BOOM: I endorse J.D. Winteregg over John Boehner in #OH8

I had a chance to speak with John Boehner's primary challengers in OH-8 and came away extremely impressed with J.D. Winteregg. The man gets it. He gets the dire circumstances that the country is facing and he understands that John Boehner has been a singularly ineffective Speaker of the House. Boehner needs to be unseated and Winteregg seems to be precisely the kind of young, principled, articulate conservative we need.

DRJ: J.D., tell us a little about yourself and your rationale for running against John
Boehner.

JD: I'm a teacher part-time and an adjunct professor and am also working on my PhD at Ohio State. I've also lived abroad and gotten a sense of where socialism leads. At the time, it struck me that Marxism could never really take root here. I came back to the U.S. and worked for Sprint in the private sector down south until my Mom was diagnosed with breast cancer. So I came back to Ohio and started working in academia.

My time in the PhD program was enlightening: I was exposed to real progressivism, what they say behind the scenes. I've seen that the progressives are trying to destroy capitalism. They are doing so by undermining Christianity, the family, our economic system, etc. During the 2012 campaign, I saw the GOP fail to react to the dire threats of progressivism. It was extremely disheartening. I was seeing that the Republicans had no concept of what they were up against. I felt the GOP had to change. We need real conservatives. And seeing Boehner operate as an enabler, I felt as though I had to run against him. We need fresh ideas, youth, articulate conservatism.

DRJ: When you say you view progressivism as a dire threat, help me understand the nature of what we face.

MUST SEE TV: On Feb 25, 2010, Eric Cantor explicitly called out Obama - to his face - and told him that because of Obamacare millions would lose their insurance, and Obama denied it & lied about it, snidely too!

THE DISASTER CALLED OBAMACARE WAS PREDICTED BY ERIC CANTOR IN 2010

VIA WZ:

OBAMA LIED TO CANTOR AS BALDLY AS HE LIED TO US OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

OBAMA SHOULD BE IMPEACHED OVER HIS  REPEATED LIES ABUT OBAMACARE

FAILURE TO IMPEACH HIM MEANS WE ARE TACITLY ACCEPTING THE IDEA THAT IT' OKAY FOR A POTUS TO LIE TO US OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

INSTEAD OF DE-FUNDING OBAMACARE, JUST REPEAL ALL THE WAIVERS

THE DE-FUNDING FIGHT IS ADMIRABLE, BUT IT'S A POLITICAL TRAP.

INSTEAD, REPEAL EVERY SINGLE DANG WAIVER.

THE WAIVERS ARE INDEFENSIBLE, AND REPEALING THEM IS NOT ONLY THE RIGHT THING TO DO - IT'S A FIGHT WE CANNOT LOSE, POLITICALLY.

AND WHEN ALL OF OBAMA'S CRONIES AND COMRADES ARE - LIKE THE REST OF US - SUBJECT TO THIS AWFUL LAW, REPEAL WILL BE MORE LIKELY THAN EVER.

A SHORT STORY FROM THE ANNALS OF LEFTIST FANTASY AND DENIAL

I had dinner with an old friend and die hard leftist the other night.

She doesn't like Obama - because he caves in to the GOP all the time!

I asked her to name cave-in and she said Obamacare: she wanted the single-payer approach and if not that then at least the so-called "public option." That was dropped and she blames Obama for "caving in to the GOP."

PURE FANTASY.

Obamacare was passed without a single GOP vote. And in order to pass it Obama had to LARD IT UP with all sorts of pork - the Nebraska Deal to get Nelson's vote, the Louisiana Deal to get Landrieu's. YES: he had to promise (in a bald-faced LIE!) that it would not fund abortion - but again: this was to get DEMOCRAT votes.

If Obama had REALLY compromised with the GOP and perhaps only passed a 500 page bill, then he might have gotten dozens of GOP votes and be at 75% popularity now instead of the dumpster.

In breaking other promises, Obama did cave in to the GOP, but into REALITY: Obama HAD to keep Gitmo open despite promising to close it because DEMOCRATS were opposed to closing it. He had to cancel plans to try KSM in NYC because DEMOCRATS opposed it. We are floundering in Afghanistan because Obama gave our Afghan mission LESS troops than the Brass wanted  - and he chose to do so with a timetable - to suck up to the LEFT, not the GOP.

Yes: Obama compromised once: Obama extended the Bush Tax Rates because the nation had just had an election and the GOP won OVERWHELMINGLY and when he did so his popularity went up.

But ever since Obama has followed the incorrect path of attacking the GOP and the Right.  And His ratings have gone steadily down, (with a temporary and small few blips up).

She didn't buy it. To her, Obama is a moderate.

So, she asked, why is Obama veering even further to the left now?

I think because he and his comrades decided they were probably going to lose in 2012, and that therefore they started to try to ram through as much socialistic crap as they could while they could - hoping that most of it will proves as hard to undo as Obamacare.

Imagine how extreme Obama will be if he is re-elected - G-D FORBID!

The only safety valve or insurance we have is to elect a GOP Senate to go along with the GOP House.

Other wise, Obama and his comrades will succeed in making the USA just another weak euro-socialist state, and thereby succeed in tossing the West into the dustbin of history as China and Global Jihad take over.

That's what's ultimately at stake.

Not just whether the USA remains a beacon of hope for liberty, but also if we can once again be the economic engine of global growth and the defender of the Free World.

Postmodern leftists like Obama want to USA to become no more exceptional than Belgium. If we allow him to be re-elected, then he will succeed.

VOTE ACCORDINGLY!

TOTAL PROOF: GINGRICH IS A RINO (UPDATED/EXPANDED/BUMPED)

MITT NEVER DID A COMMERCIAL WITH KENNEDY OR TIP O'NEILL OR KERRY OR DUKAKIS.

HE RAN AGAINST KENNEDY AND HAS BEEN MORE CONSISTENTLY MORE CONSERVATIVE THAN NEWT IN HIS PUBLIC LIFE FOR THE LAST DECADE -

AND IN HIS PRIVATE LIFE FOR SEVERAL DECADES!

BUT NEWT MADE ONE WITH PELOSI:

 

A VOTE FOR NEWT IS A VOTE FOR A RINO.

AN ERRATIC, MERCURIAL, EGOMANIACAL RINO.

WHO IN RECENTLY TRASHED PAUL RYAN AND ENDORSED DEDE SCOZZAFAVA.

DON'T BE DUPED. DON'T FALL FOR THE RED MEAT THEATRICALITY.

VOTE MITT.

UPDATE: WASHINGTON EXAMINER: 

"Gingrich, the supposedly conservative choice, 

isn't reliably conservative"

HERE ARE SOME POSSIBLE RUNNING MATES FOR NEWT

GINGRICH-SCOZZAFAVA

GINGRICH-SHARPTON

GINGRICH-PELOSI

GINGRICH-ARAFAT

UPDATE: OVER AT PJM, THEY ASKED READERS WHO MIGHT BE THE BEST VEEP FOR NEWT: HERE IS ONE OF THE COMMENTS:

2. Frank Martin

I’d pay good money to watch Newt Gingrich debate Newt Gingrich. I’d even pay to watch the next day after the Gingrich v. Gingrich debate when Newt Gingrich complain about Newt Gingrich and how he really won the debate and how “frankly he’s disappointed” that we could see it any other way.

Sidebar: You know what cracks me up about South Carolina? It’s how the guy who has always dogged by a slander of polygamy was just beat by a guy who actually had three wives. Not all at once of course, but what was once an automatic disqualification has now become a career advancement and a way to get your message out by having your ex-wife campaign against you. End Sidebar

Now to your question,”Who would be Newt Gingrich’s VP?”

I believe we can apply the following filter to that problem:

1. Cant be anyone he’s ever worked with or knows him personally(no one in this category will return his calls today.)
2. Cant be anyone who actually wants to accomplish anything in politics.
3. Cant be anyone with a sense of personal shame.
4. Cant be anyone with anything else to do or desire to do anything ever again.

There is one man who fits this filter, but Vice President Biden has already pledged himself to the Obama campaign.

...
ANOTHER UPDATE: A COMMENTER AT GATEWAY PUNDIT:

 #31 January 22, 2012 at 12:49 pmJames commented:Romney has my vote because he is the most conservative nominee. Newt can take his global warming, amnesty for illegals and 1.6 million from fannie mae and go sit on a couch with nancy pelosi and scozafalla.

NEWT'S STRATEGERY: MISDIRECTION

INSTEAD OF DEALING WITH THE FACTS - THAT HE IS A SERIAL ADULTERER - WHO WAS REVILED BY HIS FELLOW GOP CONGRESSMEN AND FINED $300,000 BY THEM FOR ETHICAL VIOLATIONS - NEWT ATTACKS THE MEDIA AND OBAMA.

DON'T BE DUPED:

Marianne Gingrich, to whom Gingrich was married when he began an affair with his current wife, Callista, had been in the news all day as excerpts of a then soon-to-be-released interview with ABC News were replayed dozens of times. By debate time, the words "open marriage," a stale phrase from the silly Seventies when Gingrich was a bespectacled college professor with mutton-chop sideburns, were on the tips of the tongues of a million wags.Just as King had no choice but to ask, Gingrich answered in the only way he could — by attacking the questioner. Shooting the messenger is a time-honored method of spin control among royals and their imitators. Gingrich's bilious reproach was an oratorical defenestration. King's audacity was "despicable," he intoned, and the crowd roared.Suddenly, Gingrich's questionable past was forgotten and whatever ire his record might have inspired was redirected at The Media — that monolithic target of communal contempt. Not only did Gingrich deflect attention from his immediate problem but he managed to win the public's heart.

WHO IS MORE OF A RINO, MITT OR NEWT?

LET'S LOOK AT THE RECORD:

• MITT NEVER DID A TV COMMERCIAL WITH ANY DEM, BUT NEWT DID ONE WITH PELOSI SUPPORTING GLOBAL WARMING.

• MITT RAN AGAINST TEDDY JO KENNEDY.

• MITT NEVER PLAYED FOOTSY WITH AL SHARPTON, BUT NEWT DID - STILL DOES.

• MITT DIDN'T ENDORSE SCOZZAFAVA, NEWT DID.

• MITT WAS AMONG THE VERY FIRST TO ENDORSE RUBIO; NEWT WASN'T.

• MITT WAS AMONG THE FIRST TO ENDORSE AYOTTE, BUT NEWT WASN'T.

• MITT MADE MANY CAMPAIGN APPEARANCES WITH PALIN IN 2008, BUT NEWT DIDN'T.

• MITT NEVER WORKED FOR FREDDIE MAC, BUT NEWT DID.

• MITT NEVER WAS A LOBBYIST, BUT NEWT WAS.

• MITT NEVER ATTACKED THE FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM , CAPITALISM, OR PEOPLE WHO WORKED HARD AND BECAME SELF-MADE MILLIONAIRES, BUT NEWT HAS.

• NEWT IS MORE OF A RINO THAN MITT.

THERE ARE MORE REASONS MITT WOULD MAKE A FINE CONSERVATIVE STANDARD-BEARER AND A BETTER CANDIDATE TO DEFEAT OBAMA:

• MITT IS PRO-LIFE, PRO-TAX CUTS, PRO-SPENDING CUTS, ANTI-DEFENSE CUTS, AN UNAMBIGUOUS SUPPORTER OF ISRAEL AND HAS PROMISED TO REPEAL OBAMACARE AND DODD-FRANK.

• THE FACT THAT MITT PASSED A STATE HEALTHCARE REFORM MEANS THE LEFT CAN'T USE MEDISCARE AND HE CANNOT BE TARRED AS AN UN-CARING RETHUGLICAN WHO WANTS TO KEEP POOR PEOPLE FROM GETTING HEALTHCARE.

• ON TOP OF THAT, THE ETHICALLY CHALLENGED SERIAL ADULTERER'S NEGATIVES ARE HORRENDOUSLY HIGH AND HE CANNOT BEAT OBAMA.

MITT IS NO ADULTERER, NO APPEASER AND NO RINO.

YOU CAN'T SAY THAT NEWT. HE IS A SERIAL ADULTERER WHO APPEASED PELOSI AND SHARPTON AND ARAFAT AND WORKED FOR FREDDIE MAC AND LOBBIED FOR OTHERS.

NEWT IS MORE OF A RINO THAN MITT. HE'S A WELL KNOWN QUANTITY BY THE ELECTORATE AND THEY DON'T LIKE HIM.

NEWT WOULD LOSE AGAINST OBAMA.

SUNUNU IS CORRECT:

 

NEWT'S NEGATIVES ARE STUNNING

CHUDI:

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/america-hates-newt-gingrich/326161  

Not every poll releases their full results, so here are the most recent favorability results I could find for Obama, Romney, and Newt. 

Fox News, 1/12-1/14:
Obama, fav/unfav, 51%/46%, +5
Romney, fav/unfav, 45%/38%, +7
Gingrich, fav/unfav, 27%/56%, -29  

CBS/NYT, 1/12-1/17:
Obama, fav/unfav, 38%/45%, -7
Romney, fav/unfav, 21%/35%, -14
Gingrich, fav/unfav, 17%/49%, -32 

PPP, 1/13-1/17:
Obama, app/dis, 47%/50%, -3
Romney, fav/unfav, 35%/53%, -18
Gingrich, fav/unfav, 26%/60%, -34 

GINGRICH HAS WORSE NEGATIVES THAN HILLARY AND PALIN.

HE IS UNELECTABLE.

---

I THINK THE TRULY MOST IMPORTANT DAMAGING MOMENT OF THE NIGHT CAME WHEN RICK SANTORUM EXPLAINED HOW NEWT WAS A LOUSY LEADER WHEN HE WAS SPEAKER.


THIS COMPLETELY CORROBORATED SUSAN MOLINARI'S DESCRIPTION OF NEWT  - ONE WHICH MANY ON THE EXTREME RIGHT POOH-POOHED ON THE BASIS OF THE FACT THAT MOLINARI IS A MODERATE  REPUBLICAN.


SANTORUM IS NOT A MODERATE AND HE AGREES: 


NEWT IS A LOUSY LEADER WHO  IS UNRELIABLE, ERRATIC AND SHOULD NOT BE TRUSTED WITH THE OVAL OFFICE.






 HERE'S RICK CORROBORATING MOLINARI: SANTORUM: 

I will give Newt Gingrich his due on grandiose ideas and grandiose projects. I will not give him his -- his -- his due on executing those projects, which is exactly what the president of the United States is supposed to do. Four years into his speakership, he was thrown out by the conservatives. It was a coup against him in three. I served with him. I was there. I knew what the problems were going on in the House of Representatives when Newt Gingrich was leading this -- leading there. It was an idea a minute, no discipline, no ability to be able to pull things together.

HERE'S ROMNEY'S RESPONSE - WHICH IS THINK WAS GREAT: 

 KING: Governor Romney, you're raising your hand to come in the conversation. I want to let you in on the conversation, but also, as I do, you put an ad on the air paid by your campaign, not one of the super PAC ads, calling the Speaker an unreliable leader. Why?

 ROMNEY:

Well, let me go back and address first what you just heard. What you've listened to, in my view, and the Speaker's rendition of history going back to 1978 and his involvement in Washington, is, in my view, a perfect example of why we need to send to Washington someone who has not lived in Washington, but someone who's lived in the real streets of America, working in the private sector, who's led a business, who started a business, who helped lead the Olympics, who helped lead a state. We need to have someone outside Washington go to Washington. If we want people who spent their life and their career, most of their career, in Washington, we have three people on the stage -- well, I take that back. We've got a doctor down here who spent most of his time in the surgical suite -- well not surgery, in the birthing suite. (APPLAUSE) ROMNEY: But I think America has to make a choice as to whether we're going to send people who spent their life in Washington go represent our country or, instead, whether we're going to lead -- have someone who goes who's been a leader in the private sector and knows how the economy works at the grassroots level

FLORIDIANS: VOTE MITT - THE RELIABLE CONSERVATIVE YOU CAN TRUST.

WHO IS MORE OF A RINO, MITT OR NEWT?

LET'S LOOK AT THE RECORD:

• MITT NEVER DID A TV COMMERCIAL WITH ANY DEM, BUT NEWT DID ONE WITH PELOSI SUPPORTING GLOBAL WARMING.

• MITT RAN AGAINST TEDDY JO KENNEDY.

• MITT NEVER PLAYED FOOTSY WITH AL SHARPTON, BUT NEWT DID - STILL DOES.

• MITT DIDN'T ENDORSE SCOZZAFAVA, NEWT DID.

• MITT WAS AMONG THE VERY FIRST TO ENDORSE RUBIO; NEWT WASN'T.

• MITT WAS AMONG THE FIRST TO ENDORSE AYOTTE, BUT NEWT WASN'T.

• MITT MADE MANY CAMPAIGN APPEARANCES WITH PALIN IN 2008, BUT NEWT DIDN'T.

• MITT NEVER WORKED FOR FREDDIE MAC, BUT NEWT DID.

• MITT NEVER WAS A LOBBYIST, BUT NEWT WAS.

• MITT NEVER ATTACKED THE FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM , CAPITALISM, OR PEOPLE WHO WORKED HARD AND BECAME SELF-MADE MILLIONAIRES, BUT NEWT HAS.

• NEWT IS MORE OF A RINO THAN MITT.

THERE ARE MORE REASONS MITT WOULD MAKE A FINE CONSERVATIVE STANDARD-BEARER AND A BETTER CANDIDATE TO DEFEAT OBAMA:

• MITT IS PRO-LIFE, PRO-TAX CUTS, PRO-SPENDING CUTS, ANTI-DEFENSE CUTS, AN UNAMBIGUOUS SUPPORTER OF ISRAEL AND HAS PROMISED TO REPEAL OBAMACARE AND DODD-FRANK.

• THE FACT THAT MITT PASSED A STATE HEALTHCARE REFORM MEANS THE LEFT CAN'T USE MEDISCARE AND HE CANNOT BE TARRED AS AN UN-CARING RETHUGLICAN WHO WANTS TO KEEP POOR PEOPLE FROM GETTING HEALTHCARE.

• ON TOP OF THAT, THE ETHICALLY CHALLENGED SERIAL ADULTERER'S NEGATIVES ARE HORRENDOUSLY HIGH AND HE CANNOT BEAT OBAMA.

MITT IS NO ADULTERER, NO APPEASER AND NO RINO.

YOU CAN'T SAY THAT NEWT. HE IS A SERIAL ADULTERER WHO APPEASED PELOSI AND SHARPTON AND ARAFAT AND WORKED FOR FREDDIE MAC AND LOBBIED FOR OTHERS.

NEWT IS MORE OF A RINO THAN MITT. HE'S A WELL KNOWN QUANTITY BY THE ELECTORATE AND THEY DON'T LIKE HIM.

NEWT WOULD LOSE AGAINST OBAMA.

OBAMA'S SECRET WEAPON: MARK LEVIN?

Obama is likely going to lose - and lose big.

The economy isn't likely to improve enough to lower unemployment enough to help him.

Obama's class warfare tactics won't help him. And the unions are too small to make a difference. He is losing about 20% of the Democrats and 60% of the independents.

If the GOP has a good GOTV, then Obama will lose in a landslide. And the GOP will almost certainly hold the House and win the Senate.

The only things that can help Obama WIN is if the economy makes an extraordinary comeback AND if the GOP GOTV flops.

WHAT MIGHT DEMORALIZE LIKELY REPUBLICAN VOTERS AND SUPPRESS GOP TURNOUT?

The only thing that can fatally demoralize and suppress and fatally damage the GOP GOTV is if conservatives like the great MARK LEVIN continue to harass and harangue ROMNEY so much that hordes of conservatives stay home if Romney gets the nomination, which is likely.

For a few weeks Levin's has been spending the first hour of his show lately ATTACKING ROMNEY - mostly over Romneycare. Levin casually adds that he would vote for Romney over Obama should Romney win the nomination, but the brutal bashing he's been doling out makes that proviso MEANINGLESS.

All this can accomplish is making many conservatives so dis-enamored of Romney that they stay home - and re-elect Obama.

What makes Levin's non-stop attacks even more unnecessary - and exasperating to me, an avid fan of The Great One - is the PLAIN TRUTH that Romney is to the RIGHT of the other candidates on many issues:

• Levin admits that Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan is unacceptable without a Constitutional Amendment and he admits that is not likely - BUT - Levin still thinks Cain is better than Romney. (Levin ignores that fact that it raises taxes on 47% of Americans, many of whom are living paycheck-to-paycheck and who would WIPED OUT by a 9% national sales tax.)
  

• Levin admits that Perry's stands on HPV and in-state tuition for illegals are unacceptable - and that Romney's stands on illegal immigration is better - BUT - Levin still finds Perry acceptably conservative, but not Romney.
  

Levin seems to believe - for some reason I cannot fathom - that Romneycare makes Romney unable to criticize and run against Obamacare.

I argue it's exactly wrong; in fact, Romneycare makes Romney the best possible GOP candidate to run on a platform that says it will be repealed.

Romney can't be labeled anti-healthcare reform or as someone who doesn't care about the uninsured.

Romney can best criticize Obamacare on the merits.

I am not arguing that Romney should not be criticized at all. ALL the candidates need careful aggressive vetting. I am just saying that conservative pundits like Levin should not damage Romney to the point of turning off large swaths of conservatives voters to him.

If they don't vote for Romney then they will re-elect Obama.

I think Ann Coulter's conservative creds are at least as good as Levin's and Rush's and Hannity's.

She supports Romney.

She is right.

Mark Levin and the others should DIAL BACK their attacks.

And give Romney credit for running to the right of McCain in 2008 and staying there for 5 years.

A Romney-Rubio or Romney-Cain or Romney-Demint or Romney-Jindal or Romney-Barbour ticket will be conservative enough.

Especially with a GOP Congress.

Nuff said.

UPDATE: THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT:

Most self-affiliated members of Tea Party Nation, one of the largest national organizations for the grassroots conservative movement, would vote for Mitt Romney as president if confronted with a choice between him or President Obama, according to a poll of members released to The Hill on Friday.

The group surveyed its members this week in an informal poll posted at the group’s website. The question asked was: If Romney is the GOP nominee, what will you do in the general election?

Fifty-two percent of about 1,150 respondents said they would “hold their nose” and vote for Romney if he becomes the GOP nominee, while 23 percent said they would vote for an unspecified third-party candidate. Twelve percent said they would not vote in the presidential election at all if the choice is between Romney and Obama.

IF ONLY 52% OF TEA PARTY VOTERS VOTE FOR ROMNEY THEN OBAMA COULD WIN.

IT WAS THE TEA PARTY THAT GOT US CONTROL OF THE HOUSE. WITHOUT THE TEA PARTY WE WILL NOT WIN THE WHITE HOUSE.

HERE'S SOME ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE THAT THE LEVIN ATTITUDE IS HELPING TO RE-ELECT OBAMA - FROM A COMMENT THREAD AT WEASEL ZIPPERS - FOR A POST IN WHICH ZIP SAYS HE WILL VOTE FOR ROMNEY IF HE IS THE NOMINEE:

Keith Garner says:

October 21, 2011 at 3:19 pm

If Romney is the best the Republicans have to offer, it’s time to boycott them. He does not deserve an honest man’s vote. Nothing will change in this country until all the government subsidized leftists have their taxpaYer funds cut off. This will not happen with Romney.

chuck in st paul says:

October 21, 2011 at 3:20 pm

Not only “no”, but “HELL NO!”

I am not pulling the lever for another Dhimmeroid Lite. Not again. I’d just stay home this time. If this country cannot cough up a decent conservative candidate then it’s time to retire my vote and let all y’all got to hell in your chosen way. I and my buddies did not serve this country so we could choose between bad and worse.

Jd says:

October 21, 2011 at 3:23 pm

sorry, but I voted for the establishment choice in 2008. I will vote for any other of the candidates, I will vote for everybody else on the ticket, but I will not vote for Romney.

vagabond a-z trader III says:

October 21, 2011 at 3:26 pm

Nope. My vote will not matter here in commie CT no matter who is on the ballot so save the vitriol. I will no longer be part of the problem. What chuck in st paul said, we get what we deserve if Mitt is the best we can do.

NewMexicoK says:

October 21, 2011 at 3:27 pm

I am an Indy, after being through with the Dim. party. I cannot vote for Romney. I will just not mark the Prez. part of the ballot.
Romney for me is a shapeshifter flip flopper. Worse, he is unlikeable. He is not a choice vs Obama. They both produce in me the same visceral reaction.
Both are arrogant poseurs.

I would vote for Cain and Perry

hoodaticus says:

October 21, 2011 at 3:32 pm

I am a conservative. I do not vote for liberals, no matter the circumstance or the party.

The ONLY reason to vote for the GOP is that they are different than the Democrats. If they are no different, then there is no reason to vote for the GOP, and if there is no reason to vote for the GOP, then we cannot elect anyone.

Our only electoral weapon, both short and long term, is our distinctiveness.

Would you give away your only weapon for the promise of victory?

hoodaticus says:

October 21, 2011 at 3:38 pm

@vagabond

If Romney is nominated, your choice is to stay home or hold your nose and vote for a liberal.

Romney will not win the general election under any circumstances, so you may as well take a principled stand.

THERE WERE MANY ABO COMMENTERS AT WZ.

THE ANYONE BUT OBAMA OR MITT CONTINGENT WAS ABOUT... HMMM 40% I'D GUESS. JUST LIKE THE TEA PARTY POLL.

THESE ANTI-MITT COMMENTS WERE MERELY CHERRY-PICKED TO SHOW THAT THE THREAT IS VERY VERY REAL.

THANKS TO CONSERVATIVE PUNDITS LIKE MARK LEVIN - SADLY!

PRIMARIES ARE THE CORRECT TIME TO VET CANDIDATES - ALL DESERVE CRITICISM FOR NONE REPEAT NONE A RE PERFECT.

BUT THEY SHOULD NOT BE SO HARSHLY ATTACKED AS TO TURN OFF LARGE SWATHS OF POTENTIAL GOP VOTERS.

THAT'S NOT JUST POLITICAL SUICIDE; IN 2012 IT WOULD BE NATIONAL SUICIDE.

UPDATE: CHRISTINE O'DONNELL AGREES WITH ME.

NHS ACTUALLY PAID AMBULANCE SERVICES TO DENY SERVICE

TELEGRAPH:

Patients' groups expressed horror at the "sick experiment" in which NHS managers have agreed to pay £38 for every casualty that ambulance staff "keep out of Accident and Emergency" (A&E) departments after a 999 call has been made.

The tactic is part of an attempt to manage increasing demand for emergency care amid failings in the GP out-of-hours system.

Documents seen by The Sunday Telegraph disclose that staff at Britain's largest ambulance service have been encouraged to maximise the organisation's income, by securing payments for diverting patients to telephone helplines.

The bonuses are among dozens of schemes being tried out by ambulance trusts across the country as they attempt to improve their emergency response times and help A&E departments meet controversial targets to treat all patients within four hours of arrival.

WHEN THE GOVERNMENT RUNS EVERYONE'S HEALTHCARE YOUR HEALTH IS NOT THEIR FIRST CONCERN.

AS THIS ARTICLE PROVES, THEY IN FACT LOOK FOR WAYS TO DENY SERVICE AND SAVE THEMSELVES MONEY.

IN A FREE MARKET, HEALTH CARE PROVIDER LOOK FOR WAYS TO MAKE MONEY BY PROVIDING THE BEST SERVICE IN THE MOST EFFICIENT WAY.

IF THEY FAIL TO PROVIDE GOOD SERVICE, THEN THEY CAN LOSE THEIR CUSTOMERS OR RELATIONSHIP WITH DOCTORS.

WHEN THE GOVERNMENT IS THE SOLE PROVIDER, THE PUBIC HAS NO WHERE ELSE TO GO.

OBAMACARE WILL INEVITABLE LEAD TO THE SAME PROBLEMS THE NHS HAS.

THAT'S WHY IT MUST EB REPEALED.

HOW WILL THE PROGRESSIVES AND THE IRS GET THE MANDATED INSURANCE MONEY FROM US? FROM OUR COLD DEAD HANDS!

HOW WILL THE PROGRESSIVES GET THAT MANDATED MONEY FROM US?

HERE'S HOW:



IOW: NEVER.

FULL SPEECH:

WATCH THE WHOLE THING!:





HESTON WASN'T JUST TAKING ABOUT THE 2ND AMENDMENT.

HESTON WAS TALKING ABOUT LIBERTY.

LIBERTY.

OBAMACARE WOULD DIMINISH OUR LIBERTY AS SURELY AS GUN CONTROL DOES.

WE ROUTED THEM OB THE 2ND AMENDMENT; WE WON'T LOSE ON OBAMACARE.

RULE 310G - WILL IT SAVE AMERICA? YESSSSSSS!

HOT AIR:

Hmmmm:

Senate Republicans say they can get the whole package of reconciliation fixes – the fix-its that make the Senate plan palatable to House Democrats – thrown out with a trump card procedural motion.

... “Immediately after receiving the final reconciliation bill language, Senate Republican staff was ready and willing to meet with Senate Democratic staff and the Senate Parliamentarian to discuss the fact that the House reconciliation bill may be brought down by the 310(g) point of order in the Senate. Senate Democrats are mysteriously unavailable until after the House votes on the health care bill tonight. The Senate Democrats appear to be pushing off this meeting so that House Democrats will remain in the dark about what is likely to happen to the reconciliation bill on which many have staked their careers in Congress.

WHAT IS 310G?

HERE:

Points of Order Relating to Social Security
Section 310(g): Social Security and Reconciliation

Prohibits consideration of reconciliation legislation that contains recommendations with respect to Social Security.

BWHAHAHAHA!

WE GET TO HAVE OUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO: THE DEMOCRATS WHO VOTED
"YES" ON CLOWARD-PIVEN-OBAMACARE ARE TOAST, ANDS WE DON'T HAVE TO SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES!

HOORAY!

A WIN-WIN FOR US AND A LOSE-LOSE FOR THEM!

OBAMACARE: WORST LEGISLATION EVAH!

OBAMA: WORST PRESIDENT EVAH!

UPDATE:

THE PARLIAMENTARIAN SHOT IT DOWN.

After hearing arguments on both sides, Frumin said that Democratic plans to push back an excise tax on so-called Cadillac insurance plans until 2018 was within the purview of budget rules allowable under the filibuster-proof reconciliation process. The GOP had argued it was beyond the scope of the five-year budgetary window allowed under the rules, and it was a violation of the so-called Byrd rule because of its changes to the Social Security law.

Republicans were hoping that if Frumin had ruled that the tax plan was out of order, it would have derailed the entire reconciliation measure.

WE SHALL NEVER GIVE UP OR GIVE IN... ON TO THE NEXT FRONT... THEN NEXT BATTLEGROUND: THE SCOTUS!

OBAMACARE: "the bastard son of a hundred maniacs"

OBAMACARE: "the bastard son of a hundred maniacs" - and it's a work in progress because the other 200 "progressive" maniacs in Congress want a piece of the action, too!

We posted on why it was doomed early last year: it's WAY too big, and - as a result- the public recognizes it as a revolution and not reform. No amount of tweaking and rewriting at this point can change that.

EVEN BETTER: Politically, it's a lose-lose for the left. And the longer they work on it the worse they appear.

BRAVOBAMA! BWAHAHAHA!

ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES, AND OBAMACARE HAS UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

Via Gateway who has added this:

Barack Obama ended the bipartisan summit today at the Blair House by threatening Republicans to accept the democrat’s plan. (He will not start over.) Or, he will ram it through Congress without them.

“Elections have consequences.”

MY COMMENT:

ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES.

YES.

AND RAMMING THROUGH UNPOPULAR LEGISLATION TAKING LIBERTY AWAY FROM AMERICANS HAS CONSEQUENCES, TOO.

BWAHAHAHAHA!

I've posted several times that the way Obama handled it, healthcare was a lose-lose for the Dems: if they pass it they lose, and if they don’t pass anything they lose.

Obama painted the Dems into a corner.

And the GOP will reap huge elctoral rewards as a direct result.

BWAHAHAHA!

OBAMACARE HAS DESTROYED THE DEMOCRAT PARTY - JUST AS I PREDICTED IN AUGUST LAST YEAR

LAST AUGUST:

Thursday, August 06, 2009

OBAMACARE IS A WIN-WIN FOR THE RIGHT-WING

OBAMACARE is classic OVER-REACH.

And despite Obama's personal charisma and despite the fact that Democrats control Congress and despite the cooperation of ACORN and the SEIU and other organized groups of THUGS (not unlike the Black Panthers who committed BLATANT voter intimidation but were let off the hook by an Obama appointee), the people will not ultimately be silenced.

Obama and his THUGS can shunt us aside now (as they did Hillary supporters in the caucuses!), but not in 2010.

• Either Obama wins Obamacare now (because of thuggery and intimidation and arm-twisting), AND HE AND THE DEMOCRATS SUFFER A HUGE BACKLASH AND LOSE BIG IN 2010)...

• OR OBAMCARE GOES DOWN TO DEFEAT NOW, AND OBAMA'S PRESIDENCY IS MORTALLY WOUNDED.

IT'S A WIN-WIN FOR THE RIGHT-WING.

Ahhhhhhhh.......

IOW: HUBRIS STRIKES AGAIN!

[NOTE: YOU READ IT HERE FIRST: THESE ARE THE SAME TACTICS OBAMA AND AXELROD AND RAHM USED IN THE CAUCUSES AGAINST HILLARY SUPPORTERS, AND THAT THE BPP USED IN PHILLY!]
Posted by Reliapundit @ 9:41 PM ; Permalink

THIS WAS POSTED WHEN OBAMA WAS PUSHING FOR PASSAGE IN AUGUST!

OH HOW THINGS HAVE CHANGED - THANKS TO OBAMA!

OBAMA HAS PAINTED HIMSELF AND HIS PARTY INTO A CORNER WITH GITMO AND THE KSM TRIAL - JUST LIKE HE DID WITH OBAMACARE

Obama painted himself into a corner with Obamacare: a big bill pissed off the nation, a compromise bill will piss off his base - EITHER WAY THE DEMOCRAT LOSE.

The same thing is happening vis a vis Gitmo and his decision to give KSM an NYC trial.

Increasingly these decisions appear to be BIG LOSERS for Obama and the Democrats.

Already Obama is pulling back on the Gitmo front - pissing off his base.

And the KSM trial - well... that's gonna be the gift that keeps on giving. NOBODY in NYC thinks it was a good decision. But if he backs down he looses his base.

It's gonna be a HUGE LANDSLIDE year for the GOP.

Thank God.

OBAMA PAINTED THE DEMOCRATS INTO A CORNER

OBAMA PAINTED HIMSELF AND THE DEMOCRATS INTO A CORNER: WHETHER THEY PASS OR DON'T PASS OBAMACARE, THEY LOSE BIG AT THE BALLOT BOX. OBAMACARE IS A LOSE-LOSE PROPOSITION FOR THE DEMS.

CORZINE, DEEDS AND NOW COAKLEY.

BWAHAHAHAHA!


(DERIVED FROM THIS)

PIGS FLY: GOOD, THOROUGH AND FAIR NYTIMES ARTICLE ON COAKLEY-BROWN AND OBAMACARE AND THE MID-TERMS

WITH ONLY THE SLIGHTEST BIAS.

BOTTOM-LINE: IF BROWN WINS, THEN OBAMACARE IS FINISHED - AND THE DEMS WILL LOSE CONGRESS THIS YEAR.

AND - IMHO: OBAMA HIMSELF IS THROUGH, TOO.

OBAMACARE VOTE ON CHRISTMAS WILL BE A LUMP OF COAL FOR THE DEMOCRATS

THE DEM LEADERSHIP IS THINKING NOW THAT THEY'RE GONNA SCHEDULE A VOTE ON THEIR VERSION OF OBAMACARE - A BILL NO ONE HAS READ - ON CHRISTMAS EVE.

I THINK IF THEY DO VOTE - WHETHER IT PASSES OR NOT, THAT IT'LL TURN OUT TO BE A LUMP OF COAL AND NOT A GIFT.

ANYTHING THEY CAN PASS WILL PISS OF THEIR BASE AND ALIENATE THEM FROM THE MIDDLE, TOO.

IT'S A LOSE-LOSE SCENARIO FOR THE DEMS - COURTESY OF OBAMA.

BWAHAHAHAHA!

PREDICTION: OBAMA WILL APPOINT 15 NEWS CZARS IN 2011...

BECAUSE LIKE BLANCHE LINCOLN, IT SEEMS A LOT OF BIGTIME DEMS IN CONGRESS VOTE FOR OBAMACARE ARE GONNA NEED JOBS AS A RESULT.

I CAN'T BELIEVE ANY SENATOR FACING A TOUGH RACE WILL VOTE FOR OBAMACARE UNLESS THEY GET A PROMISE OF A WHITE HOUSE JOB IS THEY LOSE THEIR SEAT.

THE RACE IS ON: BANKI MOON WANTS A LEGALLY BINDING DEAL OUT OF COPENHAGEN

BBC:

The United Nations chief has urged world leaders to "seal a deal" on climate change when they meet in Copenhagen next week.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he believed an agreement was in sight, with recent moves by some countries a positive step to cutting emissions.

Danish PM Lars Lokke Rasmussen said he hoped to see "money on the table" at the UN conference he will host.

Both spoke at a Commonwealth meeting also focusing on climate change.

The Copenhagen summit, from 7-18 December, will see more than 85 national leaders gather to discuss climate change.

"Our common goal is to achieve a firm foundation for a legally binding climate treaty as early as possible in 2010," Mr Ban told the Commonwealth leaders at their summit in Trinidad and Tobago where he was a guest.

THERE IS A GREAT SENSE OF URGENCY - A RACE - NOW BECAUSE CLIMATEGATE HAS MADE THE AGW ALARMISTS REALIZE THEIR CHARADE MAY SOON COME ENTIRELY UNDONE.

THE ALARMISTS HAVE TO ACT BEFORE A MAJORITY OF PEOPLE REALIZE THAT AGW AND CO2 CONTROL ARE TOTAL SHAMS - MERELY STEALTH SOCIALISM AND STEALTH GLOBAL GOVERNANCE.

[ASIDE: THIS URGENCY IS NOT UNLIKE OBAMA'S/REID'S/PELOSI'S SENSE OF URGENCY WITH REGARD TO OBAMACARE:

THE RECENT ELECTIONS IN THE USA MADE THEM REALIZE THEY ONLY HAVE BETWEEN NOW AND NEXT SUMMER TO PASS THEIR SOCIALIST AGENDA BECAUSE IN NOVEMBER 2010 THEY WILL LOSE CONTROL OF CONGRESS.]

ABE LINCOLN KNEW WHY SCOUNDRELS LIKE OBAMA ALWAYS LOSE IN THE END:

"YOU CAN FOOL SOME OF THE PEOPLE ALL OF THE TIME, AND ALL OF THE PEOPLE SOME OF THE TIME BUT YOU CANNOT FOOL ALL OF THE PEOPLE ALL OF THE TIME."

FIASCOBAMACARE

The USA took another step toward instituting politician designed, government bureaucrat run, taxpayer financed healthcare.

Instead of attempting a few small and widely agreed to reforms - and addressing tort reform at all - Obama and the radical left running the show in DC rammed through a humongous overhaul of 1/6th of our economy. They did it in the middle of the night on a weekend.

Even if they think their intentions were nice - and most do think they are doing something good - only one thing is certain: 85% of Americans who have insurance are going to be in for some big surprises should the Senate pass a bill and Obama sign something like what the House passed into law.

The unintended consequences will wreak havoc with people's lives and pocketbooks. And the interned consequences will ultimately give more control to the government over our private lives and health and medical decisions.



YES: WHEN THE GOVERNMENT PAYS THE BILLS, THEY HAVE THE RIGHT AND THE POWER TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS.

AND THEY WILL.

DON'T BELIEVE ME!?!?

HAH!

• LOOK WHAT THEY ARE DOING TO THE BANKS THEY BAILED OUT!

• THEY ARE NOW GOING TO CONTROL AND LIMIT THE PAY OF EXECUTIVES AT THESE COMPANIES.

• THE GOVERNMENT HAS EVERY RIGHT TO DO THIS - THEY PURCHASED THE RIGHT WHEN THEY BAILED THEM OUT.

• IT'LL BE THE SAME WITH YOUR HEALTHCARE:

• THE GOVERNMENT WILL MAKE DECIDE WHAT CARE YOU WILL BE ENTITLED TO - NOT YOU AND YOUR DOCTOR.

• AND THE GOVERNMENT'S INTERESTS AND YOURS WILL NOT ALWAYS COINCIDE.

If we want more and better and cheaper healthcare, all we really needed to do was to empower individuals: (1) give individuals the same tax break we give businesses to buy healthcare; (2) foster MORE competition between insurance companies by allowing national/cross-state border commerce. That and TORT REFORM - which has been rpvoe to lower healthcare costs everywhere it's been enacted.

Instead it seems more likely than ever that we will get Obamacare.

They are going to ram it down our throats.

In the dead of the night - if they have to.

They are doing this now because they know that come 2010 they will lose at least one body of Congress and lose their ability to pass anything.

Obama and Axelrod and Rahm and Reid and Pelosi are now in a mad dash to pass as much socialist crap as they can.

Between now and then they can do a lot of damage.

Please God, Help us.