If Romney is the best the GOP has to offer, who needs the GOP?

Image credit hat tip: Margaret Thatcher via Mitt Romney

I'm truly sorry to say this, folks, but Willard Mitt Romney sucks lemons:

Collaboration in Massachusetts was possible, Romney told business leaders in Salem, because he didn’t attack lawmakers from the other party as “a bunch of Neanderthals.”…

“I worked with [former Massachusetts Sen.] Ted Kennedy, for Pete’s sakes,” Romney said in Concord, noting that they disagreed on “almost everything.”

One issue that Kennedy and Romney worked closely on was legislation expanding healthcare coverage in Massachusetts. He recalled, to laughter, that at the ceremonial signing of the Massachusetts healthcare law, the Democrat had joked that when he and Romney agreed on a piece of legislation “it proves only one thing – one of us didn’t read it.”

“The truth was we had both read it and we’d found some common ground,” Romney said, “and I think that has to happen in Washington.”

Old Uncle Ted was right. As a purported alternative to statist busybodies like Teddy Kennedy and Barney Frank, Willard Mitt had no business signing the prototype for Obamacare into law. But Romney is proud to say that he did, and the subsequent failures of RomneyCare are well documented.

As America hobbles away from the legislative fallout of the Democrats' supermajority control of Washington, two thirds of the voters see that the U.S. is headed in the wrong direction.

What's wrong? The biggest problem facing America today is the malignant growth of government. (Our withering economy is perhaps the most notable symptom of that problem.)

The last thing the Republican Party needs is a nominee for the President of the United States who reflects fondly on his cozy affiliation with the patron saint of metastatic government and who looks forward to playing footsie with congressional Democrats.

I have news for Mitt Romney: The Tip O'Neills of 2011 are no longer members of the Democrat Party.

Update:

Hardcore liberal progressive Obamacare-loving statists love Romneycare. Naturally.

Obama's Crank Yankers Call to Harass Your Doc

If you're wondering why the telephone line is busy at your doctor's office, it might be because one of Obama's people is wasting everyone's time.

In the near future, pranksters from the Obama administration will be jamming the lines at doctors' offices with thousands of fake requests. The goal is to find out if your doctor gives preferential treatment to patients with private insurance:

In the mystery shopper survey, administration officials said, a federal contractor will call the offices of 4,185 doctors — 465 in each of nine states: Florida, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and West Virginia. The doctors will include pediatricians and obstetrician-gynecologists.

The calls are to begin in a few months, with preliminary results from the survey expected next spring. Each office will be called at least twice — by a person who supposedly has private insurance and by someone who supposedly has public insurance.

What "supposedly" means is that this is all a big fat ruse. Obama's friends will be calling from Chicago, but the doctors' offices won't know that:

To make sure they are not detected, secret shoppers will hide their telephone numbers by blocking caller ID information.

One of the purported objectives of the survey is to punish Obama's enemies address the increasingly severe shortage of primary care doctors:

[The survey] will also try to discover whether doctors are accepting patients with private insurance while turning away those in government health programs that pay lower reimbursement rates.

But we already know the answer to this question:

Medicaid, the program for low-income people, pays so little that many doctors refuse to accept Medicaid patients. This could become a more serious problem in 2014, when [ObamaCare] will greatly expand eligibility for Medicaid.

And as Pat Austin notes, we already know where the biggest physician shortages are.

How much do you want to bet that the O-bots conducting this survey will make shocking discoveries about health care disparities in which women, the poor and minorities are the hardest hit?

If you have qualms about Obama's "snoopy survey," take comfort in knowing that Big O is simply supersizing one of Dubya's initiatives (supposedly):

Federal officials said the initial survey would cost $347,370... The White House defended the survey, saying a similar technique had been used on a smaller scale in President George W. Bush’s administration.

No one knows how well this will work, but if all goes as planned, this could become a powerful new tool for government intrusion into the private sector:

Jennifer Benz, a research scientist at the center, said one purpose of the study was to determine whether the use of mystery shoppers would be a feasible way to track access to primary care in the future.

Why stop with primary care? Soon every business could be getting calls from Uncle Sam.

Synopsis...

Are we supposed to be surprised when they find out that people who are stuck with cheap, crappy, government-managed health programs wait longer for non-urgent health care services?

While we’re on this theme, how about some mystery lobbyists at the White House? Send them to congress too. Send in some mystery billionaire donors while you’re at it. Then get some mystery constituents into congressional offices.

Let’s collect some data!

I'm sure someone like James O'Keefe would be happy to help out with a project like that.

The Obama Legacy (VIRAL VIDEO)

Via the Lonely Conservative who got it from Maggie (who notes that it can be found at GM’s Place, among others) via Reaganite Republican who saw it at Conservative Hideout [who notes that the video can be found at The Augur’s Well, 5ft3, TeresAmerica, Bunkerville, Always on Watch (who points out that the video is featured at Jus' Sayin'), Randy's Roundtable (with a link to Adrienne's post) America’s Watchtower, "My Blog," Mueller Stuff, Trestin Meacham, Conservatives on Fire & The Conservative Lady] and Mind-Numbed Robot...

This video is clearly worth of its viral status. Enjoy:

The video has also been featured at SBVOR (with a hat tip to Darleen Click and Market Ticker), Small Dead Animals, Infidel Bloggers Alliance, Republic-MainStreet, THE OSTRICH FALLACY, Home Of The Meshuganas, Conservative Patriot, NoisyRoom.net, Allen West Nation, Today I'm Grumpy About, A Time For Choosing, and many others...

I shan't be surprised if I see the video at The Other McCain very soon. In the mean time, I'm heading over to LCR to post it there.

You've Got Mail: Left Wing Paranoia

I try to keep up with the latest progressive memes via email. Fundraising letters are especially amusing. Here are some highlights from the past week...

Bill Clinton to me:

Right-wing extremists in Congress are persistent and, if we let them, they will hide behind a veil of concern for federal spending to push through a broad right-wing agenda dismantling Medicare, privatizing Social Security, undermining the environment, and balancing the budget on the backs of America’s most vulnerable people.

I knew I was a right-wing extremist, but I didn't realize I was cowering behind "a veil of concern." Thanks for the info, Bill!

Sen. Barbara Boxer to me:

You hold the key to putting Leader Pelosi and Democrats back in control of Congress and ensuring President Obama’s re-election next year. The stakes are too high to let the Koch Brothers and the right-wing secret money machine continue their radical right-wing agenda.

Right now, they have set their sights on winning the special election in California’s 36th District and defeating President Obama next year...

Wait a minute ― who told the Democrats about our secret money machine?

Robby Mook to me:

Republicans aren’t willing to budge on ending tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires.

Eric Cantor is willing to sabotage our economy just to provide more red meat to the Tea Party and protect Republicans and their secret anonymous Koch Brothers backed billionaire donors.

They know about our secret money machine and our secret anonymous billionaires? Is there anything they don't know about our vast secret conspiracy?

Steve Israel to me:

It’s imperative that we stay neck and neck with the Republicans. Remember, on top of the cash that Boehner gives House Republicans, millions more will go to support Tea Party Republicans with secret cash from the Koch Brothers and the Tea Party’s new Super PAC.

The Koch Brothers are the root of all evil.

Rep. Joe Crowley to me:

First, House Republicans recklessly voted to end Medicare for seniors but give more tax breaks to billionaires. Then, Republican leaders were caught censoring official government communications that talk about the GOP’s radical plan to end Medicare.

The Republicans have a plan to end the world's biggest Ponzi scheme? Would that it were true.

James Carville to me:

Right now, the Koch Brothers, the Tea Party’s new “Super PAC,” and even old blubbering John Boehner himself are leaving no Republican billionaire behind.

They’re pulling out every stop to defeat President Obama and enact the most disgusting and extreme right-wing agenda this country has ever seen.

I feel so dirty.

Rep. Renee Ellmers: The Stimulus Has Failed!

Tea party Favorite Renee Ellmers (via Gateway Pundit):

In the Republican’s weekly address, Rep. Renee Ellmers of North Carolina said it’s time to reduce regulations, expand domestic energy production and require the government to consider the effect of federal rules on hiring.

Rep. Ellmers pointed out that the stimulus has failed. President Obama promised that the stimulus would keep the unemployment rate below 8%, yet it is currently at 9.7%.

The Republicans have a plan. The Democrats have…slogans.

CNN GOP Debate: The grades are in...

A = Outstanding

B = Strong

C = Adequate

D = Feeble

F = Embarrassment

In alphabetical order...

Michele Bachmann B+

Herman Cain C+

Newt Gingrich C

Ron Paul C-

Tim Pawlenty B+

Mitt Romney B

Rick Santorum B-

Bonus evaluation:

John King F

In my estimation, it was a tie between Pawlenty and Bachmann.

Pawlenty was solid and persuasive. Thorough without being too wonkish. Clear and concise. The substance of most of his answers will likely be satisfactory to most GOP primary voters.

Michelle Bachmann gave powerful answers with rock-solid conservative appeal. She was unflinching, and she energized the audience like none of the others.

Addendum:

The other candidates...

Herman Cain struggled to capitalize on his strengths. He managed to dance around John King's pointed questions about Islam well enough. Cain did what he needed to do, but he didn't score any points in this debate.

Newt Gingrich did what Newt Gingrich does. He made a few very interesting, historically sophisticated statements, but he's too pedantic. He's perfect for the college classroom, but why would anyone pull the lever for Newt?

Setting aside the issues, Ron Paul is getting old. Paul would be 81 years old at the end of his first term as president. Maybe Paul simply had a bad day, but based on his performance tonight, I think most voters would conclude that Paul lacks the vigor for the big fight.

Rick Santorum did quite well actually. He certainly exceeded my expectations. But my expectations were pretty low. Santorum is a good debater, but his reputation is so radioactive, I'm not sure what he expects to gain from the run.

Mitt Romney did exactly what he needed to do. He stood there looking pretty and all front runner-y, effectively dodging important questions about his "Obamneycare" record. In New Hampshire, it's probably Mitt's to lose, so it's better safe than sparkly for Romney.

CNN's John King (the so-called moderator) was the clearly the night's loser. His grunting and groaning were a huge distraction. I suppose that was the point. He reminded me of Al Gore during the debates with George Bush -- except Al Gore had no obligation to be impartial or professional.

I would advise GOP candidates to stay away from CNN's John King, before and after the primaries. He's a hack.

Exit questions for those who watched the debates:

This or That: CNN or Fox News?

This or That: CNN or Comedy Central?

This or That: John King or Jon Stewart?

For those who didn't catch the debate, Left Coast Rebel has the video in its entirety.

ABC has astute analysis.

Obama: "I Would Resign"

When the little messiah from Chicago says you should resign, what do you do?

In an exclusive interview with TODAY’s Ann Curry that will air on Tuesday’s show, President Barack Obama said that if he were Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner right now, he would resign in the wake of the scandal in which Weiner admitted to sending explicit photos of himself to women online.

“I can tell you that if it was me, I would resign,’’ Obama told Curry.

Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin...

So will Weiner resign? Robert Stacy McCain says that if we're waiting for shame to drive the Weiner out of office, we shouldn't hold our breath:

Is the "possibility" of Weiner quitting likely? Despite the public calls for his resignation from top Democrats, under House rules Weiner can't be expelled from Congress until the Ethics Committee conducts an investigation, which could take months. Whatever might motivate Weiner to quit, it obviously can't be shame. Anyone who has seen the middle-aged congressman's photo self-portrait of himself posing naked in front a gym mirror must conclude that Weiner is utterly shameless.

...hence Weiner's uncomfortable position beneath Obama's bus.

Obama's Death Panel: A Double Dose of Anti-Constitutional Outrages

Obamacare's death panel, a.k.a. the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), is a constitutional travesty:

The point of PPACA [Obamacare] is cost containment. This supposedly depends on the Independent Payment Advisory Board. The IPAB, which is a perfect expression of the progressive mind, is to be composed of 15 presidential appointees empowered to reduce Medicare spending - which is 13 percent of federal spending - to certain stipulated targets. IPAB is to do this by making "proposals" or "recommendations" to limit costs by limiting reimbursements to doctors. This, inevitably, will limit available treatments - and access to care when physicians leave the Medicare system.

The PPACA repeatedly refers to any IPAB proposal as a "legislative proposal" and speaks of "the legislation introduced" by the IPAB. Each proposal automatically becomes law unless Congress passes a measure cutting medical spending as much as IPAB would.

This is a travesty of lawmaking: An executive branch agency makes laws unless Congress enacts legislation to achieve the executive agency's aim.

And it gets worse. Any resolution to abolish the IPAB must pass both houses of Congress. And no such resolution can be introduced before 2017 or after Feb. 1, 2017, and must be enacted by Aug. 15 of that year. And if passed, it cannot take effect until 2020. It is transparently designed to permanently entrench IPAB - never mind the principle that one Congress cannot by statute bind another Congress from altering that statute.

...the IPAB is doubly anti-constitutional. It derogates the powers of Congress. And it ignores the separation of powers: It is an executive agency, its members appointed by the president, exercising legislative powers over which neither Congress nor the judiciary can exercise proper control.

[emphasis added]

Note that the author, George Will, assumes that physicians will be leaving the system en masse. In my humble opinion, he is correct in doing so.

In all the excitement over Anthony's Weiner, this important piece by George Will has been largely overlooked. Go read the rest and share it with your friends.

