Redstate

Dave

Romney got hammered tonight, but that's when he actually looked human and dropped the Android bit.

As they hit Romney he looked pained, looked genuine and responded by defending himself without getting petty.

I have not been all that sure about Mitt, but after seeing him tonight, my thinking is changing.

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

and even i warmed to him a bit

W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm

If you think Romney dominated the health care segment then you should just vote for Obama or Clinton. His government mandate is the same thing as Clinton and Obama are offering. It's socialism by government mandate. Seriously, look at his plan. You must have insurance or proof of financial responsibility. It's sickening. Did you really pay attention to the debate? He also said, and I quote, "we should go after excesses" when he was asked about profits in the pharmaceutical industry. Are you kidding me? Since when is it wrong to make profits and what is an excess? Isn't that what a profit is? People wake up! This phony is no conservative. He was for abortion until he had higher ambitions than MA. He was for a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq until the surge proved to be working. Don't believe me: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/04/echoes_of_pryor.html . Do you want our version of John Kerry, then support this guy!

I hate to have to post this again but I will and in case you are wondering if I know anything about the subject, I am a career hospital administrator and I have participated on state health reform task forces.

Mandates are necessary in healthcare because people can get access healthcare for free through a hospital's ER. Yes, anyone can get treated FOR FREE at an ER - you just have to refuse to give them your information and they are required to stabilize you. So in essence, without a mandate people can get healthcare without paying for it (read: stealing). If people who refuse healthcare could also be refused treatment then mandates wouldn't be necessary but our society won't allow people to just die. For example, if you lived in Mass and didn't get insurance then your life would still be saved if you were in a car accident - even though you didn't pay for it. I hope you can see why this is necessary; it's pretty intuitive.

Your analysis is either uninformed or dishonest.

As for the "excesses" comment; Mitt was defending the pharmaceutical industry that McCain (I believe it was McCain) had just taken a shot at.

* PRIESTCRAFT is thus defined: “The stratagem and frauds of priests; fraud or imposition in religious concerns. Management of selfish and ambitious priests to gain wealth and power, or to impose upon the credulity of others.”

My analysis is neither uninformed nor dishonest. Your intuitive solution to stop healthcare "stealing" is to manadate that I, someone who has paid for all healthcare services ever received, should be forced by my government to purchase healthcare insurance or document to government auditors my financial ability to pay and to set money aside. I choose not to purchase insurance. It is my choice. I have the means to do so, but am not so inclined. I do go to the doctor, but I pay for my visits. It is no business of government to determine consumption preferences for me.

I am a career attorney who advises businesses and individuals on how to comply with the intricate and often competing demands of the law. Your analysis is superficial and completely disregards the basic facts. Those who "steal" healthcare services are those without the means to pay. Under Romney's plan, those individuals would get government assistance up to the level of 100% coverage. Hence, they are still stealing healthcare services. Not from the hosptial, but from the taxpayer. You "intuitive" plan is a microcosm of a planned economy. One has to look no further than F.A. Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" to get a comprehensive refutation of the economic foolishness of this path.

Under your logic, we could stop theft in general by providing to all according to his needs and from whom according to his means, and it would be intuitive. It would also be socialism.

And what happens when I ignore your mandate? Should I be fined, imprisoned? Should the government refuse me a tax refund until I comply? What should big brother do with me? Your the "expert" health administrator, tell me how far you would go to enforce compliance.

And since when do conservatives argue for bigger government. You question my honesty, perhaps we should question yours. Socialized medicine, whether single-payer or government mandated, is still socialized medicine, no matter how much you've wrapped your brain around the issue, used your expertise, and decided this was the only way to solve the problem of "stealing." That type of thinking is why we have a welfare state, HUD, a department of education, and just about everything else. Some so called expert decided it was the best way, regardless of whether or not it erodes the liberty of the citizenry.

Finally, one quick point on Romney's defense of big pharma. He did defend them until he was asked about excessive profits. Then he said, "we should go after excesses." Check the transcript.

Thanks for responding and I apologize for coming across as insulting.

Your case is different. If you are in fact someone who self-pays for all of their healthcare (maybe you are self employed?) then Mitt's plan would allow you to purchase insurance and therefore save you a lot of money through the "connector" that he described in todays debate. As you know, very few hospitals are set up to charge fair prices for self-pay, so people like you get charged excessively. The connector would be a huge positive for someone like you.

As for Mitt's plan being socialized medicine. You must be using some definition of socialized medicine that I'm not aware of. This is in no way socialized medicine. This is not even close to a single payor system.

One of the complicating factors in hospitals is that a person seeking treatment does not technically have to provide any information to be treated. Therefore, a hospital can not call collections on you if they don't know your name or where you live. This puts them at an unfair advantage as far as the free market goes. They don't just decide to allow this to happen, it is legislated that they have to - EMTALA.

Because healthcare does not work under free market principles, it is absolutely fair to institute a mandate and fine those who don't pay for services they use. Imprisonment probably isn't necessary because someone could quickly sign up for whatever healthcare coverage they need.

As Romney stated, they found that they saved a ton of money by paying for the uninsured to be covered when compared to the amount that they were losing in emergency rooms.

We are already providing everyone care. Romney's plan just streamlines that inefficient process and allows for people to have access to a full spectrum of care (including preventitive, which is key), while also saving money. That is smart.

I understand why it's seen as a big government solution but it's really not. It's fixing part of the overall big government mess that we already have with healthcare. Only when we are willing to allow those who can't pay to receive no treatment will be able to have a true free market in healthcare. That will never happen. Romney's plan is a good one and it's sad that so many people jump on it as "socialized medicine." It is not, it is an innovative way to save money, while also improving the lives of many people.

Just curious - what type of healthcare reform do you support?

* PRIESTCRAFT is thus defined: “The stratagem and frauds of priests; fraud or imposition in religious concerns. Management of selfish and ambitious priests to gain wealth and power, or to impose upon the credulity of others.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7JLhKqtJHs

He wasn't asked about excesses; he was standing up for Pharma and the good they do as they "operate in the free market". He just quickly acknowledged there are excesses but they are not bad guys. Not really sure what you saw in this Josh.

* PRIESTCRAFT is thus defined: “The stratagem and frauds of priests; fraud or imposition in religious concerns. Management of selfish and ambitious priests to gain wealth and power, or to impose upon the credulity of others.”

Here is the problem as I see it. Those of you who are in the medical field are confronted with a problem that only seems to get worse. Because of mandates already in place, hospitals have a free-rider problem. Understandable. The probelm is that your solution is that you look to government for the answer. One of the posts said that no other industry faces theft of services like medicine. Perhaps the magnitude is unmatched, but I can tell you as a self-employed professional that my services often go uncompensated. My clients, which cover the spectrum of businesses, face the same problem. People don't always pay. Now, I could lobby Congress to force everyone to get legal insurance so that I would always be paid. Great for me. An undesired expense for others.

It is this principle that matters. It is not the purpose of government to tell me what to purchase. When government mandates that I get health insurance along with everyone else, it is socializing medicine. It is not single payor, but it is still socialized. In effect, government has taxed me and paid for my health care. The only difference is that the money doesn't first go through the hands of government. A good thing, but it does not create clean hands. It does not make it capitalism. It is still government direction of my consumption. It is socialized medicine. It requires me to buy something I do not wish to buy. That is what makes it socialized...everyone in society must, by decree, have it.

It's funny because every industry faces these types of obstacles unique to their industry. Each industry then lobbies government for a solution. Each has great arguments and hopes for government regulation. In the end we live in a regulatory hell. We move one step closer to that social utopian dream of Karl Marx.

I am glad you care about this issue, but I just think you are wrong to advocate the government take over of our free choice to solve your problem. We are suppose to be conservatives. You know, small government and low tax. We advocate freedom, not serfdom. We advocate choice, not mandates. I feel like I am on the Huffington Post by the way I have to defend this principle.

And, I believe you raised the issue of why I would care if I had to document my ability to pay to the government. I am not sure why that sounds strange to you. Would you turn your private information over to complete strangers? To the government? Government grows by making itself necessary. The more you get used to sending your private information to the government the less wary you are of government. I am sure my profession has clouded my perspective, but I have seen tradgedy at the hands of government. I have seen the IRS extort thousands of dollars from businesses by threatening to shut them down. I have sen businesses pay other peoples tax bills just to stay open. I have seen investigations into employment practices that nearly ruin the company involved. This is government. An out of control machine that has no accountability. I have seen too much to trust it.

I will let you know my thoughts on health care plans tomorrow. I have to get to bed.

While you call Romney's healthcare plan in Massachusetts "socialized medicine," it doesn't make it so. The government runs absolutely no part of the system. Hospital employees get their paychecks from the hospital--not from the government. If you don't think that makes a difference, try to get some labs done in a VA hospital and get back to me. And further, Romney supports a plan of national healthcare deregulation. That is not something either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama support. Hillary has called for more strident, non-market-based penalties aimed at healthcare insurers, actually.

And while you note that you are able to pay for your heathlcare, I fail to see why you're all in a tizzy about proving that you can do such. If hospitals are mandated to provide service, they should be guaranteed that those who enter their doors will pay. In no other industry are employees mandated by law to render services without compensation. You talk about individual rights but seem to not care so much about those of hospital workers.

And while you say the only ones who steal from hospitals are those who can't pay. That's not true. I can say that as someone who works in a hospital. Plenty of people enter the hospital doors who can pay but don't really care if their credit rating is destroyed. I see it regularly. I've even had people brazen enough to ask me what can really happen if they don't pay. People are playing the system.

Further, taxpayers, hospital patrons with insurance and who pay out of pockets, and doctors do already pay for those who enter our hospitals uninsured. But what you leave out is that those who are uninsured have no option to receive care from the hospital except to go to the Emergency Room, perhaps the most expensive avenue of care you can enter in a hospital.

Plans similar to Romney would force most to 1) pay something into the system and 2) send them to a General Practioner for most concerns. GP's now make less than dentists thanks to insurers and their procedures-oriented pay scale, and their services are affordable and readily available.

All this is meaningless, anyway. Romney does not support a nationalized plan, and he didn't even like fully what he got in Mass--hence the 8 or 9 vetoes.

"Don't ever be afraid to see what you see." ~Ronald Reagan

And yes, as the other poster noted, hospitals can't even be sure of the identity of anyone they are treating. For those who don't wish to pay, the system is extremely gameable as is, sadly.

"Don't ever be afraid to see what you see." ~Ronald Reagan

of socialized medicine. Until you quit treating colds, flue, and other minor ailments as "hospital" or "clinic" treatment, costs will never drop. People will take advantage of whatever free care they can get. It's a wonder that mankind survived before the 20th century.

Gormally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

do I have to PROVE I carry automobile insurance before I can register my car?

Why do I, as a business owner, have to PROVE that I have liability insurance to obtain a business license?

As long as we are here, why am I, an employer, expected to have, and pay for, medical insurance for my employees? They don't expect car insurance from me, nor homeowner's insurance. They also don't EXPECT life insurance. The sooner we get to INDIVIDUALS responsible for their own insurance, the better.

The Mandate is a ball of red tape and higher taxes. When governor romney said he didn't raise taxes in Massachusetts he is being less than truthful. He raised taxes on the most vulnerable of our citizens the uninsured.

Now healthcare is a tax. Ok. This is what dishonest politicians do: call fees a tax, call health insurance a tax, and call plans to withdraw our troops without winning patriotic.

As Romney pointed out in the debate, many of the

...most vulnerable of our citizens the uninsured

were not poor at all and were able to afford their own health insurance but were taking a free ride at the taxpayers expense. Those who were poor were assisted in obtaining their health insurance and are therefore now much better off.

I don't care whether you call it "for the childres", support of the police department, heath care, or anything else... If it requires money from the people, it IS A TAX!

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

Lots of things that government does are financed by user fees. The government owns something or provides some service and charges for use. Do you includes this in your definition of "If it requires money from the people, it IS A TAX?"

Now I know a good argument can be had about whether the government should own things or provide services, but that isn't the issue I'm seeking to address.

In Vino Veritas

Fee: a sum paid or charged for a service

Tax: a sum of money demanded by a government for its support

When the State or Feds can not get enough taxes, they raise the FEES... It becomes no more than taxes. Every time the local constables raise their fines for speeding, they are raising local taxes. You can credibly call them fees for service but in fact, they eventually become local revenue - ie taxes. Sorry, it may not be the definition of taxes but the result is the fee increases become tax increases.

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

and still insist they are the same, I have not hope getting you to see the difference.

BTW, I audit governments for a living. In their financial statements they list taxes, fees and fines as separate items. Why do you suppose that is?

that cities and states raise revenue. I know you probably understand this so I won't continue...but I was not questioning the actual difference between fees and taxes, it's just that fees are the new way to raise taxes without "raising taxes".

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

And its tied to actual usage, its a much better idea.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

If your government starts charging too high of fees for water or electric the citizens start using less of those services. That results in them paying less fees.

If your government starts charging too high of taxes try using less of their services and see if your taxes go down.

