This blog originally founded by Blogger who holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Friday, April 25, 2014

Now Here is an Idea that Wins the Independents

After I posted Harry Reid Tries to Pick GOP Candidates  it set me thinking. What if we did let Reid pick them? What if all Republicans adopted the strategy of voting for the persons that Harry Reid is most afraid of costing him his job?

If Reid is good at picking them, then we could win the Senate. And, that is all that really matters this election. With Reid out of the way, then Senators like Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Tim Scott, and all the others  would move into powerful committee positions. The important legislation that has come up from the House, but is now bottled up by Reid, will be passed.

O.K. suppose some turn out to be Rhinos, or pure vanilla, or bench warmers? To use Hillary’s famous quote "What difference does it make?" They still make a contribution by making Republicans the majority party. After that, we would not even need them. The energy will be with the conservatives. And, when America sees the Republicans getting the country up and running again, 2016 will also be ours.

Think about it before you wet your pants.


Wolf's Head said...

Republicans don't "get the country running", WE DO.

Politicians are impediments to freedom and progress (REAL progress, not the lefties statist crap)

Party politics are killing this country.

Nobody said...

Then, why don't WE? WE should have gotten the country running three or four years ago. Recession ended in summer of 2009, but I don't think anyone believes things are running all that well, or do YOU? What is wrong with US?

guy faulkes said...

" They still make a contribution by making Republicans the majority party"

This is certainly true if your concern is to support Republicans. It is not necessarily rue if your goal is to support conservatives.

Nobody said...

The conservative Republican members of the Senate, like Cruz and Paul, will remain in the minority with the attitude you and Wolf demonstrate -- read that to mean, powerless. Blogger's point is that if Republicans can take control of the Senate, then Rand and Cruz become part of the majority, perhaps even chairing committees -- read that to mean, powerful. Perhaps you would prefer to keep conservatives powerless? Blogger knew what the reaction would be when he posted, "Think about it before you wet your pants." You didn't let him down. Or perhaps you will not now even support conservatives if they are Republicans? Is Cruz a Republican? Paul? Palin? Can you PLEASE name a single viable conservative that you will support who is NOT a Republican? It seems you wish to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Blogger said...

Thanks Nobody, I wish Guy and Wolf would concentrate on that word "viable".

Blogger said...

Guy, “This is certainly true if your concern is to support Republicans.” It isn’t. My concern is to push back the radical left who have us on the eve of destruction. That is, if there is still time. There is no other “viable” entity but the Republican Party who has any chance to do this. Everything else is just wishful thinking.

guy faulkes said...

It is not wishful thinking if the dissatisfaction with the establishment wing of the Republican party forces people to form a third party that represents their concerns. The Wolf and I are certainly concentrating on the word "viable". We warned you that Romney was nor electable and were proven correct.

It would be nice if conservatives had control of the Senate. It really matters little if the liberals of either party are in control. They pass the same kind of legislation, only in varying degrees.

The problem is that conservatives did not hold to their convictions years ago. We believed the vote for the lesser of two evils lie in that we actually thought each election was to important to lose. We finally realized that doing the same thing always results in the same conclusion. It moved the country farther to the left and made it more difficult for a conservative to win. We finally decided that if e were going to be conservative, then we needed to support conservatives.

I have been hearing doing this is not wise for 40 years now. It is time to stand up for my convictions. It is not wishful thinking to try to right the lesser of two evils sinking ship.

Nobody said...

My sentiment and yours seem to be the same. I will support Brannon in the primary. If Tillis wins, I will vote for him over Hagan. I will not "take my ball and go home." Anything to deny Democrats another two years in the majority in the Senate. Force Obama to veto some of the legislation that has come out of the house only to die in the Senate. Maybe we will even see an actual budget! How long has it been, five years? Control of Congress matters. For you naysayers, remember! Not one Republican voted for Obamacare, not even the "liberal lites." Hope you like your Obamacare.

guy faulkes said...

Did you ever hear of Romneycare, Nobody?

I also will vote for Tillis if he wins the primary, as I said before on another thread. He is not as odious as Hagan. As Grass Roots North Carolina proved, he can be influenced if enough pressure is applied. This is not the same situation as with Obama and Romney.

There are so many people that dislike Tillis, that I am afraid that it is likely he can win the primary but not the general.

Blogger said...

Nobody "Force Obama to veto some of the legislation that has come out of the house only to die in the Senate" Thanks. This was to be my response to Guy's comment "They (Republicans) pass the same kind of legislation, only in varying degrees." Not true Guy. Just look at all the bottled up bills that Reid has blocked.

