Are you ready for the big Romney health-care speech?

posted at 4:15 pm on May 10, 2011 by Allahpundit

On Thursday, the healing begins.

Mitt Romney won’t be apologizing for Romneycare in his health care speech Thursday. But he will be addressing it, according to a Romney aide.

“He’ll address it, but the main focus of the speech will be what his plans will be going forward,” the aide tells National Review Online…

“What will be clear is that number one, he’s got the same position as every other 2012er when it comes to the repeal of Obamacare,” the aide says. “Secondly, he’ll be the first of those candidates to lay out his plan for replacing Obamacare with reforms that will lower costs, and put the states back in the driver’s seat.”

In other words, he’ll formally acknowledge the elephant in the room so that it doesn’t look like he’s hiding from it and then he’ll try to take it down by firing at it with a double-barrel. Barrel one is the federalism argument, seeking to excuse Massachusetts’ increasingly disastrous experiment on grounds that the states, unlike the feds, need a wide berth in tinkering with policy. (Nikki Haley, whom Romney backed during the South Carolina gubernatorial primary, is trying to help him out with that.) And barrel two is his own proposal for a national health-care program to replace Obama’s, the broad outlines of which you can review here. Federalism, again, figures prominently. Chris Cillizza wonders if this will be his equivalent of Obama’s race speech during the 2008 campaign, in which The One defused a political time bomb by addressing a touchy subject directly. Answer: Why … no, of course not. The race speech was simply O signalling to the media that he’d now “dealt with” the issue of Rev. Wright and it was time for the news cycle to officially MoveOn. Everyone on the left who wasn’t a Hillary supporter was happy to oblige him and Hillary herself didn’t want to dwell on it lest she face even more accusations of playing racial politics, and so (notwithstanding Wright’s surreal performance at the National Press Club shortly thereafter) the issue faded. Not so with Romney on the right; he’s going to be clubbed over the head on health care for the duration of the primaries, with Thursday’s speech sure to provide plenty of new material to club him with. Pawlenty’s already been working to set up a contrast with him by apologizing for his own prior support for cap and trade. Anyone think this speech, lacking any mea culpa, will blunt the force of those coming attacks?

The speech would help him solve his problem if his problem was fundamentally about health-care policy. It isn’t. His problem, especially among the base, is that people don’t trust his judgment more broadly, from RomneyCare to his reversal on abortion to his support for TARP and so forth. Realistically, is there anything he could say on Thursday to undo that skepticism among conservatives? Even if he turned around and issued a groveling apology for RomneyCare, it wouldn’t help. All it would do is signal that (a) even he recognizes that his judgment is poor and (b) he doesn’t have enough spine to defend a a dubious decision when it’s under withering attack. By not apologizing, at least he doesn’t have to worry about that second part. But even if the speech does buy him some goodwill, Romney has the same problem with RomneyCare that Obama has with the economy: There’s always a chance that it’ll deteriorate at some point over the next 18 months and throw his campaign into a tailspin. This item yesterday about growing wait times to see a doctor in Massachusetts was widely linked in the blogosphere; imagine something like that dropping a week before the New Hampshire primary or even in October of next year if Romney’s the nominee and working 24/7 to boost grassroots turnout on election day. There’s simply no escaping this issue, even if Thursday’s speech is a home run. And even a home run will start to look like a single if RomneyCare continues to encounter problems, which seems likely. There’s no way out.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

ROFLMAO!!! What a losing strategy (mindset) this one is…..hey get a clue….Obama ran as a moderate. He wasn’t polarizing until he became POTUS.

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 5:17 PM

Obama’s been polarizing his whole career, dumbass.

pseudoforce on May 10, 2011 at 5:19 PM

Of the unqualified possibilities… Palin is probably the best. But I hope it will not come to that. So sue me.

petunia on May 10, 2011 at 5:15 PM

you mean unqualified like this:

As governor, Palin demonstrated many of the qualities we expect in our best leaders. She set aside private concerns for the greater good….She succeeded to a remarkable extent in settling, at least for a time, what had seemed insoluble problems, in the process putting Alaska on a trajectory to financial well-being.

While other states reel under staggering deficits, budget cuts, and protests, Alaska has built up a $12 billion surplus, most of it attributable to Palin’s tax. Galvin estimates that it has raised $8 billion more than Murkowski’s tax would have. But given the corruption that plagued the PPT, a better benchmark might be the tax it supplanted—the one put on the books after the Exxon Valdez spill. By that measure, Palin’s major achievement has probably meant the difference between a $12 billion surplus and a deficit…

On the big issues…she…left the state in better shape than most people, herself included, seem to realize or want to credit her for.

Palin’s achievement was to pull Alaska out of a dire, corrupt, enduring systemic crisis and return it to fiscal health and prosperity when many people believed that such a thing was impossible.

If that is unqualifed we need more unqualifed people in high positions…

unseen on May 10, 2011 at 5:20 PM

Bush the 2nd….he ran as a conservative won twice

Medicare Part D was enacted by a conservative POTUS and someone on HA thinks W was a conservative….I’m shocked.

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 5:21 PM

ROFLMAO!!! What a losing strategy (mindset) this one is…..hey get a clue….Obama ran as a moderate. He wasn’t polarizing until he became POTUS.

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 5:17 PM

McCain ran as a moderate as well. So did Dole in ’96. Man, that moderate non-polarizer strategy has worked SO well.

pseudoforce on May 10, 2011 at 5:22 PM

ROFLMAO!!! What a losing strategy (mindset) this one is…..hey get a clue….Obama ran as a moderate. He wasn’t polarizing until he became POTUS.

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 5:17 PM

Depends which state you lived in. Obama ran as a liberal in blue states a moderate in purple states and as a conservative in red states. the media allowed him to do that. It will not allow the GOp nominee to do that.

unseen on May 10, 2011 at 5:22 PM

ROFLMAO!!! What a losing strategy (mindset) this one is…..hey get a clue….Obama ran as a moderate. He wasn’t polarizing until he became POTUS.

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 5:17 PM

Obama was polarizing all the way back in the Senate. He only fooled weak minded “Intellectuals” like the crowd you run with that overlooked Obama’s far left dreams because you wanted to vote for a feel good “Intellectual”.

portlandon on May 10, 2011 at 5:23 PM

Now I am among the base and contrary to your claim do trust Romney’s judgment implicitly. He is a data cruncher, a student of details, numbers show him the right way forward. He is a brilliant leader. The “skepticism” you claim is held by all conservatives is a myth.

Lori on May 10, 2011 at 5:17 PM

So why didn’t his judgment and data crunching serve him when he came out with that disaster called Romneycare?

Was that the right way forward and an example of his brilliance?

sharrukin on May 10, 2011 at 5:23 PM

Obama’s been polarizing his whole career, dumbass.

pseudoforce on May 10, 2011 at 5:19 PM

Not according to the election results of 2008, dumbass. Unless you think the majority of this country was a far left liberal country in 2008

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 5:23 PM

Bush the 2nd….he ran as a conservative won twice

Medicare Part D was enacted by a conservative POTUS and someone on HA thinks W was a conservative….I’m shocked.

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 5:21 PM

Are you seriously going to tell me that Dubya wasn’t polarizing?

pseudoforce on May 10, 2011 at 5:23 PM

McCain ran as a moderate as well. So did Dole in ’96. Man, that moderate non-polarizer strategy has worked SO well.

pseudoforce on May 10, 2011 at 5:22 PM

He ran as a moderate in blue/red and pruple states. Obama didn’t. His moderation cost him several red states like VA and NC. lost him left leaning states like PA and right leaning states like OH and didn’t win him any blue states. Why vote for a moderate when they could vote for a liberal.

unseen on May 10, 2011 at 5:24 PM

Not according to the election results of 2008, dumbass. Unless you think the majority of this country was a far left liberal country in 2008

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 5:23 PM

So since Romney couldn’t get past weak McCain, he must be one hell of a polarizing candidate. Dumbass.

pseudoforce on May 10, 2011 at 5:24 PM

Medicare Part D was enacted by a conservative POTUS and someone on HA thinks W was a conservative….I’m shocked.

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 5:21 PM

I said he ran as one. Not that he was one. Bush ran as a conservative and governed as a moderate. I doubt if we were not at war if he would have beat Kerry.

unseen on May 10, 2011 at 5:25 PM

Obama was polarizing all the way back in the Senate. He only fooled weak minded “Intellectuals” like the crowd you run with that overlooked Obama’s far left dreams because you wanted to vote for a feel good “Intellectual”.

portlandon on May 10, 2011 at 5:23 PM

He fooled a lot more than the intellectuals. I voted for McCain/Palin and would do it again in a heartbeat. I also voted for Dole and W and HW and Reagan.

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 5:25 PM

Obama was polarizing all the way back in the Senate. He only fooled weak minded “Intellectuals” like the crowd you run with that overlooked Obama’s far left dreams because you wanted to vote for a feel good “Intellectual”.

portlandon on May 10, 2011 at 5:23 PM

It’s easy to fool people when you have the enite MSM in your back pocket

unseen on May 10, 2011 at 5:26 PM

Romney’s unqualified. He has no ideological bedrock. So sue me.

pseudoforce on May 10, 2011 at 5:18 PM

You have your criteria and I have mine. I don’t take yours personally.

If that is unqualifed we need more unqualifed people in high positions…

unseen on May 10, 2011 at 5:20 PM

I hope she continues to improve herself so that someday she will be qualified. She made a good start, until she failed at the most important thing… the ability not to get run out of office.

The thing about inexperience… it is fairly easy to change with experience.

Let’s see what she can do in the next decade.

petunia on May 10, 2011 at 5:27 PM

He fooled a lot more than the intellectuals. I voted for McCain/Palin and would do it again in a heartbeat. I also voted for Dole and W and HW and Reagan.

