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

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

So what? It’s not a free market. There are basically two or three companies on one side and the State on the other, with the price of the commodity at issue set by an unrelated third party. The tax only kicks in when the price of oil is extremely high. There were large parts of her last year where the price of oil was too low to trigger the tax. It’s a good structure for a volatile commodity.

alwaysfiredup on May 10, 2011 at 6:35 PM

USA Today?

kingsjester on May 10, 2011 at 6:35 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

Maybe you know this, maybe you don’t, but the ACES legislation is a sliding scale for oil royalties.

When the price of oil goes up, the rate slides up, and when the price goes down the rate slides down.

There are also incentives for new investment and production that have been effective.

Calling it simply a “tax increase” is oversimplified spin on your part, but you knew that.

Brian1972 on May 10, 2011 at 6:36 PM

In 2007, Palin asked for 52 earmarks valued at $256 million.

Hollowpoint on May 10, 2011 at 6:34 PM

Palin didn’t submit the 2007 budget, genius.

alwaysfiredup on May 10, 2011 at 6:37 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

This oil tax hike you keep harping out. I se eoyu fail to mention that when oil price falls the oil companies get a tax cut. she cut earmarks by 86% earmarks that the conservative TED Stevens was upset she cut. Your Palin hatred is getting sick. Oh yeah and she gave AK a $12 billion surplus. Still the biggest surplus of all the gop.

Tarp and caps were McCain positions she has since denounced.

unseen on May 10, 2011 at 6:37 PM

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

alwaysfiredup on May 10, 2011 at 6:27 PM

He would’ve voted for it, like the impressive conservative Republican Paul Ryan did.

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 6:39 PM

There were large parts of her last year where the price of oil was too low to trigger the tax. It’s a good structure for a volatile commodity.

alwaysfiredup on May 10, 2011 at 6:35 PM

And economically speaking, it was only a “tax increase” for the first nine months or so that ACES was in effect. When the price of oil bottomed out, the companies ended up paying practically nothing in taxes/fees. If it truly were a confiscatory social engineering-type tax, oil exploration would have ground to a halt in Alaska, just like it has in the Gulf. Guess what, Palin haters? It hasn’t! The oil companies are still practically trying to kick down Alaska’s back door to explore in places that the environmentalists don’t want touched (ANWR) or places where they were, but can no longer be (The infamous “Icebreaker Bay”).

gryphon202 on May 10, 2011 at 6:40 PM

Palin didn’t submit the 2007 budget, genius.

alwaysfiredup on May 10, 2011 at 6:37 PM

Earmark requests aren’t made in the state budget, genius.

Hollowpoint on May 10, 2011 at 6:42 PM

Oh yeah and she gave AK a $12 billion surplus. Still the biggest surplus of all the gop.

unseen on May 10, 2011 at 6:37 PM

Tax increases usually result in falling revenue. Any Austrian-theory Hayekian who has studied at the feet of Milton Friedman would know this. So just how do you account for the largest per-capita government surplus any state has seen since WWII (adjusted for inflation, of course)? That, ladies and gentlemen, is a verifiable fact.

gryphon202 on May 10, 2011 at 6:42 PM

He would’ve voted for it, like the impressive conservative Republican Paul Ryan did.

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 6:39 PM

So why is it so awful that Palin supported it as part of McCain’s ticket? (And no, Ryan is not a conservative, nationally speaking. He’s a fiscal hawk with WI-style social views.)

alwaysfiredup on May 10, 2011 at 6:43 PM

Good observations and analysis AP. This guy’s a fool for trying to split this issue and sit on the middle of the picket fence.
Why?
Because Trump proved (thanks Donald -you used your 15 minutes of fame well) that there is one thing that must be done by a GOP candidate – attack them – call them out – be honest, call black, black, and white, white, and the left the Marxist wannbe’s they are. Ring the alarm bell so the sleepers will hear it.

Romney is just another typical Republican RINO/liberal deceitful wind-tester. This is the election when caution needs to be the last impulse of the winner. A wake -up call to America is due quickly if it is to survive (which at this point is doubtful)If he’s the candidate -it’s over -and the left will accelerate thait manic takedown of 5the nation. We need a strong fighter who is impervious to their attacks and that means the inevitable race card. Attack PC as the first weapon of the Marxist and watch the heads nod.

Go Sarah!

Don L on May 10, 2011 at 6:43 PM

Earmark requests aren’t made in the state budget, genius.

Hollowpoint on May 10, 2011 at 6:42 PM

So, what is you point in all this?

darwin on May 10, 2011 at 6:43 PM

FY2007 Gov. Murkowski 63 projects at $349,497,000

FY08 Gov. Palin 52 projects at $256,037,000

FY09 Gov. Palin 31 projects at $195,094,900

FY10 Gov. Palin: 8 projects @ $69,100,000

That is from the ak.gov website.
Clearly, a declining trend, which she promised to do when she ran for Gov.

Brian1972 on May 10, 2011 at 6:44 PM

Earmark requests aren’t made in the state budget, genius.

Hollowpoint on May 10, 2011 at 6:42 PM

So, what is you point in all this?

darwin on May 10, 2011 at 6:43 PM

If I may be so bold, it sounds like the reductio ad absurdum in all of this is that Palin isn’t any better than Romney, who isn’t any better than any of the rest of the crowd, so we’re all doomed and we’d better make sure that we get someone electable through the primaries so our great national death will be slower and more painful, or something.

gryphon202 on May 10, 2011 at 6:45 PM

Earmark requests aren’t made in the state budget, genius.

Hollowpoint on May 10, 2011 at 6:42 PM

You said:

The governor asked for about $198 million for 31 state projects for fiscal year 2009…. In 2007, Palin asked for 52 earmarks valued at $256 million.

Hollowpoint on May 10, 2011 at 6:34 PM

The fiscal year begins in July and ends in June. Palin was governor for exactly half of FY 2007 and around for none of the planning.

alwaysfiredup on May 10, 2011 at 6:45 PM

That is from the ak.gov website.
Clearly, a declining trend, which she promised to do when she ran for Gov.

Brian1972 on May 10, 2011 at 6:44 PM

The people that are still cheerleading for Allen West and John “Crybaby” Boehner don’t know what to think of a candidate who makes it a habit to do what she says she will do.

gryphon202 on May 10, 2011 at 6:46 PM

Hollowpoint on May 10, 2011 at 6:34 PM

Looks like your article got the year wrong. I think you need to try harder.

alwaysfiredup on May 10, 2011 at 6:47 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

Or maybe not.

Ed Morrissey on the Palin earmark request charge back in 2008.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/15/palins-federal-funds-requests-earmarks-or-legislation/

From Ed’s post.

Update: It looks like Laura Meckler took her data from Alaska’s OMB list of federal appropriations requests. This underscores the point that Palin didn’t ask for earmarks, but for federal funding for projects, which could have come from normal appropriations requests as well. The mechanism gets chosen by Alaska’s legislators, not by the Governor.

I guess Ed is a rabid Palinista? You guys need new talking points.

chief on May 10, 2011 at 6:49 PM

So why is it so awful that Palin supported it as part of McCain’s ticket? (And no, Ryan is not a conservative, nationally speaking. He’s a fiscal hawk with WI-style social views.)

alwaysfiredup on May 10, 2011 at 6:43 PM

Paul Ryan isn’t a conservative? Ugh the Republican party is in such a pathetic state when an impressive guy like Paul Ryan isn’t considered a conservative.

Why don’t you just call yourselves the “small tent purity police” party.

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 6:49 PM

Governor Murkowski’s budget FY2007: $11,697,400,000

Governor Palin’s budget FY2010: $10,570,000,000

Total reduction in spending between 2007 and 2010: 9.5% or $1,127,400,000

Brian1972 on May 10, 2011 at 6:49 PM

If I may be so bold, it sounds like the reductio ad absurdum in all of this is that Palin isn’t any better than Romney, who isn’t any better than any of the rest of the crowd, so we’re all doomed and we’d better make sure that we get someone electable through the primaries so our great national death will be slower and more painful, or something.

gryphon202 on May 10, 2011 at 6:45 PM

Sounds plausible. Does HP know this?

darwin on May 10, 2011 at 6:50 PM

I guess Ed is a rabid Palinista? You guys need new talking points.

chief on May 10, 2011 at 6:49 PM

Of all the commenters and bloggers here, pro and con, I think Ed has been among the more even-handed on this subject.

gryphon202 on May 10, 2011 at 6:50 PM

Why don’t you just call yourselves the “small tent purity police” party.

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 6:49 PM

That’s better than the Big Government Health Care Party.

Brian1972 on May 10, 2011 at 6:51 PM

Tax increases usually result in falling revenue. Any Austrian-theory Hayekian who has studied at the feet of Milton Friedman would know this. So just how do you account for the largest per-capita government surplus any state has seen since WWII (adjusted for inflation, of course)? That, ladies and gentlemen, is a verifiable fact.

gryphon202 on May 10, 2011 at 6:42 PM

Laffer curve explains it. the bell shaped curve.

In economics, the Laffer curve is a theoretical representation of the relationship between government revenue raised by taxation and all possible rates of taxation. It is used to illustrate the concept of taxable income elasticity (that taxable income will change in response to changes in the rate of taxation). The curve is constructed by thought experiment. First, the amount of tax revenue raised at the extreme tax rates of 0% and 100% is considered. It is clear that a 0% tax rate raises no revenue, but the Laffer curve hypothesis is that a 100% tax rate will also generate no revenue because at such a rate there is no longer any incentive for a rational taxpayer to earn any income, thus the revenue raised will be 100% of nothing. If both a 0% rate and 100% rate of taxation generate no revenue, it follows that there must exist at least one rate in between where tax revenue would be a maximum. The Laffer curve is typically represented as a stylized graph which starts at 0% tax, zero revenue, rises to a maximum rate of revenue raised at an intermediate rate of taxation and then falls again to zero revenue at a 100% tax rate

unseen on May 10, 2011 at 6:51 PM

The people that are still cheerleading for Allen West and John “Crybaby” Boehner don’t know what to think of a candidate who makes it a habit to do what she says she will do.

gryphon202 on May 10, 2011 at 6:46 PM

Well Sarah didn’t “do” finish her term as governor so what’s your point.

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 6:51 PM

Why don’t you just call yourselves the “small tent purity police” party.

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 6:49 PM

I call myself “conservative.” That about covers it.

gryphon202 on May 10, 2011 at 6:51 PM

If I may be so bold, it sounds like the reductio ad absurdum in all of this is that Palin isn’t any better than Romney, who isn’t any better than any of the rest of the crowd, so we’re all doomed and we’d better make sure that we get someone electable through the primaries so our great national death will be slower and more painful, or something.

gryphon202 on May 10, 2011 at 6:45 PM

The point is, the Internet Purity Brigade seems to have rather flexible standards, depending on the candidate.

For some candidates, a single transgression relegates them to permanent RINO status, no better than Obama and not worth voting for under any circumstances.

For other candidates, multiple diversions off the conserative path are not only forgiven, but defended so long as they’re sufficiently entertaining.

Hollowpoint on May 10, 2011 at 6:53 PM

Laffer curve explains it. the bell shaped curve.

unseen on May 10, 2011 at 6:51 PM

I know the Laffer Curve, Un. My point is, if ACES was any kind of “tax increase” in the vein that conservatives such as myself object to tax increases, the oil companies would not be making more revenue, which all practical evidence points to the fact that they are making more instead of less. ACES has been a boon to the oil companies as well as the state of alaska, since falling oil prices aren’t as likely to discourage wildcatting as they did under the old regime — when the companies paid a flat percentage of revenue rather than a sliding scale.

gryphon202 on May 10, 2011 at 6:54 PM

The fiscal year begins in July and ends in June. Palin was governor for exactly half of FY 2007 and around for none of the planning.

alwaysfiredup on May 10, 2011 at 6:45 PM

She made the request to the AK congressional delegation in 2007 for the 2008 fiscal year.

Hollowpoint on May 10, 2011 at 6:56 PM

The point is, the Internet Purity Brigade seems to have rather flexible standards, depending on the candidate.

Hollowpoint on May 10, 2011 at 6:53 PM

My principles are pretty stalwart. Protect my liberties, respect all life from womb to tomb, and leave matters not explicitly spelled out in the constitution to the states. Now which of those personal principles of mine do you believe makes Sarah Louise Heath-Palin unfit to be president? Cause I can tell you ways in which Romney, Huck, Gingrich, and even T-Paw have failed in that regard. But I’ve never claimed that Palin was perfect anyway. I just said that she has most closely harmonized with my own principles (as outlined above). I have to look away from the screen when I read your spin to keep myself from hurling.

gryphon202 on May 10, 2011 at 6:57 PM

Well Sarah didn’t “do” finish her term as governor so what’s your point.

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 6:51 PM

Exactly what is your point with that? Were there extenuating circumstances or did she just say one morning … Hey, I’m gonna quit!

Constantly bringing it up without addressing why she quit is disingenuous to say the least.

darwin on May 10, 2011 at 6:57 PM

gryphon202 on May 10, 2011 at 6:42 PM
unseen on May 10, 2011 at 6:51 PM

Or in other words what ACES showed was the Big Oil companies were stealing the citizens of AK blind until Palin showed up. Since if taxes were too high we should have seen a reduction in revs not an increase. It also shows that in the other 49 states and at the federal level Taxes are too high sinc eany increase in taxes reduces rev and any decrease increases rev. The rest of the country is on the downward slope of the laffer curve and AK was on the upward side of the laffer curve.

Also most people don’t know that the state of AK has no income tax, no state sales tax and no state property taxes.

further Palin signing into law the tax credit for the movie industry created an entire new industry in AK.

Her fiscal record is outstanding.

unseen on May 10, 2011 at 6:58 PM

That’s better than the Big Government Health Care Party.

Brian1972 on May 10, 2011 at 6:51 PM

That would be “State Healthcare Party” at least we’d win elections and you won’t.

I don’t care if MA residents want Romneycare. Romney did what the citzenry wanted.

Isn’t that the motto of the Tea Party anyway “listen to the people” Isn’t that what all the rallies are about, for elected leaders to listen to them? That’s what Romney did, he listened to the people of MA.

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 6:59 PM

Her fiscal record is outstanding.

unseen on May 10, 2011 at 6:58 PM

Naw. She’s not any better than Romney. Get a clue.

/PalinHaters

gryphon202 on May 10, 2011 at 6:59 PM

Isn’t that the motto of the Tea Party anyway “listen to the people” Isn’t that what all the rallies are about, for elected leaders to listen to them? That’s what Romney did, he listened to the people of MA.

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 6:59 PM

I’d like a return to Constitution-based government. Last time I checked, The United States of America formed a representative republic, not a democracy.

gryphon202 on May 10, 2011 at 7:00 PM

when the companies paid a flat percentage of revenue rather than a sliding scale.

gryphon202 on May 10, 2011 at 6:54 PM

agreed. ACES is a complex tax structure that benefits all parties at times depending on the price of oil.

unseen on May 10, 2011 at 7:00 PM

I don’t care if MA residents want Romneycare. Romney did what the citzenry wanted.

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 6:59 PM

Really? That’s what they wanted? They wanted to pay higher insurance rates to subsidize slackers and illegals?

darwin on May 10, 2011 at 7:01 PM

Constantly bringing it up without addressing why she quit is disingenuous to say the least.

darwin on May 10, 2011 at 6:57 PM

I know the reasons. And those reasons aren’t going to goaway if she’s POTUS, in fact they will get worse. What makes me think she’s isn’t going to quit again.

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 7:01 PM

I don’t care if MA residents want Romneycare. Romney did what the citzenry wanted.

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 6:59 PM

And I don’t care if the citizenry wanted it. Mitt Romney is a socialized medicine advocate who has declined every chance to walk back his mistake. Barack Obama congratulating Mass-uh-chew-sits on Romneycare was the kiss of death for Mitt’s presidential ambitions.

gryphon202 on May 10, 2011 at 7:01 PM

I don’t care if MA residents want Romneycare. Romney did what the citzenry wanted.

Isn’t that the motto of the Tea Party anyway “listen to the people” Isn’t that what all the rallies are about, for elected leaders to listen to them? That’s what Romney did, he listened to the people of MA.

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 6:59 PM

you forgot the cry of follow the constitution, liberty freedom.

unseen on May 10, 2011 at 7:02 PM

What makes me think she’s isn’t going to quit again.

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 7:01 PM

How about the statutory protections in place? The only way she could be removed from office, for ethics violations or otherwise, would be impeachment. Those protections weren’t in place during her gubernatorial tenure, but they are now, and have been since Sean Parnell signed them into law. Ethics complaints can’t bankrupt a sitting president.

gryphon202 on May 10, 2011 at 7:02 PM

Really? That’s what they wanted? They wanted to pay higher insurance rates to subsidize slackers and illegals?

darwin on May 10, 2011 at 7:01 PM

I think they wanted those 48-day waiting periods, Dar. I just love coughing and wheezing while I’m waiting for my doctor’s attending nurse to get back to me.

gryphon202 on May 10, 2011 at 7:03 PM

Mitt’s speech should boil down to this: “Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa.”

mizzoujgrad on May 10, 2011 at 7:03 PM

She made the request to the AK congressional delegation in 2007 for the 2008 fiscal year.

Hollowpoint on May 10, 2011 at 6:56 PM

FY2007 Gov. Murkowski 63 projects at $349,497,000

FY08 Gov. Palin 52 projects at $256,037,000

FY09 Gov. Palin 31 projects at $195,094,900

FY10 Gov. Palin: 8 projects @ $69,100,000

Dramatic reduction in earmarks over Palin’s tenure.

That is exactly what she promised, not to cut them all off at once, but to reduce them dramatically.

That is what happened.

the Feds control so much of that state, and the entrenched culture of DC money from decades before meant that was the best you could hope for.

Brian1972 on May 10, 2011 at 7:03 PM

I know the reasons. And those reasons aren’t going to goaway if she’s POTUS, in fact they will get worse. What makes me think she’s isn’t going to quit again.

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 7:01 PM

What? all of them go away. the POTUS can not be sued into bankruptcy

unseen on May 10, 2011 at 7:03 PM

I know the reasons. And those reasons aren’t going to goaway if she’s POTUS, in fact they will get worse. What makes me think she’s isn’t going to quit again.

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 7:01 PM

Apparently you don’t know the reasons, because they do not exist at the Federal level.

Brian1972 on May 10, 2011 at 7:04 PM

I know the reasons. And those reasons aren’t going to goaway if she’s POTUS, in fact they will get worse. What makes me think she’s isn’t going to quit again.

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 7:01 PM

What? You have no idea what happened if you think the same thing could happen if she were president. In fact, the same thing couldn’t have happened to any other governor either.

darwin on May 10, 2011 at 7:05 PM

What? all of them go away. the POTUS can not be sued into bankruptcy

unseen on May 10, 2011 at 7:03 PM

POTUS can not be civilly sued, period, for any acts taken while in office. (S)he may only be impeached by congress, which does not preclude criminal prosecution at a later date, subject to jurisdictional issues and statutes-of-limitation.

gryphon202 on May 10, 2011 at 7:06 PM

That would be “State Healthcare Party” at least we’d win elections and you won’t.

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 6:59 PM

That is still Big Government.

Good luck winning elections, especially a GOP primary, with that platform.

Brian1972 on May 10, 2011 at 7:06 PM

I am late to this thread – obviously.

All I can say is this speech better be:
– New
– Full of Content
– Objectively defined
– Vacant of platitudes.

jake-the-goose on May 10, 2011 at 7:07 PM

And I don’t care if the citizenry wanted it. Mitt Romney is a socialized medicine advocate who has declined every chance to walk back his mistake. Barack Obama congratulating Mass-uh-chew-sits on Romneycare was the kiss of death for Mitt’s presidential ambitions.
gryphon202 on May 10, 2011 at 7:03 PM

RomneyCare is NOT socialized medicine. Not even close.

And for the record, Obama flip flopped on RomneyCare. He was against it before he support it.

Conservative Samizdat on May 10, 2011 at 7:07 PM

Really? That’s what they wanted? They wanted to pay higher insurance rates to subsidize slackers and illegals?

darwin on May 10, 2011 at 7:01 PM

Have you heard about any Tea Parties in MA to repeal the law? I haven’t.

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 7:08 PM

I’ll never vote for Romney or Daniels. I don’t care what they say. I am not even listening. I made up my mind. A vote for either one of them reelects Dumb-Ø.
Romneycare – Dumb-Øcare

Daniels = VAT

Hell’s NO!

Jayrae on May 10, 2011 at 7:10 PM

RomneyCare is NOT socialized medicine. Not even close.

And for the record, Obama flip flopped on RomneyCare. He was against it before he support it.

Conservative Samizdat on May 10, 2011 at 7:07 PM

Romneycare is a blueprint for the federal program that Obama himself, and others, have said will lead to single-payer healthcare. You’re quibbling over the definition of “socialized medicine,” but even if Romneycare doesn’t meet the definition, avowed Marxists have said as much as socialized medicine is the endgame. In no way does your assertion (as strongly convincing as it may be) enhance Romney’s fitness for the presidency in my eyes.

gryphon202 on May 10, 2011 at 7:10 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

Says the woman who earlier today accused Palin supporters of not being conservatives and said they were “barely Americans.

Kensington on May 10, 2011 at 7:11 PM

Have you heard about any Tea Parties in MA to repeal the law? I haven’t.

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 7:08 PM

If they existed, would the media report on them? It’s a prime example of why we are not a democracy, but rather a representative republic. Mass-uh-chew-sits can have it if they want it, and I hope Romney stays put in Mass-uh-chew-sits. He doesn’t deserve the presidency, and I haven’t done anything to deserve a Romney presidency, either.

gryphon202 on May 10, 2011 at 7:11 PM

I am late to this thread – obviously.

All I can say is this speech better be:
– New
– Full of Content
– Objectively defined
– Vacant of platitudes.

jake-the-goose on May 10, 2011 at 7:07 PM

I know, right? :-D

gryphon202 on May 10, 2011 at 7:14 PM

What? You have no idea what happened if you think the same thing could happen if she were president. In fact, the same thing couldn’t have happened to any other governor either.

darwin on May 10, 2011 at 7:05 PM

Well that’s good, maybe she wouldn’t quit again. Her quitting mid term still leaves a bad impression, I thought she was made of stronger stuff. I don’t think Margaret Thathcer would’ve left her position under the same circumstances.

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 7:19 PM

Romney’s Gallup Positive Intensity Score Has Fallen By 35% Since Mid-March

I’m not a big fan of Gallup’s reliance on a “positive intensity index” to measure the amount of support a candidate has because it makes candidates like Bachmann and Cain seem more viable than in reality as the primary reason why their intensity scores are high is because the only people who know about them are the most conservative elements of the Republican Party, However, it’s worth noting that Romney’s positive intensity score in Gallup has fallen by 35% since mid-March.

This Daily Kos poll from Virginia effectively confirms what we’ve always thought: the undecideds in the Palin-Obama matchup nearly all break the Governor’s way. She’s the only one of the Republican contenders who gained ground on Obama since the last Virginia poll that the Daily Kos pollster conducted in March

http://conservatives4palin.com/2011/05/romneys-gallup-positive-intensity-score-has-fallen-by-35-since-mid-march.html

unseen on May 10, 2011 at 7:19 PM

Romneycare is a blueprint for the federal program that Obama himself, and others, have said will lead to single-payer healthcare.

You’re quibbling over the definition of “socialized medicine,” but even if Romneycare doesn’t meet the definition, avowed Marxists have said as much as socialized medicine is the endgame. In no way does your assertion (as strongly convincing as it may be) enhance Romney’s fitness for the presidency in my eyes.

gryphon202 on May 10, 2011 at 7:10 PM

Mitt Romney has never intended for his health care plan to be used as a vehicle for a single payer system. However, Obama has.

The fact that Obama stole Mitt Romney’s plan doesn’t mean he endorses Obama’s version of it. The fact that Marxist want a single payer program doesn’t mean that is what Mitt Romney wants.

Just because someone bastardizes an idea of yours doesn’t mean you support it.

Conservative Samizdat on May 10, 2011 at 7:20 PM

unseen on May 10, 2011 at 7:19 PM

Romney’s support is 100 miles wide and an inch deep.

He’s trying to float his campaign in shallow waters.

He’ll run aground soon.

portlandon on May 10, 2011 at 7:21 PM

That came out bad. Let me retry again:

Romneycare is a blueprint for the federal program that Obama himself, and others, have said will lead to single-payer healthcare.

You’re quibbling over the definition of “socialized medicine,” but even if Romneycare doesn’t meet the definition, avowed Marxists have said as much as socialized medicine is the endgame. In no way does your assertion (as strongly convincing as it may be) enhance Romney’s fitness for the presidency in my eyes.

gryphon202 on May 10, 2011 at 7:10 PM

Mitt Romney has never intended for his health care plan to be used as a vehicle for a single payer system. However, Obama has.

The fact that Obama stole Mitt Romney’s plan doesn’t mean he endorses Obama’s version of it. The fact that Marxist want a single payer program doesn’t mean that is what Mitt Romney wants.

Just because someone bastardizes an idea of yours doesn’t mean you support it.

I’ve got a job interview to go to but I’ll come back and debate this further.

Conservative Samizdat on May 10, 2011 at 7:22 PM

Well that’s good, maybe she wouldn’t quit again. Her quitting mid term still leaves a bad impression, I thought she was made of stronger stuff. I don’t think Margaret Thathcer would’ve left her position under the same circumstances.

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 7:19 PM

Yeah, me too. Sustaining horrific media attacks daily, plus having her family attacked is easy to handle.

Seriously, you give me the impression you haven’t the slightest clue about Palin’s resignation. You’re looking kinda amateurish, to put it nicely.

darwin on May 10, 2011 at 7:23 PM

Conservative Samizdat on May 10, 2011 at 7:20 PM

Mitt Romney’s RomneyCare plan depends heavily on Federal Dollars to subsidize it.

Although I am in Oregon, Mitt Romney robs from me to pay for his “State Experiment” with socialized healthcare.

People are now standing in lines and premiums have skyrocketed.

Romney is a non-starter for Presidential contenders for ’12.

portlandon on May 10, 2011 at 7:24 PM

Well that’s good, maybe she wouldn’t quit again. Her quitting mid term still leaves a bad impression, I thought she was made of stronger stuff. I don’t think Margaret Thathcer would’ve left her position under the same circumstances.

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 7:19 PM

LOL

If she wasn’t made of stronger stuff, she would have left the field of battle entirely, not taken a stronger position from which to lobby volley after volley at the left.

If she were weaker, she would have just succumbed to her fate, be sued into oblivion, ridden out her single term and left office a shadow of her former self.

powerpro on May 10, 2011 at 7:25 PM

If they existed, would the media report on them?

LOL, a new conspiracy theory in the making for sure!!

avowed Marxists

Oh perfect, now Romney is an avowed Marxist and Paul Ryan isn’t a conservative.

I wonder if Herman Cain and Jim DeMint know that they voted for an avowed Marxist when they voted for Mitt.

It’s no wonder our party is the butt of some many jokes with crap like this being floated.

A Republican governor can’t implement a law that has everyone on board; republicans, democrats, business leaders, the insurance industry and it’s citzenry without it being called Marxist.

Palin will be a weak candidate, she couldn’t get her guy elected in her own state, why is that?

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 7:31 PM

Romney’s support is 100 miles wide and an inch deep.

He’s trying to float his campaign in shallow waters.

He’ll run aground soon.

portlandon on May 10, 2011 at 7:21 PM

I don’t think it’s very wide either. It is mostly within the NE region. and the NE region is starting to see he can’t win. One thing I liked about trump is he took the “electability” factor away from Mitt for a time and i don’t think mitt is politcally smart enough to get it back. In fact it looks like Mitch is going to make a play for those votes. that is why candidates should not go the “electablity” factor as their overiding theme to win votes. Once you are shown to not be the “it” canididate your support leaves you and doesn’t come back.

The only candidate in the race besides Palin to stake his candidate theme on something other than winning is Huck and it is IMO one of the reasons his support appears to be steady. I think the “none of the above” feel to huck helps him too. But huck is seen as a strong social conservative thus strong social conservatives support him. what is Mitt really for besides winning the nomination. He has no core believes or issues. His entire campaign up until now has been vote for me because I can win. that only works until you are shown you can’t win. Just like the opposite is true. You ar eonly see to be unelectable until you aren’t. It is a shifting foundation to build any campaign on and if the wave comes your campaign is toast.

unseen on May 10, 2011 at 7:33 PM

Romney is a non-starter for Presidential contenders for ’12.

portlandon on May 10, 2011 at 7:24 PM

Mitch’s plan also requires gobs of federal money to make it work.

unseen on May 10, 2011 at 7:34 PM

I suppose Romney was responsible for HillaryCare too.

Really, these ideas have been around for generations. Universal health care has been a goal of liberals for a century. Liberals try to undermine Romney, but its odd for conservatives to take Obama talking points.

Obama was going to push his plan through with or without RomneyCare. Fact.

swamp_yankee on May 10, 2011 at 7:35 PM

Sure there is a way out. Say this is not what I had in mine and if I was still governor I’d work to repeal it, just as I’ll work to repeal Obamacare.

Fred 2 on May 10, 2011 at 7:35 PM

Palin will be a weak candidate, she couldn’t get her guy elected in her own state, why is that?

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 7:31 PM

Neither could Romney.

MA was a total wipeout for Republicans in 2010.

Brian1972 on May 10, 2011 at 7:35 PM

Sustaining horrific media attacks daily, plus having her family attacked is easy to handle.

The media is terrible to her. Sarah has been throwing attacks at them ever since the speech at the convention, so they continue to attack her.

I think that is what Sarah is best at actually is attacking the media. I hope she keeps it up. It’s not what I want in a POTUS though.

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 7:36 PM

The media is terrible to her. Sarah has been throwing attacks at them ever since the speech at the convention, so they continue to attack her.

I think that is what Sarah is best at actually is attacking the media. I hope she keeps it up. It’s not what I want in a POTUS though.

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 7:36 PM

Oh, so she brought it on herself, eh?

The slander began the moment McCain announced her on August 29, 2008. The convention speech was a response to the weeks of McCain’s people keeping her away from the press while they savaged her and her children.

Don’t rewrite history. I saw it happen.

I am one who would like to have a conservative POTUS who doesn’t allow these leftist jackals in the media to set the narrative for their administration and the movement as a whole, as Bush did in his second term. I see no evidence Romney can do any better at that than Sarah could, much to the contrary in fact.

Brian1972 on May 10, 2011 at 7:40 PM

Obama was going to push his plan through with or without RomneyCare. Fact.

swamp_yankee on May 10, 2011 at 7:35 PM

Obama damaged Romney’s waning conservative cred by patting him on the back. FACT.

gryphon202 on May 10, 2011 at 7:40 PM

One result that may surprise people, given how the mainstream media often paints Palin as someone who would have a narrow base of support should she run for the GOP nomination, was that, according to Gallup, ‘despite her strong Tea Party connections, Palin receives as much support from liberal/moderate Republicans as she does from conservative Republicans, 15% vs. 13%. Also, there is little differentiation in preferences for her by region, ranging from 12% in the West and Midwest to 14% in the South and 16% in the East.’”

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=43416

unseen on May 10, 2011 at 7:41 PM

unseen on May 10, 2011 at 7:41 PM

It may seem counter intuitive, but Sarah Palin is tailor made for the South.

Despite her extreme northern geographic origin, she has all the issues Southerners value locked down.

Huck may have a big problem with her down here in Dixie, should they both run.

She’s got him beat in several areas, and equal in others.

Brian1972 on May 10, 2011 at 7:44 PM

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

But they are snappy dressers. Sheryl is impressed by the facade.

katy the mean old lady on May 10, 2011 at 7:44 PM

But in her brief tenure as governor, Palin was strikingly effective on the issue that matters most in Alaska, its oil and gas politics. Through sheer force of will… she managed to solve, at least for a time, the problem that lay at the heart of Alaska’s politics for a generation: how to break the oil companies’ grip on the state and capture a fair share of their profits for Alaskans. Palin’s major achievement was winning an oil tax that did just that and was called Alaska’s Clear and Equitable Share (ACES). While reporting the piece, I came to think of it as her ‘secret’ success because, while there is nothing hidden about it, no one, including Palin herself that I can see, pays it any mind — even though it has helped bring Alaska a $12 billion budget surplus, an achievement most presidential hopefuls would brag about incessantly (and justifiably).”

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/sarah-palins-secret-success/238648/

so the left thinks Palin is dead politcally and now the truth can be told….how nice.

unseen on May 10, 2011 at 7:45 PM

Don’t rewrite history. I saw it happen.

I saw it happen to. Her snark kept fueling the flames of that crap. Sarah deals in snark….alot. You saw it in her reality show as well.

And oh please the “McCain kept her from the media” excuse is just that an excuse.

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 7:46 PM

I like Mitt but I am not sure he’ll be able to this issue. I don’t think he will be our nominee.

terryannonline on May 10, 2011 at 7:47 PM

katy the mean old lady on May 10, 2011 at 7:44 PM

LOL…which tends to confirm my opinion that most of the palinhaters don’t like Palin because she makes them feel inferior. after all they have been told for 3 years how stupid she is so how does it make these people feel to see that Palin is smarter then the bunch of them. So instead they worry about Style over substance. and that makes them fell all better.

unseen on May 10, 2011 at 7:48 PM

Does anyone think that if Mitt could show a $12 billion surplus under his leadership as Gov of MA, he would not start and end every sentence with that fact?

unseen on May 10, 2011 at 7:49 PM

Does anyone think that if Mitt could show a $12 billion surplus under his leadership as Gov of MA, he would not start and end every sentence with that fact?

unseen on May 10, 2011 at 7:49 PM

Romneycare made that moot. I don’t care what Samizdat or any of Mitt’s other defenders tell me. I still think he is a party to socialized medicine, and Mass-uh-chew-sits’ ledger balance ought to lay any presidential ambitions to rest.

gryphon202 on May 10, 2011 at 7:51 PM

where is Mitt on this issue? does he approe of this rapper going to the whitehouse?

Sarah Palin tweeted into the growing controversy over Michelle Obama’s decision to invite Chicago rapper ‘Common’ to a White House arts event for students. ‘Oh lovely, White House,’ she said about Common’s ‘A Letter to the Law’ rap-poem [language alert], which was transcribed and published in yesterday’s Daily Caller. The 2007 rap includes threats to kill police and a call to kill then-President George W. Bush.

unseen on May 10, 2011 at 7:51 PM

Mitt will always be an “also ran” for the simple reason that he will NEVER get Palin’s supporters to get on board. And he needs their votes to win the nomination. Why? Because Mitt and his people sabotaged Palin before the 2008 election was even over calling her a diva and spreading all of the rumors about her because they wanted Mitt to be the frontrunner for 2012. Hey, you reap what you sow and Mittens and his people are bad seeds. What goes around comes around. So sheryl, go cry yourself a river.
A vote for Mittens is the slow death of socialism. I’m not into pain. I’d rather cut to the chase and have Dumb-Ø’s full blown “poison Ivy League” socialism now.

Jayrae on May 10, 2011 at 7:52 PM

I saw it happen to. Her snark kept fueling the flames of that crap. Sarah deals in snark….alot. You saw it in her reality show as well.

And oh please the “McCain kept her from the media” excuse is just that an excuse.

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 7:46 PM

That is actually a fact, no excuse. Between the time of the announcement in Ohio and the convention in Minnesota, McCain’s campaign people severely limited her exposure to media outlets, against her wishes at the time, given all the garbage being thrown about. She wanted to get out there and set the record straight, but these consultant geniuses knew better and kept her locked down most of the time.

If you read her book you would know that.

During this imposed silence, some of the rumors began to gain traction.

She wanted to tackle them head on, but was prevented from doing so.

What is your excuse for Romney losing to McCain?

Brian1972 on May 10, 2011 at 7:54 PM

A vote for Mittens is the slow death of America and socialism will be the weapon. I’m not into pain. I’d rather cut to the chase and have Dumb-Ø’s full blown “poison Ivy League” socialism now.

Jayrae on May 10, 2011 at 7:52 PM

Just added a little bit by way of clarification, but I agree 100%.

gryphon202 on May 10, 2011 at 7:55 PM

Say, Gov. Mittstick: maybe it costs to much to have government ‘help’ on health care. Seen how the cost of Medicare and Medicaid have skyrocket beyond any projections ever put together when it was ‘designed’? Do you know wha a Ponzi Scheme is? Do you know that ALL entitlements are Ponzi Schemes?

The cost of healthcare only started to increase dramatically after the introduction of the the government ‘help’, Gov. Mittstick. The nasty curve of increasing cost is due to the middle-man’s cut which is the cost of running those programs and the inefficiencies of them, added to the fact they don’t pay the full cost of the ‘benefit’ which shifts the costs that government doesn’t pay onto everyone else. Perhaps, just perhaps, the entire ‘medical cost crisis’ is a symptom of not understanding what the role and function of the federal government actually IS. Which addresses your ‘federalism’ argument directly: the government is not designed to do these things and when it does them the cost to society is horrific.

Stop trying to solve a ‘crisis’ that is created by government and solve it by getting government out of the ‘help’ business so that it will do what it was made to do which is very little. It can’t do those few things because of all the other junk we now expect it to do… and that is putting the Nation at extreme risk.

ajacksonian on May 10, 2011 at 7:56 PM

I saw it happen to. Her snark kept fueling the flames of that crap. Sarah deals in snark….alot. You saw it in her reality show as well.

And oh please the “McCain kept her from the media” excuse is just that an excuse.

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 7:46 PM

So Sarah drew first blood with the media and they are just constantly defending themsleves against her attacks? That’s rich. I actually have to give you credit for a creating a new PDS meme out of whole cloth. That makes perfect sense: the most popular governor in America, who enjoyed a favorability rating north of 80% (which required the approval of many Democrats and media entities) inexplicably decides to attack those who buy ink by the barrel just as she is rolling herself out nationally.

I really thought another commenter was carrying the anninca mantel. Nice to know you guys are at least fighting over it.

Kataklysmic on May 10, 2011 at 7:56 PM

But they are snappy dressers. Sheryl is impressed by the facade.
katy the mean old lady on May 10, 2011 at 7:44 PM

Mitt is not a facade. Is it a facade when a leader like Romney shuts down his company to help organize rescuing one of the partner’s 14 year old daughter who went missing in NYC. Not the kind of stuff an empty suit does.

Maybe Katy the mean old lady doesn’t care about a man like that but I do.

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 7:57 PM

But it also shows that the law is working. ConocoPhillips, BP, and ExxonMobil have reported record profits–so it’s fitting that, in a sense, Alaska has, too. It’s no exaggeration to say that ACES has made the state one of the fiscally strongest in the union. Flush with cash, Alaska produced large capital budgets that blunted the effects of the recession. Moody’s just upped the state’s bond rating to AAA for the first time. 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.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/sarah-palins-secret-success/238648/

compared to say MA bond rating of:

Both Moody’s Investors Service and Fitch Ratings have affirmed their ratings for Massachusetts’ general obligation bonds.

Moody’s rating has stayed at Aa1 while Fitch’s rating has stayed at AA+. Both ratings are the second-highest the agencies give out.

unseen on May 10, 2011 at 7:58 PM

A vote for Mittens is the slow death of socialism. I’m not into pain. I’d rather cut to the chase and have Dumb-Ø’s full blown “poison Ivy League” socialism now.

Jayrae on May 10, 2011 at 7:52 PM

I am almost to that point with Mitt. Atleast with Obama and the Libs you know your enemy and can see their garbage right in front of you. With Mitt and his Klan you’ve got to watch your back, and your front.

portlandon on May 10, 2011 at 8:00 PM

So Sarah drew first blood with the media and they are just constantly defending themsleves against her attacks? That’s rich

She gives them chum. She would’ve been better to remember Lincoln’s adage that don’t argue with a fool people might not know the difference.

Sarah needed not to engage that crap from day one. She should’ve taken the high road instead of getting down in the gutter with them.

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 8:02 PM

Maybe Katy the mean old lady doesn’t care about a man like that but I do.

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 7:57 PM

Yeah, we know how much you care about Willard:

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

Katie the mean old lady is smart enough to not make an A$$ out of herself fawning over Mitt like a sex-craved lunatic.

portlandon on May 10, 2011 at 8:04 PM

So what I’ve learned from HA today:

Paul Ryan isn’t a conservative.
Herman Cain and Jim DeMint voted for a socialist, Marxist when they voted for Mitt in 2008.
Sarah Palin is a goddess conservative Joan of Arc and is the only one who can save America.

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 8:08 PM

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 8:02 PM

The high road? Didn’t work out so well for GWB as evidenced by his approval ratings at the end of his term. If Mitt wins the nomination, the average voter is going to be able to write a Doctoral dissertation on anti-Mormon literature by the time the election day rolls around. We’ll see if he takes the “high road” and how well that plays out.

Kataklysmic on May 10, 2011 at 8:09 PM

Sarah Palin is a goddess conservative Joan of Arc and is the only one who can save America.

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 8:08 PM

Well at least you can learn. there is that.

unseen on May 10, 2011 at 8:11 PM

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
Katie the mean old lady is smart enough to not make an A$$ out of herself fawning over Mitt like a sex-craved lunatic.

portlandon on May 10, 2011 at 8:04 PM

You know I’ve changed my mind. Mitt Romney looks more like Don Draper from Mad Men or Don Draper’s “non-drinking, non- smoking, faithful to his wife” older brother.

And if you’ve never had a man speak French to you, don’t knock it until then….it’s is very sexy….and I don’t really care if that makes me a RINO to HA.

sheryl on May 10, 2011 at 8:12 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4