McDaniel voters still not sold on Hyde-Smith. Here's why.

The Resurgent ^ | 11/20/2018 | Resurgent Insider

[reaganautl]

For the uninitiated, a lot of McDaniel fans feel they got screwed in former Sen. Thad Cochran’s re-election, when the Cochran-Barbour machine in Mississippi worked every conceivable angle to deprive McDaniel—who is regarded as a stauncher conservative but also was accused of racism and may even have appealed to some Mississippi voters as a result of it—of a win.

Subsequently, that same machine let a short time pass, Cochran exited the US Senate, and Hyde-Smith—a former Democrat who also has the backing of the same Mississippi GOP establishment—took his place.

[...]

Not only did Hyde-Smith used to be a Democrat; like her Democratic opponent, she reportedly has some big Clintonworld connections. He was a Cabinet secretary for Bill, by far the more Southerner-friendly of the pair. She, by contrast, has been reported by a McDaniel-friendly publication to have been in business with one “Umesh Sanjanwala, the father of a Hillary Clinton consultant.” (Fun tidbit: The business reportedly used a URL previously used by an occult-oriented firm that offered “services for communicating with the dead”; if you believe this report, Hyde-Smith may have been planning to use it for an online ministry).

The same report also indicates that as a lobbyist, Hyde-Smith worked for the National Coalition on Health Care, which has some pretty lefty members and is supportive of Obamacare—likely a deal-breaker for hardcore McDaniel fans.

The rumor among McDaniel folks is that Hyde-Smith voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primary, a rumor that is basically reported as fact by this same pro-McDaniel outlet, and one that hasn’t exactly been put to bed by Hyde-Smith and her own comments on the topic.

[JohnBrowdie]

I find it unsurprising that you spend your time drawing life lessons from animated baboons.

that explains a lot, actually.

[DiogenesLamp]

My brother lives in Scottsdale and he said he knew for sure two of his neighbors refused to vote for McSally, both Ward supporters, because they would rather see Sinema elected than a RINO Republican.

I understand the sentiment, believe me.

"So then because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth."

.

Yes, the purists has an effect and I am afraid they will in MS as well. People deserve the govt they elect.

I don't think it's the "purist" so much as people who want to retaliate for previous backstabbing.

A lot of people see the moderate faction of the party as having started this fight, and they want to hurt them back.

[DiogenesLamp]

mcdaniel screwed mcdaniel in missisippi. nobody else. get that sh*t straight.

And you don't think this smear campaign which was also used radio advertising and with "walking around money" had anything to do with it?

[DiogenesLamp]

I blew this argument away four replies upstream. try to keep up.

You have yet to demonstrate you have the first clue about how public consensus is created.

You think it's about picking the right candidate, and that will work if you get lucky. The other 99% of the time, you don't win against the media attack system.

[DiogenesLamp]

I find it unsurprising that you spend your time drawing life lessons from animated baboons.

As well as real ones like yourself.

Life lessons can be learned from anywhere. I am reminded of the profound words of Lex Luthor in the original "SUPERMAN" movie starring Christopher Reeve.

Fictional character? Yes. Real profundity? Also yes.

[JohnBrowdie]

I think taking a picture of cochran’s helpless and debilitated wife in the nursing home had a lot to do with it. I think some of the whack jobs that he hung out with had a lot to do with it — including the one that was caught locked in the courthouse with the ballots on election night. or the one that committed suicide after the election. mcdaniel was erratic, and mississippi figured it out.

you can read your bedtime stories and worship your animated baboons all you want; mcdaniel f*cked mcdaniel up. no one else.

[kiryandil]

You have a doppleganger who just signed up today...   

[Catsrus]

If the DEMS keep stealing elections, you won’t get another chance to vote for a real conservative. So, by not voting for her, you just voted for Epsy. Way to go!

[Sybeck1]

MSU

[crusher]

“I’ve no further use, need or want for these ones”

Yup, I have no need for half-wit leftist Democrats even if they did abscond with a letter “R” to append to their moniker. Leftists like her simply delay the moment of clarity that full-blown Bolshevism provides.

[chris37]

I am of the opinion that once Trump is gone, the GOP is finished anyway, because none of these fools are up to the task of anything.

[georgiarat]

Question is whether the GOPe is being hurt or those that will wind up under the judges approved by a Democrat controlled Senate. I state cutting off one’s hand to spite its face is not a wise choice in the long run.

[lodi90]

The Hillary Clinton supporter running for Senate as a Republican in MS is just as “bad” as those candidates. Yet she has the full support of DJT.

---

She has President Trump’s qualified support. Of course Trump wants a GOP senator over a Dem. But I’m sure he’s not thrilled to have a Hillary Clinton supporting open borders stooge Senator from a solid red state like MS. We can do better.

[Yosemitest]

"... I would want someone who at least voted with the majority some of the time, ..."

I would too, and that's the problem with DemocRAT Cindy Hyde-Smith.
Her voting record is very clear and very damning .

A person the vote WITH CHUCK SCHUMER MORE THAN they vote with Trump, will NOT get my vote !

[Yosemitest]

Frankly Scarlet ... I don't give a DAMN !

You need to read a post I did from Rush, years ago.

RUSH: We Stand for Principle Over Politics and the Establishment Can't Stand It

But the important, take-to-heart logic is below.
There's no way in hell I can compromise my values.

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.

The "Establishment Republicans" can go to hell!
It may be worth it,

[Yosemitest]

Be sure to read comment #155, because it'll apply to you also.

[Yosemitest]

Be sure to read comment #155, because it'll apply to you also.

[Yosemitest]

Be sure to read comment #155, because it'll apply to you too.

[Yosemitest]

Be sure to read comment #155.

[zanarchist]

Well I would think a Republican would vote with the Republicans more than a Democrat would. But hey, it is your vote.

I would think sitting it out or voting for Espy which is the same thing is throwing it away.