Patterico's Pontifications

10/24/2017

Sen. Ted Cruz Endorses Roy Moore For Alabama’s Vacant Senate Seat

Filed under: General — Dana @ 1:56 pm



[guest post by Dana]

Last week, Senate candidate Roy Moore told TIME that magazine that it was a violation of the law for NFL players to kneel during the playing of the national anthem:

In an interview with TIME magazine, the Alabama Republican argued that NFL players and others who have protested police violence are violating a section of the U.S. code which outlines how people should conduct themselves when the anthem is played. …

“It’s against the law, you know that?” he said. “It was a [sic] act of Congress that every man stand and put their hand over their heart. That’s the law.” …

“I back the President in upholding respect for the patriotism for our country, on two grounds,” he said. “One, it’s respect for the law. If we don’t respect the law, what kind of country are we going to have? Two, it’s respect for those who have fallen and given the ultimate sacrifice. I’m surprised that no one brought this up.”

He added that it’s a matter of the “the rule of law.”

“If they didn’t have it in there, it would just be tradition. But this is law,” he said. “If we disobey this, what else are we going to disobey?[“]

At the link Eugene Volokh examines the federal statute, and lays out why “none of this would apply to people refusing to stand for the national anthem at an NFL stadium”.

Moore, as a reminder, has made some controversial remarks such as suggesting that 9/11 could have been a result of Americans turning their backs on God, Putin might be right about gay marriage, Obama isn’t a natural-born citizen, and Muslims should not serve in Congress while the U.S. is at war with Al Quaeda, etc.

Today, Sen Ted Cruz announced he was endorsing Roy Moore for the U.S. Senate:

This December, the People of Alabama have a clear choice.

They can choose a liberal Democrat, who will stand with Chuck Schumer to raise taxes, weaken our military, open our border, and undermine our constitutional rights. Or, they can choose to elect Judge Roy Moore, a conservative who will proudly defend Alabama values.

I strongly urge the voters to elect Judge Roy Moore. Judge Moore has a lifelong passion for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and he has the courage of his convictions.

In the Senate, we need reinforcements; we desperately need strong conservatives who will stand up to the Washington status quo.
Please join me in supporting Judge Moore on December 12.

For Liberty,
Ted Cruz

The timing of Cruz’s endorsement is just a bit interesting, to say the least. You might even find it coincidental:

The news comes just weeks after Moore’s chief booster — Breitbart executive chairman Steve Bannon — vowed to recruit primary opponents to run against Republican incumbents in next year’s election, save for Cruz.

Cruz, who with Bannon shares close ties to mega-donors Robert and Rebekah Mercer, declined to endorse a Republican in the primary. He joins conservative Sens. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Rand Paul, R-Ky., in backing Moore now.

Moore’s opponent in the special election is Democrat Doug Jones, who reportedly checks off any list of litmus test issues for progressives.

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)

–Dana

76 Responses to “Sen. Ted Cruz Endorses Roy Moore For Alabama’s Vacant Senate Seat”

  1. Hoo boy.

    Dana (023079)

  2. I like Ted Cruz. He’s the right kind of lizard to have in the Senate of our very ancient democracy. As opposed to those other lizards that might have occupied it in his place. He really understands the concerns of we right-leaning hominids, like the danger of budget deficits.

    Frederick (53c627)

  3. I’m very impressed Mr. Cruz has done this

    this seat needs to stay in the R column

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  4. Vacant Senate seat?

    Luther Strange is still Senator until December, isn’t he?

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  5. When you cry for ‘reinforcements’– you’re losing, Tedtoo.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  6. Zodiac+Killer hearts Judge Roy Bean.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  7. Cruz seems to have overcome his TDS, good for him, and welcome back. The country needs leaders like him in the Senate.

    Perhaps it’s not too much to hope the commited cadre of staunch supporters who backed Cruz so vociferously during the GOP Primaries can at last put their disappointment aside and like Cruz unite behind our President. After all, a rising tide raises all boats.

    ropelight (bbe920)

  8. The [sic] is a cheap shot, and it is not clear whose mistake it was, Moore’s or TIME’s (It doesn’t appear in Volokh’s quote).

    Kevin M (752a26)

  9. Zodiac+Killer hearts Judge Roy Bean.

    pls to curb thine impudence Mr. burn

    there’s nobody what loves Roy Moore

    but i do hope he serves sensibly and with a marked fealty to President Trump

    it’s what Jesus would want

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  10. Luther Strange is still Senator until December, isn’t he?

    Right through Jan 3rd, assuming he doesn’t resign a bit early for one of those seniority things. I kinda doubt he will.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  11. I expect Bannon to support ALL the GOP nominees in the general election for the same reasons. Oh, wait, he wants to DESTROY the GOP, so no, he won’t.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  12. Jeff Flake is getting out. McCain will leave soon for other reasons.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  13. keep draining that swamp Mr. Trump

    love you so much

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  14. 13. I would love to see one last “f you” vote before he goes out disco granny style.

    urbanleftbehind (b843ef)

  15. he’s so disgusting Mr. urban but did you notice

    even poopstain mccain kept his mouth shut about that horrid johnson woman and didn’t try to exploit that sad tawdry affair as part of his nevertrump jihad

    in fact I think it’s likely his daughter juggs mccain spoke for him here

    “You know congresswoman, I am very uncomfortable with all of this,” McCain said. “I don’t like the cheering of calling our president a liar. I don’t like cheering talking about a man who has given his life for our freedom. This was a private call between the widow and the president. Why did you feel the need to speak out?”

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  16. So do Trump supporters think Cruz is caving in on principle by supporting Roy Moore, but Trump is being consistent by supporting the GOP establishment candidate Luther Strange? Does this mean we’ve finally agreed that Trump is in bed with the establishment, while Lee, Cruz, and Paul aren’t?

    DRJ (15874d)

  17. Or is Cruz joining the Trump team by supporting Moore, the guy Trump campaigned against? This us do confusing.

    DRJ (15874d)

  18. Kevin M – that seems strange, because this is a special election, and I’d expect the elected replacement for an appointee to take office immediately. It might be different if this were a regularly scheduled election.

    That said, I can’t find the governing part of the Alabama code.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  19. Mr. Feet! As Game 1 of the World Series begins, remember: “Swing for the fences!”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssYJuKQenHU

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  20. that always makes me feel so happy

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  21. Does the host still think Trump is going to throw Cruz under the bus.
    Cruz has expressed a very professional loyalty without being obsequious and Trump likes that.
    I think Cruz is loyal to the office and to the party. He’s made it very clear that he is not going along with spiteful McCain or the distraught Flake and is saying “let’s win” “tax cuts can be good”
    “Obamacare needs to go”
    Trump is President. Get over it and go get those things done

    steveg (f8e026)

  22. Kevin M – that seems strange, because this is a special election,

    You are right. And it would depend on the state code.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  23. keep draining that swamp Mr. Trump

    The Swamp abides.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  24. Or is Cruz joining the Trump team…

    This ‘principled’ guy?!? Maybe he outta wait until after Thursday’s JFK doc-dump…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bz44wKKQJh0

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  25. Moore is correct in his statement about the Supreme’s decision to legalize homosexual marriage. Marriage is not a federal issue (I know you will remember all the arguments against the marriage amendment), For that reason alone, I would vote for him. I’m guessing that since Moore wasn’t an establishment candidate (not paying his dues to the Chamber of Commerce)

    jason stewart (e1da0d)

  26. The timing of Cruz’s endorsement …

    Mr. Feet! Winners don’t need a Cruz “endorsement”:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6v-jNOiVjc

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  27. Elect a Republican Congress that will support a Republican president the way the last one supported Obama.

