-
Despite the WaPost, Benghazi Is a Major Scandal
May 21, 2013 | 46 comments
-
Putting Heritage in DeMint Condition
May 10, 2013 | 57 comments
-
Military Might, Out of the Wilderness
May 8, 2013 | 115 comments
-
Not Wanting to Write About Nothing Good
April 30, 2013 | 126 comments
-
Perez Abomination Grows
April 23, 2013 | 81 comments
Streetcar Line
Paul Ryan’s Bipartisan Selling Points
Democrats aplenty have endorsed Medicare grants.
While the initial introduction of Rep. Paul Ryan as Mitt Romney’s running mate was a boffo success, one theme that didn’t get enough emphasis from the two principals was the bipartisan provenance of Ryan’s Medicare proposal that is already the target of such fierce Democratic assault. The Romney campaign ought to, first, explicitly adopt the specific plan Ryan crafted with Democratic U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon as its official proposal, and, second, use Medicare Part D as a comparative selling point in marketing the plan to seniors.
First, from a political standpoint, even if most voters don’t know who Wyden is, the Romney campaign ought to make sure everybody knows he is a mainstream/liberal Democrat — and it should consistently call the campaign’s proposal the “Romney-Ryan-Wyden Plan.” While Democrats can still attack the proposal as a bad idea, there is no way they can get away with painting it as a mean-spirited, dangerous plan if a mainstream/liberal Democrat (ADA rating 95%, SEIU rating 91%) is its co-author.
Romney-Ryan-Wyden makes no changes to Medicare for anyone currently age 55 or over, and allows those younger than 55 to remain in the traditional Medicare system if they so desire. For others under 55, the federal government would provide what is known as “premium support,” meaning a specified grant for purchasing health insurance that would cover all monthly premiums for whatever private insurance plan in the region is the second-lowest bid offered, assuming it includes insurance for the entirety of a federally guaranteed minimum-coverage package. (Anything more expensive, purely voluntary, would be paid out of pocket.)
By the way, the campaign ought to find a new name for the boring, bureaucratese-sounding “premium support” — perhaps “Personal Health Grants,” or columnist Deroy Murdock’s plain but crystal-clear suggestion of “Insurance Assistance.” (Alternatively, Murdock said in a phone conversation, perhaps they could call them “Kemp Grants” in honor of Ryan’s late, beloved mentor — thus echoing the popular “Pell Grants” for student aid.)
One way or another, marketing is important.
Anyway, Wyden is only the last in a long line of Democrats who have endorsed versions of Personal Health Grants. Most famously, in 1997 and 1998 the Bill Clinton-created National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare designed a plan built around premium support. Not only did all eight commission Republicans endorse the plan, but so did two of the nine Democrats — then-Sens. Bob Kerrey of Nebraska and John Breaux of Louisiana. Several others, including Clinton economist Laura D’Andrea Tyson, either explicitly endorsed (in Tyson’s case) or all but endorsed premium support in concept but decided against the overall plan for other reasons — some of which were political, as Clinton himself had been expected to embrace the full report before he found himself suddenly needing liberal support to survive the Lewinsky scandal, and thus pulled the plug on his own expected embrace of the recommendations. (It is telling that Clinton did not list premium support as a reason for opposing the plan — because, presumably, he agreed with the concept.) In the end, Clinton several months later proposed a plan remarkably similar to (but awfully more bureaucratic than) the Ryan-Wyden plan.
Jump forward now to 2003. For good reason, conservatives were hardly happy with the Medicare Part D prescription drug bill, but one of its central features was, precisely, premium support for purchase of prescription drug coverage. If the idea was so radical, why did Democratic senators Max Baucus, John Breaux, Tom Carper, Kent Conrad, Tom Dorgan, Dianne Feinstein, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, Zell Miller, Ben Nelson, and Ron Wyden vote for it?
While the program wasn’t “paid for” with either new revenues or other savings, and while it was not accompanied by the originally envisioned reforms for the Medicare system as a whole (rather than just for medicines), the premium support part of it has worked like a charm. (For that matter, so did the very similar health savings accounts included in the bill.) Just last week, the Department of Health and Human Services released its projections for the average premiums for 2013, which will stay almost the exact same for the third consecutive year at about $30 per month — an astonishing 50 percent under original estimates! And the cost to the taxpayer has come in at 43 percent below projections as well. Meanwhile, 88 percent of seniors are happy with their coverage, and 95 percent say it works well.
Paul Ryan should not have supported Part D, but — like fellow reformer Rick Santorum — he was so encouraged by the premium support aspect and the health savings accounts that he did indeed vote for it. The Romney campaign ought to make use of this fact in targeted advertising or mailings to seniors. After all, how could a guy like Ryan really be believably unconcerned about using Medicare to provide for seniors if he voted for the prescription drug program that they are so happy with?
Now jump forward to 2010. Ryan joined with another prominent and highly respected former Clinton economist, Alice Rivlin, to propose, yes, another plan whose central feature would be what should now be called Personal Health Grants or Kemp Grants. The liberal Washington Post editorial page in 2011 reiterated its own openness to Personal Health Grants (“hardly beyond the pale”) while describing Democratic attacks on the idea as “President Obama… reclaim[ing] the low ground,” and as “false, inflammatory” in a way that “threatens to set things back.” And the Romney campaign should make great hay of PolitiFact calling attacks on Ryan’s Medicare plans as the “Lie of the Year” in 2011.
In truth, honest liberals from academia, journalism, think tanks, and political offices alike have consistently supported versions of Personal Health Grants for a decade and a half. There is nothing radical about the idea. Similarly, Ryan’s suggestions for Medicaid are based directly on the successes of welfare reform in 1996 — signed and claimed credit for thereafter by Clinton. Ryan’s proposals for domestic discretionary spending also are perfectly in line with what was envisioned in Clinton’s second-term budgets (adjusted for inflation). Ryan’s ideas aren’t anywhere near the outer edges of mainstream thought; they aren’t penurious, but merely sober. They protect current seniors while reassuring younger Americans that Medicare really will be saved for them when they retire. And they also make seniors comfortable that their own grandchildren won’t be left wanting — an argument that almost certainly has more resonance than the political chattering classes are apt to credit.
The Romney-Ryan-Wyden plan should be seen by not a single soul as threatening; instead, if marketed well, it should be a net political plus. Personal Health Grants provided by some of the same people who gave prescription drug coverage to seniors should be an idea not from which the campaign should run, but on which it should proudly stand.
About the Author
Quin Hillyer is a senior editor of The American Spectator and a senior fellow at the Center for Individual Freedom. Follow him on Twitter @QuinHillyer.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (36) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Quin Hillyer
More Articles From Streetcar Line
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/08/14/paul-ryans-bipartisan-selling
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Downton’s Class System — and Ours
- The Continuing Crisis
- Her Unrequited Letter
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Aristocat| 8.14.12 @ 6:30AM
Paul Ryan's Medicare plan is kind of screwy. It doesn't happen until 2022, so why are we talking about it now? It just gives Democrats something to gripe about to change the subject away from Obama's massive failures...
If Ryan's plan is so great, why wait 10 years to start it? What are Romney and Ryan going to do in 2013? That's the question...Go after Obamacare & the $Trillions to be saved by killing it...Go after the $100s of Billions of waste, fraud and duplication as show by Greta On the Record...Go after GSA & all other bureaucracies....Leave Medicare and Social Security alone...Dummies can say, "I'm voting for Obama, at least he'll leave my Medicare and Social Security alone."
TLP| 8.14.12 @ 10:15AM
I am unfamiliar with the "Logic" being put forth by Mr. Clownface - aka - Hillyar.
The Democrats "should like" a lot of Ryan's Plan, because they were Democrat Ideas?
I recall a Vote on a motion for The Use Of Force against Saddam Hussein.
TWICE!
