Allahpundit says: [T]he ad’s really about good government and effective management, both of which conservatives are hungry for and both of which Mitt’s well positioned to push, partly based on his record and partly on his reputation as a……

His Senate career just called, it says you’re full of crap.

Hollowpoint on September 20, 2007 at 1:16 AM

Yes, the massive regulation brought on by McCain-Feingold(-Thompson) was an impressive example of Federeralism in action. Defending BillyJeff, known stalwart of Federalism was another milestone.

Face it Hollowpoint, Fred believes in Frederalism, not Federalism.

Colorado – trending Democrat
New Hampshire – trending Democrat
Nevada – trending Democrat
Arizona – trending Democrat
Virginia – trending Democrat
Maine – possible Dem pickup
Missouri – trending Democrat
Pennsylvania – trending Democrat

The trend is not in our favor.
Slublog on September 19, 2007 at 1:55 PM

Late responding to this, but this trend, at least in the western states, is due to the fact that affluent, self-loathing libs have turned vast swaths of CA into virtually uninhabitable hellholes and are now moving to CO, NM, AZ, ID, MT, and UT and bringing their crappy politics with them.

The 9 to fivers who grew up here are just as conservative as ever, but our party (the one I left 12 years ago. Dole? Are you kidding me?) has abandoned us by repeatedly giving us primary candidates that are Dem-lite. With no conservatives in the primaries, the general election becomes a choice between the lesser of two evils. The conservative base simply doesn’t rush to the polls to support one crappy candidate over another similarly crappy candidate when what they want is for both to lose.

His Senate career just called, it says you’re full of crap.

Hollowpoint on September 20, 2007 at 1:16 AM

His lobbying career just called and it says he lobbied for a dictator. His lawyerin’ career called too and it says he gave legal advice to terrorists. His PAC career called and it says he funneled PAC money to his son. AND, his senate career called back and it says the only thing he really accomplished was CFR, which was an assault on the first amendment.

Buzzy on September 20, 2007 at 12:46 AM

Unless you’re a misguided single issue voter, you, just like most of us who are not fooled by Fred’s rhetorical BS, will be voting for someone other than Fred. I do not have a candidate yet, but it’s clear as day that Rudy and Mitt have the experience, message, and ability to articulate that make them the best candidates out there.

But of course, Fred isn’t a real federalist. He just chose to be the federalist candidate because it sounds nice and appeals to the conservative base.

BKennedy on September 19, 2007 at 9:40 PM

His Senate career just called, it says you’re full of crap.

Hollowpoint on September 19, 2007 at 7:53 PM

Yeah, keep tellin yerself that Fred’s contact and lobbying for a dictator doesn’t matter. I’m sure that’s real easy for you single issue 2nd amendment types, but I never expected you to support and make excuses for Fred’s contact with, and legal advice given to, terrorists!

You ain’t no one to be giving advice to anyone bucko.

It appears that Fred is bound and determined to scuttle his campaign and convert that $3.4 million into a PAC and funnel it all to his family. I mean really, can anyone come up with an alternative reason for Fred acting so dang stupid?

Anyway, Mitt obviously cares more about Floridians than Fred does.

csdeven on September 19, 2007 at 7:02 PM

Fred was acting so dang stupid because he wasn’t doing a well-scripted announcement from afar, and he hasn’t studied anything whatsoever in the few months leading up to his much baleyhooed announcement.

You can tell this by also noting his non-existent position on the Terry Shiavo case, which should be a watershed event for any serious federalist. I mean come on, was Fred living in a cave for the two weeks Bush and Congress were intervening in that whole mess? Any federalist worth his salt would have an opinion one way or another on that kind of federal involvement.

But of course, Fred isn’t a real federalist. He just chose to be the federalist candidate because it sounds nice and appeals to the conservative base.

He vetoed 8 sections of the health care legislation, including an employer assessment[52] [53] and provisions providing health coverage to senior and disabled legal immigrants not eligible for federal Medicaid.[54] [55]

Go ahead and print this out and save it for posterity.

Hollowpoint on September 19, 2007 at 7:24 PM

Why, are you paying out money if you’re wrong?

This leaves me dumbfounded that so many in this thread desperately search for any reason to not like or believe Mitt.

Amazing isn’t it. You’d think this was a Hillary/Obama blog.

He must have bought boxes in bulk of stampers with the word VETO on it

Resolute on September 19, 2007 at 7:57 PM

I’ve heard that! I need to do some research to get the total number of vetoes.

This leaves me dumbfounded that so many in this thread desperately search for any reason to not like or believe Mitt.

Mitt Romney acted like a Democrat in Massachusetts.
Keljeck on September 19, 2007 at 5:46 PM

I’m sorry but you get the award for most nonsense statement in the thread. Do you know anything about his term as govenor? He must have bought boxes in bulk of stampers with the word VETO on it

When are you going to start wearing Fred’s lobbying for a dictator and giving legal advice to terrorists as a badge of honor?

csdeven on September 19, 2007 at 7:38 PM

Considering neither is actually true, neither. He made one phone call on behalf of an elected President who was ousted in a military coup, reinstalled years later, then re-elected. He also billed 3 hours of legal advice he gave not to terrorists, but a fellow lawyer.

And what the hell am I doing feeding a dishonest troll anyways?

And I would stay away from the “one issue voter” thing if I were you, because you fit in that category far better than I. It’s obvious you’ve chosen your candidate months ago based solely on his religion.

Bwahahahahaha!!!

Hollowpoint on September 19, 2007 at 7:24 PM

No one, except you single issue Fred groupies gives a rat a$$ about national polling. You quote them like a badge of honor.

When are you going to start wearing Fred’s lobbying for a dictator and giving legal advice to terrorists as a badge of honor?

Here we go again with the blah blah blah:

Buy Danish on September 19, 2007 at 6:28 PM

Truth hurts sometimes, don’t it? I said quite some time ago that Romney wouldn’t break 20%, and so far I see no reason to back off that prediction, though even I hadn’t predicted that he’d be in as bad of shape as he is now.

New prediction: When financials are released next month, I predict that the Romney campaign will be at least $10 million dollars in debt to himself with at least $15 million of his own money “loaned” to his campaign.

Go ahead and print this out and save it for posterity.

Ha Ha.

Anyway, it helps to remember that A Republican Governor with an entrenched, liberal Democrat legislature.

Okay, I have gone through HillaryCare, and while I am by no means an expert on Health insurance, some things are glaringly obvious, which I will attempt to parse to the best of my layman’s ability. I apologize in advance for the length of this post!:

1. She brags that it “Reins in insurance companies”. Note the use of the phrase “rein in” which demonizes Insurance Companies right out of the box. Expect lots of talking points about the heartless and evil companies.

2. This Plan covers every American – finally addressing the needs of the 47 million uninsured and the tens of millions of workers with coverage who fear they could be one pink slip away from losing their health coverage – with no overall increase in health spending or taxes.

Notice how the government is deciding how much we will spend on health, not the consumer? And her claim that taxes won’t increase does not pass the laugh test.

Be prepared for her to even further regulate how much Doctors and health care facilities can make which will further remove incentives for people to become doctors in the first place.

3. Reducing Costs: By removing hidden taxes, stressing prevention and a focus on efficiency and modernization, the plan will improve quality and lower costs

Sure thing Hillary. Can you tell us how a huge Washington bureaucracy has ever focused on efficiency, improved quality, and lowered costs?

4. …while drug companies will offer fair prices and accurate information.

Translation: The government will institute price controls. The end result will be that the drug companies will have no incentive to create new drugs to save lives and improve the quality of life.

5. Employers: will help financing the system; large employers will be expected to provide health insurance or contribute to the cost of coverage

Translation: Large companies will be forced to cover you and your salary will be lower as they cover this government mandated coverage.

6. Government: will ensure that health insurance is always affordable and never a crushing burden on any family and will implement reforms to improve quality and lower cost.

Translation: She will establish a huge bureaucacy, when insurance is no longer “affordable” taxes will go up, and the “reforms” will be government edicts.

7. Strengthen Medicaid and CHIP: The Plan will fix the holes in the safety net to ensure that the most vulnerable populations receive affordable, quality care.

Translation: Medicare will be expanded at taxpayer expense, and her illegal amigos South of the border will soon be insured too.

So here’s what I’ve learned from reading the comments.

1. Fred is a terrorist who drives a fakey pickup truck.

2. Mitt’s plan may or may not be as socialized as Hillary’s.

3. Rudy wears a dress more often than Hillary.

Yeah, this pecking party is gonna work out well for us.

Thompson reportedly told the AP earlier in the day that he wouldn’t rule out drilling for oil in the Everglades,

…..When briefed by a reporter after a campaign stop in Orange Park about Thompson’s comments and asked his own views on the matter, Romney balked at the idea. “In the Everglades?” he asked, surprised. “You’re kidding.”

“Let’s take that off the table,” Romney said, adding, “We’re not going to drill in the Everglades. There are certain places in America that are national treasures, and the Everglades is one of those. It’s environmentally extraordinarily sensitive. The people of Florida would never support such a thing.”

It appears that Fred is bound and determined to scuttle his campaign and convert that $3.4 million into a PAC and funnel it all to his family. I mean really, can anyone come up with an alternative reason for Fred acting so dang stupid?

Anyway, Mitt obviously cares more about Floridians than Fred does.

Buy Danish on September 19, 2007 at 6:28 PM

Thanks. I wasn’t sure how else to try to get him to understand the difference.

Not that it matters much considering that he’s in 4th place with only about 10% support and most likely going to lose his lead in his own backyard in NH. I guess it depends on how many more millions of his personal wealth he’s willing to try and buy the nomination with.
Hollowpoint on September 19, 2007 at 5:14 PM

Keljeck,

Okay, now I see what you mean about a “national” plan. It’s a great plan, and it’s only national in the sense that he could use Federal powers to deregulate insurance, give tax credits, et cetera. However, each State would still design their own plan. Thanks for the link!

One thing it says is:

Governor Romney believes that by expanding and deregulating the private health insurance market, we can decrease costs and ensure that more Americans have access to affordable, portable, quality, private health insurance.

Since (as I suspected he would be) he is for deregulation not more regulation, what did he do as Governor that increased regulation to the private insurance industry? Are you sure it’s not that the Democrat Mass legislature added on a bunch of garbage that he was stuck with?

In Britain they are denying care to people who live unhealthy lifestyles. Why is this? To help the bottom line.
RomneyCare makes everyone, regardless of what they would choose to do, purchase health care. Why? To help the bottom line.

That is a false analogy. In Britain you get Government healthcare which is not at all the same thing as Private health insurance.

Under Government plans you have no freedom of choice as to what doctors you choose to see, under what circumstances, and the taxpayer picks up the whole bill for the lousy service, and Hillary’s plan is a European Socialist plan a la Britain.

I don’t see how you can compare her plan to Romney’s.

I haven’t seen any mention that Mitt’s health care plan limits the amount of health care someone can receive.

It operates on the same principle. Government needs to save money, government places limits on their citizens.

And no, his plan doesn’t do that. But both are doing it for the same reason. To help the bottom line.