But not quite as long as the odds that the GOP establishment has either the desire or the stones for the fight to begin with.
No worries, though, citizen. They promise to efficiently manage the Leviathan with a measured hand. And maybe some tax breaks from time to time. And who better to keep that promise than the man whose team gave us state-run health care in the first place?
Pragmatism!
****
update: Boy, I sure am glad we kept that silly snowhoochie out of the race, killed off that unpalatable Soc Con from Pennsylvania, and found ourselves a fine technocrat and erstwhile businessman to charm the moderates and independents and carry the flag forward for us. Inevitable!
I just looked a little more carefully, and it would appear that the flag borne by the “fine technocrat and erstwhile businessman” is not, in fact, my flag. My flag stands for liberty, while his flag stands for ever-more Byzantine technocracy.
Gotta be careful about them flags.
Would you want to march into battle with this guy leading you?
daveinsocal spotted that National Journal story which links to the WaPo:
The Romney team’s refusal to invoke the word “tax” with regard to the individual mandate
http://wapo.st/NtREXu
What else do we need to know? Hugh Hewitt’s boyfriend won’t let down the ruling class.
Our Republican enemies (allies, but for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act I read them as “enemies”) are like whores past menopause. Lots of lip service but precious little else. Just a brief specific example of the unconscious mindset at work here.
If I’ve heard it once I’ve heard it a hundred times. Latest instance. Ed Morrissey is talking to Kevin McCullough on his ustream show yesterday, and in the midst of chest-puffery about how “we’re gonna take back the government” McCullough blurts out that we’re going to get someone into the White House “who knows how to run the economy.”
Do you see the problem? Do you see it?
How many times have we heard Republicans utter variations on this? We need someone who runs gubmint like a business. We need someone who knows how to make the economy work. We need someone who knows how to turn the economy around.
You know what we seldom hear from Republicans? We need someone who will get government out of the economy. The government is the problem, and the only answer is less of it. We need someone who knows how to stop the government from interfering in our lives and our business. We need someone who will explain to us that government cannot fix the economy, and in fact when government tries to fix it, the result is nearly always counterproductive. We need someone who will tell us the truth that the President and Congress do not and cannot successfully run the economy, not unless you want to see something like the former Soviet Union.
Instead we have the Mitch McConnells rampant in the ruling class, dispositionally and fundamentally in agreement with the Left that a vast government is not only inevitable but necessary. History began yesterday, and if you floated the wacky, radical idea of eventually eliminating Medicare, even gradually over a decade or two, the flag-pinniest Republican wingnut in the ruling class would look at you like you were a child rapist. Sweet Jeebus, only a few months ago I heard some mook from the Heritage Foundation praising Medicare part D to the skies, and that program isn’t even ten years old yet. We cannot even look to eliminating that huge entitlement.
Whatever replaces RobertsCare if Mittens becomes King will look very similar to RobertsCare itself, and every Republican in Camelot will be patting themselves on the back. Meanwhile the entitlements will grow only larger. Do you think McConnell will have the stomach to strike out the requirement to let a 26 year old stay on his parents’ policy? Strike out the requirement to admit pre-existing conditions? Reduce the limit of $44,000 or less to qualify for subsidized gubmint coverage? Eliminate preventative care freebies? There are already television commercials from the government touting these benefits. Perhaps you have seen them.
There is a very busy printing press in our future.
There’s a book written by a guy name of Publius for that.
They ain’t gonna undo shit.
if one doesn’t ask for a mandate to repeal the obamacare one isn’t going to get a mandate to repeal the obamacare
but Mr. Governor Romney knows that
I’ll take those long nights, impossible odds…
– C’mon peoples, chin up. After all, we’ll always have Paris.
In Barak Roberts America, Paris has you, citizen.
– So O’Reilly made good on his promise to name himself an idiot, and apollogize – sort of.
– Then in the next breath he goes on to mischaracterize what happened.
