Rasmussen: Conservative Anger Against Obamacare Hitting 'Stratospheric Levels'

Newsmax ^ | 7/2/12 | Paul Scicchitano and Kathleen Walter

[Nachum]

Conservative interest in the presidential election hit “stratospheric levels” following last week’s Supreme Court ruling upholding Obamacare, noted pollster and author Scott Rasmussen tells Newsmax.TV.

“All that did was energize conservatives,” declared Rasmussen in an exclusive interview on Monday. “The conservative interest in the election was already much higher than that of moderates and liberals. It went up to really stratospheric levels right after the ruling. We don’t know if that will continue or if it’s just a temporary response to the news cycle.”

[marygonzo]

I’m going to vote my conscience and stay home. You want more illegals here? You want socialized medicine here? you want the “doctrine of preemption” for the Chinese and Iranians? Go ahead and vote for the SOB.

[running_dog_lackey]

-—I’m going to vote my conscience and stay home. You want more illegals here? You want socialized medicine here? you want the “doctrine of preemption” for the Chinese and Iranians? Go ahead and vote for the SOB.-—
If you’re going to stay home then you must want all those things too.

[HeartlandOfAmerica]

ObamaCare was bad enough, but now Roberts and the four liberals have held that Congress may, in direct contravention of the text of the Constitution, impose a DIRECT TAX on any group of people they don’t like, in particular, people who don’t carry health insurance.

I don't get something here. Virtually nobody in FR had any kind of problem at all when the feds and states started directly taxing smokers to their i-teeth to make them stop.

Why the sudden fury that the govt is going to directly tax people to modify their behavior for other causes?

We kept telling you all that if they could do it to us, they'll find reasons to do it to the rest of you eventually as well. But would anyone listen? nooooooooo

Welcome to the party pals!

[SueRae]

Yep..pretty much sums it up. I even changed my tagline to suit Thursday’s debacle from SCOTUS.

[Rome2000]

The domestic commies will reap what they have sewn.

[rwfromkansas]

Plus the Bush tax cuts will go away as well.

I am just a teacher, but looking at next year, I will be paying at least $150 more a month in taxes next year due to Obamacare and that.

[marygonzo]

there is not 10 cents difference in these two POC.

[Alas Babylon!]

Yup! I was diagnosed with Diabetes type 1 while in the USAF two years before I was retired and way under my weight limit. I guess dioxin was actually more than a defoliant!

[Resettozero]

Please, don’t stay home. Conservative candidates need your votes.

[I am Richard Brandon]

"Obesity=diabetes=heart problems=knee replacements=hip replacements=etc, etc. Drug addiction=liver transplant=etc, etc."

But the point is that all those folks with those problems have 'free stuff'; now and will be VERY UNWILLING to lose. Ergo, they will vote for Bam.

[Safrguns]

Voting Obama out of office is too good for him.

I would rather see him re-elected so we can prosecute him for fraud and reverse every damn thing he ever did as president.

If we can’t handle that simple task, then this country is truly over... not because of the liberals, but rather because of the RINOs we have allowed to infiltrate the GOP.

Get them out, Impeach Roberts, and Arrest OBOZO!

[Fightin Whitey]

They tax you (unfairly to my mind) because you smoke.

What are they taxing me for?

[Biggirl]

Same here. I was never a supporter of Romney, but he is the GOP front runner. With what has happened last week, the USA is in BIG TIME TROUBLE. Third party will just simply help get Obama back in. It is time to throw the bum out of the White House.

[Meet the New Boss]

Hey, I’m not in favor of confiscatory taxation against smokers or drinkers or anyone else.

But there is a constitutional issue. The Constitution allows the federal government to impose excise taxes. So yes, they have the constitutional power to tax you when you buy a pack of cigarettes or a gallon of gasoline.

But they don’t have the power under the Constitution to tax you for not doing something, for just existing (unless the tax is apportioned).

It’s not the fact that the government attempts to modify behavior.

It’s that before, at least the citizen had to actually DO something to be taxed. If you buy a pack of cigarettes, then you pay a tax. If you buy a pack of cigarettes, you owe a dollar.

Now the government claims the right to tax you for NOT doing something. They now have the right to tax you for NOT buying a pack of cigarettes if they wish. If you do NOT buy a pack of cigarettes, you owe a dollar.

Which is of course unconstitutional except in the Roberts in Wonderland world of constitutional law.

[RitaOK]

If it’s any consolation, those who can and will must resist. In business and at home, wherever we can. Don’t reward tyranny with your money, your vote, your compliance, or your cooperation. Shop with resistance or don’t shop, stand up, speak out where you can.

The Republicans lack of resistance made them culpable and they did this Romney thing against us to pay off old debt, and because remember they didn’t believe he could win against Obamao.

[Lysandru]

Well, I don't want to seem like I am poking fun at Mr. Rasmussen, but this is really a "Master of the Obvious" conclusion, isn't it?

What I do disagree with him is on the following points:

(1) I don't think that there will be more than 6 House Democrats who defect over health care.

(2) If the Democrats win back total control of Congress and the White House--they still won't majorly peel back "Obamdoesntcare" (hat tip to Herman Cain for that one).

[sand88]

You don’t know these things will happen as you say. I have to disassociate myself from posters such as yourself who are acting as judge and jury of Roberts before the storylines play out

I have listened to Mark Levin's show the past three days (Thursday, Friday, today). If you have time please download and listen to his show from the above days.

Mark is a Constitutional expert. He stated that there is no silver-lining to this ruling. He stated that this ruling will set a very damaging precedent that cannot be overturned by statute.

We must all ask ourselves, when has a large Federal program been shut down?

We must ask ourselves when has the government willingly given up power and control?

Do we really expect that these Obamacare bureaucracies that are being implemented on a daily basis to suddenly be shut down?

The reality is that it will be nearly impossible to have Obamacare completely thrown out. I am not a fatalist, I am a realist.

I believe the Federal government has grown to such a monster that the only realistic way out is either through a full collapse (no one wants) or through action by the several States to take a coordinated action and dissolve the Federal government and restore our Constitution Republic. (of course, the odds of that happening is 1 in 10e14).

My reading of history tells me that the solution lies in the States taking coordinated action to bring the Federal government down to size. I can't site an example in history whereby a national government legislated itself from socialism back towards a limited size.

As Jefferson said in 1788, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground."

[jacquej]

That can be fixed. People can take their money out of the banks - but then I suppose we will be taxed for not having our money in the banks.

:::Sigh:::

[tallyhoe]

I’m so mad I could eat nails!!!

[TheShaz]

Same here. I was never a supporter of Romney, but he is the GOP front runner.

To be honest I am pretty happy how Mitts has run his campaign in the last month. Mitt's people are fast on the trigger going after Obama. Before the Supreme Court decision debacle, when Obama was getting bad news almost daily about the economy, or made speech errors. Mitt's Campaign was right on his case, on the attack. Something we never saw out of McLame.