I missed the Saturday night debate and slept in and missed the one this morning also. Hopefully there are some of you who watched one or the other (or both) and have some comments.
Also, how do you see the next couple weeks playing out? I heard an interesting fact the other day that no Republican has ever won both the Iowa Caucuses and the New Hampshire Primary and failed to be the Party’s nominee. If Romney wins New Hampshire convincingly enough that his momentum carries him to a win in South Carolina, is it all over?
Blogs For Victory 
Obviously I have no life as I watched both debates, which were just ok, mainly because of the moderators bias and childish questions. Last night, Stephonopolous posed a ridiculous, surreal hypothetical question to Romney about states banning contraception and belabored the point ad nauseum. Romney properly put George in his place by correctly pointing out that this isn’t even an issue that states are considering. Later, Sawyer embarrassed herself by trying hard to paint the candidates as unfeeling with her gay question, which leads me to to clearly state that is not the POTUS’s job to personally comfort fringe groups. The POTUS’s job is to follow the constitution. Liberals tend to want a daycare President, I hope for a leader.
I’m coming to the conclusion that, while Romney has a lot of flip-flops in his past, there’s nothing that disqualifies him from being President, especially compared to Obama’s background. Romney has no associations with lunatic Marxist pastors, Chicago mobsters/fixers, unrepentant terrorists, Muslims connected to Hamas — the list of Obama’s questionable connections goes on and on. Romney has none of that. By all accounts he’s a pretty decent guy.
Agreed. Flip flopping is far from being hypocritical. Often times it is simply a reconsideration of a position based on new and/or current information, and is also indicative of a “thinking” and deliberate candidate. And let’s be honest, on some of the more difficult positions, who among us hasn’t had conflicting opinions on occasion?
Romney is a stand up guy who I believe will do his best to follow the constitution, and revive America’s power and economical prowess
“…Romney has no associations with lunatic Marxist pastors, Chicago mobsters/fixers, unrepentant terrorists, Muslims connected to Hamas …” which is good, because these are the kinds of things that matter to conservatives, unlike the TMZ type of scrutiny that dazzles the Left.
unlike the TMZ type of scrutiny that dazzles the Left
LOL. I often refer to MSNBC as the TMZ of political punditry
Spook, that’s pretty much a broad brush there, after all there is nothing that disqualifies most of us from being President…
So let’s see, nothing disqualifies Romney from being President so we should forget about his marxist takeover of healthcare in Massachusetts? Romneycare disqualifies him from being a conservative. I won’t go so far as to say it disqualifies him from being a Republican, but if it were 60 years ago, it would disqualify him from being an American for all practical purposes, he would be on McCarthy’s list as a communist sympathizer.
That is how far left we have gone – we are being asked to support a nominee who 60 years ago we would have been tempted to politically lynch as a communist, it’s as if I am being asked to be a democrat for just this one election and it’s not going to happen.
dougie: “So let’s see, nothing disqualifies Romney from being President so we should forget about his marxist takeover of healthcare in Massachusetts? ”
Uh, so obAMATEUR’s marxist takeover of heath-care for the entire country should disqualify him from the pResidency?
Not to mention that state taking control of heath-care is within Constitutional authority while the feds taking control is not.
Details….. Details……
Doug,
That’s a little bit of a stretch don’t you think? Is it possible that the health care industry has changed quite a bit in the last 50-60 years, so much so that consumers are looking for solutions to exploding costs? The next question you need to ask is that do states have the right to offer state assisted coverage, and that answer is yes. In fact most states, mine included, offers state health care programs, and they are actually pretty well administered. Romney simply complied with the wishes of his liberal state, and liberal legislature, and tried to make the program the best he could, which is a blend of private and state insurance.
I would prefer something else, but that was the decision of the state of Mass. not Romney. It’s Romney’s job as Governor to listen to his constituents, which he did.
tired, as Santorum has put it, there are a lot of things that the constitution allows an individual state to do, that doesn’t mean they should do it.
If an individual state wants to have Marxist reforms, that might be fine to a point under the constitution but that doesn’t mean that those responsible should be given a pass. In this case the GOP establishment wants us to give a pass.
Cluster, and what is it about Romneycare that controls costs? Healthcare is different, the demand for it has gone through the roof and the supply of it hasn’t kept up with the demand. Romney’s Bain Capital solution was to increase demand and go all czar on the sector.
Romney’s job was to be governor of the state and run it like it should be ran. Instead, he chose to either following what would be an inherent marxist belief, or pander to an electorate and do what he knew shouldn’t be done.
So which did he choose? Lipstick on a pig, pretty much all I’m hearing today when it comes to Romneycare.
Cluster, and what is it about Romneycare that controls costs?
I never said it did, but that was the solution the state of Mass. chose
Romney’s job was to be governor of the state and run it like it should be ran.
Exactly, and who decides how it should be run? The people of the state, right? And that’s what they wanted Doug. Why can’t you wrap your mind around that?
Cluster, I really can’t wrap my head around it. I live in a representative government system, I’ve never lived in a democracy, hence it has always been my belief that the people elect people to make the governmental decisions for them. The government isn’t supposed to put every vote to the people so they can do what the majority wants at that particular time.
Those elected are supposed to make the right decisions, and that does not mean based on which way the wind blows.
If you want to rule by majority of the proletariat, move to a socialist country.
my belief that the people elect people to make the governmental decisions for them.
Exactly, and those people are called the legislature, which in Mass. is overwhelmingly democrat. So your efforts to lay this all at the feet of Romney isn’t working.
it’s as if I am being asked to be a democrat for just this one election and it’s not going to happen.
A little melodramatic don’t you think, Doug? No one here, especially not me, has asked you to vote for Romney. I’m sure he will do fine without your support. According to Mitch, Romney won’t win anyway, so you really have nothing to be concerned with — well, except the likely irreversible damage that will result from a second Obama term.
I agree with Bachmann on the term ‘irreversible’. It is my belief that a Romney Presidency would make ‘irreversible’ Romneycare on a national level, possibly increasing it to a single payer syster. Can’t think of any worse damage than that.
I could buy that if Mitt wins Iowa and NH it is all over……hopefully then Perry, Huntsman, and either Newt or Santorum would as well and all drop out, then we can coalesce around whoever stayed in against Mitt…..Yep, it would certainly be all over then.
What happend to all of th Newt love on this site? Romney has been the only real candidate in this field since day one. Yet from the twitter machine it seems the rest of the field attacked each other and not the clear frontrunner. It is good to see tea partiers like Spook and Cluster coming around to the establishment candidate. It will be a close and ugly race.
Why do you think it will be ugly 620? It doesn’t have to be. If the debates are centered around policy and results, they could be quite civil and informative. If moderators, and the liberal media, attack the candidates based on perception of personality and pandering, then you are right, it will be ugly. Unfortunately, Obama can not defend his policy results, so the only recourse he has, as well as his complicit media partner, will be to attack the GOP candidate personally, as Debbie Wasserman Schultz just did.
It will be ugly because Barry will campaign against the rep congress and Mitt as protecters of the rich at the expense of the many and Mitt will campaign against Barry as a class warrior, who pits americans against americans. You live in America right? Presidential campaigns are only partly about policy and small part at that, IMHO.
You mean that Barry will complain that Congress is not the rubber stamp it was for the first two years of his Presidency? Whining is not a very flattering character trait and this president does it a lot. Maybe Obama should point to the part of the constitution that says that Congress should just go along with his all-or nothing proposals.
It worked for Truman and Barry is hoping that it will work for him. If you haven’t noticed, Boehner et al. have had a bad few months, though that may change. If the jobs numbers get better during the next 10 months then it will be Barry’s to lose and if not it’s Mitt’s. Please spare me the all or nothing approach by Barry. He has shown a willingness to deal.
Really? Kind of like when Obama demanded that Congress pass his “jobs bill” and then went out campaigning? Or how about, we have to “pass it to find out what’s in it”? And unemployment is just one of many Obama problems, so I wouldn’t bank too much on that.
Also, maybe you can tell us all why Reid has refused to even debate on a lot of GOP legislation, and why he hasn’t passed a budget in over three years. Is that your idea of good leadership?
I’ve always like Romney. He was my first choice 4 years ago, so I wouldn’t say that I’m “coming around to him”; only that I looked at several of the other candidates and concluded they no one really matches his total package. I concur that, if Romney is the nominee, it will be an “ugly” race — not so sure it will be close. The only way I see it being close is if unemployment is down close to 7% and gas is not over $4/gal by the time of the election, and I think both of those scenarios are more than just a little iffy at this point.
Spook
Gas is well below 4 a dollars a gallon in Fort Wayne according ton the web. It is highest in blue states from what gas buddy shows.
The embargo on Iran is both a liberal notion and one that will cost at the pump in the upcoming year. It is strange to see so much conservative support for failed liberal ideas. Sanctions didn’t work in Iraq or North Korea or Cuba because the leaders can assume a persecution complex. The only place sanctions really worked was South Africa, a western country with a pretense of democracy.
Spook
Gas is well below 4 a dollars a gallon in Fort Wayne according ton the web. It is highest in blue states from what gas buddy shows.
I haven’t been into town since Friday. A month ago we were almost down to $3.00 around the area. Since then it’s spiked to around $3.55-3.60 except at Sam’s Club where I think it was still around 3.44 on Friday. I just heard a couple days ago that the current national average is at an historic high for this time of year, and it’s been over $3 longer than at any other time, and historically the national average has gone up around 30% between January and June as refiners begin changing over to produce the more expensive summer blends. If that holds true again this year, that would put us at over $4.50/gal by summer.
Spook
Do you think that events in Iran are causing the increase?
I started off promoting a Romney/Bolton ticket, and only backed away from that when I started to look at the strengths of the other candidates. I really do like Newt, and think he would be a good president. I don’t think he is perfect, but I never thought Romney was, either.
I think what has you Lefties so bumfuddled is the sight of people making political decisions based on political criteria, instead of the emotion-based “decisions” so common on the Left. You guys didn’t vote for Barry because of his politics. You couldn’t, because aside from a few unscripted blurts of his true ideology (“when you spread the wealth around everybody benefits”) his handlers wisely kept his political beliefs and agendas either hidden or heavily cloaked in platitudes.
The Complicit Agenda Media certainly never tried to peek under the layers of cliches and talking points to pin down a political philosophy, or even his political history beyond a few passing comments on the fact he used to be a Senator.
You (plural ‘you’) voted for Obama because he is black, because he sounded so good with his reverb-enhanced reading of OPW (Other Peoples’ Words) , and because he wasn’t Bush. Not a single one of you who has ever posted here has seemed to be even interested in an explanation of why you think the collectivist, top-down, big-government model is the best system for governing the country, so no wonder you are so baffled by the specter of so many people examining the actual viewpoints of candidates regarding their ideas of how best to govern.
You focus on the only things that have ever gotten your ADD attentions—scandals, pseudo-scandals, age, skin color, weight, hair, clothes, wife’s jewelry, wife’s hair, and of course your passion for what you call “moderate” as it lies closer to your level of political knowledge and commitment.
To say Romney “..has been the only real candidate in this field since day one…” is simply proof of your ignorance of a true political process, as opposed to the American Idol model of Democrat “politics”.
I cannot speak for anyone except myself but I have no befuddlement as to why I voted for Barack Obama. It had everything to do with John McCain, the continuation of neoconservative polices,his reaction to the economic crisis, his association with Phil Graham and his selection of Sarah Palin. His choice of this woman indicated to me that his judgement skills were not up to the office he was seeking. I will leave it at that.
After reading some of the posts on this thread and the dismissive attitude displayed towards the moderator of the deabte, I wold like to ask each of you this;
what questions would you have asked the candidates?
I also want to address an issue Ama brought up yesterday on a previous topic.
Practice your reading comprehension skills.I was referring to Neo. Read what he posts and if you are proud to have his ideas be representative of the state of conservatives today, if you identify with his resentment and cretin-like mentality then you are a far more curmudgeon than I can imagine.
As far as voter disenfranchisement, there are two ways to increase your chances of winning an election, get more voters to cast their ballots for you, or get fewer voters to cast their ballots for your opponent. The GOP had decided to pursue the latter option.
There is nothing more sacred in a democracy that the right to vote, so an attack on voting rights is an attack on democracy. That is exactly what is happening in many states across our land. Republican governors and legislatures are passing laws making it extremely difficult for certain Americans to vote.
The Republicans use the illusion of voter fraud to mask their contempt of the Constitution. A report from the Brennan Center for Justice found the incidence of voter fraud at rates such as 0.0003 percent in Missouri and 0.000009 percent in New York. Michael Waldman, executive director of the Brennan Center said ”Voter impersonation is an illusion.” The Brennan report also states:
We are not aware of any documented cases in which individual noncitizens have either intentionally registered to vote or voted while knowing that they were ineligible.
Kris Kobach, the secretary of state of Kansas and longtime conservative activist, has led the voter ID drive in his state. Kobach explained that between 1997 and 2010, Kansas has experienced “221 cases of reported voter fraud.” A dubious claim since not a single criminal conviction has resulted. Over the same period of time, Kansans cast 10 million votes. Even if everyone of the claimed cases of voter fraud were accurate, the rate of fraud would be miniscule.
Numerous surveys show that blacks, Hispanics, the elderly, and the young are less likely like to possess a form of government-issued identification. Except for the elderly, the other demographics are more likely to vote Democratic. The elderly are more likely to vote Republican. In a shameless display of the falsity of their voter fraud motivations, Republicans in Texas simply exempted the elderly from the new voter ID law.
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, after signing a voter ID law requiring voters to have a photo ID, then closed DMV offices in Democratic areas and expanded DMV operating hours in Republican areas. South Carolina governor Nikki Haley said she “will go take them to the DMV myself and help them get that picture ID.” Even with carpooling, it would take 7 years, 4 months, 3 weeks and 5 days to take the 178,000 voters to the DMV. That assumes good traffic conditions.
Point #2.
Yesterday you made a rebuttal about science; particularly evolution in which you agreed, (forced by logic and a cursory knowledge of basic biology perhaps given the fact that you breed animals) that micro-evolution was fact but you then went on to state that intelligent design was the suposition of your argument. Intelligent Design is not science. It; like all religions and aspect thereof, can neither prove…nor disprove the existence of “god”. What it is, and what you have, is faith. And there is nothing wrong with that belief, but a belief it is. But you contend that it is more. That it has actual verifyability and that anyone who disagrees is fundamentally flawed and there is no redemption. You cling to your beliefs like a life raft. But all your protestations, all your smug, condescending comments and the totality of your world view cannot nor will it not; overcome the mass and the inertia of the power of doubt, reason, logic and questioning.
This blog has what? A bakers dozen of followers? Older people who just reinforce each others brittle and atrophied opinons and instead of being “progressive” or “liberal” and engage in dispassionate dialog, what do you offer?
The same divisive crap, the same reflexive reaction that these candidates on the right who claim to represent the idea of America do.
Romney will be the nominee and he will loose.
mitch,
Thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to address this current litany of liberal drivel. You must know that I watch a lot of MSNBC, mainly for the laughs, and you just regurgitated their line of debate almost word for word, so it’s easy to see that you’re really not thinking for yourself here. You also strangely admitted that you voted against McCain rather than voting for Obama, based solely on personality. Not a great way to elect a President, ya think?. Let’s begin:
what questions would you have asked the candidates?
1. Name three specific things you would do to help the private sector create jobs?
2. Name three specific sanctions you would employ against Iran and what are the expected results of those sanctions?
3. What will you do to stem the tide of illegal immigration?
4. What should be done with the 12 million illegals currently in the country?
5. What will you do as President to help curb health care costs and see that insurance is more widely available and affordable?
And much more.
There is nothing more sacred in a democracy that the right to vote,
Your premise is wrong, voting is not a right – it’s a privilege. And considering that unions require photo ID to vote for union leaders, I think it would also be wise to have the same standard when electing people to obviously more important positions. I would even go so far as requiring hospitals and states to provide free copies of birth certificates and photo ID’s to those in need, and am surprised liberals haven’t thought of that solution, but maybe liberals have an agenda. Liberals also support same day registration so according to a liberal, anyone could walk into a poll area, sign his name (or any name) and vote. That doesn’t seem like a very responsible way to govern a country does it?
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2011/12/12/union-election-requires-photo-id-politico-fails-note-irony
Intelligent Design is not science.
Can science prove the big bang theory? No, so why is it taught in science classes? Can science explain the very beginnings of the universe? No, so why then wouldn’t Faith based theories carry just as much weight as science based. Both of them are based on belief.
And it’s lose not loose when referring to Romney against Obama, but I suspect you will be sadly disappointed. Not many people want this incompetent narcissist back in the White House.
mitchiethekid: “Republican governors and legislatures are passing laws making it extremely difficult for certain Americans to vote.”
Yep, those who are not registered, dead people, those who have already voted under another name, etc. etc. – you know the ones that are favored and used by Democrats as they have demonstrated before.
BTW, there is no Constitutional right for an individual to vote for President. If you disagree, show us the article and clause.
Plus, to protect said Democracy, the voting system should be protected against fraud and dishonesty – something Democrats are vehemently opposed. Why are they resistant to secure our election system? And don’t give us the usual dumbed down talking points that are over 50 years old – that requiring IDs discriminate against the poor and minorities that you mindless drones love to regurgitate.
I caught most of last night’s debate — totally forgot about the one this morning until it was over.
I was surprised by several of the aspects of the debate last night, most notably that Gingrich really didn’t go after Romney. Santorum needed to have a superior performance — and didn’t. Perry was pretty well marginalized, and Huntsman came across as elitist and condescending with his answer in Chinese. Romney continued to stay on his game, and no one was able to land any damaging blows.
I’d agree with Cluster that the biggest losers in the entire debate were the Moderators. Many of the questions and their obvious bias were embarrassing to the point of making me uncomfortable.
On the issue of military service, Ron Paul volunteered and Newt Gingrich didn’t but he didn’t seek deferments either.
Paul came from a family were he had brothers, David & Wayne.
Gingrich came from a family were his mother married at age 16 and the marriage fell apart immediately. She married 3 years later and Robert Gingrich adopted Newt. Newt had three step-sisters. Robert Gingrich, in the military, served in Vietnam.
Isn’t the scenario in the movie “Saving Private Ryan,” based on a true events, the reason Gingrich wasn’t called to service because Newt, although adopted, was, at that time, the last one to carry the Gingrich name, which is why the military didn’t call him. I don’t know.
History of Bill Clinton’s Avoidance of Military Service
August 19, 1964 – Clinton registers for the draft
–[Washington Post Sep 13 92]
September 1964 – Clinton, age 18, enters Georgetown University
–[The Comeback Kid, CF Allen and J Portis, p. 20]
November 17, 1964- Clinton is classified 2-S (student deferment). This will shield him from the draft throughout his undergraduate years.
—[Wash Post Sep 13 92]
February 16, 1968 – “The Johnson administration unexpectedly abolished graduate deferments.”
–[Wash Post Sep 13 92]
March 20, 1968 – Clinton, age 21, is classified 1-A, eligible for induction, as he nears graduation from Georgetown.
–[Wash Post Sep 13 92]
Comment: Bill Clinton was the only man of his prime draft age classified1-A by that draft board in 1968 whose pre-induction physical examination was put off for 10.5 months. This delay was more than twice as long as anyone else and more than five times longer than most area men of comparable eligibility.
–[Los Angeles Times Sep 02 92]
Summer 1968 – Political and family influence keeps Clinton out of the draft. Robert Corrado — the only surviving Hot Springs draft board member from that period — concluded that Clinton’s draft statement (the long delays) was the result of “some form of preferential treatment.” According to the Times, “Corrado recalled that the chairman of the three-man draft panel … once held back Clinton’s file with the explanation that we’ve got to give him time to go to Oxford, where the semester began in the fall of 1968.
Corrado also complained that he was called by an aide to then Senator J. William Fulbright urging him and his fellow board members to ‘give every consideration’ to keep Clinton out of the draft so he could attend Oxford.
Throughout the remainder of 1968, Corrado said, Clinton’s draft file was routinely held back from consideration by the full board. Consequently, although he was classified 1-A on March 20, 1968, he was not called for his physical exam until Feb 3, 1969, while he was at Oxford.
