Policy vs. Practice

When I was working for Sprint, I volunteered to be a member of the company’s Peer Review Board.  The Board was a means of conflict resolution between an employee and management.  The training was extensive. One segment was Policy…what was the written policy approved by the company, versus Practice…how those policies were actually implemented. Often the practice bore no relationship with policy.

When Practice fails policy, corruption appears.  That is the situation that is being uncovered in Cass County. I found another instance of Practice failing Policy today on KansasCity.com.

Fresh Cass County nepotism accusations


The Kansas City Star

Another Cass County officeholder is being accused of nepotism.

This time it’s Pam Shipley, who has held the collector’s job since 2003. According to a complaint lodged this week by County Auditor Ron Johnson, Shipley violated Missouri law earlier this year when she promoted a staff member — a first cousin — to a higher position.

That the employee, Denise Goddard, worked in Shipley’s office is not an issue. She had been on staff when Shipley won the collector’s position nine years ago. State law allows an “inherited” employee who is related as long as the relative receives only annual raises.

But according to Johnson, when Shipley’s chief deputy retired in January, Goddard began performing those duties at increased pay.

“The addition of duties and pay is a de facto promotion regardless of title,” Johnson wrote in his complaint.

Shipley said Thursday that she “strongly disagreed” with Johnson’s accusation and that she is confident she did nothing inappropriate or illegal.

The case is being reviewed by the Cass County prosecutor’s office.

Cass County has suffered under 40 years of single party rule. There has been no audits of the county books in all that time until Ron Johnson was elected County Auditor.  What is being found is a level of minor and major corruption that has insidiously grown from the failure of Practice to follow Policy.  In this case, the Policy is state law.

That same failure of Practice vs. Policy is the cause of Janet Burlingame’s problems.  The Policy, state nepotism law again, forbade using family members as paid employees or contractors by elected officials. A practice had developed in the 40 year absence of county audits. That practice violated state nepotism law.  Without county audits, that unlawful practice became rooted. That is corruption.

The unfortunate part of all this is that it is entirely probable that neither Shipley nor Burlingame saw their acts as corruption. Burlingame likely followed the Practice established by her predecessors—an embedded practice that had been established over decades like the practice of approving no-bid contracts.

The failure of Practice to follow policy is not limited to a single party.  While both Shipley and Burlingame are democrats, the Commissioners who approved those no-bid contracts were republicans.

Corruption, once embedded, is extremely difficult to remove.  It is not a party issue, it is not a political issue, it is a cultural issue. Changing cultures is always difficult. The force of law, however, helps.

In a corporation, violations of Policy can be affirmed, mediated or, if necessary, make Practice the new policy.  In government, that can not be done. Practice must follow policy. The failure of Practice to follow Policy can have dire consequences as Burlingame has discovered and now Shipley as well.

I congratulate Cass County Auditor Ron Johnson. Correcting failures of policy and insuring that practice follows policy is a thankless job—except from us who demand that our elected officials be corruption free…or face the consequences.

Milestones to November

Today’s post is late. I had my quarterly visit with the vampire. That disrupted my daily schedule.  While I was sitting in the waiting room, I scanned some items off the internet.  One, caught my attention. A new poll announced by a Columbia, MO station.

New Poll Has Akin Ahead of McCaskill

Posted: Aug 30, 2012 7:40 AM by KOMU Staff
Updated: Aug 30, 2012 10:18 AM

JEFFERSON CITY – A new poll commissioned by the Conservative Family Research Council finds Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin beating Claire McCaskill.

The poll has Akin up 45 percent to McCaskill’s 42 percent. Last week, two polls had Akin trailing and one of them was by double digits.

Columbia is a hot-bed of liberalism as is St. Louis and Kansas City.  The story has little info on the poll itself, such as was this the results of registered or likely voters. It was conducted by the Family Research Council a Pro-Life organization.

The Family Research Council poll was conducted by Wenzel Strategies from Aug. 27 to Aug. 28, testing 829 voters for a margin of error of plus or minus 3.38 percent. The sample was 32.7 percent Democrats, 34.1 percent Republicans and 33.2 percent independents.Hot Air.

This poll was slightly weighted towards the ‘Pubs but not excessively so. I would like to see the sampling by region.  If the sampling was heavily outside the liberal bastions, the results would be skewed towards Akin.  Another poll by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch has Akin down by 9 points (50 vs. 41) but Romney up by 7 (50 vs 43). I have more confidence in this poll. You can see the questions and the regional responses. There are still open questions concerning party ratios and whether those polled were registered or likely voters.

Frankly, I don’t trust either of these polls. The Family Research Council is an Akin supporting organization.  The St. Louis Post-Dispatch is a liberal rag like the Kansas City Star.  Any poll sponsored by the Post-Dispatch is questionable.  Rasmussen will have another MO poll out in a few weeks and that one I’ll trust. Rasmussen has a track record of sampling likely voters and equal party ratios for all sides.

The RNC is whining that an Akin loss would prevent the ‘Pubs from taking control of the Senate.

Priebus: Akin could cost GOP chance to win Senate

The Associated Press

Republican National Party chair Reince Priebus says that Todd Akin’s insistence on staying in the Missouri Senate race could cost the party its chance to win control of the Senate.

Priebus says Akin “should put the mission of liberty and freedom ahead of himself” and leave the race.

On the other hand Priebus refused to provide any funding for Akin’s campaign. The RNC appears to be attempting to sabotage Akin’s campaign by stealing his trained staffers. If Priebus was truly concerned about losing the Senate, why did he make this public statement?

It’s pretty clear now that Akin is not going to knuckle under to the ‘Pub establishment. It’s time for the RNC to get over their hissy-fit and back Akin’s campaign. If the ‘Pubs fail to gain control of the Senate, don’t blame Akin. Blame Reince Piebus.

2016: The Documentary

My wife and I saw 2016 yesterday afternoon.  The number of show-times have expanded dramatically from the weekend.  Last week it was shown at one time, noon. This week it has expanded to four times a day. Evidently the demand has been…surprising for theater managers.

I’m not going into much detail about the movie. It was based on Dinesh D’Souza’s best-selling book, Obama’s America: Unmaking the American Dream. One theme was the parallels in Obama’s early life and that of D’Souza. Obama’s early life was spent in Indonesia, a former Dutch colony. D’Souza was Indian and grew in in post-colonial India.  Both were products of colonialism and post-colonialism, or rather anti-colonialism shaped both—Obama in one direction, D’Souza in another.

There really wasn’t, for me, much new information in the documentary. I knew that Obama’s mother and father were married only a short time. Obama, Sr., left the family to attend a US university. Obama’s mother shortly after Obama, Sr.’s departure  married Lolo Soetoro and moved to Indonesia where Soetoro was employed by the Indonesian government.

That marriage didn’t last long either.  Soetoro moved, due to his job, to the Right while Obama’s mother moved further to the Left. When Obama was in the 5th grade, he was sent to live with his grandparents in Hawaii.

When Obama was older, his Grandfather arranged for Obama to have a mentor, Frank Marshall Davis. Davis was a card-carrying member of the Communist Party of the USA.

In his biography of Barack Obama, David Mendell writes about Obama’s life as a “secret smoker” and how he “went to great lengths to conceal the habit.” But what about Obama’s secret political life? It turns out that Obama’s childhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, was a communist.

In his books, Obama admits attending “socialist conferences” and coming into contact with Marxist literature. But he ridicules the charge of being a “hard-core academic Marxist,” which was made by his colorful and outspoken 2004 U.S. Senate opponent, Republican Alan Keyes.

However, through Frank Marshall Davis, Obama had an admitted relationship with someone who was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA CPUSA). The record shows that Obama was in Hawaii from 1971-1979, where, at some point in time, he developed a close relationship, almost like a son, with Davis, listening to his “poetry” and getting  advice on his career path. But Obama, in his book, Dreams From My Father,refers to him repeatedly as just “Frank.” — Accuracy in Media

The documentary continues with Obama’s other mentors, Bill AyersRoberto Unger and Edward Said. None of this is any revelation to anyone who has been attentive to the news.  However, listening to some of the  comments from the audience yesterday, it was a revelation for some.

The core theme of the documentary is that Obama’s world view is that of an anti-colonialist. Socialism/communism is just a tool to be used to punish the colonial powers, to redirect their wealth to the 3rd world. “But,” you say, “the US is not a colonial power.” Obama’s viewpoint, according to D’Souza, is that the US is the inheritor of colonialism and is therefore equally guilty.

One bit of information that was new concerned Obama’s half-brother George in Kenya. Some of George’s comments explains why he has been ignored by Obama.  George is not an anti-colonialist. In fact, he stated that Kenya would have been better off, more developed, “like Malaysia. Singapore and South Africa,” if the “whites” had stayed longer. Kenya gained independence in the early 1960s. The whites” and educated blacks fled Kenya leaving the country to wallow in poverty. George clearly believes that Kenya was not ready for independence. When asked why Obama had not helped his brother who lives in poverty, George smiled and said, “He has his own family.” The inference is that it is George’s non anti-colonialist opinions are the real reason.

All in all, the documentary is well worth seeing. For conservatives, it confirms our views and opinions about Obama. For the average democrat, it will be a revelation. But, I don’t expect the mind-washed will bother to see 2016. It would break too many of their illusions.

Tuesday’s Notes

There have been a number of items appearing of interest today. Some are significant like the RNC attempting to establish a dictatorship within the party. Some, like the passing of Neil Armstrong, are life events of the changing times.

The RNC, as usual, stumbles along. They continue to associate Ron Paul with the Tea Party when he is not. Ron Paul and the Tea Party agree on a number of items but Ron Paul marches to his own radical drummer while the Tea Party follows another. Paul’s statement about Bin Ladin is a prime example of those differences. Paul fails to understand that the border for national security lies on their shores, not ours.


I received an e-mail today from city hall. It announced that the flags around town would be at half-mast in memory of Neil Armstrong. I watched Neil Armstron step on the moon in 1969 when I was assigned to Keesler AFB. I had just arrived a few days before to begin training. I and some friends were watching the landing in the BOQ dayroom.  It was all in black and white and somewhat grainy. The audio was clear fortunately. The transmission from the moon didn’t have the band-width for color.  All the color shots and videos were on film and brought back to be developed later.

I remember some commentary concerning the fate of the two in the lander if it could not take off. Whether they had “suicide pills.” The supporting technology, while extensively tested, was not really stable. So much of today’s advances were developed during that period as by-products of NASA and the space program.

Neil Armstrong refused to benefit from his feat. For a time he would give away his autograph. Then he discovered people were selling them for outrageous sums. He stopped autographing after that. He didn’t mind giving his signature but he didn’t want others to profit from that gift.

Goodbye, Neil. You’ll be remembered. You’ve left your legacy on Mare Tranquillitatis, beyond the reach of petty politicians here on Earth.


For those of you who’ve read my earlier posts about Ron Paul know I’m no fan.  However, he and the Tea party won a common victory yesterday against the ‘Pub establishment.

The establishment ‘Pubs were pressing a rule change that would disenfranchise any delegate who did not swear fealty to the establishment. The rule would force the state organizations to be puppets of the RNC.  When the proposed rule was published, a Hue ‘n Cry arose and the rule was amended to remove that tyrannical provision.

Republicans reach rules change deal to avert floor fight with Texans, Ron Paul backers

Republican leaders moved Monday to quell an uprising by Texans and Ron Paul supporters that threatened to steal the spotlight from GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney and expose rifts in the party right as its nominating convention got under way.

Under a compromise reached late Monday, Romney supporters and GOP leaders agreed to back down from a proposed rule change that effectively would have allowed presidential nominees to choose what delegates represent them at national conventions.

The proposed change was aimed at muting the power of insurgent candidates such as Tea Party favorite Ron Paul but prompted an uproar from Texas Republicans, who select their delegates through successive votes in conventions at precincts, then districts and finally statewide.

“We believe in Texas as a principle that no presidential candidate nor the RNC should be able to tell Texas who can or cannot be a delegate to the national convention,” Davis said.

“This isn’t Reagan versus Ford, Goldwater versus Rockefeller,” Davis added. “This is George Washington versus King George.”

And Texas Republican Vice Chairwoman Melinda Fredricks had flatly told RNC rules committee members Sunday night that the Lone Star State would stand its ground.

“The Texas delegation considers the new rule . . . an unacceptable infringement on our right to freely choose our delegates to the national convention,” she said in an e-mail to the committee members. “We realize not every state selects its delegates in the same manner we do, and perhaps you find it hard to understand what has us so worked up. Frankly, we find it hard to understand how your delegations would be willing to give away their rights.”

While this rule change was aimed at Ron Paul and his delegates, it also affected those delegates for Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and others. The delegates who supported the Tea Party would be as affected as those for Ron Paul.

I’ll give Paul credit for this. His organization lead the fight.


I found the following article during my daily scan of internet news.  The Washington Times is a good conservative source of information. However…this article doesn’t ring true.  The Tea Party, of all organizations, studies the Constitution more than the rank and file of the ‘Pubs.

Be that as it may, here is that article. It does bring forth questions. Just how knowledgeable are we?

Embracers of the Constitution are baffled by what’s really in it

Voters see rights they don’t have

By Stephen Dinan – The Washington Times, Monday, August 27, 2012

TAMPA, Fla. — They say they stand for a return to constitutional principles, but it turns out tea party supporters are just as confused as to what rights and powers are in the federal government’s founding document, according to the latest The Washington Times/JZ Analytics poll.

Most Americans say they’ve read all or most of the Constitution, but they tend to see more rights than the document actually guarantees, and struggle over what the Constitution says about the powers and structure of government itself.

For example, 92 percent of those surveyed said the Constitution guarantees the right to a jury trial, but only 40 percent knew that it grants Congress the power to coin money, and just 53 percent said it establishes Congress‘ power to levy an income tax.

And voters thought they had protections that they don’t have — at least not in the Constitution: 71 percent said the it protected the right to a secret ballot and 58 percent said it guarantees a right to education, though neither appears in the document.

“What most studies find is that many people think they know a great deal about the Constitution, but when asked specific questions about our founding document as a country they really miss the mark,” said Doug Smith, executive director at the Center for the Constitution, based at James Madison’s Montpelier home.

But The Times/JZ Analytics poll found self-identified Republicans and self-identified tea party sympathizers often shared the same views as other voters. For example, 66 percent of Republicans and 65 percent of tea party supporters said the Constitution guarantees a right to privacy, which was almost identical to the 68 percent of all voters who said the same thing.

The same held true on Congress‘ power to coin money and the right to a secret ballot.

Republicans, though, were far less likely to say the Constitution guarantees the right to education — which it does not — than the general public. While 71 percent of Democrats and 55 percent of independents said education was in the Constitution, only 47 percent of Republicans did.

He also said civics education has deteriorated, adding that he learned about the Constitution in ninth grade, but his daughter, who just completed that grade, did not.

The Washington Times article continues to a second page. I urge you to read the entire article. It contains some interesting information and implies that the lack of civics education has been driven by the federal government. I can’t speak to that but like the writer above, I was taught the federal and my state constitution as a requirement for graduation from high school.  My daughter, who graduated from a private Christian school, did not. Perhaps we should make this a goal of our new ‘Pub administration?

Teddy Roosevelt’s Legacy

The Heritage Foundation’s Morning Bell made my daily task easy today. It’s a short history lesson on Progressivism. 

If you ask a sampling of High School grads today the question, “When did the election of US Senators start?” many would give you a blank look assuming that the direct election of Senators was in the original Constitution.  They’d be wrong of course. It started with the 17th Amendment to the US Constitution and Teddy Roosevelt was one of several who helped pass it.

The 17th Amendment to the US Constitution was passed by Congress on May 13, 1912 and was ratified on April 8, 1913. It replaced the selection of US Senators by the state legislatures with a provision for the direct election of senators.

Text of the 17th Amendment

Section 1.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

Section 2.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of each State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

Section 3.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

The push for this constitutional change started in the first decade of the 20th century.  Supposedly, it was to “enhance” democracy.  In reality, it was another step to grow and strengthen the central government at the expense of the States.  The checks and balances in the original constitution balanced power between the States and the Federal government. The original design of our government was almost that of a confederation with power sharing between the states and the central government. The aftermath of the Civil War began the process that upset that balance. The early 20th Century Progressive movement further upset that balance.

Wiki has a reasonably balanced writeup on the 17th Amendment and the history that led to its adoption. Teddy Roosevelt was also involved along with William Jennings Bryan. Roosevelt, along with Taft and Wilson were the three Progressive Presidents between 1901 and 1920 that brought us the 16th and 17th Amendments that has directly led us to our current fiscal crises.

Now we get to today’s Morning Bell from the Heritage Foundation.

Political Convention Drama Begins

This week’s Republican National Convention is already experiencing its own drama thanks to Tropical Storm Isaac, which has postponed most of the events until tomorrow. But this year marks the 100th anniversary of another Republican Convention embroiled in political drama of a different nature.

Unlike today’s conventions, which are little more than multi-day campaign rallies, at the 1912 affair in Chicago, 1,000 policemen stood by to make sure the delegates didn’t get out of hand. Strands of barbed wire lay concealed beneath the bunting on the speaker’s platform to keep disgruntled delegates from charging the stage.

The very nature of our Constitution and our democracy was at stake, as William Schambra explains in a new First Principles essay from The Heritage Foundation.

On one side was Teddy Roosevelt, who ran for President that year aiming to reshape American democracy. He thrashed lackluster incumbent William Howard Taft in the primary contests, declaring, “I believe in pure democracy.”

But his definition of “pure democracy” included upsetting the Constitution. He endorsed “certain governmental devices which will make the representatives of the people more easily and certainly responsible to the people’s will.” These reforms included the initiative, the referendum, the recall of elected officials and even judicial decisions, and the direct election of U.S. Senators.

On the other side were Taft (Roosevelt’s hand-picked successor in the White House just four years earlier) and the Republican leadership, including Senators Elihu Root of New York and Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts. They stood for the Constitution. Root and Lodge were great admirers and longtime friends of Roosevelt, but Roosevelt had sent shock waves through the Republican Party. Roosevelt had proposed a dramatic constitutional change that, according to Schambra, “posed the danger of undermining popular confidence in the institutions of government.” Therefore, Root, Lodge, and Taft were determined to deny Roosevelt the nomination at the 1912 Republican convention.

Unlike the typically bland convention keynote speeches designed to smooth feathers ruffled by the nominating contest and unite the party for the main event in November, Root’s keynote was a call to constitutional conservatism.

As Schambra notes, Root grounded the Republican Party in the Constitution, since it had been “born in protest against the extension of a system of human slavery approved and maintained by majorities.” After all, the GOP was the party of Abraham Lincoln, who had declared in his first inaugural address that “a majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations…is the only true sovereign of a free people.” The party’s duty, therefore, was not to reform the constitutional system but to “humbly and reverently seek for strength and wisdom to abide by the principles of the Constitution against the days of our temptation and weakness.”

Preventing Roosevelt from winning the Republican nomination, these first conservatives saved the party from a platform of radical constitutional reform. But it also meant losing the general election. Taft won only two states, and Democrat Woodrow Wilson became President, with Roosevelt coming in second.

“The result of the Convention was more important than the question of the election,” Root later said. Losing the general election did not supplant their “duty to hold the Republican Party firmly to the support of our constitutional system. Worse things can happen to a party than to be defeated.”

Root, Lodge, and Taft sacrificed their friendship with Roosevelt and victory in the general election to save the Constitution from a proposed overhaul. Constitutional conservatism began with saving the Republican Party from Teddy Roosevelt. It continues today with the fight to save America from a deeper descent into progressivism. Members of the Tea Party movement are the intellectual heirs of Root, Lodge, and Taft.

Thomas Jefferson wrote that “it is the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigor.” In a new essay in Heritage’s Understanding America series, President Edwin J. Feulner explores the ways the American people are bound to preserve our republic.

It is up to us to ensure that we remain a virtuous and free people, Feulner writes, and to make sure our government stays faithful to the principles on which it was founded.

“This is partly a job for the free press and the ballot box,” Feulner writes, “but we will not be able to speak and vote in support of America’s founding principles if we forget what those principles are.”

As we watch the political party conventions, we have a duty to educate ourselves on the constitutional role of government and to compare that with what the candidates are saying. As Feulner says, “we have always an obligation to pass the inheritance of freedom on, unimpaired, to the next generation.”

While the ‘Pubs in Tampa wait out the passing of Hurricane Isaac, contemplate what changes to our government has been inflicted on us by Progressivism and how we might reverse or mediate those impacts.


Gold, Gold, GOLD!

There was a movie released when my wife and I were newlyweds titled, “McKenna’s Gold.”  It starred Gregory Peck, Omar Sharif, Edward G. Robinson and a host of others. What makes it relevant to today’s post is the theme song, “Old Turkey Buzzard,” that has a refrain of, “Gold, Gold, GOLD!”

The trigger for all this is an article that appeared in the Financial Times.

Republicans eye return to gold standard

By Robin Harding and Anna Fifield in Washington

The gold standard has returned to mainstream US politics for the first time in 30 years, with a “gold commission” set to become part of official Republican party policy.

Drafts of the party platform, which it will adopt at a convention in Tampa Bay, Florida, next week, call for an audit of Federal Reserve monetary policy and a commission to look at restoring the link between the dollar

The move shows how five years of easy monetary policy – and the efforts of libertarian congressman Ron Paul – have made the once-fringe idea of returning to gold-as-money a legitimate part of Republican debate.

Marsha Blackburn, a Republican congresswoman from Tennessee and co-chair of the platform committee, said the issues were not adopted merely to placate Mr Paul and the delegates that he picked up during his campaign for the party’s nomination.

“These were adopted because they are things that Republicans agree on,” Ms Blackburn told the Financial Times. “The House recently passed a bill on this, and this is something that we think needs to be done.”

The proposal is reminiscent of the Gold Commission created by former president Ronald Reagan in 1981, 10 years after Richard Nixon broke the link between gold and the dollar during the 1971 oil crisis. That commission ultimately supported the status quo.

“There is a growing recognition within the Republican party and in America more generally that we’re not going to be able to print our way to prosperity,” said Sean Fieler, chairman of the American Principles Project, a conservative group that has pushed for a return to the gold standard.

There’s much more at the Financial Times. I urge you to follow the link and read it in its entirety.

I remember when Nixon removed the last link to the Gold Standard during the 1971 oil crisis. Nixon was no financial conservative. He instituted wage and price freezes reminiscent of FDR’s failed schemes.  The immediate result was a spike of double digit inflation and skyrocketing interest rates.  My wife and I bought our first new car during this period with a double-digit interest rate…and we were glad to get a low one via our USAF credit union.

We have been off the gold standard for forty years. I’m not a financial wizard. I don’t know how moving back to that standard would affect our economy. Especially now that I’m on a fixed income. There’s also the question whether sufficient gold exists to meet our economic needs.

This is one question I have no competence. I admit the possibility is intriguing. My one concern would be if that gold-standard link to our currency makes our economy a zero-sum game.

There is a finite amount of gold available in the world.  Yes, it would make gold mining viable again at a much larger scale. Still, I don’t think there is enough. On this planet anyway.

Supposedly, the asteroid belt is a fractured planet that just never came together. If there was gold, silver and other valuable metals of the platinum group, would that spike another gold rush? Maybe I should invest in Space-X and Burt Rutan’s enterprises?

Gold, Gold, Gold! Hitch your wagon to Space-X and be a prospector out of Ceres!  L. Neil Smith will bust a gut laughing to have been vindicated.

A Thursday post without a title

I considered using, “Cowards!” and “Twisting in the Wind,” as possible titles but I decided against either. Sometimes ‘Pubs just can’t take reality and those titles would be misunderstood, although highly accurate.

It’s been nearly a week since Akin stuck his foot in his mouth all the way to his knee. The initial cry of the ‘Pubs of, “Unclean! Unclean!” have subsided to…silence. The deadline for Akin to quietly walk away has passed. It will now take a concerted act by the Missouri ‘Pub Central Committee, and a court order, to remove Akin so I’m told.

I doubt that will happen. The Missouri Central Committee hasn’t the guts to take that action. No, they’d rather do nothing and possibly lose the election to McCaskill rather than offend…someone, anyone.

They haven’t the guts to remove Akin. They haven’t the guts to give the finger to the dems and support Akin so they’ll do nothing and lose to McCaskill.

It makes me wanna puke.

I’ve said in earlier posts. If the ‘Pubs continue as they have, the party will go the way of the Whigs.  The example above in the last two paragraphs is proof of that statement.

Would Akin be a better Senator for Missouri and the country than McCaskill? Yes, regardless of Akin’s mistakes. Would McCaskill be a worse Senator for Missouri and the country than Akin? Again, yes.

“But, but, we’ll lose the independents if we back Akin,” they claim. So? We don’t have them anyway. We’ll never have them and setting aside our core principles as conservatives is no way to gain votes.  It’s makes the ‘Pubs no better than the dems.

Acts of gutlessness, such as this, is why the Tea Party emerged.  The Tea Party still exists, don’t doubt that. If the ‘Pubs ignore that support, the Tea Party will leave the ‘Pubs and look for other avenues of politics. The Republican Party will wither.

It’s time for the ‘Pubs to act as adults and make a decision and announce that decision loudly and clearly. Either remove Akin now, or fully back him. Then, come what may, the party can at least show some backbone.

We can no longer tolerate spineless wimps like Boehner and McConnell. Act, ‘Pubs, or get out of the way for another party who will.