Newt Gingrich is Right (er I Mean Correct)

Posted by Gordon on Jul 13th, 2006
2006
Jul 13

Provacative title I know, but before you think I have lost my mind hear me out. I just read a very interesting article in the Washington Post about how former Speakers of the House Tom Foley and Newt Gingrich speak with one voice on the sorry state of congress.

Gingrich makes the most salient point when he says:

The correct answer is for the American people to just start firing people. This is what the Progressive movement was.

I like this kind of thinking and I think it is probably the most prudent action for voters to take this particular election cycle. Perhaps more than a party line ticket we should all vote an anti-incumbent ticket. This actually holds some interesting possibilities for the state of Washington. Imagine if we voted a complete anti-incumbent ticket in this state? We would dump some real do nothing losers like Hastings, Reichert, and McMorris and pick up some great fresh blood in Richard Wright, Darcy Burner, and Peter Goldmark. But I have a dilemma. I think the anti-incumbent is a genuine opportunity, and not merely an option to vote along partisan lines. If we want to be honest about this then that means all incumbents should be voted out. Unfortunately, that means not voting for anyone currently holding office. For Jay Inslee that is a tough decision to make. Inslee is a great guy and would be a shame to see him go. But it looks like Republicans do not have a candidate in the 1st district. So Inslee stands a chance. And then the mother of all painful decisions McGavick vs. Cantwell in the Senate. I could never bring myself to vote for McGavick. But I might be willing to trade a non vote in the Senate race for a string of anti-incumbent votes by anyone in the eastern part of the state.

I don’t want this to come across as a partisan gesture. I am sincere in this belief and I think the greater good will come of a consistently anti-incumbent ticket in the house.

I think this is the proper medicine for mending the house. The Senate might be a different matter. It would be a damn shame to see Cantwell go. But if Harry Reid and Bill Frist stood up and made the same case for the Senate well then, I would have to make a tough decision about Cantwell.

Decisions, decisions.

I welcome any comments on how foolish or alternatively brilliant this idea might be.

2 Responses

  1. Walker Willingham Says:

    Your speaking the mantra of my pal David Remer of http://voidnow.org/ , and I think you’re both nuts. We have to deal with political realities before we can deal with abstractions. Don’t get me wrong, I think we have way too little turnover in the House of Representative and some serious redistricting to do away with safe seats, among other things is in order. But a symbolic vote has little meaning when it’s just a number as far as anybody else is concerned.

    I hate that we don’t have better choices among Democrats (Inslee, I believe, is an exception) but as long as the system works the way it does I’m as partisan as they come, because GOP control of the House is an even bigger monster than incumbency.

  2. Helen Says:

    I Agree with this comment.

Leave a Comment




XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.