By not committing to anything, she also keeps the left in a tizzy. Just the thought of her running for the Presidency, has them squirming with their thongs all in a wad. If she can keep them like that, there is no telling which way they will go. Just as MacArthur and Nimitz did with the Japanese in the Pacific, lefties are totally confused. And that is a good thing.

Palin has the name recognition. The left shot their wad on the cruelty they can spew on her and her family. She has a grasp on some of the issues. (I haven't heard her view on all the issues) She has an incredible thick skin. And like Dennis Miller says, she pisses off all the right people which makes me happy. ww

Speaking as someone from The Left, I *hope* she runs in 2012. For President OR Vice President.

Please, Sarah, please run. Please.

She would be a dream candidate.. for the Dems. But once she declares she is no longer in the running to be be a candidate, her personal aura of possibly being the next president is finished, and her earnings would take a huge hit as well. She would be just be the defeated, ex, retired, candidate/politician . ... yawn..take your pick!

So, so true, Steve and jim x. How could she possibly compete with a community organizer with a Nobel Peace Prize?

J.

Heh. That's the most strained analogy I think I've ever read. But hey, you set the game, and I can play it, too.

The influence of her "potential power" is more akin to that of the Northern Fleet on Halsey at Leyte Gulf. She has no real intention of running. She's just trying to keep her brand alive so she can continue skinning the rubes. But just as Halsey fell for the fake and went haring off after a phantom, so the establishment Republican party will fall for the fake and go haring off expending time, energy, and money trying to sink her phantom candidacy (all the time providing us with an amusing clown show). I don't see any Taffy 3s rescuing the Republicans from this onrushing fiasco.

Oh, and Stan, if you think for one moment that folks on the left fear a Palin candidacy, you need some heavy counseling.

Stagnant economy, dollar in free-fall, real estate plummeting, oil, gasoline, and unemployment climbing, and Obama's approval index at -10, even after Bush's policies got bin Ladin. Folks on the left had better fear anyone's candidacy.

Heh, heh, heh.

Nothing to fear here folks, Move on, Move on.

One other thing to consider, Jay tea -

Sarah knows the Dem 'rules of engagement' now outside of Alaskan politics. And she doesn't play by them.

She's also smart enough not to make the same mistake twice. McCain's handlers (who I think were more concerned with making sure it looked like McCain just barely lost after a hard campaign instead of actually having him win) were aghast at Palin's charisma and draw power. Plus, she hadn't played by the Beltway rules - as a political (relatively) unknown she was a loose cannon. So hide her, give her to 'friendly' (sure...) interviewers like Katie Couric, and work with the media to 'leak' details that would be embarrasing (clothes, anyone?) and, hopefully, want to make her keep her head down.

This time, she'll be calling the shots - and we'll see what we see. She may NOT be a good candidate - but this time she'll be controlling the narrative for better or worse. The left that WANTS Palin to run, thinking their dreamed up cooperatively-agreed-upon caricature is actually what the real person is like, ought to rethink their stance.

As I said - she doesn't play by THEIR rules.

Iwogisdead -

"Folks on the left had better fear anyone's candidacy."

I'm not sure who it was (maybe Instapundit?) but a remark was made that even a syphilitic camel would stand a good chance against Obama.

I don't see how the camel could do worse, actually...

You left out one thing, Jay Tea, and not in your naval metaphor.

As long as Sarah Palin seems to be running for president, she can continue to command buzz. And as long as she has buzz, she can continue to command high speaking fees and a good salary as a Fox commentator.

In other words, there's value for Palin herself in appearing to run, just as there is (allegedly) intimidation value vis-a-vis the Democrats.

I agree with JLawson. I am not sure there are any surprised left for her on how she will be treated. As much as she might be hammered by the Democrats, I am not sure the establishment Republicans have much affection for her either. Whether she declares or not, I would love to see her debate Obama one on one at this juncture. I consider that a reasonable request since the Democrats chose in 2008 to spend more time running Obama against her than John McCain. At thos point I predict she doesn't run.

She's playing the media like a violin and they happily oblige because they cannot help themselves.

I think I saw the same segment that ww did and if I recall correctly, Dennis Millers' line was he likes her because all the right people hate her.

I think Jlawson is right in that she's bypassing the MSM and creating her own narrative; something I really hope she succeeds at. That'll be quite the blow to the MSM who more often than not, ignore facts while pushing the narrative they've decided to use. (See Katrina for a great example)

Many on the left hope she's the repub nominee.
I'd caution them to be careful what they hope for. As iwogisdead pointed out, their candidate doesn't have much to run on. And by then I doubt his uncanny ability to read so well will carry the day.

JLawson: I'm not sure who it was (maybe Instapundit?) but a remark was made that even a syphilitic camel would stand a good chance against Obama.

So long as it has a birth certificate, not from Africa. If you believe that, as many do then

Maybe Republicans should nominate Paul Ryan. Or Sarah Palin. Maybe we need to get the passions of 2009-2011 out of our system once and for all. Maybe it’s just excessively rationalistic to imagine that human beings can think their way out of their problems in advance. Maybe Benjamin Franklin was wiser when he said (using the word “master” in its older sense of “teacher”): “Experience is a hard master, but fools will have no other.”

Nominating a Palin or Bachmann will ensure a Goldwater or McGovern scenario for 2012. Republicans should learn from the mistakes of others, but they may have to undergo it, personally.

