Congressman Eric Paulsen and Rush Limbaugh Ask Your Assistance to Stop Obamacare

Obamacare’s 20%  Tax on Medical Device Makers Revenues (Not Profits, but Revenues) will drive these companies out of Minnesota and the country.    Mr. Obama mouthed that his administration would become the most open in American history.   He lied, of course.   Obamacare,  an historic example of  devious, dishonest, legislation by Obamacrats  to nationalize America’s  health industry,  according to charlaton democrat,  Nancy Pelosi, had d to be passed before citizens would discover its benefits.      No benefits appear to be arriving.

The following plea was sent to us by Erik Paulsen, Congressman from Minnesota’s 3rd District:

“Dear Friend,

We all know the tax on medical devices in Obamacare is outrageous, and must be repealed- and now even Rush Limbaugh has taken issue with it.  On November 22, during Rush’s “Morning Update,” he talked about how the tax targets this high-tech, industry that produces thousands of high-paying jobs, and the need for immediate action.  See the transcript below.  If you’re a member of Rush Limbaugh’s 24/7, you can log in here and read the full update.

Ladies and gentlemen, to understand the regime’s impact on the job market, look no further than the medical device sector, which manufactures everything from stents to scalpels. Till now, the sector boasted high-tech and high-paying jobs, just what the doctor would order if he could to help us get out of the Obama depression. But a 2010 law is now threatening the very foundation of the medical device business. The law is Obamacare and Nancy Pelosi was not kidding when she said that once the bill passed we’d find out what’s in it.

 

Medical device manufacturers found a $20 billion tax – not on their profits, on their revenues. That’s right: on every dollar they take in, be if profit or not. Minnesota Republican congressman Erik Paulsen, whose district includes big medical device companies, says that up to ten percent of the workforce – 43,000 jobs – are directly threatened. He introduced a bill to repeal the tax increase but Democrats are digging in their heals to protect every aspect of Obamacare regardless of the impact on jobs.

 

Kem Hawkins is president of Cook Medical; employs 10,000 in the field. He says companies are already moving jobs and products overseas instead of investing here. If we don’t stop it now, Hawkins warns, we will lose our status as the world’s leader in medical devices. The regime invested billions in high-tech green jobs that were fraudulent like Solyndra and now they’re driving the genuine high-tech jobs that we do have overseas. You give these idiots four more years, you give the rest of America away. It’s just that simple.

Thanks for your support, and keep in touch!

 

Erik Paulsen”

Please follow through in your effort to restore representative democracy to America.

Words from Jamelle Bouie’s Black Racist Plantation Culture: Tea Party is Related to the KKK

                  THE TEA PARTY:  DISTANT COUSIN OF THE KKK

by Jamelle Bouie   at   the Nation:

“Writing at the New York Times, historian Kevin Boyle has created something of a stir with his review of two recent books on the Ku Klux Klan. Here is the lede of the piece, which also doubles as the offending passage:

Imagine a political movement created in a moment of terrible anxiety, its origins shrouded in a peculiar combination of manipulation and grass-roots mobilization, its ranks dominated by Christian conservatives and self-proclaimed patriots, its agenda driven by its members’ fervent embrace of nationalism, nativism and moral regeneration, with more than a whiff of racism wafting through it.

No, not that movement.

Naturally, this inspired a torrent of criticism from right-wing blogs and pundits. National Review’s Jonah Goldberg attacks the review as “lame” and complains that Boyle failed to mention the Klan’s ties to Democrats and Progressives (as if either group was the same in the 1920s), while the right-wing Media Research Center described the review as offensive. The Weekly Standard takes Goldberg’s approach, and points its readers toward proof that Democrats and Progressives were the real allies of the Klan.

A few things. Any honest historian will readily acknowledge the extent to which the Klan was entwined with the Democratic politicians in the early part of the twentieth century. Although both parties had largely abandoned civil rights by the beginning of the twentieth century, it’s fair to say that up until the 1940s, the Democratic Party was the unambiguous party of white supremacy in the United States, particularly in the South. That the Klan was involved with the Democratic Party through the 1920s isn’t a shock, given the degree to which both groups dominated border states like Kentucky in the early part of the century.

More importantly, Boyle says nothing about the Klan as an organ of Republican politics. Instead, he makes the (correct) point that the forces that animated the Klan—conservative Christianity, nativism, white populism, hyper-patriotism and racial prejudice—have manifested themselves throughout American history, including the present day. And while the Tea Party isn’t an anti-black terrorist group, it’s hard to deny the extent to which the movement is motivated by the same constellation of reactionary forces.

The facts bear this out. According to a recent survey from the Public Religion Research Institute, 47 percent of Americans who identify with the Tea Party movement also identify with the religious right, and 75 percent of those who identify with the Tea Party label themselves Christian conservatives. Tea Partiers are overwhelmingly white, more likely to see immigration as a problem, and more likely to harbor racial resentment toward African-Americans. Put another way, it’s no accident that birtherism found a home among Tea Partiers. And of course, Tea Party rhetoric tends toward to loud proclamations of “real” patriotism, and a desire to return to the foundations of American political life.

The Tea Party is a classic reactionary movement in the American tradition, and as a result, it shares similarities with the Ku Klux Klan. I repeat, that doesn’t mean that Tea Partiers are Klansmen, but it’s simply true that the movement draws from similar threads in American life. Given the extent to which this is abundantly clear, the Tea Party’s conservative defenders are, perhaps, protesting a little too much.

Related Topics: US Politics | Race and Religion | Politics

 

Comment:   Jamelle seems very confused regarding his ‘facts’ of history.   He doesn’t mention much history of the KKK which predates by decades the beginning of the twentieth century.   One doesn’t need to check out Mr. Bouis’e race.  He associates civil rights as if it were solely a race issue., black victims galore.   One wonders if Mr. Bouie’s  knowledge of history matriculated from  a university  Black Studies Deparment.

 

It could be that his stupidity regarding the KKK arises from his youth as well as the  space in the world this youth has allowed him to  occur.    

 

If TRUTH were to  allowed to be known on the matter, the most RACIST communities in America are populated by blacks.   This misfortune has occured on two fronts……the  black racist plantation of the American inner city and the black racist community created by the Black Studies Deparments in America’s universities of so called “Higher Learnings”.    Both communities sell ignorance to American blacks for political purposes.

 

Read Mr. Bouie’s article again.    It is likely he knows more about the Tea Party than he does about the KKK.   Perhaps not, for it could be he has yet to emerge from the black racists’ cage of ignorance  caused by the diseease of isolation.  

 

Does anyone really believe that the KKK from its founding by Nathan Bedford Forrest was organized by white men and women throughout the country, many of them retired or near retirement age?   Does he have any clue who Nathan Bedford Forrest was?   in what years and  how and where he became a hero?

 

Did Jamelle not learn from his studies at the University of Virginia that it  would have been rather unlikely that the KKK  would have been as happy with black participants in its ranks as are the Tea Party folk.   Then again who would have known at those events where the KKK dressed up in full attire,  the  one including hoods.

 

There are those in the know who might claim  that Mr. Forrest’s KKK served a  heroiic function representing the downtrodden in the South and fought for political equality for his followers.   Mr. University of Virginia didn’t mention this line of thinking, however. 

 

Perhaps, he has never had to.   America’s educational system has been very dull in its teaching of knowledge over the past half century.   Jamelle Bouie is too young to be a newsreporter hack.   It is likely the only thing he has been taught is “Black Studies”.    Only a guess, folks, based on his writing.   

 

The following is what the Nation included regarding Mr. Bouie’s background:

“Since July 2010, Jamelle Bouie has been a Writing Fellow for The American Prospect magazine in Washington D.C. His speciality is US politics—with a focus on parties, elections and campaign finance—and his work has appeared at The Washington Independent, CNN.com, and Ta-Nehisi Coates’ blog at the Atlantic, in addition to regular blogging and analysis at The Prospect. He is a recent graduate of the University of Virginia, and lives in Washington D.C, though his heart remains in Charlottesville, VA.”

