http://423smith.com/what-do-you-think-about-smart-phones/…

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll154.xml

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll177.xml

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll247.xml

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll268.xml

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll719.xml

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll727.xml

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll943.xml

Then there’s the matter of campaign-cash-for-earmarks:

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/earmark-recipients-filled-akin-campaign-coffers/541786

Akin talks a good game, but when we judge him by his deeds he’s turning out to be Obama-Lite.

That wouldn’t really be inconsistent with replacing Medicare with premium support, would it? And I doubt that’d be any need for Medicaid, or even Medicare/SCHIP, to continue in that case, except in the form of a block grant for further subsidies, exchanges, and high-risk pools on the state level.

Even if we do decide to continue offering Medicare and Medicaid as options in such an exchange, they could be limited to those who are already eligible for them, and eventually phased out.

And I don’t see how offering tax credits to purchase individual coverage allows government to take control of the whole system, at least not without involving nationalisation on a massive scale.

Don’t forget the speech Cantor made to a college university crowd. He told them the Republicans don’t want to take all of Obamacare away. They want to keep the pre-existing clause, and that “children” can stay on their parents insurance polices until 26 years old. Tell me how any insurance premiums can come down, and more people able to afford health insurance, if the insurance companies are required to cover pre-existing conditions, especially if one does not have to buy insurance until one already has a pre-existing condition. No, the individual mandate is not the answer either. The entire law must be scrapped, and the really old old ideas like buying across state lines, and tort reform need to be reexamined.

As has been said here on local radio about Cantor, he isn’t against big government, as long it is the Republicans doing it, rather than the Democrats. Cantor would be fine with government run Cantorcare.

However, not only did Cantor not shut down Boehner, as you say, that grand bargain went through anyway. Boehner outranks. Cantor might have put it out that he was opposing it, but that was just a sop to the tea party folks. Boehner was so busy winking and nodding at his establishment supporters that he darn near started crying again from all that winking.

It’s like you order a steak well done (conservative) and the waitress brings it back raw (liberal), so you have her bring it back to the kitchen, and she keeps coming back and it’s cooked a little bit more each time, but never well done. Meanwhile, the steak is losing its flavor and freshness with each return trip.

A lot of imposters won the tea party ballot in 2010. Let’s put some real deals in there in 2012. That’s the only way to change Boehner/Cantor’s tune.

I see it as two political parties right now in Washington: 1) Establishmentarians, comprised of all the Democrats and most of the Republicans, and 2) Tea Partiers, a 90-member minority of the House caucus plus about a dozen senators.

If the majority of the GOP caucus wanted to end Ex-Im, Cantor would be throwing it over the cliff. The truth is that conservatives failed to convince anywhere near a majority of the GOP house caucus. Cantor is nothing if not an exceptionally good judge of caucus preferences.

So while you are right it is a Conservative idea, it was an idea that was rejected once Conservatives stopped and considered what this idea would lead to.

Obamacare wasn’t about health care, it was about gaining more power and in effect government trying to seize control of our lives.

Love it or hate it, our home is in the Republican party. Unless we enjoy losing elections.

What ticks me off is as soon as Romney wins, all the RINOs and Establishment squishes and “moderates” are going to point and say “see? see? don’t run conservatives for the Republican presidency and we win” and I will just about vomit in my mouth when they say that. Don’t they remember McCain, Big Government George, Big Government George’s Dad, and Dole?

/end rant

But what’s DOH?

I fear that they don’t have the backbone to get things done, or undone. But 2012 also presents an opportunity of a generation to restore conviction politics, and I agree that eliminating these big-government policies would go a long way towards demonstrating their commitment. But it’s probably not going to happen.

She personifies republican elected officials’ unwillingnesss to make the tough decision, fearing political ramifications.

Voting (R) regardless of the candidate has led our party and our nation towards disaster.

At some point, probably when it’s too late and we all wake up one morning and realize we’re Greece, conservatives will rue ignoring the long-term consequences of voting for men like Cantor.

?I write to urge your strong support for reauthorization of the U.S. Export-Import Bank,? Haley wrote.?Ex-Im works for American companies and taxpayers ? it is good business and good government.?

http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20120428/PC16/120429183/1165

So, are you going to call Nikki Haley a RINO and primary her too?

Nikki Haley, of course, is counting on the Dreamliner to provide jobs in her state. When she visited the Boeing plant there together with Boeing CEO Albaugh, she was standing right there when Albaugh called for renewal of the Export-Import Bank. She didn’t disagree.

Ending the Ex-Im Bank subsidy would be denounced by Boeing’s CEO as damaging to their business and their ability to provide jobs in places like South Carolina.

I don’t think Nikki Haley–or congressional Republicans from SC–want that kind of publicity in an election year.

I think the Ex-Im Bank should be phased out–eventually. But damaging the hopes of SC Republicans for Boeing jobs in their state is not a good thing to do six months before a Presidential election.