See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #101
   On July 16th, 2009 at 4:19 pm, rightisright said:

   When is enough, enough?
   lock ‘n load folks this may get ugly.

2. #102
   On July 16th, 2009 at 4:24 pm, jjmurphy said:

   When is enough, enough?

   Well, whenever I think the libs have gone a bridge too far, up comes another dang bridge! They cross it. Then another dang bridge comes up. They cross that one, too! I’ve given up guessing which bridge is one too far.

3. #103
   On July 16th, 2009 at 5:54 pm, atheling said:

   T-Bone:

   I’ve noticed that some of the PUMA voters are pro Palin and they are pro abortion. To many of them, abortion is just one issue among many.

   Being pro life, I’d be happy to let the matter settle with the states and keep the feds out of it, with the conscience clause excepted.

4. #104
   On July 16th, 2009 at 6:16 pm, maisy said:

   There is a growing perception among many of us that our leadership meets with us but doesn’t listen to us,” said another Blue Dog.

   Gee, I thought that was the new American Way!!??

5. #105
   On July 16th, 2009 at 6:32 pm, corona said:

   Phlegm ‘n Craps suppress debate – this is a news article, not an editorial

6. #106
   On July 16th, 2009 at 8:03 pm, T-Bone said:

   It is interesting that people can be pro abortion but at the same time not really worry about it if it is outlawed which may happen if they vote in anti abortion candidates who nominate SCOTUS judges.

   On the other hand, people can be anti abortion and vote for candidates who continue to allow it.

   Then there are the people who are anti abortion but sit and watch it happen every day knowing they can’t do much to stop it.

   If a candidate was pro abortion but against big government, etc where would they be in the spectrum? Isn’t that the Blue Dogs? I agree with a previous poster that said they are not Blue Dogs. They are liberals in conservative districts that need to obfuscate in order to win. They tell people want they want to hear and then do their liberal stuff anyway. Pelosi gives them as much cover as she can including money for re-election if they play the game with her.

   Bill Clinton had that down to a science. Tell the hard hats what they want, tell the suits what they want, tell the rich one thing and the poor another. It will not catch up to you and you will be elected. ie: Obama.

7. #107
   On July 16th, 2009 at 8:36 pm, Pasadena Phil said:

   T-bone: it all boils down to the House and that we can get rid of them in two years. That is where “the peoples’” power lives.

   There is no point over-intellectualizing the problem. We have a one-party system and the reason the elites keep finding themselves bogged down is that the “two-year crowd” wants to get re-elected.

   If Congressmen want to get re-elected, they need to satisfy their conservative constituencies. Easier to do if they are one of us. We can’t tell the difference when they are running.

   The key for now is to make sure Congress adjourns without any of these toxic socialists bills passing. Everyone will come back having heard from the voters and campaigning for re-election. There will be no way for the cap and tax, nor the nationalized health care bills to pass if they don’t pass this month.

   When the amnesty bill was squelched just just before the November 2006 elections, it was assumed that there would be no way to kill it after the elections. What the pols found was that voters were even more energized after the elections and the attempt by Bush/McCain/Kennedy/LaRaza ended up costing the GOP EVERYTHING.

8. #108
   On July 16th, 2009 at 9:14 pm, rocketman said:

   ***
   HI PASADENA PHIL and FLYOVERMAN. Great minds think alike–your comments on a third party not winning are dead on target. Even Teddy Roosevelt couldn’t buck the two national parties with his Bullmoose Party. Deja Vu all over again–the dimocrats and RINO’s furnish the BULLS**IT. And MOOSE rings a bell–Sarah knows how to fix them up real tasty.
   ***
   The right strategy is to FIGHT ALL RINO, CONSENSUS, and REACH ACROSS THE AISLE (McCain style) stuff. Throw it in their faces with straight PARTY OF NO votes and use the conservative talk radio, conservative commentators to SHINE THE LIGHT on what is happening to our country.
   ***
   The TEA PARTIES need to get in the faces of the “democrat” / liberal / socialist / marxist / statist / communist Senators, “Representatives” (not!), and President Obama (PBUH) every time it is possible. Sign carrying conservative protesters at their campaign stops, town halls, on the sidewalks as they go to / come from the airports on their trips, etc.
   ***
   Taking back Congress in 2010 will probably be possible when the bad results of their policies are clearer to those with their heads in the sand–or up their rear ends! Remember the 1952 Presidential Election slogan–HAD ENOUGH YET?– that gave Dwight Eisenhower the POTUS prize.
   ***
   And SARAH PALIN looks like the only real conservative with a chance to make it happen. SARAH’CUDA for POTUS–JOHN BOLTON for VP. An America First ticket–take back the GOP in the primaries.
   ***
   Remember the I LIKE IKE buttons? How about I LIKE SARAH’CUDA buttons? I would like to wear one–maybe this could work again.
   John Bibb
   ***

9. #109
   On July 16th, 2009 at 9:44 pm, NestingHawk said:

   Where are Webb and Warner considered to be on the spectrum?

   Conservatives should not abandon their unfairly villified candidates. That’s what they did to Bush, and look what happened. I think it’s pretty clear anyone conservatives put up is going to be treated like that. Keep Palin if she wants to be kept.

   I know testing for voting sounds like a good idea, but it’s an abuse magnet. What kind of questions do you think those in power would ask on such a test? If they can’t change the questions, they’ll just purposely fail to educate those who would be opposed to them.

   “Civil service doesn’t vote” is exactly the same problem, possibly worse, especially in this economy. With the added issue that the people most drawn to civil service would be the ones least reluctant to give up their vote. The Hatch Act already tends to violate the first amendment rights of those in the civil service.

10. #110
    On July 16th, 2009 at 9:44 pm, Flyoverman said:

    Rocketman,

    I saw a most interesting stat. Even after all of the pummeling by the Left and their stooges in the MSM and blogosphere, Sarah Palin still retains a 72% approval rate.

    She can be the focal point for the model you have described. Not sure if 2012 is too soon for her, but she can build the across the aisle consensus you describe.

    It will be interesting with both partie’s leadership and the MSM constanly attacking her and calling us dolts, but that will only manifest their fear.

11. #111
    On July 16th, 2009 at 10:19 pm, Pasadena Phil said:

    Palin is the ONLY conservative who can campaign for candidates, raise money for them and herself, and impose herself on the national convention in 2012. That is how winners do it. She needs to get conservatives indebted and grateful. She will not be denied if that happens. The Dems would never accept her but a desperate GOP would have to. They didn’t want Reagan either but they were forced to take him. If the GOP rejected her, she could then be a powerful force as an independent.

    I never said I am against a third-party run. In a one-party system, the right candidate could create a second party. Lincoln for instance. Ted Roosevelt is a bad example because he was such a erratic wild card. He ended up running as a spoiler against his own friend. It was too spur of the moment to be successful. Sarah could be forming a very solid re-united conservative base with a clear platform to challenge the “stand for everything” Dems and “stand for nothing” Reps. That would be a good setup for Sarah running against a one-party system. If she is not open to that, she will lose support fast.

12. #112
    On July 16th, 2009 at 10:43 pm, Flyoverman said:

    On July 16th, 2009 at 10:19 pm, Pasadena Phil said:

    Palin is the ONLY conservative who can campaign for candidates, raise money for them and herself, and impose herself on the national convention in 2012. That is how winners do it. She needs to get conservatives indebted and grateful. She will not be denied if that happens.

    If you check your politcal history (unfortuantely I am old enough to remember} that strategy is precisely how Richard Nixon got the 1968 nomination.

    He worked hard all over the country helping candidates in the 1966 election cycle and in 1968. When the time came, those he helped, stepped up.

13. #113
    On July 16th, 2009 at 11:29 pm, jangar said:

    So, while we are all collectively twitching over ObamaCare, Cap&Trade, Birth Certificates, etc., the greatest tragedy is happening in the dark of night…tonight, about 1am EST…

    Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Legislation.
    Farewell 1st Ammendment and religous freedoms…we were busy worrying about our money (not that prosperity is not important, but our right to free speech and the freedom to read The Holy Bible is a HUGE cornerstone to why we are the land of the free and home of the brave…but nobody wanted to talk about it).

14. #114
    On July 17th, 2009 at 12:01 am, Freddy said:

    Via AP: “Finance Committee members are considering a new proposal from Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., that would raise $100 billion over 10 years by imposing new fees on health insurance companies.”

    If you want more of something you subsidize it, and if you want less of it you tax it.

    Obviously, the charade of ‘you can keep your current provider’ is out the window.

    Does this mean that Obama’s insane claim that a government program can be ‘well run’ is a total lie like everything else that he says?

    And MM’s medical savings plan is out the window as well.

    Don’t worry MM, I have no doubt that the democrats in charge of your health care will never consider your activities as a blogger when they schedule your medical visits and treatments.

15. #115
    On July 17th, 2009 at 12:03 am, rightisright said:

    jangar, couldn’t be more right, some of the language in that bill is unconstitutional…takes away one on one free speech not to mention religious free speech.
    I don’t see anyway out from under these crooked bastards, both dems and rino’s without a forceful revolution or non-violent military coup. Wondering how many if any major military minds are setting plans and orchestrating a non-violent coup at the present time. Without retaking congress in 2010 I don’t see any other way than one of the two mentioned above.
    These libs have gone over the line in many ways so far, and as #1 dickweed says “you ain’t seen nothing yet”.

16. #116
    On July 17th, 2009 at 1:24 am, ErinF said:

    I know this is off topic, but Drudge reports a “Huge blob of Arctic goo floats past Alaska’s coast…”

    I guess Al Gore decided to go for a swim.

    Scary.

17. #117
    On July 17th, 2009 at 7:51 am, jangar said:

    These libs have gone over the line in many ways every way so far, and as #1 dickweed says “you ain’t seen nothing yet”.

    I haven’t seen anything good come out of Congress since 2006. Anything really foul that did not pass was because enough of us out here burned up their switchboard/in-box/voice mail. But I’m afraid that tactic is now getting ignored in order to please the tyrant-in-chief.

18. #118
    On July 17th, 2009 at 9:11 am, NJ-Aviator said:

    And this from Douglas Elmendorf, the head of the Congressional Budget Office.

    In a potential setback to their efforts, Congress’ budget umpire warned on Thursday that their health care bills won’t meet Obama’s goal of slowing the ruinous rise of medical costs, giving weight to critics who say the legislation could break the bank.

    What a surprise. Obama’s gigantic health care industry grab isn’t going to save anyone any money.

    Give the optimism of gov’t spending projections, I would take that as confirmation that Obama’s radical health care socialization move is going to cost 2 or 3 times what they are saying now.

19. #119
    On July 17th, 2009 at 9:29 am, NJ-Aviator said:

    jangar said:

    These libs have gone over the line in many ways every way so far, and as #1 dickweed says “you ain’t seen nothing yet”.

    I haven’t seen anything good come out of Congress since 2006. Anything really foul that did not pass was because enough of us out here burned up their switchboard/in-box/voice mail. But I’m afraid that tactic is now getting ignored in order to please the tyrant-in-chief.

    That’s right. Every time you turn around, there’ something going on that is outrageous. Yet, we’ll never see it on the evening news.

    George Will’s article from yesterday sheds some light on another nefarous action by Obama that significantly changes the business landscape. He’s rewarding the Teamsters for their vote, at the expense of FedEx and businesses that use it. The good news is… FedEx’s CEO Fred Smith isn’t going to just sit there and take it. Read to the end.. it’s worth knowing about.

    Sorry about be OT. But this is yet another slap in the face to America by Obama.

    How does the Obama administration love organized labor? Let us count the ways it uses power to repay unions for helping to put it in power. It has given the UAW majority ownership of Chrysler. It has sent $135 billion of “stimulus” money to states to protect unionized public-sector employees from layoffs and other sacrifices that private-sector workers are making. It has sedated the Office of Labor-Management Standards, which protects workers against misbehavior by union leaders.

    Now it is the Teamsters’ turn at the trough. Congress might change labor law to assist UPS, a Teamsters stronghold, by hindering its principal competitor, FedEx.

    The growth of railroads had put the economy at the mercy of local strikes. “Brakemen in Altoona, signalmen in Wichita,” says Fred Smith, could cripple the transportation network.

    Smith, FedEx’s founder and CEO, says that in 1926 Congress, to protect the arteries of commerce, passed the Railway Labor Act. It ensured that any workers’ bargaining unit must be systemwide so that no local unit could hold the railroads hostage.

    In 1936, airlines were brought under the RLA. FedEx, which began as an air-freight company and created the modern express business, is exactly the sort of integrated system for which the RLA was written. This matters: 53 percent of all US exports by value travel by air; almost all priority and express US mail is carried by FedEx.

    FedEx characterizes itself as the “world’s most effective airline” and UPS as “a 100-year-old trucking company.” FedEx, Smith insists, isn’t anti-union; its pilots are unionized. He says that the pay and benefits for its drivers are, on average, higher than those of UPS drivers.

    Nevertheless, Congress, with UPS now aligned with the Teamsters, wants to put FedEx’s ground-pickup and delivery operations under the NLRA, thereby making FedEx’s entire integrated system susceptible to disruption by local disputes.

    “Bailout” is now both a noun and a verb, and FedEx characterizes what Congress might do for UPS as the “Brown Bailout.” But properly used, “bailout” denotes a rescue of an economic entity from financial distress. Although UPS is suffering from the recession, so is FedEx. Furthermore, UPS, whose revenue is 36 percent more than FedEx’s, began advocating this injury to FedEx long before this recession.

    What UPS is doing is called rent-seeking — bending public power for private advantage by hindering a competitor. This practice is banal but can have entertaining ricochets:

    If Congress makes FedEx’s operations more precarious by changing the law to make it easier for local disputes to cripple its operations, Smith says a multibillion-dollar order for 15 Boeing 777s will be automatically canceled. One union lobbying on behalf of UPS and the Teamsters is the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, whose members make 777s.

20. #120
    On July 17th, 2009 at 10:00 am, J S Ragman said:

    “Finance Committee members are considering a new proposal from Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., that would raise $100 billion over 10 years by imposing new fees on health insurance companies.”

    But if we call it a “tax”, I’m afraid it would end up like the Monty Python Argument sketch.

    “It’s not a tax.”
    “Yes, it is.”
    “No, it isn’t.”
    “Yes, it is.”
    ad infinitum.

21. #121
    On July 18th, 2009 at 12:52 am, drfredc said:

    If the Blue Dogs can bite, the GOP House ought to cozy up to them and vote Nancy out of office and let the Blue Dogs take over…