RTS, we're both old enough to have seen this strategy a thousand times before. Heck, I even fell for it by responding to Post #2.

 

"I really don't want to talk about this because my guy is dead wrong. Let's change the subject. Your guy did something, too. Not remotely related to the issue at hand. But I need to change the subject and get out of Dodge as fast as I can."

 

Candidate Romney is 180 degrees out on this one. And you and I both know it.

how many were there that did that ? Was it the majority of parents there?

 

Does it matter? How much fraud is too much?

Leader? Obama? The man doesn't know who's an ally and who isn't. Quite the leader there.

 

Then you have Obama suggesting "that the 'working poor' on welfare are a political bloc that can be harnessed." There's a compassionate non-leader for you.

 

Obama's leadership style on two of the biggest challenges facing the US, is to blame others or try to minimize the fact that he has failed. Leadership usually involves accountability but I guess he missed that lesson.

This is the way it has been for quite a while. You wouldn't believe how many families use the ER doctor's as their PCP's. They know they won't refuse them so they show up when they don't feel well, or in Henry's case, when they need a babysitter.

 

Additionally, the provider's try everything they can to get those people on Medicaid but if they don't follow up with it they'll remain uninsured.

I really and truly think that the Rs were waiting for 2016.

 

The party as a whole or just the top-tier individual candidates that decided not to run? Or both?

The party as a whole or just the top-tier individual candidates that decided not to run? Or both?

 

I should have clarified.

 

When it was clear that the Republican nominee was going to the survivor of a very sorry lot (remember - we're talking about Bachman, Perry, Cain et. al.), I believe that scared off the Rubios and the Christies from potentially deep-sixing their political careers by accepting the VP spot on the ticket.

 

Whether that is individual choice on the part of the Republican party's up-and-comers; or a more global decision, I don't know. I would lean toward the former.

I should have clarified.

 

When it was clear that the Republican nominee was going to the survivor of a very sorry lot (remember - we're talking about Bachman, Perry, Cain et. al.), I believe that scared off the Rubios and the Christies from potentially deep-sixing their political careers by accepting the VP spot on the ticket.

 

Whether that is individual choice on the part of the Republican party's up-and-comers; or a more global decision, I don't know. I would lean toward the former.

 

Gotcha. And I agree.

RTS, we're both old enough to have seen this strategy a thousand times before. Heck, I even fell for it by responding to Post #2.

 

"I really don't want to talk about this because my guy is dead wrong. Let's change the subject. Your guy did something, too. Not remotely related to the issue at hand. But I need to change the subject and get out of Dodge as fast as I can."

 

Candidate Romney is 180 degrees out on this one. And you and I both know it.

You brought up leadership, I HAD to respond to that.

 

Both candidates are wrong in many areas, we both know that as well. It's getting to be like the media in this forum lately though. Too many give Obama a pass and want to hammer Romney. I can concede to Romney gaffes. Unfortunately, on here, and on my TV, far to often nobody wants to concede to Obama gaffes. Has everyone that's not conservative gone "Tingles" on me? :lol: