Tag Archives: Republican

Now is the perfect time to build a bigger tent and stop the rhetoric of personal attacks.

Today SCOTUS “jumped the shark” with its 5-4 ruling ACA (Affordable Care Act) constitutional. In the article Palin: Rise up Against ObamaCare, The Largest Tax Hike in History posted on Breitbart and written by Mrs. Palin, focuses on damaging behavior conducted by the 111th United States Congress and our current president who passed and signed the ACA into law and the subsequent SCOTUS ruling.

Thank you, SCOTUS. This Obamacare ruling fires up the troops as America’s eyes are opened! Thank God.

This proves to be such an unsettling time in America as we undergo the fundamental transformation that Barack Obama promised he would do to us if elected. Obamacare was dealt in deception and confusion by flooding the public with an overwhelming amount of conflicting “rationale” via thousands of pages of unread legislative detail, which is the radical left’s M.O. Obama promised the American people this wasn’t a tax and that he’d never raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000. We now see that this is the largest tax increase in history. READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE HERE

Now is the perfect time to engage in principle and fact based discussions.

We can and should build a larger tent. Stop indicting those with differing opinions as “radical left”, “far left”, “left-wing-nuts”, “Progressives”, “Progs”, “Commies”, “Maoist”, “Liberals” or “Libtards”. Drop the personal attack strategy and focus on their behavior and the results of that behavior.

Obama and his supporters want their opposition to engage in divisive rhetoric. Let’s not play their game.

Is our two-party system a political big box store stocked with products we don’t want to buy?

The red "GOP" logo used by the party...

The red “GOP” logo used by the party for its website (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I agree with those who are saying the Republican Party isn’t representing their position. Yes, there’s something rotten in our two-party political system and I think it is this:

Political party’s PUSH their hand picked candidates at the voting CONSUMERS. Which gives the electorate a steady diet of candidates who fall short of what they want or expect. This causes the voters to be in a constant state of dissatisfaction.

If the electorate PULLED or recruited their candidates to run for office their trust, satisfaction and participation in elections would soar.

Now imagine that in the following definitions of PUSH and PULL that manufacture = Republican Party (national level), channel members = Republican Party (local level), product = political candidates and consumer demand = voters.

PUSH = (physical distribution definition) A manufacturing strategy aimed at other channel members rather than the end consumer. The manufacturer attempts to entice other channel members to carry its product through trade allowances, inventory stocking procedures and pricing policies.

Political PUSH distribution assumes that its party members will adapt to or adopt the party’s agendas and candidates.

PULL = (physical distribution definition) A manufacturing strategy aimed at the end consumer of a product. The product is pulled through the channel by consumer demand initiated by promotional efforts and inventory stocking procedures.

Political PULL distribution asserts voters demands and concerns and expects their party and its candidates to represent those demands and concerns.

Political PUSH distribution is nanny politics whereas political PULL distribution is voter participation politics.

It is the lack of palatable choices that keeps us from feeling we are truly being represented.

It’s the same for consumer goods and services. If the products we truly want aren’t on the store shelves we have to settle for what is there.

U.S. politics today is like the Big 3 auto makers of the seventies. When car buyers voiced their dissatisfaction with the choices given them by Detroit the automakers responded with, “They’ll buy what we make.”

Competition changed or readjusted Detroit’s marketing philosophy from PUSH toward PULL.

We can do the same thing with our political products.

That is a goal we can set for another election cycle.

This cycle I WILL VOTE FOR ROMNEY not because he’s my candidate but because I WANT TO GET OFF THIS MARXIST CRAZY TRAIN ASAP.

Congress wants to sell their votes to the highest bidders again!

Republican members of Congress have been shopping around their idea to reinstitute vote bargaining, negotiating or outright retailing for both legislative and administrative earmarks…possibly even Deutschmarks. All because they are finding it hard to cobble together 218 votes to pass any legislation or so they say. This comes on the heals of a new congressional ban on insider trading. I wonder if one has anything to do with the other. Oh well, one window closes and another one opens.

Given that Congress instituted an apparent loosely enforced or partial moratorium on earmarks (still $9.5 billion has managed to leak out) I find this congressional body to be out-of-order and out-of-touch with their bosses. Although that $9.5 billion is down from $16.5 billion it looks as if Washington D.C. has a huge leak in their fiscal plumbing to lose that much money after the tap has supposedly turned off. Hey bureaucrats! You know those buckets you keep telling us your spending is just a drop in? Well in case no one has informed you, those buckets have been overflowing for quite some time now…time to stop those leaks or we’ll all drown in the overflow.

The taxpayers, voters and even the couch-potatoes cashing government checks were appalled by the way congressional members clamored to sell their votes in 2009-2010.

But the votes during that period of time weren’t just sold for earmarks embedded in the legislative acts. Their votes were also bought by using “grant” monies given at point-of-purchase to the Congressperson’s or Senator’s district or state.

Earmarks are easily found when embedded into a bill whereas grants for votes are a stealthy way of making the payoff. The bagmen used to buy votes for ObamaCare, Cap and Trade and Dodd Frank Bills were the Departments of: Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, EPA, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Transportation and Veterans Affairs. These payoffs are called “administrative earmarks”.

An earmark payoff for a vote by any name smells just as foul.

Quid pro quo (something for something) is supposed to be illegal in our Federal Government. How are the citizens of our country to reconcile obvious institutionalized payoffs and corruption for votes on legislation the people have said they don’t want?

I’m sure that these “honorable” men and women have all covered their butts sufficiently so prosecution of their corruption isn’t a remote possibility.

Elected officials selling their vote in exchange for someonelse’s future vote or for grant funds or for any other reason is simply corruption with a nod and a wink from a smiley face.

Related articles