Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill Introduced With Huge GOP Support

Senators John Cornyn (R-TX) and Ted Cruz (R-TX) have introduced the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act.

Senators John Cornyn (R-TX) and Ted Cruz (R-TX) have introduced the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act in the U.S. Senate today.

In a joint press release issued earlier today, the two senators announced the bill to allow “individuals with concealed carry privileges in their home state to exercise those rights in any other state with concealed carry laws, while abiding by that state’s laws.”

“This bill focuses on two of our country’s most fundamental constitutional protections– the Second Amendment’s right of citizens to keep and bear arms and the Tenth Amendment’s right of states to make laws best-suited for their residents,” said Sen. Cornyn. “I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance this important legislation for law-abiding gun owners nationwide.”

What is interesting about this press release is the long list of Republican co-sponsors, which wasn’t the case before. They include the following U.S. Senators: John Barrasso (R-WY), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Mike Braun (R-IN), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Tom Cotton (R-AR), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Steve Daines (R-MT), Mike Enzi (R-WY), Joni Ernst (R-IA), Deb Fischer (R-NE), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), John Hoeven (R-ND), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS), Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Ron Johnson (R-WI), John Kennedy (R-LA), Jerry Moran (R-KS), David Perdue (R-GA), Rob Portman (R-OH), Jim Risch (R-ID), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Richard Shelby (R-AL), Dan Sullivan (R-AK), John Thune (R-SD), Thom Tillis (R-NC), and Roger Wicker (R-MS).

It’s no surprise there aren’t Democrats co-sponsors.

The press release expands on what this legislation would set out to accomplish (key points are bolded):

Protecting Fundamental Constitutional Rights:

  • Allows law-abiding citizens to exercise their fundamental right to self-defense while they are traveling or temporarily living away from home.
  • Allows individuals with concealed carry privileges in their home state to conceal carry in any other states that also allow concealed carry.
  • Treats state-issued concealed carry permits like drivers’ licenses where an individual can use their home-state license to drive in another state, but must abide by that other state’s speed limit or road laws.

Respecting State Sovereignty*:*

  • Does not establish national standards for concealed carry.
  • Does not provide for a national concealed carry permit.
  • Does not allow a resident to circumvent their home state’s concealed carry permit laws. If under current law an individual is prohibited by federal law from carrying a firearm, they will continue to be prohibited from doing so under our bill.
  • Respects state laws concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried and types of firearms which may not be carried by the visiting individual.
  • Protects states’ rights by not mandating the right to concealed carry in places that do not allow the practice.

A Senate bill was previously introduced last Congressional session as with one in the House. Sadly, this bill won’t pass out of the House of Representatives given the Democrat control of that chamber during the new 116th Congressional session.

We’ll continue to monitor its progress here at The Resurgent.

John Cornyn is Holding Hostage a Man Bernie Sanders Hates

Politics makes strange bedfellows. Bernie Sanders is opposed to Russ Vought as the Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget because Vought is a practicing Christian. Sanders’ entire objection to Vought centers on a piece Vought wrote here at the Resurgent defending his alma mater, Wheaton, for standing firm for the faith.

Sanders, in Vought’s confirmation hearing, attacked Vought for being a Christian and writing in defense of Christian values.

So that makes it even more disappointing that it is not Sanders tying up Vought’s confirmation, but John Cornyn of Texas. Vought is a conservative’s conservative and Cornyn is stopping him from being able to effectively do his job.

John Cornyn wants more money for Texas in the budget. To get that money, he is holding up Russ Vought’s confirmation vote on the floor of the Senate. This is appalling on many levels. First, he is aiding and abetting Bernie Sanders’ persecution of a Christian. Second, he wants to keep a fiscal conservative from helping form the budget until he gets a fat payout for Texas in the budget.

Cornyn claims to be a conservative, but is preventing a real conservative from confirmation. Cornyn claims to be fiscally responsible, but is holding up a fiscally responsible conservative for irresponsible ends.

President Trump promised to drain the swamp and John Cornyn is not only working against the confirmation of personnel equally committed to draining the swamp, but Cornyn is doing it as part of a shake down of American taxpayers. The President needs to show Cornyn who’s boss and use his bully pulpit on this issue. Russ Vought deserves to be confirmed and Cornyn should be ashamed.

Trump’s latest judicial picks have Cruz and Cornyn smiling

Conservatives may differ in their overall assessment of President Trump, but you’d be hard-pressed to find anyone on the right to complain about the judicial nominees put forward by the Chief Executive thus far. As our own Dan Spencer noted back in July, “Trump is on course to reshape the judiciary in a notably conservative direction, even if he doesn’t get any more appointments to the Supreme Court.”

Among the latest entries are two well-known Texans with strong conservative credentials and close ties to some of the Lone Star State’s most popular federal figures, both selected to fill vacancies on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

“Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Willett and Dallas appellate lawyer James Ho emerged from a field of a half-dozen contenders for two open Texas seats on the court, which covers Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi.” – Houston Chronicle

The selection of Willett and Ho met with praise from both Ted Cruz and John Cornyn. The Texas Senators – both of whom serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee – had recommended the nominations.

“I am thrilled to support the nomination of Don Willett and Jim Ho to the Fifth Circuit,” Cruz said in a press release. “I have been close friends with them both for decades, and I know them personally to be brilliant lawyers and principled conservatives.”

Also from the Chronicle story:

“Both of these gentlemen will do an outstanding job once confirmed,” Cornyn said. Ho worked as Cornyn’s chief counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Cornyn said both are viewed as conservatives who will strictly interpret the law. “I’m confident that both Judge Willett and Jim Ho will be that kind of judge,” he said.

Two other nominees – both from Louisiana – were nominated for spots on the 5th Circuit Court. Kyle Duncan was lead counsel in the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby case, and Kurt Englehardt is the current Chief Justice for Louisiana’s Eastern District Court.

In addition to the four 5th Circuit nominees, The White House announced nominees for five other federal court seats on Thursday.

Cruz’ statement went on to note the importance of selecting conservative judges for federal court positions, particularly in the wake of Obama administration nominees.

“Our country learned under President Obama just how fast liberty recedes when judges decide cases based on personal preference rather than the law as written. I am encouraged that, with these individuals on the Fifth Circuit, the tide will steadily turn back towards the rule of law. I commend the President for these nominations and hope that my colleagues in the Senate quickly confirm all of them.”

Sens. Cornyn and Cruz: Let’s modernize NAFTA

Senator John Cornyn, the senior U.S. Senator from Texas, and Senator Ted Cruz, the state’s junior Senator, recently penned an op-ed calling for the modernization of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

According to the two, the United States could learn a thing or two from Texas, a state that’s already familiar with the modernization.

“When the North American Free Trade Agreement was enacted 23 years ago, an economic surge in Texas ensued thanks, in part, to a significant boost in trade with our neighbor to the south,” the op-ed reads. “Today, more than 380,000 Texas jobs hinge on free trade with Mexico. Agreements like NAFTA have strengthened our state’s economy as a whole, too. More than a third of total goods, worth $92 billion, are exported from Texas to Mexico annually.”

“But as our economy has expanded, it has matured and diversified. In 1994, when NAFTA went into effect, floppy disks were the norm and streaming videos over the internet was fantasy. The past 20 years has introduced the internet into our everyday lives, which in turn has developed industries like information technology and digital trade.”

“It’s time NAFTA is updated to reflect the modern economy that characterizes Texas and the nation today. The Trump Administration recently announced its intent to renegotiate the agreement, and fortunately our experience means we play a unique and critical role in this process. As Congress provides input during the 90-day window before formal negotiations, we must take great care to advocate for smart policies that drive growth here at home, look out for hardworking American workers, consumers and businesses small and large, and enhance our partnerships abroad. A new NAFTA must also improve – not diminish – the trade relationship that the U.S., Mexico and Canada share.”

The Senators point out that Texas provides “nearly half of all U.S. meat and poultry exports to Mexico.” adding that agricultural product standards between Canada, the United States, and Mexico have changed throughout the years. In order to modernize the agreement, Cornyn and Cruz say that renegotiation should “insist on science-based measures to eliminate artificial barriers and align the current hodgepodge of classifications among American, Mexican and Canadian agricultural products.”

The United States also has the experience and capital to take advantage of a modernized energy sector, a “vital” Texas industry, and should push to reduce unnecessary regulations in order to strengthen the economy.

The Senators argue that in light of the modern digital economy, which employs nearly one-third of all United States workers, vague and unenrofable cross-border rules should also be renegotiated, as they harm trade.

“As Texans know firsthand, increasing trade requires more than renegotiating NAFTA. We must also recognize the critical roles our infrastructure and ports of entry play in making trade possible in the first place. Since we’ve opened up trade with Mexico, communities along the more than 1,200 miles of our southern border have benefited from cross-border commerce. Three out of the five busiest land ports of entry in America are in Texas. Improving them creates a more efficient customs and transportation process, an important step in increasing trade and encouraging economic growth throughout our state and country.

“NAFTA has undoubtedly encouraged economic growth for not only our country, but our neighbors as well. There’s no need to abandon an agreement that has led to increased trade and relationships, but we would all benefit from an update. The past 20 years has unveiled an entirely new realm of trade and technology, and NAFTA should reflect that. As we modernize this vital trade agreement, negotiators should use the needs and experiences of the Lone Star State as their North Star,” the op-ed concludes.

 

BREAKING: “You’re Hired”? Leading Candidates to Replace Comey at FBI Report For Job Interview on Saturday

Ever since now-former FBI Director Jim Comey’s abrupt firing that shocked Washington D.C., a number of questions have swirled: Why was Comey fired? Was Comey really asked to pledge his loyalty to the President? Why does the White House keep changing its story? Will this lead to some sort of independent commission or special prosecutor? And what does this mean for the variety of investigations surrounding Russia?

 

But there is another immediate & pressing question that needs addressing as well: Who will replace Comey as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (our nation’s premiere law enforcement agency)? Well, in an exclusive from sources inside the White House, Fox News reports that it has obtained a list of the first four leading contenders, all of whom will be interviewing with the Attorney General & Deputy Attorney General on Saturday (May the 13th). From the report:

 

“The four candidates meeting with Attorney General Jeff Sessions and his deputy Rod Rosenstein are: Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher, who used to work in the Justice Department’s Criminal Division; the acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who recently testified before Congress about the agency’s Russia collusion investigation; Texas Sen. John Cornyn, the current Senate Majority Whip and former attorney general of Texas who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee; Judge Michael J. Garcia of the New York Court of Appeals, who previously served as Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York. The administration is considering nearly a dozen candidates – a list that includes top current and former lawmakers as well as law enforcement figures – to replace fired FBI Director James Comey, a White House official briefed on the matter told Fox News on Friday.”

 

Whoever takes over will be stepping into a media firestorm and into a bright-as-the-sun spotlight with confirmation hearings that are assured to be full of high drama (both real and manufactured). Not to mention the fact that they will be put in charge of winning the trust of and guiding the 35,000 employees of the FBI, handling some of our nation’s most important investigations, enforcing the law, and safeguarding our national security. So who are these candidates, anyway?

 

THE FIRST FOUR BEING INTERVIEWED SATURDAY

 

Former Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher: She’s had a wide-ranging legal career and is currently a Managing Partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Latham & Watkins LLP, the nation’s highest-grossing firm with business & political clients all over the world, where she focuses on criminal investigations, white collar crime, sanctions compliance, fraud, & international security law. She served as an Assistant Attorney General during the Bush administration starting in 2005 (most notably obtaining the Jack Abramoff plea deal) and she’s considered one of the best & most powerful female lawyers in the nation’s capital.

 

Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe: He became the Deputy Director of the FBI on January 29, 2016 and assumed the role of Acting FBI Director when Comey was fired on Tuesday. He is dogged by a number of issues, however, including the fact that he contradicted the Trump administration to some extent during his testimony in front of the Senate intelligence committee on Thursday as well as the fact that he is under investigation by DOJ’s Office of the Inspector General over the fact that his wife received hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign donations from Clinton allies while he failed to recuse himself from the Clinton email server investigation. Prior to his roles as a deputy & an acting head, he worked out of the FBI’s New York Field Office as well as its Washington Field Office, and he held roles in the Counterterrorism Division and the National Security Branch, as well as leading the High-Value Interrogation Group that was formed in 2009 after the election of President Obama.

 

Texas Senator John Cornyn: He is the senior Senator from the state of Texas, serving in that capacity since 2002. He’s a current member of the Senate Judiciary Committee (including its Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, & Homeland Security where he had a recent run-in with former DNI James Clapper & former Acting AG Sally Yates). Prior to being a Senator, Cornyn served as the Texas Attorney General from 1998 til 2002. Before that, he was an Associate Justice for the Texas Supreme Court from 1991 til 1997, and before that he was a District Court Judge in Texas from 1985 til 1991. His legal experience spans nearly two decades as either a judge or attorney general plus over a decade and a half in the Senate working on issues related to law enforcement and national security.

 

New York Judge Michael J. Garcia: He has served as an Associate Judge on the New York Court of Appeals since February 8, 2016, after being appointed by Governor Andrew Cuomo. Prior to that he had nearly a decade-long stint in private practice. His previous government experience is pretty extensive though: Assistant US Attorney for the Southern District of New York from 1992 til 2001, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement in 2001 & 2002, Acting Commissioner of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service in 2002 & 2003, Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs Enforcement from 2003 til 2005, and then back to the Southern District of New York but this time as its lead US Attorney. He might be most widely known recently for his role as FIFA’s ethics prosecutor (a position he’d eventually resign), where he investigated massive allegations of corruption with soccer’s global body (it’s an incredibly fascinating & disheartening story, and the so-called “Garcia Report” still hasn’t been released).

 

OTHER LEADING CANDIDATES

 

A number of other potential candidates being mentioned who themselves won’t be at Saturday’s job interview with Attorney General Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosentein include: Representative Mike Rogers (a former FBI agent himself); Mayor John Suthers (a former federal prosecutor and now-mayor of Colorado Springs); George Terwilliger (a former deputy attorney general under George HW Bush, Comey-critic, and Republican activist); former NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly (who directed the first World Trade Center bombing investigation in the 1990’s); Representative Trey Gowdy (who led the House Benghazi investigation); Paul Abbate (Assistant Director-in-Charge of the FBI); Chuck Rosenberg (the current head of the DEA); J. Michael Luttig (Executive VP of Boeing & a former judge on the appellate court); Ken Wainstein (the very first head of DOJ’s national security division); Larry Thompson (a Comey-critic and former deputy attorney general under George W. Bush); Mark Filip (also a former deputy attorney general as well as a federal judge and Scalia law clerk); Frances Townsend (a Bush homeland security adviser and former NY prosecutor); Michael Anderson (Chicago FBI agent-in-charge); Adam Lee (Richmond FBI agent-in-charge); Kelly Ayotte (former Senator from New Hampshire); Rudy Giuliani (former Mayor of NYC, Trump ally, & 2008 candidate in the Republican presidential primary); Chris Christie (current Governor of New Jersey and early Trump supporter); and even Merrick Garland (Obama’s former Supreme Court nominee for the seat left open by Antonin Scalia that has now been filled by Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch).

 

PICKING A SUCCESSOR

 

Over at National Review, they offer the following advice to President Trump as he decides who will succeed James Comey as head of the Bureau: “Trump now has the similar task of finding a new Justice Department official to succeed Comey. Trump can put to rest the allegations that Comey’s removal obstructs the investigation into the Russian connection by nominating a figure of impeccable credentials and personal integrity who will pledge to continue the investigation no matter where it leads. For that reason, we think that nominating a former elected politician would be a mistake, because that nominee’s every move would raise doubts about partisan motivation – fairly or not. Instead, Trump should pick a former prosecutor or Justice Department official with a reputation for independence and long experience in law enforcement, with few if any ties to the Trump campaign or the administration.” Whoever the pick ends up being, they will certainly have a monumental task in front of them as they work to restore faith & confidence as well as protect the nation. So let’s hope that they are a man or woman of superb skill & redoubtable integrity. The Bureau, and indeed the nation itself, deserves nothing less.

Ending Filibuster Would Be Short-Sighted

President Trump tweeted yesterday morning that voters should “either elect more Republican Senators in 2018 or change the rules now to 51%,” implying that the Senate should go nuclear once again and completely eradicate the filibuster rule. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) was quick to respond.

“That will not happen,” McConnell told The Hill and other reporters as he rejected the president’s idea out of hand.

<blockquote class=”twitter-tweet” data-lang=”en”><p lang=”en” dir=”ltr”>either elect more Republican Senators in 2018 or change the rules now to 51%. Our country needs a good &quot;shutdown&quot; in September to fix mess!</p>&mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href=”https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/859393829505552385″>May 2, 2017</a></blockquote>

<script async src=”//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js” charset=”utf-8″></script>

The filibuster, originally a Dutch term for pirates, goes back to the early days of the Senate per the Senate website. The filibuster was well established by 1841 when Henry Clay (Whig-Ky.) threatened to change Senate rules to allow the majority to vote to end debate. Clay was rebuked by Thomas Hart Benton (Democratic-Republican- Mo.) for his attempt to stifle the Senate’s tradition of unlimited debate.

The Senate did weaken the filibuster in 1917 when adopted Rule 22 which established a cloture vote. A vote of two-thirds of the Senate could end debate on a bill. The filibuster reached its current form in 1975 when the number of votes required for cloture was reduced to 60.

“There is an overwhelming majority on a bipartisan basis not interested in changing the way the Senate operates on the legislative calendar,” McConnell said, adding that the move would “fundamentally change the way the Senate has worked for a very long time. We’re not going to do that.”

Removing the filibuster is tempting for some Republicans due to the slim GOP majority in the Senate. With only 52 Republican senators, at least eight Democrat votes are required for cloture on most bills. The need for cloture is a roadblock to much of the Republican reform agenda. In particular, Democrats are united against the repeal of Obamacare.

Nevertheless, elimination of the filibuster would be a double-edged sword that Republicans may soon regret. Over the past 100 years, the Democrats have controlled the Senate more than Republicans and the filibuster has enabled the GOP to halt Democrat action on many issues from gun control to cap-and-trade to public option health care. Without the filibuster, there would be no fail-safe the next time that Democrats hold a congressional majority.

“The rules have saved us from a lot of really bad policy,” said Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas). “I know we all are into short-term gratification, but it’s a real mistake, I think, from a legislative standpoint.”

Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) agreed. “Had we not had the filibuster, this country would have been gone a long time ago, gone straight to socialism,” he said on CNN.

Last month, Senate Republicans eliminated the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees, but a majority of senators say that further rule changes are unlikely. A bipartisan group of 61 senators sent a letter last month to Senate Leaders McConnell and Schumer (D-N.Y.) stating opposition to further changes. The Hill reports that Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) have announced that they would oppose further changes. With two GOP senators already standing against elimination of the filibuster, any further defections would doom the plan.

For now, the filibuster appears safe, but pressure from the conservative base continues to mount and angry voters are urging Republicans to get things done with their majority. As frustration over Democrat obstructionism increases, calls to eliminate the filibuster will likely increase as well.

POLLING: House Freedom Caucus Saved GOP From 2018 Disaster

Full Repeal is Key to Keeping the GOP’s Integrity and Majority

The House Freedom Caucus (HFC) has been under intense fire for their integral role in keeping the GOP from breaking their biggest promise in decades: Repeal and Replace ObamaCare. They’ve been threatened with primary election opponents and told that they’ve doomed the Republican Party by “making perfect the enemy of the good.” While President Trump and Senate leadership look to even further water down their weak bill by partnering with Democrats, the HFC stood by their promise.

Republicans in the House and Senate should be sending Congressman Meadows a thank you note for saving the GOP from 2018 electoral disaster. – Chris Wilson (@WilsonWPA)

Since Speaker Ryan pulled the ACHA, plenty of sources in Congress and the punditry have made the argument that the members of the HFC put their congressional seats in jeopardy and have done significant electoral harm to the GOP in general. Thanks to an incredible suite of analysis by WPA Research, we can now put that notion to bed as utterly false.

Data from three WPA national predictive models on 1) Speaker Ryan’s AHCA, 2) Obamacare, and 3) a plan to fully repeal Obamacare and replace it with market-based solutions show that the Freedom Caucus members were, in fact, doing the will of their constituents in helping defeat the AHCA.

Moreover, the data show overwhelming support for full repeal and replace and suggest that the House Freedom Caucus did the Senate, and Republicans’ hopes of expanding their Senate majority, a great service in stopping the bill before it made it across the Capitol.

The House Freedom Caucus Did What Their Constituents Wanted

Whatever negative things opponents may say about members of the House Freedom Caucus, it’s dishonest to say that they acted against the will of their constituents. Not only do their districts strongly favor full repeal of ObamaCare but in only one member’s case did they prefer the half-measure ACHA bill to leaving ObamaCare intact.


This carefully researched and modeled data makes clear that each member of the HFC did the explicit will of their constituents. Members’ resolve to stand by their principles and districts should be reinforced by these findings. They have nothing to fear from electoral threats, whether by President Trump or their own Republican leadership.

Death-Spiraling ObamaCare Still More Popular Than ACHA

While the Senate never got an opportunity to vote on the ACHA, leadership and many members voiced resounding support for the pitiful bill. They hoped that they could deceive their constituents into believing that the ACHA represented a promise kept, and that it would translate into rising support when many of them headed out on the campaign trail for re-election next year. WPA Research’s data, however, shows that doing so would seriously broken with their electorate’s desires and put Republican seats in jeopardy.

Every Senate Battleground Opposes ACHA

It turns out that keeping promises matters. The crop of Republicans up for Senate re-election were carried to victory on one promise: full repeal and replacement of ObamaCare. Democrats on the ballot in 2018 haven’t faced voters since so many of the negative effects of that legislation became crystal clear to voters.

WPA Research’s analysis shows that not only is true Repeal-Replace a winner in Republican states but that it will put Democrats in a very tight electoral bind. Failure to take action could jeopardize the tenuous Republican majority but fulfilling their 7-year promise could provide an opportunity to pick up several key seats.

While it is clear the constituents of House Freedom Caucus members prefer repeal and replace, supporting this approach would also be a net-win in the key 2018 Senate states. Likewise, a vote to preserve Obamacare, rather than repealing and replacing, would be a net-loss for endangered Democrats.

The table below shows the number of supporters who prefer a repeal-and-replace plan versus those who support keeping Obamacare as is. While the margins are tight in some states, in every state there is a net preference for repeal-and-replace.

Our models illustrate the supported course of action is move a repeal-and-replace bill. Not only does this positioning have overwhelming support in each state, it would force endangered Democrats to choose between their party and their constituents.

Don’t Fall for The Lies

Moderate Republicans are stinging from the defeat of the ACHA and will continue to lash out at conservatives and the HFC in particular. The WPA Research analysis shows clearly that the HFC’s efforts have not only stood by their district’s desires but protected the GOP’s electoral chances in 2018.

This data shows one clear course forward: Repeal and Replace Obamacare. Further, it makes clear that crafting an even more liberal piece of legislation would spell absolute doom for Republicans.

The GOP must honor their promise and completely repeal and replace this disaster of a law.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) Reveals They Were Never Serious About Repealing Obamacare in the First Place

According to Senator John Cornyn, the GOP will not try to repeal Obamacare via reconciliation again. Instead, they’ll work with Democrats.

They hung conservatives out to dry, blamed the House Freedom Caucus, and are now giving away the game. They never intended to repeal Obamacare in the first place. If they did, they’d try again via reconciliation instead of surrendering altogether.

They were not serious, but they had to set up conservatives to be the fall guys.