Archive for the ‘RNC’ Category
After the Obama administration’s announcement that they were postponing the employer mandate another time, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus issued this statement:
The Obama Administration is failing to deal with ObamaCare because it is simply bad law. After refusing to accept bipartisan changes to the law, the administration is unilaterally making it up as they go along. Whether you are an American worker, employer, a union member or healthcare provider, you’ve had enough. What’s the remedy? Elections matter. Democrats may try hiding from President Obama on the campaign trail, but when it comes to his signature accomplishment, ObamaCare, each Democrat Senator up for reelection this year helped make it a reality.
That statement is forgettable. It represents a lost opportunity to pound a big nail in Obamacare’s coffin. Here’s the statement I would’ve written if I was in charge of the RNC’s messaging:
Rather than admitting that his signature issue is a failure, President Obama announced he was delaying the employer mandate. Again. The American people know that the Affordable Care Act isn’t affordable. People are paying more and getting less. Families’ premiums and deductibles are higher. Their networks are smaller. All too often, they’re being told that they can’t continue seeing the doctors that they’ve trustded for years.
Obamacare is the wrong perscription for a difficult situation. Dr. Tom Coburn, working with his Senate colleagues, has put together a plan that does what Obamacare was supposed to do. It addresses the problem of insuring people with pre-existing conditions. It lets families buy insurance across state lines. It lowers health care costs. Unlike Obamacare, it does all this without raising taxes.
Obamacare is killing jobs. The Patient CARE Act will create jobs and unleash the awesome job-creating power of American entrepreneurs. Families need good-paying full-time jobs. Families can’t wait through another delay to a failed bill.
This morning, Mark Halperin said what others hadn’t said:
At some point, we’ll reach a tipping point. I suspect we’re fast approaching that point. Charles Krauthammer is more skeptical of the bill than I am:
Mssrs. Halperin and Krauthammer are right that Obamacare, aka the Affordable Care Act, is killing jobs and the decision to delay another part of the employer mandate screams of survival politics at its worst.
Technorati: Reince Priebus, Republican National Committee, Patient CARE Act, Repeal And Replace, Dr. Tom Coburn, Orrin Hatch, Richard Burr, GOP, President Obama, Employer Mandate, Democrats, Election 2014
If there’s one thing Mike Huckabee needs to learn ASAP, it’s the First Rule of Holes, which is, if you’re in one, stop digging. In his interview with Megyn Kelly, Huckabee tried playing the role of victim:
Yes, he talked about his strong wife of 40 years being able to do things he can’t do, then talking about how he sees her as his equal. That’s slipping the real issue, though. Gov. Huckabee isn’t getting pelted with criticism because he sees his wife as his equal. He’s getting pelted with criticism because he made some stupid comments during a speech to the RNC this week. He’s also getting criticized because CNN’s Dana Bash mischaracterized his statements.
While watching the speech, I thought Gov. Huckabee tried to do too much. There’s no question whether he wanted to throw some red meat to the partisans in the room. Likewise, there’s no question that he wanted to be funny at the same time. Had I written his speech, I would’ve worded things totally differently. Here’s what I would’ve written:
In their attempt to win women votes, the Democratic Party has treated them like reproductive rights are all that women care about. It’s insulting to women to think of them as single-subject voters. Any thoughtful, honest person knows that women care about a wide range of issues, from health care to education to jobs to their families to whether the government is doing all they can to protect us from terrorist attacks.
I’m proud that the Republican is the party of life. Republicans of all stripes agree that late term abortions are despicable, except when the life of the mother is involved. Republicans of all stripes suppported the ban on partial birth abortions. All Republicans were repulsed when they found out about the evil being conducted in Kermit Gosnell’s abortion factory.
Republicans should pledge to the nation that we’ll do everything possible to end late term abortions. Republicans should do that because women who’ve seen the ultrasound know that they’re watching their unborn, but feeling, baby. The vast majority of people agree with that opinion.
If the Democrats want to be the party that panders to women by thinking of them as single subject voters, Republicans should prepare to win women voters by showing them that we care about reducing health care costs, creating good-paying full-time jobs and making education the vehicle for upward mobility. We should be the party that tells women that we want to limit government intrusion into their families’ lives so their families can live prosperous, productive lives.
If Gov. Huckabee wants to play the victim, that’s his right and, to an extent, he was the victim of some terrible reporting. That being said, whining about being the victim doesn’t persuade a single voter or help people reach a solution to the problems they’re facing.
Gov. Huckabee, put down the shovel. Stop playing the victim care. It isn’t flattering. Admit you tried to do too much with that speech, them move on.
FNC’s James Rosen has looked through newly declassified documents that say senior Pentagon officials briefed President Obama that Benghazi was a terrorist attack:
Minutes after the American consulate in Benghazi came under assault on Sept. 11, 2012, the nation’s top civilian and uniformed defense officials, headed for a previously scheduled Oval Office session with President Obama, were informed that the event was a “terrorist attack,” declassified documents show. The new evidence raises the question of why the top military men, one of whom was a member of the president’s Cabinet, allowed him and other senior Obama administration officials to press a false narrative of the Benghazi for two weeks afterward.
That’s frightening. Gen. Carter Ham, then the leader of AFRICOM, told then Defense Secretary Panetta that Benghazi had been attacked and that it was a terrorist attack:
Ham’s account of that fateful day was included in some 450 pages of testimony given by senior Pentagon officials in classified, closed-door hearings conducted last year by the Armed Services subcommittee. The testimony, given under “Top Secret” clearance and only declassified this month, presents a rare glimpse into how information during a crisis travels at the top echelons of America’s national security apparatus, all the way up to the president.
Also among those whose secret testimony was declassified was Dempsey, the first person Ham briefed about Benghazi. Ham told lawmakers he considered it a fortuitous “happenstance” that he was able to rope Dempsey and Panetta into one meeting, so that, as Ham put it, “they had the basic information as they headed across for the meeting at the White House.” Ham also told lawmakers he met with Panetta and Dempsey when they returned from their 30-minute session with President Obama on Sept. 11.
Despite Gen. Ham’s briefing, President Obama insisted that we didn’t know what happened in Benghazi, telling Joy Behar of the View that they were still conducting an investigation into what happened that terrible night in Benghazi.
What’s worse is that Secretary Panetta and Gen. Dempsey didn’t speak out immediately. They were briefed by Gen. Ham that the consulate had been attacked by terrorists. Gen. Ham didn’t talk about a demonstration that got hijacked by terrorists. He talked about a co-ordinated terrorist attack.
Rep. Brad Wenstrup, R-Ohio, a first-term lawmaker with experience as an Iraq war veteran and Army reserve officer, pressed Ham further on the point, prodding the 29-year Army veteran to admit that “the nature of the conversation” he had with Panetta and Dempsey was that “this was a terrorist attack.”
The transcript reads as follows:
WENSTRUP: “As a military person, I am concerned that someone in the military would be advising that this was a demonstration. I would hope that our military leadership would be advising that this was a terrorist attack.”
HAM: “Again, sir, I think, you know, there was some preliminary discussion about, you know, maybe there was a demonstration. But I think at the command, I personally and I think the command very quickly got to the point that this was not a demonstration, this was a terrorist attack.”
WENSTRUP: “And you would have advised as such if asked. Would that be correct?”
HAM: “Well, and with General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta, that is the nature of the conversation we had, yes, sir.”
Minutes before they met with President Obama, Gen. Dempsey and Secretary Panetta were told that terrorists had attacked the Benghazi consulate and that Ambassador Stevens was unaccounted for. It’s inconceivable that Panetta and Dempsey didn’t brief President Obama that a terrorist attack was underway.
For the first time since the attacks, a timeline of events and briefings is emerging. That’s especially important because the timeline involves briefings by the top people in the White House and at the Pentagon. These aren’t low-level staffers sharing gossip. These are the top echelons of President Obama’s national security cabinet. This especially stings the President:
Panetta told the Senate Armed Services Committee in February of last year that it was him who informed the president that “there was an apparent attack going on in Benghazi.” “Secretary Panetta, do you believe that unequivocally at that time we knew that this was a terrorist attack?” asked Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla. “There was no question in my mind that this was a terrorist attack,” Panetta replied.
Based on this testimony, there’s no question that President Obama, Secretary Clinton and Ambassor Rice lied about the importance of the anti-Muslim video. They knew within minutes that this was a precision terrorist attack. Then they told America that a video made the terrorists resort to violence.
President Obama’s credibility took a major hit for lying to the American people about keeping the health insurance plan they liked. His credibility will take another major hit for lying about the terrorist attack that got 4 American patriots murdered in Benghazi. Frankly, there isn’t a justification for trusting President Obama after all the whoppers he’s told.
Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) is in a lot more trouble than it seems. Despite his ample war chest and approval ratings, only 50 percent of Virginians say Warner should get a second term. And independents, by a margin of 49 to 43 percent, say they would rather have someone new in Virginia’s Senate seat.
Moreover, Warner will have to defend his deciding vote for Obamacare during a midterm election that will likely be driven by voter anger over Obamacare. Virginians upset about President Obama’s false promise that “If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan” will be surprised to discover that Warner made the same false pledge, declaring “I’m not going to support a health-care reform plan that’s going to take away the health care you’ve got right now or a health-care plan that you like.” He did. And if The Post is right that a second wave of Obamacare-driven cancellations is coming in October, just a few weeks before Election Day, that broken promise will be front and center in voters’ minds when Virginians go to the polls.
Right now, we’re experiencing a mini-lull in the ‘Obamacare Storm’. That won’t last forever. Mr. Thiessen is right. There’s another wave of cancellations coming this October. The bad news for Democrats is that the cancellation notices that were sent out for individual policies will be tiny compared with October’s cancellation notices.
At this point, it’s total speculation but it isn’t a stretch to think that we don’t know how toxic the Affordable Care Act, aka the ACA, will be for Democrats. That being said, it isn’t speculation to say that Democrats are already attempting to distance themselves from the subject. That’s what President Obama’s impending income inequality campaign is about.
Thiessen thinks former RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie will get into the race. Thiessen also thinks that Gillespie will give Sen. Warner the fight of his life:
Like Obama, Warner will try to shift conversation from Obamacare to income inequality. Gillespie won’t let Warner off the hook on Obamacare, but he’s more than ready to engage Warner on the economic debate, and is uniquely positioned to do so. He grew up in a blue-collar family, the son of an immigrant who came here from Ireland when his father found work in America as a janitor. His parents ran a corner grocery store where Gillespie worked as a kid. He was among the first generation in his family to go to college and helped pay his way by working as a U.S. Senate parking lot attendant.
Gillespie will argue that the Obama-Warner economic policies, with $1 trillion in new taxes and $7 trillion in new debt, have put the American Dream out of reach for too many citizens. Virginians’ share of the national debt is rising while incomes are falling. He will reject the idea that this is the new normal and argue that “we can do better,” campaigning on a hopeful message of economic opportunity, upward mobility and helping people rise as far as their hard work and ambition will take them.
That isn’t the type of opponent Democrats want to face. Gillespie’s fundraising abilities are well-documented. His message will be refreshing because people are tired of the difficult economic circumstances they find themselves in.
Gillespie knows how to focus on important issues. In this election cycle, that means tying the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, to Sen. Warner. Let’s see how toxic it is as an issue. Let’s see if Virginians like paying higher insurance premiums or getting fined for not buying government-approved health insurance. Let’s see if Virginians like having the government tell their families what coverages their families need. Let’s see whether Virginians prefer making their own decisions.
Gillespie will have strong grassroots support and no problem raising the resources to make sure every Virginian knows that Warner’s moderate image is a myth.
Considering the votes that Sen. Warner has cast, that shouldn’t be that difficult.
Now that the RNC has passed a resolution preventing NBC and CNN from hosting GOP primary debates, it’s time to talk about why it’s a great decision.
First, highlighting the fact that CNN has reverted to being a Clinton cheerleader (that’s how it earned its nickname of being the Clinton News Network in the 1990s) and NBC is planning on airing a Hillary miniseries is a great strategy. There’s no better way to highlight these networks’ bias than by highlighting these networks’ bias.
Second, let’s stop pretending that these networks have great debate moderators. Remember Candy Crowley’s interference in the Romney-Obama debate by insisting President Obama had called Benghazi a terrorist attack from the start:
President Obama mentioned terrorists in passing. He didn’t say that Benghazi was a coordinated, pre-planned terrorist attack. The CIA said that the day after the attack but he didn’t. Crowley’s performance was one of the worst performances in presidential debate history.
Then there’s David Gregory accusing Newt Gingrich of racism for talking about President as the food stamp president:
Anyone that thinks David Gregory or Candy Crowley are fairminded, centrist journalists likely think that George Stephanopoulos is objective, too. For those who’ve forgotten, here’s a reminder of Stephanopoulos’ objectivity:
The thought that a journalist would waste time during a presidential debate on contraception policy is appalling. It’s a nothing question designed to paint Republicans as hating women. Stephanopoulos wasn’t trying to ask a pertinent question on an important issue. His goal was to ask a pointed question to humiliate a presidential candidate.
The best moderators in the presidential debates were Bret Baier, Megyn Kelly and the other people from Fox. They asked substantive questions. They didn’t hesitate in asking a clarifying follow-up question. They thing they didn’t do is ask gotcha questions that didn’t inform the voters about the important issues of the day.
Not letting the likes of David Gregory, George Stephanopoulos, Scott Pelley and Candy Crowley moderate the GOP primary debates is a positive step in the right direction.
Tags: Hillary Clinton, Documentary, Miniseries, David Gregory, NBC, Candy Crowley, CNN, George Stephanopoulos, Scott Pelley, Media Bias, Bret Baier, Megyn Kelly, Presidential Debates, Debate Moderators
If Mitt Romney keeps beating President Obama in the fundraising battle, this race could get rather lopsided relatively quickly. July wasn’t a terrible month for President Obama:
@BarackObama Reporting back on last month’s fundraising numbers: In July, 761,000 people donated to raise over $75 million for this campaign. Thank you.
It’s just that Mitt had a significantly better month than President Obama and the DNC:
Mitt Romney and the Republican National Committee brought in $101.3 million in July, making that the second consecutive month that the GOP nominee’s fundraising cracked the $100 million mark.
The Romney campaign, the RNC and the Romney Victory Fund have a combined $185.9 million in the bank, the Romney campaign announced.
Romney’s receipts almost match his June haul of $106 million and may position him to extend his cash-on-hand lead over the president. For all the rough news weeks Romney has endured lately, his campaign treasury doesn’t seem to have suffered for it.
First, Mitt hasn’t had a rough couple of weeks. That’s just the storyline established by Mssrs. Axelrod and Plouffe, then parroted by their media puppets.
People living outside the DC echochamber recognize that Mitt impressed people in Israel. His statement about the Palestinians won’t hurt him. Further, people living outside the DC echochamber were impressed with Mitt’s speech in Poland.
It’s true that Mitt shouldn’t have said anything about the Olympics but that’s another tempest in a teapot issue that the DC media is throwing a hissy fit over but that voters just ignore. They’re worried that President Obama hasn’t gotten the economy jumpstarted. They’re worried that the ACA will hurt businesses.
The Obama train is quickly turning into a trainwreck. The real polling shows him in tough shape in the battleground states.
By the time the Democrats’ (abbreviated and underfunded) convention closes, they might be riding a 3-month fundraising losing streak. That’s a terrible position to be in heading into the final sprint.
The contents of the article aren’t a joy to the Obama campaign either:
(Reuters) – Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and Republican groups raised more than $76.8 million in May, his campaign said on Thursday, topping the $60 million President Barack Obama and his Democratic allies hauled in.
The campaign and Republican National Committee have $107 million cash on hand, the campaign said.
(Reporting By Patricia Zengerle)
This is the worst news President Obama could get from the campaign operation. First, news that President Obama’s major ad blitz didn’t barely move the needle of public opinion. Next, the news that he’ll actually be outfundraised (and probably by a pretty wide margin) won’t cheer him up, either.
This is shaping up to be another miserable morning for the Obama campaign. It’s time for Mssrs. Axelrod and Plouffe to order more cases of Maalox.
First, I’ll start by saying I don’t consider Pat Anderson the enemy. There’s just an issue where the two of us disagree philosophically. In fact, this post is mostly about philosophical differences. In fact, that’s all this is.
At a State Convention gathering, more than a few people were talking about “the Stebbins email.” One of the people talking about it forwarded it to me. Here’s the text of the email:
From: Marianne Stebbins
To: Marianne Stebbins
Sent: Wed, May 16, 2012 8:52 pm
Subject: Don’t forget that State Central immediately follows the convention on Saturday
Up for election are the National Committeeman and National Committeewoman positions. The primary contest there is for Committeewoman, where both Pat Anderson, current Committeewoman is being challenged by Janet Beihoffer.
I take care to not twist arms, but would like you to consider that Pat Anderson has been friendly to us, helpful in many ways. Beihoffer has been engaging in some nasty campaigning against Pat, while Pat has been taking the high road.
Please stay for State Central on Saturday if at all possible. This is an important vote for the future direction of our party.
I don’t have a problem with the RP people who are State Central delegates voting for the candidate of their choice. What I’ve got a major problem with is hearing anyone say that Janet “has been engaging in some nasty campaigning against Pat.” I’ve read what Janet’s said. I’ll stipulate that Janet’s said some hardhitting things.
Characterizing Janet’s communications as “nasty campaigning” just isn’t accurate. A number of Janet’s supporters have taken issue with some of the things Pat’s done. Most of those disputes involve Pat’s lobbying for Racino.
Purely from a limited government policy standpoint, I can’t support Racino. I can’t figure out how a person can be a limited government conservative while supporting giving government another revenue stream to increase the size of government.
That’s why I can’t understand the Paul supporters supporting another revenue stream to government. They’re supposed to be the ultimate believers in limited government conservatism.
I’ve heard Paul’s supporters say that they’re defending the principles of free market capitalism. Racino isn’t free market capitalism. According to their own website, Racino “would be paid for in full by Canterbury Park and Running Aces Harness Park.” That’s an awfully limited market. That’s the opposite of a free market.
It’s time Congressman Paul’s supporters admitted that they aren’t the pure-hearted free market guy their champion is.
Ed’s post about the fundraising reports for Team Obama/DNC and Team Mitt/RNC is fascinating on multiple levels. This is the part that most fascinates me:
As I write in my column, it’s not just Obama and his team, but also his allies in the media. The more they talk, the more people they alienate from Obama. And the more that happens, the fewer donations they get, and the more in both voters and contributors that Romney and the RNC can attract. This should be a very interesting summer in the fundraising race.
The reason I find this fascinating is because Axelrod and Carney have talked at length about how this would be a choice election. While there’s no doubt that President Obama, Axelrod and Carney want it to be a choice election, it appears as though the American people are saying that they’re treating it like a referendum on President Obama.
This should frighten the administration because their record isn’t popular. The stimulus stinks. O’Care isn’t popular, either. The early Obama bailouts are failures. The Solyndra scandal, a biproduct of the stimulus, is a portrait of the worst of DC. Job Growth has been lethargic and inconsistent.
In short, there’s nothing for the American people to rally around in terms of President Obama’s record. That’s hardly the type of thing a campaign wants to hear as we near the home stretch.
I’ve meant to write about something earlier in the week but I’ll include it here. President Obama is criticizing Mitt about his time at Bain Capital. That’s fair game. I went after Mitt’s record at Bain Capital, too.
The thing is that President Obama played the role of venture capitalist when they shipped billions of dollars to Solyndra, GM, BofA and other multi-national corporations.
Simply put, Mitt’s record as a private sector venture capitalist is stronger than President Obama’s record as a public sector venture capitalist. In fact, President Obama is a total failure as a venture capitalist.
This weekend, supporters of Pat Anderson sent out this email endorsing Pat Anderson to be re-elected as RNC Committeewoman:
As members of your State Executive Committee who served over the past year, we write in support of the re-election of Pat Anderson for National Committeewoman.
While the main focus of her position is to serve as your representative to the RNC and to help elect a Republican President, Congressmen and Senators from Minnesota, Pat also serves with us on the State Executive Committee of the Republican Party.
We have worked closely with Pat. She is an excellent leader with valuable insight and varied experience as an elected official in local and statewide office. This is an exceptional asset for our Party. But most importantly, she is honest and fair in the way she approaches both the opportunities and difficulties facing the MNGOP.
Over the last 12 months, we have seen dramatic changes in leadership at the state party. The Chair, Deputy Chair, Secretary/Treasurer, and half of the CD Chairs are new. We need someone like Pat who has historic knowledge of the ins and outs of the MNGOP and can mentor the new leadership as we chart a course for our Party.
Without Pat Anderson on the Executive Board of the Republican Party of Minnesota, it would have taken much, much longer to uncover the party’s serious financial mismanagement. Pat did her homework and asked tough, pointed questions last May and June about the financial health of the party. She was asking those questions when few other people were and she was doing it while being attacked by party leadership determined to hide their financial misdeeds.
Pat’s investigation of the party’s FEC and State Campaign Finance reports led to the establishment of a Financial Review Committee in October which eventually led to the full exposure of the party’s financial problems. Without Pat Anderson’s work and determination, we may still be operating in the dark today. Playing “auditor” was not in Pat’s job description as your National Committeewoman, but we are grateful that she and others took on that role to relentlessly pursue the answers and the truth.
As we continue to recover from our past leadership’s mismanagement, we must also look to the future. We need to support our US Senate Candidate, our Presidential Nominee, as well as our local endorsed candidates. As a former Mayor and State Auditor, Pat is uniquely qualified to understand what it takes to win a statewide race as well as a local election. Pat’s experience and knowledge is a valuable resource for the State Executive Team, and at the National level where she is doing an excellent job in representing Minnesota’s concerns at the RNC.
We are supporting Pat Anderson for re-election at the State Central Committee meeting in St. Cloud, because she is one of the most valuable assets this party has. We urge you to support her as well.
I don’t have a vote in this election but I’ve certainly got an opinion into this endorsement letter. Here’s something that I question:
Without Pat Anderson on the Executive Board of the Republican Party of Minnesota, it would have taken much, much longer to uncover the party’s serious financial mismanagement.
First, it’s been reported by more than a few people that RNC Committeeman Jeff Johnson did the initial digging into the RPM’s financial mismanagement. Until I hear otherwise, that’s who I’ll give credit to.
Second, it’s impossible to think that Janet Beihoffer would’ve tolerated the financial mismanagement within the state party. It’s impossible to think that Janet Beihoffer wouldn’t have tried getting to the bottom of this serious issue.
It’s equally impossible to think that she wouldn’t have gotten to the bottom of that mess, especially considering the fact that Janet Beihoffer was a CPA with years of experience working for KPMG. At the time, KPMG was the second biggest auditing firm in the United States.
Anyone who’s known Janet Beihoffer knows that she’s a no-nonsense person who knows how to get important things done. For proof of that, look at the work she’s done on training election workers. That’s a major project. It required dedication, discipline and skill putting the program together, then recruiting and training the people to man the polling stations.
While I’m not reflexively opposed to lobbyists, I will always oppose lobbyists that support giving government the tools needed to expand government. In lobbying for Racino, that’s what Pat Anderson supported.
I won’t trash Pat Anderson. I’ll just vehemently disagree with her on that decision.