Who Are The NRSC? Why Do They Back Liberal Republicans?

Yesterday, I wrote about establishment Republicans and their apparent opposition to all things Tea Party. Just who the heck are these people?

John Cornyn

We have just had a key election in Alaska. Incumbent Republican Lisa Murkowski went down in defeat to Joe Miller in the Senate primary. Joe Miller was the Conservative ‘Tea Party’ candidate. The head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee flew to Alaska to aid Lisa Murkowski with the primary. John Cornyn (R), Junior Senator from Texas, had said that his committee will observe strict neutrality.

According to Miller’s campaign there are still national operatives in the state, and they suspected an effort to sway the election results in favor of Murkowski. There were still some 1,500 absentee votes yet to be counted.

According to Tea Party activists in Cornyn’s home state of Texas, protests were held at all of Cornyn’s offices to make it clear that they did not want the GOP or the NRSC interfering with Alaska’s primary race. There has been a pattern of interference, back-room deals and underhanded tactics where Conservative Patriots and their candidates have been concerned.

The people are speaking their choices. There is a Conservative tsunami just over the horizon. If the RNC and the NRSC think that we will stand still for more of what we got from them when they were last in power, they have another think a- comin’.

The National Republican Party has been an abject failure. We need only to look around us to see the result of that. It was the irresponsible actions of the (then) majority party under George Bush that are directly responsible for Barack Hussein Obama being in office.

There are more primaries coming up soon. Delaware’s Republican primary is on Sept 14. The Tea Party Express has endorsed strong Conservative Christine O’Donnell over US Representative Mike Castle, the choice of the RNC and NRSC. It’s like this folks… Mike Castle is one of the biggest RINOs in Washington. This dude has been in virtual lockstep with Barack Obama’s agenda from the beginning. He needs to be defeated and it looks very much like he will be.

Message to the RNC. Keep it up and you’ll see the destruction of your party. You’re under as much scrutiny as the DeMarxists are. You worked very hard to lose our trust. Now you’re going to have to work much harder to get it back. Backing RINOs isn’t a very good start.

Semper Vigilans, Semper Fidelis

© Skip MacLure 2010

Your rating: None


Hey, 4speed!

I want to see you square Skip's argument above that the Conservatives of the past 8 years failed and shouldn't be re-elected with your argument that we can't blame what happened in the past on what happened today.

Then I want to see you wiggle out of your argument on this level.  You say Obama can't blame Bush for our economic situation today.  But if that's the case than Bush can't blame Clinton for the situation he inherited, Clinton can't blame Bush I, etc., etc.  But more importantly, if the policies of those who governed in the past can't be blamed for the conditions of today, then how can you blame Obama today for the conditions that will exist tomorrow?  Indeed, the argument you set up is ad infinitum, and therefore fails automatically.  In your argument, you can't rightfully apportion blame to anyone for anything at any time.

Wiggle away, genius!

How can you blame Obama today ? Here is one way

From Investor's business Daily.....link, and excerpt 

The CBO's Budget and Economic Outlook published this month puts the cost of Operation Iraqi Freedom at $709 billion for military and related activities, including training of Iraqi forces and diplomatic operations. The projected cost of the stimulus, not counting interest on the added debt, is $862 billion.

"Relative to the size of the economy, this year's deficit is expected to be the second largest shortfall in the past 65 years — 9.1% of gross domestic product, exceeded only by last year's deficit of 9.9% of GDP," CBO wrote. This as unemployment hovers just under 10%. Recovery summer or recovery bummer?

The CBO analysis shows that you can't, as Barack Obama the candidate and others have tried to do, blame the unconscionable debt as far as they eye can see on the Iraq War. Iraq was President Bush's war. Petraeus was Bush's general. This is President Obama's debt.

Want more ?

What? Wait...

... so the article admits that nearly 1/2 of the deficit comes from the wars that Bush started (without a declaration of war from Congress, mind you).  It also doesn't admit that TARP was a Bush program that pushed that bill to > 1/2 the current deficit.  It also doesn't make note that during war time our country ALWAYS runs in budget deficit to fund the war (something President Bush tried to hide with accounting tricks).

So again, just under 50% of the debt comes from Bush under a Republican House.  The program that pushed it over 50% came from Bush under a Democratic House during a global financial crisis that was caused, in large part, by policies of President Bush and the Republican controlled House.

Want more?

It also doesn't make note

It also doesn't make note that during war time our country ALWAYS runs in budget deficit to fund the war (something President Bush tried to hide with accounting tricks).

Bush refused to submit the cost of his military operations as part of his budget. As a consequence, the Iraq war was funded through "emergency supplementals" demanded by the administration after the budget process had ended. Every penny of that was red ink.

How about this one, Deanie. Just the facts

Thomas Sowell, IBD editorial, telling it like it is.  I know you're not used to hearing the truth, but here it is. 

No president of the United States can create either a budget deficit or a budget surplus. All spending bills originate in the House of Representatives, and all taxes are voted into law by Congress. Democrats controlled both houses of Congress before Barack Obama became president. The deficit he inherited was created by the congressional Democrats, including Sen. Barack Obama, who did absolutely nothing to oppose the runaway spending. He was one of the biggest of the big spenders.

The last time the federal government had a budget surplus, Bill Clinton was president, so it was called "the Clinton surplus." But Republicans controlled the House of Representatives, where all spending bills originate, for the first time in 40 years. It was also the first budget surplus in more than a quarter of a century.

The only direct power that any president has that can affect deficits and surpluses is the power to veto spending bills. President Bush did not veto enough spending bills, but Sen. Obama and his fellow Democrats in control of Congress were the ones who passed the spending bills.

Today, with Barack Obama in the White House, allied with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi in charge in Congress, the national debt is a bigger share of the national output than it has been in more than half a century. And its share is projected to continue going up for years to come, becoming larger than national output in 2012.


Seems ignoring history is serving your false narrative

You and the editorial writer have it all wrong.  All the Bush spending that ballooned the deficit happened when Republican's controlled the House.  Not after 2006, when Democrats controlled it.

Want more?

Finally, 4speed

You've done nothing whatsoever to square your arguments with Skip or with your propensity to blame President Obama for everything while excusing President Bush for blame of anything.

Epic. Fail. Again.

So Democrats are running on their successes?

Big spenders are staying in office in November ?

Sure, IBD has nothing on Deanies Vision

ALL KNOWING ALL POWERFUL Deandos. YA, can't argue with Obama's record of accomplishments

Oooo, good one!

What a great, substantive response!!!   ::rolls eyes::

/sarcasm off.