July 21-23, 2014
Jul 21 06:11 Supporting amnesty a loser Jul 21 07:21 Will Reid punt? Jul 21 23:29 Enough with the optics talk Jul 22 07:47 Minnesota Department of Incompetence Jul 22 14:44 Halbig v. Burwell winners Jul 23 01:20 Ambiguous or straightforward? Jul 23 07:24 Obama's pacifism has cost lives Jul 23 08:28 Sloppy assumptions, bad laws Jul 23 09:07 #FireReid started here
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Supporting amnesty a loser
John Hinderaker's post is must-reading for GOP political consultants, especially those who think that supporting amnesty is a must.
Still, I have never understood the claim that open borders is a winning political issue for the Democrats. That is borne out in the most recent Rasmussen Reports survey:
Most voters don't want any of the young illegal immigrants who've recently arrived here housed in their state and say any legislation passed by Congress to deal with the problem should focus on sending them home as soon as possible.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 59% of Likely U.S. Voters believe the primary focus of any new immigration legislation passed by Congress should be to send the young illegal immigrants back home as quickly as possible. Just 27% say it should focus instead on making it easier for these illegal immigrants to remain in the United States. Fourteen percent (14%) are undecided.
For those DC consultants that think supporting Lindsey Graham-John McCain style amnesty is essential, it's time they started listening to the people. It's time they started thinking about following the facts, not conventional wisdom.
Believing the lying bastards at La Raza is foolish. Ditto with trusting Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid. These senators and organizations couldn't find the mainstream of American politics with a GPS and an unlimited supply of gas. John's advice is spot on:
If Republicans unite around the position that all or substantially all of the most recent wave of illegal entrants should be sent back to their home countries as soon as possible, it will give them a big boost as the election season begins to heat up.
Winning 60% of the vote of people who rate immigration their top issue is a winning proposition. It's all upside, no downside. Put differently, it's a winner.
Posted Monday, July 21, 2014 6:11 AM
No comments.
Will Reid punt?
The illegal immigant crisis is still getting tons of attention, with Democrats looking particularly inept. According to John Sununu's op-ed , this crisis has put Harry Reid in a box of his own making:
Harry Reid has a border problem. More accurately, America has a border problem that Reid, as Senate majority leader, will need to help solve in the next three weeks. The Nevada senator's difficulties stem from his dislike of the bipartisan solution recently offered, disagreement with the approach suggested by President Obama, and disdain for anything passed by the House of Representatives.
Harry Reid's biggest problem is that his actions are hurting his candidates in their re-election campaigns. The conventional wisdom is that President Obama's unpopularity is hurting Democrats. In this instance, that conventional wisdom is right. There's a new truth that's emerging that should frighten senators like Mark Udall, Mark Pryor, Mary Landrieu and Kay Hagans.
That new truth is that gridlock will continue as long as Harry Reid is the majority leader. The emerging truth is that bipartisanship is impossible with Reid acting like a tyrant.
If you're Mike McFadden, why wouldn't you ask Al Franken why he's consistently suppported Harry Reid's my-way-or-the-highway tactics? If you're Tom Cotton, why wouldn't you question Mark Pryor about why he's let Harry Reid run roughshod over bipartisan, bicameral legislation? If you're Corey Gardner, why wouldn't you ask Mark Udall to explain why he hasn't stood up to Harry Reid's anti-American diatribes?
Naturally
Naturally, Obama tried to throw some of the blame onto George W. Bush. Citing a 2008 law designed to prevent human trafficking, the president argued that rules requiring court hearings for minors coming from countries other than Mexico, such as Honduras and Guatemala, were preventing him from taking faster action.
This is typical Obama tactics. That being said, let's highlight the BS factor in the Democrats' non sequitur response. The 2008 law didn't cause the flood of unaccompanied youths and adults from Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras to the Tex-Mex border. That flood was caused by President Obama telling Central America that he wouldn't deport people if they got to the US.
The White House called for changes to that law to allow for faster reviews and deportations. In response, a bipartisan bill introduced by Republican Senator John Cornyn and Democratic Representative Henry Cuellar, both of Texas, would change the law to address those concerns and would provide additional resources for border enforcement and immigration hearings.
This is where Reid's problems begin. He likes the law the way it is, and views the crisis quite differently than most of his colleagues. In an interview last week, he stated unequivocally, 'The border is secure.'
This is where the Democrats' problems start, too. Being led by a tyrant isn't the image they want to project to their constituents right before a tough election. Still, that's the hand they're being dealt. That's the hand Democrats are getting forced to play.
Simply put, Harry Reid is the bigger nightmare for Democratic senators than President Obama. He's the my-way-or-the-highway tyrant that's preventing a solution from being reached. If I were getting paid to advise Senate Republican candidates, I'd have hired a staffer finding statements where my Democrat opponent said he/she supported Harry Reid, then turning that into a video with Harry Reid saying that the "border is secure." I'd finish that ad with this question: Do you want someone who listens to you or someone that defends Harry Reid?
Posted Monday, July 21, 2014 7:26 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 21-Jul-14 08:11 AM
Gary:
As a follow up question all of those Senate candidates should be asking in every speech so Senator Franken (or who else) so you agree with Harry Reid that the border is secure and we don't have to do anything.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Enough with the optics talk
If I hear another pundit talk about the bad optics hurting President Obama while Israel kills terrorists and people are murdered by Russian-trained military terrorists or while south-of-the-border cartels ignore the Tex-Mex border, I'll scream.
This isn't about the optics of going on one fundraising junket after another. This isn't about whether President Obama can stay in touch with his national security team.
President Obama is justifiably getting hammered because he appears to be indifferent to solving the nation's biggest crises. When Jennifer Palmieri says that President Obama didn't want to change his schedule because he didn't want to give "the American people...a false sense of crisis", she's reading from President Obama's delusional script. I'm not worried about false crises. I'm worried about the real crises that President Obama is ignoring.
This wouldn't be a topic of conversation if Americans got the sense that President Obama a) took his job seriously or b) knew how to handle these foreign policy crises. Clearly, he's in over his head. Clearly, he thinks that the world is better off without the United State throwing its weight around.
It's one thing for the White House press secretary talks about the tranquil world we're living in. It's another when our Secretary of State parrots that notion.
News flash to the White House: there are bad people out there committing acts of war. There are people who are flooding the United States with tons of illegal immigrants. There are militaries that are trying to gobble up other countries.
Meanwhile, President Obama meanders from hamburger shop to burger joint, from coffee shop to coffee shop while chatting with "ordinary folks." What's needed is a leader who understands that the world needs the United State to bring moral clarity to these crises. The world is a terrible, frightening neighborhood when appeasers like President Obama pull the United States from the world stage.
That doesn't mean US boots on the ground. It means, in this instance, that the US arms and trains Ukrainians so that they can push back against Putin's Russia. If the US doesn't do that, then we should prepare for more situations where Putin's Russia keeps expanding their campaign of militarism.
Posted Monday, July 21, 2014 11:29 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 22-Jul-14 09:33 AM
The question is which is worse, apathy or incompetence? Peggy Noonan thinks Obama has "checked out," and I agree. I therefore give the slight edge to apathy in this case, because Obama doing nothing is better than Obama doing the wrong thing, which he most likely would do (or has already done.)
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 22-Jul-14 03:01 PM
Why choose? I'd argue that he's clueless and he doesn't give a shit. Prove me wrong. LOL
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 22-Jul-14 03:05 PM
Gary:
I think part of the problem going on is that Michael Moore and other liberals made a big point about how George Bush was in a school when 9-11 happened and he didn't go back to Washington immediately. Now where is Michael Moore rushing to make his next movie about what the President has been doing these last two weeks.
One thing not said in your post is that history will show that President Bush when 9-11 happened he took seriously and focused a great deal of Presidency on trying to solve that problem and trying to protect the American people. As you said President Obama doesn't take his job seriously and he doesn't think the United States should throw it's weight around.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 22-Jul-14 04:32 PM
Frankly, Walter, I don't care about the back history. I'm just pissed that we're letting this dialog continue without calling them on it.
Minnesota Department of Incompetence
Jay Kolls' article highlights the Department of Human Services' incompetence:
The Minnesota Department of Human Services sent 3,000 letters to homes of MinnesotaCare recipients who may have received incorrect monthly billing statements after they applied for health coverage through MNsure, the state's new health care exchange. The letter tells those recipients the bills may have been wrong for several months, but they encouraged those clients to keep paying the bills anyway.
It's ironic (and infuriating) that the Department of Human Services quickly sent out letters to MinnesotaCare applicant to keep paying their insurance premiums but they're still working on sending out the letters to people who applied for MinnesotaCare but didn't submit all of the paperwork that's required for application approval.
Put a little differently, Dayton's Department of Human Services wants its money ASAP but it isn't that interested in getting MinnesotaCare applicants insured.
That's a terrible priority to set.
State Sen. Michelle Benson, (R) Ham Lake, sits on the MNsure Legislative Oversight Committee. She says the MNsure vendors still play a role in this problem even though the billing is handled by DHS.
"If a private company told its clients to keep paying monthly health insurance premiums even if they might be incorrect, the Minnesota Department of Commerce would come in and clean house," Benson said.
In addition to the Department of Commerce getting involved, it isn't a stretch to think that Lori Swanson, Minnesota's Attorney General, might start an investigation if a private company did this.
MNsure representatives did not want to do an on-camera interview with us because DHS handles all of its billing practices.
DHS officials also declined to comment on-camera but issued a statement that says, in part, "We are working with our IT staff and MNsure vendors to correct these issues, and MinnesotaCare coverage for those households remains in place."
It isn't surprising that the Dayton administration didn't want to answer KSTP's questions. They're probably thinking that the last thing they want is to subject themselves to tough questions about a difficult situation.
With MNsure certain to not work again when this year's open enrollment period begins and with the Dayton administration's incompetence still manifesting itself, it's a matter of whether Minnesotans will accept this level of incompetence. If they don't, this won't be a good year for Democrats.
Posted Tuesday, July 22, 2014 7:47 AM
No comments.
Halbig v. Burwell winners
Brian Beutler's article attempts to make the case that Republicans might ultimately lose if the Supreme Court upholds today's ruling:
An adverse Supreme Court ruling would throw the ACA into chaos in three dozen states, including huge states like Florida and Texas. The vast majority of beneficiaries in those states would be suddenly unable to afford their premiums (and might even be required to reimburse the government for unlawful subsidies they've already spent). Millions of people would drop out of the insurance marketplaces. Premiums would skyrocket for the very sick people who need coverage the most.
But that's where the conservatives' "victory" would turn into a big political liability for red- and purple-state Republicans. An adverse ruling would create a problem that could be fixed in two ways: With an astonishingly trivial technical corrections bill in Congress, or with Healthcare.gov states setting up their own exchanges. If you're a Republican senator from a purple Healthcare.gov state - Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Nevada, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, and others - you'll be under tremendous pressure to pass the legislative fix. If you're a Republican governor in any Healthcare.gov state, many thousands of your constituents will expect you to both pressure Congress to fix the problem, and prepare to launch your own exchange.
Conservatives would like to believe that they could just leave something as deeply rooted as Obamacare permanently hobbled, or that they could use the ensuing chaos as leverage, to force Democrats to reopen the books, and perhaps gut the law in other ways. I think they're miscalculating. Just as government shutdowns and debt default threats don't create leverage because the public doesn't support inviting chaos in pursuit of unrelated goals, I don't think an adverse ruling in Halbig will create leverage for the GOP.
I think Beutler isn't just wrong about the leverage. I think he's kidding himself if he thinks this puts Republicans in a difficult position.
By the time the Supreme Court rules on this lawsuit, it's quite possible that there will be Republican majorities in the House and Senate. If that's the case, think of this scenario:
Congress might well change Section 36B as part of a bigger bill that's sure to include other provisions that Republicans like and that President Obama doesn't like.
For instance, a new bill might include a change to 36B along with a change that eliminates the medical device tax, another change that changes the definition of a Qualified Health Plan, aka QHP, and a change that reduces the penalties for the employer and individual mandates.
Employers and families would certainly love a tiny penalty for not obeying the law. Young people would love being able to buy a catatrophic policy with a HSA to cover other expenses. There's no question that eliminating the medical device tax would make medical device manufacturers happy.
At that point, President Obama signs the bill that's essentially a fresh start that dramatically improves the ACA or he vetoes a popular bill that forces families to pay higher insurance premiums, that doesn't repeal an unpopular tax and he alienates major parts of his base. In my opinion, that's 'Rock meets hard place' territory for President Obama. The good news is that it's great news for employers, families and young people.
All that's required is for Republicans to pass a bill that's filled with popular provisions. Since a majority of people don't like the bill's specifics, that shouldn't be that difficult.
Finally, Beutler insists that this is judicial activism. There's nothing activist about the DC Circuit's ruling. They said that Section 36B meant what it said. For the record, here's the specific language of Section 36B :
monthly premiums for such month for 1 or more qualified health plans offered in the individual market within a State which cover the taxpayer, the taxpayer's spouse, or any dependent (as defined in section 152) of the taxpayer and which were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under 1311 [1] of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
The judiciary's first responsibility is to determine whether a law is constitutional. If it passes that test, the next test is to determine whether the statute gives the executive branch the authority to take action.
In this instance, the DC Circuit ruled that the ACA didn't give the executive branch, in this case the IRS, the authority to change a major provision of the statute.
It isn't radical to think that the executive branch doesn't have the authority to rewrite specific provisions of existing statutes. If the Supreme Court validates this ruling and if President Obama wants that provision changed, there's a simple remedy: work with Congress to change that part of the ACA.
Posted Tuesday, July 22, 2014 2:44 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 22-Jul-14 02:57 PM
Gary:
One thing you didn't mention since you were busy attacking the writer who did the garbage you commented on. Lets follow it logically:
* The subsidy right now is being by the Federal government and what is being challenged is the method millions of Americans get it has been ruled unconstitutional.
* Is there another method for the subsidy to be legally delivered. Yes there is you give a tax credit which every American can get therefore you don't have to worry anymore if your state has a state exchange or not.
* Since you're giving a tax credit you can automatically rewrite the mandate rules, the minimums for a policy, give permission to buy across state lines, etc.
And here's the best part the Republicans right now can move forward this bill because they see that there is potential chaos in the healthcare market which needs to be corrected.
What do you think?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Sean at 23-Jul-14 10:38 AM
You can't ignore what occurs in Section 1321 (c), though, where the law spells out what happens when the state fails to create an exchange.
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 23-Jul-14 12:43 PM
Sean:
Two things.
One, if there is a section 1321 that kind of shows by itself that it is sort of impossible to write one bill that can do the entire medical field like Obama did.
And two, are you saying since I haven't seen it anymore that section 1321 is what gives the Federal government the right to create an exchange if the state doesn't write one. In which case the argument can be made (since it hasn't been claimed yet) that they weren't given the right to do it since they would've been given the right in their creation language.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 4 by Sean at 23-Jul-14 12:49 PM
I don't understand your first point. There aren't literally 1,321 sections to the bill.
Sec. 1321 (c) says that if the State fails to create an Exchange than the Federal Government "shall (directly or through agreement with a notforprofit entity) establish and operate such Exchange within the State and the Secretary shall take such actions as are necessary to implement such other requirements."
Comment 5 by walter hanson at 23-Jul-14 02:55 PM
Sean there has to be 1,321 section since you said there was a section of 1,321. The point I was trying to make if you need more than a 1,000 sections (after all it was a 2,000 plus page bill) it's kind of impossible to write a bill that reforms our health care system in one scoop. That's a major mess Obamacare has created.
Thanks for the definition. Part of the problem with what Obama did in effect was to give to the Secretary of HHS powers that is associated with the IRS. The Secretary shouldn't be able to do things which they aren't authorized to do.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis,MN
Comment 6 by Sean at 23-Jul-14 03:25 PM
Section numbering doesn't start at one, and it's not sequential -- it's systematic, designed to provide organization to the bill. Perhaps you should check out the actual bill text sometime.
The main part of the bill is broken up into six subtitles. Each subtitle has sections with specific number beginnings.
Subtitle A starts at 1001 (and goes through 1004).
Subtitle B starts at 1101 (and goes through 1105).
Subtitle C has section 1201 (and another partition that contains sections 1251 and 1252).
Subtitle D is broken up into five parts (1301-1304, 1311-1313, 1321-1324, 1331-1333, and 1341-1343).
Subtitle E is broken up into three parts (1401-1402, 1411-1415, and 1421).
In other words, the bill has over 1,200 fewer sections than you suggested it did.
I would also suggest that complaining about the number of sections in a bill is one of the lazier complaints. Have you ever read a defense authorization bill? A lot more sections than the ACA.
Ambiguous or straightforward?
I've spent the last half of Tuesday illustrating the fact that Section 36B is clearly written. In this clip, Charles Krauthammer explains that the bill's language is exceptionally straightforward:
The language in the bill simply states that the subsidies are ony available to people purchasing health insurance through state-run exchanges. This doesn't require guessing. It just requires the ability to believe what you've heard.
After Charles' explanation, Kirsten Powers argued that the language was ambiguous. She essentially said that the intent was clear if you read the entire section. This doesn't have anything to do with reading the entire section. The only context that's required is the simple declarative statement.
The statement isn't filled with caveats. It's straightforward. It's declarative.
What the administration and its apologists are arguing is that we should a) accept their word that they really meant for everyone of a certain income level to qualify for subsidies and b) ignore the straightforward language of the bill.
My response to that is simple. I don't read minds to determine legislative intent and I don't trust liberals who say that federal statutes really mean whatever liberals insist they mean at any point in history. Liberal constitutional law Professor Jonathan Turley agrees with me on that. Here's what he said:
I'd love hearing Kirsten Powers or Ron Fournier dispute Professor Turley's explanation. Ultimately, though, Prof. Turley is right in saying that this is about more than the ACA. It's about which branch of government has the responsibility to correct the law. Ultimately, the question is whether the executive branch can usurp the legislative branch's authority to write new laws.
Dishonest progressives argue that the executive branch isn't writing new laws. They're lying about that. The plain language of the bill says one thing and they're saying that the straightforward wording isn't what they meant.
Let's remember that the ACA was written by Max Baucus in Harry Reid's office. Dishonest progressives want me to believe that Sen. Baucus was so inept that he accidentally slipped that language into the bill. He's written dozens of bills and hundreds of amendments to bills. I'm supposed to think that he mistakenly put in a straightforward-sounding statement runs contrary to his intent into the most important bill he ever wrote. Why would I buy into that?
Further, even if I thought that was the truth, I'd still argue that the executive branch, in this instance the IRS, has the authority to rewrite that language to mean what it wants the section to mean years after the fact. The language is clear. When the language is clear, the intent is clear.
I don't need a clairvoyant to determine what Sen. Baucus meant. I just need a little common sense, a little reading ability and the ability to ignore misinformed liberals.
Posted Wednesday, July 23, 2014 1:20 AM
No comments.
Obama's pacifism has cost lives
It would be wrong to blame the killing of 298 passengers on MH17 on President Obama. That blame should be firmly fixed on the Russian terrorists and the Russian military personnel who fired the surface-to-air missiles. This article , though, shows that President Obama could've done something that would've prevented that terrorist attack:
As the United States and NATO last month began to publicly acknowledge the sophisticated Russian anti-aircraft systems moving into rebel held areas of eastern Ukraine, the government in Kiev asked for gear that might be used to counter those weapons.
According to a former senior U.S. defense official who has worked closely with Ukraine's military and a former head of state who has consulted with the government there, Kiev last month requested the radar jamming and detection equipment necessary to evade and counter the anti-aircraft systems Moscow was providing the country's separatists.
It's obvious that President Obama is a pacifist on the world stage. He likely said no to Kiev's request because he didn't want to do anything that might escalate the tensions between Russia and the Ukraine. That's foolishness. President Obama keeps urging Putin to rejoin the community of nations. Putin keeps ignoring those pleas because he's too busy rebuilding the Soviet empire.
It's time President Obama to start dealing with the world that exists rather than dealing with the world he wishes exists. This isn't a game of make believe. It's a situation where Ukraine needs the world's only true superpower to step up and act like the world's only true superpower. It's time for President Obama to stop acting like a naive child. It's time for him to start acting like the leader of the free world.
Some senior U.S. officials asked about the Ukrainian request by The Daily Beast said they were not aware of it. Col. Steve Warren, a Pentagon spokesman, told The Daily Beast, 'The Ukrainian government has requested support, but we're not going to detail the types of support they have requested.'
How convenient. The most transparent administration in history won't confirm what the Daily Beast has already reported.
President Obama's pacifism cost those 298 people their lives. Because he wasn't willing to deal with reality, those people died needlessly. Further, President Obama's disdain for military action is getting people killed in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Had President Obama sent the radar jamming and detection equipment to Ukraine, the people flying on MH17 would likely still be alive. Had President Obama listened to his generals in Iraq and kept residual force of 30,000 troops in theater, he would've gotten a status-of-forces agreement with Maliki. That would've likely prevented ISIS from capturing a major part of Iraq.
I hope President Obama can live with himself knowing that his pacifism cost people their lives. More importantly, I hope President Obama will admit, at some time in the future, that he was wrong on most of his foreign policy decisions.
Posted Wednesday, July 23, 2014 7:24 AM
No comments.
Sloppy assumptions, bad laws
The whining on the left hasn't stopped since the DC Circuit Court's ruling on Halbig v. Burwell. This article is a perfect example of the Left's whining:
The Affordable Care Act was designed to offer premium tax credits (subsidies) to people to purchase private health insurance on government-run exchanges - at least those earning up to 400% of the federal poverty level. The belief among legislators was that the exchanges would be state-based, so the section of the law authorized subsidies to those enrolled 'through an Exchange established by the State.'
Simply put, this is proof that the people writing the ACA wanted one thing but didn't write the bill properly. If they wanted everyone "earning up to 400% of the federal poverty level" to get premium supports regardless of which exchange they bought it through, they should've written that into the law.
The assumption that "the exchanges would be state-based" is a sloppy assumption. Sloppy assumptions make terrible laws. It isn't the judges' fault that Max Baucus didn't write the bill properly. Further, it isn't the judges' fault that the writing of the law was shrouded in secrecy.
Had this been a transparent operation, someone might've caught Sen. Baucus's mistake. Had Sen. Baucus not made a terrible assumption, if that's what it was, the bill might've been written with more clarity.
Blaming Democrats' mistakes on Republicans is pathetic. Sen. Baucus, Sen. Reid and then-Speaker Pelosi made a series of decisions that produced sloppyily-written legislation. That's on their heads, not the judges' heads. It's one thing to argue intent when the legislative language isn't clear. It's another to argue when the legislative language includes a straightforward, declarative statement.
At that point, that straightforward, declarative statement is what judges should base their opinion on. The Democrats' attorneys argument is essentially that Baucus, Reid and Pelosi made a mistake in writing the bill, therefore the judges should clean up their mistake.
That isn't the court's responsibility. If Obama, Reid and Pelosi want to fix the law, the only constitutional remedy is to submit the correction to the legislative process. I wrote yesterday that the Democrats don't want to do that because House Republicans might actually want to include other provisions in the bill that Democrats don't like. That's tough. If Obama, Reid and Pelosi didn't want Republicans to have that type of leverage, they should've written the bill right the first time.
Their whining now just indicates that they're looking for a skapegoat to blame for their mistakes. It's time for them to put on their big boy pants and accept the fact that they put together a sloppy piece of legislation. It isn't the court's responsibility to clean up politicians' messes. That's the politician's responsibility.
Posted Wednesday, July 23, 2014 8:28 AM
No comments.
#FireReid started here
I wrote this post to highlight Democratic senators' biggest problem is Harry Reid, not President Obama. When I found out this morning that the RNC is starting a #FireReid campaign on social media, I got excited. This indicates that they're aware that Sen.Reid is toxic. This article gives us some details into the RNC's campaign:
A banner unfurled outside of the Republican National Committee headquarters in Washington is providing an unsubtle hint about the GOP's goals for this fall. In bold letters it reads, "Stop Obama" and "Fire Reid."
In another sign that Republicans are trying to nationalize competitive Senate races in a political environment unfavorable to Democrats, the RNC on Tuesday announced the start of its '#FireReid' campaign, aimed at winning control of the Senate and thus demoting Majority Leader Harry Reid.
'Beginning this week, we will launch robocalls in Alaska, Colorado, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oregon, South Dakota, and Virginia,' RNC spokeswoman Kirsten Kukowski said in a memo about the initiative.
The robo-call script will assert that a vote for the Democratic candidate, in many cases an incumbent, amounts to providing a 'rubber stamp' for President Obama and Reid's 'partisan agenda.'
Additionally, the anti-Reid campaign will include 'research briefings, social media, videos, interviews, and infographics' highlighting the Nevada lawmaker's position on such issues as the Keystone XL pipeline and the Affordable Care Act.
It isn't that Harry Reid is nationally well-known...yet. It's that he's said a ton of offensive and/or dishonest things that the RNC will use to paint Reid as the tyrant he is. My suggestion is that they highlight Sen. Reid's dishonesty, his hyperpartisanship and his fierce loyalty to President Obama's agenda.
Further, I hope the RNC shows how often Democrat senators vote with Sen. Reid, then quantify the impact they've had on families. Rattling off a string of statistics won't cut it. Personalizing things is required. If the RNC does that, then Democrats will have a difficult time defending their rubber stamping the Obama/Reid agenda.
According to the RNC announcement, the GOP will also seek to depict Reid as obedient "to billionaire SuperPAC donors like Tom Steyer [who] have hurt our country and the democratic process."
That campaign might not have the same impact as the #FireReid campaign but it might be helpful in the sense that it'll portray Democrats as listening more to the special interests than to rank-and-file unions that want the Keystone XL Pipeline built.
Posted Wednesday, July 23, 2014 9:07 AM
No comments.
