Rinos in the Senate are actually in the majority there. One would be astonished at the number of Republicans who have lower Conservative Review (CR) approval ratings than some Democrats!
1. For reasons expressed in a previous reply ( http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3722962/posts?page=129#129 ) Many Republican senators, read Rinos, are simply not going to take any political risk whatsoever in support of a wall nor will they take any perceived political risk in support of Donald Trump. Hence, little Republican support for the wall. 2. Many Rino Republican senators are delighted to see the president in a political predicament because their allegiance is not to his office, not to him as titular head of the Republican Party, not to Donald Trump personally and certainly not to Donald Trump's populist message. To the contrary, their constituency is not the people who elect them but the donor class. To the degree that Donald Trump is neutralized, their real constituents are content.
3. Mitch McConnell has long stated his intractable opposition to any government shutdown. He is often said that a shutdown would not be permitted. His message to the people he governs is that the purpose of government is to govern, the best way to govern is to compromise, read accommodate. Therefore, a government shutdown represents the breakdown of good government. His message is a cynical misrepresentation of the desires of the donor class contrived for the benefit of the voting public. Do not forget, Mitch McConnell owes his position as leader of the Senate to the fact that he can fund the campaigns of many senators or, conversely, he can fund the campaigns of senators' opponents-and he has done so. Mitch McConnell's constituency is the donor class, the rest is all posturing.
President Trump is in a box because he is forced to a choice. If he fails to oppose this sham compromise to the imperative of border security, he will unquestionably forfeit the support of much of his base and jeopardize his chances of reelection.
On the other hand, if he opposes this sham compromise, as he most likely will, he will do so in an effort to head off the Senate from approving the compromise. It is a given that the Democrat house will approve the compromise, precisely because it puts the president in this dilemma. If his opposition to the compromise fails to hold the Senate, his predicament then will be whether to veto the compromise which would necessarily precipitate another shutdown of the government, for which he will be blamed by many in the media and many in his own party because he will have rejected a compromise acceptable to his own party.
These realities will have been plain to the senators who fashioned this compromise and will be equally plain to the senators in his own party who might voice their approval of the compromise. Yet they cut the deal.
We conservatives should take a look at this entire wall issue and extend our horizon to consider how it is that the president is put so often into this kind of dilemma by the Rinos of his own party. Should we confine our indignation to this issue or should we be looking at a solution to the structural problem which creates these lose-lose predicaments so often?
