Patterico's Pontifications

7/31/2013

John McCain: It Would Be Tough to Decide Whether to Vote for Hillary or Rand Paul in 2016

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:49 am

Nice:

IC: When Hillary Clinton versus Rand Paul occurs in 2016, I guess you are going to have to decide who to vote for, huh?

JM: It’s gonna be a tough choice [laughs].

Now. He does laugh. And he goes on to say Rand Paul is intelligently trying to expand a segment of the GOP like his dad did. (Which is a backhanded way of connecting Paul to his lunatic dad.)

But the fact that McCain even jokes about this being a tough decision is another clue that his personal grudges play an outsized role in his thinking.

104 Responses to “John McCain: It Would Be Tough to Decide Whether to Vote for Hillary or Rand Paul in 2016”

  1. But the fact that McCain even jokes about this being a tough decision is another clue that his personal grudges play an outsized role in his thinking.

    Yep.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  2. Lunatic dad? Okay whatever. Nothing lunatic about following the Constitution.

    McCain is part of the old guard. Rand is the new guard. Its not liberal vs conservative anymore. Its Washington vs the people.

    Patrick H (f854d7)

  3. McCain went full tilt right around the time when his kid started visiting home from college and working her old man over. I think he’s trying to keep his Old Lady and her mini me from kicking him to the curb completely. That’s in addition to him being a duplicitous dog’s bum.

    Color_Me_Cuckoo (96b0c0)

  4. Why I can’t hate John McCain with every fiber of my being:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/29/john-mccain-bud-day_n_3672235.html

    John McCain Tears Up Remembering POW Cellmate Bud Day

    I still want him to STFU and go away, though. But I can’t bring myself to hate him.

    Steve57 (a65996)

  5. HotAir had a longer video of McCain’s tribute to COL Day. It was moving.

    Steve57 (a65996)

  6. no worries i can pick up your slack Mr. Steve

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  7. Dr. Paul is a few notches down on my list of favorites for President. But Clinton is so high on my “Oh-heavens-no” list that it’s six places down to number 2.
    Every remotely plausible Republican is much better for the country than any remotely plausible Dem that I know of, and especially much better than Clinton would be.

    MT Geoff (a67ef4)

  8. no worries i can pick up your slack Mr. Steve

    lol

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  9. 6. no worries i can pick up your slack Mr. Steve

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 7/31/2013 @ 8:41 am

    You’re welcome to it, Mr. feets.

    Just so you know where I’m coming from, Bud Day had regard for John McCain. Considering I have tremendous regard for Bud Day, that counts for something.

    I was fortunate to be trained by men of Bud Day’s peers. How to resist. By men you couldn’t wipe the smile off their faces if you had a belt grinder.

    Because every day since their captivity when they woke up in a room that had a doorknob on the inside, and they could turn it and walk outside, was a good day.

    So I won’t hate John McCain despite his foolishness.

    Steve57 (a65996)

  10. Aw, McCain is just saying that he’s simpatico with Hillary because, number one, they are basically of the same generation and number two, they have both spent decades navigating the corridors of Washington DC power. Peas in a pod, so to speak.

    JVW (23867e)

  11. I don’t hate McCain. His history is enough.

    I would though vote for Rand Paul over anyone. The damage he would do cutting programs and interventions would still be less than continuing this welfare state and crony capitalist state.

    Patricia (be0117)

  12. Wait! Is this the same John McCain who said don’t worry about the extra border patrol agents?

    “We don’t need 20,000 additional border patrol agents,” McCain said Tuesday. “But what we do need is use of technology that has been developed where we can survey the border more effectively.”

    That once the bill was passed that portion of the law would be amended and that unnecessary waste would be eliminated? That we don’t need human forces when a drone or two would suffice?

    I voted for it so friends of mine would be comfortable that we are securing the border,” McCain said Tuesday. “But the real securing of the border is with technology, as opposed to individuals.”

    Several Latino and immigration advocacy groups have expressed outrage at the Senate Gang of Eight bill and its border-security provisions since the overall legislation passed in June.

    Last week, more than 30 Latino organizations wrote to Congress, calling on House lawmakers to oppose the Senate immigration bill partly because of what the groups called “border militarization” in the legislation.

    That John McCain? I think we know who his friends are, and there aren’t conservatives.

    in_awe (7c859a)

  13. McCain is certainly a hero for his service but he is clearly an idiot with poor judgement … some may forget but he endorsed Bloomberg on his first run for mayor of NYC …

    JeffC (488234)

  14. That once the bill was passed that portion of the law would be amended and that unnecessary waste would be eliminated? That we don’t need human forces when a drone or two would suffice?

    Well, one problem that I have with the border-security aspects of the immigration bill is that it creates a whole mess of brand-new government employees who will probably be able to unionize and negotiate for more money and less responsibility. Boots on the ground is one thing, but don’t you think that a lot of the 20,000 will be desk-jockeys, administrative personnel, and even cooks and janitors for the detention facilities that are being built?

    JVW (23867e)

  15. I didn’t leave the GOP. The GOP left me. Mccain and Romney are exhibits A and B.

    Dustin (303dca)

  16. http://weaselzippers.us/2013/07/31/mcrino-hillary-clinton-is-a-rock-star/

    She’s an effin’ rock star now. sheesh.

    Color_Me_Cuckoo (96b0c0)

  17. “Its Washington vs the people.”

    In which part of “Washington vs. the people” does the civil rights act fall?

    heyso (183dc4)

  18. Dustin

    McCain is a strong conservative, and 20,000 or 2 million border agents are not going to make a difference except in the deficit. McCains a lot smarter than people give him credit for. His comments on the floor was without infrastructure to process the detainees that 20,000 BP agents could catch – if that isn’t there – its useless and all our gazillon agents do now is drink coffee and play cards as they shortages from vehicles to holding cells to lawyers to process the detainees through the system.

    McCain has been there tooooo long I agree – but to say he is the enemy – eh don’t let your frustrations with the dems filter your thinking about those who are and always been on our side

    EPWJ (1cedce)

  19. Juan is a political turd.

    mg (31009b)

  20. EPWJ,

    Mccain is a war hero and I would not call him the enemy. His has not supported my political views, for example on freedom of speech, and I do not believe he is a consistent and thoughtful political leader.

    The GOP has steadily moved leftward since George HW Bush. I just don’t think the national political party supports my views.

    Just look at the party’s non-reaction to Obama’s fiat suspending parts of Obamacare for a year. That’s a complete destruction of our constitution. Complete. Only a few Republicans at the national level have even noticed.

    Dustin (303dca)

  21. Dustin

    Eh, the constitution? Nixon did the same thing as Obama and so did Reagan. And how is McCain to BLAME for what Obama did? The progressive tax and medicare destroyed the constitution decades ago and so did abortion the right to kill.

    Pleease quit blaming Republicans, its only the fault of the voters, who voted these democrats in, McCain is much more conservative and effective than any democrat and most of the senate.

    EPWJ (1cedce)

  22. mccain thinks? Who knew?

    he’s given credit for thinking by the same lsm that calls him a conservative.

    Jim (823b10)

  23. eh don’t let your frustrations with the dems filter your thinking about those who are and always been on our side

    Nonsense. The idea he is a rock-ribbed conservative is laughable, beyond words.

    JD (b63a52)

  24. Cruz is the hope of R-thinkers… quick on his feet, anticipates, understands his opponent and seems to have a solid grasp of most important issues we face. I left McCain’s fan club in year 2000.

    As for Romney, this country would already be in a much better position if he had been elected POTUS last November.

    Colonel Haiku (cabbd2)

  25. Pleease quit blaming Republicans, its only the fault of the voters

    Mccain is a reflection of the national GOP electorate, as was Dole, as was Romney. I do indeed blame the voters, and that is what I mean when I say that the GOP left me, not the other way around.

    I do not blame Romney for being liberal to my point of view. He gave it his best shot and it’s not his fault the GOP voters preferred him to the conservative candidates. It’s the voter’s fault.

    . And how is McCain to BLAME for what Obama did?

    The legislature is not showing the kind of outrage it needs to at this point in time over Obama’s incredible abuse of power. There is an abundance of blame to go around.

    Dustin (303dca)

  26. I’m just hoping this is moot and that at the end of the day America will not have to choose between Hillary or Rand.

    elissa (4594f1)

  27. Of all people to be laughing. Wasn’t McCain one of the original Keating 5 back in the day? Taking bribes er…contributions from Savings and Loan people? And this from the same person who forced campaign finance reform on citizens to help curtail a basic first amendment right?

    Nope, the DC insider just doesnt get the rest of America.

    Kenneth Simmons (6f8eca)

  28. “Just look at the party’s non-reaction to Obama’s fiat suspending parts of Obamacare for a year. That’s a complete destruction of our constitution. Complete. Only a few Republicans at the national level have even noticed.”

    It used to be Obamacare was unconstitutional. Now it’s not implementing it on Congress’s timetable. Is this something that has ever happened before?

    heyso (183dc4)

  29. heyso, are the “as signed” implementation dates for ACCA negotiable or unilaterally changeable?

    elissa (4594f1)

  30. “heyso, are the “as signed” implementation dates for ACCA negotiable or unilaterally changeable?”

    It’s not unconstitutional for the executive to fail to live up to legislative deadlines.

    heyso (183dc4)

  31. Kenneth Simmons,

    McCain didn’t take bribes or do anything nefarious in the Keating 5 scandal. He and Senator Glenn were cleared of wrongdoing.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  32. It used to be Obamacare was unconstitutional. Now it’s not implementing it on Congress’s timetable. Is this something that has ever happened before?

    It was the timetable the Dems and Obama chose. And it is in the law, not that you care.

    JD (c2701a)

  33. “It’s not unconstitutional for the executive to fail to live up to legislative deadlines.”

    heyso – Is it for the President to order suspension of the enforcement of immigration laws and call it prosecutorial discretion?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  34. Dustin

    Showing outrage – or was it televised?

    EPWJ (1cedce)

  35. What McCain means is that it would be sort of like a choice between McGovern (Rand Paul) and Nixon (Hillary Clinton)

    Sammy Finkelman (da8ac2)

  36. Dustin

    MCCain reflects nothing, you want him to reflect it to satisfy a feeling of frustration that you have. McCain only speaks for McCain

    I understand how you feel and see why Cruz the LOOK SQUIRREL guy is making websites and shouting and essentially is doing nothing and accomplishing nothing as well.

    So we have McCain who acted like cruz during Bush I and Bush II and now is well out to pasture and we watch Cruz who is just running for book deals and speaking engagements as he realizes he wont be reelected. Hating both sides get you outcast there ted….

    EPWJ (1cedce)

  37. Dustin – if I may ask, how do you know that “The legislature is not showing the kind of outrage it needs to at this point in time over Obama’s incredible abuse of power.” ?

    Just because you haven’t seen it in the MSM doesn’t mean that it isn’t happening …

    Alastor (bec714)

  38. Oh dear sweet baby infant Jesus.

    JD (c2701a)

  39. Buddha, Zeus, Pazzuzu

    narciso (3fec35)

  40. I hear circus music.

    Color_Me_Cuckoo (96b0c0)

  41. Four Pages!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  42. John McCain, the Senility Senator from Arizona.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  43. Ted Cruz really inflames the lefties.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  44. Of both parties.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  45. if I may ask, how do you know that “The legislature is not showing the kind of outrage it needs to at this point in time over Obama’s incredible abuse of power.” ?

    Just because you haven’t seen it in the MSM doesn’t mean that it isn’t happening …

    Comment by Alastor (bec714) — 7/31/2013 @ 1:38 pm

    \

    What is happening is that Obama has suspended laws that he signed into law. He is taking an enormous power that he does not have. He has essentially voided our democratic government for the most cynical reasons.

    What do you think the correct level of outrage is for this that the fact I don’t see any outrage could be justified?

    This is more important than the GOP holding onto the House or winning the Senate. By not shouting from the rooftops how fundamentally wrong this is, much of the GOP is enabling this and even a partner (and indeed that is no exaggeration… much of the GOP wanted Obamacare suspended so they are OK with Obama abusing his power this time).

    Sorry, but the reason I know that the GOP is not sufficiently outraged, merely because I do not see much outrage, is because the correct level of outrage would be very visible.

    Dustin (33c512)

  46. The GOP has a clear cut impeachment case. The Senate can vote nay if they want, and the voters can vote accordingly as well. Obama can explain why he cancelled the law and that is that.

    Courageous calm in the face of Obama’s brazen abuse of office could actually be politically helpful, but the GOP doesn’t have the courage and fears the politics… of course Obama has calculated accordingly and this is the true reason for many of our problems.

    Dustin (33c512)

  47. Dustin #45,

    Excellent summary.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  48. Dustin,

    Be careful, first, it didn’t matter whether Obama suspended it or not -its not happening – second, we don’t want to be seen demanding that a law we want to overturn be enacted on time while trying to defund it at the same time.

    As the once

    EPWJ (1cedce)

  49. Eh, the constitution? Nixon did the same thing as Obama and so did Reagan.

    Eh the constitution indeed.

    Nixon was the worst president in American history. Worse than Obama, in my opinion, though this is debatable. Much worse than Carter or FDR. That Nixon did it too is not a defense… it is an indictment.

    Reagan was a great president and I do not know of the issue you are comparing with Obama’s actions. I suspect whatever he did was not simply to up his party’s fate in the polls for one election, and I suspect the breach was nowhere near as severe as passing a huge and freedom costing law and then suspending parts of it temporarily for political reasons, but you weren’t very specific.

    Dustin (33c512)

  50. Be careful, first, it didn’t matter whether Obama suspended it or not -its not happening – second, we don’t want to be seen demanding that a law we want to overturn be enacted on time while trying to defund it at the same time.

    Comment by EPWJ (1cedce) — 7/31/2013

    The president cannot suspend laws he views as constitutional. He is not congress. This isn’t complicated.

    This ‘we don’t want to be seen demanding the law be followed because we oppose the law’ is the quintisential GOP argument these days.

    First, there is no “we”. The GOP left me in 2012. I am not a Republican. I will probably not vote for more than a handful of Republicans again… they will have to be amazing to earn my vote, and the fact they are running against a bad democrat, for example Hillary, will not be enough to earn my vote.

    Obama made this very calculation. The GOP is too stupid to oppose Obama taking an ENORMOUS power that he will never give back, citing this as precedence, because the GOP doesn’t support Obamacare anyway. The truth is that being courageous and calm in the face of this power grab would be politically advantageous to an electorate that values integrity.

    “I do not want Obamacare to be law at all, so of course in a way I agree with Obama suspending part of it, but the president must not have the power to do this. That Obamacare is a mess is a call for legislative reform, not suspending the constitution for the sake of politics”

    Any Senator or Representative who is not loudly saying this on every venue, suing, and otherwise raising as much hell as they can lawfully do, is no ally of democracy.

    Dustin (33c512)

  51. Amen

    JD (c2701a)

  52. “second, we don’t want to be seen demanding that a law we want to overturn be enacted on time while trying to defund it at the same time.”

    EPWJ @48 – Please explain who you are including in the “we” you use above because I hope that it does not include me based upon your bizarre interpretation of current events.

    The argument I have seen made is that Obama did not have the unilateral authority to extend the implementation of the employer mandate of Obamacare. If you are seeing Republicans insist that it be implemented on time, please provide citations. What I am seeing is insistence that if the employer mandate is delayed that the individual mandate should be delayed as well and that both should be done through legislative action rather than executive fiat. Obama has threatened to veto any formal legislative action to delay either mandate.

    With respect to overturning Obamacare, please provide your estimate of the chances of doing that and overriding a presidential veto with the current composition of Congress.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  53. Did John McCain endorse Dede Scuzzywuzzy?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  54. Comment by Dustin (33c512) — 7/31/2013 @ 2:09 pm

    Sorry, but the reason I know that the GOP is not sufficiently outraged, merely because I do not see much outrage, is because the correct level of outrage would be very visible.

    There’s no outrage, of course, because they are quite happy with the result. They don’t want businesses to be required to make reports that they can’t even know how to do or fined. And thwere are some otehr bad consequences to the law, especially a cutback in hiring or hours.

    Of course the other way to deal with this might be to go to Congress to change the law, but then he might get more than he wanted. Obama really did it to eliminate a necessity for Congress to act.

    So the law stays as it is, including the BIG SURPRISE many people will get come April 2015 when it turns out they were not entitled to as much a subsidy as they got in 2014, or any..

    And the definiton of full time employees stays the way it is, except that now statistics from 2014 will be the first ones used (in 2015) instead of 2013 (in 2014)

    Obama has some legal reasoning but he hasn’t explained it, but I suppose, it’s waiting somewhere, should it turn out to be necessary. A possibility is the fact that the manner and effective date of the first reporting is at the discretion of the administration, so never is always a possibility.

    Obama also went against the unmistakeable wording law in not cutting off military aid to Egypt because fo a coup, which nobody wants to see happen.

    There, the gist of the reasoning was given: It is not necessary for him to decide what has happened in Egypt, whether it is a coup or not a coup. And in the meantime it’s leverage to restore democracy.

    Very Lincolnesque, because Abraham Lincoln took the same positon on whether the southern states had actually seceded or not.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  55. And our response should be that the law as implemented is unconstitutional since the Executive has arrogated to himself the power to implement or not that law or portions thereof, and that citizens have no responsibility to comply with unconstitutional law.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  56. hey EPWJ,

    Ted Cruz !!!!

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  57. Sammy – Obama also bypassed the War Powers Act by redefining the Libyan intervention as a Limited Duration Kinetic Military Action.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  58. (Hillary Clinton – Pt)’s an effin’ rock star now. sheesh.

    Comment by Color_Me_Cuckoo (96b0c0) — 7/31/2013 @ 10:58 am

    Courtney Love of politics.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  59. 54. ??? Maybe I’m having a senior moment but WAwaWAWAWAh(while I make the face the cats give me when they’ve irked me).

    I’m with Dusty here. The GOP is so unabashedly craven ahead of their vacation I’m dumbfounded.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  60. When those lads get back to the constituents, they need to undergo some serious “attitude adjustment”.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  61. “It was the timetable the Dems and Obama chose”

    The constitutionality of it wouldn’t depend on the party breakdown.

    heyso (183dc4)

  62. 60. Here in MN 6th the Libertarian wing of the GOP was seriously incensed Bachmann did not vote for the Amash bill to defund the NSA.

    I’m certain they’ll be loud and obnoxious as always. Franken is up for re-election, I wonder what she’s thinking? Waiting to see if Kline from the 4th wants it?

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  63. True. McCain knows Hillary would sent Americans overseas to die without support. He couldn’t guarantee Rand would do the same.

    I’ll still never support Rand as long as he supports amnesty.

    NJRob (4bb407)

  64. Do you think Bachmann might run against Franken, gary?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  65. We need an opposition party not a collaborating one.
    Starve the rino’s.

    mg (31009b)

  66. Didn’t Obama promise not to let lobbyists into his Administration? Fifty most beautiful lobbyists in the Obama Administration.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  67. I bet Rand Paul would keep a promise like that more than Hillary would.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  68. 64. I know it’s been put into her head, like the VP possibility was. But the MN GOP isn’t as proud of her as her loyalists, me included.

    The last party-endorsed candidate for Governor has dibs on her seat. Four pillars have thrown in to run against Dayton, including the past party-endorsed opponent of Klobuchar.

    There remains a distinct vacuum in vying to oppose the Fool.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  69. Sorry, but the reason I know that the GOP is not sufficiently outraged, merely because I do not see much outrage, is because the correct level of outrage would be very visible.

    That’s due in part to the way that growing numbers of Americans exhibit an increasingly desensitized attitude and, in effect, a philosophically cheapened and exasperated one too.

    For example, if you think that Nixon was noticeably worse than Obama, in terms of both the ideology and ethics of the former and latter — in the context of an increasingly exhausted, Detroit-ized, Nidal-Hasan-ized nation — then you’ve become inured to just how bad the overall socio-economic idiosyncrasies of this society are today compared with decades ago. What I mean primarily is that the populace in 2013 is increasingly shock proof and more cavalier about the aberrant, which makes this nation more vulnerable to various forms of corruption. Hints of a Venezuela interwoven with a Greece could very well be in our future.

    I know that things that would have stunned and appalled me several years ago no longer strike me as quite so bad today. So if I’m growing more and more desensitized, then I imagine the average person who is less of a stickler about integrity and upholding standards is even more impacted than I am.

    Mark (938403)

  70. No, it’s a clue that McCain is a liberal. As if we needed another clue.

    Alan (098693)

  71. McCain is a fascist whore in love with the smell of his own farts

    he needs to go away

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  72. It would appear Mr. Kristol gets the current priority:

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/stop-train-we-want-get_741006.html

    Funny, McCain seems to have taken an Arlen Specter role in the Senate. Its probably nothing.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  73. Thanks for the free psychoanalysis, Mark. I don’t think you actually know what the specifics are to my objections to Nixon, though, so I don’t see how your analysis can be valid.

    Dustin (303dca)

  74. Notice here that Barack Obama is pictured as a train conductor. In many other cartoons related to Obamacare, he’s depicted as a doctor.

    This drawing is on the cover of the August 5, 2013 Weekly Standard.

    Sammy Finkelman (da8ac2)

  75. There are several other articles about Obamacre in the magazine too

    1) about Senator Mike Lee’s attempt to defund it,

    2) about the legality of what Obama did (it turns out The Treasury Department did give a legal justification to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, with 18 previous examples from the Clinton, Bush II and earlier in the Obama Adminsitration)

    3) about the insecurity and dangers to privacy of the exchanges (it’s really a beta version, and Donald Berwick, then adminsitrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services didn’t want to spend any of his budget on it and tried to get other agencies do it – first HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and then, the Social Security Administration (!) where it wasn’t even legal for them to do so)

    4) and an article on how and why people would or could lie ro get subsidies from the exchanges, giving 3 examples.

    Sammy Finkelman (da8ac2)

  76. 54. 75. The legal justification for Obama postponing the effective date for employer reporting: (an old provision of the Internal Revenue Code)

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/careless-executive_741036.html

    In a letter to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the Treasury Department explained its decision to delay the mandate as “an exercise” of its “longstanding administrative authority to grant transition relief when implementing new legislation like the ACA.”

    The source of that authority, it said, is the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), the relevant section of which provides that the Treasury secretary “shall prescribe all needful rules and regulations for the enforcement of this title, including all rules and regulations as may be necessary by reason of any alteration of law in relation to internal revenue.”

    Thus, as Treasury sees it, the IRC envisions circumstances in which new legislation that alters “law in relation to internal revenue” (as the ACA does) may need regulatory adjustments including the provision of transition relief for parties affected by the law’s implementation.

    In its letter, Treasury cited 18 uses of its IRC authority to “postpone application of new legislation on a number of prior occasions across [the Clinton, Bush, and Obama] Administrations.”

    The Treasury’s examples of transition relief seem to resemble the one afforded by the mandate delay. Yet whether the precedents are truly on point, as the lawyers say, and whether the Internal Revenue Code really confers the authority claimed by the Treasury secretary and his predecessors are fair questions, already being pursued by the Energy and Commerce Committee. However those inquiries turn out, there remains a constitutional disagreement between the president and the House over his decision to delay the mandate.

    Terry Eastland is saying that even if this has been done 18 times or more, that doesn’t settle whether a president truly has the right to do that. But it wold be hard to sue, he writes – there’s nobody really with standing and even if you could find someone it would be an uphill battle. But he says the political argument is worth making.

    Sammy Finkelman (da8ac2)

  77. and McCain is the poster child of the RINO GOP — they do not realize we are done holding our noses. I was done before he made this comment and now he has self identified further. They hold us in contempt. We are lambs to be led around. Well the lambs are in revolt I think. This quote is attributed to Ben Franklin: a democracy is when 2 wolves and a sheep vote on what to have for lunch. A republic is when the sheep has a gun. Well, the sheep have guns.

    SD Harms (b0bcd5)

  78. Heyso aka iamadimwit – point out to us where the law allows the President to unilaterally amend his own legislation, because it wasn’t politically convenient for him. Surely there is a “because we don’t want to” clause in ObamaCare.

    JD (c2701a)

  79. 77. Bachmann is retiring, same with my State Senator, past Senate President, the only certain vote I’ll be casting in ’14 for a GOP candidate is my State Assemblyman, Lieutenant Colonel Howe.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  80. Surely there is a “because we don’t want to” clause in ObamaCare.

    we’d have to be able read it, in order to find it… they are still busy pulling it out of their fourth points of contact, and won’t be done anytime soon.

    or we could could do what our SCOAMF does, and just make it up.

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  81. She doesn’t have quite the same cringeworthiness of Tommy Boy Schultz, but close.

    http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/07/31/rachel-maddow-calls-obama-a-liar/

    narciso (3fec35)

  82. The law hasn’t been amended.

    heyso (159e36)

  83. Thanks for the free psychoanalysis, Mark. I don’t think you actually know what the specifics are to my objections to Nixon, though, so I don’t see how your analysis can be valid.

    Dustin, I’ll admit that if your sentence of…

    Nixon was the worst president in American history. Worse than Obama, in my opinion, though this is debatable.

    …is pulled apart and scrutinized, and various angles of it are fussed over, then your conclusion can be judged as correct. But, by the same token, if your sentences are pulled apart and analyzed from other angles, then they to me reflect a desensitized attitude about what makes things or people worse (or worst) or not.

    However, as with matters like Obama’s reported sexuality and various suspicious aspects of his background, and theorizing that things like the IRS scandal indicate Obama is a reincarnation of a Nixon (and, for that matter, FDR of the 1930s), there is admittedly some conjecture, a bit of hearsay, and assumptions on my part that affect my impression that Obama is a very, very dumbed-down version of Nixon. But my assessment of Obama in his entirety — and also placing him against the backdrop of the US in the 21st century — is why my sense that anyone who thinks a president of the 1970s is much worse than the current president is a sign of just how desensitized we’ve all become.

    Mark (938403)

  84. The law hasn’t been amended.

    True, because Obama threatened to veto the bill the House passed that would have codified his actions into law. As it was, Obama just went all imperial unitary executive on everyone.

    Iamadimwit is quite transparent.

    JD (ba8016)

  85. 83. Well the difference I see starts with Nixon being a President. JEF is Queen of the Cotillion.

    But I quibble.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  86. Comment by JD (c2701a) — 8/1/2013 @ 4:59 am

    point out to us where the law allows the President to unilaterally amend his own legislation, because it wasn’t politically convenient for him. Surely there is a “because we don’t want to” clause in ObamaCare.

    Apparently, there’s some kind of a “necessary and proper” clause in the Internal Revenue Code, or the Treasury Department claims there is, and we know from constitutional law that you can do just about anything with a “necessary and proper” clause.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7805

    Of course, this is all about making regulations to apply to periods earlier than the effective date in the law, not later.

    Sammy Finkelman (033fec)

  87. http://indyfromaz.wordpress.com/2013/07/10/covering-the-smarter-government/#respond

    …AP reported that a “computer system problem” has caused his administration to delay yet another piece of ObamaCare for at least a year.

    The delay stems from a conflict between the law’s premium penalties for smokers and its restrictions on insurance rates. While ObamaCare forbids insurance companies from adjusting rates based on health status, it does let insurers impose a significant premium penalty on smokers.

    At the same time, the law forbids insurance companies from charging older people more than three times what they charge younger people. The problem is that the premiums for an older smoker can end up more than three times that of a young smoker once you include the penalties.

    Late last month, Obama’s tech-savvy regulators quietly told insurance companies that they simply couldn’t figure out how to get their computers to square the two.

    “The system currently cannot process a premium for a 65-year-old smoker that is more than three times the premium of a 21-year-old smoker,” it explained.

    Is it the computer, or is it the law?

    Can the rate a 65 year old smoker indeed be more than 3 times the rate for a 21 year old smoker, or is it that the premium for smokers at higher ages cannot be so much more that of smokers at lower ages, so that it raises the premium at the highest age to more than triple that of the lowest age?

    Sammy Finkelman (033fec)

  88. Nixon’s irredeemable sins:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_Shock

    He gave Il Douche the opportunity.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  89. It’s tough to see how it’s some sort of unconstitutional imperial whatever for the government to fail to meet a deadline.

    heyso (159e36)

  90. “Of course, this is all about making regulations to apply to periods earlier than the effective date in the law, not later.”

    That’s part (b). Part (a) says they can make rules as necessary. So it’s not “all about” retroactivity.

    heyso (159e36)

  91. Iamadimwit is cute.

    I think they should have just passed a law called ObamaCare. No text. They just get to make shlt up as they go along, change the effective dates to suit their politic whims, waive laws for preferred groups. Simpler to just pass a shell and admit they are gonna do whatever they want.

    JD (ba8016)

  92. 87. Chernobyl was inevitable from the day Anastasia was smothered.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  93. let’s think about this for a good 2 or 3 seconds…

    if i smoke, you’re going to charge me more, but if i don’t tell you i smoke, how will you know?

    i foresee a whole lot of people lying to their insurance companies. perverse incentives indeed.

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  94. Irrational exuberance–everything except nails and hammers being bought today.

    People are too incurious to look at the GDP multiplier of 0.71%. An average of the last several is 1.75%.

    So right in plain view the GDP reported was more than doubled.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  95. It doesn’t work that way. Can you figure it out on your own or would you like me to explain it?

    heyso (159e36)

  96. red,

    Since they are not going to check up on employment or income, why stop there?

    Tell them you make only $13K a year and, whether or not you smoke, you pay about $5 a month for no-copay first-dollar fee-for-service health insurance.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  97. Just waiting until some Republican president decides that a 39.6% top tax rate “isn’t feasible” and sets the top rate at 26%.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  98. JD #91 – wasn’t that *exactly* what they did with Obamacare ? Complete with “You’ll have to pass it to learn what is in it !” ???

    Alastor (2e7f9f)

  99. 94. “multiplier” s/b ‘deflator’, mish has the poop scoop.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  100. Just so we are clear, crystal clear, heyso is the 7364th iteration of imdw.

    JD (ba8016)

  101. Another problem with the law:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/30/us/politics/wrinkle-in-health-law-vexes-lawmakers-aides.html?pagewanted=all

    Members of Congress – and staff – could wind up having to pay $5,000 to $11,000 a year oiuty of teh salaries for health insurance. Many staff are thinking of quitting as they barely make ends meet now.

    You see Senator Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, proposed that “members of Congress and Congressional staff get their employer-based health insurance through the same exchanges as our constituents.”

    That got into the Senate bill, and because there was no conference committee, and the house passed the Senate bill, and the House just passed the Senate bill (so that Scott Brown’s vote not to bbreak a filibuster couldn’t stop it) it got into the final bill as well.

    Now right now lawmakers and aides get coverage through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. The federal government pays the premiums. And the wide variety of options was cited in debates as a model.

    Now, there’s nothing in the bill to authorize the government to pay premiums for federal employees or reimburse them if they buy health insurance on their own.

    Instant pay cut of up $5,000 or $10,000!!

    But don’t worry, maybe:

    The United States Office of Personnel Management, is now working on a regulation. Overtime maybe.

    They hope to have a rule by October.

    One possible idea. Many staff are exempt: The provision only applies to members of Congress and “the official office of a member of Congress.”

    But not people who don’t work for individual members of Congress.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.0820 secs.