The American Spectator

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 5.16.11 @ 6:12AM

No real conservative could endorse Newt Gingrich in any way shape, fashion or form. I'm not stating that's bad in and of itself. Just that no real conservative could ever endorse Newt Gingrich and expect to be taken seriously.

Take it one step further. Anyone who wants smaller government or less spending could never embrace or get behind Newt. That's an encompassing statement which could encompass many other non-encompassing candidates.

However, New Gingrich has obtained a semi-endorsement from Harry Reid. Majority Leader Reid stated that if you were “light skinned” and did not speak with a “Negro dialect” you would make a good presidential candidate. Harry Reid was referring to Barrack Obama but in an age of non-discrimination all comments must apply to all candidates. In many ways Newt is either worse then Obama or at least equal on many policies. Let's take a look at Newt's political dialect.

Newt Gingrich states that Republicans must stop pushing "rejectionist conservatism" but should move forward with "replacement conservatism." Replacement conservatism sounds eerily like “compassionate conservatism” which was a complete and utter failure. In fact it destroyed the Republicans and the economy.

The only thing that saved the Republicans was the Tea Party and now we hear the term rejectionist conservatism which is simply rejecting big government but the term is being used as an insult aimed squarely at the Tea Party. I'm sure many members of the Tea Party and perhaps many members of the public would like to say “Screw you Newt” in response to that so I'll say it for them. Newt, screw you and your replacement conservatism. There is no such thing. Yet. It's simply statism endorsed and adored.

Each and every one of these inside the beltway similarity candidates is playing the game of trying to pass themselves off as conservatives while peddling the same smelly snake oil full of political deceit to the public.

In that sense Obama has more ethics then many Republicans because he wasn't afraid to state his socialist policies and without hesitation. In a strange twist of political evolution, Obama is becoming more Republican like because he's taking baby steps utilizing Bush policies to look more Presidential while all the time he's still up to the same old game. I've got a small secret and really good strategy for New Gingrich and the field of empty suits currently running in the Republican party as alleged viable presidential candidates.

If you want to run for President at least stand for something and quit trying to deceive the public.

Based on that statement, many of the candidates should be replaced starting with the global warming embracing Newt Gingrich, who appears ever ready to make himself the fool appearing in stupid ads peddling climate change when there is no evidence that anthropogenic climate change even exists.

Newt talks a good game when he appears on Fox News and looks confident and makes many articulate statements. So would a hand puppet.

Scratch the surface and you have someone who led their party to failure in the past and made an absolute fool of himself by embracing climate change. Gingrich will be nothing but a disaster. In actuality in some areas he could run right alongside of Obama.

Example: Newt obviously has no intention of enforcing immigration laws stating, ““We have to find policies that extend to every American, and that includes people who are not yet legal.” When Newt appeared on the Laura Ingraham show she ate his lunch when Newt tried to waffle his points on the Dream Act.

Newt Gingrich is just another treacherous snake who slithered out of DC and now hopes to slither back by dealing cards from the bottom of the deck. If you like him sit down at the table with him and lose your paycheck along with your kids paycheck and future.

Another political non-starter is that Newt Gingrich is also a big promoter, not supporter but promoter, of bipartisan solutions. That's precisely how we got to where we are today.

In short, he may be a big guy, but he's also a hollow man, long on deceptive ruling class policies he hopes will fool enough people most of the time. Unfortunately for Newt, you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

If Newt Gingrich is the best the Republicans can muster they are doomed. And so is the country. There is no vision here and without vision all you have is the blind leading the blind into political oblivion.

oldfart| 5.16.11 @ 6:48AM

Right on target. I don't trust Newt anymore than I trust Barry, Harry, Nancy, Barney or Chris.

melvin| 5.16.11 @ 7:32AM

Would they be the same as Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice for us old enough to remember that movie.

Cincinnatius| 5.16.11 @ 7:38PM

Though I have always considered Newt a political whore, I USED to think he was a smart one, one whom could make coherent decisions and logical deductions with regard to the well-being of the United States. Now, I am certain he is a political whore and an idiot to boot! Go away Newt, don't do us any more favors...Please!

Deborah D| 5.16.11 @ 9:23AM

oldfart -- "trust" is the key word in my opinion. We can't trust this guy any longer. Newt is such an enigma. You think he's a conservative, then he does something like this. This is very reminiscent of when he sat there with Pelosi in that ad about global warming. It's like -- who are you, Newt? I think that's the biggest problem. We want people who want to save the country and aren't afraid to talk about what needs to be done. If he's not willing to do that, if he's not concerned enough about the future of his children and grandchildren to tackle the big things, then get out of the way of those who are. Serious times demand serious candidates...not candidates that are seriously conflicted. It's called "principles" -- and he doesn't have them.

Grzmlyk| 5.16.11 @ 11:48AM

Deborah, Newt is an abject whore. That's who he is and that's what he's always been, from the days he proclaimed himself a "Rockefeller Republican" before he transformed hismself into a "Reagan Republican." He'd just as soon transform himself into a "Lenin Democrat" if he thought it would get him elected.

I watched a few years ago as he capitalized on the "bird flu" scare with a risible "special report" on Fox that fanned the flames of ignorance and was demagoguery of the most cynical kind.

Then, when he did that commercial with Pelosi, I wasn't surprised, but I was appalled. Classic Gingrinch - an odious reptile.

He is the worst kind of callow narcissist - he wants to be president because his massive ego tells him he deserves it - not because he gives a damn about providing the rudder of conservative leadership to steer this country back toward sanity. It's all about HIM. And most of those vaunted "ideas" he peppers us with incessantly are stolen from think tanks, hijacked from other thinkers or sucked out of the professional brainstormers he has chained to one of his idea factory/gift shops.

Like every other goddamned politician out there - and I include Huckabee, Pawlenty, Daniels and Romney in this increasingly pathetic mix of milquetoast RINOs that are shaping up our list of contenders - Gingrich knows that the demographic gold lies not with conservatives, but with feckless, insensate, foolish independents.

And these assholes are all happy to sell this country further and further down the river, kick the can down the road and keep dancing while the music plays in order to satisfy their personal ambition.

And that, ladies and gentlemen - as if any further proof were necessary - is why this country is not only doomed but deserves to be doomed.

When you have people like we do heading up both parties, you can stick a fork in us. We're done.

LiveFreeOrDie| 5.16.11 @ 2:32PM

Divide and conquer, oldest trick in the book. As long as elections keep coming in around 50/50 they've got us right where they want us.

Peter McGrath| 5.16.11 @ 3:12PM

Thanks, Grzmlyk - well stated. I always liked Newt because he's very well spoken and I thought he was exceptional as Speaker back in the '90's. It is now, sadly, very apparent that he's been on the "inside" for far too long to be anything close to an effective reformer, which is what this country desperately needs, right now. So long, Newton, you are now - officially - toast with movement conservatives and the Tea Party. Only a fool would donate a dime to his quixotic, increasingly weird, candidacy.

Doug| 5.16.11 @ 4:48PM

Lest anyone forget: http://tinyurl.com/chjo9s

Anthony| 5.16.11 @ 7:14PM

Spot on again Grzmlyk. Brother Newt had to appear on Mark Levin's show tonight to "walk back" his comments on the Ryan plan.
Of course, Levin, who would have excoriated Newt, took a fawning approach because Newt appeared on Levin's show. Smart move Newt, appease the talking heads. Tomorrow Rush, or did you sneak in an appearance today when I wasn't listening?
Newt can attempt his Washington double talk "walk back" all he wants. This guy is not a conservative!!! Adios Newt, go join brother Algore saving polar bears.

Todd S| 5.16.11 @ 8:27PM

Yes Levin will be polite with Newt and give him a chance to explain himself while on his show but I am quite sure Levin will not be carrying water for Newt and his stupid campaign. Levin supports Ryan's plan 100% and will always level with his audience on who are Rino's and not to be trusted, see Mitch Daniels.

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 7:25PM

Mr. G,

I don't think Newt is an "abject whore." I like to think of him as more of a "expensive call girl."

old white guy| 5.16.11 @ 9:39AM

newt had a chance and did not follow through. trust, heh, just another rino.

Maddox| 5.16.11 @ 10:02AM

Adding this to the image of Newt and Nancy on the couch and Newt is done, stick a fork in him.

Walking Horse| 5.16.11 @ 4:20PM

Oldfart - while I completely understand and approve your honorable motivation here, I would offer something for your consideration.

The word "trust" and the name of any politician should never, ever appear in the same sentence. Nobody who holds office, elective or bureaucratic, should ever have more deference from the electorate than an uneasy state of probation.

I would gladly accept the term "distrust", as in, "I distrust Newt as much as I distrust Barry, Harry, Nancy, Barney, or Chris."

"If once the people become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions." -- Thomas Jefferson

oldfart| 5.16.11 @ 7:59PM

I stand corrected. LOL

Pecos Pete| 5.16.11 @ 7:05AM

Agreed.

brewpop| 5.16.11 @ 7:10AM

Bill, you just hit it out of the ballpark. Nicely stated!

Stormzeye| 5.16.11 @ 8:24AM

Excellent analysis Bill of this newt. I use the lower case to place him in the amphibia class. By the way, "amphibia" refers to the Greek for "both sides" as in being able to function in air and water. This Newt is well named. Also, these amphibians are becoming extinct all over the world, as will Newt.

Nancy G Murdoch| 5.16.11 @ 8:45AM

Spot on, Bill.

I read a great book..."Rules for Radical Conservatives" recently that relates in no uncertain terms of what is wrong with the GOP. They don't stick to their principles.

Most American voters tend to be conservative, and until we can find a candidate who will stop trying to be everything to everyone, we are doomed. Another four years of Obama.

Ron Paul comes close, in my estimation, however he is unable to articulate his opinions in such a way to appeal to the voter. He comes across as a nut case. I do think the voter is ready to hear enough foreign intervention already. The military industrial complex needs to be reined in, and entitlement spending needs to be addressed. I think Rand Paul comes closer than his dad.

Newt Gingrich is a joke. I was done with him when he supported that joke in upstate NY (Dede Scavozza, or however it's spelled). It proved he's just another party guy with no substance.

We have some principled conservatives but the MSM media has eviscerated them or they have decided not to run.

Jim DeMint is a principled conservative with no money as he's not stolen from the system.

Apparently, we get the leaders we deserve, shallow, narcissistic, greedy pieces of crap. Too bad our children and grandchildren are going to pay dearly for our bad choices.

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 12:47PM

The problem with Ron Paul can be neatly summarized by looking at THOMAS: on most foreign policy matters, he votes with Dennis Kucinich. A wise man would use Kucinich as a touchstone and vote the other way. Don't take my word for it: go to Thomas and check it out---foreign policy---Maxine Waters, Dennis Kucinich, and Paul---a troika. Facts are facts.

Sam Vaughn| 5.16.11 @ 8:57AM

I agree, Newt is already done. I remember a time when he spoke to our Kiwanis club in 1993. He lit up the room with energy and burning belief. The fires of that passion have obviously dissipated into personal ambition. I thought perhaps he might find the old fire, not to be...........

Dave| 5.16.11 @ 9:38AM

First of all, Newtie and RuPaul are a pair of over the hump political hacks who don't really belong in a race with the kind of looming implications this nation is staring at. Other than to gain a little more publicity for their next book tours, both Bozos are wasting our time. But then, illegal aliens don't belong in this country either and look how many (alleged) conservatives are calling for some kind of watered down amnesty deal that, on the surface looks like little more than a simple pathway to legally steamrolling the county.

Right! No floodgate opening there.

Meanwhile, and I'm not sure I read Mr. Kaminsky's comment correctly, but did I understand ol' Ross was "in favor of legalizing ALL drugs?"

Did I read that right?

If so, brilliant, Ross, just brilliant. Matter of fact, I can visualize the end result of your thinking:

Counter - "Hell0 and welcome to Fat Burger. May I take your order?"

Kid - "uhh, yeah, Lemmie have the super combo meal deal with extra cheese, fries and a large bag of coke. (uhh, wait) Better supersize that coke. Oh, yeah, and I'll need some extra straws and a case of Oreos. And make it to go!"

OK, it's kind of a Seinfeld stretch, but you get the picture. At least I hope you do.

Between drunk drivers, people operating a vehicle while chatting on their cell phones or texting while behind the wheel, being behind (said) wheel while under the under the influence of legalized drugs is just what we need. One the other hand, if the driver gets busted while under the influence - there won't be an additional charge of "being in possession of an illegal substance." I can just hear it now: "Your honor, my client had simply taken a mild overdose of his prescribed medication. Apparently the clerk at Stoner's Pharmacy didn't print the correct dosage on the lable. (umm) I'm in the process of suing them ...(uuh) too. "

Yeah, I suppose that'll make it all worthwhile.

Of course, the argument is -- "OK, but the trafficking in illegal drugs would be put out of business." Sure. And all those former drug dudes will just fold-up shop and start putting in their applications at the neighborhood Fat Burger, Home Depot or the local Wal-Mart. Yep, legalizing ALL drugs will put them newly reformed bad guys on the pathway to goodness and honest, clean living, with never another thought of going back into their older cousin's car jacking, street mugging or home invasion business. Nope, it'll be all roses from then on.

OK, Ross, I'm convinced. But now if you'll excuse me, I flipped on The Disney Channel and I think they're showing the original Peter Pan.

Have a good day, kids. And remember to eat all your peas.

Ross Kaminsky| 5.16.11 @ 9:59AM

Yes, Dave, I do support drug legalization even though I've never tried an illegal drug or even taken a puff of a cigarette, and wouldn't do any of those things regardless of their legality.

Your "example" of a kid buying drugs is beyond the pale, however, as I would impose extremely harsh penalties on selling drugs to minors.

In short, the government, especially the federal government, has no authority (legal or moral) to protect adults from damaging themselves.

Also, the results of decriminalization so far look better than the results of our current policies; Portugal seems a fair example.

Again, I don't like or use drugs. But the idea that the federal government can tell adults how to live their personal lives is unacceptable.

As for the argument that drug addicts become wards of the state, I would also change that policy. Let private charities take care of them or let them die. Seriously. Separately from that, I do not believe that legalization will create massive new numbers of heroin addicts.

And all that said, I don't think legalization of anything other than marijuana is a wise political fight to have at this time.

John Navratil| 5.16.11 @ 10:39AM

Mr. Kaminsky,

I agree. There is a difference between using illegal drugs, and committing criminal acts (unless, obviously, one conflates the two). Unfortunately this distinction is lost to the "it's the law" crowd and shows up in all manner of arguments.

Occam's Tool makes the argument that these things are too dangerous for personal consumption and, given his profession, it's hard to fault his judgement or conclusion, but as you point out this control of personal life really is unacceptable to a free society.

Like it or not, we are having to deal with the problem. So far, the results have not been good. We see the violence associated with the prohibition of drugs moving forward like the killer bees before.

My own opinion is that those thinking we are winning this war will have a hard time explaining the coming bloodshed north of the Rio Grande.

Perhaps this is a political non-starter today. Sooner or later it will become this issue.

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 12:55PM

Thank you, John. My basic approach is "the Constitution is not a suicide pact."

Understand, as Clint would say, "this is a minor issue." If I thought Paul was sound on foreign policy, this would not make me vote against him. My swing issue is Islamofascism---someone can be right on that and there will be much I'll overlook; being wrong on that dooms the candidate. Obamacare is another one. I would say those are my foreign policy and dometic policy touchstones.

But Mr. Navratil, I appreciate the respect and civility. It's taken me a while to come to my position; I just keep seeing the damage pile up, worse and worse each year. For example, check out the synthetic cannabinoids, which are currently legal, and much more dangerous than MJ---which in turn has been shown to induce schizophrenia in susceptible populations.

Margie| 5.16.11 @ 1:29PM

Many say the war on drugs is a failure, and so use that to try and promote their agenda (Libertarian and Liberal) of legalizing drugs.

But Rudy Guliani comes to mind. When he became Mayor of NYC that city got cleaned up mighty fast.

So, isn't the issue that we really need to actually HAVE a war on drugs? Have we really sought to actually enforce the laws already on the books?

I think it's really sad that the Libby Lefties find it easy now to come in and announce, "oh well, we've lost the war on drugs, so we might as well make them legal, it's the only way.."

Nature abhors a vacuum, as we all know.

This proves why we need to elect TRUE conservatives who are STRONG on enforcing the law.

John Navratil| 5.16.11 @ 2:45PM

Margie,

Rudy Giuliani DID clean up New York City... like Singapore. He didn't stop at the broken windows, he instituted the impoundment of peoples cars for DUI arrests, but would not release them if a conviction was not obtained. The motorist still had to sue the city for its return which typically took years.

I'm all for strong law enforcement up to the point of a police state. That same Giuliani tried to have Bloomberg's inauguration delayed for ninety days so that he could continue the city's urgent business in the aftermath of 9/11.

There is a balance between liberty and license, but there is no bright line.

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 3:09PM

Dear Margie:

You haven't lived until you've treated a violent Maori whose drug screen came up positive only for THC. EEK.

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 6:35PM

Draft Allen West petition:

http://allenwest2012.ning.com/

John Navratil| 5.16.11 @ 2:16PM

Occam's Tool,

I respect your position and, if I thought the prohibition would keep these substances out of peoples hands and me out of danger, I could agree under your "suicide pact" argument. When the drug war comes to town, I am endangered however. It matters little to me whether I am harmed by a drug-induced schizophrenic or caught in the crossfire of a turf war.

While I have sympathy for the drug-addled soul (one of my high school class mates lasted one semester at college before "frying his brain"), I take some solace that the wound is self-inflicted at the same time that I recognize someone who is non compos mentis is a burden and a risk. So can we achieve the goal of a drug free society by some other means than the prohibition? I'd like to try. I'd much rather be paying you professionally for your help for the addict without the other costs, if I can.

I know that when my children were teenagers (my daughter is still nineteen) I could not rely on the prohibition to keep drugs out of their hands, but rather emphasized what a bad career choice it would be. I realize that I supported the prohibition argument when I would tell them how difficult it would be for them to be accepted into their first-choice schools with a minor-in-possession (of alcohol) or drug possession conviction. I also made it quite clear that multi-thousand dollar defense attorney fees were NOT available. My son got the message when, during his years of private High School, several boys were expelled. My daughter had to get a little closer to the flame.

Isn't it a bitter irony that the generation which broke all the rules has become the most authoritarian?

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 3:11PM

It's a toughie. In the meantime, we can put up the wall, shoot to kill illegals, and forbid illegals from using our hospitals or schools. That would help our budgets.

John Navratil| 5.16.11 @ 3:47PM

Occam's Tool,

In reflecting on your comment on synthetic cannabinoids v. MJ, could it be that prohibition is actually making your job more difficult?

I am not a doctor so this is rank speculation, but I assume that there is no therapeutic use for the synthetics. If there is, my thesis falls apart, but if not, the only reason for their development would be to get around the prohibition.

It seems in Texas that we can't get through a legislative session without adding a laundry list of items to the scheduled drugs list. All this pharmaceutical creativity must have its reasons.

What do you think?

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 6:41PM

No. I WANT the synthetic cannibanoids to be made illegal. They are CURRENTLY legal, and easy to order on line. That's why admits due to psychosis caused by them are going up.

I'm not sure why they were created. (Wiki says to get around the laws---5 of them have been made illegal in March 2011) Keep in mind, Marinol IS legal, by prescription.

But a major reason my patients have told me that the synthetics are being used as opposed to MJ is 1) that they are legal, and 2) the ER drug tests do not routinely catch them yet. Now that 1) has been eliminated, let's see what happens. I'll keep you guys posted.

John Navratil| 5.16.11 @ 6:46PM

Occam's Tool,

So what do you say to my thesis that the prohibition itself leads to these new, and more dangerous, drugs? And if these are made illegal and new detection test are devised, what stops them at the next step? Are we in a race we can win?

Ross Kaminsky| 5.16.11 @ 3:37PM

I think people who support continuing drug prohibition should explain why this is better than their theoretical fears of what MIGHT happen if people had more freedom, even to do things which are bad for themselves:

http://www.borderlandbeat.com/.....death.html

Margie| 5.16.11 @ 4:42PM

Typical Libertarian response. You call it "prohibition". Is that what you call other laws? Like the "prohibition" of prostitution? How about the "prohibition" of Murder? Do you think we ought to just go ahead and stop "prohibiting" it?
Reasons to keep drugs illegal?
Uh, because drug dealers are evil. Because they kill people and contribute to the demise of society as we know it.
Just because somebody else wants to die a slow death by taking drugs, does that obligate you to either supply the drugs, or stand by and watch him do it? Or would you rather help the people who can be helped by either drug treatment or rehabilitation or putting the more criminal of these types in jail?

Why some adults actually want the full blown Woodstock revisited is beyond me, but sadly, it is the case.

Don't we have examples of this in Switzerland and the Netherlands?
Free for all-ism in the name of freedom isn't freedom at all.
Just allowing people to become slaves by addiction isn't freedom, but it IS ensuring their slavery.

Libertarianism is best described by this:

"They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption; for whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved." 2 Pe. 2:19.

God does say that before His return, it will become like Sodom and Gomorrah. We've already "unprohibited" sodomy. And Adultery. I guess next is drug use.
Why not, right? We're going down the tubes as it is.

John Navratil| 5.16.11 @ 5:06PM

Margie,

I call it prohibition purely because of its strong similarity to the period of time during the 18th amendment. No more no less. Here people were enjoined (is that a better word?) from the personal consumption of alcohol. At that time, more or less, there were no proscriptions (there is another synonym!) against the personal use of what are now illicit drugs. So while one could easily use the word "prohibit" for all manner of restricted, precluded, forbidden, unauthorized or illegal activities, I choose to use it where its freighted meaning conveys the unlawfulness of PERSONAL behaviour. Regardless of ones views toward prostitution or murder, they directly involve the behaviours of two or more persons; in one case consensual and in the other, one presumes, not so.

I do not, other than their shared illegality, find much in common between drinking liquor or consuming drugs and either prostitution or murder. I suspect you do not, either.

The arguments you make for keeping drugs could just a well be made for alcohol. Carry Nation made very similar arguments. To paraphrase you:

"Drink dealers are evil. Liquor kills people and contributes to the demise of society as we know it. Just because someone wants to drink himself to death, does that obligate you to either provide the drink, or stand by and watch him do it? Or would you rather help the people who can be helped by either A.A. or rehabilitation or putting the more criminal of these types in jail?"

I do not advocate the use of drugs, quite the opposite. I do not want the "full blown Woodstock". I do not advocate a vacation in Sodom or Gomorrah. Like Eve and the apple, I value free choice and as long as these actions are those of the individual, alone, I will not stand in judgement. What I decry is the police state this prohibition brings and the violence which protects the illegal trade.

Note that I never suggested that any (otherwise) criminal acts be excused regardless of the state of intoxication or kind of intoxicant of the criminal.

Margie| 5.16.11 @ 6:01PM

Hi John,

Actually I was responding to Ross Kaminsky.

And I'm not like Carry Nation. I don't agree with trashing someone's private property which is breaking the law. I'm a Christian. I keep the laws of the land.

But I am in favor of sobriety. Nothing wrong with that, is there? Unless you're against that, too?

Police state is always the cry of the Libertarian. To me, it's just a bunch of bologna. There is no police state here. We are a nation of laws and a Constitution. I'm for keeping it that way.

John Navratil| 5.16.11 @ 6:42PM

Margie,

I have to agree with you on just about anything. While I drink more that I should, I favour sobriety.

I have gotten cross-wise with the authorities (although not with the law) a couple of times which has given me a personal taste of official oppression. Sometimes ones principles are expensive. Forgive me if I disagree with your "bologna" assessment even if I acknowledge that we do not, in the main, live in a police state. I fear that we are, however, heading in that general direction. The TSA is the DEA for the rest of us.

I believe we are a nation of laws. But sometimes, you must agree, the laws have been wrong and have had to change. That's what the voting booth is for.

Margie| 5.16.11 @ 8:42PM

John,

When I said it's a bunch of bologna I was talking about the cry of the police state being used as an excuse to legalize drugs by the Lefty Libertarians.

I am well aware of how our country has been going down the tubes because of Liberalism, and the legalizing of even more garbage will help it on its way.

And I'm well aware of silly laws and regulations imposed on us by the Left in order to stifle our freedoms, which I ABHORE greatly. But legalizing drugs doesn't have anything to do with those.

The TSA is just another arm of the Left and another of their stupid ways of doing things because they just cannot do it right. Search children and Grandma rather than profile for Islamists.

Yeah, we need to lift a lot of regulations and some laws that stifle our freedoms to prosper, and we need some conservatives with some backbone to do it, but forget legalizing drugs.
Arghhh.
:^)~.

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 6:51PM

This is the official DEA perspective:

http://www.justice.gov/dea/dem...../06so.htm.

I guess that I don't believe that decriminalization is going to help much.

