"Shays' Rebellion" - The Sequel by Doug Wrenn

"Shays' Rebellion" - The Sequel

By Doug Wrenn

September 29, 2007

In 1786, a former Captain in the Continental Army, Daniel Shays (AKA: Daniel Shay by some resources), united 350 farmers in western Massachusetts and led an armed rebellion against the state to protest excessive taxes, foreclosures and imprisonments to pay back the war debt. Ironically, 221 years later, and roughly 85 miles south, another Shays is leading another kind of rebellion, and this one for a cause not even remotely as noble as procuring liberty or battling tyranny, be it real or imagined.

Congressman Chris Shays ("RINO"- CT-4), who has seldom ever played ball with the Republican Party, now wants to pick up that unused ball, as well as his bat, and go home if he doesn't get his way.

Shays has presumptively demanded of the GOP that unless he is promised an elevated position to either Chairman, (given a Republican majority) or Ranking Member (in the case of a Democrat majority) of the powerful House Oversight and Reform Committee, he will not run in 2008 and instead, retire from the Congress. Me thinks the more modern Mr. Shays is either a tad rusty in his negotiating skills, or he is completely bereft of the fundamental mechanics of Bartering 101. Behind the offer of the carrot must be the threat of the stick, and in that regard, the hand currently positioned behind Shays' back is as empty as the noggin that prevents both of his ears from touching each other.

Thus far, Shays twice barely missed having that empty noggin handed to him by former Democrat Westport First Selectman Diane Farrell. According to Politics 1 (www.Politics1.com), six Democrat candidates, like sharks sensing blood in the water, have already lined up, or are rumored to do so to take on a conspicuously vulnerable Shays in 2008, including one candidate named Ted Kennedy, Jr., the very son of the senior Senator from Chappaquiddick himself. Grumblings on the grapevine also tell me that Ned Lamont has finished licking his wounds, post-Lieberman, and is even once again dipping a big toe into the political waters to test the climate of federal electoral feasibility. To sum, "Cry Baby Chris" has served 20 years in Congress and despite his apparent cluelessness, blind denial or brazen apathy, is now ripe for the picking by the "out of the closet" liberals of the opposing party. When the dust settled from the Democrat sweep of 2006, Shays was the last of the Congressional Republicans standing, not just in Connecticut, but also in New England. Ever since then, he retains that solo status while he has one foot out the door, and the other one firmly but precariously implanted atop a banana peel on a wet and highly waxed floor. While Shays may bristle at playing ball with is own party, his bluffing skills are to be admired by any seasoned poker player.

A real Republican named Ronald Reagan taught us all by both word and deed that one can only effectively negotiate from a position of strength. Shays must have been absent then, and off somewhere in the wild, trying to save a three eyed owl or some poor other species from the liberal do-gooders' "honey-do" list of fluff. Politics is no poker game. Not only does Shays lack the political capital to keep his seat much longer, but he also lacks the record for Republican voters to even desire two more years of service from this left-winged, conniving panderer from Connecticut's slightly less than liberal panhandle.

The numbers, or lack thereof, of Shays' Congressional ratings by various conservative organizations speak for themselves:

On fiscal issues:

Citizens Against Government Waste - 26%, and defined as "unfriendly"

Club For Growth - 31%

National Taxpayer's Union - 38%, equating to a "D"

Americans For Tax Reform - 58% for the first session of the 109th Congress, 55% for the second

On social issues:

The Family Research Council - a whopping 8% (And no, I didn't skip a digit!)

National Right To Life - 17% (That almost makes Hillary look down right motherly!)

Gun Owners of America - F-. (Personally, I never heard of an "F minus" before, but I know it sure can't be good!)

And last but not least, the American Conservative Union gives Shays an overall 36% currently, with a lifetime rating thus far of 46.1%.

In all fairness, Numbers USA, which opposes illegal immigration, gave Shays a current A rating, and a lifetime rating thus far of B +. He also supported the war in Iraq until Dianne Farrell gave him some bruises, and apparently an epiphany after his last close race with her.

So I ask again, where's the stick? For that matter, where's the carrot? What have we to lose by losing Chris Shays? Let us not forget that the Shays/Meehan bill was the House version of McCain/Feingold in the Senate, the two bills that gave us restricted political speech via the deceptive but more innocuous phrase of "campaign finance reform," which even President Bush called "unconstitutional' (ironically, just before he signed the bill into law) while doing next to nothing in terms of cleaning up our electoral process, other than convoluting an already complex process even further while also creating more loopholes for those intent on subverting it.

If Shays was to be replaced by a Democrat, the House roll call results from the Connecticut delegation would scarcely, if at all differ from how they typically appear now. Based on his record, the very liberal Chris Shays as a chairman or ranking member on a committee designed to reform our government would only be that much more empowered to steer our government further to the left, and predictably at greater expense to the already overburdened taxpayers, now with nothing more than lint and fond memories where their pocket change once existed.

