While the fundamentals of what the Republican Party has stood for still garner support from the base, the party needs to look at the current anti-incumbent movement seriously. It's not just about kicking out the Democrats.
This topic comes up because I have received a lot of email about it. Some top Republicans seem to think that the anti-incumbent sentiment is all about the Democrats, but it's not. There are some Republican up for re-election who are not making their constituents happy either.
One example is Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. This senator did not win her party's nomination in the primary, but she has launched a write-in campaign to win re-election as a third candidate. This smacks of being a sore loser.
Interestingly, she became a senator after she was appointed by her own father, who was then governor of Alaska, to fill the senate seat he vacated by being elected governor in 2002. Interestingly, that move prompted such outrage that a new law was passed that does not allow the governor to appoint replacements for vacant senate seats. Even with that backlash, Lisa was re-elected in 2004.
According to some newspapers, she lost the Republican primary in 2010 because she is pro-choice and voted for TARP. Another big reason was Sarah Palin's support of her opponent. But the biggest reason is the anti-incumbent sentiment that also cost two other senators their jobs.
While many of us think that the Republicans have a good shot this fall at claiming a majority in the senate or the house or both, even Republican incumbents had better campaign hard and convince us what they have done for us. They are lucky not to be members of the president's party at the moment, but having been in congress through the past six years of spending excesses, they will have to answer to that, too.
That's right--I said six years of spending excesses. President George W. Bush's second term was an expensive one, driving up the deficit. However, he was saddled with a majority Democrat congress who spent and spent and spent. Now voters want payback in the form of job losses in congress, replacing those folks with new blood. Too bad that even once they're out we'll still be paying them their salary for the rest of their lives. Now, eliminating that budget item would help our debt!