Tag Archive | "Senate"

And Now for a Postal Bailout


It’s another week in Washington, and it’s yet another bailout.  This time, taxpayers will be tapped for another $41 billion to subsidize the healthcare retirement benefits of postal workers – benefits that are quite scarce in the private sector.

Democrats have a serious problem with creative destruction and advancements in technology.  For self-described progressives, they are quite regressive when it comes to efficiency in markets and use of technology.  They exhibit nostalgia for 14th century energy technology and 20th century banking technology.  Hence, they don’t care too much for market progression.  In concerted drives to hold back the tide of technology, they are quick to offer a helping hand to a dying industry.  One such industry is the mail delivery.

It’s no secret that the United States Postal Service is on its way out.  The transition to electronic communication, in conjunction with the success of private mail carriers, has dramatically reduced the demand for their service.  Consequently, they no longer generate enough revenue to function as a self-sufficient entity, particularly when it comes to paying employee retirement benefits.  In recent years, the USPS has patched the annual losses with borrowed money from the Treasury.  However, it is now in such dire straits that it’s expected to hit the $15 billion borrowing cap later this year.  It needs extra taxpayer cash to fill in the gaps.

If the USPS were a private entity, it would trim its workforce and operations to the amount of revenue they can produce until they are eventually forced to go out of business.  That’s how creative destruction and supply and demand work in the real world.  That is not how it works in Washington.

In order to continue operating at a limited capacity, which is what the free-market would dictate in this circumstance, there is a plan to end Saturday delivery, cut the workforce by about 220,000 employees, and close 3,700 local post offices and 252 processing centers. Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe even asked Congress for the flexibility to act more like a business and use innovation to restructure and cut costs.  But Democrat nostalgia for the past is too potent to overcome.  They are completely averse to gradually winding down the Postal Service.  Claire McCaskill has even suggested that people write more letters so that the USPS will have more work.

Once again, a bipartisan group of senators plan to bail out a failing government entity with taxpayer dollars, allowing them to operate, more or less, at current capacity for much longer.  S. 1789, which has 2 Republican cosponsors, will grant a $41 billion bailout to the postal service for the purpose of managing the payments of healthcare benefits for its retirees.  Harry Reid is planning a cloture vote late Monday afternoon, following a vote to raise taxes on oil companies and hand the proceeds to green energy companies.

As part of the proposal, sponsored by Joe Lieberman, the USPS would be entitled to recoup $11 billion in so-called overpayments that it gave to the Treasury for employees’ retirement benefits held in the Civil Service Retirement System.  The problem is that there are no overpayments.  Last year, the GAO ruled that the Postal Service was wrong in their assertion that they paid too much money to the Treasury to fund employee retirement benefits.  As such, any money recouped from the Treasury would engender more taxpayer funding.   Don’t let them fool you with language pertaining to “transfers” and “overpayments.”  This is a pure bailout.

It’s time to let the wheels of economic progress spin.  Let’s do to the Postal Service what should have been done with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  It’s time to attempt to privatize it or wind it down.  Either way, taxpayers should not be exposed to more bailouts.

Cross-posted from The Madison Project

Posted in News, Politics, RedStateComments Off

And Now for a Postal Bailout


It’s another week in Washington, and it’s yet another bailout.  This time, taxpayers will be tapped for another $41 billion to subsidize the healthcare retirement benefits of postal workers – benefits that are quite scarce in the private sector.

Democrats have a serious problem with creative destruction and advancements in technology.  For self-described progressives, they are quite regressive when it comes to efficiency in markets and use of technology.  They exhibit nostalgia for 14th century energy technology and 20th century banking technology.  Hence, they don’t care too much for market progression.  In concerted drives to hold back the tide of technology, they are quick to offer a helping hand to a dying industry.  One such industry is the mail delivery.

It’s no secret that the United States Postal Service is on its way out.  The transition to electronic communication, in conjunction with the success of private mail carriers, has dramatically reduced the demand for their service.  Consequently, they no longer generate enough revenue to function as a self-sufficient entity, particularly when it comes to paying employee retirement benefits.  In recent years, the USPS has patched the annual losses with borrowed money from the Treasury.  However, it is now in such dire straits that it’s expected to hit the $15 billion borrowing cap later this year.  It needs extra taxpayer cash to fill in the gaps.

If the USPS were a private entity, it would trim its workforce and operations to the amount of revenue they can produce until they are eventually forced to go out of business.  That’s how creative destruction and supply and demand work in the real world.  That is not how it works in Washington.

In order to continue operating at a limited capacity, which is what the free-market would dictate in this circumstance, there is a plan to end Saturday delivery, cut the workforce by about 220,000 employees, and close 3,700 local post offices and 252 processing centers. Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe even asked Congress for the flexibility to act more like a business and use innovation to restructure and cut costs.  But Democrat nostalgia for the past is too potent to overcome.  They are completely averse to gradually winding down the Postal Service.  Claire McCaskill has even suggested that people write more letters so that the USPS will have more work.

Once again, a bipartisan group of senators plan to bail out a failing government entity with taxpayer dollars, allowing them to operate, more or less, at current capacity for much longer.  S. 1789, which has 2 Republican cosponsors, will grant a $41 billion bailout to the postal service for the purpose of managing the payments of healthcare benefits for its retirees.  Harry Reid is planning a cloture vote late Monday afternoon, following a vote to raise taxes on oil companies and hand the proceeds to green energy companies.

As part of the proposal, sponsored by Joe Lieberman, the USPS would be entitled to recoup $11 billion in so-called overpayments that it gave to the Treasury for employees’ retirement benefits held in the Civil Service Retirement System.  The problem is that there are no overpayments.  Last year, the GAO ruled that the Postal Service was wrong in their assertion that they paid too much money to the Treasury to fund employee retirement benefits.  As such, any money recouped from the Treasury would engender more taxpayer funding.   Don’t let them fool you with language pertaining to “transfers” and “overpayments.”  This is a pure bailout.

It’s time to let the wheels of economic progress spin.  Let’s do to the Postal Service what should have been done with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  It’s time to attempt to privatize it or wind it down.  Either way, taxpayers should not be exposed to more bailouts.

Cross-posted from The Madison Project

Posted in News, Politics, RedStateComments Off

FreedomWorks aims to force Romney’s hand with conservative Congress


'If we build that caucus ... they will push good policy to the president regardless of who's [in the White House]'

Posted in Daily Caller, PoliticsComments Off

Conflicting polls in the Massachusetts Senate Race


Warren Brown

I’m happiest when all the polls in a race match up. It means we have a very good idea of how a race is going for the candidates in it.

So, naturally, I’m not happy about the Massachusetts Senate race right now. Seeing a 10 point swing from poll to poll, giving both candidates opposing 5 point leads, means we have to dig deeper to figure out what’s going on.

I’m reminded of March of 2010 here. Here we go again with Rasmussen’s likely voter polling (500 LVs, MoE 4.5) putting Republican Scott Brown ahead 49-44, while PPP’s registered voter polling (936 RVs, MoE 3.2) has Elizabeth Warren up 46-41.

Rasmussen’s details are behind a paywall, but that’s the older poll anyway (2/29 vs PPP’s 3/16-3/18). So I’ll focus on the PPP’s specifics to see what we can make of it. First, the poll asked about the voter’s 2008 Presidential vote. A whopping 11% claim they don’t remember or voted for someone other than John McCain or Barack Obama. That’s a rather high number when the actual fraction that voted for someone else was just over 2%.

Between Obama and McCain, the actual two party vote was Obama 63.2, McCain 36.8. In the poll, the two party vote is Obama 64, McCain 36. So the poll favors Obama voters slightly more than the actual 2008 electorate did, but it’s very close. Which is odd, as turnout was far from 100%, with 3 million votes cast of 4.2 million registered voters, for a registered voter turnout of about 71%. PPP seems to project that the 30% who don’t vote have no particular lean.

Further, in 2008 the partisan registraion went 1.6 million Democrats, 0.5 million Republicans, and the rest other or independent, a split of 38 D/12 R/50 other. The poll shows 41 D/14 R/45 other or independent. That’s outside of the Margin of Error for the Democrats. PPP seems to project that Massachusetts has grown more partisan and leans more toward the Democrats now than 4 years ago.

So if we believe PPP’s projections of the partisan make up to hold true, and that there’s no partisan lean in who votes or who doesn’t vote, then Warren could be ahead in this race, despite the three previous polls all putting Brown ahead.

But right now PPP looks like the odd man out.

Crossposted from Unlikely Voter

Posted in News, Politics, RedStateComments Off

Conflicting polls in the Massachusetts Senate Race


Warren Brown

I’m happiest when all the polls in a race match up. It means we have a very good idea of how a race is going for the candidates in it.

So, naturally, I’m not happy about the Massachusetts Senate race right now. Seeing a 10 point swing from poll to poll, giving both candidates opposing 5 point leads, means we have to dig deeper to figure out what’s going on.

I’m reminded of March of 2010 here. Here we go again with Rasmussen’s likely voter polling (500 LVs, MoE 4.5) putting Republican Scott Brown ahead 49-44, while PPP’s registered voter polling (936 RVs, MoE 3.2) has Elizabeth Warren up 46-41.

Rasmussen’s details are behind a paywall, but that’s the older poll anyway (2/29 vs PPP’s 3/16-3/18). So I’ll focus on the PPP’s specifics to see what we can make of it. First, the poll asked about the voter’s 2008 Presidential vote. A whopping 11% claim they don’t remember or voted for someone other than John McCain or Barack Obama. That’s a rather high number when the actual fraction that voted for someone else was just over 2%.

Between Obama and McCain, the actual two party vote was Obama 63.2, McCain 36.8. In the poll, the two party vote is Obama 64, McCain 36. So the poll favors Obama voters slightly more than the actual 2008 electorate did, but it’s very close. Which is odd, as turnout was far from 100%, with 3 million votes cast of 4.2 million registered voters, for a registered voter turnout of about 71%. PPP seems to project that the 30% who don’t vote have no particular lean.

Further, in 2008 the partisan registraion went 1.6 million Democrats, 0.5 million Republicans, and the rest other or independent, a split of 38 D/12 R/50 other. The poll shows 41 D/14 R/45 other or independent. That’s outside of the Margin of Error for the Democrats. PPP seems to project that Massachusetts has grown more partisan and leans more toward the Democrats now than 4 years ago.

So if we believe PPP’s projections of the partisan make up to hold true, and that there’s no partisan lean in who votes or who doesn’t vote, then Warren could be ahead in this race, despite the three previous polls all putting Brown ahead.

But right now PPP looks like the odd man out.

Crossposted from Unlikely Voter

Posted in News, Politics, RedStateComments Off

The Real Franking Scandal With Rick Berg


There has been somewhat of a scandal percolating in the local North Dakota media relating to Rick Berg’s prodigal use of his franking privileges in Congress.  Throughout the history of Congress, congressmen were afforded “franking privileges” as a way of facilitating communication between a member and his constituents.  In plain English, this refers to the right of members to mail correspondence to constituents at no cost using their official congressional signature (frank).  Because sitting members enjoy this free means of communication over their prospective challengers, they must use it sparingly and refrain from using it for overtly political mailings.

It is for this reason why North Dakota Congressman Rick Berg is drawing ire for his $190,000 worth of direct mailings in 2011.  Berg sent out 5 mailings in just 6 weeks towards the end of the year.  The total cost accounts for a whopping 15% of the operating budget for Berg’s office.  However, the real scandal here isn’t the cost of the mailings (it doesn’t appear that any franking rules were violated); it is the content of the mailings.

Among the statements made on Berg’s mailings are falsehoods like “Rick Berg is fighting hard for a Balanced Budget Amendment, voted to cut trillions in government spending, and is working to make fundamental reforms that fix Washington.”

We often ridicule the blue dog Democrats for aligning themselves with the left in DC, while ingratiating themselves with their conservative constituents back home.  We must do the same for those Republicans that represent conservative districts, yet vote liberal in Washington.

The fact is that during his short tenure in Washington, he voted for legislation that will ensure that the budget is never balanced and that spending will remain out of control; legislation that will ‘fundamentally’ perpetuate the bad habits of Washington.  Berg voted for the debt deal, the minibus, and the FY 2011 CR.  All these bills continued funding for Obamacare, even though he bragged about voting to repeal it on all his mailings.  Berg also voted against every attempt by RSC members to cut extra spending.  You name the subsidy, he supported it. He cosponsored a bill to continue subsidizing the impotent Wind industry. Berg received a 63% from Heritage Action and 54% from the Club for Growth.

One would expect that a new member from a conservative state who fails to live up to his promise to limit government would call it quits.  Quite the contrary, Rick Berg is looking for a promotion after such a short, yet “stellar”, tenure in the House.  He is seeking the open Senate seat being vacated by Kent Conrad.  Everyone is writing off the Senate race and ceding it to him.  Senator John Hoeven, who sports a comparable voting record, just endorsed him.  But we must ask ourselves what sort of message it would send to not only reelect one of these pledge breakers, but to bestow him with a promotion.

In the coming days, we are committed to ensuring that the nominees for the House and Senate seats in North Dakota are conservative.  Or at least, ones who will not need $190,000 worth of mailings to obfuscate their big-government record.

Cross-posted from The Madison Project

Posted in News, Politics, RedStateComments Off

The Real Franking Scandal With Rick Berg


There has been somewhat of a scandal percolating in the local North Dakota media relating to Rick Berg’s prodigal use of his franking privileges in Congress.  Throughout the history of Congress, congressmen were afforded “franking privileges” as a way of facilitating communication between a member and his constituents.  In plain English, this refers to the right of members to mail correspondence to constituents at no cost using their official congressional signature (frank).  Because sitting members enjoy this free means of communication over their prospective challengers, they must use it sparingly and refrain from using it for overtly political mailings.

It is for this reason why North Dakota Congressman Rick Berg is drawing ire for his $190,000 worth of direct mailings in 2011.  Berg sent out 5 mailings in just 6 weeks towards the end of the year.  The total cost accounts for a whopping 15% of the operating budget for Berg’s office.  However, the real scandal here isn’t the cost of the mailings (it doesn’t appear that any franking rules were violated); it is the content of the mailings.

Among the statements made on Berg’s mailings are falsehoods like “Rick Berg is fighting hard for a Balanced Budget Amendment, voted to cut trillions in government spending, and is working to make fundamental reforms that fix Washington.”

We often ridicule the blue dog Democrats for aligning themselves with the left in DC, while ingratiating themselves with their conservative constituents back home.  We must do the same for those Republicans that represent conservative districts, yet vote liberal in Washington.

The fact is that during his short tenure in Washington, he voted for legislation that will ensure that the budget is never balanced and that spending will remain out of control; legislation that will ‘fundamentally’ perpetuate the bad habits of Washington.  Berg voted for the debt deal, the minibus, and the FY 2011 CR.  All these bills continued funding for Obamacare, even though he bragged about voting to repeal it on all his mailings.  Berg also voted against every attempt by RSC members to cut extra spending.  You name the subsidy, he supported it. He cosponsored a bill to continue subsidizing the impotent Wind industry. Berg received a 63% from Heritage Action and 54% from the Club for Growth.

One would expect that a new member from a conservative state who fails to live up to his promise to limit government would call it quits.  Quite the contrary, Rick Berg is looking for a promotion after such a short, yet “stellar”, tenure in the House.  He is seeking the open Senate seat being vacated by Kent Conrad.  Everyone is writing off the Senate race and ceding it to him.  Senator John Hoeven, who sports a comparable voting record, just endorsed him.  But we must ask ourselves what sort of message it would send to not only reelect one of these pledge breakers, but to bestow him with a promotion.

In the coming days, we are committed to ensuring that the nominees for the House and Senate seats in North Dakota are conservative.  Or at least, ones who will not need $190,000 worth of mailings to obfuscate their big-government record.

Cross-posted from The Madison Project

Posted in News, Politics, RedStateComments Off

Kent Conrad’s Budget Folly


Paul Ryan is set to release the details of the House Republican budget resolution tomorrow.  While liberals, conservatives, tea partiers, etc. will have plenty to say about the content of the budget, we must all acknowledge that Ryan has worked assiduously to formulate a coherent blueprint for a responsible budget.  The same cannot be said for his counterpart in the Senate.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad has not produced a budget of any sort in almost 1100 days!  Yet, he has the temerity to call Ryan’s budget a “breach of faith.”  CQ reports:

Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad and Appropriations Chairman Daniel K. Inouye, acting ahead of a House Republican action to lower discretionary spending below the level agreed to last year, on Monday urged GOP leaders to stick to the level set in a pact with the White House.

In a letter to House Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio and Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia, they said if the House GOP adopts lower spending levels it would delay action on this year’s appropriations bills and represent “a breach of faith that will make it more difficult to negotiate future agreements.”

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul D. Ryan, R-Wis., plans to unveil a budget on Tuesday with a fiscal 2013 discretionary spending limit of $1.028 trillion, $19 billion less than the $1.047 trillion limit in the debt limit law (PL 112-25).

There are two glaring points that are overlooked in this puerile letter.  First, the Budget Control Act did not dictate a set level of spending; it established a cap.  In other words, we cannot breach the $1.047 trillion spending level, but there is nothing stopping us from the imperative to spend less.  Conrad makes it seem like it’s a cardinal sin to underspend the caps.  Only in Washington can someone advance such logic with so much conviction.

Moreover, Conrad is wrong about $1.047 being the bottom line figure, even under the BCA.  We all know that on January 1, 2013, three months after the start of the fiscal year, there will be an automatic sequester of $97 billion in spending.  Consequently, the ultimate spending cap for FY 2013 will actually be $950 billion.  It is more responsible to get out ahead of the sequester and steer the $97 billion to targeted expenditures rather than sit idly while the sequester cuts a disproportionate amount from the military, and does so indiscriminately.

Then again, Conrad doesn’t know too much about prudent budgeting because he doesn’t believe in budgets.  Instead of doing the hard work of creating a budget, Conrad plans to slightly embellish the BCA and deem it a budget resolution.  That’s a “breach in trust” of those who elected him to formulate a budget.

On the other hand, it’s hard to blame Conrad for his timidity.  If you don’t propose a plan to tackle such politically benign issues as…. entitlements, the tax code, welfare, and farm subsidies, nobody can criticize it.

Cross-posted from The Madison Project

Posted in News, Politics, RedStateComments Off

Kent Conrad’s Budget Folly


Paul Ryan is set to release the details of the House Republican budget resolution tomorrow.  While liberals, conservatives, tea partiers, etc. will have plenty to say about the content of the budget, we must all acknowledge that Ryan has worked assiduously to formulate a coherent blueprint for a responsible budget.  The same cannot be said for his counterpart in the Senate.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad has not produced a budget of any sort in almost 1100 days!  Yet, he has the temerity to call Ryan’s budget a “breach of faith.”  CQ reports:

Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad and Appropriations Chairman Daniel K. Inouye, acting ahead of a House Republican action to lower discretionary spending below the level agreed to last year, on Monday urged GOP leaders to stick to the level set in a pact with the White House.

In a letter to House Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio and Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia, they said if the House GOP adopts lower spending levels it would delay action on this year’s appropriations bills and represent “a breach of faith that will make it more difficult to negotiate future agreements.”

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul D. Ryan, R-Wis., plans to unveil a budget on Tuesday with a fiscal 2013 discretionary spending limit of $1.028 trillion, $19 billion less than the $1.047 trillion limit in the debt limit law (PL 112-25).

There are two glaring points that are overlooked in this puerile letter.  First, the Budget Control Act did not dictate a set level of spending; it established a cap.  In other words, we cannot breach the $1.047 trillion spending level, but there is nothing stopping us from the imperative to spend less.  Conrad makes it seem like it’s a cardinal sin to underspend the caps.  Only in Washington can someone advance such logic with so much conviction.

Moreover, Conrad is wrong about $1.047 being the bottom line figure, even under the BCA.  We all know that on January 1, 2013, three months after the start of the fiscal year, there will be an automatic sequester of $97 billion in spending.  Consequently, the ultimate spending cap for FY 2013 will actually be $950 billion.  It is more responsible to get out ahead of the sequester and steer the $97 billion to targeted expenditures rather than sit idly while the sequester cuts a disproportionate amount from the military, and does so indiscriminately.

Then again, Conrad doesn’t know too much about prudent budgeting because he doesn’t believe in budgets.  Instead of doing the hard work of creating a budget, Conrad plans to slightly embellish the BCA and deem it a budget resolution.  That’s a “breach in trust” of those who elected him to formulate a budget.

On the other hand, it’s hard to blame Conrad for his timidity.  If you don’t propose a plan to tackle such politically benign issues as…. entitlements, the tax code, welfare, and farm subsidies, nobody can criticize it.

Cross-posted from The Madison Project

Posted in News, Politics, RedStateComments Off

Kimberley Strassel vs.a Republican Majority


In what’s become a biennial spectacle, supporters of unprincipled Republicans – who often vote with Democrats – are maligning conservatives as “purists” and accusing them of gambling away Republican control of the Senate.  Today, Kimberley Strassel published a column in the WSJ, “Conservatives vs. a Senate Majority,” insinuating that Freedom Works and The Club for Growth are helping elect Democrats to the Senate.  Specifically, she charges that conservatives opposing Lugar, Bruning, and Thompson will deny Mitch McConnell “the Senate majority leader’s office.”

There is one predominant point that is overlooked throughout Ms. Strassel’s column: it is the very insipid Republican candidates and senators that she supports who have helped the Democrats control the Senate – both in the minority and the majority.  It is the very people like McConnell, Lugar, and Thompson who have supported big government, and will continue to support big government in the majority.

The column starts off on the wrong foot with this oleaginous opening line: “Two things stand between Mitch McConnell and the Senate majority leader’s office: Democrats, and the conservatives who might help elect Democrats.”

Wait a minute.  Even if Republicans take back the Senate, who coronated McConnell to be majority leader?  The very fact that she deems the election of McConnell as majority leader to be the superlative endgame tells you everything you need to know about her politics.

Does she not realize that McConnell has failed to lead his conference against the plethora of bailouts, stimulus, subsidies, and market interventions that Democrats are itching to pass and have already passed?  Or does she support these ideas, so as not to be branded as a truculent purist?  The sad reality is that control of the Senate is worthless if less than 51 Republicans are willing to support basic Republican proposals and oppose fundamental Democrat big-government ideas.  At present, Senate Republicans are capitulating on so many things that I’ve had to prioritize which issues to highlight for lack of space in these pages.  And I’m sorry, but if we’re forced to nominate a guy who still supports Eric Holder in a state like Nebraska, we should all call it quits.  Ditto for Indiana.  Even in Wisconsin, we didn’t do too bad last time with the purist Ron Johnson, and that was against a well respected incumbent.

Strassel goes on to implore us to nominate these non-purists, who are supposedly paragons of electability, because they are the only ones who will bequeath to us a 51-seat majority to “roll back ObamaCare through a “reconciliation” process that skirts the filibuster.”

I love how establishment Republicans talk so boldly about repealing Democrat bills and ideas, yet when the rubber meets the road, they capitulate and even lampoon conservatives for urging them to fulfill their promise.  They did that on numerous occasions last year.  Repealing Obamacare through reconciliation is absolutely vital to preserving this country.  But it is also an extremely bold move that will require 51 members with intrepid courage.  Does anyone really believe that a bare majority of 50-52 Republicans, comprised of the current flaccid crop, along with a couple of new marginal Republicans, will be sufficient to orchestrate reconciliation?  There are already numerous Republican senators – not even the most moderate of the bunch – who have gone on record expressing reservations about full repeal.

In fact, it is for this very reason why we feel it is so important to elect conservatives who will fight for repeal of Obamacare with all their political capital.  Without conservatives, there will be no Republican majority in the Senate; not one that supports Republican ideas and risks their careers on full repeal of Obamacare.  In 2006, then-Sec. of HHS Tommy Thompson, who always had an affinity for government intervention in healthcare, praised Romneycare for “showing us a better way, one I hope policy makers in Statehouses and Congress will follow to build a healthier and stronger America.”  Then in 2009, when the Democrat Congress did just that, he praised them.  Please forgive my purist instincts for not fully trusting him as the 51st vote on Obamacare repeal.

Ms. Strassel closes by drudging up the banal paradigm of Sharon Angle.  She fails to disclose to her readers that Angle’s main competitor in the primary was someone who became even more unelectable after suggesting that people will have to barter for their healthcare.

As we noted earlier this week, it’s not about purity, it’s about consistency.  We are looking for candidates who have consistently supported the very fundamental Republican ideals that supposedly unite all factions of the party.  Obamacare is definitely one of them.  And had we left the Senate races to the likes of Ms. Strassel, we would be at the mercy of Charlie Crist, Bob Bennett, and Arlen Specter.  That’s not even accounting for Murkowski, Collins, and Brown.  We’d need a lot more than 51 “Republicans” to repeal Obamacare. We better do it right.

After all, what’s a Republican majority without Republican values?

Cross-posted from The Madison Project

Posted in News, Politics, RedStateComments Off

Sign up for email updates




Markets

INDU0.00  chartN/A
NASDAQ3926.823  chart+19.749
S&P 5001751.00  chart+4.62
GS160.01  chart+2.27
MSFT34.00  chart+0.24
GOOG1031.4659  chart+0.059
1970-01-01 00:00

Presidential Poll

Do you approve of President Obama?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Congress Poll

Do you approve of Congress?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
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