Spending Bill Betrayal by Establishment Republicans Confirms Contempt for Base
“Senate Democrats on Friday boasted that they successfully managed to get just about everything they wanted in a massive spending and tax cut bill, despite being the minority party in both the House and Senate,” the Washington Examiner reported Friday. The total seeming abdication by majority Republicans on the omnibus spending bill has conservative voters wondering what difference it made entrusting the GOP with political power last November.
It also makes them wonder why Paul Ryan was crowned with the speakership, especially when warnings about his subversive positions on open borders pathway to citizenship immigration and the importation of Islamists of unknowable intent were clearly documented.
It also shouldn’t be a surprise – at least to those of us who’ve kept our eyes open – the majority of Republicans voted to maintain funding for treasonous “sanctuary cities” and abortions, but just couldn’t find it within their power to overturn a Chuck Schumer provision that’s been on the books since 1993 not allowing funding to process applications for individual relief for citizens with ‘firearms disabilities.” Even if you have an outstanding record of being a peaceable and productive member of society, our “rulers” demand all “prohibited person” gun bans be permanent.
Do you think any gun lobby groups will downgrade “A” ratings because of any of this? Or is it more likely the feel-good con job that ensures establishment access will be ramped up to keep those donations coming?
What we’re told is Republicans couldn’t allow the government to shut down, because Obama and the Democrats and the media would blame them. They’re apparently incapable of countering with the truth that it would be Obama and the Democrats blocking the spending bill and shutting down the government because they didn’t get everything they demanded.
At least that’s the excuse we’re expected to swallow whole.
“So it’s not all Republican fears. It’s not all Republican caving. A lot of it is Republican fealty and loyalty to some of their donors,” Rush Limbaugh told his listeners. “There was never a battle. None of this was opposed. The Republican Party didn’t stand up to any of it, and the die has been cast for a long time on this.”
“Who else are they going to vote for?” the late Lee Atwater, former head of the Republican National Committee, is reputed to have asked about conservatives, relying on “lesser of two evils” voter desperation and fear. Even now we see it among some of the more gutless “pragmatists,” who sound the false alarm that if Hillary wins the presidency we can kiss the Second Amendment and our guns goodbye.
That just means they personally are prepared to surrender, and speaks more of their character than it does of anything else. Some of us do not consider the “popularity contest” winner the last word on our unalienable rights, and will not go gentle into that good night.
“What difference does it make?” Hillary notoriously asked in the Benghazi hearings. The absolute abdication of principle and betrayal of oaths by the Republicans once more brings that question to the fore, but this time in the context of an old admission from one of Bill Clinton’s ideological mentors.
“The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers,” Georgetown University professor Carroll Quigley advocated.
“Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.”
How did your “servants” vote?
Kurt Russell in “Tombstone” asks the essential question each of us must answer:
“Are you going to do something or just stand there and bleed?”