« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Rubber meeting the road: the 2010 Senate situation.

Charlie Cook is bearish on the thought of the GOP retaking the Senate this year – which, I should note, is a large step up from, say January 2009: back then they were talking about how the Democrats might increase their existing majority in 2010.  Charlie sets up the current situation as follows:

Three open seats currently in the hands of Democrats seem pretty likely to end up in the Republican column this year. Sen. Byron Dorgan’s seat in North Dakota is a goner. Democrats have strong candidates in Delaware (Chris Coons) and Indiana (Rep. Brad Ellsworth), but the strength of the opposition in the former and the toughness of the state in the latter means these Democrats, who might have won under other circumstances, are likely to come up short this time. Watch for both to resurface.

To score a net gain of 10 seats, Republicans would also have to sweep the seven Democratic seats that the Cook Political Report rates as Toss-Ups, taking open seats in Illinois and Pennsylvania and defeating incumbent Sens. Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas, Barbara Boxer in California, Michael Bennet in Colorado, Harry Reid in Nevada and Patty Murray in Washington. If the GOP came up short in one of those, they would have to make it up by carrying one of the two additional vulnerable Democratic races, claiming the open seat in Connecticut or beating Wisconsin incumbent Russell Feingold. Both of those races are competitive as well.

Here’s the basic problem.  Pick any one of those races listed above, and you can see how the Republican can win.  The trick is winning all of them, or at least ten of them* – statistically speaking, that’s a bit of a stretch.  Said stretch is modified by the fact that the results are not really dictated by random chance, but even so we’ll still have to count on everything breaking our way.So, if you want to win the Senate back in 2010, then you’ll have to make sure that everything breaks our way.  Which means:

  1. Support the official GOP candidates.  To be blunt?  If you want the Senate – which, given what truly stupid ideas the Democrats have been able to push forward since they took control of the government in 2009, you really should – then you want the existing Republican nominees to win.  Yes, including that one.  Yes, including that one, too.  No, you actually can’t let support for that other one slide.  Yea, indeed, being an adult about this is hard.
  2. Support the groups supporting the official GOP candidates.  Like, you know, the NRSC; there’s also the state GOP parties, all of whom always want to hear from more people. Because the alternative is directly donating to candidates that you don’t like.  See #1: if you want the Senate – which, given what truly stupid ideas the Democrats have been able to push forward since they took control of the government in 2009, you really should – then you want the existing Republican nominees to win.
  3. If you cannot make yourself actively support a Republican candidate who has won his or her primary battle, then SHUT UP about it.  You want the Senate, right?  Remember: ‘stimulus,’ card-check, Obamacare, cap-and-trade, Dodd-Frank, USSC nominations, judiciary nominations, ethics violations swept under the rug, a host of irritations both major and minor; we are worse off under the Democratic regime that started in 2006 and was reinforced in 2008.  That some of these managed to get blocked anyway demonstrates Democratic fecklessness, not Republican skill: we don’t have the power, and we don’t have the buffer we need.
  4. Accentuate the positive.  There’s somebody out there that you want elected, right?  Take all that energy that you were going to spend… complaining… about one candidate and direct it towards helping somebody worthier of your attention.
  5. You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake. The universe doesn’t really care if you don’t like objective reality.

Now, you may decide that you don’t actually want the Senate, if it means doing having to do all of that.  Your privilege.  But if so, do real Republicans – and real conservatives, for that matter – a favor, and make it clear, so that we know not to count on you to do an adult’s work.

Moe Lane

PS: Do not insult my intelligence by pretending that your party affiliation hung by the thread of my continuing to spare your hurt little feelings.  If I wanted to participate in high school drama games I’d still be a Democrat.

*Note that I’m assuming that we’re not going to lose any of our seats – which is becoming more and more likely every day.

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

COMMENTS

  • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

    If the Senate races in 2010 are independent events, Cook is right to be bearish. If the GOP can forge national linkage, the Dems may well be toast. It all depends on the GOP defining what a Rep is, not CNNABCNBCMSNBC.

  • http://ruminationsaspirations.blogspot.com jonbingham

    As a conservative, my hope is to stop alot of the spending madness (decisively win the House) but not abort the very necessary removal of Obama in 2012.
    A 2011 Republican majority in the Senate likely will give Obama the means to pivot political tactics against a very weak Senate Republican leadership to have an opening to be re-elected. We desperately need a 1980, not a 1996. Mitch McConnell can look effective while leading a strong (filibuster-likely) Republican minority of 49. The next two years will demoralize conservatives if McConnell is made Majority Leader of 51 and feels the Washingtonitis pressure to lead the Senate to “get something done” with at least 60 Senators and Obama. Remember how frustrated we were with McConnell’s problems effectively leading 55 Rs a while back? Imagine leading 51 and facing Obama – McConnell’s efforts in that scenario would be UUGGLLYY…

    Win the House decisively and support CONSERVATIVES in Senate races. Pray for and work for 49.
    Patience, my friends. Let’s set the table beneficially for the real battle (2012).

  • Alberta
  • Castor

    All of the Republican Senate candidates must declare the following:
    1.The extreme left in charge of the democrat party is bankreupting the country,driving it off a cliff!
    2.They Plan to rip off the people with higher taxes.
    3.Both of the above will cause investors to withold their money from projects which will create jobs.
    4. CLOSE THE BORDER!!!!
    5. Prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    …and ethics investigations. We need a majority to have any kind of control over the process for either.

  • http://ruminationsaspirations.blogspot.com jonbingham

    …that McConnell would lead effectively such that the outcomes of those things would be any different, but given the structure of the Senate and Washingtonitis nature of many Senators, those are not going to be any different in outcome.
    1) The House can run some ethics investigations where needed…
    2) You have Lindsey Graham and Dick Lugar as part of the 51 regarding federal judgeships. – Thus my point on demoralizing the conservative base and handing Obama the opportunity for re-election.

    2012 victory arises only if there is patient wisdom in 2010.

  • california_red

    Republican’s may not take control of the Senate, but they should at least be able to sustain a filibuster without havgin to worry about losing one of the squish Senators.

    It would be great to set the agenda and chair the committee’s, but realistically it looks like just a more powerful minority that can actually make a stand.

  • rdelbov

    In my mind its three seperate hands of bridge

    1st hand is the GOP holds. We need to hold our seven vulnerable seats–LA/NC incumbents plus open seats in MO-FL-OH-KY-NH. If we lose any of these seven seats you can forget 51. Nearly impossible if any of these seats go Blue. I think you will see some very close races here but we have the money advantage in nearly all of these races-great candidates and great political momentum in these states. Based on how these cards have been dealt we should win seven tricks or seven states. Things happens-campaigns matter but we should make this contract.

    2nd hand is 1st tier GOP pickups–this would DE-ND-AR-NV-CO-IN-IL-PA. I think we have much better candidates then the democrats-we have more money (except maybe AR/NV/IN) and we have huge political momentum in our favor. We need 8 tricks with the cards dealt us but not sure yet what our cards (candidates) are in DE/CO but we have a decent chance to win 8 tricks. If we only win 6 or 7 of these races it will be hard to get to 51. We need every big break-every good card-to fall our way. Could happen–

    The 3rd hand is our 2nd tier races where we playing in tough territory in fairly solid blue states (at least for Presidential races) and we have not won many tricks here lately. So CA-WA-WI-CT-NYB are tough for us to win and we are completely set with candidates in WA-CT-WI-NYB. The favorites look like they could win–the races will be tough. If we sweep the 1st two hands we only need two tricks say CA or WA or WI. If the tide really rolls our way maybe CT & NYB landslide towards us?

    So I count 20 races that are fairly competitive and or winnable for us. We need to win 17/20 to get to 51. To soon to predict and there will be tons of close races. Heavy rains in urban areas or snow in Eastern WA could affect outcomes–I expect to see 10 or so races with 6% or less margin of victories. The GOP could win every one or maybe 8/10.

  • JSobieski

    nt

  • nvrepub

    would shift the balance of power (filibuster) from Snowe/Collins/Brown to Graham/Murkowski/Corker. In itself, that’s a good thing, but still short of our goal.

    Kasich replacing Voinovich on OH moves that seat a notch to the right, and gives us an articulate voice on budget matters. That’s good.

    Some conservatives aren’t supporting Kirk and Castle, but they’re important to building a majority for 2012 – not to mention being highly symbolic pickups.

  • IJB

    I’m trying to put that one into practice myself…

  • IJB

    In fact, just having 49 or 50 would be enough to get Obama to *not nominate* such people in the first place.

    I actually think a 50-50 split is the most intriguing idea – 50 GOP’ers + Nelson of NE (who’s running *scared* these days) actually gives you nominal legislative control on a lot of issues. But 50-50 will still *technically* be a “Democrat-controlled” Senate, thanks to Joe Biden.

    There’s almost no downside to a 50-50 split that I can see…

  • rdelbov

    yet another chance for a GOP pickup–so that’s 21 races that are to be watched.

  • JSobieski

    Or how after passing HCR, the dems would HAVE to move to the center instead of passing stupid financial services “reform”?

    We need to maximize the numbers of R, period. Nelson put up less of a fight than Stupak did, so why anyone would have any confidence in him is pure fantasy island. We fight for every seat, and hope we can get as many as possible.

    Since its not possible to run simultaneous campaigns in a way that gets 50 sets and no more, we might as well speculate as to the number of angels dancing on a pin.

  • teapartypatriot

    Real Republicans will NOT, REPEAT NOT, control the majority of votes in the Senate, even if they win all the available seats and keep their own.

    Why?

    There are FIVE despicable, rino traitors who will continue to support leftist issues, and everybody knows who they are: AMNESTY-JOHN mccain, scott brown, collins, snowe and graham.

  • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

    That is all.

  • IJB

    Right now, like everyone else, I’ve mentally put it down as leans-to-likely Dem ‘Hold’.

    But it would not surprise me at all if, by the time September and October roll around, WV is a lot closer than everyone is expecting it to be.

    And, frankly, ditto CT, OR and/or NY-B: any (or all) of these could end up being closer in the Fall than anyone is predicting right now…

  • Bill S
  • Marcus_Traianus

    Subtract Mark Kirk, Lindsey Graham, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and John McCain (if he wins). I would say liberal statists and Neo-Democrats have the majority.

  • IJB

    I never said we should “shoot for 50″ – that would be *impossible* to engineer.

    All I said is that a 50-50 split is actually a good outcome.

    As for the rest of your post, you’re “borrowing trouble” – let’s see where we are in Nov. before we start predicting what the Dems will do.

  • Bill S
  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    [nt]

  • JSobieski

    why not hope for additional last minute retirements? That way we can have a number greater than 51, which would be really great outcome.

    Obama will peel off Republican votes on SC nominations, so any number less than 55 is really a hope and a prayer. We need the ability to lose four votes, since the Maine ladies and Brown make 3, and there will be some in the ranks who are even worse (Castle? Kirk? etc).

    Winners win, losers lose. Great teams may sit their superstars, but the teams always play to win.

  • JSobieski

    I should not have intepretted “wouldn’t it be great if X” for an action plan to achieve X.

    In terms of borrowing trouble, I was merely reviewing consensus politcal thinking at the time. HCR was not dead, and the democrats didn’t start there.

    I for one would like to make Obama go to his third or fourth choice for a SC nominee. Kind of like what the dems did to Reagan in nominating Bork.

  • gamechange11two

    With any discussion of numbers in the senate I always add 3 to the proposed sum to compensate for Snow, Collins and Brown. 51 needs to be 54, 60 needs to be 63, etc.

    Unfortunately, you had to point out why my math sucks by bringing 3 more squishes into the equation.

    Holding the purse strings and the committees in the house with the power of filibuster in the senate is plenty more than we have now, and would be enough to mark time until 2012.

    “Congress shouldn’t be a rubber stamp for the president.” Spot on, Nancy. We’ll be doing our part to make that a reality on 11/2. Doom!

  • PurpleWombats

    Thank you. Thank you. Look, I want the most conservative electable candidate to win the GOP primary in each and every race. But after the primary, our role should be to get a government that is as conservative as possible. Not whine about how we wanted that other one candidate who got all of 5% in the primary but who was soooo perfect!!!! (and dreamy too, probably)

  • romeg

    We can Play Not-to-lose. If we play Not-to-lose we WILL LOSE!

    Enough is enough. Time to take out the trash.

  • Bill S
  • clintonformccain

    I would vote for Charles Manson in 2010, if he were the Republican nominee in any race. We need gridlock in Washington to stop them from doing any more to us.

  • indylawyer

    Regarding judicial appointments, recall how the Dems were able to bottle up and eventually block a bunch of Bush appointees simply by not letting them out of committee. Get to 51 in the Senate and we can do the same. And every Republican vote adds to the cushion for filibusters.

    Also, most of these seats are for six years. Getting to 51 makes it that much easier to get to 60 in 2012, and helps with whatever the situation is after 2014.

  • acat

    Not to mention a huge percentage of the House seats.

    Mew

  • rdelbov

    that its better to have a republican who votes 50% with you then a democrat who votes 5% of the time with you.

    I hate to say its the Presidency -stupid-but what major conservative program put forth by Reagan-Bush41-Bush43 failed because of RINO’s. Good conservative policy programs -pushed by a conservative President-will pass the house/senate. Its reverse beautiful mirror image of what we see in DC right now.

  • http://www.wolvesofliberty.com GJ Merits

    With legislation passed by a lame duck congress? Just asking.

  • acat

    Because it means a vote against Harry Reid.

    Pursuant to Moe Lane’s point # 5, I will now shut up.

    Mew

  • Bill S

    Take it elsewhere.

  • mriggio
  • acat

    West Virginia is headed for tough times economically because of all the pork bought by favors built up by their senior Senator. That’s why, on a road trip that took me through their (rather nice) state capitol, I kept seeing the name Byrd on roads, bridges, etc.

    I just don’t see Jay Rockefeller, who’s been in the Senate since 1985, as bringing home the same amount of bacon. (or, if he does bring it home, I certainly hope he resists putting his name on all of it…)

    In the short term, if a Repub wins – and Dem Gov. Manchin is quite popular so it’ll be a tough race – it’s going to be a matter of whether a Repub majority (or squeaker minority plus some blue dogs – wouldn’t it be nice to “Gang of X” the Dems for a change?) can undo enough Obama damage to get the whole country moving again and that it trickles enough down to get W.V. moving.

    If, however, Manchin wins – then the entire fail can be hung ’round his neck in 2 years.

    Mew

  • SIConservative

    First, Erick Erickson on June 28: “If O?Donnell can?t win the general, better still the Democrat than Mike Castle.” I’m inclined to agree with Erick, but that aside, you guys need to get on the same page.

    Second, I disagree completely with your first two points, and think the fourth is much more useful. In terms of support, and by “support” I mean actual support, i.e. something that will actually help a candidate get elected as opposed to just words, it’s just not practical to support every organization or candidate. Off the top of my head, I can think of two Republican Senate candidates that I can’t in good conscience support, and I certainly wouldn’t give a dime to the NRSC. That doesn’t mean that my time and money can’t be put to good use elsewhere.

  • nvrepub

    when Obama trots a couple of them out, so the media can claim he was “bipartisan”, and that the other Republicans were all meanies.

  • KeepOhioRed

    Rob Portman is running for Senate. Last Rasmussen has him expanding his lead over Fisher to 6%.

    But you are right about moving the seat to the right. So long, crybaby George!

  • acat

    And you need to learn to tell the difference.

    Mew

  • acat
  • acat

    Seriously.

    The President of the Senate sets the agenda for what bills come to the floor.

    Yes, there will be RINOs. So what? There will be Tea Partiers and Conservatives looking for RINOs to spike in 2012 and 2014. You wouldn’t want all that energy to go to waste, would you?

    Mew

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    This is a Republican and conservative site.

  • skorrent1

    We know BO cares only about himself. His only chance in’12 is to pull a Truman and run against the “do nothing” GOP Congress (which he will insure w/ his vetos). A split Congress, with 48-50 senators gives us a good chance of a GOP president and a coattail of 5-6 more senators plus more in the house.

  • http://www.wolvesofliberty.com GJ Merits

    When the very discussion of such a tactic can be used by us to push more votes our direction? The thought of a lame duck liberal legislative fest scares the crap out of a lot of people. Use it to your advantage.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    There will be a host of 1st-term Democratic Senators up for re-election in 2012 and 2014; a strong showing and we can push the Senate well to the right for a critical time period.

  • SIConservative

    Is that why Erick says better the Democrat than the Republican?

  • SIConservative

    I’m in China using a VPN, so the Reply to this function isn’t working.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    And in case you haven’t quite noticed: I’m not Erick Erickson.

  • rdelbov

    I agree 100%-

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    No harm, no foul. :)

  • mbecker908

    If you want to discuss the lame duck Congress, write a diary.

  • http://www.wolvesofliberty.com GJ Merits

    Or at least increasing gains. Any tactic which aids in either of these is on topic. It’s called PR and idea marketing. Those crazy libs are going to shove a bunch of crap down your throats in a fit of childish anger. Vote them out.

    Simple message. On topic. Very powerful.

  • Bill S
  • rdelbov

    Majority leader but hey Harry Reid has acted more like “king of the senate” or “dictator of the senate” then President.

    The Majority leader sets the agenda and can do some magical things. It can take 51 votes to pass a bill but maybe 60 to change it on the floor. How about that for school house rock stuff–
    plus they control the committees –51 is a big big deal–51 republicans with controls the floor and the flow of legislation.

  • Bill S

    Committee chairs are given to the majority. Judicial nominations are driven and controlled by the majority. The Majority Leader drives legislation to the floor. There are many, many advantages that the majority party holds. It is absolutely foolish to assume that we’d have some advantage by being in the minority. It should be patently obvious how much damage the Dems can do in a short period of time. Let’s not play that “oh, it can’t be that bad – it’s only 2 years” game again.

  • Bill S

    A smashing GOP victory does nothing to avoid a lame duck session. So your point is irrelevant.

    As mbecker states, if you’d like to discuss the nuances of the lame duck session, write a diary.

  • crosley

    We obviously want to win as many seats as possible, but let’s be honest, to capture the Senate, Republicans would have to win every open seat and keep every existing one. And nothing is going to get done anyway with 51 Republicans Senators, even with a Republican President it’s difficult to repeal or pass anything, much less Obama.

    Between Democrats filibustering, RINO’s folding, and Obama vetoing, it would be a mess that would make Republicans Party look really bad to both the base and to independent voters. If the Republicans technically control Congress, Obama will have an excellent foil like the very unpopular Clinton did with the Republican Congress.

    The best case scenario in my opinion would be just one seat shy of a majority in the Senate, and then really achieve a useful majority in 2012. To me, I would rather have one less Kirk or Castle now, but several more real conservative Republicans in 2012 because the GOP looks so much better next to the trainwreck Obama and his Democrat Senate. I’m certainly not saying we should try to lose any seats, just looking at the bigger picture.

    Politics can change on a dime, but I honestly don’t see the economy or Obama’s standing improving in the next two years, but a completely Republican controlled Congress (that has no real power) would make an excellent scape goat for Obama.

  • http://www.wolvesofliberty.com GJ Merits

    And let’s see you go on the electronic record stating this little nugget of gold is worthless. You’re already on record stating it is not pertinent to the discussion so I can’t help you there.

  • chihank

    I hope Tancredo’s decision to run as an independent doesn’t hurt Ken Buck in the general too much.

    Since Tancredo endorsed Buck in the primary, Ken Buck will have to comment on everything Tancredo says.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Stop posting in this thread or your account goes bye bye.

  • http://www.wolvesofliberty.com GJ Merits

    What, you think I’m scared?

    Bye bye.

  • gamechange11two

    SB1070 and repeal of Obamacare seem to be resonating with the public. Polling is certainly set against the progressives on these. Stimulus is a loser for non-union workers and hasn’t been the winner the B-team had hoped for. Even moderate democrats are quietly alarmed by the new pace of spending.

    Maybe the public’s message this fall is going to be: STOP! ENOUGH!

    Has anyone polled on whether or not having a party of no feels good to voters right now?

  • http://www.wolvesofliberty.com GJ Merits

    Where’s the ban? If I can’t make perfectly legitimate posts pertinent to the subject without the threat of a ban, then go ahead and ban me. Honestly, I don’t care. But back it up and realize if you read what I wrote above its a perfectly good defense of a perfectly good tactic to increase gains in the Senate. And as long as we are filibuster proof, all the talk below about being fodder for Obama is moot. There will always be a messaging war with Obama, 49 or 51 – it won’t matter.

  • kchand

    What a bunch of crap. Who is in this to lose? If Republicans cannot lead … get out of the damn way and let real leaders with solid ideas show how it’s done. Leave the spineless, gutless, wimps for the Democrats.

  • Bill S
  • JSobieski

    sigh . . .

  • http://www.wolvesofliberty.com GJ Merits

    correctly increases the odds of a smashing GOP victory. Emotion drives voters more than objectivity. How the heck do you think Obama got elected in the first place? Objectivity? Piss off the voters, relish the gains. It has “everything” to do with taking back the Senate. Well, not everything, but quite a damn bit.

    I would hope this would be a part of any strategy and you can bet the blogs will be abuzz as the election approaches talking about this very subject. Why? Because it is pertinent.

  • IJB

    I’m not someone who’s particularly receptive to the idea that SEN and GOV races are somehow “linked”, either in CA or in CO.

    I think people can make separate judgments about who to vote for for GOV and then SEN – I’m sure that the GOV’s race won’t have much, if any, impact on the CO Senate race.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    You were warned, but now your account is nullified.

  • redtillimdead

    vote for McConnell as majority leader is still a vote for a Republican majority leader. A RINO’s vote counts every bit as much as DeMint’s vote for McConnell. A Democrat will vote for Reid or Schumer.

  • texasgalt

    It’s weird there, you know.

  • Jack_Savage

    Does this mean you’re FOR it now?

  • rdelbov

    this guy had Presidential ambitions at one time and is still sought after for endorsements due to his immigration work.

    One poll with him at 5% in a three way race and he folds his cards. Who wants to be a total joke

    No effect on the Co senate race

  • Bill S
  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    Clamor nullified;
    th’importunate bruit smothered
    devoid all Merits.

  • deano64
  • Mary Beth
  • nvrepub

    nt

  • mbecker908

    we could hear his argument about how nullification will render any action by the Senate useless.

  • http://www.suvstrategery.blogspot.com SoFiMil

    nt

  • mbecker908

    Tommie Terrific was filing papers to run as the American Constitution Party. Those reports indicated it was a done deal.

    I do not know CO politics, but if the R/D race is close and TT can raise any money (probably out of state $$) he could well be a spoiler.

  • Dr. Botkin

    if you live in certain states, you would, in effect, be doing nearly so. On important issues, like Kagen, etc., etc. the Lindsay Grahams of the present and future will make sure there is no gridlock.

  • acat
  • rdelbov

    haved filed papers and pulled them–it happens all the time. With Tancredo its just a little payback–when he had his Presidential ambitions-his fellow congressman (current and ex) from CO did little or nothing to encourage him. The lack of homestate support was no surprise as Tancredo was a bit of showhorse.

    This is just a little payback. Tancredo who is by no means the most respected pol in CO wants to set himself up as the judge of whoever wins the primary–what a joke. We have elections here–not beauty contests with judges.

  • E Pluribus Unum

    Are you for realz?

    This is crushing.

    I think I’ll go ask my Ron Paul action figure if this is really true.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    I can’t think of a single major accomplishment of Obama’s that a state could actually nullify. What federal agency is going to stop enforcing a law because a state said so?

    Is the IRS going to just smile and say okay if I underpay but include a note saying “My state nullified the individual mandate so I didn’t pay that part?” Of course not.

  • acat

    And even if you are frozen solid, you may still be eligible to vote in Chicago or Minneapolis…

    Mew

  • acat

    IIRC, the States refused the Real ID act effectively .. but they did it at the State level, not the Individual level.

    At the Individual level, well, it’s been a while since there was a real success in the political arena. The business arena has many more examples, of course – but it’s also much more “free”.

    Mew

  • http://jakespeaks.wordpress.com/ Jake W

    Ken Buck is running in the Senate race. He shouldn’t have anythign to fear. Scott McInnis or Maes, on the other hand…

  • cactusjack

    between feds and states. The State would have to have a positive budget, some cash reserve, and school funding at local level able to meet sudden withholding of federal money. The State would have to be ready to go immediately into court on several levels seeking injunctions to restrain federal action until things sort out. The State would have to be a major producer of a commodity that is precious to the federal government and other states. The State would have to have a population already mad as h*&$ at the federal government, and ready to take the shock for about 3-6 months of emergency funded schools, federal officials refusing to do their duties. It’s a very tall order but interestingly two RedStates come to mind that might fill the bill. There may be three or four others, and one or two of them are BlueStates…

  • IJB
  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    A state’s refusing to participate in a federal program isn’t the same as saying a federal law is not in force within the state.

  • http://www.veronicaestrada.com Veronica
  • 6eorge Jetson

    Nt

  • http://www.veronicaestrada.com Veronica
  • http://www.redstate.com/tnjim TNJim
  • acat

    The problem with nullification-advocates, at least the ones G.J. represents, is they lump all forms of “denying the Fed” together and label it “nullification” even when it’s actually something else.

    One of the historical examples cited has been the mass disobedience of the nationwide 55 speed limit. One of the proposed examples is for everyone to not pay their “obamacare” tax. Nevermind that unlike the state troopers, the IRS can and will catch most of the disobedient.

    And no, I’m hardly pro-nullification in the accurate definition either – house divided against itself and all that.

    Mew

  • Christine (Trelaina)
  • Richard Mullins

    and he always better than GJ Merits(aka GMan 2008).

  • Curt409

    I’ll keep all these posts and reread them when everyone here is scratching their heads over the fact that all the new republicans are selling us down the river.

    Both parties seek bigger government.

  • Brian Hibbert

    run it yourself. That may seem like a smart ass remark, but it’s not. Get involved in your local party and talk to people. Get other people who think like you involved in local politics. Take over your local party. Then work with other like minded folks and take over the state party. Then the national party.

    At least that’s our plan to fix the problems.

    What’s yours?

  • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

    What specific issues do you want the GOP to improve on? What specific members? How would they do so in a manner that would meet the lofty and Olympian Curt409 Standard?

  • clariancall

    What’s in a number? What we need is enough control to begin investigations into the corruption that is rampant in this government, to stop and reduce spending, to repeal the unconstitutional laws that have been put in place, to enforce the constitutional ones, to begin trials in areas bordering on treason, and once and for all find out if BO is an American citizen. If he is not, 2012 does not matter and all laws signed by him are null and void! Vote in November!

  • jennytheproudconservative

    There are a lot of races that are toss ups that with some help from you and I, can become protectors of American small government.
    Check out my Redstate blog to read about what you can do to help conservatives win:
    http://www.redstate.com/jennytheproudconservative/2010/07/27/act-on-your-own-choices-now-or-dems-will-make-your-choices-later/

  • 6eorge Jetson

    The 31 year old with zero auto industry experience who Zero appointed to reshape GM. Great job shutting down the low cost, low competition-facing rural dealerships base. Someone who knew the business wouldn’t have botched that one.