Neo is of course very correct — what the GOP needs is more conservative Senators, and a stronger Tea Party org that can go against RINO / maverick / “liberal” Senators who call themselves Reps.
—
Senator Susan Collins, who has served in the position since 1997, ran for and easily won reelection to a fourth term in office in a landslide by 68% to 32%, which is her largest margin yet. (2014; up in 2020)

Incumbent Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski won re-election to a third term in office. (2016; up in 2022)

Jeff Flake is leaving (rather than losing!) * we need a conservative in 2018!

In 2012 Corker was reelected. On September 26, 2017, Corker announced that he would not seek reelection in 2018 *we need a conservative in 2018!

The USA needs more conservative senators, so there is no Gang of Appeasement with Rep haters.

Today, too many Democrats are sick with Democrat Derangement Syndrome, and a few Reps often support some Deranged Dem rather than an imperfect but better Rep.

It’s good to point out the imperfections — and Neo does this more fairly more often than anybody on the net that I’ve found — but the votes at the end are what matter the most for the elected politicians. Like, McCain’s vote to keep Obamacare was terrible, but made the Rep promise to scrap it fail. Because there weren’t enough Reps.

We need more Reps elected, and more voters to vote for Reps.

Limbaugh’s “observation” would be an actual observation if it went something like this:

“I hear that some people say that if the GOP doesn’t make sure Kavanaugh is approved that’s it for them in the midterms—those people will stay home. I understand the gut feeling but beware—don’t do it! It will only benefit the Democrats. The GOP is being held hostage by just a few people, and the way to deal with it is to vote for more GOP members of Congress so that the few can’t hold the many hostage.”

Did Rush say that? Bet not—you can see for yourself. Now, that’s not the transcript of the entire show, but it’s his statement on his website, and it’s destructive and a scare tactic, and if the GOP does end up failing to confirm Kavanaugh because of a few stubborn holdouts, Limbaugh’s statement will indeed depress the GOP vote and could be responsible for the Democrats taking control of the House and even perhaps the Senate if enough voters on the right stay home.

I’ve noticed this type of thing for many years with Limbaugh. It is not something new at all. It’s a pattern he has of playing with fire. I’ve written a few posts on it before, starting in 2012 when he was very critical of Romney and the GOPe (see this, this, and this).

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/09/24/brett-kavanaugh-transcript-interview-fox-news-martha-maccullum/1415548002/

(this is the transcript of the video Neo has shown a couple of times)

https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/PDFFiles/Clarence%20Thomas%20-%20Judiciary%20Committee%20Statement.pdf

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/09/will-she-or-wont-she.php

“I should add that the letter comes from Margot Cleveland’s Twitter feed, the only place I have seen it.

Grassley’s letter assumes that Ford will testify on Thursday pursuant to the Committee’s invitation, but it is not clear that Ford will actually show up. At last word, Committee staff were still going back and forth with Ford’s lawyers–who are obnoxious partisans–about the logistics of her testimony. In my view, Ford’s lawyers (who is paying them, by the way?) seem to be looking for a way out, an excuse for Ford not to appear.

Why might Ms. Ford want to dodge a Committee appearance? Grassley’s admonition with regard to the criminal penalties for lying to Congress apply to Ford as much as to Ramirez, and, while there is probably zero chance of Ford facing criminal prosecution–however much she may deserve it–lying under oath is uncomfortable for most people. ”

* *
I’m surprised there is still only one source for Grassley’s letter — and that a Twitter feed — but I haven’t seen anything else either and couldn’t read it in the fine print, so I’m glad PL published it.

MINNESOTA DEMOCRATS’ ‘INDEPENDENT’ ELLISON INVESTIGATION HANDLED BY THEIR OWN LAWYER’S PARTNER
9:31 PM 09/25/2018
Peter Hasson | Reporter
Minnesota Democrats claimed to be running an “independent investigation” into domestic abuse allegations against DNC deputy chair Keith Ellison.
The state party’s own attorney ran the investigation, before handing it off to one of his legal partners.
Ellison’s GOP opponent called it “laughable” that Democrats described their investigation as “independent.”

“This is what Democrat total war looks like.

Democrats can get away with it because of a supportive media, and a small number of weak links in the Republican majority in the Senate.Chuck Grassley and Mitch McConnell don’t have to worry about Democrats half as much as they have to worry about Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Jeff Flake, and to a lesser extent, Bob Corker.

The total war on Kavanaugh is why so many Trump voters voters wanted someone who would fight, as Jonathan Tobin noted at National Review, Has the Kavanaugh Battle Vindicated Trump Voters?

‘The willingness of the Democrats and their mainstream-media allies to use a solitary, unsubstantiated, 36-year-old allegation to turn Judge Brett Kavanaugh into a Me Too villain whose guilt of a heinous crime is to be assumed despite the lack of proof or a semblance of due process has shocked his friends and supporters. But it has also vindicated the Trump approach to politics. After the public assassination of Kavanaugh’s character over the last week, there can’t be many left in the GOP who will still dispute former Breitbart CEO Steve Bannon’s assertion that politics is warfare and Trump is thus justified in anything he does to combat his opponents….’

It also brings back what I said in The value of Trump to the Trump voter is that he stands between them and #TheResistance:

‘Right now the value of Trump to the Trump voter is he is all that stands between them and the people who hate them every bit as much as they hate Trump.’

This is not about Brett Kavanaugh. Democrats would have waged total personal war on any Trump nominee.”

KAVANAUGH ACCUSER ISSUES ANOTHER DEMAND, WANTS TO LIMIT MEDIA PRESENT IN HEARING
9:42 PM 09/25/2018
Scott Morefield | Reporter

“Christine Blasey Ford, through her attorneys, is seeking to limit press coverage of Thursday’s scheduled Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

According to emails uncovered and reported on by The Washington Times, Blasey Ford’s lawyers are negotiating specifics on media coverage with Republicans on the committee.

Michael Bromwich said in emails sent Tuesday afternoon that he was requesting access for three “robocams,” three specific wire services, photographers from the Associated Press, Reuters and one unspecified service, and a pool reporter for newspapers and magazines. In a follow-up email he specified that the robocams should be operated by “the CSPAN TV pool,” and said he also wanted space for a radio reporter.

Although press is sometimes limited because of space restrictions and the identities of some witnesses are sometimes shielded, “longtime Capitol Hill watchers struggled to think of precedent for a witness dictating terms of press coverage,” the Times reported.”

* * *
One of my all-time-favorite series of historical novels deals with the period in French-English rivalry when the young Mary Stuart is brought to France to marry their Dauphin. Our Hero, Francis Crawford (a young Scots nobleman), is instrumental in saving her life on several occasions but runs afoul of one of the powerful Scots in the court, and is challenged to a duel for supposedly insulting said lord.
The challenger is entitled to specify the conditions of combat, and requires Crawford to supply an ostentation list of mounts and weapons.
He is dumb-founded, on the day, to discover that the French King has provided everything asked for. Thus rebuked, he forfeits the duel and slinks away.

If the Republicans supply everything Ford wants (within sanity; no yielding on the order of testimony, for instance), will she be suitably rebuked?

“When the complaint is “he said/she said,” we should not helplessly acquiesce to coin-flip justice that picks winners and losers based upon the identity politics profile of the accused and accuser. Experience with a career’s worth of complaints in hearings, depositions, and negotiations has taught me some tells, red flags that warn that an innocent person stands accused.”

Guess who hits ten out of ten?