Hello, human diary. It is I again, Mitt Romney, your better.
These last days have been extremely tiring. Ever since the Supreme Court decided that the current healthcare law indeed passed constitutional muster, things have been confusing, at best. Our campaign has not quite decided what to do with the information, although we remain certain we disapprove of it. In the meantime I have taken respite in my beachfront vacation home (not the California one, but the other one).
The problem is that I am, to use a term Eric F. explained to me, happysad. I am happy because the healthcare plan that I myself proposed, endorsed, implemented, and repeatedly endorsed again has received approval from the highest court in the land, which means it was good. But I am sad because that approval was technically granted to another version of that plan, one endorsed by Democrats, which means it is now bad. Trying to draw the line between the two?which plan is good, and which plan is bad?continues to be quite difficult. It seems reporter units are not entirely satisfied with the simple notion that the bad one is the one my opponent did, because he is my opponent and he is bad. I instructed my staff to explain to them further that my plan was good because I am not my opponent, and since he is bad I must by definition be good, but they reported back with unsatisfactory results. While we sort this out, we have largely decided to not say things anymore, on any subject.
I am not sure if it is the court ruling, the water here or the fumes of the jet-propelled water vehicle, but I have certainly noticed a decrease in my operational capacities. The additional weekend leap second was no help, and yet another example of how scientists are inherently biased against severe conservatives like myself.
On the other hand, it may be all others whose operational capacities are incorrect? After all, I can clearly determine which healthcare plans are good and bad, so if others are perceiving more complexities it is just as likely that they are the ones in error. Often elevators can have the right answer, in terms of adjusting tree height, but I do not know now if haircuts can meet my commitment to cheesy grits and pastries of dubious origin. All of these should be left up to the states, except for the tree dimensions. Clearly, though, if one health insurance mandate is from 7-11, and the other is not, then is it not obvious which one I should pick as my Vice Presidential unit? All these podiums have been of incorrect heights, through this entire campaign. Each of them should have been one quarter inch higher. And I am tired of pretending to like Donald Trump.
I am not feeling well, Mr. Diary. I am going to lie down for a while. I suppose each political campaign has bad weeks, and I suppose my campaigns have tended to have more bad weeks than could seemingly be explained by random chance. I am only glad that this week is of slightly smaller portion than most weeks, due to the holiday.
Click here to view this media
Real estate mogul Donald Trump says Chief Justice John Roberts became the swing vote and upheld Barack Obama's health care reform law because he "wanted to be loved" by liberals and the Washington establishment.
"It's a disaster," Trump said during an interview on Fox News on Monday. "Obviously it would have been better if it was knocked out, but Justice Roberts wanted to be loved by the Washington establishment. And by the way, he is now loved. The way they are talking about him, it's unbelievable."
"So, he is a beloved man to the liberals and to the Washington establishment and to others, and despised by the people that really counted," he added. "I mean, in a sense, he was extremely disloyal."
Trump also accused the media of being dishonest for reporting that Mitt Romney's spokesperson, Rick Gorka, had said that a scheduled fundraiser "won't be happening."
"And then all of the sudden we had a fundraiser and raised millions of dollars. It was a great success," the billionaire explained. "The press, much of it, it's so dishonest. It's so disgusting."
"The one thing with Obamacare is that the energy in that room was five times greater than it would have been a month before," Trump insisted. "[The Supreme Court ruling] energized the Republican Party. It energized people that don't want Obamacare, of which there are many. It energizes businesses because businesses aren't going to be businesses for very long. Many, many businesses are going to be closed up."
"OK, so that's good for Mitt Romney but bad for the country," Fox News co-host Eric Bolling concluded.
Wendy Long, who serves as a legal adviser to Romney's campaign even as she runs for U.S. Senate against Kirsten Gillibrand, sent out a press release this afternoon questioning whether Gillibrand supports the president's "massive Obamacare tax increase on the middle class."Long, who has absolutely no shot at winning, has a long history with Romney: She was a legal adviser to his campaign in 2008 in addition to her current role in the same campaign with the 2012 campaign. But while she's prattling forth GOP talking points about how the individual mandate (which was pioneered by Romneycare) is a massive increase (even though it isn't), the Mitt Romney campaign says she's got it exactly wrong.
"For the first time in history our government is taxing us for not doing something," Long asked in the release. "This is a dangerous and unprecedented attack on our freedom. If the government can tax us for not purchasing a product, what is next?"
So here's the question: With Romneyland in complete disarray, unable to stick to a single story about a policy which Mitt Romney pioneered but now rejects, why in the world should anyone believe them when it comes to talking about the benefits that Obamacare delivers? And given that they insist on having this stupid tax debate even though they can't get their story straight, isn't it pretty obvious that they know a debate over the benefits of Obamacare?things like near-universal coverage, guaranteed access to health insurance, and subsidies for those who can't afford it?is a debate that they would lose, and badly?
Many investors say that you "shouldn't try to catch a falling knife."
Well, I did, and it hurts.
I made a big, bold $12,500 bet on Ford Motor (NYSE: F) when I launched . . . → Read More: Here’s Why Shares of Ford Could Double in 2 Years
Read The Full Article:
Hebrew National Hot Dogs likes to advertise they “answer to a higher power“. Even though the slogan isn’t exactly non-controversial – some orthodox Jews claim they aren’t Glatt Kosher – they are, after all, in the business of making sausages.
But Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WhatthehelliswrongwithWI) thinks all Americans should answer to a higher power too – God – presumably the Christian one. That makes this one of those cases when you shouldn’t watch the sausage being made.
“This health care reform was the cause of my husband?s life,? Vicki said. ?He believed that it was a moral issue, that it defined the character of who we were as a society, who we were as a country, and that decent quality, affordable health care should be fundamental right and not a privilege.?
Ryan offered a bit of a Talibanish response though, ?What Ms. Kennedy and others were saying is that this is a new government-granted right. We disagree with the notion that our rights come from government, that the government can now grant us and define our rights. Those are ours, they come from nature and God, according to the Declaration of Independence ? a huge difference in philosophy.”
As a U.S. Congressman I’d guess Ryan is about as ignorant as any Congressman about how our government works. After all, they prove that everyday. But Paul, buddy, the Declaration doesn’t govern who gives rights to anyone. While it’s a mighty fine piece of rabble-rousing, the Constitution is the foundation of our laws. Additionally, the Constitution only mentions God once – in the signing date, “Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven.”
It’s OK, though a bit short-sighted, if you don’t like the Affordable Care Act. It rubs ill against people being healthy and making sure those private-sector death insurance panelists dole out health care to the highest bidder. It also rubs against that whole, “promote the general welfare” clause in the Preamble. But I guess it doesn’t count because God didn’t pen the line. Although, I’m sure he would’ve liked it to, it’s pretty snappy, it wold’ve made a dandy 11th Commandment.
But disliking legislation that chaps your ass and justifying it by saying, “God made me do it,” is exactly why many of us think, “the debil made YOU do it.” Much as you and your anti-Sharia, pro-Biblical ilk would like, the Constitution is an invention of us just mere mortals, the ones who fight and die and protest to make sure zealots like you can spout theocracy to your cold hearts’ content.
One would think you’d be proud people do this. It allows you to practice your bread and butter obfuscating and pandering to our lowest common national denominators. It is one of our few remaining bright spots in an otherwise bleak American landscape. Even if you want to give God a co-creator credit, I’d think you would like it that God made us so damn smart. Why, it would almost be as though he had created us in his image.
God doesn’t grant government anything…yet. However government, duly adjudicated, HAS granted affordable health care to the American people. You and Mittens have pledged to bring it to its knees and gut it and I’m sure you will do some damage with the help of Blue Cross and UnitedHealthcare. As of today nobody knows if the Supremes’ decision was a victory or a defeat and for whom, but they – not your supreme being – are the supreme word on disputed government action. Hack away at one of the most moral actions the government has taken decades. It is your right.
But God? Leave him out of it.
For some reason, the issue of inequality has yet to take root among the political class. When the land of opportunity is no longer the land of opportunity, there's a problem and it needs to be addressed. Addressing anything serious requires a discussion and as long as the obstructionist party remains as is.
From Star Wars swag and Civil War cannons to fossils and rare paintings, the expert art dealers on Discovery's Final Offer have seen some unusual items. And when gallery owner Patrick Painter, our guest tonight, was presented with a valuable and unique[...]
Read The Full Article:
Click here to view this media
I'm not sure what "liberals" Washington Post columnist Charles Lane was talking about on this week's Fox News Sunday when he said this, but I've got a few words for his assumptions about how "liberals" are going to have to act if Supreme Court Justice John Roberts overturns part of the Voting Rights Act or affirmative action and that's "I don't think so pal."
LANE: What he has done in his brilliant opinion is to sacrifice a pawn, called the individual mandate and put the entire Great Society in check. And he has done that by getting two liberal justices to agree with him in a seven to two ruling that there are serious limitations on the federal government's ability to use its spending power to get the states to cooperate in welfare and education programs, which is really how everything works, or a lot of things work including education, Medicaid, etc.
And he has done that and gotten liberals to applaud him for it, so that now, next term when Voting Rights Act Section 5 and affirmative action in colleges come up before the court as they're going to and he votes with the other four conservatives to strike them down, all those liberals who might otherwise complain will now have to acknowledge that this fair-minded statesman, John Roberts, was involved in that decision.
This is a man of great brilliance and all those conservatives who are griping about this ruling need to give it a second thought.
Here's what most liberals still think of John Roberts, no matter how he ruled on this insurance friendly, Republican health care law he just upheld: 10 Ways John Roberts Is Still A Conservative?s Best Friend.
And calling someone ruling to keep "the Great Society in check" "brilliant" has to be one of the most crass things I've heard come out of anyone's mouth in a while now.
Even as the Gallup daily tracker moves several points in the direction of the president to kick off this holiday week, Rasmussen finds an electorate suddenly hungry for Republican leadership.
Yeah, yeah. I was shocked by it, too. But with virtually no polling data to speak of on this Monday evening, even the mundane gets a mention.
On to the numbers:
PRESIDENTIAL GENERAL ELECTION TRIAL HEATS:
NATIONAL (CNN/Opinion Research): Obama d. Romney (49-46)DOWNBALLOT POLLING:
NATIONAL (Gallup Tracking): Obama d. Romney (48-43)
NATIONAL (Rasmussen Tracking): Romney d. Obama (46-44)
NY-11 (Global Strategy Group for Murphy): Rep. Michael Grimm (R) 47, Mark Murphy (D) 32A few thoughts, as always, await you just past the jump ...
President Obama broke something of a stalemate in the forecast last week, buoyed by national and battleground state polls that showed him slightly ahead of Mitt Romney.
Read The Full Article: