Republican Debate- Tuesday Night

[recxjake]

CNBC/MSNBC/The Wall Street Journal are jointly sponsoring the first Republican Presidential debate of the 2008 campaign focusing on economic issues. It will be held Tuesday in Dearborn, Mich., and will be broadcast live on CNBC at 4 PM ET and re-broadcast on MSNBC at 9 PM ET. The event will be streamed live on msnbc.com. CNBC's Maria Bartiromo and MSNBC's Chris Matthews will host the debate.

[recxjake]

Thompson -- he can act, but can he debate?
Untested Fred Thompson faces rivals for first time
By Susan Saulny
The New York Times
Updated: 6:07 a.m. CT Oct 8, 2007
In an unusual political season that seems to offer up a presidential debate every week or so, the Republican debate tomorrow is expected to offer something new: Fred D. Thompson.

Untested in debate against his opponents until now, Mr. Thompson, a late entrant to the race, chose to skip the last contest in favor of announcing his candidacy on “The Tonight Show” early last month — a decision for which he was roundly criticized.

Many have been wondering how Mr. Thompson, a former senator from Tennessee, will do. By his own admission he is “a bit rusty” when it comes to debating, and he has said he hopes he will be able to “hang in there” with the other candidates, including Rudolph W. Giuliani, the sharp-tongued former New York mayor, and Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, who is known for his polished delivery.

A look at some of Mr. Thompson’s debates years ago offers a mixed picture, with the candidate mostly projecting calm and confidence against Representative Jim Cooper, his Democratic opponent for the Senate seat in 1994.

Mr. Thompson’s delivery back then was usually smooth and expressionless, not a monotone but not displaying much charisma, either. He sounded articulate, speaking in full, well-rounded sentences, but stopped short of eloquence.

Even when he was on the attack, or firing back at a rough question, he rarely lost his cool.
Speaking of Mr. Cooper, he deadpanned, “There’s nothing more desperate than a career politician facing the prospect of having to get a real job for the first time in his life.”

In one of the only heated exchanges in a debate broadcast on WMC-TV Memphis in October 1994, Mr. Thompson responded to charges that he was a rich, out-of-touch Washington lobbyist by continuing that same line of attack about Mr. Cooper’s career. “You know, you’ll never be a lobbyist and you’ll probably be few other things either,” he told Mr. Cooper, not even raising his voice. “You were born to great wealth and privilege. You’ve never had a real job in your life.”


Measured approach
In another debate, at the University of Memphis, Mr. Thompson was similarly measured, even when Mr. Cooper provoked him, mocking his use of a rented pickup truck on the campaign trail as a Hollywood-style gimmick.

“Lay off my pickup,” Mr. Thompson said flatly, adding a quick defense: “The pickup’s good for me. It reminds me of my roots, and growing up down in Lawrence County. It reminds me of my daddy. It’s a good way to campaign. And another advantage is it just seems to bug the dickens out of Jim.”

In one radio debate in 1994, however, things were different. Mr. Thompson showed his teeth. As one radio announcer put it, “Thompson appeared to rattle his Democratic opponent by relentlessly and aggressively mocking him.”

At one point, Mr. Thompson was sarcastic: “Today is Thursday, Jim. What’s your position on term limits today?”

At another point, Mr. Cooper asked Mr. Thompson whether he lobbied Congress on behalf of foreign companies. Mr. Thompson lashed out, losing his cool.

“The answer is no,” he said, before being interrupted and adding, “Shut up! Just shut up just a minute!” Then he called Mr. Cooper a liar.

Facing debate veterans
Tomorrow, Mr. Thompson will be facing a field of candidates who are already veterans of numerous other presidential debates and well-versed on the issues. But so far on the campaign trail, Mr. Thompson has stumbled at times when pressed for his views on certain local and national issues, like not knowing of the fight over oil drilling in the Everglades and in referring to Russia as the Soviet Union.

To help prepare, Mr. Thompson, who has also been an actor, has enlisted the aid of Alfonse M. D’Amato, the former senator from New York, who has been playing the role of Mr. Giuliani. But whether these rehearsals will help is an open question.

“There’s the expectation that if you’re a performer, you’ll be good at any kind of performance, but that’s not true,” said Shannon Jackson, a professor and chairwoman of the Department of Theater, Dance and Performance Studies at the University of California, Berkeley. “Certain performers are used to having scripts that they can practice and rehearse. They find challenges when they don’t have a script, or the required script changes and they have to improvise.”


Copyright © 2007 The New York Times
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21189840/

[BucEyedPea]

Oh, oh, oh WSJ! I hear we're entering the attack phase on Paul. So WSJ... oh, oh.! Those NCs will be out in full belligerency with pre-emptive strikes.

[patteeu]

Oh, oh, oh WSJ! I hear we're entering the attack phase on Paul. So WSJ... oh, oh.! Those NCs will be out in full belligerency with pre-emptive strikes.

Speaking of pre-emptive strikes, is that what this is?

[BucEyedPea]

Am I missing something? Thread title says "Republican Debate...." Then goes on about WSJ sponsoring it. That's what this thread is about 'eh?

That there is a bad sign. Hmmmm? I wonder if Podhoretz will be a surprise mc too. *flashes evil grin tee hee* :evil:

[patteeu]

Am I missing something? Thread title says "Republican Debate...." Then goes on about WSJ sponsoring it. That's what this thread is about 'eh?

That there is a bad sign. Hmmmm? I wonder if Podhoretz will be a surprise mc too. *flashes evil grin tee hee* :evil:

First, Podhoretz isn't with the WSJ, is he? I know he's with the NY Post and he's been carried by other media outlets, but afaik, he's never been with the WSJ.

Second, it's a preemptive attack because the WSJ hasn't attacked Ron Paul yet and afaics hasn't given any indication that they plan to do so.

But it's OK. If you want to "get your victim on" a little early, I don't have a problem with it. :p

[BucEyedPea]

LMAO

Well, when I being sarcastic there's no attempt to be literally and technically right....just in the spirit of that paper's OPed pages these days. That's what I was alluding to.

[patteeu]

LMAO

Well, when I being sarcastic there's no attempt to be literally and technically right....just in the spirit of that paper's OPed pages these days. That's what I was alluding to.

OK, I was just :Poke: you anyway. :)

[SNR]

As long as it's not on Fox News with Sean Shammity afterward

[recxjake]

Rudy is in. It’s official. The Family Research Council just sent out this press release. See below:

“Today FRC Action announced that GOP presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani will speak at the Washington Briefing 2007: Values Voter Summit on Saturday morning October 20. Former Mayor Giuliani becomes the eighth presidential hopeful to commit to address the largest gathering of pro-family activists in the nation’s capital.”

The Brody File has also received this from Katie Levinson, the Communications Director for the Giuliani campaign:

“Rudy is very much looking forward to the event.”

And with those words, all eyes will now be on this event. I am told Giuliani will speak Saturday morning. There will be a straw poll at the event and the results will be announced sometime Saturday afternoon.
You can say whatever you want about Giuliani but give him this much: he’s not backing down. This is typical of him and his campaign. They will not concede the social conservative vote. They believe (as documented in this space before) that they can win over quite a few social conservatives. They are not rolling over.

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/245985.aspx

[recxjake]

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yFT0_wiPZA4"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yFT0_wiPZA4" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[Taco John]

I don't care to hear about Rudy's tax cut plan. I would like to hear about his spending cut plan.

[chagrin]

WTF did they pick Dearborn, they should at least hit Southfield.

[Jenson71]

The University of Northern Iowa is getting a Republican nationally televised debate on Nov. 6.

[banyon]

As long as it's not on Fox News with Sean Shammity afterward

I like to use "Pawn Vanity" myself. :)

[recxjake]

The University of Northern Iowa is getting a Republican nationally televised debate on Nov. 6.

The University of Iowa is getting a Fox News debate December 6th.

[Jenson71]

The University of Iowa is getting a Fox News debate December 6th.

Why does UofI always copy us?

I'll take Chris Matthews. The farther Sean Hannity is away from my campus, the better.

[Taco John]

I like to use "Pawn Vanity" myself. :)



Ah, A Michael Savage listener! :)

[BucEyedPea]

OK, I was just :Poke: you anyway. :)
So you're hitting me with a stick now? :harumph:
Must be some kinda internet assault. :p

[ClevelandBronco]

...You can say whatever you want about Giuliani but give him this much: he’s not backing down. This is typical of him and his campaign. They will not concede the social conservative vote. They believe (as documented in this space before) that they can win over quite a few social conservatives. They are not rolling over...

Rudy and his people had better not back down. Some of the guys (Dobson, et al.) who influence a large fraction of social conservatives appear to be erecting their own crosses even now. It looks to me as if they'd rather suffer at the hands of a Democrat administration than participate in the election of a Republican who isn't in lockstep with them, but who will give them the exact outcome they pray for anyway (strict constructionists on the SCOTUS).

Maybe I'm missing something, but Caesar is Caesar and Jesus is Christ and I'm not willing to mix them up into one. I'll leave that kind of thinking to our Muslim friends and enemies.

[BucEyedPea]

If RR and Bush Sr can't gaurantee stict constructionists, I don't see how Rudy can either. Sorry CB he can be seen through on this one. Sorry about the Browns on Sunday btw.

[HolmeZz]

If RR and Bush Sr can't gaurantee stict constructionists, I don't see how Rudy can either. Sorry CB he can be seen through on this one. Sorry about the Browns on Sunday btw.

Browns put up a better fight than his Broncos did.

[Taco John]

Hey. Quit talking about football in this forum! Can't you see that we're trying to escape such frivolous talk! ;)

[ClevelandBronco]

If RR and Bush Sr can't gaurantee stict constructionists, I don't see how Rudy can either. Sorry CB he can be seen through on this one. Sorry about the Browns on Sunday btw.

I'm still willing to take Rudy at his word on this one, unless he's decided that he wants only one term.

From your posts here we all know that you're familiar with the idea of blowback. The blowback that would be inflicted on Rudy if he were to nominate anyone other than a strict constructionist would sink any hope he would have of a second term.

The outcome of the Browns game was a foregone conclusion. The Broncos were an absolute embarrassment.

[patteeu]

Rudy and his people had better not back down. Some of the guys (Dobson, et al.) who influence a large fraction of social conservatives appear to be erecting their own crosses even now. It looks to me as if they'd rather suffer at the hands of a Democrat administration than participate in the election of a Republican who isn't in lockstep with them, but who will give them the exact outcome they pray for anyway (strict constructionists on the SCOTUS).

Maybe I'm missing something, but Caesar is Caesar and Jesus is Christ and I'm not willing to mix them up into one. I'll leave that kind of thinking to our Muslim friends and enemies.

Yeah, I don't get this either. The SCOTUS is pretty evenly divided right now with the two most likely near-term retirements coming from the solidly liberal wing. If Hillary or Obama are elected, they will almost certainly get to rejuvenate the liberal wing of the court by replacing Stevens and Ginsberg with younger liberal justices. If someone who is committed to nominating those who will more faithfully construe the text in the manner in which it was written, the court could end up being solidly conservative by the end of that person's first term. Backing a third party candidate, whether it's a socially conservative candidate or a libertarian/anti-war candidate will waste the SCOTUS opportunity that conservatives of all stripes have been working toward for decades.

If Ron Paul were to miraculously win the Republican nomination, as much as I hate his foreign policy approach, I'll vote for him because he's golden on so many other issues, but most of all because at this point in time, control over the SCOTUS nomination process is too important to take an action that would lead to a democrat President. I wouldn't be looking for a 3rd party conservative hawk because I'd recognize that that would hand the election to the dems.

The social conservatives should recognize the importance of a solidly conservative court on their primary issues. It far exceeds the importance of the President, IMO.

[patteeu]

If RR and Bush Sr can't gaurantee stict constructionists, I don't see how Rudy can either. Sorry CB he can be seen through on this one. Sorry about the Browns on Sunday btw.

I bet that Hillary can guarantee strictly liberal justices.

[go bowe]

she's got to get herself elected first...

but obama is still in the race and in her way...

polls this early don't generally amount to much when the elections roll around...

if hillary does get the nomination, i want ron paul to be the republican nominee so i can vote for him instead of hillary...

[Laz]

is so wrong to hope for a an outbreak of severe E. coli?

[Adept Havelock]

is so wrong to hope for a an outbreak of severe E. coli?

Yes, it would be wrong.

Norovirus, on the other hand... :fire: :p

[recxjake]

she's got to get herself elected first...

but obama is still in the race and in her way...

polls this early don't generally amount to much when the elections roll around...

if hillary does get the nomination, i want ron paul to be the republican nominee so i can vote for him instead of hillary...

Hillary has the nomination... she might lose in Iowa... but she will do well in the rest.

[Jenson71]

I'm surprised Edwards has basically crept past Obama and is now sitting in second...about 10 percentage points behind Clinton.

[recxjake]

Get Excited!

[noa]

This debate screen is crazy. Two tickers on the bottom, one on top, and the debate headline in the middle.

Sam Brownback likes the Chevy Malibu.

Rudy said we should be more like the French *gasp!* and their use of nuclear power.

[noa]

Huckabee and Romney are the only ones who answer questions with optimism. Everyone else is gloomy, especially Ron Paul (even though he is right).

[noa]

Rudy continues to attack Hillary. Very smart. Don't attack your opponents, behave like the nominee, and take on the Dem front-runner. It was a question about the economy in general and he turned it into a joke about Hillary.

[trndobrd]

Every time Tancreado opens his mouth I feel dumber for having heard his voice.

[noa]

Sam Brownback: "My mother is not an illegal immigrant"

In response to some kidding by Tancredo

[Taco John]

Good God... None of these guys, outside of Paul, knows a damn thing about economics...

[Taco John]

The mre I see Giuliani talk the worse a president I think he would be.

[noa]

Romney just made a Law & Order joke about Thompson and Thompson says, "And I thought I was the best actor on this stage."

[BucEyedPea]

The mre I see Giuliani talk the worse a president I think he would be.
Ditto! Oh noes, I'm a Ditto-Head now! :deevee: Not really.
I feel the same way. Well, that and Pod being at state....a disaster in the making. What a nazi-con!

[Taco John]

Well it looks like a $5 million dollar quarter didn't buy Ron Paul any respect for this debate. He probably knows more about economics than just about everyone on the stage, and got about 3 minutes face time.

[BucEyedPea]

Oh man I missed it. I forgot it was going to be on at 4PM'sh and scheduled an appt. I don't get MSNBC either...not anymore.

[noa]

Ron Paul is on right now doing an interview with CNBC

Summary: Analysts can say what they want, but there are plenty of people on the street who I meet who don't feel good about the economy.
I'd spend more on defense and less on our global empire.
I'd cut the budget by: cut billions from overseas military expenditures, cut department of education, cut department of energy, cut department of agriculture. No more subsidies to energy industry.
You can't trust the people who are running right now to limit the government. My opponents are big government people. They are tax and spenders, they won't touch the military budget.

Robert Reich says agricultural subsidies and military bloat are things that only Ron Paul talks about consistently.

[BucEyedPea]

Oh thank you.

[recxjake]

Good debate, Rudy and Mitt did well, Fred didn't fall asleep... everyone was just there.

[BucEyedPea]

I only saw his last sentence....that "It was pretty bad when it's the Dems that are more fiscally conservatives than the republicans." Lol! It's true.

[recxjake]

What They’re Saying … About Mayor Giuliani



ABC News’ Political Radar: “[H]ere's Guessing The Conventional Wisdom Will Judge Giuliani The Winner.” (ABC News’ Political Radar Blog, “Live Blogging During Today's GOP Debate,” http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/10/live-blogging-d.html, 10/9/07)



ABC News: “The First Great Line On The Night, From Rudy: ‘I Led, [Romney] Lagged.’ And A Great Defense Of Suing Over The Line-Item Veto: ‘You Can Bang Your Head Against The Wall All You Want’ -- But It's Still Unconstitutional.” (ABC News’ Political Radar Blog, “Live Blogging During Today's GOP Debate,” http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/10/live-blogging-d.html, 10/9/07)


National Review’s Rich Lowry: “Rudy Is Such a Talented Guy.” (Rich Lowry, National Review Online’s The Corner Blog, “Rudy Is Such A Talented Guy,” http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmQxNTEwZmRjODM0ZjgwNmU2YzdkNDE4NmIzMTU4OTM, 10/9/07)



· Lowry: “Answer-To-Answer In These Debates [Giuliani Is] Just Very Impressive.” (Rich Lowry, National Review Online’s The Corner Blog, “Rudy Is Such A Talented Guy,” http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmQxNTEwZmRjODM0ZjgwNmU2YzdkNDE4NmIzMTU4OTM, 10/9/07)



Lowry: “[T]he Exchange Goes To Rudy …” (Rich Lowry, National Review Online’s The Corner Blog, “Rudy V. Romney,” http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjczYmE3Y2NlOTQ3ZTdkOGU5NWJmMjFlYzJlNjE4MjI, 10/9/07)


CNBC’s Mark Koba: “Rudy G. Dominating The Time Right Now.” (Mark Koba, CNBC’s Political Capital Blog, “OP Presidential Debate: The LIVE Blog,” http://www.cnbc.com/id/21147195, 10/9/07)



Koba: “I Think Giuliani Came Out Best.” (Mark Koba, CNBC’s Political Capital Blog, “OP Presidential Debate: The LIVE Blog,” http://www.cnbc.com/id/21147195, 10/9/07)


Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza: Giuliani Has “Done This Debate Thing Before And It Shows.” (Chris Cillizza, Washington Post’s The Fix Blog, “Romney and Giuliani: Surely You Jest,” http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/10/romney_and_giuliani_surely_you.html, 10/9/07)



Cillizza: “A Good Exchange … A Rhetorical Victory For Giuliani.” (Chris Cillizza, Washington Post’s The Fix Blog, “Fight, Fight Fight,” http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/10/fight_fight_fight.html, 10/9/07)


Cillizza: “[Giuliani Offered] His ‘Vision Of A Robust, Strong America’ -- And Offered A Defense Of The Need To Not Let Government Get In The Way Of American Ingenuity.” (Chris Cillizza, Washington Post’s The Fix Blog, “A Contrast In Visions,” http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/10/a_contrast_in_visions.html, 10/9/07)


NBC’s Domenico Montanaro: “Giuliani … Looked Comfortable …” (Domenico Montanaro, NBC’s First Read Blog, “On Style,” http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/10/09/404050.aspx, 10/9/07)



National Review Online’s Kathryn Jean Lopez: “[R]udy Seemed To Get The Last Word There.” (Kathryn Jean Lopez, National Review Online’s The Corner Blog, “Romney Vs. Rudy, Rudy Vs. Romney,” http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGY3ODBiYjc1NzNjZTQ3MzVkZGE1NTg0OWIxYmE2ZmY, 10/9/07)



Kate O'Beirne: “Rudy Giuliani Has Given A Typically Competent Performance …” (Kate O'Beirne, National Review Online’s The Corner Blog, “So Far...,” http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTYzMzE5MWM0NTc4MmMwMmE3ODA5NzZlZGI1ZjJjMTk, 10/9/07)



Detroit News’ Richard Burr: “Rudy Giuliani Has Been Spirited In Defending His Record.” (Richard Burr, Detroit News Blog, “Nobody Has Captured Reagan's Mantle,” http://info.detnews.com/weblog/index.cfm?blogid=10720, 10/9/07)

[patteeu]

I saw about 30 or 40 minutes of this debate and I thought the same thing that this guy did about Chris Matthews, particularly his "gotcha" attempt when he asked Thompson who the PM of Canada was:

Fred Wins, Chris Loses (http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/014553.php)

The first debate with Fred Thompson was expected to reveal whether the lanky actor had what it takes to make a national run for the office. Instead, it revealed Chris Matthews as a hack of the first order, one who tried his best to torpedo Thompson -- and failed utterly. He got so desparate that he demanded to know whether Thompson knew who the Canadian Prime Minister was -- and he did. Matthews grew so frustrated that he openly critiqued one of Thompson's answer for being too detailed, which prompted a scolding from Thompson.

That was the game behind the debate, and Thompson stomped Matthews into a laughingstock. In the rest of the debate, Thompson showed that he was comfortable and prepared, even for the silly attacks from other candidates. Mitt Romney went into a long, telegraphed, and obviously gag-written punch about how the debates resemble "Law and Order" and how Fred shows up last, which Fred neatly returned by feigning surprise that he wasn't the best actor on the stage -- jabbing at Romney's perceived plasticness.

Rudy wisely chose to stay away from Thompson. Romney pulled Rudy into a catfight, but neither man scored a knockout punch. Rudy's team sent out a flurry of e-mails showing that Romney didn't have his facts straight, but Rudy shrugged it off anyway. He showed poise, humor, energy, and personality. He continues to show his mastery of the format.

Romney and McCain did pretty well, although they had rough spots. When asked about war powers, Romney's insistence that he would have to check with his lawyers sounded like he didn't have a firm grasp on the mechanisms of war. Fred got it right first, and McCain answered well. McCain started off shaky, with the unusual "angry man" gambit in the opening minutes, but relaxed and was much more himself.

As for the rest, well, they occupied subplots most of the evening. Paul mostly continued his odd hand-flailing and high-pitched shouting. Tancredo couldn't seem to get words out of his mouth. Brownback faded into Tommy Thompson-like dullness. Duncan Hunter did well and his protectionism may have sounded good to the Michigan audience, but it won't sell to the GOP. Mike Huckabee again did well, but after Ames, he needed a breakout performance and didn't get it -- in part because he didn't get a lot of opportunities to respond. Matthews spent too much time hunting the Great Fred Whale, and coming up empty.

Fred's in now, and he will find new momentum after this performance. Matthews will become more of a joke, if such a thing is possible at a network that employs Keith Olbermann.

[BucEyedPea]

Mitt is such a lying sack o' you know what.

[HolmeZz]

Props to Fred for knowing the Prime Minister of Canada.

[recxjake]

Mitt is such a lying sack o' you know what.

We agree!!!!!

[BucEyedPea]

The problem rex, is that most people don't know his tax and spend record...not to mention his MittCare.

[noa]

What do you guys think of the line item veto issue? Giuliani is opposed, but McCain says its a great way to cut pork.

[recxjake]

What do you guys think of the line item veto issue? Giuliani is opposed, but McCain says its a great way to cut pork.

It has been ruled unconstitutional! There is no debate.....

"The Clinton Administration line item veto was unconstitutional. Anyone who does not understand that has not read the Supreme Court’s opinion striking it down and does not have a clear understanding of the Constitution."

--Theodore B. Olson, Former Solicitor General of the United States.

“The line-item veto is unconstitutional, and I’m a strict constructionist. The line-item veto — if we want, it has to be done by constitutional amendment."

— Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Fox’s "Fox News Sunday," 5/13/07


But here is the spat from the debate....

Giuliani "I cut, I think as many taxes as you possibly could during that time." He cites George Will's praise.

Romney: "We both believe in cutting back on spending. But if you want to cut taxes, you've got to cut spending. The best tool the president has had is the line item veto... Giuliani took the line item veto ... all the way to the Supreme Court... I think that was a mistake.... He also kept the commuter tax..."

Giuliani: "The difference is that under Gov. Romney, spending went up in Massachusetts per capita by 8%...in my city, it went down. Look, the line item veto was unconstitutional. I fought Bill Clinton, I beat Bill Clinton. It was unconstitutional. What the heck can you do about that if you're a strict constructionists."

Romney laughs in the middle of the answer.

Giuliani: "I led, he lagged."

Romney: "It's a good line, but it's baloney." He cites the Club for Growth's comparison. And he insists that a line item veto could be constitutional.

Giuliani: "You have to be honest... You don't get to believe about it, the Supreme Court has ruled on it. You can bang your head on the stone wall all you want.

Says Clinton wanted to illegally take $250M from New Yorkers and he beat Clinton, and Republicans should like to beat Clinton.

[recxjake]

The problem rex, is that most people don't know his tax and spend record...not to mention his MittCare.

Hell, I could on days about this guy... I can't stand Mitt... FAKE

But Romney Can’t Out Run His Similarities With Hillary Clinton On Government-Mandated Health Insurance
Clinton Senate Legislative Director Laurie Rubiner: “It’s sort of funny to me that [Romney] would cast it as a big government solution, when it’s essentially what he enacted in Massachusetts …” (Ben Smith, “Firing Back,” Politico’s “Ben Smith Blog,” www.politico.com, 9/17/07, Accessed 9/18/07)

ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HILLARYCARE AND ROMNEYCARE IS WHAT ROMNEY SAYS AND WHAT ROMNEY DID


On Private Insurance Or Government Insurance …

ROMNEY SAYS: “We Put In Place A Plan That Is Based On Private Insurance And Her Plan Is Based On Government Insurance. … Basically, Hers Is A Government Plan With Government Insurance. Mine Was A Plan That Is Based On Private Insurance In The Private Marketplace.” (Fox News’ “Fox And Friends,” 9/18/07)

BUT ROMNEY DID: RomneyCare Created The “Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector” In Massachusetts Which Is “A Central Mechanism To Connect Individuals And Small Businesses With Health Insurance Products,” Through A Pool That “Certifies And Offers [Health Insurance] Products.” (Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector, “Health Care Access And Affordability Conference Committee Report,” www.mass.gov/legis/summary.pdf, 4/3/06, Accessed 7/25/07)

Health And Welfare Policy Expert Michael Tanner: “The Massachusetts Health Care Connector, Which Restructures The Individual And Small Business Insurance Markets, Is A Form Of Managed Competition That Has The Potential To Severely Limit Consumer Choice.” (Michael D. Tanner, “No Miracle in Massachusetts: Why Governor Romney’s Health Care Reform Won’t Work,” Cato Briefing Papers No. 97, 6/6/06)

On Raising Taxes To Pay For It …

ROMNEY SAYS: “Ours Does Not Require New Taxes, [Clinton’s] Does.” (Fox News’ “Fox And Friends,” 9/18/07)

ROMNEY DID: RomneyCare’s “Play-Or-Pay” Mandate Requires All Businesses With More Than 10 Employees That Do Not Provide A “Fair And Reasonable” Contribution To Workers’ Health Insurance To Pay A Fee Up To $295 Per Employee Per Year. (David A. Hyman, “The Massachusetts Health Plan: The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly,” Cato Institute Policy Analysis, 6/28/07)

Unless Employers Create A “Cafeteria Plan” That Employees Can Purchase On A Pre-Tax Basis, They Face A “Free Rider Surcharge” Of Up To 100% Of The Cost Of Care Of All Their Employees In Excess Of $50,000. (Michael D. Tanner, “No Miracle in Massachusetts: Why Governor Romney’s Health Care Reform Won’t Work,” Cato Briefing Papers No. 97, 6/6/06)

Health And Welfare Policy Expert Michael Tanner: Romney’s Health Care Plan That Was “Certainly A Tax Increase On” Businesses. “‘This is certainly a tax increase on business,’ declared Mike Tanner, health-care analyst at the free-market Cato Institute in Washington, D.C. He called the requirement that everyone get health insurance ‘unprecedented in terms of government interference in people’s lives.’” (Brett Amends, “For Romney, Reforms May Be Just What Doctor Ordered,” Boston Herald, 4/6/06)

Massachusetts Will Pay $1.6 Billion For RomneyCare In 2007, Rising 12.5% To $1.8 Billion In 2008, The First Full Year It’s Implemented. (Aliza Marcus, “Romney’s Health Care For All May Deteriorate In A Cash Squeeze,” Bloomberg, www.bloomberg.com, 7/27/07, Accessed 7/30/07)

The Price Tag For RomneyCare, Given Current Trends, May Outstrip Current Program Funds, Likely Leading To Higher Taxes. “If U.S. health costs continue to rise about twice as fast as wages, the price tag may outstrip the available state tax and other revenue, some of the program’s architects say. Insurers may no longer be able to offer the same low-cost plans they negotiated with the state, industry representatives say … Tax increases may be needed to keep the program going, said Robert Blendon, a health economist at Harvard University in Cambridge. (Aliza Marcus, “Romney’s Health Care For All May Deteriorate In A Cash Squeeze,” Bloomberg, www.bloomberg.com, 7/27/07, Accessed 7/30/07)

On New Bureaucracies …

ROMNEY SAYS: “I Think She Takes Her Inspiration From European Bureaucracies And Instead We Should Take Our Inspiration From The American People.” (Michael Luo, “Clinton’s Rivals Blast Health Care Plan,” The New York Times’ “The Caucus” Blog, 9/17/07, Accessed 9/18/07)

ROMNEY DID: The Boston Globe’s Lisa Wangsness Noted “Key Elements Of Hillary Clinton’s Healthcare Proposal Are Strikingly Similar To The Tenets Of The Health Overhaul That Mitt Romney Signed Into Law In Massachusetts Last Year.” (Lisa Wangsness, “In Ways, Clinton Healthcare Plan Resembles Romney’s Mass. Solution,” The Boston Globe, 9/18/07)

The Associated Press: RomneyCare “Broke New Ground” In Sharing Responsibilities Between Government, Businesses And Individuals. “As governor of Massachusetts, Romney pushed a plan that requires state residents to get health insurance or face tax penalties. The law includes a new bureaucracy to implement it, government subsidies for the poor and guidelines for health insurance companies. The effort broke new ground by sharing responsibility between government, business and individuals.” (Ron Fournier, “Analysis: Health Care Debate Reveals Much About Clinton, Romney,” The Associated Press, 9/18/07)

The Boston Globe: The “Central Premise” Of HillaryCare 2.0 Is “Precisely What Romney Proposed” In Massachusetts. “But the central premise of Clinton’s plan – an ‘individual mandate’ requiring that every American have health insurance – is precisely what Romney proposed in the Bay State, in what was seen as a bold approach to attaining universal coverage. The idea became a pillar of the law, which he signed in April 2006.” (Lisa Wangsness, “In Ways, Clinton Healthcare Plan Resembles Romney’s Mass. Solution,” The Boston Globe, 9/18/07)

THE SIMILARITIES ARE NO SURPRISE – HILLARY PRAISED ROMNEYCARE AND BOTH PLANS SHARED AN ADVISOR


Hillary Clinton Called RomneyCare “Commendable.” “The proposal, approved Tuesday by Massachusetts’ Democratic-led Legislature, won Romney cautious praise from Democrats, including a longtime champion of health care overhaul: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York. ‘To come up with a bipartisan plan in this polarized environment is commendable,’ said the former first lady, who led President Clinton’s failed health care campaign.” (Ron Fournier, “Romney’s Health Care Plan Draws Praise From Hillary Clinton, Talk Of ’08 Bid,” The Associated Press, 4/5/06)

RomneyCare’s “Key Architect,” MIT Professor Jonathan Gruber, Has Said He’d Like To See RomneyCare Become A National Plan. “A professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Gruber was a key architect of the state’s universal coverage law, which fully came into force on July 1. It was the top accomplishment of Republican Gov. Mitt Romney’s administration. His basic idea is to take that approach nationwide. That would require a mandate that people get insurance but provide generous subsidies for the poor to get insured. Businesses that don’t offer coverage would be penalized. Federal programs like Medicaid would be expanded.” (Sean Higgins, “Key Mass. Health Plan Architect,” Investor’s Business Daily, 7/31/07)

And Gruber Has Consulted With Sen. Hillary Clinton’s (D-NY) Campaign. “[Jonathan Gruber] also has consulted with the presidential campaigns of Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and former senator John Edwards, among others.” (Sean Higgins, “Key Mass. Health Plan Architect,” Investor’s Business Daily, 7/31/07)

[noa]

It has been ruled unconstitutional! There is no debate.....

McCain says that it was found unconstitutional because of the particular wording of the bill, but there are ways to word it so that it would be constitutionally acceptable. I think there is a debate...

[recxjake]

McCain says that it was found unconstitutional because of the particular wording of the bill, but there are ways to word it so that it would be constitutionally acceptable. I think there is a debate...

"The Clinton Administration line item veto was unconstitutional. Anyone who does not understand that has not read the Supreme Court’s opinion striking it down and does not have a clear understanding of the Constitution."

--Theodore B. Olson, Former Solicitor General of the United States.

“The line-item veto is unconstitutional, and I’m a strict constructionist. The line-item veto — if we want, it has to be done by constitutional amendment."

— Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Fox’s "Fox News Sunday," 5/13/07

[BucEyedPea]

What do you guys think of the line item veto issue? Giuliani is opposed, but McCain says its a great way to cut pork.
I'm opposed. It's unconstitutional and was ruled as such in 1996. I don't favor an amendment for this either. Why can't they just try to pass one piece of revenue related leglislation at a time, instead of omnibus anyways? KISS!

[BucEyedPea]

I agree with this excellent article here noa:
The Line Item veto won't work (http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=1569)

[Taco John]

They're not giving him any time during the debates, but he's having a huge post debate rally:

http://www.justin.tv/ronpaul

[HolmeZz]

I want me some of the Money Honey.

[HolmeZz]

Thompson needs to work on coming across as compassionate. I don't get the feeling he gives a shit about the average American.

[BucEyedPea]

October 09, 2007

CNBC Pulls the Poll (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/015997.html)
Posted by Daniel McCarthy at October 9, 2007 06:53 PM
A reader has just informed me that CNBC has taken down their poll, which had Ron Paul winning with 75% in all categories (who won the debate, whom participants planned to vote for, and one other category -- who gave the best answers, I think). I know the media hates Paul, but this is just utterly shameless.

MSNBC does have a poll up, however.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21209617

[Mr. Kotter]

Thompson needs to work on coming across as compassionate. I don't get the feeling he gives a shit about the average American.

ROFL ROFL ROFL

What do you guys think of the line item veto issue? Giuliani is opposed, but McCain says its a great way to cut pork.

SC declared it unconstitutional; it will have to be ammended, if at all. Pretty clear, really.

Don't hold your breath. It has too much potential for partisan/pet project abuse, IMO.

Guess we'll see. :shrug:

[HolmeZz]

Instead of three laughing smilies, do you want to intelligently refute my post?

[Mr. Kotter]

October 09, 2007

CNBC Pulls the Poll (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/015997.html)
Posted by Daniel McCarthy at October 9, 2007 06:53 PM
A reader has just informed me that CNBC has taken down their poll, which had Ron Paul winning with 75% in all categories (who won the debate, whom participants planned to vote for, and one other category -- who gave the best answers, I think). I know the media hates Paul, but this is just utterly shameless.

MSNBC does have a poll up, however.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21209617

Gotta admire the Paul internet "force".....heh. :hmmm:

:clap:


Will it matter in the end? I think....not. .... :hmmm:

[Mr. Kotter]

Instead of three laughing smilies, do you want to intelligently refute my post?

Three words:

(Pretty obvious, really...not the three words, though. Are you ready? )

Federalism, not socialism.

:)

[HolmeZz]

I don't think that even begins to address my post.

[Mr. Kotter]

Three words:

(Pretty obvious, really...not the three words, though. Are you ready? )

Federalism, not socialism.

:)

I'll spell it out, Mr. Obtuse:

Federalism:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/federalism...

A system of government in which power is divided between a national (federal) government and various regional governments. As defined by the United States Constitution, federalism is a fundamental aspect of American government, whereby the states are not merely regional representatives of the federal government, but are granted independent powers and responsibilities. With their own legislative branch, executive branch, and judicial branch, states are empowered to pass, enforce, and interpret laws, provided they do not violate the Constitution. This arrangement not only allows state governments to respond directly to the interests of their local populations, but also serves to check the power of the federal government. Whereas the federal government determines foreign policy, with exclusive power to make treaties, declare war, and control imports and exports, the states have exclusive power to ratify the Constitution. Most governmental responsibilities, however, are shared by state and federal governments: both levels are involved in such public policy issues as taxation, business regulation, environmental protection, and civil rights.

Note: The precise extent of state and federal responsibility has always been controversial. Republican administrations, for example, have tended to grant more authority to the states, thereby encouraging political and economic freedom but discouraging comprehensive social welfare. Until the middle of the twentieth century, the Supreme Court left the interpretation of many civil rights guarantees to the states, resulting in widespread discrimination against minorities.

NOT, socialism.

Socialism:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism

An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists.

[HolmeZz]

My post had nothing to do with policy. It had to do with his character/personality. He doesn't come off as compassionate at all and I think him entering the race late will adversely effect him. You have to WANT to be President. You have to be eager to serve the people. He was not and he's got an uphill climb when it comes to making himself look personable.

[dirk digler]

Thompson needs to work on coming across as compassionate. I don't get the feeling he gives a shit about the average American.

Especially in Michigan where today Chrysler announced more job cuts and Thompson stands up there and says the economy is peachy.

[Mr. Kotter]

Especially in Michigan where today Chrysler announced more job cuts and Thompson stands up there and says the economy is peachy.

The economy is peachy??? :hmmm:

It is. On the whole. Transition is difficult. We are no longer a manufacturing based economy; we are service and technology based.

Besides, buggy and carriage businesses were bumming in the 1890s, too.

We are suppose to feel sorry for "union" workers who don't have a HS diploma, but still make, on average, 50-100% than teachers (many of which have MA degrees???)

:hmmm:

[Mr. Kotter]

My post had nothing to do with policy. It had to do with his character/personality. He doesn't come off as compassionate at all and I think him entering the race late will adversely effect him. You have to WANT to be President. You have to be eager to serve the people. He was not and he's got an uphill climb when it comes to making himself look personable.

Liberals: want daddy, friend, momma....to be President.

Conservatives: want a leader, granddaddy, and a visionary....to be President.

Simple differences, IMO. :hmmm:

[dirk digler]

It is. On the whole. Transition is difficult. We are no longer a manufacturing based economy; we are service and technology based.

Besides, buggy and carriage businesses were bumming in the 1890s, too.

We are suppose to feel sorry for "union" workers who don't have a HS diploma, but still make, on average, 50-100% than teachers (many of which have MA degrees???)

:hmmm:

It may or not be but IMHO it is not smart to stand up in the state of Michigan where unemployment is double the national average and claim the economy is peachy.

I do feel sorry for most people that get laid off no matter what job they have.

[ClevelandBronco]

It is. On the whole. Transition is difficult. We are no longer a manufacturing based economy; we are service and technology based.

Besides, buggy and carriage businesses were bumming in the 1890s, too.

We are suppose to feel sorry for "union" workers who don't have a HS diploma, but still make, on average, 50-100% than teachers (many of which have MA degrees???)

:hmmm:

Well, you might have to consider whether American automobiles compare more favorably against their competition than American education compares against their foreign counterparts.

[ClevelandBronco]

I do feel sorry for most people that get laid off no matter what job they have.

Why?

[Mr. Kotter]

It may or not be but IMHO it is not smart to stand up in the state of Michigan where unemployment is double the national average and claim the economy is peachy.

I do feel sorry for most people that get laid off no matter what job they have.

Wow.

A politician who says what is necessary; not what is necessarily "popular."

Yeah, I see can see how that sucks for "union"-type supporters, but otherwise... :shrug:

:hmmm:

[dirk digler]

Why?

Because it is a life changing event that can and has destroyed families and lives.

[Mr. Kotter]

Well, you might have to consider whether American automobiles compare more favorably against their competition than American education compares against their foreign counterparts.

In both instances we could do better; however, in the case of education....since we don't contol "inputs" in this country, as they do in other countries, personally, I think we'd be comparing apples to....well, er...eh, watermellons (at best.)

:hmmm:

[Mr. Kotter]

Because it is a life changing event that can and has destroyed families and lives.

Tell that to children of teachers....who are told, "well, my parent (in Real Estate, a GM worker, or a stock broker).....does 'more important' stuff than YOUR folks."

(Paraphrase of an actual "parent of a friend" comment....from my 11 yr old....thank goodness, he and I "talk" enough, so I can 'deprogram' him, eh???)

:hmmm:

[ClevelandBronco]

In both instances we could do better; however, in the case of education....since we don't contol "inputs" in this country, as they do in other countries, personally, I think we'd be comparing apples to....well, er...eh, watermellons (at best.)

:hmmm:

Damn it, teacher. Spell "watermelons" correctly.

[ClevelandBronco]

Because it is a life changing event that can and has destroyed families and lives.

If I may, I'll complete your thought:

...that is caused by people failing to provide themselves with options.

[dirk digler]

Tell that to children of teachers....who are told, "well, my parent (in Real Estate, a GM worker, or a stock broker).....does 'more important' stuff than YOUR folks."

(Paraphrase of an actual "parent of a friend" comment....from my 11 yr old....thank goodness, he and I "talk" enough, so I can 'deprogram' him, eh???)

:hmmm:

I feel sorry for teachers, policeman, and fireman because they do thankless jobs and get shitty pay. I have been a policeman and I know.

With that being said I don't think you would want to be the guy that works 20+ years on a job and then gets laid off and loses everything but there are thousands of people this happens to every year. You don't feel sorry for those people?

[Mr. Kotter]

Damn it, teacher. Spell "watermelons" correctly.

ROFL

....please, excuse the extraneous "l," spelling-Nazi. :harumph:

:p

[ClevelandBronco]

I feel sorry for teachers, policeman, and fireman because they do thankless jobs and get shitty pay. I have been a policeman and I know.

Thank you, policemen. Thank you, fire fighters.

Teachers, you get paid far more than you deserve. Your retirement plan is ludicrous.

With that being said I don't think you would want to be the guy that works 20+ years on a job and then gets laid off and loses everything but there are thousands of people this happens to every year. You don't feel sorry for those people?

Not in the least.

[Mr. Kotter]

I feel sorry for teachers, policeman, and fireman because they do thankless jobs and get shitty pay. I have been a policeman and I know.

With that being said I don't think you would want to be the guy that works 20+ years on a job and then gets laid off and loses everything but there are thousands of people this happens to every year. You don't feel sorry for those people?

Feel sorry? Sure, I do. Do I allow that to dictate NATIONAL economic policy decisions, as a result? No. :shrug:

Just like, WHEN and IF N.C.L.B.....becomes unbearable in the classroom? We, FTR, are getting close... :hmmm:

I'll take that as a hint from God, that I should be selling insurance or tires or something??? :shrug:

[dirk digler]

Not in the least.

Why not?

[Mr. Kotter]

...Teachers, you get paid far more than you deserve. Your retirement plan is ludicrous...

:spock:

Because we possess the intellect to recruit, hire, and retain decent pension "fund" managers....for our 501B accounts and mutual funds???? :shrug:

"Ludicrous"....is pretty lame, fella. :rolleyes:

[dirk digler]

Feel sorry? Sure, I do. Do I allow that to dictate NATIONAL economic policy decisions, as a result? No. :shrug:

Just like, WHEN and IF N.C.L.B.....becomes unbearable in the classroom? We, FTR, are getting close... :hmmm:

I'll take that as a hint from God, that I should be selling insurance or tires or something??? :shrug:

I am not asking to dictate National Economic decisions just some people need to show some compassion.

So I take it you don't like NCLB? I heard Bush say today he wants to extend it and change some things. So is it true you are basically teaching the test instead of teaching children?

[ClevelandBronco]

Why not?

Because employers aren't obligated to support a worker for the duration of his life. If a worker is no longer needed by his current employer and if he isn't ready to remarket himself to a new employer, then it's the worker who's dropped the ball. It isn't the employer's fault.

[Mr. Kotter]

I am not asking to dictate National Economic decisions just some people need to show some compassion.

So I take it you don't like NCLB? I heard Bush say today he wants to extend it and change some things. So is it true you are basically teaching the test instead of teaching children?

Can you explain to me your definition of "compassion"....as opposed to a more Socialistic approach to industry and economic development, in this country?

NCLB is fine, as far as intent; accountability and standards are a good thing. However, it has...in many instances become a matter of simply....become "teaching the test." Check out the "cooking of the books" done by Houston Public Schools---the district which employed former Secretary of Education Page, if you need more concrete evidence. JMHO.

[ClevelandBronco]

:spock:

Because we possess the intellect to recruit, hire, and retain decent pension "fund" managers....for our 501B accounts and mutual funds???? :shrug:

"Ludicrous"....is pretty lame, fella. :rolleyes:

Yeah. Your colleagues are amazing. The envy of the world.

Bullshit. You're a government monopoly that's protected by a union.

Kotter, you're a good man. The system stinks to high heaven.

[dirk digler]

Because employers aren't obligated to support a worker for the duration of his life. If a worker is no longer needed by his current employer and if he isn't ready to remarket himself to a new employer, then it's the worker who's dropped the ball. It isn't the employer's fault.

So is it the employee's fault when the CEO takes millions of dollars in stock options and trips and buys lavish things and then has to layoff employees because they are losing money? Or how about them moving overseas or to Mexico for cheap labor while the American worker who worked 30 years gets laid off and loses his pension. I suppose that is the employees fault as well?

[ClevelandBronco]

:spock:

Because we possess the intellect to recruit, hire, and retain decent pension "fund" managers....for our 501B accounts and mutual funds???? :shrug:

"Ludicrous"....is pretty lame, fella. :rolleyes:

The problem is this: Your union has negotiated a contract that guarantees you a defined benefit. Most other pension plans are based on a defined contribution and no guaranteed benefit whatsoever. The government will give you my money no matter how your funds perform.

That's a shitty deal for me, but it's a great deal for you.

[ClevelandBronco]

So is it the employee's fault when the CEO takes millions of dollars in stock options and trips and buys lavish things and then has to layoff employees because they are losing money? Or how about them moving overseas or to Mexico for cheap labor while the American worker who worked 30 years gets laid off and loses his pension. I suppose that is the employees fault as well?

What the hell?

[Mr. Kotter]

Yeah. Your colleagues are amazing. The envy of the world.

Bullshit. You're a government monopoly that's protected by a union.

Kotter, you're a good man. The system stinks to high heaven.

I don't care for unions. Have refused to join them. Ever.

If I hate my job, I'll go sell insurance or tires and make twice the money. :shrug:

The "system" that you smell??? Smells in large part....more, due to the interference of bureacracy and federal government 'mandates'; rather than the meager, and almost comical "gains" by unions in the 'blue' states.

I know you are able to make the distinction between unions and, individual, teachers. You'd do well to....recall....to remember that distinction, in such discussions, IMHO.The problem is this: Your union has negotiated a contract that guarantees you a defined benefit. Most other pension plans are based on a defined contribution and no guaranteed benefit whatsoever. The government will give you my money no matter how your funds perform.

That's a shitty deal for me, but it's a great deal for you.

Your understanding of Teacher pension funds, in my state....is seriously lacking, insofar as I can tell.... :hmmm:

[ClevelandBronco]

So is it the employee's fault when the CEO takes millions of dollars in stock options and trips and buys lavish things and then has to layoff employees because they are losing money? Or how about them moving overseas or to Mexico for cheap labor while the American worker who worked 30 years gets laid off and loses his pension. I suppose that is the employees fault as well?

Oh. I didn't realize all that shit led to the guy getting laid off.

Guess what? It's still his fault if he's unemployable.

[dirk digler]

What the hell?

The way I took your post is that if a employee gets laid off it is the employees fault when in reality alot of the time it is the employer that is screwing the employee.

I do agree that workers should re market themselves even go back to school if necessary but it is sad IMO for a worker who works his whole damn life at 1 job to see everything that he worked for erased.

[ClevelandBronco]

If I hate my job, I'll go sell insurance or tires and make twice the money...

But you wouldn't get 75% of your top salary for the remainder of your life after you retired from selling insurance or tires or whatever else. That's what retired teachers get here. They walked out and refused to teach until they got that provision. They get 75% of the their best paycheck every month for as long as they live. That's a sweet deal. That's a deal that you can get only if you're a government monopoly

The best part is that it's paid for with tax dollars if the retirement funds don't cover the shortfall.

I wonder what Fred would say about a situation that is such an obvious loser for the taxpayer?

[ClevelandBronco]

The way I took your post is that if a employee gets laid off it is the employees fault when in reality alot of the time it is the employer that is screwing the employee.

I do agree that workers should re market themselves even go back to school if necessary but it is sad IMO for a worker who works his whole damn life at 1 job to see everything that he worked for erased.

Yeah. Whatever. It's sad then.

[Mr. Kotter]

But you wouldn't get 75% of your top salary for the remainder of your life after you retired from selling insurance or tires or whatever else. That's what retired teachers get here. They walked out and refused to teach until they got that provision. They get 75% of the their best paycheck every month for as long as they live. That's a sweet deal. That's a deal that you can get only if you're a government monopoly

The best part is that it's paid for with tax dollars if the retirement funds don't cover the shortfall.

I wonder what Fred would say about a situation that is such an obvious loser for the taxpayer?

If you are in CO, that explains it; we didn't call it the "People's Republic of Colorado" when I lived there....for nothing. Blame your pols for that. Heh.

As for Fred, I suspect he'd oppose THAT system. OTOH, he'd probably applaud a system like we have in SD....where benefit is determined based on fund performance, not some arbitrarily determined level of performance as determined by some state government. Just a guess on my part; but based on what Fred says....he's a big fan of "real" federalism. :hmmm:

[ClevelandBronco]

If you are in CO, that explains it; we didn't call it the "People's Republic of Colorado" when I lived there....for nothing. Blame your pols for that. Heh.

As for Fred, I suspect he'd oppose THAT system. OTOH, he'd probably applaud a system like we have in SD....where benefit is determined based on fund performance, not some arbitrarily determined level of performance as determined by some state government. Just a guess on my part; but based on what Fred says....he's a big fan of "real" federalism. :hmmm:

Bullshit. The government monopoly on education and the teachers' unions are the problem.

The teacher's union demands X, the government agrees to it and we all get to pay for inferior education in a government monopoly.

Thanks, teachers. Thanks for everything you do for us.

[Mr. Kotter]

Bullshit. The government monopoly on education and the teachers' unions are the problem.

The teacher's union demands X, the government agrees to it and we all get to pay for inferior education in a government monopoly.

Thanks, teachers. Thanks for everything you do for us.

In addition to holding unions in contempt; I favor "choice" and "vouchers."

Really. The only districts and teachers who fear those things are crap districts, IMHO.

I'm in your side on this; you are just confusing/conflating public education and "teachers" from what I can see.

Of course...I could VERY ready, :)

[ClevelandBronco]

In addition to holding unions in contempt; I favor "choice" and "vouchers."

Really. The only districts and teachers who fear those things are crap districts, IMHO.

I'm in your side on this; you are just confusing/conflating public education and "teachers" from what I can see.

Of course...I could VERY ready, :)

You aren't the problem, Kotter, but I know teachers who would defend this status quo, their salaries (based on seniority, never on effectiveness), and their guaranteed retirement benefits as something that taxpayers "owe" them because they made some kind of a sacrifice by becoming teachers.

I just don't buy the PR. I know this for sure:We pay teachers too handsomely in the school district I pay for. There's no shortage of teachers, and I know a few who are in other districts that are hoping like hell they can get into ours.

If there's no shortage, then we're paying too much. That's simple market economics.

[BucEyedPea]

October 09, 2007

"let the lawyers sort that out"
Posted by Karen DeCoster at October 9, 2007 09:32 PM
Jim, Mitt Romney was asked if he thought the president would need congressional approval before striking Iran's nuclear facilities, and Romney's exact words were "let the lawyers sort that out." Then he repeated that phrase when Matthews asked him AGAIN. Each time he said it very fast and jumped the subject to something more palatable to the audience. He's a curdled skank.

I got this off of Lew's blog. ROFL

[noa]

You aren't the problem, Kotter, but I know teachers who would defend this status quo, their salaries (based on seniority, never on effectiveness), and their guaranteed retirement benefits as something that taxpayers "owe" them because they made some kind of a sacrifice by becoming teachers.

I just don't buy the PR. I know this for sure:We pay teachers too handsomely in the school district I pay for. There's no shortage of teachers, and I know a few who are in other districts that are hoping like hell they can get into ours.

If there's no shortage, then we're paying too much. That's simple market economics.

Maybe education isn't a field where you want to figure out the least amount you can pay someone to do the job and go with that. Maybe you want to attract more than the least common denominator. Sure, there are teachers who would take the job even if it only pays $25,000 a year, but is that who you want to attract?
Several of my friends were teachers coming out of college with education degrees, and they've all left the field because it was too difficult for the amount they were getting paid. One of my friends was working from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. on a regular basis and realized he could easily make $50,000 plus for that amount of work in any other field. Another friend left because he was constantly getting sick (literally) from the kids and gained 30 pounds because he never had time to eat or exercise, and as soon as he found another job, he got back in shape and actually had enough money to do things he wanted, like buy a house. It's a tough job, which is why I have a lot of respect for people like Kotter who do it. But aside from the difficulty and the relatively low pay for the effort you put in, I think investing in higher teacher salaries is an investment in your kids. Education studies consistently show that a well-trained teacher is much more effective than someone who has to learn on the job, so if we expect our future teachers to invest in quality education degrees, then we should invest in them in return. Otherwise, you lose the incentive to invest in an education degree from a good school.

I agree that the retirement benefits and the clout of teacher's unions are problematic, but I find it hard to complain about teacher's salaries based on my friends' experiences and the importance of quality teachers in general.

[BucEyedPea]

I teach noa, and it's a cut in pay from working in an agency or firm but the schedule is more advantageous for me as a benefit that I desire. Then I can pick and choose my freelance work or how much I work around that. I also have a friend who teaches public school and he says it's the best payin' part time job he's ever had.

I can't say the ones that have masters do a better job then me and they get more money. I am not teacher trained. I even get letters from students saying how I taught them got them a job. Teachers are trained pretty much the same everywhere from what I can see. I'd love to see those education studies. Money is no gaurantee of doing a good job. I'd rather see the training change.

[recxjake]

Rasmussen Reports Daily National Republican Primary Tracking Poll

Giuliani - 27%
Thompson - 17%
Romney - 16%
McCain - 11%
Huckabee - 6%
Daily tracking results are from survey interviews conducted over four days ending last night. Each update includes approximately 600-650 Likely Republican Primary Voters. Margin of sampling error for each is +/- 4 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

[BucEyedPea]

Is that 27% for Rude-y happening all in one state? LMAO

[noa]

I teach noa, and it's a cut in pay from working in an agency or firm but the schedule is more advantageous for me as a benefit that I desire. Then I can pick and choose my freelance work or how much I work around that. I also have a friend who teaches public school and he says it's the best payin' part time job he's ever had.

I can't say the ones that have masters do a better job then me and they get more money. I am not teacher trained. I even get letters from students saying how I taught them got them a job. Teachers are trained pretty much the same everywhere from what I can see. I'd love to see those education studies. Money is no gaurantee of doing a good job. I'd rather see the training change.

Sorry, I shouldn't have limited just to higher degrees, but argued for better training, which of course requires an investment of time. I've seen studies say that teachers that continue professional development through schools even after they've begun their career do better. Can't pull up the link right now cause I'm busy, but I'll post later.

[chagrin]

Is that 27% for Rude-y happening all in one state? LMAO

Don't laugh, it's 23% more than Ron Paul will see in any state this election.

[Taco John]

Don't laugh, it's 23% more than Ron Paul will see in any state this election.



All Ron Paul will need is 1-2% as a third party candidate to derail Rudy in a national election.

[Hydrae]

They're not giving him any time during the debates, but he's having a huge post debate rally:

http://www.justin.tv/ronpaul


I know this site is no longer showing the interview but I just got pinged from my IT department for going to this website. It turns out that it set off IRC alarms just by following that link. Thought I should pass that along as a potential issue for people.

[recxjake]

Is that 27% for Rude-y happening all in one state? LMAO

American Research Group Nevada Caucus Poll, among likely Republican caucus goers

Rudy Giuliani 31%
Mitt Romney 29%
John McCain 11%
Fred Thompson 9%
Sam Brownback 4%
Undecided 11%
Margin of Error: ± 4 percentage points, 95% of the time, on questions where opinion is evenly split.

American Research Group Arizona Primary Poll, among likely Republican primary voters

John McCain 25%
Rudy Giuliani 20%
Mitt Romney 18%
Fred Thompson 13%
Ron Paul 5%
Undecided 14%
Margin of Error: ± 4 percentage points, 95% of the time, on questions where opinion is evenly split.

Note: These are the results for likely Republican Caucus and Primary attendees. If you would like to see the results with Independents entered into the mix, see ARG’s site.-KWN

Quinnipiac GOP Pennsylvania Primary

Rudy Giuliani 32% (31%)
John McCain 13% (13%)
Fred Thompson 13% (8%)
Mitt Romney 8% (7%)
Ron Paul 4% (2%)
Mike Huckabee 2% (2%)
Duncan Hunter 1% (0%)
Don’t Know 20% (23%)
Favorable / Unfavorable (Net)

Rudy Giuliani 74% / 10% (+64%)
John McCain 58% / 17% (+41%)
Mitt Romney 43% / 8% (+35%)
Fred Thompson 41% / 8% (+33%)
Survey of 355 registered Republicans was conducted October 1-8. The margin of error is +/- 5.2 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted August 14-20 are in parentheses.

Poll Watch: Quinnipiac GOP Ohio Primary
Quinnipiac GOP Ohio Primary

Rudy Giuliani 29% (21%)
Fred Thompson 17% (15%)
John McCain 10% (10%)
Mitt Romney 8% (8%)
Mike Huckabee 5% (3%)
Sam Brownback 1% (1%)
Duncan Hunter 1% (1%)
Ron Paul 1% (2%)
Tom Tancredo 1% (1%)
Don’t Know 22% (25%)
Favorable / Unfavorable (Net)

Rudy Giuliani 75% / 12% (+63%)
John McCain 64% / 17% (+47%)
Fred Thompson 44% / 7% (+37%)
Mitt Romney 41% / 11% (+30%)
Survey of 321 registered Republicans was conducted October 1-8. The margin of error is +/- 5.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted August 28-September 3 are in parentheses.

Poll Watch: Quinnipiac GOP Florida Primary
Quinnipiac GOP Florida Primary

Rudy Giuliani 27% (28%)
Fred Thompson 19% (17%)
Mitt Romney 17% (11%)
John McCain 8% (10%)
Mike Huckabee 4% (2%)
Ron Paul 2% (2%)
Sam Brownback 1% (0%)
Tom Tancredo 1% (0%)
Don’t Know 16% (18%)
Favorable / Unfavorable (Net)

Rudy Giuliani 78% / 8% (+70%)
Mitt Romney 54% / 8% (+46%)
Fred Thompson 52% / 8% (+44%)
John McCain 58% / 18% (+40%)
Survey of 345 registered Republicans was conducted October 1-8. The margin of error is +/- 5.3 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted September 3-9 are in parentheses.

Poll Watch: Strategic Vision GOP Michigan Primary
Strategic Vision GOP Michigan Primary

Rudy Giuliani 24% (20%)
Mitt Romney 20% (15%)
Fred Thompson 15% (14%)
John McCain 10% (14%)
Mike Huckabee 5% (3%)
Ron Paul 4% (3%)
Tom Tancredo 2% (2%)
Duncan Hunter 1% (1%)
Sam Brownback 1% (3%)
Undecided 18% (19%)
Survey of 1,200 likely Republican primary voters was conducted October 5-7. The margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted July 6-8 are in parentheses

[patteeu]

All Ron Paul will need is 1-2% as a third party candidate to derail Rudy in a national election.

Why would you or Ron Paul want to get Hillary elected?

[BucEyedPea]

To teach the party a lesson for moving left and not being any different so it doesn't matter 'causing them to examine themselves and recharge. * licks chops *

Hillary would only be devasting if Congress stays Dem and got a majority instead of a plurality of the vote. A divided govt would be just fine with me. I like gridlock! JMO.

[go bowe]

Instead of three laughing smilies, do you want to intelligently refute my post?:shake: :shake: :shake:

[go bowe]

Wow.

A politician who says what is necessary; not what is necessarily "popular."

Yeah, I see can see how that sucks for "union"-type supporters, but otherwise... :shrug:

:hmmm:unions have supporters?

why?

are they closet jocks, or something?