Posted on 12/22/2009 8:08:00 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Sen. Ben Nelson's, D-Neb., abandonment of his alleged "pro-life" commitment brought Harry Reid within reach of a Christmas Eve vote to approve a Senate version of Obamacare. When that happens, the political battles over the future of American medicine and especially the care of seniors will shift to the conference committee and then to the House.
Though many conservatives are demoralized, they should instead be gearing up to peel off enough votes from among the 220 who voted for Obamacare when it passed the lower chamber. If the 215 who voted "no" on the first round stay firm, only three Democrats need to be turned.
Those three are most likely going to be found among the 24 Democrats identified by the National Republican Congressional Committee's Reverse the Vote campaign. (See reversethevote.org/dems.html) These are the two dozen Democrats judged most vulnerable on Nov. 2, 2010, because the beliefs of the voters in their districts do not square with their representatives' support for the federal government's takeover of health care. Thousands of small contributions have already flowed into a special fund to be divided among the eventual GOP nominees against these 24 constituent-ignoring liberals.
Even more money is needed of course, but much more than money as well, and that is where the Tea Party movement comes in.
First, though, what do we mean by "Tea Party movement?" The media don't seem to recognize the fact that there are many groups that wear the Tea Party mantle. Some are completely legitimate grass-roots organizations, like Tea Party Patriots (teapartypatriots.org). Others are also completely legit. Still others are consultant-driven not-for-profits in name and tax status only, and they are actually just using the populist anger in the country to line their pockets.
What matters now is that the genuine grass-roots activists join in the effort to peel off at least three House Democrats from their original support for Obamacare. The Tea Party turnout has considerable overlap with the GOP, but they are very distinct efforts in many respects. Almost every member of both opposes the takeover of health care by the feds, and most are also opposed to the massive cuts in store for Medicare.
While the GOP busies itself raising money for the fall races, the Tea Party activists could be focusing on organizing efforts on a district-by-district basis. Imagine the impact over the next few weeks if the cash continued to flow into Reverse the Vote even as committees of Tea Party veterans presented themselves and their grievances in the local offices of these 24 Democrats.
Tea Party participants from districts with congressmen who have been opposing Obamacare and massive spending could become virtual members of one of the 24 efforts to turn a Democrat from a "yes" to a "no." The surge in opposition, if focused, could be very effective.
The GOP and the Tea Parties are not the same thing. But they want many of the same things, especially the defeat of Obamacare.
The time is now for the latter to target the same out-of-touch-with-their-district Democrats as the former. Such an alliance, even if only for a while, could save American medicine.
Some of the Tea Party participants will want to grouse about what the Republicans did -- or didn't do -- when they were in the majority before 2007. Some will worry about being co-opted or about losing their influence or position within the media spotlight as 2010 begins to shift to the elections, which inevitably highlight the two parties. Still others will be dreaming "third party" dreams and won't want anything to do with the Party of Lincoln.
A test of the movement is directly ahead. To defeat Obamacare, it is going to have to team up with the GOP. The next few weeks will tell us a lot about the motives, and staying power, of the new activists of 2009.
********
Examiner Columnist Hugh Hewitt is a law professor at Chapman University Law School and a nationally syndicated radio talk show host who blogs daily at HughHewitt.com.
I’m sorry to say it, but Sarah Palin is no presidential candidate. Nobody is going to elect a conservative woman President. The old white guys will never go for it. The first woman Pres will be a DemoRat, because it’ll take the female vote AND all the liberals to do it. Running her as a headliner is horrible idea. Running her as VP with a strong conservative candidate is what they should be aiming at. And not McCain. Picking the right candidate and appealing to the Tea Party movement is what the Republicans should be doing right now, to prevent a split and get the most votes, so that they have Reagan/Carter 2 and not Bush/Clinton.
I like the Tea Parties; I think they do perform a certain function. But the media won't cover them; the legislators of the side they are supposed to be affecting ignore them; and worst of all,
many in the Tea Parties are still of the "they both do it" mentality. This is utterly absurd: no GOP House or Senate would have ever drafted this bill, and more important, even IF a GOP House or Senate would have given us "socialism by degree," such as Prescription Drugs, you can reverse one small law very easily, but a wholesale massive program is almost impossible to reverse.
All we need in 2010 is for all those so-called "conservatives" who sat out, or who voted for independents to line up behind Republicans and we can get a majority; and if we can drag along some of the so-called "conservative Democrats" who still care about their country, we can get a significant enough majority to de-fund, repeal, or emasculate this abortion.
Keep beating it though, it will keep you out of trouble and grousing at your keyboard.
I hope Russo is paid quite well for what he does.
And leave Clark Kent out of it.
The quote was Hugh Hewitt’s.
So the word is getting out.
The Tea Partiers are real, and they’ll inform each other, who are the hacks to avoid (like Sal Russo, and the other RINO’s like Michael Steele) and who’s the real deal.
"The Tea Party movement should be strongly supported, but political hacks who have siphoned off millions of dollars" etc etcAre you Hugh Hewitt?
Like I said, it's you beating that poor ol' horse.
"The media don't seem to recognize the fact that there are many groups that wear the Tea Party mantle. Some are completely legitimate grass-roots organizations, like Tea Party Patriots (teapartypatriots.org). Others are also completely legit. Still others are consultant-driven not-for-profits in name and tax status only, and they are actually just using the populist anger in the country to line their pockets."
I encourage you to join the real Tea Party cause, and to not be just another enabling puppet (for consultants who hope to "line their pockets" by usurping the name of the Tea Party).
First off, screw you. Maybe I should say your lack of sense means you’re a troll from DU. I’m just telling you the truth. You run Palin for President, you might as well be begging for a replay of the Reform Party and Perot/Clinton fiasco. Unless the Republicans wake up, move to the right and court Tea Party conservatives and float a candidate that actually embodies those values, they’ll lose in 2012. Palin won’t win. There are too many big business, rich white old boys in this country who won’t vote for her as the headliner. That doesn’t make me a liberal, it just means I’m not an idiot. Run her as VP and let her run for President after she’s done her time in the co-pilot’s seat. The last thing I want to see is Palin/Whoever on the Republican ticket, a conservative Tea Party candidate on the ballot stealing what thunder she has, and another 4 years of this idiot in office because he had the most votes with less than a 50 percent majority.
You guys are completely clueless, do not even understand true conservatism...The post on Barr regarded him as a crackpot spoiler to Republicans winning...
Why do all of upi disregard Palin’s record? Why do you thhink she joined McCain? She is definately more conservative than McCain, but she is no where near Reagan...
Why don’t you guys try reading some books some time...
I’m out of touch? That’s funny...Youu do not even know Palin’s actions as Governor...you simply listen to her contrary words. Lazy, simply, lazy...
Palin is the most conservative, sadly, but that does not mean she is conservative enough...
Sadly, you’re right, but that does not make her conservative enough...check out her record in Alaska, seriously...
Jim, Sarah is fine, but she is not the most conservative...she has the right things to say, but look at her record in Alaska, lot’s of McCain-esk “reaching across the aisle”...not what this country needs....
You are exactly right my friend...
“Palin ran with McCain, and her record in Alaska although is definately not to the left, has a lot of “middle of the road” and “reach across the aisle”-edness to it...
Agreed. I like Palin but don’t love her and her record is not what she makes of it now. WHen she became mayor of Wasilla the town had little or not debt, when she left it was 25 million in debt primarily because Palin wanted to build a “sports complex”. A sports complex in a town of 6000?
Also, she was for the “bridge to no where” for a long time until it became a political liabiity and then kept 400 million of federal tax dollar (us taxpayers) money after the project was canned...she just dumped it into her transportation fund, refused to return it.
Doesn’t sound very conservative.
You’re right. She’s all flash and celebrity and no substance. Maybe as a VP candidate, hitched to a strong conservative, she can prove herself otherwise, but I still say the Republicans would be nuts to run her as a Pres candidate.
bfl
Yes, despite her great speeches, look at her past actions. They include tax increases, she did not hold firm on her pro-life beliefs at times, did not show courage in the face of pro-homosexual policies…cited curious role models…Some over-the-top Sarah fanatics may have their head in the sand, but my eyes are wide open…
1. Sarah Palin Supported a Windfall Profits Tax on Oil Companies as Governor (This was one of Zero’s pet ideas…):
“Over the opposition of oil companies, Republican Gov. Sarah Palin and Alaska’s Legislature last year approved a major increase in taxes on the oil industry — a step that has generated stunning new wealth for the state as oil prices soared...”
“But Gov. Palin has also at times pushed more taxes and more spending. As governor, she essentially raised taxes on oil companies as part of a deal to help update Alaska’s formula for extracting royalties off of crude production.”
2. Pro-Life: “But she also drew the ire of the religious right by shelving calls for new abortion limits, when she worried it would distract from her bipartisan deal to push through a new gas pipeline. She forced through property-tax cuts, but also raised taxes on oil companies. She has close relations with organized labor, backing union contracts on a state pipeline.”
“....Yet Gov. Palin hasn’t always embraced the social conservatives’ platform in office. She drew flak from pro-life groups in Alaska after she declined their request to include two abortion-related measures in a series of special sessions she called earlier this year for legislators to act on her proposal to build a gas pipeline….Many pro-lifers were furious. “If you have a chance to stand up for pro-life and you don’t do it, that’s an opportunity wasted,”
And then there’s this little dandy:
“Now that she’s back in Alaska, where she’s Governor, Palin’s made a small break from the right-wing camp and appointed Morgan Christen as the state’s latest Supreme Court Justice. Not only is Christen the second female Justice in the state’s history, reports the LA Times, she’s also decidedly progressive and served on Planned Parenthood’s board back in the 1990s, an association that already has Palin’s allies crying foul.”
3. Homosexual Rights: Not enough to concern conservatives? “Despite her personal views to the contrary, she announced she would accept the state Supreme Court order that the state must provide benefits to same-sex partners. ...”
Where have we heard this type of reasoning before……? Oh yeah, it’s a favorite among RINOs.
4. Higher taxes goes back to her Mayor days: “Her signature project as mayor was the construction of the city’s new hockey rink and sports complex. Ms. Palin asked the voters for permission to issue a $15 million bond and pay for it by boosting the sales tax from 2% to 2.5%. The referendum passed by a 20-vote margin, and the city began construction.”
5. Role Models: “In her acceptance speech she cited as a role model a Democratic president, Harry Truman. And she also exhibited much of the same class resentment that was largely the province of the Democrats until Karl Rove rearranged things....”
I guess some can choose to listen to campaign rhetoric rather than look at the facts…That said, maybe she has changed, and if so, we should remain open...
Who is this conservative you support that you refer to that is more conservative than Palin?
Do me a favor. Go find official state-by-state election results, and find me the largest state vote for Barr either by absolute number or by percentage of votes cast (I don't mind WHICH metric you use as long as you are self-consistent).
Then tell me whether Barr was the margin victory between McCainPALIN! and Hussein in that state.
Follow up exercise: explain to me why you though Barr would be the margin of victory or defeat when it was common knowledge among informed conservatives that he had joined the ACLU. Explain why, in light of this, writing about Barr on August 31, 2008 was preferable to writing about Palin?
You might try reading Cheese, Moose, Palin for contrast. Note the date.
Why do all of upi disregard Palin’s record? Why do you thhink she joined McCain? She is definately more conservative than McCain, but she is no where near Reagan...
I note also that all throughout the campaign, your posts focused on McCain, not Palin:
FORMULA FOR VICTORY
McCain Obama Debate Reveals Stark Contrast in World Views
I know, "yawn, another vanity post" but seriously, are not all of our posts, and FR itself, vanity? I just wanted to throw a couple comments out there. Obama responded to McCain tonight, "He's right, I don't understand. I don't understand why we invaded a country that never attacked us...." This view is so seriously flawed. Senator Obama, prior to our involvement at WWII with Germany, where and when did Germany attack the United States? The plain truth is that Germany represented a threat to the region, just as Iraq did under an unstable dictator. Yet no one questions the...
Obama 48% McCain 45% in CBS Poll (Oversampled Dems)
"The race for president has returned to about where it was before the first presidential debate, with Barack Obama and Joe Biden holding a small lead over Republicans John McCain and Sarah Palin...."[snip]
BARR THE SPOILER?
While Zogby has McCain up by two today in a post-Palin bounce, there is one ominous line and statistic in the article: "Still, storm clouds remain on the horizon for the Republicans, a four-way horserace contest between McCain, Obama, Libertarian Bob Barr and liberal independent Ralph Nader shows....." ********** BARR: TOTAL: 5% DEMS: 2% GOPers: 4% INDIES: 11%
And your article "A Formula for Victory" on Oct.31, 2008 focused on identifying non-voting Republicans.
HINT: THEY SAT HOME SINCE THEY WERE SICK OF BEING SOLD OUT BY RINOS. McCain's campaign only picked up when he chose Palin: witness the throng of 13,000 or so who came to meet her in Blaine, MN of all places. Remember, Minnesota who was the only state NOT to go for Reagan in 1984?
You are as transparent as a piece of scotch tape.
Why don’t you guys try reading some books some time...
Proof that you are a liberal troll.
Only liberals take the supercilious "I'm more educated than you" and "The More You Know (Like ME!)" tone.
For those of you reading this post (like Greek) with the intellect of a gnat, I'll spell it out at a nursery school level so he can follow.
Education is neither necessary NOR sufficient.
Woodrow Wilson was president of PRINCETON back when that meant something. And we all know how tens of millions of people died worldwide because of his naive trust in the League of Nations to stop war forever.
Both Clintons are graduates of Yale Law.
Obama is a graduate of Harvard Law.
John F***ing Kerry is a Yale man.
Al Franken is a cum laude Harvard grad (poly sci) and Al Gore also graduated from Harvard with a degree in Government.
The Kennedys were Harvard men.
Robert McNamara was a Harvard MBA.
George WRINO Bush was a Yale dude.
Harry Blackmunn (Roe v. Wade) was a Harvard vermin.
Harry Truman never finished college, which gave him the common sense needed to nuke Japan, ensuring their surrender before Russia could overrun it and secure a Pacific warm-water port.
Reagan attended Eureka College.
Lincoln had triple PhDs in theoretical physics (MIT), topology (Cal Tech), and Economics (Oxford). Made you look.
But not all Ivy Leaguers are bad.
Ted Roosevelt went to Harvard, and dropped out of Columbia for political service.
Ann Coulter is a Cornell grad.
Here's a clue: you don't have to read books, if you surf the web for reliable sources and form disciplined judgment -- if you learn to *think*.
In other words, it's not just "did you read books?" as you seem to think (this being, apparently, the limits on your intellect) -- but "which books did you read?" and "how did you verify the contents of the books? are the books honest and comprehensive".
And if you don't have disciplined judgment, you are more likely to be taken in by the fallacious "argument from authority" -- "Oh! So-and-so has an advanced degree from an Ivy League school. I'd better kowtow since they *must* be correct." You can find just that thinking, verbatim, in the current New York Slimes Review of Books piece on Sarah Palin's Going Rogue. The cretin, Raban, literally says that neither he nor his circle can follow the mathematics used by Nobel Economics laureate and fellow Slimes-whore Krugman; but he acts like dropping Krugman's name, even with this admission, is enough to prove his own intelligence.
The proper answer, as I wrote in response, is that of the late Dick Feynman (PhD in theoretical physics from MIT at age 21, Nobel in Physics):
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
I'm just waiting for your next feeble liberal bleat, "A mind is like a parachute --"
You're completely right, it is. If you've lost yours, don't expect to borrow *mine*.
Cheers!
From his actual bearing, Axelrod, Rahm, or Pelosi.
Cheers!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.