Image 01 Image 03

Message to the GOP: A Tea Party-inspired Insurrection is Under Way

Message to the GOP: A Tea Party-inspired Insurrection is Under Way

Get on board or get out of the way

As the GOP-led Congress fails to fulfill its seven-year, oft-repeated pledge to repeal ObamaCare and fails to support meaningful immigration reform that includes securing our border (building the wall), right-leaning voters who put them in power are becoming more and more restless, frustrated, and angry.

Luther Strange’s primary drubbing in Alabama suggests that the Trump phenomena is looking less and less like a cult of personality and more and more like a Tea Party-inspired insurrection.

When then-presidential candidate Trump said that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose any voters, many pundits and politicians marveled at his hubris while others rankled at the all-too-apparent truth of his statement. Trump supporters stuck with him through the Inside Edition tape release and the Trump University fiasco.  His opponents on both the left and the right were puzzled beyond measure, and for good reason.  These and any number of other problematic issues in Trump’s background would have derailed any politician.

That, though, is the key to the Trump-led insurrection, for an insurrection it is.  Trump is not a politician.

When Trump came onto the scene, the timing was exactly right.  The Tea Party had been thwarted by the combined efforts of Democrat and Republican elites in DC, helped along by a malignant propagandist media, but we were still out here, still angry, still determined to take our country back.

So when Trump started talking about making America great again, about how he could not be bought, about how he could get things done, alienated Americans rallied behind him.  As long-time LI readers know, I didn’t get it because I thought it was about Trump the man, but that doesn’t seem to be the case.  Instead, the quasi-Tea Party style insurrection seems to be about more than Trump himself.  It’s about taking our country back . . . and while we’d like to do it with Trump, his involvement is not essential.

Alabama’s GOP primary for Attorney General Jeff Sessions Senate seat illustrates this point.  Though Trump campaigned for Strange and tweeted his praises (tweets he’s since deleted), the voters of Alabama were having none of it.  They voted instead for “the Ten Commandants judge” Roy Moore (whom Trump mistakenly called “Ray”).

Whether or not Moore wins the seat remains to be seen, but one thing is clear, Alabama’s Republican voters wanted no part of Strange who appeared to be a rubber stamp for anything Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell put in front of him.  Trump’s support doesn’t appear to have made any difference at all; indeed, Trump’s support was negated by overwhelming distaste for McConnell and the do-nothing GOP-led Congress.

A Time for Choosing PAC provides insight into these dynamics.

Roy Moore’s victory in the Alabama Senate race is a stunning rebuke to Mitch McConnell and the Washington establishment.

Tonight should cause the President and the Senate Republican Conference to seriously evaluate whether or not McConnell has either the vision or political acumen to lead the Senate Republican Conference any longer. There is a good argument to be made that McConnell is now a dead weight around the necks of GOP Senators who have to face an angry GOP base in 2018.

Despite Trump’s endorsement, the Sunday night before the Primary, the race was still essentially tied.

Ultimately, Mitch McConnell and his team managed to convince Trump to double down for Luther again the day before the election . . . .  [W]e learned something very important during the primary: If you want to win Senate primaries, put Mitch McConnell on the ballot. [emphasis in original]

This puts Trump in an awkward position because while he has yet to lose significant support from his voters, he’s been put on notice, as has the GOP, that the clock is ticking and the voters who put them in power are watching and expecting substantive and long-promised change.

Challenges to Republican incumbents from the right are emerging in numerous 2018 Congressional races, signalling that Republican voters are getting tired of waiting and are more than willing to shake things up.  If Trump appears to align with these choices, he’s more than welcome, but if he’s not, Republican voters will vote for the more conservative candidate . . . whether Trump endorses him or her or not.

In addition to Alabama, Arizona is shaping up to be another battleground between the status quo in Washington and what voters actually want.  Sitting Senator Jeff Flake (R) and the more conservative former state senator Kelli Ward  Dubbed “toxic” by Trump, Flake has been outspoken in his disapproval of and disagreements with the president, and he’s urging Republicans to speak out against Alabama’s Roy Moore.

Earlier this month, FiveThirtyEight noted that Flake is trailing Ward by double digits and is in “big trouble.”

Jeff Flake is still in big trouble.

The latest survey from Democratic pollster GBA Strategies gives Kelli Ward (Flake’s opponent in Arizona’s GOP Senate primary) a 58 percent to 31 percent advantage over Flake. It’s the third poll released during the last month showing Ward with at least a 15-point lead. The same survey has potential Democratic nominee Kyrsten Sinema in front of Flake, 47 percent to 40 percent, in the general election.

Nevada Senator Dean Heller (R) is also facing a primary challenge from the right.  Nevada businessman and perpetual political candidate Danny Tarkanian has called out Heller for, among other things, his “no” vote on ObamaCare repeal.

The Washington Times reported last month:

“Dean Heller has broken one promise after another to the people of Nevada. He promised to repeal Obamacare, and in fact he voted for that two years ago, but when he had the chance to actually get it repealed, he voted against it,” Mr. Tarkanian said.

Mr. Heller was among the first critics of Mr. Trump and has kept his distance from the administration. His seat is seen as one of the most vulnerable incumbents next year and has been highly targeted by Democrats.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee announced they stood behind Mr. Heller’s re-election bid.

. . . .  Mr. Tarkanian issued a statement on his campaign website saying he would stand with Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas, Mike Lee of Utah and Rand Paul of Kentucky to bring about “real reforms.”

“I am a conservative Republican who supports the policies of President Trump to repeal Obamacare and end illegal immigration,” Mr. Tarkanian said in a statement. “I will continue to support President Trump’s policies that have led to a 20% increase in the stock market in just six months. I will join Senator Lee, Senator Cruz, and Senator Paul fighting for real reforms against the liberals in our party.”

West Virginia’s centrist Democrat Senator Joe Manchin is facing challenges from McConnell-endorsed former Democrat Evan Jenkins and the more conservative Patrick Morrisey. Morrisey, West Virginia’s current Attorney General, has been endorsed by Citizen’s United.

Breitbart reports:

The Citizens United Political Victory Fund (CUPVF) is backing Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, the conservative candidate for U.S. Senate in West Virginia, against Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s hand-picked choice, Rep. Evan Jenkins (R-WV).