“The chief justice made a mistake. His ruling gives the feds far too much power. But he did so to avoid judicial activism, so there was a reason. Instead of name calling, the right must put forth something better than Obamacare so that Congress will repeal it.”
– The ruling doesn’t just “give the Feds too much power”. It gives the Fed complete police power to punish the citizenry using the IRS for any damn reason they want to. We have become “Big Cuba”.
I think we need a new word, “citizens” doesn’t ring quite true anymore. Maybe “citizens lite?”
Team Romney: No, we’re not declaring ‘cease-fire’ on Obamacare
At least some of our Governors have cojones.
There you go. If O’Reilly is on your side, you likely have it wrong.
Dear Repubs: get rid of Obamacare Roberts Edition or we get rid of you. No Foolin’. We will get rid of your useless dead weight back stabbing asses. We will cheer when you are gone. Even fucking Gabe over at Ace of Spades hates you now. For the moment.
I still want to be rid of the GOP “stalwarts” no matter what they do. However, if they do the right thing, I won’t tar and feather them.
Maybe “citizens lite?”
comrades?
In a weird way, it’s worth it to tell Lib friends: “I’m not Republican, those guys are embarrassing wimps.”
I mean, I’d rather have liberty, but, you know…
In an exclusive interview with Breitbart News today, Senator McConnell put all such fears to rest. “I have said many times that if I’m the leader of the majority next year, I commit to the American people that the repeal of ‘Obamacare’ will be job one,” he reiterated. “That includes pursuing reconciliation. What people need to understand is that this is literally a fight for the future of our country and Democrats have proven during this debate that they will stop at nothing to protect this massive expansion of government into our lives and our health care. We need to be aware that this will take every ounce of our energy to accomplish.”
McConnell went on to explain that the fight would not stop with the election: “Our success is dependent upon the voices of the many who are concerned about Obamacare to get involved and stay involved. Do not shut up, do not sit down, do not be intimidated. Keep fighting with every ounce of energy you have.
link
– The focus needs to be on taking the Senate, retaining the House, and if at all possible the WH. Without at least both houses of Congress, nothings going to happen, and without the Presidency it will be long and problematical at best,
Obama back at the White House, Romney still vacationing, Biden still as dumb as a bag of used campaign buttons.
I hope all those conservatives, who think Roberts decided correctly when he reimagined the text of the law to be something it is not, are quite content now. Eat a sack of dicta.
http://bit.ly/LQ3sms
The IRS now gets to know about a small business’s entire payroll, the level of their insurance coverage — and it gets to know the income of not just the primary breadwinner in your house, but your entire family’s income, in order to assess/collect the mandated tax.
Plus, it gets to share your personal info with all sorts of government agencies, insurance companies and employers.
And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. “We expect even more lien and levy powers,” an IRS official says. Even the Taxpayer Advocate is deeply concerned.
“….No really, I support him, I just don’t want to be seen with him…”
Boom
Boom
Boom
Bada-Boom!
“….No really, I support him, I just don’t want to be seen with him…”
You almost expect someone like Biden to blurt out “He’s a credit to his race.”
Hey, clean and articulate, baby. That’s what Joe said.
Anybody else just a tiny bit amused by the whole “we had to destroy the village in order to save it” tenor of the whole Roberts had to indulge in a bit of judicial activism in order to end judicial activism line of
wishful thinkingreasoning?John Yoo: “The outer limit on the Commerce Clause in Sebelius does not put any other federal law in jeopardy and is undermined by its ruling on the tax power…
…While some conservatives may think Justice Roberts was following in Justice Marshall’s giant footsteps, the more apt comparison is to the Republican Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes…
…But Hughes sacrificed fidelity to the Constitution’s original meaning in order to repel an attack on the court. Like Justice Roberts, Hughes blessed the modern welfare state’s expansive powers and unaccountable bureaucracies—the very foundations for ObamaCare.
Hughes’s great constitutional mistake was made for nothing…
Justice Roberts…may have sacrificed the Constitution’s last remaining limits on federal power for very little—a little peace and quiet from attacks during a presidential election year.”
http://on.wsj.com/LQ9nYP
at the WSJ today
sorry, not today’s WSJ but June 29
Yeah,
the voices of sanity have been marginalized.
we’ve got to turn this ship around
– Tell you the truth the Jackass party doesn’t seem to know wjhat to do with the Roberts ruling any better than the Reps.
– They’re all running around vehemently denying its a tax.
– Ummmm hey Lefturds. If its not a tax its unconstitutional. Roberts said so. Duuuhhhh.
– Of course Romneys team is agreeing with them, no doubt hopingt to pin the tax tail on Obama.
– This is the caliber of those that would lead us. We are truly screwed.
Williams says Romney agrees with the conservative dissent — signed jointly by Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito — which declares Obamacare an unconstitutional federal mandate. Williams notes that Romney made a public statement, shortly after the Supreme Court decision was announced, pledging his continued determination to repeal the health care law. In addition, Romney’s “Day One” commercials, which prominently feature the promise to repeal Obamacare, are still playing in several states. The campaign also released a web ad after the Supreme Court decision, promising to keep up the Obamacare fight. It also made regular announcements on the amount of money the campaign raised from supporters who oppose the Supreme Court ruling. And Romney’s campaign website, MittRomney.com, is filled with emphatic promises to repeal Obamacare.
All in all, it’s hard to characterize as a “cease-fire.”
link
newrouter says July 3, 2012 at 5:01 pm
Fair enough, but he can’t repeal it on his own. Widespread waivers will be challenged in court. At any rate, it’s not so much the “repeal” as the “replace” bit that should worry us.
Capretta and Moffit lay out the basic Republican principles: First, patients should have skin in the game. If they are going to request endless tests or elaborate procedures, they should bear a real share of the cost. Instead of relying on the current tax exemption that hides costs, the Republican plans would offer people a tax credit for use to purchase the insurance plan that suits their needs. The tax credit could phase out for the wealthy. Employees of small business who aren’t covered now would see an immediate benefit, which they could take from job to job.
Second, Americans should be strongly encouraged to buy continuous coverage over their adulthood. Then insurance companies would not be permitted to jack up their premiums if a member of their family develops a costly condition.
Third, the Republican approach would encourage experimentation in the states instead of restricting state flexibility.
Fourth, instead of locking Medicaid recipients into a substandard system, the Republicans would welcome them into the same private insurance health markets as their fellow citizens. This would give them greater access to care, while reducing the incentives that encourage them to remain eligible for the program.
Fifth, this approach would replace Medicare’s open-ended cost burden with a defined contribution structure. Beneficiaries could choose from a menu of approved plans. If they wanted a more expensive plan, they could pay for it on top of the fixed premium.
Finally, under this approach, any new spending would be offset with cuts so that health care costs do not continue to devour more and more of the federal budget. This could be done, for example, by gradually raising the retirement age.
Capretta and Moffit have more details. Their plan is flexible, decentralized and compelling.
Republicans say they trust the people. If that’s true, then they won’t waste another futile breath bashing the court for upholding Obamacare. They’ll explicitly tell the country how they would replace it. Democracy is a contest between alternatives, not a deus ex machina stroke from the lords in black robes.
link
Right. He’d need 3 more Senate seats. Very doable.
Tort reform needs to be in there somewhere.
What should we give to get our hands on some governmental murk reform?
So: item one maintains transfer payments in the form of tax credits for lower income earners. Not very free market. Item two is cagey about “encouraging” purchase of insurance… more social engineering by taxapenaltymandates? Plus dictating what insurance companies can charge. Item three is so vague… encourage states to impose Romneycare on their residents? Encourage or require? Encouragement by either stealing more tax money from citizens if they don’t cooperate or promising tax bennies for some citizens paid for by other citizens? Item four: Would love to know how Democrats would react to mean Republicans who decide to permit Medicaid (read, poor) recipients enjoy the benefits of buying much more expensive private insurance they cannot afford anyway. Item five, let’s dictate what kind of policies are “approved.” If they wanted a more expensive plan, they could pay for it on top of the fixed premium. We don’t need a government to manage that. If you want more of anything, go buy it.
Look, the fact the the New York Times is mildly friendly to this ought to send up a warning flag. This sounds like something not all that different in principle from RobertsCare; that is, big gubmint telling everyone how to buy medical insurance and at what prices and under what conditions.
Actually, I think one thing McCain had right was his very simple plan to give everyone that has purchased health insurance a $5k tax credit.
Nah, too simple.
; that is, big gubmint telling everyone how to buy medical insurance and at what prices and under what conditions.
it is good to know what statists rinos like brooks “think”.
– Tort reform is one of those areas that is essentially unfixable since the tools of remefy is the laws themselves.
– With the Constitution now being usurped the only recourse is the convention. If thats not doable, and a basic reasertion of soveriegnty springing from the people is out of reach, then there is no remedy. None.
here’s santorum’s ideas
Health Care Freedom Agenda
· Unleash the power of competition and choice: Reduce costs and increase access with robust free-market competition and patient choice by repealing ObamaCare and reducing over-regulation that distorts and stifles free-market competition of health coverage markets. We need to let patients and their doctors make choices about their health care. ObamaCare does little to nothing to reduce costs. It is packed full of policies that increase costs, shift them to others, and reduce choices. Patients should decide what type of coverage meets their needs, not be told what they must purchase by government bureaucrats. ………
link
Seems a simple loser pays would do the trick.
I’m certain making plaintiffs anti-up would do wonders for civil courts far and wide.
Tort reform is one of those areas that is essentially unfixable since the tools of remefy is the laws themselves.
don’t mess with texas
SAN DIEGO – Since the State of Texas implemented medical tort reform in 2003, the number of practicing physicians has increased by 19% per 100,000 population. In addition, hospitals in the state report improved ability to recruit physicians and expand patient services.
Those are key findings from an innovative study presented by Dr. Ronald M. Stewart at the annual Digestive Disease Week.
“Tort reform has been beneficial for all or almost all Texas physicians,” Dr. Stewart said in an interview in advance of the meeting. “I have benefited from lower malpractice premiums and a more favorable liability climate in the state. However, the effect of tort reform in a region is probably not the primary driver for physician recruitment and retention. I believe it is permissive – providing the framework for growing physicians relative to the number of patients being served,” he explained.
link
All these schemes dance around the question: Do you want gubmint to dictate your expenditures on medicine? Do you demand gubmint provide guarantees of medical care? If so, then good luck sorting out the scramble for the carcass. Consider this cribbed from Ricochet as a “free-market” alternative.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/04/why-republicans-should-back-universal-health-care/13013/
Republicans could enact Swiss-style universal coverage by enabling employees to cash out of their employer-sponsored health insurance. (Although many view employer-sponsored health insurance as a” free” benefit, it is money that would otherwise be paid as income.) The substantial sums involved would command attention and gratitude: a 2006 cash out would have yielded $12,000 — the average cost of employer-sponsored health insurance — thus raising the income of joint filers who earn less than $73,000 (90 percent of all filers) by at least 16 percent. Employees could remain in with an employer’s plan or use this new income to buy their own health insurance.
