Winter At Valley Forge

Posted on by accordingtohoyt

Lately there has been a wave of talk about leaving the GOP behind, going third party. It’s seemingly everywhere (except this blog, where the people espousing it are people who always have – hold on to that point, it will be relevant later.)

I know I responded with a twitter rant of someone who got more snippy than I would have because he said it better than I could – not the snippy part, but the point of his rant – to someone who said that two days ago. I am sorry, no offense meant. It’s just that I think you – all of you – are barking up the wrong tree and failing to see both the progress and the problems with your chosen course.

Sure, some people I respect – Chris Muir, Bill Quick, sometimes Bill Whittle – advocate that. I’m going to say they haven’t looked at facts on the ground. Or perhaps it is that they don’t have experience of real revolutions, in real life. They think that once things are in motion “of course” it will go our way.

It only does that in books. Other places we are opening the door to the overwhelming and cataclysmic possibility of disaster.

It might yet come to it that we have to do that, that we have to burn everything to the ground and hope we can rebuild eventually (perhaps centuries from now) in part of our territory, with part of our resources, with the world around us in ruins. But that is a bleak hope.

And it’s not that I don’t see your point, my friends. (I’d call you comrades, hadn’t the word become so deeply tainted.) I do.

This week has been a tough one. And the reason it’s been a tough one is not just the Republicans funding the Obama amnesty nor the “net neutrality” boondoggle where apparently even passing it won’t tell us what’s in it. Oh, no.

To me the really worrisome signs were little things, one of those private. The public one was Carney going to Amazon. It is a bad day my friends, when the most successful enterprise of our days has to hire a government stooge who brings nothing to the table except cronyism. We might have achieved peak fascism. It’s the sort of move I expect from China.

The private ones were finding out that two young ladies I used to mentor as writers back when they were in middle school – two talented, immensely gifted young women and not just in writing – had gone ivy league for, respectively, feminist studies and political “science.”

It is the mark of a society gone far off the tracks that our best and brightest are learning division and manipulation, instead of technology, creativity and the things that keep us going as a society.

And part of this is that they are good students and smart. So one assumes they picked the path that will take them furthest, the path most approved of by society.

And that’s the problem. Hold on to that thought too. I have something to say about it.

So I understand your feelings, when you say “let it all burn, we’ll rebuild.” You know I have those moments too, and this week has been bad, which is why my posts have been anodyne. When I’m circling the black pit I try not to impinge on you.

(In my case there are other reasons for that too, mostly consults for the surgery upcoming, which led me to tell my husband “How about I don’t have the surgery and we risk it?” It will interest you to know he put his foot down and said no. Sigh.)

But then I started looking at things. Really looking.

Yeah, we are in very deep trouble.

The hour is dire, the snow is deep, we’re backed into a small area and our movement is restricted. We don’t have enough food. Clothes have worn thin. (For which you might substitute the last six years have been difficult economically and the foreign situation is getting dire. Oh, and the culture sucks.) It seems like the war will go on forever. Small wonder then that, as in that bleak winter at Valley Forge, people are deserting, taking their kits, going home.

In fact, those might be the sane people, motivated by healthy self interest.

But sometimes, in society, self interest needs to take a longer view. The love we feel for our kids, our grandkids, those young people we care for, cannot blind us to the bigger picture. Or perhaps even the smaller one.

In letting it burn – what do you think will happen? If you give democrats control of the country for another 12? 20? Years, what do you think will happen?

These are people who have been taught America is the source of all problems.

It’s really hard to decide whether the current administration is full of malice or incompetence, because the answer is something else. They’re actually full of good intentions, but they’re full of love for the Earth. Citizens of the world, they call themselves, who have seen nothing of it outside of protected and pampered visits and the indoctrination of our schools.

These are people – in our own field – who write the stories about naturally enlightened and full of compassion and wisdom people in the deepest Africa, villagers with no education who spout perfect SJW points. And they believe this. It is ironic that they never bring that enlightened savage view to bear on our own rural people. No, those are rednecks who drink gin and beat paleontologists to death (Possibly because they despise trinomial designations, who knows.) In fact our least educated rural inhabitant, while having some prejudices, is far more open minded, accepting and less aggressive than what you find in other countries. I know. I grew up elsewhere. The things rural “uneducated” villagers will say in Portugal would make an SJW’s hair stand on end. And THAT’s in a nominally first world country. In Africa, where I traveled in my youth, let’s just say it’s more so.

But these people, educated in our best universities, and largely protected from reality by a tower of “learning” really believe this stuff. They believe that the rest of the world is innocent, and it’s only America and Western civilization that corrupted it.

So what they’re doing is trying in earnest to dismantle western civilization, so that happiness and flowers ensue. Yes, they’re incompetent, and we should give thanks on knees they’re incompetent and that their fantasist view of reality extends to more than their black-and-white view of the world. Otherwise we’d already be done for.

However, I beg you to believe that destruction is far easier than construction. Even deluded and incontinent children can do it. Give them long enough and they’ll not only destroy the US in all relevant senses, but they will destroy the world.

Our current administration has brought us far closer to nuclear war than we’ve been since the Soviet Union collapsed in on its corrupt self. And worse, it will be a multiparty war that will leave at best 1/3 of the world in ruins. And what they’re doing to the new generation, between indoctrination, unemployment and setting the sexes against each other doesn’t bear thinking too deeply about, lest the black pit yawns beneath our feet.

One way or another, we already have two more years of this. And that’s enough to make that snow-laden wind of despair howl around our flimsy tents.

If the world were just the US. If we didn’t have to factor on anything from outside, I’d still say “yeah, let it burn is an option.”

But is it?

Like it or not, the Pax Americana is AMERICANA. If we collapse, the world falls in on itself, and more importantly, we get truly overrun. Because we’re still relatively stable. The 7 million of Obama’s imperial amnesty won’t be but a drop in the bucket.

But, you say, Sarah, a third party can save us.

Right. Right. What third party? Which one? Shall we talk?

The people I see going all “third party” fall into two camps: socons and libertarian purists. (To which you could add a third camp of “yes.”) Oh, there are small l libertarians too. And constitutional convention people. And those who just want Obama impeached.

(Rubs forehead above nose.)

Guys, that’s not one party. That’s about a dozen contradictory movements, when all is said and done, all fighting each other.

I’d love to live in a world where the important choice is between Libertarianism and Socon. But that’s not here, that’s not now.

And if you say that all these coexist in uneasy alliance in the GOP – yeah, they do. But the “third partiers” are PURISTS. They think everyone is with them and it’s their way or the highway.

Now, it’s possible that out of all this a decent third party can coalesce. It’s even likely. A party based on strict constitutionalism and states rights.

By the elections in 16? Don’t make me laugh. By 20? Unlikely. Maybe by fifty if we’re really good. A good part of those who are interested in the third party route are libertarian in fact or feeling and it’s a byword that “the individualists failed to organize.” The Libertarian Party has existed since the seventies, and they managed to drive me out – years ago – and I’m one of your broad church, tolerant types.

This would be worse than the Libertarians (which contain in their ranks a good portion of people who support Occupy Wall Streeters and the tea party and see no contradiction) because it would be several groups who agree on only the barest principles and who are more interested on pounding each other than the enemy, because they do agree on some things, so it’s a fratricidal war.

But let’s suppose by a miracle the country holds together twenty years while the new hope emerges.

And then let’s say you manage to send your bright shining boys and girls to DC. What do you think will happen? I’ll tell you what will happen. What happens to republicans. Their offices will be penetrated, their information corrupted and they’ll become – at best – like the republicans. (At best, because remember what I said above about Libertarians who are with OWSers and the Tea Party and see no contradiction. They could flip on you.)  More so because the dems will have taken over ALL the bureaucracy.

So, how is that different from the GOP?

You know, I read all over the net, mostly in comments (and more on that later) that the GOP had gone spineless and they had funded Obama’s amnesty. So I went and looked at numbers. 1/3 of the GOP flipped. ONE THIRD.

Two thirds held firm. And this on a matter that has emotional appeal to politicians if not to the people on the ground. You see, they are convinced if they vote against it it will drive Latinos away from the GOP. It’s what the media and their corrupted offices tell them. It’s the “smart” opinion, as opposed to all us rubes on the ground.

And two thirds held firm.

You’d think it would be a moment to celebrate. You know, ten years ago half of them or more would have caved. But we’ve been working on taking over the GOP. And it has effects.

It seems to me what we should be doing is celebrating that two thirds held firm, and taking notes of the cavers to primary them.

It’s obvious Boehner is being blackmailed or otherwise manipulated. Good Lord, the left has done that throughout Europe, why would here be any different? Maybe that’s why the crying. He knew he’d have to cave.

So primary him. Remove him. Elect men who will say “publish and be damned.” Get someone in the presidency who AT THE VERY LEAST doesn’t hate the US. I’m not sure about Christie because malignant narcissism is malignant narcissism. But even Jeb Bush (and guys I’m the last person to support him, okay? To be blunt I don’t LIKE him.) would be better than a president who actively hates us (though he might just think he’s a “citizen of the world”.) Particularly if new gains are made in 16 (and this is likely) he would have a legislature at his back, controlling him somewhat.

But let’s not be bleak. We might out-push the establishment GOP (and btw men ten years older than I are or more are what we call RINOS.  It’s a generational thing.  Remember that command and control used to be “scientific” and remember Nixon was a statist) and nominate Walker or Cruz or even Perry. And then we’d have a president who can keep the 1/3 (or less by then) of RINOS in check.

The Winter is cold, and we’re surrounded by enemies, and unfortunately the culture assigns social value to our enemies’ propaganda, which is why they’re capturing our best and brightest and why politicians surrounded by “smart” staff cave.

But like the patriots in the war of independence were saved by the French, several trends are going our way.

Technology is freeing people from the fortress of doom the left and Soviet agit prop built around our vital institutions: there are new ways to get news, new ways to get entertainment, and the homeschooling movement grows by leaps and bounds. Also, their demonstrable and obvious incompetence and the horrors they’re precipitating around the world are starting to break through the wall of glitz the palace eunuchs mainstream media has built around the Low Information Voters.

The future is ours, if we can stay the course.

Yep, the dying liberal establishment is going to throw everything they can at us. It is their only chance. At this point, I must note that the “let’s go third party” comments are far thicker at other conservative/libertarian blogs. Why aren’t they here? Don’t know. I know I banned certain IPs, mainly ones that poured out a stream of Marxist propaganda in more than one voice, if you know what I mean.

A false flag operation? Well, what do you think? Hilary is imploding before their very eyes. Their last hope is to divide us. After all divide and conquer is ALWAYS their way. Is it paranoia to note this is ALWAYS their modus operandi?

They’ve got nothing. Their model, the USSR, collapsed ugly. Their policies are failing. Making conservatives go third party(s) is their ONLY chance.

Are you going to LET them?

For a hundred years, they’ve patiently been working. They took over one of the major parties. They took over education. They took over the mass media and entertainment and the arts. They had a whole wall of coordinated messages and it all imploded. Clinton? Don’t make me laugh. Should they manage to elect her, her disastrous incompetence will be obvious. Bill Clinton only had a patina of glitz because there was no internet, no dissident voices. Now? Pah.

Net Neutrality? Bah. Six months. Like their attempts at gun grabbing being squelched by 3-d printing and horse sense, give our bright boys six months and net neutrality will be circumvented. Built around, built under, ignored.

Their only hope is division in our ranks.

I say we don’t give it to them. I say we keep taking over the GOP. We’ve been at this for what? Optimistically 20 years. Not a fraction of their (at least) 100.

Yeah, we’ll eat live eels sometimes. Like, say, we couldn’t counter the veto on the Keystone pipeline. However the people claiming that as another reason to defect CAN’T be even “I’ll hold my nose and vote republican” people. NONE of the GOP defected on that. Not one. And some democrats defected to the GOP side. It is not a sign to despair, but a sign of hope.

As for those other democrats? The stooges of a long-dead system? Putin’s best buds? Yeah. We’re coming for them too.

And then, once we’ve pulled our ship off the rocks, once we’ve made the dems into a wreck, or alternately into an American party again, THEN we can have a grand fight Libertarians against Socons. I’m looking forward to it! I’ll be seventy or so, and if I run like my family, a little old lady scary beyond all reason.

But right now? Right now people are trying to destroy us, and our civilization and world.

In the end we win, they lose. Reality is on our side. But the “end” can be a long ways away.

The question is, are you going to cave into their games and let them destroy a third of the world and send civilization into the dark for hundreds of years or not?

I vote not. I understand your impulse.

But this is no time to get wobbly. Keep Calm and Keep Taking Over the GOP.

They’re corrupt bastards, but we’re stuck with them, until we pick them off one by one. And we already have our sort in their ranks.

Steady as she goes. We’ll win this.

 

 

 

 

1,013 thoughts on “Winter At Valley Forge”

  1. Question: Is it bonkers to say that, if it turns out that Jeb Bush is the Republican nominee, that you will vote Republican except for the Presidency? Because it seems to me that, over the long term, establishing Presidential dynasties is more dangerous to the republic than anything else.

    1. Yes, holding my nose the whole way, and I’ll tell you why. I’m far less concerned with another Bush (though two more is an entirely different thing) than with six to twenty years (per the post) of further progressive rule. At the very least, the media will spend the entire administration baying for his blood, and that much bad press tends to cool whatever ardor a would-be monarch might have for dynasty building.

      Unless, of course, it’s all a cunning facade, and he’s got a fluffy, white cat somewhere close to hand…

      1. Hey, I’m a Crank so maybe my council shouldn’t sway you, but I seriously think that the “Bush 2 was dreadful” drumbeat is Lefty pigswill. Did a Liberal Congress and a bunch of RINO greed heads push through a huge porky domestic policy while he was busy? Yes. Did he get sucked into “Nation Building’ when he might possibly have done better to take down the two governments in question and them leave? Sure. But he didn’t do too badly, especially when you consider the rampant idiocy that has been running Foreign Policy for the last 60 years. He had a wide range of awful choices on 9/12/2001 and he picked one that had much to recommend it.

        Would Jeb Bush be better of worse? I don’t know. I DO know that Shrillery has no morals, no ethics, no sense, no real qualifications, and that the only improvement over Obamarama-ding-dong would be if the Nobel committee has the sense NOT to give her a preemptive Peace Prize for showing up.

          1. I knew she was wily. I have the sense that it wily in the Wile E. Coyote sense; smart enough to come up with elaborate plans, not smart enough to make them work.

            1. I’m awfully curious about how she managed to not pass classified information via private email given that’s what she used for her entire tenure. SecState’s got pretty good access and clearance, no?

                1. Well, of course it was. I question her ability to even hire the right IT person to set up the firewall, let alone not use the information necessary to do her job (questionable, questionable, I know) in supposedly-internal correspondence. I’m hoping this give Gowdy even more ammunition. I mean, this is basic, basic OpSec stuff, and we’re to believe she had a handle on the unfolding horror in Benghazi as it happened. Sure, sure…

                  1. ” I question her ability to even hire the right IT person to set up the firewall”

                    Simple, she just let the feds vet them, then hired the people that had already proven their competence and reliability by being hired to build the Obamacare website.

                    3. Thanks for being a glass is half full kind of gal, Foxfier.

                      That thought just Really improved my mood. :/

                2. More hackable than most. Unfortunately, I’ve seen enough govt IT types (especially on the civilian side) to not be surprised.

                  1. Many of the “Gov. IT” types are contractors (meaning they work in Gov. offices for Gov. bosses, but are paid by private companies). The companies they work for have incentive (‘perverse incentive’ if you ask me) to hire someone *exactly* competent enough (or even slightly less than competent) but REALLY confident in their competence to do the work. They are compensated by increasing billable hours, rather than increasing the billing rate of a *really* good Admin.

                    I’ve worked with a lot of these guys, and they’re not (all) *BAD*, they’re just not great.

                    You can get much better IT types in the private sector, but you’ve got to compensate them. Since most of them are men, Hillary would have no problem compensating them highly.

                    2. Really? How many men do you know who wouldn’t run screaming from being “compensated” by Hillary?

                    3. Ow. Really Bearcat? That’s a horrifying visual that will haunt my nightmares for the rest of my existence. Mainly because I’m not sure if I’m fast enough to get away from her.

                  2. I gotta get you and my husband together to drink and complain. I don’t know networking much, and they do some stuff I can tell is bone stupid….

                  3. The problem with knowing you’re smarter than everybody else is that it not only isn’t true (even if you are smarter than anybody else) but that it tends to create mammoth blind spots leaving you vulnerable to those dimwits like Alexander who simply cannot appreciate the genius of your knot.

                    1. Nope. It’s possible to build systems that cannot be hacked, for reasonable values of “hack”. They just aren’t very useful or very user friendly, and it can’t be done with any OS in common use right now.

                      Now, if you mean that someone can open the box and solder in new bits, well, then yeah.

                    2. There’s ‘hackable’ and there’s ‘just not worth the effort.’ This latter is the general goal of most security systems. To be too much of a pain in the ass or too time intensive to get in reasonably. Especially if the side being hacked has hackers waiting to hack back, or even just a guy with an axe ready to physically sever connection to the interwebs.

                      Hacking an unplugged computer is rather difficult.

                4. From SparcVark at The Belmont Club:

                  “Well, as of this morning Qualys was saying that mail.clintonemail.com was still advertising that it accepted SSL 2.0, which was vulnerable to a bunch of exploits – even SSL 3.0 is seriously dicey after the POODLE vulnerability went public. Qualys was grading any website supporting SSL 2.0 as an “F” for security more than a year ago.

                  Sometime today they changed it to only advertise TLS 1.0 so Qualys now gives them a “B” – but the bigger issue is that if they’re letting Qualys feel up the SSL ports on the E-mail server, the entire world has access to the front end.

                  https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=mail.clintonemail.com

                  So IMO if this server was not broken into it’s because nobody was trying. I’m half-tempted to run a Nessus scan against it now but I know they have to be watching it at this point and I don’t like jail.”

                  And more:

                  “Sweet fancy Jesus, it’s a Microsoft Exchange 2010 out-of-the-box web front end with no branding and a GoDaddy SSL certificate.

                  https://mail.clintonemail.com

                  This is what I’d expect a small company with about 50 employees to be using if they were too behind the times to use Office 365 or Google Mail.”

                  It is worse than you know. It is a Lenovo server. Google SuperFish. And SuperFish is on ALL Lenovo machines not just laptops.

                  Can you say completely compromised?

                  Now for the subject at hand. The people who have put you in their sights and written volumes in response to this are not wrong. DC and both coasts are corrupt from top to bottom. There are few good guys left, very few of them.

                  1. I heard on Hugh Hewitt’s show this evening that White Hat hackers are even now invading Hillary’s server and backing up the contents.


                    heh.

                  2. James Rosen of Fox News:
                    … Perhaps most concerning, private analysts determined that clintonemail.com has been running an older model of Microsoft Internet Information Services, or IIS – specifically version 7.5, which has been documented to leave users exposed on multiple fronts. The website CVEDetails.com, which bills itself as “the ultimate security vulnerability datasource,” is awash with descriptions of serious security vulnerabilities associated with version 7.5, including “memory corruption,” “password disclosure vulnerability,” and the enabling of “remote attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service.”

                    The cyberlab technician who discovered the Clintons’ use of version 7.5 marveled at “the vulnerabilities the Clintons are ignoring” in an email to Fox News. “This is a big deal and just the thing real-world hackers look for in a target and will exploit to the max,” the source said.

                    “Several of these vulnerabilities have been known since 2010 and yet HRC is running official State comms through it.”

                    Coupled with the earlier disclosure, first reported by Bloomberg, that the Clinton system used a commercial encryption product with “a default encryption certificate, instead of one purchased specifically for Ms. Clinton’s service,” these latest revelations suggest a complacent approach to server security on the part of the secretary and her aides.

                    Representatives for Clinton have not responded to multiple requests for comment. Spokesman Nick Merrill has released a FAQ document stating that “robust protections were put in place” on the server, with “upgrades and techniques employed over time as they became available, including consulting and employing third party experts.” Merrill added that “there is no evidence” that the server was ever hacked, and said there was never an unauthorized intrusion into the secretary’s email.

                    [SNIP]

                    Just the original decision to use a private email account, with Clinton’s own surname embedded in it, has baffled the hacker community. The analyst with experience in the intelligence community, a “white hat” hacker — the kind corporate firms retain to conduct “penetration testing” that exposes businesses’ cybersecurity lapses — told Fox News: “If we learned that the foreign minister of a major foreign country was using her own private server to send and receive emails, and was relying on outdated commercial software to operate and protect it, that’d be a hallelujah moment for us.”
                    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/12/hackers-probing-clinton-server-cite-security-lapses/

                    1. think about the governments most likely to hack Hillary’s server.
                      then think about Hillary has dealt with them to date.
                      Do you think they already don’t know what’s on there? Or that they really care? She’s on their side more than she’s on ours after all. Because they’re the ones giving her money.

              2. Secretary of state isn’t quite at the ‘access to all the information’ but is up there. No, I don’t know the precise level of access.

                1. I was mostly being coy. SecState has a LOT of access, given the position and job requirements. Not as much as SecWarDef, but a lot. If she really didn’t use an official email, she shouldn’t have been able to send to secure addresses, which means she must have been passing classified in the open. Which is, in no uncertain terms, bad juju. Very bad juju. I also expect her to get away with it.

                  1. Yeah, this has the potential of ‘Kissinger’s lack of coversheet’ level issues or worse. Especially since a private e-mail can’t be echoed on secure servers… or if they were there’s a LOT to answer for on the part of a lot of different people.

                  2. Probably won’t get punished for, but the story is still fresh and we’re hearing that her supposedly vast amount of email has gaps in it that are several months long– including Libya. And the guy pointing this out is saying “We don’t want everything, the entire point was to get the information from (Describes iconic arival video) and the next couple of months– and that is entirely missing!”

                    I would guess that she was actually using both systems, but does it really make a difference which she used if she did a good enough job of destroying them?

                    2. That is… incredibly unlikely, unless whoever does their tech support is working on an entirely different system than any other portion of the gov’t I’ve seen.

                      For example, my husband has something like four emails, because when he moved to a different office the… changes in the system involved… created it before he even got there.

                      That’s after folks manually deleted all the ones the system allowed. He’s been TDY to different offices as a reservist and that automatically generated a new email, too.

                  1. Oh, I know. One of my very nervous moments on active duty was when I realized how much information our elected officials had access to and that most of them were constitutionally incapable of keeping their big yaps shut.

          3. It thought it was Obama that was the SOOOPER-genius!!!! (just ask his supporters)

        2. I do believe that Jeb Bush would be worse than Bush 2; but as you point out Bush 2 wasn’t all that bad. I LIKE Bush 2, not necessarily all his politics (he is a big government moderate after all, who leans considerably more left than I do) but as a man he had quite a lot to recommend him; and as believe Foxfier said, he is the one recent President she would feel comfortable letting babysit her kids.

          I guess what I’m saying is I don’t want Jeb Bush for President (and I think it is a mute point anyways, because he is probably unelectable due to the ‘dynasty’ fears) and don’t think he would be a good one, but he would be preferable to any thing the Left will nominate, to include Christy.

          1. In recent decades I think the best strategy has been to identify which Republican the Left likes and discard him immediately. They like him because they want to run against him. Then see which one they HATE, amd give him (or her) a good long look. For the most part the Left won’t waste a lot of hate on rightwing religious nutjobs who have no chance. They’ll hate on somebody they think might interfere with their DIVINE RIGHT to infest the White House.

            1. That would be Scott Walker. The lefties are in a real tizzy over the possibility of him being elected.

                    1. Love that line. And really, that’s the kind of feature you want as an evil overlord. Why should I go to the work of cutting off all those heads when they’ll do it for me?

                  2. The left has been attacking him *relentlessly* in Wis. for the last 3-4 years. He basically broke the back of the Teachers Union there (all Gov’t unions) and that drove them nucking futs.

                    If there was a skellington in his closet they’d have found it.

                    Now all that’s left is to lie about it.

                    2. Shucks, their lies have already started pouring out so badly baldly that he will soon be able to dismiss them as Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy Whack-jobs.

                      After all, if he wants to prevent the University of Wisconsin from being required to report sexual assaults (and we can be sure they wouldn’t report such things except for being required to) who knows of what extremes he is capable?

                    1. Exactly. And they’ve thrown every lie at him. He’s won. Every time. And if you think the Wisconsin campaigns weren’t national, you weren’t paying attention. The Unions cargo-dropped everything they had.

                      And lost.

                    2. The Wisconsin dems have. The National demos haven’t even necessarily gotten started. Has he had anything comparable to the Crowley incident yet?

                      I rather wonder if the best thing we can do is think of all of the possible dirty tricks the left could pull against him, and figure out ways to counter them?

                1. I’ve said for a long time, where I want to see Sarah Palin is as Secretary of the Interior.

                    1. Be tough to say they weren’t from the same state, no matter where their official residence’s are. Wouldn’t want to deal with that can of worms.

                    2. Then, when they object, we can ask them why they’re so homophobic. 🙂

                    3. homophobic and misogynistic and they will attack them worse than ever. It’d be fun. Plus, I know they’d be better at the job than 0bama has been.

              4. Walker is the best shot the GOP has at turning me into Fox Mulder. However, he needed a reliable GOP legislature to do what he did in Wisconson. I have zero faith the GOP Congress would be willing to stand up to 1% of the Wisconson legislature did. If they had caved like the Congressional GOP Walker would have lost the recall.

                This is related, in my mind, to Kate’s contention down thread about how the media beating the drum that the GOP is evil forces the GOP’s hand. I saw tons of that about Walker but he never appologied and never tried to prove his wasn’t evil. He just soldiered on and did what he said he would do.

                Wisconson saw through the protests and re-elected him twice. Why?

                I’d argue part of it is he refuses to accept the charges and just does what he does. In doing that he appeals to the people Kate talks about being potential voters who have given in the the GOP is evil. When the GOP sets out to prove they aren’t evil they let voters ask, “maybe that evil thing has a point”. Consider Jack Kemp accepting Gore’s compliment in 1996 that he wasn’t evil like most of the GOP (not the exact wording but effectively what he said). Did Kemp call Gore for mischaracterizing his party? Now, Kemp thanking Gore for realizing that and in doing so cast the rest of his party as evil.

                Do you expect to see Walker doing that? No. He’d refuse the compliment and point out he’s just a typical member of the GOP.

                Saddle him with a Congress that will, though, and we’ll get a repeat of 2003-2006.

                1. “I’d argue part of it is he refuses to accept the charges and just does what he does.”

                  As Reagan said, “There you go again.”

              5. Methinks they hate Sarah Palin even more. Walker and Palin have something in common- they took on the Establishment in their respective states and came out on top. On the same ticket, either one on top, liberal heads would be exploding all over the place. (and visuals from a recent movie flash through my mind…)

              6. NOT a Scott Walker fan, but he’s infinitely better than anything the Dems nominate and considerably better than Christy or Romney IMHO. Don’t know much about Jeb, but the dynasty factor is a cut against him. W. was a decent man, but I didn’t care for his Big Government policies.

                1. What are the problems with Walker?

                  Note: I don’t disagree, I just don’t know enough about him and the only folks who TALK about him are supporters; here I can be pretty sure with any regulars it’s a policy or morality thing, not “zomga no degree1!!!1!”

                  I don’t trust it when I don’t know of downsides for pols, and all I’ve heard of is that he wasn’t absolutely dead set against normalizing illegals.

                  1. My biggest problem was the way in which he went about breaking the unions. I’m not a union man, never joined one. I’m not a fan of them, but they have their place. The lockdown of the capital (to include denying Firefighters responding to a call) gives me the impression he sees himself as another emperor who’s going to control everything he can. The shenanigans used to get the collective bargaining bill passed without a quorum present I see as likely led by him, and that is a cause for concern.

                    2. The problem I have with it is the same problem I have with Obama misusing executive actions. If you have to resort to tricks and special tactics at the legislative level in order to get your way, political power probably shouldn’t be granted to you.

                    3. Yes, and I DO get that. But we might need a son of a bitch who does that, before we go clean. Because right now…
                      I mean you’re talking to a woman who would love to abolish government, but ye gods, reality is complex.

                    4. “The shenanigans used to get the collective bargaining bill passed without a quorum present I see as likely led by him, and that is a cause for concern.”

                      Considering that those “shenanigans” were in response to shenanigans used by the democrats in an attempt to stop the passing of a bill they didn’t have the votes to stop; I have absolutely no problem with them. But then I’m a “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander” sorta feller. I frankly know nothing about a lockdown of the capital, so can’t say anything one way or the other. I’m like Foxfier, I would like to know more about him, everything I have heard (except for from Coulter, who thinks Romney is a much better choice for 2016) has been good. Frankly even what the democrats complain about comes across as good to me, and the couple of times I have heard him speak he has sounded good, if not the firebrand that he is often portrayed as. So yes I would like to know more, but then the only potential candidates being bruted around that that isn’t true about are Palin and Romney; and that is simply because they have been through a Presidential election bid previously.

          2. Something tells me he’s unlikely to be the nominee, anyway, so that point is likely moot.

          3. I’d add to what bearcat said, that as I watched Jeb during CPAC, a) he doesn’t look all that healthy, and b) when he wasn’t hiding his hands, they were shaking – like early on-set of Parkinson’s. The presidency is tough on the health of the officeholder, starting out with someone that has health issues is a BAD idea. Regardless of whom the VP is.

            1. one of the proofs to me that 0bama isn’t really doing much of the work coming out of the office is how well he has held up in office, Carter looked like 4 more years would have killed him. Oddly, GWB didn’t get as beat in office, but I think that was him being better able to handle it and trusting others to do their job. 0bama just goes golfing and fund-raising. He hates the hard work, so doesn’t even bother … just steps in with his phone and pen when folks can’t mess up what he wants messed up

              1. For fun, start watching Obama’s hair.

                It changes color depending on how serious he’s trying to be.

                I wish I could remember what it was, but at one point when he wanted to look very serious his hair was almost entirely silver, and not very long later he was talking at a college and looked just like when he first ran.

                1. oh yeah, but other than hair he always looks fine. Disappointed we don’t grasp his total awesomeness but still not beat to a pulp like he has been frettin’ over a tough job. It is like he is one of Weber’s Prolong folk who dye their temples silver to attempt gravitas
                  But paying close attention means actually look at the SOB so Ill just give a passing glance (~_^)

              2. Well, in the case of W, a sincere faith in God probably helped a lot. Same with Reagan.

                And let’s not forget who they were married to. I’m pretty sure Laura Bush, for example, was way less stressful to wake up to than Michelle Obama.

          4. as believe Foxfier said, he is the one recent President she would feel comfortable letting babysit her kids.

            Yep, that was me. He might screw up, but he won’t do something horrible, and he doesn’t think intentions are a magical defense against bad effects.

            (No, I don’t remember Reagan at all.)

              1. Born in ’83. Never had the tv news habit, reception sucked. First I heard of presidents, specifically, was a little old couple losing their home to Clinton’s EPA and some idiot woman he was married to wanting to fire cattle guards.

                1. I was born in 11/61. Don’t remember JFK or LBJ. I think that the War on Poverty was the poison that killed the black community. Many perverse incentives and it actively encouraged the breakup of the family.

                  Reagan was such a relief after Carter. Reagan was my first national election for me. You’re about my oldest nephew’s age.

                  1. Not just the black community– at the same time, I was around a lot of reservations, and the everything-else-that-gets-called-white welfare culture.

                    It’s poison.

                    2. At that time, very northern California. We moved when I was a teen.

                      *dryly* First time I remember hearing the serving president on the radio, it’s because it was Clinton about the Lewinsky thing and my dad did one of his lightning-quick “change then channel” things. He usually showed no notice….

                  2. Tangent. I was using newspapers out of a box of old newspapers today and happen to notice this front page headline on a 1965 newspaper “Centralia strikes blow in war on poverty”. I guess I hadn’t realized that the “war on X” propaganda had been around for that long.

                    2. I’ve been told that my word usage pegs me older than i really am. One of the guys at my High School reunion a couple years ago told me that I always seemed like the adult of our class. I figure it comes from hanging out with all dad’s cronies at the local coffee shop in the summer mornings while we were heading to the YMCA Camp where he worked.

                    3. By chance, are your folks older than average for your classmates?

                      I’ve had folks accusing me of being my folks’ age since I was a teen, thanks to the power of the internet. (and, most likely, the way that I haven’t picked up a lot of pop culture quirks because I don’t like watching TV)

                    4. Up through high school, I got that simply because I read books above my age and had a better vocabulary than average. I also got along far better with adults because my “peer group” wasn’t interested in anything I was.

          2. Over at Ace of Spades, someone mentioned last night that the business community is basically scared of her. She makes all the right noises to sound like a true blue “business is evil!” ideologue, and apparently is showing signs that it might not be possible to buy her off (which is one reasons why politicians make anti-business noise).

          3. You mean Princess Running Joke? Heck she can barely win here in the deep blue state of Massachusetts. In the fly over states she wouldn’t have a paper dogs chance in hell. If the democrats run her their back to the old days of open Socialists like McGovern or Mondale as opposed to crypto Socialist like the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. She has so many stupid statements and blatant lies the TV ads alone would increase my popcorn consumption alone 1000%..

            I like the idea of Walker. The Media hacks and Union bosses have been throwing everything they could find at him for the last 3-4 years and
            not a bit of it stuck. He also has a fair helping of intestinal fortitude and sheer audacity. He’ll do I think.

            1. Folks have forgotten what socialists are … 0bama always came across as a full marxist. There was nothing Crypto about him. The press just ignored it. There is a reason he “got religious” once he found BLT as preached by Wright. It is but Marx, with God added. Otherwise he is as religious as I am (ergo an atheist)

                1. I mean really? A Chicago Politician with his scant record, pushed by Soros, all the right (leftoid) check boxes ticked, and statements like “Negative Rights”, “Eventually you’ve made enough money”. and people are Shocked, Shocked I tells you to find out he is a Socialist/Marxist low life scum. (this is aimed at the Ann Althouses of the planet)

        4. When a (putative) Republican complains about “W” – I simply ask them which one of the Regressive alternatives they would have preferred?

          1. Yeah, Al “Global Warming” Gore or John “I think I’m a Kennedy, but I look and act like Lurch’s brother who went to Choate” Kerry.

            1. Oh, to add to the popcorn feast, there’s rumors that Gore might throw his hat in the ring again. Lord ‘a’ mercy. Is everyone ready for the fimbulwinter?

                1. I guess if that’s going to happen I need to learn European Sword fighting. The (little) Ninja shit I know…yeah, probably would work but wouldn’t be considered honorable.

                  1. Meh. Most European fighters through most of history saw “honorable” in direct parity to “surviving the fight.” That, and “you shoulda seen the other guy.” Just make sure the pointy end goes into the other man, and you’re doing well. The rest is technique. And mostly in the wrist and reflexes.

                    1. I quoted this maxim of Napolean downthread, but it so applicable to KilteDave’s comment as to justify extricating it from the list:

                      It would be a joke if the conduct of the victor had to be justified to the vanquished.

              2. Good heavens its Al Gore the White Witch. Always winter and never Christmas. Beware Al; Aslan is on the move!

          1. Taking down = “Remove all military capability and as much of the population as needed a la Dresden / Tokyo / Hiroshima” not “slap on the wrist.”

            1. Yeah, all we really did was enable Qaddaffi’s death, and when you remove someone who ruthlessly eliminated all other sources of legitimacy other than themselves, you get anarchy. Libya is another model of what Iraq would have looked like if we just did the decapitation strike thing, as some had suggested there. Can you imagine the civil war with one or both sides run by Saddam’s sons?

              1. I remember it perfectly. I also remember that a) we beat both of them thoroughly (Dresden/Tokyo/Hiroshima) FIRST, and b) they actually had something it was in our interest to nurture them for. Libya, not so much.

                Likewise, if we had followed the Germany / Japan preparation, Iraq would have been much smoother. We didn’t, and the results were predictable.

              2. One advantage we had with Japan & W. Germany is the USSR. Basically, cooperate with us, or the Soviets can “rebuild” you.

                1. Also, Germany and Japan both has a history of long term stable governments. There was something to work with. Any mid-East “nation” is still a collection of tribes. Or clans. There is no real national character about them, just artificial boundary lines.

                  2. Middle East expert Daniel Pipes recently made the argument (at NRO, IIRC) that the current events in the M.E. are likely to produce a more stable M.E. by eliminating the divisions created by the League of Nations divvying the area up according to ports, rivers and allowing the natural tribal divisions to reassert themselves.

                    For example, the Kurdish and Syrian populations are relocating according to long-standing cultural standards and we can see the same trends manifesting in Iraq, Libya, the Sudan and other areas. It is bloody and wasteful but the end result may be more stable states.

            3. I don’t recall where I recently read that the firebombing of Dresden was done at the behest of Stalin.

              Reject, accept or research it as you wish — I merely offer it as an alternate to the conventional (i.e., probably false) wisdom.

              1. Several someones on this blog have continuously demonstrated the inability to move from the example to the general.

                Would it have made the example more general if I had picked a different city? / head desk /

                1. Actually, Snel, it was a side comment addressing a minor point and not attempting to address the general or even the specific point.

                  Keep pounding the head on the desk, it’ll make you smart.

          2. It left Libya in a mess. Do we care? Nation building is an exercise for masochists. What botheed me about Libya was, why are we involved in the first place? What had they done to us lately?

            1. Libya, maybe not. Now go look at the map of the Middle East, look at Iraq and Afghanistan surrounding Iran, and think ablout “lines of supply and communication.”

              1. As long as we managed a consistant pattern of “Come to our negative attention, kiss your government goodbye” I think we’d have a better foreign policy than any we’ve practiced in about a century.

                But the key is “consistant”.

            2. I think the best thing that could happen to Libya is for the Italians to take it over again. Of course, they’d have to get real again, which would be a major problem in itself…

        6. Did he get sucked into “Nation Building’ when he might possibly have done better to take down the two governments in question and them leave? Sure.

          I agree the “GWB was a disaster” stuff is crap, and though it was my preference at the time, I’m no longer so sure that a “knock over Saddam and then go home” strategy would have worked out. Looking at that alternate timeline now, I see the rise of some flavor of ISIS-like “new caliphate” thingee happening six to 8 years earlier, possibly under direct AQ leadership instead of being a splinter group. Even if we had picked a likely Baathist strongman General to be the new Iraqi guy in charge and left the Iraqi Army in place, unless he was just as brutal as Saddam he would be in the boat Assad is in now, with a raging civil war.

          And that completely leaves out Iran, but we didn’t take advantage of the Iranian mullah’s panic when we invaded Iraq, so that window has closed. As someone said, when we had heavy forces and strong in-theater air power on both the eastern and western Iranian border, we had smoe leverage. Not now.

          And then there’s Afghanistan. I was laughing really hard with The One said that was the “good war.” Nation-building was just plain fanciful there. The best we could have done is maintain a dependant class in fortress Kabul, and fund enough local troops to counterweight the Pakistani-run Taliban forces (hey wait, that’s what we did!). Remember, the Pakistanis see Afghanistan as their own proxy battleground with India, and the Taliban is their proxy team. Jumping into the midst of that, with anything past “we’re taking this list of bases as ours so we can hunt AQ, this is the list of bounties on the foreign fighters heads, and oh, we’re also basing an armored division on the border with Iran” was just pure folly, but hey, that’s our State Department for you.

          So given who he had to count on, GWB didn’t do half bad at all.

          1. No, we could have done better in Afghanistan, as it is we did better than Russia, at least until the Imbecile in Chief decided to tell everyone exactly when we were getting out. If we didn’t want to use nukes, we should have at least have gone in with most of Afghanistan being free fire zones and not tied our soldiers hands. When soldiers are court martialed and sent home* (not convicted, but sent home for a court martial, in order placate the ‘locals’) because they return fire when ambushed, the results are entirely predictable. When they have to call some REMF repeatedly in order to get permission to return fire, and that permission is seldom forthcoming, the results are predictable. When your enemy and your “allies” look identical, wear identical clothes, and live together peaceably, the results are entirely predictable. When the politicians in charge sympathize with the enemy and despise the soldiers, the results are entirely predictable.

            *Yes, I personally know multiple examples of people this happened to.

          2. The trick with clobbering and peaving, is doing it every time somebody attacks our interests. We’ve demonstrated that we can bring down a string regime in aboit three weeks with 200,000 men/women on the ground. Do it often enough and the object lesson will take.

            Don’t piss off the Americans. They don’t care if you treat your own like cattle, but if you annoy them you won’t last.

            Or we could conquor the entire region, and settle in to rule. I hope we don’t, but if we don’t manage to convince them we are bad motherfuckers before they really piss off the populace, that’s where we are headed.

            1. I think it’s where we’re headed too, and part of the reason I fight. Unless of course the “burn it” people win, in which case we’re headed to dispersal, diaspora and destruction. I don’t want my future history to be right, okay?

              1. The burn it people haven’t got the organization to pull it off. I think that the A,erica. empire is going to be a disaster in the lomg term, but I could be wrong, and there are positives.

                The Hobby Protester Left will doubtless come out in force to protest our causing !ecca to glow in the dark, and if the temper of the country is about what I expect, they will get thrown into jail so hard they’ll bounce. And demands to see their ACLU lawyers will be answered (truthfully) with “Where’s the problem? He’s in tye next cell”.

                We will doubtless invite the United Nations to not let the door hit them where the good Lord split them, and we can dedicate that building to something more culturally valuable and uplifting. Say, a combination casino and brothel.

                I’m sure other benefits will occur to the cynical.

          3. The extra time gave the more-sane groups in the area time to heal up, get weapons and get organized. I hear that the Kurds especially are doing much better than in the “smash and leave” situation.

            I’d much rather we’d done a Japan style build-the-culture-from-the-ground deal, but nobody gave me that option. 😀

            1. The Kurds aren’t Arabs. And it shows.

              The Arabs have not won a single war that wasn’t fought against other Arabs since the end of World War 2 (and likely since even further back). Their culture appears to be unable to handle the needs of modern warfare. The closest that they came to winning was against Iran during the Iran-Iraq war, and Iraq only pulled off a draw. And even *that* was only because of all of the help that Iraq received – both in equipment and in tactics (the plans for the battle that forced Iran to come to the negotiating table were drawn up by US advisors, who then browbeat their Iraqi counterparts into executing the plan). Without that help, international pariah Iran was winning.

              1. I don’t care what the crazy culture-blob is called– as best I can tell, it’s pretty standard high-stress tribal culture. Just with modern weapons. “Arab” works alright, if I’m understanding your meaning right, but there are non-arabic ancestry folks who have the same toxic culture and it makes some folks who would probably otherwise agree feel uncomfortable, plus you never know if the “Persian” junk is going to make hay from the quotes– no need to make things easy for the enemy.

                That said.

                I’ll probably stick with calling them “the (relatively) sane ones.”

                ….

                I gotta say, the more I learn about the crazy ones, the more I thank God for all the work He did. (Yeah, that’s going to make some folks uncomfortable, but literally but for the grace of God, something like that would likely be the norm, with pinnacles of civilization being the ones that at least tried to have laws for all citizens….)

                    1. Mine was in ’08 and I was in Bagdad. We saw a lot of the more ‘normal’ people than most… I really started to understand why it took SO many repetitions for Israel to get the message. “It doesn’t have to be this way” and “there are other ways that work” were hard enough to get across when we were living examples of other ways that worked.

                  2. Yeah, you really can’t fully understand all of the old eye for an eye stuff until you understand what tribal culture in the Middle East is like. I’ve got a friend who maintains that the New Testament “turn the other cheek” outlook wasn’t even possible until the Romans showed up.

                    1. It probably wasn’t… given the disciples had a rather ‘stare and blink stupidly’ reaction to the concept that’s recorded at least a couple of times. On the other hand, I’m not sure it was the Romans specifically rather than the point of the Jews’ development at the time period. The Romans weren’t exactly much on forgiveness themselves.

            2. I’d much rather we’d done a Japan style build-the-culture-from-the-ground deal, but nobody gave me that option.

              You and me, both. But it wouldn’t have happened, even if we tried, because as soon as the Left got enough influence, they would have screwed it up and blamed it on the Republicans.

              1. …as soon as the Left got enough influence, they would have screwed it up and blamed it on the Republicans.

                Aaaaand that’s what they did – see Paul Bremer and the State Department folks that were brought in under his being-in-chargeness.

          4. Turning a blind eye to the Iranian provisions of IEDs (and training in their use) should not have happened and was the biggest error in the conduct of “the Peace.”

            A B-52 should have “accidentally” dropped its cargo of Tom Paine’s Common Sense (in various languages) over one of Iran’s population centers, followed by heartfelt expressions of regret and thanks to Allah that the load wasn’t explosive ordnance.

            This time.

        7. I’m right there with you.

          I keep saying, his biggest flaw is being too nice.

          I really don’t like his brother, but I’d trade him for O any day, and never mind the Clintons. *shudder*

        8. THanks for the morale booster. My only quibble would be that as to Boehner, we won’t be able to primary him since his speakership makes him to impressive back home. If I lived in his district I’d vote for the democrat in 2016. Hand to God, and it would be my first and only time. It would be worth it. Think Cantor. We can’t do that in the Senate, but we absolutely can in the House

      2. He does have a cunning white haired mother … but that is not the same.

        Anyway, as to fearing dynasties: Clinton anyone?

        1. Yes, I’m far and away more disturbed by that notion than by Jeb. Not that I like Jeb. Too … not much of anything. He’s really not going to present well opposite anybody. Dynamic, he’s not. And “centrist” anymore seems to translate as “still too far left of center.”

        1. And still preferable to someone the Left won’t hold accountable for fear of offending The Narrative.

          Now, greatly preferable? Nope. I do not want Jeb Bush to get the GOP nom. Not even a little bit. I’d prefer Rand Paul, and he concerns me, at least in the highest office. I’d much rather have him running around offending progressives as the junior senator from the great state of Kentucky.

          1. I won’t argue that between Hillary and Jeb that the latter is preferable, only because a cracked vertebra is better than a severed spinal cord.

            But Jeb is unelectable. After the last month and a half I have completely given up on the Republican party.

            It’s not just the vote on DHS spending, it’s other things like this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/26/abortion-education-bill_n_6761816.html and http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/abortion-bill-dropped-amid-concerns-of-female-gop-lawmakers/2015/01/22/56ffafea-a24a-11e4-903f-9f2faf7cd9fe_story.html.

            And I could go on.

            To use Our Hostess’s analogy, we’re in Valley Forge and THEY are CHOOSING to fight the Indians and Canadians instead of staying focused on the Gawd dang British.

            That’s DUMB DUMB DUMB.

            I ain’t gonna reward Dumb. Coffman is already dead to me, which won’t matter because I’ll probably be out of his district by the time the next election rolls around. Either that or *I* will primary his chickenshit ass.

            No, the Republicans keep proving that they (at least most of them) are only interested in being in office, not actually governing according to their principles.

            Jeb might actually try to govern according to his principles, but I don’t like those principles *at all*.

            1. Two important points:

              1) You can’t govern according to your principles if the other guy wins the election.

              2) The Democrats win if the So-cons stay home. (They also win if the Libertarians stay home.)

              There’s a balancing act such that Republican politicians have to strike a balance between the wings of their party and to giving any meat to the media. Both those stories you posted are from Democratic-aligned media outlets, meaning there’s a lot of spin there designed to paint the Republicans in a bad light.

              I’m also mystified by your complaints. Republicans need to govern by their principles rather than getting re-elected, but when those principles happen to be something you’re not concerned about, they should ignore those principles and concentrate on what’s important to you?

              1. 2) The Democrats win if the So-cons stay home. (They also win if the Libertarians stay home.)

                Right now they also “win” (if by “win” you mean get to prosecute their agenda) when the Republican’s win.

                I’m also mystified by your complaints. Republicans need to govern by their principles rather than getting re-elected, but when those principles happen to be something you’re not concerned about, they should ignore those principles and concentrate on what’s important to you?

                Purportedly Federalism is one of the Republican Principles, as is limited government.

                Purportedly a constitutional government is one of the Republican Principles.

                In attempting to legislate Abortion (or any one of a half dozen things that throw red meat to the religious progressives that vote R) at the *federal* level, they violate their stated principles AND give ammunition to the left.

                In throwing in with the Democrats, they show that they abandon their principles rather than stand and fight.

                This is in a time when our national debt exceeds our GDP, when we have SERIOUS problems abroad (ISIS, Russia/Crimea, China etc.), when our national infrastructure is…not as robust as it could be, when our Health Care system is having problems, and our laws around health insurance stand in violation of everything this country was about in the beginning, and THE FIRST THING that the new congress–a congress that has had the largest turnover in 45 years–picks as one of it’s first pieces of legislation is *abortion*? Something the SCOTUS has ruled on repeatedly?

                Then, less than 6 weeks later, that same Congress that did such a stupid thing completely does the beta monkey thing and presents it’s bright red buttocks to the opposition to do with as they wish.

                And I should reward those bozos by showing up at the polls to reelect them because they’re my *best* chance?

                Going Galt. Phuq Dat Noiz.

                1. In attempting to legislate Abortion (or any one of a half dozen things that throw red meat to the religious progressives that vote R) at the *federal* level, they violate their stated principles AND give ammunition to the left.

                  No, deciding what humans are persons– or what organisms are legally people– under the law is not a state issue. It’s a basic definition required for the government to function.

                2. Right now they also “win” (if by “win” you mean get to prosecute their agenda) when the Republican’s win.

                  Are the Republicans perfect? Heck, no! Is there a quantifiable difference in, say, the Supreme Court justices they appoint? Yes.

                  The Republicans would be a lot more, well, Republican, if they believed that the public won’t buy every horror story spoonfed to them by the Democratic-aligned media. Until the public says ‘we’re not buying it’ to the media, the Democratic agenda is going to at least score some victories.

                  In attempting to legislate Abortion (or any one of a half dozen things that throw red meat to the religious progressives that vote R) at the *federal* level, they violate their stated principles AND give ammunition to the left.

                  It’s not just ‘Religious Progressives’ that consider abortion an important issue. If you seriously believe that abortion is taking an innocent life, it’s a principle you can’t compromise on, and one enshrined in the very Constitution (the whole ‘Right to Life’ thing). Telling them to just ignore it isn’t going to work. Sure, it gives the left ammo, but the problem is everything gives the left ammo, because people listen to the leftist spin. The problem is not that somebody passed moderate abortion laws, but that people pay attention to that rather than the much more seriously flawed laws coming from the left.

                  As long as the Democrat media can tear the Republicans apart at will, we’re stuck with taking what little we can get. And they’re winning because people buy the Democratic hype.

                  1. Are the Republicans perfect? Heck, no! Is there a quantifiable difference in, say, the Supreme Court justices they appoint? Yes.

                    This this this! At this point the R side has seen what “Oh, he won’t be confirmed – go with that guy instead” gets you. If Reagan had been full press hardball on his SC appointments, we would today have a 7-2 court.

                    Have the R side internalized this yet? Dunno. But THERE IS NO DOUBT that the D side has, and will do anything to get their hardline ideologues (see the wise latina Supreme’s questioning in the recent oral arguments) onto that bench.

                    2. Amen. The worst Justices appointed by the Republicans are at worst no better than the best of those appointed by Democrats. Not only that, but the SCOTUS is not all that important — nothing reaches them without first having passed through multiple appellate courts. Take a look at some (most) of the judges appointed to the various circuits by Obama, Holder & Co and weep for this nation.

                      Heck, at least one 9th Circus judge has bragged about the large number of his decisions taken up for SCOTUS review — because he knows how very many more escape such scrutiny.

                      Now imagine a GOP SecTreas defending the conduct of a Lois Lerner, or of the Civil Rights department at DOJ installed supervised (they tried installing for sanity and got burned so badly they won’t do it again for a generation) by a Republican AG, even one so Leftish as Christy or Giuliani.

                      Remember, it is the “inferior” officials who filter what the superior ones get to decide.

                    3. One additional: notice how the control of the media enables Liberals to “work the refs.” See recent effort by NYTimes court watcher Linda Greenhouse to say

                      “The court has permitted itself to be recruited into the front lines of the partisan war. Not only the Affordable Care Act but the court itself is in peril as a result.” She continued: “The fate of the statute hung in the balance [with National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius] and hangs in the balance today, but…[t]his time, so does the honor of the Supreme Court.” Any justice who rules in favor of the challengers in King v. Burwell, Greenhouse admonished, will “have a great deal of explaining to do.”

                      What escapes thought is that ANY decision in this case will have “some ‘splainin’ to do”

                      So they might as well decide it rightly — it is much easier to explain (as Roger Taney, to his regret, learned.)

            2. To use Our Hostess’s analogy, we’re in Valley Forge and THEY are CHOOSING to fight the Indians and Canadians instead of staying focused on the Gawd dang British.

              By the time the Continental army was camped at Valley Forge US forces had already invaded Canada. The US never managed capturing the city of Quebec; a small pox outbreak among the troops contributing to the failure. The US had occupied Montreal for a while and held Ticonderoga. At the Paris peace talks the British ceeded the Ohio Country which had been part of Quebec (designated as such in the Quebec Act of 1774) to the US.

      4. Ah, that’s the explanation I always gave to Sarah for the depredations of the legendary Miyuki, white cat from Hell. She cannot achieve her proper place in life: Blofeld is dead.

        1. Unless, of course, it’s all a cunning facade, and he’s got a fluffy, white cat somewhere close to hand…
          That was kilteDave, waaaayyyy waaaayyyy up there. We’re goin long today

            1. Yes, but I’d appreciate it if regulars don’t get into fist fights. I can disagree violently with people and think they are sincere and well-intentioned.

              1. Aw, a good fist fight never hurt nobody. As long as we don’t go weapons free on each other, it’s all good.

    2. Depends who the Democrats nominate, and how much damage you expect him or her to do in office. Personally, I think the nation can survive four more years of bad economy policy better than four more years of bad foreign policy, which in turn it can survive better than four more years of Presidential contempt for the rule of law.

        2. I agree that’s the narrative. I don’t get the enthusiasm for nominating the ex-President’s wife. She was a one-term Senator with no huge accomplishments and a Secretary of State for an administration which has seem horrible deterioration of our foreign relations.

          1. When she ran earlier there were some idiots who publicly said “We’ll get Bill back”. IE Bill would be “assisting” Hillary. [Sad Smile]

            Mind you, at that time I suspected (and said) that Hillary would have told Bill to “shut up”. [Evil Grin]

          2. I’m ready for Hilary.

            William is a charismatic son of a bitch because he is that kind of serial rapist. He cultivated the charm to be a more effective sexual predator.

            Hilary’s drives have shaped her in different ways, and it shows.

            It seems likely William saw in Hilary the ability and desire to defend a rapist, and married her for that reason.

      2. After having gotten away with electing Obama, the Dems will almost undoubtedly bring in someone as radical as they dare. Hillary may, in fact, be a smokescreen for someone even worse, though I don’t have any particular clue who that would be right now, but you can bet they won’t put up a candidate that is any further to the Right than Lenin.

              1. I would have thought that “Falsely claims to be a member of a Protected Minority when she demonstrably isn’t, and it pisses off genuine members of the Minority in question.” would be a deal breaker. OK, Ward Churchill seems to still be in some small favor on the Left, but they aren’t running the silly sonofabitch for anything.

                3. It is a matter of identity for them, and she identifies as “one of them” so its all good. Those who abide by the rules of their identity politics (i.e., NOT Thomas Sowell, JC Watts, Clarence Thomas, Sara Palin etc.) can be trusted to act the way good little adherents are supposed to.

              1. But sadly not a convicted Marxist. What ever happened to the good old days of HUAC, when at least we knew enough to berate and black-list Commies?

            3. She says she can protect them from their own stupidity, and claims it’s really them mean old bankers in top hats who are responsible, not them.

                1. They’ve already started with Warren. During the 2014 election, NPR was covering her fundraising and speechmaking for the Democrats running, and calling her ‘sort of a rockstar’. They can’t even come up with new material.

    3. I’ve considered that. On the whole, I’ll probably iron-clamp my nose. I don’t think the Bushes are with-it or non-statist enough to have a future, though.

    4. It is, to my thinking, a very dangerous thing… but the immediate conditions of the contest may require it.

      “Let’s see… Jeb Bush or Josephine Stalin? Hmmm… tough call.”

      Not really. 😉

    5. Jeb Bush has 0 chance of being elected. He will get less votes than Carter did when he ran for re-election. The left hates him, the right hates him, and most of the middle hates him as well.

      1. I think to be more accurate, the right dislikes him, the left hates him, and the middle just doesn’t want another Bush.

        I suspect most of the middle doesn’t want another Clinton either, so if it’s Bush v.s. Clinton there’s going to be a lot lower turnout.

        If it’s Bush v.s. anyone else, they win.

        If it’s Clinton v.s. Walker the left *might* be able to get a decent turnout, but they’ll vote the dead like crazy.

        If it’s Clinton v.s. anyone but Bush or Walker then it’ll probably be R.

        1. I think, maybe, if it is Clinton v. Walker the left gets too deep into the dead vote and other fraud so it blows up in their face. They’ve not been rational over him, tried to cheat their way to unseating him, and still they keep losing.

      2. However, he has a much better chance of getting nominated with Democrat support, as I pointed out elsewhere.

      3. Sorry, but truth be told, most of the people don’t yet give a rip. They are not even thinking about the next presidential election, unless it somehow intrudes upon them via the media. A sizeable portion, if pressed will tell you that both parties and all politicians are no good, rotten and dirty.

        As far as the left hating Jeb Bush, the left, on principle, hates any Republican candidate.

    6. No. It really isn’t, IMHO. I will not vote for Jeb. No matter what he says.

      Whether or not you think the GOP has a pulse anymore. And I’m sorry, but I incline to ‘not’ these days, there is a difference between a RINO with whom I can honestly disagree on some issues and a flaming Political Dynastic who thinks his name gives him the right to rule.

      If the GOPest want an episode of Game of Thrones, it NEEDS to lose 49-1 to get it through its head not to be so stupid again.

      I will pull the lever for pretty much any other of the legitimate name candidates at this point. But I refuse to do nose plugs anymore. It hasn’t helped stop anything. So while I will support any sane, honest GOP candidate in an election. I refuse to vote for ANY GOP candidate who operates as a statist or corruptocrat. That included Jeb on both counts. It also includes my Senator (Roy Blunt), and Representative (Billy Long, who is a protege of Blunt). And I will never give a penny to any GOP national function. Funds and service go direct to candidates I can support. I think that’s the only way forward. Screw party label. Support the people who make a difference. I’m not saying let it burn. But I’m saying burn the establishment at every turn, or they never will learn.

          1. I’d rather be a Russian defending Stalingrad than a Jewish defending Masada. A slim chance is better than zero.

    7. …over the long term, establishing Presidential dynasties is more dangerous to the republic than anything else.
      —60guilders

      GW Bush swept the 2000 Republican primaries because his name recognition was a lot stronger than 2nd place McCain’s and distant 3rd Alan Keyes’s.

      Let us know the name of the alternative candidate you’re working hard to support (in all the 3-T categories: time, talent, and treasure) so someone besides Jeb Bush also has powerful name recognition among the public, tens of thousands of active supporters nationwide, and a long list of proven donors who will write four-figure checks early, early, early in the campaign.

      Otherwise you’re just discarding a credible candidate, perhaps the best pro-America candidate who can win, because your aesthetic sense is offended.

      2. Let’s see. I am somehow supposed to take someone seriously who thinks that the development of political dynasties within in a republic is a matter or mere aesthetic sense?

        Hang that.

        1. I cannot recall ever reading of Jeb ever claiming he should be elected because his father and brother have been president. To the contrary, it seems to me that he’s said he should be elected in spite of his father and brother having been president.

          Accept or reject him because of his ideas, or policies (and to what degree you think he means them) rather than because of his relations. His first run for governor ended in defeat because he came across as too conservative and because the Dems turned out their shadow vote (the dead, the insane, the illegal, the non-existent.)

          Once in office he took a typical mix of positions, based on the concept of what was achievable, not what was ideal. Maybe you think he should have reached for more, maybe you think he reached for the wrong things, but on at least a few issues he reached for the conservative choice (e.g., school choice.)

          And yes, his character and judgement should be taken into account; whether he will hold his ground or settle for the “achievable” or simply cave under pressure. In at least two instances — Terry Schiavo and Elian Gonzalez — he proved his mettle; in other cases — Common Core — he got taken to the cleaners for believing the Libs would abide by their promises.

    8. Agreed. I would rather have a RINO Prez rubber stamping a TEA Party Congress than a liberal Congress rubber stamping a Progressive President.

  2. HEAR HEAR!

    I would also point out that there has never been an instance in US history of a major third party, meaning one electing candidates to national office. Every time a new party has formed it has been by splitting off of the existing single party. The quickest that happened was after the demise of the Whigs and the rise of the Republicans. It took about a decade and ended in the Civil War. How much damage do you think the vile progressives can do in a decade (it would actually be longer, since they would be in power during the long slog to kill the GOP)?

    1. Nonsense! The Know-Nothings elected folks to Congress.

      In one mid-term election.

      Mind you at the time it was so startling that people confidently predicted that the next president would be a Know-Nothing, but it had utterly collapsed by the time the presidential election rolled around. It was so weak that it did not put up its own candidate but endorsed Millard Fillmore. When he heard about it, he was in Italy and had arranged for an audience with a Pope. He still went. You could hardly show more impotence than that.

        2. The Conservative Party in NY elected a senator. James L. Buckley. The RINO candidate pulled enough liberal votes to allow the Conservative Party candidate to squeak out a win over the Democrat.

    2. You are laboring under the false impression that the Republicans will do anything to stop the progressives currently. And as they have now proven to us, not only will they NOT stop it, but they will support it.

      1. Then we need to get better Republicans. Which we’ve been doing. The GOP today is far better than the GOP of 10 years ago. The big problem we have is leadership. If we didn’t have Senator McClellan as Majority Leader, Obama would be talking about why he vetoed DHS funding today. Changing leadership is necessarily a longer process than changing the majority in a house.

        1. It is too late for that. The GOP isn’t going to be winning anymore elections, because they just let 20 million illegals in, who will all vote democrat. And they have lost their base (I’m not voting for Republicans anymore – Except for Scott Walker, I’m done with them). So they’re not going to be winning much of anything anymore. So trying to put ‘better’ republicans in, is not going to matter.

          1. Idiot. Straight-up, high-test, weapons-grade moron. This vote didn’t bring in a single new Democrat vote. Say what you will about Obama’s action, it doesn’t make anyone a citizen. Sure, some of them will still vote, but they were already doing that.

            As for the GOP losing their base, talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. Elections are decided by those who show up. That’s important, let me repeat it: BLOODY ELECTIONS ARE FRAKING DECIDED BY THOSE WHO SHOW THE HELL UP! Do not expect principles out of politicians. Expect politicians to do whatever they have to do to get elected. If you take your ball and go home, say that you’re never going to vote for another Republican, the politicians have no reason to listen to you. They’ll just find new votes to replace you, and they probably won’t be moving to the right to do so.

            1. The illegals are voting. Didn’t you know that? A LOT of them are voting.
              And please don’t go insulting me, I did not insult you.
              But go take a look, a lot of illegals are voting, and they register then when they get drivers licenses (motor voter). Why do you think they are pushing to get them drivers licenses? So they can vote!

              1. And neither Obama’s actions nor this week’s vote did anything to change that.

                If you don’t want to be called an idiot, don’t say idiotic things. I’m not here to make you feel good about yourself.

                We’ve known for a long time that the progressive wing of the GOP was a problem. Up until now the priority was in getting control of Congress out of Democrat hands. Now that we’ve accomplished that we have some room to start stripping power from the progressives within the GOP. Our next goal is to remove Boehner and McClellan from leadership positions. We don’t necessarily need to defeat them in an election (Boehner wins his district by double digits, and it’s unlikely that we could successfully primary a sitting Speaker) but we can get enough conservatives in the GOP caucus to get someone else in charge. In fact, I think that Rand Paul would make for an excellent Senate Majority Leader.

                1. I’m not the one saying idiotic things. I’m simply pointing out the facts as they now stand. You are the one getting bent out of shape and ranting. I refuse to vote for people who lie to me, or who abuse the privilege they have received by being elected to office.
                  And I do not take seriously the words of anyone who insults me. Because they just lost the argument.

                  1. Yep, I stand by my assessment. You are an idiot. It’s not an insult, just a description. You should probably go ahead and kill yourself now, because the world certainly isn’t going to get any better following your plan.

                    2. If he’s going to give up, it’s better for all of us if he goes all the way. There’s a reason armies traditionally shoot soldiers who talk like him. And if the current state of politics is enough to get him to quit, he really isn’t going to like what happens if Americans hand the electoral process over to Progs unopposed.

                      As for the idiot remark, how else can one describe a plan that doesn’t even have a theoretical path to success? I can see how the third party route could work, it could produce a viable conservative party or pull the GOP to the right a la the Reform Party in the ’90’s. I disagree with the likelihood of those courses, so I argue against the plan, but I can respect it. But this “take my vote and go home” blather sounds like something the Underpants Gnomes would come up with.

                      1) Quit.
                      2)???
                      3) VICTORY!

                    5. No, you’re the one who’s telling people they should go ahead and kill themselves. Now kiss my ass.

                    6. Jeff,
                      I’m not saying he isn’t an idiot, but there are a whole heck of a lot of other ‘idiots’ out there who think just like him. Me and you may know better than to expect principles out of a politician, but a lot of people have principles and expect those they vote for to have them also. If those they vote for won’t at least act like they have principles (and a backbone) then they aren’t doing what they were elected to do. Yes they are still probably better than the other choice, but lets face reality. If those elected p*ss off all the idiots like John, there aren’t enough pragmatic voters left to re-elect them. Which really goes to show that the politicians are even bigger idiots than the guy you are calling one.

                      And no I don’t have a good solution, that is why I think Sarah is wearing rose colored glasses* and it is all going to burn, whether we want it to or not. Still we can at least build some fire breaks and harvest some of the excess fuel for firewood. Try our best to prevent it, but I expect the most we can honestly hope for is to mitigate the damage.

                      *Of course it could be that I am wearing a welding hood, and everything looks so dark because I am rounding up all the paperwork I need to do my taxes.

                    7. But that’s exactly why this idea needs to be forcefully repudiated every time it’s brought up. It’s defeatism and has no place in an American mind. Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

                      I have no problem with preparing for The Burning Times, I’m the guy whose liberty policy was “Have a plan, have a back-up plan, have a good idea what you’re going to do when the back-up plan goes pear-shaped.” But our primary focus must be on preventing the fire, because most of us aren’t going to survive and there is a strong probability that America won’t either.

                    10. Oh, good. You still have some fight left in you. Now how about you put it to better use than yelling at some jackhole on the Internet. Go find a conservative and do whatever you can to get him elected to the Senate.

                    11. Well I can see that Sarah isn’t going to do anything about this, seeing as you’ve been piling tons of insults on me. I really hate dealing with gamma’s such as yourself but I guess you’ll just continue to sit there in your Mom’s basement and talk crap about me, even though I have tired to hold a civil conversation.

                      Something which is obviously beyond you.

                      BTW, ‘they kill people like him in the military’? Really? And just how would YOU know THAT? I’m a veteran, I served back in the 80’s when they still called us ‘baby killers’ and treated us like s*** every place we went. What did you do? Look at a poster once?

                      Campaign for conservatives? I did it in NY for over a decade, Reagan, Senator Buckley, and lots of local candidates & causes.I worked very hard for the conservative party, which I was a member of. Did the same in several other states over the years after I left NY.

                      I have also, on my own dime, appeared before government committees to testify against laws that would take people’s rights away. I have dealt with many government agencies, to the point where the heads of several used to know me by name.

                      I know these people better than you do, and I’ve given way hell of a lot more than you ever will. So I don’t appreciate it when some little turd who has never done anything and will never do anything, puffs his chest up like some grown-up and jumps all over someone presenting a different opinion. I see you talking a good game, but I bet you don’t do squat.

                      The GOP has sold out their base, and will never be brought back into line, as long as they can count on gamma’s and others like you who will continue to back them, no matter how bad it gets. The time has come to part ways, because voting for them is no different than voting for a democrat, because the results are the same. The say one thing, but they always do another. It is time for everyone to move their support to another party, that respects this country, the constitution, and the citizens.

                      Yes, that is a tough decision, but adults recognize tough decisions and make them when they must. Sooner started, sooner finished.
                      Children on the other had attack those who say anything they don’t want to hear, and scream insults and throw tantrums whenever they hear any unpleasant truths. You know, just like you are.

                      Sarah, I apologize, but if you’re not going to ban this miscreant, well what are my options? I’d ask him for an apology, but I suspect that is beyond him. You have a nice blog, and you’re a good writer and a good person. Have a nice day.

                    13. “Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?”

                      Ummm… which history book have you been reading, again?

                    21. John,
                      I realize Sarah asked the subject to be dropped, so I’m not mentioning the subject, but did want to correct one misconception of yours that led to a series of your insults. Jeff is also a veteran, and I believe, currently works as a civilian contractor for the Navy.

              2. In the state with the most illegals, you don’t show a driver’s license to vote.

                1. Yup…

                  And since I live in that state…

                  I’ve lived in my current apartment for several years. The previous occupant, based on the mail I’ve received, appears to have been a female prog. I’m pretty sure that she left the Code Pink magnet that was on the fridge when I moved in.

                  She’s *STILL* on the voter rolls at my address. And I have no way of taking her off.

                  Voter fraud? Unpossible!

            2. Except that Colorado, voters showed up to find they had already voted by mail.

              So they made everyone vote by mail.

            3. Also, why would I want to vote for people who lie to me? Voting for Republicans who will only continue to sell me out and vote like democrats, and expecting them to change? They’ve been doing this for several elections cycles.
              What do you call people who keep doing the same thing and expect a different response?

              1. Things have been changing. The progressives in the GOP don’t like it. They want nothing more than for you to give up on the party, because they know that we’re coming for them eventually. If conservatives give up, they can go back to being comfortable in their minority.

                This is a “two steps forward, one step back” process, but repeat it long enough and you can cross continents. Stop after the first setback (or the 50th) and you stop making progress.

              2. why would I want to vote for people who lie to me?

                You have a choice?

                I’d also point out that we seem — see eg recently with Boehner — to have redefined “lie” as “lost n up and down vote for something I wanted.”

                1. No, we define lie as “told us he would fight this proposition before the election and then threw away the power of the purse which would have enabled that”.

                    1. He had the votes. All he had to do was side with his own base.

                      But he likes his chair too much for that. So now the Left is guaranteeing it. Which means we’ve effectively lost the House by refusing to remove Boehner when we had the chance.

                      Nice, huh?

                    3. I DON’T GIVE A DAMN IF HE HAD THE VOTES TO GET IT THROUGH THE SENATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HE ISN’T IN THE DAMN SENATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HIS JOB IS SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, NOT THE SENATE!

                      *Takes a deep breath*

                      Besides, he didn’t have to get anything through the Senate, the power of the purse is in Congress, he ALREADY had it! He gave it up for nothing (well nothing that we can see, I’m pretty sure He got something for it). Congress point blank had the power to bring things to a screeching halt, which they campaigned on doing, by not funding them. They went ahead and paid for all the things they campaigned on stopping. This is why people are frothing at the mouth.

                    4. No Boehner didn’t have the votes. Once McClellan sent the clean bill to the House Boehner’s only option was to take affirmative action to prevent the bill from coming to the floor – there were enough Republicans soft on the issue to join with Democrats and pass it. At that point the DHS shutdown becomes the GOP’s fault.

                      If McClellan had just nuked the ability to filibuster conference agreements there would have been a conference committee before Pelosi could force the clean bill to the House floor. The conference report would have contained the defending language and conference reports for budget bills can’t be filibustered. At that point Obama either has to back down or explain why he’s shutting down DHS, and Congressional Dems either override their President or answer the same question.

                      That’s why I’m willing to cut Boehner some slack (but he’s on triple secret probation) while I want McClellan’s head.

                    5. Failure was baked into it from the git go. The appropriation should have never been tied to DHS funding (an example of “if you don’t give me what I want I will shoot myself in the foot” thinking) but to funding for the EPA or the Department of Education or the White House travel and entertainment budget. You win by forcing the other guy to have to hold his breath until he turns blue.

                      There is a reason they’re known as “the Stupid Party.” Putting your own nuts in a vise and threatening to tighten it is a very awkward negotiating tactic.

                    7. The problem with that strategy is that both houses have rules allowing non-germane amendments to be stripped. Since immigration enforcement falls under DHS perview amendments stopping expenditures to implement the EO’s are germain. Tying it to Education funding isn’t and would be easy to challenge.

                    8. So? Make them challenge it — repeatedly. Costs us nothing and forces them to go on the record of voting support for the policy multiple times. Makes it much harder for them to claim it isn’t germane to DHS when that finally come up.

                    9. Doing a little more digging, it appears that the Senate doesn’t care, and the House has rules against non-germane amendments. No idea how they would handle something added in committee.

                    10. As for being germane: is it not germane to the EPA that we would have ten million more people burning gas for their cars and heating their homes? Is it not germane to the EPA that we would be increasing the strain on our scarce water resources? Is it not germane to the Department of Education we would have millions more kids in our schools requiring ESL funding? Is it not germane to the Dept. of Agriculture that those millions of kids would likely be eating free lunches? Would it not be germane to DOJ to have to monitor more police forces to ensure against disparate impact from racist policing, especially with hostile displaced workers at the lower rungs of our socio-economic ladder?

          2. The sad thing is, other than certain points, most Latino immigrants are fairly conservative.

        2. How long does changing leadership take and why haven’t we done it if we’re getting better Republicans?

          I mean, I get your point…I gave money to one person this past cycle, Matt Bevin. It got me as much as my money to Scott Brown got me in stopping Obamacare (so much for needing filibuster proof majorities).

          The members of the Congress elect their leaders and most of us can only vote on our local members and not the leaders. If leadership doesn’t change the membership needs to be held accountable. However, every time we try that we’re told we’re just electing Democrats and we fall for it. Result, leadership never changes.

          1. How long? The best answer is “As long as it takes.” Anything more specific is going to depend on the exact nature of each election. If we get a real leader in ’16 Boehner and McClellan won’t matter as much, they’ll follow along with minimal ego-stroking.

            I think the big battle is going to be the Senate. Hopefully we can defeat Reid outright in the next election, but we need a majority leader who is willing to fight at Reid’s level, and McClellan isn’t it. Thanks to the 2010 wave the GOP is defending a lot more seats in 2016 than the Democrats, which means that even control of the Senate is questionable. next election cycle is a long shot, but if we weed out the progressive GOP senators in ’16 we would be in a good position to replace them with conservatives in ’18. That might do it. Remember, we’ve only been fighting this since 2009, less than a decade to a reasonable shot at at least influencing the Senate is pretty good.

            1. Remember, we’ve only been fighting this since 2009, less than a decade to a reasonable shot at at least influencing the Senate is pretty good.

              I think I’ve found our point of disagreement. I think we’ve been fighting this my entire life (I’m a Johnson baby) and longer. I think the GOP only fully engaged in the 1980s although some low voices started before then, notably Goldwater obviously.

              Because of our different time frames I suspect your analysis is influenced a lot less by the GOP Congress and President 2003-2006 and their actions. For me that was the proof that the GOP support of reducing government was an electoral convenience and nothing more. This current majority has done little to change my mind.

              Hopefully we can defeat Reid outright in the next election, but we need a majority leader who is willing to fight at Reid’s level, and McClellan isn’t it.

              I would point out the GOPe intentionally sandbagged his opponent in 2010. She was far from ideal but the GOPe has supported candidates just as bad in the name of party loyalty and regardless of what I think she was the choice of the Nevada GOP. The GOP had a good year with a good shot are removing Reid and decided making sure the peasants respected their betters was more important (although they were even worse in Delaware where the loser in the primary supported the Democrat openly)

              1. The conservative wing of the GOP has been fighting the Progressive wing since Golden, the main outcome of the early phase is the intellectual infrastructure we enjoy today. The problem with the 2003-2006 GOP is that the progressive wing had successfully stealthed itself and was riding on Reagan and Gingrich’s laurels. It didn’t hurt that they were the pro-America party during wartime, indeed a lot of the worst of their failures were the price exacted by Democrats to secure their support for the war effort.

                2009 was when the silent majority realized that the Progressives had gone too far and the traditional method of moving the GOP to the right by letting the Democrats have power had some unacceptable side effects. That’s when regular people started working to gain influence in the party structure itself, much to the chagrin of those who expected to use that structure as a senecure. We’ve had some setbacks, yes, but we’ve also had more than a few successes. We’ve shown that we are a voice that must be listened to, even if it’s just to pander. Now we have to show that we are a voice to be obeyed. Hopefully some of Angle’s supporters took notes of who stabbed her in the back and have done some housecleaning.

                1. indeed a lot of the worst of their failures were the price exacted by Democrats to secure their support for the war effort.

                  When Reagan had a Democrat House this made sense. If we were just maintaining the status quo instead of cutting Dem programs to avoid a Senate filibuster while holding a majority under 60 seats in 2003-2006 this would have made sense.

                  I do not find this a defense for creating, introducing, and forcing through Medicare Part D. It is even less of a defense for No Child Left Behind as it pre-dates either war.

                  Due to seniority the current leadership has its roots in that prior majority. I see no reason to believe with Jeb Bush as President it would behave any differently.

                  1. Why do you think I don’t support Bush in the primary? But if he does become the nominee the question of behaving differently than his brother is moot. The only question is if he would behave differently than Hillary, and would those differences be beneficial. I think in both cases the answer is undoubtedly yes. The past is immutable, and you cannot compare your present choices to some platonic ideal. Your circumstances define your decision space. All you can do is choose the best path available, and refusing to choose is itself a choice.

                    1. As I said repeatedly I do not plan to just stomp off and vote third party altogether. I’ve advocated for a very specific attempt at a third party. Hell, the only reason I’m arguing someplace like here where the reaction is an an idiot at best and a leftist false flag at worst is the only way such a plan works is through dedicated GOP types. The “take my marbles and go home types” won’t have the stomach for the work it would take.

                      I will admit holding my nose for another Bush would be hard. I might rely on my state’s strong redness and skip the top line while voting the down ticket. I would still work to keep my rep in office and my state red at the legislature. I’m genuinely afraid a GOP Congress plus White House that repeated 2003-2006 would truly end the party with no replacement on the horizon. I already expect the 2016 campaign to be Warren running on single payer while the GOP campaigns on running Obamacare better than the Dems. The leading Senate plan to react to subsidies being struck down is only reinforcing that believe.

                      At what point would the GOP have gone too left? Is it possible that as long as they are to the right of the Dems there is no too left?

                    2. You keep making the mistake of assuming the GOP is some monolithic entity. It is not. There has always been a spectrum of opinions ranging from the Goldwater-Reagan conservatives to the Nixon-Bush progressives. Those wings have always been in tension, that’s one of the reasons Reagan picked Bush as his running mate, it was a sop to the progressive wing of the party. Don’t forget that Reagan won by gathering large numbers of nominally Democrat voters. A lot of people thought that by voting for Republicans they were getting Reagan – or at least Gingrich – clones. They were mistaken. But you are equally mistaken in assuming that a Republican is automatically a Bush clone.

                    3. You keep making the mistake of assuming the GOP is some monolithic entity. It is not.

                      Given my views and that of 75%+ of the Republicans I’ve voted for in my life (especially when I lived in Connecticut) I’m well aware of the spread.

                      But you are equally mistaken in assuming that a Republican is automatically a Bush clone.

                      I don’t assume they are but I think the probability spread leans that way. Certainly leadership leans that way and for some reason changing the back bench does not seem to change the leadership.

                    4. “for some reason changing the back bench does not seem to change the leadership.”

                      Not quickly, no. The Tea Parties have been active for only three cycles. The leadership has been in Congress for DECADES. We are going to have little success in changing the leadership until there is a large body of conservatives who have been there that long. Now there are a few who predate the Tea Parties, so there’s already people who can threaten Boehner et al., that will help keep them in line. But real change at the leadership level is going to take a while. It took the Progressives 60 years to completely take over the Democrat Party. We’re smarter, so we can do it faster, but not much.

                    5. and this is why herbn is under suspicion of being false flag. He doesn’t engage, just repeats the same things. And then there’s the posts, like this is his full time job or something.

              2. Actually I thought Angle was a rather good candidate, and I’m still ticked at both the GOP and the NRA* for backstabbing her.

                *Yes Reid had supported the NRA and voted pro-gun, but Angle was also pro-gun and pro-NRA and campaigning so, while Reid was openly supporting and endorsing a large number of anti-gun candidates. In my opinion the NRA was correct in stating it is a single issue association, and should support candidates solely on that issue. But when confronted with two candidates who both claim to support that issue they should not only look at what they claim, and their voting history, but also the voting history of candidates that they endorse, which clearly would have shown Angle as the much more NRA/gun friendly candidate. At worst they should have taken a hands of approach and stated that both candidates were pro-gun (which Reid has since flipped on, and the NRA has flipped from supporting to opposing him) rather than torpedoing one candidate while endorsing the one who endorsed a number of rabidly anti-gun candidates.

                  1. Making phone calls against Chet the week before I moved to Atlanta was one of the two political moments I’ve actually felt like I was winning.

          2. “…why haven’t we done [whatever HerbN wants]?”
            —HerbN

            We? Because HerbN hasn’t got the votes. And every time HerbN belly-aches about going third party, he isn’t earning any new votes for the HerbN party line.

    3. There are 245 members of the House.

      75 of them voted *with* the Democrats to fund, not the DHS as a whole, but specifically programs that many on the left, the right, and a federal judge feel to be *unconstitutional*, and Obama has indicated he will CONTINUE these programs in outside that district.

      Essentially those 75 RINOs, and every Democrat voted to wipe their ass with the constitution.

      There are *many* progressives inside the Republican Party. Jeb Bush is one of them, as an example.

      The Republicans continue to show they have no interest in governing, just in staying in office.

      So the question isn’t how much damage the Vile Progs can do, it’s what is the shortest path to getting them OUT OF POWER COMPLETELY.

      There is NO evidence at all that the Republican Party has *any* interest in rolling back the budget, the size of the federal government, or the amount of control that the USG exercises to any significant degree–just enough that they can go back to their district or state and claim they *tried*.

      So yeah, we’er in the valley in the middle of winter and we’re expected to keep following the “leaders” who have no interest in our well being?

      http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/174586

      1. I gave the Republicans credit for trying when Reid controlled the Senate. “Try” doesn’t cut it any more. I agree that we need better leaders. Strike that, we need leaders period. From now on I am referring to the senior Senator from Kentucky as Senator McClellan. Our next move is to ensure a significant number of those 75 are not part of the 115th Congress. Not just trying to primary them, but actively working toward getting Democrats elected if they survive a primary challenge. Not all of them, keeping Pelosi out of the Speaker’s chair is important, but enough that the others will stand up for the Constitution out of self-interest if nothing else.

          1. Oh? What exactly other than gutlessness prevented the Republicans from saying: We were elected to stop this, and until you reverse it, you will have to raise the money to operate any portion of the government connected with it from Soros, because no appropriation for any department would be able to be spent on it. And then fight for it.

            1. Yes. I sure can explain that. First, they remember the closing of government under Clinton and are too dumb to realize the media can’t demonize them like that now. Second, they’re afraid of being called anti-Latino. Third, Boehner is clearly their man and I think it’s because they have something on him. Could also be because he’s “old GOP” or, objectively, a RINO.
              Look, this is not as bad as it seems. If we stay the course and keep picking them off, provided we’re not hit a big one in the next two years, we will find the wall magically tumbling down. Whatever the Dems are, they’re OLD. Their thinkers are old. The new generation is DUMB. They worry about Vagina Monologues marginalizing women with penises. They don’t survive the laugh test even with the media covering for them.
              Stay the course. In ten years if it hasn’t tumbled down, I’ll help burn it. But this is premature and to someone from another country it smells of false flag setting us one against the other.

              1. First, they remember the closing of government under Clinton and are too dumb to realize the media can’t demonize them like that now.

                Yet they don’t remember the closing of 2013 and their success year later?

                If 2014 hadn’t happened fear of another shutdown would make sense but 2014 happened.

                f we stay the course and keep picking them off, provided we’re not hit a big one in the next two years, we will find the wall magically tumbling down.

                I wish I could believe that but Boehner and McConnell are still leaders and Thad Cochran was backed by the party in encouraging Democrats to vote in the GOP primary run-off so he could win.

                The fact the national party backed Cochran in that move was key in cementing my conviction that McConnell at least and probably Boehner (although as House leader he didn’t have much of a role in the Senate races) consider the Democrats allies more than they do much of the GOP base. I had the same feelings about McCain and he keeps living up to them.

                1. Boehner was absolutely traumatized by the Clinton government shutdown and has governed accordingly ever since. Our party is led in the House by a man who greatest ambition for this country is not being yelled at. Any wonder he drinks?

                  1. This isn’t beanbag. If I can be insulted to my face by co-workers over standing up for the 2013 shutdown it’s the least the Speaker of the House can do.

                2. OK, I’ve argued with you a lot on this today, thought I should point out an area of agreement: The GOP Party Leadership is pretty much rotten to the core.

                  I’ve pretty much been starting from that as a base assumption, but I think it wasn’t clear. Because of the way the Party is run, the old guys who have been there a long time have disproportionate influence in how the party uses its discretionary funds. Until they either retire, die off, or get overwhelmed by comparative Lilliputians in the party hierarchy biting them at the ankles, things like this Cochran dude you’ve brought up will continue to happen.

                  But that’s why we have to keep the fire under them all, so that CAN happen sooner rather than later. I know you’ve said you’ll continue to vote for them in the principle of being a delaying action, but at the same time, you’re bringing up the same arguments that the “they don’t deserve my vote, so they’re not going to get it” folks do, and it’s counterproductive.

              2. My boss showed me the copy of “The Vagina Monologues” he was taking into the bookstore to shelve today and I told him it was no longer politically correct. He went on to tell me the weird far out looney feminist things his friend had seen when he bought a ticket in town, and he said, it’s gone beyond that? I said, yeah, it’s gone way beyond that.
                You and I have disagreed about this, but I still think we were just destined to elect the first so-called black candidate either party took seriously. I can make a long list of the artists turned Republican and Reagan employees who openly supported Obama, Peggy Noonan, Denis Hopper, Arlo Guthrie, etc. I think the ones still alive will probably mostly come back. Someone today online pointed out that all the Dem possibilities have a long, long open history of very far Left lives and none of them have the built in appeal of the slick mocha kid with no history at all. I wish I could remember the name of the blogger who suspected that the Chicago mayoral runnoff, Jesus “Chuy” Garcia in danger of ousting Rahm Emanuel, is a sign of how the Dem primaries may go in 15.

                1. Beyond that, Charles, this is why I say even if we did nothing but vote straight ticket and hold on for ten years — their people are OLD. And the young ones are DUMB.

                    1. Exactly. As I pointed out in a FB group, the problem is until the Sov union collapsed, due to our lousy intelligence, it was assumed that central control of the economy was BETTER, those Russians just were prone to excesses. So our RINOS were formed at a time where conventional wisdom was ‘central control with a nicer face.’

                    7. Again I repair to Bonaparte:

                      Victory belongs to the most persevering.

                      AND

                      The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier.

                      We won at Valley Forge because we persevered. Quitters never win.

                  1. Probably disagreeing with the way I put it, I sometimes do get things scrambled in speech.

              3. Someone over in the comments at Ace of Spades today suggested going so far as to throw Boehner’s election to his Democratic opponent in the next election. That’s assuming, of course, that you can’t primary the guy (which is the better option, of course). Since it’d only be one seat in 500+, it probably wouldn’t matter all that much. And it’d get him out of the Speakership.

                2. I live in John Boehner’s district. No Democrat will win there ever. Two elections ago the Democrats tried running an Iraqi War JAG veteran, a nice, earnest young man. As I recall, his percentage of the vote was somewhere in the single digits.

                  To be honest, I don’t think he can be primaried at this stage either. But if a tea party candidate made a good showing, and the tea partiers improved their numbers in House and Senate, that would force him to reconsider what is doable, and therefore what ought to be done.

          3. We didn’t lose the DHS vote. Boehner actively sold out his caucus on it. There is a distinct difference.

            Every one of those RINOs should be primaried next year. No questions. Because right now, Boehner is the Democratic Speaker of the House. That’s his power base. Not the GOP. And anyone who supported him in this is exposed as a soldier for the other side.

            Losing is fine. Surrendering without a shot is treason.

            1. Boehner was undercut by the Senate. The House rules permmitted Pelosi to force the Senate bill to the floor. Once the clean bill passed and Reid filibustered the conference agreement Boehner either had to take positive action to block the bill, thus making the DHS shutdown his fault, or let it come to the floor and have it pass with squishy Republicans joining with the Democrats. He’s Speaker of the House, not Dictator.

              1. The Senate can’t dictate to the House either. It’s the HOUSE that ultimately has power of the purse. So he very easily could have said, “Pass what you want, you’re not getting funding for it.”

                That’s why they have conference committees, to iron out differences between the two houses. It happens all the time. So nope. Not buying Boehner using the Senate as an excuse. That’s cowardice. If he had fought and lost, fine. But he actively joined with the Left.

                And they are now sponsoring him as Speaker. Brought to you by Nancy Pelosi. You think that arrangement is a matter of coincidence?

                1. The whole point behind attaching the EO language to the DHS funding bill was to force the Democrats to either block Obama’s action or not fund DHS. Not funding DHS is politically unpopular. One McClellan surrendered* there was nothing Boehner could do to stop funding the EO without him blocking DHS funding and taking the political heat. I don’t really care that the Democrats support him as Speaker, they can’t help him in 2017 and he knows it. He’ll have to spend the next two years rebuilding bridges with his conservatives or he’ll be picking out a spot on the back bench.

                  *McClellan’s surrender wasn’t in allowing the clean bill to pass, it was refusing to go nuclear to end Reid’s filibuster of the conference agreement. A conference committee would have given Boehner cover to block Pelosi from bringing the clean bill to the floor (if that’s even possible with a committee meeting) and the result couldn’t have been blocked.

        2. That’s just the annoying thing, the Rs “try” when they know they can’t win, and run and hide when they *can* win.

          The Republican’s don’t WANT to be in the majority, then they have to face and incredibly hostile press, scrutiny and responsibility.

          They *seriously* could have made Obama own the DHS problem, just put the budget on his desk. *LET* him veto it. The end result would have been the same, Dingy Harry would have had his ass handed to him, the press would have been apoplectic, the base would have been happy, etc.

          Voting “R” used to mean that you were going to wind up in the same place as voting “D”, it was just going to take longer.

          These days that “longer” isn’t a significant difference.

          1. There’s a reason I now refer to the senior senator from Kentucky as Senator McClellan. But you have to recognize that there’s no such thing as “a” Republican. There’s an entire range of them, some are perfectly comfortable being in the minority, exercising just enough power to feather their nests. Others are more than willing and able to fight for America. Our job is to support them and keep sending them reinforcements until they overwhelm the progressives. We don’t do that by splitting the party or giving up.

      2. “Essentially those 75 RINOs, and every Democrat voted to wipe their ass with the constitution.”

        Piffle. There ain’t enough of the document remaining intact to dry your willy, much less wipe your arse with.

        Restoration is hard work, especially when much of the material has been damaged by years of neglect and indifference. But refinishing the furniture* beats burning down the house.

        *left-handed reference to a certain series of cozy mysteries written under pseudonym by person known to hang out here.

  3. *walks around and hands everyone their ration of hardtack.. err, lammas bread, yeah, its lammas bread.

    1. The lammas bread is especially good with peanut butter and boysenberry jam (The ones that come in MRE’s).

      2. I suspect that Tolkien was thinking of the field rations he encountered in WWI when he named his dwarf trail bread cram. 😎

  4. I agree with you in principal. Ive lived and fought all over the Middle East and live in Riyadh right now. I know how ugly “burn it down” really is. In practice? I am expanding my homestead, learning to weld and make moonshine and buying all the ammo I can afford while basing my MA thesis on the history of insurgencies and how they coalesce within population groups.

    I hope, but hope isnt a methodology….

    1. I hope you’re going to post a thesis draft online. Or make it downloadable with a password? For critique and peer review, of course.

      That kind of thesis would be very much in my field, and very interesting. It seems so damn diverse, but one major constant I have noticed… groups that find ways to self-finance (generally non-nice ways, that can be highly corrosive to organizational purpose) survive: IRA, PLO, FARC. Those that don’t (Baader-Meinhof, Red Brigades) disappear. The PLO’s work in Lebanon with SAMED (their community business arm) in particular is wayyy interesting.

      And frankly, you can apply this exact model to the Left as well. Note that every politically repressive move they make has embedded economic payoffs for their cronies and footsoldiers.

      1. Ill certainly keep you in mind for a reviewer! Im currently a developer for the Saudi capstone exercise for their version of Command and General Staff College. Reading up on the differences between their doctrine and ours has led me to speculate what a true Insurgent doctrine would look like. Mao did a good job as have others, but what would an updated one look like? A future writing project perhaps…

  5. The people who cry, “Burn it down” are usually far too optimistic about what will come up in its place. They’re convinced they’ll get it right this time, but that sounds an awful lot like what communists keep saying too. Funny, isn’t it?

    Folks, I was an officer in the Libertarian Party of Georgia. I was the president of a local affiliate and part of the new media team for the state party. I am still as much of a Libertarian as you’re going to find (and yes, the big “L” is intentional at this point. However, I haven’t renewed my membership in some time.

    Why?

    Simple. The party had years to affect real change, to actually learn and become a force in American politics. They haven’t. I will not waste my efforts on a cause that’s losing because of the other adherents to my beliefs. So yeah, I’m going Republican. I may have to hold my nose to do it, but I’ll do it.

    1. Politically I’ma Crank, but I would have FAR more respect for the Libertarian Party if they had refrained from running a Presidential candidate until they actually has a presence in Congress. No third party President is going to be able to do squat unless his party has a presence in Congress, a presence in Congress should be a lot easier to manage than a Presidency anyway, and Presidential candidacies cost a lot of money, even if you are running mostly a Protest Candidate.

      *sigh*

      Then there are nitwits like Ross Perot who apparently think POTUS is an entry level position.

      *BIG sigh*

      1. In all fairness, part of the problem is ballot access. You almost have to run presidential and gubernatorial candidates in order to have a shot to put lower candidates on the ballot in some states.

        Which is part of the design.

        Unfortunately, the design was to keep communists off of the ballot, and they figured out pretty quickly to just call themselves Democrats and move forward.

        1. Ballot access is certainly part of it, but convincing people to vote for someone other than D’s and R’s is another. The LP has more or less permanent ballot access at the presidential level in about 30 states (after 40 years). IMO, many LP candidates run on issues that are implausible at best (abolishing the IRS), and don’t have a coherent 30 second plan to get there.Most voters don’t pay any attention to down-ballot 3rd party candidates unless they’re in a 2-way race, where they’re lucky to break 40 percent (usually get 20-30). It’s a tough row to hoe. I’m a former LP state chair.

        2. Ballot access is important, and it is important to remember each state has different rules. The only reason the Conservative and Liberal parties in NY are a force to be reckoned with is that NY allows cross endorsements. A Republican in NY cannot be elcted governor unless also on the Conservative Party line. A Democrat can be- but the victory margin is a lot smaller. In some CD’s, cross endorsements can make or or break a candidate. I think, but I’m not sure, most states do not allow cross endorsements. Makes it much harder for any 3rd party to gain ttraction.

        3. Most people have forgotten (or never learned) it, but Hubert Humphrey made his political bones by running the Communists out of the Democrat Party in Minnesota.

          Or so I’m told. Couldn’t happen now, of course — they’re in that party’s political DNA.

      3. “Then there are nitwits like Ross Perot who apparently think POTUS is an entry level position.”

        You just voiced my thoughts on Ben Carson’s Presidential bid. Ross Perot in my opinion had a lot more going for him and got a whopping 19% of the vote. Carson is at least running as a Repub instead of splitting the vote like Perot did, but I still don’t think he has a snowball’s chance in hell of getting elected if he is nominated. I’m not saying he would be a bad President, frankly I don’t know enough about him to decide one way or the other, and I think Perot would have been a decent President, but they aren’t going to be elected, so the most they can be is a spoiler, which is where the conspiracy theories like those that Perot was working for Clinton come from. After all that was the effect of his Presidential bid.

        1. From what I read about him Perot would have been a lousy President; he was used to giving orders, and running roughshod, not horse trading.

          1. Yep, I remember thinking that when he ran for President.

            IE He believed that he could “order” Congress to pass the Laws he wanted. [Frown]

          2. I don’t know, giving orders and running roughshod seems to be working all right for the current President.

            More seriously, I was going more on his habit of deciding what needed to be done, and then finding the right person to handle it and telling them to get it done. Which is I guess giving orders, I was just looking at it a different way, and figuring that his policies would not have been explicitly anti-business and anti-American. Oh and the fact that he was actually willing to go to the mat for people he considered “his.”

            1. What the Left allows a Liberal Left President to get away with and what they would allow a Nutjob Right President get away with are two different things.

        2. He’d be a horrible President.

          He’s never run anything bigger than an OR, and in the OR everyone is there for one reason only and is invested in a positive outcome. He can order people around to his hearts content and unless it’s egregiously wrong they’ll do what he says.

          As President? Good luck with that (Perot would have had the same problem, only worse).

        3. Carson would be better than any Dem, likely better than Jeb, but that is a toss up imho but even then, I still have him way, way down the list of wants and needs. I too don’t think he has a chance. He has some lacking area that will come out and he isn’t solid enough in other areas to convince enough folks to get him anywhere.

        4. re: Ben Carson — if he is serious about effecting political change he should abandon presidential ambitions (before he gets stuck in the Herman Cain trap) and run for the open senate seat coming up in Maryland. There’s a good chance he could win that, or at least force the Dems to spend a lot of money to maintain it. Either option does more to advance conservative governance than a Carson presidential campaign.

          Besides, as a senator he can give grandiloquent speeches and won’t have to do any actual work, a la John Kerry or half a hundred other senators.

          1. “Besides, as a senator he can give grandiloquent speeches and won’t have to do any actual work”

            And this is different than what our President does, how?

            1. A president appoints morons to the cabinet and the bench. A senator merely offers one voice in support or opposition of those appointments.

              A president can also call any IRS employee abusing the power of that institution on the carpet to punish or praise.

              1. You mean like the bureaucrats that Bush was able to dismiss with no obstacle from civil service rules or “whistleblower” laws? Oh, wait….

                One of the things that no one has addressed is the fact that the career bureaucracy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democrat Party… and that they write more of the legal code than Congress. They’ve also demonstrated rather conclusively that they’ll selectively enforce laws against conservatives.

                1. You did notice that I said nothing about dismissing, right?

                  A good manager knows there are ways other than firing to … motivate employees behaving in ways that reflect well on the enterprise Letting a Lois Lerner twist slowly and publicly in the wind (or even producing her emails promptly) sends a message throughout the bureaucracies.

                  But yes, there need to be steps taken to address the Civil Service. Foolishly, the GOP has been letting the Dems make the arguments for weakening or even abolishing the Hatch Act restrictions. One step would be making membership in government employee unions voluntary; another would be to bar campaign contributions from unions that exist solely as bargaining units for employees of the state.

                  Heck, I could see banning union contributions entirely as they are not germane to the representation entailed in collective bargaining. Unions could endorse candidates, sure, and could encourage members to contribute to and even work (on their own time) for political candidates. But there is no public interest served by allowing unions to have full-time political operatives on their staffs.

                  I would also require local unions to rely on their own staff for collective bargaining — no more bringing in professional negotiators working for the national union (and with no interests in the local community) representing the local in contract discussions with the poor clowns serving on the Podunk school board. That’s like putting the Harlem Globetrotters in against the Washington Generals.

                  1. I’m a little confused by what you’re saying here. You mention making membership in government employee unions voluntary. I’m pretty sure that federal jobs operate under right-to-work; union membership cannot be a condition of employment. Did you mean to discuss this as part of union reform at the state level? The mention of Hatch Act restrictions kinda muddied the waters for me, too.

                    1. If you are correct, when did this change? I was required to join the union when I took a seasonal job with the IRS (not quite 30 years ago, but still, I hadn’t heard of any such change).

                    3. Hmm… I suppose that could have been the case then, too. Given the amount of time, and the nature of the difference, I could easily have misremembered.

                    4. Technically you don’t have to join a union for federal employment(or employment by many states). State employee unions are a real mess, with each department in each state being different, (and some right to work states not having unions) with different unions and different regulations. But as far as I am aware a majority of them work just like most (I’m not saying all, because someone will come up with an example of one I’m unaware of) Federal unions. You don’t have to be a member, but you do have to pay the dues. It is your “choice” whether you join the union or not; but you don’t have a choice about paying the dues. Of course if you don’t join the union, the union doesn’t have to represent you if you have an issue.

                      If this sounds like a racket, and you are pretty sure you misunderstood what I wrote… you understood perfectly.

                    5. Of course if you don’t join the union, the union doesn’t have to represent you if you have an issue.

                      Worse, they can represent you when you don’t agree you have an issue.

                    7. Pretty standard stuff– usually employees not taking “benefits” they’re offered, which the union wanted them to take, so the union goes after the employer.

                      It’s so standard that my sister was informed that if she was one minute late to take her mandated break a second time, she’d be fired, because the union required that she take exactly five minutes on the hour in the break room.

                    8. “Worse, they can represent you when you don’t agree you have an issue.”

                      Oh, yeah, I didn’t mention that. Another example of that is for the union going to the employer (WA DOL) and insist they pay overtime, for any hours over 40 worked by the employee (a family member) rather than comp time that the employee preferred and both the employee and employer had agreed to.

                    10. It simply makes good sense. If one individual is allowed to make their own rules then it all falls apart. Taking comp time instead of overtime not only allows that individual to get longer vacations, it allows them to undercut the financial incentives to treat all employees, even the most diffident porn-surfers, equally. Allowing this sort of disparate treatment would encourage government employees to show initiative, to increase productivity in order to curry favorable treatment and to otherwise act in ways disruptive of the culture of the workplace.

                2. I’ve addressed it. That’s why handing power to the democrats for another ten years is a no no. And why third party solves nothing EVEN IF IT WINS.

      4. “Then there are nitwits like Ross Perot who apparently think POTUS is an entry level position.”

        Judging by Obama’s record pre-2008, it’s hard to argue a fair number of Democrats DON’T see it as an entry-level position.

        1. He had, at least, held an elective political office below the rank of President. OK, he didn’t do a lot. Since when do we want Presidents who do a lot?

          No, Obama’s lack of experience isn’t what scuttled him for me; it was his political background, plus the whole “Watch our candidate walk on water and revive the dead, and if you call this blasphemy you’re a Racistracistracist” vibe.

          1. We don’t want Presidents who do a lot. Or Congresses. Gridlock is designed into our system of governance. It is NOT a bug, it is a FEATURE!

            1. I remember back a few decades, people ragging on Ford because “He didn’t. Get anything done”. My answer was “He vetoed 48 bills passed by Congress, more than anyone since Eisenhower. More than any of his successors. Any President who vetoes everything that comes across his desk can’t be too bad”

              1. Of course he can. Don’t you know they evaluate politicians according to the poundage of their laws?

              3. Remember all the complaints about the 2010 republican house “not doing anything”. The idiots complaining about that never seemed to realize that that was what they were elected to do. I mean Obama was one of the leading complainers about them not doing anything. Of course they weren’t doing anything! The only thing they had the power to actually DO was the Liberals agenda. Otherwise the best they could manage was to throw a wrench in the gears and bring everything to halt; which was why I voted for them (and for some reason assumed it was why all those other Tea Party people voted for them also, at least all of them with half a brain). Apparently brains were an even rarer commodity than I thought however. And soon the Republicans caved and started “getting things done.”

                Now, however? Sure we may not have a veto proof majority in the Senate, but we have a clear majority in both houses, we still may not accomplish much more than throwing a wrench in the gears, but we could shift into reverse and make Obama have to use his veto to throw the wrench in the gears. Instead the spineless bastages are simply grabbing second and dumping the clutch.

                1. And the fact that the economy started to improve one the House stopped anything from being done is completely lost on them.

                2. Can’t DO anything??? Ask Trey Gowdy, ask Bob Corker, ask any of the committee chairs investigating the last six years of this (mal)administration what they can and can’t do!

                  It is a mistake to demand that a three-trailer rig stop on a dime as if it were a Miata — never forget that the sip of state is a Quinquereme (at best) with a large number of the oars rowing the opposite direction.

    2. In eighteenth century France burn it down eventually produced a populace that embraced an Emperor Napoleon.

        1. Yes.

          For those who wish more recent examples, the collapse in Russia gave opening to Lenin and the collapse in Germany gave opening to the National Socialists.

          The American Revolution was an anomaly.

            1. 😉 You do know I have a jones for the history of the founding — are you giving me permission to revisit and indulge? Oh, thank you. While I am at it can I pursue The Federalist Papers and their counterparts please?

            2. Yes. Of course, the big difference between the American Revolution and the others was that we weren’t a single nation at first.

              We were thirteen little countries that fought against control by Britain.

              It was our thirteen governments that fought and after Britain gave up, the thirteen government were still in “control”.

              Our problem was forming a government covering all thirteen of us.

              The Articles didn’t work out so we created our Constitution.

              Of course, some of our “governing class” seem to be ignoring the Constitution. [Frown]

              1. Of course, some of our “governing class” seem to be ignoring the Constitution. [Frown]

                Yes. Join you in frowning, adding a Col. Casey grunt from Chuck.

                1. Just remember that the document they’re ignoring is also the only thing that says we have to care what they think.

          2. If a Revolution is an overthrowing of the established power structure, then the American Revolution wasn’t one. They were trying to preserve the structures of self-gogernment taht had grown up during the period of England’s neglect. It was Fat George who was trying to change things.

            1. Yes and no.

              Do not factor out the actions of Parliament. Issues that had arisen the French and Indian Wars, with the expenses that fighting it had entailed and the enforcement of the treaties ending it, which England felt necessitated a greater consolidation of their rule in the colonies.

              1. Yep. George’s comments added “fuel to the fire” but the fire was started by Parliament.

                1. But my basic point, that the Colonists were fight change instead of fighting FOR change, stands. The history of revolutions in general makes more sense is you understand how non-standard the Americam revolution was.

                    1. It reminds me of a trope from the BBC quiz show Q. I.; the show,has pointed out (or claimed, anyway) that according to strict definition the Bayeux Tapestry isn’t a tapestry, and Stonehenge isn’t a henge.

                      Strictly speaking, the American Revolution wasn’t a revolution.

                    2. The British call it the American War for Independence.

                      Though their “Glorious Revolution” hardly gives them much standing to object to our usage.

                  2. “fight change instead of fighting FOR change … how non-standard the Americam revolution was”

                    The Glorious Revolution too. (So in the vicinity of the Industrial economic Revolution there is an interestingly high proportion of non-standard political Revolutions.)

                    2. Just make sure you get enough bottle water out there. I understand the desert is a bit dry, and all that crying uses up a lot of moisture…

                2. Don’t forget George III spent years prior to the Revolution packing Parliament as best he could with his cronies.

            2. One problem with a “burn it down and rebuild” strategy is that our opponents are more ruthless, less principled and possessed of greater will for power than are we.

              When you burn down the barn to rid it of rats, most of the rats flee and return once you’ve rebuilt. What we need is a terrier — and the support for Scott Walker is largely based upon the belief that is what he is.

                1. Unless, of course, you shoot as many as you can while they flee and rebuild for rat proofing. Shooting them while they have that structure they’ve infested for years to protect them doesn’t get very many.

                  1. A rat proofed barn? Sure — it would be a good place to store your perpetual motion machine and your straw-into-gold jenny.

                    1. What we design for and what we can get are two different things.

                      You are deliberately misconstruing what I am saying.

                    2. I prefer to think of it as pointing out the fundamental flaw in your logic especially since, in the circumstances under debate, what you’re advocating is burning down my barn as well, and promising a more rat resistant replacement without any description of how you expect to erect such a structure.

                    3. There is such a thing as a ‘rat-proofed barn’ but you have to take good care of the terriers.

      2. “In eighteenth century France burn it down eventually produced a populace that embraced an Emperor Napoleon.”

        The scary thing with that statement is that there are an awful lot of people (to include myself at times) who look at that and go, “well, Napoleon would be a heck of a lot better than what we got now.”

        Which if you really look at history isn’t true, Napoleon as a man and possibly as a leader (positively as a military leader) was superior to the Marxist in Chief we currently have, but the results of having an Emperor Napoleon were NOT “better than we got now.”

        1. It’s scary to listen to people on the Bar who want Tom Kratman’s Buckman.

          Especially when you realize that Tom Kratman considers Buckman’s “American Empire” a bad place to live.

              1. Sure it is, but those that want Buckman are looking at the current US and extrapolating, the comparison is getting less bad by the day. So they are calculating that in X number of years, if the current US continues on the path it is on, Buckman’s Empire will be less bad.

                Some days I even agree with them, but I would prefer to work towards a different alternative.

          2. While I got Tom’s permission to do Friends of Pat Buckman for President, I did not mean it seriously. I’m a fan, and I meant it as a fan.

            While I found Pat a very sympathetic character, what he does in destroying the constitution is unforgivable.

            Furthermore, I’ve recently realized how well Kratman portrays him as a Democrat. Politically, I am an enemy to all Democrats.

            Caliphate is warnings, and we may yet avoid them.

            Friends of Pat Buckman for President 2016.

  6. An argument can be made for the best and the brightest being pointed to political science, just so they can be in the positions that can really run the country — the bureaucrats, the administrators and the handlers. Isn’t that is part of how the progressives took over?

    That and taking over the schools of education, where those who will train of our future citizens are shaped.

    1. …and history, and law schools and gender/ethnic/religious studies. It’s like cancer except it runs the risk of killing us all instead of just one infected person.

      1. Religious studies at least have a place. It is good for the clergy to know their own theology, (and frankly important to know what the other guy’s saying too), but otherwise, yeah…

  8. Amen, Sarah! Thanks for the clarity. Sometimes we get so myopic at the loss of a couple of battles that we forget about entire campaigns we’re winning.
    1. Communication provided by the internet is breaking the stranglehold the left used to have on education. At no point in any of our lives have students had access to raw data that blatantly contradicts the Left’s manipulation than now. Nor have we seen the advances in conservative principles among students, or the progress of Second Amendment rights on campuses everywhere.
    2. Net Neutrality is going to be hit by massive lawsuits funded openly by the likes of ISPs with resources totalling in the TRILLIONS. Don’t count on it sticking around, and even if it does, the Left has declared war on Silicon Valley. This stuff is not going to end well for Dems OR RINOs.
    3. Obama has opened a massive rift between the Left and labor unions. You think we on the right are divided? Every year the Dems are having to choose between traditional socialist dogma and their own leadership demanding greater and greater zealotry. Look at the expansion of Right-to-work. The left is in full-blown civil WAR. They’ve already thrown White labor-class men under the bus. Now the women, the minorities and the QUILTBAG crowd are fighting to see who goes under the bus next (my guess? White women.). That’s why at the state level, we’re making huge gains.
    3. The left has lost the media. Why do you think they’re in mourning forJon Stewart? Because HE WAS ALL THEY HAD. MSNBC is looking at changing format, specifically AWAY FROM BEING LEFTIST, and CNN is looking to go into infotainment. Remember the 80’s with Fairness in Broadcasting? When Rush Limbaugh was the ONLY conservative media on the national stage? Yeah, the Left is SO swamped by blogs, radio shows, Fox news, podcasters, people like Sarah and Larry Correia and John C. Wright etc. Who’ve torn the arms off Leftist publishers and are beating it to death that ALL THEY HAVE TO REACH PEOPLE IS A GUY WHO PLAYS CLIPS OUT OF CONTEXT AND THEN PULLS FACES. And even HE doesn’t always worship at the altar of Obama every day.
    4. The left are losing schools. That’s why they’re fighting against charter schools and homeschooling. But we’re growing those and will soon see the rise of virtual elementary schools. We’re already seeing virtual high school classes. We are seeing more and more alternatives to indoctrination mills. They’re not circling the drain on this yet, but wait five or ten years.
    5. Even where they win big, they’re starting to lose. The NYPD went on strike last year! Leftists are aborting their minority voter bases out of existence, and things like stop-and-frisk are actually making minorities demand more than a token political recognition that they have equal rights. Blacks are openly telling Al Sharpton to take his rent-a-mob extortion scams and GET BENT. Union states are talking about going right-to-work so they can start competing with Red states for jobs so their kids will stop moving to free states.
    The Left has lost the media, they’ve just lost silicon valley, they’re alienating labor, Wall Street is becoming irrelevant, they’re losing academia, their minority voter bases are getting fed up…
    We’re WINNING. Let’s take what we can get in the White House, but focus our resources on completing the takeover of the GOP’s leadership. Congress is the most important thing for the next few election cycles. If they’re pro-Second Amendment, small government, pro-national defense and pro-states’ rights, then that’s good enough for me. If people in other states vote to legalize drugs and gay marriage at the state level, I’m all right with that as long as they let my state have its own laws the way it sees fit. Libertarians, Republicans, Conservatives and conservatarians have no reason to fight each other. Let’s take this party back. And then I want Jindal for President.

    1. I saw on the newsstand yesterday, Time or National Geographic magazine with the alarmist cover “THE WAR ON SCIENCE”.

      The leftists do seem to be in a fighting retreat….

    2. We aren’t Hercules, we don’t get to divert rivers. If we want to clean out the Augean Stables that is DC (including the GOP) we have no choice but to hold our noses and clean it one shovelful at a time.

      2. True. Burning down the stables is less labor-intensive in the short term, but in the long run, rebuilding the stables usually takes more work than just cleaning them up the hard way.

    3. Hah — their strategy worked against our win in the war in Vietnam, it worked against our victory in Iraq and they’re counting on it working here in America.

      Keep this in mind when arguing with them:
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=http://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2014/10/paranormal-politics.png&w=1484

      Republican war on science my butt. Evfer take a look at the twaddle the Dems want health insurance to cover? Release the second chakra, babe.

  9. Haven’t had my coffee this morning so I may be a bit harsh.

    IMO calls for a Third Party and/or calls for “burning it down” come across as “I want change NOW” which is childish.

    1. Exactly. Real and lasting change requires consistant hard work over the long haul.

    2. BINGO! It took the Liberal Intellectual Radical Progressives all of the 20th Century to bring matters to their present state. We aren’t going to shift that in one election cycle, or even three or five. Get in it for the long haul, and remember that they haven’t been having it all their way. Gun Control blew up on them early, and while they are fighting the trend furiously they are also losing.

      I’m sure other examples will come to mind.

    3. There’s also the short-sightedness of it. It’s always, “Well, I held my nose and voted, but everything didn’t get fixed like they said it would.” No, it didn’t all get fixed, and it WON’T all get fixed. There’s ALWAYS going to be something that you don’t like, but enough other people do, to have something in place that you want changed. But besides that, you can’t fix it in one election cycle, nor probably in FIVE election cycles. If you can’t see the gains that ARE being made, then maybe you aren’t looking hard enough (generic “you”, not you in particular, Paul).

      1. I agree with you, it isn’t going to be fixed in a couple of election cycles… but I must be the generic you, because I can’t see any gains being made. About the best we have done so far is force Obama to veto the Keystone pipeline. Which is good, but about the only time I have seen the Republicans show any spine at all, unless you consider standing up to those in their party who actually want to do what they promised in their campaigns, as showing spine.

          1. Be careful dear sir. If you followed what the present President promised you would realize that this is not always progress … as his wife assured us if elected her husband would fundamentally transform the country …

            1. Oh, nitpick. 😛

              Yes, I should have said, “Elected Conservatives”, but I’ve been in pain for two weeks. Sorry about that, I thought it was implied due to the direction this comment subthread was going.

        2. There are a TON of gains being made. Slowly. You have to have patience, Bearcat. And BTW, you made me gurgle with laughter, considering my BEST view is twenty years before we have this to a system I’d like to live in, calling my vision “rose colored”. Look, I come from the future if you hand this over to the dems for that long. Only worse. I based my Good Men “Stability” on Europe. Europe has enough bureaucracy to stop the change that IS happening here, say by adding 20%VAT on ebooks, which they’re doing now. By making it impossible to start business. By making innovators jump through hoops. Do you want to live in an immeserated Europe? No? Then I suggest we take over the GOP.

          2. Rome wasn’t built in a day. It’s taken a century and a half to dig this hole and if we refill it too quickly G-D alone knows what will get into the mix.

        3. Watch the march of the Second Amendment activists. The Left HATES the idea of an armed populace, but for the last couple of decades they have been losing ground steadily, at least in the U.S.. When I was a teenaged lout, it was simply assumed that by the year 2000, handguns would be banned in every State in the Union except maybe a few nowhere places like Montana. Most states are either “Must Issue” or do not require a permit for concealed carry.

          Then there’s the question of Marijuana. The LIRP left includes a lot of potheads, but in general they like having las on the books that they can selectively enforce. They’re losing that one.

          They are losing on other fronts, too. Slowly, I’ll admit. The Gun issue losses started slowly. Legalizing Marijuana was faster. Who knows what’s next.

          1. 2nd Amendment gains have been great in the states, and even to an extent in the Supreme Court (although the court upholding what in grade schooler with minimal reading comprehension can understand is only a gain when you have extremely pessimistic expectations). But I can’t say as I have seen many gains otherwise on the national front, in the last six years. Previous to that, oh yeah, we were making steady progress towards what the Constitution actually intended (the fact that we lost so much in the last hundred years, means that all the gains for the forseeable future are going to be simply recovering ground that we never should have lost, not actually new ground. They are nevertheless gains from our current position)

            1. other than the two huge gains of the USSC recognizing it as an individual right, and that it applies against the states?

              1. Didn’t I mention that in my comment? You know the part where I said the only gains on the national level were in the Supreme Court? And yes I count them as a gain, but really they weren’t much of a gain, they were more of a holding action, they simply upheld what the Constitution already said.

          2. The anti gun idjits having lost badly at the National level are now attacking at the state level. They’re implementing massive gun control on the west coast and New England in the hopes that it will spread into the heartland once their success is proven to make the people safer. And the fact that reality finds just the opposite is the true case can be managed through their control of the media. We do now truly live in two (or multiple) countries where simply stepping across a state border can turn one from an honest citizen into a felon.

            1. They’ve also figured out that they can just use the bureaucracy as a workaround. And as long as we have a Congress that throws away the power of the purse, they’re right.

                1. unless they find another magical ethnic president

                  That is what some are hoping to recreate by having the first woman President …

                    1. Thereby resulting in the ability of calling a double whammy of ists to shut down any uncomfortable challenges.

                      They are the party of recognized tokenism. I have considered that one reason they pilloried Governor Palin was as much to keep their own on the reservation. If she had been one of their own the attendance of a lesser educational institute would have been told as an overcoming story, and she would have been lauded for having connections to real people.

                    2. Yes, but she likes to ride evil snowmobiles. Why her whole family rides them, and two-strokes to boot!

                      Nothing can compensate for that type of Evil.

                    2. Mrs. Wilson’s served in a shadow Presidency, under a fiction that her husband was still entirely in charge. She was neither elected to the office or publicly acknowledged at the time.

        4. Everyone likes to point out Second Amendment gains, and they have been wonderful, no doubt. There is another area where the Progressives have been handed their hinies in paper bags that doesn’t get brought up so much. Remember the Seventies? When Hot Rod magazine talked about vans, because hot rodding had pretty much been shut down by emission laws? Have you checked out what going on now? 700 HP cars from the dealership. Programmers that use the emission technology to pull more horsepower out of a motor. Even with their three pronged attack, (emissions, fuel mileage and safety), the Progressives have been out maneuvered, out thought, and just plain beat. Even electric cars. Some of the electric dragsters are amazing. Don Garlits himself is working on an electric car. They lost, big time.

          1. Ultimately they always lose, because their belief system does not correspond in any meaningful way with reality. Their answer is always to control things from the top down rather than to seek technological solutions.
            BHO vetos Keystone and the greens celebrate, totally ignoring that the oil will now travel by rail at greater risk, and will end up in China where emission controls are a joke at best.

            1. BHO vetos Keystone and the greens celebrate, totally ignoring that the oil will now travel by rail at greater risk, and will end up in China where emission controls are a joke at best.

              gee, it is almost like they are being backed by shadow money from those who would benefit most from us not having a safe reliable pipeline.

          2. We’ve also got prototypes using lasers as fuel igniters, providing far more uniform burn that do spark plugs. LASER CARS! Whoo-hoo!

    4. Yep. We skulled out a strategy very like this, in early Tea Party organization meetings round and about 2009, 2010. We’d have to get active in local GOP orgs, put forward small-government, free-market Constitutionalists … and if they got corrupted once they got to Washington, then vote them out the next time around. We did not kid ourselves that it would be easy – it would be a long, hard, haul, and yes, there would be reversals. Combat Missionary’s blast of optimism is refreshing, though. I think our efforts to fight back are starting to bear fruit in small ways, imperceptible unless you are looking for them in your own field of expertise.

      1. You have to get elected to the lower spots first, like at the township/county level. Since my wife got elected as Township Clerk two years ago, we have gotten to know many of the republicans and democrats at this level in Will County. Most of the democrats are much more conservative than they think they are and most of the old republicans are much more lefty than most think they are. The conservative democrats are all union guys who stay in the party because that’s what their parents were and who the union bosses tell them to be. Most of the older republicans are the remnants of the old “progressive” wing of the party that liked big government.

      2. That’s the way to do it. That’s the way the Goldwater side did it, and it got us Reagan.

        Observe, by the way, that Reagan was elected twice by “Reagan Democrats”.

        Look, Masada was not a winning strategy. You want a winning strategy, find a way to get Reagan Democrats again.

        1. That’s one of the biggest reason I think Walker is our best shot. I think the lack of a degree will resonate with those of us in the trades who don’t have a degree but aren’t dumb and don’t particularly appreciate the attitude that only people with degrees are intelligent.

          We can probably sell Right-to-Work as a pro-union member reform. After all, if the union bosses can’t assume your membership, they’re going to have to earn it by offering real value for your dues.

          1. +1

            It is getting in many places so that the possession of a college degree is considered de facto proof of both an unwillingness to work, and a lack of at least common sense, and often also intelligence.

            1. One of my jobs is to tell the colleg-educated engineers when they aren’t following requirements. You’d be surprised (or maybe not) how much time and effort is spent on that. I even had to actually yell at one once.

              1. Considering how much time I have spent working with college-educated engineers, I definitely fall into the “maybe not” category.

                1. My (almost) college educated dual-engineer, the other day when I prevented him doing something stupid, “Mom, I’m an engineer. Test first, design later.” I’m ALMOST sure he was joking.

                  1. That is actually far superior to the more standard practice of, “I know it will work, I designed it myself. Why bother testing?”

                    I used to work for an Engineer (now retired), me and the guy I worked with used to cringe every time the boss would point to an old survey/set of engineered plans and utter his infamous words, “I know that’s right, I did it myself.” Every time we heard that we knew we were in for a series of headaches not only in trying to figure how he had come up with those particular figures (usually impossible) but how he managed to use those figures on paper, to decide to place this Here, on the ground (also usually impossible) how we were going to fix it (usually possible but sometimes difficult) and how we were going to explain to the boss why we needed to fix something he had done ‘right’ twenty years ago.

                    1. When I was still a temp at my current job I walked by a guy (not the designer) working on something and said “That won’t work designed like that”
                      “You don’t think so?”
                      “You’ll be lucky to get 10 minutes out of that before something breaks.”
                      “Well, it ran for 15 minutes once.”
                      “Really? How long is it supposed to run?”
                      “24 hours”
                      But the engineer just knew it should work. He designed it himself

                  2. I wish I agreed. OTOH, holding up a mirror so they can see that thalidomide baby of a project they threw together has provided me with a reasonable living.

                1. Usually I just have to say “this isn’t acceptable” and they change it. That time they argued with me.

          2. Got myself spun up thinking about the “right to work” thing.

            Some of the arguments against it…. aarrrgh.
            “So, you want to charge me because you have the exclusive right to negotiate what the contract will be, even though I don’t want you to do it for me, and I’m supposed to pay for this privilege? And in order to have a chance of influencing what you do, you want me to pay even more for political donations?!? Go screw yourself!”

      3. I’m an incurable optimist. That’s probably how I stuck around long enough to be an NCO. 😁

  10. The key is stopping voter fraud. And part of that problem is court decrees that stop the GOP from fighting it. Not being a lawyer, I can’t say whether a fast, deliberate, split of the party, with nearly all shifting to the new party would get the new party out from under that.

    Then again–dropping all pretense of seriousness–everyone deserting the GOP for the Dems and fighting to take them over would be fun-but-exhausting. The primaries would be “interesting.” I would expect a fast split into Red Dems and Blue Dems, with some surprising combinations.

    Okay, sorry, could not resist. Yes, I’ll be voting Republican no matter how bad the stench, because the prospects of another four or eight years of this horrify me. And speaking as a “Citizen of the World,” a rich, healthy 500lb gorilla named the United States of America is a very good thing for the rest of the world. Which is why I’m even more proud and give much more time, energy and money to being a citizen of the USA.

    1. I can’t say whether a fast, deliberate, split of the party, with nearly all shifting to the new party would get the new party out from under that.

      I’m unclear how you propose to bell that cat anyway.

    2. If you want to stop vote fraud, look into becoming a poll watcher for your area.

      1. Been there done that. What frustrates me is that MY area isn’t the problem, but see I can’t go work at the polls in some other state where there is a problem, nor can I go vote in some other state where we need to make a difference. Well I guess I could, but I guess I’ve got too much integrity for that.
        See I get really irritated, because I’m fairly satisfied with my reps, it is all those reps* from other places that I can’t affect that won’t do what I want.
        Everybody keeps suggesting things you can do, and they are right, but I have to depend on others doing those things, because they need doing in other places. I guess what I am saying is I feel impotent, which causes frustration, which causes me to get angry at the generic “you” in all the other places who won’t do your jobs and hold your reps accountable.
        *Not always, they have showed from spaghetti spine in a few instances lately, but they are better than 90% of the GOP.

    3. Perhaps a Soxth Column strategy is the best route. Don’t go 3rd party but infiltrate the lower ranks of the GOP (and the Dems, where practical) and organize so that at the proper moment the cloaks come off and a new party is announced (or the old establishment of the party is offered a choice between honorable retirements and lamppost decorating.)

  11. I’m wondering something here. It sounds silly, even to me, but hear me out. It’s definitely going to be a weird kind of a thing. I have no idea if it would work. It might backfire, but I still think it’s worth a shot.

    What if… The “studies” programs and so-called “social sciences” were invaded by some of our own? STOP LAUGHING. Think about it. Yes, such programs are currently under the control of whiny Leftist separatist propagandists BUT…

    What if they weren’t. Listen, we all know that women/blacks/Latinos, etc. have made contributions to our country and the world. I’m not taking that away at all. What if someone pointed out things like these:
    Yes, George Washington Carver was a great scientist BECAUSE HE WORKED TO BE ONE and not because of some damned government program.

    Some of the best units in US military history were segregated minority units BECAUSE THEY FOUGHT LIKE THEY HAD SOMETHING TO PROVE and not because they got special treatment due to their race.

    Susan B Anthony was a leader in the suffragette movement and eventually won her fight BECAUSE SHE FOUGHT AGAINST GOVERNMENT RESTRICTIONS and that it is only through emulating her example of limiting the power of the government in our lives that we can improve things for ourselves.

    Etc…

    It wouldn’t work overnight. Only God knows where we would find the people to teach them. But would it be possible to subvert the subverted? Would it make any difference?

    1. About George Washington Carver. It saddens me every time I look at all the progress freed slaves made from the end of the Civil War up until Woodrow Wilson. Hard working people making good lives for themselves, trying to become part of mainstream America. Then segregation happened, and it all seemed to fall apart.

              1. Hah! I win the most cold-hearted competition: I hope Wilson is in Heaven.

                A status which would require his full recognition and repentance of his transgressions.

            2. People have the cliched discussion about if you could go back in time, who would you kill? Most people come up with the cliched answer, which is Hitler. Myself, I’ve been thinking lately that if you strangled Wilson in the crib, you might well end up with all of the following:

              1.) Massive dent in the development of “progressivism” (i.e., socialism) in this country (it would have happened to a certain extent anyway, but it wouldn’t have gotten the big boost at an important time that Wilson’s election gave it.)
              2.) No Hitler.
              3.) No Soviets, Chicoms, North Koreans, etc.
              4.) Princeton would be a lot less influential and important than it is.

              Winning all around! 🙂 Of course, you might have to blow away Teddy while you’re at it to be absolutely sure, but at least he loved this country, unlike Woodrow.

              I do have to agree with those who argue that he was much more of a symptom than a cause with regards to race relations. Sadly, that was going to work out badly regardless of whether he was President or not.

      2. Sorry, but it wasn’t a case of Wilson came along then segregation happened. Segregation on state and private level was already old long before Wilson formally segregated the Federal government. Segregation existed on several levels, from a move among the freed slaves toward separate church congregations due to a desire for self-determination*, all the way to segregation by statute.

        It would be nice to lay the blame for segregation at the feet of one man. But it wasn’t Wilson who segregated railway cars, or who kept the military segregated until the 20th Century. The unhappy truth is that Wilson did nothing more than act according to prevailing opinion of the day.

        *This goes back to black congregations operating as an extension of white congregations, and laws that prevented the assembly of blacks without a white man present.

        2. In the late 1800s a shift occurred. I heard a radio interview with Laura Edwards when she was first promoting her book about the then little known Wilmington race riot. After the rampage, which cause the black citizens of Wilmington to flee into the swamps, the courts declared their properties as abandoned and ceased them.

          From the opening of the article on the riot in Wikki:

          The Wilmington coup d’etat of 1898, also known as the Wilmington massacre of 1898 or the Wilmington race riot of 1898, began in Wilmington, North Carolina on November 10, 1898 and continued for several days. It is considered a turning point in post- Reconstruction North Carolina politics. The event is credited as ushering in an era of severe racial segregation and disenfranchisement of African- Americans throughout the Southeastern United States. Laura Edwards wrote in Democracy Betrayed(2000), “What happened in Wilmington became an affirmation of white supremacy not just in that one city, but in the South and in the nation as a whole.”

          Originally described by European-Americans as a race riot (suggesting African-Americans were at fault), the events are now classified as a coup d’etat, as white Democratic Party insurgents overthrew the legitimately elected local government. A mob of nearly 2,000 men attacked the only black newspaper in the state, and persons and property in black neighborhoods, killing an estimated 15 to more than 60 victims.

  12. “Two thirds held firm. ”

    I’ll probably have more to say later, but this number is fundamentally unreliable, because the practice in the last decade has been to let people who are most at risk switch their votes to cover themselves with the rubes back home. Can’t look at any one vote. We all knew the fix was in when Boner and Mitch “Harry’s Bitch” McConnell threw away the power of the purse.

    At what point does “the long-term view” turn into Mr Micawber, hoping something will turn up? I’d say we’re there.

    1. I’ll have to agree with you. Maybe I’m just depressed, but I see Sarah’s post as her looking through rose colored glasses at reality. I don’t want to see it burn down, but I don’t think there is any way to stop it. A third party isn’t going to work, I believe she is right on that, but I just don’t see revitalizing the Repubs working either. Maybe it is just frustrating because I can’t feel like I am doing anything, my representatives actually are representing me (at least as much as any rep can be expected to agree with any individual out of the huge number that voted for him) and I don’t have any say in the hiring or firing of those spineless bootlickers that constantly carry water for the Democrats; because they aren’t from my state.

      On the other hand, when Boner was re-elected Speaker I lost respect for a lot more than a third of the Republican majority in the house. Yes I suspect he is being blackmailed (or possibly simply bought) but we had the opportunity to remove him, how many of those that refused to are being blackmailed? or bought? or agree with capitulation to the left, because their beliefs coincide with the left that they supposedly oppose?

      Okay, I’ve posted my gloom and doom for the day; now I’ll get off of her and get some work done.

      1. I see what is happening locally here in Utah, and it gives me some hope, because our wonderful, tea-party backed, independent congress critters are getting hammered for caving. Chris Stewart and Mia Love are both in real trouble if they can’t find a backbone, because no one is going to accept the excuse of “I could only do what was politically possible.”

  14. Sarah, you have more faith than I in our political system. The system turns good people into people who just want to hold onto their jobs. I find it depressing.

    1. That is the nature of ALL political positions. Yes our system used to be better, and will be again (I hope). But even now it is a marked improvement on most political systems throughout recorded history.

        1. Politicians who willingly surrender power are few and far between.
          One of the most amazing facts about George Washington to me was that he was offered kingship and turned it down.

          1. Yes Washington is referred to as the American Cinncinnatus. Why? because the last famous politician to willingly give up power was one Cincinnatus of Rome.. It happened in the 5th century BC. Two guys in over 2000 years. So few and far between doesn’t even begin to describe how rare it is. We were lucky (or perhaps more precisely blessed) to have such a man as our first president. Would that such a person could be found today. People of such integrity are almost unheard of.

            1. Oh, I can think of a third, but He was no politician (promising his followers they would be abused, libeled, slandered, tortured and generally unwelcome in this world — surely the most outrageous political promise of all time, but one which has been kept.)

  15. Exactly. By the time you get a third party up and running, the country will be a one-party state.

    But for the love of all that’s good and holy, don’t pick Jeb Bush. Pitting him against yet another Clinton will only make it worse. No dynasties.

    1. Same thing may be happening in Canada soon. Justin Trudeau is getting a media push to run for Prime Minister. For those who don’t know, his father Pierre Trudeau was *our* Obama.

      Yeah, that bad.

        1. So very soon we may have Bush vs. Clinton, with a Trudeau thrown in.

          Progress!

  16. A few thoughts:
    – It’s hard to change the federal government. Probably a better investment of time and money to change state government (and encourage the state to give up all federal “incentives”.)
    – I’d be more optimistic if I saw any sign of Congress being willing to fight. Even fighting and losing would be better, because it looks now like they are NOT fighting…and losing.
    – We have survived bad times before, and bad governance. However, I don’t recall a time when we had so much blatant disregard for the rule of law and the Constitution. I am very afraid we can’t survive that. All of the levers and protections and procedures we rely on are based on law. People are in a panic state because of the dangerous level of uncertainty–they want to do something to fix the problem, but nothing seems to work.
    – There is nowhere better to go. But the way things are shaping up, we are going to be Venezuela with toilet paper. Small consolation that the rest of the world is worse off.

    1. You said it much better than I, and if you get tired of beating your head against the wall trying to change your state government just head east. The gate’s not locked, but please shut it behind you, we don’t need all the bovines that are simply looking for a feed trough following you.

    2. One notes that when they cite people panicking about the times in the past, that
      1. Sometimes it really was that bad. Rome DID fall, after all.
      2. When it did not turn out too bad, the panic might easily be a factor leading to the good results.

        1. No, there are still Little Caesars around… I bought a pizza from one this week.

        2. Wasn’t one of the titles of the British monarch “Kaisar-i-Hind” (Caesar of India) until the 1947 Partition?

          1. The Confederate government of Missouri must have been at the bottom of the well, then.

              1. IIRC, the town where I went to high school was the last capital before they went to Arkansas. When I was little, Dad took me out and showed me the place where they ran the wheels off one of their cannon and had to bury it to keep it out of the hands of the Union troops.

  17. Now, it’s possible that out of all this a decent third party can coalesce. It’s even likely. A party based on strict constitutionalism and states’ rights.

    By the elections in 16? Don’t make me laugh. By 20? Unlikely. Maybe by fifty if we’re really good. A good part of those who are interested in the third party route are libertarian in fact or feeling and it’s a byword that “the individualists failed to organize.” The Libertarian Party has existed since the seventies, and they managed to drive me out – years ago – and I’m one of your broad church, tolerant types.

    May I suggest your timeline is exceptionally pessimistic. In American history there has been one successful third party. It went from its first convention to its first President in 6 years from 1854 to 1860. It was the Republican Party.

    How did it do this so quickly when all other attempts have failed? It did by seizing on an issue dividing one of the existing party and forming its core around sitting office holders of that party. This left a rump of “go along to get along and stay in office” types of that party, The Whigs, to wither on the vine.

    Why does that sound familiar?

    So, how is that different from the GOP?

    Remember that description.

    The hour is dire, the snow is deep, we’re backed into a small area and our movement is restricted. We don’t have enough food. Clothes have worn thin. (For which you might substitute the last six years have been difficult economically and the foreign situation is getting dire. Oh, and the culture sucks.) It seems like the war will go on forever. Small wonder then that, as in that bleak winter at Valley Forge, people are deserting, taking their kits, going home

    So, what happened at Valley Forge?

    A key thing was von Steuben’s drilling of the remaining army into a coherent force. They trained and drilled to prepare for the field. The results of this are noted in Wikipedia:

    On June 19, 1778, exactly six months after the soldiers arrival at Valley Forge, the tested army marched away from Valley Forge and retook Philadelphia. The Battle of Monmouth, which occurred on June 28, 1778, resulted in an indecisive victory, though Congress and many newspapers treated it as an American victory (since the British retreated and left the battlefield first). This result demonstrated that the colonists were now able to withstand a strong British army after the intense training at Valley Forge under von Steuben, boosting morale and improving Washington’s reputation as the Commander in Chief.

    Perhaps this is not the winter of Valley Forge but the spring where, instead of taking Philadelphia and winning Monmouth, the army which had drilled and trained and won record numbers of seats in Congress, was lead into retreat by its CinC.

    If Washington had lost, or worse given up, at Monmouth how would we look on Valley Forge today?

    Would the desertions have ended or increased?

    You know, I read all over the net, mostly in comments (and more on that later) that the GOP had gone spineless and they had funded Obama’s amnesty. So I went and looked at numbers. 1/3 of the GOP flipped. ONE THIRD.

    Two thirds held firm. And this on a matter that has emotional appeal to politicians if not to the people on the ground. You see, they are convinced if they vote against it will drive Latinos away from the GOP. It’s what the media and their corrupted offices tell them. It’s the “smart” opinion, as opposed to all us rubes on the ground.

    And two thirds held firm.

    You’d think it would be a moment to celebrate. You know, ten years ago half of them or more would have caved. But we’ve been working on taking over the GOP. And it has effects.

    Yes and at that rate we’ll get the GOP to vote as a unified group in 12-20 years. Until then the Democrats and the Democrat wing of the GOP will continue to drive policy.

    So, let me ask you:

    what do you think will happen? If you give democrats control of the country for another 12? 20? Years, what do you think will happen?

    Instead of waiting for the spineless leadership to die and allow those who will fight to dominate for another 12-20 years why not do exactly what the GOP did 161 years ago to be born. We need to work to get the men you mentioned and like-minded people to declare a new party. If we wanted to engage a sense of humor, history, and irony we could call them ‘Whigs’ given the original party did it as a way to mock ‘King’ Andrew Jackson who famously told the SCUS to enforce its own orders.

    I think separating out those members of the GOP willing to fight would recreate the birth of the GOP and bring change quicker than staying and trying to convert it. After a harsh winter of drilling and preparing we took the field only to have our leaders desert. Why should we remain loyal to those who continue to desert us instead of elevating to leadership those willing to fight?

    1. The Republicans weren’t a third party, they were a new second party formed after the Whigs imploded following the 1852 elections.

      1. I beg to differ. The Whig rump, under the name “Opposition Party” held a House plurality in 1854 with 100 seats of 234. The GOP remained an minority party until the elections of 1856. GOP candidates ran in 1854 as a third party.

        Also, I’m essentially arguing for the collapse of the GOP in the idea of those members of the GOP willing to fight leaving and starting a new Party in case that wasn’t obvious. I’ve worked and voted GOP since I could vote in 1986 and there is always an excuse why there are not enough GOP voters to change the country’s direction including the GOP having a majority in both Houses of Congress and the White House for four years. After this past week’s surrender I think GOP reform attempts are at best going to take as long as others claim a serious third party would (12-20 years) and at worst are a version of the sunk money fallacy.

        I won’t vote third party unless its core is sitting GOP office holders at state and federal levels like the original GOP but I have no faith that further GOP votes are anything but an expression that the GOP is “socialism tomorrow” instead of “socialism today” and that I won’t live long enough to see tomorrow.

        Believing anything else is the classic definition of insanity. We should have realized that in 2003 after Medicare Part D. It’s willful blindness to not see it now.

        2. Minor quibble: The Republican Party of 1860 was not a 3rd party. It was a 4th party:

          The United States had been divided during the 1850s on questions surrounding the expansion of slavery and the rights of slave owners. In 1860, these issues broke the Democratic Party into Northern and Southern factions, and a new Constitutional Union Party appeared. In the face of a divided opposition, the Republican Party, dominant in the North, secured a majority of the electoral votes, putting Abraham Lincoln in the White House with almost no support from the South.

          Thus sayeth Wiki, thus let it be known.

    2. I might be wrong, but wasn’t the Republican Party founded to oppose the Twin Pillars of Barbarism, Polygamy and Slavery? It’s a simple platform, hugely popular, and attracted enough votes to shatter the old Whigs.

      So if the same tact were taken, what could we use as our simple platform? Maybe Secure the Borders and Reduce the Bureaucracy?

    3. *sigh* The problem is that third party effectively only cannibalizes the GOP vote, which is what gave us Clinton in 1992.

      So yeah Herbn, let us form a third party, make sure we have another Clinton in the White House. I’m not convinced we can survive the next 12 to 20 years without a civil war should we elect a republican in two years, I’m damn sure we won’t survive another Clinton in the White House. Particularly not THAT Clinton. Bill was at least enough of a politician to know when to back down. Hillary is not.

      I’m as disgusted with the GOP as anyone, but third parties have been repeatedly shown to only harm the party from which they draw voters. It’s, just not workable, which anyone with the grasp of history you claim would know.

      1. I know…I mean when the fathers of the GOP left the Whigs they just split the minority party in two and had no success in displacing the party they broke off of…that’s why the Whig party has remained our second part for over a century now.

        By all means, we’re much better off saying “give us the majority to shrink government” and when we get it keep increasing the size of government.

        I’m not convinced we can survive the next 12 to 20 years without a civil war should we elect a republican in two years

        How would a Republican president somehow avert an upcoming civil war. What would he do that Reagan, Bush, and Bush didn’t do? Why do you believe he would do it when they didn’t? Why do you believe the GOP Congress would act with him when they didn’t with Bush?

        We keep electing Republicans over and over expecting them to change the country’s direction and, when they had all the elective branches, they couldn’t even stop the forward motion of socialism but added more.

        Yet somehow magically just electing them to keep spending and creating programs will stop the spread of socialism because Republican socialism isn’t icky like Democrat socialism or something.

        Yet I’m the clueless and delusional one.

        At least I’m voting GOP with my eyes open knowing I’m voting for the less of two socialisms and not kidding myself about how eventually the lesser of two socialism will become small l libertarian or something.

        1. Yes, you totally got me. When the GOP replaced the whigs we were exactly in the same situation. Now I know you’re an academic your arguments make more “sense” — in academic circles.

          1. Exactly? No, analogus? Yes.

            We had one party that supported a minority position yet somehow commanded a majority of the government. We had a minority party more interested in staying in office by getting along and going along than in changing direction.

            I’d say that’s pretty close to what we have now and have since Nixon’s “we are all Keyensians now” remark.

            And yes, I’m an academic in an ivory tower which is why I spend every night running complex market models to support a trading desk every morning.

            I’m not advocating a generic third party. Libertarians are a joke and the Constitution Party is worse. Claiming we can create something new out of whole cloth would be an academic viewpoint.

            I’m advocating taking a specific historical example where those interested in change removed themselves from a party more interested in power and replaced that party. It requires a lot of work not the least of which is convincing sitting office holders at the state level at a minimum and, I believe due to the 17th amendment, federal level to leave to form the new party including causing separately immediately upon its formation. It would require initial organizations in, at a minimum, every state where Romney won the electoral college in 2012 and would in all probability cede the WH in 2016 although I’m not convinced they would in 2020.

            It is not an easy task and I have no illusion it is. It would mean members of local parties encourage other local members to break off and form parallel committees. It would mean we’d have to get a whole new print run of Heinlein’s political book mentioned elsewhere in the thread as well as a whole new print run of “How to Win A Local Election” (less about organizing your party and more about specific races than Heinlein’s book but very valuable with insights on things as pedestrian as selecting colors for your signs). It would mean getting the election laws for your state and understanding ballot access and doing a lot of hard work (how I know the LP is a joke is how they never took advantage of when they got ballot access in CT in the 90s by failing to run a candidate). It means getting into political arguments and being called an academic, a loser, a dupe, a shill, and a dozen other things. It means watching Warren in 2016 and second guessing your decision to support the new Whigs (or whatever the party is called) instead of Jeb Bush. It means not only being considered evil by Democrats who tell you to your face your idea of the perfect nation is Mogadishu (yes, I know it is a city…they’re Dems, what do you expect) but also being called evil and maybe even fellow travellers by those nominally on your side. It means knocking on doors. It means running through another toner cartridge at home because even FedEx is closed and you still need 100 more fliers. It means standing for election locally even though this time you’re going to lose and even people who nominally want the same thing as you are going to treat you like dirt.

            However, looking at the monumental effort put into securing the GOP majorities we now have, having seen the depths to which the GOPe would sink to keep even a couple of non-approved candidates from winning primaries, and considering the speed of surrend this new majority has taken I think it would be effort better spent. I’ve proposed it other places and will continue even as I vote GOP in a run out the clock mindset because I’d rather vote to actually change course instead of slowing down enough to die first.

            I don’t have your first hand experience of revolution nor do I want to have it. Watching riots in Juarez while in HS was close enough thank you as was being tear gassed as a boot.

            I have, however, worked plenty of American political campaigns including some very hopeless ones (GOP Senate candidate in Connecticut in the Clinton era anyone). I’m much less afraid of that work.

            If we don’t change course we are at best 30 years out from riots when the EBT cards quit. My wife was working upscale grocery (Trader Joe’s) during 2013’s snafu and that scary enough. We live where we do in part because I want to be as far from the probably locus of those riots as I can and be near my job. I have no faith the GOP will avert them and a lot of faith the Dems will bring them closer.

            I figure I’ve got 25 years left as that would have me die the same age as my father and given I have what killed him plus a bad heart (which he didn’t) that seems reasonable, especially in the Obamacare era. I can run out the clock but I’d rather vote for actual change in direction. I remember promising at the bicentenial when they interviewed people who were alive for the Centential that I’d live to be one in 2076. I cannot concieve of making it to 109 but I’d like to know the country will. I don’t believe the GOP can do that.

            If that makes me academic, so be it. I’m just another ivory tower type.

            1. Sarah,
              Ah, now I understand your comment upthread about herbn. You know it is amazing, farther up in the comments he sounds sane and sensible. Almost like it is two people using the same login.

              2. Nope, same person (although, warning, IP change as I’m home and on my desktop). Interesting that here I’m merely expanding on the idea up thread yet somehow that makes me insane.

        2. This was before direct election of senators. Before television. Before rules about third parties in ballots, and even then they were soundly trounced the first election cycle they took part in. We can’t afford that. And Herbn (What do you have to gain by making us quit right now, Herbn? If everything burning is inevitable, why is it urgent we burn RIGHT NOW?) you’re comparing apples to space pineapples.

          2. This was before direct election of senators.

            I specifically addressed the 17th Amendment. That does make it much harder. With the Senate elected by state legislatures new parties could concentrate on smaller elections in more favorable environments their first year out (legislative and Congressional districts) and hope to impact both Houses of Congress. That’s why it would be imperative if following this example to get at least one Senator from at least half of the states Romney won to be part of the seed of the new party (remember, not starting from scratch).

            Before television

            And before the internet. I may be wrong but I think those cancel out.

            Before rules about third parties in ballots, and even then they were soundly trounced the first election cycle they took part in.

            This is an area where knowledge and effort can help. Remember, Perot got on every state ballot. It will require work and this is another reason you need that core of “right wing” GOP members to make a go of it (and why I would not support a generic 3rd party run even by Scott Walker without a broader framework). In most states (I want to say all but with my luck someone would find the exception) sitting officeholders have automatic ballot access. In many states either the gubernatorial or Presidental races define access for the next cycle. I’m going to discuss Connecticut because I am most familiar with their laws but most states are similar (some easier, some less restrictive) with the caveat I left there in 2006 so I may be out of date.

            Connecticut has three kinds of parties: major parties, minor parties, and petitioning parties although the last two overlap. To be a major party your candidate for governor must have received 20% of the vote in the last election meaning in theory you could have five major parties. The most I saw was three when Wiecker[sp] was governor and even then the Dems barely beat the threshold (I was so hoping they wouldn’t 🙂 ). Major parties have automatic access to all races.

            Minor parties are defined on a per office basis. If you candidate for an office received 1% of the vote in the last cycle you automatically have access for that office next time it comes up. This was where the LP proved they weren’t serious to me. In the early 90s they got a Senate candidate on the ballot (see petitioning below) and got over 1% of the vote. However, they couldn’t be bothered to run a candidate next cycle and lost it. A serious party would have gotten someone to fill out the form even if they couldn’t really run a campaign just to keep the line.

            Petitioning parties have not recieved 1% of the vote in the most recent race and must peition to get on the ballot. The petition count is eligible voters equal to 1% of the total votes cast last election. This is a pretty low threshold both in absolute terms and relative to other states (I consider it a reasonable one personally).

            1% is not hard and a GOP splinter would need to locate states with similar access and prioritize races there in districts generally ‘right wing’.

            Again, I don’t want you to think I have not thought a great deal about this or am under the illusion that this is a “split off the GOP to a triumphant return to former glory”. This is work in learning the nitty gritty of local politics, ballot access, and shoe leather campaigning. It wouldn’t be a hobby it would be a second job.

            and even then they were soundly trounced the first election cycle they took part in. We can’t afford that. And Herbn (What do you have to gain by making us quit right now, Herbn? If everything burning is inevitable, why is it urgent we burn RIGHT NOW?) you’re comparing apples to space pineapples.

            I disagree about us not being able to afford it. I believe the turn around time if we get the core elected officials as well as the local organization is a similar timeline to the GOP; 6 years although it might be 2024 for the WH because we’re already behind schedule for a 2020 contender (March 20th 1854 was the first usage of the term Republican…we could probably start 6 months later due to the internet age but I haven’t heard any rumblings about Crux, Lee, Walker, Kasich, or similar meeting with local party people about doing something like this and I think we’d hear rumblings from local party apperatous by now).

            However, based on your 2/3rds voted against the leadership (and assuming none were kabuki) I think we have at least 10 more years before the GOP is anything other than socialism tomorrow. They have all but declared they will save Obamacare and never repeal it (see the Senate subsidy plan to make them legal for just 18 months and check a calendar for when the renewal fight would be).

            I believe 6-8 years of Democrat socialism today is less dangerous than 10-15 years of Republican socialism tomorrow. I can respect you disagreeing with me but I don’t appreciate my disagreement on that assessment as being “burn it down right now” or being a false flag operation or being on the other side. As I said this is what I would support in a third party and nothing less. Barring this I’ll keep voting GOP although I’m out of the actual political work arena (although I’ll admit if the 2016 nomination isn’t decided before our primary, doubtful as it wasn’t last time, and Walker is still in and my proposed third party doesn’t exist as it probably won’t, I’ll probably do some work for Walker if he’s in).

            As for apples to space pineapples I think that’s a little harsh. How about apples to pears…both orchard fruits lacking a large stone and capable of being made into cider (or peary) and with similar textures but different in shape, color, and taste

    4. Albeit von Steuben training was helpful, the decision by Washington to change his tactics and run a war of posts had much to do with the US ultimately winning the war. The fact that Washington kept the Continental Army alive to fight another day time and again took a toll on the British willingness to continue the fight. That survival also helped convinced the French that it was worth providing something amounting to more than token support. And that support came just in time to provide Washington with his one great military victory, Yorktown.

      You have to keep it together so you can keep at it until things fall into place for victory.

      1. Re: Washington and hist tactics I would say the analogy still fails. This fight over DHS funding was another hopeless charge that ended in a retreat plenty of people predicted would happen when the Cromibus passed and we were told they’d really find over DHS funding.

        Promising to really fight, retreat, then promise to really fight next time is an on-going tactic for the GOP and needs to change. One, it is horrid for morale. Two , it cements an impression that the GOP will always fold not only in GOP ranks but in Dem ranks.

        If it is impossible to take direct action then the GOP should admit that and more one. One idea I pondered but just got me called a quitter as well, was once the budget was passed just have the House recess. The Senate could have proforma session in between nominations and meet in full only to vote on nominations. Barry had the power to recall the House, yes, but if it was for a non-issue they could just adjourn again.

        Really, beyond appointments and an operating budget what laws do we need today especially when the only ones we seem to be able to pass are those meeting Harry Reid’s approval.

        In fact, imagine two years with no new laws. Isn’t that pretty much the goal of most of us any way at a bare minimum. Yes, most of us would like fewer but everyone seems to be preaching incrementalism. So why not.

        Plus, could that be one of those famed teaching moments when, come 2016, the GOP could run on, “hey, we had no new laws in two years and the world didn’t end…maybe we could try two years with 1% fewer laws.”

        1. It was a discussion of elections and not individual bills, which is where this blog post started.

          As is mentioned by someone else, the process of assembling a bill is not so simple. Once the House and Senate have bills, then comes recocilliation.

          If you expect perfection out of people you expect what never was and never will be and you set yourself up for grave disappointment.

          1. I don’t expect perfection but I do expect leaders to have a plan.

            Yes, once the House and Senate have bills there is reconciliation although apparently, new wrinkle I learned in this, the minority can filibuster even forming the reconciliation committee.

            So, apparently the plan was House bill, force the Dems to filibuster, and then what? Nuclear option? Clearly not. So, force reconciliation? If that was it I would think that the ability to filibuster the reconciliation committee, while news to me, would not be news to McConnell and his deputies. Apparently it was because they had no plan to deal with that unless their plan was the clean House bill for the year.

            If the plan was House bill with funding limits passed to the Senate to filibuster, then Senate passing a clean bill followed by the House passing a clean bill what was the point?

            You roll out to fight knowing you’re going to retreat? To what end. It only demoralizes your forces and encourages the enemy.

            It was a discussion of elections and not individual bills, which is where this blog post started.

            Election choices are shaped by individual bills. In fact, I’d argue most bills which there are fights over have as much to do with the next election (or perhaps the previous one) as they do with governing.

            Right now fight and retreat for the GOP is very bad as it is reinforcing existing negative impressions among some of their supporters. A lot of us have been at this a long time and while some wouldn’t get an honest, “we can’t fight this one” many of us would. Hell, I can remember games worse than this such as in a budget fight with Reagan the Dems attaching all the budget bills he vetoed as riders to the continuing resolution to keep the government open. These round haven’t even been that shady.

            Yet every confrontation comes with a “we’ll fight next time” and when next time comes it gets repeated. They add up to people thinking leadership is feckless which leads to desires for a change and after enough time a change of party.

  18. I posted this on Sarah’s Facebook post. I post it here as well:

    “A third party is idocy. Complete and utter self-delusion.

    Where will the members of this 3rd party come from? Not the Democrats (maybe a few, but insignificant). They’ll come from the Republicans.

    So, a party which has approximately 1/2 of the voters in it is going to try to create another party and recruit members from the very party it left?

    How can that have ANY other result than two much smaller parties against a unified Democratic party?

    Further, why the impetus for the creation of the 3rd party anyway? It’s the “RINOs” in Washington. The “squishes.” Those who, too often, seem to “cave” to the Democrats. Those who, in the minds of self-styled “conservatives” can’t be distinguished from the Democrats to begin with. Those who seem only to crave their own position of power.

    Where do these 3rd party advocates think THEY’LL go? Will they just stay there in the greatly diminished Republican party? Or, will they go to the party which is comprised of people WHO HATE THEM and don’t want them, who just split the party BECAUSE of them? No, they’ll join the Democratic party.

    Lunacy. Sheer, unadultrated lunacy.”

  19. And two-thirds held firm

    Sarah, dear, this is known as Political Kabuki theater. Those two-thirds did not hold firm. They were allowed to vote against the measure as a sop to their constituents and to provide political cover for the craven excuse of a leadership that the Republicans have installed. Speaker Boehner knew that he had the votes to pass, so he gave some of the Republicans permission to make a symbolic vote against, with prior knowledge that it wouldn’t make the slightest bit of difference. If the Republicans really had two-thirds of their number that felt the way they voted, we wouldn’t have John “Spine of Jello” Boehner as the Speaker, we’d have someone with some integrity instead.

    1. No, more than one third is not just kabuki. Look, they have something on Boehner, but for people to be willing to vote against the “coming Latin tide” which they’re all convinced will then blackball them, it’s not JUST theater.

      1. Look, they have something on Boehner

        What they have on Boehner is in the end he agrees with them more than he agrees with us. It is that simple.

        Same for McConnell.

        1. That seems naive.

          Consider that Obama’s nominees strongly suggest that it isn’t in Obama’s character to work with anyone he doesn’t have a handle on.

          Those who entered national politics before he was in office might not have prepared themselves.

          National politics essentially requires one to be old enough to have children, grandchildren, or at least nieces and nephews. Young children are tremendous leverage on anyone who cares for them. People who’d say ‘go ahead and murder my kids’ likely have vices they can be blackmailed over.

          I gave this due consideration in my choices last election.

          Boehner, McConnell and Roberts can not be considered reliable attack dogs simply on demographic terms. They cannot have been prepared for Obama.

          Replacing every Republican predating the Obama administration with reliable attack dog might be a mistake if we ever end up with some Democrats that don’t deserve to be fought the way Churchill was willing to fight the Nazis. Metaphorically speaking.

          1. Replacing every Republican predating the Obama administration with reliable attack dog might be a mistake if we ever end up with some Democrats that don’t deserve to be fought the way Churchill was willing to fight the Nazis. Metaphorically speaking.

            Perhaps, but re-electing the Oxford Union who’d resovled not to fight in 1940 would be just as big a mistake.

            Which is a stronger analysis of our current leadership?

  20. What about a third, fourth, or fifth party for the Democrats? The fracture lines are already there.

    1. Much more true than for our side, but they have learned their lesson well. They hold their collective noses and vote along strict party lines, win, then carve up the spoils amongst themselves.

      1. You know, if we actual took spoils to carve up then maybe the GOP would hold together better.

        I know a lot of my anger this week isn’t just this week but 2003-2006 and feeling like believing last November that “this time will be different” was them fooling me twice.

        I’m not alone.

        Imagine what the GOP ranks might sound like if instead of Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind and record spending we’d gotten a Federal government even 2% smaller in absolute dollars in fiscal 2007 than it was in fiscal 2004 with one fewer cabinet department just from combining HHS and Education back together…not even killing a program just merging them back and taken the savings as an absolute reduction in spending.

        That would have been spoils we could have divied up.

        It didn’t happen just 12 short years ago…why should I think a GOP majority plus GOP President in 2017 would be any different. How does the 2/3rds that held firm provide me any hope that it would be?

        1. combining HHS and Education back together

          Ugh. Given what those two are like separately, I shudder to think what damage they could do together.

          1. Well, they were together until the late 70s. Were they doing more damage then? Pick whatever department you like. My broader point is the GOP Majority made no moves to shrink government. ZERO. There was not one fewer department (cabinet or otherwise) or program after a GOP majority in Congress with a GOP President than there was before. In fact there were more.

            Yet somehow the next GOP president will be magical and at least halt the trend of a growing and more intrusive federal government. Before 2003 that was a reasonable argument. After 2006 I want evidence before I believe they are anything more that “hey, this socialism is kinda fun but I don’t like driving this fast”.

            1. Yet somehow the next GOP president will be magical and at least halt the trend of a growing and more intrusive federal government.

              And there is one of the biggest problems that the GOP Reformers run into: people arguing against claims that were never made. It’s almost impossible that you will get even a halt in the first cycle, but things can be slowed down and other things can be redirected into better paths. Next time, if not too many people throw up their hands because everything didn’t get done when they “held their noses and voted”, then the NEXT iteration can possibly be brought in to do better. And the next, and the next…

              But instead we get people who A) won’t keep the heat on the Party to do what the electorate sent them to DC to do, B) get frustrated because it all doesn’t happen faster and either vote 3rd party or stay home, giving elections to the Dems, and/or C) start claiming that “Both sides are the same”, which will convince the borderline voters that it doesn’t matter, when really it does, if for no other reason than because the Media will dig into the Repubs sins FAR deeper than they will the Dems.

              2. And there is one of the biggest problems that the GOP Reformers run into: people arguing against claims that were never made.

                True or false: the GOP has run since 1980 at a minimum on reducing the size and scope of the federal government.

                True or false: During Reagan we were told he could not accomplish more because the GOP did not control Congress.

                True or false: During the 90s we were told we could not accomplish more because the GOP did not control the Presidency.

                True or false: From 2003 to 2006 the GOP controlled both Houses of Congress and the White House.

                True or false: Fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 2007 were record years for federal spending (since exceeded by Obama years).

                True or false: In 2003 a major new entitlement was enacted.

                True or false: All federal programs and departments present in 2003 were present in 2007.

                All are true. That’s your claim made and never fulfilled. Any analysis of GOP claims today by leaders where were present and at junior leadership positions in 2007 must include all of those facts.

                It’s almost impossible that you will get even a halt in the first cycle, but things can be slowed down and other things can be redirected into better paths.

                How is creating a new entitlement and setting new debt and spending records slowing things down or redirecting them into a better path?

                Yet I voted to re-elect those fools on the promise that next time will be better. I’ve stood by them through years of “we need give in here because next time it’ll be a fight we can win”.

                Guess what, next time never gets here because next time becomes this time and we need to wait until next time when we have the White House or the Senate or 60 Senators or 67 Senator or the press treats us fairly.

                I honestly believe the only counts in Congress that could generate GOP courage is 436 GOP House members and 101 GOP Senators. I think those numbers will be tough to get (won’t say impossible though because that would be too pessimistic, right).

                1. Gee, let’s see – lots of people were complacent back during the times you mentioned, and the President was NOT anything like a conservative, and anyone with some sense knew it. Yet he was, at the time, probably the only candidate viable to defeat the opposition.

                  Also, in the 90s, some major reforms were made that improved things radically, even though the Left now gives credit for such things as the Welfare Reform and the reduction in the deficit to Clinton, and denies that the GOP had any responsibility for it.

                  During the time that the GOP had control of both Houses of Congress and the Presidency, we also had a President who was trying to conduct two wars and still keep his position so that he could KEEP prosecuting the two wars, which would have turned out to be an even bigger disaster than it has since Obama was elected, if he had lost it to Kerry.

                  But instead of keeping the GOP lead in the House and Senate, by supporting them in the 2006 elections, a whole bunch of people bitched about how the two parties were the same, and either stayed home or voted third party, or some even voted Dem. So, you wonder why they won’t listen to us, if we show that when things don’t get done instantly, we will hand the majority to the opposition? And that all they do is to feather their own beds, instead of trying to do the job they were sent there to do? WHY? WHY SHOULD THEY DO ANYTHING DIFFERENT, if people act that way? Instead of working to replace the incumbent in the primaries, you just say, “Fuck it, it’s all shit” and stay home?

                  1. Also, in the 90s, some major reforms were made that improved things radically, even though the Left now gives credit for such things as the Welfare Reform and the reduction in the deficit to Clinton, and denies that the GOP had any responsibility for it.

                    I still credit Gingrich and wish the current leadership would not just study his years as Speaker but how he rose to Speaker from the back bench with his leadership of those who opposed the seating of Frank McCloskey in the 1984 elections. Even better if a GOP conservative back bencher studies it prior to 2016. Perhaps one of those who lead the vote against HR 240 is.

                    During the time that the GOP had control of both Houses of Congress and the Presidency, we also had a President who was trying to conduct two wars and still keep his position so that he could KEEP prosecuting the two wars, which would have turned out to be an even bigger disaster than it has since Obama was elected, if he had lost it to Kerry.

                    And this explains Medicare Part D how? As I’ve said repeatedly had that majority just not increased the size of the Federal government I would have some faith electing more Republicans would have meaning. However, not only did they pass a new entitlement they held a then record (and I think still record) vote on it while twisting GOP arms to get it passed. The effort they expended was the strongest effort I’ve seen by the GOP in decades.

                    For a new entitlement.

                    But instead of keeping the GOP lead in the House and Senate, by supporting them in the 2006 elections

                    And I didn’t nor did I when someone who can’t wait to insult voters like me got the nomination and then decided to tell me Obama was qualified to be President.

                    I sat out 2010 only in voting and then only because I was not eligible having moved in late October but up to the week before the move I campaigned for the GOP candidate in the place I was leaving (and Bill Flores won unseating the Democrat Chet Edwards…my second time helping replace a Democratic Congressman with a Republican, The first was Sam Gejdenson of potholder fame with Rob Simmons).

                    Instead of working to replace the incumbent in the primaries,

                    Done, seen how little it does and seen how often the GOP stabs primary winners in the back (and complains when the same happens to them).

                    This is not an “I’m mad because of last week” this is “I’ve watched for 30+ years and reached the conclusion that the GOP is damn near impervious to change.

        2. You know, if we actual took spoils to carve up then maybe the GOP would hold together better.

          Being responsible adults instead of thieving raiders is tough; news at 11.

          1. Please try to expand your thinking and analyze the metaphors. I gave examples that were not thieving but actually achieving goals the GOP pretends to want to achieve. Had we even done one or two of those with the majority 2003-2006 I’d be much more trusting of the majority now.

            Being responsible adults means doing what you said you’re going to do when you finally have the means. If you don’t the responsible adults quit trusting you.

              1. You didn’t say I was wrong in a very basic way. You said I wanted to engage in theft based on my using the word spoils. That my spoils of shrinking part of the government is theft left me to conclude you missed the point as that is the charitable interpretation.

                Interpreting your conclusion that my idea of spoils was a smaller government and thus theft seemed counter to your assumed political stance.

                1. Make up your mind– first I’m horrible because I can’t understand a metaphor, and then I’m horrible because rephrasing the bit about the spoils in an honest way was an accusation of what you wished to do.

                  Gets clearer and clearer that you just throw whatever you think will stick.
                  Utilitarian, in the short term. Not so good if you look further than “winning” in the short term.

                  1. How is your rephrasing of spoils in that context honest? I’m curious. Either you are misunderstanding me or I’m misunderstanding you.

                    This is my understanding of the exchange. I honestly want to know what I missed.

                    Uncle Lars: The Dems hold together better because they take spoils and carve them up.

                    Me: If we took spoils to carve up maybe we’d hold together better. I then gave an example of what I meant by spoils:

                    “we’d gotten a Federal government even 2% smaller in absolute dollars in fiscal 2007 than it was in fiscal 2004 with one fewer cabinet department just from combining HHS and Education back together…not even killing a program just merging them back and taken the savings as an absolute reduction in spending.

                    That would have been spoils we could have divied up.”

                    To me it is pretty clear that my idea of spoils was fulfilling to some degree the basic outline of GOP campaign promises since at least 1980: reducing the size and scope of the federal government.

                    You: Being responsible adults instead of thieving raiders is tough; news at 11.

                    I read your comment as spoils = being thieves. I honestly do not know how fulfilling a campaign promise and in doing so reducing the size of the federal government is being thieves. At the time I figured you either didn’t read it all and reacted to the first line or missed the metaphor.

                    In writing this I went back and looked and I think I was unclear in the way I structured what I said.

                    My intent was to suggest is that had the GOP in 2003-2006 reduced government in even a very minor way such as recombining HHS and Education back into HEW and merely taking the administrative savings as a reduction in the size of the budget that would have given long term GOP voters something to hang on to when the party had to compromise more heavily. It would be a spoil we could have divided up.

                    Isn’t doing what you campaigned on and, in the process, restoring a bit of sanity to the size and scope of the federal government when you are in the full majority being responsible adults? How is it being thieving raiders?

                    If reducing the federal government even slightly when a party is in full majority including the Presidency is being thieving raiders what is the legitimate way to reduce the size and scope of the federal government?

                    1. spoil
                      …
                      NOUN
                      (spoils)
                      goods stolen or taken forcibly from a person or place:
                      “the looters carried their spoils away”
                      synonyms: booty · loot · stolen goods · plunder · ill-gotten gains · haul · pickings · swag · boodle · benefits · advantages · perks · prize · perquisites
                      Powered by OxfordDictionaries · © Oxford University Press

                      Not going to try to “explain” things to you when you can’t be bothered to pay attention to what you say. You’re at the water, you drink.

                    1. Was pretty sure from the massive amount of text that managed to have little or no content, and the proliferation of emotion instead of reason.

                      Annoying only because it burns up time from those here who are nice and willing to assume that someone who argues like a lib is just ignorant, not some idiot lib who’s playacting.

          2. But the GOP AREN’T responsible adults, any more than the damned Democrats are. That’s the whole point we’re debating.

            2. No, it’s what some people keep asserting. Right along with yelling that they’re identical to the Dems.

              Constantly confusing “aren’t what I want” with “are incredibly terrible.”

            3. The fundamental problem with this argument is that it measures the GOP against an ideal — call it “the bear” — and finds the GOP falls short of that measure. But the fact is that the GOP is running against Democrats, a party which promises less freedom, less liberty and more dependence. The GOP is promising more freedom, more liberty and more more independence.

              The GOP breaking their promises is still better than the Dems keeping theirs. There is NO credible 3rd party, there is no credible ideal party to erode the bureaucracy, there is no bear.

              Jim Butcher — ‘You don’t have to run faster than the bear to get away. You just have to run faster than the guy next to you.’

      2. Oh, the opportunities are there. Time didn’t permit a Letter to the Editor immediately after the Netanyahu debacle. A simple, “It’s your party and your business, but doesn’t anyone have a problem with its opposition to Jews?”

        Frankly, I’d be tickled if by some miracle the Democrats veered toward a more conservative stance. It would give the GOP competition, and that will affect more change than anything else.

        1. And if they don’t, the punishment for runaway slaves is swift.

          Speak up against Obama’s Iran sellout one week, get indicted the next.

            1. That is one of those things someone else pointed out up stream…the dems tend to stay together, even with the fractures. In part it is this very reason. Step out of line and they always have something on you to break you, or snap you back in line.

    2. Something interesting going on in Chicago: Hillary and Obama’s pal Rahm Emanuel appears likely to lose a runoff against utter Communist Jesus “Chuy” Garcia.

  21. “The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.”
    – George Washington

    We weren’t supposed to have “parties”. Let alone factions.

    Third party will happen. And one of the other parties will dissolve. Whigs being an example of this.

    1. No matter how we struggle against them, our political system produces two and only two political parties. For decades, each one tried to portray the other as illegitimate, but it never worked.

      The one time we had one (when Madison was elected, I believe), it shortly fissioned. The one time we had a thirty-party rise to prominence, it killed off one of the existing ones. And that was without primaries.

  22. I don’t want it all to burn down, but sometimes I fear it will.

    Not through political action, mind you; I sometimes dread a worldwide pandemic. There have been a few scary nibbles at the edges there—the primary one being an influenza that appeared in the Middle East last year that had a long incubation period, one of about a week. It got controlled relatively quickly, but that sort of thing is a doomsday scenario, given the high infectiousness of flu and its death rate for even the garden-variety virus.

    Connie Willis’ fictional Pandemic was based on the information she got from her epidemiologist daughter. I’d really hate for that scenario to be proven right.

      1. Yes. In the event of a pandemic, some really unpopular actions would have to be taken and taken quickly. It would be politically dangerous to take such actions, so you’d need to have a strong sense of integrity, a sense that is all too often absent in our political class—the one that says, “I accept the consequences for this necessary action.”

  23. I respectfully disagree. The GOP is lost to the base. They have sold us out, and will not stand up for anything.
    Yes, burning it down is going to be hard, many people will die.
    We are on course to a civil war. And it isn’t going to be pretty. The longer we wait, the bloodier it is going to be. What do you think will happen to all those illegal aliens when the camel’s back finally breaks? What do you think the Russians and Chinese will do?

    The people in office aren’t that smart, they don’t see the consequences and think that we are too stupid to do anything about it. And who knows, maybe they are right. But our government is no longer a government of laws, and the constitution no longer holds sway. If a GOP majority in both houses refuses to do anything, then the writing is on the wall. Continuing to vote for the GOP and expecting them to do anything different is foolish. Not all of them have sold us out, true, just most of them.

      1. They already are in charge. That’s the point. The only way they will stop being in charge is if we vote for people who will oppose them.
        And that is not the GOP. They’ve made that very clear for some time now. The only choice we have is to stop voting for the GOP and find a better party to vote for. Will it suck while this is going on? Not anymore than it is going to suck by us continuing to vote for people who will sell us out.

        2. The fallacy here is thinking that the Democrats or Republicans are in charge. The Narrative is in charge and it is driven by the Progressives controlling the culture.

          Until we change the meta the political will remain that government shutdowns, for whatever reason, are the GOP’s fault. Thus the Dems will effectively be in charge.

          1. I disagree, strongly.
            The government sets the narrative, more than the narrative sets the government.
            Clinton did it
            Regan did it
            Carter did it
            Nixon did it
            LBJ did it
            Kennedy did it

            1. No, the narrative defines what is possible for government. It undercut both Bushes, it defends Obama as it defended Bill Clinton (e.g., crediting him for the Congress’s balancing the budget) and they hated Reagan for his ability to counter their control of the narrative.

              The narrative is what elected Carter in the first place, brought down Nixon for “crimes” that were SOP under LBJ and JFK. If LBJ controlled the narrative, explain how he didn’t stand for re-election.

              If you think government controls the narrative you don’t understand what the narrative is.

    2. Civil war MAY happen, but it’s hardly inevitable. Many thought the US and USSR would “inevitably” nuke the world. In reality, when money ran out, the USSR just fell apart with a whimper and fell into the dustbin of history. There’s reason to think that’s happening now. In a major economic catastrophe, things change. Henchmen don’t hench for free, you know.

  24. To me the bottom line is simply this:
    The “I can’t hold my nose, I’ll just stay home” crowd put BHO back in office in 2012. I can understand 2008. He was new and edgy and something different and packaged ever so well. Not to mention the darling of the media. But after four years the gloss had faded badly, his flaws were obvious to anyone not in complete denial. So simply by not participating in the process because they couldn’t get behind a rich Mormon the conservative base gave our “fearless leader” a second four year shot to destroy this once great nation.
    I will vote for whomever the Republicans put up in 2016 no matter how hard I have to clamp my nose shut. I hope and pray it’s Walker, but for our country as we know and love it to remain in existence we must at this point in time present a united front. Once we win we can then proceed to tear our elected officials a new one if they don’t behave themselves.

    1. If Romney was so opposed to Dear Leader’s programs why was he happy to treat other GOP candidates with the full viciousness politics requires but treated Dear Leader with kid gloves. His worst criticism of a man whose campaign accused him of indirect homocide was “he’s in over his head”.

      Romney treated Gingrich, Santorum, et al like enemies and Obama as a mistaken collegue.

      I had no faith a Romney admission would have reversed a single Obama domestic policy including Obamacare. I do believe he would have changed foreign policy but in the end a broke America can no more enforce the Pax Americia than an Obama run one can.

      I have no children so I can take a “who gives a flying f*ck” attitude about tomorrow. In fact, that’s how I justify to myself voting GOP…I believe I won’t live to see their socialism tomorrow but I would live to see Democrat socialism today.

      However, I can understand why people younger than me or people my age in better health don’t see a real different in socialism tomorrow versus today because they’ll live to see both.

      When the GOP leaders seem more interested in attacking those in their own party opposing socialism than those in the other party wanting faster socialism it’s hard to bother choosing which socialists to get behind.

      1. If Romney was so opposed to Dear Leader’s programs why was he happy to treat other GOP candidates with the full viciousness politics requires but treated Dear Leader with kid gloves. His worst criticism of a man whose campaign accused him of indirect homocide was “he’s in over his head”.

        Oh, for pity’s sake. It’s because Obama is black(ish). If he really tore Obama a new one, he would have been demonized even worse than he was, and he knew it, and there is really no defense against the cry of “Racist” when it’s the MSM doing it. He had to try to convince people basically that Obama just didn’t have the experience to do a good job, rather than trying to show just what a psycho nut-job that he really is.

        1. As if there were any way to avoid being demonized as racist. The only non-racist thing left is thinking blacks too stupid to get photo IDs.

            1. Yeah, if you get Palinized you still may not get elected; but you’ll have earned the respect (and most of their votes) of 35% of the population. As it is I have yet to talk to a single person since 2012 who respects Romney. Yes there are some in the media and national politics, like Ann Coulter, who purport to respect him, but I have never met them.

              1. Bearcat, I respect him. Look, I worked for his organization as a volunteer — it was completely infiltrated. Add to that that the media kept him in a cone of silence, except when they could lie about him, and he did okay. Better than just about anyone could. We need someone tougher.

                1. Fair enough, I voted for him, and even donated to his campaign; but didn’t respect him. He came across to me as an intelligent political whore; which I will hurriedly point out is not necessarily a bad thing. I would rather have a political whore ran by the party of my choosing in power than an ideologue, unless the ideologue agrees almost completely with me. And even then the ideologue isn’t truly the better choice, because he doesn’t actually represent his constituents, unless they all agree with me, which they obviously won’t.
                  I felt he would be a wishy-washy but acceptable president, precisely because he was intelligent enough to understand what his constituents wanted, and whorish enough to do what they wanted to the best of his ability in order to earn their votes for the next election. Which means we could have held his feet to the fire and actually gotten something accomplished.
                  But we truly do live in different worlds, because while I know many who voted for him, you are the first to admit to respecting him.

        3. Also I’ll point out Reagan treated Carter as a “slightly deluded well-intentioned colleague.” when he had to know the man was a traitor negotiating with the Russians. You don’t get people who voted for the idiot the first time to vote for you by rubbing their nose in it and saying “you perpetrated evil.” And this, this, is why any third party would be doomed. The people who wish to split, by and large want a new people, one that just acts according to pure reason.

          1. I’d point out Reagan also coined the 11th commandment, “Thou will not speak ill of other Republicans”.

            The contrast is as important as the content in isolation.

            I understand not declaring your oppenent scum in order to win voters over but why does that apply more to Democrat opponents in the general than to GOP opponents in the primary.

            And Reagan never encouraged Democrats to vote in GOP primaries to stop Bush in 1980.

        4. Opposing Obama is racist if you do it loudly or soto voce. If you’re going to do the time anyway might as well go all out.

        5. I’m curious to see what happens when some person pilloried for “racism” responds “so what?”

          I’m not say it will work, but the squawking should be entertaining.

          1. Perhaps a sacrificial candidate in the primaries, the designated Speaker of Truth, who doesn’t give a rat’s ass what the media says and is not expected to win? It would be interesting to see the public’s reaction (we already know what the media will do). Walker has a bit of that about him, but I’m thinking someone should be more belligerent. Ted Cruz comes to mind.

        6. Oh, for pity’s sake. It’s because Obama is black(ish). If he really tore Obama a new one, he would have been demonized even worse than he was, and he knew it, and there is really no defense against the cry of “Racist” when it’s the MSM doing it. He had to try to convince people basically that Obama just didn’t have the experience to do a good job, rather than trying to show just what a psycho nut-job that he really is.

          It’s more that the media (at the time, virtually a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Democratic party) was more than happy to play up R on R combat, while painting any attacks by Rs on Ds in as bad a light for the R as possible. That Obama was black just gave them a really easy defense, but anything would do.

          I only hope that the media has burned so much of their credibility that they can no longer mount an effective defense. They’re the real problem, or rather, that people believe them and use them as their source of news that’s the problem. Democratic scandals don’t happen because they’re never reported. Every Republican misstatement makes the news.

    2. Once we win we can then proceed to tear our elected officials a new one if they don’t behave themselves.

      How do you propose we do that and the same maintain a “You must vote GOP or Democrats” attitude? If the GOP backs Democrat policies we’re supposed to support them or we’ll get Democrat policies so we can’t punish them for supporting Democrat policies?

      1. I think that was pretty much spelled out in the post. If they don’t perform the way you want them to, you replace them IN THE PRIMARIES. And for Congresscritters, possibly by having recall votes, depending on whether they are declared legal or not (I seem to remember reading that some State tried to recall a Senator, but it was eventually decided that they could not do so).

        1. After all, Colorado did recall two state senators after they rammed an egregious anti gun bill into law.

          1. So? There will always be corrupt politicians. You take out as many as you can, each election cycle, and eventually they will be pared down to an annoyance, rather than a majority. By abandoning the field, all you do is make it easier for the corrupt ones to win.

            1. Feel free to do the work then. Like I said I voted GOP in all but one race last year (no GOP candidate so I wrote myself in instead of voting for the Democrat) but don’t expect me to put in more time walking door to door, more time in phone banks, more time standing at polls with signs (especially no more open to close as the only GOP outside working in a Democrat precint in a Democrat town in a Democrat state following by being an observer when the machines were opened and read[1]), and so on.

              I’m tired of being a loyal soldier following leaders afraid to fight, afraid to win, and when they do win giving the losing side what they wanted.

              I’ll pull the lever GOP to run out the clock but don’t ask me to share a delusion that I’m doing anything more than running out the clock.

              [1] Total tangent but why have we gone away from mechanical lever machines. I’ve worked with them and they’d be pretty much impossible to fake like paper or the stupid touchscreens. I guess it would be possible but the effort/reward ratio is so high it’s not worth it.

                1. I honestly don’t know. I wouldn’t have thought it was. Could it be because I’m on a portable hotspot? (I can’t post from work although I can read your blog…that’s why I rarely do as I read at work while stuff is running and have to drag out the personal laptop and hotspot to post).

                    1. Looking through browser and OS settings now…is one of the states at least Georgia.

                    2. Okay, poking around this is the best I can figure: googling my ip (which is constant regardless of the “what is my IP” website I use) it either shows up as somewhere in greater Atlanta (Lawrenceville, Stone Mountain, Forest Park) which makes sense because I live in Atlanta so I use it around town. The only other location I’m seeing is Rosenberg, Texas. While I don’t remember using it there I have used it in Greater Houston and up in College Station/Bryan, Texas (I have family in the later and travel through the former getting there).

                      I don’t know how you’re getting the IP or what states it is telling you I am in but that’s the best explanation I have. I’m not running anonymizing software. I’m not behind a proxy. I don’t have anything running on the laptop to disguise it.

                    3. I think the WordPress back-end shows the IP and “location” of all the users who comment. The location depends somewhat on the Internet provider. For example, when I’m at work, I probably show up as being in the Washington, DC vicinity, because that’s where our network is housed, but when I’m home, I think I used to show up as somewhere out west, because I had HughesNet, the Satellite internet provider. Now, I’m sure I show up as Cincinnati, because this location uses Cincinnati Bell.

                    4. Okay…I just don’t want our hostest to think I’m trying to hide who I am or where I’m from as I’m not. I was very surprised to find out my IP was maked.

        3. You mean like in MS 2014, where the response to that attempt was to call the reform candidate a racist and invite the Democrats to vote in the Republican primary to defeat him? That kind of primary?

          And that tactic is what Jeb Bush is basing his run for the nomination on. He figures he can kiss off the conservatives and still get the nomination by essentially making himself the Democrats backup candidate. And judging by what I’m seeing here and elsewhere, he’s right on the money.

      2. In this country we have this thing called primaries. We also have this thing called grass roots activism.
        I suggest you scare yourself up a copy of Heinlein’s “Take Back Your Government” which while a bit out of date still makes many valid points.

        1. Bought my first copy of the Heinlein book in 1992 and bought all I could afford to pass out to people around 1998.

          I’ve voted in pretty much every primary I’ve been eligible. I’ve worked both primary and general election campaigns.

          Don’t presume I don’t know what primaries are or how they work.

          I also watched two states over as the GOP, to save one of their own, brought in Democrat voters to win GOP primaries giving voters in that state a choice between a Democrat choosen candidate or a Democrat choosen candidate.

          I watched a man who did that in 2000 do it again in 2008 and be rewarded with the party’s nomination.

          I’ve also watched the same people who demand I support them when they won the primary desert the party when they lose from Richard Lugar to a variety of House candidates in NY.

          Again, when they can treat us as they wish while being assured of our complete loyalty how do we change them?

          1. Believe me I feel your pain. I was born and raised in downstate Illinois, a rural farming state dominated by arguably the most corrupt metropolitan city/county/machine that ever there was. Moved to Alabama in 1984 where I found corruption that often makes me homesick for Chitown.
            I know you’re tired. I know you’re frustrated. And you as do we all have every right to feel so. So, at least for you, it may be time to take a break and sit the fight out. But please, if the least spark of that old fire still exists, do march into that polling place in November of 2016 and cast your vote for the least onerous of the choices.
            As for me, I choose to borrow from Harry Harrison and be my own home grown version of a stainless steel rat, gnawing at the vitals of the powers that be, leaving tiny little rat turds for the lib/progs to trip over at every opportunity.
            While confrontation can sometimes be effective, mostly I prefer to simply ask the awkward question. If Keystone doesn’t go through, what happens to all that Canadian oil? If Colorado bans large capacity magazines how exactly do they enforce that when I can step across the line and buy them without any record? If x million illegals suddenly aren’t any more what will that really do to the job market and federal entitlement programs? And what pray tell will we have to do in a few years simply to pay the interest on a national debt of 18 going on 20 trillion dollars?
            That last truly scares the beJesus out of me. Someone casually remarked the other day that were the interest rates to return to their traditional average (not peak, AVERAGE!!!) the simple debt service on the government IOUs would eat every bit of our current discretionary budget. When a family or a company finds themselves in that pickle they file for bankruptcy. The US doesn’t have that option, certainly not without throwing the entire world into another greater depression.

            1. I know you’re tired. I know you’re frustrated. And you as do we all have every right to feel so. So, at least for you, it may be time to take a break and sit the fight out. But please, if the least spark of that old fire still exists, do march into that polling place in November of 2016 and cast your vote for the least onerous of the choices.

              First thank you for understanding this is real, long growing frustration and not that I’m a false flag or troll.

              Second, I’m not lying when I say I’m voting GOP on a run out the clock theory. I think the current GOP will keep the trains running (although in a less and less timely manner) longer than I have to live and the Dems won’t. It is what roused me to the pols in 2014 when I didn’t bother fixing a screwed up registration in 2012 (well that and there were actually races my vote would influence…my vote wasn’t going to affect the Presidential race or unseat John Lewis…now I’m in Tom Price’s district and he did vote against HR 240 so I was proud of that vote as did Senator Perdue who I also supported although he was my #3 choice in the primary).

              Just once I’d like to believe in my vote like I did as recently as 2002…well maybe 2000.

              That last truly scares the beJesus out of me. Someone casually remarked the other day that were the interest rates to return to their traditional average (not peak, AVERAGE!!!) the simple debt service on the government IOUs would eat every bit of our current discretionary budget.

              That is a worry. The financial modeling I do centers around forward interest rate curves and shocks and I look at some of the scenarios and they are scary. Even worse is the fact that the Fed has held rates down so long we’re coming up with new scenarios to try and guess what will happen when they allow them to move with the market again.

              That said my greatest fear (and after this people will tell me I’m crazy) is that I will live to see routine martyring of Christians in the US with at best government lack of interest. My biggest fear with an on-going Democrat majority would be a repeat of the worst persecution in the history of the church, that in the Soviet Union. I never thought I’d believe it but I suspect within 10 years a major corporation that is cozied up with the government (and my employer has) will have to have loyalty oaths to thinks like gay marriage…unofficial of course but open Christians who actually believe will constitute a hostile work environment.

              1. One of the few true things uttered by Mr. Obama was his fear and contempt for those of us who cling to our bibles and guns. They really do go hand in hand, much as near every Israeli has combat training and access to arms.
                The left keeps nibbling away at the Second Amendment for that very reason.
                As Christians we may very well have to assume low profiles, keep under cover. We’ve done it before, in Rome, in the USSR, and elsewhere. Might just be the incentive we need to bring us back together. Hope it doesn’t take that, but we shall see.

      3. That’s always the fatal flaw. The other one I never hear from folks like Uncle Lar is why the “100% loyalty oath to the GOP” is never applied to people like the Mike Castle supporters who campaigned and voted against O’Donnell, or any of a hundred other races in the last 10 years.

        2. Why, because they’re lying bastards. Remember their actions over their words and have faith that what goes around comes around.
          I never have and never will support 100% loyalty to anyone or any thing, excepting perhaps our sweet young Portagee, may the good Lord bless and keep her.
          What I will say is you picks your fights and apply leverage where it will do the most good. Sitting an election out because a candidate is less than you wished is in reality donating half a vote to the opposition. And that is exactly why we find ourselves today being sold down the river by a hateful evil red diaper baby raised a Muslim, trained by leftist thugs, and seasoned in the raw sewage of Chicago politics.
          When you cut off your nose to spite your face it’s you who have played the fool.

    3. I think there’s more to it than that. All the polls showed much greater enthusiasm for Romney than BHO. But the vote didn’t go the way of the enthusiasm. Why? Here’s what we know:

      * major media’s glaring bias (see, eg, Candy Crowley)
      * the repeated drumbeat that the only possible reason someone might not vote for BHO was racism
      * the major turn-out-the-vote operations of 2010 being actively suppressed by the IRS
      * outright voter fraud.

      I think the fourth was less important than, say, Sarah does, just because I was an election judge in the 70’s and don’t think there *could* be much more. But the other three add up to a massive voter suppression operation. No surprise that the Democrats were worried about voter suppression, they knew what was happening on their side.

      So, now, we’ve got a whole bunch of people saying Republicans should stay home again, or form a third party of ideological purity that necessarily will add up to the same thing.

      Orwell had the lovely phrase “objectively pro-Fasict”. It looks to me like the third-party thing is objectively pro-Progresive.