Are Washington Republicans Incompetent? Mitch McConnell Damn Sure Is!

From: Powerline, By: John Hinderaker, On: February 27, 2015, See the article HERE.

Mitch McConnell, John CornynIt is almost unbelievable how badly Congressional Republicans have botched their opposition to President Obama’s illegal executive amnesty and the funding of the Department of Homeland Security. The House, under John Boehner’s direction, did the right thing: it passed a bill that fully funded DHS, but barred spending to implement the amnesty that has now been declared illegal by a federal court. The action then moved to the Senate, where Majority Leader Mitch McConnell tried repeatedly to bring the House measure to the floor for a vote. Four times, the Democrats filibustered the DHS funding bill.

As a result of the Democrats’ filibuster, DHS was in danger of running out of money. That put Republicans in a strong position. All they had to do was…nothing. If they didn’t blink, pressure on the Democrats to fund DHS would prove irresistible. It’s not for nothing the voters gave the GOP a majority, right?

Instead, Mitch McConnell backed off. He gave in to Harry Reid’s demands, even though Reid was surely bluffing, and the Senate passed a “clean” DHS funding bill that did nothing to block the illegal amnesty. That put the House in an untenable position. With the clock ticking down to the last hours before DHS ran out of money, it was now Republicans–not Democrats–who were standing in the way of funding the Department.

Having been sold out by the Senate, House Republicans bowed to the inevitable. John Boehner tried to pass a three-week funding extension, but didn’t have the votes. At the last possible moment, the House fell back to a seven-day extension, with Democrats providing the needed margin of support. The seven-day extension can have no possible purpose other than to give Republicans an opportunity to beat an orderly retreat.

If the Republicans wanted to arm their enemies, they couldn’t have done a better job. This is the New York Times’ triumphant account:

Republicans vowing to govern effectively as a congressional majority failed a fundamental test Friday, when House leaders managed to narrowly pass only a seven-day funding extension to avert a partial shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security just hours before money was to run out.

That’s a news story, not an opinion column. But it’s hard to blame the Democrats for exulting. They were in a corner; they had no cards to play; the voters have ejected them from the majority in both chambers; their objective was to keep alive a patently illegal program that had already been declared so by a federal judge. And the Republicans still couldn’t manage to pull out a victory.

Politics is like anything else: if you want to succeed, you have to be good at it. As best I can tell, Washington Republicans aren’t. We need new leadership, and we need it now.


Is Mitch McConnell: feeble, feckless, impotent, incompetent, powerless, spineless, or worthless?

How about “all of the above?”

This doddering old tub of Jell-O has got to be more competent at changing a grandchild’s loaded diaper than he is to be the majority leader of the United States Senate. Talk about a job that’s outside his wheelhouse.

He is the originator and prime proponent of the GAGA theory (Go Along to Get Along). There’s not an ounce of fight in the “man,” and I’m surprised that he achieved full adult size after having his lunch money taken from him throughout grade school, junior high, and high school by a succession of tough girls.

He is not someone that you’d want guarding your back, better that you keep him in front of you where he can’t stab you in your back.

We thought that we’d won something when we took back the Senate in 2014. Better that we had dumped McConnell and not retaken the Senate. We’d probably be better off with someone else as a strong Minority Leader than McConnell as Majority Leader. He is absolutely worthless.

Here’s an idea: why not buy Harry Reid? Maybe we could trade McConnell (and a boatload of cash) to the democrats for Harry Reid – we all know that Reid can be bought – and we’d have someone who could manage the Senate in OUR favor. Maybe we could win a legislative battle then?

The only thing that Mitch McConnell is good at is submission and surrender. I wonder if he’s ever won at anything, against competition, in any endeavor?

Right now, I’d trade him for a good chili/cheese coney – happily.



Tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

51 Responses to Are Washington Republicans Incompetent? Mitch McConnell Damn Sure Is!

  1. captbogus2 says:

    The same old question, the same old answer. The question is Why do the ‘Pubs continue to support McConnell and Boehner in light of the large majority of voters’ dissatisfaction with them? The answer is Because it’s their turn…. I guess…. I can’t think of any other reasons…. Can you?

  2. Garnet92 says:

    Good question capt. I keep thinking that there must be some sort of unseemly event or activity that they have on each other – some quid pro quo that keeps them in line. It’s gotta be something like that, just plain taking turns seems too simple, eh?

  3. BrianR says:

    THIS is exactly why I quit the GOP back in 2008, and refused to vote for McIdiot, or anybody like him since. They’re absolutely worthless wastes of air and skin.

    They run making BIG promises of how they’re going to act like real conservatives, and the minute they’re in office they go right back to being the Dem-Lite party. They disgust me beyond words, even more than the real Dems, because at least the Dems make no bones about what they’re trying to do, and THEY know how to fight for what they want.

    I respect my enemies WAY more than my “friends”.

    • Garnet92 says:

      Although we agree on most issues Brian, this is one where we have our differences.

      I understand why you feel that it’s better not to vote than to vote for a faux conservative, and I can’t argue that voting for McCain or Romney has done us much good, but not voting doesn’t do us any good either. It seems to me that in the absence of a third conservative party, our only options are to vote democrat (no way), vote Republican (hold nose and vote), or stay at home and don’t vote at all.

      Realistically, that third choice reduces the Republican vote and ends up giving the election to the democrat.

