Ron Paul Fans: Here Is Why The Media Lost Interest In Your Candidate

Ron Paul Fans: Here Is Why The Media Lost Interest In Your Candidate

Ron Paul has been consistently polling 3rd in the early Republican primary states. And yet, as the Paul-fans in our comments section constantly remind us, Ron Paul doesn't get respect from the media. Why is that?

There are a few minor reasons:

In 2008, Ron Paul seemed totally new, a huge contrast to the party discipline that had characterized the GOP under Bush.

His money-bombs were a big story four years ago. Less so now. The media has reported that he has a core of super-dedicated followers.

 

And while Ron Paul has been holding steady in the polls, he hasn't ever threatened to become a front-runner. He's never polled at 25 percent nationally, or in any of the early states.

But here's the big reason why the media has lost interest in Ron Paul: He has already won. He has changed our politics.

Don't believe it?

In 2008 Paul was the only Republican candidate talking about the Fed.

Now Fed-bashing has entered into the bloodstream of conservatism. We've seen it in this campaign Rick Perry to Michelle Bachman.

In 2008, every Republican but Ron Paul was outdoing each other in making bombastic threats to foreign nations, doubling down on the Bush legacy of pre-emptive war.

Now the other candidates are routinely questioning why America needed to bomb Libya. GOP hopefuls like Jon Huntsman are telling their audiences that "only Pakistan can save Pakistan" and preaching against having so many entanglements.

Of course none of these other candidates have staked out positions on foreign policy and the Fed that are as strictly principled as Ron Paul's - but clearly Paul's campaign has shifted the consensus in the party.

That means he no longer clashes with the party in the same way as he once did. Hence, less media coverage. Conflict drives media coverage.

If Ron Paul's fans want him to win a lot more media coverage- he needs to break through what people perceive as his ceiling of 14-17 percent. If you want him to really shake up the political-media world, take him to victory in Iowa's caucuses.

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-11-01/politics/30344876_1_michelle-bachman-ron-paul-fans-gop-hopefuls#ixzz1e8Ey2g5D

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Another Example of Bozo

Why Ron Paul is evil…

From a discussion started at Political Carnival:

I'm not sure what Ron Paul says here in this transcript that bothers so many people. Seems relatively rational - not that you have to agree with it, but I don't see anything evil or stupid.

Yes, he is an artist at evading serious questions in ways that make people forget that there was ever a serious question. He got you…

The serious question, re-stated: How should a free-market health care system deal with the unavoidable cases where people require care to live for which they cannot pay directly and for which they are not insured?

Ron Paul tried to evade this question 3 times in the transcript that you quoted before Blitzer stopped calling him on his non-answering schtick. The closest he came to an answer was this:

Our neighbors, our friends, our churches would do it.

Despite his charming anecdote about his own work at one hospital before Medicaid, the hard evidence tells us that this model was a failure. We have a law prohibiting hospitals from turning away emergency patients because hospitals *WERE* turning away emergency patients because they could not pay. Ron Paul's proposed solution was a proven failure decades ago. He is not an idiot and he is a physician, so surely he knows that. He takes advantage of the fact that a lot of people don't think much about policy and a lot of people don't bother to even learn objective historical facts, so his vague proposals that are radically different from current policy seem reasonable to them. The fact that we know with absolute certainty based on historical evidence that charity, family, and social connections will not finance unanticipated and uninsured need for care is not particularly relevant because Ron Paul's supporters don't bother looking at the actual historical record. They assume that Ron Paul would not lie to them about verifiable historical facts, but actually he does so on a regular basis. It seems to be a conscious tactical choice, and it seems to work. It worked on you.

As a matter of verifiable fact, to this day people are routinely refused non-urgent care because they can't pay. Anyone can get care when close enough to death to require emergency care, but people who are not on the verge of death and can't pay don't get the care necessary to avoid emergency need. For example: an insulin-dependent diabetic has to pay for his own insulin, but if he ends up in a diabetic coma he can get insulin in an ER whether or not he has a means to pay for it. Of course, someone in a diabetic coma needs to have someone who gets them to an ER in time to get that free insulin. More relevant to the question Ron Paul tried to dodge, we have a mechanism in place by which the federal government ends up covering much of the costs of otherwise uncompensated health care, with the rest being covered by spreading costs among everyone with insurance. The current system is far from perfect, but the bottom line is that everyone who pays federal taxes or who pays directly or indirectly for health care in hospitals that participate in federal health programs (i.e. essentially everyone) shares in covering the cost of emergency and essential post-emergency health care for people without formal insurance. Ron Paul seems to think that we need to change that by reverting to the past system that made it seem necessary to upgrade to the current imperfect system, but he offers nothing to support the idea that the current system is actually worse than what it replaced.

FWIW, future replies will be seen at http://grumpybozo.tumblr.com/ since this is getting to be a bit much for a comment thread…

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Newt 2012!

\, Speaker Gingrich has surged to the top of the field of Republican presidential candidates, not only because he's the most knowledgeable and experienced candidate for the office, but also because he has no qualms about standing up to the liberal media. That unflinching conservatism has resonated with voters, and we're seeing support for Newt grow more with each poll. In fact, we got our most exciting news of the campaign when yesterday's Rasmussen poll showed Speaker Gingrich with a 13-point lead in Iowa! Newt believes it is absolutely necessary for presidential candidates to be thoroughly vetted and he is committed to answering questions from the American people openly and honestly.  But there's obviously no love lost between Newt and the media. He's corrected their handpicked moderators at the debates, called them out for "gotcha questions," and even highlighted their blatant pro-Obama bias. We know that they'll try to twist his words and record. As we get closer to the Iowa caucuses, we're going to see these media attacks become more vicious, and we must be prepared to continue to stand up to those attacks! This is where the rubber meets the road. We've seen a number of candidates rise to the top of the polls only to be torn down by the media, but this campaign is different. We're building up our grassroots infrastructure in the early primary states where retail politics is incredibly important. We've rolled out an aggressive online ad campaign, geographically targeting those same early primary states. And, most importantly, Speaker Gingrich is going to continue to stand up to the liberal media. We will not allow President Obama's allies to dictate the terms of this campaign - it's the voters who will decide who gets to take on Obama for the office of President of the United States. We know that our strategy will work, but it relies on the support of patriots like you. Newt's rise to the top has been fueled by your generous support, and winning this nomination won't be possible without your continued generosity. Please help Speaker Gingrich beat back the attacks from the liberal media by making a donation today. Thank You, Michael Krull Newt 2012 Campaign Manager   To Donate By Mail Please Send Checks To: Newt 2012 Post Office Box 550769 Atlanta, GA 30355 UPCOMING EVENTS Callista signs books at Hooray For Kids Bookstore Saturday, November 19, 2011 -- 2:00 pm Hooray for Kids 1555 King Street Alexandria, VA 22314 Free and open to the public Newt participates in The Family Leader's Thanksgiving Family Forum Saturday, November 19, 2011 -- 4-6:00pm ET First Federated Church Des Moines, Iowa Click here for tickets and more info Newt speaks at Rivier College Monday, November 21 2011 -- 9am ET Dion Center Reception Room 420 S. Main Street Nashua, NH 03060 Free and open to the public. Doors open at 8am. Newt unveils his plan to reform federal entitlement programs at St. Anselm College Monday, November 21 2011 -- 12:30pm ET Institute of Politics 100 St. Anselm College Manchester, NH Free and open to the public. Newt participates in the AEI/Heritage Foreign Policy Debate Tuesday, November 22 2011 DAR Constitution Hall Host a debate watch party Newt holds a townhall in Naples, FL Friday, November 25, 2011 -- 5:00pm ET Naples Daily News Community Room 1100 Immokalee Rd Naples, FL 34110 Note: Newt and Callista will sign books following the townhall. Free and open to the public. Newt and Callista sign books at Books-A-Million in Naples, FL Saturday, November 26, 2011 --11:00 am ET Books-A-Million 9100 Strada Place Naples, FL 34108 Free and open to the public Newt particpates in Congressman Tim Scott's First in the South Presidential Townhall Monday, November 28, 2011 --7:00 pm ET College of Charleston Sottile Theatre 44 George Street Charleston, SC Note: Newt and Callista will sign books following the townhall. Free and open to the public. Contributions to Newt 2012 are not tax deductible for federal income tax purposes. The maximum an individual may contribute to Newt 2012 is $2,500 for the primary election and an additional $2,500 for the general election. Couples may contribute up to $5,000 for each election; joint contributions require the signature of both spouses. Federal multicandidate PACs may contribute up to $5,000 for each election. By submitting your contribution, you agree that the first $2,500 of a contribution will be designated for the 2012 election, and any additional amount, up to $2,500 will be designated for the 2012 general election. Contributions from corporations, foreign nationals, and federal government contractors are prohibited. Contributions must be made from personal funds and may not be reimbursed by any other person. Federal law requires us to use our best efforts to obtain and report the name, mailing address, occupation, and name of employer for each individual whose contributions aggregate in excess of $200 in an election cycle. Paid for by Newt 2012 This message was sent to keith.eidson@gte.net by campaign@newt.org Make sure to add campaign@newtgingrichforpresident.org to your safe senders list to ensure delivery to your inbox. Unsubscribe

 

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Ron Paul - Crazyass Bozo

Ron Paul - Crazyass Bozo

Back during the primaries, I went toe-to-toe with a number of Paulites. They didn't much like anyone who exposed the ties and true nature of their candidate. They were pretty well-known for their internet bullying and spamming of blogs and forums. Well, Ron Paul is still hanging around and still making an ass out of himself. There are a few left-over supporters who just can't wrap their mind around the fact that no one really wants to revist the Constitutional Convention or life on the plantation. So...when something like this comes along, I just have to share it.


Crazyass Bozo Ron Paul has been given a free ride by the media for far too long. It is about time someone somewhere popped up to give this creepy crawler a slap upside his pointy little head.

Republican Congressman and Mad Max Looneytarian Ron Paul - who lives down the street a piece here in Dumbutt, Texas - is as bad as it gets in politics.

It is not only his desire to eliminate the Dept of Agriculture to refuse food stamps for the hungry, but also eliminating public education in lieu of Taliban indoctrination centers, Social Security to put millions of old people into cardboard boxes, Medicare so they will die in their cardboard boxes, Workman's comp to force millions more people next door to the old people in their cardboard boxes with no food or health care, FEMA to make sure people get no help from disasters, Head Start to make children stupid, deregulation of civil rights statutes, environmental laws, banking and Wall Street. And of course to make sure no one has to pay any taxes to promote the general welfare of anyone, anywhere at anytime.

To top all that crap off he is also a rabid pro life evangelical fundamentalist Christian!

Why anyone in their right mind would give this bozo the time of day, yet have Stewart, Colbert, Leno, Letterman et al pat him on his pointy little head is beyond me.

I suppose its because he is ALSO against war and wants to legalize pot, crack, crank, oxycotin and heroin.

So thank you Ed! ABOUT TIME someone stood up and gave this piece of shit a bonk over the head. Am I clear on this? Gee, I hope so! If you are not clear as to how I feel about this chec

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

BREAKING => Obama’s SEIU Brown Shirts Are Attempting To Co-Opt The Occupy Movement For their March Against The Republican Congress!

New post on Political Vel Craft BREAKING => Obama's SEIU Brown Shirts Are Attempting To Co-Opt The Occupy Movement For their March Against The Republican Congress! by Volubrjotr Brace yourselves D.C. the chaos that paralyzed lower Manhattan yesterday Appears??????  to be coming your way. The 'SEIU' Obama Thugs are setting their sights on The Republican Congress. WARNING!! 'Anonymous Occupy' Is Being Co-Opted By Obama's Brown Shirts, The 'SEIU' ~ The Service Employee International Union. International????????? Coming next month: "SEIU's Occupy Republican Congress" to [...] Read more of this post Volubrjotr | November 19, 2011 at 02:57 | Tags: chamber of commerce, Dick Armey, FreedomWorks, General electric, Greg Sargent, Mary Kay Henry, obama, Republican Congress, seiu, Service Employee International Union, Service Employees International Union, United State, united states, wall street, washington dc | Categories: barack obama, government, obama, political, politics, soetoro, subversion, treason, yes we can | URL: http://wp.me/psXSG-dK3 Comment    See all comments Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions. Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://politicalvelcraft.org/2011/11/19/breaking-obamas-seiu-brown-shirts-are-attempting-to-co-opt-the-occupy-movement-for-their-march-against-the-republican-congress/

Thanks for flying with WordPress.com

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

super

 

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

GOP report: TSA hasn’t improved aviation security

GOP report: TSA hasn't improved aviation security
By Ashley Halsey III, Published: November 16

After a $56 billion federal investment in airline security, flying is no safer than it was before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and the bare hands of passengers might be the best defense once a terrorist gets on board, two members of Congress said Wednesday.

Deriding the Transportation Security Administration as a bloated bureaucracy that recruits security personnel with ads on gas pumps and pizza boxes, the two House Republicans said it needed to undergo almost a dozen reforms.


"Americans have spent nearly $60 billion, and they are no safer today than they were before 9/11," said Rep. Paul C. Broun (R-Ga.). "We need to make travel safe in America, and right now it's not."

Broun joined House Transportation Committee Chairman John L. Mica (R-Fla.) at Reagan National Airport on Wednesday morning to present a harshly critical report on the TSA's performance.

Broun said a terrorist bomb could be put aboard an airliner "very easily" at his home airport in Atlanta. "TSA has not prevented any attacks," he said. "It's just been very fortunate that we've had no attacks."

TSA spokesman Greg Soule denounced the report.

"At a time when our country's aviation system is safer, stronger and more secure than it was 10 years ago, this report is an unfortunate disservice to the dedicated men and women of TSA who are on the front lines every day protecting the traveling public," Soule said. "TSA has developed a highly trained federal workforce that has safely screened over 5 billion passengers and established a multilayered security system reaching from curb to cockpit. "

Mica and Broun, both longtime critics of the agency, challenged the need for 3,986 employees at its Washington headquarters, saying they earned an average of $103,852 a year.

"We never intended to have TSA grow into this massive bureaucracy," Mica said.

Instead, the report said, the TSA should set standards for airport and airline security and be open to use of private contractors to carry them out. The TSA also should station more personnel abroad to intercept terrorists and to ensure that passenger screening and baggage inspections in foreign airports are up to U.S. standards.

The report cited data released this year showing that there had been 25,000 airport security breaches in the past decade. Given the leaky security network, it said, "passengers and crew offer our first and most effective line of defense."

The report said that the TSA has wasted money on ineffective equipment and programs, has been slow to install explosive-detection devices at the nation's largest airports and has deployed new high-tech body scanners in "a haphazard and easily thwarted manner."

"Our concern is that explosives continue to be the focus of terrorists," Mica said.

He said he was "not impressed" by the TSA's planned evolution to a more risk-based approach. The agency has been criticized for applying the same security standards to all passengers, including children and the elderly.

Soule responded that the risk-based approach was "designed to maintain a high level of security, while improving the overall travel experience, whenever possible."

"Each of these initiatives moves us away from a one-size-fits-all approach and enhances our ability to provide the most effective security, focusing on those who present the highest risk, in the most efficient way possible," Soule said.

