Ted Cruz on Repealing ObamaCare with Obama in Office
Here are the key quotes from the exchange:
KARL: So you honestly think there’s a chance that you can get Obamacare repealed — every word, as you say.
CRUZ: Every single word.
KARL: With Obama in the White House.
CRUZ: You know, what’s funny Jon is the media treats that as a bizarre proposition –
KARL: Well it is!
CRUZ: [Crosstalk]
KARL: Just look at the size — it is a bizarre proposition, isn’t it?
CRUZ: It is the most unpopular law in the country. Millions of people have lost their jobs, have lost their healthcare, have been forced into part-time work, have their premiums skyrocketing. And right now Washington isn’t listening to those people. That’s how we win elections! And it’s also how we repeal Obamacare.
I’d embed the video, but it’s an autostart, and I’m not going to do that to you. It’s worth watching for the haughty, sniggering look on Jon Karl’s face as he talks about how ridiculous it would be to contemplate repealing ObamaCare with Obama in office.
It certainly seems ridiculous, of course. It would not seem ridiculous in a world where people like Jon Karl explained to the American people the predicament we are in, and how new entitlements exacerbate that predicament. But we’re not in that world. And so, although it is impossible to know how public opinion might shift in the future (although it’s certainly possible and even easy to act supremely confident that you do know), it seems unlikely that this could happen. You’re right, Jonathan Karl.
Because you’re not doing your job.
We can’t farging fend off DST, I have no hope at all.
SarahW (267b14) — 3/10/2014 @ 7:59 amI’d love to see Obamacare repealed, but I am with Karl on this one, I don’t see how it happens while Obama is still in office.
Even stipulating that the GOP gains enough seats in the Senate to take control, there’s no chance that they’d gain enough to override a veto. (The GOP won’t even gain enough to overcome a filibuster, but for the sake of argument, let’s assume the Senate Democrats don’t filibuster).
So Congress passes a repeal, and Obama vetoes it. That has to be a given.
Could Congress pressure Obama to keep from vetoing it? I think not. They could refuse to fund the government, but Obama will blame the GOP and just go ahead and pay what he wants to keep open. Remember, we’re talking about a President who doesn’t feel the need to follow the rules.
So, could the GOP pull in enough Democratic votes to overcome a veto? I don’t see it. There are enough safe Democratic states that no amount of public antipathy would be enough to lead them to override a veto.
I agree with Cruz on the philosophy, but think he’s a terrible tactician.
steve (369bc6) — 3/10/2014 @ 8:04 amIf O’Bumbles can repeal it any time he wishes, why not someone else? What would be the argument against it? It’s against the Constitution! Hah, the Constitution hasn’t had anything to do with country in 6 years.
dfbaskwill (a0813f) — 3/10/2014 @ 8:08 amWe are still paying for the ethanol boondoggle. THere’s no getting rid of it. Universally unpopular lightbulb laws rolled on through anyway.
Each squeaking, sneaking lobby seems to have legislators by the throat, legislators who are mostly irredeemably stupid posers.
If Cruz can put DST back to summer where it belongs, candy manufacturing companies and shopping mall retailers be damned, and I can light up the deck with incandescent bulbs, I’ll believe. If he can stop corn being car-eating fuel and turn it back to food, I’ll believe.
SarahW (267b14) — 3/10/2014 @ 8:08 amI don’t think Obama is the issue at all. He’s not the obstacle, really.
SarahW (267b14) — 3/10/2014 @ 8:12 am“Because you’re not doing your job.” Truer words have never been written and the fact that they’re lost on Karl and the rest of the Democrat’s media sycophants is another nail in their collective coffin.
Colonel Haiku (224dfe) — 3/10/2014 @ 8:13 am“I don’t claim to be the next Ronald Reagan nor do I attempt to disparage fellow Republicans as not being sufficiently Reaganesque. But I will remind anyone who thinks we will win elections by trashing previous Republican nominees or holding oneself out as some paragon in the mold of Reagan, that splintering the party is not the route to victory.
I met Ronald Reagan as a teenager when my father was a Reagan delegate in 1976. I greatly admire Reagan’s projection of “Peace through Strength.” I believe, as he did, that our National Defense should be second to none, that defense of the country is the primary Constitutional role of the Federal Government.
There is no greater priority for Congress than defense of the nation.
I also greatly admire that Reagan was not rash or reckless with regard to war. Reagan advised potential foreign adversaries not to mistake our reluctance for war for a lack of resolve.
What America needs today is a Commander-in-Chief who will defend the country and project strength, but who is also not eager for war.”
-Rand Paul
Colonel Haiku (224dfe) — 3/10/2014 @ 8:20 amI like that.
Colonel Haiku (224dfe) — 3/10/2014 @ 8:20 am“Because you’re not doing your job.–Patterico”
I disagree. He is doing his job, that is, to serve and protect Democrat Party and Liberal interests and causes. That is what the modern day journalist does. No surprise there.
Ipso Fatso (10964d) — 3/10/2014 @ 8:29 amTo paraphrase Don Rumsfeld: you go to war with the media you have, not the media you might want or wish to have at a later time.
Jonathan Karl is right, and Ted Cruz is wrong. It’s pretty much as simple as that. You can complain about Karl being the issue all you want, but you can’t act as if he, and the rest of the liberal media, don’t exist. Ted Cruz needs to rejoin us here on planet earth.
A.S. (23bc66) — 3/10/2014 @ 8:29 amnononononono Mr. Senator Ted Cruz is right Mr. A.S.
It’s important to shove the media’s nasty-assed fascist home-cooking off the windowsill and make room for tasty pie like repealing food stamp’s stupid losercare scheme.
It’s a respectable idea and an exceedingly responsible position to take as a matter of policy.
Contrast Mr. Cruz with Meghan’s coward p.o.s. daddy and his simpering “elections have consequences” shtick.
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/10/2014 @ 8:38 amExcremental Ageism Tirade, feets!
Colonel Haiku (224dfe) — 3/10/2014 @ 8:44 amyay!
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/10/2014 @ 8:53 amThe idea that no matter how badly Obamacare is failing that it can’t be repealed is bizarre.
But no less bizarre than the idea that no matter how badly it is failing, the Democrats defend it.
Is there any better example of how much the Democrat party hates our country?
SPQR (768505) — 3/10/2014 @ 8:57 amObaminablecare won’t be repealed, and it wouldn’t be repealed if the Republicans retake the Senate, and both Barack Hussein Obama and Joseph Specialneeds Biden resign, making John Boehner the President. Read my lips: the Republicans don’t want to repeal the law!
Why? First of all, as long as it’s in place, it will be a disaster that they can use to hammer their Democratic opponents in elections, and it’s a weapon that they don’t want to lose.
But second, the Republicans support the idea of the federal government being ultimately responsible for health care just as much as the Democrats! They even tell you this, but couch it in terms like “repeal and replace.”
There are parts of the PP&ACA that the public like, primarily the guaranteed acceptance and keep-your-kids-on-it-until-26 provisions, but those provisions haven’t a snowball’s chance of working without the individual mandate.
“Repeal and replace,” regardless of how replacement is handled, will still retain the notion that the federal government is ultimately responsible for seeing to it that health care is available to everybody. Repeal only destroys that part, but then the Republicans will be accused of being heartless monsters, willing to let people die in the street due to a lack of health insurance, and the Democrats will be able to, once again, run on providing health care coverage for everybody; the Republicans don’t want that at all.
I am for repeal only, to return to a system in which the government is not responsible for your health care coverage, and yes, I recognize that could lead to people dying from denied health care, and I frankly don’t care if people who can’t pay for their health care coverage die due to not getting it . . . but I am not running for office.
The truthful Dana (3e4784) — 3/10/2014 @ 9:02 amI often remind myself that unpopular Prohibition was repealed after its idiocy and unworkability were revealed. Then I remind myself that today we are a very different country.
elissa (5079d5) — 3/10/2014 @ 9:05 am“Millions of people have lost their jobs, have lost their healthcare, have been forced into part-time work, have their premiums skyrocketing. And right now Washington isn’t listening to those people.”
They don’t have to listen, because the media is doing their job representing the interests of the Democrats, by keeping the lid on any information about the impacts of this misbegotten law. Stories starring liberals being hurt: human tragedy. Stories starring anyone else or not on an approved subject: lies.
I ask you, what are we going to have to do to remove the new “Royalty” we are saddled with: the media and the corporate cronies of the Democrats?
Ray Van Dune (58038b) — 3/10/2014 @ 9:07 amRepublicans, they like O-care
The Limerick Avenger (3e4784) — 3/10/2014 @ 9:07 amAnd repeal is going nowhere
Cash loads by boats
R’s get the votes
Up the law they aren’t willing to tear!
I don’t want it repealed. I want it universal, funded with an 80% tax on incomes over $500,000. Who’s with me?
nk (dbc370) — 3/10/2014 @ 9:14 amelissa wrote:
Trouble is, for most of us, the PP&ACA means little, because we already had health insurance. Most of us didn’t lose our health insurance, and if the cost may have risen, well, the costs kept rising before Obaminablecare.
And, of course, the people who are hurt by the law are the people who actually work for a living and make a decent amount of money; they are the ones who are going to really wind up paying more, and they already vote Republican. Mitt Romney told the truth about the 47%ers, and that’s a lot larger minority than those who opposed repeal of Prohibition.
The realistic Dana (3e4784) — 3/10/2014 @ 9:14 amWell, maybe not universal to start with. Just the United States.
nk (dbc370) — 3/10/2014 @ 9:15 amnk wrote:
How ’bout everyone paying for single-payer coverage?
The Dana who very reluctantly supports single-payer (3e4784) — 3/10/2014 @ 9:17 ami never ask for hardly anything and I want it repealed
happyfeet (8ce051) — 3/10/2014 @ 9:19 amStep 1: Win 12 Senate seats, such as WV, MT, SD, AK, AR, LA, NC, MI, CO, IA and one of VA, NH or OR.
Step 2. With a 57-vote majority in the Senate, and with a clear tide moving for 2016, repeal the thing.
Step 3. Dare the Dems to sustain the veto. Remind them that the public already snuffed out 12 Dem Senators and might snuff out 12 more if this thing persists. Ask them if they want “Obamacare” written on their party’s tombstone.
It’s not impossible.
4. Impeach the Mofo.
Kevin M (dbcba4) — 3/10/2014 @ 9:41 am==Comment by The realistic Dana (3e4784) — 3/10/2014 @ 9:14 am==
There are some statements or suppositions in your comment that I think deserve a friendly challenge. First of all not everybody who “works for a living and make a decent amount of money….. already vote Republican”
You are wrong to assert that PP/ACA doesn’t mean much to us here. It does. It means a lot (bad) to many of us and our businesses and current employees as well as never to be hired future employees. Many of us are in fact experiencing degradation if not loss of our company plans, coverages or preferred doctor options.
Also there is scant to no indication so far that the uninsured people or the poor and seriously ill people this law was supposedly sold on to “help” are being helped at all or that they are signing up.
It’s a mess any way you slice it and single payer is not the answer either. There are not enough tax dollars that can be collected from workers and investors to pay for single payer. And the U.S. government is not capable of managing a competent bureaucracy to sustain such a plan.
elissa (5079d5) — 3/10/2014 @ 9:41 amMitt Romney told the truth about the 47%ers, and that’s a lot larger minority than those who opposed repeal of Prohibition.
Dana–
But Obamacare will affect some of these, at least. Given the ACA as an established system, there is no way that Medicare stays separate. It will become a silver or gold plan with a means-tested subsidy by-and-by. Just like Ryan was proposing.
But, just like everyone else, no on can believe the ACA-nazis will come for them, too.
Kevin M (dbcba4) — 3/10/2014 @ 9:47 amI was riffing on the 47% too. But they won’t have their way either.
Politics is the art of compromise and our masters are masters at it. It will end up with half a loaf, more or less, for each side.
nk (dbc370) — 3/10/2014 @ 9:50 amThe best way to kill Obamacare?
Use the initiative process in your state, if there is one, to roll all government employees into the state individual marketplace, and require employees to pay half the cost. This will either create incredible Democrat pressure to repeal, or at least make the exchange plans much better and cheaper.
Kevin M (dbcba4) — 3/10/2014 @ 9:54 amOTOH.
Gingrich is right. We will never become the governing party if all we have is opposition to Obama. We need to advocate clear and concise change. Not just what we see as problems, but what we see as solutions.
There were problems with the status quo ante. We cannot just repeal, we need to come up with better, hopefully much simpler, solutions for the original issues, such as universal portability.
Kevin M (dbcba4) — 3/10/2014 @ 10:02 amBut no less bizarre than the idea that no matter how badly it is failing, the Democrats defend it.
But even though nationalized health care has been the holy grail for progressives for at least the past century, this argument is way bigger than ObamaCare. It goes to the core of the progressive belief system: that a group of self-appointed “experts” culled from the media/academic/labor/political nexus should be making collective decisions on behalf of all of us. As we have discussed innumerable times on this blog, the end game has always been to make everyone dependent upon Washington, DC as the entity that provides everything that we need in life — a nation of Julias, if you will. Democrats seem to implicitly understand that to abandon ObamaCare, no matter how awful it is, would be to abandon the very idea that Big Government can guarantee our security and happiness. That’s why they reluctantly have to go all-in here, and that is why winning this battle is so incredibly important.
JVW (9946b6) — 3/10/2014 @ 10:08 amObamaCare I wish we could just damn quit
Colonel Haiku (224dfe) — 3/10/2014 @ 10:14 amteh law, I wipe my arse with it
teh Dems only fool themselves
to their Santa teh Media are just workshop elves
and Zeke Emanuel? that dude is full of sh*t
Your health care should be
The Haiku Avenger (3e4784) — 3/10/2014 @ 10:17 amYour responsibility
Don’t ask me to pay
Confess, I love teh sound of breaking glass
Colonel Haiku (224dfe) — 3/10/2014 @ 10:19 amThe Left and media can just kiss my ass
Barack and Joe Biden
a jackass they are ridin’
truth told they really have no class
Even people who like their liberty can’t keep it and the reason is erosion of real value for it in most of the population. They don’t even know what it means, unless it is freedom to not worry. And those dumb posers in congress cannot resist saving us from obesity and Halloween pedestrian accidents when there is candy and jog wear money on the line.
SarahW (267b14) — 3/10/2014 @ 10:20 amelissa wrote:
Sure there are: with single payer, health insurance costs drop to zero. With what employers and employees pay now for health insurance being freed up, there’s plenty of money available for single payer. Other countries do it less expensively than we do.
Now, that doesn’t mean that I think our health care system would be good under single-payer; I’m convinced the quality of care would suffer. It will wind up being just like everything else: a welfare system, taking money from more productive people to spend on the less productive. But unless you are willing to deny those who cannot pay for insurance health care, some form of welfarism is going to be present.
The economist Dana (3e4784) — 3/10/2014 @ 10:23 amAvenger can really coin a phrase
Colonel Haiku (224dfe) — 3/10/2014 @ 10:26 amteh troops he leaves in one big daze
but try him a haiku
he’s asking for Kung fu
unless its just his learning phase
==Sure there are: with single payer, health insurance costs drop to zero.==
Oh, I don’t think so. Do you happen to know anyone who is currently on Medicare?
elissa (5079d5) — 3/10/2014 @ 10:30 amDo you happen to know anyone who is currently on Medicare?
I do. They are uniformly happy with it, and from what I’ve seen, they get good care when they need it.
Kevin M (dbcba4) — 3/10/2014 @ 10:33 amTheir insurance costs for Medicare are not zero, though. That was the point I was trying to make to the Dana..
elissa (5079d5) — 3/10/2014 @ 10:37 amIn the current political set up it’s ridiculous. Ted Cruz is saying he’s going to do something that he’s shown no realistic plan on how to accomplish. It’s right to give people funny looks when they present an underpants gnome plan.
Time123 (066362) — 3/10/2014 @ 10:51 amIt would be great if the press did more of this.
I understand the president has veto powers over laws. Is a repeal of a law technically a law? Seems counter-intuitive, but much of law is that.
I can see how amendments result in new laws, which can be vetoed resulting in leaving the old law in place.
but in the case of a repeal, what is left is no law. It’s doesn’t make sense (to me) that no law can be vetoed.
But then it makes no sense to me that a penalty is instead a “tax.”
Dan S (00fc90) — 3/10/2014 @ 11:02 am#38, KM, Au Contraire, Medicare comes in several quite different varities: traditional Medicare, or differing Medicare Advantage plans offered by different insurance companies in either HMO or PPO formats.
I can’t speak for others but my Medicare was once quite good, I liked my health insurance and wanted to keep it, but once ObamaCare went operational, the quality of my plan deteriorated dramatically, all across the board. Significantly fewer specialists, like 75% fewer in my service area, longer waits, more meds on the restricted list, higher copays, fewer preventative services, etc.
ropelight (e67415) — 3/10/2014 @ 11:18 amI would like to have Mr. Karl go on record to justify his clear prejudice and lack of respect for people of Latino descent. His tone and attitude clearly showed an anti-Hispanic prejudice. Why, he was treating Cruz as if he showed up in a serape swigging from a bottle of tequila.
And that is indeed how the Left deals with the Right dissenting, am I correct?
Goose. Gander.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 3/10/2014 @ 11:28 amColonel copyrights
The Limerick Avenger (3e4784) — 3/10/2014 @ 11:41 amhis seventeen syllables
But I do better
Of course repeal would require a 2/3 vote in both House and Senate to override the certain Obama veto. There are more than enough Democrats in safe seats in each to ensure sustaining the veto.
So from a technical procedural point of view, yes, it is nonsensical. Can’t be done, and won’t.
The good news is it may not be necessary to formally repeal PPACA until Obama is gone. He keeps delaying the effective dates, which in turn have already ensured the plan cannot possibly pay for itself as envisioned even with the billions stolen from Medicare.
Which means Obama has to come up with tons of money to cover the deficits, and he will have to come to Congress for that. Obama and Reid are already planning their strategy, which is why the Senate will not have a budget again.
They NEED a CR that can be used to cover the implosion of the ObamaCare budget. But if Republicans can retake the Senate, we can prevent the shutdown charade and simply pass budgets which do not allow any additional spending on ObamaCare beyond what was authorized within the Act itself.
This is why Cruz’ charade of a shutdown was a farce. The ACA didn’t need funding from the CR or a budget this year or last, it was able to run on the funding that is built in.
But their assumption was always that the “risk corridors” that enticed insurers to take the risk of adverse selection in the exchanges would be a zero-sum affair. The companies with low experience (claims) would be taxed to compensate those with high claims, it would all balance out.
BUT with the delays in mandates, all those healthy workers won’t be in the pools for the exchanges at all, they are guaranteed to need massive subsidies, and future premiums will skyrocket even from the current almost doubling of costs. The system will fall of its own weight.
Which is exactly what I said when the useless grandstanding of the “shutdown” was going on. As some reported even here, only 17% of the government was actually “shut down,” and that did NOT include ObamaCare.
Estragon (ada867) — 3/10/2014 @ 12:11 pmSimon is wise man
Colonel Haiku (224dfe) — 3/10/2014 @ 12:53 pmKarl is a Northern Euro
undt no uber mensch
Last November when the ObamaCare website was being rolled out, Josh Kraushaar and Megan McArdle thought repeal was back on the table for 2015. Sean Trende at RCP thought it was unlikely but not inconceivable. Since then, there has been even more bad news about how ObamaCare affects our work, health insurance, costs, and health care — and there may be far more policy cancellations before the next election. The chances of repealing ObamaCare in 2015 over an Obama veto may not be great right now, but things are moving in that direction. It all hinges on the next election. I hope people don’t give up too soon because a lot can happen between now and then.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/10/2014 @ 1:04 pmI will not teach my kids the idea that just because something seems difficult, it is not worth trying.
JD (25d342) — 3/10/2014 @ 1:17 pmHere’s how I imagine American-style single payer would work: Every resident would have the right to show up at some clinic, have blood drawn, and pee in a bottle, then get his/her height, weight, blood pressure, and resting heart rate recorded by a nurse practitioner. There would naturally be no copay. The results would go to a lab, then the resident would either be mailed a copy or would log on to a secure (ha, ha, ha, ha) website to view his or her results. Young people who show no problems would be encouraged to only schedule a follow-up doctor’s appointment every 18-24 months. People whose tests return troubling results would be advised to schedule a consultation with a doctor. They would go on a website and discover that there is a 3 to 9 month wait (depending upon where they live and the type of specialist they are seeking) for an appointment for a government doctor, so they will be given the option to seeking a private doctor and paying out of pocket. The urgently sick can seek care at an emergency room, but long-term hospitalization and major procedures would be subject to the approval of a government board. Again, the resident would have the option of paying out-of-pocket for private services, so the very rich and the very powerful won’t have to be inconvenienced.
I don’t think the concept of single payer is a good idea for our country, but I don’t begrudge anyone for believing otherwise. I just wish they would get over this fantasy that under single payer the average citizen will somehow have better and more comprehensive coverage from top-flight doctors at state-of-the-art facilities, and that somehow all of it will end up reducing the amount of money spent each year for health-related costs.
JVW (9946b6) — 3/10/2014 @ 1:17 pmI wish we could repeal Obama.
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 3/10/2014 @ 1:34 pmWe should try to repeal ObamaCare today.
But since there are currently not enough votes in the Senate, we should face reality and accept that the repeal will probably fail in the Senate. Period.
Since the math is not currently in our favor, we should work hard to change the math come November.
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 3/10/2014 @ 1:42 pmIf we win an absolutely insane number of Senate seats in November, we might then have enough votes in the Senate to override a Presidential veto.
Otherwise, we’ll have to wait until we have a GOP President.
Because I hear a President has the Constitutional authority to change the law at his own will.
Obama says so.
It can be repealed (or rather, repealed in all but
name (well, technically it isn’t named Obamacare, make that substantively repealed and replaced) but Obama would have to agree (at least not to oppose it)
That is possible, because it is so bad, and dysfunctional. It might need to be replacd in stages.
But there’s no way that’s going to happen without Obama confessing the law is not working, and that czn’t happen really till next spring.
Sammy Finkelman (44bd3a) — 3/10/2014 @ 1:43 pmComment by steve (369bc6) — 3/10/2014 @ 8:04 am
So, could the GOP pull in enough Democratic votes to overcome a veto? I don’t see it.
Yes. Not yet, because Obamacare is not a big enough failure. By about April of next year.
When it gets close to 2/3 for doing something about it, Obama will go along with it himself.
But that’s not what Ted Cruz is talking about.
He’s just talking through his hat.
Sammy Finkelman (44bd3a) — 3/10/2014 @ 1:50 pmI agree with your analysis, JVW #49.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/10/2014 @ 1:58 pmI’m very willing to have Ted Cruz try anything to undo the disaster, but think his efforts are wasted on the undeserving herd of cows this nation has become.
SarahW (267b14) — 3/10/2014 @ 2:02 pmI keep having Cruz at or near the top of my list, then he goes and does a rhetorical flourish too far.
I would be happy with him saying he will never stop tryin g to repeal ObamaCare, since that is what he campaigned on, or how bad it is and how many people want it repealed, etc.,
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 3/10/2014 @ 2:02 pmbut there is no way he will get a presidential veto overridden.
He may do something to de-fund or de-fang it, but I don’t think he could even count of all Repubs to vote to override a veto.
So I don’t understand.
Sharyl Atkisson has resigned from CBS, citing liberal bias. I can’t believe she said that but I’m delighted, and I look forward to seeing her reporting elsewhere on Obama’s many flawed programs — hopefully before the election.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/10/2014 @ 2:02 pmDear Vladimir,
If you like
theyour Crimea, you cankeep ittake it back.But please wait until after my golf vacation in Florida before you do anything too drastic.
