by Jack Lee
On my personal, totally non-scientific, one to ten scale, Romney scores a 9.5 in what is probably the last presidential debate. His performance was followed closely by Newt Gingrich at 9.2 who needed to do well. Then I give it to Ron Paul, I scored him 8.8. He did well. Unfortunately for Paul supporters, his national polling is just too low to be to be a real contender at this juncture, but he still did very well and I enjoyed his comments, he pulls no punches. And then there was Rick Santorum…it was a make a break moment to keep up his momentum and it didn’t happen. I scored him dead last at 7.5 and that’s a shame because he’s a pretty decent guy, but this just about ends his presidential hopes.
Santorum didn’t answer the question on the GM bailout very well and he didn’t seem to recognize that a “structured bankruptcy” would have saved both the company and the jobs with minimal government bailout and freeing them up from the UAW. The two smartest men in the room, Gingrich and Romney, got it right and they gave strong answers that in a general sense made both of them look very presidential.
Paul laid into Santorum on earmarks. He said Santorum voted for things he didn’t like in order to pass other hangers-on and the worst part was Santorum’s defense of No Child Left Behind and Arlen Spector’s re-election by saying that sometimes you have to go along with the party even when you disagree. Paul doesn’t and this is why he characterized his own campaign with one word…consistent!
Ron Paul won’t get the nomination, but he still did a darn good job and his presence spiced up the debate. Paul’s comments on Iran and Israel drew more than a few boos. Paul’s weak spot is his foreign policy – it scares people the wrong people, the good guys. That said, Paul made a strong case for negotiating with Iran, citing how we negotiated with the Soviets and they had killed over a million of their own people, why not open discussions with Iran? He cited Cuba as an example how our sanctions don’t work..he would have a dialog with Iran, and he would not use military force to stop their nuclear weapons development.
Gingrich went into this debate with poor polling numbers. He needed to be the comeback kid, and he did not disappoint. This was also his best performance of all the debates. Tonight’s showing may not save his campaign, but it sure didn’t hurt and only time will tell how it plays out with wooing over supporters. Newt looked cheerful, cool and he used that razor sharp wit to maximum advantage tonight. Gingrich kept his message generally positive and it was obvious he was trying hard to avoid criticizing his fellow Republicans. “Newt’s answer on handling Iran, Syria, and the Middle East as a whole was easily the best of the bunch, giving him the opportunity to get the word out on his new energy plan to keep gas at below $2.50 a gallon.” CNN News.
Romney made Santorum look weak by comparison. At different times Romney joined with Paul in characterizing Santorum as a big government, big earmark Republican. Santorum tried to recover by attacking “RomneyCare,” but he was booed for his effort. I think people have heard enough of this attack on RomneyCare. We know what it is, we’ve heard this a million times now and it’s getting old. Conservatives are more than tired of seeing Republican candidates engaging in the politics of destruction. Gingrich figured it and this may have re-energized his campaign just when it was needed most.
In my humble opinion, it’s now between Gingrich and Romney to see who will emerge as #1. Here’s the good news, if either Gingrich or Romney can keep it up like they did tonight, there’s a real good chance either man could defeat Obama. Obama is in deep trouble over gasoline prices and this is only going to get worse. It’s already affecting his base. High pump prices could be a deciding factor in a close race. We know it will put a drag on the economy and its working like a heavy tax on the middle class and below. That’s not good for Obama.
“We know what it is, we’ve heard this a million times now and it’s getting old. ”
So, you’re okay with Romney Care, or you don’t think he’ll foist it on us?
well, I just read the transcript – Santorum brings up Romneycare, Romney changes the subject to Arlen Spector?
Why won’t Romney just make it clear that he does not support a nationalized Romney Care plan and promise he won’t try to foist it on the rest of the United States? Why does he keep avoiding saying that?
Juanita I have heard Romney say with coviction at least four different times that he would 1) Overturn Obamacare and 2. Not “foist” Romneycare at the federal level. He has said he is against a federal plan. I’ve also heard him defend Romneycare, including the mandate, at the state level. By now if he doesn’t see how unpopular Obamacare is I’d be surprised. One poll: 57% want it repealed. 27 states have filed lawsuits over the mandate and now a suit against the contraception mandate is also going forward. I can’t see him or Republicans legislators repeating anything like Obamacare.
Romney also pointed out that his state plan is just under 2000 pages. Obamacare is four or five times longer, contains a lot more complex regulation.
Juanita: “Why won’t Romney just make it clear that he does not support a nationalized Romney Care plan and promise he won’t try to foist it on the rest of the United States? Why does he keep avoiding saying that?”
