« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Conservatives, Not Liberals, Are the Problem

Our best allies in Congress are actually the problem these days. They have stood by while bad bills have passed into law. It’s true that they have fought courageously against bigger government, but it’s not enough to just oppose bad bills. Conservatives need to block them. And they have all the power they need to make that happen, despite being massively outnumbered.

Here’s what they need to do, and outside groups and the grassroots need to help them achieve it. It is time for conservatives in the House to take down a rule. It is time for conservative Senators to pledge to filibuster everything under the Sun.

Let’s start with the House first. Andy Roth of the Club for Growth wrote on Red State in early January that House Republicans need to take down a rule. Roth explained how the rule works.

Consideration of all legislation in the U.S. House is dictated by the Rules Committee (chaired by Rep. Pete Sessions). Before a bill is debated on the floor, the committee creates a rule for that bill. That rule establishes what amendments will be considered, how much time will be debated, etc. After the committee agrees on the rule, it is voted on by the entire House. If the rule passes, then the House debates the underlying bill. If the rule fails, then the bill goes nowhere. When Republican freshmen come to Washington for the first time every two years, House leadership immediately drills into their heads — “Always, always vote with the party on rules.” The substance of the underlying bill is irrelevant.

To put it simply, if you kill the rule, then you kill the bill. So it’s only logical that if you oppose the underlying legislation, you should also oppose any procedural votes that enable the bill’s final passage. But House conservatives support rules on bad bills all the time. This needs to stop.

As Andy Roth further explained:

In 2012, the House held recorded votes on 42 separate rules. They all passed with near unanimous support among Republicans (the average vote was 231-1). This included rules for the bloated Highway bill (232-2) and the big “fiscal cliff” tax increase (232-2). In fact, had House conservatives voted against these rules like they voted against the final passage of these bills, they would have blocked both plans from ever becoming law! This is why voting for a rule on a bill you oppose is like letting a thief into your home and then letting him steal all your stuff, despite your opposition. If you go back further in time, House conservatives could have blocked No Child Left Behind, the 2002 Farm Bill, the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit, and the 2011 debt deal – just to name a few — if only they had voted against the rules in the same way that they opposed those bills. It’s amazing, really. The conventional wisdom is that, unlike in the Senate, individual House members have very little power because they are merely 1 out of 435. But a small group of committed House conservatives can not only oppose bad legislation, they can BLOCK it from ever passing. For the 2013 legislative session, the power to block all bad legislation requires only 16 brave House Republicans.

So why do House conservatives support the rules on bad bills? Because leadership tells them to. And they fear that they will get punished for crossing leadership. But our allies need to be made aware that saving our country strongly outweighs preserving allegiance to leadership hacks. And we will be there to support them if they choose to fight.

Now let’s move onto the Senate. The fiscal cliff deal was cut without Senators having any opportunity to “read the bill.” Why didn’t one conservative Senator stand on the floor and say the words, “I object?” It is because they have not learned how to fight yet. When are Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) going to finally stand up to a leadership that is in the process of destroying the Republican brand? What are they waiting for? They need to filibuster everything in order to leverage the opportunity to amend bills and engage in extended debate.

Senators can filibuster all legislation until the Democrat and Republican leadership stop conspiring to pass bad legislation. Demand number one is to allow bills to be on the Senate floor for a few days and will a real opportunity for amendment. Also, conservatives need to demand of their own leadership a hard promise not to cave on gun control, tax hikes, the next debt limit, the CR and new spending programs. Conservatives need to filibuster until they are treated fairly by the Democrats and not stabbed in the back by their own leaderships deal cutting.

The Senate leadership laughed at Tea Party minded Senators when they cut a tax hiking fiscal cliff deal and dared conservatives to object. The House leadership dared Tea Party minded Representatives to take down the fiscal cliff deal. The Tea Party Members of Congress did nothing. Voting no on bills that hike taxes, increase borrowing, and increase spending is not enough. Conservatives demand action.

