Posted on 10/28/2014 5:34:31 AM PDT by Kaslin
The Democratic Party is systematically destroying America and other than Barack Obama, no one deserves more blame for it than Harry Reid. He may be an excellent politician who runs circles around Mitch McConnell the way Bugs Bunny baffles Elmer Fudd, but he's also a habitually dishonest, mean-spirited sociopath who cares absolutely nothing about the good of the country. The Democrat senators who put Reid into power and went along with Obama deserve to be punished for what they’ve done.
Certainly, that doesn't mean the Republicans are wonderful. Just the fact that they allow themselves to be led by a mediocrity like Mitch McConnell tells you a lot. So does the fact that Ted Cruz is talked about as if he’s this wild-eyed, radical conservative. Don't get me wrong: Ted Cruz is my favorite senator and I can't say enough good things about him. But really, what makes Ted Cruz so special? That he's smart? Aren't senators supposed to be smart? Is he unique because he effectively attacks the Democrats? Aren't Republicans supposed to do that? Is Ted Cruz a stand-out because he behaves as if he believes in all the things he said on the campaign trail? Really? Aren’t Republicans supposed to believe in the things they say on the campaign trail? In a sense, the most remarkable thing about Ted Cruz is that he IS so remarkable despite doing little more than what the average Republican in the Senate should be doing in the first place.
That being said, while we shouldn’t put the Senate Republicans up on a pedestal, we also shouldn’t underestimate how bad the Senate Democrats have become. So, why is it so important to beat the Democrats?
1) It helps check Obama’s power: Politically, what we’ve seen in recent years is that the party out of power benefits tremendously from hunkering down, saying “no” and refusing to cooperate. For the most part, the Republican Party has done just that. The problem with that approach is Barack Obama doesn’t care about the Constitution, doesn’t care about the law and is acting more like a king than a President. We’ve desperately needed the Republican Party to do more than meekly complain about it and they just haven’t stepped up to the plate because they’ve adopted the, “We’re out of power, so the best thing we can do is nothing” mentality. On the other hand, if Republicans control the House and the Senate, they will quite rightfully be expected to DO SOMETHING when Obama overreaches. How much will they do? How effective will they be? That’s hard to say with two pitiful sad sacks like John Boehner and Mitch McConnell in charge, but you can be guaranteed they’ll step it up simply because the media, the establishment and the general populace will now join grassroots conservatives in expecting them to take action. A Republican Party that is just as timid in the majority as they are in the minority has nothing to offer the country and they know that.
2) It enables Republicans to set the table for 2016: The House Republicans have more than 350 bills that have died in the Senate without a vote; yet they’re the ones getting blamed for being obstructionists. If the GOP controls the Senate, suddenly Democrats are going to have to start taking tough votes again. That means they’ll have to vote against popular legislation or even better, they’ll go along with Republicans, pass it and send it up to Obama. Then either Obama signs the bills into law or he becomes the obstructionist, vetoes the bills and gives our 2016 candidate strong issues to run on. Moreover, he puts the Democrat candidate in a tough spot. Do Democrats make their supporters angry by saying that the Republicans were right and Obama was wrong to veto the bill or do they continue to support his unpopular vetoes? Let’s leave their 2016 Presidential candidate defending an unpopular, obstructionist President while our candidate will have a readymade raft of popular issues to run on for once.
3) If we don’t get it done in 2014, we sure won’t get it done in 2016: This year, the number of Democrat senators up for reelection in red states is heavily tilted towards the Republican Party. In 2016, the math will run the other way and Republicans will have to defend 24 out of the 34 seats up for reelection. Moreover, most of those Democrat seats will be in safe districts while at least 10 of the Republican seats will likely be in competitive states. If Obama’s popularity continues to sink and we win the presidency, could we hold enough of those seats to keep the Senate? Yes, but obviously we need to pad our totals as much as possible this year to give us a chance to do that. If we’re going to have any kind of opportunity to move the ball forward on the deficit, Obamacare, foreign policy, taxes, protecting the 2nd Amendment or any of the other issues we care about, we’re going to need Republicans in the Senate that we can beat, threaten and cajole into doing the right thing.
