Skip to comments.Stop Obamneycare (email from Fred Thompson)
Posted on 02/01/2012 9:23:12 AM PST by newgeezer
The greatest fear I have for my country is that its current leaders have forsaken freedom and opportunity and instead have us on a path of debt, dependency division and decline. One of the darkest examples of this is ObamaCare.
The next President of the United States must make it a priority to repeal ObamaCare and its taxes, its cuts to Medicare, its requirements, subsidies, and health care exchanges. Only a full repeal can reverse the damage this monstrous new government program will cause.
If we are going to repeal ObamaCare, we need to nominate someone who we know will make it a priority. Mitt Romney is not that candidate. RomneyCare is nearly identical to ObamaCare in every significant way. Beyond just the individual mandate, both plans implement price controls, create new government bureaucracies, and make large cuts to other healthcare programs.
As conservatives, we simply cannot afford to nominate the man who built the model for Obamney Care. That is why we are launching a $1 million Stop ObamneyCare Money Bomb. Newt Gingrich is the candidate who will put this country back on the path to freedom and opportunity, will give voice to the concerns and frustrations of the American people, and will make it a priority to repeal Obamney Care.
If you believe, as I do, that repealing Obamney Care should be job #1 for our nominee, and if you believe that Newt Gingrich is the best candidate to do just that, then make a donation today to the Stop ObamneyCare Money Bomb.
With the support of great Americans like you, we can not only nominate Speaker Gingrich and repeal ObamneyCare, but we can rebuild the America we love.
Got this too. I’ll send some funds.
RINOs love it. Democrats love it. More government, more influence, more corruption.
I fear Jim Quinn is right. The GOP doesn’t want the White House. They want Obama re-elected with GOP control of Congress so that the GOP can continue to fill it’s coffers and take care of benefactors. With Obama in the White House, the GOP has cover for not overturning Obamacare.
Fred Thompson Promotes National Popular Vote Initiative In Harrisburg
CBS Philadelphia ^ | October 5th, 2011 | Tony Romeo
Posted on January 30, 2012 12:06:46 PM AST by Halfmanhalfamazing
HARRISBURG, Pa. (CBS) - The state capitol was the scene of two events promoting distinctly different ways of changing the way Pennsylvanias presidential electoral votes are awarded.
Actor and former Senator and former Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson is part of a bi-partisan effort to create a compact agreement among states to award all of their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, no matter who wins the state vote for president.
Is there an intrade line for whether Obama will propose a new Constitutional convention?
Thanks. If I was ever aware of that, I’d forgotten about it.
Fred flies the finger at the Founders. Very disappointing.
He seems to be all over the map adhering to enlightenment principles of natural law sometimes and other times not.
I`m beginning to think he is still philosophically and ideologically immature .
We must stop Obamneycare.
Dear Fred Thompson:
Knock off your support of the Popular Vote initiative, and I might consider anything else you have to say. Until then, sod off.
FEBRUARY 1, 2012:
In March 2006 I was diagnosed with stage four colon and liver cancer, and over the next nine months I visited countless doctors, got second opinions, had surgery, and went through numerous rounds of chemotherapy. My doctors told me that I was able to beat cancer because I got the treatment I needed as quickly as I did. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if ObamaCare had been in place, I would not have survived!
I did not have time for a bureaucrat in Washington to review my health records and approve what amount of care I was eligible to receive. The doctors needed to move quickly, and thank God they didn’t have to cut through red tape to do it.
Repealing this monstrosity of a government program must be the top priority of our next President, and we need to nominate someone who has credibility on the issue.
Again, ObamaCare must be repealed, and to do that we have to nominate Newt Gingrich. We’re kicking off a $1 million Stop ObamaCare Money Bomb, and I’m asking you to be a part of it. By making a donation today, you can help nominate the man who will make sure ObamaCare is taken off the books.
America can’t afford ObamaCare, can’t afford Barack Obama, and can’t afford not to nominate Newt Gingrich
Also Herman Cain.
That's quite similar to the response I sent.
Send an email back to Fred and tell him I want my 100 bucks back from 2008...
Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.
National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don’t matter to their candidate.
Most Americans don’t care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state. . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was directly and equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it’s wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don’t allow this in any other election in our representative republic.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). A Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. Support is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground States: Colorado— 68%, Florida 78%, Iowa —75%, Michigan— 73%, Missouri— 70%, New Hampshire— 69%, Nevada— 72%, New Mexico— 76%, North Carolina— 74%, Ohio— 70%, Pennsylvania — 78%, Virginia — 74%, and Wisconsin — 71%; in Small States (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska — 70%, DC — 76%, Delaware —75%, Idaho 77%, Maine — 77%, Montana 72%, Nebraska — 74%, New Hampshire —69%, Nevada — 72%, New Mexico — 76%, Oklahoma 81%, Rhode Island — 74%, South Dakota 71%, Utah - 70%, Vermont — 75%, and West Virginia 81%, and Wyoming 69%; in Southern and Border states: Arkansas —80%, Kentucky — 80%, Mississippi —77%, Missouri — 70%, North Carolina — 74%, Oklahoma 81%, South Carolina 71%, Tennessee — 83%, Virginia — 74%, and West Virginia 81%; and in other states polled: California — 70%, Connecticut — 74%,, Massachusetts — 73%, Minnesota — 75%, New York — 79%, Oregon 76%, and Washington — 77%.
