1 Radical is the government allowing you to die because of your own folly, e.g. not carrying insurance when you get really ill and have bills you can't pay. 

2 Yeah but he changed his mind.  To win.  Which is ok by me.

3 Oh boy, here it comes. Staying out of this one.

4 Eh. A mandate is a mandate and is thus coercive. More to the point, Newt just finds new and better ways to dislike him.

5 Still confused as to where the Constitution gives Congress the power to over ride the States in managing the issuance of insurance or providing healthcare.

6 Didn't he admit this?

7 Hey Ace, how's Pixy doing on the new site?

8 What was billed as "conservative" five years ago is defined as anti-conservative now.

And that's fine. Movements change, they clarify.

Perhaps they need to focus on thinking for themselves, rather than accepting the perceived conservative doctrine of the day. 

9 Radical is the government allowing you to die because of your own folly, Wouldn't it have been easier to increase the credit/deduction value of charity contributions made in the healthcare sector and let the charity folks handle it.

10 OT Christina Agluiarra had her period on stage leaking down her leg last night. Yummy

11 Hey Ace, how's Pixy doing on the new site? Posted by: joncelli, Channeling his inner philadelphian at January 30, 2012 11:10 AM (RD7QR) I hear it will be coin operated.

12 10 OT Christina Agluiarra had her period on stage leaking down her leg last night. Yummy

Posted by: Mr Pink at January 30, 2012 11:11 AM (fMNVd)

Her mom hasn't gotten around to discussing this stuff with her?

13 "we would allow you" - the 4 most troubling words in what Newt said.

How about you fuck off and allow me to decide whether I want/need health insurance.

"Free riders" are only a problem because of government meddling in the healthcare market place to begin with, and you can count on any government solution to simply compound the problem.

Also, the fact that Heritage and Newt floated the idea of mandates doesn't make them a mainstream conservative position.

14 I don't know how pixy is doing on the new site, but I did write to him to find out.

15 You mean the guy that said that FDR was the 'greatest President of the 20th Century' might not be that conservative some claim he is after all. Hmm. Shocking, that.

16 as for this being something that isn't new -- well, the context is that he was asked about this while ObamaCare was being put together. He endorsed major elements of it, as it was going forward. This wasn't just hypothetical.

17 I don't know how pixy is doing on the new site, but I did write to him to find out.

^^^

Will there be registration?

18 And yet we will all support a man who implemented individual mandate and opened the Pandora box of Government mandated healthcare. And the only one who didn't back down from it in the entire fucking party. Seems to me the Tea Party is like a disposable vagina toy to you, ace. Not even a whore, just a cheap cardboard toy.

19 Theory versus practice.  Masscare in practice has been a failure.  The one candidate we have who *could* have argued most persuasively against it (and similar models in neighboring states as well as nationally) based on his intimate knowledge of it and using the data available in the years since it was implemented refuses to do it. 


Which one of the candidates has actually been trying to come up with market-based health care solutions? 

20 >> Yeah but he changed his mind. To win. Which is ok by me.

See also: Romney, Mitt

(not that I support either one of these shitty choices)

21 It's fine if conservative opinion has 'developed' in just a few years, but it's annoying that many conservatives won't admit this. If opposition to an individual mandate is now a conservative litmus test, you should be honest and admit that this is a very new litmus test.

22

The context is that he said in the conference call that he was "on his way to the Obama Whitehouse" to reccomend the individual mandate.

 

Looks like Obama took his advice.

23 So Newt and Mitt are the same on health care. 

Fine.

Let's discuss tax plans. 

24 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable tyrant.

25 Even Newt agrees with Romney!

26 It's not hard, folks.  Just have eligibility periods like my company's insurance does right now.  Join it, and get the benefits, or gamble against it.  If you can't pay the doctor / specialist / hospital directly, then go to the ER and get the same treatment as the rest of the miserable indigents.

Next year, they'll join.  This is not hard.

27 So Rick Perry "wrote" a fantastic federalist book and Newt Gingrich "wrote" the fantastic federalist forward. Why couldn't we get the guys who ghost wrote the whole book - instead of these posers?

28 Newt was advocating for catostrophic care policies, not comprehensive policies like Romney care or Obama care. Listen to the whole thing not just what they clip for you to hear. Of course we know Romney still luvs him some mandates while Newt does not.

29

Radical is the government allowing you to die because of your own folly, e.g. not carrying insurance when you get really ill and have bills you can't pay.

 

------------

 

Can peoples of straw descent qualify as a target of a hate crime?

30 Seems to me the Tea Party is like a disposable vagina toy to you, ace. Not even a whore, just a cheap cardboard toy. They don't make them out of cardboard. Imagine the paper cuts!

31 Is it just me? Does it do this to other people? Why does it keep eating all my spaces?

32 "Free riders" are only a problem because of government meddling in the healthcare market place to begin with, and you can count on any government solution to simply compound the problem.
Posted by: Andy at January 30, 2012 11:12 AM

Free riders are a problem, in part, because of government meddling, but also because of the ethical obligation of medical professionals to provide care for those who are unable to pay for themselves.  There are far fewer people who are unable to obtain and pay for health care than there are those who are unwilling to pay for health care.

33 Well yes concepts of what a conservative is do change. BUT even if you cut him slack on this, can you explain his sitting on a love seat lecturing us about the evils of man made global warming?

34

Newt also said that the "process" in 2009 was open and he thought it was better than in 1993.

Newt:

"The good thing is that unlike the Hillarycare process of 1993, we donÂ’t have 500 people in a room hiding in a room trying to write the magic bill thatÂ’s gonna go through on an up or down vote"

Um, really is that how the passage of Obamacare went, Newtie?

35 Instead of Texas seceding - can Texas annex the rest of the country, county by county - ignoring the rotten and boned?

36

 Newt is a Real Conservative! 

And if you point out liberal positions he has taken in the past, then you must be a RINO!!!

Oh, and Drudge is obviously a RINO too.

Wooohooo Newt!!

37 Still consider myself undecided at this point (although being a denizen of Virginia, I don't have much choice), but folks, let this not distract you from the fact that regardless of how distasteful we may find our choices of candidates, we need to man up, collectively grab our sacs and get motivated to defeat the SCOAMF.

We may be stuck with a squish, but four more of O will be quite worse.

38 Barack O'Romney is a stuttering clusterrino of a miserable failure!

39 if you are going to have "must insure" then you must have a "must carry" or the carrier will go broke, not sure that he was saying that he was pro-mandate, but if you take the stance that carriers must cover pre-existing, then that is the only option.  I think that a good corollary is that if you are going to have social services open to everyone, then you must have a sealed border. You cannot offer a free anything to everyone, it doesn't work... unless it is the right to be free.

40 But, but, Newt will be super awesome in the debates when he yells at the moderator!

Conservatives are such easy, cheap dates.  All you have to do is raise your voice and make your face turn red, and then they can NEVER call you a RINO.

41 33 Well yes concepts of what a conservative is do change. BUT even if you cut him slack on this, can you explain his sitting on a love seat lecturing us about the evils of man made global warming?
-----
June 6, 2011

At the first town hall event of his 2012 presidential campaign, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney said he envied European-style energy efficiency. After he told the audience in Manchester, NH that it was "important" reduce global warming pollution, he said that American energy policy needs to include increased energy efficiency: 

I also want to see us become more energy efficient. IÂ’m told that we use almost twice as much energy per person as does a European, and more like three times as much as does a Japanese citizen. We could do a lot better. IÂ’d like to see our vehicles, and our homes, and our systems of insulation and so forth become far more efficient. I believe that we have a role in trying to encourage that to happen.

42 >>>Seems to me the Tea Party is like a disposable vagina toy to you, ace. Not even a whore, just a cheap cardboard toy. More leftwing Alinsky crap from someone who calls himself a conservative. Let's check the list: * Appeal to emotion * Lack of coherent argument * Championing of a Group over Individuals * Fighting for political power for a group while being vague about the actual ideas of that group, that is, what that power is intended to accomplish And he didn't do this one, but I'm sick to death of this one: * Playing the leftwing "holy victim" by claiming to be "oppressed" (by The Establishment) and then claiming that makes one both authentic and infallible.

43 Um, really is that how the passage of Obamacare went, Newtie? Posted by: Jay at January 30, 2012 11:20 AM

Nope.

44

I still think what we should really be looking at is "What the DNC will use against our candidate".

.

It's what this election will boil down to, isn't it? ....They will of course throw everything at us, using their finely tuned demagoguery skills.

45

Ace, can you just explain to us how Romney is better than Obama? I don't mean Gingrich, I mean Obama. Where exactly do they differ on important issues? The only difference I see is that Romney tends to lie a bit more often.

46 Which one of the candidates has actually been trying to come up with market-based health care solutions?

Neither, if mandating private insurance isn't considered 'market-based.'

Although Romney has been pushing the idea of turning employer-based insurance into employee-based insurance and allowing sales across state lines as well as tort reform...which Newt hasn't.  So actually, advantage Romney.

Newt's whole "Center for Health Tranformation" schtick was/is, as everyone in DC knows, just a big lobbying shop for Big Pharma...which is why he lobbied the GOP so hard for Medicare Part D.  He had a lot of paying customers who wanted that bill to pass.  But it hasn't been a source for advancing 'market-based' health care solutions, if that's what you're getting at. 

47

It's fine if conservative opinion has 'developed' in just a few years, but it's annoying that many conservatives won't admit this. If opposition to an individual mandate is now a conservative litmus test, you should be honest and admit that this is a very new litmus test.

 

It's not.

 

I've been against it for years. Just because politicians who lie and call themselves 'conservative' just figured this out, despite the fact that we've been screaming it for years, does not make it 'new'.

48 Hmmm...the douchebag or the turd sandwich...

49 The only difference I see is that Romney tends to lie a bit more often.

Unlikely to be physically possible...

50 If you can't pay the doctor / specialist / hospital directly, then go to the ER and get the same treatment as the rest of the miserable indigents.

Actually, that's exactly part of the problem "Shall-issue" and the mandate are trying to solve.  Thanks (again) to our all-powerful, oh-so-beneficent government, ERs must treat anyone who walks through their doors with an emergency condition, regardless of ability to pay.  That "emergency condition" then got translated (through court decisions, I'm pretty sure) to "anything the patient thinks is an emergency."

So, now, people are using the ER for their primary care, and then just refusing to pay the bills.  This is absolutely devastating to hospitals, who pass that charge on to the folks who do pay.  But those people really only pay because their insurance covers it, so it's the insurance policy holders who are getting stuck with the cost.

Now, your answer is on the right track, but it needs to be modified with, "Oh, yeah, and ERs are not required to administer care if you can't pay, though they can if they so desire."

I assure you that plenty of hospitals will, indeed, care for the truly indigent, but they'll put into place systems that will allow them to sort out the people using the ER as their primary care and start denying them treatment.

51 You guys have Newt all wrong. This statement was just part of his job as a historian for this health care think tank.

52 "Big Pharma"

Aren't they capitalists? 

53

It's not hard, folks. Just have eligibility periods like my company's insurance does right now. Join it, and get the benefits, or gamble against it.

 

 That's the issue with pre-existing coverage, though.  For example, I have a pre-existing condition for which I must maintain my own coverage through the eligibility period or, when I am eligible, I will not have coverage for that condition for a year (depending on the plan).  Now, I think that's perfectly fair but other people think that's an unfair outrage eleventy.  Thus, the pre-existing condition coverage requirement.

 

I'm interested if Newt, Romney, et al are willing to take the converse position, that is, if the pre-existing coverage requirement is scrapped then there is no reason, at all, for an individual mandate.  Note that I am arguing on Newt's premise here and am not addressing the larger issues of whether such a mandate is constitutional or in keeping with conservative philosophy. 

 

 

54 If opposition to an individual mandate is now a conservative litmus test, you should be honest and admit that this is a very new litmus test.

Posted by: Mætenloch at January 30, 2012 11:16 AM (CkoMi)

Opposition to single payer socialized medicine has always been the conservative position. The mandates are just a different way of getting there.

55 Whatever "tuneddemagoguery" is, I'm thinking it's German, solidly built, and hideously expensive. (Please finish the new blog Pixy! Pleeeeeeeease!)

56 Newt was advocating for catostrophic care policies, not comprehensive policies like Romney care or Obama care. Listen to the whole thing not just what they clip for you to hear. Of course we know Romney still luvs him some mandates while Newt does not. Posted by: jane
..........
Catastrophic care is the only thing that makes sense from a conservative point of view.  That is unless you have no governmental health care plans at all.

But a catastrophic plan for all Americans is not really government health care.  It is simply a pooling of resources to cover very expensive illnesses.  You would have to be covered by a private health plan first - or self-insure until you reach the catastrophic benefit point.

The advantage of it is this:  It drives down coverage for normal day-to-day  private insurance tremendously.  No insurer ever has to risk being caught for a high-expense illness.  it simply comes out of the common fund.  With a pool of 300 million people it is a really big fund - I worked out once that a 2% payroll tax would cover most catastrophic illnesses.

57 It's fine if conservative opinion has 'developed' in just a few years, but it's annoying that many conservatives won't admit this. If opposition to an individual mandate is now a conservative litmus test, you should be honest and admit that this is a very new litmus test.

Frankly, it's only the simple fact that most Republican politicians generally don't give a shit about health care policy and never get involved with the issue that saved more GOP politicians from being on the record in favor of mandates.  Because I was THERE, paying attention, back then...and let me tell you it's revisionist history to claim that the mandate wasn't a near-universally appreciated "conservative" idea to the extent it was discussed.  It was.  It only became anathema when Obama picked it up and ran with it, because...well, Obama.

58

What's missing in the health care debate - and this applies pretty much uniformly to Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and leftists alike - is an attempt to deal with what actually is the problem with the American health care system.

...

It's not access, which is what all this to-do about people not having insurance, and the "need" to mandate insurance purchase, etc. are all about.

...

The problem is cost.  If we were serious about fixing the deficiencies, we would look at the systematic issues that are creating the high costs to begin with, and would try to find ways to lower these costs.  Do that, and a lot of the insurance "access" issue would go away on its own.

59 "we would allow you to post a bond."
*** **** *** **** *** ****
This attitude is the most disturbing thing about Newt. He loves big government as long as he's the one wielding the stick.

60 The whole "free rider" problem is just made up fantasy, maybe 1% or 2% of the problem. The major problem with health care? Government interference. The problem won't be fixed by more interference, I.e. mandate.

61 45 Ace, can you just explain to us how Romney is better than Obama? I don't mean Gingrich, I mean Obama. Where exactly do they differ on important issues? The only difference I see is that Romney tends to lie a bit more often.
Posted by: Chris at January 30, 2012 11:22 AM (XGZYX)


Are you kidding me? 

Seriously, you must be trolling.  If not, then you f***** fail. 

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/

Seriously, if you are trolling, then well done.  Otherwise, you are an idiot.

We are going to lose this election because Republicans can't keep their eye on the ball.  We need to get Obama out of office.  Gain some perspective, people.  Jeez.

62 Ace, can you just explain to us how Romney is better than Obama? I don't mean Gingrich, I mean Obama. Where exactly do they differ on important issues? The only difference I see is that Romney tends to lie a bit more often.

^^^

Statements like this make me pick my jaw up off the floor.

63 Ace - giving Newt the benefit of the doubt regarding the moving target of conservatism?  Why doesn't Mitt get the same benefit?

64 I mean, I realize that Merck hasn't done nearly as much for America as Bain Capital has, but I still thought they were capitalists. 

65

Free riders are a problem, in part, because of government meddling, but also because of the ethical obligation of medical professionals to provide care for those who are unable to pay for themselves.

 

Bzzt.

 

It is not an 'ethical obligation' it is a LEGAL obligation.

 

Our Doctors (Without Borders) are flying all the way to Haiti to find people to treat for free. We don't need to mandate it.

66 Hey Jeff B. I owe you an apology for all the Romney sex jokes. I was just trying to be funny and failing as usual and had no clue you were taking it personally. As soon as I saw you say stop on here I did. My bad.

67 You know how to take care of sick poor people?

Welfare.

All of this attempt to mandate insurance, etc. is to keep people from the stigma of welfare.

Get sick and have medical bills that wipe you out?

Congratulations, you're on welfare.  Medicaid is designed precisely for this purpose.

