If the recent Health Care Summit accomplished anything, it was to demonstrate two facts: Republicans have their own ideas, and these ideas are fundamentally different... Readmore...
Ever since last years tax-day tea party revolt, there have been countless Tea Party groups springing up all over the nation. Each group is a grassroots movement... Readmore...
The US has a rare window of opportunity to make productive air strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities.
It shouldn’t be necessary at this point, but given... Readmore...
Since Sarah Palin entered the national political scene she has been criticized, critiqued, mocked and bashed arguably more-so than any other candidate in recent... Readmore...
An alternative budget has been introduced in the state legislature with fewer program cuts than leadership’s budget, of course they accomplish that by raising... Readmore...
If the recent Health Care Summit accomplished anything, it was to demonstrate two facts: Republicans have their own ideas, and these ideas are fundamentally different from those of the Democrats. After having spent months talking up the notion that no right-wing alternatives exist on health care, Democrats seemed genuinely surprised to find their rivals armed with counter-proposals, and their claim that they had already integrated Republican solutions into their legislation rang hollow.
On some aspects of health care, such as cost control, Republicans and Democrats share common ground, and in this area it may be possible for a smaller, more moderate bill to pass. But on many other points, such as finding the best way to expand insurance coverage, the two sides disagree on the nature of the problem itself. Call it a tragedy if you must, but sometimes two sides hold such different views that no useful compromise is possible. The art of good politics is to avoid warring over intractable differences of opinion and focus instead on what can be done– if the legislature wastes its time fruitlessly seeking resolution on issues for which there can be no consensus, it will miss out on countless other opportunities to make improvements that both sides believe are necessary.
Ever since last years tax-day tea party revolt, there have been countless Tea Party groups springing up all over the nation. Each group is a grassroots movement unto itself, with its own loosely based leadership, values, motives and purpose. In the beginning the platform was simple – anti-tax and anti-big government. The tea flavor was strong and vibrant. However, the movement and flavor has taken a turn into a different direction over the last year. Things are a bit more sour now as each of these groups wants to drive the “big ship” into a different direction; too many hands on the wheel. All this has done is cause division and confusion between the groups; especially those groups located within the same state. Each group is fighting to be the dominate group it seems, in the process tearing down the initial grassroots framework and losing sight of the reason for the movement.
The Democrats’ new-found love of competition should be applied to education reform
As the national health care debate again rears its ugly head (so much for focusing on the economy), Democrats have begun murmuring that now is the time to put the so-called “public option” back on the table. To hear liberals talk about it, the public option is the heart of health care reform and there can be no improvement in health insurance markets without it. They reason that health insurance markets will be improved by the competitive pressures that the public option will provide, and even when told by the Congressional Budget Office and several of their own health care experts that health insurance markets are already largely competitive and that a public option would have minimal impact, they still clamor for it. They must love free-market competition just that much.
Lately there has been some talk about the various Tea Party groups unifying under one “umbrella”. Do you think this would be a good or bad idea? Please use the poll below to answer and also feel free to expand on your reasoning in the comment section.
President Reagan once said, “One thing our founding fathers could not foresee…was a nation governed by professional politicians who had a vested interest in getting reelected. They probably envisioned a fellow serving a couple of hitches and then looking…forward to getting back to the farm.”
There has been much talk within the Conservative, Libertarian and Tea Party movements about setting term limits on Congress in an effort to thwart candidates and politicians from making a career out of public service; in fact it has been one of the most widely debated issues across the nation. And as nice as it sounds, one must stop and think; would term limits really stop people from becoming career politicians? Probably not. They might be restricted from running for that same public seat after their term ends, but it doesn’t stop them from running for a different office. So if the whole point behind term limits is to restrict people from becoming career politicians, is it okay if they seek a different office? If so, then whats the point of term limits?