Once, while at work, and a second time to fool the more Easily Fooled among us, that they were Tough Guys too, and that they were Strong on Defence too, and that they Loved America, our Armed Forces, and The Pledge of Allegience too.
And, we all know how that turned out.
They have Zero Honour, No Self Respect, they cannot tell the Truth, and they would Slit their Mother's Throat, and then have Sex with Her, if it meant getting the Matricide/Necrophilia Vote.
The Immaturity and Cluelessness of Mr. Clownface, borders on the Idiotic, sometimes.
Not all the times.
Just when he's writing.
Von Mises Jr| 8.14.12 @ 11:30AM
Aristocrap, if your attic is on fire, you don't replace the rug and buy new shades. Medicare is at least functioning in the short-term while Medicaid patients are increasingly unable to get medical care and ObamaCare is going to destroy the country.
Sixty-percent (60%) of doctors in New Jersey just responded that they will not take the additional Medicaid patients that would qualify under ObamaCare and are contemplating ending care for existing Medicaid insured. So the geniuses in DC forgot to factor in if any doctors would participate in their scheme.
If ObamaCare is not aborted, our private health sector will die. The idea of ObamaCare is to make the government the only source for health insurance, so no matter how much it sucks; you are stuck with the equivalent of the DMV for your medical care.
The Ryan Plan should be explained exactly as it is:
- If you are 55 or older, you keep what you have (unlike ObamaCare) under Medicare
- If you are 54 or younger, Medicare will be insolvent in 2023 or after when you turn 65. So your choice is to reform the system or have no system.
vtwin| 8.14.12 @ 12:59PM
Under Ryan’s plan; if you are 54 or younger you continue to pay into Medicare to pay for the Medicare benefits for those over 55 but when those under 54 or younger reach retirement they will be given “financial support ... to purchase private health insurance coverage” however there is no provision under Ryan’s plan that would insure this “financial support” would be adequate to pay for this “private health insurance coverage” nor is any there provision under Ryan’s plan requiring the “private health insurance” industry to provide “private health insurance coverage” to ALL of these future retirees that have been paying for the Medicare benefits for those over 55. Under Ryan's plan you could find yourself without heathcare at the time in your life when most people need healthcare the most, when you are old.
Von Mises Jr| 8.14.12 @ 1:47PM
Under Obama's Medicare plan you are guaranteed that Medicare won't be there when you turn 65 if you are 54 or younger.
Instead you will have DMV style health exchanges that are virtually guaranteed to give you that PILL that Obama told the woman her mother should get instead of a pacemaker.
Try to concentrate and think. I know it is hard.
vtwin| 8.14.12 @ 2:19PM
When confronted with the failings in Ryan’s plans for Medicare you respond by … attacking Obama's Medicare plan? Congress will do what Congress has done since the inception of Medicare, Congress with fund it even if Congress has to raise taxes.
Not used to having your bullsh*t challenged are you?
Drunken Sailor| 8.14.12 @ 3:02PM
Since Ryan's plan will pay for the option the benificiary chooses from the pre-selected health care plans I fail to see how it would not be paid for. Afterall, it actually gives the recipient the exact same plan that our Congressmen have.
What a novel idea, Congress and the public have the same health care option. Not at all like Obamacare now is it.
George S| 8.14.12 @ 4:52PM
Obama's Medicare plan? Didn't he double count 700 billion out of Medicare to bring in ObamaCare under a trillion over 10 years? Please explain how both Medicare AND ObamaCare are funded over the next 10 years? Please include in your answer why you disagree with the Medicare Trustees that the program will be broke by then, APART from the 700 billion reduction.
And please be consistent with your talking points: a reduction in future spending increases is... A CUT don't forget.
And please be consistent with reality: the rich earn 800 billion or so every year while the middle class to the wealthy (50k to 1 million) earn 5.6 trillion (IRS 2009 tax data). How can the rich fund all this when all the money is in the middle class?
TLP| 8.14.12 @ 5:22PM
Obama has Pilfered $745 Billion from Medicare, and used it for "Other Things".
He is actively Killing Social Security, by "Cutting Taxes on the Middle Class" via ELIMINATING the only means of FUNDING for Social Security.
FICA.
Why would anyone do that?
vtwin?
Why?
Not only will Medicare Cease to Exist, under The Muslim's "Plan" of doing NOTHING to Ensure its Survival, while he adds 30 Million more people to it + all of the Illegals that come across our Border with impunity, as he refuses to ENFORCE any of our Immigration Laws that are ON THE BOOKS. But his "Plan" will also initiate a Migration of Doctors, out of the Medicare Patient Seeing Business, if not out of the Medival Profession, altogether.
Don't look to Useful Idiots for an answer to your obvious questions.
They don't CARE about the Truth.
Like Alfred said to Bruce Wayne - "Some men just wanna watch The World Burn."
CJW| 8.14.12 @ 8:33PM
As usual vtwin/purpie lies.
Those under 55 have a choice. Stay in Medicare or take the money and buy your own plan.
The vitwin/purpies, being government zombies, will stay with Medicare, and let the govenment run their lives.
Others, with intelligence, will take the money, and buy the plan to suit their needs.
aware| 8.14.12 @ 6:32AM
It all just proves there is only one party with 2 wings. Ryan the bipartisan....that sure is a confidence builder.
Jack in Wi| 8.14.12 @ 7:02AM
I agree with you aware and Aristocrat. This ticket better show something better then the usual countryclub Republicanism or it will sink like Dole and Kemp in 1996. Obama has been a terrible President. But you have to have a much better program then what these 2 guys have pushed so far, or most voters will say. " Why make a change? "
Mimi | 8.14.12 @ 7:37AM
Are YOU kidding JACK ! Why make a change?
For God's sake we HAVE to make a change! The guy is killing us and the Country. The GUY is in PLAYLAND....Rome is burning! Who would have EVER thought that this great nation could be brought down to this....ELECTIONS do MATTER!
The two GUY's I saw on every station Saturday looked and sounded pretty good. Typical decent, Americans that at least want to WORK HARD. It would be totally irresponsible for ANY voter NOT want to change what History will coin ......." THE YEARS OF NATIONAL TRAGEDY"....!!!!
Anthony| 8.14.12 @ 7:58AM
Because Mini Jack is not looking for answers, nor does he care that Romney/ Ryan have serious plans to get America's fiscal house in order.
As Mark Levin said last night, Ryan's extended time frame to balance Medicare was to keep the trolls from panicing, and will be sped up upon their election, if the D trolls are in check.
No, you see, Jack is looking over his shoulder waiting for those Jews to overtake him.
Jack is so consumed by hate, he'll allow the Muslim Marxist to destroy America because he'll get his deep seated desire to see Israel destroyed as well.
For Jack, any deal with the Devil, so long as Israel's demise is part of it.
Jack in Wi| 8.14.12 @ 8:09AM
The Ryan plan is far too light in the cuts especailly in Defense. You can't ask seniors to take a hit while wasting trillions on foreign aid to criminals and kleptocrats and idiotic foreign adventures. End foreign aid and bring the troops home. Right now Romney is going to lose if he does not put out a more coherent program to appeal to libertarians, women, independents and the young. The Democraphics are against the Republicans. They have to get every vote they can. Ryan is a good man but he has to move from the Bush years. The whole party has to.
DTOM| 8.14.12 @ 9:43AM
JiW,
How un-Reaganesque of you. RWR was a staunch believer in a very strong military. Stop trying to wrap yourself in his mantle. If he ever talked with you, he would have smiled at you and laughed and said, "Gosh, Jack, I want you to be my ally, but you do need to agree with me on at least 20%!" And then he would have laughed, and George Schultz and Don Regan would have had the Secret Service escort you out to the gate with the message, 'JiW, don't call us - we'll call you!"
And you would still think that they all agreed with you on how evil Israel really is...FOOL!
DTOM
Dai Alanye | 8.14.12 @ 1:15PM
Cut defense? Ridiculous! Have a look at what China and Russia are doing (not to mention the Islamics) before arguing for cuts in defense.
As far as Ryan's plan for reining-in Medicare, if sold properly it will aid Republican prospects. The majority of voters aren't such fools as to believe we can go on forever as we are at present.
Could it be more aggressive? Of course. But we must take baby steps so as not to play into the hands of Dems and their scare tactics. In addition, I would like to see more emphasis placed on reducing fraud. There's plenty of it in Medicare, and it's always a good political selling point.
Crassus| 8.14.12 @ 2:28PM
Still upset that Romney didn't choose Sonny Boy Rand Paul to be his Veep, huh, Jackie Boy?
Who Knows?| 8.14.12 @ 10:59AM
Kemp “grants”?
I, as king, hereby grant you the right to blah blah blah.
Why not call them “allowances”? You know, like the two bits---that’s twenty five cents---I used to get from my parents, per week, back in the 50’s.
There is no free lunch. Or dinner, or health care, or sex, or food, or love, or war, or----
Here’s MY two cent’s worth---
Around 1956, my non-practicing Christian parents would give us 3 kids, age 14, 13, and 11, a quarter each, on a Sunday morning, to put in the offering box at our Methodist church. My brother and I, before long, started going to the local store and buying a dime candy bar, and letting the church have the rest.
There it is!
Narcissus, the core nature of all of us.
All the rest of it is just details.
Oldefarte| 8.14.12 @ 11:07AM
First, I think that I saw [not read] something to the effect recently that this Widen is now backing away from his association with Ryan [if true, then Emmanuel/Axelrod/Jarrett & Co have GOTTEN TO HIM]. Second, above is still the usual AH's that pee-pee and moan constantly about Ryan the compromiser and Romney the supposedly liberal. Horse excrement.....grow a GD pair of brain cells and get the cow manure out of your eyeballs, please. A few above have rightfully proclaimed the truth, which is that basically you have Romney/Ryan against the DOMESTIC TERRORISTS period...end of story....make a GD choice because there ain't no MIDDLE OPTION-GROUND, you dumbarses! As to governmental insurance, IMHO what R/R should begin to discuss is their plan for seriously downsizing the federal government. Which departments/agencies/programs etc should be either substantially reduced or outright eliminated, and the cost-expense savings to the government/taxpayers from same. GSA, Interior, foreign aid, Education, Interior, welfare, HUD, Fannie/Freddie etc come to mind possibly? Put the discussion of governmental insurance on the back burner temporarily and consentrate on the overall government expense excesses initially. This would guarantee a hot and heavy howl from Democrats but would get the necessary blowback from conservatives/Republicans and initiate a real discussion of priorities/necessities going toward November!!!!!!!!!!!!
TLP| 8.14.12 @ 5:37PM
If you mean by - Wyden is Backing Away from his relationship with Paul Ryan - that Wyden is on Television stabbing his "Good Friend" Paul Ryan IN THE BACK, over and over, again?
Then I agree with you.
When will we ever learn?
"When you lie down with Snakes......................."
They have no Honour, Cannot tell The Truth, Cannot be Trusted, and are willing to Let this Country become Zimbabwe, if it means they can keep their hold on Power.
I've said it, before, and I'll say it, again: It's a Goddamn Shame that those people on Flight 93, gave up their lives, that these MFing, Lying, Crook, Rat Bastard Scumbags, might live.
A Goddamn Shame, indeed.
Oldefarte| 8.15.12 @ 12:09PM
Amen to that! Also I noticed that Cory Booker lamented on his being ostrasized after his semi-complementary comments by his fellow Democrats, who as you truthfully say are scum/trash that should never be trusted. I'm still scratching my youknowhat over 11/4/08 and will never be told of any credible reason whay same occurred!!!!!!!!!!
Kingofthenet| 8.14.12 @ 1:09PM
The problem is Ryan 'Reform' has THREE Masters, sure he want's to 'save' programs, but he ALSO wants to give big NEW tax breaks to the Rich and NO new taxes. The ONLY way to do that is to GUT the programs. President Obama is EASILY going to win on this, for the simple reason is ANY plan that he can come up with, ONLY needs to keep them intact, he ideas are going to be able to raise HUGE revenue from both Tax increases for the rich and raising general income from various sources a much easier proposition.
Tom Kyba| 8.14.12 @ 1:27PM
Wrong.
George S| 8.14.12 @ 4:42PM
You seem to be missing the point: how is Obama going to fund BOTH Medicare and ObamaCare over the next ten years? The selling point, if you remember, is that ObamaCare reduces the deficit. But that can only happen, as Ryan pointed out to a pissed off Obama, by double counting the 700 billion removed from Medicare to fund ObamaCare. Transferring 700 billion to ObamaCare satisfies the 'pay go' column of spending and payment, thus saving 700 billion. Since that 700 billion is saved, it 700 billion that can be spent "later". So that is now an additional source of revenue.
That's how Enron executives went to jail. But you clap your hands like a trained seal.
Oldefarte| 8.15.12 @ 12:12PM
No doubt you're now taking your toke-hit on Barry's joint that is being passed around the circle-of-jerks!!!!!!!!
loulou| 8.14.12 @ 2:02PM
Wow! What happened to Wyden's face?
Plastic surgery gone awry?
He looks like a burn victim.
David| 8.14.12 @ 5:28PM
I have very mixed feelings about Ryan as the VP choice. If he can help win the election, I am all for it. But, if he is a lightning rod to scare the crap out of seniors and single moms, then the choice of him may hand the election to Bam Bam.
Ryan is the author of the Republicans budget to get our fiscal house in order. It is very detailed and even addresses entitlement reform. The dems with the MSM on their side can depict specific Ryan proposals as hurting seniors and children and even poorer and middle class folks.
It may scare the crap out of people to know that after 8 years of Romney they may get another 8 with Ryan.
Again, I hope I am wrong, but I believe Ryan is one big lightning rod.
I believe Santorum would have been the better choice.
TLP| 8.14.12 @ 5:45PM
I can't think of ANYTHING that Santorum has over Paul Ryan.
Ryan's Intellect is light years above anyone, on either side of the aisle, when it comes to Fixing Fiscal Problems, as well as a Set a Balls with Hair on them.
Unlike any other of these Pretty Boys, with their Pretty Hair, and their Soft Hands.
Santorum, included.
David| 8.14.12 @ 9:08PM
TLP, here are some reasons Santorum should have been chosen over Ryan, in my opinion.
One, he worked his butt off in the primary campaign and except for a couple of silly gaffes, he did an excellent job on a shoestring budget.
Two, he beat Mitt in several swing states, and would have beat him in several others if Gingrich had not been in the race.
Three, Santorum did not write the budget plan to right our fiscal house AND that addresses entitlements. The dems are sure to use to the specifics of the plan to hammer Ryan point by point, and to scare seniors and others. Ryan was and is the author of it. What politician do you know of who hasn't paid a price when running on entitlement reform during an election?
To be continued.
David| 8.14.12 @ 9:08PM
Four, Ryan is seen first and foremost, and probably only, as a fiscal conservative - just like Romney. Santorum would have fired up the social conservatives just like Palin did.
Five, Santorum has a proven track record of attracting blue collar workers (even union types), and conservative democrats. He was a big underdog and yet a big winner in many races in heavily dem and union PA. I am not sure, but I don't think Ryan is someone who has a track record of attracting those types of voters.
Six, Santorum is much more knoweldgeable on foreign affairs than Ryan - and moreso than Romney, too.
Seven, both WI and PA are in play, and I believe PA has more than double the electors.
Eight, unlike Romney and Ryan, Santorum would not have been afraid to weigh in on the Chick filA deal, and I think he would have been able to whack that "Romney caused the death of a cancer patient" shit right out of the park. Santorum knows how to play hardball. The only time I have seen it from Romney was against other republicans - CONSERVATIVE republicans. It is to be seen if Ryan will stay away from social issues. We know Santorum would not.
And TLP, you know that when our side acts like p_ssies, we lose.
Those are some of the best reasons. There are probably a couple of more minor ones, and when I think of them, I will let you know.
Oldefarte| 8.15.12 @ 1:07PM
[1] Plenty of individuals work their butt off on matters, but same is no garantee of success. The idea should be always to WORK SMART!
[2] He didn't beat Mitt and that is the POINT!
[3] Romney and Ryan are both more knowledgable about fiscals matters to discuss/define same than are the Democrats w/o teleprompters
[4] Social matters should not handled by politicians, who cannot dictate social activities; the solutions to social matters rests with the individual public changing their improper thoughts/activities.
[5] Blue collars/independents are now flocking to R/R in drives and will continue to do so; they are smart enough to fully understand that drastic changes need to occur fiscally/economically.
[6] Screw foreign affairs, since it's domestic issues that are paramount now;the only FA that need decisions are who/what to direct B-52's against.
[7] To nominate a VP candidate based solely upon their deliverance of their resident state's votes is asinine and ludicrous; a VP should primarily be able to become POTUS and Ryan can do that in spades.
[8] The CFA issue was handled w/o candidate opinion;the public demonstrated their disgust entirely with this homosexual problem;again this is a social issue that should not be of concern in presidential politics.
David| 8.15.12 @ 2:54PM
Oldfarte, I appreciate your comments, and I agree with many. Allow me to respond.
1. As to working smart, I will let the numbers speak for who worked the smartest. Santorum achieved the level of success he did and spent only about 1/35 that Romney did and about 1/10 that Gingrich did. I will suggest THOSE ARE RESULTS from working smart.
2. True, Romney won, but my point is that Santorum deserved a spot on the ticket.
3. Of course Romney and Ryan can define the issue better than democrats. Santorum is in their league.
4. Social issues are inextricably tied to fiscal issues. We are in the mess we are in precisely because of the moral rot in this country. I think a lot of posters on this site will agree with that sentiment.
To be continued in next post.
To b
5.
David| 8.15.12 @ 3:09PM
5. I will suggest that they also understand the moral rot in this country needs to be addressed.
6. "Screw foreign affairs"??? After Romneys recent trip to England, Poland, and Israel, I don't think Romney agrees with you.
7.Will agree that Ryan is ready to be prez - my point was that so is Santorum, and maybe moreso than either Romney or Ryan.
8. Sorry, but absolutely social issues should be a part of a president's ideology. For example, any candidate that will not come out against abortion does not deserve to hold any political office whatsoever.
Oldefarte| 8.16.12 @ 11:14AM
David, I agree 99% with your truth, but to me "deserves" is akin to affirmative action, fairness, equality of outcomes, wealth sharing, etc. Santorum is . Sure he's correct in his statements regarding same, but as a POTUS .......no! He nor anyone else as such cannot dictate morality to the population of this country and expect to effectuate a change to his way of thinking. The gradual slide of this country's status from morality to now immorality has come about because of the Democratic Party's liberalism, the filth of Hollywood that everyone allows to brainwash their and their childrens' minds, university academia whose professors liberally brainwash their students for four years plus, the legal community who have monetarily become prostituted into compliance with liberal elements and who have the legal authority to effectuate legal changes [ie homosexual marriage] in this country, etc. A President Santorium cannot dictate a reversal of this, but instead it has to beocme so at the other end of the populus, from every individual's actions/thoughts. It has to come from the Santoriumites retaking control of their schools/universities, their churches, their TV programming/movies viewed, etc. A Santorum presidency would be extremely similar an Obama one, only in the opposite direction; and it would be wrong [just as the Obama one is wrong]!!!!
Oldefarte| 8.16.12 @ 11:22AM
PS [David]: Some of the most honorable people morally speaking are/have been Billy Graham, Fulton Sheen, Jerry Fallwell, etc; but I would not want any of them as POTUS. I prefer them to, in their religious capacities as moral teachers, to instruct humanity on how they sould lead their individual lives!!!!!!!