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 5:25 PM

He didn’t fool very many at all. How many people take campaign pablum at face value? The problem was that moderate McCain didn’t really provide enough of a contrast — until he named Palin, which gave him just about the only lead he had in the polls throughout.

pseudoforce on May 10, 2011 at 5:28 PM

Romney’s unqualified. He has no ideological bedrock. So sue me.

pseudoforce on May 10, 2011 at 5:18 PM

You have your criteria and I have mine. I don’t take yours personally.

petunia on May 10, 2011 at 5:27 PM

Mine’s more relevant. Very few people vote on resumes.

pseudoforce on May 10, 2011 at 5:29 PM

So since Romney couldn’t get past weak McCain, he must be one hell of a polarizing candidate. Dumbass.

pseudoforce on May 10, 2011 at 5:24 PM

McCain isn’t weak. He’s not my favorite but I admire his service to this country and has a decent conservative record.

But not for the “Purity Policemen” like dumbass pseudoforce…..you remind of the far lefty utopians….lol!!!

Get a sandwich board and tell your story to someone else who cares what you think….I’m done with you.

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 5:29 PM

Dumbass.

pseudoforce on May 10, 2011 at 5:24 PM

Typical of the Palinistas. Don’t have any real arguments so it always turns into name calling.

petunia on May 10, 2011 at 5:29 PM

Dumbass.

pseudoforce on May 10, 2011 at 5:24 PM

Typical of the Palinistas. Don’t have any real arguments so it always turns into name calling.

petunia on May 10, 2011 at 5:29 PM

The argument preceded the accurate epithet. Maybe you should read more carefully.

pseudoforce on May 10, 2011 at 5:30 PM

Anyone who believes that Romney would carry the Heartland, especially Dixie, doesn’t know the majority of Americans very well.

kingsjester on May 10, 2011 at 5:31 PM

McCain isn’t weak.

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 5:29 PM

The 2008 election returns say otherwise.

pseudoforce on May 10, 2011 at 5:31 PM

But our best chance always will be in the middle.…

Pretending otherwise is just wishful thinking…

petunia on May 10, 2011 at 5:12 PM

“Moderates” are a big reason the country is in the mess it’s in. Why? Because they were never really “moderate”, just slow spots on the road to Progressiveville. Politics have changed. The rise of the Tea Party has changed that. People are tired of lip service to small government ideals while the government, government intrusion and national debt keep growing. As long as we go the “moderate” big spending Bush/DeLay way, more Obamas will come along and ‘fool” the moderate voters.

cartooner on May 10, 2011 at 5:32 PM

“completely gut massive sectors of the federal government. It’ll take a pretty extraordinary statesman to pull that off,”

Actually I think it will take a very good person from the business world to pull that off. Mitt Romney’s resume in the business world is remarkable. He worked in a field where they recruit mostly from the top 5% of the gene pool and became a leader in that field.

There is nothing ordinary about Mitt Romney in this area.

sheryl on April 1, 2010 at 6:49 PM

“Romney is Genetically superior to all other Candidates!!11!!”

-Sheryl

portlandon on May 10, 2011 at 5:34 PM

Typical of the Palinistas. Don’t have any real arguments so it always turns into name calling.

petunia on May 10, 2011 at 5:29 PM

Typical of you to disagree with one person, then lump a large diverse group of people into your disagreement with one person.

Brian1972 on May 10, 2011 at 5:35 PM

I hope she continues to improve herself so that someday she will be qualified. She made a good start, until she failed at the most important thing… the ability not to get run out of office.

petunia on May 10, 2011 at 5:27 PM

So does that disqualify Huntsman too? He’s a quitter.

Relax though. Superman Mitt will probably get the nod. Then get hammered.

pseudoforce on May 10, 2011 at 5:37 PM

Hugh Hewitt, Dean Barnett, Karl Rove, Fred Barnes, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Steyn, Victor Davis Hanson, Michael Medved, Dennis Prager, Ann Coulter, Rich Lowery, Kathryn Jean Lopez, Byron York, Ed Morrisey and many many more very smart folks like the idea of a Mac & Mitt ticket. I think McCain should listen to these very intelligent, high level thinking people and choose Mitt for VP. Mitt is the best choice and the fact that he comes highly recommended by some of conservatism’s best minds isn’t something to take lightly.

sheryl on May 1, 2008 at 3:21 AM

Yawn.

Mitt will never Beat Obama. He couldn’t even beat McCain or Huckabee.

portlandon on May 10, 2011 at 5:37 PM

The Republicans are most certainly in rare form now… all stoopidity.

madmonkphotog on May 10, 2011 at 5:39 PM

Mitt will never Beat Obama. He couldn’t even beat McCain or Huckabee.

portlandon on May 10, 2011 at 5:37 PM

Exactly. At least Reagan in ’76 was a factor against an incumbent Republican president. Romney didn’t even come close against a weak candidate like McCain in 2008 and now we’re supposed to believe he’s going to lead us to the Promised Land in 2012. Not buying it.

pseudoforce on May 10, 2011 at 5:39 PM

Mitt would make a great VP choice. I worked in a management consulting firm that employed only MBA, Harvard, Stanford, MIT grads…your basic Mitt Romney types. For about 8 years witnessing their work ethic, these people are highly skilled problem solvers. Their optimism and intelligence when facing challenges, sometimes overwhelming ones, is the best investment in our country for leadership. That’s why I like Mitt and wanted him for POTUS.

And as far as Mitt pandering to the social conservatives, I think the empirical evidence has proven Mitt’s instinct to have those folks get to know him was a correct one but alas a futile one.

Key takeaway: Religious bigotry/divisivness causes deaf, dumb and blindness and may be incurable no matter how much money, class or effort is put towards curing it.

sheryl on April 11, 2008 at 12:59 AM

Notice a Pattern here with Sheryl?

Don’t like Romney, and you are a mouth breathing, classless, stupid fool who is a bigot and are unreasonable.

portlandon on May 10, 2011 at 5:40 PM

I hope she continues to improve herself so that someday she will be qualified. She made a good start, until she failed at the most important thing… the ability not to get run out of office.

petunia on May 10, 2011 at 5:27 PM

What a silly argument. You say others have no argument?

First of all, Palin is qualified right now, today.

She has a record in public service, and she has done a lot of good against the odds, and both parties in her state. That counts for something.

Second, what is this about the most important thing is not to get run out of office? What nonsense is that?
By that logic you should support Joe Biden for President since he held onto the same Senate seat since I was born.

Nevermind that he’s been wrong about nearly every important issue before him since 1972, he sure held the heck out of that office!

Come on, this is just nonsense.

The things you have done, and the things you propose to do, are more important than how many years you can manage to warm a political seat.

Brian1972 on May 10, 2011 at 5:42 PM

Notice a Pattern here with Sheryl?

Don’t like Romney, and you are a mouth breathing, classless, stupid fool who is a bigot and are unreasonable.

portlandon on May 10, 2011 at 5:40 PM

And you and pseudoforce haven’t proven this pattern wrong.

If it walks like a duck and walks like a duck makes you a duck…….

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 5:44 PM

Typical of the Palinistas. Don’t have any real arguments so it always turns into name calling.

petunia on May 10, 2011 at 5:29 PM

By the way, it doesn’t HAVE to be Palin. I’d support Bachmann, Rubio, West, Cain, Pence, Ryan or even Pawlenty against Romney, Huckabee or Daniels.

pseudoforce on May 10, 2011 at 5:45 PM

If it walks like a duck and walks like a duck makes you a duck…….

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 5:44 PM

You know that boomerang will come right back at you…..

Brian1972 on May 10, 2011 at 5:45 PM

First of all, Palin is qualified right now, today.

She is but she won’t convince enough people of that unfortunately. Now if she had completed her term as governor then it would be a whole different ball game, but she quit. One of the saddest days as I thought she would be this country’s first female POTUS.

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 5:46 PM

And you and pseudoforce haven’t proven this pattern wrong.

If it walks like a duck and walks like a duck makes you a duck…….

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 5:44 PM

So Romney’s a juggernaut who’s going to stomp Obama simply because after 3 years of being in the shadows Romney has a lead of a few points over Huckabee and the rest in the polls? And you call us unreasonable? LOL

pseudoforce on May 10, 2011 at 5:48 PM

sheryl on April 11, 2008 at 12:59 AM

og god you and mit tneed to get a room somewhere. I’ve worked with alot of the several Havard grads. For the vast majority of them . they were blowhards that could tell their as* from a hole in the ground. they always thought they knew the answer even when they ideas were proven failure. They thought they were the brightest bulb in the bunch and they would always make condesensing remarks about those they thought were inferior to their greatness.

In other words they were close minded egotistic aholes that could find their way out of an acre wood with a compass and a gps.

unseen on May 10, 2011 at 5:48 PM

If it walks like a duck and walks like a duck makes you a duck…….

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 5:44 PM

Your supreme intellect can’t use phrases very well.

The correct phrase is:

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it’s a duck.

portlandon on May 10, 2011 at 5:49 PM

She is but she won’t convince enough people of that unfortunately.

Neither will Romney.

Now if she had completed her term as governor then it would be a whole different ball game, but she quit.

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 5:46 PM

I’ll ask again. Does quitting disqualify Huntsman?

pseudoforce on May 10, 2011 at 5:49 PM

If it walks like a duck and walks like a duck makes you a duck…….

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 5:44 PM
You know that boomerang will come right back at you…..

Brian1972 on May 10, 2011 at 5:45 PM

I know it will. I’ve been on this site before with portlandon, he just loves him some “gotcha” journalism…..lol!!!

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 5:50 PM

By the way, it doesn’t HAVE to be Palin. I’d support Bachmann, Rubio, West, Cain, Pence, Ryan or even Pawlenty against Romney, Huckabee or Daniels.

pseudoforce on May 10, 2011 at 5:45 PM

Pence just announced he is running for IN gov. Rubio has flatly said no way in hell is he running. West is making noise for a possible VP not POTUs run. That leaves Palin, Cain, Bachmann and TPAW.

Ryan I couldn’t support becaus eof his stance on the autobailout among other things.

unseen on May 10, 2011 at 5:50 PM

She is but she won’t convince enough people of that unfortunately. Now if she had completed her term as governor then it would be a whole different ball game, but she quit. One of the saddest days as I thought she would be this country’s first female POTUS.

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 5:46 PM

You say this as if it is fact, when it is only your current opinion.

A campaign can do a lot of mind changing.

That is what they are for, after all.

Let’s see how things go, if she jumps in.

She can be extremely persuasive, charming, and compelling on the campaign trail. She also happens to be right on the substance. That always helps.