If you live in Arizona, you probably know that there are a few candidates running in the Arizona Gubernatorial race. Many are people that have already served in an Arizona public seat, such as the incumbent Gov. Jan Brewer (R), Arizona State Treasurer Dean Martin (R) or Attorney General Terry Goddard (D). However there are other candidates running that do not get the pollsters or the mainstream media’s attention. One of those people is Hugh Kealer, a Arizona native CPA, and former CFO, who worked in the home and commercial building industries. We had recently caught up with Mr. Kealer at a local Republican Professionals meeting, and he graciously agreed to do a interview with us. While we do not endorse any political candidate, we do feel that it is important to publish the candidates stances on the issues of the day (even if they do not directly impact Arizona) so that the voters can get to know the thought process of the candidate enabling them to make an educated decision when the time comes. Below is that interview, completely unedited. For more information about Hugh Kealer, please visit his website at https://hughkealer.com
The US has a rare window of opportunity to make productive air strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities.
It shouldn’t be necessary at this point, but given the pockets of feigned disbelief that remain abroad, it deserves repeating: The Iranians are developing nuclear weapons. Rhetorically, they continue to maintain the pretense of pursuing peaceful nuclear power, but the structure of their program belies its true nature as a weapons development effort. Their near-exclusive focus on isotopic enrichment, their construction of clandestine facilities, and their recent decision to enrich uranium to levels higher than what is necessary for commercial power plants are all signals that should remove whatever doubt remains of Iranian intentions. What Iran has achieved to date amounts to a small but growing breakout capacity. If they continue on their current pace, by mid-2010 they will have enough low-to-medium enriched uranium to produce several atomic bombs and the centrifuge capacity to bring that material to weapons readiness within a few months.
Since Sarah Palin entered the national political scene she has been criticized, critiqued, mocked and bashed arguably more-so than any other candidate in recent memory (aside from post election President Obama). Most politicians would have cracked under the pressure and faded away into the night quietly. Why can’t the Left understand that they make her and the Conservative movement stronger by their negative mockery?
Sarah Palin looked at the palm of her hand during the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville, Tenn.
An alternative budget has been introduced in the state legislature with fewer program cuts than leadership’s budget, of course they accomplish that by raising your taxes. Representatives Chad Campbell and Bill Konopnicki discussed the alternative budget on PBS…watch the video and post your comments below.
Arizona is going to have an exciting political year. We have four Republicans running for the US Senate seat. Each candidate is different and represents different parts of the Republican Party. Chris Simcox, Jim Deakin, JD Hayworth and John McCain are all campaigning for the spot that Sen. John McCain currently holds.
In the beginning of 2009 most of the main stream media couldn’t get enough of President Obama. They covered him 24/7, showering him with praise and commenting on how well he spoke to the people and to the press. Very little effort was given at dissecting what he said; instead the media focused on how Obama’s word made you feel (i.e. Chris Matthews: “I Felt This Thrill Going Up My Leg” As Obama Spoke). The honey-moon period has somewhat worn off now and the media is starting to see that Obama is one who avoids giving a clear direct answer; he is a typical Washington politician. He is our ‘Equivocator in Chief’.
Have you ever wondered how far Enviro-Libs would take their political or social agendas? With the news of the recent climate research unit hacking at the University of East Anglia, also commonly known as “Climate-Gate”, and with the constant flow of information showing us that global warming is a fraud or hoax based on cooked figures and data; it’s astonishing that the main stream media outlets have not reported the true findings to expose the hoax for what it is. Green advocates are supposed to be for a clean environment, so why do they peddle this garbage agenda onto everyone?
Many GOP’ers are identifying themselves with Brown, a socially moderate Republican, hoping his good luck will rub off onto them. Anyone following the MA race was most likely shocked and energized when Brown won the seat to replace the late Ted Kennedy (D-Mass). Brown won by running on the healthcare issue, stating that he would be the 41st vote, a “no” vote to kill the bill. And as exciting as that is, it’s important to note that he is not totally against the idea of a government run healthcare program.
