Obamacare waivers on ice — for now
Well, well, well. How’s this for a weekend news dump? The White House is waving goodbye to Obamacare waivers.
The announcement comes as questions about the legality of the HHS program are swelling and challenges to the process persist.
The Overlords of Transparency always have impeccable timing. Also: Indefatigable denial.
Removing a potential political distraction ahead of next year’s elections, the Obama administration Friday announced an early end to a health care waiver program that has come under fire from congressional Republicans.
Political considerations were “absolutely not” part of the decision, said Steve Larsen, head of a section of the Health and Human Services department that oversees President Barack Obama’s health care law.
Larsen said no new applications for waivers will be considered after Sept. 22. Approvals or renewals received by the deadline will be good through 2013. Starting in 2014, the main coverage provisions of the health care law will take effect, and such waivers will no longer be needed.
Famous last words.
Now, mark my words. This is an Obamacare architectural fantasy that will NOT materialize as projected:
Instead of approving a new batch of year-long waivers every month, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced that plans have until Sept. 22 to apply for a waiver that will carry through 2013. In 2014, taxpayer-subsidized insurance will be available to most of the people now covered by the affected plans.
After patting themselves on the back for monthly disclosures of a waiver list that keeps on growing and growing and growing, the White House media strategists realized how damaging the backlash has become.
Disclosure = headache. No more disclosure = no more public scrutiny.
Expect a resurrection of the waivers in some other name or form. As I noted last month, the next sector clamoring for escape hatches from costly Obamacare mandates include nursing homes And as the White House itself signaled in April, HHS bureaucrats have been plotting the process for extending waivers into 2012 and 2013.
I guarantee you: Unions, Democrat lobbying groups, and liberal execs will find a way to get their exemptions — and the White House will find a way to distribute their crony waivers by another name.
Conservative pressure drove Obamacare favor-dispensers underground. Let’s make sure conservative pressure drives them out of power and deprives them of their selective enforcement authority once and for all.
***
Previous:
5/18/11 Waive Me
5/16/11 Waiver-mania: Now, nursing homes lobby for Obamacare pardon; Update: San Francisco’s escape hatch
4/4/11 Shhh: HHS grants more Obamacare waivers, considers new 2012-2013 scheme
3/25/11 The Weiner Waiver Wormhole
2/7/11 Look who makes RomneyCare/MassCare’s waiver decisions (Hint: Rhymes with Ess-Eee-Eye-You)
1/28/11 Waivers for Favors: Big Labor’s Obamacare escape hatch
1/26/11 The real snow job in D.C.: Obamacare waivers skyrocket to 729 + 4 states; 4 new SEIU waiver winners
1/24/11 Investigating Obamacare Waiver-mania
12/10/10 Obamacare Waiver-mania! continues: List tops 222
11/17/10 Dude, where’s my Obamacare waiver?
11/14/10 Waiver-mania! The ever-expanding Obamacare escapee list
10/6/10 Obamacare waivers: Torquemada Sebelius spares McDonald’s, unions
9/30/10 Will there be a McDonald’s Inquistion now? Torquemada Sebelius tightens the screws
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
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
GOP Texas primary fight: Desperate Dewhurst slimes conservative challenger Ted Cruz
May 25, 2012 07:31 PM by Michelle Malkin
6 CommentsWho’s funding Brett Kimberlin?
May 25, 2012 01:52 PM by Michelle Malkin
24 CommentsObama’s Land of the LOST
May 25, 2012 01:42 PM by Michelle Malkin
50 CommentsObama’s latest campaign angle: I’ve been saving America from wild Republican debts
May 24, 2012 04:33 PM by Doug Powers
53 Comments
Senate finally passes a budget approves bill striking word ‘lunatic’ from federal law
May 24, 2012 11:22 AM by Doug Powers
193 CommentsStammertime: Jay Carney asked if Chicago protests have soured Obama’s support for OWS
May 23, 2012 07:44 PM by Doug Powers
54 Comments
S.E. Cupp, Hustler, and the four stages of conservative female abuse
May 23, 2012 02:13 PM by Michelle Malkin
142 CommentsPig Maher’s boy Bill Burton mocks my support of Hatch challenger Dan Liljenquist
May 23, 2012 11:37 AM by Michelle Malkin
32 CommentsFree speech blogburst: Show solidarity for targeted conservative bloggers; Update: It’s Everybody Blog About Brett Kimberlin Day; Donation fund for targets
May 23, 2012 05:59 AM by Michelle Malkin
114 Comments
Categories: Health care,Politics
Babalu Blog
» U.S. Manned Space Flight in The 21st CenturyVillainous Company
» Must Read Post of the Day. Possibly, the YearRedstate
» Kimberlin’s Associates Caught on Tape?
Al Capone is looking like a freakin Saint.
Push the question now of the legality of the waivers to SCOTUS, now. Obamacare will collapse if the current waivers are disallowed.
All of his political hacks must have got theirs !!
We should submit one on behalf of ALL Americans say, about a week before the deadline.
What are the chances it would be considered??
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAa
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
When the SCOTUS guts this rotten fish by ruling that it is unconstitutional as drafted, waivers will be a moot point. I pray that in November 2012 we all get a waiver, from being dictated to by a group of Marxists.
Not gonna happen.
The way things are going, your choice in November 2012 will be Marxist A or Marxist B, or something just as unacceptable.
Of course, we will have the nose holders coming around defending the indefensible, as they always do. It will be no surprise. It’s what they do.
Sadly, the 2012 election will most likely not be about restoration of constitutional restrictions on government and individual liberties (as it should be), but rather which candidate must be kept out at all costs, including the imposition of similar ruin from his so-called “opposition”.
Folks would be wise to have a look at this post by The Old Sage reminding us of what exactly we should be shooting for, and how America went astray. It’s nothing to do directly with the election itself, but it sure does show the path that was taken to get to the current situation. It’s informative, if nothing else. Read it and learn.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
SPAM … SPAM … SPAM
RWR,
That, or flood them with individual applications. I’m sure a lot of individuals would like waivers.
Will the real Phildo Alinsky please stand up ?
I started looking into some Republican primary candidates for local office and they don’t seem to be making their views on health care entirely clear. Come on, Republicans, Virginia had a legislative vote directly pertinent to this. It should be an issue here.
That would rule too …
However, I doubt either course of action would be taken seriously by the Interloper.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
If the Constitution were made an issue, “healthcare” wouldn’t be the only thing on the chopping block.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Amazing how the leftist agenda can’t stand the sunlight!
The Overlords of Transparency always have impeccable timing.
New Obama 2012 Campaign Poster (C’mon Baby Gimme One More Chance)
http://www.patriotactionnetwork.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2600775%3ABlogPost%3A4304311&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_post
RWR,
I tend to think of the health care bill as a particularly appalling overreach. I would eventually like to see the government cut off/get rid of the Federal Dept of Education, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the National Endowment for the Arts, go to a flat tax, and clarify that only the legislative branch can make law. (Calling a law a regulation does not make it a power of the executive branch.)
In the meantime, I’d like to see the health care bill repealed. VA, my state, has local elections in 2011, and the state legislature voted on a law that stated VA citizens could not be forced to buy health insurance, and of course our AG is filing suit, making the issue quite relevant on the state level. I find being for the health care bill an appalling enough stance to pretty much deny a politician my vote on that alone. (Yes, that seems to mean Gingrich. Romney gets a “better than Obama” nosehold because at least he doesn’t want to try to put Romneycare into my state, even though I prefer other presidential candidates.) However, the candidates for the Republican primary in August 2011 that I’ve seen aren’t exactly emphasizing their stances on this on their websites.
Don’t we all?
While we’re at it, why not just sunset EVERYTHING and just start over with all legislation requiring full demonstration of constitutionality prior to debate? This isn’t anything purely “Federalist” in nature, it’s an idea that came directly from reagan2020.org.
Yeah, like that’s a big surprise.
You’re not going to get much of a stance from any Republicans on anything that represents a truly significant reduction in the size and/or scope of illegal government intrusion into the lives of the American people.
You also won’t get much in the way of support around here for calling them on it, to be sure.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Which morons are voting in the 2011 primaries ?
Of course it’s always fun to exploit a typo!
Nice catch OK.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Though, if you look closely, you see that Hawk is referring to an in-state primary in Virginia.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Sometimes you can’t defend the indefensible.
With that temporary confusion about 2011 primaries, I was reminded of some political ‘dirty tricks’ campaigns… some real, some probably just apocryphal. One had leaflets to be sure to vote Wednesday. Another (remember voting machines?) to vote for “Brown,” pull lever G — of course not Brown’s name. And, George Smathers defeated Claude Pepper in the Florida Democratic Senate primary with whispering campaigns in the Panhandle (rural) areas … Pepper admits to matriculating while at the University. And, his sister is a noted thespian. Etc. Pepper lost but went to the US House for many terms. Smathers, a running buddy of JFK, cultivated a goody two-shoes image. Self inflicted: I voted against it, before I was for it… familiar? Dirtiest trick ever is to quote a pol’s actual words:
-you can keep your own health care
-most transparent…
-most ethical Congress ever
-read my lips
-I did not have sex with that woman…
It seems Obummer still hasn’t found a way to make us Americans understand just how gosh darned lucky we are to have ObummerCare.
No waiver? Just when you think you’re in you find out you’re not.
I’d be PO’d if I’d given money to his campaign and found out there aren’t any perks.
Next time they should READ the bill or write bills they can read. They wanted to deceive us and ended up sticking it to themselves.
No need to fear! RomneyCare is just around the corner. It’s the lesser of two evils!
It’s a mix of the two things:
Obama has paid off enough of his corporate sponsors with theses waivers.
There will still be waivers, they just won’t be publicly known.
That’s right…they were a foregone conclusion.
In otherwords, let’s get all our return favors done and out of the way a year before election time and ensure that the waivers carry through till after the election is over. This way it does not end up being a “distraction” to the Obama campagin and when he loses and the waivers are gone come 2013 then the Democrats can claim that the new Republican president has only been in office for a few weeks and is already taking away entitlements. Yep typical Dem strategy.
You get the impression they feel that the pitchforks and torches are closing in on them from every direction?
The worse is still ahead for Obama and will sink his ship. The Dems need a candidate for 2016 and that is usually the VP. Biden is NOT that guy. No viable Dem will want to embark on that sinking ship and that will isolate Obama just like amnesty and the economy made Bush a pariah in 2006 and 2008.
I predict Obama will announce that he is not running and that Hillary will be the Dem nominee next year.
Unless of course, seeing the opportunity, McCain and/or another LOTE decides to make the jump to the mothership.
The headline needs to be fixed!
They are NOT ending the waiver program. They are alledgedly ending the waiver application program. The waiver program is in effect until 2014.
This means that any business formed to compete with a politicaly connected business will be at a competitive disadvantage.
This is how the Chicago Machine works. The friends are taken care of any any interference from competition is STOPPED DEAD!
Ditto.
By the time the Obamacare really gets into gear, there won’t be a Dem without a waiver.
They didn’t do anything other than tell the few friends of “The One” who hadn’t applied for the wavier to get it done now. It’s easy to end a program when there isn’t anybody left to
payoff….oops I mean help.This guy may not really want to run, but his ego is way to big to walk away. He will run, guaranteed.
Maybe but there are a lot of monied interests weighing in on this and seeing what might be a very weak GOP candidate thus inviting Trump to enter and create a no-win situation for them, will insist on fixing the Dem problem.
Things are only going to get worse for Obama and he is already giving signals that he might not run. Sometimes, a politicians is so weak that the choice is taken away from him. Ask Weiner whose own voters were still behind him.
I think Obama is toast. That means the Rove/Bush GOP establishment elite cannot afford to cram another Democrat down our throats.
Exactly right. The program has been frozen in place, not ended.
By the way, O/T (slightly), but even Obama’s own chief of staff has said that the administration’s regulations are “indefensible”.
(“Sometimes you can’t defend the indefensible,” he said – umm, I’d say ALL of the time you can’t defend the indefensible, by definition, but that’s a minor point)
Truly I would be shocked. He would have the stigma of being a quitter; and what other democrat is as monied and still, can get as many votes as Obama? If he quit, anybody running in his place would have to face the GOP campaign line, that Obama’s (and dems’) policies were so bad, that the President had to quit; and thus how can any dem claim to have the answers to this Country’s problems?
Here’s another thing to consider about Hillary running. In 2004, it was the Kennedy machine that put Kerry on the ticket. In 2008, it was the Kennedy machine that put Obama in the WH. The Kennedy machine, if it still exists, has no Kennedy to lead it. This is Bill Clinton’s party to take back and his machine is probably still available and BJ is widely perceived to be the most astute politician in America by both parties.
BJ, the first “black” president, is still seething over Obama calling him and Hillary racists in 2008 and Obama’s support among blacks, although still strong, is weaker and waning. Hillary might be able to snatch those votes as well as the Jewish votes.
Let’s hope the GOP doesn’t “11th commandment” it’s way to a losing candidate for 2012. The game plan seems to be RINO/Bachmann as the ticket. The only unknown is who will be the RINO selected.
I realize that the House already passed a repeal of Obama Care, and the Harry Reid senate nixed it, it was included in a CR that Harry would have to take it to the floor, and there were not enough senators to send it to Obama’s desk. But would it be ok with others to start chipping at this bill? I would like to see the republicans say that if waivers are given to any two people on any point of Obama Care, that section shall be suspended for everyone. The waiver is mostly being used right now because the cost goes up on low cost plans currently in existence, when the government raises the maximum payout for a year of health care from 50K to 750K. It takes a lot more premium to cover that kind of insurance, and most people paying their own way did not want such a big plan. I think Suspending Obamacare until it is created in law at the Health and Human services and we can all read it, that would be another way for the slime to vote for it, without making democrats have to vote against Obama Care. And in the meantime, I don’t mind if they repeal Health care again, and put that repeal on Harry’s desk for no good reason, just to do it.
Not a chance.
No abortions for rape victims is a Big Loser in a general election. As I understand her, Bachmann doesn’t even allow for that exception. Not even for the morning after pill. For rape victims, for God’s sake.
If someone chooses her for VP, they can be certain the media will be pounding on the issue all through the campaign. It’ll be all about Bachmann’s “hateful” position on abortion right up to election day.
That’s why McCain’s camp made Palin duck the issue. Bachmann won’t/can’t duck it. She is too much on the record.
Both Rombama and surprising to me, Cain, have refused to sign the Anti-abortion Pledge.
Cain sure is getting shaky fast. That’s the problem with rushing “conservatives” to run for president before they have earned their conservative creds.
MM said:
More WH perma-disconnect w/reality. Since U-6 is in the upper teens many, MANY Americans are no longer on the good old 9 to 5/M-F. Hello..?
Holding their Ex-Lax induced dumps “for the weekend when ‘nobody’ will notice it anyway?” doesn’t mean a lot to a country that hasn’t had a weekend off since this @ssclown took office!
You’ll notice Michelle, Doug and others keep fresh posts rolling straight thru the weekend Mr. pResident. You’re only fooling yourself. ( Like Michelle and Sean H. don’t talk..? )
So ……. Cain won’t appoint Muslims, and he will appoint conservatives who don’t march in lock-step with the religious right.
Sounds like my kind of candidate. Sane.
Sample election calendar for anyone confused on 2011 primaries http://www.pwcgov.org/default.aspx?topic=010022001750004669
The specific race I was complaining about was a VA state Senate race.
Actually, I feel like the presidential candidates, like Pawlenty, have been better about saying what they think about health care. I haven’t been following the other federal level races closely yet because we have races in 2011. See calendar.
Bodfish, people should probably check known government and party websites to counter that. (Use a search engine to find them. Chances are, the frauds won’t land on top. .gov is another hint that a site will give the correct days.) Also, many campaigns do give correct days on their literature, so seeing two different days may be a warning sign, too.
RWR, good catch that I was talking about a VA local race. I understand the sunset everything proposal, but, without looking at the site you mentioned, couldn’t that disrupt things like the military? (Honestly, I was practically rooting for a government shutdown or “slowdown” earlier.)
I would like to see a strict, small limit as to how many pages of law Congress can vote to enact at one time, without a corresponding limit as to how many pages of law Congress can vote to repeal at one. Perhaps it would be safer, considering how they work around everything, to also specify that this rule can only be waived by some vast majority, like 90 Senators and 400 House members.
I’d like to see more, of course, but I think the national Republicans have been sincerely trying lately, or some of them have. Paul Ryan gets some credit from me for his plan. I know it’s not as radical as the Dems want us to think it is, but it’s something and he’s being really attacked for it. I’ve heard there are noises from some members about getting rid of the Dept of Education, which I really like, and it’s a risky position to take. I think Bachmann is serious.
Cain is my top pick but I’d like to see him clarify, solidify and catch fire. He just looks more and more like a shaky candidate to me and I’m afraid that a lot of conservatives are projecting attributes onto him that might not be there.
As appealing as it would be to run a black conservative against Obama, black is not a qualification. Same goes with the “Mama Grizzlies” nonsense. Conservatism can only be hurt if we follow the libs into embracing identity politics.
And as usual, Ron Paul wins another straw poll, this time the RLC poll. But don’t get too excited, second went to the most liberal Republican running: Obama admin alumnus Jon Huntsman.
It’s 2008 all over again. Weak candidates as far as the eye can see, none dare attack the front runner (11th commandment you know), Ron Paul keeps winning straw polls, and the Dems wait until the GOP commits to whatever Democrat will win the nomination.
Then their front runner (against which the GOP figured to run against) is surprisingly doesn’t get the nomination. Last time, Kennedy guided Obama past Hillary. This time it will be Hillary driving the stake through Zombama.
I can’t wait for the “Romney is the only Republican who can beat Obama!” chants to begin. After all, “Rudy is the only Republican who can beat Hillary!” worked so well in 2008. Just ask President Giuliani.
Not a single waive goodbye?
Get the waivers removed and Obamacare is toast.
Sometimes the look on his face tells me he’s “waffling”. (“Can I just eat my waffle?”) Wouldn’t surprise me to see Bill shove him out.
Watched the debate with a middle-of-the-road woman who picked up on “not even when the woman’s life is in danger?” but who otherwise loved practically all of the cadidates.
They have begun on this board already.
McCain discards 11th commandment and attacks entire GOP field. Now that McCain has broken the ice, would a conservative please start attacking the liberal Democrat “front runner” threatening to waltz to the GOP nomination?
It’s not Obama that we need to defeat but the entire one-party system. They don’t play by the rules (especially the US Constitution) and neither should we.
You’re taking a big chance siding with me. I have my own personal attack dogs. LOL.
BTW, for all of you people who believe we should give CA back to Mexico, “Courage New Hampshire, Winter of 1770″ is premiering next Sunday. The cast is almost all Tea Party people including the stars that you might recognize.
If you look really, really carefully and don’t blink, you might see me. I’m one of the extras. I hear I’ve been nominated for a Palme d’Or for “Best breakout performance in a non-speaking, non-acting and non-noticeable and extraneous role that could have been eliminated without impacting the movie”.
Still, it’s a good movie that will be shown in schools and that accurately portrays the values, morals and spirit of self-sufficiency, independence and righteous indignation prevalent to that period.
The sequel starts filming next month so for you Pasadena Phil haters, it’s not over.
That is what I was saying when everyone was praising him here. How will he perform under fire from the media?
His handling of the Muslim question in this debate was not a good sign. Once he had stuck his foot into the pc trap, as he had already done before the debate, he had to either cut his foot off (“I was wrong. My wife tells me I do that a lot”) and hope for the best, or go all in (“I meant what I said. The Muslims’ Koran does not allow Muslims to be loyal to the non-Muslim ruler in a non-Muslim nation the way the Christian Bible commands Christians to obey the ruler no matter what his religion is. In the case of America, our ruler is the US Constitution. I do not believe those who truly follow the teachings of Muhammed and the Koran will obey the Constitution when the chips are down”).
Cain is a businessman. Government and business are two different animals. You can be a master at taming one, but get eaten by the other.
What bothers me about Cain is not that he is a businessman, I don’t see that as a handicap but I discount all candidates who have been in politics their entire lives. I’ve been involved in politics and I swear that almost all of the worst people I ever met in my life were through politics, especially the money people and “handlers”.
The problem is that as soon as an unknown comes onto the scene, we are already running them for president. That is how we got Obama. It leads to buyers’ remorse.
Cain is showing his lack of experience in politics but more disturbingly, the shallowness of his positions. I don’t “feel” or “hear” or “sense” authenticity. He doesn’t seem to have the confidence that comes from having internalized what he says. The Muslim question threw him for a loop and it shouldn’t have. He made an ill-thought gratuitous statement and fell apart once someone challenged him on it. That is not lack of political experience but lack of conviction.
I’m afraid that if it is true that Bachmann has already cut a deal to accept the VP slot, we conservatives don’t have a horse in this race.
There are rumors today that Palin will reveal her plans in two weeks. If she says she is not running, she is then irrelevant. I suspect, if this is true, that she will run. There is no reason for her to reveal her plans otherwise.
Then we’ll see if the 11th commandment is still in play. Fat chance. The Rove/Bush/Kennedy machine will kick into high gear to trash her. That is why Trump is so important. He scares the Dems AND the Reps. He is a permanent game changer who can end the Bush-Obama continuum by guaranteeing that the next president will be the weakest president in history.
The next president, under that scenario, would be completely irrelevant. The Tea Party would dominate the House and that would set the agenda. The GOP leadership would be toppled and having no one guarding their rear, the Dems would have to veer to the right.
Of course, that assumes that enough people discard their GOP security blankets and see the opportunity that is staring us right in the face.
McCain:
“If we had not intervened, Gadhafi was at the gates of Benghazi. He said he was going to go house to house to kill everybody. That’s a city of 700,000 people. What would be saying now if we had allowed for that to happen?”
McCain continues to be a liar. Kdaffi said no such thing. What he actually said was that those who were continuing to fight his troops, and who failed to put down their arms now, and go home, would find no mercy when he took the city.
That did not mean he was going to kill everyone in the city. It meant he was threatening to execute anyone who had failed to put down their arms and go home.
Obviously that means he was also promising to not execute the people who did put down their arms and go home.
His position was the people who were shooting at his troops (the shooters being mostly al qaeda types) were committing treason. That is the same position the British government took with regard to the American rebels. It’s why they hanged Patrick Henry and others.
It is why Benjamin Franklin made his remark about hanging together or they would surely hang separately.
It is the standard position governments take against rebellions.
Obama does not need to be ‘strong’ in his second term. Everything is in place.
He just needs to continue to gut the bureaucracy of anyone who still cares about the country, and continue to enfeeble the military, and continue to put us in more and more awkwardness with regard to dealing with our enemies, and continue to punish his own enemies, and continue to hamstring business.
He can do all of that without any help from Congress. He can even do all of that with solid majorities in both Houses trying their damnedest to stop him.
Four more years, and his dream of the toppling of the remaining colonialist, imperialist superpower will be a looming certainty.
McCain is not only a liar, he is ignoring the entire point of Boehner’s threat to declare the Libyan action illegal: he never asked Congress for approval. Obama swore that the action would last days, not weeks, months or years. It has now lasted 90 days by the end of today.
I don’t know whether I support the War Powers Act but like all constitutional powers, they exist because people refuse to act honorably. Since WWII, presidents have taking using our military to take “police actions”. They are now the SOP and Americans have grown cynical about prolonged military adventures where objectives are not clear, American interests are obscure or non-existent, where nation building takes priority and where our troops die obscure wasteful deaths.
I think Congress is right challenging the legality of this war as well as Iraq and Afghanistan. Please explain why we are there Mr. President. We don’t need McCain siding with a crooked and incompetent president.
In the scenario I described, “everything” is no longer in place. Bush created Obama, the Dem/RINO Congress enabled him and the Tea Party Congress will stop him cold in his tracks.
That is why he will not run. It is over for him. Even his party is running away from him. Think about it. Jay Carney is the best he could do to replace Gibbs? He has run out of stooges to surround himself with and his cabal of cronies have failed him big. He is through.
A few days ago it was Obama was going to be diminished in droves if Trump pulled the vote from the GOP.
Reoccurring theme however is, blame Bush and the GOP.
You got a link for this, by any chance? I searched around, and while it seems to be true that she wouldn’t except rape from an abortion ban (I could be mistaken, but wasn’t that Reagan’s position also?), I didn’t come across anything saying she’d prohibit morning after pills for them.
I don’t think too many Congressmen are challenging the legality of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, since those were initiated with congressional approval, and we’re currently there at the invitation of both governments. Very different situation from Libya.
Her philosophy demands it. If there is no moral difference between the 1 month fetus and the fertilized ovum, and she would ban abortions of 1 month fetuses conceived by rape, then it would be hypocritical for her to not also ban the use of the morning after pill to abort.
Is it possible she has no problem with that kind of hypocrisy? Sure, but then it is up to her to say so, not up to us to assume she must be hypocritical about it.
BTW, in case my previous comment wasn’t clear enough, the morning after pill aborts a pregnancy. Abortion doesn’t have to be in a clinic.
Are you really expressing concers about her ability to get elected with those views, or are you just expressing your own personal opposition to them? If it’s the former, then I should reiterate that those are the same views Ronald Reagan had, whatever your own opinions may happen to be of them.
Now when it comes to her electability, this might present more of a challenge for her, hanging very close to the renowned Third Rail of American Politics itself by suggesting a gradual end to Social Security. I applaud her stance on this, but in the back of my mind I’m wondering if she may be biting off just a little bit more than she could chew.
Then again, I was also surprised to see Rand Paul elected despite committing his own (albeit lesser) cardinal sin against modern political orthodoxy: arguing against the “Civil Rights” Act of ’64, so maybe she can pull it off. It would be fascinating to watch.
Too bad the stakes are so damn high right now, though.
A voice of reason in that statement…
Reagan had teflon.
Teflon is grounded in a charming, disarming manner. If people really, really like you, they’ll give you plenty of slack.
Of the candidates we saw in the last debate, Romney was the closest to that.
Sadly, Romney is sorely lacking in the other Reagan trait that when combined with the teflon, and his common sense, made Reagan virtually politically invincible at the height of his powers: High Credibility.
Reagan had credibility because he was consistent throughout his life. The Democratic Party really did leave him. That is what is wrong with Romney. Yes, he is a successful businessman and the criticisms that his company wrecked companies is just plain wrong. That is just part of being an incubator of ideas which is what venture capital companies. They put up a lot of capital to take the risk that the next idea may be a home run but they invest in a lot of losers. You can focus on the losers but those companies never had a chance until a venture capital firm gave it to them.
Romney’s problem is that he his political ambition has led him to take every side of every issue at one time or another so that even when he is telling the truth, no one believes him. There is a real person behind the hair and good looks but he wasted his chance by being such a chameleon. I don’t doubt for a second that Mitt is a decent and likable man but he just is not credible as the man to fight for the principles I believe in.
In 2008, I gave him the benefit of the doubt that were he to commit to a specific agenda, he could be trusted to deliver. But he is still defending RomneyCare and AGW and will not sign the anti-abortion pledge and still talks like a big government Republican who only thinks big government should be run by Republicans.
I would only believe him if he came out and confessed that he is in fact a one-worlder who is pushing for a new world order of fascism. Go away Mitt.
He was for Romney before he was against him….
I don’t understand why you seem shocked at no exception for rape?
How many fetuses, over the years, have raped women? Do we exercise the death penalty for rapists?
The fetus is also a victim of the rape; s/he exists because of it. What reason could there possibly be for killing the innocent victim of rape? Because s/he’s inconvenient? Because s/he represents a bad memory? Because the mother may not be emotionally ready to accept adult responsibility? Because s/he’s funny looking?
Well, lessee… illegal aliens are a burden; to me they’re funny lookin’, and they’re darned inconvenient a lot of the time. So, let’s abort all of them, shall we?
See, my issue with abortion isn’t the morality of it, it’s the blasted 14th Amendment and 64 civil rights act. You want equal rights for all humans, then fine, I want equal rights for all humans.
A fertilized human ova has a unique, human genetic pattern. We’re not allowed to euthanize anyone else with unique human genetic patterns, so why pick on them?
As for the morning after pill, I approve of the morning after pill… provided it is used by holding it between the knees throughout the entire previous night. You don’t want to get pregnant, don’t engage in the act designed to get you pregnant.
If you’re going to let people escape responsibility for their sex lives, then you might as well legalize all drugs, prostitution nationwide, open borders, pass laws requiring people to be paid for not-working, and any other self-indulgent, irresponsible behavior people wish to engage in.
OK_Loyalist, give your jihad against Pasadena Phil a rest. It’s getting tiresome even to me.
Go kick rocks!
You’ve proven you’re another Marxist sympathizer.
And looking like a circle jerker too!
Oops. That’s what I thought, and what I thought was wrong.
FYI, the morning after pill is a pill that should be taken within 12 hours after intercourse. It prevents implantation. Although preventing implantation still effectively kills a fertilized ovum, it’s action is not technically considered an abortion because the pregnancy is not technically considered a pregnancy until implantation occurs.
RU486 is not a morning after pill. It can be used up to 49 days after intercourse.
If you were the only person with the blood type I needed to survive, and you were forced to give me your blood because if you refused to do it I would die, that would be outrageous.
And that’s a million times less than what you are demanding of the rape victim.
And how about if I needed a bit of your liver? Or some of your blood marrow?
Bone marrow, of course.
And you could live without one of your kidneys, couldn’t you?
A unique genetic code does not make someone a person. We know that for a fact: Identical twins.
Good point. This election will show whether the GOP learned anything by their stupidity in 2008.
The real heart of the GOP will be shown when given the chance to run ANYONE AT ALL. Will they offer a conservative, or will they float out yet another left-wing loser under the pretense of having to beat someone who has already lost like they did in 2008.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
It would affect EVERYTHING. That’s the point.
What you do is declare the sunset date, and put important stuff like the military at the beginning of the debate, so that it all gets done BEFORE the sunset date. The important change is that EVERY piece of legislation MUST pass constitutional muster in order to be able to get to a vote.
Amazing stuff they came up with there.
I also went over it all in detail on my blog. Just go there and search “New Federalist”.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Sadly, it’s too difficult for these people to face that truth for it to happen. It will be an ongoing process to win them over, and it will take a very long time – possibly even an armed revolt.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Umm …
Patrick Henry died of stomach cancer.
Wrong reference.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
The first two suggestions would go a long way in restoring liberty in America. the rest is stupid crap that only the Left would ever support.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Pasadena Phil … Marxist Sympathizer …
I’ll let you know when that makes sense …
You will be waiting a very long time.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
Oops. Memory mangle. Thanks for the correction.
Nathan Hale: “I only regret that I have but one life to give for my country.”
Then the British hanged him.
It seems there is some historical debate as to whether or not Hale actually spoke that exact phrase, although there doesn’t seem to be any real question that he spoke before he was hanged, and that his speech included something along that line.
Patrick Henry: “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, Give me Liberty, or give me Death!”
(“Chains and slavery?” Really?)
He died of stomach cancer in 1799, long after the war.
He admits he wanted Obama elected in 2008. You may not think that constitutes sympathizing with the marxists, but it sure looks that way to those of us who can tell the difference between a tiger and a bobcat.
Roland, why don’t you and OKL just find a room for the obtuse. That is a lie and you know it. And since you refuse to vote for conservatives, always opting to vote for Democrats voting as Republicans, can I assume that OKL is right by calling you a Marxist? Grow up.
Considering how you RINOs believe that the way for your Republican Democrats to win elections is to attack conservatives like me, slander us with lies, and then screech the LOTE nonsense in our ears, why would anyone vote for your candidates? You’re even more insane than the liberals! At least they aren’t lying about being liberals. If you guys would just admit you are liberals, that would be progress.
It’s not a lie, Phil. By your own words, you cast your vote with the intention of defeating the only one who could actually defeat Obama in the election. And you are proud that McCain was defeated, giving Obama the election.
“2008 I voted for Bob Barr and it worked. Kept the politician I most hate and fought so hard against on amnesty from becoming president.”
Now, see, Phil, that is what is known by sane people as a lie. You know perfectly well I have supported 3rd party candidates in the past, and I have said over and over and over and over, trying to get through your thick skull, that if a 3rd party candidate has the best chance to take down Obama on election day, then that’s where my vote will go.
And then there is your lie that the Republicans are just the same as the Democrats, but maybe your inability to distinguish between those who crammed obamacare down our throats and those who tried their damnedest to stop it comes from a lack of intelligence rather than intentional deceit ….
Nah, no one is that dumb.
Republicans keep offering up Democrats as candidates and I keep voting for conservatives. When offered a choice between two Democrats, Americans almost always vote for the one from the mother ship Democratic Party, not the Assistant Democratic party. Whose fault is that?
You RINOs seem to believe that you own the conservative vote. No. You don’t. I really don’t care whether big government globalist fascism is run by George Bush or Obama. It leads to the same place. Fix that problem, start being honest and things will get better.
Until then, keep starving your brain from oxygen by holding your nose and blaming conservatives for your frustrations. We are telling you what the problem is and you guys just won’t listen. We are tired of having to choose between two liberal Demcrats! We outnumber you!
You RINOs may have a strangle hold over the GOP leadership but that Titanic may be about to sink forever next year. You like that? Now where are you going to get the votes! Yeah, keep up the “charm” offensive. It’s worked so well up to now.
Phil, who do you think I (you know, the guy you like to call a “RINO”) would vote for in the Republican primary if it was being held right now?
I have no idea. You’re all over the map with your logic. I think you believe you are a conservative but you think small. You just can’t read the map to victory. Right now, the only candidate who is talking smaller government is Ron Paul. Shouldn’t ALL of the candidates be saying that? No. They are just arguing that if we are going to have big government, the GOP should be in charge.
So vote for who you want. It won’t matter until we know what platform they are fighting for and so far, the platform consists of nothing more than “Obama is an ass”. So we’re going to go full circle and find ourselves back with the same GOP that created Obama in the first place? Without Bush there would never have been an Obama and the only difference I see in the GOP today is that they are even more determined than ever to protect the status quo from conservative influence.
If you aren’t fighting that battle, you are part of the problem. We need to either fix the GOP in 2011, not 2012, or wreck it next year so we can actually have a two-party system again. The time is NOW.
That is not complicated to understand. That doesn’t make me a Marxist (how stupid is THAT?)
Typo.
You vote based on “electability”. I vote based on issues. If everyone voted for the candidate they want instead being brainwashed into believing that only liberals are electable, we have a two-party system. If you don’t like the status quo, stop voting for it. Do something different. It’s the hermetically sealed one-party system that got us into this mess. Stop voting for it.
My logic is completely consistent. You just don’t want to look at it because it doesn’t fit your narrative.
Not true.
Serious, responsible voters know what is in the platform is of only minor significance. You are voting a person power, not a platform.
You want to know how that person thinks and what that person believes. You want to know what kind of character and intelligence they have.
The platform is a bunch of political baloney, and that truth very much includes the platforms of 3rd parties.
And everyone who reads here regularly knows there will be no fix that satisfies you, so what you are really arguing for is an Obama second term.
Fighting for an Obama second term makes you a marxist sympathizer at the very least.
Well given what we have now with the current Republicrat regime, it’s easy to see how government forcing itself down one’s throat would bring out such words.
If Patrick Henry were only alive today, he would be astonished at how much more of the same we are willingly accepting.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com
No, Phil (he says patiently), I consider electability a factor. If you have no chance of getting in the ring, it is certain you will not knock the other guy out.
That is so absolutely not true it is hilarious. If everyone on the right voted for the guy they wanted best, while everyone on the left continues to vote for the most extreme guy they know can whip us, we’ll be all over the map and they will hold power forever.
Wasn’t like it would have been much different.
Look, Roland. the truth is that Phil refused to vote for a liberal. I did the same. “Marxist sympathizer”? Those are pretty extreme words coming from someone who is bashing someone for voting for someone other than the man who crafted the repeal of the First Amendment.
Bottom line is that you decided that McCain was close enough for you. That is your prerogative, but to bash people for making the very understandable decision not so support a liberal, especially on the basis that McCain is too liberal (which he IS), is doing exactly what the Democrats do, adding yet more credence to the conservative position that there is not difference between those two parties.
It also makes the crow you will have to eat when you are forced to move on taste that much worse.
RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com