Third Party & Independents Archives

Rick Santorum is a "fake"

Yea, Ron Paul said it, but..

Did you watch the ending? Did you see Rick Santorum shake Ron Paul’s hand? Did you see Rick Santorum try to rip Ron Paul’s arm out of it’s socket?

Posted by Weary Willie at February 25, 2012 4:00 AM
Comments
Comment #337209

Ron Paul made a very ligitimate point.
Rick Santormum was very aggressive after the event was over.

Ron Paul is the better man.

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 25, 2012 4:13 AM
Comment #337210

Perhaps Ron Paul should consider the “foreign and domestic” clause in his oath of office to include a few more “domestic” paradigms, examples, facts.

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 25, 2012 4:27 AM
Comment #337212

But he is our fake weary. I am hoping to see Santorum take home the prize, the repub nomination. He represents the talk radio conservatives better than the other 3 candidates. Santorum is certainly no more of as fake than conservatives in general.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 25, 2012 10:34 AM
Comment #337213

Matt Taibbi just nailed the GOP Primary really brilliantly.

As for Ron Paul? In my view the fake comment is Pot, Kettle, Black. Because Ron Paul is the biggest FAKE in the world. He’s now attacking Santorum because he’s clearly in collusion with Romney to help him win the GOP nomination. Despite the fact that he previously claimed endorsing any of the GOP candidates ‘would defy everything I believe in.’
So what does Ron Paul truly believe? Well one thing Paul and his supporters clearly believe is that he mustn’t be judged by ANYTHING he’s done — while at the same time parroting the claim that Libertarianism is all about “personal responsibility!”
Indeed, nothing from the past and nothing he’s said recently can be allowed to taint the halo of the sainted Dr. Paul!
The people he has chosen to employ in the past, don’t matter. The racist newsletters he personally signed and published, don’t matter. That he collected a lot of cash from racists to mount his political campaigns, doesn’t matter. What he wrote in his book, doesn’t matter. The fact that he purchased the mailing list of a Holocaust-denying group called Liberty Lobby, doesn’t matter. His crazy conspiracy theories (for example: that the government created AIDS), doesn’t matter. Whatever he said on radio shows in the past, including promoting his racist newsletters, doesn’t matter. When he compares Social Security and Medicare to Slavery, it doesn’t matter. When he claims that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made race relations “worse”, this doesn’t matter.

Nothing matters at all when it comes to the infallible Ron Paul!!! Why? Well, I suspect he gets a perpetual pass because Ron Paul has (very successfully) built himself a cult of personality.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 25, 2012 1:47 PM
Comment #337216


Super Tuesday is almost upon them and many conservatives are still hoping that a BETTER MAN will materialize out of the either, while the libertarians are gearing up to support Romney.

It is remarkable how much the various factions that come together to form the conservative coalition really don’t like eachother.

Ron Paul has been an embarrassment at times, a thorn in the side of, and an enabler for the establishment Republican party. This is his last hurrah and if he can stick it to the right wing Christians one more time and broker a spot on the ticket for himself or his son, kudos for him.

Posted by: jlw at February 25, 2012 7:05 PM
Comment #337217

Adrienne I wonder if the cult will be sadden to hear Paul calling consensual sex immoral. It does seem Ron Paul is more a libertarian conservative than we have been lead to believe.

http://thelastword.msnbc.msn.com/

Posted by: j2t2 at February 25, 2012 7:13 PM
Comment #337218


At least conservatives now know better than to save money for their children’s college education. It’s far better to be uneducated, poor and conservative.

Posted by: jlw at February 25, 2012 7:33 PM
Comment #337220

A Conversation with Ron Paul Supporter Ray Morgan By Dan McGinnis

I spoke with 10-year veteran and Florida active duty serviceman Ray Morgan, 29, about his support for Paul. Morgan has served four tours of duty overseas, including two in Iraq. He holds no official position in the Ron Paul campaign, and spoke solely as an American citizen. He is, like thousands of other supporters, someone who believes in the congressman’s message, not in the politics of party affiliation.

Click here to read more.

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 25, 2012 9:44 PM
Comment #337223

The sad thing about the debate is that CNN couldn’t ask one single question of the candiates that actually dealt with our problems. I was waiting on a question dealing with the high cost of gas, but that would lead the debate in the direction of the Obama presdidency, God forbid. he MSM has done their job well.

Posted by: Billinflorida at February 25, 2012 10:04 PM
Comment #337224

The Political Scene
Party Crasher
Ron Paul’s unique brand of libertarianism. by Kelefa Sanneh


On December 16, 2007, on the two-hundred-and-thirty-fourth anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, Ron Paul, congressman and Presidential candidate, presided over a nationwide fund-raiser. This was a new tea party, with a new slogan: “Liberty is brewing.”


Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/02/27/120227fa_fact_sanneh#ixzz1nSJVBv00

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 25, 2012 10:41 PM
Comment #337225

Billinflorida,
Did you also notice when the audience member asked the first question? By the time Ron Paul was asked to respond it was to respond to comments from other candidates! He never was allowed to respond to the audience member’s question.

I was truly waiting for a response from Ron Paul to the man’s question, but it was like it was forgotten by the time it got around to Ron Paul’s turn to speak.

Perhaps Ron Paul could be more assertive during these debates. Did you notice when Ron Paul called Newt Gingrich a liar? The moderator didn’t follow up at all!

That was in a previous debate.

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 25, 2012 10:52 PM
Comment #337227

Posted by: Adrienne at February 25, 2012 1:47 PM

Adrienne, what is the difference between a racist and someone calling someone a racist to prove a point?

I believe someone calling someone a racist to make a political point makes that person a racist.

That is the kettle that calls the kettle black.

There is no point in using the race card anymore. It should be given up in favor of a more convincing arguement.

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 26, 2012 2:02 AM
Comment #337229

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/11/06/ron-paul-endorsing-gop-nominee-would-defy-everything-i-believe-in/

“But if they believe in expanding the wars, if they don’t believe in looking at the Federal Reserve, if they don’t believe in real cuts, if they don’t believe in deregulations and a better tax system, it would defy everything I believe in.

There is something to be said for consistancy and conviction.
GroupThink is a failure. The individual, the least common denominator, is the most efficient way to address our problems.


Ron Paul’s presidency would open the individual spirit in a way that respects each and every one of us. He said his approach to social tolerance is to respect each other’s freedom.

That effort is free. No government funding required. How can that be bad?

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 26, 2012 5:50 AM
Comment #337231

I agree with a lot of the idealogy of Ron Paul. The problem is that Paul would become #1 enemy of the United States if he was elected president. Both parties would attack him for his isolationist stand, and cutbacks in government size.

Posted by: Billinflorida at February 26, 2012 8:25 AM
Comment #337234
The sad thing about the debate is that CNN couldn’t ask one single question of the candiates that actually dealt with our problems.

billinflorida the same could be said of the past 20 debates as well. I think this is because the fascist conservatives really have no answers that work for the American people. Revealing this obvious flaw to the FAux news/tea bag crowd could be disastrous to the corporacy. Besides why bother, when asked they usually resort to their foolishness much as you have done in this thread.

The problem is that Paul would become #1 enemy of the United States if he was elected president.

Thank you billinflorida for this bit of conservative logic. The American people would vote Paul into office only to make him public enemy #1. Both parties, most Americans.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 26, 2012 11:59 AM
Comment #337236

j2t2, I thought the writers on had agreed to not use the trm “teabaggers” because of the implication.

“The problem is that Paul would become #1 enemy of the United States if he was elected president.”

“Thank you billinflorida for this bit of conservative logic. The American people would vote Paul into office only to make him public enemy #1. Both parties, most Americans.”

Posted by: j2t2 at February 26, 2012 11:59 AM

Perhaps you misunderstood me; Paul would become the enemy of the established political parties. I believe there are many people in all parties who agree with Ron Paul on many things. So it’s not the American people who would proclaim him enemy #1, but the established parties. He would no doubt throw a wrench in their plans.

Posted by: Billinflorida at February 26, 2012 1:18 PM
Comment #337240

Santorum is certainly no more of as fake than conservatives in general.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 25, 2012 10:34 AM

Now that is a real gem of hyperbole j. Most conservatives are fakes…is that correct? Are they really liberals in disguise? How do you spot the conservative fakes among the millions who proclaim they are such?

Is it because they have jobs and work.

Is it because they are usually the better educated?

Is it because they hold to our Constitution?

Is it because they are not ashamed to publicaly proclaim their love and devotion to God, Liberty and country?

Is it because they pay most of the income taxes?

Is it because they don’t wish to follow liberals down the socialist path?

Just wondering!

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 26, 2012 1:51 PM
Comment #337242

jlw:

This is his last hurrah and if he can stick it to the right wing Christians one more time and broker a spot on the ticket for himself or his son, kudos for him.

Yeah, one would have to assume that his new (and obvious) collusion with Romney has to mean that Paul (or his son) has been promised something in return. And, it must be quite a Ripe Plum since Paul is now “defying everything he believes in” in order to get it!

At least conservatives now know better than to save money for their children’s college education. It’s far better to be uneducated, poor and conservative.

Did you read that Taibbi article I linked to earlier? This new claim of a college education being “snobery” and an “indoctrination into liberalism” is really all of a piece with the strident GOP-Tea Party hatred, spittle-flecked bomb-throwing, and increasingly strict anti-intellectualism.
And it was being made by Santorum, a politician who could not have gotten where he is without a college education, and who in 2006 Wanted To Send All Pennsylvanians To College.

j2t2:

Adrienne I wonder if the cult will be sadden to hear Paul calling consensual sex immoral. It does seem Ron Paul is more a libertarian conservative than we have been lead to believe.

Yes, it’s pretty stunning that a so-called Libertarian and a Medical Physician would ever use the word “immoral” when discussing something that should be considered a private health issue for women. But then, Paul is unlike most libertarians in the way he stands completely against homosexuality and gay marriage, too. True Libertarians usually refrain from taking hardline moral stances on these kinds of personal issues, and don’t believe it’s the job of the government to place judgements on them.
Also, it is really unconscionable that a OB-GYN would ever label women who use birth control pills “immoral.” Because aside from whatever his personal moral beliefs happen to be, the man knows damn well that women use those pills for many and various reasons in order to maintain their health.

Of course, Paul’s utter stupidity as a doctor doesn’t stop with women’s health. He also believes everyone with AIDs should be denied health insurance coverage. This is because as he wrote in his book, people with AIDs are: “a victim of his own lifestyle.” More idiocy and ignorance; since not all people contract HIV from sex, and some people who do contract it from sex aren’t even aware that their partner has been out having unprotected sex with other people.
This kind of appalling ignorance coming out of the mouths of people who are running for the highest public office is incredibly dangerous for our nation.

If Ron Paul wants to talk about “immorality”, he should know that some of us think it’s immoral to have been against the Civil Rights Act of 1965. And think it’s immoral to claim that health care isn’t a human right. And, immoral to have said in the debate that America should let uninsured people die. And, immoral to have voted against Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (he was the only member of Congress who did so) — an act which prohibited health insurers and employers from discriminating against people on the basis that they carry a gene(s) associated with increased risks for developing diseases. And, immoral that he is against the federal law requiring doctors to give treatment to all patients who go to emergency rooms regardless of their ability to pay.
That’s because some of us consider prejudice immoral, and think it’s immoral for doctors to view and treat health care and sickness first and foremost as a business transaction.

I believe someone calling someone a racist to make a political point makes that person a racist.

I called Ron Paul a FAKE. I call Ron Paul a man who has a great many supporters who are clearly and unashamedly racists and haters. And the reason that is the case is because Ron Paul hired racists to write newsletters that dripped with hate which he then used to raise mountains of cash — from racists. The same is true of the craziest of conspiracy theorists. He also bought and used mailing lists from Holocaust deniers to spread his views and gain advocates for his political positions.
Is Ron Paul a racist himself? Only Ron Paul knows for sure. But, he has surely USED racists to meet his own ends, and has rallied huge numbers of them to support his campaigns. So, what’s really the difference?

Ron Paul’s presidency would open the individual spirit in a way that respects each and every one of us. He said his approach to social tolerance is to respect each other’s freedom.

I think there are a great many reasons for people to very seriously doubt such statements. But of course, Paul’s supporters refuse to confront any and all facts or glaringly obvious reasons for such doubts. Instead, they choose to dismiss all views that don’t portray Paul as a person of perfectly spotless character.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 26, 2012 2:17 PM
Comment #337243

Sorry — should have attributed those final two quotes to Weary Willie. My apologies to j2t2!

Posted by: Adrienne at February 26, 2012 2:19 PM
Comment #337245

Is it too late to talk up Buddy Roemer, Louisiana, as a nominee? He comes off a little less caustic than Ron Paul which tends to scare some moderates. Both want to abolish CP which is a prerequisite for me.

A recent url:

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/02/buddy-roemer-to-seek-reform-party-americans-elect-nominations/

I will vote for Roemer if I have the choice on Va’s ballot, otherwise, will vote for RP.

Interesting article in the WaPo today re upcoming elections in Russia. Seems the people there are facing the same problems we are dealing with, Corpocracy. Putin has replaced many elected offices with his handpicked corporate friends. Big business has their hands directly in the state revenue tills. The people feel they have no laws or power to deal with the situation. Wod is that elections are corrupted so that a vote for the opposition will strike up 10 votes for Putin, etc.

Were RP to become nominee the Corpocracy would throw their bucks to Obama.

WW, if Madison could have postulated the speed with which we transport and communicate today what might he have done differently in the Virginia Plan toward controlling the power of elite groups i.e. Corpocracy? If we can answer that we should bolt it to the shaft of a 3rd party and drive it straight into the duopoly, IMO.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at February 26, 2012 3:23 PM
Comment #337248

He could have stuck to his guns concerning the National Bank.


Posted by: Weary Willie at February 26, 2012 3:42 PM
Comment #337255

WW, I was thinking of something like creating a cadre of gov’t workers that could never be an employee, receive money from a business. But, a good point, push harder on his opposition to a central bank. Plays right into the need to abolish CP. In the following Hamilton gives President Washington a couple of reasons why the bank should be established. Do note his main bang with the use of ‘artificial person’. This term was created by Madison, I believe, to differentiate between corporations having ‘human’ or ‘artificial person’ rights.

Madison and Jefferson tried hard to work in an 11 amendment to the effect that corporations were not persons and put some severe operating constraints on corporations, they could be terminated for cause, etc. but that failed to pass. Then the Supreme Court unilaterally took the position that they alone would decide corporate personhood, leading to the 1886 debacle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Bank_of_the_United_States

 What the government could do for a person (incorporate), it could not refuse to do for an “artificial person”, a business. And the Bank of the United States, being privately owned and not a government agency, was a business. “Thus…unquestionably incident to sovereign power to erect corporations to that of the United States, in relation to the objects entrusted to the management of the government.”

 Any government by its very nature was sovereign “and includes by force of the term a right to attainment of the ends…which are not precluded by restrictions & exceptions specified in the constitution…[9]

On April 25, 1791, Washington signed the “bank bill” into law.

A much published Madison quote:
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/James.Madison.Quote.B37F

Otherwise, it’s going to take a 3rd party w/a diff pol att and all that to return to Madison’s idea of an artificial person, IMO.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at February 26, 2012 5:13 PM
Comment #337256
Now that is a real gem of hyperbole j. Most conservatives are fakes…is that correct? Are they really liberals in disguise

Not by any stretch Royal. They are closer to fascist than liberal, IMHO.

How do you spot the conservative fakes among the millions who proclaim they are such?
For starters- “I like that about the Republicans; the evidence does not faze them, they are not bothered at all by the facts.” ~Bill Clinton


Is it because they have jobs and work.

No, it is because they believe they are the only ones that have jobs and work.

“The Republicans are looking after the financial interests of the wealthiest individuals in this country.”
~Edward Kennedy

Is it because they are usually the better educated?

No, it is because they then try to tell us the liberals are the elitist.

“Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative.”
~John Stuart Mill

Is it because they hold to our Constitution?

No, it is because they hold to their version of the constitution when convenient to them.

““Today’s so-called ‘conservatives’ don’t even know what the word means. They think I’ve turned liberal because I believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That’s a decision that’s up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right. It’s not a conservative issue at all.””
~Barry Goldwater

Is it because they are not ashamed to publicaly proclaim their love and devotion to God, Liberty and country?

No it is because they hide behind God, Liberty and Country. They use these words to manipulate others. Their idea of liberty is exclusive not inclusive. They are the ones that believe God talks to them and tells them to run for office.

“The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn’t work and then get elected and prove it.”
~P.J. O’Rourke

Is it because they pay most of the income taxes?

No, it is because they think they pay more than anyone else.

“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.”
~John Kenneth Galbraith


Is it because they don’t wish to follow liberals down the socialist path?

No it is because they socialize the debts of the wealthy while privatizing profit.

“I wonder how many times you have to be hit on the head before you find out who’s hitting you? It’s about time that the people of America realized what the Republicans have been doing to them.”
~Harry Truman

Posted by: j2t2 at February 26, 2012 5:17 PM
Comment #337257


Billinflorida, you provide another glimpse of the two way highway that runs through the conservative brain.

“I believe there are many people in all parties who agree with Ron Paul on many things.”

Even many liberals agree with Paul when it comes to the conservative authoritarian doctrin of preemptive wars.

I agree that there are many people that agree with Paul on some things, but there are many more who don’t; and how does your statement apply in relationship to another conservative accusation that the American people are spoiled and like their social security, Medicare and other entitlement programs.

I can see it now, Katrina devastates New Orleans and coastal communities in several states and President Ron Paul issues a presidential decree: Swim, dogie paddle or drown.

Weary Willie, I think you make a valid point about Paul and the debates, not just this election cycle but one’s in the past as well. I seems to me that early in the debate season Paul gets more and better questions to answer, but as the season moves into mid term and beyond, Paul is more and more marginalized and often gets asked to comment on other candidates statements.

Does anyone really believe that most of the questions asked of candidates in debates aren’t prescreened by the parties?

What is it with conservatives saying that liberals attack their candidates for what comes out of their mouths? Are only conservative candidates allowed to attack other conservative candidates for what comes out of their mouths?

This post is conservatives attacking other conservatives and it’s the lefts fault?

Your candidates attack eachother like dogs fighting over the same bitch. They attack virtually every American except white conservative males and their few Uncle Toms. And somehow this is all the fault of liberals and the liberal media?

In a nation of 310 million, 4 million watched the Republican debate. These debates have produced little that the majority felt was worth knowing and for many who watched the earlier debates to gain knowledge of what the conservatives policies might be, found out that they were being attacked and belittled for their own beliefs. These candidates have alienated many, including many conservatives. Their debating has even lost what appeal they had for entertainment value.

I can sum up the conservative policy agenda quite easily, it is to complete the conservative agenda began by Bush, the conservative revolution. That policy has been soundly rejected by the majority. You had a good opportunity to defeat Obama and you have almost completely blown it by not offering the people a new Republican agenda with new ideas and new policies.

So blame the liberals, blame the media, do what you have to do to avoid facing the reality and admitting to yourselves that your candidates and their agendas have been less than inspiring, not just for the majority, but for many conservatives as well.


Posted by: jlw at February 26, 2012 5:19 PM
Comment #337261

jlw,
“You had a good opportunity to defeat Obama and you have almost completely blown it by not offering the people a new Republican agenda with new ideas and new policies.”

Well said. They seem incapable of doing anything other than rehashing the Bush agenda. It’s weird. That agenda obviously did not work. This is the perfect time to introduce new ideas & policies, yet the GOP seems incapable of doing anything other than hating liberals in general, and Obama in particular. Since targets of hatred add up to at least 60% of the country, so the results of that approach are easy to predict.

Posted by: phx8 at February 26, 2012 6:15 PM
Comment #337262
Most conservatives are fakes…is that correct? Are they really liberals in disguise? How do you spot the conservative fakes among the millions who proclaim they are such?
Well, the conservatives who are running for president are ALL definitely fakes and professional opportunists.

I’ve already covered why Ron Paul is a fake and professional opportunist.

And I don’t think I truly need to cover why Romney is a fake and professional opportunist — since we all know the man has taken every single political position known to mankind, depending on what day it was and who he happened to be speaking to.

But let me link to two articles outlining exactly how the other two candidates still running are fakes and professional opportunists:

Rick Santorum: A Conservative Who Once Defended Labor Unions, Gays In Military, Art Funding

Newt Gingrich Ran As Moderate In Early Campaigns

There is simply no integrity to be found with any of these GOP candidates. Every single one of these men are the types who will say and do whatever they think will appeal most to the people who they hope will elect them to office at any given time.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 26, 2012 6:46 PM
Comment #337273

I think Ron Paul is trying to get the American People to take a serious look at the U.S. Constitution. I think he wants us to believe in it again.

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 27, 2012 12:15 AM
Comment #337280

Adrienne said:

“Well, the conservatives who are running for president are ALL definitely fakes and professional opportunists.”

They are politicians Adrienne… Do you honestly believe that liberals aren’t also fakes. Obama ran on a ticket of being a moderate and yet he is a flamming liberal. Ths is the nature of the beast. In fat Obama community organizing opportunist before he ran for politics.

Why do you try to insult our intelligence by constantly linking to socialist liberal sites like the huff post? You expect us to tke your side of the argument seriously when you quote the most liberal hack sites on the Internet.

Posted by: Frank at February 27, 2012 9:52 AM
Comment #337288

Paraprosdokians:

You’re never too old to learn something stupid.

To be sure of hitting the target, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 27, 2012 1:07 PM
Comment #337293


Frank is right that they are all politicians on both sides of the aisle. Every presidential nominee runs as a moderate in the general elections.

There are a couple of moderates in the Republican primary trying to convince people that they are hard core conservatives, although Romney is more like a free spirit that flows with the wind except for tax breaks for the wealthy. Santorum, on the other hand, will have a hard job trying to convince the general population that he is a moderate conservative or centrist.

Of course, a flaming hard core conservative is going to think that Obama is being a flaming liberal, but take Obama care as an example, it would have been a centrist/moderate program if Obama and the liberals hadn’t loaded it up with Republican proposals in an attempt to get one Republican vote. That was a sure sign of what the Republicans modus operandi would be during the Obama Administration, obstruction.

I don’t blame the Republicans for being obstructionists, they had the country all set up to become a neo-feudalistic state and the people elect Obama.

Obama’s center right health care legislation has done what it was intended to do. The majority position on health care is now universal or single payer.

It has become a serious detriment to the right to call Obama such things as flaming liberal because it has helped to divide the country into two camps, hard core conservatives and everyone else.

Like I’ve said before, conservatives let the 40-20 go to their heads. Turning liberal into a four letter word doesn’t change opinions when it comes to policy.

Sorry for the moderate Republicans, but you made your bed. This conservative nominee fun ride has instilled in the majority just what a dust in the wind president and a tea party/Christian right Congress would mean for the country.

Posted by: jlw at February 27, 2012 5:26 PM
Comment #337297
Every presidential nominee runs as a moderate in the general elections.

They do jlw but then they sign bills that aren’t so moderate. The difference between the two parties is the SCOTUS. Look what happened when GWB got to add a couple of uberconservatives to the court.

I don’t blame the Republicans for being obstructionists, they had the country all set up to become a neo-feudalistic state and the people elect Obama.

We the people didn’t want this conservutopia you describe jlw. I find the obstructionism to be detrimental to the country for no other reason than the hold up on appointing lower court judges to vacancies. The influx of GWB appointees will hurt the country for generations to come if they are not balanced out.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 27, 2012 6:11 PM
Comment #337298

A couple of thoughts:

Ronald Reagan was a conservative and took every state, so being a conservative is not a death sentence.

The 40-20 numbers doesn’t change a thing; America is still more conservative than liberal; so it requires the liberals to work harder to become moderates than it does conservatives to become moderates.

A consistent 50+% of Americans have favored repeal of Obamacare ever since March 2010:

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/22/new-cnn-poll-59-oppose-obamacare/


53% to 38% now: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law

Posted by: Frank at February 27, 2012 6:13 PM
Comment #337299

Frank,

“Ronald Reagan was a conservative and took every state, so being a conservative is not a death sentence.”


Ronald Reagan isn’t “conservative enough” to be elected by the republicans any more.

And, supprisingly enough, even dead he could do a better job than the stiffs you guys have running for you.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at February 27, 2012 6:19 PM
Comment #337301

Frank I’m surprised that the numbers are not more in the 65/35 range. Many such as myself favor a single payer system that works well in the rest of the industrialized world. Many to the right of center favor a repeal of Obamacare. So this center right health care plan is surprisingly strong considering the opposition on both sides of issue.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 27, 2012 7:06 PM
Comment #337303

RM, if Reagan is not conservative enough to be elected today, then why are the republican candidates and Obama trying to identify themselves as Reagan conservatives?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILg1-H6oNuM

j2t2, 53-59% who favor repeal of Obamacare are more than just the right of center.

Posted by: Frank at February 27, 2012 7:26 PM
Comment #337311

Frank,

“…if Reagan is not conservative enough to be elected today, then why are the republican candidates and Obama trying to identify themselves as Reagan conservatives?”

Could it be that republicans have selective and blissfully short memories?

Reagan raised taxes virtually every year he was President. Public debt tripled.

Ronald Reagan on raising the debt ceiling;

“…the United states could be forced to default on its obligations for the first time in its history.

This country now possesses the strongest credit in the world. The full consequence of a default—or even the serious prospect of default—by the United States are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate….The risks, the costs, the disruptions, and the incalculable damage lead me to but one conclusion: the Senate must pass this legislation before the Congress adjourns.”


Somehow I don’t think he could get away with it in these times.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at February 27, 2012 8:52 PM
Comment #337312

Why not, Obama is getting away with it and you guys believe he’s electable again…

Posted by: Frank at February 27, 2012 9:21 PM
Comment #337314
j2t2, 53-59% who favor repeal of Obamacare are more than just the right of center.

I agree Frank. That is what I was saying, many on the left would rather have single payer health insurance than this plan. We don’t like it, neither do those on the right, anymore, so why aren’t the numbers higher?

Perhaps some of us may not like it but when asked if we want it repealed the thought of starting over keeps many from agreeing to a repeal.


Posted by: j2t2 at February 27, 2012 9:31 PM
Comment #337316

Frank,

“Why not, Obama is getting away with it and you guys believe he’s electable again.”

What a bunch of hypocrites.

You eviscerate the democrats for being “tax and spend” liberals, but it’s OK to be a tax and spend conservative.

Priceless.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at February 27, 2012 10:27 PM
Comment #337319


J2t2, “I don’t blame the Republicans” was a poor choice of words, something I am quite good at. It doesn’t surprise me, would have been better choice and more reflective of my view of the situation.

Republicans invoke the name of Reagan, not Reagan’s record. They brag about Reagan’s record in a mythological way, claiming he did this or that, but they never discuss his actual record.

Reagan promised to cut Social Security and kill Medicare.

Reagan saved Social Security and Medicare.

Reagan FIXED the immigration laws.

You try to tell a conservative that THE GREAT C raised taxes and created nearly 5 trillion in debt and they become deaf.

Tax and spend is regaining some popularity after the Bush conservative policy of don’t tax and spend. The Bush policies are still adding to our debt. Much of the debt that has accumulated during the Obama Administration is actually due to commitments made by Bush and the previous Congresses that served during his Administration.

There is only one politician in this country that is elected by the majority and charged with the obligation of fulfilling the wishes of the majority to the extent possible.

Bush was not elected by the majority and would have felt no obligation to represent the majority if he had been. For his second term, Bush was elected by the majority and he took immediate aim at a program that is supported by even a majority of those who voted for him. He was a poor excuse for a president who represented the minority to the detriment of the majority.

40-20, when you break down the issues into single entities, the conservative coalition starts cracking.

A majority of Americans support Medicare and want it strengthened.

80% of the people support Social Security and want it repaired, not privatized.

I am one of those who would like to see Obamacare repealed, and replace with a single payer plan.

If the Heritage Foundation wasn’t biased, they would do a true survey of health care and while asking people if they want to repeal Obamacare, they would ask them what they would replace it with and give them options to choose from.

Posted by: jlw at February 28, 2012 12:03 AM
Comment #337446

j2t2, so you are saying that much of the 53-59% who are against Obamacare and want it repealed; are actually liberals? Talk about spin… Next you’ll be telling me a majority of those giving the congress single digit approval numbers, are actually liberals who think democrats are not liberal enough.

Posted by: Frank at February 29, 2012 2:03 PM
Comment #337448


Fox News needs to crank up the propaganda machine on health care again because more than half the people would prefer to replace employer based Obama care with a universal single payer health care plan similar to Medicare.

The last poll that I could find dates to the time that Obama care was being considered by the Congress and it favored universal single payer by a 62 to 32 margin.

If a single payer plan to replace Obama care were introduced in the Congress, Republicans would defend Obama care. It is after all a predominately Republican health care plan.

If liberals constitute 20% of the population and Congress approval rating is 10%, it would seem that at least 50% of the liberals disapprove of what the Congress is doing. Since not every independent and every conservative disapprove of the performance of Congress, the number of liberals that disapprove is probably more that 50%.

Posted by: jlw at February 29, 2012 2:54 PM
Comment #337453


The Congressional approval/disapproval polls are like the health care polls, rather meaningless because they don’t ask people why they disapprove of Congress or what they would have Congress do differently.

But they make good talking points for political pundits who can spin and insinuate that the polls reflect their beliefs without any data to support the claim.

Posted by: jlw at February 29, 2012 5:31 PM
Comment #337474

“The last poll that I could find dates to the time that Obama care was being considered by the Congress and it favored universal single payer by a 62 to 32 margin.”

Why wouldn’t they? It makes the most economic sense to say nothing of the peace of mind that comes with understanding that they and their families will always have access to affordable health care. If it, by some miracle, ever passed, a great sigh of relief would arise across this country.

Much of conservative opposition to national single payer plans are simply based on ignorance and absurd scare tactics promoted by health insurance lobbyists.

That ignorance and opposition, however, is not shared by a significant number of Americans who actually have experience with a single payer national health insurance, i.e., Medicare. The vast number of Medicare participants are entirely satisfied with the quality of care received under its insurance provisions. Try to take it away.

Expansion of Medicare to all would have the significant advantage of increasing the actuarial pool to encompass younger and healthier participants and spreading the risk of outlays beyond the high risk elderly population.

If conservatives don’t like the idea of the federal government controlling national health care, then use the Canadian model of multiple, independent single payer provisional health plans with their unique tax structures, annual assessments, etc.

Posted by: Rich at February 29, 2012 11:13 PM
Comment #337536
j2t2, so you are saying that much of the 53-59% who are against Obamacare and want it repealed;

What is so hard to understand here Frank? Is it that I agreed with you?

Posted by: j2t2 at March 2, 2012 10:33 AM
Comment #357390

I admire you very much, but I am sorry I have to copy your words that I love very much.

Posted by: Burberry Outlet at November 19, 2012 2:44 AM
Post a comment