      I wish I knew the answer. Until we can develop a new conservative party centered around a REAL conservative who is charismatic and can tell our conservative story, we don’t have any good choices. And, as we’ve identified before, a new party would take several elections to grow into viability.

      • BrianR says:

        I don’t stay home and note vote; I voted for Barr in 2008, and wrote myself in last time.

        But I am NOT going to give my vote — my consent — to some spineless wuss who’s just going to roll over and be just as useless as the Dem he’s running against. What’s the point of THAT?

        It actually compounds the problem, because it sends a clear message to the Establishment GOP hacks that it doesn’t matter

        • BrianR says:

          Dammit! Hit the wrong key!

          To continue, it sends the message that it doesn’t matter WHO they run, because your vote’s in the bag no matter how lousy that candidate is.

          Where’s the incentive for them to act like conservatives? Where’s any real FEAR of consequences for caving like scared little girls?

          How else would jackasses like Jeb Bush and Chris Christie be considered as viable, let alone “serious”, candidates for the PSP nomination?

          Nope. Screw the PSP and the horses they rode in on. If they want my vote, they have to get it the old-fashioned way. They have to actually EARN it.

          • Garnet92 says:

            We’re not going to get anywhere on this issue, I disagree with your stance and you disagree with mine. But, I don’t see how voting Libertarian or writing in BrianR sent any message to the PSP, how were they to know that yours was a protest and not a committed Barr supporter? All you did was insure that Obama got elected.

            I sincerely doubt that you disliked McCain or Romney any more than I did, and I’ll admit that by voting for them, I allowed them to think that I was FOR them. But my vote was AGAINST Obama NOT FOR either of them.

            I believe that you feel that your voting preference was principled. I believe that mine was pragmatic.

            We both believe that we did the right thing, even though we did things differently. So be it.

            • BrianR says:

              That’s fine, and this is a discussion I’ve been having with others ever since I started blogging back in 2006.

              I don’t agree that your stance IS actually pragmatic, because what’s the result you’ve managed to achieve? Has it led to a resurgence of principled conservative GOP politicians? Has it led to a House Speaker and/or Senate Majority Leader willing to fight for conservative principles? Has the GOP been getting more or less conservative since Reagan?

              In fact, I’d argue that your tactic is actually counterproductive because it sends a clear message to the Establishment GOP hacks that there’s absolutely no penalty for them to ignore actual conservatives in their inexplicable and idiotic idea that they can cherrypick Dem votes to somehow weasel to victory by ignoring us. After all… YOUR vote’s in the bag no matter what they do.

              So we’ve reached the point where the GOP is almost as bad as the Dem/socialists. Both are willing to drive the car of this country off the cliff; the GOP just wants to do it a little more slowly. They’ve become the Dem-Lite Party.

              It’s like a little kid who constantly steals cookies from the jar. You can keep telling him not to do it, but until he gets some punishment for constantly disobeying you, what’s he gonna do?

              Keep stealing those cookies. Why not? He’s knows nothing bad’s gonna happen if he does it. Right?

              • Garnet92 says:

                And what result did your “principled” stance achieve? Obama got elected. At least my vote cancelled out one Obama vote, while your position withheld a vote that might have help to prevent Obama V 2.0. In fact, if another 5 million voters who did what you did would have voted for Romney, Obama wouldn’t have won a second term. And I very much doubt that Boehner or McConnell are quaking in their boots, worried that Brian may not vote again.

                Apparently, we also disagree that either McCain or Romney would have been better than Obama because I do believe that. I didn’t like either of them, but there is no doubt in my mind (and many other conservatives) that either of them would have been better than what we have in Barack Obama.

                And your analogy of driving the car off the cliff – am I supposed to insure that it goes off the cliff more quickly? Better that it go off more slowly, at least we have more time to fix things.

                We’ve had this discussion before and as I said before, we agree to disagree, it’s obvious that I’m not going to write in my own name, vote for the Libertarian candidate (unless he/she is truly viable) and I’m not going to sit home. If my vote must be against Hillary, I’ll vote for Jeb Bush if I have to and I don’t like him for shit.

                I believe that you would prefer to vote for yourself or not vote rather than vote for Jeb Bush – that about right?

                • BrianR says:

                  Yep. That’s exactly right. I won’t vote for Bush.

                  There are some issues that are deal-breakers for me, one of which is amnesty. Bush is pro-amnesty as he’s said and continues to say. So… you want to see amnesty, and the death of this country that it will bring around? Then vote for Bush.

                  Another deal-breaker for me is gun rights, which is exactly why I won’t vote for Christie if he’s nominated.

                  Put BOTH those issues together, and you’ve got McIdiot, which is why I didn’t vote for HIM.

                  You’re right, we disagree about McIdiot and Romney, particularly McIdiot. He and Obozo only differed on matters of degree, not substance. Both are anti-gun, pro-amnesty, “climate change”, pro-bailout nutballs. Why in hell anyone would vote for McIdiot is beyond me.

                  You said that “I very much doubt that Boehner or McConnell are quaking in their boots, worried that Brian may not vote again”. Maybe so, but did it ever occur to you that the very reason that they act the way they do in office, and about which you complain in this very essay of yours, is that they don’t worry about how YOU are going to vote, because your vote’s in the bag no matter what BS they pull?

                  I’m not going to worry about any one election. I take the long view. If the GOP is going to continue to turn themselves into carbon copies of the Dem/socialists, they’re going to have to do it without my consent or vote. At least when this country finally swirls down the drain I won’t have to look in the mirror and accept that I was a party to helping it do so.

                  You wrote, “Better that it go off more slowly, at least we have more time to fix things.”

                  How? Because again, that’s the salient point. How, exactly, are you going to “fix things”?

                  Every time I have this conversation, going on years now, I always reach this point with the other person saying exactly that, but then never having any answer when I pose that question.

                  HOW are you going to “fix things” when the GOP doesn’t have to pay any attention to you? The illegal alien vote is more important to them than YOU are.

                  So… how are you going to “fix things”?

                  • CW says:

                    Pardon me for butting in but the debate about whether it’s better to elect a RINO or a democrat is always intriguing to me. It’s probably the most difficult political question there is, largely because there are so many variables that can tip the scales. Without the bad taste of Obama in the country’s mouth we might not have won back the House and the Senate. On the flip side, I think it’s safe to say that neither McCain nor Romney would have engaged in the kind of lawlessness that is gravely threatening us and which the republicans seem powerless/clueless to stop. Obama is neither a stupid man nor is he a patriot. He’s going to inflict a lot of damage before he’s done.

                    IMO conservatives can’t win this fight with the RINOs until the RINOs finally open their eyes and see the wall of pain coming straight for them, and they finally blink in this game of chicken. I blinked for McCain and for Romney and right now I’m not in the mood to blink again.

                    • BrianR says:

                      CW, you’re not “butting in” as far as I’m concerned. This is an open comment thread, and all should feel free to participate, particularly as it’s a pretty important topic.

                      Also, just to be clear, I’m not criticizing Garnet. He’s doing what he thinks is right, which is what I always encourage, even if I may not agree.

                      This Obozo “lawlessness” to which you refer was predictable (and predicted, at least by me) way back in 2008, and given the lack of substantive difference between Obozo and McIdiot back then, it actually was a great opportunity for the country to finally see what unbridled Dem/socialism would actually mean for the country if he was elected, something I pointed out way back then at my Townhall blog.

                      Well, as you point out, the COUNTRY has, in fact, taken at least some of that lesson. Unfortunately, the GOP refuses to learn a damned thing from it, which is why I dubbed them the PSP (Perpetually Stupid Party). They continue to act like a permanent minority party, and refuse to learn the lesson of Reagan and Jindal and Ted Cruz and a few others: that REAL conservatism sells and wins elections, often by landslides. Instead, they just chug along steering evermore to the Left.

                      A bunch of irredeemable idiots.

                      Like you, I refuse to “blink” anymore. I just stopped “blinking” a little earlier, that’s all.

                    • BrianR says:

                      One way or another, either before or after elections, the PSP has an uncanny ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

  4. Kathy says:

    Yes, McConnell has the backbone of cooked spaghetti, but he didn’t do this by himself, so here are the questions we should be asking….What happened to the other R’s in the Senate? Why didn’t they vote this down?

    It was a clean bill, so if it didn’t make it through the Senate, wouldn’t we have been done with the issue of funding O’s scheme? Or am I missing something here in the judicial process?

    • Garnet92 says:

      Yes, the fault is not entirely on McConnell, but he is supposed to be the Majority LEADER. That’s his title, but he is a LINO (leader in name only) and can’t (or won’t) corral the troops and influence them to support Republican legislation and oppose democrat measures. I think he’s just wanting everyone to “like” him and doesn’t want to upset anyone. He is the textbook example of a POS (I know you know what that acronym stands for).

  5. CW says:

    Republicans worried about the ramifications of being accused of shutting down the government if they held strong on not funding amnesty. Instead they funded Obama’s amnesty program and looked like pathetic clowns in the process. Wonder if they figured out yet which outcome would have better.

    • Garnet92 says:

      I don’t think that they even try to critique their previous actions CW. They’re so used to losing, they’ve become comfortable with the feeling. They haven’t passed the opponent’s fifty-yard-line for years. With that attitude, I don’t know how they can ever expect to win.

      Better they learn to take a principled stand and lose while fighting than to roll over, paws in the air, and pray that the big dog doesn’t disembowel them. That’s their usual plan of action. It is disgusting.

  6. Jim Denney says:

    The basic premise of the article is wrong, IMO. They didn’t “botch their opposition to President Obama’s illegal executive amnesty” because they don’t really oppose it. Without economic growth through immigration (needed because the birthrate of the current population is too low), the “Federal” Reserve Ponzi scheme would soon collapse, eliminating the ability of the kleptocrats to keep enriching themselves, and possibly even inspire the taxpaying public to put down People magazines current expose of the Kardashians, get off the couch, and go kick some ass (it’s a longshot, I know). In order to do the Chamber of Crony Commerces’ bidding while letting DhimmiRats take the blame, Boehner pushed through the “Cromnibus” budget before newly elected conservatives took office, and now they’re wringing their hands and pretending to be actually doing something to stop MaoBama.
    Up next, cries of helplessness and fake regret, and pleas from the Rove (D-lite) Lobbying Corp. to give The Greedy Old Pigs 67 votes in the Senate, along with placing Jeb Bush in the WH, and like the Chicago Cubs of everyyear, it’ll be “we’re really gonna go get ’em this time, you betcha!”

  7. Hardnox says:

    The republicans prove time and time again that they have absolutely no tactical skills whatsoever. McConnell was given FOUR golden opportunities to hang this around the demmerhoid’s necks and blew it.


    Again, they succumed to the failed practice of vying for media favor. Once again they are being blamed anyway.

    As Kathy pointed out, where were the other R Senators who vowed to throttle in Putt? This isn’t just McConnell’s fault.

  8. captbogus2 says:

    I gotta agree with Brian in most part. But only if the PSP party sooner or later figures it out. They have had two election cycles they could’ve won but lost because they put up a nutless, gutless “me, too!” candidate and the winning votes stayed home.
    Perhaps the 3rd time will be the charm and they will figure it out.
    A Jeb Bush candidacy will guarantee a Hillary presidency.
    Five million Brian R’s will stay home.

      • Garnet92 says:

        That’s where I shake my head???? Brian, you would choose to see Hillary elected rather than vote for Jeb Bush, have I got that right?

        I know that we’re not getting anywhere, but that’s the same “logic” that brought us Barack Obama????

        We can argue back and forth about “messages” and how stupid the RINOs are ’till doomsday and not settle anything except that the result of your actions will assure that Hillary (or some other liberal) will be POTUS.

        It’s well known that I would prefer Cruz, Perry, Walker, Carson, Rubio, or Paul (in that order) to Bush or Christie, but I’d rather see Bush or Christie elected rather than Hillary, or Warren or Biden. Apparently, that’s where we disagree.

        • BrianR says:

          No, Garnet, that’s the point YOU can’t seem to grasp.

          I’M not the one who’s gonna be “electing” Hillary, or some other Dem/socialist asshat. It’ll be the idiots in the GOP who REFUSE to nominate a decent candidate, and then expect me to compromise MY principles — the very same principles I went to war to support — and vote for someone I can’t support simply because they have an (R) behind their name.

          Ain’t gonna happen, pard. No way, never.

          They want my vote? Fine. Then EARN it.

        • BrianR says:

          BTW, I see you never did answer my question further up the thread about how your approach is ever going to “fix” the PSP.

          That silence speaks volumes, I think.

          • Garnet92 says:

            Yes it does speak volumes Brian, it simply says that I’ve been trying to keep things civil and not necessarily responding to each and every one of your “reasons” for preferring to see Obama elected because of your “principles.”

            You won’t admit it, but as I said earlier, five million just like you who refused to vote for a Republican for “principled” reasons indirectly elected Barack Obama. The same thing could happen in 2016. If you can’t grasp MY reasoning then why am I supposed to see the validity in yours? You say you can’t support someone just because they have an “R” behind their name, but you feel justified in withholding a vote that could have prevented an Obama presidency – or a Hillary presidency. You’re right, my logical mind can’t reason how you think and I’ll leave it at that.

            I did my part to prevent an Obama presidency and I’ll do it again to prevent a Clinton presidency while you aided Obama’s election and expect to do so again.

            You’re welcome to have the last word, I know that’s important to you. I’m not going to reply to any more on this subject. Neither of us will convince the other and I don’t want for this to get any more personal than it’s already become.

            • BrianR says:

              ” five million just like you who refused to vote for a Republican for “principled” reasons indirectly elected Barack Obama”

              Yep, here’s my last word:


              • Kathy says:

                Brian, you’re sporting a little extra attitude this weekend and spoiling for a fight at every turn.

                Instead of agreeing to disagree, anyone having a different opinion than yours is wrong. That sounds like liberal logic and if everyone thought like you, we’ll have Hitlery for our next president.

                • BrianR says:

                  Read the entire thread, Kathy, including the portion further up. I didn’t cast any personal aspersions, and in fact said that I encourage everyone to do whatever they think is right, even when I don’t agree with them.

                  But as has always happened whenever I pose the key question that they can’t ever answer — HOW will voting for the GOP regardless of how badly astray they go actually “fix” the problem? — since they can’t actually come up with an answer, they — in this case Garnet — revert to the standard tactic of diversion and aspersion, accusing me of “indirectly electing” whomever is the villain du jour, be it Obozo or Clinton or Alfred E. Neuman.

                  As to your last sentence, well… here’s YOUR chance. Tell me how voting for the GOPer, regardless of how bad he/she is, will fix the problem of that sorry excuse for a party wandering ever further to the Left all the time, to the point where now the Establishment hacks consider conservatives as the enemy and “whacko birds”, to quote McIdiot.

                  • Kathy says:

                    I don’t need nor want your chance, Brian. You can take your self-righteous argument and go home – I’m not doing this with you either.

                    • BrianR says:

                      Well, Kathy, it seems that you can’t or won’t answer the question, either, and then resort to “You can take your self-righteous argument and go home”.

                      Which kinda proves my point.

                  • CW says:

                    While I can respect the choice not to vote for a RINO, Brian, your challenge to answer the question of how voting for the GOP will actually “fix” the problem?” is a classic straw man. No one is suggesting that voting for the GOP regardless of its weaknesses is going to “fix” anything, and for the record, sitting out the vote or voting for someone with minimal support doesn’t “fix” anything either. This is an argument about which strategy ultimately results in the least amount of damage to the country (and us) and which helps conservatives better position themselves for the future when we might someday have true conservative representation. As I noted above, there are (IMO of course) equally reasonable arguments to be made on both sides.

                    • BrianR says:

                      Actually, CW, that’s pretty much exactly what Garnet said further up the thread. To quote: ” Better that it go off more slowly, at least we have more time to fix things.”