I'll try driving less - they will drop the registration fees - and the safety inspection fees (have risen about 300% in the last 5 years, must be inflation). No more gun registration, CC fees, etc. Fines have gone up 1000% in many instances. Park entrance fees have gone from a dollar to 5 dollars a day, too much to continue but you know what I mean. It does not cost them anymore for many services, they just need more revenue.

Local and State version of minor tax increases...

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

You will pay less fees if you have fewer cars.

You will pay less fees if you have fewer guns.

You will pay less park admission fees if you go to less parks.

Your taxes will not be reduced one cent if you do any of these things.

At least of fees that really are a charge for use of a government asset or service. I don't put fines in that category, though I'll admit that they are often used simply as a cash cow, especially by local governments. DUI arrests are a good example; if there were a real crime, the cops here couldn't catch a cold, but they can sure lurk the roads at bar closing time. I'm not defending driving while intoxicated, but the .08 standard makes it impossible for most people to have a bottle of wine with dinner with the wife and drive home legally. It is a ridiculously low standard contrived simply to make money. As is the mandatory seat belt. I wear belts religiously but what the mandatory law does is give the cops probable cause to stop anyone; "he appeared not to be wearing a seat belt, your Honor, and when I approached him, he appeared to be under the influence." Now they don't have to smash tail lights with their batons anymore.

To the main point, many government "services" even with user fees are heavily subsidized by tax payers who do not use that service. An area that hits close to home here is the massive federal occupation of my State to oversee the fed's Parks, National Forests, and Preserves/Reserves, which comprise over a third of that land mass on the map labelled Alaska, but which are not under the control or ownership of the State of Alaska. The Fed spends millions, maybe billions on those properties and allows ZERO economic activity on them. The newly weds and nearly deads on the cruise ships get to look at them. A few granola crunching greenie backpackers get to tromp around on them and maybe pay a few dollars to use a cabin or developed campsite. My first choice would be for the Fed to divest itself of most of it, keeping only the truly remarkable or special. Failing that, the people who use it should have to pay for that use, and it is a bunch more than an $8/dy. camping fee.

In Vino Veritas

Let's ask Clinton and Obama if they agree with this silly suggestion that Massachusetts' plan is the same as what they are proposing. Their plans are massively different and involve much more government bureaucracy and tax dollars. Their plans are socialistic.

How exactly is requiring people to buy their own health insurance socialism? Is it also socialism that people are required to buy their own car insurance?

Paying for your own needs keeps the government out of it. Being required to pay for your own needs is nowhere near socialism.

mandatory car insurance.

There is no right to drive a car. You must be licensed to drive a car. You must be licensed to own a car -- you have to register it with the State.

In that regulatory scheme, it is sensible to require insurance for the car you are licensing/registering with the State. If you do not have insurance, the State will impound the vehicle.

What will you do if someone refuses to register their health? Goes on living without mandatory health insurance? Impound their bodies (aka, imprisonment)?

Being required to pay for health insurance is surely a step towards serfdom. What's next? Mandatory workouts and healthy diets?

A conservative should not be proposing such a thing.

-TS

"When men fear work or fear righteous war, when women fear motherhood, they tremble on the brink of doom; and well it is that they should vanish from the earth." - Teddy Roosevelt

Being required to pay for health insurance is surely a step towards serfdom.

Not in my universe.

I'm sorry, but if a person is able to pay for their own health insurance, then they should. Making you and I pay for their health care so they can afford their snowmobiles just isn't right.

With alternative being Hillary-Care or another liberal proposal, I think the Massachusetts plan at least keeps us from socialism.

if you get hurt on your snow machine during the evening or weekend, you drag your carcass to work, have an "accident" at work, then Workers Compensation takes care of it. "Free" health care and you can own a snow machine! Is this a great Country or what?

In Vino Veritas

LOL n/t

Josh, I should have read your posts before I bothered to engage you. You are clearly a newbie with an agenda. Now, our discussion has been good but I can't believe you are reasonable from your other posts. Your sole purpose is to denigrate Romney.

For the other posters - This is not a problem where you can look at other businesses. My question is - how do you propose we fix the problem? Do you think the status quo is okay?

I've spent my life studying these issues and living them. A mandate is the only reasonable way to solve the problem. You say government shouldn't tell you that you have to purchase for something. What they're really doing is saying you have to pay for a service. Government has already decided that people will get care no matter what - that's the major obstacle.

Please focus responses on what you propose to solve the problem.

* PRIESTCRAFT is thus defined: “The stratagem and frauds of priests; fraud or imposition in religious concerns. Management of selfish and ambitious priests to gain wealth and power, or to impose upon the credulity of others.”

I have an agenda because I think Romney is a fake and a phony? Is he untouchable? The agenda appears to be from those of you who call yourselves conservatives and stand by a statement like this, "A mandate is the only reasonable way to solve the problem." Hello 1960s liberalism.

By the way, Obama's health plan doesn't even require everyone to get health insurance. And car insurance is only required if you own a car. You really want to suggest that because you have a body, the government can require you to insure it?

In the law we call what you are proposing over-inclusive. You have identified a problem and see the only solution as burdening everyone so that the hospitals don't have to deal with the problem. Right now I pay for my healthcare. I have never skipped out on a bill. For that, I should be penalized by the government with a cost-spreading scheme where I could be fined for none compliance. How is that reasonable?

If you think the government would only be saying that you have to pay for a service, then the current system is fine. Under the law, hospitals can attempt to recover payment for services rendered. It may be difficult, but there is no right to free services. There may be a right to treatment, and the effect may be that collection is impossible, but it doesn't change the fact that the law already says you must pay for services.

Then Romney's proposal must be something more. It is that hospital administrator's what to get get some of their losses off the books and they are looking to government for help. It appears that the vast majority of for-profit hospitals in this country actually do make a profit. So all this gloom and doom is really about profit maximization on the backs of taxpayers. I wish my industry got such perks.

Now, I am for insurance deregulation and hospital deregulation, but those are free market solutions. Every business deals with losses. Did you know that the law requires retailers to allow everyone into their stores. This anti-discrimination law makes it harder for stores to prevent shoplifting. And that is just the start of the laws that make it very difficult to catch thieves. Perhaps those losses should be spread to taxpayers too.

I won't dismiss you as you did me. I stand by the substance of my argument and do not need to attempt to characterize you as having an agenda that I deduced from reading your other posts. You omnisciently can identify my sole purpose. No wonder you feel free to attempt to control the discussion and propose socialized medicine. Grow up and deal with the substance of my argument or can't you?

There is no right to drive a car.

Similarly, there ought to be no "right" to obtain healthcare without payment - but that horse left the barn decades ago.

And as long as that horse is out of the barn, people who wish to obtain medical services and have the ability to pay ought to so do - and that means, in 2007 America, having some form of insurance - even if by a mandate (which is, believe me, distasteful).

Fact is that we're all fighting on very, very bad terrain here Sophist, but sticking one's fingers in one's ears and closing one's eyes to the problem is not going to make it go away. Romney's solution wasn't perfect (neither was a similar proposal floated by Newt in his book), but it helped stall the march to Canada-care in Massachusetts for perhaps a decade or so. It bought us some time, at least.

My unfortunate prediction is that 15-years from now we will look back and wish we passed "HillaryCare" 15-years ago.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

Your argument has another analogy that I wonder if you agree with, immigration. Let me use your language:

There ought to be no "right" to be in the US if you are illegally here - but that horse left the barn decades ago.

And as long as that horse is out of the barn, people who wish to be here and are not criminals ought to be able stay if they pay a fine - and that means, in 2007 America, having some form of identification to bring people out of the shadows - even if by comprehensive immigration reform (which is, believe me, distasteful).

Fact is that we're all fighting on very, very bad terrain here Sophist, but sticking one's fingers in one's ears and closing one's eyes to the problem is not going to make it go away. McCain's solution wasn't perfect, but it helped stall the march to European Union open borders here in the US for perhaps a decade or so. It bought us some time, at least.

Or let's try abortion:

There ought to be no "right" to an abortion - but that horse left the barn decades ago.

And as long as that horse is out of the barn, people who wish to obtain an abortion and can find a provider to do so - and that means, in 2007 America, having some form of Planned Parenthood to go to - even if the state of MA helps to pay for such a procedure (which is, believe me, distasteful).

Fact is that we're all fighting on very, very bad terrain here Sophist, but sticking one's fingers in one's ears and closing one's eyes to the problem is not going to make it go away. Romney's solution wasn't perfect, but it helped stall the march to abortion on demand for perhaps a decade or so. It bought us some time, at least.

I could go on and on, but it demonstrates the foolishness of the argument. Abandon principles because you want to slow down the march toward serfdom. Well, I have news for you, we are already there and people like you are helping the march toward tyranny.

The ease at which you will take over a decision that ought to be the consumers is frightening. Ever heard of a planning committee? It's what socialists hail as the great salvation. The wise all knowing technocrats are better at making decisions for us than we are. Why? Because they say so. They are experts. They have studied the issue. And what will they do to enforce compliance? Fine, imprison, or whatever it takes to enforce their will on everyone else. It's Plato's republic, it's Marx's utopia, it's a march toward involutary servitude.

I think that is more than distasteful.

Have you looked at Obama's plan? It mandates that parents insure their children. It doesn't mandate that everyone have insurance. It is actually less government control than Romney's. Clinton's is actually very close to Romney's. It mandates everyone buy insurance. No candidate, except Kucinich, is advocating a single payer system.

You are right though, if he looks real for people, this "Phony" will destroy the field and be our president.

"Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now". -White Goodman

He is a scripted professional politician and too many are tired of his type. Too many people are ready for something else...anything else...

He used to be my second choice, but after watching him (not just this debate), he comes across just like all polished politicians.

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

This was the best format yet. I hope others follow suit.

* PRIESTCRAFT is thus defined: “The stratagem and frauds of priests; fraud or imposition in religious concerns. Management of selfish and ambitious priests to gain wealth and power, or to impose upon the credulity of others.”

when he attempted to negate his immigration position. He further isolated himself when he stated his global warming views. These placed him outside of the winners circle.

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

“I don’t describe your plan as amnesty in my ad. I don’t call it amnesty.”

(Too bad he actually called it amnesty.)

Of course it was amnesty by any other name just not by the dictionary (maybe)... No, that does not make Romneys position any better...

If I'm wrong, it is recorded so I can recheck...

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

Romney was a mess on immigration -- It was Fred who was asking Guiliani on the illegals staying was amnesty -- not Mitt

don't give Mitt credit for things he didn't do.

and is the most conservative in the race. I just wish he would catch on...dang it!

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

"Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now". -White Goodman

I doubt if our pushiness was felt nearly as much by the population as the regime's own style of governing.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

That doesn't really fill the void in my brain at the moment. Once again...I believe I'd be acting as a good American if I took up arms against a foreign power setting up a permanent military installation near my home. I get extremely sick to my stomach just thinking about there being some foreign base in my country exuding influence. This is our country and I'll be damned if someone is going to come and put their troops on our soil for some extended period of time...whether they are an ally or not.

Of course if we go to war with Canada and need Antigua's help to defeat them, a temporary arrangement is tolerable. I'm talking permanent base. We have bases all over the place, most places they are welcomed as an ally but I've got to imagine if I feel this way as a pretty somber person normally...it would be really easy to convince someone more radical or even moderate to fight against us.

definitely would be very different from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Japan and Germany. Our early experience in the Philippines was a lot closer to RP's comparison. Also, you might argue that some of the anti-American feelings in the world come from disappointment and disillusionment because they expected our influence to be more proactive.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

At least when we established bases, we had the approval of their government. If we actually gave permission for such bases, then I would imagine things might be different (we were weak and needed protection - or some similar scenario).. In those instances, things change. Realistically, that would (should) never happen...

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

yes the approval of the "government" but how about approval of the people. That is the issue that you need to remember. At face value you consider is the government's will and not the people's necessarily. After you get done polling the people of these nations come back with the same "It must be ok if a foreign govt says its ok" attitude.

If you can figure out how any government can get the "will of the people" before helping them or establishing a military base (to protect them and our interests), let me know... That is a rather naive statement you know. Tell me, should we poll the people of foreign nations first? What is your plan?

I would guess that no country would have bases anywhere if the people had to be polled first...but maybe that is your goal.

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

too bad it's in favor of my argument.

"to protect them and our interests". OUR INTERESTS. Who's invading Okinawa anyway?

Ask the Okinawins, the people, if they still want us there. It's the government that says "yes" and the people say "no".

I'll help you with the poll if you'd like.

So if we can't get the will of the people BEFORE we plant ourselves somewhere what about AFTER when they say Go Home Yankee American.

Do you actually think that we should poll the poeple regarding bases in another country? Come on, all countries deal with governments, it would be an impossible task to do what you are specifying. I did throw in "our interests" because it coincides with the host countries requirements - protection. Now you can say in WWII we created bases in countries that we defeated. Are you saying we should have polled them then or continue polling them yearly? Either way, it is a nutty idea.

All countries deal with governments - there is not other logical alternative and you know it. Get off your high horse and get real...

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

A reasonable view of what goes on. I'm being facetious, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/facetious -about actually doing our own poll. BUT what we collectively can do is stop, look and listen. That seems to be people's problem, Not listening.

So you are missing the point dbecraft.

Can we deal with a country through diplomacy, have trade with it and coexist peacefully without maintaining a military base in that nation?

"Now you can say in WWII we created bases in countries that we defeated." Yup, certainly a true statement on your part. Now the big question, Is it worth bankrupting our own nation maintaining the base 60 years AFTER we have conquered that country?

"All countries deal with governments - there is not other logical alternative and you know it. Get off your high horse and get real"...
I noticed your writing seems to have become a little incoherent with a touch of resentment and anger. Is my argument kind of making sense and you don't want to accept that your perception of things may not be as well thought out as it possibly could be?

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

...thoroughly annoying. Calling for "approval of the people" of every place America has interests before we can protect those interests is not only naive, it's asinine. Every person and nation acts in their own interests, and for good reason. We protect our own interests, as we must, and as other nations do around the world.

Given that governments, in part, exist to represent the people of their countries internationally, and that the government of every single country in which we have a base has invited or allowed us to remain there, there is no argument to be made here.

You haven't read all the way through which is typical of most.

"Every person and nation acts in their own interests, and for good reason" -Jeff Emanuel

I underscore Every person!

Thanks Jeff. So for example, if a nation has 70% of it's people saying they don't want something, then the government which represents that 70%, "exist to represent the people"-JE should therefore act according to that 70%?

Help me Jeff is this accurate?

in addition to the areas of history, reading comprehension, and reality, is in coherent writing. Can you revise your last full paragraph to actually say something? If I'm deciphering the jumble correctly, you're saying that all governments should act according to the majority will of the people of their countries. Perhaps -- but perhaps not. As a liberal, you should be more in touch than anybody with the idea that "people don't always know what is best for them" -- it's one of you mottoes.

For example, in the aftermath of 9/11, there could easily have been a poll taken in America showing that a majority of the people wanted to nuke Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan. However, cooler heads -- those representing the people in the government -- prevailed, and for very good reason.

Interestingly, though, you seem to have come full circle on us, from demanding that people in other countries fight for democracy without any help, encouragement, or legitimizing from us, while also demanding that the world automatically function as a democracy, with every government automatically responding to the majority will of its population, no questions asked.

How charmingly contradictory, and pathetically naive.

Do out "interests" trump the auto-determination of another nation?

Yes. As I recall, Nazi Germany and the USSR were very self-determined nations indeed.

Yes. As I recall, Nazi Germany and the USSR were very self-determined nations indeed.

I'm stupid for thinking that modern day Costa Rica & Okinawa among others are eminent threats to the safety and security of these United States.

aesthete, you have potential to be pretty smart, What's the fundamental difference between the examples I give and the examples you give?

OK, I think I see your argument aesthete. The ONLY way any nation on Earth can continue to be free and independent is if we have a military base in their country to ensure it stays that way. Thanks, I feel better now.

...as much as you think you do, then you'd know the answer to that question.

It's very simple, really. Why do we have bases in Okinawa and South Korea, and not in North Korea and China? Why in Germany but not in Russia? Why, until 2003, did we have them in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, but not in Iraq?

Why do we have these bases within reach of potentially dangerous countries that are potential enemies, but not in those dangerous countries? I'll give you a hint -- the answer is embedded within this very comment.

Can you really not figure this out without help?

Besides, if we didn't have a base in Okinawa, there wouldn't be anywhere for Jack Murtha to suggest to redeploy our troops in Iraq to.

Read the last paragraph here

Well for starters, we don't have troops in Iraq to oppress them, they are there to free them. Sort of like how the French were here to help us become free from our oppressor.

The idea that we are telling them how to live is flat out false. Saddam told them how to live. We gave them elections, their democratically elected representatives wrote their constitution, they approved the constitution. The Iraqi's are choosing their path, frankly if we were telling them how to live, things would go a lot smoother over there(not that I am advocating that).

The Bathists are the oppressors, the islamofacists are oppressors, we are the liberators.

What happens when the "islamofacists" are democratically elected in Iraq? Do you stay the course, and support a democratic Iraq, or do you try to replace the government? Thats one of the ways in which the current administration has been short-sighted and oblivious to the realities of middle-east politics - replacing Saddam with a democracy may not be in the US's best interest.

not by Islamfacists... Iraq did not harbor this type of radical so what makes you think that it would suddenly become Islamofacist? Not a normal planned problem, but I have no doubt that somewhere in the US bureaucracy, they did plan for that. After all, it seems that the CIA plans for all continuances - at least according to the movies.

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

The French were here to fight their eternal adversary, Britain, and further their interests around the world, NOT "free" us from our oppressor. It was a war of convenience man.

Hey Brandozilla, Wrap you mind around this. If we are NOT there telling them how to live as you say, how could we be there telling them Democracy and popular votes are the way to have a government? You can't, because that's telling them how to live.

Do your homework Brandozilla. Read up on what we(the USA) did in Chile when they, by popular vote, elected a socialist.

If Iraq wants a democracy let them fight for as we did. We have no business being there TELLING THEM HOW TO LIVE!

look at the definition of democracy. We are not telling them how to live, we giving the means of self governance back to the people of Iraq after taking it away from Saddam.

Of course France had their own motives, but we welcomed them because we shared a goal of defeating the British.

Likewise in Iraq, we are there because we share the mutual goal of fighting Islamofacism and tyranny Iraq.

There is nothing tyrannical about democracy. There are Iraqi's fighting and dieing for their democracy.

The very idea that you can put a gun to someone's head and say "hey, live as you'd like for the first time your nation's history" is fundamentally flawed. Saddam needed the gun to their heads.

...coupled with the double dose of self-righteousness and condescension (and complete ignorance of the complexity of issues outside the borders of this county -- and likely outside of your own front door) that most lefties who come here have. Never fear, though -- that second attribute will soundly protect you from ever realizing that the first and third are true, so you can go on living in the mist for as long as you like (unless, most unfortunately, reality very physically interferes with you).

Nevertheless, I'll post this refutation of your next to last sentence anyway, in hopes that some far less lost cause can benefit from it.

Thanks Jeff. I have my card if you want to see it.

....there's no such thing as a "registered conservative" in our political system.

Can't you see it? I'll read your article later.

Oh p.s. reading is a fruitless activity if you are incapable of learning.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Bye.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

And then along came Jones. Slow walking Jones. Slow talking Jones. Along came long, thin, lanky Jones.

Do you know that song Moe? I think of it often with you.

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

I don't support Ron Paul for president, but his comments are much more thoughtful than the rest of the field gives him credit for. He has a fantastic grasp on economics, but is a pretty poor communicator. The other candidates say that our foreign policy has nothing to do with terrorism, but that is obviously not true. On the other hand, the leading cause of islamic terrorism is not american foreign policy. Our foreign policy helps to make us enemy number one and provides for easy propaganda. Even in stable democracies like Japan, there is deep seeded resentment over us having a military base on their soil. It makes sense. American military presence is far too wide. Why do we need soldiers in Germany? South Korea? Japan? It stirs international resentment because it is so visible. We would never let it happen here. Are we so different from the rest of the world? No.

On a side note, Paul is not the nut he is often characterized as. He is a classic libertarian and it all starts with economics and freedom. That is why he talks about monetary policy so often. The Fed prints money, which causes inflation and makes things more expensive for everyone except those closest to the source. Consider this: when the Fed prints money and transfers it to the banks, those banks lend the money out. The first to get the money is enriched because they get to spend it on goods at preinflation prices. Over time, that money works its way into the system and causes greater supply of currency, which causes price inflation. Those farthest from the money source are getting paid in inflated dollars, so their wages are worth less. It is effectively a transfer of wealth from those farthest from the money supply to those closest to it. Just a nugget of the kind of economic policy that Paul exposes.

He is intellectually dishonest and reading only those who agree with him...

His argument that terrorists attack us only b/c we are in their nation, and push up dictators.

That is simply untrue. They attack because they hate our western ideals. They hate equality of genders, free speech, free thought, etc. Just look at Saudia Arabia's barbaric legal system. To the terrorists, the Saudis are MODERATES!!!

RP is a Republican offering Cold War-1990(s) foreign policy. It did not save the USS Cole, the embassies, etc.

We cannot wait for them to attack us, we take the fight to them. We chose the battlefield, or they will make American soil the battlefield.

Dhannon pdx you apparently can't slow down enough to be objective.

Which came first genius? The Cole and the embassies or our footprint in the Middle-East and Islamic "Holy ground"? Your argument is bunk.

Rah Rah Rah, Why don't you sign up for the Marines dude? If you are so interested in chasing the terrorists?

You watch too much TV kid.

probably get you banned, but if you're still here ...

I know that I, and I suspect most here if they're honest about it, don't really give a d**n about "The People" singing songs and carrying signs saying "Yankee Go Home." If it furthers US interests to be there, we go there. And since a Nimitz Class and its Battle Group accompanied by a Marine Expeditionary Force is in and of itself the second or third most powerful nation in the World and we have a half dozen or so afloat somewhere at any given time, we go and come pretty much as we please.

"Self-determination" is just a leftover Lefty codeword for turn the Country over to the Communists and anyone who uses that word in in political discourse is immediately suspect as either a fellow traveler or useful idiot. Self-determination is measured in ships, planes, tanks, and troops. He who has the most gets to "self-determine."

In Vino Veritas

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

It is not crazy. RP is right. If someone came into my yard to control me and siphon off my property I would blow them away. I am surprised there isn't more terrorism.

Let the Arabs fight each other. They have been for centuries.

Yeah, RP makes a good point; unfortunately Romney’s point was better. America is propping up governments against the encroachment of enemy nations and ideologies. It is America’s interest to support, sustain, and spread moderate governments and policies throughout the world. (Btw, does anyone notice the shift from "democracy" to "moderation" here? Is it even important?)
I honestly thought that Romney shined best when debating with RP. The guy has an astounding grasp of the facts. (Is this hero worship on my part? lol)

"Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now". -White Goodman

I'm suprised McCain & Huckabee didn't high five eachother during the debate or try to give Mitt a wedgie. I had so many flashbacks to High School with their behavior, I was embarassed for them & our party.

I agree. Romney did a great job taking the punches coming from all sides. I'm not a Romney supporter, but I felt sorry for him at times.

The problem for Romney is that the flipping and the flopping have made him a big target.

http://landofdafree.blogspot.com/

I agree. Romney stood up there and behaved professionally in light of all the heat he was taking. I think that he's at his best when he sticks to the issues, lays it out, and places substance over the petty attacks.

I think this debate may end up showing how important it is to choose your punches. News may or may not get around, but when Huckabee claimed he supported the surge before everyone and claimed he supported it when Romney didn't...

Well, if this video gets out, it's going to hurt his credibility:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLquRK7sNs0

There he is, plain as day, saying he doesn't support the surge after he's been told Romney and Giuliani do.

Pick your fights wisely....

"Don't ever be afraid to see what you see." ~Ronald Reagan

I think you just about nailed it. I think Huck did better than people will give him credit for. He has taken a lashing from the conservative pundits, so I think there a lot of doubt among bloggers. But his message hits home to a lot of voters. Fred is great, but his disposition worries me. And Paul is no nut, just misunderstood.

He would be worst than HRC, b/c he would watch the nation burn around him before realizing he is fighting a 21st century war with a 20th century mentality.

You are letting your Republican leanings (or anti-religious feelings) effect your views of the debate. Huckabee did very well along with Thompson. McCain lost with his "global warming" rant. Guiliani was reasonable, but did have some weak moments. The rest were there...

ormally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

RON PAUL IS A NUT. HE HAS NO CLUE ABOUT OUR PROBLEMS WITH TERRORISM... OR THE WORLD'S PROBLEM WITH TERRORISM.

How does my view (as a devoted Catholic) factor into that?

Yep, Ron Paul is a NUT! What are you responding to? :^)

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

I see that you were responding to Ron Paul and not Huckabee... Sorry...

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

night that I suspect that he tossed and turned all night

Stephanopolis is hammering Huckabee this morning on his flip flopping.

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

Yeah, everyone else noticed that too. The guy looked left behind, and deservedly so. He has one appeal and one appeal only, and that is his overt religiosity.

"Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now". -White Goodman

All of his statements were consistent with conservative views. Name one of his non-conservative points?

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

Just off the top of my head the statement that we should offer a billion $ to the first 100mpg car. Um, and the energy independence in 10 years, which Mitt nailed him on. Just more pie in the sky preaching from the man.

"Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now". -White Goodman

I've read that an individual (currently under contract by GM I believe) had combined a small jet engine for recharging to a battery car that approaches 100 mpg so that is not so far-fetched. I also do not consider bribery by the government (that is what it is) to the public for producing economic alternatives to the current automobiles.

So, no that is not a negative to me. I actually think that if the government did move more positive in energy consumption - all areas, progress would be made much faster than you could imagine.

I certainty don't consider that a anti-conservative issue. Try again...

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

Offering a billion in tax money as "reward" for the development of a 100 MPG car is about as "conservative" as most of the stuff that gets funded by NSF and NEA - which is to say, not so much.

And, erm, using the power of the government to steer corporate research and development decisions (as in, the decision to design a higher-MPG car as opposed to a safer car) is about as "anti-conservative" as it gets. You may think it's a swell idea, but this further rebranding of "conservative" in the mold of GWB "compassionate conservativism" has to end now.

The car company (and it will probably be Toyota, if I had to guess) that actually develops a viable 70+ MPG car will not need to worry about some $1B "reward" from Uncle Sam - they won't be able to keep the darn things on their lots.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

Reducing our demand for oil looks like a defense/national security issue to me.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

can do assist that doesn't involve giving away a pile of tax-dollars in "reward" for what is in at the end of the day a market-based decision.

Like I said, I'm not saying the "reward" thing is necesarily a bad idea (though I happen to think it is) - but to suggest it's "conservative" in any reasonable, pre-GWB sense is kinda silly to my mind.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

By furlongs and fathoms that was far and away the dumbest answer of the night -- and I watched the Democrat debate, too.

A 100MPG car can be built already, if you make it out of aluminum foil in the shape of a teardrop with solid rubber bicycle tires and a ten horsepower electric/gasoline hybrid motor. It will have a maximum cargo capacity of 300 pounds including the occupants, a top speed of 60 MPH and a zero-60 acceleration time of 20-30 seconds, and the occupants will have to lay almost flat on their backs so that the vehicle will have the right coefficent of drag.

Gasoline mileage is a function of aerodynamics, vehicular mass, frictional losses, and the brake specific fuel consumption of the engine used to overcome them while supplying enough power to satisfy the vehicle's performance criteria. In other words, the 100MPG car is not being held back by any lack of initiative on the part of engineers; rather it is a direct consequence of Scotty's Law:

I Caaan't Change the Laws of Physics, Captain!"

I'm omitting the electrical generation capacity needed to supply the vehicle's electrical system.

Would you like your 100MPG car with with a 200 watt stereo system, 250 watts of high intensity discharge headlights, a DVD flat-screen player, plus all the other electrical accoutrement -- and air conditioning?

Think again, because it's Not. Going. To. Happen.

Which is not to say that you can't keep making incremental improvements in efficiency and mileage, or that the United States couldn't cut its gasoline consumption by 25% if people really tried, even with current technology, because it could.

And it could do it without handing away billions of dollars in taxpayer money to subsidize the construction of vehicles that we've already known how to construct for at least a decade.

Americans have it very good, even with gasoline at $3+ a gallon, and even though they like to grumble and mumble. Adjusted for inflation, gasoline is about the same price today it was in 1983 and the cars you can buy and drive now are better, safer, more reliable, less costly, and also better on gas for their performance, especially.

More importantly, in terms of the overall efficiency of our economy, capitalism and the free market have done a very good job. America's energy use per real dollar of gross domestic product has fallen from almost 18 thousand BTU per (2000) dollar in 1970 to 8.75 thousand BTU per (2000) dollar in 2006, a reduction of more than 50%. We're more than twice as efficient today than we were in 1970.

I suspect that Mike Huckabee just doesn't know these numbers. It's also interesting to look at the fourth graph on that last page...and Rudy Giuliani came right out and said it, again last night...

I think the reason he was such a good moderator is that he wasn't trying to make himself the star. He was totally content to stay out of the way as much as possible. That's what we need for these debates; we don't need the Anderson Cooper or Chris Matthews show.

* PRIESTCRAFT is thus defined: “The stratagem and frauds of priests; fraud or imposition in religious concerns. Management of selfish and ambitious priests to gain wealth and power, or to impose upon the credulity of others.”

Is that like the "consensus" around global warming?

Seriously - After the debate I was expecting to see Mitt named by most as the winner but it's been very mixed with Mitt on one end, or the other, rarely in the middle.

* PRIESTCRAFT is thus defined: “The stratagem and frauds of priests; fraud or imposition in religious concerns. Management of selfish and ambitious priests to gain wealth and power, or to impose upon the credulity of others.”

I wonder how much money Mitt has put into getting the concensus pick amongst pundits?

"Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now". -White Goodman

you believe, and I think its a bit premature, NY, CA and other large states may be able to prop up HRC, Obama has sealed up the nomination, where does that leave us.

How do we let the American people know who he really is, what he stands for, how he would hurt our country. He will have a lot of people believing his nice guy kumbaya (sic) rhetoric. Lets talk strategy, especially based on tonights Republican debate. Who is really strongest to take him on in the general, and should that be our focus?

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

-- John Adams

GOP needs to pick a candidate. Personally, I like Huck vs. Obama, Edwards and HRC.

BUT, I think McCain matches up best. He can bring the three legs together better than any other viable candidate (I do not consider Thompson viable at this point).

With a good socon as a running mate, I think McCain can swing enough of the independents to win the White House and serve as a change agent, but also dwarfs Obama in experience.

GOP needs to pick a candidate. Personally, I like Huck vs. Obama, Edwards and HRC.

BUT, I think McCain matches up best. He can bring the three legs together better than any other viable candidate (I do not consider Thompson viable at this point).

With a good socon as a running mate, I think McCain can swing enough of the independents to win the White House and serve as a change agent, but also dwarfs Obama in experience.

GOP needs to pick a candidate. Personally, I like Huck vs. Obama, Edwards and HRC.

BUT, I think McCain matches up best. He can bring the three legs together better than any other viable candidate (I do not consider Thompson viable at this point).

With a good socon as a running mate, I think McCain can swing enough of the independents to win the White House and serve as a change agent, but also dwarfs Obama in experience.

GOP needs to pick a candidate. Personally, I like Huck vs. Obama, Edwards and HRC.

BUT, I think McCain matches up best. He can bring the three legs together better than any other viable candidate (I do not consider Thompson viable at this point).

With a good socon as a running mate, I think McCain can swing enough of the independents to win the White House and serve as a change agent, but also dwarfs Obama in experience.

I have only donated to Fred, but I don't think he's viable anymore either. I am leaning toward Huck. I wil not support Rommney...he's a phony. I'll support any other candidate that gets the nod, but I'm pulling for Huck at this point. I also think he is the best odds of winning in November.

A Huckabee nominee gets killed -- you need to watch his performance this morning as he tries to spin this changing of position

Huckabee changes is opinion as often as a baby's diaper is changed -- and the diaper product smells sweeter.

I actually would like Thompson, but can't help but like Huckabee personally. Most if his positions are not too far from normal conservative positions (I know, my view)... I doubt that he would actually be that bad economically or too soft on social issues.

AND...it would be such a HOOT to watch the MSM try to handle a genuine preacher running for the presidency. It certainly would be a recordable moment.

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

I think Huckabee is likeable too, but we can't pick someone because it would be fun to watch him in an election.

Volunteer for Fred- Email me- Donate below!

but it has been so much fun to follow CNN and MSNBC and even FOX discussions with him running. They sometimes can't control themselves.

You would think that they have never imagined that a "preacher" could be running for president, much less winning Iowa. Simply hilarious!

Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."

... what several of us dislike about McCain is also what makes him the one that can actually win in the general elections.

Romney is too much of a divider. He doesn't connect to voters, and he earns nothing than despise from his peers. Yesterday, the only one who didn't him was Paul. As Giuliani stated, he would go negative even on Reagan. That's not the way you can win elections. Didn't work with the evangelicals in Iowa, won't work with moderates in NH.

for a second I just thought you thought my post was so profound and thought provoking it warranted four posts!

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

-- John Adams

This video is AWESOME! I just sent it pretty much to everyone I know. Captures her perfectly.

WOOO!

Max

Max Power and Mark Smann
The Laughing Elephant
http://thelaughingelephant.blogspot.com

Sheet Anchor, I read your awesome post yesterday at Real Clear Politics and could not agree more.

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

I would PAY to see that. As long as Paula and Randy don't join him.

You read my mind regarding the rudeness last night -- I had the same impression. Thanks for expressing it so well.

a Romney-Thompson supporter.

Politic Minds | Tucker, Georgia

You despise the nastiness but you are supporting the candidate who's run his whole campaign on tearing down the other candidates with negative ads?

This new version (and counting) of Romney just doesn't stick.

There is a huge difference in bringing out the issues, as Romney has done, and being derisive and rude, as McCain, Huckabee and Guiliani were. And, sitting there laughing like McCain did. He looked like a little baby. And, I wondered when Huckabee would bring Ed Rollins out and have him bash Romney's teeth out. Or, better yet, send Chuck Norris to do it. This is the Republican Party? If so, it will not be my party for long, and I am a lifelong Republican who has never voted for a Democrat for President. I started with Barry Goldwater, even when my parents supported Johnson, continued with conservative candidates ever since. I served in our State Legislature and had the most conservative voting record of anyone in our legislature, so much so, the party insiders came after me. I still stand up for correct principles. Remember, as John Adams said: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." That, my friends, is why things are not working today. We are no longer either a moral or a religious people.

Romney never got personal, but these guys did. Derisively so. It made me ashamed to be a Republican and will lead to Republican defeat in November, not only for President, but for other offices. And this when reapportionment is coming up in a couple years. We are in a very dangerous situation which our nastiness will not help. Dump McCain, Huckabee and Guiliani now, before it is too late.

I think the party is undergoing major change right now. On one end you have a rise of Evangelical Christians backing Mike Huckabee who is ready to turn the GOP into the Christian Democratic Party. On another end you have John McCain and Rudy Guiliani, they don't meet the social cons. standards but do on the defense, Rudy more so than McCain because of his stance on Immigration. Then you have Romney and Thompson, who in my opnion, are the only ones left to be considered worthwhile. You also have Ron Paul but enough said there.

We should all be extremely disappointed in the actions of John McCain at last nights debate, how many times have I heard that this is who we should stand behind for his service to our country in the military and in the Senate, etc that is what we're supposed to see when we look at him right? No it's not what we saw, and quite frankly if I were a McCain supporter I would be embarrassed by what happened last night. Last night's debate was an opportunity for many to give him a second chance and in my opinion, he blew it badly by making snide remarks toward Romney and showing his anger over the Immigration legislation from last summer.

McCain cannot unite this party as much as some think. Yesterday's debate also showed he does not have the maturity or temperament that is of the utmost importance in being President and if we want to beat Obama, a man who claims to be pledging change, we need to start embracing this change on our side.

I can tell you have thought a lot about this. You analysis is great and very thoughtful. Thank you so much for sharing it. I guess there are still some pretty sincere and honest people in the Republican Party. Thank you again.

I want to point this out and I think you and others might agree with me on it.

Every candidate running on the GOP side right now has something to offer but not completely.

Mike Huckabee-His views are what social conservatives and evangelicals want and I think he's on the right track there. Everything else he's terrible with.

John McCain-McCain has had a long tenure in the Senate and is very valuable in terms of what Defense/National Security conservatives want. But he angers the other sides with his views on everything else.

Rudy Giuliani-Rudy is obviously a born leader and on the national security front he is exactly what we need. But once again everything else the other 2 branches of conservatives want he can't produce.

Ron Paul-Paul should be respected for his views regarding the following of the Constitution. But, and his supporters and others will dispute it, he is flat wrong on foreign policy. I see Ron Paul as a model of what we would want for a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, an originalist following of the Constitution and no judicial activism.

Mitt Romney-Romney is our business leader. If your company is in trouble and I mean Deep trouble you call Romney and his company and they will fix it, will take a while but they'll fix it. One only has to look at his background from turning around Staples to the 2002 Olympics. Romney embraces the views of econ, social, and defense conservatives. While he is good in these areas he is not perfect, none of them are, he has said he was wrong on the issue of abortion and has since changed, his record on that as MA Gov. shows it. That said, he is not perfect, none of them are, but Romney is a leader and I will support that.

Fred Thompson-Fred is a model for national security, social, and econ. conservatives. He has consistently been on our side of all the issues. His background in the Senate from being on the Intelligence Committee is a major asset to anyone aspiring to become President. Fred, like the others is not without his downsides like Campaign Finance, and whether he wants to run, though I think he's serious. I think Fred, like Mitt, would be a leader that we could all support.

Our field is certainly not the best, but I think we all want to take something from each of them and put them together to form our perfect candidate. My two cents is a Romney/Thompson ticket would be one I could support and I think a lot of others could support. If we as a party want to survive we have to have someone that everyone can go ok I will support that, I don't agree with everything here but the rest is not bad.

The Repubs need to be careful because their internal bickering may turn off voters and a spit could result in the Repubs losing (similar to the Dems' loss in 1968).

The more I learn about McCain the less I like.

John McCain negatives:
``````````````````````
voted against Bush tax cuts (common knowledge)
voted against free speech (McCain-Feingold) (common knowledge)
voted for amnesty (McCain-Kennedy) (common knowledge)
voted against border fence (in Dec 2007?) (new info)
wants to close Guantanamo Bay (new info)
favors licenses for illegal aliens (I think, not sure)

I'm moving McCain down to last place in my preference list:
1) Romney
2) Giuliani
3) Thompson
4) Huckabee
5) McCain

- - - - - -
Politic Minds | Tucker, Georgia