Quote of the day

posted at 10:00 pm on February 27, 2009 by Allahpundit

“President Obama was awfully vague about some of his plans, but I think I heard him say that government is responsible for educating a child from birth—from birth—to its first job. Universal pre-school and universal college. And there were hints as well of universal healthcare and a universal service corps. It all sounds very appealing, until you realize that these plans mean universal government. That model has never worked anywhere in the world. America is great because our society is free and the power of government is limited by the Constitution.

For the last several years, we’ve heard liberals moaning about the 700 billion dollars that have been spent over six years to win freedom in Iraq. They have now spent more than that in 30 days. And with a government almost 12 trillion dollars in debt, any unnecessary spending puts at risk the creditworthiness of the United States. If the world loses confidence in our currency, that could cause a run on the dollar, or hyperinflation that would wipe out savings and devastate the Middle Class. President Obama says he hopes to cut the deficit in half after four years—does that mean a deficit in 2012 of 600 billion dollars? No president should accept such a staggering deficit, much less hold it up as a national goal. This is the time to pare back government spending. It is not the time to fulfill every liberal dream and spend America into catastrophe…

America voted for change. America did not vote for a boat-load of new government spending programs that would guarantee higher taxes and high deficits as far as the eye can see and that would threaten our currency, our economy, and our future. We must be the alternative course. We can’t be that if all we say is no.”

Online TV Shows by Ustream


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

It’s not that simple, simpleton.

In case you hadn’t noticed, America already has rampant socialist programs.

In case you hadn’t noticed, the purer the capitalism, the more disfunctional and f’d up things get.

You need both in moderation.

Dave Rywall

Ah, the “third way”.

Did you know that triangulating socialism and capitalism is a characteristic feature of fascist thought?

Also, while you’re at it, how about giving us an example of “pure” capitalism, free of corrupt entanglement with government.

rokemronnie on February 28, 2009 at 11:59 AM

“President Obama was awfully vague about some of his plans, but I think I heard him say that government is responsible for educating a child from birth—from birth—to its first job…”

I heard Bam Bam say that too, and I was horrified. I’m so glad Mitt picked up on that frightening soundbite.

Indeed, methinks that conservatives need to come up with their own version of MoveOn’s “Not Alex” ad:

When you said you wanted to “educate” our babies from birth, were you talking about Alex? Because if you were, you can’t have him President Obama!

Buy Danish on February 28, 2009 at 12:02 PM

“President Obama was awfully vague about some of his plans, but I think I heard him say that government is responsible for educating a child from birth—from birth—to its first job…”

Sounds like Socialist/Communist Philosophy to me, Komrades!

kingsjester on February 28, 2009 at 12:08 PM

Indeed, methinks that conservatives need to come up with their own version of MoveOn’s “Not Alex” ad:

When you said you wanted to “educate” our babies from birth, were you talking about Alex? Because if you were, you can’t have him President Obama!

Buy Danish on February 28, 2009 at 12:02 PM

That is a wicked good idea.

myrenovations on February 28, 2009 at 12:35 PM

When he (Romney) decided to run for President he had a sudden “evolution” toward the right.

He would make a great treasury secretary or economic adviser, but he’ll never become president.

RadioFreeUSA on February 28, 2009 at 7:17 AM

Thanks. I’ll have to look into that then. I was a Romney supporter. Now, I do think that running in MA requires a leftward slant. But I am not sure a person willing to engage in that slant is trustworthy. So far, I would still rather have had Mitt than McCain or Barack.

Montana on February 28, 2009 at 1:11 PM

It amazes me that whatever Mitt or Palin says, people react to it as if its 2011 in the presidential primaries. The Average person is not going to remember anything Mitt or Palin says today folks…so instead of dredging up history of why you hate Mitt or Palin…because they didn’t fit your particular cookie cutter of what a President should be…tell me what you liked or disliked about his speech he just gave.

And here is another …. oh I wish it was Mitt, can you imagine the the Mitt/Palin pair up…stop living in the past guys, fact of the matter is, the chance that Mitt would of picked Palin, an unknown at the time, is slim…and the chances they will pair up in the future…slim. Thats the problem when you don’t live in the here and now, you live in dreamland and get emotionally connected to a fantasy.

Conservative Voice on February 28, 2009 at 1:22 PM

I for one liked Mitt’s statement on global warming. Very pragmatic. He didn’t commit to any action on it, didn’t alienate himself from global warming adherents or those who would blast him as “anti-science” for denying it (which is a crock but people would) but he had the perfect out. Basically saying America shouldn’t take action till the whole world takes action. To those alarmed by that…get real. China will NEVER get on board, and neither will India. So we’re off the hook. Nice one, Mitt!

thecountofincognito on February 28, 2009 at 2:12 PM

That is a wicked good idea.

myrenovations on February 28, 2009 at 12:35 PM

Thanks! Hey, are you a Mainiac?

Buy Danish on February 28, 2009 at 2:15 PM

Ahem… Thank you for putting YOUR definition of “Damaged Goods” on MY post. (I guess your hubby Rove hasn’t talked to you about NOT being the PC Police!!!!)
Perhaps you only got that far in my post before being “SCANDALIZED” like a leftard looking at a picture of Bush in the WH. Let me give you some of the rest of what I actually wrote
HERE! I’ll even paste it So you don’t have to break a nail scrolling back up you delicate flower you.. (AWWWW)

So back off! I worked for a while in a grocery store and thats where I got the phrase “Damaged Goods” from.
I dont usually Banter with the other Hens in the Chicken yard for my vernacular.

So you think my husband should put me in my place, that I have long fingernails that are more important than -say – thinking too hard – and you don’t usually bother talking to women.
.
Even more Sexist.
.
As I said. This last year has been a real eye opener for me. You have a lot of company in your opinion of women. I would have believed your grocery explanation if you hadn’t prefaced it with all the demeaning wimin-hating-rant language. Now? Not buying it.
.
Until Palin I never even noticed it, but it’s so obvious now I can’t ignore it. Sorry to have bothered you with my mindless, big breasted, all-American, mattress thrashing, blond, dagger nail PC imposing request, Wasteland Man. I should know my place when the men are talking.

BrideOfRove on February 28, 2009 at 2:40 PM

Here’s what Romney also said in a separate interview:

This is a downward spiral where you have two elements encouraging the other down a steep slope. On one side you have the collapse of the stock market and housing market which means Americans have less net worth and feel poorer and as a result they buy fewer things and as they buy fewer things, business see greater losses and that depresses the stock market even further and this a self-actuating downard spiral.

America should have elected Romney. Instead we have Obama who is waging war against the market and investing class in the name of “taxpayers” (who does Obama think the real taxpayers are?)

haner on February 28, 2009 at 3:46 PM

And the winner of the CPAC straw poll is…Mitt Romney.

Buy Danish on February 28, 2009 at 4:43 PM

Based upon all the grief Romney got here, and from the libs I know, I think he would only have a chance if things are desperately bad here and people become anxious to vote anything but Obama. Clearly, when things seemed more or less OK, he was rejected. Since things are likely to get much much worse, he may have a chance.

fwiw, he was my choice.

JiangxiDad on February 28, 2009 at 9:23 AM

I’m sorry “Media Malpractice” didn’t do a piece on the Romney smear by the media. And by the Republican Party — aka Huckabee, McCain, Thompson.

The left has a pathological fear of Romney. He can’t be bought, has no skeletons, and is actually smart enough to need no subversive advisors giving him the wrong advice. It is just another indication of how low we have gone that the most competent and ethical candidate got kneecapped by thugs.

If this nation has a snowball;s chance in hell to pull out of this, Romney is the guy to do it.

Have any of you ardent critics wondered why the anti-Romney groups were so well funded and organized? A Romney election would have been the end of Soros and his prostituted democracy aka Soviet satellite.

eaglesdontflock on February 28, 2009 at 4:53 PM

Skeptical. These conservative ‘insiders’ are acting as if it’s business as usual in politics. Hope that it is the case, that is, that worse-case scenarios really won’t come to pass. The most electable amongst schmoozing conservatives is not necessarily the most electable Republican amongst the voters.

I think the one that most scares the bejeezus out of the Leftists is Sarah Palin, with Bobby Jindal a close second. Romney, though a fine, experienced man I don’t think would capture the popularity as the two aforementioned would, though I cannot see any major differences between where all three are coming from.

Dole had far more substance than Slick Willy, and see where that led. Bush pretty much limped across the finish line in both elections.

Dr. ZhivBlago on February 28, 2009 at 5:04 PM

BrideOfRove on February 28, 2009 at 2:40 PM

Yee Gads…

I see the sexist thing is really bothering you…
I PURPOSELY wrote that in a sexist way… (Partially because I was kinda grumpy this morning.) because I was trying to point out the “Politically Correct” stuff that we are subjected to. I was using absurdity to point out the absurd.
I still loved how you only pulled out the part YOU wanted to see in the post. Crimeny my screen name should be “Henpecked Man” I guess. I have every confidence in Mrs. Palin as she is probably tougher than I am. I don’t think she needs defense from anyone as she hunts moose on her own et al.
I personally think you are taking all this WAY too personally.
Were there some VISCIOUS sexist things going on in the election this year? Without a DOUBT! (Hillary included) but again I was using absurdity to point out how even we on the right are policing each others speech.
that was my essence of my snarky reply to you, NOT any underlying sexism.
I wish you well, Really I do! I am just suggesting you stop tilting at windmills where there are none.

-Wasteland Man.

WastelandMan on February 28, 2009 at 6:51 PM

Wow, what a great speech. Full of specifics and issues. This speech had some meat on it. Romney clearly knows what he is talking about. I proven leader in industry and private sector econimics. Why couldn’t my conservative friends see that this is the man who was the best qualified candidate to lead the Republican party? I direct my question to the Huck fans out there. Is it all about religious doctrine to you? Is it just because this guy is a member of the mormon church? Or did you just like Huck’s one line zingers that he seemed to effortlessly pull out more than you wanted to see conservative principals defended?

Dollayo on February 28, 2009 at 9:04 PM

don’t get the “return to Reagan” sentiment either. Does anyone realize the magnitude of deficits he created?

Ike Eisenhower is a slightly better recent model, I think.

The Dean on February 27, 2009 at 10:06 PM

Re Reagan, I’ve always thought the deficits were driven by two factors back then:

A need to build up the Military
Compromise with Tip O’Neill and the DEMs in Congress so he could get his legislation through

Am I wrong?

Red State State of Mind on February 27, 2009 at 10:13 PM

Reagan hated deficits. They were one of his top 3 priorities before he was inaugurated. The other two were building up the military and recovering the economy.

Once in office, he realized that he couldn’t do all 3 at the same time. So he settled for letting the deficits ride, even though he’d been criticizing deficit spending for a long time, in order to concentrate on the other 2. The military build-up had to be done ASAP, and if he could first fix the economy, then the deficits would eventually take care of themselves. In 1984, when asked about how we would solve the deficit problems, he said, “We’ll grow our way out of them.” He was exactly right, but it took years.

ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on February 28, 2009 at 9:32 PM

I had previously stated I wasn’t going to waste another vote on the Republican Party…If Mitt is the candidate for 2012, he’s got my vote…

Destroy Communism……………

adamsmith on March 1, 2009 at 7:14 AM

Wow, what a great speech. Full of specifics and issues. This speech had some meat on it. Romney clearly knows what he is talking about. I proven leader in industry and private sector econimics. Why couldn’t my conservative friends see that this is the man who was the best qualified candidate to lead the Republican party? I direct my question to the Huck fans out there. Is it all about religious doctrine to you? Is it just because this guy is a member of the mormon church? Or did you just like Huck’s one line zingers that he seemed to effortlessly pull out more than you wanted to see conservative principals defended?

Dollayo on February 28, 2009 at 9:04 PM

What planet do you live on?

I was within 30 feet of the man when he gave that speech. OK speech, but Mitt is finished as a serious POTUS candidate. He is as establishment as they come now and inside the beltway.

Although I clapped for the man and even voted for him in the primary, he is lacking substance and weight. There is still a question of his authenticity, and he came off as stiff, packaged, somewhat uncomfortable and just not very warm either. He cannot do retail politics.

He would be better in a staff role like a cabinet head of commerce, treasury, or maybe even the VP role.

He comes off as wooden, and a country-clubber.

Of all the speakers I listened to at CPAC, the only ones I heard who have the weight, courage and appear to be conservative in their overall speech performance:

Gingrich
Paul Ryan
Mike Pence
Huckabee (articulate, but finished like Romney as a serious contender)

Palin has it, and Jindal might, but they were not there at CPAC. Sanford was OK at the Reagan Dinner but he was not fiery, etc. This could have been due to the venue – key banquet speech.

There is a reason why the Dems are furiously assaulting Palin and to a lesser extent Jindal. They see them as youthful threats to their hegemony.

Ron Paul had a nice speech, BUT he came off as more the St. John the Baptist type who was yelling in the desert. He is not presidential material for leadership, but more of a herald. If Texas were to secede, Paul would be a very effective revolutionary leader because that type would fit that role better like a fiery Patrick Henry.

Romney should have taken 30% and didn’t. He is finished from a POTUS perspective.

2012 belongs to the candidate who is the most courageous and fearless in standing up for the conservative vision and not being afraid of the MSM, but also a legitimate contender. At the moment, only Newt and Sarah have it. Jindal as he ages might get in the groove, but that is iffy at the moment. Sanford has potential, but we’ll see if he has the guts like Newt or Sarah to weather the blistering MSM assault without being self-conscious, wobbly and too eager to compromise materially away from the conservative vision of ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’.

When in doubt, go with conviction and courage.

Sapwolf on March 1, 2009 at 5:41 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3