Switching Teams

It seems around every election there always seems to be groups coming out claiming to be members of one party who support the other candidate.

The Patch ran a story just this week about "republicans for Obama" which you can read in full HERE.  The story shares a couple testimonies of "republicans" who are now backing Obama such as this one:

Bernie Geaghan of Salem, a long-time Republican who voted for George W. Bush in 2000, said he also decided to support Obama on Nov. 6.

The "rhetoric coming out of the Republican Party lately has just turned me off,"  Geaghan said.

So clearly he's a "republican" because after all he supported Bush in 2000.  What about 2004 and 2008?  Voting republican once in a decade does not make one a republican.

You also have to love that reporting... "rhetoric".  No Details as to what that "rhetoric" might be.

So does Bernie not have a problem with Democrats implying the Mitt Romney killed the wife of a former coworker or any other of their far fetched claims?  Apparently that's ok.

Then you have this testimony:

Former state Sen. Rick Russman of Kingston, another life-long Republican, said he joined Republicans for Obama because of Romney positions on the environment.

Russman accused Republicans of trying to roll back environmental regulations, and he said Romney policies would open the door to drilling off of the New Hampshire coastline. Obama recognizes certain environmental protections, including smart investments for clean energy, according to Russman.

This "republican" donated $200 toward Jeanne Shaheen in 2008 and donated $1000 for her campaign in 2002, was a "republican for Kerry" in 2004, and was labeled as a "big Lynch supporter and was part of a voter's alliance that endorsed Democrat Peter Burling for NH Senate.  The fact that he's supporting yet another Democrat is now news?  Really?

From what I see of this list there isn't a single "republican" who stood out as a real republican.  In fact of the names I find on the web, they are people who year after year, campaign after campaign donate and support Democrats.

This isn't too shocking though because other "republicans" for Obama have been exposed for actually being Democrats like the two women in the story HERE.

Compare that to this story found HERE about REAL Democrats who actually supported, voted for and in some cases actually campaigned for Obama who are now supporting Mitt Romney.

Happy 2012

Happy 2012 to everyone out there in cyber-land!

What an upcoming year we have ahead.  With this being a major election year where even the presidency up for grabs, the lumping Democrats took in 2010's elections and the fact they have nothing positive about their record to run against, Democrats are not holding back at all with their punches.  Just look at the editorials of the major NH papers, all the Democratic regulars are pushing letters out on a weekly basis attacking anything and everything they can find.  Our friends at Blue Hampshire and MoveOn.org  can't write about their parties accomplishments so they too have gone into full attack mode.

One problem the Republican party has in the upcoming year is the fact it has standards.  An example of this is the primary.  Just look at how Republicans are willing to point out the faults of others in their own party.  Democrats had a flawed candidate with very little overall experience, no foreign experience, who had ties to very questionable candidates including a known cop killer and who even launched his political career in that same cop killers own living room.  Not only did they not see fault in any of this they went on to elect that man president.

How many people recall all the hype the Democrats claimed would happen if they won in 2006 and 2008?

Since they took over the house and senate the economy has grown worse, unemployment has gotten worse, the situation in the Middle East has grown worse, the deficit spending has hit record highs... and so on.

All the things they blasted Bush for they've done worse.  Gitmo is still open, the patriot act was extended and expanded to give the government even more control to spy, we've gotten involved in additional conflicts in the Middle East, Obama's spending levels makes Bush's look responsible and so on.

Do they rail their own party for their failures?  Of course not.  Instead they focus on Mitt Romney's not bothering to campain in NH since he's leading polls for the primary by 40%.

I guess they'd rather focus on that than discuss how after Obama said Iraq's war is over that country is now slowly failing into civil unrest.  Or debating how much of other peoples things should be taken away by force and handed over to those who choose not to work (ie the occupy groups).

Sit back and enjoy all you political junkies, it's going to be a fun year!

GOP Debate and Liberal Zombies

This weekend I was in Manchester with my family and I had to stop at the baseball card store just past the Verizon Center for my son's baseball team, while I was there my daughter pointed out there were zombies walking past the store.  Sure enough there were hoards of people dressed like zombies as well as the NH Ghostbusters showing up in force for some kind of flash mob event.  Seeing all the people walking around like mindless zombies had me wondering if the Democrats were in town trying to take attention away from the Republican debate (which I believe may be why they continue to push the Weiner story).

I share that story because sure enough Blue Hampshire once again proves out for me that Democrats are unable to think for themselves.  In their write up on the Republican debate, which you can read in full HERE, they state:

Think Progress  took on the top 6 health care myths from last night's debate. This is handy rebuttal information for those who have Republicans in the family.

In other words here are your talking points all you unthinking zombies.

Being I like to stay informed I followed their link and looked at the 6 "myths" they choose to debunk.  Considering the source I expected bias comment but I always feel the best defense is looking at the counter arguments.

They point to 6 comments made in the debate, 2 by Bachmann, 1 from Romney, 1 from Pawlenty and 2 from Santorum.

You can read them yourself but I'm only interested in debating the ones from Bachmann and Romney since they are the front runners coming out of the debate.

CLAIM 1 FROM BACHMANN: The Congressional Budget Office said the Affordable Care Act will kill 800,000 jobs. FACT: The CBO actually found that some people would leave the workforce or work less because they can find affordable health coverage elsewhere. This is a reduction in the supply of labor, not a reduction in the supply of jobs.

So claiming people would simply stop working to suck off the wallet of others who now pay their health care is somehow a better response?

Regardless of how you look at it, be it how Bachmann put it or how our liberal friends put it, 800,000 less people will be working either because their jobs no longer exist or as I see as a worse option, that they simply choose not to work because they will get the rest of us to pay for what they worked for before.

CLAIM 2 FROM BACHMANN: Obamacare took $500 billion out of Medicare, shifted it to build a new entitlement for young people. FACT: The health law does not cut the current Medicare budget; it slows the growth in the program by removing $500 billion from future spending over the next 10 years.

(unlined part added by me)

So Backmann claims Medicare was cut by $500 billion to which Democrats say no that's wrong but then turn around and say $500 billion was removed from it's budget over the next decade.  And that proves her wrong how exactly since it's saying the exact same thing?

CLAIM 3 FROM ROMNEY: I would issue an executive order paving the way for Obamacare waivers to all 50 states. FACT: The executive branch and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) don’t have the authority to grant blanket waivers — those powers are reserved for Congress.

In the case of Romney I am actually not defending him.  I point to this only because it's a perfect example of what makes Romney a bad choice.

That said however, let's examine the issue.  Mitt wishes to give states the authority to opt out of ObamaCare.  Interestingly enough, Obama himself already stated he'd be willing to allow states to opt out of the anti Constitution act as well.  So Democrats cannot argue that wavers would be a bad thing, their only argument here is that Romney claims he would give them the power via executive order to which they are stating the Executive Branch and Department of Health and Human Services doesn't have the authority to grant blanket waivers... yet in this article I just linked to here they are granting waivers by the hundreds.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) – the federal agency charged with ensuring the law’s implementation – has also been issuing hundreds of waivers to businesses that argue the law will cause their costs to skyrocket.

We've also seen judges in a few states now rule ObamaCare anti constitutional.

If Mitt were smarter and knew the Constitution well, he would have argued from day one that RomneyCare as implemented in MA was allowed under the 10th Amendment giving states rights while ObamaCare is not one of the specific duties listed in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution.  That is the big distinction between both acts.

It's going to be interesting watching the race going forward.  I was a strong Ron Paul guy in the last race but Ron's too old now and missed his window.  He's coming off as old and tired even though he still is dead on when it comes to most issues.

Bachmann clearly came out the winner because she's the one people are talking about the most.  It doesn't matter who had the best responses when it comes to politics, it doesn't even matter who honestly finished the best... it comes down to who finished better then expected and has the most people talking about them.  Mitt was the front runner and was the one everyone was expecting to be the winner... he's popular and had his strong supporters claiming he won in many polls but when I turn on the news he's not the one they are talking about, Bachmann is.  That in my opinion makes her the clear winner of the debate and clearly someone I'll be reading more about in the next few weeks.

Voting Addresses

Once again Blue Hampshire shows it's hypocrisy, this time in an article discussing Mitt Romney who had just sold his Massachusetts home and is looking to relocate to NH.  Being that he is in transition between locations he has been living with his son and used his sons address to vote.

Being that Democrats here in NH push law after law allowing people to register from hotel rooms, college dorms and other various locations you would think they would have no problem with Mitt's vote, but yet this morning on Blue Hampshire they wrote the following:

Isn't that nice?  He has a home here in Wolfeboro, and in other states, but because he has relatives in Massachusetts, he can vote there too.

(Insert winger conspiracy theory snark here about socialists bussed up north by the cartload to vote illegally in our presidential primary.)

I'm surprised this story has received so little traction.  Aren't there, um, laws against voting in a state in which you are not a resident?

College students who use their parents address for legal residency for car insurance, health insurance, college loans etc etc etc who register and vote in the town they are going to school in is not a problem but when a high level Republican does it they question whether it's legal or not.  The real irony is that it was illegal here in NH until Democrats weaken the laws.

If you want a laugh read the Democrats defending this same behavior in Ed Naile's articles found HERE or HERE.  Its all good when they doing it but they want prosecution when Republicans do it. 

Not only do democrats defend this behavior when it helps them, they even pass laws that would make it illegal for questioning it.  Is Blue Hampshire attempting to suppress Mitt's vote?  By their own laws that would make what they are doing a class B felony if they attempt it here in NH.