Taking impeachment “off the table”
Commenter “RickZ” wrote the following today:
We gave the RINOs the Senate in 2014, only to be told from the get-go that ”˜impeachment is off the table’. That was bad enough, but to give everything Choom Boy wanted was beyond the pale; President Give Iran The Bomb doesn’t even have to veto any bills, which speaks volumes about the eGOPs being ”˜an opposition party’.
I’m not highlighting that in order to pick on RickZ. In fact, I agree with him in many ways. Let me list a couple:
I don’t think the GOP has been aggressive enough in fighting Obama. I think both Boehner and McConnell are, if not RINOs exactly, then certainly lackluster and insufficiently motivated to take on either Obama or some of the big issues, both in their rhetoric and personalities and by action. I think much of their hesitancy comes from their desire to please big money donors, a desire shared by the vast majority of Congress. This is a political fact of life inherent in the fact that money is ordinarily needed to get elected and stay elected, and money has an attraction even beyond that.
That said, it’s not true that Obama hasn’t had to veto some bills. One bill that House and Senate did pass but Obama has vetoed was Keystone, a vote which occurred in February of 2015, just one month after the Republican Congress came to power. They were able to accomplish this feat of getting it to the president’s desk for the simple reason that the bill had enough Democratic support to get it past the 60-vote Senate threshold. The Republicans even tried to override Obama’s subsequent veto, although the attempt failed because they couldn’t get enough Democratic votes to reach 2/3. This would almost certainly be the fate of most override votes in this Congress, which doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be tried.
I’ve already said my piece on Corker-Menendez and explained why I think it helps fight the Iran deal rather than being some sort of deceptive kabuki theater that facilitates it. So here I’ll just add that Corker-Menendez is a bill that was passed by House and Senate, and which Obama would dearly have loved to veto. But he did not do so because he knew his veto would be easily overridden. Unfortunately, very few bills are going to get that degree of Democratic support, or even enough to pass the 60-vote threshold in the Senate.
Yesterday the House passed a bill that would withhold certain funds from sanctuary cities. Obama has already threatened to veto it, and his veto probably could not be overridden because of lack of enough crossover Democratic votes. This, unfortunately, would be the fate of most such bills with Obama in the White House. I don’t know whether the particular bill has enough Democratic votes in the Senate to get past the cloture rule—it would need six crossovers to reach the requisite 60 to stop cloture, and it would need seven more than that to override a veto.
And if McConnell were to change the Senate rules and say that suddenly they only needed a simple majority to pass bills there, it wouldn’t help to override a presidential veto anyway, which would still need a 2/3 vote. All that would happen is that the Republican Senate would have thrown away a rule and be subject to a huge amount of criticism in order to get more bills on Obama’s desk that he would then veto. Is it worth it?
Talk about kabuki theater! Yes, it would satisfy the angry conservative wing, but it would accomplish nothing other than paving the way for the Democrats. Why do I say that? Because in order for doing away with the 60-vote rule to actually accomplish anything in terms of legislation, a party has to have both a majority in the Senate (and House) and a president of the same party as that majority, so that bills won’t be vetoed. Historically speaking, the Democrats have been in that position since the FDR years far more often than the Republicans have.
Then there’s the other statement in RickZ’s comment. It goes like this: “We gave the RINOs the Senate in 2014, only to be told from the get-go that ”˜impeachment is off the table’.” I’ve read that sort of thing often, but it is in error, I believe. First of all there’s a simple timing error, which is that Boehner’s statement about impeachment was made before that election of 2014. The second error is a failure to take notice of why Boehner said it and what he actually said.
It was in the summer of 2014. The election would be occurring that November, and the Democrats were sounding the fear drumbeat of “If you elect a Republican Congress, they will impeach President Obama!” Democrats were trying to increase party turnout in the election, which they knew would be crucial for them, and also raise money for the campaign. That was the context of Boehner’s reply:
“It’s all a scam started by Democrats at the White House,” Boehner said at the weekly House GOP leadership press conference.
“This whole talk about impeachment is coming from the president’s own staff and coming from Democrats on Capitol Hill. Why? Because they’re trying to rally their own people to give money and show up in this year’s elections,” Boehner said…
“We have no plans to impeach the president. We have no future plans,” Boehner said.
Note the word “plans,” a well-known weasel word that means only “right now we are not actively planning to do it.” It isn’t any sort of promise to never do it. And not planning to do so was understandable because, without 2/3 of the Senate in order to convict, impeachment in the House would also be kabuki theater. The only effect it would have (other than to placate those conservatives who would enjoy the show) would be to rally support for Obama and the Democrats.
The Republican Congress has now been in session for seven months. You may think they are just playing along and pretending to stand for something, and perhaps you’re correct. I certainly see that possibility; I don’t trust them. But what I see is something a bit different: a Republican Party composed of some people like that and some who are devoted to conservative principles and trying their best, but stymied by a combination of factors, most importantly a president who will veto everything that comes to his desk that he dislikes unless Congress has the magic 2/3 to override, a total that is extremely hard to reach. Even if Congress’ GOP were composed of 100% principled conservatives (which of course it is not), they would still have to face this choice: do you pass bill after bill after bill that Obama will veto (and do it by jettisoning the 60 votes for cloture rule in the Senate) only to have Obama veto those bills? Is that really the best use of the limited time you have available to you?
Every time I write about this general topic I get accused of being a RINO myself, or of wanting to protect them, or of being insufficiently angry at them. I can assure you that I am none of these things (not that everyone will believe me). I have no particular party loyalty and I’m not even a member of the party. I didn’t leave one party to join another or to march in lockstep with them. I am angry that more has not been done; how could anyone not be? But when I look at the facts, I can’t deny them. This is the situation we face: less than 60 votes in the Senate and a president who has no reluctance whatsoever to use his veto pen if he needs to (although when Democrats controlled the Senate he didn’t need to), and a public that will probably turn on Republicans for any sort of government shutdown in response.
I think that the best use of conservative energy among the electorate would be to elect more conservatives to Congress. If conservatives can take over the leadership of the Republican Party in both houses of Congress, than you won’t have Boehner and McConnell to kick around any more. But whoever gets in there, the most helpful thing would be to also elect a Republican president, preferably a conservative. There are a lot of candidates to choose from who fit that description.
Let us count the ways (of obliteration). Demographic implosion, alien invasion, economic bankruptcy, financial corruption, a Christian heritage exiled, an historic heritage either dismissed or condemned, nihilism as would make even Nietzsche’s jawbone drop, and a general population whose sole/soul subsistence is a cocktail of rampant consumerism with with dashes of bitters, ennui/lassitude/malaise.
I realize the argument is a political one but can’t help thinking back on the Titanic. The ship is listing heavily to port, the hull has been breached, the cold dark ocean fills the lower decks and compartments… and the passengers are engaged in heated discussion over the next day’s activities and entertainment itinerary.
The next conservative president will benefit the country to about the same extent as the present Congress. He, like the little Dutch boy, will plug a few holes in the dike but unlike him he will not save the country – too many holes, too few fingers available (as most are engaged taking the measure of the prevailing gale).
My sources tell me that the Leftist alliance has near absolute power in DC through their mafia like organizations and disparate factions in their alliance charter. No Republican, with the exception of those with the ruthlessness to destroy the Left, can counter such leverage.
Does anyone have counter evidence available to them, to negate this state of affairs?
The Titanic was brought up before and I think it is a good example.
The hull had a tear alongside it, that allowed multiple simultaneous flooding of compartments. How did it get this tear? Because the captain or the helmsmen, decided that they could avoid an iceberg, even though they had late warning, by swerving away from it. That caused the ice to hit the hull at a glancing blow, and then tear through it much like an unsharpened steel can cut through objects (which I’ve done using just such an item). If they had merely “stayed the course” and rammed the iceberg, they would merely have either bounced off, gotten stuck in it like many other ships, and would have had more time to escape.
America, after having spent so long blind to the threat of the Left, has two choices now. Either go right through the enemy, staying the course, in Iraq. Or trying to avoid the ice, run away from the Left, and get your guts torn out.
Guess which one America decided.
Before suggesting what this Republican Congress could do, certain assertions should be made.
Millions of us do NOT ‘think’ that the GOP is “just playing along and pretending to stand for something”, rather their actions demonstrate far beyond reasonable doubt that “they are just playing along and pretending to stand for something”.
I for one have no doubt that you are not a RINO neo, nor even a bit inclined in that direction, much less motivated to protect them. I do think you have been reluctant to conclude that the GOP are effectively acting as collaborators with the democrats.
That said, here’s the problem with the majority Republican Congress’ failure to only send bills to Obama that stand a chance of passage; it supports, indeed it confirms, the democrats charge that the Republicans have nothing to offer and are simply the party of NO.
As for impeachment, Boehner and McConnell could repeatedly state that were democrats loyal to their oaths of office, to the Constitution and thus to the American people, democrats would have no choice but to call for Obama’s impeachment, just as Republicans were with Nixon. Then they could say that until democrats place loyalty to country above ideology, impeachment simply is “off the table”.
Republicans could be using their public positions to bring to the LIV’s attention to the real truths of Obama’s actions, rather than leaving it to conservative blogs. Such as holding press conferences bringing the public’s attention to an analysis conducted by the Texas Department of Public Safety, in which it was found that foreign aliens committed 611,234 unique crimes in Texas from 2008 to 2014, including 2,993 homicides and thousands of sexual assaults.
They could point out that while Trump paints with too broad a brush, democrats are ignoring mortal threats to American citizens.
Whatever the specifics and tactics, that the Republicans could do far, far more is inarguable. As is the fact that their failure to do so is, at the least a dereliction of duty and proof of their unfitness for the office they hold.
Ted Cruz says McConnell and Boehner’s positions and actions can be explained by them wanting to to stay on the right side of K Street money. That’s what they care about most by far.
There are two types of victories to be had: legislative and political. If you can’t get the former, then go for the latter.
That USED to be the plan, before McConnell’s Senate proved to be so spineless. It was obvious from the beginning that we didn’t have 67 votes, and that Democratic lockstep wouldn’t usually allow crossover votes.
No matter.
The point was to pass popular bills that Obama hated, have him veto them, then put Senate Democrats on the record as opposing the will of the people.
It was the exact opposite of Reid’s stealth campaign of never allowing a vote on a bill Dems didn’t want.
I trust I don’t need to explain how that would move the ball forward for our side.
And Ted Cruz just called out McConnell as a liar:
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/249076-cruz-accuses-mcconnell-of-lying-to-him-on-ex-im-bank
Fairly good evidence that McConnell is a weasel who will bend to Dems. We are screwed.
The RNC/GOP are guilty of cowardice in the face of the enemy. It is not up to us to worm through the details and look for legislative loopholes. That is their job. They cannot even emulate Reid’s obstructionism. The GOP quails at the thought it will be charged with shutting down the government. Gotta keep those checks a-coming to the hoi polloi. And if the rejoinder is, “the hoi polloi votes,” well, then either accept our present descent, or try to do something about it. If doing something fails, how are we worse off?
The GOP’s cowardice goes along the line of “I better not do it tomorrow, because it might be turned against me by the Other Guys (not The Enemy) next year.” Next year. Got it.
Trump is not being excessive. One does not mobilize others in their multitudes by being calm. Passion is required. Which is why Walker won’t make it. Trump is a battle axe; Carly is a razor-sharp stiletto. Cruz combines the best of both. We need all three. The rest are chaff.
This was great reading and helped me understand better a lot of what is going on. Publish every where you can!!!!
“The RNC/GOP are guilty of cowardice in the face of the enemy. It is not up to us to worm through the details and look for legislative loopholes.”
I find this whole attitude grows more tiresome and tedious with every passing nanosecond.
I blame the moronic GOP donors ….
We have not yet taken over the Republican Party. We are still only a wing of the GOP. However, we have become a larger wing in each of the last three elections. As long as that trend continues, there’s no need to blow it up. This is the long war. The emotionally satisfying sack-dances occur mostly on teams that don’t come near Super Bowls.
Pray that it be in time. But that may already be past. Either way, our job is the same: push one step farther.
I agree with Neo on this one as far as the legislation goes. I’m not sure who benefits from Cruz calling McConnell a liar on the floor of the Senate but I’m certain that it will hurt the conservatives much more than it will hurt left. Obama is probably chortling in glee.
The place where the Republicans are falling down is in the arena of ideas. The Democrats take a line and work it relentlessly and vociferously for years until they get their way. So far the Republican leadership has been scandalously silent about the conservative agenda. They should be yelling at the top of their voices about the massive corruption on the left and about the continued damage Obama and the Supreme Court have done to our country.
Dennis Says:
July 25th, 2015 at 9:01 am
The Republicans don’t speak out for limited Constitutional government and free-market capitalism because they don’t believe in those things.
Diagnosis by Matt Continetti:
http://freebeacon.com/columns/revenge-of-the-radical-middle/
Dennis: no offense, but where is the cave you’ve been living in?
Matt_SE:
Yes, I’m well aware that the point was to pass popular bills and have Obama veto them. I thought my post made it clear what the impediment is to that plan of action: many such bills can’t get to the floor for a vote in the Senate because that would need 60 votes, and not enough Democrats would cross over. I also explained what it would take to circumvent that, and why it may not be worth it; that’s why I discussed cloture at such great length. Therefore the only bills that have been passed that way so far have been the ones with fairly massive Democratic support, such as Keystone and Corker-Menendez.
Frog:
So, you say they can’t even emulate Reid’s obstructionism, and shut the government down? But Reid didn’t shut the government down. What Reid did was to decline to bring bills he didn’t like, and that Republicans had passed in the House, up for a vote in the Senate. The Republicans who control Senate and House are trying to bring bills up for a vote in the Senate, which is the exact opposite of that. There is no parallel.
Ass’t Village: actually the during the last election we elected almost all establishment approved candidates. And it wasn’t enough for them to use the primary process to crush conservative upstarts. Politico had a story this week that republican donors will go after sitting conservatives next time. Let that sink in. The Republican has a big problem, not the least of which is itself. There is a large group of social conservatives with a message that doesn’t appeal to a sizable majority of the country. And a large group of fiscal conservatives that can’t appeal even to it’s own members who don’t want their social security touched much less all those that now live in a country that will pay you not to work.
It’s a lose-lose situation for the most part and you can almost see why most of the establishment has given up and is only in politics to enrich themselves. The “hobbits” and “wacko-birds” are raining on their parade. This will not be allowed.
I wonder what a Ted Cruz v Bernie Sanders election would look like. Two fairly honest candidates making their case. That might be interesting. Instead we’ll probably get Bush v Clinton.
There are three things at work here, IMHO.
1. The power that lobbyists and big donors have over those in D.C. They would not have that power if the office holders did not care about re-election. Would term limits help? Maybe. Is it possible to get the lobby and big donor money out of politics? Yep, but not easy because the pols that profit from big donors and lobbyists would have to pass a law.
2. Mathematics. The number of votes required override a veto or to get a conviction after impeachment are not there. So why tilt at those windmills when the losing outcome is baked into the cake?
3. Fear of the MSM. The MSM said nothing about Reid’s tactics of burying bills that came to the Senate. Nary a word about running the government with continuing resolutions for five years rather than a budget as required by the Constitution. Yet, let the Rs shut down the government for a few days over budget issues and the administration immediately shuts down the most visible services they provide and the MSM savages the Rs to the extent that they are fearful of what it does to majority public opinion. Add to that the MSM’s ability to frame the narrative in a pro democrat way and an anti-R way – there is ample reason for the Rs to fear the MSM and the narrative. As long as the LIVs hold the key to elections (and they do) the MSM, where most LIVs get their info, will continue to be a source of fear for Rs.
It’s somewhat like playing a football game where the refs (the MSM) are paid to favor one side. The only answer I see is for more people like Rupert Murdoch to get involved in the MSM. Also, the Rs need to learn to use the alternative media (blogosphere, social media, reality TV, etc.) to spread their message.
Neo: “I think that the best use of conservative energy among the electorate would be to elect more conservatives to Congress. … But whoever gets in there, the most helpful thing would be to also elect a Republican president”
Once again, electoral focus is necessary but not sufficient, as the Tea Party example illustrated.
A limited focus on electoral politics, fixated on the GOP, was the fundamental error that undermined the Tea Party movement.
Be activist first, with electoral politics as a lesser included element. Electoral politics can be a rally point or jumping off point, but it can’t be center of gravity.
Eric:
I actually agree with you that there are several fronts on which to work, and that the activist one is key.
I should have amended what I wrote to read: “the best political use of conservative energy…”
Jimmy J: “the Rs need to learn to use the alternative media”
1 and 3 are primarily activist functional areas. 2 is secondary.
Again, with the quote as example, the GOP is being called on here to do tasks that are outside of its functional area, tasks that the greater Left does for the Democrats.
Except saying “does for the Democrats” is misleading because it’s really the Democrats acting as an instrument or agent doing for the greater Left under conditions crafted by the Left.
The solution is to actualize a greater Right that zealously competes to defeat the greater Left in head-on social cultural/political contest in order to seize control of the spectrum of social nodes, including (especially but not limited to) those you name in 1 and 3.
Like the Democrats follow the Left’s lead, the GOP will follow in its proper role once the Right has taken the lead and set the conditions.
As is, to assign the lead to elected politicians on tasks where only activists can lead is a self-defeating formula.
Lawfare, a tactic the left uses with almost absolute impunity (see: The Gaystapo and bakeries, pizzerias and wedding facilities). Just look at CA and the AG there going after the videographers of the PP videos, instead of investigating the ghouls of PP for trafficking in fetal body parts; the left did the same thing to O’Keefe when he went after Landrieu. Isn’t it funny how quickly that ‘heavily edited’ meme arose and was spouted by just about every liberal talking head in print and on air? Of course, 60 Minutes doing ambush interviews, then heavily editing those interviews for airing, is totes cool and worthy of awards. Making The Choomster answer impeachment charges will keep him and ValJarJar very busy, as there are enough charges that can be made, leaving him less time to continue to destroy America.
In my not so humble opinion, doing nothing to stop President Hissy Fit is the same thing as agreeing with what President If You Like Your Plan does.
As far as I’m concerned, the only opposition the Republican party fights is the TEA Party. Just witness how Orange Weepy and Yertle the Turtle have gone after conservatives. And don’t forget the eGOP victory in MS over a conservative candidate, and the lengths the eGOPs went to quash a conservative taking Cochran’s seat. And now the Republicans are upset at Trump going after fellow Republican presidential contenders, present or past, because we shouldn’t be fighting our own party? Bloody hypocrisy. But then, they are politicians.
The real problem with the Pubbies explained in one sentence. Kudos for brevity.
Oh, and my first ‘conversation starter’ highlighted comment. To paraphrase Sally Field winning the Oscar, “You read me! You really read me!”
1. The power that lobbyists and big donors have over those in D.C. They would not have that power if the office holders did not care about re-election.
You’re looking in the wrong area. Donors and lobbyists have power because of the corporate and bureaucratic alliance in DC, that never goes away, elections or no elections.
If the power of DC was less centralized and less omni present, lobbyists wouldn’t waste money there and big donors would use that cash for something more valuable, with a better rate of return.
I forgot to add a favorite saying of mine that I wrote: Acquiescence by silence is approval through fiat.
Those are our eGOPs: Approving Obama’s overreach by their very silence.
The GOP has learned its lesson: whenever it gets aggressive when fighting Obama, Obama just shuts down the federal government with a sequester, and everyone blames the Republicans for it because the media tells them to.
It’s really over as far as any attempt to change within the system goes.
Rick Z., one can stand on principle and lose or try to come up with strategy and tactics that actually win elections.
Reality: Those sheeple known as LIVs – about 20-30% of the electorate – are the votes that win elections. The LIVs get their information mostly from the MSM. That is why news and communications have to be major factors in trying to win elections. Unless of course, as many on both extremes seem to want, we dispense with elections and proceed to a bloody civil war to settle the issue.
We of a conservative bent are all frustrated. I also remember how frustrated I was back in 1979. The press and TV had already become left wing by then, but the “Great Communicator'” rolled over them. Electing a man like Reagan made all the difference. This country is like a Gulliver held down by the myriad threads of regulation and PC. Cut those threads and Gulliver will be up and running in no time. IMO, what has to be done is not to look like nattering nabobs of negativity (Hat tip to Agnew) as in being setting ourselves up to be labeled as the party of NO. Reagan’s gift was to communicate a positive message that went over the heads of the MSM. Under him the Republicans became the party of positive change and better possibilities. I understand if you disagree, as there are many disagreements within the ranks right now.
Personally, I suspect the only reason the media didn’t tar Reagan with the same brush they used on Nixon was because they were afraid he still had secrets that could send certain Hollywood personalities to jail. Once Nancy managed to assure her minders that Reagan was too far gone from Alzheimers to play that game, we got Iran/Contra.
Okay, tell me what winning the House in 2010 did for us TEA Party conservatives, the people who helped make that historic landslide possible? Tell me what winning the Senate in 2014 has done for us TEA Party conservatives? Harry McConnell, er Mitch Reid, has done what exactly that anywhere near correlates to the so-called Republican platform? The eGOPs have already announced they are going after TEA Party seats in 2016, just like they did with their lies in keeping Cochran seated in MS. It’s cute that you think eGOPs ‘winning’ will change anything.
RickZ:
The conservative wing of the GOP isn’t going to “get” much of anything if it doesn’t increase its numbers in Congress. So rather than give up and calling both parties identical, conservatives need to focus on winning more primaries and winning more elections. If their numbers don’t increase, of course the more “establishment” wing of the party will maintain control of the GOP in Congress.
I am often stunned by the ease with which many conservatives give up and cry “foul.” Politics IS foul. Get used to it.
I also am often stunned by the failure of many conservatives to be able to appreciate that, bad as the Republicans are, it would be a lot worse if the Democrats were in charge. Just because you don’t get what you want from the Republicans doesn’t mean that a Republican Congress isn’t doing some good. The good they are doing is this: if Democrats controlled Congress and Obama was in the White House, you’d see even more things like Obamacare being passed. The only limit is your imagination.
Oh, and by the way, I consider myself a conservative. But a practical one.
In case you missed it, the eGOPs are gunning for conservatives, being kicked off committees by both Boehner and McConnell. The MS debacle keeping Cochran safe is proof enough of eGOPs hating conservatives. What are conservatives supposed to do, fight the media, Dems and the eGOPs to have a chance to succeed? The Republicans are now Democrats, while the Democrats are now commies. Couple that prior sentence with LIVs only worrying about their taxpayer paid gravy train, how do you fix that with ‘more conservatives’? Even conservatives who win turn into eGOPs immediately upon entering Congress (see: Renee Ellmers [eGOP NC]).
At this point, Let. It. Burn. A good cleansing is the only thing left that will do any good. The Constitution is dead and buried, the Rule of Law now turned into social justice rule of the mob, and a media who should be reported on Dems’ campaign statements as advertising in kind. No bureaucrat suffers any penalty for their crimes, criminal prosecution or even getting fired, instead retiring and getting a nice taxpayer-paid pension.
Conservatives can and do win, yet still we lose. Why play that rigged game anymore?
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/27/gop-establishment-wages-war-against-cruz-and-conservative-voters/
I’m not the only one holding to the Let. It. Burn. philosophy. The outrage among the Pubbie base is palpable, but ignored by the eGOPs. No, they’ll focus on anything other than their own failures. For the eGOPs, being in office is winning, doing nothing while being in office is winning. I do not need that kind of ‘winning’.
RickZ:
Nothing will change—and nothing can change—until conservatives become the majority of the Republican Party, or until Republicans get more than 60 seats or even more than 2/3 of the seats in Congress, or win Congress and also have a conservative president.
Those are the facts as I’ve outlined them in post after post, at great length.
And what would be different if Republicans were not in charge of the Senate? Democrats would be passing an even more leftist agenda, that’s what, and Obama would be signing that agenda into law.
Letting it burn is a lovely way to vent rage. The rage is understandable, but “Let it Burn” is a form of suicide. Actually, it’s more than suicide, it’s more likely a suicide/homicide/mass murder. But it feels so good, doesn’t it?
I am virtually certain that every time a leftist reads a comment like yours, or sees a post like the one you linked at Breitbart, they have a little celebration. And rightly so. Who wouldn’t be happy about their enemy destroying itself?
Ever notice, also, how much the MSM plays up the betrayal of Republicans towards conservatives, and the turmoil in the GOP camp between the two wings? They would absolutely love for the anger and the “Let it Burn” mentality to continue.
That doesn’t mean your anger isn’t valid. But the answer—and I’m repeating myself—is to work to grow the conservative part of the party more and more, until it is in the driver’s seat. And stop screaming “but they won’t let us!” Yes, the “establishment” will fight it. Conservatives have to fight them, but the way to fight is not to “Let it Burn” and let the left win.
I already wrote a post today that touches briefly on this, here.
The only way Conservatives will get control of the eGOP Party is to leave the eGOP Party and form a new one. The Whigs died when they went full support for Democrat policies, specifically slavery. So the Republican Party was born. History can and will repeat itself with the demise of the eGOP Party as they are now full throated in their support of Dem polices (how’s that for some irony?). We need a Constitution Party. I’m hoping Trump gets sufficiently pissed at the eGOPs playing games this campaign season that he runs as an independent. He has my vote. And if that vote helps kill the eGOP Party, so much the better.
Let. It. Burn. is not only a venting of rage, as you state. There is also the fact that gun sales are still through the roof, that ammo shortages still routinely occur. America is preparing for war, a war that has been foisted upon us by the corrupt They the Government. You may not sense it, or even see it, but it’s out there. People know that we simply cannot continue on the path we are on. Welcome to the Revolution 2.0, where we hang traitorous eGOPs, Dems and the media with equal fervor.
RickZ:
To add to my comment above—
I note that you write ” What are conservatives supposed to do, fight the media, Dems and the eGOPs to have a chance to succeed?”
The answer is: yes, exactly. If you don’t have the energy and the guts to do that, and instead would rather complain that the world is against you and politics is nasty and unfair, and you’d rather the left won instead because you just like to watch the world burn, then I have to say it’s not an admirable stance.
See also this.
Oh, and good luck with that third-party stuff. My very strong sense is that it will never become a significant force, but will merely splinter the right and strengthen the left, as will all your suggestions.
Oh, and a timely cartoon:
http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/uploads/founding-fathers.jpg
neo, there’s no energy for such a losing fight. What was that definition of insanity again? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result? Shooting is a much better solution, and in that I am not kidding. Why do you think we have a 2nd Amendment in the first place? Jefferson said we should have a revolution every other generation or so; we’re multiple generations overdue now. But that’s extremist, right? If so, then good. Remember this old Jefferson chestnut? “When the People fear their Government, there is tyranny; when the Government fears the People, there is Liberty.” True back in the 18th Century and true today in the 21st. Time for removing our corrupt and tyrannical politicians by making them fear We the People with our 2nd Amendment politician hunting license, just as the Founders intended. Radical and extremist, just like Tom and George and the JM boys and Ben and . . . .
Pretty damn good company if you ask me.
RickZ:
No energy for a losing fight is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Sorry, I don’t buy it. I see a bunch of people without patience for the long haul, blaming everyone but themselves and doing something destructive as a result, and telling themselves they are like the Founding Fathers.
I don’t see the resemblance at all. We are talking about taking over a political party here, not freeing oneself from colonial rule. And I see nothing from the “Let it Burn” people that even remotely resembles the brilliance and wisdom of the Founders.
Anyone that plays the Left’s game, will lose. Politics is rigged, at a point beyond most people’s comprehension.
If the media is the obstacle, eliminate the media. People’s mistake is thinking that only a Supreme Leader like Ronald Reagan could bypass the media. What’s people excuse now a days with the internet? Lazyness or being old?
The Left’s viral design is very unique, much like HIV. It conquers a body by taking over the body’s own defense systems. Once those systems fall, you can no longer utilize those systems for what they were designed for. However, to combat the zombie cells or the virus itself, requires an organization, a defense network. One that cannot be corrupted or taken out by the IRS.
That is the challenge. However, successes have already been seen, apart from the Tea Party. They just aren’t political in nature.
If the media is the enemy, get rid of the media. Politics is like saying you will play by the Left’s rules.
When the British decided to seize munitions from Concord, this forced the hand of the colonial defense organizations. That’s because without the munitions, they have no way to resist the occupation forces if it came to blows, if diplomacy failed, as it already did in France.
The Democrats started up CW I because they foolishly thought the North were a bunch of abolitionist pansies that couldn’t fight a single battle against the Southern boys.
When the Tea Party formed to resist the Left, the IRS suppressed it using force, corruption, and violence. The Democrats that started CW I were the slave owning class, who were exempt from the draft and all military service. They couldn’t be killed, they weren’t even on the battlefield to begin with, except for some courageous exceptions like Nathan Bedford Forrest. The British regulars or mercenaries in Concord, well those could be reached. And the IRS? Can Americans reach the IRS?
It’s meaningless to expect brilliance out of the masses, when that brilliance came from 3% of the population back then. I don’t think it is necessary these days either, since we no longer are tied down to normal organization structures. It is possible to create an organization designed to destroy the Left, using merely de centralized forces. If this allows the Tea Party to fight the main battle line, then that is useful. Guerillas cannot hold the field on their own, but it’s not necessary that they do so.
It is true that the American patriot networks in the US are incredibly disorganized and many are under watch by the FBI for being veteran or patriotic/national organizations.
But the internet makes even a weakness like that into a virtue.
People don’t have a shogun, a general, a tactician, or a leader. What they need is a goal, something achievable, and not abstract like “winning elections” sometime in the future.
A concrete goal, such as forcing a reddit staffer to resign that hurts the Left. People know who the IRS people responsible for the hit on the Tea Party are. They know who is responsible. Politics is the game people play, when they don’t want to hold those people responsible. The Left has any number of ways to defend their people in politics. However, outside that set of rules, the sky is the limit.
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/249246-anti-abortion-hackers-claim-to-have-hit-planned-parenthood
There are plenty of true believers out there with the willpower and the capability to start subverting the Left. To say it can’t be done, is more like admitting that you can’t do it. Which may be true, but humanity is rather diverse.
Politics surrounds and hobbles the people’s power. But when people break out of politics and reject the rule of Demoncrats, they can accomplish what people call the impossible.