You can bet on it: the left will be exploiting the rifts on the right
And they’ll be laughing all the way. Be on the lookout for it.
That’s the main reason I’ve written so much about those flyers and robocalls in Mississippi. My primary (pun intended) motivation is not to defend the Cochran campaign. I’m keen on neither Cochran nor Barbour, although in the general I would vote for Cochran over the Democrat if I lived in Mississippi. But I probably would have voted for McDaniel in the primary.
You may not care who put out either the flyer or the robocalls, because you’re mad at Cochran for cynically reaching out to the Democrats in order to win, Democrats who will almost certainly not vote for him in the general. You may also not like him because he emphasizes how much federal money he’ll get for the state, which is hardly a conservative stance. Of course, that’s usually a way to win in a general election—it’s just human nature—and conservatives in a state like Mississippi need to face the possibility that without such a promise, the race might go to a Democrat, who will most definitely promise it and will deliver if he/she can.
Now, conservatives usually respond that it doesn’t matter; if Republicans have to make such promises in order to win races, then there’s no difference between the two parties. But you know what? There is a difference, especially on major issues such as appointing judges, and foreign policy, and what legislation is brought up for a vote (Harry Reid as Majority Leader means all legislation dear to conservatives will be automatically blocked).
And so another big question that races such as the one in Mississippi present is: what to do about certain facts of human nature? Conservatives often blame liberals for ignoring human nature when they plan their Utopian state. But conservatives ignore it, too, just in a different way. Conservatives often want people to be nobler than they are (“Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we are put in this world to rise above”), and want the majority of people not to gravitate to a candidate who brings pork to their state. I agree; I’d really, really, really like that, too. But I don’t think it’s true.
Anyone who reads this blog knows that I think that the in-fighting between so-called establishment Republicans and conservatives, while ideologically understandable (I share it, and usually am on the Tea Party side), is strategically destructive in the short haul. And I think this country is very very much in danger in the short haul, and if we lose in 2014 and 2016, you can just about kiss goodbye any hopes of saving the rule of law. And that will make it harder in the long haul.
And so I am very discouraged by the eagerness of so many conservatives to hop on the bandwagon of hating Cochran and Barbour for these calls and flyers. The left really, really, really likes you to do that, wants you to spread those rumors, and would especially like for conservatives in Mississippi to stay home in November. Unfortunately, that would hurt all of you and everything you stand for.
The left is laughing at you. I continue to think they engineered those flyers and robocalls, knowing full well what the reaction of the right would be, and I think it highly probably that you are being played. In addition, looking beyond the Mississippi race, I don’t think enough people on the right are on the lookout for Democratic dirty tricks, and that the right will be played again because of it.
By the way, Democratic groups have claimed that they are the ones who put out those anti-Tea Party flyers and robocalls, for what it’s worth. Believe me, Cochran and Barbour did enough for you to be angry at them without attributing these particular things to them when you lack knowledge of whether they did it or not. Why not stick to the facts, to what you actually know that Cochran and Barbour did?
And remember that, if you’re looking for angels in politics, you’re not going to get them. You’ll probably get Democrats instead.
[NOTE: Sometimes I see this argument, which we’ve had before, as the one between Don Quixote and Sancho Panza. I see myself as Panza, by the way, in case that’s not already abundantly clear.
Also, a lot of you will say that you’ve heard the points I’m making before, and you are heartily sick of them and of compromising your principles over and over and getting kicked in the teeth. But it doesn’t make the arguments any less true or less urgent. Remember, also, that I’m talking about the general, not the primary. In the primary, unless a Tea Party candidate is a nut case, I would almost always support that person.]
The public is the ultimate ground of law and freedom. Cantor’s dishonest campaign contributed to his defeat but Cochran’s dishonesty enabled him? Are they better people in Virginia? Maybe so. Better citizen, better government. Was it the pork that made the difference? If Cochran could not have pointed to the pork, could he have won?
Judges and foreign policy. I’m not quite sure how, in practical terms, a RINO makes a difference. Since the President pretty much conducts foreign affairs independently these days, I don’t see the advantage there. More so for judges, but that is all we get for voting for an enemy and against our conscience?
Ughh. It’s famine.
waitforit:
Congress can either enable a president’s foreign policy (money, appointments, defense appropriations, etc.) or block it.
I think few here are dismissing your position on this issue. I’m not in the least bit, and I have spent 45 years holding my nose in the voting booth. But this particular case is particularly odious IMO. Does anyone doubt the cockroach, the Rovians, and the Barbours actively sought the assistance of democrat operatives? Its one thing to stab your political rival in the back; its a horse of a different color to use your (supposedly) ideological enemies to stab your rival within your party.
That is what has so many of us extremely angry with the rino cabal. Since we all agree McDaniels was likely to win in November, what the gop establishment did in MS was to tell the base, in particular the TP movement, to STFU in the most in your face, condescending matter imaginable. Personally, I hope McDaniels runs as a third party candidate or as a write in and wins. The big government gop rinos need to learn that to ignore the base is literally cutting off the nose to spite the face.
parker:
I’m angry with them too. I wish they hadn’t done it. But that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t hold my nose and vote for Cochran.
However, what I’d like to happen is for McDaniel’s challenge to work and upend the results. That would have two effects. The first would be that he’d be the nominee (although if he didn’t win in the general, I’d very much regret that Cochran wasn’t the nominee; but I think McDaniels would win). The second is that it would act as somewhat of a future deterrent for the sort of thing that Cochran did.
Didn’t we conservatives learn these lesson when Ross Perot ran?
And speaking of holding one’s nose:
Pardon my French Neo, but even if Thad Cochran and Haley Barbour are assholes, they’re OUR assholes. We’ve got to own them during elections then deal with them after we win.
WFB’s “best electable conservative” and all that….
THIS lesson, dammit.
One of your insightful commentators once said of members of disadvantaged minority groups that, it seemed, once they get it into their heads that they ARE victims (even justifiably), nothing could get them out of a victimhood mentality, not even an objectively improving situation. We, on the outside, can see that this way of looking at things not only prevents acknowledgment of progress, but actually causes them to sabotage themselves in ways that make success, under already challenging circumstances, even more unlikely. Refusing to apply themselves at school because that’s “white behavior”, for example, is guaranteed to produce failure.
I sometimes think conservatives these days suffer from a similar dynamic. We feel under assault. Trends and attitudes have moved away from our ideals. Those who purport to lead us are feckless, ineffectual, and seem to betray us at every turn (no argument from me there). Powerless, aggrieved, and victimized, that’s what we are. Just like members of any certified victim group, we conservatives have become alarmingly good at sabotaging ourselves, guaranteeing failure, and then coming up with exquisite, elaborate justifications for why we SHOULD sabotage ourselves. But to me, it all sounds just like the disadvantaged kid telling himself that school isn’t worth it.
reticent:
I agree.
A good point to start from, Reticent. Assuming, arguendo, I am dysfunctional due to an assumed victimhood, I don’t have leaders who are empowering me in my dysfunction. My leaders and I are at odds; not so with the illiberal interest groups. So the dynamic is at least dissimilar there. And are we alarmingly good at sabotage. I can think of two ways: we often present very unsuitable candidates and we don’t align for strategy (Neo’s point) when we should. Can you think of others? Finally, exquisite elaborate justifications? I buy that least of all. Here’s the justification: I’m not voting for that asshole because he’s an asshole (“asshole” meaning mostly “not really a conservative”).
Your point may have even other aspects, which would illuminate conservative “obstinance.”
A Shrub Jr appointee told the people of Colorado that they don’t need more than 15 rounds in a firearm for self-defense. If they can’t get this one little issue right what is the point voting for them again?
Here maybe a truism worth remembering:
As conservatives, we believe man is flawed and are quite convinced it is mostly the other man.
Does anyone doubt that in November’s elections that mostly establishment candidates will win? So we’ll have another RINO Congress. What makes anyone think that they won’t then vote for amnesty? Remember that Republican big donors want amnesty. The RINO’s will make sure that there are some ‘strong’ border provisions, giving them political cover. Knowing that Obama will ignore those provisions.
While the left knows that voter fraud is their ace in the hole, with 6.9 million Americans registered to vote in two or more states and, that’s in just 28 states and doesn’t count the three largest, Ca. Fl and TX…
There will also be a “path to citizenship”, so that in perhaps 5 years the demographics of American elections will irreversibly swing toward a one party socialistic state.
Voting for RINO’s does get us the ‘extra time’ to somehow turn this all around. Unfortunately, with a RINO establishment Congress, we’ll have nothing but hope as leverage to change the eventual outcome because the GOP base’s outrage doesn’t faze them a bit.
In fact, they’ve publicly sworn to “crush us” by, as Cochran just showed, whatever means are necessary.
And therein lies the problem on our side; the GOP leadership and establishment is not interested in stopping the left. They’re interested in getting the best deal for themselves and their donors as they can.
Hope is not a strategy but a prayer.
Prayers are for the gallows.
Geoffrey Britain:
I don’t think they’ll vote for amnesty, because I think they actually do realize it’s signing their own death warrant.
But even if I’m wrong—still, the races in the general are between Republicans and Democrats. Support and vote for Tea Party candidates in the primaries, but vote for whoever the Republican is in the general, even if it’s a RINO. Because if you don’t, the Democrat wins, and then—and of this I am certain—if the Democrats control Congress, they will vote for amnesty.
This seems so obvious that I can’t understand why it would even need to be explained. There is a difference between primaries and the general. In the primary, there’s a choice between a conservative and a RINO. In the general, the choice is between a conservative and a Democrat, or a RINO and a Democrat. Once a RINO has been nominated by winning a primary, choosing the conservative by write-in or third-party (or choosing to stay home on election day) is virtually certain to elect the Democrat.
I’m with you, neo. The only place for conservatives to achieve goals is inside the Republican Party. Start a third party? Don’t make me laugh. Just go Galt? Well, it’s slightly less painful than hari-kari, but the effect is the same.
I don’t like the progs policies. I don’t like the way they’ve managed to infiltrate the media, academia, unions, and civil service. But I know one thing. Quitting is not going to help. Many people want to “see it burn.” Do they think they won’t be touched by the flames? Do they have a secure retreat and all the supplies necessary for a complete breakdown of civil authority? I don’t want to see it burn, because I know myself and my kin will burn too.
Look, we were in almost as bad shape back in the Carter years. I was younger and planning for TEOTWAWKI. Then Reagan came along. One man with an opposing Democrat Congress was able to bring us back and help us rise. There is nothing this nation lacks for it to get moving again except for the government to get far enough out of the way to restore people’s confidence. So, join me in standing up and helping in the effort to find the man who can bring us back. He will be a Republican!
Lurker:
Oh, that makes plenty of sense.
Let’s see if I’ve got this straight: a Bush appointee in Colorado made a ruling insufficiently conservative and with which you strongly disagree.
Therefore they’re ALL the same and let’s let the left win.
Divide and Conquer.
If tea partiers do not vote RINO I can think of at least one scenario/strategy where that would turn out well, and it has precedent: the Arab Spring in Egypt.
In Egypt, the MB came to power and then, due to their awful performance, social controls, overreach and tyranny, they were overthrown. You see the strategy. Why prolong the only event that can restore this nation? Who can tell if such is not the case? Let’s bring this thing to a head and when it gets painful and pus is oozing out: revolution!
Are we at that point, yet, when the needed revolution can be vocalized? We know we need one. No one really believes a slow comeback will work. I cannot think of historical examples. Anyone? Rather, the model for change against entrenchment is violence and blood.
The big issue is federal judges and Supreme Court justices. We are close to losing America if the Senate stays Democrat. Conservatives who stay home to be pure gave us Obama. This next time they can give us a liberal SC.
“I don’t think they’ll vote for amnesty, because I think they actually do realize it’s signing their own death warrant.” neo
One would certainly hope that to be the case. I’d be more sanguine about that possibility if the GOP leadership was not already firmly behind passage of Comprehensive Amnesty. Upon what objective basis might we imagine that after November they’ll change their minds? Especially as their big donors will still want amnesty…
” Support and vote for Tea Party candidates in the primaries, but vote for whoever the Republican is in the general, even if it’s a RINO. Because if you don’t, the Democrat wins, and then–and of this I am certain–if the Democrats control Congress, they will vote for amnesty.
This seems so obvious that I can’t understand why it would even need to be explained.”
Most here ‘get it’ and don’t need it explained neo, (please, less ‘channeling’ of Artfldgr) 😉 nor do most, if any dispute the wisdom of voting for Tea Party candidates in the primaries, it’s the wisdom of voting for a RINO in the general election, wherein some of us can’t agree.
We’ve been holding our nose for decades voting for RINO’s and it has brought us to this state of affairs: the GOP leadership, by supporting amnesty is fully supporting America’s cultural death warrant. Why would electing more RINO’s change that dynamic?
But, it is not because we think your argument invalid neo that we disagree but because some of us find it an insufficient long term policy for the position within which we find ourselves.
It is insufficient because it specifies no rationale for the GOP to have an incentive to change. It is insufficient because we do not have another generation to turn things around. It is insufficient because it doesn’t address the shared responsibility for the coming debacles that voting for RINO’s will result in, the unintended consequence of shared responsibility means the the GOP will NOT be able to offer a credible alternative when this house of cards collapses.
Ted Cruz will be able to say “I told you so” but Mitch McConnell?
IMO, the only way that the duped low-info voter turns away from ‘progressive’ panaceas is if the responsibility for the coming collapse is inescapable and electing GOP RINO’s provides a huge ‘escape hatch’ for the democrats.
There’s no way to escape the coming pain, the patient is too addicted to its poisons, the only question is whether the democrats will once again escape responsibility for what they have wrought. Given the MSM’s collusion, RINO’s provide all the wiggle room needed.
I’m open to persuasion but that requires addressing all the dynamics at play.
This is not “a ruling”. This is fundamental. This clown says “need”, as in “you don’t need…”. I guess old Rosa Parks sure didn’t “need” to sit in the front of the bus either.
I am seldom surprised by jackass judges. Seems like with dead elephant judges it is always a crap shoot on the big issues.
BTW I am a reformed democrat. Now I hate them with every fiber of my being. I really hope that when we get to the other side of the river on this thing that we get to strip them of their wealth and hang a bunch of the party leaders. I have never liked the GOP and people like Gramnesty and McSlime are the reason why. I also believe these RINO bastards if given the choice between losing their seat and supporting the Commie agenda they will collaborate.
I agree with Claire Wolfe, too late to work within the system and too early to shoot the bastards.
Mr. Frank,
With all due respect, we’ve already lost America. On every front and on every issue, the progressives are winning by collapsing the very ground upon which we stand.
It’s arguable that Conservatives who stayed home to be pure gave us Obama but even if they did, until a significant percentage of low-info voting Americans awaken, the left has won the war. We’re just fighting a rear guard action at this point.
Now, you may shoot the messenger.
Lurker:
The point is not whether it’s a “ruling” or “fundamental” (or a “fundamental ruling,” for that matter).
The point is that, in general. electing Republicans leads to the appointment of more actually conservative (or at least, less liberal) judges who are less likely to issue decisions like that than electing Democrats would lead to. And that liberal judges are not just likely to issue liberal decisions, but are just about 100% certain to issue them. Judges appointed by Republicans sometimes issue liberal decisions. But judges appointed by Democrats almost never issue conservative decisions. That is the difference, and it’s an important one.
You and many others are shooting yourself and your cause, in your anger at certain people. You are generalizing way too much, and you will hurt what you hold dear.
I don’t buy for a minute that the conservative movement is any smaller than before. The popularity of talk radio, Fox News, and sites such as neo’s would tend to confirm that. But the left has been so successful at demonizing and punishing those who do speak with a conservative voice are silenced. And even “moderates” such as McConnell, McCain, and Graham demonze and marginalize voices like Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and Sarah Palin.
And, as we’ve just seen, the GOP establishment will resort to any manner of stunt to stack the deck against Tea Party and conservative voices. Thus far they have been mostly successful with that strategy. But at what cost to the nation and to the future. And if I may close with a quote from Barry Goldwater, “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!”
kaba:
Yes, Barry Goldwater, who became president in 1964.
Some extremism is self-defeating extremism. Makes a person feel all noble, but it hurts one’s own cause.
By the way, I think the conservative movement is bigger than before, not smaller. But I think it’s hurting itself. And talk shows are a double-edged sword. They help people organize their thoughts and be informed, but they whip them up into a self-defeating anti-RINO frenzy.
Conservatives need to be smart. Some of what’s happening now is smart, but some is quixotic and not smart at all.
I’m thinking GB makes a good point about letting the fools (DEMS and RINOS) stand alone and share the blame.
Here’s another point that changers and moderates and the non-religious do not understand. Coming from a fundamental background, I know it well. And that is that a huge block isn’t listening and will never hear the message to vote RINO as a strategy. No matter how much education and airtime RINOs could get, they will not reach the evangelical masses who obey the command “be separate from the world.” Just as Luther stated, “I stand convicted by the Scriptures to which I have appealed, and my conscience is taken captive by God’s word, I cannot and will not recant anything, for to act against our conscience is neither safe for us, nor open to us. On this I take my stand. I can do no other. God help me.”
Now that evangelical reality makes a RINO/Tea Party block unachievable. An evangelical will dare death rather than vote for someone like Thad Cochran.
So, why is it apparent that we should vote RINO in the general?
Especially as it has the history of never working?
neo,
Yes Barry lost in ’64. But he paved the way for Reagan in ’80. Far too many of you are worried about the next election and too little concerned with the next generation.
waitforit:
I am stunned by the logic of “since it has the history of never working.”
Compared to WHAT–letting the Democrat win?
No, of course, it’s never “worked”—if by “working” you mean conservatives in the driver’s seat for decades. And not voting for Republicans but letting Democrats win instead has no history of success for conservatives either. You have to have the right conservative candidates, and then conservatives will win. If conservatives aren’t the nominee, they can’t win. Write-ins and third-party votes have a history of being losing campaigns for conservatives in the general.
The evangelicals are a world unto themselves. I did read that in 2012 they voted more for Romney than they had for McCain in 2008, but they voted overwhelmingly Republican both times. But the idea that they stayed home in either 2008 or 2012 is a myth; there was no “missing white vote” in 2012 compared to 2008, as I’ve written elsewhere. All the articles that discuss how evangelicals stayed home in 2012 are using incomplete statistics that were later corrected.
Here’s an interesting article about evangelicals and voting.
This discussion reminds me of comments I read about the Marco Rubio article on NRO yesterday. The commenters ignored Rubio’s economic proposals and ruled him out because if his stance on amnesty. I wonder how many of these people were ready to annoint him the next messiah after his election. (My own take was that he was interesting but we should wait and see.)
Right now, I think we have to accept that he is a senator and we should try to work with him where we share the same goals. Regarding his amnesty views, I would like to see him asked to discuss publically the issue with perhaps Victor Hanson, who has seen a very different side of its effects. This would let us see how open he is to other points of view and whether he is willing modify his positions based on things he didn’t know before. I just don’t see how dismissing him right now is helpful to our cause.
There is a my way or the highway attitude among some conservatives on single issues, but these same people give little indication of their own priorities. They are they same people who think we should get rid of the IRS, EPA, and various other departments tomorrow without considering whether they perform some importantant functions. This doesn’t mean that there can’t be downsizing or restructuring or perhaps abolishment. It just means that we can’t radically chang government in a day. We have to think about things. Otherwise we risk making the same mistake Obama did with Obamacare and create even bigger messes.
I want to retain the House and kick Reid out as Majority Leader so that we can have a decent budget passed and other legislation brought up for vote. I want to see immigration discussed with a Senate willing to talk with us. Above all, I want to scare the unthinking Obama-following Dems about the possibility of losing their seats if they continue to support idiotic policies. Just look at the number now trying to dance around the pipeline issue. I want us to concentrate on presenting our program in a rational manner to the whole electorate. I want Obama’s approval rating to sink because people are gradually seeing that he can’t be trusted.
kaba:
I don’t know how old you are, but I remember those elections. I cannot even imagine what you mean when you say that Goldwater in 1964 “paved the way” for Reagan. They were far apart and very different things were operating. The candidates were about as different as night and day while still being basic conservatives. One did not lead to the other (unless you’re talking about Reagan addressing the 1964 convention and becoming better known). Your connection is very tenuous.
Meanwhile, all sorts of things happened in the intervening years at the hands of liberals, things that have still not been reversed today (such as, just to take two, 1965 immigration changes and the rise of an anti-American theocracy in Iran).
And who is this “you” of whom you speak, Kemo Sabe? Too many of “you” are worried about the next election? Darn right I am. The next election is incredibly important. Without that and 2016, we are probably lost, as is conservatism.
I’m plenty concerned with the next generation. If we lose the next election and the next, the next generation will be even more brainwashed than the preceding one was.
http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2014/06/27/report-mexican-military-chopper-crosses-into-us-shoots-at-border-agents/
TUCSON, Ariz. (CBS Las Vegas/AP) – Border Patrol agents in Arizona were reportedly fired upon by a Mexican military helicopter that traveled across the border.
Mexican authorities were conducting a drug interdiction operation when the incident happened early Thursday morning on the Tohono O’odham Indian Nation. The Mexican chopper fired at the agents and then flew back into Mexico.
However, Mexican authorities have denied shooting at agents and say they were under attack during a mission to find smugglers on the border.
Tomé¡s Zeré³n, the director of the Mexican attorney general’s office investigative office, said that Mexican military and federal police who were conducting an operation on a ranch in Altar, Sonora, were shot at by criminals. Mexican authorities never fired any weapons and in fact never crossed into the U.S. side of the border, he said.
Art Del Cueto, Border Patrol Tucson Sector union president, tells KVOA-TV, though, that they called and apologized for the incident.
“The incident occurred after midnight and before 6 a.m. Helicopter flew into the U.S. and fired on two U.S. Border Patrol agents,” Del Cueto said in a statement to KVOA. “The incident occurred west of the San Miguel Gate on the Tohono O’odham Indian Nation. The agents were unharmed. The helicopter went back into Mexico. Mexico then contacted U.S. authorities and apologized for the incident.”
Del Cueto said four agents were in a marked patrol vehicle when they were shot at.
UKIP has shown that a grassroots movement can coalesce into a party that is not only able to excite people to support an alternative to the established parties, but actually triumph at the ballot box. Perhaps it is time to follow that example and begin the journey to offer a real alternative here.
Study: All Employment Growth Since 2000 Went to Immigrants
“According to a major new report from the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), net employment growth in the United States since 2000 has gone entirely to immigrants, legal and illegal. Using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, CIS scholars Steven A. Camarota and Karen Zeigler found that there were 127,000 fewer working-age natives holding a job in the first quarter of 2014 than in 2000, while the number of immigrants with a job was 5.7 million above the 2000 level.
Immigrants have made gains across the labor market, including lower-skilled jobs such as maintenance, construction, and food service; middle-skilled jobs like office support and health care support; and higher-skilled jobs, including management, computers, and health care practitioners.
The supply of potential workers is enormous: 8.7 million native college graduates are not working, as are 17 million with some college, and 25.3 million with no more than a high school education.”
Really neo, you’ve not listened to Reagan’s “A Time for Choosing” speech in support of Goldwater’s campaign? That more than anything launched his campaign for Governor of California and ultimately as President.
And the you I refer to are people who apparently believe that re-electing people who have been major contributors to if not the direct cause of the problems we’re having today will in some way resolve the problem if only we give them six more years and a majority status.
And as I remarked in an earlier thread having a Republican Senate composed of Cochran and the like won’t do much to slow Obama. He has already proven that he is more than willing to ignore congress and the Constitution to achieve his ends. And it will give H. Clinton the perfect scapegoat for the train wreck we’ll see in the next two years and make her election more not less likely.
Yes Barry lost in ’64. But he paved the way for Reagan in ’80.
You’re assuming Hussein won’t be the Last US President or a President for Life.
It’s one thing to ignore elections because you think the ammo box is preferable. It’s quite another thing to place your hopes on a Superman hero of justice to come along and save the wretched and sinful United States from its own citizens.
UKIP has shown that a grassroots movement can coalesce into a party that is not only able to excite people to support an alternative to the established parties, but actually triumph at the ballot box. Perhaps it is time to follow that example and begin the journey to offer a real alternative here.
UKIP functions on the Brit’s majority rules, parliamentary system of coalitions. The US functions on a very different principle, which the Left hijacked as usual. So the Brits may have wanted to squash smaller parties using gov power, but they couldn’t do so. But the US, however, is functionally equipped to shatter smaller parties. Especially since Both Major parties, like their monopoly on power, for one reason or another.
Which goes back to the ammo box, not the ballot box, issue, once more.
Neo, I traded issues regarding “it has never worked.” What hasn’t worked is presenting a RINO for a Presidential election. That is something entirely different than defeating/eliminating RINOs by not voting for them. Sloppy conflation on my part.
This is conjecture, but I believe there is a small but maybe significant amount of evangelicals who haven’t voted since Reagan. They probably helped GW, but that was it. I recall reading very recently an article called “The Great Secession.” It was written by an atheist and lamented the withdrawal of the very religious from social/political life.
Ymarsakar,
I would suggest that as long as we see the establishment GOP stacking the deck against anyone with a conservative voice we’re not likely to see the emergence of another politician like Reagan.
And secondly, so long as we continue to vote for whatever SOB they force down our throats we’re only going to get more SOB’s.
strat·e·gy[ stré¡ttÉ™jee ]
planning in any field: a carefully devised plan of action to achieve a goal, or the art of developing or carrying out such a plan
Wouldn’t it be, in the least, a “strategy” if the tea party caused a temporary increase of Democrats in power for the permanent destruction of RINOs. That’s the strategy of not voting for RINOs. If that happened, lets say in a non-Presidential general election, and all the RINOs were defeated, and it was evident there numbers were way down, wouldn’t that break the stranglehold of the Republican establishment. If there was a good chance of it, and there was a reasonable chance the nation could endure two years of a Democratic majority (2008-2010), then why is that not a viable strategy as much as yours?
Can you believe that crap? Mexico?
The USA has become like that really big retarded kid in High School that smelled of poop and was picked on by everyone.
“You’re assuming Hussein won’t be the Last US President or a President for Life.”
That’s a fairly safe assumption, barring an apocalyptic event sufficient to give Obama an undeniable rationale for declaring nationwide martial law. Complete fiscal collapse or a nuclear terrorist attack upon a major US city are examples of such a crisis. Absent such a grave scenario, the US Military would not support a coup by Obama and the left.
While everything Obama is doing in both the foreign and domestic arenas is leading toward a comparable crisis, there’s no way of reliably predicting when it will arrive. Before Jan of 2017? Possibly. After the next President is sworn in, more probably. The left is doing all it can with amnesty for illegal immigrants and voter fraud in key precincts to ensure that a democrat is President when the increasingly likely crisis arrives.
Even then, in order to complete the fundamental transformation of America, the US Constitution must be ‘legally’ amended. Martial law provides the pretext and methodology for bypassing the normal Constitutional amendment process. Then and only then will the left drop its pretenses and allow the LIVs to see the real face of its ‘progressiveness’.
And secondly, so long as we continue to vote for whatever SOB they force down our throats we’re only going to get more SOB’s.
As various other anti Leftists have mentioned, attacking them in the primaries is the goal and it is what McD tried.
However, talking about this after the fact isn’t really going to do anything. Everyone knew or should have known that the primaries were coming for this and that in certain states.
War is not a game where time is infinite or can be reloaded/reset infinitely given bad outcomes.
If you lost one primary, go after another primary.
And as for people who want to farm it out, O’Keefe had Project Veritas could use the money. Far better than the Republican GOP would, at least.
waitforit:
Oh, it’s a strategy all right. One I’ve heard for years now.
Only thing about it is that I think it has about a .0001% chance of happening that way. And I think that may be an overestimate.
I think it has a far greater chance of leading to disaster, and perhaps permanent disaster. The reason is quite simple: the left plays hardball, the right (whether RINO or conservative) does not, at least not compared to the left.
For example, the left would destroy the rule of law in a heartbeat if it sees its way clear to doing so. Hasn’t Obama taught you that? And you want him and Harry Reid to keep control of the Senate for the next two years? Remember, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet, because these last two years of Obama’s presidency he has absolutely nothing to lose. Obama unbound, as it were. Giving up gains in the Senate also completely removes the option of impeachment. An incredibly risky move.
Comparing it to 2008-2010 is a false comparison. Back then Obama was worried about re-election. He was new, feeling his way, testing the waters, seeing what he could get away with. And even back then they passed Obamacare, probably irreversible, and something that could easily propel us into socialism and has caused hardship and economic problems already. If you don’t see why what you are suggesting is extremely dangerous, I don’t know how to convince you, but it seems obvious to me.
On the other hand, once Republicans get control of Congress it buys time, and then you can work on moving the Republican Party to the right, if you want. Letting Democrats take control and keep control for any longer is way too dangerous.
I have a theory that the right (conservatives, that is) lacks patience. Sorry to say it, but that’s what I see. The left is incredibly patient, on the other hand. Conservatives often seem to think their opinions are so very obviously correct that everyone on the right should agree with them, and they resent that that hasn’t happened yet. So they’re angry, and that’s part of where the “burn the house down!” feeling comes from. It is very, very short-sighted. And I know that a lot of people would point out “No, we’re tired of being tricked, of being promised one thing and have another happen.” You know what? That’s politics. Keep voting for Republicans in the primaries who won’t do that, if you can find them. In the meantime, letting Democrats win makes absolutely no sense; they will definitely betray you. Undoubtedly.
I lean more towards the conservative end of the Republican Party myself. And readers here who consider themselves conservatives and are angry right now might be angry at me for what I said about impatience in the above paragraph. But that’s the way I see it. I’ve seen it that way for pretty much as long as I’ve been blogging, but I saw it even more clearly in the 2012 election. For example, that any conservative would even think of not voting for Romney because he was “establishment” or because they felt he was a RINO astounded me. It seemed crystal clear to me that that course of action would enable the re-election of Obama and the possible success of the left, a success that might be irreversible.
I still don’t understand that attitude. “Short-sighted” doesn’t even begin to cover it. And yet people who think that way consider that they are taking the long view?
It’s like a person whose house is on fire and about to collapse around them thinking it probably would be a good idea to redecorate. That may not be the best analogy, but it’s the one that comes to mind.
How about this. 2008-2012 they passed Obamacare which has probably been the best thing for the opposition. Here’s my metaphor: The Dems are busy little beavers building up the dam chocking our freedoms and liberties. At some point, the pressure is going to burst the dam. Why not “help” the beavers and we’ll have less time enduring that slow strangulation. That’s what your strategy has given us; that’s what “patience (how dare you, madam!) has given us; slow strangulation. Patience like the frog in the pot? How much time do we have before the foreign situation gets so bad that our only option is to go nuclear? I’m all for patience. I really don’t want to upset my comfortable life. I prefer patience. I pray for continued patience. But the Scriptures and history is full of examples of discontinuities, of judgment coming fast and certain.
So there’s plenty of reason and rationale on both sides. Frankly, I think it’s a case of six of one, half a dozen of the other. It’s a great argument, but ultimately irrelevant, I believe, because it doesn’t MATTER! What matters is that we have become a corrupt people, in the main, and that is the genesis of the dilemma we argue about. You don’t see it as a dilemma; I do. I think that’s about as far as we can take it.
“I think it has a far greater chance of leading to disaster, and perhaps permanent disaster.”
There’s no ‘chance’ of heading toward disaster, we are headed toward disaster. Progressive democrats and collaborating RINO’s make disaster unavoidable. My God, the signs are literally everywhere.
So the question becomes, do we do all that we can to ameliorate it or do we allow the American public to finally learn from having to “sit on their blisters”?
My position is that trying to slow down the coming train wreck, by voting for RINOs ensures that the Right gets the blame in the eyes of the majority of the public. And, if there is a train wreck and the Right gets the blame… game over for a very long time.
We on the right are great ones for talking of consequences and disparaging the over protective nanny state mentality. When will we stop traeting our fellow citizens as children and instead allow them to experience the consequence of their choices? How shall they learn otherwise? And if they don’t learn, how will things get better?
“the left plays hardball, the right (whether RINO or conservative) does not, at least not compared to the left.”
I knew a man once, a good old boy from Georgia, who said that, “he couldn’t fight good, till he tasted his own blood”. So too with the Right. The trope that progressives are well meaning but mistaken must evolve into unapologetic mendacity. And since that is the left’s nature, it will.
“the left would destroy the rule of law in a heartbeat if it sees its way clear to doing so.”
Very true. What better ‘teaching moment’ could we wish for LIVs than for the left’s mask to drop away? And Obama has already destroyed the rule of law, he just hasn’t started to apply it to liberals…yet.
“Remember, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet, because these last two years of Obama’s presidency he has absolutely nothing to lose.”
That’s true, his behavior indicates he feels ‘invincible’. So he has nothing to lose. Democrats however, have an awfully lot to lose when an out of control Obama lets his mask slip, as he’s been doing as of late? The more imperial his edicts the more his popularity declines and upon his popularity rest democrat hopes for 2016.
“Giving up gains in the Senate also completely removes the option of impeachment. An incredibly risky move.”
Since the GOP is not going to get 2/3 rds of the Senate, there is no potential loss of an impeachment trial.
“even back then they passed Obamacare, probably irreversible, and something that could easily propel us into socialism and has caused hardship and economic problems already.”
We already have socialism, democrats want more and RINOs will most assuredly give it to them. So we are really talking about how fast we are marched to the gallows. Which leads us to a critical point upon which I believe your entire argument rests neo and that is;
“once Republicans get control of Congress it buys time, and then you can work on moving the Republican Party to the right”
How do you propose that we accomplish that goal, exactly how? What shall we do that we have not already tried? And of those things that we have tried before that have failed to move the GOP away from collaboration… what basis is there for presupposing that ‘this time’ it will work?
“letting Democrats win makes absolutely no sense; they will definitely betray you. Undoubtedly.”
Most assuredly so, there is no doubt whatsoever. Personally I’m counting on it because until they betray America in a manner that cannot be spun, LIVs will not awaken. Reality is the only cure for denial and much of America is so deep in denial that only the harshest of realities will awaken them. That, I fear is the tragic truth of the matter.
“yet people who think that way consider that they are taking the long view?”
Yes, if your long view is that disaster is inescapable. I fully sympathize with your hope that it is not and I pray that you are right and I in the wrong.
I agree that you don’t let a rabid dog loose on the streets hoping it will get hit by a car (i.e., letting the Leftists take the whole shebang).
Also, remember they got to their present position of power by degrees and over decades, by being patient and relentless. We Americans are going to need the same Long War, bloodyminded, determination to defeat them.
I remember when I started hanging out on conservative blogs about ten years ago. I was astounded to see people say things like, “Let Them have New York and California; those states suck anyway!” Amazing!
Far better to have Scarlett O’Hara’s attitude toward the “hated Yankee overseer, Jonas Wilkerson,” who had the taxes raised on Tara so he could take it from her:
Geoffrey Britain:
If things get bad enough, some more moderate Democrats could join with Republicans to impeach Obama, if they thought their political lives depended on it. Not outside the realm of possibility.
Disaster is far more inevitable (and faster) if Democrats control things than if Republicans do. As I wrote earlier, having Republicans control things buys time, time in which you can work for the election of more and more conservative candidates. If Democrats are in power people will not necessarily blame whatever disaster might happen on the Democrats; look at how many people still blame everything that’s happened in the last few years on the Republicans. Iraq? Because the Republicans broke it, not because Obama failed to keep the gains that were made. The economy? Bush’s fault. And don’t forget—Republicans will take away your contraception! And do you really think that if millions and millions of illegal immigrants become citizens, and millions more arrive, they’ll be blaming Democrats for any hard times that come?
Nor do Democratic hopes for the presidency in 2016 rest on Obama’s popularity. A new candidate (particularly a woman) is a new person, making new promises. And oh, won’t it be great to finally have a woman president, now that we’ve had the first black president? Let’s make history!
Your response to the idea of working to get more conservatives into the Republican Party is a good demonstration about what I mean by lack of patience. The Tea Party movement started in 2009, if I recall. You call that long? And back in the 90s conservatives were doing well for a while, but they overplayed their hand and blew it.
I wrote a post on this (during the 2012 campaign) calling people on the right who say “let it burn” the “Cloward-Pivens of the right.” Here’s an excerpt:
There are over 200 comments in that thread. You might be interested in reading them; it was certainly a lively discussion.
In all comes down to what neo wrote, almost on the wing, far up this thread where she says:
“You and many others are shooting yourself and your cause, in your anger at certain people. You are generalizing way too much, and you will hurt what you hold dear.”
“You will hurt what you hold dear.” Easy to see how “principled” people can lie flaming in that pit.
As usual, I agree 100% with Geoffrey Britain’s positions, especially the one about the people needing to wake up.
Rather than re-hash the theoretical arguments above, I’ll make some predictions:
1) The economy is going into recession, officially. The administration will try to hide this, but I’m not sure they’ll be able. Their problem is that almost the entire rest of the government relies on figures generated by certain departments (the Fed is the exception…they can generate their own stats, even using unorthodox methods). They can’t generate complete bullshit numbers because A) it would hamper the rest of the govt. from functioning, and B) if the numbers are too good, they’ll be openly called on it…just like Jack Welch did before the last election.
This will create another round of layoffs, and possibly panic. The LIVs will not like this, and yes, Obama will be blamed…presidents ALWAYS get the blame, whether it’s their fault or not, whether the MSM tries to cover for them or not. When people lose their jobs, they’re in no mood for bullshit.
