January TAC GOP Presidential Poll

Tuesday, January 3, AD 2012

UPDATE 1-8-2012:  We have eliminated Ron Paul due to spamming issues.  If you feel the need to cast a vote for Ron Paul, please do s0 by leaving a comment.

John Bolton, Rudy Giuliani, Buddy Roemer, and Paul Ryan never announced their candidacy for the GOP nomination as some had speculated, so they have been removed from the TAC Poll.  In addition, Gary Johnson has removed himself from consideration the moment he accepted the Libertarian Party Nomination.  Herman Cain has suspended his campaign which is nothing more than preventing the inevitable.

Here’s our latest poll so please vote in anticipation of the Iowa Caucuses (voting ends 7pm this Friday):

 

Continue reading...

65 Responses to January TAC GOP Presidential Poll

  • Pingback: WEDNESDAY POLITICS EXTRA | ThePulp.it
  • Pingback: WEDNESDAY MORNING EXTRA | ThePulp.it
  • Pingback: WEDNESDAY MORNING EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • Pingback: WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • Pingback: Rick Santorum Roundup | ThePulp.it
  • I am surprised to see that Santorum is doing so well on this poll. Is it because he’s Catholic? I hope not, because the Catholic church teaches, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” I do not see this practiced by Santorum in his legislative ethics, nor in his strident efforts to promote war with Iran, and now countries in South America (see the Iowa debate).

    The candidate who truly espouses peace is Dr. Ron Paul, and he has my support in the hopes that his administration would be one of peace & goodwill.

    whyronpaul.com

  • There is a difference between espousing peace Cynthia and being a naive fool about foreign powers that mean harm to us. Ron Paul crossed that line long ago. His viewpoint of course is that the rest of the world can go to Hell while America huddles down in Fortess America. Somehow I do not think that foreign policy lives up to the admonition of Christ that you cited.

    In regard to our Civil War Ron Paul believes it was completely unneccessary. Go to the link below explaining why he was wrong:

    http://the-american-catholic.com/2011/08/23/ron-paul-and-the-civil-war/

  • Pingback: WEDNESDAY EVENING EXTRA | ThePulp.it
  • Two Paulbots have been banned for their charming attempt to recycle a slur against Santorum hurled by homosexual activists. All such additional attempts will go into the trash where they belong and the attempted commenter will be banned from this site.

  • It’s been pretty ugly for Santorum as the Militant Gay Lobby has been harrassing Santorum with their KKK tactics all throughout his Iowa campaign. It’s no coincidence that Paulbots are doing the same to Santorum considering that Ron Paul wrote racist newsletters up until the 1990s.

  • Oh look, the Paulbots are stacking our poll:

    “Little poll that sanatorium is winning…

    Submitted by Howimademy on Wed, 01/04/2012 – 19:54.

    Thought it’d be fun to just knock him out of first…silly, maybe…fun, yes. 🙂

    http://the-american-catholic.com/2012/01/03/january-tac-gop-…”

    http://www.dailypaul.com/199365/iowa-caucus-night-info-open-thread?#comments

    Of course this has ever been the tactic of Ron Paul cultists. Too bad for them that they can’t win elections in real life.

  • Too bad for them that they can’t win elections in real life.

    Or friends or jobs or a life . . .

  • What bothers me (off topic just a bit), is that Sarah Palin are warning Republicans to not alienate these 9/11 Truthers, ie, Paulbots.

    Of course, this came a day after she said that “its not (Michele) Bachman time”. Considering that she has almost zero executive experience, I found this truly rich.

  • Ron Paul is no doubt the most Biblical candidate for 2012, if you are a true believer you would support Dr. Ron Paul. Here is a short series explaining as to why he is:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tYk5mEli68&feature=BFa&list=PL0E27AFB852E14B16&lf=player_embedded

    I urge everyone to watch this series so you can understand as to why he is the most Biblical candidate and why believers should support him and no other candidate. If you don’t you are just lying to yourselves and/or others.

  • Most Biblical? Indeed! Here is exclusive video of Ron Paul leading the Paulbots out of Iowa and across the Mississippi:

  • Are you proud to mock your religion?

  • I am a Catholic John. I mock the Ron Paul Cult that you are obviously a card carrying member of. Read back your original comment to yourself. It would be too much if applied to George Washington or Abraham Lincoln, let alone Ron Paul. It comes across as completely over the top and invites the type of mockery that I gave it.

  • We will see.

  • They are just like cochroaches aren’t they…the Paulinista’s…they seem to be everywhere…I gotta give them credit…they are organized, but then so were the borg.

  • It was bound to happen in one of these polls that the Paulbots would manipulate poll. They know they can’t win, so instead of letting poll develop organically they spam it. Fortunately, that doesn’t work in politics. We can pretty much throw out the Ron Paul vote, meaning that Santorum has the Catholic vote behind him.

  • I am all in favor of ending the IRS.

    Thats one of the reasons I am voting for Ron Paul. (as if thats not enough by itself)

  • Pingback: THURSDAY MORNING EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • Pingback: THURSDAY MORNING EXTRA | ThePulp.it
  • I would say, there is no greater media cheerleader for Ron Paul right now than Judge Andrew Napolitano, who is Catholic. Regarding Rick Santorum, I must ask, “What could be more ‘pro-life’ than peace?” What does “waterboarding” have to do with “family values”? I apologize for “Paulbots” who may have offended you. However, I am genuinely concerned that a President Santorum or a President Gingrich would start World War III in the Middle East by bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities for no good reason except political expediency.

  • I do not think Catholics can take Santorum seriously. Although he spouts pro life rhetoric at times, he places a higher value on politics. Why did he support Arlen Specter’s candidacy for Senate over Pat Toomey? Toomey was pro life while pro choice Specter was head of the judiciary committee and had fought Robert Bork.

  • Santorum was always a pro-life leader in Congress. He fought hard for every pro-life piece of legislation and always voted pro-life. In regard to the Specter endorsement in 2004, as the tight Presidential polls that year indicated, there was every prospect that 2004 was going to be a bad year for the Republicans. The Democrats had slightly more seats up than the Republicans, 19-15 in the Senate that year, but the playing ground was fairly even. On election night Kentucky, Florida and Alaska were fairly close, and South Dakota was won by a hair. Control of the Senate would have shifted if those elections had gone the other way, and they might well have.

    Santorum extracted a pledge from Specter that he would support every Supreme Court nominee sent up by Bush. This pledge was crucial if control of the Senate had shifted or if the Republicans had come back with a diminished majority .

    I think what Santorum did was reasonable at the time, assuming that one’s goal is to have Supreme Court justices on the Court that will overturn Roe. Bush lost Pennsylvania to Kerry, and I think it likely that Toomey might well have been defeated that year, considering that he only got 51% of the vote in 2010, the best election year for Republicans since Calvin Coolidge was in office.

  • “would say, there is no greater media cheerleader for Ron Paul right now than Judge Andrew Napolitano, who is Catholic.”

    He is also a paranoid conspiracy nut like Ron Paul. He is a 9-11 Truther among other charming conspiracy theories he partakes in.

  • Ron Paul does not ‘work well with others’ as the old grade school report card used to say. Whatever his viewpoints, if one hasn’t that power to sway other powerful and intelligent people to your side it is wasted. In all his years in Congress he has been a moody, strange loner. He’s like the kid who sniffed his fingers and his mother attach his mittens to his snow suit so he wouldn’t lose them. No one wants him on a team.

  • These folks make a habit of just spamming polls:
    http://www.dailypaul.com/200240/a-whole-bunch-of-polls-have-at-em

    Because nothing says your candidate is a massively popular guy on his way to winning a nomination than having to spend your entire day spamming meaningless internet polls.

    Well, at 8.6% unemployment, it’s understandable how they have the time to dither their day away. Doing arduous things like brushing up on that ole resume is just a bummer activity.

  • Completely counterproductive activity since everyone knows that the Paulbots do this, but they persist in it anyway merely to be annoying. Juvenile and delusional which basically sums up the Ron Paul Cult.

  • Pingback: THURSDAY AFTERNOON EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • “I think what Santorum did was reasonable at the time, assuming that one’s goal is to have Supreme Court justices on the Court that will overturn Roe.”

    This is where I would take issue with you.
    Let us examine the nominees of Bush:
    Roberts: pro life, but I doubt he would overturn Roe v Wade due to his belief in Stare Decisis.
    Harriet Myers: ???
    Alito: Pro Life, but it is not clear he would overturn Roe V Wade.
    Digging deeper, it was Arlen Specter who reportedly dissuaded Bush from nominating Alberto Gonzalez.
    So, by making the political bargain Santorum did, he passed on opportunity to remove a staunch pro choicer in exchange for gaining no headway in overturning Roe V Wade. I am not sure I believe Toomey was a sure loser against Spectre, as Spectre generally won by thin margins, though you make a good point. I see Santorum as playing party politics rather than sticking to his stated principles. I really do not trust him. I am from Pennsylvania and have followed his political career going back to before he was elected to the US House when he upset Doug Walgren.

  • Considering that Alberto Gonzalez is a pro-abort I think it was a very good thing that Specter talked Bush out of nominating him, although I hadn’t heard that. In regard to Roberts and Alito, judging from their votes in a partial birth abortion case, Gonzales v. Carhart, I have little doubt that they would vote to overturn Roe if the opportunity presents itself.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Carhart

  • I am a Ron Paul supporter. I’m not a Paulbot, not even sure what that means. I’m also a pro life follower of Jesus Christ. I’m not a pothead and I don’t spam polls. I do however go to any poll I can find and cast my vote for Ron. There are 3 people of voting age in my household and many times we can’t all cast our votes for Ron because most polls only allow one vote per IP address.

    I would like to personally apologize for the knuckleheads who tried to post the Santorum stuff on here. Something to consider though. We have a lot of young people in our camp, young people don’t really care to much for what us older folks would call propriety. I guarantee you, if you were to come over to Ron Paul forums or the DailyPaul and meet some of the people there that we are mostly, such as yourselves, kind and decent folk.

    Most of us only want to live in peace with our neighbors and the world. We love our country and see it slipping away from us. We are losing our God given rights buy the day, bankrupting ourselves with endless wars and entitlements, etc, etc. We love America, we love our neighbors, and we want to be free.

    You can hate us if you want to, not a very Christian thing to do but what the heck, live and let live. We are people just like you but with a different perspective, one that we did not get from CNN or FOX news. Many people don’t realize this but there is not one main stream media news network that isn’t owned by a larger enterprise that makes most of their money from the military industrial complex. Don’t take my word for it, look it up.

    As I said, I am staunchly pro life as many of my fellow Ron Paul supporters are, but for us, being pro life extends beyond the womb. There are 75 million human beings living in Iran, approximately 50 million women and children. I personally am not willing that even a single one of them be sacrifice so that I might sleep a little better at night. Besides, God has not given me a Spirit of fear, it’s in the Bible, you can look that up too.

    Please get the facts about our candidate before you dismiss him entirely, there are hundreds of videos all over the internet of Ron Paul in his own words. The media misrepresents Ron Paul and often flat out lies about him or puts words in his mouth. For example, Bill O’Reilly just said last night that Ron Paul said he didn’t want to be President, a bald faced lie. These are the kind of things that we are fighting against and some of us take it a little too far at times.

    God bless you all, and have a great day.

  • I agree, Don. I certainly think that Roberts and Alito would *like* to overturn Roe. As principled jurists (unlike Roe’s authors), they do have to take stare decisis principles into account, which does make the outcome harder to predict. That said, beyond reversing Roe outright, pro-life forces certainly favor judges who are sympathetic to their strategy of chipping away at Roe so as to limit its applicability as much as possible, and certainly Alito and Roberts fall within that description.

    I think the criticisms directed toward Myers were over the top and unfair. In any case I have no reason to believe that her jurisprudence vis-a-vis Roe would differ from that of Roberts or Alito.

  • In any case I have no reason to believe that her jurisprudence vis-a-vis Roe would differ from that of Roberts or Alito.

    The objection to her nomination went beyond how she’d decide cases to the potential quality of her jurisprudence. But that’s a debate for another time.

  • Ditto what Tito said re: “KKK tactics”

    Rick Santorum 2012!

  • Archie, I do want to commend you on your thoughtful comment. I do wish that more Ron Paul supporters were as reaonable and polite as you – frankly it would help his own cause if he didn’t have his supporters making such disgusting attack ads as this one against Huntsman.
    http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2012/01/05/you-stay-classy-ron-paul-supporters/

    Please get the facts about our candidate before you dismiss him entirely, there are hundreds of videos all over the internet of Ron Paul in his own words.

    Archie, the reason most of the people here think he is so far out there is precisely because of what we’ve seen Paul say in his own words. Frankly people like O’Reilly are full of hot air anyway, and I don’t need to listen to him in order to come to my own conclusions.

  • Paul, thank you for your kind words. I saw the video you posted, silly really. I’m not sure what they were trying to prove. Huntsman is a decent enough guy and a very successful businessman, he obviously is not my first choice but I wouldn’t rule him out were he to win the nomination. My son speaks Chinese as well, so I’m really not sure how that’s a bad thing. What can I say, it’s politics, sometimes it’s ugly, sometimes just plain ridiculous.

    In fairness, Huntsman ran a very biased and misleading attack piece on Ron Paul as well, taking his words out of context and basically saying he was crazy. If you don’t agree with Ron that’s fine, but his views are particularly well thought out, not crazy. Concerning foreign policy, he has been supported by some of the better minds on the subject. The CIA has written and warned about “blowback” and the 9/11 commission report agreed with much of what he has been saying for years.

    Those of us in the Paul camp who have lived a little longer are a bit easier to deal with and welcome rigorous intellectual debate on the issues. If there is something that you have heard Ron say that troubles you or gives you pause, I am very interested to know what those statements may have been. BTW, I’m very pleased to hear that you are not one of the mindless drones who takes every word from FOX as if it came down from Mt. Sinai.

    Love and Peace in Jesus Christ

  • Father of five, Knights of Columbus Grand Knight here. Ron Paul is the only option for me when I size up the candidates against my faith. We don’t want the world to go to hell in a hand basket. Evil countries, evil men, and evil ideas around the world need to be stopped. It’s just the the US Federal Government should not be in charge of this. It’s not their role. The US Federal Government isn’t the only way to combat evil. We can combat it here in our north western hemisphere and the other countries of the world can pick up their own slack.

  • “We can combat it here in our north western hemisphere and the other countries of the world can pick up their own slack.”

    The Ukranian man made famine under Stalin, the Katyn Massacre, the Rape of Nanking, the Cultural Revolution, and the list could be endless, shows how well that tends to work out in practice.

  • Pingback: THURSDAY POLITICS EXTRA | ThePulp.it
  • Donald, I understand your point. I’m not saying Americans shouldn’t do anything about these horrible atrocities around the world. I’m just saying that tax should not be collected from all American’s to fund a military operation across the world.

    What I believe should happen is what happened before we became the police of the world. Allow American’s to join foreign armies in times of need so that if an American is willing they can make a difference. If 51% of able-bodied American’s joined a foreign force to combat evil and/or contributed funds to these causes I think we would see evil be defeated in many cases.

    If you think that 51% of able-bodied American’s would not serve or fund other countries across the world on their own… then you and I have something in common. If 51% of American’s would not give money or risk their lives for other counties, then why the hell is our Federal Government doing this in the first place? Is it because “it’s the right thing to do”, or because it’s “just and righteous”? That’s what they told us about Iraq and i have to say I don’t believe them anymore.

    This is why I have changed my mind. I will (or want to) contribute my time and money to causes I feel are “just” and “righteous”. I don’t want the government taking my money and giving it to who they feel, or just say, rightfully deserves it.

  • “The Ukranian man made famine under Stalin, the Katyn Massacre, the Rape of Nanking, the Cultural Revolution, and the list could be endless, shows how well that tends to work out in practice.”

    What did the US do about any of that?

    We did not bomb or invade them.

    Should we have bombed Ukraine, China, etc. to stop killing innocents?

  • We should do what we can T. Shaw to stop innocents from being massacred. Sometimes we effectively lack the power to do anything about it, but we should never rest our foreign policy on the presumption that murder of innocents abroad is none of our business. In regard to China, if we had effectively supported the Nationalists, corrupt though they were, in their war against Mao in 1945-49, how many tens of millions of lives might have been saved? After the Bolshevik Revolution, 1917-1919, the US and its allies had an opportunity to support the Whites against the Reds. Instead the US and its allies tired of the conflict, pulled out of Russia and the Soviet Union was established, with the consequences to the world that we are all familiar with. When we refuse to fight evils at the outset, the evils often do not disappear, but grow in strength and end up killing hordes of innocents.

    This section from Proverbs 24 has always hit home to me in this area:

    10 If you falter in a time of trouble,
    how small is your strength!
    11 Rescue those being led away to death;
    hold back those staggering toward slaughter.
    12 If you say, “But we knew nothing about this,”
    does not he who weighs the heart perceive it?
    Does not he who guards your life know it?
    Will he not repay everyone according to what they have done?

  • It was Catholics who put the worst president we have known in our lifetime, even over Jimmy Carter, into office. How can we do this again by voting for someone who cannot win with his crazy conspiracy theories and his isolationist thinking?

    Are we doomed to repeat history because we ignore it? Does anyone here think that the US has done anything to make clearly religious extremists, BIGOTS, whose religion like it or not, gives them permission to kill the infidel…that be us…just for existing into assassins hell bent oh no, paradise bent to kill us all. The entire Western Civilization.

    I have never heard Judge Napolitano espouse the conspiracy theory that the Truthers espouse but regardless, they are crazy. Ron Paul is pro life, thank God, but he is not prolife if he thinks he can negotiate us to peace with these people. They are more prolific than us, because most Catholics do not practice a prolife mentality and they are not unwilling to die. All I can see is that we are not willing to do what our fathers did, we are willing to die for our freedom and that of our brothers and sisters.

    How said for people like my father and I am sure many of yours or your grandfathers and mothers who laid down their life. Or was Hitler more of an enemy than a Islamist extremists who insinuate themselves into our culture, take advantage of our education, and good heartedness until ready to blow themselves up for what? 70 Virgins….doesn’t that offend anyone?

    When I stand before Jesus, I will have to answer for voting for someone who may use techniques of war, IN war, that I don’t necessarily care for, however, I feel better being able to say that I voted for a lesser evil in order to end the reign of a decidely anti life, scoundrel who has lied to us about everything and is not only trying to control our birth and death but how, when and where we can practice our faith, in fact I would venture to say, Obama would like to replace our Christian faith with a secularist faith based upon the ideology of green. To be a steward of this gift of earth is our task but climate change and all that has attached itself to it is not about science it is about ideology and a way to replace Christ, expecially in the minds of kids, with mother earth.

    We need a pit bull to go against the obama machine, not someone who thinks, much like Carter did (and look what that got us) that we can negotiate or worse just stick our heads in the sand and pretend there is no other world out there…no enemy by us.

    I am so saddened that we may be the reason for another 4 years of hopey changey until the only change will be our Church muzzled and more of us blown up.

  • Hello Chris, May I offer a brief rebuttal from the Ron Paul side? Sir, you are completely mistaken or misguided when you refer to Ron Paul’s foreign policy as isolationist. I know the media says it all the time but it simply is not Dr. Paul’s view. Ron Paul has stated repeatedly that were a significant threat present itself he would deal with it swiftly, vigorously, and completely, and then he would come home. That to me, does not sound like a man who is weak on defense, but rather a man who is wise on war.

    Ron Paul’s foreign policy is non-interventionist. Ron Paul wants free trade and friendship with all nations. When Ahmadinejad made serious overtures at the U.N. recently, that he was ready to negotiate, Obama wanted none of it. War has been the game plan from day one.

    Here’s a clip from General Wesley Clark stating as much in no uncertain terms.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uswDmTjLog

    I could go into greater detail of course but if this clip doesn’t at least get you to look into what I’m saying a little deeper, any additional words on the topic would be meaningless.

    In regard to the evil horde of Muslim extremists eager to destroy us and our way of life. Sir, as someone who has shared tea and tobacco with Muslim men, who has done business with Persians (Iranians), Saudis, Yemenis, Lebanese etc. I have to tell you, I just don’t see it. My son who works in Naval Intelligence (no jokes please) doesn’t see it either and he is far more in the know than I am. I know these people personally. Most Muslims, Middle Easterners, Africans, what have you, they simply want to be left alone.

    Are there Muslim extremists? Absolutely. But there are Christian extremist, Hindu Extremists, every religion has it’s extremists. Here is something that so many people rarely ever think about. Of all the people in America who claim to be Christian, how many of them would you call fundamentalists, and out of the fundamentalists, how many would you label as extreme, and out of the extremists, how many are blowing up abortion clinics on a regular basis? I hope you are beginning to see my point. Islam is no different than Christianity, Muslims are no different than Christians or Mormons or any other group. Religious practice in the middle east is as cultural as religious practices everywhere else in the world. They are no more devoted to their faith and all that faith entails than the average “Christian”. Most Muslims don’t know the Koran any better than most “Christians” know their Bible’s.

    When we place sanctions on countries who have done us no harm, starving their children, devastating their economies and overall quality of life, when we threaten them with war and regime change, we create the very extremists that we fear.

    In your comment above you spoke of “our Christian faith”, I share that same faith. In my 20 plus years as a Christian, and a Christian who takes his faith perhaps a bit more seriously than some, though admittedly not as much as others, I have yet to discover this concept of Christ honoring preemptive war. If you can direct me to the appropriate scriptures supporting this position I will consider them with prayer. Until then, may I leave you with a verse from 2 Timothy,

    “For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind’.

    God Bless

  • I see Ron Paul is way ahead in this poll. I do not believe it is true Catholics who usually view National Catholic Register voting for Paul. The paulbots find polls over the internet and tell all of their paulbot buddies to go that site and vote for Paul. To love thy neighbor means help those all over the world. That’s what America’s been doing since her birth, starting at Tripoli, and part of why she’s been so blessed.
    God Bless America.

  • Pingback: THURSDAY EVENING EXTRA | ThePulp.it
  • Pingback: FRIDAY MORNING EXTRA | ThePulp.it
  • Pingback: FRIDAY MORNING EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • Pingback: FRIDAY AFTERNOON EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • Archie,

    I too have sat and laughed and kibbitzed with may people of Middle Eastern background, including Muslims. Sufism is a lovely mystical version of Islam. Sufism was one man’s attempt to bring to Islam what we believe, that reason and faith are compatible and should work in cooperation. He was not successful because of the Koran’s religion and the pressure of the mainline groups, so it went the way of mysticism. But those who truly still adhere to it are lovely hearts. As a Middle Eastern Major in college, I have always had a love of the place, the people and the history. But I am not naive about their religion or their cultural ways. Are there extremists in all religions, heck yes, but how may certainly in this day and age blow up people of other religions for no reason. We have the nuts who go to military funerals and spew their hatred, but they don’t kill people, they don’t send their young children or mothers to die. The cool aid drinkers who think one or another of their prophets is Jesus incarnate or another Messiah tend to kill themselves rather than others. It is quite different and the difference come by the fact that we do not worship the same god…worshipping one god does not make it the same god. Their story is Abraham Isaac and Ishmael with the emphasis on Ismael. They cannot know God in any real way, a personal God for them is anathema. Jesus is just a prophet and not the last or with the last word.

    Have christians done bad things over time yes, and people always want to bring up the Crusades, but defending our own in the Holy Land was not necessarily doing wrong when we were asked in and it was a different age. We constantly judge our ancestors by our own 21st century values. We give everyone else a pass…loh that is their culture, we can’t comment or dislike it but when it comes to ourselves we say, how dare the Crusaders do this or that.

    Do not put Christian fundementalists in the same light with these people that is completely to twist the truth. If you are going to do comparisons, do them in this time and place. When was the last time CHristians savagely attacked any one of another religion without provocation, other than our religion/our God (to whom we are slaves remember that is the case for muslims) tells us it is what we should do?

    The Iranians are NOT going to negotiate. Iran is no different than STalin was or the Japanese even for their part back in the 30s and 40s. You are not dealing with honest people. Have you so soon forgotten Jimmy Carter’s debacle in that respect? While I have no use for Obama, he had to listen to HIlary and the people who know with whom we are dealing…zebras do not change their stripes.

    How about Obama’s tour of Mea Culpa at the beginning of his presidency, telling everyone how the US is to blame and we are sorry and we would just love to negotiate and work with you. Where did that get us? Perhaps that is why Obama stepped back a bit. He found out all he did was expose us to being considered weak and a target.

    I think Obama set out to wreck the country, period. All his ‘friends’ are out in th eopen communists, socialists and anarchists. He found out, we the people are in line with that and while most of his appointees drink the same cool aid, don’t think Hilary, does though I wouldn’t vote for her either. Like her or not, she is clearly working her tail off from the looks of her and she has here hands full.

    Can’t you see by the outcome of the so called “Arab Spring” that we are in for the biggist struggle of our lives. As soon as I saw the first country rise up, I began to pray, knowing full well it ws not going tobring a spring but a long winter of extremism.

    What does Ron Paul consider imminent danger? And I don’t want us to negotiate or give money to these people through the government. I am a believe not in redistribution of wealth, perhaps Distributionism but I don’t trust the government not to make that into socialism and communism as it is almost impossible for power not to corrupt. I believe in Subsidiarity whether it is here or abroad. When three planes are flown out to kill us for no reason other than we are who we are, we vote, we respect others’ religious rights, women’s rights…or we did before the feminist and gay rights movements and the cowtowing that the Obama administration is doing to their causes…that is a declaration of war. That you can’t pin point a country but must admit to a cultural enemy doesn’t change it. Makes it far more difficult and requires some not so typical tactics of war, but it still requires us to accept it for what it is and protect ourselves and our country.

    I do understand the culture and the religion. I don’t listen to the msm or anyone else on this one. I study history and I am tired of the tail wagging the dog in this country. Mostly I pray…and I would suggest we all do that rather than just listening to televisions and debates. I want a pit bull to go up against Obama and that isn’t Ron Paul and frankly it isn’t Ron Santorum though I admire him. It is Newt because he is knowledgeable and he has made our government work together before. One of the very few who have. He has the intelligence and the experience.

    If we were voting for a saint none of these people would deserve our vote. But we are not, we are voting for a man or woman who can reign in this government and it’s tenticles on both our money, our human rights and our religious rights to name the most important. We have ideologues on both sides and the only one who has ever been able to cut through that is Newt Gingrich. Like him or not, he converted and he was absolved ofhis sins. Who are we to second guess Christ. Is his personality great no, but this isn’t a personality contest. This is a contest for our country…is there a real monetary crisis coming…hell yes and no matter who gets in it will not be averted, perhaps mitigated but not averted.

    Let’s listen to history and to our God…let’s us pray for our country and that whomever we put into office, we will as a people put God back in the center of our lives and the life and laws of this country. That is where I stand.

  • Pingback: Character Assassination on Rick Santorum | ThePulp.it
  • Pingback: Rick Santorum Friday Roundup | ThePulp.it
  • So nobody’s supposed to vote in this poll unless you’re a regular on this site? How is it fair to completely remove a candidate from the poll based on that? Seems pretty biased to me!

  • Josette,

    You don’t have to be a regular at TAC, but Spamming does not reflect the electorate.

  • Ron Paul 2012!

  • first of all, just because we believe in the message of Ron Paul does not make us dishonest, cheaters, or less valuable in the eyes of the Lord or the United States. we each get 1 vote and believe me, we don’t have to cheat to have enough voters to beat any of the other candidates. We are also willing to support him from our pockets too. he does not take money from Lobbyists, churches, Wall street or big Government supporters. He attends Church ever Sunday, has raised a good, god Fearing family, has great values for himself and his offspring. How can you not support a man who is truly a Christian, a Military Hero, and honest person and a true Statesman? I do not need the Catholic Church to tell me who to vote for, nor do I need them to tell me right from wrong….I have been led to Christ with no help from you or your pope…..or any of your lying, child molesting priests! so, kick us out of you poll that has now become useless for anything but glorifying your bias and closed minds! I am so glad that I was not allowed to join your church and raise my boys under the catholic doctrine! I am Happy as a Methodist thanks! In Jesus name, may your lies and bias be unveiled to your congregations!

  • “I do not need the Catholic Church to tell me who to vote for, nor do I need them to tell me right from wrong….I have been led to Christ with no help from you or your pope…..or any of your lying, child molesting priests! so, kick us out of you poll that has now become useless for anything but glorifying your bias and closed minds! I am so glad that I was not allowed to join your church and raise my boys under the catholic doctrine! I am Happy as a Methodist thanks! In Jesus name, may your lies and bias be unveiled to your congregations”

    Initially Sour Melody 00, I put your comment in the trash where the rantings of anti-Catholic bigots like yourself normally end up at this site. However, the sheer stupidity of coming to a Catholic website to urge support for a candidate, and while you are doing so spitting on the Catholic Faith, was so monumental that I had to share it with my fellow Catholics for their amusement. Thank you for the laugh that your bitterness, bile and bigotry produced.

  • Mel’s a typical paulbot [email protected] I had favorable feelings for Paul (he’s right on the Fed for the wrong resaons). I never thought libertarians were worth the powder it would take to shoot them.

    After Mel’s hate-filled tripe, Paul can go to Hell and so can his freaking son Rand.

    To ensure Paul never got elected; if, in some nightmarish scenario, Paul were nominated by the GOP, I’d vote for Obama. Then, I’d go to Confession because that would be a mortal sin.

  • Mel you black-hearted protestant murderer.

    Now, I remember why I always threw in when they passed the hat for the IRA, you rat.

  • I second Donald.

    I initially was going to trash your bigoted rant, but Donald did the right thing to show how vile your hate is to all the world.

  • “Blessed are the Peacemakers, for they shall be the children of God”

    Mathew 5:9

Why Aren’t More Conservative Catholics Supporting Rick Santorum?

Thursday, December 1, AD 2011

Most of you have an immediate response to the question posed in the title of this post, but please indulge me for a moment.

In this seriously flawed Republican presidential primary field is a candidate who is a Roman Catholic.  He is a man who clearly lives his faith.  He has no skeletons in his closet (that we know of, naturally).  He is the father of seven children, and has demonstrated a devotion to the pro-life cause in a manner that is second to none.  He is unapologetically conservative, and is willing to take stands that go against the grain.

In other words, we have a candidate who it would seem should be drawing a large chunk of the conservative and Catholic vote.  Yet he regularly polls somewhere in the 1-2 percent range.  Considering the number of Catholics in the country and within the Republican party, this suggests he can’t even win the support of even a fraction of the most conservative Catholics.  Heck, even the conservative and Catholic author of this post has not really fully supported Senator Santorum.  I oscillate between the two Ricks, but have generally leaned towards Governor Perry.  So what gives?

Continue reading...

59 Responses to Why Aren’t More Conservative Catholics Supporting Rick Santorum?

  • “His 2006 loss looks bad, but it was a difficult environment for any Republican, particularly in a leaning blue swing state.”

    True, however he lost by the largest margin ever for any sitting senator in the state of Pennsylvania, 59%-41%. Any Republican running that year for the Senate in Pennsylvania would have lost that race, but I would have expected a veteran Pennsylania politician running for his third term to have made a stronger race of it. That gives me a lot of pause in assessing the political skills of Santorum.

  • Sorry to be a bore on this point, but we have been for nearly three years learning the hard way what happens when you put someone with no administrative experience atop a public bureaucracy with 3.4 million employees. Mr. Santorum is appealing for a host of reasons, but he is unsuitable (at this time) for the position he is seeking. If he had had a tour as Allegheny County executive and some time as a federal bureau chief, he would not be unsuitable.

  • People should vote for the most conservative electable candidate. Santorum might have the highest negatives outside the right of any candidate. People really hate the guy. I’d prefer him to Gingrich but at least Gingrich can conceivably beat Obama. The candidates in order of electability from most to least: Huntsman, Romney, Gingrich, Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Paul, Santorum. I think it’s a fair assessment of electability without the wishful thinking. The last 4 can be regarded as unelectable. Gingrich and Bachmann have an outside shot. If you want a Republican president support Huntsman or Romney. If you’re willing to take risks, support Gingrich or Bachmann. If you want Obama to serve a second term, support one of the others.

  • I don’t think anyone as socially conservative as Santorum could’ve done any better in the 2006 Senate race. He had no base. The left hated him and Casey ran as social conservative with the name to back it up.

  • You’re not being a bore, Art. It’s an absolutely legitimate point, and I can’t believe I missed pointing that out myself.

  • I should add that though I agree it’s a negative, I wouldn’t say lack of executive experience is an absolute disqualifier.

  • I did not vote in the US elections, but, if I would, my candidate would be Santorum for sure. He is the best clearly for me.

  • As a southern baptist I can say I intend to vote for Santorum , he is the true conservative in this race. Time will tell but I believe he’ll do much better then expected, he’ll carry the South and become our next President. He is the best man for the job.

  • My parents used to live in his district and they HATED him. They are liberal, but they lived in a very conservative district and everyone hated him. I’ve asked them a couple times what was so bad about him, but they just say he was terrible. They told me they used to ask their friends why they voted for him if they thought he was so bad… I guess they stopped doing that, didn’t they?

  • Santorum is a diehard supporter of the Bush doctrine and this seriously turns me off. I don’t want a president who thinks it’s responsible to send soldiers to die in war against an abstract noun.

  • There was nothing abstract about either 9-11 or the menace to his own people, neighboring states and the US posed by the regime of Saddam Hussein. That Santorum understands this increases my regard for him greatly.

    Santorum predicted the on-going disaster in Egypt back in June in the well-written, and prescient, piece linked to below:

    http://www.eppc.org/publications/pubID.4479/pub_detail.asp

    He has a series of these types of analyses of foreign policy issues:

    http://www.eppc.org/scholars/scholarID.88,type.1/pub_list.asp

  • As the article clearly indicates, Mr. Santorum is unelectable. Defeating President Obama in 2012 must be THE top priority. Mr. Santorum may have the best policy positions of any of the Republican presidential candidates . . . but he is unelectable.

    Zach, the majority of Democrats in the Senate voted to authorize the war in Iraq and “. . . send soldiers to die in war against an abstract noun.” Leaving the 2008 election rhetoric aside, President Obamas’ policies to date in Iraq and Afghanistan are virtually indistinguishable from the policies that would have been pursued by a Republican Administration.

    And based on early signs of a parliamentary election victory in Egypt by Islamists/the Muslim Brotherhood, as Mr. Santorum predicted, the political situation in Egypt may soon get much worse.

  • Defeating President Obama in 2012 must be THE top priority.

    This is wrong for a couple of reasons. Merely defeating President Obama. He must be replaced by someone who will be willing to enact significant changes. A placesitter who is merely better than Obama is insufficient.

    Second, as stated in my post, predicting who is electable at this stage is an exercise in folly.

    The rest of your post I totally agree with.

  • He must be replaced by someone who will be willing to enact significant changes.

    You will need in addition:

    1. A secure plurality in the House of Representatives with like inclinations; and
    2. The same in the Senate conjoined to the abolition of the filibuster.

    Not holdin’ my breath.

  • Paul, my point was that beating President Obama in 2012 must be the top priority in choosing a candidate. A candidate who is unelectable does not meet that key criterion. This does not mean that you nominate “anyone” regardless of their policy positions, because you deem them electable. It means that unelectability is an automatic disqualifier for the nomination. In my mind, losing to now-Senator Casey in Pennsylvania by 20% in 2006 is a pretty good indicator that Mr. Santorum, as much as I respect him, is unelectable.

    Many Americans, myself included, would like to see significant changes in our politics and policies. Given our present political balance-of-power realities, however, it is hard to envision many significant changes becoming reality in the near term. If only for future judicial nominations, the top priority for selection of the Republican nominee must be that he/she is electable. Whether a candidate is electable or not is part of the vetting process that Republicans are currently engaged in.

    Given the importance of defeating President Obama in 2012, non-electability must be at the top of the list of qualifications that disqualifies someone from being the nominee.

  • Again, Tom, who are you to decide who and who is not electable? Each person that has jumped to the head of the polls within the GOP primary has also led Obama in polls. Newt Gingrich, who most people (including yours truly) wrote off months ago now edges Obama out in polls. President Obama is at sub-40% favorability in the polls, sitting on 9+ percent unemployment, and several swing states that voted for him last time are all but written off for him. I don’t necessarily think that every one of the candidates can defeat Obama, but I think whoever gets the nomination has a very good chance.

    As for this:

    Whether a candidate is electable or not is part of the vetting process that Republicans are currently engaged in.

    Is just plain wrong. The only reason Mitt Romney continues to do as well as he does is his perceived electability. Time and again on other conservative blogs I’ve seen Romney supporters mention his electability – and only his electability. If anything GOP primary voters are overly concerned with this aspect of the election.

    Given our present political balance-of-power realities, however, it is hard to envision many significant changes becoming reality in the near term.

    If that is really the case then we might as well write off this republic of ours.

  • Why do we think we know who can or cannot beat Obama… Is not God in charge?! God can and does do mighty things with the least of His children. In acts such as this – we truly see the glory of God. Should we not work, promote and vote for the candidate who most clearly keeps Gods laws?! To me that is what we are called to do… and then, let God be God. We are not in charge of anything beyond our own actions. I for one am supporting Rick Santorum, I could do no less – as I try my best to live out my faith. It is Rick Santorum who defends the sanctity and dignity of Life, and of Marriage.

  • wow Spector, Casey and tone? These three “reasons” are flaky and flimsy. Especially the tone one… I think people who have met him and spoken with him personally may have an edge on seeing that sunny side that is not portrayed to people who look up information about him on the internet, or from liberal or conservative neighbors who can’t articulate why they hate him.
    I wish I lived in Iowa! I would caucus for him. We have to stand up for the truth, not for who is politically correct with the masses… at some point we have to trust God. …think Lepanto do the right thing. and trust that people will vote for the best person.
    Just defeating Obama is not enough– we should be replacing him with someone who is good.

  • With all due respect Paul, I will not “decide” who is electable or not . . . I ultimately have one vote in this process, just like you do. And one voice in this very important discussion, just like you do. Others will have to judge the merits of our opinions.

    I agree, President Obama is very vulnerable – there is no doubt. All the more reason that we must defeat him in 2012. That the Republican presidential field as it is currently configured is, shall we say, less than perfect – there is also little doubt. Just consult the polls concerning the opinion of the current Republican field, even by Republicans. And Newt’s electability would take more discussion than there is room here to provide.

    Ultimately, if we do not defeat Obama in 2012, having fielded the “nearly perfect candidate” will offer little consolation.

    I think it is a bit much to say that the “only” reason for Mitt Romney’s standing in the polls is his electability. It is one key component, but certainly not the only one. I understand that many conservatives do not like him as the candidate in 2012. I have not yet decided whether Romney is the best nominee. Like many other Republicans, I personally would like to see someone else enter the race.

    I, for one, will never “write off this republic of ours,” no matter how dismal the political realities may be on the ground. We must stay in the fight, expending most of our efforts united toward the goal of defeating President Obama in 2012. Now let’s all focus our efforts on defeating President Obama, respectfully voicing our opinions and making the substantive case for each of the current nominees, taking all the important aspects of this election into consideration.

  • Whiny and arrogant tone? Stomp up and down and throw a hissy fit? Who have you been watching? That’s not Santorum at all. What I’ve seen for months now are debates in which he is consistently and purposely ignored, while all the attention and questions are directed at the media’s anointed “leaders.” I can recall more than one debate where Santorum did not get asked a single question for over an hour. He has every right to point out the bias and lunacy of that treatment, and to interject himself and demand an opportunity to be heard. If you call that whiny, then you need an afternoon with a roomful of preschoolers.

    In Santorum I see a man of much grace and steadfastness. I see a highly intelligent and thoughtful man, who walks the talk every single day. I see a man who does not back down when push comes to shove, and when the arrows start flying he doesn’t duck under his desk. He is the only candidate who is willing to speak the moral truth and defend it without apology. I see a man with integrity; a man who has been personally tested and has the inner mettle we need in a President.

    If Catholics do not put their support and their vote behind such a man, then we absolutely deserve the mess our cowardice will create for our country. Shame on us if we once again throw our votes at the candidate deemed to be more “electable” or God forbid, Obama again. The fact is, we have President Obama now only because of Catholics, and that means we have much to answer for.

  • For those of us living in Pa during the republican primaries in 2004, I think many of you are really underestimating the impact that supporting Spector over Toomey had. It was nothing short of devastating for the “grass roots” loyal pro-life republicans. It took the wind out of our sails.

    In my opinion it was the beginning of the end for Santorum in Penssylvania. The “base” never recovered to support him with any strength against Casey. Casey can barely pat his head and rub his stomach at the same time but he just ran all over Santorum. Santorum.

    Say what you will, but that is the truth. I remember many of us were in shock over that endorsement. To date I have never heard him recant that endorsement, or say something like “boy, I really blew it on that”.

    What I have read from various sources was just his reasons for defending that endorsement. I am sure he regrets it, but because it hurt him politically, not because it was a bad endorsement.

    Say what you will, but he wouldn’t even win Pennsylvania against Obama in a general election.

    He would be a good appointment to HHS or some other federal level position.

  • Paul – There’ve been five waves of he’s-not-Romney candidates: Trump, Bachmann, Perry, Cain, and Gingrich. All of them have been grassroots surges. If people who write columns in Washington had their way, none of those candidates would have stood a chance, and Romney would be running against Huntsman. It seems like most every second-tier candidate has had a moment on the first tier. So, while most years I would agree with you about not dismissing someone on the basis of percieved unelectability, if a candidate never got noticed this year, it says something. Lots of debates, lots of opportunities.

    I was sure that Pawlenty was going to find his footing, as sure as I was of Thompson four years ago.

    Now, if memory serves, you’re a fellow Marylander, right? I think it’s great that the US cordoned off the worst decision-makers in the country into one state with a late primary and few electoral votes, just so they couldn’t do much damage. They let us drive, which is clearly a mistake, but otherwise the better 49 are unaffected by our stupidity. I think that living in Maryland is affecting the way I follow politics. I still love it, but I’ve been zapped by the Skinner box so many times that I don’t expect a treat when I pull the lever.

  • Jennifer:

    Even though I’ve learned to look past it and think that it’s really not that consequential of an issue to me, it is a recurring theme among people who have either written off Santorum or have not supported him. At times I do think he has come across as petulant, particularly when he has pestered other candidates and did, at one point, even suggest to another person speaking that their time was up and that he should stop speaking. Others see that as aggressive and something to be applauded, others think it comes across as bullying.

    I do agree he’s been overlooked and that frustration has seeped out. Rightly or wrongly, people take superficial concerns about tone and other behavior seriously. I mean Rick Perry’s candidacy just about tanked because of “heartless” remark, as well as his otherwise emotionless appearance during the debates. Don’t underestimate people’s ability to be impressed by style over substance. Like it or not, it’s how a lot of people determine the “winners” of these debates.

  • Pinky,

    Yes, I am a fellow Marylander. What’s funny is that not only is our general election vote of little consequence, but even our primary vote is fairly meaningless because of how late our primary is being held. As you say, that’s a good thing for the rest of the country. And at least we’re better drivers than Virginians, if nothing else.

  • Who is it that is a great supporter of Romney then?

    No one here has said they like him or want him to be President. No Republican I know wants him as their candidate and this is true of even the “nominally republicans” I work with.

    How can it be that this guy is the front runner likely candidate when all I hear, whether in Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Baltimore, or Coastal Georgia, is “I just can’t vote for him”?

  • G-Veg:

    I really don’t get it. The man is actively reviled by 75 percent of the party. I’m not talking about an unwillingness to vote for him, I’m talking about deep revulsion. This is a guy who four years ago couldn’t beat out John McCain, and yet now he is supposedly the only human being alive who can beat Barack Obama. Sometimes conventional wisdom is based on nothing more than wishful thinking repeated often enough.

  • Paul Zummo, I read your criticism of Ramesh Ponnuru @NRO and thought it was a pretty devastating take. I disagree with him, too (that Romney’s victory is likely, so let’s get excited about it), but still think Ramesh is a thoughtful & conservative thinker. So, hopefully you will reconsider at some point.

  • Ramesh actually responded to me over at my personal blog, and I wrote him back.

  • To Chris from PA: I’m not downplaying at all the betrayal pro-lifers felt by Santorum’s support for Specter. But I can assure you, Rick definitely regrets the decision, and not merely because he lost re-election. He understands it was a bad move. He’ll readily say he should have listened to his wife, who was adamantly against it. He did it for two reasons: Roberts and Alito. His intentions were good — truly. But he will acknowledge that it was a mistake and he is sorry.

  • Jennifer,
    Fair enough. I don’t agree with the intentions, but at least I know where he was coming from.

    I still remember for the first time watching him on WNEP raising Spector’s hand with a big smile on his face at some campaign rally while thinking to myself “I feel like I need to vomit now”…..

    Ultimately I agree with TomD who I will quote
    “Defeating President Obama in 2012 must be THE top priority.”

    For what its worth, in my mind it’s between Romney (who after a couple of endorsements I feel is genuinely pro-life now) and Gingrich. What I really like about Gingrich is he “gets” radical Islam and has spoken out about the plight of the Coptic Christians in Eqypt.

  • Jennifer, you are right on! I interviewed Santorum in 2007 and he told me that Guiliani was the only viable candidate, as most establishment Republicans said. He defended his support of Specter based on the same wisdom.
    Then his daughter Bella Maria was born, in 2008, with trisomy 18, and his world was turned upside down. Trust, me I had the same thing happen when my daughter was born with Down syndrome. He admitted just before beginning his presidential bid, that she has caused him to re-order his priorities. He contributed a wonderful article he wrote about her on her second birthday “Two Years Worth Every Tear” to my book “A Special Mother is Born”.
    Last Monday, I presented a copy of the book to him in a Town Hall meeting in New Hampshire, he seemed genuinely flattered by my calling him a pro-life hero. He had a conversation that day with a virulent defender of abortion, remained calm and reasonable as he staunchly defended the right to life of the unborn.
    He has my vote, and my prayers that Catholics will see his pro-life convictions and believe in his deepening of faith.

  • The only reason Mitt Romney continues to do as well as he does is his perceived electability.

    1. He is a familiar name;
    2. His domestic life has not caused any embarrassing distractions;
    3. He has notable experience as an executive in the public and private sector;
    4. He has experience with commercial and industrial restructurings and will have some critical engagement with what is told him by and about the financial sector, something none of the other vigorous competitors for the presidency could have said at any time in the last fifty years. This sort of understanding is regrettably salient at this time.

  • Santorum’s foreign policiy is essentialy Bush Redux. If you like that, then he’s your man. If not, then that is a perfectly substantive reason for not supporting him.

  • c matt
    you want to explain what you mean by bush redux?

  • What’s the alternative to ‘Bush Redux’?

  • Who would have thought that an inexperienced community organizer with no work history would become President? Santorum is consistant and principled. He is a true conservative. He knows foriegn affairs, he can get things done in Congress, he will protect life, why isn’t he the choice of the people? The country club republicans want a big government guy, the liberals can’t argue morality with him, so he loses out with those groups, but if the everyday hard working church going gun toting folks out there would listen to him they might change their minds. It shouldn’t be about who can beat Obama, because he is doing a good job of that on his own. It should be about who will support us and who best represents our morals and beliefs.

  • Paul Zummo says about Romney, “The man is actively reviled by 75 percent of the party. I’m not talking about an unwillingness to vote for him, I’m talking about deep revulsion.”

    If the measure of “actively revile” is 100 minus your poll numbers then Gingrich is actively reviled by a similar percent of the party. Polls show Romney viewed favorably by over half of Republican voters.

  • I’ve forgiven Santorum for the whole Specter debacle; it’s his current support for waterboarding that bothers me.

    His foreign policy positions don’t really bother me, given my strong interventionist streak; while I don’t think we have the resources to militarily overthrow every tyranny on earth (nor perform the post-overthrow nation-building adequately), the “traditionalist” and “non-interventionist” foreign policies seem to say, “Your tyrant not affecting us/our national interests? Well then, screw you!” Not a sentiment I share, to say the least.

    I haven’t really been following the primaries, but the candidate I somewhat have been “rooting for” is Perry, as he seems to be (or at least “seemed” – I don’t know now) the most electable and sensible “social conservative” candidate that has a chance of winning.

    I do think a Romney win in the GOP primaries would be disasterous for the nation, as it would indicate to Republican politicians that issues like abortion and gay marriage are no longer important, and thus the political atmosphere would be even further into the culture of death even more than it already is…

  • Don’t be obtuse, RR. Romney’s poll numbers haven’t budged an iota despite the fluctuation in the rest of the campaign. It’s clear that lines have been drawn in the sand between his supporters and critics, and he is not moving any higher in the polls. Perhaps not every single one of the 75% of his non-supporters revile him, but he is clearly and deeply unpopular.

  • Santorum is at least as pro-life as the other candidates. His aggressive foreign policy does bother me but that’s not a major issue this election cycle. His economic plan which creates a special carve out for manufacturing is too interventionist for me but there are worse ideas out there. His emphasis on the middle-class should have very wide appeal and is a winner in the general elections. His demeanor is off-putting but the Gingrinch is even worse. His perceived hostility towards gays is a major problem for him, especially because it’s so well known. Fairly or unfairly, he’s defined by it. His position on DADT makes no sense. It’s one thing to oppose repeal, but he says repeal targets gays for special privileges not enjoyed by heterosexuals. That goes far beyond rational argument and warrants suspicion of unjust discrimination and that’s one thing voters will not forgive.

  • Santorum is a very good man & was a solid senator, but I have read the comments of other readers who are correctly critical of his neo-conservative, nation-building policies. I agree with those critics and believe that Rep. Ron Paul is correct in his overall assessment. Both George Washington and Ike Eisenhower offered powerful farewell addresses that reflected the Constitution wisdom of the U.S. being wary of foreign intrigues as well as the military, industrial, congressional complex. Once Rick jumps off of the neo-conservative bandwagon, he’s got my vote.

  • National defense. Santorum.

  • “No Republican I know wants [Romney] as their candidate”

    I really believe that he, and maybe Perry, would be good presidents. I suspect that the next president is going to have to implement some serious austerity – necessary in the long run, but recessionary in the short run. He’s going to take a lot of heat for it and be considered a failure. Right now, Romney’s the one I trust most to be able to do it.

  • I have the complete opposite feeling about Romney, Pinky. He is precisely the type of individual who would be unwilling to use any of his political capital in order to advance difficult measures.

  • Both George Washington and Ike Eisenhower offered powerful farewell addresses that reflected the Constitution wisdom of the U.S. being wary of foreign intrigues as well as the military, industrial, congressional complex. Once Rick jumps off of the neo-conservative bandwagon, he’s got my vote

    1. George Washington and Dwight Eisenhower could not have faced more dissimilar configurations in international relations.

    2. There is no constitutional provision which prescribes a specific foreign policy.

    3. His commentary on the ‘military-industrial complex’ notwithstanding, annual military expenditures during the Eisenhower administration averaged in excess of 10% of domestic product and incorporated conscription to boot. Mr. Bush and the ‘neo-conservative bandwagon’ made do with 5% of national product and a professional military.

  • My favorite Eisenhower quote, from his state of the union address in 1959:

    “America’s security can be assured only within a world community of strong, stable, independent nations, in which the concepts of freedom, justice and human dignity can flourish.

    There can be no such thing as Fortress America. If ever we were reduced to the isolation implied by that term, we would occupy a prison, not a fortress. The question whether we can afford to help other nations that want to defend their freedom but cannot fully do so from their own means, has only one answer: we can and we must, we have been doing so since 1947.”

  • “The United States ought not to indulge a persuasion that, contrary to the order of human events, they will forever keep at a distance those painful appeals to arms with which the history of every other nation abounds. There is a rank due to the United States among nations which will be withheld, if not absolutely lost, by the reputation of weakness. If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war.”

    George Washington, Fifth Annual Message, 1793

  • Also, Washington’s farewell speech originally called for no foreign entanglements – for twenty years. He wanted the US to get on its feet so it could be an equal in its agreements.

  • We seem to be missing the point about Santorum. He is a staunch conservative, he is not Bush redux except for the fact that he is steady, consistant, and does not waiver. His opposition to DADT is right. We have now created a special protected class within the military and are attempting to undermine the Chaplain’s role in the military. If you have every heard Santorum discussing homosexual issues you will hear a person who is Christian/Catholic to the core and truly loves his fellow man. He is demonized by the radical left because he takes a moral stand that our Church dictates. The reasons some people give for not supporting Santorum is his support of Spector and his strong national defense stand especially against Iran. The other candidates have more skeletons in their closets(with the exception of possibly Ron Paul). Newt has supported embryonic stem cell research and is/was a proponet of “climate change” legislation, has cheated on two wives, but is probably the most intelligent candidate(intelligent does not always equate to being correct) . Romney has changed his stance on abortion through thoughtful investigation and is accused of being a flip flopper, and lest we not forget Romneycare. Cain is being lynched by accusations and has but one theme, 9-9-9. Perry can’t speak intelligently in a debate. Bachmann comes off as shrill. Paul has great ideas but personally I don’t like alot of his foreign policy stands. Huntsman, et al are hanging around. Why is Santorum laggin in the polls?

  • Thank you for your many insights and points of persuasion – Mr. McClarey, Pinky, Sid, etc. From Mr. Zummo’s 3 reasons: 1) Sen. Santorum’s ill-advised support of Spector is a minor factor; 2) his thumping lose to Casey, again, it carries some weight in PA, but is still relatively a small factor; 3) the “arrogant, whiny” factor may well have more to do w/ the media’s politically correct posture in favor of the liberal agenda. And now that sodomy and bestiality are okay in the military, we can see just how “professional” our troops are will become. Many of our fellow Catholic readers & thinkers have made excellent, thought-provoking points concerning the need for a top-notch military, ready both to defend and fight. However, the question of America’s role to a significant degree – as a “policeman-of-the-word” must be weighed both on the scales of our laws as well as on the financial ledgers. Are we following both the spirit and the letters of our Constitution by trying to build democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan? Are we responsible stewards to present and future generations by spending vast sums of money for such aims and enterprises? The bottom line on Sen. Santorum for me remains one of considerable admiration and respect for his skills, courage, fervor, honesty, goodness, and judgment. My sole objection is his view of America as some messianic, military savior who is obligated to be the perennial enforcer on the international playground whenever significant political-military-economic-&-cultural issues come to a head. During one of the debates I heard two young men say in so many words, “That Santorum dude would be a-okay, but he needs to tone down the war drums on Iran.” Fellow readers, I realize that the issue with a nuclear Iran is serious and complex, but I think that all of our politicians could learn from the pastoral attitude of our Holy Fathers who pleaded with nations – before the conflicts in Iraq – to seek diplomacy unceasingly, while remaining well aware of duplicitous and deceiving tactics of real and potential enemies. The bellicose tone of Sen. Santorum and other quality candidates needs to be tempered. Congress must be engaged fully – as required by the Constitution – be the U.S. involves itself in wars. We remain on a trajectory of selecting Presidents who exercise unilateral powers. We, the people, must demand a return to a more balanced approach, which includes the needed funding for intelligence and an honest assessment of each situation, but is governed by the denominator of the voice of the voters in the House and Senate. Representative Ron Paul – a military veteran and a superb defender of pro-life policies and liberty – understands those distinctions well. It would be encouraging to see Senator Santorum to reassess his stance in the aftermath of the primaries because he is so vigorous a champion with much potential for future office. The latest Newt flip-flop on life begins at implanation – not at conception – is something that Santorum would never do. Like Rep. Paul, Sen. Santorum is a true-believer in that sense. And for that – despite his neo-conservative position – I could vote for him, knowing his honesty and his vast superiority over President Obama. Alas, barring a series of nearly impossible developments, neither Sen. Santorum nor Rep. Paul will garner enough electoral support. But, of course, we should be focused on the task of selecting whom we believe would be best, not selecting or predicting the ultimate “winner”. Oremus.

  • hard to imagine any “Holy Fathers”, esp since Leo XIII being libertarians.

  • “maybe people should actually just vote for who they like best”

    There in is your answer. People do vote for who they like the best. Rick, for all of his good points, is not likeable. However, he’d be a good V.P.

  • Sarah Palin said: “It is RICK SANTORUM”:

    http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/02/sarah-palin-lavishes-praise-on-rick-santorum/

    I love this woman. She is fantastic.

  • I watched Santorum last night on the Fox forum. This man has obviously thought a huge deal about the issues, knows them cold and knows what we would do as President. Even though I do not think he has much of a chance, I am going to support him.

  • Now that Cain is basically out, it should be interesting to see if there is any movement in Santorum’s direction as his voters defect to various candidates.

  • Have any of you been polled? I ask because I harbor doubts about the validity of polling.

    I’m over 40 and would expect to have been tagged at some point. The subject came up at a birthday party a couple of months ago and no one in my extended family has been polled in at least 20 years.

    “Statistics lie and liers use statistics” and all so, other that to steer elections, what validity do the polls actually have? Do they actually represent the support of rank-and-file Republicans?

    Maybe the answer to Paul’s query above is that the party really doesn’t support Romneyand the polls are garbage.

  • Like most others who fail to see the big picture of the Spector endorsement, you do not mention that the GOP held the slimmest 51-49 margin at the time. Toomey, less conservative in 2004 than the 2010 version, would have never beaten the Democrat that year. Spector was the chair of the juduiary committee and pledged to Santorum that he would vote for any Bush juducual appointee. Roberts passed thru with no opposition, Alito not so much. So, no Spector, no Alito. Could Toomey had delivered that? You know the answer. Santorum was looking at the long term not political expedency. Isn’t that what has been missing in our leaders for so long? Get over Spector. Support Rick Santorum.

  • So, no Spector, no Alito.

    The final vote on Alito’s confirmation was, I believe, 58-42. The GOP held a 55-45 advantage after the 2004 election. So your math does not hold up.

    And if Specter had lost to Toomey, contrary to what you said, Toomey very well could have won his general election contest. And with a Senator Toomey instead of Specter, no 60th vote for health care.

    Also keep in mind that Snarlin Arlin was one of the main reasons Bork was defeated, but let’s not bring up really old news now.

    Get over Spector. Support Rick Santorum.

    I kind of said that (minus the blanket endorsement for Santorum).

  • I was a Cainiac, now I’m a Santorumite! Rick Santorum is the most Conservative in the race. His record is solid Conservative. His efforts to protect the unborn are well-known and go back to his first position in the Congress. He is smart, thoughtful and unafraid. I think he is the best candidate for POTUS and I will be voting for him in my state’s primary in March!!

Are Primary Voters Superficial?

Wednesday, November 16, AD 2011

Rachel Masden has a column up lamenting how Rick Perry’s gaffe in last week’s debate demonstrates our obsessiveness with image over subtance:

As in real life, politicians, voters and the media all get caught up with entertaining but petty nonsense. Case in point: Rick Perry stuck his cowboy boot in his mouth during a recent debate performance, unable to recall one of the three agencies of government he’d euthanize if he were to become president. Turns out it was the Department of Energy — which for a Texas governor to forget about would be a bit like the prime minister of Great Britain forgetting about Buckingham Palace. OK, funny — but really, so what?

For at least 24 hours, the mishap represented arguably the single most globally widespread American news item. I even saw it broadcast and translated on French television in Paris. This is the media and political culture of today — all about stagecraft, showmanship and ratings.

As a political strategist, let me tell you a little secret: Debates are easy to fake. All you need to succeed is a good policy-prep team, a competent spin doctor to distill that policy material down to snappy bite-sized talking points, and the memory and delivery capabilities of a C-list Hollywood actor. Perry just didn’t remember his lines. That’s all.

But what about the other guys who lucked out and did remember all their lines this time? Isn’t it the job of media moderators to recognize boilerplate spin and slice through it on the fly? There’s one reliable way to do this, but it’s rarely seen: In response to a candidate’s prepared take, a media moderator need ask only one question: “What precise action in your background or experience illustrates this principle?” In other words, when a candidate says that he would do something, what has he previously done in his career to demonstrate that value through tangible action? Do you know who any of these candidates really is beyond what he or she claims to be? If not, then thank the style-over-substance media.

The column is timely because I’ve been having some second thoughts about the primary process.

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Are Primary Voters Superficial?

  • How come they don’t use the same microscope on Obama?

    He said there are 57 states and that Hawaii is in Asia.

    And his policies are dangerous. Case in point: President Obama told the Muslim world in Cairo in June 2009 that no government has the right to stop any nation from developing nucular weapons.

    “I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons.”

    Compare that to 20 seconds not naming a wasteful agency Governor Perry would shutter.

    So, look at Texas’ success with years of Governor Perry and compare that to the mess the US is after three years of the genius.

    In conclusion, everyone knows Hawaii is on Monday nights on CBS . . .

  • Agree or not with his substance, at least Ron Paul has substance.

  • If Republican primary voters are seeking intelligence, Cain never should’ve gotten this far. No, the spite wing of the party is looking for an anti-Obama, however unintelligent.

    I also take issue with the idea of Newt as the “ideas man.” He’s a history buff with legislative experience and some speaking ability. That isn’t ideas. That’s knowledge. Wikipedia can’t come up with any ideas. All it can do is search its memory bank and that’s exactly what Newt does. When faced with a new problem, he looks around to find an analog then takes it to the logical extreme and people applaud it as genius. Take his tax plan which is exactly Perry’s plan with a lower rate. Or his foreign policy which consists of repeating lines from books on WW2 and the Cold War. I have seen no evidence that he has an analytical problem-solving framework.

  • And can you imagine submitting to the microscope handlers on those interview occasions? So much chaos in the whole world since 2008 that contenders should have a chronology of events for reference, while the handlers contemplate people in glass houses throwing stones. Would love to know what Jesus wrote in the sand when a crowd was testing His judgement.

    Human compassion and humor won’t be going the way of the insidious cynics, jokers laughing and clapping to the tune of MSM while Satan sneers (?). The Office of President should be about work success, not ratings, parties, cameras, catchy phrases (like one week no boots on the ground) and raising/wasting money.

    By the way, MSM is losing Regis Philbin, to whom the VP paid a short, standing up visit this a.m. but showed audience his back mostly while he said something about Irish Catholic. Regis was gracious and will be missed.

  • If Republican primary voters are seeking intelligence, Cain never should’ve gotten this far.

    Sure. Any idiot can run a national restaurant chain or a consequential trade association. Seats on the board of Federal Reserve Banks are passed out in Cracker Jack boxes.

  • “Agree or not with his substance, at least Ron Paul has substance.”
    Yes, and I believe the substance is tin foil.

  • I think Santorum is strong on substance, but he has attacked fellow republicans in the debates. He attacked Perry in the early debates. Remember those debates? When cordial manners were not the fashion and Perry entered the ring, 6 vs. 1, with Gingrich abstaining. I think it was Gingrich who toned the candidates down on attacking each other. Romney owes a huge thanks to Gingrich for that. It’s unfortunate no one on stage can point out to Romney how philosophically wrong Romneycare is. He’s still embracing as recently as today.

  • We know that poll responses are superficial. But primary voters, I don’t know. This race has so far been dominated by Romney and whoever looks strong enough to take on Romney. But typically voters sober up as the primary approaches, as they did famously when they dropped firebrand Dean in favor of staid Kerry. They’ll probably settle on two candidates, a moderate and a conservative, and those two will slug it out. That’s what happens on the Republican side most of the time.

  • That’s what happens on the Republican side most of the time.

    That happened in 1976. There were never any but two candidates. One was the incumbent President.

Shape Shifter

Thursday, November 3, AD 2011

Just so we’re clear, if this guy wins the Republican nomination, I walk:

Mitt Romney was firm and direct with the abortion rights advocates sitting in his office nine years ago, assuring the group that if elected Massachusetts governor, he would protect the state’s abortion laws.

Then, as the meeting drew to a close, the businessman offered an intriguing suggestion — that he would rise to national prominence in the Republican Party as a victor in a liberal state and could use his influence to soften the GOP’s hard-line opposition to abortion.

He would be a “good voice in the party” for their cause, and his moderation on the issue would be “widely written about,” he said, according to detailed notes taken by an officer of the group, NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts.

“You need someone like me in Washington,” several participants recalled Romney saying that day in September 2002, an apparent reference to his future ambitions.

Romney made similar assurances to activists for gay rights and the environment, according to people familiar with the discussions, both as a candidate for governor and then in the early days of his term.

People can change their minds on an issue, and if Mitt Romney has had a genuine change of heart on abortion, then that’s great.  But how can anyone possibly trust this man?  He’s a chameleon who changes his tune to suit his audience.

On the other hand, though Rick Santorum is not my first choice at the moment, he’s the only candidate who puts social issues first on his website.  He’s by far the most passionate defender of the unborn we have in this race, if not the country.

Continue reading...

33 Responses to Shape Shifter

  • Romney’s primary objective is be get elected and reelected. At least in his first term, he should be reliably conservative. Dump him in 2016 if you’re still not convinced.

  • Rather than see Obama re-elected I would vote for the Weather-Vane although it would make me physically ill to do so. My distrust for Romney is immense and any man who can flip-flop as easily and as regularly as he does deserves not an iota of trust from any voter. If it comes down to Romney and one conservative in the primaries, Romney loses, which explains the rise of Herman Cain. Now as Herman Cain begins the crash and burn phase of his campaign, it is a golden opportunity for some other conservative to make his move. I think Rick Perry has been counted out far too soon. We shall see. The GOP establishment gravely underestimates the opposition to Romney among the Republican base. Republicans had to hold their noses with McCain in 2008 and McCain is the reincarnation of Ronald Reagan in comparison to the Weather-Vane.

  • If it comes down to Romney and one conservative in the primaries, Romney loses,

    I’d go a step further and suggest that he couldn’t survive there being two viable candidates, at least when you work out the numbers. He needs a third candidate (aside from Ron Paul) to be polling in at least the 10 percent range.

  • Windsock Romney’s core political conviction is that he should hold elective office. He’ll never waver on that.

    In the last few days, I’ve actually found myself taking another look at Gingrich. For all of his manifold flaws, he has knowledge of the issues and can articulate his viewpoint in something other than gimmicky soundbites.

    What a field, what a field.

  • Windsock Romney’s core political conviction is that he should hold elective office.

    And that’s what I do not get (and did not get about George Bush – pere, either). He is a man of genuine accomplishment in other endeavours, he has ample skills at organization and fund-raising, and he is not such a fool that he cannot think through for what he actually stands. Why is he abasing himself?

  • Paul Z. wrote, “…if this guy [i.e., Romney] wins the Republican nomination, I walk…”

    Does that mean, Paul Z., that in a race between the Obamanation of Desolation and Mr. Weather Vane (as Donald so aptly describes him), you will vote for the Obamanation?

    Like Donald M., I will hold my nose and vote for Mr. Weather Vane, then promptly vomit afterwards.

  • I would light my eyeballs on fire before voting for Obama. No, I’d probably just sit out the election. Considering I live in Maryland, it is of little consequence who I vote for I suppose. But with any other candidate I’d at least be motivated to volunteer, particularly in the bordering states of PA and VA. If it’s Romney, I’m not lifting a finger to help the man or the party.

  • Because I live in Louisiana, I have the luxury of being able to vote for whomever I choose without helping Obama. So, I can say that if Romney gets the nomination, the Republicans won’t be getting my vote.

    I’d love to love Santorum; but, I’m not sure he can win a national election. Heck, he didn’t even win his last campaign in Pennsylvania. I’m taking a much harder look at Gingrich right now.

  • If God had meant us to vote, he would have given us candidates…

    Yeah, I too am increasingly disgusted with the way this field (never good) has been shaping up. Though living in Ohio now, I’m not sure I’d actually sit out and refuse to vote for Romney if he’s the candidate against Obama. I’d have to think hard about it, though. With Obama in there, at least the GOP is clear on who the enemy is. With Romney in the White House, the congressional GOP might actually allow a more left-ward leaning set of policies to be implemented than would be the case under Obama.

  • Despite my negative tone, as I’ve said elsewhere, I actually like several of the candidates – not just tolerate them. I’m perfectly fine with Perry, Santorum, and Gingrich. Sure, they’re all flawed, but then again you can’t really expect perfection from your candidates.

    In a way it might be good to elect someone that we’re not all praising as the next political Messiah. When we go overboard with a politician we can only wind up being disappointed in the end. In other words, here’s hoping we don’t let perfect be the enemy of the pretty good.

  • With Romney in the White House, the congressional GOP might actually allow a more left-ward leaning set of policies to be implemented than would be the case under Obama.

    To demonstrate your point, would a GOP Congress have passed “No Child Left Behind” with a Democrat in the White House? Probably not.

  • Rubio, anyone?

  • Nope, I’ll not vote for Romney. Someone better set the Republican National Committee straight on this. Romney runs, we all lose. Yes, I would vote Santorum — and you can tell the RNC that, too.

  • Yeah, I too am increasingly disgusted with the way this field (never good) has been shaping up.

    I have a sinking feeling that the major problem is that (collectively) we ain’t the people we used to be.

  • One warning about the “I’ll walk” sentiment: if followed too strictly, it guarantees you will have no political party to speak of.

    Social liberals took over the Democrats in part because too many good people followed the “I’ll walk” sentiment, rather than staying and fighting.

    What if they sabotage the GOP too, relying on their sabotage to boost their enemies’ principled exodus?

    I’m getting the sense that the rich Republicans who backed SSM in New York will be allying with gay groups’ agents to do dirty deeds at the Republican National Convention in 2012.

    I advise Republican Catholics to find out how their state party appoints delegates and to make sure many reliable allies are among their delegation. Organize now, or die in defeat later.

  • I will not vote for Romney UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. NEVER.

    I live in Ohio – a swing state. If I knew with absolute certainty that my vote would be the difference in the election, I STILL would not vote for Romney.

    Of course, I’d never vote for Obama either. I don’t vote for pro-aborts. And that includes Romney.

  • Refusing to vote for Romney doesn’t mean we won’t vote in 2012. I want to see Obama pack his things but we may have to settle for the US Congress and a bunch of state governments.

  • You optimists are assuming that there will be anything left in November 2012.

  • What’s weird to me is how, time and again, parties manage to nominate candidates that nobody wants. That is mysterious to me and I start suspecting that it’s due to some sort of mysterious feature of statistics or math. It’s counter-intuitive that a system that is allegedly about majority rule keeps picking candidates for whom no majority seems to exist and which everybody I know doesn’t want. It reminds of the mysteries of fluid dynamics, where leaves mysteriously float upstream due to hidden eddies. Nobody wanted Dole, yet somehow, he was nominated anyway. Bush seemed to get nominated with shrug. McCain was also somebody nobody really seemed to want. And now Romney. I don’t know of living soul who wants him, and yet somehow everybody is glumly resigned to the fact that, despite nobody wanting him, his party are still inevitably going to pick him anyway. It makes me wonder, in what sense is all this democratic. Very strange to me.

  • “It makes me wonder, in what sense is all this democratic.” That’s the exact problem. It IS democratic. 1st Samuel chapter 8 rings loudly and clearly. The “peepul” get the government it deserves, and until we repent of our baby-murdering, our homosexual perversions, our adultery, our fornication, and our idolary, we can expect nothing but leaders who at best are Weather Vanes. When the “peepul” have lost the principles of morality and virtue, can we expect anything other than that of their leaders?

  • The worst features of our current society have not been caused by elections Paul. Abortion on demand, the rise in acceptance of homosexuality, etc, have been fostered by elites wearing the black robes of judges, seated in academia, at the helm of the media and making barely disguised propaganda in Hollywood. If the will of the people as expressed at the ballot box over the past several decades had not been thrwarted by said elites, our society would be far better off.

  • What’s weird to me is how, time and again, parties manage to nominate candidates that nobody wants.

    Do you get the insurance agents you want?

    People enter and are recruited into the political profession like other professions. Who you get is derived from who is already there and what sort of screens and hurdles are present. Public opinion is a matrix in which these fellows operate, influencing their behavior in some measure and winnowing a few who are beyond the pale. Other elements of the matrix also winnow people, for good or ill. I do not think public opinion has much effect on the supply-side, and the supply-side is where your problem is. The general calibre of the professional-managerial bourgeoisie is a problem, and the degree of regard ambient among them for public office.

  • Simply running in opposition to Obama is not enough to get my vote. I did not vote for any presidential candidate in ’08 and I’m prepared to sitout ’12 if I have to. Romney is unacceptable (for my own reasons) and I am not yet certain who is acceptable.

  • Same situation as many – in a state which will go Republican regardless of who is the candidate, so my vote really won’t matter. Voted QTP (Quixotic Third Party) last time, other than local races. Looks like it may happen again, or maybe I’ll have some Tea.

  • “That is mysterious to me and I start suspecting that it’s due to some sort of mysterious feature of statistics or math.”

    Mark – It’s called Arrow’s Paradox.

  • Most likely I would simply not vote over voting third party. Last time around, as bad as the McCain choice was, the third party options consisted mainly of kooks.

    G-Veg’s comment echoes my feelings fairly well.

    Pinky gets to the heart of the matter with Arrow’s Paradox, explained here if you’re looking for a link. I would add that conservatives tend to shoot themselves in the foot each election cycle. I don’t have time to go into detail, but we can be our own worst enemy.

    Somewhat tangentially, I’d like to address one thing that keeps popping up. I have now seen a couple of pieces written about how Romney was the conservative darling in 2008. That’s a bit of an exaggeration. Like many, I saw him as the best of a very bad lot and meekly threw my support to him when Thompson dropped out. Few energetically supported him, and now that there are much better conservative alternatives in the race this time conservatives want nothing to do with him (for the most part).

  • Any support that Romney got from conservatives in 2008 was almost entirely due to a deep antipathy to McCain and a well-founded conviction that McCain was entirely intent on being a good loser in the Fall rather than putting up the type of fight needed to beat Obama. McCain seemed so pathetically eager in the Fall to suspend his campaign for the “good of the country” which I believe he did twice ostensibly due to the economic meltdown. The truth is that McCain’s heart wasn’t in the fight, and he seemed to be running for “Miss Congeniality” instead of president.

  • If John McCain spent 1/10 the energy going after Obama the way he went after conservative opponents like Hayworth . . . well he still probably would have lost. But at least he could have gone down swinging.

  • But, sputter/sniffle, “What about the children!?”

    Soaring food/fuel prices inflict the most harm on low-to-moderate income families and their children.

    So, why are brilliant Obama and his geniuses (Bernanke, Geithner) feverishly striving 24/7 to hike food/fuel prices? I suppose it’s another one of them high-level concepts we ignorant, self-supporting yokels just cannot comprehend.

  • At the risk of being flip, Art, regarding your excellent 8:08am comment: garbage in, garbage out?

  • Donald, maybe you are correct when you said that “The worst features of our current society have not been caused by elections Paul.”

    But I have no confidence in the people’s ability to recognize right from wrong after the last election. Maybe I am just a pessimist. 🙁

  • Poor fallible Man Paul! We are blinded by sin and our intellects feebled by our passions. Yet, by the grace of God we can accomplish so much that is good! As Lincoln said at the beginning of the Civil War we have “the better angels of our nature”. We must have courage and resolution to speak the truth boldly. If we do that, and if we mean it, I have no doubt that there is much in our nation that can be amended.

  • The shallow presidential talent pool today reflects the choices of the people who took part in politics 30-40 years ago (and also the choices of people who refused to take part in politics.)

    The only reason we’re fighting those HHS contraception regs on the national level is because 28 states already passed similar regs.

    Look at your local politics. Start your own little party machine. Convince your neighbors, not some guy 2,000 miles away. Learn to win a neighborhood caucus election.

    These great debates about national issues are fun on the internet, but they often distract from where we can have the most impact.

Optics

Monday, June 6, AD 2011

Mitt Romney is far from being one of my favorite presidential hopefuls, but I agree with Jim Geraghty that this Newsweek cover, portraying Romney as a dancing lunatic, is fairly appalling.  Geraghty says that the article itself is very fair, but that doesn’t matter.   Roughly 99% of the people who see this cover will never read the article.  For better or worse – and almost certainly worse – our politics are dominated by optics.  The story is secondary to the substantive issues.

One of my grad school professors, Mark Rozell (now at George Mason) liked to talk about an evening news report done on Ronald Reagan’s economic policies during the 1984 campaign.  I don’t recall which network it was,  but the report just decimated Reagan on the economy.  It was a voice-over piece, and most of the images were of Reagan in various settings, mostly in places like Yellowstone or other grand settings.  After the network aired the report, the head of the news division was contacted by a member of Reagan’s staff, and was thanked for the report.  Why was this network being thanked for a hit piece?  The images.  The text of the story didn’t matter.  What would stick in viewer’s minds were the images, and these were images of the president in majestic settings, showing off the trappings of power.  Many viewers would tune out the content of the story and instead focus on images that were greatly favorable to Reagan.

It’s human nature to focus on imagery, and so I don’t necessarily fault those who ignore the broader context of such stories.  That being said, I’m sure Newsweek didn’t choose this particular photo by accident.

Continue reading...

8 Responses to Optics

  • The one good thing is that it was Newsweek, which is dropping below Utne Reader in subscription levels and news impact.

  • But, yeah, that’s pretty ridiculous. I’d be curious to see the last time NW put a Democratic presidential candidate in a ludicrous picture.

  • Yeah, that photo wasn’t chosen. It was shopped. It’s pretty obvious they cut and pasted Romney’s head onto the body in that ridiculous pose. I’m not what I would call a Romney fan, but what they’ve done in that picture is appalling.

  • Dale: true, although that kind of bolsters my point. No one reads the thing anymore, but plenty will see the pic while in line at the grocery store.

    Mandy, I believe it is a photo shop, and in fact it’s using a publicity shot from the Book of Mormon musical (or at least someone suggested that in the comments to Geraghty’s post).

  • It is in fact from “The Book of Mormon” musical.

  • The one good thing is that it was Newsweek, which is dropping below Utne Reader in subscription levels and news impact.

    The Utne Reader is the most engaging of leftoid publications. It is a pity it has not exceeded Newsweek in circulation.

  • Yea, all of the liberal media will be doing their best to discredit Republican candidates. Mitt should take the Palin approach and just ignore them and not go on their outlets.

    abc, nbc, cbs, cnn, msnbs, pbs, nytimes, nw, washington post

  • oh, btw, In Massachusetts, when the state tried to force Catholic Charaties to allow homosexual partners in their adoption program, Cardinal O’Malley objected and held a press conference. Who was standing next to the Cardinal at the press conference? Catholics Ted Kennedy and John Kerry? No, it was Mitt Romney.

The Birther Suplot: A Waste of Time

Wednesday, April 13, AD 2011

At my own blog I’ve already shared my annoyance with the Birthers.  For those of you not up to speed, “birthers” are those that doubt, to one degree or another, that President Obama was actually born in Hawaii, and who suggest, therefore, that he is constitutionally ineligible for the presidency.  To me it’s a silly conspiracy theory that doesn’t crack even a “1” on the credibly believable scale (and I am referring to the conspiracy being believable, not Obama’s family history).

Then there is what one might term the birther subplot.  There are those who don’t really doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii, but who nonetheless insist that he release his long-form birth certificate.  Donald Trump has harped on this issue quite a lot as he embarks on a futile attempt to draw more attention to himself on a bid for the Republican nomination for the presidency.  Long story short, Trump and others sense that Obama is hiding something.  The most common rumor is that the long-form certificate would (for some reason) indicate that he was a Muslim.  Commenter “The Man From K Street” offers a couple of other plausible theories on the blog “Est Quod Est”:

First (and to my mind the likeliest) — it will reveal what most people already have figured out: Barack Obama Sr. and Stanley Ann Dunham were never actually married, let alone licitly (even a presumptive wedding would have been invalid as bigamous).

Second — there has been some speculation that BO Sr. might not have been the actual father. One alternative candidate in particular has been discussed in various parts of the net, but even if we saw the long form, this will probably stay graffiti on the bathroom wall of history forever.

Possibly.  And then there’s the conspiracy of the non-conspiracy, and Don alluded to it in the comments of my post.  Essentially Obama is dragging this thing out because he knows that the birth certificate contains nothing all that embarrassing, but by playing the story out it allows some of his opponents to look like complete loons.  Frankly, this would be my bet, and that gets to the heart of my annoyance with people like Trump.  Even if there is something on the birth certificate that is potentially slightly embarrassing, why should we care?  Nothing is going to have any bearing on his qualifications to be president.  The only theory that would be even partially troubling if true is that his religion is listed as “Muslim.”  Sure, it would create some tension because hard core Islamists view apostasy as punishable by death.  Well, yes, but my guess is those very same people who would seek to kill Obama because of his apostasy want him dead anyway.  And again, that really shouldn’t matter in the slightest when evaluating his worthiness to be re-elected.

At the risk of going back on my New Year’s resolution not to discuss the 2012 presidential race until Labor Day, I am going to have to side with Mitt Romney on this (something I might not be saying too often after Labor Day):

Mitt Romney forcefully said Tuesday night that he believes President Barack Obama was born in America and that “the citizenship test has been passed.”

“I think the citizenship test has been passed. I believe the president was born in the United States. There are real reasons to get this guy out of office,” Romney told CNBC’s Larry Kudlow the day after he formally announced that he’s exploring a run for the White House. “The man needs to be taken out of office but his citizenship isn’t the reason why.”

As Ed Morrissey adds:

The 2012 election should hinge on real issues and deep questions about Barack Obama’s ability to handle the office.  The freak show is a distraction that damages the serious nature of Obama’s opposition — and don’t think the media isn’t eating it up, either.

Indeed.

Update: As if to bolster my point, I would think that Obama being a demagogic manchild incapable of serious governance is enough reason to oppose him that we don’t need to manufacture stuff.

Continue reading...

73 Responses to The Birther Suplot: A Waste of Time

  • Only a logical person would question why he sealed ALL his records including his birth cert. Look, this guy came out of nowhere and became the leader of the most powerful country in the world. Is there anyone here who believes that just anyone can become president? No, boys and girls, only those groomed for the job. Obama does not pass the smell test and could put many “thoughts” to rest by just presenting the asked for documentation.

    Frankly i am annoyed with the sheeppeople in this country…

  • As conspiracy theories go, this one is pretty lame. I still want to know who was actually on the grassy knoll in Dallas, where Jimmy Hoffa is buried, what happened to Amelia Earhart and Judge Crater, and whether “spontaneous human combustion” can ever been scientifically verified.
    : )

  • http://patdollard.com/2010/08/cnn-poll-only-42-of-americans-believe-obama-is-a-citizen-only-23-of-republicans/

    a cnn poll no doubt!

    only 42% of Americans believe BO is an American citizen….. if it was truly a honest poll and not one of the left wing it would probably be well over 50%…

    Thank God for logic ….

  • Angie said: “he sealed ALL his records including his birth cert. ”

    Obama did not seal any of his records. He published the official and only birth certificate of Hawaii, and the facts on it were confirmed by THREE Republican officials. As for school, college and graduate school transcripts, his parents’s marriage license, etc, Obama does not have to publish them. They are not sealed, they are simply private. No president has ever shown all these records, and none have shown school transcripts or college transcripts (a few were leaked by colleges, but the candidate or president did not show them).

    IF, however, in the next election the Republican candidate shows her or his college records, parents’ marriage license, etc., then Obama is likely to do so too.

  • He published the official and only birth certificate of Hawaii, and the facts on it were confirmed by THREE Republican officials.

    I’m not sure that is true. I think he released an unsigned “certificate of live birth”, not his actual, signed long-form birth certificate.

    I rather suspect that the “birther subplot” is where the actual facts lie: that is, Obama was born in Hawaii but is concealing his long form birth certificate – and all sorts of other personal information – because there are things in it that he believes to be politically damaging. Of course that is just speculation though — my own gut feeling if you will.

    For a guy who wrote two autobiographies before he had accomplished much of note Obama is really, really cagey about actual, detailed personal data.

    In short, I think Lawrence Auster’s take on the issue is about right: Obama is clearly hiding something or somethings, and while it is unreasonable to jump to conclusions – after all, the central point is what we don’t know because Obama has chosen to hide it – it is not at all unreasonable to ask, and persist in asking, just what he is hiding and why.

  • Re: “I’m not sure that is true. I think he released an unsigned “certificate of live birth”, not his actual, signed long-form birth certificate.”

    Answer: The unsigned short-form CerificaTION of Live Birth is the official birth certificate of Hawaii. Thousands of people use it every year to get their US passports. It is not supposed to be signed or to have the name of the hospital or the doctor because it is the short-form, which many if not most states have adopted.

    Re: :’Obama was born in Hawaii but is concealing his long form birth certificate – and all sorts of other personal information – because there are things in it that he believes to be politically damaging. Of course that is just speculation though — my own gut feeling if you will.”

    Answer: There are two reasons why he does not release the long form. The first is that the short-form is the official birth certificate now, and hence is the RIGHT form to release. The second is that Hawaii does not release the long-form anymore, to ANYONE, and it hasn’t since 2001.

    http://archives.starbulletin.com/content/20090606

    Re your speculation: “because there are things in it that he believes to be politically damaging. ”

    The way to find out if this is true or not is to search online for a copy of someone else’s long form Hawaii birth certificate, and check on it whether or not there are places on the form to enter anything that COULD be politically damaging, such as religion (No) or whether or not his parents were married (No). It does include spaces for the hospital name, name of the doctor, etc–but these are not likely to be politically damaging.

    So, birthers claim that there must be a difference between the words actually entered on the original and the ones on the published birth certificate. They claim, for example, that Obama’s real father was Frank Davis, or Malcolm X, or that his race is listed as “white” or “negro”–and the clerk changed the words to Obama and African. But that is not the way that it works. The clerk simply copies the data from the original. The name of the father is the same, and the race listing of “African” is what is on the original too. (Some people say that that is not a race, but the officials in Hawaii have repeatedly said that folks are allowed to describe their race anyway that they want.)

    Re: “For a guy who wrote two autobiographies before he had accomplished much of note Obama is really, really cagey about actual, detailed personal data.”

    So? Most politicians are. Clinton said that he didn’t inhale. Obama said that he did.

    Re: “Obama is clearly hiding something or somethings…”

    If you feel that Obama has hidden more of his background than the Republican candidate in the next election, vote for the Republican. Or, vice versa. Has Pawlenty shown a birth certificate? Romney? Were their parents married? Can they prove it? Did they inhale?

  • Obama wants the birther meme going 24/7.

    It’s distraction and misdirection from his 24/7 failures. Failures that even his imebecilic worshippers cannot cover up.

    Did anyone listen to todays deficit LIE-ARAMA?

    Let’s go to the video tape. In February 2009, your “demagogic manchild” told a crowd of useless dolts that he was going cut in half the federal deficit. He tripled the federal deficit in his first year. Math is not his (or any idiot liberal’s: I repeat myself again) strength. Probably a reason he won’t release his university transcripts.

    I know he was born. I don’t care about whatever embarrassing facts are in the real birth certificate.

    And I don’t want to see the embarrassing stuff in his university transcripts and his medical records that he has spent millions to keep under wraps.

    I want to see him vacate the White House in early 2013.

    Else, prepare ye for the zombie apocalypse.

  • The Birther rubbish is idiocy on steroids. Obama gets his American citizenship from his mother. It doesn’t matter where he was born. John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone and that did not make him a non-citizen. Knaves are making money on this non-issue by getting fools to contribute money to them on the basis of this complete folderol.

  • EXECUTIVE ORDER 13489 I’m not a lawyer but I think it makes it illegal to uncover Obama’s past!

    http://www.fas.org/sgp/obama/presidential.html

  • Title 8 section 1401 of the US Code sets forth who is a natural citizen:

    The relevant provision for Obama, even if he had been born in Kenya:

    “(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:”

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401—-000-.html

    I do wish loons would leave the law to people who know something about it.

  • Granite:

    yes he did seal ALL his records…. note the above commit…

    we do not even know what classes he took or if he even passed all his classes … if you are going on his word then i have some beach front property in AZ i would love to sell you… 😉

  • Don, perhaps it’s a sideshow and irrelevant but it provides much entertainment in a political scene laden with dullness. Can anyone imagine anyone duller than Mitt Romney?

    And this “debate” over the budget and debt is tiresome. What matters how much money the U.S. owes? I’d say the creditors have a bigger problem than the debtors. There was a time when America was owed all the money and few paid back. Now we owe all the money and are worried about default?

    Let the Chinese sue if we skip a payment. Who cares? We can always print more money.

    We’re a long way before U.S. dollars become Weimar reichmarks.

    But if you want to balance the budget, here’s a way:
    1. Close half the U.S. military bases abroad. They’re not needed.
    2. End the wars, close Gitmo and cancel all military orders for new fighter jets, carriers and other weaponry, which are superfluous.
    3. Abolish the Dept. of Energy, Homeland Security, the Dept. of Education and dump 500,000 deadweight government employees from the payroll. Pension em out at one-quarter pay.
    4. Stop all Medicare fraud, end the food stamp program, funding for Planned Parenthood, NPR, National Endowment for the Arts and every other wasteful nanny state outlays that previously were none of the government’s business.
    5. Turn the unspent TARP money back into the U.S. Treasury.
    6. Dump the income tax totally. Make everyone pay 20 percent flat tax, and 1 percent national sales tax. Abolish the IRS and just deduct it from paychecks.

    There, I just balanced the budget.

    I’d run for President, but I wouldn’t want to live in the White House. I’d rather just be a king with a sharp axe. :: )

  • “What matters how much money the U.S. owes? I’d say the creditors have a bigger problem than the debtors” — Joe Green

    You’d be wrong then. See Argentina, Post-WWI & -WWII Germany, Russia, and Yugoslavia for starters. America will have a problem if we don’t pay off the debts we owe to foreign nations.

    On Topic, the Birther Conspiracy is a farce. Even if it were true that he wasn’t born in the US, his mother is American therefore he is American. My personal thought is that Birthers are just idiots who want to keep the complaining about Obama in the news so that people will vote him out.

  • I disagree on the issue of debtor vs creditor for..

    Tell China too bad and if they do not want to play, good! we do not need China or anyone else for that matter. The truth is we cannot pay this off and we are going to do some suffering for it sooner or latter so lets make it sooner and get it over with. We have the technology, materials and all the resources to make everything we need and then some. We have been borrowing money from China to buy their junk. Who has benefited, not the USA. Jobs have been bleeding from here for years thereby reducing the actual middle class.. actual yes for government has grown and secured wages that surpassed the private sectors for years buy guess what… to work government must be a fraction of the private sector… Now we are waking up and realizing our middle class is all but gone and that boys and girls is what defines an economic power…. if we continue on the road we are on the UDS will not be around in 4 years ….

  • There is a question on whether Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, renounced her citizenship. If that is true then there is a constructional issue on Obama being a legitimate president and whether anything he signed acting as president is valid. There is also then a question of who else knew about this and therefore crimes perpetrated against the Unites States of America. This could in fact be treason which is punishable by hanging.

    Now for the questions…..
    When Obama went to school in Indonesian he HAD to be a Indonesian citizen to attend school there.

    Soetoro is the name on Obama’s Birth Certificate (BC) because a new BC was issued when he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, his step-father. His original BC, which assumed was issued for Barack Hussein Obama at birth, would have been sealed at the time of the adoption. At the time of adoption his mother would have renounced her citizenship.

    His mother was not found of this country and it is not far fetch to believe she renounce her citizenship. Barry Soetoro probably acquired Indonesian citizenship in approximately 1965-1966, and may still hold it.

    Also, Prior to 2007, Indonesian law did not permit dual citizenship. Thus, if Obama actively kept his Indonesian citizenship, his US citizenship could be challenged.

    Why the refusal to open his college transcripts…. Foreign aid….. they had a ball smack-talking about Bush and Pailn’s records and even Gore who was a flunk out in college made his public yet BO keeps his sealed…… why one runs for public office how much privacies does one expect… not much..

  • Complete rubbish. After his birth it matters not one whit if Obama’s mother renounced her citizenship.

    “F. RENUNCIATION FOR MINOR CHILDREN

    Parents cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children. Before an oath of renunciation will be administered under Section 349(a)(5) of the INA, a person under the age of eighteen must convince a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer that he/she fully understands the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation, is not subject to duress or undue influence, and is voluntarily seeking to renounce his/her U.S. citizenship.”

    http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html

  • Angie said: “EXECUTIVE ORDER 13489 I’m not a lawyer but I think it makes it illegal to uncover Obama’s past!”

    You are wrong. It actually makes it harder than a similar executive order issued by Bush for presidents and former presidents to seal their records. And, it does not apply to state records or college records or private records or corporate records, or any records except to the federal presidential records of presidents and former presidents.

  • Angie said:

    “When Obama went to school in Indonesian he HAD to be a Indonesian citizen to attend school there.

    Soetoro is the name on Obama’s Birth Certificate (BC) because a new BC was issued when he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, his step-father…”

    None of this is true. The allegation that you had to be an Indonesian citizen to attend school there comes only from a birther site. You can check on whether or not it is true by calling the Indonesian Embassy. It’s not true, and while you are there you can ask whether Obama was adopted while in Indonesia (he wasn’t) had his name officially changed to Soetoro (no, but he did use the name, but that is not illegal) or whether he became a citizen of Indonesia (he didn’t) or had an Indonesian passport (no on that too).

  • Angie said: “we do not even know what classes he took or if he even passed all his classes …”

    Answer: There is no law that says that a president or a presidential candidate must show his school or college records. Unless and until there is such a law, they have the same privacy rights as everyone else. However, it is your right not to vote for someone who has not show sufficient background information. The result of this will be that IF in the next election the Republican candidate shows school and college classes and the grades, etc–then Obama is likely to do so too.

  • The birther subplot does not alter the fact that Obama is the worst president in the history of the United States of America.

  • “When” and “if” his mother her citizenship is important and the question of Obama renouncing his citizenship is also important. Those of you here accepting these lairs at their word are beyond ignorant. To not even question all the inconsistency shows that you are easy marks. Does anyone here even care about the US Constitution or the fact that this county is so divided? No wonder you do not get much traffic here. Mark my words the sh__ is going to hit the fan soon… first Spain will pull down Europe and then the US will fall…. but you will have your minions of ostriches … good luck to you …..

  • Angie, with you we see the “birther” mindset in all its ignorant glory. You know nothing about the law or the facts and yet you pontificate on the subject. This is only a distraction from the myriad of substantive reasons to oppose Obama and his worthless administration. Obama is clearly a natural born citizen, through his mother, wherever he was born. He never took the steps necessary under law to renounce his citizenship. Those who waste their time on this dryhole of a non-issue help Obama and his supporters by allowing them to attempt to tar all opponents with the type of nutball accusation that is truthfully applicable to the rabid “birthers”.

  • Don, it would seem to me that Angie raises some interesting legal points to which you, as a lawyer, appear to dismiss as sheer “ignorance” or a mere “distraction.” While I agree that it is a horse that has been well beaten, it also is a fact that the horse is not quite dead yet — and for good reason.

    If, indeed, it were ever to be proven that Obama was not a naturalized U.S. citizen and hence had been unqualified to be President that would be the biggest political story in U.S. history and its most shameful.

    Now, in a land in which you are presumed innocent and the burden of proof lies with the accuser (except in the case of airport security and the IRS and a few other things in which guilt is presumed), then it seems to me that trying to uncover “evidence” in the birther matter is virtually impossible since the only exculpatory evidence would be the genuine document attesting to his birth in U.S. You can’t prove a negative, so only the actual birth certificate will end all discussion. As for school records, it’s clear Obama might have scored as high as C- (giving him considerable benefit of the doubt).

    One other point, as shown in the fictional case of Jarndyce vs. Jarndyce in Dickens’ Bleak House dragged on for generations in England’s Chancery Court without resolution, which fueled reform in that nation’s cumbersome and often unworkable legal system.

    As a lawyer, for no other reason than guaranteed continuous remuneration and having an pecuniary interest in seeing matters unresolved to your benefit, it would seem that further legal inquiry in the birther issue would afford some barrister a nice living (present company excluded, of course), for I believe, Don, you are a man of integrity who believes in the true meaning of justice. Still, time has been billed for more trivial legal pursuits no doubt with little harm to clients except for lightening their pockets. : )

  • Joe, it is legally impossible for Obama to be a non natural born citizen unless he took the steps subsequent to his birth necessary to renounce his American citizenship. There is zilch evidence that he ever did that. To be quite blunt, Angie has raised no interesting legal points, but mere conspiracy mongering garbage. There is far too much of that on the internet, and The American Catholic will have no part in that. If Angie persists in doing that, she will be banned by me from this blog, since TAC will not provide a forum for that type of pernicious nonsense.

  • “Angie, with you we see the “birther” mindset in all its ignorant glory.”

    Donald, have you seen Obama’s birth certificate? Has he showed it to anybody? Isn’t one of the requirements for president is to be a Natural born citizen?

  • Considering that Angie has already proven incapable of debating people without insulting them, I’ve already gone and banned her, Don.

  • This distraction/misdirection/waste of energy and time does nothing to assuage the American people’s miseries: high food and fuel costs, high unemployment, and despair.

    Gallup: “Obama’s Approval Drops Below 50 Percent Among Poorest Americans; No Longer Enjoys Majority Approval In Any Income Class.”

    The natural born requirement was emplaced in the Constitution so that no foreign idea or cults of personality could come here and ruin the country. If it had been enforced the “demagogue manchild”; his unlawful czars; and his 40,000,000-strong horde of abortionists, guv employees, traitors, union thugs, etc. would not be destroying the country and our way of life.

    Obama must go.

  • Jasper asked: “Donald, have you seen Obama’s birth certificate? Has he showed it to anybody? Isn’t one of the requirements for president is to be a Natural born citizen?”

    A question for you first. Did you see Bush’s birth certificate or Clinton’s? How about Bush41. Reagan’s is in his library, but it was not published before or while he was president. Same for Carter, Ford, Nixon, LBJ, Etc.

    So there is no requirement that a president or a presidential candidate show her or his birth certificate. However, you can do it voluntarily, as Obama and Trump have.

    The birth certificate that Obama has shown, known as the Certification of Live Birth, is the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and has been since 2001. It is the only birth certificate that Hawaii sends out, even to people born before 2001. Thousands of people use it to get their US passports every year.

    The Wall Street Journal said:

    “The birthers have also misrepresented the law in the claims they have made about Obama’s birth certificate. In truth, Obama has proved that he is a native of Hawaii, and this proof would hold up in any legal or administrative proceeding.

    In order to explain the birthers’ deception on this point, it is necessary to delve into the arcana of Hawaiian vital records. The document that Obama has released, which carries the title “certification of live birth,” confirms that the president was born in Honolulu. It is a legal birth certificate, and, as the Honolulu Star-Bulletin notes, it is the only kind of birth certificate the state of Hawaii issues….

    Further, if Congress were to pass the so-called birther bill, Obama would be able to comply easily. The bill would require presidential campaigns to submit “a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate” to the Federal Election Commission. The certificate Obama has released publicly would meet this requirement.”

  • Considering that Angie has already proven incapable of debating people without insulting them…

    It was like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

  • It does include spaces for the hospital name, name of the doctor, etc–but these are not likely to be politically damaging.

    That is as much mere speculation – that revealing those details would not lead to any politically damaging inquiry – as is “birther” speculation, or my own speculation that Obama is in fact a natural born citizen. The reason why it is mere speculation is because of Obama himself: because he has blocked access to those details.

    I mean, folks may be right that the birther issue is a “distraction” — as if that observation were somehow different from ‘”shut up”, he explained’ — and they may be right that the birther issue politically damages elephants more than asses, etc etc. I couldn’t care less about those contentions, which is why I didn’t comment on them.

    The fact remains that Obama is hiding the details of his birth, and it is not unreasonable, it doesn’t turn one into a raving lunatic, to ask why he is doing that or even to further contend that he ought to reveal those details.

    If the anti-birther crowd (I am neither pro- nor anti-birther, any more than I am pro- or anti- “Battlestar Galactica fan”) were willing to openly concede that Obama is deliberately hiding the details of his birth, and it his deliberate witholding of information that is the cause of controversy, but… well that would be an honest discussion. As it is, all the contempt heaped upon “birthers” just signals, to me if to nobody else, a fundamental dishonesty on the part of anti-birthers: an attempt to paint those who disagree as raving loons. (Granting, of course, that given any position X there are virtually always raving loons who agree with X).

    As I said, I fully expect that Obama was born in Hawaii — and even if not, that he is a natural born citizen, fully and unambiguously eligible for the presidency. That is my speculation — which is as supported/unsupported, given the deliberate withholding of detailed facts by Obama, as any other speculation.

  • Granite1,

    Ok, I take your word for it. Thanks

  • So there is no requirement that a president or a presidential candidate show her or his birth certificate.

    If I take (say) Lawrence Auster as an example of the “birther subplot” – that is, those who expect that Obama is in fact eligible for the presidency, but wont just shut up and go away the way the author of this post would like them to shut up and go away – then this is a straw man. Auster for one has never (that I have seen) contended that Obama is legally required to reveal the details of his birth, nor that presidential candidates in general have done so.

    One problem with trying to paint those who disagree with you about something as raving loons is that you almost inevitably end up attacking all sorts of straw men.

  • Speaking of strawmen:

    those who expect that Obama is in fact eligible for the presidency, but wont just shut up and go away the way the author of this post would like them to shut up and go away

    One problem with trying to paint those who disagree with you about something as raving loons

    I don’t believe that Trump and his ilk are themselves loons, nor do I say that they should shut up and go away (well, maybe Trump, but not for this). I simply think it’s a waste of time and that nothing meaningful can be revealed by pursuing this. I think that pressing the issue will allow them to be portrayed as loons, but I’m not suggesting that they are.

    Now Angie and those of her stripe who out and out suggest that Obama is not a natural born citizen – yeah, I think that’s loony.

  • I simply think it’s a waste of time and that nothing meaningful can be revealed by pursuing this.

    Fair enough. That is your mere speculation, though, resting on the same quicksand of absent facts – caused by Obama’s choice to hide the details, again despite being the sort of personal exhibitionist who twice authors supposedly intimate autobiographies before he had done much of anything – as the speculations of those with whom you disagree.

    Your anti-speculation is no better founded than the speculations of those against whom you argue. And the reason why everyone’s speculations are equally useless is because of Obama-the-exhibitionist’s deliberate choice to hide the detailed facts.

  • The problem isn’t where Obama was whelped. It’s he is ruining the country.

    Jobless rates “surprisingly” increased in today’s report; inflation raises prices on necessities.

    Only 45.4% of Americans held jobs in 2010, the lowest since 1983 and down from 49.3% in 2000.

    A redux of Carter’s ruinous regime is the best case scenario, a miracle.

    “Manchild Demagogue” spends three times as much as Dubya: blames Dubya.

    “Eat the Rich” Department:

    Americans prefer spending decreases to tax increases by 50% margin: three to two.

    Gallup: Obama’s Approval Drops Below 50 Percent Among Poorest Americans; No Longer Enjoys Majority Approval In Any Income Class.

    “So there is no requirement that a president or a presidential candidate show her or his birth certificate.”

    The AZ legisalture is about to make proof of Constitutional eligibility to be President a requirement to be included on the ballot in AZ.

    Obama must go.

  • Bob said: “because he has blocked access to those details.”

    Answer: No he didn’t. Hawaii does not send out the original birth certificate anymore. That was Hawaii’s decision, back in 2001, when it decided not to send out the long-form birth certificate anymore, and since then it hasn’t, not even to people who were born before 2001.

    Re: “The fact remains that Obama is hiding the details of his birth..”

    Answer. Once again, no he hasn’t. It is Hawaii that does not send out the original birth certificate anymore.

    Re: “If the anti-birther crowd…were willing to openly concede that Obama is deliberately hiding the details of his birth.”

    We do not and cannot because it is Hawaii that does not send out the original birth certificate to anyone. ANYONE.

    Re: “As I said, I fully expect that Obama was born in Hawaii…’

    Answer. So do I, based on the birth certificate, the confirmation of the officials in Hawaii (Three officials, three times, all Republicans), the notices in the Hawaii newspapers, which were not ads by the way, this witness who recalls being told of Obama’s birth in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital, in 1961:

    http://www.buffalonews.com/incoming/article137495.ece

    And the absence of any US travel document indicating that Obama traveled in 1961. (If a child were in fact born in a foreign country, she or he would need a US visa or to be entered on the mother’s US passport to get to the USA)–which has not been found for Obama.

    I expect that you need proof that Hawaii does not send out copies of the long form birth certificate to ANYONE:

    http://archives.starbulletin.com/content/20090606

    And:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42519951/ns/politics-

  • TShaw said: “So there is no requirement that a president or a presidential candidate show her or his birth certificate.”

    The AZ legisalture is about to make proof of Constitutional eligibility to be President a requirement to be included on the ballot in AZ. ”

    Answer: Yes that may pass. My point was that there was none so far, so Bush and Clinton did not break any laws by not showing their birth certificates.

    IF Arizona does indeed pass that law, then the most that it can do is require Obama to show the official birth certificate of Hawaii, which is the one that he has already shown. Yes, I know that the bill still says “long-form,” but that is unconstitutional under the US Constitution’s full faith and credit clause. Under that clause every state must accept the official documents of all other states.

    So, it may have to go to court. If it does, there is no question that the courts will rule that Arizona must accept Hawaii’s official birth certificate, which is the Certification of Live Birth.

  • “Considering that Angie has already proven incapable of debating people without insulting them, I’ve already gone and banned her, Don.”

    Bravo Paul!

    “Donald, have you seen Obama’s birth certificate? Has he showed it to anybody? Isn’t one of the requirements for president is to be a Natural born citizen?”

    Well Jasper I’ve already cited the law that makes Obama a natural born citizen and I will cite it again:

    “Title 8 section 1401 of the US Code sets forth who is a natural citizen:

    The relevant provision for Obama, even if he had been born in Kenya:

    “(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:”

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/usc_sec_08_00001401—-000-.html

    I am quite familiar with this law, and not only because I am an attorney. My brother was born in Saint John’s Newfoundland to my American Father and my then Canandian (She later became a naturalized American citizen) Mother. Out of curiosity I looked up the law on the subject years before I became an attorney and I know this aspect of the law by heart.

  • Ironically, Romney’s father who ran for the Republican nomination in 1968 was born in Mexico but it didn’t matter because his parents were US citizens, making him a natural born citizen.

    Obama’s father was not a US citizen so if he wasn’t born in the US he wouldn’t be a natural born citizen.

    My cousin went to school in Indonesia without being an Indonesian citizen.

  • “Obama’s father was not a US citizen so if he wasn’t born in the US he wouldn’t be a natural born citizen.”

    Untrue RR. See the statute I cited prior to your comment.

  • Donald,

    Ok, I believe you.

  • Obama’s mother was a citizen, so I believe that would make him a NBC regardless (hence the wacky theory that his mother renounced her citizenship prior to Obama’s birth).

  • Bear in mind also, there is, so far as I know, absolutely no evidence that Obama’s mother ever went to Kenya, and given that Obama Sr. had another wife back in Kenya that Ms. Dunham didn’t know about, that seems unlikely.

  • Bob said: “because he has blocked access to those details.”

    Answer: No he didn’t.

    Are you suggesting that Obama does not know and is not capable of finding out the details of his own birth?

    I suppose that is another possibility; though how believable a possibility is another matter.

  • So, Obama, Sr. had two wives at the same????

    He was married to Stanley and another woman in Kenya????

    Kenyan citizens are legally permitted to retain two wives???

    Now, I understand. It is all perfectly clear.

  • All of this is just a PR boon for Obama. First, it makes his opponents look like nuts, but it also brings to the forefront Obama’s most sympathetic qualities. Any embarrassing information on Obama’s birth certificate would be no fault of his own, but a product of his rather unconventional and tragic childhood. One of the few things I can say I admire about Obama is the fact that he overcame a difficult past and is, as far as I can tell, a devoted family man. That’s truly a wonderful thing. You can’t say that about Bill Clinton. I think all Americans are naturally sympathetic to someone with humble beginnings who then succeeds. As opponents of Obama, we need to concentrate on his numerous policy shortcomings, and not farfetched accidents of his birth.

  • Paul, it could very well be argued that good breeding matters a great deal. Objectively examining Obama’s parentage and extended family tree, one is hard-pressed to locate sturdy limbs upon which to hang the utmost confidence. That’s putting it as delicately as I can.

  • but a product of his rather unconventional and tragic childhood. One of the few things I can say I admire about Obama is the fact that he overcame a difficult past and is, as far as I can tell, a devoted family man. That’s truly a wonderful thing. You can’t say that about Bill Clinton.

    Calling his upbringing ‘tragic’ is de trop. By what accounts have appeared in the papers, Ann Dunham could be described as an odd, erratic and self-centered creature and the effects of this certainly tainted the lives of the people around her (both children, her parents, and her 2d husband). By the age of 35, she had taken two trips through the divorce courts and subcontracted the rearing of her son to her parents. That having been said, the life BO lead in Honolulu was (in material terms) agreeably bourgeois and there is little indication that any of the adults in his domestic milieux were given to the sort of cruelty that Roger Clinton visited on his sons or Hugh Rodham on his.

  • Don, you’re right. I misread the end of the statute about military service as a conditional.

  • Thank you for providing the following, Mr. McClarey:

    Title 8 section 1401 of the US Code sets forth who is a natural citizen:
    The relevant provision for Obama, even if he had been born in Kenya:
    “(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:”

    Do you have any legal considerations to offer us regarding Obama’s Connecticut Social Security number?

  • First, it makes his opponents look like nuts, but it also brings to the forefront Obama’s most sympathetic qualities. Any embarrassing information on Obama’s birth certificate would be no fault of his own, but a product of his rather unconventional and tragic childhood.

    If that were true, though, it seems it would motivate Obama to release the information rather than hide it, as he has done. So it seems likely that the qualities in question aren’t sympathetic – at least in the sense of inspiring support for him rather than undermining him politically, for whatever reason.

    Perhaps the argument is that whatever the facts turned out to be, no matter what they are, those facts ought to inspire sympathy and thus political support, given an ideally virtuous electorate. But an ideally virtuous electorate would never have elected Obama in the first place, so I’m not sure what that is supposed to prove; and in any event it is far from clear that it is wise, let alone virtuous, to willfully ignore a president’s formation and upbringing.

  • President Obama’s mother was a US citizen.

    She was permanently resident in the United States before his birth.

    She was permanently resident in the United States after his birth.

    Thus

    The President is a natural born United States Citizen if he was born in Hawaii, Kenya, Antarctica, the bottom of the Marianas Trench, the far side of the moon, or Alpha Centauri.

    Since the Courts would hold that for any Tom Dick or Harry in the same situation, I have no doubt that they would hold it for President Obama.

  • I’m not suggesting that someone’s upbringing is irrelevant to one’s character, but by continually bringing it up it makes Obama’s opponents look like jerks. He should be judged on his actions and stated beliefs, not his mother’s erratic behavior. Also simply growing up without material want doesn’t mean that he did not have a tragic childhood. As the child of multiple divorces, I’ve felt this personally.

    I vehemently oppose Obama politically, but I would hope that I would never fall into the trap of some of Bush’s detractors who seem to find everything about the man objectionable, sinister, or evil. It’s bad strategy and spiritually unhealthy.

    Bob, I honestly don’t think there is anything to be revealed, embarrassing or sympathy inducing. By delaying, Obama keeps the focus away from his actual record, and on this kookie issue.

  • I honestly don’t think there is anything to be revealed, embarrassing or sympathy inducing.

    And again, this is no better or worse a speculation than birther speculations, because we don’t have the facts; and the reason we don’t have the facts is that Barack “two autobiographies in his forties even though he did nothing of note” Obama, the exhibitionist, who has continually made a political symbol of his personal childhood and upbringing, is deliberately hiding those facts.

    What birthers and anti-birthers have in common is that they both assume that they know the implications of the deliberately-hidden facts about Obama’s childhood. Birthers think those unknown facts make Obama unqualified to be president under the Constitution; anti-birthers think those unknown facts are irrelevant. The “birther subplot” which is being criticized in this post seems to me to be frankly the only reasonable position: that is, we don’t know the facts, and we don’t know them precisely because Obama, who has deliberately made a political symbol out of his childhood, refuses to reveal the facts about his politically symbolic childhood.

    I suppose we might say that there is an “anti-birther subplot” at work too. An unspoken premise of the anti-birther subplot is that it is an unreasonable and embarrassing waste of time to press any issue which is presumed (without factual basis) to be unimportant.

    Under the anti-birther subplot, pressing the issue – the fact – that Obama-who-made-his-childhood-a-political-symbol-and-wrote-two-autobiographies-by-the-time-he-was-in-his-forties-and-won-the-presidency-on-that-narrative, refuses to reveal the details of his own childhood – is unreasonable and embarrassing.

    I don’t think either birtherism or anti-birtherism (as defined in this thread) are at all reasonable, because both presume to know facts which we do not in fact know, and we don’t know them because Obama is deliberately hiding them. And I don’t find the “shut up, he explained” or “pressing any issue which is not the most important issue is a foolish waste of time” narrative of the anti-birther-subplot, as typified by this blog post, to be particularly reasonable either.

    The more I think about it, the most defensible position seems to be the “birther subplot” position: we don’t know the facts because Obama, who deliberately made a political symbol of his own childhood, is deliberately preventing us from knowing them. Furthermore, as human beings we are perfectly capable of talking about and pressing more than one issue. Pressing some particular issue doesn’t mean it is the most important issue, so the contention that pressing this issue from the standpoint of the “birther subplot” is a waste of time, is pish-posh.

  • PHOENIX — The Arizona Legislature gave final approval late Thursday night to a proposal that would require President Barack Obama and other presidential candidates to prove they are U.S. citizens before their names can appear on the state’s ballot.

  • Also simply growing up without material want doesn’t mean that he did not have a tragic childhood. As the child of multiple divorces, I’ve felt this personally.

    There is a distinction between ‘disagreeable in some aspects’ and ‘tragic’.

  • Bob,

    There are literally dozens of reasons that Obama is unfit for office. Harping on a stupid non-issue like this is a waste of everyone’s time and energy. In fact I now regret even bringing up the issue because it’s an even bigger waste of time and energy discussing what a complete waste of time and energy it is. Who cares if his mother was unmarried or his father was a louse or anything that might be on the long-form certificate? It is irrelevant to the fact that the man is: a demagogue unserious about tackling the financial issues facing this nation, is the biggest enemy of the unborn ever to occupy the White House, has absolutely no idea how to conduct foreign policy, lies with practically every breath he takes, and seeks to socialize the economy to an extent heretofore unseen. Oh, but there maybe kinda possibly be sort of something that is not good on his birth certificate. Who. Freaking. Cares.

  • Thanks Don. I will grant that the Birthers have absolutely nothing on the Trig Truthers. Now that is some unhinged crazy.

  • Z: Thanks for bumping that comment.

  • Rah!, rah!, facts are a waste of time! woo-hoo!

    I’ll have what you guys are drinking.

  • What “facts” have you presented, Bob? Do you think that ranting and raving is somehow proof of your argument?

    Unreal.

  • Every time you use the term “waste”, “ranting”, “raving”, “crazy”, “who cares”, or “unhinged”, you have to drink.

  • Right Bob, using strong adjectives is the same thing as making unsupportable claims and stating them as fact.

    I’m done with this.

  • I think it was Rochefoucauld who said that arguments would not last long if the fault were on only one side.

  • I rather think Rochefoucauld did not have deranged conspiracy nuts in mind when he made that statement Joe. 🙂

  • Don’t forget that “birther” itself is a play on “truther”, the term for the (generally left leaning) people who insist that 9/11 was an “inside job” plotted, or at the very least allowed to happen, by the Bush Administration. I guess “-ther” has become the suffix of choice to designate crackpot conspiracy theories just as “-gate” is for political scandals.

    Another one of Trump’s supremely idiotic statements on the birther issue was his assertion that the birth announcements which appeared in the Honolulu newspapers were paid advertisements placed by his grandparents in an attempt to make little Barry appear to be a U.S. citizen and thereby gain the benefits of citizenship.

    It may be true TODAY that people have to pay to publish birth announcements (or wedding announcements, or obituaries). However, routine publication of birth announcements in newspapers (along with hospital admissions and discharges) was a common practice in small towns and small- to medium-size cities prior to the advent of medical privacy laws and concerns about child abduction and identity theft.

    My own birth and that of my older brother (nearly the same age as Obama) was announced in the local newspaper in precisely the same format as was Obama’s — “Mr. and Mrs. John Doe (Jane Smith), 123 Elm Street, Anytown, girl, Saturday, St. Mary’s.” In the 1960s hospitals automatically provided this information to local newspapers unless the parents specifically requested that it NOT be published.

  • “However, routine publication of birth announcements in newspapers (along with hospital admissions and discharges) was a common practice in small towns and small- to medium-size cities prior to the advent of medical privacy laws and concerns about child abduction and identity theft.”

    Quite right Elaine. In my own small town newspaper this is still the case. I almost think Trump, bad hair piece+big ego, is a mole attempting to get Obama re-elected.

  • As with many arguments, this one (referring to “anti-birther-subplot” as opposed to “anti-birther”) seems to suffer from an utter incapacity to accurately paraphrase what you are arguing against.

  • Actually Bob I think it’s quite simple. Birthers are either fools or knaves who either have no knowledge of the relevant law and facts or deliberately choose to ignore the relevant law and facts. Nothing complicated about it.

  • Actually Bob I think it’s quite simple. Birthers are either fools or knaves who either have no knowledge of the relevant law and facts or deliberately choose to ignore the relevant law and facts. Nothing complicated about it.

    Don: you prove my point just about perfectly with that post.

    All of my own discussion in this post has been about the “birther subplot,” not “birtherism” proper. I explicitly rejected the “birther” position above, which you would know if you were putting even the slightest effort into making an accurate paraphrase.

    I get it, though. This post wasn’t about substantive discussion; it was just a rant. And hey, everyone needs a little rant now and then.

    Enjoy the hothouse, boys!

  • “I get it, though. This post wasn’t about substantive discussion; it was just a rant. And hey, everyone needs a little rant now and then.”

    No Bob, this post was to indicate that Birtherism is a complete dead end. Your meandering contribution did help substantiate that point, so very good show Bob!

  • I believe we have reached the end of the useful life of this thread.

What Will ObamaCare Look Like

Friday, March 5, AD 2010

[4 updates at the bottom of this post as of 8:08am CST]

If ObamaCare somehow passes through Congress and signed by President Obama, what can Americans look forward to?

Well the Republican Party’s very own potential presidential candidate Mitt Romney did just that as governor of Massachusetts, passing universal health coverage for the entire state.

The results are mixed at best, and scary at worst.

Here are some highlights from the op-ed titled Romneycare model a dud in the Boston Herald by Michael Graham where Massachusetts is “already glowing in the radioactive haze of Romneycare, aka “ObamaCare: The Beta Version.” [emphases mine]:

Shouldn’t Obama have been bragging yesterday about bringing the benefits of Bay State reform to all of America?

As we prepare to wander into this coming nuclear winter of hyper-partisan politics – one in which we’re almost certain to see widespread political fatalities among congressional Democrats – I have to ask: If bringing Massachusetts-style “universal coverage” to America is worth this terrible price, why doesn’t Obama at least mention us once in awhile?

Maybe he thinks of us as the Manhattan Project of medical insurance reform. Too top secret to discuss. More likely, it has something to do with the nightmare results of this government-run debacle. Here are a few “highlights” of the current status of the Obamacare experiment in Massachusetts:

It’s exploding the budget: Our “universal” health insurance scheme is already $47 million over budget [imagine it in trillions for American tax-payers] for 2010. Romneycare will cost taxpayers more than $900 million next year alone.

Continue reading...

11 Responses to What Will ObamaCare Look Like

  • Clearly, the program only failed because it wasn’t properly funded. The rich need to pay their share to ensure everybody has access to health care. Your opposition to health care reform is really a manifestation of your deep-seeded hatred of the poor and fear of those who are not like you. It is shameful for you to use abortion as a smokescreen for your racism.

    //There. Just saved a few folks some time this morning.

  • Steve,

    That is a failure of imagination.

    All problems cannot be solved by throwing more money at it.

    Massachusetts is a model of what will happen to America.

  • Steve, you do deadpan humor better than I do it! You parodied the arguments of the Left to perfection. Well done!

  • Steve,

    I’m enjoying my sucker-pie right now.

    Good one!

    🙂

  • Yes, but Steve forgot to mention fascism. A fatal flaw in any real argument

  • I don;t know enough about Mass to comment.

    However, if public options are doomed to fail, how come they seem to do OK in Canada and Europe and have done for decades?

  • RuariJM,

    Canada and Europe have been subsidized by American military power for the past fifty years. If those ungrateful countries had to spend money on their own military, they wouldn’t have enough money for universal health care. The only our country could afford to ensure health care for all is to do what those countries do – gut our military spending and shut down the one trillion dollar budget.

    Yeah, right! Who else is going to stop Western Civilization from succumbing to the jihadists, if not the American military?

    // I jest. 🙂

  • “universal” health insurance scheme is already $47 million over budget

    Thanks to greater-than-expected enrollment. It’s a good thing.

    Romneycare will cost taxpayers more than $900 million next year alone.

    So what’s an acceptable price tag? The VA budget is $57 billion. Is that too much?

    Besides, most of the $900 million was already being spent to reimburse hospitals for treating the uninsured. The shortfall is $100 million.

    The choice is between insuring the uninsured, reimbursing hospitals for treating the uninsured, making hospitals suffer the losses from treating the uninsured, or allowing hospitals to turn away the uninsured. Pick one.

    Average Massachusetts premiums are the highest in the nation and rising. We also spend 27 percent more on health care services, per capita, than the national average.

    It was probably already the highest before the reform. I do know for a fact that since the reform, the rate of increase has declined both compared to the past and compared to other states. This is consistent with the CBO report which predicts lower costs offset by higher premiums for more comprehensive plans (a net increase in premiums but a decrease in cost). The Massachusetts plan apparently lowered costs more than it increased the price of premiums.

    In Massachusetts, ObamaCare 1.0 is such a mess our governor is talking about imposing draconian price controls.

    The federal government will deal with a larger deficit the way it always does, borrowing. If the federal government was going to impose price controls, it would’ve done so already to save money on Medicare/Medicaid which dwarfs ObamaCare.

    uninsured Bay State residents has gone from around 6 percent to around 3 percent.

    That’s hundreds of thousands of people. That’s great news! A federal program will help millions!

    In conclusion, the Massachusetts plan doesn’t defy logic and works largely as it’s expected to work. Nobody expected it to be free.

    If you oppose ObamaCare, offer an alternative. The way I see it if you take out the public option and include the Stupak Amendment, you have an acceptable plan. Sure, HSA’s would be preferable but if that’s not an option, insurance is still better than nothing.

  • In all seriousness, the rich have no greater right to health care than the poor. The rich are rich not for their own sake, but for the sake of the poor. To those whom much is given, much will be expected.

    Now, having said that, I do not approve of national taxes and national health care schemes. State taxes and state health care schemes . . . I’d have to think about.

  • RuariJM,

    That would explain why the premiere of Newfoundland decided to have surgery in the US and not Canada.

    As well as many more Canadians crossing our border for superior and sorely needed doctors visits.

    Remember, dead patients don’t complain while waiting in line for a transplant.

    That’s why you don’t hear much of them complaining, but there are complaints and it is ugly.

  • I hope Republicans will run attractive candidates for every open House and Senate seat who promise to repeal it. If this Obama/Piglosi/Reid abomination can be crammed down our throats via the nuclear option, why can’t it be repealed via nuclear option once all the Marxist-Alinskyite dirt bags have been voted out of Congress this November? By the grace of God there will be enough of a conservative flip to override ObaMao’s veto.