The Swamp Glossary

The Swamp will use various baseball terms in an effort to lower the expectations of conservatives and to even encourage them to a full unconditional surrender to the Swamp's agenda. An example includes, "There are no home runs in this bill, but there are a few singles and doubles that we can be proud of."

To excessively think about policy, and thus become paralyzed, instead of fighting in the political arena.

"[Blank] is a serious legislator" is a term that is meant to imply that this lawmaker's opinions far outweigh the opinions of "non-serious legislators" (read: conservatives).

A pejorative term used by the Establishment to describe the infighting within the GOP when conservatives demand conservative policies.

The Swamp uses this term to justify passing a bloated, big government bill - often an omnibus budget bill - so that members can simply move on to the next fight, "clear the decks" again, and constantly repeat the process. Conservatives correctly refer to this as "kicking the can down the road".

When all options to derail a conservative bill fail, the Swamp resorts to calling it a "dangerous precedent" in order to stoke fear into rank and file members who are easily persuadable.

An expression of concern from Republican leadership that is triggered when embarrassing information about a fellow Republican reaches the public. Despite its wording, the phrase is rarely about the underlying conduct and almost always about identifying the source and containing the fallout.

Translation: “Who told the voters that we suck?”

This is a legislative exercise where Leadership calls a vote on a conservative priority as a way to assuage conservatives. But the vote is always doomed to fail, thus allowing the Uniparty priority to move forward towards passage.

Used by Establishment warmongers to justify more defense spending, needless military adventures, and endless wars.

When the Swamp says it is "fighting tooth and nail" on behalf of a conservative priority, it means they aren't fighting tooth and nail, and are simply looking for way to maintain the status quo while achieving the short-term political objective of staying in control.

When leadership condescendingly talks to a conservative.

This is uttered by the Swamp to show the public that they are VERY serious about bipartisan negotiations when in reality there will be no serious negotiations and the Swamp will do anything to avoid passage of real conservative priorities like shutting down the border or cutting spending.

A common term used by the Swamp to excuse collective action in support of bigger government. By using the phrase “functioning majority,” the Swamp intends to excuse voting against the American people’s interests.

A corollary, “dysfunctional majority” is the accusation leveled when members vote against the Swamp in sufficient numbers to kill a bad idea.

A pointless assignment given to conservatives by Leadership in order to distract them or buy time.

The Swamp takes a paternalistic approach to interactions with conservative members.

When they indicate the need to “have a conversation” what they mean is a lecture, employing the full power of the glossary, to put conservatives in their place. They also "have conversations" in order to stall for time so they can undermine the conservative agenda.

As in, “We're currently having conversations with our members. Now is not the right time to do [insert conservative policy priority].”

To schedule a gratuitous vote, or to otherwise attempt to placate conservatives without achieving real policy victories.

SCIF stands for Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility. SCIF briefings are given to members of Congress to share classified information about foreign policy. SCIF briefings are designed to artificially inflate America's real and perceived threats in order to greatly expand their budgets. This phrase is an excuse made by warhawks and malleable members of the Swamp to justify spending money on endless wars, foreign aid, and expansive surveillance authorities.

The excuse given by a Swamp member who is unwilling to fight for conservative policies. As in, "If I had a magic wand, I would end all abortions with no exceptions". But in reality, the phrase publicly conveys immediate surrender to the Uniparty's liberal agenda.

Commonly said by swampy appropriators when spending under their jurisdiction is threatened by conservatives. Appropriators use this phrase to deflect away from their wasteful spending and towards the "shiny object" of entitlements. When conservative attention is ever focused on entitlements, a swampy non-appropriator will then deflect by saying, "We need to focus on the waste, fraud, and abuse" on the discretionary side of the budget. This creates a vicious cycle orchestrated by The Swamp so that no spending is every cut in any part of the budget.

A common accusation by the Swamp leveled at a conservative to make the conservative feel guilty for exposing the Uniparty's liberal motives.

Used by a member of Swamp to appear being with conservatives, but in reality, the member is not. An example is, "I'm with you guys on the pro-life issue, but we can't fight on it right now." A related glossary term is, "I take a back seat to no one when it comes to [insert conservative issue]"

When a Swamp member uses this phrase, the desired effect is to educate the public that this member is an awesome conservative on a particular issue. But all it does is confirm that the member is a Swamp creature. Alternative phrases include "I'm as pro-life as they come, but...!" or "I'm a lifelong conservative, but...". Swamp members also frequently cite their artificially inflated ACU rating to prove they are conservative or they reference Ronald Reagan to justify their swampy behavior.

A common excuse made by a Uniparty member to avoid tackling a conservative priority in Congress. The priority in question is almost always a federal issue.

A common excuse made by a liberal Republican to avoid having to support a conservative policy solution. No attempt is ever made by leadership to question the validity of the district "problem". Alternative uses include, "Let's get through the elections first".

The Swamp loves to attach "job, jobs, jobs" to every government initiative. Subsidies to woke Green Energy companies? It's all about the jobs. War in Ukraine? It's a jobs program. It is irrelevant to the Swamp if a government proposal restricts liberty or grows government. It's all about the jobs!

Uttered by an Establishment member when they are getting schooled in a debate by a conservative. It is meant to interrupt the conservative’s momentum and shut down the conversation.

A phrase uttered by a lobbyist to a lawmaker so they can wine and dine them. The lobbyist's chief goal by using this term is to personalize the relationship, through breaking bread together, thus making it extremely uncomfortable for the lawmaker to kill the lobbyist's bills when they come under consideration.

A common plea made by a Swamp member when they realize that conservatives have outmaneuvered them. The process or the "procedure" is the method by which conservative policies die, so letting the process play out assures the Uniparty will win. In a moment of candor, Democrat Rep. John Dingell was right when he said, "If I let you write the substance and you let me write the procedure, I’ll screw you every time.”

The belief that honorable service in the military conveys a lifetime license to destroy the country as a politician. Contemporary examples include (but are certainly not limited to) Senator Todd Young, Reps. Dan Crenshaw, Derrick Van Orden, Jen Kiggans, Jake Ellzey, Brian Mast, Morgan Luttrell, and Tony Gonzales. The first sentence in this glossary entry is attributed to @Oilfield_Rando on X.

The Swamp will routinely shift blame away from their own bad policies onto conservatives by claiming that conservatives are “moving the goalposts”. The Swamp then gets corporate media to assert this as a fact, forcing conservatives to play defense.

A Uniparty member will routinely cite national security as a reason for rejecting a conservative policy solution. The solution almost always has nothing to do with national security.

A common deflection made by the Uniparty to insist that conservative voices will still be heard before a bill's language is finalized. In reality, the bill has been finalized, but is being kept private until the last minute so that they can avoid the public scrutiny that will almost certainly doom the bill to failure.

The Swamp uses this term to justify more government spending and military adventurism.

The Swamp likes to portray the debates in Congress as extremely partisan, giving the public the illusion that the two parties constantly fight each other - with each party claiming the mantle of moral superiority. But in truth, the Swamp is extremely bipartisan in their efforts to grow government.

When the beard-stroking paralysis becomes so intense that conservatives fear imaginary bad things that come from staying true to principles.

Used by the Swamp to justify a new program, more spending, and especially corporate welfare. As in, by creating this program, "we're going to achieve a huge return on investment by creating jobs and attracting new business to the area". A true conservative never uses this phrase to describe government operations.

When the Swamp gets frustrated that their agenda is getting derailed by conservatives, they condescendingly urge everyone to "row in the same direction". But the direction has to be towards the Swamp's agenda, not towards anything remotely conservative.

To enthusiastically applaud a shiny object.

An item used by Republican Leadership to distract conservatives.

The Swamp uses this term when conservatives attempt to actually fight for conservative priorities. By opposing government shutdowns, the Swamp is signaling that it doesn't want to use any leverage to support anything that might actually reduce the size and scope of an ever-growing weaponized government.

Based on Reagan's so-called 11th Commandment which declared "Thou shall not speak ill of another Republican." This is cited by the Establishment in a finger-wagging tone when conservatives call them out for being swampy.

A common tactic where the Establishment starts off with a liberal proposal, endures conservative pushback, but muddles the narrative so that at the end of the debate, the liberal proposal is the one chosen.

Invoking "the experts" is a go-to move by The Swamp to dismiss a conservative proposal. The Swamp often offers this argument with no real evidence to back it up. Example: "I rise today to object to this proposal. It may have good intentions behind it, but I'm hearing from the experts that there are unintended policy implications if this bill were to pass."

The Swamp likes to use this term to paint itself as the rational statesmen in the room, as opposed to conservatives who they believe don't live in reality. Examples include, "The reality is we can't shut down the government. Or, "The reality is we simply don't have the votes" to pass a conservative priority.

This term is used by the Uniparty to deflect responsibility for their own failed policies. It's also used to claim authority over the Executive Branch when it comes to spending money on pork projects.

A term used by leadership to disparage the work of conservatives.

A common excuse made by liberal Republicans right before they surrender to Uniparty demands. Alternative usage includes, We gotta take half a loaf and Unfortunately we live in the real world.

When conservatives bring national attention to passing conservative legislation (like a strong border bill), this phrase is uttered by The Swamp in an attempt to shift focus towards passing big government bills instead. This maneuver will allow their swampy bills to move forward, while buying them time to undermine the conservative legislation.

An attempt by the Uniparty to avoid holding a vote for a conservative priority. Alternative uses include making the false claim that there are absentee problems so a vote can't be scheduled. Or that a bill has "math problems".

Common excuse made by the Swamp to endorse the least conservative candidate over the conservative movement's preferred candidate. For example, Swamp member Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), as NRSC chair, endorsed liberal Charlie Crist over Marco Rubio in 2010. At the time, he stated, "My goal is to add as many Republicans as possible. I looked for the most conservative candidate who can win in a state."

A common plea made by a Uniparty member when their dirty laundry is publicly aired by a conservative. Keeping the dirty laundry in house is an attempt to silence conservatives from alerting voters that the Uniparty is trying to screw them. Alternative uses include the Uniparty telling the conservative that they must be a team player.

The Swamp consists of fake outside groups that claim to be focused on advancing conservative policies, but actually cater to the desires of Leadership. When a Swampy bill is on the floor, they will feign opposition to it, but will refuse to score the vote because it would harm the Swamp's fake reputation back home.

An accusation leveled from a Uniparty member to a conservative when the conservative has the upperhand on a policy fight.

A policy fight that a particular member is obsessed with, almost to the point of losing rational thought.

A phrase used by Leadership staff when conservatives outmaneuver them. Conservatives are never under any obligation to tell The Swamp their strategy for defeating them.