Subscribe
Shop Local
Magazine
Gas Prices
Today's Poll!Extraordinary Gingrich comeback also vindication
Sunday, January 22, 2012
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — To say Newt Gingrich capped an extraordinary comeback with a South Carolina victory doesn't quite capture what happened.
It was more like vindication.
The former House speaker came from behind to overtake Mitt Romney on Saturday in a state that for decades has chosen the eventual Republican nominee. On the way there, Gingrich triumphed over months of campaign turmoil and at least two political near-death experiences as well as millions of dollars of attack advertisements and potentially damning personal allegations.
He did it by finding his voice and rallying conservatives with a populist defiance.
"The American people feel that they have elites who have been trying to force us to stop being Americans," Gingrich told cheering supporters in Columbia after he was declared the victor. "It's not that I am a good debater. It's that I articulate the deepest-felt values of the American people."
It was on the debate stage that the pugnacious Gingrich arguably revived his presidential campaign, not once but twice in the past year, by giving a tea party-infused GOP exactly what it's hungering for — a no-holds-barred attack dog willing to go after President Barack Obama with abandon. If Gingrich wins the nomination, his confrontational attitude against all things Obama likely will be a big reason Republicans choose him over chief rival Romney.
Gingrich, a political strategist in his own right who has a knack for understanding precisely what the GOP electorate wants, has aggressively taken it to Obama since the moment he entered the race last spring determined to turn his nationwide grass-roots network of support that he's cultivated for a decade into a front-running White House campaign.
But he stumbled early, including by disparaging the House Republicans' Medicare proposal as "right-wing social engineering" and was all but forced to apologize after the conservative outcry. His campaign nearly imploded over strategy squabbles, with virtually his entire senior staff abandoning him before the summer even began. And he was broke after spending lavishly.
Gingrich spent the next six months running his own campaign on a shoestring. The former college professor used a series of debates in the fall — and the free media they afforded him — to show Republican voters his political and oratory skills. Their adoration ended up catapulting him back into contention in Iowa. He vowed to stay positive and focus on Obama — even as his rivals, sensing a very real threat, went on the attack with a barrage of negative TV advertising.
His rivals and allied groups — primarily the pro-Romney Restore Our Future political action committee and Texas Rep. Ron Paul — castigated him for a tumultuous speakership and career in Washington after Congress, knocking him way off course and nearly bludgeoning him to political death.
It turned out Gingrich didn't have the money to respond on TV. And his standing slid as the new year began, and he ended up coming in a distant fourth place in the leadoff caucuses on Jan. 3.
He was but an afterthought in the next state to vote, New Hampshire, where he spent a full week on the attack against Romney while complaining about the beating he took in Iowa on the air. But the cash-strapped Gingrich didn't have money to take his criticism of Romney to the TV airwaves. He seemed completely off his game, losing big in the first-in-the-nation primary state.
Then Sheldon Adelson came to the rescue.
The billionaire casino magnate and longtime Gingrich backer ponied up at least $5 million for an outside group — made up of former Gingrich aides — to help put his buddy back in the game. It wasn't long before the group — Winning Our Future — was exacting payback on Romney for his allies pummeling Gingrich in Iowa. And the group started raising questions about Romney's time at the helm of a private equity firm, Bain Capital, putting Romney on the defensive for the first time during the campaign.
When the race turned to South Carolina, it didn't take long for Gingrich— a former Georgia congressman — to hit his stride. The state had always been a campaign firewall for him. He had visited often, built his biggest staff of any of the first three early-voting states and spent $2.5 million on advertising.
Over the past 10 days, he raised questions about Romney's private business experience while Winning Our Future reinforced the message by financing millions of dollars in South Carolina advertising characterizing Romney as a corporate predator who dismantled companies while running Bain Capital. Gingrich also started working to undercut Romney's strength — the notion that the former Massachusetts governor was the Republicans' best chance to beat Obama in the fall.
"What you are seeing him doing is convincing people first that he can win," senior Gingrich adviser David Winston explained at one point. "He's in the process of crossing that threshold."
It was his performance in two debates last week that may have helped him seal the deal with undecided Republicans who were questioning his viability as a candidate.
He turned his vulnerabilities — a comment some interpreted as racist and an allegation by an ex-wife that he had wanted an "open marriage" — into moments of strength by answering questions about those issues with nothing short of a character assassination on the national media. In both instances, he clearly tickled his conservative audience — many of whom are skeptical of a media industry they view as left-leaning.
In Myrtle Beach last Monday, Gingrich lashed out when FOX News Juan Williams had asked him if comments he made urging poor minority children to work as janitors were racially insensitive.
"The fact is that more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history," Gingrich retorted — and then turned up the intensity.
His voice rose and he jabbed a finger into the podium as he said: "I believe every American of every background has been endowed by their creator with the right to pursue happiness. And if that makes liberals unhappy, I'm going to continue to find ways to help poor people learn how to get a job, learn how to get a better job, and learn some day to own the job."
The clip became the heart of Gingrich's final television ad in South Carolina, and won high praise from supporters at the barbecue joints and sportsmen's clubs he visited in the campaign's closing days.
But three days later, Gingrich had what seemed like a problem on his hands.
An ex-wife, Marianne Gingrich, did an interview with ABC News in which she said Gingrich had asked her to allow him to have a mistress while they were married. It was unclear how the allegation would play in a Baptist state where many in the GOP electorate call themselves evangelical.
Gingrich ended up using the allegation to his advantage on a debate stage in Charleston, when CNN moderator John King opened the candidate face-off by asking Gingrich about his ex-wife's claim.
"Every person in here knows personal pain. Every person in here has had someone close to them go through painful things," an indigent Gingrich said. "To take an ex-wife and make it, two days before the primary, a significant question for a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine."
The audience roared and rose to its feet.
Several things also fell Gingrich's way.
Romney's personal wealth was thrust into the spotlight as he stumbled over whether — and then eventually when — he would release his tax returns. Gingrich pounced, suggesting Romney may have something to hide that could pose a liability against Obama. Romney also took a hit when the Iowa GOP declared that Rick Santorum, not Romney had won the leadoff caucuses.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry also quit the race two days before the primary and endorsed Gingrich. And evangelical conservatives in the state largely ignored the pleas of national Christian leaders who had voted to endorse Santorum and started coalescing behind Gingrich, the only other candidate in the race fighting over the support of the right flank.
In the end, South Carolina Republican strategist Chip Felkel said: "His supporters were fired up, and it's contagious, especially given Romney's failure to generate that kind of enthusiasm."
The coming weeks will determine whether Gingrich can stay on top this time.
Marry Me
Comments
linoge 1 year, 3 months ago
Not since Ronnie Reagan have we had a chance to vote for someone like this.
tonto_goldberg 1 year, 3 months ago
Not Reagan, Reagan was always pleasant and likeable even if you deplored some of his decisions. Gingrich, not so much. This was more like a chance to vote for Lester Maddox, Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon, and Sarah Palin all rolled into one.
The so-called Gingrich vindication is evidence that pandering to the lowest common denominator still works - the clearest examples are the wink and nod to racism with the "food stamp" comment, and the anti-elite "Obama debate" comment.
"Yeah, buddy, we sure taught that liberal press a good lesson"
tonto_goldberg 1 year, 3 months ago
It's like the Bell Curve.There are bottom feeders on each end, and Newt worked the bottom of one end of the curve. Mitt Romney didn't have a chance in Georgia. He appeals to a more sophisticated audience and there weren't very many of them voting last night. Romney voters have a higher literacy level, better access to information, and the ability to sort out fraud from fact. They are more like liberals in that regard.
JCLifer 1 year, 3 months ago
Liberals may have "think tank" educations where they sit and think about utopias, but they have no authentic application in their thinking. Liberals have no grasp of reality. They are mainly just dreamers- no doubt remnants of their stoner college days.
Gabrielle 1 year, 3 months ago
hkchas: I am providing you with some websites. They provide some very different information about Newt Gingrich and his first wife. Her name is Jackie Battley Gingrich and she is very much alive! She was in the hospital to have a benign tumor removed. The divorce had started many months before. The infamous hospital visit was when Newt took his daughters to visit their mother in the hospital and there was some divorce business involved also. As I understand, this all happened in 1980.
Newt has had two affairs. We can still allow the truth be told about this particular hospital visit and still have the aforementioned affairs to question his character. The only think I would add is the previously mentioned saying that goes something like: 'a saint is a sinner who got up from his knees.' Is he really a changed man? I don't know. My guess most of us don't. We all know who does know. This is the website with an article by Jackie Gingrich Cushman - Newt's daughter: creators.com/opinion/jackie-gingrich-cushman/setting-the-record-straight.html. She is setting the record straight. The family would like to move on. Maybe - just maybe we can too. If we can't, lets at least get the story straight.
Another website: factcheck.org/2011/12/the-gingrich-divorce-myth/
spelchek 1 year, 3 months ago
He's no John Edwards, that's for sure.
tonto_goldberg 1 year, 3 months ago
I have done that to you several times before, and you finally caught one. Good job.
gofish 1 year, 3 months ago
Seems to me Gingrich has been very liberal with his wedding vows. When he can't even keep his promise to his wife, I sure don't want him with his hand on any nukes. Newt is nothing more than a school yard bully. Even the wolf had sense enough to dress up like someone's grandma while trying to eat little red riding hood.
wow 1 year, 3 months ago
There may very well be better people suited to be better President than Barrack Obama. But the ones' currently representing the Republicans right now...sure ain't it! Try again in the next four years....but the Republicans might be in trouble again because come next election there might be a very healthy Hillary Clinton to deal with or a Melissa Harris. It's gonna be tough sailing for the Republican party as long as they keep pushing for the rich to get richer and never deliver anything of substance to the common people.
asb 1 year, 3 months ago
My my Grace, you're sure quick to label Obama a stooge; considering less than two years ago you reamed some in these forums for calling GWB a puppet with visible strings attached. And that's OK, you liked Bush and hate Obama, but it does sign your bias and your willingness to call an intelligent articulate democrat a stooge while calling a man who had few original thoughts and difficulty finishing a sentence an effective President. And, how would Ron Paul be a better president? He would not get anything done at all without a sane party behind him. Libertarians (yes he is) don't play well with themselves, let alone others.
tonto_goldberg 1 year, 3 months ago
It is my observation that Ron Paul doesn't have any significant support from within the GOP, if you are wondering how he would find a sane party to back him and thinking about the GOP. If he runs for president, he will run as an independent like Ross Perot and divert some GOP votes from the eventual GOP nominee.
Strictly speaking, the GOP wing in the Senate has been pretty effective. The House GOP majority has not. They have one rather simple problem - they elected some leaders for themselves but they have under cut those leaders when the leaders negotiate on their behalf. They do not have the internal discipline to work together for their common goals.
Sequoia 1 year, 3 months ago
I listened to Gingrich's victory speech. A former Speaker of the House who has had his nose in the trough for decades is telling you he's an "outsider" fighting the "elites." Then it's just McCarthyism revisited: "We" are American, and Obama is an America-hater who needs to read a teleprompter. Eat it up, movement conservatives. If all you care about is expressing your anxiety about a black president, eat it up. This is the candidate you deserve.
Meanwhile, "we" are waiting to hear what the Republicans will do about the economy, jobs, energy, manufacturing and health care. I don't hear anything about that. All I hear is the sound of the Republican party tearing in half right before a major election.
All this reinforces my central thesis: "movement" conservatism is no longer a philosophy of self-government. It has become a market niche, a target audience who is so accustomed to being told what it wants to hear that it will eat garbage right out of Newt's hand, never noticing that it is starving to death until it is too late.
Gabrielle 1 year, 3 months ago
Sequoia: you often say 'movement conservatives'. What do you mean when you say that?
tonto_goldberg 1 year, 3 months ago
See Graceful's comment below.
tonto_goldberg 1 year, 3 months ago
So the leftist movement is a demonic monolith that has been destroying the nation for decades? I am so glad you explained that to everyone.
The right, on the other hand, is not one "movement" (your comment below) with a general conception that those in charge have nearly destroyed this nation. I am surprised the nation is still - no, wait - you want to disband it so your southern pride, lost so sadly in 1865, can be avenged.
Who's destroying what and how?
Gabrielle 1 year, 3 months ago
It is unclear to me why you direct me to Graceful's comment below. Sequoia is the one using the phrase and I would like to know what that means to Sequia. Sequioa did a fine job in answering my question. If I have a question of Graceful, I ask Graceful. I also handle which comments I read in a similar manner. So, what is your point?
tonto_goldberg 1 year, 3 months ago
You had asked about "movement conservatives" and I thought that Graceful's comment was a good example of a movement conservative response. It is a formulaic combination of denial and diversion, the use of jargon and buzzwords, and references to the same themes, over and over.
Sequoia 1 year, 3 months ago
What makes Graceful a classic example of "movement conservative" is the relentless focus on "liberals" as the source of all problems.
The business/working class Republican voting block can only hold together if they focus on a common enemy: the liberal. In the movement conservative story, the liberal must always be talked about as a complete, absolute evil that must be stopped at all cost.
This is not to say that everyone who criticizes liberals is a movement conservative. The movement is defined by hysterical, over-the-top use of liberals as the straw man.
For example, in talking about government regulation, a normal conservative might say that liberals support government regulation because they think it is the best way to solve a particular problem. A normal conservative might question whether the regulation will really work as intended, or question what the cost and benefit will actually be.
A movement conservative will say that the liberal wants to "take over" because he "hates capitalism," or envies the wealthy, or wants to turn America socialist, or just wants total power and control or something terrible and exciting that will get people worked up to vote emotionally, rather than intellectually. It is ALL ABOUT EMOTION in the conservative movement.
Google "Frank Luntz." He's a linguist who makes a ton of money teaching movement conservatives how to talk. Whenever you hear movement conservatives repeating the same phrase over and over (like "government takeover" in the healthcare debate or the word "liberal" to refer to Democrats), it is usually coming from Luntz.
Luntz is not secretive at all. He talks very plainly about what he does. Look him up. It is quite interesting.
spelchek 1 year, 3 months ago
"It is a formulaic combination of denial and diversion, the use of jargon and buzzwords, and references to the same themes, over and over." You mean like "Change you can believe in."?
tonto_goldberg 1 year, 3 months ago
Nope. In Obama's case, you would have to say "Change that didn't happen".
You can do better than that.
Sequoia 1 year, 3 months ago
Classic movement conservatism. Anybody who does not agree with the movement must be a "left winger." Thanks for helping me make my point.
The 1960s are over. Let them die, and let's move on.
Sequoia 1 year, 3 months ago
Grace said: "The opposition to Obama has nothing to do about race." Accusations of racism are the only “defense” left to a completely failed president."
There are sober, reasonable critiques of Obama out there, but they are not coming from movement conservatives.
I mean, you heard Newt, right? Here's the playbook: 1) Say something with racial implications 2) Get yourself called a racist 3) Act shocked and claim that YOU are the victim of racism because you're being called a racist.
tonto_goldberg 1 year, 3 months ago
Food stamp crowd? Baseless and disgusting, and straight from Noot.
asb 1 year, 3 months ago
Spin away Grace, Neut did a classic race bit and he'll keep doing it. Yes, race as a topic of attacks on Obama SHOULD stop, but won't. Southern Pride . . . commonly an anchor store at dixie-state strip malls, selling turkey friers, guns, trailor park decor and tornado repair kits, plaid flannel shirts (pre-worn), cheap whisky, cheaper women . . . OK, I'm a southerner and I just can't keep going on, anyway the comedy channel has real talent doing it all day.Neut wasn't talking about any but black food stamp users. Calling out Neut for his tried-and-true race baiting is not hateful, nor does it hurt the nation. It's needed and should continue until he stop his arrogant whining, but he can't.
Sequoia 1 year, 3 months ago
I'm speaking of the conservative movement that grew up in the 1980s for whom cutting taxes is the main goal (as opposed to a balanced budget), and for whom a 1960s-era caricature of "liberals" are the main "enemy" (as opposed to working with liberals and focusing on specific problems as the enemy). The movement is marked by a close fusion of a version of Christianity and political power.
Like other "movements," it is marked by apocalyptic language and with-us-or-against-us mentality (read all Grace's comments: they consist of essentially two ideas 1) liberals are bringing about the destruction of society and 2) there can be no compromise).
My view is that the conservative movement is the product of work by the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation in the 1970s to construct a narrative that unifies the interests of big business (deregulation) with rural and suburban voters (God, gays and guns, racial anxiety). The question: How do you get low-income people to vote against their economic interest? The answer: Movement conservatism. The goal is to create a voting block around CULTURAL IDENTITY rather than actual policy. This is why I say that conservatism is a market niche or a focus group. This is how Newt Gingrich won South Carolina: Did he outline policy? No. It was "food stamp president" that won the day. He won by playing to cultural resentiment rather than intellect.
Since a movement conservative only traffics in cultural feeling rather than intellect, they are unable to lead.
Gabrielle 1 year, 3 months ago
Is 'movement conservatism' different from or the same as 'the tea party' - the way you see it?
Sequoia 1 year, 3 months ago
In my view the Tea Party is a product marketed and sold to movement conservatives. Movement conservatives are the buyers, the "Tea Party" is a brand that politicians can put on themselves to sell themselves to movement conservative buyers. Like "New and Improved" on the same old laundry soap.
Gabrielle 1 year, 3 months ago
I think I am understanding what you are saying. I may decide to read up on the suggestions you provided below. As for the Tea Party, some say it is rooted in the tax revolt that occurred in Tennessee a while back.
It may be true that some conservatives have done that. I am certain there are those that really are Tea Party conservatives.
tonto_goldberg 1 year, 3 months ago
Many of the Tea Party members are fully sincere but the leadership is questionable. The Tea Party's so-called roots are a complete ficton. Do yourself a favor. Take a shortcut and look up the big-money funding for the Tea Party. Then lookup the professional staff for the Tea Party. One of them turned up as Herman Cain's campaign chief of staff. Another is a former Missouri legislator.
tonto_goldberg 1 year, 3 months ago
It's ok to entertain me with your neocon blather, but someone innocent like Petunia deserves a more truthful approach. The facts behind the so-called Tea Party are pretty well known and documented by people who don't have a dog in the fight.
Sequoia 1 year, 3 months ago
A lot of the Tea Party ideas originally came from Ron Paul and his 2008 campaign. Makes you wonder why the Tea Party, as a political organization, has not really embraced Ron Paul. Hmmmm. Why is that?
My view is that the Tea Party sorta grew out of a rant by a CNBC reporter that went viral on Drudge Report. Once protests started springing up, Dick Armey's group Freedomworks and some other movement conservative players poured money into it. Fox News was hosting and promoting TP rallies for a while there.
Now the Tea Party voters are basically the same 20 percent of the population who still gave George Bush favorable ratings at the end of his presidency. They are the people who watch Fox exclusively and who buy into whatever Fox is selling at the moment.
Again, make no mistake... the conservative movement is now all about buying and selling. Notice how the movement's leaders are ENTERTAINERS (Fox personalities and Limbaugh) rather than thinkers.
The Tea Party has been funded and co-opted by movement conservatives, which is why you have seen the Tea Party voters wander from one third-rate GOP candidate to the next. But the TP voters have consistently ignored Ron Paul, their ideological father, because Fox news and the conservative movement are scared of Ron Paul. He is not a movement conservative. He doesn't toe the line. They can't control him. He speaks from his heart (his crazy, crazy heart), so he can't be relied on to spit the cultural garbage that is required to hold the movement conservative voting block together. Ron Paul is not part of the conservative "movment." He's just his own man. So he doesn't get endorsed by Fox, and so he is ignored by voters who have bought into the "Tea Party."
A true conservative is always skeptical of any cause or "movement." A true conservative does not label himself or confine himself to one ideology. A true conservative reads widely and thinks for himself.
Sequoia 1 year, 3 months ago
If the conservative movement is about reducing spending, why did federal spending increase under GWB? If the the conservative movement believes in balancing the budget, why does every GOP candidate's proposed plan INCREASE the budget deficit? If the conservative movement wants to give more power back to the states, why do they support the Defense of Marriage Act? If the conservative movement supports traditional values, why have they embraced Newt Gingrich?
You can call me "left" all you want, but I defy you to quote anything I've ever said that would suggest I adhere to any particular political ideology. I may agree with the left on one thing, the right on another. I don't really think a lot about whether an idea is "right" or "left." Those words don't mean anything to me. The words I'm more interested in are "good" and "not good."
I consider myself a conservative because of my philosphy and temperment, not my positions on particular political issues. Whenever you want to ask me what I think, I'd be happy to tell you.
But you're almost right about one thing: I do hate the conservative "movement," because it is a con.
I tend to get along fine with movement conservatives, just hanging out as folks. Life's too short to argue about this sort of thing in real time, and I generally try not to hate individual people. Sometimes that's easier said than done.
spelchek 1 year, 3 months ago
Rick Santelli inspired the Tea Party movement. Entitled cry babies inspired the Occupy movement. Please stop with the "big-money funding" as if it doesn't exist on the Left. Mr. Obama spent $600,000,000 to "inherit" messes he can't fix.
Sequoia 1 year, 3 months ago
And, let me point out I didn't just pull all this out of my own head. Some would have you believe that movement conservatism is all there is, and anyone who challenges the movement must be a liberal. That is not true. Read David Frum. Read Andrew Sullivan. These men are not liberals. They are conservatives who dare to criticize the conservative movement. Not all conservatives have been suckered.
Sequoia 1 year, 3 months ago
I don't see Romney as challenging the movement. I see him as pandering to the movement, albeit unsuccessfully.
lovemykids 1 year, 3 months ago
Republicans have convinced me, Democrats screw things up and waste tax $. Democrats have convinced me, Reps screw things up and waste tax $.
The only solution that I see is that if we all can get our heads out of the 2 party bs then we will have a chance to save what is left of this great nation. We better wake up soon, or else there will be nothing left to salvage.
wow 1 year, 3 months ago
Watch tonight's debate and learn just how truly misleading both Romeny and Genrich really are. Romney is gonnna key in on the Genriche's dismissal as the Former Speaker of the House, Fannie Mac and taking prviously unknown financial perks. Genrich is gonna tell us just how Romeny isn't in touch with the common person because he (Romney) has always been a Consultant out to make the coorporate executives richer. Genrich is also gonna try making us aware that Romney closed a few comopanie and eliminated a bunch of jobs. Genrich is also going to add some more BS Smoke by using his code words like Food Stamp President, lazy unemployed, people lacking true American values etc, etc, to describe minorites/poor people. Funny but these two said every republican candidate was better suited for the Oval Office that the current President...how could that be if Obama never did any of the negative stuff these guy's clearly are guilty of? It seems as if our republican candidates have lowered the bar for presidential qualifications if they think lieing, cheating, stealing , eliminating jobs, etc, etc, is a quality the Amercian eople want as their President.
I'm gonna sit back and watch em go at it...this one should be a eventful. Not sure how Paul and Santorium will fair, but I kinda wish Huntzmen was still in the race becasue then we'd get a chance to see and hear somebody that actually had some decent ideas on how to fix things. But instead we're gonna see Jo Dirt take on Boss Hog . Open you eyes and ears tonight folks cause this debate is gonna show why Romeny nor Genrich deserve to get elected as President of the Out House Committee.
Let's not forget that both these guy's are fighting to pay less taxes than the common person and both of these guy's have been screwing the little guy at every opportunity. Folks get ya pop corn ready....just becareful not to choke on it when ya hear some of these responses
asb 1 year, 3 months ago
The problem is that nearly all regulations are fought by the intended targets well enough that they usually start out trim and sometimes even effective. They all need constant tweaking and occaisional removal or replacement, which does happen a lot. The idea that there are too many or that regulations only strangle is a business anti-government song. Same with federal spending, it's always needed but always needs trimming. It's not evil, just human nature. National health care will be directly expensive but will save our culture untold amounts of money and suffering; and will do much good for the last developed nation to adopt it. It will need much tweaking and constant watching for fraud by insurors, doctors and patients; but it is essential that we join the rest of modern civilization regarding national health care. You forgot to mention our disasterous education system, where only private schools are getting the job done. More dung processed into snack food for the unthinking here. Stop the excessive testing, equalize funding for all primary and secondary education, and raise the required credentials and saleries of teachers; but quit supporting the religious attacks on knowledge and the business supported dumbing down of curriculae. In other words quit with the babies out with the bathwater bit that is the constant cry of the cracker/business Right.
Gabrielle 1 year, 3 months ago
asb: Please elaborate on the following statement:
'National health care will be directly expensive but will save our culture untold amounts of money and suffering; and will do much good for the last developed nation to adopt it. It will need much tweaking and constant watching for fraud by insurors, doctors and patients; but it is essential that we join the rest of modern civilization regarding national health care.'
Also - what do you mean when you say 'cracker/business Right'?
asb 1 year, 3 months ago
Public education is good, if funded equally for all schools and all grades, and staffed by properly trained and paid teachers not burdened by constant standardized testing that could be out performed by well chosen samle exams. Why just Christianity? Islam could also save America, Buddhaism, Judism, you name it. I like the Ecumenicalism of America's deliberate legal prohibition of being saved by any one religion.
JCLifer 1 year, 3 months ago
Shame on wealthier communities who want better schools than what the minimum requirements the government wants them to have.
asb 1 year, 3 months ago
Shame on poorer communities who want better schools than low standards dictate, while wealthy communities focus their education money on just their kids. Here's a thought, raise the #$@%ing standards, and have the funding be more equal by taxing the wealthier among us to pay for meeting them. I'm not asking for Finland here, just that inner city and poor rural kids not have to go to pretend schools because there's no tax base to fund secure, well administered, and well taught schools.
Sequoia 1 year, 3 months ago
Christ saves individual people, not nations.
asb 1 year, 3 months ago
Petunia, National health care will be directly expensive because of the high cost of providing American-grade health care to most Americans. The long term savings will come from the ensuing emphasis on prevention & education, and the resulting improvements in civil health and reduction in medical costs by treating more conditions than symptoms. Cracker/Business Right (CBR) is a mean way of refering to the coalition of the religious know-nothings tearing away at education and knowledge for religious reasons, and the corporate sponsors of false ideas that keep many Americans from respecting the science of environmental impacts of our technology and energy use, and the need for reasonable regulation of these same cultural cores.
asb 1 year, 3 months ago
You are wrong. National health care is good. Fighting it makes you a well meaning obstruction to the future health of our nation, medically and economically.
spelchek 1 year, 3 months ago
It is so good that congress (democrats) whom passed it don't have to subscribe to it. It is so good that unions and other democrat donors are exempt from it. It is so good that if you and I don't buy gov't insurance we'll be punished. It's so good that Missourian's voted to not allow the federal government to punish us for not buying their product. It's good alright...
asb 1 year, 3 months ago
I agree with most of what you suggest: Congress should chip in, the unions should also chip in (you might tell us who the other dem doners are who are exempt, I forget once I get past a few large corporations). I support mandatory contributions until you can find another way to pay. You don't have to buy government insurance, but you do have to buy insurance. Not participating if you can should be punishable, just like speeding or other mandatory processes, like, um, oh yeah, paying taxes. Try putting your complaints to the word taxes rather than national health care and see how you sound.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.