Love,
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 3/10/2014 @ 2:03 pmBarack
Can’t I just
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 3/10/2014 @ 2:04 pmeat my wafflefinish playing golf ?MD:
Cruz is trying to mobilize people to go vote in November, and to give them hope it might make a difference. He’s trying to mobilize that segment of the base that is giving up hope. Like Obama, Cruz realizes the key to winning is getting your base fired up and putting pressure on DC.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/10/2014 @ 2:05 pmEvery time Cruz talks, Tea Party groups and members get rejuvenated when they had all but given up in the face of the IRS abuse and GOP targeting.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/10/2014 @ 2:07 pmComment by SarahW (267b14) — 3/10/2014 @ 8:08 am
If Cruz can put DST back to summer where it belongs, candy manufacturing companies and shopping mall retailers be damned,
Now computer companies, and anybody that uses software with times programmed for a whole year, would not want any more changes. Candy companies and shopping mall retailers want this?
and I can light up the deck with incandescent bulbs,
There are several loopholes, and I can still buy 69 watt bulbs, even 75 watt I think, on 59 Street in Brooklyn in a lamp store across the street (maybe part of) National wholesale Liquidators.
If he can stop corn being car-eating fuel and turn it back to food, I’ll believe.
Is he even trying?
Sammy Finkelman (44bd3a) — 3/10/2014 @ 2:10 pmI think the worst things are:
On the federal level: Low flush toilets.
Paul Rand talks about it, but he doesn’t even pretend to do anything about it. He just says that maybe to get votes or gain some credibility.
That’s also on the state level. I think California has pased a law mandating that every toilet be converted by 2018 or so. There wouldn’t even be a water shortage in California if they kept reservoirs filled instead of supposedly making the fresh water fish happy. This is the result of a legal case, s nobody cvan review it or balance one thing against the other.
On the state level:
We have this irrational crusade against plastic bags. They want a ten cent charge. Now a slight tipping toward better bags that are more sturdy might be OK.
Sammy Finkelman (44bd3a) — 3/10/2014 @ 2:11 pmAlso they (the “environmental” lobbyists – are they really for companies?) want to stop e-cigarettes before they start.
Now e-cigarettes are missing 3 harmful things that regular cigarettes have:
1) Tar
2) Carbon monoxide – which can deprive smokers of up to 10% of their oxygen if they are 3 pack a day smokers
3) Irritation of people next to smokers.
But that’s no good. It’ll reduce the stigma of cigarette smoking!
e-cigarettes may, in certain cases, have a danger regular cigarettes do not have: new toxic chemicals, and they contain the worst thing cigarettes have: nicotine. It isn’t the tar that causes the heart disease. Or is it?
Now nicotine is good maybe for some things – but you won’t see medical nicotie being proposed.
Sammy Finkelman (44bd3a) — 3/10/2014 @ 2:14 pmMD in Philly,
I think pretty much every Republican in the Senate would vote for an override of an Obama veto.
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 3/10/2014 @ 2:14 pmNot one single Republican in the Senate voted for it to pass in 2010.
So why would any of those particular Senators vote to keep it after it has been proven a disaster ? And any new GOP Senators would be elected to get rid of it.
And they are against fracking for natural gas.
Fracking doesn’t cause any greater danger of water contamination than any other wellhead, and there are fewer of them.
It also can cause small earthquakes. But that’s not a big problem.
They don’t like pipelines too.
They claim the climate is getting warmer because of carbon dioxide and that that’s bad – well, big storms are bad but that’s caused by large amounts of dihydrogen monoxide in the atmosphere – but oppose doing anything about (like releasing sulfer dioxide over the Arctic, or fertilizing the ocean to extract CO 2)
But they insist on only NOT doing what everybody has been doing for 150 years by:
Making infinitesimal reductions in the net amount of carbon dioxode released into the atmosphere.
On the grounds that
1) Every little bit counts,
2) It’s a start.
and
3) Maybe we are at a tipping point (which proves they don’t understand chaos theory – there is no tipping point!)
Sammy Finkelman (44bd3a) — 3/10/2014 @ 2:16 pmI’m not sure I follow your point, DRJ. Are you saying that he does believe he can deliver–if people turn out in November? Or are you suggesting he’s holding repeal out as a carrot to entice or encourage demoralized voters to come out even tho he knows he won’t be able to deliver?
elissa (5079d5) — 3/10/2014 @ 2:17 pmThis forthcoming Saturday, the 15th, the Claremont Institute will be honoring Ted Cruz with the Churchill Award in downtown Los Angeles.
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 3/10/2014 @ 2:22 pmThe great Hugh Hewitt will emcee the event.
http://www.claremont.org/events/eventid.121/event_detail.asp
49. Comment by JVW (9946b6) — 3/10/2014 @ 1:17 pm
49.Here’s how I imagine American-style single payer would work: Every resident would have the right to show up at some clinic, have blood drawn, and pee in a bottle,
I don’t think you really need urine for most things.
Just go into the nearest Walgreens and let them take a tiny blood sample.
The key thing would be no requiring a prescription and not requiting a doctor’s office to send the results to.
then get his/her height, weight, blood pressure, and resting heart rate recorded by a nurse practitioner. There would naturally be no copay. The results would go to a lab, then the resident would either be mailed a copy or would log on to a secure (ha, ha, ha, ha) website to view his or her results.
Just get it from Walgreen’s, like photos.
This will happen sooner than you think.
Young people who show no problems would be encouraged to only schedule a follow-up doctor’s appointment every 18-24 months.
After another 18-24 years would make better sense.
People whose tests return troubling results would be advised to schedule a consultation with a doctor. They would go on a website and discover that there is a 3 to 9 month wait (depending upon where they live and the type of specialist they are seeking) for an appointment for a government doctor, so they will be given the option to seeking a private doctor and paying out of pocket.
The waiting list would gradually develop over a period of 10 or more years.
This is already defective.
The urgently sick can seek care at an emergency room, but long-term hospitalization and major procedures would be subject to the approval of a government board.
Or you’d have to pay out of pocket.
Again, the resident would have the option of paying out-of-pocket for private services, so the very rich and the very powerful won’t have to be inconvenienced.
That’s the sort of thing Rush Limbaugh point out. there will always be people with better access.
I don’t think the concept of single payer is a good idea for our country, but I don’t begrudge anyone for believing otherwise. I just wish they would get over this fantasy that under single payer the average citizen will somehow have better and more comprehensive coverage from top-flight doctors at state-of-the-art facilities, and that somehow all of it will end up reducing the amount of money spent each year for health-related costs.
To reduce costs, the amount being charged has to matter to most people.
Sammy Finkelman (44bd3a) — 3/10/2014 @ 2:25 pm67. Comment by elissa (5079d5) — 3/10/2014 @ 2:17 pm Re: to DRJ @ 60
Or are you suggesting he’s holding repeal out as a carrot to entice or encourage demoralized voters to come out even tho he knows he won’t be able to deliver?
That’s the way I read what DRJ said.
Except that, in spite of himself, he will be able to deliver…
Except that Ted Cruz likely would make a point of voting against the repeal bill because it doesn’t go far enough!!
Sammy Finkelman (44bd3a) — 3/10/2014 @ 2:29 pmUnfortunately, we’ve seen too many conservatives stay home during the past few elections because there wasn’t a perfect enough candidate for them on the ballot.
Hopefully, Ted’s bullhorn will inspire people to get off their couches and into the voting booths this November. If we don’t enough Senate seats to override a veto, at least we can win enough seats to gain the majority and have greater leverage with the Golfer-in-Chief during his final two years in office.
America cannot afford any more of this wicked Administration.
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 3/10/2014 @ 2:39 pmNeither can Ukraine.
Unfortunately, we’ve seen too many conservatives stay home during the past few elections because there wasn’t a perfect enough candidate for them on the ballot.
Evidence of this?
JD (25d342) — 3/10/2014 @ 2:40 pmelissa,
I’ll let Cruz speak for himself about what he wants to do:
This is what Karl and Cruz were discussing immediately before the excerpt Patterico printed above.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/10/2014 @ 2:40 pmYes. I had already read what Sen. Cruz said. I was asking you to elaborate on what you said and what you thought. But it’s fine. Never mind.
elissa (5079d5) — 3/10/2014 @ 2:48 pmAt this point I don’t think the right way to think of the GOP strategy is to “repeal” ObamaCare, but rather to “gut” it so that it can’t help but collapse on it’s own bloated weight. A key component of this is the issue of federal subsidies going to states that don’t set up exchanges. If those subsidies are ruled to contrary to the law, that would be a major blow to the concept of universal coverage via ObamaCare. The next step would be to build a left-right coalition against a bailout of the health insurance industry once the promised enrollees don’t materialize. Yeah, it’s going to be painful to that industry, but maybe it’s time that corporate America learns the lesson that rent-seeking partnerships with Big Government are wrought with peril. In the end this will be so hopelessly bollixed that maybe the hordes of independent voters will sour on the concept of entrusting major functions to government, and we will kill the move towards single payer for at least one more generation while at the same time creating some impetus for market-based changes like expanding health spending accounts and malpractice reform. A conservative can dream.
JVW (9946b6) — 3/10/2014 @ 2:51 pmJD #72,
It would be helpful if you use quotation marks to distinguish that you’re quoting someone else’s comment. You could even say, “E-stone wrote,” or cite the number of the comment, too.
But to answer your question, bud, a lot of conservatives have claimed on blogs (including this one) and called into conservative talk radio shows to say they won’t show up to vote/haven’t showed up to vote.
Many conservatives now are identifying themselves as “independents,” rather than as Republicans.
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 3/10/2014 @ 2:54 pmSo depending upon the state they live in—closed primary vs open primary), they’re likely not even voting in GOP primaries.
And if they’re not voting in GOP primaries, it’s pretty hard for them to influence who the nominee is, whether it is for Congress, Senate, or President.
But complaining about the eventual nominee is easy.
elissa:
I’m sorry I misunderstood you. I thought you were interested in what Cruz thinks but if you were asking what I think, I do not believe he is “holding repeal out as a carrot to entice or encourage demoralized voters to come out even tho he knows he won’t be able to deliver.” I think he’s telling people there is hope for repeal in 2015 if they send DC a message in the next election.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/10/2014 @ 3:01 pmTwo-thirds of the states could call for an Article V convention. If that happened, an amendment could be proposed and ratified which would have the effect of making the ACA unconstitutional. For instance: “Americans may not be taxed either for inaction, or by virtue of the own existence.
Jack (ff1ca8) — 3/10/2014 @ 3:02 pmWhen someone writes an article he/she keeps the plan of a user in his/her
mind that how a user can understand it. Therefore that’s why this piece of writing is amazing.
Thanks!
linux (8c3bbc) — 3/10/2014 @ 3:03 pmBarack thinks mind is supersonic
Colonel Haiku (224dfe) — 3/10/2014 @ 3:04 pmIn truth, it needs a high colonic
He stutters, steps, avoids The People
Overly fond of mooks n’ sheeple
We wish his reign was done and over
More luck we’d have with four leaf clover
Tell me, elissa, where did you get the idea that either Cruz or I know “he won’t be able to deliver”?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/10/2014 @ 3:04 pm“And if enough congressional Democrats realize that they either stand with Obamacare and lose or listen to the American people and have a chance of staying in office, that’s the one scenario we can do it in 2015,” Cruz continued. “If not, we’ll do it in 2017.”
Count me skeptical though, DRJ. As long as Obama is in office, reaching the two-thirds veto override threshold will be darn near impossible, seeing as how there are at least 150 House districts drawn such that a Democrat is pretty much guaranteed to win. So as long as Obama is mucking around in the White House so too will ObamaCare be on the books. The real interesting question is to see what the Democrat candidates for President are saying in 2016. Hillary! has her own health care skeletons, and Biden one would think would be pretty much forced to run on a platform supporting the “big f***ing deal.” I suppose they will resurrect Bill Clinton’s cynical “mend it, don’t end it” hollow promise regarding affirmative action and try to apply it to ObamaCare.
JVW (9946b6) — 3/10/2014 @ 3:06 pmFormer Secret Service agent Dan Bongino, an occasional fill-in host for Sean Hannity and Mark Levin, gave a rousing speech at CPAC this past weekend.
He’s running for Congress in Maryland’s 6th District, which was redrawn before the 2012 election in order for a zillionaire Democrat to be able to unseat longtime Republican incumbent Roscoe Bartlett.
The district is a bizarrely drawn gerrymander job covers western Maryland and parts of central MD, including Antietam, Camp David, and then a little jagged part that goes into somewhat eastern MD.
