January 7-8, 2008
Jan 07 10:26 Kiffmeyer v. Ellison Jan 07 11:24 Let's Outflank Liberals Jan 07 15:19 Delahunt Dawdles While Soldier Sits Jan 07 16:13 Fred Visits The O'Reilly Factor Tonight Jan 07 23:50 Putting Their Money Where Their Heart Is Jan 08 13:44 St. Cloud Health Forum Notes Jan 08 20:40 ***CNN CALLS NH FOR McCAIN***
Kiffmeyer v. Ellison
This Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether it's constitutional to require photo IDs for voting . At the center of that storm are two Minnesotans, Rep. Keith Ellison and former SecState Mary Kiffmeyer. Here's how Ellison sees the issue:
To Ellison, who has authored legislation preventing states from requiring photo ID to vote, any costs associated with voting eligibility are tantamount to the Jim Crow-era poll taxes that were banished by the 24th Amendment in 1964.I know that lawyers juice of their rhetoric in their arguments but saying that "it's unquestionable that thsi scheme creates" obstacles in voting is pathetic. Furthermore, this isn't being done in a vacuum. With millions of illegal immigrants in our country, we have to balance the right to vote with protecting against voter fraud.
"It's unquestionable that this scheme creates a real obstacle to voting in federal elections," Ellison argues in his brief, which he submitted along with all 42 other members of the Congressional Black Caucus.
I pointed out here how liberal groups are attempting to commit voter fraud already:
But the most interesting news came out of Seattle, where on Thursday local prosecutors indicted seven workers for Acorn, a union-backed activist group that last year registered more than 540,000 low-income and minority voters nationwide and deployed more than 4,000 get-out-the-vote workers. The Acorn defendants stand accused of submitting phony forms in what Secretary of State Sam Reed says is the "worst case of voter-registration fraud in the history" of the state.Those ficticious 'voters' would be able to vote if the warm body that shows up didn't have to show a photo ID. This isn't just happening in Seattle either. It's happening nationwide.
The list of "voters" registered in Washington state included former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, New York Times columnists Frank Rich and Tom Friedman, actress Katie Holmes and nonexistent people with nonsensical names such as Stormi Bays and Fruto Boy. The addresses used for the fake names were local homeless shelters. Given that the state doesn't require the showing of any identification before voting, it is entirely possible people could have illegally voted using those names.
John Fund is the foremost authority on the issue. Here's more of what he's written:
Local officials refused to accept the registrations because they had been delivered after last year's Oct. 7 registration deadline. Initially, Acorn officials demanded the registrations be accepted and threatened to sue King County (Seattle) officials if they were tossed out. But just after four ACORN registration workers were indicted in Kansas City, Mo., on similar charges of fraud, the group reversed its position and said the registrations should be rejected. But by then, local election workers had had a reason to carefully scrutinize the forms and uncovered the fraud. Of the 1,805 names submitted by ACORN, only nine have been confirmed as valid, and another 34 are still being investigated. The rest; over 97%; were fake.If photo ID's were banned, we couldn't prevent voter fraud. That should infuriate American voters who play by the rules. This take it beyond the hypothetical or theoretical. This is a finding of fact.
Kiffmeyer, who testified in Congress in November against Ellison's bill, argues that photo ID is about public confidence in the polling system.Mary Kiffmeyer makes a great argument. Keith Ellison make a ridiculous argument. Ms. Kiffmeyer is arguing that some rules must apply to voting; Rep. Ellison is essentially arguing that rules shouldn't apply to elections.
As for the presumed burden on the poor and elderly, she said, "I assure you that applying for a photo ID is as easy or easier than getting on welfare or other social services."
If Ellison's argument prevails, there wouldn't be a reason why any voter would have confidence in the integrity of the electoral process. That's simply unacceptable.
Posted Monday, January 7, 2008 11:27 AM
Comment 1 by Bill Jungbauer at 12-Jan-08 02:37 PM
You need valid photo ID to get a library card, buy alcohol, buy cigarettes, or buy a gun. If you get pulled over in a traffic stop you better have it. If you travel at the airport you better have it. And, if you want to get on welfare you need a photo ID and a recent utility bill. Why is there a question about having one to vote?
Let's Outflank Liberals
I just got an email from Erick Erickson, the editor/blogger at RedState. Erick is using the email to tell bloggers and concerned conservatives about an ambitious project that they've undertaken at RedState. Here's the content of Erick's email:
Dear RedState Reader: I have, as they say, some good news and some bad news.
(Short version: We need you to open your wallet and give what you can to build RedState 3.0. Go here to help. We need the money ASAP.)
The good news first: RedState.com is about to embark on a major upgrade of our website that will make it easier, more informative, and just plain more fun for you to visit.
The bad news: our liberal "friends" ; you know, the ones who believe so strongly in free speech and open debate ; have done what they can to prevent us from making these improvements, so that our influence will be minimized just as we head into the 2008 presidential primary season.
No, our Blue State buddies haven't succeeded in stopping us from improving our website. But they've made it more difficult and more expensive ; which is why I'm coming to you for help. Let me explain ,
You see, when we started RedState in May of 2004, we used a website program called Scoop - the same program a lot of similar sites on the left used. But, as the number of visitors to our site grew, Scoop kept crashing on us.
If we'd been a liberal website, we would have been able to fix the problem quickly and relatively cheaply. The online left loves Scoop. Unfortunately, there weren't really any conservative Scoop developers out there to help us. We kept crashing and were out of money. We had to close down or take drastic action.
Well, we didn't close down. We ditched Scoop and moved to the best alternative at the time, a program called Drupal. But, in accomplishing the switch, budget constraints forced us to sacrifice some popular site features in order to alleviate the strain on our overused servers.
Needless to say, we always regarded those "downgrades" as temporary, and we hoped to restore the eliminated features ; and to add new and even better ones ; as soon as we could afford to.
Unfortunately, we still can't afford to. But we're convinced that America can afford even less to have us operating at anything less than our absolute peak potential during the coming presidential election season.
So we've decided to move ahead with our upgrades without delay, and despite not having the cash on hand ; hoping and praying that RedState.com readers like you will help us make up the shortfall with a generous donation .
Here, specifically, is what we're planning to accomplish with your generous financial support ,
In February, we will be launching RedState v.3.0 ; a complete website overhaul that, instead of relying on third-party providers like Scoop or Dupral, will this time be our own specially-created platform designed to give us all the capabilities, power and independence to serve you, our readers with everything you want and deserve.
Here are just a few of the features that we'll be adding to our website ; or bringing back by popular demand:
improved tools for state and local blogging
online activism
channels
enhanced social networking
a conservative job/volunteer board
special tools for easier posting
tools for tracking new comments and
total comments
user access to comments
ability to track recent activity
on the site
Upgrades and improvements like these will immeasurably enhance the RedState.com experience for you and other readers ; and help to attract new readers and thereby extend our influence during this crucial election season.
But the v.3.0 upgrade will not come cheap. And to make it happen, we need to raise an additional $25,000 over and above what we have available in our budget.
And that's where loyal readers like you come in. We figure if just 1,000 of our readers respond to this appeal by donating at least $25 each, we can cover the entire shortfall in one fell swoop.Won't you please help us out by making a donation today ? And please be as generous as you can afford ; much as I hope that we'll get 1000 donations, that may be too hopeful on my part, so your additional generosity will help compensate for those who can't even afford $25.
And, if at all possible, please make your donation immediately by clicking here . We're already financially committed to this upgrade, and the bills for it are already coming due. I'll be blunt: I hate asking you for money. But I hate even more to imagine what America will be like if someone like Hillary Clinton or Barack Hussein Obama wins the presidency in November. RedState can help prevent that nightmare from coming true ; but only if we're offering the best possible web experience to the widest possible audience.
That's what RedState 3.0 will enable to us to become. Please help make us the website that you've been asking for, that all our readers deserve ; and that America so desperately needs.
All the best,
Erick Erickson
Editor, RedState.com
P.S. -- A fully armed and operational RedState 3.0 will be a powerful tool for the right in 2008. To donate, simply click here and give as generously as you can.
I'm a big fan of RedState. It's part of my daily reading list. They're true warriors in the fight against lunatic liberalism. They're also excellent advocates for intelligent conservatism.
That's why I'm asking readers here to do what they can to make RedState 3.0 a reality. There's an old political maxim that says "I'll never bring a knife to a gunfight." Why fight the lefties with the political equivalent of muzzleloaders when we can fight them with AK-47's?
Posted Monday, January 7, 2008 11:51 AM
Comment 1 by Repack Rider at 07-Jan-08 07:35 PM
If we'd been a liberal website, we would have been able to fix the problem quickly and relatively cheaply. The online left loves Scoop. Unfortunately, there weren't really any conservative Scoop developers out there to help us.
This has to be a liberal hoax that is supposed to make RedState look bad, because it can't be real.
Blaming liberals for your own website problems, and suggesting that software has a "liberal" bias may be the most paranoid conspiracy theory yet.
Anyone who whines about problems of his own making deserves the problems.
I don't believe this was a real letter, and the sooner you find out who is attempting to slander RedState by making them look stupid, the better.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 07-Jan-08 11:29 PM
I found out about it from Erick himself. This isn't a hoax letter.
Comment 3 by Repack Rider at 08-Jan-08 12:23 AM
Are you saying he IS as pathetic as the letter makes him sound?
That's quite an indictment.
Delahunt Dawdles While Soldier Sits
My friend Tim Harrington has been in constant contact with Rep. William Delahunt's office for over a year in his attempt to obtain justice for Sgt. Laurence Hutchins III. Thus far, Rep. Delahunt hasn't done anything to get Sgt. Hutchins' conviction overturned. That's why Tim recently sent this letter to Rep. Delahunt:
Here's Rep. Delahunt's response:Congressman William Delahunt
2454 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-2110
Congressman Delahunt:
I have been in contact with you through your staff for over fifteen months. I, with other Veterans and retired officers from around the country have asked for your intervention on behalf of Sgt. Laurence Hutchins III, now in a prison camp within the gates of Marine Corps base Camp Pendleton.
I have had several conversations with your staff attorney Mr. Kivlan, and also on two separate occasions with Mr. Mark Forrest, who we are led to believe is your chief of staff. In my conversations with Mr. Kivlan, he has acknowledged the facts of the case as I have expressed to him against this fine young Marine who is from our 10th district and your home in the Cape and Islands. He has also acknowledged the facts that surround this case and sat for two weeks in the courts-martial proceedings in Camp Pendleton with our understanding he directly represented your seat in the house.
Sir, knowing you are on the House committee for "Foreign Affairs" and Chairman on International Organizations, "Human Rights" and "Oversight" and also the House "Judiciary committee", we are confused as to your lack of action with the knowledge of the criminal activity that now has one of your Marines in uniform imprisoned at Camp Pendleton.
Mr. Kivlan sat in the court room during the trial of Sgt Hutchins with full knowledge of the outcome of Trent Thomas's trial and the ongoing trial of Marshal Maginicalda. Because of the fact that all material evidence that was said to be gathered by the government and the special agents involved with the investigations were thrown out as inadmissible, and with your representative knowing that these evidences were thrown out as inadmissible; to include the identification of the body, DNA evidence, photos and testimony of alleged family members and or Iraqi citizens who now have no evidence relating them to the deceased Iraqi and who also cannot be located for cross examination; it leaves us to believe that for someone in your position to show a complete lack of a diligent response to this situation, you therefore show that the Constitution of the United states and how you claim to directly represent the people of your district and also nationally in your several positions to include your seat in the house, in actuality stands for nothing.
We also have made you and your representative at the trial aware of the amount of exculpatory evidence that could have been used in the defense of this young Marine that was withheld; to include formal copies of orders that were delivered that night and available video footage taken by un-manned aircraft that were present at the scene. The result of withholding evidence from the court-martial of Sgt. Hutchins is inexcusable in that it denied him the ability to clear his name. To have a prosecution witness, an Intelligence Officer, state it would be a National Security issue to release video footage from the un-manned vehicle to assist in the defense of Sgt. Hutchins, but that the video footage from the same aircraft and mission was being used as evidence in the prosecution of the case is criminal, but you sat quiet in complicity.
Through out my interaction with your direct representatives over the last fifteen months, the only consistent course of action spoken by these direct representatives was to focus on the sentencing phase. Why? This was the case from the very beginning, and you, yourself, talked to the members of Kilo 3/5 ( Pendleton 8) on your trip to California and spoke the same words showing only a concern about sentencing and not their defense against the accusation? You told them there might be there only one choice in the matter?You were then told that Sgt. Larry Hutchins would not do this and would go to court-martial because he believes no crime was committed. We also know and understand that you were instrumental in raising money through your web site for this young Sgt. and how your staff attorneys helped with the defense fund that was created to help with legal defense bills. This is all great and honorable, but why not do what your job privileges and job description entitles you to do under the Constitution and expose the criminal actions of NCIS; to include criminal perjury under oath, withholding of evidence, coercion and false official statements in regards to the case and how it was conducted, and then demand the release of intelligence that could and should be used for the defense of these young warriors and not just in their prosecution?
We know some one died that fateful day. We know that this UN-Identified Man was part of an insurgent circle that the Marines were trying to neutralize. We know that orders were given, either written or verbal, we know that the use of a dead check is and remains standard operating procedure, we know through sworn testimony that Sgt. Hutchins did not give orders or orchestrate the taking of this fictitious person, and these facts are your staff attorney's own words. If this was in a State or Federal court, it would never make it to trial and would be thrown out and/or reinvestigated. This sad tragedy of events can only happen in Military courts, and that is exactly why they are kept there.
The military courts-martial as it is known today is broken. Historical events surrounding its very existence and function have proven this and so have the fights about it since 1918-2001, you can't re-write history Sir.
No Matter what your view, Sir, on the war, (which is documented), these views have nothing or little to do with the constitutional protections that Sgt Hutchins deserved; you took an oath to uphold your office, and these men and women in uniform have done the same! The difference, as you should remember from your short time in the military is they have sworn to die to declare their oath, what are you willing to do for them?
We have asked for hearings with the evidence of years of criminal actions that have taken place under the UCMJ, command influence, and unlawful prosecutions. When will we get an answer and when will you act on this young Marine's behalf as his congressional representative?
Please remind Mr. Kennedy we have a copy of his letter to the Hutchins; basically it states he cannot help do to conflict of interest because he sits on the U.S. Judiciary. How is the U. S. Judiciary a conflict of interest to the actions of Military Courts and the UCMJ? The U.S. Judiciary has no oversight of the military, so how can there be any conflict?
Both houses need to do what we as citizens expect, you have a chance to take action with some of the folks we have reached over a period of time to include: Con. Dicks (w) Kennedy (m), J. Inslee, Pat Murray, Maria Kantwell, John Shadegg, Adam Smith, John Duncan, Slade Gordon, and Sen. McCain just to name a few. We have Sr. JAG's in uniform who wish to attend and testify at these hearings and about the documentation that you and your staff have had access to. Please respond with your thoughts and answers so the others involved can look forward to help expose and put an end to these problems.
Dwight D. Eisenhower said there is a time when the military turns a blind eye to the Constitution and inflicts its self on the citizens of this Great United States. This is under way through the LINX program. If NCIS, CID and the rest of the military investigating organizations are allowed to run over the constitution and inflict itself on the citizenry with no oversight and nothing in place as is now to hold them accountable, we as citizens and those in uniform are in trouble.
In closing, I would like to ask one more question for all concerned. When was there ever a constitutional convention where a precedence was set that men and women in uniform lose their basic rights under these important writings, especially concerning a capital murder case or war crimes case?? If you or any one in Washington has the answer, please share that with us.
Thank you for your message!Rep. Delahunt had a representative at Sgt. Hutchins' trial. Mr. Kivlan, Delahunt's counsel, sat in on Sgt. Hutchins' trial. He knows that much of the evidence got thrown out to the point that they can't even identify the body. From all that I've read, the prosecution's case rests almost entirely on that 'proof'.
As your Representative in Congress, I encourage you to contact me regularly on issues that are of concern to you.
As you can imagine, I receive thousands of e-mail messages every week,and that doesn't include the junk e-mails that we all find annoying.
Because of this, I am only able to respond to constituents of the Tenth District. While I can't reply to every message, I will do my best to get back to you by regular mail. Therefore, it is important that we have your postal address. Depending on the message, a phone number can be very helpful too. If we do not already have this information, please feel free to send me a follow-up message.
In the meantime, I encourage you to visit my website at
http://www.house.gov/delahunt and to register to receive "What's Coming Up," my weekly electronic newsletter. Please click here to sign up.
Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me. Keep in touch.
Sincerely,
Bill
It's clear that Rep. Delahunt won't speak out against a corrupt process that railroads innocent Marines. What kind of politician lets a Marine sit in prison when he knows that the soldier is innocent? Better yet, what kind of politician lets a Marine sit in prison when he's a constituent? I'd bet that most people would expect that politician to move heaven and earth to get the soldier out of prison.
It's time to start pressuring Rep. Delahunt because this system affects soldiers everywhere.
Posted Monday, January 7, 2008 3:22 PM
No comments.
Fred Visits The O'Reilly Factor Tonight
According to this post at Fred08.com , Fred will appear as a guest on The O'Reilly Factor tonight.
I suspect that O'Reilly will ask the 'oblligatory' question about why Fred isn't catching fire yet. I also expect O'Reilly to ask a number of substantive questions before the interview is over.
Unfortunately, he didn't give Jeri Thompson that type of chance when she was on the Radio Factor.
Still, I'm glad Fred's taking this opportunity. If he dispenses with that first process question quickly, the rest of the interview should give voters nationwide a glimpse as to what gets Fred animated. They'll see what a substantive guy he is.
Because I'm attending a townhall meeting tonight, I won't be able to watch the interview live but I've got the DVR set to record the interview.
Here's the video from Fred's visit:
Let's give Bill O'Reilly credit. O'Reilly was cordial throughout. The only thing I took exception with was him calling Huckabee and Romney conservatives. Simply put, they aren't. Let's frame it this way: I can't picture Ronald Reagan giving in-state tuition credit to the children of illegal immigrants like Huckabee did. I couldn't picture Reagan signing MittCare into law, either. That's my sole benchmark. If it doesn't pass the 'Reagan Test', then he isn't a conservative.
Originally posted Monday, January 7, 2008, revised 08-Jan 2:13 AM
No comments.
Putting Their Money Where Their Heart Is
The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) is putting their money where their mouth is. They've sent out a massive mailing to South Carolina voters. Here's the details of the story:
National Right to Life is putting its money where its mouth is for Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson in South Carolina. The pro-life group has mailed a postcard touting Thompson's record to thousands of residents in the third primary battleground state and one where Thompson needs a strong showing.Rush said that Fred had "gotten more endorsements from right-to-life organizations than Huckabee." I've written in the past about that. I've also noted that he's got more right-to-life endorsements than Huckabee, McCain and Romney combined.
The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) endorsed Thompson back in November saying he has a strong pro-life voting record and stance on both abortion and bioethics issues.
The mailing, sent by the group's political action committee , features a picture of an infant baby and says, "This little guy wants you to vote for Fred Thompson in the Republican primary" -- which takes place in the state on January 19. The mailer asks pro-life voters in South Carolina to "unite" behind Thompson's candidacy.
"Vote for life in the South Carolina Republican Primary," the political piece ads, "[Fred Thompson] is the only candidate endorsed by the National Right to Life PAC and South Carolina Citizens for Life PAC."
That speaks volumes about Fred's right-to-life credentials.
One thing that hasn't been talked about Fred, other than on this blog, is the fact that his consistency has helped his credibility. McCain, Romney and Giuliani start dancing and dodging whenever immigration comes up. Romney starts hemming and hawing whenever life issues come up. Meanwhile, Huckabee starts bobbing and weaving whenever tax increases and scholarships for children of illegal immigrants come up. Fred just keeps repeating what he's always said.
Fred's living proof of the old axiom that "it's easier to tell the truth because then you don't have to remember which lie you told to which person." Fred's straightforwardness helps him connect with people.
I've said it before and I'm sure I'll repeat it many times between now and November. This is a credibility election. When it comes to the life issue, Fred Thompson has as much credibility as all of his opponents combined.
This mailing will undoubtedly help Fred's election chances in South Carolina. Fred's sure to use this against Mike Huckabee.
Here's something else that Fred's certain to use against Huckabee:
Here's the transcript:
My question for you evangelicals is this. If you're looking for a real conservative, why are you supporting Huckabee? He's completely discredited himself. What about Fred Thompson? If you're looking for a real conservative. Huckabee is constantly engaging in class warfare against the producers. This laid-off line, it's an attack on Romney, but it's an attack on producers. It's an attack on employers. It's pure populism. He does oppose school choice! You don't get the NEA endorsement in New Hampshire by supporting school choice.The simple truth is that Fred's gotten substantially more endorsements from right to life groups than Huckabee.
Having the NRLC do a massive mailing for Fred will strengthen Fred's appeal in South Carolina. Having Rush highlight the fact that Fred's a true conservative who's been endorsed by the NRLC and other right to life organizations will strengthen Fred that much more.
Posted Monday, January 7, 2008 11:51 PM
No comments.
St. Cloud Health Forum Notes
Last night, I attended Tarryl Clark's health forum. The panelists for this discussion were John Marty, Tarryl, Larry Haws & Larry Hosch. Steve Gottwalt also attended for the first half hour before leaving for another commitment.
The first thing that caught my attention was something that Loretta Linus said:
"The doctors are wonderful. You get good care. And it just makes me mad when they talk about how they have to come over here to get good care & that's not true."After rambling a bit, Ms. Linus continued, saying this:
"Now they say that Canadians have to come over here for good treatment. Well don't you believe it. Don't you believe it one bit. That government is so good to all its people. I don't care if you're rich or poor. They take care of you. And so many of the people come & they talk crap about how awful their system is. Well, don't you believe it. Single payer is wonderful if it's run right ."The funniest moment came when Larry Haws talked about all the different problems with our current system. At the end, here's what he said:
"There, I've framed the problem but I haven't framed the solution."Anyone can identify problems. It takes a man of depth to identify solutions. Rep. Haws is a nice man but a wonk he isn't.
A significant portion of the forum was spent talking about how good single payer is. Another significant portion of the forum focused on mental health needs. Some of the stories were truly heart-wrenching. One gentleman talked about how he had to call into the state at 9:00 am on behalf of his son, who has a mental health illness. This gentleman said that sometimes the lines were all busy. Other times, he'd get through, then get put on hold for several hours.
When I heard that, I thought to myself "That wouldn't be tolerated at a private company. Companies would go bankrupt if they did that day after day." That's why I take exception to Ms. Linus' statement that "Single payer is wonderful if it's run right." This gentleman's story tells me all I need to know about government doing things efficiently.
Another woman from the Greater Minnesota Health Care Coalition actually said this:
"We don't need health insurance. We need health care."FYI- Greater Minnesota Health Care Coalition is a leading advocate for single payer universal health care. Here's their mission statement & vision statement :
Mission StatementTRANSLATION: We're socialists. We believe that government has to correct the injustices, real or imagined, of the free market.
The Greater Minnesota Health Care Coalition is a grass roots organization which strives to build a democratic culture, develop leadership from citizens, and provide opportunities for meaningful participation to address economic and social injustice. We seek to unite Greater Minnesota citizens and their organizations, to create positive social change on health care and other issues. We are committed to providing some service programs to our members in a manner that directly supports and enhances our efforts on issues.
Vision Statement
The Greater Minnesota Health Care Coalition represents the interests of all citizens in Greater Minnesota on health care and other issues of economic and social justice.
- We seek changes that promote the health and well-being of all citizens and correct the great economic inequalities in our society.
- We seek to help build a society that lives out the values of compassion, integrity, meaningful relationships, and mutual accountability.
Finally, the last thing that caught my attention was John Marty's statement that we had to view health care as a "community need" like we think of the police or fire departments.
Let's work through that logically. If we accept the fact that some perscription drug prices are higher through the private sector, then the next logical question is why. The biggest reason is because the pharmaceuticals have to make up for the profits lost because of perscription drugs bought by the government. It's the same principle that's at work with the uninsured showing up in ER's. Somebody's got to pick up that cost.
Anyone that thinks that pharmaceutical companies will invest tons of R & D money on drugs with limited profit potential is kidding themselves. As I told Eric at Liberal in the Land of Conservative , the VA hospital system is socialized medicine. When they 'negotiate' perscription drug prices, it's negotiation at gunpoint.
That's what we'd have with single payer. The federal government would 'negotiate' at gunpoint. That's what it'd be whether we're talking perscriptions or doctors' fees. Likewise, why would people sign up for medical school when they see the government telling doctors that they'll regulate how much they get paid for each procedure?
Talk with a behavioral scientist sometime. They'll tell you that the best way to increase good results & reduce bad results is to reward good behavior & punish bad behavior.
Socialism punishes everybody.
FYI - Before anyone accuses me of using the term socialism to scare people, let me poitn out that a woman who identified herself as a retired nurse at the St. Cloud VA Hospital told me it was a perfect example of how wonderful socialized medicine works. I'm accepting her word on it.
Frankly, I wish I'd thought of this followup question when I was talking with her:
Who says that it's a wonderful system? Do the patients think it's a terrific system? The doctors? The nurses? If the doctors & nurses think it's a great system but the patients' needs aren't met, then how valid is this woman's opinion? Isn't this a purely subjective opinion?
How do we know that her opinion is accurate?
Posted Tuesday, January 8, 2008 2:12 PM
No comments.
***CNN CALLS NH FOR McCAIN***
WOW!!! I didn't see this coming at all. McCain was supposedly slipping since this weekend's debates. That said, CNN has called the Republican NH Primary for John McCain .
With 9 percent of Republican precincts reporting, McCain had 37 percent of the vote. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was second with 28 percent, and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, the winner of last week's Iowa GOP caucuses followed with 12 percent.
Captain Ed is right :
7:11 - CNN calls the election for John McCain on the Republican side. Their exit polling apparently must have shown some significant gap between him and Romney. This is a big hit on Romney. More on this later as we see more of the results.If Romney loses Iowa and New Hampshire by 9 points each, it's difficult seeing a logic of going beyond Michigan.
Voters who supported McCain and those who supported projected runner-up Romney differed significantly on what issues they feel are most important, exit polling shows.Those aren't good numbers for McCain. Once he reaches South Carolina, those immigration numbers will haunt him. Another thing that'll hurt McCain is that Michigan is the last state that lets independents vote in either primary.
Forty-six percent of those who supported McCain ranked the war in Iraq the most important. Meanwhile, voters who supported Romney overwhelmingly felt immigration was the most important issue.
McCain has been a staunch supporter of the war in Iraq, but co-sponsored comprehensive immigration reform legislation that drew the ire of many conservatives in his party. The legislation failed to pass Congress. Romney has been taking a tough stance on immigration.
I'll give credit where it's due, though. McCain was finished if he didn't win New Hampshire so he did what he had to do. Congratulations to Sen. McCain for a hard-fought win.
8:50 CT - Hillary's lead is still holding . This is amazing. I'll bet most of the major newspaper reporters has already written her obituary.
Sidenote: I talked with Eric from Liberal in the Land of Conservatives a few minutes ago. I started the conversation by saying "So I guess we can throw all polling out the window now"? Eric's reply was less sarcastic than my question but well worth talking about. He said that polls are pretty much useless because of all the cell phones that don't get called. I agree. In fact, I've written about that factor in the past.
9:05: With 60 percent of the vote counted, Hillary has increased her lead to over 4,000 votes. To say that nobody saw this coming is understatement.
9:30: Hillary's lead continues to grow. It's now over 5,000 over Obama.
10:00: Hillary is declared the winner. This sends shockwaves through the Obama camp. Comeback Kid indeed.
Posted Tuesday, January 8, 2008 11:26 PM
No comments.
