California Conservative

Sen. Ted Kennedy has been hospitalized after experiencing stroke-like conditions. Here’s what CBS is reporting:

A spokeswoman for Edward M. Kennedy said the Massachusetts senator is in the hospital for evaluation after becoming ill at his Hyannis home. There was no immediate word on his condition, although a knowledgeable official said the 76-year-old senator was hospitalized Saturday after suffering stroke-like symptoms. The official declined to be identified by name, citing the sensitivity of the events.

Kennedy spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter confirmed in a statement that Kennedy went to Cape Cod Hospital on Saturday morning “after feeling ill at his home.” She says that after discussion with his doctors in Boston, Kennedy was taken to Massachusetts General Hospital for further examination. She says he is under evaluation that information will be released as it becomes available.

Now isn’t the time for politics. It’s a time to keep Sen. Kennedy in our prayers. I urge all my readers to keep him in our prayers.

UPDATE: According to this AP article, Sen. Kennedy didn’t suffer a stroke. Here’s what they’re reporting:

BOSTON (AP) - Edward Kennedy’s primary care physician says the senator is “not in any immediate danger” after suffering a seizure at his Cape Cod home Saturday. Dr. Larry Ronan says preliminary tests showed the 76-year-old Massachusetts Democrat has not suffered a stroke. Ronan says Kennedy was resting comfortably and would undergo further evaluation to determine the cause of the seizure.

Kennedy was flown to Massachusetts General Hospital on Saturday morning after being taken by ambulance from his home to Cape Cod Hospital. His wife, children and niece Caroline Kennedy are with him at the hospital.

The second longest serving member of the Senate had surgery in October to repair a nearly complete blockage in a major neck artery, a procedure done to prevent stroke.

Let’s continue to keep Sen. Kennedy in our prayers.

Technorati Tags: Ted Kennedy, Stroke

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

George Will has penned another masterpiece, this time asking Sen. Obama a set of rather difficult questions, questions that actually require intellectual heft. Here’s the easiest question in the bunch:

You say, “The insurance companies, the drug companies, they’re not going to give up their profits easily when it comes to health care.” Why should they? Who will profit from making those industries unprofitable? When pharmaceutical companies have given up their profits, who will fund pharmaceutical innovations, without which there will be much preventable suffering and death? What other industries should “give up their profits”?

Sen. Obama can’t answer that question because it requires a capitalist answer, something that’d infuriate Sen. Obama’s ardent socialist supporters. This is the only time it’s difficult being a liberal. It’s easy being a liberal if you’re never asked thoughtful questions. It’s immensely difficult when they’re asked why questions. Liberals are used to giving answers to ‘what’ type questions. It’s difficult for liberals to answer ‘why’ questions because that requires logic.

If I’ve learned anything about politicking, it’s that most liberals can’t handle answering why questions because they’re so used to not having to defend their principles and policies. Altogether too often, liberals are asked a what question, which often gets accepted without further questioning. (more…)

Dick Pollman has a column in the Philadelphia Inquirer talking about how hard it is to imagine that the Democrats won’t win the White House. My question for him is why he hasn’t noticed that Democrats have a habit of blowing opportunities.

Here’s an old saying about the Arafat-led Palestinian Authority that’s almost as applicable to the Democrats as it is to the Palestinians: The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. In 2004, Democrats like Susan Estrich and Bob Beckel appeared on TV saying that it was John Kerry’s race to lose, that President Bush would be a one term wonder just like his dad.

There’s a reason why Democrats frequently blow opportunities. They often equate resumes with qualifications. They picked John Kerry because he had military experience, which they considered important because we’re at war. What they didn’t take into account was that Sen. Kerry was an elitist snob that couldn’t connect with a blue collar worker if his life depended on it. They also didn’t take into consideration that he’d been wrong on the major foreign policy issues of his generation.

This year, they’ve settled on Barack Obama as their candidate. He’s considerably more likeable than Sen. Kerry but his associations with Jerremiah Wright, William Ayers and Tony Rezko have raised questions about how much he shares the American people’s values. When Michelle Obama told Wisconsin voters that she was finally proud to call herself an American because people were supporting her husband, people scratched their heads. Here’s Ed Koch’s reaction to Michelle Obama’s statement: (more…)

This morning, Margaret Carlson weighs in on the Philadelphia Fiasco. After recounting the charges and countercharges, she made this important observation:

Karl Rove was the big winner. His Politics About Nothing lives on. If you aren’t going to help the working man, tell him that the other condescending guy wants to take away his gun. Republicans show respect for all the things not under siege, his guns, his religion, his marriage, his patriotism, and hope no one homes in on jobs, foreclosures or health care.

I’ve never thought of Maggie Carlson as the brightest bulb in the Agenda Media’s chandelier. This observation confirms for me that my initial opinion was right. Why on God’s green earth did Ms. Carlson think about Karl Rove after watching the Democrat debate?

The first thing that popped into my head was that Democrats still fear Karl Rove to the point of being paranoid about him. It isn’t a stretch to say that Karl Rove gets blamed for the misfortunes of Democrats. Never mind the fact that they cast aside a real man of substance in Joe Lieberman because he wasn’t liberal enough. Nevermind the fact that they’re on the verge of picking the most unqualified presidential candidate in the history of the United States.

In Ms. Carlson’s mind, the Fiasco In Philadelphia didn’t happen because two radicals with barely a presidential qualification shared the stage. In Ms. Carlson’s mind, the Philadelphia Fiasco happened because Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos asked questions given them by Mr. Rove.

Ms. Carlson wants people to forget the disastrous answers both candidates gave on the Second Amendment. Here’s the exchange between Charlie Gibson and Barack Obama:

MR. GIBSON: Senator Obama, the District of Columbia has a law, it’s had a law since 1976, it’s now before the United States Supreme Court, that prohibits ownership of handguns, a sawed-off shotgun, a machine gun or a short-barreled rifle. Is that law consistent with an individual’s right to bear arms?
SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven’t listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence. As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right, and, you know, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it. And I think that it is going to be important for us to reconcile what are two realities in this country.

(more…)

There’s a must read WSJ editorial out today that details the fight between Obama and Hillary over HillaryCare II. here’s a sample from the editorial:

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama agree on most policy issues, but that makes their rare differences all the more revealing. To wit, their running scrap over Mrs. Clinton’s “individual mandate” for health care, which Mr. Obama has now had the nerve to expose for its inevitable government coercion.

Mrs. Clinton’s proposal requires everyone to buy health insurance, along with more insurance regulation, a government insurance option for everyone and tax hikes. Mr. Obama likes all that but his mandate would only apply to children. He argues that the reason many people aren’t insured is because it’s too expensive, not because they don’t want it. Mrs. Clinton counters that coverage can’t be “universal” without a mandate.

But then Mr. Obama had the impudence to defend his views. His campaign distributed a mailer in key primary states that claimed the Clinton plan “forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can’t afford it.” It also featured an image of an anxious couple at a kitchen table.

The Clinton apparat went apoplectic, claiming the flyer evokes the famous “Harry and Louise” commercials. A common article of liberal faith is that this “smear campaign” doomed HillaryCare in 1994, as opposed to, say, its huge cost and complexities. But never mind.

Yet if Mrs. Clinton’s plan is better because it has a mandate, how does it work in the real world, where some people still won’t be able to afford insurance, or would decline to acquire it? At a recent debate, the Illinois Senator drove the point home, asking Mrs. Clinton, “You can mandate it but there will still be people who can’t afford it. And if they can’t afford it, what are you going to fine them? Are you going to garnish their wages?” And in an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos on Sunday, Mrs. Clinton conceded that “we will have an enforcement mechanism” that might include “you know, going after people’s wages.”

There aren’t many differences between Hillary and Obama so it’s important to point out a difference as significant as this. Hillary admitted to George Stephanopoulos that they’d “have an enforcement mechanism” in her new plan: (more…)

In my post titled “The battle we can’t afford to lose“, I included a study done by the American Medical Students Association (AMSA) on the viability of a single-payer healthcare system. Here’s the ’study’ that AMSA did for the Greater Minnesota Health Care Coalition:

Although there are some advantages and some disadvantages to each system, universal health care confers the greatest number of advantages. They include:

• Every individual would receive necessary medical coverage, regardless of age, health, employment, or socio-economic status.
• Health care spending would decline because centralized billing procedures would reduce administrative overhead. Consequently, a larger percentage of the cost of health care would actually be spent on patient treatment.
• Increased access to preventive care and the ability of government to purchase prescription medications in bulk would also help drive down health care costs. However, the corresponding drop in revenue for pharmaceutical companies could lead to a reduction in overall research and development, slowing down technological advancement.
• Patients can choose their physician and physicians can choose the most appropriate treatment for their patients.
• There would be a removal of profit-motive in health care. The driving force behind the health industry would be patient care and not profit maximization.

At the time, I ridiculed the study for saying that “the corresponding drop in revenue for pharmaceutical companies could lead to a reduction in overall research and development” and for saying “The driving force behind the health industry would be patient care.” What they’ve just said is that the single-payer system would all but eliminate R & D spending and that they’d dramatically restrict profits for healthcare providers.

As alarming as that study is, AMSA is tied into something far more sinister and widespread than just single-payer. When I visited AMSA’s website, I found a link to an article about an upcoming event being held in Brooklyn, NY. Here’s the opening paragraph of that article: (more…)

RECESSION:

Romney: We need to invest more into R & D, make the tax cuts permanent, “stop the housing crisis” & reduce our dependence on oil.
McCain: Some jobs aren’t coming back, Education is key for those who’ve lost jobs. We aren’t heading for a recession.
CWallace: What do we do shortterm?
McCain: Cut gov’t. spending. He’s dissing South Carolinians by talking about Michigan alot. Otherwise nondescript answer.

As expected, Ron Paul gave the wierdest answer, saying that we’re in a recession, then saying that “we don’t know when it’ll come.” Then he dug his hole deeper, saying that we’ve delayed a serious recession.

Fred had a great answer, saying that he’ll defend Rudy’s tax cut plan because “it sounds an awful lot like the plan I introduced months ago.” He then stated that revenues are always more than the so-called experts predict before saying that “we’ve got too many two-handed economists”, saying on the one hand this, on the other hand that.

McCain should get off the climate change kick. That isn’t a selling point with conservatives.

Health Care/Abortion Rights question to Mitt: (more…)

One thing that jumps out thus far was Huckabee’s evasiveness on taxes. Utterly pathetic. Romney was on him like a pitbull, asking him if he’d increased taxes. First, the Huckster tried dodging by saying he made government work. Next, he tried playing the ‘he’s going negative card’.

Another thing that’s worth noting was Fred’s explanation about how to reform Social Security. Solid. When Chris Wallace tried interrupting, Fred persisted in explaining his plan. McCain and Romney said they appreciated Fred’s putting a plan together, though Romney thought that he’d tweak it a bit.

National Security

Romney is asked about his statement about not needing an expert on foreign policy. He’s sticking with his leadership line. Now he’s talking about the Clintons endorsing McCain’s immigration plan. He’s particularly avoiding talking about the expertise side of the equation.

McCain- It’s important to know the players. I know Musharraf.

Romney- Intelligence failed us badly. No kidding!!! “I was running a state.” “I’ve made tough calls.”

Wallace to Huckabee- You didn’t know that marshal law had been lifted. You didn’t know anything about the NIE. How do you defend yourself?

Huckabee- I’ve been to lots of countries. Yada, yada, yada.

Wallace- Again, back to the question. There’s been a pattern that you didn’t know what’s been going on.

Huckabee’s response is awful, defensive.

Now Rudy’s turn- My national security qualifications aren’t just from 9/11. I’ve worked on a terrorism task force for the Ford administration. I’ve travelled to 35 countries. “When a Saudi prince gave me a $10 million check, then asked me to argue against US foreign policy. I gave the check back.” Good response.

Fred- “It’s interesting that Mitt thinks experience is important for everything except foreign policy.” That’ll leave a mark. Touts his being floor manager on Homeland Security bill. Talked about things he worked on as chair of Sen. Govt. Affairs Committee. Finishes by asking Mitt if Ted Kennedy had attended the bill signing of MittCare into law.

Mitt- “You bet he was.” OUCH!!! Too much enthusiasm. Conservatives are cringing all across America.

McCain wrap-up — I’ve been endorsed by 4 secretaries of state: Kissinger, Eagleburger, Schultz & Haig. Blah, blah, blah.

Mitt had a stronger showing tonight. He was particularly effective in going after Huckabee, exposing Gov. Huckabee as evasive on tax increases. That’s understandable with his tax record. I still think his enthusiastic reply that Teddy was at MittCare signing isn’t a high point.

When Huckabee tried using lines like “I made government work”, you knew that he was defenseless. Pathetic. Wallace just asking the questions about his foreign policy

Fred was solid, though not as robust as last night. Still, his continual laying out his plans show off his gravitas. That’s gotta help in SC. Fred doesn’t suffer from Washingtonspeak. He talks like regular people. It’s just that he knows alot more than most regular people. That’ll play well with voters this year. They want plainspeak, not Washingtonspeak.

I thought McCain was somewhat effective tonight. The only bright spots for him was talking about pushing for the Surge, which was a solid bright spot, and talking about saving money on defense appropriations. Immigration wasn’t the Achilles Heel that it was last night but too many replies were “I’ve been endorsed by”. Another thing that hurts McCain is his constant talking in Washingtonese.

One refreshing bright spot was not having Ron Paul there. We didn’t have to listen to his whiny “We shouldn’t be in Iraq” diatribes.

Technorati Tags: Debates, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Social Security, National Security, Flat Tax, Fair Tax, Election 2008

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

Last night was a picture in contrasts. Mitt Romney was last night’s pinata. Everyone painted a bullseye on Mitt’s chest before they emptied both barrels at him. McCain and Rudy got criticized for their immigration policies. Huckabee for his foreign policy. (It goes without saying that Ron Paul got hit hard for being from another solar system.)

At the other end of the spectrum, Fred Thompson didn’t have a glove laid on him. There’s a good reason for that: His policies and beliefs are rock solid and unassailable.

No GOP presidential candidate will argue that the federal government’s role shouldn’t be limited to the things that the Constitution explicitly assigns to the federal government. People aren’t going to pick holes in Fred’s foreign policies, either, because he wants to stay on offense against the jihadists while bringing all of our tools to bear on the sitution. Also, his credibility skyrockets when he talks about serving on the Intelligence Committee and having met with world leaders, including Gen. Musharraf.

Implicit in his talking about what principles he’d govern by is the fact that he’ll appoint strict constructionist judges. Anyone that thinks that the federal government shouldn’t worry about oil company profits isn’t someone that’ll pick judges in the mold of Sandra Day O’Connor or David Souter. (more…)

Tonight’s New Hampshire debate had some interesting moments. Fred seemed to be at the center of most of those moments.

When Mike Huckabee was asked what he meant when he said that President Bush’s foreign policy was too arrogant, Gov. Huckabee explained that he meant that we should’ve sent in more troops into Iraq.

Fred immediately pounced on that, saying that “I think the Governor has rethought what he said because now he seems to be saying that we were arrogant because we didn’t go in with enough troops.” It isn’t the type of thing that changes the course of the rest of the debate but it’s something that Fred will use when the campaign moves to South Carolina. It’s something that Huckabee will have to ‘rethink’ again.

Another great Fred moment was one of Mitt’s low moments. Charlie Gibson asked, in the context of talking about Mitt’s health care plan, if Mitt liked mandates, to which Mitt said “Oh no, I like mandates.” Fred jumped in, saying “I didn’t think you’d admit that tonight.”

When Ron Paul talked about health care, he said that Charlie Gibson had provided the answer why we don’t have universal health care. Paul said that we don’t have health care because we’re waging a “trillion dollar war” and that we need to “stop printing new money.” Fred’s response was direct. “So you’re saying if we stopped printing more money, we could get out of Iraq and give everybody health care”? (more…)