This story has more legs than one would suspect on quick look as you have shown.

A leftist caller to BTR once asked me why conservatives criticize the debates given for the Republicans by the MSM. To her credit, she was truly interested in a real answer which was given to her as follows:

“Conservatives believe in the authority of the law that is the constitution. Conservatism is truly only that, nothing more; all government power is derived from the people in the constitution. That’s it. During these debates sponsored by the MSM, every question is about issues and how they will be addressed by powers NOT given to government to carry out. The debate never goes to where the so called leaders would have the authority to do what they often propose. The legality of the proposals is never addressed”.

She was quite taken by the simplicity and the clarity of the answer which she had never heard but that succinctly before.

This to me is the problem with the leftist’s objection to what was actually Steve Malzberg’s question rather than Hannity’s. I have the clip if anyone is interested. They are angry at the clarity and the simplicity of the common sense in the question.

The left could not survive without their so called pragmatism which is code for convenient thinking. The constitution is the inconvenient fact, that we on the right often fail to put out there as our most valuable and stalwart weapon in the arsenal to preserve common sense thinking and thus freedom.

No they don’t. They want to socialize the system so that everybody get the LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR of medical care. And what kind of care will that be? Why whatever the government says it is. You want to try something not “approved”, nope… sorry that won’t be paid for and attempting to pay for it will be illegal. Got that rare cancer with a 10% success rate? Yeah, well we’re not going to pay for that because you can’t really fight it and its not economically feasible…
Welcome to Utopia…
Anybody that’s willing to give up medical liberty for medical security deserves neither.

Skywise on April 17, 2008 at 2:43 PM

There are MANY ways to improve the current system. A universal system can represent a baseline for everyone, but can also mean that if people can afford it, they can get more. In such a system, if you fall in the ‘experimental’ or other similar category, you would be able to pay for your own treatment.

So yes, one solution is to provide a LCD to everyone while allowing people to go beyond that. Another solution is to force everyone to get the exact same coverage. Another solution is to always allow people to opt-in in an affordable plan. Etc. I think the overall goal is to always ensure that if someone wants health insurance, he can get it.

Who’s “we”? My health is my business!

OldEnglish on April 17, 2008 at 3:13 PM

Yeah, in the current it’s particularly your business when you get a pre-existing condition no insurer will want to deal with.

That was the whole point of this post… these are the issues.

1) Obama attended services led by a racist anti-Semite for 20 years… why?

2) Clinton lied at least 4 times about what happened in Bosnia… why? Does character not matter?

3) Regarding Obama’s attendance at Wright’s church; does that apparent condoning of racism not matter?

4) Obama’s wife has said that this is the first time she’s been proud of her country… Does Obama feel the same way given his refusal (until lately) to wear a flag pin? Does that not matter considering he’s running for CINC of the military and leader of the country?

As Ed said in his post; there are very few policy differences between the two candidates. That leaves the issues listed above. Democratic primary voters may not want to hear the answers, but I’ll bet the rest of America does.

Jim C

The 7 Stages – It just seems too obvious.
……

mycowardice on April 17, 2008 at 2:20 PM

Who’s “we”? My health is my business!

Actually liberals are trying to ensure all Americans have health care coverage so that we treat all Americans that have cancer (with early prevention). We also want to provide those people that are able to fight the disease with health insurance when they enter into remission.

mycowardice on April 17, 2008 at 2:20 PM

No they don’t. They want to socialize the system so that everybody get the LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR of medical care. And what kind of care will that be? Why whatever the government says it is. You want to try something not “approved”, nope… sorry that won’t be paid for and attempting to pay for it will be illegal. Got that rare cancer with a 10% success rate? Yeah, well we’re not going to pay for that because you can’t really fight it and its not economically feasible…
Welcome to Utopia…
Anybody that’s willing to give up medical liberty for medical security deserves neither.

“Progressives”? HAHA.

They’re liberals, a cancer on America.

BobUSMC on April 17, 2008 at 12:15 PM

Actually liberals are trying to ensure all Americans have health care coverage so that we treat all Americans that have cancer (with early prevention). We also want to provide those people that are able to fight the disease with health insurance when they enter into remission.

I love Ed Morrissey’s conclusion on the Obama/Hillary debate that took place last night:
The progressive outrage is misplaced.  They should be angry that they only have these two flawed candidates left as choices.  ABC asked appropriate questio…

I repeat:  The only legitimate result now for the November election is a win by Obama.
Who do you think uttered that gem of an “analysis”?  Chris Matthews?  Keith Olbermann?  Jack Cafferty?  Tim Russert?
No, the pundit in question was someone …

They’re liberals, a cancer on America.

She probably has tenure and doesn’t get off her ass to do a lesson plan that isn’t filled with liberal talking points.

ABC didn’t break a scoop last night; all of the issues they raised in that first 50 minutes have appeared in both major media outlets and in each others’ advertising.

No, ABC didn’t, but the left just wants these particular issues to go away, just like they wish 9/11 would go away. And for ABC to bring this into focus, even a tiny bit, is blasphemy to the leftys.

The uproar might be more deserved if Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter were the moderators. Hmmmm, shouldn’t the candidates be required to face them? Wow what a video that would make….

attn El Rushbo…

And yet this “brilliant” Harvard educated lawyer just keeps digging deeper. We need to know that he thinks people only turn to religion when their Church of choice, the government, doesn’t pony up enough or redistribute enough wealth from people who actually work. He actually thinks that if government controls enough of your life there’s no need for religion. Can you say communist?

The fact that the right thinks “Do you believe in the American flag?” is a legitimate question for a national debate speaks volumes.

Typhonsentra on April 17, 2008 at 7:36 AM

(Laughter)

Why did Obama suddenly start wearing an American flag in his lapel for, then?

Heh.

Missplaced my ass. You know you’d be angry about the lack of focus on issues if this were a general election debate between either one of them and McCain. For all the talk about “Vetting” Obama by conservative bloggers, I notice an interesting lack of interest in asking him about opinions of policy. The fact that the right thinks “Do you believe in the American flag?” is a legitimate question for a national debate speaks volumes.

He is a living Rorschach test. Obama has next to NO record on anything. So we can only surmise who he is and how he would govern by things like his associations, what he says and does as a means of creating a composite of the man. Last night we got a glimpse of the man behind the mask. He was asked uncomfortable questions about associations and things he’s said that have been viewed as disagreeable. Likewise, Clinton was asked an uncomfortable question to which she (shocka) admitted that when politically expedient, she will lie.

But more on point, who in their right mind goes to Iowa and attempts to talk to the clingy local yokels by mentioning the cost of arugula in whole foods? I don’t even know what the hell arugula is and most of us shop at the local Kroger. Sure you can blow it off as an isolated accident, but when we hear similar talk later on it suggests a pattern. Some have suggested a sort of elitism that means he may be out of touch with main stream America.

He’s likewise demonstrated a habit of hanging out with people who say bad things about America. A self-professed mentor has said incendiary things about America and given an award to a bigot who has embraced known terrorists (Farakhan). Wright went on to give a devastating indictment of America while the Twin Towers were still smoldering and rescue workers were working around the clock to find victims. Tony Rezko is a close friend currently standing trial in Chicago for a whole slew of things which ultimately revolve around dirty politics. Obama has maintained what he has described as a cordial relationship is a former home-grown terrorist who bombed buildings and in the immediate wake of 9/11 says he wishes that he had done more (bombing).

Are you kidding me? Somehow all of this is supposed to be off the deck and we can’t ask questions about this? Holding these views or associating with these sorts of people may make him a fine choice for president of south Chicago but it does not translate to Washington D.C.

You are quite right to say that all of this has little to do with policy, but it has a great deal to do with character and judgment. It is reasonable to assume that if one’s character and judgment are sound than sound policies and decisions are likely to follow. But you want to take issues surrounding character and judgment off the table. Rather, you would have us make our vote by relying solely on mouthed policy positions that have been poll-tested and presumably place the well being of the Republic in the hands of a guy who speaks well.

Barack Obama started Crackerquiddick

hahahahaha