The American Spectator

deeno| 11.3.10 @ 11:59AM

Somehow, Someway...Obamacare HAS to die. Middle-Class Americans (of which I am one) cannot afford to pay someone's way...period. Be it health-care, food, subsistence. I don't make enough money to do that. I don't make enough money to pay for Obamacare on my own! I don't make enough money to pay for the fees /taxes that I will incur if I don't 'sign up' somewhere. I have a MSA. I'm healthy and I don't need anything else. My child receives a medical plan that I PAY FOR through his Public School. I don't need anymore than this, I don't want anymore than this and I certainly CANNOT afford anymore than this. Obamacare MUST go away, or I'm going to be in the poor-house.

JP| 11.3.10 @ 12:10PM

It should be interesting to watch Congress and the Prez next year as thousands of workers begin to lose thier health insurance. My guess is that many businesses will opt out of offering health insurance and pay the fine. The make matters worse, HHS will not be fully set up until 2014 at the earliest. How Congress will react to this is anyone's guess. Medicare is in bad shape and cannot take on the burden; Medicaid is even in worse shape. Call it the Law of Unintended Consequences, but we could have 2-3 million more uninsured by 2012 than we did in 2008 -all thanks to Obama's Universal Health Care.

Nope, the Dems will have little wiggle room on this. Can't blame Bush; can't blame the Tea Party. The political pressure will come from all over the nation, and Blue States will not be exempted.

Explosion Proof Light| 11.3.10 @ 12:13PM

I am just very sad for the result of our middle Senate vote, that was nothing.

JohnD| 11.3.10 @ 12:24PM

Then defund it. Defund the IRS agents who enforce the fines, Defund the HHS and their commissars, defund the appointees and panels set to enforce it. Shut the entire government down if need be, and I say that as a federal employee. I don't care if I lose everything I've worked for all my life, my house, etc. I want this republic restored. I want my son to be free and have opportunities.

wukong| 11.3.10 @ 12:53PM

Just keep forcing Democrats such as Webb, Mancin, Nelson, et al to vote on the monstrocity.

Quin| 11.3.10 @ 3:50PM

Phil's very astute comment explains why it really is of benefit sometimes to support a RINO over a leftist Democrat. Mike Castle at least would provide a 50 percent chance of voting for repeal; Coons won't. Jane Norton would almost certainly support repeal; Bennet (assuming he wins) won't. (I DID support Buck over Norton, by the way, although Norton wasn't bad at all; I mention her just by way of example, because I think she would have won more easily than Buck, although Buck was worth the risk.) Rob Simmons would probably have supported repeal (I gave him a slightly better chance to beat Blumenthal than McMahon had, although no certainty); Blumenthal won't. And, of course, if somebody more substantial had run for the GOP nomination in Nevada and beaten Harry Reid, he would have voted for repeal; Reid won't.
All of which is not to say that conservatives should support RINOs over conservatives just by virtue of a slight perceived advantage in the general election. Far from it. But it is to say that is is absolutely foolish to treat RINOs as the enemy or opponent rather than as an unreliable friend. And when other factors -- such as experience, integrity, temperament, and ALMOST-CERTAIN (as opposed to slight) winnability vs. almost-certain defeat -- also are in play, there at least can be a reasonable case to support the RINO even in a primary. Either way, if a RINO wins a primary, he/she deserves absolute, utter effort from conservatives in a general election if the RINO's opponent is a hard-left Dem. A 50 percenter is always worth supporting over a zero percenter. Conservatives who refuse to recognize this need to grow up.
All of which is, by the way, offered by way of hypothetical. I am not suggesting that anybody made a bad decision to support Buck or Angle or McMahon, etc. I'm just reintroducing Ronald Reagan's willingness, without abandoning conservative principle, to accept certain political realities and work within them -- and to accept Reagan's willingness to recognize when a sometime friend is far better than a full-time adversary.

Quin| 11.3.10 @ 3:51PM

Phil's very astute comment explains why it really is of benefit sometimes to support a RINO over a leftist Democrat. Mike Castle at least would provide a 50 percent chance of voting for repeal; Coons won't. Jane Norton would almost certainly support repeal; Bennet (assuming he wins) won't. (I DID support Buck over Norton, by the way, although Norton wasn't bad at all; I mention her just by way of example, because I think she would have won more easily than Buck, although Buck was worth the risk.) Rob Simmons would probably have supported repeal (I gave him a slightly better chance to beat Blumenthal than McMahon had, although no certainty); Blumenthal won't. And, of course, if somebody more substantial had run for the GOP nomination in Nevada and beaten Harry Reid, he would have voted for repeal; Reid won't.
All of which is not to say that conservatives should support RINOs over conservatives just by virtue of a slight perceived advantage in the general election. Far from it. But it is to say that is is absolutely foolish to treat RINOs as the enemy or opponent rather than as an unreliable friend. And when other factors -- such as experience, integrity, temperament, and ALMOST-CERTAIN (as opposed to slight) winnability vs. almost-certain defeat -- also are in play, there at least can be a reasonable case to support the RINO even in a primary. Either way, if a RINO wins a primary, he/she deserves absolute, utter effort from conservatives in a general election if the RINO's opponent is a hard-left Dem. A 50 percenter is always worth supporting over a zero percenter. Conservatives who refuse to recognize this need to grow up.
All of which is, by the way, offered by way of hypothetical. I am not suggesting that anybody made a bad decision to support Buck or Angle or McMahon, etc. I'm just reintroducing Ronald Reagan's willingness, without abandoning conservative principle, to accept certain political realities and work within them -- and to accept Reagan's willingness to recognize when a sometime friend is far better than a full-time adversary.

Dale Cord| 11.4.10 @ 11:14AM

Most of the population of our country is suffering under the delusion, that the Republicans are for the American people. There is no difference between these two UN-AMERICAN POLITICAL PARTIES, who have been fleecing the citizens of this country now since Woodrow Wilson's Communist regime took root in Washington. Being uneducated in history and politics is no shameful thing, considering our educational system is being controlled by the political machine in Washington and abroad. What is shameful though is to remain in a state of mental confusion as to who our enemy really is in this country. To focus your mind on entertainment though, instead of who is violating the sanctity of your freedoms, livelihood, home and privacy as an American citizen is the epitome of shameful stupidity. Your bible and history books have a multitude of warning signs for your survival in this world of predators. Who seek not only your income but your very soul. If you really want what is best for your loved ones, and true God given freedom and equality for all in America. Then open your eyes and unlock your mind and let "truth" set you free. The removal of both the Democrat's and Republican's in this great country of ours would be a great start. Read our Constitution for the legality and authorization by the people to this or, remain subjects to the warlords and criminals who rein over us at this present time. "There is a way that seems right to a man but, the end therein is Death".