Tag Archives: Gingrich

Gingrich insists republican primary isn’t over#2012 #teaparty

Gingrich insists republican primary isn’t over


RRD:What’s interesting to me are the comments below the piece linked to above.Despite the Establishment and the news media’s efforts to hypnotize people into voting for Romney(“You will vote for Romney,you will vote for Romney..),there remain a significant portion of the electorate who really have no intention of voting for him or supporting him,no matter how many others do,and no amount of treating their support as a fait accompli will alter that.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Mitt ”inevitable” Romney,defeated in Alabama,Mississippi & Tennessee GOP primaries.

The ”inevitable” candidate gets rejected by the base again.

RRD:Romney stands on,and for no principle other than his “conservative case for the Individual Mandate”,and the belief that “the Earth is getting warmer”,and man is largely to blame.(fn1)

Yet despite the fact that Romney has no convictions other than liberal ones,people continue to be suprised when he keeps losing.

While some of Santorum’s Mississippi & Alabama supporters are no doubt motivated by agreement with some or all of Santorum’s platform,others,(& perhaps more than one would think),are motivated by opposition to Romney & Romney’s great ”achievement”:Romneycare.

Erikson seems to think that more of the voters were motivated by a desire to stop Romney,than by support of Santorum.

I have excerpted the key parts below,& I summarize some parts.

Romney came in third,in Alabama & Mississippi.

Not Closing the Deal


….”Yesterday, Mitt Romney went on CNN and told Wolf Blitzer that Rick Santorum’s campaign ‘was coming to a desperate end.’ That seems more apt this morning to Romney’s southern campaign.”….

…”Newt Gingrich last night proved he is neither a regional candidate nor a spoiler. ”…….”Gingrich could not win the deep south. He won Georgia and South Carolina. A Catholic yankee from Pennsylvania won Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, and will probably win Louisiana. Even with Gingrich in the race, Santorum beat Romney. He was no spoiler. ”….

…” The striking thing about the exits, which over all captured the race fairly well, is that Santorum’s voters made up their mind in the last few weeks. In other words, Santorum’s voters made up their minds as Romney was winning Arizona, Michigan, and Ohio. Santorum’s vote is not about Santorum so much as it is about stopping Romney.”….

….”No doubt buoyed by exit polling yesterday, the Romney campaign made sure everyone knew they could seriously win Mississippi. By 8pm, Eric Fehrnstrom was on CNN telling Anderson Cooper that no one really thought Romney would win Alabama or Mississippi.”….

…”In heavily Republican Madison County, MS, voter turn out barely topped 7,000 voters. In 2008, when the GOP contest was done and everyone knew McCain would be the nominee, 10,500 people still turned out to vote for McCain. Yes, more Republicans turned out to vote McCain in 2008 than Romney in 2012. ”…..



Though,interestingly,the closer we move to the GOP convention,the less convinced Romney is of man’s role in Global Warming.One wonders what will happen if he gets the nomination.Will Man’s role increase again?

Leave a comment

Filed under 2012 elections, Activism, Current events

This is ”inevitability”?!Romney loses to Santorum in Missouri & Minnesota.

RRD:To date the “inevitable” Mitt Romney has lost in Iowa(though by a very small margin),lost to Gingrich in South Carolina by a wide.margin,and now lost in Minnesota and Missouri(fn1).And he did this while outspending two candidates who are themselves not exactly “Reagan-Revisted”.
Outspending,by a wide margin.
What’s more,turnout was depressed in Florida,something which Romney surrogate Sununu says is GOOD for Romney(fn2).Gingrich counters that while he lost in Florida overall,in those districts he carried,turnout was up.(fn3).
No matter how you spin this,the “inevitability” argument is belied by the reality that Romney is flatly hated by a considerable portion of the GOP.
This is NOT a matter of being ”insufficiently conservative”(the Rockefeller Republican’s pet straw man).
Romney has flip flopped on all but his two worst positions:Global Warming & the Individual Mandate(on the state level).
On those he has been ”bad & steady”.
I doubt that the support for Gingrich,or Santorum is due to much other than sheer disgust with Romney.

The condescending mantra that Republicans ”will come around”,seems more & more reminiscent of the Left’s oft repeated claim that once we understand Obamacare,once Obama has delivered his upteenth speech on the matter,we would fall in love with it and him.

