rw2y

With reasoning such as this, the GOP landslide is just around the corner.

Yes, some of the Anti's are more liberal than current plan, but there are clearly outnumbered by the Anti's who are against the plan because it is too liberal.

Any reading of all the polls in this "new light" is pure fantasy.

Actually, I believe the majority do want "health care reform" but not this bill. Too bad there is no real interest in compromise and bipartisanship by Democrats or Republicans on this issue.

This bill does not do the job needed, with only a limited number of good features.. We should do so much better, we need so much better!! ... See all content Hide content

1 week, 1 day ago onDigg in www.washingtonpost.com

Ok, but not good enough--needs to be permanent, if GOP wishes to regain trust of fiscal conservatives. GOP when they were dominant in Congress were incredible abusers of earmarks.

1 week, 1 day ago onDigg in www.rollcall.com

And this is suprising--I would be suprised if one of Obama's nominees did not support judicial activism or was some sort of moderate on the issue.

This is one area, where it is crystal clear what happens when a liberal activist oriented president gets elected.

2 weeks, 2 days ago onDigg in www.foxnews.com

I am from Texas, and Perry will win this fall. Actually, Perry is also a social conservative on many issues. Not sure country is ready for another person from Texas, eventhough he clearly is much different that GWB.

I do fear divisive possibility of 3rd party, that will assure Obama victory. However, don't see as of yet the candidate who can win.

Seems as if most out there are down on Romney--current front-runner, besides Palin.

So, if not them, we does that lead to, besides Perry??? Or is Perry, now the One???

Any interest in Mitch Daniels from Indiana? ... See all content Hide content

2 weeks, 2 days ago onDigg in www.weeklystandard.com

Mitch Daniels versus Paul Ryan for GOP nominee in 2012--Which do people prefer?.

Alternative--Palin, will lose, Romney & RomneyCare(not convincing), Palwenty--seems booring!--Jindahl--bombed last year--so where are we GOP--can't be Obama without a candidate???????????????

2 weeks, 3 days ago onDigg in www.jewishworldreview.com

Clearly a candidate of the future for the GOP--but why not 2012. I am still having trouble figuring out who is the best GOP candidate. Palin will lose (whether you like her or not), so then there is Romney (but he passed RomneyCare--so that is a negative), then there is Mitch Daniels (very unknown), Palwenty--he is not that exciting, Huckabee--still does not have the credibility and is not seen as fighting the fight--right now. So why not Ryan ... See all content Hide content

2 weeks, 3 days ago onDigg in www.weeklystandard.com

Scott Brown is correct to vote for this & good that something simple and straight forward can pass in a bipartisan basis. Probably not going to be overwhelmingly effective, but fall generally in the due no (or little) harm category at the worse.

This is very different than the first stimulus bill, for example, and is really is not comparable.

Also, good example that something in Health Care reform could pass, if it was more of a rifle shot and not a total overhaul of 16% of the economy ... See all content Hide content

3 weeks, 4 days ago onDigg in online.wsj.com

Better to pass, this than another 700 billion dollar stimulus, I acually think this bill makes it much less likely that another giant pork stimulus bill will be passed.

Hey is Scott Brown voted for it!?!--He clearly did not need to do that--so why did he,

I really don't think the tax cuts will be effective, but they really do very little harm. As for some minor infrastructure rebuilding--it is an area, where some real benefits might occur.--this is a much different bill that the stimulus bill--which was a bust, for sure. ... See all content Hide content

3 weeks, 4 days ago onDigg in www.washingtonpost.com

"They sanction the idea that the federal government can do whatever the Constitution does not explicitly forbid, as opposed to the Framers’ vision of a federal government that can do only what the Constitution **explicitly** allows"--from the article.

The work "explicitly" or "specificly" is not in the constitution or in the 10th amendment (it was in the Articles of Confederation)--therefore, if you definition of a "constitutionalist" implies that if it is not explictly in the constitution, it cannot be done--that is actually a standard that James Madison would not have approved. However, there clearly was an strong expectation that the Federal Government would be a "limited" government or "Small" government.

You can see this clearly, if you read the Federalist Papers. For example, we really could not have a U.S. Airforce, but could have a Navy and an Army, since AirForce is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.

I, for one, have no problem with Federal laws to fight the international narco gangs, although I would favor the legalization of Marijuana

On the other hand, I do think that some "social conservatives" have been willing to use government for their own purposes--this was your main point--I think.

However, the limited government movement, must be a coalition and cannot be a purist libertarian group, so therefore, if some conservative republicans seem to be coming home to basic principle of limited government, one needs to cut them some slack--the prodigal son is returning--good! ... See all content Hide content

3 weeks, 4 days ago onDigg in reason.com

Romney-Rubio in 2012???

3 weeks, 5 days ago onDigg in apnews.myway.com