GOP establishment seeking revenge against Ted Cruz?

posted at 11:31 am on June 9, 2014 by Allahpundit

The question mark’s in the headline not because I doubt they’d like to take revenge but because I doubt they have the stones to do it.

Cruz hasn’t campaigned or raised money for GOP challengers, but he has forced a series of uncomfortable votes — the most prominent one being a debt-ceiling bill in February — that put imperiled incumbents on the spot. “After already forcing a strategic blunder on the conference, he stood up, looked his Republican colleagues in their eyes and said he wouldn’t work against them in the primaries.” says Kyle Downey, a former GOP Senate leadership aide. “Then he broke his word. Breaking your word, or lying, has consequences in the Senate, both seen and unseen. When it comes to the currency of relationships, he’s running up big debts.”

Not that Cruz needs much help. He remains enormously popular with a small but vocal part of the base. That has given him a powerful grassroots-fundraising platform. Even though he’s not up for re-election for another four years, Cruz has raised $1.8 million so far this cycle, $1.5 million of it coming from individual donations. He’ll need this kind of support and much more if he decides to run for President in 2016. By all accounts, Cruz’s push to shut down the government did not play well with business and corporate donors. “He’s the last person Wall Street would give money to,” says a big Republican donor. “They’re more interested in a Chris Christie or Jeb Bush. Even Rand Paul would be a preferable alternative to Cruz. How [Cruz] is going to run for President without big donors is beyond me.”…

“He’ll likely be a Jesse Helms, one of the lone conservative Senators who says outspoken and crazy things,” says a former GOP Senate leadership aide. “He’ll largely be marginalized.” Helms, who relished the title “Senator No,” was best known for his 16-day filibuster of a resolution declaring a public federal holiday for Martin Luther King Jr. “Like with Helms, there’ll be a certain amount of appeasement,” the Senate aide says. “But it’s like Star Wars: you don’t want to give in to the Dark Side.”

“If Cruz votes against McConnell and decides he’s not going to be caucusing with Republicans, kicking him off all his committees is an obvious move,” said GOP Hill aide John Feehery, who was last seen whining that Chris McDaniel’s strong primary showing would end up costing Mississippi lots of tasty federal pork. All of the above fits the basic fact pattern of the last nine months: The shutdown was the last straw for establishment Republicans and the business class that pays their rent, so now they’re going around clubbing tea partiers in the primaries as a warning to the sympathizers who are already in Congress. (McDaniel is the lone exception and he had lots of help from Thad Cochran’s listless campaigning.) This is all building, I think, towards a concerted push in 2016 to unseat Mike Lee, who helped lead the “defund” effort that led to the shutdown and whose defeat would be a symbolic triumph for the establishment. It was Lee, after all, who became the first tea-party challenger to beat a GOP incumbent. Replacing him with another establishmentarian would feel like an unwinding of the tea-party movement.

They can’t do that to Cruz, though. There’s a strong Republican establishment in Utah; in Texas, the Republican establishment is all but dead. Cruz naturally crushed the field in the Texas GOP’s presidential straw poll this weekend, held at the same convention where the party repealed its former pro-guest-worker agenda on immigration. Unless/until demographics shift to the point where Latinos are making the state competitive again, Cruz will hold the seat for as long as he wants it. The only establishment remedy, then, is to isolate him in Congress, which brings me back to the point up top. Do they dare? He’s no ordinary tea partier. He’s the face of the movement now. Strip him of his assignments and it’ll be seen, I think, as a more provocative bit of aggression against grassroots conservatives than the big anti-tea-party effort in the primaries this year was. And the more straw polls he wins — the one in Texas wasn’t the first — the harder it gets for McConnell et al. to banish him. In fact, I wonder if that’s not the real reason why Cruz might run for president in 2016. He’s a long shot in the primaries, notwithstanding the conservative enthusiasm for him; he’ll have no money from the donor class and, in most polls I’ve seen, his favorable numbers even among Republicans are no better than some of his competition. He’s a wild card because there’s a chance he’ll build a movement on the stump through the strength of his oratory, but in all likelihood his best showing is squashing Rand Paul on the right and then coming up short against the establishment champion. But that’s okay: As I say, maybe the real reason to run in 2016 is to flex his (and, by extension, the tea party’s) muscles nationally. If he does well, the Beltway GOP will think twice about crossing him in the foreseeable future. He might singlehandedly secure his, and the movement’s, claim to a share of power in Congress.

Fearless prediction: If we end up with a Republican president in 2017 (who, I’m assuming, won’t be Cruz), establishment Republicans will suddenly become warm to the idea of putting Cruz on the Supreme Court. That’s their best bet to get rid of him, and it has the virtue of earning them a little cred with conservative voters. Some Senate Democrats would resist, but presidential appointees drawn from Congress tend to get the collegial benefit of the doubt in confirmation hearings. Cruz, who’s seen as being not so collegial, wouldn’t get as much benefit, but between the fact that his professional record is clean and Democrats want to get him out of the Senate too, he might very well make it to 60. Much depends on what happens in Senate elections this year and 2016.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Some states have already defied the federal government (eg: Arizona on illegal immigration, multiple states on gay marriage, etc). Your ‘solutions’ have as many toes in the water as some of these other ‘solutions’, and have wound up… where? All have and are knuckling under in the end. Where’s the success?

Midas on June 9, 2014 at 2:15 PM

Those that knuckle under are accepting the legitimacy of an illegitimate government. This does mean that nullification fails. It means that the states are failing to enforce their own laws against the federal government.

What needs to happen is, a few sheriffs lock a few federales up in county jails until such time as they promise not to act on behalf of the federal government enforcing unconstitutional laws. Then we can see exactly what the framers had in mind with the 2nd amendment.

gryphon202 on June 9, 2014 at 3:25 PM

Monkeytoe on June 9, 2014 at 3:24 PM

You’re too hung up on the Federal Government.

jake-the-goose on June 9, 2014 at 3:26 PM

You’re too hung up on the Federal Government.

jake-the-goose on June 9, 2014 at 3:26 PM

You’re too hung up on the GOP, Jakey.

gryphon202 on June 9, 2014 at 3:26 PM

I wonder what the GOPe would do if Cruz, Lee, Gowdy, Sessions and a few other conservative malcontents bolted the GOP and formed their own party? Palin could join them in setting up a constitutional conservative third party. That is what the GOPe wants isn’t it, to be rid of the TP conservatives?

fight like a girl on June 9, 2014 at 3:29 PM

Time for the Cruzian Party! President Ted Cruz (C)

ThePrez on June 9, 2014 at 3:31 PM

And I wasn`t copyrighting, just dropping the (R) after his name. :)

ThePrez on June 9, 2014 at 3:32 PM

You’re too hung up on the GOP, Jakey.

gryphon202 on June 9, 2014 at 3:26 PM

Actually I am 100% hung up on winning. Whiners rarely win anything.

I have noticed an increasing number of whiners call themselves conservatives.

I think it is a form of self delusion.

I have never known a conservative who whines – most that I have know are proactive winners.

The word ‘conservative’ is not a protective blanket for a lack of ambition – political or professional.

jake-the-goose on June 9, 2014 at 3:33 PM

The word ‘conservative’ is not a protective blanket for a lack of ambition – political or professional.

jake-the-goose on June 9, 2014 at 3:33 PM

But it is a protective blanket for progressive tendancies, apparently. One could be forgiven for thinking so in the current body-politic.

gryphon202 on June 9, 2014 at 3:36 PM

But it is a protective blanket for progressive tendancies, apparently. One could be forgiven for thinking so in the current body-politic.

gryphon202 on June 9, 2014 at 3:36 PM

Solid reply

jake-the-goose on June 9, 2014 at 3:37 PM

So some here would apparently rather win than actually be free. You’ll get what you want, and you’ll get it good and hard.

(h/t Mencken)

gryphon202 on June 9, 2014 at 3:37 PM

How do you get the GOP establishment as a whole to change its ways?

There are 2 ways.

(1) Get truly conservative candidates elected until the truly conservative incumbents in the house and senate are a majority of the caucus in each house; or

(2) Scare the GOP into fearing conservatives will abandon the party.

The first option has been tried for the last 30 years, and mostly failed. We have learned that while it is not impossible, it will take decades more to accomplish, and even then it is a long shot. This is because

—a) candidates lie about their beliefs to get elected. How many “truly conservative” candidates turn out to be moderate squishes once elected? Most.

—b) the GOP establishment co-opts conservatives. Being one voice among many, the conservatives, in order to gain power within the caucus (not to mention help with fundraising, etc), need to conform. And they do.

—c) The GOP establishment fights any and all attempts to elect truly conservative candidates, even in the deepest red states or districts.

So, the chances of overcoming a, b, and c AND electing a majority of true conservatives in both GOP caucuses in the House and Senate is unlikely to happen any time soon.

The second option, has never been tried. And, conservatives, for the most part, are too afraid to try it. It would require knowingly abandoning the GOP for at least one election – which would likely allow the DNC to win many otherwise winnable races – to prove to the GOP that conservatives are a) not idiots and b) cannot be taken for granted.

Option 2 would not make the GOP as conservative as a HotAir commenter, but it would move them right-of-center rather than there current left-of-center and moving further left trajectory.

Because if conservatives sat out an election, the GOP would be left with a choice. Either continue to move left and compete with the DNC to get voters by promising them more gov’t and more free stuff – a competition they can never win; or

move rightward and make the conservative base happy and fight for the mushy middle independents – but fight for them using conservative arguments.

It is possible the GOP would chose to move leftward and compete for the liberal voters – but that would just prove my point – the GOP is not remotely conservative.

As of now, the GOP has no real fear that conservatives won’t vote for them. right now, they firmly believe, and reasonably so based on history, that conservative will vote GOP no matter what. So, the GOP feels free to keep moving leftward.

that is what we need to address. A candidate here or there is not going to accomplish anything.

Monkeytoe on June 9, 2014 at 3:38 PM

Nice straw man.

Anyone who believes Jay Newton-Small, who grew up traveling the world with her UN-employed parents, and Time have either the inside track to GOP information or the best interests of Republicans at heart is a big fat SUCKER.

She is sowing discord among the ranks, that’s all, and like a dutiful sucker, you are helping her.

Adjoran on June 9, 2014 at 3:39 PM

jake-the-goose on June 9, 2014 at 3:33 PM

Tell me Jake, if Daniels wins the primary and the GOPe does not support him and even helps to destroy him in November, will you be chastising the RINOs for not supporting a REPUBLICAN?

fight like a girl on June 9, 2014 at 3:40 PM

Actually I am 100% hung up on winning. Whiners rarely win anything.

I have noticed an increasing number of whiners call themselves conservatives.

I think it is a form of self delusion.

I have never known a conservative who whines – most that I have know are proactive winners.

The word ‘conservative’ is not a protective blanket for a lack of ambition – political or professional.

jake-the-goose on June 9, 2014 at 3:33 PM

Just because you lack the intellectual capacity to understand a strategy doesn’t mean the strategy is (a) bad, (b) lazy or (c) whining.

I don’t believe you are conservative. Most conservatives are not this dumb. You lack the capacity to understand the difference between conservatism and voting republican. You make no arguments other than calling those you disagree with whiners, etc.

Your sole argument is “vote GOP no matter what”.

You are sad.

Monkeytoe on June 9, 2014 at 3:40 PM

Tell me Jake, if Daniels wins the primary and the GOPe does not support him and even helps to destroy him in November, will you be chastising the RINOs for not supporting a REPUBLICAN?

fight like a girl on June 9, 2014 at 3:40 PM

Yes

jake-the-goose on June 9, 2014 at 3:41 PM

Ok – then stay home and complain like a 6 year old.
“we can’t do it”
“we can’t win”
“nothing will change”

Get out of the game and sit on the bench while we find players.
jake-the-goose on June 9, 2014 at 1:29 PM

Not surprised to see Jake’s comments here. He has a history of belittling amnesty opponents and other conservatives, calling them “freaks.” He’s a smarmy, less upfront version of “Joana.”

It’s always the pro-illegal alien amnesty types who tell us we need to become more like Democrats in order to appeal to voters. Why are conservatives expected to give in and support Dem-lite candidates, and never the other way around?

One issue Amnesty freaks are beginning to sound like paranoid d-illusionists. I think they many are just that.
jake-the-goose on March 19, 2014 at 7:57 PM

Paranoia abounds this evening.
You amnesty freaks should get a room.
jake-the-goose on March 19, 2014 at 8:42 PM

Paul [Ryan] is right – and this speech is a hopeful indication of his future direction.
People will snipe at him – the Amnesty freaks will freak – etc.
He is possibly the next Chairman of Ways and Means – this is good.
jake-the-goose on March 17, 2014 at 6:17 PM

bluegill on June 9, 2014 at 3:41 PM

You’re too hung up on the Federal Government.

jake-the-goose on June 9, 2014 at 3:26 PM

I believe I pointed out the many republican governors embracing Obamacare.

You have yet to address any point I make.

All you do is state clichés, call those you disagree with whiners and restate your only point, which is “vote GOP no matter what” – which proves my point.

You are a blind tribal loyalist devoid of thought. You have no understanding of politics or strategy and believe that voting GOP is somehow the same thing as being conservative.

Monkeytoe on June 9, 2014 at 3:42 PM

You are sad.

Monkeytoe on June 9, 2014 at 3:40 PM

Actually – I am as happy has I have ever been. Sad has no role in my life.

jake-the-goose on June 9, 2014 at 3:42 PM

Why are conservatives expected to give in and support Dem-lite candidates, and never the other way around?

bluegill on June 9, 2014 at 3:41 PM

Because Republican apologists believe the shit the GOP is shovelling. They really, truly, and honestly believe that a win for the GOP is a win for America regardless of what the GOP actually does upon assuming power.

gryphon202 on June 9, 2014 at 3:43 PM

You have yet to address any point I make.

Monkeytoe on June 9, 2014 at 3:42 PM

I have not.

I like to engage with people who derive solutions. You’re not worthy of my time.

That said – this is my last reply to your posts.

Good luck to you.

jake-the-goose on June 9, 2014 at 3:44 PM

Actually – I am as happy has I have ever been. Sad has no role in my life.

jake-the-goose on June 9, 2014 at 3:42 PM

Lack of understanding the English language again rears its head.

Monkeytoe on June 9, 2014 at 3:46 PM

jake-the-goose on June 9, 2014 at 3:42 PM

Lack of understanding the English language again rears its head.

Monkeytoe on June 9, 2014 at 3:46 PM

Don’t confuse lack of understanding with willful obtuseness.

gryphon202 on June 9, 2014 at 3:47 PM

I have not.

I like to engage with people who derive solutions. You’re not worthy of my time.

That said – this is my last reply to your posts.

Good luck to you.

jake-the-goose on June 9, 2014 at 3:44 PM

Now that is funny. What are people who “derive solutions”?

How is blindly voting GOP a solution?

I love those who want to lecture others on politics who cannot back up anything they say with rationale or facts, and then flee pretending to be morally superior.

It is to laugh.

Monkeytoe on June 9, 2014 at 3:48 PM

How is blindly voting GOP a solution?

Monkeytoe on June 9, 2014 at 3:48 PM

Voting GOP is the solution to the problem as Jake and others see it: Not enough Republican congressweasels in power. Given that Republicans had solid control of congress for several cycles starting in 1995, I find that thesis flawed to say the least.

gryphon202 on June 9, 2014 at 3:51 PM

In the past, I once derive a solution from someone I engaged, but she then inferred a problem from my derive solution, leaving me with an implied issue.

Monkeytoe on June 9, 2014 at 3:52 PM

Voting GOP is the solution to the problem as Jake and others see it: Not enough Republican congressweasels in power. Given that Republicans had solid control of congress for several cycles starting in 1995, I find that thesis flawed to say the least.

gryphon202 on June 9, 2014 at 3:51 PM

I have argued, in this thread and many others, that the GOP over the last 20 years has moved significantly leftward, and aims to move farther left still.

The party is the problem. Electing a few more conservative congressman or one or two more conservative senators will not change that dynamic at all.

How they cannot see that is troubling. It is not hidden. The GOP is pretty open about it by its actions.

The GOP was never a conservative party. It was always rightward of the DNC, but it was never conservative. We started moving it further right- towards conservatism in the early 1990′s, but that failed miserably, and since then it has been tacking left persistently.

Monkeytoe on June 9, 2014 at 3:55 PM

The GOP was never a conservative party.

Monkeytoe on June 9, 2014 at 3:55 PM

OSHA and EPA, among many other alphabet agencies, courtesy of Richard “I am not a crook!” Milhous Nixon.

gryphon202 on June 9, 2014 at 3:58 PM

jake-the-goose on June 9, 2014 at 3:44 PM

Jake there is a group on here who are nothing more than professional complainers. They call everyone who doesn’t believe in their brand of conservatism the only TruCon, yet are the first to push for big government solutions to their perceived problems.

You are right to talk about winning elections, otherwise we will become a party of whining losers, boasting of our moral superiority.

Tater Salad on June 9, 2014 at 4:10 PM

Tater Salad on June 9, 2014 at 4:10 PM

Now look, you are certainly entitled to use your vote as you seem fit and I will not question it. Give me the same consideration. It’s one thing to disagree but it’s another to suggest that the sum total of our problems is that we are professional complainers. In other words, FU.

Cindy Munford on June 9, 2014 at 4:15 PM

Tater Salad on June 9, 2014 at 4:10 PM

I appreciate the reply – we’ll all be fine.

Inter-squad fights are normal until we have an opponent to focus our attention on.

jake-the-goose on June 9, 2014 at 4:16 PM

Jake there is a group on here who are nothing more than professional complainers. They call everyone who doesn’t believe in their brand of conservatism the only TruCon, yet are the first to push for big government solutions to their perceived problems.

You are right to talk about winning elections, otherwise we will become a party of whining losers, boasting of our moral superiority.

Tater Salad on June 9, 2014 at 4:10 PM

So, I call everyone who doesn’t believe in my brand of conservatism “the only TruCon”. Not sure how that follows. I call you “only TruCon” because you don’t believe in “my brand of conservatism”?

regardless, your comment is just more of the same inane nonsense.

You don’t address any arguments or ideas out there. Just claim anyone who doesn’t blindly support the GOP is a “Trucon” (whatever that is – apparently anyone who disagrees with you, but we are the ones with “moral superiority” who whine?), and is a whiner.

the answer to all of the country’s problems is obvious. Vote GOP. That way, we win. Without all that “moral superiority” of actually, you know, standing for something.

So silly. so unserious.

Monkeytoe on June 9, 2014 at 4:17 PM

Give me the same consideration. It’s one thing to disagree but it’s another to suggest that the sum total of our problems is that we are professional complainers. In other words, FU.

Cindy Munford on June 9, 2014 at 4:15 PM

Ouch – allow me to take that as being directed at me as well.

Nothing personal – I promise – we’re all frustrated and it’s too easy to target one another in these preliminary times.

You have earned a wealth of goodwill.

jake-the-goose on June 9, 2014 at 4:18 PM

jake-the-goose on June 9, 2014 at 4:18 PM

No, it was not directed at you at all. I think you made a credible defense of your choice and managed to do it without denigrating anyone (unless I missed it, then I’m talking to you). I am really interested in what people think and why and I have no problem controlling any urge to do more than to ask for further clarification.

Cindy Munford on June 9, 2014 at 4:22 PM

jake-the-goose on June 9, 2014 at 4:18 PM

Even my husband thinks I am wrong about this.

Cindy Munford on June 9, 2014 at 4:24 PM

For some people, politics will always be about “my team winning” rather than accomplishing something.

the funny thing, to me at least, is those people – the people that have made politics a game where “my team winning” is the same as accomplishing something, actual believe themselves morally and intellectually superior.

I, for one, don’t hold out for some kind of red-meat conservative who promises to abolish the entire federal gov’t. That isn’t my point at all.

there is a big difference between being some kind of absolutist, who refuses to vote for anyone that deviates one iota from your own positions,

And admitting the GOP is not a conservative party and is in fact moving leftward.

The GOP blind loyalists pretend that questioning the GOP at all is the same as being an absolutist, unable or unwilling to compromise on any issue at all.

The reality is, it is the GOP apologists who are absolutist. The absolutism is voting GOP and no action by the GOP will change that.

I can see that a candidate expressing all of my own views is unlikely to be elected president. However, that does not translate into blind support for a party that increases spending, increases the size and scope of gov’t, is pushing amnesty, is implicitly (and will eventually explicitly) endorsing Obamacare, and that won’t do anything about entitlements.

it is not one or the other. If the GOP is not different enough from the DNC to make any real difference, than voting GOP is really not a big victory for conservatism or the Country. The fact that the GOP is the slightly lessor evil is not a reason to vote GOP. If we spend ourselves into bankruptcy at $10 million a year or $5 million a year, we are still spending ourselves into bankruptcy. We are only arguing about the speed of it.

Monkeytoe on June 9, 2014 at 4:25 PM

Monkeytoe on June 9, 2014 at 4:17 PM

Let me get this clear, I never use terms like RINO, Establishment, TruCon or the like. I think we are way too caught up in this terminology debate and waaayy to caught up in some sort of purity debate.

Example: I was told in ’12 that Santorum was the TruCon solution, yet he promoted protections for unions and special tax status for certain types of manufacturing, both positions I would consider very liberal. Yet many TruCons really liked his social message and conveniently over looked this.

Tater Salad on June 9, 2014 at 4:27 PM

Even my husband thinks I am wrong about this.

Cindy Munford on June 9, 2014 at 4:24 PM

Husbands – what they don’t know would fill volumes !!!

Just let him think his opinion matters very very much – and he will be happy

jake-the-goose on June 9, 2014 at 4:27 PM

One thing just occurred to me – imagine the POWER of the GOP if we marshaled all this passion – against the left – this fall, and in 2016.

Passion – the power to change everything

jake-the-goose on June 9, 2014 at 4:29 PM

In other words, FU.

Cindy Munford on June 9, 2014 at 4:15 PM

Thanks for the offer but I’ll pass.

Tater Salad on June 9, 2014 at 4:29 PM

One thing just occurred to me – imagine the POWER of the GOP if we marshaled all this passion – against the left – this fall, and in 2016.

Passion – the power to change everything

jake-the-goose on June 9, 2014 at 4:29 PM

The GOP is the left, Jake. It’s no longer right vs. left. It’s Right vs. Wrong. You can be Republican and be progressive at the same time, you know. It is possible.

gryphon202 on June 9, 2014 at 4:34 PM

Let me get this clear, I never use terms like RINO, Establishment, TruCon or the like. I think we are way too caught up in this terminology debate and waaayy to caught up in some sort of purity debate.

Example: I was told in ’12 that Santorum was the TruCon solution, yet he promoted protections for unions and special tax status for certain types of manufacturing, both positions I would consider very liberal. Yet many TruCons really liked his social message and conveniently over looked this.

Tater Salad on June 9, 2014 at 4:27 PM

What amuses me is you do not see the intellectually dishonesty or hypocrisy of your comment.

You say you never use terms like “TruCon”, yet end your comment by calling people you disagree with “TruCons”.

And, you claim that someone told you that Santorum was the TruCon solution.

I’m sure someone out there actually used that terminology. Someone said to you “Hey, tater – Rick Santorum is the TruCon solution”.

I did not like Santorum. Liked him as a Senator, but not as a presidential candidate.

Indeed, social issues are not my most passionate issues. Not by far.

People who throw around terms like “purity debate” are, typically, GOP apologists who don’t care what, exactly, the GOP does once elected. They just care about “my team” winning. It is a sport. A game.

I don’t think you will find one single comment on this entire thread where I mentioned purity – or indeed really argued about any specific stance on a specific issue at all. Instead, I maintain – and continue to maintain – that the GOP is the problem for conservatism, because the party as a whole (yes, the dreaded “establishment” that some people claim does not exist) is left-of-center and is moving leftward.

How that becomes “purity” is really what others infer.

there are many who simply cannot see further than whether or not the GOP wins elections. Whether that actually achieves anything is completely ignored by these people.

A GOP majority will not achieve any conservative goals. because the party is not conservative and is hostile to conservatives and conservatism.

We need to move the party to the right. I am arguing over ways to do that. And, in my opinion, blind allegiance to the GOP actually harms the goal of moving the party to the right.

Monkeytoe on June 9, 2014 at 4:34 PM

One thing just occurred to me – imagine the POWER of the GOP if we marshaled all this passion – against the left – this fall, and in 2016.

Passion – the power to change everything

jake-the-goose on June 9, 2014 at 4:29 PM

Talk about missing the point. If we marshal this passion to get GOP elected we will end up with left of center gov’t and leftism ascending.

But, somehow, that defeats the left?

Monkeytoe on June 9, 2014 at 4:36 PM

Talk about missing the point. If we marshal this passion to get GOP elected we will end up with left of center gov’t and leftism ascending.

But, somehow, that defeats the left?

Monkeytoe on June 9, 2014 at 4:36 PM

Jake isn’t about defeating the left. He’s about defeating the Democratic Party.

gryphon202 on June 9, 2014 at 4:39 PM

One thing just occurred to me – imagine the POWER of the GOP if we marshaled all this passion – against the left – this fall, and in 2016.

Passion – the power to change everything

jake-the-goose on June 9, 2014 at 4:29 PM

That would be awesome, now convince the incumbents, who feel perfectly safe insulting what should be their base. That’s, of course, if what they say on the campaign trail is actually what they believe.

Cindy Munford on June 9, 2014 at 4:40 PM

Tater Salad on June 9, 2014 at 4:29 PM

Just as well, how about trying the first part of the comment?

Cindy Munford on June 9, 2014 at 4:40 PM

We need to move the party to the right. I am arguing over ways to do that. And, in my opinion, blind allegiance to the GOP actually harms the goal of moving the party to the right.

Monkeytoe on June 9, 2014 at 4:34 PM

Monkeytoe, you are right to push the party to the right. However, when it’s time to vote, vote for the most conservative person you can. In some states (NH for example with Scott Brown) that may be a person less conservative than you would like. I live in TX and it was easy to vote for Cruz, but he may not have done so well in VT, NY or some other states. What Jake was saying, and I agree with, is in the end we need to win with as conservative candidate as possible.

PS. you were right about my TruCon in reference to the Santorum reference, I meant to say “self’annointed”.

Tater Salad on June 9, 2014 at 4:44 PM

Monkeytoe, you are right to push the party to the right. However, when it’s time to vote, vote for the most conservative person you can. In some states (NH for example with Scott Brown) that may be a person less conservative than you would like. I live in TX and it was easy to vote for Cruz, but he may not have done so well in VT, NY or some other states. What Jake was saying, and I agree with, is in the end we need to win with as conservative candidate as possible.

PS. you were right about my TruCon in reference to the Santorum reference, I meant to say “self’annointed”.

Tater Salad on June 9, 2014 at 4:44 PM

If the most conservative person I can vote for will erode my freedoms anyway, then what’s the point of voting in the first place?! That’s not standing on any principle other than “you should always vote.” I reject that. Freedom ought to transcend politics. A large reason that it doesn’t is because of the placidity and flaccidity of the American electorate. I don’t depend on the government for my freedom, and yet that is exactly what it sounds like I am being encouraged to do when someone eggs me on to “vote for the most conservative” whatever.

gryphon202 on June 9, 2014 at 4:49 PM

Revenge? They’ve been figh6ting him since he announced his candidacy–but he won anyway.
Then they told him to stay in line and act like a Jr. senator and he said…well he refused to cower before the mighty GOP elites and then he dared to fight Obamacare and they went against him (and the base( so now we hear they don’t like him and are seeking revenge?
I suspect they’re far too busy trying to stop more conservatives like him from getting a foothold in these next two elections…their enemy is the conservative base-not the left.

Don L on June 9, 2014 at 4:50 PM

You’re too hung up on the GOP, Jamey.
gryphon202 on June 9, 2014 at 3:26 PM

Actually I am 100% hung up on winning. Whiners rarely win anything.
I have noticed an increasing number of whiners call themselves conservatives.
I think it is a form of self delusion.
I have never known a conservative who whines – most that I have know are proactive winners.
The word ‘conservative’ is not a protective blanket for a lack of ambition – political or professional.
jake-the-goose on June 9, 2014 at 3:33 PM

Exactly what did the GOP win???

Brock Robamney on June 9, 2014 at 4:54 PM

gryphon202 on June 9, 2014 at 4:49 PM

Using my NH example, who do you think would better chance of look after your interest Shaheen or Brown? While Brown my not be Cruz, he at least is on the same team, and I have a chance of adding a vote in Congress to the causes I care about.

Tater Salad on June 9, 2014 at 4:54 PM

That would be awesome, now convince the incumbents, who feel perfectly safe insulting what should be their base. That’s, of course, if what they say on the campaign trail is actually what they believe.

Cindy Munford on June 9, 2014 at 4:40 PM

Do you have anything easier I could take on? Please!

jake-the-goose on June 9, 2014 at 4:58 PM

Exactly what did the GOP win???

Brock Robamney on June 9, 2014 at 4:54 PM

Or what did we lose?

Cindy Munford on June 9, 2014 at 4:59 PM

Using my NH example, who do you think would better chance of look after your interest Shaheen or Brown? While Brown my not be Cruz, he at least is on the same team, and I have a chance of adding a vote in Congress to the causes I care about.

Tater Salad on June 9, 2014 at 4:54 PM

So which causes do you care about? And which congressweasels have successfully advanced them? Don’t over-complicate this. I just want one person to tell me one thing congress has done in the last 36 years (my lifetime) to advance freedom in America.

gryphon202 on June 9, 2014 at 5:00 PM

Winning what and for what?

blink on June 9, 2014 at 4:41 PM

Everything I do – every vote I make – every trade I make – every round I play.

Winning is what gets me up the morning and it’s what make me sleep well at night.

For me (just me) losing at anything is a complete disaster.

It is my greatest gift – and my worst attribute. I live with it.

jake-the-goose on June 9, 2014 at 5:01 PM

jake-the-goose on June 9, 2014 at 4:58 PM

I’m afraid that a couple of incumbents are going to have to bite the dust. Miss Lindsey is only a dream but I’m hoping we can start with dear Sen. Cochran. And if you think these guys are worthy of your loyalty, did they go on to support the Republicans who beat them?

Cindy Munford on June 9, 2014 at 5:04 PM

Everything I do – every vote I make – every trade I make – every round I play.

Winning is what gets me up the morning and it’s what make me sleep well at night.

For me (just me) losing at anything is a complete disaster.

It is my greatest gift – and my worst attribute. I live with it.

jake-the-goose on June 9, 2014 at 5:01 PM

You’ll be whistling right to the graveyard, Jakey. You can live under an abject tyranny, but as long as the politicians fool you into thinking you won something, you’ll be fat and lazy just like the bulk of the American electorate.

/facepalm

gryphon202 on June 9, 2014 at 5:04 PM

I’m afraid that a couple of incumbents are going to have to bite the dust. Miss Lindsey is only a dream but I’m hoping we can start with dear Sen. Cochran. And if you think these guys are worthy of your loyalty, did they go on to support the Republicans who beat them?

Cindy Munford on June 9, 2014 at 5:04 PM

For many – my loyalty comes only after the candidate of my choice is defeated. I will not vote for Lindsey Graham tomorrow – my vote will go to Bill Connor.

But if Lindsey Graham is the GOP’s nominee in November – I will give him money – I will vote for him.

Politics is often about the least worst – I do not adhere to “my way or the highway”.

You cannot win – if you’re not in the game.

jake-the-goose on June 9, 2014 at 5:10 PM

Exactly what did the GOP win???
Brock Robamney on June 9, 2014 at 4:54 PM

Or what did we lose?
Cindy Munford on June 9, 2014 at 4:59 PM

I’ll leave that answer to President Romney

Brock Robamney on June 9, 2014 at 5:11 PM

I’ll leave that answer to President Romney

Brock Robamney on June 9, 2014 at 5:11 PM

There were reports that 4m GOP voters did not vote in 2012.

Now tell me about what matters?

jake-the-goose on June 9, 2014 at 5:14 PM

jake-the-goose on June 9, 2014 at 5:10 PM

As futile as it might be, I’m sending a message. Just a suggestion, don’t send Lindsey any money. Your vote is more than he has any right to deserve and he won’t need it.

Cindy Munford on June 9, 2014 at 5:27 PM

There were reports that 4m GOP voters did not vote in 2012.

Now tell me about what matters?

jake-the-goose on June 9, 2014 at 5:14 PM

Did you ever stop to think of why that many GOP voters did not turn out? Did you ever stop to ask yourself how many of those registered GOP voters were likely voters to begin with? Did you ever stop to think that maybe adhering to the GOP platform would have been a better GOTV method than trying to browbeat people for fear of the Dems?

gryphon202 on June 9, 2014 at 5:29 PM

I’ll leave that answer to President Romney

Brock Robamney on June 9, 2014 at 5:11 PM

Ohhhh. You mean the guy who signed socialized medicine into law in Mass-uh-chew-sits! That President Romney! I gotcha!

gryphon202 on June 9, 2014 at 5:30 PM

Really? Where and when has it been tried and failed?

gryphon202 on June 9, 2014 at 3:21 PM

the Nullification Crisis was a direct antecedent to the Civil War.

Tlaloc on June 9, 2014 at 5:36 PM

the Nullification Crisis was a direct antecedent to the Civil War.

Tlaloc on June 9, 2014 at 5:36 PM

No. Nullification didn’t lead to war. Secession did. I am not proposing secession, and in fact, I believe secession would be a mistake for a number of reasons (including the possibility of hot war). Any nullification act must necessarily recognize the legitimacy of a federal government acting within the confines of the constitution. There are lessons to be learned from the American Civil War, but I don’t believe they are the lessons you seem to think.

gryphon202 on June 9, 2014 at 5:39 PM

As futile as it might be, I’m sending a message. Just a suggestion, don’t send Lindsey any money. Your vote is more than he has any right to deserve and he won’t need it.

Cindy Munford on June 9, 2014 at 5:27 PM

You have a habit of mixing common sense into politics.

We need to discuss this….

jake-the-goose on June 9, 2014 at 5:42 PM

There were reports that 4m GOP voters did not vote in 2012.

Now tell me about what matters?

jake-the-goose on June 9, 2014 at 5:14 PM

Those reports were wrong, based on election night returns and ignoring the slow increase in vote totals over the following weeks as absentee ballots are counted. Romney got 60.9 million votes, a full million more than McCain in 2008.

Tlaloc on June 9, 2014 at 5:42 PM

No. Nullification didn’t lead to war. Secession did. I am not proposing secession, and in fact, I believe secession would be a mistake for a number of reasons (including the possibility of hot war). Any nullification act must necessarily recognize the legitimacy of a federal government acting within the confines of the constitution. There are lessons to be learned from the American Civil War, but I don’t believe they are the lessons you seem to think.

gryphon202 on June 9, 2014 at 5:39 PM

Yes actually it did. Nullification was simply the first step to thinking the states were above the federal government, a conclusion proven very very wrong.

Nullification directly relies on a view of the federal government as illegitimate, contrary to your bizarre claim.

And you’re just dying to fight that same fight again…

So which of us failed to learn the lesson of the Civil war?

Tlaloc on June 9, 2014 at 5:46 PM

jake-the-goose on June 9, 2014 at 5:42 PM

It is futile. I’m going to run for president on a national storm drain and two three month legislative periods for Congress.

Cindy Munford on June 9, 2014 at 5:46 PM

Yes actually it did. Nullification was simply the first step to thinking the states were above the federal government, a conclusion proven very very wrong.

Nullification directly relies on a view of the federal government as illegitimate, contrary to your bizarre claim.

And you’re just dying to fight that same fight again…

So which of us failed to learn the lesson of the Civil war?

Tlaloc on June 9, 2014 at 5:46 PM

States are above the federal government if the federal government follows the constitution. What do you think should be the consequence for the federal government to fail to adhere to the constitution?

gryphon202 on June 9, 2014 at 5:56 PM

Whatever you think about the cause the South fought for, at least they were willing to go to war and die over their principles. How come I can’t find a handful of Americans willing to do that today?

gryphon202 on June 9, 2014 at 5:57 PM

GOP establishment seeking revenge against Ted Cruz?

The question mark’s in the headline not because I doubt they’d like to take revenge but because I doubt they have the stones to do it.

There is only one group that the GOPe actually opposes and is willing to fight with, that being their Conservative politicians and voters.

RJL on June 9, 2014 at 6:26 PM

Businesses don’t want to donate to Cruz? So how about McCain or Romney? Oh right…

MrX on June 9, 2014 at 6:31 PM

Winners like Romney?

Faramir on June 9, 2014 at 6:42 PM

Breaking your word, or lying, has consequences in the Senate, both seen and unseen.

Since when?

ghostwalker1 on June 9, 2014 at 9:42 PM

For many – my loyalty comes only after the candidate of my choice is defeated. I will not vote for Lindsey Graham tomorrow – my vote will go to Bill Connor.

But if Lindsey Graham is the GOP’s nominee in November – I will give him money – I will vote for him.

Politics is often about the least worst – I do not adhere to “my way or the highway”.

You cannot win – if you’re not in the game.

jake-the-goose on June 9, 2014 at 5:10 PM

You have a habit of mixing common sense into politics.

