Good intentions v. good tactics

[Charles L. Cotton]

Let me say this up front because I know some folks aren't going to like this post. I like Sen. Ted Cruz. I like what he stands for and what he wants to accomplish. I don't like ineffective tactics, especially when they blow up in your face.

In the lame duck session, President Obama was able to get 12 of his federal judge nominees approved, along with the rabidly anti-gun Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy. Surprisingly, President Obama has Ted Cruz to thank for the opportunity. You see, a deal had been struck on the spending bill and all that was going to happen during the lame duck session was the passing of the bill, then everyone was going home. None of the Obama nominations were going to be heard until the Republicans took control in 2015. However, Sen. Cruz decided to argue the bill, thus giving outgoing Sen. Reid 72 hours to get the appointments to the Senate floor for a vote. Since the deal was off, Sen. Reid took advantage of the remaining hours of Democratic control of the Senate and we now have 12 Obama nominated, liberal federal judges with a lifetime jobs because of one terrible political move. While Murthy will undoubtedly be out of a job if a Republican wins the 2016 Presidential election, Obama's federal judges will likely be considered for appellate court benches in future years, possibly including the U.S. Supreme Court.

Some will argue that he did what he felt was right. True, but I don't care about good intentions, I care about results and this result was both predictable and horrendous! Hopefully, he'll learn from this, but I can't believe that he was unaware of the consequences of giving the Democrats more time before the Republicans took over.

Chas.

[Oldgringo]

Well said. I sometimes wonder if Mr. Cruz is doing some 'grandstanding' ?

[PBratton]

I agree with Charles. I am wondering where Mr. Cruz's staff was during this episode. Aren't they supposed to help keep him out of trouble?

[The Annoyed Man]

I'm with Charles on this, I too like Sen. Cruz. But sometimes the seemingly most important legislative debates bury the actually most important details and/or consequences that will be affected by the outcomes. Ideologically speaking, I stand with Tea Party and libertarian candidates over issues (I know that sounds conflicting, but it really isn't); but I worry that in their zeal to pursue proper (from my perspective) ideological principles, these politicians will overlook the political realities, and we'll end up with unexpected outcomes. More truthfully, those outcomes should be expected, but zeal blinds people to them.

Another example is what just happened in the reelection of Boehner as Speaker. Several Tea Party republicans challenged him, and the result is that they are about to be shut out of committee assignments. Louie Gohmert (R, TX) is one of them. The only upside is that a group of 23 conservative republicans have signed a letter to Boehner warning him against punishing those who ran against him for the speakership (SOURCE). For his part, Boehner calls himself "the most anti-establishment Speaker ever", proving that he can crack jokes with the best of them.......

And in the meantime, the Lying Fascist in Chief, who promised a "new spirit of cooperation" to work with the new republican majority, has threatened three vetoes in two days (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/aee310fb ... h-care-law]SOURCE[/url]). His view of cooperation is singularly one-sided, if you ask me. It's more like, if you pass the bills I tell you to pass, the way I tell you to pass them, I'll sign them.

So the bottom line is that even with significant victories in 2014, the republican majority is not veto-proof, and we are going to have 2 more years of the same old crap dished up by democrats in the previous 6 years. So what must republicans do to guarantee the passage of republican bills beginning in 2016? They have two large tasks ahead of them:

1. hold onto their majority in both houses.

2. win the presidency.

And #2 is pretty worthless if that president is not conservative enough, because our "conservative" Speaker has shown little interest in behaving conservatively. But the flip side of that is the party's zealots are all too willing to behave conservatively without giving any thought to the consequences. The trouble with zealots is that they never ask themselves, "is this the hill I want to die on today?" They are willing to die on all hills, all the time, without regard for the consequences.

It would have been FAR better to pass the spending bill, unaltered, and pass the fiscal buck a year down the road, leaving the Obama nominees in limbo. Then Congress could have incorporated the next looming budget fight into a campaign issue, using it to deny the democrats a chance at the white house, instead of wasting political capital on un-winnable fights.

Democrats are wrong on all the issues, but they are a lot smarter at politics than republicans. They are smarter because they have no underlying reverence of principle which anchors their behavior. Republicans are right on most of the issues, but they play bush-league politics........and they lose because they are going up against pros. Even with the significant majority that they hold in both houses, republicans are not going to figure out how to put a stop to a rogue out of control president.......because they don't know how to get nasty with him, while the president's middle name is "Nasty"..........and he is as roguish as he wants to be.....and he knows that republicans are too disorganized to stop him.

Pretty picture, isn't it?

[RPBrown]

I'm with Charles on this, I too like Sen. Cruz. But sometimes the seemingly most important legislative debates bury the actually most important details and/or consequences that will be affected by the outcomes. Ideologically speaking, I stand with Tea Party and libertarian candidates over issues (I know that sounds conflicting, but it really isn't); but I worry that in their zeal to pursue proper (from my perspective) ideological principles, these politicians will overlook the political realities, and we'll end up with unexpected outcomes. More truthfully, those outcomes should be expected, but zeal blinds people to them.

Another example is what just happened in the reelection of Boehner as Speaker. Several Tea Party republicans challenged him, and the result is that they are about to be shut out of committee assignments. Louie Gohmert (R, TX) is one of them. The only upside is that a group of 23 conservative republicans have signed a letter to Boehner warning him against punishing those who ran against him for the speakership (SOURCE). For his part, Boehner calls himself "the most anti-establishment Speaker ever", proving that he can crack jokes with the best of them.......

And in the meantime, the Lying Fascist in Chief, who promised a "new spirit of cooperation" to work with the new republican majority, has threatened three vetoes in two days (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/aee310fb ... h-care-law]SOURCE[/url]). His view of cooperation is singularly one-sided, if you ask me. It's more like, if you pass the bills I tell you to pass, the way I tell you to pass them, I'll sign them.



So the bottom line is that even with significant victories in 2014, the republican majority is not veto-proof, and we are going to have 2 more years of the same old crap dished up by democrats in the previous 6 years. So what must republicans do to guarantee the passage of republican bills beginning in 2016? They have two large tasks ahead of them:

1. hold onto their majority in both houses.

2. win the presidency.

And #2 is pretty worthless if that president is not conservative enough, because our "conservative" Speaker has shown little interest in behaving conservatively. But the flip side of that is the party's zealots are all too willing to behave conservatively without giving any thought to the consequences. The trouble with zealots is that they never ask themselves, "is this the hill I want to die on today?" They are willing to die on all hills, all the time, without regard for the consequences.

It would have been FAR better to pass the spending bill, unaltered, and pass the fiscal buck a year down the road, leaving the Obama nominees in limbo. Then Congress could have incorporated the next looming budget fight into a campaign issue, using it to deny the democrats a chance at the white house, instead of wasting political capital on un-winnable fights.

Democrats are wrong on all the issues, but they are a lot smarter at politics than republicans. They are smarter because they have no underlying reverence of principle which anchors their behavior. Republicans are right on most of the issues, but they play bush-league politics........and they lose because they are going up against pros. Even with the significant majority that they hold in both houses, republicans are not going to figure out how to put a stop to a rogue out of control president.......because they don't know how to get nasty with him, while the president's middle name is "Nasty"..........and he is as roguish as he wants to be.....and he knows that republicans are too disorganized to stop him.

Pretty picture, isn't it?

[G26ster]

I'm with Charles on this, I too like Sen. Cruz. But sometimes the seemingly most important legislative debates bury the actually most important details and/or consequences that will be affected by the outcomes. Ideologically speaking, I stand with Tea Party and libertarian candidates over issues (I know that sounds conflicting, but it really isn't); but I worry that in their zeal to pursue proper (from my perspective) ideological principles, these politicians will overlook the political realities, and we'll end up with unexpected outcomes. More truthfully, those outcomes should be expected, but zeal blinds people to them.

And #2 is pretty worthless if that president is not conservative enough, because our "conservative" Speaker has shown little interest in behaving conservatively. But the flip side of that is the party's zealots are all too willing to behave conservatively without giving any thought to the consequences. The trouble with zealots is that they never ask themselves, "is this the hill I want to die on today?" They are willing to die on all hills, all the time, without regard for the consequences.

TAM

Substitute the words "republican voter" for the words "politicians and zealots", and you have the reason we have the current POTUS. They stayed home because Romney wasn't conservative enough for them. The Republican House and Senate do not elect the President. The voters do (actually, Independents do). As long as they (to use your words) "are willing to die on all hills, all the time, without regard for the consequences" we will have a Democrat in the White House. How many times, on this forum and other places have I read, "If the Republicans don't get a presidential candidate I can get behind, and agrees with my principals, I will not..." If you want the republican politicians to wake up, so too need the Republican "voters." Just MHO.

[psijac]

I'm with Charles on this, I too like Sen. Cruz. But sometimes the seemingly most important legislative debates bury the actually most important details and/or consequences that will be affected by the outcomes. Ideologically speaking, I stand with Tea Party and libertarian candidates over issues (I know that sounds conflicting, but it really isn't); but I worry that in their zeal to pursue proper (from my perspective) ideological principles, these politicians will overlook the political realities, and we'll end up with unexpected outcomes. More truthfully, those outcomes should be expected, but zeal blinds people to them.

And #2 is pretty worthless if that president is not conservative enough, because our "conservative" Speaker has shown little interest in behaving conservatively. But the flip side of that is the party's zealots are all too willing to behave conservatively without giving any thought to the consequences. The trouble with zealots is that they never ask themselves, "is this the hill I want to die on today?" They are willing to die on all hills, all the time, without regard for the consequences.

TAM

Substitute the words "republican voter" for the words "politicians and zealots", and you have the reason we have the current POTUS. They stayed home because Romney wasn't conservative enough for them. The Republican House and Senate do not elect the President. The voters do (actually, Independents do). As long as they (to use your words) "are willing to die on all hills, all the time, without regard for the consequences" we will have a Democrat in the White House. How many times, on this forum and other places have I read, "If the Republicans don't get a presidential candidate I can get behind, and agrees with my principals, I will not..." If you want the republican politicians to wake up, so too need the Republican "voters." Just MHO.

I think Romney Could have and more importantly Would have gotten a Assault Weapons ban through the Senate and signed the bill

[baldeagle]

TAM

Substitute the words "republican voter" for the words "politicians and zealots", and you have the reason we have the current POTUS. They stayed home because Romney wasn't conservative enough for them. The Republican House and Senate do not elect the President. The voters do (actually, Independents do). As long as they (to use your words) "are willing to die on all hills, all the time, without regard for the consequences" we will have a Democrat in the White House. How many times, on this forum and other places have I read, "If the Republicans don't get a presidential candidate I can get behind, and agrees with my principals, I will not..." If you want the republican politicians to wake up, so too need the Republican "voters." Just MHO.

Frankly, that argument will no longer fly with me and a lot of other people. We're sick and tired of being lied to by Republicans. If we have to destroy the party, then so be it, but it needs to change. Right now the Republicans seem thrilled to have Jeb Bush running for President. He will not win. Conservatives will not vote for him. It's time for the Republicans to learn that they need conservatives to win and start paying attention to what they are asking for.

There are two sides to the coin you're looking at. From your side, the GOP should nominate someone, and then the voters should support that nominee. The other side of that coin is the GOP should let the voters decide who the nominee should be and then support that nominee. So far, the GOP has proven they could care less what voters want. They have attacked (with money and support) EVERY conservative nominee in the country despite the fact that the voters nominated them. McConnell actually said he would "crush" the Tea Party. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... going-cru/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; In Mississippi Cochran appealed to Democrats and accused his Tea Party opponent of being a racist to win his runoff. The GOP liked that tactic so well they tried it (unsuccessfully) in the Georgia Senate race as well.

When did it become extreme to demand that Congress obey the Constitution? To ask that Congress balance the budget? (Our debt is now over $18 TRILLION. How much higher can it go before the country collapses?) To ask that the Government live with its means?

As to the discussion of Ted Cruz that started this thread, and with all due respect to Charles, whom I admire, this is nothing but a red herring. I'm shocked that so many people that I respect have fallen for it.

Congress wasn't going home until Reid got his nominations. He said so himself, a week before Cruz' actions supposedly made it possible. http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/12/17/te ... ange-rules" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; http://dailysignal.com/2014/12/16/ted-c ... -nominees/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.govexec.com/management/2014/ ... en/100659/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Senate also kicks off the week with a few additional confirmation votes on some of the president's nominees, as the upper chamber awaits instruction from the House on some of those other big-ticket items they'll need to pass before leaving Washington for the holidays.

More than 100 nominees are still awaiting Senate approval before Republicans take control of the Senate next year. Among them is the nominee to head Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Sarah Saldaña, whose apparently easy nomination has been complicated by Obama's executive action on immigration. Given the new Republican opposition to her nomination, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid could put Saldaña on the calendar this week to approve her nomination under a Democratic majority.

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/12/14/q ... -day-1940/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A Senate source outside the Cruz and Lee offices with direct knowledge of the behind the scenes conversations tells me, “GOP leadership knew Reid was going to file cloture on up to 20 controversial nominations yesterday afternoon before they tried to move CROmnibus votes to monday. They told us the process to clear non-controversial nominations had broken down because Reid was going to file cloture on these nominations. So they knew this was going to happen regardless.”…

The Republican leadership is arguing that they might have been able to convince Reid to hold off on these controversial nominations if we played ball on the CROmnibus, but that’s just speculation. The tradeoff last night was for Lee et al to give up their right to offer amendments on the CROmnibus in exchange for the possibility that Reid wouldn’t go through with his nominations, if he was feeling generous.

Anyone who believes Reid would have passed up this opportunity had Cruz and Lee not objected is drinking the Washington koolaid. Some Democrats have claimed (to the press) that they were concerned that some members might have left for the holidays destroying their chances to get the nominees through. Sure they would have. And I've got a piece of land I'll sell ya at a really good price. You just can't look at it before you sign the papers. Care to make that deal?

Dems will never miss a chance to stir up trouble in the GOP, and the RINOs in the GOP will never miss the chance to publicly and openly castigate Cruz. (Notice they never mention Mike Lee.) If you can't figure out why, maybe you need to do some more serious thinking.

The truth is many Senators were mad because their weekend plans were ruined. They saw an opportunity to blame Cruz for the nominations (which left them off the hook for them) and they jumped on it. Does ANYONE complaining about Cruz know how many voted for the nominations? How much debate took place before the nominations were approved?

I'll wait for your answer.

[G26ster]

[ From your side, the GOP should nominate someone, and then the voters should support that nominee. The other side of that coin is the GOP should let the voters decide who the nominee should be and then support that nominee.

Where did you get the idea that I objected to what Cruz did? I have no big arguments on what Cruz did. As reported, Harry Reid would have got the nominations in anyway.

But, you have my side of the coin reversed. It seems to me that the "voters" in the primaries selected Romney as the candidate, not the party. After that, Romney had the support of the GOP. As TAM said, "The trouble with zealots is that they never ask themselves, "is this the hill I want to die on today?" They are willing to die on all hills, all the time, without regard for the consequences." Simply put, the "my way or the highway" stance from either the RINOs or the Conservatives is what will destroy the GOP. My point is that it is better to have a POTUS that is NOT a Democrat, even if it means that the GOP candidate is not as conservative as I'd like and is not in lock step with me. I am no big fan of the current GOP leadership, but destroying the GOP will give us Democrats in control forever. And sorry, I do not equate the Dems and the GOP equally bad.

[baldeagle]

[ From your side, the GOP should nominate someone, and then the voters should support that nominee. The other side of that coin is the GOP should let the voters decide who the nominee should be and then support that nominee.

Where did you get the idea that I objected to what Cruz did? I have no big arguments on what Cruz did. As reported, Harry Reid would have got the nominations in anyway.

I wasn't aware I had accused you of that.

But, you have my side of the coin reversed. It seems to me that the "voters" in the primaries selected Romney as the candidate, not the party. After that, Romney had the support of the GOP. As TAM said, "The trouble with zealots is that they never ask themselves, "is this the hill I want to die on today?" They are willing to die on all hills, all the time, without regard for the consequences." Simply put, the "my way or the highway" stance from either the RINOs or the Conservatives is what will destroy the GOP. My point is that it is better to have a POTUS that is NOT a Democrat, even if it means that the GOP candidate is not as conservative as I'd like and is not in lock step with me. I am no big fan of the current GOP leadership, but destroying the GOP will give us Democrats in control forever. And sorry, I do not equate the Dems and the GOP equally bad.

Here's you display a naivete about the nomination process. If the GOP really wanted the nominee to be chosen by the voters, they would stay out of the primaries entirely and let the voters decide. But they don't do that. They rig the rules to give their chosen candidates an unfair advantage and spend significant political capital denigrating all the candidates they prefer not to see represent the party.

When you put your thumb on the scales, you can hardly then claim that the weight was honest and valid.

BTW, if the GOP is destroyed, it will have been by their own doing, and that doesn't mean Democrat control. It could well mean a new party that actually represents conservatives. Remember the Whigs?

[G26ster]

Here's you display a naivete about the nomination process. If the GOP really wanted the nominee to be chosen by the voters, they would stay out of the primaries entirely and let the voters decide. But they don't do that. They rig the rules to give their chosen candidates an unfair advantage and spend significant political capital denigrating all the candidates they prefer not to see represent the party.

Don't think I'm naive at all. Both parties attempt to get their "chosen" candidate nominated by using those tactics. You don't think there's immense pressure from the Dem "powers that be" for Elizabeth Warren to stay out of Hillary's way?

I guess the GOP forgot to put their thumb on the scales for Romney in Alabama, Kansas, North Dakota, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Louisiana, Georgia, and South Carolina, which Romney did not win.

If the GOP is destroyed, it will be the Dems in control for generations, IMHO. Parties lose elections when their base stays home and/or alienate the Independants. To me, it is easier to work from within to change party leadership, than it is to split into adversary groups with a "my way or the highway" approach. That's a losing strategy. And, as far a party leadership, there are well over 60 Tea party affiliated members of the House, yet only 25 House members voted against the Speaker this week. What does that say about the conservative wing of the party?

[Charles L. Cotton]

As to the discussion of Ted Cruz that started this thread, and with all due respect to Charles, whom I admire, this is nothing but a red herring. I'm shocked that so many people that I respect have fallen for it.

And meaning no disrespect to you, you don't know what I know. I can't say more than this; I've been at NRA all this week in various committee meetings, including Legislative Policy. It doesn't matter what Reid said publicly, the deal was done and Cruz screwed it up. We have 12 Obama federal judges because of Cruz. People who get their information from the Internet and news media, with no insider information, can only guess and surmise. Again, I mean no disrespect but that's the hard cold truth.

You may be willing to destroy the Republican Party and hand control to the Democrats, but I'm not nor is the majority of anti-Democrats. Here's the sad truth, there aren't enough conservatives to win. If you think destroying the Republican Party will see a powerful conservative party rise from the ashes, then you can look into the mirror and see the guy who's drinking the Kool-Aid. The Country has changed because the population has changed, not because of Washington. We will never see the 1950's again.

Chas.

[CoffeeNut]

Every time I hear about Ted Cruz he is only referred to as a "firebrand" and an up and coming possible Presidential candidate. He can ride his wave of attention to the debates but I imagine that he'll crash and burn just like Rick Perry. If Ted Cruz is to be groomed for President he'll need more than another year.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Every time I hear about Ted Cruz he is only referred to as a "firebrand" and an up and coming possible Presidential candidate. He can ride his wave of attention to the debates but I imagine that he'll crash and burn just like Rick Perry. If Ted Cruz is to be groomed for President he'll need more than another year.

If Ted Cruz were to win the Republican nomination, then another Democrat will occupy the White House. Cruz cannot win the Presidency.

Chas.

[stroo]

For 'most of my life, I would have fully agreed with you Charles about Cruz' actions. And I spent a significant portion of my professional career dealing with politicians much like you have.

However I have come to the conclusion that my past approach, your current approach and the establishment Republican approach along with Democratic ideology has lead to political insanity in D.C and many state political establishments. We are spending in DC alone almost a trillion dollars more a year than we collect in tax revenues. We have a Federal government whose spending is ridiculous and the only place we can cut is Defense and Intelligence services which are already generally at pre1940 levels. We refuse to call Islamic jihadists the terrorists they are and want to let the worst of them out of Gitmo. We kill terrorists with drones even while absolutely condemning the waterboarding of 3 of them. This is all crazy.

And the secret deal stuff you got from the NRA is typical of the Lucy pulling the ball away stunt the Democrats have been using for years. They "make" deals and then break them as soon as they get what they want. No offence but you need to step back from the inside politics for a while.

The only cure I see for this is to scream from the rooftops that the Emperor has no clothes. That is what I see Cruz doing. If it really cost us judicial appointments, and no offence I don't believe for a moment Harry Reid would have kept that "deal" if there was one, Cruz' truth telling was far more important.