Anyhow, he is an excellent communicator, the kind of extemporaneous speaker in the Rubio, Cruz, Huckabee fold who we could really use to publicly communicate the conservative message.
http://www.bongino.com
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 3/10/2014 @ 3:07 pmCongress has come together before to reverse a Presidential veto when health care is the issue.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/10/2014 @ 3:16 pmhttp://townhall.com/columnists/rachelalexander/2012/11/11/obama_likely_won_reelection_through_election_fraud/page/full
Colonel Haiku (224dfe) — 3/10/2014 @ 3:16 pmJVW:
I understand your skepticism. What I don’t understand is giving up on even talking about it, let alone trying.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/10/2014 @ 3:19 pmDRJ– when you were talking about him jacking up the base and wrote “whenever Cruz talks tea party groups and members get rejuvenated” it was not clear to me whether you felt that what he hoping to do was actually doable– or, just encouraging to think about–or, since it was important messaging it didn’t even matter as long as he got voters to the polls and let them know he was hearing them. Perhaps if you reread your comments @ 60 and 61 with new eyes you will see how one might not be sure what you wanted readers to come away with. But as I said above, it’s not a big deal. I was just curious about your take.
elissa (5079d5) — 3/10/2014 @ 3:19 pm57. Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/10/2014 @ 2:02 pm
Sharyl Atkisson has resigned from CBS, citing liberal bias.
A comment on Legal Insurrection says that CBS News President David Rhodes (since February 2011) is the (older) brother of Benjamin J. Rhodes, President Obama’s deputy national security adviser for strategic communication.
This is confirmed by Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Rhodes_(speechwriter)
Sammy Finkelman (44bd3a) — 3/10/2014 @ 3:25 pmThanks, elissa, I will try to read my comments through your eyes before posting them in the future.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/10/2014 @ 3:25 pm#42 Ropelight,
I’,m aware of Medicare Advantage — my 94-yo mother has that. For people with little ability to participate in their own care, or with limited means (Mom on both counts), it’s not a bad system. But traditional Medicare seems better if those two things don’t apply.
My 80-yo uncle, quite conservative, swears by it, even though he has enough money to pay for everything himself.
A friend, who has been on Medicare for a few years has had two major health episodes (one a car vs his bike) and they’ve treated him royally.
Just sayin’. elissa asked, and I answered based on my experience. YMMV.
Kevin M (dbcba4) — 3/10/2014 @ 3:27 pmOf course repeal would require a 2/3 vote in both House and Senate to override the certain Obama veto. There are more than enough Democrats in safe seats in each to ensure sustaining the veto.
Static analysis. But by that rule, Reagan would have failed since the House could have blocked everything he tried and Nixon would have finished his term.
If we take the senate in a wave election, based on anger over this crap medical plan, the remaining Democrats are not going to cut their throats defending a very lame duck president.
Kevin M (dbcba4) — 3/10/2014 @ 3:30 pmThat’s very sweet and thoughtful DRJ. And much appreciated. 🙂
elissa (5079d5) — 3/10/2014 @ 3:34 pmJD,
There are so many analyses of why Obama won and Romney lost. Some say whites stayed home. Some say blacks turned out in record numbers. This Forbes’ article says millennials and possibly Hispanics were the difference. I tend to agree with that.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/10/2014 @ 3:36 pmIf we win an absolutely insane number of Senate seats in November, we might then have enough votes in the Senate to override a Presidential veto.
Unless we field an army of fools, we will pick up 6 or 7 seats. If we get some good breaks, we’ll pick up 9 or 10. If we get some really good breaks (e.g. the IRS scandal breaks and links back to Obama) we could maybe get 12 or 13. But that’s it in 2014. Just the same, if Obamacare loses them the majority how much energy will they spend defending President Obumbles?
Kevin M (dbcba4) — 3/10/2014 @ 3:37 pmAlthough I’m not convinced Hispanic turnout mattered that much.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/10/2014 @ 3:38 pmES – mea culpa. I am not talking about anecdotal evidence. Was there objective evidence in the election that supports your assertion?
JD (25d342) — 3/10/2014 @ 3:40 pmThe mix of media upper echelon of management and the administration, intermarrying and the resulting in-bred policy making goes a long way in explaining why we are currently suffering through a true Idiocracy.
Colonel Haiku (4dd10a) — 3/10/2014 @ 3:41 pmThe GOP can’t override a veto alone. It will need Democratic votes, too, but the question is how many Democrats will toe the party line if ObamaCare continues to sink in popularity, and so does a lame duck Obama?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/10/2014 @ 3:41 pmI understand your skepticism. What I don’t understand is giving up on even talking about it, let alone trying.
Oh, I’m all for trying. It’s just that I would prefer to see the GOP expend more energy on the “gut” ObamaCare strategy instead (my comment from 2:51 pm) of the direct “repeal” strategy which is starting to resemble beating a dead horse. My sense is that the low-information voter has an understanding that ObamaCare is awful, but if it looks like the GOP just wants to erase it from the books that voter is going to be susceptible to the argument that the mean ol’ Republicans are trying to take away heath care from people. If instead the GOP took the tact of saying, “we are going to try to help President Obama live up to the promises he made by allowing you to keep your coverage if you like it while insisting that this bill not add a dime to the deficit,” then I think it would become perfectly clear that this can’t possibly happen. I would love to win in a high-minded fashion (and I hope that Sen. Cruz can chart that path), but at this point I’m willing to accept stooping to the Democrats’ level in order to win rather than being high-minded and continuing to lose.
My sports analogy would be this: If I’m boxing against a dirty fighter who holds, gouges, hits on the break, and delivers low blows, I would love to beat him fair-and-square with good fundamental boxing technique. But at a certain point, if I have to, I’m going to get down-and-dirty and start fighting his way, because more than anything else I want to win on the judges’ scorecards.
JVW (9946b6) — 3/10/2014 @ 3:43 pmYes, and so could one making the keeping and bearing of arms unconstitutional. Or freedom of religion, speech, the press, and petitioning the government.
A Constitutional Convention is a very dangerous two-edged sword.
Chuck Bartowski (11fb31) — 3/10/2014 @ 3:46 pmA Constitutional Convention is a very dangerous two-edged sword.
The threat of one is probably its best use. Dear Congress, send _______ to the states, or we’ll try it this other way.
Kevin M (dbcba4) — 3/10/2014 @ 3:49 pmRepeal, and Impeach!
askeptic (2bb434) — 3/10/2014 @ 3:52 pmJVW,
I don’t trust Congressional compromises.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/10/2014 @ 3:53 pmChuck–
The Convention idea is obsolete, and ought to be replaced by this: If 4/5ths of the states adopt an identical resolution of amendment within the same 7 year span, the Constitution is thereby amended.
Kevin M (dbcba4) — 3/10/2014 @ 3:53 pmI don’t trust Congressional compromises.
Particularly when the president feels empowered to ignore parts of laws he doesn’t like.
Kevin M (dbcba4) — 3/10/2014 @ 3:54 pmIt might be a dangerous, two-edged sword, but everything they did would still have to ratified by 75% of the Several States – and it’s not population-weighted.
askeptic (2bb434) — 3/10/2014 @ 3:54 pm13-States can be a very powerful monkey-wrench.
WALLACE: “Senator, do you think it was over the line for Ted Cruz to go after a war hero like Bob Dole? And generally speaking, what do you think of Ted Cruz’s practice of confronting, sometimes putting Senate Republicans, his colleagues, in tough situations?”
PAUL: “You know, I guess I would just say that everybody has their own style. My style is that I stand for things and I don’t think people question whether I stand for principle.
But I don’t spend a lot of time trying to drag people down. I’ve been very complimentary of Mitt Romney. I met him. I think he’s a great guy.
Can we do things different to get the party bigger? There’s always ways we can get bigger, particularly when we don’t win. But I don’t spend any time sort of trying to criticize others in the party, because I realize the party has to be bigger, not smaller.”
Colonel Haiku (4dd10a) — 3/10/2014 @ 4:03 pmWALLACE: “Senator, do you think it was over the line for Ted Cruz to go after a war hero like Bob Dole? And generally speaking, what do you think of Ted Cruz’s practice of confronting, sometimes putting Senate Republicans, his colleagues, in tough situations?”
A: So you Democrats now think that Bob Dole is a war hero? Did you say say that when you were attacking him when he was running against your hero? That draft-dodging, pot-smoking, rapist? Bill Clinton?
WALLACE: I’m not a Democrat.
A: Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha …….hah!
WALLACE: You don’t know my political position.
A: Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha …….hah!
nk (dbc370) — 3/10/2014 @ 4:11 pmThe GOP can’t override a veto alone. It will need Democratic votes, too, but the question is how many Democrats will toe the party line if ObamaCare continues to sink in popularity, and so does a lame duck Obama?
It takes 290 Votes in the House of Representatives to override a Presidential veto, or, looking at it differently, it takes 146 Votes to guarantee that an override will fail. According to this link, there are currently 101 House Democrats who won their 2012 races with at least 67% of the vote in their district. The same link also shows that there were 67 additional Democrats who won with 54% to 66% of the vote, and 31 more Democrats who won with less than 54% of the vote.
So to uphold a veto of ObamaCare, the President would need all 101 of those Democrats to hang with him. Certainly it is hard to see hardcore liberals who are desperate to ultimately reach single payer or those Democrats who ascribe special meaning to Obama’s Presidency voting to undo the major portion of his legacy. The real question would be how many (if any) Democrats in that 54%-66% category would Obama lose, and how many Democrats in the under 54% category can he hold on to. I suppose it’s possible that he be abandoned en masse by his party, but I think he would manage to hold the 101, get somewhere between 45-60 more votes in the middle category, then even grab a handful of True Believers who are currently representing swing districts.
JVW (9946b6) — 3/10/2014 @ 4:13 pm“Bob Dole would never call his fellow Americans wacko birds unless Bob Dole’s back was against the wall. That’s the sort of man Bob Dole is.”
– Bob Dole
Colonel Haiku (4dd10a) — 3/10/2014 @ 4:24 pmA MEDIA GUIDE TO SENATOR ROBERT DOLE (R-KS, RETIRED)
1960s – War hero who supports Civil Rights
JVW (9946b6) — 3/10/2014 @ 4:28 pm1970 – Warmongering hawk who can’t see Vietnam as the failure it is
1976 – Angry, VP nominee who blathers on about “Democrat wars”
1980 – Heroic moderate who opposes Reganomics
1981 – Partisan hack who supports Reganomics
1985 – Ultra-partisan hack who seizes the Majority Leader title from that classy Howard Baker
1988 – Lovable grouch who hates George H.W. Bush
1993 – Ultra-partisan Minority Leader who stands in front of all the good Bill Clinton is trying to to
1995 – Hatchet man Majority Leader whose only saving grace is that he is better than Gingrich
1996 – Far right GOP Presidential nominee (DoleGingrich) who would set back women’s rights
1997 – Classy statesman who gracefully bowed out from politics to go do erectile dysfunction commercials
2000 – Crotchety, fun old uncle who thinks GW Bush is a bigger boob than his dad
2004 – Mean old bastard that dared to question John Kerry’s Purple Hearts
2007 – Who?
2011 – Can we get him to say something nasty about the Tea Party?
2014 – Can we get the Tea Party to say something nasty about him?
JVW, I remember the MFM calling him Darth Vader in the 1988 primary against Bush 41.
nk (dbc370) — 3/10/2014 @ 4:42 pmJVW, I remember the MFM calling him Darth Vader in the 1988 primary against Bush 41.
That was the first Presidential election in which I was old enough to cast a vote, nk, so perhaps I am mis-remembering it. My neighborhood caucus (five of us showed up in my Democrat-dominated town) went four to one for Bush. This was in the aftermath of Dole’s “tell him to stop lying about my record” jab at the Vice President. I kind of recalled that media liberals preferred Dole because he he made for better copy and because they thought it would be a swipe at Reagan if his VP lost the GOP nomination bid, but I have no doubt that they hated Dole too.
JVW (9946b6) — 3/10/2014 @ 4:52 pmthe only thing i know for sure is that teh party of 5tOOpid will act stupidly, and waste any advantages that might come its way.
it will not meaningfully roll back leviathan, and without that, i fear mr. feet’s predictions for this country are more than a little likely.
redc1c4 (abd49e) — 3/10/2014 @ 5:03 pm111. re: Bob Dole
That was bad. I think that happened because he thought a Vice Presidential candidate was supposed to be a”hatchet man”, but this made no sense. I suppose this was something he must have heard in his youth.. He grew up in very Republican Kansas.
This is about, though, the worst thing he ever did in politics.
It’s Reagan, not Regan, as in Donald.
I remember Bob Dole saying at the time the Republicans won a majority in the United States Senate “I never thought I’d live to see the day.”
He became Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, instead of Russell Long.
Senator Howard Baker retired! (He didn’t run for re-election in 1984. HE was succeeded by Albert Gore Jr.
Later Howard Baker became White House Chief of staff (not to be confused with Jim Baker) and still later, Ambassador to Japan, which is what happens to really, really, elder statesmen. (Caroline Kennedy gets that by inheritance)
Sammy Finkelman (44bd3a) — 3/10/2014 @ 5:20 pmI noticed that Ted Cruz left George W. Bush out of his list of bad Republican candidates for president.
How was he better than Dole??
If Ted Cruz had some ideas in mind, he didn’t say.
Ted Cruz didn’t mention George Bush the younger at all.
Sammy Finkelman (44bd3a) — 3/10/2014 @ 5:23 pmAnother jedi mindtrick.
narciso (3fec35) — 3/10/2014 @ 5:26 pmelissa wrote:
But not before The Outfit had been created.
Sammy Finkelman (44bd3a) — 3/10/2014 @ 5:29 pmI noticed that Ted Cruz left George W. Bush out of his list of bad Republican candidates for president.
How was he better than Dole??
Um, he won once or twice.
Kevin M (dbcba4) — 3/10/2014 @ 5:42 pm15. Comment by The truthful Dana (3e4784) — 3/10/2014 @ 9:02 am
There are parts of the PP&ACA that the public like, primarily the guaranteed acceptance and keep-your-kids-on-it-until-26 provisions, but those provisions haven’t a snowball’s chance of working without the individual mandate.
You can replace the individual mandate with a tax. The individual mandate is terrible precisely because it is an extremely regressive tax, which, by the way, people cannot and will not, pay.
What you need is this – you actually need a lot more to get price competition in, you need to gve people money or tax breaks – and have them then pay for individual acts of medicine to some degree – you can’t have third parties paying as much as they do – but what you need to deal with the problem of different risks is this:
Everybody gets charged the SAME AMOUNT FOR HEALTH INSURANCE.
But the level of annual expenses at which insurance kicks in varies. You insure the part that is uncertain. It is the deductible that varies between individuals, not the price of insurance.
The federal government buys high deductible policies – some policies might have a deductible of $1 million even. If the deductible is too high, the insurance company has to lose inn some way. They lose if the insured person’s medical expemses are higher and they lose if it is lower, Dollar for dollar maybe.
Then the federal government reverse auctions off these policies to a reinsurance company, which an only encourage but not decide, or maybe just pay the extra.
You need some incentives to accurately set the price – somebody else can work out the details.
Sammy Finkelman (44bd3a) — 3/10/2014 @ 5:46 pmLOL Kevin M.
elissa (5079d5) — 3/10/2014 @ 5:47 pmIn other news, Joe Biden for the first time ever correctly delineates the good guys from the bad guys in a Latin American/South American country! Of course, it took Venezuelan criticism of the Administration in which he serves for him to get it right, so maybe he’s just being protective and not sagacious.
JVW (9946b6) — 3/10/2014 @ 5:49 pm“I noticed that Ted Cruz left George W. Bush out of his list of bad Republican candidates for president.
How was he better than Dole??”
119. Comment by Kevin M (dbcba4) — 3/10/2014 @ 5:42 pm
Yes, but how was he a better candidate for President?
I don’t think Cruz has “W” in mind as a role model.
Sammy Finkelman (44bd3a) — 3/10/2014 @ 5:49 pm122. Biden on Venezuela.
Venezuela has talked about getting Russian military bases – and this kind of accusation was also made by Putin in Ukraine I think.
It’s Putin who has a way of clearing the mind.
Did you notice by the way, that Presdident Obama has reversed his position on legitimacy. The change of government in Ukraine was probably less legal than that in Honduras in 2009.
Sammy Finkelman (44bd3a) — 3/10/2014 @ 5:53 pmBetter candidates win. Worse candidates lose.
Now, if you mean “How was Bush a better President that Dole would have been?” Well, Bush wasn’t an evil angry old man who wanted to drag us all back to the 50’s, while raising taxes again and again, so there’s that.
I despise Dole. He “saved” Social Security by tripling the tax on the self-employed. He obstructed Gingrich at every turn. He loved big government — “tax collector for the welfare state” was pretty spot on. His idea of fiscal conservatism was to raise taxes to meet spending.
Kevin M (dbcba4) — 3/10/2014 @ 5:57 pmThe change of government in Honduras in 2009 was based on their President committing treason, as defined in the Honduran Constitution, by agitating for a second term. They have a strong aversion to strongmen in Central America. So the Supreme Court removed him and used the army to make it stick.
And then Obama drove them into abject poverty with sanctions.
Kevin M (dbcba4) — 3/10/2014 @ 6:04 pmOne thing that can be said for Bob Dole , the man knew how to carry a grudge!
Colonel Haiku (eda58b) — 3/10/2014 @ 6:16 pmWacko Ted
mg (31009b) — 3/10/2014 @ 6:17 pmhttp://4.bp.blogspot.com/-cGjHBTcYbWY/UUX2D74oc8I/AAAAAAAAGqk/3LoGRJW33jQ/s1600/tedcruzwackobird.jpg
Re:#111… you left out salesman for teh little blue pill circa ’97-’98, JVW!
Colonel Haiku (eda58b) — 3/10/2014 @ 6:17 pmAh say… Ah say boy, that’s pretty funny, mg.
Colonel Haiku (eda58b) — 3/10/2014 @ 6:19 pmYes, but how was he a better candidate for President?
GWB was in his second term as governor of the second-largest state. He had made K-12 education a centerpiece of his agenda, which appealed to women and to moderates. And he was running for President in an era when we didn’t think foreign policy was all that important, so no one cared that he hadn’t traveled outside North America.
Dole, bless his heart, only had a 30-year run in Congress, much of it in the minority party. And his WWII service didn’t seem to mean much to people outside of his own generation.
JVW (9946b6) — 3/10/2014 @ 6:19 pmRe:#111… you left out salesman for teh little blue pill circa ’97-’98, JVW!
Did I, Colonel? Check my 1997 entry again.
JVW (9946b6) — 3/10/2014 @ 6:20 pmComment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/10/2014 @ 2:40 pm
The additional quote by Cruz makes it a much more reasonable stance, and the fact that Obama just had the Senate turn away the Mumia Abdul-Jamal supporter from the DOJ shows that some Dems are willing to go against the one for the sake of principle or their own survival or both.
I am fine with making bold plans and stances, but I don’t like when people make claims they can’t live up to.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 3/10/2014 @ 6:22 pmWhy you certainly did, how did I miss that… probably all teh blood rushing from my head…
Colonel Haiku (eda58b) — 3/10/2014 @ 6:23 pm“CURRENT RESULTS IN THE INSTAPUNDIT STRAW POLL: Rand Paul 26%, Scott Walker 21%, Ted Cruz 20%. Rick Perry & Sarah Palin 5% each, Marco Rubio & Chris Christie 2% each. Total votes cast: 12,948.” http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/185171/
Colonel Haiku (eda58b) — 3/10/2014 @ 6:26 pmI hope no one hear was one of the 8 that voted for Sam Brownback, Col.
mg (31009b) — 3/10/2014 @ 6:36 pmhere
mg (31009b) — 3/10/2014 @ 6:44 pmdumb azz
Christie’s certainly got ’em all in the palm of his hand.
Colonel Haiku (6b154d) — 3/10/2014 @ 6:45 pmI read Sir Mittens is gathering his political herd in Park City, those people must not be hired by any republican.
mg (31009b) — 3/10/2014 @ 7:10 pmGary-What’s the history of this gopher?
mg (31009b) — 3/10/2014 @ 7:18 pmhttp://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/minnesota-gop-state-pens-racist-tweet-nba-players-article-1.1716621#ixzz2vbqf2oi2
JD,
Immediately after the November 2012 election, Sean Trende was an early advocate of the “missing white voters” theory for Romney’s loss, but he revisited his theory in June 2013 and determined that white voters, alone, did not cost Romney the election. He also offered words of caution for Republicans going forward that seems to favor populist candidates:
In a response to Trende’s June 2013 article, Larry J. Sabato believes Obama’s 2012 win was due to an increase in non-white Democratic voters:
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/10/2014 @ 7:22 pmBy the way, Sabato agrees with my Forbes link (in comment 93 above) that the biggest problem the Republicans have are young voters:
I think Republicans get this and it’s one reason they are looking so closely at Rand Paul, who may appeal more to young people.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/10/2014 @ 7:53 pm“The 2012 election was different. Barack Obama got 6 percent fewer popular votes than he had gotten in 2008. And Mitt Romney got only 1 percent more popular votes than John McCain had four years before.
In retrospect, it looks like both campaigns fell short of their turnout goals. Yet examination of election returns and exit polls indicates that the Obama campaign turned out voters where it really needed them. That enabled him to carry Florida by one point, Ohio by three points, Virginia by four points, and Colorado and Pennsylvania by five points. Without those states, he would have gotten only 243 electoral votes and would now be planning his presidential library.”
– Michael Barone
Colonel Haiku (6b154d) — 3/10/2014 @ 7:57 pmWhoever ends up the candidate, let’s hope they have a better ground game and grasp of social media.
Colonel Haiku (6b154d) — 3/10/2014 @ 8:06 pm55. SaraW pitches thread winner by my eye.
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 3/10/2014 @ 8:43 pmThanks, DRJ. That meme is often tossed out as gospel truth, while there seems to be little but anecdotal evidence of its veracity.
JD (25d342) — 3/10/2014 @ 8:45 pm140. Don’t know that I’ve heard of him. Sports a Lefty name, eh?
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 3/10/2014 @ 8:48 pm@ MD,
I keep having Cruz at or near the top of my list, then he goes and does a rhetorical flourish too far.
Me, too. I’s been bothering me, and I really like him, but more of this, then less of me. I hope he can find a balance. I think voters would be happy to see Obamacare defunded or defanged, anything, but what it is.
Dana (9f8700) — 3/10/2014 @ 8:53 pm140. Cont. A Pawlenty protégé, his career is in brick and mortar IT. In his fifth consecutive term.
Evidently these unscripted ‘racist’ bombs are among his more outstanding achievements. I do believe I’ve heard him interviewed a couple times on radio as he was the chairman of Education Finance and MN fell in arrears to School districts $ Billions during deficit years.
I don’t think that has changed.
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 3/10/2014 @ 9:00 pmI think Cuomo and Klobuchar will do better than Biden and O’Malley.
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 3/10/2014 @ 9:11 pmOT Colorado makes $2 Million in Reefer taxes in January.
I’m not even going to look but their budget is likely $30-40 Billion.
Better than deposits on plastic soda bottles, I suppose.
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 3/10/2014 @ 9:15 pmI think Republicans get this and it’s one reason they are looking so closely at Rand Paul, who may appeal more to young people.
Roger Simon looks at why Rand Paul appeals to young voters. Sounds about right.
Dana (9f8700) — 3/10/2014 @ 9:34 pmRegarding Cruz’s statements to Jonathan Karl:
1. Texas sent Cruz to Washington DC to stand up to Obama and his policies, especially ObamaCare. Trying to repeal ObamaCare is what we sent him to do. Using his bully pulpit in the Senate to talk about repealing ObamaCare is a part of that.
2. In general, I think most Republicans also want ObamaCare repealed — although the GOP leadership may not care as much about repeal as it used to. That’s why the GOP base needs to speak out and vote in ways that make their leaders care about this issue again.
3. Let’s assume the GOP takes control of Congress in 2014. Unless the GOP leadership turns to jelly, it should pass legislation repealing ObamaCare. Obama will veto that legislation. The question is what happens next. Even if Congress fails to override Obama’s veto, how does that hurt the Republicans? It only reinforces the GOP as the party that wants to repeal ObamaCare and replace it with more sensible proposals. It also sends the GOP into the 2016 elections with another reason why we need to elect a conservative Republican President.
4. Of course, we don’t know what might happen in that future Congress. What I hear is that Cruz is being too extreme because there is no current way to repeal ObamaCare, so people think that’s unlikely to change. But, as I recall, it looked like ObamaCare would never pass and yet the Democrats managed to pressure various groups and politicians so it did pass. That taught me Congress doesn’t always act predictably, and that’s why I want Cruz to send voters a strong message with one more reason why the 2014 election matters.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/10/2014 @ 10:43 pm153. Ted is crazy like a fox. 60-90 million are losing their plan, doctor, whatever by the end of the year.
No one trusts the promise of whatsisname.
One is an imbecile not to be identified with Repeal Often and Early.
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 3/10/2014 @ 10:52 pmComment by Dana (9f8700) — 3/10/2014 @ 8:53 pm
Well Dana, I keep proving the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia Theory (along with the principle ever increasing entropy, my mind, my desk, my house, all ever increasingly random without lots of energy input).
Even our dear host, probably without trying too, quoted Cruz only in part which made him sound irrational. The additional quote from DRJ made Cruz’ comments logical, even if still implausible. For example, as I said, enough Dems in the current Senate (not just Casey from PA who had the most to lose/gain), such as Pryor in AR, voted against the Abdul-Jamal fan club leader to prevent his confirmation, much to the ire of the one.
Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/10/2014 @ 10:43 pm
I agree completely with Cruz’ persistent efforts to keep his campaign promise to get rid of ObamaCare, it’s just when he is (mis)quoted saying something that seems unrealistic that I wonder. For example, if he made it more clear that he was going to do all he could to repeal ObamaCare, even if they ended up 1 vote shy of overriding a veto, that I think would be in keeping with his commitments without appearing unrealistic. But as I said above, when one reads more of what he said, one can see that he is indeed not being unrealistic (yeah, yeah, I know the wording is clumsy) but describing a realistic, if not improbable, way in which it could be accomplished.
It is part of the propaganda machine, as has been pointed out, to simply make pronouncements that are “just so” and expect the majority to follow along, rather than think.
That brings up an idea. I bet Painted Jaguar could make up quite a few “Just So” political stories. I should tell him about it. Of course, he sometimes has other things he needs to work on besides trying to be witty and clever. (Well, working on the clever part is something important he needs to work on, if you know what I mean, but being witty is not necessarily the most important thing of the day, unless he could put food on the table with it.)
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 3/11/2014 @ 5:46 amMr Finkelman wrote:
That’s simple: he won. Winning isn’t everything; winning is the only thing.
Vince Lombardi (3e4784) — 3/11/2014 @ 6:15 amMr Gulrud wrote:
The Dana who can count (3e4784) — 3/11/2014 @ 6:19 amCrap! Hit the wrong button too soon. 50 million Americans are on Medicare, which they won’t lose, so, right there, you’ve down to a population of 285 million. There were 49.9 million uninsured in 2010, so now we’re down to 235 million. 13 million had Tricare (the military’s health insurance) and 49 million more were on Medicaid of some sort. You’re now down to 172 million Americans primarily covered through private insurance, and you are now saying that a third to a half will lose their insurance.
That number is not believable.
The Dana who can count (3e4784) — 3/11/2014 @ 6:29 amThese pussy-asses’* votes count as much as yours. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/me-ow-22-pound-house-cat-attacks-baby-traps-family-in-room/ And they’re raising a third voter.
*Pun intended.
nk (dbc370) — 3/11/2014 @ 6:47 amit’s ass pull dana
Colonel Haiku (4ba97e) — 3/11/2014 @ 7:04 amlike so many other things
hit wall see what sticks
MD in Philly–I think you made a very key observation just above. Like you, I want Obamacare gone. I like Cruz. I like hearing him speak. I think he has an exceptional mind and I want him to succeed. Therefore it makes me nervous to see him get out ahead of the headlights on this and make a bold headline grabber statement that, in truth, does demand considerable nuance, and does require longer explanations and asterisks to be properly understood by the American people as a possibility but not a promise. I don’t want him to get caught up in an inadvertent shorthand conservative version of the “if you like your healthcare plan you can keep your healthcare plan” scenario.
elissa (ed8e9f) — 3/11/2014 @ 7:07 amThe dad had kicked the cat, nk. (He admitted it and he probably had done it multiple times in the past.) There’s a lesson to be learned there. What goes around comes around.
elissa (ed8e9f) — 3/11/2014 @ 7:13 amRUSH: So three million Republican voters stayed home on Election Day. Three million predominantly white voters stayed home. The media is all over the place with the fact that the Republicans lost “the white vote.” They can’t get the white vote. They did lose the white vote, but Democrats didn’t get it. They just didn’t show up, and it wasn’t voter suppression that didn’t turn ’em out.
What would be the reason that three million voters didn’t show up? Let’s go through the possibilities. It could be that there are a number… We’ve talked to ’em. We’ve had ’em call. We got ’em, in fact, on hold. A number of Republicans are tired of moderate nominees. They’ve sent the Republican Party money for years and said, “To hell with it. If you’re gonna eschew conservatism, I’m not giving you any money, and I’m not voting for you.”
-Rush Limbaugh, Nov 8, 2012
Colonel Haiku (4ba97e) — 3/11/2014 @ 7:16 amFolks learn teh hard way
Colonel Haiku (4ba97e) — 3/11/2014 @ 7:20 amcats don’t cotton to kicking
bitch slapping either
once dressed Weiner dog
Colonel Haiku (4ba97e) — 3/11/2014 @ 7:23 amIn cute turtle-neck sweater
sent him down alley
poor little fellow
Colonel Haiku (4ba97e) — 3/11/2014 @ 7:25 amGot his li’l ass kicked six ways
from Sunday morning
a BIG ol’ tomcat
Colonel Haiku (4ba97e) — 3/11/2014 @ 7:26 amtook an instant dislike and
cleaned his little clock
Geez. You set up the poor little doxie. It was the turtleneck, COl. Cats don’t like clothing.
elissa (ed8e9f) — 3/11/2014 @ 7:28 amit changed Werner’s life
Colonel Haiku (4ba97e) — 3/11/2014 @ 7:31 amhe had been confident dog
thought he ruled the world
grew incontinent
Colonel Haiku (4ba97e) — 3/11/2014 @ 7:33 amhe’d cower at his shadow
he cast a long one
A favorite childhood sweet scrapbook photo is me pushing my doll buggy with my striped pet kitty inside dressed in a doll bonnet. Two seconds after shutter clicked cat flew out of the buggy and hid under porch and glared at me.
elissa (ed8e9f) — 3/11/2014 @ 7:35 amBullies are cowards, cowards are bullies. No argument from me.
nk (dbc370) — 3/11/2014 @ 7:41 amWe had barncats when I was a kid. I don’t remember that we ever fed them or watered them.
nk (dbc370) — 3/11/2014 @ 7:44 amone not so sweet childhood memory of mine is when I leaned over sleeping kitty and had him attach to my face
Colonel Haiku (4ba97e) — 3/11/2014 @ 7:44 amOh, yes it is.
http://news.ava360.com/obamacare-justice-dept-filling-states-most-americans-could-lose-employer-hc-plans-kelly-file-video_bf4c2445c.html
Steve57 (927d18) — 3/11/2014 @ 8:15 amMD,
I want to make sure I understand what you’re saying. Is your objection to Cruz’s comments that he made it sound like ObamaCare could be repealed in 2015? Do you view that as misleading because (like Karl) you don’t think repeal can happen without a Republican President?
Would it have been more acceptable to you if he had said the repeal effort is unlikely to succeed without a Republican President, but we should try it anyway?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/11/2014 @ 8:17 amWe had a few cats when I was a child (we lived 150 feet from a lake) that were tasked with keeping the population of varmint, snake, and what-not in check. Eventually we had dozens of felines prowling the area doing their job rather well. We never fed or watered them. the big problem we had with our herd (pride?) of cats was that one or another of them was always “escaping” into the house! There was one particular tabby that so needed to be a house cat that my mother spent way too much time putting her out.
Anyway, one day I was in the living room when I heard my mother scream from the other side of the house “AHA! There you are!” After a the sound of a short pursuit, my mother emerged with this tabby squirming in her arms. My mothers wing-back chair was close to the front door, and when they passed by it, the Tabby reached out mightily with both paws and gained a firm purchase on my mother’s chair. Mind you, this represented no problem for my mother at all, but the shear desperation and tenacity of this tabby so charmed and amused my mother at that precise moment, that she burst out laughing. From that day on the tabby became the only house cat we ever had.
I remember coming home from college during spring break to find this (now 16 years old) tabby on my mother’s chair. The tabby began to purr before I even began to stroke her fur. Very old cats have a most affecting purr that is deep yet faint.
I’m going to stop now.
felipe (6100bc) — 3/11/2014 @ 8:17 amWrong word. “sheer”, not “shear”.
felipe (6100bc) — 3/11/2014 @ 8:24 amLawyers tend to think in terms of a two-step process: First, they hypothetically analyze what can happen and then they analyze the impact of each hypothetical possibility. That way each option gets an analysis. It’s a tedious process and can waste time, which isn’t a good idea if time is of the essence. In addition, I think it’s what Obama does, so it’s easy to contemplate the downside.
My engineer father does that in one step — he thinks about what the possibilities are, decides which is the best option, discards the rest and proceeds with his best option. That sounds like a great way to do things and generally it is, but it also means that sometimes he doesn’t have a full analysis of those discarded options and thus doesn’t know whether one of them might actually work better, for reasons not initially apparent.
To me, Cruz is right to consider and analyze all the options, but he thinks like a lawyer is trained to think and so do I. I think another reason many people like Rand Paul is that he doesn’t get bogged down in hypotheticals and moves straight to his best option. It’s clean, simple and easily understandable.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/11/2014 @ 8:27 amLove that story, felipe.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/11/2014 @ 8:28 amLove your cat story, felipe.
elissa (ed8e9f) — 3/11/2014 @ 8:31 am156. “Winning isn’t everything; winning is the only thing.”
During the post-game Coach Carroll made it exhaustively clear that the Seahawks are a full-featured recreation of the Lombardi philosophy in vivo.
Any use whatever, of the quotation, by today’s GOP is libelous and reprehensible.
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 3/11/2014 @ 8:39 am180, 181. ” the Tabby reached out mightily with both paws and gained a firm purchase on my mother’s chair. ”
Winning is achieved with everything at one’s disposal, and not a whisker less.
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 3/11/2014 @ 8:42 amPainted Jaguar Hmm, it must be the fragmentation of the discussion.
MD is off doing something, perhaps worthwhile, and asked me to fill in.
Concerning the excellent junior senator from Texas, land of the Alamo, I have this to say about that, on MD’s behalf. My own feelings may or may not coincide (depending on what the polls are showing).
In the totality of what Cruz said, once the additional dialogue was added by DRJ, MD has no problem with what Cruz said.
But, if limited to the discussion as given at the beginning of the thread by our ever kind, thoughtful, and pleasant virtual host, it appeared that the august junior senator (though it is March) was, as we say down by the dark, turbid waters of the Amazon, biting a bigger Anaconda than he could chew. That he was being a bit flippant, over-confident, even arrogant and off-handed about the possibility of overturning ObamaCare even while the one (as MD and some of you call him) is in office. And we all know that we’ve seen enough arrogance to last us quite a while.
But, to reiterate (I think that means to repeat for clarity, which is what I mean to do now), when reading the entire discussion, it seemed that the august junior senator from the state of the Alamo was quite reasonable. The problem was that MD fell pray to an episode of Murry Gell-Mann Amnesia, and thought he could assume a bit of a quote was an honest reflection of the intent of the not-senior senator who is august (though it is March) from the state of the Alamo (not the state of the little town that time forgot, which would have been gg’s turf, er, ice).
Hence, the problem remains, anytime a person says something more than 2 syllables long in this sound bite short attention span ADDized land, one is in danger of being misconstrued.
Maybe people should limit the full text of their statements to 140 characters, plus a picture (which I guess could be of 5 black boards filled with little words).
Hopeful that is as clear as a tiny spring from the mountains of Peru that will eventually join up with thousands more to make the mighty, dark, deep, turbid waters of the Amazon.
If not, I hope you enjoyed it, complain to MD, and he will try to clarify it for you.
Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 3/10/2014 @ 9:15 pm
Painted Jaguar (a sockpuppet) (f9371b) — 3/11/2014 @ 3:40 pmHey, did you see where a barber in Colorado put up a sign saying he ran a family business and didn’t want anyone coming in smelling of marijuana?
There is probably something to be said about cakes and munchies and what not, but, no word yet if he was being sued to be forced to cut the hair of cannabis users and be subjected to second hand smoke.
Much obliged, jaguar, logically Cruz’s surmise should be correct, but as others have noted, there are too many with a stake in this law’s continuation, than is healthy,
narciso (3fec35) — 3/11/2014 @ 3:46 pmupdate on the cat: Baby pulled cat’s tail, dad kicked the cat, and the cat is getting therapy?
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/11/oregon-cat-that-trapped-family-to-get-therapy/?intcmp=latestnews
elissa (ed8e9f) — 3/11/2014 @ 4:10 pmIs it just me or does anyone else think it’s strange to call 911 about a 22 pound housecat that is yours, so you presumably know it isn’t rabid?
I could see a parent alone with an infant calling for help, but surely one of the adults could manage to subdue their own cat. If not, they really shouldn’t keep that cat — therapy or not.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/11/2014 @ 4:44 pmThanks for the response, Jaguar. You have a way with descriptive words.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/11/2014 @ 4:45 pmGreat cat story, felipe! I recently read somewhere of a study where the folks involved were contending (based on results) that the domesticated house cat thinks that humans are just extra large cats. How they know this beats me.
Colonel Haiku (4ba97e) — 3/11/2014 @ 5:02 pmNo, DRJ, it isn’t just you.
But I’m speculating, “daddy” wants to drop-kick it out the window and “mommy” is yelling “Don’t you dare touch her, you monster!” And even then ….
nk (dbc370) — 3/11/2014 @ 5:06 pmI find it hard to believe a 22 pound cat wouldn’t move in slow motion at all times.
Colonel Haiku (515933) — 3/11/2014 @ 5:19 pmSurprising, how well this is going;
http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/03/obamacare-sign-ups-fail/
narciso (3fec35) — 3/11/2014 @ 5:33 pmHaiku, animals don’t think. They have responses to stimuli, some inbred and some conditioned. The cats seem to behave like humans because they “learned” that’s the behavior that gets them food, pats, and a warm home. People then go and ascribe human motives to them. I’m still sticking to the theory, now questioned, that that’s how we got the darn things as pets in the first place. Caveman kills mama wolf and drags her home for dinner and a fur coat. Mama has a weaned litter which he carries home alive to keep as food for later. The cubs become lovable and don’t become dinner. At least not when the hunting is still good. But they didn’t reason out “let’s be lovable and we won’t get eaten”, they just stumbled into people who thought that way.
I like another study which shows that outdoor people tend to be dog people, and indoor people tend to be cat people. Which explains the preponderance of cat pictures on the internet.
nk (dbc370) — 3/11/2014 @ 5:37 pmSlightly easier now: Jolly beats Sink 49-47
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/11/cnn-projects-jolly-wins-florida-special-election
Kevin M (dbcba4) — 3/11/2014 @ 5:41 pmI have never needed 911 to deal with any hostile non-hominid to date. Certainly not a cat. I mean, .22 rf is in short supply but not that short…
SPQR (95c543) — 3/11/2014 @ 5:51 pmvincent pastore
Colonel Haiku (515933) — 3/11/2014 @ 6:15 pmteh guy they called Big Pussy
that was one cool cat
I found the following analysis of a recent poll rather interesting. Moreover, in light of a Republican winning a “must-win” seat in Florida today, I hope it’s a sign that the ethos of let’s-hug-the-big-hearted-politicians and the attitude of let’s-embrace-compassion-for-compassion’s-sake-people are starting to congeal, curdle and sour.
Mark (154d43) — 3/12/2014 @ 12:46 amThe GOP should always trust polls from CBS/NYT.
nk (dbc370) — 3/12/2014 @ 3:56 amGOP and trust in the same sentence seems strange.
mg (31009b) — 3/12/2014 @ 4:42 amGiven the current political realities, I question the knowledge and/or sanity of anyone who agrees with Ted Cruz that repealing Obamacare is possible while Obama is in office.
There are only two ways for Obaamcare to be repealed before 2017:
1) Both houses of Congress pass a repeal act, and President Obama signs it. This WILL NOT happen.
2) Both houses of Congress pass a repeal act, President Obama vetoes it, and two-thirds of each house of Congress override his veto. This is very unlikely to happen, as the Republicans would have to muster 290 votes in the House (currently at 233, counting David Jolly) and 67 in the Senate (currently at 45). They can’t win enough seats to reach those numbers — there are too many “safe” House seats for Democrats, and if the Republicans were to win EVERY Senate seat up for election this fall (including in states like MA, RI, NM, OR, NJ, DE, and HI), they would have 66 seats. So this scenario happening relies on crossover votes from Democrats. Which ones? Where would they come from?
There are only three ways Obamacare is gone before 2017: if the Supreme Court overturns it; if the Supreme Court voids a key part of it such that it collapses in on itself; and if the political reality changes sufficiently to make it easier for Democrats to cast votes against it. Of those, the second is the most likely, but all are unlikely to varying degrees.
If all Cruz means to say is that it is not absolutely impossible for Obamacare to be gone while Obama is still in office, fine. Sure. Maybe some congressional Democrats will change their minds, either on their own or under massive pressure from a much more sour public. Maybe the Supreme Court will do the right thing.
But for that matter, maybe the government will be violently toppled tomorrow by an invasion from outer space. I can’t say it’s impossible. But that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t still be foolish to factor such an unlikely eventuality into my plans and tactics.
Demosthenes (cb38dd) — 3/12/2014 @ 5:13 amChecking in briefly, thanks to Painted Jaguar for picking up in my absence.
In reply to Demosthenes:
As the thread is now 200 comments long, many may not have followed it closely all along.
In comments of Cruz that were in the full text of the interview, his logic in claiming the possibility of repealing Obamacare included the help of a few dems who realized just how unpopular the law was and would vote to repeal it out of some combination of {wanting to keep their job}/{serving their constituents}/{doing the right thing}.
While the Dems have rarely broke ranks with Obama on much of anything, a few did recently in the Senate vote to confirm the one’s nominee for the Civil Rights post in the DOJ- enough to defeat the nomination. This included some who are up for reelection and face a strong Repub challenger.
So, as PJ pointed out, while it is definitely a long shot, it is in the realm of reaching the moon in 1967, not reaching the moon in 2007 It appears that Cruz acknowledges the difficulty of the task, but isn’t about to let the difficulty be a foregone conclusion.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 3/12/2014 @ 6:08 amIt would help, more than a little bit, if more Repubs would be willing to say that it is worth fighting instead of rolling over for it.
Apparently the results of this election in Florida yesterday gives encouragement to this. I saw the race characterized as a “flawed Repub candidate against ObamaCare” vs. a “strong Dem candidate who wanted to improve ObamaCare”.
If we get more of that in the fall, then the momentum will be in the right direction.
Demosthenes,
To repeal ObamaCare in 2017 means Republicans will have to gain/retain control of the Senate in the 2016 election — even though the GOP will have more seats at risk — as well as retain control of the House. It also requires electing a Republican President. In other words, you’re betting on a clean sweep in 2016. That may happen but the Democrats will be motivated in 2016, especially if Hillary is the nominee, so it may not.
Meanwhile, the GOP is looking at the possibility of another wave election in 2014. It can plausibly retake the Senate and increase its margin in the House, and vulnerable Democrats lucky enough to retain their offices may not be as willing to follow Obama given his declining poll numbers. Will it be hard to repeal ObamaCare in 2015? Yes, but it may be even harder in 2017.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/12/2014 @ 6:47 amComment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/12/2014 @ 6:47 am
Will it be hard to repeal ObamaCare in 2015? Yes, but it may be even harder in 2017.
Repeal of Obamacare (and replacing it with something better, not like what Romney wanted – he would have kept the individual mandate – well he would have until it became clear it was economically unsound even with the mandate)
Starting over:
Repeal of Obamacare would help the Democrats win the 2016 Presidential election.
That might affect some votes in Congress.
Sammy Finkelman (032a0d) — 3/12/2014 @ 7:03 amComment by MD in Philly (f9371b) — 3/12/2014 @ 6:08 am
repealing Obamacare included the help of a few dems who realized just how unpopular the law was and would vote to repeal it out of some combination of {wanting to keep their job}/{serving their constituents}/{doing the right thing}.
And winning the 2016 Presidential election.
It would help, more than a little bit, if more Repubs would be willing to say that it is worth fighting instead of rolling over for it.
And care more about their country than winning the next election. Although the law is not likey to be changed 100% to their satisfaction.
Sammy Finkelman (032a0d) — 3/12/2014 @ 7:07 amIt won’t happen while Obama is in office. There won’t be enough votes to override his veto. Cruz’s comments are unmoored from political reality.
Bird Dog (130699) — 3/12/2014 @ 8:03 amPainted Jaguar (with an annoyed look on his visage):
Painted Jaguar (a sockpuppet) (f9371b) — 3/12/2014 @ 9:22 amThere may not be enough votes when history comes to pass, but “unmoored” from political reality is continuing to back something so bad that even its top supporters refrain from enforcing.
The Dems, even the namesake, and Conservative Repubs both agree that ObamaCare is so bad it shouldn’t be enforced,
it’s just the Repubs would prefer to live by the law and make it official instead of winking and promising to make it ok for their friends.
205, 206. The FL District 13 turnout was 10% less than the lowest recent off-year election.
That is but one data point, but is consistent with utter disaffection on the part of the electorate with the Federal government that polling seems to be resolving.
The political reality bandied about is that we’ve a race to the bottom.
While modest gains are likely for the GOP in DC for 2014 the likelihood that some configuration in majority under present leadership is going to right the general direction of decline is vanishingly small.
Victory in 2014 portends little for 2016.
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 3/12/2014 @ 5:46 pmAh, I’ve now read 200 and 201. Never mind.
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 3/12/2014 @ 5:50 pmAnother thing that won’t change in 2015. Because.
http://www.jammiewf.com/2014/change-we-can-believe-in-obama-to-force-businesses-to-pay-overtime-to-millions/
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 3/12/2014 @ 6:28 pmWhat parts of ObamaCare haven’t been waived yet? “Free” and mandatory contraceptive coverage? Making men purchase maternity care?
JD (eea907) — 3/12/2014 @ 7:35 pmJD, all the parts that make it unaffordable. No max coverage is the main, guaranteed issue the other.
SPQR (768505) — 3/12/2014 @ 7:53 pmSPQR – it is the pinnacle of irony that they argued to the Court the necessity of the individual mandate for the entire structure of the system, and shut down the government defending the individual mandate from being delayed for a year when Team at wanted to do that, then they delay it past the next elections for political reasons. The MFM is beyond shameful.
JD (eea907) — 3/12/2014 @ 8:06 pmJD – “irony” … I do not think that word means what you think it means …
SPQR (768505) — 3/12/2014 @ 8:06 pm@ 201
I know…but think about it for a minute. Many of the Dems who voted with the GOP to deny Mr. I-Defend-Terrorists his Justice post are exactly the ones who are most in danger of being swept out of office in November. We are going to get most of those seats. We may well take all seven pieces of low-hanging-fruit, and maybe a few higher up the tree. Where does that leave us? With 52 to 55 seats, and a whole bunch of Dems that don’t need or want to compromise.
I’ll say it again. For the Republicans to repeal Obamacare between now and 2017, we either need a Presidential signature on the legislation, or we need two-thirds of both houses. Let’s say we have a great election and pick up ten seats this time. The seats we get are AK, AR, CO, IA, LA, MI, MT, NC, SD, and WV. Hell, I’ll even add NH and OR. That would be an AMAZING election, and we’d be sitting on fifty-seven seats. If you can come up with a realistic list of ten remaining Senate Democrats in that scenario who would flop on Obamacare, I will concede that there’s an outside possibility Cruz is right. Otherwise, my comment stands. And again, that’s still not accounting for the fifty-plus votes we’d either have to pick up or swing in the House.
@ 202
I take your point, but I don’t agree with it. Consider that we’re in position to have a great election this time around. We will almost certainly get the six seats we need to take the Senate, and we will not lose the House. And with every Senate seat we add past 50, we give ourselves an extra cushion to lose a seat in 2016 and still hold the chamber. Of the Senate seats we’ll defend in 2016, which ones are in real danger? IL, PA, maybe NH and OH. Possibly AZ, FL, IA, WI. But that’s really a worst-case scenario for us, and it’s very unlikely we’ll come close to losing all those seats. And assuming Clinton is the nominee, she may have a positive down-ballot effect…but it will be counterbalanced partly or wholly by public opinion toward an unpopular Obama.
Don’t think of 2016 as a sweep. If we take the Senate this time, which we almost certainly will, we’ll have to hold Congress and take the White House next time. Could we fail to do that? Sure. But looking at history, while taking into account the current situation and current and likely poll numbers, I still argue that my strategy is better. “Get to 50 in the Senate and take the White House” has fewer moving pieces, and a higher likelihood of succeeding, than any strategy that involves the stage “And then a non-small number of our opponents will change sides and vote with us.”
Demosthenes (cb38dd) — 3/12/2014 @ 8:07 pmI just think that the concept of “it is hard therefore we shouldn’t try” to be rather short-sighted. The Dems tried to do this for well over 30 years, and now that they passed it, they have waived almost every substantive aspect of the law, for political reasons. They didn’t pass an idea.
JD (eea907) — 3/12/2014 @ 8:16 pmOne is forced to question the knowledge and/or sanity of someone who puts repealing Obamacare in the same category as an alien invasion.
As Cruz has pointed out the one thing that trumps all, no matter the party, is personal survival.
And Rep. Rahall (D-WV) isn’t the only member of Congress who is scared of his prospects.
Does Rahall go so far as to say he’d support repealing Obamacare? No, he refuses to consider the possibility now. At least not publicly. But when Democrats are running in 2014 on how they were closer to George W. Bush than Barack H. Obama, then they are running scared. And House members are up for reelection again in 2016.
The current political realities in March 2014 will not be the political realities even in November 2014 let alone November 2016. I somehow doubt having prominent Democrats calling ordinary Americans liars for publicly talking about what it’s meant to lose health care coverage they liked, doctors they liked, and more importantly coverage they could afford for another two years.
No matter who controls Congress and by what margin we’ll have two more years of the Preezy insulting the intelligence of Americans by explaining when he talked about making health care more affordable, he meant as long as you forget about living in the manner to which you’ve become accustomed and accepted the fact Obamanomics in general means a downwardly mobile lifestyle. Obamacare is affordable. As long as you’re willing to give up things Obama doesn’t think you need, anyway. Like your cable TV, cell phone, air conditioning, heat, a full time job, a full tank of gas, etc.
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/03/12/obama-health-insurance-isnt-expensive-just-cancel-cable-and-phones/
Yes, I can definitely see repeal becoming more attractive. Including to whatever Dems survive this upcoming election.
Steve57 (5d6714) — 3/12/2014 @ 8:30 pm*I somehow doubt it will wear well on the electorate having prominent Democrats calling ordinary Americans liars…*
Steve57 (5d6714) — 3/12/2014 @ 8:32 pm@ 215
That depends on the level of “hard.” If you told me it was hard to join the Highpointers Club in a calendar year, but you were still going to give it a try, I’d say that was an ambitious and worthy goal, hard but not impossible. If you told me it was hard to walk the length of the Canadian-American border stark naked in the dead of winter, but you were still going to give it a try, I’d do my best to talk you out of it.
Yes, I know that analogy has nothing to do with elections. Sorry. I just thought it was fun.
But I’ll pose the same challenge to you that I posed to MD in Philly. Let’s say that this election goes great for the GOP, and we pick up a dozen seats in the Senate (listed in #214) and go from 45 to 57 seats, plus we hold the House (and probably pick up seats there too). If you can come up with a plausible list of ten remaining Democrats/independents who might defect in 2015 or 2016 and vote to override a presidential veto of the Obamacare repeal, I’ll concede that we should try no matter how hard it is. Otherwise, no. There are other things we can spend our legislative time doing that would be more valuable. (Whether we’ll do them is, of course, up in the air, but it’s still better to spend MOST of our time focusing on what we can do than to continually go after what we can’t do.)
Demosthenes (cb38dd) — 3/12/2014 @ 8:35 pm214. Think outside the box Rhetor. There will be no Speaker of the House, I trust.
Majority Leader in McConnell’s hands? With economic chaos and limited wars all around?
Disaster.
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 3/12/2014 @ 8:35 pm@ 216
Read my comment at #214. I’ve pre-rebutted you.
Demosthenes (cb38dd) — 3/12/2014 @ 8:39 pmAs November 2014 approaches, it will get easier and easier to repeal Obamacare.
It really will.
SPQR (768505) — 3/12/2014 @ 8:45 pmNo, you didn’t prebutt me. Just because repealing Obamacare while Obama is in office involves more working parts than waiting to take the WH does not put make comparing repeal to an alien invasion a rational comparison.
It would take more work. Republicans would have to make the case. But it can be done.
You know what has about the same likelihood of happening as an alien invasion? Ever fixing Obamacare. It can’t be fixed. Talk about something with too many working parts. Naturally when the Democrats talk about fixing it, they mean throwing ever more amounts of money at it and growing government into a private-sector killing monkey on its back.
In other words, taking everything that’s wrong with it and making it worse.
Steve57 (5d6714) — 3/12/2014 @ 8:52 pmDemosthenes,
It’s a long way off but Sean Trende explains why the Democrats could regain control of the Senate in 2016. Given the fact that the seats that will be in play favor the Democrats, why waste 2015 by doing nothing? What is the downside to passing a bill repealing ObamaCare in 2015 — when the GOP will probably have control of Congress — and trying to override Obama’s veto? Either the GOP will be able to override Obama’s veto (with the help of Democrats in vulnerable districts/races) or it won’t, but if it fails it makes it clear why voters need to elect a Republican President in 2016.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/12/2014 @ 9:13 pmThere are other things we can spend our legislative time doing that would be more valuable.
I prefer them trying to undo catastrophic failures. Rather than enacting new ones.
JD (eea907) — 3/12/2014 @ 9:14 pm223. This notion that politics is not, in fact, a zero sum game is really a tough one for deceased Greeks.
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 3/12/2014 @ 9:17 pmHilarious and pithy, gary. You can’t beat that.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/12/2014 @ 9:44 pm@ 222
Well, if you’d like, since you can’t seem to get past ONE THING that I said, I will concede that preparing for an alien obliteration of American government actually would be a greater waste of everyone’s time than attempting to repeal Obamacare. Now that we’re past that…
You haven’t actually given any explanation of how repealing Obamacare is even possibly possible, except that — gosh! — some Democrats might buckle under pressure. Fine. Which ones? I’ve set up a scenario for several people, inviting them to imagine that we win a massive twelve Senate seats in 2014 (AK, AR, CO, IA, LA, MI, MT, NC, NH, OR, SD, and WV) and then asking them which ten senators on the other side of the aisle in 2015 and 2016 we might flip. If you think it’s possible to get 67 votes for repealing Obamacare in the next two years or so, you must have some idea of who might cave. Give me a list. And remember, for every one of those seats we don’t win in this best-realistic scenario, that’s another Democratic caucus vote we have to get.
@ 223
Yes, I’ve read that Trende analysis. And I agree with him that it’s not a foregone conclusion the Republicans could hold the Senate in 2016 — I’ve said as much. I do think it’s more likely than getting 67 down-with-Obamacare votes in the next two years, though.
Having said that, you make a good argument that Republicans should take a vote on repeal at least once…and when Obama vetoes it, they should take a veto override vote at least once. I don’t think the votes will succeed in actually repealing the law — but I tink we can both agree that it is NOT pointless to force Democrats to go on the record as supporters of keeping a failed and broken law, especially those standing election in 2016. Heck, do both votes two or three times, if you want. (Forty-plus times might be pushing it too far.)
Where I disagree with a lot of commenters here is that this would have any purpose beyond fodder for campaign ads. I just don’t see the votes for repeal coming together, even in the massively-more-Republican Senate of my scenario. Perhaps I’m wrong. I remain to be convinced that I am, though. But if you want to try, be my guest. And hey — maybe Steve57 is right, and the public climate will change so drastically that what seems impossible today becomes real next year. In that case, I will be thrilled to publicly eat crow.
@ 225 & 226
Nowhere have I said, or implied, that politics was a zero-sum game. And it’s a shame that a deceased Greek can read probabilities better than living Americans.
Demosthenes (cb38dd) — 3/12/2014 @ 10:05 pmI hate to bring up old wounds but I seem to remember, myself among them, a number of us on the Right counting roughly 6 GOP gains in the Senate.
Somehow, someway, virtually none of those seats materialized. Mr. Trende did an analysis of OH coal country to find some few hundred thousand missing votes for the ‘Sit Pat’ crowd.
I don’t want to jinx the Pahtee, but I’m thinking FL District 13 did not a Scott Brown storm the citadel portent make.
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 3/12/2014 @ 10:44 pmi have a deep and abiding faith in the ability of the party of 5tOOpid to waste every advantage, alienate major portions of its base, nominate every squishy RINO hack it can find and generally go out of its way to willfully seize defeat from the jaws of victory.
i doubt 2014 will be any different, and, even if they do manage to eek out a victory, despite their best efforts at #fail, they will waste it on stupid stuff, just like they always do.
redc1c4 (abd49e) — 3/12/2014 @ 11:02 pmas proof of their idiocy, i simply point to the articles where party bigwigs are already talking about running Mittens again.
yeah, that’ll w*rk out great.
redc1c4 (abd49e) — 3/12/2014 @ 11:03 pmDemosthenes @227,
That one thing was a pretty huge thing to get past; it’s not advisable to question other people’s sanity for talking about repealing Obamacare and then compare that to the odds of alien invasions. One is within of political possibility.
Especially since a pick up of 12 seats is well within reach. According to Nate Silver’s model, which Sean Trende at Real Clear Politics uses as well, if Obama’s approval rating stays at 41% the expected range should be a pick-up of 11-14 seats. If it drops to 40% or below the low end of the GOP gain should be 12 seats.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/02/20/computing_democrats_risk_of_losing_the_senate_121640.html
As far as which Senate Democrats not up for reelection in 2014 who might be pressured to flip, that list is going to depend on how things go in November. But I’d say after looking at the purple state Senators, and taking into account factors such as voter wrath at the Democrats in general for reasons of local politics (assault weapons and magazine bans, anyone?) and razor slim margins of victory for some of these senators the last time they faced the voters, Bennet of Colorado, Tester of Montana, Heidtkamp of North Dakota, Johnson of South Dakota, Donnely of Indiana, Udall and Heinrich of New Mexico, with a shot at Baldwin of Wisconsin, Klobuchar of Minnesota, Kaine of Virginia, and of course Manchin of W. Virginia.
That’s more than enough but there could be others depending on how 2014 treats other Congressional Democrats. If the Democrats get shellacked this year the political realities of January 2015 are going to be very different then they are now.
Steve57 (5d6714) — 3/13/2014 @ 1:49 amDemosthenes,
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 3/13/2014 @ 6:21 amI am not sure if we have a disagreement of substance or of perspective.
I don’t think there is a likelihood of overturning ObamaCare while he is in office, and I quickly admit that I am not enough of a student of the political process to understand what efforts might be more likely for success.
My very narrow interest in this discussion was wondering whether Cruz was being irrational in a way that diminished my respect for him. I came to the conclusion “No”, while highly improbable, there was at least a logic in his reasoning, as opposed to flat out making stuff up contrary to fact (a low threshold, I know, but if one uses much of a higher threshold one comes to the point of not caring who is in charge).
And as long as Cruz is being somewhere-anywhere within the bounds of logical understanding, I’m with him unless someone in the public arena actually presents better ideas going forward.
And maybe I missed it, or maybe it hasn’t been reported (both very possible), but I haven’t seen anyone giving better options, just criticism of Cruz.
27.2% of eligible registered Republican voters actually voted in 2012. More “anecdotal evidence” of the hurtful “sitting on their hands” theory.
Colonel Haiku (c1bfa3) — 3/13/2014 @ 9:52 am