Top five O-Care controversies

1 Comment

This is from The Hill.

These are some of the biggies concerning Obamacare.


The Obama administration faced an extraordinarily tough year when it came to Affordable Care Act’s rollout and the surrounding debate. Between missed deadlines, botched projects and massive PR stumbles, the White House spent months trying to recover momentum for its signature domestic achievement.

Below are the healthcare law’s top controversies in 2013:

1) Canceled health plans

One of President Obama’s key promises — that under ObamaCare, you could keep your health plan if you like it — was turned on its head this fall when millions of people received cancellation notices from their insurance companies. The wave created a political firestorm for the White House as Republicans hammered Obama on his promise, which had also been echoed by many Democrats on Capitol Hill. The assurance was eventually labeled “Lie of the Year” by Politifact, a fact-checking organization with ties to the Tampa Bay Times.

The controversy took an unexpected turn in mid-November when former President Bill Clinton urged Obama to “honor the commitment,” even if it meant a policy fix that would alter the Affordable Care Act’s rollout. Days later, Obama announced that insurance companies could continue offering plans that would have been canceled under ObamaCare to their existing holders for an additional year.

The cancellation “fix” has had mixed results. Obama’s announcement prompted an immediate backlash from health insurers loathe to accept blame for canceled plans. Several states have said they will not accept late renewals, arguing that plans that do not comply with ObamaCare are substandard. And the House passed legislation for a broader “fix” that received support from 39 Democrats.

While the criticism has quieted, plan cancellations are expected to be a major theme in next year’s midterm elections. Republicans are eager to blame vulnerable Democrats for vowing that consumers could keep their coverage and frame the issue as part of a wider narrative of dysfunction surrounding ObamaCare’s rollout. Democrats will try to argue that the law extends help to many people whose plans have been canceled, and that any GOP healthcare plan would also disrupt individuals’ coverage, but it remains to be seen how much these arguments will help.


ObamaCare’s federal enrollment website was supposed to be the easy part of the law’s rollout. During its construction, the system was repeatedly compared to sites like Travelocity and, where millions of users can simultaneously navigate a complex, individualized shopping experience. But trouble was apparent on the morning of the launch, as users faced delays and glitchy code. The vast and persistent problems with created months of negative news for the White House and thwarted millions of users hoping to purchase health insurance.

The site has improved after hundreds of fixes to revamp the user experience and increase capacity. Criticism has quieted, and the administration has sought to relieve deadline pressure on consumers who faced technical problems with the system. Yet some issues are still lingering, including back-end glitches that have generated flawed transmissions from to insurance companies. The administration also flubbed other online enrollment systems, launching the Spanish-language site months late and delaying web-based sign-ups for small businesses by one year.

3) Employer mandate delay

The Obama administration took everyone by surprise in July by announcing that larger employers would not be required to offer health insurance to their workers until 2015. The decision came in reaction to pressure from the business community, which had sought more time to build the technical systems required to comply with the “employer mandate.” Republicans immediately pounced on the move as a double-standard, since consumers will still be required to comply with the individual mandate to carry health insurance starting in 2014.

4) Government shutdown fight

The federal government shut down on Oct. 1 over a fiscal stalemate that was defined by Republicans’ opposition to ObamaCare. The House GOP made three government-funding offers as the shutdown loomed in late September, each attacking the healthcare law in a different way. (One would have defunded the law, one would have delayed it for one year, and one would have delayed the individual mandate for one year.) Senate Democrats and the White House firmly rejected each bill, and vulnerable Dems in the upper chamber failed to rally around the GOP position as some conservatives had hoped. The shutdown saw Republicans’ poll numbers drop, even as ObamaCare’s new insurance exchanges began facing massive technical problems on Oct. 1. The final deal to reopen the government did virtually nothing to alter the healthcare law.

5) Congressional subsidies

The month of January will see lawmakers and most staffers enter ObamaCare’s new insurance exchanges, but this shift did not come without controversy. The first firestorm came in the summer when the administration ruled that members and aides can continue receiving a generous employer healthcare subsidy despite moving out of the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan. Many people had expressed concerns that Capitol Hill workers would depart to the private sector if made to pay the entire cost of their healthcare coverage like those in the individual market. President Obama reportedly told lawmakers he was personally involved in preventing this outcome.

The decision to extend subsidies to members and staff was widely criticized on the right, and it prompted Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) to propose legislation that would stop the contributions from going forward. Vitter’s bills became part of several distinct conflicts throughout the fall, including debate over raising the debt ceiling in October.

Conflict reared its head again when news broke that lawmakers could keep their aides off of the exchanges by deeming them “official staff” instead of “official office.” Some pro-ObamaCare offices later regretted choices to shift workers on the exchanges, citing higher costs for older staffers. Aides also encountered problems enrolling in the District of Columbia’s new marketplace, and received notices to confirm their sign-ups in person rather than online.



Stricter Gun Control Laws Won’t Prevent Criminals From Getting Guns, Say 63% of Americans

Leave a comment

This is from

Yet Little Chuckie Schumer, DiFi, Babs Boxer as well as

Little Dickless Durbin says more gun control is needed.

We can not forget Nanny Bloomberg along with his

magpies saying gun control is needed.


When it comes to keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, 63 percent of Americans remain unconvinced that tighter restrictions on buying and owning guns will be effective, according to the latest  Reason-Rupe poll. About a third (32 percent), said stricter regulations would be effective in preventing criminals from obtaining guns.

Seven in ten Republicans say stricter gun regulations would not be effective while just 26 percent say they would be effective.  Democrats are more divided on the issue. While typically supportive of increased gun control, more than half (53 percent) say tighter restrictions on buying and owning guns would not prevent criminals from obtaining the weapons while 44 percent say they would prevent criminals from getting guns. Two-thirds of independents don’t expect tighter restrictions to be effective while 30 percent think they will.

As education increases, so do expectations that tighter gun regulations will effectively keep guns from criminals. For instance, 29% of those with high school degrees or less believe such policies would be effect compared to 41 percent of those with post-graduate degrees. Nevertheless, majorities of all educational groups don’t expect tougher gun laws to prevent criminals from obtaining guns.

Women are slightly more likely than men to believe tighter gun regulations would be effective (35 to 29 percent). However, considering race and gender finds that white women are no different than white and nonwhite men. However, half of nonwhite women think tighter gun rules would be effective compared to 44 would think they would not.

Nationwide telephone poll conducted Dec 4-8 2013 interviewed 1011 adults on both mobile (506) and landline (505) phones, with a margin of error +/- 3.7%. Princeton Survey Research Associates International executed the nationwide Reason-Rupe survey. Columns may not add up to 100% due to rounding. Full poll results, detailed tables, and methodology found here. Sign up for notifications of new releases of the Reason-Rupe poll here.



|Dec. 12, 2013 9:15 am


Avoiding Recall: Colorado’s “You Don’t Need a Gun to Prevent Rape” Evie Hudak Resigns

Leave a comment

This is from Town Hall.

It looks like the Colorado DemocRat party talked

Little Evie into taking one for the team.

Evie Hudak resigns and avoids being recalled and

a DemocRat replacement gets appointed.

That way the DemocRats retain power in the legislature.

After seeing two of her Colorado colleagues recalled over anti-gun votes, Democratic State Senator Evie Hudak, will submit her resignation.

 Hudak will hold a news conference Wednesday morning at the Arvada Library.

“By resigning I am protecting these important new laws for the good of Colorado and ensuring that we can continue looking forward,” Hudak wrote in her resignation letter in regard to her gun votes, which led to the recall effort.

Proponents of the recall have until early next week to submit about 18,900 valid signatures to the secretary of state’s office. If enough signatures are valid, Hudak would be the third Colorado lawmaker to face a recall election this year because of her support for tougher gun laws.

Earlier this year, Colorado State Senator Angela Giron and Senate President John Morse, both from blue districts, were recalled and replaced with Republicans. Hudak was likely pressured into her resignation. If she had lost her recall election (which was likely), Democrats in Colorado would lose a majority in the legislature. Now, Democrats will be able to appoint Hudak’s replacement, further ignoring constituents while allowing Democrats to avoid the consequences for anti-gun votes.

As a reminder, Hudak is the woman who told rape survivor Amanda Collins back in March during a hearing about concealed carry on campus that a gun wouldn’t have helped her when she was attacked and lectured her by saying, “statistics are not on your side.” Collins was raped at gun point in a gun free zone in 2007 while walking to her car at the University of Nevada-Reno. Due the University’s no weapons policy, Collins was in possession of her concealed carry permit at the time of the attack, but not her firearm. Her assailant went on to rape two more women and killed one of them, Brianna Denison, who was just 20-years-old.

You can learn more about Amanda’s story here.

UPDATE: Compass Colorado, the group helping to lead recall efforts, has released a statement.

“This is yet another indicator that the tides are changing in Colorado politics,” Executive Director of Compass Colorado Kelly Maher said in a statement. “Coloradans are sick of the extreme Democrats trying to control their lives. These “progressives” have overreached so far on so many issues that Colorado families are now ready for a new vision.”

Barack Obama’s Gun Control Record Revealed

1 Comment

This is from Bullets First.

 DemocRats have the filibuster in the Senate.

Will Obama use no filibuster as renewed gun grab attempts?

Will Obama use the no filibuster rule to ram through a

gun confiscation attempt?

Given Obama’s history about firearms we can only

guess what Obama will try.

Somehow, there are people who confess they are gun owners, who keep saying that Barack Obama is no threat to the Second Amendment.  They actually go so far as to say that he has strengthened the Second Amendment during his first term.

Short post today, first, as I have discussed before, he HAD to accept the Amendment to the Credit Card Reform bill that allowed carrying of firearms in National Parks.  He had the chance to allow guns in parks on its own and he refused.  That means HE WAS AGAINST THE BILL.

Then there are his Supreme Court Judges, specifically Sotomayor who lied to congress about her belief in the Second Amendment only to rule against its definition of an individual right the first time it came up.

Now, lets look at a quick rundown of where the President really stands on the issues:

  • Renews support for gun control through UN Arms Trade Treaty (Nov 2012)
  • Calls to renew the Assault Weapons Ban (Oct 2012)
  • I believe in 2nd Amendment, but not war weapons on streets. (Oct 2012)
  • Fast-and-Furious: no prosecutions for Mexican gun/drug snafu. (Jun 2012)
  • Tells Sarah Brady will continue to push gun control “under the radar” (March 2011)
  • Opposed bill okaying illegal gun use in home invasions. (Aug 2008)
  • Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws. (Apr 2008)
  • FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (Apr 2008)
  • Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008)
  • Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing. (Jan 2008)
  • 2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (Oct 2007)
  • Concealed carry OK for retired police officers. (Aug 2007)
  • Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities. (Jul 2007)
  • Keep guns out of inner cities–but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006)
  • Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban. (Oct 2004)
  • Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)
  • Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)

That is Obama’s REAL record on the issue of the Second Amendment from his time in Chicago through this past week..  Lip service saying he “believes in the 2nd Amendment” but does everything he can to marginalize and eliminate it.  Voted for bans and draconian limits on purchasing.  Opposed measures to protect firearm industry from frivolous lawsuits hoping to bankrupt them. Pushing a treaty that will impose gun controls from a foreign entity.  And refuses to hold anyone accountable for a gun walking program that has killed Americans that was, despite his lies, begun under HIS administration to foster a public outcry for more gun control.

So if you are reading this and are a Obama supporter, that’s fine because you are free to support whosoever you choose in this country.

Just stop trying to pass off Obama like some 2nd Amendment Champion when in reality he is a gun grabbing Chicago politician who will be a gun control champion now that he doesn’t have to be re-elected anymore.  If you can look at a mountain of evidence of word and deed and keep your head buried in the sand then even Obama coming to your home, ripping the gun from your hand and pistol whipping you with it because he doesn’t believe you should have it, wouldn’t be enough to get your off the kool aid.

He hates the Second Amendment and has a record fighting against it that goes back 15 years. I fear if left unchecked, his reach into the future will be much longer.




1 Comment

This is from Breitbarts Big Government.

Every DemocRat that is up for reelection should be fired.


On Sunday, appearing on ABC’s This Week with fill-in host Martha Raddatz, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NYadmitted that Democrats knew full well that Americans would be booted from their health insurance plans as an effect of Obamacare implementation.


When asked whether Democrats were misled by President Obama about whether Americans would be able to keep their plans in the individual insurance market, Gillibrand answered: “He should’ve just been specific. No, we all knew.”

She added that the whole point of Obamacare was to “covering things people need, like preventive care, birth control, pregnancy.” The redistributive nature of Obamacare, Gillibrand stated, was the point of the program; anyone claiming ignorance, therefore, is not telling the truth.




This is from Patriot Update.

Can the rot in America be excised?

I hope it can be excised.

How many election cycles will it take?


It is said that a fish rots from the head. So goes America. We are rotting from the headfrom our Government. Washington stinks of theft, corruption, crony capitalism, law breakers, and State sanctioned murder. Obama likes to whine that the rich just keep getting richer and he’s right. His administration has been very good to the ultra-wealthy and the Liberals in power are getting more powerful. They don’t want us to see it but it’s there. The head of America is rotten. The rest of it is beginning to stink too. Those of us who are paying attention can smell it. Those of us who are not paying attention are to blame for not stopping it.

Look at the corruption of Obama’s regime. Benghazi. The IRS, the IRS and the IRS, the DOJ wire taps, the NLRB (see Boeing), The NSA, Solyndra and phony global warming to name just the big ones. If you are reading this and don’t know the details of these issues and how they affect you and all of us, you are an idiot in need of fundamental transformation. Only a fool or true Liberal believer could tolerate Obama and his pals and the Progressive Republicans that play nice with them.

Progressives—Democrat and Republican—are enemies of the State. Most politicians care only about re-election and maintaining their power and position so “go along to get along” becomes the norm. It used to be that a candidate stated their position on issues and hoped for a positive result on election day. The Progressives in our government want to do it differently now. They want to guarantee their re-election until retirement or death. They need massive control and more adoring voters in order to accomplish this.

Control is Obama’s middle name. Barack Control Obama. He’s a student of Saul Alinsky and taught Alinsky’s methods. (Don’t know about him? Stop here and look up Saul Alinsky). Obama has been putting controls in place since his election. The biggie is Obamacare. People, just wait and see what getting health care in America is about to become and what it will cost. Millions of folks have already lost the plans they had and liked because Obamacare says the plans aren’t good enough. The folks were happy with them and they WERE good enough. But Dear Leader says no. These folks will have to find new plans full of crap they don’t want and don’t want to pay for and the cost increase is huge. So Obama says let’s subsidize them. Where does that money come from? The same hard working taxpayers being punched in the wallet by Obamacare. This is about the government taking CONTROL of our health care. Single payer is coming, just you wait. It was the goal from the beginning. Americans have allowed their government to take over their health care, all their personal health information and 1/6 of the economy in one shot. Who but a Progressive would see that as a good thing? They MUST control our health care to begin to take full control of us. Obamacare = Control.

What else are Dear Leader and the Progressives trying to control?

Private gun ownership (the easier to kick your door in without fear)

Right to Work (Unionize everyone)

Food production (see the Farm Bill)

Energy production (slowly kill the coal industry, block oil and shale gas production, begin to force people off burning wood)

Education (my God read up on Common Core—the indoctrination of our youth)

“Freebies for all” and especially “Amnesty” will guarantee the Democrats a huge new pool of millions of voters who will feed off the teat of working Americans, get their “free crap” and forever vote Democrat. Don’t believe any Democrat or Progressive who says amnesty won’t end up with voting rights for the ex-illegals. Don’t buy that for a second. It HAS to. They must control the outcome of elections. They are working on it.

There are so many busy little tentacles of Progressivism out there. They want black boxes in our cars so we can be taxed by the mile. They want “cap and trade”. They want always to expand the size of government and steal from us to pay for it. They want to control what we eat and drink. How we travel. What we drive. It just goes on endlessly.

Is Chris Christie the answer for the Republican Party and us who are Conservatives? Not to me he isn’t. He’s just another Progressive hiding behind the tag “Republican”. I can see it now—Clinton vs. Christie. Not good for us either way. How about Conservatives demand the Republicans run a ticket like Ted Cruz and Allen West? That’s a ticket to vote for. Or Rand Paul and either Cruz or West? Sweet! Good luck with that. The establishment GOP will try and deliver Christie. They will succeed if we let them. How about we don’t. Together we can cut off the rotting head of America.



Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee Claims Cancellation Notices “Not the Truth”

Leave a comment

This is from Town Hall.

This woman is more delusional that anyone ever imagined.

Is it possible to remove this mentally defective woman 

from office?.


Oh, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee.

Despite the fact that thousands and potentially millions of Americans have had their plans canceled due to noncompliance with minimum standards of the Affordable Care Act, that’s just no big deal to Rep. Lee.

Speaking to National Review Online (emphasis added):

Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, a Texas Democrat, told National Review Online today that instead of sending out cancellation letters, insurance companies should have told their customers that their coverage was about to get better.

She said she wrote an amendment before the president’s announcement that would require insurance companies to “tell the truth.”

“The cancellation notice was not the truth,” she says. “It should have been: ’We intend to or expect to modify your insurance.’”

Really, Rep. Lee? Really? How else could you possibly describe a letter from an insurance company that blatantly states that their plan will no longer be offereddue to Obamacare? It is, in the literal sense of the word, a cancellation letter.

And that’s the truth.


A look into the mind of an Anti-Gun Democrat

Leave a comment

Hat Tip to Langniappe’s Lair.


Most every gun owner who cherishes their right to Keep and Bear knows whack-job NY Democrat Carolyn McCarthy. She’s the one who first ran for office in the 1996 elections on one single agenda item: Gun Control. She has sponsored and/or voted in favor of more anti-gun legislation than anyone in Congress. Indeed, even her own Wikipedia page has this to say about her: “McCarthy has been described as “the doyenne of anti-gun advocates in the House” and “the fiercest gun-control advocate in Congress”.” In fact, it’s really all she does and all she cares about. Her biggest boasts back when she ran were about how she was going to hold every American gun owner accountable for the bad acts of a very few criminals who possess and use guns illegally.

Well apparently accountability and personal responsibility come to a screeching halt at her own front door. After being an avid cigarette smoker for over four decades, Rep. McCarthy finds herself dealing with the spectre of lung cancer first-hand. So what does she do? Does she quit smoking? Nope. She (are you ready for this?) has her lawyers draw up a lawsuit against seventy different companies that deal with or once dealt with asbestos.

Politician with cancer smoked for 40 years, sues over asbestos

Just wow. This chain-smoking paragon of personal responsibility is trying to score big bucks from seventy different companies over asbestos exposure even though she herself has never worked around or been exposed to asbestos. Because it can’t be from all the cigarettes, right?

I guess it’s easier for her to blame all those other people for her personal problem than it is to look in the mirror and blame herself and her own behavior.

This says a heck of a lot about where our proposed gun control laws come from, doesn’t it? If you’ve ever wondered about the thought processes and the logical ability of gun-controllers in Congress, you need look no further than Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, the gun-banners’ poster woman. Divorced from reality and devoid of any sense of personal responsibility? You betcha. Allowed to write and vote on laws that control you and me even though it’s obvious that she’s a few fries short of a Happy Meal? Sadly so.



Leave a comment

This is from Breitbarts Big Goernment.

Ken Cuccinelli is correct about Terry The Punk McAuliffee.

The Punk is a disciple of  ad financed by the Fuhrer of the

Disarming America Micheal Bloomberg.

The Punk is also a big government higher taxation and more

 business regulations.

So Virginia the choice is yours elect Ken Cuccinelli and remain free.

Or elect The Punk and lose your freedom. 


On Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot channel 125, Virginia Republican Attorney General and gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli said a Terry McAuliffe administration in Virginia would be a “threat to liberty.” He urged Virginians to “send Washington a message” by voting against McAuliffe on Tuesday.

Cuccinelli mentioned that McAuliffe did not think Obamacare went far enough when he advocated a public option and said President Barack Obama’s appearance in Virginia on Sunday on behalf of McAuliffe was a “blessing” because it brought a “crystal-clear focus to Obamacare in Virginia and what a disaster that is.”

“He wants more of this,” Cuccinelli said of McAuliffe and Obamacare.

Cuccinelli mentioned Democrats in Virginia that now want to force doctors to take Medicare patients. He said this is going to be the next step in the healthcare battle, and “this is what you get with someone like a McAuliffe.”

“This is a threat to liberty,” Cuccinelli said. “This is a denial of liberty.”

Cuccinelli urged listeners to volunteer and help get his message out to Virginians on Monday and Tuesday, reiterating that the commonwealth should “send Washington a message that Virginians say ‘No’ to Obamacare.” He said his campaign was continuing to recruit volunteers in the final days of the race. He also mentioned that McAuliffe is being financed by Michael Bloomberg, who wants more gun control, and radical California environmentalists.




The 10 Rules In The Establishment Republican Handbook

Leave a comment

This is from Town Hall.

Hat  tip Broken Patriot.

These ten rules speak for themselves.


1) There is nothing ever worth fighting for except Democrat policies: If you’re going to fight for something, make sure you’re fighting your own base to help the Democrats achieve some policy goal that makes Tea Partiers want to stab themselves in their eyes. This makes you appear reasonable to the mainstream media and the howls of outrage from your base make it more likely that the New York Times will say nice things about you.

2) You must systematically destroy any person, place, or thing that excites conservatives: Nothing good ever comes from conservatives getting excited; so make sure to target anything and anyone that gets them fired up. If it’s a person like Ted Cruz or Sarah Palin, trash him or her publicly or have your aides leak stories to the press if you’re not brave enough to go that far. If it’s a strategy, put it down and undercut it at every opportunity. If it’s a group like the Senate Conservatives Fund or Freedomworks, scorn it and complain that it’s bad for the Republican Party.

3) You’re a winner just by virtue of being an establishment Republican: When Tea Partiers rally behind a candidate who loses, it’s because those guys don’t know what they’re doing. When establishment Republicans rally behind a candidate who loses, then they obviously selected the best candidate and no other candidate could have won. Establishment Republicans have a great formula: Win races, do nothing with that power that will make the media mad at you, which leads to more victories, which leads to doing nothing with that power that will make the media mad at you and so on and so on until the GOP totally dominates. Sure, that strategy may have lost the GOP the last two presidential elections and has produced only 45 senators so far, but it should start working any time now.

4) Trash conservatives, but hold your fire against Democrats: There’s a reason that both John McCain and Mitt Romney fought harder against their Republican primary opponents than they did against Barack Obama. The liberal media applauds you for saying mean things about conservative Republicans, but they hate it when you go after Democrats. If it comes right down to it, it’s better to go down to an honorable defeat than to win and have the media angry at you because you won a bruising race against a Democrat.

5) Communication skills are completely irrelevant: Think of yourself as a placeholder. Your job is to do just enough to keep conservatives from hating your guts so badly that you end up like poor Arlen Specter, while not making the media angry at you. Keep in mind that nothing makes the media angrier than a Republican who’s effective at anything. If you seem too charismatic or clever, liberals will perceive you as a threat who needs to be destroyed. That’s why you’re much better off mumbling boilerplate that people will forget 5 minutes after they’ve heard it.

6 Don’t freak people out by discussing how bad things are really getting: You don’t want to start freaking people out by suggesting the country could be so bankrupt we can’t even afford to borrow the money for our entitlement programs in a decade, do you? What do you think Paul Krugman would say to that? If you start telling the public that the Obama Administration got people killed with Fast and Furious and Benghazi, how do you think the Washington Post will react? Besides, if things really go south, important people like you will be living on an island somewhere; so who cares what happens to the rest of the country?

7) Accept that conservatism can’t win: Your job is not to win battles for conservatism, since that can’t happen. Instead, your job is to stave off inevitable defeat long enough to enjoy the perks of being a career politician before you start making the real money as a lobbyist. The last thing you want to do is go out and actually start trying to move the country to the right. That’s how you get MSNBC talking about you every day and Jesse Jackson calling you a racist.

8) Moderate is always better than conservative: Come on, how could any intelligent person back Pat Toomey over Arlen Specter, Marco Rubio over Charlie Crist, Rand Paul over Trey Grayson, and Ted Cruz over David Dewhurst? Granted, Rubio is coming around, but the rest of those guys have been rocking the boat since they got in the Senate. Why can’t they be more like Charlie Crist, Lincoln Chaffee, and Arlen Specter? Sure, all of those guys left the GOP, but anyone who can make it in either party obviously appeals to a lot of voters.

9) It’s fine to lie to your base: Just tell your supporters what they want to hear to get them to vote you into office and then keep your promises if it’s convenient. Tell them you’ll NEVER support amnesty and then lead the charge on it or say, “Read my lips: no new taxes,” and then push through a massive tax increase. The media loves it when Republicans screw over their own supporters and besides, what are they going to do? Vote for the Democrat?

10) Don’t make the mistake of talking about conservative principles when it matters: When you talk about conservative principles, mention them occasionally, quietly, as if they’re something your base is forcing you to do. Don’t ever make a big deal over it, even if your opponent is taking wildly unpopular liberal positions. Sure, the American public may ferociously oppose partial birth abortion and refusing to deport illegal aliens who’ve committed serious crimes, but if you make an issue of it, the media will think you’re one of THOSE Republicans. You know, the ones that actually believe in things. Better to just mumble some platitudes about your commitment to life and the rule of law as you get back to your talking points about the corporate tax rate.


Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: