Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Obama - Clinton Disaster -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: calgal who wrote (74616)	7/1/2012 1:12:25 AM
From: Hope Praytochange	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 103300

Turns out, the ObamaCare ruling creates another appeal after all, the election The Supreme Court's shocking decision to uphold most of ObamaCare Thursday elated its proponents, disheartened its enemies and may have finally taught media legal observers to never again draw conclusions from justices' questions in oral arguments. But one other thing it did for sure is thrust Obama's whole idea of inserting government deeper and deeper into the most intimate parts of Americans' daily lives and deaths smack dab back into the political arena. There, in the next 130 days, the nation will hear a different set of oral arguments -- on the stump -- until voters issue their collective final opinion on Nov. 6. The 5-4 court decision ruled the idea was constitutional. Now, voters will decide if it's acceptable. And affordable. Within hours, the decision had driven more than a million new dollars into the Romney war-chest. If Obama reaches 270 electoral votes, we're stuck with it, plus all the accompanying financial, medical and social costs of such a fundamental collective transformation of a nation built on individualism. If Mitt Romney wins, the country gets a do-over. We keep coming back to a seminal sentence of Chief Justice John Roberts in his majority opinion for the court: "It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices." We don't understand his motivation for choosing the side he did and tipping the historic balance in favor of the pol who's more than once crudely tried to intimidate him and the court. We agree with Roberts' dismissal of the commerce clause argument. We were disappointed with a sharp sense of betrayal as the professed conservative chief justice, unsolicited, crafted a successful legal foundation to hand a grand victory to this arrogant Chicago bully like an undeserved, unexpected gift. It may well have been accidental or coincidental, but Roberts' 'political choices' image is apt and perfectly-timed for summer of a presidential election year. Remember back during the ObamaCare debate when Nancy Pelosi said we'd have to pass the mammoth thing to find out what was in it? Only in Washington could someone utter those lordly words in public, as if they made any sense whatsoever. And not be laughed off the rostrum. 'I've got this wonderful new car ready for you to buy. But you can't see it, touch it or drive it until you sign here and pay in full.' But guess what? As a nation, enough of us did precisely the same thing in 2008, choosing as Democrat nominee and then president out of blind -- and often good -- faith this man about whom we knew virtually nothing, except what he and his team dished out and a lazy media served up. And also choosing to hand him both houses of Congress controlled overwhelmingly by party mates. So tired were enough of us with his decent but inarticulate predecessor. So unexcited were many of us with the elderly legislator the GOP offered as successor. And the ill-prepared partner he chose. So eager were a majority of us for something fresh and new, even historic. There were hints of troubling details about Obama. His associations with shady Chicago characters like Tony Rezko and Bill Ayres. Merely his survival within the Daley Democratic machine, one of history's longest-running, most corrupt political gangs. His patronizing quotes about gun-loving, Bible-believing back-country rubes in Pennsylvania. No credible documents, transcripts, childhood neighbors or college pals floating around to share revealing stories. In those days a virtually void resume served Obama well. Many eager Americans filled in the blanks with hopes instead of facts, dismissing even legitimate suspicions as racist. And what pol of any party would discourage the eyes of any beholder from seeing beauty? A faithful churchgoer for 20 years who never caught any of Jeremiah Wright's racist, anti-American rants. Seriously? Not even once or twice out of those 1,040 Sunday services? Even Oprah, once the gullible guru of daytime TV, had abandoned that parish. Would Obama have beaten the former first lady and then the brave war veteran had most Americans known of his rootless, pot-smoking, dog-eating years and the serial falsehoods and made-up characters seeded throughout his allegedly nonfiction autobiography? The composite girlfriends uttering quotes that perfectly advanced his desired narrative that they later denied ever saying? The torture by British colonials of his freedom-fighting grandfather that never happened? The other grandfather fighting with Gen. George Patton when he could not have? The literary biography that placed Obama's birth in Kenya for a decade before he got around to changing it to Hawaii? So Obama "won" in the Supreme Court Thursday. But now, in addition to defending his indefensible record on jobs and the economy, he'll be pressed to explain how the ObamaCare health plan that the Supreme Court ruled is really a tax, isn't really the largest single tax increase on the middle class in the history of these 57 states. "If we want to get rid of ObamaCare," Romney said Thursday of the unpopular program, "we have to get rid of President Obama." "It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices." In the end this Supreme Court "victory" for the president may, in fact, be the crucial catalytic event that forces the people to face the costly consequences of their past political choice, on the day when they get a second-chance choice.