Romney: Health Care Mandates Are A Conservative Solution, So Long As States Impose Them

I've suggested that I would be okay with nominating Romney. Because he's generally conservative (ish) and probably a good enough manager.

The problem is just that Romney is unacceptable to around half of the party. And he is unable to make himself acceptable. And in fact he keeps making it worse.

Requiring people to have health insurance is "conservative," GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney told MSNBC on Wednesday, but only if states do it.

...

"Personal responsibility," Romney said, "is more conservative in my view than something being given out for free by government."

"There were two options in my state," he said. "One was to continue to allow people without insurance to go to the hospital and get free care, paid for by the government, paid for by taxpayers."

"The best idea is to let each state craft their own solution because that's, after all, the heart of conservatism: to follow the Constitution," he said.

The guy is throwing away the presidency because he can't say "I erred."

Romney has the makings of an argument here, but I've never heard him make it.

He can claim (and I think this is true, or true enough for politics, leastaways) that Massachusetts already had a heavily subsidized/socialist-leaning health care system, with lots of taxpayer money diverted to pay for the indigent's health care.

He can attempt to distinguish himself from Obama by claiming that in Massachusetts, where socialized medicine already existed, prior to his governorship, that his plan pushed the state's health care to the right from its initial left position.

And he can go on to say that given that America, the nation, does not have a socialized health care model as an, ahem, pre-existing condition (oooh, you can use that, Mitt, gratis), Obama's effort pushed health care in the wrong direction, to the left, away from personal responsibility, away from personal ownership and private contract, towards government takeover.

A doctor must treat his patient as he finds him, after all. He cannot tell a man dying of lung cancer to go back in time and stop smoking 30 years ago.

He can make the case that RomneyCare was an attempt to push the heavily-socialized and therefore dysfunctional health care system of Massachusetts to a slightly more responsible, "conservative" place, whereas imposing such a system on a nation that still had voluntary health care insurance was anti-conservative.

This isn't a very strong argument, but it's the only one he can make. And I suppose he is sort of implying some of this; he should say it directly.

Because he's not going to win if he keeps insisting that the individual mandate -- which is our best hope of defeating ObamaCare, both in the courts and legislatively -- is a good, proper, "conservative" measure.

To some extent we conservatives have seized on the Individual Mandate opportunistically -- we don't like it, of course, but we don't like much about ObamaCare; this just seems like our bet hope of undoing it all.

Romney is essentially telling us, then, "Give up on fighting ObamaCare, and you can then have me as President."

That's an exchange few of us are willing to make. If the choice is between defeating ObamaCare and getting President Romney... uh, that's not really a choice requiring much thought. You lose.

But he's continuing on and on like this.

Which actually makes me doubt he's really as smart as he's cracked up to be, or as electable as claimed.

If he can't figure this much out -- we want to repeal ObamaCare far, far more than we want President Romney -- then his political instincts are not merely poor, but outright atrocious.

Say what you will about Perry, but this belief of Romney's -- that the party will give up its best weapon against ObamaCare just for the dubious benefit of electing Mitt Romney as President -- is far stupider than anything that's come out of Perry's mouth.

"Heartless"? Perry was desperately appealing to emotion when confronted with a tough attack, on the spot. But Romney's had years to see this problem coming and years to formulate a response.

And what he's come up with, thus far, is that "the individual mandate is actually quite conservative."

Posted by: Ace at 02:05 PM



Comments

1 If you go by his actual record Romney doesn't have a conservative bone in his body. None at all.

Posted by: Vic at December 21, 2011 02:06 PM (YdQQY)

2 But he's the most electable you see....

Posted by: laceyunderalls at December 21, 2011 02:08 PM (pLTLS)

3 But I will hold my nose and vote for him against that Stuttering Clusterf*ck of a Miserable Failure.

Posted by: billygoat at December 21, 2011 02:08 PM (NgJH0)

4
Rick Perry 2012!
Are you really going to vote for Romney or Gingrich in the primary?

Posted by: Ben at December 21, 2011 02:08 PM (wuv1c)

5 Record? The American public has repeatedly shown that its short-term memory and its affinity for sparkly things far outweighs any dubious record a politician might have.

Oh, look over there! Ponies!

Posted by: Flounder at December 21, 2011 02:09 PM (Kkt/i)

6 Socialism/Statism at any level is not conservative. State's Rights are to protect us from an intrusive federal leviathan, not license to bring the leviathan to the local level.

FAIL!

I will not vote for Mittsy under any circumstances.




There will be blood.

Posted by: The Hammer at December 21, 2011 02:09 PM (7WMGf)

7 His holy underwear must be on too tight.

Posted by: Heralder at December 21, 2011 02:09 PM (/Mxso)

8 Pickings are slim so I might well vote for Romney in the general election but belief in socialized medicine requires a disregard of the basics of economic freedom. Socialism doesn't work. It doesn't work for Chevy Volts and it doesn't work for tonsillectomies. Romney wants to handcuff Adam Smith's invisible hand and that's a problem for me.

Posted by: WalrusRex at December 21, 2011 02:09 PM (Hx5uv)

9 But he is so gosh darn electable

/

Santorum?

Posted by: Big T Party at December 21, 2011 02:11 PM (hC5jI)

10 Maybe in the State of Despair, but not in these 57 States!

Posted by: dfbaskwill at December 21, 2011 02:11 PM (71LDo)

11 The guy is a liberal.

Posted by: Zel Miller at December 21, 2011 02:11 PM (GUwij)

12 Ace, you keep bashing Romney like this and we're going to have to confiscate Jeff B.'s belt and shoelaces.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at December 21, 2011 02:12 PM (l9zgN)

13 I will not vote for Mittsy under any circumstances.

There
will be blood.


Posted by: The Hammer at December 21, 2011 02:09 PM (7WMGf)
Bully, bully!...I'm counting on uhhhh, ummmm, you!

Posted by: TEH WON at December 21, 2011 02:12 PM (NgJH0)

14 And what he's come up with, thus far, is that "the individual mandate is actually quite conservative."

It sorta was(at least in origin), seeing as it was thought up by a conservative think tank. Here's what I don't get though, why not just have an insurance tax credit? Doesn't that solve the problem of getting people who can otherwise afford insurance enrolled?

Posted by: taylork at December 21, 2011 02:14 PM (5wsU9)

15 @6 - "State's Rights are to protect us from an intrusive federal leviathan, not license to bring the leviathan to the local level."
Well said. Something I hope Perry understands. As much as I like hte 10th A rhetoric, it should not be a "license" as you say.
Personal responsibility is conservative, government coercion is not.

Posted by: SH at December 21, 2011 02:14 PM (gmeXX)

16 Santorum?

The guy who brought his dead baby home to show his kids?

Posted by: Poopie. at December 21, 2011 02:14 PM (gQLr2)

17 Posted by: Empire of Jeff at December 21, 2011 02:12 PM (l9zgN)

Someone should call ParisParamus' family and have them remove the Tylenol from his Medicine Cabinet.

Posted by: garrett at December 21, 2011 02:14 PM (GUwij)

18 Blah blah Romney sux

Blah blah Perry's great, just cant stitch two words together in a coherent sentence, folds like a cheap suit under minute pressure, has enormous negatives with the very groups we need to win over ... but yeah, he's our man.

Oy freaking vey.

Perry's been done for a while, just hasn't had the good grace to bow out like Cain did after he imploded himself. Perry's blown off the same number of limbs, not because he's been getting some on the side like Cain, but because he's really not as good as those who like him want him to be.

Mebbe we should believe in unicorns farting pixie dust to make him likable by the millions of indeps who recoil from him.

Palin's got a similar likability issue, and IMO she'd be a far better candidate than most of the train wreck we have as choices now.

But it doesn't matter. Getting O out matters.

Posted by: John Galt at December 21, 2011 02:14 PM (9NQ6I)

19 Trying to argue that state level socialized medicine is a conservative move to the right........oh yea that's a winning argument.

Posted by: Brainpimp at December 21, 2011 02:15 PM (vYToD)

20 No kidding.

40 years ago. hell 20 years ago Romney would be without question a democrat. The fact we've moved so far left that he's considered with a straight face a "Republican" is frightening. Heck, Perry is pretty liberal and what I would have called middle of the road years ago.

A vote for Romney means Obamacare with a new package, the same taxes, the same immigration policies with perhaps, perhaps a slightly stronger stand on foreign policy and no really, really huge spending increases.

Posted by: Clutch Cargo at December 21, 2011 02:15 PM (Qxdfp)

21 I dont know whats up with Rasmussen. Their polling has gone out of wack since after 2010, first with inflating Obama's numbers now the primaries.

Posted by: Flapjackmaka at December 21, 2011 02:16 PM (FKQng)

22 Mitt Romneycare will never get my vote, and I will never vote for anyone, including Chris Christie, who will have endorsed Romneycare before the primaries are done. As long as there is another option out there, anyone who endorses Mitt Romneycare will be politically dead to me, forever.

Posted by: doug at December 21, 2011 02:16 PM (gUGI6)

23 ( It doesn't take a Weatherman to know which way Romney blows )

but, winning the election next year is like Good Pussy: As noted in 'Archer', "You can't put a value on Good Pussy."


Posted by: SantaRosaStan, im Tal der wilden Rosen at December 21, 2011 02:17 PM (UqKQV)

24 The only reason Romney is a Republican is it provided a better pathway to governor at the time. He actually ran the State as a Democrat.

Posted by: Vic at December 21, 2011 02:18 PM (YdQQY)

25
Socialism is Conservative.

Posted by: Mitt the Confused at December 21, 2011 02:18 PM (JYheX)

26 2
But he's the most electable you see....

He's the most electable they will show us...

Posted by: The Robot Devil at December 21, 2011 02:18 PM (136wp)

27 SCOASEF
Stammering Cluster Of A Supposedly Electable Fraud

Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at December 21, 2011 02:18 PM (JxMoP)

28 The other thing that galls me about Romney's defense of RomneyCare is the federalism angle, because RomneyCare requires a big check from the federal government in order to keep it solvent. That's not federalism at all. That's begger-thy-neighbor.

I would love to see a debate where Perry turns to Romney and asks, "With the staunch belief in federalism that you have proclaimed at these debates, can we expect a President Romney to cut federal funds for Massachusetts's health care program, so that the people of [insert state where debate is taking place here] don't have to pay for a government program that they have no say in?"

Posted by: JSchuler at December 21, 2011 02:19 PM (SmZQt)

29 >>>It sorta was(at least in origin), seeing as it was thought up by a conservative think tank. Here's what I don't get though, why not just have an insurance tax credit? Doesn't that solve the problem of getting people who can otherwise afford insurance enrolled?

No, let me tell ya why. To do this you'd have to increase taxes, and THEN give that increase back in the form of a rebate or tax credit. To give out a tax credit with no corresponding tax hike is just a tax cut (actually, more than that, as you'd be paying people who don't even pay taxes) and Massachusetts couldn't do that, as it was financially strapped, as most states are.

This was the appeal of the mandate. This is why Obama was so keen on it. You can claim "I didn't raise taxes."

You actually DID, of course, since a mandate directing you to buy something is simply a form of taxation. But it doesn't "count" as a tax in most people's minds so somoene like Obama can claim it's not.

Now, in court, he argues that it IS a tax, and therefore perfectly legal. Ignoring the fact that his political team spent two years saying it was NOT a tax.

Anyway, the individual mandate was a way for romney to impose a state demand on your money while being able to argue he wasn't raising taxes. If he did it your way (which is less problematic in many ways) people could say he raised taxes, and he didn't want that.

Posted by: ace at December 21, 2011 02:19 PM (nj1bB)

30 >>>That's an exchange few of us are willing to make. If the choice is between defeating ObamaCare and getting President Romney... uh, that's not really a choice requiring much thought. You lose.
This^
It's not 2012. It's not to late for him yet. He hasn't quite gone over a cliff. He needs to reposition himself on Obama care and Romney care STAT.

Posted by: Max Power at December 21, 2011 02:19 PM (q177U)

31 We just need to make sure that R's are in both houses, and hold everybody's feet to the flames. With pressure on Romgrich, they will probably do the right thing.

Without pressure...

Posted by: Clutch Cargo at December 21, 2011 02:19 PM (Qxdfp)

32 Romney's father was governor of Michigan; Romney was governor of Mass
( three decades or so later ). Six in one, half-dozen......

Posted by: SantaRosaStan, im Tal der wilden Rosen at December 21, 2011 02:20 PM (UqKQV)

33
Mitt is trying here to equate health care insurance to mandatory auto insurance.

He's taking the view that it is better to force everyone to buy auto insurance because it will protect people from uninsured motorists. And he's extending that view to health insurance.

Do you buy it?

Posted by: Soothsayer at December 21, 2011 02:20 PM (sqkOB)

34 Listen the State government should be in charge. Why just check your local DMV, see how good they run that. Why shouldn't your health choices be decided by a bunch of overweight, over-paid, fat-ass State workers...

Posted by: Mitt Romney's Hair at December 21, 2011 02:21 PM (136wp)

35 Oh, look over there! Ponies!

Posted by: Flounder at December 21, 2011 02:09 PM (Kkt/i)

Meh. Taste like chicken.

Posted by: BeefyMeatball at December 21, 2011 02:21 PM (bZ8J6)

36 The problem is just that Romney is unacceptable to 75% of the party.

Pulling 25% of a primary and being unacceptable to 75% are two different things. No question that he's unacceptable to a good chunk of the base, but the party? Nah.

With respect to Romneycare, what else is he supposed to do? He dealt himself a bad hand and he can either try to spin it in the best way possible, or reject it and play into the flip-flop meme. Ace expects a dissertation from Romney about the state of the medical system and the specifics of MA health law, but that just doesn't play. It's not going to convince the base, and the squishy middle is ambivalent enough about it that they're not worth trying to convince, even if he could make the point concisely enough to get it through the media to them.

Posted by: Xander Crews at December 21, 2011 02:22 PM (ht6OV)

37 I see you guys are still splitting atoms...with your minds.

Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at December 21, 2011 02:22 PM (DtWlD)

38 >>>Pulling 25% of a primary and being unacceptable to 75% are two different things. No question that he's unacceptable to a good chunk of the base, but the party? Nah.

True, I should have said 50%.

Posted by: ace at December 21, 2011 02:22 PM (nj1bB)

39
Mitt is wrong and here's why:

There is no government-provided auto insurance!

Mitt would be right if ALL people in the state had to purchase private health insurance. But the system is set up to a) force people who make an adequate income to buy private insurance, and b) subsidize lots of low income people with govt health care.

The system is Screwing people over.

Posted by: Soothsayer at December 21, 2011 02:23 PM (sqkOB)

40 Ace, I don't think you're addressing Romney's argument directly here. He's making the point that somebody eventually pays for health care no matter if a person is insured and uses their insurance coverage or if a person has no insurance and uses public emergency rooms. The point of the individual mandate is to get rid of the free rider problem--that is, the people who don't pay anything for insurance but still get to use emergency rooms and public hospitals on the dime of others. Plus, people who have to rely upon ERs miss out on lots of preventative care options that might reduce costs overall; if you only show up after you're really incapacitated, that's more costly to the system than treating diseases in the early stages.

I doubt that banning the uninsured from hospitals or getting rid of publicly-funded hospitals would be popular options (the morality of both is debatable), so we're stuck with a bad situation where the individual mandate may be the least bad of all other options. I'm open to rebuttals though, so I'm curious to hear your response.

Posted by: Chris C. at December 21, 2011 02:23 PM (QGpGA)

41 How is Romney going to make that argument if he can't even speak the word "Socialist"?

Posted by: Great Reagan's Ghost at December 21, 2011 02:23 PM (bohBF)

42 Unlike those uncaring fuckers from Washington, when a state government sodomizes you, it's done for your own good.

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at December 21, 2011 02:24 PM (+lsX1)

43 The last time a Republican the public saw as moderate won a presidential election: 1972

The last time a Republican the public saw as conservative lost a presidential election: 1964

Based on this record, why the hell are we about to select a moderate standard bearer in an election that will be a referendum on a failed Democrat president?

Posted by: 18-1 at December 21, 2011 02:24 PM (7BU4a)

44 37
I see you guys are still splitting atoms...with your minds.

I'm splitting hairs with my comb...

Posted by: Mitt Romney's Hair at December 21, 2011 02:24 PM (136wp)

45 I changed that.

Posted by: ace at December 21, 2011 02:25 PM (nj1bB)

46 Hey, I implemented a conservative solution. Even my opponent admits I did.

Posted by: Barack Obama, at a future debate before Mitt challenges him to a bet at December 21, 2011 02:25 PM (FkKjr)

47 Romney's father was a Serious Contender for the 1968 prez nomination when he made the Mother of All Gaffes--and revealed himself to be kind of an idiot

His campaign disappeared almost overnight ( google it for the details )

Romney won't actually say anything direct or actually answer any question because of What Dad Did

Posted by: SantaRosaStan, im Tal der wilden Rosen at December 21, 2011 02:25 PM (UqKQV)

48
but "free riders" still exist with Romney's system

The "free-loaders" are getting a free ride while others are being punished if they choose not to purchase health insurance.

That's not fair and it's unAmerican.

Posted by: Soothsayer at December 21, 2011 02:26 PM (sqkOB)

49 Romney is like Tebow when he lost all that yardage-

Romney just won't let go of the ball (RomneyCare); he keeps trying to make it work.

And he's said he doesn't care if he loses the primary because he keeps insisting on justifying it.

He's doing that now I don't expect him to admit he is wrong after he wins.

(If he wins.)

Posted by: tasker at December 21, 2011 02:26 PM (r2PLg)

50 4th look Perry?

Oh and Obama's a Stuttering Clusterfuck of a miserable failure

Posted by: Iblis at December 21, 2011 02:26 PM (9221z)

51 But Sooth, everybody doesn't have to buy auto insurance. You only buy it if you want to drive.

Health insurance is everybody

Posted by: The Q at December 21, 2011 02:26 PM (LnQhT)

52 . The point of the individual mandate is to get rid of the free rider problem

The problem at its most fundamental layer is that the federal government does not have the Constitutionally granted power to force people to buy anything.

Posted by: 18-1 at December 21, 2011 02:26 PM (7BU4a)

53 >>>t way possible, or reject it and play into the flip-flop meme. Ace expects a dissertation from Romney about the state of the medical system and the specifics of MA health law

Given that it is the number one issue to conservatives right now and he's on the wrong side of it (and doubling down on being wrong) -- yes, I think a "dissertation" is in order.

Posted by: ace at December 21, 2011 02:27 PM (nj1bB)

54 I have to prove to the state of Massachusetts every year that I have health insurance. Or they fine me.

That's not a conservative solution.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 21, 2011 02:27 PM (FkKjr)

55 Requiring people to have health insurance is "conservative," GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney told MSNBC on Wednesday, but only if states do it.
No..no..NO Dickhead, everytimeMitt uses this argument I wanna mess his hair up and give him a sonic wedgie. A mandate on an individual of any kind is inherently NOT conservative...ASS.

Posted by: dananjcon at December 21, 2011 02:27 PM (8ieXv)

56 If he can't figure this much out -- we want to repeal ObamaCare far, far more than we want President Romney -- then his political instincts are not merely poor, but outright atrocious.
There areother options:
1. He is being advised not to admit he was wrong, which is horrible advice because I think that in general voters willappreciate a politician who admits that he screwed up. It shows humility.
2. He cannot admit he was wrong, which means that he is dangerously arrogant and therefore unsuited for office.
3. He actually thinks that the mandate is a boffo idea, which would also make him unsuited for office.
He's an idiot. Had he repudiated Romneycare 18-24 months ago and continued to repudiate it he'd easily be above 35% in the primary polls and cruising to the nomination.

Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at December 21, 2011 02:27 PM (JxMoP)

57 It is my belief that it is very hard to succeed at something when you are motivated by fear.

The conservative movement is terrified of an Obama second term.

Therefore, they are caught between the obvious choice (Perry) because everybody keeps saying that he is unelectable. Keep saying it often enough it becomes true.

So instead of showing some confidence and rallying around the conservative with the best record and the best platform, some want to settle for Mitt because he is "safer" and more "electable."

I think it's a big mistake that will lead to tremendous regret.

Mitt isn't more electable than Perry, at least not in any real measurable way. They are both risky and both have weaknesses. But making a choice out of fear is a sure way to lose, one way or another.

This election is winnable, but the only way it's going to be is if we stop the negativity and self-defeating attitudes.

Mitt is not conservative, period. He won't advance conservatism. So let's make our choice.

Posted by: Galadriel at December 21, 2011 02:28 PM (eScuN)

58 "The best idea is to let each state craft their own solution because
that's, after all, the heart of conservatism: to follow the
Constitution," he said.

The heart of conservatism is liberty, not the Constitution. The Constitution is just the framework for government that best safeguards that liberty, but does not necessarily guarantee it. And when it doesn't because some guy who has few is any conservative principles attempts to shove tyranny down our throats under the guise of "hey, look, I'm head of a political laboratory now.. Woo hoo, let's do some experiments with the lives of the people" conservatives shake their heads and say, "Mitt Romney's a moron."

Posted by: Dusty at December 21, 2011 02:28 PM (7G4yf)

59 The problem at its most fundamental layer is that the federal government
does not have the Constitutionally granted power to force people to buy
anything.

Yea, like retirement insurance

Posted by: Mitt Romney's Hair at December 21, 2011 02:28 PM (136wp)

60 Huh. Mitt's dad was born in Chihuahua. That makes him Mexican-American, right?

Posted by: HeatherRadish at December 21, 2011 02:28 PM (/kI1Q)

61 Posted by: TEH WON at December 21, 2011 02:12 PM (NgJH0)
Not for nothing, but I really need someone to remind me these days why it was I poured 100's of $$ and about 150-hours of my live into the effort to get Scotty Brown elected to the US Senate over Marcia Coakley - just so I can have someone toe Harry Reid's line and spout the DNC's talking-point of the day.
Just saying, is all.

Posted by: DocJ at December 21, 2011 02:28 PM (Pd7mm)

62 I've come to the conclusion that Romney believes that RomneyCare was the right thing, not only in Massachusetts, but for the country at large. In order to get nominated he's got to disemble a bit to fool tea party types, but he has trouble denying his core beliefs.

Posted by: chuck at December 21, 2011 02:29 PM (MvCLo)

63
Here's Romney's problem:

The cost of health insurance is a pittance to him. He doesn't appreciate the value of a $10K+/yr expense.

That's why he's not backing off of Romneycare. He just doesn't get it.

Posted by: Soothsayer at December 21, 2011 02:29 PM (sqkOB)

64 On the other hand. I'd rather have Romney at the helm for the comming economic collapse. I don't care if they blame republicans for it, I think he would handle the crisis better than Obama.
Still holding out hope for a Perry Christmas Miracle!

Posted by: Max Power at December 21, 2011 02:29 PM (q177U)

65

40 years ago. hell 20 years ago Romney would be without question a democrat.


Clutch, I gotta disagree. 40 years ago, in 1971, Romney would be a perfectly acceptable member of the "big tent" Republican party. He'd still never win the presidency, as Ford failed to do in 1972. But he's fully in line with the NE Rockefeller Republican/Nixon/Ford camp.

Let's face it, the Republican party we want has never existed. We're trying to build it for the last 40+ years since Goldwater (who wasn't all that conservative about some things), but we're in a losing fight. I've about given up on trying to even have a semblance of ideological consistency in the party. Guns and abortion are non-negotiable issues (for them and agin them, respectively) but that's just me. We can't even get a consensus at that. It's enough to make me wonder whether conservatism is as flawed as communism. Only works on paper.

Somebody, talk me off the ledge!

Posted by: imp at December 21, 2011 02:29 PM (UaxA0)

66
Even if you argue that the argument is about free riders you are still missing the main problem with health care in the U.S....

SUPPLY AND DEMAND ARE OUT OF WHACK!! If you increase the demand by giving everyone insurance you increase the healthcare costs, that is no solution at all.
The true CONSERVATIVE solution would be to help get supply and demand back into line. Decrease the demand by getting rid of the govt and employees providing insurance, but having people be in charge of purchasing their own insurance or healthcare. Getting rid of regulations that cause less people or products to be available in the medical field.

Romneycare and Obamacare do just the opposite, they create more supply hindering regulation and artificially increase the demand.

Posted by: doug at December 21, 2011 02:29 PM (gUGI6)

67 I was wr-wr-wr-wr-wr...

I was wrrrr-wrrrrr-wrrrr-wrrrr...

Posted by: Mitt Fonzarelli at December 21, 2011 02:29 PM (HpT9p)

68 Mitt wont be the nominee. Like ace said, most of the party cant stand him. After all the people that have blown out, he has never got momentum.

Posted by: Flapjackmaka at December 21, 2011 02:30 PM (FKQng)

69 Mandating health insurance is not the same thing as mandating car insurance. You do NOT have to buy car insurance if you do not intend to drive your car on public roads. You can drive your car all over your own property w/o insurance or a license. Mandating car insurance is dependent on the implied consent theory. Mandating health insurance is done simply because you are there.

Posted by: Vic at December 21, 2011 02:30 PM (YdQQY)

70 The guy in the next office, after seeing this, has changed from "anyone but Obama" to "anyone but Romney or Obama"

Posted by: Bob Saget at December 21, 2011 02:30 PM (SDkq3)

71 Requiring people to have health insurance is "conservative," GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney told MSNBC on Wednesday, but only if states do it.

It's funny, but I can easily see Barry making this argument. Yep, bizzro world: up is down, black is white.

Posted by: WisRich at December 21, 2011 02:30 PM (hdpay)

72 Romney 2012 - Dotting the i's and crossing the t's that Obama didn't.

Posted by: t-bird at December 21, 2011 02:30 PM (FcR7P)

73
There is no difference with market reaction caused by Romneycare, Freddie and Fannie, or Student Loans. All though they seem to be "compassionate" or "good", the actual effect is to make prices soar.

bubble, bubble, toil and trouble.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at December 21, 2011 02:30 PM (JYheX)

74 "Mitt Romney's a moron idiot."

What the hell was I thinking?


Posted by: Dusty at December 21, 2011 02:30 PM (7G4yf)

75

"as Ford failed to do in 1976"

duh

Posted by: imp at December 21, 2011 02:30 PM (UaxA0)

76 And what he's come up with, thus far, is that "the individual mandate is actually quite conservative."
I have yet to hear any kind of explanation as to how "pay for it your own damn self" is impossible. It's all government pays or you must have insurance. Ummm. There's this stuff. Called United States currency. Legal tender for all debts public and private. You can use that to pay your bill. Bingo bango done! If you want insurance, buy it, if you don't, you're on the hook.
The issue is that health care providers, quite naturally btw, want some assurance that they will in fact get that sweet cash money. Relying on people to pay on their own has some teeny tiny flaws, such as that people are lying weasels who won't pay. Another issue is that my proposal requires that there be no public assistance in place. The current situation is that either the public pays or private insurance pays. There is no intermediate response. From that perspective, the individual mandate is the least worst option. That doesn't mean it's conservative at all. It also still ignores the pay for it your own damn self solution.
That doesn't even touch the whole icky if the gov't can make you buy insurance, the gov't can make you by anything problem.
Someone above mentioned moral issues with saying the uninsured can't get medical care. Well, how about the moral issue of putting a gun to my temple and making me someone else's medical bills? That should carry equal moral weight.

Posted by: alexthechick at December 21, 2011 02:31 PM (VtjlW)

77 or reject it and play into the flip-flop meme
Everyone already knows he's a flip-flopper. What's one more?
The fact that he won't flip-flop on this is telling.

Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at December 21, 2011 02:31 PM (JxMoP)

78
...everybody doesn't have to buy auto insurance. You only buy it if you want to drive.

Precisely why Romney rationale falls short. But I believe he equates the auto insurance mandate with the health care mandate.

Posted by: Soothsayer at December 21, 2011 02:31 PM (sqkOB)

79 Cheese Rice this guy is tone fucking deaf.

If he can't admit he made a mistake with Romneycare he either thinks it was a great idea or he is too stubborn to admit he screwed up. Either choice is poor judgement.

Posted by: mpfs at December 21, 2011 02:31 PM (iYbLN)

80 That makes him Mexican-American, right?

Posted by: HeatherRadish at December 21, 2011 02:28 PM (/kI1Q)
but George Romney was born to 2 "natural-born citizens" of the USA. Like Maverick, sorta . Missionaries. Like Tebow, sorta

Posted by: SantaRosaStan, im Tal der wilden Rosen at December 21, 2011 02:31 PM (UqKQV)

81
We just need to make sure that R's are in both housesPosted by: Clutch Cargo



Exactly. How can Mitt possibly give sway to his middle way, compromise and cave instincts under the steely-eyed gaze of Mitch Mcconell or the unyielding hand of John "The Horatius of Dayton" Boehner.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at December 21, 2011 02:31 PM (3wBRE)

82 I blame Chris Christie.

Posted by: USA at December 21, 2011 02:32 PM (6Cjut)

83 State's Rights are to protect us from an intrusive federal leviathan, not license to bring the leviathan to the local level.

No, it is a license for the leviathan to emerge in a state, if that's what the people want.

I sometimes get the impression that the 10th Amendment crowd only sees it going in one direction: increasing individual liberty. What if the people of, say, Vermont, really do want single-payer government-run health care? Why should the non-Vermonters stop them? The 10th Amendment cuts both ways.

Posted by: chemjeff at December 21, 2011 02:32 PM (s7mIC)

84 We're coming to skewer any one of these people you wingnuts nominate - you know that, right?

We're already preparing and we're in lockstep with Chicago Jesus.


Posted by: The MFM at December 21, 2011 02:32 PM (pLTLS)

85 Somebody, talk me off the ledge!

My personal opinion, the Good Ole USA has swing far to the left, it will head to the right next

Enjoy Hump Day, NSFW (no nudity):

http://tinyurl.com/boao7yr

Posted by: Mitt Romney's Hair at December 21, 2011 02:33 PM (136wp)

86 If we really wanted to make health care affordable we would get government totally out of heath care and insurance.

Posted by: Vic at December 21, 2011 02:33 PM (YdQQY)

87 Everyone kicking and screaming about the mandate was silent in 2008. Why? BECAUSE IS WAS ONLY IN ONE STATE - MASSACHUSETTS.

Now who flip-flopped here?

Posted by: Ryan Farnes at December 21, 2011 02:33 PM (TFF9z)

88
But guess what?

Me, I'm honey badger about this shit.

I don't care anymore about Romneycare. It will not stop me from enthusiastically voting for Mitt Romney.

Posted by: Soothsayer at December 21, 2011 02:34 PM (sqkOB)

89 Someone should call ParisParamus' family and have them remove the Tylenol from his Medicine Cabinet.

Posted by: garrett

I agree garrett. After reading this post PP might try to stick the whole bottle of extra strength Tylenol up his bunghole.

Posted by: mpfs at December 21, 2011 02:34 PM (iYbLN)

90 um, there is no actual Republican Party--hasn't been since FDR

there's been the 'Not-Democrat Party', which is still "in metatastisization"

Posted by: SantaRosaStan, im Tal der wilden Rosen at December 21, 2011 02:34 PM (UqKQV)

91 Healthcare is a right of every American: Ronald Reagan made it law that energency rooms have to treat the sick

The individual mandate was a conservative idea, and is only opposed because the white party wants to make Obama a one term President.

He could propose a tax cut and a new war and Republicans would oppose it.........and that has happened

Posted by: Lydia at December 21, 2011 02:35 PM (5v8n4)

92 Here's a mandate for you:

Buy it yourself, or you can't expect to receive treatment.

Posted by: Ronnn Pauuuuul!!!!! at December 21, 2011 02:35 PM (KMW5t)

93
Posted by: Lydia

Get back under the stairs and STFU.

Posted by: Soothsayer at December 21, 2011 02:36 PM (sqkOB)

94 >>>No, it is a license for the leviathan to emerge in a state, if that's what the people want.

No it is not. States should have more power but states can't do what is fundamentally contradictory to the concept of a free people in a republic.

Federalism is a question of whether a power, if it exists, resides with the states or federal government or both.

But some powers don't exist.

Posted by: ace at December 21, 2011 02:36 PM (nj1bB)

95 Okay. Here's an honest question that I'd like the Mitt-haters to answer. Put yourself in his shoes for a moment, circa 2005.

You are governor of a liberal state. Democrats have an overwhelming majority in the legislature, enough to override your vetoes. Health care is on the agenda. The Speaker of the statehouse has declared that he *will* send a bill to the governor's desk by the end of the year. Liberal activists are pushing a ballot initiative to place single-payer on the ballot in 2006 if the state government doesn't act.

So, what do you do? Ignore them all? Veto everything they propose? Try to persuade a heavily D legislature that free-market economics is the best thing for health care?

And of course don't forget, this is 2005, pre-ObamaCare, when the individual mandate still had the Heritage Foundation Seal of Approval.


Posted by: chemjeff at December 21, 2011 02:36 PM (s7mIC)

96 RON PAUL!!!

Posted by: Paultardbot 3.07 at December 21, 2011 02:36 PM (NgJH0)

97 I have to prove to the state of Massachusetts every year that I have health insurance.  Or they fine me.

That's not a conservative solution.

Yes it is, Citizen Bevel. Because federalism.

Now you will show me your National ID card and explain why you are not wearing your issued beige unitard.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at December 21, 2011 02:37 PM (vzFJV)

98 Lydia, you need much therapy, ASAP

Posted by: Thomas Hobbes, white zombie at December 21, 2011 02:38 PM (UqKQV)

99 What if the people of, say, Vermont, really do want single-payer government-run health care?

They already have it.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at December 21, 2011 02:38 PM (/kI1Q)

100 yes, I think a "dissertation" is in order.

Did it work when he gave that big speech on religion? I don't know that it did. He got a lot of free media out of it, but it didn't really change things. A speech on Why Romneycare is Awesome won't attract media coverage, won't win the base over, and isn't likely to move the middle. Just look at his 52 point plan on the economy - anything more than a soundbite gets ignored. If Perry can't effectively convey the awesome job situation in Texas, even with those fancy graphs that you put up the other day, how is Romney supposed to make a much more nuanced argument?

I don't think the point can be made concisely and convincingly, so why risk alienating the middle?

Posted by: Xander Crews at December 21, 2011 02:38 PM (ht6OV)

101 95
Okay. Here's an honest question that I'd like the Mitt-haters to answer. Put yourself in his shoes for a moment, circa 2005.You
are governor of a liberal state. Democrats have an overwhelming
majority in the legislature, enough to override your vetoes. Health
care is on the agenda.

Research Ronald Reagan 1981

Posted by: Mitt Romney's Hair at December 21, 2011 02:38 PM (136wp)

102 It doesn't matter how he frames it, the argument is not conservative. Therewill never be enough money to do what they want.
During the implimentation of Romneycare. Irecall reading they were moving lots of people over to eitherMEDICARE or MEDICAID, I forget which, to make the figures add up.
Obamacare means we print and borrow more money, orhave severe rationing of selected groups. Remember healthcare czar Donald Berwick's love of the UK's health care and his comment that it is not a question of whether to ration healthcarebut how to ration healthcare.

Posted by: davod at December 21, 2011 02:38 PM (C5U9L)

103 No it is not. States should have more power but states can't do what is
fundamentally contradictory to the concept of a free people in a
republic.

There are of course some basic inalienable liberties that no government, state or federal, should contravene. True.

But, take single-payer government-run health care for instance. A lot of people, myself included, that this takes liberty away from the individual. Is this, or is this not, permitted by the 10th Amendment?

Posted by: chemjeff at December 21, 2011 02:38 PM (s7mIC)

104 Posted by: HeatherRadish at December 21, 2011 02:38 PM (/kI1Q)

I know they have it already (or on the verge of having it). That is why I chose Vermont as an example.

Posted by: chemjeff at December 21, 2011 02:39 PM (s7mIC)

105 Healthcare is a right of every American

Did you just volunteer to pay for my last "well woman" exam?

Posted by: HeatherRadish at December 21, 2011 02:39 PM (/kI1Q)

106 Well, of course, the federal mandate is simply a tool to get the thing overturned in Court, not because mandates are bad per se, just that mandates like that are (should be) unconstitutional. Obamacare is bad because it's a trojan horse for a single payer health care system. eyes on the prize, fuckers.

Posted by: joeindc44 - tebow crazed rioter at December 21, 2011 02:40 PM (QxSug)

107 At least Massholes have the choice to move to another state.

Posted by: Serious Cat at December 21, 2011 02:40 PM (a8hkm)

108
Undercover/secret Democrats are advising Romney.

I'll bet my left nut on it.

Posted by: Soothsayer at December 21, 2011 02:40 PM (sqkOB)

109 Research Ronald Reagan 1981

Posted by: Mitt Romney's Hair at December 21, 2011 02:38 PM (136wp)

Glib non-answer. Reagan raised FICA taxes, granted amnesty to illegals, and made all sorts of deals all the time with the Democrat Congress.So again: what would you do if you were in Romney's shoes, circa 2005?

Posted by: chemjeff at December 21, 2011 02:40 PM (s7mIC)

110 Newt: "Stop running cheap attack ads."

Romney: "Hey, Obama with his billion dollar campaign chest will be running dirty ads so you might as well get used to it Champ!"

This is why I detest Romney. I cannot detect a moral compass with this guy. I get the feeling Romney would sucker punch his mother to get to that last piece of pie on Thanksgiving.

Posted by: Magma Jefferson at December 21, 2011 02:40 PM (pkQdU)

111 #69 I would agree that you would not have to buy health insurance if you do not intend on ever getting med treatment. I don't think that is a choice you have any say so about.

As long as they have a law that requires providers to provide healthcare to the uninsured, there is no pure conservative solution to the healthcare issue.

Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at December 21, 2011 02:40 PM (DtWlD)

112 Lydia's copy of the Constitution is interesting isn't it?

Posted by: laceyunderalls at December 21, 2011 02:41 PM (pLTLS)

113 In fact, ObamaCare allows exceptions for places like Vermont.

You go with ObamaCare unless you decide to create a single payer system in a state.

Posted by: The Q at December 21, 2011 02:41 PM (LnQhT)

114 "You are governor of a liberal state. Democrats have an overwhelming majority in the legislature, enough to override your vetoes. Health care is on the agenda."
That is not an argument. It is an excuse.
The Governor has the bully pulpit.What did Mitt do with it?

