Archive for the ‘Talk Radio’ Category
Reid Epstein’s article on Sen. Cruz isn’t a flattering portrayal of Sen. Cruz. Frankly, Sen. Cruz’s statements sound whiny and jealous. When Sen. Cruz said “I understand that in the media newsrooms and in the Washington establishment circles, Marco is the chosen one”, it came across as if Sen. Cruz is jealous that Sen. Rubio is getting glowing attention from reporters. At some point, Sen. Cruz should examine why he isn’t getting positive coverage in the press.
It isn’t a secret that Sen. Cruz loves bragging that he isn’t liked by “the Washington cartel.” He wears like it’s a badge of honor. If Sen. Cruz wanted more positive coverage, it might help to not wear his disdain on his sleeve.
That isn’t to say that Sen. Cruz should thirst for the MSM’s approval. Conservatives shouldn’t want that. There’s a difference in degrees, though, between wanting fair coverage and wanting the MSM’s approval.
Launching into bitter-sounding diatribes won’t improve Sen. Cruz’s image with voters. Already, Sen. Rubio is reaching out to the entire Republican Party, something that Sen. Cruz should’ve already started. Instead, Sen. Cruz did this:
Later, inside the packed bar while a repeat of Wednesday night’s hockey games played on the flat-screen TVs, Mr. Cruz launched into another tirade against Mr. Rubio, seeking to cast doubt on the Florida senator’s argument he’s the most electable in the GOP field.
“The media adores him,” Mr. Cruz said. “These are the same people who told us Bob Dole was the electable one, that told us John McCain was the electable one, that told us Mitt Romney was the electable one. You’re always the electable one until you win the nomination, and then you cannot possibly win the election.”
First, comparing Sen. Rubio to Dole, McCain and Romney is like comparing Cadillac Escalades with a Prius. While they’re both vehicles, that’s where the similarities end. Rush Limbaugh never said that Dole, McCain or Romney was “a legitimate, full-throated conservative.”
What’s worse is that Sen. Cruz’s unscripted complaining diminishes him. Rather than being bitter, Sen. Cruz should work on not being as antagonistic as he’s been thus far this campaign.
The reason why the press likes Sen. Rubio is because he’s actually an interesting, positive person. What person, whether they’re a member of the media or not, doesn’t appreciate listening to calm-tempered people over bitter-sounding people?
Rather than complaining about Sen. Rubio, Sen. Cruz should try changing his approach towards the media. Loosen up a little. Don’t be an antagonist. It might help.
Donald Trump isn’t the only presidential candidate that doesn’t hesitate in laying things on a little too thick. Based on this article, Ted Cruz fits that description, too. Wednesday afternoon, Sen. Cruz sat down for an interview with Jeff Kuhner. Kuhner opened by asking “Is Marco Rubio a genuine conservative?” He asked that after listing Rubio’s support for “open borders,” “NSA spying,” and the Obama administration’s Trans Pacific Partnership during an onstage interview.
Sen. Cruz’s reply was predictable, though a bit dishonest. Cruz said “On each of the issues you just listed, Marco’s views are virtually indistinguishable from Hillary Clinton. Let me say this, if we nominate a candidate who’s pro-amnesty, we’ll lose. It’s not complicated. It’s real simple.”
First, Sen. Cruz’s support for taking tools away from the NSA is disappointing. If Sen. Cruz wants to defend taking away a valuable tool from our intelligence-gathering community, let’s hear him make that part of his stump speech. Sen. Cruz has the opportunity to explain why he thinks it’s wise to seriously limit the NSA’s abilities without hurting people’s civil rights. I’d love to hear Sen. Cruz’s explanation.
Further, Mrs. Clinton doesn’t support TPP. Apparently, Ted won’t let little things like the facts get in the way of an old-fashioned ad hominem attack against one of his chief rivals.
Third, Sen. Cruz isn’t being honest when he says that Marco supports amnesty. Here’s what Sen. Rubio supports:
Marco has consistently advocated fixing America’s immigration system, beginning with securing our border, enforcing immigration laws in the workplace, and implementing effective visa tracking systems.
That sounds a lot like Sen. Cruz’s plan. This does, too:
Starting on Day One of his presidency, Marco will be focused on immigration security.
- Cancel President Obama’s unconstitutional executive orders
- Eliminate federal funding for sanctuary cities
- Deport criminal illegal aliens
- Hire 20,000 new Border Patrol agents
- Finish all 700 miles of walls on our southern border
- Implement an entry-exit visa tracking system
- Implement a mandatory eVerify system
- Install $4 billion in new cameras and sensors on the border
If that doesn’t sound like the Gang of Eight bill, it’s because it isn’t similar to the Gang of Eight bill.
If Sen. Cruz is serious about this, then we’re in trouble:
Cruz pointed to the 2012 election as evidence for his theory and noted the Republican Party got clobbered after nominating Mitt Romney, whose record on healthcare caused headaches for conservatives seeking contrast with Obamacare.
That’s breathtaking. Comparing Mitt Romney with Sen. Rubio is like comparing Tim Scott with Mitch McConnell. Comparing Mitt Romney with Sen. Rubio is like comparing Trey Gowdy with Lindsey Graham. It’s a preposterous comparison. Nobody thought that Mitt Romney was a conservative. No less a conservative’s conservative than Rush Limbaugh called Sen. Rubio “a legitimate, full-throated conservative.”
Listening only to Sen. Cruz, you’d think that Sen. Rubio was an establishment RINO. It isn’t just that the facts don’t support Sen. Cruz’s opinion. It’s that a conservative’s conservative, Rush Limbaugh, rejects this opinion.
This points to a simple question: when will Sen. Cruz stop with the exaggerations?
By throwing his latest hissy fit, Donald Trump, who had controlled the GOP presidential nomination conversation, lost control over the message to Iowa voters right when candidates are making their closing arguments. That’s foolish both from a PR standpoint and from a strategic standpoint. Based on his monologue, Rush Limbaugh apparently understands Mr. Trump but he doesn’t understand the typical Iowa voter. During Wednesday’s show, Rush said “Everything he’s doing goes against the book. Everything that any analyst or consultant or professional would tell you not to do, Donald Trump is doing it, and he’s leading the pack. This creates its own set of emotions and feelings and thoughts that run from person to person. Now, the political business, if you want to look at it that way, is like any other business. It has its people who are considered the elites in it, and like any business, they hate outsiders. They don’t want outsiders just storming in trying to take over, and much less succeeding at it.”
Rush is right from the standpoint that the GOP consultants and elites don’t want to relinquish control of the nominating process. There’s no disputing that’s part of the establishment’s upset with Mr. Trump. What Rush apparently isn’t taking into consideration is that Trump isn’t beloved by the voters. The voters loved Reagan. They don’t love Trump. This year, the voters are pissed at everyone and everything. They’re pissed because their wages have been stagnant, their jobs aren’t providing a path to financial stability and their freedom is getting crushed by an administration that puts a higher priority on regulating people than it puts on liberating them.
Donald Trump hasn’t met them with a message of shrinking regulations, cutting taxes on small businesses and letting families make most decisions. He’s yapped about making America great again without telling the people what that means. The closest he’s come to explaining his slogan is essentially to tell people to trust him, that he’s done this before. He’ll do it again for the entire nation.
The other component involved in picking a president is the people want to feel comfortable with the thought of him/her in a crisis. Trump created a crisis that’s mostly driven by his ego. He got full of himself and demanded that Megyn Kelly be removed from Fox’s panel of moderators. Anyone who’s watched Roger Ailes’ leadership at Fox knows that wasn’t going to happen. Trump thought he was painting Ailes into a corner. Instead, he painted himself into a no-win situation.
Immediately after confirming that he wouldn’t participate in Thursday night’s debate, Trump announced that he would hold a fundraiser for “veterans and wounded warriors.” Then he hinted that he’d get another cable network to cover it. CNN will cover the event but the damage to Trump’s campaign has already been done.
It’s great that he’s raising money for vets but that isn’t what’s important to Iowa voters. They want to take the full measure of each candidate. The long-standing joke in Iowa and New Hampshire is about 2 neighbors talking about who they like. Here’s how that conversation often goes:
Fred: George, who are you supporting?
George: I don’t know yet. I really like Rubio and Trump but I’ve only seen Trump 4 times and Rubio 5 times. Give me another week and I’ll probably decide.
The latest Quinnipiac Poll shows that 39% of all likely GOP caucusgoers are either undecided or say that they might change their minds. By stomping his feet and throwing another hissy fit, Trump is telling those undecided voters that he isn’t interested in their votes.
Saying that that’s a YUGE strategic mistake is understatement.
In Rush’s attempt to defend Donald Trump’s indefensible statements about banning Muslims from entering the country, he argued that Trump’s ‘policy’ has historical precedent. Specifically, he said “Here is number eight US Code 1182, inadmissible aliens. This law was written in 1952. It was passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress, House and Senate, and signed by a Democrat president. ‘Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by president. Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, the president may, by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.'”
Jimmy Carter did indeed use this law in 1980. It also doesn’t have a thing to do with Trump’s asinine statements because Trump didn’t call for banning people from a specific nation. Mr. Trump called for banning Muslims from the US. That’s illegal, according to Kimberly Guilfoyle, because we “are signatories to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” which prohibits banning “people based on their religious beliefs.”
Some people are scratching their heads, saying that whether you ban Iranians or whether you ban Muslims, the end result is the same. Actually, it isn’t. It’s permissible to ban people from specific countries based on the nation’s national security situation. It would’ve been perfectly legitimate if President Bush had banned granting visas to people from Afghanistan right after 9/11 because he could make a substantive case that they posed a significant threat to the nation.
Indiscriminately banning all Muslims, whether they’re from Afghanistan, Iran, Lebanon or Jordan, isn’t legal because we signed onto the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which prohibits that.
If you want to argue that we should get out of that Declaration, knock yourself out. I’m likely to agree with that. If we opted out of that Declaration, then Trump’s ban would be legal. Until we opt out, though, Trump’s hands would be tied.
As for Rush, he should practice what he preaches. He’s constantly lecturing people that “words have meanings.” Banning people based on their religious faith is prohibited. Banning people because they’re from a specific country because they pose a national security risk is permissible.
I’ve frequently criticized President Obama for his use of straw man arguments. Ditto with Hillary Clinton. If I want to maintain credibility, I can’t sit and listen to Rush Limbaugh’s straw man argument. During his monologue on how Trump plays the media, Rush mentioned that Harry Reid criticized Republicans after Trump’s speech. Reid said “Donald Trump is standing on the platform of hate, and, I’m sorry to say, hate that the Republican Party has built for him.”
Rush’s knee-jerk reaction was disgusting and foolish. He criticized Republicans, saying “You Republicans, you can denounce Trump all day, all week, all month, and the Democrat Party and the media are still gonna say you laid the table for it. You can condemn Trump all you want, but it is not going to buy you any love or respect or admiration from the Drive-By Media and the Democrats.”
That’s breathtaking. When I’ve criticized Trump, it’s been substantively. I’ve never done it to win a Democrat’s admiration. Period. Apparently, Rush hasn’t learned the first rule of holes because he kept digging:
Now, folks, the conventional wisdom is that Trump is scum, that Trump is a reprobate, that Trump is dangerous, that Trump is obscene, Trump’s insane, Trump’s a lunatic, Trump’s dangerous, Trump’s got to go. Why join in with that phrase? Why join that crowd? We never fall in with conventional wisdom here.
If Rush thinks that it’s “conventional wisdom” to think that Trump’s a lunatic or a reprobate or that he’s dangerous, then Rush’s brain isn’t what it used to be. The definition for lunatic is “a person whose actions and manner are marked by extreme eccentricity or recklessness.” The definition for reprobate is “a depraved, unprincipled, or wicked person.”
It wouldn’t require Einstein to defend the notion that Trump is a reprobate or a lunatic. Therefore, it isn’t conventional wisdom that Trump is a reprobate or a lunatic. It’s just the indisputable truth.
It’s time for someone to tell Limbaugh that his arguments about Mr. Trump are embarrassingly stupid. He used to be smart. While it’s possible that he’s still smart, it isn’t showing lately.
Over the past few years, we’ve seen the Democratic Party crank up their smear machine. This week, Nancy Pelosi said something stunning. Here’s what she said:
PELOSI: I asked a Republican friend why his party remains so opposed to extending the lifelines to struggling families and hungry children. This colleague’s response was telling in its blunt nature and it’s stunning in its honesty. What he said was that, to the Republican Caucus, these people are invisible and the Republican Caucus is indifferent to them.
Greta played that disgustingly dishonest diatribe during her interview with Sean Hannity. This video is instructive to Republicans:
This isn’t the first time a Democrat lied about an anonymous Republican who had the dirt on another Republican. During the 2012 presidential campaign, Harry Reid said he had proof that Mitt Romney hadn’t paid income taxes for the last 10 years. Of course, he didn’t offer proof of his accusation. Most Republicans still think that Harry Reid was simply lying through his teeth.
When it comes to dirty politicking, Democrats don’t hesitate in lying through their teeth. When Harry Reid lied through his teeth during the presidential election, I didn’t question Reid’s honesty. I knew he was a liar. I’m not questioning Pelosi’s honesty now. I don’t have to because it’s apparent that she’s lying. What’s troubling about Pelosi’s statement is that it’s proof that lies roll off her lips effortlessly.
This isn’t the first time she’s been caught lying. Let’s remember that she said with a straight face that unemployment checks help grow the economy. Nobody’s that stupid. Let’s remember that she’s the liar that insisted she hadn’t been briefed about the Bush administration’s waterboarding of high value target terrorists. Then there’s Pelosi’s insistence that the Catholic church’s position on human life only started 50 years ago and doesn’t impact abortion in any case.
The best way to determine if she’s lying is by determining whether her lips are moving. If they’re moving, it’s almost certain that she’s lying.
While Greta interviewed Sean Hannity tonight, Greta told Sean that he’d taken Pelosi’s bait before asking why he’d respond to Pelosi’s lies. At first, I sided with Greta on this. Then Hannity talked about the amount of lies coming from Democrats. I still don’t agree with how Hannity responded but I don’t entirely agree with Greta either.
I agree with Greta that Hannity shouldn’t respond with a statistical argument. That being said, I agree with Hannity that Republicans can’t just pretend Pelosi’s lies don’t exist. My point is that Republicans have to respond to Pelosi’s lies by going on offense. Start with highlighting the fact that Democrats will say anything if they think it’ll change a few votes. Highlight the fact that this isn’t the first time Ms. Pelosi got caught lying by citing the other times she’s told outright whoppers. In this instance, I’d fight Ms. Pelosi’s lies by questioning who this Republican friend is. Next, I’d ask why she called this Republican a “colleague.” Does that mean this alleged Republican is a member of the House of Representatives?
If she’s unwilling to provide the details, I’d then go on Greta’s show and say that I’d questioned Ms. Pelosi about who would say such a despicable thing but that she wouldn’t identify this alleged Republican friend of Ms. Pelosi’s. Finally, I’d state that I’m highly skeptical of her allegations, followed by the fact that I think she’s lying.
I’ve written this post and this post about Al Franken’s fundraising appeals. Mostly, Franken’s fundraising appeals have been long on Karl Rove, the Koch brothers, the TEA Party and Citizens United. In other words, they’re a collection of the Democrats’ favorite boogeymen.
This morning, I got an email from Jorge Bonilla who is running against Alan Grayson. Here’s part of Bonilla’s fundraising appeal:
We are well over eight months away fron Election Day 2014, yet Alan Grayson is already invoking each and every one of the Left’s boogeymen in his fundraising appeals.
It’s only February, yet Grayson has already issued pro-forma denunciations of Fox News, Sean Hannity, the energy sector, has compared the Tea Party to the Ku Klux Klan, and most recently, has smeared our veterans while attacking the eeeeeeevil Koch Brothers.
Of course, such attacks are pure hypocrisy coming from Alan Grayson. The non-partisan and independent Center for Responsive Politics is dedicated to tracking the influence of money in our election process, and they have compiled a list of the largest political donors over the last 25 years.
The scary “Kochtopus” is all the way down at #59. But who occupies most of the top spots? You guessed it…Grayson’s Big Labor buddies. A quick crosscheck with Grayson’s top donor list confirms this inconvenient fact.
Apparently, the Congressman Without Guts feels compelled to insult our intelligence (as well as that of his own individual donor base) by performing this “outrageously tough progressive” shtick, which now includes this Koch theater.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to notice a pattern developing. Even intellectual midgets like Franken and Grayson could spot it. What’s obvious is that Democrats will go totally negative this election. They’ll criticize the entire panoply of conservative ‘boogeymen’ for this nation’s ills rather than admit that it’s their policies that’ve failed. They’ll do whatever it takes to distract people from the ACA disaster. They’ll insist that they’re pushing back against President Obama and ‘holding him accountable’ for the disastrous performance of HealthCare.gov while criticizing Republicans for wanting to repeal the law that’s causing health insurance prices to jump.
The Democratic playbook for this election is simple. To hold onto the U.S. Senate, Democrats will attempt to portray Republicans as utterly beholden to special interests out to destroy America’s middle class. They’ll do this while accepting money from environmental organizations while pretending to be friends of the private sector unions who want to build the Keystone XL Pipeline.
Their message will essentially be ‘Don’t vote for Republicans because they’re scary.’ Meanwhile, they didn’t notice that they’re the ‘Scary Characters Party’. While it’s too early to predict the Franken and Grayson races with anything approaching sanity, it isn’t too early to predict that this won’t be a good year for Democrats.
The only thing left to determine is how bad it’ll be.
Technorati: Alan Grayson, Al Franken, Democrat Boogeymen, Karl Rove, TEA Party, Koch Brothers, Sean Hannity, Fox News, Smear Campaign, HealthCare.gov, President Obama, Democrats, Jorge Bonilla, GOP, Election 2014
Throughout Sean Hannity’s interview with Paul Ryan, it was painfully obvious that Mr. Hannity didn’t grasp the concept that divided government means one or both sides hate the deals they strike. Here’s the video of Hannity’s interview:
Throughout the interview, Hannity kept complaining that conservatives don’t like this deal much. Througout the interview, Chairman Ryan told Hannity that the budget would’ve looked much different had Patty Murray agreed to his budget and President Obama had signed it into law.
It’s unrealistic to think that President Obama would even momentarily contemplate signing such a budget. It’s absurd to think that Harry Reid would let Chairman Ryan’s budget to get a hearing, much less a vote in the Senate. That wasn’t going to happen.
What conservatives have to remember is that winning elections is the only way that the Ryan balanced budget proposal has a chance of becoming law. While Hannity and others kept insisting that Chairman Ryan had forgotten that Congress has the power of the purse, Hannity didn’t understand that Ryan technically had the power of the purse but he didn’t have the power of the purse without there being a steep political price to be paid.
People like Hannity have forgotten that the balanced budgets of the 1990s didn’t happen because John Kasich, Newt Gingrich and President Clinton instantly had a come-to-Jesus moment and they all lived happily ever after. Conservative incrementalism is the only reason we had 4 straight balanced budgets.
It’s important to remember that there’s a huge difference between President Clinton and President Obama. President Clinton had run something before getting elected. He knew the value of being practical when it was required. President Obama never ran anything as challenging as a lemonade stand. He grew up in a radicalized world. President Obama never thought that compromise was a worthwhile thing. He still doesn’t.
Let’s stipulate that the Ryan-Murray plan isn’t a great deal because it isn’t. It’s important for whining conservatives like Hannity to understand that, though it isn’t agreat deal, it’s the best deal available. It’s equally important that consertvatives like Mr. Hannity and others to understand that this deal has significant benefits.
First, there won’t be another shutdown, which means the spotlight stays of the disaster of Obamacare, aka the Affordable Care Act. That’s a huge win for Republicans. If that’s all that the Republicans got out of this, that’d be enough to chalk this up as GOP victory.
Second, there’s agreement in this legislation that opens up more oil and natural gas exploration. That’s a significant win for the GOP. Most importantly, it’s a major victory for the American people in the form of stabilized home heating bills and gas prices at the pump.
Third, it’s a win for Republicans because Democrats won’t get traction when they accuse Republicans of not having the ability to govern. Instead, Chairman Ryan has stopped the Obama form of governing. That form of governing meant jumping from one crisis and/or deadline to another. That method of operation gave President Obama a major advantage in negotiations because he had the bully pulpit and Republicans had a gun pointed at their head.
People like Erick Erickson need to get their facts straight. He didn’t get his facts straight in this post:
Now, with liberal Senator Patty Murray, Congressman Ryan wants to raise spending today on the promise that Congress will restrain itself ten years from now (or whenever the benchmark will be). It’s a return to pre-sequestration Washington — spending increases today in exchange for promises of spending cuts later.
According to Chairman Ryan, Erickson isn’t close to being right. The offsets in “autopilot spending”, aka entitlements, start immediately. In exchange for some ‘sequestration relief’, Chairman Ryan won some minor changes in entitlement spending.
The Erick Ericksons of the world will never be satisfied with anything other than total, immediate victory. If Republicans want to rebuild credibility in their brand, however, it’s important that they show apolitical people that they can be principled without being obnoxious.
Chairman Ryan’s budget provides that platform for Republicans.
Technorati: Paul Ryan, Budget Negotiations, Entitlement Relief, Sequestration Relief, Erick Erickson, Sean Hannity, Conservatives, Government Shutdown, Patty Murray, President Obama, Affordable Care Act, Democrats
One of my daily (really, it’s more like several times a day) reads is Jim Hoft’s Gatewaypundit blog. If you aren’t already reading Jim’s blog, you’d better start ASAP. This summer, Jim went through a horrific time healthwise. Thankfully, Jim had a health insurance policy that protected him from a financial disaster. Today, Jim learned that he’s losing the health insurance policy that saved his life.
As a result of Jim’s post asking for America’s prayers, Rush Limbaugh picked up on Jim’s post in this monologue:
There are people with cancer, one of them is Jim Hoft. Jim Hoft is at Gateway Pundit, and he’s out of St. Louis. And he’s got a post.
“Please Pray for Me… I Am Losing My Insurance — In August 2013 I became very sick with what I thought was a cold. After a few days I lost vision in my left eye and I checked into the hospital. I soon found out that what I thought was a summer cold was actually Strep bacteria poisoning my blood stream. The bacteria blinded my left eye, ate a hole through my heart, caused five strokes on both sides of my brain and forced the removal of my prosthetic left knee.
“Dr. Lee was the surgeon assigned to perform open heart surgery. What was originally scheduled to last four hours ended up lasting twelve. My heart was severely damaged. Dr. Lee later told me the surgery was one of the most difficult of his career. He also said I only had a few days to live without the surgery. Thanks to the excellent insurance I carried I was able to receive life-saving medical treatment at St. Louis University.
“This week I found out I am going to lose my insurance. The company that carried me is leaving the Missouri market. I will have to find something else. I am one of the millions who will be looking for new insurance. God willing, I will be able to keep my doctors at St. Louis University. I trust them. They saved my life. Please pray for me and the millions of working Americans who are going through this same ordeal. Why is our government doing this to us?”
Rush wasn’t done there:
I have, in the Health Care Stack, another story. “Cancer Patient: I’m Devastated Over Obamacare.” It’s by Joan Carrico, a registered nurse. “I had a lot of trouble early on. I didn’t expect my insurance to be canceled, had numerous problems getting onto Healthcare.gov and gave up on the website. Since then, I have received assistance from an agent and a Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan representative. I have been stressed and scrambling to find an affordable policy that will ensure that I keep my doctors, chemotherapy drugs, etc. that are literally keeping me alive.
“Over six years ago, I was in a position where I needed to choose an individual health-insurance policy. After much research I chose a Blue Cross Blue Shield PPO that I anticipated would be short term. My plan was to return to work as a registered nurse and be eligible for a group policy. But, for the first time in my life, I got really sick. I’ve been battling cancer and fighting for my life for the last six years. So much for my plans. I thank God that I am alive and am eternally grateful to Blue Cross Blue Shield and all my doctors, especially my doctors at University of Michigan (UM), who refer to me as their miracle patient.”
She’s losing hers, too. “What is our government doing to us? Why is our government doing this to us?” This is the root of Obama’s problem. Not everybody has cancer, not everybody’s losing their doctor and their trusted insurance policy and all that. But a lot of people are losing everything. They’ve already lost their jobs. Many of them don’t really have any hope of getting a replacement job at replacement salaries, levels. And now after being promised for three years that they could keep their doctor, keep their insurance, they can’t.
What’s upsetting, besides the fact that people are losing very good health insurance policies, is when cheap politicians like Al Franken won’t even return calls or emails from constituents who’ve contacted him about getting cancellation notices from the health insurance companies. I spoke with a legislator last night who had several of his constituents tell him about Sen. Franken’s shoddy constituent services work on health care. Franken won’t even return calls even though he voted for this wretched piece of legislation without even reading the bill.
“Why is our government doing this to us?” is fast becoming the new battle cry of people of all political persuasions nationwide. At this point, this isn’t a political issue. It’s literally a matter of life and death.
Every American reading this post should email and/or call their senator if that senator voted for the Affordable Care Act. My first instinct is to tell these Americans to read their senators the riot act. My second instinct isn’t much better. Thankfully, I’ve started regaining my composure with the knowledge that I’ll have the opportunity to fire Al Franken next November. The only thing I’d enjoy more than hearing his concession speech would be to watch his reaction as he tries dealing with the exchanges he voted for.
Technorati: Al Franken, Affordable Care Act, Health Care Crisis, Cancellation Notices, Democrats, Cancer Patients, Jim Hoft, St. Louis University, Cancellation Notices, Rush Limbaugh, Life and Death Decisions
Bill O’Reilly touts Bernie Goldberg as an expert on the media, which says something in and of itself. Call it the Mindless Bloviator praises the Expert Pontificator. This weekend, Goldberg’s column offers ‘proof’ of a GOP civil war. At least, that’s the Gospel according to the Expert Pontificator. Here’s the Expert Pontificator’s proof:
So I’m driving in my car listening to Rush two days after the election and a caller comes who describes himself as a traditional family values conservative. He is a combination of angry and deeply depressed over how the election turned out, but mostly angry. And he’s calling, he says, to inform Mr. Limbaugh that he did not vote for Mitt Romney and will never vote for a moderate Republican. Then for good measure he adds that if he ever hears a Republican say he wants to “reach across the aisle” he will never vote for him either.
One day earlier, conservative radio talk show star Laura Ingraham tweeted this:
“Face it Repubs, you wish we had a candidate who–teleprompter or not–could speak as forcefully for conservatism as Obama speaks for liberalism” and “JUST A THOUGHT…Next time, GOP might want to think about nominating a conservative.”
And out in Middle America, Steve Deace, a conservative radio talk show host and well-known conservative in Iowa told his listeners: “There will never be another establishment candidate like that [Romney]. Mitt just killed Republicans in my home state. People are angry, especially because Matt Drudge and Karl Rove told us it was all in the bag all along, after they got done smearing conservatives in the primary and dumping on Todd Akin. It’s on like Donkey Kong.”
That Goldberg thinks that 3 callers on talk radio constitutes a GOP civil war speaks to Mr. Goldberg’s habit of overdramatizing things. If that’s the criteria defining an intraparty civil war, then the GOP has fought civil wars while winning landslide victories and while suffering humiliating defeats.
Of we could just call this what it is: a tussle that happens to all political parties after a defeat.
I’ve talked with lots of conservatives since the election. None has suggested that they’re upset with Mitt Romney’s policies. A fair number of these conservatives think he ran too cautious of a campaign, especially with regard to Benghazi and the EPA.
That isn’t the same as saying they’re ready to go headhunting. Yes, there will undoubtedly be some angry conservatives venting on talk radio. A fair number of them will have constructive ideas moving the GOP forward, too.
That, however, doesn’t constitute a full-blown intraparty civil war in the GOP.