Politics | View from the Center and Left


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: epicure who wrote (187973)5/1/2012 3:46:48 PM
From: Steve Lokness of 224962
 
<<<<<a woman talking about her daughter- who could not get insurance because she had a pre-existing condition (she was pregnant)>>>>>

But that turns capitalism on it's head. I see nothing but continual strife if we try to cram down insurance companies throats money losing customers. It's just one more example of why health care really is different. Single payer is the only solution - but who see's that on the horizon any time soon? Arrrrg.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Sam who wrote (187980)5/1/2012 3:48:45 PM
From: T L Comiskey of 224962
 
re....I do not understand the Log Cabin Republicans.

MONEY........

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Sam who wrote (187980)5/1/2012 3:52:58 PM
From: Dale Baker of 224962
 
I do, there is nothing contradictory about believing in the older traditional views of the Republican Party and also being gay; it's running into the buzz saw of today's zealot, intolerant party that has made them a strange anachronism.

I suspect many of them just don't vote at all.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

From: JohnM5/1/2012 4:29:19 PM
of 224962
 
Political Animal Blog
May 01, 2012 3:26 PM
Fallows Barbecues Romney on Carter Slur
By Ed Kilgore

In his reaction to reminders of his 2007 statement suggesting a pursuit of Osama bin Laden was a waste of time and money, Mitt Romney suggested the decision to pull the trigger on the operation was such a no-brainer that “even Jimmy Carter would have given that order.”

This got the attention of Washington Monthly alumnus (and former Carter speechwriter) James Fallows, who took Mitt to the woodshed in a column for The Atlantic:
Jimmy Carter is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy who spent ten years in the uniformed service of his country. As far as I can tell, this is ten years more than the cumulative service of all members of the Romney clan. Obviously you don’t have to be a veteran to have judgments about military policy or criticisms of others’ views. But when it comes to casual slurs about someone else’s strength or resolve, you want to be careful, as a guy on the sidelines, sounding this way about people who have served.
Jimmy Carter did indeed make a gutsy go/no-go call. It turned out to be a tactical, strategic, and political disaster. You can read the blow-by-blow in Mark Bowden’s retrospective of “The Desert One Debacle.” With another helicopter, the mission to rescue U.S. diplomats then captive in Teheran might well have succeeded — and Carter is known still to believe that if the raid had succeeded, he would probably have been re-elected. Full discussion another time, but I think he’s right. (Even with the fiasco, and a miserable “stagflation” economy, the 1980 presidential race was very close until the very end.)
But here’s the main point about Carter. Deciding to go ahead with that raid was a close call. Carter’s own Secretary of State, Cyrus Vance, had opposed the raid and handed in his resignation even before the results were known. And it was a daring call — a choice in favor of a risky possible solution to a festering problem, knowing that if it went wrong there would be bad consequences all around, including for Carter himself. So if you say “even Jimmy Carter” to mean “even a wimp,” as Romney clearly did, you’re showing that you don’t know the first thing about the choice he really made.
Since Romney in particular and Republicans generally keep trying to make this election a rerun of 1980, they’d probably do well to get their facts a little straighter about Jimmy Carter (and while they are at it, about Ronald Reagan the serial tax-hiker).

UPDATE: At Ten Miles Square, Mark Kleiman also gives Romney a good roasting:
The only reason I can think of for Romney to say what he said is that the statement, as he made it, is obviously false, and Romney is addicted to lying. We know what Jimmy Carter would have done, because we know what he actually did do, under parallel circumstances: allow himself to be talked into going in without enough resources, risking having to scrub the mission if three out of eight helicopters failed (compared to a predicted two out of eight). Obama, by contrast, personally insisted on what turned out to be the essential extra chopper going into Abbotabad.
Moreover, of course, while making the final call was indeed dramatic, the key moves that Obama took - and Bush didn’t take - involved putting in motion the machinery that got us to the place where the final call was there to be made. Obama got bin Laden because Obama wanted to get bin Laden. There’s no evidence on the record that any of the Republicans - Bush, McCain, or Romney - shared that desire.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: JohnM who wrote (187984)5/1/2012 4:50:25 PM
From: epicure of 224962
 
Ah hubris- and from a mitten

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: JohnM who wrote (187984)5/1/2012 4:57:59 PM
From: Sam of 224962
 
Not to mention the fact that, had the attempt failed, Obama would have been roasted by these people who now say it was a "no-brainer," lol.

These people are shameless.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (187952)5/1/2012 5:01:10 PM
From: Sam of 224962
 
Paul Ryan in his own words, from The Last Word:
Paul Ryan rewrites himself over Ayn Rand
msnbc.msn.com 

Come on, Mitt--
WE WANT RYAN! WE WANT RYAN! WE WANT RYAN!

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Dale Baker who wrote (187983)5/1/2012 5:24:51 PM
From: Dale Baker of 224962
 
Romney's brand of leadership when he has to make tough decisions and stick to his guns...he folds like a wet Kleenex, LOL:
"During the two weeks after Grenell’s hiring was announced the Romney campaign did not put Grenell out to comment on national security matters and did not use him on a press foreign policy conference call. Despite the controversy in new media and in conservative circles, there was no public statement of support for Grenell by the campaign and no supportive social conservatives were enlisted to calm the waters."
- Jennifer Rubin

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (3)

To: Dale Baker who wrote (187988)5/1/2012 5:27:38 PM
From: Dale Baker of 224962
 
A Dream Act that Republicans should take up
By Washington Post Editorial Board, Published: April 30

BETTER LATE than never, a prominent Republican has begun fashioning a stance on immigration policy that breaks from GOP orthodoxy.

Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.), who is Cuban American and a possible running mate for Mitt Romney, has broached the outlines of what would be a Republican version of the Dream Act. It would extend legal status — but no clear path to citizenship, as Democrats have sought — to young illegal immigrants brought to America by their parents.

Mr. Rubio clearly hopes his proposal might begin mending fences with Hispanic voters alienated by the hard line against undocumented immigrants that has featured in the Republican presidential primary. His idea qualifies as a genuine attempt at compromise; no Senate Republicans signed on as co-sponsors the last time Democrats introduced their Dream Act, in 2010.

Neither the Democratic version of the Dream Act nor the Rubio version qualifies as comprehensive immigration reform. Both might offer assistance to 1 million young people who go to college or serve in the military, while leaving 10 million undocumented immigrants in limbo. The details aren’t clear, but the danger in Mr. Rubio’s plan is creation of a kind of permanent second-class status. On the other hand, many young people might welcome a route out of the shadows, and the country would certainly benefit from their contributions.

So far, other Republicans are keeping their distance from Mr. Rubio’s proposal, and the most Mr. Romney has managed is a tepid we’ll-think-about-it. Political calculation may push him further. Republican strategists worry that GOP bills designed to hound illegal immigrants in Arizona, Alabama and elsewhere are tilting Hispanics to President Obama in several Western swing states. Mr. Romney himself said as much the other day, fretting that the president’s support among Hispanic voters “spells doom for us.”

If so, Mr. Romney has himself partly to blame, having hailed Arizona’s draconian law as a model for the nation, urged similar measures in the hope that undocumented immigrants will “self-deport” and opposed the Dream Act.

If he now moderates those views, he won’t be the first candidate to try sidling toward the center after courting his party’s extremes in the primaries. But it would be nice if his shape-shifting were paired with some truth-telling: that illegal immigrants have vitalized the economy by doing jobs Americans don’t want; that it’s unfair, and antithetical to American values, to penalize immigrant children for the sins of their parents; and that eventually the nation will have to forge a solution for all 11 million illegal immigrants that does not rest on the fantasy of mass deportation — enforced or voluntary.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (187959)5/1/2012 5:42:55 PM
From: Hayduke of 224962
 
I doubt people will say his chances are slim.

No, just a fat chance.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.