One also has to question Shays' sense of logic or degree of initiative. After examining classified documents during the tumultuous and triple-X-rated Clinton administration, Shays made the bold statement that based on the documents he saw, he believed that Clinton did rape Juanita Broaddrick, yet this House member, now seeking the power to "reform" and "oversee" our government was not bold enough to add an impeachment charge against Clinton for that particular "high crime," to quote Article 2, Section 4 of the US Constitution. During that time, Shays also held so-called "town hall" meetings, in which he listened to his impassioned constituents, and then ignored their wishes, but he put on a good show, anyway. Shays opposed impeaching President Clinton, and opined (despite the Juanita Broaddrick issue) that the charges against Clinton were "serious but not impeachable," even after accusing Clinton of lying to the Congress, an impeachable charge itself. If the Democrats were to merge with the Boy Scouts, Shays would have a chest full of merit badges by now for his underhanded collusion. During that scandal-filled and scurrilous roller coaster-like era, Shays did almost as much for Clinton with double-talking judiciary drivel as the infiltrating communist Chinese did with campaign dollars.

Shays should have learned something in his 20 years of supporting the Democrats. Regardless of which party is in power, both punish disloyalty within their ranks, and neither rewards traitors from the other side. Perhaps that is why this rambunctious RINO is now so disgruntled. When my local Elks lodge began admitting female members, I wish I had a nickel for every time I heard one of the pushy and ungrateful members of the so-called kinder, gentler sex obnoxiously opine, "We are going to turn this place around and fix it," or rants to that effect. Hearing that boisterous but befuddling chant, I always wondered what would ever drive any supposedly sound thinking individual to join any organization that he (or she) perceived to be screwed up? (By the way, all things being "equal," I think I'll try to join the League Women of Voters! Wish me luck!) Ditto with whining RINOs. As with the other disgruntled cry babies of their ranks, Shays is but only one name among all too many that include Christie Todd Whitman, "Jumping" Jim Jeffords, "Stinkin" Lincoln Chaffee, et al, as well as Diana Urban on the state level, who all falsely complained that their party left them. OK, considering that the Connecticut GOP, with a backbone akin to that of an overly sedentary and grossly out of shape jelly fish has no written platform, I can cut Urban some slack. But the Republican National Committee, which unlike its bet-hedging GOP counterparts, here on God's forgotten little acre, does have a written platform, yet these sniveling, elitist RINOs hypocritically joined the Republican Party, only to later complain that it is too conservative. That's kind of like assembling a dysfunctional lawn mower or barbecue grill, and then reading the enclosed directions after being puzzled as to why it doesn't look right and you are left with so many spare parts. These rocket scientists are of the same kind of ilk that buys a house next to an airport and then screams about the noise, or purchases a home next to a pig farm and then squeals about the stench. RINOs should seek the counsel of Dr. Laura, who warns both men and women that it is utterly impractical and potentially disastrous to become involved in any serious relationship with the mindset that one will "change" the undesirable habits of his or her partner over time. The only issue on which these backstabbing malcontents are at all "moderate" is loyalty, and their absence, contrary to their misguided self-perception of dire and grandiose significance, is really no loss at all.

Alas, rebellions appear to be like movies; the sequel just isn't as good as the original. Chris Shays is no Daniel Shays. Daniel Shays led a rebellion. Chris Shays is merely throwing a tantrum, and not even that well. The latter Shays is foolishly making an ultimatum without the fundamental and all important "or else." An ultimatum without the "or else" factor is like a rebellion without weapons; it is purely laughable, if not pitifully tragic. If we take the giant leap of assumption in this era of a vast Republican downslide that Chris Shays can even be re-elected, we might be as equally foolish as the temperamental buffoon himself to then assume that we would actually reap any reciprocal rewards of loyalty from this self-absorbed and delusional Beltway bureaucrat, has-been hack, whose Republican vision is myopically no more than just a RINO reflection from the hand-held mirror in front of him. As a much more sage General Washington realized when planning the unthinkable and monumental task of crossing his already sick, beaten, demoralized and threadbare troops across the near-frozen Delaware River during a cold winter night to attack the stronger and better trained, contently fed and fully equipped Hessian mercenaries, when you have nothing more to lose, what lies ahead of you is suddenly far less daunting, no matter how slim a chance of victory may otherwise appear.

Until such time that the Connecticut Republican Party starts giving its Republican base somebody of ideological and electoral substance to vote for other than poorly veiled Democrats by another name, or poll-taking, finger-in-the-wind, weathervane chameleons with an echo filling the void where their core values used to be, assuming they ever even had any in the first place, don't expect your rightfully abysmal electoral status to noticeably improve any time soon. Consider it a mathematical certainty: lethargy in, lethargy out. And yes, it is indeed the very textbook illustration of insanity to keep repeating the same task while actually anticipating a different result.

As for you, Congressman Shays, and to the pathetic farce that you deem to be an ultimatum, I choose "letter C," none of the above. Let's face it; even if you don't lose in 2008, your political swan song shortly thereafter is inevitable. Besides, I am sick and tired of being continually threatened by arrogant, shallow, self-aggrandizing, pseudo-adolescent Republican turncoats, who never have anything to bring to the table, other than the "whine." Truth be known, you're more trouble than you're worth. Don't put off to tomorrow that which you can do today. Don't wait until '08. You have my permission to leave, and preferably right now. As I recently heard someone quip, "On the way out the door, don't let it hit you where the Good Lord split you."

Somehow, I am sure we'll all still manage to get by, even without you and the ever-gracious presence of your esteemed greatness.

Doug Wrenn