“CUPVF is proud to support conservative change agent Patrick Morrisey for U.S. Senator from West Virginia,” Citizens United president Dave Bossie, the deputy campaign manager of President Donald Trump’s successful 2016 presidential campaign, said in a statement provided exclusively to Breitbart News ahead of its public release. “Attorney General Morrisey is a conservative stalwart who will come to the U.S. Senate to fight for the interests of West Virginia, not the Washington establishment.”

“We support Patrick Morrisey for Senate because he has a proven record of results fighting for conservative West Virginia values and against the harmful liberal agenda of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton,” Bossie added. “Attorney General Morrisey was there to take on executive overreach at the Obama Environmental Protection Agency for the coal miners and he’s been there to support President Trump’s agenda taking on sanctuary cities and pushing for much needed tax reform. I look forward to working with Patrick Morrisey to enact President Trump’s conservative agenda when he gets to the Senate. I urge all Republican primary voters in West Virginia to support conservative outsider Patrick Morrisey for the United States Senate.”

Morrisey is emerging as a key conservative insurgent in West Virginia, while McConnell and his allies are pushing Jenkins—a former Democrat who once backed failed 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton for president back in 2008. The battle has become one of the flash points in the intra-GOP war.

It’s not clear that McConnell has gotten the message of his Strange defeat, but the natives are getting restless and won’t tolerate further political theater.  We wants wins, results.  And if the current crop can’t (or won’t) deliver, we’ll elect people who can (and will).

Kurt Schlichter over at TownHall puts it succinctly in his post, “GOP, Can You Hear Us Normals Now?”

Roy Moore is a message. And there are more messages coming in 2018.

Are you listening? GOP, can you hear us normals now?

See, we’re serious. The ritual sacrifice of Eric Cantor was not a fluke. The election of Donald Trump was not a fluke. None of this is a fluke. We really mean it. We want change. And if you won’t give it to us, we’ll fire you and elect someone who will.

The GOP has been acting as if Jeb! Bush won last November.  They appear to be doubling down on Democrat lite, but they’ve been put on notice.  As has, perhaps ironically, the president himself.

If Trump’s not careful, the Trump Train may well leave the station without him.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Get on board or get out of the way

Well, they won’t get on board and they won’t get out of the way…so just run their asses over.

    Colonel Travis in reply to rinardman. | October 1, 2017 at 12:53 am

    Amen brother

      notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Colonel Travis. | October 2, 2017 at 1:28 pm

      After Alabama, President Trump can turn to the GOPe and say
      “See, it’s not about me. It’s about getting rid of you. My endorsement won’t make any difference if you’re been doing the Nazi Democrat Party’s Evil Bidding.”

The GOPe said, once the House was lost in late 2006, “Give us the House back, and we’ll right the ship because of the power of the purse. Remember, all spending bills must originate in the House.”

It took two more tries, but in late 2010 we gave them the House, ending a really, really frightening two years when the ultra left controlled House, Senate, and WH. I’m surprised that that cabal didn’t do as much damage as it could have.

But the advance of the left wasn’t turned back in 2011. In fact it wasn’t even halted.

Then the GOPe said, “Well, that’s great that we have the House, now we need the Senate. Then we’ll really do great things for Americans.”

Again, it took two more tries, but we gave them the Senate in late 2014.

But the advance of the left still wasn’t turned back. It continued apace.

Then the GOPe said, “Well, that’s great that we have the full Congress, but we really, really need to have the White House too. Then we’ll really do great things for Americans.”

Do you see how the But-What-Have-You-Done-for-Me-Lately attitude has taken hold of the GOPe?

The full law-making powers of government have been in the GOPe for 9 months. And with a crumb here and there, like confirming Gorsuch, GOPe is pathetic.

    C. Lashown in reply to fscarn. | September 30, 2017 at 9:23 pm

    The GOP hasn’t changed over the decades, they demand to be fed ‘pork’ on a daily basis. All the legislation must pass through multitudes of committee’s so that the ‘pork’ can be divvied up fairly…a taste for you, a taste for me. Then there are the kick-backs to fill the legislators pockets from all the thankful constituents.

    The massive crowd of supporters, the ‘great-unwashed’ are just props in the game. Consummate liars growing wealthy through the election process. I feel Trump is the best of the batch, but he’s not pure as the driven snow…but better than Clinton. That’s the only way I could look at this past election. The gang of ‘also-ran’ were just a big herd of losers – America picked the best available.

    JoAnne in reply to fscarn. | October 1, 2017 at 4:41 pm

    What most of us didn’t understand about draining the swamp – you must be a swamp denizen to live there, therefore draining the swamp meant ALL of them, Dems and Repubs. I think we’ve finally figured it out!

You have almost gotten the point.

The election of Donald Trump had little to do with Trump the Man and much to do with Trump the Political Outsider. There has been a growing anti-Establishment movement among Republicans, and some independents, since the mid 1990s, mostly as a result of Republican indifference to conservative demands for fiscal responsibility. It got a name in 2001-2002, the Tea Party Movement. It was exhibiting success, when it was largely co-opted by the Establishment conservatives within the Republican party and, except for a few lower level political successes, was largely irrelevant in terms of affecting national politics. But, the anti-Establishment feelings, among the electorate, continued to grow. Ted Cruz spent his entire time in the Senate setting himself up to be able to tap into the sentiment in 2016. Then, along came Trump. The ultimate political outsider. He was not a politician. He was so rich, in a business where the government had little control, that he was not likely to be easily corrupted by money. He was the perfect vehicle for the disgruntled, anti-Establishment voters to send a loud message to the Establishment politicians. Few people actually voter FOR Trump. He is not particularly likeable, after all. They voted AGAINST the Establishment. And, those same voters are continuing to vote against the Establishment. The anti-Establishment, grassroots electoral movement is still alive.

Now, Trump is politically naive. And, he came into DC with NO support from within the political system. He should have been an easy mark for the Establishment to buy off. Instead, the Establishment took the unprecedented step of attempting to destroy the man, before the ballots were all counted. And, so far, Trump has proven their concerns to be valid. He has done almost everything that he promised to do, which he was capable of doing unilaterally. He tried to get the rest of DC to work with him, naively. That failed to work and he is now putting the Congress in the position of having to accept responsibility for their failure to live up to their OWN campaign promises.

The election of Donald Trump, far from being the deciding moment in the Populiat-Establishment War, is simply the equivalent of the US victory at Midway during WWII. It is the beginning of a long, drawn out battle to put political power back into the hands of the electorate and force elected representative to actually represent their constituents. We aren’t even a year into a war which will likely take 8 years to produce a conclusive popular victory. Hang on. It will be a bumpy ride.

    “He should have been an easy mark for the Establishment to buy off….”

    Donald Trump has never allowed himself to be bought-off: he’s always done the buying: witness his greasing hillary clinton’s palm like the slime she is (along with Schumer, Reid, Pelosi, Cuomo, Rahm, and the rest of the gang, who also solicited payoffs):

      He sold himself like a cheap Times Square hooker in Iowa for a few crappy caucus votes.

      When he could have stood up for NON-ESTABLISHMENT markets and science, he threw in bigly with BIG CORN. Not only did he ENDORSE the ethanol stupidity, he called for it’s EXPANSION…

      in a speech he didn’t even comprehend.

      He’s not only for sale; he’s a cheap “date”.

        Are you so blinded by hate that you simply do not understand? or are you really a supporter of the Establishment?

        The 2016 election was NEVER about Trump. Trump just happened to be the only POLITICAL OUTSIDER in the race. Both Clinton and Sanders were controlled by, if not members of, the Establishment. Every single republican candidate, including Cruz, was a member of the Establishment. While trump may have ties to the Establishment, no one with any money in this country is totally divorced from that group. His track record in office, so far, lends credence to his attempting to deliver what he promised. This, unfortunately, can not be said for any politician in DC.

          Matt_SE in reply to Mac45. | October 1, 2017 at 9:22 am

          Your post is the perfect example of the hardest thing to tolerate about Trump: some of his supporters. Let’s count the ways you’re an idiot or sycophant:

          1) “Are you so blinded by hate that you simply do not understand? or are you really a supporter of the Establishment?”

          The old Trumpist paranoia/cultist mentality/smear job. I’m only surprised the word “cuck” wasn’t used.

          2) “Every single republican candidate, including Cruz, was a member of the Establishment.”

          That must be why the entire establishment spent years ostracizing Cruz; because he’s so in their pockets. This is an example of revisionist history that went on at the time of the primaries, where Trump supporters had to lie about Cruz in order to damage him against Trump.

          Hey buddy, did you ever find the other two women Cruz was supposed to have had an affair with? Did you ever discover the name of his father’s Soviet handler during the JFK assassination?

          3) “While trump may have ties to the Establishment, no one with any money in this country is totally divorced from that group. His track record in office, so far, lends credence to his attempting to deliver what he promised.”

          I dunno…he promised to imprison Hillary, build a wall, cut taxes, and kick illegals like the Dreamers out.
          Also, he promised to “drain the swamp,” and then went out campaigning for it.

          Mac45 in reply to Mac45. | October 1, 2017 at 11:56 am

          Well, Matt, let me respond to you.

          Your first quote makes PERFECT sense, if you have followed Rags comments on this blog. Rags so hates Trump that he seems to be incapable of acknowledging the positive things that the man has done, since his inauguration. Instead, he, and others, continually harp on the theme that Trump will betray those that voted for him. While this may happen, it has not come to light so far. Perhaps a wait and see attitude would be more appropriate. As to whether he is a supporter of the Establishment, well he is a Cruz supporter. I’ll explain how that is relevant in the next paragraph.

          On to Ted Cruz. In order to understand clearly I have to explain something. Conservative is not the same thing as anti-Establishment. The two are completely separate. Don’t get me wrong about Ted Cruz. He is a brilliant politician. He clearly discerned the growing anti-Establishment feelings among the electorate. And, since his election to the Senate, took positions which would position him to tap into that feeling. And, the massive Republican primary field was designed to water down the anti-Establishment support he would receive from the Republican rank and file. And, it must be especially galling for him, and his supporters, that trump’s entry into the race torpedoed his plans. But, Ted Cruz is now and always has been part of the Establishment. He came up through the political ranks working for the Bush dynasty. And, while relatively conservative, by today’s standards, the Bushes are pure Establishment and always have been. Then there is the close Establishment ties that Ted has through his wife’s continued affiliation with Goldman Sacks, a major Establishment player. Even when he was AG for Texas, he was a loyal Establishment team player. And, even though he took opposing positions on some Establishment legislation, he support much of it and, his opposition really had no effect on the legislation that he opposed.

          Interesting that you would bring up Ted’s father. The question that arose during the campaign was whether the man pictured standing behind Lee Harvey Oswald, in NO, was Ted’s father. It was by no means assured that it was. But, you, as other Cruz supporters did, was miss the most likely answer for why his father was active in the pro-Cuba movement in NO at the same time that Lee Harvey Oswald was, if indeed he was involved at all. He was most likely an anti-Castro plant and possibly in the pay or under the influence of the CIA or FBI. There has been speculation that Oswald was himself a US government plant within that organization. Given his very public anti-Castro stance, prior to his alleged actions in NO, it is unlikely that he would suddenly switch sides and do so publicly. On a side note, there are photos purported to be George H.W. Bush taken in downtown Dallas on the day of the Kennedy assassination. The obvious question, if that is true, is what was he doing there and was it in any way connected to events leading up to the assassination? See, just a question. I won’t even go into all the lies published and spread about Trump during the campaign and afterwards.

          So, Trump always said that his main goal was to significant improve the economy, MAGA. Immigration law enforcement [which he has been doing right along], building a wall [which he can not do without the support of the Establishment Congress], cutting taxes [which, AGAIN, he can’t do without Congress], and drain the swamp [ which is going to be difficult as he can’t fire elected officials fire civil service employees without cause] are all cherry picked to support that argument that Trump is not trustworthy. However, you, and others, ignore are all the regulations which he has rescinded to make life easier for businesses and citizens. You ignore the unilateral immigration actions that he has taken, such as rescinding the unconstitutional EO granting legal status for Dreamers and stepping up law enforcement activity against criminal gangs made up of illegal immigrants. You ignore the renegotiation of NAFTA and the abandonment of the TPP and other horrible trade deals. You ignore the possible withdrawal from the Paris Accords. All done directly by Trump. You choose to ignore any of his actions or accomplishments which do not fit your preconceived point of view. So, I’ll ask you the same question that I asked Rags. Are you blinded by hate for Trump, or are you simply a shill for the Establishment?

          I hope this clears things up for you.

    Ragspierre in reply to Mac45. | September 30, 2017 at 9:44 pm

    This is pitifully insane. I mean, consider the statement, “The ultimate political outsider. He was not a politician. He was so rich, in a business where the government had little control, that he was not likely to be easily corrupted by money.”

    He was rich BECAUSE he was…by choice…swimming in the cesspool of New York City corruption, where the government has EVERY control over what you, along with the most crooked unions in the nation. He was the “outsider” who took EVERY opportunity to stroke pols and influence peddlers alike, and was a client of Roy Cohn for a decade or two.

    When you’re insane, you can invert reality.

      Blah blah blah. Your Indian name must be “big chief broken record”

        Ragspierre in reply to garybritt. | September 30, 2017 at 11:02 pm

        Not at all oddly, I see no argument or refutation of that critical episode.

        Just more Gari (The Liar) Britt bullshit. Talk about a broken record.

      Wisewerds in reply to Ragspierre. | September 30, 2017 at 11:29 pm

      No thanks you Trump hating loony.

      civil truth in reply to Ragspierre. | October 1, 2017 at 12:25 am

      Agree that Trump has been in bed with government agents in some (or perhaps even most) of his business activities. Nonetheless, the main point of the article, as I see it, is to use a different analogy, Trump is now riding on the back of a tiger, which he may have thought was tame but is showing itself to be not quite so tame…

      Interesting times ahead…

        4th armored div in reply to civil truth. | October 1, 2017 at 1:14 pm

        agreed –
        Trump SEEMS to have a thin skin, if it were so then he would be easily manipulated, he is not.
        trump is playing 3d chess against checkers players.

        only time will tell – i believe him to be a patriot, who puts up with little BS and has the ability to tag people with clearly defined traits.

in the words of hawkeye pierce “(we’ve) eaten a river of liver and an ocean of fish. we want something else”
the democrats and republican establishment have given us pretty much the same thing, with a few exceptions for both better and worse, since the end of WWII. and look what it has gotten us.
WE THE PEOPLE are tired of the status quo, and WE WANT SOMETHING ELSE.
trump is something else, more is something else, and most if not all of the other “insurgents” challenging the RINO establishment incumbents are something else.
and the media, the democrats, and the GOPe don’t get it, because they keep pushing the same old crap, using the same old talking points and expecting the same old results.

Fuzzy: Brilliant, as always. I just noted to a Tea Party friend from San Diego that the Tea Party was looking pretty lively for something that has been declared dead on 5 separate occasions.

Good comments but none mentioned the real reason for Trump, just as GOPe and damocrats try to paper over that reason. Criminal invaders and amnesty, the day Trump said he would build a wall seal the border and deport he became bulletproof. The Day Globalist Bush, Rove and GOPe tried to force amnesty upon an unwilling nation the rebellion began and the GOPe started to fall apart. Now Trump seems to be wavering on immigration and if that happens Trumpism will have to continue without Trump. If we don’t control our borders and deport illegals all else is futile.

    Ragspierre in reply to hwill. | September 30, 2017 at 9:48 pm

    “Wavering on immigration…?”

    Some of us have been telling people Donald Ducks is FOR amnesty for the better part of two years. He’s told you himself in no uncertain terms, and by his actions.

    Good-freaking-grief, people. Unstop your ears and listen to the man. Take off the blinders and watch him.

      Those would be the same people who said Trump would not appoint conservative judges and would put his sister on the supreme court. They give chicken little a bad name.

        Ragspierre in reply to garybritt. | September 30, 2017 at 11:04 pm

        Nobody said that, Liar.

        What we DID do was quote Mr. Establishment on his admiration for his Progressive activist judge, and his endorsement of her as a swell Supreme.

          “Nobody said that, Liar”

          Weasel lawyer wording. You implied it over and over. I know it. You know it. Everyone else knows it.

          And what do we actually have? A president uniformly, across the board, appointing constitutional conservatives to the court.

          It’s not that you got it wrong. You just make it up.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 1, 2017 at 8:59 am

          But, Butt-hurt Barri, I didn’t “assure” anyone of anything respective to T-rump’s sister. I, and others, LISTENED to what the man said about his Progressive activist judge sister, and how she’d make a swell Supreme. I did note that was disturbing.

          I DID quote the man. I didn’t make up anything. You’re lying now.

          Weasel. Just because you quoted something he said, being nice to his sister, doesn’t mean you didn’t do what you did – which was to imply he would appoint people like his sister to the court.

          As for liars, that description fits you, you wear it well. And you’re lying now with your denials. Everyone that has read your comments from that period knows it.

        Ragspierre in reply to garybritt. | September 30, 2017 at 11:05 pm

        IS Mr. Establishment clearly in favor of legalizing DREAMERS?

        Yes or no, Liar.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | September 30, 2017 at 11:49 pm

          Not seeing any answer.

          How about you, Wideweirds…???

          Got anything factual?

          4th armored div in reply to Ragspierre. | October 1, 2017 at 1:30 pm

          you are so much in pain – why don’t you start your own blog and allow ALL your supporters help you out (of your mind).

          it would probably be healthy for you to take a break un til the 2020 election season and you can tell everyone who you support for POTUS –
          have a nice long rest from politics, it will do you so much good (and the rest of us a break from your diatribes).
          how much do you contribute to the Profs blog, that he permits you to hijack it ?

          maybe the Prof will ban me instead.

    Mac45 in reply to hwill. | September 30, 2017 at 11:30 pm

    First, there is NO Trumpism. Trump is the poster for the populist anti-Establishment backlash from the common people. So, No Trump does not mean No Movement. That is the Establishment’s big mistake. The genie is out of the bottle and it is too late to put it back.

    Now as to immigration. Trump is the CEO of the United States. he has no more power over immigration, other than what the Congress allows him. Here is what Rags, and other Trump hater fail to acknowledge. The Congress has had the opportunity to pass comprehensive immigration legislation, including amnesty, since 2001 and, after 2009, Obama would have signed it. It hasn’t done so. It has had the opportunity to pass the Dream Act since 2001. It hasn’t done so. Why do you think that is? The reason is simple. Passing any amnesty legislation, which includes any kind of amnesty, is political suicide. And, the career politicians in the Congress know this. Also, the Establishment does NOT want comprehensive immigration reform. Business likes having undocumented workers who will work for far less than American workers and they like having control over them because of their illegal status. The Establishment LOVED the immigration status quo under the Obama and Bush administrations.
    Amnesty takes all of that away from them. Legal immigrant workers would demand the same wages that American workers would. And, they would not be trapped with a single employer, because they would then be free to change employers, legally.

    Would trump sign Dream Act legislation? Maybe. Possibly likely. Will the Congress pass such legislation? Only if the economy gets much better. I am not terribly worried about any significant changes in immigration law in the near future.

      moonmoth in reply to Mac45. | October 1, 2017 at 8:29 am

      “No Trump does not mean No Movement. That is the Establishment’s big mistake.”

      I tend to suspect that the Establishment is well aware that “No Trump does not mean No Movement”. Rather than being a mistake, I think that the Establishment is spreading knowingly false propaganda when it asserts that movement is merely a personality cult.

        Matt_SE in reply to moonmoth. | October 1, 2017 at 9:31 am

        “Not a cult” wasn’t clear until Alabama. It wasn’t even clear to Trump, with his infamous “5th avenue” comment.
        Even now, on this forum you can find people who are more sycophants than supporters. That’s why memes like “N-dimensional chess” keep appearing; because some people can’t imagine that Dear Leader makes mistakes.

          Well, unclear to NeverTrumpers, anyway.

          Mac45 in reply to Matt_SE. | October 1, 2017 at 12:04 pm

          Trump makes political mistakes all the time. He is, as noted, the “ultimate political outsider”. Not only has he NO political experience, but he has NO political support among the DC system. And, that is what the people wanted. Someone not immersed in the Establishment. Except for the rigged Democrat Party primary system, Bernie Sanders would have been that party’s nominee.

Why should we ask the GOPe for anything? Why the world would we continue to hire representatives who are going to stab us in the back at first opportunity to do so?

Them them the hell out – ALL of them – and bring in people we can trust.

    Like any business, after you fire a few troublemakers it is remarkable how the rest fall into line.

      DaveGinOly in reply to iconotastic. | September 30, 2017 at 10:29 pm

      What is remarkable to me, is that GOPe candidates are voted in for talking the talk, and then don’t walk the walk. They already know that if they do what they promised their constituents will support and re-elect them. Yet they regularly turn on their constituents after being re-elected. This seems like a formula to lose an election, except that in the next cycle the same talk gets them re-elected. So, people are generally stupid. That’s not a surprise. The surprise is why rely on the stupidity of the electorate, when all you have to do is what you promised?

      It seems to me that the socialist agenda is at stake here. GOPe candidates, who are, let’s face it, socialists (lite), would rather risk losing an election than turn against the socialist agenda. The agenda is what is important to them, not individual power, which they are willing to risk by playing the two-faced game of promise – get re-elected – go back to D.C. to protect growing socialism, rather than turn against the agenda by doing what was promised and dismantling it.

        This really only applies to the Republicans. The Democrats deliver exactly what their constituency wants every election cycle.

        The Republicans can continue to lie to their constituency and still get reelected, because the alternative is always a Democrat [aka socialist]. Until this last election cycle, the Republican party made it almost impossible for anyone other than an Establishment candidate to make it to the general election. In other words, the fix was in. trump only made it because the Republican Party, unlike the Democrats, tried to make it seem that their primary selection process was fair and honest.

        And, the GOPe politicians have no intention of killing the golden goose by severing their ties with their Establishment masters. Now, they are up against the real possibility that they could be primaried out by an anti-establishment politician. It will be interesting to see how long anti-establishment politicians remain anti-establishment, after they elected and money is being thrown at them. But, that will be another5 story.

          Ragspierre in reply to Mac45. | October 1, 2017 at 12:00 am

          “The Democrats deliver exactly what their constituency wants every election cycle.”

          Gun control.

          Loss of the Bill Of Rights.

          Control of the states.

          A higher Federal minimum wage ($15.00).

          Right to work.

          You really are awfully insane.

        Petrushka in reply to DaveGinOly. | October 1, 2017 at 10:18 am

        Socialist lite is misspelled. It’s socialist elite. All socialists envision themselves as being above the deplorable rabble.

Kurt Schlicter speaks well for many of us who voted for these GOPe cowards and then for Trump:

“We tried being nice; that was the Tea Party, and the Establishment trashed it. Welcome to moderately mean.

Don’t make us get even meaner.”

GOPe, if you destroy Trump you really won’t like who comes after Trump.

    Matt_SE in reply to iconotastic. | October 1, 2017 at 9:36 am

    I keep trying to imagine who would be worse for the establishment after Trump. The only answer I come up with is someone who would fight the culture wars and the policy wars at the same time.

    However, the reason policy isn’t being passed isn’t because of Trump. It’s because of the GOPe Congress thwarting the reform agenda. Unless we get rid of the GOPe, that will be the same situation no matter who we elect.

    So let’s get rid of Congressional obstruction and then see how Trump governs.

Big Tent. You cannot take the Tea Party out of the GOP. You cannot take the social Conservatism out of the GOP. They are powerful movements.

Trump Conservatives are a force of nature as welll.

All of these ideologies hunt the cancer in DC.

“Republican voters will vote for the more conservative candidate . . . whether Trump endorses him or her or not”

Fuzzy you still don’t quite get it. Change the word conservative above for nationalist/populist pro Trump agenda, and then it will be correct.

