Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Sarah 100% Right On!

 

Sarah Palin: Republican "Field Isn't Set Yet"

The media catches up with Sarah Palin in Gettysburg, PA.

Palin says the field of contenders seeking the Republican nomination for president is still wide open, but won't say if she'll run.

"The field isn't set yet, not by a long shot," Palin a group of reporters outside of her hotel on Monday night. "I think the Republican field is already quite strong. It's gonna change up a lot. And I think there will be more strong candidates jumping in."

Sunday, May 29, 2011

NYT's So Called Conservative A Liberal Idiot

 David Brooks To Palin: "Running For President Is Not American Idol"




David Brooks, NYT columnist: "Being president is waking up, somebody hands you the crisis and says 'there's a crisis in Venezuela, what are you going to do about it?' Does anybody think Sarah Palin's ready for that? I don't think so. So, she can manage her brand, but running for president is not American Idol and I think people may agree with her, they may like her, but that doesn't mean they're going to vote for her.


Commentary

This what the New York Times calls a Conservative at their piece of #$%%^&  paper.

NYT Attacks Democrats But Blames Republicans


Opinion Editorial



     The lead OPED in this mornings New York Times uses their as usual ill timed political agrenda to make it look as if they are attacking the left but in reality attacking the right once again.The title is "Passive in the Senate."
     It begins in true spin cycle fashion "Republican leaders in the Senate have spent weeks gleefully deriding the Democrats who run the chamber for not producing a budget proposal in more than two years. It is a classic tactic, designed to deflect attention from their party’s toxic plan to privatize Medicare.The truth, though, is that the Republicans also have a point.
The 112th Senate has become a body that largely reacts to outrageous things that Republicans do or say. Rather than coming up with original ideas and sensible policies to counter to the extreme ones pouring out of the House, it simply votes down House bills, or refuses to take them up. Democratic senators, fearful of last year’s Republican tide, may think that a play-it-safe strategy will save their jobs in next year’s election, but the country could pay a high price for their timidity."
    They still don't get it the NYT/Democrat left wing establishment the Democrats that run the Senate are do nothings despite whatever the Senate GOP does.But to say that what is coming out of te U.S. House as far as legitimate legislation is concerned I don't see any extremism.
    It gets better on a budget portion "But there will be no vote on a budget by the Democratic majority of the Senate, the traditional method for stating the majority’s priorities in black and white dollar signs. That’s because the Budget Committee has not agreed on one. And that’s because a good plan by the committee chairman, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, was deferred by Senate leaders, who feared that the plan’s tax increase on millionaires would make Democratic senators ripe targets for Tea Party attacks."
    So hey to my fellow Tea Partiers out there we have the power because the NYT are attacking us now I love it.
    Here come the political excuses by the NYT for the Democrat controlled U.S. Senate "These political considerations should not be minimized. With only a three-vote majority, Democrats, led by Harry Reid, are understandably fearful about losing the Senate next year and have decided that treading water is better than taking a showy but risky dive.But if Democrats are ever going to regain the momentum in the national conversation, they have to stand for something. Standing pat gives Republicans huge openings to move the debate to the right."
   Hello NYT the Democras already stand for something Communist left wing propagandaized BS and you along with them.

Thursday, May 26, 2011

Liberal Caught Attacking Conservative Talk Show Host With Abusive Language

The liberal talker has been suspended for his show on MSNBC. Hear what he said:

Commentary

 Schultz only apologized because he got caught.As it is with most liberals especially this MSNBC/DNC left wing ideologue and moron

Wednesday, May 25, 2011

Media Does What It Does Best Attacking An Ally

Media Throws A Fit Over Rude Remarks From Netanyahu

Commentary

It was the other way around Obama was disrespectful to Netanyahu

Howie Tells Sen.Brown Like It Is

An even break? Forget about it, Scott Brown

By Howie CarrWednesday, May 25, 2011
 
Hey Scott Brown, I’m sure you never really trusted the mainstream media, but let this be an even greater lesson for you.
Not only are they never going to be on your side, but they have absolutely no compunction about making up lies about what you said or did. The Globe, Channel 4, they’re all in the tank. What more proof do you need?
I know you tried to keep Sarah Palin at arm’s length during the Senate campaign, but she could tell you a few things about the New York Times [NYT]/Boston Globe fictionalizing. Ask her about her alleged membership in the Alaska National Party. It was a story just too good for the Times to check out.
Hey, Scott, how’d Channel 5 treat your wife Gail when you were running for the Senate? I thought so.
And remember the big debate in January 2010 when you said the seat didn’t belong to the Kennedys, it belonged to the people? Recall how the MSM brought in David Rodham Gergen as the moderator, and his wonderfully unbiased questions?
“Marsha, what’s your favorite color?”
“Scott, being a Republican, have you ever murdered a baby, and if the answer is no, why should we believe you?”
It’s amazing. Some left-wing blog site manufactures a quote, and the Globe picks it up and runs with it. Paging Jason Blair, Patricia X. Smith, Mike Barnicle ...
It’s not true, but then, neither was the Texas Air National Guard story from “60 Minutes.” The Globe was still running front-page headlines declaring that the story was true, even after the copy underneath it pointed out that the mainstream media had been caught in flagrante yet again.
Or City Councilor Chuck Turner’s press conference at City Hall showing that U.S. soldiers were raping Iraqi women ... only it was a porno movie. Everybody else in the media walked away from the story, but the Globe put it on the Metro front, complete with male genitalia showing.
Poor Scott Brown. Sure, he can vote against Rep. Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan, and the Globe and all the rest of the moonbats will be glad to say that he’s “grown.” But come November 2012, who are they going to be with? The Democrat, whoever that might be.
So here we have two major Boston media outlets manufacturing lies about you out of whole cloth. And yet, how many people have even heard about Barack Obama’s speech in Austin, Texas, on May 10 where he described a “Teutonic shift” in the Mideast.
Not “tectonic,” but Teutonic. Yet typical of this ignorant president who’s been handed everything in his life.
There’s a lesson here for you, Scott. Don’t forget who brung you to the dance.

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

The Screamer Dr.Dean With The Blame Game Again

 
Howard Dean: GOP Far-Right Hates Muslims, Gays And Immigrants

Commentary

Gov.Howard Dean (D-Vt) at it again making an even bigger ass out of himself

BiBi Addresses U.S. Congress

Israeli Prime Minister Addresses Congress

  Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited Capitol Hill today meeting with members of Congress and delivered an address to a Joint Meeting of Congress.
During his speech to Congress P.M. Netanyahu stated, "As President Obama said, borders will be different than 1967. Israel will not return to 'indefensible' borders."  He added "It's absolutely vital that a Palestinian state be demilitarized."
He suggested that Israel is "willing" to advance the negotiations but must "make painful compromises" for peace.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), Netanyahu and Congressional Leaders also held a briefing with reporters following the joint meeting.
To members of AIPAC last night, Netanyahu said, "Israel cannot return to the indefensible 1967 line," which President Obama said is the foundation for negotiation.

Willing to give up land for peace

Monday, May 23, 2011

Former Democrat Congresswoman Shows True Colors And Her Anti-American Ways

Former Dem Congresswoman Gives Pro-Gaddafi Message On State TV

"I want to say categorically and very clearly that these policies of war ... are not what the people of the United States stand for and it's not what African-Americans stand for," former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (D-Georgia) told state-run television in Libya. The above video is of McKinney on Press TV in Iran earlier this week.

Commentary

This just proves that race is still an issue to the farthest of the leftists out there like McKinney.She should be ashamed of herself.

Sunday, May 22, 2011

Kristof Cannot Grasp Understanding Of Scripture In Quiz


Nicolas D.Kristof

 Harold Camping the so called Evangelist who was wrong on the Rapture last night should be touted out there in the lamestream media as the fraud that he is.
  Now in the same fashion New York Times Oped writer Nicolas D.Kristof this morning uses his rant I mean alleged OPED piece to quiz us Americans on his title "Religion and Sex Quiz."Thus making himself meaning Kristof a bigger self absorbed liberal idiot than he already is.
  He does this by using a professor's BS "This quiz, and the answers below, draw from a new book, “Unprotected Texts: The Bible’s Surprising Contradictions about Sex and Desire.” It’s by Jennifer Wright Knust, a Bible scholar at Boston University who is also an ordained American Baptist pastor."
Funny he doesnot use God's the Holy Bible at first although he does later on in his piece of crap.But when he uses the Bible
        Here is the set up of the quiz:
                
                             1. The Bible’s position on abortion is:
                                                            a. Never mentioned.
                                                            b. To forbid it along with all forms of artificial birth control.
                                                            c. Condemnatory, except to save the life of the mother.
             Kristof's answer 1. A. Abortion is never mentioned as such.A more suitable answer But look up in the bible Luke 1:44 about John The Baptist in his Mother Elizabeth's womb.
                             2. The Bible suggests “marriage” is:
                                a. The lifelong union of one man and one woman.
                                b. The union of one man and up to 700 wives.
                                c. Often undesirable, because it distracts from service to the Lord.
             Kristof's answer 2. A, B and C. The Bible limits women to one husband, but other than that is all over the map. Mark 10 envisions a lifelong marriage of one man and one woman. But King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines (I Kings 11:3). And Matthew (Matthew 19:10-12) and St. Paul (I Corinthians 7) both seem to suggest that the ideal approach is to remain celibate and avoid marriage if possible, while focusing on serving God. Jesus (Matthew 19:12) even seems to suggest that men make themselves eunuchs, leading the early church to ban enthusiasts from self-castration.Here is a better answer from the Bible Gensis 2:18 and 21-24.
    3. The Bible says of homosexuality:
a. Leviticus describes male sexual pairing as an abomination.
b. A lesbian should be stoned at her father’s doorstep.
c. There’s plenty of ambiguity and no indication of physical intimacy, but some readers point to Ruth and Naomi’s love as suspiciously close, or to King David declaring to Jonathan: “Your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.” (II Samuel 1:23-26).
  Kristof's answer 3. A and C. As for stoning on a father’s doorstep, that is the fate not of lesbians but of non-virgin brides (Deuteronomy 22:13).A better answer Romans 1:26-28 the Apostle Paul makes it clear as a cloudless sky.
   Question 4 was not worth commenting on due to the vileness of the question.
  As for the rest of Kristof's piece he cannot fathom the disservice that he does to God as the other fraud Harold Camping has done to others.

Friday, May 20, 2011

Netanyahu Lectures Obama For Good Reasons


                                        AP Associated Press
Netanyahu: "Only Peace That Will Endure Is One Based On Reality"





"The only peace that will endure is one that is based on reality, on unshakable facts. I think for there to be peace, the Palestinians will have to accept some basic realities. The first is that while Israel is prepared to make generous compromises for peace, it cannot go back to the 1967 lines. Because these lines are indefensible. Because they don't take into account certain changes that have taken place on the ground, demographic changes that have taken place over the last 44 years," Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu said at a joint press availability with President Obama.Remember that before 1967, Israel was all of 9 miles wide. It was half the width of the Washington beltway. These were not the boundaries of peace. They were the boundaries of repeated wars because the attack on Israel was so attractive for them. We can't go back to those indefensible lines and we're going to have to have a long-term military presence along the Jordan [valley]," Netanyahu said.

Thursday, May 19, 2011

Haaretz:Obama Doesnot Get It With Israel

 
  

After Obama speech, Netanyahu rejects withdrawal to 'indefensible' 1967 borders

PM responds to Obama's proposal for two state solution based on 1967 borders, says such a solution would leave many Israelis in the West bank outside Israel's borders.

By Mazal Mualem and News Agencies

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Thursday Israel would object to any withdrawal to "indefensible" borders, adding he expected Washington to allow it to keep major settlement blocs in any peace deal.
In a statement after President Barack Obama's speech outlining Middle East strategy, Netanyahu said before heading to Washington that "the viability of a Palestinian state cannot come at the expense of Israel's existence".
Benjamin Netanyahu Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
Photo by: Nir Keidar

"That is why Prime Minister Netanyahu expects to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of U.S. commitments made to Israel in 2004," the statement added, alluding to a previous letter from Washington suggesting Israel could keep larger settlement blocs as part a peace deal with the Palestinians.
"Israel appreciates President's Obama commitment to peace," Netanyahu said, but stressed that he expects Obama to refrain from demanding that Israel withdraw to "indefensible" 1967 borders "which will leave a large population of Israelis in Judea and Samaria and outside Israel's borders."
The tough stand could set the stage for a tense meeting Friday when Netanyahu goes to the White House.
In his speech, Obama said a future Palestinian state must be based in territories captured by Israel in the 1967 Mideast war, with minor adjustments reached through negotiations.

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

A Letter From Tea Party Buddy Mike Franco In Boston Herald

Council a keeper

We should keep the Governor’s Council (“Gov’s Council members slam push to wipe out body,” May 11). It’s currently undergoing continuous improvement. But let’s also amend the Constitution to reflect the recertification of judges. This initiative would help the council do a better job.
In a six-year cycle, judges should be placed on a ballot before the people in a district (i.e., county). The body would be responsible for initial appointments and any replacements going forward when “the people,” by a simple majority, vote to terminate a judge for bad behavior, clear bias or incompetence.
— Mike Franco, Chicopee

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Krauthammer On Gingrich On Presidential Run

Stick A Fork In Him? Krauthammer Says Newt Is ?Done?

O'Reilly On Presidential Field On The GOP Side

O'Reilly: Race, Republicans And The Presidential Election


Bill O'Reilly: Next year the Republican nominee will not only be competing against President Obama, but also against the mainstream media.

Mark Levin On Racism At MSNBC And NBC

Mark Levin: "Racism Abounds Over There At MSNBC And NBC"


> > > > > >
Jeff Poor at The Daily Caller reports: On his Monday show, Levin went through each network’s line-ups and pointed out that much of it is white and lacks that diversity.

“Let’s go play their game a little bit,” Levin said. “Let’s go look at NBC News. A very, very white guy is in charge of the company that owns NBC News. NBC News is run by very, very white guys. ‘Meet the Press’ has only had white guys in the anchor chair. ‘NBC Nightly News’ – a white guy. Let’s look at their bastard off-child, MSLSD: Chris Matthews – the whitest of the white guys, Joe Scarborough – white, Ed Schultz – fat and white, Larry O’Donnell – mental patient and white, Rachel, what is her name anyway, Maddow – white. It’s so white over there I’m blinded.”

MSNBC Plays Race Card

NBC making election about race

Three NBC News hosts went after candidate Newt Gingrich and the tea party for "being racist".


It started on Sunday's Meet the Press when host David Gregory attacked former speaker and Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich for calling President Obama the "food stamp president".


NBC News Anchor Chris Matthews took on the issue of race and the GOP twice on his show first going after Newt Gingrich specifically.
 


Matthews then went after the tea party in general.



Commentary 

What else should we expect from the likes of the Democrat mouth piece of MSNBC
 

Monday, May 16, 2011

Salem News Right On Governor's Council Wrong On Lenk




SalemNews.com, Salem, MA
Opinion
 

            
The Governor's Council consists of eight elected members from districts that span the state, plus the lieutenant governor. A holdover from Colonial days, its primary function is to vet the governor's appointments, most notably, of judges.
There is currently a move afoot in the Legislature to abolish the council and transfer its responsibilities either to the Senate or an appointed review panel. The measure is now scheduled to come before the Constitutional Convention, consisting of the members of both the House and Senate, in July; and if approved there, would go on the ballot.
Those who support eliminating the council argue that it is merely a rubber stamp for the governor's nominees.
That can be true. But more often of late some of its members have been a thorn in the administration's side.
Indeed, we suspect that this area's representative on that body, Salem's Mary-Ellen Manning, is right when she says there would be no hue and cry among Democratic leaders like Senate President Therese Murray to abolish the council if it was a Republican governor's judicial choices being given a hard time.
Generally, and despite the occasional buffoonery, the council gets things right, as it did recently in approving Gov. Patrick's appointment of Appeals Court Judge Barbara A. Lenk to the Supreme Judicial Court.
There is little evidence a legislative or appointed equivalent would be any more independent or less obstreperous than the current group of councilors.
In fact, the value of the current Governor's Council as a check on the governor became apparent last year when one of Patrick's judicial nominees was found by Manning to be a New Hampshire resident. The nomination of Christopher Maclachlan was subsequently withdrawn.
The Governor's Council needs members like Manning who are willing to take on the political establishment.
For Manning, at least, the issue is not retaining a position that pays $26,025 a year and requires attendance at one meeting a week plus whatever time is spent researching candidates.
"I think reform has to include a look at abolishing the council, a serious look at it," Manning told the State House News Service last week. "But what are we going to replace it with? That's the question." And it's a good one.


Commentary

We are truly blessed by the Lord to have the Governor's Councilor that we have in Mary Ellen Manning.She is the epitome of what it means to be a public servant and a wonderful person as well.The Governor's Council doesnot need to be abolished and is serving the Commonwealth well alot better than the hacks in other parts of the State Government.


Sunday, May 15, 2011

NYT Going After As They Call Them "Big Oil"


Opinion/Editorial
   They apparently never understand what the word backdown means refering to the latest assault from the New York Times Communist Oped board but this time they aim their senseless sights on as they put it "Big Oil."
   The title of their Fourth oped is "A Big Whine From Big Oil."This is really hypocritical we never hear the NYT refer to their left wing buddies in the labor movement referred to as 'Big Unions" we never ever hear it.
   Their salvo begins with "With gas at $4 a gallon, oil at $100 a barrel and profits at near-record levels, it is hard to feel sympathy for the oil industry. Yet sympathy is what the C.E.O.’s of the five biggest companies asked for when they appeared Thursday before a Senate hearing on a Democratic proposal to eliminate about $2 billion in tax breaks for the Big Five.
Exxon’s Rex Tillerson called the proposal “misinformed and discriminatory.” ConocoPhillips’s James Mulva, in a letter, called the idea “un-American” because it would supposedly cost American jobs, raise consumer prices and discourage investment — a position he reasserted during the hearings.
The other three companies at the witness table, BP America, Shell and Chevron, raised similar complaints. How absurd are their claims? Utterly absurd."
  Let me make the correction near record levels of profit because they are over taxed and can't turn a profit and due to BS environMENTAL regulations they can't DRILL for oil.I agree 100% that it is un-American and that it is a fact that it will cost jobs and discourage investments.You are the absurd ones NYT!
  They continue their rants through alleged BS research "Take investment. In 2005, with oil nearing $60 a barrel, Mr. Mulva and other top executives told a Senate committee that the companies did not need the tax breaks to keep exploring for oil. Congress left them in place. Now that the Senate seems serious about getting rid of them, he and his colleagues have changed their tune — even though their companies obviously need them even less at $100 a barrel.
  Or take prices at the pump. In a memorandum to Senate Democratic leaders on Wednesday, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said that eliminating the tax benefits would have virtually no effect on the price of gasoline. The impact on industry profits — the Big Five earned a robust $35 billion in the first quarter of this year alone — would be trivial.
The report also addressed one more industry claim: that ending the tax breaks for the oil companies alone would be discriminatory. Most of the breaks — deductions for well depletion, intangible drilling costs and the like — are unique to the industry. The exception is a deduction for domestic production, designed to encourage all manufacturing companies to invest in this country. But as the research service pointed out, industry is not going to stop drilling on American territory as long as the oil is there and yielding big dollars.
  These subsidies are clearly unnecessary, and returning $2 billion to the Treasury would be a good thing. But more than anything, one has to wonder why the oil companies are fighting so hard for a comparatively small amount of cash, at least for them. The only explanation we can come up with is that they have always gotten what they wanted and expect to do so now, so why not?"
  Return the subsidies to the Treasury give me a break if that was the case with their uninformed BS research return the $$$ to the American people.
  But when it comes to doing something that needs to be done the NYT is against it "The House is certainly tripping over itself to do the industry’s bidding. Last week, it passed two more irresponsible bills accelerating drilling permits and authorizing leasing in long-protected waters of the north and central Atlantic coasts, the Southern California coast and Alaska, including Bristol Bay. It is as if the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico had never happened."
  Irresponsible to pass drilling permits since when.I love this part this is th environMENTAL regulation that I referred to earlier "authorizing leasing in long-protected waters of the north and central Atlantic coasts, the Southern California coast and Alaska, including Bristol Bay."
  Yeah protected waters my ass.So if this is the case I don't want to hear liberals and President Obama and the little whinny assholes at the NYT Opinion Editorial board to complain on the U.S. relying on foreign sources for our oil and gasoline.
 

Saturday, May 14, 2011

Mike Barnicle Calling Newt Gingrich A Delusional Loser Hey Barnicle Screw You

This is a case of a liberal biased reporter not only known for his biases at the left wing NYT owned Boston Globe but the worst case of the pot calling the kettle black.

I am not a huge fan of Newt Gingrich because he stabbed in the back Doug Hoffman who at the time was the Conservative Party's candidate back when New York's 23rd Congressional district was up for grabs he endorsed a RINO by the name of DeeDee Scosovafava over Hoffman.

Mike Barnicle is an embarassment to the field of journalism.

Obama Weak On Immigration

AZ's Brewer Slams Obama On Immigration: Where's The Civility?




Gov. Jan Brewer (R-AZ): Almost a year ago, Governor Jan Brewer invited President Barack Obama to visit the Arizona border. He declined. Since then, the Federal Government has sued the State of Arizona for making sure immigration laws are enforced.

Brewer has been celebrated by many for taking action to enforce laws that Washington has long ignored, those who oppose the law continue to choose pithy punch lines over responsible and pragmatic action.

Two days ago in El Paso, President Obama decided once again that Arizona's unsecured borders and illegal immigration crisis are a laughing matter. Unfortunately, no one in Arizona is laughing.

Shribman Correct For Now...........

SalemNews.com, Salem, MA




David M. Shribman: GOP presidential field still lacking in heavyweights


NORTH CONWAY, N.H. — Stand in the center of this famous old town and look to the north.
There's Mount Washington with its early-May mantle of white clinging to the ravines. Look to the east and there's Mount Cranmore, the storied ski hill still with traces of snow. All about there is the feeling that the transition to the new season hasn't quite arrived.
So it is with the political season that is beginning in this state, for six decades the site of the first presidential primary. The struggle for the Republican presidential nomination hasn't really begun. Indeed the field, like so many of the old farms along the rural byways, seems almost empty right now.
In other years when the political field seemed incomplete, there was a giant on the sidelines, contemplating his options. One time it was California Gov. Pete Wilson, another it was Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson. Both Republicans were duds once real campaigning began in North Country towns like this and in the cities and suburbs to the south.
Once it was New York Gov. Mario M. Cuomo. In the end, a plane destined for Concord, N.H., to file campaign papers never took off, and so the Cuomo campaign didn't take off either.
This time is different. There is no giant abroad in the land, weighing a campaign, consulting pollsters and fundraisers about his prospects. The main figure in that position isn't a giant at all, but a diminutive man with an iron will and a gold-plated resume, Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana, whose prospects shot up when a truly large figure, the husky Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi, stepped aside.
There's another reason this time is different. It's the utterly changed landscape since the slaying of terrorist leader Osama bin Laden in a Pakistan mansion where he hid in plain sight. Now President Barack Obama seems like a giant-killer, in part because he ordered the killing of a giant figure — perhaps the biggest so far of the 21st century.
Where once the president seemed weak, indecisive, even lacking in audacity — I wrote these things myself only some weeks ago — now he seems strong, decisive, audacious. Where once he seemed overwhelmed by the problems that came to his in-box, he now seems confident and efficient in dealing with them, and perhaps even ready to begin some new initiatives of his own.
There has been no more dramatic a transformation of an American president in decades. Ones that come close include Gerald R. Ford's pardon of Richard M. Nixon, which worked to his disadvantage in the polls but not in history; Nixon's trips to China and Soviet Russia, which worked to his advantage both in the polls and in history; and Harry Truman's firing of Gen. Douglas MacArthur, which now is regarded as having re-established one of the bedrock principles of American civic life.
The other major effect of the bin Laden killing is to diminish some of the peripheral figures on Republican lists, especially businessman and television figure Donald Trump, who was transformed from caricature to cartoon in a few hours' time. No president since Andrew Jackson has had a coiffure remotely like Trump's, whose hair has the second disadvantage of eerily bringing to mind the great lesson from Richard Nixon: The cover-up is worse than the crime.
Many Republicans, several of whom graciously praised the president, increasingly believe they cannot prevail next year with a cast of characters who are the political equivalents of the stand-ins who played big-league baseball from 1942 to 1945.
I have argued in this space that the eventual challenger to Obama will rise in stature and in prospects merely by possessing the Republican presidential nomination. I still believe that. But Joel Goldfield, the St. Louis University political scientist, maintains that major-party candidates who win their nominations against a weak or depleted field may be inherently weaker in general elections than those who prevail over a stronger field.
The best example: John F. Kennedy was able to defeat Richard M. Nixon in 1960 in part because he defeated a formidable group of opponents, including Hubert H. Humphrey, Lyndon B. Johnson and Stuart Symington. The same was true of Ronald Reagan, whose 1980 campaign against Jimmy Carter was enhanced because he was able to defeat such rivals as Senate Minority Leader Howard H. Baker Jr., former director of central intelligence George H.W. Bush, former Treasury secretary John Connally and former GOP vice-presidential nominee Robert J. Dole.
"A strong field greatly helps the candidate who ultimately gets the nomination," says Scott Reed, who managed Dole's later campaign, when he won the 1996 GOP nomination only to be defeated by President Bill Clinton. "It makes him or her more substantive, more knowledgeable and more capable in the general-election fight. It really helps to be tested in the primary and caucus season. It's a great warm-up for the general election — and it's one of the few big advantages you can't buy."
True — as long as the fight isn't vicious and long, in which case, as James A. Johnson, who managed Walter F. Mondale's 1984 campaign, argues, "The strong field emphasizes everybody's weakness, because a strong field is about differentiation."
Still, the Republicans seem to be seeking the presence of someone else. This new figure — and his or her identity still seems unknown — would have plenty to run on, the bin Laden episode notwithstanding.
The public is frantic about gasoline prices, which are in the $4-per-gallon range. Personal experience seems at odds with official figures showing a low inflation rate, with lettuce up 27 percent in a year and coffee up 11 percent. The success against al-Qaida hasn't brought any sense of bipartisanship to Capitol Hill, nor any realistic prospect of attacking a deficit that seems incomprehensible and a set of entitlements that seem insupportable.
So while the president isn't home free yet, the Republican search continues.
Republicans control 29 of the nation's governors' offices, but none besides Daniels is widely known. The situation is the same in the Senate, where Rand Paul of Kentucky and Marco Rubio of Florida are perhaps the most appealing names. But Rubio has stepped aside and Dr. Paul knows that his father is a likely candidate. So for now — perhaps for a while — the GOP wait continues.

Friday, May 13, 2011

True Liberalism On Show


This is what Dr.Martin Luther King warned us about.Stuff like this

Romney Defends Massachusetts Health Care Plan

  Obama's Running Mate From Wall Street Journal Opinion Editorial

 


Mitt Romney travels to Ann Arbor today to deliver what his campaign bills as a major address laying out his "2012 principles for health-care reform." These are likely to be sensible, but what we'll be listening for is how he explains his health-care principles of five years ago.
As everyone knows, the health reform Mr. Romney passed in 2006 as Massachusetts Governor was the prototype for President Obama's version and gave national health care a huge political boost. Mr. Romney now claims ObamaCare should be repealed, but his failure to explain his own role or admit any errors suggests serious flaws both in his candidacy and as a potential President.
There's a lot to learn from the failure of the ObamaCare model that began in Massachusetts, which is now moving to impose price controls on all hospitals, doctors and other providers. Not that anyone would know listening to Mr. Romney. In the paperback edition of his campaign book "No Apology," he calls the plan a "success," and he has defended it in numerous media appearances as he plans his White House run.
Editorial Writer Joe Rago previews Romney's speech today.
Mr. Romney has lately qualified his praise, saying in a speech in New Hampshire in March that "our experiment wasn't perfect—some things worked, some things didn't, and some things I'd change." He's mostly avoided specifics other than retreating to the cover of state experimentation, but we can fill in the details based on interviews with Romney staffers as well as others present at the creation.
When Mr. Romney took office in 2003, the state was already enforcing public utility-style regulation of insurers for premiums and multiple benefit mandates. The resulting distortions were increasing rates fast, along with the natural increases from good but expensive Massachusetts medicine.
Mr. Romney applied the approach that succeeded when he was a Bain & Company business consultant: He convened an expert task force. His health-care commission immersed itself in data, crunched the numbers and came up with a technocratic solution.
The conceit was that a universal reform would cover everyone and all but pay for itself by reorganizing the state's health-care finances. Since 1985, Massachusetts footed most of the bill when the uninsured showed up for treatment through a $800 million fund for uncompensated care. That money, along with extra federal Medicaid dollars under a special waiver, would subsidize lower- and middle-income residents.
In the name of personal responsibility, Mr. Romney also introduced the individual mandate, first in the nation, requiring everyone to buy coverage or else pay a penalty. Free riders, he said, transferred their own costs to others, either through higher premiums or taxes. This is the same argument the Obama Administration is now using to justify the coercion of the individual mandate in the federal courts. Because the states have police powers under the Constitution, Mr. Romney's plan posed no legal problems. His blunder was his philosophy of government.
The people who don't buy coverage though they can afford it aren't really a major fiscal problem—unless the goal of the individual mandate is to force them to subsidize others. People who are priced out of coverage require subsidies—so in practice the logic of the individual mandate is that it is a government mandate too. Entitlements automatically grow and grow, and then the political class begins to make decisions that used to be left to markets and individuals.
Massachusetts took off on this entitlement trajectory after Mr. Romney signed the bill in 2006 and stepped down to run for President two years later. Let's go to the data, all of which are state-reported, in search of evidence of Mr. Romney's "success."
The only good news we can find is that the uninsured rate has dropped to 2% today from 6% in 2006. Yet four out of five of the newly insured receive low- or no-cost coverage from the government. The subsidies will cost at least $830 million in 2011 and are growing, conservatively measured, at 5.1% a year. Total state health-care spending as a share of the budget has grown from about 16% in the 1980s to 30% in 2006 to 40% today. The national state average is about 25%.
The safety-net fund that was supposed to be unwound, well, wasn't. Uncompensated hospital care rose 5% from 2008 to 2009, and 15% from 2009 to 2010, hitting $475 million (though the state only paid out $405 million). "Avoidable" use of emergency rooms—that is, for routine care like a sore throat—increased 9% between 2004 and 2008. Meanwhile, unsubsidized insurance premiums for individuals and small businesses have climbed to among the highest in the nation.
Like Mr. Obama's reform, RomneyCare was predicated on the illusion that insurance would be less expensive if everyone were covered. Even if this theory were plausible, it is not true in Massachusetts today. So as costs continue to climb, Mr. Romney's Democratic successor now wants to create a central board of political appointees to decide how much doctors and hospitals should be paid for thousands of services.
The Romney camp blames all this on a failure of execution, not of design. But by this cause-and-effect standard, Mr. Romney could push someone out of an airplane and blame the ground for killing him. Once government takes on the direct or implicit liability of paying for health care for everyone, the only way to afford it is through raw political control of all medical decisions.
Mr. Romney's refusal to appreciate this, then and now, reveals a troubling failure of political understanding and principle. The raucous national debate over health care isn't about this or that technocratic detail, but about basic differences over the role of government. In the current debate over Medicare, Paul Ryan wants to reduce costs by encouraging private competition while Mr. Obama wants the cost-cutting done by a body of unelected experts like the one emerging in Massachusetts.
Mr. Romney's fundamental error was assuming that such differences could be parsed by his own group of experts, as if government can be run by management consultants. He still seems to believe he somehow squared the views of Jonathan Gruber, the MIT evangelist for ObamaCare, with those of the Heritage Foundation.
In reality, his ostensible liberal allies like the late Ted Kennedy saw an opening to advance their own priorities, and in Mr. Romney they took advantage of a politician who still doesn't seem to understand how government works. It's no accident that RomneyCare's most vociferous defenders now are in the White House and left-wing media and think tanks. They know what happened, even if he doesn't.

***

For a potential President whose core argument is that he knows how to revive free market economic growth, this amounts to a fatal flaw. Presidents lead by offering a vision for the country rooted in certain principles, not by promising a technocracy that runs on "data." Mr. Romney's highest principle seems to be faith in his own expertise.
More immediately for his Republican candidacy, the debate over ObamaCare and the larger entitlement state may be the central question of the 2012 election. On that question, Mr. Romney is compromised and not credible. If he does not change his message, he might as well try to knock off Joe Biden and get on the Obama ticket.

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Cal Thomas Gets It Right On Obama

 

More Taxes on Big Oil?

Cal Thomas on Newseum
Conservative Columnist Cal Thomas
  
First quarter profits for American oil companies are jaw dropping. Exxon earned nearly $11 billion, up 69 percent from a year ago. Royal Dutch Shell PLC, Europe’s largest oil company, announced it made $8.78 billion in the first quarter, a 60 percent increase over last year. Much of it, but not all, is due to higher gas prices, over which the companies have very little control due to our heavy reliance on foreign oil.
Some in Congress — mostly Democrats, but a few Republicans — are calling for an end to tax breaks enjoyed by the oil companies and in some cases, higher taxes on their profits. But the Obama administration is contributing to higher energy prices, which inflate the companies’ bottom line.
The Environmental Protection Agency has prevented Shell from proceeding with its Northern Alaska drilling project after Shell reportedly invested more than $4 billion in the project. How can companies make costly investments when they are uncertain that policies allowed in one administration will still be allowed in the one that follows?
In March, when visiting South America, President Obama promised that the United States would help Brazil develop its offshore resources. But he won’t allow much new drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, or Alaska. So we are going to help Brazil drill for oil, and then import it? Gas prices have nearly doubled since Obama’s inauguration and yet the media don’t blame him for it, as they blamed his predecessor when prices soared to current levels.
What about taxes? Oil companies are already heavily taxed. According to the energy research firm Wood Mackenzie, between 1998 and 2008, the oil and gas industry paid $1 trillion in total income taxes. That’s in addition to the $178 billion the companies sent the federal government in rent, royalty and bonus payments between 1982 and 2009. What oil companies pay in taxes is higher than the average American manufacturer, more than their “fair share.”
Wood Mackenzie also found that should taxes be increased on oil companies by $5 billion a year, that “would result in a $128 billion loss in government revenue and would reduce domestic production by 400,000 barrels per day by 2025,” with an additional 1.2 million barrels per day at risk. “This tax increase would increase, not decrease our reliance on foreign sources of oil.”
As for those large profits, the American Petroleum Institute (API) reports that in the latest published data for last year’s third quarter, “the oil and gas industry earned 6 cents for every dollar of sales in comparison with all manufacturing, which earned 8.6 cents for every dollar of sales.”
This administration gives lip service to the successful, while punishing them and subsidizing the unsuccessful. If the president is serious about reducing the cost of oil (and given candidate Obama’s frequent statements in favor of increased energy prices to force more of us (but not him) to drive hybrid, even electric cars — he can emulate George W. Bush.
In July 2008, President Bush lifted an executive order banning offshore drilling, a token gesture since a federal ban on offshore drilling remained in place, but his action caused oil prices to drop, as suppliers believed we were getting serious about obtaining more oil from domestic sources. The argument from the anti-drilling side is that new drilling projects would have no effect because of the time it takes to find and then refine the oil. If new drilling had begun five or 10 years ago we would be pumping far more oil than we are now. If we begin now, in five or 10 years we’ll see the results.
Demonizing the oil companies won’t produce one more drop of oil. Neither will higher taxes, which will affect employment and create many more negative consequences.
Last week, former President George W. Bush reiterated his support for more drilling: “I would suggest Americans understand how supply and demand works. And if you restrict supplies of crude, the price of oil is going to go up.”
President Obama either doesn’t understand supply and demand, or he is deliberately ignoring it in hopes of imposing his radical environmental views on us all.
This column by Cal Thomas can be read in todays print edition of the Boston Herald but not on their on-line edition.
Commetary
Cal Thomas is one of my role models as far as Conservative columnists are concerned.He is right 100% on the part of the EPA regulations getting in the way of as sarah Palin said Drill baby Drill.Along with over taxation ofth alleged "Big Oil" Companies

Sunday, May 8, 2011

NYT On Big $$ In Elections


Opinion Editorial

    One would think that by reading the title of this mornings second lead oped "Democrats, Seduced by Secret Dollars" that the New York Times  left leaning editorial  board  have finally woke up.But that is not the case.
    From the OPED "Last year several pro-Republican advocacy groups degraded the Congressional elections by spending at least $138 million in secret donations on advertisements. The public did not know which lobbying interests gave money, or how much, or what they would demand in return. But the donations became a significant factor in the Republican gains in the House and the Senate."In all honesty I am surprised that the NYT isnot going after us in the Tea Party movement in particular.But  they are hypocrites none the less.
   The rant continues "Now several prominent Democrats are abandoning the high ground and have decided to raise millions of their own secret dollars. They have promised they will again try to pass a law preventing this secrecy if they win. (They were stymied in an earlier attempt by a Republican Senate filibuster.) Whatever they gain in money, they stand to lose far more by giving up principles that President Obama and party leaders once claimed to cherish."Thats funny LOL Democrats abandoning the high ground.
   Now the unions plan on helping Obama get $$$ for re-election "Bill Burton, who until February was Mr. Obama’s deputy press secretary, said last week that he would help lead a group called Priorities USA, which will raise unlimited money from undisclosed sources to aid in the president’s re-election campaign. The initial money will come from the Service Employees International Union and Jeffrey Katzenberg, the Hollywood producer, but more will inevitably begin to flow in from other unions and wealthy Democrats."
   Like the $$$ hasn't come in from the punk thug ass unions before especially from the likes of the SEIU and left leaning idiots like Katzenberg.
   It seems that I am lauging more this morning for some weird reason heres more to laugh at "Mr. Obama has long claimed to champion transparency and denounced the secret-money sluice operated by Republicans last year as a “threat to democracy.” As he said in October, “The American people deserve to know who’s trying to sway their elections, and you can’t stand by and let the special interests drown out the voices of the American people.” Last year, speaking for the administration, Mr. Burton called for a “bright light” to shine on the shadowy groups."Transparency my ass but to champion it  Obama is a chump CHUMP!
   Here is another line of BS "Mr. Burton now says he does not like the campaign finance rules, which the Supreme Court."Excuse me it was McCain/Feingold in the US Senate and Meehan/Shays bill in theUS Hose tat ended up being the Campaign finance BS bill.
   The NYT ends this oped in condescending left wing fashion "A political system built on secret, laundered money will inevitably lead toward an increased culture of influence and corruption. Democrats would attract more support as a principled party that refused to follow the Republicans down that dark alley."
    Say what it is the Democrats who for years on end have raised and laundered campaign donations we don't have to look far here in the 6th Congressional district of Massachusetts our current socialist left wing Communist U.S.Rep.John Tierney (D-Salem Ma) whos wife was sentenced to a month in prison for laundering $$ for her brother (the brother in law of Congressman Tierney for you dumb ass liberals out there)who is wanted by the feds for $$ laundering gambling $$.But Tierney claimed that that was his wife's families business and he didnot know anything about it.Yeah right.