If conservatives in the House and Senate don’t step up and fight soon, maybe we need to rethink our love of those members. Voting no is not enough, because it shows that Conservatives are not willing to use all parliamentary tools to kill bad legislation. They need to stand up to Republican leadership as a means to save the Republican Party from establishment hacks who only care about their own next election and their Committee Chairmanship.

Call your House member and both Senators to specifically demand that the House member take down a rule and the Senators filibuster everything. Then come back to Red State and report back what members are saying. Specially target conservative offices so they get the message that they need to stand up to leadership and the establishment conservative media protecting them right now.

COMMENTS

  • oribasius

    Fighting for conservative principals didn’t cost us the white house. Poor candidates did. When we lose Missouri, it’s not because they disagreed with conservative principles. It’s because we ran a lousy candidate.

  • Viet71

    Message to Erick: Old news. You have been set upon by lefty bloggers.

    Would I could swat them away: swbn, rawisian, stewco

  • zollistar

    The estimable Angelo Codevilla, writing in Forbes.com, writes a compelling answer to the question “Has the Republican Party made orphans of us?”. Erick’s comments re: rules and fillibustering bring it to mind.

    Read it for yourself:
    ttp://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/02/20/as-country-club-republicans-link-up-with-the-democratic-ruling-class-millions-of-voters-are-orphaned/

  • red_oakster

    I agree, but I wonder sometimes at why Erick would use an incredible bully pulpit to decry the best of congressional conservatives. Erick, how about a little more time finding and showcasing a good challenger for Graham or Lamar Alexander and less time lecturing Ted Cruz and Mike Lee for insufficient ideological purity?

  • rawlsian

    If a ‘lefty blogger’ thought this was a bad idea for conservatives, should not they cheer on a captain steering the ship into the rocks? Is there any room for discussion about winning the longer game?

  • http://www.TerriersOfTheRight.blogspot.com Flagstaff

    Thank you, thank you, thank you, for this column. Our new conservatives need to start flexing their muscles. If they don’t eventually win, the Republican Party is dead anyway, and one reason these guys are our heroes is that we don’t yet believe they are in place to get rich, become fixtures, or support the status quo.

    If they go along to get along, they will be ignored by the old guard. If they exert some power, they have to be dealt with. Strangely, dealing with opposition is one thing our old guard is particularly bad at.

  • dmart81

    Defeatist

  • dmart81

    Grow a backbone

  • dmart81

    straighten out your spine

  • dmart81

    your back needs adjusting because it has gone limp

  • http://www.TerriersOfTheRight.blogspot.com Flagstaff

    Exactly right.

  • Mario

    There’s nothing wrong with a singular they in the absence of a known gender. I’ve been known to use the occasional themself.

  • rbdwiggins

    Abrogation of conservative principles for a “perceived” short-term political gain is a discussion without merit. Acquiescence must be dispatched with extreme prejudice.

  • Viet71

    Singular and plural, Mario.

    Just that simple.

  • gscandlen

    We will be called extremists as long as we oppose Obama (oh, and racists, too). Might as well do something useful. Not a penny gets spent if the House doesn’t approve it. So stop approving it.

  • Bill S

    You’re assuming that he’s on our side in the first place. That is not at all a foregone conclusion.

  • Bill S

    I believe he’s referring to Todd Akin. And it’s quite obvious that Akin didn’t affect the outcome of the POTUS race in Missouri, and there’s virtually no evidence other than idle speculation that it impacted the POTUS race anywhere else.

  • WY_Cowboy

    Yes. That is all.

  • General_Confusion

    Defeat at the polls because of fighting on principle?

    I guess 2010 didn’t happen. Are we conveniently forgetting the track record of “go along, get along” Republicans?

    Eric has a very sound idea. Our “leadership” has fled the field and in fact has worked to clear the way for the Democrats Statius push (by removing conservatives from important committees.)

    Further conservatives stand on VERY solid political ground. Are you honestly arguing that even a moderately articulate politician cannot explain that the current deficit, the level of borrowing and the ridiculous level of regulation is not sustainable? Even a voter with moderate math skills can easily understand what is going on and what must be done.

    Throwing a “monkey wrench” into the “go along, get along” machine will absolutely give an astute politician time in front of the cameras to explain why this insanity must stop. Even better the MSM won’t ignore that astute politician due to the Dems and RINO’s howling in protest at someone who dares to stand in the way of the ever growing government.

    Lastly I would argue that defeat at the polls is being fostered by the establishment Republicans war on their own base, their utter inaction and sadly cooperation with the Dems.

  • sjccoach

    It takes gut to do what you suggest. That is the one thing people on the hill lack.

  • libertywombat

    Long time reader, first time poster.

    So many people in these comments appear endlessly defeatist about potential backlash to this. I just don’t get it.

    What are the Democrats going to do, call us the “Party of No?” They’ve already done that. Ten thousand times. Did it work? Maybe? Not really? Kind of?

    It doesn’t matter. They’ve loaded up that cannon and fired it. Whatever effect that line once had has largely been spent.

    It’s not like voters are going to be sitting there at home listening to talking heads and thinking, “Well, I didn’t think the Republicans were obstructionist before but now that David Axelrod is on Meet the Press complaining about some complex piece of House rules they’re apparently exploiting, I totally buy it.”

  • General_Confusion

    “So we should just go along with everything because we’re cowards.”

    Otherwise known as the John Boehner strategy!

    Forward! … to the rear.

  • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

    And Edwin Newman is spinning in his grave.

  • zollistar

    I already posted this link; Dr. Codefilla asks the question: “Has the Republican Party made us orphans?”

    Decide for yourself.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/02/20/as-country-club-republicans-link-up-with-the-democratic-ruling-class-millions-of-voters-are-orphaned/

  • rbdwiggins

    Broken url…

  • JX12

    If they get defeated at the polls for having stood on principle, then so be it. At least they will have kept the wolves at bay for a little while longer, and their honor will remain intact.

    If, on the other hand, they sell us out in order to win elections, then their victories (assuming they manage to continue pulling them off) are worthless to us anyway. They may as well have lost if they’re going to vote like their democrat opponent would have voted.

  • obviously

    You’re right about the first part. Most Americans, even a good percentage of voters, don’t have a really clear idea of what’s going on in Washington most of the time. But it’s not because Republicans have been insufficiently articulate or because Obama has brainwashed voters. It’s just because most people don’t pay much attention to this stuff. Often their ideas about what should be done are contradictory or inadequate to the problems we face. Unfortunately there’s no easy solution to this. It’s just a function of democracy.

  • joshinca

    Do you think that voting to reduce the size of government is ultimately unpopular?

    I don’t and the best way for conservatives to gain power is by drawing sharp contrasts with progressives.

  • curtmilr

    The “average American” is wholly uninformed. The proverbial “low information voter”. They are led by the nose by the MSM because there are no conservative spokesmen cogently countering the MSM arguments on every channel.

    Conservative Republicans, but NOT all Republicans, are the ONLY ones presenting solutions to problems, not band-aids.

    If conservatives were not sent to Washington to FIGHT, what WERE they sent for? This go-along-to-get-along crap simply MUST end. If the leaders and senior members don’t get it, they should step aside, or be primaried and defeated!

    Sens. Lee, Rubio, & Cruz are the pattern for the future. Defeat the establishment RINO conservatives, and then stand up with clear voice and steel spine!

  • joshinca

    they need to use their speaking skills in front of the cameras to explain forcefully what they’ve done.
    That has been the weak link for republicans since Reagan.

  • obviously

    I don’t think Erick’s strategy is necessarily wrong, but I don’t think it’s automatically defeatist to question the wisdom of it. There are functional limits to what even a large, united group of legislators can accomplish. It’s obviously easier for them to block new laws than to pass them. But then you have issues like the budget, appropriations, etc. where a total blockade isn’t really an option (or at least isn’t inherently the best option). The point is you don’t just accrue leverage/influence for its own sake. You build it up so that someday you can use it to obtain what you want. Using procedural tricks is fine – it’s part of the system our framers desgined – but there has to be consideration of the end game and awareness of the political realities that stand in the way of getting there.

  • Bill S

    I think many here are misinterpreting what Erick is saying. He is not condemning our allies – Cruz, Lee, etc. He is (continuing to) condemn the spineless leaders such as McConnell and Boehner and exhorting the Cruz Conservatives to stand up against the McConnellite losership. His point is that we don’t need a large, united group. We need a few who are willing to stand up against these pseudo-conservatives. The opposition has to start somewhere. They need to stand up for principle instead of kow-towing to McConnell & co. because of a fear of losing committee seats.

  • Bill S

    Bingo.

  • 1stRichard

    Me thinks this is a recipe for the circular firing squad yet again. The only path that seems feasible would be to clearly articulate an alternative first, that is without shooting your self in the foot or catching foot in mouth disease. Given the media propaganda, this would require all hands on deck for this fight and another problem of getting everyone on the same page. Filibuster everything under the Sun, I think it could work but it would require a lot of planning and collaboration, thus the problem.

  • Tbone

    Who left this sack of scum in here?

  • General_Confusion

    The leadership has already played the “Die, die, die conservatives”
    card when they purged conservatives from the committees. At this point conservatives would simply be fighting back.

    The leadership has already thrown their lot in with the Democrats. There’s really no downside at this point to fighting the good fight for principle.

  • http://www.licgop.com licgop

    The problem with the budget fight is the majority of Americans really do not care if there is a deficit. We can thank Reagan for this BTW. While on the larger issue people will say the deficit is an issue when you get down to picking which programs, agencies and departments the public doesn’t support reduced spending. That is why I am all in for this guerilla warfare in Congress. Fiscal conservatives need to stop playing nice with the other side.

  • Samsara

    So should I call conservative Marco Rubio and ask him to filibuster his own imigration bill?

  • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

    Yes, welcome to RedState.com, a conservative blog and remedial English course for illiterate leftists . . . heh, heh.

  • General_Confusion

    Yes we need to fight this fight and, no; I don’t blame Reagan (the one guy who fought very hard to tame the beast) for some of public’s perception that the deficit does not matter.

    I suspect that a person’s proximity to the government teat is inversely proportional to their caring about the deficit.

  • Mario

    “When the English language gets in my way, I walk over it.”
    - Billy Sunday

  • plh

    Glad you took the plunge. Nothing they do should really matter to men or women of principle. Nothing at all.

  • plh

    I try to use “he or she” for the gender-not-specified third person singular; “they” is just wrong. Or is it just me?

  • rbdwiggins

    English is only offered as a minor. Degree courses are offered as a public service in a wide range of disciplines from a broad selection of “professors” in order to educate the victims of our failed government schools: US Constitution and Constitutional Law; US History and American Heritage; Conservative and Constitutional Principles; Civic, Moral and Personal Responsibility; Thermodynamics, Energy and Resource Development; Economic Development and Tax Reform; Budgets and Fiscal Responsibility…

  • rbdwiggins

    I really like that one…

  • rbdwiggins

    You’re not alone…

  • driveinkid

    Who are these “Conservatives” you speak of? The Republicans are running scared, Obama is beating them in the battle for hearts and minds. We can forget about them advancing the Conservative cause. Disengage and wait for the financial collapse. It will reduce your stress level. There is no way to stop what is coming so don’t fret about it.

  • libertywombat

    While I don’t disagree with the sentiment, I just feel like even the freakout over the potential political fallout is unwaranted.

  • joshinca

    Really?

    smbn•8 hours ago
    Seems like a recipe for further defeat at the polls.
    Everything should be voted on – if the American people dislike the outcome they will vote out the people who passed it.

    Bill SMod smbn•6 hours ago
    I’ve heard that before. From Democrats. “Up and down vote!!”

    Sounds to me like you think conservative positions would be unpopular if put to an up or down vote.

    Maybe I’m misunderstanding you on this.

  • joshinca

    I agree.

  • joshinca

    And if the financial collapse doesn’t happen immediately should we stay disengaged while the progs build tyranny?

  • joshinca

    I am one of those that interpretted tErick’s post differently than what you just laid out. Perhaps he should tighten his messaging since so many misinterpreted it.

  • http://www.licgop.com licgop

    ROFL @ your misguided belief Reagan attempted to tame the beast. President Reagan increase the number of non-military federal employees by 238,000. The great liberal Jimmy Carter increased it only by 8,000. Even the fiscal liberal George W. Bush increased it by only 53,000. And if you think for a moment that Reagan didn’t make running big deficits acceptable you haven’t been paying attention. Republicans stopped being serious about ending the deficit the moment Reagan was elected. Those years with Newt leading the House are an aberration. We all saw what happen once the GOP had control of both houses and the executive branch.

  • PowerToThePeople

    Not his job to solidify your reading comprehension.

  • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

    Zzzzzzz.

    The only way to change the way the current crop of Republican public servants act is to replace them.

    And the only way to replace them is to get conservatives to fill up all of the Republican Party precinct committeeman slots.

    Half of which are vacant, on average, in every locale.

    Erick, in your local GA district and county, how many precinct committeeman slots exist and how many are vacant?

    Can you do this kind of analysis?

    http://www.redstate.com/coldwarrior/2013/01/14/whats-the-republican-conservative-officer-count-on-your-county-committee-did-you-have-a-vote/

    Have you read “The Discovery of Freedom” by Rose Wilder Lane?

    The ONLY way to ensure that good, decent conservative people are elected is to make sure they are candidates. And after they are elected, there’s really no way to control them except by demonstrating to them that you can take them out in the next primary. And if they don’t care about that, then there’s really no way to control them.

    In other words, we must make sure we vet the candidates to ensure they are good and decent people.

    We need to get conservatives into Republican Party local precinct committeeman slots where they live. No?

    Can RS start to advocate this?

    Thank you.

    CW
    http://theprecinctproject.wordpress.com
    http://precinctproject.us

  • oribasius

    I was speaking of Akin.

  • davesinsanantonio

    Right now the real majority in the House is left of center—so-called moderate Republicans and the Democraps together are the majority. The so-called leadership of the Republican party is voting left of center. Hence, the votes tend to further the leftist agenda and not a conservative agenda. So, how will blocking those votes pull anything further left than it already is??? Maybe by blocking such votes the House conservatives will get the GOP leadership to negotiate with them instead of with the Dims. If not, then the upcoming primaries will be easier to get rid of the current “leadership”, who haven’t been leading, because they will be shown for their true colors to the voters back home.

  • The_Gadfly

    I’d even disagree with you there. The Dems run lots of lousy candidates who win. What they do differently is that once their guy wins the nomination mostly everybody backs him. And under no circumstances do they attack their candidate as someone who is out of touch with America. They might not fund him, but they won’t attack him.

  • Joe Cor

    I’m not saying any of this posting is wrong, but I think it needs to be explained more clearly. Is a supermajority in the House needed to pass rules for bills? If not, then how is opposing a rule any more effective than opposing the bill itself? How is it any more likely to “block” a bill than voting against the bill? If you don’t have the votes to block a bill, how do you have the votes to block its rules? Just wondering. At any rate, it seems ludicrous to vote for the rules of a bill if you oppose the bill itself. It does seem like a stunning inability to think outside the box.
    Likewise, I don’t see how conservatives can on their own block more bills by filibustering them. We saw with the Hagel vote that conservatives lack the numbers to muster a filibuster. I can see where they might try to filibuster more often because it creates a better political drama and political theater, and draws more attention to the badness of a bill. But how will this “block” a bad bill with Senate Republicans like McCain and Coburn and Graham who won’t go along?

  • The_Gadfly

    Stop blaming Reagan and blame the man who was really responsible. He went by the moniker Tip and his last name was O’Neil. You might also remember his staffer (chief of I think, but not certain) little Chrissy Matthews. Reagan needed the tax cuts. The price Tip extorted was the deficit. Reagan assumed that if he could starve the beast of money it would have to contract. Seemed logical at the time, but it hasn’t worked out that way. Well, not yet. It will eventually. Although at that point we might not have a country worth mentioning left.

  • davesinsanantonio

    No it has not! Conservatives have been able to speak their message. but the spineless wimpy Republicans, who only talk conservative to get elected/re-elected, are not able to talk clearly out of both sides of their mouths. Stop confusing them with real conservatives. The problem is often that the conservative message is ignored by the media in favor of more crap by the so-called moderates. As Viet71 said, conservatives “need to use their speaking skills in front of the cameras to explain forcefully” our positions. To do they they first need to do things that will get themselves in front of the cameras. One of those things is to block bad, even if popular, legislation. Just letting bad bills pass won’t get conservatives any media time at all.

  • The_Gadfly

    No, they need to post it to their websites, update their phone bank scripts, emphasize it at their constituent meetings, post it to social websites, and contact Drudge. Getting in front of the cameras is a waste of time. The people running those cameras will at best censor the message if they don’t outright lie about it.

    Otherwise I concur with you, and certainly concur with the intent of your ‘get in front of the cameras post: they need to successfully communicate with the public.

  • The_Gadfly

    We are interested in the longer game, not the short one. You’re the one misleading on all fronts.

  • The_Gadfly

    It’s not just you. Unfortunately most of the public has already surrendered to the language feminazis, and given that a singular ‘they’ seems less offensive than their preference for ‘s/he’ which is hard on the eyes. Hence most noobs will be unaware of proper usage.

  • davesinsanantonio

    Failing to fight for what is right is the same as supporting what is wrong!
    “All that is needed for the triumph of evil is for men of good will to do nothing”! — Edmund Burke

    If you sit out the fight you are just as wrong as those who are trying to destroy this country. Burying your head in the sand is NOT an effective strategy. Nor is hoping that the triumph of evil will somehow foster goodness in the future.

    And, as Joshinca indicates below—how long do we let evil reign until we fight it? Also, isn’t fighting evil once it has taken over much harder than keeping it from taking over in the first place??? Also, how much misery and pain will you bring about by letting evil win, even if you think it is temporary? If evil were to win out, how many years (decades? centuries?) do you honestly think it will be before we can overcome it?

    Here is something to chew on—If the economy collapses as you say, won’t Obummer just say he needs to stay in power to work on this “emergency”, and just cancel all future elections— via executive order if necessary. Won’t the wimps and lefties in Congress go along with him and agree to cancel elections because of the financial crisis? Won’t they then grant him emergency powers to abrogate the Bill of Rights? (Remember that even Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War!!!) First, they will confiscate the guns, then they will limit speech, then they will arrest their political enemies as dangerous dissidents, then they will cancel bail, and even trials, for political prisoners, etc., etc. The pattern has already been well established in the Twentieth Century by dictators of every stripe. Don’t even start to think it can’t happen here. It IS happening, and we must fight it NOW and not think we can just wave some magic wand in the future and “make it all better”.

  • davesinsanantonio

    A single filibuster may not always work. But, any filibuster delays all other bills as well as the one in question. So, a string of filibusters, even if all of them are eventually clotured, will limit the amount of damage Congress can do, because only a limited number of bills will ever get passed. And, if we filibuster enough of them long enough, eventually the public will want to know what is going on, and then we can begin to get the message out to them.

  • Joe Cor

    So it appears that what we are talking about here is not “blocking” bills in the Senate but slowing them down. That appears to be the case in the House as well. That is an excellent idea, making it as long and difficult as possible to make bad bills into bad laws, but that is not the same thin as “blocking” them.

  • Bill S

    That has exactly zero to do with “voting to reduce the size of government”. The topic of this diary is whether conservatives should attempt to put a stop to unreasonable legislation by voting against rules or using a filibuster. Don’t attempt to move the goalposts and turn it into a specific policy issue OR put words in my mouth, because in either case the outcome won’t be good.

  • dstarke

    There are no small government conservatives in leadership in Congress. If they find themselves concerned about the sequester, they obviously have no stomach for the real cuts necessary to limit government growth, much less cut government to an appropriate size.

    The sequester doesn’t cut anything, it merely slows growth. The leadership has already bought the main premise of progressives, that government budgets should naturally increase by baseline budgeting (when we get a budget at all).

  • joshinca

    Nice.
    If it was just me, you might have a point.
    But it’s not, so you don’t.

  • PowerToThePeople

    Just because you are a part of a group who is unable to comprehend simple English and meaning, does not mean the Author needs to do anything different nor is it his job to dummy down his writing just so you and the group you belong to are able to understand. Considering the few who can not understand his meaning, would not be too quick to announce you are a part of that crowd.

  • Bill S

    What we have here is a hypersensitivity to criticism. Conservatives seem to think that there is some sort of written or unwritten law that exempts them from being subject to examination. The “circular firing squad” blather comes up repeatedly. Should we instead wear blinders that prevent us from seeing our own flaws? Are guys like Lee and Cruz perfect and beyond improvement?

    The obvious answer to this is “no.” We criticize the Republican so-called leadership because they don’t lead – they are led by the nose by Democrats. If your reading left you unable to note the focus on GOP “leadership” (he refers to them no fewer than TEN times, and in a negative way in each of those occurrences)…then you do indeed have issues, as PttP notes.

    This is a call to action and another well-deserved slam against the McConnellites. If ten mentions of leadership incompetency escapes you, then I suspect you fall into the crowd who saw Cruz, Lee and Rand Paul mentioned and got their panties in a wad because Erick DARED to suggest maybe they’re not doing it completely right.

  • Finrod

    If Republican leadership starts cooperating with Democrats in the rules process, then the mask will have finally slipped once and for all.

  • gentlecynic

    Agreed. While I respect the point being made here. I don’t think blocking bills from a vote is “leadership”. it’s gamesmanship.

  • PowerToThePeople

    Exactly Bill, a person or politician can be a good guy/gal, can have the right desire, can be doing a ton of good things, but if they are missing out on doing it completely right, they need to hear it.

    Guys like Cruz want to do the right thing, they want to stand on the promises they made, and they are trying. But voting no is not enough and they may think it is. They may not know there are other avenues and I can guarantee that a man like Cruz wants to hear from us, wants to hear what we want him to do, and would want to know he is missing out on effective tactics that can slow down or stop the socialist attack. Why do I know that, because he has shown so far he is intent on doing the right thing and keeping his word to conservatives.

  • paco12348

    We have people not serving in office but known as the establishment Repub that select the candidates they want for President and all other offices up for grabs. I can tell you now, anyone Rove pushes WILL NOT GET MY VOTE. The Republicans treat all of us like the Democrats treat their Black Bloc, too dumb to select their own candidate. I mute Rove every time his face comes on tv. I’ve watched him LIE and DENY dissing the Delaware candidate several years ago and I was sick of him mouthing Romney “was the only one electable”. NO MORE! I know he’ll push Rubio so I refuse to vote for Rubio. I think he’s too young and untested anyway.
    I still remember when Gingrich surged ahead in the Primaries and the Repub. Estab. came out against him. (Rove, Dole, Coburn and others.) I just want the custards to stay the heck out of our Primaries. We’re NOT DUMB LIKE THE DEMS! If we were, Carl Rove would run for President.

  • General_Confusion

    Nine reps. dare to cross the “leadership” by voting against the rule. Civil War threatened by leadership if they don’t fall in line and be Dem-lite.

    In Closed-Door Meeting, Cantor Warned of ‘Civil War’
    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/341825/closed-door-meeting-cantor-warned-civil-war-katrina-trinko

  • robertdavidhummel

    The OBSTRUCTOR in CHIEF OBAMA and his many APPOINTED CZARS and Secretaries in his Cabinet… have managed to create a mountain out of a mole hill crisis, and have wreaked enough havoc in the last 1400 days without a BUDGET… and .Need to have some Quiet Time and apply some PSP…. PSP is not a drug …..it is a responsible, accountable, recourse/proceedure TO SOLVE, SOLVE, SOLVE a PROBLEM.

    I learned the Problem Solving Process(PSP), in the military and the 1st, step was to IDENTIFY that there is a Problem…HOWEVER…PLEASE NOTE; A ACCOUNTABLE LEADER will apply his/her SKILLS IN ADVANCE to PREVENT a Problem…Since Obama has proven INEPT at LEADERSHIP SKILLS….HIS FAILED LEADERSHIP ….HAS CREATED; “THE PROBLEM of Sequestration”. ….the 2nd; step is to “SOLVE”, the Problem…..”TIME is Money”, and the LEADER should spend enough time and URGENCY…”TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM”….engaging all parties of the problem (TO Include the LEADER…Remember ALL PROBLEMS ARE THE LEADERS RESPONSIBILITY)…..List all priorties of the Problem, Choose the Best course to correct the Problem…..”COMPROMISING”, may be appropriate….
    However any compromise that impunes or violates Law/morals/ethics and values is NOT JUSTIFIED in PSP…….Timely action and resolve is needed….so don’t squander time, or rush to rashly. …..The 3rd; step is to IDENTIFY THE CAUSE and …instill procedures to prevent any RE-accurance of the same problem.

    Mr. Obama, his CZAR’s and Secretaries caused the “SEQUESTRATION PROBLEM”, by; NO LEADERSHIP and COMPLIING with the LAW, that requires a BUDGET from the President, that is passed by the Congress…”THERE WAS NO BUDGET PASSED DURING THE OBAMA REGEIM FOR 1400 Days in OFFICE…..That is the PROBLEM. That same problem was caused by PURE FAILED LEADERSHIP of the President…that spent more time creating chaos and scaring the people etc, etc ,etc.

  • capeconservative

    I sure would like to call my house member and both senators, Erick…HOWEVER ;-( living in the LIBERAL commonwealth of Massachusetts, that would be a lesson in futility. Believe me I tried…even for those few short months when we did have an R in office – made no difference then either!
    However, I do not let that stop me from calling those with strong conservative values who I helped elect through Senator DeMint’s Senate Conservatives Fund. At least I can offer them my support, if not my vote.

  • http://climategatecountryclub.com/profiles/blogs/the-96topresent-smear-of russellc

    Senate Dem candidates like WA’s Cantwell, WI’s Tammy Baldwin, VA’s Tim Kaine, and others handed their GOP opponents an opportunity on a silver platter about the global warming issue, yet the conservatives either had generic and predictable statements about environmental stewardship / energy independence / anti-cap & trade, or they said nothing at all about the issue.

    Meanwhile, the issue is on the verge of total collapse at the hands of skeptic scientists and the only fallback defense is what’s seen from the likes of RI’s Sheldon Whitehouse who claims such skeptics are corrupt industry shills, an accusation that I’ve detailed in my own RedState articles to be not only baseless, but potentially libel/slander at its origins.

  • naraht

    Brown knew what sort of path he had to walk to *try* to get re-elected in Massachusetts. It didn’t work, but he sure wasn’t going to get re-elected by matching Sen Inhofe vote for vote.

  • midwestconservative

    I think Akin affected the Senate Races more than anything else, It was felt most deeply by Mourdock especially after he made his own little comment, these two gaffes I think affected Scott Brown, Brown was and still is popular in Massachusetts; the problem was he had a President on the Ticket, and Fauxahontas decided to motivate all of the occupy people; whats more Warren looked like to be a gimme candidate, with Brown talking about issues, and Warren harping about “women’s health” which Brown is a moderate Republican so

  • midwestconservative

    sorry posted too soon, But in Mass. Brown was moderate on social issues, and advocated fiscal responsibility, this resonated with voters ( even in liberal states) it was the national parties woes though that I think sunk his candidacy