The Fed’s policy of QE is now down to $35 billion per month. As the heroin wears off, the market will start responding rationally, as it should. The stock market will go down again when presented with bad news. Again, it may be a full-scale panic. Then, Obama won’t even have that phony metric to tout.
A possible wild card is Yellen’s response to this: she may reverse the taper, but at this point I’m not sure it will have much effect.
2) The Senate will be retaken by Republicans, by a wide margin. This will be a result of the worsening financial state. As November comes closer, margins in Senate races will widen, providing a pretty good idea of who’s going to win. This will provide an opportunity to get rid of dead weight like Cochran and McConnell. Republicans will still have the majority, even without them.
Concerns about SCOTUS appointments will vanish. The rest of Obama’s term will be him playing defense against a fully Republican Congress.
After he’s gone, toleration for fecklessness won’t be an issue, and we can clean house with a freer hand.
3) Immigration reform will not pass. This will be a result of both Cochran and McConnell losing their races. Cantor was one thing, and the establishment tried to laugh it off…McConnell losing will kill it dead. Also, the financial crisis of late 2014 will not instill the population with extra faith in their leaders.
4) Establishment Republicans will squander much of their time with empty gestures. This will anger even the LIV Republican base, as it will be obvious that *something* needs to be done. They will be more receptive to house cleaning as a result.
5) The geopolitical situation will spiral. It will be disaster after disaster…maybe the outbreak of a couple of major wars. The US will be powerless to contain it, especially since Obama has hollowed out the military. This will draw even more criticism on Obama. The US may or may not get hit with another major terrorist attack, but it would only accelerate the trend. This will taint everyone associated with the administration [cough] Hillary [cough].
As things get *really* bad, even Democrats will be forced to recant some of their positions. Voters will start to feel physically insecure again, like after 9/11.
6) Hillary will be challenged. She will be the front runner, but will be challenged from the loony left. She will *brutally* put down this insurgency, but it will have the effect of demoralizing the most energetic activists. She will go on to lose the presidential race.
7) The more extreme Obama becomes, the more forcefully SCOTUS will oppose him. The people, who still have respect for the rule of law, will be forced to admit that he’s overstepped his authority by a mile.
That’s about it for now.
I love putting myself on the record…it will be interesting to see how things play out in ways that I can’t yet imagine.
When proven wrong, I hope to learn important lessons from it.
Neo-Neocon:
What strikes me most about your piece and this discussion is the idea that people like Cochran are not in it for political ideology but for personal power and holding on to it. I’ve been making the same arguments you have been asserting at another conservative blog where the majority opinion is “Burn it down!” The commenters, to a person, express the sentiment that they can no longer, in pure conscience, hold their noses in order to ensure a Republican senate. Their memories of feeling good about “doing the right thing” will soon be eclipsed by how rotten it feels to learn they have some 10-20 MM new fellow citizens who are sucking the life blood out our economy through social welfare entitlements. An economy which already labors under a very high percentage of citizens who have already given up or never got started persuing happiness, American Style.
I believe it would be far easier to deal with these mercenary power-mongers in the congress where their political behavior is on the record and their duplicity stands in stark relief to their cheap, vote-getting talk. It seems to me they will be far easier to bring to heel when they are surrounded and influenced by their truly conservative collegues who can call them out on their corruption for all the voters to see. Then voters can actually compare oranges to oranges.
Matt_SE:
Even if Congress is Republican in both houses (which becomes more doubtful if conservatives get their way and defeat Cochran), why would that make concerns about SCOTUS appointments disappear? I can envision Obama somehow going over the need to have his appointments approved, defying Congress’ power. Or, if Congress keeps saying no to his appointments, he’ll just find one liberal judge after another to appoint and finally wear them out by saying they are undermining the justice system by refusing to approve his appointments. He won’t knuckle under; he’ll force some sort of constitutional crisis.
I don’t think he has any respect whatsoever for the rule of law. I think he will go past it if he has to, and unless marshals come to arrest him he will get away with it.
Should be interesting, anyway.
The left is incredibly patient, on the other hand.
That’s because the Leftist operatives are getting bank deposits right now. They aren’t told to wait for some future lottery win. Republican voters are used to being told promises by Republican politicians. That never pan out, due to a number of reasons. Read my lips, no new taxes, etc.
I only care that a candidate has the Will to destroy the Left. What they do elsewhere, such as invading Mexico or Canada, I really don’t care.
Abigail Adams suggests that it is possible that outrage effecting not voting RINO may be large enough to extinguish RINOs from national political office. So the .0001% is hyperbole. In fact, it is more reasonable to assume the tea party will not vote than it is to assume they will hold their nose and vote.
If the “vote RINOs because you have to” persons were strictly strategic, they might refrain from calling us impatient, whining, hot-headed irrational voters who concoct exotic and exquisite rationales. I mean, if there is enough cool reason to subsume disgust for race baiting elite RINO’s, where’s the love for your closer brother’s and sisters.
And for an academic exercise! A vote is a very personal thing. When you tell anyone that they are “stupid” or “immoral” because they are wasting their vote, no one is persuaded to change their voting persuasion.
Why is it hard to agree that rational voters are the exception, not the rule. Rail against human nature as you will, but if Thad Cochran is defeated in the general, there will be many happy Tea Party Mississippians. The progressives know voting is largely irrational and so act. Conservatives know it too. Libertarians and moderates? Not so much.
For all that, if I was a resident of Mississippi, I would vote Thad in the general because I still have hope of a political solution. But it’s getting close. And I’m sure there are some like me, whose denunciations run extreme, but in the end act a lot more rational than might be expected.
waitforit:
No offense to Abigail Adams, but why would her saying something like that mean that .0001% is hyperbole? What she’s actually saying, as I read it, is that once more conservatives come to join the RINOs in Congress, they may push the RINOs further to the right:
Which is what I’ve been saying. In fact, at least as I read her post (I assume Abigail is a “she”), it’s in basic agreement with mine.
You write that we should refrain from calling you and others who espouse your point of view “impatient, whining, hot-headed irrational voters who concoct exotic and exquisite rationales…When you tell anyone that they are ‘stupid’ or ‘immoral’ because they are wasting their vote, no one is persuaded to change their voting persuasion.”
I have used none of those terms except “impatient” (although I actually do think many also are irrational and hot-headed). I have never called them “immoral,” either, nor do I even think it. Actually, by likening them to Don Quixote and me to Sancho Panza (which I did towards the end of the post in this very thread), am I not implying that they are moral but impractical? I certainly thought I was indicating that. To expand on the thought, I think they are impractical idealists, and I think they have too much faith in the backlash they’re counting on, and on their own abilities to predict the future.
And I have no trouble whatsoever believing that “rational voters are the exception, not the rule.” In fact, much of my blog is spent analyzing the reasons for that very fact.
RINOs are weak thinking FOLLOWERS.
THAT is of their essence.
McConnell is seriously miscast, as RINOship and leadership are like oil and water.
Anyone that relies upon awards, credentials, authorities, and public acclaim are weak and in need of a master or a follower to tell them what to do.
I find support for the idea that it is at least a possibiity that tea party voters would refrain from voting in such numbers as to extinguish RINOs from public office from Abigail Adam’s statement that “The commenters, to a person, express the sentiment that they can no longer, in pure conscience, hold their noses in order to ensure a Republican senate.”
As to immoral and stupid: my hyperbole.
waitforit:
Why ask people to stop calling you something they haven’t called you?
neo-neocon @ 12:28 am
“Once more unto the breach!”
”If things get bad enough, some more moderate Democrats could join with Republicans to impeach Obama, if they thought their political lives depended on it. Not outside the realm of possibility.”
