When is the next primary in Nockamixon Township? The supervisors might need some challengers.

“GOPers back Murphy”???

These headlines are getting more and more ridiculous.

A better and more accurate headline:

“Two obscure, nominally registered Republican d-listers, throw their meaningless support behind Murphy because he threw some pork their way, and because he actually bothered to ask, making them feel like they actually have some relevance.”

By the way, the Philly Fraternal Order of Police- LODGE 5 has endorsed Mike Fitzpatrick.

Again:

Philly FOP – LODGE 5 has endorsed Mike Fitzpatrick.

Murphy can keep the Toad Myer’s endorsement, I’ll take the support of the largest law enforcement fraternal organization in Pennsylvania.

Isn’t the Philly Cop thing, part of Murphy’s whole persona? Ouch!

There are more members of the FOP in the district than registered voters in Nockamixon.

I’m a Murphy guy all the way but come on now. Looks as if Murphy’s ppl felt they needed a headline.

There are more deer in Nockamixan than registered voters.

Endorsements are not nearly what they’re cracked up to be.

That said, I think it’s interesting that these endorsements come from small towns (calling Riegelsville a small town is being generous) in Upper Bucks. During the ’06 race, the most interesting dynamic was that Fitzy overperformed for a Republican in Lower Bucks.

The reason the race was so close was because Murphy won Montgomery and Philadelphia portions convincingly, but also because he overperformed by a LOT in Upper Bucks. In ’08, Murphy also won townships like Nockamixon which are generally Republican. (My favorite stat is that Murphy won Tom Manion’s home precinct in Dolyestown Township.)

So this might be more of a reflection of Murphy’s cultivation of support in Upper Bucks (again).

Its a good reflection of Murphy’s liberal use of cow manure, but not much “cultivation”.

What is humorous about this whole thing is the fact that Democrats think they can fool the entire PA electorate by acting like they are Republicans until election day. As a PA voter, and the rest of the voters of PA, we should stand up to these “Democrats”. I am a DEM, and find it funny that these people attempt to insult the intelligence the DEMS think PA voters lack.

Patrick Murphy was one of the first OBAMA SURROGATES in PA. Who is he kidding?

Now the Kool-Aid Critz is drinking has been passed on to the Philly delegation. Critz says over and over, “I’m an Independent”, ok, is that why over $100,000 in contributions in one week came from the DCCC? If you and the rest of the DEMS in PA are INDEPENDENT, then act and fundraise like it, don’t try to fool the PA electorate by taking DEM money, Pelosi and Obama support, and say that you are seperate from that in front of the cameras.

Sad, so sad these people think their constituents are stupid.

Isn’t this the same guy that is Obama’s biggest supporter in PA, and voted for Healthcare?

The Democrats say over and over that the GOP is desperate, but judging from this headline (Murphy turns Republican overnight?) the Democrats are the ones who are desperate, especially in PA. “I’m a Republican, no wait, I’m an Independent, no, I’m a DEM (AKA, I need DCCC money), no, I’m just a desperate fool trying to fool everyone into voting for me!” Did you ever notice foolish people like the PA DEMS think everyone else is as foolish as they are?

@ FUNNY

Its called pragmatic politics. So what if they run against the Speaker or POTUS. If they vote for a Democrat for Speaker to give the Democrats the ability to organize the House I don’t give a rat’s ass what they say to get elected.

TB:

Thank you for your admission.

That’s why even the most self-professed conservative or moderate Dem is an endangered species in 2010.

We all know that Murphy is only representing himself as a conservative as a “means to an end” (quoting you)to get elected. If he is successful, then he’l go back to towing the line for the Pelosi/Obama agenda.

Your candor is refreshing. Lying to get elected; Dems “don’t give a rats *ss” (quoting you again).

@ Seabee

We all know that your right wing fringe candidates have to hide how far right they are to get elected. Pat Toomey wants to eliminate corporate taxes, privatize Social Security, and end abortion in cases of incest, rape, and threat to the life of the mother. There is a damn good chance he opposes the use of condoms too. I don’t see Toomey touting those positions on the campaign trail. Do you? No.

When you get a particularly hard headed, or ‘principled’ Republican who actually wants to run on their wing nut beliefs they get trounced. Case in point: Barry Goldwater.

Since when did the PA GOP turn into a pack of rabid conservatives with principles anyway? You people nominated Arlen Specter for United States Senator 5 times. Not once. Not twice. FIVE times. You can’t blame that on Democrats either because Pennsylvania has closed primaries. Now Arlen Specter: there is a man who would say anything to get elected.

Agreed about Specter.

Here’s the problem. Our society has moved so far to the left that what was once moderate and centrist is now considered far right.

Toomey is not a far right wing politician. Yes he is a traditional conservative, but he is not on the radical Ron Paul fringe (not that Paul’s a true conservative, but that’s another story).

What about Reagan? A man who held true to conservative principles and won all over all of America – remember Reagen Democrats?

Reagan was a protege of Goldwater.

My complaint is this. So many Dems forthrightly admit their left-wing positions – abortion, gay rights, redistribution of wealth, soft-peddled and defeatist foreign policy (notwithstanding Murphy’s half-hearted notional attempt to be a “conservative” dem)- while Republicans are afraid to stand on principle with these issues.

Anyway, agreed about Specter.

“Our society has moved so far to left,” is your opinion and you’re one man. There are plenty of liberals who would say we moved too far right under Bush and plenty of conservatives who say we have moved too far left under Obama. I don’t think we’ve done either. I believe our system of government prohibits erratic shifts in one direction or the other on the politics spectrum.

The right wing of American politics, organized under the banner of the GOP, was devastated electorally in 2008. Instead of doing some soul searching or deep thinking about what policy agendas they should pursue and push in order to regain power they simply got angry. They’ve used huge anonymous expenditures to finance smear campaigns, launched a loosely organized fringe movement thats morphed into an angry mob, and stoked fear of financial collapse in the electorate. That might be a great strategy to make short term politic gains but it does little to fix the economic problems and perceived social ills of the country or build long term majorities. Keep doing what you’re doing and we’ll see where the GOP is in ten years.

Well, it is my opinion. But it’s the truth.

If you hold left-wing views, you should simply admit it – with pride.

The 1960s hippies and radicals grew up, moved into academia, and fundamentally transformed America from the conservative service-oriented nation that it once was, into an entitlement state, where social engineering and court-activism are perceived as high virtues.

They trained Obama and his ilk.

Believe me, when conservatives assert themselves (and we will), you will find that the majority of Americans – of all races and cultural backgrounds, including many recent immigrants – hold organically conservative views, and these people will flock to the GOP.

Everything about the Democratic party of today is hollow, false, and misguided. It is not the Democratic party of JFK, or the party that lead this nation through WWII.

Seabee, good opinion; I especially liked the last paragraph….JFK is no doubt roling in his grave.

Patrick – you are pathetic to resort to these kind of endorsements.

Lil

If higher education is dominated by hippies, radical liberals and the like then how do you explain the prominence of successful conservative business leaders who have MBAs from places like Stern, Kellogg, Booth, and Wharton? How do you explain New Gingrich having a PhD in History and career as a college professor? IS he the lone exception to your analysis?

Also, how do you explain why people who came of age in the 60′s vote Republican if they were all radical liberals and hippies? I have plenty of family members who grew up in the 60′s and vote Republican. I’m sure you probably know a few too.

People who pursue advanced degrees tend to be free thinkers. They aren’t necessarily influenced by the political leanings of their professors. I’m currently a grad student in political science and I can say with all honesty that not a single professor I have, conservative, liberal, or moderate, pushes their political principles on their students. Express their principles: yes. Push them: no. I’m sure you can name plenty who do because your a cynical old goat; but I’m sure far more respect their profession, institutions, and freedom of thought too much to compromise their integrity by pushing a political agenda.

Do you know why Rush Limbaugh and his listeners bash higher education? They never pursued one.

Since Fitpatrick has a Doc(Sklaroff) carrying water for him I’ll be a Doc carrying some for Pat Murphy.

Keep driving home the outsourcing of jobs issue Pat. It is very real and very effective. And we need Democratic remedies soon.

“Obamacare” was historic and we need to both protect and expand it if we wish to join the ranks of civilized nations and one which doesn’t wish to experience the meltdown of the entire US economy due to unregulated for profit health care inflation. Don’t be shamed into thinking that your vote was nothing short of historic.

And the PA8th citizens needs to recognize your national level courage and leadership in spearheading the long overdue overturning of don’t ask-don’t tell (DADT)

I be back on this blog soon

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa

Rejoinder – Part I

Inasmuch as I was just invoked, I will weigh-in; for openers, I would like to offer both TB and Dr. Lippin a free-subscription to Glenn Beck’s “Extreme” web-site inasmuch as, for example, the Thursday program [rebroadcast @ 2 a.m.] elucidated the Fabian Socialism movement powerfully…and how it informed The New Deal (and its sequellae, leading to ObamaCare).

Yes, I am full-throttle behind Mike Fitzpatrick, and you are invited to discover why, simply by reviewing the minutes of the Sunday Debate [composed in a disinterested format] that I uploaded promptly thereafter:

http://www.pa2010.com/2010/10/leftovers-mcclatchy-polls-pa-murphys-cos-to-rahm-dents-new-ad/

Pick a topic, and give me a buzz if you concur with Patrick…and I will rebut you with documentation; indeed, Mike could probably have developed each theme–time permitting–more fully.

[I'm attending a bunch of events today, starting @ 7 a.m., which you-two might wish also to "crash." The Loyal Opposition is @ the Union League (an open forum, held monthly during the pat year, for activist Republicans). Also @ the UL @ 11:30 will be Robert Spencer @ Pamela Geller (who will provide a Mosque update). And @ Temple U. @ 7 p.m. will again be Pamela Geller (who is a super-intelligent KO). Please call between events, if possible.]

This invitation is extended to anyone who still might support Patrick, for Mike is the sensitive/intellectual/moral leader of the past/present/future, unique and interactive. As many people as possible should be exposed to his eyeball-to-eyeball knowledge-base.

[--to be continued--]

Rejoinder – Part II

It would be inappropriate to provide excess detail, but suffice to say that Mike and I do NOT agree on every issue, but this observation serves only to emphasize why my motive to have “maxed-out” (financially and time-wise) is as heartfelt as can be “behaviorally” conveyed. He is great AND Patrick is deficient; this doublet simplifies decision-making.

The prior comments on this page wax philosophical (invoking AuH2O) in a fashion that would properly invoke more space that even another multi-part posting, but they also contain specifics that are worthy of note; thankfully, we have not heard expletives or extremism (such as routinely from “DD”). Even if relatively few people read this site beyond politicos, it is desirable–as far as I’m concerned–to invite people who might disagree with me to hold “ex parte” conversations. This is why I do not post under a pseudonym.

1. The headline. I have previously taken Dan to task for this loose-conduct, as I did in August when the Daily News headline characterized me as a “heckler” when I confronted Bloomberg for supporting the Imam (despite inter-alia his NY-Times letters that supported the Islamic Republic and a one-state-solution that would eliminate Israel). I spoke with the journalist who wrote the piece (while he was covering the Philly-News Bankruptcy Hearing a fortnight ago), and he disclaimed responsibility for this event (elaborating on prior e-mail exchanges). In my view, the author of an essay should maintain veto-power of what an editor/copywriter might superimpose upon his/her works, for many readers gloss-over the convent beyond the lede.

In any case, documentation of my prior efforts to evoke distilled acknowledgement of error regarding the 8th District polling (by SEIU/VV, obviously biased entities) PENDS, and Dan is still invited to refine his professional stance.

http://www.pa2010.com/2010/10/more-on-that-8th-district-poll/#comments

[--to be continued--]

Rejoinder – Part III

1. The FLAWED Headline. [continued] Having re-established my “cred” in this realm, I would simply note that the appropriate approach would best fall between what was written by Dan ["GOPers back Murphy’s reelection bid"] and the somewhat-facetious suggestion by SeaBee:

“Two obscure, nominally registered Republican d-listers, throw their meaningless support behind Murphy because he threw some pork their way, and because he actually bothered to ask, making them feel like they actually have some relevance.”

Dan, @ the very least, why not insert the word “two” to capture the sparse pickins’ [for most everyone...even in the Tea Party Movement...has endorsed Mike during recent months] from which the (relatively nonspecific) endorsements emerged?

2. The COGNIZABLE Geo-Politics. I am learning of certain regions of Bucks County that carry “histories” of progressivism and, specifically, learned of this “Upper Bucks” region @ a luncheon (with Eric Cantor) on Tuesday. I can confirm that the MontCo/Philly regions weren’t as positive for Mike in 2006 as they will be in 2010, for they have received a double-education (i.e., Patrick’s record and Mike’s platform). Although my personal input resources are second-hand, when Mike receives an FOP-endorsement (knowing that Patrick’s father is/was a policeman), I conclude that there is increasing awareness of why Mike will do well throughout the District.

3. LACK of Import of Initial Blog-Posting. There is consensus between TB ["I’m a Murphy guy all the way but come on now. Looks as if Murphy’s ppl felt they needed a headline." and SeaBee ["There are more deer in Nockamixan than registered voters."] When this phenomenon emerges, it suggests that the D’s are grasping/gasping; the news-value of this entry was only satisfied obliquely,when it provoked postings from people who generated thoughtful content.

4. PERSONAL Impact of Posting. Inasmuch as the D’s (both nationally and regionally) are as bankrupt policy-wise as they are fiscally (noting the profligate Congressional spending), one can only imagine what Patrick will be airing during the last week in October (noting his $750K media-buy on NETWORK-TV). This is one reason why I maxed-out (see candid evidence in prior postings) on multiple levels, and this is why others are invited to help-out. I have put my $$$ where my mouth is (or, in this case, my laptop keyboard), and Mike needs all the help he can get.

[--to be continued--]

Is this a Joke?

Rejoinder – Part IV

5. Efforts to OBSCURE Partisanship. TB disclaims this phenomenon, essentially viewing it as a gimme within the rough/tumble of contemporary political discourse ["Its called pragmatic politics. So what if they run against the Speaker or POTUS. If they vote for a Democrat for Speaker to give the Democrats the ability to organize the House I don’t give a rat’s ass what they say to get elected."]. Such cynicism begets revelation, and it serves to redouble efforts to “retire” Pelosi, for Patrick cannot hide his fealty to the D-agenda (past/present but, hopefully, not future), try as he might.

6. Core MISREPRESENTATION of Platform. TB writes incorrect information ["We all know that your right wing fringe candidates have to hide how far right they are to get elected. Pat Toomey wants to eliminate corporate taxes, privatize Social Security, and end abortion in cases of incest, rape, and threat to the life of the mother. There is a damn good chance he opposes the use of condoms too. I don’t see Toomey touting those positions on the campaign trail. Do you? No."]

This is a surprising error, for one would have anticipated that TB would know that it was Peg Luksik who harbored the abortion-related posture (in contrast to Toomey’s) that involved the stated-exceptions. It is this type of misrepresentation from “The Left” that provides additional reinforcement for my having redirected a lot of personal-time/resources towards Mike’s campaign; again, others are cordially invited to recognize the dangers inherent in all-things-Obama and function accordingly, even if they can’t emulate my having maxed-out.

[--to be continued--]

Rejoinder – Part V

7. Acting as the “Everyman” Public-SERVANT. Although Mike was accused during the primary (by Gloria Carlineo) of being “FitzFlop,” it is notable that Patrick has wisely not reinvoked this argument; recalling my Debate-Minutes, it may be recalled, for example, that Mike said his personal observations/experience had prompted him to evolve to a point whereby he likes term-limits.

[In my view, the need for a Constitutional Amendment would be obviated if the pension-system were abolished, for the good-guys would provide public-service without feeling the compulsion to become ensconced...and this would serve as a behavioral example to promote overall governmental pension reform.]

In any case, Patrick failed to comply with Mike’s invitation to show he could “grow” in his job, simply by citing ANY policy change (such as recognizing the existence of admittedly-faulty Environmental “science”). In any case, this electrical-silence from Patrick is deafening. And when has a 600+ local debate-audience been able to witness such non-glib, focused presentation as was provided by Mike? His adherents might have preferred he “go for the jugular,” but he simply evinced the type of patrician-seriousness that befits the federal office he so dearly merits.

8. Emphasizing CONSERVATISM over being a Republican. TB misconstrues history (through which I lived and which he has learned as a grad-student imprecisely): “When you get a particularly hard headed, or ‘principled’ Republican who actually wants to run on their wing nut beliefs they get trounced. Case in point: Barry Goldwater.”

No one would have defeated a D after the 11/22/1063 JFK Assassination. As a D until the past quarter-century–and as a Watergate-Freak–I can attest to that fact (and that my JFK-Glossy* remains on the corkboard of my childhood home to-this day(!), as it is now being disassembled).

[*-It was provided in the Sunday-Inqy, the following Sunday, and I often see it in the homes of others who personally experienced this national trauma.]

In any case, as was subsequently noted on this blog, AuH2O begat RR, and “The Conscience of a Conservative” (I still have my grandfather’s paperback) became mainstream in this “center-right” USA. This is why the “correction” that will occur on 11/2/2010 will reflect our having “righted” the floundering boat of our American Exceptionalism.

[--to be continued--]

Rejoinder – Part VI

9. REJECTION of the Rockefeller-Republican. TB again misconstrues history, via his rhetorical-question: “Since when did the PA GOP turn into a pack of rabid conservatives with principles anyway? You people nominated Arlen Specter for United States Senator 5 times. Not once. Not twice. FIVE times. You can’t blame that on Democrats either because Pennsylvania has closed primaries. Now Arlen Specter: there is a man who would say anything to get elected.”

This prompted agreement [supra], but I would caution the reader that I wrote a series of scathing anti-Specter pieces, the latter of which was published a week prior to his party-flip [for which Guzzardi and I take credit!]:

http://www.doctor-bob.biz/AA-Political%20Essays/Domestic%20Concerns/specter.htm

The key-point, here, is that anti-Specter rumblings existed in the PA-GOP, but the ultimate perspective (refocused in the Castle/McDonald race) was that party-fealty (when electing leadership, for example) prompted pitching a large tent.

This dynamic is a perennial bipartisan concern, but my metric is predicated on my abhorrence for all-things-Obama due to his ideological extremism. That is why, for this cycle, it is vital to demarcate the GOP from the effort the D’s [ALL the D's] are making to Destroy the USA (either by overt action or the silence of covert support).

This was the theme of my published-piece in this week’s Times Chronicle (attacking my local state-rep for his hypocrisy regarding Iran policy), for example. He touts his divestiture bills, even as he fails to recognize publicly that Obama is fiddling (as did Nero) while Ahmadinejad nukes-up.

[This is particularly galling because Shapiro falsely touted Obama's pro-Jewish credentials during synagogue campaign-speeches discounting, for example, his flip-flop on Jerusalem; it may be recalled that his forthright statement to AIPAC was nullified within 24 hours. As a politician and as a Jew, Shapiro positions himself to have the blood of our breathren (and sisters) on his hands...and I have explicitly given him overwhelming evidence of this existential threat--to Israel and to America--during the past two years.]

But we digress. I have fleshed-out this concern as it applied to Specter, but I have also elucidated the degree to which is is applicable to this year’s electoral concerns.

Therefore, even as we search for the Henry “Scoop” Jackson Democrat [who predictably may emerge after November, as a "tea party movement" emerges...I hope], it is reassuring that a quality set of R-candidates (Toomey, Fitzpatrick, Bogar) are available to the electorate this year.

[--to be continued--]

Rejoinder – Part VII

10. REJECTING “Smears.” TB’s educational efforts were again found to be delimited by his ideology when he wrote this [edited for grammar]: “The right wing of American politics, organized under the banner of the GOP, was devastated electorally in 2008. Instead of doing some soul searching or deep thinking about what policy agendas they should pursue and push in order to regain power they simply got angry. They’ve used huge anonymous expenditures to finance smear campaigns, launched a loosely organized fringe movement that’s morphed into an angry mob, and stoked fear of financial collapse in the electorate. That might be a great strategy to make short term political gains, but it does little to fix the economic problems and perceived social ills of the country or build long term majorities. Keep doing what you’re doing and we’ll see where the GOP is in ten years.”

Well, first of all, we must deal with the country as it now exists, lest it have changed-for-the-worst (irreparably) within a decade. TB surprisingly ignores “The Pledge to America” which is positive-assertive, even as he ignores the reasons for anger (e.g., party-line adoption of admittedly-flawed, dangerous, ObamaCare).

And any viewer of FNC/MSNBC/CNN would have to agree (as we have noted in Bucks) that the smear-approach [including the charge of racism which, thankfully, hasn't been locally manifest] is the last refuge of the D’s. They know they can’t win when ~70% of Americans reject their stands on the issues (as has been validated in some cases, such as Obama’s pledge to shut-down GitMo and noting yesterday’s setback in the Civilian trial of a self-admitted terrorist). And even the D’s recognize the mortal risks of financial collapse from profligate spending (recalling Hillary’s quote of a fortnight ago, admitting that the debt threatens national security).

So, it is hoped that the GOP will indeed integrate the fundamentals that the Tea Party Movement has brought to the fore (Constitutional Limited Government, etc.). For those whom we elect who fail to fulfill their responsibilities know they will face primary-challenges in 2010!

[--to be continued--]

Rejoinder – Part VIII

11. REJECTING Elitism. The back-and-forth regarding educational-background and political-posturing has been distilled by Rush, who decries The Ruling Class, to wit:

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/16/americas-ruling-class-and-the

Its import is enhanced by yesterday’s AP-poll that revealed the re-emergence of Reagan Democrats (with the consequent erosion of the D-base extended into multiple ethnic groups).

Therefore (because I must be abbreviative if I’m going to be @ the U.L. by 7 a.m.), just recognize that the David Horowitz conversion (from Ramparts to The New Republic) is reflective of what others should consider emulating…ASAP.

This is dramatized when intellectuals characterize the effort to enhance States’ Rights as inherently racist (as I was shocked to discover this past August @ a Sabbath-night dinner-party). That is why I write these essays, for it is hoped people such as TB will awaken to what other people are recognizing as essential truths.

[--to be continued--]

Rejoinder – Conclusion

12. Jobs/Jobs/JOBS. I have purposefully avoided discussion of political strategy in these (dozen-point) postings, so I will simply suggest that Dr. Lippin’s advice regarding outsourcing will emerge a a subterfuge if Patrick continues to invoke CAFTA to divert attention from the fundamentals of Obama’s economic policies. That Patrick avoided Town Halls is telling, and that his political postures are so inherently problematic has emerged (judging by awareness of his lagging polling).

REALLY, must get going. For those, such as Scott (supra) who suggest these postings are a “joke,” I would respectfully request cogent commentary that is provided on the high plane that I have attempted to maintain.

It is the tax policies of Big Government Liberal Democrats and Republicans which cause the outsourcing.

Even without that, the concept of diverse division of labor, and specialization, where individuals and countries do what they do best is the source of innovation and rising standard of living.

The power of Free Market for Free People has been obscured by years of Left Wing propaganda in main stream media who knows no better than Big Government.

TB:

I’m a pretty young guy actually – under 40.

You say your profs “impart their views” but do not push them? C’est impossible!

Doesn’t that run counter to the liberal orthodoxy that holds that prayer in school – no matter how un-coercively introduced – “pressures” children into religion?

But I know, as a graduate of college and post-grad studies in the 1990s, that professors do overwhelmingly indoctrinate their students into their left-wing political views.

In college, I was an English major – for a while. We studied not the classics of English lit, but Heinrich Ibsen’s “A Doll’s House”, and other feminist post-modern critique. That is indoctrination.

Liberalism has displaced culture, religion, and tradition, as the new secular theology.

The rest is commentary; now go study!

I didn’t misconstrue history. Goldwater lost. The why of Goldwater’s loss can be interpreted in multiple ways. But surely you can admit it wasn’t only because of Kennedy’s assassination or only because of Goldwater’s extremism. It was probably a combination of both.

Pledge to America doesn’t state a single specific on cutting spending. It might as well be a pledge to play beer pong in the Republican Conference room, spank fellow Members with paddles, enjoy daily golf outings at Congressional Country Club, go to nightly dinners at Charlie Palmer’s paid for by K Streeters, install tanning beds in the Speaker’s ante room, go on nightly raids of Rep. Virginia Foxx’s pantie drawer, wear cowboy boots to the Capitol, and enjoy some down home style BBQ while throwing back shots of moon shine and cartons of cigarettes. Now thats a pledge the GOP House conference can keep.

Thanks for image.

Hey Dr. Rick – how funny is it that 29 companies needed to be exempted from Obamacare (a socialist plan designed to help the little guy) so they would not be forced to dump their coverage of the little guys they employ?

In summary: The poor people need to be PROTECTED from the government program that is supposed to be their salvation! How can the libs do anything but hang their heads in shame?

Nine part rejoinder in one day from Dr Sklaroff!-

Thanks for your activism and prolific writing although we fundamentally disagree on much/most.

Apathy on either side is the real enemy of the people. So I applaud you,Dr Sklaroff,for being anything but apathetic.

For me politically it boils down to fundamental issues of fairness – a basic principle that got away from PA 8th as part on our entire nation over the past 30 years (Reagan-Bush1-Clinton-Bush2). We deified the unfettered free global market thus both bringing our nation to the economic brink and practically destroying our middle class – the latter sowing the seeds of a failed nation in many ways.

Pat Murphy understands this basic principle of fairness. Mr Fitzpatrick does not.

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa

The dismissiveness of the replies is extraordinary.

Without dipping into more prolific responses in this environment, the action-items contained in both my initial/hyperlinked comments were left unaddressed.

Instead, broad-brush comments were provided, and what is most surprising is the fact that they aren’t tethered to documentation; for example, the predictable increase in healthcare costs under ObamaCare has contradicted multiple reassurances (plus, of course, the switcheroo regarding whether it is/isn’t a tax).

To the Doctor: Is it “fair” to force people to purchase a private product/service?

To TB: Is it not sufficiently “specific” for the GOP to have foresworn ALL earmarks, targeting a return to “2008″-level spending?

To both of you: Do you agree that the headline overstated the contents of the actual essay?

And one more loose-end: Regarding “DADT”: Is it not preferable to await the pending input of the military before foisting an outcome upon it?

No need to ever change DADT. The military is not a lab for social engineering.

The story is a non-starter with me. Title deceptive: possibly.

Dr Sklaroff-

There is extensive documentation by independent non-partisan economic organizations that Obamacare will become revenue neutral by 2020 and revenue positive beyond. Yes-there ARE upfront short term costs.

Of all the OECD nations the US, Turkey and Mexico stand as three nations the do NOT provide some form of universal coverage for all of its citizens.

Insurance companies should be not for profit and, yes, every American should be required to have health insurance.

Because, Dr Sklaroff , as you well know, the alternative is the current budget busting scenario of very high cost “free” emergency care for the current 50 million uninsured Americans. Unless you are proposing, Dr Sklaroff that we lock these US emergency room doors?

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa

Please folks – “Don’t Ask- Don’t Tell” has long outlived the current social reality of both the US military and the US cultural landscape

Homophobia is dead as an issue by the vast majority of Americans on both sides of the aisle

Pat Murphy has brought positive historic national notarity to our PA-8th by taking the lead on this issue

Murphy dererves are praise and our votes for many reasons

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa

Regarding Former Riegelsville Borough Mayor Tood Myers’ statement: “Whether it’s assistance for flood prone communities or support for police and first responders, Patrick Murphy has worked tirelessly on behalf of Bucks County families,” Myers said.” We do know that Murphy abetted irresponsible behavior of 2 guys in Newtown who bought a house, known to be highly flood prone, to get $425,000.00 in tax payer money to raise their house on top of submitting $800,000.00 in claims to the national flood insurance. Here is my narrative when I confronted Murphy back in May about this: I brought up that story of him helping those guys in Solebury to get $ 425,000.00 to have their house raised up to keep it from flooding. Background: These guys bought their house on the river in 2003 for $550,000.00 knowing it’s at great risk. They were flooded in 2004, 2005 and 2006 and put in claims totaling $800,000.00. Murphy said that they paid for flood insurance (at first he said $2700.00 a month, but I corrected him, that was the annual premium), and I said that’s great, so over 8 years they paid in around $25,000.00 and get $800,000.00. He said that the flood insurance is private, paid through premiums and backed by the government. I said yes, but premiums don’t pay all of the claims and tax dollars are expended.

I said that it was ludicrous that these guys, who were well aware of what they were getting themselves into, now getting even more of our money to pay for their irresponsible behavior. He is quoted in the paper as saying that this is analogous to the GI Bill, “paying up front to void paying more later”. I asked him how he could equate the GI Bill with bailing these guys out. I said that as a Vet, he knew the GI Bill was a reward for honorable service and sacrifice for the country, and I said these guys didn’t sacrifice anything. They wouldn’t even “sacrifice” their view, and now they want a hand out.
He launched into a thing about his support for the expansion of the GI Bill…yadda…yadda… and I said that’s great, but how could this bail out, rewarding irresponsible behavior, be analogous to the GI Bill. Never got a straight answer!

Doc Lippin:

You once again have illustrated, with stark candor, the motive of liberal democrats.

You say “Don’t Ask- Don’t Tell” has long outlived the current social reality of both the US military and the US cultural landscape.”

Exactly, getting rid of DADT is social engineering.

The military’s mission is fighting and winning in combat. That’s it. Modifying DADT is unwarranted and dangerous tinkering with this critical American institution.

And please….Don’t compare gay rights to desegregation and racial discrimination. Many people of color in this nation take offense to that comparison.

I’ve also noticed that the majority of people vocally advocating for the dismantlement of this policy, either; 1) have not ever served, 2)served in a marginal capacity with a spotty record, or 3) are democratic appointees who do not agree with eliminating DADT but due to political considerations, mouth support for it through gritted teeth.

Also many of the people passionately advocating for changing DADT are the same people who vomit forth the new/old chestnut, “I support the troops, but I don’t support the war.”

To summarize interim-comments:

1. Murphy-boosters are cordially invited to critique the vignette/responsa as related by Dot; in my view, it seems Murphy is trying to hide behind all-things-military to defend all-things-Obama…no matter how strained [to a disinterested audience] the metaphor he must conjure.

2. Murphy-boosters endorse social-engineering (regardless of other pro-/anti-military attitudes) without recognizing that Murphy would undermine an ONGOING investigation of this particular issue by the MILITARY, which is focused on maximizing readiness; thus, they must explain-away his having pulled-out-the-rug prematurely by advocating ANY specific policy.

3. Regarding the headline, TB “possibly” concurs it was incomplete/misleading, but the good-doctor remains silent; he is invited to weigh-in and, perhaps, Dan will get-the-message (applicable to future conduct affecting both R/D-adherents).

4. Regarding the $$$ of ObamaCare, the good-doctor writes ["Yes-there ARE upfront short term costs."] information that was NOT divulged prior to its approval; might Murphy-adherents ID any such fundamental advance-knowledge that was conveyed by the D’s [recalling the specific claim that Murphy would not support anything that wasn't revenue-neutral]?

