Moderate Republicans Finally Found Someone They Will Fight… Other Republicans

The Republican establishment led by such folks as Senators Mitch McConnell and John McCain don’t want to fight the Democrats. But after this latest Obamacare funding fight, we have discovered that there is a side they will attack: other Republicans.

Those Republicans who voted “yes” on Friday’s cloture vote in the Senate knowingly voted in favor of funding Obamacare. There is no other way around that simple truth.

There was absolutely no doubt that a “yes” vote would give Democrat leader Harry Reid the power to remove all the features that the House put in the budget bill that would defund Obamacare. GOP “yes” voters knew this without doubt. And, true to that assumption, only minutes after the DR was passed with Republican assistance, Reid did just that. He stripped out all aspect of defunding from the CR budget bill.

Yet, twenty-five Republicans voted “yes,” anyway.

Even while these RINO senators were turning tail and running from the fight against Obamacare and refusing to fight the Democrats, they did find a reason to attack someone. They attacked Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and all conservatives that want to be rid of Obamacare.

Take John McCain, for instance. The long-time Senator that is past his sell by date, attacked Cruz on TV and also from the floor of the Senate and did so with help from his close personal friend and leader Harry Reid.

Here are the Senators that knowingly voted with the Democrats in order to allow Harry Reid to strip House language that would defund Obamacare:

  • Alexander (R-TN)
  • Ayotte (R-NH)
  • Barrasso (R-WY)
  • Blunt (R-MO)
  • Boozman (R-AR)
  • Burr (R-NC)
  • Chambliss (R-GA)
  • Chiesa (R-NJ)
  • Coats (R-IN)
  • Coburn (R-OK)
  • Cochran (R-MS)
  • Collins (R-ME)
  • Corker (R-TN)
  • Cornyn (R-TX)
  • Graham (R-SC)
  • Hoeven (R-ND)
  • Isakson (R-GA)
  • Johanns (R-NE)
  • Kirk (R-IL)
  • McCain (R-AZ)
  • McConnell (R-KY)
  • Murkowski (R-AK)
  • Thune (R-SD)
  • Wicker (R-MS)

Now many of these senators will claim that they absolutely did not vote in favor of Obamacare. But there are two points that need to be made, here. Firstly, if their vote was a vote against Obamacare, why did every single Democrat vote the same way these RINOs did? If it was an anti-Obamacare vote, do you really think the Democrats would vote for it?

Secondly, the only fight these RINO senators seem to want to have is one with conservatives and Tea Partiers. So, what we have here is the GOP establishment siding with Democrats and against their own voters.

Lastly I’ll make a point clear in response to John McCain. McCain is running around claiming that because the Democrats won the late presidential election we need to give them everything they want because “elections have consequences.”

If this fool can tell me when Democrats ever just bent over backwards to allow victorious Republicans their was because “elections have consequences,” then I’ll lend him the point. But they never, ever govern that way. They always act as if their opposition is of supreme importance.

Republicans should emulate that.

For your info, here are the Republicans that actually cast a vote against Obamacare:

  • Crapo (R-ID)
  • Cruz (R-TX)
  • Enzi (R-WY)
  • Fischer (R-NE)
  • Grassley (R-IA)
  • Heller (R-NV)
  • Inhofe (R-OK)
  • Lee (R-UT)
  • Moran (R-KS)
  • Paul (R-KY)
  • Portman (R-OH)
  • Risch (R-ID)
  • Roberts (R-KS)
  • Rubio (R-FL)
  • Scott (R-SC)
  • Sessions (R-AL)
  • Shelby (R-AL)
  • Toomey (R-PA)
  • Vitter (R-LA)
GOP's Huelskamp Schools Al Sharpton: If Obamacare is so Great How Come Congress is Exempting Itself?
Extremist Professor: Trayvon Martin Case Proves it's Legal to 'Hunt Down & Kill' Black Kids
  • Retired military

    McConnel and Boehner both should be thrown out of their jobs.

  • LiberalNightmare

    Repubs need to wake up.

    No one elected republicans so that they could be popular with democrats.

  • Lawrence Westlake

    There are so many layers of ridiculous irony in this (oxymoronic, tautological) blog post, the only way to capture them all would be to take Sharron Angle, Christine O’Donnell, Ken Buck, Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, Jim Miller and Joe DioGuardi, put them together in a locked and padded room, have them fight Hunger Games-style to determine whom among them possesses the truest and purist conservative “Tea Party” credentials, and then have that person defeat their own causes, and those of the entire country, by voting directly for Harry Reid in the first instance to be Senate Majority Leader. That all aside, here are the lifetime ACU ratings as of the end of 2012 of some of the dreaded “RINO” Senators cited in this post: Barrasso (95%), Burr (91%), Coburn (98%), Cornyn (93%), Thune (87%), Wicker (88%). FYI, von Loopy, when people with + ~90% lifetime ACU ratings are “RINOs,” in your book, the inescapable conclusion is that you’re suffering from a severe and incurable mental disorder.

    • Retired military

      Do you prattle on like this in normal conversation or do you just do it online to try to make your point seem more valuable due to the fact that you write like someone who wants to impress people with your choice of words rather than their content.

      In short, you are one of those people who use $20 words to try to puff up your importance and make you seem more knowledgeable while you look down your nose at people.

      Do you drink tea with your pinky sticking out? Do you walk around with an ascot and use a linen kerchief to dab at the breadcrumbs at the corner of your mouth?

      I mean really. You used oxymoronic and tautological both in one sentence. In 53 years I have never used oxymoronic nor do I even know the meaning of Tautological and I have 18 years of schooling and an IQ of about 135. In short, you are not only a snob but a boring one. You are proof that some education is just wasted and in general a lot of it means very little in the wrong hands.

      • Brucehenry

        On the other hand, in this instance he’s right.

        • Retired military

          I didn’t argue the point he was trying to make. Just the method of delivery.

          I understand that some don’t want to be blamed for grinding the govt to a halt. We had that discussion on the other thread. I doubt anything new will be said by reviving it here.

          That being said that doesn’t stop some from having heartburn with the way they handled this issue. I mean it isn’t like the lamestream media is going to praise them. First chance they get they will invisorate them to earn brownie points with Obama and maybe joining the dozens of other “journalists” who now work for Obama.

      • Brett Buck

        I think “Lawrence Westlake” is some sort of web bot.
        Brevity is the soul of wit.

    • Commander_Chico

      Coburn is very conservative, appears to have great integrity and is a physician to boot. Interesting he voted that way.

  • Throwing themselves on the grenade…

    Could be they were right in voting for this insanity. Now it goes back to the House – then back to the Senate, then to Obama.

    Second trip through the Senate’s a straight party-line vote. Democrats own it.

    Obama signs it. Obama owns it. His wonderful ‘gift’ to the American people…

    Obamacare gets implemented, is a complete and total clusterfuck of an unworkable mess.

    Premiums rise, coverages drop. Everybody’s so happy because they’ve got insurance… not. Perception is everything on this.

    Another area of controversy: whether employers have reduced workers’ hours so they no longer qualify as full-time. Employers with 50 or more full-time workers must provide health care under the new law or pay a fine. In the survey, 3 percent of respondents say they have had their hours reduced because of Obamacare. The margin of error for the poll is plus or minus 3.4 percent, so the actual percentage could be zero or a more significant 6 percent of the population.

    Similarly, 3 percent of the public reports already having lost their private health care coverage because of the Affordable Care Act. Only 1 percent says they now have health insurance for the first time due to the new law.

    The reality of the impact of the health care law on premiums is a matter of debate.

    Perception is everything – and spin as you like it, I don’t think the default ‘blame the insurance companies’ is going to work this time.

    And frankly, this is a 3% I’m not especially happy to be in.

    But all this should work really well for the Dems in 2014, won’t it? After hours get cut, jobs get lost, rates go up, and the proximate cause is ‘Obamacare’ – and union healthcare plans are destroyed, how much support do you think the unions will provide for Democrats looking for re-election?

    How much support do you think the SEIU will give Reid and Pelosi their next election campaigns?

    We’ll see what’s what in a few months. But my feeling is that once this hits good and proper, Obama’s going to be running from any connection with it.


    Well, what do I know, anyway? I predicted Romney might squeak through to a victory, if you’ll recall…

    • Retired military

      My understanding is that unless the house and Senate agree on a single version than it wont be sent to Obama. You cant have a straight party line vote in the House and have it go to Obama. So Boehner would have to have about 2 dozen republicans defect and vote with the dems on funding obamacare. Possible. As they don’t want to miss out on their DC cocktail parties and nice lines (for a few days) written in the NY times about them. And they don’t want to get blamed for shutting down the govt (which they will).

      • Give the Democrats what they want – out of the House, into the Senate. Passed by one vote. A nice, ‘bipartisan’ move.

        Then it’s the Senate’s – and we’ll see if it gets passed. If it’s after Oct 1st, wouldn’t it be interesting if they didn’t?

    • Brucehenry

      The way I recall it you predicted he WOULD win, not that he “might squeak through.” LOL. Something about a “preference cascade.”

      My prediction: Whatever happens with Obamacare, Reid, Pelosi, and other Democrats will still get the support of unions. Because they’re less awful than Republicans. Not better, really, just less awful. As a rule, I mean, not always.

      • These days, the only way a Republican could win would be by squeaking by. Or at least in 2012, the way that Romney had been painted as a woman-hating out of touch 1%er.

        But, as I also admitted, I was wrong.

        How is all this going to play out? I don’t really know… but I do know that overall we’ve been badly hurt by this whole mess. Who’s done the damage is a matter of opinion, of course – but I think that Obamacare sparked something that’s going to have bad repercussions for a long time to come.

        • Brucehenry

          Well, I don’t think Romney’s a “woman-hater” but there was no need for anyone to “paint” him as an “out-of-touch 1%er.”

          He did a great job of that all by himself.

          As far as your first point, the Republicans have no one but themselves to blame for that. Gerrymandered Congressional districts mean that Republican Congressmen must pander to the Tea Party or get primaried. They can win election in their gerrymandered districts but the positions they must espouse won’t work nationally. That’s why Romney and McCain before him lost, because they had moved so far right during the primaries that they couldn’t get back to the center fast enough to appeal to the great mass of moderate voters in America.

          Romney in particular was a catastrophe for you guys. He couldn’t even beat a black guy with a Muslim name who was presiding over a fucked-up economy and a supposedly unpopular healthcare plan.

          • Keep on giving the GOP advice there. That way we’ll know what not to do.

          • Brucehenry

            Sure, RGG. If you keep going the way you’ve been going, your congressional candidates will receive fewer overall votes than the Democrats do and still win a majority in the House.

            Oh, wait, that happened this last time. The false “sense of majority” that gave you probably won’t hurt you, though, much.

          • Given your track record…

          • Retired military

            Romney was a disaster because he was farther left than McCain. The republican establishment wants people who can supposedly appeal to the left and in the meantime they lose their base.

          • Brucehenry

            So you think that people voted for Obama because Romney was too far left?

          • Commander_Chico

            Cruz 2016!!

          • jim_m

            No, you imbecile, conservatives didn’t vote for him and stayed home instead. Obviously, critical thinking skills are not your forte.

          • Brucehenry

            Aaaand entering the conversation, with vitriol right off the bat, is my friend Jim. Hello to you too buddy.

            Republicans should probably do what Democrats have done since Dukakis, at least. Hold their nose and vote for who they consider the lesser of two evils.

            Adding: Yes the “critical thinking skills” jibe is not as tired as the “reading comprehension” schtick you and your buddy Prof Storm demonstrated the other day.

          • jim_m

            Forgive me if I have little patience for fools that miss the obvious.

          • Brucehenry

            Fools WHO miss the obvious.

            And I see you have a point. RM said what he meant right in his comment. I was in such a rush to say something clever I said something kinda dumb.

            Wow, I feel so lonely. No one here has ever done that before.

          • jim_m

            Don’t be silly. You’ve done it plenty of times before.

          • Brucehenry

            Yeah just me.

          • Retired military

            “Hold their nose and vote for who they consider the lesser of two evils.”
            DId that with McCain and held it harder for Romney Bruce. I am of the opinion that if the republican elite want to continue to run RINOs and in doing so ensure that they get invites to their DC parties and get nice things written up in the nY Times every now and then, then all I can say is Fuck them. I refuse to do so again.
            Maybe once turnout gets so bad and they lose their positions than something will happen. I only hope the country will survive that long. as it is I think is or very soon will be on an unsustainable path.

          • Brucehenry

            Well what’s your explanation of how Romney won the nomination then? Didn’t more Republican primary voters vote for him than voted for his rivals?

            Do you really think Bachmann or Santorum or Herman Freaking Cain would have beaten Obama?

          • jim_m

            Most states have open primaries so voters can cross over easily. Usually, in those states the voters will cross over to vote in an election that is more interesting. If, like in 2014, you have an incumbent running unopposed voters will cross over to vote in the other party’s primary in hopes of setting up a match up they prefer (ie voting for the candidate of the other party they find most attractive). There is nothing wrong with this behavior, it is a simple fact of how the system works and how people behave.

          • Brucehenry

            “Most” states do? How many?

            Never mind, found it:

            Looks like “most” was an overstatement. Also, of the first 3 contests, only SC is open. If you’ll remember, in 2008 by the time McCain won SC the contest was pretty much over.

            Another edit: I suspect that your theory of how people behave in open primaries is pulled out of your a….I mean, just guessing on your part.

          • jim_m

            Their map is inaccurate. I live in Illinois and their primaries are fully open. So are Massachusetts’ primaries. That being the case if we add their bullshit category of semi closed to the open category most of the primaries are open.

          • Brucehenry

            1. Are you sure? Did you read their definition of “semi-closed” primaries?

            2. Most of the primaries are held after they can have any effect. In 2004 Kerry was the only Dem left standing by early March. In 2000 Bush had it sewn up by South Carolina. Ditto McCain 2008. Romney had it in the bag later than most nominees, but it was still over by April.

          • jim_m

            In both states when you go to the polling place they ask you which ballot you want. No one looks at your registration. Having voted in both of those states, yes, I am sure.

          • Vagabond661

            To water down the conservative field, the GOP put in 7 conservatives in the primaries. May have been more than 7 but my memory ain’t that great. Divide and conquer. Old as time. That’s how the GOP gets their moderate watered down wishy washy candidates to win the primaries.

            Why do they like moderates? They think they will win and if they don’t they still get their committees and parties.

          • Brucehenry

            Is there some shadowy conspiratorial committee that “put in” seven conservatives to water down the field? LOL.

            I’m pretty sure that each of those conservatives thought that he or she was the best man or woman for the job. They probably each came to their own decision as to whether to run or not.

            In 2008 the Democratic field started out with 7 or 8 liberals as I recall. I don’t remember anyone complaining the liberal field was being “watered down.”

          • Vagabond661

            It’s simple facts. If you want your man to win primaries, split the conservative vote between as many as you can.

            Who would have won the primary if there were 5 moderates and one conservative?

          • Brucehenry

            So were each of the conservative candidates in on the plot, or only a couple of them? Who was targeted for exclusion, Santorum? Gingrich? That would mean Bachmann was a willing or unwitting dupe of the Secret GOP Kingmaking Cabal, right?

            Who are the members of the Secret GOP Kingmaking Cabal, Vagabond?

            Don’t tell me: The Kochs! No, Adelson! No, maybe the Illuminati, or the Knights Templar perhaps?

          • Vagabond661

            All your blather and belittling doesn’t change the facts. And you still didn’t answer the question or present a valid argument. You did scoff and huff and puff but you couldn’t put together a single solitary fact to dispute anything. Or add anything to the discussion.

          • Brucehenry

            And your paranoid assertions don’t change “the facts” either, Sport. Who are the people you claim “put in” seven conservative candidates to “water down the conservative vote?”

            Please give us a single solitary fact to support your accusation that there is some secret cabal inside the GOP that “put in” these candidates. Please give us a single solitary fact that proves any of them knew they were being used, or else were unwitting dupes of this cabal.

            I love how you want “facts” to support my mockery of an unfounded, fact-free, paranoid conspiracy theory.

          • Vagabond661

            That is your label and I won’t address your labels. You do know that the GOP dislikes conservatives don’t you? Surely you are aware of that fact.

            So, I will answer yours after you answer mine. If you forgot:

            Who would have won the primary if there were 5 moderates and one conservative?

          • Brucehenry

            I don’t know.

            Can you name five “moderate” Republicans who might have run in 2012? And can you name one “conservative” Republican who, had he/she been nominated, would fer shure have beat Obama?

            Now, who are the members of this “the GOP” (that dislikes conservatives) that you assert fixed the 2012 race?

          • Vagabond661

            Thanks for answering. One thing for sure, a moderate would never beat Obama. It was tried….twice. We will never know if a conservative would have won. We will never know if Ron Paul would have won. Because the GOP and the Media wanted Romney to win the primary. They wanted McCain to win. Hell they wanted Bob Dole to win.

            Who has a better record in endorsing a candidate, Palin (Conservative) or Rove (GOP)?

            Now to answer your questions. I don’t know.

          • Brucehenry

            So you don’t know who “they” are…the ones who “put in” an overload of conservative candidates to “water down” the conservative field, but you feel comfortable asserting that SOMEONE did.

            “Putting in” candidates to “water down” the field is a purposeful act. It denotes a conspiracy, or at least a plan, by some actor or actors, does it not?

            It must be comfortable to be a Republican conservative. When you win, it’s because the Voice Of The People Was Finally Heard! But when you lose, it was the fault of the Lamestream Media, or some cabal within “the GOP” who dislike conservatives, or some other explanation — ANY other explanation — than conservatism sucks.

            PS. Rove has a better record, inasmuch as he arguably got a president elected and re-elected, and Palin has not.

          • Vagabond661

            Sorry you are wrong. Palin has a far better record in endorsing candidates but thanks for playing.

            I never made those claims you project on me. But it seems that is your only contribution to this discussion. Bring up vague references to conspiracy. I stated a fact. The GOP hates conservatives and yet they have never won an election without us. If you need proof, look at the republicans who attacked Cruz. A failed law that will cost billions more and right now can’t even be implemented.

            If the Libertarians want their guy elected next time, court the conservatives. They got my vote. The GOP are losers.

          • Brucehenry

            “I never made those claims you project on me.”

            Umm, yes, you did.

            I quote: “To water down the conservative field, the GOP put in 7 conservative candidates in the primaries. May have been more than 7 but my memory ain’t that great. Divide and conquer. Old as time. That’s how the GOP gets their moderate watered down wishy washy candidates to win the primaries.”

            In that comment you are claiming that “the GOP” engaged in a plot. A plot to cram the primaries with conservative candidates to “water down the field.” This is a purposeful act, one that takes planning, money, and especially, cooperation from either willing tools or unwitting dupes of the strategy.

            Of course you never say who is who and which is which, dupe or tool.

            So you allege a conspiracy, then when shown how crazy that sounds you say you never made the claim! That’s what I call denial! Useful to a Republican conservative, I guess.

            Again, who are the people in this “the GOP” faction you allege hate conservatives and take covert action to ensure one is not elected president? And if “the GOP” hates conservatives why are nearly all conservatives in politics today members of the GOP?

          • Vagabond661

            If you don’t know that the GOP dislikes conservatives, google it. You will find it much quicker and you can then argue with google.

          • Brucehenry

            LOL, OK Mr I-Say-The-Fix-Is-In-I-Never-Said-The-Fix-Is-In.

          • Vagabond661

            No. the fact there has not been conservative or Libertarian as a presidential candidate in decades should tell you something about the GOP. But bury your head in the sand.

            I like you ignorant. It pleases me.

          • Brucehenry

            Well, I was certainly ignorant of the plot by “the GOP” to fix the 2012 Republican presidential primaries by flooding the field with conservatives to divide and conquer.

            But again, if you’d like to name the names of those who engaged in this plot I’m listening. After all, it’s simply beyond belief that Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, and Paul each looked at the situation and decided 2012 was their year, then went out and found backers and money to make their individual runs.

            No, there had to be a conspiracy, to water down the conservative field. Divide and conquer. Old as time.

            So I guess you have a point about my ignorance.

            Oh, I forgot, you never said that!

          • Vagabond661

            What do you think the chances are of 5 Libertarian candidates running in the next primary and one of them winning the nomination? Or would it dilute the Libertarian vote?

            If there was one burger joint in town wouldn’t they get all the burger business? What if 4 more opened up? Do you think perhaps the original burger joint would see a loss of revenue? Did you ever see a corner in town that had one gas station and another one opened up next to it? Do you think possibly the first gas station would see a loss of business?

            The same thing happened in the 2012 primary. The conservative field was diluted. The GOP was smart enough not to put in 4 or 5 moderates.

            Seems simple enough. Don’t know why you can’t grasp the concept.

          • Brucehenry

            Oh, I get the obvious. And if you had simply said “The conservative field was watered down. There were too many conservatives and the conservative vote was split,” I might have said you had a valid point.

            But that’s not what you said. You said the GOP “put in” 7 conservatives in a conscious attempt to split the vote. “Divide and conquer” were your words.

            This theory of yours assumes that some or all of the conservative candidates were either frauds or dupes. That someone, some actor — someone you call “the GOP” — either facilitated their fraud or duped them into thinking they had a real shot, all the while knowing that a moderate candidate was the real end goal. That’s fucking crazy.

            You asserted a conspiracy, dude. Then you dishonestly denied you’d ever made such a claim. But you did.

            BTW, one often sees a second gas station, or a second or third burger joint, opening up on the same corner as a first gas station or burger place. Why do you think that is, genius?

            ADDING: I’ll bet that the 2016 Democratic field will include at least 4 or 5 liberals. Do you think a conservative will be nominated because the liberal vote was diluted? You know, like Lieberman was nominated in 2004? LOL.

          • Vagabond661

            You asserted conspiracy, dude (over and over an over again), I say strategy. Do you honestly think Rove wanted ANY of the conservatives in the race? Much less win? Have you seen the back and forths between him and Palin? Bachmann?

            Do you think ANY one but Hilary has a prayer in the 2016 Democratic Primaries?

          • Brucehenry

            AHA!! So you think it was ROVE who “put in” those seven conservatives? Maybe more….in a conscious attempt to “water down the field”?

            So how did he get Santorum, Bachmann, Cain, Paul, and Gingrich to participate in his strategy? Did he dupe them, or were they willing participants in his nefarious plan to cost the GOP the election and ensure another 4 years of his own exile from power?

            Give it up, dude. You’re getting ridiculouser and ridiculouser.

          • Vagabond661

            As i said, i was relying on memory. I didn’t google the number.

            You are the one purporting conspiracies. You, sir, sound “ridiculouser and ridiculouser”. I simply asked if you thought Rove wanted any of the conservative candidates to win. You took it from there and made it ridiculous. Congrats.

            edit: you can have the last word. Try to sound sane. I gotta watch my falcons lose to the patriots.

          • Brucehenry

            Sure, it was me that said that someone “put in” candidates to “water down the conservative field.”

            I’ll ask you one more time: Were Santorum, Cain, Gingrich, Paul, and Bachmann in on the plan to overload the field with conservative candidates and thus split the vote, throwing the nomination to “moderate” Romney? Or were they each duped by Rove into entering the race?

            You said it wasn’t conspiracy, it was strategy. So, OK, were they consciously part of the strategy or were they fooled into participating in it?

            EDIT: Apparently you need to re-read this thread. Start with your very first comment. That’s the one in which you allege that “The GOP put in” too many conservative candidates “to water down the conservative field.” “Divide and conquer. Old as time.” THAT, my friend, is an allegation of conspiracy.

            I don’t blame you for trying to weasel out of it now that you have seen how crazy it sounds, but the fact remains you said what you said.

          • Vagabond661

            That is strategy. Divide and conquer.

            Germany used the strategy of divide and conquer by placing members of the Tutsi minority in positions of power.


            Old as time, my friend. Now don’t you feel silly? Because you sure look silly.

          • Brucehenry

            You know what I DO feel silly. What a waste of time!

          • Brucehenry

            The Mormons? No, there were TWO Mormon candidates. Or WERE THERE???

          • Brucehenry

            The Comintern? The Vatican? Odessa? The Kuomintang? ZOG? Ancient Astronauts? SOROSSS!!?

          • Retired military

            I don’t think any of those you mentioned could have to be honest.
            As for republican voters in the primaries, I am sure you are aware that there are numerous “open primary” states where you can vote for which ever party’s primary you wish. I believe that Is how McCain got it as well. of course he had the “it’s my turn” thing as well which served us so well with McCain and Dole.
            Plus the lamestream media didn’t start hitting Romney hard until after he go the nomination. They were too busy smearing the front runner of the day.

          • Brucehenry

            Dealt with the open primary issue in my reply to Jim below. Of the first 4 contests, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and SC, only SC is an open primary state. As I’m sure you’re aware, most of the time the front runner’s pretty well clinched it by SC time.

            Also, 34 Republican nominating contests (primaries, caucuses, etc) are “closed” and only 17 are “open.” (The 51st is Puerto Rico, before some genius screams Gotcha! btw).

            Vagabond, below, seems to think a secret conclave of GOP movers and shakers flooded the primaries with conservative candidates to divide the Neanderthal vote. No word yet on whether he thinks the conservative candidates were willing tools of the conspiracy or unwitting dupes of it.

            Sorry, but today’s conservatism has a flaw: denial. You guys seem to think that conservatism cannot fail, it can only BE failed. That’s why you cling to the myth that McCain and Romney “weren’t conservative enough” to win, that if only a REAL conservative (like, I don’t know, Santorum? Palin? Cruz?) were nominated, Zombie Reagan would return and Take Your Country Back or something. As if America WANTED policies that were more conservative than Obama’s. It doesn’t.

            It would be amusing if it weren’t so pathetic, I guess.

          • jim_m

            The first 4 primaries are not the entire nation.

          • Brucehenry

            No, but the race is often set in stone by the time they’re over, or nearly set. Think Bush 2000, McCain 2008, Kerry 2004, etc.

          • Retired military


            Romney wasn’t the front runner until about 6 others held that title. All of whom the media promptly did their best to destroy.
            The fact is that McCain and Romney are RINOs and would have been only marginally better than Obama at best.

            As I stated. McCain only got as many votes as he did thanks to Palin not in spite of her.

            Romney was an even worse pick and a lot of conservatives stayed home. I almost did but decided to go anyway just to vote for the ones below president. of all the ones who ran Romney was tied dead last with that other Rino that was running.

            IMO the republican elite keeps wanting to be democrat lite (ala McCain and Romney) and it keeps failing miserably.

            Both of them got less votes than Bush did if I am not mistaken.

            The media played a large part in both campaigns going towards Obama naturally. With McCain it wasn’t much of a stretch. With Romney we had that along with the IRS keeping Tea party groups out of the picture.

            You may disagree and I am sure you do.

            For our next trick shall we fight florida 2000 all over again.

            The bottom line is that it doesn’t really matter at this point regarding the budget battle. Obama got reelected. He is president. He can veto any bill he chooses.
            The same way that Reid and the dems in the Senate can choose not to pass any bill the House sends it.
            the same way the House controls the purse strings and the Senate nor Obama can force them to do anything.
            The situation is who is going to blink first.
            I hope that it is Reid and Obama not because I get any perverse pleasure for seeing them squeal but because I think it is best for the nation that Obamacare doesn’t get implemented.
            Unfortunately I think it is going to be Boehner (hence my first post on this thread) and if so I hope the spineless ass gets voted out in 2014. Not just out of job as speaker but out of a job altogether.

          • Thinking skills?

            Ha ha!

          • Retired military

            You know as well as I do that 40% of the people will vote for Hitler if they ran as their parties nominee.
            Obama won because the republican base didn’t show up for one.
            For 2, Obama is santa claus and wants to give his voters the most the largess of taxes can provide.
            For 3, the IRS helped depress the tea party turn out.
            For 4, Obama wasn’t blamed for the economy, the unemployment or anything else that is to hell in a handbasket.
            For 5, the fawning Lamestream media have their heads so far up Obama’s ass that he cant fart without it going out of their ass instead of his.
            That is just off the top of my head.

          • Paul Hooson

            McCain and Romney were both real electable candidates, but both proved to run terrible campaigns that raised doubts about the candidates. McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin made voters question his judgement of whom he would appoint to key positions in his administration. A more serious VP selection would have helped more voters trust McCain. But, he lost the election by 10 million votes, partially because of Bush-fatigue and because of changes in voter demographics where White voters are a declining share of voters in every election.
            Romney’s problems were a little different. He had far weaker credentials than McCain, yet still had a chance to win if he had ran a reasonable campaign. But, he appeared insincere and took positions on every side of some issues, proved to be a poor campaigner, and failed to paint a real vision of where he would actually take the country. Ryan also hurt Romney, as Ryan as seemed insincere and often misstated facts, either out of ignorance or to mislead voters. Obama was vulnerable because of the economy, yet the Romney-Ryan Campaign had managed to paint them as the more risky choice, so Obama won by an electoral landslide again and by 5 million popular votes.
            The loss of the McCain and Romney efforts had everything to do with poor and flawed campaigns, and little with ideology. In politics the better campaign usually wins, and in both cases the Obama Campaign was better run and also better at get out the vote efforts to get their voters to the polls. Big donors to the Romney Campaign were angry at how poorly run his campaign was, comparing it to a freshman college class project rather than a professional effort to elect a president. Further, Romney himself tended to suffer from a sort of self-delusional problem, where he personally doubted independent polls and election analysis and was self-convinced that these were wrong and failed to make adjustments to his campaign to respond to these movements in public opinion. Romney needed better get out the vote efforts in critical states like Ohio and Florida for example, but failures in computer software, failed to get out voters. making for failures in these critical states.
            Twice Obama proved that he could command a well run campaign. But, it would be also be good to see that sort of leadership in the White House as well, where it appears to be an uneven effort with poor efforts to sell his programs to the public. – Usually a candidate who runs a good campaign is able to run a well run administration. But, strangely in this case, no. I find this highly perplexing.

          • Retired military

            McCain only got as many votes as he did because of Palin. If she hadn’t been his running mate he would have gotten less. In addition, the press had pounded Bush gleefully for 8 years to help out the dems and that sunk just about anyone.
            Romney is the quintinsential RINO and never excited the base. WIth the press ensuring that Obama got no blame for anything and covering for him Obama won much to the surprise of most people who actually have realize just how bad Obama is.

          • Paul Hooson

            What you state is correct about the conservative base within the Republican Party. But, that’s not the mainstream of voters. Most voters are either independents or Democratic Party leaners, leaving Republicans as the third largest voter group. McCain and Romney to make few inroads among the voters who are 65% not considered Republican leaning. Palin helped McCain among conservatives, but cost him votes among the larger groups of voters. McCain likely faced impossible odds given that he lost by 10 million votes and was hexed by Bush. Romney had a better chance because of dissatisfaction with Obama and a lower pool of voters. But, was unable to capitalize on things because of all of the campaign problems I stated above.

          • Retired military

            As I stated above. refighting this is useless. From my understanding most folks identify themselves as conservative rather than liberal. I believe it is about a 40-40-20 split with moderates being in the middle.
            Bush was beat up by the press for 8 years. Obama was hailed as the lightbringer. Then you had the idiots who felt white guilt and thought so little of themselves that they didn’t want to be considered racist by not voting for Obama. Personally I think if you think so little of yourself that you vote for someone so you don’t seem racist than go out and shoot yourself now. On top of that you had the black vote which goes at least 90% dem every time for some reason because everyone knows it hasn’t been because the dems are so much help to their black constituents. But I can understand the draw of black people voting for Obama not once but twice. that draw has been repeated through out history when people who had been so thoroughly repressed 40 years prior had a chance to vote for someone whom they could have identified with.
            Do you think the Jewish people would have voted for an Eqyptian (if they did votes back then) after spending 40 years in the desert after leaving Egypt?
            Yeah didn’t think so.

    • Commander_Chico

      Yes, the “reduced hours” for workers seems to be the main danger of Obamacare and the best argument against it right now.

      • I think (just a guess here, certainly I don’t have anything solid to base it on) Obama and his central planners believed that businesses (because they’re greedy bastards and had just oodles of cash laying around) wouldn’t have any problems going ahead and paying higher health care costs.

        Never mind that the progress of 5 years of Obama’s economic ignorance have really stifled growth in the country, drained bank accounts and already forced numerous small businesses out of business – owners would gladly increase their labor costs by however much he needed them to because he thought it was the right thing to do.

        Which is why I’m losing my insurance… but at least I’m not seeing my hours cut.

        Obama is definitely going to go down in the history books, all right.

        • Commander_Chico

          You’re losing your insurance? Why? How did that work, in general terms? Was it a consequence of Obamacare?

          • I told you already, didn’t I? I’m on my wife’s plan, and under provisions of the ACA, I can no longer stay on it if my employer offers any sort of medical plan… no matter how crappy or expensive.

            And though it isn’t horribly expensive, it’s crappy and limited like anything. Anything catastrophic happens, and we’re financial toast. Let’s see…

            Hernia repair – with mesh (obviously laparoscopic) – max benefit for inpatient surgery – $542. Coronary bypass, again inpatient, with two arterial grafts – $4750.

            Cancer? 1 admission per year, up to $2000. But hospital costs are covered to $400 a day.

            Surgical benefit maximum for inpatient? $5,000. Outpatient? $1500.

            Obviously a plan designed for a cohort of young and relatively healthy people. What’s not to love?

          • Commander_Chico

            I did not know that. If you can’t opt out and stay on the wife’s plan, that would seem to be subject to challenge, because of the very low limits.

          • Brucehenry

            My company recently sent out a memo saying we “should find out” if our spouse can be covered at their own employer. They didn’t say, yet, that we can’t cover them.

            My wife works for a dentist in the front office. Good job but no benefits except for reduced price dental care for her family. We’re all — including my 22 year old — covered under my employer’s BCBS plan.


            I’m not sure I’d count on your employer continuing her coverage. If they have NO health care plan at all, and just reduced dental, you might be okay. But if there’s a health plan and she just hasn’t opted into it, you might be SOL on keeping her on your plan…

            I hope she’ll stay covered. I’ll keep my fingers crossed for you.

          • What can be challenged? My employer offers coverage – it’s a binary thing. Yes – and I’ve got to go on that. No – and I can stay on my wife’s insurance.

            We’ve looked into appeals, too. There’s a LOT of people who aren’t happy.. and my wife works for a local health care system with about 4 hospitals and a lot of clinical practices.

            This is going to well and truly suck.

            Now they’re talking about trying to delay it for a year. Oh, that’d get it near next year’s election – won’t that be joyous?

            Screw that – let’s just get this damn train wreck over with.

          • Jwb10001

            This is what happens when you have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it. That by itself should have sunk this POS law before it was ever voted on.

          • It SHOULD have. But no…

      • Retired military

        I guess the 1.8 trillion dollar price tag isn’t reason enough. The doubling and tripling of premiums isn’t good enough either.

  • ackwired

    Unlike the extremists who never have trouble finding someone to “fight”.

  • kazzer66

    Republicans, also, are not completely amicable to the will of the people, they think we should follow their leads, like good little sheep…you know, like Liberals.

  • 914

    All of the so called republicans not on the against ObamaCare list above are traitors against freedom and liberty.

  • Vagabond661

    Graham’s weasel words:

    The decision to delay the implementation of Obamacare is driven by the 2014 elections. Unfortunately, the negative effects Obamacare has on our economy cannot be postponed. Simply delaying its implementation does not undo its fundamental flaws. Obamacare is, has been, and will remain a financial disaster for our nation.

    If it’s a disaster, why wouldn’t you defund it RINO?