I personally want to see which issue is more determinative with GOP primary voters, Palin resigning or RomneyCare.

I know what my guess is.

Brian1972 on May 10, 2011 at 5:51 PM

I know it will. I’ve been on this site before with portlandon, he just loves him some “gotcha” journalism…..lol!!!

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 5:50 PM

No. I just have a long memory, and little patience for elitists like yourselves who can’t stand the fact that you can’t control the base of the Republican party like you can like hired help.

What bothers you more, that my vote is equal to your vote, or that you can’t guilt me into voting for Mitt Romney?

portlandon on May 10, 2011 at 5:52 PM

not good news…..for the rinos of the world….

Palin’s Overall Gallup Favorable Rating Among Republican and Republican-Leaning Independents Hits a High Mark for the Year

Her overall Gallup favorable rating among Republican and Republican-leaning indies crossed 70% for the first time this year. After doing some math from the excel sheet that Gallup provided (you can view it by clicking on the link), here are the numbers from April 25-May 8 among 1664 Republican and Republican-leaning independents:

Palin: 71%
Huckabee: 65%
Romney: 60%
Gingrich: 57%
Trump: 53%
Paul: 49%
Bachmann: 43%
Pawlenty: 35%

unseen on May 10, 2011 at 5:52 PM

I’ll ask again. Does quitting disqualify Huntsman?

pseudoforce on May 10, 2011 at 5:49 PM

That and I agree with what Redstate wrote about yesterday in the quote of the day.

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 5:53 PM

That and I agree with what Redstate wrote about yesterday in the quote of the day.

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 5:53 PM

Many of McCain’s ’08 people are flocking to Huntsman.

That is a BIG red flag.

Brian1972 on May 10, 2011 at 5:55 PM

Mitt’s minions to the rescue…

How can Romney say, once again, that he was for something (Romneycare) before he was against it (Romneycare)??? Axelrod and the obamanation have both publicly thanked his for signing into law the “blueprint” for obamacare…

Mitt had his chance to blame the dems in Mass. for taking a “worthy” program and running wild with it. But, he didn’t. And, as far as I know, still hasn’t. He did find time to revise history his book when it came out in paperback, though…

Gohawgs on May 10, 2011 at 5:57 PM

My favorite Sheryl Post at HotAir:

Mitt is very handsome, intelligent, attractive man. He looks like Matthew Fox’s, from Lost, distinguished, older brother. Plus it’s kinda sexy that he can speak French…..ooh la la!

sheryl on January 16, 2008 at 11:06 PM

The idiocy of that post would make a normal Romney supporter blush, but for the Die Hard Mitt-Lover……MMMMMMMM.

“Speak French to me Mitt…..”

portlandon on May 10, 2011 at 5:58 PM

Speak French to me Mitt…..”

portlandon on May 10, 2011 at 5:58 PM

So that is where he learned his politcal skills. In france…I see it makes perfect sense now.

unseen on May 10, 2011 at 6:00 PM

Focus on federalism and he’ll be fine.

We need a national pool for pre-existing conditions, but everything else can be dealt with in state. We have to make sure everyone, pays for something out of their own pockets.

Of course the Palinistas will say blow it all up and screw those with pre-existing conditions….but that’s another story.

rickyricardo on May 10, 2011 at 6:00 PM

My favorite Sheryl Post at HotAir:

Mitt is very handsome, intelligent, attractive man. He looks like Matthew Fox’s, from Lost, distinguished, older brother. Plus it’s kinda sexy that he can speak French…..ooh la la!

sheryl on January 16, 2008 at 11:06 PM

The idiocy of that post would make a normal Romney supporter blush, but for the Die Hard Mitt-Lover……MMMMMMMM.

“Speak French to me Mitt…..”

portlandon on May 10, 2011 at 5:58 PM

ROFL…before I read that, I felt bad about calling her a dumbass. That’s Tiger Beat stuff.

pseudoforce on May 10, 2011 at 6:00 PM

Why, because most people realize he tried to help sick uninsured people and can’t be labeled in a general election as a Republican that only cares about wealthy, healthy people that’s why.

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 4:50 PM

That may be, but the point is that he is embracing progressive policies. Just because something seems like a good idea, doesn’t mean it should be a policy. Even if he can use the federalism argument effectively, he STILL embraces progressive policies. And they are bad at the state level also. Unless the MA constitution mandates the government provide healthcare, he overstepped his authority.

There is no excuse for that. The best thing we can do is not send him money to fund his campaign. Let him talk until he enter the primary and then see who his competition is. If a real conservative gets in, Mitt will flip-flop again.

csdeven on May 10, 2011 at 6:02 PM

If Republicans on this site who are bashing Romney (Allahpundit included) can’t reconize an adult speaking then they hear it, then we are going to end up no better than the “BushHitler” leftie crowd, I’m afraid. This site should be better than that.

If anyone read Mitt’s op-ed about the auto industry back in November Mitt is simply reiterating that view point here. He actually advocated for a clearing out most of the executives and bring in new blood from different industries to help re-vitalize the dying companies.