5. More on ObamaCare: The broad-brush claim regarding its long-term impact ["There is extensive documentation by independent non-partisan economic organizations that Obamacare will become revenue neutral by 2020"] is necessarily accompanied by multiple subsequent statements (starting with the CBO) that all conclusions are in-operative due to the implausibility of assumptions forced upon the accountants by the Administration; furthermore, this week, it was revealed that the Administration itself has failed to meet self-imposed deadlines. Let’s hear the ideological/practical defense of THESE facts, Murphy-ites!

6. The pivotal non-sequitur ["Insurance companies should be not for profit and, yes, every American should be required to have health insurance."] reveals the ideological underpinnings of this effort which most Americans abhor (via repeated polls, notwithstanding swiss-cheese pronouncements by Clinton-era judicial-appointees); regardless of what occurs elsewhere in the world, Murphy-ites are invited to address this query: “WHERE is the Constitutional justification for Congress to impose a mandate on an individual that he/she purchase a private product/service?”

7. Demagoguery emerges when a bipolar boogey-man pronouncement emerges ["the alternative is the current budget busting scenario of very high cost 'free' emergency care for the current 50 million uninsured Americans. Unless you are proposing, Dr. Sklaroff that we lock these US emergency room doors?"]. First of all, you include the Illegals and it would be desirable were they to be treated emergently and then deported; do you concur? Second, you forget that ER-care (and sequellae, following triage) costs far less than covering everyone 100% in that category (which includes people who choose not to buy anything, and those between jobs); do you not recognize the danger of attempting to satisfy unlimited demand with limited supply?

Dr Sklaroff-

Please check the data in publications of The Commonwealth Fund,The Center for American Progress and the Henry J. Kaiser Foundation on why some of your economic arguments against Obama’s ACA(Affordability Care Act)(now law) are fundamentally flawed.

For international comparisons of how terribly we in the US stack up against other nations by spending more(by far)and getting less(by far)see http://www.oecd.org/health/healthdata

Do you really believe that the fundamental driver of unsustainable US health care cost inflation are illegal immigrants? If so shame on you. If not, why are spending so much and getting so little in return? Be specific thanks.

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa

Dr.Sklaroff-

MEDICARE and THE VA HEALTHCARE SYSTEM are two US federally run health care system.Many believe that they are both working reasonably well.

I’d like to hear what both you and Mike Fitzpatrick believe about the value of these what you might call “socialistic” health care programs?

I look foward to hearing from you

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa

Dear Dr.:

You are invited to provide the specific quotes from the organizations you cite, for I’m certain (for example) that the Commonwealth Foundation has generated tons of data that can be used to show that ObamaCare is a fiscal nightmare.

I reference the Illegals to illustrate the fact that the “uninsured” entity is heterogeneous; as is true with the specifics that I distilled–and that you sidestepped–the multiple flaws in the D-argument constitute definitive-conclusions regarding current political rhetoric.

Other countries don’t have our Constitution, which does not empower Congress to force everyone to buy a private product/service.

Obama is creating an entitlement-society in which, already, there are more people getting benefits than are financing them; this is scary.

The problems with Medicare/VA (cost/quality) are myriad and should not be reflexly reaffirmed; to whatever degree there are problems with private insurers, the existence of competition allows for people to “vote with their feet” and link performance with fate.

Therefore, tick-off the above-distilled points and reply to each ALL-CAPS phrase (@ the very least) plus the aforementioned, and let’s see what emerges….

Addendum:

Rory Reid, Harry Reid’s son who is running for Governor in Nevada, openly admitted on video that costs would indeed go up under Obamacare.

Liberty.com’s Jessica Cybulski taped a special news report documenting the statement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDUr3lbmCH4

Dr. Sklaroff-

To state that Obama has “created an entitlement society” is in stark contrast to the very well documented realities of the still huge income gap between the economic classes in America,the rates of home forclosures,and the still 50 million health uninsured Americans until ObamaCare begins to kick in.

You haven’t answered my question on if you would do away with or privatize Medicare or the VA health care systems.

I specifically reference the VA because Pat Murphy has done so much for our nation’s veterens

Be Well

Dr.Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa

i guess a choice exists, inasmuch as you ignore my questions and my answers to your questions.

for example, i already attacked the “50 million gambit” by showing how it should be parsed-out, and you neglected to clarify whether the one isolated example chosen (deporting illegals rather than providing them non-emergency care) is acceptable.

furthermore, i provided documentation for my attack on $$$-ObamaCare, even as you pivoted to Medicare/VA (after the necessity to privatize monopolies to address cost/quality issues had been specifically raised).

again, note the ALL-CAP points supra and deign to counter my arguments…assuming you are able to do so.

either you will rectify this deafening-electrical-silence problem, or this public exchange will cease.

BTW, the %-age of poor under Obama has risen…along with his stimulus-$$$ payments to the dead/incarcerated.