Easy, all she would have to do is run on Barry's record.

Are you better off now without the extra 2 dollars a gallon for gas you've been paying the last year?

Well jim x, are you?

At least you can still find a American car to fillup´. As I recall most of the leading GOP candidates led by Romney,the supposed sensible one, firmly opposed the auto bailout, which Chrysler paid back this week and GM is well ahead of schedule.

"At least you can still find a American car to fillup´. As I recall most of the leading GOP candidates led by Romney,the supposed sensible one, firmly opposed the auto bailout, which Chrysler paid back this week and GM is well ahead of schedule."

Meaning what? Taxpayer's never see the money either way? 'Too Big To Fail' supposedly pays back a slush loan and where is the benefit? Where's the jobs? Where's the interest? Oh that's right, Barry is spending it in Irish taverns and campaigning for 'Stuck on Stupid' the sequel!!

which Chrysler paid back this week

Not really.

http://www.sfexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/05/truth-behind-chrysler-s-fake-auto-bailout-pay-back

. . . the Obama Energy Department is loaning a foreign car company $3.5 billion so that it can pay the Treasury Department $7.6 billion [still owed by Chrysler after its bankruptcy] even though American taxpayers spent $13 billion to save an American car company that is currently only worth $5 billion.

Many on the left hope she's the repub nominee. I'd caution them to be careful what they hope for. As iwogisdead pointed out, their candidate doesn't have much to run on. And by then I doubt his uncanny ability to read so well will carry the day.

That is the same way the left felt about Ronald Reagan vs Jimmy Carter. They thought that Carter would landslide Reagan into total oblivion, because they thought he was a complete dork. Well, look what happened. Reagan not only beat Carter, he handed Carter his ass in the biggest landslide in history to that point. The left thinks of Sarah Palin that way too. I for one, am just sitting back and munching on popcorn and watching the left dig itself a deeper hole.

Re: which Chrysler paid back this week and GM is well ahead of schedule."

No, that's incorrect.

According to the NY Times, GM used Tarp funds.

"Mr. Grassley heard back from the Treasury last Tuesday. Herbert M. Allison Jr., assistant secretary for financial stability, confirmed that the money G.M. used to repay its bailout loan had come from a taxpayer-financed escrow account held for the automaker at the Treasury."

See: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/business/02gret.html?ref=business

This is how GM is alive:

"GM Could Be Free of Taxes for Years "

...GM, which plans to begin promoting its relisting on the stock exchange to investors this week, wiped out billions of dollars in debt, laid off thousands of employees and jettisoned money-losing brands during its U.S.-funded reorganization last year.

Now it turns out, according to documents filed with federal regulators, the revamping left the car maker with another boost as it prepares to return to the stock market. It won't have to pay $45.4 billion in taxes on future profits....

...Usually, companies that undergo a significant change in ownership risk having major restrictions put on their tax benefits. The U.S. bailout of GM, in which the Treasury took a 61% stake in the company, ordinarily would have resulted in GM having such limits put on its tax benefits, according to tax experts.

But the federal government, in a little-noticed ruling last year, decided that companies that received U.S. bailout money under the Troubled Asset Relief Program won't fall under that rule.

"The Internal Revenue Service has decided that the government's involvement with these companies, both its acquisitions plus its disposals of their stock, means they should be exempt" from the rule, said Robert Willens, a New York tax consultant who advises investment banks and hedge funds.

The government's rationale, said people familiar with the situation, is that the profit-shielding tax credit makes the bailed-out companies more attractive to investors, and that the value of the benefit is greater than the lost tax payments, especially since the tax payments would not exist if the companies fail.

GM declined to comment.

The $45.4 billion in future tax savings consist of $18.9 billion in carry-forwards based on past losses, according to GM's pre-IPO public disclosure. The other tax savings are related to costs such as pensions and other post-retirement benefits, and property, plants and equipment.

Another possibility comes to mind:

First, I think Palin is seriously considering running. People forget that she did not really run as a Presidential candidate, she showed up on the scene when McCain picked her as a running mate; I think that's one big reason she did not do better in 2008 ... she did not have a chance to lay out the groundwork, something she will definitely do this time if she runs (82% likelihood, M.P.W.A.G.).

But there's more. Frankly, one reason Obama won in 2008 is that the GOP could not get its act together and present a nominee in line with the nation's needs and priorities. If Palin runs, she was undeniably shape the primary contest debates and issues. And Palin has always shown a solid grasp of the public mood.

Sorry, crappy grammar. Should be "will shape the primary contest."

And DJ, she WAS the (best) shape in the elections last time out!

Actually, when Reagan ran in 1976 the entrenced repulbican machinary didn't want him. In 1980, they still were trying to slow him down. But look what happened.

Today, the mainstream republican machinary doesn't want Palin but she doesn't play by party rules. That is exactly what most americans want at this time.

Rush Limbaugh has a theory on this subject about candidates that I agree with. When the left goes absolutely crazy over a potential candidate and boldly confesses they want them to run, etc., they are really meaning the opposite. Obama's team does not want a Palin, Paul or Bachman candidacy because he now has a record he cannot run from. The shoe is on the other foot. Obama will be on the defensive.

Overall, I will take a Palin, Bachman, Paul candidacy over a Romney, Pawlenty. ww

I forgot to add that at this point only Romney and Palin have the ability to raise the serious money. At this point. ww

How could she possibly compete with a community organizer with a Nobel Peace Prize?

If you'd like to see how she'd compete, just check the returns from the 2008 election.

And that was before she quit the governorship to do reality shows.

Seriously guys. I know you love her but she has no chance in heaven, hell or even New Jersey.

But hey, as a liberal, PLEASE believe I'm wrong and make her the nominee. : )

Easy, all she would have to do is run on Barry's record.

Are you better off now without the extra 2 dollars a gallon for gas you've been paying the last year?

Well jim x, are you?

I am better off without that extra 2 dollars, than with a McCain-Palin presidency that would have ALSO given me $2 extra for gas AND:

a) not bailed out GM - which all nonpartisan economists agree would have nuked the US economy

b) not pursued Bin Laden into Pakistan - in McCain's own words

c) not pushed through Health Care Reform - which is going to have a better effect on the deficit for future generations than any current wishful thinking coming out of congress.

d) probably not pursued a stimulus plan - which, once again, nonpartisan economists recognize is what stopped our slide off the cliff into a second Great Depression

But, you guys think what you want to think. : ) And think that Palin would make a great Presidential nominee also. Sincerely. I mean, it's already an embarassingly weak GOP field for 2012. But she'd hand Obama a landslide that would make 2008 look like a squeaker.

I mean, what can I say? She's a pretty, intellectually lazy manipulator - but she spouts the talking points you guys love. And without any connecting underlying rational philosophy. And the majority of people outside the GOP don't like it and don't like her, because they can see her words aren't rationally connected to anything besides trying to grab whatever she can get.

So, vote for her. :) : )

She's a pretty, intellectually lazy manipulator - but she spouts the talking points you guys love.

Change the pronouns, and it sounds like Obama to me.

J.

jim-x:

But she'd hand Obama a landslide that would make 2008 look like a squeaker.

That is exactly what the Liberals thought about Ronald Reagan in both 1980 and 1984. Look at the shellackings he gave Carter and Mondale

Change the pronouns, and it sounds like Obama to me.

Alright, fair enough. I think you guys are being really blind to a lot of flaws, but you guys can say the same of me.

So, rather than push the particulars around all day, I guess we'll just have to see how it plays in 2012.

Ok jim x just send Me an extra $1000 and I wont vote agaist Obama on the gas issue.

" a) not bailed out GM - which all nonpartisan economists agree would have nuked the US economy"

If you cant turn a profit you fail! No excuses and no bail outs. Its part of life and there should be no special treatment for political donors.

"b) not pursued Bin Laden into Pakistan - in McCain's own words"

I did not vote for Mc Cain. Anyway, if Booosh had not put the squeeze on by going to Iraq/Afghanistan goat boy would not have been forced to shack up in Pakistan, Thus enabling Barry to benefit ( albeit briefly ) by offing him.

"c) not pushed through Health Care Reform - which is going to have a better effect on the deficit for future generations than any current wishful thinking coming out of congress."

More intrusion of an ever bigger Government is not a good thing.

"d) probably not pursued a stimulus plan - which, once again, nonpartisan economists recognize is what stopped our slide off the cliff into a second Great Depression"

If this is not a depression I don't know what one is? All the stimulus did was enrich partisan supporters of the Marxist in Chief.

Get ready for the landslide cause' affirmative action just don't cut it!!!

She's keeping her options open.

More importantly, FOX suspended their contracts with Newt Gingrich & Rick Santorum just for sending out signaling that they might run.

That is exactly what the Liberals thought about Ronald Reagan in both 1980 and 1984. Look at the shellackings he gave Carter and Mondale

Sure. And you guys thought the same in opposite terms of Clinton in 1992 and 1996.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see for 2012. But if and when it turns out that I'm right and Obama is re-elected, you guys might want to re-examine you're thinking on this issue. Because clearly the majority of America is seeing something else, and they just might be seeing something you are not.

And we can all be wrong. Look, I've been wrong. It hurts my ego, but it's good for me to admit it. I know what it's like to believe in someone because I like what they're saying, and shut my eyes to their glaring problems. I was quite wrong, when I thought John Edwards was a good man. He was saying things I wanted to hear, so I shut my eyes to what an obviously vain, unserious, self-centered popinjay he was.

And I'm telling you all that Sarah Palin is the female John Edwards. Not in terms of cheating - but in terms of being a self-centered, unserious talking-points machine grabbing with both hands for whatever she can get.

But believe as you will.

If you'd like to see how she'd compete, just check the returns from the 2008 election.

I don't know how closely you looked at your ballot in 2008, but on the one I used, Palin wasn't running for president.

jinx-

"And I'm telling you all that Sarah Palin is the female John Edwards. Not in terms of cheating - but in terms of being a self-centered, unserious talking-points machine grabbing with both hands for whatever she can get."

Witness Barry's hypnotized projective automaton making a fool of himself without a clue.

HA HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHJA

Another reason Sarah may have not announced is because she's waiting to see what the fallout from the release of her emails will be. Under Alaska law public records are suppose to be released within 10 days. Somehow, the emails have been granted 2 years worth of extensions. The last extension they received is coming up in a few days on 5/31/2011.

If you cant turn a profit you fail! No excuses and no bail outs. Its part of life and there should be no special treatment for political donors.

OK, well that's where we disagree. So that's why I'm happier with Obama - because his bailout of GM not only saved an American icon, it saved HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF FAMILIES from going broke. Not just GM's employees, but their parts-makers, third-party vendors, and all the people that service them through restaurants, clothing stores, paper products, etc. etc.

Which also means it saved millions of taxpayers from more debt - because it costs more to feed all those people than to have them **keep their jobs** and feed themselves.

Is there something you disagree with about that?

I did not vote for Mc Cain.

But you asked if would be happier with Obama than the alternative. And McCain was the alternative. So, there you have my answer.

But let's say that Bush letting Bin Laden go so he can concentrate on invading Iraq instead, means that Bush gets the credit for OBAMA eventually getting Bin Laden. Why stop there? If we're going to play "six degrees", why not give Clinton the credit for identifying Bin Laden and trying to get him in the first place, and then handing it over to Bush?

More intrusion of an ever bigger Government is not a good thing.

Here's what I found so frustrating, that so many conservatives don't get:

Don't you realize that corporations are intrusive into our lives too?

If I have a choice between:

- paying $1000/mo to an insurance company that can cancel me any time they choose, and REALLY HAS death panels that axe people when their care becomes too expensive

Or

- paying $200 in taxes to a government that CAN'T cancel me any time they choose, and DOESN'T really have death panels

---then why is government intervention so much worse than insurance companies having that level of control over our lives **and gouging us?***

Sarah Palin seems to enjoy running for office more than holding office. I think she is always going to run for president, often as an independent/tea party canditate, like Ralph Nader does.

jim x, here's what's so frustrating that liberals don't get:
if the government mandates i do or buy something, i have NO choice in the matter.
corporations can not compel me to buy their products without government intervention.

Re: "then why is government intervention so much worse than insurance companies..."

Choice.

And yes, the govt will have death panels as Palin has correctly pointed out.

I don't know how closely you looked at your ballot in 2008, but on the one I used, Palin wasn't running for president.

I don't know how closely you paid attention during 2008, but Palin SUNK McCain with independents and moderates. She made non-conservative women in particular run screaming back to the Democratic party, after Obama's brutal primary against Hillary Clinton.

Now, McCain picked Palin to shore up the base, which was probably the best choice he could make at that time. But still, results are results.

So sparky, if you think Palin will do better in the front of the ticket this time, *without* McCain's moderate creds, then go for it. : ) Just don't bet the house on it. Unless you want to bet me.

...Nah, I wouldn't take that bet. I'd feel bad.

if the government mandates i do or buy something, i have NO choice in the matter. corporations can not compel me to buy their products without government intervention.

ke_future, right back at you. here's what you don't get:

When you're seriously sick, access to health care means your SURVIVAL.

If the only way you can get this access is by paying insurance companies, then yes corporations ARE compelling you. They are literally compelling you with the fear or reality of PAIN AND DEATH.

So as much as you'd like to think so, you *don't* have a choice with corporations. If your health and life are on the line, you are compelled. Period.

And yes, the govt will have death panels as Palin has correctly pointed out.

Hank, sigh:

1. the government will not have death panels. Palin was proven wrong.

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/aug/10/palin-death-panel-remark-sets-truth-o-meter-fire/

In fact, she lied about this. Will you rethink your position on her now? Or will you just sweep this under the rug?

2. insurance companies ALREADY HAVE death panels.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/08/11/denial_of_care

17-year-old Nataline Sarkisyan, a leukemia patient from Glendale, Calif., died in December 2007, after her parents battled their insurance company, Cigna, over the surgery. Cigna initially refused to pay for it because the company's analysis showed Sarkisyan was already too sick from her leukemia; the liver transplant wouldn't have saved her life.

So Cigna, with profits in hundreds of millions, decided it wasn't worth the risk and let her die without trying to save her. Even with her parents having faithfully paid their premiums throughout, and with this not even being a pre-existing condition, they chose to let her die.

All this information is out there. Please let it stick in your heads. It's not a ruse. Some people are telling you things that are OBJECTIVELY, VERIFIABLY not true. Please stop just automatically believing them.

If I have a choice between:

- paying $1000/mo to an insurance company that can cancel me any time they choose, and REALLY HAS death panels that axe people when their care becomes too expensive

Or

- paying $200 in taxes to a government that CAN'T cancel me any time they choose, and DOESN'T really have death panels

---then why is government intervention so much worse than insurance companies having that level of control over our lives **and gouging us?***

But neither of those characterizations is even remotely accurate.

Re:

Don't you realize that corporations are intrusive into our lives too?

Of course.

That's why we have anti-trust laws. A monopoly by a single large corporation is every bit as bad as a monopoly by the federal government.

Competition for customers by large corporations is what makes the private sector better, usually.

The serious problems in health insurance all have their root in the fact that the patient is not the insurance company's customer. Since the 1970's, the insurance company's customer has been the large corporations that "provide" health insurance to their employees. The private insurance companies are competing feverishly to please large employers -- to the detriment of both patients and the actual providers of health care.

Trying to fix these problems by establishing a single insurance monopoly (government or otherwise) misses the point entirely.

jim-x:

So that's why I'm happier with Obama - because his bailout of GM not only saved an American icon, it saved HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF FAMILIES from going broke.

You mean the leadership of the United Auto Workers, (UAW for those in Rio Linda) don't you? They are the ones that have benefited mostly from the bailout of GM. The average working stiff on the line took it in the shorts along with their families. The stockholders were the real losers in this whole mess. They invested millions in a company that they thought was sound and find out that what they have to say does not mean squat. Basically here, Barry's cronies are the ones benefited and continue to benefit from this highly illegal bailout.

jim x:

She made non-conservative women in particular run screaming back to the Democratic party

In the last USA Today poll before Palin was announced, Obama was up 3. One week after announcing Palin, McCain was up 10, a 13 point bump. I'm not sure who these screaming, running women were.

McCain generally continued to enjoy the bump from the Palin announcement until he decided to suspend his campaign and run screaming back to Washington because of the "financial crisis," which is what really took McCain out of the race.

That being said, I doubt Palin will run. Who needs the aggravation?

1. the government will not have death panels. Palin was proven wrong.

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/aug/10/palin-death-panel-remark-sets-truth-o-meter-fire/

In fact, she lied about this. Will you rethink your position on her now? Or will you just sweep this under the rug?

2. insurance companies ALREADY HAVE death panels.

Huh?

Yep. Sometimes private insurance companies deny insurance claims.

So does Medicare.

In fact, Medicare does so far more frequently than most private insurers. (cite)

Why is one a "death panel" and the other not?

Stan,

It was the Bond holders who took it in the shorts.

Corporate Bonds are usually the first non-secured debtor to be settled by bankruptcy, before all other non-secured debts. That's why corporate bonds are attractive to investors as relatively safe investments.

The U. S. Government shot that in the head with regard to GM. The bondholders took a 95% haircut on principle. Worse, the investors who held those bonds can't claim them as a capital loss.

Steve @16

From the LAT's Andrew Malcom:

The new chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee was criticizing Republicans who opposed President Obama’s bailout of the American automakers union, oh, no, make that American automakers.

“If it were up to the candidates for president on the Republican side,” said Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, “we would be driving foreign cars. They would have let the auto industry in America go down the tubes.”

So Michael O’Brien of The Hill newspaper went and checked what kind of automobile loyal-American-car-supporter Debbie Wasserman Schultz owns.

Yup, you guessed it — Japanese.

Drive as she says, not as she does.

In the last USA Today poll before Palin was announced, Obama was up 3. One week after announcing Palin, McCain was up 10, a 13 point bump. I'm not sure who these screaming, running women were.

Here's who they were in October, once they'd gotten to know her:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/24/AR2008102402698.html

Forty percent of voters have "strongly unfavorable" views, more than double the post-convention number. Nearly half of independent women now see her in a very negative light, a nearly threefold increase.

You saw these same women in the voting booths in November.

Sarah Palin would do far better to use her political celebrity to drive issues, frame the debate, and raise money for candidates she supports. And I think she knows that.

As much as I understand her decision to resign as governor, it leaves her with too little experience to run directly for the presidency. Reagan had eight years as governor of California, Clinton similarly had eight years in Arkansas. (I have similar issues with Chris Christie -- though I'd *love* to see him as a VP candidate, relishing the traditional "attack dog" role on the campaign trail, and gaining experience for a future presidential run. Whoever runs for the GOP is going to need someone to face head on the ludicrous attacks from the MSM, and Christie is pitch perfect at this -- even better than Reagan was.)

Am I the only one who thinks she'd make a phenomenal Secretary of Energy? (If gas prices are as big an issue as I think they are, and as driven by the Obama administration's policies as I think they are, then there's actually a big political windfall to reaped there -- and it's a national office, actual policy experience, and right in line with her areas of interest and expertise. Drill, Baby, Drill!)

Clint,

But neither of those characterizations is even remotely accurate.

OK. Then please show what is inaccurate about them.

That's why we have anti-trust laws. A monopoly by a single large corporation is every bit as bad as a monopoly by the federal government.

Yes, a single large monopoly is terrible.

Also, a group of competing companies that can gouge consumers for as much money as the consumers can pay, because the consumers can either buy health insurance or risk sickness or death - is also terrible.

It is terrible *because* the key component of market competition is supply and demand - and if people can't live without the product, then the demand is effectively **infinite**. And so, even with competition, there's no market pressure at all for any companies to lower their prices.

Do you see that distinction? Because that's how it's playing out in practice. And that's why our health care costs more here than in other countries, for the same care.

Huh?

Yep. Sometimes private insurance companies deny insurance claims.

So does Medicare.

In fact, Medicare does so far more frequently than most private insurers. (cite)

Why is one a "death panel" and the other not?

First, Palin's "death panel" mistruth was not referring to Medicare as it currently is. She was specifically talking about it as a new thing, Obama's Health Care Reform plan.

Second, what Palin was specifically referring to was the idea that the *government* could refuse to not pay for some things **specifically** due to their cost, and let people die without care instead.

But, third - even if the above was not ture - Yes - Medicare does deny claims. The difference is why. Medicare typically denies claims because of suspected fraud or a perceived **lack of need** for the treatment - not solely because of the cost, whether or not it's needed.

Whereas insurance companies do, **because of cost** - and have specific groups of people looking to eliminate costs by **denying treatment even if it kills people**.

Do you see the difference?

What peolple seem to not understand is that if GM went bankrupt, it wouldn't have been the end of the American auto industry. Even if the assets were liquidated and sold off, we would still have had American auto companies.

