Republican Congressmen Sell Out Voters and Support John Boehner!

http://eaglerising.com/13574/republican-congressmen-sell-voters-support-john-boehner/

Republican Congressmen Sell Out Voters and Support John Boehner!

Fellow conservative, aren’t we getting tired of this little song and dance with the GOP? The establishment GOP has become so enamored with itself that any advice, any request from outside their number, gets immediately denied. The latest vote for Speaker of the House is just one more example, in a long train of them, proving that the GOP has turned a deaf ear to their constituents.

Whatever is happening in the halls of Congress is broken. Almost 65% of GOP voters wanted Boehner out as Speaker of the House, and yet… only 25 Representatives (out of 246 Republicans) chose to listen to their constituents and vote against Boehner.

Can you honestly tell me that when 65% of your voters want something and just 10% of their “REPRESENTATIVES” vote for it, that the systems isn’t broken?

Let me narrow things down a bit and focus in on my local corner of America. Georgia.

In my home state, we have two newly elected Representatives, Mr. Jody Hice and Mr. Barry Loudermilk. Both talked a big game about their opposition to John Boehner. But when the rubber met the road, neither of them followed through. Both men voted for Boehner.

The Hill expected both of these freshmen Congressman to vote no as well.

Rep.-elect Jody Hice (R-Ga.) — Expressed dissent against Boehner when the House GOP Conference held its leadership elections in November.

Rep.-elect Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.) — Freshman said he’d stand up to Boehner.

Jody Hice’s example, in particular, hurts because he took over for the honorable and liberty minded Dr. Paul Broun as the representative from Georgia’s 10^th District. In 2013, Dr. Broun was one of the few men to stand up and speak out against John Boehner (Broun voted for Allen West as Speaker of the House back in 2013), and he would have done so again had he not tried to win the Senate seat of retiring Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss.

I would venture to guess that this won’t be the first time we Georgians experience some remorse at losing Paul Broun and replacing him with Jody Hice.

Sadly, not a single Georgia Congressman stood up to the establishment. Not a single George Republican spoke for their constituents and voted against John Boehner. In fact, EVERY SINGLE Georgia Representative voted proudly for John Boehner – in spite of the will of the people who voted for them.

Buddy Carter from the 1^st District – voted for Boehner.

Lynn Westmoreland from the 3^rd District voted for Boehner.

Tom Price from the 6^th District voted for Boehner.

Rob Woodall from the 7^th District voted for Boehner.

Austin Scott from the 8^th District voted for Boehner.

Doug Collins from the 9^th District voted for Boehner.

Jody Hice from the 10^th Distrcit voted for Boehner.

Barry Loudermilk from the 11^th District voted for Boehner.

Rick Allen from the 12^th District voted for Boehner.

Lastly, and most heartbreakingly… my Congressman, who I’ve written many good things about in the past but have recently come to doubt, Tom Graves from the 14^th District, voted for Boehner.

The entire Republican delegation from Georgia voted to support a man who has recently worked hand in hand with Barack Obama and the establishment of both parties to push a progressive and economically disastrous agenda. Our “so called” conservative Representatives in Georgia have SOLD US OUT.

But we in Georgia aren’t alone, because most of the rest of the country is in the same boat.

Your “so called” conservatives sold you out too.

But there were a few who voted with the people. Here is the (very short) list of HERO’s who voted against John Boehner on Tuesday.

1. Justin Amash (MI) voted for Jim Jordan (R-OH)
2. Brian Babin (TX) voted “present”
3. Rod Blum (IA) voted for Dan Webster (R-FL)
4. Dave Brat (VA) voted for Jeff Duncan (R-SC)
5. Jim Bridenstine (OK) voted for Louie Gohmert (R-TX)
6. Curt Clawson (FL) voted for Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)
7. Scott DesJarlais (TN) voted for Jim Jordan
8. Jeff Duncan (SC) voted for Trey Gowdy (R-SC)
9. Scott Garrett (NJ) voted for Dan Webster
10. Charlie Gibson (NY) voted for Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)
11. Paul Gosar (AZ) voted for Dan Webster
12. Louie Gohmert (TX) voted for himself
13. Tim Huelskamp (KS) voted for Dan Webster
14. Walter Jones (NC) voted for Dan Webster
15. Steve King (IA) voted for Dan Webster
16. Thomas Massie (KY) voted for Ted Yoho (R-FL)
17. Mark Meadows (NC) voted for Dan Webster
18. Rich Nugent (FL) voted for Dan Webster
19. Gary Palmer (AL) voted for Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
20. Bill Posey (FL) voted for Dan Webster
21. Scott Rigell (VA) voted for Dan Webster
22. Marlin Stutzman (IN) voted for Dan Webster
23. Randy Weber (TX) voted for Gohmert
24. Dan Webster (FL) voted for himself
25. Ted Yoho (FL) voted for himself

Dan Webster seems to have had the best chance at pressuring Boehner, as he received 12 of the 25 dissenting votes.

Look, the problem here isn’t specifically John Boehner. Boehner is simply a symptom of the greater illness which is currently running rampant throughout the GOP. The real problem here is that our representatives are not doing a very good job representing us. We’ve elected many more conservatives, yet the GOP establishment continues to seemingly get stronger. Even when we elect supposed conservatives like Jody Hice and Barry Loudermilk, they still end up voting for the interests of the establishment over the desires of conservative voters.

The answer hasn’t been to elect more conservatives. Perhaps the answer is that we need to elect more of a certain kind of conservative… the kind who don’t mind getting made fun of and beat up… even by their allies.

Men like Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Mike Lee. Men like Paul Broun, Justin Amash, Ted Yoho and the like. Men who will stand up to the establishment, even as the their supposed friends mock them in the media.

The truth is that while we’ve been electing “conservatives,” we’ve apparently been electing cowards as well. We need to start finding conservatives with guts -- men and women who won’t bend to pressure simply because they’re worried about how others will react.

If we want to win back our nation, then we have to stop electing these soft, spineless, pseudo-conservatives and start electing people who will stand by their principles and vote their convictions. It’s easy to talk a good game, as Loudermilk, Hice and others have shown us. Now let’s find some conservatives who will practice what they preach.

No more cowardly conservatives, America. We need conservatives with guts.

Tags: Barry Loudermilk, Jody Hice, John Boehner, Justin Amash, Mike Lee, Paul Broun, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Ted Yoho, Tom Graves

Boehner may let dissenters off the hook

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/boehner-may-let-dissenters-off-the-hook-114062.html

Boehner may let dissenters off the hook

John Boehner is in a familiar jam.

Many of his closest allies want him to pummel members who defy him. The rank and file think retribution is a step too far. And Boehner’s style deters him from punishing people, even when they publicly embarrass him.

Story Continued Below

His allies could be disappointed.

Some of the House conservatives who betrayed him in the speaker election Tuesday might escape immediate retribution.

Some lawmakers and aides close to Boehner say Rep. Richard Nugent (R-Fla.) might win back his prized seat on the elite, speaker-appointed Rules Committee, and Reps. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) and Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) may even get to chair subcommittees on other panels, even though all three voted against Boehner. Senior GOP leadership aides say no final decisions have been made, but the prospect of letting the dissenters off easy is galling to some of the speaker’s closest allies, who want blood – and seem angry he isn’t willing to spill it.

“We need to get to the bottom of the guys who voted against [procedural motions], and we need to understand why they voted against that, and then we need to know why people voted against the speaker yesterday,” said Rep. Devin Nunes, the California Republican whom Boehner installed as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. “Name calling – saying ‘RINO’ and ‘establishment’ – that’s name calling,” Nunes said. “We need to understand why they voted the way they did.”

Nunes wants the panel that chooses committee assignments to reconvene and take action against the dissenters, and he’s planning to draft a Republican resolution that would forbid people who vote against the speaker from leading subcommittees.

But Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) sounds like he will allow Meadows to slide into a prized subcommittee chairmanship despite having voted for Rep. Daniel Webster (R-Fla.) for speaker. For now, Boehner has empowered his committee chairmen to decide on the subcommittee gavels.

Chaffetz said he is “just still mulling it over,” though he does not believe a vote for Boehner is a prerequisite for having chairmanship. He said he would probably come to a decision about Meadows by Thursday.

“I think he’ll be fine,” Chaffetz said. “It’s his personal decision that he made about who to vote for, but I like Mark Meadows. He works hard. He earned that spot in many ways. I don’t think there should be a litmus test to his participation as a subcommittee chairman on Oversight. That’s far different than some of the other situations.”

Similarly, Financial Services Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) is likely to keep Garrett as chairman of the capital markets subcommittee, an aide said. Garrett voted for Webster, as well.

“Yes he does,” Hensarling spokesman David Popp wrote in an email, when asked if the chairman believes Garrett should keep the gavel.

And lawmakers and aides close to the speaker believe Boehner is considering placing Nugent back on the Rules, even though the third-term lawmaker had voted for Webster. Just one day after removing both Nugent and Webster from the panel, Boehner said he is going to talk to them both and dubbed the move temporary.

Officially, Boehner and his staff say they are having a “family conversation” over how to handle disloyalty.

“We had a situation yesterday where we had to constitute the Rules Committee but because of some of the activities on the floor, two of our members weren’t put back on the committee immediately,” Boehner told reporters Wednesday. “I have not had a chance to talk to them, I have not had a chance to talk to our members. But this morning I told the members the same thing I’m saying here. We’re going to have a family conversation, which we had this morning, about bringing our team together.”

Of course, the election was just one day ago, and Boehner could still decide to take permanent action against any or all of the people who opposed him. One top Republican aide said retribution could very well come later in the year: If one of those members wants a vote on an amendment, the leadership could shut them down. If they’d like a bill brought to the floor, it could get stopped in its tracks. Campaign money could quickly dry up. Phone calls could go unanswered, and favors unfulfilled.

Boehner has a 24-year history of watching what works in the Capitol. People close to the speaker say he thinks retribution doesn’t always work. Other Republican leadership aides say punishment creates a permanent set of disaffected lawmakers who will never vote with “the team” no matter what.

But that’s hardly a uniform theory, and there are those who want Boehner to act – and swiftly. They say the gaggle of 25 Republicans who opposed Boehner — and those who voted against party-line procedural measures in the past — will never cozy up to or line up with the speaker, no matter what he does. People respect forceful action, some of his closest friends say, and if they see Boehner waffle, they’ll recognize there’s no fallout from crossing him.

But Boehner has a history backing off of tough action. In 2007, then-Minority Leader Boehner wanted the National Republican Congressional Committee chairman – at the time, Oklahoma Rep. Tom Cole – to fire his top two aides. An angry Cole refused and threatened to resign his position. Boehner backed down, and the staffers stayed in place. Cole finished out the term.

This isn’t just inside-the-Beltway drama — it has major consequences. Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) have ambitions to govern in 2015, and the speaker will need to find 218 lawmakers to vote for his bills. He can afford to lose only 28 on any given day, so he has a treacherous climate to navigate.

The speaker vote dominated the discussion in a closed House Republican Conference meeting Wednesday morning. Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) said he will have a primary challenger because he voted for Boehner. Several members were incensed at a POLITICO story that quoted a GOP aide dismissing Republican “fringe guys” as irrelevant. But a line of several Republicans — including Cole — approached the microphone during the end of the session and had one message: Division makes us seem weak.

John Bresnahan contributed to this report.

Authors:

View Comments

Mulvaney, House Republican slams anti-Boehner movement hard

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/01/06/house-republican-slams-anti-boehner-movement-hard-like-really-hard/

House Republican slams anti-Boehner movement hard. Like, really hard.

The last time there was a speaker vote, Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.) didn't vote for John A. Boehner, protesting against the Ohio Republican by voting for no one.

On Tuesday, he did vote for Boehner. And he had some not-so-nice things to say about the movement to try to defeat the top Republican.

Below is his full statement, which is remarkably blunt and the kind of thing that is rarely seen from a member of Congress. (Seriously, it's worth reading the whole thing.)

“There was an attempt to oust John Boehner as Speaker of the House today. I didn’t participate in it. That may make some people back home angry. I understand that, but I’ve got some experience with coup attempts against the Speaker, and what I learned two years ago factored heavily in my decision today not to join the mutiny.

First, I learned two years ago that people lie about how they are going to vote. And you cannot go into this kind of fight with people you do not trust. We walked onto the floor two years ago with signed pledges – handwritten promises – from more than enough people to deny Boehner his job. But when it came time to vote, almost half of those people changed their minds – including some of those who voted against Boehner today. Fool me once, shame on you… Today was even worse: there were never enough votes to oust Boehner to begin with. On top of that, some people who had publicly said in the past that they wouldn’t vote for Boehner did just that. This was an effort driven as much by talk radio as by a thoughtful and principled effort to make a change. It was poorly considered and poorly executed, and I learned first-hand that is no way to fight a battle. This coup today was bound to fail. And in fact, it failed worse than I expected, falling 11 votes short of deposing the Speaker. At least two years ago we only failed by six.

I also learned that the Floor of the House is the wrong place to have this battle. The hard truth is that we had an election for Speaker in November – just among Republicans. THAT was the time to fight. But not a single person ran against Boehner. Not one. If they had, we could’ve had a secret ballot to find out what the true level of opposition to John Boehner was. In fact, we could’ve done that as late as Monday night, on a vote of “no confidence” in the Speaker. But that didn’t happen…and at least one of the supposed challengers to Boehner today didn’t even go to the meeting last night. That told me a lot.

Some people wrote me encouraging me to vote for Louie Gohmert. I like Louie, but let’s be clear: Louie Gohmert was – is – never ever going to be Speaker of the House. I respect his passion, but he isn’t a credible candidate. That was proved today by the fact that he got three votes, despite all the national media attention he managed to grab. My colleague who got the most anti-Boehner votes was Daniel Webster of Florida who got 12 votes. I like Daniel. He is a nice guy, and a good thinker…but his lifetime Heritage Action score is 60% (by comparison, mine is 91%). And this was supposed to be the savior of the conservative movement? Would the House really have been more conservative if he had won?

The truth is, there was no conservative who could beat John Boehner. Period. People can ignore that, or they can wish it away, but that is reality.

Some people tried to argue that voting against Boehner would give conservatives leverage, or somehow force him to lead in a more conservative fashion, even if the coup attempt failed. All I can say to that is that the exact opposite happened two years ago: conservatives were marginalized, and Boehner was even freer to work with moderates and Democrats. My guess is that the exact same thing will happen again now. And I fail to see how that helps anything that conservatives know needs to be done in Washington.

I understand people’s frustration and anger over what is happening in Washington. And I also acknowledge that John Boehner may be partly to blame. But this was a fool’s errand. I am all for fighting, but I am more interested in fighting and winning than I am fighting an unwinnable battle.

Finally, the most troubling accusation I have heard regarding the Boehner vote is that I have “sold out” my conservative principles. All I can say is this: take a look at my voting record. It is one of the most conservative in Congress. And I was joined today by the likes of Jim Jordan, Raul Labrador, Trey Gowdy, Mark Sanford, Trent Franks, Tom McClintock, Matt Salmon, Tom Price, Sam Johnson, and Jeb Hensarling. If I “sold out” then I did so joined by some of the most tried and tested conservative voices in Washington.

I can say with 100% confidence that I have done exactly what I said I would do when I came to Washington: fight to cut spending, stop bad legislation, work to repeal Obamacare, and hold the President accountable for his actions. That will never change, and neither will I."

Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) was reelected as House speaker, after a group of hard-right conservatives tried and failed to deny him another term. (AP)

Boehner ‘Elated’ By Amnesty Deal, Says Politico White House Correspondent

http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/06/boehner-elated-by-amnesty-deal-says-politico/

Boehner ‘Elated’ By Amnesty Deal, Says Politico

White House Correspondent

Republican aides say House Speaker John Boehner was “elated” after he worked with President Barack Obama to push through the amnesty-funding 2015 budget in December, according to a profile in Politico, an establishment media outlet in Northern Virginia.

Sixty-seven GOP members voted against the budget, which funds Obama’s effort to provide five million foreign migrants with work permits, despite the historically low percentage of Americans who are working in the Obama economy. The budget deal split the GOP caucus, repudiated its November voters and rewarded Wall Street donors.

“Obama personally called Boehner to say thanks. … Boehner was elated over the deal, and offered praise for White House chief of staff Denis McDonough,” said the fawning profile, which hides the deep ideological split between the GOP’s anti-establishment and corporatist wings.

The article affirms the recent admission by a top Obama aide, Dan Pfeiffer, that Obama endorsed the budget deal — despite the inclusion of a big favor to Wall Street — because “you have a [funding] bill that you know Congress passes that doesn’t do anything to [Obamacare and] does nothing to immigration executive action.”

Politico’s article was published the evening before Boehner will ask his 247-member caucus to re-elect him as speaker of the House. At least 10 GOP members say they will vote against Boehner.

December’s back-room budget deal was vital for Obama, partly because it bypassed the hostile public opinion that had blocked his plans for a 2014 rewrite of the nation’s immigration law.

Ironically, Boehner had recognized the public hostility to Obama’s plans, and he blocked the Senate’s 2013 immigration bill. If the December bargain is not reversed by lawsuits, Boehner’s December deal will have given Obama much of what he wanted from the Senate’s failed immigration bill.

Government data shows that fewer U.S.-born Americans have jobs in late 2014 than had jobs in 2007. In contrast, roughly two million additional immigrants have found jobs in the United States since 2007.

Boehner’s December cooperation with Obama has widened the corporatist vs. populist ideological split in the GOP.

The GOP split is so deep that 45 percent of GOP-friendly voters told a pollster in December that Republican leaders “despite what they say. … really support immigration amnesty because they are beholden to corporate special interests and big campaign dollars.”

Only 33 percent of the 603 respondents disagreed, said the poll by veteran pollster, Pat Caddell.

The poll numbers were even worse among the swing voters that helped give the GOP its landslide win in November. Fifty-four percent of GOP leaners say the leadership is beholden to the corporate interests, while 26 percent say it is not beholden to those interests, the poll said.

Politico’s article barely noticed the GOP’s corporatist vs. small-government split, and instead favorably painted Boehner as a non-ideological, long-suffering bargain-maker who is beset by unreasoning “rage on the right.”

Boehner’s GOP members are described by Politico as powered by “anti-Obama fury.” Boehner, said Politico, is “perpetually besieged by his party’s right wing … egged on by right-wing talk radio and a growing chorus of well-funded outside groups … [who] whip up the right wing.”

Americans were described as “Tea Party members straining at the leash again,” by Politico’s article.

The House is a “legislative basket case,” the article says, because of “the Tea Party backlash and the social media explosion that has made obstructionism a litmus test for GOP House candidates.”

The article did not try to explain why small-government GOP supporters oppose Boehner, tries to ignore broad public opposition to Obama’s immigration policy, and includes only one critic.

“This is not a majority in the House, or the Senate for that matter, that was ushered in by the Republican establishment. This is purely the result of the enthusiasm and the work of an authentic grassroots-based majority in the party — the Tea Party, if you will, not Boehner,” said Dan Holler, a spokesman for Heritage Action.

The anti-Boehner attitude prevalent among the GOP’s base voters were highlighted Jan. 3 in a constituency meeting with a Florida Republican, Rep. Ron DeSantis. ”We elected you because we believe in the values you said you believed in,” one constituent said. “That means you have to stand up for it, even if it is politically unpopular and it might hurt your career. OK? The whole point here is that we don’t want that corrupt guy running Congress.”

Boehner and his aides dismiss the views of small-government, ideological GOP voters as “crazy,” according to the Politico article.

“These [Tea Party] people are crazy, crazy. … They just want a fight,” Boehner reportedly said after the 2013 fight over the Obamacare budget.

The article, however, notes that Boehner has “a perennial 100 percent rating from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.” which is the backbone of the GOP’s establishment, corporatist wing.

The Politico article include several hints and suggestions that Boehner wants to accept an unpopular immigration deal with Obama in 2015, even though any deal could split the party and alienate needed swing voters, economy-minded populist voters, and small-government voters before the presidential primaries and the November 2016 election.

“Privately, Boehner gives himself an ‘incomplete’ grade as speaker, and he still talks about doing the big things he has always wanted to do: a major, multiyear deal to rationalize the tax code, entitlement reform and sustainable spending curbs, a bipartisan immigration package,” the article said.

“The idea of a Boehner-Obama bargain [in 2015] … is no idle fantasy, and people close to Boehner say his relationship with the White House is sturdy enough to accommodate a big deal on taxes, entitlements and government spending, trade and immigration,” said Politico.

Boehner told the Politico reporter that “‘bipartisanship’ was in fact one of his top priorities for 2015, and, in private, in the wake of the 2013 shutdown debacle, Boehner told his inner circle that he has no problems passing big legislation ‘by working directly with the Democrats’ if his own conference defies him again.’”

The Politico reporter said that when he “asked Boehner if he worried Republicans would slam him for dealing with Democrats, he blew a puff of smoke and answered, ‘I don’t care.’”

Follow Neil on Twitter

Boehner takes revenge

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/boehner-allies-out-for-revenge-114007.html?hp=lc2_4

Boehner takes revenge

 

Getty

John Boehner is getting revenge.

He secured his third term as speaker Tuesday afternoon, losing 25 votes on the House floor to three relatively unknown members of the House Republican Conference. But he’s already punishing those who betrayed him.

Story Continued Below

First up: Florida Reps. Daniel Webster and Richard Nugent. The pair will be booted from their spots on the House Rules Committee, according to sources familiar with the decision. Webster ran against Boehner (R-Ohio) for speaker Tuesday, and Nugent supported his fellow Floridian.

(Also on POLITICO: Hell No Caucus sees silver lining in loss)

The Rules Committee is a panel appointed by the speaker, and it controls the flow of legislation to the House floor. It’s a prestigious appointment for members who are loyal to leadership.

More punishment is likely to come for others that crossed Boehner, sources say.

Authors:

View Comments

Sent from my iPhone

Senate Democrats got 20 million more votes than Senate Republicans. Which means basically nothing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/01/05/senate-democrats-got-20-million-more-votes-than-senate-republicans-which-means-basically-nothing/?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost

Senate Democrats got 20 million more votes than Senate Republicans. Which means basically nothing.

The U.S. Capitol Building is reflected in the Senate reflecting pool while undergoing repairs in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Wednesday, Nov. 5, 2014. Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg

The incoming Senate is comprised mostly of Republicans -- 54 to the Democrats' 44 (plus two independents, who hang out/vote with Democrats). But those Democrats actually received 20 million more cumulative votes than did the Republicans, as Vox pointed out (to much Internet traffic, no doubt) over the weekend. What gives?

As is the way with online writing, we were beaten to a more-thorough analysis by Real Clear Politics' Sean Trende, who outlines very neatly the ways in which the apparent contrast between popular support and Senate power isn't actually a big deal. (Certainly not suggestive, as Vox's Dylan Matthews offered, of the need to abolish the Senate.) But it's still worth another look at the numbers.

Here's one way of looking at them: Democratic senators got 20 million more votes than the Republicans. (Vox conflates those independent senators with the Democrats, which is a bit of a cheat but doesn't really matter since those senators are in the tiny states of Maine and Vermont.)

Here's another: Democrats won 57.2 percent of the vote in their races; Republicans won 56.5 percent. (The independents won a hefty 61.7 percent, but we're skipping them.)

Here's another: Democratic candidates in all of the races won by Republicans or Democrats got about 98.7 million votes. Republican candidates in those same races got 94.1 million.

The 20 million figure, in other words, is cherry-picked to accentuate the gap. Vox's analysis comes from a researcher at FairVote, which advocates for reforms to how members of Congress are elected.

Interestingly, Republicans got as many votes when losing to Democrats (about 47 million) as they did when beating Democrats. Democratic losers, though, got only about 31.3 million votes in losing. In other words: Democrats won their races by 20.3 million votes combined -- Republicans won theirs by 15.7 million.

Trende points out a key reason for this: Most of the Republicans won in lower-turnout elections. It's true that there were smaller states up for grabs this year: If you total the population from every state with an election this year -- including Oklahoma and South Carolina twice -- and divide by the number of races, you get about 48.7 million, compared to 72.7 million on average in 2012. But Republicans won 46 of their 54 seats in 2010 and 2014, compared to the Democrats, who won 23 of their 44 in 2012. In 2010, total turnout was about 90 million. Two years later, thanks to the presidential election, it was 40 million votes higher.

That's reflected in the total votes in races won by Democrats or Republicans. A total of 117.8 million votes were cast in elections won by Democrats. A total of 83.3 million were cast in those won by Republicans.

That's a difference of 34.5 million -- but Democrats earned only 20 million more votes, as Vox pointed out. If you want to, you can say that Republicans over-performed, as a result. But you shouldn't. "You simply can’t compare seats won (or electoral votes won) to national vote shares," Trende ponts out, "unless the numbers are wildly out of synch. This is because the parties aren’t trying to win national elections." Instead, races are targeted and candidates -- good or bad -- allocated resources as needed. Two of the Republicans who won, for example, faced no competition. What does that tell us about the new Congress?

Bear with us for one more number: It tells us zero.

Michael Savage on Navy SEAL Team 6: “They were Killed. They were Assassinated. They were Executed.”

http://www.teapartycrusaders.com/u-s-politics/michael-savage-navy-seal-team-6-killed-assassinated-executed/

Michael Savage on Navy SEAL Team 6: “They were Killed. They were Assassinated. They were Executed.”

Michael Savage has no intention of abandoning his passion for uncovering the full story behind the deaths of 22 members of Navy SEAL Team 6 in Afghanistan shortly after it was leaked that their unit killed Osama bin Laden.

The subject came up for a second time in the show when a regular listener said she liked the fact that he covered subjects no one else on talk-radio seemed to be talking about.

“They were killed. They were assassinated. They were executed. Or it was done because there’s a moron working inside the Defense Department who did it to them,” Savage said.

“Either way, somebody should go to prison for this.”

Savage called the August 2011 Taliban shootdown of the CH-47D Chinook helicopter that killed all 38 passengers “one of the greatest military scandals in American history.”

“How could we lose more men in one mission than in the entire history of the Navy SEALS, and no one has been held accountable for it?” he asked.

Savage had further questions:

“Who put them in an old slow-flying helicopter in a combat zone?”

“Why didn’t they break them up into fast-strike helicopters?”

“Who made this decision in the Defense Department?

“Who made it in the Obama administration?”

“These are questions, man, and I want them answered, and I want a hearing; and you want to hear equality, you want to hear fairness? How about fairness to the families whose hearts are broken by somebody in the Obama administration who killed those Navy SEALs? Would that be equality?”

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said last month that the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will hold a hearing early this year to investigate the disaster.

Savage noted on his show Thursday that he dedicated his novel “A Time for War” to the SEALs to try “to awaken America.”

In July, as WND reported, the father of one of the SEALs told Savage in a radio interview he believed the U.S. government sent his son and his colleagues to their deaths.

After Vice President Joe Biden revealed that SEAL Team 6 carried out the operation that killed Osama bin Laden in May 2011, Strange said the members of his son’s team gave startling indications to their families they were about to meet their demise.

Charles Strange, the father of slain SEAL Michael Strange, told Savage that in June 2011, on at least three separate occasions his son grabbed him by the bicep and announced that he had prepared his will.

The bewildered father finally was able to find out what it all meant.

Michael Strange, his father recalled, said: “Something’s going on with the team. Somebody’s leaking things out. Something’s going on.”

Savage, reacting with emotion, asked: “Your son knew he was being sent to his death?”

“They knew,” Strange replied. “They knew something was up. Every one of them.”

Other families of the victims have reported similar experiences with their sons the last time they saw them, Strange said.

Strange said documents related to the crash that he obtained show that, among other anomalies, the rescue team was held back.

“This was all planned,” he said. “I have it in the paperwork.”

Strange affirmed that there was no chase helicopter or any other kind of support for the team.

“So, you’re saying they planned to execute your son and the others on purpose?” Savage asked.

“One hundred percent, sir,” Strange replied.

Investigation

Prompted by the concerns expressed by family members, Chaffetz said his subcommittee on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is investigating the crash.

As WND reported in May, Strange recalled to the National Press Club in Washington his experience with President Obama at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware Aug. 9, 2011, when the remains of 30 U.S. troops were brought home from Afghanistan.

He leaned over to whisper into Obama’s ear to ask if there would be a congressional investigation into the death of his son.

President Obama whispered back, “We will look very, very, very deep into this.”

But Strange said he hadn’t heard a word since that encounter.

The families have filed a lawsuit against Obama, Vice President Biden, the Taliban, the governments of Afghanistan and Iran, because the Islamic regime promises to pay $10,000 for every dead U.S. service member.

Among their many suspicions, the families question the sudden replacement of seven Afghan commandos on board the helicopter just before takeoff. The seven who died in the attack are not the seven listed in the flight manifest. The families say that to this day, they don’t know the identities of the dead Afghans.

Strange noted that the chopper’s black box was never recovered and doubts the explanation that it was washed away in a flash flood.

Please Visit our Facebook Affiliate: https://www.facebook.com/OBAMAAGAINSTCHRISTIANS

http://www.teapartycrusaders.com/

http://www.teapartycrusaders.com/international-news/michael-savage-navy-seal-team-6-killed-assassinated-executed/