May 18, 2012
Subscribe RSS Feed

Tea Party Questions Speaker Boehner’s Endorsement Of Maria Cino For RNC Chair

Posted on January 12, 2011 by in Articles

Speaker Boehner sent a letter to RNC members announcing his support for Cino as RNC Chair. As an independent, I look at RNC chair fights with some disinterest. However, as one of the original group of Teapartiers, I look at Boehner’s endorsement of Cino for RNC chair with disdain. Why? It’s been reported that Cino worked as an Obamacare lobbyist for Pfizer. When I sent an email to the Teapartiers listserv about Boehner’s endorsement, people weren’t thrilled. “I’m beyond disappointed. Are they wanting to change direction or not? This sure as hell isn’t doing it,” one responder said.

Would any Teapartier want someone in GOP leadership who lobbied for a law that contains the individual mandate, additional spending, and more government control? No. Even though some of us Teapartiers aren’t registered Republicans, we realize that the GOP  is one of the vehicles America currently has to fight the spread of leftism. And until such time that the Tea Party decides to do it’s own thing, we’ll continue to speak up and hold Republicans accountable when they get too cozy with spending, growing government, or deviating from America’s First Principles.

CINO = Conservative In Name Only? You decide.  Speaker Boehner, what say you?

If someone can refute the timeline, that I was emailed tonight (embedded below), please do that in the comment section.

A Timeline of Maria Cino’s Lobbying Work for Pfizer/Obamacare

Share with your friends
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • email
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Google Buzz
  • del.icio.us
  • Print

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

  • Anonymous

    Nay

  • Pingback: Wagner for RNC Chair–Updated « The Prudence Paine Papers

  • C.

    Do you have any ideas why the industry might have found it advantageous to join rather than fight? Do you think that maybe profits rather than principles might have been a driving force? Your article seems to be missing something. It’s just about “us” and “them”, with no attempt to figure out “what” or “why”.