I’m going to shock a few people here by saying how pleased I am to see John Bel Edwards win in Louisiana

To regular readers of the blog this might be a shock, why on earth would I want to see the democrats get a morale increasing win at a time when things look very bad for them, much better to see them continue to be crushed without mercy.  Particularly if you look at his record on certain issues:

Edwards campaigned as a moderate Democrat; he is an Obama supporter.  One of the first things Governor Edwards will do is to accept the Louisiana Medicaid expansion portion of Obamacare.

Another problem I saw with Edwards is that he is in the pocket of the trial lawyers and would do little to support the tort reform that is contributing to the anti-business climate in this state.  The business climate in this state is dismal…that is unless all you want to come in is more chain restaurants and tattoo parlors.  Not much else is happening here.

Edwards also wants to raise the minimum wage — another anti-business move.

I also find it unsettling that Edwards seems to have no clear position on whether or not he would accept more Syrian refugees into Louisiana and that he has been obfuscating his earlier positions on this for what is apparently a more popular stance.  The Hayride outlined this word-juggling here.  Initially, Edwards posted on Facebook that he would be an “active participant” in talks with the feds so that “we can be partners in the effort to accommodate refugees…”.  Well, if we can forgive Vitter for adultery eight years ago, (as his wife did, by the way), certainly we can forgive Edwards a little verbal nuance, no?  Everyone’s entitled to change their mind, except when they lie about it.

Initially, Edwards want to accommodate and assist the Syrian refugees coming into Louisiana.  After his Facebook posts advocating this position, and the grief he took for it in the comments, he changed his mind.  Curious.

These are all valid points & if I was a republican whose only goal was victory for the republican party  I’d be pretty upset.

But I’m not a republican, I’m a conservative catholic and when I look at John Bell Edwards this is what I see:

His Catholic upbringing and strong family ties have shaped both his commitments to his own community as well as his family. John Bel’s mother taught him both the compassion he demonstrates as a legislator and his belief in the power of prayer. Meanwhile, his family credits his father with ensuring that John Bel carefully considers all sides of an issue before making difficult decisions on behalf of his constituents. This compassion and good judgment, coupled with his ability to understand the details of legislation, has made him a force to be reckoned with among his colleagues in the Louisiana Legislature.

John Bel is married to his high-school sweetheart, the former Donna Hutto and they live in Roseland, Louisiana, with their three children, Samantha, Sarah Ellen, and John Miller. Donna is a public school teacher in Hammond, Louisiana, and John Bel practices law with his nephew in Amite. The Edwards family attends St. Helena Catholic Church in Amite.

And when I look at him on the issues I care about this is what I see:

Like the governor, he is an anti-abortion, pro-gun rights Catholic; his voting record is unblemished on both issues. Edwards is also known in the House as one of the most studied and disciplined legislators on either side of the aisle. Like Jindal, he has a sharp mind for policy.

and has lived this example: emphasis mine

In the 30-second TV spot, Edwards’ wife Donna describes being 20-weeks pregnant when a doctor discovered their child had spina bifida and encouraged her to have an abortion. `I was devastated,` Donna Edwards says. `But John Bel never flinched. He just said, ‘No. No, we’re going to love this baby no matter what.’`

The commercial shows their grown-up daughter with her fiancee as Donna Edwards says, `Samantha’s getting married next spring and she’s living proof that John Bel Edwards lives his values every day.`

Edwards said the ad was his daughter’s idea `to make sure people understood where we are on that issue as it relates to our Catholic Christian faith, being pro-life.` It also draws distinctions from the national Democratic Party, as Edwards positions himself as the kind of moderate Democrat that Louisiana used to regularly elect to statewide office.

Now there was a time when a Democrat who supported Gun Rights, was opposed to abortion and were actual faithful church Catholics was nothing unusual.  Unfortunately that time was over two decades ago back in the days when I was a democrat. It’s why I left the party in 1992

Now he’s weaseled a tad on funding planned parenthood for my taste but as Jazz Shaw put it:

The answer may not be what you think. One part of the equation is that the Democrats found the right guy to run. Edwards’ biography lays it all out. A West Point graduate and Airborne Ranger, Edwards is pro-gun, hawkish and touts his family’s deep religious faith and ties to the church. If you dropped this guy anywhere else in the country he’d be a Republican. Heck.. .he’d be toward the right wing of the party.

