Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2007 > March > 12 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USDon’t bet against Newt
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Newt Gingrich created a buzz last week when he acknowledged in an interview with James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, that he had an affair — with the staffer who is now his wife — during the effort to impeach Bill Clinton. Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, of course, not for the affair in the White House with a young staffer.
The interview is widely interpreted as an indicator that Gingrich is, indeed, serious about a presidential campaign. Move the discussion about his personal life forward, so the thinking goes, and its kick will be gone next year.
The question for moderates and conservatives is whether Gingrich is supportable as the Republican presidential nominee. Conventional wisdom is that he’d have a tough time in the General Election because his negatives are high, even among Republicans. In a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, 14 percent of potential Republican voters flatly rule out voting for Gingrich.
I’m undecided still, but I am ready for a Big Ideas conservative — and Gingrich is. On health care, for example, the nation is in a mad dash to taxpayer-financed universal health care — something that has the potential to bankrupt this country. The alternative is marketplace solutions based on informed choice and personal incentives.
It’s a problem that requires a committed conservative who knows where he wants to wind up, and has some sense of how to get there. Doing deals that expand government — a prescription drug entitlement, for example — is the conservative’s route to Hillarycare.
Conservatives need somebody who can think and explain the Big Ideas, who can use the bully pulpit to educate Americans to the choices — or else the opposition and media critics will spend four years labeling every initiative as an attempt to “slash” benefits for the needy, or a hard-hearted attempt to save a few pennies at the expense of somebody’s suffering. We really have to move beyond that in the debate — one of the reasons Gingrich is attractive.
Can Newt do it? Probably. He’s right about one thing, already. A year-long pre-campaign season is an eternity. People will be so sick of the celebrities by Labor Days that they’ll be ready to throw them out of office — before they ever put them there.
Comments
By CJ
March 12, 2007 8:44 AM | Link to this
For balance, let’s remember that the bipartisan House ethics committee voted 7 to 1 to reprimand Gingrich for using tax-deductible money for political purposes and “intentionally or recklessly” providing inaccurate information to investigators (aka: lying). His penalty? $300,000 plus costs. Clinton’s penalty for his contempt of court citation by Judge Weber Wright? $90,000.
With regard to health care, our current health care system is a “marketplace solution based on informed choices and personal incentives.” To confirm, check out eHealthInsurance.com. Just note that when you use this site, the prices quoted are for those who are relatively healthy. If you have pre-existing conditions, the price might be hundreds or even thousands more per month (The law says that health insurance companies can’t deny coverage for pre-existing conditions. It doesn’t say anything about what the insurance company can charge for pre-existing conditions.)
Also, I’m glad you finally came around on the Republican prescription drug entitlement. It’s quite the big-pharma boondoggle.
By Redneck Convert
March 12, 2007 8:46 AM | Link to this
Well, we got a new preacher down at the Church of Holiness. The Revrend Bubba Scoggins showed up and took over. Sister Dusty recomended him. Which made me suspishun him. Anyway, we had a bizness meeting right after services. The church is down to 4 bucks in its account. There was a big debate about what to do. Joe Bill spoke up and said don’t worry about it, the Rapture is coming soon and we will all be taken up to the sky and won’t have to worry about money. No one, being a good conservative, wanted to put out no more money of their own, so we decided we would buy lottery tickets with the 4 bucks and pray real hard. Kind of like Sonny cutting Peachcare and hoping all the poor kids would die before the money run out this year.
Old Newt would make a good president. Anybody that could serve his wife with divorce papers while she is in the hospitle for cancer and couldn’t do nothing about it is the kind of thinker we need in there. Anyway, the new drug plan makes all the drug cos. rich and I figure Newts medical care plan would make all the doctors rich too and they would be so happy they would give everybody free treatment when they wasn’t moving in to new mansions. That way we could stay away from getting the guvmint envolved.
Yep, Old Newt is the one for me. I don’t worry none about a affair or two he had while he was going after Clinton. Clinton lied and Newt kinda kept quiet about his skirt chasing. They can’t accuse you of lying if you don’t say nothing. What I can’t figure out is how he did anything with that woman with his belly hanging out over his belt that far and all.
Anyway, I’ll be checking in oncet in a while today. That Barbara is handling everybodys gun and its kind of intrusting. Have a good day everybody and vote for Newt.
By CJ
March 12, 2007 8:48 AM | Link to this
Quick correction. Gingrich’s penalty was $300,000 flat. Not $300,000 plus costs. Sorry.
By Barbara
March 12, 2007 9:05 AM | Link to this
Hi Jim. This die-hard conservative is not sold on Newt. I know many folks that I respect support him, but I have had a bad feeling about him since the early 90s. I admit I don’t know everything about him, or the other candidates for that matter, but Newt has had a bit of a bad reputation here in GA over the years. I’m actually quite frustrated because it doesn’t seem the Republicans have any front runner that I can get behind. If things don’t start shaping up, I’m going to do something I always criticized my family and husband for - I’m going to vote Constitution party……
By One
March 12, 2007 9:09 AM | Link to this
Pretty funny, Redneck!!!
Go ahead and run Nutty Newty, that will give us a democratic president for sure!!!! Run, Nutty Newty, Run!!
Obama in ‘08!!!
By melo
March 12, 2007 9:15 AM | Link to this
It’s a problem that requires a **committed conservative…….Committed indeed!Adulterers and fornicators in the Republican party are now the standard bearer for what it means to be a committed Republican.He can have Guiliani then as his deputy. I tell ya, hear in Atlanta the economy will surely boom because i see those two legalizing brothels, massage(sex) parlours and strip clubs and sex toy shops. I dont think the liberals in Atlanta will complain that much. Its good for tourism that brings much needed dollars to support whatever Big ideas Jim and his friends have!! Call them Moderates alright.Committed conservatives, Give us a break!!
By Brian Curtis
March 12, 2007 9:19 AM | Link to this
Funny, I coulda sworn Newt was given a chance to implement his “big ideas” back in the early 90s… in fact, there was a whole Contract On America he pushed for.
And it was a total failure. Why would he deserve a second chance?
By HAROLD
March 12, 2007 9:20 AM | Link to this
WHY SHOULD “the potential to bankrupt this country” KEEP US FROM UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE?
“the potential to bankrupt this country” DID NOT KEEP US OUT OF IRAQ AND THE REALIZATION OF THAT POTENTIAL IS NOT GETTING US OUT OF IRAQ
IF WE ARE GOING TO BE BANKRUPTED HAROLD WOULD PREFER SOME GOOD COME FROM IT FOR THOSE OF US NOT IN A POSITION TO RAPE LADY LIBERTY’S BANK ACCOUNT AND THEN RELOCATE TO DUBAI LIKE THE OTHER ALLEGED RAPIST MICHAEL JACKSON
By PUHLEEEZE!
March 12, 2007 9:24 AM | Link to this
Please run Newt! Complete the detruction of that right wing crowd of wackos. Please Newt!
By HAROLD
March 12, 2007 9:24 AM | Link to this
MIR WOOTEN COULD ONLY BE FOR NEWT BECAUSE A LOCAL BOY RUNNING AND WINNING PRESIDENTCY CAN ONLY BE GOOD FOR THE LOCAL “CONSERVATIVE” COLUMNIST. IT WOULD BE A LAND GRAB FOR WOODTEN EXCEPT THE REAL ESTATE IS COLUMN INCHES IN A CONSERVATIVE PAPER INSTEAD THAN THE AJC
By Aquagirl
March 12, 2007 9:33 AM | Link to this
If Newt hadn’t blown his previous chance, Jim might make sense. But as Brian Curtis pointed out, this paragon of moral virtue made the Contract With America the centerpiece in the Republican revolution. This was supposed to show that Republicans would do better than Democrats because they were so much more “moral”, blah, blah, blah…
I find hypocrites totally unappealing. Republicans love them. This is why Newt might have a chance for a nomination.
By Mid-South Philosopher
March 12, 2007 9:36 AM | Link to this
Good morning, Jim,
I think the populace is moving in a direction away from social conservatism.
The lack of success in Iraq, the lack of success in handling the immigration issue, the lack of success in capturing or killing Usama bin-Laden (although we have not had a major domestic attack in almost six years), the perceived failure to deal with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and their aftermaths, the perceived environment of distrust, threat, and “gonna get ye back” at the Cheney dominated White House, the lack of any Latin American foreign policy until late in the fourth quarter, the perception that President is a corporatist, and the general feeling that politicians from both parties are not trustworthy have caused the populace to view candidates for the nation’s highest office in a different light.
I think that the American voter is more concerned about the performance quotient of the candidates running as opposed to their social perspectives. I believe that proficiency as opposed to position will dominate the 2008 election. Consequently, Rudi Gulliani is doing better among conservative Republicans than would have ever been believed. He may not can keep a woman, but he preserved New York.
I believe that voters, conservative or otherwise, will NOT tolerate a hypocrite. However, if a wayward sheep admits his shortcomings and expresses repentance and if he is competent, the voters will cover his faults with the broad mantle of sweet charity!
Consequently, we see Newt coming clean on his extramarital affair and Barack paying off his parking tickets. Now, I wonder what other tidbits are yet to come from the other candidates!
By @@
March 12, 2007 9:49 AM | Link to this
Jim, I thought Newt’s decision to wait was a wise one, but it doesn’t look like we’ll have to wait until Labor Day…
Can Newt do it? People will be so sick of the celebrities by Labor Day…
Just the mention of Newt in your column today, and the liberals are “hurling” already.
Hurry up and “hurl”…there’s no time to waste liberals.
They’re so predictable Jim. I hope you set a bucket out for them.
By Shar
March 12, 2007 9:49 AM | Link to this
Ouch. The prospect of a Gingrich candidacy is enough to make me break down and get TIVO. The negative campaigning would be unprecedented, led by the Democrats who still feel that Gingrich led the mad-dog “right wing conspiracy” that rendered the last Clinton years so powerless. Not that the Republicans would be at all slow to flex those Swift Boat muscles.
Yuch. No commercials for me until 2009.
By time for the truth
March 12, 2007 9:54 AM | Link to this
Newt is pretty sound politically on most subjects. He is easily the most impressive, incisive “big ideas” thinker in America today. The USA needs to be much more agressive in the war on terrorist towel heads. Bush is as expected pu ssy footing around on Iran. Bush is now like a timid deer caught in the headlights dealing with the liberal cut and run hate America/hate the military vermin. Bush’s silence at the shameful abuse of power by a crazed prosecutor in the Libby lynching shows what a wuss Bush has become. Those two brave Border Patrol guards despicably railroaded in TX should have been pardoned by now.
We can’t trust Bush to keep the mexican type illegals out - or round them up and kick them out!! Bush is now a real disappointment to true Americans. Still at least the poisonous traitorous leftist nutters with Bush derangement syndrome show us all what a really liberal pandering regime run by the likes of the evil Pelosibitch with unfettered power would be like.
Lets hope the viscerally racist cretin inbred rednekkk finally does the decent thing and goes “postal” at its hillbilly moonshine jamboree in Hall County tonite. Mutant scum like inbred need to be kept in their place. Their place being double wide trailers filled with crystal meth flavoured moonpies and loaded with arsenic RC Cola.
By deegee
March 12, 2007 9:57 AM | Link to this
Let’s not bet against wife# 3 either. As long as she keeps up her appearance, stays healthy and supports Newt’s presidential ambitions she should be safe during the next the election cycle.
Interesting that while while we are borrowing and spending billions on W’s war in Iraq the conservatives are concerned that taxpayer-financed universal healthcare will potentially bankrupt the country.
What about the fact that we are facing a demographic where more people in this country are retiring than entering the workforce? We have an estimated 10 million people that are working without papers that could be legalized and brought into the system. Thinking right conservatives are concerned that to collect a fine and grant permanent residency to those that have established themselves here would be sending the wrong message because they didn’t/couldn’t come here the right way.
We are sending billions to Colombia to fight the phony war on drugs while everyone admits that it has done nothing to thwart the supply of drugs necessary to feed the insatiable North American and European demand. Not to mention the fortune that we are sending to Afghanistan that is ultimately siphoned off and invested in poppy fields.
We are one of the wealthies countries in the world. I can’t understand why we waste trillions on phony feel-good foreign aid programs then gripe and moan because we have to pay an extra thousand or two every year to provide taxpayer assisted healthcare to the population.
By Noelle
March 12, 2007 10:00 AM | Link to this
I find it hilarious that all the right-wingers who’ve been been saying for 9 years that Clinton’s affair was just as important as the possibility that he lied about it are suddenly changing their tune now that Newt has admitted to the same thing. Newt’s part in the impeachment proceedings focused on the alleged perjury rather than the affair because he’s nothing if not a politician. He knew he’d better stay out of the morality debate — because he’d lose on that front. He’s been having affairs since the early ’60s and is on his third wife as a result. This is a person the “Family Values” party thinks is a viable candidate for President?
By Dennis
March 12, 2007 10:03 AM | Link to this
“Blow, blow, thou winter wind.”
While it’s true that we will all soon be tired of the current running presidential candidates, Newt’s had his day and nobody wants or needs him for anything.
To elect him or anyone like him, regardless of political party, would just further errode the nation on its current downhill, and fast picking up steam, slide.
Presently, we “may” be the current military front runner with a lot of “razzle, dazzle” military technology, but that’s passing.
The Bush administration has demonstrated without qualm that the American citizen is expendable as cannon fodder when it comes to protecting, not the American people from invasion, but the profits of our corporations - currently the oil conglomerate. And that administration has lied and lied and lied to that end and is still doing so.
You have to have troops to hold the ground once the bullets and bombs are over and the American people aren’t that interested in dying for the Bush administration and for Middle-East oil or other contrived wars.
Each passing day shows that never has an administration had to spend so much time covering its backside.
While the Democratic party currently has no one that the American people would really like as president, the Republican party is just as bad off. And the American people have seen their folly of listening to the also willingly lying, misleading, mainstream media and their re-election of George W. Bush for a second term as president.
The mainstream media cannot be trusted to be objective.
Mr. Wooten, as to healthcare “bankrupting the country”, you don’t think that the war in Iraq has already done that?
Tell us, Mr. Wooten, why we all should not have health care equal to what the members of Congress have? Is it because “some are more equal than others?”
The country and some of the readers of this column might have more respect for the media, and for you, if you would be straight up about these things and give some straight answers to simple questions like those above.
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By Dusty
March 12, 2007 10:04 AM | Link to this
Oh bother,
Please show me a candidate who is without reproach. There are none.
As far as Newt is concerned, he couldn’t win an election because he does not have charisma.
We say we don’t care. But if a candidate doesn’t “tune in” pleasantly, we start looking at some one else.
Clinton won on charisma. Obama will get nominated for charisma. Hillary has the charisma of a box turtle. Edwards and Romney have surface charisma but it does not hold up because it is like nail polish that peels off in a few days. Giuliani has tons of leadership charisma, hopefully enough to outshine his shortcomings. McCain has “grit your teeth” charisma but it gets too gritty after awhile.
Sounds real good to say you are looking for “smarts” and leadership. But wait ‘til some plain joe “brain” shows up. He’s a goner!
Bush has good western charisma. The kind that says I’ll stand up for you through thick and thin. It turned out to be the real thing fortunately. He is still strong even with those who turn on their own leader. He will keep right on leading. No cowardice in that man.
By MarkP
March 12, 2007 10:09 AM | Link to this
How is it that Newt Gingrich falls outside Mr. Wooten’s detested league of “celebrity” candidates? (Other than the fact that the label is usually directed only at Democratic candidates whenever names are named.) Gingrich writes books and publicizes them heavily. He’s in the news constantly with his “big ideas” and personal missteps. Just because he doesn’t call his self-motivated publicity machine “campaigning” doesn’t make it so, it’s just a stealthier more buzz-oriented and word-smithed format. As for his “Big Ideas” that reward personal accountability, I’ve seen little in the man that sets an example for such ideals. That his misdeeds were no worse than Clinton’s, and he finally admitted to them at a politically shrewd time (to paraphrase Mr. wooten’s initial points), doesn’t equate to strong character or give his ideas any validity. (Never mind that he left office under a cloud of ethical issues and his philandering was already widely suspected at that time.) Until his ideas have been soundly defended with some degree of detail and analysis, which heretofore have been more lacking than in other universal healthcare proposals, they really shouldn’t be accepted a priori. That’s how we got duped into the war in Iraq.
By Mid-South Philosopher
March 12, 2007 10:10 AM | Link to this
Dusty,
Hard to believe that we agree on so much. Charisma is the key.
Also, I agree the Bush is NOT a coward. I just wish he was competent.