                      So with that in mind I keep asking the question: how is this problem going to be “fixed” by simply repeating the same action over and over again by giving them your votes regardless of the quality of the candidate?

                      For the THIRD time now on this thread, I’ll say that as long as you guys think you’re doing the right thing, then I support what you do. In fact, I seem to be the only one here on my side of the argument who’s not throwing insults around.

                      But as I also said, I’ve been having this argument for years, and this is how it ALWAYS ends up.

                      This isn’t a straw man argument in any way, contrary to your assertion. If one examines the record, the strategic implications are crystal clear.

                      Reagan won by two landslides. Pappy Bush won by a landslide when he ran as Reagan 2, and got his butt handed to him when he ran for re-election as a moderate. Then there was Dole, a pathetic candidate. Then Bush 2, a moderate, won two squeakers by the slimmest of margins against two incredibly incompetent opponents, one of those requiring a SCOTUS decision. Then McCain, then Romney.

                      What does that record tell us? That REAL conservatism wins, and wins big, and that “moderates” may as well just stay home.

                      Does the PSP ever seem to grasp that simple history lesson? No. And therein lies the problem. It’s systemic, and hanging around waiting for it to “fix” itself is a total waste of time.

                    • BrianR says:

                      Gotta clarify what I said, as it makes no sense the way I wrote it.

                      “In fact, I seem to be the only one here on my side of the argument who’s not throwing insults around.”

                      Actually, what I should have said is that my side of the argument is the side not throwing insults around.

                    • CW says:

                      I appreciate the discussion, Brian, and this is an important debate to have. Before I get to the substance of it, though, I have to rebut your claim to the moral high ground as the only non-insulter here. Statements such as “Why in hell anyone would vote for McIdiot is beyond me,” and suggesting that Garnet “…revert[ed] to the standard tactic of diversion and aspersion,” are no less insulting than anything else that’s been said.

                      The point of Garnet’s statement, (“Better that it go off more slowly, at least we have more time to fix things”) if I may presume to say so, was that voting for the GOP candidate would ostensibly buy us time. If you want to take issue with THAT premise that’s fine, but it’s not fair or accurate to say that anyone here thought or suggested that voting for a RINO would fix things.

                      With all due respect, no one here needs to be reminded about the superiority of conservatism over liberalism-lite. I think we are all agreed on that. Unfortunately, we aren’t the only ones who have a say in who wins the nomination. Conservatives and RINOs have been engaged in a fierce wrestling match for the direction of the party, and we are outweighed by 20 pounds. Here’s the proof: In a mid-January, 2015, poll Rasmussen showed Mitt Romney to be far in the lead with Jeb Bush in 2nd place and Ben Carson in 3rd. A late January Fox News poll had Bush in the lead after Romney withdrew his name with Mike Huckabee and Rand Paul tied for 2nd place. The most recent poll (by Public Policy Polling) had Scott Walker in the lead with 25% with Ben Carson at 18% and Jeb Bush still a close 3rd at 17%.* The arguably most conservative candidate, Ted Cruz, can barely keep his head above water. Most astonishing: A Fox News poll on February 10th had 12% of REPUBLICANS approving of Obama’s job performance and 2% undecided! The reality is that only a fraction of republicans are true conservatives, and while Obama may have put a taint on democrats he may also have helped to shift the standard by which conservatism is measured. That standard has already shifted a lot over the past 3 or 4 decades; hence people like Ted Cruz are easily marginalized as too “extreme.” That reality is why I question whether conservatives have the muscle to push the GOP to the right, and it’s why I don’t question the decision to vote pragmatically.

                      Having said all that I will question the decision of conservatives to make it known in advance that should they lose the fight to nominate a conservative they will go ahead and vote with the RINOs. This is akin to Obama announcing a time-table for withdrawal from combat with our enemies. The only advantage one has in a game of chicken is your opponent’s uncertainty as to whether or not you’ll blink.

                    • BrianR says:

                      You’ve raised interesting points to address, CW.

                      First of all, I’d be VERY leery of any polls, as they don’t take into account Independents. Those polls usually reflect opinions of polled members of a specific party, and are “weighted” according to pre-determined formulas. Jindal’s landslide victory in Louisiana was a big “surprise” to the pollsters, though not to me, as I’d forecast it at the time at my Townhall blog.

                      There are a LOT of Independents, and contrary to what the MSM maintains, I maintain that a whole helluva lot of them are people like me, disaffected conservatives who don’t have a home in the GOP. Both the MSM and the Establishment GOP seem to be convinced — wrongfully in my opinion — that those Independents are wishy-washy “moderates”. If nothing else, you’d think the rise of the Tea Party and the fact that other polling indicates that the majority self-description by the electorate is swinging to a more conservative point of view, would wake them up, but that hasn’t been the case to this point, at least.

                      You wrote: “… people like Ted Cruz are easily marginalized as too ‘extreme'”. By whom? The MSM and Establishment GOP, again. Not exactly sources I trust, that’s for sure. Because the guy was elected to national office by a very healthy margin. So was Jindal, as well as many others.

                      Same problem I pointed out in that previous paragraph: MSM and Establishment GOP hacks like Karl Rove are driving a false and distracting narrative that’s devised to serve their own ends, and isn’t supported by actual facts on the ground.

                      You: “… and it’s why I don’t question the decision to vote pragmatically.”

                      Neither do I. But the crux of our difference is the definition of “pragmatically”.

                      You: “Having said all that I will question the decision of conservatives to make it known in advance that should they lose the fight to nominate a conservative they will go ahead and vote with the RINOs.”

                      Of course. And that’s the main problem, and why the GOP’s constant “strategy” is ALWAYS based almost entirely on fear. “Stop Hitlery!!!”… “Stop Pelosi!!!”… “Vote for us! We’re not as bad as THEM!!!”

                      Where’s the POSITIVE reason to vote for the GOP, coupled with real commitment and action?

                      Nowhere to be seen, just as I wrote in my 19 November essay:

                      In the last election they ran on promises to stop Obozo in his tracks, pass legislation to defund Obozocare, and defund his executive amnesty. They win control of both chambers of Congress. And what are the FIRST things they do, even before being sworn in?

                      Break all their campaign pledges, and promise not to cause a “budget war” and government shutdown. A complete surrender even before taking office! The French Army of American politics!

                      Sorry, There’s just no way I’ll ever find that acceptable, nor vote for people who act like that. I’ve said it many times: I actually respect the Dem/socialists more than the Establishment GOP hacks, because at least THEY know how to fight. It’s the same way I felt in Vietnam; the NVA may have been our enemies, but they were sure as hell better soldiers than the ARVN.

                    • CW says:

                      The question on the table was whether it’s a better strategy to vote for a RINO who has the republican nomination or whether it’s best to vote for a longshot that, for all practical purposes, can’t win. Given that scenario your question (“Where’s the POSITIVE reason to vote for the GOP…?”) is like asking a woman who’s about to be raped by an armed intruder to find a positive reason for choosing to submit to rape rather than fight to her death. Sometimes the hope of merely surviving is a good enough reason for not adhering to our ideals. If you want to argue that the intruder might rape the woman and kill her anyway, that’s a fair argument; but certainly you could understand why she might be willing to take that risk.

                      You don’t have to convince me (or anyone here, I’m sure) that the GOP is part of the problem, and we can debate about what the polls mean all day but certain facts speak for themselves. Barack Obama was elected not once but twice, even after Americans (who I’m told are mostly “conservative”) had a chance to see him in action for 4 years. That defies the “Americans are basically conservative” narrative, and points to a distorted understanding of what it means to be a conservative. Independents voted 52% for Obama and 44% for McCain in ’08. In 2012 they went 45% for Obama and 50% for Romney. So unless I’m missing something (and I’ll grant that this could always be the case) I don’t see evidence of independents taking a much bolder stance as a group than republicans. If you see it differently, I’ll hear your argument.

                    • BrianR says:

                      Or maybe the more accurate analogy is that of the battered wife (conservatives) who refuses to get rid of her drunken lout of a husband who keeps beating her (the PSP), for whatever reasons she uses to convince herself that he’ll “change”.

                      As to what In dependents “do”, we’re doing all we can by not voting for RINOs and praying that at some point the pathetic losers who run that sorry excuse for a party finally wake up and smell the coffee; that they’re losing their base in a dreamy-eyed fantasy chase for a mythical creature known as an “uncommitted moderate” electorate.

                      That’s why I keep on bringing up the fact that REAL conservatives typically win elections

                    • CW says:

                      >>” That’s why I keep on bringing up the fact that REAL conservatives typically win elections.”

                      But you’re preaching to the choir, Brian. Who here doesn’t want a REAL conservative to be the nominee? Who here disagrees that real conservatives win elections?

                      >>” [Independents are] doing all we can by not voting for RINOs…”

                      I just pointed out to you that 96% of Independents voted for Obama or McCain in 2008 and 95% voted for either Obama or Romney in 2012, so that clearly isn’t true.

                      >>” Or maybe the more accurate analogy is that of the battered wife…”
                      Politics, as you know, is a numbers game. Whether it’s the Republican Party or whether you reinvent the party by another name, the challenge is the same. Conservatives need sufficient support to oust the democrats, who don’t seem to have too much problem holding their block together. It pretty much holds steady at the infamous 47%. Yes, conservatives could start their own party, but they would still have to persuade enough voters to leave the GOP by making the case for conservatism. Either way – starting a new party and attracting defectors from the well-established GOP or staying with the GOP and working to change the mindset there – presents (IMO) an equally daunting challenge.

                    • BrianR says:

                      Again, you’re letting statistics mislead you. To quote Twain, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

                      You: “I just pointed out to you that 96% of Independents voted for Obama or McCain in 2008…”

                      That’s fine. Those are the Independents

                    • BrianR says:

                      Dammit! I wonder what key I’m hitting that causes that?

                      ANYway, to continue…

                      You: “I just pointed out to you that 96% of Independents voted for Obama or McCain in 2008…”

                      That’s fine. Those are the Independents that ACTUALLY VOTED. That’s the key distinction.

                      But what about all the Independents who didn’t even bother? THAT is where a lot of the disaffected, like me, are waiting for someone worth casting our votes to support.

                      Romney lost to Obozo by 5 million votes in 2012. Do you think there aren’t 5 million people like me out there, waiting for someone worth supporting?

                      Now, depending on how those votes would spread out electorally, it may have taken more or even considerably less; that’s impossible to say. But the GOP, in their eternal stupidity, seems perfectly happy to simply write us off while they go tilting at the windmill of chasing votes that are already going to the Dem/socialists. The chimerical benefits of being “moderate”.

                      If you’re going to lead, stand for something. If you’re going to be “moderate” and try to straddle the road, you’re gonna get run over.

                    • CW says:

                      >>”Those are the Independents that ACTUALLY VOTED.”

                      Independents didn’t have a monopoly on staying home in 2012, Brian. A lot of republicans stayed home as well.

                      >>”Romney lost to Obozo by 5 million votes in 2012. Do you think there aren’t 5 million people like me out there, waiting for someone worth supporting?”

                      No, but it’s not a question of finding a worthy candidate for the 5 million who didn’t vote. Obama won with nearly 66 million votes. That’s the number of people your candidate needs to satisfy.

                      I have to say, the repeated suggestion that I don’t understand the statistics is patronizing. You aren’t the only one who knows something about statistics. You talk about the GOP writing off conservatives as if a handful of RINOs have co-opted the Republican Party against the will of party members. If that’s truly how it was then we wouldn’t see multiple polls by different outfits placing Romney, Bush, Christie and other RINOs at the front of the pack. Yes I know polls aren’t perfect, but in this case they are supported by reality. A FAR left POTUS has been elected twice. Until a few months ago democrats also controlled the senate. A few short years ago they controlled both houses. At some point we have to question whether there’s been a clandestine takeover of the GOP or whether the members share a lot of the blame because they aren’t as conservative as we’d like to believe. That’s not a defense of the GOP leadership – I have plenty of complaints about them; however, the blame doesn’t lie solely with them.

                    • BrianR says:


                      “No, but it’s not a question of finding a worthy candidate for the 5 million who didn’t vote. Obama won with nearly 66 million votes. That’s the number of people your candidate needs to satisfy.”

                      And Romney got 61 million votes, hence what I wrote. It’s simple math.

                      “I have to say, the repeated suggestion that I don’t understand the statistics is patronizing. You aren’t the only one who knows something about statistics.”

                      I don’t know about that. From what I keep reading, apparently I am.

                      “You talk about the GOP writing off conservatives as if a handful of RINOs have co-opted the Republican Party against the will of party members. If that’s truly how it was then we wouldn’t see multiple polls by different outfits placing Romney, Bush, Christie and other RINOs at the front of the pack.”

                      And yet at CPAC they’re sucking wind. Bush tried to walk back his positions, unsuccessfully.

                      Club For Growth is showing great skepticism toward the current crop of Establishment GOP hack wannabes.

                      Further, that’s exactly why I, and many others, are no longer “party members”. To paraphrase Reagan, I didn’t leave the GOP; it left me.

                    • CW says:

                      >>”…Romney got 61 million votes, hence what I wrote. It’s simple math.”

                      Well since you’re so much smarter than me and everyone else maybe you can help me understand the “simple” math. Are you assuming that all of the 61 million Romney voters will happily go along with the conservative candidate that satisfies your 5 million? Don’t you think it’s possible that at least 5 million of THEM actually liked Romney and would prefer him or another moderate candidate over a more conservative candidate? There’s no guarantee they won’t sit out the race or vote for Hillary or go third party, so it’s a bit more complicated than simply giving the 5 million disaffected conservatives what they want.

                      >>”And yet at CPAC they’re sucking wind. Bush tried to walk back his positions, unsuccessfully.”

                      I don’t know precisely how well CPAC reflects the broader Republican Party but one would hope that real conservatives would be popular at a conservative event. Even so, Bush still took 5th place with 8% of the straw poll, placing him not that far behind Ted Cruz. And if CPAC is a good measure of what conservatives prefer, keep in mind that Mitt Romney won the CPAC straw poll in 2012 with 38% of the vote, which would suggest that back then the GOP ultimately nominated the candidate that “conservatives” signaled they wanted. I’m not the biggest fan of Rand Paul and I think the Scott Walker isn’t fully vetted yet but IMO their popularity at CPAC shows a shift in a positive direction.

                      >>”Club For Growth is showing great skepticism toward the current crop of Establishment GOP hack wannabes.”

                      I’m not sure I understand the point of that comment. Is Club For Growth typically reflective of the broader Republican Party when it comes to endorsing candidates? If not then what is the relevance of their skepticism towards the RINOs?

                      >>”Further, that’s exactly why I, and many others, are no longer “party members”. To paraphrase Reagan, I didn’t leave the GOP; it left me.”

                      I haven’t renewed my membership or given republicans any money in years but personally I never saw much point to officially changing my affiliation since it doesn’t solve the core problem of the general liberalization of the members, but to each his own. You’re older than me and more familiar with the Reagan era so you can correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t Reagan remain a lifelong Republican after switching from the Democrat Party? I think he, too, was lamenting the liberalization of the GOP in his famous quote, but he stuck around and tried to change it.

                    • BrianR says:

                      Let’s try to look at the historical record one more time, because that tells the story.

                      Reagan, the last real conservative, enjoyed two landslide victories. Bush 1 also enjoyed a landslide victory when he ran as Reagan 2 in 1988. That was 27 years ago.

                      In that 27 years the GOP fielded exclusively “moderate” candidates, and what’s been the result? Dismal.

                      So… we can go back and forth debating statistics, or hypothetical “what ifs” until the cows come home, but that’s the record, right there, it’s undeniable because it’s what actually happened in the real world, and it speaks for itself.

