The results were called by 7 pm ET. Newt Gingrich wins the South Carolina primary!
153 thoughts on “Newt Wins South Carolina Primary!”
Comments are closed.
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Blogs For Victory 
Charles Krauthammer on FNC now, says voters were “troubled by Romney’s wealth.” Nonsense Charles, I am NOT troubled by Romney’s wealth; I am troubled by his skittishness about conservatism.
Tim
http://www.timmanblog.wordpress.com
Well, you’ve got to admit that the effort to portray his wealth as a negative had to have had some effect.
I look at a caucus and two primaries, and I see three winners, and I think this is great. While some have wanted an early choice, I like the fact that the attacks are being made now, so they can lose impact over the next few months, I like the fact that the race is tightening up true political discourse and focusing—-among the candidates, anyway, if not the media and the Left—-on true political issues, and I like the fact that Santorum is holding his own against two wily old campaigners.
Newt is the republican howard dean, an unelectable wind bag. I hope my party comes to its senses before its too late. Its like watching a train wreck in slow motion. Romney has stated that he is pro life, will appoint conservative judges, thinks Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, is pro marriage, pro legal immigration, pro business, pro energy, pro jobs, has demonstrated that he is not shy about attacking obama, would repeal obamacare, is a nice guy or is very articulate. What more do you people want.
James
A long process would help Mitt in the general so it is probably better. I can’t see Newt beating Obama and think eventually PAC money will agree and settlenthings in Mitts favor. I wonder if there is an anti-Mormon component after all.
The exit polling seemed to suggest that religion played a small part in SC, 59% said that the religous faith of the candidate was important to them and most of those people voted for Newton. I heard that on FNC. I think it was more the unabashed conservative warrior, Newton, who out performed the less fiesty candidate, Mittens.
As part of Gingrich’s acceptance speech he mentioned he would request seven three-hour debates with “the One” and allow him his teleprompter. As an incumbent, I understand the fewer debates the better, but even if there were only two debates between the current POTUS and Gingrich–they would have to stop them early with a KO or TKO in Gingrich’s favor. Obama would be sobbing off-camera.
The difference is not appealing (pandering) to the moderates or undecided but showing them you have the vision to alter the course of the US for everyone’s benefit. That you have a road map back to the shining city on the hill rather than the dirt path towards (at best) European socialism. The GOP has never won by pandering and that is what scares me about Romney.
You realize the Lincoln Douglas debates aren’t debates as we know them. One candidate gives a 60 minute speech the other candidate then gives a 90 minute reply and the first candidate then gives a 30 minute rebutal.
6206j,
I said “debates” and not “Lincoln Douglas debates” as you posted. I wouldn’t care if they are moderated or not as long as all of the major topics are covered and not more long-winded diatribes by politicians about how wonderful they are and how they have all of the solutions.
I am still trying to figure out how to monopolize all of the hot-air out of Washington, D.C in order to get us free of foreign oil. Not exactly what one thinks of when one thinks of green energy but we do have an abundance.
I was using Newton’s phrase, but they aren’t gonna happen. There will maybe be 3 debates this fall. 2 presidential one vp.
6206j,
Sorry. My bad as I did not hear that but I was somewhat distracted during parts of his acceptance speech. Still, overall, what I did hear sounded reasonable.
James, your description of Romney also describes Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul. This is way GOP voters look at their record and not just what they say.
Much more recently than Romneys past history, Newt was sitting on a couch with nancy pelosi talklng about global warming, took 1.6 million from fannie mae, as recently as the last debate talking amnesty for illegal aliens, endorsing scozafolla, attacking capitalism and saying the era of Reagan is over. He doesn’t sound anything like Romney, who according to some polls, actually has a chance to win.
“…took 1.6 million from fannie mae…”
He had a consulting company. He was hired to give his opinion. He did so. (The opinion was that they needed to change, BTW, and they ignored it.) It was a simple contract of payment for services, and what he did had absolutely NOTHING to do with the way Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac run their operations.
You might as well whine that someone “took money from fannie mae” for fixing the roof, or selling them stationery. You guys just love to illustrate your total and abject ignorance of commerce, don’t you?
What has the rest of the country laughing its ass off is that Newt, with all his flaws, is still, hands down, so vastly superior to Obama that they are not even in the same league. I agree that Newt is not our best—-not to take away from his very real talents and skills—-but even our fifth string would be more than a step up from Barry and the Boyz—-more like a six-floor staircase.
And no, liarface, he was NOT “talking about amnesty for illegal aliens”. He was talking about setting up a reasonable and prudent method for sorting out the good ones, the ones you Libs keep insisting “only came here for a BETTTERRRRR LIIIIIFE!!” and who have worked hard and followed the law, from the criminals. You guys are the ones who have fits at the very word “deportation” and call conservatives racist hardhearted meanies for even mentioning it, and now you talking out of the other side of your mouths and complaining about a plan to take into consideration the hard work and contributions of those who do work and who do respect our country.
And he is clear, no citizenship for these people, ever. As far as I am concerned, he is not talking about amnesty at all, no matter how the lying Left tries to spin it.
Tommy-boy (james) is either ignorant or chooses to ignore executive bonuses authorized by the obAMATEUR administration totalling $12.79 million last year alone.
Well, he is a mindless drone regurgitating dumbed down talking points for the ignorant masses after all.
…..that was $12.79 million in bonuses to 10 Fannie Mae executives last year alone and not counting the bonuses they received the year before.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/67292.html
I was a little too quick on the Post button.
obama must be laughing his ass off over the prospect of Newt being the nominee. Its like watching a train wreck in slow motion and all the while my delusional fellow republicans are jumping on the train saying yea beat up david gregory.
Finally, something we can all celebrate. As a liberal, I can only say:
Go, Newt. Go.
Yeah Newt! Next POTUS and leader of the free world!
Forget any negative garbage his past indiscretions may conjure up. With the ringing endorsement from renowned psychiatrist, Dr. Keith Ablow, it matters not and should really be considered as something to celebrate as it will undoubtedly aid his ability to govern.
Dr. Ablow noted that:
‘ 1) Three women have met Mr. Gingrich and been so moved by his emotional energy and intellect that they decided they wanted to spend the rest of their lives with him.
2) Two of these women felt this way even though Mr. Gingrich was already married.
3 ) One of them felt this way even though Mr. Gingrich was already married for the second time, was not exactly her equal in the looks department and had a wife (Marianne) who wanted to make his life without her as painful as possible.
Conclusion: When three women want to sign on for life with a man who is now running for president, I worry more about whether we’ll be clamoring for a third Gingrich term not whether we’ll want to let him go after one.’
So, when the Newt haters start blabbering on about his sordid past, just quote renowned psychiatrist, Dr. Keith Ablow and see how fast they backtrack.
Thank you Canadian for proving once again that small minds discuss people, average minds discuss issues, and great minds discuss ideas. I will leave it to you to determine which category you fall in.
Cluster, I think the quote is that great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, and small minds discuss people.
I am hoping the GOP repeats this often throughout the election cycle. It is from a Liberal icon, Eleanor Roosevelt, and I think it will be very appropriate as the Left tries to scurry away from its ideology, duck the nasty issue of Barry’s record, and is left with nothing but snarky or vicious personal attacks and commentary.
So, Amazona, Democrats can rest assured, then, that there will be no mention of the President’s youthful experiments or personal attacks on his character coming from Republicans.
That is certainly something to look forward to but I think you are going to have to put a muzzle on Neocon as he is constantly making ‘snarky or vicious personal attacks and commentary’ on the President.
I realize his comments are made in jest and we should just ignore them but he does claim to be a born again Christian Conservative and by constantly throwing out personal insults, even in fun, well, it just reflects badly on others who quote Eleanor Roosevelt’s iconic words that small minds discuss people.
Perhaps with your expert moral guidance, Amazona, you can convince Neocon to mend his ways.
Well, “observer”, I certainly hope the vast bulk of the conservative rhetoric will be focused on the political philosophy of the Right, the belief that we need to govern our nation according to its rule of law as codified in our Constitution, and that we do not allow ourselves to be drawn into the kind of mud wrestling the Left wants this to become, because this is the only arena in which they can win.
I do suggest that when discussing the qualifications for representing the United States of America, it is far more relevant to examine the relationship of a candidate to an admitted domestic terrorist (and his wife, whose terrorist acts outdid those of her husband in that she actually DID manage to kill Americans while he only tried) than to engage in sexual voyeurism regarding the marital history of another.
I do suggest that the attitude of a presidential wannabe toward those who have acted to undermine the government of the country he wants to lead is worth some evaluation, much more so than the marriage of a man more than a decade ago.
I do suggest that when we are talking about electing a man with the power of the President of the United States, it is prudent to at least examine his addictive personality and admitted drug use, to see if his current addictions and drug use go beyond his addiction to the relatively benign drug, nicotine. After all, this is a job which requires clear thinking and the ability to make decisions without the influence of mind-altering drugs, such as those used by the current president in his past. I think that having been unfaithful many years ago is far less likely to affect one’s ability to think clearly and make appropriate decisions than, say, being under the influence of recreational drugs.
I do suggest that a history of criminal activity is something that should be considered relevant. The claims of unethical behavior made against Gingrich have been examined carefully, explained, and their dismissal documented, so I think it is appropriate to look into the possibility of illegal activities on the part of his opponent, if they are alleged.
I also think it interesting that you are trying to lump tabloid-level scandalmongering and gossip in with legitimate examination of known long-term relationships with terrorists, felons, anti-American activists and blatant racists. The sexual and emotional needs of a man decades ago are going to be of absolutely no relevance to his understanding of our Constitutional way of law, to his belief in and commitment to this political model, or to his ability to govern accordingly. But a lifelong commitment to a basically anti-American political philosophy, a commitment which has never wavered, and the ongoing choice to associate with (and put into positions of power and influence) people who have actively tried to undermine and even destroy this model of government IS relevant to how he can, or will, perform the duties of the office of president.
