The Obama Democrats don't care if this causes unemployed kids. Their reasoning is that if someone is unemployed, then they're that much more likely to be dependent on the government for food, shelter, and now healthcare. And a dependent population is far less likely to bite the hand that feeds them, and more likely to keep voting in the party that gives them entitlements. It's the classic vicious circle of socialism.

Finally, Obama promised that his would be the most transparent administration ever, yet he can't even find his birth certificate. If you were asked to provide your birth certificate to prove your identity (e.g. to get a driver's license), would you spend 7 million to fight it, or would you just show the paper? Just what is this pretender hiding? There, that's 5 lies, just off the cuff. There are dozens more if you need.

Obama said he wouldn't raise taxes on the middle class ("not a dime more", remember?), but he did so within weeks of taking office.

Obama said he would broadcast all healthcare negotiations on C-SPAN. Instead, Obamacare was constructed behind closed doors, and included backroom deals to buy the support of critical Blue Dogs. Oh, and don't forget Pelosi's 2006 campaign mantra to "drain the swamp" and usher in a new era of transparency and honesty.

Obama said he would close Guantanamo within a year of taking office. Fortunately for our national security, it remains open.

"in some key races, her endorsements helped nominate little-known tea party candidates who ultimately lost seats that the GOP had been heavily favored to win with more mainstream nominees." Mainstream nominees might have won those seats, but also would have watered down the conservative wave that defined the 2010 midterms. This is the lesson of the Tea Party movement: fiscal conservatism cannot afford to be compromised. We had 12 years (1994-2006) of milquetoast Republicans running Congress. Their record for fiscal responsibility was lukewarm, at best, and only marginally better than the Pelosi-Reid money junkies.

LOL...I'm not insinutaing anything, I'm saying it outright. :D Likewise to homeless junkies, panhandlers, hobos, and yet-to-be-discovered starving artists of every stripe. Not to cast aspersions on such people; from a moral standpoint they are worth as much as any other human. But you don't see them placing many "help wanted" ads in the paper, on Monster.com, etc. Their net contribution to the economy is nil, as opposed to, say, Donald Trump, who probably employs thousands.

How about this liberal myth: "Taxing the rich doesn't hurt the economy." Yeah, all those who are gainfully employed by a poor person, raise your hands. Nobody? Rich people don't just stick their money in the bank, or spend it on themselves (maybe a few Scrooges out there do, but not many). Most of them invest in companies -- helping those companies grow, and employ more of the rest of us. The really industrious rich, those who don't mind hard work (and despite the common deception, there are *many*), use their money to start their *own* companies. They employ people who are willing to work for a living, in a mutually beneficial synergy that we call "free enterprise". But the more money the government takes, the less is available...

Eric Herzik's comments need correction. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) is not up for election this year. She was re-elected last year in the Obama wave.

David Vitter (R), Louisiana's junior senator, is up for re-election. There have been some murmurs from challengers, but so far none have shown any strong numbers. So at the moment, his seat seems pretty secure -- although as MA proved, that can change PDQ.

- A Louisiana conservative