Barack Obama, George Soros & The Religious Left

From my article at AT:

Periodically, the professional left and their comrades in the traditional news media shine a light on various religious leaders who climb onto the national platform to cheer for Messiah Obama's compassionate statism or to denounce Republicans as sons of the devil. I'm sure we can expect this pattern to become more frequent and more frantic as we approach the 2012 elections.

As Obama's allies on the Religious Left step forward to promote Obama's radical left-wing agenda and to build momentum for Obama's 2012 campaign, we should be prepared to expose them for who they really are. In many cases we will discover that these religious leaders are well-compensated hyperpartisan mercenaries whose religious rhetoric is merely a threadbare cloak for their core values ― values that have no basis in traditional religion or biblically-based teachings.

[Recently], Think Progress provided a megaphone for their brothers and sisters of the Church of George Soros:

Four members affiliated with the religious group Faith In Public Life held a brief press conference during FFC’s afternoon intermission to denounce the GOP’s adherence to the philosophies of anti-government, anti-religion author Ayn Rand. The leaders — Rev. Jennifer Butler, Jim Wallis, Rev. Derrick Harkins, and Father Clete Kiley — asserted that the GOP efforts to cut funding from many anti-poverty programs while balancing the budget on the backs of the poorest Americans were not in line with Christian values...

So who are these "religious" leaders, and what is this organization, Faith in Public Life?

Let's break it down. First, we'll look at the four leaders listed above, then we'll look at the board members at Faith in Public Life (FPL)...

Jim Wallis, one of the aforementioned religious leaders denouncing the GOP's modest efforts to save future generations from crushing debt, has deep roots in Marxism, Communism, and radical anti-Americanism:

Wallis founded an anti-capitalist magazine called the Post-American which identified wealth redistribution and government-managed economies as the keys to achieving "social justice." He also railed against American foreign policy and joined the Students for a Democratic Society.

In 1971 Wallis and his Post-American colleagues changed the name of their publication to Sojourners, and in the mid-1970s they moved their base of operation from Chicago to Washington, D.C. Wallis has served as Sojourners’ editor ever since.

In parallel with his magazine's stridently antiwar position during the Seventies, Wallis championed the cause of communism. Forgiving its brutal standard-bearers in Vietnam and Cambodia the most abominable of atrocities, Wallis was unsparing in his execration of American military efforts. Demanding greater levels of "social justice" in the U.S., he was silent on the subject of the murderous rampages of Cambodia's Khmer Rouge. Very much to the contrary, several Sojourners editorials attempted to exculpate the Khmer Rouge of the charges of genocide, instead shifting blame squarely onto the United States.

Giving voice to Sojourners' intense anti-Americanism, Jim Wallis called the U.S. "… the great power, the great seducer, the great captor and destroyer of human life, the great master of humanity and history in its totalitarian claims and designs.”

More here.

As Barack Obama's spiritual advisor, Jim Wallis has been a reliable enemy of the tea party.

Jim Wallis reluctantly admits to accepting large donations from radical left-wing billionaire George Soros (transferred from Soros' Open Society Institute (OSI) to Wallis' organization, Sojourners). Wallis minimizes the importance of Soros' donations, but the numbers speak for themselves:

Wallis said that Sojourners applied for and received three grants totaling $275,000 from OSI between 2004 and 2007. After consulting with a staff member on the specific dates, Wallis said Sojourners received $200,000 in 2004 that was spent on "broad civic engagement." In 2006, OSI gave Sojourners a branding grant of $25,000 that Wallis said was used to merge the organization Call to Renewal with Sojourners. In 2007, Sojourners received a $100,000 grant for immigration reform, half of which went to another local organization in Los Angeles, he said.

"I have no apologies for taking a donation on immigration reform from Open Society. We'd do it again."

Rev. Jennifer Butler, another member of FPL, sees clash between christianity and capitalism...

The Rev. Jennifer Butler, executive director of the Washington-based group Faith in Public Life, said the fact that religious values seem to trump political or class differences can help groups like hers advocate for the poor.

And in ongoing debates in Washington over the budget and cuts to domestic spending, that means "making the wealthiest Americans and corporations pay their fair share in taxes" she said.

"People of faith have a unique ability to show political leaders that the economy is a moral issue," she said. "Even some members of Congress are beginning to echo our argument that protecting the most vulnerable as we get out of debt is a moral duty."

Butler clearly echoes Jim Wallis in suggesting that statism is "God's politics."

Meet Faith in Public Life's Father Clete Kiley. He's the "new labor priest," the "spiritual leader of the labor movement," and one of the four prominent FPL members mentioned by Think Progress...

"Oh noes! The Koch brothers are on the loose!"

...hackneyed hard-left rants cloaked in Biblical rhetoric.

READ THE REST...

Sweet Justice: Home Owners Foreclose on Bank

Folks, this is what government is supposed to do for us:

Hat tip: Scared Monkeys, Memeorandum

Because God is a Marxist...

(Click to enlarge)

Not only is Paul Ryan trying to kill your grandma, but he also hates God ― or something.

I know that's true because the well-paid Soros stooges at Think Progress say it's so.

Somehow, the Soros stooges at Think Progress managed to track down some Soros stooges at Faith in Public Life (a hard-left strategy center for the "faith community"):

Four members affiliated with the religious group Faith In Public Life held a brief press conference during FFC’s afternoon intermission to denounce the GOP’s adherence to the philosophies of anti-government, anti-religion author Ayn Rand. The leaders — Rev. Jennifer Butler, Jim Wallis, Rev. Derrick Harkins, and Father Clete Kiley — asserted that the GOP efforts to cut funding from many anti-poverty programs while balancing the budget on the backs of the poorest Americans were not in line with Christian values

Inevitable conclusion: Paul Ryan and the rest of the Republican Party are anti-Christian, anti-God, pro-anarchy, pro-poverty, Satan-loving baby eaters. And they still want to kill your grandma. (Have you checked on her today?)

I wonder if the pocket-picking progressives at Think Progress and Faith in Public Life have ever picked up a Bible. Their good buddies from Faithful America mockingly offered Paul Ryan a copy, but have they read the Bible for themselves? How about this part:

"Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver."

2 Corinthians 9:7

Or this one:

"A good person leaves an inheritance for their children’s children, but a sinner’s wealth is stored up for the righteous."

Proverbs 13:22

Or this:

"For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat."

2 Thessalonians 3:10

Are these Biblical principles compatible with the foundations of the Obama agenda?

Very few things are as irritating as Marxists and other left-wingers who try to use government to force their weird quasi-religious ideas on the rest of us. Aren't they supposed to be chasing Christians and Christian values out of the public square?

Head over to LCR for details on the relationship between these "religious leaders," and the hard left.

And don't miss this: Fr. Robert A. Sirico destroys the argument that Christians should genuflect to the welfare state.

Hat tip: Memeorandum

Educate Us, Mitt

Mitt Romney, Global Warming Warrior

Mitt Romney wants to save the planet from hot air. "The world is getting warmer," he says:

"I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that," he told a crowd of about 200 at a town hall meeting in Manchester, New Hampshire.

"It's important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors."

Okay, Mitt. I know a bit about science in general ― biology, chemistry, etc. ― but I'm not a climatologist, so please educate me on your personal beliefs. I have several burning questions. (Mitt supporters, feel free to chime in.)

First let me say that I know that hundreds of scientists from scores of countries have said man-made global warming is a real threat. But I also know that science isn't determined by consensus. At one time, it was clear to all but the most feeble minds that the sun rotates around the earth. Consensus changes. But maybe the scientists of today are correct. Maybe the earth is in serious trouble.

Without further ado, here are my questions:

• How cool do you want the world to be? What is the ideal temperature for the earth?
• What are the criteria for determining the ideal temperature of the earth?
• Would a modest increase in the temperature of the planet necessarily be bad? Are there any potential benefits?
• How can we ensure that efforts to stabilize the earth's temperature don't backfire, resulting in a larger-than-intended drop in the earth's average temperature?
• At what temperature would the earth be too cold?
• Can you be sure that reductions in CO₂ emissions will result in a significant and helpful change in temperatures?
• What if industrial and automotive CO₂ emissions are cut to nearly zero and the earth continues to warm...what do we do then?
• You said that "It's not called American warming, it's called global warming." I think you're unwittingly making a very good point with that statement. What if heavily industrialized nations manage to make painful cuts in CO₂ emissions only to see those cuts dwarfed by increases in emissions by China and other developing economies?
• How long should man try to control the world's average temperature?

A. For the next hundred years?

B. For the next thousand years?

C. Forever?

• Can we be absolutely confident that global climate changes aren't mostly the result of that giant fireball in the sky ― you know ― the sun?
• Scientists are very good at using statistical analysis to calculate certainty. Approximately how certain are we that we have the correct answers to global warming questions?

A. 50 percent?

B. 80 percent?

C. 95 percent?

Isn't it necessary to answer the questions above before we try to fashion expensive, untested solutions?

Mitt, please provide answers.

EXTRA CREDIT:

• Tell us what you think about alternative solutions to global warming (e.g., sulphur dioxide).

X-posted

BONUS:

What to Think about Global Warming