If the people who really think Mitt should’ve come down hard on Obama at this stage in the game then they have no idea about strategy and are just being pre-ejaculatory stupid fools!

sheryl on April 1, 2009 at 12:55 PM

“You people who don’t see Mitt Romney’s brilliance are all impotent!!!111!!!”

-Sheryl

portlandon on May 10, 2011 at 6:02 PM

We have to make sure everyone, pays for something out of their own pockets.

rickyricardo on May 10, 2011 at 6:00 PM

That’s what they all say before the big screwover.

pseudoforce on May 10, 2011 at 6:03 PM

So that is where he learned his politcal skills. In france…I see it makes perfect sense now.

unseen on May 10, 2011 at 6:00 PM

Mitt did lots of things in France.

Like avoid Vietnam.

portlandon on May 10, 2011 at 6:04 PM

The idiocy of that post would make a normal Romney supporter blush, but for the Die Hard Mitt-Lover……MMMMMMMM.

“Speak French to me Mitt…..”

portlandon on May 10, 2011 at 5:58 PM

I actually thought you made that up. I thought no one would willingly post something like that.

sharrukin on May 10, 2011 at 6:04 PM

We need a national pool for pre-existing conditions, but everything else can be dealt with in state.

rickyricardo on May 10, 2011 at 6:00 PM

No we don’t. What we need is to get the federal government out of our lives.

darwin on May 10, 2011 at 6:04 PM

“You people who don’t see Mitt Romney’s brilliance are all impotent!!!111!!!”

-Sheryl

portlandon on May 10, 2011 at 6:02 PM

Well to be fair I think Romney’s view on the auto bailouts was one thing I could agree with.

pseudoforce on May 10, 2011 at 6:05 PM

csdeven on May 10, 2011 at 6:02 PM

You do understand that if Obamacare mandate is declared unconsititutional at the federal level than so is romneycare’s right? or sure it will take a couple more years and court cases but just like slavery was ruled out of bounds ofr the feds it was ruled out of bounds for the states or like Heller and the 2nd amendment.

unseen on May 10, 2011 at 6:07 PM

I for one would have a tough time supporting a candidate who increased taxes on domestic oil producers, supported a carbon cap, submitted hundreds of millions of dollars worth of earmark requests, and supported TARP.

Damn RINOs.

*snicker*

Hollowpoint on May 10, 2011 at 6:07 PM

little patience for elitists like yourselves who can’t stand the fact that you can’t control the base of the Republican party like you can like hired help.

What bothers you more, that my vote is equal to your vote, or that you can’t guilt me into voting for Mitt Romney?

portlandon on May 10, 2011 at 5:52 PM

I’m not an elitist? I’m a working class girl. Your vote doesn’t bother me.

I don’t know why it bothers you that I like a smart, nice successful, rich guy. What chip is on your shoulder.

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 6:08 PM

Well to be fair I think Romney’s view on the auto bailouts was one thing I could agree with.

pseudoforce on May 10, 2011 at 6:05 PM

Why? they deserved to fail, the workers to be laid off, the sotckholders to lose everything, the plants sold, the Execs fired and penniless and the bondholders to get what was left after the creditors were paid. Only once that occurred could the industry come back freah and clean with a new business plan that worked…

unseen on May 10, 2011 at 6:09 PM

Bret Baier on Special Report is talking about that review of RomneyCare with the long wait times right now.

This is not going away, and it may well become a bigger problem for him over time as the consequences are worse and worse for the state budget.

Brian1972 on May 10, 2011 at 6:09 PM

Hollowpoint on May 10, 2011 at 6:07 PM

You need to stop getitng your talking points from the daily KOS.

unseen on May 10, 2011 at 6:10 PM

Bret Baier on Special Report is talking about that review of RomneyCare with the long wait times right now.

This is not going away, and it may well become a bigger problem for him over time as the consequences are worse and worse for the state budget.

Brian1972 on May 10, 2011 at 6:09 PM

Good. RomneyCare is just a mini-version of ObamaCare. A preview of what’s to come.

darwin on May 10, 2011 at 6:10 PM

Of course the Palinistas will say blow it all up and screw those with pre-existing conditions….but that’s another story.

rickyricardo on May 10, 2011 at 6:00 PM

Actually there are very few people out there who can’t get insurance due to pre-existing conditions. The high-risk pools in Obamacare have gotten less than 2% of the expected enrollees. Mostly people don’t get insurance because they think they can’t afford it.

alwaysfiredup on May 10, 2011 at 6:10 PM

This is not going away, and it may well become a bigger problem for him over time as the consequences are worse and worse for the state budget.

Brian1972 on May 10, 2011 at 6:09 PM

and hence the push for Mitch by the establishment….they sense uncurable weakness in Mitt. If Mitt has lost fox Alies must think Mitch is the man to back….

unseen on May 10, 2011 at 6:11 PM

Brian1972 on May 10, 2011 at 6:09 PM

Now up to 48 days…

Gohawgs on May 10, 2011 at 6:11 PM

Get a sandwich board and tell your story to someone else who cares

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 5:29 PM

Eat at Joe’s …. Romney blows

Bottomless cups of coffee as you wait for days to be seen by a random person off the street wearing scrubs ….. make an appointment for 3 months later for a actual doctor.

Jerome Horwitz on May 10, 2011 at 6:13 PM

Of course the Palinistas will say blow it all up and screw those with pre-existing conditions….but that’s another story.

rickyricardo on May 10, 2011 at 6:00 PM

of course the obama socialist will destory a great system for 90% of the people to make sure the 10% get substandard care.

If we all can’t have care then none of us will have care…the new socialist motto.

unseen on May 10, 2011 at 6:13 PM

for one would have a tough time supporting a candidate who increased taxes on domestic oil producers, supported a carbon cap, submitted hundreds of millions of dollars worth of earmark requests, and supported TARP.

Damn RINOs.

*snicker*

Hollowpoint on May 10, 2011 at 6:07 PM

Because the better, more conservative thing to do would be for Alaska to give away its mineral rights for free?

(The others are false, misleading (she reduced Alaska earmarks by 80%) or part of McCain’s platform, which she had to go along with.)

alwaysfiredup on May 10, 2011 at 6:13 PM

I don’t know why it bothers you that I like a smart, nice successful, rich guy.

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 6:08 PM

Golddigger!!!

/

Gohawgs on May 10, 2011 at 6:14 PM

You need to stop getitng your talking points from the daily KOS.

unseen on May 10, 2011 at 6:10 PM

You’re suggesting that supporing TARP, increased taxes on oil producers, carbon caps, and unnecessary earmark requests are conservative, and not liberal positions?

Or is it that none of the potential candidates have ever done all of those things?

Hollowpoint on May 10, 2011 at 6:15 PM

I don’t know why it bothers you that I like a smart, nice successful, rich guy.

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 6:08 PM

Funny how you left out “conservative” in those attributes.

Brian1972 on May 10, 2011 at 6:16 PM

I don’t know why it bothers you that I like a smart, nice successful, rich guy.

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 6:08 PM

Sounds like a fantastic husband profile, but terrifically shallow criteria for a president.

alwaysfiredup on May 10, 2011 at 6:18 PM

I don’t know why it bothers you that I like a smart, nice successful, rich guy.

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 6:08 PM

Which of those adjectives doesn’t describe George Soros?

gryphon202 on May 10, 2011 at 6:18 PM

You’re suggesting that supporing TARP, increased taxes on oil producers, carbon caps, and unnecessary earmark requests are conservative, and not liberal positions?

Or is it that none of the potential candidates have ever done all of those things?

Hollowpoint on May 10, 2011 at 6:15 PM

For starters, governors don’t “request” earmarks. The rest is just liberal hyperbole that you repeat … often.

Maybe if you read up on the ACES program you’d learn something.

darwin on May 10, 2011 at 6:19 PM

Because the better, more conservative thing to do would be for Alaska to give away its mineral rights for free?

(The others are false, misleading (she reduced Alaska earmarks by 80%) or part of McCain’s platform, which she had to go along with.)

alwaysfiredup on May 10, 2011 at 6:13 PM

Everything I said was 100% true and verifyable.

But if you want to make the argument that it’s OK to abandon one’s principles for the sake of political expediency and ambition, go for it. I’ve heard more than a few Romney supporters make the same case.

Hollowpoint on May 10, 2011 at 6:19 PM

Maybe if you read up on the ACES program you’d learn something.

darwin on May 10, 2011 at 6:19 PM

Don’t hold your breath.

He’s go this talking point, and he’s sticking to it.

Brian1972 on May 10, 2011 at 6:20 PM

Same old Flip Flopney. Give it up, tool.

OhioCoastie on May 10, 2011 at 6:20 PM

Everything I said was 100% true and verifyable.

Hollowpoint on May 10, 2011 at 6:19 PM

Not really.

Brian1972 on May 10, 2011 at 6:20 PM

Everything I said was 100% true and verifyable.
Hollowpoint on May 10, 2011 at 6:19 PM

Okay, sport. Cite your sources.

kingsjester on May 10, 2011 at 6:22 PM

Everything I said was 100% true and verifyable.

But if you want to make the argument that it’s OK to abandon one’s principles for the sake of political expediency and ambition, go for it. I’ve heard more than a few Romney supporters make the same case.

Hollowpoint on May 10, 2011 at 6:19 PM

Your mischaracterization of ACES and the AESF is at best willful, and at worst grotesque. What’s particularly sad is that most of the people that read what you type are probably not going to bother looking up what those programs actually accomplished.

gryphon202 on May 10, 2011 at 6:22 PM

But if you want to make the argument that it’s OK to abandon one’s principles for the sake of political expediency and ambition, go for it. I’ve heard more than a few Romney supporters make the same case.

Hollowpoint on May 10, 2011 at 6:19 PM

She didn’t abandon her principles. She was involved in a campaign. Did she vote for carbon caps? No. Did she introduce TARP legislation? No. McCain did those things. Do you really expect a VP candidate to go public slamming her running mate for his votes? If I saw a VP doing that I’d say he/she should be fired, and rightly so.

And your earmarks statement was completely misleading, since she reduced earmarks by 80% compared to the last supposedly conservative governor.

alwaysfiredup on May 10, 2011 at 6:23 PM

Funny how you left out “conservative” in those attributes.

Brian1972 on May 10, 2011 at 6:16 PM

lol…gotta love that the purity police never sleeps….making sure they keep the party pure of us rino’s or as a pseudofreud would say those rino dumbassess!!

BTW, Herman Cain voted for Romney last time too, does that make him a RINO like me or DeMint?

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 6:23 PM

For starters, governors don’t “request” earmarks.

darwin on May 10, 2011 at 6:19 PM

False. They can’t vote for them in Congress, but can and do request them all the time.

Hollowpoint on May 10, 2011 at 6:25 PM

BTW, Herman Cain voted for Romney last time too, does that make him a RINO like me or DeMint?

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 6:23 PM

You’re not a RINO. You’re just shallow. And the field last time stank, so I don’t blame anybody for his/her primary vote.

alwaysfiredup on May 10, 2011 at 6:25 PM

Did she introduce TARP legislation? No

She couldn’t she wasn’t in Congress.

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 6:25 PM

BTW, Herman Cain voted for Romney last time too, does that make him a RINO like me or DeMint?

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 6:23 PM

By the time the primaries rolled around to my home state (and Cain’s, if I remember correctly), Romney would have been the only non-McCain candidate that most of us could have stomached. But I still think, based on your criteria, you should try asking George Soros out for a date. Since “purity” doesn’t seem to be a real factor with you, I’m sure you and the Mercantilist-in-Chief would get along just fine.

gryphon202 on May 10, 2011 at 6:26 PM

She couldn’t she wasn’t in Congress.

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 6:25 PM

Neither was Mitt. What was his position on TARP, again?

alwaysfiredup on May 10, 2011 at 6:27 PM

You’re not a RINO. You’re just shallow. And the field last time stank, so I don’t blame anybody for his/her primary vote.

alwaysfiredup on May 10, 2011 at 6:25 PM

Herman Cain shallow for his vote, DeMint too or are you going to use more lazy logic to discredit Romney and people who supported him.

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 6:27 PM

And your earmarks statement was completely misleading, since she reduced earmarks by 80% compared to the last supposedly conservative governor.

alwaysfiredup on May 10, 2011 at 6:23 PM

Only after being nominated. Prior to that she requested over 450 million in two years, making AK the biggest recipient of earmarks per capita in the country.

That her predecessor was even more irresponsible isn’t an excuse.

Hollowpoint on May 10, 2011 at 6:28 PM

False. They can’t vote for them in Congress, but can and do request them all the time.

Hollowpoint on May 10, 2011 at 6:25 PM

Great. So how many did she “request”?

darwin on May 10, 2011 at 6:28 PM

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 6:27 PM

I’m just mocking you for choosing candidates on the basis of wealth and appearance. Very tacky.

alwaysfiredup on May 10, 2011 at 6:29 PM

Only after being nominated. Prior to that she requested over 450 million in two years, making AK the biggest recipient of earmarks per capita in the country.

That her predecessor was even more irresponsible isn’t an excuse.

Hollowpoint on May 10, 2011 at 6:28 PM

Actually it is, because she didn’t submit the first budget of her term.

alwaysfiredup on May 10, 2011 at 6:29 PM

Only after being nominated. Prior to that she requested over 450 million in two years, making AK the biggest recipient requestor of earmarks per capita in the country.

That her predecessor was even more irresponsible isn’t an excuse.

Hollowpoint on May 10, 2011 at 6:28 PM

Not everything requested was granted, Champ. I think the actual value of earmarks, per-capita, was rather comparable to my homestate.

gryphon202 on May 10, 2011 at 6:30 PM

Your mischaracterization of ACES and the AESF is at best willful, and at worst grotesque. What’s particularly sad is that most of the people that read what you type are probably not going to bother looking up what those programs actually accomplished.

gryphon202 on May 10, 2011 at 6:22 PM

It accomplished increased revenue for AK, sure. That it was a significant tax increase on domestic oil producers is unquestionably true, no matter how you’d like to spin it.

Hollowpoint on May 10, 2011 at 6:31 PM

lol…gotta love that the purity police never sleeps….making sure they keep the party pure of us rino’s or as a pseudofreud would say those rino dumbassess!!

BTW, Herman Cain voted for Romney last time too, does that make him a RINO like me or DeMint?

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 6:23 PM

I voted for Romney in Feb ’08.

Won’t make that mistake again.

Brian1972 on May 10, 2011 at 6:32 PM

It accomplished increased revenue for AK, sure. That it was a significant tax increase on domestic oil producers is unquestionably true, no matter how you’d like to spin it.

Hollowpoint on May 10, 2011 at 6:31 PM

I think you’re engaging in the spin, bub. Since ACES has been enacted, the taxes on oil companies has been at both their lowest AND their highest as a percentage of oil company revenue. That, sir, is a verifiable fact as well.

gryphon202 on May 10, 2011 at 6:33 PM

Great. So how many did she “request”?

darwin on May 10, 2011 at 6:28 PM

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-12-gop-ticket_N.htm

The governor asked for about $198 million for 31 state projects for fiscal year 2009, according to a letter and supporting documents she sent to Alaska’s congressional delegation. In 2007, Palin asked for 52 earmarks valued at $256 million.

Hollowpoint on May 10, 2011 at 6:34 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4