Sure they could but there’s absolutely no reason to think they’ll do that unless their political lives are undeniably on the line. What basis is there to think that probable?
”Disaster is far more inevitable (and faster) if Democrats control things than if Republicans do.”
We’re all in agreement about that. My entire argument is that its coming anyway, so lets make sure to avoid shared responsibility, which we can only do if we divorce ourselves from support for RINOs.
”As I wrote earlier, having Republicans control things buys time, time in which you can work for the election of more and more conservative candidates.”
It does buy time. However, I’m still waiting for you to explain what incentive the GOP will have to change and how we get more actual conservatives elected, given the money and ruthless determination (ala Cochran) of the GOP leadership?
”If Democrats are in power people will not necessarily blame whatever disaster might happen on the Democrats; look at how many people still blame everything that’s happened in the last few years on the Republicans.”
It’s true that people still blame everything on the Republicans, whose leadership are correctly charged by the left as supporters of big money. That reality will continue until the base separates itself from support for RINOs.
”do you really think that if millions and millions of illegal immigrants become citizens, and millions more arrive, they’ll be blaming Democrats for any hard times that come?”
Of course not, as you know full well. As RINO’s are fully collaborating in that eventuality, how will electing more of them lessen that eventuality?
”Nor do Democratic hopes for the presidency in 2016 rest on Obama’s popularity. A new candidate (particularly a woman) is a new person, making new promises. And oh, won’t it be great to finally have a woman president, now that we’ve had the first black president? Let’s make history!”
Au contraire. If by November of 2015, Obama’s popularity is down to the hard core left, the democrats are in deep caca. But the ‘FIRST WOMAN PRESIDENT’ will be a difficult meme to overcome. It may be impossible to beat, no matter what we do.
But any woman democrat President will be unable to separate herself substantively from the lightbringer’s policies. So, if when it all collapses, she and the democrats are in charge without RINO collaboration because the base has separated itself from the GOP establishment… the democrat’s blame game has the least chance for success.
”Your response to the idea of working to get more conservatives into the Republican Party is a good demonstration about what I mean by lack of patience.”
I love to fish, patience is in plentiful supply. I’ve just reached the conclusion that continuing to do the same thing and hoping for different results is a losing strategy.
”The Tea Party movement started in 2009, if I recall. You call that long? And back in the 90s conservatives were doing well for a while, but they overplayed their hand and blew it.”
Long enough to see that it has stalled and why it has done so. The same old, same old won’t cut it anymore. In fact, history and our present reality confirm that it never did cut it.
”They believe that, if things get bad enough, the system will break down and enough people will see the light and then the true conservative dawn will break.”
No we believe that if enough people are confronted by reality, simply as a matter of survival, enough people will awaken. For if enough people do not awaken when reality calls, then America is doomed no matter what we do.
”Of course, it all depends on being able to count on future events and people’s reactions. But that’s a messy, risky, and downright dangerous business.”
No question, it is “ a messy, risky, and downright dangerous business”. We risk the demagogue but then we have one already and, only when the low info voters finally perceive the democrat’s demagoguery (reality having finally arrived) will they awaken. Otherwise the slow march to the gallows continues.
Geoffrey Britain:
That’s why I wrote “if they thought their political lives depended on it.” That would be the pressure.
The more conservatives there are who become part of the Republican caucus, they more they help push the RINOs to the right. First of all, just by their presence they show that voters are moving to the right and if the RINOs don’t, they might be primaried too. But to exert that pressure, the Republicans have to have a majority. Otherwise none of it matters; no Republican or conservative in Congress has any power without one. That’s why I say primary them, but if after that it ends up a fight between a RINO and a Democrat in the general, vote for the RINO.
Putting Democrats in power when some disaster comes does NOT necessarily avoid shared responsibility, and I’ve explained why at length in previous comments.
I do not believe that RINOs are fully cooperating in the responsibility for illegals and amnesty. I’ve explained why I say that, and what I think is actually going on, in previous posts (in too much of a hurry to look for it now, but it’s there). If and until they actually vote for amnesty, I will hold to that opinion.
The rest of your comment only substantiates what I said to you earlier about patience. Also, you give people way too much credit for rationality, I’m afraid. The Democrats I know would be only too happy to vote for a woman, and it doesn’t matter how disappointed they might be in Obama.
There is a certain point in this where things can no longer be overlooked.
For what is now literally decades those of us in the fiscally conservative wing of the party have been put off over and over and over with the same platitudes of it not being the time, we need more votes, politics is the art of the possible, yadda, yadda, yadda, with nary a bone thrown to us while big-government, right-wing liberals feed at the trough of public largesse.
Stand poised to make a difference, and we get the McCains andLugars and Cochran’s “Crossing the aisle” to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in the name of getting a headline as a moderate, thoughtful, statesmenlike maverick. Time and again this happens. And is bad enough by itself.
We have played by the rules. Not once, but over and over and over. Let someone successfully primary someone – like Lugar or Cochran – and those rules go the other way.
It’s one thing to have hard and brutal campaigning from an experienced politician beat you. It’s quite another for the lead-weights in the glove, below the belt cheating. And that is what has been done by the establishment types, because they aren’t afraid to lose a seat. Mainly because they are willing to vote Democrat, to maintain the status quo, to stay in power and be occasionally fawned over by the media. At least until they are the candidate.
It is said in relationships that “The one who wants it least, wins.” The inside the beltway, establishment, blue-blooded, latte-sipping, east coast RINO’s have been doing this election cycle in, and election cycle out. Make promises, come up with excuses to renege on them, and then when the heat is on they roll their eyes and talk down to us about “political reality” – when it is their own turncoats insuring we don’t win. They are voting for liberal judges. Voting to advance bills out of committee. And always when these things COUNT. They point to pissant victories – and let the big ones slip through the hands.
Get someone like Newt or Ted Cruz or Rand Paul in there fighting the good fight, or even winning them, and the knives come out and the backstabbing begins as they do everything in their power to destroy them. Such as doing opposition research on them and feeding it to the media.
I’m looking at you, John McSlime, you and your slutty airheaded bimbo of a daughter. You selected Sarah Palin, too – and then threw her to the WOLVES. Shame on you.
They keep doing this because it never – NEVER – costs them a thing to do so. People keep listening to that odious little troll Rove because he shanks someone, and reliably people come out of the woodwork talking about “Well, what if *THEY* win the seat…” and then their puppet wins, and then they can say “Listen to me, I know how to win..”
And we, the saps, keep going back, just like the abused wife who is convinced that this time he really means it and has really changed, and will stop drinking and hitting us for sure.
It has only gotten worse.
We’re now whacko birds and racists. By our own alleged party.
Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us twice, shame on us. We’re working on far, far more than twice, and you would have us go back to the angry drunk while he still has the bottle in his hand and the vile insults still on his lips?
We had it since 1994. The only thing we had to show was a balanced budget, which got pissed away and the author of that budget destroyed by his own party for the crime of doing it.
Do we look that stupid? Really?
Repeal Obamacare. We keep hearing that. “Well, we can’t repeal Obamacare without the congress.” Whole problem with that is we can’t repeal it WITH congress, as Obama will veto it. We got in line behind Romney, who tacked to the center and started talking about fixing and replacing it. He kept five million people home to placate people who wouldn’t have voted for him anyway. They STILL voted for Obama.
You say the answer is not to stay home? Well, our answer is it has to cost these people something. Now. Because we know what we get when we are told to be patient and wait for it to come, because it has yet to do so.
So – you tell us. What’s your answer besides bend over and keep letting them sodomize us, because we’re through with that @^#$ and there is no evidence they intend to do anything but that, as THEY JUST GOT DONE DOING IT!
Wicked Fenrir:
So primary them and get rid of them. Nobody’s stopping you, except those you are trying to get rid of. Do you expect them to cooperate with your efforts?
And Cochran played by the rules. That is, what he did was legal. Otherwise, there are no “rules.” What he did was dirty politics, a.k.a politics. You are naive if you don’t understand that. You’re angry because what he did worked. If you’re mad because someone hits “below the belt” you should stay out of politics, because it’s full of below-belt-hitting.
And your solution is to make things worse in your rage and frustration.
And by the way, “we’ve tried for decades” isn’t really an answer. Do you know how long the left has been trying? Much much longer than that. They do not give up, nor do they destroy each other in their frustration.
Neo-Neocon — (Yes, I am a “she”)
You read my comment correctly. In fact I linked your piece to my comment on the blog I referenced because your argument was mine also and you did a fine job of making it.
My argument also asserted that despite everyone’s wishes otherwise we only have the process that we have, at least for the present, and as weak or flawed as it is, it is still the only avenue by which to oust power-hungry individuals masquerading as the peoples’ representatives — no matter which side of the aisle they call home. An elected Republican will have a lot more difficult time, if the senate and the house are controlled by Republicans, to vote against their party. They will stand out like a sore thumb, starkly against their party and will be called by their party to explain themselves. Republicans who are considered RINOs must surely be aware that they are under a great deal of scrutiny by now.
(BTW: We’ll be seeing Gerard at church tomorrow. We hope you are well.)
neo,
“That’s why I wrote “if they thought their political lives depended on it.” That would be the pressure.”
Again, what basis is there to think it probable that their political lives will be on the line? That is, other than wishful thinking? What basis is there for thinking that RINOs will have the intestinal fortitude to weather virulent charges of racism and race riots, to hold an impeachment trial? Because if Obama is impeached and brought to trial there will be race riots.
“The more conservatives there are who become part of the Republican caucus, the more they help push the RINOs to the right.”
That assumes two things; that there will be enough conservatives elected to become part of a meaningful conservative caucus and, that we have the time needed to eventuate that scenario. And again, what basis is there for asserting that either is probable?
That scenario is a bit premature however, in that if a tide of Tea Party candidates do not win in the 2014 and 2016 primaries, then there will be no impactful conservative caucus to pressure RINOs to the right.
” That’s why I say primary them, but if after that it ends up a fight between a RINO and a Democrat in the general, vote for the RINO.”
That is exactly what we have been doing. It has resulted in the state of affairs we now face. Why and how will the results be different next time?
“Putting Democrats in power when some disaster comes does NOT necessarily avoid shared responsibility, and I’ve explained why at length in previous comments.”
And I’ve explained why if RINOs continue to be in charge they will get the blame, as they always do and did in 2012. Of course some are going to blame anyone and anything rather than the democrats. It’s the low info voters wherein the key lies and they are not progressives. So when reality bites, they will look to whomever is in charge to blame.
“I do not believe that RINOs are fully cooperating in the responsibility for illegals and amnesty. … If and until they actually vote for amnesty, I will hold to that opinion.”
Well they are politicians, perhaps they don’t mean what they say in spite of their insistence in the face of the base’s outrage. Perhaps the GOP leadership and Chamber of Commerce just want the base to understand ‘their place’… sure. Perhaps its some sophisticated strategy that we amateurs just can’t comprehend. Right.
But just so we’re clear, passage of any amnesty bill, regardless of content, is a stab in America’s back because the GOP knows that Obama will not enforce any prohibitive provisions, will not guard the border and will do all he can to put illegals on the path to citizenship.
They know this and if that, in your book is not ‘fully cooperating’ then forgive me but in my book, you’re in denial.
That you can read what I’ve said and interpret it to mean that it substantiates what you’ve said earlier about patience without addressing my objection; that electing RINOs provides no incentive for the GOP to change. Nor have you explained how we get more actual conservatives elected, given the money and ruthless determination (ala Cochran) of the GOP leadership. Which leads me to conclude that you’re just hoping that somehow it will happen. No offense intended but isn’t that a form of magical thinking?
I will agree however that I do give people too much credit for rationality, in spite of recognizing Heinlein’s aphorism, “Man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalizing animal.”
But I concede that to be a valid objection to my proposal to turn away from RINOs.
And I too recognize that for many, voting for a woman supersedes any other consideration.
Perhaps we’re both right in seeing the fatal flaw in each others tactics. Perhaps we’re just screwed.
This year I’m going to register as a republican (always been an independent) just so I can vote in the republican primaries and then, I honestly can’t say whether I’ll vote for another RINO. But I always have before and, “if the past is prologue to the future”, at least we have company on our way to the gallows.
PS; no I’m not depressed, I’ve just stopped telling myself that the same old will bring something new.
“it is still the only avenue by which to oust power-hungry individuals masquerading as the peoples’ representatives – no matter which side of the aisle they call home.” AbigailAdams
What if overall, the game is rigged and the avenue for political redress of grievance is fundamentally broken?
If people dislike Cochrane’s actions to such an extent, then use the Ayers model and make it personal. Target him, personally. But that requires people to do their own work. They can’t quite farm it out. To whom would they farm it out, Axel Rod?
Geoffrey Britain said,
“It does buy time. However, I’m still waiting for you to explain what incentive the GOP will have to change and how we get more actual conservatives elected, given the money and ruthless determination (ala Cochran) of the GOP leadership?”
Buying time.
I’ve thought of that in the context of the Fed’s actions. It may be said that they saw deep structural flaws in the US economy, and instituted (near-) Zero Interest Rate Policies (ZIRP) and QE as a way of buying time.
The dangers were evident: increasing debt and the well-known problem of addiction to stimulus. But they must’ve thought it was worth the risk.
But was it?
I think if one took an impartial look at Obama’s history, the idea that he was going to fix the US economy is laughable.
Therefore, the Fed were fools to institute ZIRP and QE. They only made the problem worse, while postponing the kind of pain necessary to enact real change.
This now circles back to the RINO problem:
Should we buy time for the establishment to fix the US? Doesn’t the same analysis vis-é -vis the Fed apply to RINOs? What evidence have they given that they will fix anything? They got the sequester (by accident!), then undermined and eliminated THEIR OWN POLICY!
Not only have they given proof that they are big-government types, but I take it as a truism that the Chamber of Commerce doesn’t spend multiple millions of dollars without assurances, and maybe insurance.
RINOs will never stand up for the base. And given their dirty pool in the Cochran race, if we play by the rules it will be decades before we get enough conservatives to make a difference.
We need to hand them their heads now, and bring them to heel.
I will compromise, though, and suggest that we only need two heads: Cochran, for his tactics, and McConnell, because he has been orchestrating this from behind the scenes.
The most egregious offenders cannot be allowed to profit. The Joker cannot win.
P.S. If I’m right, and the economy goes into recession in Q2, this will be the long-expected pain necessary for real reform. It will be interesting to see what reaction the LIVs give as they wake up. I think the most accurate view will be taken from Obama’s poll numbers.
Correction:
When I said, “RINOs will never stand up for the base,” what I should’ve said was that they will never stand up for the base while they think they can hoodwink us.
The moment it becomes obvious that the voters will kick them out despite the CoC’s dollars, they will change their ways.
I’m late to the party on this post (sorry Neo – I love you but I have a hard time reading blogs lately), but with the 5-4 ruling for the SC for Hobby Lobby, I will keep voting RINO in the general while voting TEA in the primary.
I am SICK of the comprise that sends us towards tragedy but at 5 mpg instead of 45 mph. But I am a realist.
Juli:
I think that’s a very reasonable way to vote. See my most recent post.