Sen. Ted Cruz torches GOP for re-electing same leaders: 'Nuts'

[Gunny]

Pretty good commentary from Ted Cruz, depending on one's POV.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_IRoicaMIM

[Gunny]

Heard Laura Ingraham whining about re-electing the "same old" leadership in the Senate.

Now we all (should) know what I think of Mitch McConnell. So my next question is: who's better, or at least as good without the baggage? Despite what I think of McConnell, change for the sake of change doesn't cut it with me. Republican't's need to be in "move forward" mode.

"Nobody" is not a good answer :)

I'd prefer Cruz myself, but have to admit I have some misgivings about what the Hell he's thinking sometimes. Same with Rand Paul. Love the guy when he's on. When he's off though he may as well be a Dem.

[SassyLady]

I didn't think it mattered to most people. The "anyone but" seems to be the deciding factor in elections these days.

[Kathianne]

I didn't think it mattered to most people. The "anyone but" seems to be the deciding factor in elections these days.

I see that as a candidate problem. Without a doubt, the total open on all topics by press is part of the cause, but too often the choice is worse and worst.

[SassyLady]

I see that as a candidate problem. Without a doubt, the total open on all topics by press is part of the cause, but too often the choice is worse and worst.

Electing someone like Fetterman because they don't like Trump is sheer stupidity.

[Kathianne]

Electing someone like Fetterman because they don't like Trump is sheer stupidity.

In your opinion, but you only get one vote and that one is currently in Arizona. :laugh:

[SassyLady]

In your opinion, but you only get one vote and that one is currently in Arizona. :laugh:
Well neither of us get to vote for Senate and House leadership. He's now a part of the Senate that will vote for leadership. So, Fetterman affects us too.

[fj1200]

... So my next question is: who's better, ...

Well if, ahem, certain candidates had done better than they're might be an argument for new leadership but McConnell spent campaign money to get candidates elected. That matters.

[SassyLady]

Well if, ahem, certain candidates had done better than they're might be an argument for new leadership but McConnell spent campaign money to get candidates elected. That matters.

You mean like the money he spent on Murkowski and not Walker, Oz, Masters? He lost the Senate.

[Gunny]

Electing someone like Fetterman because they don't like Trump is sheer stupidity.If I had a vote in PA, I would not have voted for Senator. Oz is a big a dipshit as that drooling leech Fetterman.

Trump should not have been the deciding factor in rejecting BOTH candidates. But he was. I'm sure there's a lesson here.

[Gunny]

Well if, ahem, certain candidates had done better than they're might be an argument for new leadership but McConnell spent campaign money to get candidates elected. That matters.Easy to spend someone else's money. Yes, they all do. That reasoning is a wash.

Going down this road, McConnell's yen going against Trump's yang could have kept his mouth shut instead of highlighting in neon for the media his lamentations over Trump's choices. McConnell isn't okay just because he's against Trump. Not a qualifier that anti-trump folk don't (want to) recognize. That's how we got Biden :rolleyes:

He's too much of a business as usual good ol' boy which is how we got where we are to begin with. Just wondering if there's someone more interested in the needs of the Nation and People than playing politics.

[Gunny]

You mean like the money he spent on Murkowski and not Walker, Oz, Masters? He lost the Senate.I wouldn't go that far. Trump's death touch doomed Lake and Oz. Walker remains to be seen, but if Trump gets involved, probably lose that seat as well.

Murkowski is a POS, but part of McConnell's good ol' boy network as mentioned in my previous post.

I may dislike Mafia Mitch, but it was not his responsibility to support Trump's choices. Mitch's responsibility was to support the most viable GOP candidates. It was also Trump's responsibility to support the most viable GOP candidates rather than hand-picked, loyal stooges that were qualified to host daytime tv shows.

[Kathianne]

You mean like the money he spent on Murkowski and not Walker, Oz, Masters? He lost the Senate.

Or Trump did, he has literally hundreds of millions he could have spent on any of the above, instead he's been grifting off of Walker since the elections.

[fj1200]

Easy to spend someone else's money. Yes, they all do. That reasoning is a wash.

He spent PAC money to win races. Races that were winnable, trump or no.

[fj1200]

You mean like the money he spent on Murkowski and not Walker, Oz, Masters? He lost the Senate.

Whassat?

Mitch McConnell-aligned super PAC pours record advertising cash into U.S. Senate races (https://www.penncapital-star.com/campaigns-elections/mitch-mcconnell-aligned-super-pac-pours-record-advertising-cash-into-u-s-senate-races/)The PAC has spent $41M on advertising in Pa.’s U.S. Senate race between John Fetterman and Mehmet Oz (https://www.penncapital-star.com/campaigns-elections/mitch-mcconnell-aligned-super-pac-pours-record-advertising-cash-into-u-s-senate-races/)

WASHINGTON — The super PAC aligned with U.S. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, has spent a record amount advertising for GOP Senate candidates this cycle, according to AdImpact.The Senate Leadership Fund has “become the highest-spending advertiser” AdImpact, started in 2014, has ever reported on, according to data it released Thursday (https://adimpact.com/blog/state-of-midterm-senate-spending/). The numbers show the GOP group has spent about $178 million on advertising in five key U.S. Senate races — Georgia, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio and Pennsylvania — that will likely determine control of the chamber following next week’s midterm elections.
“Senate Leadership Fund tops issue group spending in Senate races, with a total of $205M pooled across nine Senate races,” AdImpact wrote.
...

Looks like he even spent more than the Rick Scott led PAC. Who lost the Senate? You can whisper it if you like.

[Gunny]

He spent PAC money to win races. Races that were winnable, trump or no.Yep. My point. Not his money. McConnell is just the opposite side of the Trump coin. Playing games.

Regardless, I was looking for possible replacements for the old coot and just wonder who was out there that will no doubt piss me off just as much :)

[SassyLady]

Whassat?

Mitch McConnell-aligned super PAC pours record advertising cash into U.S. Senate races (https://www.penncapital-star.com/campaigns-elections/mitch-mcconnell-aligned-super-pac-pours-record-advertising-cash-into-u-s-senate-races/)The PAC has spent $41M on advertising in Pa.’s U.S. Senate race between John Fetterman and Mehmet Oz (https://www.penncapital-star.com/campaigns-elections/mitch-mcconnell-aligned-super-pac-pours-record-advertising-cash-into-u-s-senate-races/)


Looks like he even spent more than the Rick Scott led PAC. Who lost the Senate? You can whisper it if you like.
He pulled money from Masters to spend on Murkowski in Alaska. Republicans didn't need money in Alaska. It was going to be GOP regardless.

[Kathianne]

He pulled money from Masters to spend on Murkowski in Alaska. Republicans didn't need money in Alaska. It was going to be GOP regardless.

And Trump has the megabucks he could have helped his guys with. Instead tells Thiel to open his wallet. 😆 Meanwhile Trump still grifting off of walker's loss.

[Gunny]

And Trump has the megabucks he could have helped his guys with. Instead tells Thiel to open his wallet. 😆 Meanwhile Trump still grifting off of walker's loss.I can agree with this. Regardless McConnell, Trump should have put his money where his mouth was. That is kind of how purchasing the politicians of your choice works in this country.

My issue with McConnell and his selective spine has been over a period of years, not just one issue. For decades I have been saying the GOP needs to get its sh*t together BETWEEN election days and not wait for the damned primaries to panic. The party, to include its useless, alleged "leaders" should have a damned plan BEFORE the kickoff.

There's STILL no message. What is the Senate Minority Leader's plan to better this Nation and help its people should the GOP take the Senate? I haven't once heard a damned thing out of McConnell. Because he's a chickenshit more worried about his political ass.

Writing's on the wall on that one and the Dems wrote it with the Contract with America Republicans. In a nod to fj's exaggerated recall of anything accomplished, the CofA Republicans DID curb Clinton. The Dems crucified each and every good, effective leader in that bunch until they cleared the deck of anyone with balls. Gingrich, Lott, Bonilla -- for doing crap they shrug off with a laugh when they get caught.

McConnell managed to weasel in through the cracks because he'll cave.

[fj1200]

Yep. My point. Not his money. McConnell is just the opposite side of the Trump coin. Playing games.

Regardless, I was looking for possible replacements for the old coot and just wonder who was out there that will no doubt piss me off just as much :)

I thought you were saying that he spent money to annoy trump. He spent money to win a majority.


He pulled money from Masters to spend on Murkowski in Alaska. Republicans didn't need money in Alaska. It was going to be GOP regardless.

So you now agree that he spent money on Oz and Walker. Excellent.

[Gunny]

I thought you were saying that he spent money to annoy trump. He spent money to win a majority.



So you now agree that he spent money on Oz and Walker. Excellent.Both. He spent money in opposition of Trump in more than a couple of places. You say tomato and I say tomato. The end result is the same thing. I'm not giving McConnell benefit of doubt. He lost that with me.

In turn, Trump didn't have to endorse/support anyone nor interfere in any way.

I'm really caught undecided at the moment on the call for "new leadership" by some Republicans. You "clean the Swamp" by cleaning your own house before moving on to the neighbors. I just haven't read up enough yet on who is calling for it, and who they are calling for (as replacements). I've wanted McConnell replaced longer than Trump has been able to spell his name, so it's not about him. Trump was my next to last choice out of 16 to be the Republican candidate in 2016.

People just aren't working with me on this :laugh:

[fj1200]

Both. He spent money in opposition of Trump in more than a couple of places. You say tomato and I say tomato. The end result is the same thing. I'm not giving McConnell benefit of doubt. He lost that with me.

In turn, Trump didn't have to endorse/support anyone nor interfere in any way.

I'm really caught undecided at the moment on the call for "new leadership" by some Republicans. You "clean the Swamp" by cleaning your own house before moving on to the neighbors. I just haven't read up enough yet on who is calling for it, and who they are calling for (as replacements). I've wanted McConnell replaced longer than Trump has been able to spell his name, so it's not about him. Trump was my next to last choice out of 16 to be the Republican candidate in 2016.

People just aren't working with me on this :laugh:

Outside of Murkowski I think the argument is that he didn't spend money when he could have but again I think it's clear he spent money trying to win. As Kathianne said trump didn't spend much of his money and I'm not sure how much the National Republican Senate Fund (AKA Rick Scott), or whatever it's called, spent as compared to McConnell.

And McConnell has won reelection to his leadership post. My vote was in favor btw, as if anyone asked me too. :laugh: