Archive for Republicans

BOO!!!

Gotcha, suckahs!

The GOP is outright fear-mongering over a handful of infections. Sadly, it’s working — and just before Election Day.

The GOP’s lack of interest in news must be the explanation for why they continue to whip up fears about Ebola, right? For example, during Thursday’s U.S. Senate debate in New Hampshire, Republican Scott Brown mentioned that, “There is a rational fear from citizens in New Hampshire” that “people with diseases are coming through our border.”

Of course, Brown didn’t cite even one example of an Ebola-infected person sneaking into the United States. But hey, facts don’t matter when scaring voters.

[W]hy are the Republicans continuing with their one-two punch of “Ebola is going to get you” and “Obama is failing to protect your family?” Simple. Fear is the GOP’s modus operandi. We have seen the GOP use it effectively in the past regarding gay marriage, Muslims, blacks and Latinos. They scare voters into voting for them because frankly it’s much simpler than discussing complex issues—like creating jobs, immigration reform, or health care.

And here’s the worst part: Two polls released this week indicate it’s working again. A Politico poll released Monday found that nearly one-third of respondents said they were either losing or have no confidence in the federal government’s handing of the Ebola outbreak.

Add to that a survey released Wednesday that finds that the GOP’s fear-mongering has taken hold of Americans. Almost 46 percent said they were deeply concerned Ebola would spread widely across the country despite the fact that only two people contracted the disease on U.S. soil.

This couldn’t have played out any better for the GOP. First, they scare everyone. Then they position themselves as the guardians of the galaxy who will save us all from this dastardly threat.

Guilty as charged. What gave us away?

Just one small correction for this liberal, elitist hater of Mr. and Mrs. America. They were already scared.

Those few of them who still believed anything this government said compared the reality in the news with the effluvium excreted in news conferences, and came to their own conclusions. They were just looking for someone to represent their views. Republicans dutifully stepped forward (joined by more than a few Democrats, it must be said).

I think we’ll probably survive Ebola as a nation. The Obama regime is a much dicier proposition.

Comments

The Life Of Julia: 2014

Remember the Obama 2012 campaign ads about Julia, who travels cradle to grave on government subsidies?

How’s Julia doing today?

If “Life of Julia,” President Obama’s 2012 online version of liberal paradise characterized by cradle-to-grave dependency on the government, were to be revived, the Republicans might be the ones to benefit:

President Obama delivers remarks at the Democratic National Committee’s Women’s Leadership Forum in Washington in September. (Evan Vucci/Associated Press)
Julia’s grandfather has been waiting for treatment from the Department of Veterans Affairs for years and lives with pain. She liked the idea of Obamacare at first, but it turned out to be a nightmare to sign up and very expensive. She is now paying more than she used to for health care while her salary has been flat for several years. To keep up with expenses, she tries to take on extra work and rent out her spare room through Airbnb, but the city is threatening to shut that down. Her son, a recent college grad, is back living at home since he’s got a boatload of debt and rotten job prospects. Her younger child keeps getting A’s but doesn’t seem to be learning much; Julia worries whether she will be college-ready. The school choice program the state set up sounds great, but the Justice Department is suing to end it.

Meanwhile, her brother is getting discharged by the Army, part of the recent cutbacks. Having lived through 9/11, Julia is more nervous than she has been in a long time because terrorist groups seem stronger than ever and Iran may get the bomb. Ebola has freaked her out, and she has had to stop watching the news, which brings on panic attacks. With the Fed keeping interest rates so low, she is not getting the sort of return on her savings she counted on, and she’s worried Medicare is not going to be there for the long haul. The president sounds like a teenager — nothing is ever his fault.

More at the link. Great stuff. She gets into something called Reform Conservatism, which sounds interesting.

– Aggie

Comments

Who Told?

It was supposed to be a secret!

Republicans Pave Way to All-White Future

In an interview with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, [Sen. John McCain] said that, “I understand now, especially in my home state of Arizona, that these children coming, and now with the threat of ISIS … that we have to have a secure border.”

Follow that? Immigration reform, including the legalization of millions of immigrants already living in the U.S., is on hold because tens of thousands of Central American children have surrendered to border authorities. Also, because a sadistic army is killing people in Syria and Iraq. McCain, often a summer soldier when the forces of demagogy call, was perhaps too embarrassed to link Ebola to the new orthodoxy; of course, others already have.

Forgive us, for we have sinned. We thought that America could choose who came into this country. We believed America could screen the sick and the criminal. Whatever came over us?

“Secure the border” is an empty slogan and practical nightmare. But if you’re a conservative politician desperate to assuage (or exploit) what writer Steve Chapman calls the “deep anxieties” stirred by “brown migrants sneaking over from Mexico,” it’s an empty slogan with legs. It will be vastly easier for Republicans running in 2016 to shout “secure the border” than to defy the always anxious, politically-empowered Republican base.

He knows us so well—it’s almost like he’s in our minds!

Secure the border? What rot! Brown migrants? Ick! Always anxious? What makes you say that? Huh? What?

[T]he path of least resistance — and it has been many years since national Republicans have taken a different route — will be to continue reassuring the base while alienating brown voters. (After six years in which Republicans’ highest priority has been destruction of the nation’s first black president, it’s doubtful black voters will be persuadable anytime soon.) The party’s whole diversity gambit goes out the window. The White Album plays in perpetuity on Republican turntables.

That would be a significant problem if it resulted only in the marginalization and regionalization of the nation’s conservative party. But a racial hunkering down in an increasingly multi-racial nation will not be a passive or benign act. Pressed to the demographic wall, Republicans will be fighting to win every white vote, not always in the most high-minded manner. Democrats, likewise, will have a powerful incentive to question the motives and consequences of their opponents’ racial solidarity.

Immigration has always been about more than race.

Finally, he got something right. Immigration—illegal immigration—is about illegality. It’s about violating our borders (an act that gets you shot in many countries); it’s about violating our visas (which gets you thrown into jail and then deported,if you’re lucky, in many countries); it’s about forging documents and claiming benefits and evading taxes (which gets you enrolled in the Democrat Party in this country); it’s about illness, illiteracy, illogic, and, again, illegality.

By all means, give us “comprehensive immigration reform”, even if you aren’t going to like what it means to us.

PS: Just like President Obama, this guy seems awfully concerned with the welfare of the Republican Party. If we’ve already written off blacks (according to him), and are in the process of writing off “browns”, why doesn’t he just keep quiet and let us self-destruct? Very curious.

Comments

Benghazi Blues

Over at NRO, something is bothering Andy McCarthy’s mind—and mine:

Why Won’t Republicans Get to the Bottom of Benghazi?
It’s not just Democrats who don’t want a full public airing.

In the midst of Libya’s civil war, the United States government decided to switch sides — we went from support for the Qaddafi regime that had been regarded as a key counterterrorism ally to support for “rebels” who very much included the anti-American jihadists Qaddafi had been helping us track. That was not just an Obama-administration policy preference; it had strong support from prominent senior Republicans in Congress. The toppling of Qaddafi that resulted enabled jihadists to raid the regime’s arsenal. That has greatly benefitted both al-Qaeda and the Islamic State terrorists currently rampaging in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and much of northern Africa.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration, again with significant Republican support, decided to aid and abet Syrian “rebels” who, as in Libya, very much included anti-American jihadists. There is colorable suspicion that this assistance included the gathering up of arms in Libya for shipment to Syrian “rebels.” Abdelhakim Belhadj, the al-Qaeda operative who was Ambassador Stevens’s “rebel” point-man in Benghazi, was clearly involved in at least one major shipment of weapons that went to Syrian “rebels” — including to some of the jihadist groups the United States is now bombing. That shipment was coordinated by Turkey, a country with which Ambassador Stevens, Secretary Clinton, and President Obama worked closely — a country whose ambassador was the last diplomat Stevens met with in Benghazi before being killed.

There will be no accountability for the Benghazi massacre absent a full public airing of what the United States government was doing in that most dangerous of places: Setting up shop among anti-American jihadists and staying there like sitting ducks even as other countries and international organizations pulled out. What was the benefit? Trying to limit the damage caused by switching sides in Libya? Fueling a new jihadist threat in Syria and Iraq — the very one we are now struggling to quell?

In Washington, there seem to be a lot of people resistant to a full public airing of the policy. They may not all be Democrats.

Libya, Syria, Turkey, Obama, Clinton, Stevens…and Republicans?

I’m as partisan as the next man—more, much more—and I love to see Clinton twisting in the wind, but if that’s all Benghazi is to Republicans in Congress, shame on them. If Stevens was part of some shady, dirty operation, maybe he knew what he was in for. Maybe Sean Smith did too. But Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty died trying to save them. I’d say their sacrifice deserves a little more than cheap point-scoring, regardless of where the story leads.

Comments

Hints From Hussein

Why Barack! We didn’t know you cared:

President Barack Obama on Thursday said he still believes Republicans will move on immigration reform — anything else, he said, would be “suicide.”

But “it’s anybody’s guess how Republicans are thinking about this,” he said at a town hall event here.

Tell him, Rahm:

Does it not seem strange to you that Obama would be so concerned with the welfare of Republicans? He speaks so ill of them.

“I think the smarter Republicans understand this. Short term, though, they’ve got a problem in the tea party and others who oftentimes express virulently anti-immigrant sentiment,” Obama said, saying he’s confident that by 2016 at least “Congress will see the light, because the logic of it is too compelling.”

“My general theory is that if something makes a lot of sense that we should go ahead and do it, rather than not do it,” Obama said. “But that’s just me.”

Logic, huh? How about this sense? Why would anyone waste his time immigrating legally if he could get a better deal swimming across the Rio Grande? What controls on health and public safety do we have on criminal aliens? How can those working in jobs that illegals often do (landscapers, say) improve their lot when illegals drive down their wages? What future do illegals have as honest citizens when their introduction to this country is based on lies, deceit, law-breaking, tax-avoidance, etc? And what wretched Guatemalan would not hop the first freight train out of Tegucigalpa after a second amnesty (the first—and supposedly only—time being in 1986)?

But that’s just me. Thanks, though. Appreciate the concern.

Comments (1)

GOP: Grumpy Old Peni

Those angry Republicans!

Two international crises are giving Republicans new reasons to break out a familiar rallying cry — secure the border — just weeks before the midterm elections.

Secure the border? Who are these people?

Why would anyone want to secure the border?

A Liberian man’s death in Texas from Ebola is triggering worries that the disease could spread beyond West Africa, while efforts by ISIS to recruit Westerners is stoking fears that its influence could reach into the United States. The seemingly disparate issues are gelling into a single talking point for Republicans arguing that weak border security is leaving the United States vulnerable.

Those wacky Republicans! Ebola spread beyond Africa? ISIS try to kill Americans? What are they smoking? Next they’ll tell us that there’s been no global warming since Bill Clinton was monogamous (well, close).

Oh, btw, guess what ad tops this story on CNN?

Providing all your hemorrhagic fever needs since 1977.

Comments

BTL’s Midterm Prognostication

Like Carnac the Magnificent, I can see the future.

Unlike Carnac, I do not need a turban or an envelope.

The news will do:

Angry and frustrated voters are planning to use the midterm elections in one month to tell President Obama they oppose his agenda, the highest “no vote” percentage in the last 16 years measured by Gallup.

The polling outfit found that 32 percent of voters want to send a message of opposition with their vote, compared to just 20 percent who are sending a signal of support.

That is 13 points higher than in 1998 when former President Clinton was headed to impeachment for lying about his sex affair with a former White House intern and even a smidge higher — 2 points — than in 2008, when Americans were tired of President Bush’s military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Obama is more hated, more detested, than a philanderer and a war criminal. Armed with that information (such hate speech, BTL!), let’s look at the map:

Untitled

And polling of the closest races:

Untitled

RCP averages several polls, some out of date, but let’s use these numbers. My point is that the pall of Obama is so long and dark (dog whistle!), any race (dog whistle!) in which a Republican is within four points (maybe five) is statistically tied. If I’m right, the GOP will pick up as many as 9 out of ten seats, and hold a 54-46 edge in the Senate. They’ll certainly keep, probably widen, their lead in the House.

I’ve thought this since ObamaCare self-destructed, but who even remembers ObamaCare (for the moment)? Border security and the walking dead (from Liberia) may have shot to the top of Obama’s Incompetence Chart. And his promise of amnesty for illegal aliens can’t be far from voters’ minds.

But so what? What will the Republicans do with their majority? God knows, there’s a lot they can do (or undo), but do they have the will, the nerve, even the intent to push back against Obama’s overreach? 2016 will have to wait; the Democrats are going down—have to go down—this year.

Comments

Lois, You Got Some ‘Splainin’ To Do!

Seriously, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry (from laughter):

Congressional investigators have uncovered emails showing ex-IRS official Lois Lerner targeted a sitting Republican senator for a proposed internal audit, a discovery one GOP lawmaker called “shocking.”

The emails were published late Wednesday by the House Ways and Means Committee and pertain to the woman at the heart of the scandal over IRS targeting of Tea Party groups.

The emails appear to show Lerner mistakenly received an invitation intended for Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, in 2012.

“Looked like they were inappropriately offering to pay for his wife. Perhaps we should refer to Exam?” she wrote.

Her colleague, though, pushed back on the idea, saying an offer to pay for his wife is “not prohibited on its face.” There is no indication from the emails that Lerner pursued the issue any further.

America’s Madame Defarge has blood dripping from her knitting needles. But was she acting alone?

“We have seen a lot of unbelievable things in this investigation, but the fact that Lois Lerner attempted to initiate an apparently baseless IRS examination against a sitting Republican United States Senator is shocking,” Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich., said in a statement.

“At every turn, Lerner was using the IRS as a tool for political purposes in defiance of taxpayer rights.”

Grassley, incidentally, is a member of the Senate Finance Committee — which is one of the congressional panels investigating the IRS over the targeting scandal.

Rep. Charles Boustany, R-La., told Fox News that the revelation that Lerner tried to scrutinize Grassley over an invitation is another example of the administration using the agency as a “political tool, as a weapon.”

The liberal media is weepy that they’re going to tear down the parking garage where Deep Throat met with Bob Woodward. I just hope that IRS HQ is declared a historic building. A site of such epic corruption needs to stand as long as Rome’s crumbling columns have (the only other site of equivalent venality).


The Corps of Rome in Ashes is entombed,
And her great Spirit rejoyned to the Spirit
Of this great Mass, is in the same enwombed

Comments

D v R

A round-up of Democrat behavior from around the country.

New Jersey:

New Jersey city council chairman and mayoral candidate Marie Strumolo Burke was caught on tape lamenting her city’s descent into a “fu*king ni**er town” — and nearly all media reports failed to identify her as a Democrat.

Burke is chairman of Belleville, New Jersey’s city council and is running for mayor in the town’s June election. And yes, she is a member of the Democratic Party.

In an undated recording of a voicemail left by a former council chairman, Burke’s voice can be heard in the background “discussing” proposed changes to the town’s tax rates.

“This is terrible. This is terrible,” she can be heard moaning in the background. “This is gonna be a fu*king ni**er town!”

Illinois:

Former Illinois State Rep. Keith Farnham was charged Monday with using both personal and state-owned computers to trade hundreds of images and videos depicting child pornography and engage in graphic online chats in which he allegedly bragged about sexually molesting a 6-year-old girl.

The federal criminal complaint alleged that Farnham, 66, a Democrat from Elgin, possessed two videos depicting child pornography on a computer that was seized from his state office in Elgin a week before his abrupt resignation in March. Authorities also linked a Yahoo! email account used by Farnham to a online trading forum in which he chatted with other users about his sexual preferences, according to the charges.

“12 is about as old as i can handle,” Farnham allegedly said in one online chat in November, according to the charges. “i love them at 6 7 8”

Farnham – who twice co-sponsored bills in the House that toughened penalties for child pornography — is scheduled to make his initial appearance at the Dirksen U.S. Courthouse on Wednesday.

Massachusetts:

A tweet released on Massachusetts’ official Twitter account that said sexual assault is “avoidable” was an accident and the author will undergo awareness training, the head of the Mass.gov website says.

Executive Director Geoffrey Kula said in a blog post that Wednesday’s tweet was not intended to be malicious. He said it went out without going through the editorial review process, which ensures that content is appropriate.

Kula tweeted an apology Thursday that said: “We in no way meant to suggest that victims of sexual assault are to blame for the crimes committed against them.”

The tweet read: “Sexual assault is always avoidable.” It was released late Wednesday to mark the end of Sexual Assault Awareness Month and some online comments described it as ignorant and insensitive. The tweet was taken down Thursday morning.

California:

Yes, Sterling gave money to Democrats. OpenSecrets.org, absolutely the place to go when you want to follow the money in politics, shows that the “Slumlord Billionaire” has donated a paltry $4,000 to Democrats between 1989 and 1991. Zilch to anyone since then.

New Mexico:

New Mexico’s Democratic gubernatorial candidate, Lawrence Rael, embellished his resume for his campaign website.

Wisconsin:

Gubernatorial challenger Democratic State Representative Brett Hulsey announced plans via Twitter to hand out party hats to Republicans during the 2014 Republican Party of Wisconsin State Convention.

The party hats Hulsey plans to distribute at the Wisconsin GOP convention are white Ku Klux Klan hoods.

Virginia:

Mike Dickinson, the Virginia Democrat who recently vowed to wage “war” on the Tea Party, urged his followers on Twitter to call police on “tea partiers” Monday just to harass them. He also posted pictures of license plates allegedly belonging to Tea Party members and asked supporters to identify them, the Examiner notes.

Now the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles is “looking into” possible illegal activity by Dickinson as he may have violated federal law.

Sonoma County:

One colleague, 3rd District Supervisor Shirlee Zane, has already taken to Facebook to call on [Democrat Efren] Carrillo to resign.

“He terrorized a woman in the middle of the night when she was most vulnerable and he didn’t know her — how would any woman want to sit with a man that did that, to sit and have to make decisions with him?” Zane said Thursday. “How would anybody in their right mind?”

Zane would not reveal the specifics of what what she plans to say on Tuesday, only that it would be a strong condemnation of the behavior Carrillo himself laid out in testimony during the trial. She said Carrillo’s testimony may have helped him win over the jury, but it convinced her that he has no place on the board.

“It might have cleared him of those particular charges but it didn’t clear up what happened that night,” she said.

You get the point. Just remember any or all of these mere anecdotes the next time you hear that Rep. Michael Grimm (by name and nature) represents the soul of the Republican Party.

Comments

Change and Hope

All due respect to our Obamabot friends, but that’s the better order.

For only after you change can you begin to hope:

The choir sang hallelujah as the congregation of 15,000 clapped and sang along. Reverend James Meeks ratcheted up the intensity of his speech. “Man looks at the outside,” he shouted rearing his head back. “But God looks at your heart! Are you with me here?”

Judging by the response, Meeks had the faithful at Salem Baptist Church hanging on his every word.“One hundred percent with Reverend Meeks,” said parishioner Eugene Harris outside the mega-church on Chicago’s fiercely Democratic South Side.

Meeks is careful not to preach politics from the pulpit. That doesn’t mean he does not have a political side. This former state senator is active as a leader in Chicago’s African-American community and also has considerable political clout.

This gubernatorial election he is not throwing that clout behind the Democrat, incumbent Governor Pat Quinn. Instead, Meeks is lining up behind Bruce Rauner, the wealthy Republican businessman from Chicago’s predominantly-white North Shore.

“The Democratic party just assume always that 97 percent of the African-American vote will go to the Democratic party. If that assumption is true, they never have to work for our vote,” Meeks said.

Look at the other places where elections are decided by similar margins. North Korea, Crimea, Saddam’s Iraq, Cambridge…do any of those strike you as free?

If the definition of insanity truly is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, then too many black Americans are indeed bat-[bleep] crazy.

God bless Reverend Meeks:

“Our schools are still broken and getting worse. We’re last in employment or business. Our neighborhoods are deplorable,” says Meeks. “And we still get the same promises from the Democratic party, but we don’t get any deliverable. I think it’s time we should look at another candidate.”

“I would hope that I would get a chance to influence a lot of African-Americans to look at how we, as a voting bloc, [are] being taken for granted,” Meeks says.

Change lies within you. Now you can hope.

Comments

Conservatism is a Winning Strategy—Except in Elections

That seemed to be the message from this extended call to Rush Limbaugh yesterday:

RUSH: Here’s Ian in Fort Myers, Florida. It’s great to have you on the program, sir. Hello.

CALLER: Awesome. I appreciate it, Rush.

RUSH: Thank you, sir.

CALLER: First of all, I just want to let you know that I truly appreciate your perspective and all the ideas you share every time. I’m gonna do my best to try to articulate the point I was making to the screener. With regard to the Koch brothers article and just the message there that they’re trying to communicate, I just think the Republican Party is struggling to connect with the average person.

RUSH: Now, wait. Before you continue, I just want to make sure that we identify them. This is Charles Koch. The Koch brothers are Charles and David. There are two other Koch brothers that are not part of “the Koch brothers” as the Democrats use them.

CALLER: Sure.

I highlighted the caller’s point, and will trim the excess verbiage to try to keep it short. His inarticulateness and Rush’s deafness made for some tough listening.

CALLER: [...] I think when it comes to trying to persuade people about who they want to vote for and who they want running the country, to go out there and tell them that they need to distance themselves from the government, most people are afraid of that, in the masses at least. I mean, you’ve gotta understand, these people follow the advice of these progressives for the last 40, 50 years —

RUSH: No, I agree with you. I think it’s a scary thing for a lot of people to think of the government not being involved in their lives, particularly single women.

Okay, well, let’s take this down to the basic level. Do you have any kids?

CALLER: Not yet.

RUSH: Not yet. How old are you?

CALLER: Thirty-three.

RUSH: Thirty-three. Well, let’s pretend for a moment that you have a son who is 12 or 13, maybe 15, just on the verge of getting a driver’s license and a car. Let’s also, as part of our hypothetical, let’s stipulate that you and your wife have spoiled your son. Your son is way too dependent on you, and you are worried that he hasn’t learned and isn’t interested in learning how to take care of himself.

CALLER: Sure.

RUSH: What would you do?

CALLER: Well —

RUSH: The reason I ask is because you just said we can’t confront these people with the idea that they’ve got to take control of their own lives.

Again, cutting:

RUSH: Well, now, wait a second. See, this is where I kind of have a differing opinion from yours. Why is it that people today are immune from lessons in life? Why are people today somehow, “We can’t talk about taking care of yourself with this group. We can’t talk about providing for yourself. We can’t talk about making your life your own.” Why? What is it about this group that that so scares them? My point is, you would not raise your children that way.

If you were running for office, let’s forget that you’ve got a kid that’s gone off the rails and he’s dependent. You’re running for office, you want to reach these people. Okay, you’ve said we can’t make ‘em feel alone. We can’t humiliate ‘em. We can’t tell ‘em we’re gonna take things away from ‘em but we still want ‘em to vote for us. So what would you do? What would be your pitch?

CALLER: I don’t think there needs to be as strong of a pitch like you’re assuming to get people to vote for the person that they’re confident in. I don’t think Obama had a super strong pitch when he first won. He was just somewhat of a likable person. And even though these ideas that you share on a daily basis are pretty much the gospel to get yourself to a level in society that —

RUSH: I disagree with you. I think Obama did have a pitch, and it was he was gonna take care of you, and he was gonna fix everything that was wrong. And he personally was gonna guarantee you that things are gonna be okay. And he personally was gonna guarantee that the country be loved again. And he personally was gonna do all these wonderful things.

And, finally, Rush concluded:

RUSH: I can tell you that this radio audience is filled with converts, people that used to be dependent liberal Democrats who now listen to this program. You think that might not be possible because of the way they’re being approached because I make them afraid or feel vulnerable or whatever. But nobody that I know of anywhere is demanding that people be left alone.

That is not what “self-reliance” and “individuality” mean. It doesn’t mean alone. It doesn’t mean with no help. It doesn’t mean with no assistance. What it means is, “Be yourself, find out what you love, find out what you really want to do, and go do it. And don’t depend on people who don’t have your best interests at heart,” i.e., Democrats and the government.

If we’ve gotten to the point where we are literally destroying people’s futures by creating this dependency and then we can’t wean them off of it because that’s gonna make them vulnerable, then it’s not just that we’re gonna go to the grave never winning an election; we’re gonna go to the grave with the country never recovering. That, for me, isn’t an option. Tough love. You may think that’s too direct and so forth.

But I’m telling you, the question I asked you about how you would take care of somebody in your immediate orb that you feared was ruining their life is relevant here. If you love people, if you love the country, if you believe that everybody in the country contributes to making it great — if you love everybody and you want the best for them and if you know how they can achieve the best for them — you can’t be afraid to tell them.

As Rush said at CPAC five years ago:

I want to tell you who conservatives are. We conservatives have not done a good enough job of just laying out basically who we are because we make the mistake of assuming people know. What they know is largely incorrect based on the way we are portrayed in pop culture, in the Drive-By Media, by the Democrat Party. Let me tell you who we conservatives are: we love people. When we look out over the United States of America, when we are anywhere, when we see a group of people, such as this or anywhere, we see Americans. We see human beings. We don’t see groups. We don’t see victims. We don’t see people we want to exploit. What we see — what we see is potential. We do not look out across the country and see the average American, the person that makes this country work. We do not see that person with contempt. We don’t think that person doesn’t have what it takes. We believe that person can be the best he or she wants to be if certain things are just removed from their path like onerous taxes, regulations and too much government.

It’s up for debate if this is a winning message. But it’s the only message conservatives have. Liberals own the other side, the argument that you need government to complete you (which is appealing to some, repugnant to others). Where conservatives can win is if they persuade people that realizing their potential not only benefits them, it benefits that country. With ever greater numbers leaving the job market and going on aid, the liberal siren song sounds sweeter and sweeter. Until the ship capsizes (like Guam) from too many people rushing to one side to listen.

But as appealing as the conservative message is to me on its own, sometimes you win elections by pointing out the shortcomings on the other side.

ObamaCare.

Comments

The Legislation Was a Success, The Nation Died

Aggie and I have made no secret of our contempt for ObamaCare, for its namesake, for the nimrods and charlatans who lied, cheated, and stole to make the damned thing the law of the land.

Goodness knows, others have found out to their dismay.

Here’s one:

We were always happy with our health care coverage. My husband and I have been on the same plan since 1972, when my husband graduated from vet school. We liked our plan and wanted to keep it – it provided us excellent coverage and served our needs perfectly. Not anymore. Thanks to Obamacare, our happy relationship with our health insurance ended in November 2012 after 40 years. That’s when we received notification that our health insurance plan would cease to exist as of Dec. 31, 2013…Now that our original insurance is gone, we have poorer quality supplemental coverage at a higher cost. Some of the prescriptions our previous policy paid for are now “disallowed” – if we want to continue taking them, it’s on our nickel completely. One of my prescriptions cost me twice the amount out-of-pocket than under our old plan. The agent who helped us transition to the replacement plan calculated that we’ll pay more than $10,000 per year…Such are the results of the badly-misnamed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Protecting patients from what? Caring by canceling our insurance and worsening our coverage? And affordable? Hardly! … The whole law – from its name to its effects – is one bad joke. I just wish the punch line was funny.

Yeah, yeah, take a number. Everyone’s got a story.

Now, here’s a story:

Democrats, who plan to run against Republicans this year by focusing on income inequality, may have their work cut out for them after a normally friendly major union issued a report warning Obamacare will make income inequality worse.

The document, titled “The Irony of ObamaCare: Making Inequality Worse,” has been posted online by Unite Here and is set to be sent to Capitol Hill, according to Ralston Reports.

Unite Here, which calls itself “the first international union to endorse Barack Obama for President in 2008,” says it supports the intent of the Affordable Care Act, but charges it will transfer a billion dollars in wealth to insurance companies, make the playing field in the market uneven, force employers convert more jobs to part time, and cause pay cuts.

“Ironically, the administration’s own signature healthcare victory poses one of the most immediate challenges to redressing inequality,” the report says.

You say ironically, I say amusingly (even hysterically). But why quibble?

Republicans plan to hammer Democrats on their support of the Affordable Care Act during this year’s midterm elections. Republicans are seen as having a chance to not only increase their majority in the House of Representatives, but also gain control of the Senate.

Indeed. If any Republican syas a word about anything but ObamaCare during the campaign, he should be cast out of an airplane into the sea.

Here’s why:

The Obama administration has, for months now, been peddling nice-sounding numbers as to how many people are gaining health coverage due to Obamacare. But their numbers have been inflated on two fronts. First, not everyone who has “selected a marketplace plan” under Obamacare has actually paid the required premiums, payment being required to actually gain coverage. Second, only a fraction of people on the exchanges were previously uninsured.

But if not every “sign-up” has paid up, what does that mean?

Of the Obamacare sign-ups, only 27 percent had been previously uninsured in 2013. And of the 27 percent, nearly half had yet to pay a premium.

Among those that the administration is touting as sign-ups, only 14 percent are previously uninsured enrollees: approximately 472,000 people as of February 1.

So, six million people (so far), the combined population of Los Angeles and Houston, have had their plans canceled, replaced with more expensive ones offering pediatric dental for grandparents, for the benefit of the population of Sacramento. If Republicans don’t eff this up, they should win by similar margins.

Comments

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »