Kelly pledges to reverse health care takeover

Jesse Kelly

For Immediate Release: Monday, March 22, 2010

Tucson, AZ. Jesse Kelly releases the following statement in reaction to last night’s health care vote: “I am deeply disappointed that Representative Giffords has so blatantly voted against the majority of voters in her district. Her vote for a large, new federal health care entitlement will both increase deficit spending and restrict free market health care options available to residents of District 8. When I am in Congress, I will do everything in my power to reverse Obamacare and enact real free market solutions that truly increase competition and lower costs.”

Jesse supports market-based solutions to increase competition. He will work to legalize the purchase of insurance across state lines and permit groups of individuals to pool together to negotiate the terms of their insurance coverage. Moreover, he advocates tax policies that encourage individual ownership of insurance coverage and increased use of health care savings accounts.

Jesse also supports real tort reform that would lower the cost of malpractice coverage through a cap on punitive damages. Tort reform will also lower costs by lessening the practice of defensive medicine.

“Rep. Giffords chose party loyalty over the residents of her district. My pledge to repeal the government takeover of health care will be a central theme of my campaign from now until November,” stated Kelly.

Jesse Kelly is a Republican candidate for Arizona’s Eighth Congressional District in the southeastern region of the state. For more information on the Jesse Kelly campaign please visit VoteJesseKelly.com or send an e-mail to jesse@votejessekelly.com.


Comments

  1. so Kelly wants to get rid of the part where kids cannot be denied because they have a pre-existing condition? Or the part where people cant be dropped for having a pre-existing condition? Or allowing kids to stay on their parents insurance till they are 26? Or the tax break for small businesses who give their people insurance?

    Trust me I want to get rid of the majority of this bill. Its a hand out to millions of people. But at least be specific and say what you want to repeal. Because something tells me some of those provisions aren’t going anywhere.

  2. bracketologist says
  3. Will Jesse Kelly also support repairing Gabby’s windows that were smashed last night? Fortunately, the feds are investigating last night’s Kristallnacht festivities

  4. No McCain says

    I guarantee you that a lefty smashed her windows.

  5. No McCain,

    “I guarantee you that a lefty smashed her windows.”

    Well, we’ll see when the FBI frogmarches them through the perp walk.

  6. No McCain says

    Just like they were going to frogmarch Rove? Libs do not live in reality or facts, just emotion and striking out with ugliness. So sad. Have a nice day.

  7. If only we had the decorum and understatedness of the teabaggers, we’d be better, eh?

  8. Klute there is absolutely no indication that the person who smashed the window had anything to do with Kelly or any other candidate. Your comments are quite reckless. Vandalism is wrong and so is casting aspersions.

  9. I think Klute smashed her window, so he/she could blame it on BushHitler.

    Go back to Daily Kos nitwit

  10. ……………….
    The Klute Says:
    March 22nd, 2010 at 8:33 pm
    If only we had the decorum and understatedness of the teabaggers, we’d be better, eh?
    ………….

    “Decorum and Understatedness” from a guy who is SO obssessed with icky gay sex acts he needs to keep saying “teabaggers” and who just invoked the hysterical and ugly smear of “Kristallnacht” for one stupid brick.

    It was the NATIONAL SOCIALISTS who organized and carried out the terror of Kristallnatch.

  11. wanumba,

    Hey, it’s not me who’s obsessed with it. Here are some proud teabaggers from rally with their signs:

    http://rsiasoco.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/2009-03-18-tea_bag_dems.jpg

    “for one stupid brick…”

    So, you’re cool with one brick but you would have been upset if it had been more than one.

  12. Lenny,

    I didn’t say Jesse Kelly had anything to do with it, and no, for the record, I don’t think he did nor anyone in his staff.

    Yet, his silence on politically motivated violence is very telling. Jesse Kelly will issue a press release if he notices his cereal stays crunchy in milk, but he can’t put out one condeming this?

  13. Lenny,

    Bush? Who the hell cares about Bush?

  14. bracketologist says

    Klute,

    Actually Kelly spoke out against it this morning on Wake Up Tucson.

    Its funny how the libs continue to attack after their “victory.” I’m going to love me some November.

  15. bracketologist,

    “Actually Kelly spoke out against it this morning on Wake Up Tucson.”

    Good for him! Without sarcasm, I’ll tip my hat to that – that’s what he should do, and it speaks well of the discourse (provided of course, he didn’t qualify it by saying “I understand the anger” or some such).

  16. Annie Hoyle says

    I love it! The more time The Klute spends arguing about “teabaggers” and the like (and it looks like a lot of time), the less time he spends doing anything constructive for his causes (whatever those may be). Keep coming back, Klute! We love having you!

  17. Annie Hoyle says

    Back to the post. Sounds like CD8 could use someone like Kelly.. I’d love to hear more about the Health Care Savings Accounts (so much better than flexible spending accounts!) So far, I can’t find anyone to answer the question of what will happen to our Health care savings account when Obamacare takes over. A friend called Harry Mitchell’s office and not only were they not able to answer the question, but they don’t know the difference between flexible spending accounts and health care savings accounts.

  18. And hey, it looks like (using wanumba’s emphasis), window breakings now are being organized by CONSERVATIVES NATIONALLY:

    http://www.kansascity.com/2010/03/22/1830379/democratic-offices-vandalized.html

    “And on Monday, a former Alabama militia leader took credit for instigating the actions.

    Mike Vanderboegh of Pinson, Ala., former leader of the Alabama Constitutional Militia, put out a call on Friday for modern “Sons of Liberty” to break the windows of Democratic Party offices nationwide in opposition to health care reform. Since then, vandals have struck several offices, including the Sedgwick County Democratic Party headquarters in Wichita.”

    Queuing spin in 5… 4… 3… 2… 1…

  19. Annie,

    What makes you think I can’t do both? Last couple days, I’ve been beating the bushes for people to donate to Gabby and Harry, getting people to write letters to McCain and Kyl, and of course, performing to crowds.

  20. Klute, why don’t you issue a press release condemning the smashing of the window? If you are not willing to issue a press release, why should someone else who had nothing to do with the incident make a statement.

  21. Lenny,

    Because I’m not running for public office?

  22. Lenny,

    And as stated above, Jesse Kelly went on the air and condemned the attack (per bracketologist). Kelly did the right thing and I applaud him for that.

    wanumba’s sad little point was that Kristallnacht was performed by the Nazis, and that means for some reason it’s the shame of the modern liberal (which I don’t get, but I’m also sane). My point was that there is a fringe, crazy conservative movement that is apparently trying to organize a national politically-motivated (as opposed to anti-Semitic) Kristallnacht… Which belies “No McCain”‘s “a lefty did it!!!” claim.

  23. Very enlightening – continue to spread the word. Getting excited about an update. For too long now have I had the urge to start my own blog. Guess if I put it off any longer I will never ever take action. I’ll be sure to add you to my Blogroll. Many thanks!!

  24. …………………..
    Klute
    wanumba’s sad little point was that Kristallnacht was performed by the Nazis, and that means for some reason it’s the shame of the modern liberal (which I don’t get, but I’m also sane). My point was that there is a fringe, crazy conservative movement that is apparently trying to organize a national politically-motivated (as opposed to anti-Semitic) Kristallnacht…
    ……

    Dodging the reality again by putting words in poster’s mouths that they never said.

    Kristallnatch was the SOCIALIST NATIONAL GOVERNMENT which set out to destroy TWO things: private businesses and certain citizens, the Jews.

    It was the the GOVERNMENT that orchastrated the attacks as part of an overwhelming STATE SOCIALIST policy of crushing opposition and free market capitalism and scapegoating a minority, it was not uncoordinated citizens.

    Klute is pushing an unsubstantiated slander with no proof to nuture the idea there is a radical conservative violent element, a narrative in lockstep with the hysterical media propaganda in force instantly. INSTANLY. No proof. No history, unlike the Democratic Party which has a sordid association history of lynching people, especially Blacks, but also Republicans.

    That’s the problem with lynchings – it begins with hysterical, emotion-laden attacks against a target, stereotyped group to encourage people to deliver “justice” without due process – without determining the TRUTH and without determining if the target is in fact guilty of any crime.

    Klute has no proof of anything, but he’s fast to assign inflammatory specific blame to a political association he doesn’t like and disrespects. He also desbases the seriousness of Kristallnatch to a misdemeanor level by trying to equate it with a brick throwing. But he plays the NAZI card to prop up the other Pavlovian narrative that conservatives are neo-NAZI, even though NAZIs were SOCIALIST LEFT and NOT conservative in any measure.
    KLute does not want anyone to examine Democrat Charlie’s Rangel’s statement this week that “AMericans elected a Socialist.”

    Further, since all of the so-called “hate” crimes this year, they were all discovered to have been faked by people on the LEft to smear Conservatives. Concocting fraudulant evidence to support the fraudulant narrative shows a willingness to destroy people by any means for their political views.

  25. wanumba,

    “Klute is pushing an unsubstantiated slander with no proof to nuture the idea there is a radical conservative violent element…”

    Other than, you know, the words of a radical, violent conservative:

    http://www.kansascity.com/2010/03/22/1830379/democratic-offices-vandalized.html

    But you’re right. I’m sure there’s no violence being perpetrated by conservatives. Jim Clyburn is faxing pictures of nooses to himself. Tom Periello’s brother cut his own gas line. Gabby Giffords (a Jew, incidentally, hence the original callback to Kristallnacht) broke her own windows.

    “Further, since all of the so-called “hate” crimes this year, they were all discovered to have been faked by people on the LEft to smear Conservatives.”

    Proof – proof that ALL hate crimes were faked. Links, they’re easy to find, you supercilious hack.

  26. There are a lot of self-proclaimed Christians here engaging in some interesting behavior.

    “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor,” the eighth commandment (in some numberings, ninth) reads.

    When I was growing up in Sunday school our teachers usually paraphrased the archaic King James Version English of that commandment as “don’t lie.” Teaching children not to lie is a good Sunday school lesson, but note that this isn’t actually what the commandment says. It’s much more specific, prohibiting a particular kind of lying — “false witness.” A better children’s paraphrase might be “don’t accuse anyone of something they didn’t do” or “don’t make up bad things about other people.”

    The distinction and the specificity matters. Lying is a bad thing and if you’re teaching small children in Sunday school about the importance of telling the truth, there are plenty of other Bible passages you can cite to make that point. But this particular kind of lying — bearing false witness — is singled out as particularly bad. It’s corrosive and enslaving in a way that other lying may not always be.

    To explore this, I’d like to revisit a classic Ethics 101 hypothetical situation involving, as so many of these hypothetical situations seem to, Nazis. (I apologize for violating the “Godwin” convention.)

    Say you’re living in occupied Holland during World War II and you’ve got a neighboring Jewish family hidden in your attic. A local busybody, a collaborator eager to curry favor with the occupying Nazi government, comes sniffing around looking for anything he might learn that would earn the oppressor’s praise. Is it acceptable to lie to this man, to deceive him in order to ensure the safety of the innocent family you are helping to rescue?

    Note that this classic hypothetical dilemma was not-at-all hypothetical for many actual people who lived it. The righteous gentiles of the Netherlands — people like the Ten Boom family or the many helpers who tried to save Anne Frank’s family — were constantly confronted by this very real, high-stakes situation. And every time, they lied. They actively, aggressively worked to deceive the collaborators and the Nazis themselves, lying, misleading, forging papers and deceiving without hesitation or remorse.

    I believe they were right to do so. I think this is obvious and uncontroversial. This is, in fact, the judgment of history. These people are remembered as righteous gentiles, after all, because they chose to lie to protect the innocent.

    There are schools of thought which regard the moral duty never to lie as applying even in cases such as this. (Michael Sandel has an engaging discussion of Kant’s views on this, if you’re interested. As far as that consequentialist/inconsequentialist argument goes, I’ll see your Kant and raise you a Bonhoeffer.) My point here is not to rehash that argument, but simply to point out that this sort of lie — deceiving an evildoer to protect the innocent from harm — is a wholly different species from the sort of lie prohibited in the Ten Commandments. The rescuers lied, but they did not bear false witness against their neighbors.

    That brings us to the distinction I want to make here. I do not think it is difficult to envision, imagine or identify a context in which it is acceptable — justified, moral, right, wise, obligatory — to lie to evildoers. But it is far more difficult to construct or identify a situation in which it is acceptable to lie about evildoers.

    Lying about others — bearing false witness against them — is dangerously corrosive. It sets the liar on a downward path that leads not just to moral confusion, but to epistemological insanity. Bearing false witness will ultimately make you crazy.

    What may start out as a well-intentioned choice to “fight dirty” for a righteous cause gradually forces the bearers of false witness to behave as though their false testimony were true. This is treacherous — behaving in accord with unreality is never effective, wise or safe. Ultimately, the bearers of false witness come to believe their own lies. They come to be trapped in their own fantasy world, no longer willing or able to separate reality from unreality. Once the bearers of false witness are that far gone it may be too late to set them free from their self-constructed prisons.

    This slide from fighting dirty to embracing insanity happens in politics, obviously, but not only in politics. And regardless of the arena the end result is the same. The bearers of false witness make themselves stupid — so stupid that they don’t even seem to notice that they’ve surrendered the argument by choosing to live in a fantasy world in which all arguments are irrelevant.

    Anyway, contra Kant, I believe it may be justified and just sometimes to lie to evildoers. But don’t lie about others, not even about those you regard as evildoers. That’s never justified and it won’t end well for you.

    TL;DR Version: If you don’t have proof of your claims that there is a vast liberal conspiracy at work doing its best to make your side look bad, in what way are you serving either God or your cause by bearing false witness against your opponents instead of showing a remote interest in the truth of the perpetrators? Can you still take back what you’ve done, or are you so far gone that you have forced yourself to believe in this artificial reality?

    Treating lives like pawns in a game is not a very Christian thing to do. Please examine your motives more carefully in the future and stop lying about people in the hopes they get hurt for doing nothing to you.

Leave a Reply