GOP Nominee 2012 - who will it be?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
mitchdaniels_460x276.jpg




Seriously, what's not to like about the guy?



your base won't vote for anyone who is serious?

but then again, hurting poor women and jeopardizing their health is certainly something that's going to make the base proud.
 
Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum officially registered his presidential exploratory committee with the Federal Election Commission, allowing him to participate in Thursday's South Carolina debate and putting him even closer to a formal announcement to run for president.

Santorum had established a "testing the waters" account last month, but did not file with the FEC. Fox News, the host of the debate, set criteria that to be included a candidate would need to have officially registered an exploratory committee or have announced a formal campaign for president.

Rick Santorum forms exploratory committee for presidential run - latimes.com

Oh dear. And what's sad is that there will be people willing to vote for him. :|
 
And Ann Coulter calls abortion “the holiest sacrament” in the religion of liberalism. Is there really no middle ground to agree on in this debate?



Planned Parenthood performs more abortions than anyone because they are the most affordable, that's where poor women are forced by economic circumstance to go. rich women and the daughters of Senators will always have access to abortion, legal or not.

Planned Parenthood also offers pap smears and HIV tests, lots of them.

this actually has not that much to do with the right-or-wrong-ness of abortion and everything to do with harming the health of poor women. but, hey, if it allows the holier-than-thou crowd to get joy out of slut-shaming in the name of "the children," by all means, Gov. Daniels, do what you have to do.

he actually does seem like the sanest of the bunch.
 
Daniels signs Ind. school voucher plan into law

WHAS11.com
Posted on May 5, 2011 at 4:07 PM

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) -- Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels on Thursday signed into law a plan giving Indiana the nation's most sweeping private school voucher program. Lawmakers and supporters joined Daniels at a Statehouse ceremony where he signed the voucher bill and another proposal aimed at expanding charter schools, which are public schools free of many state regulations. Daniels and other bill supporters say the proposals will give parents more choices for educating their children.
"Every child is precious," Daniels told the crowd, including children from several private schools. "Every child deserves an equal chance to be all they can be."
The voucher program uses taxpayer money to help parents send their children to private and religious schools. The plan is based on a sliding income scale, with families of four making more than $60,000 qualifying for some level of scholarship if they switch from public to private schools.
Legislative leaders and education advocates said the bill signing marked a historic day, and that the nation is watching Indiana as it embarks on a new level of school choice.

What's not to love about our governor?
 
Not a voucher fan.

Public money is for public schools. Choice has nothing to do with it.
There are plenty of financial aid plans for private schools for people who can't afford them.
 
I admitt to be being blatantly hypocritical and self-interested on the subject of vouchers. As a teacher in a private school, it's a major windfall in terms of enrollment at our school.
 
I admitt to be being blatantly hypocritical and self-interested on the subject of vouchers. As a teacher in a private school, it's a major windfall in terms of enrollment at our school.

I got most of my tuition covered for a semester of Catholic high school, and I'm not Catholic. They knew I was Lutheran at the time and still gave us the aid because we needed it.

Currently, vouchers are a money-grab for religious institutions, and no one should be surprised if it becomes more widespread that we start to see for-profit companies running schools and snapping up voucher kids.


For-profit prisons anyone?
 
Currently, vouchers are a money-grab for religious institutions

You don't have to make it sound so ugly.

:wink:

But you're right. I don't entirely agree with how it's sometimes done, but because I believe in my school and the system of private Christian education that I'm a part of and yes I believe it is superior to much of what is offered in most public schools ( :cringes in anticipation of furious tongue lashing by public school teachers on this board: ) I'm not unhappy that we are getting more students who will benefit from what we have to offer.
 
You don't have to make it sound so ugly.

:wink:

But you're right. I don't entirely agree with how it's sometimes done, but because I believe in my school and the system of private Christian education that I'm a part of and yes I believe it is superior to much of what is offered in most public schools ( :cringes in anticipation of furious tongue lashing by public school teachers on this board: ) I'm not unhappy that we are getting more students who will benefit from what we have to offer.

I believe there should be private school systems of all types. And yes, I could have used a different term.

I feel that vouchers encourage the attitude of "run public schools like a business and let the under-performing ones fail."
That cannot be allowed to happen. Schools are not like restaurants, flower shops and banks. They need to remain functional in communities for the stability of the students. I think for many students a consistent and dependable education and education environment is as important as the quality of the teachers. I don't think it's too big an assumption to believe that the students in many of the under-performing schools don't have the most stable home-life, so a consistent if lacking school-life is a good thing for them.


On-topic:

Rick Santorum Wins South Carolina Straw Poll

:corn:
 
By Matt Viser, Boston Globe Staff

WASHINGTON – Mitt Romney is planning a major address on Thursday to discuss health care, in what could become a defining moment of his emerging presidential bid as he gives a prominent answer to one of his biggest perceived shortcomings.

Romney is planning to outline his plan to repeal President Obama’s health care plan and replace it with something else. The address will be given in Ann Arbor, Mich., at the University of Michigan’s Cardiovascular Center.

It will be Romney’s first major policy speech, and comes amid increasing activity in his campaign. Over the next few weeks, he is also planning to travel to Las Vegas to raise money, as well as to two early primary states, Iowa and South Carolina.

Health care has been the primary problem for Romney’s early campaign, and even his supporters have said they wanted him to address it in a prominent way. His speech on Thursday will be aimed at both winning over his critics and bolstering his supporters.

The health care plan that Romney signed as governor of Massachusetts has provided a template for the national plan signed by President Obama last year. With Republicans focused on attacking Obama’s plan, many have raised questions over whether Romney would be the right advocate for their party.

Romney has defended the Bay State plan, while saying he would repeal Obama’s national overhaul, saying it unfairly mandates a one-size-fits-all system on each state.

His campaign today provided a brief outline of his health care approach, including:

• Restore to the states the responsibility and resources to care for their poor, uninsured, and chronically ill.
• Give a tax deduction to those who buy their own health insurance, just like those who buy it through their employers.
• Streamline the federal regulation of healthcare.
• Reduce the influence of lawsuits on medical practice and costs.
• Make healthcare more like a consumer market and less like a government program.
 
By Matt Viser, Boston Globe Staff

WASHINGTON – Mitt Romney is planning a major address on Thursday to discuss health care, in what could become a defining moment of his emerging presidential bid as he gives a prominent answer to one of his biggest perceived shortcomings.


:yawn:
 
Can't think of a former Speaker that I'd rather have as president. But that ain't sayin' much.

He'll make Mitch Daniels look all the more attractive to swing voters.
 
Can't think of a former Speaker that I'd rather have as president. But that ain't sayin' much.



did you like this about Newt:

Newt Gingrich Was More Supportive Of Individual Mandates Than Mitt Romney
Gingrich

Posted: 05/12/11 11:16 AM ET

WASHINGTON -- Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) is set to defend his state's health care law from conservative critics in a high-profile speech on Thursday. But Romney is far from being the potential 2012 Republican presidential contender with the most politically problematic record on health care.

That title likely belongs to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), who announced his White House aspirations a day prior to Romney's address.

In his post-congressional life, Gingrich has been a vocal champion for mandated insurance coverage -- the very provision of President Obama's health care legislation that the Republican Party now decries as fundamentally unconstitutional.

This mandate was hardly some little-discussed aspect of Gingrich's plan for health care reform. In the mid-2000s, he partnered with then-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) to promote a centrist solution to fixing the nation's health care system. A July 22, 2005, Hotline article on one of the duo's events described the former speaker as endorsing not just state-based mandates (the linchpin of Romney's Massachusetts law) but "some federal mandates" as well. A New York Sun writeup of what appears to be the same event noted that "both politicians appeared to endorse proposals to require all individuals to have some form of health coverage."

Neera Tanden, an aide to Clinton at the time who went on to help craft President Obama's law, said she couldn't recall exact speeches, but "strongly" believed that the both Clinton and Gingrich backed the individual mandate. Either way, she added, "Gingrich has been known as a supporter" of the idea for some time.

A simple newspaper archive search bears this out. At an Alegent Health event in Omaha in 2008, Gingrich said it was "fundamentally immoral" for a person to go without coverage, show up at an emergency room and demand free care.

During the keynote address to the Greater Detroit Area Health Council's annual Health Trends Conference in April 2006, Gingrich said he would require Americans earning above a certain income level to buy health insurance or post a bond, the Detroit Free Press reported.

In a June 2007 op-ed in the Des Moines Register, Gingrich wrote, "Personal responsibility extends to the purchase of health insurance. Citizens should not be able to cheat their neighbors by not buying insurance, particularly when they can afford it, and expect others to pay for their care when they need it." An "individual mandate," he added, should be applied "when the larger health-care system has been fundamentally changed."

And in several of his many policy and politics-focused books, Gingrich offered much the same.

In 2008's "Real Change," he wrote, "Finally, we should insist that everyone above a certain level buy coverage (or, if they are opposed to insurance, post a bond). Meanwhile, we should provide tax credits or subsidize private insurance for the poor."

In 2005's "Winning the Future," he expanded on the idea in more detail: "You have the right to be part of the lowest-cost insurance pool and you have a responsibility to buy insurance. ... We need some significant changes to ensure that every American is insured, but we should make it clear that a 21st Century Intelligent System requires everyone to participate in the insurance system."

"People whose income is too low should receive Medicaid vouchers and tax credits to buy insurance," he continued. "Large risk pools (association health plans are one model) should be established so low-income people can buy insurance as inexpensively as large corporations. Furthermore, it should be possible to buy your health insurance on-line to lower the cost as much as possible."

It wasn't just insurance coverage mandates that Gingirch supported. According to a July, 21 2005 Gannett News Service article, the Georgia Republican also said that he would have Congress mandate physical education five days a week for all elementary and high school pupils as a way of combating obesity and diabetes. Such a vision of health care reform seems drawn from the same philosophical threads as the plan that President Obama signed last spring -- as well as from the first lady's campaign to improve children's health.

But Gingrich has joined his Republican colleagues in harshly criticizing the work of the current president, calling the Affordable Care Act "madness" and "indefensible," pressing for it be repealed and defunded and praising the efforts of several state attorneys general who are challenging the constitutionality of the individual mandate.

Spokesmen for Gingrich did not return an email request for comment on his support for federally-applied, individual mandates.

Ed Haislmaier, a health care policy expert at the Heritage Foundation (the conservative think tank that first championed the mandate), said he did not have enough information to comment on Gingrich's past approach to health care reform. Haislmaier did, however, note that there is a distinction between taxing individuals for not buying insurance and requiring them to post a bond, as Gingrich proposed. While the former is a penalty for not getting coverage, "what [the latter] is saying is you have to pay your bills if you get care," he said.

A bond, as Haislmaier noted, is exactly what Romney initially proposed while he was governor of Massachusetts. Romney ended up signing off on a more traditional mandate only after it was passed by the state legislature.

For that signature, Romney now faces a major trust deficit among conservatives. In advance of his Thursday speech, the Wall Street Journal ran an editorial calling him Obama's "running mate," a candidate who was at once "compromised and not credible."

The speech is, if nothing else, a testament to how far the conversation over health care has moved in such a short period of time. When Romney signed his bill into law, the Associated Press published a story titled " Mass. Health Care Plan Riles Some Liberals." In it, John Sweeney, the then-president of the AFL-CIO -- the labor federation which has become a defender of the individual mandate -- decried the idea that "workers were being forced to purchase health care coverage or face higher taxes."

Romney, Sweeney added, was taking "a page out of the Newt Gingrich playbook."

Newt Gingrich Was More Supportive Of Individual Mandates Than Mitt Romney
 
Newt, Romney, Trump... how many others out there supported this healthcare plan before a black Muslim president was the one to actually get it enacted?
 
I'd actually support a mandate to buy catastrophic health insurance or post a bond, But not comprehensive.

Newt was also flirting with cap & trade before he was against it.

He does have some original thoughts however. Last night when asked about Social Security reform he said we should have townhalls around the country with only 30 and under voters invited. Away from the politics, special interests and Washington lobbyists. It is their future that will be impacted after all. I think that's brilliant and an original thought.

He doesn't bat 100% however, that's for sure.

I hope Daniels runs.
 
Originality is a great compliment if we were talking about art or something. Doesn't really apply to politics. Also, no one would go to one of those town halls. We're under 30, that's what we do: nothing.
 
American pop culture is the bane of America.

But I think that has been true for a long time.
My generation grew up in the 80's.
I was 26 on 9/11. And I was practically the only person in the building who knew who Bin Laden was. And he had just attacked the USS Cole the previous year.

But if I had asked about the naked gay dude on Survivor...they would surely know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom