Lisa Murkowski just betrayed the people of Alaska and the American people.

Courtesy of Politico:  

Sen. Lisa Murkowski says she supports GOP efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate, the Alaska Republican wrote in an op-ed for a local newspaper Friday. "I have always supported the freedom to choose," Murkowski wrote in her op-ed for the Daily News-Miner, an Alaska newspaper.

 "I believe that the federal government should not force anyone to buy something they do not wish to buy, in order to avoid being taxed." 

Murkowski's renewed support for repealing the mandate — after repeatedly opposing her party's Obamacare repeal bills this year — may be a boon for Senate Republicans' tax legislation, which includes mandate repeal and is expected to be taken up on the Senate floor next week. 

A spokesperson for Murkowski told POLITICO that the comments should not be construed as support for the tax bill, which does not yet appear to have sufficient support to pass the chamber. 

“Senator Murkowski said on Friday that she will be reviewing the work of the Finance Committee over the Thanksgiving holiday and plans to look at the entire package before coming to any conclusion on the legislation," the spokesperson said.

Murkowski gained some national prominence, and the undying support of the Alaska people, when she was a "no" vote on the GOP plan to repeal and replace Obamacare.

However this time around apparently she is choosing oil over healthcare.

Courtesy of Think Progress:

Murkowski was a key vote in stopping repeal of the Affordable Care Act earlier this year, but there’s one crucial difference this time around: repealing the individual mandate is tied to the Republican’s tax bill, which also includes legislation opening up the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling. 

Murkowski has supported opening portions of the refuge to development for years, though her efforts have been met with little success. This most recent push — which would require only a simple majority to pass — might be Murkowski’s best chance to accomplish a long-held goal.

Murkowski knows full well that doing away with this mandate would undermine the solvency of the program, and result in higher premiums and fewer people being insured.

Courtesy of HuffPo: 

By 2027, absent a mandate, the number of Americans without coverage would rise by 13 million, while premiums would be up an additional 10 percent, according to the most recent assessment by the Congressional Budget Office ― although the CBO is currently re-evaluating its model, and Republicans say the agency wildly overestimates the mandate’s effects.

Senator Murkowski made a promise to the people of Alaska, and whether she admits it or not, she just broke it.

And she has just now made herself vulnerable in the next election cycle.

Redstate takes offense at Bristol Palin's attack on them, since they have often been ardent Palin defenders. I guess they assumed that a Palin would be grateful?

So the other day, as we know, Nancy French donned her Bristol Palin wig and snap on chin to go after Erick Erickson, owner of Redstate, for disinviting "The Donald" to his conservative gathering over the remarks he made about Fox's Megyn Kelly.

This upset the folks over at Redstate, who believe that they have been more than fair with the Palins over the years:  

Over the years at RedState, the rotating cast of 15 or 20 front pagers who have come and gone have written and said dozens (or maybe hundreds) of articles about Palin. Back in the aftermath of McCain’s defeat we, as a unified front, promised to deep six the candidacy of any Republican candidate who hired the McCain operatives who were engaging in a smear campaign against Palin. 

Over the years, as Palin’s fortunes have waxed and waned, various RedState authors have taken various stances about various things that Palin has done – some positive and some negative. However, RedState has taken a unified stand against the personal smearing of Palin and her family, and has stood strongly against the tabloidization of their private lives and the attacks against the Palin children (including Bristol, in particular). 

That having been said, bylines are fairly simple things to understand, and Erick’s position with respect to the Palins has been one of almost unrelenting positiveness. And over the years Erick has taken no small amount of grief from his cohorts in the media and the blogosphere for sticking up for the Palins even when many other people (including myself) had given up on them politically.

The article then goes on to point out that Bristol/Nancy/Sarah also accused Erick Erickson of purposefully posting that photoshopped picture of Palin up at the top: 

Erickson’s RedState once used a demeaning fake photo (wearing a revealing shirt with Santa Claus) of my Mom for an attack article on her. Erickson refused to take it down even after he was made aware that it was photoshopped.

The Redstate article points out that they did initially post the photo thinking it was real, and then took it down after being alerted to the fact that it was fake.  (Just to brag a little, we here at IM knew it was fake all along.)

You know I find it really humorous that the folks at Redstate would get all upset with Bristol over this attack from Bristol's blog. After all it was written by Nancy French, paid for with SarahPAC dollars, and Bristol probably does not even know it exists.

If Redstate wants to get their panties in a twist over being mistreated by a Palin, then it is Sarah Palin who deserves their anger.

However it should also be noted that Palin did not just go after Redstate in this chicken shit, hide behind her daughter's ghostwriter manner, she also went after Fox News.

You know the people who paid her over a million dollars and allowed her spout her incoherent gibberish on their airwaves as if it had some value to the political discourse.

The lesson that Redstate, Fox News, and everybody else really, need to learn is that Sarah Palin does not like or trust anybody. And if she is reaching out to give you a hug now, that is only so she can feel around your back for the best place to stick a knife later.

Hillary Clinton would like all of you to know that she was not trying to attack the President in a recent interview in which she called his decisions in Syria a "failure." Oh, well alright then. Wait....

Courtesy of Politico:  

Hillary Clinton called President Barack Obama on Tuesday to “make sure he knows that nothing she said was an attempt to attack him” when she recently discussed her views on foreign policy in an interview with The Atlantic, according to a statement from a Clinton spokesman. 

The statement comes amid tension between the Clinton and Obama camps in the wake of the interview. It also comes as Obama and Clinton, his former secretary of state, are due to cross paths at a social gathering Wednesday night in Martha’s Vineyard. 

In the interview, Clinton dismissed the Obama administration’s self-described foreign policy principle of “Don’t do stupid stuff.” And while she also praised Obama several times, Clinton nonetheless called his decision not to assist Syrian rebels early on a “failure.” 

Yeah come on! How can telling reporters that you knew the right thing to do all along, implying that the President's choices were poorly thought out, and calling the result a failure, EVER be construed as an attack?

Here is the statement from her spokesperson:  

Secretary Clinton was proud to serve with President Obama, she was proud to be his partner in the project of restoring American leadership and advancing America’s interests and values in a fast changing world,” said the statement, shared with POLITICO. “She continues to share his deep commitment to a smart and principled foreign policy that uses all the tools at our disposal to achieve our goals. Earlier today, the secretary called President Obama to make sure he knows that nothing she said was an attempt to attack him, his policies, or his leadership. 

It continued: “Secretary Clinton has at every step of the way touted the significant achievements of his presidency, which she is honored to have been part of as his secretary of state. While they’ve had honest differences on some issues, including aspects of the wicked challenge Syria presents, she has explained those differences in her book and at many points since then. Some are now choosing to hype those differences but they do not eclipse their broad agreement on most issues. Like any two friends who have to deal with the public eye, she looks forward to hugging it out when ... they see each other tomorrow night.” 

Yes well before that hug I suggest that the Secret Service pat her down for any knives she might have in her possession that might end up in our President's back.

One has to wonder if Hillary actually did not realize the impact her words would have, or is simply backtracking after being called out by people whose support she might need in her campaign?

For instance:

Just to clarify: "Don't do stupid stuff" means stuff like occupying Iraq in the first place, which was a tragically bad decision.
— David Axelrod (@davidaxelrod) August 12, 2014

Like I said I am still going to support Hillary in 2016, because we need to hang on to the White House.

But I would really appreciate it if Hillary could allow me to mark my ballot without having to hold my nose while doing so.