Hi 23° | Lo 9°

Republican war erupts, pitting business groups against Tea Party

A battle for control of the Republican Party has erupted as an emboldened Tea Party moved to oust senators who voted to reopen the government while business groups mobilized to defeat allies of the small-government movement.

“We are going to get engaged,” said Scott Reed, senior political strategist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “The need is now more than ever to elect people who understand the free market and not silliness.” The chamber spent $35.7 million on federal elections in 2012, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington, D.C.-based group that tracks campaign spending.

Meanwhile, two Washington-based groups that finance Tea Party-backed candidates said Thursday they’re supporting efforts to defeat Mississippi Sen. Thad Cochran, who voted this week for the measure ending the 16-day shutdown and avoiding a government debt default. Cochran, a Republican seeking a seventh term next year, faces a challenge in his party’s primary from Chris McDaniel, a state senator.

McDaniel, who announced his candidacy Thursday, “is not part of the Washington establishment and he has the courage to stand up to the big spenders in both parties,” Matt Hoskins, executive director of the Senate Conservatives Fund, said in a statement supporting him.

Cochran is at least the seventh Republican senator to face a primary in the 2014 midterms. The intra-party contests come as Republicans seek a net pickup of six seats to regain control of the 100-member chamber they lost in the 2006 elections. Party leaders are also working to protect their majority in the House, where they have 232 members to the Democrats’ 200.

Those goals became more difficult after the Tea Party-aligned House and Senate Republicans embraced a plan tying government spending to defunding Obamacare. President Obama and Senate Democrats rejected the proposal and had the power to stop it, and their partisan adversaries took the lion’s share of the blame for the impasse leading to the government shutdown that began Oct. 1.

The Republican Party’s favorability was at a record low of 28 percent in a Gallup Poll conducted Oct. 3-6. That was down 10 percentage points from the previous month and 15 points below Democrats. The Tea Party is less popular now than ever, according to a poll released Oct. 15 by the Pew Research Center. Forty-nine percent of U.S. adults have an unfavorable opinion of the movement, while 30 percent have a favorable one.

The Cook Political Report, a nonpartisan Washington-based group that tracks races, changed the ratings of 15 U.S. House seats Thursday, all but one in favor of the prospects for Democrats. After three vacancies are filled in the 435-member House, Democrats are expected to need a net pickup of 17 seats to win back the majority they lost in the 2010 elections.

Both sides are using the Oct. 16 vote on a bipartisan agreement to reopen the government and lift the nation’s $16.7 trillion debt ceiling as a barometer for choosing their targets in next year’s elections.

In the Senate, 18 of 46 Republicans voted against the final deal. The opponents included Sens. Mike Enzi of Wyoming, Pat Roberts of Kansas and John Cornyn of Texas, each of whom face primary contests. In the House, Republicans cast all the 144 votes opposing the accord.

“They voted ‘no’ because they understand this is a rallying cry” and that backing the agreement could be used against them, Tom Davis, a former National Republican Congressional Committee chairman and now director of federal government affairs for Deloitte Consulting, said in an interview. “This has not helped Republicans. It’s hurt the Republican brand.”

To improve their odds, Tea Party leaders are fine-tuning their strategy by targeting incumbents in states where Democrats have little or no chance of winning in the general election. In 2012 and 2010, the movement nominated weak or flawed Senate candidates in Indiana, Missouri, Delaware and Nevada who were defeated in the November general elections, dashing Republicans’ chances for taking over the chamber.

That’s part of the calculation in challenging Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander in Tennessee, where no Democrats hold statewide office, said Michael Leahy, a Republican activist. State Rep. Joe Carr announced in August he would run against Alexander in next year’s primary.

Leahy is helping to organize volunteers to knock on doors tomorrow in the state and urge voters to protest Alexander’s support for ending the Washington impasse by backing Carr.

“Whoever wins the primary in Tennessee is going to sail to victory,” Leahy said in an interview. “Democrats are anemic here.”

In addition to Cochran and Alexander, Republican senators who supported the agreement to re-open the government and face primary challenges include Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

“The strategy of primarying people like Thad Cochran is more of the same and it means more Senate minorities in the future,” said David French, the top lobbyist in Washington for the National Retail Federation. “I question the judgment there.”

French said the federation would back candidates in Republican primaries. Neither he nor Reed would specify which incumbents they’d support.

“There are incumbent Republicans who are on the wrong side of some of these issues,” said French, whose organization spent more than $300,000 on races in 2012. “There are definitely some incumbent Republicans we’re not going to support again.”

Joining the Senate Conservatives Fund in backing McDaniel’s primary challenge of Cochran is the Club for Growth, another Tea Party ally. The group’s super political action committee, Club for Growth Action, spent $17.9 million on federal races in 2012, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Senate Conservatives Fund spent $15.9 million in 2012 and $3.9 million so far on 2014 campaigns. The group, a political action committee founded by former South Carolina Republican Senator Jim DeMint, backed Republicans Rand Paul in Kentucky in 2010 and Ted Cruz in Texas in 2012 as each won Senate bids. McDaniel is the group’s first endorsement in the 2014 elections.

It’s too soon to know whether the boost the Tea Party-backed Senate candidates are anticipating will materialize, said Jennifer Duffy, who tracks Senate races for the Cook Report.

With the exception of Louisville investor Matt Bevin, who is spending his own money in his primary race against McConnell, “none of these other candidates are really serious yet,” Duffy said.

“It’s going to take a week or so to figure out how Tea Party voters feel about it,” Duffy said. “If they are angry, that could give some of these candidates momentum.”

Democrats are also looking to use the government shutdown battle to their political advantage.

Rickey Cole, the Democratic chairman in Mississippi, said a Republican civil war presents an opportunity. Cole is pitching party leaders in Washington to help in recruiting a candidate for the state’s Senate contest.

“Folks are returning my call, but everybody’s got to do a poll to decide which side of the bed to get out of,” Cole said in an interview. “This race could be a replay of what happened to Senator Lugar in Indiana.”

After 36 years in the Senate, Dick Lugar lost the Republican primary in Indiana last year to state Treasurer Richard Mourdock, who had Tea Party support. Mourdock went on to lose to Democrat Joe Donnelly in the general election.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which assists candidates, is attacking the Republican House members who are running for the Senate, saying they’re partly to blame for the unpopular shutdown.

Montana, West Virginia and Georgia Senate contests all feature Republican House members running for seats where incumbents are retiring. In Arkansas and Louisiana, Democratic senators are squaring off against House Republicans.

“Republicans are immeasurably damaged by this,” said the Democratic committee’s spokesman, Justin Barasky. “They repeatedly voted to keep the government shutdown. It highlights a recklessness and irresponsibility that all those candidates have.”

Legacy Comments71

Republican war erupts, pitting those who walk upright and have opposable thumbs and large brain stems against Tea Party.

This is exactly who posters would not use their names. To be slammed and bullied this way all day long would be fruitless.

"Slammed and bullied"? One just has to read the series of comments to see who's "slamming and bullying": playing fast and loose with the facts, and resorting to name-calling (e.g.: "liar" in Van's post below) in ultimately incoherent rants. That's not name-calling--it's accurately descriptive. And the Carp Per Diems never did get the word "motley" right--or admit to deliberately twisting its meaning to suit.

(e.g.: "liar" in Van's post below).... on fire...the. truth. hurts.

Not that one. This one: "Nice Alinsky tactic Bruce liberals hate the truth so pull the Alinsky tact of lie and lie frequently...." Though it's understandable you would miss a particular instance of its use--there are SO many. As for the Obama 'lie', he's apologized for it (twice). And I suspect it would not matter much had the ACA website been up to snuff, so that those whose policies were being cancelled because they didn't meet the new ACA requirements would likely have found better policies at the same or cheaper prices. As for "lies" in general, we're still waiting for the Bush apology for the lies his administration disseminated while promoting the "war on terror". We won't hold our breath on that one: no apology needed for the $3 trillion cost of the Iraq war of choice and the tens of thousands of lives lost. Meanwhile, keep hammering Obama for his 'lie', which, when put in perspective (a quality notably absent from any of the Carp Per Diem brigade) pales in comparison.

Just keep copying and pasting the same thing. I guess you are practicing saying something enough makes people start to believe it. Can you ever carry on a civil conversation or only sarcastic finger pointing rants?

The so called ACA is just another form of wealth redistribution fostered on us by Obama.

The tea party is killing the republican party.

News the Monitor doesn't report: Didn't the Liar and Thief - Barack Hussein Obama say that raising the debt ceiling wouldn't raise the debt? We are now over 17 Trillion in debt Obama has spent our children's future and their unborn children's future. Obama has made generational theft a art form. I am just wondering what talking point or mindless liberal spin the the usual liberal suspects and their gaggle will come up with to white wash this?

tea party. and blah blah blah.

Van, when you give these links, do you just read the headlines or do you read the story too? I checked your link and saw why the jump in one day borrowing. It is the fault of congress. Also when people in your group get all touchy about personal attacks, maybe the can mention your calling of the President, "Liar and Thief."

Oh..I see the problem now...calling the president a liar and a thief is a personal attack..on you. It isnt ...get over it.

Hmmmm........'motley children' sounds like most school playgrounds. Moreover, motley children might be synonymous with the many over the top liberals who post here daily, railing against anyone who does not fall in lockstep with their ideological certainty. Obama is a liar, anyone can see that he lied about keeping your doctor, keeping your insurance, keeping your health plan, the "red line" comment and on and one. Yet progressives continue to defend him, knowing, intellectually that he is a bold faced liar; a sociopath of the highest order. Moreover the Atrocious Care Act aka Obummercare is just a Utopian house of horrors and seemingly intelligent people stand behind it as if it is the holy grail.

Itsa, Regarding your comment, specifically "...railing against anyone who does not fall in lockstep with their ideological certainty...." It seems that you must be referring to Sail, Van, GWTW, YOU and several others. Railing against, is what everyone of this groups posts are about. If I disagree it is an attack by definition? It must be nice to go thru life not caring about anyone's view except those you agree with. I am even more amazed that none of your klan even addressed a single issue raised in the letter/article. This was a letter about the internal war of words within the GOP. Liberals have nothing to do with it. This country was built by politicians that could work together, work through their differences and do what is best for all. You are advocating a government where only those with the same ideals and beliefs should hold the power. Sorry folks that is a slap in the face to all that have made America great. The statement that "Liberals are a disgrace" was made recently wasn't what was meant was all that didn't believe what the writer believed were lumped in one group. But no we don't do name calling, your hypocrisy is showing.

liberals are out of touch....

One of the definitions of Motley is many. Comes from the variegated coats that court jesters wore. The jesters were also called fools, so the term today has been used at times as an insult. Words have lots of definitions listed. Basically it depends on how they are used often times. .

if the Tea Party was not a threat to these folks, they would not mention them. The real issue is that progressives are so scared that people will not just roll over and allow the progressive movement to just take hold. If they really felt that the Tea Party was no threat, they would not talk about it constantly. It is revealing.

I don't consider the Tea Party a threat per see, nor conservatives in general. What I consider a threat is the utter stupidity of the premise they operate under. Their rather naive views that only see black and white and consider compromise to be a four letter word. Their appeal is to those that are so fixated on social issues and unfortunately unrealistic views on Big Government. There is too much money at stake in Washington and it has taken on a life of it's own. It's taken over 50 years to dig ourselves into this financial hole. To think that it won't take as long if not longer to get out is sheer madness. Do I like the idea of my money being spent on those that don't want to better themselves, no, probably the same as all of you. But the difference is I like the idea of children going hungry or begging on street corners even less. I still believe that the greatness of a society can be measured by how it's less fortunate are treated. There is no good answer, but I am open to considering anything. Most of the right is not is not so considerate.

Rabbit, the word by itself does not mean many. No one would say there are motley children in that play ground, when they mean there are many children in that play ground. I used the phrase to include all the posters here. I know what I meant. Itsa tried to tell me I didn't know what I meant and why you need to get involved I have no idea.

Read my post Tillie, it says one of the defintions of motley not the only one. It is a forum, and the last time I checked folks comment. If you prefer I do not comment on your posts, say so and I will not. At least be honest if you are trying to censor someone.

It's amazing isn't it. The Carpers can't even define a single word properly. Then when they dig themselves a hole, they don't stop digging. Is it any wonder their posts go off the rails into incoherence and name-calling so often?

Gasoline at $1.99 a gallon. How about 27 cents a gallon when I was driving in the 60's, How come we can't have that any more? Heck (excuse my language) we could go to Mickey D's, get a drink, fries, burger and get change from a dollar. I would like to just have the same grocery prices as when Bush II came in. It might make your posts shorter if all you "motley crew" just listed the things you don't blame Obama for.

Fact is, under Bush it was $1.99 per gallon. Please refute the facts about unemployment and welfare. You can't do it. Start talking about Bush, this downturn now belongs to Obama.

If you're referring to the Great Recession, the worst recession since WW2, the "downturn" ended sometime in 2009. From the CBPP: "The United States went through its longest, and by most measures worst economic recession since the Great Depression between December 2007 and June 2009. This chart book documents the course of the economy following that recession against the background of how deep a hole the recession created – and how much deeper that hole would have been without the financial stabilization and fiscal stimulus policies enacted in late 2008 and early 2009." Nothing Republicans have suggested would have speeded up the recovery-- austerity measures would have further slowed the recovery. And if you're referring to any slowdown to the economy done by the shutdown, since Republicans are the ones who shut down the government, any damage is on them. Republicans expected Obama and the Democrats to cave--just like they did last time. But this time they didn't. Alas for the poor TPers, who hurt themselves and the GOP with their tactic.

The Worst Economic Recovery in History: WSJ...... Recessions associated with financial crises are usually followed by rapid recoveries: Bureau of Economic Research..... Labor Force Participation Rate at all time low of 63% : Bureau of Labor Statistics..... As usual Liberals present a rosey narrative but FACTS always turn it to ashes

Itsa, motley means many different kinds. Motley crew is a colloquialism usually meaning a disorganized group of characters. The band used the name Motley Crue to describe themselves. I think except for conservative blogs and the Concord Monitor you are not very well read, probably no time for reading as you have been working since you were fourteen. Since you don't seem to have the expertise please don't correct my vocabulary again.

In the case of the Tea Party and people who feel that same way, you are about to find out that it means "many, many, many". Liberals are only about 30% of the population........but the freak show that is the progressive movement, Motley might describe that.

What a totally off point and arrogant post. The baggers are but a flash in the pan whose days are nearing an end. Naive perfect world idealists, what can I say.

Just wondering libs how are those ObamaKare sign ups going? I have been hearing 2 to 3 radio commercials per hour on the radio and seeing the ads on TV and almost no one is signing up. I can't wait for the democrats' circular firing squad trying to blame someone else for ObamaKare but they own it 100% because no Republican was stupid enough to vote for ObamaKare. Can wait for the democrat party to fracture into Communist, Socialist, Extremist Environmentalists, Extremist big government liberals and the few remaining conservative democrats are going to bail on their extremist base and join the Republicans.

As far as parties fracturing, it seems that it's more likely going to be an issue with within the GOP. I have a question for all the conservative local government wack jobs. How do you reconcile the desire for smaller gov't and more state rights with national efforts to defeat local republicans who voted common sense and against the party of the rose colored glasses, the omnipotent TeaBaggers. Now if liberals jump ship from their more radical elements and republicans jump ship from their radical elements - perhaps we can get back to business.

where do you come up with these figures, the last year of Bush Jr, gas prices were a little over 4.00 a gallon. Last time I looked I've seen stations at 3.12 and going lower. I gotta give ya credit though, Sail said this same thing and was totally discredited.

Gas was over 4.00 for 2 months in July and August. When that price happened, Bush opened up domestic drilling, which the Dems were against. If you look at gas prices during Bush's term and prices during Obama's term you will get the rates, of what they are and the average costs. Do that and get back to me about which President has the worse record on gas prices. Obama wants the gas prices to go up because he does not have enough support for green energy.

When the news doesn't support one's preconceived opinions, count on posters of any stripe to change the topic, or try to reframe the issue. Van's screed below is a good example of this, along with blaming the messenger: "fabricated hyped news" that "promotes the liberal agenda"? Seriously? And Van adds 180 degrees of spin on reality to his screed: it's gerrymandered southern districts that have given Tea Party extremists their safe seats from which to challenge reality. And as for polls, this poll of likely voters gives Obama a 50% approval rating.

Nice Alinsky tactic Bruce liberals hate the truth so pull the Alinsky tact of lie and lie frequently::

Van, beside the repeated name-calling, it seems you're grasping at straws, given that reality has been so unkind of late. That poll you and other conservatives are so fond of citing in the wake of the Tea Party's sinking of the GOP poll numbers is an outlier on-line poll, dated October 9. The fact it was on-line may mean it has some self-selection issues. That it's over a week old may also bear on its (lack of) relevance. RealClearPolitics averaged all the poll numbers, including Rasmussen and Gallup, and the poll you cite. The average gave Obama a 45% approval rating. Congress had an average 11% approval.

Same Real Clear Politics polls shows a right track / wrong track at 17% right / 75% wrong after 5 years of NObama and dictator democrat iron fist is that working out for the readers?

America has now seen the truth behind the Tea Party extremist. They wanted the shutdown and they voted to default on the debt which would have caused harm to Americans and global economics. We are all lucky (Republicans and Democrats) that only a small group got elected or we would now be in default. Two political sides are good, discussion is good, radicalism brings in disaster. Because of the Tea Party the Republican party is on the verge of imploding or it could be exploding not knowing where it will end up. They run the risk of not even having a candidate for the next Presidential election that the party supports. Mid-line Republicans are getting beat on by Democrats and the Tea Party. Those citizens that feel in the middle are now forced to choose, go extreme right which will certainly cause shutdowns (as has already been done) every budget or vote a little to the left.

I think that the Tea Party wants to protest just like liberals in the 60's protested against the Vietnam War. They are standing on principle. I am not a member, by the way but I understand that it is important that we challenge the status quo and not just "go along" with one point of view. How is calling for limited government, fiscal responsibility and following the Constitution "extreme". I think that so many progressives complain here because they are threatened by those who are not just going to stand there and be steamrolled by things like Obamacare. 80% of the population either does not support, is highly concerned about or is downright scared of what Obamacare will do to their health care. 20% of the population is saying "too bad, I want it and it is the law". What does that say Jim? It says that progressives are pretty much bullies. I will support anyone, I repeat, anyone who is not aligned with progressives in the next election, etc. I read progressives here every day posting hatred towards people who have opposite opinions to theirs. It is a constant drum beat of rhetoric, propaganda and political talking points from the Left.......none of it has passion, only hate. True liberals no longer exist, progressives have taken over and they are just as, if not more "extreme" as those which they demonize.

"True liberals no longer exist"? How would you know? Have you ever read Van's, Rabbit's Sail's (or whatever he calls himself now) posts along with your own and the rest of the motley crew on here. There is no rational discussion just name calling, so stop being so high an mighty. You have spent plenty of time in the mud pit with the rest of us.

I actually appreciate the "Motley Crew". They do us a service by posting their indefensible extreme views. Besides, I can always use a laugh.

Motley means "many", are you aware of that?

Response to Itsa below: No, it doesn't.

First I've got to ask, where do you get your numbers and second you would support a faction that put this country's economy at risk, perhaps doing irreparable harm all because of a LAW that's been passed, signed and scrutinized by a Conservative court? My health care hasn't changed one iota, except there's no cap, and they can't stick it to me if I get sick. You need to get out more, travel in different circles because you've obviously been duped by the Conservative media.

Sorry Devil_Doc, I do get out and I do know first hand what Obamacare will do to companies and "people". My company is getting one year ahead of the curve and found a policy which is good and they will pay the entire cost of the plan, it is approved under Obamacare for hourly employees and there are two caveats....1) it provides well care but will not cover hospitalization and 2) it will now allow an employee to cover their spouse but they can cover children (up to three). It is approved under Obamacare. Then they are offering another plan for $100 monthly which includes coverage for spouse and children, drug co-pays and 80% hospitalization but it will not cover, for instance, is NOT approved under Obamacare but it would certainly be the better plan based on the overall coverage. Doing a little research into it, it does not qualify not because it is not a great plan but because of the abortion non-coverage and another minor waiver. Now, you should be intellectually honest, because, it was passed in a non-bipartisan manner with back room deals, bribes and promises as if it was the last possible time anything like it could ever be done......that it not good legislation, it is ideological legislation. Second, the court ruled on one aspect of the law, they did not read and made it clear that they would not read the entire bill. Finally, if my coverage was to be changed this year we already reviewed what it would be in 2014 but Obama waived mandatory coverage by companies until after the 2014 election (can you say politics?). Premiums would rise 75%, co pays would go up between $5 to $25 dollars and my $600 deductible would become $1500. That is with the company paying 75% of the health insurance AND now they have to pay a "tax" to offer me the same insurance they offered me for 6 years. So damn those circles, I am living this in real time. I have paid my way and made sure that I have had insurance for 38 years, now so that someone else can be subsidized you and I will be asked to accept less, stand in line and that is just "tough"........

ItsaRepublic, Exactly I can't wait to throw out all the liberal politicians from NH. Defeat Shaheen, Kuster, and Shea-Porter in November 2014.

Van, you might want to go a little easy on the pre-celebrations so you don't feel as foolish as you all did last November.

Van, who exactly is going to dump the Dems out of office??? The Reps are in short supply of fresh talent.

Itsa, you went over the edge with the bullies comment. For my part I wish to remind you of Bully O'Brien - he was a progressive?? Also I want to point out that all one has to do is read many posts by Van and almost every post by Sail, "I read progressives here every day posting hatred towards people who have opposite opinions to theirs.", it's a two way street. Then there was that little gem last week about "Liberals are a disgrace", rhetoric, propaganda and political talking points. It almost appears that you could replace the word "left" with right and hit the nail on the head. Before you demonize those that don't agree with you , perhaps your house should be in order first. Let he who is without sin cast the first political stone.

"...and they voted to default on the debt which would have caused harm to Americans and global economics."...When was this "vote" taken? Did I miss it? Link please. And really Jim, by all accounts, when Obama leaves office, the debt is likely to be $20 trillion...isn't that the same as defaulting?? Every family in the US will be a million dollars in debt. We could be the first country in history to make every citizen a reverse millionaire. Nothing extreme about that.

GWTW.. Look at the vote count, enough "no" votes and the US would have be in default. Do I like a ~~$17 or $20 trillion debt for my kids - NO, but like every home or business you have to pay the bills on the debt you have "already" spent. I'm fine with fighting to lowering the spending of this government but this (defaulting) is not the way. What purpose did it serve to shut down the government and then vote to pay all the people back-pay but "still" tell them to say home????? That feat proved this entire shutdown was not about money or the budget. All it did was hurt some private businesses and private citizens. This fight (Obamacare or anything else) should be "during the year" but not cause even more harm to people. What bothers me the most is those in Congress, BOTH SIDES, talked of this as a contest to see who would win. They felt no pain while they played games with the citizens of this country. They affected earnings of citizens and businesses and came close to possibly causing another recession. The real problem is that Congress cut taxes for citizens and corporations but kept spending the money buying the votes to keep them in office…….. The definition of ironic is when businesses say they want lower taxes while complaining the government is NOT fixing roads, digging deeper shipping ports, building railroads for cheaper transportation, building bridges to nowhere and buying their products at a 500% markup - ALL of which is paid by taxes!!!....... Finally, Obamacare did not cause this ~$17 Trillion debt, CONGRESS did. Always remember most of those in Congress have been there a long time – they spent the money.

vote count for JIM - if only 6 moderate democrat senators had joined the 44 other senators - there would not have been any problems as a budget would have passed both chambers. For Jim on Taxes - USA Tax revenue last year was at an all time high. To think that the mandated constitutionally services cant be funded with those $$$$$$ is just liberal hokum...borrowing 40 cents of every dollar is simply a crime.

"Look at the vote count, enough "no" votes and the US would have be in default. "...nope...not true. More than enough money coming in to pay it.

to be knowledgeable on the topic of default one needs to read about the "Full Faith & Credit Act" the Responsible Republicans passed in May. If Jim had read it he would not post what he posted.

The Republican Party is a mess. At least in the past their big-money sponsors got behind a candidate to defeat a Democrat. But now even their sponsorship is splintering. While the Tea Party had no problem shutting down the government and taking us to the brink of default, the big-business Republicans who rely on government funding (e.g. defense industry) and steady domestic and international markets were not amused. It's ironic that the Republicans (after their losses in 2006 and 2008) who welcomed the angry Tea Party crowd in 2010 now find themselves challenged by the same people. Really, the Tea Party should just branch off and hold their own primaries.

This article in another example of how the Monitor publishes fabricated hyped news that promotes the liberal agenda while censors or withholds the news that damages liberal agenda. First of all the Monitor has published several articles in the last week that shows all time low poll numbers for Congress but deliberately fails to show Obama’s all time low poll numbers. Obama’s favorable poll numbers are in the 30’s. Not reporting that is like not reporting a major flood or a major earthquake. If a Republican president had poll numbers are in the 30’s it would be front page news like this fabricated story. So, to the extreme left competitive primaries is some kind of War? The party of no choice – democrats, they hate primaries because there is only one choice for democrats and that is extreme liberalism. This is why you won’t see extreme liberals like Jeanne Shaheen, Anne Kuster, and Carol Shea-Porter have any primary competition because the leadership in the democrat party does not you to have a choice.

Since O took office, Gas has more than doubled to$3.50 a gallon, food stamp rolls has gone from 32 to 52 million recipients, health insurance premiums for those who work and buy it is up 60 percent, the unemployment rate is north of 8 percent, disability enrollments have tripled , our credibility financially and politically pathetic throughout the globe is a joke, IE let's bomb Syria , and if our president had a son he would look and act like travon Martin - his words. But it is all the tea party's fault.

Practically nothing you have written is true except that our credibility is shameful through out the world because of the tea party's shut down of our government and threat of default. So yes it is the tea party's fault. By the way have you heard about the Great Recession? Guess not.

Check the facts, everything James wrote is absolutely true. Where can we find gasoline for $1.99 per gallon. Let is know and we will mob the gas station. Unemployment and food stamp statistics are widely available out there including at government websites. Please educate yourself and stop marginalizing those with whom you disagree.

Have you heard of Obama's democrat depression? That is exactly where Obama is taking us.

Bingo James Aces the Obama Administration Accuracy Test. Liberals are running and hiding holding their heads so their heads won't explode because they can't handle the truth.

Did you forget that gas was about $4/gal during the last year of the Bush administration or did you leave that out on purpose? Or how about health insurance premiums increasing at 13% annually over the last 10 years? Or how about that we fell into a deep recession starting in December 2007 and by January 2009 when Obama took office, we were losing 800,000 jobs/month? I suppose that was Obama's fault too. It's kind of like a surgeon operating on a patient, cutting an artery, then handing the scalpel to another surgeon and saying "it's your turn doctor, I'm outta here". Of course food stamps are in demand. People are hurting. The lower and middle classes have been taking a beating for over 30 years thanks to the rise of corporate power, big money and lobbying in government not to mention trickle-down economics. The bottom 90% are working harder than ever and the top 10% are reaping all the benefits of their labor.

Corporate power? Class warfare, the 10% against the 90%? We will be taking a greater beating with Obamacare. Government makes so much more money on fuel taxes than oil companies. Why do you think that insurance premiums have risen? Is it that you think that people should use their insurance and investors, stockholders and companies should just lose money year after year? Obama has done nothing to improve the economy beyond bloating the federal government ranks with single tasking workers like a stuffed pig and regulating companies into non-existance.

PROVIDE A LINK - that is the dictate of leftist on this board

Sail, Pray tell why should anyone believe a statement just because "I say so". Given the outrageous claims that certain people make, it would nice to see if there are any facts to backup the say, 80% of the US is against ACA. I am more willing to believe that 80% don't understand it though. So if I got this straight it's only leftists that want the truth. Now that is something that I would believe. You comment lacks any merit.

Reply to Itsa: First of all, the government doesn't "make money" from taxes. The government doesn't steal money from their citizens and pocket it. Taxes are fees for services such as road and bridge construction and maintenance, education, emergency services, defense, etc. Why have health insurance premiums risen by 13% annually? Because health care is a for-profit business in America and everyone involved is trying to make a profit. It's not just insurance companies; it's pharmaceutical companies, massive hospital chains, medical device makers. These companies aren't in business to heal people. They are beholden to their shareholders. Our system is very inefficient. Insurance companies spend 30% of premiums on administrative costs (the ACA will limit that to 20%) while Medicare spends 3%. Also, health care is different from other products and services because it is very difficult to shop for the best deal like you can when buying a house, a car, an appliance etc. You can't ask a doctor how much it's going to cost to make you healthy because frequently they don't know. Providers can charge whatever THEY feel is a justifiable rate and the patient has no say. As to the rising income inequality in America--well, that's not even an argument. The evidence is overwhelming: according to the CBO in 1974 the top 1% earned 8% of total income; in 2011 it was 20% of total income. Now, as to Obama bloating the federal government, civilian employment has remained steady at about 2.7 million for about 15 years. Not bad considering that population has increased by about 16% in that time. The economy IS getting better, albeit very, very slowly. The Republicans have fought Obama at every turn, slapped down every idea whether or not it's backed up by science or economics. Going back to my operating room analogy, they complain that he hasn't stopped the bleeding fast enough.

ACA is not about efficiency, it is about lowering the standard of medical care for all. 85 percent of citizens had health insurance and were satisfied with their care. The reason the rates were rising is because of the usual 15 percent of the population without insurance sucking off the system. My obligation under the ACA will increase significantly, my guess ... yours will not. When you move out of your parents' basement and find a job, you too will want to keep as much of your income as possible. I will take one year of $4 gas versus 5 plus years of $3.50 gas.

James said: "The reason the rates were rising is because of the usual 15 percent of the population without insurance sucking off the system." Here's the thing - the ACA is specifically designed to insure more people so that they are no longer "sucking off the system" as you put it. The whole purpose of that is to stop the catastrophic rising of rates. As for the other 85%, the only reason their care or their rates will change is if they change insurance policies, and that happens all the time now, even without the ACA. I would love to see some hard facts and figures about how your obligation under ACA will increase - and how you know this.

Reply to James: To say that the ACA is about lowering the standard of medical care for 85% of citizens is almost as ridiculous as your implication that health care is so expensive because of the other 15% sucking off the system. I'd like to see some back-up for that theory. My theories are articulated in previous posts. Incidentally, the ACA has an individual mandate to force people to stop "sucking off the system" and pay for their own insurance. BTW, both my parents have passed-on, I've been living on my own for 17 years--the last 11 in my own house--and supporting my wife and kids for the last 5. It appears you know as much about me as you do about health care.

The actual reason there is little competition in NH elections I contend, is because of a limited gene pool. Van, also Obama's poll numbers were not kept secret, the issue at hand was the disgust that all sane Americans have towards the inability of congress to do their job and work together. As much as you try to blame Obama for everything - it was Congress that was in the news. If this is what you refer to as fabricated hype, then you are obviously in the 5% or so of those that really don't get it, simply choose to ignore reality.

When the debt rises to the point that we cannot fund anything but paying the interest and very little else, someone will look back on this day and say...."we should have done something then, but we were too stupid to"...Remember these 2 weeks the govt was 18% shut down...I suspect much more than 18% will have to be if we stay on this path.

"Leahy said in an interview. “Democrats are anemic here.” " Sounds like famous last words, to me. People that cocky often don't actually have anything to back it up, and they're just whistling in the dark.

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.