Time to Free America from its EPA Octopus

One More Reason to Reject Climate Change Regulation

from the National Center for Policy Analysis:

“In September, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a report by its Office of Inspector General (OIG) stating that the EPA’s technical support document (TSD) on greenhouse gas emissions violated federal standards.  The TSD provided the scientific backbone and technical analysis for the EPA’s 2009 “endangerment finding,” which gave the EPA authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.  The significance of the finding being invalidated should not be underestimated, and should reinforce efforts to rein in out-of-control regulatory powers, says Nicolas Loris, a policy analyst with the Heritage Foundation.

• Among the failures of the EPA in creating its TSD was the fact that it did not publish its findings for public review — if it had, it might have discovered the true amount of contrasting science that the public might have brought to the forefront.
• Additionally, the TSD violates federal codes because one member of the 12-person panel that created the document was an EPA employee.
• The failure of the TSD and the unwillingness of the EPA to compromise its goals of limiting carbon emissions are even more egregious when it is recognized that the EPA continued along this path despite numerous calls from climatologically-motivated sources that called into question the validity of its climate change data.

This is a clear example of the fact that the EPA, in the absence of checks on its power, is capable of pushing the boundaries far beyond what was intended by Congress.  Furthermore, in addition to relying on data and facts that are questionable, the EPA’s emissions-slashing policies are extremely damaging in that they hurt economic growth and also that they fail to significantly reduce emissions.

• American efforts to reduce emissions unilaterally are insignificant on a global scale, as the burgeoning economies of China and India produce enough emissions to eliminate American gains.
• Higher energy prices faced by energy companies and regular businesses will ultimately be paid by American consumers by driving up prices.
• Many businesses, seeking to avoid artificially inflated energy prices from EPA regulations, will likely relocate to other countries, causing a net loss of American jobs.

For these reasons, EPA regulations on emissions will stunt economic growth with little environmental gain, and should therefore be subject to strict scrutiny.” 

Source: Nicolas Loris, “New EPA Inspector General Report: One More Reason to Reject Climate Change Regulation,” Heritage Foundation, November 16, 2011.

For text:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/11/new-epa-inspector-general-report-one-more-reason-to-reject-climate-change-regulation

For more on Environment Issues:

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_Category=31

Comment:   Why aren’t there pressure groups to oppose Global Cooling……a far, far more dangerous condition for  animal and vegetable.    From my own science education formal and general, it is a far greater threat to the human condition for every degree average of temperature  colder than warmer.

Why aren’t there any Al Gore’s around making noise to encourage  global warming?    Because the United Nations didn’t bribe the science community to the tune of $3,000,000,000 to prove global cooling as it did global warming.

Because, the fraud of global warming ala guru Gore had nothing to do with climate.   Its purpose was to cripple  America’s economic engine  in order to transfer, Marxist style, its wealth to the 3rd World folks who run the United Nations’  political agenda.

Why America’s First Marxist President, Barack Obama, Could be Re-elected

Is Obama toast in 2012?

By Mark Mellman   at the Hill

“If Barack Obama is “toast,” as one now-infamous headline conjectured, why is the broadest-based forecast (Pollyvote) projecting the president will be reelected with 51.1 percent of the vote? That’s way too close for anyone’s comfort, and it presages an exceedingly close, hard-fought race that could go either way, but the plus side of 50 hardly qualifies as “toast.”

In fact, President Obama has a reasonable shot at reelection for reasons both structural and strategic. 

Having professed my “fundamentalist” commitments here on many previous occasions, I don’t intend to abandon them now — this year, as in the past, the structural fundamentals will do more to determine the outcome than the day-to-day campaign back-and-forth, so start with the fundamentals — but I won’t be able to go through both here, so consider this Part 1.

Longevity — Americans are reluctant to throw a party out of the White House before affording it a reasonable chance to complete its work — thus the overwhelming tendency to give parties at least two terms. As Professor Alan Abramowitz has noted, in the past hundred years, voters have only once denied a president a second party term (Jimmy Carter in 1980). (Someone will quickly object, referencing George Bush the father, but he was in fact defeated while seeking a fourth GOP party term — two of Reagan’s and one of his own.) The fact that Obama is seeking just a second party term gives him an important structural advantage.

The Economy — Economic performance is a central structural fundamental, but the appropriate measurement of the abstraction we call the economy is very much in doubt. Myriad economic indicators, usually but not always correlated, are potential nominees for the most important—unemployment, GDP growth, consumer confidence, the stock market — and most have been cited by someone to argue the magnitude of Obama’s electoral predicament. However, not all economic indicators are created equal. Careful statistical analyses by several scholars reveal there is a real winner — one economic indicator more closely associated with electoral outcomes than any other: change in per capita real disposable income. It’s not an indicator voters see flashing on their TV screens each day, nor is it plastered on newspaper headlines; rather, it is an indicator voters feel every time they pull up to the gas pump or write a mortgage check. When Carter became the only president in a century to be denied a second party term, disposable income declined by about 1 percent. Indeed, that was the only presidential election year since Hoover’s in 1932 in which income growth was negative. This same indicator declined even sharply in the third quarter of 2011, but what of 2012? Current forecasts project growth over 1 percent, hardly stupendous, but consistent with Obama being reelected — about where Truman was when he defeated Dewey.

Demography — Demography is no longer destiny, but it plays a vital role in determining electoral fortunes. In short, African-Americans and Latinos, base Democratic constituencies, are a growing share of the electorate, while whites are declining. In 2000, blacks and Hispanics constituted about 16 percent of the electorate, rising to 22 percent in 2008 — and it could be higher in 2012. Jews are a smaller but extremely loyal demographic as well. If the president repeats his performance among African-Americans and does reasonably well, by historical standards, among Latinos and Jews, he can win with less than 40 percent of the white vote. How difficult is that to achieve? While Democrats were getting creamed in House elections across the country last cycle, we exceeded what the president requires, as did John Kerry in 2004. Hard, but hardly impossible.”

Mellman is president of The Mellman Group and has worked for Democratic candidates and causes since 1982. Current clients include the Majority Leader of the Senate and the Democratic Whip in the House.

Comment:   The above reading should help clarify why the president and the Democrats are embarking on their class  and race warfare strategy……banking on the black plantation, Latino, Jewish,  and organized labor vote added to the diehard, strident left of the university crowd to win their selected states for the 270 Electoral College vote needed to win a second term.

With Lefty control over the vast majority of communication networks in America, Obama will definitely be favored to win a second term.

Getting to Know Thomas Sowell Better……..’Beethoven for the Mind’

The following review of Thomas Sowell, and his comments regarding his concerns about Occupy Wall Street America was sent to me by fellow conservative, Bruce Taber. 

I have never met Mr. Sowell beyond reading his work or listening to his analyses on radio or television.   He has appeared often  conversing with Dennis on Dennis’ radio show.     Together they become  an inspiring  duet of  beautiful American intellectual music.   It is very difficult  to dislike exceptionally decent people who think exactly the thoughts you do and explain those concepts so clearly, so rationally, so inspiringly……”Beethoven for the mind”.

Unfortunately,  this  music for the mind fades as time allotted for such discourse  passes to memory.  

Bruce sends the following:

 Thomas Sowell-Occupy Wall street

Thomas Sowell (born June 30, 1930) is an American economist, social
theorist, political philosopher, and author. A National Humanities
Medal winner, he advocates laissez-faire economics and writes from a
libertarian perspective. He is currently a Rose and Milton Friedman
Senior Fellow on Public Policy at the  Hoover Institution at Stanford
University.  Sowell was born in  North Carolina , but grew up in  Harlem ,
New York . He dropped out of high school, and served in the United
States Marine Corps during the Korean War. He had received a
bachelor’s degree from  Harvard University  in 1958 and a master’s
degree from  Columbia University  in 1959. In 1968, he earned his
doctorate degree in economics from the  University of Chicago .  Dr.
Sowell has served on the faculties of several universities, including
Cornell and  University of California , Los Angeles , and worked for
“think tanks” such as the Urban Institute. Since 1980 he has worked at
the  Hoover Institution. He is the author of more than 30 books.

By Dr. Sowell

The current Occupy Wall Street movement is the best illustration to
date of what President Barack Obama’s America looks like. It is an
America  where the lawless, unaccomplished, ignorant and incompetent
rule. It is an America where those who have sacrificed nothing pillage
and destroy the lives of those who have sacrificed greatly.

It is an America where history is rewritten to honor dictators,
murderers and thieves. It is an America where violence, racism,
hatred, class warfare and murder are all promoted as acceptable means
of overturning the American civil society.

It is an America where humans have been degraded to the level of
animals: defecating in public, having sex in public, devoid of basic
hygiene. It is an  America where the basic tenets of a civil society,
including faith, family, a free press and individual rights, have been
rejected. It is an America where our founding documents have been
shredded and, with them, every person’sguaranteed liberties.

It is an America where, ultimately, great suffering will come to the
American people, but the rulers like Obama, Michelle Obama, Harry
Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Jesse
Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, liberal college professors, union bosses and
other loyal liberal/Communist Party members will live in opulent
splendor.

It is the America that Obama and the Democratic Party have created
with the willing assistance of the American media, Hollywood , unions,
universities, the Communist Party of America, the Black Panthers and
numerous anti-American foreign entities.

Barack Obama has brought more destruction upon this country in four
years than any other event in the history of our nation, but it is
just the beginning of what he and his comrades are capable of doing.

The Occupy Wall Street movement is just another step in their plan for
the annihilation of America .

“Socialism, in general, has a record of failure so blatant that only
an intellectual could ignore or evade it.”

Thomas Sowell

MARXISM 101: Learning the Power of the Obama Marxist Economy

 Obama Marxism as an Example:

“An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama’s socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. 

The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s plan”. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A…. (substituting grades for dollars – something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little. 

The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. 

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. 

To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. It could not be any simpler than that. (Please pass this on) Remember, there IS a test coming up. The 2012 elections. These are possibly the 5 best sentences you’ll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.”

(The above example was sent by conservative Brian Ross.)

San Francisco’s Marxist Diet Laws for McDonald’s Outmaneuvered

Victory: McDonald’s outsmarts San Francisco

on Happy Meal ban

 by Allahpundit      at HotAir

“Remember when San Fran “banned” Happy Meals by requiring fruit and vegetables to be served with any meal that includes a toy? Question: What if the meal doesn’t automatically include the toy? What if the toy’s “optional,” purchasable with a Happy Meal plus a small additional fee that you’ll be happy to pay just to shut up that screaming brat who wants the toy, mom, c’monnnnn?

I can’t shake the feeling that government intrusion produces higher costs, less choice, and inefficiency.

Come Dec. 1, you can still buy the Happy Meal. But it doesn’t come with a toy. For that, you’ll have to pay an extra 10 cents.

Huh. That hardly seems to have solved the problem (though adults and children purchasing unhealthy food can at least take solace that the 10 cents is going to Ronald McDonald House charities). But it actually gets worse from here. Thanks to Supervisor Eric Mar’s much-ballyhooed new law, parents browbeaten into supplementing their preteens’ Happy Meal toy collections are now mandated to buy the Happy Meals.

Today and tomorrow mark the last days that put-upon parents can satiate their youngsters by simply throwing down $2.18 for a Happy Meal toy. But, thanks to the new law taking effect on Dec. 1, this is no longer permitted. Now, in order to have the privilege of making a 10-cent charitable donation in exchange for the toy, you must buy the Happy Meal. Hilariously, it appears Mar et al., in their desire to keep McDonald’s from selling grease and fat to kids with the lure of a toy have now actually incentivized the purchase of that grease and fat — when, beforehand, a put-upon parent could get out cheaper and healthier with just the damn toy.

In other words, they dropped the healthy options from the Happy Meal, split off the toy — which is the only part most kids care about — and now require you to buy a tasty Meal comprised of a lardburger and death fries in order to get the prize for an extra dime. Your kid gets (a) something to play with and (b) fat, and you get momentary piece of mind. And San Francisco gets … a lesson? Nah. They won’t learn.

Exit question one: Won’t San Fran have the last laugh here? I thought McD’s already agreed to healthy-up their Happy Meals nationwide, even though pretty much no one — at McDonald’s — actually chooses the healthy option. Go figure. Exit question two: Why don’t they just wait for your kid to get obese and then take him away instead?”

Comment:   There is one group of  the Marxist family of government bureaucrats still missing  from the San Francisco  Marxist community which runs the Bay Area……its Secret Police with their persuader thugs as paid  public employess.

Thomas Sowell: History Says The Center Doesn’t Have to be Seized to Elect a Republican President…..Just Persuaded

Lessons of History?

By Thomas Sowell

RealClearPolitics

“It used to be common for people to urge us to learn “the lessons of history.” But history gets much less attention these days and, if there are any lessons that we are offered, they are more likely to be the lessons from current polls or the lessons of political correctness.

Even among those who still invoke the lessons of history, some read those lessons very differently from others.

Talk show host Michael Medved, for example, apparently thinks the Republicans need a centrist presidential candidate in 2012. He said, “Most political battles are won by seizing the center.” Moreover, he added: “Anyone who believes otherwise ignores the electoral experience of the last 50 years.”

But just when did Ronald Reagan, with his two landslide election victories, “seize the center”? For that matter, when did Franklin D. Roosevelt, with a record four consecutive presidential election victories, “seize the center”?

There have been a long string of Republican presidential candidates who seized the center — and lost elections. Thomas E. Dewey, for example, seized the center against Harry Truman in 1948. Even though Truman was so unpopular at the outset that the “New Republic” magazine urged him not to run, and polls consistently had Dewey ahead, Truman clearly stood for something — and for months he battled for what he stood for.

That turned out to be enough to beat Dewey, who simply stood in the center.

It is very doubtful that most of the people who voted for Harry Truman agreed with him on all the things he stood for. But they knew he stood for something, and they agreed with enough of it to put him back in the White House.

It is equally doubtful that most of the people who voted for Ronald Reagan in his two landslide victories agreed with all his positions. But they agreed with enough of them to put him in the White House to replace Jimmy Carter, who stood in the center, even if it was only a center of confusion.

President Gerald Ford, after narrowly beating off a rare challenge by Ronald Reagan to a sitting president of his own party, seized the center in the general election — and lost to an initially almost totally unknown governor from Georgia.

President George H.W. Bush, after initially winning election by coming across as another Ronald Reagan, with his “Read my lips, no new taxes” speech, turned “kinder and gentler” — to everyone except the taxpayers — once he was in office. In other ways as well, he seized the center. And lost to another unknown governor.

More recently, we have seen two more Republican candidates who seized the center — Senators Bob Dole in 1996 and John McCain in 2008 — go down to defeat, McCain at the hands of a man that most people had never even heard of, just three years earlier.

Michael Medved, however, reads history differently.

To him, Barry Goldwater got clobbered in the 1964 elections because of his strong conservatism. But did his opponent, Lyndon Johnson, seize the center? Johnson was at least as far to the left as Goldwater was to the right. And Goldwater scared the daylights out of people with the way he expressed himself, especially on foreign policy, where he came across as reckless.

On a personal note, I wrote a two-line verse that year, titled “The Goldwater Administration:”

Fifteen minutes of laissez-faire,
While the Russian missiles are in the air.

Senator Goldwater was not crazy enough to start a nuclear war. But the way he talked sometimes made it seem as if he were. Ronald Reagan would later be elected and re-elected taking positions essentially the same as those on which Barry Goldwater lost big time. Reagan was simply a lot better at articulating his beliefs.

Michael Medved uses the 2010 defeat of tea party candidates for the Senate, in three states where Democrats were vulnerable, as another argument against those who do not court the center. But these were candidates whose political ineptness was the problem, not conservatism.

Candidates should certainly reach out to a broad electorate. But the question is whether they reach out by promoting their own principles to others or by trying to be all things to all people.”