By deegee
March 12, 2007 10:12 AM | Link to this
Wow, Dusty just confirmed our suspicions. If W had brains he never would have been elected.
By edge770
March 12, 2007 10:27 AM | Link to this
Newt is about the smartest guy out there. He’s clear, articulate and holds the big ideas. I think dems are so ostracized by him because he is a bit of a smarty pants compared to the rum and dumb crowd. I’m a bit nervous about the Christian Taliban crap like Taliban Sonny.. but if we can’t have a libertarian, maybe a smarty pants will do.
By edge770
March 12, 2007 10:28 AM | Link to this
Newt is about the smartest guy out there. He’s clear, articulate and holds the big ideas. I think dems are so ostracized by him because he is a bit of a smarty pants compared to the rum and dumb crowd. I’m a bit nervous about the Christian Taliban crap like Taliban Sonny.. but if we can’t have a libertarian, maybe a smarty pants will do.
By Curious Observer
March 12, 2007 10:31 AM | Link to this
I want some of the stuff Dusty’s on. I’ll even be willing to wear one of her housecoats and sit around with her pontificating all day if she’ll share.
By ron
March 12, 2007 10:42 AM | Link to this
Didn’t I see where Newt’s buddies were parading in Columbia,Missouri?
By time for the truth
March 12, 2007 10:45 AM | Link to this
FAO THE wide eyed lying GLOBAL WHINING WANKERS:
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2938762&page=1
The hysterical lies and distortions endlessly puked up by the likes of the despicable TN slumlord the alBore are clearly just part of the new obsessive kult of the deranged eco-whacko filth particles!!
By melo
March 12, 2007 10:47 AM | Link to this
Mutant scum like inbred need to be kept in their place. Their place being double wide trailers filled with crystal meth flavoured moonpies and loaded with arsenic RC Cola.. TFT meth, time for the meth
Those who know it best say it the most.
By Brad
March 12, 2007 10:51 AM | Link to this
Tell us, Mr. Wooten, why we all should not have health care equal to what the members of Congress have? Is it because “some are more equal than others?”
Dennis, why do some people own homes while others only rent apartments? Why do some people drive nicer cars than others? Why do some people earn more money than others? Why are some trees taller than others? Why is life always just so unfair out there for you leftie wingnuts? Why?
By time for the truth
March 12, 2007 10:58 AM | Link to this
I see the snivelling moron waterMELOnhead yet again predicktably misses the sardonically ironic point about the racist cretin inbred rednekkk!!
By seenitb4
March 12, 2007 11:02 AM | Link to this
Newt never lied under oath because he never was under oath about his marital affairs. I’m sure he lied to his wife. To prosecute anyone about their personal affairs that has nothing to do with the running of this country is a waste of tax payers money. Any man that has one will lie about what they fo with it.
By JK
March 12, 2007 11:02 AM | Link to this
Newt… what a (spelling it phonetically to circumvent the spelling censor) HO-WER! Yeah, he’ll write down his promises and call them a “Contract.” Then it will mean something!(Insert video clip of Bush’s famous: “You fooled me once…. shame on… can’t get can’t get fooled again.”) Hahahaha!
By getalife
March 12, 2007 11:06 AM | Link to this
Hagel is your best and he will not even come close.
The will not be another member of the hate party in the White House for a very long time.
By Dusty
March 12, 2007 11:16 AM | Link to this
Mid-South,
It isn’t hard to believe that we agree on something. I have liberal friends with whom I disagree sometimes and we get along just fine. We just smile and say “WHAT?”
PS..Bush is competent. He has hit so many Patagonian potholes in the road it is hard to stay in alignment.
By Lauren
March 12, 2007 11:19 AM | Link to this
It’s funny to me that Wooten insinuates that because Newt later married his mistress that somehow makes it okay. Look, when Clinton was president all I heard from the right was “if his wife can’t trust him, how can the country?” and how Clinton’s infidelities spoke to a weakness in his character. How is that different for Newt? Oh, I forgot, Republicans are hypocrites who hold others to different standards than they hold themselves! Right! Sorry! Carry on.
By jm
March 12, 2007 11:19 AM | Link to this
Brad@10:51 - If you or your spouse or child has a pre-existing condition and do not have employer sponsored health insurance, you will find out just how unfair health insurance is.
By deegee
March 12, 2007 11:21 AM | Link to this
I think that the voting population, republican or democrat will be very wary of big ideas expressed by politicians based on ideological principles. We need to take a practical approach to solving our problems and stay away from the grandiose plans of narcissistic politicans that will throw away our future in order to preserve their own legacy. Flashback to Contract with America.
The president can guide policy but congress has to implement it. We should be asking our congressmen and women to educate and inform the public. We have an aging population and a longer life expectancy. We have an expanding economy and a shrinking work force. Our national pension system is being propped up by IOUs and is expected to fail completely within the next twenty years. We have no plan to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels and no desire to conserve. Whose fault is that? It’s our fault if we don’t demand more from our leaders than a pretty smile and a good haircut.
By Dusty
March 12, 2007 11:22 AM | Link to this
DeeGee and Curious Observer,
Come on over. You are invited to enjoy my “secret mix” with me. It is orange juice and coffee with toast. Don’t dress up! In the mornings, I usually throw on one of my sons’ hand-me-down sweat shirts which are too long, too loose and warmly comfortable.
Oh, and deegee, while you are here you can tell us how you got your masters degree at Yale just like Bush did.
By Dennis
March 12, 2007 11:41 AM | Link to this
By Brad March 12, 2007 10:51 AM Dennis, why do some people own homes while others only rent apartments? Why do some people drive nicer cars than others? Why do some people earn more money than others? Why are some trees taller than others? Why is life always just so unfair out there for you leftie wingnuts? Why?
“Unfair” for me?
Brad, I have everything you’ve brought up; nice car, truck, above average home, great neighborhood and pretty good health insurance (although, like others, that’s being cut by government at one level or another). And I worked for it.
But, even tho I worked for it, I had a break here and there and some talents that other people didn’t get or haven’t had.
So, tell me why I should, like you(?) begrudge that those with less than I have, but who worked and do work, should not have adequate health insurance?
Inadequate health insurance for anyone, like inadequate education, doesn’t benefit you or me. But you just can’t get neocons to see that.
Which brings me again to part of a poem; “If you should rise from Nowhere up to Somewhere; f From being No one to being Someone; Be sure to keep repeating to yourself that you own it to an arbitary god whose mercy to you rather than to others won’t bear too critical examination….”
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By Jim's a Cherry Picker
March 12, 2007 11:56 AM | Link to this
Hi Jim,
Maybe Newt should run on this platform again. It served him well last time:
REPUBLICAN CONTRACT WITH AMERICA
As Republican Members of the House of Representatives and as citizens seeking to join that body we propose not just to change its policies, but even more important, to restore the bonds of trust between the people and their elected representatives. That is why, in this era of official evasion and posturing, we offer instead a detailed agenda for national renewal, a written commitment with no fine print.
This year’s election offers the chance, after four decades of one-party control, to bring to the House a new majority that will transform the way Congress works. That historic change would be the end of government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public’s money. It can be the beginning of a Congress that respects the values and shares the faith of the American family.
Like Lincoln, our first Republican president, we intend to act “with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right.” To restore accountability to Congress. To end its cycle of scandal and disgrace. To make us all proud again of the way free people govern themselves.
On the first day of the 104th Congress, the new Republican majority will immediately pass the following major reforms, aimed at restoring the faith and trust of the American people in their government:
FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress;
SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;
THIRD, cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;
FOURTH, limit the terms of all committee chairs;
FIFTH, ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;
SIXTH, require committee meetings to be open to the public;
SEVENTH, require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;
EIGHTH, guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting.
Thereafter, within the first 100 days of the 104th Congress, we shall bring to the House Floor the following bills, each to be given full and open debate, each to be given a clear and fair vote and each to be immediately available this day for public inspection and scrutiny.
THE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT: A balanced budget/tax limitation amendment and a legislative line-item veto to restore fiscal responsibility to an out- of-control Congress, requiring them to live under the same budget constraints as families and businesses. (Bill Text) (Description)
THE TAKING BACK OUR STREETS ACT: An anti-crime package including stronger truth-in- sentencing, “good faith” exclusionary rule exemptions, effective death penalty provisions, and cuts in social spending from this summer’s “crime” bill to fund prison construction and additional law enforcement to keep people secure in their neighborhoods and kids safe in their schools. (Bill Text) (Description)
THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT: Discourage illegitimacy and teen pregnancy by prohibiting welfare to minor mothers and denying increased AFDC for additional children while on welfare, cut spending for welfare programs, and enact a tough two-years-and-out provision with work requirements to promote individual responsibility. (Bill Text) (Description)
THE FAMILY REINFORCEMENT ACT: Child support enforcement, tax incentives for adoption, strengthening rights of parents in their children’s education, stronger child pornography laws, and an elderly dependent care tax credit to reinforce the central role of families in American society. (Bill Text) (Description)
THE AMERICAN DREAM RESTORATION ACT: A S500 per child tax credit, begin repeal of the marriage tax penalty, and creation of American Dream Savings Accounts to provide middle class tax relief. (Bill Text) (Description)
THE NATIONAL SECURITY RESTORATION ACT: No U.S. troops under U.N. command and restoration of the essential parts of our national security funding to strengthen our national defense and maintain our credibility around the world. (Bill Text) (Description)
THE SENIOR CITIZENS FAIRNESS ACT: Raise the Social Security earnings limit which currently forces seniors out of the work force, repeal the 1993 tax hikes on Social Security benefits and provide tax incentives for private long-term care insurance to let Older Americans keep more of what they have earned over the years. (Bill Text) (Description)
THE JOB CREATION AND WAGE ENHANCEMENT ACT: Small business incentives, capital gains cut and indexation, neutral cost recovery, risk assessment/cost-benefit analysis, strengthening the Regulatory Flexibility Act and unfunded mandate reform to create jobs and raise worker wages. (Bill Text) (Description)
THE COMMON SENSE LEGAL REFORM ACT: “Loser pays” laws, reasonable limits on punitive damages and reform of product liability laws to stem the endless tide of litigation. (Bill Text) (Description)
THE CITIZEN LEGISLATURE ACT: A first-ever vote on term limits to replace career politicians with citizen legislators. (Description)
Further, we will instruct the House Budget Committee to report to the floor and we will work to enact additional budget savings, beyond the budget cuts specifically included in the legislation described above, to ensure that the Federal budget deficit will be less than it would have been without the enactment of these bills.
Respecting the judgment of our fellow citizens as we seek their mandate for reform, we hereby pledge our names to this Contract with America.
By Lauren
March 12, 2007 12:08 PM | Link to this
Last year, about this time, I made a prediction that the Democrats would take back then House and the Senate in the ‘06 elections and all the righties on this blog laughed and said “no way!” Well, I was right about that and I now I am going to make another prediction. It does not matter who the GOP runs for president in ‘08, he/she will not win. This country has had it’s fill right now with Republican leadership and the next President will be a Democrat. And it will not be Hillary. There’s another prediction.
By time for the truth
March 12, 2007 12:15 PM | Link to this
like inadequate education, doesn’t benefit you or me
Surely as a good far left sheeple you are deeply committed to the “freedom” of choice for the countless, semi-literate morons who WILFULLY and systematically exercise their right to “opt out” of getting an education? So they and their ebonics spouting/gangbanging/MTVeee loving hippety hop gangsta kulture peers are not accused of “acting white” or being “utterly uncool”. Whilst this is (historically) disproportionately a problem amongst young blacks sadly theses days many white and hispanic yoof types also evince a deep antipathy toward ‘proper’ literacy skills and speaking proper English. Otherwise why do so many supposedly college kiddies have to attend remedial English classes to learn how to write in an academic way (albeit at a not too demanding level)? And these are the “supposedly cleverer ones”!!
The lower orders these days increasingly have severe problems even speaking proper English - just watch WSB TV news for a couple of nights and see/hear the average people … not just the morons/criminals who get on TV every day. And its not just yoofs or kids either … many ordinary adults in S. Fulton/Dekalb/Clayton County etc are increasingly dumb and inarticulate. Their ‘peer group’ mindset completely rejects the notion that speaking/writing ‘properly’ is the way to succeed.
You just have to be a snivelling pandering leftist liar to deny it!!
By JoeD
March 12, 2007 12:17 PM | Link to this
Dusty is right. w will continue to lead us…right over the cliff. He just won’t be around for the splat.
They started trading hurricane futures today. Anyone interested in Newt or Rudy wedding/divorce futures?
By rarringt
March 12, 2007 12:18 PM | Link to this
Afternoon all,
Dusty said,
“Patagonian potholes.” Oh, I like that. Mind if I borrow it from time to time?
Aside from appreciated your word usage, seems as though we’re almost on the same page today.
You think Bush hit a pothole. I think Bush is the pothole.
Either way, as you said, we’re going to be in serious need of repairs once we get to the end of this road.
By time for the truth
March 12, 2007 12:19 PM | Link to this
http://www.kesq.com/Global/story.asp?S=6212155
It seems that San Fran Sicko is in desperate need of the more aggressive services of Rentokil. Couldn’t happen to a (much) nastier, more deserving feminazi though!!
By Dusty
March 12, 2007 12:24 PM | Link to this
Dennis,
If I didn’t see the largest hospital in town, Grady, for the indigent, I would be upset.
If I didn’t hear about Peachcare for little ones, I might get upset. (PeachCare has stopped enrollment. How many there have families who can afford everything but their children’s health care? Some, I’m sure.)
If I did not know that almost every county has health care clinics for the most moderate of pay, I would get upset.
Now, tell me. Just what do you want? Healthcare like Cuba’s where ‘tis said the best of healthcare is offered. You only have to give up your freedom to have it.
Is that what you want? Taxpayers to pay for everybody’s health care so that you feel like theirs/yours will be “free”? What a misconception.
By getalife
March 12, 2007 12:26 PM | Link to this
Pothole?
More like the world’s largest sinkhole swallowing the whole country.
Kiley is history.
By time for the truth
March 12, 2007 12:28 PM | Link to this
Otherwise why do so many supposedly EDUCATED college kiddies have to attend remedial English classes to learn how to write in an academic way (albeit at a not too demanding level)? And these are the “supposedly cleverer ones”!!
One shouldn’t smirk too much and type at the same time … otherwise one might leave out the odd word.
By Peggy
March 12, 2007 12:32 PM | Link to this
Have the democrats and republicans always been this combative and far apart? There is a political hysteria in our country and look where it’s gotten us. It’s now acceptable to be so totally lacking in respect for anyone that disagrees with us that we can slander and libel them as we see fit and people just shrug it off. It’s very disturbing.
By deegee
March 12, 2007 12:32 PM | Link to this
No masters degree from Yale for me, Dusty. There are lots of educated dummies out there. It was your opinion that brainy people are unelectable. I presume that W serves as your scientific proof.
By Shar
March 12, 2007 12:49 PM | Link to this
Peggy @12:32: I couldn’t agree more. The polarization and utter degradation of civil discourse is not just disturbing, it’s destructive.
TFTT @ 12:15: The ‘kiddies’ you despise are not the only ones to “evince a deep antipathy toward ‘proper’ literacy skills”. The readers of this blog would so much prefer you to “use proper English” instead of mimicing the gutter speech you deplore.
By JoeD
March 12, 2007 12:53 PM | Link to this
Peggy, I agree with you. I firmly believe Newt is to blame for the current atmosphere. He made the politics of personal destruction what it is today. Tom Delay, Bill Frist and the rest just honed it to an art form. When the late President Reagan was in office, civility was still the norm. Now, it’s the exception. It’s sad.
By Dennis
March 12, 2007 12:54 PM | Link to this
By Dusty March 12, 2007 12:24 PM “Dennis…Now, tell me. Just what do you want? Healthcare like Cuba’s where ‘tis said the best of healthcare is offered. You only have to give up your freedom to have it.
“Is that what you want? Taxpayers to pay for everybody’s health care so that you feel like theirs/yours will be “free”? What a misconception.”
To not see Grady and Peachcare and other facilities would upset you? Why?
Do you realize that you’re talking about and supporting both sides of the coin - [I support, I don’t support healthcare for everyone; I support, I don’t support “Taxpayers to pay for everybody’s health care”]?
Who pays for indigent care at Grady that would upset you if it wasn’t there? You do. I do. And neither of us has given up (?) our freedom (?) to have it.
But what do I want, I want healthcare for you and your family equal to what members of Congress get. Don’t you deserve it?
Do the indigent people who have not had the breaks that you and I have had deserve less? Are they less human?
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By Cletus Snow
March 12, 2007 12:56 PM | Link to this
FRED THOMPSON is going to be the man.
By TFTrealTruth
March 12, 2007 1:04 PM | Link to this
Newt would definately be the Dems dream candidate!
By Dusty
March 12, 2007 1:07 PM | Link to this
Now, now kiddies,
don’t stretch my words and don’t nitpick. Bush has charisma and intelligence which I have already mentioned so ..no skipping!
The Louisiana pothole is one of the bigger drains we have. Hang in there, getalife. You’ll get your share.
To support your country during war time is hardly lemming behavior. Lemmings cut’n’run blindly and dash off the cliff to save themselves. Not all of them carry white flags. Just the ones named Jane, Cindy and Kerry Jerry flip-flopper.
And a limited thank you to rarringt. You may use Patagonian pothole any time you wish. It will be just right to describe the Democratic feeling of rejection after the next presidential election.
By Ernie
March 12, 2007 1:09 PM | Link to this
I’ve been sending e-mails for him to run. We need a conservative leader who is not just a conservative canidate. He’s not a good as Reagan but he’s the best I’ve seen out there. Everyone has some flaws, we just have to wiegh it out what we are able to accept.
By JohnD(the actual)
March 12, 2007 1:16 PM | Link to this
Peggy,
No, the two parties have not always been this far apart but over the last 30-40 years the more radical wings of both parties have taken control.
Democrats bow to the far left wing of the party, such as MoveOn.org. The Republicans have allowed the far right wing led by James Dobson and Jerry Falwell to exert far too much influence.
Then you have the politicians themselves who only thirst for power and no longer have the best interests of the country at heart. The “issues” are charisma, litmus tests such as Roe v Wade, fear of antagonizing one of the minority constituencies, undermining of the current administration to give the Democrats a better chance in the next election, and on and on. All only for POWER, certainly not what is best for our country.
Look at the last several candidates for President from the Democrats. McGovern, Mondale, Carter, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore and Kerry. Not a Truman or FDR in the bunch, in fact not even a JFK and he was average.
Now for the Republicans. Nixon, Ford, GHW Bush, Dole and GW Bush. Certainly no Reagan or Eisenhower in that bunch.
Neither Lincoln nor FDR could be elected today since they were not pretty enough.
The reality is that the two parties are very similar once in power and both have ignored illegal immigration, fiscal responsibility, the terrorism threat prior to 9/11 and the ongoing economic threat of our trade deficit.
Both parties in Washington waste time talking about education, health care, welfare and other domestic problems that should rightly be state and local issues.
They do this because most of the voters are just as selfish and uninformed as the politicians and respond at the ballot box to these “hot button” topics while ignoring the issues that deserve attention in Washington.
By TFTrealTruth
March 12, 2007 1:20 PM | Link to this
You wingwacks just don’t get it do you? You killed the Republican party, now you want to bury it with an unelectable guy like Newt.
By Dusty
March 12, 2007 1:34 PM | Link to this
Dennis,
You talk in circles.
We are already paying for indigent care at Grady, Peachcare, County clinics and even emergency rooms which I did not mention before. By law, E.R.s also must treat anyone no matter the patient’s finances.
So, what more do you want is what I asked? With the least effort, people can get health care. It varies like everything else.
If you are a Congressman, you get their healthcare choices. If you work for AT&T, you get their healthcare. If you are on Social Security, you can sign up for Medicare. It goes on and on. I do not think we are neglecting anyone in the American healthcare system and it costs all of us a lot. It does have freedom of choice and I don’t care to lose that. Why do you keep acting like Americans have healthcare ONLY for the rich?
By Political Foreskin
March 12, 2007 1:36 PM | Link to this
The first casualty in an election is truth (in the booth). The only thing Newt brings to an election is new(t) ways to steal it. That means he’ll make a great prez.
By JohnD(the actual)
March 12, 2007 1:38 PM | Link to this
According to Dennis the people who succeed do so because they had the “breaks” that others did not. More of Dennis’ typical feel good, liberal hooey.
Hard work, attention to academic work, perseverance, personal responsibility and lawful behavior did not have anything to do with the success. Only good fortune, breaks, knowing the right people and being in the right place at the right time contributed to success.
By Dennis’ reckoning every baby born has the same chance at success personally and mentally but “luck” keep some people from realizing the dream.
I guess the decision by a crack-head to have a child out of wedlock with no money and no place to live had anything to do with the failure of the child to do better.
I guess the child who was born to a couple whose only qualification for parenthood was a sex drive had the same opportunity as a child born to mature loving parents.
I guess the child who showed no interest in attending school just had a bad break. As did the kid who was seduced by the idea of owning a car and dropped out of school to take a minimum wage job to buy his dream.
I guess the welfare women who see another child as a few more dollars to spend on beer and drugs just had a few bad breaks in life.
We all make decisions each day that will affect us for the rest of our lives and the only person responsible for those decisions are the people who make them.
The liberal point of view has created generations of dependent families who look to the government to solve their problems. Until the nation recognizes government creates problems, not solves them, we will continue to listen to people like Dennis who apparently has just been lucky in life.
I may be a blind conservative but I can see right through people like Dennis.
By getalife
March 12, 2007 1:51 PM | Link to this
“As the military scrambles to pour more soldiers into Iraq, a unit of the Army’s 3rd Infantry Division at Fort Benning, Ga., is deploying troops with serious injuries and other medical problems, including GIs who doctors have said are medically unfit for battle. Some are too injured to wear their body armor, according to medical records.”
Come on wingnuts, help them out.
Geez.
By Dennis
March 12, 2007 2:00 PM | Link to this
By Dusty
March 12, 2007 1:34 PM | Dennis, You talk in circles.
We are already paying for indigent care at Grady, Peachcare, County clinics and even emergency rooms which I did not mention before. By law, E.R.s also must treat anyone no matter the patient’s finances. So, what more do you want is what I asked? With the least effort, people can get health care.”
Can they get the same care that a Congressman gets? Why should anyone have less choice than another to quality care. Let’s admit it, those of us with the money get better care.
Why? Because we’re “better” than the indigents, or because we’re the ones with the money?
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By Howrd
March 12, 2007 2:04 PM | Link to this
Jim…Hillary is probably hoping and praying that Newt Gingrich would get the GOP nominee…it would guarantee a ticket to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., for her! Newt has great conservative ideas, but his morals are right up there with Ted Kennedy, as far as I am concerned. I’d vote for him before Hillary or Obama…but there are a great many people out there who would make the stupid move of sitting out the election and voila…just like her smarmy horn-dog husband…would back into the White House!! Gingrich needs to keep himself on the sidelines and shut up…only when he goes on Fox Network. Besides…he doesn’t have a (D) behind his name…if he had that, then he could possibly get in the race. Because that (D) guarantees instant “get away with anything” status. As for national health care…take a good look at Walter Reed, the troubles of the VA, etc., and ask yourself…do you really want about 65% of your salary gone in taxes to support a national system like those??? National Health care is a disaster…waiting to happen in this country…why?? People who would abuse it abound here…there would be corruption galore (look at the Medicare scams…mountains of paperwork, a bloated, new government bueraucracy, etc. Heard enough??
By Mark
March 12, 2007 2:10 PM | Link to this
Newt is a horrible person. He’s a liar and a cheater. I think Emperor George Bush has shown us the fruits of having a fundamentally dishonest person serving as president. Monkey Boy Bush wouldn’t know the truth if it walked up and sat in his lap.
And the skank that’s Newt’s wife. Do we want a first lady who has so little regard for the institution of marriage and for decorum that she would sleep with a married man? How would that look having some slut light the White House Christmas tree each year? Having a w******* going to schools and hospitals on those official visits first ladies make. No thanks.
By Skeeter
March 12, 2007 2:11 PM | Link to this
Dusty at 12:24 and 1:34,
Grady loses money every year and would not survive if not for the efforts of “Right Thinkers” who believe that health care is an obligation that we as a society have to one another. So, I don’t think you’re in a position to be using our indigent health care system (Grady, Medicaid, etc.) to support your argument against “giving up your freedom”, when people who share your political point of view are fighting to eliminate such programs or seeking to get out of paying for them (even if it means forming their own city). It’s inconsistent to say that we don’t need universal health care because of an indigent health care system that the people you elect are chipping away at.
With regard to universal health care coverage, as you know, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. As a result, a system that offers insurance to cover preventive medicine and early diagnosis is cheaper to society (that’s you and me) than our current health care system which encourages the uninsured to wait until they need urgent care.
Also, it always strikes me as odd that the people who complain the loudest about the potential disadvantages of universal coverage are thrilled to have access to socialized medicine for their parents first and then themselves when they turn 65. Without Medicare, any senior without Warren Buffet-like wealth wouldn’t be able to afford health insurance or health care. Insurers either wouldn’t sell it, or the premiums would be unaffordable. These folks claim to hate socialized medicine, but they enjoy the benefits when either they or their parents take advantage of it.
Also Dusty, there are a lot of people who don’t have the “freedom of choice” you think they have – either because they simply don’t have the money to pay the premiums (low-income workers) or they have pre-existing conditions that make affordable insurance inaccessible (middle income workers).
In addition, there are thousands, if not millions, who actually run out of insurance. For example, I saw a story on the news about a man who suffered a stroke and needed expensive rehabilitation. His health insurance worked great until he ran out of coverage. Health insurance policies don’t provide unlimited coverage. The policy limit is usually $2M to 5M. After that, the man in the story used up his coverage he had to spend his retirement savings, savings for his child’s college, credit card limits and take out a mortgage on his house to pay his medical bills. This man was a business owner, and while he was recovering, his wife was struggling to save their business and house. The man cried during the interview because he was upset that he lost the money he saved to pay for his daughter’s college expenses. Very sad.
By deegee
March 12, 2007 2:14 PM | Link to this
Does anyone think that John Kennedy could be elected in today’s political climate? What married politician could be elected to the White House while having a quiet, rip-roaring affair with Paris Hilton?
By Dennis
March 12, 2007 2:29 PM | Link to this
By JohnD(the actual) March 12, 2007 1:38 PM | According to Dennis the people who succeed do so because they had the “breaks” that others did not.”
I didn’t say that.
“Hard work, attention to academic work, perseverance, personal responsibility and lawful behavior did not have anything to do with the success. Only good fortune, breaks, knowing the right people and being in the right place at the right time contributed to success.”
You said that, I didn’t.
And what would make you think that I don’t fit your profile of “Hard work, attention to academic work, perseverance, personal responsibility and lawful behavior…?” I have also had some breaks.
“By Dennis’ reckoning every baby born has the same chance at success personally and mentally but “luck” keep some people from realizing the dream.”
I didn’t say that either.
“I guess the decision by a crack-head to have a child out of wedlock with no money and no place to live had anything to do with the failure of the child to do better…I guess the child who was born to a couple whose only qualification for parenthood was a sex drive had the same opportunity as a child born to mature loving parents.”
I didn’t say that either, but, as you know, there are both successes and failures in both situations.
I guess the child who showed no interest in attending school just had a bad break. As did the kid who was seduced by the idea of owning a car and dropped out of school to take a minimum wage job to buy his dream. I guess the welfare women who see another child as a few more dollars to spend on beer and drugs just had a few bad breaks in life.
A lot of conservatives like to tout this, but you know all of this from personal experience and everyone who’s not a success as you and I fits your catagory here? Or have some of them really had “no luck”?
“We all make decisions each day that will affect us for the rest of our lives and the only person responsible for those decisions are the people who make them.”
Agreed.
“The liberal point of view has created generations of dependent families who look to the government to solve their problems. Until the nation recognizes government creates problems, not solves them, we will continue to listen to people like Dennis who apparently has just been lucky in life.”
Well, Dennis hasn’t been just “lucky” in life. Dennis worked.
“I may be a blind conservative but I can see right through people like Dennis.”
No doubt you’d like to think so.
But there is realism in the poem I posted above; “If you should rise from Nowhere up to Somewhere; From being No one to being Someone; Be sure to keep repeating to yourself that you owe it to an arbitary god whose mercy to you rather than to others won’t bear too critical examination….”
Now, JohnD, tell me that you’re not one of the conservatives who go to church and sing, “Red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in His sight” (unitl it comes to money).
“Be sure to keep repeating to yourself that you owe it to an arbitary god whose mercy to you rather than to others won’t bear too critical examination….”
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By Regulator
March 12, 2007 2:34 PM | Link to this
Howard or Howrd, You failed to mention the ultimate backer into the White House, Dubya, at least Clinton got a plurality.
By Dennis
March 12, 2007 2:35 PM | Link to this
By Skeeter March 12, 2007 2:11 PM.
I wish I were as verbably gifted. Well, said. Thank you.
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By jm
March 12, 2007 2:37 PM | Link to this
Newt is a first class mind and pretty decent visionary but he is a lousy administrator. It is one thing to lob grenades from the cheap seats but it is something totally different to run the show (as Nancy Pelosi is finding out).
There is a reason Sen. Trent Lott included “Herding Cats” in his book title. Not every president will have a subservient congress and senate (like the last six years) to work with. Like President Clinton and President Reagan, they have to learn how to work with the other side. One thing President Reagan had in his favor is that despite the public rhetoric, he and Tip O’Neill liked each other and were able to get things done. President Clinton was a gifted politician and could get things done that way. I don’t see either happening in a Gingrich administration.
By spaceman109
March 12, 2007 2:41 PM | Link to this
it is definitely true that newt is a think-outside-the-box sort who would be more likely to use that white house bully pulpit to explain the fair tax (GASP!!!) to the public at large. he might, however, be too much of a think-outside-the-box sort for the doctrinare robots who presently control the party with an iron fist.
at least the fair tax would have the chance which it never had with the present no-stones occupant of the white house.
By Disgusted
March 12, 2007 2:47 PM | Link to this
We can safely discard the special pleading of John D. and others against universal, single-payer health care. They have their coverage, and they couldn’t care less about others.
We are already spending an estimated 15 percent of GDP on medical care. That includes about $240 billion of federal expenditures on Medicare and another $180 billion of federal expenditures on Medicaid. Throw in the state spending on Medicaid and you’re already at more half a trillion dollars per year. Now add premiums paid by employers, employees, and policyholders of private plans and you’re closing in on three quarters of a trillion dollars per year. The additional money required to fund a single-payer, universal health care plan is a mere pittance.
So who doesn’t want a universal plan? Well, doctors, for one example. In Italy and other nations with universal plans, they don’t get $300,000 per year for having MD after their names. The HMO and medical insurance executives who earn millions in bonuses for limiting coverage and care are another group of special pleaders. And, sadly, rock-hard, club-carrying, jungle dwellers like John D form another example. The “I’ve got mine and to hell with you” crowd is always going to oppose something that benefits all of society.
As for the unsupported allegation that universal coverage will result in a VA-like mess, it’s hardly necessary to point out that universal coverage in and of itself will create an incentive for American voters to prod the politicians to ensure that a universal plan will deliver quality care.
It is a national disgrace that something as fundamental to the quality of life as medical care is being left to the merciless free market. The U.S. now has lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality than any of the advanced countries with universal health coverage. How much longer will conservative ideology be permitted to override life itself?
By TFTrealTruth
March 12, 2007 2:49 PM | Link to this
As much fun as it is to banter back and forth about this topic, it just ain’t gonna happen folks! Newt doesn’t have a snowballs chance in hell of getting the nomination. Newt is a polarizing influence on steroids. Everything that Hillary is Newt is in spades.
By spaceman109
March 12, 2007 2:50 PM | Link to this
two more points….when one goes to the focus on the family website and enters “fair tax” in the search engine, one finds only articles with the word “fair” in them.
also, jim mentions the prescription drug benefit as the conservative’s route to hillarycare. gee, i wonder what president signed that thing into law.
why, it would be jbmlaw’s very own beloved president bush!!!
By ARTC
March 12, 2007 2:57 PM | Link to this
Someone made a good point in an earlier blog regarding the potential 1st Adulteress. What an ambassador she would be.
By catlady
March 12, 2007 3:20 PM | Link to this
Like the old Univ. of AL cheer for Shg joran goes,”Newt, Newt, you are it. N for Newt, it for it. ‘
By Lauren
March 12, 2007 3:25 PM | Link to this
Fred Thompson!? Great. Another divorced man! And worse yet, his new wife is 32 years his junior! His is 67 and she is 35 for chrissakes! I love how Republicans are always griping about other folks’ morals yet just about every candidate they have trotted up so far is a womanizing divorced man! They also gripe about Hollywood and their influence on politics but nearly all the actors who have won political office are/were Republicans! Clint Eastwood, Fred Thompson, Arnold, and the mackdaddy Reagan (also our only divorced President). I am so tired of listening to you hypocrites. You only care about a candidates fidelity to his wife if he is a Democrat! You only want actors to stay out of politics if they are lefties. If he is a Republican then anything goes!
By Dennis
March 12, 2007 3:36 PM | Link to this
t no-stones occupant of the white house.
By Disgusted March 12, 2007 2:47 PM “The “I’ve got mine and to hell with you” crowd is always going to oppose something that benefits all of society.
“It is a national disgrace that something as fundamental to the quality of life as medical care is being left to the merciless free market.”
Yes. As example, the “free market” of Bush’s drug program which many of us were forced into is already doing away with some drugs and raising prices and limits on others. Competition among the insurers which was touted to offer “lower prices” is a joke.
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By Heather
March 12, 2007 3:38 PM | Link to this
Skeeter at 2:11 and Disgusted at 2:47,
Thanks for your great posts!
By Dusty
March 12, 2007 3:44 PM | Link to this
Skeeter,
This healthcare thing is certainly mixed up. I’m saying we have healthcare in this USA already. I have already listed places the indigent can get it right here in Atlanta. There is no system that is going to save everybody. It is almost impossible to help some people. I have worked with some of them.
Some people from Canada come here. They have universal health care in Canada. They come here because they can choose and get better care. I imagine every health care system has complainers.
This country did not have regimented healthcare for two hundred years. We survived.
There will always be people who fall through the cracks, either by extreme situations, ignorance or refusal to take care of themselves (drugs, cigarettes, alcohol). But to say that lack of medical care in this country is the norm simply is not true.
I do not want the government telling me when I can get medical treatment and what person to see about it. I don’t even like HMOs although they may help some people.
Out of the millions of people in this country, you are going to find some sad stories about health problems. I don’t mind working on better solutions but I do not want socialized medicine.
By RC
March 12, 2007 3:57 PM | Link to this
Newt is quick, bright, well-spoken, and brainier than most. He is the quintessential “idea guy”. He has solutions and he wants to share them. More than that, he wants you to understand them and believe in them. He wants you to be part of the process. He wants you to think. He wants you to get involved. Add it all up and he is pretty high maintenance for an electorate with a famously short attention span.
Besides, the Democrats will pin the negativity of the Clinton years on him. Most fence straddling voters won’t take the time to wade through the chaff and really listen to what he has to offer.
Don’t see it happening.
By Van
March 12, 2007 3:58 PM | Link to this
Lauren,
We could always go back to Grover Cleveland, democrat, he married a wife half his age while in the White House.
By Fall Line
March 12, 2007 4:10 PM | Link to this
Hillary and Newt have a lot in common. They are both very smart and very unelectable. From the Farlex on-line dictionary: un·e·lect·a·ble (n-lkt-bl) adj. Being such that election, as to high office, is difficult or impossible: The candidate’s private life rendered him unelectable.
By JohnD(the actual)
March 12, 2007 4:24 PM | Link to this
Dennis and Disgusted,
The people you call the “I’ve got mine and to hell with the others..” are the very people who support charities in this country who provide for those who are not able to provide for themselves.
Those awful Christians who give to all charities and who send their own into areas struck by natural disasters such as the hurricanes, fires and tidal waves.
The churches that send missionaries throughout the year into foreign lands, in often perilous circumstances, to build homes, churches, hospitals and infrastructure. The church members who give their Christmas break, spring break and summer vacations to people in need.
How about the Christian physicians who went into Afghanistan during the war to help the civilians?
These are the people you two narrow-minded, closeted liberals like to condemn with your blanket statements. Why don’t you two crawl back into your caves and moan about the Geico commercials.
By Skeeter
March 12, 2007 4:26 PM | Link to this
Dusty,
You accept that there will always be people who fall through the cracks. I don’t. I believe that the goal should be that, when it comes to health care, nobody should be left behind. This goal is attainable, and I’m voting for those who agree with me.
Also, you should know that Medicare doesn’t tell people when they can get health care and what person to see about it. There’s no reason that extending Medicare or a Medicare-like plan to the rest of the population should either. Your implication that we either have universal coverage or freedom is a false choice.
In addition, while you’re fundamentally correct that all have access to medical care, they don’t necessarily have access to quality medical care — especially when such care is often put off until it becomes urgent. And as I explained, for many, access means losing all their savings and possessions. That’s not right.
And yes, the country survived for 200 years without universal coverage, but millions haven’t. Your que sera sera attitude about the uninsured is disappointing. All the people I love are covered (today that is), but we shouldn’t wait to be affected directly before we care enough to do something for our fellow Americans. And, as I stated earlier, we’ll save money in the process.
We’re smart enough to do this and do it right.
By Lauren
March 12, 2007 4:26 PM | Link to this
Van, you have to go all the way back to Grover Cleveland? That’s pathetic!
By RP
March 12, 2007 4:28 PM | Link to this
Citizens Who Lack Papers Lose Medicaid:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/12/us/12medicaid.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
By ROBERT PEAR Published: March 12, 2007
By Katie
March 12, 2007 4:31 PM | Link to this
JohnD,
Dennis and Disgusted didn’t condemn the people you described in your 4:24 post. They condemned you and people like you.
By Lauren
March 12, 2007 4:44 PM | Link to this
One more thing, Van…I don’t give a rat’s patoot about the sex life of any politician so long as what goes on goes on between two consenting adults (Mark Foley is obviously excluded because he lusted after children). If a man wants to cheat on his wife then he is a lousy husband, but in my book, he may still be very good at his job. I am just insisting that you conservatives judge your own leaders by the same standards as you judge Democratic leaders. Fair is fair! Don’t tell me that Bill Clinton has lousy character because he is/was a skirt-chaser(undeniably) and then try to tell me that it does not matter that Guiliani, Thompson and Gingrich are the same. The Dems are not going to stand for that kind of hypocracy so you all just better get ready…if you run one of these philanderers then we will call you on it every day of the campaign!
By Disgusted
March 12, 2007 4:58 PM | Link to this
I’m sure that kid who died of a tooth infection because his parent couldn’t afford medical care would be delighted to know of John D.’s missionaries in other countries.
Savage.
By Jackie
March 12, 2007 4:58 PM | Link to this
The dollar is temple the neofacists always choose for worship. The fact that the USA has the most expensive health care system in the world does not mean we have the best or is all inclusive. The fact that a few Canadians come here for specialized care does not mean their system is broken. Ask yourself why is it the USA is the only country in the industrialized world that does not have health care for all citizens? Those of you that can remember, Newt and his GOP friends immediately went into a defensive mode when it was proposed that we include everyone in the health care system. Their argument was and still is, it does not offer the health care companies the opportunity for profit.
By Dennis
March 12, 2007 5:03 PM | Link to this
By Skeeter March 12, 2007 4:26 PM “…we shouldn’t wait to be affected directly before we care enough to do something for our fellow Americans. And, as I stated earlier, we’ll save money in the process.”
You just can’t get a conservative to understand this.
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By Dusty
March 12, 2007 5:11 PM | Link to this
Skeeter,
Do you realize that Grady Hospital is a premier hospital, particularly in some arenas of healthcare?
Did you think the Bluffton team injured got quality care? I do and most of them got it at Grady.
Do you know where severly burned patients go for quality care in this big city of Atlanta and other parts of the state? They go to Grady.
One of these days you will realize that everybody, no matter where, will not get quality healthcare. It is the human difficulty of not knowing everything and the inequities of mental and physical health.
You may ease your conscience by thinking that everyone can have equal and quality care. It’s a great goal. But a goal without vast knowledge and no realism is bound to fail. I don’t that you have either of those.
By Van
March 12, 2007 5:25 PM | Link to this
Dusty,
The Dwarf House has a 2-for-1 all-you-can-eat special tonight. Will you please accompany me for a romantic evening?
By Curious Observer
March 12, 2007 5:29 PM | Link to this
And Dusty can well afford to praise Grady, for it’s funded largely by DeKalb and Fulton county taxpayers, even though the entire state uses it.
That’s not the kind of medical funding we need to protect the health of the country. I know, Dusty—it’s the old adage: “Don’t tax you, don’t tax me, tax that fellow behind the tree.”
By John D(the actual)
March 12, 2007 5:30 PM | Link to this
Van,
I resent the fact that you are attempting to take Dusty to my favorite restaurant. You are too embarassed to take her to Golden Corral, which has become frequented by leftists lately.
You will not win, Van. I will be courting Dusty by month’s end.
By JohnD(the actual)
March 12, 2007 5:39 PM | Link to this
Ok, Katie
We can now add you to the list of liberal fascists. Go back and read the posts - these two use a blanket to condemn everyone who is not a liberal of the “let government pay for everything” persuasion.
Dennis referred to Christians and Disgusting referred to the “I’ve got mine…” crowd, meaning one can only presume - conservatives.
You and the other two illiterate Neanderthals either cannot, or choose not, to read the entire post. One of you, Disgusting I think, made the comment about US needy being thrilled about the foreign missionaries. Now…I… will… type… this… again… real… slow… for… all… three… of… you.
The charitable giving by my, and other churches is for all people regardless of race or creed, who are in need. Here in the US and abroad, the members of the churches send money and travel to help all people - even liberal ingrates such as you.
You have no plausible argument so all you can do is nitpick and make unsupported charges. You are the “I have nothing so the government owes me” crowd. If no, then exactly what is your problem with the assistance provided by these awful Christians?
You obviously do not read the posts you just start spewing your vitriolic dirt. I simply do not believe these are appropriate functions of government. You apparently do think this is appropriate because you do not give, do not go to help and resent the fact that your leaders (Kerry, et al.) also do not give or go to help. You resent me, and the people like me, who give money and go to help, it is simple as that.
The Democrat party initiated the politics of personal destruction and their followers (you) simply cannot live without attacking Christians and the people who do the good work.
Also, the proposition that universal healthcare would save money is absurd and none of the socialist countries with such programs support the assertion. You just hate Capitalism, hate doctors for making the effort to educate themselves to provide medical care, and hate the doctors for being compensated for their education and hard work. Why is medical care in the US the envy of the rest of the world’s people? We are envied because we have the best medical care
By JohnD(the actual)
March 12, 2007 5:44 PM | Link to this
The liberal id hacker is back.
Dusty, the pleasure would be all mine but I did not post the 5:30. I have not been to a Dwarf House but I believe it to be one of Truet Cathy’s enterprises so I am sure it is clean and has well prepared food.
Are you the Dusty who once worked in sales with Buddy the golfer? The world could not be that small.
By Dusty
March 12, 2007 5:52 PM | Link to this
Curious Observer,
Who do you think would pay the larger part of taxes to fund universal healthcare? Why the large metropolitan areas of our country. That’s who.
Who did you think would pay? The millionaires living in the sparse rural areas of our country.
I don’t know why you think I don’t pay taxes as I am part of the support system for Grady that you mentioned.
As Dennis incorrectly informs us,”we’ll save money in the process.”
I have never heard that opinion anywhere from an informed medical finance person. I have heard that the cost would be insurmountable and rising.
We are not poorly populated Canada or little Italy or Sweden. We have over three hundred million citizens. You are talking about the most gigantic costly system in the world that would never decrease but keep on increasing as the population grows.
Even the geatest humanitarian has to face reality at some time. Maybe you better acquire a little more information before you try to save the world with ignorance.
By Skeeter
March 12, 2007 5:57 PM | Link to this
Dusty,
You have a lot of gall continuing to name Grady to support your argument. They have to struggle to get funding from reluctant politicians that you elect, and no doubt, if you lived in Sandy Springs or John’s Creek, you did or would have voted to secede to avoid paying taxes to support Grady. If it were up to voters like you, there would be no Grady.
That said, some of those baseball players were probably fully insured (since they’re young, it’s unlikely they had pre-existing conditions). If they weren’t insured (many college age adults go without insurance), the critically injured will be sent a bill in the mail that is likely to put them (or their parents) into debt for years, if not bankruptcy. The amounts not collected will be picked up by taxpayers. That’s not a good argument to support your cause.
I agree that Grady is the place to be for emergencies. However, if you want to see what I mean by quality, drive down there and walk the halls. While you’re there, be careful that you don’t trip over a gurney or accidentally remove somebody’s IV treatment. Since Grady doesn’t have enough rooms, many of the uninsured patients are resting on gurneys lined up along the hallways – they will get no room, shared or otherwise.
Also, Grady suffers from a huge shortage of staff, especially nurses, to care for the patients there. They have state of the art doctors, but they don’t have state of the art facilities or equipment. They are struggling.
With regard to realism, many other countries have already successfully accomplished what you say cannot be done. We’re also already doing it to some extent with Medicare.
And yes, equal and quality care would ease my conscience. What I don’t understand is why doesn’t your conscience need easing?
By Skeeter
March 12, 2007 6:18 PM | Link to this
Dusty,
The fact that Canada and Sweden have been able to provide coverage for all citizens with significantly smaller populations hurts your argument, not helps it. Experienced business people are familiar with the benefits of “economies of scale” — a phrase you should become familiar with.
As far as you hearing that the costs are rising and would be insurmountable…that’s under our current system if it’s not fixed soon. Insurance companies are gouging us and squeezing providers (doctors and hospitals), pharmaceutical companies are gouging us, and medical supply companies are gouging providers. The entire system is screwed.
The fact is that the same kind of free market system that works beautifully for products and services that people want or are available in large supply doesn’t work well for products and services that people need. People need health care, and we need a change.
By Dennis
March 12, 2007 6:29 PM | Link to this
By JohnD(the actual) March 12, 2007 4:24 PM | Dennis and Disgusted,
“The people you call the “I’ve got mine and to hell with the others..” are the very people who support charities in this country who provide for those who are not able to provide for themselves.
“Those awful Christians who give to all charities and who send their own into areas struck by natural disasters such as the hurricanes, fires and tidal waves.”
Let me get this straight, the “I’ve got mine and to hell with the others” are the ones supporting the best of health care? And are conservatives?
What I’ve seen on here today is conservatives complaing about the costs, who’s worthy, who’s not.
You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
By Dusty
March 12, 2007 6:33 PM | Link to this
Skeeter,
I pay taxes to support Grady (which I have already mentioned). Every hopital is suffering from a lack of nurses, not just Grady. Grady is crowded. Crowded or not, Grady gives good care. Doctors would not want to work there otherwise. Fortunately, they seem to want the experience of working at Grady.
Have you been to DeKalb Med Center lately? Their ER section is always crowded and often sends ambulances to other hospitals. Grady is not the only one crowded.
I simply want you to realize what you are asking for. I think you are uninformed. Talk is easy. My conscience does not bother me to be realistic. It helps me realize conscientious goals much faster than living in a world of nebulous dreams.
By catlady
March 12, 2007 6:44 PM | Link to this
Reminds me of the arguement against a woman president: she might be hormonal. So instead, we offer me who cannot stick with one woman. Sure, right now he wants to be allies with Britain. But what if a pretty skirt, like China, comes along and he decides we should favor them?
We cannot say we were not warned! We suspected Clinton womanized. We elected him. We knew (at least the second time) that Bush lied. We reelected him. Now we find that Newt was womanizing (repeatedly), and some think we should elect him??? And what an amazingly calculated, sorry statement toward the voters that he thinks if he gets his cheating out on the table now, folks will forget about it before the election. Are you going to be as stupid as he thinks you are? I have had enough of being treated with disdain. Time for the Religious Right (or Left, or Middle) to tell him to take a hike.
By Leslie
March 13, 2007 9:26 AM | Link to this
So far I am not impressd with anyone, either side. At least Newt has some ideas. Don’t know about you folks, but I am very tired of the hype and the buzz. I would(for once)like to have an adult in charge. One who is not afraid to ask the hard quesitons, talk about the uncomfortable things and do the hard work, not pander to what the lastest polls says. It’s time to have serious discussion about where we want to go as a people. Time to grow up!
By Joe
March 14, 2007 12:08 PM | Link to this
Let those without sin cast the first stone. That’s what Jesus died for, the forgiveness of our sins.
By Joe
March 14, 2007 12:08 PM | Link to this
Let those without sin cast the first stone. That’s what Jesus died for, the forgiveness of our sins.
By Joe
March 14, 2007 12:08 PM | Link to this
Let those without sin cast the first stone. That’s what Jesus died for, the forgiveness of our sins. If GOD can forgive you Newt, so can I
By Joe
March 14, 2007 12:09 PM | Link to this
Let those without sin cast the first stone. That’s what Jesus died for, the forgiveness of our sins. If GOD can forgive you Newt, so can I