Clinton’s Uncle Raymond Clinton personally lobbied Senator Fulbright, William S. Armstrong, the chairman of the three-man Hot Springs draft board, and Lt. Comdr. Trice Ellis, Jr., commanding officer of the local Navy reserve unit, to obtain a slot for Clinton in the Naval Reserve.
Clinton secured a “standard enlisted man’s billet, not an officer’s slot which would have required Clinton to serve two years on active duty beginning within 12 months of his acceptance.” This Navy Reserve assignment was “created especially for Bill Clinton at a time in 1968 when no existing reserve slots were open in his hometown unit.”
According to the LA Times, “after about two weeks waiting for Bill Clinton to arrive for his preliminary interview and physical exam, Ellis said he called (Clinton’s uncle) Raymond to inquire – ‘What happened to that boy?’ According to Ellis, Clinton’s uncle replied – ‘Don’t worry about it. He won’t be coming down. “It’s all been taken care of.’ ”
–[LA Times Sep 02 92]
Fall 1968 – Because of the local draft board’s continuing postponement of his pre-induction physical, Clinton is able to enroll at Oxford Univ.
–[Wash Post Sep 13 92]
February 2, 1969 – While at Oxford, Clinton finally takes and passes a military physical examination.
–[Washington Times Sep 18 92]
April 1969 – Clinton receives induction notice from the Hot Springs AR draft board. Clinton however claims that the draft board told him to ignore the notice because it arrived after the deadline for induction.
–[Wash Post Sep 13 92]
June-July 1969 – Clinton receives a second induction notice with a July 28 induction date and returns home.
–[Wash Times Sep 18 92]
July 11, 1969 – Clinton’s friend at Oxford, Cliff Jackson, writes, “Clinton is feverishly trying to find a way to avoid entering the Army as a drafted private. I have had several of my friends in influential positions trying to pull strings on Bill’s behalf.”
— [LA Times Sep 26 92]
Clinton benefited from yet another lobbying campaign in order to evade this induction notice. “Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton, who has said he did not pull strings to avoid the Vietnam-era draft, was able to get his Army induction notice canceled in the summer of 1969 after a lobbying effort directed at the Republican head of the state draft agency.” Arrangements were made for Clinton to meet with Col. Williard A. Hawkins who “was the only person in Arkansas with authority to rescind a draft notice. … The apparently successful appeal to Hawkins was planned while Clinton was finishing his first year as a Rhodes scholar in England. Clinton’s former friend and Oxford classmate, Cliff Jackson — now an avowed political critic of the candidate — said it was pursued immediately upon Clinton’s return to AR in early July 1969 to beat a July 28 deadline for induction.”
— [LA Times Sep 26 92]
Comment: Jackson’s statement is contrary to Clinton’s repeated assertions that he received no special treatment in avoiding military service. “(I) never received any unusual or favorable treatment.”
[LA Times Sep 02 92]
August 7, 1969 – Clinton is reclassified 1-D after he arranges to enter the ROTC program at the University of Arkansas.
–[Wash Post Sep 13 92]
According to Cliff Jackson, Clinton’s Oxford classmate, Clinton used the ROTC program to “kill the draft notice, to avoid reporting on the July 28 induction date, which had already been postponed. And he did that by promising to serve his country in the ROTC, number one, to enroll in the law school that fall … and he never enrolled.”
–[Wash Times Sep 17 92]
Comment – Clinton’s admission into the ROTC program again runs contrary to his repeated statements that he received no special treatment in order to evade military service. Col. Eugene Holmes, commander of the University of Arkansas ROTC program, said Clinton was admitted after pressure from the Hot Springs draft board and the office of Senator J. William Fulbright (D-AR).
Again, Clinton was receiving preferential treatment. In addition, records from the Army reveal that Clinton was not legally eligible for the ROTC program at that time. Army regulations required recruits to be enrolled at the university and attending classes full-time before being admitted to an ROTC program.
Fall 1969 – Clinton returns to Oxford for a second year. Clinton was supposed to be at the Arkansas Law School. However, according to Cliff Jackson, “Sen. Fulbright’s office and Bill himself continued to exert tremendous pressure on poor Col. Holmes to get him [Clinton] to go back to Oxford.”
–[Wash Post Sep 13 92]
September 14, 1969 – The Arkansas Gazette, published in Little Rock, headlined a draft suspension was reportedly planned by the President.
Comment – The article, citing a source, said Selective Service reforms when implemented, would only permit the conscription of 19-year-old men. In addition, the source said “the Army would send to Vietnam only enlistees, professional soldiers, and those draftees who volunteered to go.” The source contended that these reforms, combined with troop withdrawals, “would put pressure on the Congress to enact draft legislation already proposed by the President … and set up a lottery to conscript only 19-year-old men,” the Gazette reported.
From his letter to Col. Holmes, Bill Clinton said “….Finally, on Sept. 12 I stayed up all night writing a letter to the chairman of my draft board,……I never mailed the letter, but I did carry it on me every day until I got on the plane to return to England.”. It is very probable that Bill Clinton was in the United States and well aware of the above proposal on Sep 14, 1969. Bill Clinton was 23 years old.
September 19, 1969 – “President Nixon, facing turmoil on college campuses, suspended draft calls for November and December of 1969 and said the October call would be spread out over three months.”
–[Wash Post Sep 13 92]
The President also indicated that if the Congress did not act to establish a lottery system, he would remove by executive order the vulnerability to the draft of all men age 20 to 26.
Comment – Again, Clinton was 23 years old.
September-October 1969 – “At some point, Clinton decided to make himself eligible for the draft and said in February 1992 his stepfather had acted in his behalf to accomplish this. Newsweek, attributing the information to campaign officials, said this all happened in Oct 1969. Clinton spokesperson Betsey Wright … said she believed it took place in September. The difference is potentially significant. … If Clinton did not act to give up his deferment until October, he could have known he faced no liability from the draft until the following summer, that he could take his chances with the lottery and find alternative service if he got a low number.”
–[Wash Post Sep 13 92]
October 1, 1969 – “Nixon announced that anyone in graduate school could complete the full year.”
–[Wash Post Sep 13 92]
Comment – Clinton is now safe from the draft through June 1970.
October 1969 – President Nixon suspends call-up of additional draftees until a draft lottery is held in December.
October 15, 1969 – Clinton organized and led anti-war demonstrations in London.
— [Wash Times Sep 18 92]
Comment – According to McSorley, <b. Clinton's demonstrations "had the support of British peace organizations" such as the British Peace Council, an arm of the KGB-backed World Peace Council.
October 30, 1969 – Clinton is reclassified 1-A, eligible for induction.
–[Wash Times Sep 28 92]
Comment – “Clinton said he put himself into the draft by contacting his draft board in September or October and asking to be reclassified 1-A. … It is not clear, however, whether that occurred at Clinton’s urging or whether his failure to enroll at University of Arkansas automatically cancelled his 1-D deferment.”
