What about the criticism that Fox is a farm team for the GOP? A place where people like Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee can go after their campaigns are over?I actually think it's a bit of jealousy. [The candidates] get calls from the other networks, asking them to come work for them. The two you mentioned, they got calls from other networks. The other networks tried to hire them. But they decided to come work here. We're happy about it.But doesn't hiring ex-Republican candidates make it harder for you to back up the "fair and balanced" mantra?No, not at all. Look, we hired [former Democratic Sen.] Evan Bayh within the last year. If you look at our whole lineup, we have [FNC analyst and former campaign manager for Walter Mondale] Bob Beckel, [Democratic strategist and Fox News political analyst] Doug Schoen, people like that. It's very balanced....On the left, or liberal, side, there is Alan Colmes, who dates back to the Hannity & Colmes show, as well as Fox Radio. There is Juan Williams.I respected and watched CNN when they had Lou Dobbs on, and enjoyed "Crossfire" with Buchanan and Kinsley. I have enjoyed The McLaughlin Group (more in the past) on PBS for its broad ideological tone.I respect Fox's ability to bring in people from their perceived foes' list. By contrast, the attitude by the left, most notably Barack Obama in the first two years of the Administration, was one of rampant marginalizing of Fox News. That showed the lowness of Obama's character, not of Fox News.
... it affects towns like Elkhart, so we're going to do something strengthen the banking system. But, you know, you are not going to be able to give out these big bonuses until you've paid taxpayers back. You can't get corporate jets -- (applause) -- you can't go take a trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayers' dime. (Applause.) There's got to be some accountability and some responsibility, and that's something that I intend to impose as President of the United States.
The SCOTUS announced its official take, as the Judicial Branch of the U.S. Federal Government, on what we nicknamed Obamacare. I think it is important to remember that this was the judicial branch's opinion, not an order for the people to just accept it, nor a death knell to disagreements with the law. It is not that, not at all.
There's a big difference between what SCOTUS's job is and how the people may feel about any law. Opinions in the population will differ wildly, obviously. The SCOTUS view is a political victory for Obama and Big Gov Democrats, but not a defeat for those opposed to expanding Federal powers. They are only saying it isn't unconstitutional, they are not insisting that the country run with it.
SCOTUS does not make law. It interprets whether law affects our Constitutional rights. And certainly, in this case, that was a primary goal of their decision, per Chief Justice Roberts. SCOTUS makes decisions on what federal law should be capable of accomplishing, not what the people and Congress ought to make law, in and of itself. How the people handle it, and how their elected representatives handle it, from here on out, is what will matter where Obamacare is concerned.
In one part, the opinion of the Court points out that if the people elect leaders, and the people choose to allow laws those leaders enact to pass and come into being, that's our problem. If we don't like what our leaders have passed into law, then we may elect to throw them out of office. And we may see to it that leaders change law to our preference. I say "good luck with that" now that SCOTUS has given Obamacare its blessing. It's an uphill battle, but if it's the thing to do, let's get to it. I am tired of an ever-increasing load put on the people of the U.S. and think we need a small federal government. That is the chief reason I prefer to identify myself as a Republican. Not in name, but in ideals. Not blindly being a party fan.
In short, SCOTUS has determined that Obamacare is not infringing on the rights granted by the Constitution. One of those rights is, of course, for us to be able to elect leaders who make and pass laws. Think about what that means. Weigh that wisely in any local and state primaries and elections, and this coming November, in the voting booth.
Was this decision a victory for Obama? Certainly. If you understand it only from the sound bite circus of the popular media, it is a huge win. But it isn't. This decision will make it seem, for some, that Obama and the Democrats were attacked needlessly for pushing this law through. The Big Government Left and, thus, lots of the media, will spin it that way, too. But it was a victory only in the war of impressions. It was a win in the eyes of the disinterested, disaffected, not involved, misinformed, and politically vacuous among us.
The informed folks who push for a central government that challenges the size of that of the Soviet Union are happy about this. But for those not in that crowd, it is informing us that we have more work to do to keep this and other federal laws from further squeezing the individuality and state strength from this country. We have to inform more people, write more letters, write more blog posts, and tweets, and more sincere opinions to spout wherever we can, in order to limit the scale of Washington's impact on our daily lives.
The SCOTUS decision was very clear about the purpose of the SCOTUS itself. They determined that the law does not infringe on the Constitution, by a margin of 6 to 3 (not unanimously). They said that the law was not unconstitutional. That's something, but that's not everything. It doesn't mean they said it was a terrific law with nothing wrong with it. It isn't their job to tell us that a law is terrific or stupid, great or bad, or if it is tyrannical or pragmatic, but whether it harms the rights as set up by the U.S. Constitution. Some believe that Obamacare does that. Well, you have your work cut out for you. Better, I think, to point out that a growing federal government is not good for taxpayers in any way at all. Better to admit that changes are necessary, and that they need to happen, but with greater federal government, that only assures greater waste, not greater coverage. And, be ready to PROVE IT.
If we elect people and they create a massive central government, that's our screw-up, that's not on SCOTUS, they are telling us, I think. Seems we have been really screwing up in the past 80 years, where expanding the power of the federal government is concerned.
Elections are how to change our laws.
So, with that said, on to November 2012.