One of the Right’s latest rising stars is Nikki Haley, Republican candidate for governor of South Carolina. There’s certainly a lot to like about her, but before getting their hopes up too high, her fans should note something she recently said on “Hannity”:
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=XdZu2GaGeu
I don’t want a House full of Republicans, I don’t want a House full of Democrats. It’s the mix that makes it work.
The Founding Fathers did discuss the importance of moderation and counterbalancing forces in government, to keep radical changes from being implemented too easily, but I don’t think quotas for each party is quite what they had in mind, especially when one of those parties doesn’t simply disagree on certain policies, but stands directly opposed to the core principles upon which America was founded.
If the war against radical Islam must be won, then we shouldn’t “want” anyone in office who stands for defeat. If unborn babies have a right to life, then we shouldn’t “want” anyone in office who stands for their murder. If Americans have a right to choose what to do with their own money, bear arms to protect themselves, or any number of other things, then we shouldn’t “want” anyone in office who would thwart those rights.
Besides, the Republican Party is so divided on both principle and strategy that they hardly need Democrats to keep them on their toes. Nikki Haley may turn out to be a great governor, but that’s one status quo we shouldn’t expect her to upend.
I don't agree that this is a call for affirmative action for the “out-party”. Rather, she is expressing an appreciation for hearing from a wide range of opinions.
LikeLike
She explicitly says she wants some Democrats in power. What good does it do to have people in office who we know are going to vote against Nikki Haley's own values and principles? Who belong to a fundamentally corrupt political party?
LikeLike