Time Magazine is not a big believer in governmental separation of powers. They are also not a big believer in “Fair and Balanced” reporting. In this week’s issue of the “news” weekly, they campaigned for a Jim Martin victory in today’s runoff against Saxby Chambliss. You see, they want the democrats to have a filibuster-proof majority. Time’s Michael Grunwald is worried that a Chambliss victory would “reinforce the dangerous message that recent electoral results have been sending to Republicans” which is that moderates, like Connecticut congressman Christopher Shays and North Carolina gubernatorial candidate Pat McCrory, lose elections while most Republican “survivors” are conservative.
Wrong again Mikey. What reinforced that message is that WE LOST, and almost every time the party nominates an “almost democrat” for president, we lose..BIG. In the American political system it good to have a range of ideas, not what we had this year, two sides of the same coin.
Read More Below:
supported Bush on just about everything but its efforts to rein in outrageous farm subsidies. He is so tight with the sugar industry that he attacked a whistleblower who reported safety problems after an explosion at a Georgia mill killed 14 people. He has been an ardent supporter of sending American troops into harm’s way even though he avoided serving in Vietnam through student deferments, as well as an allegedly bum knee that hasn’t hampered his reputation as one of the best golfers in Congress. On a recent appearance on Fox News, he warned that if he isn’t re-elected, “you’re going to see an economic stimulus like you won’t believe.” As if that would be a bad thing!
On the other hand, Grunwald describes Martin as simply “a mild-mannered former state legislator and human resources commissioner who is unusually progressive for a statewide candidate in Georgia.” Grunwald’s biggest worry, though, is that a win by Chambliss would “reinforce the dangerous message that recent electoral results have been sending to Republicans” which is that moderates, like Connecticut congressman Christopher Shays and North Carolina gubernatorial candidate Pat McCrory, lose elections while most Republican “survivors” are conservative. Grunwald argues that Chambliss’s win would move the party further in his direction, which Grunwald describes as being “even more white, even more to the right, even more eager to fight.” According to Gruwnald, the view by many conservatives that the Republican Party is too moderate is untrue. He claims that Republicans in Washington have not failed to defend traditional values as they “got two conservative justices on the Supreme Court, passed all kinds of laws restricting abortion and stem-cell research, and practically shut down the government to try to save Terri Schiavo.” He goes on to say that there is “little evidence that Americans soured on the GOP because of its profligacy” and uses John McCain’s “crusade against earmarks” to prove that Americans “don’t seem to be crying out for austerity and deregulation.” But is McCain the best example of a “conservative” Republican to use? He did support the $700 billion bailout to buy bad mortgages and the debt of large institutions, and that’s when his poll numbers really began to go downhill.Source URL: