Tag Archives: Santorum

Richard Land joins other sheep calling for Santorum to drop out & support Romney #2012 #teaparty

Cracks emerge in Santorum’s evangelical support | The Raw Story

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/08/cracks-emerge-in-santorums-evangelical-support/

…“Rick’s a good friend. I like Rick a lot,” Land told CBS “Face the Nation” program on Sunday.

But, Land said, “as his friend I would say to him, ‘you know, you ought to seriously consider leaving the race now.’”…

Leave a comment

Filed under 2012 elections, Activism, Current events, Politics, Religion

List of stories in the MSM whose theme is that Santorum endorse Romney. #2012 #teaparty

RRD:Please note that I have excluded stories put out by Conservative,or Republican Establishment mouthpieces.
Note also that this list only covers about the past week.
There are two reasons that the MSM wants Santorum gone,(and no,concern for the GOP isn’t one,& concern about the damage Santorum does to his reputation if he does not make a “graceful exit” isn’t the other).

1.They hate Santorum

2.They wish to ensure that if worst comes to worst,and Obama is defeated,that his legacy remains intact.And finally they see it as a opportunity to entrench Liberalism in the GOP.

Cracks emerge in Santorum’s evangelical support | The Raw Story

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/08/cracks-emerge-in-santorums-evangelical-support/

Rick Santorum edges toward the embarrassment zone – The Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/rick-santorum-and-the-embarrassment-zone/2012/04/05/gIQABYIZxS_blog.html

Rick Santorum’s Pennsylvania primary problem – POLITICO.com

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/74887.html

What’s Rick Santorum’s exit strategy – er plan to prevail? – CSMonitor.com

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2012/0407/What-s-Rick-Santorum-s-exit-strategy-er-plan-to-prevail

Santorum moves fuel predictions he will exit – Boston.com

http://articles.boston.com/2012-04-07/news/31305573_1_santorum-democrat-bob-casey-pennsylvania-senator

Will Kentucky’s Republican presidential primary matter? | Politics and Government | Kentucky.com

http://www.kentucky.com/2012/04/06/2142454/will-kentuckys-republican-presidential.html

Santorum fights speculation his race has been run – TheHill.com

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/220255-campaign-fights-growing-speculation-that-santorums-race-has-been-run

Leave a comment

Filed under 2012 elections, Activism, Current events, Politics

Politico:Romney advisors think Romneycare will help him with independents by showing his ”compassion” #obamacare #2012 #teaparty

Mitt Romney or not, GOP is coming for ‘Obamacare’ – Alexander Burns – POLITICO.com

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74629_Page2.html

…..“The debate right now is fundamental and there’s one candidate in this race who can actually make the contrast that is necessary to take the Republican position, conservative position,” Santorum said outside the Supreme Court on Monday. “There is one candidate who is disqualified to make the case.”

RRD:I am not a Santorum supporter,(he has problems of his own),but Santorum,(and Gary Johnson and Ron Paul,when you can find coverage of them),are correct,this is a fundamental moral issue and one of Individual Rights ,and the GOP is reverting full-bore to its suicidal mee-tooism that helped give us Obamacare.

For why this is a disaster see:

“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

….”Romney and his aides view things differently: Since the outset of his 2012 run, they have privately predicted that “Romneycare” would be an asset in the general election that could help cast Romney as a kinder, gentler kind of Republican that swing voters can embrace.

More recently, Romney has sought to reassure conservatives by vowing to scrap the federal law “root and branch,” though he has also pointed to the Massachusetts law as an example of his compassion as a governor.”

RRD:From the “Etch-a-sketch” comment to this,(assuming it is accurate),the man’s own campaign is vindicating the predictions and fears of his critics.

….”Regardless of how swing voters ultimately view the Massachusetts law, it still presents a quandary for the rest of the Republican Party, which has typically been able to paint in the broadest of rhetorical strokes when discussing the federal law and its impact on individual rights. And softening Romney’s image is not necessarily an urgent priority for Republicans focused on the House and Senate.”…

RRD:Translation:Romney will kick the legs out from under our efforts to defeat statism,and Republicans in the House and Senate are frightened that Romney will so alienate the GOP Base that they will not vote,and Congressional Republicans will be slaughtered in 2012.
If true,such is the “practicality” of the GOP.

“Colorado Attorney General John Suthers, a Romney endorser who has also brought suit against the federal law, said that the party would have to be “slightly more nuanced” in its health care messaging with Romney at the top of the ticket.

RRD:Those who participated in the 2008 campaign know exactly what is meant by “nuanced”:Self-defeating hypocritical partisanship that,at best,undercuts the efforts of those of us who oppose and condemn the Individual Mandate on principle,and at worst leads some to sell their souls by shilling for a position that they never would have taken had not a Republican taken it.

There are people that, as a matter of public policy, think they shouldn’t be required by anybody to do anything,” he said. “As a matter of public policy, those guys are goners. But I think there’s a lot of people in between that understand the difference, where states can make their own decisions.”

RRD:”There are people that, as a matter of public policy, think they shouldn’t be required by anybody to do anything”,indeed,they include the Founding Fathers,Objectivists,Libertarians,and a significant portion of the Teaparty and Conservatives;including some of the most dedicated,passionate and energetic activists.And what does he mean by “goners”?That they will not vote for Romney?
Not true,I will not,but I know many who believe that Romney is the “lesser of two evils”.
Or does he mean “goners” in that they are marginal figures?If the latter then he has it backwards:the argument that the Individual Mandate violates individual rights is what has motivated people to oppose it,(due to their vestigial knowledge of,and respect for,the concept of individual rights),it is the narrow,legalistic argument that does not have wide backing.(And don’t get me started on the absurdist irony of the “states can make their own decisions”;on

image

what?Whether to violate individual rights?On the Individual Mandate?On Forced segregation?On Forced abortions?On Eugenics?On Slavery?)

image

Leave a comment

Filed under 2012 elections, Activism, Current events, Obamacare

Don’t Let Go.. #Objectivist( #aynrand ) podcast 8pm est Topics:U.S.Soldiers betrayed/ #obamacare-cost/Santorum-Porn #tcot #teaparty #2012

http://dontletitgo.com/2012/03/18/join-us-for-dont-let-it-go-unheard-today-at-5-p-m-pdt-8-p-m-edt/

….”Planned topics: Rick Santorum pledges, if elected, to crack down on…Internet pornography. Several U.S. soldiers were killed by their supposed Afghan allies in the last month — how are these cases being reported and is anything being done about it? Surprise: Obamacare will cost at least twice as much as originally promised. And more.”….

Disclaimer:Posting does not imply endorsement.

Leave a comment

Filed under 2012 elections, Activism, Afghanistan, Obamacare, Objectivism

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

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/03/14/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. ”…..

Footnotes:

fn1

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?
Twice?
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.

Footnotes:

fn1.

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

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-presidential-primary/209331-santorum-wins-missouri-primary

fn2

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

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-presidential-primary/208805-sununu-low-turnout-means-gop-satisfied

fn3

ibid.

fn4

(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

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

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

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2012/01/south_carolina_gop_cnn_debate_.html

….”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.

(Applause.)

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

When the Tea Party Died

When the Tea Party Died

http://m.townhall.com/columnists/kevinmccullough/2012/01/08/when_the_tea_party_died

….”In 2010 even Ann Coulter was making speeches at CPAC warning that if we chose the candidate who had authored Obamacare to become the nominee, then President Obama would be easily re
-elected. She was right of course.

But somewhere along the line instead of being bold, defiant, grassroots, and in control, someone started feeding voters the meme that the man who saw to it that $50 state-subsidized abortions were included in his vision of mandated government health care, was the best of poor choices.

Even Ann Coulter 2.0 drank the kool-aid.

Worse yet the choices that are left in the race are establishment folks who ate earmarks for a living in Pennsylvania, embraced government involvement in the biggest hoax of our time–man made Global Warming, and who could forget the man that as Governor of Massachusetts raised taxes on everything from gasoline to “certificates of blindness.” (No it’s real… Look it up.)

Your humble correspondant has detailed the easy path that Obama’s forces will take to not merely defeat a Romney GOP candidacy, but to pummel him into tapioca.”…

That first tea party in DC took place exactly three days after President Obama’s joint session, where he had instructed his supporters on Obamacare to go “get in people’s faces” if they disagreed with the policy. He told his critics that he was calling them out.

I remember bringing that little point to the attention of the close to 1.2 million gathered on the mall that afternoon. The chants of “Here we are, Here we are, Here we are” rang in my ears for days.

Sadly now I wonder, “Where’d we go?”

Leave a comment

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