The GOP George McClellans in the US Senate

“It occurred to me at once that Harris had been as much afraid of me as I had been of him. This was a view of the question I had never taken before; but it was one I never forgot afterwards.”

General US Grant 1861

One of the most amusing stories from the Civil War is the siege of Yorktown.  General George McClellan had landed the Union army on the James peninsula a grand flanking move in his attempt to capture Richmond and win the war.  The first obstacle was Yorktown the site of the ultimate defeat of the British in the American Revolution.

McClellan has three times the number of troops as the Confederates facing him had a vast superiority of material & artillery both in terms of number and quality but convinced by “experts” that the rebel force what much stronger than his (aided by the theatrics of Confederate Gen John Magruder, was determined to wait until every single thing was exactly the way he wanted it before making his move.

This frustrated his own generals and amazed his counterpart Joseph Johnston who said:  “No one but McClellan could have hesitated to attack.” who took advantage of the time to withdraw his forces to a better position

In the end when McClellan finally moved forward the confederates were nowhere to be seen.

McClellan claimed victory he had gained Yorktown with a minimum of casualties, and congratulated himself on his tactical brilliance.

In doing so he forgot the War was not being fought to take Yorktown.  The war was being fought to defeat the confederacy.  McClellan’s hesitation cost him the chance to perhaps win the war before a man named Lee was put in charge of the rebel army.  the price of that hesitation was two more years of war,  tens of thousands of lives and hundreds of millions of dollars of destruction.

And that brings us to the GOP senate.

We keep hearing from Senators like Mitch McConnell and some candidates like Lindsey Graham and John Kasich that to fight against Barack Obama is futile, that it takes us away from the goal of electing a GOP president.

Now if your only goal is to win an election and to hold a seat of power that argument makes some sense.  Why rock the boat and do anything that might provoke a response against you?

But if your goal in holding office is to actually advance a series of idea and positions for the good for the country & its future, ideas that the people who voted for you want, that’s totally different.

Consider the newly lionized Carly Fiorina on the Planned Parenthood issue.  By not abandoning the issue and pressing it directly she put the left on the spot, forcing them to defend the indefensible.

Or consider Ben Carson and noting Sharia law the media and the left defend a set of rules that oppresses women it because the dirty little secret is a lot of voters are silent because they are afraid of pushback but you know what, nobody is over their shoulder in the voting booth.

Alternatively,  by not forcing the left to act, by allowing them victories without even a fight all you do is strengthen them, you give them a chance to husband their resources, you allow them to not even have to defend their positions to the media and the public and you reinforce the intimidation of voters who are silent out of fear.

 

Make the attack, make the case and every single time you are invited on a show take stills of the planned parenthood videos with you and when the host attempts to push the “shutting down the government” or “hurting the innocent” line at you, show those pictures and ask:  “Are you seriously saying that Democrats won’t allow government to function unless we fund this?”  Note that silence on this issue is no different that silence on the abuse of Boys in Afghanistan.  

Make them more afraid of you they you are of them, because if they were not afraid of the truth they would tell it.

Less McClellan more Grant please.

Update: Drew M at Ace’s site nails it pretty well

The correct question for Ayotte and her ilk is, what are you willing to do to break the Democrats ability to control the agenda of the United States Congress so long as they can muster 41 votes?

Team GOP will tell you, “if you want anything done you need to elect a Republican president”. Here’s the thing…imagine that everything was exactly the same right now with the exception that say, Marco “Amnesty” Rubio is the president. The Senate Democrats will still have 41 votes in the Senate, so they’d still be able to filibuster any effort to defund Planned Parenthood (or anything else conservatives want done). And of course, they’d be joined by the likes of Mark Kirk and Susan Collins who are siding with the Democrats now.

Do you imagine the Democrats will suddenly be in a bipartisan mood if Rubio or any Republican is elected next year? Or do you think they will gum up the works as they have been in the hopes of increasing their numbers come the 2018 mid-terms?

Yeah.

More Grant , Less McClellan
*******************************************************

The only pay I get for this work comes from you. If you think this is of value I ask you to kick in and help me reach my monthly goal $1834 a month or Twenty Two grand a year.

I’d appreciate it if you would hit DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

That gets all the bills paid. Consider Subscribing 100 Subscribers at $20 a month will get the job done and then some.


Choose a Subscription level



Additionally our subscribers get our podcast emailed directly to them before it show up anywhere else.

I know you can get the MSM for nothing, but that’s pretty much what they’re good for.