It's About Liberty: A Conservative Forum
Topics => 2nd Amendment/Firearms => Topic started by: Pandora on April 29, 2013, 03:32:56 PM
-
This is a very revealing clip from Ted Cruz where he explains the strategy behind their filibuster threat on gun legislation and WHY that strategy was so effective. (http://www.therightscoop.com/ted-cruz-republican-senators-yelled-at-us-over-because-we-threatened-to-filibuster-gun-legislation/)
"In short, Cruz reveals that several Republican Senators yelled at him, Mike Lee, and Rand Paul because after they sent their big filibuster threat to Harry Reid, these Republican Senators then had to return to their districts and thus were hammered by constituents that they had to vote on principle – and these Republican Senators didn’t like that. They felt that this filibuster letter that didn’t have their names on it made them look like squishes. Ted Cruz says there’s one way to solve that problem – “stop being squishes.”"
Senator Ted Cruz surprises the FreedomWorks Texas Summit with a special speech (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geHPipl6mt8#ws)
H/T Gateway Pundit
I'm not in love, but I like Cruz a lot .... right now.
-
“stop being squishes.”"
Like that's gonna happen.
Cruz does seem pretty good at the moment.
-
"In short, Cruz reveals that several Republican Senators yelled at him, Mike Lee, and Rand Paul..."
Those squishes that didn't do the yelling were observing. Maybe they reflected on a boyhood dream they once had, to be men.
-
Yeah, they won't stop being squishes on their own, Ted has the right idea...make them do the right thing. Lesson here for all too, playing nice with your enemies allowed your enemies to take control, don't play nice with the enablers either! We need more ass-kickers than boot-lickers! But time is not our friend...
-
So far, Ted has been great.
I haven't heard of Mike Lee faltering
I had high hopes for Rand Paul. Now I'm withholding judgement and figure that he will mostly do the right thing
-
So far, Ted has been great.
I haven't heard of Mike Lee faltering
I had high hopes for Rand Paul. Now I'm withholding judgement and figure that he will mostly do the right thing
If you keep in mind that Rand is a libertarian/conservative (in that order) you'll understand his motives - and actions - better. Viewed through that lens you'll see that he is perfectly predictable.
He will "mostly do the right thing" but is sure to disappoint on occasion (probably more often in my estimation) due to that libertarian streak.
-
So far, Ted has been great.
I haven't heard of Mike Lee faltering
I had high hopes for Rand Paul. Now I'm withholding judgement and figure that he will mostly do the right thing
If you keep in mind that Rand is a libertarian/conservative (in that order) you'll understand his motives - and actions - better. Viewed through that lens you'll see that he is perfectly predictable.
He will "mostly do the right thing" but is sure to disappoint on occasion (probably more often in my estimation) due to that libertarian streak.
Yeah, even that libertarian thing isn't all hard-coded...to wit: flipping on drones...lot of mental gymnastics to go through to rationalize that crap away! ::)
-
Ace (http://ace.mu.nu/archives/339573.php), covers Pan's 6 a day late with some interesting follow up.
-
Ace (http://ace.mu.nu/archives/339573.php), covers Pan's 6 a day late with some interesting follow up.
... Mitch McConnell, for example, is a big fan of the strategy of losing -- he's forever talking up taking tactical losses, losing on this law or that, losing this freedom or that one, and then counting himself lucky because now we win the political issue at the strategic level.
There are two problems with this sort of thinking:
1. It's no comfort that we might gain some political traction if we're losing on the issues we care about.
2. We never actually do win on the political level, either. There is never any Silver Lining in losing. Perhaps it's possible for some deft politicians to rescue a strategic victory out of a tactical defeat, but the crop of guys we have have proven repeatedly they're not up to it.
... What an evil, to put a senator in the position of having to choose between his supposed constituents, the voters, and his actual constituents, the media and the Sunday morning shows that no one watches anymore.
In my opinion, this goes as well to the theory of preference for a Rep who is "with us" 70% of the time as opposed to -- well, you know the rest. My response to this is always that 70% does us no good if it isn't focused where it's needed in moving legislation to the right AND the 30% goes to passively or actively undermining us.
Ace is right: there is never any Silver Lining in losing, no matter how "well" it's done.
It's obvious Ted Cruz is intelligent, but, really, he runs circles around these nitwits with half his brain tied behind his back.
-
... Mitch McConnell, for example, is a big fan of the strategy of losing -- he's forever talking up taking tactical losses, losing on this law or that, losing this freedom or that one, and then counting himself lucky because now we win the political issue at the strategic level.
Yes, the infamous "this isn't the hill to die on"...strategy...if you can call it that. They've ceded so many issues over the decades that the entire culture has subsequently been allowed to drift leftward, making it all the harder to rally a defense when and if they ever do decide to fight for one of the dwindling number of hills.
-
Yes, the infamous "this isn't the hill to die on"...strategy...if you can call it that.
Asshat doesn't realize there aren't too many frickin' hills left.
-
Yeah, another appropriate GOP epitaph... "No hill worth dying on".
::gaah::