Two Bad Days for the GOP

Two Bad Days for the GOP

Voting Rights according to EJ

Well E.J. you are at it again. In reading your article entitled “How states are rigging the 2012 election”, published 19 June 2011, I have to take issue with your assertion that sensible election laws are designed to suppress voters. I find it amazing that you start the article with the acceptance of the voter fraud as the norm, only as long it is not significant. You dismiss the efforts by state and local governments combatting this fraud through more stringent voter registration, photo ID requirements, and elimination or curtailing of early voting. Actually, you seem to be admitting that lax voter laws and requirements encourage vote fraud. Clearly it does – think Chicago.

You also demean minorities and the young by implying that they lax voting requirements and simplified access to the polls. Are saying that they are too ignorant, or worse, too stupid to take the responsibility of registering to vote, obtaining a proper voter ID and finding the right precinct to vote?

It seems to me that if someone is passionate enough to vote for a candidate or for an issue, will do what is necessary to exercise their voting rights responsibly.

The Dragon Versus EJ on Bush Nostalgia

The dragon’s comments on E. J. Dionne’s June 15^th article entitled “After GOP debate, feeling nostalgic for George W. Bush”

Mr. Dionne stated “Bush chose to provide prescription drugs under Medicare, he was quite right to believe it had to be done . . . Bush didn’t pay for this benefit, and its structure is more complicated and more expensive than it has to be.” This is an interesting thing for him to say. I wonder if he has the same thoughts about the 2000 page Obamacare bill. Of course, Bush did not raid Medicare to pay for his program, but how much is Obama taking from Medicare to pay for his program? Well it was $500 billion.

In apparently quoting Bush, “We have always found our better selves in sympathy and generosity, both in our lives and in our laws,” Mr. Dionne suggests that this means Bush would install the Federal government as the arbiter of sympathy and generosity. I do not think so.

Dionne goes on to say “He sent troops to battle in two wars and cut taxes, largely on the wealthy, leaving us in deep fiscal and foreign policy holes.” The dragon has two points of contention. First to lambaste Bush for fiscal issues ignores Obama’s quadrupling of the annual deficit from Bush’s highest deficit of 400 billion and the near doubling of the total national debt during his term if he wins re-election. In other words will add more to the national debt in his presumably 8 years that America did in nearly 230 years. Secondly, the so-called wealthy pay the most in taxes, so if taxes are reduced they will naturally see the most benefit.

Come on, E. J., at least try to maintain some consistency in your opinions.

Bush versus Obama Deficits

“And despite their role in ballooning the deficit during the Bush years, they will always outbid Democrats on spending cuts” this is a quote for E.J. Dionne’s June 12^th article entitled “Gridlocking the lives of the jobless”. I would like to remind Mr. Dionne that the Bush policies added less than half of the public debt in his 8 years, than Obama has added in nearly 3 years.

Policies or Ideology

I commend Charles Krauthammer’s June 9^th 2011 article “Stewardship? Or ideology” for its accurate portrayal of the choice the republican will have in 2012. In his opinion piece he lays out the ideology of President Obama as point of contention for any future election. He also wonders if attacking Obama on his failed policies would be better strategy.

He discusses the NY26 elections vis-à-vis medicare as a warning about using an ideological approach. In musing about  this point, Mr. Krauthammer surprises the dragon in that he correctly describes the true political nature of that election. Nonetheless, he concedes that the inaccurate, but publically accepted viewpoint of that election worked for the democrats.

In developing his point about attacking Obama on his failed policies, he uses the latest poor economic news. He says that the current state-of-affairs makes too easy a target for a challenger to use in his/her political attacks.

Much to the delight of the dragon, Mr. Krauthammer concludes that his preference is for a campaign of ideology.

Sarah Palin and Paul Revere versus Eugene Robinson

In reading some of the comments to Eugene Robinson’s June 6^th article “Sarah Palin’s revisionist ride” regarding Sarah Palin’s re-telling of the Paul Revere ride, I must agree with the common term “juvenile.” Yes. His attack piece on Sarah is juvenile. I find it rather sad that he would devote a column to discounting Sarah’s seemingly inaccurate telling of this story, instead of discussing some of Sarah’s policy positions, etc. Mr. Robinson’s references the June 5^th interview of Sarah Palin by Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday to further his point but I find it strange that Mr. Robinson apparently dismisses the rest of the interview. Chris Wallace questioned Sarah Palin on a number of issues. I think Mr, Robinson would have done better to write a column addressing all that Sarah Palin said in her Fox News interview, rather than focus on Ms. Palin’s triviality of Paul Revere’s ride.

Coming Soon: A Look At Paul Revere’s Ride and Chris Wallace’s June 5^th interview with Sarah Palin.

The Dragon's Comments concluded June 3 2011

Jack Kevorkian is dead at 83. The dragon sheds not one tear for the passing of this sick human being.

Unemployment rise to 9.1% with no end in sight. Despite the media spin this in not good news. In a normal world Obama should be toast in 2012.

Ok E.J. lets discuss your article entitled “Why Paul Ryan is losing the Medicare argument”, posted 1 June 2011. You claim that Mr. Ryan is losing his argument about Medicare reform.

So let’s examine your points of discussion. You say “a shortage of revenue and rising health-care costs” are the core of the problem. You are quite right with the second issue but wrong about the first. The US government is collecting plenty of money in taxes.

Next you state “He’s (Paul Ryan) losing because Americans are alarmed that they are paying ever more for coverage, co-pays and deductibles.” True also, but try to imagine a world in which health insurance covers catastrophic illness and perhaps certain chronic conditions yet keeps out of day-to-day healthcare expenses such as going the doctor with a cold.
Of course you bring up the cliché “And they’re weary of battling over health bills with insurance-company bureaucrats.” Give me a private bureaucrat over a government bureacrat any day.
You discuss the enactment of Medicare to provide government support for senior citizens as justification for the passage of Obamacare. Well, if Medicare was adjusted to accommodate an aging population, longer lifespans, advances in medical technology, and realistic means testing then it would be fine. It seems that if something has relatively simple and straightforward as Medicare was meant to be – proved to be a failure, then how the complicated Obamacare Act can prove to be a success? Hint: The issuance of 2000 waivers so far seems to foreshadow a failure.

Your conclusion that in the end people will choose government over private healthcare may indeed be true regardless, but that does not mean we should give up fighting it.