The TSA faced a public outcry last year after it introduced the new scanners, which critics thought were overly revealing, and procedures for vigorous pat-downs of those who refused to use the scanners.

They are no longer the most significant issue for regular travelers, according to the U.S. Travel Association. A survey released Wednesday by the travel industry group said the biggest objection voiced by frequent fliers was that other passengers delay security lines with too much carry-on baggage. They said passengers also dislike requirements that they remove their shoes, belts and jackets.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/commuting/gop-report-tsa-hasnt-improved-aviation-security/2011/11/16/gIQAvqRQSN_story.html?wprss=rss_politics

Elites agree: Americans are too darn free

Elites agree: Americans are too darn free
By: A. Barton Hinkle
Published: November 18, 2011

To outward appearances, it might seem as though the left and right have never been more at odds. And for the average man in the street, drawn to the Tea Party on one side or the Occupy movement on the other, this might be true. But it is not so true for elite opinion. The nation's high and mighty may be divided about many things, but on one point they often agree: Americans are still too darn free.

For example: Not enough people exercise their right to vote. Problem, right? Well, William Galston of the Brookings Institution has a solution: Force them to. The other day he took to the pages of The New York Times to explain why we should be "Telling Americans to Vote, or Else." (It doesn't seem to have occurred to Galston that making people exercise a right takes that right away, by turning it into an obligation.)

Galston is hardly alone. Mitt Romney considers it a problem that many foreign nationals enter America without a government permission slip. His solution: Force every U.S. resident to carry a biometric ID card. (Just the thing to present at the polls when meeting your mandatory-voting requirement, eh? Great minds think alike.)

One of Romney's GOP primary opponents, Michele Bachmann, laments that many Americans ­ 53 percent of them ­ pay no federal income tax. So she proposed forcing everyone to do so, even if they don't have any income to pay taxes on. That'll show'em.

Time magazine proposed forcing every American into national service. A federal advisory board has decided, to much applause, that we should force boys as well as girls to receive the HPV vaccine. Proponents of Obamacare believe the government should force everyone to buy health insurance.

The Obama administration also has lots of other bright ideas about how to bend the American people to its will. Last year Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood told those at a National Press Club that the administration's "livability" initiative "is a way to coerce people out of their cars." The administration also wants to force insurers to pay for birth control and abortifacients, and to force consumers to buy more fuel-efficient cars.

Voices outside the administration, however, fret that it is not being forceful enough. In a recent Washington Post column, Dana Milbank advised the president to emulate the ruthless tactics of JFK. Milbank recounts how Roger Blough, chairman of U.S. Steel, raised prices in defiance of the president's wishes. "'You have made a terrible mistake,' Kennedy told him. Subpoenas flew, FBI agents marched into steel executives' offices, and Kennedy spoke about IRS agents examining 'hotel bills and nightclub expenses [that] would be hard to get by the weekly wives' bridge group out at the country club.'"

Ahh, the good old days. When J. Edgar Hoover pulled stunts like that, liberals considered it proof that the dark night of fascism was descending across the land. But when their own guys do it, they call it getting things done. Nary a word from Milbank about what business the president has dictating steel prices, by the way.

Yet Milbank is a piker in the thuggery-worship category, at least when compared with The New York Times' Thomas Friedman. In 2009, Friedman penned a column about how China's one-party autocracy was better than America's two-party system: "One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks," he wrote, "but when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people . . . it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies to move a society forward." He went on to list some of China's critically important policies, which were ­ surprise! ­ policies of which he personally approved.

Well, anyone can write a stinker of a column now and then (heaven knows!). But a year later Friedman was still at it, relating on "Meet the Press" how he has "fantasized" about "what if we could just be China for a day?" Then "we could actually, you know, authorize the right solutions." He didn't actually want America to "be China," mind you, he just wanted "my democracy to work with the same authority." That way, Friedman could impose his will on everyone else, and life would be grand.

This is what power fetishists always do: assume the power will be used in ways they like. (And since the ends are noble, they surely must justify the means, right?) Sometimes it is. But power changes hands, and the inheritors may be a rather different sort. The people pushing for more government power never seem to think of that ­ until it's too late.

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/oped/2011/nov/18/tdopin02-hinkle-elites-agree-americans-are-too-dar-ar-1467094/

About Those Spectacular 'Terror Threats'...

About Those Spectacular 'Terror Threats'...
Posted by Daniel McAdams on November 18, 2011 06:13 PM

Unfortunately for the FBI and the whole "homeland security" apparatus -- and the hundreds of billions of dollars they suck up each year to fight terror -- there actually is very little or no real terrorism or terrorists in the US and most of those labeled terrorists abroad are, as Professor Pape has shown, those who have the audacity to object to American occupation and drone attacks. Not to worry, where there is no real terror those creative minds in the terrorist-nabbing business can just invent it. Even if they have to use our money to scare the hell out of us.

As the UK Guardian reports the FBI is relentlessly and actively seeking those caught up in the drug war, those with mental illnesses, and the extremely downtrodden desperate for money to play starring roles in their ever more spectacular drama extravaganzas meant to convince us that there are innumerable plots afoot that but for the government's amazing abilities would have us all blown to smithereens...

As the Guardian reports:

"Critics say the FBI is running a sting operation across America, targeting -- to a large extent -- the Muslim community by luring people into fake terror plots. FBI bureaux send informants to trawl through Muslim communities, hang out in mosques and community centres, and talk of radical Islam in order to identify possible targets sympathetic to such ideals. Or they will respond to the most bizarre of tip-offs, including, in one case, a man who claimed to have seen terror chief Ayman al-Zawahiri living in northern California in the late 1990s."

Anyone wishing further background on this situation, there is an excellent book available that explains it all

Gingrich think tank collected millions from health-care industry

Gingrich think tank collected millions from health-care industry
By Dan Eggen, Published: November 17

A think tank founded by GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich collected at least $37 million over the past eight years from major health-care companies and industry groups, offering special access to the former House speaker and other perks, according to records and interviews.

The Center for Health Transformation, which opened in 2003, brought in dues of as much as $200,000 per year from insurers and other health-care firms, offering some of them "access to Newt Gingrich" and "direct Newt interaction," according to promotional materials. The biggest funders, including firms such as AstraZeneca, Blue Cross Blue Shield and Novo Nordisk, were also eligible to receive discounts on "products and workshops" from other Gingrich groups.

The health center advocated, among other things, requiring that "anyone who earns more than $50,000 a year must purchase health insurance or post a bond," a type of insurance mandate that has since become anathema to conservatives.

The group also pushed proposals to build centralized electronic medical records and use such data to research treatment effectiveness, both central features of President Obama's health-care reforms.

Gingrich, who has been under fire recently for his lucrative consulting business, left the health-care think tank earlier this year to run for president. But his time there exemplifies the former Georgia congressman's post-legislative career as a well-paid consultant and policy guru, a role that earned him and his companies tens of millions of dollars over the past decade.

His experience at the think tank also illustrates Gingrich's past flirtations with moderate policies ­ on health care, the environment and other hot-button issues ­ that have become the subject of controversy and criticism in the presidential race.

The Gingrich campaign referred questions about the center to the think tank. Susan Meyers, a center spokeswoman, declined to comment on the think tank's income or staffing levels because it is a private-sector organization. She said that neither the center nor Gingrich has engaged in formal lobbying.

Meyers called Gingrich "a health-care visionary" who was advocating far-reaching reforms "before many of these concepts in health care became mainstream." She said the think tank's members don't always agree on specific issues but are working "toward a common vision of saving lives and money."

Gingrich has been criticized in recent days after Bloomberg News reported that he earned as much as $1.8 million in consulting fees from Freddie Mac, a quasi-public corporation that many conservatives blame for the housing crisis. After first suggesting he was hired for a short time as a "historian," Gingrich has since acknowledged acting as a consultant for the mortgage giant "over a long period of time."

"I was approached to offer strategic advice; I was glad to offer strategic advice," Gingrich told reporters in Iowa this week. "We did it for a number of companies, and Gingrich Group was very successful."


Mixing policy, marketing

One of the key organizations of the Gingrich Group over the past eight years was the health-care center, an unusual hybrid that married the policy focus of a traditional think tank with Gingrich's instincts for self-promotion and marketing.

The center attracted a long list of global health-care firms and interest groups, which paid $5,000 to $200,000 a year, based on their size, to be members. Based on archived membership lists going back to 2003, that means the center brought in as much as $6.25 million per year from higher-level members giving $50,000 or more, totaling at least $37 million since 2003.

That does not include many other sources of revenue, such as dues from smaller members and fees for polling, research and other services the center offered.

The center has listed scores of firms and industry groups as members over the years, amounting to a Who's Who of the medical field, from GE Healthcare to the American Hospital Association to Wellpoint, the nation's largest health insurer. The think tank also drew funding from employers with sizable health-care costs, such as Detroit's Big Three automakers, records show.

Several firms characterized their membership as a way to share information about potential health-care reforms.

"We engage with a variety of organizations to participate in public policy discussions on issues impacting our business," said Tony Jewell, spokesman for drugmaker AstraZeneca, which has been listed as a "founding charter member" since 2005. He said the company is reviewing its membership for next year.

Rick Tyler, a longtime Gingrich spokesman who left as part of a staff exodus from the campaign over the summer, said the think tank "was very successful financially" and played a vital role in promoting free-market solutions for the health-care system. He said Gingrich could have easily cashed in as a registered lobbyist after leaving Congress but chose to try to shape the debate over major public policies instead.

"I don't think Newt was trying to be an influence-peddler," Tyler said. "If he had wanted to do that, he could have done that, and he would have been rewarded handsomely for it, I'm sure."

Although Gingrich gave up ownership of the think tank earlier this year to begin his candidacy, the group still bills him prominently as its founder and sells a long list of Gingrich-related books, videos and other products. Another Gingrich venture, a nonprofit called American Solutions for Winning the Future, closed its doors over the summer amid financial problems.


An issue on campaign trail

A financial disclosure form filed by the candidate in July said his net worth was at least $6.7 million, with income of at least $2.7 million in 2010. The form listed a "convertible promissory note" ­ a kind of loan that can be paid back or converted into stock ­ worth $5 million to $25 million from Gingrich Group to Gingrich Productions, a media company run by his wife, Callista.

Gingrich has clashed with other Republican presidential candidates over his evolving positions on health-care issues. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, whose own state health-care reform plan was a model for Obama's national approach, attacked Gingrich at one debate: "We got the idea of an individual mandate from you!"

The Gingrich health center's support for such a mandate was part of an "Insure All Americans" plan that appears to have disappeared from the center's Web site Thursday.

Gingrich has characterized his previous support for insurance mandates as a response to President Bill Clinton's more government-focused health-care proposal in the 1990s, and he has said he turned against the idea.

"I am completely opposed to the Obamacare mandate on individuals," he says in a recent campaign video. "I fought it for 2¹ / ₂ years at the Center for Health Transformation."

During a recent interview in South Carolina, Gingrich said that ending his involvement in the health-care think tank and other businesses was difficult. He also said that if he fails to win the Republican nomination, he doesn't know whether he will "do anything as big as the center" again.

"You know, I've made a good deal of my income off the speeches and off of being a commentator," Gingrich said. "All of that went away. So it just got to be much more challenging."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gingrich-think-tank-collected-millions-from-health-care-industry/2011/11/16/gIQAcd72VN_story.html?hpid=z1

Gingrich Campaigning as Change Agent Profited as an Insider

Gingrich Campaigning as Change Agent Profited as an Insider
By Julie Hirschfeld Davis and Kristin Jensen - Nov 18, 2011 7:49 AM ET

When U.S. House Republican leaders in 2003 were short of votes to pass a $395 billion Medicare prescription drug benefit, they recruited former House Speaker Newt Gingrich for help.

In a hushed room on Capitol Hill, Gingrich told his former Republican colleagues that if he could endorse the measure, they should be comfortable with it, too, said two former, senior House aides who attended the closed-door session.

Two days later, after a vote was held open for three hours as leaders corralled the final ayes, the measure passed and was eventually signed into law by President George W. Bush.

What Gingrich didn't mention during the Republican caucus meeting was that he was also building a for-profit, health-care research company and seeking financing from drugmakers, which were investing $128.6 million in lobbying for passage of the new benefit for seniors.

His founding of the Center for Health Transformation in 2003 was a critical step in Gingrich's formation of a set of private companies that traded on his name and made him millions. The health-care policy center collected at least $37 million, the Washington Post reported.

"It undercuts his message that he's a 'change agent,'" said John Pitney, a former Republican Party strategist who teaches political science at Claremont McKenna College in Claremont, California. "It's not that he necessarily did anything unethical, but it cements his image as a Washington insider. That's not illegal, it's just politically very unpopular."


Rise in Polls

Gingrich's rise in such public opinion polls as a Bloomberg News Nov. 10-12 survey that put him in a four-way tie for first place in Iowa, where the first contest will be held Jan. 3, is also elevating scrutiny of his consulting firm, The Gingrich Group, and other private companies.

The former Georgia congressman reported assets in 1997 of between $197,000 and $606,000, according to his last House personal financial disclosure report, which permits lawmakers to record their wealth in broad ranges. According to his 2011 presidential disclosure report, the Republican primary candidate today is worth between $7.3 million and $31 million.

"If you somehow made it illegal or untenable for former members of Congress or former administration officials to trade on their previous associations, the national unemployment rate would go up to 10 percent," said Rich Galen, a former Gingrich adviser.


'Truly Dumb'

Gingrich wasn't paid to lobby the Republican caucus.

He said yesterday that his intellect and congressional experience were magnets for corporate clients.

"If you just take what people say about me in the debates and say to yourself, 'Gee, is that a person somebody might have hired for advice?' I think it's hard to argue that they should have hired somebody that is truly dumb," he said at a campaign stop in Jacksonville, Florida.

R.C. Hammond, Gingrich's campaign spokesman, said in an interview that "companies came to him because of what he thought. He didn't mold his thoughts around what companies wanted."

As a businessman, Gingrich at times did stray from his party's conservative orthodoxy. Many of the Republican voters he's now courting are critical of the drug-benefit program because it drove up the deficit. Gingrich's advocacy of ethanol subsidies, which attracted a client to his consulting company in 2009, separates him today from such presidential rivals as former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, Texas Governor Rick Perry and Texas Representative Ron Paul, who oppose them.


The Gingrich Group

Gingrich's private industry career began soon after he left office in January 1999 and started The Gingrich Group with offices in Atlanta and Washington. In April 1999, he announced a strategic alliance with PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP and landed Freddie Mac, the government-backed mortgage-financing company, as a client in May.

"He was completely accessible by the phone," said Mitchell Delk, who was Freddie Mac's chief lobbyist, in an interview. For the monthly retainer of $25,000 to $30,000, "you could just call up and throw an idea off of him," Delk said.

The Gingrich Group focused primarily on policy issues, said Nancy Desmond, one of the firm's original employees and now the head of the Center for Health Transformation. She remembers helping one company figure out how more children could get access to computers.

"It was usually about bringing various people in the room and talking about various solutions," Desmond said.


Speaking Fees

A year later, the former speaker opened Gingrich Communications, which managed among other things his speaking engagements, according to Hammond. Gingrich was paid as much as $50,000 for a speech appearance, the Atlanta Journal- Constitution reported in November 1999.

In September 2002, Gingrich began planning for the new health-research center. The center was established in 2003 to study industry trends, propose overhauls, and make the former speaker available to corporate boards and executives for brainstorming and other strategic advice.

Companies could pay membership fees of $20,000 to $200,000, gaining various levels of staff attention, access to white papers and time with Gingrich. The center's site lists three levels, from "premium" to "charter" memberships. Those paying more than $100,000 a year, could get Gingrich to speak to a private event, according to two people familiar with the arrangements.


Corporate Members

Among the member companies were drugmaker Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) and health insurer Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, according to an Aug. 26 press release. Officials at both firms didn't respond to requests for comment yesterday.

WellPoint Inc. (WLP), the nation's largest insurer by revenue, was a member of the center for five years, spokeswoman Kristin Binns said in an e-mail to Bloomberg. It was "a way to network with various stakeholders on the best emerging ideas for improving the delivery of health care," Binns said.

The U.K. drugmaker AstraZeneca Plc (AZN) also was a member of the center, according to spokesman Tony Jewell, who declined to give further details.

Pfizer Inc. (PFE), the world's largest drugmaker, had consulting contracts with Gingrich, according to two people familiar with the arrangements. Pfizer spokesman Ray Kerins didn't respond to requests for comment.

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the industry's trade group, was also a client. His firm "was retained by the PhRMA general counsel's office at one time to provide advice on a positioning project," the group said.


Growing Staff

The Gingrich Group had "about a half dozen" employees to start and, as the center grew, it employed an average of 40, including support staff, Hammond said.

In addition to his work with the center, Gingrich continued to accept private retainers from health-care companies and others.

In 2006, Freddie Mac officials met with Gingrich in his Washington office on K Street to discuss a renewal of his consulting services, according to people familiar with the meeting.

Freddie Mac didn't want him to lobby in the traditional sense. With the company facing new regulations from Congress, a high-profile, supportive Republican leader would provide indirect benefits, they said.

Gingrich agreed to work with Freddie Mac for an annual fee of $300,000 for two years, according to people familiar with the agreement. He downplayed the amount this week, saying on Nov. 15: "It wasn't paid to me. Gingrich Group was a consulting firm that had lots of people doing things and we offered strategic advice."


Health-Care Roundtable

Around the same time, Gingrich joined an advisory board created by Pfizer that also included Andy Stern, former president of the Service Employees International Union, according to two people familiar with the group. Pfizer would organize meetings with about 15 people in its New York offices or the Ritz-Carlton in McLean, Virginia, to discuss policy initiatives in Washington.

Gingrich's clients were big and small.

Growth Energy, an ethanol industry lobbying group formed in late-2008 by a group of producers of the corn-based fuel, paid Gingrich $575,000 between 2009 and 2011 for advice.

"Growth Energy reached out to Speaker Gingrich and hired him because we know of his record in Congress in support of ethanol," Chris Thorne, a spokesman for Growth Energy, said in a statement. "He's smart, engaging, and his time as a leader here is helpful to folks who are puzzling through how this town works."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-18/gingrich-running-as-change-agent-profits-from-washington-insider-status.html

CHUBBY MUSLIM CONVERT GIRL and her friend, Mr. Wrinkles

New post on Bare Naked Islam CHUBBY MUSLIM CONVERT GIRL and her friend, Mr. Wrinkles by barenakedislam BNI Readers: Please refrain from posting disparaging comments on her Youtube page, so Chubby won't take this video down, too. Just laugh yourselves silly and pity the poor thing. Where to buy CHUBBY'S DIAPERS MORE HERE: CHUBBY MUSLIM CONVERT GIRLS Read more of this post barenakedislam | November 18, 2011 at 2:34 PM | Categories: Laughing at Islam | URL: http://wp.me/peHnV-CrQ Comment    See all comments Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions. Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/11/18/chubby-muslim-convert-girl-and-her-friend-mr-wrinkles/

Thanks for flying with WordPress.com

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Balanced budget amendment fails in House

Having trouble viewing this email? Click here

You're receiving this email because of your relationship with The Hill. Please confirm your continued interest in receiving email from us.   You may unsubscribe if you no longer wish to receive our emails.