68

Ace's summary is pretty much spot on:  Many of his policy responses remain in the category of "agreeing broadly with the goals of the liberal welfare state, but proposing that those goals be satisfied by ostensibly pro-business mechanisms or market-disciplined widgets."

To this very day, Newt proudly defends his support of the expansion of Medicare Part D prescription benefit because, according to Newt, it was/is based on a "free enterprise model". 

69 "Seriously, if you are trolling, then well done. Otherwise, you are an idiot."

"Statements like this make me pick my jaw up off the floor."

Neither of these are actually responsive to the question.  "Vote for him, you fucking moron" might not be the winning strategy.

70 Now, your answer is on the right track, but it needs to be modified with, "Oh, yeah, and ERs are not required to administer care if you can't pay, though they can if they so desire."
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Team Meteor. Now with Cheesecake at January 30, 2012 11:24 AM

Hope I don't lose my law license.

71 Ace - giving Newt the benefit of the doubt regarding the moving target of conservatism? Why doesn't Mitt get the same benefit?

I'm pretty sure Ace DOES give Mitt the benefit of the doubt.  In fact, I'm pretty sure that was the entire point of this post.

72 >>>Ace - giving Newt the benefit of the doubt regarding the moving target of conservatism? Why doesn't Mitt get the same benefit? I thought that was rather heavily implied. You know how a con works? It works by giving someone half of an idea and letting them form the idea themselves, then they have ownership of it. I'm not trying to con everyone, but not everything should be spoon-fed. Also I've mentioned this with respect to Romney before. And Perry. And Pawlenty. Etc. It broadly applies. People have been disqualified for trivial stuff. Pawlenty didn't even get that minor pilot program for global warming going -- he cancelled it.

73 I've been against it for years. Just because politicians who lie and call themselves 'conservative' just figured this out, despite the fact that we've been screaming it for years, does not make it 'new'.
Posted by: Entropy, Racism Delenda Est at January 30, 2012 11:23 AM (mf67L)>

Maybe for you, but I think it individual mandates were completely off the radar for most conservatives until the last few years. Just a decade ago there was a lot of interest in trying out different medical insurance schemes (sometimes offered via the government) at the state level. I don't recall hearing a hue and cry from the base that this wasn't 'conservative' at the time.

74 @"Vote for him, you fucking moron" might not be the winning strategy.
-----

It's working great with Cubans in Florida. 
http://tinyurl.com/6o8dk32

75 TQC, we got rid of the candidate who implemented cost savings but didnt talk about hypotheticals, he was stupid.

76 Free riders can be a problem but you know, if you don't have insurance and you get sick/hurt, you will go bankrupt, so there's that level of responsibility. Some people will never be responsible, but they'll never have money either, so they'll be relying on people's charity. The way it's always been. Still, the mandate is not the issue. obamacare is a stealth-ish single payer system with vague mandates to a probably unanswerable Sec. Health...like the dickhole EPA on steroids. That, not the mandate, is the true problem with O-care. And SCOAMF isn't even addressing the single payer outcome the bill he signed, but didn't read or write, will lead to.

77 You are a corrupt part of a racist, toxic establishment.  Newt Gingrich will emerge unscathed from your dust cloud of tweets and blog posts.  Like a Jove, baby.

78 From the daily caller:  "Health care expert Sally Pipes on what could replace obamacare" (video)

h t t p  :  / / d a i l y c a l l e r  .  c o m  /  2 0 1 2/ 0 1  /  3 0  /  h e a l t h  -  c a r e  -  e x p e r t  -  s a l l y  -  p i p e s  -  o n  -  w h a t  -  c o u l d  -  r e p l a c e  -  o b a m a c a r e  -  v i d e o  /

Romneycare and Obamacare Are Identical

Sunday, 29 Jan 2012 09:49 PM By Betsy McCaughey

\

h t t p  :  / /  w w w  .  n e w s m a x  .  c o m  /  I n s i d e C o v e r  /  r o m n e y c a r e  -  o b a m a c a r e  -  h e a l t h c a r e  -  i d e n t i c a l  /  2 0 1 2  /  0 1  /  2 9  /  i d  /  4 2 5 9 0 0

I heard Gingrich in discussing social security say that it would be discussed for about a year and then the people would make a decision on it.  Sounded like a good plan to me.  I'm not willing to count him out as I think he'd do the same with health care, after he got rid of obamacare.

79 Neither of these are actually responsive to the question.


When someone asserts something absurdly false like "The sun rises in the west" and acts as if it's the metaphysical unquestionable truth, you don't have to respond except via astonishment.

80

Because I was THERE, paying attention, back then...and let me tell you it's revisionist history to claim that the mandate wasn't a near-universally appreciated "conservative" idea to the extent it was discussed. It was. It only became anathema when Obama picked it up and ran with it, because...well, Obama.

 

Because it was being DISCUSSED.

 

No one ever got arrested or fined by a DISCUSSION.

 

There was never any plausible "public option" plan on the table by Republicans or you'd have heard it getting raped to pieces right quick. This was a gotcha point to hammer Hillarycare about. No one cared what cockamamie alternatives anybody offered theoretically so long as the order of the day was stomping to death all the plans actually on the table.

81 sorry about the forematting. It looked fine in the comment box.  I don't know what happened.

82 >>>Neither of these are actually responsive to the question. "Vote for him, you fucking moron" might not be the winning strategy.

I linked Romney's platform.  That is the answer to the question.  I am assuming we all know what Obama's platform is.

And that's all the answer that can be given.  Because the fact is: if you don't already know the difference between a theoretical President Romney and the all-too-real President Obama, then you aren't lacking facts.  You are in some kind of state of denial. 

83 I think Newt's a sociopath.

84 "I'm pretty sure Ace DOES give Mitt the benefit of the doubt. In fact, I'm pretty sure that was the entire point of this post."

No, the entire point of this post is in line with the entire point of Ace's posts since Perry dropped out: talking himself (and us) into Romney because he doesn't like the alternative.

Which is fine -- while I might be on the other side of that lesser-of-two-evils choice, I'll admit it's a very close question and can't work up any rage at someone on the other side -- but it's a question of *tone.*

85

Because I was THERE, paying attention, back then...and let me tell you it's revisionist history to claim that the mandate wasn't a near-universally appreciated "conservative" idea to the extent it was discussed.

 

 Discussed by whom? The think tanks, etc. or more rank and file people? Because I was there, paying attention back then, and I can assure you that the issues of constitutionality and philosophical difficulties were mentioned as well. Now, I will agree that the individual mandate was seen as the "conservative" solution by politicians and various think tanks (bite me Heritage) and I believe that's what you mean by near-universal appreciation. 

86 Conservatives are such easy, cheap dates. All you have to do is raise your voice and make your face turn red, and then they can NEVER call you a RINO.

Hey, at least Newt is making eyes at us.  Romney seems to be ignoring us completely, and Santorum is just too much of a geek- our friends would gossip about us behind our backs.

87 Newt's a fuckwit, really, and his presence in this campaign is really making a mess of it. And then there is the other fuckwit. Mitt.

88 "I linked Romney's platform. That is the answer to the question."

Okay, then.  Good luck with that.

89 Newt doesn't support this anymore.  In case you didn't catch that in the top post where it is only vaguely hinted at.

90

Ace -

I feel bad for you.  You're for Romney because he's the not-Newt and you've end up arguing with those who pull for Newt because he's the not-Romney.

I say we flip a coin.

91

What's really sad is that as much as Newt strays from the conservative path, he's still better than Romney, pretty much any way you cut it.

...

Face it, ace, if you want to make the case that Romney is more[/l] conservative than Gingrich, you'll be hard-pressed.  At least he has some real conservative accomplishments in his past, such as reforming welfare and balancing the federal budget in the face of a hostile Democrat president, as well as a consistent 90+% voting record from the ACU each year he was in office.  Newt is obviously not a perfect candidate - none of them are, ALL of them are schmucks, as far as I am concerned.  However, he's still not as bad as Romney.

...

If your argument, ace, is simply to try to point to a few places where Gingrich is as bad as Romney, well, great, but what's you're point?  It doesn't really make a cogent case for why I should choose your preferred RINO over some other one.

92 "Seriously, if you are trolling, then well done. Otherwise, you are an idiot."

"Statements like this make me pick my jaw up off the floor."

Neither of these are actually responsive to the question. "Vote for him, you fucking moron" might not be the winning strategy.

A winning strategy would be the realization of just how bad four more years of Obama would be and letting that motivate you.  If you think there's no difference between Mittens, Newt and SCOAMF, step away from the keyboard and take a few deep breaths...

93 and yes that's from Leverage but it's of course old as the hills. it was the big trick in The Spy Who Came In From The Cold, of course.

94 "...which his supporters are claiming on his behalf."

Legal Insurrection has been wholly converted into a pro-Newt, anti-Romney echo chamber. I can't read it anymore, and not because I'm a Romney supporter.

95 Walrus - that was then this is now.  He's not onboard that bandwagon anymore,  he's on yours.  

96 I'm tellin' ya. Posting a bond instead of having to buy hugely expensive gomint-designed health insurance that covers pregnancy, autism, accupuncture,  chiropracty,  colonic irrigation, homeopathic naturopathy, and doulas is a really good deal. Go for it.

97 #58 the rising costs are directly related to the advances in medicine. This is a Gordian knot that cannot be cut.

98 Instead of Texas seceding - can Texas annex the rest of the country, county by county - ignoring the rotten and boned?

Posted by: Jean

 

Great idea, but only on the condition that y'all disenfranchise us non-Texans.  I'm OK not getting a vote as long as all my commie lib neighbors dont' either.

99

 This thread kinda shows why the Republican candidates are polling behind Obama among independents.

 'Better the devil you know...'

 I don't agree with that kinda thinking, mind you, but many Americans do think that way...and conservative sites - and threads - like this aren't doing much to change their minds.

100 I think Newt's a sociopath.

Posted by: MoeRon at January 30, 2012 11:31 AM (yWDpP)

 

Agreed

 

101 GO TEAM METEOR!

102 O/T: Bella Santorum almost died but has rallied (WaPo):
“A simple cold can kill her, and it almost did this weekend. She ended up with pneumonia and a cold,” Santorum told Glenn Beck on his radio show Monday. “But she was able to get great care and yesterday really made a great turn around and she will be out of the ICU today and so we are getting back to normal here.”

103

Maybe for you, but I think it individual mandates were completely off the radar for most conservatives until the last few years.

 

----------

 

"Completely off the radar" does not equal "It was totally conservative!"

 

Yes, a lot of conservatives thought nothing about it, and didn't care what kind of unrealistic Moon Base talking points people threw around.

 

It's not that "it's new" it's that "OMG they're fucking serious!"

104 >>All of this attempt to mandate insurance, etc. is to keep people from the stigma of welfare.<<

Welfare hasn't had a stigma in decades.  Just swipe yer EBT!

105 So we can't be sure Newt will fix healthcare/insurance, nor where his heart actually lies -- how ever we know what Romney has done, who his advisors are, and frankly have little reason to trust what he says. So Newt is the lesser of 2 evils ...

106 "If you think there's no difference between Mittens, Newt and SCOAMF, step away from the keyboard and take a few deep breaths."

I don't.  The original questioner (taken at face value) isn't so sure.  Calling him a moron and giving him a link with no quotes doesn't seem to be to be the best strategy.  But fuck it, right, who needs moronvotes anyway?

"the rising costs are directly related to the advances in medicine. This is a Gordian knot that cannot be cut."

No, they are directly related to the technological advances AND the coverage mandates (medicare first and foremost, but everything from S-CHIP up).

It can be cut along one of several axes.  Mitt - and Newt until 6 months ago - want to cut it one way.  "The base" seems to want another.  Hence the rift.

107 There is a large difference between having a catastrophic policy with a $10k deductible and one of those comprehensive full coverage plans. Still, I hate the idea of mandating anything at all. But at least the bonding option is at least a sort of work around, since they will never roll back the mandatory treatment requirement that is in place. Sad but true.
 
Requiring mandatory treatment is where it all starts. It makes slaves out of the medical profession and they should be screaming, yelling, striking or whatever it takes to remove their iron collars.

108
I assure you that plenty of hospitals will, indeed, care for the truly indigent, but they'll put into place systems that will allow them to sort out the people using the ER as their primary care and start denying them treatment.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Team Meteor. Now with Cheesecake at January 30, 2012 11:24 AM (8y9MW)

AllenG, this is already in place in major hospitals or medical centers...it is called "minor care" for some ED's, and patients are sent there after RN triage. The clinic has to be on the hospital's campus, or that how the law used to read. Treatment is not denied. My issue is that you should pay "something," whether the $5 you got panhandling, a chicken, or some of that remittance money you were going to mail to Mexico, as I pay my co-pay and so should everyone pay something towards care.

Could someone state, with certainty and not rumor, what is Mitt Romney's plan on healthcare going forward as President, and how it differs from Obamacare? I am not talking about Romneycare for the state of MA, nor am I being coy, I simply have not seen his future plan [emphasis: future].

109 Why aren't any of the candidates pushing for an amendment to the Constitution that expressly forbids the federal government from requiring that any individual or legal entity be required to purchase a good or service? Yeah, It'd never pass. But it'd sure as hell sound good.

110 Why doesn't Mitt get the same benefit?

^^^

Easy. Because no one is shouting that Mitt is (a) bucking the establishment!!1!! or (b) a conservative. But plenty seem to be doing just that with Newt.

111 60 The whole "free rider" problem is just made up fantasy, maybe 1% or 2% of the problem. The major problem with health care? Government interference. The problem won't be fixed by more interference, I.e. mandate.

Posted by: President Chet Roosevelt

 

What Romney can't tell you is that the Massachussetts experiment has proved that free-riding isn't a major problem with healthcare.  Or at least, if it is, a mandate doesn't fix it.

112

I wanted Perry, and have made no secret of it. .....Perry hates the SCoaMT with the heat of the sun. .....And Perry loves this country.

.

Perry endorsed Newt. ....Which should tell us something, I think....about which one he views as being the one who stands the best chance of beating the O.

113

the rising costs are directly related to the advances in medicine. This is a Gordian knot that cannot be cut.

 

------------

 

Yes, band-aids and crutches cost $200 because of advances in band-aid technology.

114

The $400 crutches do not have wi-fi or bluetooth. Why the hell is a wooden stick $400?

 

Because the hospital is in the whole for all the cash Medicare stiffed them and has to make it up somewhere. That's why.

115 Newt might have *changed* his mind in the right direction,  but Mitt, even in hindsight  is not prepared to admit Romneycare  (mandate or fine) was a mistake, even in Massachsetts.

Access to health care is actually limited because coverage isn't the same thing as access,  and the lower-reimbursing plans don't get access.

Moreover,  healthy people pay the fine and pay out of pocket for routine care.  They wait for utter farking disaster to join a plan because they can, and because decent coverage is now super-pricey,  more than fine plus cash on the barrelhead routine care.    This makes insurance even more pricey.   What's the word for that?  "Unsustainable"?

116 Hey, at least Newt is making eyes at us.


This is a good point, much more substantial than it sounds.

I still think this is why Mike Castle isn't a Senator and why Jon Huntsman went nowhere.  They both looked to distance themselves from the base, to the point where they regarded the base as something disgusting on the bottom of their shoe.

We expect more from some candidates than others, but we likes us some flirting.  And it's not unreasonable given that conservatives are always on the outs in popular culture.

117 Perry endorsed Newt. ....Which should tell us something, I think Yeah, that Romney was a dick who demagogued Perry on social security. Whereas Gingrich (who wrote the forward to Perry's book) never attacked Perry and only had nice things to say.

118 "Why the hell is a wooden stick $400?"

Third party payment + coverage mandates = price explosion.

Only two ways to fix it.  Get rid of those problems, or go Full Socialist.  Anything else is only playing for time.

Search your feelings.  You will know it to be true.

119

Why aren't any of the candidates pushing for an amendment to the Constitution that expressly forbids the federal government from requiring that any individual or legal entity be required to purchase a good or service?

 

--------------

 

Why the hell would you ammend redundancy?

 

If they ignore the 10th ammendment, why wouldn't they just ignore the new one too?

120 Ricochet provides a compilation of links on Masscare v Obamacare:
http://tinyurl.com/6vfumfl

121

Third party payment + coverage mandates = price explosion.

 

Price explosion + price fixing = shortages and death panels.

 

Socialism = Death.

122 In Newt's defense, Moonsylvania will have a more difficult time dealing with the free-rider issue due to it's relatively small population. You can't just have people coming up to the moon, gorging on green cheese and tang and then expecting free medical care when they develop moon-gout.

123 @108

The other problem with costs is that the current system that Government has forced us into (HMOs, etc.) while supposedly creating large pools to help lower policy costs has helped create an environment that eliminates competition at the actual point of service.  If no one sees (nor cares) other than a co-payment what a doctor visit or specific treatment costs, then there is no incentive or mechanism to apply real market forces to help control costs.  That is more of a problem than the cost of new technology.

124 I'm sorry, Entropy has set me straight with his wit and brilliance. I stand corrected.

125 "They both looked to distance themselves from the base, to the point where they regarded the base as something disgusting on the bottom of their shoe.

We expect more from some candidates than others, but we likes us some flirting."

Whereas more and more these days Ace *hates* him some flirting.
His concern for the general election -- or his hatred of the TP/Palinite/hell-with-you vote -- keeps taking him closer and closer to the point of saying "if this is the party, I don't want to be a part of it."

Again, that's all fine -- I'm a big RINO too, and on most days I feel the same way -- but this is a big part of the tension these days.

Normal in a primary season, and since it's almost certain he'll be on the winning side of that final dreadful Newt-or-Mitt choice, he'll hopefully be in a better mood (unless and until that hardcore base makes good on its threats to stay home)?

126 #58 the rising costs are directly related to the advances in medicine. This is a Gordian knot that cannot be cut. Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at January 30, 2012 11:33 AM

My s-i-l is a cardiac intensive care nurse.  She told me monitoring system in their unit was scrapped and replaced by a system that performs precisely the same functions the old one did.  For only twice the cost.

127 Third party payment + coverage mandates = price explosion. Actually fourth party, most people have employer paid insurance, so they don't even see the true cost of insurance. You ignore Adam Smiths Pimp Hand at your peril.

128 >>What was billed as "conservative" five years ago is defined as anti-conservative now.



Back in 1985 I thought that Madonna was attractive. Somewhere along the line we passed each other going in opposite directions. And that should not be construed as even vaguely self complimentary. It's just that at my size I was far scarier looking. Now I'm not quite so sure.


Things change. There is a job to do. The John Deere that does such a good job on the grass may not work out as well as a driveway plow. We can worry about that later.


Newt is not stupid enough to sign on with Conservatives and think that they won't be watching him closely.


He's not the most attractive of candidates even (or especially in the superficial sense) in comparison to Mitt, and has an uphill battle with Conservative women, I get that.


I don't like him personally myself, but right now he's the best tool for the job and his establishment enemies are self identifying as ours as well. We have him to thank for that if nothing else, if in the end he goes nowhere.  

129 Posted by: Romneycare for Everywhere at January 30, 2012 11:17 AM (7+pP9)

"Did" and "doesn't" are differing tenses.   One might get the notion that "did" is "does"  especially since that was only hinted at in the top post,  but he changed his mind.

130 Why the hell would you ammend redundancy? Because due to stupid decisions by the SCOTUS, the commerce clause is wildly broader and more powerful than it was intended to be. And, if Obamacare is held to be constitutional, the precedent will be set. The only way to unring that bell will be with an amendment.

131

@ 99 the rising costs are directly related to the advances in medicine. This is a Gordian knot that cannot be cut.

...

Good grief, what a ridiculous argument.  Those costs will come down naturally over time as procedures and technologies become more widely available, etc.  We're not still paying the equivalent of $50,000 for a single X-ray, are we?

...

There are multiple vectors for the super-high costs we see in health care.  Part of it is the freeloaders who use medical care (because they can't be turned away) and who have no intention of paying, so hospitals get stuck eating the cost, which then gets passed on to everyone else.  Then there's the fact that there is so much red tape and bureaucracy involved in just about everything related to the industry that administrative add-on costs go sky high.  There are physicians I know of whose offices employ four full time admins just to handle the paperwork involved with filing insurance and medicare/medicaid claims - for essentially a small, suburban practice.  Then there are the costs associated with tort insurance, due in large part to the insane way in which medical torts are handled by our court system, and the insane sums often handed down by juries, costs which again, get passed on to us.  There is also the issue with insurance companies and government agencies simply not exercising much oversight over hospital billing, so that they end up paying out a lot more than really would be "needed," which again translates into higher insurance costs and increased waste in Medicare, etc.  And these are only a few of the areas where cost inflation enters in.  Serious reformers would seek real (and mostly free market) reforms to deal with these, instead of just trying to force people to buy expensive insurance that they weren't previously buying because they couldn't afford to.

132

Here's my main problem with Romney: he's a liberal. He has caved on Reagan, homosexual marriage, abortion, the Iraq war, healthcare, gun rights, Afghanistan, Social Security, and taxes (should I call them "fees"?) during various times of his career.

That's it. No irrational hatred, just wondering why we need a liberal Republican in the White House.

133 98Posting a bond instead of having to buy hugely expensive gomint-designed health insurance that covers pregnancy, autism, accupuncture, chiropracty, colonic irrigation, homeopathic naturopathy, and doulas is a really good deal. Go for it.

Haha, the winnah!

134 "Price explosion + price fixing = shortages and death panels.

Socialism = Death."

Again, true, but JeffB et al. will see this as hick hysteria. He was THERE, man, when the SHIT went down, he knows how things REALLY work, and you're just a moron.

135 Price explosion + price fixing = shortages and death panels.

I'm still trying to determine any differences between "Community Resource Efficiency Panels" and Aktion T4 other than gas chambers.

136 I haven't read too much of the thread, but are the mittbots arguing for mandates yet?

137

@ 136 Here's my main problem with Romney: he's a liberal.

But he's OUR liberal, dang it!

138 @67

Correct.  EBT, emergency room mandates, etc. etc., are all really just stealth governmental dependency to hide the extent of the rot.

139 "are the mittbots arguing for mandates yet?"

Some definitely are.  Pep, polynikes implicitly, JeffB.

140 When was "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" considered conservative?  I've always thought a fence was a stupid idea until it showed how weak everyone in DC was on the other portions of immigration enforcement.

I've been aware of the border issue since before 2001, wanted stronger enforcement since that time, and think the lack of it is pure suicide from a terrorist/defense let alone cultural (thank you Thomas Sowell) perspective.

CIR has always been, and will always be moderate gobledegookese for not enforcing border security.

141

Here's the thing about mandates. People will say, "You can't force everyone to buy insurance." But then they also say, "You can't let somebody die just because he doesn't have insurance."

You can't have it both ways. You either gotta let people who can afford insurance but don't get it die, or you gotta force people to buy insurance.

142 "Completely off the radar" does not equal "It was totally conservative!"
Yes, a lot of conservatives thought nothing about it, and didn't care what kind of unrealistic Moon Base talking points people threw around.
It's not that "it's new" it's that "OMG they're fucking serious!"
Posted by: Entropy, Racism Delenda Est at January 30, 2012 11:35 AM (mf67L)

Well it was certainly discussed - favorably in certain forms - in various conservative think tanks and forums which puts it within the Overton Window of conservative thought.

But now opposition to it has become for many a litmus test for conservatism. Which is unfair to politicians who took their cues from conservative policy wonks at the time.

143 I haven't read too much of the thread, but are the mittbots arguing for mandates yet?

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 30, 2012 11:49 AM (Ie8ct)

 

 

No, that was Newt you are thinking of. He went to the whitehouse in 2009 to argue for them.

144 >>>We expect more from some candidates than others, but we likes us some flirting." >>>Whereas more and more these days Ace *hates* him some flirting. I don't hate flirting, as you call it. I think it's actually a useful proxy. Pandering to the base means, in a proxy way, that you are generally in alignment with the base. Proxies are very useful in the absence of direct-evidence facts. But a proxy is just a proxy. If you are using the proxy to claim "True Conservative" while ignoring the actual direct-evidence facts that say otherwise you're doing it wrong. What I'm annoyed by is this whole reductivist, dumb-as-a-bag-of-hammers leftwing groupthink, wherein The Collective decides upon a thing, and then attempts to acrete further support not by persuasion but with a series of slurs and insults -- RINO, etc. This is leftwing agitation, pure and simple. It's no different than calling a black conservative an Uncle Tom. There is no argument. It's just Serving Notice that if you Disagree with the Collective you will be Ostracized. Leftwing bullshit. At some point I guess I decided if being a "member in good standing" meant that I had to be an unthinking sheep in the herd, yeah, then I don't give a shit about being in this particular leftwing zombie club.

145 OK -so I guess most of you have seen the Insider Advantage poll? This was the poll that Newt alluded to last night that would show him within 5% points of Mitt Romney. He is absolutely correct about that. Newt and Mitt are separated by 4.6%. Insider Advantage according to Nate Silver blogging at the NYT has ranked this as not one of the most reliable polls. fwiw. Now, if you look at the internals of the poll a couple of weird things: 1) 54% of Newt's support is coming from the 18 to 29 year olds? (That's not the most reliable voting block and the older voters favor Mitt.) 2) Now a problem for Mitt-this poll is almost evenly divided between female and male voters. In most polling women favor Mitt by a significant amount. This poll as many others may be over sampling females voters. The turn out for the 2008 Republican primary in Florida (according to exit polling) was 44% female and about 56% male.

146 Romney is hotter...like me.

147

I'm still trying to determine any differences between "Community Resource Efficiency Panels" and Aktion T4 other than gas chambers

 

With a "Community Resource Efficiency Panel" you stick the family with the cost of disposing of the deceased.

I'm trying to remember the moment I became the property of the state; living by their leave and all.

148 AllenG, this is already in place in major hospitals or medical centers...it is called "minor care" for some ED's, and patients are sent there after RN triage. The clinic has to be on the hospital's campus, or that how the law used to read. Treatment is not denied. My issue is that you should pay "something,"

I agree: everyone should pay something.  However, that's never going to be something you can force, human nature being human nature.  What you can do is get the government out of the way, and let charities and private organizations determine how best to meet the needs of their communities.

The whole "free rider" problem is just made up fantasy, maybe 1% or 2% of the problem. The major problem with health care? Government interference.

The "free rider" problem only exists because of Government interference.  That said, if you think that free riders are only 1% - 2% of the costs a hospital has to face, you need to do some time in the hospital billing business.

149 _{^{"Obama Offends the Catholic Left A contraceptive mandate provokes an unnecessary war."}}

Bill McGurn has this great article in WSJ the Main street area

The issue is more freedom of religion and has less to do with how you feel about contraception.

150 tasker,

Did you see this poll (local FL paper)?  It shows a dead heat (well, slight lead for Gingrich) and is based on a sample size that's bigger than the others.
http://tinyurl.com/6uw7g2f

"

Our poll has Gingrich leading Romney by an eyelash — 35.46 percent to 35.08.

Could our poll be right and all the others wrong? Maybe.

In polling terminology, our poll is whatÂ’s called an outlier (for a set of numerical data, any value that is markedly smaller or larger than other values). 

 However, there is one factor that works in our favor. The News-Press pollÂ’s sample size (2,567 likely voters) is three to four times larger than that of other pollsters and thus our poll has a very small margin of error (1.93 percent) with a confidence level of 95 percent."

151 You can't just have people coming up to the moon, gorging on green cheese and tang and then expecting free medical care when they develop moon-gout.

You might be surprised how things work themselves out.

152 "What I'm annoyed by is this whole reductivist, dumb-as-a-bag-of-hammers leftwing groupthink, wherein The Collective decides upon a thing, and then attempts to acrete further support not by persuasion but with a series of slurs and insults -- RINO, etc....
"At some point I guess I decided if being a "member in good standing" meant that I had to be an unthinking sheep in the herd, yeah, then I don't give a shit about being in this particular leftwing zombie club."

That's all good in the neighborhood, Ace, but there are *two* collectives here, two camps of groupthink, two sets of slurs and insults (those asking for the case *for* Romney are called morons, and not the good kind).

You reluctantly side with one, but then -- as you often do -- you have to rah-rah yourself up into support of the one collective, and since Romney still really really blows, you can only do that by seeing Newt's Warriors as even *worse.*  I don't think they are; I think it's a close call with the slight edge going (at least on this board) to the 'bots.

Now I will say this: Mitt has in fact been doing some flirting/pandering/what have you recently.  I like it, and hope he keeps it up. ... But he probably won't.

153 >>It appears that the case for supporting Romney is getting weaker
>>and weaker even as more people flock to him.


^This. 

154 "It appears that the case for supporting Romney is getting weaker and weaker even as more people flock to him"

You've said what I was trying to say in fewer words and with more force.

I.e., ^^^^^ THIS.

155 >>> Which is unfair to politicians who took their cues from conservative policy wonks at the time. I don't think it's completely unfair. For example, if someone was Right All Along certainly that counts a bit in his favor, when contrasted with someone who Deviated From The Ultimately-Prevailing Orthodoxy. It's a useful bit of information. Where I depart from is that I make allowances for it, whereas some refuse to make any allowances for it. Well that's not true. They DO make allowances for it, just on a highly-selective basis. Newt's forgiven for X whereas Romney is disqualified for the same thing. Why? Newt's a True Conservative so he gets some slack. Um, but what gave him that advantageous designation in the first place? This True Conservative monicker keeps being applied not because there is some objective standard certain candidates meet, but because people who assert for themselves the *status* of True Conservative decide, in groupthink, that they like a certain candidate and thus bequeath him that status. And if you argue with that, and if you question, say, who exactly this group is to call themselves True Conservative and be the final, arbitrary arbiters of which candidates shall have this True Conservative status, they say "Shut up, RINO." I'm really tired of that. I don't really believe in Groups all that much. I think a lot of people are big believers in Groups right now, or at least their own . Their own Group is infallible, and it should be deferred to, and if you disagree, shut up you RINO.

156 Newtrino at heart likes Big Gummint; he just wants to be the one at the control panel.  (See: Moon Base)

157 Hah! Jinx, Y-Not.

We're in SLC now, by the way.  Wonderful here!  Wish we'd come earlier.

158 I think your analysis is good @157.

159 The other elephant sitting on the couch being ignored is the FACT that individual mandates are blatantly unconstitutional. Nobody who calls themselves a "conservative" should be willing to support something that is blatantly unconstitutional.

160 The turn out for the 2008 Republican primary in Florida (according to exit polling) was 44% female and about 56% male.

Posted by: tasker at January 30, 2012 11:50 AM (r2PLg)

 

 

The worst poll I have seen today is Rassmussen that has Obama at 51% Approval and 47% disapproval. Rassmussen has gone full leftwing in it's polling so I don't trust them anymore but the trend is still there.

 

Either Obama got a 6% bump from the SOTU or our primaries are scaring the hell out of people.

161 But a proxy is just a proxy. If you are using the proxy to claim "True Conservative" while ignoring the actual direct-evidence facts that say otherwise you're doing it wrong.

Okay, fine.  What "actual direct-evidence facts" do you have to tell you Romney is a Conservative?  Because, last I checked, there were far fewer of those than the ones that said that Newt is a Conservative.

See, you seem to be under the impression that impassioned name-calling is taking the place of reasoned argument (and, to be sure, it is in some cases).  The fact is, though, that there are still a whole lot of us out here using facts.  We're usually either ignored or told not to believe our own lying eyes.

So, for "direct-evidence facts," which one signed a healthcare mandate into law, and which one never even brought one up for legislative consideration (and he could, have, too)?

162 "I don't really believe in Groups all that much."

Okay, but Groups believe in *you.*  You are currently, "objectively" as Orwell might say, pro-Romney, hence you are RomBorg, and you're calling the NewtBorg childish, idiotic, leftist, Alinskite, etc.  Just as they are calling y'all RINO, elitist, liberal, squishy, pussy, etc.

Guys!  Guys!  You're *both* right!

163 >>We're in SLC now, by the way. Wonderful here! Wish we'd come earlier.

Cool.  Permanently? 

I can give you tips on restaurants and shopping (particularly food-related). 

164 Oh one more think. Piss on Noot and Mutt, they are both about the same. Worthless big government shills.

165 What I'm annoyed by is this whole reductivist, dumb-as-a-bag-of-hammers leftwing groupthink, wherein The Collective decides upon a thing, and then attempts to acrete further support not by persuasion but with a series of slurs and insults -- RINO, etc.

This is leftwing agitation, pure and simple. It's no different than calling a black conservative an Uncle Tom. There is no argument. It's just Serving Notice that if you Disagree with the Collective you will be Ostracized.
Leftwing bullshit.
...
Posted by: ace at January 30, 2012 11:50 AM (nj1bB)

Yep, this is just the right-wing version of political correctness. You must have the 'correct' TrueConservative views or you will be exiled from the movement rhetorically speaking and labeled a counter-revolutionary^H^H^H RINO.

The irony is that the people most obsessed with being 'perfectly conservative' are actually emulating the Left in their behavior.

166 161 Newtrino at heart likes Big Gummint; he just wants to be the one at the control panel. (See: Moon Base)

Posted by: logprof is happy at least the smilies work at January 30, 2012 11:56 AM (ykSKg)

I will trade you one Moon Unit for National Socialized Medicine.

That is a good bargain, yes?

167 "Um, but what gave him that advantageous designation in the first place?"

He *asked* for it.  He acted like he *gave* a shit.

Romney could've done the same thing, though it would've required him to repent on Rcare, or at least on the mandate.

He wouldn't.  Newt would.  It's not that complicated.

168 However, there is one factor that works in our favor. The News-Press pollÂ’s sample size (2,567 likely voters) is three to four times larger than that of other pollsters and thus our poll has a very small margin of error (1.93 percent) with a confidence level of 95 percent." ********** Y-not Thanks for the link to that. I'll go check it out. A weird thing I've been noticing in almost all the polls that give you the break down of male to female voters-they are sampling about 50/50. I'm not sure what turn out model for a Florida Republican primary justifies polling men and women at about a 50-50 ratio. In exit polling for Florida in the 2008 Florida Republican primary the breakdown was about 44% female to 56% male. I think that was according to the Washington Post voter project. Most people understand that more males are registered as Republicans than females.

169

>>>The Collective decides upon a thing, and then attempts to acrete further support not by persuasion but with a series of slurs and insults...

 

+ 'leventy. And let's not forget the bald-faced lies.

 

 

170 "Cool. Permanently?

I can give you tips on restaurants and shopping (particularly food-related)."

12-18 month gig for now, trying to find something permanent.

Would like that!  We've got 2 rugrats and so don't go out that much, but/so when we do, we want it to be special.

171 IMO Newt is pure political animal. When it seemed like AGW sentiment was widely accepted he sat on the couch with Nanzi. That is not all bad, although the "reduce spending" theme would have to be kept high in polling to keep him to it. But its true that politics is mostly personal and on that level I just can't support Newt. I don't have any sympathy for Marianne --but I also don't have any sympathy for any man who hooks up with that kind of woman and I consider it a huge ding on his judgement. . BTW I only became a "bot" when Perry dropped out; I had really hoped we would be wiser than to go "Nooooooo, not Perry the MFM makes jokes about him" but that was not to be.

172 >>You either gotta let people who can afford insurance but don't get it die, or you gotta force people to buy insurance.<<

Health insurance is not health care. 

173 Yes Newt changed his mind but he lied just the same. He said he never supported a federal mandate but he did.  He is a fucking liar, it is second nature to him.  He is Clinton with an "R" next to his name.

174 I will vote for Newt if he's our nominee.

Would the #NotMitt crowd do the same?

I'd hate to think they're so bitter that they'd hand Obama another four years.

Sad.

175 Either Obama got a 6% bump from the SOTU or our primaries are scaring the hell out of people.

Posted by: robtr at January 30, 2012 11:57 AM (MtwBb)

Change your pampers.  2 years ago "right wing" lunatics were getting all uppity with guns and charging DC.  That didn't scare off voters to Obama, but these debates are?  I'm sorry.  The polling may be accurate, but if so it is measuring the wrong things.

176 I will trade you one Moon Unit for National Socialized Medicine.That is a good bargain, yes?

Posted by: alexthedude at January 30, 2012 11:59 AM (TUF2e)

--Like, totally!  Omigod!!

177 "And let's notforget the bald-faced lies."

Those are flying in both directions.

Pam Bondi said Romneycare impends for all! No, she didn't.

Newt said Reagan was a putz and a chump!  No, he didn't.

As long as this is a healthy warmup for the main event, fine.  But when Mitt clinches, as I expect he will in a few weeks if not tomorrow night, the 'bots better think very carefully about how long and hard they want to crow.

178 >> the rising costs are directly related to the advances in medicine. This is a Gordian knot that cannot be cut.

Not true. An enormous driver of healthcare costs right now is the simple fact that the consumer has no idea what the actual cost of a medical procedure is.

The entire model of providing dollar one insurance coverage for "routine maintenance" types of health care costs is guaranteed to be inefficient and costly, and its replacement with a system combining HSAs and high-deductible, catastrophic insurance coverage would control costs.

You need to look no further than the cost trends for elective vision correction and cosmetic surgery to see what happens when a functioning price signal is available in health care markets.

179

"are the mittbots arguing for mandates yet?"

Some definitely are. Pep, polynikes implicitly, JeffB.

 

------------

 

Christyblinky seemed to be headed there the other night.

180 143 "are the mittbots arguing for mandates yet?"

Some definitely are. Pep, polynikes implicitly, JeffB.

Example?

181

Opposition to single payer socialized medicine has always been the conservative position. The mandates are just a different way of getting there.

Posted by: Vic at January 30, 2012 11:25 AM (YdQQY)

 

From F.A Hayek “The Road to Serfdom”

 

“Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision.  Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance – where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks – the case for the stateÂ’s helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong.”

 

Hayek had it right.  The proper system would be individual health savings accounts for everyday, foreseeable risks, and a single payer system for catastrophic illness or accident.

182 Newt's forgiven for X whereas Romney is disqualified for the same thing. Why?

Because Newt's was "just words" whereas Romney actually signed the thing into law.

You're allowed to be a dunce on some things.  You're not allowed to actually have done something objectively bad.

And, before you say it, no, I don't give Newt a "pass" for sitting on the couch with Pelosi, I think it was stupid and harmful, and he should have to do the GOP equivalent of 100 "Hail Mary's."  There are any number of places where he's deviated from orthodoxy.  But he's also done a lot of good for Conservatism, and for the Republican Party (though that's less important to me) and I just don't see where Mitt has.

My guy was Perry.  On a scale of -10 to +10, I give Perry a 5.  I give Newt a -2.  I give Mitt a -5, and I give the SCOAMT a -11.

183

119 Perry endorsed Newt. ....Which should tell us something, I think
.

Yeah, that Romney was a dick who demagogued Perry on social security. Whereas Gingrich (who wrote the forward to Perry's book) never attacked Perry and only had nice things to say.

.

-----

.

True, wooga. ....But it's not just that. ....Perry is a fighter. He wasn't squeamish about saying that "O is a socialist".

.

With Newt, we get a guy who is a fighter too.....someone who will throw grenades at the DNC and the SCoaMT. .....With Romney, we get a guy who is too 'reserved' to do that. .....This didn't work very well for Bush, or for the party as a whole.

184 179 I will vote for Newt if he's our nominee.

Would the #NotMitt crowd do the same?

I'd hate to think they're so bitter that they'd hand Obama another four years.

Sad.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at January 30, 2012 12:01 PM (pLTLS)

--Agree 100%

185 I'd hate to think they're so bitter that they'd hand Obama another four years.
---------------------------

Guess what, we are already there now. Neither one of these two losers will beat Ocommie.  So people listening to the MFM and the stupid debates have already handed it to Ocommie.

186 The reason that Romney hasn't gathered more support in the past several years is that his selling points (not sell out) have been long since explored and exhausted.

This is further underlined here by his more rabid supporters resorting to attacks to advance his candidacy.

It's well understood that he will be the steward of more but slower. That is no longer acceptable at cliff's edge.

187 "What was billed as "conservative" five years ago is defined as anti-conservative now.

And that's fine. Movements change, they clarify.



Perhaps they need to focus on thinking for themselves, rather than accepting the perceived conservative doctrine of the day."

Pep, I took this to mean you thought that opposition to mandates was only the PCDOTD, and that (as Romney said, what, two months ago?) mandates "are conservative" (whatever that might mean).

If I read too much into that, I'm sorry.

188

Look at mem, I'm hot. Vote for Mitt!

 

189 The worst poll I have seen today is Rassmussen that has Obama at 51% Approval and 47% disapproval. Rassmussen has gone full leftwing in it's polling so I don't trust them anymore but the trend is still there. ********* robtr As to polling-there are some polling companies that are just in it for the business of making headlines. It seems that those are always the most volatile. The most reliable polling comes from companies that do political or headline polling as a side business. Polling companies that do consumer polling for business seem much more reliable, primarily because they have a "business" reputation to protect. Therefore-one of the most reliable polls is the Field Poll. They poll in 12 different languages, and as Y-not suggested upthread their sample size is almost always about a 1,000 or over. That gives you a smaller MOE. Unfortunately two things-The Field Poll because they are concerned about "quality over quantity"-do not poll that often-and they only poll California.

190

"And let's notforget the bald-faced lies."

Those are flying in both directions.

 

-------------

 

Let's not do some silly "zero-tolerance" thing here. The bully who starts the fight should be the one suspended. Newt Gingrich was the guy running the all-positive all-against-obama campaign before Mittens went scorched earth on him.

 

And before that, Mittens was going scorched earth on anyone else who challenged him.

 

If you're going to take the approach that Iranian hostilities are justified because we're being mean to them too... you should be voting for Ron Paul.

191 The proper system would be individual health savings accounts for everyday, foreseeable risks, and a single payer system for catastrophic illness or accident.

Posted by: jwest at January 30, 2012 12:02 PM (FdndL)

------------------

No, the proper system would be for the government to get the hell out of healthcare entirely. When I was kid there was no health insurance to any great extent and no government. A normal Dr visit was $20.00 (or a chicken) w/o any insurance.

192 @192

You did, but no sweat.

193

@ 179 I'd hate to think they're so bitter that they'd hand Obama another four years.

...

If Mitt would give them a reason to not think that he'd just be Barack Obama 2.0, they probably would vote for him.

194 "With Romney, we get a guy who is too 'reserved' to do that. .....This didn't work very well for Bush, or for the party as a whole."

THIS is the ultimate disagreement.  JeffB's Funky People think a milder, more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger approach will work.

195 >>>Okay, fine. What "actual direct-evidence facts" do you have to tell you Romney is a Conservative? I don't think he's a True Conservative either. I think he is a conservative. Center-right. As is Gingrich. I don't see much ideological separation between them, so it comes down to who I think is more electable and who I think would be the better president. The presidency isn't only about ideology. Managing a bureaucracy takes a skill set, such as attention to detail and focus, to ride herd on a bunch of liberal cats, which I think (pretty obviously) Romney has and Gingrich seems to not have. I will also confess this, if it wasn't obvious already. I signaled this in my endorsement of Perry, too. While we sit here discussing ideology and fine policy points, I think that elections turn on superficial considerations, because the middle of the electorate decides things based on superficial stuff. A basic policy impulse (very broad strokes -- more government or less, higher taxes or lesser taxes) plus a basic "do I like this guy" input, do I trust him. I think Newt fails on this stuff as far as the middle of the country. Personally I think Newt is a much more interesting and engaging person than Romney, who is rather dull and robotic. But a lot of Newt's appeal isn't really appealing for this kind of a job, as regards the middle of the country. More important to me than IQ is whether a guy is stable and has management ability. That's why I could support Perry who, back surgery or not, was obviously not the brightest-burning candle on the cake. Newt strikes me as too Operatic for the presidency. Whimsical, grandiose. Such personality traits are common to writers and artists and do not scream "Excellent detail-oriented manager with strong focus and follow-through." Romney, on the other hand, strikes me as the type of very stable, if dull, personality type that is a good fit for the presidency and also recommends itself as detail-oriented and conscientious.

196 OK, Knemon.  Go to Tripadvisor and check out New2Cal's reviews (those are mine).  I think to get there go to the review for Bambara (restaurant in SLC) and you'll see mine and then you can find all of my other reviews from there.  The restaurant scene in Salt Lake really is very good.  My favorite place all around is the Tin Angel which is on the south side of Pioneer Park (near the Western Nut 'factory'). 

For food shopping, check out Tony Caputo's in downtown (north edge of Pioneer Park) if you want to splurge on Italian groceries (mostly dry goods but also some meats and cheeses; there is also a fish monger's shop next to Caputo's). 

For reasonable prices (including some really cheap stuff) of "fun" items, go to Pirate O's in Draper.  They also have a really good cheese cave -- I have not done comparison price checking, but I'm guessing they're cheaper than Caputo's.

Also, The Store is pretty nice for food.  There's one in Cottonwood, but I like the one in Midway even better. 

We also just found an Asian market in West Valley City that has great fresh (and frozen) fish.  Some of the fresh fish is sort of what we might call "junk fish", but they did have fresh pompano and red snapper there on Saturday. 

197

>>>So, for "direct-evidence facts," which one signed a healthcare mandate into law, and which one never even brought one up for legislative consideration (and he could, have, too)?

 

Jeezus that is weak. One implemented it at the state level and one went to the White House to lobby for it Federally. Seriously, do you think that actually reflects so much better on your candidate that it's even an argument worth making?

 

Where the Hell am I? This is still AoS, right?

198 176 IMO Newt is pure political animal.

That's the problem with Romney. See Jonah Goldberg's latest post on NRO. I'd link but Pixy has a grudge against me. When asked by Laura Ingraham about the economy, Mitt said "of course it's improving" under Obama.

We are boned. Vote for my candidate....

199 * Playing the leftwing "holy victim" by claiming to be "oppressed" (by The Establishment) and then claiming that makes one both authentic and infallible.

Posted by: ace at January 30, 2012 11:22 AM (nj1bB)

This is why I found Palin's remarks over the weekend to be so nauseating.

She's playing this card, which IS an Alinsky strategy / tool, while claiming that the "Establishment" is "Alinskying" Gingrich.

Bullshit hypocrisy from someone who's becoming quite the fucking bullshit artist.

200 "are the mittbots arguing for mandates yet?"

Some definitely are. Pep, polynikes implicitly, JeffB.

That's a cheap shot, Knemon, and you're an intellectually honest enough sparring partner to know it.  I never once have made any argument in favor of mandates on either the state or CERTAINLY NOT the federal level.  I think the mandate was a terrible idea (albeit not unconstitutional on a state level -- because states have a right to do all sorts of stupid things I personally think are dumb).

But the truth of the matter is that whether you like it or not, conservatives who were actually thinking about healthcare as an issue back in the 1990s and 2000s were overwhelmingly in favor of the mandate in one form or another.  It was The Conservative Policy Answer to single-payer government healthcare.

What does this tell us?  Several things: 1.) not many conservatives or Republicans WERE engaged on this issue -- which is why you never really heard much about mandates or even GOP ideas for health reform between the years 1994 and 2008; 2.) conservatives were wrong.  They were fixated on the idea of "personal responsibility" and forcing "free riders" to pay for healthcare as a way of driving down costs...that was their 'conservative' hook-in to mandates, and they forgot all about the libertarian aspect of government compulsion.  3.) Times changed so quickly on this issue more because of the Right's instinctive revulsion towards Obama than anything else...but that is a good thing.  I think Obama opened many people's eyes to the encroaching growth of government, simply because we expected that stuff from him, and recognized the federal mandate for what it truly was coming from his hands.  If a Republican had won and tried this (before the Obama backlash, that is), I think too many people -- even people who post around here as True Tea Party Heroes -- would have quietly gone along.  The way a lot of us went along with the growth of gov't and spending during the Bush years with only minor objections, noted for the record.

Again, on a state level the mandate is something that I think is an awful idea, but totally legal.  I do hold that against Romney, but I also know the context of MA politics well enough to know he made the best of a terrible situation: the option wasn't "Romneycare vs. the status quo" but rather "Romneycare or single-payer government healthcare," and he tried to make the best of a shit sandwich (just as we are in the current election).  But on a federal level it IS unconstitutional as far as I'm concerned, and to the extent the idea ever came up (I was asked about it once, as a hypothetical, in law school in 2006) it seemed obvious to me both then and now that it violated my legal understanding of federalism.

201 **Newt's forgiven for X whereas Romney is disqualified for the same thing. Why? Newt's a True Conservative so he gets some slack. ** Well, Romney got forgiven for hitting Perry on the SS not being a ponzi scheme thing. ace has a point that Romney will have better skillz at managing, you know being a president. Also, perry prob endorsed Newt cause Newt is also an open borders nut

202 *ugh* the other problem with polling Florida is, it's a moving target. There is voting by mail, that I think anyone in Florida can do to avoid the polls. There is early voting for a couple of days. And, then there is election day. IIRC a few days after SC some 200,000 plus Floridians had already voted by mail.

203 Wait...200,000 that sounds high. I take that back. yikes.

204 Posted by: Knemon at January 30, 2012 12:01 PM (Va5jb)

It is my understanding that the Pam Bondi "lies" came from a conservative blogger seeing something others did not see in a Greta interview.  It did not come from Newt Gingrich and company.

Whereas all the stuff against newt Gingrich has emanated from the romney camp so much so that the NYT's has an article about them wanting to not just beat Newt but totally decimate him and bragging about having matt drudge in their pocket. 

So that is the main difference there, you are sort of misrepresenting the situation.

I really think the republican party is underestimating what the selection of Mittens as the nominee will bring.  I'm not a member of any party, I dislike them equally, however, when people speak on blogs in the news in comments sections I tend to take them at their word.  I know Mittens thinks the base will come along because ABO is the meme but I think the base won't they will assume he's going to lose anyway and they will choose this moment, this election, to draw their line in the sand.

205 Romney, on the other hand, strikes me as the type of very stable, if dull, personality type that is a good fit for the presidency and also recommends itself as detail-oriented and conscientious.

Posted by: ace at January 30, 2012 12:06 PM (nj1bB)

*

And he's hot, Ace. Like me.

 

206 "I think he is a conservative. Center-right. As is Gingrich. I don't see much ideological separation between them"

They converged in the mid-00s, as Romney shuffled right for the primaries and Newt did ... whatever the hell Newt was doing then.

But they sure didn't *start out* from the same point.  And those you're hating on would rather welcome back the prodigal son, who at least started out in the home, than accept a truly core-less interloper who might *occasionally* mouth the right words these days.

Romney in 1994: "I was an independent during Reagan-Bush ... I'm not trying to go back to Regan-Bush."

Newt in 1994: brb, busy winning first GOP House in 40 years.

207 Romney, on the other hand, strikes me as the type of very stable, if dull, personality type that is a good fit for the presidency and also recommends itself as detail-oriented and conscientious.

And, you know, if I thought we had a snowball's chance in hell of having an actual Conservative Principled Congress, I'd agree with you.  Because then he really would just be a manager.  But he won't be, as things stand.  He's going to have to be a "fighter" and "belligerent," and he's going to have to expend political capital to get ObamaCare repealed and things moving back on the right course.

And I've seen evidence that Newt will do that (not just the debates, but his actions as Speaker) and I've seen no evidence that Mitt will do that.



Also, completely OT, I always read "ninja" when I see your hash.  Which, since I know you're nowhere near that cool just doesn't seem fair.

208

@ 200 I think he is a conservative. Center-right.

...

I wouldn't even give Romney that much credit.

209 blurb of Newt's 2007 book, "A Contract with the Earth." Focusing the environmental debate on the principle of common commitment, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and eminent conservationist Terry L. Maple present A Contract with the Earth. They declare a need for bipartisan environmentalism -- a new era of environmental stewardship with principles that they believe most Americans will share. While acknowledging that liberals and conservatives do not see eye to eye on many issues, Gingrich and Maple argue successfully that environmental stewardship is a mainstream value that transcends partisan politics. Their thoughtful approaches to our environmental challenges are based on three main premises: environmental leadership is integral to America's role in the world, technologically savvy environmental entrepreneurs can and should be the cornerstone of environmental solutions, and cooperation and incentives must be dramatically increased to achieve workable and broadly supported environmental solutions. Gingrich and Maple believe that most people -- regardless of how they categorize themselves politically -- are weary of the legal and political conflicts that prevent individuals and communities from realizing the benefits of environmental conservation. The foundation of the book -- a ten-point Contract with the Earth -- promotes ingenuity over rhetoric as the way forward. ... I heard a Limbaugh re-broadcast where he mentioned this. He also said that Gingrich planned on including a chapter on this point in his latest book, until, Limabugh claimed, Limbaugh found out about it (or "we" found out about it, at least) and then he dropped it.

210 obama is the enemy

211

I thinking once again what I was thinking six months ago.  This next election hinges on what happens much closer to home.  Make an effort to start turning your own states around to the conservative side.

 

One of the things that has become more evident these last few years is that the states have finally found they have the constitutional power to say "no" to the fed.  The changes we're seeing in this nation are occuring, not in DC, but close to home.  We need to feed this movement.

212

No, the proper system would be for the government to get the hell out of healthcare entirely. When I was kid there was no health insurance to any great extent and no government. A normal Dr visit was $20.00 (or a chicken) w/o any insurance.

Posted by: Vic at January 30, 2012 12:05 PM (YdQQY)

 

That must have been one fine chicken.

 

When things were that simple, people died before reaching the age they could collect social security too.  Now, if we could just arrange for that to be the case, all the problems would be solved.

213 santorum:  voted  for Sarbanes-Oxley, but now wants it gone, was for "affordable housing" through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, before he was against it , and was quite a porker while in congress, but realized the error of his ways,  in time for the election.
prior to obamacare,  mass-care wasn't on anyones radar screen - at all .  how did it become so prominent? let's think back - ah here it is first, obamacare became hugely unpopular, and then stories began to circulate that obamacare is mass-care on steroids, courtesy axelrod and co. 

214 We also just found an Asian market in West Valley City that has great fresh (and frozen) fish. Some of the fresh fish is sort of what we might call "junk fish", but they did have fresh pompano and red snapper there on Saturday.
---
Ugh, I forgot the name of the store: Ocean City Seafood Market which is technically in West Valley City, I think, but the address comes up as 1839 W 3500 S, Salt Lake City, UT 84119

It is very close to Bucket O' Crawfish, which is a fun very casual seafood place.  They cook most of their items in plastic bags with seasonings and serve them on plastic covered picnic tables.  We had crawfish, clams, and shrimp there this weekend -- all very good.  They even have blue crabs when they're in season (just stopped serving them a couple of weeks ago according to our waiter; right now they have Dungeness, but I really prefer blues). 

215 Knemon, Yes, and since leaving his elected job Newt has gone further and further to the left, seeking the support and approbation of the Permanent Liberal Bureaucracy in DC.

216 One implemented it at the state level and one went to the White House to lobby for it Federally.

So.... one implemented it, and one didn't.

Or do they suddenly start getting credit for failures in the conservative direction, too?

217 When things were that simple, people died before reaching the age they could collect social security too.
--------------------

Bull Shit. That is a myth that has been debunked here many times.

218

I don't see how getting down in the weeds about the Individual Mandate thing is useful at this point. .....Both Newt and Mitt have been for it in the past, but now they both say they are against it.....so it's a wash.

.

They are both shitty candidates. ....But this is what we're left with. .....So the Big Question now should be....."Which one can beat the SCoaMT?"

.

I have been amazed that the Evangelicals seem to be in 'forgiveness' mode with regard to Newt's cheating on his wives. .....I wasn't expecting that. This will help Newt across the south and southwest.

 

219 Y-not, thank you very much for the recs!!

JeffB., thanks for expanding on that.  I am relieved to find that you and I are, on substance, in pretty much complete agreement.  Our differences are, as always, strategic.  If I jumped the gun by assuming you were making a case *for* the mandate, as opposed to explaining why people should get a pass for backing one in the past, I apologize.

On the federal/state distinction, I would argue with you there, because while states have plenary power as a background, there are both state and federal constitutional protections which limit that power, and you can at least make the case that the mandate violates V/XIV.  But that's a losing argument at the state level, while it *just ... might ... work!* in SCOTUS on the federal mandate.

I'm talking way too much and work is piling up, so I'll say to everyone my final Words of Wisdom:

- fight all you want right now, but remember
- this is just the intramural warmup, and
- whichever side wins (probably Romney, like 90% probably), *curb the dickishness* in the aftermath because it's going to have to be All Hands on Deck in the fall.

Good night and good luck.

220 When things were that simple, people died before reaching the age they could collect social security too

Not sure how old you are, but that's how my insurance was when I was a kid, and I'm not really very old (indeed: early 30's).

The change to comprehensive healthcare with Office Visit co-pays and prescription drug coverage, and all the rest is actually fairly new.

221 ace has my sentiments at #200.

One thing he's also said (that I agree with) is that Perry was worth supporting because he was significantly more conservative than Romney or Newt.  So, whatever defects he had in intellect or articulation were made up for by his relative conservatism.  (And policy issues or not, Perry definitely came across as intuitively conservative.)

I can sell Romney to non-ideological voters.  I can use words like "competent".  Newt is scary.  Even to me, actually.  He's like a box of chocolates, I never know what I'm going to get.  I'm afraid he'll get a bee in his bonnet and decide to hang on tooth and nail to some dumb (and probably liberal) idea.

He has a pathological need to be seen as the smartest guy around (this is typical of academics who do not come from academia, trust me, I know) and will dream up all sorts of unworkable ideas.

He also won't pay attention to details and will easily be overrun by ambitious subordinates and will let important things (judicial nominees, perhaps) slip past his notice.

Newt was great when he had a narrow goal: Win the House and even shortly thereafter when he was First Among Equals.  The Speaker is in many ways controlled by the caucus, not the other way around. But it wasn't too long before it was All About Newt and it went off the rails.

222

@ 215 obama is the enemy

...

LEFTISTS are the enemy.  Regardless of their Party or their name.

223 Vyceroy, That's when I blew up myself. She's long been doing this. I think that's what really soured me on her. Her entire argument is not, at root, about some Idea, which anyone can buy into, and is therefore evangelizing. It's instead about Status. And that Status is limited to those with the right background to have the Status, and whatever Honorary Members those with the Status vote into the club.

224 I need to stay away from these threads.

People that say that Mitt is 'no better' than Obama or call who him Obama 2.0 make me mental.

225

 >>>He's going to have to be a "fighter" and "belligerent," and he's going to have to expend political capital...

 

Wise up. Newt will have no political capital whatever. People HATE him from way way back. What's more, he'll help us lose a sackful of House seats in purple states, too.

 

And even if you somehow can convince yourself this won't happen, you still cannot solve the crucial problems the country faces with more fighting and belligerence. You tell me that fat bastard Newt has a snowball's chance of reforming entitlements. He'll make us the most hated people in history, worse than Nazi laser-sharks. 

226 So.... one implemented it, and one didn't.

Or do they suddenly start getting credit for failures in the conservative direction, too?

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Team Meteor. Now with Cheesecake at January 30, 2012 12:14 PM (8y9MW)

 

 

Uhmm in case you haven't noticed "the individual mandate"  that Newt was lobbying for IS implimented. He won the argument, you could say he is the father of the National Individual Mandate. Either that or he was just jumping on the train, either way he got what he wanted.

227 Does anyone know if Gingrich has campaigned at all in the Panhandle? I've seen that Mitt with McCain went to Pensacola, and some other Panhandle location.

228 "Evangelicals seem to be in 'forgiveness' mode with regard to Newt's cheating on his wives."

I suppose it came down to Obama, the mormon, or the scoundrel.  There's a chance the scoundrel will get religion and reform.

229 Times changed so quickly on this issue more because of the Right's instinctive revulsion towards Obama than anything else...but that is a good thing. I think Obama opened many people's eyes to the encroaching growth of government, simply because we expected that stuff from him, and recognized the federal mandate for what it truly was coming from his hands.

Yep. I think a lot of the conservative base got radicalized by Obama's election and ObamaCare. The good part of this is the Tea Party movement and a lot of grassroots enthusiasm for pushing back against big government growth. But the bad part is typical of what you get with any radical movement - ideological purity wars, shifting political correct views, and hunts for movement traitors.

230 >>> So, whatever defects he had in intellect or articulation were made up for by his relative conservatism. (And policy issues or not, Perry definitely came across as intuitively conservative.) As I said with Perry, some of his ideas were extremist. Like giving SS over to the states. Not workable (states can't borrow, and who would trust them?), and a horrifying idea as far as general election politics. So he was completely wrong. BUT, that showed that he was reflexively, innately conservative-minded. To me, that was worth a gamble. (Plus, Perry had a whole bunch of surface attributes making him highly appealing. Air Force pilot, farmer, etc.) But Newt? No, not unless your main goal here is to defeat Romney. Which mine isn't. My main goal is to defeat Obama. I did have a secondary goal of beating Romney. But I think now that that secondary goal would come at the expense of my primary goal.

231
I have said my piece on this, romneycare has been implemented in all 50 states, we call it obamacare.  I am not convinced romney is upset about this, in fact I think he likes it.  He would do zip about it if elected.

Therefore I'll move on and say that if the mandate is upheld by SCOTUS, it is my hope that they mandate that everyone must purchase a firearm, get training, and the feds must issue a conceal carry license upon that purchase and training.

232

222 When things were that simple, people died before reaching the age they could collect social security too.
--------------------

Bull Shit. That is a myth that has been debunked here many times.

Posted by: Vic at January 30, 2012 12:14 PM (YdQQY)

 

Average lifespan (all races, both sexes) in 1950 was 68.2 years.  In 1940, it was 62.9.

 

Today itÂ’s 77.9  That would take a lot of chickens.

233

>>>Or do they suddenly start getting credit for failures in the conservative direction, too?

 

*facepalm here*

 

Newt succeeded. He lobbied the WH house for mandates and voila, we have mandates. By your own standards he's far more guilty, unless you live in MA. In which case I pity you.

 

 I know it seems like I'm singling you out. It is nothing personal.

234

Putting aside the emotions, whether you like any of the other candidates better or not as much, who is more of this or less than that, I think it's very difficult to escape the point Ace is making about Gingrich.

I have troubles with all our candidates, but this is a major problem with Newt.

235 newt=neocon

236 Posted by: spongeworthy at January 30, 2012 12:17 PM (puy4B)

Being the only elected official who has to get elected fully nationally, the President always has political capital- and a lot of it.  So if he gets elected, Newt would have political capital.  Republicans may not like it, but they're not quite dumb enough to drop a deuce on the new President in the first couple of years- which would be enough to end ObamaCare.

And I didn't even talk about entitlements, because I don't believe the American people are ready to fix those yet, so no politician will touch them with a 39 1/2 foot pole.

The whole rest of that is based entirely on your dislike of the man, and is substituting invective for facts.

237 obama is the enemy ... LEFTISTS are the enemy. Regardless of their Party or their name. Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at January 30, 2012 12:16 PM (+inic) I got no argument with that.

238

@234 I suppose it came down to Obama, the mormon, or the scoundrel. There's a chance the scoundrel will get religion and reform.

...

Or, it could be that, since all that was 15 years ago and doesn't appear to have been repeated, perhaps he already has, and it's a moot issue.

239 179 I will vote for Newt if he's our nominee.

Would the #NotMitt crowd do the same?

I'd hate to think they're so bitter that they'd hand Obama another four years.

Sad.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at January 30, 2012 12:01 PM (pLTLS)

This. Let's keep our eyes on the ball. We're here to get rid of the SCOAMF. And ace is right -- of the two remaining serious candidates, Mitt is better prepared for the boring, detail-oriented part of being president. (I'd love to see Newt as VP so he has a free hand to glad-hand the Senate and commit acts of head-hunting.)

240
I will vote for Newt if he's our nominee.

Would the #NotMitt crowd do the same?

I'd hate to think they're so bitter that they'd hand Obama another four years.

Sad.

This is the worst haiku ever.

241

I am in the process of trying to guage the LEAST of all the evils in this race.  No question, I could and would happily vote for Rick Santorum, if given the option, but a lot of so-called conservatives have no desire to see him get anywhere near the nomination. 

If that's the case, then I'm not entirely sure the least of the remaining evils would be a second Obama term.  Why?  Because, at least in MY lifetime, Presidents in their second term tend not to have much power.  With the possibility of Obama facing all the legal mumbo jumbo that could come his way, I'm guessing he won't have much time or power to make things worse.

Romney?  Yeah, he could make things worse.  I don't even consider Newt a viable candidate anymore.  The party went a long way to destroy him, and he's done a pretty good job of finishing himself off himself.

It's along way from here to November.

242 He lobbied the WH house for mandates and voila, we have mandates.

Yeah... because those weren't coming anyway.

I guess my point is that, no matter how much you or he would like to believe otherwise, Newt had no effect one way or the other on ObamaCare.  And certainly not as much as Mitt Romney did.

So, no, it wasn't good that he was arguing for mandates, but since all he did was argue for them- with no power to implement them- and has since admitted to souring on them- where Mitt still likes them, I'm willing to put decide that one in Newts favor more by default than because he's some shining light of conservatism on the matter.

It is nothing personal.

I know.  You haven't thrown an epithet at me, yet, so I figure I'm good.
Even when you do, hopefully the rest of your comment will be on more solid ground- which will at least still leave us room for discussion.

243 - fight all you want right now, but remember
- this is just the intramural warmup, and
- whichever side wins (probably Romney, like 90% probably), *curb the dickishness* in the aftermath because it's going to have to be All Hands on Deck in the fall.

Good night and good luck.

Posted by: Knemon at January 30, 2012 12:15 PM (Va5jb)

This will be all but over by April. At that point we need to have a massive flame thread and then turn all our vitriol on the SCOAMF, because by late April the general campaign will have started in all but name.

244 No, the proper system would be for the government to get the hell out of healthcare entirely. When I was kid there was no health insurance to any great extent and no government. A normal Dr visit was $20.00 (or a chicken) w/o any insurance.

Posted by: Vic at January 30, 2012 12:05 PM (YdQQY)

 

 

This.  Also follow medical costs, starting at the beginning of the "Great Society" when LBJ and the dem congress implemented medicare and medicaid.  What once was an affordable service (even major surgery and extended hospital stays) zoomed out of control once everyone found out how much money could be made by tapping into the government largesse.  Privatize medicine again,period.   

245 I lied, I can't quit the HQ, work be damned.


"(I'd love to see Newt as VP so he has a free hand to glad-hand the Senate and commit acts of head-hunting.)"

I've been thinking a lot about this recently.  Has Newt built up enough *personal* goodwill among "the base" that he'd be useful as a VP for Romney?

Because it'd be very very difficult for anyone to argue that Newt would be a bad VP.  He's already been third in line to the Presidency, second in line is a logical next step; he gets to have whatever fiefdoms he's given and do his "big ideas" shtick there without having the final executive/managerial responsibility; and a debate between him and Biden would be E*P*I*C.

Probably never happen, but fun to think about.

246 >>>f you think the country can reverse the trend towards Statism gradually over the next generation or so with incremental changes; if you think there is plenty of time to avoid a true economic crisis, or if you think relatively small changes will prevent it, then you should definately vote for Romney. That would be a prudent and safe choice if you hold this perspective. Gingrich, the guy who argued for a federal mandate while Obama himself was still skeptical about that, is the guy for big changes?

247 Mitt or Newt for Prez

We all know the awful truth--

They both suck.

248 The whole rest of that is based entirely on your dislike of the man [Newt]


Can you really discount that?  This isn't a House seat.  Temperament and personality mean a lot.

249 I have said my piece on this, romneycare has been implemented in all 50 states, we call it obamacare. I am not convinced romney is upset about this, in fact I think he likes it. He would do zip about it if elected.

So the guy (Newt) who for years went on record as being in favor of a federal mandate is actually opposed to it, and the guy (Mitt) who for years has gone on record opposed to a federal mandate is secretly for it.

Got it.

250 I don't care what a lying gealtinous politician calls himself, no Obamacare, not in part, not in full. Kill repeal defund burn it.

251

Average lifespan (all races, both sexes) in 1950 was 68.2 years. In 1940, it was 62.9.

 

-------------

The average life span is the average. It's not the life expectancy or the median death age.

 

Average lifespans in ancient times was about 30. People still lived to be 65, and that was quite probable in fact, if they made it to 14, since most deaths were in childhood or infancy. There wasn't an epidemic of 30yo's dropping dead. That was the AVERAGE.

252 I guess my point is that, no matter how much you or he would like to believe otherwise, Newt had no effect one way or the other on ObamaCare. And certainly not as much as Mitt Romney did.
*** **** *** **** *** **** *** ****
Vote for Newt - he was powerless to implement his terrible ideas!

253 Because, at least in MY lifetime, Presidents in their second term tend not to have much power.

Bull fucking shit.

First, he gets at least a year after the fresh election of power and influence.

Second, he's a lame duck with no feeling that the Constitution tethers him.

Third through tenth: SCOTUS.

Don't talk yourself into the idea that defeat is better than victory.

254

If you have 2 people, 1 dies at the age of 1, and 1 dies at the age of 80, the average lifespan between them is 40.

 

So as you can see, neither reached retirement age.

255

200....While we sit here discussing ideology and fine policy points, I think that elections turn on superficial considerations, because the middle of the electorate decides things based on superficial stuff.

.

I think you're right about that, Ace.

.

And speaking of which......if you haven't watched that documentary, 'Tabloid', that is playing on Showtime....you should. ....It was made in 2010.

.

I made myself watch that dreadful thing last night......just to see what it was about, because the description mentioned "Wyoming beauty queen kidnaps Mormon lover"......so, I thought "Eh? wtf?

.

It's got something for everyone.....nudity, bondage, dogs, unrequited love spoiled by the creepy cultist programming of the Mormon church. .....Ooops, did I say "cultist". ....Yeah, it's in there.....repeated use of the word "Cult".

.

I think that's why the documentary was made.....to showcase the creepiness of the Mormon religion, and portray it as a cult. ....It even has little animated clips, to 'teach us' the basics of Mormonism....complete with the bit about how Mormons believe that God lives on the planet Kolob.

.

So all of you folks who are in denial about how the Left will use this sort of shit against Romney are kidding yourselves, I think. .....Romney will be portrayed as a scary cultist, who doesn't even drink coffee because of his 'programming'. .....And I think that it will have a chilling affect with voters.

256 That is a myth that has been debunked here many times.


Posted by: Vic at January 30, 2012 12:14 PM (YdQQY)


(We should just tag-team it, as it comes up every few months.)

Infant mortality was much higher in 1940, and that skewed the numbers.

257 Anyone who thinks that Obama won't blame the most unpopular part of healthcare, the mandate on Newt convincing him of it is dreaming.

258 Obama: The most polarizing president. Ever. President Obama ran — and won — in 2008 on the idea of uniting the country. But each of his first three years in office has marked historic highs in political polarization, with Democrats largely approving of him and Republicans deeply disapproving. For 2011, Obama’s third year in office, an average of 80 percent of Democrats approved of the job he was doing in Gallup tracking polls, as compared to 12 percent of Republicans who felt the same way. That’s a 68-point partisan gap, the highest for any president’s third year in office — ever. (The previous high was George W. Bush in 2007, when he had a 59 percent difference in job approval ratings.) That's what happens to nasty arrogant bastards

259 Because it'd be very very difficult for anyone to argue that Newt would be a bad VP. He's already been third in line to the Presidency, second in line is a logical next step; he gets to have whatever fiefdoms he's given and do his "big ideas" shtick there without having the final executive/managerial responsibility; and a debate between him and Biden would be E*P*I*C.
Probably never happen, but fun to think about.
Posted by: Knemon at January 30, 2012 12:26 PM (Va5jb)

Actually Newt would probably be a great VP pick given what VP usually end up doing - attacking the opposition, giving red meat speeches, and attending funerals and other public events. These are just the kind of things that he excels at. 

260 >>>Because, at least in MY lifetime, Presidents in their second term tend not to have much power. With the possibility of Obama facing all the legal mumbo jumbo that could come his way, I'm guessing he won't have much time or power to make things worse. Obama has begun taking unilateral power into the executive, forbidden by the Constitution. He is now seriously fucking with the underlying premise of a democratic republic, undermining it, as South American governments were rapidly undermined and democracy gave way to despotism quickly. People think the Constitution protects us. It does not. It is just paper. it is only the historic duty that most presidents sense to honor the constitution that keeps it in operation. Obama has gotten a little taste of what it's like to dispense with Congress and he's found he likes it. We call it "unconstitutional power-grab." He calls it "action," as in "I will be a man of action despite what the Constitution says." This is dangerous as hell. He must be stopped.

261 247 I am in the process of trying to guage the LEAST of all the evils in this race. No question, I could and would happily vote for Rick Santorum, if given the option, but a lot of so-called conservatives have no desire to see him get anywhere near the nomination.
If that's the case, then I'm not entirely sure the least of the remaining evils would be a second Obama term.

That's irresponsible. Everybody left with the possible exception of RuPaul would be a better president than Bambi. Talk like that is surrender talk.

262 come on ace, youre fucking up the Romney is the antichrist meme, you cant be pointing out that Newt is just the same as Mitt but less electable, come on dude you can't screw up talk radio's talking points

263 >>> and the guy (Mitt) who for years has gone on record opposed to a federal mandate is secretly for it.

Oh bullshit, Mitt defends Romenycare, therefore Obamacare, on a daily basis.  And you are going to believe the guy who flips and flops and will say anything to be prez that he doesn't like it.  Fine, go for it, but don't be so foolish to think he won't be perfectly happy to manage the death panels efficiently.

264 Posted by: ace at January 30, 2012 12:27 PM (nj1bB)

Oh, we'll get big changes with Newt.

They might be fucking insane changes, but they'll be big!

265 Why, you used to be able to pay for a doctor visit with just a handful of silver dimes. We didn't need no government, no sirree. And we wore an onion on our belts, which was the style at the time.

266 263 Anyone who thinks that Obama won't blame the most unpopular part of healthcare, the mandate on Newt convincing him of it is dreaming.

??????????????

267

Whatonce was an affordable service(even major surgery and extended hospital stays)zoomed out of control once everyone found out how much money could be made by tapping into the government largesse. Privatize medicine again,period.

Posted by: Soona at January 30, 2012 12:26 PM (cI2ur)

 

I agree that all medical care should be privately run, competitive and profit oriented, but the best way to pay the fee for service of those that fall into the catastrophic category is direct payment by the government at the time the service is provided.

 

This simple method would greatly improve the ability to detect fraud and reduce the costs through the elimination of reams of paperwork and fighting with insurance companies.

268 btw Rasmussen has Obama at 51% approval (I believe its a fluke bump that will go down), w/ that Obama leads Romney by 6, he leads Newt...by 18

269 Obama has gotten a little taste of what it's like to dispense with Congress and he's found he likes it. We call it "unconstitutional power-grab." He calls it "action," as in "I will be a man of action despite what the Constitution says."

His non-recess recess appointments are The Rubicon.

270
Obama will have two  more Court picks if he steals another term.

271 How about an individual mandate to make individuals responsible for themselves? The more crap that comes btwn an individual and his health the less responsible the individual is. Definition of "free ride" as it pertains to healthcare, St. Louis style: Call 911. Take ambulance to hospital across city. Hop out, run across street to liquor store.

272
Not to mention several dozens more judges appointed to the lower courts.

273 Yep, this is just the right-wing version of political correctness. You must have the 'correct' TrueConservative views or you will be exiled from the movement rhetorically speaking and labeled a counter-revolutionary^H^H^H RINO.

i would say there is little difference between those that scream Rino, and those that Scream ignorant bot of one type or another.
both thoughts are intended to insult, it's not a true conservative or rino conservative . both do the same, unless they choose to argue a point rationally and there are those that actually do that. even on this site.
it seems to be a way to shut one side down.
and both sides of the thought do it.

274 Posted by: jwest at January 30, 2012 12:33 PM (FdndL)

Show me one thing the government does more efficiently and with less fraud than the private sector and perhaps I will consider your idea.

275 Oh bullshit, Mitt defends Romenycare, therefore Obamacare, on a daily basis. And you are going to believe the guy who flips and flops and will say anything to be prez that he doesn't like it. Fine, go for it, but don't be so foolish to think he won't be perfectly happy to manage the death panels efficiently.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at January 30, 2012 12:32 PM (XrrP7)

 

Right on! we need somebody strong and principled like Newt who would never FLIP FLOP on important things like the National Individual Mandate!

276 Average lifespan (all races, both sexes) in 1950 was 68.2 years. In 1940, it was 62.9.

Today itÂ’s 77.9 That would take a lot of chickens.

Posted by: jwest at January 30, 2012 12:20 PM (FdndL) 

-----------------

"Average lifespan" has nothing to do with it. Average lifespan includes all those babies that die at childbirth and 18 y.o. hooligans that die holding up liquor stores etc.

If you look at the expected mortality rate of people who actually reach adulthood it hasn't changed that much, and that is the number that counts since you are talking about "old age". 

That is the great myth that a lot of people like to promote, but it is just like the lies they spread about taxes talking about effective tax rate in one sentence and marginal rate in the next w/o differentiating the two.

277 This is dangerous as hell. He must be stopped. ******* He's also going to gut the military.

278 I can't agree with Ace.  We recognize the same intangibles in the two candidates, listed above by Ace- but I say Newt makes, in the long run,  the more (in current zeitgeist) appealing and elecatble of the two. 

We recognize  most and maybe exactly the same weaknessess and strengths;  However if Mitt is competent at getting what he wants,  which he may be,  I see that as far worse as a moon campaign that Newt won't get.

In other words Oromnacare and a VAT are both telegraphed strongly from himself and his advisors as the future of what used to be America, only with both of these destructive things cemented with GOP superglue.

Newt is a terrible bandwagoner;  he's on our bandwagon now.  I hope rather than believe in his need to serve his ego,  he will rise to the occassion and defend what there is left of America, and that he's now chosen a conservative legacy,  one that respects the idea of the American experiment,  something he at least understands, if he has not always adhered.

279 "Obama will have two more Court picks if he steals another term."

Could easily be 4.  Ginsburg and Breyer will jump, and Scalia and Thomas aren't that healthy (and Scalia is older than most people realize).

280 That's a promise.

281 Right on! we need somebody strong and principled like Newt who would never FLIP FLOP on important things like the National Individual Mandate!

Posted by: robtr at January 30, 2012 12:35 PM (MtwBb)

or on who he supported in 1964

282 Speaking of health care, the company I work for just handed out new forms to fill out since ours is going up 22% and they need to shop around

283

Posted by: robtr at January 30, 2012 12:35 PM (MtwBb)

or on who he supported in 1964 (more readable reply)

284 "Show me one thing the government does more efficiently and with less fraud than the private sector and perhaps I will consider your idea."

His point is that *if* government's going to be the payment source for catastrophic, it's better to have them do it directly.  It's true that the private sector is more efficient for things that are truly private, but all too often "privatization" has been mere privatization of *delivery,* with the ultimate payment *decision* being made by the government.  This is the worst of both worlds.

285 newt is not a good VP pic, he is an opportunist, and a wily backstabber, totally unreliable

286
Knemon is right. Obama will have at least 2 more Court picks.

287 Obama has gotten a little taste of what it's like to dispense with Congress and he's found he likes it. We call it "unconstitutional power-grab." He calls it "action," as in "I will be a man of action despite what the Constitution says."

This is dangerous as hell.

He must be stopped.

Posted by: ace at January 30, 2012 12:31 PM (nj1bB)

i think this is something everyone of us agree on.

He must go. and we are limited on how, It Must be a vote for the Republican nominee as abhorant as our choices are.

288 Regarding the courts, one of Romney's advisors on that, IIRC, is Robert Bork.

289 Posted by: Vic at January 30, 2012 12:35 PM (YdQQY)

The most useful statistic would be life expectancy after 65 (or whatever retirement age you choose).

290

No, the proper system would be for the government to get the hell out of healthcare entirely. When I was kid there was no health insurance to any great extent and no government. A normal Dr visit was $20.00 (or a chicken) w/o any insurance.
Posted by: Vic at January 30, 2012 12:05 PM (YdQQY)

When you were a kid, you didn't have a significant portion of the population reliant on government to survive. As long as the size of that population stays the same or grows, government will never leave health care. The voters won't allow it. Government will never shrink in a real way as long as so many people need it to survive, and as long as so many voters THINK those people became dependent on government through no fault of thier own.

 

Until we change the way voters think about the dependent, we will never get them to change the way the government treats the dependent. And if we don't change that, government won't get smaller.

291 Posted by: jwest at January 30, 2012 12:33 PM (FdndL)

How about taking the government out of the equation completely?  My dad was telling me that people used to carry something called major medical.  It was basically a "God forbid this is a catastrophe" policy and it worked.  If you want to do away with fraud then you need to use the people that have been so good at doing away with fraud, the people that places like citibank use.   They had early warning before people realized how important early warning is.  Or maybe through Master Card or AMEX or both. 

You need to get the government out of medicine completely.

292 i would say there is little difference between those that scream Rino, and those that Scream ignorant bot of one type or another.
both thoughts are intended to insult, it's not a true conservative or rino conservative . both do the same, unless they choose to argue a point rationally and there are those that actually do that. even on this site.
it seems to be a way to shut one side down.
and both sides of the thought do it.
Posted by: willow at January 30, 2012 12:35 PM (TomZ9)

I disagree. But the key point is that only one side is trying to 'define out' the other side from the conservative movement.

It's classic Leftist behavior and I'm sick of it.

293

I think that's why the documentary was made.....to showcase the creepiness of the Mormon religion, and portray it as a cult.....It even has little animated clips, to 'teach us' the basics of Mormonism....complete with the bit about how Mormons believe that God lives on the planet Kolob.

In 2008 when it looked like Mittens could be the nominee Hollyweird released "September Dawn", a movie about the Morman massacre of the Fancher-Baker wagon train where 120 men, women and all the children over the age of seven were murdered after being promised safe passage. But I'm sure that was a simple coincidence.

I'm looking forward to the re-release in 3D should Romney be the candidate. 

294 262 That is a myth that has been debunked here many times.




Posted by: Vic at January 30, 2012 12:14 PM (YdQQY)


(We should just tag-team it, as it comes up every few months.)

Infant mortality was much higher in 1940, and that skewed the numbers.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at January 30, 2012 12:30 PM (nEUpB)

--The reason we have 65 is that it *was* higher than the life expectancy --when Bismarck adopted it as the retirement age in Hohenzollern Germany over a century ago.  When FDR copied it for Social Security, it was decades later and life expectancy was already around 65, if not higher.

295 **I have said my piece on this, romneycare has been implemented in all 50 states, we call it obamacare. I am not convinced romney is upset about this, in fact I think he likes it. He would do zip about it if elected.** no, romney care is not a single payer system

296

Obama has gotten a little taste of what it's like to dispense with Congress and he's found he likes it. We call it "unconstitutional power-grab." He calls it "action," as in "I will be a man of action despite what the Constitution says."

This is dangerous as hell.

He must be stopped.

No... IT is dangerous as hell.

 

The last umpteen presidents I can remember, executive authority has increased. Obama ran on repealing all the Bush-era shit, he doubled down on it all and added some more.

 

Getting rid of Obama does not undue what he has done. The next president will have just as much power if not more.

 

Which is why a big stink should have been made in Congress over this, but ah well. Republicans are chicken-shits.

297 "Regarding the courts, one of Romney's advisors on that, IIRC, is Robert Bork."

wow, that's great, what about his econ advisers ?

298 *Or, "their" own.

299 Posted by: Knemon at January 30, 2012 12:37 PM (Va5jb)

Medicaid and Medicare are unbelievably inefficient, and the amount of fraud in both is staggering. But they are simply the check writers. Government doesn't provide any healthcare (except for the VA).

300
>>>>Right on! we need somebody strong and principled like Newt who would never FLIP FLOP on important things like the National Individual Mandate!

Well, he's not f'ing defending it while running for the REPUBLICAN nomination now is he.  Mitt is telling you right up front, "I am a liberal running for the repubs, I am the male DeDe Scozzaflava!"  But go ahead, vote for him.

301

Obama is daft and incompetent.

 

I shudder to think what would happen if a competent nihilistic power-hungry sociopath got his hands on that kind of power.

302 (We should just tag-team it, as it comes up every few months.)
--------------------------

Yeah, the myth that will not die.

303

The only answer to that problem has to come from the other two branches. Congress has to reject that kind of executive authority.

 

We can't pretend we're going to find anyone who will be POTUS and just 'not use it'.

304
Obama is daft and incompetent.

Yet he remains popular and he's in damned fine shape for reelection.

305
"i think this is something everyone of us agree on"

No.  At least one poster upthread prefers a second Obama term to Mitt.

"Regarding the courts, one of Romney's advisors on that, IIRC, is Robert Bork."

That means little -- he got Bork to lend his name as titular head of his legal advisory board, but we'll see what happens when it's nomination time.  It'll be better than O nominations, but how much better is unclear.

"I disagree. But the key point is that only one side is trying to 'define out' the other side from the conservative movement."

No.  Both are.  That's the point of Ace's "Palin/Newt are the *real* Alinskyites here."  Each side of this is claiming that the other is Unclean.

This is why the post-64 Republican coalition is inherently unstable and only really "works" as an opposition party.  As soon as the party attains power, the contradictions between its "true conservative"/antediluvian wing and its Romneyfeller wing become impossible to ignore.

306 Anybody know what Rick Santorum's stance on government healthcare is? Has anyone noticed that he's still in the race?

307 Posted by: soothsayer at January 30, 2012 12:42 PM (sqkOB)
+1 this idea Obama is a sure loser is ridicilous

308

Posted by: also from Oklahoma at January 30, 2012 12:43 PM (wWZWw)

medicare part D

309 For the life of me I can't see why people continue to argue over these two losers. There isn't a dime's worth of difference between them in general.

people we are already screwed blued and tatooed. Just give it up and take a barf bag with you to the polls in Nov.

Once again you have the privileged of voting for these lesser of two evils. Only this time one is Satan incarnate and the other is Mephistopheles.

310

He wasn't squeamish about saying that "O is a socialist".
Or "Romney is a capitalist."  Newt is a fighter, sorta, except for in the Florida debates, or against Clinton on the budget.  But you never know on any given day what he is going to be fighting for or against.  On Day 1 he's fighting against venture capitalism, on Day 2 he's fighting against Social Security, on Day 3 he's fighting against 'right-wing socialism,' and on Day 4 he's fighting for a moon base.  Suddenly your his ally then his enemy then his ally then his enemy.

Gingrich's animating principle is his commitment to big, bold transformational radical revolutionary game-changing unprecedented ideas that are analogous to some historical achievement of some historical figure he admires.  His animating vision is that he's the world historical figure who pushes these ideas.  Whether the big bold ideas happen to be conservative or liberal or who-the-hell-knows is secondary.  And he doesn't even stick with one set, because the important thing isn't the specific idea, so if he tries to push it and it doesn't get immediate success, no problem, move on to the Next Big Thing.

"Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel."

 

311 ABO! 


Now that that's settled.....


Can't we argue over Super Bowl appetizer recipes or something? 

312

The constitution gives us a chance to have free-for-all elections.  We're finally seeing one.  I, for one, am grateful that we, at least, still have this bit of our tradition left.  I am not minding this in-depth analysis of our candidates at all.  This is the way it should be in every election.  It's something we sorely lacked in 2008.

 

313
Soothsayer's If The Elections Were Held Today:

51% probability we'd win the Senate
49% probability we'd keep the House
49% probability we'd defeat Obama

314

Gingrich left politics being chided as "too conservative."

 

Now, moderates and independents hear the Right telling everyone "he's not conservative enough."

 

That's a good thing for him, especially when his main competitor for the nomination can never win 'the battle of who's more conservative.'

 

315 Is this damn thing still going on?

316 On court picks -- the only positive I have heard for a Mittens vote is that Ginsberg would not retire before his inauguration.

317

If you want to do away with fraud then you need to use the people that have been so good at doing away with fraud, the people that places like citibank use. They had early warning before people realized how important early warning is. Or maybe through Master Card or AMEX or both.

You need to get the government out of medicine completely.

Posted by: ambrosia at January 30, 2012 12:38 PM (oZfic)

 

Absolutely right.  Any single payer system would need to use someone like Mastercard or Visa to do the actual processing and payment, along with establishing the macros which would detect fraud. 

 

When the system sees that a particular doctor performed 18 hip transplants yesterday, the doctor would get a visit from the fraud unit that afternoon.   

318

300.....I'm looking forward to the re-release in 3D should Romney be the candidate.

.

Oh yeah. Count on it. .....Wasn't John Voit in that movie too? ....John Voit, who has now endorsed Romney? .....So getting that movie back out there again, would be a two-fer....it makes both Voit and Romney look bad.

.

I can't believe all the Romney supporters, who trash Newt for wanting to see more space exploration....calling it "crazy".....when their candidate Romney believes that God lives on the planet Kolob!

319 For the life of me I can't see why people continue to argue over these two losers. There isn't a dime's worth of difference between them in general. people we are already screwed blued and tatooed. Just give it up and take a barf bag with you to the polls in Nov. Once again you have the privileged of voting for these lesser of two evils. Only this time one is Satan incarnate and the other is Mephistopheles. ********* So you voted for Mephistopheles?

320 "as for this being something that isn't new -- well, the context is that he was asked about this while ObamaCare was being put together. He endorsed major elements of it, as it was going forward.

This wasn't just hypothetical."

-Ace

Well, since the clip in question took place a month before the first proposals were released, yeah a case can be made that is is hypothetical.  Its all pretty much the same crap he'd been saying about 'til he wised up.  Not much of a surprise.

Bottom line:  Which is worst in your mind...  a candidate who backed a mandate and then backed down and disavowed it or a candidate who signed into existence the model upon which ObamaCare was founded and who still won't repudiate it.

Personally I'd go with the candidate who can say 'wow, I fucked up... that was really stupid' over the candidate who says 'fuck you, I'm awesome... you're just too stupid to appreciate it.'

321 soothsayer -- what scenario has us losing the House?

322 "I disagree. But the key point is that only one side is trying to 'define out' the other side from the conservative movement."

No. Both are. That's the point of Ace's "Palin/Newt are the *real* Alinskyites here." Each side of this is claiming that the other is Unclean.

Nope. The 'TrueConservatives' are essentially declaring 'RINOs' to be non-conservative based on their views and preferred candidates. The 'RINOs' - like myself - are saying the behavior  of the TrueConservatives is rather Alinskyite.

That's a big difference.

323 I love the two Newt narratives that he's a fighter while Romney isn't and also that he's been running a generally peaceful optimistic campaign while Romney has been knife-fighting him.

324 Can't we argue over Super Bowl appetizer recipes or something?

Ranch dressing.  Bleu cheese is for damned dirty RINOs.

325 Shit Drudge headlines have not changed since last night

326
Democrats only need 25 seats to take the House. That's nothing in a year when turnout will be astronomical for the popular incumbent (D) president.

327

I still subscribe to the notion that Obama is a stuttering cluster***k of a miserable failure.  I'm not yet scared that he's going to put us all in chains.  We do still have 3 branches of federal goverment, and the limits are still in place. 

I don't consider a Romney Administration as a victory.  I'd rather have socialized medicine go down in flames.  Of course, if the Supremes toss it out this summer, it'll be relatively easy for me to hold my nose and vote for Buttercup (aka Mitt).  If not, we'll see.  Like I said, November is a long way off.

328 "Nope. The 'TrueConservatives' are essentially declaring 'RINOs' to be non-conservative based on their views and preferred candidates. The 'RINOs' - like myself - are saying the behavior of the TrueConservatives is rather Alinskyite."

Nuh-uh!  The "RINOs" aren't just giving "views and preferred candidates," they're

- flooding the zone on both mainstream and right-media with dirt on Newt, some real, some made up

- getting closer and closer to what ace has basically said in this thread: the base are braindead hicks and they're embarrassed to share a party with them

This is behavior, not just "views."  You're both acting like assholes.  Fine in a primary, just be able to turn it off when necessary.

329 So you voted for Mephistopheles?

Posted by: tasker at January 30, 2012 12:46 PM (r2PLg)

-------------

It ain't Nov yet, but yes, I did in the primary.

330 I actually believed Obama was a sure loser until our side chose (we ourselves) two, that agree on some of Obama's gvt power grab. whether it be newt or romney, both at one time or currently believed it was a good thing to take power from the citizen and deem it to the gvt. jmho. if we would have presented a total opposite to this, it would have been a easier choice than just holding our nose and hoping we are better.
even though we are, and let's work on more conservative downticket races.

331 120 I will say anything to anyone if it gets me some votes

Posted by: Newt Gingrich  Mitt Milhouse Romney at January 30, 2012 11:40 AM (hKi42)

FIFY......

332
And besides, what has Boehner (and McConnell) done in the last year that will increase turnout for the Republicans?

Conversely, what have those two ninnies done in the last year to depress turnout in 2012?

333 No way we lose the House, and the Senate certainly is within reach at this point. For all of those people out there who think Obama is a sure winner, the evidence on the ground points to his losing. Long time dems are bailing on re-election bids and people don't want to be seen with Teh Won.

334 but yes, I did in the primary. ********* Damn! That still doesn't give me much of a hint... Is Mephistopheles, does he have a weight problem-or good hair?

335 And was your vote purely strategic?

336

ACE,

How about a thread where you discuss the features and particulars of the New Hotness blog as opposed to Old and Busted blog?

337 Newt strikes me as too Operatic for the presidency. Whimsical, grandiose. Such personality traits are common to writers and artists and do not scream "Excellent detail-oriented manager with strong focus and follow-through."

Romney, on the other hand, strikes me as the type of very stable, if dull, personality type that is a good fit for the presidency and also recommends itself as detail-oriented and conscientious.

Posted by: ace at January 30, 2012 12:06 PM

Break out the teleporter.

338 , November is a long way off.

Posted by: BurtTC at January 30, 2012 12:48 PM (TOk1P)

 

 

Yes.  Yes it is.  Much can happen between now and then.  And, in all probability, will.

339 Because it'd be very very difficult for anyone to argue that Newt would be a bad VP.

His ego is too big.  He wouldn't be able to stand being second in charge.

Did you read the article about his time at West Georgia College?  As a brand new faculty member, in his second year, he applied to be *president of the college*.  When that obviously failed, the next year, he applied to be *chair of the department*.

That should say something about what a VP Newt would be like.

340

Imagine Newt of the Present Moment debating Newt of the Past. He'd tear him apart. That's one thing he's got going on, debating skills. He can prove that God exists, or that God doesn't exist. Put some money in the brandy snifter atop the piano and he'll play any tune you ask.

If either of these front runners pander, hopefully they'll pander to us.

341

wake me up when there's a nominee...........

342 New thread^

343

Barry Hickley is running for Senate against Sheldon Whitehouse in Rhode Island.  He can win.  Send him some jack.

 

Scott Brown has a fight on his hands.  Send him some jack.

 

MA-4 is an open seat.  Sean Bielat has a good chance of winning it.  Send him some jack.

344 Oh bullshit, Mitt defends Romenycare, therefore Obamacare, on a daily basis.

Know which former Republican President and former governor supported legislation at the state level that they didn't support at the federal level?

His name is:  All Of Them.

Yes, Romneycare is a definite drawback for Mitt, but again- state program in a liberal state.  Don't like it?  Don't move to Massachusetts.  Newt, on the other hand, repeatedly supported big government federal mandates (before he was against them).

We're really supposed to believe that the guy who wants taxpayers to build a moon base and make it our 51st state won't go the big government route on health care?  Yeah, right.

You don't completely trust Romney?  Neither do I- there are good reasons not to.  Know who else I don't completely trust?  Newt Gingrich.  And again for good reason.

345 Well, he's not f'ing defending it while running for the REPUBLICAN nomination now is he. Mitt is telling you right up front, "I am a liberal running for the repubs, I am the male DeDe Scozzaflava!" But go ahead, vote for him.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at January 30, 2012 12:40 PM (XrrP7)

 

 

I am just pointing out your hypocrisy that some flip flops are better than others because.....it's your guy making them.

346 Crap. #344 was me.

347 "His ego is too big."

He's RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.  So is Romney.  These guys are all sociopaths (some more benign than others) with limitless self-regard.  You sort of have to be to think you're suited to become THE MOST POWERFUL MAN ON EARTH.

348

224

- fight all you want right now, but remember
- this is just the intramural warmup, and
- whichever side wins (probably Romney, like 90% probably), *curb the dickishness* in the aftermath because it's going to have to be All Hands on Deck in the fall.
Posted by: Knemon

 

I'm Emperor of Icecream and I endorse this message.  Ultimately there's only one team here, and that's team ABO.

349 Don't like it? Don't move to Massachusetts.

Except, isn't it only running because of federal cash infusions?

So yeah, I'm paying for that.

So no, it's an issue.

350 Is Mephistopheles, does he have a weight problem-or good hair?

Posted by: tasker at January 30, 2012 12:51 PM (r2PLg)

------------------------

Yes

351 >>>>>>I actually believed Obama was a sure loser until

you remembered he was running against the Republican Party?

352 Can't we argue over Super Bowl appetizer recipes or something?

Ranch dressing. Bleu cheese is for damned dirty RINOs.

Oh Eff you!  Bleu Cheese rocks!  Bleu cheese rocked before Ranch ever did anything.  Ranch has big ideas but can't follow through....and Ranch is a big wing insider!

353 Sarah Palin has embraced right-wing identity politics.

354 Did you read the article about his time at West Georgia College? As a brand new faculty member, in his second year, he applied to be *president of the college*. When that obviously failed, the next year, he applied to be *chair of the department*.


Well, to be fair, chemjeff, I almost applied to be Rutgers football coach as a graduate student who had no experience at all with football.

Considering that Rutgers had gone 0-11 that year, I don't really see the problem.

355

That is the great myth that a lot of people like to promote, but it is just like the lies they spread about taxes talking about effective tax rate in one sentence and marginal rate in the next w/o differentiating the two.

 

It is an interesting myth no? We routinely degrade our past in this fashion. Very progressive. We are to believe if not for our lovely Social State society, we'd all have died of old age at 32.

 

How much better everything is now. Our chocolate ration has increased from a paltry 20oz. to a superfluous and excessive 15oz.

356  Shit Drudge headlines have not changed since last night

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 30, 2012 12:47 PM (i6RpT)

 

 

I believe teh Fred when he said that Romney has Drudge's pecker in his pocket.

357 >>>>You sort of have to be to think you're suited to become THE MOST POWERFUL MAN ON EARTH.

Not necessarily; But being a sociopath does make the sh*t you have to eat from the press and from your opponents more tolerable.

358 If opposition to an individual mandate is now a conservative litmus test, you should be honest and admit that this is a very new litmus test.<<<

Ok.  It's now a conservative litmus test, but only because actual conservatives can't believe this one actually needs to be specified.  Jeebus.

359 Oh Eff you! Bleu Cheese rocks! Bleu cheese rocked before Ranch ever did anything. Ranch has big ideas but can't follow through....and Ranch is a big wing insider!

Posted by: Tami at January 30, 2012 12:57 PM (X6akg)

 

 

I'm not even going to go into the shitholes who like french dressing.  And as for vinegarette, we know who prefers that. 

360

<i>251

"(I'd love to see Newt as VP so he has a free hand to glad-hand the Senate and commit acts of head-hunting.)"</i>

VP isn't independent enough.  You basically need to be a shill for the President, which is a role I don't see Newt taking to naturally.

 

Newt would make a good chairman of an extraordinary commission on radically revamping social security or the space program, something like that.  An area of narrow focus where you really want to shake things up and want someone who is his own bully pulpit.

361 >>>>If opposition to an individual mandate is now a conservative litmus
test, you should be honest and admit that this is a very new litmus
test.

 Heritage supported it before Romney Care. Fine OK. It's a new litmus test. Funny how only one guy is continually defending it at this point.

362 colonic irrigation,

Not me.  Have you seen one of those pumps?

363 Kerry gets at something very important.  There's "conservative" as defined by what Heritage is floating in any given paper, and there's "true" conservative.

Sometimes these line up.  Those are happy times.

Other times they don't.

JeffB, you are a DC/Establishment type.  That's not invective, it's description -- you just *are.*  To you, the fact that this was nearly universally proposed on the right cuts in favor of giving Mitt (but not Newt?) a big break on this.  To the True Conservatives, the Conservatives of the Heart, or whatever, it's just another sign that the entire party was (and largely still is) totally bankrupt and sellout.

364 #58 the rising costs are directly related to the advances in medicine. This is a Gordian knot that cannot be cut.

And lawsuits, and very expensive keep em alive but we don't pay for it, and keep em alive because it's expensive and well reimbursed, etc.

365 I also want to see us become more energy efficient. IÂ’m told that we use almost twice as much energy per person as does a European,
and more like three times as much as does a Japanese citizen. We could
do a lot better. IÂ’d like to see our vehicles, and our homes, and our
systems of insulation and so forth become far more efficient. I believe that we have a role in trying to encourage that to happen.<<<

Been to Europe.  They're not that efficient, and they will lie to your face about that.  All I want the government to do is provide the grid at a reasonable cost and then get the hell out of my way, and every time they mandate something new on a car to make it "more efficient" they end up making the cars lighter so that you're in greater danger of serious injury in a crash that would have been a fender bender in a Ford Falcon.  I believe the market will work out the optimum in safety and efficiency without the government picking winners and losers  Solyndra, anyone?  GM and its magic Volt?  THAT's what you're advocating when you think the government has a role in encouraging efficiency.

366

Except, isn't it only running because of federal cash infusions?

 

According to Mitt Romney, everything is swell and working great! Awesome! We luvs it!

 

According to reality.... Yes. Yes you are paying for it. And it can't possibly work without your cash... and it probably won't work - it's faltering and sucky - even with your cash.

367 Believe me, Newt and Santorum will scare the white, suburban soccer moms to death. Newt, because he's nuts and Santorum because they'll be afraid that their little sweet heart daughters won't be able to abort. However,because our current President is a SCOAMF, Newt and Santorum might out poll him, with the soccer moms, but not by a sufficient number to make up for the 98% of the non-racist African American vote or the 30 to 40% of the idiots who always vote for a Democrat.

368 I'm not even going to go into the shitholes who like french dressing. And as for vinegarette, we know who prefers that.

Posted by: Soona at January 30, 2012 01:02 PM (cI2ur)

Well, unless it's balsamic.....that I like.    You got a problem with that?!

369

I also want to see us become more energy efficient. IÂ’m told that we
use almost twice as much energy per person as does a European,

 

Isn't gas like $7 a gallon in europe?

 

You're damn straight I use twice as much energy as those metrosexual eurotrash weenies, and I am to use 5 times as much in the future.

370

Vinagarette is the only dressing worth using. The rest of the Kraft/Paul Neumann shit is for the kiddy table.

 

You can sit with the big boys when you stop putting tangy mayonaise on your salad.

371 I also want to see us become more energy efficient. IÂ’m told that we use almost twice as much energy per person as does a European,

No prob. Just let the gubmint tell you where you can live. And they will stack you in like cordwood like they do in Europe. Let the gubmint tax teh crap out of fuel (up to 75% of the fuel cost is taxes) and you will stop driving places. Let the gubmint tax teh crap out of energy like they do in Europe and you will use less.

I've got a better idea for you. If you want to live in that kind of society, why don't you go live in Europe?

372

Heritage supported it before Romney Care. Fine OK. It's a new litmus test. Funny how only one guy is continually defending it at this point.

 

I always prefered Cato anyway.

373

I've got a better idea for you. If you want to live in that kind of society, why don't you go live in Europe?

 

Because competition is unfair and makes people in socialized economies feel bad about themselves.

 

It has to be UNIVERSAL, so no one can tell when it's not working.

374

>>>Personally I'd go with the candidate who can say 'wow, I fucked up... that was really stupid'

 

Because when Newt says it, he really means it. Of course, when Romney changes his position it's because "he'll say anything, the scumbag."

375

Entropy, Racism Delenda Est at January 30, 2012 01:15 PM (mf67L)

 

well you stay w/ the big boys and eat your leafy shit. us MEN will be in our recliners in front of the tv w/ a nice thick T-bone salad boy.

376 "when Romney changes his position"

But he hasn't, and apparently won't, on this issue.

This issue is #1 for many people.

Not for you, apparently.

Try to find a way to get those people to vote for Romney in the fall.  "You're a moron" isn't it.  "Obama sucks" is closer, but still not great.  "Meet my VP nominee Marco Rubio" is getting warmer.

377   As much as I hate to say it....the way things are in our country, where no one can fail, and no one can suffer the consequences of their choices....
We will most likely have to have a mandate of some sort.
We did it to ourselves, in a lot of different areas....
But in the Health field, once the Government told Medical Professionals, that they could not turn down any one.....regardless of their financial abilities....
Well, that was just the snowball being dropped on the hill.....

We need real reform in the medical field to get prices down in the health insurance area.....and one of them is getting government out of the picture..
Another is that people need to be allowed to fail and feel the results of their bad choices......

Mandate or no mandate......that is just something addressing a symptom of the problem and not actually addressing the problem.
So it will just create more problems.

378 184 "are the mittbots arguing for mandates yet?"
Some definitely are. Pep, polynikes implicitly, JeffB.
Christyblinky seemed to be headed there the other night.

Posted by: Entropy, Racism Delenda Est at January 30, 2012 12:02 PM (mf67L)

Nope...never said it. I said people should have co-payments for healthcare as it ain't free. I want illegals to have their remittances garnished or pay  what they can prior to care---or their employers to pay. I also want illegals identified at schools and hospitals so they can be forced to pay.

I have seen, in a dept. store in Florida, a non-English speaking illegal pull out a wad of US cash,and I mean an inch thick wad of cash, to pay for clothes. Do not tell me he cannot cough up $5-20 (which is better than zero dollars, to be seen in an emergency dept).

Entropy, you can disagree with me for voting for Romney, but don't lie. I lived and breathed nursing for thirty years. I would not argue war with a military guy, as I am a civilian (and I love all the military as a daughter of a Marine)..so don't yap about healthcare in the trenches with me unless you qualify as a healthcare provider who knows both federal law and how hospitals bill and operate. Thanks.

379

"Nope. The 'TrueConservatives' are essentially declaring 'RINOs' to be
non-conservative based on their views and preferred candidates. The
'RINOs' - like myself - are saying the behavior of the TrueConservatives is rather Alinskyite."

 

And you're all fucking imbeciles if you actually think you can cleave an entire political coalition into 2 neat groups, bust out the pushbroom and start painting with it.

 

Seriously, if you're sick of the TRUE CONSERVATIVE/RINO argument... um.... cut it out?

380

>>>This issue is #1 for many people.

Not for you, apparently.

 

Entitlement reform is numero uno. O-care a close second.

 

I think people who believe Romney will definitely keep O-care where Newt would never are letting their cheerleading drown out their intellect.

381

 I said people should have co-payments for healthcare as it ain't free.

 

-----------

 

WTF? WTF does that even mean? Co-payments?

 

Yes, I know what they are. Just not what the hell you want with them.

 

You act very much like all federal law with regard to healthcare passed prior to 2008 is immutable.

 

That is liable to lead you to any sort of insanity, once you have swallowed that poison pill.

 

And the other night you were calling me an idiot who didn't know what the law was because I was suggesting changes. "Thats Federal law!" Um... duh.

382

I want illegals to have their remittances garnished or pay what they can prior to care---or their employers to pay. I also want illegals identified at schools and hospitals so they can be forced to pay.

 

I want a malamute puppy.

 

Trade?

383 "Entitlement reform is numero uno. O-care a close second."

Have you seen the polls where even a majority of self-identified tea partiers don't want to cut Medicare?

Now, have you seen the polls on Ocare?

384 229 Vyceroy,

That's when I blew up myself.

She's long been doing this. I think that's what really soured me on her. Her entire argument is not, at root, about some Idea, which anyone can buy into, and is therefore evangelizing.

It's instead about Status. And that Status is limited to those with the right background to have the Status, and whatever Honorary Members those with the Status vote into the club.

Posted by: ace at January 30, 2012 12:16 PM (nj1bB)

*******

 

My attitude towards Palin has really "progressed" quite a way from 2008.  In 2008, I loved her - I would defend her against all the usual attacks from leftists and liberals (and even ordinarily nonpartisan independents), even though I began to grow increasingly uneasy about her actual qualifications to potentially be POTUS / VP.

Even when I thought that she wasn't really qualified to be a national contender anymore, at least I could just sit back and say, well, she's still a good person.

I don't really believe that anymore, though.  I think half the things she does these days are meant to screw over "the Establishment" (whomever they are supposed to be - as with so much these days in politics, "the Establishment" is just a catch-all for the Tea Party / true-con wing of the conservative movement to lump in "everyone who doesn't believe exactly as I do), whom she blames (rightfully or wrongly) for not sufficiently supporting her, and the other half is rabble-rousing in order to continue / expand her brand as "Mama Grizzly / Tea Party Culture Warrior" and sell more books / get more $100k speaking gigs.

Neither of which actually advances the cause of conservatism, but does advance the cause of Sarah Palin (the two are not, as her cultists would have you believe, synonymous). 

385

I think people who believe Romney will definitely keep O-care where Newt would never are letting their cheerleadingdrown outtheir intellect.

 

I think people who believe Newt will definitely keep O-care where Romney would never are letting their cheerleadingdrown outtheir intellect.

 

OOooOOOoOOooOOoh epic intellectual beatdown. This shit is like Lincoln Douglas! Me and Sponge should be the nominees.

386 Entropy, I am not arguing further with your bait about healthcare. If you suddenly present me with evidence that you are a doctor or a healthcare worker, well, I would consider furthering the talk, but I am done with you. If you do, however, say false things about me I will reply.

I don't recall calling you an "idiot" on this blog. Perhaps it was when I was doing whip-its coming down from my Red Bull overdose, but I don't: curse on this blog or in life (ok, I do curse when I see Barry on the teevee in the privacy of my home). I have never done that commenting on blogs as it is juvenile. I will, however, state that you frequently "embellish the truth" not only about me but your "facts" out of whole cloth.

387 I want healthcare costs generated by illegals to be charged back to their native country, and failing payment -- subtract it from any foreign aid.

388 Obama has gotten a little taste of what it's like to dispense with
Congress and he's found he likes it.

Leftists in general have very little regard for the traditional mechanisms of govt unless they can be used to their advantage.  When they can't, they're simply ignored.

389

 I would not argue war with a military guy, as I am a civilian (and I love all the military as a daughter of a Marine)..so don't yap about healthcare in the trenches with me unless you qualify as a healthcare provider who knows both federal law and how hospitals bill and operate. Thanks.

Argumentum ad Chickenhawkium.

 

Trust the experts? Hehehehe, no.

390

Entropy, I am not arguing further with your bait about healthcare. If you suddenly present me with evidence that you are a doctor or a healthcare worker

 

 

Really. I'm just devestated.

391

Christy, provide me with evidence you are a politician or GTFO.

 

What would you know about policy if you are not a politician? Go back to the ER and leave politics to politicians.

392 vote for Romney ...  he always has and still to this day supports a Mandate ... 

393 I'm just glad the "meme of the primary" is True Conservative this cycle.  I was having a hard time holding up Nancy's pictures with every one claiming me last cycle.

394 Newt's forgiven for X whereas Romney is disqualified for the same thing. Why? Newt's a True Conservative so he gets some slack.

Um, but what gave him that advantageous designation in the first place?<<<Ace

Um, his work with Ronald Reagan?  But you were a democrat back then, right? 

395

Dammit all to hell, I'm sick and tired of these RINO GOP RINOs trying to confuse me with facts, logic and common sense. 

Look, chumps, I wouldn't know an individual mandate from an intravenous methadone shot, and if you tried to explain to me the differences between risk premiums and coverage exclusions I'd literally go catatonic before you got past go, but none of that is relevant to this rant.

The only thing that matters in this primary is what me and my immediate family think.  Well, punks, we're anti-vaccine, anti-Mormon, anti-Mexican, anti-Catholic (unless we don't know you're a Catholic), and most of all we're anti-RINO.

General Gingrich is my main man because he's a true and pure conservative hero, like me.  I know this because the crony capitalists are using Marxist tactics to point out his record of saying stuff and such.

What Sarah Palin said.

I'd rather die than to lose slower with a RINO GOP RINO as our nominee.  Governor Gingrich will restore America back to the glory days of 1996, when Rush Limbaugh ruled the entire universe with an iron fist and a cement skull.

Gingrich-Cain, '12.

Palin-Angle-O'Donnell, '16.

396 Spotted on Twitter (from Brad Thor):
If Romneycare purpose was 2 get people 2 pay own healthcare + reduce costs 2 taxpayers, it was a "miserable failure" http://tinyurl.com/7auqpse

397 What, insurance ? I thought he was talking about handguns !

398

Two items before the house this morning:

 

1.  Michelle Malkin - whoever that is - has endoresed Rick Santorum.  Just proving how marginal a figure she has become.

2.  Rush has called on Newt to stop whining about negative ads.  I think Rush is spot on.  If Newt can't handle Republican attacks... what on Earth does he think he's gonna get from Obama & the Chicago Mob??  Does he really think that Barak will be more "truthful" than Romney?

The fact is, the reason the negative ads work so well against him is because he is seen about as favorably as a Leper at a Twister Party today.  He should face up to that fact... and go away now.