Smart investors would have bought the profitable portions of the company and continued building automobiles. They may have given the new company a new name, but many of the products (only the ones that consumers wanted to buy , sorry Chevy Volt) would have continued on. Then with a void in the market, new companies would have arose to fill the need.

When one company is no longer competitive and goes out of business, their share of the market goes to the other existing companies or new companies are formed to fill the need.

Instead we get stuck with bailing out unions.

You mean the leadership of the United Auto Workers, (UAW for those in Rio Linda) don't you?

No, actually. I mean quite specifically the people who worked in the plants, their families, and the people who were also economically interlinked with all of them such as the suppliers, the stores, the retail stores, and all of *their* families.

As for the UAW being put to the front of the line instead of the stockholders, sorry I don't see how that's supposed to be so awful. If one group is to be first, then so be it.

If stockholders don't like that, then maybe they should take action before the company they've invested in gets run into the ground so badly that it threatens the entire American economy, and needs to be taken over to be put back on its feet.

After all, it certainly wasn't the UAW that made GM create crappy cars no one wanted to buy. Ford had unions too, making the same wages, but they got through just fine.

Re #51.

Jim X in the movies.

Jim X in the movies.

If Palin would run (or any republican candidate) here is what they have going for them.
Obama has a record now that he cannot run from.
Obama made so many promises that he did not keep.
Obama forced Obamacare down our throats but did not focus on jobs.
Obama screwed up the BP oil spill.
Obama screwed over Israel.

Plus Obama lost the independent vote. If the independent voter doesn't vote for Palin, they won't for Obama either.

A lot of the vitriol the left used on Palin and her family will be replayed and only help Palin.

The hispanic vote is pissed off because Obama swore he would take care of immigration in his first year.

Palin can raise the money necessary and the mood of the country as a whole is the need for a true outsider.

The senate will go republican which will totally neuter Obama so the SCOTUS is safe.

And Jim X history of the 2008 election is of course, skewed. ww

jim x

As for the UAW being put to the front of the line instead of the stockholders, sorry I don't see how that's supposed to be so awful. If one group is to be first, then so be it.

The law says that bondholders are supposed to be first? jimmy don't care, his friends should be first, those evil rich people owning bonds shouldnt be first, don't care what the law says, reward my friends and punish my enemies, that the Democrats principle.

Of course, the complete idiot that jim is doesn't realize how many retirees owned bonds because they're supposed to be a safe investment. Or how many individuals got hurt by the democrats ignoring the law.

If im had his way, the law would only apply to conservatives, liberals could do whatever they feel like, cuz they have the best of intentions.

And Jim X history of the 2008 election is of course, skewed. ww

Lol!

Skewed. ok.

Were the polls I posted wrong somehow?

Did Obama not get elected or something?

:) :) :)

Sheesh. Well I could go point-by-point through the list, but I won't bother. Either I'm wrong re: Palin's re-election chances or I'm right, and the only proof will be if she runs.

Personally I expect her to raise a lot of money for the GOP, raise as much or more money for himself, and then bow out and try to play a role as kingmaker.

And then get another book out of it, maybe another TV show, and another round of expensive speaking engagements where she can tell people the talking points they want to hear. Including how "next time she runs, she really will go all the way!"

But we'll see.

Why is one a "death panel" and the other not?

Sigh, because of what I said in that same post:

Yes - Medicare does deny claims. The difference is why. Medicare typically denies claims because of suspected fraud or a perceived **lack of need** for the treatment - not solely because of the cost, whether or not it's needed.

Whereas insurance companies do, **because of cost** - and have specific groups of people looking to eliminate costs by **denying treatment even if it kills people**.

But perhaps I should make it even clearer?

- medicare doesn't look for costly patients, and eliminates them solely on the basis of cost, even if it kills them. This means it doesn't have "death panels".

- insurance companies DO look for costly patients, and *specifically* eliminates them *solely on the basis of cost*, even if it kills them. This means they DO have "death panels" - because they have groups of people specifically doing that.

is that clear?

"is that clear?"

Totally clear and 100% untrue. Like most things you post.

The law says that bondholders are supposed to be first?

Oh, really? which law is that?

Please show me the specific law that says when a company runs itself into the ground to the point that the US government needs to take it over to preserve the US economy, that bondholders MUST be paid first.

Where is it? Show me the statute.

If you can't find it, shall I now declare

"Perfect example of what conservatives think of the rule of law. They'll make up whatever they want to believe."

Well?

Great, PBunyan. Then you should have an easy time pointing out any one thing I've said is untrue.

I do wonder why I bother sometimes, honestly.

Nope, no death panels in Medicare/Medicaid, none what so ever.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2011/mar/judicial-watch-obtains-records-detailing-medicare-medicaid-controversial-review-cancer

little jimmy,

If you're not aware of the U. S. Bankruptcy Code, then:

1. You must have been educated in a public school, and

2. I'm not gonna waste my time pointing out easily found facts to an idiot.

since you don't even know what the law is, nor do you care about it, I repeat:

Perfect example of what the liberals think of the rule of law. If jim x had his way, the law would only apply to conservatives, liberals could do whatever they feel like, cuz they have the best of intentions.

jim x:

Medicare typically denies claims because of suspected fraud or a perceived **lack of need** for the treatment

You are misinformed. Google "Medicare refuses to pay" and "Medicare refused to pay" and read some of the thousands of hits you get.

insurance companies DO look for costly patients, and *specifically* eliminates them *solely on the basis of cost*, even if it kills them. This means they DO have "death panels" - because they have groups of people specifically doing that.