Trump’s endorsement of Strange was tepid at best. It was clear he was just going through the motions. Also remember Moore and his supporters all pushed that Moore was better supporter of Trump agenda.

It was never a cult of personality that is just leftist thinking. Trump always said it was a movement. You are WAY behind in understanding.

Lastly the movement likely couldn’t survive without Trump because right now there is NOBODY who could take his pkace. Cruz is gone as far as he can or ever will. People like Mike Lee have shown themselves to not be nationalist populist and worse captured by moronic thinking like “we can’t do away with the filibuster rule”.

Right now Trump is the one and only leader of the nationalist populist movement. Your thinking is rooted in an outdated and now gone past. The movement is NOT about pure or traditional conservatism. It is about America First, Make America Great Again nationalism and populism. Nationalism and populism is by its nature conservative but it precludes the mega corporation globalist conservatism that traditional conservatives fall for.

    Ragspierre in reply to garybritt. | September 30, 2017 at 11:17 pm

    “Nationalism and populism is by its nature conservative but…”

    That’s another of your lies. It is ANTI-conservative, and ANTI-constitutional. It is rightist, but that is FAR from being conservative in nature. It is, in fact, dangerous and supportive of BIG GOVERNMENT. Like your Great Goad Cheeto.

      So proclaims big chief broken record from a crowd of ONE.

        Wisewerds in reply to garybritt. | September 30, 2017 at 11:32 pm

        Just ignore the Trump hating loony.

        Ragspierre in reply to garybritt. | September 30, 2017 at 11:48 pm

        This is just the fallacy of ad homiem and a resort to “popular opinion”.

        But you can’t refute anything, can you, Liar?

        I’ll just stick with the facts. You have your lies.

          Wrathchilde in reply to Ragspierre. | October 1, 2017 at 8:33 am

          “This is just the fallacy of ad homiem and a resort to “popular opinion”.

          But you can’t refute anything, can you, Liar?”

          You even typed this back to back.

          Your hatred blinds you.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 1, 2017 at 8:46 am

          Oh, Gari EARNED the appellation “Liar”. He is a liar of really evil history.

          What I wrote stands, and was in no way contradictory.

      Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | September 30, 2017 at 11:51 pm

      Deny, Liar, that Der Donald is all about Keynesian economics, and a trade policy that is Bernie Sanders’.

      What a pitiful, lying puke.

        He has nothing in common with Bernie the commie.


          Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | October 1, 2017 at 8:50 am

          If you could read and had any integrity, you’d know what you just said is false.

          Anyone can find the quotes where he actually speaks of Bernie’s trade policy admiringly.

          Barry in reply to Barry. | October 1, 2017 at 12:22 pm

          “If you could read and had any integrity…”

          Oh, Mr. Integrity speaks. You con only yourself.

          Speaking favorably about something is not the same as being something. It’s called campaigning, looking for votes, and pointing out to potential voters that even Bernie can nibble around the edges of the truth when it comes to our rigged and unfree trade.

          But you are a liar with zero integrity, and a hateful man.

        herm2416 in reply to Ragspierre. | October 1, 2017 at 9:13 am

        Cripes, you are especially tiresome today.

        4th armored div in reply to Ragspierre. | October 1, 2017 at 1:54 pm

        i really wish that this blog used DisQus,
        the options to ignore certain posters has much to recommend it.

      Tom Servo in reply to Ragspierre. | October 1, 2017 at 12:21 am

      It’s extremely foolish to say that a nebulous concept like “populism” can ever be consistently “conservative” or “anti-conservative”. It all depends on the times and the circumstances. When an empowered elite is trying to hang onto an old system that a majority no longer want (such as Monarchy) then populism will not be conservative at all. However, when an empowered elite is attempting to push the people of a country in a moral direction they have no wish to go in (unisex bathrooms), then populism can be PROFOUNDLY conservative – as it is now.

      And making blanket generalizations, such that populism always supports big government, is idiotic without context. It depends on the issue, it depends on the players, it depends on the times.

        Ragspierre in reply to Tom Servo. | October 1, 2017 at 8:16 am

        “Right now Trump is the one and only leader of the nationalist populist movement. Your thinking is rooted in an outdated and now gone past. The movement is NOT about pure or traditional conservatism. It is about America First, Make America Great Again nationalism and populism. Nationalism and populism is by its nature conservative but it precludes the mega corporation globalist conservatism that traditional conservatives fall for.”

        You need to take The Liar to task, not me. I was responding to his bullshit, and he DOES contemplate a nationalist-populism that most assuredly has a form, and it most assuredly IS BIG GOVERNMENT. As is Der Donald a BIG GOVERNMENT advocate.

As long-time LI readers know, I didn’t get it because I thought it was about Trump the man, but that doesn’t seem to be the case.

A strange belief. The NeverTrumpers, the Dems, and the Progressives push the idea that “Trumpism” is a cult. As they must, since the man is so much easier to attack than the ideas. But the “cult of personality” fantasy is merely a methodology for assault on Trump and his supporters; it is not a factual description of American politics.

The only useful way to evaluate Trump is to watch what he does. What he said he’d do, what the press pretends he said he’d do, what anyone else hoped he’d do, what anyone feared he’d do … none of that is consequential. His relevance to the future of the US lies in what he does. But he can’t do everything—nor would we want him to. I for one didn’t vote for a Greek tyrannos or a Roman dictator. Even if we postulate that Trump’s head is screwed on right, the judiciary and the legislature are still obstacles, and the President has only limited means to slap them into shape. It’s hard to imagine an American government working any way, while still remaining American.

I don’t think anyone ever believed that candidate Trump considered himself a revolutionary who could transform the country with his phone and pen.

    Ragspierre in reply to tom swift. | October 1, 2017 at 2:45 am

    “Only I can fix it”.
    —Donald J. T=rump

    You need to read, Tom.

    Max17 in reply to tom swift. | October 1, 2017 at 8:27 am

    “The only useful way to evaluate Trump is to watch what he does. What he said he’d do…is [not] consequential.” ~ Tom
    I did not support Trump during the primary. I did not vote for Trump in the general. I was convinced he was a con man and never believed a word he said during the campaign. Remind you of someone else posting on this forum? Then he was elected and started delivering on those campaign promises that the establishment could not block. He did it over and over again. I had to man up and admit I had acted the fool. Trump has my support now.
    You say “[Trump] is so much easier to attack than the ideas.” I suppose if I were unable to admit I was wrong about him, I would foolishly counter your statements with a quote from Trump, a la the yipping Chihuahua. I certainly wouldn’t win the argument by considering the things Trump has delivered so far.

      Ragspierre in reply to Max17. | October 1, 2017 at 9:07 am

      How’s that “Rescind DACA on day one” thing working out?

      “Lock her up!”…???

      See if you can name some others.

        Max17 in reply to Ragspierre. | October 1, 2017 at 9:42 am

        “yip, yip, yip!”
        So he didn’t rescind DACA fast enough for you? ROFL!
        He has not fulfilled every campaign promise in his control, thus he’s a failure. Name a president that kept every campaign promise in his first nine months. Every other one is a failure. And you hated them all with a white hot passion for it. Of course you did.
        List every EO of Obama’s that has been rescinded and tell us which of them you wanted to keep. List every judicial nomination and then tell us which of them will be disappointments. Try to write a post about results not words.

          Ragspierre in reply to Max17. | October 1, 2017 at 9:51 am

          Golly, you seemed all primed to attack me. I was civil to you.

          I also note that your syntax seems really familiar. And we know that The Liar uses sock-puppets here. He has a history.

          I’ve posed several questions here, and nobody has attempted an answer, including “you”.

          But you DO really like straw-men, and you mustered a whole platoon of them. So, let’s put them aside for the moment, and you answer the simple, direct questions I’ve posed.


          Max17 in reply to Max17. | October 1, 2017 at 11:36 am

          We’re posting on a thread started by Tom. His point – results, not words. Try using context in your response, not ‘arguing’ with a Trump quote.
          “List every EO of Obama’s that has been rescinded and tell us which of them you wanted to keep. List every judicial nomination and then tell us which of them will be disappointments. Try to write a post about results not words.” ~ me
          Explain how that is a platoon of straw-men, given the context of the thread.
          And I apologize for the Chihuahua comments. It was uncalled for and won’t happen again.

          Ragspierre in reply to Max17. | October 1, 2017 at 9:11 pm

          Again, I note that you cannot answer simple direct questions.

          They are there for any reader to see.

          What is your Great Goad Cheeto’s ACTION WRT DREAMERs. We all know at this stage his words were LIES.

          We all know his position is now Obama/T-rump DACA.

          But many of us knew he was a pathological liar all along. It’s just who he is, has been, and will be tomorrow.

    Matt_SE in reply to tom swift. | October 1, 2017 at 9:43 am

    “A strange belief. The NeverTrumpers, the Dems, and the Progressives push the idea that “Trumpism” is a cult.”

    You have no explanation for the “shoot someone on 5th avenue” boast of Trump’s other than “he was joking” or “N-dimensional chess.”

    The first is a dodge, the second is toadying.
    Trump himself has done a great deal to encourage the cult of personality, and far too many rubes still believe he’s infallible.

    But feel free to prove me wrong by explaining Trump’s position on the Dreamers, and his campaigning for squishes.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | October 1, 2017 at 8:00 am

Daily Kooks are pretty pleased with how Democrats have performed in special elections since Trump was elected.

“GOPe, if you destroy Trump you really won’t like who comes after Trump.”

That’s an important observation. Much of the discussion of Fuzzy’s article assumes that the life-and-death issues that were sufficiently threatening to make millions of Americans hold their noses and elect a swine like Trump, will continue to be decided at the ballot box even if the Swamp and the Deep State shaft those millions of Americans by destroying him.

I don’t count on a peaceful outcome. Many people seem to be reaching a — to use a worn-out cliché — tipping point. A central question is “To what are we Americans loyal, and to what are we obedient? To the representative government established by the Constitution and maintained through Rule of Law, or to whatever clique manages to grab power, and with it the supposed authority to make us stand and salute a certain piece of cloth that has 50 stars on it?”

If Trump is destroyed, millions of people will see that the Constitution has become just a quaint piece of parchment, and the Rule of Law just a sucker’s game for those stupid enough to abide by it. What follows will be terrifying. I know, because the foreign country in which I reside is in that very situation now, with no realistic way out.

“…It’s not clear that McConnell has gotten the message of his Strange defeat…”
McConnell cannot afford to get the message. He is a dictator in the party, and dictators tend to get toppled the moment they show any vulnerability.
You can count on McConnell fighting against his replacement to his last breath.

    Ragspierre in reply to Matt_SE. | October 1, 2017 at 9:13 am

    A lot of your posts are sensible. This one isn’t. McConnell is a lot of things, but a “dictator” he is not. That’s silly.

      Matt_SE in reply to Ragspierre. | October 1, 2017 at 9:52 am

      When McConnell blackballed any company working with Tea Party challengers, it was a subversion of the system we use to choose our representatives.
      He did this quite deliberately, and quite openly.

      He has also stated more than once that he’s “declared war” on the Tea Party. The Tea Party is a great portion of the GOP base, so McConnell is warring against his own voters.

      There’s lots of evidence that McConnell has been the orchestrator of incidents like the “Mississippi Massacre,” when the GOPe played dirty tricks to ensure Cochran’s win. He was probably also behind Ken Cuccinelli’s defeat in VA (giving us Terry MacAuliffe, and hence the Charlottesville riots).

      Finally, the hold-ups of Trump’s nominees only proceeds as long as the Senate stays in session, because otherwise Trump could make recess appointments. Who keeps the Senate in session?

      When I said “dictator,” I meant it.

        Ragspierre in reply to Matt_SE. | October 1, 2017 at 10:02 am

        As I said, McConnell is a lot of things, but it’s silly to call him a “dictator”.

        He’s a cynical, shrewd, seasoned old pol, to be sure, but in nothing does he become a “dictator”. He plays the game…good and hard. He manipulates, but he does NOT “dictate”. He certainly plays dirty, but he is playing the game, not “dictating”.

        And the rest of the Senate are not his subjects. Nor are they “insurgents”. They fight him as befits their status as senators. If McConnell was a “dictator”, they wouldn’t have any ability to. The rules of the Senate apply.

          Matt_SE in reply to Ragspierre. | October 1, 2017 at 10:52 am

          Hardball politics is one thing, but removing the ability of the base to choose its representatives is another. That was beyond the pale, and I said so at the time.

          McConnell is a dictator in the sense that he promotes the illusion of voter choice. In reality, the system is rigged and he rigged it. People like McCain keep getting re-elected because of McConnell, not because anyone loves McCain.

          Nobody dissents against McConnell who isn’t either pre-approved (a show for the rubes), or punished afterwards.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 1, 2017 at 10:57 am

          That isn’t a “dictator”. You’re wrong.

          Max17 in reply to Ragspierre. | October 1, 2017 at 4:03 pm

          Matt, as you say, it’s McConnell’s way or the highway. Voters be damned. The very definition of a dictator. Nobody could mount a reasoned country argument. As evidence, see above.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 1, 2017 at 9:02 pm

          Well, no. It is NOT “the definition” of a dictator.

          There are some definitions of a dictator, and McConnell is certainly NOT a dictator.

          McAnus keeps getting elected because a majority of his constituents keep voting for him. This is true because he lies to them successfully. See also, T-rump DACA pledge.

          Barry in reply to Ragspierre. | October 1, 2017 at 9:34 pm

          No, McConnell is not a dictator. He is the leader of the senate selected by a group dedicated to filling their own private coffers, the hell with the country. That is the GOPe selection and they can get rid of him anytime.

          Post up that Trump DACA pledge if you mean something different than ending DACA which has already been announced. DAPA was ended some time ago.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 1, 2017 at 10:12 pm

          “We will immediately terminate President Obama’s two illegal executive amnesties in which he defied federal law and the Constitution to give amnesty to approximately 5 million illegal immigrants, 5 million.”

          Not that it will be met with anything but more stupid lies and apologia.

          It’s all you’ve got.

This latest NFL patriotism issue is a touchstone for understanding Trump. He’s not that hard to understand or follow.
The UN speech laid it out. The leader’s duty is to his sovereign country.
He cares little for the republican or Democrat party and successfully exploits both.
So his base is actually bigger than the tea party. Look at the polls on the NFL issue. That’s his base.

    Ragspierre in reply to Virgo. | October 1, 2017 at 9:29 am

    “He cares little for the republican or Democrat party and successfully exploits both.”

    Oh? Give us a list of his successful “exploitation”. I not only don’t see any “exploitation”, I don’t see any leadership on ObamaCare REPEAL or tax and budgetary issues.

    One of the strongest stands he’s made is in favor of legalizing DACA. Who’s that “exploiting”?

      Of course, repealing regulations, which don’t can’t be sabotaged by the GOPe Rags loves, have proceeded right along….

        Ragspierre in reply to SDN. | October 1, 2017 at 8:57 pm

        How have any regulations been “repealed”, when to repeal them would require a law, which several T-rump suckers insist is impossible, given the swamp?

        Maybe what you meant (if you understood basic civic) was the T-rump had reversed some Barracula EOs.

        Which can, and almost certainly WILL be re-instituted during the next Deemocrat administration.

        But, hey, full marks for THAT little bit.

      Blind hatred and a lack of any integrity.

        Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | October 1, 2017 at 9:05 pm

        As noted above, if you had any integrity and were not a T-rump sucking cultist, you’d look up the quotes I referenced.

        Again, you make a perfect demonstration.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Virgo. | October 2, 2017 at 1:30 pm

    Bravo! Bravo! Exactly what you stated!

Tarkanian is a disaster. He keeps on running for office in Nevada and he constantly loses. While I’d be happy to see a viable candidate primary Heller, a Tarkanian win would give a de facto lifetime Senate seat to Harry Reid’s hand-picked minion Jacky Rosen.

Tarkanian would be up against Rosen, a woman who beat him in the NV03 Congressinal race despite that being a district that Trump won, so I rather doubt he’d beat her in a state Trump lost.

Allow me to offer a slightly different perspective on the entire “establishment”/”outsider” thing.

In Nevada, the GOP is controlled by hardcore Trump supporters. What few people have actual experience are the type who’d vote for Democrats in order to destroy “establishment candidates”, while the rest are proud to know nothing of actual political strategy.

Needless to say, these “anti-establishment” folk are incompetent at best, and self-destructive at worst.

I’ve stood against the squishes, and Leftist-friendly Republicans, but I do recognize that they can be useful, and are often necessary in marginal seats and races. Even in opposition, by simply applying the superficial niceties instead of insulting an alienating them, one can have a chance to advance a conservative position, or at the least stop Leftist positions.

It just seems that so much of the sturm und drang we are seeing are people who just want to emote, and DO SOMETHING–anything–in order to “scratch that itch”; actual winning against the Left and the Democrats is less important, to many, than the emotional rush of the “GOPe” being knocked down a peg.

There is no “uniparty”, nor is there some manichean divide of backstabbing establishment vs. grassroots MAGA supporters. In many parliamentary countries, there are a plethora of parties who then form governing coalitions. In the U.S., the two major parties are the coalitions. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are an ideologically unified body, especially in the later case. The Republican party has a plethora of factions, and rarely do actual conservatives hold a solid majority. But people who aren’t familiar with how things actually work just whine about how the “GOPe” is backstabbing them for not giving them everything they want right this very second. Oh, to be sure there are plenty of squishy lying elected Republicans, as well as more honest moderates and even Left leaning ones, but that does not mean that everyone who isn’t an insurgent MAGA supporter is somehow part of an organized conspiracy.

For the Democrats, it’s easy. They don’t have to agree with each other, but only agree on the common enemy to destroy. The Progressive Left have been at this for over a century and control the institutions of power via the Gramscian March. It is also easier to destroy than to reclaim.

The Republicans, on the contrary, do not have such a unified goal, and even if they did there is no agreement on how to get there, or even what “there” is. It is no wonder then, why conservatives–who have the harder task, have few if any positions of institutional power in society, have only a fractious political party to work with, and don’t even have a unified idea of what it is they wish to achieve–haven’t vanquished the advancing Left.