Ross Kaminsky| 5.16.11 @ 9:32PM

Margie,

If you don't understand the difference between a law against prostitution and a law against murder, then there's little point in the debate.

People should have the freedom to make mistakes.

Furthermore, you turn logic on your head by staying that drugs should stay illegal because drug dealers are evil. But the murders that are committed over drugs are committed because the prices are high, which is the case because they are illegal.

People who support keeping drugs illegal -- especially marijuana -- have blood on their hands at this point.

Bob Grant| 5.16.11 @ 11:26PM

"People who support keeping drugs illegal -- especially marijuana -- have blood on their hands at this point."...

...That seems a little strong.

Margie| 5.17.11 @ 12:23AM

And these people actually get paid to write articles at supposedly conservative magazines and other people actually agree with them.

So now we all know we have blood on our hands for wanting to keep pot smoking illegal.
Not the drug dealers, not the users, but the law abiding citizens.
All in the name of "freedom" of course!
Pathetic.

Margie| 5.17.11 @ 12:18AM

Mr. Kaminsky,

You just proved what type of character you have by your reply.

Typical condescending Libertarian attitude.

So tell me, sir~ just where do you draw the line in your judgement between right and wrong? Or do you draw a line at all? Or is everything just a financial transaction to you, as some Libertarians assert?

Yes, drug dealers are evil because they push poison and help to destroy lives. You say the murders are committed because the prices are high.. that is just unbelievable that you can actually rationalize that way. That's like the perverts who say go ahead, give the teenagers condoms, hand them out in school because they're gonna have sex anyway.

You're insane. Especially for saying I have blood on my hands.

You're right, there's no point to "the debate".
Ron Paul 20212, right Ross?

Nancy| 5.18.11 @ 1:46AM

You're condescending too, Margie. Your rigidity and imperious attitude make it difficult to interact with you.

Nancy| 5.18.11 @ 1:48AM

Anyone who thinks we're not cartwheeling toward a police state is a fool. The war on drugs has been a completwe failure; to pretend otherwise is idiocy.

Margie| 5.18.11 @ 1:21PM

Hello, Leslie, oops I mean Connor, oops I mean Patriot.
Nice Troll having a nice day today?
Your Legion spirit cannot hide from God.
Liars go to Hell.
Lotsa luck.

Jobe| 5.16.11 @ 10:44AM

Mr. Kaminsky, you are probably right about legalization not creating an army of heroin addicts. I probably would not, but it would certainly create a large volume of dead bodies. Think about it. No more court orderd rehab, no more interdiction of supply, thereby lowering the price. And remember, addiction has been deemed a "disease", and must be accorded that type of respect and treatment. And what about our medical system? Would it be able to handle the new strain?

No sir. I'm not smart enough to come up with an answer, but I certainly believe that you are in error.

Ross Kaminsky| 5.16.11 @ 11:42AM

Jobe,

So you are saying you're willing to accept the THOUSANDS of dead bodies due to the high price of illegal drugs now in order to prevent a hypothetical (and not borne out by evidence anywhere I know of) risk of increasing deaths due to increasing drug use following lower prices?

That strikes me as crazy.

Furthermore, the deaths you're trying to prevent, if they would occur, would be self-inflicted whereas the deaths which are occurring now are murder.

I think people who support the current system (which I'm not saying includes you) have blood on their hands.

Nunya| 5.16.11 @ 1:08PM

Ross, add to that the BILLIONS that we spend annually to fight the "drug war", both here and around the world. A portion of that money could go into drug education and potentially rehabilitation, and I believe all of the extreme examples listed above would be nil. I'm not one who consumes drugs, but I can clearly see the current policies have caused untold destruction and death, and we need to change.

We have created an entire worldwide organization that grows, refines, and distributes drugs, and all of the money we've spent has done nothing to stop the flow. We have re-created prohibition, and have the same results--violence in the streets, murder, and bosses who make millions. If I were a drug kingpin, I'd always support those politicians who want drugs to stay illegal. As soon as they become legal, I'm out of business.

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 12:50PM

The problem with your approach, Ross, is that it will make me much busier. I see the results of drug laws not well enforced every day of my practice, which is 12 days out of every 14.

I'm sorry, but I can't agree with you---it's not theoretical to me; I'm where the rubber meets the road. Paul is an idiot on that one, too.

And by the way, his specialty is OB/Gyn; mine is Psychiatry. We're both MDs.

Ross Kaminsky| 5.16.11 @ 1:07PM

I understand your position but don't see it justifying policies which are NOW resulting the deaths of hundreds or thousands at the hands of criminals.

RK| 5.16.11 @ 1:19PM

Ross,

You referred to Paul's foreign policy statements as "lunacy" without any explanation of why. If you are going to use such a strong term, you owe it to the reader to offer a short explanation of why it is "lunacy". If you could not easily come up with an explanation as why it is "lunacy", you shouldn't have used the term to begin with since it is obviously a more complicated topic than you care to admit. In this case, I think your harsh language (with nothing to back it up) is just intellectual dishonesty.

Ross Kaminsky| 5.16.11 @ 2:54PM

RK (are those really your initials)?

I believe it is lunacy to suggest we should warn a government about an impending raid to capture or kill America's number one enemy when that government was almost certainly complicit, somewhere in their hierarchy, for that enemy's being able to live unmolested in their country for five years.

The odds are overwhelming that bin Laden would have escaped had we told Pakistan.

Neither the Constitution nor "international law" is a suicide pact. Doing something to allow the biggest killer of American civilians to escape would be somewhat, but not too far, short of masochism if not suicide.

Put it this way, what if Ron Paul were in charge and he did warn the Pakistanis and then bin Laden got away?

Would you REALLY say that's OK or justified?

I'd say that after the next attack masterminded by bin Laden, that Paul would have blood on his hands and his conscience.

Therefore, Paul's position is lunacy.

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 3:23PM

My Dear Ross:

Article one supporting my position---available free on line:

Display Settings:AbstractFormat
SummarySummary (text)AbstractAbstract (text)MEDLINEXMLPMID ListApplySend to:Choose DestinationFileClipboardCollectionsE-mailOrderMy Bibliography

Format
Summary (text)Abstract (text)MEDLINEXMLPMID ListCSV
Create File

1 selected item: 11900154
Format
SummarySummary (text)AbstractAbstract (text)MEDLINEXMLPMID ListMeSH and Other Data
E-mail

Additional text

E-mail
"SPAM" filtering software notice

Add to Clipboard

Add to Collections
Order articles

Add to My Bibliography

Health Aff (Millwood). 2002 Mar-Apr;21(2):134-45.
Illegal drug use and public policy.
Grossman M, Chaloupka FJ, Shim K.
SourceCity University of New York Graduate Center, Health Economics Program, USA.

Abstract
The period from the 1980s to the present has witnessed a lively and unsettled debate concerning the legalization of marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and other illicit substances in the United States. Proponents of legalization argue that the demand for these harmful and potentially addictive substances is not responsive to price. Opponents argue that prices will fall tremendously in a regime characterized by legalization and that the option of legalization and taxation is not feasible. In this paper we summarize theoretical and empirical evidence suggesting that none of these propositions is correct.

PMID: 11900154 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Free Article

There are quite a few more. Go to PubMed and start looking.

John Navratil| 5.16.11 @ 5:48PM

Occam's Tool,

Do you have an appointment slot for me to help kick my A/S addiction (especially on Mondays). In denial, I'll blame you for prolonging my stay in the blog instead of getting my work done. Are you pleased with yourself?

I read this article (hence the gibing) which was quite interesting. I'm not sure it really supports your position, however. The authors went out of their way to highlight the limitations they faced, but ultimate concluded...

"We have not provided enough evidence to conclude definitively that the use of cocaine, marijuana, and other illicit substances should be legalized. We have, however, highlighted three factors that have been ignored or not emphasized in the debate concerning legalization. The first is that legalization of all drugs or legalization of marijuana is likely to increase consumption greatly if prices fall by as much as that suggested by many contributors to the debate. The second is that these price reductions, while almost certainly sizable, may have been greatly overestimated. The third is that legalization and taxation—the combined approach that characterizes the regulation of cigarettes and alcohol—may be better than the current approach."

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 6:54PM

Like I said, it is an interesting problem. Myself, I'd like to see what happens when we enforce the borders.

It pleases me greatly that you take my arguments so seriously. Thank you, and thank Ross.

On Paul, however, I agree with Ross' views on his viability. There is NO DAYLIGHT between his views and mine. I also GREATLY appreciate his taking part in the discussion.

Ross Kaminsky| 5.16.11 @ 9:34PM

OT,

I always appreciate our discussions, whether we agree or not.

RGK

John McG| 5.16.11 @ 9:43AM

Outstanding post, Bill. Thanks for listing so many of Newt's forgotten perfidies. But as Kaminsky notes, Newt hasn't escaped the notice of Bugs Bunny:

http://tinyurl.com/5sm469

Cosmo| 5.17.11 @ 3:29AM

I wish Trump would run as a Democrat...
That would be so fun watching him debate Obama.
Trump is very entertaining and I'm sorry he's gone...

Dee See| 5.16.11 @ 6:22AM

AS the globalistr agenda of RED China sellout,
set-up at American tax payer expense, finishes
off ---Newt Gingrich, a prime presiding figure
of the heyday of TREASON has NO place in ANY
genuinely American political forum.

As we write he, in true globalist fashion, is
soft-pedaling the immigration disaster. NO
decisiveness, honesty, much less strength
as our country's being culturally levelled.

EVEN putting that aside, his leading involvments
with micro-chipping and EUGENICS 'transhumanism ----
to say nothing of his warm advocacy of 'seamless integration'
with the Soviet police state (Toffler 'Third Wave' pusher)---is all we need to know.

----------------------------------STEER CLEAR

Clint| 5.16.11 @ 6:23AM

Washington Times: CURL: Ron Paul will win ‘12 GOP nomination *

http://www.washingtontimes.com.....omination/

Doctor Right| 5.16.11 @ 7:02AM

Bwah-hah-hah-hah-hah!!!

Now THAT'S funny!

Ru Paul for President! You have a rich fantasy life, Clinton!

Paul S.| 5.16.11 @ 7:12AM

I hold a degree in Economics & "Get It " Economic Buffoon Boy, Dr. Reich.

Clint| 5.16.11 @ 7:23AM

Uh oh !
Dr. Reich gets trashed again.

Doctor Right| 5.16.11 @ 8:23AM

That's it, Clinton??

No homo-erotic anger, or references to the male genitalia and buttocks region?

I suppose you haven't had your morning coffee, yet...

Bawney Fwank| 5.16.11 @ 9:20AM

Yoo Hoo Dr. Right !

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 12:58PM

Dr Right,

your mouth is making claims your body can't support.

Sincerely,

Clint "Fists of the Marsh" Mallow

Clint| 5.16.11 @ 1:34PM

Dr.Reich,
I Tool Job, The Neo-Chikenhawk Israel Firster Coward, want you and The U.S. Military to fight my & Israel's wars.

Sincerely,

Tool Job " President Of Israel Firster Neo-Chickenhawk Cowards . Ltd."

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 1:38PM

You see, Dr Right, this is Pavlovian. Soon I will get Clint to squawk like a chicken for me....;)

Doctor Right| 5.16.11 @ 4:41PM

I think Clint would rather "squeal like a pig", a la' Ned Beatty...

Clint| 5.17.11 @ 2:36AM

Uh Oh !
There It Is Again.
More GayBoy talk from The Hermann Goering Wannabe Dr.Reich.

Doctor Right| 5.16.11 @ 4:40PM

O.T.:

If you're going to impersonate Clint, you can't forget to threaten my rectum.

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 6:56PM

Sorry, Dr. R:

"I am the great Clintholio. I need some TP for my bunghole." (I admit, I do like Beavis and Butthead. I also like MST3K. As you know, our jobs are such that ridiculous humor is a mature defense.)

Clint| 5.17.11 @ 2:40AM

Stand back.

Don't scare the horses.

The Hermann Goering Wannabe & His Little Israel Firster Girlfriend Tool Job giggle & play with each other, once again.

Doctor Right| 5.16.11 @ 8:22AM

Oh, so you "get" Ru Paul's incoherent, blame-America, Retreat!!! foreign-policy initiatives?

Good for you! Here's a cookie.

Doctor Right| 5.16.11 @ 8:23AM

BTW...What, exactly, do you "get"???

Clint| 5.16.11 @ 10:10AM

Ron Paul:
Freeze all non-defense, non-entitlement spending at current levels.
Expand openness at the Federal Reserve and require the Fed to televise its meetings.
Repeal The Death Tax.
Eliminate taxes on Social Security.
Audit the Federal Reserve.
Reduce the tax burden and eliminate taxes that punish investment and savings, including job-killing corporate taxes.

Drunken Sailor| 5.16.11 @ 10:39AM

But Ron Paul also does not see any difference between Pakistan and Britain as far as allies and capturing/killing Bin Laden. He stated in a recent radio interview.

"
What if [bin Laden] had been in a hotel in London? So would we have sent the... helicopters into London because they were afraid the information would get out?"

Does he not get who our close allies are or does he simply not trust anybody?

Clint| 5.16.11 @ 11:39AM

Texas Rep. Ron Paul said Tuesday that he was delighted to hear of the death of Osama bin Laden.

The Texas Republican, and potential Republican presidential candidate, discussed the killing of bin Laden on The Diane Rehm Show, saying he is “still looking for more information” concerning the details of the killing.

"Mr. Paul said he supported the killing of bin Laden, adding that he voted for the authority to go after those responsible for 9/11."

Ron Paul was discussing various aspects of sharing Intel & military operations.

Drunken Sailor| 5.16.11 @ 12:37PM

Fine, but for him to think we would even have to play the games with Britian that we are forced to with Pakistan is nuts. We know Pakistan is playing both sides just as we know that Britian has had and continues to have our back. Bad choice of comparsion with his choice of words.

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 12:58PM

And surrender to Sharia. Forgot that part, Clint.

Clint| 5.16.11 @ 1:38PM

You're A Slandering Liar, Neo-Chickenhawk Coward Israel Firster Smear Merchant, Tool Job.

"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."
-Ronald Reagan

The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.

Carpe Deiem.

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 3:25PM

That was Ron Paul in 1980. Reagan didn't have to deal with Sharia advocacy. It's funny how that's your only quote.

Clint| 5.17.11 @ 2:44AM

It's funnier still, that Israel Firster Fanatic Tool Job has No negative Ronald Reagan Quote about Dr.Ron Paul. It's because Ronald Reagan never ever badmouthed Dr.Ron Paul, like these Israel Firster Traitor Bastards do.

RCV| 5.16.11 @ 7:17PM

That silly "Reagan endorsement" is the routine blurb the party presidential candidate gives to all the party's congressional nominees to put in their mailers to create a coattail. I doubt Ronald Reagan knew who this lunatic was at the time.

Clint| 5.17.11 @ 2:48AM

Do Your Homework ObamaBoy RCV.

Ronald Reagan Endorsed Dr.Ron Paul and Dr. Ron paul was one of only four Republicans to support Ronald Reagan in 1976 when they were challenging Gerald Ford's GOP candidacy.

RCV| 5.16.11 @ 7:29PM

...and here's Ron Paul attacking Ronald Reagan for having the gall to go after Khadaffi:

"The U.S. policy toward Libya further confirms our irrational foreign policy. Under Reagan we have been determined to pick a fight with Khadafi, defying him with naval and air maneuvers in the Gulf of Sidra. As we try to emphasize our right to navigate in international waters near Libya, we totally reject the territorial waters of Nicaragua by mining their harbors. The World Court rulings against the U.S. were ignored by the Reagan Administration...."

Clint| 5.17.11 @ 3:04AM

Oh Yeah ObamaBoy Propagendist RCV?

And here's Ronald Reagan too.
" If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path."

RCV| 5.17.11 @ 6:25PM

You're avoiding the point, Clint. Yes, Reagan admired libertarianism in its emphasis on individual liberty. But on matters of foreign policy Ronald Reagan and Ron Paul are polar opposites.

Doctor Right| 5.16.11 @ 8:24AM

"RON PAUL 2012: Because Obama deserves another 4 years!"

shukov| 5.16.11 @ 6:33AM

Newt and Romney tacking to the left. Keep the Tea Party strong - Herman Cain 2012

Pecos Pete| 5.16.11 @ 7:06AM

Agreed!!!!!!!!!!

Prester john| 5.16.11 @ 7:48AM

Bingo!

Herman Cain and one of the Haley's--Haley Barbour or Nikki Haley.

Dan| 5.16.11 @ 8:31AM

shukov- did you help nominate Sharon Angle in Nevada?

The Big E| 5.16.11 @ 1:39PM

The more I learn about Herman Cain, the more I like what I'm learning. Gingrich and Paul committed political suicide this weekend (or was it political self-euthanasia?). Mitt Romney is a political ghost - he just doesn't know it yet, and Huckabee is officially not running (meaning he's the only one of the four with any sense for the job). Leaving who? Setting aside those who I might want to run, but who have yet to actually announce (ARE YOU LISTENING CHRIS CHRISTIE?), who's left? Tim Pawlenty? Don't think so.

Based on who is officially in right now, it's gotta be Cain.

Mike Hawk| 5.16.11 @ 6:35AM

Ron Paul is a kook and his followers are kookier.

Clint| 5.16.11 @ 6:45AM

"In a 'presidential straw poll' of nearly 1,600 conservative members of the Tea Party Patriots released on Sunday February 27th, 581 voted for U.S. Representative Ron Paul, a Texas Republican, to run against Obama next year

Herman Cain, a Georgia businessman and talk-radio host, came in second with 256 votes."

Pecos Pete| 5.16.11 @ 7:08AM

Herman Cain is not yet known to very many people. Once he has much wider exposure you can look for an explosion of positive reactions to Mr. Cain.

JimP| 5.16.11 @ 6:53AM

Re Huck, IMO, he does desperately want the job, but he has two other overriding desperate needs. The first is wealth. Huck obviously has always been about gaining wealth first and foremost. Second he doesn't want to be exposed as a fraud. Too many people are now aware of all the skeletons he has in his closet(s). If he ran he'd get clobbered by his record (fiscal & ethical), lose the nomination or election and then be a permanent pariah without a large source of income. So he decided to not run. That way he gets mega $, avoids closer scrutiny, gets to maintain his psuedo conservative persona, and 'preach' weekly while basking in the adulation of suckers. But he still desperately would like to be POTUS. He just knows he would lose. IMHO.

Paul Hilsenrath| 5.16.11 @ 7:05AM

As others have written, Newt doesn't really want to be President, he is marketing himself so he can get more gigs as a pundit on Fox, sell more books, and get bigger speaking fees. Like Huckabee, he has developed a very lucrative operation in the "commentariat" business and is merely enhancing his market value. What better way to do it than run for President, ask Trump.

Teaghan| 5.16.11 @ 8:07AM

Somewhat like The Donald has done.

MAJ Mike| 5.16.11 @ 7:22AM

Newt lost my support when he sat on that dumb-a@@ sofa with Nancy Pelosi pushing human global climate change. Besides, if he'll lie to his during chemotherapy he'll lie to the rest of anytime, anywhere.

Jeff R| 5.16.11 @ 7:32AM

Truth be told, Newtie and Ron Paul have always been nonstarters in the GOP presidential nominating process. Both men are sort of gadflies.

Certainly, Romney is a "dead man walking," unless grassroots conservatives and Tea Party voters stay out of the GOP primaries.

The GOP presidential field isn't very strong, right now. Help!

canuckistani| 5.16.11 @ 10:54AM

The GOP field has not been strong since 1980.
The only hope - and it's a double-edged sword - is that the economy will dictate voter intent in 2012. A good or better econ - BHO 2.0, a stagnant/bad econ, any "clean, non-objectionable" mope will have a fighting chance.

Unfortunately, we need a lousy economy to get there and that means more pain for my fellow Americans. No pain no gain?

Doctor Right| 5.16.11 @ 5:04PM

Gee, I guess that's why they won in '88, '00, and '04...

Con Chef (NB)| 5.16.11 @ 7:39AM

I always love it when Ron Paul steps in it. And he usually does. The man's a dumbass on foreign policy. PERIOD. His isolationist bent & his illusion (also held by liberals) that America is imerialistic in its international affairs. Its preposterous.

Where Paul really shines, in my eyes, is his willingness to take on the nest of vipers that is the Fed. That & some of his ideas on tax policies. Other than that, the man's a menace to conservatism as we know it. And by that, I mean Reagan conservatism.

Con Chef (NB)| 5.16.11 @ 7:40AM

Sorry. "Imperialistic."

Anthony| 5.16.11 @ 8:56AM

So brother Newt has gone to a new version of his "wither on the vine" analogy, with his "too big a jump" comments and his innane "right-wing social engineering eh?
We knew Paul was a loony, sorry you Ron Paul fans, but Newt? Oh well, it looks like the glib talker is back to his drift left, maybe more ads with Nancy Pelosi on global warming.
Thanks guys, don't let the door hit you in the ass as you exit the R field of VIABLE candidates.
Look for Newt to do ads for Obama. God, what a party of selfish losers we have become!!!
Sarah save us!!!

blackwatch| 5.16.11 @ 1:23PM

He's triangulating against those to the right and left of him. He thinks it's a winning strategy. He wants to be the next Bill Clinton--a politician who appears to have center--but one who chucks his base and moves with the current the moment the water is choppy.

Epic Failure Mr. Speaker.

Go back to cheating on your wife of the month--it's what you do best.

WilliamR| 5.16.11 @ 8:24AM

You too dumb to even know what isolationism means. I suggest you get a dictionary and look it up. Ron Paul is anything but an isolationist.

Con Chef (NB)| 5.16.11 @ 9:34AM

I'm "too dumb," huh? At least I'm not as stupid as your boy, Paul, who thinks we erred in the way we sent Osama to Hell. Who's f-ing dumb now, putz?

You Paulites are a joke when it comes to foreign policy. Stick to busting the Fed. Its the only good idea you simpletons have.

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 6:58PM

Dear Con:

Do you read much PG Wodehouse? If you don't, you should. Look up the definition of "dream rabbit." It fits you.

Admiringly,

OT

Ross Kaminsky| 5.16.11 @ 10:20AM

"Anything but an isolationist" would imply that he favors strong involvement/entanglements with foreign nations. Please show us where that is true of Ron Paul.

I'm not saying that I want such entanglements, but all evidence that I've seen points to Paul indeed being an isolationist. That's not all bad, but it's not as good or easy as it sounds for the US to just go its own way in the 21st century.

WilliamR| 5.16.11 @ 11:21AM

Ron Paul supports free trade and opposes embargoes and sanctions. Ron Paul wants to be very engaged economically with the rest of the world. Cultural exchanges and freedom to travel.

In the old days that was called internationalism.

You are a NeoCon.

Ross Kaminsky| 5.16.11 @ 11:43AM

Again, you are trying to tar me with "NeoCon", a favorite epithet of the left. However, it simply doesn't fit and it weakens the import of anything else you say.

WilliamR| 5.16.11 @ 12:14PM

Well I'm not the only one. You've got Christopher Manion noticing too.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blo.....88241.html

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 1:36PM

When the Sharia devotees take over Dr. Paul will discover that free trade will cease to exist.

Clint| 5.16.11 @ 1:41PM

Dr. Paul will protect America First Neo-Chickenhawk Coward, Tool Job, while You'll be hiding in the tall grass, again.

shukov| 5.16.11 @ 12:42PM

Paul is an isolationist and protectionist, he has some good ideas but his purity of ideology leads him astray in the present real world. Libertarians and far left Democrats cling to their ideologies at the expence of real world practicalities. imo

shukov| 5.16.11 @ 12:43PM

expense*

WilliamR| 5.16.11 @ 12:59PM

Ron Paul is not a protectionist nor isolationist.

Margie| 5.16.11 @ 1:37PM

Ron Paul blames America for the terrorists being terrorists.
That's enough for ANY American to say, bye-bye, you are persona non grata.

WilliamR| 5.16.11 @ 2:07PM

No you hideous skank. Like the CIA says, we are suffering blow back.

Margie| 5.16.11 @ 2:45PM

What's hideous is you, punk.
Ron Paul went on t.v. and said those words.
The entire world knows it.
You and his perverse ilk all say the same garbage.
"America is an Aggressor!"
Take a long walk off a short pier, dude.

WilliamR| 5.16.11 @ 8:26AM

Reagan's Wisdom on the Middle East. Leave

http://orangepunch.ocregister......leave/619/

Con Chef (NB)| 5.16.11 @ 9:36AM

Yeah. Hiding our heads in the sand & blaming jihadism on US "imperialism" is SOOO brilliant.

Oh, & I'll stay as long as I want, Junior.

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 7:23PM

Please do, sir. I like the cut of your jib, Chef.

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 1:35PM

Given that the Beirut intervention was to protect our enemies and ding our allies, it's no wonder he wanted to leave. Imagine how well things would have gone if he had given the Israelis the green light to wipe out the PLO.

Clint| 5.16.11 @ 1:54PM

Imagine if Israel Intel hadn't deliberately withheld from Our United States Military, the fact that they were surveilling the Mercedes truck, with the false bottom that blew Our United States Marines to hell in their Barracks in Beirut, Lebanon.

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 3:29PM

They didn't withhold that info. We chose not to act on it. Our Marine Corp leadership was pathetic.

You are quoting Ostrovsky, StormFront boy.

Clint| 5.17.11 @ 3:11AM

You're An Israel Firster Traitor Bastard Liar Tool Job.
"Admony, then head of Mossad, decided they would simply give the Americans the usual general warning, a vague notice that they had reason to believe someone might be planning an operation against them. But this
was so general, and so commonplace, it was like sending a weather report; unlikely to raise any particular alarm or prompt increased security precautions. In the six months following receipt of this information, for example, there were more than 100 general warnings of car-bomb attacks. One more would not heighten U.S.
concerns or surveillance.

Admony, in refusing to give the Americans specific information on the truck, said, "No, we're not there to protect Americans. They're a big country. Send only the regular information."

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 1:00PM

Exactly, Con Chef. Sound on Domestic policy, crappy on foreign policy. We need a guy sound on both...hmmm...West and Bolton come immediately to mind.

Margie| 5.16.11 @ 1:39PM

Excellent choices.
Hawks-R-Us, baby.
We want to keep America the Land of the Free.

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 3:30PM

There is a draft West 2012 petition, Margie. Look it up under this and sign it.

Margie| 5.16.11 @ 8:25PM

Done,

Here's the link:

http://www.PetitionOnline.com/.....ition.html

Nancy| 5.18.11 @ 1:56AM

Gawd, you're stupid. We won't be free if we're bankrupt.

Margie| 5.18.11 @ 1:23PM

The Merry Legion lying Troll strikes again.

The Big E| 5.16.11 @ 1:48PM

West and Bolton would both be good (especially Bolton). But the fact is that at least as of now, neither of them are running. A lot of us on this site, and I'm sure many conservatives nationwide who are not on this sight, have their favorites of who they would LIKE to see run, whether its West, Bolton, Palin, Christie, or whoever.

At some point in time, though, we have to recognize that if these people want the job, they would be campaigning for it. And as far as I can see, they're not.

I am certainly open to them still getting in - it certainly is not too late - but I think we need to seriously consider that what we have now is what we're going to have to choose from in primary season.

Margie| 5.16.11 @ 2:48PM

True, but we can pray, and let them know that there are people that would vote for them.
Hmm. Maybe we should e mail them links to these articles & blogs!

The Big E| 5.16.11 @ 3:27PM

I can't imagine that they don't have people keeping an eye on what is said on this and similar sites. If they don't, then their not up to the job anyway.

Sure, we can pray for them to run, but sometimes the answer to prayer is, "no." We can let them know we want them in, we can beg them to run, but at some point in time, we have to start figuring out how we're going the play the cards we've been dealt, instead of theorizing about how we would play the cards we would like to have been dealt, but weren't. And of the cards I'm holding right now, Herman Cain appears to me to be the strongest.

victor| 5.16.11 @ 4:04PM

I agree with your realistic outlook as well as the fact that sometimes the answer to prayer is, "no".
We can let our request be made known, as He says, but the answer is not guaranteed.

I like Herman Cain very much. I heard him on the radio recently~ I had not heard him ever before this. I intently listened as he expounded on conservative principles~ he got it all right.
He reminded me of Ronald Reagan a lot.
He understands how freedom works, how small business makes the country run, how government needs to get out of the way.
It was like a breath of fresh air.
I hope we hear a lot more from him soon.
So far, I am liking what I'm hearing.

Margie| 5.16.11 @ 4:06PM

Sorry, that was my post. I again neglected to remove hubby's name from the box before posting. (It remains there each time unless removed).

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 7:00PM

Cain is a good guy, too. Here's hoping the next President is a black guy---all the way through.

Nancy| 5.18.11 @ 1:57AM

You're crazy.

Nope| 5.17.11 @ 12:14AM

Reagan conservatism? Menace to conservatism? Ron Paul is the most conservative member in the field at the moment.

Also, in Ronald Reagan's own words.

“I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer, just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals . . . The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom, and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.”

Look it up if you don't believe me.

Nancy| 5.18.11 @ 1:58AM

Forget it. Your 30 year old Reagan quotes aren't enough to turn Ron Paul the sow's ear into a silk purse.

Intelligent Design| 5.16.11 @ 7:52AM

The Republican field of potential presidential candidates is mediocre at best, so far. I wonder if someone is waiting for this to play itself out, to the point where we are mostly disgusted with the choices. Then he steps on stage. His name? Jeb Bush

Teaghan| 5.16.11 @ 8:10AM

Col. West. NO MORE BUSH'S PLEASE.

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 1:00PM

Have you gone to the draft West 2012 and signed the petition, Teaghan. I have.

canuckistani| 5.16.11 @ 10:59AM

ZERO chance.
It would be a new referendum on Junior. The Iraq folly, his failure to "get" OBL and now apparent spectacular mishandling of the economy and record size of government on his watch would consume the oxygen in the campaign.
Jeb's gentlemanly demeanor would be a hindrance as he would refuse to engage in critical debate of his bro's failings, thus permitting the opposition to define him negatively.

melvin| 5.16.11 @ 7:55AM

The only way that Herman Cain is going to get national exposure is only after we held a knife to the RNC's testicles. This in itself will be quite difficult because conventional wisdom is that the RNC has been neutered for quite some time now.
This train is headed down the same John McCain 2008 railroad track .
The Tea Party is going to have to dig deep on this one. Both the RNC and the DNC has written off the Tea Party as reaching it's zenith and therefore ineffectual.
2010 took allot of time and energy for this grassroots organization, fighting both the Progressive Republican Establishment and the Socialist Democrats.
What both of these organizations intent is to grind down the Tea Party bit by bit, until it says, "No Mas."
Intellectually Herman Cain will crush anyone who comes before him. The RNC knows this as well as Obama. The Bamster has an infrastructure so vast that he will literally suck all the air out of anything he touches, but there is one phrases that he has forgotten. "The bigger they are the harder they fall."

John Navratil| 5.16.11 @ 10:46AM

Melvin,

What testicles? Where?

blackwatch| 5.16.11 @ 1:27PM

ya stole my thunder Mr. N!

Storage Steve| 5.16.11 @ 2:53PM

Don't write off the tea party. These organizations tend to become more active closer to election but the members will donate to the conservative candidates of their choice. It's to early to pick I just want a good group for the debates.

Sean Ward| 5.16.11 @ 7:59AM

I agree Newt is now dead in the water. I am amazed by what he said. Its over before it started for him. I will never take him seriously again!

Dan| 5.16.11 @ 8:30AM

Poor Newt, too smart for the republican party.

Matthew Quigley| 5.16.11 @ 9:14AM

And also too stupid to be believed. Which is quite an accomplishment, considering how stupid the RNC is.

Dan| 5.16.11 @ 9:56AM

A tip of the hat to you on that comment.

canuckistani| 5.16.11 @ 11:06AM

What has the RNC done to create this beige environment?
It wasn't the RNC that got us Junior or Rove in their suicidal zero-sum game play the last 10 years, or an unstable Boehner that is clearly incapable of articulating pretty much anything that resonates with the mushy independent vote reservoirs that are needed to get to 270 ECVs.
More money is flying around in Demint PACs and others versus the RNC. Start there.
Perhaps the depth charts of clean electable cons is really only razor-thin?

Why isn't Demint running? Appears he would rather be a rabble-rouser than a leader. Sad.

Diana| 5.16.11 @ 8:17AM

What happened to Governor Christie? He's to fat to be elected President but if he lost weight maybe he would have a chance. The rest of these Republicans are losers.

NJ Kay| 5.16.11 @ 8:21AM

I would never vote for that union hating tub of lard. Lose weight? Ha! That fat head is getting fatter all the time.

Paul| 5.16.11 @ 8:26AM

You say union hating like it is a bad thing!

Stormzeye| 5.16.11 @ 8:30AM

"Union hating"!!?? Christie's budget cutting will save your public service jobs. It's union leadership that he hates, not workers. Collective bargaining is not a right, nor is healthcare, nor is a lifetime pension.

Paul| 5.16.11 @ 8:32AM

Too bad it will save those public service jobs, 65 % of whic would not be missed.

Margie| 5.16.11 @ 1:46PM

This is true, Stormzeye. As far as that issue goes, he's great. And I backed him, too. But some of his positions do need to be looked into.
It doesn't look like he's running anyway.

Groad| 5.16.11 @ 8:51AM

Christy is a RINO. Pro Cap and Tax, pro Amnesty and cozy with the JIhadis.

Maxwell| 5.16.11 @ 9:27AM

The Cap & Tax here in Jersey is called Reggie, Regional Green House Gas. Chris Christie is also VERY anti gun and no CCW in Jersey unless you are a judge. Speaking of judges, CC nominated Mike Carroll a consertative pro gun man for a judge positon and in less than a week his name was pulled because CC got scared of the bar association. Yeah, he is a consertative alright. I also have a bridge for you to buy, cheep too.

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 1:01PM

Thank you, Groad!!!!!!!!!!

Doctor Right| 5.16.11 @ 9:14AM

Christie is a great Governor, but he's NOT a Conservative.

He has, by explicit inaction, refused to join several other Governors and state's Attorneys General in suing the feds over Obama-Care. WHY?!?!

He also is no stalwart on illegal immigration, and was weak on the Ground Zero Mosque. AND he campaigned for Mike Castle in Delaware during the last election.

He would disappoint you as President. And this coy little game he's playing about not being interested in the White House is an attention-getting move generated by his own media flacks and hacks.

Maxwell| 5.16.11 @ 9:29AM

Thank you very much Doctor!!!!!

Groad| 5.16.11 @ 10:42AM

He's been in office about 2 mos less than the Oborg was Seantor. Getting elected does not qualify you for anything. Performance counts and both are woefully underwhelming in that Dept.

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 1:02PM

You know Doctor, as usual, you are correct. What a joy you are to read.

Margie| 5.16.11 @ 1:52PM

We kind of new he wasn't conservative on some things, and Steve Lonegan would have been waaay better, but Christie was a much better choice than Corzine for sure. And still is. And certainly far better than the HACK before him~ McGreevy.
Ugh.
Christie wouldn't be my choice for President either, but if it were between him and Obama~ NO CONTEST.

Margie| 5.16.11 @ 1:41PM

Here come the "too fat" trolls.

It isn't about that.
It's about his stance on certain things. Or at least it ought to be.

Nancy| 5.18.11 @ 2:05AM

LOL! You a chubby-chaser, Margie?

Margie| 5.18.11 @ 1:24PM

Are you proud to be a coward?

The Bruce| 5.17.11 @ 12:17AM

Don't get me wrong. I like Christie in that he's not afraid to pick a fight and stand up for his beliefs.

The problem is that his belief system exists in RINO-land, where McCain is the landlord.

Paul| 5.16.11 @ 8:20AM

A governor from a state as far away from DC as possible. Maybe Scott Walker, or Rick Perry.

Doctor Right| 5.16.11 @ 9:16AM

Perry 2012.

He's out there, practically on his own, speaking-out for the 10th Amendment.

Meanwhile, the media-favorite Republicans...Daniels, Christie, Romney...are where??

Bob Grant| 5.16.11 @ 9:50AM

With all due respect good doctor, you're wrong about Rick Perry. You must not be from Texas. The dirty little secret in Texas is we tolerate Rick Perry. We hold our noses when voting for him. He's not a very endearing individual, he plays dirty politics, and not very trustworthy. The one thing he's good at is he's consistently business friendly. We don't care about his other questionable practices as long as he sells Texas as the business capital of the country.

I don't think he would go over well nationwide.

Doctor Right| 5.16.11 @ 10:10AM

I'm a Texan by-proxy (my wife is born-and-bred).

And frankly, you haven't really given me a solid reason to dislike Rick Perry.

Tolerate him?? There's been ample opportunity to get rid of him; he's been Governor since 2001.

Not endearing? Oh well...I'm not voting for Student Body Prez of a Charm School. I want someone who'll go to Washington and kick liberal a**.

Dirty politics? Good. He's dealing with Democrats; we can't afford any more pussy-footing panty-waists.

And business friendly? And added plus.

And NO ONE else is pumping the 10th Amendment and state's rights like Perry is doing. He gets it.

Since he might not run, anyway, its all academic. But Perry, Bolton, Bachman, and Cain are my faves so far.

Bob Grant| 5.16.11 @ 10:16AM

A suggestion if Perry chooses to run for prez:

Vote for me, I'm tolerable

Paul| 5.16.11 @ 10:18AM

Exactly doctor!

The media will be pushing Ron Paul or Newt to give us the same result we had with Dole and McCain.

Bob Grant| 5.16.11 @ 10:31AM

Out of your suggestions Bachman would be the most electable, and the most intriguing. She's a smart version of Sarah Palin. What most intrigues me about Bachman is her ability to blow the bimbo tag out of the water by sounding absolutely wonkish when discussing policy. She can ALMOST go toe to toe with Ryan discussing fiscal and monetary legislation. She's a seasoned mainstream media regular (and very effective at combating them) AND has stood firm on most conservative principles. She could very well be the dark horse candidate.

Doctor Right| 5.16.11 @ 10:58AM

LOVE Michelle Bachman.

In 2009-2010, she was out there in front, fighting for the Tea Party and against Obama.

Meanwhile, Christie, Gingrich, Romney, and Daniels were conspicuous only by their absence.

hrh| 5.16.11 @ 11:53AM

You lost me when you slammed Palin to lift Bachmann. Not necessary.

Bachmann is a good Representative and would be a good Senator. But where is her executive experience and leadership?

Just because someone is conservative that does not mean they are a good executive. One is an ideology. The other is a skill set.

Ditto, Paul Ryan.

A conservative who does not have an executive's skill set is not much help ... in the executive branch.

Bob Grant| 5.16.11 @ 12:16PM

Sorry,

Maybe my single-mindedness of stopping Sarah Palin distracts points I'm trying to make which would be to describe Michelle Bachman as a scaled-down, non-controversial version of Sarah Palin.

You know: one who has no cult-of-personality following, no self-imposed family drama, no celebrity status, etc. To me, she's seen as this legislative gladiator, fighting the good fight in Washington on a daily basis. She's directly involved in the epic legislative battles of our time. Not as an outsider opining via social media.

All-in-all a better-rounded politician who could surprise people in the end. I intended this to be more about Michelle's Bachman's qualities, not Sarah's shortcomings.

Nancy| 5.18.11 @ 2:07AM

Still hatin' on Sarah I see. What a loser you are.

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 7:02PM

I believe that she has a Master's in Law in Tax law, which would be useful (Bachmann). Also, she is, as Plum would say, "sound on Pekes."

John Navratil| 5.16.11 @ 10:55AM

Doctor Right,

Yes tolerate him! Texas does not have a strong governor, the legislative agenda is set by the Lt. Governor - that's where the action is. The Legislature also only meets for forty days every two years. The local mayor in Texas has more effect on one's daily life.

Perry talks the talk like a champ, today. However he has been there for ten years. If he was the wunderkind the national audience seems to think he is, don't you think you might have heard from him a bit earlier in the day?

Perry is not unalloyed evil, but he is not immune to the temptations of executive excess as evidenced by his order requiring all school girls to be treated with Gardasil before entering school.

Doctor Right| 5.16.11 @ 11:00AM

But I HAVE heard of Rick Perry; I'm not a newbie as far as he's concerned. I've been following his career for several years.

And frankly, a media-driven "wonder-boy" is NOT what we need (think McCain...)

Bob Grant| 5.16.11 @ 11:12AM

Navratil makes a good point. The temptation in Washington would be too much for Perry, considering the character of the man. He's one of those who would take crony capitalism to an ether rarely seen. Read about his dirty involvement in toll road development. That where we conservatives admittedly looked the other way.

That said, I DID vote for the man 3 times. I don't want to have to a 4th time.

John Navratil| 5.16.11 @ 11:49AM

Doctor Right,

Sorry if I overstated the case, a bit. Rick Perry's name has been nationally recognized since Bush to office. Any reasonable observer of the scene would know who he was. Did you, however, have any knowledge of his positions prior to the Gardasil dustup which got some attention or before he became something of a Tea Party / 10th Amendment darling? If you did, and you aren't something of a Texas political junkie, I am surprised.

Doctor Right| 5.16.11 @ 5:11PM

I have oodles of relatives in Texas, so yes, I had heard of him (Perry) prior to recently. And they like him, a lot.

Nancy| 5.18.11 @ 2:09AM

Didn'y Perry push legislation that would force Texas parents to vaccinate their daughters for STDs? Was this because of donations from drug companies? I haven't liked him since.

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 1:02PM

Dr Right---don't forget Allen West.

Margie| 5.16.11 @ 1:55PM

Sold!!
On Perry, that is.
And I'll follow that up with an Amen!

Doctor Right| 5.16.11 @ 6:19PM

Looks like I'm in GOOD COMPANY!

Mark Levin is singing Rick Perry's praises on his show tonight! If I'm thinking like Levin, I'm doing well.

Margie| 5.16.11 @ 8:01PM

MARK LEVIN FOR PRESIDENT!

Margie| 5.16.11 @ 1:57PM

Ahh, so you're NOT thee Bob Grant after all!
Why you little.... heh.

Bob Grant| 5.16.11 @ 7:25PM

Say it ain't so Marge. Don't get sucked in by pretty-boy Perry.

Margie| 5.16.11 @ 8:02PM

Well, why not?
We shall see.
And what's the big idea of saying your Bob Grant when you're not?
You trickster you.

Bob Grant| 5.16.11 @ 9:01PM

I never knew BG was such a Perry fan. Go figure.

SarahK| 5.16.11 @ 9:22AM

Rick Perry would be a disaster. He turns my stomach, and it wouldn't be long before he'd turn your stomach, too. He's as narcissistic as they come, and ignorant to boot.

canuckistani| 5.16.11 @ 11:12AM

Amendment 28: " The US shall not permit the election of any person from the state of Texas. So help us God."

Please support this!!!!

John Navratil| 5.16.11 @ 11:53AM

canuckistani,

I'll support it if you include Texas secession.

Nunya| 5.16.11 @ 1:37PM

If they secede, I'm moving to Texas.

canuckistani| 5.16.11 @ 2:30PM

Nunya, goodbye, or as they say in new Texas, adios.

confedgal| 5.16.11 @ 2:38PM

Amen!!!!!

canuckistani| 5.16.11 @ 2:36PM

Oh, perhaps not secession but B-status like Guam or DC or PR.......that would be fun having yankee carpet baggers dictating terms to the school districts!
The real Uh-mericans in Lubbock or Odessa would be barricaded in their reason-free zones, leaving the Hispanic majority to redesign Austin into spectacular Mexican motifs.
The truth of the matter, even secessionists won't secede...they don't have the cojones to actually make a decision. They would have to blame the man in the mirror for once in their lives.

Doctor Right| 5.16.11 @ 5:13PM

"Amendment 29: " The US shall not permit the immigration of any person from a Muslim country. So help us God."

Steve851| 5.16.11 @ 8:22AM

Although RP goes a little too far on just about everything, he's got my vote until someone else in the field adopts his basic philosophy. Anyone who does not do this, watered down to account for reality, will not be getting my vote in the general.

Regarding Newt and healthcare, people have to decide whether they want to extend healthcare in an affordable way or not. The majority appear opposed to any type of mandate, even the minor one in ObamaCare which involves a small tax penalty less than the cost of two months of health insurance premiums. If that is true, we should just come out and say there is no point in legislating any form of health care at all, then move on. As a libertarian on most issues, I struggle with this issue because I think our government should also promote, rather than discourage, personal responsibility as it currently does. On the libertarian side, it would be best to just say no money or coverage, no health care. No exceptions. On the personal responsibility side, impose a true mandate to buy high deductible insurance. A dilemma for me. It's hard for me to say just make the decision to cut people off who don't pay. But that is the only alternative to a true mandate

Dan| 5.16.11 @ 8:29AM

Excuse me, a vast majority of the people in Massachusetts want the individual mandate. Leave us alone and our 98% population coverage.

Peter| 5.16.11 @ 9:26AM

Excuse me, do you live in Massachusetts? I do, and most people I talk to are fed up with the sky-high insurance premiums and long waits for treatment that the individual mandate has brought. RomneyCare is an experiment that failed, and we are all paying dearly for the effort.

Dan| 5.16.11 @ 9:54AM

I live in the Middlesex County. As you know, our insurance rates where sky high before Romneycare.

Long lines, what a farce. All BS and you know it. My wife needed a CT-Scan, called on Wed and was done on Friday. Total BS and you know it. If my kid is sick, within 2 hours, he/she is seen. Give me a bleepin break with the long lines.

George S| 5.16.11 @ 10:15AM

Wasn't the purpose to reduce the premium payments of MA residents by mandating all purchase insurance and spreading the cost... what has changed for the better? A serious question; I am not a MA resident...

Dan| 5.16.11 @ 10:33AM

That was the hope. Couple things. Mitt wanted to have small business purchasing coops to band together to dilute the cost pool and lower premiums. That did not happen yet, but suppose to this year. Also, we have mandatory coverages which skew the costs. I man need to buy a policy that covers only issues that a woman would have. So what we are told by Gov. Patrick, it is being worked on.

FYI, both Gov. Patrick and his republican opponent, Charlie Baker, supported Romneycare and it's goals. Both differed on the best way to implement it. The guy that ran against it got 5% of the vote.

Dan| 5.16.11 @ 10:37AM

George, Romney care has added just 1% to the total state budget, that is a fact (google it). Yet, we have 98% of our people insured, even during this recession!!! That is great news. Perhaps Obamacare is too big of a leap, but it is working, at least, so far, so good.

Take a look at the uninsured in your state and see how it compares. Some hybrid models need to be tried by the different states so see what works best for them. And in MA, we were always the highest cost for health insurance, before, during, after Romneycare, with or without.

Bob K.| 5.16.11 @ 10:52AM

Do you think that the rest of the 49 states should run everything else like Massachusetts does too? An awful lot of Liberals live and vote there! Are they happy with Romney Care too like you are?

Dan| 5.16.11 @ 10:59AM

Romneycare was designed for Massachusetts. Too bad Pres. Obama took it for the rest of the nation.

Noboday is ever happy with anything. It aint perfect but far better than it is portrayed in right-wing talk radio. Too bad the rest of the governors didn't get off their duff like Mitt did and address the uninsured. If enough did, then Obamacare would never had come to pass. But since they didn't, Obama had the issue and the cloat to pass is health care overhaul. So don't blame Mitt, blame the other 49 governors it did squat.

Doctor Right| 5.16.11 @ 11:02AM

Mitt, PLEASE...if you're running for President, stop wasting your time on the internet arguing with Conservatives...

Dan| 5.16.11 @ 11:33AM

I wish I was Mitt, looks, money, moral character, and intelligence. Thanks for the compliment though.

hrh| 5.16.11 @ 11:55AM

48-day wait for a doctor visit?

No thanks.

Dan| 5.16.11 @ 12:08PM

hrh- read my other posts, that is total BS!!!! My wife made an appt. as Mass General to see a doctor for the first time, took 2 days. What you are quoting is BS.

It's such a long wait time, we have border jumpers (US citizens from the other 49 states) lying to get into the MA Connector and onto our system. Sorry, the long lines are BS.

Nancy| 5.18.11 @ 2:11AM

Mythbot alert!!

WilliamR| 5.16.11 @ 8:22AM

The Heartland Institute has really gone down the drain with hacks like Ross Kaminsky. Ron Paul said he would have handled Pakistan the same way George Bush did.

The reason we are in this mess in the Middle East is because we've have the very foreign policy Ross Kaminsky supports. Aggressive militarism. Ross Kaminsky is a NeoCon hack.

Ross Kaminsky| 5.16.11 @ 10:03AM

Please tell me what aspect of my current or future writing would allow me to be characterized as a NeoCon. I doubt you even know what the term means.

The question about Pakistan was not primarily about the past several years but rather about the killing of Osama bin Laden and on that question Ron Paul utterly failed.

WilliamR| 5.16.11 @ 10:22AM

NeoConism==Bellicose militaristic foreign policy. Weekly Standard. Wilsonian.

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af...../Cole.html

Because I watched the Fox interview and he had to correct Chris Wallace. He didn't say getting Osama was bad. He would have handled it different. Neocons have been all over TV saying Ron Paul thinks getting Osama was wrong. He never said anything close to that.

WilliamR| 5.16.11 @ 10:40AM

Jeniffer Rubin blogging at the Washington Post says that if the Republicans nominate someone who wants to cut defense and pull out of Afghanistan the NeoCons will blowup the Republican party.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/....._blog.html

Ross Kaminsky| 5.16.11 @ 11:12AM

I didn't say that Paul said that getting Osama was wrong. He said that we should have told the Pakistanis in advance. I was very clear about that. And that's just idiotic of him.

Again, I challenge you to show me any evidence that I am a NeoCon or support the type of policy you describe NeoCons supporting. (Also, your definition of NeoCon, of which I am not one, is quite incomplete, as the "Neo" part has meaning.)

WilliamR| 5.16.11 @ 11:25AM

And the Pakis record on helping us has been good. They arrested and handed over the mastermind of 9/11. We had CIA safe house watching Osama 24/7.

Paul said he would have handled it like George W Bush. Work with the Pakis. And why the rush to kill Osama. He might have been an intelligence bonanaz.

Nancy| 5.18.11 @ 2:13AM

It's cheap that you didn't answer his question. Typical.

Clint| 5.16.11 @ 10:31AM

"On October 10, 2001, Congressman Ron Paul led the effort in Congress to give President Bush the tools he needed to capture, dead or alive, Osama bin Laden and the other terrorists responsible for September 11th. Dr. Paul introduced on that day H.R. 3076 - The September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001.

If passed, that legislation would have given President Bush an additional weapon against bin Laden. If Dr. Paul's legislation had passed in 2001, it is likely bin Laden would not have been around until May of 2011."

Doctor Right| 5.16.11 @ 11:04AM

Ross...

When the flat-earth, Ron-Pauler types say "Neocon", my experience is that they usually mean "Jew-Boy".

Ross Kaminsky| 5.16.11 @ 11:44AM

As to the charge of being a Jew-Boy, I plead "proudly guilty." As to NeoCon, I plead "Not Guilty" and "Who Cares"?

Clint| 5.16.11 @ 11:47AM

Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha !
This Is The Bus Callin' The Banana "Yellow.

Anti-Catholic Fanatic Dr. Reich attempts to play The Anti-Semite Card again on Our Tea Party Co-Favorite Dr.Ron Paul and The 41 Percent of Tea Party Patriots, who support him.

Get Lost Bigot Boy.

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 1:06PM

"Sand Monkey" Clint. You. Are. Antisemitic, Terrorist Catamite. And so is Ron "Please StormFront, donate to me," Paul. We give specifics on Paul's antisemitism (and yours) you claim we're using a "card." It's not a card if it's true, Nazi-boy.

Clint| 5.16.11 @ 2:07PM

You're A Slandering Liar, Israel Firster Smear Artist, Tool Job.

You Israel Firster attempt to Play Your Anti-Semitic Card on any American, who doesn't Asskiss Your Traitor Bastard Israel Firster Agenda.

One dude gave $500 "UNSOLICITED" Bucks to The Ron Paul Presidential Campaign, in which Muliple Millions in Moneybombs were collect & The Ron Paul Presidential Campaign didn't give The Nazi his money back.
You're An Asshat Israel Firster Propagandist, Tool Job.

You don't even get the grunt slang meaning .

You're an argument against yourself, Pseudo-Mensa Boy.

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 3:33PM

I'm not slandering you by calling you an antisemite, "SandMonkey" boy. You are.

Clint| 5.17.11 @ 5:03AM

Yeah, You're A Slandering Israel Firster Fanatic Smear Merchant Tool Job.

Aaaand, I'm Not Slandering You, by callin' You An Israel Firster Jonathan Pollard Traitoir Bastard Neo-Chickenhawk Coward, Tool Job.

You are.

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 3:34PM

There are also photos of Ron with the Stormfront guys, Clint. It must hurt to be you.

Clint| 5.17.11 @ 3:34AM

Put Up or Shut Up, Israel Firster Traitor Bastard Propagandist, Tool Job.

Link Any of Your Claimed Pictures.

Margie| 5.16.11 @ 2:09PM

And don't forget the White Nationalist Don Black whom Clint proudly credits with starting the 2007 avalanche of money for Ron Paul.

Clint has seen no problem in name calling not only with anti-semitic epithets, but he also uses the term "white trash", a typical racist epithet used by the White Nationalist haters of white conservatives.

Clint| 5.17.11 @ 3:26AM

DUUUUUHHHHH !
Do Your Homework Israel Firster Joisey White Trash Bigot Broad Apocalyptic Crank Lady Victor-Margie. Who do you think we were talking about already ?
You're A Buffoon.

Margie| 5.17.11 @ 7:41PM

Scumbag~
You were the one who in your above post didn't wanna mention the name of "One dude"~ who is this White Nationalist that I took the liberty to inform the readers his name.

Got it, PUNK?

Nancy| 5.18.11 @ 2:15AM

Margies the skank strikes again!

Margie| 5.18.11 @ 1:27PM

"Nancy" the Legion Troll strikes again from behind one of her many screen names, and always in agreement with the most disgusting persons.
Coward.

Doctor Right| 5.16.11 @ 5:15PM

I attempted nothing; I succeeded.

Now go pray to some idols, and leave the rest of us in peace...

Clint| 5.17.11 @ 3:29AM

Interesting Smear, considering You know that I'm A Catholic, Israel Firster Tool Job.

Clint| 5.17.11 @ 3:38AM

Correction!
That was The Serial Anti-Catholic Agendist Dr. Reich.

You're An Anti-Catholic Piece Of Garbage Dr. Reich.

Margie| 5.17.11 @ 7:43PM

Catholicism harbors many like your sickening self, doesn't it?

Nancy| 5.18.11 @ 2:15AM

Margie the Catholic hater strikes again!

Margie| 5.18.11 @ 1:29PM

Sorry, you're lying again.
What I hate are lies and liars.
Much like yourself.
Liars and those who promote them, both concerning the gospel of Jesus Christ, and those who follow Him.
That would include you.
God throws liars into Hell.
Lotsa luck.

RCV| 5.18.11 @ 3:45PM

The Catholic baiting is unnecessary and ugly. Catholicism "harbors" many of the leading conservative voices around, from TAS back to William Buckley. I've known many Catholics over the years, and few if any are as hateful as Clint.

Clint| 5.17.11 @ 3:39AM

Oh Yeah !
Let's see ya make me leave, Anti-Catholic Punk Ass Coward Dr.Reich.

Dan| 5.16.11 @ 8:26AM

Newt & Mitt are correct!! People do walk away from medical bills, I see medical collection accounts all the time on credit bureaus.

So what is the solution, allow hospitals to refuse medical care to anyone without insurance, unless he/she has a cashiers check!!! Stop living in the 1800's Tea Party and put on your big boy pants as Sarah would say.

Doctor Right| 5.16.11 @ 9:17AM

I lived in Massachusetts for almost 3 years.

You're welcome to it. Just keep your idiot-liberal ideas to yourselves, and leave the rest of us alone.

Dan| 5.16.11 @ 9:30AM

Having 98% of our people with some sort of health insurance is idiotic? Should we mirro Indiana and have 20% of the people walking around with no insurance? We did all this and it just increased the state budget by 1%!!!!!!! Amazing!!!!! Or does it make you fella's feel good to know so many Americans are walking on eggshells because they cannot afford health insurance. Good luck to that thinking and the shrinking electorate the Republicans are targeting.

Doctor Right| 5.16.11 @ 10:14AM

Yes, it's idiotic, just like Obama-Care is idiotic. The Government should stay the hell out of healthcare.

I don't feel good about people being uninsured, but the phony numbers that Liberals pimp to get people all hot-n-bothered ("50 million uninsured") are lies. Additionally, they disregard the fact that many who could pay for their own health insurance simply refuse to do so.

Like I said, keep your idiocy in the Bay State.

And if you think the Conservative electorate is "shrinking", you're mistaken; I guess you weren't paying attention last November, were you, Danny?

Dan| 5.16.11 @ 10:27AM

Dr. Right- those that express your thinking got clobbered, Angle, O'Donnell, and the guy in Colorado.
In MA, we assist families up to 300% of the federal poverty line. Much better than having them with no insurance and self-worth. It's not socialized medicine or govt run health care. That is gibberish right-wing talk radio.
Believe it or not, there is a supporting role for govt in health care.

Doctor Right| 5.16.11 @ 11:07AM

Better to run a REAL COnservative and try to win than to run a stealth Liberal weasel like Mike Castle who will stab you in the back once elected.

We're not playing those games anymore, Danny...If that bothers you, go become a Democrat.

Or better yet, stay a Republican! Because if you gutless, establishment weenies and your brain-dead idiocy try and derail the Conservative movement again in 2012, the GOP will go the way of the Whigs.

Paul| 5.16.11 @ 11:25AM

Thievery dressed up in sanctimonious platitudes.

I don't give a crap about your self worth or your insurance status, I am working too hard to support my family to have time to worry about you.

Dan| 5.16.11 @ 11:36AM

You don't give a crap about your fellow Americans, but to this day, i bet you supported Bush and his Iraq war to liberate the Iraqi people???? And at what cost? Ok, makes sense, nominate Michelle Bauchman

Doctor Right| 5.16.11 @ 11:41AM

At what cost?

Gee...Let's see...

A Democratic ally in a decidedly un-Democratic part of the world...And a major oil-producing ally, too!

A military base near Iran (where it might be needed soon)...

A dead, terror-supporting Dictator...

LOTS of dead terrorists, most of whom came directly to Iraq so we could kill them in one place.

Sounds like a pretty good deal.

BTW, Danny...Have you noticed how Iraq isn't in the news much anymore? Must have been a success, otherwise O-Dumbo would be on TV blaming George W. Bush...

Dan| 5.16.11 @ 11:50AM

Sorry, looking back, huge error. Mitch Daniels said the war would cost $60 Billion. He was off by about a trillion dollars, let alone the soldiers that died and were injured. Jeez, it was a terrible mistake and as someone who wanted W to succeed, I wish that could be a do-over.

Paul| 5.16.11 @ 1:45PM

Go back to the daily Koz douche bag.

Nancy| 5.18.11 @ 2:17AM

Dan's a RINO statist like Romney who believes it's moral to steal from others.

Margie| 5.16.11 @ 2:13PM

Angle, O'Donnell and I think it was Joe Buck, all great conservatives got CLOBBERED as you say, not because they were conservatives who couldn't have won~ but because the Republican establishment hacks witheld the monetary support from them.

Put THAT in your Liberal pipe and toke it.

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 1:09PM

Doctor Right,

this August I'm going to Cape Cod to hear Fred Goodwin lecture on Bipolar Disorder. It's the only reason I'm going. I live 5 minutes from a beautiful lake, the weather's better where I am in August, and I can't stand the liberalidiocracy. My family will NOT be coming with me this year, as the stench of Liberalism annoys my wife too much.

I'd rather be in the Dakotas.

PolishKnight| 5.16.11 @ 9:32AM

Hello Dan,

The fundamental problem with the libertarian approach to healthcare is that when an uninsured person but otherwise solvent person is sent to an emergency room without healthcare, they financial f*** him. (Figure out that word). It's like walking into a restaurant where they don't give you a menu and can charge anything they want. And they do. I read the initial bill they sent me: $4000 for a hospital ride, oxygen, and an in-room EKG.

Then my insurance kicked in. They negotiated them down to $1300. No WONDER the EMT was trying so desperately to find our my insurance information...

In a libertarian world, it would be perfectly ok for entrepreneurs to go to disaster areas where people are dying and offer to sell them bottled water for their dehydrated kids to drink at a low, low price of $500 a bottle...

So Newt and Romney and even Obama have it right (although their motives are different): People need to buy medical insurance or plans in order for the system to work. That's just the way it's designed at this time. There is no practical way for most people to pay cash anymore.

On the flip side of that collection roster, Dan, there are people who were foolishly un or under insured, hospitalized, and paid thousands more than they should have. That's why the hospital billing departments probably don't shed so many high tears over those uncollected bills. They know that for every bill that's left unpaid, that they're making a monster profit on the ones they did collect on.

It's useful to remember that libertarians and the free market republicans helped to create the crisis by allowing the system to evolve to this dysfunctional point. Why aren't hospitals required to post their prices for procedures to consumers? Why are doctors spending several years in school in pre-med programs that do little to enhance their skill set but increase overall costs? And of course, there's the other dysfunctional aspects of the system we're all familiar with: massive medical lawsuit payouts, illegal immigrants going in and out for free, medicare and medicaid funding shortfalls made up by overbilling to other patients.

Consumers want these problems solved. Period. Come up with something fast or you invite a total jerk to tug at the heartstrings of the mob.

Dan| 5.16.11 @ 9:46AM

PolishKnight- most thoughtful post. Using your restaurant analogy, people with no insurance or money receiving medical care is like someone ordering food at a restaurant and sticking the bill to the next paying customers. That is what Mitt stopped!

We all need to have insurance, unless you are independently wealthy, like Newt said, post a bond. Mitt covered over 400,000 uninsured people and gave them some sense of value.

I felt like a million bucks when I brought my kid in for a checkup ,flashed the insurance card, and the guy next to me with a newborn, reluctlantly shook his head no, when asked if he had insurance. Most of the Tea Party puritans would say to throw him and his baby out to the curb, unless he had the $200 in his pocket. It is crazy thinking.

Nice to know someone like you with your knowledge is out there. Mitt is the only Re. I would vote for but doubt he can win the nomination, he's too intelligent for the barbarian horde that runs the Iowa caucus.

PolishKnight| 5.16.11 @ 10:55AM

I'm willing to engage in an open dialogue on the subject. Question: Did Mitt address the 500lb gorilla? Did he stop illegals from dumping their medical bills on the taxpayer?

Simply insuring the so-called uninsured doesn't necessarily solve the problem but rather dumps the burden on the rest of the insured. If the uninsured who are added are taxpayer funded or added to the burden on the insurance provider, then my premiums go up along with my co-pay so nothing has essentially changed.

Dan| 5.16.11 @ 11:14AM

I dont see how having 98% of the people insured is more of a burden than let's say, Indiana, where 19% are uninsured.

500lb gorilla? A recent audit did find illegals and residence of other states getting insurance and health care by accessing Romneycare. Our current governor doesn't really care, he wants illegals to have drivers licenses, so no surprise.

No state can say to their hospitals to refuse health care to illegals. Mitt, if he were the governor, could not do so either. Mitt did however, allow the state police to inquire about the legal status of people but the current governor did away with that law.

Nancy| 5.18.11 @ 2:18AM

Mitt's a RINO statist--no thanks.

Ross Kaminsky| 5.16.11 @ 10:07AM

Knight,

I disagree with your conclusions.

First of all, I've almost always been able to negotiate down medical bills, with or without insurance involvement.

Second, while I agree with you that the problem exists, why do you ignore the possibility of policy solutions that minimize the problem for people who for whatever reason choose not to buy insurance (but do pay their bills)?

Further, your claim that libertarians have any blame for the current system is outrageous. Health insurance is by far the most regulated, least competitive insurance market I'm aware of (other than completely government-run stuff like flood insurance.)

We have nothing like a free market in health insurance and the system is nothing that any libertarian supports in the slightest, nor did they/we have anything to do with the creation of the mess we're in now.

PolishKnight| 5.16.11 @ 11:15AM

Hmmm, Ross, enlighten us. How do you negotiate down medical bills? I've gotten bills from labs that said that after my insurance did their payments, I still owed them $400.00. I just paid it even if I thought they were execessive. Please share your wisdom!

I agree there are some people who choose not to buy insurance and pay their bills. Some of them are quite happy especially if they rarely need care and go to doctors and clinics where they have pre-negotiated fees. On the other hand, emergency coverage must be a real pain for them.

Ross Kaminsky| 5.16.11 @ 11:47AM

To clarify, Knight, I negotiated doctor and hospital bills. Lab bills are a lot harder, I agree.

That said, I have negotiated (in advance of service) with places like imaging centers for X-rays and CT scans.

Of course emergency coverage is a literal and economic pain for the uninsured (or for those like me with high deductible plans).

But it's better to have a $1000 ER bill and not pay $5000 a year in insurance if you knew that were going to be your choice.

The real reason for insurance is to deal with catastrophic problems.

Insurance for small items like lab bills is getting way to far away from the proper use of insurance. Furthermore, insurance for small items is part of the reason health care costs are so out of control. But this is a topic for another day...

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 3:47PM

Thanks for playing with us, Ross. You're fun.

George S| 5.16.11 @ 10:36AM

You know why someone would "sell bottled water for 500 bucks a pop in disaster areas"? Because it would make the water available to people who want the water more than the 500 bucks. If you were not allowed to charge more than, say, twice the price you paid, it would not pay for you to take a leave of absence from your job or business to round up the water to sell to those who desperately need it. What you describe is windfall profits. People see water selling for 500 a bottle and want to get in on the action. That makes the water available because of the profit incentive. What happens is more and more people get in on the action until the supply increase forces the price down -- all the way down to the price where only the bottler and distributor can make a profit because they are the only ones who are efficient enough at that price point. Charge a tax or limit profits, the water doesn't get there and the people dehydrate.

As far as health care goes, it is not profiteering that increases the costs to astronomical levels. It is the cost of doing business in a world where you are heavily regulated and are forced to deliver services. The biggest is that Government does not reimburse providers in full for Medicare/Medicaid and the difference is made up with insurance premiums. You, the policy holder, do not care what the insurance company pays out because your boss pays the price if you are on salary -- as most people are. All you see is that 30 dollar co-pay. The rest who buy their own insurance -- the suckers -- can't do anything other than swallow the cost or take their chances.

You want the price to go down? Make health insurance an after tax out of pocket for everyone and allow insurers to offer custom policies. Then everyone can negotiate what they can afford and the price comes down. That's the free market way.

Force more people to buy insurance and the price goes up, not down, as government would be paying less reimbursements because there is more insurance premium money to make up the difference. And, of course, we would all get lower taxes (or refunds) because of the lower reimbursement.

Dan| 5.16.11 @ 10:42AM

What a joke, so when you or your kid needs emergency care, lets shop around and negotiate the price, and drive 30 miles to save a few bucks while your kid screams in pain.

George S| 5.16.11 @ 10:49AM

In Britain, people waited so long for emergency rooms that a law was passed mandating that every emergency patient be seen within four hours. The result? Ambulances parked outside the perimeter (with screaming children and adults alike on board) and waited until a four hour window opened. Is that where you want our system to take us? You won't know how good we have it until we don't anymore.

Dan| 5.16.11 @ 11:16AM

That does not exist in Massachusetts, sorry. That exists in the minds of right-wing talk radio.

I'm not saying what works in MA will work in the U.S., but what Romney did here, insuring 400,000 U.S. citizens at a cost of 1% of the state budget, is a miracle!!!!!!!!! And no lines either.

Jack London| 5.16.11 @ 12:30PM

Hey George - I checked on that Brit story - it happened once in one hospital. And guess what the average wait time in our ER is? Over 4 hours as of figures from last year.

Nancy| 5.18.11 @ 2:21AM

What about the patients who have to drink water from their flower vases or the oldsters who starve to death? Nursing care in England is poor to non-existent--and bankrupt.

No thanks.

George True| 5.16.11 @ 1:30PM

Dan, you clearly do not know what you are talking about. George S. made several quite viable real-world solutions, and all you can do is trash him for it. I have been in the health insurance field for 22 years. I remember the "good old days" when insurance companies could offer highly customized policies without all the gov't mandated bells and whistles that were quite affordable.

Here in AZ several years ago one insurance company (Coventry) was all set to offer a new individual policy that was priced at least 20% less than anything else. They were able to do it by carving out certain benefits that most people don't need or want anyway. The policy also had annual caps in certain areas that would have been adequate for most people. Well, the state of Arizona insurance commissioner delayed the release of the policy almost a year, and ultimately forced Coventry to raise the premium so much it was no longer competitive or affordable for most people.

Regarding what Ross said, yes you can negotiate a dramatically lower cost on health care. A friend of mine had hernia surgery several years ago. At the time he was on a very good employer sponsored plan, and he paid only a $500 deductible plus a small amount of co-insurance. But the total amount billed was over $15,000, most of which was paid by the insurer.

I wanted to see what the cost would be for a cash customer. So I shopped around, and got local ambulatory surgery centers to bid for my hernia procedure (I didn't really need one.) I got five different bids ranging from $2800 to $4500, inclusive of all costs. That tells me that $2800-$4500 is the REAL cost of the procedure, NOT $15,000. In a truly unregulated, competitive market, this is how things would be. The government is NOT needed for people to have affordable health insurance. What is needed is for the government to GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY.

Nunya| 5.16.11 @ 1:51PM

Excellent examples, that's awesome. You're absolutely right on as far as government as well.

Bob K.| 5.16.11 @ 10:59AM

PK,
Dan is not a Libertarian, he is a Liberal. A typical Massachusetts liberal. He would have you believe that he is right in the middle of main stream America though. Don't believe the nonsense he is handing out about being able to vote only for Romney. When the chips are down he will vote for Obama.

PolishKnight| 5.16.11 @ 11:18AM

Hehehe. I've met a few of those. They claim to be moderates or even open minded conservatives and you booze them up a bit, and they show their true colors that they buy into the whole leftist cool aid.

Indeed, that is one piece of baggage that Romney may have that is insurmountable similar to McCain: Even if they are reasonable and even moderate, their own supporters secretly hate them. They vote for them in the primaries and abandon them in the general election. I laughed when this happened to McAmnesty.

Dan| 5.16.11 @ 11:22AM

Sorry, voted for W twice! Voted for Scott Brown and the entire republican slate in 2010 (everyone lost in MA).

My ballot did go to McCain/Palin only b/c I let my 10 yr old daughter vote (wasn't caught by the poll watcher), I couldn't stand either McCain or Obama. Sorry, the Indiana governor with 19% of his people uninsured, looks older than McCain and shorter than Dukakis, doesn't do anything for me, Yes, we live in a TV age, need to look the part of president, just the facts!

Pawlenty? Please, Mr. Cap & Trade??? Limbaugh was right 20 years ago, it's a hoax.

Nancy| 5.18.11 @ 2:23AM

RomneyCare is a hoax too, fool.

John Navratil| 5.16.11 @ 11:06AM

Polish Knight,

Your post assumes there is always a third-party in the room to pay the bill, either the insurance company or the taxpayers of the hospital district.

My wife and I had our second child without benefit of maternity insurance (try pricing that on the private market) and negotiated the bill down to 50% by paying cash.

The problem here isn't that there is insurance, but that it is too all-encompassing. Most health care is for well care or minor illnesses. While such care may be "too expensive" in the eyes of the average consumer, insurance makes it more so, but hides the cost.

If we got back to fee-for-service in most cases, you would see the menu with the prices before you buy.

PolishKnight| 5.16.11 @ 11:21AM

Did you negotiate that price before going in or afterwards?

I imagine they have the upper hand after they've gotten you to sign on the dotted line.

The front office of my local hospital scares the heck out of me. It's like they have an army of lawyers there to make you sign your life away. I went to another one, same thing.

I love my healthfund where I was given money to spend and then upfront prices for procedures and my projected expenses. My wife doesn't want to drive an hour out of the city to give birth but come on, that's $1000 we're talking about here. Maybe if I commission a limo... (but it might get messy in there!)

John Navratil| 5.16.11 @ 11:55AM

Polish Knight,

Afterwards.

Dan| 5.16.11 @ 11:24AM

Ok everyone, have a roll of $1oo's in your pocket when you go to the hospital. Negotiate with the doctors as if they're scalping tickets.

John Navratil| 5.16.11 @ 11:59AM

Dan,

I had to write a $5000 check going in. On the other hand, maternity insurance cost $5000 (at the time) in premiums before it kicked in. And, if my wife became pregnant before the 2-year qualification period, I'd have had $4900 in premiums paid and still would not have been covered. It was a no brainer not to purchase, but rather to put the $5000 in my pocket for use when it was needed.

Dan| 5.16.11 @ 12:16PM

Unless you have a gold-plated public sector health care plan, you have a point. That is what is wrong with many health care plans, they're designed so that you don't use them with all the high deductibles and premiums, even for the decent plans.

John Navratil| 5.16.11 @ 1:04PM

Dan,

Arguably, that's the way it should be. There is a great deal wrong with our medical insurance system. Mine was cancelled, years ago, for failing to disclose that my thirteen year old daughter had a chest infection when she was three, this after nine months of paying premiums (which were returned).

I'm no fan of the current system, but even less of a fan of one even more controlled by the government. Give me the old "major medical" policy with a deductible high enough to make it statistically unlikely that I would ever meet it, and a health savings account. The less insurance, the better.

buckeyeman| 5.16.11 @ 11:41AM

PK, There is no doubt that the issue of healthcare is a quagmire for freedom loving conservatives, not just "libertarians". Few of us really want to live in a society where kids with appendicitis die for lack of a 20 minute operation (at least in my hands). On the other end of the spectrum are the freeloaders who demand free care for trivial illnesses. On top of that are some of the very expensive treatments which often offer marginal benefit. This is especially true when treating malignancies where patients are desperate for even a slight chance of palliation and don't care how much of someone else's money they spend.

So what's the solution? In the old days, localities (counties, typically) provided "charity" health care. Since there is no constitutional authorization for the federal government to venture into this area, I would personally favor leaving this issue to the states. If you think Indiana sucks, then move to the Peoples Republic of Illinois.

Since this isn't likely, the most logical second choice is a national single payer system. Why play games pretending to make folks buy private insurance policies or pay fines? Just pay for the whole damn thing out of the general revenues and be done with it. This is roughly what is done in New Zealand, to cite just one example.

But grow up and face reality. There is not enough money in the universe to pay for all the health care that people will demand when it is free. Rationing in some form will be necessary and will likely be rather severe.

So, right there's the solution, staring us in the face. But we already have a similar scenario with Medicare, which is, in essence, a single payer system for the elderly. In case you haven't noticed, it's broke. Many Americans just don't want to accept the fact that they can't have everything they want and have someone else pay for it. An honest Medicare system would already be imposing significant rationing but the pols won't do it because they don't want to suffer the (voting) wrath of the oldsters. So the simplest solution is to simply make everyone eligible for Medicare but preserve a shred of the memory of a once free country by "permitting" us to purchase private insurance for bone marrow transplants etc if we wish. Done and done.

Then comes the hard work of reining in expenses through the only method possible - rationing. When everyone is covered, the productive members of society get preference for discretionary procedures, like coronary bypasses or total joint replacements, just like in New Zealand. When you set a budget and stick to it this is the only way it will work. Keep spending and printing as we are now and the economy will eventually collapse.

Your smarmy mockery of "libertarians and free market republicans" is misplaced and unworthy of your towering intellect. The current healthcare delivery system has little to do with free market principles. You have the annoying habit of blaming free market principles for systems where you know very well the government is hip deep in interference.

"Why are doctors spending several years in school in pre-med programs that do little to enhance their skill set but increase overall costs?" Really PK, you are exasperating. You can't be this stupid. The main reason for requiring an undergraduate degree is to separate the wheat from the chaff. My major (anthropology) was far less important than the fact that I could actually complete a four year curriculum with a 3.6 gpa (before grade inflation hit), with about 60 hours of hard science as well as extra-curricular activities such as two years on the OSU track team and summer work as a scuba instructor. Do you really want to admit pimply faced teenagers to medical school straight from high school? Probably what they do in IT but medicine is serious business for serious adults.

A major point of confusion for me is your attitude about our guests from outside our borders. You mock libertarians for their callousness towards the poor, so what would you do with our little brown brothers and sisters? Let them die? YOU MONSTER! So "free" healthcare is only for American citizens in your world? New Zealand can do what it does because it's an ISLAND with strict immigration laws and enforcement. Single payer taxpayer funded universal "free" healthcare might (and I emphasize might) work, but not in a country with open borders.

You obviously know nothing about medical pricing, billing, coding, discounting, collecting, or "managing" (as in "managed" healthcare) but let's agree on universal single payer free-but-for-American-citizens- only healthcare before we move on.

Ps. Pursuant to my previous post, you have not yet offered a solution to hassle-free line spacing on my word processing system. You IT guys talk a good game but when the chips are down you just want to make fun of your betters instead of manning up to the problem. Give me easy line spacing solutions before you mouth off about MY area of expertise.

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 1:23PM

By the way,

free healthcare sucks in New Zealand. Don't believe me---go the the New Zealand Herald website and punch in the search term "District Health Boards."

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 1:25PM

One disgreement: unless one goes through private insurance, the "productive" members of society are not preferentially covered in New Zealand for surgery, Dr. Buckeyeman. I speak from personal, painful experience.

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 1:28PM

The majority of what you say I agree with, Buckeyeman. But PK is normally an OK guy.

buckeyeman| 5.16.11 @ 7:54PM

My comment regarding preferential healthcare for the "productive class" was based on info from a very good Kiwi friend of mine who's pretty well informed on healthcare issues. I've never been there and have no personal experience with their healthcare system. I now have two divergent opinions about Kiwi healthcare and your version fits more with what I would expect.

I think I agree about PK but I get annoyed by folks who try to play both sides of the fence. It's very hard to figure out where PK really stands. He posted a lot the other day about IT stuff and in my experience IT people are from another galaxy so I was also just trying to tweak him a little.

Nancy| 5.18.11 @ 2:26AM

Socialized medicine doesn't work--nothing "socialized" does.

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 1:13PM

Dear PolishKnight:

Pre-med is a weedout. It serves that purpose well. In addition, my Biblical Literature and Life class, Comparative religions, and Early Roman Empire class DID substantially help my tool set. I have worked with physicians trained in the British model, and they're not that good. The lack of Liberal Arts does matter, if by Liberal Arts we're meaning a real class like the ones I mentioned above. The fact that I can remember these classes over 25 years later should let you know how much it means to me.

Because, honestly, I use very few medications in my current practice that I trained on. But learning to learn is very important. What do you think, Dr. Right?

The Big E| 5.16.11 @ 6:48PM

People also walk away from credit card bills, car loan bills, student loans, mortgages, power bills, rent bills, phone bills, gas bills, and (yes, take my word for it) lawyer bills as well. Why should the solution to people walking away from medical bills be any different? Should the government get involved in making people pay all those bills as well? In forcing the rest of us to pay them when those who default, default?

s bennett| 5.16.11 @ 8:26AM

Herman Cain and Paul Ryan in 2012--pass it on

Dan| 5.16.11 @ 8:33AM

Right on, Obama will win 47 states running against that ticket.

Nancy| 5.18.11 @ 2:27AM

He will win 50 states against Myth.

hrh| 5.16.11 @ 11:57AM

One with NO public sector experience.

One with NO executive experience.

Great ticket. /s

The Big E| 5.16.11 @ 6:49PM

Well, the folks who've had the job over the last few years and who DID have public sector experience haven't exactly done a bang up job, now have they?

hardcard| 5.16.11 @ 8:31AM

Give newt the boot !!! Who is advising this disgrace ? r.paul is too small !!!

Stormzeye| 5.16.11 @ 8:35AM

So what if Obama stays in the White House. As long as we control the Senate with a veto-proof majority his hyper-active progressivism will be a bitter memory. He won't be able to get his nominees onto the federal bench at any level.

Chalkdust| 5.16.11 @ 9:25AM

Bill Clinton...remember the damage he did in his second term. 9/11 was a direct result of Billy-bubs mis-handling events. Barrack Obama has the will to do even greater damage. I do not wish to offend, but Obama and a second term is crazy talk.

Ross Kaminsky| 5.16.11 @ 10:09AM

Stormzeye,

That's not very good analysis in my opinion. Keep in mind that most of the damage Obama will do for the next two years is through regulatory department actions such as EPA, NLRB, Dept. of the Interior, etc.

There's precious little Congress can do to stop him, though GOP control of the Senate would help a little bit.

Furthermore, the risk of Obama getting to choose another Supreme Court justice is too big a risk to take.

JoshINHB| 5.16.11 @ 10:55AM

There's precious little Congress can do to stop him, though GOP control of the Senate would help a little bit.

Bullshit.

All of those agencies were created by Congress. They can and should be dissolved by the same.

The problem is electing statist pu$$ies that call themselves republican, not having the right guy as president.

Ross Kaminsky| 5.16.11 @ 11:15AM

Josh,

I agree with your concept but how will those agencies be dissolved over the veto of Obama?

Perhaps they can do it without needing a presidential signature, but I sorta doubt it.

I couldn't agree more about "statist pu$$ies" in the GOP, though it's not exactly what I was talking about in the comment about Obama's regulatory tyranny.

John Navratil| 5.16.11 @ 11:19AM

Stormzeye,

It takes 67 votes to override a veto. The Republicans have 47 today. The Democrats are defending 23 seats against 10 Republican seats. It would take almost a clean sweep to get that majority in Republican hands. Then you have the problem is keeping everyone corralled.

Even if you could cram every bit of Republican legislation past the President, that would not stop him from engaging in all manner of mischief through the departments he controls.

As unprincipled as it sounds, we really do have an "anyone but Obama" presidential election coming up.

Indy| 5.16.11 @ 12:14PM

Have you read S.679?
More than 200 appointed positions would be excused from the advise-and-consent requirement by S. 679. It would be easy to appoint more like Van Jones. Look at the co-sponsors, do you really think Sen. Mitch McConnell will stand for conservatives when he co-sponsors a bill with Sen. Schummer that takes away a check and balance duty?
http://hotair.com/archives/201.....ointments/

And - Do you really want Obama to nominate another one / two Supreme Court Justices? Remember, many RINOs view advise and consent as a rubber stamp, i.e. Sen. Lindsey Graham, Sen. Scott Brown, etc.

As others noted, there is much damage that can be done via EPA and other agencies
http://www.poedpatriot.com/201.....d-ice.html

Can you imagine how far left this President will go once he does not have to worry about re-election? Danger Will Robinson, Danger Ahead!

Patzer| 5.16.11 @ 8:44AM

Is Harod Stassen still alive?

Longplay| 5.16.11 @ 8:45AM

" Maybe he's trying to be a nicer, happier, less polarizing Newt Gingrich, ....". That's typical of Newt, who talks a conservative game then sucks up to the likes of Al Sharpton to find "common ground". He's even admitted that was weak-kneed when in the presences of Bill Cllinton. That makes one thing that even Obama could roll him in a debate. Paul Ryan at Blair House he isn't.

Mike D.| 5.16.11 @ 8:55AM

Gingrich is a cooked and served retread who needs to ride into the sunset of RINOism along with Romney. Typical ruling class panderer. If this so called Republican party doesn't find a meat eater with something resembling a set of principles, then maybe its time to go the third party route. One more election and we'll see what needs to be done with the RINOs and if its possible to continue to gut this party or move on and let them die a slow death.

Old Soldier| 5.16.11 @ 10:23AM

Gingrich lost me a decade ago when he did the news show circuit talking about what a great money saver the Medicaid drug benefit would be.

Why even pretend to be conservative?

JimW9| 5.16.11 @ 8:58AM

Mr. Kaminsky:

Overall a good article but just one thing: please do not state that Ron Paul has "endear(ed)" himself "to Tea Party activists". As a Tea Party activist I realize that there are certainly fellow members who adhere to his consistently libertarian philosophy but I would bet that many of these good folks are scratching their heads lately over his politically suicidal foreign policy remarks. I would also bet that many are rethinking their support over his drug legalization remarks.

I would estimate that perhaps ten to fifteen percent of Tea Party activists are Ron Paul supporters. The overwhelming majority are probably either making up their minds or, like me, are supporting a REAL conservative candidate like Herman Cain.

As far as the Newt is concerned, maybe he and girlfriend Nancy should get a bungalow in Tahiti and just LEAVE! The more this guy talks the bigger fool he makes of himself.

WilliamR| 5.16.11 @ 9:14AM

Herman Cain the same guy who supported TARP and against auditing the FED. Real tea party stuff there.

Ross Kaminsky| 5.16.11 @ 10:10AM

Jim, I take your point but would you not also agree that while perhaps not most Tea Partiers are Paul supporters, most Paul supporters are Tea Partiers?

Chalkdust| 5.16.11 @ 12:00PM

Mr. Kaminisky:

Thanks for sticking around and taking part in the banner. shows a high degree of class.

Margie| 5.16.11 @ 2:20PM

I agree. Cool.

JimH| 5.16.11 @ 9:06AM

Disqualified from consideration? One may disagree with Dr. Paul’s contention that there may have been a better way to get UBL which did not involve violating international law and piss off a putative ally. Without all the facts I’m not sure he is correct, but at least he is consistent with his principles. This is more than can be said for the nominal front runner Romney. Whose flip-flops show the standard professional political opportunism and whose health plan may have been legal and constitutional but it still showed a willingness to use government power to compel people to do things which are rightfully no business of the State. Even if Paul fails to get the nomination it is good to have him in the mix as he speaks to issues and asks questions other candidates might prefer to avoid.

Dan| 5.16.11 @ 9:32AM

JimH- should hospitals be allowed to refuse to help anyone who cannot afford the necessary services due to lack of health insurance?

JimH| 5.16.11 @ 9:47AM

Should a restaurant be required to feed someone who cant pay the bill?

Dan| 5.16.11 @ 9:50AM

Sounds like YES! Wow, this is the thinking driving the anti-Mitt brigade. Thank you for being honest. Please tell me which republican candidate will run on this thinking. Oh yeah, perhaps Sharon Angle, Christine O'Donnell, Rand Paul. They can win a national election...sure....

Ross Kaminsky| 5.16.11 @ 10:12AM

Dan, the answer isn't so much "yes" as "of course" and "hell, yes!".

Now, knowing plenty of doctors, I'm convinced that very few hospitals would turn away anyone other than people with non-urgent issues using very valuable/expensive emergency room resources.

Doctors take an oath that they take very seriously.

That said, forcing a doctor or a hospital to do something for someone for free is little more than supporting slavery. I know that sounds dramatic to people of your viewpoint, but really what is it when you make people contribute their labor to someone they don't want to contribute it to without getting any compensation?

Dan| 5.16.11 @ 10:21AM

Ross- which would be worse, just having the possibility of a hospital refusing to care for someone (broken arm, disease, whatever) or mandating society to either have health insurance or pay their own way ($50,000 bond)?
If any presidential candidate believes in the right to refusing care over an individual mandate, I will show you a true loser, perhaps 45 state loss.
Agree or disagree, you have to be insane not to have health insurance? And what we did in MA was reallocate medicare funds to hospitals and instead, help buy health insurance plans for those less fortunate. It ain't perfect, but a huge step in the right direction. And don't believe the long lines BS.

Bob K.| 5.16.11 @ 11:17AM

OK, it is pretty clear by now that you want and believe in Government Health Insurance for all.

Now, tell us all here how you would instruct your candidate to tell the voters how he or she proposes to pay for it.

And at the same time pay out Social Security, Medicare, Support our Foreign Policy with it's more than 700 military bases worldwide, maintain our Interstate Infrastructure, continue paying the Salaries and Pensions of all our Federal Bureaucracy and Military and on and on including the countless federal mandates foisted on States which must be paid by them out of their own State Tax collections. I think I missed quite a few too!

Nunya| 5.16.11 @ 5:16PM

Well said. We can't afford trying to pay for everyone's health care, plain and simple.

Ross Kaminsky| 5.16.11 @ 11:20AM

A societal mandate is much worse than the risk of a hospital refusing to care for someone.

1) That's a very small risk (the hospital thing)
2) That's a very high cost (the mandate)
3) Government operates with an implicit threat of force if you don't do what they tell you to.
4) You can negotiate with a hospital in many or most cases.
5) You most certainly do not have to be insane not to have health insurance. Insurance is very expensive and buying it means there are lots of other things you can't buy. And most young or nearly-young people never have medical costs that justify what they've spent on insurance.

I had expensive surgery a few years ago and I'd STILL be better off if over the course of my lifetime I'd never paid for health insurance. (That math is a little different when including my wife and the cost of maternity, but that's why it's not insane for some people to have health insurance.)

Another way: Would it be insane to skip health insurance if it cost you $5,000 per month (and you were relatively young and healthy)? If you would skip it at that price, then clearly there is a cost/benefit tradeoff which can be rationally made.

Beyond that, though, who are you to tell others what services or products they have to buy?

Dan| 5.16.11 @ 11:44AM

Hi Ross, nice to speak with you.

FYI, a major cost in health insurance is the average age of the pool. This is why many older Americans find it more difficult to get jobs.

If a 27 year old has no insurance, little money, and comes down with a serious illness, who pays for it? Do you suggest giving him/her a bottle of whisky and a gun to take care of it?

My opinion, too bad, unless you have a Kennedy trust fund, the mandate of health insurance is okay with most people, even an unenrolled who votes republican 90% of the time, like myself.

Ross Kaminsky| 5.16.11 @ 11:50AM

Dan, good to debate with you as well.

No doubt the age of the pool is an issue, though you have to keep in mind that the upper end of the age range is in Medicare and thus not part of the pool so you can't get too far with that argument.

As for the 27-year old he should pay for his own health care one way or another, whether over time, with loans, with the help of a charity if someone thinks he or she can create a charity with that goal.

It is simply immoral, even if you like the outcome, to say that I have a responsibility to pay for your health care, or that you have a responsibility to pay for mine.

I am NOT my brother's keeper unless I choose to be.

I'd also point out that health insurance for young healthy people could be MUCH cheaper than it is if the gov't allowed competition and if people had more "skin in the game" with their own health care consumption.

Dan| 5.16.11 @ 12:03PM

My last post and thanks for the opinions. Mitt wanted to eliminate the free-riders, those who could buy or afford health insurance and chose not to do so. I believe the federal govt. requires hospitals to care for anyone, with or without money or insurance. So instead of just continuing taking federal money to pay for hospital care for the uninsured, he helped buy insurance policies, some received 100% assistance, others tiered based on their income. Over 400K MA residences are now participating in the MA Connector. You may hear of the 2% crying civil liberties, blah blah, and they get their air time on talk radio, but most are in favor of Romneycare.

Unless you are independently wealthy, you are rolling the dice having no health insurance. And if you roll snake eyes, me and everyone else pays for it. Now take it easy on my ex-governor Mitt!!!!

Ross Kaminsky| 5.16.11 @ 1:11PM

Dan,

My last as well on this:

An outcome you like doesn't justify the incredible trampling of individual liberty required to get there.

Furthermore, it ignores other possible approaches to the problem, not least would be allowing interstate sale of health insurance.

Jack London| 5.16.11 @ 1:08PM

Amazing - so it's moral to let people die through lack of healthcare but immoral to organize a healthcare system where everyone contributes when they can. You've got some seriously inhumane genes - but we've seen that from you before.

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 1:17PM

Folks, you are equating lack of health insurance with lack of health care. They do not equate, and nor does health insurance = care.

Dan, you are watching the first few years of the Socialized experiment in your state. You will discover a lack of investment in future developments starting to occur over time as the societal capital is eaten.

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 1:21PM

Jack,

the waiting list in New Zealand for back surgery for patients in VERY SEVERE PAIN is 2 years.

Bob K.| 5.16.11 @ 2:39PM

There is no reasoning with people like Jack or Dan!

Back in 1919 Kipling said in Rhyme:

"In the carboniferous era, they promised abundance for all,

By robbing selective Peter to pay for collective Paul.

But though we had plenty of money there was nothing our money could buy

And the 'God's of the Copybook Headings said: If you don't work you die."

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 3:36PM

G-d, I love Kipling.

Nancy| 5.18.11 @ 2:32AM

Beck loves Kipling too!

Butch| 5.16.11 @ 2:57PM

And you would let senior citizens be sentenced to death by death panels even though they are native-born lifelong American citizens who could afford to pay for the procedure themselves? Because they are no longer "productive," even th0ugh everyone will reach that state?

Ross Kaminsky| 5.16.11 @ 2:59PM

Occam gave the right answer.

I will add a little:

Yes, it is immoral to organize a health care system or any other system where people INVOLUNTARILY contribute 'what they can'.

It has nothing to do with "inhumane."

What is humane about a policy which says that I must sacrifice, for example, the quality of school my children attend in order to fund health care for someone I don't know?

Also, why do you assume that a non-socialist system won't deliver better outcomes than a socialist system, as happens in essentially every other aspect of modern life?

Finally, why do you assume that people will die without socialist health care? There's no basis for that claim.

Jack London| 5.16.11 @ 3:35PM

You people do make me laugh.

First, we already contribute to Medicare and social security - and just try taking those away from a Tea Party senior.

Second, you already pay health insurance - we're talking about widening the pool so your taxes are less likely to fund all that indigent care. What are you sacrificing?

Third - and this must be surely obvious to you - if you get cancer or have a major accident other people will be paying for _your_ care once you spend more than your premiums. I hope you don't get cancer but if you do you'll have time to ponder the immorality of using your health insurance.

Fourth, the data on outcomes in the US versus Germany , France etc when comparing whole populations are clearly better in Europe (and no, they are not all 'socialist' but they are universal).

Fifth, there is crystal clear data in the US about the many people who have to forego surgery and meds because of cost. Many of these people will live less long than they could.

And as for Occam's New Zealand, this is a country of 4 million with a low tax base that can only spend about half the GDP percent on health that we do. Despite that it does not do that badly on the world stage.

Thankfully we do have people in America who want to organize healthcare for a healthier, more productive and personally more secure future. But they are not your regular immoral AmSpec reader.

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 3:38PM

Low tax base, but high taxes and extraordinarially high cost of living. Permanent Resident, 2007.

Bob K.| 5.17.11 @ 1:27AM

Way to go Jack! A Marxist calling others immoral!

Why didn't you pick the nom de plume, "Che?" You could advocate doing all this at the point of a gun!

Nancy| 5.18.11 @ 2:30AM

You Socialists steal from others and claim you're moral. Your system stinks too.

JoshINHB| 5.16.11 @ 11:02AM

This line of argumentation is asinine.

Seriously, what is the left's obsession with insurance?

Does the grocer refuse to serve people without nutrition insurance?

Does a landlord refuse to rent to someone without housing insurance?

Does a merchant turn away shoppers lacking clothing insurance?

Just admit what you're really after.
A free lunch, or more accurate a lunch paid for by someone else. Because, that's like fair.

The infantilism of leftists never ceases.

Ross Kaminsky| 5.16.11 @ 11:51AM

Hallelujah, Josh.

Margie| 5.16.11 @ 2:22PM

Like OldeFarte used to always say, it's Health Welfare, not healthcare.
Right, OldeFarte?

Larry| 5.16.11 @ 5:11PM

Great comment, Josh. Newt's statements on Meet the Press illustrate an appalling lack of political judgment. I dissociate myself from him entirely.

Chalkdust| 5.16.11 @ 9:14AM

At the core of Newt's self, he is a school teacher at heart and that is not a good thing. Like most people who gravitate to that profession, they have an inherent lust to tell other what they should do no matter how crazy it seems. They are the type who with a straight face, could profess the rightness of sitting across the table from a politician they help elect and BARGAIN for more pay and benefits. Screw Newt!

Mimi| 5.16.11 @ 9:17AM

The primary will be won by a PRINCIPLED CONSERVATIVE...cheerful, dignified,authentic, and above ALL be one the COUNTRY can TRUST !! The week-end changed the GAME...The finger to the wind types will go by the wayside...The chance that "NEW" guys join the fray are good...Where is BOLTON ? RYAN ?? PALIN?....No finger to the wind type are these folks. 8 months or so to the first Primary...It's not too LATE!!

John| 5.16.11 @ 9:24AM

Huck gone, and Ron Paul & Newt are shooting themselves in the foot -- good news. Looks like of all the RINO dominos are falling. I don’t see a true conservative in the bunch. They all at least advocate for limited government, lower taxes and a balanced budget, which is good.

A true conservative though is one who puts America and its citizens first, a patriot -- and all their policies should reflect that. You cannot be a conservative and be part of the cheap-labor globalist right who want to rebuild Communist China and other foreign powers, many hostile, while decimating America’s once-great industrial base and leaving its citizens with McDonald type service jobs. You cannot be a conservative without rebuilding our shrunken military in order to protect its citizens instead of putting it on the chopping block as liberals due.

I am waiting for Trump’s policy book -- though perhaps weak on some issues, he is the only one who comes across as a strong leader and is pro-American, a nationalist. The rest of the GOP pack are strangely in love with the multi-national corporations, mostly run by liberals. These too-big-to-fail corporations have no allegiance to America. They are citizens of the world and only care about an extra penny or two a share; yet so-called conservative politicians and pundits love these globalists -- something very wrong here.

Butch| 5.16.11 @ 3:00PM

Trump bowed out this morning.

Petronius| 5.16.11 @ 9:28AM

Newt and all the other pretentious prats who want admission to the Ruling Class more than the Presidency had better "Get It" this time. We want that beltway clique destroyed. And we want Our Freedom back: All of it!! Their past treachery speaks for itself. We're not having any more of it.

Anommynous| 5.16.11 @ 9:34AM

"Huckabee isn't my cup of tea, but between him, Ron Paul, and Newt Gingrich, it's easy to be reminded of the relative appeal of the man who doesn't desperately want the job."

If Ron Paul were desperate for the job, then he would change his positions, too. I don't agree with his foreign policy positions, but the man is consistent, and I respect him for that.

William| 5.16.11 @ 9:38AM

>>Paul's answer is both stupid and dangerous, and he will be beaten mercilessly with it in every debate.

Like he was with Mr. 9/11 (Giuliani) Dr. Paul's response is the elephant in the room of history that ever 'good' American doesn't want to talk about. Actions have consequences. And not everyone around the world is waving a US flag. Do hate to upset anyone's world view with facts

Ross Kaminsky| 5.16.11 @ 10:13AM

Please, William, are you saying that Paul was right that Obama should have given the Pakistanis a heads-up about our raid to get bin Laden?

richabbs| 5.16.11 @ 11:18AM

I wonder how everyone would feel if a Mexican commando force (not sure there is one!) entered into Texas and killed a drug lord without letting the U.S. government know about it? Ross, last I checked, might doesn't make right, nor do the ends justify the means. What Ron Paul is saying is, if Pakistan is a friendly state to the U.S., then we ought to respect their sovereignty. You can disagree politically if you want, but don't say it is "lunacy" for Ron Paul to take a moral and legal (technically, our actions violate international law--if there is such a thing) stance on the U.S. taking a military action in Pakistan. And, if you don't think this is purely about power, then ask yourself if we would have taken the exact same action if it was discovered that bin Laden was hiding out in the Wakhjir Pass area on the Chinese side of the Afghan/China border?

Ross Kaminsky| 5.16.11 @ 11:23AM

Rich,

1) This is not about a crime like drugs. This is an enemy combatant in a war.
2) Who says Pakistan is a friendly state to the US? (Read Jed Babbin's fantastic piece right above mine on the AmSpec page today.)
3) I believe we would have taken the same action if he were in Chinese territory.
4) What part of "bin Laden lived for at least 5 years in a place that would have required high-ranking people to know of his presence" don't you understand? Someone powerful in Pakistan was protecting the biggest killer of American civilians in American history and you want to give those protectors a heads-up? Puhleeze.

Bill Diebold| 5.16.11 @ 9:43AM

Mr Gingrich,
American conservatives, true conservatives everywhere thank you for taking off your disguise and giving a glimpse of the real Gingrich.
You are nothing more than another self appointed member of the Washington ruling elite.
By your own admission you think you know what's best for the people of this country. You conveniently forgot it was you and your fellow political hacks that drove this country into the ditch. Myself and the overwhelming majority of Americans earn a living and live within a budget based upon our earnings. You and your ilk spend, spend and spend our money (not yours) just to stay in power. Please do the American people a favor spend all of your money, lose the nomination and then go home and enjoy your immoralities. You are a fraud and a charlatan.

Carrie Hunnicutt| 5.16.11 @ 9:53AM

Newt Gingrich doesn't have a chance in hades of receiving th nomination to be a candidate for president. Antiquated, already tried and filed ideas, are NOT what this country needs. My vote should not be wasted on a man that lacks morals and whose wife will run up a rather large tab on hair bleach. Newt is NOT OUR notion of presidential material and won't be any time soon. He needs to find gainful employment preferably out of Washington so we won't have to endure turning on the news and having Newt Gingrich's face staring back at us, along with Calista. Calista is not FLOTUS material, much like the present FLOTUS. Newt and Calista need to take a long vacation to a foreign country.We, The People have had enough of Gingrich to last a lifetime.

Conserdude| 5.16.11 @ 10:53AM

Newt Gingrich may be the only GOP nominee that would cause me to vote for Obama (ah, Ron Paul has no chance - zero). And, speaking of First Lady, imagine a former home-wreaker mistress becoming First Lady of the United States?

Frank Drackman| 5.16.11 @ 9:56AM

Umm hate to be a Newt-Picker but...
I think it was Newt's FIRST wife he cheated on while she was bein treated for Cervical Cancer, (which being caused by a Virus is technically an STD)
it was the SECOND wife he cheated on during the Lewinsky affair.
might wanta use that Wikipedia next time, idiot

Frank

Ross Kaminsky| 5.16.11 @ 10:17AM

Other than the "idiot" add-on, I thank you for catching that error. Newt did cheat on that first wife, too, but it wasn't the wife he was cheating on during the Lewinsky affair.

Frank Drackman| 5.16.11 @ 10:31AM

Your welcome,
and the "idiot" thangs hereditary, its what my dad used to say to me when I'd say something that wasn't true, like that filing income taxes was "voluntary"..
and the other thing I don't like about Newt?
he's a sissy, seriously, Michelle Bachmann would totally b-word slap him in a fight...

Frank

CharlieEcho| 5.16.11 @ 10:15AM

Four more years. Then four more. After that it won't matter.

Anthony Powell| 5.16.11 @ 10:20AM

Sorry, neocons at The American Spectator....your days in power are numbered. Most Americans are tired of your lies. Go ahead and smear Ron Paul. We don't care. And, hey, when it comes down to Ron Paul and Barack Obomba, you can endorse your war-mongering tool of the miltary-industrial complex... Mr. Obomba!

Doctor Right| 5.16.11 @ 11:43AM

Ron Paul doesn't need help to look like a jack-ass.

Clint| 5.16.11 @ 12:35PM

Dr. Reich's A Hermann Goering "Go Girl"

You Go Girl.

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 1:19PM

Dr Right,

below you see the high level of argument that Clint takes. Next, he'll call me a Tooljob (whatever that means). In 5, 4, 3, 2...

Clint| 5.16.11 @ 2:17PM

Figure It Out Mensa Boy Pseudo-Genius

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 3:39PM

Undt now, Clint, you will cluck like a chicken....

Clint| 5.17.11 @ 2:10AM

Israel Firster Neo-Chickenhawk Coward Tool Job already clucks like the chickenshit chicken he is.

RCV| 5.16.11 @ 2:32PM

The reality is that Ron Paul securing the GOP nomination would mean the end of the GOP. Both social conservatives and Republicans who have any commitment to American world leadership would abandon the GOP and run another candidate independently. Paul is a nonstarter.

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 3:40PM

Dear RCV,

Paul is to the LEFT of Obama on foreign policy. There are limits. It profiteth no one to have the Fed under control in a radioactive ruin of a country.

But I don't think he'll win. In that case, our bet is still ON!

Wayne | 5.16.11 @ 7:10PM

Understand that War has always been favored by the left. It wasn't the conservatives who got us into Viet Nam.

RCV| 5.16.11 @ 11:09PM

Or the liberals who got us into Iraq.

RCV| 5.16.11 @ 4:26PM

I don't know that you can put Paul's foreign policy positions on "the left" notwithstanding your accurate observation that he is in tune with the nut-wings of the Democratic Party -- Kucinich and Maxine Waters -- on most interventionist issues. Pat Buchannan is in the same place most of the time too, and he's sure no liberal. What these four have is an utter disconnect from reality (although Waters is, at heart, simply anti-American, and Buchanan, anti-semitic). They seem to believe that if only the United States would act in a courteous, mind-your-own-business way, the bad guys out there would, too. If we'd only let Hitler have Danzig, really, that would have been his last territorial demand. Really.

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 7:07PM

Ok, I'll settle for---where the "nutwings" of left and right meet, RCV. 'Nuff said.

Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus| 5.16.11 @ 8:24PM

I don't bother with silly acknowledgements of liberal nut-wings but not including the dithering idiot liar in chief as one of those on unbelieveable utter disconnection from reality matters.

RCV| 5.16.11 @ 11:09PM

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....

somnolence| 5.16.11 @ 10:24AM

Anyone who wants to legalize heroin, as Paul does, which would also mean he would aid and abet in increasing the junkie's tolerance for the ultimate high level, is akin to the worst subversive enemy. I won't retract that statement under any circumstances. The cultural divide in this country is already run amok along with illegal immigration, etc. and Paul is helping to dig the grave further. I suppose the worst excuse I've heard from those who wish legalization is there were more alcoholics during Prohibition. No there weren't, and the population demographics are now a world apart as far as density and the potency of narcotics itself. There are a lot of potheads out there who continue to say Jefferson grew hemp. Yes, for the purposes of cultivation and trade to make rope to the greater ends of justice, not a euphoric pot haze. I also disagreed with the late Bill Buckley on this, so I am consistent. The fair trade-off for drug legalization would be to drop all gun permits, and allow even machine guns to protect the home. It is a pitiful idea, this championing of all drugs. Truly pathetic.

Foreign Policy Observer| 5.16.11 @ 10:25AM

I fear Mr. Kaminsky, it is YOUR article that is "both stupid and dangerous" as you would say. The reasons? 1) You just assert and do not prove. If you want to levy such a broad criticism of Paul's statement, you need to explain why his foreign policy of defending the Constitutional limitations of US foreign action on foreign soil is "stupid and dangerous", 2) Why having a consistent position that reinforces the concept of NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY (how would you as an American feel if Pakistan unilaterally sent their Special Forces into your home town, assaulted a McMansion on your Cul-De-Sac, and blew up a helicopter while your kids were sleeping?) is "stupid and dangerous", and 3) Why Paul's reference to Pakistan's past record of helping the US capture terrorists and break the back of Al Qaeda, despite enormous social cost to their own country, is "stupid and dangerous" as a point of discussion to be considered in whether we should or shouldn't have informed Pakistan on our plans to get Osama. Very sloppy work, Mr. Kaminsky.

Ross Kaminsky| 5.16.11 @ 11:26AM

If we were harboring a person who killed hundreds or thousands of Pakistani civilians, I'd expect them to try to do something about it.

The reason that Paul's reference to prior Pakistani behavior is irrelevant is that there is no way that bin Laden could have been where he was for as long as he was without important Pakistani knowledge and protection.

I didn't say that we shouldn't have considered whether to inform Pakistan. I said that having considered it it's "stupid and dangerous" to conclude that we should have told them in advance of the raid.

Wayne | 5.16.11 @ 12:00PM

You are jumping to conclusions. With proof of Bin Laden's where abouts, Pakistan would have had a hard time choosing to provide him sanctuary.

Ross Kaminsky| 5.16.11 @ 12:32PM

Wayne, how can you say that? bin Laden has plenty of resources and could easily have relocated, whether to elsewhere in Pakistan or to Afghanistan.

Wayne | 5.16.11 @ 7:08PM

Not if the US had come out on location and said. Here, he is in that compound, and we need him arrested. Now at that point what choice would Pakistan have had but to turn him over?

RCV| 5.16.11 @ 4:28PM

The Pakistani intelligence service -- the main supporter of the Taliban -- would simply have spirited him away, Wayne, to some new hideout in the border regions.

Mark Gilbaugh| 5.16.11 @ 10:31AM

I like Ron Paul a lot, and despite his stumbling on the Pakistan issue basically he is right. Rep. Paul is a defender of sovereign rights of countries including our own. the question needs to be "why is the US military in all these countries in the first place?"

As for Newt, he is more of the S.O.S. of big govt GOPers like Romney, Pawlenty, ad nauseum. Ron Paul might not won the nomination, but we conservatives cannot afford another McCain/Dole disaster either.

Jeremiah| 5.16.11 @ 10:33AM

Gingrich routinely has moments of pure genius - then makes up for them by having moments when he comes up with ideas so blindingly stupid even an intellectual wouldn't buy them. It is the reason why I wish Gingrich were in the legislature (the founders wanted a certain churn of ideas going in the House - Gingrich is a one-man churn, isn't he?) - but do not want him anywhere near the White House.

John| 5.16.11 @ 10:34AM

Ron Paul is an isolationist and ominously this is an emerging force in the GOP because Bush (and now Obama) prosecuted PC wars with minimal force.

The constitution is not a suicide pact, nor would George Washington be an isolationist today with nuclear ICBMS now threatening America -- the mighty oceans no longer protect us. George Washington, the patriot, would be an aggressive hawk on foreign policy when America is threatened.

World War II came about because many in congress were isolationists thus we failed to nip the growing threat in the bud and millions of Americans died needlessly. We desperately need a strong commander in chief that will rebuild our military and not be afraid to use overwhelming force when appropriate. .

Conserdude| 5.16.11 @ 10:49AM

Not sure if you're referring to Libya, but this whole effort was foolish and a mistake and the GOP should be clamoring for withdrawal. This nation was not a threat to us or our allies.

Clint| 5.16.11 @ 10:51AM

Nonintervention - A foreign policy of staying out of other countries' disputes.

Isolationism - A policy of nonparticipation in international economic and political relations

"Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations."
Dr. Ron Paul

"Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; "-- George Washington (Farewell Address, 1796)

RCV| 5.16.11 @ 2:36PM

....pssst.....Clint.....it's not 1796, and America is not a little new country that couldn't afford to get involved in international intrigues. We are the leader of the free world. Even George Washington would understand that. Too bad "Dr Ron Paul" can't.

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 3:41PM

Clint still pines for the days of the Inquisition, RCV.

victor| 5.17.11 @ 3:33AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uprjmoSMJ-o

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Amongst our weaponry are:
Fear
Surprise
Ruthless Efficiency
and a
Fanatical devotion to the Pope!

Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus| 5.16.11 @ 4:44PM

I don't bother with silly ...pssst... sanctimonious chronological snobbery when ...pssst... there are more than 3,700 abortions each and every day ...pssst... since January 22, 1973 when ...pssst... even George Washington would understand ...pssst... the self-evident truth that is ...pssst... unalienable that ...pssst... all men are ...pssst... created equal ...pssst... by their ...pssst... Creator ...pssst... at least AFTER they're born not just ...pssst... in 1796 but even ...pssst... in 2011 as any individual with ...pssst... real Christian love and ...pssst... compassion understands on ...pssst... guaranteeing the reelection of ...pssst... the dithering idiot liar in chief while ignoring ...pssst... the lying idiotic ditherer ...pssst... won't be running against ...pssst... Trump or ...pssst... Paul or ...pssst... Gingrich or even ...pssst... Romney matters.

RCV| 5.16.11 @ 5:17PM

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.........

Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus| 5.17.11 @ 11:10AM

I don't bother with silly abortion ........Zzzzzzzzzzzz........ of over 3,700 ........Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........ innocent ........Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........ children of God ........Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........ each and every day ........Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........ for about 14,ooo consecutive days ........Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........ 'legally' ........Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........on explaining why tea partiers are wholly lacking in intelligence but more alarming do not have a shred of real Christian love and worst of all do not have a shred of compassion matters.

RCV| 5.17.11 @ 6:14PM

I don't have to explain the latter, because youd emonstrate it every time you post.

Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus| 5.18.11 @ 11:26AM

I don't bother with silly abortions of fifty three million (53,000,000) when at least three hundred five million (305,000,000) get to live under liberal tyranny AFTER they're born on sanctimoniously proclaiming my intelligence and real Christian love and compassion while endorsing the dithering idiot liar in chief in addition to abortion matters.

RCV| 5.18.11 @ 3:47PM

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....

Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus| 5.18.11 @ 4:59PM

I don't bother with silly posts revealing I'm pathetic and despicable and unintelligent and dishonest on postings revealing I don't care about my silly posts revealing I'm pathetic and despicable and unintelligent and dishonest matters.

RCV| 5.18.11 @ 7:28PM

Z...z...z..z.........................................

Jack Davis| 5.16.11 @ 10:34AM

You forget the biggest disqualifier of all: Barack Obama's record.

Frank Drackman| 5.16.11 @ 10:34AM

Newt served his First Wife with Divorce Papers while she was being treated for cancer.
True, it was only Cervical Cancer, which in its earlier stages can be cured, just like Gonnorhea.
And like Gonnorhea, Cervical Cancer's caused by an infectious agent.
Thats right, its a STD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'd divorce the B-word too.

Frank

The Big E| 5.16.11 @ 7:01PM

My understanding is that Newt cheated on his first wife, too. So, how do you know she didn't get her STD from him?

C Smith| 5.16.11 @ 10:37AM

A "Newt" Vision to Save America?

Newt? The guy who visited his wife in the hospital as she was recovering from cancer surgery to discuss divorce? Wanted to marry the woman he was currently "bedding." This lasted until Newt and Bill found something in common, interns and staffers decades their junior. May America's deliverance arise from another place!

For Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him, and put him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife. For John said unto him, It is not lawful for thee to have her. And when he would have put him to death, he feared the multitude, because they counted him as a prophet. But when Herod's birthday was kept, the daughter of Herodias danced before them, and pleased Herod. Whereupon he promised with an oath to give her whatsoever she would ask. And she, being before instructed of her mother, said,Give me here John Baptist's head in a charger (Matthew 14:3-8).

http://popularapostasy.blogspo.....erica.html

Conserdude| 5.16.11 @ 10:45AM

Newt Gingrich, I said on this website, would be a disaster as a presidential candidate, and his statements on Sunday cement that reality. This article captures his core problem: no authenticity, that is, he's a hypocritical phony.

David Shoup| 5.16.11 @ 11:06AM

Ryan and Gingrich are toast!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have always voted Republican (since 1972), and I would not vote for either one. Can the Republicans find a real Conservative? Please?

Ross Kaminsky| 5.16.11 @ 11:27AM

David, did you intend to say "Ryan"? or did you mean "Ron Paul"?

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 7:19PM

I love the name. Are you related to the MOH guy?

Wayne | 5.16.11 @ 11:54AM

I am finding this article intellectually dishonest. Instead of providing honest discourse, it just makes pronouncements about being in or out.

First on Ron Paul. He is saying that Pakistan is a sovereign nation and that our haste in avoiding going through them was a mistake. He explained why. Ron Paul will stick with principal even if it is inconvenient. He is not your ordinary politician. I have yet to see a good defense of the Ends justifying the Means. Normally this is what liberals believe and their philosopher is Alinsky. We are a nation of laws, and conservatives should know better.

Meanwhile we have had little discussion about Ryan's medicare plan. I personally think it is ill-conceived. Imagine having to pay 150,000 dollars for health insurance at age 80, while the medicare puts up 15,000. Then bankrupt at 81, you would then be on the public dole anyway. If you look at the health plan in North Carolina you will know what I mean. BSBC has to insure anyone in the state who asks for insurance, but they get to chose the rate. So if you are high risk that rate will go over 100,000 for the year.

But this plan gets little discussion and a person who challenges it is automatically dismissed by this author.

So maybe these two are toast, but at least hear them out and challenge your own assumptions.

John Navratil| 5.16.11 @ 12:08PM

Wayne,

I agree with you that Ron Paul will afford his principals. That is what makes him admirable, especially to those who agree with him, as I do, on fiscal policy. For the same reason, I respected "W". Even when I disagreed with him, I knew where he stood.

Paul's Jeffersonian views on foreign entanglements are his to have, and mine to disagree with. We no longer live in an agrarian economy separated from the world by two large oceans and several weeks of travel. It's my opinion that his foreign policy positions would invite mischief against American interests abroad and for that reason, alone, I could not vote for him as President.

Wayne | 5.16.11 @ 7:04PM

Good point on W. Though I considered him too liberal on many occasions, there was much to admire about his demeanor, especially in contrast to the current POTUS.

Has the years since the Cold War made the US a safer place? I think the problem has been the US mischief around the world. Has it made it worth the deaths of our fighting men and the trillions we have spent? I actually had no problem with the bombing, but the nation building and the neo-con desire to diminish the US to elevate the world. What we will see, and mark my words, is a return to nationalism. Not lead so much by Paul, but by the Tea Party. They will say, how can we fix everyone elses problems, when we can even fix our own.

At any rate I commend Paul for making this a debating point. As a Viet Nam vet it has been I can only say, it should be.

Oldefarte| 5.16.11 @ 11:59AM

Ross, great article! The only issue that I'd disagree is the slaming of Ron Paul's libertine intent, since he is [whether one agrees with same or not] accurate and correct. The military invasion of Pakistan to kill UBL [or the use of missled-drones] is an act of war against a sovereign nation, period. The nations that we have historically been at war against have been invaded appropriately, but supposedly we are not at war against Pakistan. Even if they had knowledge of UBL's existence within their borders, we still do not have the right to invade them in order to accompolish what they refuse to do for us as a supposedly ally. Our only recourse against an ally is diplomacy, period. Regarding the general subject of your article, I whlehearted agree that Newt [along with Romney] has politically shot himself in the heart with his insane proclamation regarding WELFARECARE. We Republicans can now easily eliminate them, along with the insignificance of Paul and the non-candidacy of Huckabee, and move onto more serious candidates to run and defeat El Chosne One!!!!!!!!!!

John Navratil| 5.16.11 @ 12:13PM

Oldefarte,

What does one do when a sovereign nation allies itself with another with which you are at war? Pakistan has shown herself to be a necessary, but not necessarily reliable, ally in this fight. As for negotiation, we could barely negotiate our own guy out after he shot two Pakistanis. What chance do you really think we had to negotiate Bin Laden out? I give it less than zero. Therein lies the question that began this post.

Oldefarte| 5.16.11 @ 2:46PM

JN: Exactly, and THAT IS MY POINT! Pakistan should be decalred an enamy country/state/government just as was Iraq or Afganistan. The essential point should be that Pakistan psssesses nuclear weapons, and same are not secured, then our military forces, the state of Israel, Europe and possibly the US will be in jeopardy. Pakistan never was, and never will be our friend/ally; AND THAT IS MY POINT! This pussyfooting political posturing around the TRUTH is ludicrous. Mucharref's departure signified that the radical extremist Muslim terrorists within Pakistan had all but taken over control of that country, and the political cat was then out of the bag. We need to stop pretending that Pakistan is our friend/ally!!!!!!!!!!!

ABNCP| 5.16.11 @ 12:00PM

Newt writes great historical books about the United States. They are also pro American and accurate. That is what his future holds for him. He will NEVER be elected to any public office again. Nor should he be after that performance last Sunday. I can just imagine the the propaganda the left will spew out over his ridiculous comments with Gregory.

Strudwick Wickerwire| 5.16.11 @ 12:19PM

What was it, less than a week??? Gingrich, for as articulate as he is, sure pulled the stopper on his short-lived presidential campaign and just imagine that, it was less-than-a-week!!! I guess it could be said it's a blessing he did this so soon, why waste all that time, money, support on something he was going to do at some undisclosed moment just before the 1st debate against Obonehead... I suppose Gingrich just wasn't serious, which brings us to the next republican self-inflicted be-heading!!!

Peppermint Tea| 5.16.11 @ 12:28PM

Newt?
Ron Paul?
Romney?
Daniels?
Palenty?
Huntsman? (Heaven forbid!)
...
Sarah, save us!!!

loulou| 5.16.11 @ 12:50PM

Didn't take Newt long to implode.
Better sooner than later. Buh-bye.

Tomás| 5.16.11 @ 12:52PM

America is dead, as a concept and a country, when stating obvious truths like treating people as animals gets animal-like responses and following the Constitution in ALL of its aspects are received with sophomoric rejoinders of "lunacy" as if that is somehow enough to defeat the argument. And people wonder why empires and their water-carriers never see the writing on the wall.

simon templar| 5.16.11 @ 12:52PM

Well, you can add another one to the list, TRUMP declares that he is not running.

Padoux| 5.16.11 @ 12:57PM

I never had much use for Gingrich, especially not for President. WHEN will the GOP produce some adults?

The Globalizer| 5.16.11 @ 1:03PM

Ron Paul is pretty much right on Pakistan. Wrong on bin Laden, but right on Pakistan. We made the space necessary for the SpecOps guys to get the charismatic nutjob, now let's pull our guys home and let the lesser nutjobs blow each other up. Without the connectivity and resources of bin Laden, these guys will resort to the lazy Muslims-bombing-Muslims approach that will be their ultimate demise (just as it has caused their marginalization in the Arab world).

simon templar| 5.16.11 @ 1:06PM

Well, it seems the ruling class washington elite have decided that the communist-in-chief gets another 4 years. Makes you wonder... do they sit around in golf club bar toasting each other on how they have fleeced us so succesfully another day, another month, another year? Of course, they must respect each others turn to lead the parade and the facade.

martin j smith| 5.16.11 @ 1:07PM

The following are out, and perhaps were really never in: Ron Paul,New Gingrich,Donald Trump,Mitt Romney. I will also add that I would be highly cautious about Mitch Daniels--very very cautious indeed.
That leaves Pawlenty and others not in to my knowledge. I Daniels has not made his intentions known but when you begin to rub with the eraser and get his ideas you too will say NON !!!!!!!!!).
These candidates ares some kind of sick joke that shows what trouble the Republican side is in.
Lets see if we have someone who is not a sick joke.

canuckistani| 5.16.11 @ 2:42PM

We don't.
Junior created the scorched earth and McCain sterilized it with the Palin selection.

Oldefarte| 5.16.11 @ 2:50PM

Please don't eliminate any/all of the Republicans, because the result will four more years of El Chosen One and the complete destruction of this country accordingly!!!!!!!!!

simon templar| 5.16.11 @ 1:14PM

We must have a 1968 version of the takeover of the GOP like the radicals taking the democratic party in 68. The Tea party must take the 2012 nomination convention away from the RINO's. It is time to fight and raise hell. Conservatives, Libertarians, freedom loving Americans...MOBILIZE!

Larry| 5.16.11 @ 5:18PM

Simon, I know I have repeated this to many others: we must politically EVISCERATE the Democrats like the Irish voters did to Fianna Fail in their recent general election. The Irish got tired of their corrupt, incompetent ruling party by reducing them to a rump. Americans must do the same before anything meaningful can happen in the country.

Tom| 5.16.11 @ 1:19PM

How sad. In the span of a very short time, I've already had to cross off any and all consideration for 3 candidates: Romney, Paul, and now Gingrich.

somnolence| 5.16.11 @ 1:22PM

I'll fight like hell for Palin, Cain, Bachmann, and Santorum. The RINOS and NEOCONS had best forget about a White House quest.

JST| 5.16.11 @ 1:29PM

I am going to throw up if I hear Newt say the words "national conversation" one more time.

Redstateboy| 5.16.11 @ 1:30PM

thank goodness we face the weakest presidency since Jimmy Carter

RCV| 5.16.11 @ 2:28PM

But unlike then, there is no Ronald Reagan in the wings to face him.

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 3:43PM

Well, RCV, there's Allen West, if we can get him to run.

RCV| 5.16.11 @ 4:33PM

Occam, I like West's views on Israel, but the jury is still way out on whether he's ready for prime time. A good Israeli policy and questionable judgment as a military officer does not necessarily make a Ronald Reagan.

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 7:09PM

I disagree on the questionable judgment, RCV. But that's OK. We'll see what we get, and, as long as it's not Paul, I'm voting Republican.

RCV| 5.16.11 @ 11:14PM

You and probably 47% of the rest of America, Occam.

victor| 5.17.11 @ 3:24AM

RCV:
"You and probably 47% of the rest of America, Occam."

That's what you probably said in 1980, eh?

RCV| 5.17.11 @ 10:53AM

No, in 1980 I voted for Ronald Reagan.

John| 5.16.11 @ 1:36PM

Very dissapointing that Trump is not running.
Thus we now have a choice between the domestic socialists Dems and the GOP right wing International socialists, Transferring our wealth for cheap labor via open borders and sellout free trade giveawys is corporate/government socialism and a race to the bottom.

God help this country. Our only hope is for the Tea Party to find an American-first candidate quickly. But even if they do the talk-radio International socialists/globalists will savage him, for most of them are in bed with the GOP establishment no matter how they protest otherwise.

frank ulrich| 5.16.11 @ 1:37PM

Newt should change his name to chameleon!

B. Samuel Davis| 5.16.11 @ 1:43PM

Rass - I thoroughly agree. But, why is it that only Republicans that make stupid comments become disqualified? Democrats make stupid statements with impunity, and our traditional media says nothing. Our double standard at work.

Of course, we discovered last week that a significant part of the mainstream (traditional) media is on the SOROS payroll, more or less. That's the answer to that questions - Soros does indeed get his money's worth.

B. Samuel Davis| 5.16.11 @ 1:43PM

Rass - I thoroughly agree. But, why is it that only Republicans that make stupid comments become disqualified? Democrats make stupid statements with impunity, and our traditional media says nothing. Our double standard at work.

Of course, we discovered last week that a significant part of the mainstream (traditional) media is on the SOROS payroll, more or less. That's the answer to that questions - Soros does indeed get his money's worth.

somnolence| 5.16.11 @ 1:44PM

Trump proved his liberal colors by supporting Schumer, Rangel, and Emanuel. He is a blowhard, buffoonish opportunist. The ONLY candidates I can support are Palin, Cain, Bachmann, or Santorum. I find it hysterically funny that anyone takes Daniels seriously, being the acolyte of Dick Lugar that he is.

Kingofthenet| 5.16.11 @ 1:46PM

The Republican Nominees are dropping like flies! Excellent, now nominate Sarah or Michelle and lets REALLY get it on!

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 7:10PM

Indeed. Bachman will eat Barack for lunch.

Danny| 5.16.11 @ 1:47PM

Newt's an idiot -- sorry. What he calls "right-wing social engineering" is merely dismantling left-wing social engineering. The opposite of social engineering is not more engineering, but freedom.

In a very real sense, conservatives are not "imposing" radical change, they are deconstructing the radical change that the left has imposed upon us.

Good golly, when will someone with vision, principle and courage step up to strike off the shackles that bind us.

Margie| 5.16.11 @ 2:29PM

Well said, Danny, you got it right.
The DECONSTRUCTION of the Leftist agenda on the country ought to be the new rallying cry of the Republicans.
IF they want to win!

Strudwick Wickerwire| 5.16.11 @ 1:56PM

I wonder what the appeal of Mitch Daniels is??? He's about as dynamic as a foam pillow and on a good day the guy is boring. Could it be ole Mitch has been hand picked by democrats to grease the skids for Obuckethead in 2012 and don't get me wrong Daniels is a much better alternative than Obonehead, although will anyone see him with the glow Omugabe gives-off...

Son of Liberty| 5.16.11 @ 2:33PM

The more I look at the candidates, the more I like Tim Pawlenty. He has earned my admiration with his determination and hard work. Those are presidential traits. The other candidates seen to have problems that may be too difficult to overcome. I guess time will tell.

Son of Liberty| 5.16.11 @ 2:33PM

The more I look at the candidates, the more I like Tim Pawlenty. He has earned my admiration with his determination and hard work. Those are presidential traits. The other candidates seen to have problems that may be too difficult to overcome. I guess time will tell.

Son of Liberty| 5.16.11 @ 2:33PM

The more I look at the candidates, the more I like Tim Pawlenty. He has earned my admiration with his determination and hard work. Those are presidential traits. The other candidates seen to have problems that may be too difficult to overcome. I guess time will tell.

Son of Liberty| 5.16.11 @ 2:33PM

The more I look at the candidates, the more I like Tim Pawlenty. He has earned my admiration with his determination and hard work. Those are presidential traits. The other candidates seen to have problems that may be too difficult to overcome. I guess time will tell.

Son of Liberty| 5.16.11 @ 2:33PM

The more I look at the candidates, the more I like Tim Pawlenty. He has earned my admiration with his determination and hard work. Those are presidential traits. The other candidates seen to have problems that may be too difficult to overcome. I guess time will tell.

Son of Liberty| 5.16.11 @ 2:33PM

The more I look at the candidates, the more I like Tim Pawlenty. He has earned my admiration with his determination and hard work. Those are presidential traits. The other candidates seen to have problems that may be too difficult to overcome. I guess time will tell.

Son of Liberty| 5.16.11 @ 2:33PM

The more I look at the candidates, the more I like Tim Pawlenty. He has earned my admiration with his determination and hard work. Those are presidential traits. The other candidates seen to have problems that may be too difficult to overcome. I guess time will tell.

John| 5.16.11 @ 2:32PM

Trump had flaws for sure but was the only one advocating rebuilding America instead of Red China and other foreign powers. All the other GOP candidates are economic globalists posing as conservatives and patriots. Our Founders would have branded them as traitors.

We need a new Party and a new pro-American media, otherwise we are doomed - -- globalists have hijacked the GOP and talk-radio; they stand for nothing but cheap-labor corporate socialism and decimating our industry and middle class.

Son of Liberty| 5.16.11 @ 2:33PM

The more I look at the candidates, the more I like Tim Pawlenty. He has earned my admiration with his determination and hard work. Those are presidential traits. The other candidates seen to have problems that may be too difficult to overcome. I guess time will tell.

Rifle| 5.16.11 @ 2:41PM

Agreed....I'm giving Tim Pawlenty serious consideration.

In fact, a Tim Pawlenty/Rick Santorum ticket offers two young faces who bring considerably more experience to the White House than Obama did.

And the ticket would provide a nice blend of executive and legislative experience....without any real baggage.

canuckistani| 5.16.11 @ 2:51PM

....without any real baggage. Sure about that?

Santorum suggesting the G has role with people's sexual choices inside their own homes will anihilate him at the polls.

that ship has sailed and has zero to do with jobs. He would be a yoke on any ticket.

victor| 5.17.11 @ 3:23AM

canyucknyucknyuck:
"He would be a yoke on any ticket."

English must be your second or third language, eh?

Yoke is a sharing of a burden, which means he would be an equal partner on any ticket.

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 3:43PM

Pawlenty can be wrong and uninspirational.

The Big E| 5.16.11 @ 7:05PM

You know, I've heard of Tim Pawlenty. Can't think of a single thing he's done other than get elected governor of Minnesota. So, why should I vote for him?

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 7:12PM

Well, he's Conservative and a Hawk on foreign policy. He's OK on budget issues. But he doesn't inspire. Now, if it were a choice between Barack and Tim, I'd vote for Tim.

The Big E| 5.16.11 @ 10:03PM

Between Barack and Tim? Easy choice. Tim - whether that be Tim Pawlenty, or my daughter's pet guinea pig (Tim) Squiggles. But I see no reason to support Pawlenty for the nomination. You say he doesn't inspire, to me he appears to be a weak leader.

Son of Liberty| 5.16.11 @ 2:47PM

Didn't mean to post so many times above. Looks like I'm computer illiterate. I wish I could vote that many times in Nov. 2012 though....

martin j smith| 5.16.11 @ 2:50PM

Here is a theory I have heard & there is some truth to it. the idea is to give the Socialists as little time as possible to figure out who the REAL candidate is and b) Find a candidate that can gain as broad support as possible. All of the ones I have set aside as "sick jokes" have bad baggage. Thus, this a both a siftng process and one that gives the real possibilities time to feel; with the Socialists attacks which will invarably come.

Oldefarte| 5.16.11 @ 2:58PM

Don't be too pessimistic over the potential Republican field. Eveyone will have their personal favorite[s] for the nominee naturally, but remember that the object/goal is to defeat the current office holder and his socialistic political agenda. Even if a Republicancandidate who has disagreeable positions on some issues obtains the nomination, that candidate is [forever will be] far far superior to what we're faced with currently!!!!!

Margie| 5.16.11 @ 4:15PM

Totally agree. TOTALLY.

simon templar| 5.16.11 @ 3:17PM

MSNBC host Joe Scarborough, who was part of the 1994 GOP-controlled House of Representatives that worked with Gingrich and former President Clinton to balance the budget said: “I’ve got to say this confirms my previous concern about Newt Gingrich over the past 15 years, that rhetorically, he’s far, far right. But when push comes to shove, he’s in the mushy middle.
Read more on Newsmax.com: Buchanan: Gingrich Is 'Left Wing' on Key Issues, Left of GOP Base

Up head you see a sign post....you have just entered the GOP Twilight Zone....

dennis| 5.16.11 @ 3:21PM

Au contraire. Paul would be pleased to discuss his thoughts on Pakistan and bin Laden. He would point out that the Pakis, strange as it might seem, actually dislike being bombed and bullied by us. If pointing this out makes Paul a political "dead man walking," then this country is f----d.

Sean| 5.16.11 @ 3:41PM

Last time we heard all these isolationist charges we ended up with George Bush as President. Do these people actually think Muslims could conquer the US and install sharia law? It actually the other way around our entertainment products are corrupting and changing Muslim countries to our values. Sharia has no chance in the US unless we allow open borders and immigration from muslim countries, which in fact is promoted by these neocons.

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 3:45PM

I'm sorry---when have you ever heard this JEWBOY advocating open or loosened immigration from Islamic countries. When?

And yes, Sean, they can install it and already are in Michigan and Virginia.

Sean| 5.16.11 @ 4:05PM

And why is that so? It is because we allow them to immigrate to this country. Parts of Michigan are made up of mostly Muslim immigrants, which of your candidates proposes to stop that? Why fight a war to stop Sharia when they will just let them come in legally?

Oldefarte| 5.16.11 @ 4:30PM

AND WHY IS THAT SO? Simple, because there are liberal Democrats holding public office!!!!!

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 7:13PM

Dear Sean:

West. Look him up. Doesn't like Sharia.

simon templar| 5.16.11 @ 5:19PM

Sean, that a nice thought and perhaps you might be right. The problem, however, is history is showing just the opposite. The same claims were made 50 years ago when Lebanon and Europe were free of islamic influence and control and largely christian democratic nations. Lots has changed, lebanon is under muslim domination and large segments of Europe are falling fast..think of France and Germany for starters. South America has been invaded as well..your lame stream media has been keeping you ignorant of this fact. Hundreds of thousands have poured over the mexican border, another little reality kept from you.

Sean| 5.16.11 @ 8:44PM

Simon templar I am fully aware of the situation and Europe has asked for its problems by importing its Muslims. If someone is afraid of Sharia taking over here in America then the first step would not be to fight wars in the Middle East it would be to stop immigration from Muslim countries. That step is not being taken. It is the same thing as under Bush. Why should I be scared of terrorist and take the war on terror seriously when the same guy is for wide open borders.

Bob Powell| 5.16.11 @ 3:59PM

Ron Paul is entirely wrong about the "General Welfare" clause. Liberals don't want it to mean that government has the power to do anything.

What it means is that, when privatized solutions fail, government must take action. Regarding health insurance, the adverse selection dynamic means the only way for government to provide for the "general Welfare" is to mandate universal coverage and tax for that purpose as provided by the Constitution. This is why the current health insurance law is Constitutional.

The Nobel Prize was awarded for understanding adverse selection, but that understanding has yet to penetrate "conservative" minds. Ignorance of reality is no excuse. Google "Single-Payer Health Insurance" "adverse selection" to see why the only viable economic approach is single payer.

Beyond this, applying a profit motive to health care is a perversion because the result is to produce incentives for creating scarcity and denying care to increase profits. People die because of this. Insurance corporations are the ones that deserve death panel elimination.

Oldefarte| 5.16.11 @ 4:48PM

Wrong, you socialist MORON! Liberals/Democrats use of governmental powers to force income producers/taxpayers to fund indigents' needs is criminality and these liberal D's should be the ones that are [as you say] 'DEATH PANEL ELIMINATED'. These dictatorial bastards should be forced to insteed use their own/personal assets/wallets [which mostly contain IOU's] to fund their charitable COMMUNITY ORGANIZING endeavers, and not force the rest of us to do so through the forced enslavement of taxiation. Their selfish political ideals of extemism are resulting in the ruination of our superior medical industry [and the PRIVATE health insurance industry that is neccessary to pay for same]. These liberal morons are destroying this country with their confiscation of government, regulatory extermination of our private sector economy, all so that their asinine socialistically charitable do-goodisms can be paid for. GTH and stay there, please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bob Powell| 5.16.11 @ 5:44PM

You clearly don't understand the Constitution or economics, much less "adverse selection". So-called "conservatives" have already destroyed the nation's economy with your traitorous "free trade" and unpaid-for spending.

You are deluded to think that liberals have been in charge since Reagan and "destroyed this country" (google "Hannity Insanity" "Political Compass"). Liberals don't want to exterminate the private sector, only to have government action to allow market forces work to properly balance supply and demand. For when this is necessary google "'Free Market' Fundamentalism" "systems thinking".

The "conservative" war against those who work for a wage has been very effective at driving millions into poverty. Google "The Data & Why It's Happening" to see the murderous policies that have done this.

Your desire for a "deregulated economy" is actually for a "lawless economy" in which corporations are allowed to steal from and kill millions.

You're hardly one to call someone else a moron.

simon templar| 5.16.11 @ 5:55PM

Liberalism truly is a mental disorder...one of incredible deception, projection, and illogical emotional derangement.
This takes the cake....you have surpassed the liberal idiot troll award to date..congratulations!
Below is your winning entry...thank you for making our job easier...
Liberal troll writes..."Your desire for a "deregulated economy" is actually for a "lawless economy" in which corporations are allowed to steal from and kill millions."

Odd, it could have easily and more accurately read, "your desire for a socialistic centralized command economy is actually for a 'lawless economy' in which dictatorial governments are allowed to steal from and kill millions," ...WHICH in fact, actually happened.

Bob Powell| 5.16.11 @ 6:07PM

Yes, it's actually happening now in the U.S. I describe how, but you have only pathetic assertions to the contrary with no facts or logic. Gee, so-called "conservatives" have been in charge since Reagan, so liberals *can't* be to blame.

There is "command & control" of the economy, but that is done by the right-wing Federal Reserve that carries on the war against those who work for a wage (google "There's no 'free market' for Labor" to see how).

simon templar| 5.16.11 @ 6:15PM

Sorry, but you are a waste of time..I find it more enjoyable to debate your friend, jharp. You sound not only ignorant but seriously disturbed..you are giving some of the liberals trolls out here a bad name. Did you escape from a facility?
You write,
Gee, so-called "conservatives" have been in charge since Reagan, so liberals *can't* be to blame.

That is actually a stunning piece of delusional crap like all the rest. Sorry it's bad enough to feed a liberal troll but one that is completely delusional, no thanks. Waste someone elses time.

simon templar| 5.16.11 @ 6:26PM

Woodrow Wilson was the 28th President of the United States, and a leader of the progressive movement in the early 1900's. President Woodrow Wilson, pressured by his political and financial backers, signed the act that created the federal reserve system, on December 23, 1913. Now, shut the hell up and go away you wierdo.

axbucxdu| 5.16.11 @ 11:35PM

Right on simon! The progs approved the creation of the Fed. It wasn't irony either. I mean, how else are they to fund their "unpaid-for" spending. And this guy's a Phd?

Bob Powell| 5.17.11 @ 3:05PM

Yes, it's true (from rense . com): President Woodrow Wilson, pressured by his political and financial backers, signed it on December 23, 1913.

That said, it's not so simple: From The Modern History Project Chapter 3: The Federal Reserve Act

The Presidential campaign of 1912 records one of the more interesting political upsets in American history. The incumbent, William Howard Taft, was a popular president, and the Republicans, in a period of general prosperity, were firmly in control of the government through a Republican majority in both houses. The Democratic challenger, Woodrow Wilson, Governor of New Jersey, had no national recognition, and was a stiff, austere man who excited little public support. Both parties included a monetary reform bill in their platforms: The Republicans were committed to the Aldrich Plan, which had been denounced as a Wall Street plan, and the Democrats had the Federal Reserve Act. Neither party bothered to inform the public that the bills were almost identical except for the names.

From New World Encyclopdia

Following the Panic of 1907, Congress created the National Monetary Commission to draft a plan for reform of the banking system. Senate Republican leader and financial expert Nelson Aldrich was the head of the Commission.

Wilson started with the bankers' plan that had been designed for conservative Republicans by banker Paul Warburg.

One key Congressman, Carter Glass, was given credit for the bill, and his home of Richmond, Virginia, was made a district headquarters.

From Wikipedia on Carter Glass

Both Glass and Byrd were opposed to Roosevelt's New Deal policies. Each was a strong supporter of fiscal conservatism and state's rights.

From The Modern History Project Chapter 3: The Federal Reserve Act

Paul Warburg, who for several days had maintained a small office in the Capitol building, where he directed the successful pre-Christmas campaign to pass the bill, and where Senators and Congressmen came hourly at his bidding to carry out his strategy.

The "unprecedented speed" with which the Federal Reserve Act had been passed by Congress during what became known as "the Christmas massacre" had one unforeseen aspect. Woodrow Wilson was taken unaware, as he, like many others, had been assured the bill would not come up for a vote until after Christmas. Now he refused to sign it, because he objected to the provisions for the selection of Class B. Directors.

William L. White relates in his biography of Bernard Baruch that Baruch, a principal contributor to Wilson's campaign fund, was stunned when he was informed that Wilson refused to sign the bill. He hurried to the White House and assured Wilson that this was a minor matter, which could be fixed up later through "administrative processes". The important thing was to get the Federal Reserve Act signed into law at once. With this reassurance, Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act on December 23, 1913. History proved that on that day, the Constitution ceased to be the governing covenant of the American people, and our liberties were handed over to a small group of international bankers.

From CNN money: Republicans to Fed: Forget about jobs
It's Republicans who oppose the aspect of the Fed mandate to maximize U.S. employment, wanting only to "keep prices stable". This clearly shows who's on the side of those who work for a wage.

"simon templar" and so-called "conservatives" in general, just can't stand to be challenged. Your pathetic disregard for, and perversion of, the facts is the reason for you to "shut the hell up and go away you wierdo." Also, learn to spell.

Nancy| 5.18.11 @ 2:41AM

Stop lying and we'll be more polite, freak.

Bob Powell| 5.19.11 @ 4:00PM

Seriously now. Is that be best you can do? I document what I've written. Attempt to document what you purport to be a lie, if you're capable of it, freak.

simon templar| 5.16.11 @ 6:07PM

PB writes, Liberals want, "only to have government action to allow market forces work to properly balance supply and demand." Do you guys just make it up as you go on the spot or do your craftily sit down and come up with this non-sensical shit? Really, I would like to know? Maybe you could pretend you actually know what that pile of horsecrap means and give us an equally bizarre explanation. I do not think you could find an economist, even liberal one, that would not LOL on that one. Please spare us this dribble. I say we take up a collection to send Bobby Powell to a university class on macro economics.

Bob Powell| 5.16.11 @ 6:12PM

Go find the article using google where I explain your "invisible hand" and how it fails. Attempt to respond factually. Your ignorance of economics is pathetic.

simon templar| 5.16.11 @ 6:17PM

What about Bob..you really need to read something else besides all those communist leaflets your mom and dad left in the attic from their days at Berkely.

Bob Grant| 5.16.11 @ 9:05PM

Mom's name was Stanley?

simon templar| 5.16.11 @ 5:44PM

Oh, yeah...loved the line...or should I say FALSE PREMISE..."Liberals don't want it to mean that government has the power to do anything." Really? That is odd. I seem to recall every single debate on this for the last 70 frigin years that this clause was used for justification for every single welfare and social program from social security to the creation of the EPA, the Department of Education, to the Frigin Energy Department!!!!!!

Bob Powell| 5.16.11 @ 6:21PM

Yes, really. So-called "conservative" ideology on economics, into which too many liberals have bought, has led too many to be motivated to apply band aids, rather than attack "free market" failures.

This nation has moved so far to the economic "right" that the liberal center now looks like the "left". The true "left" wants government to own and operate all businesses compared to the "right" that wants everything privatized (even including military logistics, food service, and many security functions). Clinton was well the the "right" on economics (google "Hannity Insanity" "Political Compass" to see why). There is no "left" left in America.

simon templar| 5.16.11 @ 6:28PM

blah, blah, blah..did you here someting Martha? No, it just a bit of hot air inversion.

Martha| 5.16.11 @ 8:10PM

What'd ya say, simon? Nah, I didn't hear anything, dear.

axbucxdu| 5.16.11 @ 11:26PM

They gave the One a Nobel too. Well, those libs sure do stick together.

shipley130| 5.16.11 @ 3:59PM

We should have told the Pakistani Prime Minister about the raid to get Bin Laden.

RCV| 5.16.11 @ 4:35PM

Yes, about 15 minutes after it took place.

gary siebel| 5.16.11 @ 4:10PM

Newt is in it to keep his money donation machine rolling. He has no other way to get rich.

But if you consider that the presidential race is like a two stage strip show, it's all a matter of relativity (she may be ugly, but she looks better than the other one), and who else have the Repubs got? Currently, nobody running with Newt's name recog, or with an as ambitious wife. Palin is out. She will play coy for awhile but she's out. She has the "edwards problem" -- couldn't carry her own state. Huckabee saw the writing on the wall, and it was a picture of Willie Horton. Mitt is in because he is rather like Newsom, that ex-Mayor now Lieut Gov, who desperately seeks higher office but only has a vision of how to get there, not one of what to do upon arrival. Class president types, popular and pretty. Per history, however, Mitt, as the also ran in the previous one, has the advantage for the 2012 primaries. Plus, he loves to cite his executive experience, of which Newt has none.

Of course, some other Tea Party type may fracture the usual Repub formula; but it's really just a question of who will be the sacrificial lamb who will hopefully do well enough to be in good position for 2016.

However, I concur that Newt is unelectable to prez.

Interesting that those who favor legalization of any drug are forced onto denial of ever having used said drugs, despite statistical evidence that may suggest the contrary. Soon, if not already, the number of people who have never smoked the demon weed will be the minority in America. It is a simple function of demographics, and youth.

martin j smith| 5.16.11 @ 4:40PM

What I do not want is another John McC --a guy who did not want to win. A guy who ran a poor campaign. he refused to confront Obama on most of Obama's policies not to mention Obama's ideology and his associaitions. Sorry, John McC was a fraud and just as Obama should never have been the President, John McC should never have been the nominee either.
We want a candidate who will talk to the voters who are adults, and give an honest account of our economy. I know that is asking too much but I am tired of the phoney's many of whom want to be President.

Carole Aus| 5.16.11 @ 5:22PM

Ron Paul was merely saying there was a better way. How would you like it if a Pakistani special force surreptitiously entered the U.S. and assassinated someone? No matter how many deliberately "misunderstand" Ron Paul, he is my candidate.

Dave| 5.16.11 @ 8:55PM

No moron, there was no better way. The only way is to hunt the enemy down and put a bullet in his head - the same thing we should do to all enemies of the Judeo - Christian ethic.

simon templar| 5.16.11 @ 5:36PM

BP. Let us pretend that this is what the general welfare clause means and just forget the thousands of letters, writings, and documents of our founding fathers regarding the federal governments role in wealth distribution and social welfare. How is it working out? Lets see, hmm...twentieth century..explosion and creation of the welfare state programs (war on poverty), social security, medicare, medicaid, etc. These programs solvent? Was the money spent wisely? What is the national debt right now? Where is that social security money we set aside in the last 50 years? Much fraud and waste over the last 70 years? Gee, I wonder, how much on each dollar of my taxes actually went into the hands of these poor people, the needy, grandma and grandpa? Answer? It has been a frigin DISASTER! Just as our founding fathers WARNED us! Now, what do you think might be the possible solution...hmm...what was that thing the founders talked about? Fed...feder...oh..yeah..federalism. Ever heard of it? Ya think maybe each state and the local people of that state might be better at dealing with these problems?

Bob Powell| 5.19.11 @ 3:56PM

simon templar: The problem is that so many "conservative" government policies have driven people into poverty - google "The Data & Why It's Happening" to see them. These resulted in major "redistribution" (maldistribution) of wealth from the middle class and poor to the wealthy. See the fifth graph showing compensation has been flat since Reagan while productivity increased steadily. A major reason for shortfalls in Medicare and that the SS trust fund is not as large as it could be is that wages have stagnated thanks to the "conservative" policies listed at the google location above; otherwise contributions would have been much greater. To make it worse, inflation has been much, much higher that what's officially reported; see the graph in the section on "US Unemployment Rate - Official vs. Actual" on the page found by googling "Jobs & 'Trade' Data Update Jun10". When efforts are made to mitigate these policies, hypocritical and ignorant "conservatives" complain. It's "conservative" policies that have been THE "frigin DISASTER".

Social security is not a problem except for the fact that the money has been spent for general expenses ... Reagan spent it right after he raised payroll taxes to offset his tax cuts for the wealthy. His reason for increasing payroll taxes was for baby boomers to not only pay for current retirees, but also for themselves. Now "conservative" liars say the money isn't really there -- to steal it --- "it's only IOUs" they say. Reagan was a major fraud.

Then there was "conservative" Bush's unpaid-for spending on invasions & occupations of Iraq & Afghanistan (>>$1 trillion), tax cuts primarily for the wealthy ($1.8 trillion), Medicare Part D with no-competition prescription drug industry gifts (~$1 trillion), and the $700B TARP bank bailout. All in all that's about $4.5 Trillion of spending & tax cuts, all on borrowed money. And the interest on that debt is a gift that keeps on adding to the debt. Spending on economic stimulus has been a minor factor (7%) according to the Congressional Budget Office. Google "Who's responsible for fiscal debt?"

So-called "conservative" policies have perpetrated the fraud.

Frank Badomi| 5.16.11 @ 6:12PM

"If you think the 7% greater preference for Democrats (or less preference for Republicans) by women compared to men was a problem, you should see what it would be if Gingrich were the candidate."

Here we have a group of voters who "reason" their way to vote in the majority for Democrats since universal suffrage. The country owes them thanks for Prohibition and the consequent empowerment of La Cosa Nostra. Thanks are also appropriate for the Left/Socialist movement of the federal government for the last century, the better that government can play provider and spouse so that the other complementary group of Americans is no longer needed. And although for tens of thousands of years their fundamental nature was to give life, since the delivery at their demand of Roe v Wade, more young Americans are killed each year than the aggregate KIA of all the wars of the blood drenched 20th Century.

And as for Newt's "problems" with this group, his fondness for this group is surely no more exaggerated than the late Lion of the Senate, the swimmer at Chappaquidick. And that group in his home state never held that against him, sending him back to the Senate, every six years, over and over.

So maybe Ross can reconsider his "reasoning" in the matter of the voting "logic" of this group.

Mike Bills| 5.16.11 @ 6:12PM

Regarding Ron Paul:
We on the right and especially Mr. Kaminsky must do a much better job attacking our republican candidates than simply to say his answer was stupid and dangerous and fail to give the substantive reason relating to foreign policy why that is the case. To say one foreign policy is lunacy because he will be beaten mercilessly with it in every debate, to me seem, well loony and that type of attack with no substantive argument to support it is frankly something we would expect from the left. Let us debate our foreign policy because I believe I could make a strong substantive argument that it is our current policy that is lunacy. I hope that does not make me “unfit” to vote.

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 7:15PM

Paul does not realize that sometimes the best DEFENSE is a good OFFENSE. He also is marshmallow soft on Sharia.

His military experience was as an MD.

victor| 5.17.11 @ 3:06AM

From a Paulist website:
"Paul served in the United States Air Force as a flight surgeon for several years (1963-1965). While in the air force, Paul reached the rank of Captain. Directly after his service in the air force, Paul worked again as a flight surgeon for the United States Air National Guard (1965-1968)."

No one seems to know, or at least they are not telling, where he actually served.

Maybe some of the Paulitos can tell us, eh?

RCV| 5.17.11 @ 6:12PM

Seriously, who cares where he served? His judgment on foreign policy and numerous other matters is so utterly disqualifying that even if he were Audie Murphy, his war record wouldn't make him any more viable as a candidate.

Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus| 5.18.11 @ 11:38AM

I don't bother with silly being the resident worthless lawyer schmuck on lecturing about republican 'colation' and 'pendullum' movement resulting in an America smack dab in the middle of the political road where fifty three million abortions is just right matters.

RCV| 5.18.11 @ 3:49PM

Zzzzzzzz.....

Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus| 5.19.11 @ 4:12PM

I don't bother with silly reader colations pondering whether my ennui over my pathetic unintelligence and despicable dishonesty is sanctimonious or authentic on whether the pendullum of reader colation ponderings has shifted toward sanctimonious or authentic or just long run middle stability matters.

TycheSD| 5.16.11 @ 6:15PM

Mr. Kaminsky, I was almost ready to give some credence to your assessments concerning the electoral prospects of Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich. But then I saw that you work as a Fellow at the Heartland Institute and have been a consistent climate change denier. Maybe someone could be totally right on one policy issue and totally wrong on another, but when it comes to global warming, this doesn't hold. Climate change deniers are far more "lunatic" than Ron Paul will ever be.

Ron Paul's advocacy of a U.S. military policy of non-intervention seems a far saner approach than the interventionist military policy we've been practicing as a country for a very long time - a policy that has helped drive this nation to the verge of bankruptcy.

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 7:16PM

I, too, am a climate change denier. Crap science based on fradulent obsevations.

Ross Kaminsky| 5.16.11 @ 9:38PM

Tyche,

As far as climate change goes, or to be more specific man-made climate change, the facts are far more on my side than on yours.

Man-made climate change is a hoax perpetrated by anti-capitalists and the environmental industry who will soon move on to their next gigantic scare tactics, likely to be something about species extinction or some junk like that.

TycheSD| 5.17.11 @ 10:01PM

No, facts are not on your side. In fact, most qualified scientists would see you as a crank.

Nancy| 5.18.11 @ 2:45AM

Qualified for what? Scientists being corrupted by government funds and lying about Globaloney Warming in order to greedily steal more? BTW--you lost, crank.

Thom| 5.16.11 @ 9:51PM

The theory of Global warming and Peak Oil have a lot in common, the latter takes about 10 seconds to destroy using one straw and then two…… the former takes a bit longer and some solid 9th grade Earth Science. You start with 97% of the earth’s heat comes from the Sun plus or minus enough to vary our global temperatures measurably over hundred year solar cycles , our climate and global mean temperature has varied a great deal over billions of years with the current mean being closer to the low end than even the average between the high and low, the poles only having ice for 20% of this time, having no reliable global temperature data before global satellites were launched in the 1970s and what accurate trend data we have covering thousands of years says consistently that warming precedes CO2 level increases and again using 9th grade Earth Science we know why CO2 levels rise after temperatures rise…..

Red Phillips| 5.16.11 @ 6:26PM

400 comments! I can't possibly read all of them so sorry if this has been said.

Mr. Kaminsky is playing dumb for the sake of attempting to score points against Ron Paul. Paul didn't say anything different on Sunday than he hadn't said in his previous statement so spare me the feigned shock and outrage.

Pakistan is a sovereign nation and obstensively an ally. Of course we should have asked their permission before conducting a raid into their country. Does Canada or Mexico or whoever get to perform raids into America without asking our permission first? If they did the same people bleating about Paul would be outraged at such a breach of our sovereignty as well they should be. Either the rules apply both ways or they don't apply at all.

And spare me the act as if Ron Paul's foreign policy views are not already well know and a (probably the) major reason people who love him love him and people who hate him hate him. He will do no worse or no better in Iowa and SC than he would have done before this statement. In fact, had he said he approved of a raid into a sovereign nation without their permission he would have taken grief from his non-interventionist supporters.

Thom| 5.16.11 @ 7:54PM

Red, just because Pak Pos say we didn't include them in the loop doesn't make it so........ Any objective look at a map of AF and Pak would cast a very large shadow of doubt on a claim the Paks weren't invovled. The mission distance was over a thousand miles for starters..... which would be over 8 hours in a BlackHawk assuming you had a place to refuel the standard bird 5 times..... A lot unseen here.... We are good but given the distances involved and risks associated with this type of mission it is beyond the pale to hold onto the belief that we did this alone.....for very long.

Red Phillips| 5.16.11 @ 10:30PM

Thom, obviously Ron Paul has to go on what Pakistan officially says. Even if what you say is correct, and it very well could be, it is just speculation.

Dave| 5.16.11 @ 9:26PM

Sure we should have asked permission, so the Pak-a-terrorist government could have warned Osama.

Red Phillips| 5.16.11 @ 10:32PM

So Dave, if the Mexican military conducted a raid in Dallas without our permission, you would be OK with that I guess. Again, either the rules apply to all or they apply to none.

Nancy| 5.18.11 @ 2:47AM

If we had slaughtered 3000 of their innocent citizens they'd have a point.

Red Phillips| 5.18.11 @ 3:14PM

Nancy, if "we" had slaughter 3000 innocent Mexican citizens then I suspect they would declare war on us, not just conduct a raid. Your situation is not analogous. An analogous situation would be if Mexico suspected a foreigner citizen who was accused of killing 3000 of their citizens was within the US. In that case, you bet I would expect them to ask our permission and/or assistance with a raid inside our sovereign borders.

Seattle Plumber| 9.18.11 @ 12:30PM

some people just dont get it

Jonathon| 5.16.11 @ 6:34PM

Wow, the real nutcases are the majority of people who posted on here and the writer of this article. Bombing pakistan and killing civilians is what we've been doing for 2+years now, it is absolutely causing a rift within the country. We have CIA all over their own country(as evidenced by the recent CIA operative caught and then let go for being involved in the murder of 3 pakistanis). What is it about what Ron Paul said that makes him sound like a "nut case" or "unfit to be president'.

The real nutcases are the ones that refuse to acknowledge that bombing villages is a complete act of evil and does no good to anyone, ever.

Ross Kaminsky| 5.16.11 @ 9:39PM

Please tell me where I (the author of the article) or other comments have (at least before Occam below) made this about "bombing Pakistan." Paul's gigantic error was in saying and maintaining that we should have told the Pakistanis in advance about the raid.

Dave| 5.16.11 @ 9:52PM

Ross,

Good article, Ron Paul and Newt would give us the same result result as Dole and McCain. And both are part of the problem, any $ spent on them is a $ for Obama.

Red Phillips| 5.16.11 @ 10:38PM

I'll ask you the same thing I asked Dave above. So if the Mexican military conducted a raid in Dallas without our permission, you would be OK with that I guess? Either the rules apply to all or they apply to none.

Of course we should have asked Pakistan's permission first. They are a sovereign nation. We would not tolerate such a violation of our sovereignty nor should we.

Nancy| 5.18.11 @ 2:48AM

They shouldn't have harbored Bin Laden.

CalMark| 5.18.11 @ 3:29AM

Straw man!

Name one American or American ally who declared war on Mexico, then murdered over 3,000 Mexicans, destroyed two of their largest buildings and badly damaged their defense ministry, and caused untold billions in damage?

Nobody. Furthermore, Pakistan is supposedly our ally, and was harboring this guy. He was a stone's throw from Pakistan's West Point, and they didn't know where he was?

Closer to home, "Red" (an accurate name if ever I saw one): when do liberals ever ask permission to pry into people's personal records, sealed by law or judicial decree? Liberals just "out" records of innocent people to smear them.

So just shut up.

Red Phillips| 5.18.11 @ 3:06PM

CalMark, you obviously aren't familiar with my comments here at AmSpec if you think I am a liberal. I am a paleoconservative non-interventionist. Ask Occam, Margie, Jim Antle, etc. if you don't believe me. Try some non-dichotomous thinking for once. You might like it. You might have been able to figure this out if you had clicked on my name which takes you to a website called ConservativeTimes.

And Red is a reference to my hair color, not my politics.

San Francisco Injury Lawyer| 9.13.11 @ 8:00PM

They shouldn't have harbored Bin Laden if they didn't want this to happen.

San Francisco Injury Lawyer| 9.13.11 @ 8:00PM

They shouldn't have harbored Bin Laden if they didn't want this to happen.

Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 7:18PM

Actually, bombing villages and cities won World war II for us. And I don't see much warlike activity out of either Germany or Japan, 66 years later.

"War is Cruelty." WT Sherman.

Dave| 5.16.11 @ 9:01PM

Occams, as always you are correct. Please explain the world and bad guys to my friend Carole above!

Thom| 5.16.11 @ 7:31PM

Gee, it used to take 30 piece of silver to get men to sell their souls and abandon every sense of principled philosophy….

Clearly the current crop of RINOs doesn’t understand the difference between the problem of health care cost and all the symptoms surrounding that cost. First, if you don’t understand the core problem you can’t solve anything. I worked in “health care” and got an eye full of the bureaucratic cost mandated by “government” that makes any free market competition impossible to implement. No competition equals what we have in ever rising cost of public and taxpayer subsidized education which are already subsided by the whole pool of taxpayers and cost continue to out run inflation by more than Health Care….. Why is that?

If you can’t define the problem you can’t discuss a solution. Health Care insurance is not a real insurance policy nor does it work like one. My Health Care plan cost is nothing compared to what the UAW gets essentially for free. My life to date (adult years) Health Care cost as covered by my Health Care plans (pre-paid medical) in 2010 dollars is around $15,000. My out of pocket expense is around $3,000 - $4,000 on top of that. That covers 38 years of premiums paid to “insurers”. My life to date insurance premiums in 2010 dollars would be about $175,000. That money invested over 38 years would be worth a couple million at market rates (11%).
The above math works for anyone. Most people will not need a couple million in health care cost in their life time and most of the expense of health care comes later in life when this kind of investment amount would be there just like a retirement saving account most are familiar with. Same math, same solution. Imagine what my 401K and other investments would be worth today if I hadn’t had to pay all that money into pre-paid medical…….?

What most supporters of government run entitlements like Health Care don’t want to discuss are individual’s responsibility to pay for what they want and need. Such people are all for individual mandates into prepaid medical to subsidize others who won’t ever pay even a fraction of their medical cost (like Medicaid recipients). Somebody has to pay for the services unless you just want to repeal the 14th amendment for medical professionals and mandate people become medical professionals on top of that. Slavery by any other name is still slavery. Only the price of the slave varies.

The underlying economic short circuit is easy to see if you have even a basic understanding of economics but nearly impossible to see if all you are interested in is treating the symptoms of high health care cost and not addressing the underlying cost driver, government mandated subsidy (or cost shifting from those that pay to those that get the benefit of that subsidy). For most premium paying Americans health care cost has been nearly “free” because most of the cost has been hidden in their employer side of the balance sheet or completely free for Medicaid and virtually free for Medicare recipients. Anything perceived as “free” will be abused by its benefactors. Both Public and taxpayer subsidized higher education suffers the same subsidize cost skewing. I couldn’t afford the University I graduated from 23 years ago due to this.

The underlying cost driver here, via government mandates, etc is this concept that someone is entitled to someone else’s money. As long as this mechanism is in place and individual responsibility to pay for what you want or need is someone else’s responsibility cost will be skewed away from what the market place can support and continue to escalate out control until the bulk of the population cannot afford to support all the free loaders. That’s kind of where we are now…..and not just pre-paid medical.

Contrary to the thoughts of many of the RINOs, the problem isn’t that everyone doesn’t have pre-paid medical coverage or pays into these plans, the problem is that far too many people get a free ride at someone else’s expense with or without prepaid medical. Consequentially more and more people who have prepaid medical see it as an “entitlement” rather than insurance. Medical insurance structured as any good insurance plan would be affordable for the majority of Americans over most of their life. Prepaid medical on the other hand is just someone else’s money providing a benefit far beyond what the market will support for most. Prepaid medical and the Progressive Income tax system share a lot in common. Both shift the true cost of something onto a smaller and smaller pool of people for a vote on Election Day.

There is nothing inherent in government control over health care services and cost that will ultimately bring down health care cost. At the very best, cost will remain high and services will fall as fewer people are willing to undergo a form of slavery. The most likely outcome is what we already see, increasing cost and falling services as more sloths get “free” prepaid medical…..

The problem of Health care cost is easy to demonstrate but some people just don’t want to give up someone else’s money in their lives. A properly constructed free market (to the extent possible) will provide many service and price points just as it does with other goods and services. I don’t need a Lexus 460 but I sure would wish that “government” provide me one via someone else money…….

Dave| 5.16.11 @ 9:18PM

Thom, great post. The problem is the voting parasites are more than 50 % of the voting producers. Game over. And I believe that Mr. de Tocqueville predicted this 200 years ago.

Thom| 5.16.11 @ 9:28PM

That's why I don't offer "solutions" like pols do that have no chance of working in the short term and even less chance in the long term and we don't have the time or the money to make the shift back to individual responsibility without significant downsides and consequences to the Republic.... If I live another 20 years I'll probablly see the down fall of this "republican" form of government. What will follow will be ugly and violent.

John II| 5.16.11 @ 11:37PM

Emeritus Professor Gingrich has tried desperately in the past 24 hours to say that he didn't say what he said. He suggests that Washington needs to listen to what the PEOPLE have to say. My take is that the Emeritus Professor doesn't regard folks like Thom (and me) as PEOPLE.

May the Emeritus Professor's passing from the American political scene be quiet and peaceful. The rest of us have to live with the consequences of his forked tongue.

Freddy G| 5.16.11 @ 8:38PM

I think Newt Gingrich has a screw loose and his wife is Nurse Ratched.

bluecollarbytes| 5.16.11 @ 9:04PM

I think the Newt is looking for a job in Obama's second term, maybe even running as veep. But if not, he should consider it.

Newt has removed the last barriers to full-throated opposition to his hoped-for presidency gig. Staking out the political ground between Obama and Republicans (leaving conservatism in the dust) shows what Newt evidently really thinks of tea partiers. It shows how out of touch he is with the real folks who defeated Obama&Co; last Nov.

Time to let Newt Gingrinch simply wither on the vine.
___
Obama is an 'ideas man' come to think of it.

Dee See| 5.16.11 @ 10:51PM

IF Gingrich isn't himself a capstone creep,
he might as well be.

Just get a load of his record during the key
decade of RED China eco-TREASON, or
his track record on the border disaster,
or with EUGENICS and 'transhumanism',
or even way back pushing the sleazy 'seamless
integration with the soviet system' rap
(Toffler 'Third Wave' pusher).

AS the long pre-mediated police state surveillance
grid is dropped over ---the American people,
DO WAKE UP.

And if you think we're exaggerating about
the Globalist' 'EUGENICS friendly' RED
China op ---DO check this out on youtube:

'Fabian Socialists Win'

You'll see a leaked video from Australia
of the PM addressing the RED Chinese
regime in Chinese and detailing the sellout
of his country, its Globalist connection,
legacy and success.

---------REALLY! CHECK IT OUT!

HUAC meets NUREMBERG 2012.

----------------------CAN'T WAIT!

Jasgre| 5.17.11 @ 12:07AM

Your argument against individual mandates makes no sense. Newsflash, you are going to have to pay for part of other peoples health care whether you like it or not. That battle was lost a long time ago when laws were passed to force hospitals to give care to all people, whether they can pay for it or not.

The mandate is not about making anyone pay for anyone else's health care. To the contrary, it does the exact opposite. It makes those people who are able to pay for their own insurance do it, so those who get public assistance to pay for their insurance are the truly needy.

This is a serious debate, and I am getting tired of all the non-serious demagoguery of this issue. Something is not automatically evil because Barak Obama supports it.

The battle over whether the government is going to make sure everyone has health care has been lost. The current battle is over how we are going to pay for it. There are three main options we have: (1) Government is the single payer of all health care (the preferred plan of Obama and Canada ... and a completely bad idea), (2) Government reimburses hospitals for the free care they give out due to federal and state mandates on health care providers (a terrible idea that drives up costs), and (3) requiring everyone to pay for their own health care, assisting where absolutely necessary.

Now, ask your self which plan is the most conservative. And if you don't like any of them, come up with a better plan. And when you do, share it with us all, because we would like to know about it.

Roman Melnyk| 5.17.11 @ 12:07AM

I am glad he shot himself in the foot early, before he got foot in mouth disease...what a disaster, and he is a conservative?

Pastor emeritus Nathan Bickel| 5.17.11 @ 2:27AM

My first thought when I heard this news, confirmed for me that Gingrich had RHINO leanings. I have also been disappointed that Gingrich has been a proponent of green religion. [Believing in man-made, global warming]

Gingrich is a RHINO re-tread. He will be as useless to conservatism and conservative / patriot Americans, as Romney. Here, linked below, is more of the same disgust, with Gingrich:

"Newt Gingrich: conservative no more:"
http://www.conservativenewsand.....e-no-more/

credibility gap| 5.17.11 @ 3:50AM

When we legalize all drugs and strip down Medicare, it will all work out. Old folks will die sooner and we can turn all the nursing homes into rehab centers for all the new "victims" who will begin "experimenting with recreational drugs" because it is legal now.

Experimenting is USING and it will come to mean "I stay stoned all of my spare time." for those who wish to experiment.

Will it be the end of the world as we know it? No, there will still be enough sober worker bees to take care of the stoned drones.

Legalizing something means to some people, it is OK now - go do it. If you don't think there will be an increase in using, you are nuts.

We used to have a law against loitering. Now we can't walk down the street in SF without stumbling over the "homeless" The homeless are also toiletless and soap and waterless . But few of them are drug-less! We once had a law against disturbing the peace. The drugged up homeless can disturb your peace plenty by cursing you and threatening if you don't give them money. If they take up residence in the doorway of your place of business you may as well close shop and move to Montana.

When we legalize drugs, how is it going to work? Will we be still be punishing tobacco smokers who cannot light up in a restaurant or bar, while a person at the next table can do a line of cocaine on his bread and butter plate if he desires?

It is not just the homeless addicts who are a drag on society. I suppose there is not a business anywhere of any size that does not have an Employees' Assistance Program, where they can go and waste half a day, whining about their addiction and how it is ruining their life - - and then the company sends them off (at company expense) to Hazeldon or some other drying out/cleaning up place, so they can do it again this time next year.
Yeah, bring on that legalization! Companies will have to increase the workforce in their EAP programs, and hire more temps to fill the slots while other employes are off getting clean and sober....

On the other hand,maybe there is a bright side. Maybe businesses can revise their employment contracts, stating there is no such condition as "addiction". It is CHOICE. And a firing offense.

You guessed it. I worked in the Medical Department of a large airline and have observed these losers at close range. I know the cost of keeping them on the payroll.Make it legal and give them another crutch, another excuse. My opinions are not confined to illegal drugs, but include alcohol abuse. A drunk is a drunk. If he wishes to ruin his marriage, jeopardize his job, issue a warning and fire him when he ignores it.

matt| 5.17.11 @ 10:13AM

So founding principles are o.k. when it comes to domestic policy, but we should throw those principles in trash when it comes to foreign policy?

Petes sake| 5.17.11 @ 10:41AM

Lay off Newt. The writer did no favor to conservatives with this attack. Newt wanted to garner public support for the Ryan plan and he is NOT in favor of a premium mandate.

We have a very poor string of candidates, and Newt is one of the few with any promise at all.
Thanks for nothing.

RCV| 5.17.11 @ 6:09PM

Seriously, Gingrich has NO promise at all, neither in the GOP primaries nor in the general election. He is not exactly a fresh face, and one that has not worn well over the years.

Nancy| 5.18.11 @ 2:50AM

Thank Newt for his meltdown, doofus.

lilyhandbags| 5.18.11 @ 12:23AM

The good thing of the internet is that i usually come across with unrelated to my interests posts but at the same time interesting.

Owen Kinnan| 5.18.11 @ 11:49AM

This just underscores that fact that Newt is part of the problem, not the solution. Sen. Tom Coburn's book, "Breach of Trust," describes how Newt torpedoed the Conservative movement in the House to reduce spending which was part of the "Contract with America" back in the 90s. As of right now, there really is no true Conservative candidate. We can only hope that someone will step forward who is a true Conservative such as Chris Christie. The current Republican "field" is a joke.

N egative Comment| 5.18.11 @ 11:36PM

Gnewt is broken and should be thrown away like you a toy that no longer provides a child any fun.

Scarpe Nike Italia| 8.9.11 @ 5:13AM

is good

Nike Vendita scarpe| 8.10.11 @ 12:01AM

is good