Mitch McConnell Embraces Old Enemies as Friends

ABC News ^ | May 21, 2014 | By Jeff Zeleny

[Oldeconomybuyer]

Sen. Mitch McConnell was all smiles today: Not only because of his Republican primary victory in Kentucky, but because of a string of about-face endorsements from conservative groups intent on destroying him.

“I’m happy to have them on board,” McConnell said dryly, standing just off the floor of the Senate, where he hopes to become majority leader in November if Republicans pick up six seats and control of the Senate.

“Collectively, this group spent about $1 million against me in the primary,” McConnell said. “But they all got on board last night.”

Not only did they get on board, they fell into line. And fast.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

Mitch will have a tough race in November. He lost 40% of the vote among his own party.

[bigdaddy45]

I don’t live in Kentucky, but to any Republican who lives in Kentucky, this should be a simple decision. When the next Supreme Court Justice is on the line, who would you like casting your vote? Mitch McConnell or Alison Grimes?

Cutting your nose off to spite your face is usually a bad idea.

[House Atreides]

...McConnell said. “No. 1, we want to nominate candidates who can actually win in November....
********************************************************************

Good luck with that Mitch come November.

[kingattax]

conservative votes are taken for granted by the GOPe the same way that black voters are taken for granted by the democRATS

[ElectionInspector]

who would you like casting your vote? Mitch McConnell or Alison Grimes?

... I’m not in Kentucky, but I want to see backstabber *itch go down to the Dem. At least we know how she will vote and she may surprise on some issues.... but that’s ‘cuz I hate RINO One Worlders....

ymmv

[Eccl 10:2]

When the next Supreme Court Justice is on the line, who would you like casting your vote? Mitch McConnell or Alison Grimes?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Precisely.

Especially since Obama and company have been bypassing Congress and doing everything through executive fiat or through the courts.

Remember the 11th commandment - “Thou shalt not speak ill of thy fellow Republican.” - Ronaldus Magnus

[TianaHighrider]

I just heard AGAIN on the news how MM ‘CRUSHED’ the tea party. That is enough for me. I will NOT vote for him. If Grimes wins she could be sent home next time. We might never have as good of a chance to get rid of this traitor again. I will not vote for Grimes. But I certainly will not vote for someone who considers me an enemy either.

[Paladin2]

Maybe if Mitch blasts Rustler Reid daily .till Nov. Otherwise ditch Mitch.

[Yosemitest]

*itch McConnell FUNDER OF OBAMACARE is in for a big surprise, when Conservatives REFUSE to support him in the General Election, and vote AGAINST him.

"Establishment Republicans" lose everytime they're listened to.
They wouldn't care if they DO lose.
If they can't be in power, they don't want US in power.
It's just that simple.
It's WAR!

"Establishment Republicans" Want to Redefine the Term "Conservative"

"DO CONSERVATIVES WANT TO WIN IN 2012 OR NOT?"

DO CONSERVATIVES "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" WANT TO WIN IN 2014 OR NOT?

Jack Kerwick wrote an article on May 24, 2011 titled The Tea Partier versus The Republican and he expressed some important issues that I agree with.

Thus far, the field of GOP presidential contenders, actual and potential, isn’t looking too terribly promising.

This, though, isn’t meant to suggest that any of the candidates, all things being equal, lack what it takes to insure
that Barack Obama never sees the light of a second term; nor is it the case that I find none of the candidates appealing.
Rather, I simply mean that at this juncture, the party faithful is far from unanimously energized over any of them.

It is true that it was the rapidity and aggressiveness with which President Obama proceeded to impose his perilous designs upon the country
that proved to be the final spark to ignite the Tea Party movement.
But the chain of events that lead to its emergence began long before Obama was elected.
That is, it was actually the disenchantment with the Republican Party under our “compassionate conservative” president, George W. Bush,
which overcame legions of conservatives that was the initial inspiration that gave rise to the Tea Party.

It is this frustration with the GOP’s betrayal of the values that it affirms that accounts for why the overwhelming majority
of those who associate with or otherwise sympathize with the Tea Party movement
refuse to explicitly or formally identify with the Republican Party.
And it is this frustration that informs the Tea Partiers’ threat to create a third party
in the event that the GOP continues business as usual.

If and when those conservatives and libertarians who compose the bulk of the Tea Party, decided that the Republican establishment
has yet to learn the lessons of ’06 and ’08, choose to follow through with their promise,
they will invariably be met by Republicans with two distinct but interrelated objections.

First,
they will be told that they are utopian, “purists” foolishly holding out for an “ideal” candidate.

Second, because virtually all members of the Tea Party would have otherwise voted Republican if not for this new third party,
they will be castigated for essentially giving elections away to Democrats.



Both of these criticisms are, at best, misplaced; at worst, they are just disingenuous.
At any rate, they are easily answerable.

Let’s begin with the argument against “purism.” To this line, two replies are in the coming.


No one, as far as I have ever been able to determine, refuses to vote for anyone who isn’t an ideal candidate.
Ideal candidates, by definition, don’t exist.
This, after all, is what makes them ideal.
This counter-objection alone suffices to expose the argument of the Anti-Purist as so much counterfeit.
But there is another consideration that militates decisively against it.