That's quite a claim; I assume you can provide some authoritative sources for it. It would be counterintuitive, since such conduct would subject the insurer to civil lawsuits, punitive damages (most states have double or triple multiplier damages statutes for bad faith insurance denial), and regulatory penalties.

"I do wonder why I bother sometimes, honestly."

I don't bother as it is a waste of time and limit my responding to you to the extent that it amuses me.

Little Kenny,

2. I'm not gonna waste my time pointing out easily found facts to an idiot.

Then here's the difference. I don't mind pointing out easily found facts to an idiot.

So, I guess you like to lose arguments instead. : )

Put up a post with the word "Palin" in it and you are guaranteed 70 plus comments.

What happens when you use Paul, Pawplenty, or even McPain, - you get 14.

As I said, nothing to see here, Move On, Move On.

You are misinformed. Google "Medicare refuses to pay" and "Medicare refused to pay" and read some of the thousands of hits you get.

Please tell me how "Medicare refused to pay" proves me wrong? Jesus Christ, you're quoting me **in the comment** and you're not reading it.

The difference is not THAT Medicare refuses claims, but WHY. Medicare DOES NOT have a policy including panels looking for the most costly claims, so they can CANCEL THEM PURELY BECAUSE THEY COST TOO MUCH, EVEN IF THE PATIENT NEEDS IT. Wheraes insurance companies DO those things.

Do you at least understand the statement I'm making at this point, or is it still unclear?

Now, as to my proof that Insurance companies do this, besides the specific case I already mentioned in # 44, please go here:

http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?q=news/memos-on-the-committees-investigation-of-the-individual-health-insurance-market

And read how, in a three-year period, the four big insurance companies denied coverage to more than 600,000 people who had even been treated in the past for the same medical conditions. And that the number of coverage denials had increased significantly each year - almost as if they were trying to constantly increase profits, huh?

One of company even kept a a list of 425 medical diagnoses that it uses to refuse health insurance coverage permanently to many applicants.

How could they get away with such a thing? Why, it's almost as if they have enough power and money to do whatever they want and stonewall state investigators. It's almost as if there's some sort of, I don't know, a health care reform or something.

Also, here's another note for you:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wendell-potter/death-panels-fact-and-fic_b_838370.html

the former chief medical officer at Aetna, Arthur "Abbie" Liebowitz. In an interview for a report written last year for the Center for American Progress, Liebowitz explained the pressure that is exerted on corporate medical directors -- medical directors who now report to regional business managers, rather than chief medical officers, as was previously the norm.

"The concept was that business leaders had P and L (profit and loss) responsibility for the region," Liebowitz was quoted as saying. "The business guys said if I have responsibility for profits and losses I have to control for the things that account for my costs. The biggest things affecting cost was medical cost delivery."

Liebowitz said he fought the change in reporting relationships "until the very end." He left Aetna in 2001.

Here's the deal that you should know with corporations: they aren't moral, and they aren't immoral. They're amoral. They're basically machines set up to make money.

So if corporations can make money in a way that will benefit random citizens and their stockholders, they'll do that. And if they can make money in a way that will hurt random citizens and their stockholders, they'll do that too.

Which is why we need a government. Total government power is bad, total religious power is bad, total corporate power is bad; and the free market doesn't solve itself, or we would never have had government in the first place.

I don't bother as it is a waste of time and limit my responding to you to the extent that it amuses me.

And that's actually fine for me too, because the way you make accusations and then don't back them up proves me right by default.

So, thanks. : )

Palin doesn't have what it takes to be President. It'll never happen.

But maybe the GOP has a chance with Palin as VP behind a centrist like Romney.

Oh wait, she failed as a VP behind centrist McCain... and since then her popularity has fallen.

She's in it for herself and her family - no problem with that, but she's not a serious contender. She's just here to take your money.

Jim x and Art W - They blow em' BIG wind~~

Art W - the funny thing is that people are going to be looking at Palin... and deciding for.themselves, based on their own criteria, whether she's electable or not.

YOUR feelings, YOUR thoughts on her abilities or lack thereof (and really, would you want to have Obama's accomplishments or lack thereof held to be a minimal baseline for running for President in comparison? If so, then the bar is set really low, much lower than Palin's already cleared...) are pretty simplistic and don't necessarily correspond to reality.

Time will tell if she runs or not. Time will tell if she's a good candidate or not. But I gave up on political bumper sticker thinking a long time ago - and if she were the bad candidate you claim, you wouldn't need to be trying to smear her. It would be so self evident that all could see it. (Rather like obama's near nonexistent list of accomplishments. It's a good thing there was so little, because if he'd actually done anything or taken a stand on any issue he probably would have rendered himself unacceptable to all the factions in the DNC. You REALLY needed a 'blank slate' candidate.)

The 2012 election will have people looking a lot harder at the candidates the media approves. Because frankly, their chosen (and protected) candidate in 2008 hasn't lived up to the hype and promise, much less the 'hope and change'.

How did your Hopes pan out?

How about some real Change?

ABO 2012

The problem is that somebody has to run for the GOP, whose approval rating since they approved the dismantling of medicare has collapsed. As soon as any GOP candidate or would-be candidate, lift their head above the ramparts, witness Gingrich or Trump, they blow themselves up. Better "to be thought a fool, and remain silent than to speak, and remove all doubts", seems the best strategy but a wishful one, to obtain the Republican nomination.

CNN revealed that the GOP leading candidate, "according to the poll, which was released Friday, 16 percent of Republicans and independents who lean towards the GOP say they would most likely support Rudy Giuliani as their party's nominee".

And any polls at this point mean pretty much nothing.

But you know that, right? I mean, nothing can possibly change between now and YEEEARGH!

Sorry, channeling my inner Dean there...

Steve, just this once try putting the talking points down and wait and see just what reality brings you, 'k?

The polls are practically meaningless now I agree, but it is such an open contest, one wonders? I suppose Republicans will say that is because there are so many good candidates out there, to choose from to defeat Obama.

The more serious point is Republicans could be running with an albatross round their necks, with Ryan´s medicare plan. Obamacare versus Ryancare, what a choice?

I see that George Soros has sent out his daily talking points memos to all of the good little Democrats again today. Since when does a Communist News Network poll have any meaning? Even during the week right before the elections, they have the Dim candidate 25 points ahead of the Republican candidate. Hell, they even rig the exit polling in their favor — ala — John Kerry. The only poll that counts is the one where people mark an X or check mark on a piece of paper.

"Time will tell if she runs or not. Time will tell if she's a good candidate or not. But I gave up on political bumper sticker thinking a long time ago - and if she were the bad candidate you claim, you wouldn't need to be trying to smear her. It would be so self evident that all could see it."

All you need to do is check her approval numbers starting at the time the McCain campaign announced her as their VP pick through the present -- and you'll find it's self-evident.

My guess is that you know exactly what I'm talking about and choose to throw ad hominems instead of defend her spectacular fall from grace with the America electorate.

Don't blame you - it's indefensible.

Go ahead, ignore facts. Doesn't change a thing. She's a declining star, not a rising one. But Palin has done a good job of helping herself to your money.

STEP RIGHT UP, ladiea and gentleman, and deposit your donation in the cash bin at the front of the tent.

Rubes to the left of me, morons to the right -- stuck in Sarah Palin territory again.

Run her, I dare ya!

"Run her, I dare ya!"

See, Art W, here's the way it works. A candidate decides whether to run for office or not. Then the public usually independently decides to vote for that person. You, can dare all you want but it's not up to you is it? You don't get a say in who runs and who wins and who loses, do you? Its up to each individual to decide for themselves(of course the media and you lefties sure push hard), who holds the same or close enough values they believe in. So, in all seriousness be careful what you wish for, you just might get it. After all, you guys got the smartest guy in your party didn't ya?

I wouldn't say the smartest guy at all, Chip. Just smarter than th last guy or anyone running against him.

Yep, jim x, he's all that and a bowl of cherries too isn't he? Why, goodness gracious me, he's just the bee's knees.

Look I'm glad you're happy, I'm glad you got what you wanted, I' ecstatic that you like the unemployment rate nearing 10%. I'm thrilled that you like gas nearing $5.00 and $6 a gallon. Isn't it great that the international community loves us like they did before G.W.? I think it's fantastic that you have a guy in office you can be proud of when he bows to foreign leaders and flubs up a toast to the British crown. You guys did great jim x! Isn't that what you want us to say?

We have a difference of opinions on how to run the country, but that's just it, we have our opinions and you have yours, don't like it, take it up with someone that really cares how you and the rest of you feel, because frankly I don't give a damn who you guys feel we, on the other side of the aisle, should vote for.

Yep, jim x, he's all that and a bowl of cherries too isn't he? Why, goodness gracious me, he's just the bee's knees.

Comparatively so, yes. Of course, that doesn't necessarily make Obama awesome. That just means that's how bad Bush really was. And how bad McCain would have been too.

Look I'm glad you're happy, I'm glad you got what you wanted, I' ecstatic that you like the unemployment rate nearing 10%...

Well, you aren't fully understanding what I wanted then. What I wanted was a stop to a slide into the Great Depression. Which the stimulus program and the bailouts accomplished, according to nonpartisan economists, if you care emough to check yourself.

I would have liked more of a stimulus, because the softened mix of direct cash and tax breaks the GOP demanded had the effects predicted by Paul Krugman of not fully being enough. Also, I would have liked more requirements for banks to loan out the money they received, rather than hoping the banks would out of the kindness of their hearts. But, Obama was already being called a socialist for saving Wall Street. That's still a bit of head-scratcher for me...

Not happy for the gas sitch, but sorry, nonpartisan oil industry experts agree that's due to speculation, which is in turn due to unrest in the Middle East. Which has nothing to do with Obama - unless you want to credit him with inspiring the Arab Spring, which I'm sure you don't.

You guys did great jim x! Isn't that what you want us to say?

No. All I want you guys to do is stop saying things which are simply, factually, provably inaccurate and wrong.

There's a difference between opinions and there's a difference of fiction vs facts. It's the latter that concerns me. And it's unbelievable how many completely inaccurate statements that come from the right-wing press which is just swallowed and regurgitated on this site.

Dislike Obama and his policies as much as you like. I dislike a lot of his policies too, actually. But just please stop following statements that come from the right-wing press which are simply false.

Because that's what pulls me here - stuff being printed which is simply not accurate.