News from The Hill: Balanced budget amendment fails in House By Pete Kasperowicz The House on Friday afternoon failed to approve a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution. The House voted 261-165 for the amendment — a clear majority, but well short of the 290 votes needed to amend the Constitution. The amendment was supported by 236 Republicans and 25 Democrats, while four Republicans and 161 Democrats opposed it. While a similar bill cleared the House with bipartisan support in 1995, most Democrats came out against the bill in recent days, with many pointing to the late 1990s as evidence that the budget can be balanced without a constitutional requirement. House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Thursday that the earlier success in balancing the budget prompted him to oppose the amendment this time around, even though he supported the proposal in 1995. "We made it happen not with a balanced budget amendment, but because we had the will to do so, and by following pay-go rules," Hoyer said, referring to rules that require the cost of legislation to be paid for. Hoyer argued Thursday and Friday that much of the blame for the deficit should fall on Republicans who abandoned the "pay-go" principle when taking over Congress. One notable GOP defection was House Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier (R-Calif.), who offered the same reasoning for voting against it. "What I found ... is that we were able to balance the federal budget without touching that inspired document, the U.S. Constitution," he said. The other three Republicans voting against it were House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), and Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas.). The four GOP no votes were likely a sign that some Republicans were not happy with the decision to pick the more broadly supported amendment that would not require a supermajority in Congress to raise taxes in order to balance the budget. Gohmert complained repeatedly this week that Republicans were looking at a tougher proposal that would have required a supermajority for tax hikes and also would have capped spending, but abandoned this language because only one Democrat supported it. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said earlier this week that a survey of Republican members found they "overwhelmingly" wanted to vote on the amendment without the tax requirement. For all the latest news: Visit TheHill.com Follow @TheHill on Twitter Like The Hill on Facebook

Forward email This email was sent to majors.bruce@gmail.com by news@thehill.com |   Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy. The Hill | 1625 K St. NW | Washington | DC | 20006

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Crotchless Panties for Kids

why would anyone manufacture crotchless thong panties sized for
7-year-old girls?
---
some men like smaller females

On Nov 18, 9:47 am, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> **
>            New post on *Fellowship of the Minds*
> <http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/author/eowyn2/>  Crotchless Panties
> for Kids<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2011/11/18/crotchless-panties-...>by
> Dr. Eowyn <http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/author/eowyn2/>
>
> There is a silent undeclared war against America's children.
>
> Our government mandates all newborn babies be given Hepatitis B
> vaccination<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2011/10/29/why-are-our-babies-...>although
> the disease is a sexually-transmitted disease in the United
> States. Hepatitis B virus cannot be spread by casual contact but is
> transmitted via infectious blood or body fluids *such as semen and vaginal
> fluids.* **
>
> Crotchless panties do not serve the purpose of underwear (i.e., to prevent
> our clothes from being soiled) but are a sexual turn-on for fetishists.
>
> <http://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/crotchless-panty...>
>
> So why would anyone manufacture crotchless thong panties sized for
> 7-year-old girls? And why would a children's clothing store sell the
> panties?
>
> Colorado's KUSA Channel 9 News
> reports<http://www.9news.com/news/article/229745/188/Parents-upset-over-crotc...>
> **, November 14, 2011, that while shopping for her kids in a new store
> called "Kids N Teen" in Colorado's Greeley
> Mall<http://www.shopgreeleymall.com/>,
> Erin French found crotchless thong panties for sale among the stuffed
> animal backpacks and princess dresses.
>
>  <http://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/french.jpg>
>
> Erin French
>
> The mom took out her cell phone to document the inappropriate merchandise.
> Her grainy video shows pink and leopard-print thong panties with no
> crotches.
>
> French told KUSA:
>
> "I was mortified. My first initial response was, 'Am I really seeing
> that?'…They're sized to fit a 7-year-old girl. That's just totally
> inappropriate.  There is one purpose for an item of that nature and that is
> not something we want to encourage for our girls."
>
> <http://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/kids-n-teen.jpg>
>
> The owner of Kids N
> Teen<http://www.9news.com/news/article/229745/188/Parents-upset-over-crotc...>,
> who would only give her name as Kristina, didn't want to speak on camera,
> but said that after a complaint from mall management, the crotchless
> panties were removed.
>
> In her defense, "Kristina" said that the store's only been in business for
> two weeks and they're still trying to figure out what to sell. She also
> said that while her store caters mostly to kids, about 25% of the inventory
> is for teenagers -- as if crotchless panties for teenagers are appropriate.
> There is also the fact that the crotchless thongs being sold are sized to
> fit 7-year-old girls, who are *not* teenagers.
>
> After a complaint from mall management, Kids N Teen removed the crotchless
> panties.
>
> Pics from Daily
> Mail<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2062058/Colorado-Kids-N-Tee...>.
> You can see KUSA's news video on this
> here<http://www.9news.com/news/article/229745/188/Parents-upset-over-crotc...>
> .
>
> ~Eowyn
>
> *Dr. Eowyn <http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/author/eowyn2/>* |
> November 18, 2011 at 5:42 am | Tags: Erin
> French<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?tag=erin-french>,
> Greeley Mall <http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?tag=greeley-mall>,
> Hepatitis
> B vaccine <http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?tag=hepatitis-b-vaccine>,
> Kids N Teen <http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?tag=kids-n-teen> |
> Categories: Children <http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?cat=34928689>,
> Culture War <http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?cat=20812>,
> Insanity<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?cat=29635004>,
> United States <http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?cat=5850> | URL:http://wp.me/pKuKY-aHa
>
>   Comment<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2011/11/18/crotchless-panties-...>
>    See all comments<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2011/11/18/crotchless-panties-...>
>
>   Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage
> Subscriptions<http://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=49883164090367a8ae3126d288a16eee&...>.
>
> *Trouble clicking?* Copy and paste this URL into your browser:http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2011/11/18/crotchless-panties-...
>     Thanks for flying with WordPress.com <http://wordpress.com/>

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.