TrumpCare Dissected & Explained in Plain English

To understand TrumpCare we have to first go back and redefine the insurance industry. It used to be that insurance was essentially a large scale, calculated group gamble. A group of 10 people each put in $100/month, with the expectation that of those ten people, 8 of them would probably only use about $100/month, give or take a few dollars. One person wouldn’t use their insurance at all, but would purchase it just to be safe. And the final person would likely need to use far more than $100, but the unused portion from the other nine people would cover the difference.

But then healthcare got more expensive and the pooled amount from the ten people didn’t cover everything. So the insurance providers raised the rates to $200. And then for the people that needed more than the $200/mo, they asked for more money. And lowered the rates for the group of people who barely used it.

To the business mind this makes sense. The person who uses more of the resources should have to pay more. But in reality what this really did was actually take money out of the system when they lowered the rates for the lower users.

And so they raised the rates on everyone. Again.

So people complained. And rightfully so. They were paying a lot more and receiving the same amount of care. And more and more people couldn’t afford insurance.

And then came ObamaCare, and the idea that access to healthcare was a right.

ObamaCare created more access to insurance by creating mandates, and tax credits. Mandates is just a fancy word for penalty. Fail to get insurance, pay a mandate.

Tax credits were not as easy to understand. To put it in simplest terms, pretend you receive a tax refund each year of $1,000. ObamaCare took that $1,000 and put it towards your insurance premiums for you, in theory, lowering your monthly insurance expenses. It also did away with all pre-existing conditions. You no longer paid more if you used more. Basically it used your own money to subsidize your insurance premiums.

It also greatly expanded Medicaid.

The problem was it varied from state to state, and didn’t always work the way it was planned. It raised taxes, and users no longer received tax refunds. And in many cases, at the end of the year, owed more money to the government to cover their tax credits.

Opponents of ObamaCare didn’t like the mandate or the higher taxes, or the poor administration and application of the program, which unarguably, was full of faults.

Which brings us to TrumpCare.

TrumpCare does away with the general pool and calculated gamble idea of insurance. And instead takes the “business is in business to make a profit” approach. The majority will pay a calculated, evened out sum. Some will pay less, and get less. And the higher risk, higher use pool will pay more.

And Medicaid is scaled back dramatically.

Vladimir Putin Attempts to School Americans on Democracy and Diplomacy

Vladimir Putin wrote an op-ed for The New York Times regarding the "conflict" in Syria.

This has been met with some very mixed reactions, including one member of Congress to say it made him "sick to his stomach" to read it.*

Putin attempts to remind and school Americans about diplomacy, what the Pope thinks, and almost inexplicably- democracy.
 
He goes on to say, "We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression. "

Vladimir Putin is telling Americans to follow current international law?!?

But before you start to think the man has a point, he then continues on to say that yes, gas was used on the Syrian people, but not by Assad's regime. He suggests the rebels did it to themselves to invoke sympathy.

And then this "former" KGB hack makes this gem of a statement, "force has proved ineffective and pointless."

And don't miss the part where on 9/11 Vladimir Putin in all sincerity asks Americans to recall the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you."

Be sure to stay to the end, where Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia, former KGB agent, the man who turned off gas to his own people in the middle of a freezing winter, possible Chechnyan war criminal, persecutor of gays, and human minotaur, says in response to President Obama's address to the nation:

And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.

Again, "it is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional."

And that, my friends, is what defines the difference between Russia and America.

Now I understand why the congressman was sick to his stomach.

*This post is not indicative of the writer's thoughts on the Syrian conflict, it is merely a reflection on her opinion of Putin attempting to be a compassionate communist educating Americans on liberty and democracy.

