Patterico's Pontifications

This will be interesting.

Patterico (d92671) — 11/9/2013 @ 3:21 pm

i’m on team burn

happyfeet (8ce051) — 11/9/2013 @ 3:25 pm

meghan’s coward daddy says elections have consequences you know, and one of the consequences is we get to enjoy Obamacare in its glorious reality

happyfeet (8ce051) — 11/9/2013 @ 3:27 pm

I haven’t yet voted, because my vote depends heavily upon the concessions. Here is what I would demand:

* Delay only goes until November 1, 2014, so that people are forced to enroll right before they go to the polls for mid-term elections.

* All previous waivers to unions and other businesses that the Administration has handed out are hereby cancelled.

* Religious exemption is broadened to include anyone who requests it.

* Obama drops his talk of a minimum wage raise.

I could probably think of a few others, but I would at least submit these.

JVW (709bc7) — 11/9/2013 @ 3:29 pm

He had an opportunity to do this already. He, instead, attacked the republicans, his steno pool mfm did the same. Left the f$$king thing burn to the ground. While the conflagration builds the repubs should point at it and tell everyone, non stop, that this is the f%%king democrats built, the mfm lied about, approved and foisted on America.

Edward Lunny (1ae4b0) — 11/9/2013 @ 3:30 pm

shouldn’t the post note that in its radio address today Team R tucked its penis between its legs and begged begged begged America to give Obama more time to get foodstampcare right?

happyfeet (8ce051) — 11/9/2013 @ 3:33 pm

I think it could be a win-win: our side gets concessions in return for a temporary reprieve, but this still remains as an election issue in 2014. Not that I am confident that the GOP would negotiate a good deal, or that Obama would honor the terms of it.

Hey, I’m told that I may have won a Mac Powerbook on the poll site when I voted. Is anyone else so lucky?

JVW (709bc7) — 11/9/2013 @ 3:39 pm

We have to let it burn.
Republicans cannot allow any of their fingerprints to be put on any of ObamaCare, because doing so—even in getting a delay—will then be framed by the media as Republican involvement in the bill.
And the more dishonest Democrats will probably even try to publicly label it as “a bi-partisan bill.”
Even though not a single Republican voted for its final passage in 2010, there are so many low information voters out there who would become confused by GOP involvement in voting for a delay.

The narrative of the shutdown was that the GOP was throwing a tantrum about how ObamaCare was an impending disaster, and we cannot allow that narrative to be pre-empted or hi-jacked by an eager media that wants the GOP to share in the blame for the disaster.

Keep your hands off this bill, Republicans.
At least until January 2015 when you’ll hopefully have the numbers for repeal.

Elephant Stone (0c31c2) — 11/9/2013 @ 3:41 pm

Obama will NEVER ask.

Icy (91eded) — 11/9/2013 @ 3:43 pm

No.

SPQR (768505) — 11/9/2013 @ 3:49 pm

I think people need to taste the sh!t sammich in order to appreciate just what 404Care really does regarding healthcare. It’ll hurt, but putting off the day of reckoning does nothing to address the mountain of fail that is zippycare.

I keep reading that people think government provided healthcare will be the same as some Scandinavian countries, the UK, Canada, etc. But they’re not trying to care for 300+ million people with as diverse a population, and an ever increasing immigration policy. It’s not an apples to apples comparison.

I heard Bernie Sanders trot out the bs about infant mortality rates again. Pathetic.

Amalgamated Cliff Divers, Local 157 (f7d5ba) — 11/9/2013 @ 3:50 pm

What difference does it make?

Until the Rs manage to define themselves as protectors of the individual and the public good and Pelosi-Obama-Reid as the destroyers it doesn’t matter. Fixing it saves Obama. Letting it burn hurts everyone but hurts the Rs most of all. It’s time to save America and Americans not let them suffer further.

crazy (d60cb0) — 11/9/2013 @ 3:54 pm

R’s offered –it was arrogantly refused. I think we look best and most reasonable to leave the offer on the table, but NOW, with our hand strengthened, on the second go round, it’s only with conditions. Accept only a delay till the one year anniversary of original O care rollout–Oct 1, 2014 and only with all now granted waivers gone forever. All of them. Business, congressional, religious, union–all waivers for any reason gone. Everybody in America treated the same. It’s only fair 🙂

elissa (b95a79) — 11/9/2013 @ 3:56 pm

The narrative of the shutdown was that the GOP was throwing a tantrum about how ObamaCare was an impending disaster, and we cannot allow that narrative to be pre-empted or hi-jacked by an eager media that wants the GOP to share in the blame for the disaster.

You know, again, I envision a scenario where the GOP could keep its fingerprints off of the bill by saying the following:

We agree with President Obama and Congressional Democrats that this rollout has been badly mishandled, and in an effort to spare Americans from its harmful effects we are willing to work with the President to delay its implementation until October 15, 2014. We want to emphasize, though, that we still remained convinced that their overall approach to government-run healthcare is fundamentally wrong. We will be making that case to the voters in the 2014 midterm elections. If the Administration fails in its efforts to fix the myriad of problems that plague ObamaCare, they should do the honorable thing and join with us to repeal and replace.

But I can’t blame anyone for assuming that the GOP will get snookered if they try to cut a deal with Obama on this issue.

JVW (709bc7) — 11/9/2013 @ 3:58 pm

I have a torch

mg (31009b) — 11/9/2013 @ 4:10 pm

First, as said above, the only reason he will ask the GOP anything is if he is trying to do a political maneuver.
He delayed the employee mandate on his own, no reason for him to ask GOP cover on the individual.

The GOP should say that President Obama and a Dem Congress passed ObamaCare without any GOP input, messed it up without any GOP input, demonized the GOP for wanting to oppose it or delay it.

The GOP cannot stop president Obama from doing whatever he wants with it.
If Americans don’t like it or what the Dems do with it, vote in a GOP Senate along with a GOP House in 2014 and impeach him.

MD in Philly (f9371b) — 11/9/2013 @ 4:20 pm

Burn it down

JD (5c1832) — 11/9/2013 @ 4:29 pm

The first step towards fixing it, is repealing it

JD (5c1832) — 11/9/2013 @ 4:30 pm

If he got up there, in front of Congress, and apologized for every last one of his lies, and to each an every person that he has attacked, torn down, mischaracterized, called hostage takers and all of the other hyper partisan nonsense him and his stooges have employed … Then, and only then, would I consider working with him to fix it, which would Briton with repealing every single illegal waiver and interpretation of rules, etc. absent 110% honesty, I would not even discuss it with him.

JD (5c1832) — 11/9/2013 @ 4:34 pm

But… but Obama and the Dims said there were no issues, certainly nothing that would be cause for delay of ChauncyCare. Obama and the Dims must explain what has caused this unexpected turn of events and there must be sunset clauses tied to specific milestones. Maybe then.

Colonel Haiku (6e0850) — 11/9/2013 @ 4:44 pm

The only answer is for President “Goddamn America” to step down. To vamoose, to vanish, to go “poof.” But since it will be a cold day in hell before he’d do that, or even consider doing that, we’re stuck with him. We’re stuck with all his cruddy legislation, dishonest tactics and dumbed-down influences.

We have only ourselves to blame, meaning the American voters.

Mark (58ea35) — 11/9/2013 @ 4:56 pm

JD

He can’t apologize enough for Sotomayor.. she is too wise for him

steveg (794291) — 11/9/2013 @ 5:00 pm

Yes.
And then use it in our ads.
(“While this was happening, we asked for this, but they refused…
xx days later, the Democrats recognized the need.)

Why not let it burn?
…Because you don’t just let a building burn when there are people trapped inside.

Ibidem (f7edd2) — 11/9/2013 @ 5:23 pm

I’d like to give it to him. (Yeah, that’s a double entendre.)

nk (dbc370) — 11/9/2013 @ 5:36 pm

let it burn…

i have zero sympathy for people who, by free choice, ran into a building that was on fire, but now want to be protected from the negative results of their willful stupidity & gullibility.

F them all but 8: 6 to carry the casket & 2 to beat the drums.

redc1c4 (abd49e) — 11/9/2013 @ 5:47 pm

I said maybe…of course it totally depends on the concessions. I doubt anything good would be on the table.

NaBr (aa5b09) — 11/9/2013 @ 5:49 pm

Patterico, if you haven’t seen them, you have to check out these two stories from Ace on the security classification of Obamacare.gov.

Former Conservative (9087bf) — 11/9/2013 @ 5:53 pm

Well, we should start quoting 0 back to 0 about how delay isn’t needed, to start.

No waivers. None.

htom (412a17) — 11/9/2013 @ 5:54 pm

i’m on team burn

Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 11/9/2013 @ 3:25 pm

Once again, we agree — although Ace’s proposal is intriguing.

Permit a delay, but with two important caveats:

1. The entire law must be functioning and in place by August 1, 2014 — three months before the election — or else it lapses immediately. It just sunsets. It’s done.

This includes the employer mandate, which has been delayed until after the elections. The whole shebang must be in place and operational as of August 1, 2014, or bye-bye to it all. No more suspensions, no more delays. If the law isn’t in operation in full by its own terms it self-repeals on August 1, 2014.

2. The law is also amended to include a sunset provision, which makes it expire August 2016. If the law is as popular as Obama claims it will be, Democrats should have no problems whatsoever whipping up support for re-authorization three months before the 2016 presidential elections. Right?

Former Conservative (9087bf) — 11/9/2013 @ 5:57 pm

Time: Feb. 2010
Place: televised healthcare summit.

Eric Cantor asks a key question about insureds losing coverage because of Obamacare and the president screws himself royally on tape. Oh Barack, you smug little git.

http://weaselzippers.us/2013/11/09/media-picks-up-smoking-gun-video-wz-had-last-week-showing-obama-lied-about-health-care-cancellations/

elissa (b95a79) — 11/9/2013 @ 6:13 pm

They created the entire bill without a) Republican input and b) without letting anyone “know what’s in it.”

Let. The. Socialists. Own. It.

J.P. (bd0246) — 11/9/2013 @ 6:14 pm

tlaloc will be by shortly to try and shame all that voted to let it burn. He never answered my question that I posed about a month ago whether he thought delaying the employer mandate without congressional approval was constitutional, so meh!

Oh, and Grover Norquist, or something! Elevanty!1!1!!

Amalgamated Cliff Divers, Local 157 (f7d5ba) — 11/9/2013 @ 6:38 pm

House should pass a clean, unconditional bill delaying all Obamacare provisions by 10 years.

Josh P (77e2cc) — 11/9/2013 @ 6:45 pm

…Because you don’t just let a building burn when there are people trapped inside.

Comment by Ibidem (f7edd2) — 11/9/2013 @ 5:23 pm

Fine. Let the perpetrators of this poor legislation skate through another election cycle without having to face the voters affected by it. How do you proposed to inform the public of its shortfalls. The media?

Right now ~4+ millions are affected. The numbers dramatically increase AFTER the 2014 election. Do you expect the media to actually inform people of the sh!t sandwich they’re going to eat come 2015. It was a problem that didn’t require a political solution, yet that’s what it’ll take to make it right for nearly a 100 million people.

Amalgamated Cliff Divers, Local 157 (f7d5ba) — 11/9/2013 @ 6:55 pm

To expand on my comment, I think passing a clean bill delaying all Obamacare provisions for 10 years is the best approach the Republicans could take.
-Avoid any sort of negotiating conditions with Obama, where we all know the Republicans will end up trading a gold nugget for a wooden nickle for the 78th time.
-Force the Dems to vote against the delay, destroying their election prospects.
-Prevents the Democrats from turning the tables and accusing Republicans of being responsible for people losing their coverage, should the Republicans refuse to support a delay.
-With the smoking wreckage we have now, it may even pass the Senate and become law, giving us a 10 year window for repeal.

Josh P (77e2cc) — 11/9/2013 @ 6:58 pm

Give Obama a delay if he’ll take one. It’s the responsible thing to do, otherwise too many people with real health care needs get hurt. Politics must be subordinate to compassionate conservatism. Do what’s right and we’ve already won.

ropelight (a86f63) — 11/9/2013 @ 7:27 pm

Give Obama a delay if he’ll take one. It’s the responsible thing to do, otherwise too many people with real health care needs get hurt. Politics must be subordinate to compassionate conservatism. Do what’s right and we’ve already won.

ropelight (a86f63) — 11/9/2013 @ 7:27 pm

A delay can’t work. The whole structure requires an effective individual mandate.

The fact that it going to collapse anyway …

The GOP should pretend to be willing to pass a delay but refuse to do so without large concessions on spending that Obama will refuse to do.

Because Obama should not be gifted a delay.

SPQR (768505) — 11/9/2013 @ 7:44 pm

give him the delay but during the campaign season point out to voters how magnanimous the Republicans were toward an opponent who was unwilling to compromise before his signature program went into the tank.

or as some suggest hold out for definite hard concessions

Peterk (c985d4) — 11/9/2013 @ 7:51 pm

The problem with denying Obama the delay is the Dems and their media allies now have one whole year to change the subject away from how awful ObamaCare is (Look! a War on Women!). I like the idea of essentially tabling this whole discussion until October 2014, then having it reemerge right before the midterm elections. Obama and the Dems are delusional enough to think they can straighten things out by then, because they have no idea that the fundamental problem with ObamaCare is the principle behind it.

But obviously the GOP should demand lots of concessions before agreeing to this. That’s why I earlier characterized this as a possible win-win.

JVW (709bc7) — 11/9/2013 @ 7:54 pm

I don’t think it will make any difference. The health insurance market will melt down, individual and employer. If I were advising the GOP, I would suggest negotiating about a delay until the election next fall. Don’t say no but let the house burn down as we are negotiating. The Dems may get frantic by summer. It might be interesting to keep the door open. I don’t think Obama will ask and we should demand he ask.

MikeK (dc6ffe) — 11/9/2013 @ 8:08 pm

I don’t think Obama will ask and we should demand he ask.

Since we’re just speculating anyway, and since it is a tired cliche to yammer on about “a Constitutional crisis,” how would the GOP react if Obama tries to unilaterally delay the individual mandate without Congressional authorization? What if he just issues an executive order and tells Treasury not to impose the fines for those who don’t purchase by the mandated date? Would we take our chances in the federal courts, knowing that Obama could probably delay a final decision until he was at the end of his term. would the GOP have the stones to start impeachment proceedings in the House?

JVW (709bc7) — 11/9/2013 @ 8:24 pm

his legacy is a handful of sh!t, which must be terribly embarrassing for him

but at the same time it’s very liberating I guess

liberating to where he can give Iran the green light to nuke the jews

(it’s an early christmas present for Valerie)

she’s gonna be so tickled

happyfeet (8ce051) — 11/9/2013 @ 8:55 pm

He’s right on course, the Sauds may have the last word, as the wikileaks indicated their displeasure,

narciso (3fec35) — 11/9/2013 @ 9:01 pm

Nuking the Jews will apparently make the most tolerant people in the world happy.

Ag80 (eb6ffa) — 11/9/2013 @ 9:05 pm

Al Jazeera was almost giddy in reporting that last story,

narciso (3fec35) — 11/9/2013 @ 9:25 pm

I’m not really sure what a delay would accomplish at this point. Insurance isn’t going to get any cheaper if they fix the website. They mandate everything is covered and paid for, no caps and no limits…there’s no way that won’t make insurance more expensive. They’ll probably get some people to sign up if they pick up the whole tab through subsidies…but that’ll cause more debt.

Anyone making near the subsidy cliff will still be screwed. That will never go away.

The retardedness of all these liberal ideas coming together in one bill is just truly astounding. They probably could have skated by with all of them on their own, but bringing them all together at once to demonstrate just how terrible they all really are is amazing.

Plus the taxes!

NaBr (aa5b09) — 11/9/2013 @ 9:40 pm

If Harvey Weinstein and Whoopi Goldberg aren’t concerned, I’m not concerned.

nk (dbc370) — 11/9/2013 @ 9:44 pm

As part of a comprehensive rework, perhaps. First, catastrophic policies. Then national policy options. Then tort reform. Then get rid of community rating for people who have not bee insured X years of the last Y — this is avoid the need for mandates entirely. Then get rid of the exchanges and balkanized insurance districts. THen get rid of the mandate.

Then maybe.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/9/2013 @ 9:45 pm

I would vote to let it burn, but I think we have to attempt a deal. But we also need to say loudly:

“YOU SHUT THE GOVERNMENT DOWN WHEN WE SUGGESTED THIS.”

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/9/2013 @ 9:48 pm

We should negotiate like Iran: Accept concessions and continue on as before.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/9/2013 @ 9:49 pm

The whole ACA fits together. If you delay the individual mandate, you have to delay everything else. Anyway the individual mandate isn’t what’s causing cancellation notices to go out. The GOP should agree to whatever delay they can get for the whole thing. One year, a hundred years, the longer the better.

johnl (a36123) — 11/9/2013 @ 9:56 pm

speaking of let it burn Werner Franz is still alive I think

http://facesofthehindenburg.blogspot.com/2009/09/werner-franz.html

happyfeet (8ce051) — 11/9/2013 @ 10:30 pm

At what point can you challenge a law based on impossibility?

A person can’t make a contract requiring them to leap over a tall building like Superman. They don’t have the ability and so the contract is void.

Government can’t pass a law requiring a space program to harvest green cheese on the moon; there isn’t any green cheese there.

What’s happening with that lawsuit about using a certain amount of cellulosic ethanol every year, but there aren’t any cellulosic ethanol plans, just a couple of labs doing test work, and so no one can possibly buy or blend in that much?

luagha (1de9ec) — 11/9/2013 @ 10:31 pm

If Harvey Weinstein and Whoopi Goldberg aren’t concerned, I’m not concerned.

As for me, I look to Jon Stewart to get the pulse on what American Jews think. He’s really hip, and the kids learn everything they know about current events from him.

JVW (709bc7) — 11/9/2013 @ 10:37 pm

he’s the bestest jew ever in the hole whirl after Jesus

happyfeet (8ce051) — 11/9/2013 @ 10:40 pm

You know what is really hilarious, happyfeet? When Jon Stewart repeats something silly some Teabagger said, like “ObamaCare is a disaster,” and then he does this dramatic pause where his eyes bulge out and he starts shaking, and his audience is just laughing and laughing. I just can’t get enough of that.

JVW (709bc7) — 11/9/2013 @ 10:45 pm

i don’t have any actual for reals cable

happyfeet (8ce051) — 11/9/2013 @ 10:50 pm

biased poll.

what about: “Yes. Let it burn.”

asdf (8f991d) — 11/9/2013 @ 11:16 pm

The problem is that it is already a train wreck. The train and all the cattle cars are off the track and rolling. You can say “let it burn” or “don’t let it burn” but it is going to burn anyhow.

The insurance companies have spent a year coming up with compliant policies, cutting policies that are dead or dying, going hat in hand to state regulators, signed contracts with providers and generally cast their feet in concrete for 2014.

And the system doesn’t work. And it is not going to work. Delaying the mandate only means that some folks can stay out of the system, but people who need their medical insurance to continue are so well and truly f***ed that it isn’t funny. THeir old policies are gone and the only thing they can do is take the horrid default choice their old company has given them. And they’re the lucky ones.

Not sure how we get out of this this year, and we better damn well have our act together next year. The GOP in Congress better take over, say “You’ve failed” and fix it them selves with something workable and FAR less complicated. Probably status quo ante with a few patches.

And still, 2014 is completely screwed up. This will probably require a trillion dollar bailout. What Bush did through inertia, Obama has done through hubris.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/9/2013 @ 11:53 pm

If I were Boehner, I’d say to the Democrats:

“We are going to repeal. Because you still have the Presidency, you get two (2) simple reforms that have to work within the old system. Choose carefully. But we are going to fix this and if you stand in our way we’ll have a veto-proof majority in 2015.”

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/9/2013 @ 11:58 pm

Delay is not an option. It wasn’t a month ago,either.

Here’s why: all the hundreds of thousands or more new Medicaid enrollees will be receiving benefits anyway. So will those older and sicker people who enroll in the exchanges. Many will also be getting premium subsidies as tax credits. All these costs go on.

Without the young healthy enrollees paying double or more for coverage, all these costs just go to the government, exploding the deficit again. It cannot work.

Delaying the mandate just means many billions in unfunded expenditures. It’s an insane idea, and always was.

Estragon (19fa04) — 11/10/2013 @ 12:23 am

It doesn’t matter if you delay or don’t. You cannot mandate something that no one can do. The lawsuits against the mandate penalty tax will be immediate and legion. What will absolutely kill the system will be the lawsuits by people who have had their insurance cancelled with no way to replace it.

And of course, there is the political damage. Pretty sure the Republicans made their position clear.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/10/2013 @ 1:16 am

~~penalty~~

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/10/2013 @ 1:16 am

I picked the middle option. However, sufficient concessions would mean putting the whole thing off for 9 months, employer, individual, and any other mandates have to wait while they make the web site work. AND we get a five percent absolute budget cut with a few departments facing directed minimum cuts and other departments to face no cuts. No cuts would include total military spending. It would, logically, have to include a similar hands off on some other cherished Democrat favored department. Then the POTUS gets to allocate the cuts from there.

It’ll never happen so it’s basically a “let it fester while voters get ever angrier at Obamacare” vote.

{^_^}

JDow (d8539e) — 11/10/2013 @ 2:36 am

Obama is the floating turd in Caddyshack.

mg (31009b) — 11/10/2013 @ 3:51 am

The problem with the question is that delaying the individual mandate is not going to be the only – or the most important thing – that needs to be done to avoid trouble.

Sammy Finkelman (9e0380) — 11/10/2013 @ 4:01 am

Hovering over the crapfest that is Obamacare is the larger, more corrupt IRS, which has been given at least a half a billion dollars of new funding to play Big Nanny and enforce ACA. That all by itself needs to be factored into any attempts to toss out the steaming pile that is Obamacare.

Nuking the Jews will apparently make the most tolerant people in the world happy.

I remain stunned that the supposed good guy — one of the biggest icons of American liberalism — during the last major moment when the world (or certainly the West) was awash in anti-Semitism, referring to Franklin D Roosevelt, was himself so bigoted that he happily, proudly enforced quotas against Jews in US society, said that Jews deserved some blame for Europe’s Hitlerism, expressed pleasure about the racial/ethnic purity of American bloodlines, and said the offspring of white/Asian couples were unfortunate.

Glimmers of that are popping up among the modern-day left — with the odd Stockholm Syndrome increasingly evident among liberals in the Western World and Islamo-fascists in the Middle East and EU immigrant communities — and I fear that history is repeating itself. After all, FDR, as bad as he was, wasn’t necessarily as ideologically corrupt and corroded as his 21st-century successor is.

Mark (58ea35) — 11/10/2013 @ 4:03 am

53. Comment by luagha (1de9ec) — 11/9/2013 @ 10:31 pm

At what point can you challenge a law based on impossibility?

A person can’t make a contract requiring them to leap over a tall building like Superman. They don’t have the ability and so the contract is void.

The contract may be practically impossible for some people, but the tax isn’t, or isn’t supposed to be .

People with very low income are not subject to it, and there are hardship exemptions.

I think a lawsuit against the FDA for denying lifesaving medications would have a better chance.

Sammy Finkelman (9e0380) — 11/10/2013 @ 4:05 am

There might be alawsuit against being forced to enroll in Medicaid, on pain of either paying an unreasonable tax – if any tax can legally be deemed unreasonable – or disclosing financial and maybe medical information.

Sammy Finkelman (9e0380) — 11/10/2013 @ 4:08 am

Sammy, have you ever considered not clicking on the “Submit Comment” button?

Amalgamated Cliff Divers, Local 157 (f7d5ba) — 11/10/2013 @ 4:40 am

I say we create our own Deputy Ministry of Supreme Social Happiness like Venezuela, outlaw “unfair” premium prices, and pledge our fealty to teh Won. It’s our only hope.

Amalgamated Cliff Divers, Local 157 (f7d5ba) — 11/10/2013 @ 4:52 am

#59, Kevin M’s on the right track. ObamaCare won’t work, the business model is fatally flawed. It’s foundation rests on at least 2 major delusions: the absurd assumption millions of young healthy individuals can be overcharged for health insurance services they don’t want or need under threat of a relatively small fine; and the equally absurd assumption that taking nearly $800 billion out of Medicare won’t provoke the kind of backlash from seniors that sweeps Democrats out of office nationwide.

ObamaCare is a multifaceted disaster unfolding in slow motion, rollout website problems are only the tip of the iceberg, and as embarrassing as they’ve been for the Administration, they’ve also largely concealed another fatal flaw: most of the sign-ups have come from people who qualify for Medicaid or subsidies.

Taken together, freeloaders are at the gates, and the kids aren’t going to save a system now funded only by shortchanging seniors. The bill for this disaster comes due in November 2014 and Democrats can’t run fast enough or far enough to escape retribution.

ropelight (3ff844) — 11/10/2013 @ 6:39 am

” What Bush did through inertia, Obama has done through hubris.”

Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/9/2013 @ 11:53 pm

To get off topic for a moment, Bush could not stop the real estate meltdown without getting rid of Greenspan who decided to allow a real estate bubble to reinflate the internet bubble of the 90s.

The basic cause was the CRA but Greenspan let it get out of control. Politicians don’t know economics. Obama had no idea he would destroy the health care system.

MikeK (dc6ffe) — 11/10/2013 @ 7:23 am

I think the interest rate spike between 2004 and 2006, really sealed the date, as was the one in oil prices.

narciso (3fec35) — 11/10/2013 @ 7:50 am

That’s it – the rise in interest rates (which maybe in part was designed to halt the housing bubble) only precipitated the housing market crash.

Sammy Finkelman (9e0380) — 11/10/2013 @ 7:52 am

Delay or no delay, it will be disastrous. Insurance carriers and businesses cannot just turn on a dime every few months and reorganize!

I wonder, what is the GOP going to do about the oncoming debacle? Do they have a goal, a strategy?

Patricia (be0117) — 11/10/2013 @ 7:54 am

It is much easier to destroy than it is to build…

There is nothing that can be done to “fix” the problem (Obama and company’s headlong rush to destroying insurance and replacing with single payer) in the short term.

The GOP would have to “destroy” ACA or Single Payer, which will, at least in the short term (years) will create even more suffering, for improvements (decade or more) in the future.

With our current political (and now entrenched bureaucratic) system–We are doomed. Whether the collapse is internal or external (now that Obama secretly lifted sanctions against Iran)–Not sure that the end results will be much different.

Might recover quicker if externally supplied (i.e., war–all things that don’t help the effort are deemed expendable–i.e., government regulations, laws, environmental restrictions, etc.).

If internally caused failures (see Detroit), those in power will decide that it was simply “not enough” stimulus, laws, regulations, bad apples taking advantage of poor government regulators/judges/women&children, etc… and we just need more of the same.

BfC (a1cf00) — 11/10/2013 @ 8:29 am

Obama had no idea he would destroy the health care system.

MikeK, I disagree with the thrust of that assumption because I do believe that Obama — at the very, very least, unconsciously (and not inadvertently) — has wanted to totally upend the current healthcare system in favor of Euro-style socialized medicine. IOW, he is emotionally not as bothered by the scenario of a destroyed US health system as non-ideologues would be, much less as staunch conservatives would be.

Similarly, I ponder how American leftists like Obama will perceive stories similar to this one:

usatoday.com, via Drudgreport.com: Thousands of Venezuelans lined up outside the country’s equivalent of Best Buy, a chain of electronics stores known as Daka, hoping for a bargain after the socialist government forced the company to charge customers “fair” prices.

President Nicolás Maduro ordered a military “occupation” of the company’s five stores as he continues the government’s crackdown on an “economic war” it says is being waged against the country, with the help of Washington. Members of Venezuela’s National Guard, some of whom carried assault rifles, kept order at the stores as bargain hunters rushed to get inside.

Maduro faces municipal elections on Dec. 8. His popularity has dropped significantly in recent months, with shortages of basic items such as chicken, milk and toilet paper as well as soaring inflation, at 54.3% over the past 12 months.

The opposition, which has long struggled to gain ground against the country’s socialist government, is hoping that the elections will be seen as a referendum against Maduro.

The president, who took over from Hugo Chávez in April 2013, appeared on state television Friday calling for the “occupation” of the chain, which employs some 500 staff. “This is for the good of the nation,” Maduro said. “Leave nothing on the shelves, nothing in the warehouses … Let nothing remain in stock!”

Daka’s store managers, according to Maduro, have been arrested and are being held by the country’s security services. Neither Daka nor the government responded to requests for comment.

Chávez often theatrically expropriated or seized assets from more than 1,000 companies during his 14-year tenure. This, among other difficulties for foreign firms, led to a severe lack of foreign investment in the country which, according to OPEC, has the world’s largest oil reserves.

“This is more like government-sanctioned looting,” said 42-year-old Caracas-based engineer Carlos Rivero. “What stops them going into pharmacies, supermarkets and shopping malls?”

I don’t agree with people who label Obama a “communist,” but, again, I have a hunch that someone like him is so ideologically corrupt that what’s going on in a Venezuela, etc — or his entertaining the idea of Obamacare forcing a total switchover to UK-type healthcare — isn’t all that bothersome or appalling to him as it should be.

Mark (58ea35) — 11/10/2013 @ 8:35 am

“The basic cause was the CRA but Greenspan let it get out of control.”

MikeK – I largely agree. Keeping mortgage rates historically low fueled markets, but allowing Fannie and Freddie, with the encouragement of Democrat lawmakers, to exceed their original charters, facilitating a market for subprime loans, lower and lower down payment loans, low or no documentation loans, skeezy adjustable rate loans, etc., etc., all supposedly to encourage home ownership, played a huge role as well that taxpayers are still on the hook for.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/10/2013 @ 8:48 am

Burn, baby, burn.

Rusty Bill (e3b0ca) — 11/10/2013 @ 8:50 am

I voted for “negotiate”. But, I think some of the other commentors are right, it’s too late. When the Republicans used the debt ceiling/funding bill to try to add a 1 year delay, that was the very last minute a delay could have happened. Insurance companies would have had to scramble to arrange for the old-style insurance policies, but there would have been a chance.

Any vote on a delay now will not fix anything. We’re already over the top of the roller-coaster, it’s all downhill from here. The only thing to vote for now is more money for low-tech solutions to the sign-up problem: call centers, paper forms, processing clerks.

Xmas (50cc27) — 11/10/2013 @ 9:24 am

America has turned into a disgusting carnival act.

mg (31009b) — 11/10/2013 @ 9:32 am

To get off topic for a moment, Bush could not stop the real estate meltdown

I accept that the inertia was not all Bush’s, or even mostly Bush’s. It was Greenspan’s and AIG’s and Barney Frank’s and Freddie/Fannie as well. At the end, though, Bush had no plan other than dike-plugging. For that I fault him.

And to be fair, a lot of Obamacare’s failures are Pelosi’s and Reid’s.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/10/2013 @ 9:43 am

76. Comment by Patricia (be0117) — 11/10/2013 @ 7:54 am

I wonder, what is the GOP going to do about the oncoming debacle? Do they have a goal, a strategy?

There isn’t the slightest sign of one. There isn’t even a sign of anybody sticking his head out with an idea, aside from the most modest stopping of the clock.

True, as Senator Mitch McConnell says, to do anything they may have to wait until the Democrats start coming to them, but they should have some ideas better than just turning back the clock.

The Senate Republicans are just going to wait until the Democrats come up with some ideas.

The House Republicans ust want to repeal the law, as if that would take care of the problem.

Sammy Finkelman (9e0380) — 11/10/2013 @ 9:44 am

The main problem with “Let it burn” is that there are millions of Americans of every stripe who will burn with it. We should strive to lessen that number, while making clear that the Democrats broke it and cannot be trusted to fix it.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/10/2013 @ 9:48 am

The House Republicans [j]ust want to repeal the law, as if that would take care of the problem.

It mostly would, in 2015. Next year, though, is a mess and there is no easy fix except MAYBE:

Mandate that all policies and provider contracts thereunder that are in effect as of TODAY are extended through the end of 2014.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/10/2013 @ 9:51 am

Chavez harnessed the true low information voters.
The was a recent article about a woman with breast cancer who cannot get into a clinic to have surgery.
The national system has all but collapsed (and is taking the private system down too).
The woman tells the journalist that she always admired Chavez and hip policies; she’d voted for him and signed up for government programs… but never gotten anything.
Chavez took an oil rich nation and blew it all apart because he was unwilling to wait for the oil wealth to work its way down through the system.

Chavez was another stupid socialist/politician who couldn’t do math… well he could do socialist math: X equals people without plasma TV’s. Y equals number of plasma TV’s in store.
Forcing store to give away Y to X reduces the amount of people in group X.
Blame stores for not having pre-stocked more TV’s

steveg (794291) — 11/10/2013 @ 9:52 am

#85… true. We need to offer market-based alternatives, not fiddle while Rome burns. We need to insist on sunset clauses tied to measurable milestones. This law is fatally flawed and that will become ever more clear as the days, weeks months go by. Continually remind folks that elections have consequences.

Colonel Haiku (901963) — 11/10/2013 @ 9:56 am

Only if we get concessions including a sunset clause in 2016. No sunset provision, no deal.

NJRob (ceba66) — 11/10/2013 @ 10:01 am

Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/10/2013 @ 9:51 am

Mandate that all policies and provider contracts thereunder that are in effect as of TODAY are extended through the end of 2014. <

Can this legally be done?

There is concurrent federal and state jurisdiction over insurance (like the minimum wage)

Federal law can regulate it, but states are the main regulators of insurance. Maybe you could indirectly get a lot of companies to extend contracts. And maybe states would pass laws.

Would this even be sound policy? Not only do you have the problem that the worst risks and certainties wuld continue, but there is difficult;y caused by prices staying the same.

Still something could be done. It might require a bailout, and state co-operation. Only the president getting behind this might be able to make this happen. In general, that's true, since Obama would probably have to sign any bill – although if you got to 60% of both houses he probably would not veto a bill.

Sammy Finkelman (9e0380) — 11/10/2013 @ 10:10 am

Then what, all the old plans were vaporized or will be, there is no fixing this thing, it was secured through lies and bribery, altered further by fiat,

narciso (3fec35) — 11/10/2013 @ 10:16 am

We should continue to DEMAND a delay knowing that because we are demanding it, they can never give in. By demanding a delay we can ensure one does not occur because the Democrats are scared to death of appearing to have given in on any issue. And if they for some reason should grant one, we need to make sure it is on OUR terms.

Problem is that this discussion will not come up again until after Jan 1. At that point all the required policies will already have been cancelled and replaced (or not).

But there is another thing to keep in mind: If your policy is cancelled, you don’t HAVE to go to the exchanges. You can purchase a qualifying policy from any insurer that is licensed to sell health insurance in your state. You don’t have to use one of the companies participating in the exchanges and I would suggest people avoid those companies if possible.

crosspatch (6adcc9) — 11/10/2013 @ 10:19 am

…there is no easy fix except MAYBE:

Mandate that all policies and provider contracts thereunder that are in effect as of TODAY are extended through the end of 2014.

Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/10/2013 @ 9:51 am

My demand, repeal ACA and any regulations back to prior to ACA signature…

I liked my $490 per month $2,000 deductible plan for a family of 4 (two years ago).

Last year, was going to $2,500 per month with $6,000 deductible.

Now, after going to a “cheaper” grandfathered plan (if it really is), now $1,500 per month and ~$10,000 deductible x2 (two family members to hit hard deductible ceiling).

I will cancel my health insurance before signing up for “subsidies” (federal/state welfare).

What is going to happen to people now that (it appears) medical providers are going to require Pre-Payment of Deductibles before treatment…

How many working poor have $10,000 in the bank account to pay for wrist surgery deductible (my spouse did that twice). Two years ago, we could not even get the hospital to give us a quote/estimate for the outpatient surgery (oh, there are too many variables for us to give you an estimate). Found out (after the hospital figured out how to write a bill in 3 seconds after checkout) that laying in the bed in “recovery” was $10,000 per hour. Screw that.

Next time, flying to Taiwan with a broken wrist (hope does not happen again).

BfC (a1cf00) — 11/10/2013 @ 10:21 am

There are no words, really;

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/11/dnc-chair-democrats-will-be-able-to-run-on-obamacare-as-an-advantage-in-2014-video/

narciso (3fec35) — 11/10/2013 @ 10:29 am

Can this legally be done?

In a crisis you would be amazed what can be legally done. The alternative is that all the insurers go bankrupt, with hospitals and others to follow.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/10/2013 @ 10:35 am

We should continue to DEMAND a delay knowing that because we are demanding it, they can never give in. By demanding a delay we can ensure one does not occur because the Democrats are scared to death of appearing to have given in on any issue. And if they for some reason should grant one, we need to make sure it is on OUR terms.
Comment by crosspatch (6adcc9) — 11/10/2013 @ 10:19 am

That’s another interesting thought, one to use their political manipulations against them.

I think many of us agree that there is ample evidence that the one and company really want a single payer, and they really don’t care how much pain is suffered* in the short run, as long as it does not become a political liability.
I have no idea, though, how much chaos they were anticipating/planning for this soon, and what plan they have, if any, to seize the crisis and force it in the single payer direction at this time.
How many people will continue to believe that the one and the Dems are for them and they need to be given more power,
and how many people will say they’ve made a mess, we would be crazy to let them keep making messes?

Good statesmen need to stand up, tell the truth, and offer direction. After all, to be told “don’t go that way” without an alternative is not always helpful.

MD in Philly (f9371b) — 11/10/2013 @ 10:35 am

Comment by crosspatch (6adcc9) — 11/10/2013 @ 10:19 am

You can purchase a qualifying policy from any insurer that is licensed to sell health insurance in your state.

Except Vermont and the District of Columbia, where no non-exchange-listed individual policies can be sold.

Sammy Finkelman (9e0380) — 11/10/2013 @ 10:36 am

Obma did want single payer (in an interview years ago) but what he seemed to envision that first there’d be a modest improvement and then they’d be able to enact something better.

Of course single payer leads first, to financial disaster, and then, to some forms of rationing in attempts to avoid that, with no lawyers or politicians around to complain.

Sammy Finkelman (9e0380) — 11/10/2013 @ 10:39 am

Can this legally be done?
In a crisis you would be amazed what can be legally done. The alternative is that all the insurers go bankrupt, with hospitals and others to follow.
Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/10/2013 @ 10:35 am

It appears that for a while now the question is not whether something can be legally done, but whether it can be gotten away with.
The need is for some people to figure out and champion something that can be “gotten away with” that is also legal and will leave the country better off.

MD in Philly (f9371b) — 11/10/2013 @ 10:40 am

MD,

Legal, or equitable? I opt for saving lives and not screwing anyone over too badly. Not too interested in t-crossers and i-dotters.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/10/2013 @ 10:42 am

She must feel like cassandra sometimes,

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/11/sarah-palin-tells-iowa-conservatives-its-time-to-stiffen-our-backs-video/

narciso (3fec35) — 11/10/2013 @ 10:44 am

You don’t have to use one of the companies participating in the exchanges

The same company may offer different policies on and off the exchange.

There is no reason for anyone to use the exchanges except to get a subsidy. Every policy on the exchange can be bought directly from the insurance company.

There are some important reasons actually to avoid them. The biggest problem these policies have, as a rule, is network limitation.

Sammy Finkelman (9e0380) — 11/10/2013 @ 10:44 am

and I would suggest people avoid those companies if possible.

Until December 31, 2013, you can also still buy 2013 policies from companies that still sell them. In some places insurance companies just pulled out of the state market. But many others offered early renewal. (Federal law can legalize them later, but not guarantee any particular company will offer them, and of course bad health might terminate such a policy)

Portals like ehealthinsurance.com still work, and when and if healthcare.gov gets working will even allow people to get subsidies by sending data to the exchange, but they won’t have all the policies listed on the exchanges, but only from companies that arrange to have their policies listed.

They will also have policies not listed there, including policies legal only till the end of 2013 – but good for about a year, or as long a period of time as the insurance company will sign a contract for.

On a news interview show today someone said the subsidies go down after 250% of poverty. The out of pocket subsidies cut out then, and the premium subsidies get very low (except maybe for people close to 65 in states where discrimnination by age is allowed – in New York age is a pre-existing condition that insurers are not allowed to charge extra for.)

There are still other ways out. Maybe some group plan. Maybe disability or out of work insurance? (which is the insurance Barack Obama’s mother had trouble with)

Sammy Finkelman (9e0380) — 11/10/2013 @ 10:45 am

And the problem is that we have a government that lurches from crisis to crisis because there is no comity and no vision. It is all about wresting advantage for factions.

Ted Cruz said on the Tonight Show that the problem is that DC was infested by entrenched and self-serving politicians of both parties. The crowd understood, and applauded loudly, even if Leno missed the point.

But that is all we’ve got for now. And a ticking bomb.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/10/2013 @ 10:47 am

You don’t have to use one of the companies participating in the exchanges

You do in California. Nothing else may be offered.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/10/2013 @ 10:47 am

they really don’t care how much pain is suffered* in the short run,

I meant to put a footnote to the “*”.
People who do things “for the good of humanity” (which often includes “fairness”) seem to think that the end justifies the means, and that they are morally superior and qualified to make such decisions. For example, the FBI undercover person who testified that Bill Ayers said/thought that maybe 25 million dead would be the cost of the revolution in the US (in order to “fundamentally transform” the nation).

This is an application of the phrase that “those who don’t learn from history are destined to repeat it”. Too many people in govt, the press, and other positions of influence still think of Obama as “your father’s Democrat”. He isn’t (unless your father was a communist/leftist/radical/revolutionary).

MD in Philly (f9371b) — 11/10/2013 @ 10:47 am

Comment 102 contains its own big irony …

It seems that the Obamacare website was designed by the same folk as designed Obamacare itself …

“The biggest problem these policies have, as a rule, is network limitation.”

(Disclaimer: Yes, I am a Mainframe Computer Geek !)

Alastor (2e7f9f) — 11/10/2013 @ 10:50 am

Has anyone noticed that the Healthcare.gov fix date has slipped from “mid-November” to Nov 30th?

If they can get their site working by the end of November, they can maybe salvage their damaged brand. If it still does not work well by then, they are going to need a whole new pack of lies.

And woe unto those left in the stock market.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/10/2013 @ 10:50 am

After his stint at playing Che Guevara, Ayers figured out what Lenin discovered about the failure of the Social Revolutionary, direct action alone cannot topple a state, it takes for lack of a better phrase, community organizing, propaganda and politics.

narciso (3fec35) — 11/10/2013 @ 10:52 am

Legal, or equitable? I opt for saving lives and not screwing anyone over too badly. Not too interested in t-crossers and i-dotters.
Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/10/2013 @ 10:42 am

Both. I think whatever gets done needs to not only be “politically doable” at the present time, but also legal in the framework of how the fed government is supposed to work.
We have an urgently brewing health care provision crisis superimposed on a long brewing under-current crisis of becoming a nation of men wielding popular support, not a nation of laws.
I agree with you that we need something that actually helps, but I don’t want to replace one wannabe messiah for another.

I’m guessing we are probably more in agreement than disagreement, just emphasizing certain points from different aspects, given what can be said in one or two comments.

MD in Philly (f9371b) — 11/10/2013 @ 10:53 am

They will also have policies not listed there, including policies legal only till the end of 2013 – but good for about a year, or as long a period of time as the insurance company will sign a contract for.

My wife signed a policy in June and it is being cancelled as of 12/31/13.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/10/2013 @ 10:54 am

Kevin M – if the current Administration had a functioning sense of humour amongst ’em, I suspect their next step would be to give the press conference, around Thanksgiving’s Friday, where Susan Rice shows a graphic of a month-calendar for November that goes from November 1st, 2013, all the way to November 151st, 2013 … (March 31st, 2014, in the pre-Obama’s Executive Order calendar) … and swears up and down that it’ll be fixed by the end of November …

Alastor (2e7f9f) — 11/10/2013 @ 10:57 am

I half expect Obama to arrest some of the original programmers and charge them with sabotage. Maybe just the Jewish ones.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/10/2013 @ 11:24 am

“I have no idea, though, how much chaos they were anticipating/planning for this soon, and what plan they have, if any, to seize the crisis and force it in the single payer direction at this time.”

I sincerely doubt they were expecting this much of a debacle. The employer cancellations will start going out in October 2014, one month before the election. It seems almost impossible that they had any inkling that people’s insurance rates would go up so much. I can see one person or even two people telling an outright lie but I can’t see so many people telling and keeping such a lie. They believed rates really were going to go down for some, maybe even most.

They are now starting to grasp just how much of a debacle they have created. Hopefully some of these poli-sci majors are hightailing it over to George Mason University for an economics class. Maybe they will get lucky and have Walter E. Williams as their professor.

crosspatch (6adcc9) — 11/10/2013 @ 11:30 am

They are now starting to grasp just how much of a debacle they have created.

I very much doubt they think they created it. The Rethuglicans, the Teabaggers, the insurance crooks, the sheeple — anyone but them.

And guess who is going to get sent off for re-education?

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/10/2013 @ 11:53 am

When I find myself Amazed by Republicans
Seeing weeping Boehner reminds me
The GOP is stupid, let it burn

And in my hour of Democrat madness
Pelosi’s standing right in front of me
Reminding me of Libtards, let it burn

Let it burn, let it burn
Let it burn, let it burn
Whisper words of wisdom, let it burn

jakee308 (ca1d05) — 11/10/2013 @ 12:36 pm

They believed rates really were going to go down for some, maybe even most.

If they were really as incompetent (or ideologically blinded) to believe that, I don’t know if that is good news (that they are merely incompetent and not dishonest) or bad news (that they are that incompetent, whether or not they are honest).

Add more people to the insurance rolls, many of whom are sick, add more layers of bureaucratic overhead, and expect it to be less?? I guess if they really believed a very high percentage of young healthy people were going to sign up and be willing to pay for more than their fair share, then it is conceivable;
but if you subtract from all of the young healthy people:
1) those not working or underemployed with little income, so need to be subsidized
2) those in school and on parent’s (even if not still in school) or in policies through their school
3) those with jobs with employee benefits;

then you are left with young healthy people making a significant income and buying their own insurance, which is not a huge group these days.
Young healthy people often don’t think about insurance, unless they get married and have family obligations. But stats show that is not the norm for 22 year-old’s or so anymore.

MD in Philly (f9371b) — 11/10/2013 @ 12:40 pm

ObamaCare is perfect. All the teeny tiny imaginary glitches that aren’t really problems at all but represent actual proof of unprecedented love and unquestioning devotion for the one we’ve all been waiting for are the result of a spontaneous uprising that got out of hand after young invincibles and Medicare seniors were exposed to video taped rumors that Chris Christy was the preferred candidate of paid Democrat Party political consultants, mainstream media whores, and other unindicted co-conspirators safely exempted from the ACA, employed by federal or state government, unionized, working in Hollywood, or in the abortion industry, or holding tenured positions in our nation’s colleges and universities.

ropelight (3ff844) — 11/10/2013 @ 12:40 pm

kudos, jake308

MD in Philly (f9371b) — 11/10/2013 @ 12:42 pm

#116… suhweet!

Colonel Haiku (2fee4a) — 11/10/2013 @ 12:55 pm

Since I’m already a jack-booted terrorist, anarchist hostage taker, I say let the f@cker burn.

sybilll (38ec33) — 11/10/2013 @ 12:57 pm

Just a hunk, a hunk of burnin’ sh*t…

Colonel Haiku (2fee4a) — 11/10/2013 @ 12:58 pm

His term is long
with many a clueless turn
That leads us to who knows where
Who knows where?
But I’m strong
Strong enough to weather Him
He ain’t competent, He’s Obama

So on we go
His healthcare is so f*cked up
No responsibility does He bear
And he don’t care

But I know
He will not cucumber me
He ain’t competent, He’s Obama

Colonel Haiku (2fee4a) — 11/10/2013 @ 1:07 pm

Huzzah, huzzah;

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/189775-gop-shifts-now-wants-to-fix-obamacare

narciso (3fec35) — 11/10/2013 @ 1:14 pm

Old, old, old
Old, old, old
Wheezin’, I was wheezin’ cuz I’m old
I had no money, and my healthcare was gone
My TV set was busted, can’t afford a yawn
I called room… room service
I’m down here on my knees
A shot or a pill, or an inhaler please,
But they was cold
Cuz I’m so old

Colonel Haiku (2fee4a) — 11/10/2013 @ 1:22 pm

if the republican party were a sorrier bunch of obamacare-appeasing whores they’d have to form a union

happyfeet (8ce051) — 11/10/2013 @ 1:26 pm

Now Pitts was one of those mogwai whining about the shutdown, so consider accordingly.

narciso (3fec35) — 11/10/2013 @ 1:31 pm

Got this email, today:

Due to the current financial situation caused by the slowdown in the economy, Congress has decided to implement a scheme to put workers of 50 years of age and above on early, mandatory retirement, thus creating jobs and reducing unemployment. This scheme will be known as RAPE (Retire Aged People Early).

Persons selected to be RAPED can apply to Congress to be considered for the SHAFT program (Special Help After Forced Termination).

Persons who have been RAPED and SHAFTED will be reviewed under the SCREW program (System Covering Retired-Early Workers).

A person may be RAPED once, SHAFTED twice and SCREWED as many times as Congress deems appropriate.

Persons who have been RAPED could get AIDS (Additional Income for Dependents & Spouse) or HERPES (Half Earnings for Retired Personnel Early Severance).

Obviously persons who have AIDS or HERPES will not be SHAFTED or SCREWED any further by Congress.

Persons who are not RAPED and are staying on will receive as much SHIT (Special High Intensity Training) as possible. Congress has always prided themselves on the amount of SHIT they give our citizens.

Should you feel that you do not receive enough SHIT, please bring this to the attention of your Congressman, who has been trained to give you all the SHIT you can handle.

Sincerely,

The Committee for Economic Value of Individual Lives (E.V.I.L.)
PS – Due to recent budget cuts and the rising cost of electricity, gas and oil, as well as current market conditions, the Light at the End of the Tunnel has been turned off, unless you are a member of the elitist ruling class.

nk (dbc370) — 11/10/2013 @ 1:42 pm

There are many, many reasons to oppose ObamaCare, the bad roll-out and the loss of coverage for many are just two of the most obvious at the moment.
Anything mitigating the current disaster should be done in the context of, “We told you this was bad for America and it needs to be repealed. Any action we take to correct the immediate situation should be seen as adding life boats to a sinking ship; the ship still needs to be evacuated before it sinks.”

I give permission for the analogy to be used, just give a hat tip to PP.

MD in Philly (f9371b) — 11/10/2013 @ 3:35 pm

MD in Philly @ 3:35 pm

“Any action we take to correct the immediate situation should be seen as adding life boats to a sinking ship; the ship still needs to be evacuated before it sinks.”

Right, right.

Sammy Finkelman (35f245) — 11/10/2013 @ 3:39 pm

Comment by Colonel Haiku (2fee4a) — 11/10/2013 @ 1:22 pm

inhaler please,

The FDA – or was it the EPA – got rid of the old asthma inhalers – they now have to be smuggled in from Canada.

They contain CFC’s – chlorofluorocarbons.

The 1987 Montreal Protocol on substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer contained ahealth exemption,, but Carol Browner, head of teh Environmental Protection agency under Preident Bill Clinton decided to get rid of them anyway/

A new propellant (HFA or hydroflouroalkaline was proposed, and tested.

The FDA rushed to approve it, testing it only with mildly afflicted asdthma sufferers.

This all took time, the whole thing continuing on autopilot during the entire Bush II administration, (for the FDA that’s rushing)
and it wasn’t until December 31, 2008 that CFCs were phased out.

There was no big announcement – asthma sufferers were taken completely by surprise with their first purchase in 2009. The propellant, you see, had no push, and didn’t reach deep in the lungs, and some users were allergic to HFA. he new inhalers lasted only half as long Aand were more expensive.

The FDA’s response was simply cold – people have to get used to the new ones, and many physicians didn’t acknowledge the problem, although many users began to repeat applications and send themselves to the emergency room because of steroid poisoning.

(Source: Death by Liberalism by J. R. Dunn(HarperCollins 2011) pages 107-114)

By the way, HFA are supposed to increase boost global warming.

Sammy Finkelman (2eb847) — 11/10/2013 @ 3:55 pm

Obama is apparently convinced he can still sell most Americans on Obamacare or at least create enough confusion, with media cooperation, that it won’t hurt the Democrats. Based on his track record I wouldn’t assume he’s wrong.

Gerald A (130406) — 11/10/2013 @ 6:51 pm

OT–This is the first time in many years I have not gotten all dressed up and attended the Marine Corps Birthday Ball as a guest. It was always a beautiful and inspiring event. The VietNam era Marine and his wife who always organized our table retired and moved to Florida a few months ago. Happy 238th, Marines! And thank you.

elissa (ade380) — 11/10/2013 @ 7:04 pm

Sorry you missed it elissa, it does sound like quite the event,
while we are OT, I told you that once China started making Lenovo computers it was just a cover to hack into every system in the world,
but did anyone listen???

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2013/11/good-news-china-embedding-spy-chips-in.html

Heck, NSA is just misdirection, they get all their info from China.

MD in Philly (f9371b) — 11/10/2013 @ 7:29 pm

The new inhalers lasted only half as long Aand were more expensive.

And they clog like a mofo.

You used to be able to get straight albuterol inhalers for about $6 each. Now they’re $50 and more and not available on a lot of generics-only policies. A lot of people have to fall back to Primatine. Oh, wait, they killed that, too.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/10/2013 @ 7:35 pm

Delay never made any sense. Repeal or nothing.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/10/2013 @ 8:09 pm

yep, listen to gary

epwj (016f5f) — 11/10/2013 @ 10:47 pm

Repeal or mostly repeal. But even then you have a problem. They broke it.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/11/2013 @ 1:24 am

This is what happens when a Democratic president tries to implement a Republican idea in an era of Republican idiocy and hatred….they do anything possible to destroy it!

LMAO.

Coriolis (2a3e18) — 11/11/2013 @ 1:57 am

This is what happens when a Democratic president tries to implement a Republican idea

Yes, the Democrat bungles it so badly that it ends up hurting 85% of the country, and the Dems run away from the monstrosity they created.

Chuck Bartowski (ad7249) — 11/11/2013 @ 2:44 am

Serial trolls lie. It is what they do.

JD (5c1832) — 11/11/2013 @ 3:58 am

The GOP should vigorously oppose ObamaCare but do it in the way that most protects the ongoing delivery of health care services to vulnerable seniors on Medicare. They’re the ones most at risk.

And they’re the ones Obama’s turned his back on, and they vote.

ropelight (f5c135) — 11/11/2013 @ 4:09 am

Sigh.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.

ObamaCare was a repub idea, eh? It wasn’t the idea of any “repub” or conservative here. (And we know that a best such a claim is a twisted and out of context argument).

Happened to see my wife’s Facebook this am. A posting by someone I would otherwise consider a smart and thoughtful person linking a Mother Jones article defending ObamaCare and “telling the truth” about it.

Sigh.

MD in Philly (f9371b) — 11/11/2013 @ 5:15 am

This plan is essentially Hillary’s Alliance plan from 20 years ago, just with more of the features, that Elizabeth McCaughey outlined in ‘No Exit’

narciso (3fec35) — 11/11/2013 @ 5:41 am

“We offered the option to delay the individual mandate, but you declined. We’re just honoring your wishes by not delaying. Have a nice day.”

(And “You” isn’t just Reid. While he may have prevented the House proposals from seeing the light of day in the Senate, to the best of my knowledge none of his fellow party members even batted an eye, let alone raised any objections. In this case, silence means consent.)

Nohbody (0374a5) — 11/11/2013 @ 6:07 am

Coriolis. Lie.

SPQR (768505) — 11/11/2013 @ 6:36 am

130. 134 @asthma inhalers. Slight correction. What carol Browner did in the 1990s was get rid of the health exemption. “She instructed the American delegation to press for a decision eliminating the health exemption at the nonth Montreal Protocol meeting. This was duly carried out as Decision IX/19 Part 5. It was the only substantive amendment ever made to the original agreement.” – Death by Liberalism, page 111.

The book doesn’t say why it then took what must have been another 10 years at least or so to actually get rid of CFC inhalers, so there must have still been some sort of exemption.

Sammy Finkelman (b47846) — 11/11/2013 @ 7:45 am

horses should be able to find their own water I think I have way too much on my plate to worry about a stupid thirsty horse

happyfeet (8ce051) — 11/11/2013 @ 7:50 am

141. Comment by ropelight (f5c135) — 11/11/2013 @ 4:09 am

the ongoing delivery of health care services to vulnerable seniors on Medicare. They’re the ones most at risk.

Not the people on Medicare, although some are being hurt by the cutbacks to Medicare Advantage (which is part of the bill) resulting in networks being contracted.

The people most at risk are people with individual insurance policies between the ages of 40 and 65, particularly anyone who is sick and currently getting complicated treatment, or are nearing age 65.

Sammy Finkelman (b47846) — 11/11/2013 @ 8:08 am

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/11/opinion/daring-to-complain-about-obamacare.html?_r=0

She might have been grandfathered in, had she not dropped maternity coverage in 2011, at age 44, without knowing what that would do to her after December 31, 2013. (is that right?)

So she gets a $5,400 rate increase. And loses her, and her son’s, long term doctors if she takes Anthem Blue Cross up on its offer.

One friend, who sends her links to newspaper stories, and her insurance broker, are sympathetic.

But she got virtually no support from her “friends” on Facebook, most of whom were rationalizing this must all be for the good.

Like Bridget Jones’s “smug marrieds,” the “smug insureds” — friends who were covered through their own or spouses’ employers or who were grandfathered into their plans — asked why I didn’t “just” switch all of our long-term doctors, suck it up and pay an extra $200 a month for a restrictive network on the exchange, or marry the guy I’m dating. How romantic: “I didn’t marry you just to save money, honey. I married you for your provider network.”

Along with the smug insureds, President Obama doesn’t care much about the relatively small percentage of us with canceled coverage and no viable replacement. He keeps apologizing while maintaining that it’s for the good of the country, a vast improvement “over all.”

And the “over all” might agree. But the self-employed middle class is being sacrificed at the altar of politically correct rhetoric, with nobody helping to ensure our health, fiscal or otherwise, because it’s trendy to cheer for the underdog. Embracing the noble cause is all very well — as long as yours isn’t the “fortunate” family that loses its access to comprehensive, affordable health care while the rest of the nation gets it.

By the way, one of the arguments for Obamacare was that people would not become afraid of becoming self-employed because they’d be guaranteed insurance.

Sammy Finkelman (b47846) — 11/11/2013 @ 8:11 am

More little problems with the website:

http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/11/a-business-owners-first-brush-with-healthcare-gov/

Small business application must be done on paper, using PDF files. No pricing available online.

Adobe Reader 11 needed to read PDF file.

Name and Social Security number needed for business account. If register twice, different user name needed. Latest news: could not pull up his personal application but the information showed up under rthe business log-in.

Independence Blue Cross also had problems with its website (pages not loading) Two different orices from agent and from websote for what looked like the same policy. (website was $57.62 per month cheaper. This was the same price shown on healthcare.gov)

Aetna only showed silver and bronze policies bit not gold. Metal labels seemed to indicate not same policies as agent had given.

United healthcare page showed old policies – writer thought useless – I think he did not realize that they were still available and could have a start date of Dec 30, 2013)

Sammy Finkelman (b47846) — 11/11/2013 @ 9:05 am

horses should be able to find their own water I think I have way too much on my plate to worry about a stupid thirsty horse

Silly feets. If the horse were thirsty it would drink. The problem is that it isn’t thirsty, but you know it’s going to be hours before the next waterhole, and if it doesn’t drink now it’ll collapse of thirst later. Kind of like making your kids go potty before a trip, whether they need to or not.

You can also lead a horticulture but you can’t make her think. Why you would want to do this is an exercise left for the reader.

Milhouse (b95258) — 11/11/2013 @ 1:33 pm

Actually, you cannot make a horse drink if it does not want to. And sometimes the stupid thing will drink too much and founder. You really have to use your judgment when you should water it, and have water handy, and it’s best to measure it out. Horses are sweet, stupid things.

nk (dbc370) — 11/11/2013 @ 2:35 pm

Mr. Ed was one crazy horse.

mg (31009b) — 11/11/2013 @ 2:44 pm

nk, you get a horse that breaks into the oats, eats more than its fill and then drinks water, ya got one dead horse

Colonel Haiku (404b97) — 11/11/2013 @ 3:53 pm

One dead socialist horse…

Colonel Haiku (404b97) — 11/11/2013 @ 3:54 pm

I saw it with a neighbor’s lamb that got into the corn, Haiku. The neighbor slit its throat and swollen corn poured out.

nk (dbc370) — 11/11/2013 @ 4:10 pm

Our horse got her grain, oats, from a feedbag over her head always. Straw and hay in her stall.

nk (dbc370) — 11/11/2013 @ 4:12 pm

Mmmmmmmmm lamb on a bed of corn…

Colonel Haiku (146aeb) — 11/11/2013 @ 4:17 pm

This will solve everything, sarc;

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/11/11/possible-plan-b-for-obamacare-website-meltdown-tell-people-to-visit-individual-insurance-company-websites-instead/

narciso (3fec35) — 11/11/2013 @ 4:20 pm

Today’s report says fewer than 50,000 people have signed up for ObamaCare,and apparently 8,000 of those occurred in Washington state. But those 8,000 may have to re-enroll because of a software glitch that told them they have subsidies they don’t have.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/11/2013 @ 4:23 pm

It’s possible the Washington state system is separate from HealthCare.gov so those 8,000 aren’t a subset of the 50,000, but at least 8,000 will be getting some sticker shock.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/11/2013 @ 4:26 pm

DRJ did that include the tens of thousands of Medicaid enrollments?

SPQR (768505) — 11/11/2013 @ 4:42 pm

Wow that is a (50,000 / 6 = 8,333) 833,333% increase since day one.

The system works!

And only 3,500,000 lost their coverage.

Another proud moment for the Democrat party.

Pons Asinorum (8ce71a) — 11/11/2013 @ 4:53 pm

SPQR:

DRJ did that include the tens of thousands of Medicaid enrollments?

Yes. The first link is to a WSJ article that estimates 50,000 have enrolled so far. It includes those who signed up for Medicaid.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/11/2013 @ 5:05 pm

Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/11/2013 @ 4:23 pm

But those 8,000 may have to re-enroll because of a software glitch that told them they have subsidies they don’t have

They don’t have to re-enroll, but it might be a good idea. The Washington State website (which is supposed to have been just about the best designed one of them all) transmitted the applicants’ monthly income as if it were their yearly income!

The states run only the front end. The subsidy calculation is done by something attached to healthcare.gov.

Nobody’s going to alert them. They could easily find out they are in trouble in the spring of 2015. Or perhaps somebody will notify them in the middle of 2014. And then – the money can only be clawed back through withholding a tax refund and maybe Congress will waive it, so maybe the best idea for them is to just wait and see.

Sammy Finkelman (d7b491) — 11/11/2013 @ 5:24 pm

The insurance company notification – the form 834s – I think is also done by healthcare.gov. That parts’s not working right, and Zients may have put it lower on his prioroty list to fix than the front end.

Something wasn’t co-ordinated. In fact, in general the problem may be that the translation of data between one program and another, or one system and another, is not being done right.

They should just have re-written the intersystem data into DBase III or Paradox 2 format. Use the floppy disk on the cover of the New Yorker. Would that work? They should have just changed the format of everything that goes in and everything that goes out from one system to another into one standard format. Even if occasionally they connect two databases using exactly the same format.

If something is not working right, they can then just fix that end, instead of attempting a global fix.

Anyway, they have this problem: Oct 23: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/23/healthcare-gov-is-in-de-facto-shutdown/

This process is decades old. Every union and every self-insured employer who contracts with an insurance company uses it… There’s nothing complicated about it. People in the industry are shaking their heads over the errors they’re getting. They’ve been using this process for many years. No one has ever seen these kinds of errors before.

Sammy Finkelman (d7b491) — 11/11/2013 @ 5:32 pm

This just gets better and better;

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/11/11/who-counts-as-an-obamacare-enrollee-the-obama-administration-settles-on-a-definition/

narciso (3fec35) — 11/11/2013 @ 5:34 pm

It seems to me that both parties are becoming more populist and those movements are pulling them further away from each other. Thus, the Tea Party is pulling the GOP to the right and leaders like Elizabeth Warren are pulling the Democrats to the left. So when Republicans decide what to do about ObamaCare, I suspect they will be tempted to focus on appealing to the moderate middle. Clearly Chris Christie thinks he will be the voice of the moderate middle, but I think it’s going to be hard to know who they are and what they believe.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/11/2013 @ 5:36 pm

Elizabeth Warren… 0/32 Cherokee!

Colonel Haiku (bf1039) — 11/11/2013 @ 5:40 pm

True, Schreiber is of course, journolist, but still clueless as ‘the Escape Artists’ proved.

narciso (3fec35) — 11/11/2013 @ 5:42 pm

The comments about Elizabeth Fauxchahantas Warren reminded me that I had intended to post this.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2013/11/08/national-republicans-drafting-scott-brown-for-senate-new-hampshire-granite-staters-grow-impatient/A4Me0f4Q25O3FAHMK4JY2J/story.html

elissa (55f552) — 11/11/2013 @ 5:49 pm

167. They are going to count people who have filled out an application but left it in their online shopping cart. That’s not a sale. There’s a reason that’s not a sale. It might not be completed.

Sammy Finkelman (d7b491) — 11/11/2013 @ 5:56 pm

Scott Brown was asked about this a week ago. He seemed to acknowledge he was selling his house. He was noncomittal about New Hampshire race.

Sammy Finkelman (d7b491) — 11/11/2013 @ 5:58 pm

This is the Dem who Scott Brown would be opposing in New Hampshire. She is nervous and has been busy trying to find a way to change the witches brew recipe that is Obamacare. Her senate seat is definitely vulnerable. Let’s take her out.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/jeanne-shaheen-obamacare-affordable-care-act-bill-99602.html

elissa (55f552) — 11/11/2013 @ 5:59 pm

B-b-b-ut elissa, Scott Brown isn’t as conservative as Ted Cruz !
Or something !

Are New Hampshire conservatives allowed to vote for someone like that ? Aren’t they just better off with a Democrat ?!

Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 11/11/2013 @ 6:03 pm

DRJ, then I suspect that the real enrollment via Obamacare is less than 10K so far nationwide.

They needed 39K each day to meet their goal by end of March.

SPQR (768505) — 11/11/2013 @ 6:10 pm

Elephant Stone, despite the frustration I let show here too often, I remain optimistic that people on our side will eventually understand that turning this country around is going to take several elections and many transitions. For instance, we must shoot for transitioning Democrat seats to moderate Republican seats. At the same time and in different states we shoot to transition moderate Repubs (like McCain, etc) to more conservative Repub seats. These moves are not counterintuitive or at odds with each other at all. They are necessary and strategic moves in the same chess game.

elissa (55f552) — 11/11/2013 @ 6:18 pm

Like Bridget Jones’s “smug marrieds,” the “smug insureds”

The system was designed for divide and conquer. The people with employer plans will get it in the neck later, but they won’t believe it could happen to them. And if Obamacare gets established, Medicare will become an Obamacare voucher soon enough.

The answer to “I’m all right, Jack!” is “You poor fool.”

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/11/2013 @ 6:21 pm

I worked for Pimp Brown, would not trust him even if he has an R by his name.
Scotty boy will do everything possible to vote collectivist.

mg (31009b) — 11/11/2013 @ 6:27 pm

178. Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 11/11/2013 @ 6:21 pm

And if Obamacare gets established, Medicare will become an Obamacare voucher soon enough.

Now wait, it was Paul Ryan who was supposed to want to turn it into a voucher.

Sammy Finkelman (d7b491) — 11/11/2013 @ 6:30 pm

==will do everything possible to vote collectivist.==

No. Actually that would be Shaheen and Warren. No one, even you mg, can deny that Scott brown ran against Obamacare.

elissa (55f552) — 11/11/2013 @ 6:32 pm

Scott Brown is not a “collectivist.”
Please.

Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 11/11/2013 @ 6:34 pm

elissa, obviously, you ‘get’ the strategy, and you understand federalism.
Some of our well intending friends—uh, not so much.

Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 11/11/2013 @ 6:38 pm

Well explain Flake and Heller, then, they come from the West, yet they almost invariably sign on to any of the left’s schemes,

narciso (3fec35) — 11/11/2013 @ 6:42 pm

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2013/11/new-yorker-magazine-cover-obamacare-website-troubles.html?intcid=obnetwork

The screwdriver and the hammer is there because the technician has just installed a 360K floppy disk reader. The floppy disk contains the government’s only (backup) copy of DBase III, taken from the National Archives. Pbama is using that cellphone, because it’s the only one approved for use in secure communications.

Sammy Finkelman (d7b491) — 11/11/2013 @ 6:43 pm

Brown and his vote did not matter in obamacare.
In 2011 he voted with Team R 54% of the time.
Collectivist twit,I’d say.

mg (31009b) — 11/11/2013 @ 6:45 pm

Now wait, it was Paul Ryan who was supposed to want to turn it into a voucher.

Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d7b491) — 11/11/2013 @ 6:30 pm

But not OBAMACARE.

Gerald A (130406) — 11/11/2013 @ 6:46 pm

Elizabeth Warren will vote with the GOP probably like 0% of the time.

Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 11/11/2013 @ 6:49 pm

Remember republican Olympia Snowe? Her collectivist vote is how obamacare made it out of conference. Be careful who you want to win, because most likely, these people cannot be trusted.

mg (31009b) — 11/11/2013 @ 6:51 pm

Team R will continue to sink, as well as America with the election of fence sitting compromising leeches like Brown.

mg (31009b) — 11/11/2013 @ 6:55 pm

Take Collins and her twin Murkowski, both nominally republican, however they are willing to throw a spanner into everything that needs to be done,

Warren created the framework behind the Consumer GOSPLAN, and the rationale underlying the selling of Obamacare, they care about power,

narciso (3fec35) — 11/11/2013 @ 6:55 pm

==Well explain Flake and Heller==

184. 191. I’m sorry but I think you completely missed my point, narciso. Like McCain, Flake already holds a Republican seat and is part of the R caucus. Same with Collins and Murkowski. If they do not lean as far right as their constituents in Arizona, Alaska, Maine, etc. desire them to at this juncture, then they should be ripe for opposition from a strong, more conservative and more articulate R. challenger. Did I not clearly say above that our goal should be to transition existing moderate R’s to more conservative R’s in elections where possible? I hate lifers, too. Did you misunderstand that by using the word “transition” I meant “replace”? My larger point was to stress again the futility of trying to transition a Dem seat directly to a far right conservative seat in one fell swoop–but that transitioning from Dem to a moderate R in a congressional seat is often both doable and always desirable.

elissa (55f552) — 11/11/2013 @ 7:19 pm

How about Kelly Ayotte then, the one who couldn’t explain how Obama was extorting the nation over the shutdown,

narciso (3fec35) — 11/11/2013 @ 7:22 pm

moderate republicans are democrats.

mg (31009b) — 11/11/2013 @ 7:24 pm

the point is they don’t know what they are for, so they drift or ‘grow’ in the beltway vernacular,

narciso (3fec35) — 11/11/2013 @ 7:27 pm

The Post Office will start delivering on Sunday in New York and Los Angeles, starting November 17 – and later expanding to other cities – provided it is a package from Amazon.com.

Amazon will send packages to a Post Office on Saturday night or early Sunday morning and USPS will finish the job.

It’s more than just the city. In New York’s case even parts of New Jersey and Connecticut are included.

Coming later are Dallas, Houston, New Orleans, Phoenix, and the Washington, D.C. area.

Amazon considered UPS and Federal Express bit decided USPS had the best offer.

The Post Office now occasionally delivers on Sundays when mail is backed up, and this offer is available to other companies besides Amazon.com.

Sammy Finkelman (d7b491) — 11/11/2013 @ 7:33 pm

193. I don’t know. What about her? Is she worse or better than her predecessor? With Shaheen, a Dem, as the other sitting senator it suggests that N.H. is in the purple range and having Ayotte there is a big step in the right direction. But I live in Illinois and I don’t pretend to be an expert on N.H. demographics or what is doable politically with respect to electing conservatives there. I think Mark Steyn lives in New Hampshire so there’s at least one good righty in residence. Can we agree on that?

elissa (55f552) — 11/11/2013 @ 7:43 pm

194, 195. I’ll bet the Republicans on Leyte are pumped, “It’s a whole new ball game!”

Being in the Captain’s chair for the ride into the debris field is not going to attract ‘good men’.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/11/2013 @ 7:43 pm

197. “Can we agree on that?”

How does this question pertain? We know of no useful purpose to be gained thru agreeing with Republicans except to disagree and dispense with unpleasantness.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/11/2013 @ 7:51 pm

moderate republicans are democrats.

Comment by mg (31009b) — 11/11/2013

True. They further the cause of what is amounting to socialism. And worse, they are often harshly and bitterly opposing conservatives while in my view existing as an opportunity cost of a conservative presence. In that way a RINO is worse than a democrat.

Dustin (d51398) — 11/11/2013 @ 7:52 pm

Well they are not, but they do unwittingly further their aims. re Snowe and the stimulus, Murkowski and pretty much anything,

narciso (3fec35) — 11/11/2013 @ 7:57 pm

Team r has failed it’s base, but is the base strong enough to stop the insanity?

mg (31009b) — 11/11/2013 @ 8:00 pm

==the point is they don’t know what they are for, so they drift or ‘grow’ in the beltway vernacular,==

You know I respect you, narciso, and I think I both understand and share much of your frustration with Washington and the political class. But from your comments here I simply do not get what you think needs to happen for conservatives to win elections in blue and purple states or if you think it’s even a possible goal to achieve? Do you have a strategy –any sort of roadmap– you can point to for systematically ridding us of the blight of leftist senators and congresscritters? Because that’s what I never see. What is the strategy? You know, just a few fewer Dems and we’d not be talking about Obamacare today because it would never have passed. No. Moderate Republicans and Democrats are not “just the same”.

elissa (55f552) — 11/11/2013 @ 8:00 pm

Well they are not, but they do unwittingly further their aims. re Snowe and the stimulus, Murkowski and pretty much anything,

Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 11/11/2013

The Obamacare vote, where not even the moderate RINOs in the house supported it, shows that democrats are generally worse for conservatism than RINOs, but I am more and more realizing that the cost of these moderates is, in short, the total avoidance of any solutions to the existential problems our nation faces, such as a balanced budget. These issues cannot be solved right now. Mccain or whoever will thwart them every time. It will take something extreme like a third party to ever break this problem.

Dustin (d51398) — 11/11/2013 @ 8:03 pm

Perfect is the enemy of good.

Colonel Haiku (216f74) — 11/11/2013 @ 8:06 pm

If you win elections with moderate republicans, just what have you won? Moderate republicans spend as much as democrats. Remember when Team r had the white house, senate and house? They blew it by spending like drunk Kennedy’s.

mg (31009b) — 11/11/2013 @ 8:06 pm

meghan’s coward daddy does not serve a useful function

happyfeet (8ce051) — 11/11/2013 @ 8:07 pm

A third party is the gateway to oblivion for the Right.

Colonel Haiku (216f74) — 11/11/2013 @ 8:08 pm

Remember when Team r had the white house, senate and house? They blew it by spending like drunk Kennedy’s.

Comment by mg (31009b)

Hey, wasn’t Texan Tom DeLay a rock-ribbed conservative?

Colonel Haiku (216f74) — 11/11/2013 @ 8:09 pm

Col. – You mean the cowardly right?

mg (31009b) — 11/11/2013 @ 8:10 pm

Criminal Delay?

mg (31009b) — 11/11/2013 @ 8:11 pm

He was a little too rind addicted, but Hastert, the model of a modern major speaker, was steering the show.

narciso (3fec35) — 11/11/2013 @ 8:11 pm

Col. – You mean the cowardly right?

Comment by mg (31009b)

Nope.

Colonel Haiku (216f74) — 11/11/2013 @ 8:12 pm

We need a Big Tent. We are inclusive, yet unlike the Todd Browning Left.

Colonel Haiku (216f74) — 11/11/2013 @ 8:13 pm

How quickly did the mods abandon delay, they left skidmarks on the pavement, ‘where does he go to get his reputation back;

narciso (3fec35) — 11/11/2013 @ 8:15 pm

Perfect is the enemy of good.

I sense that some folks (eg, Dustin, who I like) aren’t around, or don’t observe or converse with enough liberals or squishes (ie, “centrists”) to realize just how pervasive they are among the human species. My awareness of that harsh reality is why I’m forced to think tactically — like it or not — and not just ideologically.

Mark (58ea35) — 11/11/2013 @ 8:24 pm

Do you have a solution, mg, or are you just mostly enjoying playing around with the flamethrower thingy?

Dustin, you’re a military man and obviously are smart and articulate. Let’s do more than just talk about it. You know that things don’t just happen. What do you see as a battle plan? How do we successfully storm the hill? Especially if some of the nominal leaders are incompetent or yellow or seem to have a different agenda? How do we change that?

Also, who is “the base”? Ah, the vaunted base. Is “the base” always the same or is it different depending on the state and the constituency and the issue? Is “the base” static or might it actually be somewhat fluid?

And, doesn’t an effective army need different skills and have to use different strategies, different weapons and armour, different tactics (and maybe even use different languages) depending on if they’re fighting in a jungle, in a desert, in mountains, or in a city street?

elissa (55f552) — 11/11/2013 @ 8:27 pm

A big tent filled with cowards and traitors is not the answer.

mg (31009b) — 11/11/2013 @ 8:28 pm

I thought Brown’s vote on ObamaCare “didn’t matter” because Reid and Pelosi pulled some hocus pocus with procedure. Could be wrong.

Heard on the radio today (don’t remember who) that some big Repub donors in MI are wanting to sponsor a primary challenge to a “too conservative close down the government” type.

So much for the big tent.
Meanwhile, polls show independents are approving of Obama only in the 20’s-30’s or some such.

MD in Philly (f9371b) — 11/11/2013 @ 8:36 pm

This doesn’t have to be a Crusade. Be a cheerful conservative who leads by example, lighting the way for others. We need to go out of our collective way to make friends, not castigate others as being impure or cowardly traitors.

Colonel Haiku (5348bf) — 11/11/2013 @ 8:38 pm

Yes, the Wanted poster for Amash is out, as for Bentivoglio, Stupak’s replacement is also on the chopping block,

narciso (3fec35) — 11/11/2013 @ 8:39 pm

elissa,
I’m just a tired citizen getting screwed by our elected officials.
It all has to start at the local level. I have been to a couple of republican meetings here on the cape. Very depressing as they are progressives not conservatives. It’s going to be a long haul, but it has to happen at the local level.

mg (31009b) — 11/11/2013 @ 8:40 pm

MD, in my opinion a big tent does not mean we cannot have meaningful and even bruising primaries to weigh the strength and metal of candidates, gauge the most effective rhetoric, and ascertain the critical hot button policy issues within the constituency at that time so that they can be addressed properly in the general election. What a big tent should mean is that after the primaries are over we settle in, join forces, unite in strength, and go to war with our real ideological enemies –the enemies of freedom–the commies, libs and progs. I will never understand why this is even controversial.

elissa (55f552) — 11/11/2013 @ 8:57 pm

Does anyone, Bueller, even remember why Parkinson issued the 11th Commandment, because the California establishment typified by Warren among others, often shut out the center right.

narciso (3fec35) — 11/11/2013 @ 9:05 pm

I still wonder why the Team r offered no lawyers or money for lawyers to help Coleman in his fraudulent loss to the Indian Reservations own Al Franken?

mg (31009b) — 11/11/2013 @ 9:20 pm

Very depressing as they are progressives not conservatives.

I feel for you, since I’m witnessing left-leaning influences corrupting just about every aspect of this society, from (of course) academia to religion, from (of course) the media/Hollywood to the US military. I can think of few areas where the tentacles of modern-day liberalism haven’t reached and aren’t pushing the mid-point of the socio-political spectrum further and further to the left.

However, if you think things are bad here and now, just imagine what your counterpart is going through in places like France, Mexico, Greece, Venezuela, etc. IOW, you ain’t seen nothing yet—and deranged cities like Detroit are proof of that on a closer-to-home level.

Mark (58ea35) — 11/11/2013 @ 9:30 pm

The ‘big tent’ is best described as moderate republicans supporting a very conservative and principled nominee because they finally realize that’s who wins the elections when drawing a contrast to a democrat.

I’m all for that.

A little tent is one that excludes everyone who recognizes the real flaws in a moderate nominee.

Dustin (303dca) — 11/11/2013 @ 10:59 pm

BTW if you supported Romney in the last primary and cannot admit you were mistaken to do so, I’m afraid I am not persuaded by your views today, which are probably defensive and wrong.

Dustin (303dca) — 11/11/2013 @ 11:02 pm

Dustin

Amen on that but in their defense – Romney lied often.

but, before these “anyone who doesn’t agree 234% with Cruz or you’re a damn democrat” commentators here condemn good people and tronger conservative than Cruz

These people passed tax breaks under Bush, he had the lowest taxation of any president per GDP

these people passed budgets that, if it were not for the wars – and Katrina – we would have had a presidency with 6 or 7 straight balanced budgets

these people passed Medicare part D which greatly slowed the growth of the health care entitlements by making some prescription meds cost effective

these people passed tax breaks that allowed the oil companies to invest billions in drilling projects that were previously out of reah economically and now we are the largest oil producer in the world and soon to be the larget natural gas producer

Yeah, all this was done by tax cutting pro business democrats?

Cruz and his elk are the real rino’s they know this information, yet they go out there and lie every day.

Just ask Sarah…

epwj (6140f6) — 11/12/2013 @ 3:28 am

Supporting Romney was a mistake I will never make again.
Voting again depends on the candidate.

mg (31009b) — 11/12/2013 @ 3:32 am

If I don’t vote, you can bet my flamethrower will be smoking.

mg (31009b) — 11/12/2013 @ 3:34 am

We should have a pool to see what republican starts calling Cruz and Lee traitors or terrorists. The establishment gop is a disease with no apparent cure.

mg (31009b) — 11/12/2013 @ 3:38 am

mg

Did you know that cruz defended a guy who bribed judges to wrongfully imprison children in his private facility for years in one of the most heinous acts in American history and is still lying about it?

maybe you should do your due diligence.

epwj (6140f6) — 11/12/2013 @ 3:55 am

Isn’t that what lawyers do, epwj?

mg (31009b) — 11/12/2013 @ 3:58 am

So let us ride the christie bandwagon to progressive destruction.

mg (31009b) — 11/12/2013 @ 3:59 am

epwj – Your ilk will probably win because not enough people have the cajones to stand up and fight.

mg (31009b) — 11/12/2013 @ 4:09 am

EPWJ,

Dustin (303dca) — 11/12/2013 @ 4:17 am

mg

ducking the question no lawyer in American history was an integral part of a conspiracy to jail innocent children for profit

why do you support such a man?

epwj (6140f6) — 11/12/2013 @ 4:18 am

or the short what did he accomplish? wasn’t he told that to allow this turd to fail

buut nooooo, ted needs him some cash….

yeah he’s a fighting man

maybe ask the parents who’se innocent kids were sexually assaulted who ted worked for the guy who made it all happen – ask him if he put that client on his resume…

no wait – first he denied – then he said it was some minor lega work – then it turned out to be much much more and then he called it a personal attack!

whoopise

Ted the child jailer

epwj (6140f6) — 11/12/2013 @ 4:22 am

argh… that posted before the comment was finished, obviously.

We have to be careful about fawning over any politician. I happen to like Ted Cruz a lot, but he’s a politician and he’s so new. Time will tell if he’s what I hope.

We need to be skeptical of all of them. At the same time, we need to recognize that cynical politicians will respond to stimulus. If we keep nominating RINOs, then these GOP politicians will continue to follow the Romney path of flip flopping. It’s tremendously corrosive to reform and has to be resisted. We need to teach these cynical politicians that having principles is the path to greater success. Why others can’t understand this point is beyond me, but I really do think it’s because they built a politician up, kinda like many Obama fans have, and are defensive about their RINOs.

Whether we can do better is besides the point, as we actually must.

Dustin (303dca) — 11/12/2013 @ 4:27 am

240 – epwj – The tent is all yours. I am fine being under the sky.

mg (31009b) — 11/12/2013 @ 4:37 am

Not surprising, Halcro, epjw’s counterpart is arguing for medicare expansion at the Anchorage
chamber of commerce.

narciso (3fec35) — 11/12/2013 @ 4:49 am

As usual, he doesn’t know what he is talking about;

http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/jwithrow/senator-john-cornyns-top-ten-bad-votes

narciso (3fec35) — 11/12/2013 @ 4:53 am

elissa,
I understand your point, and to some degree I agree that primaries should be a place where differing ideas are presented,
but, and you may agree with this as well, I think there is a problem when a ton of money from outside sources comes to target a particular person
of course, it goes both ways, as those who are “traditional” repubs would feel the same when “Tea Party”/conservative types are supported, such as people wanting McConnell out.

Then again, the issue at present is that some of us conservative types really do think that what the country needs is not Dem-lite, and many repubs really do not like tea Party types.

MD in Philly (f9371b) — 11/12/2013 @ 5:41 am

Everywhere I hear the sound of marching charging feet, boy
Romney was the best candidate in the primaries
Cuz Winter’s here and the time is right for posing in the street, boy

Colonel Haiku (ec6093) — 11/12/2013 @ 6:12 am

He was, so why did he lose, and if you’re saying it’s demographics, what did he bring to the table?

narciso (3fec35) — 11/12/2013 @ 6:22 am

Agree about the primaries Col. Mitt beat Newt with a couple of hard rights.
And then threw in the towel against obama.

mg (31009b) — 11/12/2013 @ 6:40 am

Funny how that works, Fehnrstrom even won an attaboy from GQ for that;

narciso (3fec35) — 11/12/2013 @ 7:08 am

Dustin

There are so few rino’s that that term needs to be retired

maybe we should all be going after democrats

just a thought

epwj (6140f6) — 11/12/2013 @ 7:17 am

When dealing with postmortems about past elections, and theorizing why certain candidates either won or loss, the one point — the ONE point — that cannot be forgotten is the mindset of the public, per below. A mindset that cozies up to one of the most disreputable aspects of the current president. Namely, his playing the blame game and shrugging off responsibility for his own actions, and that of like-minded liberals.

If a majority of your fellow Americans are mimicking Obama in that one particular area, wake up and smell the burnt coffee.

Gallup.com, July 2013: Americans are still more likely to blame former President George W. Bush “a great deal” or “a moderate amount” than President Barack Obama for the country’s current economic problems. More Americans blamed Bush during Obama’s first year as president in 2009; however, since mid-2010, views have been steady at levels similar to today’s.

About a third of Americans, 35%, assign a high degree of blame to Bush alone for current economic problems, about double the percentage blaming solely Obama (19%). Another 34% blame both, while 11% say neither is highly to blame.

^ That is a window into the psyche of the populace, and nothing else is quite as damning.

We have met the enemy (or idiot), and he is us.

Mark (58ea35) — 11/12/2013 @ 7:25 am

250. We agree once again PeeWee.

DIABLOs is appropriate, ‘Republican in name only’, is nullity enclosing an absolute vacuum.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/12/2013 @ 7:27 am

209. Correction, the Right found political Oblivion long ago in the GOP.

There is no path to a Conservative President in 2016.

In fact, at this point, what would it matter if an election were held?

The only plan is to rise from the grave, to survive the devastation to start anew.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/12/2013 @ 7:39 am

248. Third debate a suit for peace.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/12/2013 @ 7:40 am

gary

again, you are just a democrat on here pretending to be a republican

there are two choices:

republican or Democrat

Republicans represent what America is and stands for

Democrats represent what THEY want America changed into

you are very helpful to the democrats, they appreciate you

epwj (6140f6) — 11/12/2013 @ 7:47 am

255. I would allow that given a contorted definition of terms an argument could be entertaining.

I would help you to this extent, there is no reason at all for the Right to surrender tens of millions of the working-class poor to the Dhimmis.

http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/city-pension-shortfall-underfunded/2013/11/11/id/536027?promo_code=EACE-1&utm_source=GatewayPundit&utm_medium=nmwidget&utm_campaign=widgetphase1

The TEAs need merely to let the GOP have their Chamber of Commerce pocket pool and go unreservedly for the middle-class.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/12/2013 @ 8:00 am

Gary

there are no Teas, those are republicans, when the tea party gets a spot on the ballot then they can ne called such – they are a figment of eager opportunists and democrats in the media

there is no tea party – its called republicans.

never ever was

epwj (6140f6) — 11/12/2013 @ 8:10 am

I don’t mean to imply that this is not worth studying, but pay close attention to “rebranding”.

http://www.rightwingnews.com/interviews/a-right-wing-news-interview-with-rnc-chairman-reince-priebus/

I see Cornyn is out of the blocks preparing for a shortened primary season with the ‘fix’ to 404Care of allowing you to keep your plan and doctor.

Rebranding, marketing, BS messaging is not going to save wrinkled butts. That plan will fail before tax day.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/12/2013 @ 8:13 am

The establishment gop is prime for a tea bagging.

mg (31009b) — 11/12/2013 @ 8:36 am

Oh for the love of Allah … Someone is off his meds again.

JD (5c1832) — 11/12/2013 @ 9:02 am

elissa,

My plan for a Republican win –and I think this is Dustin’s plan, too — is to change the GOP’s direction with a more conservative nominee. What’s your plan to win? It’s not enough to say let’s all get behind our nominee because we did that with McCain and Romney, and it didn’t work.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/12/2013 @ 9:30 am

mg

The way to change the republicans is from within, go to the meetings, raise money, get consensus, get people to think the way you do.

Establishment Republicans is soo much hooey, there are all types of republicans

Rural repos, suburban repos, left handed repos, fat repos, skinny repos, yuppie repos, rich repos, all types.

They all have different opinions too, just go to the wildly weird Texas Republican convention and see the total chaos…

when a party platform exceeds war and peace then there are a bunch of divergent opinions, and I expect most states have the same problem

reciting phrases from the constitution isn’t as helpful as raising money and reaching consensus

but it is easier

epwj (6140f6) — 11/12/2013 @ 9:39 am

DRJ

you are assuming that Christie or Perry are not conservatives? This seems to be a meme out there that doesn’t point to the records.

Christie honestly didn’t accomplish anything in NJ, but HE TRIED

Perry, accomplished great things, passed a huge sea change in abortion, forced bush to make concessions to the oil companies, forced the investment in technology that is making texas the leader in computer companies over California, and a host of many pother things he did by sheer force of will.

Cruz, didn’t even filibuster Obamacare…. he had over a dozen opportunities to do so, he could have really tied up the works but he didn’t, because that is work..

My problems with Perry, who is a friend, is that he runs too far to the religious right at times, listens to the same small subset of people who unfortunately some of the smartest have passed away, can be very snarky which doesn’t sell until after you are elected.

But, if you want someone who can get the country on another direction, he is the ONLY bet, he doesn’t care about money, legacy, or politics, which is a plus and a minus.

All Cruz is trying to be is Perry, but without any accomplishments, I agree with what Cruz is trying to do – Just not the way he is doing it – anyone can go up there and say hey stop it!

Washington doesn’t work that way, Perry’s plan to stop them meeting but every two years is a HUGE start, and forcing them to balance the budget will do more to clean up Washington than anything else.

epwj (6140f6) — 11/12/2013 @ 9:51 am

Of course Perry is a conservative. Why would you suggest otherwise, epwj?

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/12/2013 @ 9:53 am

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/dem-rep-i-think-president-was-grossly-misleading-american-public_766938.html

narciso (3fec35) — 11/12/2013 @ 9:55 am

Permit me to go as far as I can to accept PeeWee’s point.

Congress has gone a fair ways towards enshrining our democratic republic with a two party system. It is not practicable in the near term to create ex nihilo a third party to compete for the Presidency.

The money may simply not be available to compete at even a 5:1 disadvantage.

But at the end of the day elections are won with votes. The money and the votes will not be swept under the same tent for some years to come.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/12/2013 @ 9:55 am

Meanwhile, incumbent NC Sen Kay Hagan has lost a double-digit lead in her re-election race. She can probably thank ObamaCare.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/12/2013 @ 9:58 am

265. We are at a point, indeed, well down the road past that point where there is no integrity in any corner of Congress or the Executive.

Just as our society cannot survive without due process via the even-handed execution of law, it cannot without honesty and integrity on the part of our representatives.

We must discard or purge by any means necessary the political elite behind our Potemkin opposition to tyranny.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/12/2013 @ 10:03 am

Get the vote out! Put your money where your mouth is!

Colonel Haiku (32b8a6) — 11/12/2013 @ 10:05 am

269. Don’t worry, if quality candidates, those who failed to earn endorsement of the party, emerge in the primaries they will have our support.

If incumbents beat back the challengers, they will not have our support.

What you do about those two facts are your concern alone.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/12/2013 @ 10:09 am

Someone needs to tell Perry that wearing horn-rimmed glasses ain’t the answer to quieting the folks who doubt his intellectual rigor.

Colonel Haiku (fc8d37) — 11/12/2013 @ 10:09 am

Perry had his chance and he blew it.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/12/2013 @ 10:11 am

“We must discard or purge by any means necessary the political elite behind our Potemkin opposition to tyranny.”

gary – I recommend you and mg staple your scrotums to the floor in protest like that artist dude.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/12/2013 @ 10:13 am

DRJ–I and several others were talking about state and congressional races when Dustin again brought up Romney. In comment 178 I laid out a rough and simplistic, albeit a fairly detailed diagram on how I think we can turn both the country and the Republican party somewhat further right over several election cycles. That is my plan and I elaborated upon it/explained it further in additional comments over the next hour or so. I was gratified that there was some agreement, but it was clear my ideas for state specific electoral goals, including messaging and tactics were being roundly criticized (perhaps possibly because they were misunderstood by others who were on line at the time). Unfortunately, none of those naysayers seemed able to post any better concretish counter proposals or action plans for actually electing more and better lawmakers. So frankly, I think I already did my part and I stood and took the incoming. Let’s see an actual plan or actionable strategy from somebody else for a change. Hope and whinging and flamethrowing are not actionable strategies. Those things express anger and frustration but don’t accomplish much. You don’t like my ideas for action? Fine. Come up with some better ones and don’t hesitate to share.

elissa (55f552) — 11/12/2013 @ 10:13 am

Or use a nail gun, whatever works.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/12/2013 @ 10:14 am

They are going after Amash and Bentivoglio, and two dozen others,

narciso (3fec35) — 11/12/2013 @ 10:16 am

Fund the conservatives, d’oh.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/12/2013 @ 10:24 am

elissa,

That’s a fair plan. I hope it works. But I’m asking about your plan for the Presidential election.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/12/2013 @ 10:24 am

“DRJ–I and several others were talking about state and congressional races when Dustin again brought up Romney.”

Captain Ahab chasing the White Whale again.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/12/2013 @ 10:34 am

elissa.

I am not attacking you, whinging, or flame throwing and feel free to disregard my comment if you construe it that way. But how is your Congressional plan materially different than my earlier contention — expressed in our discussion the other day –that these races are local and we should leave it to the people in those communities to decide who to run and vote for?

Maybe you are saying you want someone with the GOP to decide which incumbents should get pressured with a more conservative challenger. Is that your point? If so, I don’t agree with that.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/12/2013 @ 10:41 am

By the way, I’m not a fan of national Tea Party groups doing this, either, even though it helped people like Cruz succeed. But as long as the national GOP uses its money to help Republican incumbents avoid primary challengers, then it shouldn’t mind leveling the playing field with Tea Party money.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/12/2013 @ 10:46 am

The insurance companies don’t want any changes I think, because the mandate and an early deadline is their only hope that young healthy people sign up.

Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 11/12/2013 @ 11:01 am

daleyrocks- Just stay in your tent out of the way of ridding tyranny.

mg (31009b) — 11/12/2013 @ 11:05 am

“daleyrocks- Just stay in your tent out of the way of ridding tyranny.”

mg – You and gary and Dustin keep trying to change the results of the 2012 election with big talk in the comment section of a blog. Let me know how that works out for you.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/12/2013 @ 11:08 am

Ouch, daley… that prescription was like the results of teh Lake Michigan Polar Bear New Year’s Day swim… I demand a retraction, lol.

Colonel Haiku (58bb61) — 11/12/2013 @ 11:12 am

Teh cameltoe under teh tent…

Colonel Haiku (58bb61) — 11/12/2013 @ 11:15 am

272. I’m afraid that assessment is definitive.

284. Smear the opposition, make it stick. Alinsky for insider’s boardrooms. Dusty mortally erred by uttering the ‘name that shall not be uttered’ outside 3 degrees of separation.

Like that will work.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/12/2013 @ 11:18 am

DRJ–I was not accusing you of whinging or flamethrowing. I thought it was obvious from the thread to whom I was referring because they boasted of it. I am really busy this afternoon and so I don’t have much time to monitor and participate in this discussion. I reject the notion that there even exists (discrete top down dictatorial) “GOP leadership” or “a (quantifiable) base” as I’ve stated previously. Therefore I think the state and federal races are all highly localized and are rather demographically specific. And I think while its presence can not be ignored, that all the outside influence and money in the world doesn’t matter a hill of beans if the right (or conversely if the wrong) candidate is running in those races in relation to those constituencies.

The congressional map outcomes are very important, too, which is why electing R’s to the state legislatures matters a great deal.

elissa (55f552) — 11/12/2013 @ 11:20 am

daleyrocks:

mg – You and gary and Dustin keep trying to change the results of the 2012 election with big talk in the comment section of a blog. Let me know how that works out for you.

I’ll be the first to admit that fielding a more conservative GOP nominee may not work. It could lead to a better result for the Republicans than 2008 or 2012, but it could also lead to a worse result. Maybe Christie would be different but maybe he won’t. Overall, I’m tired of running the same plays from the same playbook and want to try something ~~new~~ old.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/12/2013 @ 11:23 am

elissa,

Thanks. We’re on the same page, both with our view of local races and our schedules that make it hard to monitor every comment.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/12/2013 @ 11:25 am

274. I’m all for efforts from among the GOP faithful at the local level and above to reform their party.

May I humbly submit that rather than tactics those of you so committed focus your message and platforms at small businessmen and studiously avoid big business and its lobbyists at every turn.

Otherwise tactics may as well be damned.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/12/2013 @ 11:25 am

That’s the national Party/Tea Party divide in a nutshell, gary.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/12/2013 @ 11:31 am

292. Agreed.

The conventional wisdom was in 2008 go moderate, in 2012 get the party switching independents, in 2016 it will be get Hispanics or whatever, all the while watching the core hollow out.

You who really do have the interests of the Party at heart, is the hope du jure as good, as appealing to the military, to small business, to the young unemployed as the last one you ran with?

Don’t flail in a panic, its not attractive, at all.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/12/2013 @ 11:39 am

daley, elissa, Colonel;

When will you guys finally admit that you know deep in your hearts that Michelle Bachmann or Rick Santorum would have wiped the floor with Obama in 2012 !?

Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 11/12/2013 @ 11:46 am

Elephant Stone,

I would like a President Santorum but I’ll be the first to admit he probably couldn’t have won and it wouldn’t have been a good choice in 2012. But the fact is that Romney lost. I was shocked that American voters didn’t choose him but they didn’t, and we have to face that fact.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/12/2013 @ 11:51 am

In other words, comments like yours suggest you really don’t think it was a mistake to pick Romney. That must mean you think none of the other nominees could have won. Maybe that’s true but I don’t know how you can say that as a fact.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/12/2013 @ 11:54 am

When you look at your bottom line in 2016 you’ll have 100 million people holding down 150 million jobs with respect to 2008.

Rents, food, healthcare, taxes and gasoline will be up 40% and wages will be down 10%.

95% of new loans will be for students or cars. Unused capacity, in manufacturing, construction and retail will be over 30%.

Why on earth would you run a government lawyer, or a big businessman, or banker, or Senator?

That, in each case, would be insane.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/12/2013 @ 11:55 am

FWIW, I still think it was smart to pick Romney in 2012. He was the best man in the field and I still care about character.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/12/2013 @ 11:55 am

“But the fact is that Romney lost. I was shocked that American voters didn’t choose him but they didn’t, and we have to face that fact.”

DRJ – I see absolutely nobody here denying that fact. Please point it out if you see something different. What I see is people attempting to deny Romney got the nomination or somebody else could have gotten it and won in the absence of any evidence.

Fantasy is fun, but repeating essentially the same thing every day is a waste of time IMHO.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/12/2013 @ 11:56 am

gary,

I favor running lawyers for national office because they are the only ones who seem to be able to put together complete sentences.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/12/2013 @ 11:56 am

daleyrocks,

Part of facing a loss is analyzing alternatives — if there might have been better choices. It’s not easy to do that and it’s a lot more fun to win and move on, but I think we have to understand what went wrong if we want to change the results next time.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/12/2013 @ 11:58 am

Well, that’s an easy task for them as they have so many words to choose from as they speak out of both sides of their mouth.

askeptic (b8ab92) — 11/12/2013 @ 11:59 am

somebody else could have gotten it and won

Somebody else could have won because they wouldn’t have treated Benghazi the same way, and they wouldn’t have been vulnerable to the Bain attack. What’s clear is that Romney couldn’t have won.

Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 11/12/2013 @ 12:02 pm

daleyrocks-I’m not trying to change the 2012 election. I just hate to see you educated folks mess up once again.

mg (31009b) — 11/12/2013 @ 12:06 pm

Edmund Burke thought the reason the French Revolution went so wrong is that there too many lawyers in the National Assembly.

Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 11/12/2013 @ 12:06 pm

I advocate a Constitutional Amendment that bars all lawyers from elected, legislative, office – at any level.

askeptic (b8ab92) — 11/12/2013 @ 12:10 pm

I favor running lawyers for national office because they are the only ones who seem to be able to put together complete sentences.

I should clarify this because it sounds arrogant, and that’s not what I think. IMO lawyers are more effective public speakers because it’s one of the few careers where extemporaneous speaking is still part of the training.

In most law schools, law students have to answer tough questions under pressure in their first-year classes. They get pressed by the professor and sometimes other students. It’s rigorous and some drop out because they can’t take the pressure. Those that do well generally continue to use these skills in their careers. Clearly, not all law students and lawyers become accomplished or even good speakers, but some do and I think they make better politicians as a result.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/12/2013 @ 12:10 pm

askeptic:

I advocate a Constitutional Amendment that bars all lawyers from elected, legislative, office – at any level.

I understand that sentiment. I think it’s similar to the desire to put laymen on medical boards, etc., and it’s a legitimate concern. But how much of that feeling is because so many lawyers are liberal?

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/12/2013 @ 12:12 pm

“Part of facing a loss is analyzing alternatives — if there might have been better choices. It’s not easy to do that and it’s a lot more fun to win and move on, but I think we have to understand what went wrong if we want to change the results next time.”

DRJ – You have your opinion and I have mine. I think endless hindsight heroism and griping is a waste of time since you cannot change the actual results. You can learn things from the past, but with the amount of navel gazing, whining, and rewriting of history which has gone on I think we have sucked all the blood out of that stone. Apparently a lot of others disagree, otherwise it would not continue.

As for myself, if I wanted to subject myself this amount of recriminations and whining I would get married again.

(ducks barrage of shoes)

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/12/2013 @ 12:14 pm

I find that having lawyers as legislators is a basic conflict-of-interest.

askeptic (b8ab92) — 11/12/2013 @ 12:15 pm

309- Talk about Hubris….he actually thinks that someone out there would say Yes!

askeptic (b8ab92) — 11/12/2013 @ 12:16 pm

Speaking of my candidate in the 2012 election, Rep. Bachmann, despite Tardisil, is regarded much more seriously as a person within Conservative circles, as a candidate for office among MN Republicans, and as an opponent among Dhimmis.

Libertarians still hate her guts.

But on the whole a fine result for a Christian woman the bane of much of Amerikkka.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/12/2013 @ 12:17 pm

309. Ah, but daley, your opinion has at least some weight here, in your home none whatever.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/12/2013 @ 12:19 pm

mg–every single person who reads this blog has the same exact influence you do on any single election’s outcome. One vote. No more, no less. Some of us who are conservatives and reside in blue states do realize that in some cases our vote won’t make as much difference as we’d like it to, but we still vote because that’s what we believe engaged citizens do.

elissa (55f552) — 11/12/2013 @ 12:23 pm

DRJ,

I have no idea how it is possible for me to say “for a fact” (as you posed it), that Romney was the only GOP candidate who ran in the primaries who could have beaten Obama.
Of course, since the race was a one-time deal, and there are no do-overs, nobody can say, uh, “for a fact” one way or the other.

But I’ll say it for the hundredth time, I do not believe any of the other more conservative candidates on the menu (Bachmann, Santorum, Cain, Perry on Painkillers, or Newt) would have defeated Obama.
I suppose I do have to provide the disclaimer that my Magic 8 Ball did not give me a window into the future.

I love Newt, and I think he would have wiped the floor with Obama in all three debates.
But I think his messy divorces would have been a huge problem, causing a small minority of social conservatives to stay home on election day.
I believe that Romney was the most electable from among that menu of candidates.
If you or anyone else believes otherwise, I’d be happy to entertain whom you think would have been the more electable candidate.
But we did have a primary season, and everyone on the menu had a fair shot to convince the GOP primary voters of the viability of their candidacy. None of them could close the deal.

Barack Obama is a great salesman. He convinced just enough people that he is not who he really is.

Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 11/12/2013 @ 12:24 pm

Unlike Sun Tzu I don’t think a battle is won before it’s fought, but the tactics are determinative, that is the lesson going forward.

narciso (3fec35) — 11/12/2013 @ 12:25 pm

300. Speaking well is an absolute necessity. I’m so happy my squirt has my facility with words and none of the verbal klutziness.

The chatterbox stage will pass, I trust.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/12/2013 @ 12:26 pm

I certainly don’t want to remind you of any unplesantness, daleyrocks!

So let me say it this way: I think there is benefit to analyzing the Bush years to see why they led to Obama. It’s not fun for a Texan like me and I agree it won’t change things, but IMO it’s crucial to understanding why the electorate voted as it did. We have to look at what went wrong in order to make better decisions in the future. I think that’s what the GOP did with Romney because he was the anti-Bush — not an avowed social conservative, not Southern/Western, a technocrat who was not overly passionate, and someone who didn’t reject the label of elitist. His selection made sense, and part of me thinks his loss can be explained in large part by Obama’s dirty tricks and demonization of Romney.

But Romney lost and unless you think no one could have beaten Obama in 2012 — and maybe that’s true, because Obama was going to demonize every Republican nominee — then we have to go through this.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/12/2013 @ 12:26 pm

Elephant Stone:

I have no idea how it is possible for me to say “for a fact” (as you posed it), that Romney was the only GOP candidate who ran in the primaries who could have beaten Obama.

I said that your comment suggests you didn’t think it was a mistake to pick Romney, not that you said it as a fact.

You may be right that no one else could have beaten Obama. If I were betting on it, I would bet the same way but that doesn’t make talking about it a useless exercise.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/12/2013 @ 12:32 pm

gary:

The chatterbox stage will pass, I trust.

It didn’t pass for me until I was in my 40s. Maybe never, if you ask my family.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/12/2013 @ 12:33 pm

ellisa- as I stated yesterday, i go to the local republican meetings now and again, but it ends up being a dem-lite koombiya moment here on good ole cape cod. N.E. republicans are very closed minded. I think it’s catchy.
Those counties in Colorado could be on to something.

mg (31009b) — 11/12/2013 @ 12:34 pm

I suspect there’s no changing anyone’s mind at this point, but Gay Prostitute won because he was the anointed cog in the Borg.

No black thought they were better off with him, no Code Pink, no environmentalist, no union official, no Muslim, nobody.

The GOP lost because its their job.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/12/2013 @ 12:34 pm

320. Oh, oh.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/12/2013 @ 12:36 pm

ES, you surmise that Newt’s divorce(s) would keep a “small minority” of SoCons away from the polls.
Would that number be larger or smaller than the numbers of SoCons that were kept away by Mitt’s religion.
I think that whatever number that Newt might have lost on that issue would have been more than made up for by economic conservatives, and even independents, who thought that Newt would be an effective President and would downsize the Leviathan.

askeptic (b8ab92) — 11/12/2013 @ 12:38 pm

You can survive it, gary. My Dad did. I’m not going to say he enjoyed it but he survived it.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/12/2013 @ 12:39 pm

DRJ wrote, “…That must mean you think none of the other nominees could have won. Maybe that’s true but I don’t know how you can say that as a fact.

Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/12/2013 @ 11:54 am
———————-

DRJ, DRJ, DRJ,

You were clearly saying that you don’t know how I can say for a fact that nobody else in the GOP could have won.
All I’ve ever said is that I hold the belief that there wasn’t anyone else who ran in the GOP primaries who could have defeated Obama. I’m only saying that is my belief, I do not assert that I have some omniscient powers. Seriously.
I’ve seen you have this same conversation with daley, elissa, and myself fifty times—do you have difficulty with your memory ?
Or do you just not read other people’s posts after you ask them questions ?

Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 11/12/2013 @ 12:45 pm

This NBC News poll says Chris Christie is only popular with Republicans in the Northeast. There really is a geographic divide and my guess is it’s not just the Republicans that have one.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/12/2013 @ 12:47 pm

“But Romney lost and unless you think no one could have beaten Obama in 2012 — and maybe that’s true”

DRJ – I have explained in the past why I supported Romney. I wanted a candidate with some business experience rather than purely legal or legislative experience given the condition Obama and the Democrats had forced the economy into. Bachmann would have been my first choice but I did not see her as having any shot at winning. I did not view any other of the candidates running as having a realistic shot either, once Perry got out in public and exposed himself. If they did, they would have done better in the primaries. I can’t speculate on people who did not bother to run.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/12/2013 @ 12:49 pm

askeptic,

That’s a good question, friend.
I don’t know how many (if any) Christians stayed home on election day due to their inability to vote for a Mormon.
Do you think Mitt lost a lot of votes to anti-LDS sentiment among Christians ?

Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 11/12/2013 @ 12:51 pm

Elephant Stone:

Or do you just not read other people’s posts after you ask them questions ?

I meant that statement as a generic “Maybe that’s true but I don’t know how someone can say that as a fact.” I say that because I had qualified my earlier statement by saying what I thought your comment suggested.

But that’s not how you interpreted it and I can see why. I’m sorry.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/12/2013 @ 12:51 pm

“I said that your comment suggests you didn’t think it was a mistake to pick Romney”

DRJ – I don’t think it was a mistake. I don’t think any of the other Bozos running had a shot at beating Obama so why the hell would I think it was a mistake?

That is pure 100% crazy talk.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/12/2013 @ 12:53 pm

Elephant Stone:

I’ve seen you have this same conversation with daley, elissa, and myself fifty times—do you have difficulty with your memory ?

Really? My goodness, that’s enough, isn’t it?

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/12/2013 @ 12:53 pm

Amen, daley.

Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 11/12/2013 @ 12:55 pm

daleyrocks 331:

That is pure 100% crazy talk.

I directed that comment was to Elephant Stone 319, so I’m not sure why you think it was directed at you.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/12/2013 @ 12:55 pm

daleyrocks and Elephant Stone,

Any thoughts on 2016?

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/12/2013 @ 12:57 pm

DRJ,

Friend, you’re a lawyer.
You know what the word “fact” means.

Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 11/12/2013 @ 12:57 pm

==But Romney lost and unless you think no one could have beaten Obama in 2012 — and maybe that’s true, because Obama was going to demonize every Republican nominee — then we have to go through this.==

The biggest reason I agree with daleyrocks about the futility and overall unhealthiness of the navel gazing is that there will never be another 2012 election. 2016 brings different candidates, different personalities, different domestic challenges, different (or increased) dangers throughout the world, a different electorate and quite probably a different and even worse economy. Some 2016 voters will be brand new, many of the older 2012 voters will have passed on. There’ll be new narratives and different talking points on each side in 2016.

The biggest reason I love to read election history (20-30 years down the road) is that memoirs have been written, secrets exposed, and therefore the passage of time better illuminates events and personalities and what they meant electorally than is possible to do meaningfully in the immediate heat of emotion following any election.

elissa (55f552) — 11/12/2013 @ 12:59 pm

daleyrocks:

I directed that comment to Elephant Stone 319, so I’m not sure why you think it was directed at you.

My mistake. That should have said Elephant Stone 296, not 319. Another of my bad jobs at reading my old comments!

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/12/2013 @ 12:59 pm

DRJ, why do you do all this passive-aggressive stuff ?
Just because you directed a general comment about Romney toward me, that does not exclude daley from commenting on the conversation.

Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 11/12/2013 @ 1:01 pm

Elephant Stone:

Friend, you’re a lawyer.
You know what the word “fact” means.

I also know it’s easy to make mistakes and appreciate a chance to clarify statements, and I appreciate your giving me the chance to do that here. I don’t want to leave the wrong impression and you’ve helped me see that I had done that.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/12/2013 @ 1:01 pm

Elephant Stone:

Just because you directed a general comment about Romney toward me, that does not exclude daley from commenting on the conversation.

I wasn’t trying to exclude daleyrocks. I thought he actually believed I had directed my comment at him.

In addition, I’m not trying to be passive-aggressive. I was trying to inject some humor into the conversation in order to lighten the mood.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/12/2013 @ 1:02 pm

elissa, have you read White’s books about the “the making of the president” for past elections ?
Bob Novak has a good one about Goldwater in ’64, too.

And Craig Shirley has written a couple of fantastic books about Reagan’s quest, both in ’76 when he lost the nomination to Ford, and in ’80 when he beat the peanut farmer.

Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 11/12/2013 @ 1:04 pm

I’m curious. Does everyone here think it’s futile to look back at 2012 in preparing for 2016? Do you think the 2016 candidates and their advisers should feel the same way?

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/12/2013 @ 1:05 pm

I don’t think anyone has said it is futile to look back at 2012 in preparing for 2016.

Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 11/12/2013 @ 1:12 pm

Really?

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/12/2013 @ 1:16 pm

Elephant Stone:

Okay, what would you look back at?

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/12/2013 @ 1:17 pm

Who said it is futile to look back at 2012 when preparing for 2016 ?

Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 11/12/2013 @ 1:19 pm

==I don’t think anyone has said it is futile to look back at 2012 in preparing for 2016.==

I did.

elissa (55f552) — 11/12/2013 @ 1:19 pm

Try 337.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/12/2013 @ 1:20 pm

But I’m not interested in focusing on who said what. elissa has a valid point that we can be too focused on the past, so let’s focus on what matters about the past. What do you think matters about the 2012 election, Elephant Stone?

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/12/2013 @ 1:21 pm

DRJ,

You’re not interested in who said what ?

Uh, NO KIDDING. Tell me something new.
LOL.
😉

Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 11/12/2013 @ 1:24 pm

My point is I’m not trying to be personal. Are you trying to goad me, Elephant Stone?

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/12/2013 @ 1:27 pm

Is this personal for you now?

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/12/2013 @ 1:28 pm

Or are you simply trying to find an excuse not to answer a difficult question?

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/12/2013 @ 1:29 pm

Look, ES, I’m not trying to pick on you or anger you. I like talking about things like this but I’ll back off if you don’t.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/12/2013 @ 1:31 pm

Forget it. I’m done.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/12/2013 @ 1:32 pm

DRJ,

Look, we’re all eager to kick the Obamas to the curb, and install some class, some civility, and some sanity back into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
But it is much too early to know what/how domestic issues, events, foreign policy mishaps, voting records, and actual candidates will shape up, thereby affecting the 2016 campaign.

What I’ve generally extracted from 2012 is that we have to nominate someone who will be more than just a name on the ballot.
It must be someone who can vigorously articulate why limited government and adherence to the Constitution is the best path for prosperity and governance, as well as the maintenance of civil society. Romney was not forceful enough, except for the first debate.
Our nominee must be vigorous, and challenge the false premises offered by the MSM during interviews and debates.
We have to give low information voters a reason to vote for our guy (or gal).
The left has dominated the narrative about how the GOP only has the interests of Donald Trump and Thurston Howell III at heart, and we have to work hard to re-write that narrative. We need our nominee to roll his sleeves up and go solicit our citizens in the inner city for their voter, Jack Kemp-style. We really need to explain to the low information voters how lower taxes and fewer regulations on businesses is good, not only for rich guys and businessmen, but for the employees and the Joe Joneses just trying to get by.

But also, we have to get our ground game going. Apparently, there was a lot of Keystone Kops type of clowning around with the Get Out the Vote aspect of Team Romney.
Meanwhile, the Alinskyites were knocking on doors and driving their food stamps dependents to the polls where they probably voted two or three times.

I should also mention that we must insist on Fox News hosting one of the General Election debates. No more of these Candy Crowley ambushes !

Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 11/12/2013 @ 1:42 pm

Comment by Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 11/12/2013 @ 12:51 pm

I think there were marked numbers of Christians and Conservatives that sat on their hands last November due to Mitt’s religion, and his association with RomneyCare, and those issues crossed many demographics.
Mitt was another flawed, moderate candidate liked by the PTB, buy not by the electorate; a candidate who could not (or would not) take advantage of an opening even when it was presented to him on a silver platter (Benghazi), and who was not quick-enough on his feet to jump down the throat of the media (Candy Crowley) when presented with a Golden Lie that begged for evisceration.

askeptic (b8ab92) — 11/12/2013 @ 1:45 pm

Other than that, he’s a nice guy, a good husband and father.

askeptic (b8ab92) — 11/12/2013 @ 1:45 pm

So they seem insisting on pushing Christie on us, and looking down at Cruz and Paul

narciso (3fec35) — 11/12/2013 @ 1:50 pm

McCain….Romney….Christie….

I see a trend developing here?

askeptic (b8ab92) — 11/12/2013 @ 1:54 pm

Not sure, but I think I read Romney had pretty good support from other Christians, although relations with Southern Baptists are always dismal due to their bigotry

Colonel Haiku (8e79c6) — 11/12/2013 @ 1:56 pm

Theme for thread…

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QEJjASV20kc#

Colonel Haiku (8e79c6) — 11/12/2013 @ 1:59 pm

I’d flay those “Christians and Conservatives” if I had a chance, every goddam one of ’em, askeptic. Brainless idiots.

Colonel Haiku (8e79c6) — 11/12/2013 @ 2:03 pm

Ain’t it the truth, Col.

askeptic (b8ab92) — 11/12/2013 @ 2:14 pm

Great job being douchey to DRJ. Bravo. They don’t want to look back at it, DRJ, because it puts the whole “he was the most electable” in bright relief. Two times in a row Team R tried that.

JD (58b0d1) — 11/12/2013 @ 2:42 pm

Cruz, Paul or whoever it is in 2016 must be supported. Sitting it out is what can’t be supported. That is aiding and abetting those who must be defeated, namely the Left. All else is tomdouchery.

Colonel Haiku (404b97) — 11/12/2013 @ 3:48 pm

Oh JD, go take a chill pill.
DRJ has a lot of examples of challenging people, only to find out that she didn’t actually read that person’s comments in their entirety.
She also has a history of playing martyr.

Just read above, I was actually on the telephone and could not respond within a mere few minutes of her tantrum, so she threw herself on the fire like Joan of Arc.

Good Allah.

Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 11/12/2013 @ 6:13 pm

Mitt Romney was the most electable of the thin menu we were offered in 2012.
I have asked a thousand times, “if not Romney, then whom among the GOP primary candidates was going to defeat Obama—-Bachmann, Santorum, Cain, Newt ?”
And nobody ever picks up that baton and runs with it.

We are all disappointed that we’re stuck with this Alinskyite prick Barack Obama for another three years.

Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 11/12/2013 @ 6:18 pm

368. Just as Stones has a history of being an A-hole with a paper-thin contribution.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/12/2013 @ 7:24 pm

Problem?

http://theweek.com/article/index/252658/chris-christies-provincial-problem-can-he-win-outside-the-northeast

Never been a problem b4. If he falters Jeb’ll pick up the torch.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/12/2013 @ 7:27 pm

I don’t understand a lot of the things going on in this thread.
To be honest, though, I don’t have the time and energy to figure them out.

Concerning Romney, I’ll mention 2 things;
one, his experience with Romneycare in MA made it difficult for him to campaign on ObamaCare
two, he wasn’t prepared to deal with dishonesty and flagrant partisan ship in the debates

We often talk about the need for repub candidates to be more forceful in combatting Dem mistakes, etc.. To some degree Romney seemed to be ready to go after Obama on Benghazi, but was unprepared to counter just plain deceit, especially when compounded by the claims of the moderator.
Obama talked about bringing a gun to a knife fight, he also brings dishonesty to a gentleman’s discussion.

I don’t know exactly what it will take for a repub candidate to win, but to some degree my personal conviction is you need to go with who you think would make the best president for all of the right reasons; don’t ignore obvious shortcomings and problems, but I think we need to champion what we think is right rather than find ways to minimize our detractors, since they will demonize us anyway.

MD in Philly (f9371b) — 11/12/2013 @ 8:20 pm

The three touchy subjects, MD: Politics, religion, how much do you weigh? Can’t help the first, here. I’m 6’2″ plus, at 183 lbs. these days, if anybody wants to talk about that I don’t care.

nk (dbc370) — 11/12/2013 @ 8:26 pm

Looking forward, can someone let the Jersey Pumpkin know he is toast as a presidential candidate.
Let’s try Cruz control for a conservative change, or perhaps govna Walker, or Mr. West, or Mr. Lee, or Dr. Carson, hell give Mr. Cain another shot, you racists.

mg (31009b) — 11/13/2013 @ 2:17 am

Hmmm. West or Carson as VP.
Walker and Cruz have the best credentials of having been accustomed to demonization attempts.

The fact that NJ voters say they want Hillary even over Christie is a worrisome idea. Wanting someone to be president as a reward for putting up with a cheating husband seems to be even worse credentials than what Obama had.

And then comes this story about the Dems wanting Warren.

MD in Philly (f9371b) — 11/13/2013 @ 5:27 am

Comment by Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 11/12/2013 @ 6:13 pm

You know, sometimes I lose my temper and jump in with a profanity-laced rant towards someone. Not this time. I will just say I have lost all respect for you and any opinions you may have to offer in the future. If your behavior towards DRJ is any indication of your ability to “read” someone online and the lack of class you are capable of, your judgement is beyond suspect.

Respond or not, it doesn’t matter a wit to me. I have no time or energy to waste on rationalizations for boorish behavior, something I know a little about having engaged in it more than once. At least I am ashamed of it now and try very hard to avoid making the same mistake. I hope you grow enough sometime in the future to feel that same shame.

Stashiu3 (e7ebd8) — 11/13/2013 @ 5:34 am

I like Mr. Elephant and DRJ both!

it’s fun when people personify the rift what is rifting the right

it’s very realistic and god knows it’s cheaper than a movie ticket

Me personally I fear in my heart that porky porky Chris Christie is the best Team R can do – otherwise they’ll run a momo fetopian like Rick Perry or that baby-in-a-box guy

i like to sing songs in my car but I don’t have a very long commute and sometimes I walk to work so I don’t get to sing as much as a lil pikachu might want to

Bolthouse Farms has an interesting line of seasonal whatnot out

here you can get a coupon for to try

http://www.bolthouse.com/coupon?uid=search_25e241a1-908f-4273-b9f8-e8aa0ce26882_ocm_&utm_medium=search&utm_source=google&utm_campaign=fall&uidno=5&affiliateId=26779373&viewType=viewFull&programId=28690099&source=search&imageType=thumbnail&merchantId=26778597&uidyes=4&channel=search&identifier=25e241a1-908f-4273-b9f8-e8aa0ce26882_ocm_

the specific whatnot they have out are here

http://www.bolthouse.com/products/beverages/seasonal

the Pumpkin Spice Latte looks like a winner to me

I’m a stop on Friday and pick them all up for everyone to try at work

I’m a get little dixie cups so people feel like they need to sample them all and that Their Opinion Matters

this makes people happy you know, when they believe that Their Opinion Matters

so that’s what I try to help them believe when I can

plus who doesn’t like a snort of the ole Holiday Nog

(not counting obnoxiously skinny momo people with protruding hip bones like Kate Middleton)

happyfeet (8ce051) — 11/13/2013 @ 5:59 am

there was a lot of Keystone Kops type of clowning around with the Get Out the Vote aspect of Team Romney

romney’s revolutionary space-age get out the vote scheme was technically inept, poorly managed, and under-tested before launch

just like obamacares!

I find that very ironic in retrospect

these technocratic fascists all seem to step in the exact same rain puddles, and usually while wearing the exact same gucci loafers

happyfeet (8ce051) — 11/13/2013 @ 6:11 am

Oh no – thousands of TEA Party bloggers rend their garments

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/on-fox-ted-cruz-calls-for-bipartisan-coalition-to-start-over-on-health-care-reform/

He said that it is past time for a bipartisan group of legislators to scrap President Barack Obama’s achievement and to “start over” on health care reform.

Ted Ted – use one of those commando call signs – blink twice or hold up a finger if they got to you

gawddarn rino’s – they got TED! They got TED!

epwj (6140f6) — 11/13/2013 @ 6:26 am

John McCain was seen passing a fiver to Lindsey…..

Suppressed smiles on their face

yet another “fighter” passes through the putrid gates of bi-partisanship…..

disfigured ted for president signs can be mailed back to

GEEIDIDNTSEETHATCOMING
North Another Heartbreak Drive
Purity, Utopia, USA
Zipcode @#$#@

epwj (6140f6) — 11/13/2013 @ 6:31 am

i stand with Ted!

good ole Ted – he’s not buying Meghan’s coward daddy’s idea that elections have consequences and obamacare is the immutable law of the land

but then, Ted wasn’t perma-brainwashed by nefarious freedom-hating vietnamesers

happyfeet (8ce051) — 11/13/2013 @ 6:31 am

HF

aww he just suggested what McCain suggest 3 months ago

whoopsie…

epwj (6140f6) — 11/13/2013 @ 6:32 am

the difference is Ted is a more better leader I think

nobody can trust Meghan’s coward daddy

#theydidsomethingtohisbrain

happyfeet (8ce051) — 11/13/2013 @ 6:34 am

HF

This isn’t about McCain, its about Ted the new Dread pirate

epwj (6140f6) — 11/13/2013 @ 7:06 am

pirates?

in Washington?

yikes!

we all must keep a wary eye on these pirates

I’ll take the first watch you try and get a lil shut-eye

happyfeet (8ce051) — 11/13/2013 @ 7:09 am

But how much of that feeling is because so many lawyers are liberal?

A point worth making, and a concept that needs to be extended to various groups or individuals. People who otherwise are mainly identified with other aspects of their background, namely their race, gender, sexuality, nationality, academic background, etc, etc.

That’s why I’m always amused when various folks (generally all of the left) love to harangue critics of Obama because in their mind such antipathy has to be rooted in racism and not a differing ideology.

It’s no secret that I scrutinize socio-political biases in order to get a better grasp of why people think or respond the way they do. That way of analyzing things has even rubbed you wrong on occasion (eg, when I was trying to figure out what makes Sammy F tick). But I think to downplay that aspect of human nature makes a person vulnerable to misreading or misdiagnosing both people and events. That’s why I think your take on Romney probably comes closest to the truth.

Simply put, the American electorate in the 21st century appears to be following in the pathway of societies like France (or the EU in general) or Mexico, and postmortems on November 2012 that don’t take that into consideration are ignoring the elephant standing in the room.

I know one dyed-in-the-wool liberal who even today loves to bad mouth no less than Arnold Schwarzenegger, in spite of California’s former governor being a big squish. Nonetheless, in that leftist’s mind, even a slightly less-that-liberal tilt of a person makes him or her verboten. That ridiculous response is evident in far too many people throughout America (or, again, France, Mexico, Argentina, etc) who aren’t even too partisan or overly liberal, and it’s backed up by opinion polls that show a large majority of people still attribute economic problems — in 2013, no less — not to President “Goddamn America” but to George W Bush.

I’d say the biggest stumbling block for Romney, in the eyes of more Americans than not, wasn’t that his ideology was too squishy (although it was for my tastes), but that he had a background as a big-money guy combined with the stereotype — in the minds of too many people — of his being a greedy, non-touchy-feely white Republican.

Mark (58ea35) — 11/13/2013 @ 7:20 am

A long time ago, on my side of the mountain, there was a typhoid outbreak. Everybody was boiling their water. My cousin did not like the taste of boiled water so he peed in the water pitcher. My aunt had to boil water to clean the pitcher and boil more to refill it.

And that’s what iBambi has done. He pissed all over our health insurance system because it was not to his taste and others are going to have to clean up his mess and get something workable into place.

And when you think about it, that’s iBambi’s modus operandi in everything that miserable little bastard of a Kenyan Mau Mau and a hippie slut does.

nk (dbc370) — 11/13/2013 @ 7:31 am

372. Comment by MD in Philly (f9371b) — 11/12/2013 @ 8:20 pm

To some degree Romney seemed to be ready to go after Obama on Benghazi, but was unprepared to counter just plain deceit, especially when compounded by the claims of the moderator.

The problem was that Romney just did not understand what had gone on with Benghazi (and later he gave up even trying to.)

The problem was, it wasn’t a complete lie.

Obama had indeed come very close to calling the assault an act of terrorism the day after it happened, but the Administration veered more and more throughout the week toward the idea it was unplanned. And this Romeny did not know. It was just beyond his comprehension that Obama’s statement could have been stronger on Sept 12, than Susan Rice’s was on Sept 16, but it WAS.

(I say this was because of SOOPER SEKRIT INTELLIGENCE – the DNI or whoever did not simply tell the CIA to come up with preconceived conclusions. Nobody would have dared or even thought to do so. There was very bad intelligence coming in that contradicted even what the newspapers could find out. Probably from Prince Bandar, among others. The people weho sent the bad intelligence did not expect the White House to go so public with it, and as a result, undeceive themselves)

The media didn’t help clarify this for Romney – that there were statements that got less accurate with time – because it didn’t have that good a memory.

Obama talked about bringing a gun to a knife fight, he also brings dishonesty to a gentleman’s discussion.

Obama does this all the time. Romney was actually prepared for this in the first debate, that dealt with the economy, and that’s why he did so well in that debate, although actually he didn’t understand the subject so well. But Obama’s lies were so huge and voluminous, that if you had a little knowledge, it was easy to beat them back. I mean it was, as they say, like shooting fish in a barrel.

With regard to Benghazi, he just didn’t undertand at all what had happened. The statements from the Administration had gotten wronger and wronger as the week wore on before ultimately coming closer to the truth.

They did not simply start off wrong and get better. This he simply did not know. He didn’t even understand that after the debate. So he couldn’t even educate the press. Nobody in his campaign both knew and informed him of that.

Sammy Finkelman (d7b491) — 11/13/2013 @ 8:02 am

MD: I don’t know exactly what it will take for a repub candidate to win, but to some degree my personal conviction is you need to go with who you think would make the best president for all of the right reasons;

You have to start off like that. Romney wasn’t at all like that.

don’t ignore obvious shortcomings and problems, but I think we need to champion what we think is right rather than find ways to minimize our detractors, since they will demonize us anyway.

I’ll tell you what’s needed. More candidates.

If you don’t have that you can’t get the rest of it, like not ignoring obvious defects and shortcomings.

Now in my opinion Romney had the worst shortcomings of them all, except for the total incompetents like Michelle Bachmann and Herman Cain. Rick Perry was also pretty incompteent, and showed it.

Newt Gingrich definitely would have been better, in spite of his faults. He got destroyed in the campaign because he had no answer to the Freddie Mac question.

Santorum had a minor problem, in that his social conservatism could be misrepresented by Democrats as something he actually had both the intention and capability to enact into law. He also had some minor personal issues – taking advantage of a loophole to get free public education for his children from the state of Pennsylvania while they were actually living near D.C., in Virginia, and getting put onto a Board of Directors because someone thought he would make no waves (misrepresented as indicative of some sort of corruption while in Congress.)

The real problem, though, was not enough candidates.

Sammy Finkelman (d7b491) — 11/13/2013 @ 8:26 am

382. Mr. “The MB must be at the table in Egypt”, the same “The Syrian Rebels deserve our support”, the leader of the GOP that sat down in private with Ogabe last week to talk Amnesty away from prying eyes and ears?

They, Cruz and McVain have the same plan?

Crawl back to your spider hole PeeWee, we’ll ring when its all clear.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/13/2013 @ 8:36 am

This is what I love to hate about the GOP. In 2012 they ran an architect of Ogabe’s ‘signature’ accomplishment, 404Care.

Like that might have been a good decision today, now that the ACA is an unmitigated abortion.

So we’ve heard noises all along that the GOP leadership wants to “save the best parts of Obamanycare” and dump the rest, e.g., keeping your adult dependents on your plan.

The one that was cancelled. But we can fix that. We fix everything.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/13/2013 @ 8:43 am

374. Well, he was a good US Attorney:

http://thefederalist.com/2013/11/13/chris-christies-operational-challenge/

He’s popular and we’re fresh out of popular with no new deliveries.

“The perfect is enemy of the good” ya know.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/13/2013 @ 8:59 am

Enjoy your Hillary, gary!

Colonel Haiku (0f1c4b) — 11/13/2013 @ 9:48 am

“In 2012 they ran an architect of Ogabe’s ‘signature’ accomplishment, 404Care.”

gary – Prof. Jon Gruber ran as a Republican for something in 2012. I missed that. Got a link?

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/13/2013 @ 10:36 am

The tent is closed to Mr. Cruz, donchyaknow.

mg (31009b) — 11/13/2013 @ 10:36 am

You should read what Dr. Thomas Sowell has to say on the subject, mg. will post link if I can find it.

Colonel Haiku (01ad4d) — 11/13/2013 @ 10:54 am

Hillary just had a birthday. She was born Oct 26, 1947. Should she run and win the presidency in 2016 she’d be over 69 years of age and on her way to 70 when she’d be sworn in. A normal length second term for her and the country would end when she’d be over 77. She’s already had obvious health issues which may or may not have affected her decision making and demeanor. Her “co-president” Billy Jeff looks terrible and like he could keel over at any time.

The Dems will definitely run another historic candidate–this time a woman–in 2016. But I am increasingly worried that that woman could be Fauxhahontas, who is even more scary in most respects than Hillary. While we’re arguing on blogs and reliving the past and projecting into the future about who should run on the right, we should prolly keep in mind that the Dem opponent matters as much as who our candidate will be.

elissa (6d358f) — 11/13/2013 @ 11:05 am

Too serious. Let’s make fun of Moochelle. With an expansion of her Let’s Move program, subways now accept exercise as payment. http://i.imgur.com/l6g5YpM.jpg

nk (dbc370) — 11/13/2013 @ 11:05 am

Didn’t mean to step on your comment, elissa. Fauxhahontas. Heh!

nk (dbc370) — 11/13/2013 @ 11:08 am

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-on-the-right/111113-678745-tea-party-right-on-policy-wrong-tactics.htm

Colonel Haiku (8cb0f3) — 11/13/2013 @ 11:08 am

Appreciate the link, Col.
I read it and think this is all the tea parties fault. I saw the events unfold in another manner. The establishment members of team r need to take a step back and quit alienating people of lesser class.
Political or Economical.

mg (31009b) — 11/13/2013 @ 11:29 am

FWIW, I appreciate the intelligence and perspectives both E.S. and DRJ bring, and I think I observe that they were both uncharacteristically snippy during a particular series of engagements between themselves and others on this thread. The fact of the matter is that a lot of us on this long thread were cruising for a fight and we seem to say almost the same things and argue the same points and misunderstand or ignore the same rhetorical arguments time and time again on thread after thread no matter what the original subject matter was. It gets frustrating and often nasty in tone and in my view is changing the heart and soul of this blog and not in a good way.

elissa (6d358f) — 11/13/2013 @ 11:42 am

hillary is susceptible to debilitating bouts of the clotty head

you have to keep her feet warm at all times and you can’t feed her any shellfish

happyfeet (c60db2) — 11/13/2013 @ 11:52 am

“you have to keep her feet warm at all times and you can’t feed her any shellfish”

Mr. Feets – I think she would do the country a great service if she just stayed home and baked brownies instead of imposing her clotty-brained ideas on the rest of us, but that’s just me.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/13/2013 @ 11:57 am

as long as she wears her bunny slippers while she’s making the tasty brownies that’s fine Mr. daley but you can’t let her walk around barefoot on that cold kitchen floor or she’ll come down with the clotty head and next thing you know she’s gnawing on the sheetrock

happyfeet (c60db2) — 11/13/2013 @ 12:01 pm

Mr. Feets – If you season that sheetrock appropriately it can be darn tasty. Ima send you recipes.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/13/2013 @ 12:06 pm

that is very thoughtful Mr. daley your graciousness is much appreciated, especially in threads such as this one which has been marked by a degree of vituperation I never seen my whole life

don’t ever change

happyfeet (c60db2) — 11/13/2013 @ 12:12 pm

Comment by elissa (6d358f) — 11/13/2013 @ 11:05 am

2016 – A Dem Two-fer:

Warren-Murray!

askeptic (b8ab92) — 11/13/2013 @ 12:14 pm

Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/13/2013 @ 11:57 am

Bill can’t have brownies any longer, too many calories.

askeptic (b8ab92) — 11/13/2013 @ 12:16 pm

402. Snippy? Frankly the Thugs are exhibiting blameless behavior. Never, ever admit the adversary has a point, a valid criticism, it’s a slippery slope.

The next thing they’ll be taking away our Blue State vote with some lame argument that it’s pointless.

The trolls are no worse.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/13/2013 @ 12:20 pm

“Never, ever admit the adversary has a point, a valid criticism, it’s a slippery slope.”

gary – When you are making the same points as Tlaloc, it might be time to look in the mirror.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/13/2013 @ 12:27 pm

411. Citation, mr. daley?

Oh, btw, my condolences.

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-genius-of-democrat-governance.html

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/13/2013 @ 12:46 pm

I think we all need to take a step back, mg. Sowell makes some excellent observations.

Colonel Haiku (fa70e5) — 11/13/2013 @ 12:50 pm

413. Despite my high regard for Dr. Sowell, waiting for the electoral trifecta is a sucker’s bet.

Undoubtedly the political tactics of delaying or fixing will lose big vs. repealing or defunding.

To say that legislative success on the former duo were even possible is a ludicrously begged question.

As Boehner admitted today(only because it benefits him) going to conference with the Senate, on Amnesty or anything they desire, is surrender.

The GOP, like McClellan, will never have enough troops or supplies, they will always be outnumbered.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/13/2013 @ 12:58 pm

“411. Citation, mr. daley?”

gary – First line of 391.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/13/2013 @ 1:09 pm

gary – I find your line of thinking and that of some others here very intriguing.

Can you provide a list of sins you believe need to be eaten or confessed concerning 2012 so that you can feel better about yourself?

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/13/2013 @ 1:12 pm

415, 416. Get serious, mr. daley.

The GOP needs the TEA party to practice its dirty tricks and fighting like ~~cats~~girls.

Some day, perhaps when the Lamestream is finally gone, they can remember the feeling and employ them against Dhimmis.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/13/2013 @ 1:17 pm

The Huntress has spoken,

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/im-a-proud-hobbit-sarah-palin-takes-a-swing-at-fmr-running-mate-john-mccain/

narciso (3fec35) — 11/13/2013 @ 1:54 pm

416. Ah, I see, by that line of thinking, ShamWow has no responsibility for 404Care.

Perfect.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/13/2013 @ 1:59 pm

“415, 416. Get serious, mr. daley.”

gary – dude, you are asking people to acknowledge wrongs. You have to tell people what they are first.

What’s wrong with you?

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/13/2013 @ 2:01 pm

gary – How can I help you if you don’t tell me what to do, other than FOAD?

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/13/2013 @ 2:02 pm

418. Ssshhhussshhh. When your enemy is busy hanging themselves, its best to just feed them rope until they clear the tree limb.

Curse them wascally wabbits.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/13/2013 @ 2:03 pm

It’s more precise he employed an architect of Obamacare, as with the future ‘Nurse Ratchet’ of Coal, Gina McCarthy.

narciso (3fec35) — 11/13/2013 @ 2:06 pm

Admission #1. There was no groundswell for that former MA governor.

If it were not for DC insiders like Talent, Molinari, Paxson, et al., for ‘Conservative’ media like NRO and FoxNews, PAC operators like Karl Rove an big donors, campaign consultants($200 Million worth) that candidacy would have gone nowhere.

To beat, over and over, the drum that he won the hearts of Republicans nationally is Obamaspeak. It was not until CA was in the rearview that the fight(such as it were) was over.

You are a BS artist as surely as the forces against which you contend.

Enjoy the outer darkness.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/13/2013 @ 2:12 pm

418. I’d say against Palin and Cruz the GOP is overmatched.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/13/2013 @ 2:16 pm

423. Undoubtedly, but the effect, the high color!

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/13/2013 @ 2:19 pm

Elissa

402.FWIW, I appreciate the intelligence and perspectives both E.S. and DRJ bring

Both want the best for the country, and care deeply

epwj (1cedce) — 11/13/2013 @ 2:20 pm

Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/13/2013 @ 12:58 pm

Then we need to find us a Grant.

askeptic (b8ab92) — 11/13/2013 @ 2:21 pm

gary

there are 2 choices – one of them are tax cutting freedom loving, regulation aversive democrats…….

is that sarcastic enough for you?

epwj (1cedce) — 11/13/2013 @ 2:21 pm

428. Egypt did, why not us?

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/13/2013 @ 2:24 pm

Former Raider great Todd Christensen dies at age 57

Icy (e9047b) — 11/13/2013 @ 2:27 pm

The Dems will definitely run another historic candidate–this time a woman–in 2016. But I am increasingly worried that that woman could be Fauxhahontas, who is even more scary in most respects than Hillary.

No, it’s Michelle.

Milhouse (b95258) — 11/13/2013 @ 3:45 pm

==No, it’s Michelle.==

That’s so far off the scary meter that I can’t even process it. And I choose not to.

elissa (6d358f) — 11/13/2013 @ 4:01 pm

One could be turned to stone, without the proper shield, elissa,

narciso (3fec35) — 11/13/2013 @ 4:05 pm

==No, it’s Michelle.==

That’s so far off the scary meter that I can’t even process it. And I choose not to.

You know they’ll do it, though. They like living in the White House and taking all those fancy vacations.

Milhouse (b95258) — 11/13/2013 @ 4:24 pm

Looking forward- christie/ayotte 2016

mg (31009b) — 11/13/2013 @ 4:33 pm

This has been an eye-opening discussion for me and I appreciate everyone’s candor. I think the point of this blog is to facilitate political and law-related discussion and debate. I enjoy getting to know people here, but I primarily enjoy reading and participating in the discussions we have — whether they are with conservatives, liberals, and even those that some here call trolls.

I don’t come here intending to alienate or anger anyone but I believe some confrontation is inherent in any real debate. However, it’s clear that my view is not shared by others here and I don’t know how to resolve this. Should I have to refrain from political comments because my attitude offends some? Should others have to endure my comments that negatively change the tone of this blog? I don’t have the answer so I vote we table this topic for now and hope we can resolve it another day.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/13/2013 @ 5:23 pm

Comment by Milhouse (b95258) — 11/13/2013 @ 4:24 pm

They could get Sir Paul McCartney to play at the Inaugural Ball. With a Knight of the British Crown it would be like royalty.

I think I’m going to have nightmares tonight.

I must have not been following this discussion at some key points, as I have not understood the kerfuffle. Certainly not everyone has the same opinions. The only time I dislike a discussion is when someone posts every other comment for 100 comments being purposefully irritating, and there is only one person who comes to mind at the moment in that category.

MD in Philly (f9371b) — 11/13/2013 @ 5:56 pm

The Dem primary race would be between Hillary and Michelle?
I would not want to be in the front row of one of those debates.

MD in Philly (f9371b) — 11/13/2013 @ 5:57 pm

Don’t go DRJ, some here continue to think that going for the gruel is the solution, when that has not been the history ever, even Nixon, whose subsequent policies, may not have totally satisfied all our expectations, he fought hammer and tong.

narciso (3fec35) — 11/13/2013 @ 6:02 pm

Stay
DRJ

mg (31009b) — 11/13/2013 @ 6:04 pm

I think this was requested:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiHBCruacA4

If I had talent, I would love to play slide guitar like Lindley
I can sing like him, but…

MD in Philly (f9371b) — 11/13/2013 @ 7:12 pm

437. Life is full of people who want to take things the wrong way. I married into an azzful.

Taking your words let alone your intent as other than respectful, considerate and well-bred is willfully mistaken.

Somewhere, probably in his teens, but maybe later, Jesus recognized he was the Messiah, an possibly on a different the Only Begotten.

He stayed, obedient thru a savage beating unto death.

He knows misunderestimation.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/13/2013 @ 7:21 pm

DRJ–your post @5:23 pm made me think as your comments almost always do. As you know, you are highly thought of here, and earlier some of the guys rushed to your defense when they believed you had been insulted or maligned. When I read your comment though, I noticed that you said you specifically come here for spirited discussion, that you enjoy participating in challenging debate with folks who don’t necessarily think like you, and even expect heat and inherent confrontation. So that suggested to me that you actually view yourself as kind of a wily street fighter, not a delicate flower whose sensibilities and feelings must be adhered to–and that you actually enjoy the verbal give and take. (I’ve chosen descriptors for the most extreme ends of the debate spectrum here for illustration purposes. I’m not suggesting –repeat NOT suggesting– that you are either a street fighter or a delicate flower. 🙂 I hope you understand the point I am trying to raise and that you will reply to it. I think it might help me and other commenters to know better how to respond to your posts, arguments and intellectual challenges.

elissa (6d358f) — 11/13/2013 @ 7:28 pm

However, it’s clear that my view is not shared by others her

DRJ, because I’m not in the middle of the debate you’re referring to, I can’t respond to it the way you’re doing. So I kind of want to go “huh?!” It seems the back and fro was rather tame, but I admit to not scrutinizing every post above, although Elephant Stone (whose posts I often agree with) sure did sound way too indignant towards you. But that could be due in part to the written word easily sounding much harsher or tougher than intended by the writer.

FWIW, whenever I see the posts of you or the other women at Patterico (at least the non-liberal ones), I always like to stop and peruse them, since right-leaning females are refreshing to me. Their voices — more so than ever before — are a particularly important part of public debate.

Another group who I also find refreshing and whose opinions make me smile: Truly conservative people who happen to be so-called underrepresented minorities — ie, black, Latino, gay, Jewish, etc — or residents of urban America, or members of the entertainment industry, or the poor souls trying to maintain their sanity in much of Europe or South America.

Mark (58ea35) — 11/13/2013 @ 7:39 pm

if i wrote you a love song and sang it to you erry day would it err be nuff to make you wanna come back here n stay there gotta be a way cause goin on without chu is killing me erry day

that is my song I sing to you DRJ I stand in your front yard with my boombox held high and I sing

it’s a thing i do

happyfeet (8ce051) — 11/13/2013 @ 7:51 pm

I stand in your front yard with my boombox held high and I sing

Is that supposed to be a show of affection or a terroristic threat?

MD in Philly (f9371b) — 11/13/2013 @ 9:40 pm

==There was no groundswell for that former MA governor. If it were not for DC insiders like Talent, Molinari, Paxson, et al., for ‘Conservative’ media like NRO and FoxNews, PAC operators like Karl Rove an big donors, campaign consultants($200 Million worth) that candidacy would have gone nowhere.==

IOW, if my aunt had nuts she’d be my uncle.

elissa (6d358f) — 11/14/2013 @ 5:30 am

448. Schtoopid is as schtoopid does.

Keep letting the same people pick both candidates and keep getting the same result.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 11/14/2013 @ 7:12 am

feets’ll say anything…

Colonel Haiku (61a8ce) — 11/14/2013 @ 7:37 am

i sing my truth

happyfeet (8ce051) — 11/14/2013 @ 7:42 am

elissa,

Here is the code I live by: I try to treat others the way I would want to be treated.

That means I try to understand their point of view — although admittedly I sometimes fail because it’s hard to grasp exactly what people mean in forums like this, so I welcome when they correct my misunderstandings. That also means I respect commenters as willing, knowledgeable and capable of defending their points of view in debates. Finally, while I’m willing to challenge other people’s ideas, I try not to attack people.

So, in answer to your inquiry, I’m not worried about confrontational debates but I’m also not interested in personal attacks. Fortunately the latter doesn’t happen here much, but I think the problem is that some people consider attacks on their closely-held beliefs as attacks on them personally.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/14/2013 @ 9:51 am

We have several things in common, Mark, because I like the women’s comments here, too.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/14/2013 @ 9:53 am

elissa,

I didn’t really want to say this online but I think the reason some people are coming to my defense is they know I have cancer again and they feel protective of me. I am grateful they feel that way toward me, and that’s probably why you get the impression they think of me as a delicate flower.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/14/2013 @ 10:08 am

==I think the problem is that some people consider attacks on their closely-held beliefs as attacks on them personally.==

I think you are right about this, DRJ, and that it is human nature to want to defend one’s turf and to re-affirm and explain one’s thinking and beliefs. Sometimes it seems extra hard to be sure one’s words have been understood and not misinterpreted on the internet.

For me, the discussions here are mostly engaging and interesting–often quite fun. There are some posters I wish I could meet and spend some time with in person, goofing off and exploring ideas– and you are one of those. But I also know that I get impatient when people just throw grenades or seem to say the same things repetitively over and over. It feels to me like that’s been happening more and more and I can’t figure out why. And (apart from the trolls) I especially rebel when I think someone’s comments here sorta imply that they assume I must be stupid or that only a clueless ignorant moron could possibly hold such views, and I imagine most commenters feel the same about themselves.

As to the item from your 454 comment I can only say how very very sorry I am to hear this. I wish you the best.

elissa (6d358f) — 11/14/2013 @ 12:31 pm

Thank you, elissa. I’m in God’s hands and I couldn’t ask for anything better than that.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/14/2013 @ 12:36 pm

But I also know that I get impatient when people just throw grenades or seem to say the same things repetitively over and over. It feels to me like that’s been happening more and more and I can’t figure out why.

I think it’s happening because the national GOP isn’t changing its playbook, so it makes people like me want to talk about what Republicans should learn from the past and do in the future.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/14/2013 @ 12:39 pm

elissa:

[I]t is human nature to want to defend one’s turf and to re-affirm and explain one’s thinking and beliefs. Sometimes it seems extra hard to be sure one’s words have been understood and not misinterpreted on the internet.

I agree it’s good to stand up for your words if they’ve been misinterpreted. I also agree it’s natural to get upset when ideas we believe in are challenged, but that doesn’t make it a good idea to let that feeling take over. (This report says Obama does this and we can see how destructive he’s been.) No matter how bad it may make us feel, it isn’t a personal attack to ask people to defend ideas they believe are right, even if they have to do it more than once.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/14/2013 @ 12:59 pm

“A Delicate Flower”?

No, I’m reminded of a scene in “The Rookie” where Jimmie Morris is torn about keeping on going, and about the strain it is putting on his wife with him being away and her having to deal with all the difficulties of day-to-day life.
And she responds that she’s a Texas woman, and difficult is part of her DNA (paraphrase).

That’s what I see when I think of DRJ.

askeptic (2bb434) — 11/14/2013 @ 1:12 pm

So, askeptic. How much do you weigh and is that your real hair color?

nk (dbc370) — 11/14/2013 @ 1:14 pm

Say, Whaaaatttttt?

askeptic (2bb434) — 11/14/2013 @ 1:16 pm

I hope I am like Lorri Wood, askeptic.

On top of everything else he did, did you know Jimmy Morris played football on a state champion high school football team for Gordon Wood in Brownwood? Not surprisingly, they didn’t have a baseball team so he had to play football.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/14/2013 @ 1:23 pm

I mean Lorri Morris, not Lorri Wood. I’m getting the Morrises mixed up with Gordon Wood.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/14/2013 @ 1:27 pm

457. The frustration to which you allude in this comment is where the wisdom of the “serenity prayer” kicks in for me. Sure, it’s interesting to talk about, but I`really don’t see where I as an individual can ever have very much influence or impact on the national ticket beyond my yard sign and my vote. But I do think that by direct participation and contributions I can (to a limited degree of course) influence what happens in my precinct, village, county, state, and in the congressional races. I content myself with occasional smaller victories because I believe that the people I elect more locally are an important part of the big national political picture and that this is a way to find and train and test future candidates who may later succeed in higher offices having greater challenges. I’m sure this sounds pollyannish to some here, but it’s what I do.

elissa (6d358f) — 11/14/2013 @ 1:32 pm

elissa, remember what Tip O’Neill said:

All politics is local!

Which is why the TEA Party has been as effective as they are.

askeptic (b8ab92) — 11/14/2013 @ 1:54 pm

elissa,

What the grassroots thinks matters, even in national parties and elections, and I only have to look at Patterico’s posts in the past 10 years to see how one person can make a difference.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/14/2013 @ 1:55 pm

Somebody should write a book about how one man can make a difference.
Perhaps a title along the lines of “An Army of One”?

askeptic (b8ab92) — 11/14/2013 @ 2:03 pm

Actually, I think this is Glenn Reynolds’ Army of Davids concept in practice, askeptic. Conversations like ours happen across the internet. The good ideas multiply and gain traction with repetition, while the bad ideas typically wither and die. It’s like the change that comes from local conversations and elections, only in a different forum. This is the Army of Davis in action and it can start anywhere with just one person.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/14/2013 @ 2:24 pm

Yes, I was thinking about that too.
But, there is a book “Rush Limbaugh: An Army of One!”

askeptic (b8ab92) — 11/14/2013 @ 2:27 pm

I haven’t read that book but it sounds like an apt description. Rush Limbaugh has made a difference.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/14/2013 @ 2:32 pm

Should the GOP allow Obama to delay the mandate if he asks for a delay?
	Yes, we asked for a delay before
	Maybe, only if we get sufficient concessions
	No, let it burn

pollcode.com free polls

11/9/2013

Poll: If Obama Asks for a Delay of the Individual Mandate, Should the GOP Give It to Him?

471 Responses to “Poll: If Obama Asks for a Delay of the Individual Mandate, Should the GOP Give It to Him?”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out