Clinton has never produced any evidence to substantiate his claim that he initiated his reclassification.
November 16, 1969 – Clinton organized and led anti-war demonstrations in London.
December 1, 1969 – Clinton draws #311 in the first draft lottery.
–[Wash Times Sep 18 92]
Comment – Clinton was virtually assured that he would not be drafted because of the high lottery number.
December 3, 1969 – While still in England, Clinton writes to Lt. Col. Eugene Holmes, , commander of the University of Arkansas ROTC Program and states, “From my work I came to believe that the draft system is illegitimate … I decided to accept the draft in spite of my beliefs for one reason – to maintain my political viability.”
****************************
Col. Homes Notarized Statement
As Entered in Congressional Record (Page: H5551) 7/30/93
September 7, 1992. Memorandum for Record:
Subject: Bill Clinton and the University of Arkansas ROTC Program:
There have been many unanswered questions as to the circumstances surrounding Bill Clinton’s involvement with the ROTC department at the University of Arkansas. Prior to this time I have not felt the necessity for discussing the details. The reason I have not done so before is that my poor physical health (a consequence of participation in the Bataan Death March and the subsequent three and a half years interment in Japanese POW camps) has precluded me from getting into what I felt was unnecessary involvement. However, present polls show that there is the imminent danger to our country of a draft dodger becoming Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States. While it is true, as Mr. Clinton has stated, that there were many others who avoided serving their country in the Vietnam war, they are not aspiring to be the President of the United States.
The tremendous implications of the possibility of his becoming Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces compels me now to comment on the facts concerning Mr. Clinton’s evasion of the draft. This account would not have been imperative had Bill Clinton been completely honest with the American public concerning this matter. But as Mr. Clinton replied on a news conference this evening (September 5, 1992) after being asked another particular about his dodging the draft,
“Almost everyone concerned with these incidents are dead. I have no more comments to make”. Since I may be the only person living who can give a first hand account of what actually transpired, I am obligated by my love for my country and my sense of duty to divulge what actually happened and make it a matter of record.
Bill Clinton came to see me at my home in 1969 to discuss his desire to enroll in the ROTC program at the University of Arkansas. We engaged in an extensive, approximately two (2) hour interview. At no time during this long conversation about his desire to join the program did he inform me of his involvement, participation and actually organizing protests against the United States involvement in South East Asia. He was shrewd enough to realize that had I been aware of his activities, he would not have been accepted into the ROTC program as a potential officer in the United States Army.
The next day I began to receive phone calls regarding Bill Clinton’s draft status. I was informed by the draft board that it was of interest to Senator Fullbright’s office that Bill Clinton, a Rhodes Scholar, should be admitted to the ROTC program. I received several such calls. The general message conveyed by the draft board to me was that Senator Fullbright’s office was putting pressure on them and that they needed my help. I then made the necessary arrangements to enroll Mr. Clinton into the ROTC program at the University of Arkansas.
I was not “saving” him from serving his country, as he erroneously thanked me for in his letter from England (dated December 3,1969). I was making it possible for a Rhodes Scholar to serve in the military as an officer. In retrospect I see that Mr. Clinton had no intention of following through with his agreement to join the Army ROTC program at the University of Arkansas or to attend the University of Arkansas Law School. I had explained to him the necessity of enrolling at the University of Arkansas as a student in order to be eligible to take the ROTC program at the University. He never enrolled at the University of Arkansas, but instead enrolled at Yale after attending Oxford. I believe that he purposely deceived me, using the possibility of joining the ROTC as a ploy to work with the draft board to delay his induction and get a new draft classification.
The December 3rd letter written to me by Mr. Clinton, and subsequently taken from the files by Lt. Col. Clint Jones, my executive officer, was placed into the ROTC files so that a record would be available in case the applicant should again petition to enter the ROTC program. The information in that letter alone would have restricted Bill Clinton from ever qualifying to be an officer in the United States Military. Even more significant was his lack of veracity in purposefully defrauding the military by deceiving me, both in concealing his anti-military activities overseas and his counterfeit intentions for later military service. These actions cause me to question both his patriotism and his integrity. When I consider the caliber, the bravery, and the patriotism of the fine young soldiers whose deaths I have witnessed, and others whose funerals I have attended…. When I reflect on not only the willingness but eagerness that so many of them displayed in their earnest desire to defend and serve their country, it is untenable and incomprehensible to me that a man who was not merely unwilling to serve his country, but actually protested against its military, should ever be in the position of Commander-in-Chief of our armed Forces.
I write this declaration not only for the living and future generations, but for those who fought and died for our country. If space and time permitted I would include the names of the ones I knew and fought with, and along with them I would mention my brother Bob, who was killed during World War II and is buried in Cambridge, England (at the age of 23, about the age Bill Clinton was when he was over in England protesting the war). I have agonized over whether or not to submit this statement to the American people. But, I realize that even though I served my country by being in the military for over 32 years, and having gone through the ordeal of months of combat under the worst of conditions followed by years of imprisonment by the Japanese,it is not enough. I’m writing these comments to let everyone know that I love my country more than I do my own personal security and well-being. I will go to my grave loving these United States of America and the liberty for which so many men have fought and died. Because of my poor physical condition this will be my final statement. I will make no further comments to any of the media regarding this issue.
Eugene Holmes
Colonel, U.S.A., Ret.
September 1992
**********************
Compare this shameful history of lies, manipulations and evasions to the simple history of Mr. Gingrich not being called up at all, or for that matter of Dick Cheney merely applying for legal and legitimate deferments to which he was entitled, and you will see the gross hypocrisy of the Left regarding its infinite flexibility about military service and respect for the rule of law.
David Gregory asked the candidates during the debate this morning if they could be an effective CIC if they lacked military service. Which is ironic, considering the many glowing reports Mr Gregory has given on the CIC leadership of Obama. Obama’s lack of service must have slipped his mind.
I wonder if Complicit Agenda Media minion Gregory will ever ask Obama about his crotch salute during the national anthem, or his left hand over the right side of his chest another time, or Moochelle’s snarl about all that fuss being made over a flag and Barry’s nod of agreement.
hey
matt spook
i didn’t watch the debates…god has spoken to me all along and told me not to watch any of them so i haven’t
but i did read a bit this morning about them?
concerning the issue of banning contraception?
sorry..but that’s a real issue now
santorum came out and said
“The state has a right to do that [ban contraception], I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that,” he said. “It is not a constitutional right. The state has the right to pass whatever statutes they have. That’s the thing I have said about the activism of the Supreme Court–they are creating rights, and it should be left up to the people to decide.”
also….ron paul has argued exactly the same thing.
and two southern states recently tried to ban certain forms of birth control.
think the right wants to have it both ways on this issue….
they have to talk and relate to the hard core fundamentalists of the party
and
they also know hampshire is moderate on social issues
and
this type of conversation is a death blow to independents nationally
even the wall street crowd doesn’t dig this type of talk
one more thing?
on the military service talk going on?
personally….don’t think it matters if a prez has served in military or not
and if they got deferrments they got em legally
it’s their right
bagni
If a conservative candidate plans to disrupts complex systems with regularity it should be expected that they have at least a gut instinct for the system itself based on some first hand knowledge.
Newt has shown a proclivity toward using the military for nation building exercises while by choice he avoided service.
This is essentially the argument against Obama and the economy, though Obama did work in the financial sector very briefly.
“Newt has shown a proclivity toward using the military for nation building exercises while by choice he avoided service.”
Since when did Newton ever have the power to do this? Opinion does not equal action does it?
I am just a bit curious about who in the repub party lined up all these liberals to moderate the debates? Do they buy into the theory that because they are “media” people they will have no bias? Maybe for the next debate they can have the Clintons moderate, I am sure they would be nice and fair.
Approaching halftime in the Broncos game.
Now, which whiny troll was squeaking about what a “sucky” quarterback Tebow is?
Tebow is looking great and their defense is playing very well.
I thought there was a lot of wishful thinking in that Tebow sucks comment
pittsburgh WHO
ROTFLMAO
Go TEBOW give em hell…er heaven…..
Cluster: my most valued friend.
When I discussed voter disenfranchisement I was paraphrasing Jonathan Turley, who as a law professor and constitutional expert knows a great deal more about this issue than either you or I. I’ll take his word on it, not your reactionary opinion.
As far as the big bang, and it is not my intention to be insulting, but you know very little about quantum physics or for that matter chaos theory. You have a faith based view of life and human consciousness; as do most people. With that said, I’ll elaborate by discussing something you can relate to. Atomic weapons and home computers, both of which are based on Albert Einsteins “theories”.
Albert proved his theories, based upon the energy that sprang forth from the beginning of the universe; otherwise known as the big bang, by coercing the US government to undertake a project to release his theorized energy by splitting uranium atoms. As an aside, Albert Nobel invented dynamite which is used to crush the uranium atoms. So much for his name used as the title of a peace prize.
If you want to see some empirical evidence of the big bang, turn on your TV set to an unused channel. The “snow” as it is called, is background radiation left over from the big bang explosion. What you see is a wavelength of a transmission of energy. This is an example of science. It is how it works, It has applications and it is both repeatable and verifyable.
As far as your home computer, the electricity which courses thru the integrated circuits that comprise the synapses of the “brain” of you Mac or PC are a form of light. There are 4 forces in the universe and electromagentism is one of them so when you claim that some deity or benevolent being is responsible for the blueprint of everything that came before our understanding is just wishful thinking.
I am not trying to imply that life has no meaning, but what I am saying is that meaning is relative. What’s the meaning of a flower? Or an ideology? Is it attached to a greater design or does it have substance because we give it so?
Life is short and death is forever so when you and the rest of the miniscule crew here pontificate about how smart you are, I suggest that you take pause and reflect.
And Romney will be the nominee and he will lose. LOSE!
Yea, I saw the same show on the science channel a few nights ago too Mitch. You forgot to mention that as we move further from the origin, according to chaos theory, the more chaotic the universe becomes. The universe is progressing from a high state of order to a lower one and this decay continues unabated until…. In this way, the universe is a lot like the progressive movement.
Mitch, what if there are different dimensions of time as well as space? The possibility boggles the greatest of mathematical minds. What if death is the portal through which we pass into a non-liner dimension of time? Who is in that dimension? The laws governing our universe wouldn’t apply there now would they, so it kind of changes everything. How many tin cans would you have to blow up to form a useable tin cup by accident? I can assure you the universe is much more complex in its makeup. How long would take by accident or design?
Progresives, you got to love them.
lhe laws of thermodynamics, enthalpy, and entropy.
NEXT?
Mitch
You’re right that Romney will be the nominee and voter disenfranchisement and the GOP.
Einstein’s theories have nothing to do with computers (which go back to Babbage) and while the flow of electrons requires a medium, electromagnetic radiation does not. The noise on a TV is mostly due to thermal noise and local radio wave noise. The TV set looks for a signal, finds nothing and replaces it with random stuff much like Neoconeheads commentary here on B4V. The TNT doesn’t crush the uranium, it forces a number of pieces of subcritical mass together to achieve a high enough density which enables an exponentially growing chain reaction.
You’re also correct that science doesn’t prove theories. It disproves theories. There are no scientific facts, there are scientific theories which have withstood a large number of experiments and which have been useful in making predictions. The leading experimental fact explained by the big bang theory is indeed background radiation!
who knows if romney will be nominated…way to early for that…only aholes and idiots claim they know…
and face it…albert nobel did not invent dynomite…you missed twice and thats enough to figure out…that you are an idiot…and should not be listened to…
oh…that part about the nukes…einstein didnt come up with that one either…stop wasting your breath…if we need ya we can always go look for the lil blueboy name mitchthekidstooge in some corner…
Bmitch
BS and more BS
Question. Why is it called the “big bang theory” and not the “big bang fact” Here I’ll answer the question for you. It can not be proven as a fact. It is a belief system just like evolution. A buch of “scientist” agreed that it was possible and in thier minds highly likely,
and somehow this became fact.
Your system of beliefs is just another religion. Keep your religion out of my life. Isn’t that what you leftys tell every one?
You can’t answer anything. I am not a “lefty” as if anyone who is connected to the world and reality is ipso facto delusional and liberal. All science is couched in “theory”. Look up the meaning of the term. It does not mean that there is any qualifying doubt. What it means is that science is a language and as such has qualifiers that must be met before a “theory” can become a “fact” and if you knew anything about physics, you’d know that there exists a possibility that every experiment can result in a outcome not anticipated based upon the previous outcomes. Just like gambling. You strike me as a gambler. Want to bet your house? Your past? Your future? How about those green mountains you refer to? I’ll bet the theory of science against your theory of deity. How about that GMB???
I know what I BELIVE can not be proven. I know what I belive is religious. I am a gambler? LOL Ok whatever. Green Mountains? So far you are zero for two.
Provide proof not your theories. Your sophistry is getting boring but it is what so called academics resort to when there is no proof to be provided.
Well, a bet on “…the theory of science against (a) theory of deity…” has a problem, in that a belief in a deity is in no way a denial of science, no matter how desperately the there-is-no-power-greater-than-I crowd tries to portray it.
It’s a false paradigm, as religious people do not deny “science” but merely refuse to accept the arbitrary definition of such that is posited by belligerent either/or deity-deniers such as you.
However, anyone with a belief in a Higher Power, no matter what they might call that deity, would take your silly bet in a heartbeat, as betting in favor of there being a god has no downside, but taking the other position means that if you’re wrong, you could be well and truly screwed.
As for you not being a “lefty”, well, it is clear you don’t know WHAT you are. Again, back to the “if it walks like a duck, etc.” methodology of figuring out where a person stands, if you constantly sneer at, attack and belittle conservatives and some odd twisted concept of conservatism, it certainly does indicate a preference for its opposite.
The fact that you lack the intellect or the character to research a political system, understand it, and commit to it comes as no surprise. But there is a de facto position apparent based, not on what you support, but on what you despise and attack.
Yeah, GMB, “bet” some “green mountains”. He appears as clueless as ever, in his ignorance of the fact that betting against there being a god IS betting ones’ future. Bet your “past”?
He sure babbles on a lot, to not say anything, doesn’t he? In this last post, it is incoherent babble, to boot.
You can’t answer anything. I am not a “lefty”
Well, what are you then? Cause you’re sure not a “righty”.
I would bet A Green Mountain, but since there is only one of them and it is in Vermont to boot, folks might get mad at me if I lost it.
Oh the shame! Oh the humiliation! 😉
bottom line…the big bang is nothing more than imagination…science has no clue why things are the way they are…so they make it up…
just like the way the MSM makes up so many stories to air and ignores so much that should be addresssed…like the failure of th MSM to demand resolution into the fraud’s eligibility issue…no other generation of americans would have allowed a person born as a british citizen to be POTUS…and its a shame that the ignorance continues…yet…lies about hope n change won over the truth…
so we have no hope, and change leading us directly toward socialist failure economically…and the truth is still being ignored…
the world laughs at us while congress splits hairs on how to convert this nation to communism…and we know full well that they violate our constitution…
“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
Best clip of the debates. Newt gives it to Mitt good.
dear matt mitch
your writing so scientifically elegant
but here you are doing what is referred to as…..
“spitting straight up in the air”
you will always lose the belief game here….
::))
go broncos
tiny tim tebow and all…..
nanu nanu dork
tiny tim sure kicked the big roths azz didnt he?
back to the basement cardboard ship for you
matt barfdolf
agreed a prez can’t be clueless on the military system
but to use your disruptive theory
sometimes an outside view can also be the most disruptive
It’s Rassmussen so take it for what its worth.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/south_carolina/election_2012_south_carolina_republican_primary
Over. Does not look like it right now. Romney only up by 3 points in this poll in South Carolina. Other polls have Romney higher. Despite Gov. Haley’s endorsement Romney is going to have to fight for SC.
Well, Tebow and the Broncs put on quite a show, and even have this sports-indifferent woman talking about pass defense and weird new overtime scoring rules. It was the first game I have watched in its entirety for a long time, usually doing something else and coming back to the TV for a replay if it sounded exciting. A brother was at the game and said it was by far the best sporting event he ever attended—the energy in the stands was electrifying.
I’ve been talking politics as well as football, and our consensus is that the GOP selection process has brought some energy to the election cycle, and gotten more people thinking and talking about actual politics instead of the superficial trappings of hair, marriage(s), scandal, and the other fluff and chaff that have replaced actual political discourse over the past few years.
Even an anti-Santorum article I read this morning was about Big Government Conservative vs Small Government Conservative, and I thought Wow, we are actually talking about something relevant to the governing of the nation, for a change. I’m getting kind of excited about the election, and will stay that way as long as it continues to be about real ideas of how to run the country. In that vein, I think every potential candidate (except maybe Huntsman, who is such a nonentity I can’t remember a thing he has said) has brought sound, valid, ideas to the table, and stirred up what could have been just another slugfest based on identity and faux politics to energize the process into a serious exchange of important ideas.
I sent Rick Santorum $1,000 and won’t consider it wasted no matter how he finishes, because he has focused on so many key issues and been so steadfast in his insistence that these are the issues we need to keep in mind.
As for Mitt, I wrote to our political discussion group that to me, Mitt Romney is like oatmeal—you know you should eat it, you know it won’t really be that bad, you know you’ll be glad you did, but you just can’t get excited about it. But that’s OK. This country tried the American Idol, reverb-enhanced leg-tingle Teen Beat Fan Club approach to picking a president, and I look forward to a campaign with an adult in it, someone who doesn’t have to plant a weepy fainter in the front row of every speech, someone who has people nodding in thoughtful agreement to his ideas of how to fix the problems in this country instead of swooning in Obamamania hysterics. I like the idea of someone whose acceptance speech backdrop looks like it was designed by George Washington instead of Albert Speer, who has been an executive in both the private and public sectors and not just an Alynskyite agitator, who openly and unabashedly loves this country instead of thinking his job to to apologize for it and whose reaction to hearing the National Anthem is to grab his crotch.
Just a couple of notes of optimism on this glorious sunny day….
Amazona,
I’ve been remiss in our discussions of late; fiscal crises and all, but I wanted to respond to this thought of yours.
Spook and I agreed in 2008 that Mitt was a far superior candidate to McCain or Obama. With the looming financial issues at the time a steady hand with confidence in the market could have guided us through a rough recession instead of making it a prolonged period of fiscal malfeasance, crony capitalism, misappropriation and financial pain. We would have had two center-right Justices on the Court instead of the Judicial light-weights Sotomayor and Kagen (what an embarrassment those two are). China would be dealing with us instead of lecturing us, and Israel would have a confident ally instead of wondering if any country has “got their back.” But, it was not to be.
A day or so ago neo asked why I can be confident in my choice of Mitt and you and Spook answered better than I could have, thank you. But here’s something I don’t think either of you stated; I know Mitt will disappoint and infuriate me before his term is over. In his day, Reagan did likewise. The rules of power dictate that the President must negotiate and compromise to govern (internally) and negotiate diplomatically in a world with demonstrable threats (foreign relations). One thing the President can do is to set things in motion that will impact the country during and long after his (or her someday hopefully) Administration.
The TEA Party has set the agenda for this election as it did in 2010; the next President will have to take the agenda and either move it forward or abandon it and soldier on with whatever conditions history provides. In my opinion, Mitt can do this.
Politically, I’m closer to Newt than Mitt, but I remember all too well 1996. I grew weary of having to defend Newt from Newt’s mouth. Whining about being sent to the “back of the plane” and the Press misquoting the “whither on the vine” speech and all of the other drama of dealing with the petulant Newt leads me to believe that his agenda would be DOA as Newt becomes the Lightning-Rod again. And my conclusion is that a center-right business oriented mayonnaise and oatmeal President that is not going to be on the front page of every newspaper every day for the next eight years is what this country needs.
A political history that is Conservative at its core, who made some bad deals in the name of political realities, who may be to my left on social issues and in my corner on fiscal ones. Who will have an America First Foreign Policy; will use our military in pursuit of our interests, will bow to no foreign potentate or supine to any tin-pot dictator, someone who will appoint judges that have judicial qualifications and a record of rulings consistent with the Constitution.
Like you I’m not voting for an Empathetic Big-Brother or Benevolent Dictator; I don’t expect nor do I want the President to solve my problems. Like you and Spook (db, Cluster, Navydad, tiredoflibs et al) I intend to stay as active as my time allows to hit the phone-banks, attend the TEA Rallies and Demonstrations, write my Congressmen and keep the pressure on whomsoever (objective) is elected.
But, what the hell do I know? I supported George HW Bush in 1980!
Whether or not conservative candidates should be questioning the activities of Bain Capitol under Mitt Romney is irrelevant when the Wall Street Journal is raising questions as well. And it’s foolish if you think the Obama campaign, his PACS and the DNC aren’t going after Romney on this issue. Romney had better be prepared to answer this now before getting the Republican nomination or we may find out after the fact the party’s nominee can’t answer it.
With all do respect, the constant hype, with a bad economy, that we need someone from the private sector with business experience, in the oval office, to fix Washington and the economy is bogus. The federal government is not in the private sector and doesn’t create private sector jobs. What is needed is someone who knows what role government has to assist the private sector which creates the jobs. Someone who knows what responsibilities Washington has and what is reserved for the States . Someone who knows Washington, what works and what doesn’t. Someone who knows what role government plays and get out of the way where it is necessary. Someone who knows whose money they are spending and respects them by spending it responsibly. That someone is hired through this election process.
Major businesses and corporations who operate not only here but all over the world, have billions of dollars in capitol and investments; do you honestly think they would hire, as CEO, an individual who was a career politician with little or no CEO or private sector business experience?
Romney had one opportunity, as governor, to highlight his outside government experience to the State of Massachusetts and what did he do? Romneycare.
Russ,
One fact you can’t avoid, however, is that RomneyCare was based on ideas developed by the Conservative Heritage Foundation, and one of the strongest, most vocal supporters when RomneyCare was launched in 2006 was none other than Newt Gingrich. The difference between then and now is (a) Gingrich has decided there are elements of RomneyCare that he doesn’t like, and (b) Romney has said, if he had to do it over again, there are some things he’d do differently.
I think everyone, in their heart of hearts, knows that we have to revamp our healthcare system or it’s going to be one of the major factors leading to our collapse. At one time, both Romney and Gingrich agreed on the same approach. Romney possessed the initiative and leadership to actually put it together. Is it perfect? No, even Romney admits that there need to be changes, but at least it was done at the state level in a perfectly constitutional way.
Here’s what FactCheck.org says about RomneyCare:
And Romney was elected to be Governor of Massachusetts, not King. His job was to represent the people, and the people in this overwhelmingly Liberal state WANTED state-run medical care, and voted for it.
When I hear complaints about “Romneycare” I am reminded of the Left’s claim that George W. Bush himself executed criminals, instead of merely honoring his oath to carry out the laws of Texas.
It is true that both the Heritage Foundation and Gingrich, while looking for reforms that would be an alternative to Hilarycare, came up with an individual mandate and Gingrich supported Romneycare. It is also true that Romney has said that, in retrospect, there are now things he would have done differently. The Heritage Foundation and Gingrich saw, over time, that the individual mandate was more damaging to individual rights, then having the reforms needed in health care with it. The difference is Romney, not Gingrich, signed such legislation into law which set precedence for Obamacare. With the national outrage over Obamacare and Romney’s blueprint for it, now this issue is moot in the general election.
Sure, no individual is perfect, mistakes are a part of human nature and most of us learn from our mistakes. The private sector and the public sector are vastly different, the more experience you have or lack, in either sector, can contribute to how many mistakes you do or don’t make, which affects others. Again, Romney’s business experience and his one term as a governor is more hype than substance, as the qualifications for President.
But when Romney “..signed such legislation into law..” he only signed a bill that had been passed through both houses of the Massachusetts legislature, reflecting the will of the people of the state.
While I don’t like state-run medical care, I have even more dislike and distrust of elected officials who see their elections as permission to impose their own will on the people, which is what a veto of the MA bill would have represented.
And—ONE MORE TIME—-the law signed by Romney was for a state, not the federal government, and was therefore constitutional, no matter what else you might think of it. Such a law on a national level would not be, and Romney has been consistent in his definition of these differences.
I have always thought, far removed from politics, that the most successful people are those who have the integrity and courage to examine what they believe and what they have done, realize the errors in what they have believed and done, and made corrections to keep from making the same mistakes over again. Avoiding failure is often the same thing as avoiding success, because it depends on doing nothing and taking no stand—the equivalent of voting “present”.
A lot of things can seem like good ideas—till they are tried and found to be wrong, or until unforeseen Unintended Consequences rear their ugly heads. Some of these UCs are really hard, if not impossible, to predict, or depend on things far beyond the scope of the original intent.
Moving forward means taking a stand, claiming a position, because a wishy-washy “maybe I kinda do, maybe I kinda don’t” position will not let anyone really DO anything. Yes, sometimes decisive people do take stands they later regret, having learned they were wrong or simply not productive, but the act of taking the stand makes action possible, and that makes correction possible.
I liken it to skiing. It’s really hard to change direction if you’re not moving. You have to commit to one direction to be able change direction when you need to. Then you can decide if you are going where you want to go, even if it seemed like a good idea at the time. You can stand there, looking around at all the possible directions you COULD go, if only you could figure out how to get there, or you can try the awkward heel-to-toe maneuver that puts so many on their donkeys with their skis crossed.
And while, in a perfect world, every single person thinks over every single idea from every possible direction, and acquires every single piece of relevant data before saying a single word on the subject, the reality is that too often we are hit with a barrage of seemingly compelling and even convincing information that is represented as fact, and we make a determination on these alleged facts—-a determination that would, if the facts were really true, be quite reasonable. Then real facts surface, real data emerge, information on the suspect nature of the original “facts” comes out, conflicting data are presented, and a change is necessary to accommodate the different information at hand.
The idea of dangerous global warming is one of these instances. From the avalanche of alarming warnings and the flood of “data” it is not surprising that so many thought this was a legitimate concern. The “data” were not only completely one-sided, the media spreading the data were complicit in furthering an agenda and did not present any alternative information. By the time reality intruded on the hysteria of the politically-motivated and wholly invented “crisis” a lot of people had made statements which would have been true if the foundational information had been true, but which were later proved to be wrong when additional information was released.
I have no problem with early believers in AGW. With those who still buy into it, like Huntsman, that’s a different story.
I don’t care if gullible hysterics believe that hydraulic fracturing contaminates water. When someone with authority, who has to make decisions regarding such claims, such as Christie, doesn’t bother to look more deeply into the matter and factor in already-available data to balance the hype, that does bother me.
An opinion is not a decision. An opinion can be based on partial information and changed as new information is received. A decision demands full attention to all data presented and willingness to examine all sides of an issue.