Total Pageviews

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Conservatives Hate the Health Care Act


I think that art of debating is knowing your opponent's point of view. It takes background searches of a poster’s comment history, applying the proper context and looking to see if your opponent is steadfast in their opinion and why.

I'm about halfway through a fascinating book called" The Reactionary Mind" by Corey Robin. The book details the conservative mindset from the French Revolution to modern day conservatism. I'm into the meat and potatoes of the book where it describes the middle class conservative as someone who looks down on those below them because they have a fear of becoming one of them. They were much happier in the 1950s when the average white man was superior to those who were born with darker skin. They hate the government because it's an equalizer that has gone too far. That's why they don't object to the rich getting their tax cuts but will go into a frenzy when someone mentions the word "free."It got its start when President Reagan said “government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem.” This is just the tip of the iceberg but it does give a little background.

I'm not exaggerating one bit when I say that the conservatives hate the Affordable Health Care Act, I was glued to the television the weekend healthcare was being passed. I saw the anger and the hate of those who opposed the legislation and I saw conservative lawmakers urging them on by waving the Gadsden Flag which bore the words " Don' Tread on Me." We all saw the town hall meetings where it was common to hear the words “I want my country back." Over half of the people protesting were on some kind of government program but they justified it by convincing themselves that they paid for every bit of their government benefits. For the politicians the act was another entitlement that their opponents could beat them on. The protester saw it as allowing those below them getting something” free” which might eventually make them lose a portion of their entitlements. The middle class conservatives saw it as another "affirmative action" like program that would further erode their benefit package and increase the price of their expensive health care insurance premiums.

The next round of anger came from the recent squabble between the church and the government over the “religious conscience exemption" but it was really about the word “free" in the distribution of contraceptives clause. It puts a dent in the church's argument that they will be paying for something that they morally object to. That's hypocritical on its face because many middle class conservative’s insurance policies cover contraception and they have never protested before. The conservative politicians jumped on this and tried to come up with legislation to allow all employees to opt out paying for something that they morally objected to. The politician's goal is to weaken the Affordable Health Care Act (AHCA) so it will be easier to repeal. There's not an accounting trick or language that will satisfy the religious entities who are opposed to this portion of the AHCA because they will always use the 6° of Kevin Bacon logic to justify their reasoning. A ruling by the courts will be the only solution.

The conservatives are not stupid, they know they have a fight on their hands because people like the fact that they can keep their older child on their healthcare policy and that their children will no longer be refused for pre existing conditions. They also know that they don't have a viable plan to replace the current one but their constituents don't seem to care. The only plans they have is the unpopular health savings accounts, tort reform, and being able to buy private insurance across state lines. Their best plan will only bring in 3 million new customers. Conservatives do not pay any attention to intangibles. They need to be able to carry a figure over 12 places, see it on a spreadsheet, or be able to actually touch it and feel it before they will believe it. They do not believe in preventative health care or wellness programs. I guess the 48,000 people that die because of a lack of a health insurance are just collateral damage. They don't believe that people that use the emergency room for "free" will add an average of $1000 to their yearly premium.

The bottom line is that we have to reduce the rising cost of health insurance, so we have to admit that we are an aging, obese, and out of shape country where older people are living longer. We all know that insurance companies are not going to tackle any of those problems, so in order for them to stay in business, they will have to raise their premiums.

As we should all know by now the "individual mandate" was originally a conservative idea because it's based on a conservative concept that everyone should pay something. Today it's a rallying cry for government intrusion, when in reality it's not even in force yet. The enforcement won't come until 2014 and the penalty for not having insurance is pretty vague as it is written. It won't be imposed on many but I know "it's the idea" and we will have that battle in the courts.
This is not to say that the American people are happy with the current Affordable Health Care because the USA Today poll, reported that 75 percent of Americans believe the new health-care law's individual mandate is unconstitutional. And if the Court doesn't throw Obama care out, Americans want Congress to do so: Half of voters want the law repealed, compared to 44 percent who want it retained. The conservatives have definitely won the message war but I don't think they can rest on their laurels.

Bottom line if you hate the AHCA; you are a conservative or at least you agree with them. I am not saying that they are right or wrong, I am just describing their mindset.


Rebecca said...

I don't think it's honest to think of conservatives as white racists who look down on everyone. >:( I think conservatives just expect government to have the same values as them or to promote the same values - even through legislation which doesn't actually change people, so it's crazy. Liberals are more understanding that sometimes people are broken and that we can't change people, only ourselves... Maybe extreme conservatives care more about a fetus, whereas a liberal might care about those who have been born.

That's what I imagine.

I make conservative decisions, but I'm very liberal with others. I do what I know is right, but I'm not under the delusion that by being more angry, more judgmental, more argumentative, that I can change the world or other people for the better.

It's the extremists o both sides who are wrong, not one side or the other.

Rebecca said...

I am just trying to come to terms with the extremists, on all ends, in my life. D:

Mike said...


The author was talking about “generational racism" which was handed down through the generations. After the 1965 Civil Rights Act, things started to change for the unskilled white person because they no longer had the sense of nobility that they could depend on. They saw affirmative action taking their jobs and women were now coming into the workplace. They now had to adhere to a different set of rules in the workplace. I know because I saw the changes...You are absolutely right, conservatives were not KKK racists looking down on everyone but they were genuinely angry because they saw the government picking winners and losers and that they were trying to level the playing field at their expense. All this happened so fast, the Civil rights Act, Affirmative Action, the Voting Rights Act, and Roe v Wade.....In 1980 our country changed course and the message now was that government is bad and your need to pull yourself up by your boot straps. That's a good message but not if you didn't have boots.

I know you are trying to deal with extremist form both sides and I have no doubt you have seen excesses from both sides. This blog was not a personal indictment on any one because of their race or ideology. I was merely giving a reason of why a middle class person would constantly call an unemployed person, lazy and responsible but would never complain about income inequality. I know when I was working, I always dreamed of being upper middle class but I never railed about the poor people. Look at the comments when the topic is minimum wage, college student loans, extension of unemployment benefits and food stamps. There are many successful conservatives that don't want to drug test a welfare recipient just to have control over a human being they think is abusing the system.

I'm sorry for not going into more detail and leading you to think I meant that conservatism equals racism.

Conservative means to conserve and maintain things as they were. It’s not an ideology that likes radical changes.

Mike said...

"I think conservatives just expect government to have the same values as them or to promote the same values - even through legislation which doesn't actually change people, "

I had to read the above statement several times before I came to appreciate the meaning.

I guess that means that conservatives have good intentions but passing their legislation doesn't always work out that way because of varying opinions and cultures.

I like that.

Mike said...

Whenever I write about politics in any form, someone expects me to support the other view as well, even though it's not at question at the time.

It is my opinion, and it's reference in the book that I am reading, that it is a myth that liberals are more tolerant and have more compassion. They get that benefit because in general that might believe the same thing but they are less intolerant. For example, liberals might have thought that it was ridiculous to build a mosque so close to ground zero because of the ruckus it would create but there were not willing to go as far as their conservative counterparts. While I believe conservatives and liberals are equally concerned about waste, the conservatives worry about the millions that go to welfare recipients and those on the left worry about the billions of waste in the defense department budget. Most recently it was about the lowering the flag at half mast for an entertainer; conservatives were in an uproar and liberals thought that we've crossed that bridge before.

This morning I read a story of Oregon (a liberal/progressive state) going beyond Obamacare (as conservatives call it) by creating new regional entities, called coordinated care organizations, which will be dealing with Medicaid patients who have mental and dental problems but a larger focus will be spent on those afflicted with chronic conditions such as diabetes, heart disease, asthma and kidney failure. The state thinks it should be a model for the rest of the nation because of the money savings..I shouldn't have to tell you the conservatives are fighting it tooth and nail.

On the local front some are still complaining about the building of new schools saying it didn't help with the increasing absenteeism rates.Huh?.I think it's common knowledge a well kept or new schools are one the many elements conductive to producing an educated child, besides it was approved by the citizens of Victoria..I would like to see the Khan Academy method of teaching be incorporated instead of the same old tactics that have failed in the past.

Rebecca said...

Khan Academy is being used in private schools. You already know that we are using it here. I have set myself up as "coach" so that I can go in and see the daily activity of my students. I can see what concepts they have been working on, which problems they missed, how much time they spent on each problem, if they needed hints, if they watched videos... I can see information presented to me in pie charts and graphs, for each child, very detailed "report cards" for each child...

As a teacher, this information is amazing! I am only needed when there is confusion even after the hints and the video explanation haven't explained it enough. Oh, and of course, now that the NEWNESS has worn off, I am now the motivator. At one time, they spent hours doing math, now I have to remind them to "Go in and review each lesson in orange and master at least one new lesson."

I can't imagine schools not taking advantage of this program! I have even shared it with my friends who have children in public school, because if math is a problem, Khan Academy can offer more instruction! The homeschoolers that I know who are using other instructional programs for math are still using Khan Academy as a supplement.

The reason public schools don't use it, is because it's free. There is no company that will be satisfied by getting $$$$ Schools have loyalties to certain companies.

My favorite place to learn is outside when the weather is nice. I actually think that the worst learning environment is in a room seated at a desk.

We don't need new schools as much as we need a pedagogical paradigm shift. The demographics are changing and we need to change to make education relevant to a culture that is becoming more removed from the culture that values education.

I really support the idea of democratic schools and free schools. They have been set up in areas where most students had dropped out. They were successful. I don't know why we don't offer alternatives to traditional education. We would rather have a culture of drop outs exist in America.

Honestly, I would put my children in a Democratic school and I have heard rumors that there are families trying to start one up in Victoria. Of course, it's the more wealthy liberals...

Anyway, I think the only topic I enjoy right now is education. LOL I was thinking last night, after I accidentally saw the news, how I was started to get that really stressed out feeling. I remembered what I was doing about four years ago. I was reading THE HOST and NOT talking to people or watching television. That's probably what I will be doing THIS election year - going into hiding.

I know all the relatives will be extra sensitive and preachy.

Sorry to write you a book.

Mike said...


I like book-like answers because it leaves no doubt.

I was referencing the "new schools" being used as a wedge issue but I think replacing lead base painted schools is a good thing.

It's just a matter of preference but I need a room that doesn't have any distractions,I can't even read a book outdoors.

If Khan Academy is free then that's even a better reason to use it because then if it doesn't work;it didn't cost anything to try.

I'm just tired of thinking that committees, and blaming teacher's unions,administrators,teachers and parents will ever accomplish anything....Parents are what they are and there is not much we can do about that but using technology might be the answer because that's where kids are today.

Rebecca said...

I agree.

Rebecca said...

I think if Khan Academy were used in public schools, it would free the teacher up to work with the ones who really need the one on one instruction, while allowing the gifted students to excel. We don't like there to be gaps between our students, but that's reality.

The expense would be in the computers. However, there is an option to print out the ten problems that would be worked in order to master a concept and move on, so if every student didn't have access to a computer, they could print out their problems and work them out at their desks. They could use the computer to quickly fill in their answers - taking turns at the computer to check their answers.

I have heard that classroom teachers are sharing information about Khan Academy with their students so that their students can use the program at home.

Gosh, for the students who have access to computers in their own homes, that would free the teacher up to use classroom time to work with the students who need extra help!

Why aren't we using program like this?


Mike said...

Why aren't we using Khan Academy in our schools?

1. We have citizens and school officials who want the fight instead of new proposals.
2. We don't have the expertise to implement the system
3. It will take one of those committee studies.
4. Back to the topic of the blog...Conservative mindsets..:-)
5. We don't have people like Rebecca going before the school board to share her experience of using the Khan system...Watch out,remember what happened to Sandra Fluke when she

Rebecca said...

I'm definitely NOT conservative when it comes to education.

Mike said...

Home schooling is a conservative idea because they hate those PUBLIC SCHOOLS and UNION Teachers and they would eliminate the Department of Education if they could..:-)

I get your meaning,you want a new progressive way of teaching;something suited for the 21st century.

Rebecca said...

I just looked at the V.I.S.D. board members. My oldest played soccer with the sons of Mansker and Keeling for years. Dr. De Los Santos was one of my professors at UH-V. I would feel more comfortable calling one of them than going to a school board meeting. But, if I did, I would want to be very familiar with how to get my laptop to work with something like a projector, so that I could show off the program. It would be really cool if I could just get my ten year old to show it off or to do a few lessons for the group...

Because, the last time I had to speak in public I was thankful that the sleeping pill from the night before (the one my hubby gave me because I was too nervous to sleep) hadn't worn off and I was still groggy enough to not experience 100% of the nerves that would have otherwise caused me to pass out...

Mike said...

That's an excellent pro-active idea Rebecca. In fact it's a lot more than I've ever heard from anyone interested in improving our school system...The idea of your 10 year old showing the interested parties the ropes is a nice touch.

Go for it and if they accept your idea ,blog about it to inspire others,perhaps we can stop using complaints as an excuse to do nothing.

Rebecca said...

I don't get nervous with children, just adults.

Anyway, Mike, some liberals are very upset at the liberals who are homeschooling. Check out this article,"Liberals, don't Homeschool Your Kids" There are dozens of responses to that article by liberal homeschoolers. I honestly feel more comfortable with the "liberal" homeschoolers. I agree with the attachment parenting, and Science from an evolutionary perspective. It's something I can't say out-loud in the local homeschool community.

But, truth be known, it wasn't the right wing who began the homeschool movement. Sure, they may now dominate the scene, but it was progressive parents who started the movement.

Sorry to hog your blog! I always seem to do that. D= I did notice that you had a blog about Corpus that i missed!

Mike said...

Intelligent, informative,posters cannot possibly hog a blog because they enhance the discussion.

I didn't know liberals were so anti-home schooling but after reading the link you provided,you are absolutely right but I've never been against home schooling but I admit I didn't know much about them...Thanks

Mike said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mike said...

Need proof? Go to VA where you will see where a poster wants to punish the parents on public assistance but doesn't mention those who are not.

Rebecca said...

WOW. You have a lot of comments on this blog post. =P

Mike said...

lol...If it was for a poster named Rebecca, I would not have any comments.

But, I want to commend you for weighing in on the controversial subject, I wrote about because it gave me a chance to try and make my point after considering your point of view...I thank you for that.

Let me explain:..The poster Archie2 made a comment about racial profiling and some took him to task saying it was about good police work and not a racial topic...Archie made his post about a drug suspect getting caught; bad idea...I wouldn't be surprised if racial profiling is being used to stop vehicles on HWY 59; if the topic was about an innocent driver then he would have a case..The only way we could find out if racial profiling is being used is by looking at the tickets issued but then we know some were not recorded...It's good police work to look for details that will stop those from selling their drugs here, buying their guns and heading back to Mexico. Hispanics will be the likely target of surveillance but to what extent?

Now when posters go straight to the punishment phase using their tired old welfare, racial targets in discussing absenteeism, only EA, went straight in to question the intent of the posters.

Anonymous said...

I really do not fit your "Conservative Stereotype" especially when you speak of "Obama Care".

For background I have some rental property. I also sell health insurance as well as other financial intangibles. Naturally, I speak to my renters about health insurance. Without going into specifics, my renters have electronics, vehicles and other household stuff I literally wish they would leave behind if they ever moved. (Somehow, my renters just stay with me. But I do like each and everyone of my renters. Just hte finest folks they are.) Sometime in their stay with me they get sick. No insurance. I work with them as they get back on their feet and I ask about how they are going to pay the hospital bill. (Most say their debt was dropped. Or they say Medicaid accepted them.) Anyway, that explains why I have never had takers for health insurance among my renters.

Regarding government subsidies for the wealthy and corporations. I don't agree with that. So that plunks me from the stereotype of a conservative. Once Gary Burns and I spoke about VEDC and government handouts to business. Gary said in Victoria business owners would never do business parks or recruit other businesses. Why I asked? They would not risk their own money, Gary said. I find that ludicrous. But why should businessmen risk their own money if government will take it from the masses and business benefits anyway?

So I see health care and business subsidies the same. Risk takers should be rewarded. Fools are separated from their money. The uninsured have figured out how to make fools of everyone else.


Mike said...


Thank you for responding, and I'm convinced that you don't fit the profile of the people who were protesting when the healthcare bill was passed. I was never talking about the regular run of -the -mill local who called himself a conservative. I was referring to the politicians and those who support them who just shudder at the thought of 31,000,000 people being brought into the healthcare rolls..... I understand the views of those that are consistent about eliminating the Federal government from all phases of our life. That has nothing to do with what I was describing. That's a whole different subject.

We have 10,000 people going into Medicare every day, so the Federal government will be in their lives from now on.

All I'm asking is for patience or an alternative viable option...

[The New England journal of medicine] reported "Slower Growth In Medicare Spending — Is This The New Normal?

"On the whole, we do not believe that the recent slowdown in Medicare spending growth is a fluke. There has been a long-term trend toward tighter Medicare payment policy, and policy changes that began in the middle of the 2000s have continued that tightening. ... We see a combination of reformed delivery of care and broader units of payment as having the potential to allow providers to generate savings through steps that are less threatening to quality of care and access than are cuts in payment rates."...

During the 2008 financial crisis the private sector did not step up, so all was left was the government.They were also broke so they had to print money because it was the only option.

There's another element as to why the private sector will not invest in projects that are good for the community; it's called return of investment. They can make more money in less time and less bureaucracy elsewhere. If Victoria ever prospers it will have to be a joint venture because modern day businesses are not risk takers...IMO

Thanks for your input; I really appreciate it but don't confuse a historical perspective meant to describe people who hate the concept of government with stereotyping ALL conservatives.... I can understand why you call it stereotyping but if I'm wrong I would like to be convinced of that.

Edith Ann said...

I can remember trying to discuss the fact that many of the folks shown in the pictures of the protestors were senior citizens who were surely getting social security. Seems like there were folks in wheelchairs, too. Surely receiving disability benefits. I never did figure out where they thought the country had gone—where did it need to be taken back from?

I simply do not understand how making coverage—NOT usage—mandatory prevents a Catholic from being Catholic. I am still waiting on Mary Ann to answer that Jared’s thread on Facebook. There is not a Catholic in the US who will not be able to practice their religion because of the Affordable Healthcare Act. Life will go on. Those sexually active Catholics who use contraception will still use contraception. The ones who don’t, still won’t.

This blog would have been a mess over on the VA site! Good thing you put it here!

Anonymous said...

EA, you and I have gone over what is and what is against a thing called principles. The Church by principle is against the prevention of life. I, by principle am against government going into areas which should be served by the private sector. And I am also against all of the recent bailouts. Do for one and do for all. No one is too big to fail. And no business is so important that it should be be given welfare. Call a cat by any other name, and what it stands in is still a litter box. Under no circumstance should taxpayers be asked to be the litter. (BTW, I am consistent... that is principle EA).

Edith Ann said...

Interesting comment--"And no business is so important that it should be be given welfare. Call a cat by any other name, and what it stands in is still a litter box."

This is exactly what the City of Victoria, usually throught the VEDC, does. Just last week, a business confirmed to be locating here (they are a support to CAT) is given a 7 year tax abatement. We give away stuff to lure folks here! We give it away when they are already here! I am so reay to vote some of these bums out!!!

Yes, a catbox by any other name would still be called the City of Victoria!

Mike said...

Great comments but I add a few points of my own.

I'm sorry but you will never be able to make your case to a fundamentalist because they will continue to raise the bar. This current disagreement is between 450 Bishops a pope and other members of the hierarchy and the WH. As you well know the contraception war was lost a long time ago..... I don't worry about the opinions from Catholics who think they are speaking for the church because I know better. The hierarchy have been hypocritical for longtime because they know they accept drug cartel and mafia money to get around the first marriage law of GOD, and made John Kennedy, John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi targets because they kept their politics secular. One final but important point, the church is worldwide, we know that most of Europe has single payer universal health care which probably covers contraception, but I bet the church is not protesting to change their laws.

I thought about submitting this blog to the VA site but I would not have gotten a fraction of the intelligent responses I've had so far. The blog would've lost its identity after the first post.

Mike said...


Principal according to a dictionary I use means = A basic generalization that is accepted as true and that can be used as a basis for reasoning or conduct. Another words, principle has to pass the truth test... In what we about the discus, it doesn't in my opinion.

On face value, taxpayer should never bailout the private sector UNLESS it would cause undue hardship to the majority of the population and that it is ALWAYS the last option. It should not be the first or normal course of action.

I've read 4 books, seen a couple of documentaries, one movie, and heard the opinions of the majority of economists that if we had not bailed out Wall Street on September 8, 2008, we would have immediately collapsed, taking down several industries and countries and it would have caused about 25% unemployment. Most importantly we would not have been on my way to recovery as we are now. We would have gone straight into and a depression.
I'm heard the other side of that argument where everyone goes into managed bankruptcy but the conditions was not capable for that because NO ONE had any capital.

Bailing out the auto industry was a risky but brilliant move by the president because now GM and Chrysler have made a comeback... It's a onetime thing and not a financial model for the future. We should take steps to ensure that it does not happen anymore but people like Ron Paul think that the market will self correct and that has been proven over and over to be a fallacy.

Mike said...


No, that's not an interesting comment, it's a comment coming from an ideologue who is against a public/private arrangement of any sort.... We don't have the Tom O'connor's anymore to build us a brand new ballpark, all we have is the what's it in for me private sector and those who are against any city expenditures because they're afraid their taxes might go up by a $1.25.

The region around us is growing and we need to get on board and I'm not advocating of opening up the checkbook and just writing checks but we do need investments in our children and community in general.

I firmly disagree, Victoria IS NOT a cat box, it's my hometown and my children's and it thrive and prosper because it's impossible to keep a city like Victoria down.

Abatements can be considered a discount, deferred revenue, or an unnecessary expense but we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Every transaction has its own merits and should be taken on a case by case basis. I have not read whether it was necessary enticement, so you might correct in this case.

Mike said...

As I've said many times before ,this issue is political and some people for falling for the religious aspect of the issue..That's the reason I don't have a problem siding with the WH....Read the whole article but here is just a tease.

"Initially, the bishops signaled they were simply seeking a broader exemption from the contraception mandate for religious institutions. But USCCB leaders have increasingly expressed a desire to roll back the entire regulation.
At the same time, they are also pushing for passage of a bill that would provide broad conscience protections to groups that oppose paying for contraception.

The bishops' top lawyer, Anthony Picarello, went a step further when he proposed passage of what has come to be known as the "Taco Bell rule," arguing that individual business owners also should be exempt because "If I quit this job and opened a Taco Bell, I'd be covered by the mandate."

The problem is none of those options has a realistic chance of getting past Congress or the White House; the Senate already rejected a bill to provide a wider conscience allowance. And the courts are a roll of the dice. Yet the bishops are still pursuing all avenues, and without a clear road map for success.
"In many ways (Obama's Feb. 10 compromise offer) solved little and complicated a lot," as Dolan wrote his fellow bishops in a March 2 letter that reflected the bishops' dilemma as well as their resolve. "We now have more questions than answers, more confusion than clarity."

Mike said...

Sorry Anonymous

I stated:

"the conditions was not capable for that because NO ONE had any capital."

I meant to say that conditions were not favorable for a managed bankruptcy because no one have any capital except Goldman Sachs and they were waiting for the government to bailout AIG so they could get theirs.

Anonymous said...

I would use my name , I just forget to enclose it. "Dale". I do not mean to be an anymouse on your blog. Am not ashamed of my belief in the ingenuity of my fellow private sector friends. And the reasons there are no more Tom O'Connors (and I personally knew this gentleman) is because government has openned it's coffers. Local businessmen don't feel a need to be charitable, governmetn will do it. (Then again, your explanation is correct also).

If we kick government out of welfare and gimmees...there will be more Mr Toms. (He was a man and a good man. Just like many of the O'Connors of present.)


Mike said...

I would like to believe that but times and people have changed.

I believe Mr. O'Connor was unique because his legacy and generosity goes far beyond a normal human being. I also think that he would have given despite the government. He bought the priests and sisters their automobiles and supported the local establishments.

If you are wrong in your theory that the people will step up if we get rid of the safety net;the poor people will feel the brunt of that theory....After all,human behavior is not absolute.

Edith Ann said...

Let me correct a comment here--the catbox is NOT the City of Victoria! It is my hometown, too, and I did not mean that.

The 'catbox' is the place where the funky City Council and VEDC deals and favors are, and quite frankly, it's time for someone to clean the catbox.

My apologies to any Victorian who may have been offended by my comment.

Mike said...

That's much better...:-)

BTW You left itisi off the hook on the Feb,00,2012 date.

He doesn't know how Congress works because it doesn't matter if she is a partisan because each side gets to bring in their witness..He didn't mention that the head of the committee,rep. Issa has already apologized for not allowing her to testify and said it was a mistake....No woman republican or democrat should be called names for giving testimony...That's all it was ,TESTIMONY....Probably another one of his C&P from "" as usual it comes a week late.Slow minds take a while to respond.

Mike said...

Testifying is now considered "dirty politics" by the

Edith Ann said...

Look at you! 34,000 and counting!

I'm just a little full of myself today! I made Jared's blog, again!

Okay, seriously--I can believe itisi wrote the blog that he did, but really! And I did see the February 00, 2012 thingies--what is up with that? Did he forget to check dates and go back and fillinthe correct ones?

itisi and his crew are consistently a day late and a dollar short--they never have their act together. And theu never have substantiated information.

As to the Catholics in Europe--yes, why aren't they screaming about the health benefits they receive? Because they are not republican?

Mike said...

Oh these posters, have they no shame? Even rollingstone tried to get on the act in the voter fraud blog, saying Al Franken and the Minnesota Democrats committed voter fraud way back in the day but I left a link to show that was another one of his lies...The other day he accused me of lying and posted his outdated source but I posted another one from his favorite website, The Wall Street Journal, to backup what I originally wrote, but he left for a few days, so he didn't have to respond.

That’s an old Fox News & Bill O’Reilly/Sean Hannity trick..Put it out, someone will believe can’t please them...First they said there was no record of Obama going to Harvard (he was president of law review there) then an old PBS clip showed up and Hannity is trying to use it to support one of his conspiracy claims.

Yes, Jared mentioning your blog was a nice touch.

34,000,eh! They all came over to see what EA,Rebecca, and Dale had to post..:_0

Edith Ann said...


Anonymous said...

Way off your blog topic. But, didn't your Democrat Party and MALDEF just get finished with a court fight to increase Hispanic representation in government? In the process our Primary was pushed way all the way back to Memorial Day.

Now, I may not be the smartest Republican but... if you wanted to elect a Democrat Hispanic for County Commissioner... would you run five hispanics against one anglo incumbent? What do you boys talk about at your monthly Democrat County Club? Maybe it is far better to have a non-functional Republican County Party establishment. Our only sin is forcing poor Geanie to come out of near retirement so she can defend a State House seat for which we can not find a Conservative Republican to run for.


Mike said...


You have the wrong Democrat..I have said numerous times that I'm not into local or state politics...Didn't you guys say that people should assimilate;yet you seem astonished when Hispanics are running against each other. That should be as American as apple pie...I have never attended a meeting of any sort for Democrats..I think Democrats in Texas are just Republicans but not as radical on social issues as their counter parts...I don't hate Genie Morrison,she is just a lowly house rep...Hey,I had Ron Paul for for all those years and he never represented my views.

Try and stay warm today.:-)

Edith Ann said...

Yes, the Dems were stepping up to make sure that minorities were not further disenfranchised by some squiggly lines drawn by republicans! I have to hand it to the republicans, though--when this didn't work out smoothly as some would have hoped, they came up with the voter ID business.

In any event, we finally get a primary!

As to the glut of candidates over in Pt. 1--I'm trying to figure out what the big attraction is over there? Are they sitting on a goldmine that the rest of us don't know about?

Chris Rivera, Danny Garcia and Kenny Spann don't really attend Dem Club meetings. Gabriel Soliz and Annie Ramos do fairly regularly. Kenneth Wells recently joined, and he has made every meeting since.

The Club, as a club, is not 'running' anyone. These folks made independent decisions to run and did not ask, not were they encouraged to seek anyone's permission or approval.

All I know is this ought to be interesting.

Anonymous said...

Have a great weekend. It is finally raining. Spring has reached the Crossroads. And I have learned Mike is an OK Democrat.

Mike said...

And another point..Why do should I care about the primary date? Texas has what,38 electoral vote? They will ago for the GOP nominee,Mitt Romney because Texas is a red state.

The case you were talking about is about a deliberate Gerrymandering tactic the GOP used to redraw the districts. Yes it was totally unfair to minorities and Democrats but we shouldn't have a problem with lobbyists or any special interest groups making a case for their side...I prefer to call it due process in a democratic society.

Anonymous said...

OK, I am wrong. I admit it. It was the Former GOP Chair who did the encourage and discourage job on who got to run in the biannual Republican Women Primary. And who really was upset every year when Ron Paul humiliated her Establishment Candidates in the RWP every two years. Man, some folks just can't take an inside joke.
Dale ;)

Mike said...

Sorry Dale,I don't understand what you are talking about but I'm sure EA does because she relishes in talking about local politics...You are both on the front lines and I'm just an old ground ponder, bidding my time and waiting on national results...:-)