Think of the problems. Would this mean that employers are, on average, expected to cough up $12K per employee? Of course, no one lives on average but in real, discrete terms. What about employers who pay much more for employees’ medical coverage than the average? Do they have to pay out more? If your employer provides nothing for medical, what then? Does he pay nothing? And how would you calculate in the future what an employer would have paid in medical benefits if he in fact choses to forego buying medical for employees and instead does this “pay-out” thing? Doesn’t the cost of an employer’s medical benefits plan depend on how many people he enrolls, and what coverage he chooses to offer? How would the cost of medical plans change in the market when vast numbers of employers stop offering medical coverage or have much fewer people enrolled in the master plan? Or, why can’t he just say “I would have bought the cheapest thing out there, so I don’t have to ‘pay-out’ as much to my employees in lieu of coverage”? How could this possibly work without the government mandating (taxapenaltying) a minimum pay-out per employee? Why would any employer continue to offer coverage? Or do we command all employers to offer medical coverage?
Whatever a free market is, this is not it.
– Obvious examples of proficious remedies to all chronic ailments of society have no known effect on the desease of Leftism.
“Never tell me the odds… I might roll a natural 20.”
Whatever a free market is, this is not it.
Evabody wants to be the clever-boots who rigs up The Ideal System instead of just dismantling the free-market barriers and letting things solve themselves.
There was that example of the folks who built a buncha new buildings around a grassy quad and didn’t know where to put the sidewalks, so they waited until people trammeled out the shortest path between two points and paved those.
Whatever a free market is, this is not it.
free market health care – see pet care.
“…Ah hell Ryan….as rusty as my morse code is for all I know I could be tapping out the measurements for this months playboy centerfold…”
– Pretty soon none of it may matter anyway.
– …And we respond.
Here’s a fun exercise: Saunter over to realclearpolitics and plug in different states to their electoral map and then compare that to 2008’s results.
It’s pretty quick. Every way you look at it, the GOP loses. I’d argue that there is a connection between the themes Jeff and many of us kick around here and Obama’s looming victory in November.
Defeat! (It’s what’s for dinner)
Every way you look at it, the GOP loses.
because polls are so perfect. hi scott walker voters.
Every way you look at it, the GOP loses.
on the bright side for baracky he’s not facing a convict felon, like in the democrat primary, in november in wva
NR: It’s bad.
Obama is doomed.
NR: It’s bad.
for baracky. baracky lost w pa so he ain’t winning pa.
I’d like to believe you fellows……
Heard it on the drums. Truth and Soul baby, Truth and Soul.
I’d like to believe you fellows……
see here with nifty graphic
A significant portion of western and central Pennsylvania Democrats declined to vote for Barack Obama in the April primary, an analysis by PoliticsPA has found. The results there resemble those of Arkansas, Kentucky and West Virginia, where the President lost around 40 percent of the primary vote to no-name opponents or “undecided”.
link
real election results
– One thing to pull for, at the very least…..Hope like a bitch that November gets here before things spill over in the middle east.
– Sitting presidents just do not get replaced in time of war. (Even wars that aren’t declared as such by Comgress.)
Sitting presidents just do not get replaced in time of war.
baracky is an historic precedent no?
BBH, there are no rules, no precedents anymore. Do 51% of this country believe that BO is capable of leading in a “real” war?
– Polls, smolls….What none of them tell you is the polls they run are always samples of cooperative target groups.
– As such they represent a percentage of the total vote, minus the undecided’s which for this election is estimated to be approximately 43% of the total. No one knows how over a third of the electorate will vote, so the “polls” are only good for specific demographics and say nothing about the final outcome. They are useful as propaganda tools however.
All day long tomorrow on Fox is Wounded Warriors and their families. Judicious use of that kind of footage can tank anyone.
Listen up, Team Mitt.
“Do 51% of this country believe that BO is capable of leading in a “real” war?”
– Can’t answer that, but its an absolute truism that the electorate is simply antsey about changes horses in time of war. Whether Obama will prove the exception, can’t say, but it would be best not to have to test it.
BBH, normally I would agree. This time around, the public is largely disengaged from the war(s). We don’t see the daily dead count we got when Dubya was president. We don’t see the troops deploying or returning. It’s also summer and a lot of people are home or on vacation and more tuned out than they usually are.
Obama has proven nothing as a war president other than he is a loose cannon who is not adverse to killing women and children when he sends in the drones. Would we stand for yet another undeclared war, say on Iran? One of my friends just got back from his fourth deployment.
I say no.
but it would be best not to have to test it.
david axelrod will provide the war your mission nytwapoabccbsnbcmsnbchuffpodailykos is to report it
– I certainly hope your take is correct Leigh. Problem is theres a good chance when it comes, and barring some unforscene change in fortunes it will come, that theres every possibikity it could well involve nukes, or at the very least head to head confrontations with the Chinese and/or the Russians.
– This one isn’t shaping up to be your grandma’s war and its not likely even the leftturd press will be able to burry it this time.
I hope I’m right, too BBH and I agree with you about nukes. Israel has been moving a lot of armored units and artillery units lately and drilling with their jets and ships. When the fit hits the shan, I’m pretty sure we will be seeing Israeli jets violating Iranian air-space. I’m leery of Pakistan, as well. They have nukes and so does India against whom they have an historical grudge.
That whole theatre is a nightmare. We should turn it all to glass and rubble (who’d notice?) and call it a day.
University of Michigan so says my Wolverine wife.
– I would’nt be nearly as gungho for the nuke thing save for two resasons. Israel is facing an existential, no tommorow, threat. If she just even suspects the fat is in the fire wih Iran actually launching a nuked missle its all over. She’ll hit Iran with everything she’s got, no holds barred, and most likely take out Damascus while she’s at it.
– And as for Irans part, the problem is the Imams know they can’t hang on to power without escalating. One microinch to far and they have screwed the pooch.
– Its grim no matter how you look at it.
or at the very least head to head confrontations with the Chinese and/or the Russians.
dude mr. “i vote present” will ” i vote present”. start a war in aug, sept, oct? really? libya was his last “war” .effin victory.
– Its pretty much out of our hands nr. Even more than usual this time around. What I ment by “not test it” is I would hope if war comes it does so after the elections so we don’t have to find out whether the old maxim holds up.
Another reason I don’t think the US will start anything is Hillary apologized (apologized!!) today to the Pakis for “unintentionally” fragging their not-soldiers/soldiers a few months ago. She gets her marching orders from King Putt, so who know what’s going on there?
Where’re the spiritual children of Ike, Patton and Bradley today? We’re surrounded by Chamberlains.
#NARRATIVEFAIL: Obama plans fundraisers in Switzerland then tries to slam Romney … on Switzerland.
link
yes these clowns are tough to beat
– I think its obvious the game that Obama/Hillery are playing in the ME. Syria has been badly weakened by its civil war, no matter what else you can say about it, amd Egypt is in no position to go to war right now. The admin is hoping that the situation with Irans allies will slow them down.
Hell of a gamble but they got nothing else really.
Romney’s “Day One” commercials, which prominently feature the promise to repeal Obamacare, are still playing in several states. The campaign also released a web ad after the Supreme Court decision, promising to keep up the Obamacare fight. It also made regular announcements on the amount of money the campaign raised from supporters who oppose the Supreme Court ruling. And Romney’s campaign website, MittRomney.com, is filled with emphatic promises to repeal Obamacare.
All in all, it’s hard to characterize as a “cease-fire.”
So Romney’s campaign appears to be trying to walk back Eric Fehrnstrom’s comments and assure us all that he absolutely is going to go after Obama with the “ObamaCare is a tax” argument. Color me unconvinced.
Do you recall who the genius was who gave us this statement during the primaries back in March (which the Romney campaign quickly fell all over itself to ‘hit the reset button’ on)?
Yep, Mr. Fehrnstrom.
And after openly gay ex-Romney spokesperson Richard Grenell resigned back in May, who was first out of the starting blocks to blame “voices of intolerence” within the GOP?
You guessed it, our boy Eric.
So if these are all “misstatements”, then why is this idiot still working for Romney after his third strike? Is the campaign really that incompetent? Or in each of the incidents above, is Eric only guilty of an insider’s momentary unguarded thoughts in front of a camera/microphone?
Neither give me a warm fuzzy feeling.
if you’re giving your monies to Mr. Governor Mitt you deserve better than endless Fehrnstromisms I think
– Every presidential hopeful has his/her Bidens.
at this point: stop the baracky that is all.
look 4 more years of radical commie/muslim/hollyweird celebrity is a no no
– 2010 has chnaged things a lot nr. Maybe not in all the ways we’d like, but you can bet a lot of the Dems that are hiding from Obama right now are reacting to the upcoming election. Should we hold the House and grab the Senate Obama could be a lame duck for his entire 2nd term if it comes to that, so all is not doom and gloom as things stand.
– If you set aside the ACA, Bummblefuck really hasn’t been able to do all that much beyond spending us into oblivion. On the war front hes followed the Bush/Cheney doctrin to the letter (other than the ubsequious bowing to foreign despots). So really with even less support in Comgress he wouldn’t have a lot of places to go.
– It would no doubt suck raindeer antlers, but not as bad as we might have feared in 2008.
– Of course with or without the WH, should we win both houses of Congress but the Reps piss it all away as usual then it probably doesn;t matter.
Re: DaveinSoCal’s 2022 comment about Eric Fehrnstrom
What was it that Henry Fonda’s CINCPAC II memorably said about Dana Andrews’s Vice-Admiral Broderick? “A bad effect on our allies and an aid and comfort to the enemy,” wasn’t it.
The Romney campaign out to fire his ass before more people decide they’re better off focusing on local and/or state races, or squirrelling away canned goods and ammo for the coming winter of discontent.
That’s a bit like saying, “if you set aside Pearl Harbor, the Japanese Navy hardly ever gave as good as it got,”don’t you think?
– True, but really what choice do any of us have but to plan for the worst and hope for the best. If theres anything out there it escapes me.
Stop calling him bumblefuck and recognize that when he rated himself the 4th best president in U.S. history, it wasn’t braggadocio. Iin terms of accomplishing “transformational” change, he meant it. He means to finish what FDR and LBJ started —and tht means finishing the U.S. off as a constitutional republic.
– He hasn’t transformed squat Ernst. All he’s done is squander three decades of revenues in less than 4 years.
– Roberts, in one desasterous move, did more real and lasting damage. Although unlikely, budgets can be balanced, its possible. What Roberts did is the equivalent of throwing out the baby, the bath water, and both mothers claiming same.
If you want to hang it on Roberts, that’s fine with me. But Robertscare fundamentally transforms the relationship between the (once) free citizen and his elected (ostensibly) representative government.
And Roberts isn’t running for jack shit.
The larger point is that Obama isn’t an incompetent caretaker who keeps fucking things up. Thinking of him that way buys into the evergreen special plea of the Democrat: judge me by my intentions, not by my results.
The outcomes are bad because the inputs are bad.
The U.S. is already finished as a constitutional republic. Obama will just make our decline faster than Romney would. Maybe.
– I completely agree. But. the difference is real and tangible. Bad legislation, unpopular to say the least in this case, can be reversed, however difficult. When you completely tear asunder the fundemental laws we are all governed by, it doen’t leave a lot of room for recovery.
– Whick would you rather, given only these choices, a rat-assed despised piece of bad legislature that took a bitter protracted fight to correct, or the total loss of freedom, with no remedy readily available, because thats what you have with the Roberts move. Short of impeachment, or a convention, theres no other way so the answer is obvious.
– We very well may have weathered Obama’s worst, With the Roberts thing we may be mortally wounded for all time.
I’m all in favor of a Constitutional Convention. For the reason cranky gave. If we’re done, then let’s dissolve this outfit.
– I’m 75 years old. Seen a hell of a lot of crap in my time, but I can honestly say, as bad as I’ve seen in the darkest of times, what i’ve seen since 9/11 it would seem that our country has lost its collective mind.
“…This situation will grow and spiral out of control, and we’ll all be lucky to survive…”
– Some day, if we do survive we, the oldest generation, we’ll be blamed for it all. For not giving our children enough self awareness, enough self respect, and for not warning them harshly enough of the dangers of Pleasure Islamd. The worst of it is, I can’t honestly say they’d be wrong.
– I’m old, and weary, but I’ll fight on ’til I’m just another silent key, K8NNA, over and out.
we should turn it all to glass
From the Bosporus to Balikpapan?
…
Spleef.
“It is only because we have a duty to construe a statute to save it, if fairly possible, that [the individual mandate] can be interpreted as a tax,” Roberts said.
– Construe in this case is a euphamisn for rewrite, plain and simple, and so obviously legislating from the bench that the other four Comservatives Justices would not even acknoeldge his decision in their decent. Almost every reviewer out there, legal scholars all, say this is such a clear overreach on Roberts part it can’t possibly stand up and any future review will easily reverse it “without pause”.
– So maybe, aside from uncovering a blithering lunitic, the net result will be to reassert certain limits on the court itself from this insane ruling.
– Lets hope so. If Roberts was going for his 15 minutes of fame he’s going to get more than he bargained for. and hiding in Malta isn’t going to save him.
Well, I guess it’s time to be convinced: Romney Declares Independence From Advisors: Calls Mandate ‘Tax’
We absolutely would if the media stays complicite by keeping the spotlight elsewhere, but that only happens with a Democrat in office.
Hell yeah!!! Because Lord knows that having Rick Santorum lose to Barrack Obama is JUST what would solve this problem.
WTF?!
Reagan can’t win. WE NEED HOWARD BAKER!
Don’t you know that the only candidate who can’t beat Obama is the one who inspired his signature legislation? Wise up, Hobbits! Mitt, Mitt, he’s our man, if he can’t do it, fuck it, I guess we can work with the Democrats…
We absolutely would if the media stays complicite by keeping the spotlight elsewhere, but that only happens with a Democrat in office.
Funny that. I keep hearing that the media is unbiased—all evidence to the contrary.
“…all evidence to the contrary.”
– Hater!
Well, I guess it’s time to be convinced: Romney Declares Independence From Advisors: Calls Mandate ‘Tax’
Not so fast. Sure, he says that now, but what happens the first time a reporter (or Obama in a debate) asks him “so does this mean that the RomneyCare mandate was a tax, and does that make you in favor of tax hikes on the middle class”?
In reply, I fully expect him to shuffle his feet, hem and haw, and stammer about “er, that’s different” and then completely back down. Romney has demonstrated a complete inability to EVER say anything even remotely disparaging about RomneyCare. And because of that, anytime he makes an “ObamaCare is Bad” argument, the moment someone brings up RomneyCare he will either retreat completely or muddle his own message by trying to split hairs over the differences between the two.
This is why I feel that Fehrnstrom didn’t actually misspeak in his latest “The ObamaCare Mandate is a Penalty, not a Tax” statement, he just voiced Romney’s actual position that Romney has now decided he must temporarily distance himself from for political reasons. But he will circle back around to it just as soon as someone puts him a corner.
The proof the Fehrnstrom didn’t mispeak is that he still has a job.
And Romney can’t say anything disparaging about RomneyCare. It’s his signature accomplishment in an otherwise unremarkable polical career.
Oh I’m sorry. That’ wasn’t unhelpful, was it?
I was going to let deadrody’s comment go unremarked upon, seeing as this thread is dead and buried, but I guess I can’t help myself.
This election is going to be a referendum on Obama. I seriously doubt that, had Santorum been the nominee, a statistically significant portion of the electorate would have gone into the voting both thinking, “gee, that Obama has been a disaster for the economy and [insert secondary issue here], but I just don’t trust that Santorum fellow to do better.”
Which is good news for Mitt Romney, because I’m one of a number of statistical outliers hanging around this place.