« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

NRSC Chair John Cornyn forgets the conservative in the race, again

By: Erick Brockway (Diary)  |  December 4th, 2009 at 01:15 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Possibly out of fear that Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine may be right when he recently said ““The tea party movement is devouring the GOP,” and that contentious primary battles within the GOP leading up to the 2010 elections may do more harm than good, Sen. Cornyn (head of the NRSC) sought to dismiss the possible negative impacts;

Cornyn conceded that “there has been a lot of talk about whether the party is going to be divided by the tea party movement,” but he dismissed any potential negative impact the movement could have on Republican primaries.

Like Kaine, Cornyn pointed to New York’s 23rd District, where he said the lack of a primary process allowed Democrats to win the upstate district for the first time in more than 100 years. The selection of Scozzafava by local leaders to be the GOP candidate sparked outrage among conservatives distrustful of her moderate record.

“We can’t let that happen, so we have to have a robust primary so that our strongest candidate becomes our nominee,” he said.

However, in a recent Politico piece, Cornyn (‘We Will Not Spend Money in a Contested Primary’) had no problem identifying his favored contenders (my emphasis);

Looking at the field, Cornyn said he was “enormously encouraged” by some of the candidates stepping forward on the Republican side. Cornyn singled out Republican Senate candidates Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania, Mark Kirk in Illinois, Jane Norton in Colorado, Carly Fiorina in California and Rob Simmons in Connecticut.

When he ticked off a few of his favorite contenders, he ticked off a few conservatives as well, especially in California where there is not just one viable Republican in the running, but two.

By failing to even mention California Assemblyman Chuck DeVore and instead verbally pushing Fiorina to the top, he’s quite clearly taking sides in the primary once again.

And it’s not the only time he’s thrown NRSC weight around lately;

Last week, Cornyn and three other heavyweight GOP senators — McConnell, Grassley and Vitter — held an NRSC fundraiser for Gilbert Baker, an Arkansas state senator looking to challenge Blanche Lincoln for her senate seat. David J. Sanders, an Arkansas political columnist, notes that when all is said and done there could be a nine-way GOP senate primary in the state.

So why is the NRSC raising money for Baker? Making matters worse, Baker is not an especially conservative candidate. Like a lot of Arkansas Republicans he’s in the Huckabee mold of being socially conservative and somewhat economically liberal. Citizens First Congress, a liberal group, rated Baker as having the most liberal voting record of any Republican senator in the Arkansas legislature.

In California there is a definite proven conservative in the running for the top GOP spot to take on Boxer, and that’s DeVore.

Chuck DeVore was instrumental in his efforts as Assemblyman to stop state Democrats from running roughshod over the California Constitution when they attempted to pass an illegal tax increase in December 2008 and has been an advocate of modern nuclear power and advanced oil and gas drilling.

Carly Fiorina? Well, judge for yourself.

As to any possible concerns Sen. Cornyn may have about the tea party movement “devouring” the GOP, I would assure the Senator that it isn’t.

It’s taking it back for conservatism.

Crossposted

Tags: , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Scope

    for any of the candidates. We all know when the NRSC or the NRCC supports one particular candidate over another, but as long as they don’t say the evil word endorse, it’s all good. They just quietly slip the check under the door of their choosen candidate. After NY23, the national committees have gone underground, but are still doing the same thing. The same thing is happening in the VA 5th district Rep. race against Liberal Perriello. There are now 8 R contenders, but, the NRCC has recruited their choice. Thank God for primaries/conventions.

    • http://erickbrockway.wordpress.com/ Erick Brockway

      Yeah, never said the “no no” word, guess it’s all cool!
      Wonder who takes us for the bigger fool, the DNC or the RSCC?

    • AceInTX

      If they pay us lip service by saying they won’t endorse all the while pushing the candidate with money, meetings with donors and playing them up in the press…we shouldn’t even notice it because we’re too stupid to see it…

      at least that’s how the educated idiots see us!

  • Scope

    for any of the candidates. We all know when the NRSC or the NRCC supports one particular candidate over another, but as long as they don’t say the evil word endorse, it’s all good. They just quietly slip the check under the door of their choosen candidate. After NY23, the national committees have gone underground, but are still doing the same thing. The same thing is happening in the VA 5th district Rep. race against Liberal Perriello. There are now 8 R contenders, but, the NRCC has recruited their choice. Thank God for primaries/conventions.

  • Scope

    I was just making a point that some believe that if you don’t use the word endorse, they are not endorsing anyone. I had that little discussion with someone who denigrated a local conservative candidate for saying that one of the national committees had endorsed one of the candidates, when the word was never used. Yes, how right you are, I also wonder how dumb the the Democrats and the Republican committees think we are.

    • mschmitt

      If you want to start a peeing contest with me, this is a great way to start. You were dead wrong before, and you’re wrong to mischaracterize what I said there as it may apply here.

      If a candidate claims an endorsement (without qualifications) when there is none, you are letting yourself be used dishonestly if you let it stand. I have no problem with a commentator treating “support” as equivalent to an endorsement. Frankly, I would’ve chuckled — and reco’d — if you had made the one making the claims that Laurence Verga made (though I would’ve probably tried to gently correct you).

      But the candidate himself said it, and the candidate knew it wasn’t true. This isn’t a matter of nuance. HE LIED. Now get over the fact that you’re supporting a liar and stop picking fights with people who are (apparently, sadly for me) on your side 99% of the time.

      • Scope

        I am not picking pissing matches with you. I think you were/are overreacting to the LV post. As I said, you apparently “want” the NRCC to use the word endorsement, as you said in the LV post, you wasted your time looking for it written somewhere, and that LV “sensationalized” the claim that is false. In other words he is a “liar”, which you outright call him in your comment above. Yes, I am in support of LV because I have direct knowledge of all of the 8 candidates. I live about 15 miles from LV, and many of the other 8 candidates. I have the advantage of local news, both radio and TV, I read local blogs and comments. I read the local newspapers. I have heard everyone (except the just declared 8th one) interviewed. I have discounted many things you have posted concerning the 5th district candidates, because you have said yourself, you don’t know anything about any of them. You went as far as to say that “there was only one candidate” in the race, and, it appears you believe that because the NRCC has “acknowledged” only Hurt, so it appears that he is the only viable candidate. You don’t know much about Hurt either, other than what I posted, or linked articles to, one being the NRCC website article. You have dismissed all of the others in the race and have said some really “not nice” things about them as a group, including that they aren’t even candidates. I agreed that the field is way too large, and, I wish it wasn’t so. You cannot tell anyone not to run, as it is their right and freedom to do so, as Erick points out above that one race may include up to 9 candidates. That is why there are primaries, conventions and/or canvasses. Yes, the LV race is different than NY23, as there was no primary there. The candidate was choosen by both the local GOP, and, from what we’ve read, also had input from the NRCC and the RNC.

        I believe the point of this diary, as well as my point on the LV diary, and some of the comments is that the national committees don’t have to use the word “endorse” in order to underhandidly endorse certain candidates. For the LV PR people to say out loud what many know is going on, does not make him a liar, and, in fact there was a local article saying just that, “Laurence Verga is saying what many are thinking” and, I’m sure that also includes the other candidates, other than Hurt. As was said elsewhere, you don’t have to not mention others running, but to mention the one you like best, is as good as an endorsement.

        mschmitt, I am very sad to see you trashing a candidate, that you have no knowledge of, other than saying he is a liar, and, that I refuse to see that I am backing someone who is dishonest, and that I need to get over that. As you said, we agree probably 99% of the time. I would like to leave it there, and to agree to disagree on the LV issue.

      • Scope

        I am not picking pissing matches with you. I think you were/are overreacting to the LV post. As I said, you apparently “want” the NRCC to use the word endorsement, as you said in the LV post, you wasted your time looking for it written somewhere, and that LV “sensationalized” the claim that is false. In other words he is a “liar”, which you outright call him in your comment above. Yes, I am in support of LV because I have direct knowledge of all of the 8 candidates. I live about 15 miles from LV, and many of the other 8 candidates. I have the advantage of local news, both radio and TV, I read local blogs and comments. I read the local newspapers. I have heard everyone (except the just declared 8th one) interviewed. I have discounted many things you have posted concerning the 5th district candidates, because you have said yourself, you don’t know anything about any of them. You went as far as to say that “there was only one candidate” in the race, and, it appears you believe that because the NRCC has “acknowledged” only Hurt, so it appears that he is the only viable candidate. You don’t know much about Hurt either, other than what I posted, or linked articles to, one being the NRCC website article. You have dismissed all of the others in the race and have said some really “not nice” things about them as a group, including that they aren’t even candidates. I agreed that the field is way too large, and, I wish it wasn’t so. You cannot tell anyone not to run, as it is their right and freedom to do so, as Erick points out above that one race may include up to 9 candidates. That is why there are primaries, conventions and/or canvasses. Yes, the LV race is different than NY23, as there was no primary there. The candidate was choosen by both the local GOP, and, from what we’ve read, also had input from the NRCC and the RNC.

        I believe the point of this diary, as well as my point on the LV diary, and some of the comments is that the national committees don’t have to use the word “endorse” in order to underhandidly endorse certain candidates. For the LV PR people to say out loud what many know is going on, does not make him a liar, and, in fact there was a local article saying just that, “Laurence Verga is saying what many are thinking” and, I’m sure that also includes the other candidates, other than Hurt. As was said elsewhere, you don’t have to not mention others running, but to mention the one you like best, is as good as an endorsement.

        mschmitt, I am very sad to see you trashing a candidate, that you have no knowledge of, other than saying he is a liar, and, that I refuse to see that I am backing someone who is dishonest, and that I need to get over that. As you said, we agree probably 99% of the time. I would like to leave it there, and to agree to disagree on the LV issue.

        • mschmitt

          1. Laurence Verga retracts/amends/corrects his statement.

          2. You recognize that his candidacy is probably not yet worthy of honest comparison with the Hoffman/NY-23 or DeVore/CA situations.

          3. He does the work needed to become a serious contender, making any further slights by the NRCC actually worthy of attack.

          But I’ll do you one further: as soon as one of those three things does occur, then I’ll join you in your effort to get somebody other than Hurt nominated — perhaps even by throwing my support to LV.

          However, until one of those three things occurs; if you or LV want to pipe up about the NRCC not treating him fairly (without doing one of the many things — such as the thing I’ve suggested — that could put him, or another decent candidate, back into the race and that doesn’t involve pretending to be Doug Hoffman), then (to the extent that the administrators allow me) I will make it my mission to annoy you by pointing out, again and again, that it is up to the candidate to run a successful campaign — not the NRCC.

          Finally, I’d just like to point out that my initial involvement with this issue did not extend beyond a simple question “is this accurate?” (answer: no) and my suggestion for how he could win (which you apparently didn’t care for a bit) — it was you who sought to escalate it to this point; and it was your action of taking this minor disagreement across diaries which has made the “agree to disagree” option a non-starter.

          • Scope

            2. I have never said that his candidacy was “worthy” of the Hoffman race. In fact I have said that NY23 was a totally different circumstance. The point LV’s PR team is making is that the national committees should not get involved in local races before the Republican candidate is choosen, selected, elected or whatever. It is up to the people in the district to choose, out of 8, who they want to run against Perriello. They are not going to Washington to represent the views of the national committees, they are going to represent the views of the people in the district that elect them.

            3. I do not run LV’s campaign, I am nothing more than a volunteer/supporter, and, as of yet I have only committed to going to the Dec. 12 meeting in Appomattox to support the idea of a Convention, rather than any other choice of nomination. I’m sure I will be called upon for more than just talking to the campaign manager about Redstate. The guy has been traveling the district since August. He has what I consider a top notch website, which is loaded with his positions on the issues. He is issue oriented, and, I am sure he is taking note of a well run campaign, as he campaigned with Cuccinelli, and, had 2 fundraisers for Cuccinelli at his home. He is on the radio every opportunity he gets, as all of the candidates get fair time. Even Perriello gets his 15 minutes of fame once a month. When he has been at functions with some of the other candidates, he talks about his visions and ideas, and, does not focus on just I did this, and I did that, as most of the other candidates have done. Many call themselves conservatives, but, beyond their own labels, they have not come up with anything else other than saying they are not Obama. In fact, Ken Boyd was on the radio yesterday saying that he won’t sign any pledges or anything else, and that he will vote for bills based on what is in them, and applying his “core principles.” Problem is he hasn’t named any core principles. Read his website. He said that he was sure some conservatives would not like or agree with some of his votes. Brilliant thing to say in a campaign huh? Hopefully you would agree to eliminate someone like that. Using your analogy of the seven dwarfs, I’m sure one of them was called “doopey.”

            mschmitt, I am not losing any hair, or my skin isn’t creeping because you don’t agree with me. You are free to choose to support anyone you wish to in any race, or not support anyone at all. I think, as of today at least, it is still a free country, with free people. I just wish that you would look a little further into individual candidates before you dismiss them out of hand as not worthy of running in a race. The downfall is, our local paper is very liberal, and, like the MSM, they don’t give much ink to Republicans, unless it is to bash them, and, put Perriello on a pedestal.

            PS- You can follow me around, trying to annoy me, reminding me that it is up to the candidate to run a successful campaign, not the NRCC, but, the problem there would be that we would agree on that, and, I’m not sure how that would be annoying.

    • http://erickbrockway.wordpress.com/ Erick Brockway

      Guess we’re cool then?
      Cornyn is engaging in what he believes is (read deniable) subtle nudging of his preferred candidates.
      The ones he pushes to the top get the national press while the real cons like DeVore who are fighting in the trenches with Democrats are ignored.
      Don’t know about you, but that pisses me off.

      • Scope

        I didn’t mean the discussion between mschmitt and I to threadjack your diary.

        I couldn’t agree with you more, Cornyn, as well as all others in the national committees need to “sit over there, and, shut up.” They all know that what they say will be picked up by some media, and, it does then give that candidate a boost. I wish every one of them would just let the voters in those districts or states choose their candidate, without their undue and unwanted influence. It more than pisses me off also.

  • Aaron Gardner
  • pirate55

    I have begun to directly channel my monthly contributions to individuals rather than the NRSC, RPO FLA and others. This satisfies me my money is supporting true conservatism, in Florida’s case, Marco Rubio for Senate. If there is any hint the nation is beginning to take conservatism seriously you should have listened to the rants of Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, D-RI during yesterdays senate debates referring to conservatives as radical, lunatic, as well as cliches such as “tea bag”. Way to go Senator-As an attorney you sure know how to distort anything factual.

    Its quite simple, “We Win, You Lose”– Ronald Reagan

  • penguin2

    There is a saying, “it is not what you say, it is what you don’t say.” Two points here; one by not mentioning certain names Cornyn clearly was showing a preference for the those he did mention. Second, though not an official endorsement, just the fact the leadership is pushing certain candidates over others, is a nuanced “endorsement.”

    We are aware of this at RedState, just thought it would be nice to reinforce to the GOP leadership, that we are onto their game, have been for awhile, and we are not playing it their way any longer.

    • mschmitt

      … my use of the word “nuance” in my post above or not; but since Ace said something similar also, I’d like to address it…

      The NRSC pushing Fiorini over DeVore (two qualified candidates): nuanced non-endorsement (not arguing that one for a second; Erick is dead-on). They have no business pushing one or the other in a closely contested primary battle.

      The NRCC failing to mention the seven dwarves of VA-5 with the same gusto as they’re mentioning their recruited candidate (Hurt)? Not nuanced (and not an endorsement). To this point, in that race what I see is one serious candidate facing a field of seven no-name people who’ve done little more than fill out the paperwork. Scope thinks they should get equal time. I don’t (and rattling the saber at the NRCC when you haven’t done your part of the bargain — yet — does little to convince me otherwise).

      • penguin2

        NRSC leadership and the ‘read between the lines’ smarts we all have. I read the other comments, and see other data being discussed, but I am just focusing on what the NRSC is doing by mentioning candidates and in turn, by them Not mentioning candidates. Haven’t delved into the NRCC issue with VA-5 yet.

        My conclusion; my money is going to selective candidates that most fit my conservative beliefs. I use RedState has a guide and no longer give blindly to the top GOP branches.

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

    The Party could be “devoured” by the tea party movement. If the tea partiers figure out that the best way to “party” to make a real impact on the GOP is indoors at local GOP meetings where they can volunteer to become voting members of the Party — precinct committeemen.

    Go here to read more:

    http://www.redstate.com/smdavis/2009/12/03/dude-wheres-my-strategy/#comment-75

    I hope you’ll join the tea partiers who have figured out that the BEST way to change the Republican Party, and really the only way, is within it as a voting member of it — a precinct committeeman.

    Plus, it’s fun!

    Thank you.
    ColdWarrior

    • Richard Mullins

      The TEA party crowd is running hard here in Texas and it really is going to help the Party. I don’t know why anyone would think that their Devouring the party unless you think like a Democrat.

  • redtillimdead

    Why would he mention the candidate who has basically said “____ You!” and refuses to meet with him? Also, since when are Vitter, Grassley, and McConnell the NRSC? John Cornyn and Orrin Hatch are NRSC leadership. Third, why do we not like Gilbert Baker? Because he leads Lincoln by 6 points?

  • archer52

    I’m not going to get to excited about this. We have to admit there are political environments where a social conservative with a more liberal fiscal policy may actually be the best bet. Not everyone everywhere is looking for a fiscal conservative candidate.

    That said, it is good that at least the D.C. Republicans are admitting a vigorous primary will solve a number of the problems NY23 caused. Let the candidates be chosen by the voters, warts and all and the best person wins.

    • mbecker908

      1. There is nothing that any Congress is going to actually accomplish on the social conservative agenda for a long time.

      2. There is plenty that fiscal conservatives can accomplish NOW.

      • SteveLA

        mbecker

        Yep ignore Tea Parties and what they were all about.
        Yep ignore followers of the RP Deity, and there’s lots of them.

        Bring back to power Republicans who spend like drunken sailors, just spending differently than the Donk Congresscritters.

        Makes as much sense as mammaries on a bull.

    • Vegas_Rick

      Look around at what they’re doing to this economy, and by extension, our liberties. Fiscal liberalism is what caused the mortgage crisis in particular and the economic crisis in general.

    • aesthete

      Have that mentality in a state race, if you must, but fiscal conservatism and natl. defense are all Congress does all day long. With the exception of judges and the occasional once-in-a-lifetime vote like the Partial Birth Amendment, there’s absolutely nothing to get social conservatives excited about in the legislative branch.

    • Scope

      You say that social conservatives, can be fiscal liberals, and that may be the best bet. In other words you agree with “social engineering” and/or “redistribution of wealth.” Let’s take from those evil people who earned their worth, and, give it to those that deserve more. Wow! I guess you are still here because you say what you do respectfully, and, you don’t use profanity. The “big tent” could not stand without fiscal conservatism. In fact there would be no tent without fiscal conservatism.

      Please explain what you mean by political environments where social conservatives, but, fiscal liberals, may be the best choice.

      You are correct that not everyone, everywhere is looking for fiscal conservatives, they are called Liberals/Progressives/Marxists/Communists/Fascists/Stalinists.

      • archer52

        If you visit my website: www.truthandcommonsense.com you’ll quickly see I’m both a social (more libertarian actually) conservative and also a fiscal one. What I am also is a person who uses common sense as a guide. It has managed to keep me alive in some very difficult situations during my career.

        That said; let me try to explain my position so those who have trouble staying mentally flexible in this very trying period of time on our nation can understand my point. I know we are all frustrated and most of us are tired of being “understanding” of moderates. Heck, I’m half a step from saying burn it all down and start over myself. So I get it. But the reality is the reality. We live in a political environment dominated by two parties. Not what I would choose, but it is what it is. If anyone thinks outside a few local and state races a third party can mount a serious threat to either the Democrats or the Republicans in this current period of time they are fooling themselves. Neither party will stand for it and they will band together to destroy it.

        Remember all that you are seeing is about power and control. Things like honor and duty and sacrifice and the “greater good” are only words to these people, not principles they follow. Some of our political leaders are good men and women, but they are realists and they aren’t going to shoot themselves in the foot. They are human after all, with kids to feed, house payments to make, etc. Others in the political world are as corrupt as anything the Romans, the Germans, or the old school political machines of the past could ever muster. Again, it is human nature to have people in power who are just evil, foolish, or elitist. This is the world we live in.

        The way to win this battle is not to shoot the guy next to you because he doesn’t look just like you. Nor can you overwhelm what is a seriously superior force facing you. That also would be foolish and suicidal. So how to win? Isn’t that the real question all of us are wondering? How to win so we can dig our nation out from under a hundred years of bad ideas and politics? Remember not two weeks or a couple of months of bad ideas but a hundred years of bad ideas and acts. Not an easy task, especially if you couple the physical environment with the fact the people you are trying to influence, by and large, are dumber than a bag of hammers when it comes to politics, history and a true understanding of what it means to be an American. The progressives didn’t spend forty years hiding the truth from our children in public schools by accident. They wanted exactly what you see today- ignorance on a grand scale.

        I observe and accept what I see. I don’t see roses on the horizon, or a miracle just around the corner. I see a long and hard slog. It will take years to gain momentum, regardless of how frustrated we all feel, that is the fact. What is a mistake is refusing to even start in the general direction of renewal because of a rigid set of principles. I have a friend like that. He is a staunch libertarian and refuses to vote for either the Dems or the Reps in any race, even close ones where the republican is head and shoulders above the democrat. He stands alone and frankly a living example of foolishness.

        When confronted with what the post was referring to, that the D.C. Republicans mentioned most but not ALL of “our guys” so somehow that is a deal breaker, I reacted as a man not willing to be overrun by the enemy because the soldier next to me isn’t just like me. I saw not the fact they didn’t list all of our people, but that they recognized a vigorous primary shaking out all the candidates is the best way to do business. That is a heck of a victory! It is probably as close to an “I’m sorry, I screwed up.” apology as you all are going to get.

        Further, as far as my stance on social vs conservative on issues of budget and culture, I stand firm. The reality of our nation is that each candidate should reflect his or her constituency. It is their job and how it was designed by our founding fathers. That way, farmers can have a representative protecting their interests, steel workers theirs, even rural people who are poor should have someone speak for them. In our zeal to clean house, we forget this. The idea originally was each interest was supposed to compete with and somewhat negate the other interests. The constant friction was supposed to be broken only by a greater good issue that people with different views could come together on. (WWII for example) As I believe this, I must also accept that a representative from a certain area may not have all the holes punched on my personal check sheet, but that doesn’t make them unacceptable. Seven out of ten is good enough- as Glenn Beck put it.

        In a sense I realize we may find ourselves having to take small steps before we can walk fast and then run. We just start running and we aren’t prepared, we’ll fall. And believe me, once on our backs, the others will jump on us like a scene from Jack London’s Call of the Wild.

        However, do not confuse my ability to moderate certain but not all situations in order to step forward with me given a rat’s rear end for people like Lindsey Graham or Snowe. In their cases, I think they are the end result of a career in D.C. (something NOT designed by our founding fathers and a real reason we are in the soup today). I am convinced we can find better people to replace them in the next cycle. However, those people may not be a ten out of ten. If they are a six out of ten in Snowe’s case, jump on it! If the guy running over Graham is a seven out of ten, take him too. Both will be fresh and can be influenced by us. Not like the other two idiots.

        That’s how I see it. Agree or disagree, it is your freedom and your choice.

        For those of you interested, what you are seeing today I wrote about in 1997. Visit my book website www.revoltthebook.com. It will be out soon. In the book, I write about a time where things are far worse than they are today, but I’ll be the first to admit we are definitely going in that direction. So, don’t confuse me with someone who is soft or moderate. I’m not. What I am tired of is hair splitting and back biting. Let it go. The enemy is over there, not standing beside you.

        • mbecker908

          and saying exactly nothing.

          You made a clear statement in the beginning of this thread. You’ve followed it up with nothing.

    • Scope

      You say that social conservatives, can be fiscal liberals, and that may be the best bet. In other words you agree with “social engineering” and/or “redistribution of wealth.” Let’s take from those evil people who earned their worth, and, give it to those that deserve more. Wow! I guess you are still here because you say what you do respectfully, and, you don’t use profanity. The “big tent” could not stand without fiscal conservatism. In fact there would be no tent without fiscal conservatism.

      Please explain what you mean by political environments where social conservatives, but, fiscal liberals, may be the best choice.

      You are correct that not everyone, everywhere is looking for fiscal conservatives, they are called Liberals/Progressives/Marxists/Communists/Fascists/Stalinists.

    • mbecker908

      It’s going to be a slow weekend at the 908s and I’d love to see a Troll Diary get posted so we’ll have something to play with. It’s been a while since I really unlimbered and beat the crap out of a doofus.

      • bs
  • E Pluribus Unum

    Cornyn is a good man, but he is simply NOT getting it. And Cornyn is not “too big to fail”. We beat him bloody until he gets it.

  • jhathaway47

    I’m happy to devour the GOP… whatever comes out the other end would smell better than good ol boy John Cornyn’s DC nonsense.

    You win elections with PRINCIPLE and STRENGTH, not hedging your bets and smiling to the cameras to turn your back on your base