Meanwhile in the Lt Gov race the Democrats ran a fellow named Kip Holden who has argued this on abortion

Kip Holden, a Democrat, said: ”You’ve heard that life begins at conception. That’s disputed by a number of people and a number of those people have scientific backgrounds.”

Mr. Holden said the proposed law ”boils down to the haves and the have nots. Yes, abortions will still be performed on those women who can afford to go to other states.”

Holen is also a member of Bloomberg’s Mayors against illegal guns group.

The result?  While Edwards beat Vitter by 12 points, Holden the pro-abortion anti gun democrat lost by 10 to republican Billy Nungessor.

That’s exactly the type of result I want to see.

Now normally an Obama supporting, pro-obamacare Democrat winning the Gubernatorial race in the south would be a huge story for the MSM and we’d see huge headlines and in depth coverage of the winning democrat from the MSM for a week.

But given that this is also the win of  a pro 2nd amendment, anti common core anti-abortion religious catholic combined with a loss for a anti-2nd amendment pro abortion running mate, I think they might give it a miss.

Closing thought, I’m sorry for my friend Pat Austin that she is going to have to deal with a governor who is going to be bad on a lot of issues that are important to people living in Louisiana.

But if the Democrat party decides to start running anti-abortion pro-2nd amendment candidates for governor all over the nation, nobody will be happier than I

****************************************************************************

The only pay I get for this work comes from you. My goal for 2015 is $22,000 and to date we’re only at $5200

Given that fact I would I ask you to please consider hitting DaTipJar.




Olimometer 2.52

That gets all the bills paid. Consider Subscribing 100 Subscribers at $20 a month will get the job done and then some.


Choose a Subscription level



Additionally our subscribers get our podcast emailed directly to them before it show up anywhere else.

I know you can get the MSM for nothing, but that’s pretty much what most of them are worth.

Just a reminder to all those still defending the president as a great leader:

Before Barack Obama ran for president the Democrat Party had 49 seats in the Senate and two independents who caucused with them giving them control.

After four elections where Barack Obama was either on the ballot or President of the United States Democrats have 44 seats with two independents who caucus with them to make 46 .

Before Barack Obama ran for president the Democrat Party had 233 seats in the House of Representatives and control of the House.

After four elections where Barack Obama was either on the ballot or President of the United States Democrats have 188 seats with three seats still to be decided.

That means that since Barack Obama ran for president the number of Democrats in the senate has dropped by 8.97% and the number of Democrats in the House has dropped by 8%

Barack Obama promised to fundamentally transform America, whatever else he might have done, he certainly transformed the congress.

 

 

Malone: lf you walk through this door, you’re walking into a world of trouble. There’s no turning back. Do you understand?

The Untouchables 1987

Sen Jefferson Smith: Mr. President. I stand guilty as framed! Because Section 40 is GRAFT! And I was ready to say so, I was ready to tell you that a certain man of my state, a Mr. James Taylor, wanted to put through this dam for his own profit. A man who controls a political machine! And controls everything else worth controlling in my state! Yes, and even a man powerful enough to control Congressmen, and I saw three of them in his room the day I went up to see him…And this same man, Mr. James Taylor, came down here and offered me a seat in this Senate for the next twenty years if I voted for a dam that he knew and I knew was a fraud. BUT if I dared to open my mouth against that dam, he promised to break me in two. All right, I got up here and I started to open my mouth and the long and powerful arm of Mr. James Taylor reached into this sacred chamber and grabbed me by the scruff of the neck…

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington 1939

During the first Iraq war the day that people remember is the toppling of Saddam’s statue (I tend to remember it because it was my wedding anniversary.) but a lot of people forget that after Baghdad fell Saddam’s forces held out a bit longer. It wasn’t until the end of the Month that major combat was declared over.

One might consider it foolish to continue to fight for Saddam once Baghdad was gone, but this ignores a vital fact. They weren’t fighting so much for Saddam but for their perks.

One of the facts of life is any tyranny, while it produces trouble for most, also creates some winners.

It’s axiomatic that if you didn’t play ball with Saddam you took your life into your hands but conversely a lot of people made a very comfortable living keeping the cogs of Saddam’s murder machine going from building the palaces and keeping them clean.

And police states invariably have a lot of paperwork and record keeping someone has to do that, someone provides the supplies, the paper the tech support etc etc etc.

It is the same thing with say a local drug dealer, he buys the expensive car, his front businesses for laundering money employ plenty of folks and hires the big law firm (think The Good Wife) to keep him out of jail.

The bottom line if you go along, you get a piece of the pie and that piece might make your life a whole lot easier.

The Exact same principle works with Liberalism.

When you extract money from the taxpayer to pay for NPR, Planned Parenthood or for liberal friendly NGO’s the taxpayers might be the losers but there are plenty of winners.

The top management of those organization of course do very well, but they have employees, they have staff, their offices buy everything from equipment to stationery.

With the welfare state it’s even bigger, on the government side you have to create a bureaucracy. That involves some well-paying management jobs that can go to political friends, and plenty of low-level employment in positions not subject to the normal risks of a bad economy.

And with NGO’s it’s even better, not only do the top dogs get a very comfortable living but your staff isn’t subject to civil service rules so you have the power to provide jobs, full time, part time and interns within a depressed community. That’s real influence.

And on the receiving side, you know where that next meal is coming, you know the money is supposed to be there. There is no incentive to try to do something better for yourself in fact it’s a disincentive because once you are no longer one of the people on the receiving end of these benefits, you are someone who is paying for it.

Now imagine how those people would react if someone threatened to take it away.

Actually we don’t have to imagine we can see how it worked in Wisconsin. When Scott Walker tried to end the sweetheart deals that Unions had, deals which cost the taxpayer a fortune but padded Union coffers he was pilloried and attacked like no other pol in the country. You had legislatures flee the state, you had recalls of supreme court justices and a recall election to bring him down. The left, the media and the unions went all in to destroy him.

They failed but even after their defeat the hate still remains:

the government employee unions — which failed to block his legislation, failed to recall him, and failed to take back the state legislature — still have it in for him.

“Stokes was a state prison guard for 32 years and is now retired. Waiting for his takeout order at Milwaukee’s Water Street Brewery, Stokes couldn’t even name Walker’s opponent. That she was running against Walker was enough for him….I saw the health care was free, and I thought that was a pretty sweet deal,” the woman tells me at the Capital Tap Haus in Madison. “I had been in the private sector and I felt like half my paycheck was going to insurance.”

and that hate, from start to finish is completely understandable  this man put it best.

Ron, a bartender at Buck Bradley’s in Milwaukee for more than 20 years, is backing Walker again. He understands the unions’ anger: “If someone yanked away your gravy train, would you be happy?” Ron asks with a laugh…“They don’t like their safety blanket being taken away,”

An even better illustration comes from this graphic in Investor’s Business Daily.

brazil

As the story states

A Brazilian economist has shown a near-exact correlation between last Sunday’s presidential election voting choices and each state’s welfare ratios. Sure enough, handouts are the lifeblood of the left.

In a Twitter post, Amorim showed a near-exact correlation among Brazil’s states’ welfare dependency and their votes for leftist Workers Party incumbent Rousseff.  Virtually every state that went for Rousseff has at least 25% of the population dependent on Brazil’s Bolsa Familia welfare program of cash for single mothers, given for keeping children vaccinated and in school.
States with less than 25% of the population on Bolsa Familia overwhelmingly went for Neves and his policies of growth.

A lot of new Tea Party voters were shocked at the tactics used to repress them and attack them, but it’s completely understandable.  Control of the government means control of where or IF money is spent and the people who are getting it will do all they can, legal or otherwise, to keep those dollars flowing.

And if that means rolling over you, so be it.  They are not going to give up their fiefdoms without a fight.

 

UPDATE:  Jazz Shaw provides exhibit A at Hotair

Covered California issues $184M in no-bid contracts

Who do you think those contract winners will be spending their money on?

UPDATE 2:  Exhibit B: Blaming the GOP for Ebola.

Any card to save the gravy train.

 

********************************************8

Olimometer 2.52

This blog exists as a full-time endeavor thanks to your support. The only check I draw to pay for this coverage and all that is done is what you choose to provide.

If you think this coverage and what we do here is worth your support please consider hitting Datipjar below and help keep the bills paid.

Consider Subscribing to support our lineup , in addition to my own work seven days a week you get John Ruberry (Marathon Pundit)  on Sunday Pat Austin (And so it goes in Shreveport)  on Monday  Tim Imholt on Tuesday,  AP Dillon (Lady Liberty1885) Thursdays, Pastor George Kelly Fridays,   Steve Eggleston on Saturdays with  Baldilocks (Tue & Sat)  and   Fausta  (Wed & Fri) of (Fausta Blog) twice a week.

 

by Fausta Rodriguez Wertz

Colombia, the closest Western ally in South America, has been waging a war for half a century against narco-terrorist group the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).

The FARC, which the U.S. considers to be a terrorist and drug trafficking organization, relies heavily on cocaine trafficking to finance its activities.

Previous president Alvaro Uribe brought the FARC to its knees. Current president Juan Manuel Santos began peace negotiations with the FARC in Havana, Cuba, in November 2013. Throughout the negotiation period, the FARC have continued their criminal activities, attacking the Colombian army, killing military and civilians, kidnapping an American, and sheltering international terrorists, as

the FARC continues to control swathes of territory and mount attacks on army patrol and oil pipelines.

Now Santos is running for re-election, after having promised the FARC’s unelected guerrilla leaders seats in Congress

Voters would pass a referendum containing unpopular measures such as the transformation of the FARC into a political party and special treatment in the justice system for crimes committed by guerrillas, as part of a package that ends half a century of bloodshed, Santos said.

In addition to Santos’s sweet deal deal, FARC leader Timoleón Jiménez, a.k.a. Timochenko, in a rambling video celebrating the FARC’s 50th anniversary (video in Spanish), asked for the abolishment of the Colombian military. Essentially, this would place the the closest Western ally in South America in the hands of the terrorist group, their ‘dream of effective peace.’

On Sunday’s election, opposition candidate and

former finance minister Oscar Ivan Zuluaga finished atop the five-candidate field with 29 percent, setting up a June 15 runoff with Santos, who was second at 26 percent.

The main issue that separates the two candidates and has become the central debate of the campaign is the Havana-based peace talks with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia

The president launched the talks in 2011. He says he is committed to a settlement with the narcoterrorists that will end the conflict while delivering justice to their victims. But the rebels publicly insist they won’t spend even one day in jail. Many Colombians don’t trust a deal between thugs and a president who seems too eager to get a deal. They prefer Mr. Zuluaga’s emphasis on security. He believes the only way to end the violence is to defeat the enemy militarily.

From the start of his campaign, Zuluaga has said that he will only continue talks with the FARC if the rebels “cease all criminal actions against Colombians.”

Experts agree that Zuluaga would jack up miltary and police operations against rebel groups across Colombia, as he would likley not be involved in negotiations with the guerrillas. This would lead to greater confrontations with armed groups, but possibly would increase security for people who work in the countryside, who are most subject to kidnappings and extortion at the hand of the guerrillas.

Since neither Santos nor Zuluaga were able to get more than 50 percent for victory, there will be a runoff election on June 15.

faustaThe results will have consequences affecting the security of the entire hemisphere.

Fausta Rodriguez Wertz writes on U.S. and Latin America politics and culture at Fausta’s blog.

Harry:  (Wounded & Dying)  Chris…

Chris:Yes, Harry?

Harry:  l´d hate to die a sucker. We didn´t come here just to keep an eye on a lotta corn and chilli peppers. There was something else all the time, wasn´t there?

Chris: Yes, Harry. You had it pegged right all along.

The Magnificent Seven 1960

At the start of the movie The Magnificent Seven Chris is recruiting guns for the poor Mexican farmers when one of his old friends turns up inquiring what the action is, Chris replies that it’s just $20 & eating money to help out some farmers plagued by bandits, but Harry the high roller isn’t about to be fooled like that no matter how much Chris insists there is nothing more that what he says Harry just won’t believe him insisting that whatever going on, he was IN>

Harry: Sure, never mind. Tell me when you can.

Chris: Harry, please don´t understand me so fast!

Harry: l said never mind. l´m in. You dirty dog!:

The idea that things could actually be what they seem and that Chris might actually be acting to protect the people simply never occurred to him.

And that brings us to the Tea Party and both the left/media and the GOP establishment.

First our friends on in the left and the media (but I repeat myself).  They  look at the tea party and simply seethe.

That’s not a surprise the overwhelming national victory for the GOP they fueled in 2010 at the time of redistricting preventing them from retaking the house in 2012 and likely beyond. But what really drives them nuts are the crowds.

The left has made a career of producing Astroturf crowds. Paid union members, paid homeless, folks who don’t know what’s on their own signs who exist only to be in front of a camera to give the illusion of the support of people spontaneously turning out.

Then comes the tea party, rally after rally, crowd after crowd all without people paid to be there and if that isn’t enough for three years the media have been waiting for Tea Party violence, tea party thuggery or even tea party members not cleaning up after themselves after a rally.

They know there’s got to be a catch, a gimmick, there just couldn’t be this many people who opposed the left in general and Obamacare on their own without being paid.  They’re sure that someone in Koch industries is promising all these people well-paying jobs, or free meals for life at Chick-Fil-A or something.

If only they could figure out what!

 

But while the Tea Party confusion might generate frustration to the left, they cause outrage to the Establishment GOP that has been fighting them for nearly a decade.

One of the things our friends on the left like to insist is that the Tea Party movement was born over the election of Barack Obama. Today on Morning Joe Chuck Todd says the tea party is out for the money Joe Scarborough asked the question: Where were the these people when he was arguing against the spending of the Bush Administration?

That narrative conveniently forgets the movement known as Porkbustersporkbusters 1

The very first post on Porkbusters went up at Instapundit on Sep 18, 2005 at 7:00 pm and it said this:

SO THE EARLIER PORK POST — in which various bloggers posted and emailed about pork in their states — looked kind of promising, and N.Z. Bear and I got together to figure out a way to take it up a notch.

How are we going to mobilize the blogosphere in support of cuts in wasteful spending to support Katrina relief? Here’s the plan.

Identify some wasteful spending in your state or (even better) Congressional District. Put up a blog post on it. Go to N.Z. Bear’s new PorkBusters page and list the pork, and add a link to your post.

Then call your Senators and Representative and ask them if they’re willing to support having that program cut or — failing that — what else they’re willing to cut in order to fund Katrina relief. (Be polite, identify yourself as a local blogger and let them know you’re going to post the response on your blog). Post the results. Then go back to NZ Bear’s page and post a link to your followup blog post.

The result should be a pretty good resource of dubious spending, and Congressional comments thereon, for review by blogs, members of the media, etc. And maybe even members of Congress looking for wasteful spending . . . .

Feel free to copy the cool logo by Stacy Tabb (or this larger version) and use it on your own posts.

Technorati tag: .

By Sept 19th 2005 Michael Barone had written about the movement calling it a worthy idea. Howard Kurtz in the Washington Post discovered it the next day. PBS had Glenn Reynolds on Marketplace the next day and before that day was through CNN was talking about it.

On Sept 22nd Townhall.com wrote this about the clash between the porkbusters & the GOP

the real debate isn’t happening in Congress as a whole – it is unfolding within the Republican Party. The debate will shape the future of the GOP. If Republicans – the one-time party of small government and fiscal restraint — cannot support spending cuts now, then they will officially signal their abandonment of fiscal conservatism, a once valued part of the Republican platform. . . .

Ironically Nancy Pelosi at the time was the only member of congress with a “committed cut” but later in the day they got an e-mail from Tom Colburn

Sen. Coburn will call for a freeze on non-defense, non-homeland security discretionary spending. Over two years, that alone would save $112 billion compared to our current spending path. Combined with any number of the different specific savings options, more than enough money can be saved to pay for our efforts along the Gulf Coast. In addition, Sen. Coburn will call on the president to veto any new spending bills that allow for increases in non-defense, non-homeland security spending.

porkbusters By Halloween 2005 Porkbusters had a much cooler logo and within a week was already hitting Karl Rove was already a target on Nov 15th the bridge to nowhere was defunded and internal Senate GOP e-mails already were lining up against the porkbusting bloggers.

By January the WSJ was hitting the GOP for supporting incumbents over ideas and by April Trent Lott had enough:

I’ll just say this about the so-called porkbusters. I’m getting damn tired of hearing from them. They have been nothing but trouble ever since Katrina. We in Mississippi have not asked for more than we deserve. We’ve been very reasonable.”The government just spent $300 million to repair the rail line that Lott and his fellow Mississippi Republican Senator Thad Cochran want to tear up and replace with a highway to serve the heavily populated coastal region.

I guess he’s hearing from people he’d rather not. You know, the ones who don’t have their checkbooks out.

The establishment GOP was determined that these “porkbusters” had to be stopped…and then in 2006 they lost the congress.

Suddenly John Boehner was speaking against spending and the late Bob Novak had this observation concerning Minority Leader Mitch McConnell:

Sen. Lamar Alexander, newly elected chairman of the Senate Republican Conference and a McConnell ally, is also an appropriator. So are Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison, the Conference vice chairman, and the canny Robert Bennett, McConnell’s close adviser who sits at the leadership table as the minority leader’s counsel. These Senate GOP leaders opt for pork as the party reaches a fork in the road.

That fork offers choices not only for current government spending but also for the Republican future. One way pressed by conservative reformers would either block an omnibus bill or stop it by sustaining a presidential veto, insisting on a CR that would save taxpayers $30 billion a year. The other course makes a deal with an omnibus bill $8 billion to $11 billion over Bush’s guidelines, virtually forcing him to sign it by inserting troop money, further depressing the demoralized Republican voter base. That was the course McConnell clearly indicated last week.

Those names sound familiar As Glenn Reynolds put it at the time

Most likely result: McConnell will remain an effective minority leader for some time . . . .

The house’s newly found love for spending cuts were not enough of a selling point in 2008 but in 2010 lost in the wilderness the GOP in the house were suddenly delivered from the wilderness not only nationally but in state after state and the Republicans leaders once again had their chairmanships and with redistricting would keep them for a decade….

…but then there were those pesky voters.

The chairmen and their leaders once again had the power of the purse and the attention of K street, but the tea party children of the porkbusters who sent them there insisted that they really wanted spending to be cut, even corporate welfare but that’s not what K-Street wants to hear so they ran their own candidates:

With Mitch McConnell’s help, Grayson raised half a million dollars from business PACs, including Obamacare backers like Pfizer and the American Hospital Association, bailout beneficiaries like the American Bankers Association and the Managed Funds Association and Beltway bandits like Northrop Grumman. At least a dozen lobbying firms and industry trade groups funded Grayson. Republican senators-turned-lobbyists like Trent Lott backed Grayson, warning, “We don’t want a lot of Jim DeMint disciples.”

Rand Paul, meanwhile, pocketed only $25,000 in PAC money before the primary. Where did Paul get his loot?

The Club for Growth was Paul’s biggest source of funds, giving him $105,000, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The Senate Conservatives Fund kicked in $36,685. These two groups, together with FreedomWorks, also spent big on independent expenditures for Paul.

Ted Cruz also came to Washington by defeating K Street. The Club for Growth spent more than $2.5 million helping Cruz in the Texas GOP primary, while the SCF spent about $800,000. K Street was backing Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst — he got $500,000 from business PACs (33 times Cruz’s take), and GOP lobbyists hosted a fundraiser for him at the Capitol Hill townhouse of Democratic superlobbyist Tony Podesta.

As Cruz put it, “Everyone who makes their living from continuing the government-spending gravy train is supporting Dewhurst.”

To Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and the Tea Party going to Washington or even becoming president is about saving the village from the Bandits who are pillaging it.

But the Establishment GOP will always be Harry looking for that hidden gold in the mountains and they’ll be damned if they are going to put themselves at risk of losing fat donors for the sake of the votes  nor do I expect them to come over the hill to help those Republicans fighting for them when they’re trapped in a corner.

They just don’t have that final Harry spark in them.

Update:  Fixed a sentence that was out of order

**************************************************

Olimometer 2.52

It’s Tuesday and I’m still 14 $20 hits shy of my $305 paycheck.

Unlike Harry & the establishment GOP everybody knows where I stand and what I seek that’s why no establishment GOP candidate has ever run an ad here.

But unlike next week when I’ll need 17 people to fund Me, Chris, Vin & Harry 15 people (14 to go) will be more than enough for me. If you care to be one of them please hit DaTipJar below.

Senators Lee, Cruz and Rubio have gotten a lot of attention recently with their assertion that this is the last chance to rid the world of Obamacare. In the upcoming debt negotiations, they are offering a strategy to refuse to fund Obamacare, even if that means shutting down the government.  Now, no one wants the government to shut down, but this may come down to who blinks first.  Already pundits and some Republicans are saying that this is a bad strategy claiming that Obama will win eventually and Republicans will have another public defeat that will be difficult to recover from.  In the end, some say, the GOP loses.

I say nonsense. Here are 6 reasons why this is a good strategy and we should stand behind it:

1) This really is the last chance to substantially weaken the law.  Democrats knew all those years ago that they needed to build in a phased approach to the law.  Let’s face it, if Obamacare’s implementation had gone any more quickly, we may have still had the backbone needed to do something about it.  But, as it stands, years have gone by and sleepy-eyed members of Congress are tired of fighting Obama, tired of losing.  However, since the law has not been implemented yet fully (though the federal worker bees have been busy prepping to take over the free market ever since the bill was signed into law), the GOP does have a card to play here.  We would be dumb to not use it to its full advantage.

2)  We already lost the Presidential election. There seems to be perpetual hand-wringing  and whining in the Republican Party.  It goes something like this, “if the GOP stands up against Obama, Obama will win and it will make us look bad and lose the next election.  We can’t let that happen, so we need to look like we are working with him.”  This is the most asinine logic I’ve ever heard.  First of all, it doesn’t work.  We already lost!  There is nothing we can do to go back and win.  And, giving in to Obama has gotten us nothing.  In 5 years, I challenge anyone to think of what the GOP has gained strategically by compromising to Obama.  I can’t think of anything.

 3) The law is so bad that it is worth any political risk.  I’m not going to go back and conjure up all of the reports that show how bad this law is.  You can go Google or Bing that yourself.  However, at this point it is well-known that this law will have a substantial negative impact on our economy, on jobs and businesses, and on the healthcare industry as a whole.  Is anyone confused about that?

4291562_eagle_and_american_flag) Obamacare contracts our freedom.  Make no mistake, this is the definition of socialism.  The Executive Branch should not have the power to mandate whatever rules it wants to the healthcare industry.  Going forward, the government gets to design coverage for all Americans the way that it wants. The free market is no longer at play here and people are forced to pay for whatever the government deems to be “basic mandatory coverage.”  I’m not confused about how bad the health care industry was before Obamacare was passed.  But, let’s face it, this takes an existing problem, multiplies it by infinity, and then perpetuates it into eternity.

Obamacare is also a threat to religious liberty.  This is no surprise.  Anytime the government expands its reach, religious liberty is at risk.  The contraceptive mandate is only the beginning.  What other religiously controversial mandates will come out of the Obama (or any future liberal) administration that offend people of faith?

 5) If the GOP loses short-term, we win long-term.  The fact is that this may not work.  However, does the GOP become a strong party again by doing whatever Democrats want?  This battle gives us an opportunity to stand together and fight for something.  It shows voters that this Party is not in retreat.  It provides us with fuel for next year’s elections.  Doing nothing will only hurt us next year.  I’m sad about last November just like everyone else, but the reports of the GOP’s long and slow death are only going to end up being accurate if we let them.

 obama6) Sometimes you just have to do what is right.  If we don’t fight for this, then MSNBC has won, Obama and his Chicago thuggery have won, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and their dishonest cram-down-our-throats tactics have won, and who we are as a party (or as a nation) may never be the same.  There is a time for compromise, and that time has passed.  The President didn’t compromise when he forced his will on the American people with this bloated takeover of the health care industry.  We cannot compromise as we fight back.

Republicans, this is about doing what is right and doing it now.  Visit the site dontfundobamacare.com and see where your Senator stands.

Lisa @ AmericaisConservative.org (This post is a reprint of the original from AmericaisConservative.org.)

There are two things that really don’t make any sense to me in the so-called “Fiscal Cliff” debate.

The first is the considered opinion of everyone involved that “sequestration” is a bad thing when it was a bipartisan law passed by a GOP House with broad democrat support and through a democrat senate with over half of the GOP signing on then signed by the president.

But there is a second question that I found odd that isn’t getting a lot of play.

We are told by both sides that we have to do X because of the election. The left says the GOP has to give into the president because he won re-election, the right says the president has to give some because the members of the House won re-election and the senate says nothing because they don’t want to remind people that Democrats have control (and responsibility) for half of congress.

This makes no sense since the congress that WAS elected won’t be sworn in until Jan 3rd.

If we as a nation are going to make decisions, one way or the other, based on the election, why not simply let the congress that is coming make these decisions? Let sequestration come, and then let the new congress do what they were hired to do when they were hired to do it.

And if we don’t like the job they do, well their contracts come up in two, four and six years.

On Conservatively Speaking and to a lesser degree on DaTechGuy on DaRadio we speak about the one party rule in Massachusetts and all the trouble it causes us.

Massachusetts and California may be one side of the coin but the NYT talks a bit about the other side of the equation:

Come January, more than two-thirds of the states will be under single-party control, raising the prospect that bold partisan agendas — on both ends of the political spectrum — will flourish over the next couple of years.

There are risks in such a political situation:

Some politicians are mindful that one-party control carries with it one-party blame — and a risk that a particularly partisan agenda will eventually irk voters and lead to a reversal in the next election.

But there is also a reward in a particular sense.

I am a conservative because I believe it is not only morally right but it produces the greatest good for the greatest number economically and socially and for the future of my children and grandchildren. Let’s work under the assumption that our friends on the left believe the same (we’ll pause for our conservative readers who might have been drinking to wipe off their keyboards after spitting it out).

Previously we have seen the effects of liberal rule in cities like Detroit but now we will be able to actually compare the results between the blue and red state as a whole.

In 2016 we will have years of data to see what states have made it and what states have not, what states have employment and what states do not, and more importantly with four years of Barack Obama ahead of us, we will see which states become places where people are going to want to live and which states are not.

I’m nearly 50, it’s my intention to live and die right where I am, but by the end of the Obama years both of my sons will be out of college and we will see where they will decide to go to make a future for themselves.

May the best states and ideas win. The only question is, will the media report it?

Apparently there is no such animal:

“It’s a shame that … more people don’t do that,” said Amin Sadri, 23, a Florida independent. “That more people, for lack of a better word, they almost feed at the trough. They are set on a certain mindset, so they only listen and gather information that is already predestined to go in a certain direction.”

Yeah Sadri is an “independent”. He doesn’t make judgements based on party…

Sadri for example, supported Barack Obama in the 2008 election and plans to do so again in 2012. Going back to the presidential race between Republican Bob Dole and Democrat Bill Clinton in 1996 — when Sadri was a small child — the disputed 2000 race between Democrat Al Gore and Republican George W. Bush, and the 2004 election between Bush and Democrat John Kerry, Sadri said he has always wanted the Democrat to win.

…until it’s time to vote. So why does he not join the side he is actually on? Can you say: Plausible deniability

So why isn’t he a registered Democrat?

“See, that’s the problem,” he said. “As soon as I say that I’m a Democrat, people look at me and say, ‘Oh, you believe in this, you believe in this, you believe in this,’ and I don’t!”

Yeah sure he doesn’t. If that’s the truth, if he doesn’t believe what the democrats believe, then he should be persuadable, right…

This fall, Sadri will count himself as an independent voter. But if the campaigns think he’s persuadable, they’ll be wasting their time.

…or not.

Any Massachusetts voter who has seen a state with 50% vote democrat over and over knows the real story.

For many people, the ability to deny deny deny for social reasons means a lot and the faux message of being “independent” is a matter of self-esteem: I’m above the fray.

It’s BS and the NPR story talks about a fascinating study to show it:

Nosek and Hawkins proved the test was measuring people’s real attitudes by asking the volunteers to evaluate different policies. Some were labeled Democratic ideas. Others were labeled Republican. Then Nosek secretly switched the labels. The idea that used to be called Democratic was now labeled Republican, and the idea that used to be Republican was now labeled Democratic.

“What we found was that independents who were implicitly Democratic tended to favor the plan proposed by Democrats,” Nosek said. “And independents who were implicitly Republican tended to favor the plan proposed by Republicans. And it didn’t matter which plan was which. emphasis mine

One interesting thing on this story. I listened to the audio and read the transcript from above there is one difference that jumped out at me

Referring to the tests to identify what independents actually said:

Independents? Some showed no bias for either party. But the vast majority did.

But in the online story it said this

Independents? Some showed no bias for either party. But many did.

What is the take away? As polls usually show “independents” as 12-16 percent of the vote, the reality is you are talking 3-4% TOPS. The means one thing:

Every election is a base election and a smart candidate will act accordingly.

You can listen to the story here.

Update: I owe a hat tip to Hot Air headlines