Today at 5 p.m. PDT (8 p.m. EDT) our “‘Intervention’ for Gary Johnson Voters” series continues, with a show focusing on foreign policy.

Today, our “‘Intervention’ for Gary Johnson Voters” series continues, with a show focusing on foreign policy.

Today’s live show, and then later the archive recording, can be accessed here.

To access the show page at BlogTalk Radio, which will allow you to check out a past episode, or to subscribe to the recorded archives via iTunes and other services, use this link.

To access the new iTunes store page for “Don’t Let It Go…Unheard,” where you can find past episodes, subscribe, and leave ratings and reviews (pretty please!), use this link.

Also note, next week’s show will be an interview with Leonard Peikoff, author of the recently released book, THE DIM HYPOTHESIS: WHY THE LIGHTS OF THE WEST ARE GOING OUT.

Finally, in light of the upcoming release of “Atlas Shrugged Part II,” the movie, I have added this April, 2011, archive episode of our show, discussing Part I, to the BlogTalk Radio feed.

Advertisements

6 Comments

Filed under Don't Let It Go...Unheard

6 responses to “Today at 5 p.m. PDT (8 p.m. EDT) our “‘Intervention’ for Gary Johnson Voters” series continues, with a show focusing on foreign policy.

  1. Craig

    Exactly as I expected, I see that Romney has now announced that he has no intention of trying to repeal Obamacare.

  2. Perhaps it is time to stage a intervention for Romney

    The Associated Press: Romney says he likes parts of ‘Obamacare’

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gfjyv-zQFjJ5VATL_48iTEiuxwMQ?docId=a0603e34d0cf440d9626fc6331c98162

    “Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, who promised early in his campaign to repeal President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, says he would keep several important parts of the overhaul.

    “Of course there are a number of things that I like in health care reform that I’m going to put in place,” he said in an interview broadcast Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” ”One is to make sure that those with pre-existing conditions can get coverage.”

    Romney also said he would allow young adults to keep their coverage under their parents’ health-insurance.”….

    ….””I say we’re going to replace Obamacare. And I’m replacing it with my own plan,” Romney said. “And even in Massachusetts when I was governor, our plan there deals with pre-existing conditions and with young people.”…

    RRD:How,specifically,does he intend to do this? There are ways to do it that are inappropriate ,but that will not result in the destruction of private health insurance (e.g. “shared risk pools”) ,and then there is a flat ban on “discriminating” against those with pre-existing conditions,which will destroy private insurance. Does anyone have a full transcript?
    Perhaps it is time for us to stage a “intervention” for Mr.Romney?
    If you wish to see why so many people are either reluctant or unwilling to vote for this man and why they believe that they would merely be pawns in his game this is exactly why.
    And this is precisely the sort of behavior that sucked all the energy out of Mccain’s campaign.

  3. Mitt Romney On Obamacare: ‘I’m Not Getting Rid Of All Of Health Care Reform’ (VIDEO) – The Huffington Post

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/09/09/mitt-romney-obamacare-_n_1868385.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

    ….”In his “Meet the Press” interview, Romney again pledged repeal of the law. ”….

    “I say we’re going to replace Obamacare,” Romney said. “And I’m replacing it with my own plan. And even in Massachusetts when I was governor, our plan there deals with pre-existing conditions and with young people.”

    While that may be true, the Romney campaign has said in the past his federal plan wouldn’t include such a provision.

    Earlier this election, his campaign laid out a policy that ensures that a person who is covered by an employer and switches jobs could not be discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition during that job switch. The Obama campaign argued that that’s already law. But the bigger question left unanswered was: what happens to those people just entering the labor market with a pre-existing condition? Would Romney pass laws prohibiting discrimination by insurance companies against them?

    In a statement to The Huffington Post in June,Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul confirmed that — contra what Romney said Sunday — he would not pass such a law, but rather push reforms to help alleviate the problem at the state level:

    …”Fixing our health care system means making sure that every American, regardless of their health care needs, can find quality, affordable coverage. That is why Governor Romney supports reforms to protect those with pre-existing conditions from being denied access to a health plan while they have continuous coverage. And for those purchasing insurance for the first time, he supports reforms that empower states to make high risk pools more accessible by using cost reducing methods like risk adjustment and reinsurance. Beginning on his first day in office, Governor Romney is committed to working with Congress to enact polices like these that protect Americans’ access to the care they need.”

  4. jayeldee

    There is no reason now–and there never was–to believe anything that Romney says; not anything.

    He’s a phony. It’s the Republican way.

    (And the Democrats?–quite nearly the exact opposite.)

  5. jayeldee

    And here is another point worth considering…. If our aim should be to incapacitate a menacing government and so “buy time” (which I, in agreement with Amy, certainly think it should be), then, simply the transfer of (executive) power is, in and of itself, of some value in achieving this end—as it forces a break in the stride of the bureaucracy. Everything is (more or less) new, all over again. Lots of new bodies have to start learning new ropes. (Hell, they’ll even be needing new drapes and art work for the White House; and new china, I expect.) All of that business brings the bureaucracy to something of a crawl, for some period of time—which period, might prove exceedingly valuable and, however short, is in the current case certainly better than allowing the existing Obama-ist bureaucracy to coast along and capitalize upon its momentum.

    (I realize now that this is the reason that I have long thought that a handy rule of thumb to follow, in modern politics, is: “If they’re IN office—vote them out—regardless.”)

    (Of course, this “rule” mightn’t apply in four years, assuming a Romney victory come November—and a Hilary Clinton candidacy, four years hence ….. Then again—it might.)

    ….. Anyway: worthy of consideration? I think so.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s