Posted on 03/20/2014 5:27:14 AM PDT by cotton1706
Let's get this out of the way now: As far as big deals coming out of Washington, this year is already junked. With the midterm elections in view for jittery lawmakers, chances for a breakthrough on an immigration overhaul, a rewrite of the tax code, or a major jobs package have all but vanished. (Take a bow, partisans.) But we could wake up Nov. 5 with a very different political order. President Obama, at that point, would still have two years in the Oval Office to seal his legacy.
Certainly the President himself will help shape that future. Beyond that, however, Obama's record is likely to depend on Republicans even more than on members of his own party. And that means that what the federal government regulates, taxes, and spends over the next several years could in large part hinge on the actions of just one 72-year-old Southerner: Mitch McConnell. Assuming he's still in office.
Which brings us squarely to the right now.
Tantalizingly close to achieving his career ambition of seizing control of the Senate, the Kentucky Republican is also as close as he's been during five terms in the chamber to being sent packing. The Senate minority leader faces battles on both flanks: on the right, with a primary challenge from multimillionaire investor Matt Bevin; on the left, with a general-election cage match that's already neck and jowl. (As of presstime, Democratic frontrunner Alison Lundergan Grimes, Kentucky's 35-year-old secretary of state, was slightly ahead in the polls.) Handicappers expect that the candidates and outside groups will spend more than $100 million on the race, much of it coming from outside the state.
(Excerpt) Read more at money.cnn.com ...
I'm glad to hear it. But what I would like to see is the GOP-E attempting to actually earn my vote instead of feeling they are entitled to it.
I've got something they want. If they want to earn it, they are welcome to try. That means running conservatives.
I would never stay home from an election, no responsible citizen would. I have voted in every election available to me since the age of 18. But I won't be taken for granted and I will not vote for people who are antithetical to what I believe, regardless of their party.
If they want my vote, they can try to earn it. I don't vote against. I vote for.
Well, you have your philosophy and I have mine. This election, if the choice is between Lindsey Graham and a Democrat, I’m voting democrat because I believe it’s the fastest way to grow true conservatives.
You’ve laid it out exactly right; can’t disagree with anything you’ve said.
No more status quo for the GOPe. No more phony lesser of 2 evils.
If I lived in Kentucky I would consider whether a weak democrat is less damaging to the country than a powerful RINO.
Weak dim, easy choice for me.
False premiss McConnell is not the best choice, he might be if he did not have the leadership position within the party. If he resigned that position maybe he would be an acceptable compromise.
Voting for a RINO is the same as voting for any other Tyrant.
You presume that if Mitch loses we will lose the Senate, stuffit.
Well, the way I figure it, voting for a Democrat grows the Democrat party.
Never voting for a Democrat and voting for the most rightward viable conservative candidate in EVERY race is the way to nurture and grow the conservative movement.
We disagree on strategy and tactics, but I trust we both want the same outcome, the most conservative Republican majority possible. In that, I hope we succeed.
I would classify you under the heading of damn fool. That is,
cutting off your nose to spite your face
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.