Soda Pop and Politics

After reading multiple contradictory articles and blog posts regarding Pepsi and Coke withdrawing support of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), I decided to do my own fact-checking and research.
The articles in question-
When consumers push soda companies out of politics (CNN)
Kraft Foods, Coca Cola to discontinue membership in conservative ALEC group (NJ.com)
Stand Your Ground Against Coca-Cola (facebook group)

The Facts:
Pepsi withdrew its membership from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in January. (Source)
CocaCola renounced its membership from ALEC this week. (Source)
Kraft Foods is allowing its ALEC membership to expire. (Source)
There is no statement anywhere to be found about ALEC, or any of the associated issues, on the CocaCola corporate website, or the PepsiCo website.
ALEC said the following regarding the Trayvon Martin death, and the "Stand Your Ground" law in Florida. (SOURCE: ALEC)

Trayvon Martin’s death was a great tragedy that brings sadness to all of us. Our hearts go out to his family, friends, and community.
It is a great shame that some are using this tragedy to further their political ends. Indeed, Paul Krugman describes advancing his political goals as the “silver lining to Trayvon Martin’s killing.” That is as callous as it is cruel, and it is also incorrect. Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law was the basis for the American Legislative Exchange Council’s model legislation, not the other way around. Moreover, it is unclear whether that law could apply to this case at all. “Stand Your Ground” or the “Castle Doctrine” is designed to protect people who defend themselves from imminent death and great bodily harm. It does not allow you to pursue another person. It does not allow you to seek confrontation. It does not allow you to attack someone who does not pose an imminent threat. What it does is allow you to defend yourself and your family from immediate and real danger.
In the end, we will always respect people who disagree with us in matters of policy, but it is simply wrong to try to score political points by taking advantage of a great tragedy like Trayvon Martin’s death.

Paul Krugman is a Nobel Prize winner, NY Times op-ed columnist, and economics professor. He is a self-proclaimed liberal, and was the chief economic adviser to Pres. Reagan.
Here is what Krugman said about ALEC in his NY Times column, entitled Lobbyists, Guns and Money, on  March 25, 2012.

Florida’s now-infamous Stand Your Ground law, which lets you shoot someone you consider threatening without facing arrest, let alone prosecution, sounds crazy — and it is. And it’s tempting to dismiss this law as the work of ignorant yahoos. But similar laws have been pushed across the nation, not by ignorant yahoos but by big corporations.

Specifically, language virtually identical to Florida’s law is featured in a template supplied to legislators in other states by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a corporate-backed organization that has managed to keep a low profile even as it exerts vast influence (only recently, thanks to yeoman work by the Center for Media and Democracy, has a clear picture of ALEC’s activities emerged). And if there is any silver lining to Trayvon Martin’s killing, it is that it might finally place a spotlight on what ALEC is doing to our society — and our democracy.

The article then ceases to discuss anything about Trayvon Martin, and goes on to cover how ALEC's mission is to push privatization and to"pursue standard conservative goals: union-busting, undermining environmental protection, tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy." He goes on to say, "In short, ALEC isn’t so much about promoting free markets as it is about expanding crony capitalism."

If you are confused about why three major corporations would withdraw support from a non-profit that helps promote tax breaks for corporations and capitalism, it comes together in Krugman's closing statement.

...we seem to be turning into a country where crony capitalism doesn’t just waste taxpayer money but warps criminal justice, in which growing incarceration reflects not the need to protect law-abiding citizens but the profits corporations can reap from a larger prison population.

Now, ALEC isn’t single-handedly responsible for the corporatization of our political life; its influence is as much a symptom as a cause. But shining a light on ALEC and its supporters — a roster that includes many companies, from AT&T and Coca-Cola to UPS, that have so far managed to avoid being publicly associated with the hard-right agenda — is one good way to highlight what’s going on. And that kind of knowledge is what we need to start taking our country back.

The Florida "Stand Your Ground" bill was signed into law on April 26, 2005 by Gov. Jeb Bush. 
In August 2005, ALEC’s “Criminal Justice Task Force” reviewed and adopted the Florida “Castle Doctrine” bill as an ALEC model bill.
In September 2005, that bill was adopted by ALEC’s National Board of Directors as a "model bill."
That "model bill" has since been taken to many state legislatures for consideration.
(source)
By following links backwards from article to article, to figure out who is citing what, and where this all began, to go from long time memberships in ALEC, to Krugman's (false) claims, to Trayvon Martin, I finally found what appears to be the source. This all seems to have started with a suggested boycott by the group "Color of Change."
From their site-

Today, ColorOfChange members are making calls to Coca-Cola to demand that the company stop funding the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). ALEC has pushed voter ID laws that disenfranchise large numbers of Black voters. Along with the NRA, ALEC also pushed a bill based on Florida's "Shoot First" law – which has shielded Trayvon Martin's killer from justice – into two dozen states across the country.

So somehow what began with a suggested boycott over Voter ID laws (we'll get to those actual laws and ALEC in a moment), turns into corporations supposedly being afraid of appearing to support the defense of George Zimmerman. NOTE- nowhere, have I found any statements by the companies to suggest that is the case. I have only found opinion columnists and bloggers suggesting it.
Here is the ONLY statement I have found by Coke on ALEC at all-
"The Coca-Cola Company has elected to discontinue its membership with the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). Our involvement with ALEC was focused on efforts to oppose discriminatory food and beverage taxes, not on issues that have no direct bearing on our business. We have a long-standing policy of only taking positions on issues that impact our Company and industry."
That statement was made to the Washington Examiner's "Secrets" column. 
So what is so bad about the Voter ID laws?
First and foremost, yes, ALEC model bills were introduced in several states. No denying that.
The Voter ID laws were created to prevent voter impersonation fraud. They require such things as photographic identification in order to vote. Opponents of such bills claim these laws make it harder for young people, people of color, low-income people, the disabled, and older Americans to vote.
I'll break with my non-biased fact giving here, and flat out admit, I just don't get it. Seriously? Your problem is that states passed a law requiring that you have to prove who you are before voting? Is that really so difficult to do? Are there really that many people out there who are incapable of proving identification that it requires a boycott? I have a dozen different ways of proving who I am sitting on my dresser right now. I really struggle to understand how this is a major problem. I am so confused over it that I really do open the lines of communication on this one. Please, someone explain to me how this is a problem for people?
As for everyone out there who has a problem with ALEC and model bills, I highly encourage you to get MORE involved in the legislative process. Because this is exactly how all forms of legislative government works. Legislators, whether they be US Senators, state representatives, or US Congressmen, do not sit down with a pen and paper and write a new law up from scratch. Incredibly experienced representatives from corporations, lawyers, former lawmakers, and yes, even citizens, sit down with highly skilled lawyers (because they are the ones who know what a law looks and sounds like, and how to write them, hence the name LAW-yers), usually in the offices of a non-profit organization just like ALEC, and write these things together. That organization then takes the bill to the legislators. The staffs and committees of the legislators then take out their red pens and make changes, submit it to committee, it gets approved, goes to the hopper, and eventually becomes a bill. I'm sorry that when Schoolhouse Rock made their little song about it, that they didn't include the part about lobbyists being the ones who actually write the laws first.


Now that I have gotten all biased and opinionated, I'd like to conclude with this-
There is nothing more capitalist, consumerism based, and patriotic than the boycott of a corporation. When a company is forced to change behaviors because of the demands of the people, it is a great and wonderful thing.
It is rather ironic that in this case the boycott is being called for a corporation being a part of the democratic system.
Nothing is more powerful than a well-informed, well-educated public. And for that reason it is important to always dig deeper and understand the root of a problem, and what is really happening. CocaCola has in no way, shape, or form gotten involved in the Trayvon Martin case. According to the company, they were also never involved in anything regarding criminal justice and ALEC. ALEC had nothing to do with the passing of the "Stand Your Ground" law in Florida. But yes, ALEC did have an influential hand in the passing of Voter ID laws in several states.
But let's keep one thing in mind here- the most important thing- ALEC didn't pass the laws. The legislatures did. The legislatures made up by representatives voted in by citizens. (now, one more piece of irony- they were voted in by people who at that time obviously were not yet required to prove their identities!) If your problem is with a law - CALL YOUR LEGISLATORS! That is what makes the biggest difference.
Boycotts are great, and people making demands of corporations are great. But the real power comes from the ability to vote, and control your own government. Why stop drinking Coke when you can control a government instead?

I read the Iowa debate coverage news so you don't have to

Newt Romney at the Iowa Debate. Linked to Source at NY Daily News.

Having read nearly all of the Iowa debate coverage news (and having not seen the debate yet myself), I hereby give you the summary without any hidden bias-

Rick Perry attacked Mitt Romney by saying, "I read your first book and it said in there that your mandate in Massachusetts should be the model for the country. And I know it came out of the reprint of the book. But, you know, I'm just sayin', you were for individual mandates, my friend." In return, Romney denied such a thing, and went so far as to bet him $10,000 Perry was wrong. Romney haters (also known as Southern Baptists, Texans, and Democrats) are saying a wager of so much money makes him out of touch with real people. Romney supporters love him all the more for it.

The facts? In the first version of Romney's book, a line referring to a universal health care mandate reads: "We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country, and it can be done without letting government take over health care." In the later paperback version, the line was edited to read, "And it was done without the government taking over health care."

Apparently Twitter loved this moment, and Romney stole the Twitter show. Analysts report that out of 43,000 messages about the debate on Twitter, Romney was most popular with 30 percent. The rest: Gingrich at 22 percent, Bachmann at 19 percent, Paul at 13 percent, Santorum at 10 percent, and Perry at 5 percent.

Michele Bachmann's big zinger (and she does love her zingers) of the night was aimed at Newt Gingrich's lobbying past (ahem, present), saying that his office was located on "the Rodeo Drive of Washington, D.C., K Street." (A great way to make sure the deeper pockets of DC don't donate to your campaign. Also, K Street? Not that impressive to us local girls. We prefer to do our shopping on M Street.)

The Washington Post's political blogger, "the Fix," proclaimed his winners of the debate to be Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Perry. And solely put Mitt Romney as the only candidate in the loser column. The Fix feels that Gingrich had a few good moments, wasn't condescending, and was approachable. He commended Bachmann for her ever so popular soundbites and zingers, particularly, "Newt Romney." And for pandering to the former Herman Cain fans. And he lauded Rick Perry for his now popular line, "If you cheat on your wife, you will cheat on your business partner." Oh, and for Perry's attack on Romney about the health care mandates, which we've now learned are incorrect. So strike 1 for The Fix. Interesting to note that the winners and losers (Romney was considered a loser for his wagering), had nothing to do with policy and accuracy.

So how did Gingrich respond to Perry's (and others) attacks on his three marriages? (Let's not forget both Perry and Romney have ads out right now touting their fidelity. And Perry's is an unforgiving pandering to the religious right.) “I think people have to render judgment,” Mr. Gingrich said. “In my case, I said up front openly, I’ve made mistakes at times. I’ve had to go to God for forgiveness. I’ve had to seek reconciliation.” How can all those evangelicals turn their back on a penitent sinner? Well played, Mr. Speaker, well played. Of course, I'd like you more if you hadn't cheated on your wife and married the mistress, but that's not the point now, is it?

Gingrich, who has promised to take the high road and not resort to mean or personal attacks, lobbed one at Romney anyway, "The only reason you didn’t become a career politician is that you lost to Teddy Kennedy in 1994." Oh and Romney started it by calling Gingrich a career politician. (Well, duh.)

Not to be left out of the Gingrich attacks, Ron Paul reminded us that Gingrich received a lot of money from Freddie Mac. (Gingrich was paid up to $1.8 million in consulting fees.) “By the way, Newt, you probably got some of our taxpayer money.” He added, “You were a spokesman for them and you received money from them.” Gingrich again denied being a lobbyist for Freddie Mac, (he claims he was an historian), “I offered strategic advice — I was in the private sector.” To which Romney replied, “K Street is not the private sector!” Wow, K Street was popular last night.

In no-brainer news, all of the candidates attacked President Obama and the economy. And yet, they are split down the middle on who supports extending the Social Security payroll tax cuts (Romney, Gingrich, and Paul), and who are against it (Bachmann, Perry, and Rick Santorum.) (Jon Huntsman was not present.)

CNN didn't really have anything different to say from the other news outlets, but was the only site to explain that Huntsman opted out on his own accord. They also mentioned that Huntsman immediately sent out press release announcing he'd purchased the website 10kBet.com, after the Romney-Perry wager. 



With all of the news sources titling their articles with "Newt Attacked!" I was surprised at how few of them actually listed what those attacks were. Here is what I could find amidst the wreckage-

Romney to Gingrich: "We could start with this idea to have a lunar colony that would mine minerals from the moon," referring to a Gingrich proposal to mine for precious minerals on the moon.

