would win the Presidency). I know I did, and I’m only now beginning to rise up out of that funk. We need to band together (even though loosely) again and convince more that our voices can and will be heard.

    If WE give up, who will fight Obama, Feinstein, Pelosi, Reid, Shumer, etc.?

    I’m not willing to give up even though we have precious little representation in Congress. We have an opportunity in 2014 to add to our House majority and to retake the Senate. Yes, we’ll still have to deal with Tan John and McConnell, both of whom are less than worthless, but perhaps they can fake having balls if we have a majority of both houses.

    I’m hoping that the gun control issue will force some dems in red districts to vote against it or face the wrath of gun owners in 2014. The upcoming immigration fight can also be made to work to our advantage. I believe that MOST citizens do not want a porous border and don’t believe that a massive invasion of illegals is good for the country.

    Anyway, though I was crushed for a couple of weeks after Yomama’s win, I’m getting recharged to win big in the mid-terms next year.

    God help us if the dems win back the House or extend their majority in the Senate. And we have to realize that one or more Supremes will probably die or retire during the next four years – that will be hard enough for our Constitution to survive.

    We simply CAN NOT GIVE UP.

    • BrianR says:

      Great points. Of course, “we” Tea Party folks didn’t get kicked in the balls; and I don’t think “we” believed “that we could/would win the Presidency”, because, of course, Romney had about as much to do with conservatism and the Tea Party as Rosie O’Donut has to do with dietary constraint. He’s not part of that “we”.

      That having been said, I don’t think we’re giving up. I know I’M certainly not. We do need to do something about the GOP hacks who are wrecking that party, hence this essay.

      I agree with you. I think the Dems have made a HUGE strategic and tactical error in trying to bring gun control to the front burner again. There are several issues they’ve been able to Energizr Bunny to some level of success, but guns aren’t one of them. That’s an eternal loser for them. Yet they keep making that same mistake from time to time… which is a VERY good thing for us.

      Like you, I think the mid-terms are a terrific opportunity, particularly if they demagogue this gun thing for an extended period of time. The downside, of course, is that there is a pretty large pack of crappy GOPers sitting in Congress right now, and they’re gonna have to prove themselves worth supporting to any level at all. Meaning they’re gonna have to stand tall on the economic issues, and MOST definitely on the gun issue. If they screw that up, they’re toast, plain and simple.

  5. jevica says:

    Brian;

    We [real Conservative voters] cannot give up and just lay down and let them have everything they want.

    We have to keep after the PSP even in states like NY and CA and let them know what they have to do to secure our vote.

    BTW good post.

  6. Gray Ghost (Mississippi) says:

    All:
    God save your majesty!

    Cade:
    I thank you, good people—there shall be no money; all shall eat
    and drink on my score, and I will apparel them all in one livery,
    that they may agree like brothers, and worship me their lord.

    Dick:
    The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.

    Cade:
    Nay, that I mean to do.

    Henry The Sixth, Part 2 Act 4, scene 2

    I would be willing to bet good money that Rep. McKeon is actually a Democrat in disguise. But it does scare me that what the Bard of Avon wrote so many years ago is still true. Because what Shakespeare saw was a government expanding in size and regulations. The middle class was being taxed to death and a “ruling” class was becoming made up of celebraties and “super” rich politicians. (The stagnant conditions in Great Britain and Europe did produce what became the United States. But we no longer have the option of immigrating to the “new world”.)

    My small amount of military training taught me to never under-estimate your enemies. Therefore, what is the end-game of this push by the Democrats of “gun control”? They know that the Red States will get rid of any politician stupid enough to vote for gun control. Is there something that the Democrats know that we don’t know?

    • BrianR says:

      Great and appropriate quote (though in McKeon’s case, he’s not a lawyer). And as to McKeon, he actually is a conservative guy. His biggest problem is that he’s also a “loyal” GOPer who takes his marching orders from the hacks who run the party. He voted for the original “bailouts” — for which I took him to task and refused to vote for him afterward — and screwed up again on this debt ceiling thing. And because he’s in lockstep with the party drones, refusing to break ranks even over basic principle, he’s problematic.

      As to the latest gun control effort of the lefties: IMO their constant efforts to restrict gun rights show me that the Second Amendment is working as it’s supposed to. I have absolutely NO DOUBT that if the Dems managed to achieve their wet dream of banning guns we’d immediately see them trying to impose Draconian and tyrannical laws never before tried in this country. The ONLY thing stopping them is the fear that we redneck yahoos would revolt and kill their sorry asses.

  7. CW says:

    “…real conservatism sells …”

    Damn straight, BrianR.

    Buck McKeon and 90% of his fellow republicans sound like robots. They pay people to search our emails and letters for key words like “fiscal cliff” and “spending cuts,” then someone presses a button that prints out the “fiscal cliff/spending cut” answer and adds your name at the top.

    I don’t expect congressmen to read every piece of mail they receive, but the fact that their pat answers (I’ve received some to) are so non sequitur – so out of touch with our complaints – shows that they have gone deaf. And clearly they have no real fire of their own. We need new blood, that’s the bottom line.

    I like Bobby Jindal but I was not thunderstruck by his speech. While I approve of his suggestion that republicans change their mindset and focus on their constituencies, not just on Washington, he also said things like, “We must stop being the stupid party,” and “We must not be the party that simply protects the well off so they can keep their toys.” How about if we stop being the party that buys into the Left’s portrayal of us as stupid protectors of crony capitalism, and we stop engaging in unnecessary self-flagellation? That might be helpful.

    • BrianR says:

      Great stuff, CW.

      I like the “drone” part. I totally agree. There’s no individualized response, no thought givern to what we axctually write. Like you said: “topic” = canned response.

      The funny thing is, I actually know Buck. I’ve met personally with him on several ocassions, and he’s called me directly at my house. And yet I STILL got a canned non sequitur response.

      • CW says:

        To take it one step further, Brian, it shouldn’t matter whether he knows the person contacting him or not. If there is a better response than the canned answer, why isn’t he using it? It all comes down to what you said about actions vs. words. As long as there is no real action to report, the words are going to ring hollow. That’s really where the problem lies.

        I have a new post, btw.

      • BrianR says:

        Thanks for the heads up. On my way.

  8. clyde says:

    World-class post,brother. Thank GOD it was you instead of me answering his frigging form letter. What with the reelection of the ABSOLUTELY weak,spineless lib-in-repub clothing Reince Priebus for another stint at the RNC,our chances of winning ANYTHING at this point are about like a snowball in hell. This clown couldn’t win a wet tear-a-paper-bag contest,let alone match wits with some of the most ruthless sobs this side of Hades.

  9. thedrpete says:

    When I write to MY congressman, BrianR, he phones me personally on my cell. He’s been known to explain himself well, and I’ve been known to explain myself such that he changes positions and votes.

    • BrianR says:

      Well, DrP, that used to be the way it was between McKeon and me, too (except he’d use my home phone landline. I don’t give my cell number to anyone other than family).

      Unfortunately, in recent years since I’ve started being heavily critical of him, which began with his votes in support of Bush’s original “bailouts”, I don’t get the calls anymore, and evidently am relegated to the “send him a form letter” group now.

      Sounds like you have a much better congressman that I.

  10. captbogus@yahoo.com says:

    Brian: Maybe a copy of the cancelled check you would’ve sent his campaign would get his attention.
    You live in an area I would consider conservative.

    • BrianR says:

      LOL, Buck!

      Yeah, maybe. I used to send him checks regularly. I could send him copies of those.

      My area is conservative. Hence the “Island” in my blog’s title. And overall Buck is pretty conservative. But when he misses, he misses BIG. Particularly on fiscal issues. But I think the biggest problem is that he’s a GOP loyalist, rather than an independant thinker. So I think he takes his marching orders from Boehner, and THAT, of course, is a HUGE problem.

      A couple of years ago I seriously considered running against him as an Independant. I still think I’d have actually had a decent chance of winning. I’d have certainly given him a run for his money. I have a fairly high political profile locally. But in the end I decided against it, because if I DID win, I would have had to move to DC.

      Well, I’m originally from that area. I was born in DC, and when we were assigned stateside we lived in the Maryland burbs. I also have one daughter, and one granddaughter. So no WAY did I want to have to go live back there. Kee-rist, I couldn’t wait to get out of there when I did live back there.

  11. jevica says:

    Brian;

    What are these fools up to? I expect to hear the old “we’ll never have to do this again” amnesty story again. I feel like I’m back in the 80’s again.

    ” Marco Rubio took his case to Sean Hannity, who asked (as I did yesterday) whether Rubio would oppose his own compromise plan if the commission-certification trigger was watered down or removed. Rubio committed again to opposition by saying that it would “absolutely” be a deal-killer” Am not a fan of Hannity at all.

    “Rubio: The only way to incentivize border enforcement is to hold up the green-card process”

    http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/29/rubio-the-only-way-to-incentivize-border-enforcement-is-to-hold-up-the-green-card-process/

    “Obama to oppose Senate bill’s border enforcement requirements in immigration speech today”

    http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/29/obama-to-oppose-senate-bills-border-enforcement-requirement-in-immigration-speech-today/

    Now this from another loser Mr “across the aisle himself” “McCain: DHS Secretary to have final word on border security?””But who gets to define when the border is secured in the Senate compromise plan? ”

    http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/29/mccain-dhs-secretary-to-have-final-word-on-border-security/

    • BrianR says:

      Yeah, Jev, it really IS deja vu all over again. Here we are relitigating the same damn issues from 20+ years ago.

      Rubio has lost all of my support with this latest Scamnesty BS. I guess he may be too young to remember Simpson-Mazzoli from 1986 and how Reagan got suckered with the “one-time, never to be repeated” amnesty, with promises of employer sanctions and tougher border security. Well, all we ever ended up getting was the damned amnesty, and here we are, having the same stupid discussions 30 years later.

  12. jevica says:

    Brian;

    “”It was just five minutes ago that we had to get rid of guns. Today we have to have amnesty. Tomorrow it’s going to be something else. In every case, you know who the enemy is: people who believe in the rule of law.””

    • BrianR says:

      Guess what? You’ve actually touched on the topic of my next essay, you psychic, you.

      • jevica says:

        Brian;

        This is the danger with RINOs – crazy leftist ideas (like amnesty) that would pass without notice on the democrat side become “serious” issues that the MSM seizes on when proposed by a republican.

        BTW If the Senate had passed a budget would there ever been any “cliff” problem?

      • BrianR says:

        Jev, this amnesty thing has kept coming up for years, now, though. Don’t forget that Bush (& McAmnesty and DrunKennedy) tried to pass it twice in 2007 & 2008. It’s just never gone away for years, now.

        The biggest problem was Reagan failing to veto Simpson-Mazzoli back in ’86. If he’d done that, we’d have had some serious enforcement happen. Instead, we got an amnesty for about 3 million, and now we have at least FOUR TIMES that many clamoring for it again.

        It’s basic human nature, which I constantly harp on. Show people that bad behavior will be rewarded, and you can count on seeing a whole lot more of it.

        You’re right. If the Senate had ever passed a budget, there wouldn’t have been any “cliff”. But, of course, they never wanted to act on one because then they’d have had to face the political consequences of their crappy fiscal proposals. Can’t have that!

  13. clyde says:

    Amnesty Shamnesty. I call it PANDERING. And,most likely,for votes the idiots at the RNC will N E V E R see.

  14. captbogus@yahoo.com says:

    Wrong thinking BR: “But in the end I decided against it, because if I DID win, I would have had to move to DC.”
    THAT’s the problem with today’s bag of politicians. They win, they move to DC and they forget the peons back home who sent them there.
    Win, go to DC, rent an apartment (I also understand Congressional offices have such amenities as full bath, bedroom, etc) and come home in 6 years. THAT was the original intent of the 2 year term but today 6 would be acceptable.

    • BrianR says:

      LOL, Buck!

      Y’know, there’s nothing in this world that would motivate me to spend 6 years on the other side of the country from my daughter and granddaughter, especially while she’s at this age. The kids (daughter and her husband) both have to work, so my ex and I each get to daycare the munchkin every week, and we live for it. The munchkin’s 3 years old. That time I spend with her every week is the absolute highlight of my life. Why would I even think of giving that up? After 6 years, she’d hardly even know me anymore.

      I already served my country (as you did), not only in uniform, but as an Army brat growing up. I spent the first 23 years of my life in or around uniforms. I think I’ve done my duty.

  15. captbogus@yahoo.com says:

    3 Already? Dang! I remember when you were giving the bride away.
    Guess we’ve been in touch longer than I thought.
    My next trip to CA we have to have a beer or something.

    • BrianR says:

      Funny how fast time flies by.

      Buck, I’m definitely holding you to that when you get out here. I was really looking forward to it last time until your trip fell through.

  16. jevica says:

    Brian;

    From National Review-[in part] http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/339184/pointless-amnesty-editors

    See the picture of McLiberal and Chuck Schumer

    “We agree with Senator Rubio’s view that “we can’t be the only nation in the world that does not enforce its immigration laws. . . . Modernization of the legal immigration system is impossible unless we first secure the border and implement an E-Verify system.” We very much doubt that Senator Rubio will achieve meaningful border security in cooperation with Senators Schumer, Durbin, Menendez, and Bennet. The less-of-the-same version being developed in the House with the support of John Boehner and Paul Ryan almost certainly will suffer from similar defects, since it appears to be based on the same premises…”

    “Senator Rubio, an exemplary conservative leader, [is he? Not on this issue, this way] is correct that our immigration system is broken. And he is correct that, at some point, we are going to have to do something about the millions of illegals already here. But he is wrong about how to go about repairing our immigration system, and wrong to think that an amnesty-and-enforcement bill at this time will end up being anything other than the unbuttered side of a half-a-loaf deal. And there is no reason to make a bad deal for fear of losing a Latino vote Republicans never had.”

    “. . . Gingrich, Vitter, National Review, Malkin, Coulter, Erickson oppose Rubio’s immigration plan” and Brian R also.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/30/pushback-gingrich-vitter-national-review-malkin-coulter-erickson-oppose-rubios-immigration-plan/

    • BrianR says:

      LOL, Jev!

      Wait til you see my next essay, coming up… tomorrow? I think so. Working on it as we speak, mostly looking for pics to add in, as I’ve finished the essay.

      This is one of two topics I take on, and quite a few of my thoughts are reflected in your linked articles.

  17. great article you gots here, thanks a ton for sharing it!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s