There IS a precedent for ramming a nominee down the GOP base’s collective throat –while believing that this was a path to victory–under the premise of “where will they go”.
It was 2008.

How did that work out?
Oh,wait,the problem was Palin.
Mccain needed (pro-choice )Tom Ridge or Joe Lieberman to get the Independents.The base?(snickers) Where will they go?Screw em.We don’t need to worry about them.They’ll take whatever garbage we shovel down their throats.
But the independents,oh we need those luscious independents.
And they won’t go for a Conservative like Reagan…What’s that..Reagan won in a landslide?
A fluke.
The independents won’t vote for someone unlike Romney,who doesn’t believe in Global Warming…Most independents don’t believe in Global Warming?
Well then the independents won’t vote for someone who opposes the Individual Mandate &..They oppose the Individual Mandate too?

You see the Republicans can’t win with someone who is even AS CONSERVATIVE as the average American,but Democrats,by contrast,can easily win with someone who:

1.Who can’t get unemployment below the 8% level (which he said unemployment would never even rise to,to begin with),

2.Who taught the methods of a communist who dedicated his book to lucifer(Alinsky)

3.Whose self-described spiritual adviser,(fn4)responded to 9/11 by screeching calls for damnation upon his own country.

Yet Republicans cannot win with anyone whose views on Global Warming & the Individual Mandate are the same as those of the general electorate.

Odd that.



Santorum gets boost with wins in Missouri and Minnesota – The Hill’s Ballot Box



Sununu: Low turnout means GOP satisfied – The Hill’s Ballot Box





(Obama said Wright was like family to him,he was ”a part of” Obama)

Leave a comment

Filed under 2012 elections, Activism, Current events, Obamacare

Gingrich “Every county I carried had an increase in turnout over last time,” “Every county Romney carried had a decrease in turnout over last time.”

….”But Gingrich on Sunday put the low turnout squarely on Romney’s shoulders.

“Every county that I carried had an increase in turnout over last time,” Gingrich said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “Every county that Gov. Romney carried had a decrease in turnout over last time.”

NBC News later verified that Gingrich’s assessment of the turnout situation was accurate.”…

Sununu: Low turnout means GOP satisfied – The Hill’s Ballot Box


RRD:Also Sununu believes low primary turnout is good.He isn’t alone in promoting this type of “everything is good for Romney” fantasy.See below:

AFP: Long primary battle could help Romney build support


…..”A drawn-out fight for the Republican nomination could work to frontrunner Mitt Romney’s advantage if he uses it to develop his campaign structure in swing states key to beating President Barack Obama in November.

That’s what happened in 2008, when Obama built a formidable organization that registered hundreds of thousands of new voters and signed up an army of volunteers during his own long primary battle with Hillary Clinton.”..

RRD:You see,Romney’s inability to “seal the deal” will help him,because it will make him create a grassroots….

Wait,isn’t the fact that Romney can’t “close the deal”(he lost overwhelmingly in South Carolina,)due to the fact that he is hated by the very people he needs for grassroots turnout in 2012?How then will their hatred of him help him to mobilize them on his behalf?And couldn’t he just turn his attention to building a grass roots operation earlier if he won the nomination earlier?
And the same was true of Obama.Obama did not benefit from having to fight Clinton.He was not harmed because of his overwhelming,(cult like)support among Democrats,but he did NOT benefit.
On a related point:If Romney gets the nomination,he will be the first to do so who DID NOT win S.Carolina in 30 some years.To put that in perspective it would be the first time that happened in my lifetime.
Of course many things have happened for the first time in my lifetime.But it would still be unusual.

But don’t worry,the anti-romney base may not THINK they will vote,&/or be energized,but what do they know.

….”Things will likely change in November, when conservatives who have rallied around calls to make Obama a one-term president have a chance to vote him out of office, said Larry Jacobs, a politics professor at the University of Minnesota.

“I don’t think you’re going to need Newt Gingrich to turn out those people,” he told AFP.

“They’re so antagonized by the Obama presidency that they’re guaranteed to turn out.”….

RRD:Yeah like in 2008,as Mccain snickered “Where will they go”.
I remember 2008 very clearly.
Most people I knew on the right argued and believed that we could not survive FOUR years of Obama,much less 8.
The problem?
It is very difficult to campaign for a ”Morale Vampire”(i.e. John Mccain and Romney).
Mccain spent much of the end of the campaign telling us how wonderful Obama was.
He was a ”good man”,”we had nothing to fear from him” etc.
And when he lost,he told us that Obama was his “leader”(& by extension ours).

How many times will Rockefeller Republicans spit in our face before November,having made themselves smugly ”secure” by the “Where will they go” chant?

If Romney is nominated it will be their opportunity to drop their veneer of conservatism and finally let us know what they really think of us.
We already see this in the gratuitous insults:

Coulter believes people who oppose Romney are not ”normal” – fightingstatism


And in the gleefully sadistic condescension directed against Conservatives:

PJ Media » Resigning Yourself to Romney: A Guide for the Disgruntled


This is not the writing of someone who supports someone (e.g. Romney)because they believe he is the lesser of two evils.
This is the triumphant sneer of the passive aggressive con artist who relishes giving his victim the finger, while putting on a “all innocent” expression.
It is the sneering triumph of a enemy over a humiliated foe.

If someone wished to endorse–or support Romney–there is a very simple way for a honest person to do so:

“Romney is horrendous,but I don’t think we can survive another Obama term”

Full Stop.
One does not need to spit in the face of Romney’s opponents by telling us that Romneycare was a ”triumph” for free market medicine,as that lying hypocrite Coulter did.

Three Cheers for Romneycare:


Nor does one need to sneer triumphantly as has this Belladona Rogers creature does.
No there is something else going on here.
And it ain’t pretty.
We are winnowing the wheat from the chaff.
By this I don’t mean that all Romney supporters are “chaff”,but disingenous supporters are.Romney shills are.
There are good people who support Romney as the ”lesser of two evils”.
But they are honest & upfront.
Coulter isn’t.
Rodgers isn’t.
They are liars & frauds.

This has indeed been a very revealing year.

Leave a comment

Filed under 2012 elections, Activism, Current events

The ”electability” canard.Why the Polls of today don’t matter.

RRD:One of the most oft repeated arguments for Romney(just as it was for Mccain)is the “electability” argument.
Or as I call it:the “electability myth”.
The myth is not that there is no such thing as real,actual electibility,with the flip side being that “anyone can win”.

The myth is that a candidate’s electibility can be determined nine months in advance of a election.

People who have no qualms about saying that ”the Teaparty will just have to fall in line”,nine months in advance of the election,in defiance of the Teaparty’s current ”anyone but Romney” stance,
will nevertheless treat today’s polling data showing Romney as electable,(& conversely showing Gingrich,Paul,Santorum as unelectable) as if it was the Law of Conservation of Energy.
Something that is immutable.
The moods & whims of the ”undecideds” are afforded similar awe.
One wonders why we should bother having elections at all?
Why not just take a poll on the day of the nominating convention & declare whoever leads as President?
Any Pollster worth his salt will tell you that you cannot predict the outcome of a election months in advance,(or even weeks ,if it is remotely close),but all that gets tossed out the window by the Rockefeller Republicans who claim that they would like to be ”pure”,but alas,”elections are won in the center”.

The actual motive behind many of the ”Romney is electable” mantras(fn1) is to dismiss anyone not LEFT OF CENTER as unelectable (both Mccain & Romney were left of center on Global Warming,Romney is additionally left of center on the Individual Mandate).
Having lost the philosophical argument,Rockeffeller Republicans have adopted a new “practical” argument:”Elections are won from the center”.Except that their “centrists” keep going down in flames.(Murkowski and some others being notable exceptions).
Carly Fiorina was supposed to be ”electable”.Along with Meg Whitman.Along with Arlen Specter,(versus the unelectable,since elected Sen.Pat Toomey.)
”Obamacan” Charlie Crist(whose advisors are now advising Romney)
was a supposedly unbeatable candidate,versus the ”nice,but unelectable” Sen.Rubio.
The result?
Crist,a pathological liar & flip flopper,hated by the base,lost the nomination & RAN AS A Independent,and,in what must be the most brazen act of narcissism outside of the White House, instructed his Democratic opponent to ”be unselfish” & drop out of the race.(His opponent,Meek,displayed more self-respect & courage than some ”conservatives” who have shilled for Romney & basically told Crist,& probably also Bill Clinton if the rumors are true, to go to hell).

I do not trust polls.Particularly when they are nearly a year in advance of the elections.
This does not mean that a honest person cannot look at the polls and conclude that Romney is the candidate who is most likely to beat Obama.But they cannot treat their extrapolation as if it were a fact of nature.Nor can they say that ”Since the polls say, that IF the election were held today,Gingrich etal would lose”,therefore ”Gingrich etal CAN’T win”,because the ELECTIONS ARE NOT BEING HELD TODAY.You cannot know what people will do if given the choice,in the real world,of GOP candidate X vs Obama.
You can make guesses & projections,but THAT IS ALL YOU CAN DO.A ”hypothetical matchup” does not take into account:debates between the Republican and the Democrat,errors or gaffes by the candidates,the effect of ads that have yet to run,(both positive & negative),real & invented scandals.
Anyone who claims to know the outcome of a election,with certainty,is a liar or a fool.
One can make predictions about the outcome.
But one cannot anoint candidate X as ”the only candidate who can beat Obama”.
Teaparty members,Libertarians,Conservatives & Objectivists should take any claims of ”electability” with a grain of salt.
They should not dismiss them,but they should scrutinize them carefully to see if they have a rational justification.They should also study the history of elections to gain context on some of these claims.


1.Not all.But when you have “Progressive” Republicans,and establishment Republicans consistently predicting defeat for Toomey,Rubio,Reagan etc while ignoring the fact that Fiorina,Ford,Dole,G.H.W.Bush & Mccain went down in flames, it is legitimate to question whether they are ”just interested in winning”, or whether they want Rockefeller Republicans whether they win or lose.

Leave a comment

Filed under 2010 elections, 2012 elections, Activism, Current events

#CNNdebate transcript for #scprimary #Romney #Newt & #Santorum on #Obamacare

South Carolina GOP CNN debate, Jan. 19, 2012. Transcript – Lynn Sweet


….”Number two,we have to go after a complete repeal. (Cheers, applause.) And that’s going to have to have to happen — that — that’s going to have to happen with — with a House and a Senate, hopefully that are Republican. If we don’t have a Republican majority, I think we’re going to be able to convince some Democrats that when the American people stand up loud and clear and say, we do not want “Obamacare,” we do not want the higher taxes, we do not want a $500 billion cut in Medicare to pay for “Obamacare,” I think you’re going to see the American people stand with our president and say, let’s get rid of “Obamacare.”

But we’ll replace it. And I’ve — and I’ve laid out what I’ll replace it with. First, it’s a bill that does care for people that have pre-existing conditions. If they’ve got a pre-existing condition and they’ve been previously insured, they won’t be denied insurance going forward.

Secondly, I’ll allow people to own their own insurance rather than just be able to get it from their employer. I want people to be able to take their insurance with them if they go from job to job. (Applause.) So — so we’ll make it work in the way that’s designed to have health care act like a market, a consumer market, as opposed to have it run like Amtrak and the Post Office. That’s what’s at risk — (applause) — at stake here.

Do we — we go back to this. Ours is the party of free enterprise, freedom, markets, consumer choice. Theirs is the party of government knowledge, government domination, where Barack Obama believes that he knows better for the American people what’s best for them. He’s wrong. We’re right. That’s why we’re going to win. (Applause.)

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, you heard the skepticism. It’s a Southern Republican voter. But he’s skeptical, and he knows how Washington works.

MR. GINGRICH: Well, sure.

MR. KING: He’s watched Washington work. He’s asked: Can it be reversed in its entirety. You — you were the speaker of the House. You understand how this works. How? How can it be repealed in this current political environment?

MR. GINGRICH: Well, let me say, first of all, if you’ve watched Washington and you’re not skeptical, you haven’t learned anything. (Laughter, applause.) I mean, this — this system is a total mess right now.

Second, can you get it repealed in total? Sure. You have to elect a House, a Senate and a president committed to that. It has to be a major part of the fall campaign. And I think that, frankly, on our side with any of us, it’s going to be a major part of the fall campaign. The American people are frightened of bureaucratic centralized medicine, they deeply distrust Washington, and the pressure will be to repeal it.

And a lot of what Governor Romney has said I think is actually pretty good, sound stuff for part of the replacement. I would always repeal all of it, because I so deeply distrust the congressional staffs that I would not want them to be able to pick and choose which things they kept.