Paul on Gingrich, "has taken some positions that are not conservative."

Bachmann's big zinger, "if you look at Newt-Romney, they were for Obamacare principles. If you look at Newt-Romney, they were for cap and trade." Apparently she was going for a 2 for 1 attack.

No quotes on barbs from Santorum. In fact, the only quote I can find from Santorum in any article is where he defended Gingrich's marital woes. Marital character is important, but added, "I would not say it's a disqualifier." Wait, wasn't Santorum running on the pro-family first ticket? Has he dropped his one and only platform idea to run for Gingrich VP?

CNN also brought back their debate analyst, Todd Graham. Graham is a professor of debate at a small, no-name university in Illinois. I bring this up, because I don't get why they keep going back to this guy. He doesn't even have a professional head shot next to his byline which bugs me for some reason. After every debate, Graham has written lengthy diatribes about how he doesn't like Romney's style. Not that he doesn't like Romney's policies (although, I suspect he doesn't), he doesn't like Romney's stage presence. Seriously, that's what he wastes 1,000 words to tell us. This week was no different, so I'm not feeling compelled to repeat him. But let it be known, CNN ran a piece saying Romney lost the debate.

Also, I felt like sharing this little cutout from the front page of CNN. Apparently their editors slept in on Sunday morning.

How many spelling errors is that?

Want to see the whole debate for yourself? ABC News already has it up and running on their site.


Sources:
ABC News: Iowa Debate: Republican Candidates Clash Amidst Newt Gingrich Surge, Mitt Romney Attacks
Washington Times: Gingrich assailed by rivals, fires back
ABC News: Bet On It: Twitter Loves Romney's Wager
NY Times: In GOP Iowa Debate, Rivals Target Newt Gingrich

Is Mitt Romney a Flip-Flopper?

Is Mitt Romney a flip-flopper? The answer lies in which source you choose to believe, and how far out of context you are willing to reach. Not to mention, not taking into account what had developed between statements.
The Washington Post writes an interesting piece on Romney's "changing" stance today. But even as you read it, you do have to stop and take note of how often they say, "This is a stretch," and "From the context..." or "Ancient history."
The WaPo piece is in response to the new DNC ad, "Mitt v Mitt." Even the DNC loving Washington Post has to conclude at the end of their piece that of the DNC's accusations, only 3 of the 10 were correct. (Which is to say that out of 10 supposed flip-flops, 3 were true, 7 were not.)
What can we really conclude from this? The DNC lies.

And if you really want to read an incredibly negative and harsh commentary on Romney's positions, check out the "Mitt Romney Pardon" by the New York Times, where Gail Collins manages to say things like "start wheeling him around in a laundry hamper," and "He is generally kept so far away from one-on-one interviews that he might as well be wrapped in cellophane. While stuffed in a laundry hamper. Which would eventually be installed in a campaign bus that could just drive around states that are in play, while never actually leaving the highway. Never have we had a more uptight potential president."
Yeah, cause that's fair and unbiased news reporting right there!

Herman Cain 'reassessing' his candidacy

Herman Cain Source: HermanCain.com

In light of yet another woman coming forward and accusing Herman Cain of infidelity and a 13 year romantic extra-marital relationship, Cain is considering dropping out of the GOP race. Or to put it more politely, he is 'reassessing his candidacy."
CNN is citing a top campaign official as saying that they will determine whether or not he's dropping out when they see how these latest allegations affect the fund-raising. (My words, not theirs.)
According to the NY Times, Cain "said that he had not lost his enthusiasm to run, but suggested it was a distraction that could be difficult to recover from."
Cain has denied all allegations of the relationship (and of all the other sexual misconduct accusations). However, he did tell his staff Tuesday that the accuser Ginger White was "a friend and he helped her financially but that nothing inappropriate took place."
“It’s also taken a toll on my wife and family, as you would imagine,” Cain said in a call to the National Review where he broke the news.“For some people, you’re guilty until proven innocent. And so, the public will have to decide whether they believe her or whether they believe me. That’s why we’re going to give it time, to see what type of response we get from our supporters.”
Of course, we're now up to five different accusations or allegations of marital infidelity by Cain. What's that old saying? Where there's smoke there's fire? One accusation, maybe even two, would be suspect. But five? And especially when the fifth one is producing financial and phone records to prove the relationship? Reminds me of another old cliche, "caught red-handed."
But of course, the real question is who will benefit if Cain drops out? Who will get his supporters? You better believe the campaigns are all kicking it into high gear right now to come up with that strategy. If you look at the polls over the past 3 weeks, you will notice that Cain was declining at nearly the same rate as Newt Gingrich was rising. So it is quite conceivable that if Cain drops out, we'll see another Gingrich surge. But my gut doesn't agree with that. Gingrich already soared by attracting the people who were on the Cain bandwagon. They were not necessarily all that supportive or informed about Cain, and then when Gingrich started to look good, they jumped ship.
I think the real question is what was it about Cain that attracted people to him in the first place? Other than his 9-9-9 plan, he's not all that different from the other candidates, but brings a side of pizza. He was an anti-candidate if you will. He was exciting for not having the same style as the other suits on stage. I think that is what drew in his supporters. If his supporters are still looking for the big business smarts, they will go to Mitt Romney or Jon Huntsman. Or if they are just bandwagon types, we'll see them go over to Gingrich because he's the exciting flavor of the month right now. If his supporters are jaded and burned out over the extra-marital affairs issues I think they will go over to anyone but Gingrich.
No matter who the supporters go to, we're talking about a completely different horse race in just a matter of days. Nationally, Cain is pulling in at 15%, and in Iowa he is in second place with 17.7% of the votes. Considering he's only 4-8% behind Gingrich in most polls, and just behind or nearly even with Romney in most cases, that 15% can really change everything. If Cain comes out and throws his weight behind a candidate, we'll see huge things happen fast. But if he withdraws and doesn't back another candidate, it may be a few weeks before things really materialize.
Only 5 weeks till Iowa, and 6 weeks till New Hampshire. Let the games really begin!

Who won the GOP National Security Debate last night?

GOP National Security Debate, Photo Source: NY Times (linked)

I read the news, so you don't have to!

So who won the GOP contenders National Security Debate as hosted by CNN? Let's do a quick recap of what the major media outlets are saying! (And in some cases what the different reporters at each outlet are saying.)


Washington Post's Stephen Stromberg - "Romney and Gingrich won. Romney because he is still the putative frontrunner and the likely nominee, and he did not mess up tonight. Gingrich because he held his own in the spotlight, unlike some of the previous anti-Romneys in this primary campaign. Otherwise, Perry still looked tired, Bachmann still sounded kooky, Huntsman was still too moderate, Ron Paul was still Ron Paul, and Cain still gave no sense he belonged on stage, even among this cast of characters."

Washington Post's Jonathon Bernstein - "I don’t think Gingrich has any plausible chance of winning the nomination... Beyond that, I agree with what seemed to be the Twitter consensus during the debate that Mitt Romney wasn’t doing especially well. He didn’t offer much to convince reluctant Republicans to resign themselves to him, but he didn’t do much to hurt himself, either. Given that he’s well in the lead, that’s probably an acceptable enough outcome for him. I do think that Perry continues to improve."

Washington Post's  Jennifer Rubin- "Both Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) and Jon Huntsman were predictably buffoonish, calling for pullout from Afghanistan, cuts in the military and other positions far to the left of the Obama administration. To sum up, then, the winners tonight: Romney, Bachmann, Romney, AEI and Heritage, and Wolf Blitzer. The losers: Cain, Huntsman, Paul. Potential problems: Gingrich on immigration."

Todd Graham for CNN - "Knowing your arguments and facts is one way to gain credibility. Mitt Romney fattened his credibility bank account at the expense of Rick Perry, who supported a no fly zone over Syria."
"on Huntsman made a similar deposit when he stated that sanctions on Iran would not work since "the Chinese aren't going to play ball and the Russians aren't going to play ball," and Iran has already decided to go nuclear."
"Another way to maintain credibility is to cite proof for your arguments. Michele Bachmann has said things in previous debates (President Obama wants Medicare to collapse) and in last night's debate (suggesting that the CIA cannot interrogate terrorist suspects any longer because the ACLU is in charge) that were not very credible. These frequent ATM withdrawals hurt Bachmann because a lack of believability spills over."
"Bachmann called Pakistan "too nuclear to fail," and chastised Perry for being naïve when he said he would not give Pakistan one penny until it proved it had America's best interests in mind."  (her naivety accusation was truly a highlight of the evening - in my humble opinion)
"Ron Paul is an enigma. He can provide such thoughtful answers at one time and later interject completely unsubstantiated statements."
"Answering questions with non-answers simply isn't credible. For example, Herman Cain twice last night reached into a very old bag of tricks to answer questions with the standard "I'd consult the experts" line."
"Finally, to save credibility, you should be prepared to defend your position when giving a potentially unpopular answer. Newt Gingrich had two answers that the conservative wing of his party might not like, but he defended them well."

Gingrich: Laws preventing child labor are 'truly stupid'

Newt Gingrich Source: www.newt.org

Before I get into discussing Newt Gingrich's points on child labor and education, I have to make another point. What I am about to discuss is an absolutely perfect example of why it is important to get your news from more than one source. To read just the CNN story on Mr. Gingrich's speech at Harvard, you would think that Mr. Gingrich is proposing we do away with all child labor laws, and employ poor kids. Talk about a very biased and negative slant. If you read the NY Times take on the speech, you'll actually discover that Mr. Gingrich has made a fascinating suggestion for ways to improve work ethics in schools (for all students, not just the poor ones), and he is trying to find a way to help students by making college more affordable. All the words put into bold are mine and mine alone- to prove the point about media bias. 
The CNN Version: 

Newt Gingrich proposed a plan Friday that would allow poor children to clean their schools for money, saying such a setup would both allow students to earn income and endow them with a strong work ethic.
Speaking at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, the former House Speaker said his system would be an improvement on current child labor laws, which he called "truly stupid."
"It is tragic what we do in the poorest neighborhoods, entrapping children in child laws which are truly stupid," Gingrich said. "Saying to people you shouldn't go to work before you're 14, 16. You're totally poor, you're in a school that's failing with a teacher that's failing."
Now, for the same exact speech as reported by the NY Times-
“You say to somebody, you shouldn’t go to work before you’re what, 14, 16 years of age, fine,” Mr. Gingrich said. “You’re totally poor. You’re in a school that is failing with a teacher that is failing. I’ve tried for years to have a very simple model. Most of these schools ought to get rid of the unionized janitors, have one master janitor and pay local students to take care of the school. The kids would actually do work, they would have cash, they would have pride in the schools, they’d begin the process of rising.”
Interesting, isn't it? Bias from the media can really change the tone of a story. The CNN makes him out to be all for child slave labor. The NY Times just presented the facts.
Now, for the rest of his speech-
He wants every state to open a work-study college where students work 20 hours a week during the school year and full-time in the summer and then graduate debt-free.
Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, called Mr. Gingrich’s proposal “absurd.” “Who in their right mind would lay off janitors and replace them with disadvantaged children — who should be in school, and not cleaning schools,” Ms. Weingarten said. “And who would start backtracking on laws designed to halt the exploitation of children?”
Personally, I think this idea is phenomenal. I absolutely support it. Except, I wouldn't pay the children. I think all students at every school should have to pitch in and do the cleaning. Teach everyone about taking care of the school and public property. How many kids would stop scribbling on walls or in bathroom stalls if they knew it might be their turn tomorrow to go in and clean them?
And as for a work-study program to get through college- BRING IT ON! Absolutely! How very different would our economy be if students weren't graduating with more debt than they will even make in their first year's salary? And why should parents have to take out loans to put kids through college? First, make colleges more affordable. Second, give students the chance to earn their way through!
Newt just moved up in my personal estimations. Liberals will absolutely hate this idea. And it goes against everything Occupy Wall Street wants. But personally, I think it is brilliant!


Source: CNN "Gingrich: Laws preventing child labor are 'truly stupid' "

NY Times "From Gingrich, an Unconventional View of Education"