What’s More Important Than Being Electable? Being Able To Govern
The shine is off. Recent tracking polls have shown the president’s popularity trending downwards under 50%. And both Public Policy Polling and Rasmussen show President Obama in tight races with Republican front-runners, and even with some non-Republican front-runners.
The most striking notes: Sarah Palin, the woman who many allege absolutely could not beat Obama, comes within three points in the Rasmussen poll and eight in the Public Policy Polling poll. And even more surprising, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) comes within eight points on Public Policy Polling.
Yes, the 75-year-old Texas congressman is nearly as close to Obama as John McCain was in 2008. This suggests a growing number of Americans, as of this moment, would vote for anyone over Barack Obama.
A year ago, it was very different for Obama, who couldn’t wait to actually get sworn in before giving regular addresses to the nation. Obama was a great campaigner, a well-polished speaker, and a youth celebrity figure who inspired a best-selling song that became a YouTube sensation (and one of Obama’s favorite songs). A year later, if Rasmussen is to be believed, the Democrats are on the verge of a political cataclysm, with the GOP having built a 7-point lead on the generic ballot.
Congressman John Conyers (D-Michigan) is expressing his frustration, saying he’s tired of “covering Obama’s can,” and has some pointed advice: “The president could take a few pages from Lyndon Johnson’s book … and start knocking heads together.”
Conyers is wrong — the president can’t. During his four years in the U.S. Senate (which he spent running for president), Obama didn’t acquire the legislative “skills” Lyndon Johnson did during ten years as a member of the Senate leadership. If the Democrats had wanted someone who would be effective moving legislation, they picked the wrong guy. They picked a solid candidate who could excite crowds and raise money. They didn’t choose someone who could make good decisions and move bills.
What’s the lesson for Republicans in 2012? Simply put, the goal of the nominating process is not to pick a good candidate; it’s to pick a good president. The problem with political folks is we tend to imagine the presidential campaign as the Super Bowl of politics, when it isn’t even opening day.
All right, you want a name? Sarah Palin. I’m a pro-choice, pro-gay-marriage agnostic ex-Democrat, and I’d vote for her in a heartbeat. It’s something you didn’t mention: character, character character! Give me a candidate with moral clarity and sincerity.
Obama’s empty suit of rethoric is fathering his phony job,all bogus and baloney
That is the one thing that drove me nuts during the last election. It did not seem to matter to most Americans (or at least a clear majority) that they were electing a man who never ran ANYTHING! He never ran a city, a state, or even a major corporation. He was never in the military and he certainly never achieved a high rank or commanded a large number of military personnel. He had some major problems with the people he associated with (Bill Ayers, Reverand Wright, to name a few) and he spent roughly half his time in elected office running for some other office rather than passing any meaningful legislation. And people are now surprised that this guy can’t deliver on his promise of “Hope and Change?” You’ve got to be kidding me. Elections DO have consequences. Maybe this time in 2010 and 2012 the American public will be paying attention and will throw this bum (along with his minions) out of office.
Before getting all worked up about how to beat Obama the voters need to gut the extensive infrastructures that the liberal Democrat Party has in place in every town, city, county and state across our country.
That is the power that put Obama into office in the first place and what keeps him there now. For everything decent, good and smart Sarah Palin is, it is also the machine that will grind her up and spit her out for fish bait in nothing flat.
Ron Paul? Why not start 2010 out with Ross Perot and a bunch of MS Power Point charts?
Mush mouthed willow-in-the-wind Lindsay Graham?
Baton-less “leader” Boehner?
Bozo get-along MacCain — son of a son of a son of an admiral or senator?
Newtie the Neutered?
Pawlenty who never opened his pie hole until it was popular to do so?
and other cheesy trust fund babies that never take their gloves off.
The GOP put up Bozo in 2008 because THERE WAS NO ONE ELSE.
The Demogoguic Party put up Obama because THERE WAS NO ONE ELSE.
I’d vote for females without brains before I’d EVER vote for the eunuchs of the GOP.
Your home and kids need protection. Do you buy a male or a female German Shepherd?
Another screening question: Does the candidate actually love America, support her founding documents and intend to take the oath of office (as opposed to saying the oath of office, which is an entirely different kettle of fish).
Oh please, give us a break! Obama was neither a skilled campaigner nor a solid candidate but a token guy who was groomed and marketed and handed the nomination of the Democratic party on a plate purely to “make history” and damn the consequences (like having Chicago running the country when even the Olympic Committee was not willing to take that risk with their precious Games!).
The MSM covered up all Obama’s many blunders, bloopers and lack of experience, which were clear evidence of his total unsuitability for the job of president. It viciously attacked and destroyed his opponents and refused to do any indepth investigation of either his academic record or political career (such as they may be said to exist). And despite this, in the end, he only won the nomination thanks to the muscle of the totally-biased “superdelegates”. Now his campaign “skills” are being revealed in the White House as ordinary bully-boy, Chicago tactics, which the media gave him carte blanche to use during the campaign while character-assassinating any opponent who tried to even up the score. And we have all seen what happens to his so-called “polished speaking skills” when he tries to wing it without his teleprompter! Any other graduate of Reverend Wright’s preacher school could probably do as good a job.
OK, so now he is the president (God forfend!) and is owed a token amount of deference as the latest holder of the office, but please stick to the facts and stop rewriting history!
Whomever is elected in the next few cycles needs to understand one thing: American is mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore, “it” being ignorant of the wishes of the people.
I predict a new era of politics wherein the public is far more aware and engaged in the operation of the country. Long-time legislators such as Barney Frank and Chris Dodd will be turned out in favor of new, fresh faces with common sense solutions to our current problems, instead of the partisan hackery which substitutes for reasoned debate and effective action. The internet will enable a much more informed public to keep their representatives in line. Political activism will become mainstream, no longer the sole arena of fringe special interest groups. Unwieldy representatives will find their life miserable, forced to explain to their consitutents why they were defied and ignored.
We will return America to the people, those to whom it rightfully belongs.
Stand by for the inevitable avalanche of comments proclaiming “My preferred candidate has all three of those qualities, and all the other pretenders to the throne don’t,” or other words to that effect.
However, one point that you somewhat gloss over, Mr. Graham. If one is not electable, one’s ability to govern is somewhat moot, since one will never be in a position to govern. In this case, it’s not a matter of either they’re electable or they’re good at governing, it’s more a case of each one enhancing and assisting the other.
Obama has, in a single year, caused more deep, debilitating damage to the United States than any predecessor. It is unthinkable that he has 3 more years in office. Our only hope is to retake both houses of congress. This seems unlikely given the lack of leadership currently displayed by Republicans.
While this may seem unimportant, I think it is significant: This President has aged more in one year than any other President I have witnessed. He now knows he is failing. The tool he has relied upon all his life, the ability to verbally convince another, has been blunted to the point of disuse. He has no other tool. As we Navy pilots used to quip: “You don’t ever want to run out of Airspeed, Altitude and Ideas at the same time.” Obama has.
This is scary. Desperate, incompetent, dishonest, unprincipled, discouraged and clueless people make bad choices. May God help us.
Does the candidate have the ability to make executive decisions?
As Graham aptly points out, Obama had almost no executive experience when he became President. His operation of the Chicago branch of the Annenberg Challenge ended in failure as the charity withdrew funding because the Chicago operation did nothing to improve student performance. This information was readily available to voters prior to the election, yet it’s importance was missed by most Obama supporters. They bought the romantic image of the man and not the substance.
Obama has shown himself to be suspect in the decision making process. He has appointed numerous suspect or incompetent individuals to executive or advisory positions. Obviously, Janet Napolitano has not been up to handleing the responsibility of Homeland Security. She blew the flight 253 incident and showed she was fixated upon right wing terrorists, not Muslim terrorists.
Van Jones, Giethner, Mark Lloyd and Eric Holder are just a few of the other executive appointments that reveal Obama’s inability to exercise good judgement in picking competent people to advise him and run agencies. Holder is particularly troubleing, his decision to try admited terrorist ring leaders in civilian court is the worst decision by a Commmander in Chief and his AG in my lifetime and shows complete lack of understanding and judgement.
We elect Presidents to exercise sound judgement and make wise decisions as events unfold during their Presidency. All the warning signs were there that Obama would have great difficulty exercising this responsibility properly. Because of his lack of experience and ideological predisposition Obama was ill equiped to exhibit sound decision making as an executive. The results have been predictably poor for the welfare of the country.
Obama is a romantic, he is not a leader.
Ah yes, another new year, but the same old right fantasies. Obama was a laughably better candidate than any of your Republican stooges in 2008 and unless the fabric of the universe changes drastically, this will be the same case in 2012. The economy is on the mend, the war on terror is back to being a war on terror, some serious health care reform is finally on the table, and overall grown-ups are finally back in charge after 8 yrs of Animal House “leadership”.
pelaut
I tend to buy female mixed breeds. Females settle down sooner than males and mixed breeds always seem to train more easily and have always seemed to be a half tick smarter than the more costly pure-breeds….same seems true for politicians. Right now we have a bunch of expensively educated, pampered, blue-bloods running our country in the ground because ‘they’ think they know more about ruling over us ‘mutts’ than we know about running our own lives.
President Obama has no leadership skills, no character, no morality; on the other hand, he is a hard Leftist incompetent ideologue & demamgogue who cannot function without a teleprompter for the smallest of speeches, yet even then he still screws up. He is a cypher determined to vote “present” on the most difficult of choices. As POTUS, Obama cannot vote “present”; he must take a stand–besides to the fringe left–since they are a fraction of most of the Americans that make up the nation.
President Obama does not want to govern. He wants to rule. He wants to be a dictator. The problem is he is not a ruler or dictator, but POTUS; he must govern. He must lead. He has nowhere else to go.
Yet, in all of his political life, Obama has always played it safe by voting “present.” He is determined to keep voting “present” to his & the Democrats detriment.
I predicted Obama would be radioactive to the other Democrats come the 2010 elections; however, I did not expect the collapse to be so sudden & swift when he kept pushing ObamaCare this past Summer of 2009. True, the Congressional Democrats in Nancy Pelosi & the feckless Senator Harry Reid crammed ObamaCare, despite ignoring the Tea Party protests not once, but 3 different times. A shockwave is coming in 2010 that is going to wipe out virtually all Democrats up for re-election this year which will further weaken the already meek President Obama in November. Amnesty 2.0 will hasten the Democrats demise, although the Dems are calculating the Republicans will be split. I don’t think so given they have no real leadership at the moment. It’s all on the Democrats hands.
Expect many more retirements as another Blue Dog has bitten the dust:
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/74007-dem-recruits-continue-to-head-for-the-exits
The Democrats will be torn apart in the coming year over ObamaCare, Amnesty 2.0, Card Check, etc al as a result of Obama’s Communism he is trying to bring to America. The mask is off & the rose is dead. Where did all the Hope & Change go?
Chantal writes:
“Oh please, give us a break! Obama was neither a skilled campaigner nor a solid candidate but a token guy who was groomed and marketed and handed the nomination of the Democratic party on a plate purely to “make history” and damn the consequences (like having Chicago running the country when even the Olympic Committee was not willing to take that risk with their precious Games!).”
Good points. The Democrats and the MSM failed their duty to offer and support a serious candidate. Both supported a frivolous candidacy and now we have a frivolous president. Both the Democrats and the MSM should be charged with treason.
Troll Alert!
BC is a troll. Do not respond to it. Axelrod will pay him anyway.
Chantal writes:
“Oh please, give us a break! Obama was neither a skilled campaigner nor a solid candidate but a token guy who was groomed and marketed and handed the nomination of the Democratic party on a plate purely to “make history” and damn the consequences (like having Chicago running the country when even the Olympic Committee was not willing to take that risk with their precious Games!).”
You are right on the money. The Democrats and the MSM nominated and supported a remarkably unqualified candidate. Now we have a frivolous president. The Dems and the MSM should be arrested for the treasonous fifth column that they are.
Our country is in a mess and a professional politician for a president will not help us out of it. “In my book” being only a long-term member of this pay-to-play, special interest congress is a big disqualifier, Rinos need not apply. America must have a leader, not a player. It’s obvious America need s a balanced individual with real American values and integrity who has outstanding executive and legislative skills, demonstrated business experience and displays financial sense to lead our once great nation away from the abyss we are fast approaching. Come on American people, surely even the most uniformed citizen must see that in the important selection of a president associations do indeed matter and strong decision making abilities are a required quality, not optional. America can’t afford another sly “what’s-in-it-for me” smooth operator, enraptured with his own image whose strings appear to be pulled by a fascist agenda. The stakes are simply too high and the times too serious to fall for another “American idol” illusionist candidate spouting platitudes who continues to play at or around on America’s dime. Unfortunately we have 3 more years of this dangerous charade, one that the “feel good” majority chose. This year’s 2010 elections are crucial for America’s survival. My ancestors did not come to America to re-create a mediocre socialist Europe, or third world whatever or any other fascist regime out there. There are plenty of them already.
Wake up. Pay attention. Cool is out, good strong leadership is in!
It’s time for a re-dedication to true American values, thinking that made America great, it’s about high quality, strength, innovation, merit, prosperity, self-respect, real accomplishment, common sense, integrity, responsibility, freedom, etc. Our declining culture, moreover lowering of standards has contributed greatly to putting us on a path to be easily overwhelmed by the tide of the un-American fascism that is now lapping at our doorsteps.
Fellow Americans, are you content to just watch our once great, prosperous, free and innovative country disappear? If you need a preview of what’s to come, think about Detroit and other large urban blights around America controlled by the same mindset,infested with corruption and nonexistent standards of the people currently in power now …it’s a dead end and definitely a prescription for a third world result. Do we really want our country transformed into a complete freedom-less “nanny state”? Just consider having every aspect of your life controlled by an oppressive government. Could you run your personal household and finances in the same childish and illogical way this administration is running our country and succeed?
Next time you vote…..remember, a vote is a terrible thing to waste! An un-informed, visceral vote for a smooth talking “feel good” candidate is a waste.
Looking towards the next presidential election, I consider that Jim DeMint, Senator SC, is outstanding in both his principles and his ability to understand & articulate complicated issues.
I was just reading of a more immediate concern that has happened quietly in the background, an Executive Order signed by Barack Obama on December 17, 2009.
The implications of granting Interpol Immunity from American Law.
HERE
and
HERE
Ultimately, a detailed verbal explanation is due the American public from the President of the United States detailing why an international law enforcement arm assisting a court we are not a signatory to has been elevated above our Constitution upon our soil.
–What’s the lesson for Republicans in 2012? Simply put, the goal of the nominating process is not to pick a good candidate; it’s to pick a good president. –
Spot on. I was for Guiliani in 2008 who is a proven leader as U.S. District Attorney and a mayor who turned around New York City, something most people didn’t think possible. Alas, for the country, the nomination went to McCain, who the MSM stated was the only candidate who could be Hillary or Oblama. (The MSM turned on McCain as soon as it was between him and their black, left-wing radical hero)
So Guiliani would make a good President. So would Palin, who has proven herself by doing a great job running a town, a state and getting a natural gas pipeline built — a project which had been stalled for 30 years.
The problem is, as always, is the MSM. The MSM made Obama — the only way a man of no experience, no accomplishments other than getting elected, and unknown background could get elected. If not him, it would have been Hillary — a women who again has no experience, a shady background, who is a celebrity only because of her husband.
But the MSM has such a powerful influence on the electorate, the vast majority of whom do not read seriously, and get their news and understanding from disinformation provided by Katie Couric and the Washington Post or Saturday Night Live skits.
Ronald Reagan had no executive experience until he took over the helm of California. He had something more important. Let’s call it leadership ability. Sarah Palin has that, plus some executive experience. True, she needs to acquire gravitas, but that is like the seasoning you add to the soup stock. She already possesses the authentic ingredients. The first commentator nailed it with the word “character.”
You have to laugh at some of the commentary from the Marxists who come to visit and offer their thoughts, such as they are.
They advocate that everything is cool when 58% of the American people are firmly against both congressional healthcare reform proposals and votes have to be purchased from supporting Senators because the proposal is so politically unpopular.
They ignore the fact that their own President has acknowledged the success of the surge strategy in defeating the insurgency in Iraq while also ignoring that Iraq is now the first freely elected arab republic in the 7000 year history of the middle east.
Some of them delude themselves that the economy is getting better when unemployment has gone up by 3 points since they took over the executive branch, the national debt has doubled in a year, and foreign governments no longer buy America’s debt due to the profligate spending by a government exclusively controled by Democrats. All indicators show that the private sector is not growing, only a socialist could believe that is good economic news and celebrate such success.
It’s pretty evident that the amateurs are now in charge, as terrorists become more emboldened to attack Americans on American soil, kill our soldiers at recruiting stations and on bases,and attempt to blow up air liners in American airspace.The amateurs react to said bombing attempt by assuring us that the system is working. They also assure us that these attacks are not being done by terrorists, but by extremists.
It’s also obvious that the amateurs are in charge when the Justice Department schedules civilian trials for admited terrorist ring leaders after Senator Obama was a chief sponsor of the legislation establishing the Military tribunal system specifically established to try said killers.
It’s further evident that the amateurs have taken control when the Commander in Chief bows to the Emperor of Japan thus insulting the Chinese, the chief creditors of the US.
Yup, the amateurs are fully in charge when they told us that there would be no lobbiests in the Administration and then waived in 30, and when they promised us that health care negotiations would be on C-SPAN, then produced a bill only 3 Senators had seen 72 hours before it’s members voted on the bill.
You sure can tell that the amateurs are completely in charge. So can most Americans when only 44% of them approve of their President 11 months into his term, the lowest approval rating in the history of modern Presidents this early in a presidency.
Keep up the the good work and self delusion liberal socialists, you won’t even know what hit you on November 2nd 2010.
Nice article. My only comment would be that it would be a disaster if the GOP nominated a general to be President. As a student of history, it seems to me that with perhaps one exception (George Washington) every general who has served as President has been a negative choice when it comes to Constitutional adherence. ‘Generally speaking’ (sorry for the pun), generals are decisive leaders with little patience for the federalism & decentralized governance demanded by the Constitution. Also, generals are, by & large, not idealists or visionaries. Indeed, George Washington, while possessed of many excellent characteristics, also fell into the categories I just mentioned, being a Federalist & annoyed by the decentralization stipulated in the then newly-minted Constitution.
Of course, it seems that few candidates (with the possible exception of the ‘quixotic’ & unelectable Rep. Paul) are committed to Constitutionalism & States’ Rights– which are, inarguably, the defining essence of our system of government.
Just my 2 cents.
Yes, character is supreme, and Sarah Palin has it in spades.
When Bill O’Reilly leans in in his (several times repeated on tee vee) lengthy interview of Palin and asks words to the effect:
“Do you think you have the right stuff to do the job of President of the US ?”
…it should be cause for great cynical laughter.
O’Reilly didn’t deign to ask the same condescending question when Barack Obama (finally) agreed to an interview with him during the campaign.
(that was the interview when Obama characterized the surge in Iraq as a “resounding success”. Obama had been a critic of Iraq, of course, for the duration, and voted against the surge as a US Senator.)
Stack Palin’s accomplishments as mayor & governor against Barack’s complete non-record of anything, and there is no contest.
He was nominated and elected President because (1) his opponents (Hillary Clinton and John McCain) had created for themselves negatives which to many voters meant anyone else but them; and 2) he was articulate, promising things which no one really believed but wanted to believe. So he got his chance. But what we see now is that the President is nothing more than talk. He is naive in the field of international affairs. Leaders of other countries, e.g. Russia, Iran, North Korea, and the organized terrorists pay no attention to him. In fact they challenge him and all the President does is talk and worse, he bows profoundly to foreign leaders, an act of obeisance if there ever was one. On domestic matters he is dominated by the leaders in Congress. He has had no real input in the legislation pending in Congress, but he the agent of the Congressional leaders in “conving
Very important post by # 19 Tanstaafl
go to his link and read and re-read this article.
Why did Obama quietly give Interpol Immunity from American Law?
I think the Republicans with the Tea Party people need to focus on the mid-terms this year. Obama is already to sacrifice the Blue Dogs since he thinks like all liberal Socialists that they will be replaced by Democrats this coming November. Not going to happen. The Blue Dogs are going to be replaced by Republicans. And even many Leftists are going down such is the case of Barbara Boxer, Chris Dodd, & Harry Reid…
TO: All
RE: Heh
Does the name “Sarah Palin” ring any bells?
She WAS the successful governor of a state. Just like Reagan.
Happy New Year,
Chuck(le)
[Politics is such a troublesome activity that I advise all of my friends to stay out of it. -- Thomas Jefferson]
Character, character, character and common sense – go to UPS and you can track the pair of pants you bought, but $50 billion later, you can’t make sure one guy doesn’t get on an airplane. I think, initially, people expected this h/c thing to be efficient, smart and small, not some 2000 page monstrosity sitting in Max Baucus’ desk drawer for 40 years, that turns the h/c system into a k car from the 1970s. All this, at a time when we are all being judged in our jobs by speed and efficiency.
There is something even more important than “governing” and that is being RiGHT……Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul had the right ideas,but were rejected by the populace that gave us Bush,Clinton and Obama….Sarah Palin has alot going for her,but the GOP needs to start listening to it’s libertarian wing if it is to make inroads into young and minority voters.
TO: All
RE: NoGenerals
Is this guy a liar or an idiot or both?
He seems to have forgotten General Eisenhower. And I guess he doesn’t think much of General Andrew Jackson.
Then there are other military men who have served in the Oval Office:
Theodore Roosevelt
Harry S. Truman
“Student of History”? How so?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....]
The concept of “electability” makes sense only if one assumes the electorate to be able of no more than robotic behavior. Was Jimmy Carter electable? Was Ronald Reagan electable? The supreme electability of BHO is what made him the most historic ectoplasm ever in the white house.
In 2012 the primaries will be more dramatic than ever, and they will truly determine who is “electable” if there is such a thing. I am amused by the argument that says that Sarah Palin is “unelectable”. What a prophecy!
Ron Paul is my President.
Having a mindless, unhealthy agenda regardless of what any evidence or the people say (well, for Democrats, anyway).
Just visit any political blog, select an article, and read the comments section. You will find that the “noisemakers” are out in force. “Noisemakers” are folks employed by Leftist organizations, such as Axelrod’s people, to post comments for the purpose of derailing any actual conversation on the website.
And the message is out. The Christmas Bomber can’t be bad because the Shoe Bomber happened on Bush’s watch. Maybe they are actually this stupid, Axelrod included. But the comparison flies in the face of the facts.
The Shoe Bomber was caught in 2002. When he was caught, the Bush White House had the pedal to the metal as it ramped up the war on terror. Afghanistan had been invaded. Thousands of Taliban, radical Muslim terrorists, had been killed and the Bush government was putting in place wire tap measures that would save many lives. IN OTHER WORDS, it was clear that Bush was doing his best to defeat the jihad against the West.
THE DIFFERENCE TODAY is that Obama has no energy for the war on terror and, in fact, tells us all the time that he doubts that radical Muslim terrorists exist. We don’t trust Obama to lead the war on terror. We are afraid. That is why the Christmas Bomber event has a popular effect that is totally different from the Shoe Bomber event. We fear that our sheriff is gun shy. Worse, we fear that he cannot bring himself to do what is necessary, kill radical Islamic terrorists. We know he cannot bring himself to execute KSM, though he has the legal right to do so. KSM should be turned over to Ms. Burlingame whose brother died on 9/11.
Our fears are multiplied when Obama releases 100+ captured terrorists to Iran. That is nutty.
IN SUMMARY, the popular response to the handling of the Christmas by Obama, Napolitano, and the latter’s minions is so very negative because the tone of the Obama administration tells us that Obama will become even lesss agressive in prosecuting the war on terror and in protecting Americans from their declared enemies, radical Muslim terrorists.
General Zachary Taylor
General Ulysses S. Grant
General Theodore Roosevelt
Secretary of the Navy Franklin D. Roosevelt
Kennedy, Carter, and Bush 1 were officer veterans.
just off top of the head.
#19 Tanstaafl,
Yes, I too believe that Holder and Obama might attempt to subject the USA to the International Criminal Court. (Giving INTERPOL immunity in the USA is the first step.) That should occasion a constitutional crisis of gargantuan proportions. Leave it to Holder to try, via INTERPOL, to arrest George W. Bush. (TALK ABOUT AMATEURS!!!)
Everyone please check out post #19 and click on the urls.
Come to think of it, Jimmy Carter was commander of a nuclear submarine. So, if not an admiral, he was at least a Navy Captain with a “Command Pin.”
In traditional terms, a navy captain with a command pin is the equivalent of a full colonel or “bird colonel” in the army. With regard to the respect afforded the uniform, a bird colonel is actually the lowest rank among general officers.
Theo Goodwin at 35,
You mean people like BC, Moho, Alice, Now and Then, and Vivo? Are those the noisemakers you are refering to?
Your analysis outlined above is spot on, except I actually think we may suffer an incident that will force Obama to react aggressively in order to counter the perception post incident that he has the testicular fortitude of a puppy. The public is very unhappy with his decision to try KSM in civilian court and is increasingly realizing that the decision to close Guantonomo is a mistake. He looks very soft.
Al queda surely smells blood in the water after their near miss on Christmas. If our security apparatus fails to stop an attack, the pressure to retaliate will literally be unbearable for Obama. He will be forced to react, and his instinct to employ the justice department will be swept away in the pressure created by the perception of his incompetence. He doesn’t seem to understand that by acting aggressively as a preliminary matter he would give himself more latitude if an incident were to occur.
I trust our security apparatus will flush out any attempt to attack by the enemy. They are no doubt collectively on alert after the events of the 25th. If something happens, Obama will be forced to react very forcefully. Let’s trust that vigilance will pay off.
Thank you, folks, for proving my earlier prediction at least partially true. It may not be an avalanche yet, but we sure do have the predictable folks proclaiming “Candidate X has what we need!”
38. No he wasn’t, he was a LT who dropped out of nuclear power school and resigned his commission after his father died. I don’t know why he decided against switching over to nukes after his father died, as the Navy phased out diesel subs, but Carter was never a Captain.
31. Andrew Jackson was a great fiscal conservative, but he wasn’t a Constitutionalist by a long shot. He disregarded a treaty and a Supreme Court ruling that he had to abide by the treaty in order to do the popular thing and evict Native tribes from their lands. The Constitution’s supremacy clause states that treaties trump statutory law.
The more troll activity means the more the Obama Administration is scared to death about the coming shockwave in 2010, despite his ACORN goons to try & steal elections. Obama, being the shiftless spineless fool he is, will destroy himself by his own vain political demise in large due to his own inability to govern.
The key to America’s political future is the Tea Party movement: ie, these people MUST become involved in very aspect of their local elections. I am sure that the Obama Democrats will pull out every trick, using ACORN, and SEIU, and all the Chicago type dirt to stuff ballot boxes and slander the opposition.
This is so important to the world. And the current mess is the direct result of citizens’ lack of attention to the ballot box itself. It is no wonder that the Thugs have taken over.
#38 Theo
Carter resigned his Navy commission as a Lieutenant. While he had trained as an engineering officer for the second nuke sub Seawolf, he never saw service aboard a nuclear submarine.
#36 Theo
Theodore Roosevelt left the Army as a Colonel.
No big deal. Just want to keep the record straight.
“…if all is going well in the nation, Obama will be re-elected in a landslide.” If the Republicans run my cat, which is wooden, Obama might get re-elected, but there are NO circumstances under which he could win in a landslide. Electorates may have short memories but unless the current administration jails 25 million conservatives, it is impossible for Obama to win in a landslde.
What a disastrous line to ruin an otherwise cogent column.
Looking for someone with brains, someone with a great track record in his home state, someone who is thoughtful about our national security and is not afraid to call a spade a spade, someone who knows knows what good health care for everyone entails without bankrupting the nation, someone with a science background who is not fooled by the global ‘warming’ politics? Think about Judd Gregg,the Senator from New Hampshire. He does not talk B.S.
I’ll be campaigning for someone who is honest (no, really!) and has unending love for this country. If Ron Paul runs, I hope many Americans will take a second look at this modern day Jefferson. I didn’t look into him until my primary season was over, but I hope I get a chance to correct my mistakes in 2012. 12on Paul for President. 12on Paul for the Constitution and Rule of Law.
I guess the author has failed to notice that one of Paul’s 20 yr old quixotic ideas, auditing the Federal reserve, looks like it’s passing through congress. It’s not Paul’s fault it took that long for everyone else to realize he’s been right all along.
We have a leader but few are paying attention. We are going to need someone who is more than charming, speaks well, and everyone loves. We need a leader to unwind this mess Obama and the Dems have created. Mitt Romney is the man but overlooked because he is not a “personality”- haven’t you had enough of that? We need competence, intelligence, capability, and principles not just another cheerleader like Obama except a “right wing” cheerleader. I love Palin but for heaven’s sake, not as President. I hope she keeps doing what she is doing and help us get a capable Congress and President. I am on the committee for our local teaparties and their idea is that we find someone who we really really “like” that would make a good President.
We have to give up on the high school mentality if we intend to recover this country and return to a proper economic, security, and social balance. That will not be easy.
Romney is just too boring I guess – after this last year, a bit of boring with getting something done may be welcome.
Grosskie,
I know little of Judd Gregg. Though will research the man.
I like JC Watts as well. He does bring up race issues time to time which IMO takes away from the discussion. All in all a successful businessman, religious man, college, pro (albeit Canadian Football League) career and ‘conservative’ in many respects..
I think Steve Forbes and Sarah Palin would make a great ticket. Forbes has known conservative principles, knows a lot of good people, runs a business, knows economics, understands the workings of government. Unfortunately, he is not a pretty face which is an important characteristic for too many voters. It is not what you know and can do but how you look.
Serving as VP with Forbes would be good experience for Sarah and a logical stepping stone to the presidency. She’s young and the addditional experience would be a plus.
#7 Chantal sees the fool clearly. Why do pjm writers keep referring to Obama’s overwhelming charisma and extraordinary speaking skills? They must be kidding. Without his teleprompter he sounds just like an uh, uh, uh sports star being interviewed after the game. Give me a break! And he has absolutely no charisma. He is an egotistical boor who could care less about anyone but himself. The magic has worn off because it was fake. Axelrod is running the show and he is a drip. Did they think that would not come through at some point?
Palin is it for 2012 as things stand now, but, that’s what primaries are for. Obama will fair poorly in 2010 and worse in 2012. America has atoned for 400 years of slavery by electing a feckless Marxist, now we’re ready for renewed prosperity, liberty, and freedom to succeed.
It seems things have gone from bad to worse for Obama…look for Michelle to come up pregnant to smooth and soothe the idiots on the left …they’ll all get giddie..and forget he’s a loser..aaawwww,
To the various persons suggesting candidates,
I respect certain qualities about Gregg, Paul and Romney. Gregg is above average in intelligence and his instincts are, for the most part, excellent. About as exciting as the federal register, but competent.
Paul has a great sense of fiscal responsibility and how our monetary policy vis a vis our competitors should operate; unfortunately his understanding of international responsibilities is limited.
Romney is a puzzel. He is an obvious business success….who introduced a horrible socialist health care solution to the state of MA. Wow.
I introduce these and want to hear why I am wrong:
John Kyle
Jim Demint
Mike Pence
Paul Ryan
Tom Coburn
Please criticize these nominees.
“The Obama debacle has laid bare for the American people the need for an experienced, capable executive with a successful track record. The GOP now must provide one.”
Problem is the Repubs don’t have any either. And it’s generational. Sorry Boomers, you just can’t cut it.
Let’s not forget that Judd Gregg voted for treasury secretary Geithner, apparently voted for tax-payer funded embryonic stem cell research and against the federal marriage amendment (I would be open to the strategic reasons for the latter).
Jim Demint seems solid to me. I have not found the perfect candidate and anybody who has is blind to faults in their leaders. I don’t blame supporters for downplaying or minimizing those faults, but not to admit them shows a blind loyalty.
Demint may be the best alternative to Mike Huckabee, who I still think would make the best president. I think he occasionally has leaned left on a few things and that bothers me, but he is not the liberal portrayed by his opponents in 2008. I also think he is moving further to the right and that is good.
The big problem here is that if your candidate doesn’t follow all of the main areas of conservatism (strong on defense, strong on social issues – guns, abortion, homosexuality; and strong defense) you will likely say that is does not matter. But especially on the social issues. I want a candidate who is consistent and whose errors are redeemable or not systemic.
For example, Rick Santorum would also make a great candidate, but how in the world did he think it was wise to support Arlen Specter against Pat Toomey, in the GOP primary a few years ago? This is a serious question of ones political and governing approach.
Mitt “I love mandates” Romney not only introduced Romneycare but promised huge bailouts to Detroit during January of 2008, long before bailouts were cool among Dems (and Bush, sad to say)
You can keep chanting, but he’s going to win the next presidential election.
The health care bill will pass in some form, it will be implemented, the world will not end. In the meantime, the US economy is actually picking up after the FUBAR left by the previous administration – and as long as people are getting back to work well before the next election (and they will be), people will just be relieved and obama will sail past the economic downturn like it never happened. The dems will probably take a hit in the mid-terms, but historically that’s just what happens, and it’s why he’s pushing so hard to get the major reforms done early (rather than sitting on his hands and waiting for a reason to bomb someone).
Despite the noise from the right, despite the disaster he inherited, obama has actually gone ahead and attempted to do what he said he’d do (and which, you seem to forget, most americans voted him in to do). He will have achieved a lot of it, and that’s pretty astonishing given the circumstances. He can take another bite when the dems take back control of congress after the reps make fools of themselves.
And here’s the good bit – once he’s got the big stuff done early, he can settle back and promote stability and growth for two full years before he next faces an election.
By 2012, the reps will still be trying to work out who they’re actually trying to represent. Palin’s selection made a lot of traditional (i.e. not jesus-based) conservatives a bit upset. I wonder how many of those obama could win over, just by being sensible?
Matthew says:
“You can keep chanting, but he’s going to win the next presidential election.”
Sounds like Saddam saying over and over: “Kuwait is Iraq’s 19th province” even while Stormin Norman was entering Baghdad! And
like the nutroot mantra “he’s going to win the nomination” while Hillary was kicking Obama’s butt (and now we know why – they knew the DNC was going to steal it for him).
Sure Obama is going to win. The more toxic elements of Obamacare and the other legislative horrors won’t come into effect until 2014 and in 2012 you can bet the MSM will be on the job covering his screwups and eviscerating his opponents as usual. So if you call that winning, good luck!
“And here’s the good bit – once he’s got the big stuff done early, he can settle back and promote stability and growth for two full years before he next faces an election.”
Sure, who needs a leader in the White House anyway? Obama has proved that all a make-believe president has to do is “sit back and promote” after Congress has done the heavy lifting and the world has written him off and gone about its business.
Let’s just hope the US will survive long enough for an election to take place.
Matthew, ObamaCare is being passed, despite the people not wanting it; elective representatives are meant to represent the people–not themselves or their own Leftist interests. Therefore, expect a lasting shockwave to wipeout the Democrats from power & remain in the wilderness for the next few decades for their overreach, power grabs, & political blood lust. When the politicians don’t listen to the people, the politicians pay the price–including Obama. Many long time Democrats will not be re-elected in 2010. People do not want ObamaCare.
President Obama comes off as detached, immature, & self-absorbed; he too will pay a big price in 2010 & 2012. ObamaCare will be an albratross around his administration until it is repealed. The same is true for Porkulus; he is outright lying about it Porkulus’ “saved & creatd” jobs nonsense since unemployment is at double digits!
Ya’ll are wrong.
The Usurper was elected because the stock market crashed in early October. After that Alfred E. Newman would have won the election. Some are claiming he did. Look at the polling. Obama was steady losing ground. He went from a double digit lead to within the matgin of error in about 2 months. If that trend line had continued, McCain would have squeaked out a narrow win.
That is despite the Donks stuffing ballot boxes, rigging voting machines, voting the dead, bribing judges and all the other illegal shenanigans they pulled.
There was something funny about that market crash too. The SEC has the records and once Chairman Schapiro returns to the street to ply her trade, those records will be examined for fraud and market manipulation.
Meanwhile, those that think the economy is improving need to lay off the koolaid. Those ‘signs’ are not improvement, but a classic warning of a “W” depression. It will start to unravel in January-Febuary when those temps from christmas can’t find work and the retail outlets that managed to empty some shelves over Christmas cannot get a loan to restock them. Anybody that is still in the market needs to unload now before what’s left of the bottom falls out.
President Bush’s much maligned 5% unemployment and 13,000 Dow looks pretty good today. It will look even better by April.
Watch FOX this Sunday at 8 EST.
Far from not being a personality, Mitt Romney is nothing but personality, and that’s the problem. Romney talks a great game, but it’s all an act. He’s not as bad as Obama, but he’s a lot like John Kerry.
56. The main problem with that list of candidates is the same problem Duncan Hunter had- very few people have any idea who any of them are. The only one I’ve heard of is Jim Demint. That said, they should run anyway- not because they’ll win, but because they need to make an intro run and lose in the primaries to set themselves up for another try eight years later. Very rarely will Republicans nominate a candidate who hasn’t run for President before. So, we nominate Huckabee or Palin in 2012, and then we get some of these guys names out there as potential successors.
Obama has had a very good first year, almost year. compare to anyone and he is doing very well. the GOP has only tried to block everything Obama does, and sems out of touch with the public. now it is expected that the GOP will gain some seats int he midterms, this is normal, but it won’t be earth shattering, and until the GOP can find a purpose and voice beyond blocking progress or the sharah palin rush Limbaugh dumbed down hysterical negativity, the GOP has no chance at all to regain the presidency. despite what the gop echo chamber tells itself everyday, Obama is popular, doing a great job, and he will be re-elected. remember the people saying he is doing badly, are the same people who said he would never be elected in the first place, these people are just like the bush hatters,m they cannot see what is real and what is only in their own minds.
H. Forrest,
Are you out of your mind?
Palin the Veep for Forbes?
You get one day to post here a formal apology for such nonsense.
Sebastian Shaw:
“Matthew, ObamaCare is being passed, despite the people not wanting it”
Rubbish. “The People” have been wanting a sensible national healthcare reform for decades. Most americans VOTED for obama – they knew full well that health care was top of his list. I suggest to you that when the media stops shouting a pack of lies about what’s in the bill (death panels are back again this week, it seems), “The People” will actually be disappointed that it didn’t go further.
Chantal:
“Sounds like Saddam saying over and over: “Kuwait is Iraq’s 19th province” even while Stormin Norman was entering Baghdad!”
I don’t know what version of reality you inhabit – but stormin norman never entered baghdad.
“like the nutroot mantra “he’s going to win the nomination” while Hillary was kicking Obama’s butt (and now we know why – they knew the DNC was going to steal it for him)”
Actually, I thought hillary was the way to bet. But that doesn’t matter – obama isn’t just a candidate anymore, he’s the incumbent. And he’s sure as heck not running against hillary.
“Sure Obama is going to win. The more toxic elements of Obamacare”
WHAT toxic elements?
“and in 2012 you can bet the MSM will be on the job covering his screwups and eviscerating his opponents as usual”
Yeah, right. Another little problem you seem to have with reality.
“And here’s the good bit – once he’s got the big stuff done early, he can settle back and promote stability and growth for two full years before he next faces an election.”
“Sure, who needs a leader in the White House anyway?”
There were times between 2001 and 2009 when the US would have been better off without one.
“Obama has proved that all a make-believe president has to do is “sit back and promote” after Congress has done the heavy lifting and the world has written him off and gone about its business”
I see you misunderstood me. You might not understand how it works, but the president runs a little thing called “the federal government”. When I say “promote stability and growth”, I don’t mean “sitting back” (your words) and doing nothing.
“Let’s just hope the US will survive long enough for an election to take place”
Oh, you poor thing. Jon stewart said it best – conservatives seem to have decided that “tyranny” is defined as “losing an election”. Yes, the US will survive – and it will fare much better than it did under bush.
“President Obama comes off as detached, immature, & self-absorbed”
Actually, he comes off as focused on doing what he’s set out to do.
Actually, he comes off as focused on doing what he’s set out to do.–Matthew
Which is vote “present,” obfuscate, & enact his Socialist politics which in turn shows Obama to be immature, emotionally detached, & self-absorbed. How many times does Obama put himself in his speeches & the focus is always him? All the time. For Obama, the world does not exist outside of ObamaLand. Reality says otherwise.
Matthew, you just fell right into that. Like Obama, you said nothing with your words.
Well, I guess you really demolished me there, Matthew, especially the correction about Stormin Norman not entering Baghdad. I am truly humbled by your point scoring skills!
But you know, you sound more desperate to convince YOURSELF about Obama rather than the people on this site. I think deep down you are pretty gutted that he hasn’t turned out to be the wonder boy you voted for, but of course you could never admit that, so I guess your ad hominem attack on me is your way of coping.
As they say, love stinks!
Better get used to it – there are three, long more years to go.
Chantal:
“I am truly humbled by your point scoring skills”
If you’re going to rely on cheap rhetorical point-scoring yourself, then I can only suggest doing more fact-checking first.
“I think deep down you are pretty gutted that he hasn’t turned out to be the wonder boy you voted for”
So far, I think he’s doing pretty well.
“so I guess your ad hominem attack on me is your way of coping.”
Did you read your own post before adding that?
“there are three, long more years to go”
Nah. There are 7 years left.
“Which is vote “present,””
He’s president. He doesn’t vote.
“obfuscate, & enact his Socialist politics which in turn shows Obama to be immature, emotionally detached, & self-absorbed”
Well, that’s a bit leap. How does obfuscating make someone emotionally detached? I won’t bother with the “socialist” bit – nobody on this blog seems to have the foggiest idea what that word means.
“How many times does Obama put himself in his speeches & the focus is always him?”
Some examples, please.
All the time. For Obama, the world does not exist outside of ObamaLand. Reality says otherwise.
“Like Obama, you said nothing with your words”
*yawn*
Actually I said that obama is doing what he set out to do – go back and pay attention to what he said in his campaign, and he’s basically going about doing it. Choosing to try KSM in new york and move the remaining prisoners out of guantanamo is hardly “voting present”
66. Death panels never left. Death panels have always been in the bill, and they can’t be removed. Death panels are in the very nature of the bill. Death panels are what inevitably happens when you deny people the right to pay for their own health care out of pocket.
Matthew. I think of myself as a very objective person and I am not affiliated with any party. That said, I marvel at your capacity for delusion with respect to Obama. Yes, there is a lot of bias and anger in this blog but they have Obama mostly pegged correctly in my opinion.
But Obama’s “skill sets” aside, it would be nice if he and the people around him understood that the role of the “Executive” branch is to “execute”. That means effectively managing the many government organizations and departments that Congress has put in place. What he does instead is to concentrate solely on the transformation our way of life based on a failed ideology.
And to accuse the “media” of telling lies about the Health Care bill is truly biting the hand that feeds you. Most of the major news organizations have studiously avoided any kind of objective analysis of this pathetically shameful bill. Luckily there are many places on line to find such analysis if you care to look.
obama does not want to govern he wants to RULE a marxist country
myth buster:
“Death panels never left”
Quote the text that creates them then, please.
“Death panels are what inevitably happens when you deny people the right to pay for their own health care out of pocket”
*blink*
Do you even know what is in the bill?
“That means effectively managing the many government organizations and departments that Congress has put in place”
He’s doing that. And he’s asking congress to fix parts of the system that are obviously broken (and congress wouldn’t be doing it unless at least some of them agreed with him). Bush did a fair bit of that too – except, of course, he didn’t always bother to tell congress about it.
“What he does instead is to concentrate solely on the transformation our way of life based on a failed ideology”
Rubbish. It is possible to walk and chew gum at the same time.
“Most of the major news organizations have studiously avoided any kind of objective analysis of this pathetically shameful bill”
Agreed. So here’s an idea – how about you tell us what, specifically, is shameful about the bill.
“Luckily there are many places on line to find such analysis if you care to look”
Traditionally, this is where you provide references so that I can see what you consider to be “objective”
Matthew –
You and like minded folks want(ed) a mandated health INSURANCE program in place?
You have no idea what the Constitution entails, do you?
FYI: the largest demographic of those who don’t pay a ‘living tax’ or health insurance are 18-29 year olds.. by choice.
Many of the aforementioned are unemployed college students/ grads living at home due to poor employment numbers. Now, these same people will be strong armed to pay for health insurance that won’t kick in for 4 + years?
Matthew, with all politeness, your unobtainable idealism is a disease.
On a similar plane, a high school in Berkeley (of course) is removing its science department. Along with canning its 5 science teachers. Why? The schools Latino and Black students aren’t cutting it academically in the sciences. So, rather than find other means to improve the aforementioned student’s lacking science practices, the answer is to remove science altogether.
In your instance regarding health insurance (and a myriad of other topics), remove ‘..and the pursuit of happiness’ and force ‘happiness’ altogether on the masses.
That’s a scary, ignorant proposition.
Matthew, one question… and I honestly want a completely truthful answer from you.
Is there anything that we can do, anything we can say, any evidence we can provide, to prove to you that ObamaCare will not work?
Matthew: Not sure there is any point to answering but:
Just because your ideological point of view tells you that something is broken, does not mean that it is totally broken. And there is the question of “why” it is broken and how best to fix it. Opponents to the health care bill believe that there are much better answers with far fewer negative consequences to the health system and the economic strength of the country. Obama and his servants in congress are determined to throw the baby out with the bath water – based it seems to me on either naivety, ignorance, politics or ideology. Maybe all of them.
References: Google.com.
paul_unalaska:
“You and like minded folks want(ed) a mandated health INSURANCE program in place?”
You already have one. It’s called taxation – and it pays for hospital emergency services. You have no choice in whether you sign up to that insurance program. If you don’t pay, you go to prison. Everybody in the US, including the most illegally nefarious people you can possibly imagine, have access to the medical services that it pays for.
Here’s the problem – it sucks. By necessity, it does nothing about prevention, delivers its services in the most expensive way possible, it’s uncoordinated, cannot plan, it has no incentives for its customers to take personal responsibility. That is what 40-odd million americans use right now – and you’re paying for it.
“You have no idea what the Constitution entails, do you?”
Show me where the constitution prevents the federal government from levying taxes. Do you REALLY think the justice department hasn’t taken the constitution into account? Actually, I know – that’s a stupid question. Look at how many Bush-era PATRIOT fubars were challenged in the supreme court (a few).
“Many of the aforementioned are unemployed college students/ grads living at home due to poor employment numbers. Now, these same people will be strong armed to pay for health insurance that won’t kick in for 4 + years?”
Here’s the text of the bill:
SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
(a) Tax Imposed.—In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—
(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over
(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.
A 2.5 percent tax on zero is … zero. You were saying? And for the underemployed – you’re happy for them to turn up at emergency departments free of charge, but you don’t want them having to pay a poofteenth of stuff-all to pay for not buying health insurance. Maybe they’re already covered by their parents – in which case there’s no problem. Have you really thought this through?
“On a similar plane, a high school in Berkeley (of course) is removing its science department”
I don’t see how that’s relevant to a federal health care proposal. Take it up with the school board.
“In your instance regarding health insurance (and a myriad of other topics), remove ‘..and the pursuit of happiness’ and force ‘happiness’ altogether on the masses”
Rubbish. You can apply that ridiculous “reasoning” to anything the federal government does, including law enforcement and defense.
“That’s a scary, ignorant proposition”
And you don’t even know what’s in the bill.
ConservativeWanderer:
“Is there anything that we can do, anything we can say, any evidence we can provide, to prove to you that ObamaCare will not work?”
Absolutely. The problem you have is that I have seen public health systems that DO work (extremely well). So while you can’t imagine any scenario in which case it works, I can. You also have the problem of (probably) believing a whole bunch of inaccurate nonsense about the proposal (and about other coutries’ health systems). You would be astonished by how often some scare story in the press can be debunked just by basic fact-checking (like – reading the bill itself).
But ultimately this is a red herring. If you think you have evidence that health care reform is a bad idea, just type it into the little box on the screen so we can have a look. If I think you’re wrong, I’ll explain why. Anything else is waffle.
Mike G:
“Matthew: Not sure there is any point to answering but:”
I can laugh at you.
“Just because your ideological point of view tells you that something is broken, does not mean that it is totally broken”
Nobody said it IS “totally” broken. It’s just partially broken. And it’s not ideology saying that – it’s the numbers. Australia pays 1/2 per capita what the US pays on health services and delivers the same or (much more often) better outcomes across the board. Australia has a universal health system. It has a single-payer for significant components, like pharmaceuticals. It manages to balance the same sorts of resource constraints, federal/state rivalries and a growing retirement population that the US faces and STILL achieves those outcomes. It’s not even a particularly complicated system (by US standards).
If the US could just adopt a few things from the australian model, it would save money, everybody would be healthier and have more money in the bank. The government wouldn’t be facing the timebomb of medicare expenditures that it faces right now. That’s not ideology – that’s just based on looking at what other countries have been doing for decades.
“Opponents to the health care bill believe that there are much better answers with far fewer negative consequences to the health system and the economic strength of the country”
Really? And they’ve done precisely nothing about it in how long? You say they’ve known about the problem, they had a plan and yet they just did nothing? And it’s only when the democrats have the political guts to take on something that most americans have wanted all along that these opponents start saying “hey wait – I’ve got this great idea”. Yeah. Right.
Tort reform and toothless industry oversight will not solve america’s healthcare problems.
“Obama and his servants in congress are determined to throw the baby out with the bath water”
What baby are they throwing out, please?
“References: Google.com”
Oh. The internet. Good for you.
Matthew:
Okay, you admit that you are open to contrary evidence.
Now, please tell us your definitions for health care “working well” as opposed to “working poorly.” We cannot have a reasonable and intelligent discussion without understanding each other’s definitions, after all.
Being able to govern is more important than getting elected. And being able to govern with honesty, integrity and pride in
our country past and present is most important of all.
Duty. Honor. Country. Leahy believed it it. so does Petraeus. So did Marshall. King. MacArthur. Eisenhower and Patton. Commanders in chief or
military leaders one and all.
And then there’s Obama. In my opinion, sissified, socialistic, bombastic puke of a punk.
How in the world do you expect Homeland Security, the FBI or the CIA to perform to its fullest potential when President Obama’s dearest wish
is to prosecute any members of these organizations who attempted to the best of their ability to make this country safe from terrorism in the Bush years.
What is Obama if not a leader?
Obama is a fraud.
On Jan. 20th, when he bumbled the words, “preserve, protect and defend the U.S.A. from all enemies foreign and domestic”, he’s lucky he wasn’t hooked up to a lie detector. He uttered not a truthful word.
To Obama, there’s no longer anything such as terrorism, foreign or domestic just like Fox is not a news station.
Obama’s high IQ, low, shoe sole low common sense level has not only sent the country into a financial tail spin of biblical proportions, but
has so compromised this nation’s security that we are virtually defenseless. Those whose job it is to keep up safe like the CIA know if they
do their job with enthusiasm, courage and honor, that Obama is as likely to have them investigated as he is liable to sign an earmark replete bill, something we all know he pledged never to do.
At the same time, the post Bush security people, the Napolitinos and such, have no security experience and brought to their jobs only the desire to cash a pay check and not to check terrorism. And let’s not forget the term, “man made disasters” which only goes to show that Obama and his incompetent henchpeople wouldn’t recognize a terrorist if one bit him on the butt.
People, you’re witnessing a leaderless country, the United States, trying to survive in the most dangerous world we’ve ever known. Letting this go on for another 36 months is like playing Russian Roulette with your children’s lives. Believe you me, if a dirty bomb or nuke ICBM hit New York City, Obama would retaliate by giving a speech.
He’d make it clear that we weren’t sure who attacked us; that he wasn’t about to start an all out nuclear war. Let’s face it,
we’re sitting ducks for terrorist attacks because Obama has either attacked the people sworn to defend us or has replaced them with
psychofantic incompetents, bureaucrats with a school girl appreciation for how the world works. Janet Napolitano? Give me a break.
Pee Wee Herman would do a better job.
Barack Obama? Give me a break. Morris the cat
ConservativeWanderer:
“please tell us your definitions for health care “working well” as opposed to “working poorly.””
Leaving people free to choose their health providers if they are able to, but improving overall health outcomes and reducing the net cost to the american public and taxpayers.
The Value of Values
http://www.strategicpublishinggroup.com/title/thevalueofvalues.html
An individual’s values are established in childhood and serve as filters when determining right from wrong throughout the person’s life. In today’s society, the process of establishing values within children is given little concern. People place greater emphasis on day to day activities and personal ambitions, than they do on the establishment of values within their children. By default, parents are teaching their children that values such as integrity, respect for life, courage of conviction, a purposeful life and generosity, are secondary to making a living.
In truth, there is nothing preventing us from being true to good and meaningful values, nor is anything preventing us from teaching our values to our children. It is a matter of priorities; a matter of choice.
In the “The Value of Values” you will learn why a transition to a more values-conscious society is important. You will learn exactly what is needed from each individual and the activities that will sustain the drive. “The Value of Values” is a must read for every parent that is concerned about our society and the challenges our children will be facing.
We have three possible choices:
1) Do nothing different than that which we have been doing. Complacently accept things as they are and will be.
2) Hope that someone else will make the needed changes within our society, despite the fact it has yet to be done, and no one displays the integrity needed to influence an entire society.
3) Accept our personal responsibility to our children. Accept that real change is not passed down from leaders, but rather, it is driven up from the people. Accept the fact that we each have within us the ability and incentive to make things different for our children and grand children.
The choice we make today will determine the society of tomorrow.
In that case, Matthew, the Senate plan fails your second test, miserably.
It adds a fee to health insurance companies, which anyone familiar with economics knows is going to be passed onto the consumers, thereby raising the net cost to the policyholder. And, since one of the goals is to force everyone to purchase insurance, that means the net cost will go up for everyone.
There ya go. The evidence you requested that these plans do not fulfill your own requirements. Time for you to show your intellectual honesty and oppose the Senate bill.
..it’s called taxation’.
Yeah, I’ve heard this as well. Presumably the taxes for this bill will be levied against those earning 500K per year or married couples making in excess of 500K per year. Though Obama has stated so many different scenarios it’s dizzying to keep up with the guy.
You truly believe the common man won’t be taxed moreso? Medicare won’t be effected by the cuts? This bill (yep, I’ve read it. Though it took some time considering the 4th and 5th revision written behind closed doors were provided so late, not the ’72 hours’ as promised) doesn’t even cover the remaining who don’t possess insurance.
‘That is what 40-odd million americans use right now – and you’re paying for it’.
Matthew – where did you get the # of ’40-odd million ‘Americans’.
Also, of these uninsured, how many are turned away (which in of itself does need reform) as compared to those who just don’t want it?
Or, those who are economically lacking though always have a pack/ carton of smokes and beer/ booze at the ready.
12-20 million are illegal aliens. As well as their 14th Amendment children. Are you trying to pass off 40-odd million LEGAL Americans as ‘uninsured’? That’s a higher percentage than the 84.7% of American people who have some form of health insurance.
I live in the D.C. area. My family and I have 2 cars though we use/ insure only 1. I commute to work via train while my wife drives. Thus no insurance for a vehicle we don’t use. It’s a choice we made. Unlike this grotesque bill.
Regarding my comment of unemployed/ part-time employed college graduates, how many do you believe are under their parent’s policy? I’ll venture to say very little. Though there are some colleges that require students to have health insurance IN SCHOOL, which I support. College lifestyles leave more to chance.
The number of uninsured Americans seen in emergency rooms is miniscule compared to those who do have insurance in some form.
My example at Berkeley High School is to portray a quagmire/ failure the Fed and its handlers are. Yet, your oars are in the water for this ‘braintrust’ to involve themselves, and they will be, for health insurance? Perhaps You haven’t thought this through.
Insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies are chomping at the bit for this ridiculous legislation. You know, the ‘evil high profiting’ companies Pelosi speaks of.
Thanks for being a good sport about the discussion. Perhaps we can find a common ground down the road.
I like Romney and Pawlenty. Both are smart, honest, business-savvy and conservative and, unlike BHO, they are patriots.
#66 Matthew, only 31% of the electorate voted for Obama. Your other fantasies in that post have already been debunked.
Mr. Teleprompter can read a good line. That’s it.
He is an empty suit.
He lied to get elected. IMO he wanted the power and the title.
But doing the actual work? Pfft. Barry doesn’t want to do that.
Barry needs to resign. Who will be the first person with any stature to call for it?
I just want to add: for the sake of our nation, Barry needs to resign. We cannot afford his incompetence and inexperience. There is too much at stake.
Damn, indeed interesting information. Where can I find this subscription?
Jenny Karver
bug detector review