Will attacks on Republicans by Republicans ever cease? Well, not as long as I’m around but how about we say it this way: will UNWARRANTED attacks on Republicans ever cease? Gosh, I hope so. Today’s installment features, once again, Redstate’s editor Erick Erickson. Look, I’m an unpaid conservative that tries to get things right – you’d think that a “star” that gets paid for this stuff (a lot, BTW) would take the time to think about what he is saying. Alas, he doesn’t. Once again. Sigh.
So here’s the deal. I’m an actual voter in Texas. Erickson is a guy that lives in Georgia and likes to inflame conservatives. Does he make more money than me? Yes, 100{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} more because I don’t get paid. Does he have more readers than me? Absolutely, because the only readers I claim are my wife and one of my two daughters. Does he pay taxes in Texas? No. Does he get to vote in Texas? No. Does he care about Texas more than me? No. You decide who to listen to.
So when I see my friend Kelly Horsley post something like this on Facebook, I get interested enough to figure out the truth:
· Well, well, well. Cornyn has made some improvement under the leadership of Senator Cruz, but looks like he’s up to his old tricks again. You be the judge.
Okay, I’m the judge Kelly, and the truth is that Sen. Cornyn isn’t “led” by Sen. Ted Cruz and didn’t “flip”. In fact, Sen. Cornyn gained quite a lot with this specific CR:
- The Continuing Resolution denies President Obama the nearly $1 billion dollars in additional funding he requested for implementing the health insurance exchanges;
- It lowers spending levels, something that has not been done in years; and
- Keeps the sequester cuts in place
As Mr. Erickson notes, during debate Senator Cruz offered an amendment to the CR that would have prohibited funds from being used to implement Obamacare. As we all know, Sen. Cornyn was a co-sponsor of this amendment. Unfortunately, the amendment failed on a 45-52 vote with all Democrats voting against the amendment.
Sen. Cornyn objects wholeheartedly to Obamacare and to say anything otherwise is absolutely false. I don’t know why Erickson would claim anything otherwise and won’t speculate on it.
But these are the plain facts. Sen. Cornyn sent out a press release about this very subject – I guess Erickson decided to ignore it in his effort to gain readership/money.
JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator – Texas
For Immediate ReleaseCONTACT: Megan Mitchell, (202) 224-0704
Drew Brandewie, (202) 224-0703
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Cornyn Statement on Continuing Resolution
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) issued the following statement after voting for the Continuing Resolution (CR) to fund the government at the reduced levels mandated by the sequester:
“This bill represents the first modest step toward reigning in wasteful, Washington spending. Though imperfect, this bill lowers spending levels, keeps the sequester savings in place, and ensures our military and border patrol have the funding and flexibility they need. And, it will avoid more ‘crisis governing’ that undermines public confidence.“A more significant, permanent solution would be for the Senate to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment, which I’ve sponsored and all Senate Republicans support.”
Senator Cornyn serves on the Finance and Judiciary Committees. He serves as the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee’s Immigration, Refugees and Border Security subcommittee. He served previously as Texas Attorney General, Texas Supreme Court Justice, and Bexar County District Judge.
###
I live in Texas, I pay taxes in Texas, I vote in Texas, and I couldn’t care less what some guy in Georgia thinks about my Senator. What I know is that Sen. Cornyn knows what he is doing and what he is doing is fighting for the people of Texas. And frankly, that is all I care about.
How did he gain anything? Why was this not a flip?
Did you read it? Denies funding, lowers spending levels, keeps the sequester cuts in place.
I called Senator Cruz's office to find out why he voted against it, David, because I was curious, too. His staffer said simply that he voted on principle. He said that Senator Cruz was not going to fund Obamacare, pure and simple. That's an answer I can live with.
And Sen. Cruz can continue to vote against everything and get nothing accomplished. I get that some people want to go that direction. I much prefer shrinking government where we can, which is what Sen. Cornyn has done.
I can see your point. I guess I just personally found it to be so refreshing that someone was speaking my language in regards to principle. Cornyn's office told me that he didn't want to see a government shut down. I asked Cruz's office the same thing. They said he wasn't afraid of the government shutting down. That the last time a shut down occurred, we got a balanced budget. Some folks want baby steps, others want to go whole hog. That's just my take on it.
I refuse to give him any credit. Anything he introduces looks good…. but will be shot down.. because there is no Republican majority. If he wants to defeat Obamacare, he needs to get creative, and very vocal.
I like Cornyn OK but I disagree on a general matter. As someone who reads each Cornyn press daily, and have been doing so for about 7 years, I can say that there has been a big change since Cruz was elected. Cornyn is more aggressive and seems newly energized. It's not a criticism but it is an obvious change. You may not call it being lead but there is a change.
C ornyn is driven by fear.. He was afraid. Cruz reminds people what happened when the government was shut down. Huge difference in personalities… and we will do much better when we have someone not fear driven.
No wonder Congress loves these CR's so much.
Cruz’s office is being fairly misleading about what happened with the government shut down in 1995 and early 1996 if those are their statements. These were a debacle for Republicans, and ultimately resulted really only on the reelection of Bill Clinton as President.
Republican’s at the time lost control of the message by pressing for too much and it hurt them. Instead of settling with their win that they made Clinton agree to a balanced budget over the next seven years (which is an entirely different issue), they took an all or nothing approach, and got nothing. For example, prior to the shut down, Clinton offered $81 billion in tax cuts, which Republicans laughed off an inadequate. After shutting down the government, losing the message, and getting Clinton reelected, they got $91 billion in tax cuts. To top all of that off, it allowed Clinton to take the credit for the a “balanced budget” while Republicans looked like idiots. I know I don’t call that a win.
Just imagine…at this time the Republicans controlled the House and the Senate. How would things have been different had they not taken a hard line, compromised where they could, looked reasonable, and probably gotten a Republican elected President — thus giving them control of the White House and Congress?
Statements by Ted Cruz that a government shutdown is not a bad thing only reinforce that our Party is the party of “no”, and we have no ideas to offer. You cannot be both the party of “no” and the party of ideas. If Republicans hand the Democrats this issue to campaign against in 2014 (which by all accounts people like Senator Cruz are trying their best to do), it is going to be a nasty midterm for us all over the country.
It is high time we stop shooting ourselves in the foot politically, start to think strategically, and get out the echo chamber that has cost us election after election.
First, Clinton ran as a moderate and who was his competitor? Second, the government shut down hurt us how? Oh, we lost an election. Is doing the right thing the best way, or is it all about winning. Because frankly, when we win, I don’t see much improvement. The House controls the purse strings.How is that working for you?
Obviously Clinton defeated Bob Dole/Jack Kemp (and Ross Perot) in the 1996 election.
As to how the government shut down hurt us — it cost Republicans the White House. At this time the Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate, and instead of reasonable compromise (which would have resulted in a Republican controlled White House, House, and Senate), Republicans lost control of the message and it allowed Bill Clinton to take the credit for any “victory” on the budget issues. Ask the average voter on the street who was behind the “balanced” budgets in the Clinton years — none of them will credit the Republicans.
What we should be doing is pushing for what we can get, instead of demanding everything under threat of a government shut down. Swing voters (who decide elections) are not going to respond favorably to that. We can stand up for our beliefs without alientating everyone in the process. Why is it about “doing what is right vs. winning”? Why can’t we win and do what is right? We can — we just can’t realistically do it all at once.
As for the House controlling the purse strings, if you would be more satisfied with a House controlled by Nancy Pelosi, a Senate controlled by Harry Reid, and a White House occupied by President Obama, then so be it. I for one would rather a divided government when we are in the minority, and if we can take all three chambers then great — let’s do it.
Richard, If by chambers you meant branches, then let’s don’t do it. Can you imagine a 2017 scenario with President Jeb Bush, VP Marco Rubio, Senate Majority Leader John Cornyn, Senate Majority Whip Ted Cruz, House Speaker Eric Cantor and House Majority whip Paul Ryan along with a 5-4 Republican SCOTUS? What a world, what a world.
Izzy,
Thanks for catching that — I did mean branches. (I must have been thinking about the “chambers” of Congress while typing that).
Anyway, you are correct. In theory, the goal should be Republican led government. A Republican Congress will generally act more in line with what I believe than one controlled by Democrats — same with the White House — and Supreme Court appointments matter a great deal….so why not make every effort to be in power when they come up?
That said, this will always remain a dream unless we stop the infighting. We must accept the mantra of a “big tent” party, and stop labeling those who might disagree with us on 10{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} of the issues as RINO’s. Let’s face it, this demand for purity from certain elements of the Party cost Republicans control of the Senate. There is really no dispute over that. Let’s look at the facts:
2010:
Delaware: Democratic candidate Chris Coons went from losing by 11 points against expected Republican candidate Mike Castle to blowing eventual Republican candidate Christine O’Donnell out of the water by 16 points.
Nevada: Within a month of her meeting the general electorate, Angel’s 11 point lead turn into a seven point deficit — allowing Harry Reid to keep his seat.
Colorado: Ken Buck upset the “establishment” Republican in the primary, and ended up losing a winnable seat in a closer race. Most analysts believe that had Ken Buck not been the nominee, that seat would have gone to a Republican.
2012:
Maine: Olympia Snowe decided not to run for reelection after infighting with party leadership, and a seat that would have been easily held by her was taken by an Independent who now caucuses with the Democrats.
Missouri: Claire McCaskill was able to hold her seat against all odds because Todd Akin (a heavily backed Tea Party guy) won the nomination. That was a seat that should have been easily taken. Romney won this state.
Indiana: Tea Party favorite Richard Mourdock upset veteran Senator Lugar in the primary. Lugar was a 21 point favorate over the Democrat in this race, however the Democrat easily won in a state that Romney again won.
Now, currently in the Senate, the Democrats (and those who caucus with them) control 55 seats. Over the last two elections, due to this absurd demand for purity on all levels, ideologues in the Party cost Republicans six easily winnable seats. Had we not done this, the current make up of the Senate would be Republican controlled, with 51 votes, leaving Republicans in control of both the House and the Senate.
Why is this important? When you control the Senate, you control what legislation comes to the floor, you control the debate, you control committee assignments, you can force better Supreme Court nominees from a Democrat President — you essentially control it all. If you wanted to “stop Obama” as so many of these losing candidates did — what better way than to actually take control of the Senate? Think about this…due to this demand for ideological purity, we have ensured that Democrats continue to control the Senate, and we will agree with basically none of what they push. However, had we won these races we should have won (with the moderate or establishment person), we might agree with what they do only 80{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} of the time. But which is better? Having a Senate you agree with 0-10{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} of the time, or having a Senate you agree with 80{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} of the time? I will take the 80{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} any day of the week.
Richard, This blog is refreshing because it attracts some conservatives, like you, who are willing to think deeply about the issues of the day and state their views in rational ways. So much better than the sour chyme the right and left often spit up.