4) It will improve the quality of GOP legislation: Putting Republicans in charge of the Senate will take a big excuse away from the Republicans on issues like immigration. Ironically, the reason the House leadership Republicans were so hell-bent on passing it this year was BECAUSE they feared the GOP would take over the Senate. Truthfully, they’d rather have a bad bill that codifies open borders and amnesty that they could blame on Harry Reid. Then, the line would have been something like, “We know it’s not the greatest bill, but what do you expect when we have to work with Harry Reid?” That same principle applies to Obamacare, the deficit and a number of other issues. If the GOP runs the House and the Senate, Republicans can’t take a show vote, then embrace some left-wing bill and blame it on the Democrats. Since the GOP leadership is comprised of country club Republican idiots, we still have to worry about the legislation they’ll pass, but at least we’ll be sure that it’ll be better than anything they could have done this year.
5) It’s a necessary rebuke of Obama: We all know that Democrats are never going to publicly admit that Barack Obama is the worst President in American history. However, even fanatically loyal, dumb Democrats can do basic addition and subtraction.
By the time Obamacare came up for a vote, the Democrats had control of the presidency, 60 seats in the Senate and 257 seats in the House. That is about as far as the scale can tip in their favor and so if the GOP ends up with overwhelming control in the House and a majority in the Senate, Obama will get the blame just as Jimmy Carter did for Ronald Reagan. Democrats can toss out all the propaganda they want, but if they know that moving way off to the Left will lead to crushing defeats at the ballot box, it will shake their nerve and they’re likely to be more moderate for a while out of fear. Like most Republican politicians, Democrat politicians care more about keeping their cushy jobs than anything else. That’s why we need to take some of those jobs away to change their behavior.
As an extra added bonus, it will give the Democrats a strong incentive to try to prevent Obama from further hurting the party with his outlandish executive orders. Will that slow him down? Maybe it will, maybe it won’t, but if he starts getting calls from senators, donors, activists, unions and the rest of the people he listens to telling him not to make any big moves, it may give him cold feet. Obama may not care about America, but even he doesn’t want to be remembered as another Jimmy Carter whose buffoonery ended up helping Republicans more than Democrats in the end
6) Senate Democrats need to be punished for what they’ve done: My days of telling people to vote for the “lesser of two evils” are over, but there are still times that you need to vote to punish the people in charge for doing the wrong thing. Are you going to let Democrats who voted for Obamacare get away with it? Are you going to reward them for enabling Barack Obama’s unconstitutional, un-American, and oftentimes illegal executive orders? When far left-wingers like Michelle Nunn in Georgia or Greg Orman in Kansas insult your intelligence by pretending not to be liberals, are you just going to take it? These people aren’t acting any differently than they would if their goal is to destroy the United States; so how can you just shrug that off? At a minimum, these Democrats who’ve hurt you, your children, and your country need to see their cushy jobs disappear for what their party has done to America.
“We aren’t quite as bad as the other bunch!”
Some R Senators are far from great, but they really don’t even approach the Dems. Sitting it out to allow Dems to stay in control only empowers Reid/Durban/Leahy/Saunders, et al. I’m not willing to do that.
The problem conservatives have is impatience. If conservatives have to accommodate McCain/Graham, etc., but one by one, or two by two add to the GOP’s conservative wing, eventually outnumbering the ‘moderates,’ they will achieve control. It’s not won overnight in one election. A conservative team has to be built.
” The problem is not Brown, it’s Graham and Cornyn and Chambliss and Burr from red states.”
And McCain, and Flake, and....
yes, those too.....fo shizzle.
” I am chastising this perverted globalist style of capitalism that throws mama from the train or sells out the national security of a nation for a $$buck$$. Hint hint...China
Democrats and Republicans sucked up campaign cash from multi-nationals in return for policy and egregiously lopsided trade deals that favored foreign interest and the lining of these crony capitalist pockets at the expense of American citizens.
Here is an example. No names, but the corporation I worked for does business in China through a front company. In other words, we cannot sell goods into China as an American entity, we must re-label our products under the name of a Chinese brand, otherwise we cannot do business.
So...what’s wrong with that picture folks? They can sell billions upon billions in our country, yet we are squeezed in theirs. hmmmmm
Seems to me this all has happened under the leadership of BOTH parties. “
Somebody who actually gets it. A rarity, but always a pleasant surprise.
“”4) It will improve the quality of GOP legislation: Putting Republicans in charge of the Senate will take a big excuse away from the Republicans on issues like immigration. Ironically, the reason the House leadership Republicans were so hell-bent on passing it this year was BECAUSE they feared the GOP would take over the Senate. Truthfully, they’d rather have a bad bill that codifies open borders and amnesty that they could blame on Harry Reid. Then, the line would have been something like, “We know it’s not the greatest bill, but what do you expect when we have to work with Harry Reid?”””
HUH??
The problem conservatives have is impatience
Maybe that is their rationale.
That can play both ways, vote against it or vote for it and blame Reid.
I recall GWB had both houses (GOP) in 2006 and he still couldn’t get a bill and he concluded that he needed a Dem congress to get amnesty.
I think they wanted amnesty THIS year because they DIDN”T want it a campaign issue in 2016. They didn’t want it in the 2016 GOP primary debates. They didnt want Hillary running on amnesty,
” I think they wanted amnesty THIS year because they DIDN”T want it a campaign issue in 2016.”
Proving once again that establishment/GOPe Republicans in D.C. only care about themselves.
amen
20 YEARS? You’re kidding? And proving my point!
I read this article on Townhall earlier and was ready to post it here with the following request: As a Kentucky voter, provide me with a convincing argument of why I should vote for Mitch McConnell. This article certainly didn’t turn me into a Mitch voter. Every one of the 6 reasons is political hack “in the bubble” think. Every little is said about what the GOPe will do with control of both Houses.
This is my rant about Mitch, first he allowed ACA (Obamacare) to get through the Senate. Senate rules allow the minority to stop bad legislation. ACA is certainly bad legislation. Mitch for pure political reasons allowed closure on ACA to fire up the GOP grassroots base and Mitch took the political gamble that the Stupak 7 in the House would prevent passage. Well the Stupak and his stooges caved to the Pelosi House leadership and ACA has been laid upon the backs of GOP grassroots supporters. FULL SARCASM ON!!! Thanks Mitch.
For added salt in the ACA wound, guess what Bart Stupak is currently doing. Bart didn’t run for re-election in 2010, but the Dims great protector of the unborn now works for Planned Parenthood.
Mitch forced Senator Jim Bunning into retirement because Senator Bunning was a head-strong conservative. Fortunately, conservatives beat back Mitch lapdog Trey Grayson and elected Rand Paul to the Senate.
So the Tea Party runs Matt Bevins against Mitch. Matt was probably not a great candidate but willing to lay his neck out there against Kentucky’s most powerful, spiteful pol. Matt’s primary loss was evident early in the evening. Matt comes out and throws his support to Mitch. Mitch comes out with his acceptance speech tooting how he fought back the “RACIST” Tea Party. I’m not even a card carrying Tea Party member and I’m thinking “really Mitch”! Mitch is a cancer on conservatives.
A side point to my request, is that it is unlikely the GOP will win more than 52 Senate seats. I see 51 seats at best. So then we are back to McCain and Graham gumming up Senate legislation like before.
So provide me with a compelling, convincing argument of why I should vote for Mitch McConnell. Don’t waste Freeper space about “sending a message” by voting for the Libertarian. If I’m NOT voting for Mitch, then I will vote AGAINST him by voting for Grimes.
Don’t flame me either, I spent 19 years in the south suburbs of Chicago fighting the DIMs. I’ve fought off several blowtorches that have been turned in my direction.
“The problem conservatives have is impatience.”
I think the problem is Rinos aren’t conservatives..
Until there’s a perfect conservative world, conservatives will have to abide moderates/RINOs and work to replace them when and where they can, either thru primaries or attrition as seats open. That takes time. Or, in the alternative, they can accept that sitting out elections rather than voting for a RINO serves the interest of REAL libs. And never get the power they need of a majority.
Look at New Hampshire. Conservatives don’t like Scott Brown. But are they better off with him in office, where they can have his support maybe 60% of the time, or Jeanne Shaheen whose support they will get 0% of the time?
Yes, you are correct.. It is infuriating because the RINOs don’t even WANT to be a majority. And if they are elected, they WON’T do anything..
was it up to the democrats who had already voted in the democrat primary?
Apparently Thad thought so...
Youve just earned the status of GOPe Troll... gratz...
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.