Basically, because he’s a coward.
But of course he won’t implement anything like RomneyCare on the national level, because that’s already been done, and it’s called ObamaCare. (Well, it’s not actually called that, but some people like to call it that.) If I’m not mistaken, Romney has promised to repeal this, as that seems to be a requirement for Republican candidates in this race. If Romney had actual principles, or if Republicans showed the capacity to remember things they advocated for more then ten seconds ago, he’d be bragging about the successes of his state’s health insurance mandate which itself was based on recommendations from, of all places, the Heritage Foundation.
But Romney is a political opportunist who’s never had a position he didn’t change when it was politically expedient, so instead he’ll avoid the subject entirely. And he’s the best chance your party has right now.
Jack I was happy with all of the candidates performances. Both Romney and Santorum got boos when they started playing “can you top this” on past records. I think the work Santorum has done as a conservative in Congress outweighs those few questionable votes. The way our government has operated in general, tacking on amendments even after votes have been cast for instance, would put any candidate that has served in Congress, except perhaps Paul, on the defensive. Voting no on everything, as Paul does, works for a single congressman. Passing a budget, which they are compelled to do by law, requires some agreement. If they all voted no every time we’d have hundreds of Harry Reids playing games within the system.That wouldn’t work any better.
I’m glad to see Paul getting more time on air to voice his opinions. His strength is that he presses the party toward real conservatism and educates about freedom and limited government. His son does a good job voicing this view as well. Our checks and balances government won’t reflect that model until the people are more grounded in those first principles so it’s heartening to see him increase his numbers. Like you I don’t think the will of the people is there yet for him to take the presidency.
Paul is still too isolationist and naive on foreign policy and there is that tinge of blame America for Iran…a nation that has sponsered terrorism for decades. You can’t negotiate with fanatical terrorists; they can’t be trusted as we have witnessed in peace talks. The Russians were adversarial and imperialistic in their goals but you could reason with them.
Newt redeemed himself a bit last night but he still sounded like someone who would be better utilized in an advisory capacity.
I would vote for any of these candidates over Obama. Obama has utterly failed the people in terms of jobs and the economy and he is obviously committed to “transforming” our great republic into a fascist, socialist model. His foreign policy efforts are deplorable.
Chris: “…as that seems to be a requirement for Republican candidates in this race.”
You bet it is! A large majority of republican voters want this bill repealed. Republicans have long favored the notion of limited government with the states having power and in the last decade or so moving power back even to local levels is gaining in popularity. The message of limited government is gaining ground.
“…which itself was based on recommendations from, of all places, the Heritage Foundation.”
You’re really big on acknowledging mistakes, which The Heritage Foundation has done regarding a national plan, until it’s convenient for you to ignore it so you can vilify.
Meanwhile that guy that you favor is out raising money at from PACS after being against them in 2008. So much for principles:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2097892/Obama-drastic-u-turn-big-money-super-PACs–decried.html
One day Chris that smug attitude is going to bite you hard in the ***! I hope it’s as soon as November!
Paul is most definitely an isolationist and that is his weakness. His willingness to engage in negotiations with Iran makes me wonder what’s to negotiate? Our embargo on Cuba was a mistake and Paul got it right, but Cuba is not Iran. Cuba would likely be a democracy now had we not tried to isolate Castro and instead filled his nation with tourists and capitalism.
Santorum needs a little more experience and then I think he could make a come back in say 8 years. I agree that any of them and any of the past candidates would make a better president than Obama. He has made blunders that are costing us dearly.
Juanita, I have to join the chorus, I have heard Romney declare he would repeal Obamacare. You have to remember when the people in his state voted in a healthcare system it’s a state’s right issue, and their choice…I don’t have a problem with them doing that, if only to see how it would work and if they want to keep it. It’s no money out of my pocket…but at the federal level, hey, another story.
Early on Cuba was collaborating with Russia and a direct threat was seen as more compelling. Sanctions on Cuba in later years have more to do with human rights abuses don’t they? I don’t know that Castro would have accepted an influx of capitalism through tourism but there may be a better way to approach that country now that dear leader is on his last legs.
Chris: “If Romney had actual principles, or if Republicans showed the capacity to remember things they advocated for more then ten seconds ago…
Romney is a political opportunist who’s never had a position he didn’t change when it was politically expedient…”
Well, well, well! That smugness has come back to bite you on the butt today! Your support of Obama even after his many flip flops and lies, not to mention the deception of his entire hope and change campaign, shows your own incapacity to remember things and puts your principles in question:
Jan 31, 2011
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/31/judge-uses-obamas-words-against-him/
Firedoglake posted the video:
http://news.firedoglake.com/2009/12/17/video-of-obama-making-the-case-against-mandates/
Politifact gave him a complete flop:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/20/barack-obama/obama-flip-flops-requiring-people-buy-health-care/
2008 quotes from the article:
Tina, I have criticized Obama myself for his flip-flops on certain issues, especially his choice to sign indefinite detention into law and his continuation of many of Bush’s so-called national security policies. I think these will be blots on what is otherwise a respectable legacy, akin to Lincoln’s suspension of habeus corpus during the Civil War. I also recognize that Obama flip-flopped on the individual mandate. So this isn’t quite the gotchya you were hoping for (not that there’s anything wrong with gotchyas, when done right).
Perhaps I was a little too harsh on Romney (a guy I am rarely harsh on), but I do think he has more of a habit of flip-flopping then Obama does. My main point about the individual mandate is that Republicans seem to act as if it were all Obama’s idea. You haven’t just said this is a bad policy, you’ve essentially collectively decided that it comes from the bowels of Socialist Hell, and was delivered to Obama through the spirit of Karl Marx (I’m only slightly exaggerating here). I think such a party-wide flip-flop, wherein you’re calling your own idea an unconstitutional monstrosity, is significant. And I think if Republicans as a group had not gone so far with their rhetoric condemning the individual mandate, Romney might not feel so compelled to speak out against it. His opposition strikes me not as genuine belief, but as him just going with the flow of his party. Even many Republicans feel this way about him, which is partly why Santorum is ahead of Romney in many polls: people aren’t sure they agree with Santorum’s beliefs, but they at least know that he genuinely believes them, and that counts for something in their books.
(Doesn’t count much for me, though; I think I’d rather have someone who is a little too eager to change his position than a total extremist who won’t budge on anything.)
“It’s true that some people could game the system by just waiting till they get sick and then they show up,” Obama said.”
But the thing is, that’s already how it is. My beef is with the mandate to buy “for profit” insurance.
Any of you ever dealt with Aetna? Anthem? HealthNet? I’ve dealt with all of them. They take your money, but they don’t provide services. And they’re never getting another dime from me. Obama can pass all the laws he likes … not another dime.
(Well, HealthNet wasn’t really that bad.)
“It’s true that some people could game the system by just waiting till they get sick and then they show up,” Obama said.”
But the thing is, that’s already how it is. My beef is with the mandate to buy “for profit” insurance.
Any of you ever dealt with Aetna? Anthem? HealthNet? I’ve dealt with all of them. They take your money, but they don’t provide services. And they’re never getting another dime from me. Obama can pass all the laws he likes … not another dime.
(Well, HealthNet wasn’t really that bad.)
Tina – Jack – Can you give me a link to some documentation on that – I want to hear it from the horse’s mouth. I don’t mean to be a turd, but hearsay won’t cut it for me – I want to see Mitt Romney’s lips moving and hear the words, or words to this effect: “I will appeal Obamacare, like YESTERDAY!, and I promise I will never support a federal mandate for consumers to buy health insurance.”
http://conhomeusa.typepad.com/video/2011/09/video-talking-to-bill-oreilly-romney-promises-to-repeal-obamacare.html It’s about 6:42 into the interview. Romney calls Obamacare unconstitutional and says he would repeal it.
Chris: “You haven’t just said this is a bad policy, you’ve essentially collectively decided that it comes from the bowels of Socialist Hell, and was delivered to Obama through the spirit of Karl Marx (I’m only slightly exaggerating here). I think such a party-wide flip-flop, wherein you’re calling your own idea an unconstitutional monstrosity, is significant.”
I can understand why you would feel this way. I think if there is an answer it comes down to intent.
When the Heritage Foundation (and others) was proposing healthcare reform their intent was to lower the cost of premiums and deliver better services at lower costs. A small government solution with free market principles.
Obama’s ultimate goal is universal healthcare with government in charge and private insurance a thing of the past.
His healthcare plan is seen and evaluated in light of his overall views…Karl Marx has a front row seat.
I think Romney is more likely to go along which is a big turn off at this time. I don’t think Santorum would be extreme in his policy decisions. The likelyhood that any of the things you’re worried about would be a high priority or get through Congress are pretty slim.
We have a long way to go; most of it pretty unpleasant.
I’ve not been able to get back to the other long comment. I’ll do it tomorrow if I can.
Sorry, he compares a mandate for health insurance to “mandates that kids have to go to school, mandates that you have to have auto insurance…”
Then he goes on to say, “of course you have to have automobiles…”
These above aren’t mandates. No, I do not have to send my kid to school, and I’ve proved that. No, I do not HAVE to own a car, and yeah, I’ve proved that too. This guy is trying to rationalize his shoving of a health insurance mandate down the throats of people in Massachussets, and he’ll change his tune about doing it nationally as soon as his butt gets in that chair.
How is Obamacare “unconstitutional” but Romneycare, the basis for Obamacare, is okay? Are you saying it’s a state’s right? How is something that’s unconstitutional a state’s right? That means if I live in Massachussets, I have less rights than the rest of the country?
oh good – O’Reilly is asking my questions. Romney says each state has it’s own constitution, and that overrides the US constitution. Oh, really? Here again he compares it to the auto insurance mandate – that is b-snip Jack.
I’m sorry, that was a waste of all our time. I’m still voting for Paul.
Juanita: “How is Obamacare “unconstitutional” but Romneycare, the basis for Obamacare, is okay?”
The quick answer is that no one in Mass. challenged it in court. Another is that when a state mandates something if you don’t like it as an american you can move to another state to avoid it. The third is that several states, and now several private citizens representing churches have challenged Obamacare in the courts and that is why it has become an issue.
I don’t think Romney’s answer to the constitutional question was very good. I don’t think states can pass laws that would rob it’s citizens of basic rights guaranteed in the US Constitution. If such a law does get passed it will stand until it is challenged. I could be wrong…anyone else have an opinion?
Juanita, I don’t know who I am voting for this time around. All I can say is it’s been a real roller coaster ride and I’ve seen a lot my favorites bite the dust along the campaign trail.
I think the most intelligent thing I could do now would be to support the GOP front runner and let it go at that. Whoever wins first place gets my support and my vote.
I just want to defeat Obama, that is what it really is about. We can’t risk 4 more years of Obama, it’s too dangerous.
I believe our Founding Fathers originally, per the Federalist papers and our Constitution, gave supremacy to the states in dealing with state matters except on matters explicitly given to the federal government. During WWII and the Progressive Era, and the adoption of the 16th Amendment this changed to give more power to the Feds and created the confusion we deal with today.
What was clear has now become muddy depending on ones political agenda and party. Afraid the Supreme Court is going to have to deal with this, but can only guess what future changes will be, if any.
From Wikpipedia: States Rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States%27_rights
States’ rights in U.S. politics refers to political powers reserved for the U.S. state governments rather than the federal government.
The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution states:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. (Emphasis added.)
In The Federalist Papers, ratification proponent Alexander Hamilton explained the limitations this clause placed on the proposed federal government, describing that acts of the federal government were binding on the states and the people therein only if the act was in pursuance of constitutionally granted powers, and juxtaposing acts which exceeded those bounds as “void and of no force”:
But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the large society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such.
Later Progressive Era and World War II
By the beginning of the 20th century, greater cooperation began to grow between the State and federal governments. Soon, the federal government began to accumulate more power. It was early in this period that a federal income tax was implemented, first during the Civil War and then permanently with the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913. Before this, the states played a larger role in government.
States’s rights were affected by the fundamental alteration of the federal government resulting from the Seventeenth Amendment, depriving state governments of an avenue of control over the federal government via the representation of each state’s legislature in the U.S. Senate. This change has been described by legal critics as the loss of a check and balance on the federal government by the states.[19]
Following the Great Depression, the New Deal and then World War II continued the growth of the federal government, its authority, and its responsibilities. The case of Wickard v. Filburn allowed the federal government to enforce the Agricultural Adjustment Act, providing subsidies to farmers for limiting their crop yields, arguing agriculture affected interstate commerce and came under the jurisdiction of the Commerce Clause even when a farmer grew his crops not to be sold, but for his own private use.
After World War II, President Harry Truman supported a civil rights bill and desegregated the military. The reaction was a split in the Democratic Party that led to the formation of the “States’ Rights Democratic Party”better known as the Dixiecratsled by Strom Thurmond. Thurmond ran as the States’ Rights candidate for President in 1948, losing to Truman.
I read a very good article on Santorums foreign policy stance today for anyone who might be interested:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203960804577241251146282294.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
Forgot to mention to have everyone make sure you read the very last paragraph. I didn’t know it was the Democrats who tried to stop desegregation and caused a split in the party.
It really is amazing what one can learn if willing to dig deep enough to find the truth instead of just believing the garbage being feed to us in the MSM.
The words, “Trust but verify.” could not be truer or more necessary.