September 15, 2014

Kentucky Woman

"She gets to know you."

And when Kentucky voters get to know her, they may make Kentucky Republicans wish they had nominated "TEA Party favorite" Matt Bevin instead of... ol' Mitch.

Doggone, I really hope the GOP swings enough seats to control the senate without McConnell because, like this CNN commentator says, I'm one of those who sees him as part of the problem.

I'm watching this race real closely because to me it could be the biggest indictment of politics as usual. If Republicans win the senate because Barack Obama hasn't led, but McConnell doesn't return to the senate to lead it because he's part of, a big part of the dysfunction in Washington, this could be a race that really shows how the public is just tired of the way both parties are running this place.

"She goin' to own you."

Internecine Politics Tea Party Posted by JohnGalt at September 15, 2014 7:30 PM

Are you high? (Sorry, somebody used that on me and I've been searching for a victim....)

The spot is really really good, I am sorry to say. But before you send her $2500, peek at her Allison's Priorities.

Raise the minimum wage! Stop Corporations from shipping jobs overseas! Fight to reduce student loan debt!

Workers of the world, unite!

Posted by: Jk at September 15, 2014 9:10 PM

I left out equal pay for equal work. Huh, coal, EPA, and guns did not make her top nine.

On the serious side, I don't get the hate on Speaker Boehner and Leader McConnell. You have to have some establishment guys in leadership, do you not? I think they are necessary evils.

Posted by: Jk at September 15, 2014 9:15 PM

This is not an endorsement of Alison. It is an "oh, there's broken glass on the floor, maybe I won't vote this time" message to Mitch.

As for the hate on McConnell, just Bing "mitch McConnell rino." Here's a taste:

Doing an interview with the New York Times, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell addressed the issue of three high profile Republican senators who are facing primary challenges from the Right. His conclusion?

We’re going to crush you like the worms that you are, peasants.


Posted by: johngalt at September 16, 2014 11:19 AM

And dude, don't Bogart the Cheetos!

Posted by: johngalt at September 16, 2014 11:20 AM

Gotta roll with JK on this one. There's not a Democrat out there who would be better than McConnell, even the likes of Joe Manchin. Joe bends to the will of the party on key votes as would any other Dem.

Some random thoughts:

1. The Buckley rule applies: vote for the most Conservative candidate who can be elected. Allison is not the most conservative candidate.
2. The Refugee is tired of the "let's shoot ourselves in the head to make a point" strategy. That's what keeps Harry Reid in power - we should have had the Senate (and White House) in 2012 except for nominating seriously flawed candidates and Conservatives sitting on their hands during the election. Wow, we really showed those Republic establishment types a thing or two, didn't we!!
3. The Republican caucus is very diverse. The leaders have a very difficult task of crafting legislation to satisfy everyone, which necessitates compromise. Ironically, the more we compromise intra-party (that is, function as a bloc) the less we have to compromise with the Democrats. Both Boehner and McConnell do about as well as anyone could at herding cats.

Posted by: Boulder Refugee at September 16, 2014 12:07 PM

Okay. the "worms/peasants" quote is attributable to the always cool heads at Hotair.com (Jazz Shaw is a Jets' fan, skepticism is certainly warranted). Leader McConnell did say "crush."

And I said "necessary evil."

We need philosophically pure candidates in the GOP, but we do not need a replay of Sharron Angle, Ken Buck, and Wicca McWitchersen in Delaware. McConnell exists to establish and protect his majority. And all three "crushes" represent a threat. (For the record, I'd take Satan over Thad Cochran in MS, but the other establishment choices are probably good for the GOP as a whole).

I think you have to have a Boehner and a McConnell and that those two are pretty good. (McConnell did take McCain-Feingold to the Supreme Court -- some props are deserved.)

Posted by: jk at September 16, 2014 12:16 PM

Can I at least get some props for the Neil Diamond reference? ;)

Quoting the Hotair paraphrase instead of McConnell's more clinical phraseology was intentionally misleading on my part, with purpose to inflame passions. It seems that was not necessary though as my two brothers felt strongly enough already to elicit their comments. I was "picking a fight" as it were.

Bearing in mind that I am a member in good standing of my county's GOP Executive Committee and I defend the Republican brand in all circles, I'm still committed to my principles above all. I hear my brothers' arguments in defense of party establishment leaders, and their tactics, and I am not persuaded to sit on my hands and nod. Sometimes the line is blurry and sometimes not, but if there is no difference in the policies enacted by our guys or theirs, I prefer to let their guys take the credit for what follows. Let the Democrats win. Let them govern unopposed. Let voters learn the consequences. But continuing to prop up cronies, who publish platforms supporting liberty but then govern as cronies, only adds fuel to the charges that "there's no difference between the majority parties."

The Buckley rule applies as much or more in primaries than in general elections. If Kentucky voters had followed it we would have an excellent candidate in Matt Bevin. One who would offer true contrast to the Democrat's principles. Important things, not how they hold a rifle or whether they recognize the uniforms of local collegiate basketball teams. Do we "have to have some establishment guys in leadership?" I see no reason at all. Before we can take back our government from the cronies in the other party we must, I am convinced, take back our party from the cronies in our party.

BR, do you really believe that it's a good thing when our party has LESS to compromise over with the Progressive Left Democrat party? Have you forgotten your football field analogy? Between the two of you I read a willingness to keep the aging defensive team on the field instead of drafting a new crop of promising young offensive talent. And why, so that the ball can "keep moving" even if it's in the wrong direction?

I'm tired of the "party over principle" strategy.
I'm sick of having ANY evils in my party, even ostensibly useful ones.
And more than having philosophically pure candidates and office holders, we need a consistently pro-freedom philosophy in the party at large. "Crushing" the new blood because they threaten entrenched interests is exactly the opposite of what we should defend.

By the way, all of the flawed "TEA Party Candidates" are household names, but how many more failed establishment candidates have there been, who we never hear about nationally, because it's not in someone's self-dealing interest to trumpet their failures loudly?

Posted by: johngalt at September 16, 2014 3:08 PM

Mister Diamond may have been what produced the negative reaction. He had the only song that sucked in the Last Waltz movie, and I learned later that he was inserted by Scorsese and Robbie Robertson over the rest of the band's (capitalize at will) strenuous objection.

I will return to and ask that you spend a few minutes on alisons-priorities. Her sound byte spot for the low information voter notwithstanding, she is not all about guns and coal. Her nine priorities would work for any Democratic member or candidate for either house in any state.

So I reject your Pat Buchanan/Chris Matthews assertion that there is no difference. Allison's priorities are not Mitch's.

Maybe Song Sung Blue or Sherry Baby...

Posted by: jk at September 16, 2014 3:41 PM

Difference between parties, not two particular candidates. Forest > Trees. And principles of leadership, not foot soldier priorities.

Instead of adding more I implore readers to re-read my prior comment for full effect.

Posted by: johngalt at September 16, 2014 4:10 PM

I'll applaud the Diamond reference, and add to it some Skynard: I hope Alison will remember, a Southern man don't need her around... anyhow...

Stick around for the Tammy Wynette to follow shortly.

I was going to stay out of this one; the Kentucky race brewing up to be a "lesser of two evils" situation, between McConnell and Grimes. As I've been quoted saying before, why pick the lesser of two evils? Cthulhu/SMOD 2016!

But, I've been asked to weigh in on this issue, and -- though this requires explanation -- I'm weighing in on JG's side. McConnell needs to go. Were I a Kentuckian, I'd be seriously debating whether to vote third party or leave this race blank.

First: where JK's right. I've checked Grimes out enough to be satisfied she can't have my vote. Besides the visceral issues (the Hillary-like emphasis on the first name only, the absence of the admission of "Democrat" just about anywhere in her website or campaign media, and despite her pretense of being anti-Obama, she relies on the same gawdawful two-tone blue motif that Obama has made me sick of), her record and her priorities prove her to be a lefty. She's a stealth Democrat. She's distancing herself from Obama, running to her right, and that will last until she's sworn in. Thousands of independents who will have been stupid enough to have voted for her will cry out with one voice "how did she deceive us?"

But McConnell has pissed on the conservative and freedom wings of his party far too often to have my support. He's a big-government, go-along-to-get-along elite who is open in his loathing of the peasants, and he defines peasants as TEA Party voters and Constitutionalists. In his mind, he believes he can afford to alienate that wing specifically because that wing is a reliable vote for the GOP.

We have a low opinion of Janay Rice because, like so many other abused wives who keep coming back to their man, she takes it. At least we could excuse Janay because Rice brought home the bacon and the bling. GOP voters who stick by McConnell aren't all that different; in fact, the case could be made that Janay got more from Rice than we get from McConnell. Why would you keep voting and keep voting for a man who makes no attempt to hide his disgust toward you?

Ideally, the GOP will win the Senate while being able to sacrifice McConnell and still take the majority. If the constitutionalist win does not at some point withhold their sanction and support for the statist RINOs and instead keeps on enabling them, it will only reinforce that they can safely continue their betrayals. The GOP elite are confident that they can continue this game, and they will do so until they are proven wrong. Do I want to keep the Senate majority in Democrat hands? Of course not. But at some point, one has to be willing to risk losing in order to serve notice that the constitutionalists may refuse to give their sanction. If not now, when? Will it ever be safe? Do you think governance from DC in the future will be better, or worse?

I for one am done with the whole "stand by your man" routine while he shamelessly betrays us and slaps us around.

And if McConnell does win and the GOP takes the Senate, McConnell CANNOT be the majority leader. That's non-negotiable. There's not much point in throwing out the Democrats if all you're going to replace them with is Democrats-lite.

Of course there's risk involved. De l'audace, et encore de l'audace, et toujours de l'audace.

Posted by: Keith Arnold at September 16, 2014 4:17 PM

McConnel has been generally unphelpful and most un-leaderlike, IIRC. Boehner doubles down by repeatedly going out of his way to be nasty, and do things (specifically, to try to force an Immigration Reform bill) that really hurt conservatism and the Party. Hurting the GOP may not terribly important 'round here perhaps, but think about the title he ran for just 3 years ago.

He's given the media way too many weapons with which to continue the rhetorical beating (as if they need the help!) of GOP and the Tea Party. This to me says he's more than just a politician, but a rank and low-down DC Insider. Of the 2-3 times I'm aware of these low-down maneuvers, the only explanation I can see -- and I follow the inside-baseball aspect of politics to a certain degree -- is to ingratiate himself to media and the liberal cognoscente.

With friends like this.... McConnel I can stomach, Boehner needs to be crushed. IMHO

Here's what Morning Joe had to say:
http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/joe-scarborough-hugh-hewitt-show-boehners-got-go

Boehner and the leadership don’t talk to their members. A lot of times, I’ll call my buddies and I’ll say hey, what’s going on? What are guys doing? And they go, ‘we wish we knew.’ I say well, when’s the last time Boehner told you what the strategy was, because Newt sometimes talked, as you know, too much. They say well, Boehner doesn’t talk to us. Well, what do you mean he doesn’t talk to you? They say he never tells us what’s coming next. We’re guessing half the time.

Sounds like Obama's style of "leadership", if y'ask me....

Posted by: nanobrewer at September 16, 2014 4:46 PM

Wow - strong letter to follow, eh? Leave the conversation for an hour and look what happens.

I'm surprised at the visceral reaction to Boehner/McConnell. These guys must continually thread the needle and have done as good a job as anyone could, IMHO. No really egregious legislation has passed since Boehner became speaker. When we only control one half of Congress, the best we can hope for is to block the bad stuff. Asking them to get anything worthwhile past Reid or Obama is unrealistic.

Look - someone is going to hold the Senate seat from Kentucky. Can you name one Kentucky Democrat that you'd prefer over McConnell?

"Better to let Democrats take the blame..." - really? We've been trying that strategy since 2008 and now we have Obamacare, $17 trillion in debt, snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq/Afghanistan, lost all credibility as a world leader, our enemies are stronger and our allies weaker, Sotamayor/Kagen are in SCOTUS and the DC Circuit has been packed with libs (total of 53 Circuit Court appointments overall) and it may take a generation to rebuild our military - not to mention the abuses of imPOTUS power and scandals. Yet, I see no sign of the presumed popular uprising of which y'all speak. Newsflash - the general electorate ain't all that engaged or astute. If the Republican's win the Senate, (and that's a big "if"), it will be a squeaker not a landslide. If we lose Kentucky, we basically have no shot at a majority. Then, Obama will be free to pick whichever Supreme Court nominees he likes in the final two years, as some may retire, because Senate Majority Leader Reid will extend the nuclear option to Supreme Court nominees.

If y'all aren't ready to pull on every oar (and lever) to take back the Senate, then why expect the average citizen to care? And God help our Republic.

Posted by: Boulder Refugee at September 16, 2014 6:08 PM

BR: And now we have Obamacare (McConnell voted for funding Obamacare), $17 trillion in debt (McConnell voted for the debt hike)... Continually thread the needle?

Here are some of the most egregious McConnell votes: http://bit.ly/1t9h59N

The lack of new bad laws owes more to the House than to McConnell, I think. McConnell's voting history sort of demonstrates he's rowing those oars against us as often as not. This isn't a case of the perfect being the enemy of the good; this is a case of a man who disdains people like us and is bold about proving it, with his votes and his mouth, because he believes that no matter how much he betrays us, we'll keep sending him back to Washington to screw us some more.

Posted by: Keith Arnold at September 16, 2014 6:35 PM

I think a couple of my blog brothers might be confusing the constant blogger/Tea Party opposition to GOP leadership as actual misfeasance on McConnel's part.

There were a couple disappointments in your evil ten list, but if you are in the US Senate any amount of time, you will have some bad votes for things you have traded, or taken procedural votes, or made a mistake.

Part D and TARP I were Republican initiatives. Like 'em or not, they were President Bush's deals and he was at best taking one for the team.

Debt limit, funding &c. Yup, he did not do a government shutdown which could have hurt the party. I know there is not 100% agreement, but to present that as proof of prodigality is unfair.

I've come to accept that the "wave" is not on the menu this year, and it is become sadly clear that Colorado will not help with the +6: the Scion will keep his seat with #waronwomen ads.

I'm foursquare with The Refugee -- you guys are willing to give up a GOP seat, enjoy two more years of "Majority Leader Reid."

Posted by: jk at September 16, 2014 6:52 PM

Brother jg inks to CNN (egads!) and "but McConnell doesn't return to the senate to lead it because he's part of, a big part of the dysfunction in Washington..."

I love that part of dysfunction in Washington! I'm ready to give him a medal for that dysfunction in Washington -- he is stopping a lot of Democrat nonsense.

Posted by: jk at September 16, 2014 6:55 PM

But not the important nonsense, as that might be bad for the party.

Posted by: johngalt at September 17, 2014 12:20 AM | What do you think? [16]