|
Post by philunderwood on Apr 28, 2011 12:14:09 GMT -5
That the GOP field leaves a lot to be desired so far.
|
|
|
Post by Ritty77 on May 11, 2011 16:30:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on May 11, 2011 18:27:50 GMT -5
Newt is smart and broadly knowledgeable. He also has good conservative principles. Unfortunately he has a lot of personal baggage that the left and MSM will get a lot of mileage out of. They’ll give him the Sarah Palin treatment.
We’ll have to see if he can overcome that.
|
|
|
Post by Ritty77 on May 11, 2011 18:53:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on May 13, 2011 14:18:09 GMT -5
www.qando.net/?cat=57Why Romney and Gingrich can never be President May 13th, 2011 | Author: Bruce McQuain Or perhaps I should caveat that by saying ¡°should¡± never be President, given the current occupant who also ¡°should¡± never have been President. Romney gave his major health care speech yesterday in which he sounded like he was running as Obama¡¯s VP. It was totally unconvincing. As Avik Roy says at NRO: Mitt Romney just gave a more articulate defense of Obamacare than President Obama ever has. He continues to believe that the individual mandate is a good idea, despite the fact that the ¡°free-rider¡± problem is a myth. His effort to make a distinction between Romneycare and Obamacare was not persuasive: If anything, he convincingly made the opposite case, that Romneycare and Obamacare are based on the same fundamental concept. For him to have any credibility with the right and GOP voters, he had a simple mission: tell them why he signed RomneyCare into law in MA, why it was a mistake and why he was going to fight to repeal ObamaCare. He did none of those things and thus became, at least in my eyes, an unviable candidate. He obviously has absolutely no problem with the level of government interference in the health care market and certainly isn¡¯t going to be a champion of backing government out of it if elected. In fact, of all sources, the New York Times nails the problem (albeit coming at it from a different direction than me): Tearing it down [RomneyCare] might help him politically, he said, but ¡°it wouldn¡¯t be honest.¡± He said he did what he ¡°thought would be right for the people of my state.¡± A mandate to buy insurance, he said, makes sense to prevent people from becoming free riders, getting emergency care at enormous cost to everyone else. Where he went off the rails, however, was in not acknowledging that that same logic applies to the nation. Mr. Romney tried desperately to pivot from praising his handiwork in Massachusetts to trashing the very same idea as adapted by Mr. Obama. His was an efficient and effective state policy; Mr. Obama¡¯s was ¡°a power grab by the federal government.¡± He tried to justify this with a history lesson on federalism and state experimentation, but, in fact, he said nothing about what makes Massachusetts different from its neighbors or any other state. And why would he immediately repeal the Obama mandate if elected president? Because Mr. Obama wants a ¡°government takeover of health care,¡± while all he wanted was to insure the uninsured. That distinction makes no sense, and the disconnect undermines the foundation of Mr. Romney¡¯s candidacy. I absolutely agree. In fact, the problem isn¡¯t federalism and state experimentation, it is a principle ¨C government, at any level, doesn¡¯t have the right to compel a person to buy something if they choose not too. One of the nasty little problems with big government types is that freedom allows too many choices and Romney is no different than those on the left who¡¯d like to pare those choices down for their convenience and to extend the power and control of government (and their central planning efforts). Newt Gingrich, who recently joined the run for the presidency, is no different than Romney as his record tells us and don¡¯t let him try to fool you into thinking otherwise. Huffington Post gives a partial list of the times Gingrich has touted health insurance mandates or attempted to argue in their favor from a moral perspective: At an Alegent Health event in Omaha in 2008, Gingrich said it was "fundamentally immoral" for a person to go without coverage, show up at an emergency room and demand free care. During the keynote address to the Greater Detroit Area Health Council¡¯s annual Health Trends Conference in April 2006, Gingrich said he would require Americans earning above a certain income level to buy health insurance or post a bond, the Detroit Free Press reported. In a June 2007 op-ed in the Des Moines Register, Gingrich wrote, "Personal responsibility extends to the purchase of health insurance. Citizens should not be able to cheat their neighbors by not buying insurance, particularly when they