New York Times Editorial Board Has A Temper Tantrum Over Neil Gorsuch

The New York Times editorial board is not happy that Neil Gorsuch is a Supreme Court justice. Recent SCOTUS rulings have included the latest associate justice to join the court. For whatever reason, instead of doing an in-depth look at how he ruled in these decisions, the Times decided instead to devote much of the time, blubbering about Merrick Garland.

To wit:

Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, has had a rough couple of weeks. Yet, however many setbacks he might suffer over health care reform or other parts of the Republican agenda, he knows he has already won the biggest fight of all: the theft of a Supreme Court seat from President Obama, the installation of Justice Neil Gorsuch and the preservation of the court’s conservative majority for years to come.

What’s particularly galling here is the language. It’s as if the Times editorial board gave way to interns from Daily Kos and Think Progress to write this column after the board signed off on it.

“Theft.” “Installation.”

They’re behaving as though Garland was confirmed, went to sit down and Mitch McConnell shouting, “Neener, neener!” pulled the chair back and pushed Neil Gorsuch into the seat. McConnell then cackled as Garland fell embarrassingly to the floor, left to sit there, broken and stunned with the “stolen” seat now occupied by the Gorsuch The Usurper.

It then goes on to quickly go over some of the cases Gorsuch ruled on, making sure to mention he agreed with Clarence Thomas most of the time. It’s meant to be a version of “scare quotes” because Thomas is you know….scary. You know who agrees with Thomas 86 percent of the time and 90 percent of the time, respectively? Anthony Kennedy and John Roberts.

The piece quickly gets back to Garland:

The problem is that he’s sitting in the seat that by rights should be occupied by Judge Garland. Had Mr. Garland been confirmed, the court would have had a majority of Democratic-appointed justices for the first time in almost half a century.

By rights? I ask rhetorically, “Are they serious?” It’s a rhetorical question because they wrote it. So they are serious.

First of all, that’s not what “by rights” means.

Secondly, they contradict themselves by claiming Garland had some claim on being a Supreme Court justice, but acknowledge in the next sentence it required confirmation. It’s fair to argue Garland should have received at least a hearing. But the votes were not there, and President Obama knew this. Credit goes to Judge Garland for handling all of it with dignity and grace, but the reality is, outside of Hillary Clinton winning in November, there was no way Garland was going to be confirmed.

That’s how it works. Elections do have consequences, and President Obama nominated and had confirmed, two of his Supreme Court nominees. When his party lost control of the Senate in 2014, it came with the knowledge he’d have difficulty getting his agenda through the legislative branch. Following the death of Justice Scalia, Mitch McConnell made clear a fight over a Supreme Court justice was not going to take place in a presidential election year.

President Obama thought McConnell was bluffing. He was wrong.

It’s political for sure, but Merrick Garland, contrary to the claims of the New York Times editorial board, did not, “by rights” have a claim to a seat on the Supreme Court.

The post New York Times Editorial Board Has A Temper Tantrum Over Neil Gorsuch appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State

Joe Scarborough: I Updated NBC Executives in Real Time About National Enquirer Threat

The feud between Morning Joe hosts Joe Scarborough, and Mika Brzenzski with President Donald Trump heated up on Friday morning when Scarborough related a possible blackmail story involving The National Enquirer.

According to Scarborough, White House staff called him and said the National Enquirer had a story about Joe and Mika they were going to run and that President Trump would have them spike it if Joe called the President and apologized for their coverage of the president. Here is a video clip:

I reached out to Scarborough and asked him about it and here is what he told me:

“NBC execs knew in real time about the calls and who made them to me. That’s why Mark Kornblau wrote about contemporaneous texts. I showed him and executives as they were coming in to keep them advised.”

Joe is referring to this tweet from Kornblau:

I spoke with Scarborough by phone as well. “The last time I talked with President Trump was after his address to Congress,” he said. “I spent five minutes in the Oval Office with him, and three other people were in the room with us. There was never a moment I was alone with him.”

The President tweeted the following this morning after the segment aired:

Scarborough said the calls about the National Enquirer story started in late April and early May but that he never placed a call to President Trump. “I never called the President about this,” he said. “I challenge him to reveal any phone records showing that I called him. He can’t because I didn’t.”

It is a very serious charge. The accusation is the White House used the National Enquirer to threaten and blackmail two journalists. The administration will likely face questions about in their latest press briefing and how they respond will be telling.



The post Joe Scarborough: I Updated NBC Executives in Real Time About National Enquirer Threat appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State

Susan Rice To Testify Before House Intelligence Committee

This was bound to happen at some point. Fresh off Susan Rice’s idiotic victimhood claim, Susan Rice is going to testify about unmasking before the House Intelligence Committee.

From CNN:

The House intelligence committee plans to interview Susan Rice next month as part of its investigation into Russia meddling in the US election last year, a high-profile target for Republicans who accuse President Barack Obama’s former national security adviser of improperly handling classified intelligence reports, according to sources familiar with the private talks.

President Donald Trump and Republicans have focused on allegations that Rice revealed the names of Trump’s transition aides in intelligence reports — called “unmasking” — saying that Obama officials were seeking to divulge damaging information about the Trump campaign.

If anybody was hoping for a public spectacle, it’s not going to happen:

Rice has vehemently denied doing anything wrong. But she has yet to answer questions from lawmakers, including declining a request to appear before a Senate judiciary subcommittee in May. And now, she has agreed to appear in a closed-door session that is expected to take place before the House departs for its August recess.

“Ambassador Rice is cooperating with bipartisan Russia investigations conducted by the Intelligence Committees as she said she would,” said Erin Pelton, a spokesperson for Rice, who served as national security adviser and the US ambassador to the United Nations under Obama.

Because it is closed-door, don’t expect to hear much about it. What will be interesting is if they ask her again, to testify publicly.

Smart money says it won’t happen.

The post Susan Rice To Testify Before House Intelligence Committee appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State

Republican and Democrat To Trump On Comey Tapes: Your Tweet Is Not Good Enough

President Trump’s tweets may be official statements, but two members of the House Intelligence Committee are saying a tweet is not sufficient to dispel the notion the Trump administration may have recordings the conversations between former FBI Director James Comey and President Trump.

From Politico:

Reps. Mike Conaway (R-Texas) and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said in a joint statement the White House needs to clarify whether it has “recordings, memoranda, or other documents” — adding that they will consider using a “compulsory process” to ensure a satisfactory response.

They want to know whether the White House has — or had — any records, including tapes or written documents, memorializing Trump’s conversations with Comey.

The pair said in their joint statement they have sent the White House a letter asking that it “fully comply” with their request.

“By only referring to the President’s statement, the White House’s letter stops short of clarifying for the Committee whether the White House has any responsive recordings, memoranda, or other documents,” they said.

If this was just Schiff stamping his feet, the Trump administration could blow it off as a partisan, but with Conaway getting involved, it will put more pressure on the White House to hit tomorrow’s deadline.

Chances are, there are no tapes or recordings. It is, however, another example of Trump’s impetuousness making trouble where there doesn’t have to be any.

The post Republican and Democrat To Trump On Comey Tapes: Your Tweet Is Not Good Enough appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State

Donald Trump Just Tweeted Support For An Internet Tax

So this will turn out to be another example where Trump supporters will likely say the guy who says what he means didn’t really mean what he said. In a bizarre tweet intended to attack The Washington Post as “fake new,” Donald Trump said the following.

Here is his tweet:

Great job, Mr. President. You just endorsed an internet sales tax.

Before defenders start saying this doesn’t mean anything, remember the administration said President Trump’s tweets are official statements.

Of course, it shouldn’t surprise anybody that a brick and mortar real estate developer would be in favor an internet sales tax. It’s almost like he’s a 70’s and 80’s type, Democrat.

Who knew?

The post Donald Trump Just Tweeted Support For An Internet Tax appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State

Republicans Blew It On Healthcare Reform and Only Have Themselves to Blame

Congress will head home for the July 4th recess without having passed a single major piece of legislation. Worse, there’s no repeal of Obamacare. There isn’t even a healthcare bill that passed, and the fate of that legislation is still up in the air. Worse, Republicans handled it all so ineptly they’ve already lost the political battle to the Democrats who were ready. The GOP, led by President Donald Trump, floundered.

Make no mistake, Donald Trump as the de facto leader of the Republican Party shoulders most of the blame for this fiasco. People can wail all they want about Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan. To be sure, they share in plenty of the blame, but it was President Trump who campaigned as a Democrat in 2015 and 2016 promising not to touch entitlements including Medicaid.

The debate over whether or not the Republicans are “cutting” Medicaid in their healthcare bills is one in which the GOP faces a hostile press that uses the term “cut” even though Medicaid spending increases every year under their plan. Critics say the growth the GOP projects will not be enough to cover necessary expenses in the future and therefore it is a “cut.” Unfortunately, people who forecast what something costs in government have a horrendous track record and the bottom line is, when it comes to public expenditure, the recipients of those dollars always say it is never enough. That is the practical way of looking at the issue.

There is the practical way to look at what the GOP will do with Medicaid, and there is the political way to look at it. In Washington DC, being practical is a rarity. It’s almost always political, people need to be prepared, and on that front, the GOP is losing. Just to give you an idea of how GOP ineptitude is cyclical, the party is making the same mistake they made in 1995. When Republicans took over Congress for the first time in 40 years, they proposed a tax cut package as well as a budget that made reforms to Medicare. The tax cut package amounted to $250-$270 billion. The changes to Medicare would have saved $270 billion. Democrats, led by Bill Clinton made their case to the country that Republicans wanted to “destroy” Medicare to pay for tax cuts for “the wealthy.” Bill Clinton threatened a veto. Newt Gingrich believed Clinton was bluffing. Clinton vetoed the budget bill, the government shut down, and President Clinton was well on his way to an easy re-election in 1996.

The current healthcare bill, according to the CBO, “cuts” Medicaid by about $800 billion over the next decade. The GOP tax proposal amounts to about $1 trillion over the next ten years. There you have it. It is a trigger for Democrats and the media to argue the GOP is “cutting healthcare for the poor” to “pay for tax cuts for the wealthy.” Watching this unfold, it’s like a real-life version of Groundhog Day, only the song playing over and over again each morning is Beck’s, “Loser.”

Soy un perdedor, baby.

Watching the Republican Party make the same mistakes over and over for the last 25 years, astounds me. It’s as though they set themselves up in front archery targets and when the arrows start flying, they act as though they didn’t see them coming. Despite being handed a golden opportunity and a President who will sign anything given to him, the GOP is screwing it up because they lack any vision. David Brooks’ editorial in the New York Times yesterday contained a lot of unnecessary hyperbole such as “throwing 22 million people off the insurance rolls.” But there is one passage where he nails down what is wrong with the Republican Party:

The current Republican Party has iron, dogmatic rules about the role of government, but no vision about America. Because Republicans have no governing vision, they can’t really replace the Obama vision with some alternative. They just accept the basic structure of Obamacare and cut it back some.

He’s not wrong. What Republicans have proposed is not a repeal of Obamacare. It’s not even a replacement. It’s a restructuring of how Obamacare works. Forget about an attempt at a free-market solution or something such as what the American Enterprise Institute suggested. They’ve offered a “solution” that solves nothing.

Republicans also failed to take the time to sell a reform package to the public. Obamacare as a whole is a disaster. Coverage options are shrinking every year. Premiums are increasing, and for many people, they’ll never get past their high deductibles before their plan pays a portion of their medical expenses. There are numerous horror stories about Obamacare the GOP can sell the public to show them what crapfest it has become.

Republicans have even managed to screw that up. For the first time since the Kaiser Family Foundation polled the public on Obamacare, more than 50 percent of Americans now view it favorably than unfavorably.

Republicans in Congress are not getting any help from President Trump. Outside of being reminded of his promises on the campaign trail, he cannot articulate what it is that he wants in the bill and as we’ve seen, he’s not concerned about throwing people under the bus at any point. Trump went from praising the House version of the bill to calling it “mean” and publicly saying he wanted to “throw more money” at the legislation. It is a direct result of something I’ve said about Trump in the past. He has no ideological core. He just wants a “win.” At this point, signing anything is a “win” in his book regardless if the bill is a steaming pile of crap or not.

What people are witnessing is a screwup of epic proportions and Republicans may not recover from this debacle. And they have nobody to blame but themselves.


The post Republicans Blew It On Healthcare Reform and Only Have Themselves to Blame appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State

BREAKING: Sarah Palin Suing The New York Times For Defamation

CNN’s Jake Tapper sent out a tweet containing a copy of the lawsuit. Palin was named in a New York Times editorial on June 14th, connecting her to the shooting of Gabby Giffords by Jared Loughner.

Joe Cunningham wrote about it and this tweet from Jeff Blehar has the original text:

The New York Times, after a flurry of criticism, issued a correction to the editorial but by that time, the damage had been done and even in its’ corrected form, it still used the Giffords shooting as means of equivocating her shooting with that of Steve Scalise. The problem is that Giffords shooting had nothing to do with politics at all. Jared Loughner is a paranoid schizophrenic who became obsessed with Giffords after she refused to answer a bizarre question he asked at a previous town hall meeting.

Now Palin is suing and I don’t blame her:

When there are more details, we will provide an update.

The post BREAKING: Sarah Palin Suing The New York Times For Defamation appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State

Fans of Sean Hannity Should Not Be Gloating About CNN Resignations

CNN screwed up badly, and they did the right thing. They ran with a story with a single anonymous source that turned out to be false. CNN retracted the story and apologized for it, but that’s not all that happened.

Heads rolled:

Three CNN journalists, including the executive editor in charge of a new investigative unit, have resigned after the publication of a Russia-related article that was retracted.

Thomas Frank, who wrote the story in question; Eric Lichtblau, an editor in the unit; and Lex Haris, who oversaw the unit, have all left CNN.

“In the aftermath of the retraction of a story published on, CNN has accepted the resignations of the employees involved in the story’s publication,” a spokesman said Monday evening.

An internal investigation by CNN management found that some standard editorial processes were not followed when the article was published, people briefed on the results of the investigation said.

The story, which reported that Congress was investigating a “Russian investment fund with ties to Trump officials,” cited a single anonymous source.

These types of stories are typically reviewed by several departments within CNN — including fact-checkers, journalism standards experts and lawyers — before publication.

For all of the screaming and hair-pulling about “fake news,” the developments at CNN over the story, should satisfy some people. John Podhoretz tweeted the following:

He’s exactly right.

People who work in the media screw up. It happens. I’ve had to make corrections to pieces I’ve written. It’s something that comes with the territory. Major screw-ups in journalism require more serious responses than minor errors. The CNN story is a perfect example as was the Dan Rather/Bush Was AWOL story.

Bias is something different altogether and dealt with accordingly. David Harsanyi breaks down how the press screwed up on describing the Masterpiece Cakeshop case headed to the Supreme Court.

The problem, of course, is people can’t accept what happened done and move on. So with some amusement, I saw this tweet from Sean Hannity:

Naturally, Hannity’s supporters loved the question, and there are more responses containing variations of “fake news” than I can count.

That said, for Sean Hannity to question the credibility of CNN after he’s trafficked in the Seth Rich conspiracy is a textbook case of chutzpah. When Hannity was called out for it, he said:

Right. And OJ Simpson is still looking for the “real” killers. Hannity is not conducting an “investigation.” He’s engaging in the kind of garbage reserved for InfoWars. David French at National Review covered this:

Hannity and others have been “asking questions” and “raising concerns” that Rich was no ordinary DNC employee. Instead, disgruntled at the DNC’s treatment of Bernie Sanders, he may have leaked Democratic documents to WikiLeaks. He is the source of the document dump, not Russian hackers. Thus, the key elements of the Russian interference story are a hoax. There is no Russia scandal. Here’s Hannity:

Geraldo Rivera also laid out the elements in a tweet:

Newt Gingrich got into the act as well:

”We have this very strange story now of this young man who worked for the Democratic National Committee, who apparently was assassinated at 4 in the morning, having given WikiLeaks something like 53,000 emails and 17,000 attachments,” Gingrich said.

“Nobody’s investigating that, and what does that tell you about what’s going on? Because it turns out, it wasn’t the Russians. It was this young guy who, I suspect, was disgusted by the corruption of the Democratic National Committee. He’s been killed, and apparently nothing serious has been done to investigative his murder. So I’d like to see how [Robert] Mueller is going to define what his assignment is.”

The reason people want to believe the conspiracy is because it relieves it allows people to think Russia played no role the hacking of the emails.

Interestingly enough, do you know who does not buy into the conspiracy? Seth Rich’s parents:

Law-enforcement officials told us that Seth’s murder looked like a botched robbery attempt in which the assailants — after shooting our son — panicked, immediately ran and abandoned Seth’s personal belongings. We have seen no evidence, by any person at any time, that Seth’s murder had any connection to his job at the Democratic National Committee or his life in politics. Anyone who claims to have such evidence is either concealing it from us or lying.

Still, conservative news outlets and commentators continue, day after painful day, to peddle discredited conspiracy theories that Seth was killed after having provided WikiLeaks with emails from the DNC. Those theories, which some reporters have since retracted, are baseless, and they are unspeakably cruel.

We know that Seth’s personal email and his personal computer were both inspected by detectives early in the investigation and that the inspection revealed no evidence of any communications with anyone at WikiLeaks or anyone associated with WikiLeaks. Nor did that inspection reveal any evidence that Seth had leaked DNC emails to WikiLeaks or to anyone else.

Contrary to what people think, Seth Rich’s murder, if it goes unsolved, would not be the first unsolved murder in Washington DC. It’s irresponsible for anybody at Fox News to float the theory that Seth Rich was killed by operatives at the Democratic National Committee without a shred of proof but that’s what people are doing.

The chest-thumping over CNN is in poor taste if you’re one that buys into the piffle that Hannity is selling.

The post Fans of Sean Hannity Should Not Be Gloating About CNN Resignations appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State

Terrible Ad From Pro-Trump Group Uses Tomi Lahren To Attack Robert Mueller and James Comey

It is stunning to watch people go after Robert Mueller and James Comey as if they were left-wing Democrats. But it’s happening. A new ad by the pro-Trump group, Great American Alliance, talks up the “witch hunt” angle in the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election and it uses Facebook “star” Tomi Lahren to do it.

Here is the ad in all of its awfulness:

Before even getting into the issue of who has more credibility, James Comey, and Robert Mueller or Donald Trump, it’s a good idea to pick apart the ad and the blatant disregard it has for the truth.

1. The accusation that Comey is a “leaker” is partisan nonsense – First of all, the claim that executive privilege covers the conversations between Comey and Trump is absurd. When President Trump, in his termination letter to Comey, talked about the three occasions in which Comey said Trump was not personally under investigation, Trump waived any claims of executive privilege. Also, if the Trump administration had any basis for claiming the conversations were privileged, they’d have prevented Comey from testifying. That’s not coming from me. I am referring to Bradley Moss, an attorney familiar with these matters and his expertise.

2. The smearing of Mueller’s staff is right out of the Clinton playbook – In addition to Lahren mispronouncing Mueller’s name (it’s pronounced “muller” not “mewler”), the smear against Mueller’s staff is something we used to see all the time in the Clinton era. Whenever somebody accused the Clintons of wrongdoing, their immediate reaction was to attack the accuser or investigator. Remember Sid Blumenthal calling Ken Starr a “religious fanatic?” This is no different. Here is the biography of Andrew Weissmann, one of Mueller’s staff members being smeared:

Andrew Weissmann is a Senior Fellow to both the Center for Law and Security and the Center on the Administration of Criminal Law. Weissmann served as the General Counsel for the Federal Bureau of Investigation from 2011 to 2013. He previously served as special counsel to Director Mueller in 2005, after which he was a partner at Jenner & Block LLP in New York City. From 2002-2005, he served as the Deputy and then the Director of the Enron Task Force in Washington, D.C., where he supervised the prosecution of more than 30 individuals in connection with the company’s collapse. Weissmann was a federal prosecutor for 15 years in the Eastern District of New York, where he served as the Chief of the Criminal Division. He prosecuted numerous members of the Colombo, Gambino, and Genovese families, including the bosses of the Colombo and Genovese families.

What a monster. I cannot imagine why Robert Mueller would want somebody with these credentials on his team.

Getting back to the issue of credibility. It’s important to remember how often Donald Trump lies. For example, when asked about the loyalty pledge and about asking Comey to drop the investigation of Michael Flynn, Trump denied both. But it was true. Trump stands alone in the lack of credibility Olympics.

There is not a single shred of proof that Robert Mueller, who comes to this investigation without a whiff of scandal, has behaved in a manner that demands he recuse himself from the inquiry. As for the characterization of Mueller and Comey as “close friends?” That too is nonsense. 

“Jim has never been to Bob’s house. Bob has never been to Jim’s house,” said David Kelley, who succeeded Comey as U.S. attorney in Manhattan and has known him and Mueller for years. “They’ve had lunch together once and dinner together twice, once with their spouses and again after Jim became the FBI director so that Bob could give him the rundown of what to look for.”

All of that information would have been available to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein — who himself has known both men for years — when he appointed Mueller last month to run the investigation into potential coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign. That probe is also expected to explore the circumstances of Trump’s firing of Comey on May 9 and whether that dismissal was an attempt to obstruct the Russia probe.

The norms of legal ethics would generally frown upon a prosecutor who investigated a matter in which a friend or relative was a target of a crime. But Comey, though a likely witness, would not be a considered a victim of a crime in the classic sense as the firing in and of itself would not be illegal, said Stephen Gillers, a legal ethics scholar at the New York University law school.

“Although Comey may well be what I call roadkill in the subjects Mueller is investigating, he’s not the victim. His firing has been a consequence of the crime that Mueller is investigating. Their friendship would not require recusing,” he said.

Trump’s efforts to highlight, and exaggerate, their relationship seem by design, as conflict of interest is one of the few grounds for dismissal of a special counsel.

Robert Mueller and James Comey are not the ones with credibility problems in this mess.

President Donald Trump has the credibility problem. If Trump supporters think that attacking the integrity of Robert Mueller is the way to go on this, good luck.


The post Terrible Ad From Pro-Trump Group Uses Tomi Lahren To Attack Robert Mueller and James Comey appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State

The Left Is Good At Protesting But Not Much Else

Anti-war protests were all the rage in 2002 and 2003. In the lead-up to the Iraq War, protests in New York and Washington D.C. attracted hundreds of thousands of people. They had signs, burned President Bush in effigy, and walked around with small gasoline containers to emphasize the “war for oil” narrative.

Fast-forward to 2011 and the left engaged in Occupy Wall Street protests, aimed at curbing the supposed excess of the financial markets. When Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton in November, some spontaneous and some not spontaneous demonstrations broke out the same night. After Donald Trump’s inauguration, the Women’s March attracted close to 500,000 people to protest Trump’s presidency before it started.

What’s remarkable is that despite the success in organizing these protests and gaining a ton of media attention, they had little if any tangible impact electorally. George W. Bush won reelection in 2004. Barack Obama used the stock market as a means of beating Mitt Romney in 2012. Despite all the anger from the left directed at President Trump, Democrats are 0-4 in special congressional elections expected to send a “message” to Trump.

Now that the Senate is debating and preparing to vote on their version of the House’s American Health Care Act (AHCA), the left is ready to do some protesting. Neera Tanden, President of the Center for American Progress, tweeted the following:

It is more of the same. There will be a big spectacle near the Capitol. Tens of thousands will likely show up, disrupt traffic and the event will get a ton of media attention and for what? If I didn’t know any better, I’d say the organizations are putting the protests together are doing it as a means of getting people to write checks, similar to the garbage conservative “scam” PAC’s that ask for money to “recruit” politicians for leadership positions they don’t want.

The Democrats poured $30 million in a special congressional race only to watch the candidate, Jon Ossoff, get fewer votes than the Democratic candidate — a candidate most people are convinced does not exist — who ran against Tom Price in 2016.

For a time I was convinced Donald Trump’s ineptitude might be a hindrance to Republicans in 2018. But watching Democrats and their manifest incompetence on display going back to the 2016 campaign, I’m not that concerned. For all the ways they can organize protests and get people out to on the street to speak truth to power, they cannot channel that energy into winning elections.

The response to the GOP healthcare plan is not a rational response, designed to get people in the middle to say, “You know what? Let’s keep the ACA.” Democrats are instead screeching, “The GOP plan will literally kill people!” That will work great to get their base voters out to form a human chain at the Capitol but what will it do for other voters? Voters who may not be happy with the GOP but aren’t going to listen to a bunch of yelling and screaming along with standard Democratic pablum.

If the left could organize people to vote in the way they can get people to protest, they might actually win something. Something tells me they’ll just chug along doing the same old thing and wake up after election day wondering, “Where did we go wrong?”

The post The Left Is Good At Protesting But Not Much Else appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State