Mitch isn’t the most popular Republican in 2014 — even among Republicans and conservatives. This should be an easy win for Democrats.
What does Alison believe on the issues? Consider her stands (from her web site)
I strongly oppose President Obama’s attack on Kentucky’s energy industry — sounds like Republican red-meat.
We must secure America’s energy independence and reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Standard boiler-plate politicians have been using since … well, Jimmy Carter.
I am running to protect and strengthen Medicare and Social Security. Political boiler-plate.
We must cut red tape and allow businesses to grow and create new jobs. More Republican red-meat.
We must target burdensome federal regulation of Kentucky’s energy sector, allowing our state to create new middle-class jobs across the state. Yep, more Republican red-meat.
The Federal deficit is out of control and it threatens the long-term strength of our nation. Rand Paul would be proud, Alison.
Nearly 680 renewable energy initiatives across 23 federal agencies and their 130 sub-agencies costing taxpayers $15 billion is certainly not an efficient use of taxpayer dollars. I also believe that we can make our Medicare and Medicaid programs more efficient without slashing coverage. Medicare spending is unsustainable. Is this Rand Paul’s web site?
Do you really think Pelosi/Reid would agree with her views — cutting red-tape, opposing Obama on energy, reducing regulations, and the deficit threatening stability of the country?
Washington has fallen short of honoring our commitment to our veterans. More boiler-plate.
So far, looks like a Republican, or … a Libertarian! What Democrat issues does she take?
INCREASING MINIMUM WAGE: In order to grow our middle class, we must raise the minimum wage to help hardworking Americans achieve a basic standard of living. That’s about the only thing on her “issues” page which strongly identifies with Democrats. The rest is Republican or (gasp!) Libertarian.
Go read her “issues” page and be honest — if no party affiliation came with it, would you rate the majority of views Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, conservative, or liberal?
What Alison Grimes Believes isn’t the issue
Frankly, for a libertarian-conservative, there’s a lot to like about her, in preference over McConnell.
That’s not the problem. The problem is the “D” after her name.
Who you really vote for
The way politics works today is you don’t really vote for the person — what Alison Grimes does or does not support doesn’t really matter. When she arrives in Washington, she’ll be forced to tow the leadership line — those leaders are Pelosi/Reid/Obama.
- She won’t be allowed to challenge Obama’s stance on energy.
- She won’t be allowed to support reducing regulations.
- She won’t be allowed to cut pet “green” energy spending waste.
The only time she could do those things is when it won’t matter — i.e. when the leadership already knows her vote won’t matter.
She won’t really be allowed to support what she says she does.
The problem Washington has today is bills aren’t written by committee, brought up for debate, voted on, reconciled, and then passed to the President.
No, bills are written in back-room deals, then thrown on the floor telling members they can’t change them because then the deal will fall apart.
Then D’s and R’s brow-beat their side to support or not support it in its entirety.
What an individual congress critter believes has become irrelevant. Only party affiliation matters, and what the party leaders support.
Political Reality in 2014 and Beyond
What your candidate believes is irrelevant. Sorry, that’s the way it is.
If you vote for a “D,” you get Pelosi/Reid values.
If you vote for an “R,” you get McConnell/Boehner.
You don’t vote for a candidate, but party leadership.
The question for Kentucky voters isn’t Alison Grimes herself vs Mitch McConnell, but do the voters of Kentucky agree more with Pelosi/Reid or not?
… and you know those Democratic leaders don’t agree with much on Alison’s web site, they just hope nobody notices until after the election.
Gun Control is in the media a lot recently as Obama and liberals promote their goals of restricting availability of guns. Proponents state they’re not taking rights away, only making “reasonable” controls and restrictions, the idea constitutional rights are not absolute (can you yell “fire” in a movie theater, for example).
But compare a constitutional right (2nd amendment) with a non-constitutional idea (abortion).
Those pushing restrictions, taxes, or a 7 to 14 day wait to exercise your Constitutional 2nd amendments rights as “reasonable” complain when an abortion might require a 24 hour wait before terminating a baby.
“Reasonable” is all in the eyes of the beholder, and as usual, varies with the political goals desired.
Abortion and gun control, while not on the same constitutional level, expose hypocrisy and inconsistency of the groups promoting one while trying to deny the other.
Of course, they hope nobody notices.
Both Chris Dodd (D-Conn) and Democrat President Obama have voiced righteous indignation about the AIG bonus payouts. But when you look a bit deeper, you wonder why both men are complaining — after all, they each had a major part in allowing the payouts to go forward. First, the President, in a press conference, stating they knew where AIG spent all the money (that would include the bonus).
From White House press secretary Robert Gibbs’ briefing two weeks ago, when $30 billion in additional funds were announced for AIG. AIG had at this point designated $165 million in retention bonuses for officers of the Financial Products subsidiary, as well as an additional $121.5 million in executive bonuses.
TAPPER: AIG, is the administration confident that it, that it knows what happened to the tens of billions of dollars previously given to AIG?
GIBBS: Is it confident — I’m sorry?
TAPPER: That they know — that you guys know what happened to the previous billions before you hand over this next $30 billion.
GIBBS: Yes — yes, the — I mean, I don’t think it’s a — well, obviously, you’ve got a huge insurance company that is losing money, not the least of which because of its sheer size and sheer size and decrease in the growth in our economy. It experiences a far bigger drop, largely because of its size. But, again, the steps that — that Treasury and — and others took were to ensure a larger systemic problem wasn’t one that we had to deal with here today in letting something just die.
TAPPER: But in terms of specifically the — I guess it’s like $150 billion before, you guys are confident…
So the President says he knew where the money went — and that includes the bonus money. Gee, wonder why he never complained about it until now? We’ll see why after examining Chris Dodd’s role.
While the Senate constructed the $787 billion stimulus last month, Dodd unexpectedly added an executive-compensation restriction to the bill. That amendment provides an “exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009,” which exempts the very AIG bonuses Dodd and others are seeking to tax. The amendment is in the final version and is law.
So why is Chris Dodd (D-Conn) upset? He added law exempting bonuses to the stimulus bill. And now he feigns indignation?
So what do Mr. Obama and Mr. Dodd have in common, besides both men knowing those bonuses were to be paid out from the bailout money (one stated he knew where the money was spent, the other specifically exempted bonuses). They’re both number 1-2 in political contributions from AIG, Mr Dodd first at $103,000 and Mr. Obama second at $101,000 (third place was less than $60,000, and then fourth place on drops to $35,000 and less – so Obama/Dodd fed the most at the lobbyist trough. Data from Opensecrets.org).
And that’s how they can both encourage and know those bonuses would be paid, and then (for political reasons) feign being upset about it, when they knew it all along. Same old politics in play — do one thing behind closed doors for lobbyist $$$, do another for the public.
That’s change we can’t believe in, just more of the same old-school Washington garbage.
… are doomed to repeat it.
Recall when the Patriot act passed Congress, and the Democrats complained it was rammed through Congress so fast nobody could read it (and we know how well that worked out)? It’s Deja Vu, all over again, only this time, it’s Democrats ramming a spendulous political payback bill thorough Congress so fast nobody can read it (with special “stimulus” spending for Reid’s and Pelosi’s districts — like train lines and mice). What happened to transparency? What happened to 48 hours of public notice? What happened to debate? Just like PAYGO, Democrats abandoned all their campaign promises — after all, they don’t need votes (right now), so why bother with those pesky little promises? Doesn’t everyone know those only applied to campaign season?
The bill just came out of conference committee, and at over 1,000 pages, it must be voted on today? Why the rush? Why no debate? Why can’t they even (gasp!) read the bill — is it too much to ask for Congress to actually read what they’re voting on? (Hint: It’s reported Pelosi wants to jet out of town today — maybe true or not, but even if true, it’s no excuse for a rush on spending trillions).
Would you put your name on a contract without reading it? If not, you’re smarter than the entire Congress, who can’t be bothered to actually read the bill — after all, they’ve got pork to distribute!
Unfortunately, they’re not putting their name on the credit card — it’s ours.
The following story caused quite an uproar, which the media calls a “botched abortion”, but is it really?
Eighteen and pregnant, Sycloria Williams went to an abortion clinic outside Miami and paid $1,200 for Dr. Pierre Jean-Jacque Renelique to terminate her 23-week pregnancy.
Three days later, she sat in a reclining chair, medicated to dilate her cervix and otherwise get her ready for the procedure.
Only Renelique didn’t arrive in time. According to Williams and the Florida Department of Health, she went into labor and delivered a live baby girl.
What Williams and the Health Department say happened next has shocked people on both sides of the abortion debate: One of the clinic’s owners, who has no medical license, cut the infant’s umbilical cord. Williams says the woman placed the baby in a plastic biohazard bag and threw it out.
The woman involved will of course sue, but for what? Abortion is designed to eliminate the baby, and the clinic did exactly that, in a similar manner had the “doctor” arrived on time. What legal case exists — services performed as expected resulting in the death of a baby?
Of course, it also must be noted Obama’s stance in these matters matches exactly what the clinic did — refuse medical care to babies born alive and allow them to die. So the clinic rendered the service they were supposed to do (terminate the baby), and with the President supporting the policy of denying medical care to new babies.
With all this in mind, our question remains why the uproar? How can anyone be surprised by these events?
Suppose the “doctor” arrived on time, what would the sequence of events have been? Depending on the exact abortion procedure, he’d kill the baby — perhaps by crushing the skull and vacuuming out the brain, or by dismembering it in the womb. He’d then re-assemble the pieces on the table to be sure he got them all, then pack them in a biohazard bag and throw it out.
Is that much different than what actually happened?
So the question remains, why the concern? For the pro-life crowd, it happens every day across the country — why is this case so different? For the pro-abortion crowd, the “doctor” would do almost exactly what the owner did — so why does it matter? And the President supports denying newborn babies medical care, resulting in their death, so the actions have the support of the President.
Why does this case matter?
Senator Charles Schumer (D) on the “stimulus” (read: pork spending) bill:
“Why quibble over $200 million?” he asked during an interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” …
Why? Because it’s not your money Senator. You’re spending my money, my children’s money, my grand-children’s money, and my great-grand-children’s money. Have you no decency and fiscal responsibility Senator?
Congress once again descends to new lows in fiscal responsibility as they’re mortgaging our future to return political campaign favors to ACORN, National Endowment for the arts, unions, and others. In spite of citizen’s desire to not waste money on stimulus that isn’t, Congress thumbs their noses at mere citizens and does it anyway.
Remember when President Bush was in office and the deficit was bad, and his spending disgraceful? Now Mr. Obama takes control (as part of Team RePO), who cares how much Congress spends? It’s a free for all! Everyone on board! No need to rush, plenty of pork to pass around! There’s so much pork, Senator Schumer doesn’t want to quibble over pocket change … like $200 million.
After all, there’s room at the trough for everyone.