February 4, 2008

It’s Not a Conspiracy. It’s Just a Cover-Up.

Filed under: News from Other Sites,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 3:52 pm

John Haskins and Gregg Jackson, aided by the Founding Fathers, have put Mitt Romney and, by inference, his they-know-better apologists on trial for impeachment:

- PART 1
- PART 2
- PART 3

Their conclusion, based on the results of the proceedings:

The authors urge Americans to join them ….. and others in heeding the Founding Fathers’ warnings and promising never under any circumstances to vote for any politician who has lied so relentlessly and trashed constitutional governance so ruthlessly as Willard Mitt Romney has. Never.

Read the whole thing.

The authors are, idealistically, absolutely correct. As I have also frequently argued, Mitt Romney is inarguably and objectively unfit to be President of the United States.

I will curse the ground Mitt Romney walks on if I’m forced to choose between someone who is objectively unfit, someone who is a clear and present danger, a third-party candidate who has no chance, or simply not voting.

_____________________________________________________

UPDATE: Richard Viguerie

….. it is still possible for someone to jump into the race. Such a candidate could serve as a kingmaker at the Republican convention in September, or even – yes, it’s possible – could become the party’s nominee.

That hasn’t happened for decades, and even if it were possible, I don’t believe any of the three candidates currently running has the statesmanship to put his country and his party ahead of his personal ambition.

I’m also so guessing that it’s way too late for another person to get on any ballot and accumulate any kind of significant vote or delegate total.

Employment-Data Skepticism Noted by AP

Filed under: Economy,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 3:41 pm

Well, that’s unusual. The cynic in me says that the Associated Press threw this report out there knowing full well it will be ignored on Super Tuesday Eve.

So, at the risk of being on the receiving end of a Pollyanna accusation — The AP item hearkens back to the initially reported small decrease in employment in August that turned into a pretty decent positive:

The latest payroll figures, released Friday by the Department of Labor, look immediately depressing, but there’s disagreement about what they show — and whether they’ll change drastically when they’re revised later this month.

Employers cut 17,000 jobs in January, according to initial payroll figures from the Department of Labor. The data is based on a survey of companies around the country, but the smallest companies, which are usually the first to hire in an upturn and the fastest to lay off workers in a downturn, often miss the deadline for the initial totals. That’s why late-month revisions are the rule.

If the job-loss figure stands, this will be the first time payrolls have shrunk in more than four years. But the same headlines ran in September, when August payroll figures initially showed a loss of 4,000 jobs. The data was later revised to show a gain of 89,000 jobs.

Those revisions are why Eugenio J. Alemn, the senior economist at Wells Fargo, calls the payroll figures “highly dubious.” When the numbers are revised “we could easily have January net employment being either minus 150,000 or plus 150,000. Stay tuned,” he said.

Alemn clearly exaggerates for effect. The prior-month revisions to December and November in the January report netted out to very little, so it may well be that the January’s number will stay negative. But it’s by no means assured.

The fact that the ISM Manufacturing Index returned to positive territory in January may mean that the job loss in that sector wasn’t really as great as reported, increasing the chances of an upside revision. Tomorrow’s Non-Manufacturing Report from ISM, which covers a much greater slice of the economy, will tell us much more.

We’ll see.

Jack Tapper on Romney on Guns Causes Glenn Reynolds to Say ‘I’m beginning to question his sincerity.’

Filed under: News from Other Sites,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 2:23 pm

Tapper quotes a recent Reynolds podcast (link to Reynolds’s quote added by me):

(Reynolds asked) Would you pledge to veto any new gun control bills that come across your desk as President?

“Yeah,” Romney said. “Yeah, I don’t support any gun control legislation, the effort for a new assault weapons ban, with a ban on semi-automatic weapons, is something I would oppose. There’s no new legislation that I’m aware of or have heard of that I would support. In regards to guns, I think we have enough legislation and should enforce the laws as they exist. I was pleased that when I ran for Governor that I received the endorsement of the NRA and I hope to receive their support now.”

In addition to that apparent flip flop, it should be noted that the NRA did NOT endorse Romney when he ran for governor, as his campaign acknowledged when he said it last December.

This is a rank untruth Mr. Romney continues to peddle.

Said Mr. Reynolds: “I’m beginning to question his sincerity.”

Welcome aboard, Glenn.

You see, the problem is, as Tapper notes, that Romney told Tim Russert on December 16, 2007 that he, like (unfortunately) President Bush, would have signed an extension of the “assault-weapons” bill if it came to his desk. The extension effort died in Congress, and no bill ever got to George Bush.

What do you expect from a self-professed “lifelong hunter,” who in reality has hunted at most a very few times?

When will conservatives get the fact that Mitt Bloomberg Romney is instinctively as liberal as they come, and is only posing as a conservative to win?

The Pre-Super Tuesday Comprehensive Objectively Unfit Mitt Romney Index

CORE POST, Feb. 4: Why Is Romney “Objectively Unfit Mitt”?

Other Important Recent Items:
- Feb. 3 — Duncan Hunter Has Raised the National Security Alarm Over Mitt Romney. So Where Is the Scrutiny?
- Feb. 2 — 50 Ways to Reject Romney
- Feb. 1 — Did You Hear? “Conservative” Talkers and Pundits Love Mitt Romney. Now They’re Trying to Save Him.
- Jan. 31 (external), Sam Brownback: Election a Battle Over Abortion, Pro-Life Judges; Trusts McCain
- Jan 28 (external), insidecatholic.com — “Why I Don’t Trust Mitt Romney” (money quote: “For a lot of people, especially Christian conservatives, it’s one of those black and white issues. You’re either pro-life or not. That’s the trouble with Governor Romney — he’s gray.”)

RomneyCare:
- Feb. 4 — The RomneyCare Crackup Continues, and Is Becoming a Chasm
- Jan. 31 — WSJ Op-Ed: RomneyCare Is Life-Threatening CoerciveCare
- Jan. 30 — “Universal” Health Care “Terminated”? Yes, in California. But RomneyCare Is Alive in Massachusetts (and WE Are Paying for It)
- Jan 28 (external), CNS News — “Massachusetts Health Care Costs Skyrocket” (RomneyCare implosion continues)
- Jan. 15 — Midnight Message for Michigan on (Objectively Unfit) Mitt (A Model for HillaryCare II)
- Jan. 7 — The RomneyCare Crackup Is Arriving Early (Heavy Fines and Rationing)
- Oct. 18 — The Coming RomneyCare crackup (fourth item at link)

“Romney, the Courts, and the Constitutions” (RC&C), and Gay Marriage:
- Jan. 10 — Mitt Romney Calls Gregg Jackson “Delusional”; What Does That Make Romney?
(more…)

Carryforward Post: Why Is Romney ‘Objectively Unfit Mitt’?

Filed under: Taxes & Government — Tom @ 11:28 am

For those who missed it in previous posts (here, here, and here) — This post demonstrates that Willard Mitt Romney’s extra-constitutional, oath-breaking actions relating to the imposition of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts make him — objectively — unfit to serve as president.

++++++++++++++++++++

Under Massachusetts’s Constitution, originally authored by John Adams, court rulings (or opinions) are not ‘obeyed’ by the legislature or the governor (or the entire executive branch), because judges cannot order the two elected branches around. Court rulings are ‘orders’ when issued to private individuals or corporations — IF the court has jurisdiction.

This is not arguable.

In fact, under the Massachusetts Constitution, the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) didn’t even have the jurisdiction to take the Goodridge same-sex marriage case, and violated THEIR oaths of office by doing so, as the December 2006 Joint Letter to Governor Mitt Romney from Pro-Family Leaders” pointed out (link is to a former PDF converted to HTML, with text but not all formatting intact, at BizzyBlog’s host):

(more…)

The RomneyCare Crackup Continues, and Is Becoming a Chasm

Filed under: Economy,Health Care,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 7:15 am

And at an accelerated pace:

Subsidized care plan’s cost to double
Enrollment is outstripping state’s estimate

February 3, 2008

The subsidized insurance program at the heart of the state’s healthcare initiative is expected to roughly double in size and expense over the next three years – an unexpected level of growth that could cost state taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars or force the state to scale back its ambitions.

State projections obtained by the Globe show the program reaching 342,000 people and $1.35 billion in annual expenses by June 2011. Those figures would far outstrip the original plans for the Commonwealth Care program, largely because state officials underestimated the number of uninsured residents.

And, in case you’ve missed this point before, WE are being asked to pay for Mitt Romney’s handiwork — while of course, despite the out-of-control costs, Democratic Governor Deval Patrick is dedicated to keeping the black hole intact:

The state has asked the federal government to shoulder roughly half of the program’s cost from 2009 through 2011, but there is no guarantee of that funding. Commonwealth Care provides free or subsidized insurance for low- and moderate-income residents.

“The state alone cannot support that kind of spending increase,” said Michael Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a business-funded budget watchdog group.

….. The administration of Governor Deval Patrick produced the new estimates to launch negotiations for federal funding, and has shared them with some state health leaders at closed-door meetings. Patrick is seeking about $1.5 billion over three years, half the cumulative cost for Commonwealth Care. The administration declined to discuss the numbers or the assumptions behind them, citing the ongoing negotiations.

Naturally, Talk Radio’s new Mr. Right is pretending he’s not responsible:

The expanding need for new state and federal money is in sharp contrast to the statements made by former governor Mitt Romney, when he proposed the initiative in 2004 and as he campaigns for president. He has repeatedly suggested that the state could insure low-income residents largely by reallocating money paid to hospitals and health centers that serve the uninsured.

“The bill that I submitted to the Legislature didn’t cost $1 more than what we were already spending,” he said Wednesday night during a GOP debate. “However, the Legislature and now the new Democratic governor have added some bells and whistles.”

Cue the laugh track.

So will Rush, Laura, Sean, Levin, Beck et al talk about this today? Or will they use the day to take their last best shots at John McCain and demand that Mike Huckabee withdraw?

The Left has to be relishing this. Talk Radio spent day after day after day (justifiably) ripping HillaryCare in 1993 and 1994 (addendum: and danced on HillaryCare’s grave for the next dozen years after that). Now its Chosen “Conservative” is the guy who established HillaryCare in Massachusetts, created a miserable failure, and is now pretending it’s not his fault.

Any talker who brings up Hillary Clinton’s willingness to garnish the wages of workers to force them to buy health care but doesn’t bring up the RomneyCare fiasco ought to be called out for first-order hypocrisy.

Oh, how the mighty are falling.

_______________________________________________

UPDATE 1: Clintonian parsing is now Romnian parsing — “The bill that I submitted to the Legislature didn’t cost $1 more than what we were already spending….” Notice how he did NOT say “the bill I signed.” That is, the Legislature added a lot of “bells and whistles” to the original bill he submitted, and HE signed the result. Especially given that he vetoed certain items in the bill that came to his desk, whose fault is it that any “bells and whistles” remained?

UPDATE 2: Called into Laura Ingraham at about 9:20, got through, said I wanted to talk about the free pass Romney is getting while RomneyCare blows up, and was put on hold. 10 minutes later, I was told that they had a guest coming up and no time for my call. Reach your own conclusions.

That’s Why They Play …..

Filed under: General — Tom @ 6:51 am

….. the game.

Positivity: Legally blind, 92-year-old nails hole-in-one

Filed under: Positivity — Tom @ 6:16 am

From Clearwater, Florida:

Fiyalko uses five iron to make ace at 110 yards at Florida country club

A hole-in-one is rare on the golf course, but what are the odds of a blind golfer sinking one?

Leo Fiyalko couldn’t see it, but his golf buddies did — a hole-in-one on the fifth hole at the Cove Cay Country Club.

Fiyalko is 92 and has macular degeneration. He’s been golfing for 60 years, but his 110-yard shot with a five iron on Jan. 10 was his first hole-in-one.

“I was just trying to put the ball on the green,” Fiyalko said. …..

Go here for the rest of the story.