We need to discuss this….

jake-the-goose on June 9, 2014 at 5:42 PM

Well, it’s certainly clear that ‘common sense’ doesn’t factor into your politics.

Midas on June 9, 2014 at 9:46 PM

You are wrong about Cruz. You don’t understand how large the Teaparty is. You don’t understand how weak the establishment is. Not only do you not know anything, I don’t believe you even suspect much.

In 2006 the establishment lost the house and senate, and then in 2008 they lost the presidency. People like McConnell were calling the GOP a regional party, and he was right. They were gone, sunk, totally defeated.

The Teaparty rose up in 2010 to put conservatives in charge, but the establishment weaseled around and made Boehner the house speaker who hit the ground running trying to squash the Teaparty. Then in 2012 they managed to spit the Teaparty vote to give the sure loser Romney his chance to get his butt handed to him by Obama. That split won’t happen again.

What you don’t understand is that the establishment vote is now minuscule. And that the full weight of the Teaparty is not felt in the polls because they refuse to be labeled as republicans. They are calling themselves independents – I know because I am one of them.

This sleeping giant will come home when Ted Cruz runs. And he will bring the very large and motivated libertarian with him. Especially if he picks Rand Paul as his shoe-in running mate early during the primaries.

If Cruz runs he will totally destroy Jeb Bush. It will be an historic tromping. I am guessing 70/30…

conservativeBC on June 10, 2014 at 12:28 AM

If Cruz runs he will totally destroy Jeb Bush. It will be an historic tromping. I am guessing 70/30…

conservativeBC on June 10, 2014 at 12:28 AM

Cruz may run. I doubt it, but I can’t say at this point he won’t. If he does, he won’t make it past Iowa.

gryphon202 on June 10, 2014 at 12:50 AM

You must be high- Ted Cruz would beat Jeb like a damn rug

Reaganite Republican on June 10, 2014 at 1:06 AM

The question mark’s in the headline not because I doubt they’d like to take revenge but because I doubt they have the stones to do it.

An as proof of this revenge plot he links to Time magazine… who have shown themselves to be a fair and balanced friend of the right.

V7_Sport on June 10, 2014 at 1:09 AM

Ted Cruz would beat Jeb like a damn rug

Reaganite Republican on June 10, 2014 at 1:06 AM

What about Hillary Clinton?

V7_Sport on June 10, 2014 at 1:10 AM

Did you ever stop to think of why that many GOP voters did not turn out? Did you ever stop to ask yourself how many of those registered GOP voters were likely voters to begin with? Did you ever stop to think that maybe adhering to the GOP platform would have been a better GOTV method than trying to browbeat people for fear of the Dems?
gryphon202 on June 9, 2014 at 5:29 PM

Never expect a liberal to dump a talking point groupthink meme for logic

Brock Robamney on June 10, 2014 at 5:41 AM

What about Hillary Clinton?

He would stand a h$ll of lot better chance that Jeb Freaking Bush. Or Romney, or McCain, Or Bob Dole, or Krispy Kreme…

Even if he was vote worthy, which he is not, the Bush name alone would be enough to sink him.

What was he name, Bush? Er… screw that… I’m voting for that Hillary Clinton fellow…

conservativeBC on June 10, 2014 at 7:55 AM

*his name

conservativeBC on June 10, 2014 at 7:55 AM

If he does, he won’t make it past Iowa.

George Will said the same thing about Reagan…

conservativeBC on June 10, 2014 at 7:57 AM

George Will said the same thing about Reagan…

conservativeBC on June 10, 2014 at 7:57 AM

Are we more free or less free than before Reagan took office?

gryphon202 on June 10, 2014 at 8:27 AM

Monkeytoe on June 9, 2014 at 3:55 PM

I think that would be incorrect. Both parties have moved in very polarizing directions. This probably matches the country where the electorate is divided. While Romney’s 47% remark was a little off (and politically a problem) it struck closer to the truth than many will ever admit. The one area I would agree with your statement is that both parties are worried about controlling DC, than complying with the constitution. But the GOP is more pro-life, pro-gun, anti-tax than it probably has ever been. The TP has played its roll in that and will continue to do so. If you veer too far left you will get primaried, and you may lose. All politicians fear that.

The solution is the states – re-asserting their 10th Amendment rights. Strongly. They do so by refusing to comply with laws which interfere with their sovereign powers.

Zomcon JEM on June 10, 2014 at 8:44 AM

McConnell’s senate, following the age old rules makes status for incumbents with long service and does not allow for innovation from people like Cruz, Rubio, Rand Paul, or Scott Brown. Scott Brown? yes, the senate rules have ruined these last four charismatic newcomers.

When Scott Brown arrived in D.C. they wanted his vote and they got it uncompromisingly. But the leadership would not bring up the bills that he ran on, McConnells fault and Reid’s fault, but the GOP leadership would not present anything on TARP abuses and wall street reform. This put stand-by-his-word newcomer Brown at the hands of his enemies in the leadership to work on a bill which ended up being called “Dodd Frank.” Brown put protections into that law suggested by Massachusetts banking professionals, including Fidelity. And the rest was a mess.

The jealously over the persona of new comers and the hogging of power by leaders like McConnell because it is a traditonal practice has to stop. Seniority rules in the Senate need to be changed. I think a six month grace period might be observed, but after that, ALL SENATORS NEED TO BE EQUAL. That doesn’t require Mark Levin type changing of the consitution, this can be done in one rules change in the Senate.

Most of what is written (The Question Mark, above,) is for senational headlines. I can’t tell when they are doing people favors or working against the GOP. I like Ted Cruz, and I think that so called Moderates and RINO’s need to look at the real Cruz not the media creation. He has the right stuff from his traditional Harvard Law training, sorry, it shows. I listened to the CSPAN version of his not-filibuster. He is the real thing, not the charicature even his supporters seem to feel comfortable with.

The spin will make you crazy.
Today on Drudge, there is this headline saying Ryan wants Amnesty. I read the article…it wasn’t even about Ryan it was about a guy named Mulvaney. The last line of the article was this:

“Congressman Ryan has laid out his principles for immigration reform. He’s said that the House should not take up or conference with the Senate bill and that there should be no special pathway to citizenship for those here illegally. Congressman Ryan has also said that any reform effort should begin by securing our border and enforcing our laws.”

Who benefits by misinformation?

We are entering the silly season, put your emotions in check and don’t take any bait.

Fleuries on June 10, 2014 at 8:56 AM

The Republican party keeps playing small ball, while the president is busy setting up a defacto dictatorship.

2016 is their last chance. If they send another water carrier more interested in being liked than doing what needs to be done, I’m finished with the party. If they won’t represent me or my interests, then I will find someone who will.

If they can’t be bothered to address the primary issue of the day, what good are they to anyone?

Voyager on June 10, 2014 at 9:05 AM

2016 is their last chance. If they send another water carrier more interested in being liked than doing what needs to be done, I’m finished with the party. If they won’t represent me or my interests, then I will find someone who will.

Voyager on June 10, 2014 at 9:05 AM

The only question really is, why are you giving them yet another – another *two* – chances? They haven’t f*cked you over enough yet? They haven’t already told you how they’re going to keep f*cking you over and that’s enough – you have to wait and let them do it to you first before you decide?

For my part, I’m beyond done with them already. It’s like being married to someone for 20 years who has been sleeping around behind your back, and you tolerated it, to the point where they openly bring their partners home to f*ck in your bed, on your couch, hell on the kitchen table in front of you while you’re eating breakfast… and you keep saying, “stop now, I mean it – you do that again and I’m leaving – no really, I mean it…” I think they kind of don’t believe it when we say it at this point, you know?

Midas on June 10, 2014 at 9:23 AM

conservativeBC on June 10, 2014 at 12:28 AM

From your lips to God’s ear…

Midas on June 10, 2014 at 9:26 AM

The solution is the states – re-asserting their 10th Amendment rights. Strongly. They do so by refusing to comply with laws which interfere with their sovereign powers.

Zomcon JEM on June 10, 2014 at 8:44 AM

That would require the states to also rebuff the non-existent authority of the federal courts, which they have yet to do. Courts are part of FedGov too.

gryphon202 on June 10, 2014 at 9:41 AM

Monkeytoe, you are right to push the party to the right. However, when it’s time to vote, vote for the most conservative person you can. In some states (NH for example with Scott Brown) that may be a person less conservative than you would like. I live in TX and it was easy to vote for Cruz, but he may not have done so well in VT, NY or some other states. What Jake was saying, and I agree with, is in the end we need to win with as conservative candidate as possible.

PS. you were right about my TruCon in reference to the Santorum reference, I meant to say “self’annointed”.

Tater Salad on June 9, 2014 at 4:44 PM

Funny. You think that saying “self anointed TruCon” is not derogatory or name calling or intellectually dishonest or hypocritical? Apparently, if we don’t agree with your definition of what a conservative should think or do, we are “self appointed TruCons” who deserve derision. Good to know. You don’t even see the contradiction in calling others names for not believing/doing as you say, while at the same time claiming that they are the “purists” because they disagree with you?

Regardless, talk about missing the point. I’m talking about doing something to move the GOP rightward (and pointing out the GOP is the problem, not the solution) and your answer is more of the inane drivel “vote GOP no matter what” – with no explanation of why you think doing that will change anything.

It is self-deluded, vote GOP no matter what, tribal loyalists like yourself that allow and empower the GOP to continue moving leftward. Your actions in blindly supporting the GOP do more to halt any conservative progress than almost anything else.

As long as the GOP apologists abound, the GOP will never be anything but a left-of-center party. So, by blindly supporting the GOP (yes, Jake, I know you don’t understand what that means) you are acting counter to your alleged conservative beliefs.

But, you are incapable of understanding this. I’ve had this “argument” with people like Jake and Tater 100 times in the past. these people never address any arguments or facts, they merely say not supporting the GOP is “whining” or “complaining” and that only “losers” don’t vote for the GOP (or better yet, failing to vote for the GOP is “unpatriotic”). Way to think it through and make a coherent argument people.

but, what more can I expect from a GOP apologist?

Monkeytoe on June 10, 2014 at 11:23 AM

Monkeytoe, you are right to push the party to the right. However, when it’s time to vote, vote for the most conservative person you can. In some states (NH for example with Scott Brown) that may be a person less conservative than you would like. I live in TX and it was easy to vote for Cruz, but he may not have done so well in VT, NY or some other states. What Jake was saying, and I agree with, is in the end we need to win with as conservative candidate as possible.

This entire statement completely ignores/misses the entire argument that we have been having on this thread. Not sure if that is purposefully obtuse or you just can’t understand simple things.

I’m arguing that the GOP is the problem. Your answer is “vote GOP”.

So frustrating trying to converse with people who either can’t, or won’t, actually engage honestly.

Monkeytoe on June 10, 2014 at 11:25 AM

So frustrating trying to converse with people who either can’t, or won’t, actually engage honestly.

Monkeytoe on June 10, 2014 at 11:25 AM

Let me put this as simply as possible so some people can understand it.

let’s use the DNC as an example. In the DNC, they vote for “conservative democrats” in red or purple states. But, the DNC as a whole always moves further left and always pursues the leftist agenda. And these “conservative democrats” never stand in the way of it and always help the DNC do so.

On the flip side we have the GOP. the GOP – in its platform, its mailings, its fundraising and in various campaigns claims to be conservative. Yet, the GOP as a whole is always pushing for leftist things and always trying to move further left. The GOP elects (even in deep red states/districts) “liberal republicans” (who call themselves “moderates”). These “liberal republicans” fight every effort anyone in the GOP makes to move the party to the right.

Do you see the disconnect there? The DNC stays true to its purpose – leftism – always.

the GOP never stays true to its purported purpose, but always pursues leftist policy (Medicare plan B, No Child Left Behind, increased spending, amnesty and the list goes on and on).

So, you would have me vote for the “most conservative candidate possible” in the general election. So that Scott Brown or Lindsy Graham get elected as “R”s. To what end, exactly? What does that accomplish?

If the GOP is always pursuing leftism and always trying to move further left – what does voting for Lindsy Graham achieve? What does voting for Ted Cruz achieve?

Nothing. That is the point that GOP apologists cannot wrap their heads around.

As long as the GOP is given a pass by conservatives to act the way they act – they will always do what they have done. You can’t get someone to change their behavior by rewarding their behavior. Reward only reinforces the behavior.

That you believe the GOP will somehow move right when you continue to vote for it despite its actions, is absurd.

Monkeytoe on June 10, 2014 at 11:33 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3