Posted by: davod at December 21, 2011 02:41 PM (C5U9L)

115 Okay. Here's an honest question that I'd like the Mitt-haters to answer. Put yourself in his shoes for a moment, circa 2005.My issue isn't so much that he did it in 2005, it's that in 2012 he apparently still thinks it's a great idea (but only if states do it).

Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at December 21, 2011 02:41 PM (JxMoP)

116
He should have just pulled a mea culpa and destroyed Obamacare when it was rammed through.

I remember reading an article saying Romney was ideally suited to be Obamacare's biggest critic.

Instead, his fucking hubris won't let him say that he fucked up and gave us this abortion of a law.

He keeps trying to and trying to spin it, but everyone knows Romneycare was the progenitor of Obamacare.

Romney would be way ahead if had been distancing himself from Romneycare for two fucking years.

Instead...

Posted by: RarestRX at December 21, 2011 02:41 PM (/eIgc)

117 Ace --

Haven't read the rest of the comments yet, but this seems to me be REALLY disingenuous, especially coming from someone who is a lawyer and therefore knows better. Romney's argument against Obamacare is simple, and you keep ignoring it because you're pimping Perry: states can do what they want on healthcare
(including a state-level mandate which, as you have pointed out a ton
of times before and even hint at in this post, WAS supposedly the
'conservative' Heritage-approved answer), but what is constitutionally acceptable on a state level is vile and unconstitutional when imposed on a national level. THAT is the argument against Obamacare, and it's not exactly like Romney hasn't made it 10,000 times, including in the interview you're quoting here.

So stop it with this bullshit.

Seriously: you're hacking. Stop being a hack. You pride yourself on intellectual honesty, well address the fucking argument instead of getting cute and claiming Romney is making less justifiable case than he actually is.

You want to argue that Romney's distinction here isn't going to fly? Well then fine -- argue it. But don't say that he's making a defense of Obamacare, because he's not, and again you know it based on any number of past posts I could cite at you here. You want to argue that Romneycare was just a bad policy decision in MA, no matter what? Well fine, go ahead -- I might even agree with you on that -- but any such argument would need to be placed in the proper context of what it was done to stave off (state-run healthcare via ballot initiative) instead of simply pretending it was This Great Idea that Romney came up with in isolation.

Posted by: Jeff B. at December 21, 2011 02:41 PM (2I4Tp)

118 and the scary thing about using the courts to overturn O-care on the mandate portion is that it raises the possibility of turning back recent commerce clause wins when we should simply kill the bill legislatively.

Posted by: joeindc44 - tebow crazed rioter at December 21, 2011 02:41 PM (QxSug)

119 Only if my choices are Obama vs. Romney in the general will Mitt get a vote from me. We better hope there are a big wad of new conservatives - real ones - elected to Congress in 2012, too, whichever of those two win.

Perry 2012!

Posted by: davidinvirginia at December 21, 2011 02:41 PM (hcJkV)

120

what happens to Massholes who refuse to but health insurance?

Posted by: Serious Cat at December 21, 2011 02:41 PM (a8hkm)

121 Posted by: chemjeff at December 21, 2011 02:36 PM (s7mIC)

Nobody forced Mitt Romney to run for Governor of Massachusetts if the job was too big for him to handle.

Nobody forced Mitt Romney in 2007 to say he was the perfect person to fix Healthcare nationally because of his successes in MA.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 21, 2011 02:41 PM (FkKjr)

122 I would agree that you would not have to buy health insurance if you do not intend on ever getting med treatment.
Why can't we pay cash for our treatment?

Posted by: HeatherRadish at December 21, 2011 02:42 PM (/kI1Q)

123 So again: what would you do if you were in Romney's shoes, circa 2005?

I told you, now you are getting me ruffled. It wasn't glib, take the argument to the people and don't be a Masshole and just sit in an office "negotiating"

Posted by: Mitt Romney's Hair at December 21, 2011 02:42 PM (136wp)

124 what happens to Massholes who refuse to but health insurance?

Posted by: Serious Cat at December 21, 2011 02:41 PM (a8hkm)
A fine. Large enough to frighten people with insurance who lose paperwork but small enough where it's cheaper for those without insurance to rely on the state.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 21, 2011 02:42 PM (FkKjr)

125 There's a good argument between Scalia and Thomas over this.

Scalia is a plain-language textualist. If it's in the Constitution, it's in the Constitution. There are no external inputs apart from the plain meaning of words.

Thomas thinks the "privileges and immunities" clause of the 14th amendment brings in a bunch of unnamed rights which were standard for English free men, and so when the Constitution used these words (in an amendment), it incorporated a tradition of freedoms not named.

This is a type of substantive due process, but from the right, rather than the left.

Interesting question. Not sure it answers this question because going back to kingly rule, the king had a lot of damn power to order you to do stuff.

I don't know what the answer is but I can't imagine a state can do whatever it likes with its citizens so long as it doesn't violate a specific statement in the constitution. I'm sure there are some things that we'd say a state simply cannot do, if it remains consistent with the idea of a free republic.


Posted by: ace at December 21, 2011 02:42 PM (nj1bB)

126 I find mandatory auto insurance as un-conservative as mandatory health insurance. Ifindividuals wants to insure themselves, then great, that is probably the prudent, responsible and conservative thing to do- but why should it be mandatory? If I have auto insurance. For that matter, we should stop calling things "insurance" when they are really 3rd party payor systems.

Posted by: SH at December 21, 2011 02:43 PM (gmeXX)

127
and here we go...

Posted by: Soothsayer at December 21, 2011 02:43 PM (sqkOB)

128 If I were governor at the time, I'd have just hid behind the Red Sox and Patriots' championships and done absolutely nothing.

The Massholes were so punch drunk happy with their sports that gov't didn't need to do anything.

Posted by: The Q at December 21, 2011 02:43 PM (LnQhT)

129 He can make the case that RomneyCare was an attempt to push the heavily-socialized and therefore dysfunctional health care system of Massachusetts to a slightly more responsible, "conservative" place, whereas imposing such a system on a nation that still had voluntary health care insurance was anti-conservative.
It's far too late for that. 2 years ago, and he would have sewn this up.
But as it sits that would just be more flip-flopping now. No one trusts his words, it doesn't matter what he says.

Posted by: Entropy, and if you don't agree you hate America and want Obama to win at December 21, 2011 02:43 PM (AuQqX)

130 There are other options:

1. He is being advised not to admit he was wrong, which is horrible advice because I think that in general voters will appreciate a politician who admits that he screwed up. It shows humility.

2. He cannot admit he was wrong, which means that he is dangerously arrogant and therefore unsuited for office.

3. He actually thinks that the mandate is a boffo idea, which would also make him unsuited for office.

He's an idiot.

*****

I'm sensing a theme...

Look at this quote of his from his book-

What we accomplished surprised us: 440,000 people who previously had no health insurance became insured, many paying their own way. We made it possible for each newly insured person to have better care, and ultimately healthier and longer lives. From now on, no one in Massachusetts has to worry about losing his or her health insurance if there is a job change or a loss in income; everyone is insured and pays only what he or she can afford. It’s portable, affordable health insurance — something people have been talking about for decades. We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country, and it can be done without letting government take over health care.

******

Thing is the state of Massachusetts can't seem to afford it-and there was a federal subsidy going to the state that was meant to bolster RomneyCare -but now there is a shortfall in that.

So not only are all taxpayers in Massachusetts paying for RomneyCare-wth some of the highest per capita debt in the nation-but federal taxpayers in every other state were helping to make RomneyCare successful.

Existing Debt Burden
Since the Patrick-Murray Administration instituted rigorous debt affordability policies, the Commonwealth’s rankings in terms of debt burden have been improved by several measures from what the Administration inherited. Nevertheless, the Commonwealth’s debt burden remains among the highest in the nation by certain measures. Moody’s Investors Service ranks Massachusetts fourth in total net tax-supported debt, fourth in total gross tax-supported debt (down from third in 2007), second in net tax-supported debt as a percentage of personal income, and second in net tax-supported debt per capita (down from first in 2007).[10] Standard and Poor’s Massachusetts rankings are similar: second in tax-supported debt per capita (down from first in 2007), third in tax-supported debt as a percentage of personal income (down from second in 2007), and fourth in total tax-supported debt.

Here is the federal subsidy amount that will kick in-2014-

Senator John. F. Kerry, state leaders, and health care advocates met yesterday to discuss a new report that highlights the major differences between the federal and state health care models.

The focus of the event quickly turned to the hurdles of implementation and the need to protect the gains Massachusetts has made since 2006, when the state embarked on a closely watched experiment to extend health insurance to virtually every resident.

The report reveals that, despite the promised increase in federal funding, some Massachusetts residents might end up facing higher premiums.

“None of us have approached this with the idea that it’s a done deal, that just because we passed it, we can go home and everything’s going to work smoothly,’’ said Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat. “It’s not.’’

The report, released yesterday by the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts Foundation, highlights the projected benefits and drawbacks of putting the new federal health care law into action.

Beginning in 2014, Massachusetts is expected to start receiving at least $425 million a year in federal money to help pay for health insurance.

(boston.com)



Posted by: tasker at December 21, 2011 02:43 PM (r2PLg)

131 yeah, Ace, you're hacking. I've been dead for three centuries, but even I don't hacking

I like government power, though. And ponies; fluffy ponies

Posted by: Thomas Hobbes, white zombie at December 21, 2011 02:43 PM (UqKQV)

132 Perry/Thundarr the Barbarian 2012--We Ride!

Posted by: Throat Wobbler Mangrove at December 21, 2011 02:43 PM (8xMSI)

133 I'm finding increasing hard to dismiss Newt because of his past and present "baggage" if we're going to get Romney instead.
If the Rasmussen poll is to be believed, Perry is going to have a tough go it seems (sigh).

Posted by: jjshaka at December 21, 2011 02:43 PM (31o9C)

134 81

I should clarify, new R's.
Both houses need to be tented.

Posted by: Clutch Cargo at December 21, 2011 02:43 PM (Qxdfp)

135 **especially coming from someone who is a lawyer and therefore knows better. **

disingenuous? know better? lawyer??

does that line of reasoning stick?

no.

Posted by: joeindc44 - tebow crazed rioter at December 21, 2011 02:43 PM (QxSug)

136
So, what do you do?



You veto any bill that crosses your desk. You campaign against the initiative, but if it passes or if your veto is overridden, you say that since this is now the law, you will do your constitutional duty to implement it.

Seems simple if you're actually -- you know -- a conservative.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at December 21, 2011 02:44 PM (3wBRE)

137 Haven't read the rest of the comments yet

Bizarro Breitbart.

Since Andrew sometimes rocks the goatee, does that mean you have to be clean shaven?

Posted by: The Q at December 21, 2011 02:44 PM (LnQhT)

138 Our country provides low interest loans for college students.

Why can't we do the same for those who can't afford medical insurance? If you have an unexpected surgery, get the surgery and then get set up with a long-term low interest loan. Tie it to your credit score, heck even allow for garnishment of wages in cases of severe deadbeats.

And for those that become truly destitute and cannot pay, let there be a safety net to help out or cut payment amounts down to an affordable level.

Why do we have to prepay for medical services? It's inefficient and only encourages people to use more services while at the same time encouraging hospitals and medical providers to charge top dollar.

There has to be a better way to get people to pay without loss of personal freedoms and the government interfering with the free market.

Posted by: Galadriel at December 21, 2011 02:44 PM (eScuN)

139 Healthcare is a right of every American

Here's a nice little test that even you can apply, Lydia, to determine whether something that sounds like a good idea to you is really a "right." Ready?

If you can't exercise the right without someone else paying for it, it isn't a "right" at all.

Stuff that into your cute little cerebellum and stew on it before you open your stupid yap in a public forum again.

Posted by: al-Cicero, Tea Party Jihadist at December 21, 2011 02:44 PM (QKKT0)

140 >>>But some powers don't exist.
Yeah, but the power of a state to compel its residence to buy insurance is one of those powers that definitely DOES exist under their inherent police power. You might not like it, I don't like it, but it doesn't suddenly evaporate as a longstanding and uncontroversial state power simply because we're all suddenly getting in touch with our inner Ron Pauls. What is arguably (certainly IMO, but hey that's for the SCOTUS to decide) unconstitutional is for the FEDERAL government to compel such things.

Again, you've said this many times before, in posts and in comments. Why are you pretending you don't know it now? I think I know why, but I hope I'm wrong.

Posted by: Jeff B. at December 21, 2011 02:45 PM (2I4Tp)

141 All I can think is that he's looking ahead to the general and attempting to triangulate the issue. The problem is that the base LOATHES BambiCare and all its aspects, including the individual mandate -- perhaps ESPECIALLY the individual mandate. Otherwise, I don't see what he's thinking, unless he has some super secret polling that shows that the base secretly loves the individual mandate and just can't come out and say so for fear of alienating Aunt Petunia or something.

Posted by: joncelli, too stressed by half at December 21, 2011 02:45 PM (RD7QR)

142 The best Romney could do here is a come to jesus moment:

I'm against the Obamacare mandate, because we tried them in MA and it's failed. Costs are going up; insurance premiums have gone up, the state cannot even fund the program and is talking about rationing. It was a worthy experiment to try and fix a problem but it failed.

But, for some reason, he can't and won't say it.

It boggles me.

Posted by: lorien1973 at December 21, 2011 02:45 PM (usXZy)

143 Folks, I've said before that I wouldn't vote for Romney in the general, but I've changed my mind. A second term for Obama would be a disaster.
I hope you guys will reconsider if he's the nominee. Fucking holder is still AG!! I mean fuck, that bug nuts! Look at what the EPA is doing!!! You want a second GM bailout? What about retiring supes?

Posted by: Max Power at December 21, 2011 02:45 PM (q177U)

144 83...I disagree...the State (i.e. government), at any level, has no right to impose certain restrictions on my freedoms and/or force certain behaviors. Hiding behind the 10th amendment may make for an interesting debate, but it also unmasks Mitt's (and Newt's) fatal flaw...the government is the answer...on some level...for problems we don't even know we have.

Posted by: The Hammer at December 21, 2011 02:45 PM (7WMGf)

145 The Governor has the bully pulpit. What did Mitt do with it?

The results speak for themselves, don't they?

Here is partly what Mitt decided to do:
http://tinyurl.com/7mts6
But again, what would you have done differently?

Posted by: chemjeff at December 21, 2011 02:45 PM (s7mIC)

146 There's a good argument between Scalia and Thomas over this.

Scalia is a plain-language textualist. If it's in the Constitution, it's in the Constitution. There are no external inputs apart from the plain meaning of words.

Thomas thinks the "privileges and immunities" clause of the 14th amendment brings in a bunch of unnamed rights which were standard for English free men, and so when the Constitution used these words (in an amendment), it incorporated a tradition of freedoms not named.

Ugh-I never understand this-does that mean that Thomas is an originalist?

Posted by: tasker at December 21, 2011 02:46 PM (r2PLg)

147 Seems simple if you're actually -- you know -- a conservative.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at December 21, 2011 02:44 PM (3wBRE)
But see, Mitt cared about MA. He wanted to prevent the awful things the Democrats were going to do. He cared so much he took off in 2005 for Iowa, and when you mention problems with RomneyCare nowadays he says, "Oh it's that damn Deval's fault."Mitt cared. Until the primary.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 21, 2011 02:46 PM (FkKjr)

148 Under Mittens idea of healthcare we will all be put in a dog kennel and strapped to the roof of an SUV for a long ride.

Hey Mitt, how about allowing health insurance to be sold across state lines? How about TORT REFORM? That would be a good start.

Posted by: mpfs at December 21, 2011 02:46 PM (iYbLN)

149 94
>>>No, it is a license for the leviathan to emerge in a state, if that's what the people want.



No it is not. States should have more power but states can't do what is
fundamentally contradictory to the concept of a free people in a
republic.



Federalism is a question of whether a power, if it exists, resides with the states or federal government or both.


But some powers don't exist.


**waves**






Posted by: State Constitutions at December 21, 2011 02:46 PM (oif6Y)

150
MA fines the uninsured up to $2K (I think) year for those who could afford an insurance policy.

You must give proof of insurance when you submit your annual state income tax forms. If you did not purchase a policy you must prove you could not afford one.

Posted by: Soothsayer at December 21, 2011 02:46 PM (sqkOB)

151 Has anyone gone to prison in MA yet for refusing to pay the fines? As an act if civil disobedience?

Posted by: Serious Cat at December 21, 2011 02:46 PM (a8hkm)

152 #122 ask Vic if he would be able to pay cash for all of the treatment he has had.

Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at December 21, 2011 02:46 PM (DtWlD)

153 Stop thinking aboutMitt's business experience and start thinking how many arguments for change disapear if Mitt is the candidate.
Apply the same argument to all the candidates.


Posted by: davod at December 21, 2011 02:46 PM (C5U9L)

154 It's not even "mandating" auto insurance, it's mandating financial responsibility if you through fault are directly responsible for damaging someone's personal property or causing injury.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at December 21, 2011 02:47 PM (WvXvd)

155 You veto any bill that crosses your desk. You campaign against the
initiative, but if it passes or if your veto is overridden, you say that
since this is now the law, you will do your constitutional duty to
implement it.Seems simple if you're actually -- you know -- a conservative.

Okay, fine. But of course what that means is that you lose all negotiating power to shape the final outcome. So if the Democrat legislature wants to go full-on socialized medicine, you won't have any power to stop them and yet you will be the one in charge of implementing it once your veto is overridden. That is "conservative"?

Posted by: chemjeff at December 21, 2011 02:47 PM (s7mIC)

156 The Governor has the bully pulpit. What did Mitt do with it?

The results speak for themselves, don't they?

******

*If* Romney wins the Presidency -that one term thing might be a habit.

Posted by: tasker at December 21, 2011 02:47 PM (r2PLg)

157 The one thing that really riles up the Conservative Base about the RINO and Establishment crowd isn't so much that they disagree with us on an issue, but that somehow our point of view is so invalid that they don't even have to explain away or reassure us about these differences.

That's not just a philosophical issue - its politically stupid. Agree or not, the base is a force in GOP politics that you should take into account and not treat with contempt.

Posted by: Oldcat at December 21, 2011 02:47 PM (z1N6a)

158
someone needs a refill of his Relaxodrol®


Posted by: Soothsayer at December 21, 2011 02:48 PM (sqkOB)

159 But again, what would you have done differently?

Posted by: chemjeff at December 21, 2011 02:45 PM (s7mIC)
Vetoed everything and let the Democrats own the resultant disaster.But apparently the correct answer is attend a ceremony with Ted Kennedy wearing a shit-eater's grin on my face as I signed the bill into law.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 21, 2011 02:48 PM (FkKjr)

160 Jeff B - it does not matter if a state can do it or not. Few have argued with Romney on that point. It is on the merits where we disagree. Government coercion of this level is repugnant to most of us. If you are willing to do it at one level, chances are you will do it at another.Ofcourse since Romney says it doesn't work at the federal level, we should take his word for it. Because he has been so consistent in the past. If Romney is elected(a big if), I hope he does repeal Obamacare. But I have no confidence he will expend the political capitalto do so.I can just see him hiding behind the Supreme Court.

Posted by: SH at December 21, 2011 02:48 PM (gmeXX)

161 "There were two options in my state," he said. "One was to continue to
allow people without insurance to go to the hospital and get free care,
paid for by the government, paid for by taxpayers."

No, there was a third solution: raise everyone's state income taxes. I'm sure everyone at this site would be on board with that.

Posted by: ParisParamus at December 21, 2011 02:48 PM (m4nvO)

162 what happens to Massholes who refuse to but health insurance?

Posted by: Serious Cat

From what I've heard they tie them up and throw them in the water. If they float they are a witch and will be executed. If they sink...oh well. That is Romneycare in a nutshell. We are all fucked.

Posted by: mpfs at December 21, 2011 02:49 PM (iYbLN)

163 'The guy is throwing away the presidency because he can't say "I erred."'

Someone who can't say 'I screwed up' is not qualified to be President.

Posted by: Greg Q at December 21, 2011 02:49 PM (/0a60)

164 Romney has the makings of an argument here, but I've never heard him make it.

^This

Posted by: Y-not at December 21, 2011 02:50 PM (5H6zj)

165 *If* Romney wins the Presidency -that one term thing might be a habit.

Posted by: tasker at December 21, 2011 02:47 PM (r2PLg)
If Romney wins, it will be Nixon Redux: The Dems will do a McGovern '72 and Mittens ( despite pissing almost everyone off, as Nixon did in his first term ) ) cakewalks to a second term.If he can stay out of the Watergate and not hire G. Gordon Co.....

Posted by: Thomas Hobbes, white zombie at December 21, 2011 02:50 PM (UqKQV)

166 states have general powers, the fed has limited powers, or at least that's what is supposed to be. Mandates aren't evil, they're just inapplicable as a federal policy.

And remember, Obamacare is a single payer system (trojan horse and all that). We oppose it for that reason (along with many others).

Posted by: joeindc44 - tebow crazed rioter at December 21, 2011 02:50 PM (QxSug)

167 Someone who can't say 'I screwed up' is not qualified to be President.

*cough*

Posted by: Barky O'Genius at December 21, 2011 02:50 PM (QKKT0)

168 Has anyone gone to prison in MA yet for refusing to pay the fines? As
an act if civil disobedience?

There was a story last month about a small business that was driven to bankruptcy because it couldn't afford the mandate. And then, when it went out of business, the owners of the business were fined for going out of business because of the mandate.

Something like that. It was messed up. They'd gone bankrupt and the state still wanted to Barney Frank them.

Posted by: lorien1973 at December 21, 2011 02:51 PM (usXZy)

169
The last time a Republican the public saw as moderate won a presidential election: 1972

The last time a Republican the public saw as conservative lost a presidential election: 1964

Based
on this record, why the hell are we about to select a moderate standard
bearer in an election that will be a referendum on a failed Democrat
president?


Posted by: 18-1 at December 21, 2011 02:24 PM (7BU4a)
Nobody saw Dick Nixon as a moderate. This actually helps your theory as you probably are then back to Eisenhower.

Posted by: Oldcat at December 21, 2011 02:51 PM (z1N6a)

170 Healthcare is a right of every American: Ronald Reagan made it law that energency rooms have to treat the sick

RR made it law? How about the congress in 1986 which had a Democrat House and a barely Republican Senate full of RINOs. And it was supposed to be only for emergency situations. lawyers made everything an emergency.

Posted by: Vic at December 21, 2011 02:51 PM (YdQQY)

171 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 21, 2011 02:51 PM (8y9MW)

172 Um. Not OT?

Newt Gingrich told a gay man and longtime resident of Oskaloosa here today that he should vote for President Obama.

I guess old Noot is going after the Santorum alienated Gay non-vote?
Interesting strategy, we'll see if it pans out for him.

I think Romney should make a move with a proper misogynistic counter-strike.

Posted by: Clutch Cargo at December 21, 2011 02:52 PM (Qxdfp)

173 Isn't this enough? Can't Romney be done yet?

Posted by: SarahW at December 21, 2011 02:52 PM (LYwCh)

174 Dave - I do not understand your point about mandating personal responsibility. Are you saying mandatory auto insurance is unnecssary because we already have mandatory personal responsibility - though you may have to go through the courts to impose?

Posted by: SH at December 21, 2011 02:52 PM (gmeXX)

175 It's not even "mandating" auto insurance, it's mandating financial responsibility if you through fault are directly responsible for damaging someone's personal property or causing injury.
That's another thing that irritates me about this comparison to auto insurance. States require you to cover it in order to pay for mistakes that you may make. The state doesn't give a damn if you wreck your own car, that's your problem. What the state does care about is what you do to someone else's property, which is why some states requireonly liability insurance.

Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at December 21, 2011 02:53 PM (JxMoP)

176
The best thing for Mitt to do is devise a simple but brilliant plan to reform health care.

All he has to do is propose tort reform, allow for more competition, and get government out of the health care industry.

Posted by: Soothsayer at December 21, 2011 02:53 PM (sqkOB)

177 Vetoed everything and let the Democrats own the resultant disaster.

That means you lose all power to shape the final result.

Posted by: chemjeff at December 21, 2011 02:53 PM (s7mIC)

178
Put yourself in Mitt's shoes for a moment, circa 2005. So, what do you do?





Bang Mrs. Romney until she can't remember her social security number, then stop by my broker to buy Apple stock and physically gold.....

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at December 21, 2011 02:53 PM (3wBRE)

179 So if the Democrat legislature wants to go full-on socialized medicine,
you won't have any power to stop them and yet you will be the one in
charge of implementing it once your veto is overridden. That is
"conservative"?

Yes. If you're the executive in a situation where the legislature is against you and has a veto-proof majority, there's not much you can do logically.

Politically, though, you let them do it and then go out on the campaign trail immediately to point out how stupid the situation is and that more of your party needs to be elected in the legislature.

Posted by: The Q at December 21, 2011 02:53 PM (LnQhT)

180 171 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

I'm glad you and Steevy keep bringing this back to topic.

I'd gladly vote for a soap dish, so this is really the important part.
I'll be glad when I can hate a president again without being racist.

Posted by: Clutch Cargo at December 21, 2011 02:54 PM (Qxdfp)

181 Jeff B.

How is Romney's RomneyCare purely a state level non-abomination when it needs 425 million or so from the federal government and when it spawned ObamaCare-?

(in fact I suspect it got such a generous assist-for that very reason.)

Posted by: tasker at December 21, 2011 02:54 PM (r2PLg)

182 The fact of the matter is this conservativeRomneycare crybabycanard is such BS that it stinks on ice. He was a Republican who governed a verrrry liberal state. He got things done - why? Because this little thing we call representative government. He and every politician that walks around the good ol' USA should, indeed *must* represent the will of the governed. That's why we're in such a mess now - we deserve this. From the looks of Mitt's record,if you believes the conservative mandate is the will of the people and not just the minority fringe right purists,he will govern conservatively - guaranteed. If we the people want liberal government handouts and nanny state governance, that's probably what we'll get from this guy.He's a politician that will give the loudest, strongest voices their day. Our jog is to go out and win the political arguments with logic and trust the conservative message to win thepolitical fieldand this guy will be there. At least we can have a sympathetic ear in the WH, and not the president we have now.

Posted by: dblwmy at December 21, 2011 02:54 PM (BvTwT)

183 #165 you don't think your tax dollars paying for someone else's treatment as part of your property?

Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at December 21, 2011 02:55 PM (DtWlD)

184 91
Healthcare is a right of every American: Ronald Reagan made it law that emergency rooms have to treat the sick


Posted by: Lydia at December 21, 2011 02:35 PM (5v8n4)

Health care is a commodity; it can be sold and purchased. In no sense of the word is it a right, whether divinely granted or otherwise.

Posted by: Jeremiad was a Bullfrog at December 21, 2011 02:55 PM (Wqfrr)

185 >>>RR made it law? How about the congress in 1986 which had a Democrat
House and a barely Republican Senate full of RINOs.

Well Ronald Reagan could have vetoed it, right? Why didn't he veto it? It wouldn't have been overridden. Maybe he was just a gutless pussy.

Understand: this is the exact same logic you use with Romney -- he should have simply vetoed anything that crossed his desk! Except, with Romney: 1.) He DID veto tons of bills, over 100 of them, including 8 separate vetoes relating to the healthcare bill; 2.) He was facing an 85% Democratic legislature which could and frequently DID override his veto.

So why is Reagan off the hook ("it's the legislature's fault!") but not Romney? The logic is exactly the same. You just hate one and wrongly think the other one was some kind of True Conservative saint.

Posted by: Jeff B. at December 21, 2011 02:56 PM (2I4Tp)

186 Okay. Here's an honest question that I'd like the Mitt-haters to answer.
Okay. Here's an honest question to you: why is criticism of Mitt considered hate? No, seriously, I want an answer to that question. He's running for President. His positions and views must be subject to intense scrutiny. Doing that is not hate. Why then the Mitt-hater shorthand?

Posted by: alexthechick at December 21, 2011 02:56 PM (VtjlW)

187 Jeff B.

Also why do you choose to all cap the words that you do?

Plus-given Perry's odds it's hard for you to make the hack attack.

You've been strumming for Romney-which is the easy thing-he's been

"pre-approved" and I'm sure you catch a hell of a lot less flak from all your liberal friends.

Posted by: tasker at December 21, 2011 02:56 PM (r2PLg)

188 Hey Mitt, how about allowing health insurance to be sold across state lines? How about TORT REFORM? That would be a good start.
There are free-market answers to the health-care issue, but you damned sure won't hear it from Mittens, because he doesn't believe in them, just like a certain SCOAMF and the rest of his littermates.
Mitt is, for all intents and purposes, a Dimocrat. I will not vote for him in the primary. If he somehow makes it to the general, I'll hold my nose and vote for him, just like I did for Juan McLame, all the while wondering why in the fuck we've brought ourselves down so far that we can't have a good conservative candidate to counter the SCOAMF and The Anti-ChristSoros in DC.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, President, Curmudgeon's Union Local 427 at December 21, 2011 02:56 PM (d0Tfm)

189 Why is it that I see lots of people suggesting strategies that Perry can use to win but what I see from Perry is culture warrior stuff and platitudes about federalism and Constitutional amendments?

All the while I cringe when he steps up to the mic.

It seems like the Perry boosters are not taking into account his actual abilities and overestimating his potential.

Posted by: runninrebel at December 21, 2011 02:56 PM (oSwO+)

190 Why are you pretending you don't know it now?  I think I know why, but I hope I'm wrong.

Dun, dun, DUUUHHHNNNNNHHHH!!!

Belt and shoelaces. Hand 'em over, ya dramatic bitch.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at December 21, 2011 02:56 PM (l9zgN)

191 You should probably all-cap unique words-not the mundane.

Posted by: tasker at December 21, 2011 02:57 PM (r2PLg)

192 Interesting. So I suppose the "correct" answer for Romney in 2005 would have been to die on the hill of health care reform (i.e., done nothing, vetoed every bill, fought and fought and fought and yet lose), rather than attempt to avert a disaster.

Posted by: chemjeff at December 21, 2011 02:57 PM (s7mIC)

193 140...No R candidate for national office should be making any arguments that give the State, at any level, such broad control over life, liberty and the pursuit. Even if that argument can, somehow, be made "constitutionally".

This party should not be the party trying to figure out more ways to infringe, as long as they are legal.

And that's what Mitty is doing with this argument.

Posted by: The Hammer at December 21, 2011 02:57 PM (7WMGf)

194 >> I do not understand your point about mandating personal responsibility.

You have to demonstrate to the state (for the privilege of driving) that you have the financial wherewithal to pay for damage to vehicles or other property, or injuries, that you directly cause.
You can do that with insurance.
You can do it by posting a bond.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at December 21, 2011 02:58 PM (WvXvd)

195 I'm old enough to remember when all I carried was catastrophic health insurance. I paid cash or made payments for everything else. When did it become all fucked up?

Posted by: mpfs at December 21, 2011 02:58 PM (iYbLN)

196 103 But,
take single-payer government-run health care for instance. A lot of
people, myself included, that this takes liberty away from the
individual. Is this, or is this not, permitted by the 10th Amendment?Posted by: chemjeff at December 21, 2011 02:38 PM (s7mIC)

It is not permitted, but I suspect that, were any one state to implement it, you'd have a difficult time getting a case imposing it before the Supreme Court and getting that Court to overturn it.

Posted by: Jeremiad was a Bullfrog at December 21, 2011 02:58 PM (Wqfrr)

197 Well, at least state mandates wouldn't be unconstitutional. A bad idea, and a suicidal proposition for states, but not unconstitutional.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at December 21, 2011 02:59 PM (r4wIV)

198 #181 that 425 million is part of the fed tax dollars paid by residents of MA. That Romney was able to get the Fed to allow MA to spend that money as the state desired is probably the most conservative thing to come out of Romney care.

Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at December 21, 2011 02:59 PM (DtWlD)

199 you don't think your tax dollars paying for someone else's treatment as part of your property?
You mean like Medicaid, Medicare, Romneycare, and Obamacare?

Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at December 21, 2011 02:59 PM (JxMoP)

200 Jeff B.

How about some simple questions-

How much has RomneyCare cost the state of Massachusetts?

How much has it cost the federal tax payer?

Finally-is RomneyCare sustainable-as it now stands?

Posted by: tasker at December 21, 2011 02:59 PM (r2PLg)

201 If Mitt Romneycare gets the nomination, Gary Johnson on the libertarian ticket will look pretty good come election time.

Posted by: doug at December 21, 2011 02:59 PM (gUGI6)

202 Okay. Here's an honest question to you: why is criticism of Mitt considered hate?

I don't consider honest criticism of Mitt to be "hate". I consider "criticism" such as "Mitt is a socialist", "Mitt is no better than Obama", "Mitt cynically didn't care for the people of Massachusetts" to be Mitt-hate.

Posted by: chemjeff at December 21, 2011 02:59 PM (s7mIC)

203 So why is Reagan off the hook ("it's the legislature's fault!") but not Romney? The logic is exactly the same.

Because RR didn't rush out there and take credit for the law and praise it to the high heavens the way Romney did.

Romney owns Masscare because he made it his own.

Posted by: Vic at December 21, 2011 03:00 PM (YdQQY)

204 Ace expects a dissertation from Romney about the state of the medical system and the specifics of MA health law

That's what a lot of us wanted from Romney when this primary season began. He had his shot and he flubbed it.

He's been "unemployed" (his term) for several years. He has tons of dough (good for him) and (we're told) a huge brain with (he told us last time) tons of expertise on health care. He had several avenues available to him:

1. Take some of his dough and start a private foundation that provided grants to support pilot free-market based solutions to health care costs and/or acccess

2. Take some of his dough and start a think-tank, hiring a couple of smarty-pants to sit and write white papers on health care

3. Donate some of his dough to either a foundation, think-tank, or university to do same

4. Sit down and write a detailed analysis of what went wrong with Masscare, how it could be better, and what the "Replace" part of his "Repeal Replace" would be on the national level

Apparently he decided a better use of his money and time was to buy political favors through campaign donations and pick out paint colors for his SoCal estate.

Posted by: Y-not at December 21, 2011 03:00 PM (5H6zj)

205 By the way, what is the fine for people who have insurance but refuse to hand over details? You could bullshit and day you won't as it would divulge confidential medical info. Say, the name of the company hints at what diseases their customers have.

That's what the GOP would do if they were smart, start up an insurance company called "Her Choice Healthcare", that specializes in reproductive rights overage. What the fuck would the democrats do then?

Posted by: Serious Cat at December 21, 2011 03:01 PM (a8hkm)

206 181 that 425 million is part of the fed tax dollars paid by residents of MA

*****

Interesting-still that is money that could have went to other things-that benefitted the country as a whole-more generally dispersed-

And it looks like the federal government might not be abel to make that 425 million dollar payment-there is going to be a shortfall...

Posted by: tasker at December 21, 2011 03:01 PM (r2PLg)

207 Interesting. So I suppose the "correct" answer for
Romney in 2005 would have been to die on the hill of health care reform
(i.e., done nothing, vetoed every bill, fought and fought and fought and
yet lose), rather than attempt to avert a disaster.

Posted by: chemjeff at December 21, 2011 02:57 PM (s7mIC)
Okay let's analyze Phoebus Mitt's worst case outcomes in 2005:
1) He fights and loses, and the governorship goes to a far-left Democrat.2) A horrible left-wing bill passes.
And guess what, both of those things happened. We now have a horrible left-wing bill and an ultra lefty Democrat governor.So what was so great about what Mitt did, hm?

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 21, 2011 03:01 PM (FkKjr)

208 >>>Politically, though, you let them do it and then go out on the campaign
trail immediately to point out how stupid the situation is and that more
of your party needs to be elected in the legislature.

Except that in this scenario the bill has passed. It isn't going to be revoked (the people of MA aren't going to elect an 85% GOP legislature -- they LIKE Romneycare and would probably have liked something far further to the left). The damage is now done, and you have failed, miserably and forevermore, in your responsibilities of stewardship for the state you were supposed to defend and care for.

Romney tried to govern like a governor. You wanted him to just play politics, over and over, and who-the-fuck-cares what actually happens to the state while he maneuvers for political advantage. That really boils it down right there: he was actually trying to improve things on the ground (instead of consigning his state to the eternal misery of socialized medicine), and YOU wanted him to allow it to pass, and go out there and just say "I told you it sucks and you didn't listen!" Meanwhile the people and businesses who he was actually attempting to govern on behalf would've had socialized medicine shoved down their throats.

You don't actually care about them, do you? Those considerations never really entered into your mind. You just care about the larger political positioning. But a governor HAS to care about the welfare of his people. He can't sacrifice them all in order to make some abstract political point that may (but most likely will not) get more people from his party elected next November. That's pure cynicism.

Posted by: Jeff B. at December 21, 2011 03:02 PM (2I4Tp)

209 One clarification, DaveinTexas_- that bond or insurance is for ddamage to vehicles belonging to OTHER PEOPLE or other property, BELONGING TO OTHER PEOPLE or injuries TO OTHER PEOPLE, that you directly cause. There is no auto mandate in fault states to cover one's own car, property, or injuries.

Posted by: SarahW at December 21, 2011 03:02 PM (LYwCh)

210 states can do what they want on healthcare

You're an idiot.

Actually, that statement right there is correct. According to the US Constitution, States can do what they want on healthcare. That's not what Romney said (though he has used the "I wouldn't do it at a federal level" defense before. More on that later). What he said is that it is conservative.

No it isn't. The fact that the Heritage Foundation thought it up and said, "yeah, yeah that'll work," doesn't make it conservative, it makes them wrong. A mandate to purchase a product from a private company is not conservative in any way. The Government (at any level) should not be able to require you to engage in any specific activity. Any such requirement is, therefore, not conservative.

As for the "I wouldn't do it at a federal level," defense: this boils down to "do you trust him?" Given his history of wearing a certain type of strapped sandal, known for the sound they make- I don't trust his word on much of anything, so I have to examine his record. Has he done other conservative things that give me any assurance that, on this, he would adhere to the 10th Amendment? And the answer is "no."

Based on his record he is not conservative. That, or he's an incompetent conservative. Either way, I don't want him as our nominee.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 21, 2011 03:02 PM (8y9MW)

211 "Personal responsibility," Romney said, "is more conservative in my view than something being given out for free by government."
-----------------------------

Wait a minute, Mitt, who pays for those who cannot afford the mandate?

