Posted on 09/14/2014 5:48:35 AM PDT by cotton1706
While the day to day activities of both the Senate and House are greatly influenced by the leadership, in neither body is the leader a dictator. Becoming the leader requires a two step process. First, his party must have a majority of the body as a whole and that is gained through an election in the various states and districts. After the general election, there is a second election within the party caucus for the leader. Winning that election requires a majority of the caucus vote, not a majority of the body as a whole. In effect, the leader is elected by a majority of the majority or 25% plus of the total membership of the body.
The reason a RINO is preferable to a democrat is in the first election to determine which party caucus with select the ultimate leader. For instance, you could elect 48 clones of Ted Cruze or Mike Lee and 52 democrats and Harry Reid would still dominate the Senate. On the other hand, you could elect 26 reliably conservative republicans and 25 RINO’s and the conservative members would control the agenda. In reality, the political philosophy of any one Senator is not nearly as important to advancement of the conservative cause as is the party affiliation of that Senator. While a RINO may not be preferable to a Tea Party senator, he is always better for the conservative cause than a conservative democrat. Exercising political power is not about hurt feelings or bragging rights, or about heroes and villains, it is about establishing winning coalitions with sufficient common interest to serve the public interest. No one gets everything they want but those who can’t compromise often lose everything.
Hogwash! Gingrich rose to power precisely because the dems were in power, and they abused it, as they always do.
He earned his spurs by delineating the sharp contrast between the corrupt dems and the gop.
The gop-e is blurring those lines, and governing as dems when they are in office. As long as there is a gop-e, we will have nothing better than we have now.
“Did I miss something, and they moved Kansas to the N.E.?”
Yes, you missed a lot - RINOs live in EVERY state - Alaska has Lisa Murkowski, Texas has John Wayne McCornin
What state do you live in? If it’s a RAT state it doesn’t matter if you vote or not.
I’ve found that most that think we should set home for lack of a perfect conservative candidate either have no state listed, or live in dark blue RAT infested states.
I don’t advocate sitting home - quite the contrary, I advocate active, aggressive destruction of the faithless gop. I will vote dem before I vote for another gop-e type that supports Thad Cochran and attacks Ted Cruz.
They are the scum on the scum at the bottom of the barrel.
fool...... self righteousness carried to zealotry breeds losers
Roberts can sick my left nit. I’ll vote for the senile old fraud because any Republican is better than Orman, but I’ll hold my nose doing it.
Kansans really dropped the ball choosing him over Wolf.
Please point out the great successes YOUR way has brought...
John McCain?
Mitt?
Thad Cochran?
The years we had the senate, the house AND the white house? Oh yeah! That’s when your method REALLY worked! We decreased spending, lowered the debt, cut taxes, rolled back Roe v Wade, balanced the budget, stopped pork-barreling, and our Speaker actually didn’t use his special knowledge to enhance the value of his real estate holdings! oooooooooh WAIT A MINUTE! None of that happened! All they did was blur the distinctions between dem and gop, give conservatism a bad name, and continue our slide to socialism.
You are wanting to repeat that???
And you call me a fool!!! BWAAHAAHAAAHAAAAAA!!!
well, you are. You palace your own judjement ahead of America, ahead of those Republicans that elected the individuals you noted. We are not the nation of Giles B self made tyrant opposing all that he can’t understand.
Your turn.
OK. Tell me the vote where he voted against the interests of Kansas. I keep waiting for the answer.
If a least 40 senators that are GOP have a more liberal voting record than Roberts doesn't than mean he is not a Republican in name only but an actual representative of what the Republicans are.
The point that often gets missed in these discussions is that the most important aspect of Senate control is the committee chairs. A chairman of a Senate committee, especially the committees that control the purse strings are the most powerful people in Washington. When they are Democrats, the press ignore them and let them do their dirty work. If the Republicans take control, the press will take up the hue and cry about what evil deeds they are doing.
Oooooh, I see. I don’t have a right to express my opinion nor vote my conscience? I’m supposed to vote for and support whomever the gop-e and bert designate as being good for America? And you call me the tyrant? And you call me a fool?
Someone who continues to do the same thing over and over, without any appreciable progress may not be insane, but foolish is definitely on the table.
Frankly bert, I believe your approach has been disastrous for America. I used to believe as you do, and I marched in step - but I am convinced that all we did was encourage the arrogance of the gop-e. in that arrogance, they gave us two candidates that were unable or unwilling to defeat an inexperienced demagogue. So I’ve changed my ways. If you want 8 more years like the last 8 - well then, just keep on doing what you’ve been doing.
What does “Republicans elected the individuals (I) noted” matter? They were all either lousy candidates, immoral or unethical. Are you saying that if Republicans elect them, then they are above reproach or criticism? You can try that on elsewhere. I will criticize whom I please, and when they pull stunts like Hastert or Cochran or Haley Barbour - I will call them immoral, unethical and criminal.
I notice you don’t offer any defense of their candidacies or their behavior - you only bleat that “Republicans elected” them, and they are not democrats. They may not be democrats, but they act too much like them politically and ethically for my liking.
McCain wouldn’t attack Obama where he was vulnerable, neither would Mitt. Mitt had him on the ropes after the 1st debate, then he let up on the second. Those two campaigns gave us 8 years of Obama - and those two candidates were given to us by the gop-e. The same bunch that supported and directed the Thad Cochran disgrace, that mock and denigrate Ted Cruz, that run like little school girls every time, rather than stand for what is good and right for America....and you want me to support that bunch? And furthermore, you lecture me on what is good for America????? And doing all of that, you call me the fool??
You astound me!
Please, take a crack at defending the actions of the gop-e for the last 16 years. Don’t blather about “Republicans elected...”, or “what’s good (in your opinion) for America”, and don’t pretend that you understand what I don’t (you don’t have the horsepower to pull that load). Just tell me what the gop-e has done to deserve my support?
Backing off on campaigns and allowing Obama to win?
Hastert featherbedding his bank account?
Encouraging dems to illegally vote for Thad Cochran to keep his pork-barrelling ass in congress?
Or was it refusing to stand with Ted Cruz, but bad-mouthing him in public?
Maybe it was McConnell saying he was going to crush the Tea Party?
Or was there something else they did that has been so great for America?
Please - tell me what they’ve done to earn my support - and if you can’t do that, don’t say anymore, OK?
lefty is lefty
party labels aren’t that important
They should vote for the most conservative person on the ballot, unless there isn’t one.
“The reason a RINO is preferable to a democrat is in the first election to determine which party caucus with select the ultimate leader. For instance, you could elect 48 clones of Ted Cruze or Mike Lee and 52 democrats and Harry Reid would still dominate the Senate. On the other hand, you could elect 26 reliably conservative republicans and 25 RINO’s and the conservative members would control the agenda. In reality, the political philosophy of any one Senator is not nearly as important to advancement of the conservative cause as is the party affiliation of that Senator. While a RINO may not be preferable to a Tea Party senator, he is always better for the conservative cause than a conservative democrat.”
I agree with you. But I and a lot of others are tired of the one way street. We are told that we have to vote for the republican, no matter how moderate, but then we see Lisa Murkowski refuse to vote for the republican and run an independent campaign. The same with Charlie Crist. John Warner endorsed the democrat this year. Richard Lugar endorsed the democrat this year. WE are all told to bite the bullet, that a moderate republican is better than the democrat, but nothing is said of these people or to these people. And there are numerous other examples. And the answer seems to be “shut up and support the republican, no matter how bad or how much he will betray you because we need the senate back!”
“It is foolish to assume a homogenity that doesn’t exist. There is no total consensus even among the conservatives on Free Republic”
That’s true, but those that are telling us that we need to all stand together, and be a “big tent” never seem to notice those among the elites that deviate from the plantation, they only notice US. They don’t say a word about or to John Warner and Richard Lugar endorsing democrats. Was Lisa Murkowski stripped of her seniority when she refused to support the republican nominee and ran against him? Was Charlie Crist? No, they were high-fived and rooted for. It’s “big tent for thee but not for me.” And it gets tiresome. Jim Jeffords, Arlen Specter, Lincoln Chafee, Dede Scozzafava, John HuntmanFormer Governor Millken of MI the other day, the republicans in KS, Bill Weld, Colin Powell (though we always knew he was really a democrat), and on and on.
In all honesty, I really would like to see some unity, but what has been made clear is “only our types must win, we must stop conservatives, and if a democrat beats one, even though a republican loses, that’s a good thing because conservatives must not be represented in the Congress! We want their votes, but they must not be represented.”
It’s very frustrating and causes a lot of us, who would otherwise vote for the “R” to say FU!
I am sorry for not replying earlier but I had some pressing matters to take care of.
I know the frustration you speak of but my main point was that a majority in the caucus is meaningless unless that caucus is a majority of the senate. The primaries are the time to fight inter-party battles but the general election is the fight for control of the senate. While taking out someone like Roberts in the general election might give a temporary feeling of accomplishment, the real affect would be to diminish the influence of those like Cruze, Lee, and Sessions who could exert real influence as committee chairman but can only talk as minority members. We can't allow the likes of Lugar, Warner and Crist to goad us into acting against our best interest. Politics is not about feelings or getting even, it is about winning and to do so, we have to be smarter and more disciplined than our opposition. As my old grandfather used to say, you don't cure a sore toe by cutting off your foot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.