The 2011 elections: A split decision

[He_Man]

I sympathize with how you feel about the way some people seem to relish belittling the president by using the term “Obamacare” - But it sounds so much like “Obama Cares” that I wonder if it will eventually undermine their intentions!

If the Affordable Health Care Act succeeds - we might well be hearing a conversation like this in the years to come:

“Mommy, how come we get to see such a nice doctor?”
“Because, Obama Cares dear”



Hope that doesn’t cause some folks to go into an apoplectic fit.

Fantasies that won’t happen rarely do.

So get rid of the mandate, if that is the issue. The people have spoken, right?

Problem is, with no mandate, the who bill is essentially neutered (and Obama knows this), since it carries no weight, and will be dumped like old garbage.

 

[ishii]

I If the Affordable Health Care Act succeeds - we might well be hearing a conversation like this in the years to come:

“Mommy, how come we get to see such a nice doctor?”
“Because, Obama Cares dear”
:

“Mommy, how come there aren’t any kids in our neighborhood for me to play with?”

“Because, they’ve all been aborted dear.”

Fixed.

 

[Wolseley]

“Mommy, how come no doctors will look at Daddy and he has to lie in bed at home in such terrible pain?”

“Because Mr. Obama’s health plan bankrupted the country, and there’s no money to treat Daddy any more, dear.”

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Keep in mind that a traditional Democrat Party stronghold, Louisiana, re-elected a young Republican governor … with 66% of the vote …

… but you already knew that, right?

Only a week or two ago.

HUGE margin of victory.

Bobby Jindal.

 

[ishii]

Keep in mind that a traditional Democrat Party stronghold, Louisiana, re-elected a young Republican governor … with 66% of the vote …

… but you already knew that, right?

Only a week or two ago.

HUGE margin of victory.

Bobby Jindal.

Way to go Bobby! He is my second favorite Repub (after Marco Rubio). We have some great young leaders with fresh ideas for our country. Bobby Jindal and Marco Rubio are two of them.

Who do the Democrats have again?

Ishii

 

[CMatt25]

I sympathize with how you feel about the way some people seem to relish belittling the president by using the term “Obamacare” - But it sounds so much like “Obama Cares” that I wonder if it will eventually undermine their intentions!

If the Affordable Health Care Act succeeds - we might well be hearing a conversation like this in the years to come:

“Mommy, how come we get to see such a nice doctor?”
“Because, Obama Cares dear”



Hope that doesn’t cause some folks to go into an apoplectic fit.

 

[shockerfan]

I sympathize with how you feel about the way some people seem to relish belittling the president by using the term “Obamacare” - But it sounds so much like “Obama Cares” that I wonder if it will eventually undermine their intentions!

If the Affordable Health Care Act succeeds - we might well be hearing a conversation like this in the years to come:

“Mommy, how come we get to see such a nice doctor?”
“Because, Obama Cares dear”



Hope that doesn’t cause some folks to go into an apoplectic fit.

Not sure why the term “Obamacare” is belittling. He was the person who signed a bill into law that had blank pages to be filled in later. Its very title, “Affordable Health Care Act” is an oxymoron. Its causing the overall cost of healthcare to go up! The president’s own administration has issued over 2000 waivers to businesses and unions, so their costs won’t go up. By the way, did you get your raise yet? (see the link)
youtube.com/watch?v=U68UKtf8lAU

 

[bellasbane]

“Mommy, how come there aren’t any kids in our neighborhood for me to play with?”

“Because, they’ve all been aborted dear.”

Fixed.

You’re absolutely right Ishii - and it is so tragic.

Mitt Romney is totally responsible for signing into law a health care plan in the state of Massachusetts that provides unrestricted tax-payer funded abortion.

So, in MY neighborhood the scenario you describe is not a fantasy but a reality. It is happening right now, every day, in the state of Massachusetts - and we have Mit Romney to thank for it. Furthermore, last time I checked - he has not repented for his actions.

So let’s write the scenario to reflect the reality in my state:

“Mommy, how come there aren’t any kids in our neighborhood for me to play with?”
“Because, they’ve all been aborted dear, thanks to Mitt Romney”

 

[CMatt25]

Not sure why the term “Obamacare” is belittling. He was the person who signed a bill into law that had blank pages to be filled in later. Its very title, “Affordable Health Care Act” is an oxymoron. Its causing the overall cost of healthcare to go up! The president’s own administration has issued over 2000 waivers to businesses and unions, so their costs won’t go up. By the way, did you get your raise yet? (see the link)
youtube.com/watch?v=U68UKtf8lAU

I assume you realize it’s still 2011. “The law puts in place comprehensive health insurance reforms that will roll out over four years and beyond, with most changes taking place by 2014.”

healthcare.gov/law/timeline/

Now don’t get me wrong. My preference was a single payer system like other industrialized countries are somehow able to provide for their people, or something like a Medicare for all to care for the sick. At the minimum I preferred at least a public option.

But we can’t judge something still 2 plus yrs out before it is mostly implemented.

 

[CMatt25]

You’re absolutely right Ishii - and it is so tragic.

Mitt Romney is totally responsible for signing into law a health care plan in the state of Massachusetts that provides unrestricted tax-payer funded abortion.

So, in MY neighborhood the scenario you describe is not a fantasy but a reality. It is happening right now, every day, in the state of Massachusetts - and we have Mit Romney to thank for it. Furthermore, last time I checked - he has not repented for his actions.

So let’s write the scenario to reflect the reality in my state:

“Mommy, how come there aren’t any kids in our neighborhood for me to play with?”
“Because, they’ve all been aborted dear, thanks to Mitt Romney”

Always a chance then I suppose that Mitt Romney could appoint a “David Souter justice type” to the bench .

 

[shockerfan]

I assume you realize it’s still 2011. “The law puts in place comprehensive health insurance reforms that will roll out over four years and beyond, with most changes taking place by 2014.”

healthcare.gov/law/timeline/

Now don’t get me wrong. My preference was a single payer system like other industrialized countries are somehow able to provide for their people, or something like a Medicare for all to care for the sick. At the minimum I preferred at least a public option.

But we can’t judge something still 2 plus yrs out before it is mostly implemented.

I assume you realize a number of Obamacare provisions have already been enacted? Thus the reason why insurance premiums are rising, and why the administration is issuing waivers.

 

[bellasbane]

Always a chance then I suppose that Mitt Romney could appoint a “David Souter justice type” to the bench .

I’ve heard that argument - but didn’t Souter uphold Roe vs. Wade?

 

[ishii]

You’re absolutely right Ishii - and it is so tragic.

Mitt Romney is totally responsible for signing into law a health care plan in the state of Massachusetts that provides unrestricted tax-payer funded abortion.

So, in MY neighborhood the scenario you describe is not a fantasy but a reality. It is happening right now, every day, in the state of Massachusetts - and we have Mit Romney to thank for it. Furthermore, last time I checked - he has not repented for his actions.

So let’s write the scenario to reflect the reality in my state:

“Mommy, how come there aren’t any kids in our neighborhood for me to play with?”
“Because, they’ve all been aborted dear, thanks to Mitt Romney”

Bellesbane, If Mitt Romney is responsible for doing as you allege, then Obama is responsible for doing the same thing for the entire country!. Now which do you think is worse? Let me tell what I think is the more important issue: We all know that states that want to outlaw abortion can’t do so because Roe V Wade will not allow it. So, where does that leave us? It comes down to this question: Do we want Obama to be picking the next supreme court justice or the GOP nominee? Mitt Romney has said that his model for supreme court justices is Scalia, Alito, et al. i.e. strict constructionists who would overturn Roe V Wade. I believe him. Is it possible that a nominee picked by him could turn out to be another Souter? Yes. But is there any chance of a justice picked by Obama voting to overturn Roe V Wade? No. 0% chance. So for those who are concerned about the sanctity of life it comes down to “who do you want to pick the next supreme court justice(s)?” Obviously not Obama. Romney may not exactly be Rick Santorum, but given that it starts with overturning Roe V Wade, I think Mitt will do just fine.

Ishii

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR NOTICE

Stay on topic, post charitably, and discuss the issues not each other or this thread will be closedl. The topic of this thread is the alleged event in the original post.

 

[ishii]

I’ve heard that argument - but didn’t Souter uphold Roe vs. Wade?

The decision of Bush to nomintate Souter could be said to be influenced by the Bork nomination fiasco. After the defeat of Bork by pro-abortion Democrat catholic senators Kennedy, Biden, et al, Bush wanted a nominee who didn’t have a paper trail that could be scrutinized by the liberal press, the abortion/feminist lobby, and those senators. In other words, a “stealth” nominee. The problem was, Souter turned out to be a liberal. While its frustrating to imagine a liberal justice being nominated by a Republican president in the post-Reagan era, its understandable than in the politically charged situation that Bush found himself in the early 90’s - facing a pro-abortion Democrat dominated senate - that he wanted to go for a nominee without a big paper trail. I suppose any justice is a roll of the dice. The only exception would be justices nominated by Democrat presidents in which they’re pretty much a guarenteed pro-Roe V Wade vote.

Ishii

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

You’re absolutely right Ishii - and it is so tragic.

Mitt Romney is totally responsible for signing into law a health care plan in the state of Massachusetts that provides unrestricted tax-payer funded abortion.

So, in MY neighborhood the scenario you describe is not a fantasy but a reality. It is happening right now, every day, in the state of Massachusetts - and we have Mit Romney to thank for it. Furthermore, last time I checked - he has not repented for his actions.

So let’s write the scenario to reflect the reality in my state:

“Mommy, how come there aren’t any kids in our neighborhood for me to play with?”
“Because, they’ve all been aborted dear, thanks to Mitt Romney”

The abortion rate fell after Romney’s plan was implemented:

anchornews.org/news/april_2010/april_9_2010_5.php

nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1002985

 

[bellasbane]

Bellesbane, If Mitt Romney is responsible for doing as you allege, then Obama is responsible for doing the same thing for the entire country!. Now which do you think is worse? Let me tell what I think is the more important issue: We all know that states that want to outlaw abortion can’t do so because Roe V Wade will not allow it. So, where does that leave us? It comes down to this question: Do we want Obama to be picking the next supreme court justice or the GOP nominee? Mitt Romney has said that his model for supreme court justices is Scalia, Alito, et al. i.e. strict constructionists who would overturn Roe V Wade. I believe him. Is it possible that a nominee picked by him could turn out to be another Souter? Yes. But is there any chance of a justice picked by Obama voting to overturn Roe V Wade? No. 0% chance. So for those who are concerned about the sanctity of life it comes down to “who do you want to pick the next supreme court justice(s)?” Obviously not Obama. Romney may not exactly be Rick Santorum, but given that it starts with overturning Roe V Wade, I think Mitt will do just fine.

Ishii

What do you mean by “If Mit Romney is responsible for doing as you allege”?

I’m not alleging anything. It is a FACT that in 2006, Mitt Romney signed into law a health care plan that forces Massachusetts tax payers to pay for abortion services. If you don’t believe me, then read the benefits list yourself:

massresources.org/commonwealth-care.html#benefits

As to your other point. A president does not “pick” supreme court justices - he nominates them. He does not have the kind of power you are describing. The Senate will have to confirm whomever Romney chooses. So your entire argument is premised on the hope that there will be 60 Republicans in the Senate when his nominee comes up for confirmation hearings. Anything less than that and you will get a Democratic filibuster. The pro-choice forces are not stupid - they will not stand by idle with Roe vs. Wade at stake. The pressure on Romney to choose someone like Souter will be enormous and he will cave - like he always does.

Given what he has done and the kind of man he has proven himself to be - I could never in good conscience vote for Mitt Romney for ANY reason. Perhaps if you had to live with his legacy in Massachusetts, you’d understand what I mean.

 

[bellasbane]

(I’m assuming this is allowed since I read in the rules “Op-Eds, blog postings and commentary are acceptable to start a new thread if they contain links to hard news stories”. And this one links to the 2011 election news in places like Ohio and Mississippi.)

Charles Krauthammer in The Washington Post writes the 2011 off-year elections are a warning to Republicans. The 2010 party is over. 2012 will be a struggle. Saying the great Republican resurgence of 2009-10 has slowed to a crawl.

washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-2011-elections-a-split-decision/2011/11/10/gIQA6Sas9M_story.html

I thought it might be good to repost this - so the topic of this thread could get back to Krauthammer’s analysis of the 2011 election results.

I still think it was more about political over-reach than about any real ideological shift in the country.

 

[ishii]

What do you mean by “If Mit Romney is responsible for doing as you allege”?

I’m not alleging anything. It is a FACT that in 2006, Mitt Romney signed into law a health care plan that forces Massachusetts tax payers to pay for abortion services. If you don’t believe me, then read the benefits list yourself:

massresources.org/commonwealth-care.html#benefits

Well good, now you have a link to back up your point. But what about my points? Are you willing to allow the man who wants Romney care and taxpayer funded abortion for the whole country to skate into his re-election because you are so unhappy with Romney?

As to your other point. A president does not “pick” supreme court justices - he nominates them. He does not have the kind of power you are describing. The Senate will have to confirm whomever Romney chooses. So your entire argument is premised on the hope that there will be 60 Republicans in the Senate when his nominee comes up for confirmation hearings. Anything less than that and you will get a Democratic filibuster. The pro-choice forces are not stupid - they will not stand by idle with Roe vs. Wade at stake. The pressure on Romney to choose someone like Souter will be enormous and he will cave - like he always does.

Oh please, let’s not argue on semantics - pick, opt, nominate, choose, whatever, I understand that the senate has to approve whichever justice the president nominates. I reject you premise that getting another Scalia or Alito will require 60 Republicans. Consider: Every Democrat voted to approve Scalia. 11 Democrats voted to confirm Clarence Thomas. 4 Democrats voted to approve Samuel Alito, and 22 Democrats voted to confirm John Roberts. There are currently 53 Democrats and 47 Republicans in the Senate. In 2012 there will be 12 GOP senators either running for re-election or retiring and 21 Democrats either retiring or runningn for re-election. Anything can happen, but its hard to imagine a scenario in which the Democrats maintain control of the senate. Can the GOP reach 60? Possibly, but unlikely, and even if they did, there would be one or two liberal ones who join the Democrats and vote against a GOP nominee to the court. Given the history, its not at all unrealistic to imagine a few Democrats - southerners, e.g. - voting with the majority of Republicans to approve a GOP nominee. The pro-choice forces have always fought tooth and nail to defeat justices who they thought would vote against Roe V Wade. They campaigned against Souter, even. That is a given. However, I don’t think the answer is to give up and throw in the towel, do you?

Given what he has done and the kind of man he has proven himself to be - I could never in good conscience vote for Mitt Romney for ANY reason. Perhaps if you had to live with his legacy in Massachusetts, you’d understand what I mean.

So you think the man is unredeemable? Even if he picks another Alito or Scalia for the court, your anger at him is such that you would give up the opportunity to overturn Roe V Wade? All you’re doing is making it easier for the pro-abortion forces when the time comes. It makes no sense, Bellasbane.

 

[bellasbane]

Well good, now you have a link to back up your point. But what about my points? Are you willing to allow the man who wants Romney care and taxpayer funded abortion for the whole country to skate into his re-election because you are so unhappy with Romney?

Oh please, let’s not argue on semantics - pick, opt, nominate, choose, whatever, I understand that the senate has to approve whichever justice the president nominates. I reject you premise that getting another Scalia or Alito will require 60 Republicans. Consider: Every Democrat voted to approve Scalia. 11 Democrats voted to confirm Clarence Thomas. 4 Democrats voted to approve Samuel Alito, and 22 Democrats voted to confirm John Roberts. There are currently 53 Democrats and 47 Republicans in the Senate. In 2012 there will be 12 GOP senators either running for re-election or retiring and 21 Democrats either retiring or runningn for re-election. Anything can happen, but its hard to imagine a scenario in which the Democrats maintain control of the senate. Can the GOP reach 60? Possibly, but unlikely, and even if they did, there would be one or two liberal ones who join the Democrats and vote against a GOP nominee to the court. Given the history, its not at all unrealistic to imagine a few Democrats - southerners, e.g. - voting with the majority of Republicans to approve a GOP nominee. The pro-choice forces have always fought tooth and nail to defeat justices who they thought would vote against Roe V Wade. They campaigned against Souter, even. That is a given. However, I don’t think the answer is to give up and throw in the towel, do you?

So you think the man is unredeemable? Even if he picks another Alito or Scalia for the court, your anger at him is such that you would give up the opportunity to overturn Roe V Wade? All you’re doing is making it easier for the pro-abortion forces when the time comes. It makes no sense, Bellasbane.

Hi Ishii,

I’ll send you my response in a PM - since I’m not sure if this counts as “off-topic” and I don’t want to get the thread shut down.

Peace