Nobody said...

"Did you ever hear of Romneycare, Nobody?"

I've addressed this before, but apparently you've forgotten, so here goes again. I'm a believer in the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. You are also, given your obvious stand on the 2nd Amendment. Under the system of federalism, and especially under the 10th Amendment, the state of Mass. can do whatever it wants regarding healthcare. To paraphrase the 10th Amendment, any power NOT specifically denied the states, nor expressly given to the federal government is assumed to be a state power. It's called the reserved clause, and under it, states can run their own school systems, establish their own marriage and divorce laws and regulate or provide health care. The people of Mass wanted healthcare, and as governor of the people of Mass., with the full backing of the Mass. legislature helped craft Romneycare. That's perfectly acceptable under the 10th Amendment and the federal system. Romney was very clear about Obamacare being unconstitutional because it violated the 10th amendment, since the constitution doesn't not give that power to the federal government or deny the states that power. He had said he would work to repeal it, but what I've just described is too complicated for most people to understand. It's much easier to just say, "Romneycare" as some form of indictment. Anyone remember TennCare? Other states have tried this as well, but apparently the only "bad" one was Romney's. As far as I'm concerned, states can do anything they want, since they are closer to the people, but the federal government's power MUST be strictly limited.

Nobody said...


Did you ever respond to these: "

Is Cruz a Republican? Paul? Palin? Can you PLEASE name a single viable conservative that you will support who is NOT a Republican?"

Do you wish for these individuals (Palin excepted, since she is not currently in any office) to be influential or powerful?

guy faulkes said...

You guys cannot seem to grasp that I do not have a problem with all Republicans or even most of them. I have a problem with liberals, no matter which party they belong to. Your party first approach to the matter seems to make you blind to this fact.

This is exemplified by the statement "They (Republicans) pass the same kind of legislation, only in varying degrees." They was not meant to be a pronoun representing all Republicans, only the liberal, establishment variety.

Romneycare is certainly a state's rights issue. This is irrelevant as it is also an indication of Romney's stance on socialized medicine. His actions spoke louder than his rhetoric.

As to a candidate I would support instead of a Republican, I would support almost any libertarian over a establishment Republican. As a matter of fact if the libertarians ever recognize we need a national defense and grow a backbone, I could be one.

Now, if we can get past the defense of any and all Republicans, do you think Tillis can be elected in the general election? In my opinion, he has a chance because so many people loath Hagan. Unfortunately a lot of people feel the same about him.

NewGuy said...

Guy Faulkes,
I am not certain if your above post is in part directed to what I have said- possibly not. But I do, once again with all respect, want to address a point or two with you.

First of all...If your post IS aimed in my direction, let me assure you that it is a mistake for you to assume that, because I disagree with your position, that I somehow "fail to grasp" it. Further, to any point that you may be making that I (if it is me you are addressing) support Republicans no matter what.

Absolutely false!
I have stated consistently that generally I support the most conservative candidate that has a chance of winning. That doesn't mean that I will support a far right nut job with single digit poll numbers and a zero campaign balance over a more established candidate who may not deliver on every single issue that I might support but who will move the ball closer to the goal line instead of forfeiting the game.

That "most conservative candidate" with a viable chance of being elected, is, almost always, Republican.

Liberals tend to flow to the Democrat side, conservatives to the Repubs.

You were WRONG about Romney. I know you won't agree but I won't change my mind either so, as I've said before, I'm calling it a draw and moving on to other discussions. I always enjoy your posts....and we agree probably 85% of the time. Should I "unfriend" you because it's not 98%?

Finally, as I am sure you agree with, politics is a team sport. Control of the Senate is control of the agenda and whichever party wins the majority in the Senate is the party that decides the rules. Reid has refused to vote on House bills he disatrees with; has changed the Senate rules to eliminate Republican opposition (via filabuster) on presidential appointments and given Holder, Obama and the IRS carte blanche to violate the separation of powers as they see fit. A Republican controlled senate would have prevented most of this.

Blogger said...

To save time, Just take everything NewGuy wrote in response to Guy and sign my name to it--Blogger.

guy faulkes said...

We will have to agree to disagree about whether establishment liberal Republicans make a better team than Democrats. In my opinion they are the same team. one is just more open about its agenda.

The conservative branch of the Republican party is another matter. It is worthy of support.

I guess the election will determine the way the party is going....or if it is dieing.