Posted by: Magma Jefferson at December 21, 2011 03:03 PM (pkQdU)

212 I already dislike(d) Romney . . . . I am beginning to HATE HIM.
Mr. Wimp strikes again. . . by the way, Mr. Wimp, please do explains why none of your FIVE sons chose not to serve their country in the military, sir?
Newt or Perry will do nicely for me!

Posted by: Pragmatic at December 21, 2011 03:03 PM (lTnzg)

213 #122 ask Vic if he would be able to pay cash for all of the treatment he has had.
So is it your position that no one shouldeven be given the option to pay cash for his/her treatments?
Also, why the hell do you think it's appropriate to haul Vic into this? If Vic wants to inject his health concerns into this discussion, that's one thing. For someone to haul him into it isquite the other (my apologies if Vic did offer up his current situation and I missed that in the thread).

Posted by: alexthechick at December 21, 2011 03:03 PM (VtjlW)

214 I meant to say 'explain'.

Posted by: Pragmatic at December 21, 2011 03:03 PM (lTnzg)

215 >>>I guess old Noot is going after the Santorum alienated Gay non-vote?Interesting strategy, we'll see if it pans out for him.

I hate Newt, but this is a hatchet job on him. Totally unfair. He was quite polite and measured, and merely said that hey, if you're a single-issue "gay marriage" voter then I'm going to disappoint you, but if you care about other things like the economy and jobs etc. then I'm you man.


Posted by: Jeff B. at December 21, 2011 03:03 PM (2I4Tp)

216 You have to admire Willard for his tenacity and persistence. He's grabbing and groping his way around this issue like a fine piece of ass.

Posted by: Fritz at December 21, 2011 03:04 PM (FabC8)

217
Okay. Here's an honest question to you: why is
criticism of Mitt considered hate? No, seriously, I want an answer to
that question. He's running for President. His positions and views
must be subject to intense scrutiny. Doing that is not hate. Why then
the Mitt-hater shorthand?

Posted by: alexthechick at December 21, 2011 02:56 PM (VtjlW)
Because these days on this blog if you don't have a term for your opponents right out of Stalinist Russia you just aren't cool.

Posted by: Oldcat at December 21, 2011 03:04 PM (z1N6a)

218 79
Cheese Rice this guy is tone fucking deaf.
I love that. I'm going to use it.

Posted by: Y-not at December 21, 2011 03:04 PM (5H6zj)

219 Because RR didn't rush out there and take credit for the law and praise it to the high heavens the way Romney did.

Umm, to take one example, I'm pretty sure Reagan did claim credit for amnesty and "praise it to the high heavens". It was only many MANY years later when he regretted it.

Here is Reagan himself in 1984 praising amnesty
http://tinyurl.com/83rarq3

Posted by: chemjeff at December 21, 2011 03:05 PM (s7mIC)

220 Granting that MA is probably at the top of the scale in terms of cost, I'd like to see (or figure out) a comparative analysis of what happens in the various States when Juan Doe shows up with a chainsaw stuck in his leg. Cost, quality of treatment, attempts at getting payment from the patient, etc. We all knowy that the guy will get care and someone else will pay, but what conservative solutions have people come up with to deal with it? There (presumably) has to be a better way.

Posted by: Lincolntf at December 21, 2011 03:05 PM (uIz80)

221 Folks, I've said before that I wouldn't vote for
Romney in the general, but I've changed my mind. A second term for Obama
would be a disaster.
I hope you guys will reconsider if he's the nominee. Fucking holder
is still AG!! I mean fuck, that bug nuts! Look at what the EPA is
doing!!! You want a second GM bailout? What about retiring supes?

Posted by: Max Power at December 21, 2011 02:45 PM (q177U)
I'll hate doing it (voting for Romney in the general if it comes to that), but I'll do it, too. If you care about the future of this country, I don't see how you can not do everything you can to get Obama out of office, even if it means voting for (and contributing to and working for, yes) Mitt if he's the nominee. If for no other reason than this:1-3 (at least) Supreme Court vacancies to fill in 2013-2017We surely won't be thrilled with some nominees that Romney will make, but we'd be a helluva lot less thrilled with the lefty fascist bastards and bitches Obama will give us. If the SCoaMF gets to fill in the SC with people like him - like the ones he's added already - there will be no saving this nation. Period. There might not be a chance now, but for damn sure none at all if he gets to do that before leaving town.

Posted by: davidinvirginia at December 21, 2011 03:06 PM (hcJkV)

222
#122 ask Vic if he would be able to pay cash for all of the treatment he has had.

So is it your position that no one shouldeven be given the option to pay cash for his/her treatments?

Also, why the hell do you think it's appropriate to haul Vic into
this? If Vic wants to inject his health concerns into this discussion,
that's one thing. For someone to haul him into it isquite the other
(my apologies if Vic did offer up his current situation and I missed
that in the thread).

Posted by: alexthechick

+100

Leave Vic's personal health issues out of it. Even for this blog that is in poor taste.

Posted by: mpfs at December 21, 2011 03:06 PM (iYbLN)

223 Apparently he decided a better use of his money and
time was to buy political favors through campaign donations and pick out
paint colors for his SoCal estate.


Posted by: Y-not at December 21, 2011 03:00 PM (5H6zj)
The essential problem is he doesn't feel the need to explain anything to the base.

Posted by: Oldcat at December 21, 2011 03:06 PM (z1N6a)

224 #209 again the property of others which is effected by the uninsured is your tax dollars that pay for their treatment.

Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at December 21, 2011 03:06 PM (DtWlD)

225 For someone to haul him into it isquite the other (my apologies if Vic
did offer up his current situation and I missed that in the thread).

No I didn't offer up anything. But my situation has nothing to do with Romneycare. My insurance is provided by myself and my former employer. Neither the government of the U.S. nor the government of SC has a nickle in my healthcare costs.

Posted by: Vic at December 21, 2011 03:06 PM (YdQQY)

226 they LIKE Romneycare

Ya supposedly there are polls out reflecting that-

problem is-it's unsustainable-they like

the *myth* of RomneyCare.

Posted by: tasker at December 21, 2011 03:06 PM (r2PLg)

227 A federally imposed mandate exceeds constitutional authority, in our view. A state is free to do so as long as they do not violate any clauses which apply to them.

That doesn't mean it is a good idea, of course. But there are no miracle solutions to health care costs - as quality advances and demand increases, costs rise. It is simple economics.

Therefore any attempt to control costs will be a bad solution, will have negative consequences, foreseen and unforeseen. Pretending we can merrily roll along as we were before the monstrosity of ObamaCare is just self-delusion. Just because it was a socialistic attempt to take advantage of the crisis doesn't mean there was no crisis in the first place. It only means we will have wasted another four years in beginning to address the crisis.

Posted by: Adjoran at December 21, 2011 03:07 PM (VfmLu)

228 I consider "criticism" such as "Mitt is a socialist", "Mitt is no better than Obama",
Well, couldn't a discussion of Mitt's positions with the conclusion that "he's a socialist" ora review of MACare (or whatever the actual name is) and then a conclusion that "Mitt is no better than Obama" also be considered issue based criticism? Note that I am not advocating either of those positions, I'm simply saying that a blanket condemnation as those statements being based on hate seems to be overreach.

Posted by: alexthechick at December 21, 2011 03:07 PM (VtjlW)

229
The entire premise of the argument is bullshit. I lived in Massachusetts. I had health insurance. But I once got caught not paying a bill that I assumed had been paid by my insurance. My insurance didn't cover it. I didn't bother reading the statements close enough. I didn't pay it. They came after me with everything they had and the bill was only about $75. I paid the damn thing.
Newt is guilty of this, too. This idea that people who can aford to pay for medical care can just get it and not pay is bullshit. That's why God created collection agencies. I had a friend whose BROTHER didn't pay some hospital bill and they hounded HER.
Where is this magical land where all these people who can afford to pay get off not paying?

Posted by: Jaynie59 at December 21, 2011 03:07 PM (4zKCA)

230 That means you lose all power to shape the final result.

Yes. And the final result is such a better looking millstone, don't you think?

that bond or insurance is

All of that, also only necessary if you will be driving on public roads. Farmers often do not carry registration, inspection, or insurance on their farm vehicles, because they'll never take them off the farm.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 21, 2011 03:08 PM (8y9MW)

231 @95
So, what do you do? Ignore them all? Veto everything they propose?


For me it really isn't so much about punishing a governor for being pragmatic. I accept that governors do have to sign off on things that they oppose from time to time (within reason; there are some things I would expect a Republican to oppose no matter what).

What bothers me is not how Massachusetts got Masscare so much as Mitt's unwillingness or inability to repudiate it.

Posted by: Y-not at December 21, 2011 03:08 PM (5H6zj)

232 Posted by: chemjeff at December 21, 2011 03:05 PM (s7mIC)

Reagan was also an ardent anti-communist who spoke forcefully on the most pressing issue of his day - dismantling the Soviet Union. And ultimately he was a huge reason it fell apart.

What does Mitt speak about, besides how great he is and how Rick Perry is trying to kill grandma and Newt Gingrich is an evil lobbyist?

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 21, 2011 03:08 PM (FkKjr)

233 Please don't make me have tovote for Romney. .....I wanna vote against the SCoaMF. .....But please don't make me vote for Romney. I would have to get very drunk and my polling place is in a church.....so clutching at the wall to stand up would be noticed.

Posted by: wheatie at December 21, 2011 03:08 PM (wJ+Nv)

234 Umm, to take one example, I'm pretty sure Reagan did claim credit for
amnesty and "praise it to the high heavens". It was only many MANY
years later when he regretted it.

We are talking about healthcare not amnesty. On the the immigration bill he screwed up and trusted the Democrats. The original idea wasn't bad if it had been implemented as written. But the only thing implemented was the amnesty part so we did not get a permanent solution as the law intended.

Posted by: Vic at December 21, 2011 03:09 PM (YdQQY)

235 2) A horrible left-wing bill passes.

In the universe of plausible outcomes for health-care reform measures in Massachusetts, what actually passed was NOT a "horrible left-wing bill". As I mentioned, the libtard agitators wanted full-on single payer. Did I mention that the Speaker of the House at the time was a former author of a single-payer bill?

Now in Texas, of course, that bill would been considered a "horrible left-wing bill". Yes.

Posted by: chemjeff at December 21, 2011 03:09 PM (s7mIC)

236 but what is constitutionally acceptable on a state level is vile and unconstitutional when imposed on a national level

Jeff B, the problem is that Romney insists that the the mandate is only unconstituional at the state level (inthe paperback revision of his book). He does not find it vile at he national level. Nor does he find it vile at the state level. Rather, he finds it to be a GOOD thing at the state level. So at best, Romney is still a statist - albeit a federalist one.
Compare to Guiliani, who ran as a pro-choice federalist. He insisted that abortion was a state decision (like Romney does with healthcare), and he insisted that although he believed it to be legal,he found abortion a repellant thing (which Romney does not do for heathcare).
Both Romney and Guiliani made a federalist defense of their position. But if Guiliani couldn't suceed despite actually believing in federalism (which Romney does not) and despite finding the underlying issue repugnant (which Romney does not), then there is no hope for Romney.

Posted by: wooga at December 21, 2011 03:09 PM (vjyZP)

237 Illness can have a fault element, but those claims aren't paid on a fault basis. Two different things altogether. Tort law makes a person liable to another for damage caused, and insurance is just to cover your negligence, your fault. Tort law is there to keep people in society from resorting to/exacting blood vengeance. It's a way to keep the peace.

Illness is just not a comparable situation and I shouldn't have to pay for someone else's well baby visit or prostate exam by mandate, any more than I have to pay for their dental work. Insurance is a choice.

Making insurance more available would be easier if there were bigger pools and the insurance was not a tax break for your employer, but for you. Employers should pay employees salary and whatever benefits they want, but things are the way they are because wages were frozen and increasing benefits was a workaround. It doesn't have to be that way.

The time for talking just started. There are different ways to pool risk and none of them should be mandatory and the last entity that should be grabbing money for health care is the government

Posted by: SarahW at December 21, 2011 03:10 PM (LYwCh)

238 @100
I don't think the point can be made concisely and convincingly, so why risk alienating the middle?


Posted by: Xander Crews at December 21, 2011 02:38 PM (ht6OV)
----
The middle doesn't like Obamacare.

Moreover, he has to win the Republican primary in order to run in the general. He's blowing that chance.

Posted by: Y-not at December 21, 2011 03:10 PM (5H6zj)

239 >> One clarification, DaveinTexas_- that bond or insurance is for ddamage to vehicles belonging to OTHER PEOPLE or other property, BELONGING TO OTHER PEOPLE or injuries TO OTHER PEOPLE, that you directly cause. There is no auto mandate in fault states to cover one's own car, property, or injuries.

Good clarification, yes, we're talking about what you do to other people, property.Your fault.
There's absolutely no requirement to cover your vehicle or yourself.
Auto insurance is merely a (reasonably) affordable way for us to do this, and most of us aren't willing to risk the loss of an expensive vehicle.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at December 21, 2011 03:10 PM (WvXvd)

240 Using instruments of government to force citizens to be responsible as determined by the state is my definition of conservatism.

Super Tuesday here I come!

Posted by: Mitt Inevitable! at December 21, 2011 03:11 PM (pkQdU)

241 eat your peas, they're good for you.

Posted by: willow at December 21, 2011 03:11 PM (h+qn8)

242 >>>You've been strumming for Romney-which is the easy thing-he's been "pre-approved" and I'm sure you catch a hell of a lot less flak from all your liberal friends.

You're kidding, right? I rarely talk politics with anybody in the real world, and when I do it's always from the perspective of the "evil conservative Republican" guy. When debating with liberals I actually make it a point to defend people like friggin' Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann (and you people know what I think of Bachmann, personally). I don't toss my own side under the bus in order to curry favor. I force liberals to respect me for the intelligence with which I argue my positions, instead. It (usually) works.

But here, backing Romney is so far from the "easy thing" that it's hilarious for you to characterize it as such. EVERY cob-logger is anti-Romney. The vast majority of posters spew invective not only about him, but about anyone who defends him. I've pissed off god knows how many people by defending him volubly around here (though to be fair that may just because I'm an asshole in general online). I'm such a target around here on this issue that my name gets dropped in Romney-bashing threads that I haven't even posted in. If I wanted to do the "easy thing" I would back Perry, or Gingrich, or just shut up on the subject. But fuck easy -- backing Romney is the right thing to do, and I've never been able to just take the easy way out when it comes to political principle.

Y'know...people used to accuse me of "kissing up" to Ace and DrewM., etc. I always said in response that it wasn't that I was kissing ass, it's just that we thought the same way about almost everything. Now that people see me applying the same sort of essay-length commitment to disagreeing with them as I used to when, say, backing up some anti-Palin post or another, I hope folks will understand that was never what I about.

Posted by: Jeff B. at December 21, 2011 03:11 PM (2I4Tp)

243 I consider "criticism" such as "Mitt is a socialist", "Mitt is no better than Obama",

Well, couldn't a discussion of Mitt's positions with the conclusion
that "he's a socialist" ora review of MACare (or whatever the actual
name is) and then a conclusion that "Mitt is no better than Obama" also
be considered issue based criticism? Note that I am not advocating
either of those positions, I'm simply saying that a blanket condemnation
as those statements being based on hate seems to be overreach.



Posted by: alexthechick at December 21, 2011 03:07 PM (VtjlW)
And doubling down on the dismissive labels is hardly helping. 'He did it first' didnt' work when you were 5 with your mom.

Posted by: Oldcat at December 21, 2011 03:11 PM (z1N6a)

244 ChemJeff its horrible on any level. Government mandated purchase of health insurance is just intolerable. The fact that single payer is WORSE doesn't change the situation.

Posted by: SarahW at December 21, 2011 03:12 PM (LYwCh)

245 230
That means you lose all power to shape the final result.
Yes. And the final result is such a better looking millstone, don't you think?


Then, essentially, you become a Michele Bachmann - always fighting and fighting and fighting, but from a position of weakness, so always losing and losing and losing.

And let us not forget that IN 2005, the idea of the individual mandate still had the Heritage Foundation Seal of Approval(TM), precisely because it WAS more conservative than the standard left-wing alternatives out there like single-payer.

Posted by: chemjeff at December 21, 2011 03:12 PM (s7mIC)

246 Again, how do we incentivize people to buy health insurance instead of a jet ski ?
How do we get medical costs and insurance rates to come down? We know tax payer funded health care (single payer) WILL NOT WORK.

Posted by: whatever at December 21, 2011 03:12 PM (O7ksG)

247 Jeff B.

You gonna apologize for calling ace a hack-or are you going to go on with your own Light Hacktastic?

Posted by: tasker at December 21, 2011 03:13 PM (r2PLg)

248
The entire premise of the argument is bullshit. I
lived in Massachusetts. I had health insurance. But I once got caught
not paying a bill that I assumed had been paid by my insurance. My
insurance didn't cover it. I didn't bother reading the statements close
enough. I didn't pay it. They came after me with everything they had
and the bill was only about $75. I paid the damn thing.
Newt is
guilty of this, too. This idea that people who can aford to pay for
medical care can just get it and not pay is bullshit. That's why God
created collection agencies. I had a friend whose BROTHER didn't pay
some hospital bill and they hounded HER.
Where is this magical land where all these people who can afford to pay get off not paying?

Posted by: Jaynie59 at December 21, 2011 03:07 PM (4zKCA)
I have a common name. I get hounded by collection agencies repeatedly for items that total strangers haven't paid for.

Posted by: Oldcat at December 21, 2011 03:14 PM (z1N6a)

249 No, there was a third solution: raise
everyone's state income taxes. I'm sure everyone at this site would be
on board with that.

-----
Actually, that would be preferable to a mandate.

It would be good for the people of Massachusetts to feel a hit in their pocketbooks if this program was so important to them. Maybe they'd rethink their position and decide against Masscare and be open to another solution.

Posted by: Y-not at December 21, 2011 03:16 PM (5H6zj)

250 Jeff B.

Look you make emotional arguments-if you were in a court do you think you would get very far making the-

Hack Attack?

It's irrational.

And ok bonus points to you for making Romey defenses here-but in the outside world-

being a Romney fan is an easy crouch position to assume--before the Liberals.

It takes courage to still say-I'm not going with the herd and the stampede-there are higher values-

I endorse Perry.

And for that you are calling Ace a hack.

Projection-it's what your eating for breakfast.

Posted by: tasker at December 21, 2011 03:17 PM (r2PLg)

251
Posted by: alexthechick at December 21, 2011 03:07 PM (VtjlW)
In the rarefied atmosphere of an esoteric discussion of Mitt's credentials, you have a point. Here in the AoSHQ blog comment section, calling Mitt a "socialist" or a "commie" or somesuch does constitute just name-calling. IMO it goes hand in hand with paranoid skepticism of the Establishment Boogeyman to go into people's houses and brainwash people to support Mitt so as to force their preferred candidate onto the rest of us.

Posted by: chemjeff at December 21, 2011 03:17 PM (s7mIC)

252 Its easy, whatever. Exempt income spent on health insurance from income tax. Encourage high deductible plans to encourage wise use of insurance - exempt money set aside for HSAs.

Limit refusal to pay for pre-existing conditions to two years, to make purchase prudent, but to keep the hazard of failure to buy - while at the same time forcing coverage eventually.

Posted by: SarahW at December 21, 2011 03:17 PM (LYwCh)

253 In the universe of plausible outcomes for health-care reform measures in
Massachusetts, what actually passed was NOT a "horrible left-wing
bill".Now in Texas, of course, that bill would been considered a "horrible left-wing bill". Yes.
Posted by: chemjeff at December 21, 2011 03:09 PM (s7mIC)


I live under the fucking thing. The fact I don't live in Texas doesn't make it somehow conservative. This isn't an academic issue for me.

It was never going to be single-payer. The Insurance companies in MA are big-time donors to everybody in the legislature.

And you may not have noticed that Deval Patrick is now governor, and that Mitt's Healthcare system has since been amended heavily.

He averted nothing. There is nothing good about what was produced. There was no political benefit for the GOP in MA by signing off on this bill. They were crushed in the next election. There has been no cost reduction. It has increased. The only effect is I must now prove to the state that I buy health insurance, or they fine me.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 21, 2011 03:17 PM (FkKjr)

254 edit: *you're* eating for breakfast.

Posted by: tasker at December 21, 2011 03:18 PM (r2PLg)

255 I was going to vote for him out of practicality, but forget that now. Freaking jackass.

Posted by: Mr_UNIVAC at December 21, 2011 03:18 PM (E8rdu)

256 The problems with being a Mittbot is that not only do you have to argue that RomneyCare's individual mandate is constitutional, you ALSO have to argue:

- The individual mandate is conservative

- The individual mandate is desirable

- RomneyCare works and is solvent

- RomneyCare is sustainable without outside (federal) tax dollars

Because Romney claims all these things.

Is that your contention? Seriously? Let me know so that I can set phasers to "Mock Mercilessly."

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at December 21, 2011 03:18 PM (l9zgN)

257 Dunno what color the sky is in Mittens world but reality is about to kick his narrow Mormon punk ass right in the nads.
"what he's come up with, thus far, is that "the individual mandate is actually quite conservative."
is a statement that just begs to have a clue by four strike called in. He has no idea how badly independent Americans HATE to be told they HAVE to do something, fucking dumbass. O'Sparky too, fucking morons all.

Posted by: Gmac at December 21, 2011 03:18 PM (k2Fyd)

258 "Maybe they'd rethink their position and decide against Masscare and be open to another solution.
Posted by: Y-not at December 21, 2011 03:16 PM (5H6zj)"

Indeed

Posted by: SarahW at December 21, 2011 03:19 PM (LYwCh)

259 ROMNEY SHOULD BE OVER NOW

Posted by: SarahW at December 21, 2011 03:19 PM (LYwCh)

260 There's absolutely no requirement to cover your vehicle or yourself.
Auto insurance is merely a (reasonably) affordable way for us to do
this, and most of us aren't willing to risk the loss of an expensive
vehicle.

Posted by: Dave in Texas
Correct Dave. We both live in border states and anytime I see a Mexico plate I get the hell away from that vehicle. This is why I am more than happy to carry uninsured motorist coverage. I don't need the headache.

Posted by: mpfs at December 21, 2011 03:19 PM (iYbLN)

261 Y'know...people used to accuse me of "kissing up" to Ace and DrewM.

Ya that last thing you posted to Drew-"I respect you-...and it hurts"...jeebus dude that was over the top.

Posted by: tasker at December 21, 2011 03:20 PM (r2PLg)

262 Then, essentially, you become a Michele Bachmann - always fighting and
fighting and fighting, but from a position of weakness, so always losing
and losing and losing.
Well, potentially, yes.

Here's the thing, though, I don't think anyone is saying that Romney got anything worse than he would have gotten anyway (I'm not, anyway). In fact, here:

I HEREBY STIPULATE THAT MASSCARE AS CHAMPIONED BY MITT ROMNEY WAS BETTER THAN THE LIBERAL ALTERNATIVE.

Okay, that said (and here we come back to ace's point): That's still not "conservative." On a scale of 1 - 10 where 1 is Cromagnon Man Conservative and 10 is "Karl Marx was a Piker," it may fall on a 6 where the proposed liberal solution would have been a solid 8. It's still not "conservative" until it lands on the lower side of 5.

And what Conservatives like me wanted from Mitt (and, for me, it's too late now) was for him to be willing to say: "No, it's not great. It's better than anything else I was going to get, and I was trying to mitigate the damage my Liberal congress was going to do." But he won't do that. He still claims that he's proud of it, that the mandate is conservative, and that he "likes mandates."

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 21, 2011 03:20 PM (8y9MW)

263 195
I'm old enough to remember when all I carried was catastrophic health
insurance. I paid cash or made payments for everything else. When did
it become all fucked up?


Posted by: mpfs at December 21, 2011 02:58 PM (iYbLN)
Hiya darlin'!

Posted by: LBJ at December 21, 2011 03:21 PM (RD7QR)

264 And guess what, both of those things happened. We now have a horrible left-wing bill and an ultra lefty Democrat governor.

Yep.

Posted by: Y-not at December 21, 2011 03:21 PM (5H6zj)

265 The problem seems to be that the GOP will let just about anyone in their primary.

Mittens does not belong in the GOP. He never has.

And now because someone decided that "he could win" we can't get rid of this fucker.

Fucking Huntsman is more of a conservative than this asshole.

Posted by: Lord Monochromicorn at December 21, 2011 03:22 PM (wW2z9)

266 I think it's very cynical to nominate a known liar just because you think moderates will fall for it.

Posted by: Entropy, and if you don't agree you hate America and want Obama to win at December 21, 2011 03:22 PM (AuQqX)

267 Let me know so that I can set phasers to "Mock Mercilessly."

...what are the other options?

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 21, 2011 03:22 PM (8y9MW)

268 The alternative may be worse - I think it's very unwise to nominate a person who has changed his opinions on everything recently.

Posted by: Entropy, and if you don't agree you hate America and want Obama to win at December 21, 2011 03:23 PM (AuQqX)

269 Look again props for defending Romney-but minus 1,000 points for style.

The all-caps-that's yelling.

Imagine if you did that in court?

Man did you have any trial advocacy-in law school.

Then-calling someone a hack-that's ad hominem-cripes-you should get the perfunctory logic of not doing that...

Posted by: tasker at December 21, 2011 03:23 PM (r2PLg)

270 "Health Care Mandates Are A Conservative Solution, So Long As States Impose Them"

Uh, no. I don't want government, federal nor state, butting into my health care decisions or have access to my records.

Posted by: Mike at December 21, 2011 03:23 PM (0hdwM)

271 In the rarefied atmosphere of an esoteric discussion of Mitt's credentials, you have a point. Here in the AoSHQ blog comment section, calling Mitt a "socialist" or a "commie" or somesuch does constitute just name-calling.
Sorry, didn't mean to imply that it wasn't name calling just that it was not always simply name calling.
You know I love me some Venn.

Posted by: alexthechick at December 21, 2011 03:24 PM (VtjlW)

272 BTW, slightly off topic but...the story making the rounds about Newt telling a gay guy to just go vote for Obama is, ahem, bullshit...I know you're all shocked by that...from Legal Insurrection:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/cslkjem

Posted by: davidinvirginia at December 21, 2011 03:25 PM (hcJkV)

273 263
195
I'm old enough to remember when all I carried was catastrophic health
insurance. I paid cash or made payments for everything else. When did
it become all fucked up?


Posted by: mpfs at December 21, 2011 02:58 PM (iYbLN)
Hiya darlin'!


Posted by: LBJ

BTW, FU LBJ. Didn't you do enough damage? Or were you just signing bills while banging Doris Kearns Goodwin?

Posted by: mpfs at December 21, 2011 03:25 PM (iYbLN)

274 You gonna apologize for calling ace a hack-or are you going to go on with your own Light Hacktastic?

What's there to apologize for? He is behaving like a hack in this post. I mean, it doesn't define his character in an essential way, but there's no question that, like a Paul Begala of the right, he has quite breezily omitted the single strongest argument Romney makes about the difference between what he did in MA and Obamacare. He even had to edit the interview excerpt he cites in this post to do that. If that isn't the textbook definition of hackery, I dunno what is. I understand why he's doing it -- he's pushing Perry, wants to reach as many people as possible with an anti-Romney message, and has made the conscious decision that little falsehood and untruth in the service of a Greater Good (in his mind, aiding Perry) is okay in this situation. But that doesn't mean I have to be okay with it.

It would be one thing if Ace were to say "hey, it's not my responsibility to make good arguments for Romney, because I don't support him." I would agree with him (and do note in passing irony that this is exactly what he's doing for Perry: making the arguments for Perry that Perry is too inarticulate and/or incompetent to use as the focus of his candidacy). But he is actively editing and omitting Romney's primary argument in disinction with Obamacare, and then pretending that Romney's campaign message is, basically "a defense of Obamacare." That's straight-up hackery right there. He knows it. He absolutely does, because you could not actually craft the post he did here without knowing about the distinction Romney draws on this issue and consciously failing to include it

And that doesn't reflect well on him. Sorry. Again, if Ace wants to say "I know Romney draws the distinction between the state level being constitutional and a federal mandate being noxious as a one-size-fits-all solution that's both antithetical to American federalism AND unconstitutional...but I think that explanation ain't going to go fly in a general election" then let him say it. I'm willing to listen to that argument -- maybe he's right. But he's deceiving you by framing Romney's case the way he has in this post.

Posted by: Jeff B. at December 21, 2011 03:26 PM (2I4Tp)

275 Jeff B.

And here is the other thing...

defending Romney-people are overexposed to that.

That's what is happening all over the Conservative media-and the liberal media to an extent.

To defend Perry you gotta be a gawd damn original thinker-you can't just regurgitate Jen Rubin, Michelle Malkin or what all.

People come to blogs to escape some of that-it's where the vacuum is-and here you come bashing them with the all -caps.

Posted by: tasker at December 21, 2011 03:26 PM (r2PLg)

276 Fucking Huntsman is more of a conservative than this asshole.

Posted by: Lord Monochromicorn
OMG! I agree with that statement.

I need a drink.

Posted by: mpfs at December 21, 2011 03:26 PM (iYbLN)

277 If Romney is the nominee then we better coordinate our write-ins and get the spelling correct.

Posted by: sTevo at December 21, 2011 03:27 PM (HvXlq)

278 He averted nothing. There is nothing good about what was produced. There was no political benefit for the GOP in MA by signing off on this bill. They were crushed in the next election. There has been no cost reduction. It has increased. The only effect is I must now prove to the state that I buy health insurance, or they fine me.
Bears repeating.

Posted by: Entropy, and if you don't agree you hate America and want Obama to win at December 21, 2011 03:27 PM (AuQqX)

279 #256 Romney never said his plan was sustainable without the Fed tax dollars. He did not say the individual mandate was desirable. He said it was the best option given the choices. He does not contend Romney care is now solvent. Other than that you were on the mark.

Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at December 21, 2011 03:27 PM (DtWlD)

280 Well, potentially, yes.

So instead of fighting from a position of weakness, why not fight from a position of strength? In a negotiation, you only have power if you are willing to engage in the negotiation. If you just say "screw you, ya bunch of socialists, I'm gonna oppose whatever it is you do", then you have lost virtually all power.

This is what some of the Purity Conservatives(tm) don't seem to recognize, I think. They want a Conservative Warrior, wielding the Sword of Reagan, to smite the Socialist Enemies of the State. And it just doesn't work like that. You have to be willing to negotiate and in the process of negotiation you have to give up some of that precious conservative purity. But you actually do have a chance to get things done because you have a seat at the table.

Posted by: chemjeff at December 21, 2011 03:27 PM (s7mIC)

281 The all-caps-that's yelling.


tasker,I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!!


Posted by: mpfs at December 21, 2011 03:28 PM (iYbLN)

282 You better believe I'm yelling

Posted by: SarahW at December 21, 2011 03:28 PM (LYwCh)

283 ...what are the other options?

"Cock-Punch", "Sneer", "Ignore" and "High-Five".

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at December 21, 2011 03:29 PM (vzFJV)

284 >>>Imagine if you did that in court?



>>>Man did you have any trial advocacy-in law school.



>>>Then-calling someone a hack-that's ad hominem-cripes-you should get the perfunctory logic of not doing that...
I thank you for your concern with my courtroom demeanor, but rest assured I'm fully capable of distinguishing the difference between an online blog argument and trial litigation. Different tones for different situations.

("Your honor, this witness is a lying sack of monkey shit! I demand his testimony be stricken from the record!")

Posted by: Jeff B. at December 21, 2011 03:29 PM (2I4Tp)

285 I understand why he's doing it -- he's pushing Perry, wants to reach as many people as possible with an anti-Romney message, and has made the conscious decision that little falsehood and untruth in the service of a Greater Good (in his mind, aiding Perry) is okay in this situation. But that doesn't mean I have to be okay with it.

********

How do you know this-what is your proof?

I'm going to go reread ace's post.

Posted by: tasker at December 21, 2011 03:30 PM (r2PLg)

286 JeffB, weren't you on the Perry Ferry for awhile?

Still there or if not, what was the turning point?

Posted by: The Q at December 21, 2011 03:32 PM (LnQhT)

287 ("Your honor, this witness is a lying sack of monkey shit! I demand his testimony be stricken from the record!")

Posted by: Jeff B.

JUDGE: BALIFF! REMOVE THIS SACK OF MONKEY SHIT IMMEDIATELY FROM THE COURTROOM.BALIFF: WHICH SACK OF SHIT LAWYER WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO REMOVE??

Posted by: mpfs at December 21, 2011 03:32 PM (iYbLN)

288 Unless people are positing that medical care be denied to all who are uninsured or otherwise can't pay, I don't get the "it's all about the principle!" bravado. The principle is whether or not to provide the care, how to pay for it is ancillary.

Posted by: Lincolntf at December 21, 2011 03:33 PM (Qjh0I)

289 defend Perry you gotta be a gawd damn original thinker-you can't just regurgitate Jen Rubin, Michelle Malkin or what all.

Michelle Malkin hates everybody who isn't an extreme ideologue.

Except for Captain Ed and Allah, who is the biggest RINO candyass of them all

Posted by: The Q at December 21, 2011 03:34 PM (LnQhT)

290 So instead of fighting from a position of weakness, why not fight from a
position of strength? In a negotiation, you only have power if you are
willing to engage in the negotiation. If you just say "screw you, ya
bunch of socialists, I'm gonna oppose whatever it is you do", then you
have lost virtually all power.

He was never going to be fighting from a position of strength- by the Romneybots' own arguments. According to the standard Romney argument: Romney had no power to: avert the disaster that is RomneyCare, appoint actual conservatives to the bench, or get other conservative legislation passed, because the legislature was so liberal.

So he was never going to have "a position of strength." Having capitulated in one fight is not going to gain you an advantageous position.

Perhaps, if he had an otherwise conservative record, you could make the argument, but he doesn't. So, at best, he gave in on this, and then got rolled on everything else anyway.

Romney 2012 - I can lose to Democrats better than anyone else!

"Cock-Punch", "Sneer", "Ignore" and "High-Five".

Then I recommend "Cock-Punch."

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 21, 2011 03:34 PM (8y9MW)

291 So instead of fighting from a position of weakness, why not fight from a position of strength?

If both houses of the legislature hold veto-proof majorities against you (and legit veto-proof, so you can't find a Collins or Snowe on the other side to go your way), you're automatically in a position of weakness.

Posted by: The Q at December 21, 2011 03:36 PM (LnQhT)

292 The all-caps-that's yelling.

tasker,

I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!!
****

LOL!

OK I gotta confess-I don't have the font buttons I'm on an Apple....ya I know- I've outted myself as a hippie.

Posted by: tasker at December 21, 2011 03:37 PM (r2PLg)

293 >>>JeffB, weren't you on the Perry Ferry for awhile?>>>Still there or if not, what was the turning point?

I was, and I don't dislike the guy even now, but he's just not capable of hacking (har!) it in a national race against Obama. He's even MORE inarticulate than Bush, and reminds everyone of him to boot. His failure in every debate (and even in the last two he's only been okayish) is what did it.

I'm really, really, really interested in the bottom line. I want to win. I want Obama out of office. When I thought that Perry could be a strong general election contender against Obama, it was easy to prefer him over Romney. But now? I'm not taking chances.

Unlike many of you, I happen to think Romney would be a fine President -- and perhaps has the potential to be an authentically great one, in a way that people around here are largely incapable of appreciating -- even with his many flaws. I won't have to hold my nose or anything. I admire the man's personal character and private sector experience immensely, and I'm obviously far more inclined to excuse his flip-flops as the things that a guy running in MA as a Republican simply had to do in order to have a shot. Others around here don't, and that's fine. But that's where I stand.

Posted by: Jeff B. at December 21, 2011 03:38 PM (2I4Tp)

294 Federalism doesn't mean that states are immune from criticism for their policies, it simply means that states are immune from the federal government intervening in state affairs, with certain constitutional exceptions. Too often the candidates - and I'll include Perry here - use federalism as a get out of jail free card to defend bad policy.

Posted by: Paul Zummo at December 21, 2011 03:39 PM (IGkEP)

295 At this point (if ever), the issue isn't whether you would vote for Romneycare. The issue is whether Romneycare is, hysteria removed, anything worse than an increase in MA state income tax, with a credit if you have/get your own health insurance. You may not like even that reality, but "an income tax increase" is not a quantum leap through the Euro-socialist statist portal.

Romney didn't make Massachusetts an uber-blue state; and he made its policies a bit less liberal. 80-90% of his resume is from the private sector.

He will be a great President if he gets there. If/when he gets the nomination, focus on getting a conservative Congress in place to send Mitt austere budgets. It's win-win, because Romney will be far harder to demonize than any of the alternatives.

GROW UP AND GET REAL BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE.

Posted by: ParisParamus at December 21, 2011 03:40 PM (lkG6y)

296 This is what some of the Purity Conservatives(tm)
don't seem to recognize, I think. They want a Conservative Warrior,
wielding the Sword of Reagan, to smite the Socialist Enemies of the
State. And it just doesn't work like that. You have to be willing to
negotiate and in the process of negotiation you have to give up some of
that precious conservative purity. But you actually do have a chance to
get things done because you have a seat at the table.


Posted by: chemjeff at December 21, 2011 03:27 PM (s7mIC)
But if you give it all away, and get nothing, then what.

Posted by: Oldcat at December 21, 2011 03:40 PM (z1N6a)

297 So he was never going to have "a position of strength." Having capitulated in one fight is not going to gain you an advantageous position.Zee strategic surrender is our greatest weapon!

Posted by: Frenchmen at December 21, 2011 03:41 PM (vjyZP)

298 The last time a Republican the public saw as moderate won a presidential election: 1972Actually - 1988. Most people viewed Bush the Elder right of the middle. Very few actually bought the idea he was a conservative.
And, to be candid, this "if we nominate the conservative, we win everytime" theory doesn't really work. It sounds great on radio, the blogs, etc. when you are talking to a like minded audience. By the class room results do not always translate well in the field.
Conversely, name the conservative who would have won in 2008.
I'll wait. Not while holding my breath -- I am not going to pass out waiting.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at December 21, 2011 03:41 PM (OWjjx)

299 Chemjeff, "what do you do if you were in Romney's shoes?"
Well honestly you could veto it, and go everywhere saying "this is a piece of shit and bad for the state even if you don't realize it now. You assholes own this garbage and I want no part of it." And really since Mitt was probably eyeing president at this point why not do it? Afterall he did a bunch of other crap with looking towards getting the nomination as well.
But ok, say you want at least some say-so in the bill so you negotiate for the best you can get. Well its not 2005 anymore. Its 2011. Its 6 years later, why can't he say "even with my attempted efforts to moderate this law its still bad. Its damaging the state, and businesses and really is not good. Even if the state don't realize how much it really is costing them." Why continue to stand by it and use as justification for standing by it that the liberal idiots of your state all love it?

Posted by: buzzion at December 21, 2011 03:42 PM (GULKT)

300 Jeff B, are you on Twitter? @ParisParamus

Posted by: ParisParamus at December 21, 2011 03:43 PM (lkG6y)

301
I'll wait. Not while holding my breath -- I am not going to pass out waiting.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at December 21, 2011 03:41 PM (OWjjx)
On the other hand, whatever his politics, a candidate that goes home and gives up like we had in 1992, 1996, and 2008 aint gonna win shit.

Posted by: Oldcat at December 21, 2011 03:43 PM (z1N6a)

302 Jeff B, are you on Twitter? @ParisParamus

I have an account but I never use it.

Posted by: Jeff B. at December 21, 2011 03:45 PM (2I4Tp)

303 298
The last time a Republican the public saw as moderate won a presidential election: 1972Actually - 1988. Most people viewed Bush the Elder right of the middle. Very few actually bought the idea he was a conservative.
And, to be candid, this "if we nominate the conservative, we win everytime" theory doesn't really work. It sounds great on radio, the blogs, etc. when you are talking to a like minded audience. By the class room results do not always translate well in the field.
Conversely, name the conservative who would have won in 2008.
I'll wait. Not while holding my breath -- I am not going to pass out waiting.
Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at December 21, 2011 03:41 PM (OWjjx)
Yeah but Bush probably only won in '88 because he was Reagan's VP and they couldn't run Reagan again. So many likely hoped he would continue as Reagan did. But I was only 6 at the time so I don't really have much memory of that election.

Posted by: buzzion at December 21, 2011 03:46 PM (GULKT)

304 On the other hand, I have no delusions about Romney. If the bill gets through the Congress, he would probably sign a law repealing Obamacare. Not because of any great convictions or beliefs.....but because to not do so would place him in great political peril. He will muddle around at the edges, tinker here and tinker there with cuts. He will not raise taxes. He will not address entitlement reform other than maybe go along with a another gimmick to kick the can down the road a bit further. He will do no great work, but no great harm.
But, then again, this is what the great unwashed masses of voters want --- cut spending, just don't cut mine. Curb entitlements but remember, I paid into Social Security, so I better get mine. Yeah, I think the rich should pay more taxes, as long as I am not defined as rich or, conversely, you impose the Mallamutt definition of the what the Buffet Tax really is --- raise the tax (income) that does not impact me (cause all of my money comes from capital gains).
So, maybe its not whether we want a President Romney or not.....maybe the better question is why don't we deserve a President Romney?

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at December 21, 2011 03:46 PM (OWjjx)

305 Why is this asshole so obtuse? Doesn't he get it?

The past can be forgiven, if the conversion is done right. Like Saint Paul, for example. One must confess one's sins and promise to sin no more.

But why this of all issues? He is unwilling to budge other than to speak this current mouthful of garbage.

Doesn't he understand how a great majority of the "American people," or at least those that speak with the pollsters, despise this thing that Obama and the Dems thrust upon us?

Posted by: Buck Ofama at December 21, 2011 03:47 PM (4sQwu)

306 I happen to think Romney would be a fine President -- and perhaps has
the potential to be an authentically great one, in a way that people
around here are largely incapable of appreciating

I actually think Romney could be anywhere from a horrible president or a truly great president, like we haven't had in decades.

That uncertainty which might be a little unsettling for some of our colleagues here.

I feel the same way about Newt, too.


Posted by: The Q at December 21, 2011 03:47 PM (LnQhT)

307
Yeah but Bush probably only won in '88 because he
was Reagan's VP and they couldn't run Reagan again. So many likely
hoped he would continue as Reagan did. But I was only 6 at the time so I
don't really have much memory of that election.

Posted by: buzzion at December 21, 2011 03:46 PM (GULKT)
Not hoped - that's what he ran on. Until he made his foolish bargain with the Dems over taxes. Always get your cut first with those bastards.

Posted by: Oldcat at December 21, 2011 03:47 PM (z1N6a)

308 Conversely, name the conservative who would have won in 2008.
Any one of them that didn't endorse Obama would have had a better shot than McCain took.

Posted by: Entropy, and if you don't agree you hate America and want Obama to win at December 21, 2011 03:48 PM (AuQqX)

309 On the other hand, whatever his politics, a candidate that goes home and gives up like we had in 1992, 1996, and 2008 aint gonna win shit.
But now you are no longer talking about ideology as campaign tactics. And hell, I am willing to give Bush the Elder a pass in 1992. As long as Perot was in the race, he had very little chance. The 1996 and 2008 fields were -- awful. Again, look at those primaries and tell me, how the hell was the winner we didn't nominate.
You have bad fields. The very cyclical nature of American politics mandates it.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at December 21, 2011 03:50 PM (OWjjx)

310
At this point (if ever), the issue isn't whether you would vote for
Romneycare. The issue is whether Romneycare is, hysteria removed,
anything worse than an increase in MA state income tax, with a credit if
you have/get your own health insurance.
Well, the way it works is that if I don't provide the state with a form saying I have health insurance, they fine me.

So, the state of MA has to yet again insert itself into my life and my business, and I have to make sure I keep that damn piece of paper for when I fill out my tax returns or I will pay a non-trivial fine.

All so that costs can still go up and people without insurance will still opt to just pay the fine. But at least the state is inconveniencing the law-abiding by monitoring them.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 21, 2011 03:52 PM (FkKjr)

311 Yeah but Bush probably only won in '88 because he was Reagan's VP and they couldn't run Reagan again.
Bush won because 1) his campaign did a brillant job of tearing Mike Dukakis to shred and 2) what parts of Mike Dukakis that the Bush campaign did not shred, Mike Dukakis did. Plus the Dukakis campaign was the second worse run campaign in modern history (that award still going to Al Gore).
Yes, there was some Reagan nostalgia in that campaign. There was also some Reagan fatigue.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at December 21, 2011 03:53 PM (OWjjx)

312 Anybody go to despair.com? "Give up" should have a picture of Romney instead of the cute li'l kitty.

Posted by: AdamPM at December 21, 2011 03:56 PM (/83rF)

313 But now you are no longer talking
about ideology as campaign tactics. And hell, I am willing to give Bush
the Elder a pass in 1992. As long as Perot was in the race, he had very
little chance. The 1996 and 2008 fields were -- awful. Again, look at
those primaries and tell me, how the hell was the winner we didn't
nominate.
You have bad fields. The very cyclical nature of American politics mandates it.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at December 21, 2011 03:50 PM (OWjjx)
But if you don't have a driving ideology the campaign can beat you down. Does Romney? Clinton wanted to get elected, that always worked.Don't give Bush I a Pass. Perot was only in the race because of his tax increase. Then he quit, until Bush's non-campaign led him to get back in very late.
Any kind of vigor that last month would have axed the Perot crowd. I knew a lot of them - they were pissed off Reaganites. If Bush had promised to burn down the Congressional building and hang the congressmen he would have walked in.

Posted by: Oldcat at December 21, 2011 03:57 PM (z1N6a)

314 Romney didn't make Massachusetts an uber-blue state; and he made its
policies a bit less liberal.

Oh, I forgot to mention- this is total bullshit. I know the popular myth is that Mitt was a voice in the wilderness, but Mitt was the fourth GOP governor since Dukakis, and his record is comparable to Paul Cellucci, except Cellucci got re-elected.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 21, 2011 03:57 PM (FkKjr)

315 >>>Yes, there was some Reagan nostalgia in that campaign. There was also some Reagan fatigue.

Yeah. Buzzion's too young to remember, but Michael Dukakis actually led the race by something like 20% over Bush for quite a long time, until well into August/September of 1988. It was Willie Horton, Dukakis-in-a-tank, and his awful debate performance that did him in.

Posted by: Jeff B. at December 21, 2011 03:58 PM (2I4Tp)

316
#310 Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 21, 2011 03:52 PM (FkKjr)
It's not a fine. It's a tax deduction. If you have the 1099HC you can take the deduction. If you don't have it, you can't take the deduction. Too many people seem to think it's a fine you can just decide not to pay since there is no jail penalty. It doesn't work that way. The only way to get around not paying it is to lie on your tax return and then they've got you for perjury. It would be like claiming a kid and making up a SS# when you don't have any kids. It's not a fine or a penalty. They raised the taxes on the tax tables and then instituted the deduction.

Posted by: Jaynie59 at December 21, 2011 03:59 PM (4zKCA)

317 #314 Bawney Frank, John Kerry, Ed Markey, Teddy Kennedy. Really?

Posted by: ParisParamus at December 21, 2011 03:59 PM (lkG6y)

318 Jeff B.

He even had to edit the interview excerpt he cites in this post to do that.


Here's the title of the hill.com interview:

Romney doubles down on argument that state health mandate is 'conservative'

Here is some more from the interview-

The argument aims to improve Romney's appeal to Republican voters concerned about the healthcare reform plan he signed into law as governor of Massachusetts in 2006. The Massachusetts law contains an individual mandate similar to the one in President Obama's healthcare law, which conservatives despise.

"Personal responsibility," Romney said, "is more conservative in my view than something being given out for free by government."
"There were two options in my state," he said. "One was to continue to allow people without insurance to go to the hospital and get free care, paid for by the government, paid for by taxpayers."

"The best idea is to let each state craft their own solution because that's, after all, the heart of conservatism: to follow the Constitution," he said.

*******

Why aren't you bothered by what Romney has chosen to omit?

Like how much debt per capita the tax paying citizens have incurred? Record making debt in fact.

Or-the fact that the plan is largely subsidized by the federal taxpayer to benefit a select few in Massachusetts to have something no other citizen has outside of Massachusetts?

Or the fact that the federal government can't come up with the promised amount and the large shortfall in funding is going to make RomneyCare as it now stands-

unsustainable.

****

Too bad you don't judge Romney- a man running for the Presidency of the United States- by the same high standards by which you are judging ace.

You owe ace an apology.

Posted by: tasker at December 21, 2011 04:00 PM (r2PLg)

319 >>>#314 Bawney Frank, John Kerry, Ed Markey, Teddy Kennedy. Really?

Hell, Bill Weld and Jane Swift.

Posted by: Jeff B. at December 21, 2011 04:00 PM (2I4Tp)

320 304
On the other hand, I have no delusions about Romney. If the bill gets through the Congress, he would probably sign a law repealing Obamacare. Not because of any great convictions or beliefs.....but because to not do so would place him in great political peril.
Yeah, if the bill gets to him of course he'd sign it. I just don't think he'll be out there urging its repeal as hard as claims he will, which isn't all that hard to begin with.
The House would maybe possibly put up a repeal bill without strong backing from the president, but I don't see the senate doing it without it. What I see happening in the senate is that we gain a majority but not strong enough to lock McCain Graham Brown Kirk and the Maine twins in line. So instead of getting a repeal bill out of the senate, we get a "Fix It" bill with bipartisan support.
And I see Romney really enjoying signing bills with bipartisan support, and since he's Mr. "Keep the 'Good*' and Repeal the Bad" a "Fix It" bill will supposedly give him this and you don't have the long process of doing Repeal and Replace. So now you have a bill with strong presidential backing and also Senate support of it pressuring the House. Awesome!
*Even the Good is shit.

Posted by: buzzion at December 21, 2011 04:01 PM (GULKT)

321 314 Bawney Frank, John Kerry, Ed Markey, Teddy Kennedy. Really?

Posted by: ParisParamus at December 21, 2011 03:59 PM (lkG6y)Yep. Mitt did not make Massachusetts any less liberal than Bill Weld, Cellucci, or Jane Swift did. He was that last in the line of moderate, blue-blood Republicans.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 21, 2011 04:03 PM (FkKjr)

322 You have bad fields. The very cyclical nature of American politics mandates it.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at December 21, 2011 03:50 PM (OWjjx)
That's part of the problem - the entire field is people who seem to think it is smart to have no understanding of the base of the party. This isn't like a weather system - you get weak fields when nobody in the field knows why they are running for President because they have renounced any ideology.
Like in your case, if you were a Rino Presidential Candidate. Even if you don't agree with the various bases, you better know what they think on issues in order to rally them as much as you can or head off any distrust of you as President. To not do so is just bad politics.

Posted by: Oldcat at December 21, 2011 04:03 PM (z1N6a)

323 ...because here is what ace chose to omit-

"Personal responsibility," Romney said, "is more conservative in my view than something being given out for free by government."

And that happens to make Romney look like a total hypocrite.

Posted by: tasker at December 21, 2011 04:03 PM (r2PLg)

324 You owe ace an apology.





Posted by: tasker

Since you've revealed yourself as a hippy Apple user I'll help you out here tasker. Cause I'm a giver.

JEFFB.YOU OWE ACE AN APOLOGY.

Posted by: mpfs at December 21, 2011 04:05 PM (iYbLN)

325 Hell, Bill Weld and Jane Swift.

Posted by: Jeff B. at December 21, 2011 04:00 PM (2I4Tp)
Whose differences in policy from Romney as Governor are nonexistent.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 21, 2011 04:06 PM (FkKjr)

326 Any kind of vigor that last month would have axed the Perot crowd. I knew a lot of them - they were pissed off Reaganites. If Bush had promised to burn down the Congressional building and hang the congressmen he would have walked in.
History, we forget it so soon. Bush I was actually closing the gap in the last month and was running with a lot of vigor. Then (and history, I have forgotten the exact name of) the Special Prosecutor in the Iran/Contra investigation came in the last weekend and dumped his report which dumped all over Bush and...boom went the dynamite. Momentum lost and the election as well.
See, we who are idelogically motivated want to believe, really believe, that it is just about ideologly. It isn't. Ace talked about high information voters and low information voters. What drives the low information voter varies but, generally, you can get a sense of where they are going by following the right tract/wrong track and in 1992, it was trending wrong. Its trending wrong this year, which works against Obama. It was trending wrong in 2008 -- which hurt McCain.
And please, Perot was too big of an egomaniac not to get back in.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at December 21, 2011 04:08 PM (OWjjx)

327 Yeah. Buzzion's too young to remember, but Michael
Dukakis actually led the race by something like 20% over Bush for quite a
long time, until well into August/September of 1988. It was Willie
Horton, Dukakis-in-a-tank, and his awful debate performance that did him
in.


Posted by: Jeff B. at December 21, 2011 03:58 PM (2I4Tp)
I'd blame the usual inflated polling for a lot of that. That's about when most people start looking at the nominees in a serious way. They saw a liberal Democrat in Dukakis, because he wasn't afraid to say it. So they repudiated him. The gaffes just made it worse for him.

Posted by: Oldcat at December 21, 2011 04:08 PM (z1N6a)

328 edit:


Why aren't you bothered by what Romney has chosen to omit?

Like how much debt per capita the tax paying citizens ^of Massachusetts^ have incurred? Record making debt in fact.

Moody’s Investors Service ranks Massachusetts fourth in total net tax-supported debt, fourth in total gross tax-supported debt (down from third in 2007), second in net tax-supported debt as a percentage of personal income, and second in net tax-supported debt per capita (down from first in 2007).[10] Standard and Poor’s Massachusetts rankings are similar: second in tax-supported debt per capita (down from first in 2007), third in tax-supported debt as a percentage of personal income (down from second in 2007), and fourth in total tax-supported debt.

The source for that is mass.gov

http://www.mass.gov/bb/cap/fy2009/exec/hdebtaf

ford_5.htm

(I'm sure the stats for 2010 haven't much improved.)

Posted by: tasker at December 21, 2011 04:08 PM (r2PLg)

329 It's not a fine or a penalty. They raised the taxes on the tax tables and then instituted the deduction.

Posted by: Jaynie59 at December 21, 2011 03:59 PM (4zKCA)
I'm missing why this is suddenly acceptable.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 21, 2011 04:08 PM (FkKjr)

330 Another example of why Ace is actually the best political analyst around, including all of the better known names.
But I also think that conservatives have hinged too much on the individual mandate, which isn't as un-conservative as people think. The real problem with Obamacare is the government takeover, not the funding mechanism. It they had funded it with taxes, nobody would argue that it was unconstitutional; and SCOTUS might conclude that and simply dictate that they have to call the mandate a tax.
There are precedents for the individual mandate, if it is called what it is...a tax. You might argue that military spending is a precedent. Some people don't want to pay for it, but they are taxed anyway. Same for fica. Same for almost anything that government does, since it all must be funded by taxation.
I don't think the hope of every conservative should hinge of whether the funding mechanism for taking over 20% of the economy is called a tax, a mandate, fines or penalties. The PROBLEM is the government taking over activities thatought to be handled in the private sector.

Posted by: proreason at December 21, 2011 04:09 PM (gbQEv)

331 Well said as usual, Ace.

If a President Romney "treats the patient as he finds it," well that's a good argument for Romney to "tweak" Obamacare instead of repealing it outright. That's what I've suspected he's always wanted to do.
Conservative supporters of Romney either aren't being sceptical enough or repealing Obamacare isn't a big enough priority for them.
Repeal of Obamacare is the number one issue for me. I've said this before: you guys don't know how horrible a government-run healthcare system really is. Consider yourselves lucky.

Posted by: Joffen at December 21, 2011 04:09 PM (zLeKL)

332 Because he's not going to win if he keeps insisting that the individual
mandate -- which is our best hope of defeating ObamaCare, both in the
courts and legislatively -- is a good, proper, "conservative" measure.
Romney's not a conservative, so has no fucking business trying to define what conservative measures are.

Posted by: Blacque Jacques Shellacque at December 21, 2011 04:09 PM (KXXIv)

333 Enough of trying to resurrect the dead corpse of a Texas governor that just cannot talk or think on his feet. He cannot win, would lose in the general election. We have done this crap forever, GOP puts up who the MSM/Dem machine says is "electable," Ford, Dole, Bush I, McCain, and now because someone that actually has an idea in his head is too "radical," and O so scary we get to do this again...fuck Ann Coulter, I used to like her, she can go back and fuck Bill Maher.

Unless the GOP base wakes the fuck up we are going to nominate Romney, even if he gets elected, he will never overturn Obamacare, I do not believe him or what he says in the primary. Crap! We need to gamble, this is not time to play it safe. Lincoln was NOT the safe bet for the country. And fuck the miserable lunatic Ron Paul and all his insane supporters, bet he loses the primary and runs third party and throws the election to Obama.

We do not have people that care about the country, they just care about themselves and their place in history.

Posted by: Jehu at December 21, 2011 04:11 PM (wXl2T)

334 Posted by: mpfs at December 21, 2011 04:05 PM (iYbLN)

Thanks mpfs.

Right about now I'm having visions of bitch slapping Jeff B. although with kid gloves...

I gotta get out.

Posted by: tasker at December 21, 2011 04:11 PM (r2PLg)

335 Romney's not a conservative, so has no fucking business trying to define what conservative measures are.
Mitt Romney is the true conservative!

Posted by: Crap I heard on conservative talk radio, circa, 2008 at December 21, 2011 04:12 PM (OWjjx)

336 Mitt Romney is the true conservative!

Posted by: Crap I heard on conservative talk radio, circa, 2008 at December 21, 2011 04:12 PM (OWjjx)
Yes, Mallamutt, Ann Coulter said that. Not Rush Limbaugh. Rush Limbaugh said Fred Thompson was the only true conservative.

Posted by: An argument had a thousand times before at December 21, 2011 04:14 PM (FkKjr)

337 And please, Perot was too big of an egomaniac not to get back in.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at December 21, 2011 04:08 PM (OWjjx)
Sure, but a lot of his supporters would have split back if Bush had given them any kind of bone. And of course the gap closed with time - partly because the polls lie less as the election nears and partly because those like me hold their nose and come back to avoid a Dem president, even one that lied like a bandit about what he would do when in office.
And I don't give a rats ass about Bush's ideology. His problem was that he didn't want to understand mine, or that of the 20 percent who had a problem with what he did. We could forgive mistakes, but when you don't give us a feeling you won't do more and don't give a crap, well, then why vote for you.

Posted by: Oldcat at December 21, 2011 04:14 PM (z1N6a)

338
329 Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 21, 2011 04:08 PM (FkKjr)
It's not acceptable. Romney is lying through his teeth every time he says he didn't raise taxes.
The point is that people need to understand that IF national Obamacare is instituted the same way as was done in MA you CANNOT get around paying the extra tax because the only way to get out of paying it is to lie on your tax return and then they CAN put you in jail. Too many people think that since the jail penalty was dropped they can just not pay the fine.

Posted by: Jaynie59 at December 21, 2011 04:16 PM (4zKCA)

339
Romney's not a conservative, so has no fucking business trying to define what conservative measures are.


Mitt Romney is the true conservative!

Posted by: Crap I heard on conservative talk radio, circa, 2008 at December 21, 2011 04:12 PM (OWjjx)
Well, given a choice between him, Huck, and a guy who had been screwing over the GOP in McCain that's more or less right. I would have voted for him if he hadn't collapsed like a house of cards in the primaries.

Posted by: Oldcat at December 21, 2011 04:18 PM (z1N6a)

340 Posted by: Jaynie59 at December 21, 2011 04:16 PM (4zKCA)

Ah. Thank you for putting me some knowledge!

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 21, 2011 04:18 PM (FkKjr)

341 Yes, Mallamutt, Ann Coulter said that. Not Rush Limbaugh. Rush Limbaugh said Fred Thompson was the only true conservative.
Wrong! It is actually a quote from Laura Ingraham. And Sean Hannitty. And Mark Levin. I have no idea what Ann Coulter said, other than if McCain got the nomination she was going to vote for Hillary.
Limbaugh only encouraged everyone to vote for the "conservative" Romney on the eve of Super Tuesday.
But, I am a fair minded person, so I will make everyone a deal. If posters stop telling us we should do something because __________ said on the radio we should, I will kindly stop reminding people of how great __________talked about Mitt Romney in 2008?


Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at December 21, 2011 04:21 PM (OWjjx)

342 So nobody is in the "don't give them the care in the first place" camp? Not surprising. We'regiving away something valuable in exchange for nothing. There is no conservative way to do that. If it's a moral imperative, then so is finding a way to do it responsibly and efficiently. I assume some States have tried various pilot programs or local reforms, have any of their ideas actually helped?

Posted by: Lincolntf at December 21, 2011 04:23 PM (Qjh0I)

343 Well, given a choice between him, Huck, and a guy who had been screwing over the GOP in McCain that's more or less right. I would have voted for him if he hadn't collapsed like a house of cards in the primaries.

Yeah, this. I only half-heartedly supported Romney once Fred dropped out because the alternatives were McCain and Huckabee. Romney was the best of the pathetic lot. Now there are actual conservatives in the field, so Romney isn't even worth my consideration.

Posted by: Paul Zummo at December 21, 2011 04:24 PM (IGkEP)

344 Good post, Ace. The only quibble I have is the following:

"To some extent we conservatives have seized on the Individual Mandate opportunistically -- we don't like it, of course, but we don't like much about ObamaCare; this just seems like our bet hope of undoing it all."

I obviously can't speak for everyone but I didn't latch on to the mandate because of opportunism. I genuinely believe that forcing someone to purchase a product or service simply because they're breathing is antithetical to liberty as well as to what our country is supposed to be. I know at one point conservatives were pushing this crap as an alternative to Hillarycare, but it was unacceptable to me even under those circumstances.

Personally, I would have less problem with Romney if he would have just said that, yes, the legislature in Mass was going to do healthcare come hell or high water and so he tried to temper it some while he could. And then add in that it was the best he could do given the circumstances and that it's still a big fat shit sandwich. He could even parley that into something about knowing how awful Obamacare is because of how awful Masscare is. But no. He has to shovel that "I'm proud of what we did in Massachusetts" shit. Or the whole "it was right for Massachussets" shit. No, it obviously wasn't right for Mass. They may have wanted it, but you look at the results and it's a complete clusterfuck that the rest of us are now on the hook for because of all their added Medicaid and Medicare costs.

All I was looking for is a statement of error. Not even an "I messed up." Just an admission that he had to eat a shit sandwich and it tasted like shit. Not that he ate it and wow, it's kind of pleasant but maybe not right for the rest of us.

Posted by: Mandy P. is hoping for a Texas miracle at December 21, 2011 04:25 PM (qFpRI)

345 278

He averted nothing. There is nothing good about what was
produced. There was no political benefit for the GOP in MA by signing
off on this bill. They were crushed in the next election. There has been
no cost reduction. It has increased. The only effect is I must now
prove to the state that I buy health insurance, or they fine me.

Bears repeating.
...................
And REPEATING




Posted by: SarahW at December 21, 2011 04:29 PM (LYwCh)

346 You were going to good until you decided to make Romney's flaws an argument for Perry. Ruined your whole case.
Perry's suck is Perry's suck. Romney's suck is Romney's.

Posted by: Emperor of Jeb Stuart, Cultist for Jesus at December 21, 2011 04:37 PM (epBek)

347 I think the real problem is Romney though the mandate was a good idea. The problem was progressive spirit funneled through a weak understanding and self interest.

He should be done now. The Obamacare is a deal breaker. I suppose it didn't have to be, but he's made sure we know that it ought to be.

Posted by: SarahW at December 21, 2011 04:40 PM (LYwCh)

348 thought, not though

Posted by: SarahW at December 21, 2011 04:40 PM (LYwCh)

349 Wrong! It is actually a quote from Laura Ingraham. And Sean Hannitty.
And Mark Levin. I have no idea what Ann Coulter said, other than if
McCain got the nomination she was going to vote for Hillary.

Hannity thinks everybody is a great American.

As for Ingraham, I think she's still on team Mitt. Levin, God knows where he is. But I don't hear him sited much around these parts as an authority on conservatism.

Let's be honest - the only person who we're talking about is Rush, and on the Eve of Super Tuesday, he said Mitt was the conservative choice.

Not Rush's finest hour, but then he hated McCain and I'm pretty sure he didn't want to run a guy who pardoned a thousand people. So he opined that conservatives should choose Mitt. Not that Mitt was a True Conservative.

Ann Coulter said that at CPAC.


Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 21, 2011 04:43 PM (FkKjr)

350 ace = stooge/shill for perry.
they paying you for this?

Posted by: Derka Derka at December 21, 2011 04:48 PM (YyCYL)

351 I have a suggestion, instead of attacking Ace, why don't you try to defend Romney?

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at December 21, 2011 04:52 PM (r4wIV)

352 Double-checked. Apparently Ingraham is off the Mitt bandwagon.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 21, 2011 04:53 PM (FkKjr)

353 No one needs to be paid to attack Mittins.

This is the Republican Party.

We should not be nominating liberal socialized medicine pimping gun grabbers.


Posted by: Kristopher at December 21, 2011 04:58 PM (Z3y1K)

354 Let's be honest - the only person who we're talking about is Rush, and on the Eve of Super Tuesday, he said Mitt was the conservative choice.No. See, when ever anyone mentions conservative talk radio some people get the impression you are talking about Rush. Which, of course, is what Rush wants. And I do not begrudge him that....good marketing is good marketing, irrespective of the industry. But no. It was not a shot aimed at Limbaugh. If I wanted to skewer Limbaugh, I would note how he yelled at everyone for trashing Herman Cain and how we should nottrash our candidateswhen, just a few weeks before, he spent a half an hour trashing Romney.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at December 21, 2011 05:04 PM (OWjjx)

355 346 You were going to good until you decided to make Romney's flaws an argument for Perry. Ruined your whole case.Perry's suck is Perry's suck. Romney's suck is Romney's.
Posted by: Emperor of Jeb Stuart, Cultist for Jesus at December 21, 2011 04:37 PM (epBek)
Not necessarily. If Romney's attack dog, Michelle Bachmann's job was to push Perry until he said something (i.e. the "heartless" comment) they could hang around his neck the rest of this campaign, then it's all related.
I don't know why people need to be reminded, this ain't some crazy conspiracy, candidates have been using stalking horses for eons, and that's the best explanation for Bachmann's role in this race. Maybe the only explanation. The only question is if and how much Romney paid her.

Posted by: Burt TC at December 21, 2011 05:05 PM (TOk1P)

356 For people to be responsible, they have to be making a choice. I think a mandate under threat of huge fines or prison fails the test.
The mandate doesn't really change the model of the government picking up the tab for people who need health care but have no means to pay. Allthe mandatedoes is put the government in the position of coercing everyone to pitch in to pay in advance instead of the government paying after the fact.
I think the word Romney should use here instead of "conservative" is "fascist" because it basically involves state control of nominally private resources via regulation instead by state ownership.

Posted by: OCBill at December 21, 2011 05:20 PM (YJvVE)

357 If I wanted to skewer Limbaugh, I would note how he yelled at everyone for trashing Herman Cain and how we should not trash our candidates when, just a few weeks before, he spent a half an hour trashing Romney.


Exactly. We have to approach each of these guys as being on our team. Romney has problems - as does Newt, Perry, and everyone else on the gang. They're frankly crappy candidates and we all want someone else. But they're who we have.


Point out their problems, discuss them honestly and in a friendly way. Don't pick one or two and absolutely demonize them, or pretend your favorite guy has no problems and attack anyone who dares question that.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at December 21, 2011 05:45 PM (r4wIV)

358 Ok, I'll ask the 900lb gorilla question. Obamacare is going through the Supreme Court under a question to its constitutional validity.

Is there any power within the MA State Constitution allowing the state to exercise powers expressed in Romneycare?

The U.S. Constitution 10th Amendment expressly passes the baton of powers to the States and the people for everything that is not under federal purview.

States' Constitutions then spell out the powers of the state.

After this, we have county and municipality powers (powers mainly spelled out by charters).

Ultimately, all powers to every level of government are defined by the governed.

Posted by: Steve, CPO, USN(Ret) at December 21, 2011 05:47 PM (Zoqd2)

359 That's like a 26oz question. MA's highest court found Romneycare constitutional--again, it's just a state income tax; why would they not?

Posted by: ParisParamus at December 21, 2011 06:04 PM (dij/b)

360 It's always amazed me that considering all the OTHER positions he's flip-flopped on that he won't do it for this one.

The one he REALLY, REALLY needs to flip flop on.

It's like the Palestinians refusing to recognize Israel's right to exist. Even though they could lie about it and get concessions, they DON'T.

So it must be a CORE BELIEF for them if they just won't let it go.

And thus, as Ace says, he's unelectable.

Posted by: Vote for me I'll get you stuff at December 21, 2011 06:51 PM (xqpQL)

361 I think the simplest solution for Romney's campaign is that he just doesn't like us very much. I'm defining "us" to mean anyone in the non-Yankee libertarian Right.

Communitarian high-church Mormons like Harry Reid are his people. Northeast National Review readers: also, his people. Ace is too bohemian, most of the commenters here are degenerates, and Southern scots-irish haven't yet atoned for the blood of Parley Pratt let alone for the Missouri unpleasantness.

Posted by: Boulder Toilet Hobo at December 21, 2011 06:52 PM (6GvAC)

362 /I count myself as one of the "degenerates", btw

Posted by: Boulder Toilet Hobo at December 21, 2011 06:53 PM (6GvAC)

363 357
Exactly. We have to approach each of these guys as being on our team.
Romney has problems - as does Newt, Perry, and everyone else on the
gang.

Perry is on your team, yes. I'm less convinced about Newt; and Romney has shown every indication that he's not. Or, at least, that he'd like to replace his team - the GOP base - with something more amenable.

Posted by: Boulder Toilet Hobo at December 21, 2011 06:56 PM (6GvAC)

364 I think the simplest solution for Romney's campaign is that he just doesn't like us very much.

If you're one of the people who considered voting for Palin, Paul, Cain or Perry after hearing them speak for more than, say, 15 minutes, that may be the case. Romney is the only truly serious candidate this time--everyone else is only serious because of what you project onto them.

Projection? That's find in psychoanalysis, but not for POTUS.

Posted by: ParisParamus at December 21, 2011 07:48 PM (dij/b)

365 ^Projection? That's fine in psychoanalysis, but not for POTUS.

Posted by: ParisParamus at December 21, 2011 07:48 PM (dij/b)

366 I don't have a favorite guy. They are all sub-par choices and it's a matter of being stuck with the least awful. Romney should not be on the table anymore.

Posted by: SarahW at December 21, 2011 07:50 PM (LYwCh)

367 I hope you never stop! This is one of the best blogs Ive ever read. Youve got some mad skill here, man. I just hope that you dont lose your style because youre definitely one of the coolest bloggers out there. Please keep it up because the internet needs someone like you spreading the word.

Posted by: The Sense of an Ending iBooks at December 21, 2011 08:49 PM (W3W7Z)

368 This web site is my breathing in, really fantastic pattern and perfect subject matter.

Posted by: The Sisters Brothers ePub at December 21, 2011 09:14 PM (l4O1T)

369 I'm supposed to take you seriously as: "Boulder Toilet Hobo"?

Posted by: ParisParamus at December 21, 2011 09:55 PM (m4nvO)

370 want to know more

Posted by: 激光脫毛 at December 21, 2011 10:34 PM (2/Xgc)

371 Romney is the white Obama. The GOP is a a fail.

Posted by: Zombie Hunter Thompson at December 22, 2011 01:01 AM (GOG1H)

372 buy windows 7 cd keybuy wedding dressCD KeysARMA 2 CD KeyCall of Duty CD KeyCompany of Heroes CD KeyCommand Conquer CD KeyDawn of War 2 CD KeyDead Space CD KeyFallout 3 CD KeyMass Effect 2 CD KeySilent Hunter 5 CD KeyThe Sims 3 CD KeyGTA 4 CD KeyNFS CD KeyTitan Quest CD KeyRUSE CD KeyF1 2010 CD KeyTwo Worlds 2 CD KeyStar Trek Online CD KeySpore CD KeyFar Cry 3 CD KeyDungeons CD KeyDragon Age CD KeyDivinity 2 CD KeyDead Space 2 CD KeyCrysis 2 CD KeyCities XL 2011 CD KeyHomeFront CD KeyShogun 2 Total War CD KeyFable 3 CD KeyPES 2011 CD KeyDuke Nukem Forever CD KeyDungeon Siege 3 CD KeyFEAR 3 CD KeyNBA 2K11 CD KeyRIFT CD KeyRed Faction: Armageddon CD KeyDead Island CD KeyDriver San Francisco CD KeyDeus Ex: Human Revolution CD KeyF1 2011 CD KeyFrom Dust CD KeyRed Orchestra 2 CD KeyTropico 4 CD KeyMight Magic Heroes 6 CD KeyMineCraft CD KeyRage CD KeyDCS A-10C Warthog CD KeyBattlefield 3 CD KeyPES 2012 CD Key

Posted by: oiuytdfs at December 22, 2011 02:09 AM (uCkng)

373 Mitt vs Huckabee...

I still think Mitt is probably less bad.

Mitt vs Mccain...

It's hard to say. Very hard call. I think Mccain is less bad.

Vs Newt....

No contest. Newt is a lot better. Newt will stand on principle... not consistently, but at least sincerely.

vs Perry...

No contest. Perry knows how to run a state and he's right on policy. His plan is much smarter than Romney's, and he's got much more experience.

We can bash Romneycare till we're blue in the face, but the fact is Romney is not very conservative and no one takes seriously the idea he's the conservative's choice this primary. Romney's sole case for being there is that we must be afraid of losing. Fear. Maybe Newt will be hit with nasty attacks... oh here's Mitt to broadcast them, just to help. Maybe Perry is going to kill grandma by abolishing all the entitlements Romney will pander on, helpfully making Perry less electable. Hey, let's all say Perry is unelectable over and over, especially the democrats.

I fear running against Obama without a clear record of success. I think anything else, especially what passed for the romney argument, is totally susceptible to demonization. Perry has somewhere to refer us to if the left plays that game. Romney doesn't. Newt is somewhere in the middle there.

Posted by: Dustin at December 22, 2011 03:08 AM (rQ/Ue)

374 Pipe fitting pipe fittings carbon steel pipe fittings
Carbon steel pipe fitting Steel pipe fitting Butt welded elbow Pipe fittings
A234 wpb pipe fitting Seamless elbow Equal tee 180 degree elbow
Carbon steel pipe fittings 90 degree elbow Pipe bend Pipe tee
Butt weld pipe fitting Pipe elbow Steel pipe fitting Seamless pipe fitting
Butt welded pipe fitting Butt welding pipe fitting pipe elbow ansi b16.9

Posted by: pipe fittings at December 22, 2011 07:46 AM (N1qbG)

375 "If you're one of the people who considered voting for Palin, Paul, Cain
or Perry after hearing them speak for more than, say, 15 minutes, that
may be the case. "

You just guaranteed that I'll never read your comments again. Thanks for saving me time!

Posted by: qrstuv at December 22, 2011 09:08 AM (r8o76)

376 "Ultimately, all powers to every level of government are defined by the governed."

True, but that does not mean there are no bounds on what government can do. Don't forget that a members of a democracy condemned Socrates to death for having an unpopular point of view.

Posted by: qrstuv at December 22, 2011 09:11 AM (r8o76)

377 What is conservative about Romney? Name one real conservative position he has consistently taken.

I can wait.

Posted by: cranky-d at December 22, 2011 12:31 PM (C+5Od)

378 Hospitals bill patients who seek treatment at the emergency room, and they will come after you for payment.
Emergency room treatment is only free if youcannot pay the bill.

Posted by: davod at December 22, 2011 03:32 PM (C5U9L)

379 electric bike Outdoor LED Display travel mug vacuum flask water bottle LED bulb LED tube corkscrew solar panel

Posted by: Linda at December 23, 2011 04:28 AM (85iJB)

380 منتديات تسريحات مكياج ازياء فساتين رسائل وسائط مسجات توبيكات وظيفة وظائف ديكور بلايز رجيم رشاقة حلويات معجنات نكت ديكورات رمزيات صور رمزيه توبيكات ملونه صور العاب خلفيات ميك اب صبغات للشعر اكسسوارات كروشيه تطريز خياطة تفصيل اهداف صور غريبة انمي هيدرات مشاهد ايفون جالكسي بلاك بيري تصاميم يوتيوب بث مباشر رابط نقل

Posted by: df at January 06, 2012 04:46 AM (USJCT)






Processing 0.07, elapsed 0.1075 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.052 seconds, 389 records returned.
Page size 251 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat