Quote of the Day - Politico Edition

But for the most part, the mainstream media failed to aggressively pursue the story, taking Obama’s claim at face value without testing it against the facts

 

 Well wonders never cease.  They finally admit it.  This particular quote is talking Obamacare and the GOP and Tea Party saying for years that people would lose their insurance once Obamacare gets implemented.  Well know they have no choice but to admit that we were right.  One would hope this would make them check into other things as well.  I am not holding my breath on that though. 

Quote of the Day - Jake Sherman Edition

But in the Post’s version of events, Obama is portrayed as worrying he would face a backlash from the left if he pulled the trigger. And former Obama chief of staff Bill Daley provided surprising, on-the-record support of the GOP’s insistence that the president deserves blame for losing his nerve.

Politico Reporter, Jake Sherman 

Politico's Winners and Losers of Shutdown Deal

Politico has an article of which they assess the winners and losers of Friday night's last minute deal to avoid the federal shutdown.  Winners include Speaker Boehner and Planned Parenthood.  The losers include Nancy Pelosi and The District. 

They point to the lack of federal funds being used for abortion and the voucher program as the reason why DC has lost.  The most obvious thing one can say about the abortion issue is this is just further proof that federal money isn't used for the funding of abortion is an outright lie.  But when it is convenient the left will trot out this mantra yet again. Now the district is very left leaning so it is likely that the majority of the residents are pro choice.  This being a classified as a loss for The District is understandable from that point of view. 

What I don't understand is why the voucher program is considered a loss.  The expert that congress hired to look at the program without an political agenda has concluded that the program was successful.  It is brought down the shamefully high number of high school drop outs in DC.  The voucher program is less expensive than the DC public school system and generates a higher rate of graduations and a higher level of college acceptance.  How is that a loser?  We are spending less money to get better results.  In no way does this program take money away from the public school system.  The program actually gives twice as money to the public/charter schools than it does to the vouchers.  If a parent wants their child to continue in the current public school they are in they have the right to do it.  But for the parents who realize that their child is in a school that is failing them or in a dangerous neighborhood they have the choice to put them in a better school.  An education is the key to lifting the poor out of poverty. 

Here is a commenter on the Politico article:

Why do the right hate education so much?

OK, my first question to this person would be did you go to the DC public schools?  My second would be why do you keep insisting that voucher program isn't designed to help the poor?  The only people who can rationally believe that this program is a loser is someone who is so blinded by the liberal left orthodoxy of how unions are the answer to improving our educational system.  Even when the facts bear out that this program is a winner. 

Not only will these children get a chance at a better education and are more likely to graduate and go onto college.  They will help lift themselves and their families out of poverty that will reduce their dependency on the government dole.  Yes, that sounds like a loser to me. 

Where's the Love for the SAHM?

There is all this blow up due to a Politco story about Rick Santorum and Sarah Palin.  Politico wrote the story in the guise that Santorum was taking a swipe at Palin and Politico said he "inferred" that she was making speeches for money.  There are rumors that she turned down the keynote speaking slot on Saturday night due to the money not being there.  Only the people involved in the negotiations know what the truth is.  But, it is well-known that she and the leader of CPAC don't get along.

His comments in part:

“I have a feeling that she has some demands on her time, and a lot of them have financial benefit attached to them,”

“I don’t live in Alaska and I’m not the mother to all these kids and I don’t have other responsibilities that she has,”

Regardless of what you think of Santorum and his voting record, the one thing that you cannot question is his social conservative cred.  He is staunchly socially conservative.  He and his wife have had eight children, one of which that passed away at birth.  His children range in age from 19 to 2.  His youngest child is special needs and was not expected to survive.  While she has many issues, she was a very happy addition to his family.  Since leaving congress he has been working as an attorney and his wife is a stay at home mom. 

Palin was interviewed yesterday by Sean Hannity and was asked about the Politico story.  Her response:

“I think the reports were much worse than what he really said. I think some things were really taken out of context. So I will not call him the knuckle dragging neanderthal that perhaps others would want to call him. I’ll let his wife call him that instead.”

She then went on to say that her children have never stopped her from doing anything. 

Santorum, as a special needs parent, has a unique perspective on the demands of the parents of a special needs child. Again, he is a social conservative and very strict Catholic.  Is it really so crazy that he views motherhood and care giving as the most important role that a woman plays in her life?  I don't think that it is.  Palin has three children at home.  Two of which are very young and one is special needs.  The demands of that are real.  It isn't something that he is making up or just throwing out there for no reason.   

For those who have not spent a great deal of time around a special needs child you may not be aware of those demands.  Change is not something that these kids handle well.  They depend on scheduling.  I once read a book written by the wife of a famous athlete and a line in that book has always struck me.  I may be paraphrasing here, but basically she said that they don't learn to live in your world, you learn to live in theirs.  It is something that has stuck with him ever since.  To give an example of what I am talking about, I know a mom who has masking tape on both her kitchen and dining room table.  The tape is labeled for where the plate, glass, fork go.  If they are not in the exact place that they are expected to be in, the child won't eat, he also won't eat if his food touches on the plate.  Special needs kids have a difficult time with time zone changes, they are not always good with strangers and are not comfortable with new situations.  They find going outside of their comfort zone difficult to handle.  Of course every child is different, but these are generalities that are pretty standard with special needs kids. 

Families of special needs kids have a much more difficult time travelling and simple things like going out to dinner can sometimes be a brutal experience.  I am in no way diminishing the gifts that these kids bring into the lives of their families, but it is a different experience than raising children without disabilities.  The point that Sarah was trying to make is that just because she is a mom doesn't mean she can't accomplish other things.  Which is a true statement. 

I came across an article written back in November.  Apparently this isn't the first time that Palin has used the word Neanderthal when commenting on what women can do.  She made this statement shortly after the 08 campaign came to an end. 

There are still the Neanderthals out there who pick on the petty, little, superficial, meaningless things – like looks, like whether you can or can’t work outside of the home if you have small children – all those type of things where I would so hope that at some point those Neanderthals will evolve into something a bit more with it, a bit more modern, and a bit more understanding that, yeah, women can accomplish much.

No one is saying that every working mother is a bad mother.  But, it wasn't all that long ago that being a SAHM was looked down upon by the "liberal elite".  I do believe that has tampered down some, but many far left woman look at almost everything in their life through the prism of being a woman and are constantly talking about fairness and get very upset when woman were not promoted.  I just recently read some comments on how the left is more than a little upset that Obama's administration doesn't have enough women, and were especially upset by the new press secretary not being female.  I personally don't view the world in this manner.  I want the most qualified person to be hired for a job.  If that person happens to be a white man or a Latino woman than so be it.  I am not believer in quotas and I certainly don't think that Obama is anti-woman simply based on the fact that his latest hire happened to be a man. 

I may be wrong, but I think that most conservatives views are similar to mine.  But, if that is so who are those statements being made to?  Political people have a tendency to talk in sound bites and usually are very careful to craft their conversation and talking points trying to reach out to certain segments of the voting public.  Palin is a politician.  She may be different than many politicians, but she is still a politician.  Because if she is trying to reach out to the people who think that woman can have it all, I think that may be a losing strategy.  Especially if it can be construed as insulting the very people who are her base supporters. 

I remember when the election was in full swing and Palin was being accused of being a bad mother simply based on the fact that Bristol was pregnant out of wedlock at the time.  I would ask the people that said that around me if their mother was responsible for every mistake that they made?  One of the people who said that actually is a single mother.  Her justification was that her mother wasn't espousing conservative values on a national stage.  I felt like saying if she had espoused them in her home she obviously didn't listen to them, but I didn't want to be rude.  But, my point is these woman aren't going to listen to this message anyway. 

It isn't that I don't believe that women can do many things, because I do.  But, what I do question is can women have it all?  I find this to be a lie that has been passed down to young women.  While we can do many things across the entirety of our lifetimes, but can we have it all at the same time?  I think that as women we have to stretch it over longer periods of time than men do.  Is that necessarily fair?  No.  But, I have found that to be true.  Some women have no choice but to go out and work, they can't survive without the additional income.  Others choose to put off having children to get their career on track and have a hard time letting go of the career track in order to raise their children.  Then we have the families that put things over the benefits of having a mom at home.  The Wii, the ipad and the larger home become more important than staying home with little Jimmy.   Gov. Palin, I don't think it is a bad thing that you would be stopped from doing different things because of issues with your children.  I actually would respect it. 

Cross posted at Pot Luck
 

Dems Running From Obamacare

Dems running for re-election have been given their marching orders for healthcare.  The polling shows that it has not gotten more popular since it has become law.  They are being told to use first person stories to get their points across:

"My name is Lindsey.  I am 23 years old and have a six year old son named Jacob who has asthma.  We got our health insurance from husband's employer, but he lost his job recently.  He found a new job that pays OK, but his new health insurance company will give Jacob coverage because he has a pre-existing condition.  I wait tables too, but we just can't afford to pay medical expenses out of pocket.  I know that new health insurance law isn't perfect, but starting in September, it will be illegal for insurance companies to deny children with pre-existing conditions healthcare coverage.  I can't tell you what a relief it is to me that Jacob will get the care that he needs.  I really hope this law doesn't get repealed."

OK, are they saying that they should find someone to repeat this story?  Or do they just tell this story themselves?  Secondly, if her son was insured within the past three months of the insurance company change, it already is illegal for them to deny coverage.  That is why you get HIPPA forms when you change insurance companies.  How stupid do they think we are? 

The biggest message from the power point presentation is to keep the language simple and don't over promise.  It also wants them to talk about how they are planning on improving the law.  It hasn't even really taken effect yet, and they have to improve it?  Why didn't they do it correctly the first time?  Oh, that's right, they didn't care as long as it passed.  They also want to use personal responsibility as an argument for the individual mandate, hmm, a way to try and get conservatives to go along? 

Sadly, they have also found with their polling that there are quite a few people in the country who don't know that it passed.  As amazing as that seems to me, chances are if the person doesn't know that the law passed, they are not going to show up at a town hall meeting. 

The Don'ts Include:

list benefits outside of any personal context
say the law will reduce costs and benefits
assume public knows the health reform law passed or if they know it passed understand how it will affect them

It is sad that they refused to listen to people when they were saying to slow down and do it correctly.  The best hope that we have at this point is that if the GOP takes control of the House, they stop funding this while the law can be made better, or just plain repealed. 

If I were them, I would be running from it as well.  The reality is that will not reduce costs and the public knows it. 

See the entire presentation here

He's Baaack - Jones V. Beck - Round 2

Van Jones accepted an award from the NAACP over the weekend.  At the end of his acceptance speech he said:

“I see you, and I love you, brother. I love you and you cannot do anything about it. I love you and you cannot do anything about it … Let’s be one country. Let’s be one country. Let’s get the job done.”

Beck tweeted about it over the weekend and as expected he talked about it today on his radio program.  Politico has an article about the exchange and the headline reads:

Glenn Beck Won't Let Go of Van Jones. 

Hmm, lets see here.  I watched the Beck show on Thursday and Friday.  He didn't bring up Van Jones.  Beck made the tweet after the statement by Jones, not the other way around.  The article also uses some other strong language:



Glenn Beck fired back at former White House official Van Jones Monday, accusing President Barack Obama’s former “Green Jobs Czar” of “play(ing) the victim here” and trying “to make … a personal issue” out of Beck’s crusade against him.

and it continues:



On his radio show Monday, Beck reciprocated Jones’ affection – kind of – before launching into a blistering attack on Jones and, by extension, Obama, alleging both concealed Jones’ alleged ideologies as part of a devious plan carried out “in the cover of darkness.”

This is what Beck actually said:

“Van Jones, you love me, I love you, we're not on an episode of Barney,” Beck said. “Now, it's never been a personal thing and I don't know why you are wanting to make it a personal issue, but it's not a personal thing. Never has been. I was somebody who didn't want you fired.”

In fact, Beck said “I didn't get you fired”



“I do want to talk about one country,” Beck said. “The question is which country do we want? The country that you're looking for is very different than the country I understand. It's a country that is very different than the country that most people understand. You, sir, are a self-avowed communist. You are somebody that wants to fundamentally transform America, and you're doing it through the guise of green jobs.”


Highlighting Jones’ assertion that his past associations were fully vetted by the White House, Beck demanded of Obama “What is your radical end, Mr. President? We know now what Van Jones' radical end is. What is yours?”

Now, I have blogged a bit about Van Jones.  I also had a run in with a reporter at the 9/12 March about Van Jones.  The march was very shortly after Jones' resignation.  There was a reporter from the local CBS station talking to people in the crowd.  I happen to overhear her say to her camera man that she was sick of being verbally attacked by the people in the crowd.  I was in the mood to cause a little a trouble, so I went up to her and tried to explain to her what the main issue was as far as the people in the crowd were concerned.  Van Jones was one of the things that I brought up. 

I asked her:

As an American, how can you not be appalled that the President of the United States put a self avowed communist in a high level position in the white house?  Why was this not being reported on?  This is the type of thing that we are upset about.  We believe that you are in the tank with the President, that is why no one here trusts people in your profession. 

It seems like the people at Politico don't understand it either.  It wasn't Van Jones himself.  It was the fact that President of the United States put someone with his belief systems into a high level job.  Someone in that administration knew his background.  We want to know who that person was and a explanation of why they felt it was ok to hire him. 

The issue was never Van Jones, it was about the President.  By him leaving in the dead of night over a holiday weekend we will never get the answer to that question. 

Is the RNC Going on a RINO Hunt?

An internal discussion from the Republican National Committee regarding the funding of candidates continues the argument of the big tent. This is a discussion that has been ongoing for the Republican Party for several years now. The republicans on many levels seem fractured and lost in the wilderness. The party needs to decide if they are going to continue to fund candidates and sitting legislators that are voting against the party principles.  Another way to portray this is to ask if the party is going to go on a RINO hunt or not. 



This discussion has gained steam with the seemingly unimportant congressional election in NY-23. The party machine put up Dede Scozzafava as the republican candidate. While she has been an elected official in the conservative leaning district, her record is not one of a conservative. Her voting record made her much more a liberal democrat than that of even a moderate republican. The grassroots movement turned on this nomination and rallied for Doug Hoffman, the choice of the tea party movement and Sarah Palin; and others. While, as we all know that, Mr. Hoffman ultimately was unsuccessful in his bid for the seat, it has given more fuel to the discussion. Especially since the “party faithful” stood by Dede until she endorsed the democratic candidate after withdrawing from the race.


While the election is still a quite a ways away, the ground is fertile for the republicans to pick up quite a few seats. The pickup of seats on the senate side would be a very welcome thing to conservatives. The filibuster proof majorities in both the house and the senate make it much easier for the President to get his very left leaning agenda passed. I personally do not believe that they take back the house, but they can make it more balanced.


Among the positions the party is discussing are gun rights, defense of marriage act, opposition to the pork laden stimulus bill, and market-based solutions to the country’s needs in the areas of healthcare and energy.


The party members from more liberal leaning states are against this type of resolution. The northeast states tend to trend to the liberal side. While there are republicans from such states like Maine, they are very moderate. Olympia Snowe is the republican that President Obama is hoping to win over to his side on the vote for Obamacare. The reality remains that a staunch conservative would have a very difficult time getting elected to her seat.


The republicans do need to have a very cohesive message for the upcoming election season. With the economy remaining in the slowdown that it is currently in, funds are going to be harder to come by. People will not be able to make the same type of donations that they may have made in the past. This makes this discussion all the more important.


This is especially true of the senate race in Florida. Charlie Crist, the Florida Governor, is prime example of people that may very well be cut off if this resolution does indeed pass. The Governor is now backing away from his statements in the past of his approval of the stimulus bill earlier this year. His opponent, Marco Rubio, is a staunch conservative from the state legislator. His voting record and public statements would put him in the position to get the backing of the party and all that entails.


Another person on the cutting block could be Lindsey Graham. His statements on cap and trade, his voting for confirmation of judges such as Justice Sotomayor would put him in peril of losing the party funding and support. While established candidates can raise money on their own, they will lose the party machine. That machine is still necessary even if you can raise funds. The party is in charge of the get out the vote efforts. The state party is also in charge in getting out poll observers, putting up signs, and many other efforts that are necessary to win elections. The elections themselves are limited in the funds that they can spend, while the party is not.


My personal belief is that the party needs to make very clear where they stand on issues such as the national debt, taxes, spending, healthcare reform, market based solutions, and limiting the powers of the federal government. The social issues should be left to the state parties, candidates and the voters.

here for article

Dear Mr. Thrush - Politico

Dear Mr. Thrush:

I am writing to you in regards to your post calling American’s speaking up about their views on healthcare as "spam". Dissent and dialogue with our representatives should not be characterized in this manner. It seems that you have fallen into the manner of the left by saying we are anti-reform. This could not be further than the truth.

This seems it is being characterized as an all or nothing thing. If you don’t agree with their plan, you want the status quo. We want real reform. Reform that will lower costs while keeping the ability to maintain private relationships with our doctors and gives choices to all Americans. Top line tax deductions for premiums, tort reform to lower malpractice insurance rates for doctors and hospitals, allowing small businesses to join co-ops to lower costs, allow consumers to purchase policies across state lines. If a New Yorker can purchase insurance less expensively from a company in Arkansas, then they should be allowed to do that. The New York companies will be forced to lower the costs in order to stay competitive. Fixing Medicare needs to be put in the front of the line. Medicare pays below cost for treatment, then that loss is then passed onto the consumer. The government is causing part of the problem.

You and I had an email dialogue a few days ago regarding this topic. You told me that targeting the Chiefs of Staff is unusual tactic. I will give you that it may be unusual, but these are unusual times. Conservatives have allowed themselves to be painted by a broad brush over the past eight years. The far left painted President Bush as one of the most evil men that ever lived. They were loud and persistent with this message. We became discouraged and lost our way.

The speed of which the far left is pushing legislation through that will forever change the fabric of this country has been our wake-up call. We have taken some pages straight out of the left’s handbook. We are protesting, we are speaking out, and we are contacting our representatives. This is not “spam”; it is conservatives and independents standing up for the America that they want to pass onto their children. The media needs to get used to the idea that we will publically stand up and say what needs to be said; President Obama is pushing this country to European-style socialism. We will not go quietly. Unusual tactics are necessary.


Best Regards,



Just a Conservative Girl

Thanks for helping with the emails

Apparently people have not only been reading my blog, but have been taking some of the info to heart and acting on it. Here is an article on Politico about my little blog.

Pattie - Thanks so much for pointing this article out to me.

WE CAN'T STOP NOW - KEEP THEM COMING, WE ARE MAKING AN IMPACT


July 23, 2009Categories: Health Care

Spam tsunami hits Dem chiefs of staff

An anti-health care reform Web site has published the names of moderate Democratic chiefs of staff in the House -- spawning a Spam tsunami inundating inboxes with more than 500 emails since Wednesday, according to aides.

Energized by Nancy Pelosi's claim she had the votes to pass health care reform,blogger "just a conservative girl" penned a "Dear Fellow Patriot" letter to readers asking them if they could "please [be] joining us in emailing the Chiefs of Staff of the following moderate to conservative Democrats?"

She then published the names and emails of 55.

"I've been dealing with these since yesterday... it's clogging my inbox," said one chief of staff, less peeved than amused.

The emails range from ALLCAPS:

PLEASE DO NOT VOTE FOR THIS DISASTROUS "HEALTHCARE REFORM" BILL. PLEASE DO NOT DESTROY THE VERY FABRIC OF THIS COUNTRY.PLEASE DO NOT BE MANIPULATED INTO SELLING ITS CITIZENS OUT FOR A SOCIALIST AGENDA.PLEASE DO NOT FORCE AMERICANS TO BECOME ENSLAVED AND IMPOVERISHEDPLEASE- PLEASE PLEASELISTEN TO THE CITIZENS WHO WORK TO PAY YOUR SALARY. NOT THE ONES WHO REFUSE TO WORK.

To the partisan:

PS - Ask your congressperson to remind the President that the financial problems we have are not just those of the former President. I seem to recall that for the 2 years prior to the current President, we had a democratic majority in both house of congress.
To the politely persistent:

Being the Chief of Staff for a Congressional Representative is a thankless job. In this position, you clearly have the ability to lean on your Representative to vote in-line with what the American people need and want.