Have a little more coffee Frances and lighten up.
Posted on 02/17/2014 4:09:07 AM PST by bryan999
At an annual gathering of Republican bigwigs in Florida a year ago, a top GOP strategist was chided after he gave a presentation about how his party would win the Senate in 2014, including a handout that blared “MAJORITY” in red.
“Stop saying majority,” donors, consultants and even some senators told National Republican Senatorial Committee Executive Director Rob Collins, he recalled in an interview. “Just say you’re going to be able to pick up a few seats.”
Fast forward to early this month, when the annual event took place again at the same posh Palm Beach resort. Far from preaching caution, many of the 400 donors in attendance openly mused about what a Republican Senate would bring, and Collins was the one trying to keep expectations in check.
After 15 months in the doldrums, Republicans feel like they’re finally getting their mojo back.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
It won’t matter if there aren’t at least a few tea party Republicans elected.
Exactly.
=======================================
DEMS STOOP TO CONQUEUR--- Vulnerable Dems want IRS to step up
by Alexander Bolton, The Hill, 2/13/14
Senate Democrats facing tough elections this year want the IRS to play a more aggressive role in regulating outside groups expected to spend millions of dollars on their races. In the wake of the IRS targeting scandal, the Democrats are publicly prodding the agency instead of lobbying them directly.
Dems are also careful to say the IRS should treat conservative and liberal groups equally, but they’re concerned about an impending tidal wave of attack ads funded by GOP-allied organizations. Much of the funding for those groups is secret, in contrast to the donations lawmakers collect, which must be reported publicly.
One of the most powerful groups is Americans for Prosperity, funded by the billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch. It has already spent close to $30 million on ads attacking Democrats this election cycle.
“If they’re claiming the tax relief, the tax benefit to be a nonprofit for social relief or social justice, then that’s what they should be doing,” said Sen. Mark Begich (D), who faces a competitive race in Alaska. “If it’s to give them cover so they can do political activity, that’s abusing the tax code. And either side."
Asked if the IRS should play a more active role policing political advocacy by groups that claim to be focused on social welfare, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) responded, “Absolutely. Both on the left and the right,” she said. “As taxpayers, we should not be providing a write-off to groups to do political activity, and that’s exactly what we’re doing.”
Shaheen called the glut of political spending by self-described social welfare groups that qualify under section 501(c) (4) of the tax code “outrageous.” Shaheen is in a good position now but could find herself embroiled in a tight campaign if former Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass) challenges her.
Sen. Mark Pryor (Ark.), the most vulnerable Democratic incumbent, said the IRS has jurisdiction over 501(c)(4) groups, as well as charities, which fall under section 5/01(c)(3) of the tax code and sometimes engage in quasi-political activity.
“That whole 501(c)(3), 501(c)(4) [issue], those are IRS numbers. It is inherently an internal revenue matter,” he said. “There are two things you don’t want in political money, in the fundraising world and expenditure world. You don’t want secret money, and you don’t want unlimited money, and that’s what we have now.” --SNIP--
=======================================================
MOMENTS TO REMEMBER AT THE VOTING BOOTH
<><> Seven US Senators ask the IRS to “Investigate” political opponents....
<><> Elijah Cummings led the Democrat pack in smearing Englebrecht....
<><> Obama said Tea Parties were a "threat to democracy."
================================================
Democrat Sens Mark Begich, Jeanne Shaheen and Mark Pryor went whining to the IRS to save their sorry ***es as 2014 approaches.
They are among the loyal Democrats who voted in lockstep to throw Americans off their health plans. The lock-stepping Democrat drumbeat --- "keep your plan" ---- rang throughout the land --- in the historic straight Dem party-line vote for Obamacare.
FACTS ON FILE As far back as 2008, at the presidential debate in Nashville, Democrat candidate Obama advanced his signature plan that was ultimately enacted (by an historic straight Democrat party-line vote) into the "Affordable Care Act:
OBAMA: "No. 1, let me just repeat, if you’ve got a health care plan that you like, you can keep it. All I’m going to do is help you to lower the premiums on it. You’ll still have choice of doctor.”
Repeated over and over ---- with the promise that every American would be saving $2500.00 on healthcare costs.
LOCK-STEPPING PARTY LOYALTY NOT SEEN SINCE 1930-40's ERA EUROPE:
SEN. JEANNE SHAHEEN (D-N.H.): ‘if you have health coverage that you like, you get to keep it’ “My understanding … is that … if you have health coverage that you like you can keep it. As I said, you may have missed my remarks at the beginning of the call, but one of the things I that I said as a requirement that I have for supporting a Democrat bill is that if you have health coverage that you like you should be able to keep that. …under every scenario that I’ve seen, if you have health coverage that you like, you get to keep it.” (Sen. Shaheen, “Health Care Questions From Across New Hampshire,” Accessed 11/13/13)
SEN. MARK BEGICH (D-Alaska): “If you got a doctor now, you got a medical professional you want, you get to keep that. If you have an insurance program or a health care policy you want of ideas, make sure you keep it. That you can keep who you want.” (Sen. Begich, Townhall Event, 7/27/09)
SEN MARK PRYOR (DEM-ARK) He did something no prominent Democrat dares to do. He defended the hated "Obamacare;" Pryor said he was quite proud to have voted for it. (Sen Mark Pryor, Arkansas Times,Aug 15, 2013 .)
“Discuss”
Is this an order or suggestion?
Of course it would never have occurred to us to discuss this, if you hadn’t told us that this is what we should do.
(/dripping with sarcasm)
“After 15 months in the doldrums, Republicans feel like they’re finally getting their mojo back.”
We’ll see about that. I think winning control of the Senate may be more hope- than reality-based. But three or four pickups might be a possibility if the Repubs don’t find some way to deep-six their efforts.
All the GOP-E seem to do is move the deck chairs around on the Titanic.
Freegards
LEX
BACKSTORY White House chief of staff Denis McDonough held an unpublicized meeting with Sen. Michael Bennet (DIM-Colo), chairman of the Senate Democrats’ campaign arm, amid anger and anxiety that ObamaCare’s botched rollout could cost the party its majority next year.
In the meeting, requested by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), McDonough and Bennet discussed what the White House could do to help vulnerable Senate Democrats and “talked about developing a stronger relationship with the White House.”
Democratic senators fear the White House is not sympathetic enough to their plight. After the Repub-led government shutdown, they were confident they would retain the Senate, but optimism vanished as problems with the healthcare law mounted.
Denis valiantly tried to calm ballistic Senators: “I know these guys are nervous as hell. I mean, all of their jobs are on the line because (Obamacare) is the thing making the biggest waves lately. It’s a nightmare.”
================================================
Just recently, Obama announced the White House's 2014 Senate strategy: Keep Obama away: The extensive midterm campaign strategy is built around one unavoidable fact: Hardly any candidates in the most competitive states want President Barack Obama anywhere near them on the campaign trail.
It’s February.. lotta time for them to screw up and they do so on a regular basis.
After all the bloviating about how the Tea Party is the problem, the penultimate paragraph says,Billionaire businessman Stan Hubbard said Republicans “feel more confident than I’ve seen them in a long time.” But he added that the chance of winning the majority depends on whether the most dynamic candidates emerge from GOP primaries.. . . as if Mitt Romney had been foisted on the GOPe by the Tea Party!!“That was Romney’s problem, he couldn’t connect,” Hubbard said.
“GOP grows confident of Senate takeover”
In the words of one lying, conniving, windbag, socialist, political witch “What difference does it make?”.
Let’s ask Rove. His little white board predicted a win for Romney.
It wouldn’t matter if we took 60 seats in the Senate, they would still rubber stamp ANY Obama supreme court nominee.
Just tell me what the Republican Party has done in the congress that makes them so deserving of control in the Senate or the house for that matter.
They have allowed Obama to destroy this nation to the point it’s almost irrepairable and some of them are complicit in this destruction .
Why vote for those S. O. B.’s?
Does he mean online? Do you have to be logged in for that?
Then there is Obama himself. By campaigning for Senators he must expose him self to crowds and he dare not do that.
He is not willing to expose himself in other than absolutely controlled venues with small carefully vetted groups in attendance
No, the GOP are too cowardly to fight for the majority.
They are too busy trying to stifle the Tea Party, and mollifying the media, to actually FIGHT FOR A VICTORY.
Ah come on, let's play nice here. bryan999 meant it sort of like a Battle Cry, so-to-speak. Much like when someone says, "Let's Roll" or "chaaaarge". It's meant to strike up enthusiasm and to get the ball rolling.
And for this particular case, may I suggest another appropriate one..... "Feeeeeeeeeedommmmmmmmmmmm" :)
Don’t worry. They’ll find a way to mess up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.