Tag Archives: GOP

Rewriting Recent History When Convenient

Posted on by

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article today about a recent chyron on MSNBC. Just in case you are not a news junkie, the chyron is the group of words at the bottom on the screen that either gives the latest headlines or adds to the discussion taking place on the screen. In this case, the chyron read, “GOP flubs Obamacare launch.” Wow. I wasn’t even aware that the GOP were the ones who had launched ObamaCare. The real GOP flub in the launch of ObamaCare was allowing it to go forward with a broken website and exemptions for Congress and big business and not for average Americans, but that wasn’t a flub–that was just the make-up of Congress.

Mr. Morrissey comments:

Ironically, the entire segment demonstrates why the chyron would be inaccurate in any context — and why the tactical retreat on the shutdown might turn out to be a strategic victory for Republicans in the long run.  Without the breathless minute-by-minute updates from Capitol Hill on the shutdown, the biggest national story and shared experience is the disastrous ObamaCare rollout, which is so bad and so big that even MSNBC can’t ignore it.

Stay tuned. I’m sure there is more to come. I want to see if MSNBC and their cohorts can successfully convince the American public that the Republicans are actually responsible for the botched roll-out of ObamaCare. If they can, we are in more trouble than I thought.

Enhanced by Zemanta

An Interesting Take On The Fiscal Cliff

Posted on by

Erick Erickson posted an interesting article at Red State yesterday about the current wrangling regarding the fiscal cliff. Mr. Erickson pointed out that in his opinion, John Boehner should not raise tax rates–it would be better to go off the fiscal cliff.

The article explains what is really going on here:

Why would every other issue move quickly if the Republicans would just agree to raise rates? Because of two issues.

The White House knows that if they cannot get the GOP to vote to increase rates, they will get crushed on the tax issue in the midterms. Their red state Democrats need political cover before they can vote to increase taxes. That cover is a Republican cave.

The White House also knows that if they can get the GOP to vote to increase taxes once, it will be far easier to get them to do it again.

Barack Obama needs the Republicans to raise rates. If they do not get it before January 1, all of the Bush tax cuts will expire and the GOP will not permit any reduction without it being an across the board reduction. Moderate Democrats in the Senate and the few remaining blue dogs in the House will be in a very difficult position.

Raising tax rates, rather than simply eliminating some loopholes, would cause a serious split in the Republican party. It would result in a serious power struggle within the party during the elections of 2014, probably giving the Democrats additional seats in both the House and the Senate. What would happen after that would be a nightmare for America–there would be no control at all on Barack Obama’s spending plans. If John Boehner has any loyalty to the country and to the Republican party, he needs to resist the pressure to increase tax rates.

Enhanced by Zemanta

One Reason Things In Washington Don’t Seem To Be Changing

Posted on by

The Tea Party movement toward smaller government and lower taxes began sometime around 2009. The Tea Party has elected a number of its members to the House of Representatives in the past two elections. Why hasn’t anything changed?

One clue can be found in an article posted at RedState.com on December 3. The article points out that the conservative Republicans supported by the Tea Party are being excluded from leadership positions on the various House Committees.

The article reports:

Maybe it’s because he’s intent on repealing Dodd-Frank.  Maybe it’s because he wants to use his committee assignment to advocate winding down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Perhaps it’s because of his opposition to the $1 trillion farm bill.  Maybe it’s because he’s just too darn conservative to sit on an important committee.

Earlier today, we provided a list of those who made it onto the Super A committees.  Well, Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ) is a conservative freshman member who was actually kicked off the Financial Services Committee.  Members are rarely kicked off committees unless there is a scandal.

David Schweikert is one of those 2010 freshmen who is actually a Tea Partier in deed as well as rhetoric.  While many freshmen folded under the pressure from leadership, Schweikert was actually removed from the Whip team because of his conservative dissent during the budget battles.

If we have the same President we have had for the past four years and the same Congressional leadership we have had for the past four years, why should we expect things to change?

Politico reported yesterday that conservative groups are protesting some of the decisions made by Boehner’s leadership team.

The article reports:

On Monday, in a closed meeting, House Republicans booted Amash, Schweikert, Huelskamp and Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) from plum committee assignments. Retribution for members who voted against Boehner’s team was long discussed in leadership circles. It was low-risk for Boehner — he went after three freshman and Jones, who has long been a pariah in the House Republican establishment.

Huelskamp, who lost his seat on the Budget Committee, was particularly stung. The budget is his main issue, and he sent a blistering statement Monday evening, saying “the GOP leadership might think they have silenced conservatives, but removing me and others from key committees only confirms our conservative convictions.”

“This is clearly a vindictive move, and a sure sign that the GOP establishment cannot handle disagreement,” Huelskamp said.

If we want America to survive, Republicans have only one option–vote out the current Washington leadership and bring in the fiscal conservatives.

Enhanced by Zemanta

One Final Analysis Of The Election

Posted on by

One of the best analyses of this year’s Presidential election can be found on the Brody File at CBN.com. David Brody is the political correspondent for CBN and does a very concise job of breaking down the reasons for President Obama’s victory. The Brody File is a video about 30 minutes long and is well worth watching.

David Brody cites three main reasons for Mitt Romney‘s loss of the election:

1. Mitt Romney was the wrong candidate. He was the candidate put forward by the Republican establishment. As a candidate, Mitt Romney was not what the Republican base wanted–he was part of the GOP establishment–not the party base. Right now there are some serious gaps between the GOP establishment and the base of the party.

2. Mitt Romney was defined early by the Obama campaign–not by the Romney campaign. In April, May and June, the Obama campaign ran personal attack ads directed at Mitt Romney defining him as a rich businessman from Bain Capital who was going to ship everyone’s job overseas. He was accused of everything from causing a man’s wife to die of cancer to animal abuse. The Romney camp did not respond to the charges at the time, and that image of Mitt Romney was established.

3. The American electorate is changing. The GOP never reached out to the Hispanics, other minorities, or the youth vote. In 1996, 10 percent of American voters were non-whites. In 2012, 21 percent of American voters were non-whites. The Republican campaigns did not take into consideration the fact that the demographics of American voters have changed.

For me, the bottom line in this election is the split between the Republican establishment and the Tea Party. I voted for Mitt Romney. He is a good man who would have done a good job. However, I would have preferred a candidate who was more clearly a conservative. I believe a true conservative would have beaten Barack Obama.

I seriously doubt that the Republican establishment has learned from this experience. I suspect that when the new Congress convenes in January, it will have the same Republican leadership. Until we get the establishment out of Washington–both Republican and Democrat establishment–we will continue down the path we are currently on. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Right now that is a pretty good description of the American voter.

Enhanced by Zemanta

A Thought From A Fellow Blogger

Posted on by

A friend and fellow blogger of mine, DaTechGuy.com, has pointed out that the arithmetic we are being given on the battle for the tax cut in Congress is not quite accurate.

He points out:

An 8 week extension of the payroll tax (forgetting the expense the short-term change would cost) would generate 8 x 40 or $320.

A 52 week extension that the GOP has already passed would generate 52 x $40 or $2080 dollars.

Therefore the House bill gives a net profit of 2080-320 or $1760 dollars more to the avg taxpayer.

Instead of asking people what they would do with $40 that the house is keeping from them, perhaps they should ask what they would do with the #1760dollars that the tea party house has approved and the senate has not?

Aside from the fact that it is not a tax cut–it is a raid on Social Security–that is a very interesting way of looking at it.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Looking Past The Headline To The News

Posted on by
John_F_Kennedy_1964_Issue-5c.jpg

Image via Wikipedia

Yesterday the Los Angeles Times posted a story with the headline, “Election laws tightening in GOP-run states.” Interesting headline. Why are election laws being strengthened in Republican rather than Democrat states? There are two ways to look at this–the Democrats would have you believe that the Republicans are trying to hinder minority voters, the Republicans would have you believe that they are combating voter fraud. Which is closer to the truth?

The article reports:

But Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, said the GOP drive was triggered by “the infamous example of ACORN,” the collection of community organizations which, he said, submitted 400,000 fraudulent registrations in 2008. He called the new laws “common-sense proposals” to “preserve the sanctity of our elections by ensuring that only eligible voters vote.”

The results of the election of 2008 would not have been changed had voter fraud not existed, but in a close election, voter fraud can change the results. It s an accepted fact that Mayor Daley stole the election in 1960 for John F. Kennedy.

Wikipedia (not my favorite source) reports:

Known for shrewd party politics, Daley was a stereotypical machine politician, and his Chicago Democratic Machine, based on control of thousands of patronage positions, was instrumental in bringing a narrow 8,000 vote victory in Illinois for John F. Kennedy in 1960. A PBS documentary entitled “Daley” explained that Mayor Daley and JFK potentially stole the 1960 election by stuffing ballot boxes and rigging the vote in Chicago. In addition, it reveals, Daley withheld many votes from certain wards when the race seemed close.

I have no problem with requiring voter identification. Identification is required to do many things in our society that are considerably less important than voting–rent a video, board an airplane, cash a check, buy cigarettes, buy alcohol, and receive any sort of federal assistance. Voting is at least as important as any of these.The election of 2012 may be close. I would prefer that whatever the result is, it represents the rule “one man, one vote.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta