Political News and Commentary with the Right Perspective. NAVIGATION
  • Front Page
  • News
  • Multimedia
  • Tags
  • RSS Feed

  • Advertise on RightMichigan.com


    Get the RightMighigan.com toolbar!



    Who are the NERD fund donors Mr Snyder?

    Raise the curtain.

    Display: Sort:
    Rebuttal (none / 0) (#14)
    by Seth9 on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 12:38:42 PM EST
    First of all, you misunderstood a few of my points. I do not believe that Bush was a conservative. TARP was every bit as liberal a piece of legislation as the stimulus was. However, in 2000 and 2004 he ran as a conservative and attempted to squeeze every vote out of the base that he could, rather than running as a moderate. Also, I didn't mean to imply that McCain wasn't a moderate candidate (my wording was poor), but rather that he was not the favorite of the moderate wing of the party (that was Giuliani). McCain certainly was a moderate when you compare him to Romney (I'm not even going to bother trying to classify Mike Huckabee), but he too didn't do things like attempt to attract Democrats.

    Now, going back to the policy issues, the reason I don't fully oppose a federal health care option (note, not a mandate, an option) is that the health care industry is incredibly corrupt and efficient to an extent that truly boggles the mind. The reason we have very high health costs in this country is twofold. Reason number one is that health care in the United States is of a higher quality than everywhere else on Earth, which is a good thing. Reason number two is that health insurance providers and health care providers can get away with what amounts to systemic price gouging. And on top of that, many health insurance providers routinely decline to pay for items covered by policies purchased by lower-income families because they know that lower-income families cannot afford to sue them when they also have to pay medical expenses. Efforts to reform the health care industry have all failed spectacularly, and given a relative lack of options, I would not automatically dismiss the notion of a federal health care option that would present a degree of competition to health care providers, thus forcing prices down to fair market value. I don't like the idea much, but in the case of health care, it may well be that our current system is worse.

    Also, the security of our border is an issue of national security. As the border region is a powder keg waiting to go off (well, maybe not waiting) and attempting to solve this issue at the local level could cause more problems than they solve. As the INS already has all the powers given to Arizona officers under the Arizona Immigration law, I'd prefer it if we'd just make them do their actual job, rather than muddle the situation further through varying local response.

    Finally, Republicans make up about 25% of the national electorate. If you choose to ignore Independents, then your going to consistently nominate conservative candidates who agree with you on most or all issues and just as consistently lose in the general election. A golden example of this comes from Delaware, where nominating O'Donnell over Castle is a victory for conservatives in the battle for the GOP, but also reduces the chances of taking the Senate seat from 95% to 16%. Which is why the national GOP will not support O'Donnell in favor of more electable candidates.


    Display: Sort:


    Make a new account

    Tweet along with RightMichigan by
    following us on Twitter HERE!
    create account | faq | search