But let me make one observation. You raised a good example. Why is President Obama for young people being allowed to stay on their parents’ insurance until 26? Because he can’t get any jobs for them to go out and buy their own insurance. (Cheers, applause.)

I mean, I — I have an — I have an offer — I have an offer to the parents of America: Elect us, and your kids will be able to move out, because they’ll have work. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. KING: (Laughs.) Let’s — (inaudible) — Senator Santorum, you heard Governor Romney and you heard Speaker Gingrich. Do you trust them, if one of them is the Republican Party’s nominee, and potentially the next president of the United States, to repeal this law?

MR. SANTORUM: The biggest — the biggest thing we have to do is elect a president. I think Newt’s right. The problem is that two of the people up here would be very difficult to elect on, I think, the most important issue that this country is dealing with right now, which is the robbing of our freedom because of “Obamacare.”

Governor Romney tells a very nice story about what his plan is now. It wasn’t his plan when he was in a position to do a plan. When he was governor of Massachusetts, he put forth “Romneycare,” which was not a bottom-up, free-market system. It was a government-run health care system that was the basis of “Obamacare.” And it has been an abject failure, and he has stood by it.

He’s stood by the fact that it’s $8 billion more expensive — (applause) — than under the current law. He’s stood by the fact that Massachusetts has the highest health insurance premiums of any state in the country; it is 27 percent more expensive than the average state in the country. Doctors — if you’re in the Massachusetts health care system, over 50 percent of the doctors now are not seeing new patients — primary care doctors are not seeing new patients. Those who do get to see a patient are waiting 44 days, on average, for the care.

It is an abject disaster.

He’s standing by it, and he’s going to have to have to run against a president — he’s going to have to run against a president who’s going to say, well, look, look at what you did for Massachusetts, and you’re the one criticizing me for what I’ve done? I used your model for it.

And then — (cheers, applause) — then we have Speaker Gingrich, who has been for an individual mandate, not back in the time that just was — Heritage was floating around in the ’90s, but as late as — comments (since/in ?) 2008, just a few years ago, he stood up and said that we should have an individual mandate or post a $150,000 bond. How many $150,000 bondholders do we have here who can post a bond for their health insurance?

These are two folks who don’t present the clear contrast that I do, who was the author of health savings accounts, which is the primary basis of every single — (cheers, applause) — conservative reform of health care. I was the author of it back in 1991 and ’92, 20 years ago. I’ve been fighting for health reform, private-sector, bottom-up, the way America works best, for 20 years, while these two guys were playing footsies with the left. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. KING: I want to bring Congressman Paul — I’ll bring him into the discussion in just a moment, but Senator Santorum directly challenged the governor and then the speaker. Governor, you first.

MR. ROMNEY: Well, so much of what the senator said was wrong. Let me mention a few of the things.

First of all, the system in my state is not a government-run system. Ninety-eight — 92 percent of the people had their own insurance before the system was put in place, and nothing changed for them. They still had the same private insurance. And the 8 percent of the uninsured, they bought private insurance, not government insurance. And the people in the state still favor the plan three to one.

And it certainly doesn’t work perfectly. Massachusetts, by the way, had the highest insurance costs before the plan was put in place and after, but fortunately, the rate of growth has slowed down a little less than the overall nation. And one of the things I was proud of is that individuals who wanted to buy their own insurance saw their rates –when they were not part of a big group — saw their rates drop by some 40 percent with our plan.

Is it perfect? Absolutely not. But I do believe that having been there, having been on the front lines, showing that I have compassion for people that don’t have insurance but that the Obama plan is a 2,700-page, massive tax increase, Medicare-cutting monster, I know how to cut it. I’ll eliminate it. I will repeal is and I’ll return the — I’ll return the power to the states, where the power for caring for the uninsured ought to reside constitutionally. Thank you.

MR. SANTORUM: Yeah, I’d like —

MR. KING: Senator Santorum, he says your facts are wrong.

MR. SANTORUM: Well, they’re simply not wrong. The fact is that, yes, you’re right, Governor Romney, 92 percent of people did have health insurance in Massachusetts, but that wasn’t private-sector health insurance. A lot of those people were, as you know, on Medicare and Medicaid, so they’re already on government insurance, and you just expanded it, in fact. Over half the people who came on the rolls since you put “Romneycare” into effect are fully subsidized by the state of Massachusetts, and a lot of those are on the Medicaid program. So the idea that you have created this marketplace and — and — with this government-run health care system where you have very prescriptive programs about reimbursement rates, you have a very prescriptive program just like what President Obama is trying to put in place here, you’re arguing for a plan — you’re defending a plan that is top-down. It is not a free-market health care system. It is not bottom-up. It is prescriptive in government. It was the basis for “Obamacare.” And we do not draw a distinction that it’s going to be effective for us just because it was the state level, not the federal level. (Applause.)

MR. ROMNEY: (Chuckles.)

MR. KING: If you want, Governor, quickly.

MR. ROMNEY: Sure, absolutely.

First of all, as you probably know, Medicaid is not a state program. All right?

MR. SANTORUM: Of course it is. It’s a state and federal program.

MR. ROMNEY: Medicaid is as demanded by the federal government, and it is — it’s — it is a mandate —

MR. SANTORUM: (Off mic.)

MR. ROMNEY: — it’s a mandate by the federal government and it’s shared 50/50 state and federal. The people of Massachusetts who are on Medicaid, I would like to end that program at the federal level, take the Medicaid dollars and return them to the states, and allow states — states to craft their own plans.

That would make the plan we had in Massachusetts a heck of a lot better. My view is, get the federal government out of Medicaid, get it out of health care, return it to the states. And if you want to go be governor of Massachusetts, fine. But I want to be president, and let states take responsibility for their own plan. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, it may seem like a while ago, Mr. Speaker, but Senator Santorum made the point, in his view, you don’t have credibility on this.

MR. GINGRICH: No, what he — what he said, which I found mildly amazing, was that he thought I would have a hard time debating Barack Obama over health care. Now, in fact, I — as Republican whip, I led the charge against “Hillarycare” in the House. As speaker of the House, I helped preside over the conference which wrote into law his idea on health savings accounts. So I was delighted to help him get it to be law. (Applause.) And — and the fact is, I helped found the Center for Health Transformation. I wrote a book called “Saving lives and Saving Money” in 2002. You can go to healthtransformation.net, and you will see hundreds of ideas — none of which resemble Barack Obama’s programs.

So I’d be quite happy to have a three-hour Lincoln-Douglas-style debate with Barack Obama. I’d let him use a teleprompter. I’ll just rely on knowledge. We’ll do fine. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. KING: Senator, you’re — I want to bring Congressman Paul in. You’re shaking your head. Quickly.

MR. SANTORUM: The core of “Obamacare” is an individual mandate. It is what is being litigated in the Supreme Court right now. It is government top-down telling every business and every American what kind of health care that you will have. That is the problem with “Obamacare” at the core of it. And the speaker supported it repeatedly for a 10-year period. So when he goes and says, I can, you know, run rings around President Obama in a Lincoln-Douglas debate, you can’t run rings around the fact, Newt, that you supported the primary core basis of what President Obama’s put in place.

MR. GINGRICH: Look, just one — one brief comment. One —

MR. KING: All right, quickly, Mr. Speaker. The Congressman is getting lonely down here. Let’s go.


MR. GINGRICH: Well, one — just one brief comment. Of course you can. I can say, you know, I was wrong, and I figured it out; you were wrong, and you didn’t. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. SANTORUM: You held that — Newt — Newt, you held that position for over 10 years. And, you know, it’s not going to be the most attractive thing to go out there and say, you know, it took me 10 or 12 years to figure out I was wrong, when guys like Rick Santorum knew it was wrong from the beginning. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. KING: Congressman Paul, you have the floor. Do you trust these men to repeal “Obamacare”?

REP. PAUL: Thank you! (Laughter, applause.) I thought you were — I thought maybe you were prejudiced against doctors and a doctor that practiced medicine in the military or something. (Cheers, applause.)

No, I want to address the question. The gentleman asked whether he thinks we can repeal “Obamacare.” Theoretically, we can. The likelihood isn’t all that good. We can diminish some of the effect. But I’m more concerned about a bigger picture of what’s happening, and that is government involvement in medicine.

I — I had the privilege of practicing medicine in the early ’60s, before we had any government. It worked rather well, and there was nobody on the street suffering with no medical care. But Medicare and Medicaid came in and –and — and it just expanded. But even when we had the chance to cut back on it, when we had a Republican Congress and a Republican president, we — we gave them prescription drug programs. Senator Santorum supported it. (Laughs.) You know, that’s expanding the government! (Cheers, applause.) So — so it’s endless.

And the — and most of them are bankrupt. Prescription drugs, they — they’re not going to be financed; Medicare is not financeable; Medicaid’s in trouble. But nobody talks about where the money’s going to come from.

Now, even in my budget proposal — which is very, very tough, because I’m going to cut a trillion dollars the first year — but I try to really — (cheers, applause) — even though these programs should have never started that a lot of people are dependent on, I want to try to protect the people who are dependent on — on medical care.

Now, where does the money come? My suggestion is, look at some of the overseas spending that we don’t need to be doing. (Cheers, applause.) We have — we have troops in Korea since — since the Korean War, in Japan since World War II, in Germany since World War — those are subsidies to these countries. And we keep fighting these wars that don’t need to be fought, they’re undeclared, they never end. Newt pointed out, you know, World War II was won in less than four years; Afghanistan, we’re there for 10 years. Nobody says, where does the money come?We could work our way out of here and take care of these people on — with these medical needs, but we can’t do it with the current philosophy of the government taking care of everybody forever on medical care, cradle to grave, and being the policeman of the world.

We will get rid of all this government program, unfortunately because we’re going bankrupt and you’re going to have runaway inflation and our checks are going to bounce. And that’s going to be a lot worse problem than we’re facing tonight. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. KING: All right. I’m going to ask all of our candidates to stand by, our audience as well. We have a couple breaks tonight. We’re going to take one of them now.

One candidate on this stage suggested this week that two candidates should get out of the race. One of them listened. We’ll get the reaction from the other coming up.

And also coming up, this is just in: While we’ve been on the air having this debate, Speaker Gingrich has released his tax returns. He’s put them online. We’ll ask him what’s in them when we come back. (Cheers, applause.)….

Leave a comment

Filed under 2012 elections, Activism, Current events

Obama’s secret weapon: #RINOS

“Obama’s Atomic Bomb: The Ideological Clarity of the Democratic Agenda” by John David Lewis   http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2009-fall/obamas-atomic-bomb.asp   

“Whereas Bush’s image as a free-market capitalist was a mirage, Obama’s image as a radical leftist is accurate. Obama’s great vulnerability is that a silent majority of American voters will see this, and will recognize that he does not share either their values or their vision of what America was and should be……” This is the clarity that Obama has brought to the American political scene. To see a president’s clear and principled commitment to an ideology—any ideology—is precisely what America has needed for decades. …. Although a large portion of the protesters remains confused about the principles at stake, an increasing number are gaining clarity. They are coming to see the Democratic proposals for health-care “reform,” for instance, not as a matter of new programs backed by good intentions, but as an attack on individual rights and an effort to impose a dictatorship—as signs at tea parties attest. And many are beginning to see that the Republicans as well have been guilty of such attacks. …..For three generations now, America has needed a blunt confrontation with the policies that have been leading the nation toward dictatorship and into bankruptcy. Such confrontations were stillborn in 1940, 1964, and 1980 because in each case Republicans failed to stand up, on principle, for capitalism, liberty, and individual rights. Republicans repeatedly collapsed into the quicksand of compromise and accepted the welfare state principles of their opponents while arguing about the “proper” amount of government coercion they would enact. The trend toward statism continued, because the incremental steps accepted by Republicans obscured the stark difference between America’s founding vision and its statist future. Obama has given active-minded Americans a close-up view of this future. His vision—a government bureaucracy to administer medicine, an environmental agency to shackle industry, and the institutional mechanisms for bringing the government into the most intimate details of our lives—is where we have been headed for decades.” ….    …. “But the issue is not yet closed. The Democrats have one last resource—one secret weapon—with which they can save their plans while avoiding political suicide in the next election. That weapon is the Republicans. If the Republicans compromise—if they accept federally -mandated health insurance in the guise of a “co -op” or the like, or a cap -and -trade bill that is marginally less draconian than the Democratic version—they will have once again capitulated to their opponents, abandoned liberty, and ruined the opportunity to redirect this nation toward its founding moral principle: individual rights, protected under a constitution in a free republic. …..   RRD:And that is exactly what will happen if we nominate a Liberal like Romney,or(on the Individual Mandate and Global Warming) Newt Gingrich.

Leave a comment

Filed under 2012 elections, Activism, Obamacare