House Dems Claim They Have Enough Votes to Block Pelosi From Being Next Speaker

636160377412678144-AP-PELOSI-86770822

“I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.” – Will Rogers

Yahoo.com/News reports that

As a steadfast Rep. Nancy Pelosi all but dared potential rivals for the gavel to come forward, a group of restive House Democrats vowed Wednesday to produce enough votes to block her from becoming the House’s new speaker. For two days now, disgruntled Democrats have claimed they have 17 names on a letter opposing Pelosi’s leadership, promising to air the document soon. They say those signing on are pledging to vote against the Californian when the full chamber elects the next speaker on Jan. 3.

Rep. Kathleen Rice, D-N.Y., confirmed the letter Tuesday, and an aide to an organizer of the effort said it stood at 17 names as of Wednesday. The aide was not authorized to discuss the letter publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Pelosi, asked by a reporter about her message to rebellious colleagues, challenged them to put forward an alternate candidate for speaker.

“Come on in, the water’s warm,” she said.

Democrats seeking to block Pelosi argue it’s time to give younger Democrats a chance to rise to high-level posts. They also say that Republicans have done such a good job demonizing her in campaign ads that it’s hard for Democrats to be elected in closely contested, moderate districts.

No challenger to Pelosi has emerged, but the group agitating for changes at the top of party leadership says there would be plenty of candidates should her bid be derailed.

“The first step is showing that she cannot get to 218, and then I believe the challengers will emerge,” Rice told reporters. She said that would make new members “feel more comfortable that they’re not just taking a no vote just to take a no vote.”

But Pelosi is one of her party’s most productive fundraisers, energetic campaigners and respected legislative tacticians, giving her wide support that will make her difficult to topple.

“I will be speaker,” she said Wednesday.

While simple math would say the 17 names would be enough to deny Pelosi a majority, other factors are at play. To win on the floor, a speaker needs 218 votes, under typical circumstances, but with absences or members voting present, the tally is reduced. As of now, Democrats hold 229 seats and Republicans hold 198, but several races remain undecided, so the Democratic number could grow. That gives Pelosi a margin of about a dozen or more seats, assuming all Republicans vote against her as expected.

“We’ve got enough to ensure that she cannot become speaker,” said Rep. Kurt Schrader, D-Ore.

To paraphrase Chico Escuela (Garrett Morris) from when “Saturday Night Live” was actually funny…

“Congress been “bery, bery” good to Nancy Pelosi.”

Nancy Pelosi has a net worth of $120 million. Pelosi’s drastic growth, from an initial $21.7 million in 2009, is attributed to stock gains and smart investments. Her husband reported raking in $1 million to $5 million in 2010 from a sale of Apple stocks. The couple also has a commercial property in San Francisco and a home in St. Helena, California, each valued between $5 million and $25 million. She also has a stake in some valuable residential real estate in Sacramento. All rank-and-file members of Congress received salaries of $174,000 last year. As speaker in 2010, Pelosi was paid $223,500, and House and Senate majority and minority leaders garnered $193,400. In 2011, Pelosi’s husband Paul lost as much as $10 million on investments in the United Football League and the Sacramento Mountain Lions. He lost $1 million to $5 million investing in the league itself, and the same amount on the individual team.

About those “smart investments”…

Back in 2011, Steve Kroft interviewed her for 60 Minutes.

Why, he asked, had she and her husband participated in “a very large” initial public offering “from Visa at a time when there was major legislation affecting credit-card companies making its way through the House?”

The legislation in question, a bill introduced by then-Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers in March 2008, would have let merchants negotiate lower swipe fees with credit card companies.

The bill made it out of committee on Oct. 3, 2008, but never to the floor for a vote. A version of the swipe-fee bill made it into an amendment by Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., to the Dodd-Frank bill in 2010.

As the bill was proceeding, Pelosi’s husband, Paul, a wealthy San Francisco investor of the type the Occupy Wall Street mobs have targeted, bought $1 million to $5 million of Visa stock in three separate transactions in a part of the IPO that “60 Minutes” said was offered to a select group of investors.

Interestingly, the wealthy Pelosi has voiced support for the OWS mobs, calling them a genuine and spontaneous movement protesting the very financial wheeling and dealing that the great unwashed feel has victimized them. She gained the speaker’s gavel in 2006 while railing against an alleged GOP “culture of corruption.”

