Hard Times

Turncoats are having a tough time. Charlie Crist was a ‘Pub once, being elected as Florida’s Governor and Attorney General. He was unsuccessful in his run for the US Senate, being beaten in the primary by the Tea Party candidate, Marco Rubio. After his senate loss, Crist switched parties, first to be independent and finally to the democrats.

He lost again as a democrat. Now, he’s attempting to regain the Governor’s seat, a position he held in past years as a ‘Pub. But his past party shuffling has become an anchor chained to his leg.

Charlie Crist
’s own words on political bona fides are getting a going-over in the Republican-turned-independent-turned-Democrat’s bid for Florida’s governor’s mansion. AP: “It sounds like something Republican Gov. Rick Scott would ask of…Crist: ‘How can the people of Florida trust your recent conversion?’ But the words were Crist’s, and the question was asked to Tom Gallagher during the 2006 Republican primary for governor. [Then-Republican] Crist easily won that race in large part because he accused Gallagher of shifting his politics to win the election. ‘Talking about being a conservative after a political lifetime of liberalism just isn’t believable,’ Crist said of Gallagher. [Now] Crist is the leading Democratic candidate for governor and is fielding the same accusations — in reverse — from Florida Republicans and his Democratic primary opponent, Nan Rich. They say Crist can’t be trusted because of his political conversion from Republican to independent to Democrat.” — FOXNewsletter, August 11, 2014, Trib Total Media.

Voters have memories and those same voters will remember the turncoat who betrayed them. That situation applies to another turncoat, Missouri’s Attorney General Chris Koster, who started politics as a conservative republican. Koster won election as Cass County’s Prosecutor in 1994. After ten years as Cass County’s Prosecutor, he ran successfully for state senator in 2004 as a ‘Pub and voted conservatively during his only term.

But the state senate was just a stepping stone. Koster wanted to be Governor. Unfortunately, the ‘Pubs already had a candidate and Koster hadn’t yet paid his dues for the next rung up the political ladder.

Koster found he couldn’t buck the GOP state organization. Instead of building a base and serving another term in the senate, he switched parties and was successful winning election for Attorney General as a democrat. In that conversion, Koster discarded his conservative stance and adopted all of the democrat’s radical politics. In politics, that is known as burning your bridges…sometimes, as Charlie Crist has found, in front of you.

Once again, Koster is aiming for Governor vice current Governor Jay Nixon. But he has hit a stumbling block. No one really trusts a turncoat and democrats fear Koster could betray them like he betrayed the ‘Pubs in 2007.

Steve Kraske: Chris Koster hits his first speed bump on the road to Missouri governor

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/local-columnists/article1179151.html#storylink=cpy


The Mississippi establishment GOP is wondering, “Wha’ happened?” after Tuesday’s primary. Their man, Thad Cochran, came in second in a field of three. A close second, admittedly, but still second. (See yesterday’s post.)

Their political machine is spinning up in the face of a run-off election against Chris McDaniel in a few weeks. None of the candidates acquired the needed 50% plus one vote to win the primary.

EDITORIAL: Mississippi vote rattles Cochran, Republican country club

Angry Republicans put their pallid party establishment on due notice

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES, Wednesday, June 4, 2014

Chris McDaniel promises a victory to a late night audience Tuesday July 3, 2014, at the Lake Terrace Convention Center in Hattiesburg, Miss. McDaniel and six-term Sen. Thad Cochran dueled inconclusively at close quarters in Mississippi's primary election Tuesday night. (AP Photo/George Clark)

Chris McDaniel promises a victory to a late night audience at the Lake Terrace Convention Center in Hattiesburg, Miss. (AP Photo/George Clark)

Taking out an incumbent U.S. senator is not easy. Nine of 10 senators up for re-election in the last congressional elections held their seats. This kind of job security makes the Senate a bit of a country club, where the attitude of “going along to get along” ensures a life of relative ease and comfort.

Tea Party activists have been itching to cancel a few of those country club memberships and invite conservatives of a deeper shade of red to the club. They have a shot now in Mississippi, where six-term Sen. Thad Cochran trailed state Sen. Chris McDaniel by less than a percentage point — 49.5 percent to 48.9 percent. Mr. McDaniel would have won it outright with another half-percentage of the vote. Now there’s a runoff on June 24. If it’s difficult to unhorse an incumbent, it’s nearly impossible for an incumbent senator to win a runoff election; a majority has already told him goodbye. Incumbents can win a runoff, but they don’t do it often.

Until Tuesday night, the Republican establishment was pleased with its success in beating back Tea Party challengers across the country in this primary-election cycle. The National Republican Senatorial Committee, which is run by senators, naturally distributes money and assistance in a way that preserves incumbency. They stepped up their game to meet the Tea Party surge.Mr. McDaniel is not the perfect candidate. He has been a talk-show host and said the occasional foolish thing that talk-show hosts inevitably say. But he’s running as a constitutional conservative committed to reining in spending and to repealing Obamacare, and some in the party establishment are breaking into the usual Republican backpedal. Defiant talk of repealing Obamacare was only talk.The contrast with Mr. Cochran — who has been in the Senate since 1978, when his challenger was just 6 years old — is clear. He takes pride in his record as an earmarker, bringing hundreds of millions of dollars of pork to Mississippi. Mr. Cochran opposes Obamacare, but wouldn’t stand with Sen. Ted Cruz to block all bills that funded the scheme. “Shutting down the government to show how much we dislike the law won’t stop Obamacare,” Mr. Cochran said last summer.

The Face of our Enemy

This will be short today. I’ve some tasks to do. But…I did want to post this quote from democrat Representative Joe Garcia (D-FL-26). Garcia was on an internet hangout meeting with supporters on immigration. During the exchange, claiming that El Paso, TX was one of the safest cities on the US-Mexican border, Garcia said, “And two of the safest cities in America, two of them are on the border with Mexico. And of course, the reason is we’ve proved that Communism works. If you give everybody a good, government job, there’s no crime.

Garcia is in a hotly contested district and is rated a toss-up by the Cook Political Report.

Good news…bad news

We had good news in Missouri late yesterday. Nixon’s veto of the tax-cut bill, SB509, was over-ridden in the Missouri Senate on a vote of 23-8. The Missouri House voted later. “The House vote was 109-46,” to override Nixon’s veto with the help of one democrat, “Rep. Keith English, D – Florissant, joined Republicans in voting for the tax cut.” Rumor has it that Representative English has been called, “a traitor to his party,” by opponents of the tax cut. (I say, “rumor,” because I saw the quote earlier this morning and now I can’t find it.)

Other bills are still pending. The paper ballot bill requires two more votes and has yet to be placed on the calendar. The impeachment bills are stuck in committee. The members and the committee chair are afraid to vote.

In addition, time is running out on HB 1439, the Second Amendment Protection Act. The Missouri Senate restored some language to the bill requiring one more confirming vote in the House. So far, that vote has not taken place and time is running out.


On the other hand, conservatives lost some primary elections. John Boehner, with the help of his local organization and cross-over votes from democrats, won his primary election in Ohio.

Boehner wins Ohio primary, despite national unpopularity among GOP base

By , Published: May 6, 2014

House Speaker John A. Boehner cruised to victory Tuesday, easily beating two tea party challengers in his Ohio congressional district and proving that in spite of his unpopularity with the Republican base, his grip on power at home remains firm.

It was a rare moment of celebration for Boehner, who has endured a rough year, from the ongoing fights within his party over immigration reform to the tumult of October’s government shutdown.

Boehner’s win, however, does little to provide him with a significant boost in political capital in Washington, where he has been dogged by rumors about retiring and, failing that, a host of conservative critics who are plotting to oust him from his post later this year.

The column continues at the website and speculates on Boehner’s plans for pushing amnesty this summer.

In North Carolina, House Speaker Thom Tillis won the U.S. Senate primary against his Tea Party opponent.

Tillis Takes N.C. Primary in Win for GOP Establishment

By Scott Conroy – May 7, 2014

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — In a significant victory for the Republican establishment, which has aggressively sought to beat back challenges from Tea Party-aligned candidates, North Carolina House Speaker Thom Tillis won the U.S. Senate primary outright here on Tuesday.

Tillis garnered 45.7 percent of the vote, easily clearing the 40 percent threshold needed to avoid a runoff that would have initiated a costly intra-party battle preceding his general election matchup against incumbent Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan.

One interesting point in this election was that democrat candidate, Kay Hagen, supported Tillis’ primary opponents hoping to cause a run-off election. Her hope was for a runoff electoin that would further fragment conservative voters in the state and thus help her own chances come the Fall.

It is not surprising that the liberal press is touting the GOP Establishment vs. Tea Party battle for control of the party. CNN, the New York Times, and others have columns today on that subject.

Missouri’s primary won’t come until August. Neither of our Senators are up for re-election. Roy Blunt as two more years in his term and Claire McCaskill has four more years. On the other hand, all of Missouri’s Representatives will be up for re-election and some, like Vicky Hartzler, have conservative/Tea Party primary opponents.

It will be an interesting summer.


All is not well in the state of Maryland. The officers and the members of the Board of Directors of Wicomico County Education Association (WCEA) have become dissatisfied with their upstream counterparts, the Maryland State Education Association and the National Education Association. In brief, the local union felt and still feels that they are not getting their money’s worth when they send their dues upstream.

They have scheduled a vote to disassociate themselves with the state and national union. Those parent organizations were not pleased. Like any third-world dictator, they struck back.

Maryland Teachers Union Shop Steward Stages Coup

posted at 9:21 am on April 22, 2014 by Mike Antonucci

My apologies if this ends up sounding like a dispatch from some war-torn Third World country, but it really is a tale from southeastern Maryland.

The elected officers and members of the board of directors of the Wicomico County Education Association (WCEA) scheduled a rank-and-file vote for the 1,000-member local union to end its affiliation with the Maryland State Education Association and the National Education Association. The issues were the usual ones in such cases – the local officers felt an awful lot of dues money was going up the line to the parent unions in exchange for not much in services for the local. After last week’s events, that vote – scheduled for April 28 and 29 – is very much up in the air.

Upset by the actions of WCEA’s board, Gary Hammer, a union site representative at Bennett Middle School, began circulating petitions to recall all the WCEA officers and members of the board, and to suspend them from office until the recall took place. Hammer and his supporters claim to have gathered 700 signatures, which would constitute a majority of the bargaining unit.

Last Tuesday, Hammer and others “entered the WCEA offices, changed the locks and codes, removed or altered office equipment and purported to illegally fire the Association’s only employee.” According to WCEA president Kelly Stephenson, “These actions were not taken in accordance with the governing documents of WCEA or in accordance with the law.”

Stephenson insists the disaffiliation vote will go on as scheduled.

As any good coup plotters would, Hammer and his associates seized the radio station, er, union web page. They have posted this message while deleting much of the site’s previous content:

On April 15 a majority of the members of the Wicomico County Education Association stood together and took necessary steps to prevent a small minority of members from dismantling the union with attempts to disaffiliate from our state and national Associations. The members have spoken and have declared that we are stronger together, and the support we have from the Maryland State Education and National Education Association adds to that strength. We have collected the necessary signatures to recall the officers of WCEA and have put an interim board of managers in place, effective immediately. This board will assume day to day operations of the Association and will move to conduct an election of a new slate of officers. These actions clearly reflect the wishes of the majority of our members who are anxious to move forward and who remain committed to giving Wicomico County’s public school students the excellent instruction and service they deserve.

It seems almost beside the point to note that there is no provision in WCEA’s by-laws to remove the union’s entire elected leadership with a single petition whose signatures have not been verified by any independent authority. Nor is there any provision for the summary displacement of elected officers by an unelected “board of managers.” Nor have the charges contained in the recall petition been examined to see if they meet the recall requirements set out in the by-laws.

It is beside the point because the legality of such actions becomes secondary once you have succeeded in pulling them off. The American Federation of Teachers has turned into an art the recapture of rogue locals, with one such incident being declared illegal by the U.S. Department of Labor, and moot at the same time. A similar disaffiliation vote will take place next month in Modesto, California, though the California Teachers Association does seems to regard it as a legitimate election.

A legal battle will almost certainly arise out of this, but if the WCEA officers want to retain office, they had best respond to the coup’s tactics in like manner.

This is just another, among many, example of thuggish behavior by unions. This time it is the unions sending union goons against their own members to oust legally elected officers and Board members. It matters not that the actions of the state and national unions were illegal. If the local union doesn’t act quickly, it will become moot. The national unions have the force and assistance of the NRLB behind them.


Missouri Governor Jay Nixon is all in a twitter. Those nasty Republicans are planning on cutting taxes and he’s vowed to veto the bill if it arrives on his desk. He’s so upset that he and his budget director will tour the state today to announce his response against those evil Republicans who want to cut taxes.

From PoliticMO Newsletter, April 22, 2014:

NIXON’S NEW TAX MESSAGE — A FATAL LAW. Gov. Jay Nixon dispatched his legal counsel and budget director to carry a new line on monday that Senate Bill 509 carries a fatal flaw that could cost the state billions. The issue is with Line 43 on Page 2, which reads, “The bracket for income subject to the top rate of tax shall be eliminated once the top rate of tax has been reduced to five and one-half percent.” Counsel Ted Ardini: “The bracket for income subject to the top rate is… over 9,000 dollars… Once that hits 5.5 percent, this provision tells us to eliminate the top tax bracket. Once you eliminate the top tax bracket, it becomes over #8,000 and under $9,000… If your Missouri income is greater than 9,000 you have no tax bracket and no tax rate. … By the elimination of the over 9,000 tax bracket, there’s no where to go.”

State Representative John Diehl responds:

HOUSE MAJORITY FLOOR LEADER JOHN DIEHL: The “Governor’s contention of #SB509 flaw is laughable. MO SupCt would never take his position on that reading of that bill.” “It’s a pattern of scare tactics and deception to avoid the real issue… Never once did they identify some hole in the bill.… We were and are confident that there’s absolutely nothing wrong with this bill.” — PoliticMO Newsletter, April 22, 2014.

Jay Nixon has never met a tax he didn’t like.


In my opinion, Rasmussen is and has been one of the most accurate polling groups in the country. They are not always right, but on the average, they are correct more than any of their competitors. Each week they present a rolling poll on Congress…which party is more preferred. Historically, the dems usually have the edge by a percentage point or two. In fact, I cannot remember when the ‘Pubs were on top.

This week they were.

Generic Congressional Ballot

Generic Congressional Ballot: Republicans 41%, Democrats 40%

Republicans have edged ahead of Democrats on the Generic Congressional Ballot for the week ending Sunday, April 20.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 41% of Likely U.S. Voters would vote for the Republican in their district’s congressional race if the election were held today, while 40% would choose the Democrat instead.

The last time this switch occurred was during the week of February 4th, 2014.


An article appeared yesterday in the American Thinker. Mark Levin spent some time discussing it on his program and his FB page. It is an analysis of John Boehner and it isn’t, by any means, complimentary.

But Seriously, Just How Slow-Witted is John Boehner?

By C. Edmund Wright, April 21, 2014

As he moves from lobbyists to the golf course, from press conferences to the tanning bed, he remains oblivious to all that is around him. He has power, incredible power, and yet to this day he has no understanding of the election that made it so. Moreover, all around him are astonishing opportunities for him to be an historic figure — one who could and should be the man who did more than any other single person in turning back the red tide of Obama. It’s all there for Speaker of the House, and yet John Boehner manages to miss it all — as he guarantees his spot as the most spectacular failure in the history of Speakers of the House.

So seriously, just how dense is this guy? I’m not being flippant, or overly dramatic. His performance, in light of the momentous circumstances, necessitates just that question in the most literal and serious sense. Mr. Boehner, I frankly think you’re sort of stupid. Either that, or you are plagued by an amazing lack of situational awareness.

Consider: For months, the IRS has done their best to guarantee that they are known as nothing but part of the Democratic Party election machine.  Lois Lerner remains such an unsympathetic figure that the last public photo of her might as well have been a set of legs with red slippers sticking out from under a house. Elijah Cummings has been exposed as a corrupt and inarticulate embarrassment, and an email trail is emerging that would make Nixon’s use of the IRS look like child’s play. This one scandal is an incredible teaching opportunity of the inherent evils of the liberal bureaucratic political state. Donald Rumsfeld understands this. Boehner? Not so much. He’s talking about immigration deform.

If that weren’t enough, there is another epoch-making story unfolding in Nevada, as the Bundy Ranch is being invaded by an army of militarized bureaucrats that most of us didn’t know exists — working for a bureaucracy that is apparently in charge of more land mass than the majority of world governments. Who the hell are these robo-crats, and who is paying for and authorizing their intimidating and dangerous cross-dressing? Apparently, in this case, the boy king of this hidden empire is a former political aide from the office of Harry Reid. Again, a silver platter of an opportunity has presented itself.

But no, Boehner would rather work behind the scenes to spoil the efforts of the Tea Party groups.

Oh, and while we’re at it, the Bundy story is far more than just some delicious viral YouTube videos. It brings up some very important questions, such as why does the Federal Government own more land in Nevada than everybody combined owns in the United Kingdom? Why does the BLM control one eighth of the entire landmass of the country? And just how many dirty Harry Reid deals are going on everywhere while most of us had no idea how big the BLM was and how little of our own country the rest of us own?

Uh, Mr. Boehner, these are questions of stupefying importance, and while millions of Americans are asking them, they will not get the traction they deserve until someone in a position of power asks them. You know, like a Speaker who is in the opposition party?

The column continues at the website. I urge you to follow the title link or the link here to read it in full. I cannot disagree with anything the writer has penned.


Lawfare. If you have listened to the news today, the NC Attorney General has requested a delay in the latest lawfare suit filed in federal court against the state of North Carolina. The suit complains that the state’s anti-same sex marriage ban is unconstitutional. The tactic many such groups are using around the country with, frankly success, is known as Lawfare.

Lawfare is a recently coined word not yet appearing in the Oxford English Dictionary,[1] a portmanteau of the words ‘law’ and ‘warfare’, said to describe a form of asymmetric warfare.[2] Lawfare is asserted by some to be the illegitimate use of domestic or international law with the intention of damaging an opponent, winning a public relations victory, financially crippling an opponent, or tying up the opponent’s time so that they cannot pursue other ventures such as running for public office,[1][2] similar to a SLAPP lawsuit. Other scholars see it more neutrally as a reference to both positive and negative uses of law as an instrument of warfare or even to the legal debates surrounding national security and counterterrorism.[3]Wiki.

Lawfare is a particularly vile tactic. It does, however, have a large degree of success by cherry-picking cases that incrementally enhances the agenda of its practitioners.


I was listening to Dave Ramsey this morning and a young woman called in about her parents. They had been ‘borrowing’ money from her since she was 14. She is older now, on her own, and her parents are still asking for money.

Her father is a signer on her accounts. Those accounts were created when she was younger. Whenever her father needs money, the last excuse was paying his taxes, he takes it from her checking account. She is closing that account and the others.

Her parents have also taken out loans in her name as well. They have always said they would repay her but have not done so. They’ve not repaid a penny since they started taking her money at age 14. She has no expectation that her parents will ever repay her. Her parents, if I remember the conversation correctly, claim she owes them the money because they raised her.

The situation struck me as similar to that of us, the citizens of the United States, to our governments. They take our money, claim it is to be for some service and rarely, if ever, meet the obligations they promised…other than to grow, expand government and demand more money.

The Census Bureau released some data last week that in the United States, 86 million people worked supporting 150 million who didn’t. The government promised THEM goodies and then took our money to pay for those same goodies. In some circles, that’s known as ‘theft by other means.’

The 5th Amendment to the US Constitution has a prohibition to the Federal Government from taking property, assets, without ‘just compensation’ for public use. Those last two words are important and, thanks to Justice John Paul Stevens, has been eviscerated in a case known as Kelo v. New London.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]Wiki.

That case was unusual in that the seizure of private property via Eminent Domain, was by the local government for private use by a land developer, not for public use. The developer didn’t want his “project surrounded by tenements.”

Kelo Decision A Rousing Success

streiff (Diary) April 18th, 2014 at 10:10AMkelo2Nine years ago the US Supreme Court, in an opinion authored by noted Second Amendment authority John Paul Stevens, eviscerated the “takings” clause of the Fifth Amendment. That decision, Kelo v. City of New London, essentially eliminated property rights so long as someone more powerful than the current owner wanted the land.

New London, a city in Connecticut, used its eminent domain authority to seize private property to sell to private developers. The city said developing the land would create jobs and increase tax revenues. Kelo Susette and others whose property was seized sued New London in state court. The property owners argued the city violated the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause, which guaranteed the government will not take private property for public use without just compensation. Specifically the property owners argued taking private property to sell to private developers was not public use. The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled for New London.

So how did it work out? This theory that the state can take a poor man’s house to give to a rich man to make him richer?

The Kelo ruling was controversial and precedent-setting because, under eminent domain, the government may seize the property of a private citizen when it’s deemed necessary for public use — the construction of an airport, freeway, or post office — and they usually do so politely, giving notice and paying out the appraised value, for example, but in this case the private property was being seized not for necessary public use but for commercial development by pharmaceutical giant Pfizer.

“Pfizer wants a nice place to operate,” a supercilious executive reportedly said in 2001. “We don’t want to be surrounded by tenements.”

But after prompting city officials to pave the way for its new research facility with the promise of tax revenue and new jobs for the city, Pfizer pulled out of New London in 2009, leaving the land undeveloped, the homeowners dispossessed, their homes demolished, the land bulldozed into a vacant lot that still sits empty. After being elected in 2011, New London’s mayor called it “black stain” on the town’s reputation in an apology to the homeowners.

The question, then, is how is Kelo v. New London any different that the seizure of public lands for non-public use? Such seizures that led to the recent confrontations near Bunkerville, NV? To many minds, there is little or no difference.

A late claim by the BLM and the Department of the Interior was that the land was needed for a conservation refuge for the Desert Tortoise. The tortoise had been thriving amid the cattle grazing on the land. The cattle and the tortoise don’t eat the same vegetation. In fact, the BLM had been killing some of those same tortoise and the population of desert tortoises had decreased under BLM care.

The similarities of the two cases, the Bundys v. the BLM, and Kelo v. New London, are prime examples of governmental abuse specifically prohibited under the ‘takings’ clause of the 5th Amendment. Kelo v. New London was crucial because it changed the definition of ‘public use.’ The 5th Amendment ‘takings’ prohibition was eviscerated by John Paul Stevens.

Why do I blame Justice Stevens? He wrote the majority opinion of the case.

On June 23, 2005, the Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision, ruled in favor of the City of New London. Justice Stevens wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Justice Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion setting out a more detailed standard for judicial review of economic development takings than that found in Stevens’s majority opinion. In so doing, Justice Kennedy contributed to the Court’s trend of turning minimum scrutiny—the idea that government policy need only bear a rational relation to a legitimate government purpose—into a fact-based test. — Wiki.

The purpose of the Constitution is to put boundaries on the Federal Government. More and more, it is being twisted to impose restrictions on citizens.

When the states created their constitutions, many copied the tenets, and often the actual text, of the federal constitution. That’s one reason why every state has a similar basis. For instance, every state has three branches of government, a Legislature, an Executive, and a Court. Most states also have counterparts to the 2nd and other Amendments. When components of the federal constitution are changed, the effects trickle down to the states.

In every case where the boundaries of the federal government are changed in favor of the government, the states, particularly the ‘blue’ states, shift, change accordingly. With each change, the constitutions become more irrelevant. If the governments don’t conform to constitutions and law, why should individual citizens?

That is a question government should fear and its possible answers.

Thermometers or Thermostats?

An alternate title could be, “Act or React.” I read an article this morning in the Washington Times that accurately reflects the state of the GOP. Yes, as expected, if comes down to a confrontation of US vs. THEM.

The ‘US’ in the sentence above is the GOP outside of Washington. The ‘THEM’ is the Washington GOP elite who have lost their goals, focus and independence. All of those elites, at one time or another, espoused conservative viewpoints. However, as soon as they arrived in Washington, those conservative principles fade. Yes, there are a few who still retain those principles, like Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and to a lesser extent Rand Paul and Marko Rubio. But more and more, it seems they are the exceptions rather than the rules.

The Washington elite are thermometers. Cruz, Lee, and others are thermostats. Thermometers react. Thermostats act. It’s a major difference.

Conservatives frustrated by GOP’s compromises, lack of leadership