                      Now… if you want to say that the country’s changed and that kind of traditional conservatism won’t work anymore — the Karl Rove position — that’s fine, you can do that. Hell, maybe you’re even right, though polling data pretty unequivocally shows otherwise.

                      And in fact, that’s one of the reasons that amnesty is a deal-breaker for me, because in my opinion it WILL destroy this country be creating a permanent Dem/socialist majority in the not-so-long term.

                      But if we are actually at a point in this country where traditional Reagan conservatism isn’t going to succeed anymore, then frankly I couldn’t care less how any election turns out, because it’s all downhill from there, the Fat lady has sung, and the last one out should turn off the lights.

                      I happen to think we’re not quite at that point yet, BUT we’re teetering on the edge, and contuing to do the same thing we’ve been doing for a quarter century+ now — following the Karl Rove strategy and supporting them with our votes, and allowing him and Reid and the NY Times to set the agenda — isn’t going to change anything. It’s going to take a major change in direction. As Einstein noted, continuing the same action while expecting a different result meets the definition of insanity.

                    • CW says:

                      I’m aware of the historical record and I think all of us here would agree that a conservative would make both a better candidate and, of course, a far better POTUS. The question is, who or what is preventing conservatives from getting the nomination? The leadership at the GOP is powerful, no doubt, but they can’t micromanage every primary or the message of every candidate or a million other factors that are beyond their control. No matter whether it’s because of the influence of Karl Rove & Co., a general shift in attitude or simply the selection of candidates that are putting themselves out there, the voters have to assume a share of the blame/responsibility for the direction of the party and Republicans have to successfully sell the conservative message to clinch the nomination. That’s not an easy task in light of an audience that’s become progressively (no pun intended) more addicted to nanny gov’t.

                      The circumstances of every election are different. Reagan had his unique qualities, those who assisted him may have had their unique gifts and their opponents and the conditions of the day presented unique challenges and opportunities for their candidacies. Change one little thing and all bets might have been off, so we can’t take for granted that Reagan’s success would be easy to repeat.

                      I’ll agree with you that amnesty is a deal-breaker, Brian. To elect someone who is otherwise conservative but who supports amnesty or phony “reform” would be like shooting yourself in the foot so you could have the day off from work to go skiing.

                    • BrianR says:

                      Actually, the “leadership” is EXTREMELY powerful, and the root of the problem.

                      The Party apparatus controls the apportionment of funds and support personnel, advertising, all that stuff. That’s what most people don’t seem to realize. They control the debate process, and who actually gets to participate. It’s not in any way a democratic process.

                      I used to be on the Board of the local chapter of the Young Republicans about 30 years ago (back when I was “young”… or at least young-ER). At that time the GOP was very strong here in Commiefornia; that was the era of GOP Governors like Deukmejian and Wilson.

                      Well, the state party apparatus decided to try to “expand the base” by going more “moderate”, and it led to a BIG conflict within the party, which we conservatives ultimately lost. I resigned from the YRs because I was so disgusted, and could clearly see where it was going to lead.

                      And true to my expectations, just look at what this sorry state has turned into in that intervening 30 years. It’s an unmitigated disaster area.

                      That’s exactly the danger I see now at the national level.

                      Back when Feinstein was running for re-election, there was a GOP opponent — a solid conservative — named Dick Mountjoy who seemed to be running a stealth campaign. Very little advertising, few public appearances, his campaign was a mess.

                      I contacted his office to see what was going on, and found out that neither the state GOP nor the national GOP would give him one thin dime worth of support, essentially dooming his campaign to unseat Feinstein. Needless to say, he went down in flames.

                      THAT is the power of the party apparatus, at both the state and national level. They DEFINITELY pick winners and losers.

                    • BrianR says:

                      Hot off the presses, the latest action by one of the “leaders” of the GOP:


                      A complete surrender. The French Army of American politics, and one of its “generals”.

                      Please remind me: WHY did these guys want to control both chambers of Congress?

  9. Clyde says:

    Although this is a good post, Garnet, and I understand your frustration, I’m with Brian down the line. We are in this mess PRECISELY because of GOPe fecklessness EVERY GODDAMN TIME they run the McCain’s, the Dole’s, the “moderates”. I received another “letter” from Reince Priebus on Friday. My response to HIM was “until and unless YOU quit running “MODERATES” which are sure-fire losers, YOU can FORGET about my vote,or financial support”. I WILL vote for a republican, as long as the names are NOT Bush, Christie, Romney, Rubio, or any other moderate. We indeed have had this “fight” amongst ourselves for far too long. If WE do not “wake up” the GOPe morons as to WHY they keep LOSING presidential elections, they will keep right on this “moderate” path to the NATION’S destruction. Just look at this past November. Within mere WEEKS after the smashing DEFEAT of the Obama-led democrats, WHAT were the headlines ? Here are a few “reminders” :…-needs-enemies/…votes-part-two/…for-jan-9-2015/
    I could prattle on, but I think you get my drift. We are just going to agree to disagree.

    • BrianR says:

      Amen, Clyde.

    • Russ R says:

      Clyde, I emailed my Republican Rep about a week ago -when the GOP “gave up” on opposing net neutrality, and I said to him almost exactly the points you made in this comment. I asked him, if they cave in on everything, what good are they? I haven’t heard back from him yet. We know they want get rid of us Conservatives, it’s occurred to me that this is how they are doing it. They are too stupid to realize that they are going to end up with a party that has about 10-15% of the population.