Pelosi is also a big fan of green energy. So is her brother-in-law, Ronald Pelosi, a senior executive with a company called Pacific Corporate Group.

Among PCG’s investments is SolarReserve, based in Santa Monica, Calif., which received a $737 million loan guarantee to build a 110-megawatt solar-thermal plant in Tonopah, Nev.

The loan was granted on the last day of the stimulus loan program, which also gave over half a billion to a failing but politically connected Solyndra.

While speaker, Pelosi was famous for her use of government aircraft to ferry back and forth from her San Francisco district.

According to documents obtained by Judicial Watch, Air Pelosi, as critics called the fleet, cost the taxpayers $28,210.51 per flight.

Her fondness for Boeing aircraft does not extend to supporting Boeing’s plan to create badly needed jobs in the right-to-work state of South Carolina.

As we have noted, she says if the plant is non-union, the National Labor Relations Board should shut the project down.

And, that is just one “investment opportunity”.

Yep. Pelosi is a devoted public servant, alright.

She’s devoted to those green pieces of paper with the pictures of Benjamin Franklin on them. (They probably dated.)

If you look at this logically, San Fran Nan should have stepped down a long, long time ago.

Not only has she and her husband made enough money from all of those “smart investments”, it is obvious that she is dealing with “health issues” which would impair her abilities as the Leader of the House.

She does not know what she is going to say before she says it.

While her possible excursion into dementia is sadly entertaining to watch on television, it certainly is not helpful in the conducting of America’s business on Capitol Hill.

However, Pelosi’s antics up on the Hill would be a Godsend for the Republicans in their campaign to re-elect President Trump.

And, the 30 second sound bites will flow like Niagara Falls.

I am sure that Pelosi’s baggage brought on by her advanced years are a great concern to those who oppose her as the next Speaker.

And, I am sure that many would join the ranks of those younger Democrats who are already speaking out against her.

The problem is: Pelosi “knows where all of the bodies are buried”.

Just like J. Edgar Hoover had his own set of files about public figures when he ruled the FBI with an iron first, Pelosi probably has a set of files about all of her Democrat colleagues and those behind the scenes who sponsor them.

These young firebrands who want to “dethrone” her have a lot to overcome in order to make it happen.

Either way it goes, it will be fun to watch.

Until He Comes,

KJ

Establishment Republicans Pushing Ryan For Speaker. Want Conservatives to be “Reasonable”.

Whats-First-NRD-600The Establishment Republicans are pushing hard to make Paul Ryan the next Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Yesterday, the 2012 Republican Vice-Presidential Candidate received an unsolicited endorsement.

Politico.com reports that

Harry Reid just gave Paul Ryan an unwelcome endorsement for speaker.

The Democratic leader offered his surprise backing for Ryan (R-Wis.) to assume the House speakership, saying he hopes Ryan runs and wins the job because he’s a “Paul Ryan fan.”

“He appears to me to be one of the people over there that would be reasonable. I mean look at some of the other people,” Reid said. “I don’t agree with him on much of what he does. I think what he’s done with Medicare and Medicaid, what he’s wanted to do I disagree with. But generally speaking we’ve been able to work with him.”

Indeed, Ryan’s work with Reid lieutenant Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) on a two-year budget deal in 2013 remains a bipartisan highlight for a Congress otherwise beset by gridlock. But did Reid hurt Ryan by praising him?

The Nevada Democrat shrugged when asked if he was giving Ryan a kiss of death as the Wisconsin lawmaker weighs a speakers bid amid ever-growing criticism from the right for his policy positions.

“I just speak the truth,” Reid said.

“If it helps him fine, if it doesn’t that’s too bad.”

Okay, so the Senate Minority Leader approves of Paul Ryan becoming the Speaker of the House.

Big whoop.

It would seem to me that Dinghy Harry’s is one endorsement that a Republican Leader, who actually wishes to rally the Conservative Base, would not want to have.

Later yesterday, Paul Ryan started his “exploratory campaign” for the position of the Speaker of the House.

The Washington Post  reports that

Rep. Paul D. Ryan (Wis.) moved closer to the House speakership Tuesday, telling fellow Republicans that he would consider taking the job if he could be assured that the caucus would stand behind him.

Ryan faced his colleagues — and his political future — at a private evening meeting of House Republicans in the Capitol basement. He said he would be willing to step up and meet the calls to serve, ending weeks of GOP leadership turmoil, as long as disparate factions moved in the coming days to unite around him.

“I hope it doesn’t sound conditional, but it is,” he said, according to members inside the room. He paused after saying the word “conditional,” they said, for effect.

Ryan, the 45-year-old chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee and a 2012 vice presidential nominee, has long resisted pressure to assume a higher-profile role in party leadership. And he signaled Tuesday that his decision to serve was far from assured.

Much depends on what assurances of support he can win from Republican hard-liners. Before entering the evening meeting, Ryan met privately with leaders of the House Freedom Caucus, an influential group that helped push Speaker John A. Boehner out of his post and derailed Majority Leader Kevin O. McCarthy’s bid to succeed him.

That meeting ended without firm commitments, and at the subsequent GOP conference meeting, Ryan made clear he would need a formal endorsement from the Freedom Caucus before moving forward.

In remarks to reporters, Ryan laid out his vision for moving the House GOP from “being an opposition party to being a proposition party” and set terms under which he would assume the speaker’s post. Those terms effectively put the onus on his colleagues to coalesce behind him rather than forcing Ryan to campaign for the job.

“This is not a job I ever sought; this is not a job I ever wanted,” he said. “I came to the conclusion that this was a dire moment.”

Should he agree to assume the speaker’s post, Ryan would once again emerge as a leading force in national politics, three years after serving as his party’s vice presidential nominee and amid mass unrest in GOP ranks.

“If Paul Ryan can’t unite us, no one can. Who else is out there?” said Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.), a moderate. “That’d be a sign of utter dysfunction, total madness.”

Ryan’s demands reflect a desire to lead the House GOP as its spokesman and agenda setter without the threat of revolt from the right, halting a dynamic that has dominated the tumultuous speakership of Boehner (R-Ohio), who announced last month that he would leave Congress at the end of October. Another aim would be to delegate some of the job’s travel and fundraising demands so that Ryan could spend enough time with his wife and school-age children.

“My only caution is that he should go very slow and make sure that the whole conference is coming to him,” said former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R). “Don’t underestimate the degree of getting chewed up. We are not like the Democrats right now. They are relatively cohesive. . . . We are a movement in enormous ferment, with enormous anger and enormous impatience.”

Looming over Ryan’s deliberations is a churning frustration among Republicans nationally about the party’s ability to oppose President Obama and a presidential primary field led by anti-establishment outsiders who have made common cause with the House GOP’s right flank.

Those conservative House members have pushed for a suite of rules changes, ranging from an overhaul of the party’s internal steering committee to a more open process for considering legislation. Ryan, they say, would not be exempt from those demands, which, if adopted, could give the new speaker less control.

Ryan’s allies say his conditions for becoming speaker are likely to include an understanding that he would have a free hand to lead without a constant fear of mutinous reprisals.

Peter Wehner, a former adviser to President George W. Bush, said Ryan wants House conservatives to make clear that they would not seek to “cripple him” from the start.

“He doesn’t have a moral obligation to get Republicans out of the rubble they’ve created for themselves,” Wehner said. “Asking for their goodwill is completely reasonable.”

“Reasonable”.

There’s that word…again.

Why is it always us Conservatives, who are called upon to be “reasonable”, i.e., whether in dealings with the Democrats or the Establishment Republicans, to compromise the Traditional American Values which we hold dear, for the sake of Political Expediency?

Why can’t the Vichy Republicans be “reasonable” and actually start representing the wishes of the Conservative Base, which gave them their phony-baloney jobs?

In 1975, Ronald Wilson Reagan gave a speech which sums up our present situation and how we, the Conservative Base of the Republican Party, need to handle the Republican Party leadership, quite well.

Americans are hungry to feel once again a sense of mission and greatness.

I don ‘t know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, “We must broaden the base of our party” — when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.

It was a feeling that there was not a sufficient difference now between the parties that kept a majority of the voters away from the polls. When have we ever advocated a closed-door policy? Who has ever been barred from participating?

Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?

Let us show that we stand for fiscal integrity and sound money and above all for an end to deficit spending, with ultimate retirement of the national debt.

Let us also include a permanent limit on the percentage of the people’s earnings government can take without their consent.

Let our banner proclaim a genuine tax reform that will begin by simplifying the income tax so that workers can compute their obligation without having to employ legal help.

And let it provide indexing — adjusting the brackets to the cost of living — so that an increase in salary merely to keep pace with inflation does not move the taxpayer into a surtax bracket. Failure to provide this means an increase in government’s share and would make the worker worse off than he was before he got the raise.

Let our banner proclaim our belief in a free market as the greatest provider for the people. Let us also call for an end to the nit-picking, the harassment and over-regulation of business and industry which restricts expansion and our ability to compete in world markets.

Let us explore ways to ward off socialism, not by increasing government’s coercive power, but by increasing participation by the people in the ownership of our industrial machine.

Our banner must recognize the responsibility of government to protect the law-abiding, holding those who commit misdeeds personally accountable.

And we must make it plain to international adventurers that our love of peace stops short of “peace at any price.”

We will maintain whatever level of strength is necessary to preserve our free way of life.

A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.

I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.

I believe that the Republican Party is stuck in a cycle in which their desire to protect their own hindquarters and cushy “jobs” have lead to a self-imposed isolation from the very American Citizens who were responsible for their having those cushy “jobs” in the first place.

I believe that average Americans, like you and me, have the power to relieve them of the burden of such a stressful job, and send others to Washington, who will listen to their “bosses”.

Just as Ronaldus Magnus said those 39 years ago, it is time to “let them go their way”.

Cryin’ John Boehner’s “resignation” was a good start.

Until He Comes,

KJ

McCarthy Withdraws From Speaker’s Race. Vichy Republicans Have a Hissy Fit.

untitled (5)Going into the beginning of the process of selecting a new Republican Speaker of the House, there was an expectation of drama on Capitol Hill.

However, that expectation turned out to be an underestimation.

The Washington Post reports that

The sudden decision Thursday by House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) to withdraw from the speaker’s race thrust congressional Republicans into chaos and left the contest wide open, with a crowd of lesser-known players jockeying for power and rank-and-file members fretting that the political unrest on the hard right that drove McCarthy and House Speaker John A. Boehner away from the position has left the party unmanageable in the lower chamber.

Conservatives seized the moment as McCarthy made his exodus, celebrating the departure of one of the GOP’s moderates and fastest-rising stars — and pledging to push for one of their own, a hard-liner on fiscal and social issues, to step forward in the coming weeks before the leadership elections are rescheduled. McCarthy’s associates, many hailing from mainstream Republican districts, urged caution and began efforts to draft another centrist Republican to succeed Boehner (Ohio).

Boehner personally asked House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) to run for speaker over two long phone conversations, according to two sources familiar with the exchanges. Boehner has told Ryan that he is the only person who can unite the House GOP at a time of turmoil.

“It is total confusion — a banana republic,” said Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), a Boehner ally, as he recounted seeing a handful of House Republicans weeping Thursday over the downfall of McCarthy and the broader discord. “Any plan, anything you anticipate, who knows what’ll happen. People are crying. They don’t have any idea how this will unfold at all.”

The scene at the Capitol yielded more questions than answers by the hour Thursday afternoon, with an array of influential figures such as  Ryan still reluctant to take McCarthy’s place as the consensus candidate of the party’s establishment and those averse to firebrands. As they mulled and were courted, a parade of hopefuls with low profiles beyond Capitol Hill — such as Rep. Daniel Webster (Fla.), a former state House speaker, and Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (Utah) — made the case in huddles and in the hallways that they are ready to be a fresh face for an unsettled House.

McCarthy, too, called for a “new face” during a news conference, asking for unity behind a leadership slate that is not as closely aligned with Boehner and the old bulls who have retained a grip over the House GOP in recent years even as a younger generation of Republicans has ascended. Who that face could be is unclear, and most ambitious, less-seasoned House Republicans who have considered running for the leadership in the past spent Thursday reacting to the news rather than quickly assembling coalitions.

Boehner, who last month said he would resign the speakership after weeks of facing a near-certain revolt from conservatives frustrated by his handling of legislation and what they see as a lack of aggression in countering President Obama’s agenda, said he will “serve as speaker until the House votes to elect a new speaker.”

It was the soundbite heard ’round Capitol Hill: House Majority Leader and presumptive House speaker nominee Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., has dropped out of the race for speaker. The Washington Post’s Elise Viebeck explains the sudden news — and what happens next. (Julie Percha/The Washington Post)

The bench for the House GOP is sparse, emptied in recent years by the same forces that have vexed Boehner and McCarthy. Virginia’s Eric Cantor, then the majority leader and firmly in line to succeed Boehner, was defeated in a 2014 House primary by a conservative challenger, elevating McCarthy but gutting the leadership of the political capital that Cantor had accumulated.

The committee chairmanships, long a grooming area for future leaders and the path Boehner took to the speakership, have been filled in places by youthful members such as Chaffetz, 48. And the leadership slots below Boehner and McCarthy – majority whip and chief deputy whip – are occupied by Steve Scalise (La.) and Patrick McHenry (N.C.), respectively. Both have served in the House for a decade or less and are inexperienced as national spokesmen — inside operatives but far from recognizable voices.

That left Republicans searching Thursday for new names to add to mix. King floated Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), a respected former House GOP campaign chairman, as a person who could be a calming presence. Several conservatives suggested House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (Tex.), a former leadership member who has strong relationships with the party’s conservative bloc.

Others on the right said Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, which was wary of McCarthy, would best reflect the political drift and impulses of the House. But he told reporters that he is not interested.

Another House Republican who drew interest was Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), who is chairing the House Select Committee delving into the 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya. William Kristol, the editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, said in a Twitter message that Gowdy should be “interim speaker for next year,” days after Gowdy was called to run for the post by conservative groups who have cheered his Benghazi investigation. But as the boomlet began, Gowdy said “no” when asked by reporters whether he would consider running.

Scalise and McHenry, who had been running for lower leadership spots should McCarthy win the speakership, were encouraged to look higher up the chain of command. Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.), who has been a front-line participant in the latest talks about the future of the GOP, also mulled his options. So did Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.), the conference chairwoman and the party’s highest-ranking woman, and House Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price (Ga.), who has harbored dreams of being in the leadership and previously ran unsuccessfully.

Yet none of those members seemed poised Thursday to follow in McCarthy’s footsteps as the front-runner for the gavel. They are all relatively popular with certain circles but few carry the national political heft of Ryan, who has been a vice-presidential nominee, or a McCarthy, who is the current No. 2 in the House.

“My guess is Boehner stays until a replacement has been selected on the floor,” said Rep. Bill Flores (R-Tex.).

Sensing that perhaps no one can ably navigate the terrain — or get the necessary votes, as required by the Constitution, to win the speakership in a floor vote — Rep. Greg Walden (Ore.), the National Republican Congressional Committee chairman, said he would consider running to be interim speaker as the House GOP worked out who could actually lead it in the months ahead.

Tea-party groups weighed in, hoping to exert their own pull on the speaker’s race. Activist Mark Meckler said in a statement that the House GOP must end the “Washington cartel at a time when people are looking to outsiders to challenge the status quo.” Tea Party Patriots’ Jenny Beth Martin said this was a “historic moment” that demands a speaker with deep support with grass-roots conservatives.

McCarthy, in an interview with National Review on Thursday, said whoever follows will have to grapple with a right flank of about 40 members that wants to direct the leadership, rather than being led. “I wouldn’t have enjoyed being speaker this way,” he said.

On who he’d like to step forward, McCarthy said, “I personally want Paul Ryan.” On whether the House can be led, he said, “I don’t know. Sometimes you have to hit rock bottom.”

It was that feeling, expressed across the GOP base, which gave candidates like Webster — a backbencher who won just 12 votes in the vote for speaker earlier this year — some optimism as others scrambled to fill the vacuum left by McCarthy. Rep. David Brat (R-Va.), who toppled Cantor in that primary last year, said on MSNBC that he was with Webster. “I went in Daniel Webster,” he said, and remains with him. Other members of the House Freedom Caucus echoed him late Thursday.

The so-called “Moderate” (or, Vichy, as I call them) Republicans, still being led by Cryin’ John Boehner to the bitter end, are in danger of letting their immense egos cost them their jobs, as the 2016 National Election approaches.

On September 29, 2011, Rush Limbaugh made some very pertinent points concerning the difference in political ideology between the Conservative Base and the NE Moderate Republicans’ Club:

This is fascinating. I spoke earlier in the previous busy broadcast hour about Reagan’s campaign for governor in California in 1966. It is instructive because of this battle here between American conservatives and the Republican establishment, and believe me, they’re two different things. Now, George Will says there’s no Republican establishment and there hasn’t been since, what, 1966. But there is. The Republican establishment for all intents and purposes for the sake of our discussion here, is made up of what you would call RINOs.

The Republican establishment is northeastern Republican conservatives. They’re right on the fiscal side of things most of the time, but they don’t want any part of the social issues. They can’t stand it being part of the party platform. They don’t want to talk about it. They have no desire to be part of that discussion. They think it’s going to lose elections, all that kind of stuff, plus they do tend to believe Washington is the center of the universe. Republicans win elections. They’re in charge of the money. They like that. They tend to believe that an energetic, powerful executive wielding financial powers, spending money for the national good with conservative instincts is a good thing. So if government grows under that rubric, then it’s fine.

We, of course, as conservatives, don’t see things that way, and there is the divide. And the Republican establishment is made up of a lot of powerful people with a lot of money, and they want to win. Just like we do. They employ whatever muscle they have to see to it that they do. They want their candidates to be representative of what they want, all of which is understandable. So there’s this battle going on. The added intensity this time around is another point of disagreement. That is the Republican establishment doesn’t really think the country’s threatened. They don’t like Obama. They think Obama’s a disaster, but the country’s not in any danger here of real long-term damage. I mean, it’s just overblown, all this talk about saving the country, it’s not that bad. All we gotta do is get our people in there and put us back on the responsible fiscal track and everything will be fine.

They don’t see the Democrat Party the same way we do. They don’t see the Democrat Party as basically socialist liberal, and they cringe at such talk. And these people never really were enamored with Ronald Reagan. They never really liked him. They just lived on edge every day: What’s this guy going to do that’s going to embarrass us? What mistake is he going to make? What stupid thing is he going to say? They actually had this view. Tip O’Neill was not the only one who thought that Ronald Reagan was an amiable dunce. There were in the Republican establishment who thought that before Reagan ever ran for office and after he won the presidency. And they thought that back in 1966. After all, he was just an actor, introduced GE Theater.

…He was talking about the Goldwater campaign of two years past. This is ’66; the Goldwater campaign was ’64….Reagan said, “We don’t intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals of our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the party over to the so-called moderates wouldn’t make any sense at all,” and the traitors he was referring to were the Rhinos of his day who had undermined the Goldwater conservatives during the 1964 campaign. And Reagan was saying: Over my dead body is the Republican Party going to be turned over to those people. We’re only going places if we conservatives run this party, if we take it over and if we are unified.

Just as they underestimated Ronaldus Magnus, I truly believe that the Vichy Republicans haveunderestimated the Party’s Conservative Base.

Reagan Conservatives are the bedrock of this nation. We pay these bozos’ salaries, and get shafted in return.

You know what I want for the 23% (soon to be 40%, if Obama has his way before he leaves office) of my hard-earned money, which I send to our nation’s capital to pay for Obama’s and Congress’ Revenue?

I want Conservative Leadership. I want somebody to stand up on their hind legs and tell Obama the way the cow ate the cabbage. I want someone to actually give a hoot ‘n holler about the average American, not the special interest groups, not the lobbyists, not “the smartest people in the room”…me.

I want an American President and competent American Congresspeople.

And, I want those Congresspeople in the House of Representatives to be lead by a Conservative, courageous Speaker of the House. One who will tell Obama, plainly and simply,

NOT ON MY WATCH.

I want someone to stand up and be a MAN…or a WOMAN.

I am so dadgum tired of mealy-mouth squishes and political niceties and expediences, I could spit. Too many Americans are out of work and doing without, while the Three-Ring Circus performs unabated under the Big Top on Capital Hill.

The American people are tired of cleaning up after the Vichy Republicans and their bosom buddies “across the aisle”.

We need Conservative Leadership in the House AND the Senate.

NOW.

Until He Comes,

KJ