A Tea Partier who refrains from voting for a Republican candidate who shares few if any of his beliefs
can no more be accused of holding out for an ideal candidate
than can someone who refuses to marry a person with whom he has little to anything in common
be accused of holding out for an ideal spouse.
In other words, the object of the argument against purism is the most glaring of straw men:
“I will not vote for a thoroughly flawed candidate” is one thing;
“I will only vote for a perfect candidate” is something else entirely.



As for the second objection against the Tea Partier’s rejection of those Republican candidates who eschew his values and convictions,
it can be dispensed with just as effortlessly as the first.

Every election season—and at no time more so than this past season—Republicans pledge to “reform Washington,” “trim down” the federal government, and so forth.
Once, however, they get elected and they conduct themselves with none of the confidence and enthusiasm with which they expressed themselves on the campaign trail,
those who placed them in office are treated to one lecture after the other on the need for “compromise” and “patience.”

Well, when the Tea Partier’s impatience with establishment Republican candidates intimates a Democratic victory,
he can use this same line of reasoning against his Republican critics.
My dislike for the Democratic Party is second to none, he can insist.
But in order to advance in the long run my conservative or Constitutionalist values, it may be necessary to compromise some in the short term.

For example,

as Glenn Beck once correctly noted in an interview with Katie Couric,
had John McCain been elected in 2008, it is not at all improbable that, in the final analysis,
the country would have been worse off than it is under a President Obama.
McCain would have furthered the country’s leftward drift,
but because this movement would have been slower,
and because McCain is a Republican, it is not likely that the apparent awakening that occurred under Obama would have occurred under McCain.


It may be worth it, the Tea Partier can tell Republicans, for the GOP to lose some elections if it means that conservatives—and the country—will ultimately win.

If he didn’t know it before, the Tea Partier now knows that accepting short-term loss in exchange for long-term gain is the essence of compromise, the essence of politics.

Ironically, he can thank the Republican for impressing this so indelibly upon him.

I'm fresh out of "patience", and I'm not in the mood for "compromise".
"COMPROMISE" to me is a dirty word.
Let the RINO's compromise their values, with the conservatives, for a change.

Mitch McConnell, the "Establishment Republican" can go to hell!

[bfh333]

Boehner, Cantor & McConnell...

One can only dream of these 3 being defeated even if it means having a Dem in the seat...

[Repeat Offender]

I don’t live in Kentucky, but to any Republican who lives in Kentucky, this should be a simple decision. When the next Supreme Court Justice is on the line, who would you like casting your vote? Mitch McConnell or Alison Grimes?

Thank you. I was afraid this thread wouldn't have any Stupid Party, lesser-of-two-evils, fear mongers.

You get the government you vote for. Rewarding bad behavior gets you more bad behavior.

Spineless sellouts like Mitch McConnell are spineless sellouts because the voters vote for the Mitch McConells.

And until all of the slow children figure that out, the Stupid Party will continue to run the Bob Doles, Juan McCains, and Myth Romneys. The Boners, Cantors, and McConnells will remain entrenched.

"With one GOP vote, Kagan wins Senate Panel." So how did voting Stupid Party help for this SCJ?

And of course Sotomayor found a GOP senator to vote for too.

And of course Lindsay Graham voted to support the nom too

Cutting your nose off to spite your face is usually a bad idea.

so is ignoring the dangers of cancerous tumors and encouraging them to grow.

[Jagdgewehr]

but because of a string of about-face endorsements from conservative groups intent on destroying him.

The same ol' same ol' and the country slides further into the abyss. Keep backing those elitist establishment Republicans who keep sh!ting on you until they need your vote.

[Jagdgewehr]

When the next Supreme Court Justice is on the line...

Oh, we're way past that concern...at least since June 28, 2012.

[TianaHighrider]

A sweet dream it would be to get rid of them. But one I think we can do one way or the other.
How does it go, ‘you have to clean your own house first’?
Those fools give Republicans a bad name.

[sarge83]

To bad the gop e don’t follow the 11th commandment damned if they do not expect conservatives to unilaterally follow it. Piss off your base and you will lose. McConnell has no one to blame for his coming lose except Mitch McConnell.

[Yogafist]

Please point to anything that makes you think McConnell will stand up to Obama. Obama has been beating the Republicans like a rented mule, and all they do is cower, and attack their base. They are simply not going to find a spine after the next election just because they have the majority. They will continue to lose fights to Obama, but they will be able to control the voting so they will be able to hide behind show votes, and all other sorts of chicanery, doing Obama’s bidding but giving them the ability to claim they are standing up to him. I wish I had an ounce of faith, but the fact is, Obama will get anyone he wants on the Supreme Court whether the Republicans are in charge or the Democrats.

[RS_Rider]

I hope the gobbler looses in November.
An entrenched back stabbing 6 term RINO is far more dangerous to our republic than a freshman rat.

[Yosemitest]

If you actually vote AGAINST them, we CAN throw them out, if enough of us do it.
Don't just skip them on the ballot.
ACTUALLY VOTE AGAINST THEM, and for the person most likely to defeat them.
We can replace them with a conservative the next time around.

[txrefugee]

Good analysis. Why should conservatives vote for someone who gloats that the chamber of amnesty Judases helped him attain his goal of crushing the TEA Party? He does not respect conservatives and should not expect them to vote for him.

[dadfly]

ahh. so humble in victory. this is why it is best to give your money directly to the candidate.