The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.
The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, were eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.
Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution— “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”
The constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected.
States have the responsibility and power to make their voters relevant in every presidential election. The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.
In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 33870 margin. It was endorsed by Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, George H.W. Bush, and Bob Dole.
Jason Cabel Roe, a lifelong conservative activist and professional political consultant wrote in National Popular Vote is Good for Republicans: “I strongly support National Popular Vote. It is good for Republicans, it is good for conservatives . . . , and it is good for America. National Popular Vote is not a grand conspiracy hatched by the Left to manipulate the election outcome.
It is a bipartisan effort of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents to allow every state and every voter to have a say in the selection of our President, and not just the 15 Battle Ground States.
National Popular Vote is not a change that can be easily explained, nor the ramifications thought through in sound bites. It takes a keen political mind to understand just how much it can help . . . Republicans. . . . Opponents either have a knee-jerk reaction to the idea or dont fully understand it. . . . We believe that the more exposure and discussion the reform has the more support that will build for it.”
Former Illinois Governor Jim Edgar (R), and former U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO) are co-champions of National Popular Vote.
National Popular Vote’s National Advisory Board includes former Senators Jake Garn (RUT), and David Durenberger (RMN) and former congressmen John Anderson (RIL, I), John Buchanan (RAL), and Tom Campbell (RCA).
Saul Anuzis, former Chairman of the Michigan Republican Party for five years and a former candidate for chairman of the Republican National Committee, supports the National Popular Vote plan as the fairest way to make sure every vote matters, and also as a way to help Conservative Republican candidates. This is not a partisan issue and the NPV plan would not help either party over the other.
Rich Bolen, a Constitutional scholar, attorney at law, and Republican Party Chairman for Lexington County, South Carolina, wrote:”A Conservative Case for National Popular Vote: Why I support a state-based plan to reform the Electoral College.”
Some other supporters who wrote forewords to “Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote “ http://www.every-vote-equal.com/ include:
Laura Brod served in the Minnesota House of Representatives from 2003 to 2010 and was the ranking Republican member of the Tax Committee. She is the Minnesota Public Sector Chair for ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) and active in the Council of State Governments.
James Brulte served as Republican Leader of the California State Assembly from 1992 to 1996, California State Senator from 1996 to 2004, and Senate Republican leader from 2000 to 2004.
Ray Haynes served as the National Chairman of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in 2000. He served in the California State Senate from 1994 to 2002 and was elected to the Assembly in 1992 and 2002
Dean Murray is a member of the New York State Assembly. He was a Tea Party organizer before being elected to the Assembly as a Republican, Conservative Party member in February 2010. He was described by Fox News as the first Tea Party candidate elected to office in the United States.
Thomas L. Pearce served as a Michigan State Representative from 20052010 and was appointed Dean of the Republican Caucus. He has led several faith-based initiatives in Lansing.
In a recent Gallup poll, support for a national popular vote, by political affiliation, is now:
53% among Republicans, 61% among Independents, and 71% among Democrats.
It is a load of CRAP.
Our founders developed a very good system to ensure that political representation was not based on concentrations in population - and the Popular vote initiative would make sure presidential elections decided by the major population centers on the coasts, leaving most of the rest of the country meaningless.
mvymvy is a lying scumbag troll who has never posted anything other than his prewritten crap. Look at his posting history.
If you pick out a key phrase and put it in a search engine, you’ll find that he (and likely others) posts word for word the exact same crap all over the internet.
Remember Ellie light? Nothing but paid seminar posting scum.
Yes, of course. And, any States which adopt the measure touted by Thompson et. al. will be joining them in giving the finger to the Founders by removing one of the few remaining pillars of Federalism.
Deciding how to award electoral votes is an exclusive state power!
The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, in 2012 will not reach out to about 76% of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.
More than 2/3rds of the states and people have been just spectators to the presidential elections. That’s more than 85 million voters.
Policies important to the citizens of flyover states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to battleground states when it comes to governing.
States have the responsibility and power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond.
Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution— “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”
Federalism concerns the allocation of power between state governments and the national government. The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).
Make "all" of their voters relevant? Impossible. But, that Popular Vote Initiative b*llsh*t effectively makes FEW OR NONE of their voters relevant by saying NO MATTER how OUR state votes, we pledge to cast our Electoral College votes however the rest of the country says we should.
With National Popular Vote, every vote from every state would be politically relevant to the candidates, and included equally in the national popular vote total that determines the presidency. Each state’s votes would be part of the national vote.
National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don’t matter to their candidate. Minority party voters in each state will have an incentive to vote.
Majority party votes in every state will not be wasted.
Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004 — larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of Californias population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659). As just some examples, Texas wasted 1,691,267 Republican votes, Georgia wasted 544,634 Republican votes, North Carolina wasted 426,778 Republican votes.
Interesting, some of the non-establishment GOP are really stepping up to the plate for Gingrich.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.