"Seeing Donald Trump get up after getting shot in the face and pump his fist in the air with the American flag is one of the most bada-- things I’ve ever seen in my life," Zuckerberg said Thursday during an interview at the company’s headquarters in Menlo Park, California, according to Bloomberg.
"On some level as an American, it’s like hard to not get kind of emotional about that spirit and that fight, and I think that that’s why a lot of people like the guy." //
Zuckerberg said Meta is making changes that he hopes will mean Facebook is not as much of a flashpoint in elections going forward. “The main thing that I hear from people is that they actually want to see less political content on our services because they come to our services to connect with people.” Meta is already recommending less political content to its users, he added. “I think you’re going to see our services play less of a role in this election than they have in the past.” //
Mary Frances
12 hours ago
Trump raises his "fight" fist to America. Biden raises his middle finger to us.
UpLateAgain Mary Frances
12 hours ago
You can't really blame Biden. That's all the weight he can heft.
One lesson we need to take out of this is we should never allow any presidency to again take on a myth of Camelot. People attracted to power are some of the most selfish, venal, and narcissistic human beings. Callahan’s book moves us further toward acknowledging that ugly reality.
With unwavering love for her husband and her country, Melania Trump set a shining example of strength, resolve, and love with these powerful words:
I am thinking of you, now, my fellow Americans.
We have always been a unique union. America, the fabric of our gentle nation is tattered, but our courage and common sense must ascend and bring us back together as one.
When I watched that violent bullet strike my husband, Donald, I realized my life, and Barron’s life were on the brink of devastating change. I am grateful to the brave secret service agents and law enforcement officials who risked their own lives to protect my husband.
To the families of the innocent victims who are now suffering from this heinous act, I humbly offer my sincerest sympathy. Your need to summon your strength for such a terrible reason saddens me.
...
We are all humans, and fundamentally, instinctively, we want to help one another. American politics are only one vehicle that can uplift our communities. Love, compassion, kindness and empathy are necessities.
And let us remember that when the time comes to look beyond the left and the right, beyond the red and the blue, we all come from families with the passion to fight for a better life together, while we are here, in this earthly realm.
Dawn is here again. Let us reunite. Now.
This morning, ascend above the hate, the vitriol, and the simple-minded ideas that ignite violence. We all want to world where respect is paramount, family is first, and love transcends. We can realize this world again. Each of us must demand to get it back. We must insist that respect fills the cornerstone of our relationships, again.
I am thinking of you, my fellow Americans.
The winds of change have arrived. For those of you who cry in support, I thank you. I commend those of you who have reached out beyond the political divide – thank you for remembering that every single politician is a man or woman with a loving family.
jester6
a few seconds ago
To me, the most disguising feature of people on the left is that they do not understand human nature, especially when it comes to violence and reciprocity.
They think violence is just an antiseptic theoretical concept. They treat it like an idea or theory you would toss around in a classroom or dope-infused bull session in a dorm room. They seem to believe violence is something you can experiment with and then turn off with just a few words.
They also never consider the fact that humans are hardwired to be reciprocal. If someone gives us a gift, we are more likely to give a gift in return. If someone wrongs us, we are more likely to wrong them back.
If you read the history of any major conflict, you will find that almost everyone starts with one or both sides, making fundamental mistakes when assessing their opponents.
I am certain if we ever stumble into a civil war, the left's poor understanding of human nature will be a major cause.
The France24 TV: “More than 210 left-wing or Macronist candidates … have already withdrawn in order to block the far right from winning a majority.” //
Subotai Bahadur | July 5, 2024 at 7:15 pm
We have a country where:
A) The party in power ignores what the people want in the name of Leftist ideological correctness.
B) What passes for opposition party(s) care not a whit for what the people want.
C) The physical soil of the country is literally invaded occupied by a huge, hostile foreign army that is functionally above the law of the country.
D) There is an election, and the ruling party gets its collective gluteus maximus, minimus, and medialis handed to it and a party that actually might do what the people want gets most of the votes. The response of the once ruling party is to ally itself with its former opposition to thwart the will of the people.
Now, despite what seems like eerie resemblances to our own poor country; the country involved is France. Now it is a point of pride to our educational establishment that American students have no knowledge of the means and motives for the establishment of our own country. For most Americans, understanding of French history is at the level of animated cartoons or perhaps a Mel Brooks movie.
Besides being a history buff all my life, while in college I studied it, including quite a bit on the French Revolution and Napoleon.
The European approach to politics, and especially with their history the French approach to politics, is very, very different to our own. The Anglo-Saxon evolution of politics that eventually became our own deliberately tries to avoid mass bloodshed when things reach an impasse. Which is possible when say an electoral approach works. The key is what happens when the electoral approach does not work.
France has shown what happens when electoral, peaceful politics do not work. France as a Republic is younger than our relatively juvenile country. Since 1789 they have had 2 monarchies, one “Consulate”, one “Directory”, two Empires, and 5 Republics; each with their own Constitution, laws, and political systems with their own definitions of legitimacy.
“Every [French] head of state from 1814 to 1873 spent part of his life in exile. Every regime was the target of assassination attempts of a frequency that put Spanish and Russian politics in the shade. Even in peaceful times governments changed every few months. In less peaceful times, political deaths, imprisonments and deportations are literally incalculable.”
These are NOT a people you deliberately disrespect when you are in power, nor [with their even more ancient history] do you encourage their occupation by a more ancient foreign enemy. This is likely to get far more untidy than we expect over here.
And if our own Anglo-Saxon political approach ever fails . . .
Subotai Bahadur
As John Dickinson later noted, “the insanity of Parliament has operated like inspiration in America. The Colonists now know what is designed against them.”
And suddenly, the phrase “the common cause” began appearing in pamphlets up and down the East Coast. The “common cause” was a call to all colonists to stand with their oppressed brethren in Boston against tyrannical overreach by the government.
To be clear, the Southern colonies had little in common with their Northern counterparts. For example, their economies were vastly different and dependent on different goods. Georgians could have ignored the plight of their fellow colonists in Massachusetts, but they knew should the same fate befall them, they too would have to face it alone. And so, the colonists moved forward under a united front.
“The die is now cast, the [American] colonies must now either submit or triumph,” King George III infamously said in Sept. 1774.
Colonists owed no obedience to unjust laws. There would be no such submission. They would take death or liberty.
Their sacrifices, willpower, and commitment to the “common cause” is why we celebrate the Fourth of July, Independence Day.
But it is a lack of that “common cause” that has put us in the position we are in today. Government has become too big, and Americans are — just as our forefathers — treated as piggy banks for bureaucrats who spend uncontrollably to finance their partisan agenda. There can be no better tomorrow under these circumstances, but who would know? We’re all too busy endlessly scrolling on social media to realize what’s happening around us. We’re willingly distracted.
America is in need of a “common cause” now more than ever. Too much is at stake.
Modern left-wing activism in the United States has roots in the Soviet Union's 1960s strategy to undermine Western culture. By promoting divisive ideologies and fostering internal dissent, the Soviets aimed to weaken the societal fabric from within, creating a legacy that continues to influence today’s political landscape.
Over the decades, these tactics evolved and merged with neo-communist strategies for infiltration. This resulted in a robust network of activist groups and organizations at both local and national levels. Initially designed to destabilize Western norms, these groups adapted to the changing political landscape, maintaining their relevance and influence. //
The foundation of left-wing activism in the United States can be traced back to a deliberate strategy orchestrated by the Soviet Union in the 1960s. This plan was aimed at undermining Western culture and destabilizing American society by promoting divisive ideologies and fostering internal dissent. The Soviets knew that to weaken the Western world, they needed to create discord from within, leading to a systematic effort to infiltrate various aspects of American life.
After the end of the Cold War, many leftists aligned with the Communist Party of the Soviet Union shifted their focus to the "green" movement. This shift was marked by Gorbachev's founding of the Green Cross, proving that the "green" movement was always a communist front.
The Soviet strategy aimed not only to spread communism but also to create a lasting legacy that would continue to influence and disrupt Western culture. By embedding operatives and sympathizers within influential institutions, the Soviets set the stage for long-term subversion. This approach, often referred to as the "Long March Through the Institutions," involved systematically infiltrating and gaining control of key societal structures, such as education, media, and non-profit organizations.
There's an old rural metaphor that applies to a lot of politicians today. The metaphor in question is that of the "Fencepost Turtle," and it involves someone walking down the road and seeing an old wooden fencepost, and on top of the fencepost, balanced uncomfortably on his plastron, is a turtle. Now you look at that turtle, and you immediately know three things about it: 1) It doesn't belong up there, 2) It didn't get up there by itself, and 3) It's only a matter of time before someone comes along and knocks it off the fencepost.
Kamala Harris is a fencepost turtle. We all know how her political career started. We all know why she was Joe Biden's 2020 VP pick.
But it's 2024 now, and the question arises: Which of Donald Trump's possible VP picks presents the greatest challenge to Kamala Harris? //
Granted, some people think Kamala Harris is doing a bang-up job, and if you were to take those people and line them up end-to-end, they'd all sleep a lot more comfortably. But those few people aside, there are a lot more who look at VP Harris and wonder just what the heck Joe Biden (or whoever actually made that decision) was thinking. //
Failing upward is never the right way to get to the top. Sometimes, though, it can get one pretty damn close, which explains Kamala Harris. But, barring some calamity, this fall, Kamala Harris's tenure on the fencepost will end.
End Wokeness
@EndWokeness
·
Follow
HOLY SH*T.
Macron just announced that he will hold an election in July after his CRUSHING defeat tonight.
The election was supposed to be in 2027.
Readers added context
Macron announced the dissolution of the National Assembly, not an early presidential election. He remains president until 2027. Dissolving the Assembly triggers new legislative elections, allowing for potential changes in parliament without affecting his presidential term.
shorturl.at/FWRjr
shorturl.at/3jzYS
Context is written by people who use X, and appears when rated helpful by others.
3:13 PM · Jun 9, 2024 //
The call for elections highlights the transforming politics in Europe as opinions are increasingly against the left. Macron is, not surprisingly unhappy, with that:
“The rise of nationalists and demagogues is a danger for our nation and for Europe,” Mr. Macron said. “After this day I cannot go on as though nothing has happened.”
The French leader has always been a passionate supporter of the 27-nation European Union, seeing in it the sole means for Europe to count in the world and calling on it to achieve “strategic autonomy” through ever greater integration. But the political winds have turned in favor of less Europe, not more. //
Richard Grenell @RichardGrenell
·
Europe moves Right.
The Progressive Left is being rejected.
PeterSweden @PeterSweden7
BREAKING: The right-wing Parties are set to make MASSIVE gains all over Europe in the EU elections.
3:26 PM · Jun 9, 2024
The results in both France and Belgium indicate a growing political move in Europe toward the right as economic issues, unfettered immigration, and other concerns are turning off voters: //
Oli London
@OliLondonTV
·
Follow
Belgian Prime Minister appears to be on the verge of TEARS after his liberal party suffered a staggering defeat in the EU elections.
Alexander De Croo, who is vocally anti-Israel, RESIGNED after his party received just 5.8% of the votes.
6:04 PM · Jun 9, 2024 //
End Wokeness
@EndWokeness
·
Follow
Today is the start of a new era in Europe:
🇫🇷 France: National Rally wins a historic 31.5% of the EU vote, forcing Macron to dissolve the national parliament.
🇩🇪 Germany: AfD surges to become the 2nd largest party, liberal parties tank.
🇧🇪 Belgium: Prime Minister resigns after his crushing defeat against the right.
Italy: Meloni's Brother of Italy wins in a historic landslide
Austria: FPÖ doubles their seats and becomes the largest party in the nation.
Spain: Right beating the left by 10%.
Luxemburg: First ever seat for ADR.
It's almost as if Democrats don't want Republicans protected. Hmmm. //
anon-ev27
12 hours ago
Deja Vu all over again. We have Milwaukee city hall, (the mayor and chief of staff), the Milwaukee police chief, and the Federal US Secret Service all refusing to properly protect an event. They claim they are not expecting any violence, but they want violence, they want another riot to ensue so they can blame MAGA again. The free speech zone for the DNC convention is 3 miles away so you can be sure no main stream media cameras will be filming "that mostly peaceful protest". Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. The GOP is being setup again. They should move the convention or force the USSS to change their plans. //
anon-u50m anon-ev27
4 hours ago
GOP always brings marbles to a gunfight.
Andrew Breitbart famously asserted that politics is downstream from culture, implying that cultural values and norms prefigure and shape political outcomes. The conventional interpretation seems true on its face, that by the time a political issue comes to the fore, it has already been shaped and conditioned by the cultural milieu.
This perspective resonates widely, particularly among conservatives, framing politics as a passive arena, shaped by the stronger currents of cultural change. However, this viewpoint, while compelling, merits a closer examination to explore the possibility that the relationship between politics and culture may be more reciprocal than it appears.
This conventional framing of Breitbart's claim implies a sequence where cultural values and norms evolve independently of political influence, subsequently molding political outcomes. //
As political mastery involves both the subtle nuances of personal skill and the broader application of power within institutions, it becomes a critical component in the bidirectional influence between politics and culture. This understanding reveals that mastery of political processes is essential for maintaining and expanding influence within any arena, political or otherwise. //
Whether dealing with ideological shifts, mundane administrative adjustments, or crafting overarching policies, the fundamental processes are consistent. This universality underscores that the strategies used to sway opinion, garner support, or suppress dissent in politics are akin to those used across all those where process itself applies.
Moreover, understanding "Culture" as a type of influence rather than a static set of values or norms reveals its dynamic nature. Culture is not just a backdrop against which politics happens; it is a malleable field that can be shaped and reshaped through deliberate actions. Recognizing culture as a learnable, manipulable, and masterable process allows for a more proactive approach to cultural engagement and political success, challenging the traditional perception of culture as merely a byproduct of societal evolution.
The notion that everything from casting a ballot to crafting a policy involves manipulable processes highlights the need for a deep understanding of these mechanisms. //
Andrew Breitbart famously posited that politics is downstream from culture, suggesting that cultural forces shape the political landscape. However, the evidence we've examined presents a compelling case for a more nuanced relationship, where political processes actively sculpt and redefine cultural realms. This dynamic interplay reveals that political actors, through deliberate strategies and mastery of processes, have not only influenced but reshaped cultural institutions to align with specific ideological goals.
The 'Long March Through the Institutions' and tactics like those outlined in Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals exemplify how deeply political mechanics can penetrate into areas once deemed apolitical, such as education, media, and even personal social networks. These strategic infiltrations demonstrate the capacity of political forces to engineer cultural environments that perpetuate their ideologies, challenging the notion that culture merely influences politics and underscoring that politics can, indeed, flow upstream.
This realization invites readers to reconsider the traditional views of cultural influence and encourages a deeper exploration into how political processes are intricately woven into the fabric of societal norms and values. The implications of this analysis are vast, suggesting that understanding and mastering these political processes is not merely an academic exercise but a necessary endeavor for anyone looking to build victory.
Sinistra Delenda Est! //
emptypockets
8 hours ago
"Socialism is precisely the religion that must overwhelm Christianity. … In the new order, Socialism will triumph by first capturing the culture via infiltration of schools, universities, churches and the media by transforming the consciousness of society."
-- Antonio Gramsci
(1891-1937) Italian Marxist theoretician and politician, “class warrior”
Source: 1915 //
Cafeblue32
18 hours ago edited
No, Breitbart was not wrong. The proof is in the people we elect from the culture. It's why everything Trump did was undone overnight once he left- you can change the leaders 50 times, but unless you change the culture that produces them and votes for them, nothing changes for long. Politics doesn't create culture, it capitalizes on it. Politics didn't create the divisions we have. It merely exploited them and grew them as a means to political power. The academics and elites who benefit from a divided culture are the ones who drive the culture, not politics that arise from it. Cultural problems are always made and fixed from the bottom up, never the top down. The government we get is a symptom of it.
American politics did not create the war in Ukraine nor the Gaza conflict. Both predate America by many centuries. But it does feed it and capitalize from it. When there is power and money to be found in division and conflict, there is every incentive to make sure it continues. //
emptypockets
19 hours ago edited
As one Leftist pundit phrased it, the Left, the "Democrats have mastered Process"...which is where you ended up. I hadn't looked at it that way till she said it but she...and you are right. They are collectivists, doing everything in groups attracted by "activists"/"community organizers"....or in plainspeak, rabble rousers. They pontificate how if you are with them in lockstep you, too are "on the right side of history". Those not there will find increasing discomfort at their hands...even unto lengthy prison sentences. Or worse. The history they believe they're directing tells us they always go too far. If we don't stop ours now, we'll be worse than Venezuela before another 4 years have passed.
The "cure" for the politicization of all that was never supposed to BE political but has been captured by the Left's processes is to shrink gov't, pull it out of areas completely. But that would gore herds of oxen, each with several elected and appointed "defenders". It will have to get worse yet before we can effect changes to make it better. //
Indylawyer
19 hours ago
I agree it works both ways. However, as conservatives we need to recognize that government provides a very clumsy tool for any building project. We are not going to be able to use government to rebuild a free society, but we do need to start attacking the government projects that are actively undermining the free society we inherited from our ancestors. Some of the most poisonous government projects at work are (1) "anti-discrimination" laws - these effectively force every institution to over-consider race in order to avoid being accused of "discrimination" or "bigotry". (2) Government schools - regardless of the curriculum, the existence of this institution establishes the principle that government is a provider of important services. It also does a lousy job of educating, and necessarily establishes some sort of religious views. (3) our byzantine system of welfare programs and tax credits which reward bad choices in the name of determining "need." Biggest impact of this is to discourage marriage, but it also punishes work and savings.
Thomas… described Washington as a place where “people pride themselves in being awful.”
“It is a hideous place as far as I’m concerned,” Thomas said.
“It’s one of the reasons we like RVing,” he added. “You get to be around regular people who don’t pride themselves in doing harmful things merely because they have the capacity to do it or because they disagree.”
Thomas should know—he was at the center of the Anita Hill fiasco—overseen by then-Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Joe Biden—where he was subjected to evidence-free, humiliating claims of sexual harassment during his SCOTUS confirmation hearings in 1991. Biden not surprisingly—in a preview of what has befallen us—utterly failed to control the proceedings, and they became a national embarrassment that decades later led to the equally clownish Brett Kavanaugh confirmation process.
For all its chronic corruption, patronage, and nepotism, the Chicago Democratic political machine has always interested me as an example of legendary political success. //
It was the 1970s when Mayor Richard J. Daley, the portly Chicago native whose 74-year-old heart was weakening, unbeknownst to him. For 21 long years, he would rule the Democrat machine of The City That Worked by being publicly jolly but internally iron-fisted.
As with most dictators, Daley permitted no potential rivals to flourish. Which resulted in considerable chaos when he suddenly died in 1976. //
I was a newspaper correspondent in Chicago in the 70s and 80s. I had an office assistant I’ll call Evie. One autumn evening she was walking home on the North Side, grocery bags in both hands, when a mugger with a long knife leapt from the bushes.
Terrified, she relinquished her purse. The assailant ran off. //
Which reminded him to remind her that the election for mayor was on that coming Tuesday. She probably knew that Mayor Daley was seeking his sixth term and the precinct captain hoped she’d support the man who employed the men who had taken such good care of her.
The result, which helps explain nearly a century of one party’s political dominance there, was that on Tuesday Evie cast her ballot to reelect the same man who presided over Chicago that scary night when she got mugged on a dark stretch of city sidewalk.
Ten days after the 2020 election, Tom Bevan, co-founder and president of RealClearPolitics, received an email from a New York Times reporter who covers the media. The reporter, Jeremy W. Peters, advised Bevan that his newspaper was working on a story about RCP and asked for responses to various questions and accusations. Four days later, Peters’ critique was published under the headline “A Popular Political Site Made a Sharp Right Turn. What Steered It.”
The sleight-of-hand was right there in the headline. The New York Times simply declared that RCP “made a sharp right turn,” and suggested it will document how this happened.
Here is how parents are winning:
School district attorneys are the biggest obstacle to school districts making change. As my insider said, "The lawyers are a huge, huge problem in every school district." California public records requests in several pending lawsuits show where lawyers have counseled school districts on ways to circumvent the Constitution at the state and federal levels. So, when you get your board members installed, move to fire the district lawyers.
A fish rots from the head. Do like OUSD did: move to get rid of the superintendent and their assistants. "This is the most local control that any municipality has," my insider said.
Parent-first activists, pro-parent boards, and candidates must get their own public relations and social media arms. Every public entity—especially the unions—has a communications apparatus. If money is an issue, someone's savvy teenager can do this for their pro-parent school board and school board candidates. Part of the reason the unions get all the attention is that they have the legacy media in their pockets and they have activists on hand to work social media to their advantage. Pro-parent advocates and school boards need to pay greater attention to getting their message out.
The pro-parent agenda is winning in the courts.
So why is Ford back in the news? On the surface, it's to make money off her new memoir, but that only speaks to her motivation. The motivation of ABC News and other outlets to once again platform her is not some book that likely won't sell well. It's to ramp up attacks on the Supreme Court during an election year.
Members of the press and the Democratic Party are currently in the midst of a war against the nation's highest court, and the goal is to discredit it by any means necessary heading into November. The more anger is driven at the Supreme Court, the more the left feels it will benefit from voters who disapprove of recent decisions spanning abortion to gun rights. Marching Ford back into the spotlight is yet another way to act as if the current makeup of the court is illegitimate.
Americans live in a country full of people who truly believe their political opponents should be killed for disagreeing with them. Worse, they've convinced themselves that such a position is righteous. After all, when you aren't just instituting policy but are "protecting democracy" from "fascists," pretty much anything is on the table. In their minds, there won't be a country left if they don't do whatever it takes to retain power.
Would Olbermann and the millions of other deranged leftists who think like him throw everyone in the image headlining this article in gulags if they had the chance? You can bet your house they would. That's what makes them so insidious as a political force. They have no boundaries because, in their minds, they are saving the country. //
The problem for Olbermann and many on the left is that they have nothing else in their life providing them with a sense of purpose. They don't believe in God. They don't have families to go home to. That leaves them deriving their purpose from an ever-escalating delusion of "defending democracy." What does Olbermann have other than shouting like a lunatic on social media about killing his political opponents?
His behavior is a warning we should all heed. There's a difference between caring about politics and making it the very foundation of one's worth and being. A person who does the latter is teetering on the edge, and it's a long way down. //
KJSpeed
37 minutes ago
Anyone who puts their faith in politicians and political solutions to the problems in this world faces a lifetime of frustration, disappointment and despair. Fighting these spiritual battles with political weaponry is about as effective as bringing a water pistol to a gunfight. It is good to stay engaged, but not consumed. //
St. Joseph, Terror of Demons KJSpeed
25 minutes ago
That’s why unless Trump becomes a committed Christian, he will not be able to beat the globalists and leftists who are anti-God.
This is a spiritual battle that simple politics cannot overcome.
Republican Mark Robinson's rise in North Carolina politics has been nothing short of spectacular.
It all started in the spring of 2018 when Robinson, a Greensboro resident who at the time worked in furniture manufacturing, appeared before the city council to speak his mind on gun rights as the city considered canceling a gun show. //
AirdaleNavy_AX3
11 hours ago
In 1969, a tome was published by Canadian business professor Dr. Laurence Peter that primarily talked about people being promoted to their level of incompetence, but the real take-away found in the later chapters is Dr. Peter's exposure on how human hierarchies actually operate. We warns his readers that the No. 1 Rule of every hierarchy is the 'preservation of the hierarchy.' Had DJT been aware of this warning when he took office in Jan. 2017 and cleaned out every department in our government of entrenched deep-staters we wouldn't have the mess we do today. Mark Robinson is a hierarchy crusher... The Dems know it, the RINO's know it and those buried deep in U.S. and North Carolina gov't know it. The hierarchy "preservation" has already begun in N.C. and Robinson is just the man to stand up and crush it.
McConnell did not care about my complaints or your complaints. He did not care about those who vilified him or his own popularity. He did not care that Republicans would attack him on the campaign trail and denounce him on TV. He did not care that Democrats made McConnell the most disliked national politician in America. Real Clear Politics’ political average for McConnell has him with a 21% national approval rating — lower than any other national political figure, including Kamala Harris.
But Mitch McConnell does not care. He is elected by the people of Kentucky who have been returning him to the Senate more than any other senator in the commonwealth’s 232 year history. He cares about Kentucky, not national opinion polls.
Mitch McConnell does not care that Republicans or Democrats dislike him.
McConnell not caring about those things made him dangerously successful at his job. He had to care about a majority of the Republicans in the United States Senate, not you or me.
As an appropriator, he knew how to cobble together deals and build coalitions. He took that skill to the Republican Leader’s office. He often sacrificed things we conservatives wanted to instead make life comfortable for Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, or any number of other liberal to moderate Republicans who sometimes then made deals that conservatives hated.
They kept McConnell in charge and, in turn, McConnell kept the GOP mostly in the majority and, through that, blocked Democrat judges and rapidly confirmed Republican judges.
Mitch McConnell did not care about your or my temper tantrums and demands because he has long understood that a Republican majority, for better or worse, had the power to block the administrative state and build a judiciary that has no term limits or elections for its members. He has cared very deeply about that.