can afford it, and expect others to pay for their care when they need it." An "individual mandate," he added, should be applied "when the larger health-care system has been fundamentally changed." And in several of his many policy and politics-focused books, Gingrich offered much the same. In 2008¡äs "Real Change," he wrote, "Finally, we should insist that everyone above a certain level buy coverage (or, if they are opposed to insurance, post a bond). Meanwhile, we should provide tax credits or subsidize private insurance for the poor." In 2005¡äs "Winning the Future," he expanded on the idea in more detail: "You have the right to be part of the lowest-cost insurance pool and you have a responsibility to buy insurance. ¡ We need some significant changes to ensure that every American is insured, but we should make it clear that a 21st Century Intelligent System requires everyone to participate in the insurance system." "People whose income is too low should receive Medicaid vouchers and tax credits to buy insurance," he continued. "Large risk pools (association health plans are one model) should be established so low-income people can buy insurance as inexpensively as large corporations. Furthermore, it should be possible to buy your health insurance on-line to lower the cost as much as possible." Show me the difference between Gingrich and Obama (or Romney) on their desire to use the power of government to mandate insurance coverage. The fact that Gingrich draws a line at a particular level of income doesn¡¯t change the fact that in principal he agrees that government should have that power. Just as serious a problem, at least for me, is Gingrich¡¯s stance on global warming. Gingrich appeared in a commercial for the ¡°We initiative¡± with Nancy Pelosi. The We Initiative is sponsored by Al Gore¡¯s ¡°Alliance for Climate Protection¡±. This alone is reason enough, in my book, to totally dismiss a Gingrich run. Add in his support for an individual mandate for health insurance and his candidacy is DOA as far as I¡¯m concerned. And Romney? On life support with a poor prognosis for the future. ~McQ
|
|
|
Post by twinder on May 13, 2011 17:47:40 GMT -5
I've said it before, I'm not impressed with either Romney or Gingrich. Neither would get my support.
|
|
|
Post by relenemiller on May 13, 2011 21:30:21 GMT -5
Hey guys, seriously speaking now...on this note about presidential contenders? Is there even one of you who believes that Sarah is viable, she is not Washington, or even Alaskan, she is who she is! I'm not hearing any comment and I know that you guys think too much of women, to not accept her based on gender, right? She is different and we've had same same for how long, how can different and determined not be a refreshing change? I'm listening.
|
|
|
Post by Doug Loss on May 13, 2011 21:48:31 GMT -5
Of course there is, Relene. I think Palin is the best choice we have right now. And I also think she's biding her time, knowing that as soon as she formally announces she'll have the money and organization she needs. There are a great many people waiting impatiently to jump in and do everything they can to make her President.
|
|
|
Post by Ritty77 on May 13, 2011 21:53:38 GMT -5
Whether she earned them or not, her negatives are too high. Personally, I agree with her on most things but I doubt she is electable.
|
|
|
Post by Ritty77 on May 13, 2011 22:04:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Doug Loss on May 14, 2011 8:00:19 GMT -5
That "her negatives are too high" argument is just silly, in my opinion. You can be guaranteed that whoever the Republican candidate is, he or she will be attacked in similar terms; it's just what the left does. The only reason "her negatives" are so high is because the MSM is telling you that they are. She draws bigger and more enthusiastic crowds than any of the other presidential candidates, whether announced or imagined, and bigger and more enthusiastic crowds than Obama. One thing you can guarantee about Palin--the left won't be able to drag out any "October surprise" against her that will have any traction. They've already shot those wads. The more Palin is heard by the American public, the lower those "negatives" will go. In comparison to Obama, she's so obviously the better leader that even the MSM won't be able to paper over the differences.
|
|
|
Post by mikekerstetter on May 14, 2011 8:55:31 GMT -5
Palin against Obama will be a second term for Obama. She couldn't even complete one term as Alaska's Governor. She stirs up the masses, but, as far as I'm concerned, has no substance.
|
|
|
Post by Ritty77 on May 14, 2011 9:08:49 GMT -5
Doug, my reference to her negatives is certainly something that should be considered, and I take "negatives" to mean they would rather not vote for her.
If a person who supported Obama is understandably having second thoughts, nominating someone who he or she would rather not vote for is a road to Obama's re-election.
Your prediction that her "negatives" will lower over time seems to contradict your opinion that my argument is silly. However, your use of quotes around "negatives" suggests that you view them to be something not so negative as losing votes, so I may be misunderstanding.
In the poll that I posted, "other" is what people want, including me. Of course, "any of the above" would be a huge step in the right direction.
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on May 14, 2011 9:24:16 GMT -5
At this point the Republican nomination is up for grabs and it’s up to the prospective candidates to earn the votes that lead to their nomination. I too have favorites and those I’d sooner see out of the running.
The negatives will only matter if the candidate is unable to cast them aside and convince enough voters to vote for them. You can be sure the MSM and other leftist factions will be a little kinder to those who they believe would be a better choice if Obama loses. The more conservative choices will have a much tougher time, but that doesn’t mean they can’t do it if they have the skill to pull it off.
|
|
|
Post by Doug Loss on May 14, 2011 9:26:25 GMT -5
MIke, you're just parroting the MSM line there. "Other" is meaningless in these polls, Keith, because "Other" will never be a candidate, and "Other" means just what "Obama" did in 2008. It's an empty vessel that people can pretend means everything they like and nothing they don't. You're right about the understanding of "negatives," though. The "negatives" are impressions that people have gathered from the unrelenting calumnies heaped on her by the rabid media. If and when she gets into the race formally, her voice and opinions will be heard more directly by the people, and a substantial majority will realize that the MSM has been lying to them all along, and that Palin represents those things they agree with and want in a president.
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on May 14, 2011 9:59:25 GMT -5
Palin’s biggest problem with many middle of the roaders or moderates is her social conservative views. She has been pictured by the opposition as a religious fanatic. That also translates into not being too bright to many.
Unfortunately, a lot of people will have to get past that before they’ll vote for Sarah.
|
|
|
Post by Ritty77 on May 15, 2011 17:59:07 GMT -5
I see what you're saying, Doug. Once "other" is actually defined, he or she's numbers will reflect on him or her instead of an abstract "dream" candidate.
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on May 16, 2011 6:40:08 GMT -5
Well, so much for Newt:
Gingrich Backs Obamacare's Individual Mandate Requiring Health Insurance Sunday, 15 May 2011 07:18 PM
By Tim Collie
Speaker Newt Gingrich said Sunday that he strongly supports a federal mandate requiring citizens to buy health insurance – a position that has been rejected by many Republicans, including several who likely will be running against him for the Republican presidential nomination.
Appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Gingrich told host David Gregory that he continues to advocate for a plan he first called for in the early 1990s as a Congressman, which requires every uninsured citizen to purchase or acquire health insurance.
Gregory played a clip of Gingrich speaking during an appearance on Meet the Press in October 1993:
“I am for people, individuals -- exactly like automobile insurance -- individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance. And I am prepared to vote for a voucher system which will give individuals, on a sliding scale, a government subsidy so we insure that everyone as individuals have health insurance.”
Gregory asked Gingrich if he would criticize GOP presidential rival Mitt Romney, whose "Romneycare" health program enacted during his time as Governor in Massachusetts mandated that all uninsured purchase health insurance.
Gingrich replied he would not make it an issue in the campaign and said he agreed with key aspects of Romneycare.
"I agree that all of us have a responsibility to pay--help pay for health care," Gingrich said, adding, "I've said consistently we ought to have some requirement that you either have health insurance or you post a bond ..."
Gingrich also admitted that his proposal is a "variation" of the individual mandate, a key component of the Obamacare legislation President Obama signed into law in 2010.
The position staked out by Gingrich appears to be at odds with leading conservative critics of Obamacare, who argue that the law requiring citizens to purchase a private insurance policy is not constitutional.
The Obama administration is currently facing three lawsuits arguing that the federal mandate is unconstitutional, including one filed by a coalition of 26 states.
The issue is on track for a Supreme Court decision in the summer of 2012, which would make it a likely hot-button topic heading into the elections.
Conservative GOP critics like Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli say the mandate is unconstitutional because although Congress can regulate commerce, it can’t require people to engage in a particular “economic activity” just because they live in the U.S.
Conservative judicial experts have also taken exception to the claim made by Gingrich and supporters of the Obamacare law that mandating health insurance is the same as the government requirement to purchase car insurance, noting that driving a car is a privilege provided by states and not a constitutional right.
Cucinelli says that "buying auto insurance is voluntary, since you are only required to purchase it if you choose to drive on public roads. But buying health insurance under the new federal law is not voluntary, as you are required to buy it just by virtue of the fact that you are breathing. The federal government has never before in history exercised its regulatory power to require someone to buy a product or service as a condition of residence in the United States."
Gingrich, though, seemed to disagree with that notion on Sunday, though he was quick to point out the differences between his plan and the federal health law.
“In, in the first place, Obama basically is trying to replace the entire insurance system, creating state exchanges, building a Washington-based model, creating a federal system,” Gingrich told NBC’s David Gregory. “I believe all of us--and this is going to be a big debate--I believe all of us have a responsibility to help pay for healthcare …"
Romney has not come under fire for not disowning his health care plan, which has caused private health care insurance rates to skyrocket as patient services have declined in Massachusetts.
Gingrich's position quickly came under fire from several conservative blogs on Sunday.
“He tried to distinguish his mandate from the Obama mandate, but with little success,” the American Federalist Journal wrote on Sunday.
“Sandbagging your fellow Republicans in Congress and offering tacit support for a key (unconstitutional) component of Obamacare is a very strange way to begin a run in a Republican primary. Not a strong start.”
The Wall Street Journal called Gingrich’s description of an ideal healthcare plan with mandates a “pretty good description of what the Democratic Congress passed into law last year."
The Journal continued: "Beginning in 2014, most Americans who don't have insurance will be required to pay a fee, with many, depending on income, getting subsidies to help buy coverage through state-based exchanges.”
The conservative website Red State said Gingrich “won’t exactly endear him to the Tea Party crowd or the reform minded movement sweeping the GOP.”
Read more on Newsmax.com: Gingrich Backs Obamacare's Individual Mandate Requiring Health Insurance
|
|
|
Post by philunderwood on May 16, 2011 10:46:57 GMT -5
But wait, there's more:
Gingrich–GOP plan for Medicare “Right-wing social engineering”, backs Obama’s insurance mandate
May 16th, 2011 | Author: Bruce McQuain
This is the major reason why Newt Gingrich shouldn’t get anywhere near the GOP nomination:
White House hopeful Newt Gingrich called the House Republican plan for Medicare "right-wing social engineering," injecting a discordant GOP voice into the party’s efforts to reshape both entitlements and the broader budget debate.
In the same interview Sunday, on NBC’s "Meet the Press," Mr. Gingrich backed a requirement that all Americans buy health insurance, complicating a Republican line of attack on President Barack Obama’s health law.
Yup, he’s a bomb-thrower with lefty leanings. About as succinct as I can make it. He’s one of those guys who believes in using government for “social engineering” even while denouncing something as social engineering.
Later Sunday, in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, he also acknowledged that many Republicans are uncomfortable with requiring insurance coverage but challenged them to offer an alternative solution. "Most Republican voters agree with the principle that people have some responsibility to pay for their costs," he said.
Here’s a thought – stay the hell out of my health care?
That’s the problem with politicians like Gingrich – despite all the rhetoric on the right about smaller less intrusive government, they keep coughing up candidates like Gingrich who always seem to find “solutions” in government. My alternate solution? Back off! Change the law to allow insurance to be sold over state lines, get it out of the hands of employers, drop all the coverage mandates by government and let the market begin to work and shape the insurance product instead of government.
That’s my alternate solution. And you’d think a so-called Republican would be out there pushing something like it – instead of jumping on the lefty bandwagon by calling a genuine effort to back government out of the medical care business “right-wing social engineering”.
Republicans – you have both Gingrich and Romney trying to make the unacceptable acceptable. Is that what you want in the White House?
Bah.
Go make another commercial with Pelosi, Newt.
~McQ
|
|
|
Post by twinder on May 16, 2011 12:33:35 GMT -5
Trump announced today that he is NOT running for President.
|
|