Of course the Left would benefit by having Obama’s sordid past (and present) off limits, so of course you would want to treat them as if they are mere forays into the kind of shallow, superficial and petty gossip you plan to use against whoever we nominate.
Haha, you crack me up, Amazona. If it were the President that had the number of infidelities in his past that Newt has, would you, honestly, give President Obama a pass or would you insist that it just goes to show his true character and is fair game? LOL, judging from his current behavior, it would appear that he not only has cut all so-called ties with terriorists but is actively eliminating them. Keeping America safe!
c0
read arguing with IDIOTS
pg 13-69
ribit ribit
cO
That is certainly something to look forward to but I think you are going to have to put a muzzle on Neocon as he is constantly making ‘snarky or vicious personal attacks and commentary’ on the President.
The TRUTH is the TRUTH whether presented by a Christian, or an atheist.
What I say about the pResident is the truth, IF not refute it.
Plaln 109:8
well, observer, obAMATEUR cannot run on “four more years” nor does he have a plan for the future that does not entail a rerun of the past three. Then what can obAMATEUR run on other than his usual personal attacks, divisive rhetoric and class warfare?
Then will the Democrats run on records rather than attacking the opposition?
Never happen – that is all they know since they wrote the latest chapter in dirty politics.
So glad you think I gave you something else to titter about, CO.
I would definitely look at Obama’s past to evaluate not just his character but his political philosophy, his commitment to the United States, and his overall honesty.
Or at least I would if I could. The problem is, the man has no past to examine. Nearly the only history he has is what he has invented, through his claim of authorship of his “autobiographies”, some vague references to college attendance without any corroborating evidence such as transcripts or papers, a very edited account of his community activist “career” but with little to document it except a photo of him lecturing in front of a blackboard (sorry about the racist innuendo) showing Alinksy teachings, vague references to teaching (again with no details) vague references to a brief stint in a law office but with no release of any records or documents, etc.
Surrogates finally, under pressure, released a COLB, but then refused to acknowledge that this is a document with a dual purpose, either to prove Hawaiian residency for children BORN OUT OF STATE or to prove that a child was born in the state, making the document meaningless without additional information about when it was issued, etc. And people who asked for that additional information were reviled, ridiculed, and subjected to all sorts of insults, in an obvious effort to deflect those questions.
We don’t even have any ex girlfriends of Barry’s to tell us what he was like then. The only claimant to a ‘relationship’ with him is from a man who claims he serviced Barry in the back seat of a limousine. (Or was serviced, I forget which.)
Of course a candidate’s past has to be examined, because it helps us know where a man stands if we know where he came from.
So: We know that Obama’s early political leanings were far to the Left, as evidenced by his own words. OK—a lot of young people were emotionally drawn to the promises of the Left, and outgrew this flirtation with Utopianism to realize its defects. But Barry has given no hint of having moved beyond this youthful attraction to Marxism. On the contrary, when he has slipped the leash and blurted out his real political philosophy, it has been very far to the Left. On the contrary, his political appointments have been very far to the Left, including people who have not been vetted or approved by Congress who are avowed Communists, whose heroes include Mao, etc. On the contrary, the legislation he has pushed has been very strongly in the direction of anti-capitalist, pro-government-control, collectivist Leftism.
So while Newt has acknowledged that his earlier infidelities were wrong, shameful, and indefensible, he has also made a commitment to not doing those things again, and by all evidence and accounts he has stuck to this commitment.
Obama has not recanted his early attraction to anti-capitalist, Marxist ideals, which makes them relevant in today’s political world.
Big difference. Not only do infidelities not affect political decisions, one of these men has renounced his earlier actions and the other has continued them.
Ditto for the vile and bitter racism that first attracted him to the Rev. Wright and then kept him so close to him for two decades.
Ditto for the anti-American rhetoric of his Apology Tours.
You just want to stick to “character” issues? Well that take us back to admitting to misdeeds, repenting and changing. Newt was dishonest then, in his personal and private life, but has admitted that and committed to changing. Obama has never admitted to any of the lies and deceits that got him where he is now, much less pledged to change. He is still working to divide the nation, to turn Americans against each other, identifying (either in his own words or through more surrogates) law-abiding Americans as “enemies” and “terrorists”.
Newt’s not sleeping around any more. Is Barry still taking drugs? Newt’s sexual escapades are in his past. Are Barry’s? What about his close relationship with homosexual “body man” Reggie Love?
And just what about Barry’s “current behavior” makes you think he has “cut off ties with terrorists”? He’s approved of, either before or after the fact depending on the source of information about how strongly Valerie Jarrett objects to action against terrorists, taking out a couple—including an American. But what is your proof he has “cut off ties” with Bill Ayers and the fetching murderer Bernadine Dorhn? Is it a coincidence that they were in India when he was there, with Ms.Dorhn lying through her teeth about the United States to anyone who would give her the time of day? That Bill has been a frequent visitor to the White House and is on at least one presidential panel?
If everything you say here is true, Amazona, then the President’s Republican opponents will have no problem, whatsoever, in stopping his ongoing destruction of America. I’m surprised though, now that you’ve given us the total extent of his past debauchery, that the GOP did not make it their top priority to make sure the American voter was fully aware of those facts before the last election and saved you all from the terrible fate you’ve been forced to endure since he was sworn in. No matter how much they were ridiculed for bringing up the President’s sordid past, they should have not been dissuaded from speaking the truth.
Whomever wins the Republican nomination for President has the patroitic duty to inform the American public of every single one of these truths you listed for us. If it is Newt, he should not hesitate to pit his past mistakes against the more egregious ones of the President. He would come out the moral winner for sure!
No CO you forget, when Clinton was running, his affairs were not important only the issues. Liberals ranted about sticking to the issues, staying away from “politics of personal destruction” and “it was his private life”.
But now, those issues don’t matter when a Republican is running and the economy is in worse shape.
Typical and pathetic.
Oh, give me a break, CO. You know perfectly well the barrage of personal attacks aimed at anyone who brought up any of these things in 2008, and after, as well as the cover provided by the Complicit Agenda Media who have looked the other way, refused to do even the slightest bit of investigative journalism, and have done everything in their quite considerable power to silence any such discussions.
Are you saying these things are not true? That Ayers did not try to kill policemen and only regretted that he had not “done more”? That his wife actually DID kill people with her bombs? That she did not strut around after the Sharon Tate murders making a fork symbol with her index and little fingers and laughing about how the Manson killers used a fork to stab Tate’s unborn baby in her belly? That there is not a duality of purpose for the COLB? That Obama admitted to using several drugs including cocaine, that he has shown an addictive personality through his inability to quit smoking, that he has refused to produce any school transcripts or papers written during his higher education years?
Now that the Complicit Agenda Media have cooled a little toward All That Is Obama, now that the accusations of racism have become so shrill and stupid even the media are embarrassed a little by them, now that the nation is in a death spiral of debt, taxation, regulation, and government power grabs, now that the reverb has been turned off and Barry has been shown to be the farthest thing from “eloquent”, now that the tide is turning, perhaps some of these facts will get a little traction with the public.
I notice that you can’t deny or refute any of them.
But having said all that, I still hope the campaign focuses on the actual political ideology of Obama and his cadre of ruling elites, on the reality of their vision of America, and on the relentless history of the failures of this ideology every time it has been tried. I hope the campaign is about ideas, about the best way to govern the nation, about the fantastic success of this raw and untidy nation in its earliest years when the supposedly superior Europeans were laughing at us and how quickly we leapfrogged over every single nation in the world to become its leader in enterprise, prosperity, individual liberty, and freedom. I hope it concentrates on comparing that to the sluggish nature of American enterprise as Leftism has become more and more prevalent. I hope it compares our history to those of the nations and peoples who had to endure the economic miseries of Leftist rule and the loss of freedom and even of life that accompanied the expansion of Leftist control.
If we can keep the focus on the reality of the two opposing political models, and on their relative histories of success and failure, the rest will sort itself out. Yes, the sordid history of lies and deception that made Obama’s rise possible will be laid bare, but it will just be a sidebar to the mess he is making of the country.
And losers like you, who can’t begin to argue politics, either because you are too ignorant of the political model you defend or because you know too much of it and realize it cannot be defended, will stick to your coy little efforts at sniping, will wallow in gossip and character assassination, and will just continue doing all you can do, saddled as you are with an emotion-based commitment to an indefensible system.
Are you saying these things are not true? That Ayers did not try to kill policemen and only regretted that he had not “done more”? That his wife actually DID kill people with her bombs? That she did not strut around after the Sharon Tate murders making a fork symbol with her index and little fingers and laughing about how the Manson killers used a fork to stab Tate’s unborn baby in her belly? …Amazona
—————————————————————————–
Is your hatred for the President really so vile that you would actually hold him responsible for the actions of Ayers & his wife, Amazona? Barack Obama was 8 years old at the time and I’m quite sure would not have been part of their group. His loose association with Ayers took place many years later.
Judging from the tone of your emotional rants against the President I fear for your sanity when he is elected for another term. You can make all the excuses in the world for the shortcomings of the Republican candidates, Amazona, but it won’t change a thing; it will still be President Barack Hussein Obama who will be occupying the Oval Office for the next four years.
Are you really so profoundly stupid that you think a comment on associating with a criminal, along with the implied lack of criticism for his crimes, is really the same as BLAMING him for what the criminal himself did?
Or are you just so bone-deep dishonest that you know this is not even vaguely what I said, but you think you can distort it to make a point?
Either way, you come off as a complete loser.
You amplify this impression with your regurgitation of the “only 8 years old” whine, and the feeble effort to dismiss the association as “loose”. It was a strong association, over a period of many years, during which the two men served on boards together, obviously talked politics together (remember, Obama’s political career was launched in their living room, with the delightful Mrs Ayers as hostess) and has continued to this day. I’m surprised you didn’t claim their children played together—a truly creepy claim once made, creepy because Ayers’ children are fully grown and Obama’s daughters were even younger than they are now when this effort was made to downplay the association.
BTW, you also tried another old Lefty trick, of claiming that a calm, reasoned account of historical fact is, in fact, nothing but an “emotional rant”.
You guys need some new arrows in your quivers. The same old same old is so thin it is transparent.
Tell you what—instead of losing sleep fretting about MY sanity, take a look in a mirror at someone who is so desperate to support and defend an indefensible political model, and the thugs who populate it, he finds nothing too low or dishonest to stoop to.
If I were to find that a neighbor had set bombs which killed people, that person would be cut out of of my life, not included as a friend and kept as part of my circle. If I were to learn that she had gloated over the butchery of an innocent woman and found the stabbing of her unborn child, in the womb, to be something so funny it was incorporated into her rhetoric, I would be so disgusted I would never have anything to do with this person again. If I were to learn that an acquaintance had created a terrorist organization with the goal of undermining this nation’s government, and with the goal of killing policemen as the gathered to end or begin their shifts, I could not spend a moment more in this person’s company. I certainly would not allow these people to represent me, as they represented Obama when they hosted the event that introduced him to Chicago politics.
The mere fact of not only accepting these vile creatures into his life but counting them as friends, and continuing the relationships on into his office as the President of the United States, says volumes about the character of Barack Obama, and his values, and not a word about my emotional state.
Your defense of it says all we need to know about you.
It’s quite evident that you are an angry and disturbed individual, Amazona. Your blind acceptance of any and all allegations that have ever been leveled against the President is indeed troubling.
We fully expect this type of ignorant thinking to come from the uninformed, not from someone who claims to possess a superior intellect and is ready to espouse her political philosophy at every opportunity.
Hopefully, once the election is over and you’ve accepted the fact that Barack Obama is still POTUS and leader of the free world, you can find some peace of mind.
Wondering whether Barack and Bill /Bernadine may have crossed paths is not speculation. It is a fact that in 1989, Bernadine Dohrn and Michelle Obama were associates at the Chicago law firm of Sidley & Austin, when Obama joined the firm as a summer intern.
Barack also was essentially an employee of Bill Ayers for eight years, starting in 1995, the year the Chicago Annenberg Challenge was created to raise funds to help reform the Chicago public schools. One of the architects of the Challenge was none other than Professor Bill Ayers. Ayers co-wrote the initial grant proposal and proudly lists himself on his own website as the co-founder of the Challenge.
And who did William Ayers, co-creator of the Challenge, help select as the new director of the board for this program? Why, Barack Obama, of course. Obama was the first Chairman of the Board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.
Obama served on the board for eight years until the Challenge ended in 2003. Bill Ayers was intimately involved in the Challenge over this same time period, raising and spending at least $110 million in an effort to bolster a “radical” (Ayers’ word) reform program in the Chicago Public Schools from 1994 to 2001.
In November 1997, Ayers and Obama participated in a panel at the University of Chicago entitled “Should a child ever be called a ‘super predator?'” to debate “the merits of the juvenile justice system.”
In April 2002, Ayers, Dohrn, and Obama, then an Illinois State Senator, participated together at a conference entitled “Intellectuals: Who Needs Them?” sponsored by The Center for Public Intellectuals and the University of Illinois-Chicago. Ayers and Obama were two of the six members of the “Intellectuals in Times of Crisis” panel. Here is the agenda.
“I know they are friends,” said Dr. Young of Obama and Ayers.
Ayers is the Board Chairman of the nonprofit Woods Fund of Chicago and Obama was a Board member. Obama was a director of the Woods Fund board from 1999 to Dec. 11, 2002, according to the Fund’s website.
The Woods Fund focused on welfare reform, affordable housing, the quality of public schools, race and class disparities in the juvenile justice system, and tax policy as a tool in reducing poverty. The Fund supported the concept of an expanding welfare state allocating ever-increasing amounts of money to the public school system, and the redistribution of wealth via taxes.
Obama always describes his relationship with Ayers as casual, but a close, working relationship spanning eight years is hardly casual — especially an employer-employee relationship.
Beyond that, it was Ayers who brought Obama to Chicago.
According to The Nation: “The Woods Fund, in many ways, is responsible for helping start Obama as an organizer and shaping his political identity. In 1985 the foundation gave a $25,000 grant to the Developing Communities Project (aka the “DCP”), which hired Obama, at 24, as an organizer on Chicago’s economically depressed South Side.”
The Woods Fund was founded by the Woods family which owned the Illinois-based Sahara Coal Company, a major supplier of coal from its mines to major Illinois power companies. Commonwealth Edison, the giant Chicago-based electric power company was headed by Thomas Ayers, father of Bill Ayers.
The problem of Barack Obama’s relationship with Bill Ayers will not go away. Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn were terrorists for the notorious Weather Underground during the turbulent 1960s, turning fugitive when a bomb — designed to kill army officers in New Jersey — accidentally exploded in a New York townhouse.
Prior to that, Ayers and his cohorts succeeded in bombing the Pentagon. Ayers and Dohrn remain unrepentant for their terrorist past. Ayers was pictured in a 2001 article for Chicago magazine, stomping on an American flag, and told the New York Times just before 9/11 that the notion of the United States as a just and fair and decent place “makes me want to puke.”
Although Obama actually launched his political career at an event at Ayers’s and Dohrn’s home, Obama has dismissed Ayers as just “a guy who lives in my neighborhood,” and “not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.” For his part, Ayers refuses to discuss his relationship with Obama.
What is so funny, CO, is your boilerplate “response”. It is a textbook effort. Impotent, but totally predictable.
You claim that I show “..blind acceptance of any and all allegations that have ever been leveled against the President …” yet I mentioned only the verified and inarguable facts known about him. The only thing I said which is not a proven fact is also clearly identified as a “claim”—that being the assertion that he had a homosexual encounter. I dismissed the SS number claim as well.
And you brought in the obligatory personal attack on me, trying to make the facts go away by inferring that I am sooooooo ANGRY and so on that nothing I say can be taken at face value.
But you don’t address a single one of the things I mentioned, which by the way were only brought up because YOU started this with your little whine that if OBAMA had something like Newt’s infidelities in HIS past conservatives would really go after HIM, whimper whimper. I merely pointed out that infidelities are private and not likely to influence governance, while things like hanging out with people who have publicly declared their hatred for the United States, and in some cases tried to undermine the government, killing people along the way, are much more closely related to how one is going to handle the job of President.
It is always interesting to watch you PL radicals dig your own graves, and then snivel when they are pointed out to you. But do try to come up with something less silly than the old “you’re just mean and crazy” dodge.
And why do you CARE? Aren’t you just “observing” US politics from a distance?
I repeat: losers like you, who can’t begin to argue politics, either because you are too ignorant of the political model you defend or because you know too much of it and realize it cannot be defended, will stick to your coy little efforts at sniping, will wallow in gossip and character assassination, and will just continue doing all you can do, saddled as you are with an emotion-based commitment to an indefensible system.
And why do you CARE? Aren’t you just “observing” US politics from a distance?…Amazona
————————————————————————————-
I CARE, Amazona, because the person who occupies the White House is not only your President but is also leader of the free world,which, contrary to what you may believe, includes Canada. The thought of having any one of current crop of Republican candidates hold that position is just too frightening to contemplate. After the Bush debacle, the world breathed a sigh of relief and rejoiced when American voters elected Obama.to be their leader. To see a country as great as the U.S. regress under a Romney, Gingrich or Santorum Presidency would be a sad & depressing thing to witness.
Awesome win for Newt!!
I pray for his continued victory on into Florida, and other primary states. He needs the American peoples support if we’re going to oust the scoundrel in the White House!!! And just as Newt has outed the liberal networks over the past week in South Carolina, he will do the same with Obama, and prove him to be the danger that he is to this nation.
That said, if Newt would happen to fall back in any of the other primary states then it is open to Santorum … and that is fine. Either one of these fine men are qualified to hold the office of the Presidency and I’m behind them all the way!!
Go get ’em Newt and Rick!!!
Jeremiah-
Will you vote for Mitt if he is the nominee?
As of right now, I would vote for Newt, Rick or Paul if they are the nominee and not Mitt.
If Mitt wants to come out and say Romneycare was a mistake, that it’s wrong for a government to oppress it’s citizens in that manner and it’s wrong to fix an out of whack supply and demand situation by increasing demand rather than supply, then I would vote for him. If that doesn’t happen, I cannot see voting for a tyrant for President, even if he is our tyrant.
Oh whahhh whahhh whahhh, tyrant my donkey.
Mitt Romney did not impose state-run health care on the poor oppressed citizen of Massachusetts. They wanted it, they demanded it, they voted for it, and his job as governor was to support and defend the laws of the state.
If he had ignored the will of the people and refused to enact the health care bill they insisted on, that would have made him a tyrant.
Mitt was elected governor of Massachusetts, not King. He understood the 10th Amendment, understood that state-run health care was not prohibited by the Constitution but as it was also not an enumerated duty of the federal government it was, if it was desired, up to the state.
The people of Massachusetts wanted it, they voted for it, and the majority are quite happy with it.
Romney has repeated that while he thinks it is fine for a state, it is not fine for the nation and will work to repeal the national version if elected. He shows a fine understanding of the distinction between the enumerated duties as well as restrictions of the federal government and the concept of state sovereignty, and I find that a refreshing change from the actual tyranny of the current administration which dismisses this distinction.
Exercising the State Constitutional right of vetoing a bill would have made him a tyrant?
Pish tosh there Amazona, after reading that statement please do not ever accuse me of being dramatic again.
Mr.Romney was not going to win nor even run for reelection and a veto would have cost him nothing. In retrospect it would have helped him with conservative bonafides instead it only reinforces his rino reputation.
GMB,
C’mon now, we have discussed this before. Mass. is not the only state with government administered health care, and it is perfectly within the states rights to enact such legislation if the people so desire. Gov. Romney was simply acting on the desires of his constituents, and with his guidance, probably made the program more viable – in fact the vast majority of Mass citizens still have private insurance.
in fact the vast majority of Mass citizens still have private insurance.
Bingo, Cluster. And that is a major difference between RomneyCare and ObamaCare when fully implemented.
GMB, I call your pish tosh and raise you a pshaw.
I would never have used the melodramatic word “tyrant” to describe vetoing a bill, but in this case I was responding to a post which accused the failure to veto, and the implementation of a bill strongly supported by the populace as “tyranny” so I stuck with the terminology.
I suggest that the original use was the melodrama, and my reference back to it simply a rhetorical tool.
But I do stick to my assertion that when a man is elected to represent the citizens of his state, when he takes an oath to uphold he laws of that state, and when he sees his role as significantly less than having the ability, much less the right, to impose his will on the people, then he has both a legal and a moral obligation to enact the will OF the people. In this case, this meant implementing the plan they overwhelmingly voted on, and which by the way they still seem to really like.
On what basis should Romney, according to you, vetoed the bill passed by the Massachusetts legislature? Do you think that emotion and personal preference are adequate reasons to override the will of the people? Because there was no law, of any kind, which stated or even implied that the health care plan the citizens of the state so clearly wanted was not allowable.
Not one.
I find it interesting that you seem to be promoting the idea that Romney, in his last term as governor, should have simply imposed his personal beliefs on the people no matter what they wanted, with one agenda being to use his position, and the fact that he “had nothing to lose”, to bolster his “conservative bonafides” and increase his political power in the future.
Gee, that sounds exactly like what we are afraid Barry will do if he is given a second term.
Cluster, that is not the point. I am against socialism whether it is practiced by the federal, state, county, or even a a township government. Socialism is socialism. Does it matter who puts it into place?
Again, what if the will of the people is a government purchased new vehicle every three years? I am sure right now that in Massachusettes that a law stating that would win an overwhelming majority. Think up your own government provided subsidy that could be considered ridiculous.
Socialism is socialism. Socialism kills whatever it touches and there are lots of examples.
Romney Care. Did it reduce supply or did it reduce demand. Did it cost way more money than Massachusettes thought or did it not?
You do the reaserch.
Pshaw.
Got me on that one. I have no clue.
GMB,
Then the great thing about our country and our constitution is that you can vote with your feet and move to another state. However, I think you will be hard pressed to find another state that doesn’t have some form of government health care.
And if you truly oppose socialism in all it’s forms, then I assume you oppose SS, Medicare, Food stamps, welfare, WIC, and public housing. Is that the case?
As a matter of fact Cluster I do. I believe that all forms of welfare administered by the govermnet should be ended. There is no constitutional basis for any of them.
There is constitutional authority at the state level GMB. And I do support my tax dollars going to some support for those people in need, but I do want it administered at a level that is closest to the people, either state or county, so that those programs are efficient and effective.
This country got along fine for over 140 years without any government administered welfare. Private charities would do a much better job in my opinion.
Picking and choosing which parts of the Constitution you think should be followed and which should be ignored is exactly what we are fighting against in trying to unseat Obama, and you, GMB, are arguing that it’s OK if it just complies with what YOU want and believe in.
The simple fact is, the Founding Fathers gave a lot of thought to the idea of state sovereignty, and they came to the conclusion that it was an essential component of a strong and vital United States of America. So they very consciously refrained from imposing more than the most basic of Constitutional restrictions upon them, and in fact made a point of reinforcing the concept of state sovereignty in the 10th Amendment.
What I personally would like to see enacted or prohibited is irrelevant. What matters is whether or not I have a strong, objective and principled adherence to the Constitution, as it is written. And I do. As it is written. Not to what I wish it said, or what I think it should say. To what it DOES say.
And the way it is written, the State of Massachusetts had every legal and Constitutional right to do what it chose to do, and its governor had every legal and moral requirement to support and uphold the laws it passed.
Claiming that elected officials have the right to nullify any part of the Constitution because they doesn’t agree with it is merely the flip side of the Leftist coin, which says exactly the same thing but in pursuit of opposite goals.
You can move to Massachusetts and fight to change its internal constitution and body of law to comply with your opposition to anything even remotely smacking of socialism. You can fight to amend the national Constitution to add to Constitutional prohibitions on states’ rights. You can do all sorts of things to make this country the way you want it to be.
But if you argue for nullification of any part of that Constitution based on what you think it SHOULD say, or prohibit, you are arguing for the same powers the Left wants—to be able to impose what you think is right in spite of what the Constitution says.
GMB, you have still not given a law upon which a veto could have been based.
Are you arguing that an elected official has the right, much less the obligation, to do something just because he wants to, without reference to any legal authority?
Now, what word might be applied to someone who did this kind of thing? Doesn’t it start with a T?
Direct from the Massachusettes state constitution.
Article II. No bill or resolve of the senate or house of representatives shall become a law, and have force as such, until it shall have been laid before the governor for his revisal; and if he, upon such revision, approve thereof, he shall signify his approbation by signing the same. But if he have any objection to the passing of such bill or resolve, he shall return the same, together with his objections thereto, in writing, to the senate or house of representatives, in whichsoever the same shall have originated; who shall enter the objections sent down by the governor, at large, on their records, and proceed to reconsider the said bill or resolve. But if after such reconsideration, two thirds of the said senate or house of representatives, shall, notwithstanding the said objections, agree to pass the same, it shall, together with the objections, be sent to the other branch of the legislature, where it shall also be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of the members present, shall have the force of a law: but in all such cases, the votes of both houses shall be determined by yeas and nays; and the names of the persons voting for, or against, the said bill or resolve, shall be entered upon the public records of the commonwealth.
[And in order to prevent unnecessary delays, if any bill or resolve shall not be returned by the governor within five days after it shall have been presented, the same shall have the force of a law.] [See Amendments, Arts. I, XLVIII, LIV, LXIII, sec. 5, and XC, sec. 1.]
I see no statement in this where the Governor is forced to sign a bill.
Lets start off with this.
Romney Care was not a law until Mr. Romney himself signed the bill that made it a law. He had every constitutional authority to veto that bill should he have desired.
Lets go with the will of the people now. What do you want? Do you want a government based on our constitution and state constitutions or do want government based on “the will of the people”? You cant have both.
The law in which the veto could have been based is the Massachusettes State Constitution itself.
Part the One.
Secion 1
Article Two.
I really don’t know what you are arguing about. I have found many examples of bills that vetoed by Governors and Presidents throuout our countrys history. I am sure a lot of them had majority support but somehow they got vetoed anyway.
Are you just arguing because I am saying it?
Nope, the governor was not FORCED to sign the bill.
But ….he shall return the same, together with his objections thereto …..
So what “objections thereto” do you think he should have, or even COULD have, submitted to support his veto?
Do you find it adequate for him to say “I just don’t want to”? “I don’t agree”?
Again, are you arguing that his personal opinion constitutes a valid objection to something which is completely compliant with both the United States Constitution and state law?
You have already argued that the purely political consideration of having “nothing to lose” to be able to solidify his “conservative bonafides” is, to you, adequate to justify a veto.
Hypothetical.
I W.M. Roney hereby return this bill with veto for the following reasons.
1.This bill will cost the taxpayers of Massachusettes money they cannot afford to spend.
2.This bill will impose penalties upon those who do not participate in the form of fines. Which I believe goes against basic human rights.
3. There is no guarentee that forming a socialised medical network in this state will incease supply or decrease demand.
These reasons are purely hypothetical. However they are valid. If something goes against your core beliefs but a majority of the people in your jurisdiction want it, are you under any obligation, constitutionnally speaking to sign that bill. Of corse not.
OF COURSE I am not “arguing this just because you are saying it”? Tone down that egotism a little bit, OK? What you say and don’t say has no effect whatsoever on my political beliefs.
Now that you have argued that you think it would have been OK for Romney to impose his personal will on the people of Massachusetts, because he “had nothing to lose” and could have benefited politically by shoring up his “conservative bonafides” you seem to be arguing that if something is done often enough that makes it OK.
Great. The picture is getting clearer. You would be OK with the political calculation that overriding the will of the people would have been OK if it shored up Romney’s political cred, you would be OK with a veto because after all, lots of other guys have overridden the wills of THEIR constituents, and of course the only thing that matters in an elected official is what HE thinks is right, no matter what the people have voted on and what the Constitution says.
Well, just as social engineering on the Right is just as wrong as social engineering on the Left, an elected official imposing his will on that of the people based on the three reasons above is just as wrong whether it is done on the Right or the Left. It is autocratic and dictatorial, no matter what political model supposedly constitutes its foundation.
(And to head off a future kerfluffle on a similar topic, I do not consider a veto on an abortion issue to be the same. One is on a political philosophy of how best to govern, and one is on the most important moral issue of mankind, the right to live. Reasonable people can see the difference.)
Amazona calm down, please. Was yanking your chain, I apologize.
Next. Please define the will of the people. This sounds awfully like democracy to me. Are you saying that as long as 50% plus 1 want something the bill must be signed?
Lets say the Govenor was a strongly committed catholic. Are you saying that will of the people should overide his personal thoughts on abortion?
The will of the people is not always right, moral, or constitutional. I can provide examples.
Please state the under what circumstances a Governor can or can not excersise thier right to veto under whatever constitution.
All governor Romey had to state on a veto is ” I do not believe the bill is right for Massachusettes. Medical care is best left to the private sector. History shows that when government involves itself in heathcare, demand becomes greater and supply becomes shorter.”
Or he could have said “This bill blows, change it”
The veto would have been overode anyway. As far as the Governor is concerned it does not matter what reason he would of vetoed it.
All is fair in politics. Not so?
I already addressed abortion.
The people have the absolute right to choose their government, within the restrictions of the Constitution. This is a political decision.
The people do not have the right to declare some human life to be of no value. They were wrong when they did this to defend slavery. They were wrong when they did this to justify atrocities against the American Indian. And the are wrong when they try to do this regarding human beings based on the age of the person.
Any effort to deny the absolute right to “LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is not only a moral issue but a Constitutional one, and not just a matter of personal preference.
If you don’t see this then there is no reason to ever talk to you about anything. If you do see and still tried to use abortion to make a point about politics, then you are just adding to the ever-growing list of Leftist tactics you try to use to defend the Right.
No one is trying to change your mind about Romney. Your visceral loathing for the man is so overwhelming, it would be foolish to try.
The issue here is not whether you would vote for Romney, because your emotions are so much in control here that you would hand the election to Obama rather than see Romney win, and that’s a stance of such utter and complete absurdity that it doesn’t deserve respectful discussion.
No, the issue is one of the right of a state to make its own laws and the obligation of its elected officials to avoid imposing their personal opinions onto their constituencies. It is about whether it is ever OK for an elected official to act in what he or she decides is “best” for a constituency based on the belief that the constituency is just wrong.
It’s about respect for the process.
I hope you see the silliness of whining that someone else “should have” made a pointless and futile gesture, just to manipulate public opinion about his conservative credentials and to make you happy. (Not that it would have, because you would hate him anyway.)
I suggest that one reason Romney was a successful businessman is because he doesn’t engage in silly symbolic gestures.
You don’t like him, you won’t vote for him, but please PLEASE stop your obsessive carping about him! You’ve said what you have to say, you’ve said it over and over and over and over and over and over again, we get it, we understand it even if we don’t flip out over it (as we evidently supposed to do) and you are adding nothing to the conversation by continually carrying on.
And FYI, the argument that signing the MA bill made him a tyrant or a socialist or whatever the latest complaint is will simply not fly BECAUSE IT’S STUPID.
Move on.
“”I like vetoes,” Romney, former governor of Massachusetts, said in a television ad earlier this year. “I’ve vetoed hundreds of spending appropriations as governor. And frankly, I can’t wait to get my hands on Washington!”
Mitt Romney also vetoed a few what would be called social issue bills.
I am sure some of them would have been considered to have the will of people.
That tyrant!!!!
Amazona,
Just because a majority of people want something and they get it enacted, doesn’t mean that what they want wasn’t tyrannical.
I believe it to be tyrannical when the 65% of non-smokers insist on $5 a pack taxes on the 35% of smokers. I believe it tyrannical when the 95% of the population tries to make laws to put the 5% of the population in chains and unfairly take their money.
Do you see what I am saying? Romney chose to hide behind the majority to tyrannically force a minority to do something that the govt. had no business making them do.
Actually Amazona, I was not carping about Romney at all. I was taking on the point that he could have vetoed the bill if he should have desired.
You are the the one who broght up the fact that he would be a tyrant if he had not not signed the bill. I was taking his side on that matter. You are the one who brought up will of the people. And you still have not answered my question about that.
“And the way it is written, the State of Massachusetts had every legal and Constitutional right to do what it chose to do, and its governor had every legal and moral requirement to support and uphold the laws it passed.”
So what are you saying here? That any Govenor does not have the veto power at all? That would be interesting to say the least.
“Claiming that elected officials have the right to nullify any part of the Constitution because they doesn’t agree with it is merely the flip side of the Leftist coin, which says exactly the same thing but in pursuit of opposite goals.”
Please point out where I claimed this. I did not and you know it.
“But if you argue for nullification of any part of that Constitution based on what you think it SHOULD say, or prohibit, you are arguing for the same powers the Left wants—to be able to impose what you think is right in spite of what the Constitution says.”
Here you claim it again?
Where did I ever claim anything of the sort? Can you point it out?
This is how works but I will leave it up for you to decide.
Bill is passed by bouth houses of the legislature.
Bill is sent to governor.
Bill is either signed or vetoed by the govenor.
Bill goes back to legislature for reconsideration.
Nowhere in the Massachusettes Constititution does it say the Governor must sign a bill because it is “the will of the people.”
Nowhere did I claim that the Governor could nullify laws he did not agree with.
Do I need to remind you that bill is not law until it is singed or a veto is overode by the legislature.
You are reading way more into this than was put there by me.
Why?
I didn’t say “nullify LAWS” either.
You are reading way more into this than was put there by me.
Why?
I said “nullify the Constitution”. You know how I can tell? By looking at what I said and what you so conveniently quoted. Everything in your endless litany of complaint about the Massachusetts health care bill indicates a belief that the state should not have had the right to pass this bill—but to take this right away from them would be a nullification of the sovereignty of the state, as set out in the Constitution. Did you use the word “nullify”? No. But went on, and on and on and on and on as you tend to do, about your belief that they should not have been able to do this, and when they tried their governor should have tried to stop them, 10th Amendment or no 10th Amendment.
Look at the reasons you suggested the governor might have given for vetoing the bill.
1.This bill will cost the taxpayers of Massachusettes money they cannot afford to spend.
2.This bill will impose penalties upon those who do not participate in the form of fines. Which I believe goes against basic human rights.
3. There is no guarentee that forming a socialised medical network in this state will incease supply or decrease demand.
Every one of these “objections” would not only be an effort to impose a personal opinion on the people of the state of Massachusetts, it would imply a nullification of their right to make their own laws.
You just love to quibble, and will go on and on and on and on and on and on forever if anyone is willing to play your silly game with you. And I’m not.
I explained the use of the word “tyrant” and if you want to ignore me, go ahead.
You have made it clear that in your opinion an empty, futile gesture by Romney would have had some power, somewhere, over someone,somewhere, to change something, somewhere, somehow. You admit the bill would have passed anyway but you waste all this energy whining because Romney did not indulge in the meaningless gesture you, and probably you alone, find so significant. He should have objected, well, because you say so. He should have shored up his “conservative bonafides” by thrashing around and wasting time and energy in a meaningless veto because, again, you say so.
You’re all about the symbolism, I’m about the reality.
The bill was desired by the people of MA, it was passed by them, they wanted it, and their governor signed it into law. What went on in his mind when he did this is pure speculation, upon which I am sure you would gladly waste another amount of time.
“If he had ignored the will of the people and refused to enact the health care bill they insisted on, that would have made him a tyrant.”
Another direct quote from Amazona. Obviously I mis translated something here. Thanks for the clarification.
This never was about Mitt. It was about about whether he would be a tyrant for vetoing a bill.
Amazona used a hypothetical to say yes then denied the use of hypothetical to others.
I have quoted your own words. to a pointles conclusion.
wahh wahh wahh wahh wahh. You are like a flea on a hot skillet, skittering around from one nonsensical “point” to another, and doing nothing but pointing out that you love to quibble.
And it was the will of the German people to put the Jews in concentration camps. Does that mean the Hitler did the right thing by complying with that will? The executive is a check on the legislature. If the legislature makes a law that the executive believes to be wrong for it’s citizens, then it is their job to make the difficult choice of vetoing that law. If you don’t veto it, citing that a large majority of the population wants it, then just like Hitler, you have managed to become their hero.
This will help all of the Republican candidates as the primary will not be decided as quickly as the opposition hoped. Toughen them all up a bit. Then again, I listen to the opposition (and believe them) and they all seem to say that they want to run against Romney.
Nevertheless, The acceptance speech by Gingrich was one to listen to as he had good things to say about all of his opponents and sounded quite along the lines of Lincoln that he would find them all positions in his cabinet. Not that Gingrich was my first, second or possibly even third choice–this will at least continue the process to a few more States–even if they are pro-Romney states at the moment.
We were having a birthday party for me and my niece last night, and I was surprised to turn on the TV after everyone left and see how handily Newt won. I think he owes John King a nice bottle of wine or dinner or something.
I agree with Amazona that this is a healthy process, and whomever comes out the victor should be battle-hardened for the general election.
We had a crowd of 11 at the birthday party, including my sister who is visiting from Montana. She and her husband are well left of center and both voted for Obama in 2008. She dislikes discussing politics because it makes her uncomfortable having to defend her views, but she was the first to bring it up when she asked, “so who do you like to replace Obama?” I almost fell off my chair. I said, “what’s the matter; didn’t hope and change work out like you expected?” Her one-word answer: NO.
Happy birthday, spook—it sounds like you had a fine celebration.
I love the assumption, indicated by your sister’s comment, that Obama will be replaced, and the only question is by whom.
When I asked her who she favored, she said Romney appealed to her the most, but that, among her circle of friends, most of whom are quite liberal, there’s no clear-cut consensus other than ABO.
The last time my sister’s husband joined her for a visit was for my dad’s funeral in July, 2008. Unlike my sister, he loves to talk politics, and generally gives as good as he gets. I will never forget his comment at our house after the funeral. He said (WRT the election) that he “might have to give Obama a chance”. I suspect there are a lot of Liberals who did just that, and now wish they hadn’t.
I have several liberal friends, one of whom is also a good customer. They all seem to have one thing in common: they voted for Obama because they thought he would do things like unite the country, clean up the economic mess that Bush left behind, get the U.S. out of foreign military engagements, and get everyone to like us. Actually those are very close to direct quotes. The Liberal who is also a good customer stopped out to my house to pick up an order a couple weeks ago, and, as usual, he and I got to discussing politics. I think he put it best when he said, he voted for “hope and change”, he just didn’t get the kind of change he had hoped for.
Haaaaaaapy B Day Spook
A well deserved victory for Newt, who is showing the passion that many conservatives have, including myself, toward the incompetence of this administration and the willingness of the media to cover for him. Newt articulates the conservative position better than anyone, and does so with a level of passion and believability, knowing that in the past, he has moved the conservative agenda forward. If Newt stays focused and on message and Mitt doesn’t show a little fire in the belly, than Newt will earn my vote again. And I think it goes without saying that Newt has a far better grasp of the issues than Obama ever hoped to, and can articulate them in a common sense manner. Obama does not want to debate Newt, period.
However, it’s not enough to just beat Obama, although he is the first obstacle, but we need to then begin to rebuild a leaner, more effective federal government which will ignite a lackluster private economy and give more control to the states. This is a very important election folks.
Cluster, I’ve heard it said, the most important election since 1860. I doubt that Obama will agree to numerous and lengthy debates, but that certainly won’t stop a massive public debate about the direction of the country and the role and size of government. And it’s long past time that we had such a debate.
As I said, my sister is reluctant to discuss politics, but after her brief outburst last night, I did at least press her for what had turned her against Obama. She just said he’s bankrupting the country — pure and simple.
I think that your sister is just one of many previous Obama supporters that have had second thoughts, and good for her. There is no question that this election is very important, as one more term of this radical progressive agenda could do some real harm. I also think that an energized, motivated and impassioned conservative electorate is equally important to combat the expected onslaught of negativity from the media and the Obama regime, and Newt articulates that passion better than anyone in the field. If Romney doesn’t step up to the plate here and show some fire soon, then Newt will have my vote.
Oh and Happy Birthday Spook!! 39?
Oh and Happy Birthday Spook!! 39?
I wish.
Romney has made two serious unforced tactical errors. First, when the issue of tax returns came up in the first SC debate, he should have said, “I didn’t realize there was a deadline for a candidate to release his or her tax return. I’ll release it immediately (at which point Gingrich had not released his and Ron Paul had indicated he probably wouldn’t release his. Not sure about Santorum. Second, it would have been very simple for Romney to say, WRT his 15% tax rate that that was over and above the 35% tax rate he had already paid on the money he now has invested when it was first earned. We’ll see whether or not he learns from his mistakes.
I can vote for Mitt even if he does not show some fire. I think his core political philosophy is sound, and it doesn’t bother me if he isn’t very passionate about the way he presents it. I don’t think the impression of fire in the belly is necessary to be a good and effective president, but it definitely can be necessary to get that far, especially when competing with someone like Newt who is so good at projecting passion and vision.
The issue is, can he win the nomination without showing it. It’s hard to separate what is necessary to win from what is necessary to govern, and I think that’s the kind of decision voters are faced with now.
I read an article that said Mitt needs to show a vision for the country. Newt is all about vision. Newt has, to paraphrase Santorum, a vision a minute. They are clear, concise, and resonate very strongly with me and with millions of others. The question is, can he execute, and a belief that he can will be based very much on faith—faith that he has matured and learned from his mistakes, and faith that the conservatives of the country can keep enough pressure on him to keep him on course.
Mitt can execute, but lacks the spark in his presentation to engage the emotions. So I guess the question now would be, is the nation tired of making emotional decisions, such as swooning over “Hope” and “Change”, and ready to make rational decisions based on fact and intellect instead.
And I keep coming back to Santorum, who seems to represent the best of both without the negatives of either. He has a vision for the country, he is strong and focused and articulate, he is not the firebrand that Newt is but has a little more charisma than Mitt, and doesn’t have the baggage of either wealth or infidelity. (No that I think Mitt’s wealth SHOULD be a negative—quite the contrary—but it will be a weapon to use against him, appealing to the terminally resentful and the anticapitalist mentality.)
Spook: “Second, it would have been very simple for Romney to say, WRT his 15% tax rate that that was over and above the 35% tax rate he had already paid on the money he now has invested when it was first earned. ”
I think that would be a mistake on Romney’s part, It is likely those years where he earned the money that he doesn’t want to show the returns for and if he says that, he may end up being pressured to show those tax years’ returns.
It would help him lose, but it also would be a great eye opener for the uninformed.
Here is another great example of mindless liberal commentary:
LAWRENCE O’DONNELL: There’s a tremendous amount of cynicism in Gingrich’s use of food stamps because of what he actually know that his Republican debate audiences do not know. His Republican audiences do not know that most people on food stamps are white. His Republican audiences don’t know that most people use it temporarily, and, most importantly, his Republican audiences don’t know what Newt does know which is there would be no food stamps in America were it not for Republican Senator Bob Dole who held the key to making the food stamp program happen.
1. Conservatives do not care what color people are, only liberals do.
2. Conservatives do support the food stamp program, although would like it to be administered at the state level, and have some conditions applied to it
3. And the fact that there is a food stamp program is not at all the issue.
The conservative challenge this year will be to wade through the liberal ignorance and dishonesty – which is rampant in the Obama regime, and repeated in the media.
Isn’t it amazing how the Left leaps to the conclusion that any reference to food stamp recipients shows a belief that they are all black? It’s even more amazing that they, themselves, are so blind to this prejudice.
Then, on top of this, they project their bigotry onto conservatives, because this is the way THEY see things, and simply cannot conceive of another way of looking at things. If they assume all poor people, food stamp recipients, unemployed, or welfare people are black, then of course everyone else does, too. So the step to accusing others of racism is a very very tiny one, starting as it does from their own prejudice and assumptions.
When I first ran into this, probably at Juan Williams’ silly and shameful question about teaching children the value of work, the image that popped into my mind was that of the e-mails we have probably all gotten, of “Wal Martians”. And black people are very underrepresented in this demographic.
Many years ago, I knew a man who was hired as chef at a Denver branch of a high-end chain restaurant based in L.A. When they didn’t pay their trash hauling bill, the manager ordered my friend to simply have one of the busboys take the trash away in his van.
Because, as she explained, all busboys have vans. I mean, this is common knowledge.
I think of her every now and then, when I hear some utterly stupid and simple-minded generalization from the Left. They don’t even question the strange ideas that form what passes for political affiliation. They simply “know” something, and once this “knowledge” has established itself in a niche in their consciousness, much as lichen does on the tundra, it is there, unquestioned, unassailable, and part of their reality.
Racism is banned here and antics like this will get you banned too. // Moderator
I just heard word that Joe Pa has passed away. What a sad and tragic end to this man. I am disgusted by his actions surrounding Sandusky’s crimes, but Joe Pa was an amazing man that coached thousands of young men on not only football, but on life as well. He had a hell of run. RIP Joe Pa.
RIP JOE
My predictions………………..today Giants and New England
super bowl, New England
You’re way off neocon – SF beats NY and faces NE in the super bowl. Go Niners!!!
Mitt’s wealth should not be a bar to any elective office. However since he is only a one term governor of a small and very progressive state I believe he is not qualified to be President of The United States because he is not seasoned enough.
Newt’s marital problems should also not be a bar to any elective office. However I believe that he is not qualified to be President of The United States because he does not have any experience running a business that has employees. Being a paid historian for a government run entity, in my opinion, does not qualify.
😛
GMB
what? compared to Ochimpy or ole thunder thighs he vastly more experienced.
Now compared to me………….. 🙂
Neo, That was just me being a little silly there.
I am still waiting until after Flrida to make a descision about about Darth Newton. My descision on Mr. Romney has already been made and won’t be changed.
I am sticking with Santorum up until the point he can no longer compete.
GMB
I am sticking with Santorum up until the point he can no longer compete.
Me too, but I will vote for the fig
OK, so we agree that a Gingrich/Obama debate would be great.
But just think of a Gingrich/Biden debate! I’d have a party to watch that!
I think O’s “debate” could end like this……
Biden? You mean the guy who told a San Francisco crowd that the Giants were going to the Super Bowl? Let’s all pray that Obama stays healthy for the next 364 days.
spook
Let’s all pray that Obama stays healthy for the next 364 days.
I disagree, it would be a win win.
A NEW national holiday, and 24-7 non stop comedy.
I’ve always called Biden “Prudential Joe” because he is the best life insurance Obama could have.
But seriously, I expect all three of today’s top contenders to be in the White House in some capacity, and if Romney were to take #1 and ask Newt to be his running mate (big IF, with Santorum such a great choice) there would be a Gingrich/Biden debate that would be absolutely hysterical.
Hey—how about nominating Mitt but initiating a Designated Debater rule, so Newt could take on Barry?
i can actually agree with the birfday boi spook (happy one to you)
gingrich should be thanking cnn, abc and the media
without them he wouldn’t have won
but to beat obama
they’ll need big scandal on obama
or 10% unemployment
or condoleeza rice as a running mate….
…or condoleeza rice as a running mate…. because this election will be decided on skin color, too, instead of on sound political principles of how best to govern the nation.
Or so say the RRL lemmings who can never see beyond the superficial…
Funny
I read Condoleeza Rice and thought, brilliant women with lots of experience who offsets some of Newt’s perceived weaknesses but race was not one of them.
Her leadership at Stanford is evidence of her ability to persuade people who initially disagree with her. There is a gender gap in politics even if female Republicans don’t want to admit it.
Nothing bagni wrote mentioned race, but somehow you divined it was there.,strange indeed.
Mentioning a woman who is out of politics and who has publicly stated that she has no desire or intent to return, whose name has never been mentioned in any political context since 2008, as necessary to win an election against a man who won his last one primarily on the basis of being black, generates absolutely no hint of question about whether her race might have been the reason for citing her?
Oh, come on.
Spaghetti, sauced with smarm
You needed a boat load of assumptions there. Interestingly, Douglas Wilder, the ex governor of VA just mentioned Rice as a great choice for the GOP VP slot.
Maybe Wilder is all about skin color too.
na nu na nu dork
they’ll need big scandal on obama
like, Obama has an affair with a *WOMAN* ??
I lol’ed on that one. 🙂
funny
Bullhockey. Even Romney will beat barky o’bambam. Not by much but he will still beat him.
GMB
neocon1 January 22, 2012 at 11:52 am #
Your predictions?
Neo, If you are asking me to level my rifle at a target, It will go down.
Now about Romney. My guess is 273 electoral votes and he loses the popular vote.
Chaos follows.
GMB
NO silly…….IMPORTANT stuff
My predictions………………..today Giants and New England
super bowl, New England
Chaos follows.
It will no matter what if the chimpmeister loses.
Thus election season is going to be one of the strangest and most interesting I have ever seen.
I am not going to anything as a given for either side.
I live in Illionios. Look at a red/blue county map of this state. In 2008 only three countys went blue. It was enough to give Illinois to barky.
That may not happen this time. May not. If you visit the Chicago area there is a lot of anger at barky and that may translate to donkys staying home and not voting.
In my opinion, Illinois is in play for the repubs. Unfortunately, I don’t think the repubs have any clue how to take advantage.
Neo, I am a Bears fan.:( I hope they play a twenty five quater tie and someone wins on a disputed safety. I don’t care who.
🙂
GMB
Look at a red/blue county map of this state. In 2008 only three countys went blue. It was enough to give Illinois to barky.
ACORN fraud and the D plantation…
Daaaa BEARS….LOL
Gingrich: I Can Go ‘Toe to Toe’ With Obama
“dynamics of a Gingrich-Obama fight are much better for Republicans than the dynamics of a Romney-Obama fight.”
Does anyone have a problem with the fact that Gingrich did not qualify for the Virginia ballot?
His actual organizational skills don’t match his mouth. Dole and MCCain lost partially because they did not have enough husslenin their campaigns.
baldork
NO
Not really. Is Virginia all that important. How many delagates does Virginia have? Is it enough to make or break a campaign?
It will say say one thing. It will show how well the annoited one can do against Mr Paul in a heads up competition.
If Mr. Paul can even keep it close, say within 10 points of Romney, it won’t bode well for Romneys hopes to be the nominee.
That will never happen. And Obama’s victory in November will not be close at all.
There will be a third party in the US that wins on the state and federal level by 2016.
There will not be another GOP president in the next 40 years.
na nu na nu dork
you can remove the elbow length rubber glove now
something YOU seem to know quite a lot about.
catcher or pitcher?
I’d say catcher.
matt neo
i’m an outfielder
::))
na nu na nu dork
i’m thinking condie being perceived as experienced, smart, creative, woman, leader
like Palin
matt neo
condie would mop the floor with palin
if only on the experience part let alone the other stuff….
na nu na nu dork
I like both women, either one would bury Ochimpy.
RUT RO
hillary?????
Will Jan. 26th be “The night the lights went out in Georgia” for Obama and his 27 SocSec numbers?
By Coach Collins, on January 22nd, 2012
By Suzanne Eovaldi, staff writer
Two days ago Georgia Judge Michael Malihi denied Barack Obama’s legal schemes to suppress his original birth certificates, social security numbers school and other records in Attorney Orly Taitz’s challenge of his eligibility to run for president in 2012. Obama’s attorney tried to one up the court by arguing, futilely, that Obama’s duties as acting President came first. At long last the issue of Obama’s possible fraudulent use of a Social Security number given to a resident of Connecticut who alleged was born in 1890 will be settled!
According to a lengthy research project titled “List of Properties associated with Barack Obama and his Family,” done by a highly regarded former UK detective, Sergeant Neil Sankey along with Private Investigator Susan Daniels, Obama reportedly has 27 different social security numbers under 21 different personal and/or familial name variations in 22 states and the District of Columbia. Sankey’s research is featured in a web video entitled Dossier2MP4 produced by Jim Przybowski.
Obama and his 27 SocSec numbers?
By Coach Collins, on January 22nd, 2012
Dossier2MP4 produced by Jim Przybowski.
http://www.coachisright.com/will-jan-26th-be-%E2%80%9Cthe-night-the-lights-went-out-in-georgia%E2%80%9D-for-obama-and-his-27-socsec-numbers/
From the Guardian 22/11/2009:
Sankey contends that his police experience in England now informs his fight against Obama. “It’s quite obvious to me — America is heading towards a socialised state just as has happened in Europe. Socialised medicine, everyone on the dole, and when everything collapses you tip the scales into Marxism.”
He also believes his training in Scotland Yard is now reaping benefits for the Birthers. The same techniques he used to analyse the IRA’s associations he is now applying to Obama. Most recently, he carried out an exhaustive search of databases that he claims threw up 140 different identification numbers and addresses for “Barack Obama”. He admits the findings prove nothing — there is nothing to link the entries to the president — but he believes it raises further doubts that need investigating.
Old wine in new skins? The Birther thing is desperate stupid and disrepectful of the Office of the President.
What is desperate and stupid and disrespectful of the OFFICE of the President is treating it with callous indifference regarding the qualifications to hold it.
None of this is new, aside from the hacker play of coming up with various fake addresses for a fake Barack Obama, which is just gooning him and can’t be taken seriously. But it has focused attention on just where he DID get his SS number, and when—very legitimate questions that should be no problem to answer.
The problems and issues of Obama’s eligibility were known long before he was brought in by the rabidly radical Left as a stalking horse for their agenda in the U.S., and by the Democratic Party.
Every single issue should have been thoroughly investigated and resolved before he was allowed to proceed to the stage where the GOP candidate hopefuls are now.
The Left, and the Democrat Party, now for all intents and purposes indistinguishable, had a responsibility to make sure their candidate was qualified, and instead they created a situation of chaos and uncertainty, which they have callously used to try to smear those who take these things seriously and develop a foundation for the meme of Obama As Victim.
The entire process of promoting, electing and defending Obama has been one of contempt for the office, contempt for the citizens of this country, and contempt for the rule of law.
For one of you to now try to lecture US on respect for the office is the most bizarre kind of chutzpah, and as contemptible as the actions I have just described.
The Right now has two candidates who face one of the myriad of questions surrounding Obama’s eligibility, and there is a movement to have this resolved before either of them is put up as a candidate for the presidency. THIS is respect for the office, for the nation, and for the Constitution.
Almiranta-
You are clearly a very intelligent woman. That you believe in this birther stuff is perplexing. Where is the evidence that he has multiple SSN’s? How do you or anyone else know his SSN?
6913j
it is in the courts DUH!!
neocon1 January 22, 2012 at 11:52 am #
RIP JOE
My predictions………………..today Giants and New England
super bowl, New England
Reply
Cluster January 22, 2012 at 1:24 pm #
You’re way off neocon – SF beats NY and faces NE in the super bowl. Go Niners!!!
AHEM!!
McCain “vetted” by Congress, but Not Obama per latest Law suit
By LisaInTX |
UPDATE: The most recent law suit has been amended to include additional claims of rights violations, including unequal treatment, because Congress did such an investigation into GOP candidate Sen. John McCain. I find it INTERESTING that they did this for one, yet not the other?? Got any comments about the DOUBLE STANDARD? I asked this many times in the past, but NO ONE to date has any LEGITIMATE reasoning for McCain to be vetted by the Senate and YET, Not require Obama the same inquisition standards. – Eligibility issue: McCain checked but not Obama Lawsuit contends Congress failed to qualify Democrat for Oval Office Posted: February 10, 2009 9:09 pm Eastern By Bob Unruh A lawsuit that accuses Congress of failing to investigate President Obama’s birthplace before approving the Electoral College vote giving him the presidency has been amended to include additional claims of rights violations, including unequal treatment, because Congress did such an investigation into GOP candidate Sen. John McCain.
ATLANTA (AP) –
A judge has ordered President Barack Obama to appear in court in Atlanta for a hearing on a complaint that says Obama isn’t a natural-born citizen and can’t be president.
Update: The definition of the term “birther” has been expanded to include all who agree that Obama was born.
I think he was hatched…am I a “hatcher”? 🙂
6206j….please try to read my posts more carefully. Here’s what I DID say— “…the hacker play of coming up with various fake addresses for a fake Barack Obama, which is just gooning him and can’t be taken seriously. But it has focused attention on just where he DID get his SS number, and when—very legitimate questions that should be no problem to answer.”
First, what is a “birther”?
Second, I came right out and said I think the multiple SS numbers are bogus.
Third, what “birther stuff” do you find condemns me? What about asking for answers is so offensive to you? I have not stated a belief in anything brought up, aside from the very obvious fact that the COLB has a duality of purpose that means the origin of any such document has to be determined to know which purpose it is serving. There is nothing “birther” about that—it’s a simple fact.
I don’t know the right answer to the question of “natural born citizen”. No one does. There is compelling evidence of one conclusion, but it has to be determined by some official tribunal. This issue concerns Republicans as well as Obama. Why are you so determined to shove these questions under the rug?
moredumbopain
desperate stupid and disrepectful of the Office of the President.
No the FAKE FRAUD POS is another stain on the blew dress of the donk party and the office that has been degenerated by whore mongers, druggies and homosexuals.
Neoconehead
You remember that time Sarah played the piano with Yo-Yo Ma, and the other time she conducted foreign policy in Russian, and the time she was provost of a world class university, and the time she quit her job half way through?
Aaaaand….the deflection from the Romney/Gingrich discussion nears a predictable end.
If anyone had said we were going to start talking about people who are not even in the race and never were, gee, that sure would have opened up the options, wouldn’t it?
Is this like the Blogs’ Lightweights’ version of Fantasy Football? When you are putting together your fantasy team, and trashing your fantasy opponents based on spite and malice (because Leftist politics has to stay true to Leftist politics, even in the bizarro fantasy worlds of baggy and dolf) are you limited to living people? Real people? Do they have to be politicians? ‘Cause on the side opposing the Lightweights I’ll put up the team of Jefferson/Thatcher, if citizenship isn’t a criterion. Or Steven Maturin and Wonder Woman, if we can wander as far afield as we like. Picard/Spock if we want to open up frontiers where no man has gone before.
Just when I think you two can’t get any sillier, or any creepier, you prove me wrong.
Which is really OK, since that’s the only way either of you ever has a chance to prove me, or anyone, wrong.
dear matt neo catcher
and speaking of women
of obama can convince hilary to be his vp
he’ll be very tough to beat…..
Do YOU Fear Obama?
– JB Williams Friday, July 17, 2009
1
Since the most powerful people in America fear the wrath of Obamanation, maybe you should too! They are indeed a dangerous bunch, after all…
Every member of the Supreme Court, every member of congress, every member of the Joint Chiefs, most members of the DOD, CIA, FBI, Secret Service and state run media, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, PBS, NPR, MSNBC, Fox and print news, knows that Barack Hussein Obama does NOT meet Article II – Section I constitutional requirements for the office he holds. By his own biography, there is NO way he can pass the test. The hard evidence is so far beyond overwhelming, it is ridiculous.
choose your Battles
This is why all Obama supporters label all Obama opponents “racists.” In their limited imagination, they can’t fathom someone actually opposing his Marxist anti-American pro-Terrorist belief system and policies. In their minds, only “racists” would oppose a blatant Marxist rushing to destroy the most powerful nation on earth.
Don’t waste a minute trying to have a fact-based logical discussion with them. They do NOT care what the facts are and they have no foundation upon which to discern simple right and wrong. Though they use the term “fascist” all day long in an attempt to silence their opposition, they have no idea what the word actually means and they don’t care.
But rest easy, as they only account for some 25-28% of American voters and less than 20% of society. Too many, I agree, but fight the battles worth winning. Don’t waste your energy arguing with idiots who only seek access to your earnings. Their agenda trumps their understanding and respect for the truth…
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12999
What could all these learned men and women fear so greatly? it is almost impossible in American crime for three people to keep their mouths shut in the simplest of conspiracies that ACTUALLY EXIST. What makes you think that thousands of educated men and women can keep such a secret that is so detrimental to America as an ongoing concern?
moredumbopain
REFUTE it
na nu na nu dork
of obama can convince hilary to be his vp
one empty suit, one empty pant suit, one male, one female guess who is which?
Pain, is there supposed to be a point in there somewhere? A rebuttal? Sounds like more effort at deflection to me, and that is a tired and transparent old ploy that just makes the user look silly.
Hillary still has a torpedo to fire at the SS Barky. Payback is a Hillary. 😛
This is a great sign that 2012 is our year!!
South Carolina’s Republican voters set a new primary turnout record Saturday when more than 600,000 of them went to the polls, shattering the previous mark set in 2000.
With 13 precincts still uncounted Sunday morning, 601,166 votes already were recorded, topping 2000’s turnout of 537,101 and well ahead of 2008’s 445,499 voters. Earlier in the week, officials had projected a moderate turnout about equivalent to the 2008 primary.
Excellent constitutional debate up thread between GMB and Amazona.
Well, I’M debating the constitution. GMB is debating the perfidy of Romney Mitt.
OT regarding the primary, but on-topic regarding the insertion of government sponsored health care into the discourse: (emphases mine)
CRS* Description of Individual Mandate
1. Nov. 20, 1993
(date introduced)
Consumer Choice Health Security Act (SB 1743) (624 KB) Sponsored by Senator Don Nickles (R-OK) & 24 Republican cosponsors “Subtitle C: Employer Provisions –
Requires employers to: (1) withhold health insurance premiums from employee wages and remit such premiums to the employee’s chosen insurer; and (2) notify employees of their right to claim an advance refundable tax credit for such premiums.”
2. Nov. 23, 1993
(date introduced) Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act (SB 1770) (1.6 MB) Sponsored by Senator John H. Chafee (R-RI) & 20 cosponsors (2-D, 18-R) “Subtitle F: Universal Coverage –
Requires each citizen or lawful permanent resident to be covered under a qualified health plan or equivalent health care program by January 1, 2005. Provides an exception for any individual who is opposed for religious reasons to health plan coverage, including those who rely on healing using spiritual means through prayer alone.”
3. Jan. 18, 2007
(date introduced) Healthy Americans Act (SB 334) (427 KB) Sponsored by Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) & 17 cosponsors (7-D, 1-I, 9-R) “Healthy Americans Act –
Requires each adult individual to have the opportunity to purchase a Healthy Americans Private Insurance Plan (HAPI). Makes individuals who are not enrolled in another specified health plan and who are not opposed to coverage for religious reasons responsible for enrolling themselves and their dependent children in a HAPI plan offered through their state of residence. Sets forth penalties for failure to enroll.”
4. Feb. 5, 2009
(date introduced) Healthy Americans Act (SB 391) (394 KB) Sponsored by Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) & 14 cosponsors (8-D, 1-I, 5-R) “Healthy Americans Act –
Requires each adult individual to have the opportunity to purchase a Healthy Americans Private Insurance Plan (HAPI), which is: (1) a plan offered by a state; or (2) an employer-sponsored health coverage plan. Makes individuals who are not enrolled in another specified health plan and who are not opposed to coverage for religious reasons responsible for enrolling themselves and their dependent children in a HAPI plan offered through their state of residence. Sets forth penalties for failure to enroll.”
5. Dec. 24, 2009
(date passed) Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (HR 3590) (2.2 MB) No sponsors. Bill re-written by Senate Democrats. No Republican Senator voted for the bill. Read more.
“Subtitle F: Shared Responsibility for Health Care – Part I: Individual Responsibility – (Sec. 1501, as modified by section 10106) Requires individuals to maintain minimal essential health care coverage beginning in 2014. Imposes a penalty for failure to maintain such coverage beginning in 2014, except for certain low-income individuals who cannot afford coverage, members of Indian tribes, and individuals who suffer hardship. Exempts from the coverage requirement individuals who object to health care coverage on religious grounds, individuals not lawfully present in the United States, and individuals who are incarcerated.”
* CRS is the acronym for the Congressional Research Service.
II. Policy Origins of Individual Mandate, 1989-1994
Date & Publisher Study & Author Description of Health Insurance Mandate from Publication
1. Oct. 2, 1989
Heritage Foundation Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans (1.6 MB) , by Stuart M. Butler “[N]either the federal government nor any state requires all households to protect themselves from the potentially catastrophic costs of a serious accident or illness. Under the Heritage plan, there would be such a requirement…
Society does feel a moral obligation to insure that its citizens do not suffer from the unavailability of health care. But on the other hand, each household has the obligation, to the extent it is able, to avoid placing demands on society by protecting itself…
A mandate on households certainly would force those with adequate means to obtain insurance protection.”
2. Spring 1991
Health Affairs A Plan For Responsible National Health Insurance (201 KB) , by Mark V. Pauly, Patricia Damon, Paul Feldstein and John Hoff
” All citizens should be required to obtain a basic level of health insurance. Not having health insurance imposes a risk of delaying medical care; it also may impose costs on others, because we as a society provide care to the uninsured. The risk of shifting costs to others has led many states to mandate that all drivers have liability insurance. The same logic applies to health insurance…
The obligation to obtain basic health insurance should be placed on the individual, not on the employer…
In our scheme, every person would be required to obtain basic coverage, through either an individual or a family insurance plan.”
3. Mar. 5, 1992
Heritage Foundation The Heritage Consumer Choice Health Plan (10 MB) , by Stuart M. Butler
“Step #2: Require all households to purchase at least a basic package of insurance, unless they are covered by Medicaid, Medicare, or other government health programs.
All Heads of households would be required by law to obtain at least a basic health plan specified by Congress…
The private insurance market would be reformed to make a standard basic package available to all at an acceptable price…
Employers would be required to make a payroll deduction each pay period, at the direction of the employee, and send the amount to the plan of the employee’s choice.”
4. Jan. 1994
Health Affairs Personal Freedom, Responsibility, and Mandates (109 KB) , by Robert E. Moffitt
“Absent a specific mandate for at least catastrophic health insurance coverage, some persons, even with the availability of tax credits to offset their costs, will deliberately take advantage of their fellow citizens by not protecting themselves or their families, with the full knowledge that if they do incur a catastrophic illness that financially devastates them, we will, after all is said and done, take care of them and pay all of the bills. They will be correct in this assessment…
An individual mandate for insurance, then, is not simply to assure other people protection from the ravages of a serious illness, however socially desirable that may be; it is also to protect ourselves. Such self-protection is justified within the context of individual freedom; the precedent for this view can be traced to none other than John Stuart Mill.”
5. June 13, 1994
Cato Institute Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 210: Nickles-Sterns Is Not the Market Choice for Health Care Reform (98 KB) , by Tom Miller
“The Consumer Choice Health Security Act, of which Sen. Don Nickles (R-Okla.) and Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) are primary sponsors, is one of the leading proposals for health care reform. Unfortunately, it sets contradictory objectives: universal coverage and increased consumer choice, individual responsibility, and competition in health insurance markets…
The most troubling aspect of the Nickles-Stearns legislation, as introduced on November 20, is the mandate that it imposes on all Americans to purchase a standard package of health insurance benefits. By endorsing the concept of compulsory universal insurance coverage, Nickles-Stearns undermines the traditional principles of personal liberty and individual responsibility that provide essential bulwarks against all-intrusive governmental control of health care.”
*********************
There—an overview of the debated on how to handle health care costs in this country, representing both political parties and showing the conflicts inherent in trying to solve this problem within the confines and restrictions of our Constitution and the desire to, as the Cato Instituted phrased it, preserve ” ….the traditional principles of personal liberty and individual responsibility that provide essential bulwarks against all-intrusive governmental control of health care.”
I come down on the side of the Cato Institute but I also see and understand the arguments on the other side, at least those which stop short of the Obama plan. A lot of very smart people have struggled with this and had to deal with the ugly reality that a small step away toward some degree of government involvement might be necessary, and that the only way to make it even remotely acceptable and Constitutional will be to do it on state and local levels.
It is settled now isin’t it. The winner of the South Carolina primary has gone on to be the the nominee, how many times in a row?
Romney didn’t win in South Carolina. History shows that he wont be the nominee. Now it is time to throw your support to man who did win.
With the Lincoln – Douglas debates, in 1858, Lincoln was a lawyer in private practice, Douglas was the incumbent senator, with national recognition. The prominent issue was slavery in those debates.
To get Douglas to debate him, which as a incumbent, Douglas knew he didn’t need to do; Lincoln would follow Douglas wherever he went and would speak after Douglas gave his speech, forcing his hand. At that time, state legislators selected US Senators and since Democrats controlled the Illinois legislature, Douglas was re-elected to the US Senate.
When Lincoln debated Douglas, he saw newspapers publishing the debates, it gave him recognition. Lincoln edited the texts of all of the debates and had them published in a book, using them for his run for president.
It is conceivable of Gingrich, if nominated, following Obama’s campaign schedule and countering whatever Obama said. Over time, challenging the Columbia, Harvard graduate to his debate format. The question is what would be public perception of Obama if he refused to debate the West Georgia College teacher under his terms.
It would be interesting.
Private charities would do a much better job in my opinion. – GMB
I agree. That’s how it was originally designed.