GOP Split Breaking Down, Tea Party Power Wanes

news.yahoo.com/gop-split-breaking-down-tea-party-power-wanes-200652000--election.html

1) It makes sense to get control of the process
2) The party is cherry-picking candidates
3) They are ousting candidates they consider flawed
4) They're changing rules at the presidential level and showering money and support on those they want to promote
5) They're organizing grassroots to change the behavior of those already in office (Putting on false fronts to win reelection?)
6) Republican National Committee members are rewriting rules to shorten the nomination period and limit the number of debates.
7) An RNC panel on Thursday recommended a 13-member committee that would pick debate hosts and limit how many can take place. Candidates who participate in rogue forums would be banned from attending future, RNC-sanctioned debates.
8) In 2012, strong debate performances kept tea party-favored candidates such as Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain in the running well past their viability.
9) Michigan Rep. Dan Benishek is one embraced by the establishment's allies. The 2010 firebrand who broke the Democrats' two-decade-old hold on his House seat won with 52 percent of the vote in part by slamming President Barack Obama's "socialist agenda." Benishek barely won re-election two years later. And in 2014, he's the star of an ad paid for by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "Dan Benishek deserves our support," intones the narrator.
10) In North Carolina on Tuesday, state House speaker Thom Tillis easily coasted past the 40 percent threshold for securing the nomination without a runoff with his challengers, who had cast him as a tool of the GOP establishment.

I wouldn't trust Greenbitch with a quarter.

One rally I saw him in, I could see the slime oozing off his bloated a$$.

What they are saying basically is..... "We can't afford to have "Liberty" or "the peoples" candidates possibly winning and spoiling our gravy train at taxpayer expense!"

What the GOP is saying is that it can't afford to let extremists cost the GOP losses in general elections.

That is a complete delusion, they are trying to make sure it is the parties choice, none others. The way it is stacking up now it's going to be Jeb Bush against the winner.

The RNC Wants to Avoid a Herman Cain Situation in 2016, Will Limit Debates

news.yahoo.com/rnc-wants-avoid-herman-cain-situation-2016-limit-141300011.html

I say let the GOP have their way. It isn't going to matter how they try to tighten their game we'll be able to see exactly how they play. Airs don't get past any of us who can see the light through the fog.

And I for one am going to be riveted to the real agenda regardless to how they try to color it, or who big money puts in charge of their spending in the next administration.

Eyes wide open folks...

Careful not to get sand in your eyes.

Anyone with "eyes wide open" would vote something other than Demonicraps or Repulsicons.... the two headed serpent

Any party seeking any kind of control over the vote ought to speak volumes to anyone smart enough to listen

Ah yeah, the ole illusion of choice trick. They make the choice and the people have the illusion. But the sad part is the people, they just keep wondering why they keep getting disappointed.

Well here is the whole cause of the people's misery:

GOP Establishment Defeats Tea Party

www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbU88sC-HP0

Why the GOP WANTS to 'DIVIDE and CONQUER' the POOR

theweek.com/article/index/261315/why-the-gop-wants-to-divide-and-conquer-the-poor

The conservative approach to poverty alleviation is rooted in outdated notions of who does and doesn't deserve aid.

Control of the Senate may very well hinge on the ultra-competitive race in North Carolina.

It also happens that the contest between Democratic incumbent Kay Hagan and state House Speaker Thom Tillis presents us with a stark contrast in governing philosophies, particularly on the issue of assisting the poor.

Last week, as Tillis was wrapping up the Republican primary, footage was discovered of remarks he made in 2011 about wanting to "divide and conquer the people who are on assistance."

He implored those in the crowd to:

show respect for that woman who has cerebral palsy and had no choice in her condition, that needs help and that we should help.

And we need to get those folks to look down at these people who choose to get into a condition that makes them dependent on the government and say, "At some point you're on your own!"

Some have compared this video to Mitt Romney's infamous "47 percent" blunder in 2012.

But where Romney exploited fault lines between the supposed makers and takers, Tillis stoked a different social division: the deserving versus the non-deserving poor.

The distinction has its roots in 17th-century European beliefs about who deserved public assistance.

According to law professor Nicole Huberfeld, "[T]he prevailing belief was that the working poor deserved assistance," while the non-working poor did not.

Under Elizabethan Poor Laws, public assistance was made available to an ad hoc list of those deemed blameless for their poverty, such as women, children, the blind, the disabled, and the elderly.

These traditional categories were then imported to the United States when various levels of government started to provide poverty assistance over a century ago.

We see similar beliefs reflected in Tillis' divide-and-conquer mentality.

His idea of a justified welfare recipient — a woman with a disabling medical condition — fits comfortably in traditional notions of the deserving poor.

Yet those who are otherwise capable of working must be cut off from the public spigot. Under this view, mere economic insecurity or joblessness is not enough to merit assistance.

And it is this view that has come to dominate the economic platform of the modern GOP, as reflected in Rep. Paul Ryan's (Wis.) budget and the policies of Republican-controlled statehouses across the country.

As Ryan recently said, "We don't want to turn the safety net into a hammock that lulls able-bodied people to lives of dependency and complacency."

Even in the best of economic circumstances, this would be a dubious premise. But the U.S. economy has been in the doldrums for six years and counting, which means that there are plenty — millions — of workers who are in economic straits through no fault of their own.

Tillis essentially assumes that humans are flawed while the market is perfect, when we know that is emphatically not the case.

As a state legislator, Tillis did his share of dividing and conquering the poor.

He proudly touts his obstruction of the ObamaCare Medicaid expansion in North Carolina, boasting in a campaign ad that he "stopped [it] cold."

Historically, Medicaid eligibility has been based on certain categories of need much like the Elizabethan categories.

ObamaCare tried to move Medicaid coverage away from piecemeal categorical eligibility by funding state expansions to cover all Americans earning less than 138 percent of the federal poverty line.

But North Carolina continues to only offer Medicaid coverage to the traditional categories of the deserving poor. Non-disabled adults in North Carolina are completely ineligible for Medicaid, regardless of how little income they earn.

Even adults with dependent children are only eligible if they earn less than 45 percent of the poverty line — about $8,800 per year for a family of three.

Had North Carolina expanded Medicaid, 319,000 people would have gained insurance coverage.

North Carolina's refusal to expand Medicaid was made possible by another conservative dividing the deserving from the non-deserving poor.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts relied on this same exact distinction to strike down the mandatory Medicaid expansion in NFIB v. Sebelius.

In a decision joined by six other justices, Roberts artificially divided "old Medicaid" from ObamaCare's "new Medicaid."

Old Medicaid, Roberts wrote, covered "four particular categories of the needy: the disabled, the blind, the elderly, and needy families with dependent children." That is, it covered only the traditionally deserving poor.

After ObamaCare, he asserted, Medicaid "is no longer a program to care for the neediest among us, but rather an element of a comprehensive national plan to provide universal health insurance coverage."

As a result, he said, Congress could not mandate that states expand their programs or else lose federal funding for "old Medicaid."

This decision enabled states like North Carolina to continue keeping Medicaid eligibility frozen in bygone notions of the deserving poor.

While Tillis has since disavowed the "divide and conquer" rhetoric, he still stood by the substance of his argument.

Meanwhile, Sen. Kay Hagan ardently defended the Medicaid expansion during confirmation hearings on the nominee for the secretary of Health and Human Services.

The nation's closest Senate race poses a distinct choice over how far our safety net ought to reach.

Tillis would have us narrow it to subjective judgments rooted in 17th-century conceptions of moral desert.

In contrast, the vision offered by ObamaCare and its advocates like Hagan would provide a safety net that catches all those who fall into economic vulnerability.

This latter vision provides a greater sense of economic security and support, asking us to unify as a people.

Only the tired vestiges of yesteryear would have us divide and conquer.

Even a mainline GOP a$$ gets things right on occasion.



Absolutely nobody, that is just thief at the point of the state's gun. Before the government decided it could do thing better with it's guns and armed robbery, the needy were amply taken care of. Americans have the biggest hearts of any in the world. When disasters happen, Americans are the first to open their wallets and contribute to the cause, but that was the problem, their charity has limits. But as far as helping those truly needy down on their luck, there was always an abundance. But with the government involved, there are no limits on how much can be taken nor to just whom can receive the benefits, well one little limit, those being robbed can't have any.



And I am so proud of this fine state. In fact so proud, I am looking forward to living there, Raleigh and a few other areas are adopting Agenda 21 but the fight is heavy against it. I will join that fight.



Those magnificent black robed actors in the role of crooks and thieves legislating from the bench in direct violation of the constitution. And people sit and wonder just why we are where we are.



No, that would be the total idiocy of the people under the illusion they first, have a choice and second, aren't a slave. But no where near where the elitist want all their slaves:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqor2zoYrqM

Can Republicans Control their Hatred for Hillary?

www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/05/13/can-republicans-control-their-hatred-for-hillary/

If there'��s one thing Karl Rove knows, it'��s how to troll.

According to a report in the New York Post, Rove suggested to an audience that Hillary Clinton may have brain damage; you'��ll recall that in 2012, she fainted and suffered a concussion, and when she was in the hospital, doctors found and treated her for a blood clot.

"��Thirty days in the hospital?"�� Rove said. "��And when she reappears, she'��s wearing glasses that are only for people who have traumatic brain injury? We need to know what'��s up with that.�"

Actually, she spent three days in the hospital, not thirty.

This morning, Rove told the Post'��s Karen Tumulty, "��Of course, she doesn'��t have brain damage."�� Of course! Who would suggest such a thing!

Here'��s one way to understand Rove'��s comments: They might be a way of testing how allegations about Clinton'��s health - or about anything else - � play out in the press.

Will the news media pick them up and run with them?

How far can Republicans go in making unsubstantiated charges?

What kind of blow-back will there be, and would it outweigh the benefits to Republicans of making Clinton answer uncomfortable questions?

After all, while Rove may not be quite the political genius many believe, he doesn'��t make statements like that without a reason.

Clinton'��s age, and its implications for her health, will certainly be a topic of discussion as we move toward 2016.

She'��ll be 69 when the next presidential inauguration occurs.

Ronald Reagan was 69 when he took office, and there is at least some evidence to suggest that during his time in the White House he showed early signs of Alzheimer'��s.

Bob Dole would have been 73 upon becoming president; John McCain would have been 72.

Making any kind of conclusion about a candidate'��s future health is always difficult, since every individual is different and there'��s no way for any of us to know what our health will be like a few years from now.

But it isn'��t as though Republicans have any lack of things they'��d like to use to attack Hillary Clinton. And as the smart ones among them understand, there'��s a fine line between keeping Clinton under constant pressure and letting their venomous loathing of her get out of control and redound to her advantage.

It'��s almost inevitable that at some point during any campaign involving Clinton, the Republican crazy train will run off its rails.

The hatred she inspires among the GOP base, and their willingness to believe almost anything about her, simply cannot be overestimated.

We'��re going to see multiple occasions when conservative media figures or Republican politicians say things about Clinton that are so vicious or so unhinged (or both) that they grab the media'��s attention, generate sympathy for her, and undermine the Republican candidate'��s cause.

Some of those over-the-top attacks will be sexist, others will traffic in conspiracy theories, but they will definitely happen.

The hearings of the select committee on Benghazi, and the response they get in conservative circles, will offer an early taste.

This may be the single greatest challenge the GOP faces from a Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. Can it rein in its own worst impulses and criticize her in ways that don'��t just feed its own loathing but actually persuade undecided voters?

Given the evidence of the past, my guess is that the answer is no.

Oh, she has brain damage alright, but it had nothing to do with that fake concussion. This woman is a psychopath of the highest order, operating totally from the masculine, left side of the brain. Believing she has the distinct ability to determine the rights of others including terminating the life of one that opposes her or gets in her way. And only the totally brain dead can actually not see the truth and provide support for this woman for other than a quick trial and being hung on the White House lawn.

The supposed faint and concussion are but a convenience to twerp testimony in front of congress on Benghazi. But because the red and blue teams are really one and the same, this will just be as forgotten as Benghazi if she decides to run for office and should someone from the red team decide to challenge her ability to now testify, it will be ignored and declared partisan politics. But the really sad part is the people will believe it.