SAY NO TO NEWT

I used to like Newt Gingrich.

I remembered him as the guy who put together the Contract for America and helped the Republicans clean a lot of corrupt Democrats out of congress.

I also liked a lot of ideas that I’ve heard coming from him over the years.

It turns out he’s a fraud.

He’s not a conservative and he’s not a Reaganite.

Ronald Reagan’s greatest accomplishment was helping to orchestrate the collapse of the USSR.

Democrats were calling him crazy and people on his own staff were telling him to tone it down.

He was advised not to use the “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” line.

Listening to Gingrich now, you would think that Gingrich was cheering Reagan all the way. During debates and in speeches, he’s been saying, “I helped Ronald Reagan bring down the Soviet Union.”

Bullshit.

Here’s what Gingrich said on the house floor:

“Measured against the scale and momentum of the Soviet empire’s challenge, the Reagan administration has failed, is failing and without a dramatic, fundamental change in strategy will continue to fail. … The burden of the failure frankly must be placed first upon President Reagan.”

I don’t care how many wives he has or how he treated them.

He shouldn’t be president.

The good news is that Romney has moved into an eight point lead in Florida.

(By the way, if Gingrich does run against Obama, I will hold my nose and vote for him.)

Date: January 26, 2012

Categories: Uncategorized

Tags: GINGRICH LIES ABOUT REAGAN, ROMNEY LEADS BY NINE

Comments RSS TrackBack 147 comments

Reply

Blasto

in January 26th, 2012 @ 12:09

Gingrich won’t beat Obama. Mitt might but he’s showing some serious chinks in the armor.

Reply

John Steigerwald

in January 26th, 2012 @ 15:13

Both would beat Obama because Obama will be running against his record more than he’ll be running against whoever is nominated by the Republicans.

Reply

bald guy

in January 26th, 2012 @ 18:56

But there are voters will make decisions based not only on Obama’s record, but also on who he’s pitted against. You, as with many Republicans, will vote for anyone in the GOP vs. Obama. I, like a number of Democrats, will be voting for Obama, regardless of whether Romney or Gingrich gets the nomination. However, Independent voters, who will decide this election, will evaluate between two (or three, if Ron Paul runs) options. They won’t base their vote solely on Obama’s record.

Gingrich and Romney have a lot of flaws that have been well exposed during the debates. The Democrats haven’t had to run negative ads. Both Gingrich and Romney (and their PACs) have done that for them.

Come the general election, Democrats can use footage from Gingrich or Romney in their ads. All the negativity is coming from the GOP.

But, when a candidate has nothing to offer, then attack ads are all that are left.

Reply

John Steigerwald

in January 26th, 2012 @ 20:06

It happens every four years. The challenging party beats up on each othet. Were you out of the country in 2008 when Obama and Clinton went at it until June? The polls show independents leaving Obama in droves. He will spend billion dollars demonizing his opponent and he will lose.

Reply

bald guy

in January 27th, 2012 @ 00:44

Republicans are spending that kind of money demonizing each other. Obama doesn’t have to do it. He can simply use the footage of the attacks from the Romney / Newt campaign. That’s why the GOP will lose. A large part of their base doesn’t like one or the other (or both) candidates. In 2008, Democrats were enthused about Clinton AND Obama. Not so with the GOP in 2012.

Reply

oksteelerfan

in January 28th, 2012 @ 09:28

Obama had quite a following even in Oklahoma last time. You saw signs everywhere in yards for him, Obama bumper stickers everywhere. There are very few liberal Democratic voters in Oklahoma, most Democrats here are center or right of center. It was very common to hear people say McCain will be another Bush and Obama is more center and will get things done.
Now you can find very few who will admit they voted for Obama. The closest you hear to an admission is he was a mistake and fooled a lot of people and we can’t survive another 4 years.

I just don’t see those in the center voting for him again. Much of that imo is people heard change and yes we can and thought miracles were going to be performed, he set himself up to be a failure even if he did half of what he promised because change and yes we can meant different things to different people. So even people who don’t pay close attention didn’t get what in their minds they were promised.

People who aren’t far left and do pay attention aren’t about to vote for him, even if they did the last time.

Reply

Matt

in January 26th, 2012 @ 12:30

I hope Romney wins the nomination. He’s not ideal, but he will do. The Republican’s need to get some good PR people to counter the class warfare attacks against him. When you add what he gives to charity he is essentially giving away more than 40% of his income.

Reply

John Steigerwald

in January 26th, 2012 @ 15:11

He had almost half of his income confiscated by the government. What more do people want?

Reply

bald guy

in January 26th, 2012 @ 19:05

I don’t understand your calculation Romney had a 14% tax rate. Are you saying that 14% represents “almost half” of his income? For those who pay 30% of their income to Federal taxes, would you call that “almost all” of their income?

Or, are you including the money he donated to charity in that “almost half” calculation? Are you saying that when someone voluntarily decides to donate money to a private charity (like the Mormon Church), that money is being confiscated by the government?

If I write a check to a charity, how is the government involved in confiscating my money? I mean, I’ll include that when I itemize my return, so I get a tax break. But, I’m paying LESS to the government, not MORE.

Or, maybe there’s something else I’m missing.

Reply

John Steigerwald

in January 26th, 2012 @ 20:02

You’re missing the breakdown by the Washington Post in my original post.

Reply

bald guy

in January 27th, 2012 @ 00:49

Your original post in this thread has no quote by the Washington Post. Please provide the link. I’m curious how the Washington Post determined that Romney had “almost half his income” confiscated by government, when his returns show a 14% tax burden.
Reply

Tattoo Rick

in January 27th, 2012 @ 09:51

The point that Fox news likes to gloss over is the fact that Romney was paid in stock options. He was not paid for speaking paid regular tax rate then 15% on the capital gains. He used tax loop holes to dodge taxes. Smart move, id vote for his accountant.

Reply

John Steigerwald

in January 27th, 2012 @ 10:49

The stupid un-American income tax causes us all to jum through hoops. That’s why the Founders knew it was a bad idea.

Reply

pghfrftr

in January 28th, 2012 @ 14:05

I don’t understand where people get this 30% rate for most people. I am solidly in the middle class, and based on my W2 for 2011, I paid 13.5% in federal income tax. That’s before I go to our tax accountant and use all of the deductions due me. My federal, local, and state income tax rate combined was 18.5%. Add in the medicare tax, and maybe my total taxes go up to 20%, total. Where is this 30% number coming from?

Reply

John Steigerwald

in January 28th, 2012 @ 14:13

It’s the number before your deductions. There should be no deductions because there should be NO income tax.

Reply

Fish Monger

in January 26th, 2012 @ 12:32

Flip flop, flip flop.
Reply

Cambot

in January 26th, 2012 @ 12:33

Can’t really disagree with anything you’ve said here, aside from the part about holding my nose and voting for him.
Reply

ndhoops

in January 26th, 2012 @ 12:44

John, I think your original post about Newt being toast is right. If one looks at the Drudge report right now it appears Newt is unraveling. Reagan stories, divorce stories, lies about ABC. Never been a Newt fan but I still think the Dems want Romney because they find him least offensive.
Reply

Savage

in January 26th, 2012 @ 12:49

I can’t fully support Gingrich, but I can’t dismiss him as a candidate either. In my mind he is simply too polarizing to be a serious Obama alternative to the independents. I don’t want to see neither Gingrich nor Romney as the GOP nominee. I am a friend of Santorum, but I don’t think he has a chance to get the nod for the Republicans.

That being said, I’d vote for a can of dog food before I’d vote for Obama.
Reply

Groucho

in January 26th, 2012 @ 13:09

In the event that Romney gets the R nomination, I’ll go out on a limb and assume that he will get your vote. It doesn’t matter, but I’d like your thoughts on that. Would you be voting “for Romney” or would you be voting “against Obama”?

Reply

John Steigerwald

in January 26th, 2012 @ 15:10

Against Obama more than for Romney. I don’t think things will change much with Romney. He’s not conservative enough, but things will get much, much worse with four more years of Obama. Getting rid of Obamacare is reason enough to get rid of Obama. The voters will learn that and that’s why he is toast.

Reply

Mason

in January 26th, 2012 @ 15:24

The biggest reason to vote for anyone but Obama is supreme court nominations. The next presidential term will get anywhere from 1-3 justices. There is no other topic close to that. I agree that the next thing is Obamacare – and that is far in front of any of the remaining issues.

Reply

John Steigerwald

in January 26th, 2012 @ 15:28

I agree.
Reply

Savage

in January 26th, 2012 @ 18:34

Bingo! That is exactly what I was afraid of when Obama was elected. He has already placed 2 justices on the bench who have less than stellar qualifications.

Reply

Matt

in January 27th, 2012 @ 07:54

I never understood why more people on both sides of the aisle didn’t take to the streets with torches and pitchforks when he put someone on the Supreme Court who had never been a judge.

Reply

Chris

in January 26th, 2012 @ 16:29

Didn’t Rommney basically co write Obamacare though, or he at least set the foundation for it. Would you still back Rommney if he states he plans on keeping Obamacare. Personally if you through out the being forced to buy helath insurance part i am for the rest of it

Reply

John Steigerwald

in January 26th, 2012 @ 20:31

I will never vote for someone who wants more government health care.

Reply

bald guy

in January 26th, 2012 @ 18:50

The fact is, you, like many Republicans don’t really like Romney or Gingrich. There’s a big enthusiasm gap in the GOP. Polls are one thing. What counts is who actually shows up to vote. The GOP will have difficulty with that. Hate for Obama isn’t enough. There’s not enough love for either Gingrich or Romney. A number of Republicans will just stay home.

Reply

John Steigerwald

in January 26th, 2012 @ 20:08

Fear of Obama for 4 more years will bring them out. Ther’e's no way young people will turn out for Obama the way they did in 2008.

Reply

bald guy

in January 27th, 2012 @ 00:52

There was a State of the Union party in Pittsburgh, which was the largest in PA. There were mostly young people there.

Fear of Gingrich or Romney will motivate a lot of people to vote against him. Going back to the failed policies of the GOP and Bush scares a lot of people.
Reply

Is Jesus a Democrat or a Republican?

in January 28th, 2012 @ 13:28

Did anyone see the Governor of Indian and his response to the State of the Union Address? It was less than 5 sentences in when stated that “the current economic problems we are faced with are not the fault of President Obama”. He’s right! President Bush and the irresponsible Republican congress that he served with for the first 6 years of his term are the ones who put us in this mess. That along with Newt and his friends at Freddie and Fannie. Bush began handing out the bailout money prior to leaving office. America lost millions upon millions of jobs during the last 3 months of Bush’s term and the first 3 months of Obama’s, does any reasonable person really blame that on Mr. Obama?

Reply

Mason

in January 26th, 2012 @ 13:17

My position exactly. I have favored Romney in this primary but have always liked Newt, just not as president. After reading about his reagan comments last night, I think he is a complete fraud.

I am as conservative as it comes but I have come to the conclusion that if we don’t get someone as president that appears more moderate, the country is destined to fragment further and harder than now. After seeing the Obama vs. Jan Brewer scuffle on the tarmac, I am more convinced than ever. We need someone that knows how to be president for the entire country.
Reply

Gary M

in January 26th, 2012 @ 13:57

What do you think Nancy has on him?
I don’t know if its sealed testimony or not, but I’d really like to know what it is to decide if its really relevant or some device Nancy is using in a sad attempt to become relevant again.
I mean, if you really did know something about an individual that would disqualify him/her from the office they were seeking, don’t you kind of owe it to the American people to let them know what it is? I mean maybe he shot a man in Reno just to watch him die.
She’s like cockroaches and Cher….just will never go away.
Reply

Fred

in January 26th, 2012 @ 14:11

I’ll bet Mitt has a few of these in his past also.

Reply

John Steigerwald

in January 26th, 2012 @ 15:07

They all have things in their past. Gingrich is running around talking about how he partnered with Reagan and it’s looking like bullshit.

Reply

Ken

in January 26th, 2012 @ 14:21

He’s an engima.

Smart, always interesting. I’d pay to see him debate Obama because he would drop the phony “respect for the office” thing and get right in his face.

I actually think that he’d probably be a good president (but he’s not electable). He did lead the country to a balanced budget in the mid-‘90s.

His positions are all over the place. His dalliance with Nancy Pelosi in that global warming commercial did it for me.

I was listening to Limbaugh earlier, and he was even stunned to hear the stuff attributed to Gingrich today regarding Reagan. (He realized that it was true, having read the quotes and seeing the video.) He was talking about how in the 1980s, Gingrich was one of Reagan’s leading supporters in the House. He and other republicans would stay on C-Span for hours, making after-hours speeches (in an empty chamber) supporting Reagan. Limbaugh said (and he was right) that this is what Republicans in the House should be doing now. C-Span stay on the air for as long as someone is speaking, even if the House is empty.

Odd man.
Reply

Ochotexto

in January 26th, 2012 @ 15:31

Newt is slime. If yinz back him your Clinton/Kennedy character assassinations no longer have teeth. Your best option is the cult member with the magical underpants.
Meanwhile., I sense Obama gaining momentum. He had 9 Somali pirates killed while addressing the nation., a la Michael Corleone.
You can grandstand with catchphrases like “tear down that wall” but they ring hollow to those who pay attemtion. Obama is gangsta. Not to be effed with .

Reply

John Steigerwald

in January 26th, 2012 @ 15:33

Yeah. That’s a good comparison. Shooting some pirates/ending the cold war. Exactly the same. If he goes into Iran and comes out with their nukes the Friday before the election, that might have an effect. Even then, I think he’d lose.

Reply

Lefty

in January 26th, 2012 @ 17:15

Long way til November. Newt, Mitt, Obamacare, Seal team 6, none of it matters. What matters is how the economy is doing in November. If it’s better, Obama will win. If it’s not, Republican X will win. Simple as that.
I might go get a couple jobs on the side to help the employment numbers just so I can see John’s head pop come November 7th.
Reply

bald guy

in January 26th, 2012 @ 18:47

Killing Bin Laden. Something Bush couldn’t do. Ending the recession that started under Bush. Mission accomplished with deeds, not words. Obama is in great shape when pitted head to head with either Gingrich or Romney. That’s why most polls show Obama beating either of those two.

Reply

John Steigerwald

in January 26th, 2012 @ 20:14

Whoever was in office would have pulled the trigger on Bin Laden. I Bush would have listened to Obama, who opposed the techniques Bush was using Osama would still be on the lose. No president with Obama’s poll numbers and economic numbers has won re-_election. Presidents who had his poll numbers oversaw an improving economy. That won’t be the case this time.

Reply

bald guy

in January 27th, 2012 @ 01:01

Actually, Bush lost focus on the hunt for Bin Laden. He deemphasized it, just as he deemphasized the necessary war in Afghanistan to get us into an unnecessary war in Iraq. Bush told the nation that killing Bin Laden was not important.

Obama came into office and immediately turned that around. Early in his presidency, Obama made it a top priority and dedicated a lot of resources to it…..much, much more than Bush had done.

And, Obama was the one who authorized the sending in of SEALs (a very risky move), instead of the much safer drone attack. As a result of Obama’s decision, his alone, we got a treasure trove of intelligence from the raid.

If the mission failed, Obama would have taken the blame. That’s how it works. But, thank God it was successful. It was tremendously successful. There’s lots of credit to go around, including credit to Obama, to the military planners, and to the SEALS who executed the mission, overcoming obstacles during the attack.

Obama haters just can’t suck it up to give Obama credit for anything. God forbid anyone think that Obama has done one good thing. Admitting that means that Obama might gain some additional votes.
Reply

Blasto

in January 27th, 2012 @ 08:39

Bush stated right on national tv that Osama was not a priority.If he would have been killed during the bush regime all of you GOPs would have been wetting your pants over it.

Reply

John Steigerwald

in January 27th, 2012 @ 10:51

He wasn’t THE priority and should not have been. He had two wars going on and they were the priority. To have given less attention to the wars in order to get the political benefit of killing Bin Laden would have been irresponsible and stupid.

Reply

Blasto

in January 27th, 2012 @ 15:39

Getting into the 2 wars in the first place was irresponsible and stupid;
- 9/13/01 ” The most important thing is for us to find Osama Bin laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him”
- 3/13/02 “I don’t know where Bin laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important.

– Dubya.

Reply

John Steigerwald

in January 27th, 2012 @ 15:48

Conditions changed just a tad. He had other priorities. Common sense, really.

Reply

Blasto

in January 27th, 2012 @ 18:59

No, common sense would tell you that with the entire U.S. military at your disposal you could actually do both. Especially after stating that finding Bin Laden was “our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him.”

Reply

John Steigerwald

in January 27th, 2012 @ 23:14

Then congress probably shouldn’t have authorized them.

Reply

Vermonter

in January 27th, 2012 @ 08:44

Obama will try to pull out the old (really old) playbook from Truman in 1948 in the face of bad polls. look for him to call a phony summer session of COngress like truman’s Turnip Day Session, and to run hard left/populist/blame Congress.

By the time we reach November, America will be convinced that the GOP actually controls the Senate.
Reply

Chris

in January 27th, 2012 @ 15:09

No African American had ever been elected before Obama either. There is a first time for everything.

Reply

John Steigerwald

in January 27th, 2012 @ 15:50

Obama already used up his first time for everything card.

Reply

Niblick

in January 26th, 2012 @ 15:52

Unfortunately, I do think Obama is gaining momentum. And he hasn’t really even campaigned yet with that war chest that he built up. The recent events might make people forget all the ills. No matter who becomes the Republican nominee, I will be holding my nose and voting for him. But, what a sad lot of characters. Is that all the GOP has?
Reply

colt

in January 26th, 2012 @ 17:43

Ocho, I vividly remember liberals saying that George W. could get Bin Laden any time he wanted to, but he was waiting to do it just before the 2004 election. He was, they said, playing politics, even with this monster. Of course it did not happen.

Now, Obama just happens to rescue poeple from Pirates, and kill the Pirates, just as he is about to give the State of the Union address. Then he is heard telling Panetta, “Good Job.” What say you, Ocho? Any chance that he played politics with the lives of people to come off great at the Address; or do only Republicans get accused of that, even when they do not do it?

Any liberal out there willing to accuse the Grerat One the way they accused Bush?

Reply

Blasto

in January 27th, 2012 @ 15:42

Colt- and I remember that any opposition to the President in a time of war “undermined the Troops” and was treasonous. Any Goper out there willing to accuse the GOPes the way they accused the Dems.??

Reply

Gary M

in January 26th, 2012 @ 18:43

I seem to remember a trip to the U.S. by Netanyahu where he made Obama look like 5 year old on his first 2 wheeler when it came to foreign policy.
But I will give you that Obama, over the past 2 months, has made a few moves in the plus column. But that block of the pipeline makes him look like an environmental extremist who’s willing to put that far left agenda ahead of the jobs. He didn’t score many points there.
Reply

Is Jesus a Democrat or a Republican?

in January 28th, 2012 @ 13:46

Great post Ocho! Time magazine has an excellent article this week that discusses President Obama’s foreign policy accomplishments. This in one area that the Republicans don’t want to touch with a ten foot pole, Obama got Bin Laden after Bush let it be known that he wasn’t very interested in getting him (Bin Laden).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?
feature=player_detailpage&v=JRY_BOYeySc

Just goes to show what can happen when you bring on board a foreign policy expert like Joe Biden. Unlike Mr. Bush, Mr. Obama doesn’t walk around boasting by saying things like “Bring em on

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=uKdbZWNqF00or

“mission accomplished”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=XzrJwzYBUkU

but rather takes the bold steps necessary to marginalize and eliminate threats to America and its citizens.

Reply

John Steigerwald

in January 28th, 2012 @ 14:02

Of course Obama wasn’t President when we were attacked and he was against all the methods that were used to get Bin Laden. The Mission that Bush was talking about on the aircraft carrier was accomplished –Saadam was removed.

Obama’s priorities changed , too. Is Gitmo still open or did that drop down on his priority list?

Reply

Is Jesus a Democrat or a Republican?

in January 29th, 2012 @ 21:51

Clinton wasn’t President when we were attacked either but the right wing zealots still blame him for it.

Reply

John Steigerwald

in January 29th, 2012 @ 22:52

Who blamed him?

Reply

ivan koloff jr

in January 26th, 2012 @ 15:45

well, if your hope is to repeal “Obamacare”, at least one repub thinks you’re out of luck:
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Obamacare-healthcare-Supreme-Court/2012/01/25/id/425519

If your think Obama is playing “class warfare”,compare him to this noted lefty:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgbJ-Fs1ikA&feature=related
Reply

oksteelerfan

in January 26th, 2012 @ 15:53

This has nothing to do with Newt and is probably as old as the hills as I’m always the last to get these e-mails that float around. I thought you might enjoy it though if you haven’t seen it already.

TOP 12 Reasons for voting for a Democrat

1) I voted Democrat because I believe oil companies’ profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene, but the government taxing the same gallon at 15% isn’t.

2) I voted Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

3) I voted Democrat because Freedom of Speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.

4) I voted Democrat because I’m way too irresponsible to own a gun and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.

5) I voted Democrat because I believe that people who can’t tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don’t start driving a Prius.

6) I voted Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, an education, and Social Security benefits. Plus, we should take away social security from those who paid into it.

7) I voted Democrat because I’m not concerned about millions of babies being aborted so long as we keep Death Row inmates alive.

I voted Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to regularly re-write the Constitution to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.

9) I voted Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest back to the government for redistribution by Democrats.

10) I voted Democrat because I think that it’s better to pay billions to people who hate us for their oil rather than drill for our own since it might upset some endangered beetle, gopher, or fish.

11) I voted Democrat because while we live in the greatest, most wonderful country in the world, I was promised “HOPE AND CHANGE.”

12) I voted Democrat because my head is so firmly planted up my posterior, it’s unlikely that I’ll ever have another point of view.

Reply

Chris

in January 27th, 2012 @ 15:12

I voted Democrat because of 1, 2, 6, and 9

Reply

oksteelerfan

in January 28th, 2012 @ 09:37

So you’re for the government taxing you 15% on gas.

You believe you’re irresponsible and need to be told how to spend your money and believe your married to the government and what is yours is theirs.

You believe illegal aliens should be treated better than American citizens.

You believe nobody should be able to make a profit.

I have an idea for you then, just tell your boss to send your check to the federal government every week and let them send you back what they think you can responsibly spend.
While you’re at it tell you boss he doesn’t deserve to make a profit and see how quick you find yourself sitting in the unemployment line.

Since you want illegal aliens to be taken care of move them into your house, feed and clothe them and YOU pay for their health care and education.

Reply

The Machinist

in January 26th, 2012 @ 16:16

Wow a politician who turns out to be phony and hypocritical, he’s nothing like Romney.
Reply

The Machinist

in January 26th, 2012 @ 16:18

In other news Barney Frank is getting married. Who wears the teeth in that relationship?
Reply

VinceL

in January 26th, 2012 @ 17:08

If Newt gets the nod he ends up like Dole and McCain.Remember in school when you had the smartest kid in the class and he was jerk? That’s Newt.It’s nice to be smart but people have to like you to vote for you.There is no law that forces Obama to debate Gingrich.There are 3 scheduled.Obama will probably do one to avoid being called a fraidy cat.So if they have one in Sept. even if Obama does poorly it will be largely forgotten by November.

Reply

John Steigerwald

in January 26th, 2012 @ 20:20

It will not be about Gingrich. It will be about Obama and he has no defense and no plan for the future

Reply

Tim

in January 26th, 2012 @ 17:48

What if Paul runs as an independent? Who do you vote for then?

Reply

John Steigerwald

in January 26th, 2012 @ 20:16

Romney while holding my nose.

Reply

Dan

in January 26th, 2012 @ 21:50

Based on how Newt’s doing tonight, I highly doubt Obama would be afraid to debate him. Paul is kicking everyone’s ass, Romney’s way better than he was the other night, and Santorum is just doing a lot of shouting. Funny how nobody could answer the woman’s question about how she would get health care TODAY if they were president.

Paul is right. Let’s just agree for a moment that government intervention in health care pumped more money into the system and thus drove prices up. The question is not how did people survive without Medicare in 1960, the question is how would they survive financially tomorrow if you dropped Medicare today? How would they get coverage with a pre-existing condition? And how would they afford a bill of well over $100,000 to fight cancer, which 1 in 2 men and 1 in 3 women will get, and of which over 66% of the costs are non-medical? Price have to drop before premiums on ANY insurance policy, private, government, self, whatever, will drop.

Reply

John Steigerwald

in January 26th, 2012 @ 22:16

Santorum had the right idea 20 years ago. Health savings accounts.

Reply

Dan

in January 26th, 2012 @ 22:24

Those are fine over time but they do not solve the problem of cost. How do you pay for your health care if you are uninsured and you’ve only contributed to your HSA for a year? Continue to pass the buck to people who ARE insured like we’ve been doing for decades now?

I want to know how someone is going to cut the COSTS of health care, not use antiquated analogies about the 60′s and naively believing that the American public is going to continue to be able to keep up with the exponentially rising costs of care within the privatized health insurance market.

Reply

John Steigerwald

in January 26th, 2012 @ 22:32

Eliminate the medicae and SS tax. Let people keep their money and save for health care costs. Insurance is cheapest when you are young. Costs will only come down when patients start asking how much treatment will cost. The huge percentage of helaht care costs occur when we are olderr. By then, we would have large amounts of money to pay for minor costs and the ability to buy lower cost high deductible policies. People who can’t get insurance should be taken care of the way they were before medicare —charity.

Reply

Lefty

in January 27th, 2012 @ 02:08

John, we’ve been over this before, but you just don’t listen. They ARE treated through charity. The charity of the hospitals who HAVE to treat everyone regardless if they have insurance or not. So people can about the unconstitutionality of forcing people to buy insurance, but until hospitals can legally turn away the dying, don’t you think everyone should have to pay for their own health care?
Just please don’t be so willfully ignorant, and go talk to a doctor or nurse who works in an E.R. You may actually learn something.
Reply

Chris

in January 27th, 2012 @ 15:17

The point is, you could have an HSA, save your ENTIRE life and still not be able to pay off HALF of the costs you incure. It is simply not feesable to expect the average American to pay his own medical expenses at today’s current prices. Your way works only if we find ways to lowers cost to reasonable prices like $20 for an MRI and $1,000 for a surgery etc.

Reply

John Steigerwald

in January 27th, 2012 @ 15:35

You’re not getting it. Your HSA is used to pay for your minor medical costs and gives you the money to afford a high deductible, catastrophic policy. You save 100,000 in your account over 25 years. You’re 62 years old and you buy a policy with a 50,000 deductible. You pay for you incidental medical costs out of the $50,000. You don’t worry about “free” yearly checkups. You pay for them out of your pocket. And the doctor knows you’re paying for it out of your pocket and he knows you’ll be asking how much. If you need minor knee surgery and you have 100,000 in your account, when you go to the surgeon, you’ll ask how much and he’ll know you’re going to as how much. I had four knee surgeries and never once thought to ask how much it would cost. All I cared about was if it was 100% covered. I wouldn’t have cared if they said it was a million dollars. If I’m writing the check and the doctor knows I’m writing the check, things change. I think of the thousands of dollars I’ve paid for health care that I didn’t need combined with the thousands of dollars I’ve paid in medicare taxes and I think it makes a lot more sense to stash that money away and build up a pile of cash that would allow me to buy a high deductible, cheaper policy. If you’re lucky enough to stay healthy and die without taking on a lot of end of life expenses, you pass your health savings account along to your kids. They also save and in 25 years, they have even more money than you had. That makes so much more sense to me than throwing billions of dollars down the medicare hole with all the waste and fraud.

Reply

Dan

in January 27th, 2012 @ 15:48

Makes sense to me too….if you medically qualify for health insurance.

John Steigerwald

in January 27th, 2012 @ 15:57

Imagine going into a supermarket to buy food knowing that someone else is paying. Then imagine what they would charge you for a steak.

Reply

Chris

in January 27th, 2012 @ 16:03

Your way could work if you stay pretty healthy the majority of your life. But what about people who require major surgeries in their 20′s of even kids born with conditions that will require life long, high cost care? Like one of the posters above said, maybe some of the things you propose could have worked had they been implemented 50 years ago. I just dont know how you could put them in society today though. It would be like a drug addict going cold turkey. I dont know that the country could survive the withdrawl.

John Steigerwald

in January 27th, 2012 @ 16:30

Most people do stay pretty healthy the majority of their lives. In your 20s, you are not the risk for an insurance company that you are in your 60s. When you are young and single, you are paying a lot less for insurance, which makes it easier to contribute to the savings account. You wouldn’t be eliminating the concept of insurance. You would be changing how we pay for our health care. Most of my nieces and nephews who are in their mid-20s don’t have insurance. They have cell phones and computers and internet service, but no health insurance. That’s the risk they’re willing to take. You and I shouldn’t be forced to pay for them if they need to go to the hospital. Their parents should pay or they should have to depend on charity. The vast majority of healthcare costs come later in life and the vast majority of people would be sitting on piles of money. They could make the decision to buy a low cost, high deductible policy or pay http://justwatchthegame.com/blog/wp-admin/edit-comments.php?p=8212&approved=1#comments-formmore for a lower deductible. This is not about ending the concept of insurance. It’s about changing the way we pay for insurance and changing the way we pay for our medical care. The key is to get people to start asking how much their care is going to cost instead of eliminating that question by having everything paid by a third party. KDKA used to buy insurance for every news car in their fleet. Then somebody realized that it would be easier to only insure the cars for liability. They dropped all collision insurance because it made more sense to save all that money and then just pay cash when a car was wrecked or totaled.

Reply

Is Jesus a Democrat or a Republican?

in January 29th, 2012 @ 22:03

Health care costs rose 4% last year, their lowest increase EVER! Is that Obama’s fault too? Or is it due to some law Reagan passed in 88′?

Reply

John Steigerwald

in January 29th, 2012 @ 22:53

I don’t know if it was anybody’s fault. I do know that premiums will go up when/if Obamacare is implemented.

Reply

bald guy

in January 26th, 2012 @ 18:45

Whether Romney or Gingrich wins the nomination, there will be a lack of enthusiasm among the GOP. Like you, some will hold their noses and vote for the GOP nominee. But, some will hold their noses and vote for Obama, and many will just stay home.

The GOP nominee is TOAST!

Reply

DormontDirtBag

in January 26th, 2012 @ 21:02

I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but in 2008 I voted for Barr as a protest/throwaway vote because both McCain and Obama made me ill. This year I will scale mountains if necessary to send Bolshevik Barry back to his life’s work organizing communities. My enthusiasm is sky high.

Reply

bald guy

in January 27th, 2012 @ 01:11

Dormont…..I think you need to give yourself more credit. You do a good job speaking, not only for yourself, but for all voters who believe that Obama is a Communist..

You also probably speak for the two–thirds of Republicans that think Obama is a socialist, the 57 percent that thinks he’s a Muslim—and the 24% of Republicans who say “he may be the Antichrist.”

I don’t expect Obama to get any votes from people who hold these ignorant, patently false beliefs based on fear and hate….not on facts.

However those who state those as their beliefs help move independents into Obama’s corner. Hateful ignorance scares rational people.

Reply

Big Dubya

in January 26th, 2012 @ 20:03

Newts are ugly creatures, especially when perched, pleased as punch and all puffed-up, on a lily pad. If the humanoid Newt becomes the GOP presidential nominee, he would not only lose his race, he would cost the party the House and any chance of gaining the Senate. My original favorites were Paul Ryan and Mitch Daniels, but I agree with the columnist who called Mitt Romney Mr. Good Enough. Gotta play it as it lies.
Reply

Ochotexto

in January 26th, 2012 @ 20:15

If Colonel Agarn Bush woulda killed Bin Laden., yinz would want him on Mt Rushmore. He may have sent troops in error to PNC Park when he heard about the Pirates.

Reply

colt

in January 27th, 2012 @ 08:18

“He mat have sent troops in error to PNC Park when he heard about the Pirates.”

Ocho may be wrong, but ya gotta admit it, John, that’s a funny line.
Reply

colt

in January 27th, 2012 @ 08:20

“He may have sent troops in error to PNC Park when he heard about the Pirates.”

Ocho may be wrong about a lot of stuff, but ya gotta admit it, John, that’s a funny line.

Reply

John Steigerwald

in January 27th, 2012 @ 10:52

I’m used to it from Ocho. He’s almost as funny as he is misguided and that’s saying something.

Reply

Ochotexto

in January 26th, 2012 @ 21:05

These Republican debates are comedy gold. They should have like a fantasy league debate for Santorum and Paul.

Reply

John Steigerwald

in January 26th, 2012 @ 22:19

Too bad Kucinich couldn’t do a guest spot. Or Chris Dodd. Not to mention Al sharpton. They were a laugh a minute.

Reply

Dan

in January 26th, 2012 @ 22:03

For a bunch of supposedly conservative people, the candidates sure are talking about spending a lot of federal money on things like South America, the moon, Cuba, the military, and on and on and on. Paul’s actually the one guy standing his ground. John, I’m with you, the more I hear from Paul, the more I like.
Reply

metalslam

in January 26th, 2012 @ 22:25

Ocho , I wonder what would of happened if the Seals got bin laden on Bush`s watch & he had him dumped in the ocean with no pictures or poof of death. & do you think Obama`s in cahoots with the Big oil companies. $3.69 gal

Reply

John Steigerwald

in January 26th, 2012 @ 22:35

What percentage of democrats believed that Bush knew about 9/11. I remember it being pretty high. Obama was scandalized by waterboarding because it was inhumane but he’s OK with actually killing SUSPECTED terrorists with drones. (I’m OK with it, too. ) He found out that being president is a lot different from running for it.

Reply

Bob

in January 27th, 2012 @ 06:26

Don’t be blinded by Romney, there is no way obamacare disappears if he gets elected. He was actually sticking up for it in last nights debate. He can’t even argue against it in a debate against Obama.
Reply

Is Jesus a Democrat or a Republican?

in January 29th, 2012 @ 22:08

So whats your beef with him on this issue? Do you want him killing the bad guys or not?

Reply

John Steigerwald

in January 29th, 2012 @ 22:51

I don’t have a beef. I just think it’s interesting that his supporters think that killing people is OK but making someone think he is being killed in order to get information that saved thousands of lives and led to the killing of Bin Laden is not.

Reply

Al Bundy

in January 27th, 2012 @ 06:50

I would vote for Charles Manson if he could do something about gas prices.
Reply

Dan

in January 27th, 2012 @ 10:55

I believe at least part of Newt’s support is because some people are wary of Romney’s conservative credentials. I’m not saying they’re correct, I just think that has something to do with Newt’s surge.

Also, I think Newt comes across as having more fire-in-the-belly than Mitt. He seems to have more fire and passion than Romney.

Ultimately, I think Romney will be the nominee. However, I don’t think many people thought Gingrich would ever be Speaker of the House, so who knows?
Reply

Ochotexto

in January 27th, 2012 @ 14:55

If the Seals had gotten BinLaden under Bush is a pretty big “IF”., wouldn’t you say ? Never came close tho W promised such. It’s hard to be Commander in Chief when you’re hiding out at an undisclosed location. What a leader !

Reply

John Steigerwald

in January 27th, 2012 @ 15:07

If we were attacked today, where would Obama be, out there swinging his rifle like Davey Crockett at the Alamo? The Secret Service did what they’re supposed to do against Bush’s wishes.

Reply

oksteelerfan

in January 28th, 2012 @ 09:40

Do you think Obama even knows how to load a gun?

Reply

Naper

in January 28th, 2012 @ 08:49

John, don’t be one of the hit men on Newt. Romney is Obama lite and will do and fabricate anything just like we in Illinois know that Obama will and does.

Here’s the truth:

http://spectator.org/blog/2012/01/27/elliott-abrams-caught-misleadi

Reply

John Steigerwald

in January 28th, 2012 @ 12:53

I’ve found out things about him that I didn’t know and like him a lot less. He would still be 10 times better than Obama and if he runs against him he will win.

Reply

Is Jesus a Democrat or a Republican?

in January 29th, 2012 @ 22:14

Boy what does it say about the GOP and its candidates when all I here from you hard core Republicans is how your going to “hold your nose and vote for this one or that one” or “He ain’t no good, but he’s better than Obama”? Obama has this thing wrapped up, you guys can’t get behind anybody, nobody is conservative enough, religious enough, right enough, etc. for you liking. Personally I’m going with Ron Paul.

Reply

John Steigerwald

in January 29th, 2012 @ 22:56

Obama will be running against his record. And the novelty of his life story has worn off. He will lose to either Romney or Gingrich. Romney has benefited from the conservatives knocking each other out. It’s still happening in Fla. Conservtives are at 45 in the polls if you add Santorum and Gingrich. McCain won the same way n 2008. So conservatives have to hold their nose and vote for the lesser of two evils. Romney will destroy Obama.

Reply

Lefty

in January 30th, 2012 @ 00:14

You’re absolutely nuts if you think Gingrich could beat Obama. There is zero change of that and you’re living in the righty bubble if you believe that.
Romney has a chance, but I’d still say Obama is the favorite. Romney has me nervous, but I’m cautiously optimisitc.
Like I said before, it will all come down to the economy and it seems to be improving.
BTW if you have HBO you should check out this week’s Bill Maher. It was entertaining and telling. Had both viewpoints represented.

Reply

John Steigerwald

in January 30th, 2012 @ 09:55

Electoral college. Obama is not going to win any red states and he’s not going to win the purple ones he won last time.

Reply

oksteelerfan

in January 29th, 2012 @ 21:39

John have you been following the Fast and Furious Investigation? In case you haven’t read the e-mails the WH gave to NPR, here they are.

http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2012/01/DOJdocs.pdf

It makes you wonder if they’re willing to release these, what they’re holding back and it also sounds like they’ve made a political decision to let Holder hang.

Here is also some interesting reading on the DOJ and the WH and ACORN.
http://www.examiner.com/law-enforcement-in-national/probe-reveals-obama-holder-acorn-connection-to-voting-enforcement

Reply

John Steigerwald

in January 29th, 2012 @ 22:52

The media have been doing a good job of ignoring that story. It will get a lot of attention during the campaign.

Reply

oksteelerfan

in January 29th, 2012 @ 23:13

That’s what a lot of people aren’t getting. There wasn’t a record the last time because he did such a good job of avoiding votes. Now he has a record and as soon as the Republicans get done beating up on each other, then all of the attention will be given to him.

I agree though this story hasn’t been getting much coverage at all.

Reply

Lefty

in January 30th, 2012 @ 00:08

Uh Oh
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-rides-favorable-political-winds-201217889.html

Reply

John Steigerwald

in January 30th, 2012 @ 10:03

It’s January. Nobody has been paying much attention. The only political news has been Republicans beating up on each other. Four years ago he ran on hope and change. Now he’s running on “get the rich.” Not a real inspirational message.

Reply

Dan

in January 30th, 2012 @ 11:47

“Now he’s running on “get the rich.” ”

No, he’s not.

Reply

John Steigerwald

in January 30th, 2012 @ 14:51

That’s all I ever hear.

Reply

Dan

in January 30th, 2012 @ 16:05

Turn on something else besides Fox News then.

I would disagree with Lefty about last week’s Bill Maher. While the show is almost always entertaining, that Kennedy lady was so loud and obnoxious I almost turned it off. And that Rohrabacher guy was the most blithering idiot ever on the show. He said Obama wants to “gut the military” when the military budget has been increased every year and the proposed decrease in the next budget is 1% or less. Then in the face of those facts goes “C c c come on guys, do you really believe that???”

Reply

John Steigerwald

in January 30th, 2012 @ 19:11

Why would anybody take bill Maher’s show seriously?

Reply

Dan

in January 30th, 2012 @ 22:46

Because both sides are always represented as they have been for over a decade, and in the hour-long no commercial format everyone gets plenty of time to talk. Ann Coulter and Bill O’Reilly were on last year and there’s at least one conservative view, be it a politician, blogger, or journalist on every week. Obviously you’ve never watched the show. Most conservatives don’t. Which is predictable, because only information from “inside the bubble” is allowed to pass through to conservatives these days.
Reply

Lefty

in January 31st, 2012 @ 01:01

Why wouldn’t they? It’s as legitimate as your old radio show…actually more because weekly he has sitting members of Congress, active and former governors, and people in the news at a national level. You had some, he has more, and more relevant at that.
So again, why wouldn’t they?

Reply

John Steigerwald

in January 31st, 2012 @ 08:16

He’s a comedian.

Reply

Lefty

in January 31st, 2012 @ 17:18

And? So is Rush Limbaugh. And I’m not saying that to be snide. He really is. He’s not a journalist. He’s a commentator/analyst. Same as Maher.

John Steigerwald

in January 31st, 2012 @ 20:41

No he’s not. Maher is a standup comedian. He started in show business. Limbaugh would destroy him in a debate.

Reply

oksteelerfan

in January 30th, 2012 @ 15:13

I think he should run on the good work his DOJ has done by suing those evil states who have audacity to pass their own illegal immigration laws and those states who pass stricter voter registration laws.

Can we have a politically ran DOJ. YES WE CAN!!!!!

Reply

oksteelerfan

in January 30th, 2012 @ 10:36

Did you get so excited that you ignored the last few paragraphs?

Friday’s growth figure of 2.8 percent was actually lower than the 3.2 percent analysts had expected, and many experts warn economic expansion could slow later this year, just when Obama hopes for a job-creating spurt.

And unemployment in some other key battlegrounds — like Florida and Nevada, remains high — at 12.6 percent and 9.9 percent, complicating Obama’s route to the 270 electoral votes he needs to win reelection.

Reply

John Steigerwald

in January 30th, 2012 @ 10:38

As I said, Electoral College.

Reply

oksteelerfan

in January 30th, 2012 @ 10:48

IMHO the red states are becoming redder and the purple states are turning red.

Reply

oksteelerfan

in January 30th, 2012 @ 09:53

Michelle Obama’s 50K shopping spree.
http://nation.foxnews.com/michelle-obama/2012/01/30/telegraph-michelle-obamas-50k-shopping-spree-luxury-lingerie-shop

Reply

John Steigerwald

in January 30th, 2012 @ 10:36

Let’s see how much play that story gets.

Reply

oksteelerfan

in January 30th, 2012 @ 10:45

Well let’s just say I don’t think any of our previous First Ladies would have even walked into the store much less came out with bags.

Reply

Dan

in January 30th, 2012 @ 16:09

You really are just out of ammo on this president aren’t you?

Slam dunk re-election. Latest polls have Obama beating Gingrich by double digits! This one’s over and the guy hasn’t even begun campaigning yet.

I wanna know how from someone like yourself who complains about Obama all the time, how bad has your life been ruined in the last three years? Have you suddenly found yourself digging peat? Was your bank account raided for thousands of dollars? Can you no longer walk down the street or shop at your favorite grocer? What for the love of God has happened?

Reply

John Steigerwald

in January 30th, 2012 @ 19:10

You keep telling yourself it’s a slam dunk. You’re right he hasn’t started campaigning yet. People start paying attention after Labor Day. He has nothing to campaign on. Hope and change won’t work. Obama care hasn’t taken effect yet. Were you digging peat when you voted for Kerry in 08?

Reply

Dan

in January 30th, 2012 @ 22:19

The Republican candidate will be weaker than John Kerry was coming out of the ’04 primary, and that’s saying something.

Reply

John Steigerwald

in January 30th, 2012 @ 23:20

And Obama will be much weaker than Bush in 2004. Obama has no record to run on.

Reply

oksteelerfan

in January 30th, 2012 @ 19:26

To be honest there is so much to not like that I don’t even know where to start.
It’s not about how his policies have hurt us in the present, it’s how they will hurt us in the future, when it’s too late.

As for it being a slam dunk, take a look at his state by state approval ratings. He doesn’t have enough support in enough states to get enough electoral votes to win.
The campaigning has not started. Wait until the Republicans can start campaigning against him and the public hears about his political DOJ and Fast and Furious. People hear the other side of Obama Care. When people hear about the EPA regulations that are already causing some power plants to shut down.
Change and Yes We Can isn’t going to work this time.

If he gets four more years though, we might all be digging peat and our bank accounts raided.

Reply

Dan

in January 30th, 2012 @ 11:55

Why should it get any? Something wrong?

Reply

John Steigerwald

in January 30th, 2012 @ 15:20

I don’t have a problem with it. I don’t care if she spends $10,000 on a thong. It’s her money. I just wonder if the story will spread as fast as the picture or Romney on the tarmac NOT getting his shoes shined.
Reply

oksteelerfan

in January 30th, 2012 @ 16:33

For starters some of us old fogies have an image we except from the FIRST LADY, buying erotic underwear doesn’t quite fit that image.

Second playing to the poor which Obama will be doing a lot of while his wife is out spending 50K on underwear seems very hypocritical and a slap in their faces. If I’m poor and someone tells me they understand and are spending 50K on underwear, somehow I don’t really think they get it at all.

Don’t throw it in people’s faces, if you think you need to spice up the bedroom send your assistants to buy it for you. Have a little respect for the position you hold.

Reply

Tim

in January 30th, 2012 @ 21:21

People have sex. Get over it. The problem with too many people is they seem to have an issue with any sex other than straight missionary with the goal of procreation as a result of it.

If you want to, think of it this way … every minute she’s wearing a lace corset is one less minute she’s spending on school lunches.

Reply

oksteelerfan

in January 31st, 2012 @ 09:00

I don’t care if she has sex. I care about disgracing the position she holds.
But as people have no problem with blow jobs in the oval office, I guess it stands to reason that they won’t care if the First Lady is acting like a bimbo.
When you take that position you should honor the position.

Reply

Dan

in January 30th, 2012 @ 22:35

The report is false. It wasn’t even sourced. Stop reading Fox News. By the way it’s no coincidence the link has been taken down. Just search Google News for Michelle Obama. You should retract your mudslinging statements.

John, you really believed a printed story without a single cited source?? From a London tabloid? Come on, man, you’re a journalist. There’s no need to perpetuate a rumor by wondering aloud how much “play” the story will get.

Anybody have a picture, a receipt, someone willing to even put their name on the record??? The White House has slammed this story.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/30/sheer-nonsense-carney-busts-lingerie-story/

In the words of Johnny Upton in SlapShot, “It’s f*&#ing embarrassing.”

Reply

John Steigerwald

in January 30th, 2012 @ 23:29

I had no reason not to believe it. And the White House denying sure doesn’t make it any less believable. People laughed at the Enquirer when it broke the John Edwards story. And I think Star Magazine also broke a major story, too. Can’t remember which one. The New York Times is no more credible than a tabloid. I don’t care if the story is true, by the way. I couldn’t care less how much she spends on clothes. Have you seen the phony picture of Romney supposedly getting his shoes shined on a tarmac? They did a segment on it on Rachel Maddow’s show and never bothered to find out that he was being scanned by a TSA agent. Then, after they found out the truth, Maddow put on her blog that, even though he wasn’t gettting his shoes shined (which apparently is now a crime) the picture was still bad because it proved that stupid people like Maddow would be quick to assume that Romney would do something as heinous as get his shoes shined. Class envy politics is driving he left to hysterics now.

Reply

Dan

in January 31st, 2012 @ 00:22

You had no reason not to believe the first lady spent $50K on lingerie? That’s about 10 times more than would make me even skeptical, unless you’re talking about Britney Spears or something.

The New York Times is no more credible than a tabloid. Wow. There’s more to the paper than the editorial pages, John. Not that I read it, I’m happy with the P-G.

I have not seen the phony pictures you’re talking about. I’ll look them up. I haven’t heard about the story either to be honest. I don’t watch Rachel Maddow because she presents facts in the same ridiculously slanted manner that Sean Hannity does, and because I also find her annoying.

Lifting up the poor is not “class envy politics.” That’s just more divisive rhetoric made up by the right.

I wish I could help you on the Star Magazine thing, I don’t remember if they broke a story or not. There’s a million of those magazines. The National Enquirer has broken a lot of interesting stories over the years as it turns out – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Enquirer

Reply

John Steigerwald

in January 31st, 2012 @ 00:44

I don’t buy a lot of lingerie. I’m not familiar with the prices. What has the Enquirer done that is any worse than what the Times (not the editorial page) tried to do to Bush before the 2004 elections? How about Jason Blair. Then there’s Walter Duranty:

The New York Times hired a professor of Russian history to review Duranty’s work. That professor, Mark Von Hagen of Columbia University, concluded Mr. Duranty’s reports to be unbalanced and uncritical, and they far too often gave voice to Stalinist propaganda. He also said in comments to the press, “For the sake of The New York Times’ honor, they should take the prize away”. [2] The New York Times sent Von Hagen’s report to the Pulitzer Board and left it to the board to take whatever action they considered appropriate. [3]
In his New York Times articles (including one published on March 31, 1933), Duranty repeatedly denied the existence of a Ukrainian famine in 1932–33. In a August 24, 1933 article in NYT, he claimed “any report of a famine is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda”, but admitted privately to William Strang (in the British Embassy in Moscow on September 26, 1933) that “it is quite possible that as many as ten million people may have died directly or indirectly from lack of food in the Soviet Union during the past year.” [4]
American engineer Zara Witkin and UK intelligence have shown that Duranty knowingly misrepresented this well-documented event, known as the Holodomor in Ukraine. Several organizations have called on the Pulitzer Board to revoke his prize, but in 2003 the Board issued a statement announcing its decision not to revoke the prize, although it did state that “Mr. Duranty’s 1931 work, measured by today’s standards for foreign reporting, falls seriously short”. Duranty was also criticized for defending Stalin’s notorious show trials.

********
The Enquirer has done a lot of sleazy things but nothing that rises to the level of facilitating the starving of millions of people.

Reply

oksteelerfan

in January 31st, 2012 @ 08:57

IMO after looking at their prices it’s very believable she could have spent that much. They sell a partysuit for $24K. I saw a bra for $1,000.

Reply

oksteelerfan

in January 31st, 2012 @ 08:54

I don’t watch fox news and unless another site links to fox news, I don’t read fox news.
Just because the WH denies is not proof it didn’t happen.
Maybe the American media needs to do their job, it wouldn’t be real hard to find out if the 1st lady was in the store. If she was in the store and they won’t produce receipts then why should we believe them?

Didn’t they keep their Halloween party a big secret until pictures were released?
It’s not like a WH hasn’t lied before.
Also why would anyone not believe it? How many family vacations does this family take?
I actually believed Clinton for awhile, I didn’t want to believe our President was disgracing the oval office. I was proven wrong.
I didn’t want to believe John Edwards was cheating on his wife while she had cancer, I was proven wrong.

However, the Fast and Furious debacle is much worse for Obama. Along with suing states and working with ACORN. Not to mention Obamacare. His anti-gun stance and wanting a list of gun buyers. His wasting our money giving it to now bankrupt companies.

Reply

Dan

in January 31st, 2012 @ 11:26

You’re insane oksteelerfan. The report is completely baseless and so is your logic in believing it. You should be ashamed of trying to mudsling the first lady over a report that doesn’t even withstand the first basic test of journalism. It’s one thing to be skeptical, another thing entirely to trash her saying she needs to “respect her position” and calling her a hypocrite. Michelle Obama is a mother of 2 children and has an impeccable track record. You’re a smear artist, nothing more. Take off the tinfoil and rejoin reality.

Tweet @John

Advertisements

Past Postings

Archives

Most Popular Posts

Links

Tags

SAY NO TO NEWT

Leave a comment

Comments RSS TrackBack 147 comments

Blasto

bald guy

bald guy

oksteelerfan

Matt

bald guy

bald guy

Tattoo Rick

pghfrftr

Fish Monger

Cambot

ndhoops

Savage

Groucho

Mason

Savage

Matt

Chris

bald guy

bald guy

Is Jesus a Democrat or a Republican?

Mason

Gary M

Fred

Ken

Ochotexto

Lefty

bald guy

bald guy

Blasto

Blasto

Blasto

Vermonter

Chris

Niblick

colt

Blasto

Gary M

Is Jesus a Democrat or a Republican?

Is Jesus a Democrat or a Republican?

ivan koloff jr

oksteelerfan

Chris

oksteelerfan

The Machinist

The Machinist

VinceL

Tim

Dan

Dan

Lefty

Chris

Dan

Chris

Is Jesus a Democrat or a Republican?

bald guy

DormontDirtBag

bald guy

Big Dubya

Ochotexto

colt

colt

Ochotexto

Dan

metalslam

Bob

Is Jesus a Democrat or a Republican?

Al Bundy

Dan

Ochotexto