GOP leadership already kicking the tea party to the curb

I believe he was referencing the name of the legislation (Godzilla bills).

 

In subsection 12456.87 paragraph 2 of the Health Care Bill it says
"A. Government panel (AKA Death Panel) will seek to destroy Tokyo using a radioactive monster.
1. The preferred method is a mutated Tyrannosaurus Rex that can breathe radioactive fire.
2. If Tyrannosaurus Rex is not available the following alternatives are acceptable.
a. Mutated Pterodactyl
b. Mutated Silk Worm
c. Mutated Snapping Turtle.
3. Upon destruction of Tokyo all monsters shall be retired to South Pacific island hereafter designated as "Monster Island".

 

This has been an ongoing theme from both parties.

The public is very forgetful.

 

So there's been some scuttlebutt about Michelle Bachmann challenging Jeb Hensarling for House Conference Chairman, so that the Tea Party will have a representative in the leadership. (It's a ridiculously dumb idea, as Jeb Hensarling is probably the most fiscally conservative member of the GOP leadership in the House.) The leadership may have stumbled on a way to satisfy the demand, and not give up any power. Create a new leadership position reserved for Freshman, and fill it with a Tea Party candidate. The name bandied about is Kristi Noem (R-SD).

link

And photo, because she's hot:

 

Would hit...

Spoiler

...with one of these:

 

Nice teeth!

 

Noem Noem Noem...

Reminds me of a milfy Maggie Gyllenhal.

Spoiler

 

For someone who's supposedly an ousider, he's picked up on how the game works pretty quickly.

 

He's listening to advice right now. We'll see if that continues.

 

Looks like Mr. Kaminski got his ass kicked for the hit-piece and had to post the full transcript so now "readers can draw their own conclusions". He should be glad to still have a job.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704635704575604680661943738.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

By MATTHEW KAMINSKI

In my Weekend Interview with Rand Paul last Saturday, the new Senator-elect from Kentucky appeared to soften his fervent opposition during the campaign to earmarks and pork-barrel spending. I reported the shift, while noting his continued distaste for earmarks as a symbol of runaway spending and his eagerness to change the way such spending gets appropriated.

His comments have since attracted attention and criticism, and his aides now say that I misunderstood his comments. I stand by the story as written, but in the interest of full disclosure we are posting the full transcript of the relevant section of the interview below. Readers can draw their own conclusions.
----

Question: What if someone comes to you and says here's an earmark, mind turning a blind eye to this?

Mr. Paul: The earmarks are a really small percentage of the budget but I think they symbolize a lot of the waste and I think we shouldn't do it.

Q: So if Roy Blunt calls you up, tells you, 'hey, I want to get this bridge built in southern Missouri'?

Mr. Paul: I think we can do it if I'm on the transportation committee, we discuss it and we find out his bridge is more important than the bridge in Louisville, or more important than the bridge in northern Kentucky. I think that's the way legislating should occur. You work it out, you find out, and then you should say how much money do you have?

Paul has always said that he would not oppose funding for projects in Kentucky that came out of a balanced budget.

 

His answer is meaningless and doesn't address the question. He says shouldn't, not wouldn't.

 

A lot of the blue blood republican leadership is part of the problem; there is not much difference in them and the democrats on many things.

Well all I have to say is the people are watching and if they don't do the RIGHT THING that we put them in office to do then adjustments will be made in 2012.

 

Look at Rand Paul, even the Tea Party is kicking the tea party to the curb. He hasn't even served one day yet.

 

the teabaggers are feeling betrayed after rand paul said he would support reducing military spending over the weekend.

they are so concerned about cutting spending, but totally ignore the elephant in the room, which is defense spending. you cant seriously start talking about deficit reduction until you are serious about cutting it.

 

good for paul.

 

Jaw-droppingly outrageous cognitive dissonance is an absolute trademark of the tea party.

 

right up there w/ shameless hypocrisy.

 

True. Very true.