What’s interesting in the news today?
First up today, the Rev. Billy Graham has a message he’d like to share. He says it may be his last “crusade” opportunity due to age and illness, and I for one, would like to hear what he has to say. If you’re interested, here is a link for the listings on when this message will air. TBN has it at 8PM tonight, Fox News will show it at 10PM. Further showings on numerous other networks are available at the link.
http://watchbillygraham.com/
________________________________________
ObamaCare memos are painting a pretty bad picture of the days leading up to the law’s rollout.
From YahooNews “More than 175 pages of internal Obama administration memos, obtained by the House Oversight Committee, released Tuesday and reviewed by ABC News, present the most detailed account yet of the troubled rollout of the federal health insurance exchange, HealthCare.gov.
While there are no bombshell revelations, the documents make clear that the administration grossly underestimated the scope of the website’s technical problems; struggled to contain widespread confusion among insurers and applicants; and now faces a barrage of new challenges triggered by its emphasis on paper applications.
The memos from Oct. 1 through Oct. 27 are “war room notes” from the government team charged with overseeing the health care law rollout. They don’t provide any hard enrollment figures, which officials have promised to release later this month. But they do suggest the administration likely fell well short of its 500,000 enrollment target in the first month, possibly reaching fewer than one tenth of that goal.”
The numbers from individual states that have reported are nowhere near a tenth of that, or 50,000 When the numbers come, it won’t be pretty.
_________________________________________________
Again here, I’m having trouble feeling much sympathy for ’em. This is their baby too, they all own it.
From RollCall.com “President Barack Obama heard an earful at the White House Wednesday from Senate Democrats running for re-election next year who are fuming about the Affordable Care Act’s rocky rollout.
During a two-hour meeting that was not on the president’s public schedule, the president met with 15 Senate Democrats facing the voters next year, as well as Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Michael Bennet, D-Colo.
Sen. Mark Begich of Alaska issued a release after the meeting torching the administration.
“It is simply unacceptable for Alaskans to bear the brunt of the Administration’s mismanagement of the implementation of the Affordable Care Act and that is the message U.S. Senator Mark Begich delivered to President Obama today,” his office said in a statement blasted to reporters.”
Reading it, or maybe delaying it to work out the bugs may have helped huh? 🙄
_________________________________________________
Wait a minute………. I thought Photo ID requirements were racist and an attempt to disenfranchise old people?
From RedAlertPolitics “America rejoiced when the White House announced it would re-open for tours after cuts to funding from sequestration. But in a blatant display of irony, visitors to President Barack Obama’s home must show a government-issued photo ID to enter, but not to vote.
Tours of the White House resumed after a seven month hiatus, with the first official tour given to tourists yesterday. But for visitors looking to head inside 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., they must show valid, government-issued photo ID.
“All guests 18 years of age or older will be required to present a valid, government-issued photo identification … . All foreign nationals must present their passport,” it states on the White House’s ‘Tours & Events’ page.
This criterion is particularly ironic given the fact that the man living inside the White House adamantly opposes voters showing photo ID before heading the the polls.”
Yeah….. 🙄
_________________________________________________
The campaign for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination has begun. Paul has a point here too. Anyone who’s seen the ad will probably agree.
From HotAir “Rand Paul: Can you believe that certain people who shall remain nameless used Sandy relief funds for campaign commercials?”
“Alternate headline: “GOP primary campaign officially under way.” New Jersey got $60 billion of federal funds for Sandy relief, $25 million of which went to a “Stronger than the Storm” tourism campaign that showcased a certain gubernatorial candidate and his family. Here’s Rand Paul celebrating that candidate’s victory last night by basically accusing him of corruption. Not the first time he’s smacked Christie over Sandy funding, either: That’s what prompted the “king of bacon” comment back in July when the two of them first started throwing punches at each other. The outline of his strategy against Christie in 2016 is already fairly clear. He’s going to knock him not only as a big spender who cares more about buying off constituents with federal money than he does about shrinking government but as someone who’s ethically dubious across the board.”
_________________________________________________
The old guard and RINO faction want the nominee to be another RINO or old guard type. Romney says Christie and Ryan should be the top choices. Yeah Mitt, that whole picking milquetoast candidates worked out so well the last 2 elections huh? 🙄
As I’m sure you’ve noticed, the media would be all too happy to pick another RINO for us, they’ve been tooting Christie’s horn in an effort to have a say in the selection. So how about we decide instead of liberals? Here’s a few good reasons why Christie is the wrong guy, despite the media’s opinion.
From TheAmericanSpectator “Arnold Schwarzenegger won re-election handily in 2006, defeating his hapless opponent Phil Angelides by a 56% to 38.9% margin. Yet this sizable win was a meaningless victory for the GOP. Similarly, Chris Christie’s thumping victory on Tuesday night over an equally forgettable candidate contains almost no national meaning, save that Chris Christie is good for Chris Christie. Like Schwarzenegger, Christie cruised to re-election not as a real Republican but as a preening non-partisan moderate. Like Schwarzenegger, Christie’s popularity hasn’t translated into any support for Republicans in his own legislature.”
“The breathless burbling about how Chris Christie’s victory “shows the path forward for the GOP” conveniently ignores his inability to turn New Jersey red for anyone but himself. Before election day, the New Jersey media didn’t see any reason for the Dems to worry about a Christie victory, as they enjoy a 48-32 majority in the Assembly and a 24-16 lead in the state Senate. While these numbers may change, early reports indicate most incumbents will be reelected. The New Jersey media reported that most polls indicate support for Christie won’t help any down-ballot Republicans. In 2009, Christie’s coat-tail effect was negligible too, resulting in only one new Assembly seat for the Republicans.”
“Even the media found it a little difficult to sustain the this-is-a-defeat-for-the-Tea-Party narrative after the Virginia results came in, as they showed a race that the Republicans could easily have won, had the Libertarian not run, had Cuccinelli actually tried, had stingy Republican fat cats donated money to ad campaigns, had Republicans bothered to expose McAuliffe’s radicalism, etc.
The future of the GOP is not Christie but Cruz. Have the Republicans learned nothing from Romney’s loss, McCain’s loss, Dole’s loss? The lesson is simple: do not run moderates; that just hands victory to the Dems from the start. A basic test for any GOP nominee should be: Can this candidate win his own state? In Christie’s case, the question, despite Tuesday’s results, remains open. After all, he wasn’t exactly running against Hillary Clinton. Another test is: Can this candidate reclaim his own legislature for his party? If not, all the enthusiasm is empty. Republican governors in blue states that remain for all intents and purposes blue always end up doing damage to the party, racking up personal victories for themselves while selling out the party’s principles.”
_________________________________________________
And yesterday someone mentioned Common Core. Here’s yet another reason to be against it.
From FoxNews “It’s exactly what critics of the Common Core school curriculum warned about: Partisan political statements masquerading as English lessons finding their way into elementary school classrooms.
Teaching materials aligned with the controversial national educational standards ask fifth-graders to edit such sentences as “(The president) makes sure the laws of the country are fair,” “The wants of an individual are less important than the well-being of the nation” and “the commands of government officials must be obeyed by all.” The sentences, which appear in worksheets published by New Jersey-based Pearson Education, are presented not only for their substance, but also to teach children how to streamline bulky writing.”
““Parents should insist on reviewing their children’s school assignments,” said Glyn Wright, executive director of the Eagle Forum, a think tank that opposes implementation of Common Core. “Many parents will be shocked to find that some ‘Common Core-approved’ curriculum is full of inappropriate left-wing notions, disinformation, and fails to teach the truth of American exceptionalism and opportunity.”
_________________________________________________
Wandering Views 
Let the Republicans continue to nominate liberal Yankees. Southern conservatives must eventually realize that the US is past the point of no return. Then we can plan for our children’s futures.
LikeLike
The left is all in a tizzy because the CMA made fun of Obamacare. LOL They can dish it out but they can’t take it. I predict the CMA will be called bullies by the end of the day. “Bully” is the new “bigot”.
LikeLike
Vote No on Chris Christie. Please wake up, people.
LikeLike
What can possibly go wrong here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24823846. 🙄
LikeLike
Joe, if the Saudis want nuclear weapons, N Korea will be glad to sell them. Likely Pakistan too.
Everyone is afraid of Iran; not only Israel.
Anonymous, we are past that point. We can’t plan for our children’s future.
LikeLike
I would think that the Sowdie’s want weapons that actually work Chas. NK. has yet to produce a weapon that can yield a sizable payload.
LikeLike
I completely agree with Solarpancake aboutb Chris Christie. His gushing over Obama after Sandy is part of what helped get Obummer elected. Unfortunately I don’t see anyone right now who can lead the Republican party out of the depths it is in—-BUT all those conservatives who split the vote and voted for a third pary or sat the vote out based on “consciousness” deserve some of the blame also. I say this fully admitting that I voted for Ross Perot and helped get Bill Clinton elected.
LikeLike
Kbells, you have to admit it was funny.
LikeLike
🙂
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=YR3_mM4bpCY
I love the shocked look on Taylor Swift’s face. It’s a “can they do that?” look of shock. Love it.
LikeLike
Solar,
I’m with ya. I am so done with RINO’s and moderates being selected for us. And make no mistake, Christie is a RINO, and about as liberal a Rep as you can find. Conservative is what he claims to be, but he isn’t.
Cruz/Paul or Paul/Cruz 2016!
LikeLike
I don’t think either of the “pauls” can (or even should) win, sorry. And it’s disconcerting that the conservatives remain so split. This doesn’t bode well, folks.
I heard an interview with Krauthammer on the radio a couple weeks ago and he suggested that the conservatives’ best options for new leadership for 2016 will come from the ranks of the governors, NOT from Congress. Remember, Congress has a worse rating in the polls than the president. It’s been a tumultuous, nastily partisan 6 years we’ve been through and both sides have lost credibility in the eyes of the electorate.
Perhaps there can be some fresh leadership with someone who actually has had executive leadership experience? I think all those too-familiar faces & talking heads in Congress are damaged goods at this point.
People (speaking of the electorate in general) I think will want leaders who are principled but experienced & willing and able to work with the other side without all the rancor. Someone on the conservative side needs to bring a fresh vision, not just offer up the same old cantankerous yammering.
Feeling frustrated …
LikeLike
I’m not a fan of Christie’s but it’s not because I think he’s a ‘rino’ (he may be that, but I’m not entirely convinced of that yet). For me it’s a concern about his temperament — he strikes me as someone who is quick to anger, who shoots from the hip and who runs more on emotion (thus the ecstatic Obama “hug”).
Some of the traits that make him most appealing (his ability to speak plainly and bluntly) can also be problems. I remember seeing a You Tube video of Christie just laying into a guy who asked him a question when he was at an outdoor venue (atlantic boardwalk?). The guy wasn’t disrespectful as I recall, he was just a voter who probably was challenging him on something … But Christie instantly grew livid & looked like he was about to take a swing at the guy before aides pulled him away.
I think we can be praying that God would raise up a leader who can unite both the conservatives and the majority of the country as well.
It may be hoping for the impossible, but God can do that. 🙂
LikeLike
Donna,
As much as I like Krauthammer, I disagree. When he mentions the ranks of gov’s, he means Christie. Charles is old guard, and part of the problem.
And anyone with a “fresh vision” gets destroyed by the press, and the old guard. See Cruz, Paul, Lee, and many others. At one time, not long ago, all were mentioned as the fresh, new face of the party. Until they bucked leadership. Tow the line, or be destroyed, that’s how they operate.
LikeLike
I didn’t know who they were, but thw woman surely had a tiny skirt.
They played that song (Obamacare by Morning) on the radio this morning. I didn’t see the event.
I think the song is a take off on a song called “Amarillo by Morning”.
LikeLike
Rush just played the song.
LikeLike
If government is God’s prescription for a people who chose to disregard God and asked for a King, can we be surprised when it’s challenging?
God told them he would give them (us) a King, and we wouldn’t like it. The king would take our possessions and use them for himself but God would not listen when we complained, because we chose a King over an intimate following after the Creator of the Universe.
You and I are merely on the receiving end of it all.
Someone close to me keeps pointing out that government is also here to protect us from the evil within man. He’s not quite sure how this is playing out, but wonders if government isn’t taking away all our money so we (a collective we) don’t do even worse things with it.
He also reminds me that God honors a remnant, and as long as there are still a few righteous people in the land, God’s harsh hand will not fall completely. The US has been living on its spiritual heritage for 300 years. It’s bled mostly away now.
I counter with, “what about grandchildren? They don’t deserve this. What can I do for them?”
My friend shrugs. “Teach them the source of the one true faith: Jesus. God has put them in their own time and place.”
Or something like that. I need to get back to work.
Inbutnotof, send me a message through my website. I don’t see you anywhere on FB.
LikeLike
LOL at me beating the dead horse, but I/’m entirely convinced the notion of voting only for the guy who can get elected is part of the *problem.* We/’ve been on a leftward slide since at least the 60s, with roots going back further. Reagan *may* have been a blip. But what we need is not to put the brakes on that slide–which is what seems to be the hope of those who suggest we vote for the electable person–but we need to make a U-turn. That’s the cold, hard fact of the matter. These electable guys aren’t interested in that. Yes, Obama is probably the worst president in our history, and McCain and Romney would have been less terrible–but we’re still supporting a slide LEFT with those guys and other electable candidates. And when we keep doing that, nobody is going to get the message.
LikeLike
Solaar, nobody is going to get any messages. They are part of the ruling class.
They are interested in two things:
Getting elected AND ruling, in that order.
LikeLike
A split conservative vote simply means we need to all become accustomed to living under Democratic party rule at least for the next decade. We can do it. But it won’t be pretty. Sigh.
Is “less worse” better than worst? Yeah, actually it is. But we’ll probably survive it.
LikeLike
Dare to vote for true fresh leadership, and you get accused of splitting the vote.
Excuse my bad mood today. 😦
LikeLike
6 Arrows,
Let me start off by apologizing to you, Solar, MacMurray and some others. (I do this rarely, because I’m rarely wrong)
🙂
I’m sorry. I’ve been like some others and made the argument that it splits the vote and leads to Democrat’s victories. But at this point so many stay home because the candidates are so liberal that nobody wants to vote for them anyway, so what’s the difference? I’m joining you folks, I’m done with the party’s picks. Give me a candidate I can vote for and I will. But give me one I can’t, and I’ll no longer hold my nose and pull the lever. This idea that a more liberal candidate can get cross over votes is a myth. It hasn’t really happened since Reagan. I’m done with ’em.
Either they give me what I want for a change, or I’ll go away. Maybe if enough of us do, the party will get the message. If not, they can go the way of the dinosaur for all I care. I’m done with Democrat-Lite.
_______________________________________________
Donna,
If that’s what it takes to get some real conservative candidates, then so be it. I get what you’re saying, but I’m done with the Dole, McCain, Romney, and Christie types. You seem optimistic that if we all just stick together we can do it, I just don’t share your optimism. 😦
LikeLike
Maybe the key is to not split the vote in the primaries. We usually have five or six conservatives and one moderate. As one of the conservatives starts to pull ahead the MSM goes after them. When they have destroyed him they go after the next guy in line, all the while singing the praises of the moderate. When he is the only one left and gets the nomination he then becomes the devil himself. We all need to pick one and stand behind him or her.
LikeLike
AJ,
No need for apologies, but I appreciate your kindness in doing so. Thank you, sir.
I’m tired of Democrat-Lite also. And of all the hand-wringing that there are no principled conservatives, upstanding citizens with moral fiber and integrity. Or if there are, that they’re not going to win. Or they don’t have the experience to be good leaders. Never mind that they just might have the humility to seek and follow the advice of principled voices who DO have experience in this or that area where they themselves have less experience.
The presidency isn’t a one-man show (it’s not *supposed* to be anyway), and dare I say that, like in virtually any job one can think of, a man or woman of integrity is going to be a better leader than another person, experienced or not, who is willing to say one thing and behave entirely a different way.
I have so much more I want to say, but I think that is all I will say for now. Still three years until the next presidential election — I’ll save my breath a little. 😉
LikeLike
All I’m saying is why not aim for coalescing around one or two primary candidates to avoid devolving into a Libertarian vs. Republican break? I’m not sure that’s possible, the libertarian sentiment has become so strident (I say this while agreeing with some of their positions and thinking the GOP needs to embrace those — but I don’t care for all of their positions). I’m still hoping for someone to rise above the crowd who can transcend those differences.
And hope springs eternal, no? 🙂
Meanwhile, the president has apologized for people losing their insurance plans. At least that’s something, though a bit too late.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11/07/21352724-exclusive-obama-personally-apologizes-for-americans-losing-health-coverage?lite
LikeLike
More Americans are on welfare than hold full time jobs. Americans are increasingly stupid, greedy and lazy. Each year more Americans like perversion and socialism. To run for president candidates are forced to grovel before the nitwits on The View. Absent a dramatic spiritual revival, the US will not elect another conservative president. Reagan was The Last Hurrah.
LikeLike
Donna, why not aim for coalescing around someone who represents our values and the constitutional principles we hold dear, instead of voting for someone at whom we have to hold our noses just because we think they can win? And if they do win (plenty of times they don’t), we still have to submit to four years of poor leadership and further erosion of our freedoms.
We conservatives are the frogs in the pot of water that is slowly getting hotter. And the most conservative of us who are jumping out of the pot, not willing to put up with the increased heat and the slow but steady destruction, get chastised for splitting the vote because we jump out of the “pool”. I’m not angry about that, but I am disappointed that there are so many Americans who allow themselves to remain immersed in increasingly uncomfortable waters and complain about the very things to which they willingly subject themselves.
If you want coalescence, why not coalesce around a candidate who has removed himself from the pot, if that is who most represents your values? And if those of you who vote Republican no matter what choose to stay in the pot that you increasingly dislike, how do you know it’s not *you* who’s “splitting the vote” by staying with the same old, same old?
Donna, you said, “I think we can be praying that God would raise up a leader who can unite both the conservatives and the majority of the country as well.”
Maybe God has already done that. But if he doesn’t have an -R behind his name, how many of us are going to recognize him?
Yes, we need to pray, but not only that God would raise up such a leader, but also that our blinders would come off so we would see clearly when such a candidate comes along, and that we would not willingly dismiss the blessing of that candidacy (and ultimate election, Lord willing) of that person, no matter what party affiliation s/he carries.
End of speech.
LikeLike
BTW, AJ, I wanted to say that I think your post at 3:32 shows a lot of wisdom, especially these statements: “Give me a candidate I can vote for and I will…Either they give me what I want for a change, or I’ll go away. Maybe if enough of us do, the party will get the message.”
Amen.
LikeLike
I don’t care about the “R” — If I gave that impression I’m sorry. It’s not about that.
I’d frankly just suggest that conservatives can honestly and genuinely disagree on who is the best candidate for legitimate reasons. That doesn’t mean one or the other is compromising or giving in. Among us here there are differences if opinions on some issues. Thus, we sometimes support different candidates. I vote for the candidate I think will be best — I’m not selling out by supporting them, if that’s what you’re implying.
I’m generally just not fond of some of the “my way or the highway” stances that the young (and old) libertarian turks take. It’s become so tiresome to me.
Many of you are more in tune with the libertarian point of view, I realize. But don’t turn that into an accusation that the rest of us are just somehow selling out. We’re not. We just don’t agree.
I’m hoping, though, that this doesn’t precludes finding a well-qualified candidate who can manage to bridge that gap. I have no preconceived notion of who that might be.
LikeLike