    Colonel Haiku (e7e3ee)

  28. Congress should be submitting bills to Trump for signature regardless to whatever craziness Trump is up to. The hissy fit has squandered one year of plurality.
    Fill his desk with legislation, it’s their job.
    One could say that the more Congress sends Trump, the less time he has to pick fights on Twitter….. although Trump really over achieves on the Twitter.
    Ram some bills through while the media is wringing their hands over, oh my god, “Rocket Man” or the like.
    Take advantage. Cruz is smarter than Lindsey, McCain, Corker, Flake all together. You put all their intellectual power together and you get one dunce. Take the advantage, you idiots

    steveg (f8e026)

  29. Cruz has expressed a very professional loyalty…

    Yeah, he’s a regular Mitt Romney.

    =ba-thumpa=

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  30. It’s such a good thing we have a GOP-controlled Senate. I’d had to see what the blue lizards would do if we didn’t have the red lizards in:

    But some outlines of an agreement are becoming clearer. For instance, the senators have all but ruled out including a mandatory workplace verification system known as E-Verify in a final DACA agreement, according to multiple lawmakers engaged in the talks.

    Ideas that do remain in contention among this circle of Republicans include beefed-up border security provisions, limiting some chain migration and measures that one senator described as a “down payment” on shifting the U.S. immigration laws into a merit-based system, according to GOP senators…

    Durbin and Graham have been pitching the latest iteration of the DREAM Act, although Graham says he’ll need to secure some concessions from Democrats to lock down enough GOP votes. The DREAM Act, for instance, covers a much broader population than the estimated 690,000 immigrants who currently hold DACA permits.

    Graham wants to begin transforming the U.S. immigration system to one based primarily on economic needs rather than family ties, without slashing the number of green cards as some conservative senators have proposed.

    Frederick (53c627)

  31. Let me leave the lizards aside for the moment and indulge another favorite allusion:

    “I’m sure I’ll take you with pleasure!” the Queen said. “Two pence a week, and jam every other day.”

    Alice couldn’t help laughing, as she said, “I don’t want you to hire me – and I don’t care for jam.”
    “It’s very good jam,” said the Queen.

    “Well, I don’t want any to-day, at any rate.”

    “You couldn’t have it if you did want it,” the Queen said. “The rule is, jam to-morrow and jam yesterday – but never jam to-day.”

    “It must come sometimes to ‘jam to-day’,” Alice objected.
    “No, it can’t,” said the Queen. “It’s jam every other day: to-day isn’t any other day, you know.”

    Frederick (53c627)

  32. Porno perv endorses clown in the woods.

    clown (e62bef)

  33. Cruz can’t afford pride. He’s got a wife and two kids to support, and he needs to keep his job.

    nk (dbc370)

  34. Cruz’s logic is simple: we can’t afford any more Democrats in the Senate. Just like a lot of people here voted for Trump because he wasn’t the Democrat*. I don’t see it as caving in to Trump or anyone else.

    *Yes, I know you voted for him because he wasn’t Hillary. Bit would anyone here who did vote for Trump have voted for a Democratic candidate against Trump who was not Hillary?

    kishnevi (f594bb)

  35. The logic of “just another politician”.

    nk (dbc370)

  36. Sorry, kishnevi, the first reason I gave — that he has a wife and kids to support — is the only clean one, and one most working people would understand.

    nk (dbc370)

  37. @Kishnevi:Bit would anyone here who did vote for Trump have voted for a Democratic candidate against Trump who was not Hillary?

    Don’t know about here, but Trump won some of Obama’s voters, and some of them wouldn’t turn out for Hillary. There are definitely large numbers of both sets of people: Trump voters who would have (and did, four years ago) for for a Democrat not Hillary, and Democrat voters who would not vote for Hillary.

    Frederick (53c627)

  38. @ steveg, who wrote (#28):

    Congress should be submitting bills to Trump for signature regardless to whatever craziness Trump is up to. The hissy fit has squandered one year of plurality.

    And what bills do you think the GOP should pass that the Dems won’t block in the Senate by filibustering? This isn’t a rhetorical question: Name one.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  39. @Beldar:Dems won’t block in the Senate by filibustering

    I thought the majority could get rid of the filibuster. They have for some things, like Gorsuch.

    So “the filibuster” is not an excuse, really, is it? If they’re not willing to do it without the filibuster then they don’t want it that badly, do they?

    Frederick (cd593c)

  40. The Dem majority under Reid nuked the filibuster for all presidential appointments except, purportedly, SCOTUS nominees, which is a distinction that finds no justification at all in the Constitution even by implication, nor in Senate historical practice. Accordingly, when the Dems tried to use the little piece of the nominations filibuster that they purportedly hadn’t nuked, the GOP, with the Gorsuch nomination pending before it, promptly nuked that.

    No GOP senator is on record as supporting nuking the filibuster for ordinary legislation, though. Instead, every damned one of them, including those whom I otherwise usually agree with, is going along with McConnell in the stupid, stupid, stupid presumption that the next time the Dems are in power, they’ll still honor and uphold the legislative filibuster. In other words, the GOP senators are refusing to nuke the legislative filibuster because they think the Dems will play nice even when its against their interests in the future.

    Filibusters have always been entirely extra-constitutional, a rule of comity based on romantic notions of the Senate as a place for unlimited debate, the giant policy saucer to cool the hot coffee sent up by the House and to protect the Republic from populist excess (in much the same way that the longer six-year term of the senators, with their respective terms staggered so that no more than one-third are up for reelection in any given two-year election cycle, also does). As far as I can tell, the only argument supporting McConnell’s position is that he wants to be able to claim righteous indignation when the Dems nuke the filibuster.

    The filibuster is therefore indeed their “excuse” in the sense of explaining why they can’t get anything meaningful to the WH over Dem opposition. That it’s a stupid excuse was proved beyond doubt when they recognized that the Dems’ decision to filibuster even bland, unquestionably qualified Neil Gorsuch was an unprincipled and entirely partisan position utterly inconsistent with Senate traditions of deference to reasonable POTUS nominations, a tradition the GOP had confirmed as recently as the Sotomayor and Kagan confirmations, neither of which the GOP filibustered.

    Trump, though — dimwitted, inarticulate Donald Trump — is just barely capable of recognizing that the filibuster is what’s got the entire GOP agenda bottled up in Congress, and utterly incapable of making an effective case to bring actual political pressure upon McConnell and other GOP senators to treat the legislative filibuster like the treated the remnants of the appointments filibuster. All Trump knows how to do is belittle and threaten, and that won’t work here.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  41. I wish that Cruz had remained silent on Roy Moore.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  42. Its a placebo a talisman, it serves no real function.

    narciso (d1f714)

  43. I am pleased that Ted Cruz spoiled your image of him.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  44. @Beldar:and utterly incapable of making an effective case to bring actual political pressure upon McConnell and other GOP senators to treat the legislative filibuster like the treated the remnants of the appointments filibuster.

    Granted Trump is incapable of making an effective case. But with the GOP we have, would they listen to an effective case? I mean if Trump had some kind Jedi mind trick that he was using, and refused to for legislation, then I could see blaming Trump for the ineffectiveness of the GOP Congress.

    But these guys predate Trump, and they really haven’t been effective at much beside holding office this whole time.

    In one of the threads today I posted a link to an article about how the GOP is gutting immigration reform–the kind the electorate wants, the enforcement kind. Lindsay Graham is drumming up support for the DREAM act.

    This is the GOP we have. What political figure do you believe could get them to do the right thing?

    Frederick (cd593c)

  45. I am pleased that Ted Cruz spoiled your image of him.
    BuDuh (fc15db) — 10/24/2017 @ 6:57 pm

    I am also glad that Cruz dispelled my image of him, BuDuh. Only the insane and Trumpkins (but I repeat myself) prefer holding on to a false image instead of facing reality.

    nk (dbc370)

  46. @ BuDuh, who wrote:

    I am pleased that Ted Cruz spoiled your image of him.

    I presume that’s directed at me, but it’s not what I said, and it’s not a reasonable inference from what I said. It’s juvenile nonsense, and I don’t like it when people put words in my mouth or project feelings onto me that I don’t feel. If you wish to ever have a civil conversation with me, you’ll stop that practice. If not, I’m quite happy to add your name to my list of other intellectually dishonest people whose comments I routinely block.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  47. It’s easy to demand that someone else be a martyr for the cause when your own ass is not on the line. What has your orange-skinned pansy with “bones in his foot” ever sacrificed for principle, BuDuh?

    nk (dbc370)

  48. I wish that Cruz had remained silent on Roy Moore.

    I am disappointed in Cruz, Paul, and Lee. I am also disappointed in Cruz and Lee for supporting the budget-busting budget. I am getting used to disappointment.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  49. I am pleased that Ted Cruz spoiled your image of him.

    Are you from Indiana?

    Do you have all your teeth?

    Your answer is not important, as my next act is to add you to the block list.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  50. That was very easy.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  51. “You couldn’t have it if you did want it,” the Queen said. “The rule is, jam to-morrow and jam yesterday – but never jam to-day.”

    Is “jam” code for spending cuts?

    🙂

    Patterico (115b1f)

  52. Patterico! You used an emoji! That’s got to be a first. Are you evolving, too?

    nk (dbc370)

  53. Look, all I’m saying is that the person everyone held on a pedestal has revealed he is flawed. I do not understand why it is so offensive.

    The person that you wish Trump to be doesn’t exist.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  54. @Patterico:Is “jam” code for spending cuts?

    Entitlement reform, abolishing the Ex-Im bank, immigration enforcement, spending cuts, Obamacare repeal…

    Frederick (cd593c)

  55. It’s offensive, BuDuh, because I don’t hold anyone on a pedestal, and you imputed something of that sort to me without cause and incorrectly. The correct response is, “I’m sorry I attributed to you something you didn’t actually write, and that I wrongly guessed, I’ll try to read what you actually wrote more carefully as a prerequisite for civil discussion.”

    Beldar (fa637a)

  56. I still hold Cruz on a pedestal. I still admire his character, his intellect, his education, and his ability. I can’t think of anyone, outside my family and friends, whom I would vote for over him for any public office. It doesn’t mean that I won’t throw snowballs at him as I would at any other man on a pedestal.

    nk (dbc370)

  57. Pedestals are for statues. I can list off the top of my head a short list of issues on which I’ve always disagreed with Ted Cruz (most of which would fall under the “social conservatism” heading), but it’s a much shorter list than I could construct about most other politicians, and like nk, I admire Cruz’ character, intellect, education, and ability. I expect to continue supporting him politically even though he’s disappointed me from time to time in the past and it’s inevitable that he’ll do so again in the future. I’ve said as much in the comments on this blog from time to time over the last couple of years, most recently in noting that Cruz supports McConnell’s position against nuking the remnants of the filibuster.

    BuDuh implicitly but necessarily claimed as part of his comment that he (BuDuh) somehow knew and was competent to opine about my “image” of Ted Cruz. Moreover, claimed that this endorsement by Cruz must have “spoiled” my image of him. That’s utter nonsense — patronizing, presumptuous, completely manufactured out of BuDuh’s imagination, and badly wrong to boot. It’s also in the nature of an ad hominem attack, since it implies a preexisting level of naivety or else hypocrisy on my part which he, BuDuh, has cleverly pointed out through his wisecrack. Life’s too short for me to waste time or emotional energy arguing with folks who do that repeatedly, hence my personal objection to it. If BuDuh doesn’t wish to actually engage in a discussion, though, it’ll be no loss to him when I add his name to the blocker script and effectively edit him out of my universe.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  58. I have added Beldar and nk to my block file.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  59. Patterico! You used an emoji! That’s got to be a first. Are you evolving, too?

    The site turned my colon followed by a closing parenthesis into an emoji.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  60. Were you able to spell “nk” on the first try, BuDuh?

    nk (dbc370)

  61. I like the idea of the blocking script though I don’t use it myself. It’s a bottom-up, individualized, perfectly proportionate response to trolling, it’s passive and defensive, you do not lower the tone by using it. The thing I like about it best is that trolls cannot know if they are failing to provoke because they are being blocked, or if it is because they are ineffective trolling.

    However, I have very mixed feelings about using the blocker and then announcing it whenever one does. It seems kind of mean-girl-ish, and having it both ways, and when used in that manner I do not think the tone gets raised much.

    But what stays good about it is that it is entirely under everyone’s individual control, and no person’s decision binds anyone else. Some people up their game a little in response to it, you can see the difference in, say, happy feet when he has a real message he wants to get through the jamming.

    Frederick (cd593c)

  62. However, I have very mixed feelings about using the blocker and then announcing it whenever one does. It seems kind of mean-girl-ish, and having it both ways, and when used in that manner I do not think the tone gets raised much.

    I like to tell people who are deliberately trying to provoke me that they will fail from now on. It’s just that simple. You may see my defensive action as aggressive, but that’s not how I see it.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  63. Were you able to spell “nk” on the first try, BuDuh?

    I would do a Haiku-ish verse on P. Hux’s “Buddha Buddha” except not enough people here know the song to make it worth my while.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  64. However, I have very mixed feelings about using the blocker and then announcing it whenever one does. It seems kind of mean-girl-ish, and having it both ways, and when used in that manner I do not think the tone gets raised much.

    I did notice that with post #49.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  65. 62

    Patterico sometimes mistakes earnest efforts to point out factual errors in his analysis as an effort to “provoke” him. If so, its an effort to “provoke” him to accuracy.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  66. @patterico:I like to tell people who are deliberately trying to provoke me that they will fail from now on. It’s just that simple. You may see my defensive action as aggressive, but that’s not how I see it.

    You are giving the trolls what they want by so doing. If you simply use the script, without announcing it, they cannot provoke you, and you do not give them the feedback that they desire, that is their real motive for trolling.

    Simply using the script without announcing is defensive. Using it and announcing it is a little passive-aggressive, I think.

    Frederick (cd593c)

  67. Using it and announcing it is a little passive-aggressive, I think.

    It is similar to Beldar’s threats to use it if you don’t subordinate to his rules of conversation.

    BuDuh (fc15db)

  68. I have added Beldar and nk to my block file.
    BuDuh (fc15db) — 10/24/2017 @ 8:00 pm

    What I most like about Trumpkins is their self-awareness.

    nk (dbc370)

  69. #38

    The Dems will filibuster them all…. if McConnell lets them. McConnell is weak.
    Cruz would crack the whip on the floor and cut Schumer off at the ankles

    steveg (e8c34d)

  70. @steveg:Cruz would crack the whip on the floor and cut Schumer off at the ankles

    What’s stopping him now? There’s a reason Cruz is not the Majority Leader. It’s because the rest of the GOP doesn’t agree with him on enough things. IOW, not really very conservative in the senses Jeff Flake invoked–except the pro-immigration part, they’ve got THAT down.

    Frederick (cd593c)

  71. Beldar
    That filibuster fight is part of their job getting bills to Trump.
    The NeverTrumpers need to stop whining about Trump and push some work through to the desk in the WH with the new pen.

    Kurt Schlicter wrote this about #NeverTrumpers: “within the political scene the Never Trumpers are convinced that they are the cool kids despite being the chess club of American politics. No, they aren’t the cool kids. They’re geeks, they haven’t won a tournament in years and, more importantly, they’re the freaking chess club.”

    Cruz needs to knock off McConnell in my view, but then again at least 5-6 “Republicans” would rather grandstand “against” something they used to be for… just to spite Trump, or Cruz, or Rand Paul, or?.
    Time for old Rino’s to shuffle off and get poached for their tiny horn. Their most important legacy would then be mildly arousing some rich Chinese guy.

    steveg (e8c34d)

  72. What I most like about Trumpkins is their self-awareness.

    LOL. There are so many things to love.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  73. @ Frederick, who asked a very good question at #44:

    Granted Trump is incapable of making an effective case [for why the GOP senate majority shouldn’t immediately abolish the legislative filibuster]. But with the GOP we have, would they listen to an effective case?

    They did for Gorsuch. It wasn’t Trump making that case, though — by all accounts I’ve read, it was proposed by the leadership team (McConnell, Cornyn et al.) within the caucus and agreed upon immediately and without a single opposing vote. Neither Trump nor the WH had anything to do with the entire process, and Trump was as surprised as anyone when it was announced.

    The effective case must be made to the public for the candidly announced purpose of asking them to bring pressure to bear upon their home-state GOP senators. That is who those senators listen to. Every single GOP senator already knew, before the Dems predictably announced that they intended to filibuster Gorsuch, how important SCOTUS nominees have become to the base. They know how many nose-holders voted Trump while saying, “At least he’d pick better judges than she would.” They knew that their home-state voters absolutely, positively would not ever forgive any them for letting the Dems block him or any other comparable nominee from the bench. I can’t think of any other explanation for the instant unanimity; they didn’t need unanimity, in fact, they just needed 50, but not even one grandstander or traditionalist (not McCain, not Flake, not Paul, not Mikulski or Collins) made so much as a peep of protest, much less voting against. It was a slam dunk.

    So you make the case by explaining to the voters, over and over again, that the reason we can’t repeal and replace, or do anything else, is because of the filibuster rule that the Dems showed their utter disdain for when they nuked it for appointments, and that Harry Reid is repeatedly on record promising that his party would finish the job on, by nuking the legislative filibuster, at its next opportunity. You lay the blame for this squarely where it belongs: The Democratic Party.

    This rare opportunity to make meaningful use of the unified government created by the 2016 election results is too important to forfeit based on the foolish hope that the Democrats will exercise voluntary self-restraint ever again. That’s the message, and you sell it to the faithful, who then can write a three-word email to their senators which reads: “Nuke the filibuster.”

    Reagan could’ve explained this and generated a groundswell of public opinion in a week.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  74. @ BuDuh (#67), or not, depending on your truthfulness, who wrote:

    It is similar to Beldar’s threats to use it if you don’t subordinate to his rules of conversation.

    There you go again, sir, imputing things to me that I haven’t said.

    How can I be threatening you merely by saying I’ll decline to read what you’ve written here in the future? Why do you perceive this as a threat? How will you be harmed? You don’t appear to value my writing or opinions in any event. Do you nevertheless deem it a loss if you can’t engage me in conversation? I can’t imagine why.

    Am I now to feel aggrieved if indeed you have blocked my comments? Ought I feel aggrieved if you decide not to visit Patterico’s Pontifications tomorrow at all? Boy, that will sure teach me a lesson, I suppose.

    I assure you: I am not aggrieved.

    No, sir, I intended and made no “threats,” but rather, I thought (and said) that I’d make a last effort to see whether you’d repent your inclination to put words in my mouth and attribute things to me that I’ve never said, which, as I also explained above, is my own minimum guideline for those with whom I care to carry on civil conversations. I can’t subordinate you to my rules of conversation — I have not the slightest aspect of power over or regarding you, anywhere! — but I can explain, and therefore have explained (with reasonable politeness) why you ought not expect me to respond to you in the future, even if you again choose to project your fantasies upon me by name.

    This isn’t passive-aggressive. It’s entirely passive: You’re not worth any more of my time, and I’ll no longer waste any energy on you. If you’ve made the same decision about me already, all the better for us both.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  75. If McConnell resigned, Cornyn would be most likely to replace him. If the filibuster rule were nuked, McConnell would be adequate to get things passed, as he was adequate to get Gorsuch confirmed. Don’t mistake this as me being a fan of McConnell; but demonizing McConnell is the opposite of the way to sell this.

    You don’t threaten and you don’t insult; you get their voters to write them letters.

    He could even use Twitter for this, but someone else would have to write the Tweets for him and keep him from insulting GOP senators in the meantime — which, again, is an impossible dream, dammit.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  76. 73. Beldar (fa637a) — 10/24/2017 @ 11:17 pm

    the reason we can’t repeal and replace, or do anything else, is because of the filibuster rule

    Also, because Dempcrats present a united front.

    And the reason that happens is because of the way the campaign finance system works now.

    Sammy Finkelman (20d02d)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1016 secs.