Romney’s speech on RomneyCare: I’m not sorry

posted at 4:21 pm on May 12, 2011 by Allahpundit

The moment of truth has come and gone but the horrified real-time reaction in the conservative twittersphere echoes on. These nuggets from Philip Klein, Jonah Goldberg, and Mollie Hemingway will give you a taste; liberal Ezra Klein came closest to capturing the spirit of the thing while our old pal KP wondered whether Mitt’s ever actually met a Republican primary voter. I’m not surprised that he doubled down, though. Read this post from two days ago about the particular pitfall to Romney in apologizing. Pawlenty can afford to eat crow and say he’s sorry about cap and trade because his conservative record is otherwise solid; not so for Romney, who’ll forever be haunted by the seeming opportunism of his reversal on abortion before the last campaign and his transformation from social-con warrior to an economy-minded technocrat before this one. He won’t be able to hide from RomneyCare even if he begs for forgiveness, so why bother? Better to stand firm and at least try to undo the perception that he’ll say anything to get elected. Chris Cillizza:

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney used a speech on health care today in Michigan to send a broader message about his commitment to authenticity in the 2012 presidential race…

But, it wasn’t just the words Romney used that aimed to push the authenticity narrative.

He spoke without a prepared script and without a TelePrompter, choosing instead to use a PowerPoint presentation to make his case. He wore no tie. He was accompanied to the speech by just three staffers.

The entire presentation screamed openness, pushing the idea that Romney is someone willing to be transparent about what he believes and why he believes it.

No one would have believed him had he apologized so there was no sense in doing it. On the contrary, if I were advising him, I’d tell him to go on the attack and make his opponents be as specific as possible in what they’d do differently. The more he can discredit their plans as unworkable, the more he can reframe RomneyCare as the best choice from a very bad set of health-care policy options. In fact, if he’s feeling extra cheeky, he could use the public’s ruinous love affair with Medicare to his advantage. Under RomneyCare, the state forces you to buy a product from a third party; under Medicare, the state forces you to buy the same product from the state. It simply calls it a tax instead of a mandate, and instead of granting you coverage immediately, it shafts you until you’re 65. Do Pawlenty, Gingrich, et al. also oppose the “mandated” premiums known as FICA? I’m not sure Romney wants to go the Mediscare route since it’ll make fiscal cons even angrier at him than they are now, but if he gets desperate enough, look out. Click the image to watch.


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 5

You wanna see a boring website?

http://www.mittromney.com/

bw222 on May 12, 2011 at 8:52 PM

this is worse:

http://www.facebook.com/mittromney

unseen on May 12, 2011 at 9:03 PM

When you’ve lost National Rino Online…

Kataklysmic on May 12, 2011 at 7:17 PM

I’m so old I can remember when National Review was conservative.

bw222 on May 12, 2011 at 9:03 PM

You wanna see a boring website?

http://www.mittromney.com/

bw222 on May 12, 2011 at 8:52 PM

The styling/color scheme isn’t bad… it’s just poorly executed.

powerpro on May 12, 2011 at 9:04 PM

But that has NOTHING to do with why Romney blew it today. Obviously he either has a judgement problem or a stubborn to admit he was WRONG problem.

karenhasfreedom on May 12, 2011 at 8:56 PM

All candidates have problems and weak points.

Mitt’s is that he is not a conservative, is a proven flip-flopper and is stubborn and full of himself. His problem is one of style and substance as well as character.

Palin’s problem is that there are people who believe that media generated narratives are substantive and insurmountable.

The good news for Palin is of course that media narratives can (and frequently are) proven wrong by reality.

But then, that’s what campaigns are for.

powerpro on May 12, 2011 at 9:07 PM

wow some of the posts on his facebook page are great. Like this one:

Reba W White I have always stood up for Romney, but this statement turns my stomach.
about an hour ago

or this:

Jeff Baker So RomneyCare is okay but ObamaCare isn’t? You will never beat Barrack Obama in the general. Just give up now.
about an hour ago

love it. Epic fail by mitt today…….

unseen on May 12, 2011 at 9:09 PM

I’ve read the several responses to my question. I guess I’m not that moved about MA. The MA people may like something I don’t like at all. As long as they don’t ask me to pay for it (and, yes, that is an issue that Romney has to be precise on). Also, a state (Like TN) can much more easily reverse course (our founders were brilliant) than the country as a whole.

A seriously deep problem in the US is exactly the shameful malfeasance of some of the states…big problem that every R needs to talk about.

I’m not a huge fan of block granting dollars to states, but MS is a lot poorer that NY…and we do it now, and it is much more controllable that O.care, so on balance I’m ok.

The conflict between federalism and malpractice reform is a good point, but maybe we can “nudge” the states by using the block grant monies. (yeah, I know, but this is SOP for the government for 40 years, at least)

Here’s what I know…USA Today, NRP, Politio, HuffPo, Thinkprogess are all lining up to smash him like a bug…i.e. they will tell you who they are afraid of

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/12/mitt-romney-five-things/

r keller on May 12, 2011 at 9:09 PM

Here’s what I know…USA Today, NRP, Politio, HuffPo, Thinkprogess are all lining up to smash him like a bug…i.e. they will tell you who they are afraid of

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/12/mitt-romney-five-things/

r keller on May 12, 2011 at 9:09 PM

Nah they are just giving him the Palin treatment to clear the decks for Mitch. the Bush establishment have come to the conclusion that Mitt is damaged goods so they are now getting behind Mitch. This was Mitt’s last chance. Look for him to leave the race. the big-donors will freeze him out and the grassroots were neve rhis.

Mitt is down to two choices get out or self-fund. i think personally that Mitt will try to wait for the next couple of polls if they are as bad as I think they will be he gets out and throws his support to Mitch for a nice cabinet position…..

unseen on May 12, 2011 at 9:16 PM

I’ve read the several responses to my question. I guess I’m not that moved about MA. The MA people may like something I don’t like at all. As long as they don’t ask me to pay for it (and, yes, that is an issue that Romney has to be precise on). Also, a state (Like TN) can much more easily reverse course (our founders were brilliant) than the country as a whole.

He won’t apologize for what was a bad decision. He didn’t learn the errors of his ways. I don’t want him in charge of the whole country (hey, Congress seems to be giving the prez more power every day).

Here’s what I know…USA Today, NRP, Politio, HuffPo, Thinkprogess are all lining up to smash him like a bug…i.e. they will tell you who they are afraid of

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/12/mitt-romney-five-things/

r keller on May 12, 2011 at 9:09 PM

They’re also bashing Newt. Are you thinking they fear a Romney/Gingrich ticket? Click on them any other day and they’re bashing Palin, Huck, Cain, West, &c. They bash Republicans. The only thing you should take away from this is to vote for a Republican that can take the heat in the primaries. There is no safe Maverick candidate. John McCain learned that lesson the hard way. His butt is still burning.

MeatHeadinCA on May 12, 2011 at 9:26 PM

Here’s what I know…USA Today, NRP, Politio, HuffPo, Thinkprogess are all lining up to smash him like a bug…i.e. they will tell you who they are afraid of

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/12/mitt-romney-five-things/

r keller on May 12, 2011 at 9:09 PM

And for nearly 3 years now they’ve been going after Palin like Tokyo going after Godzilla. So which one do you think they fear more? With Romney, they smell blood in the water.

pseudoforce on May 12, 2011 at 9:26 PM

i think personally that Mitt will try to wait for the next couple of polls if they are as bad as I think they will be he gets out and throws his support to Mitch for a nice cabinet position…..

unseen on May 12, 2011 at 9:16 PM

Agreed. He may even offer Mitch some serious financial backing in exchange for the veep nod.

Kataklysmic on May 12, 2011 at 9:28 PM

Everyone needs to go read Mr. Barone’s post in the Headlines..It will be good for everyone!..:)

Dire Straits on May 12, 2011 at 9:30 PM

r keller on May 12, 2011 at 9:09 PM

They are pointing out Mitt’s lack of wisdom and of judgement. It’s one thing to support and sign bad legislation, admit the problem and move on.
It’s another to deny it was bad when everyone else knows it is.

Romneycare isn’t only costing the people of Massachusetts, it’s costing the rest of us as well.`
It was the baby of O-care.
Both of these have already cost this country billions. Add that to inferior healthcare and what’s there to be proud of?

I’m a Palin supporter because her “un-conservative” legislation, put $14 Billion into a rainy day fund for her state.
That was in a good economy.

CTSherman on May 12, 2011 at 9:33 PM

Massachusetts needs to be politically guaranteed, and I live here.

Hening on May 12, 2011 at 9:38 PM

I’m a Palin supporter because her “un-conservative” legislation, put $14 Billion into a rainy day fund for her state.
That was in a good economy.

CTSherman on May 12, 2011 at 9:33 PM

For clarity though, there’s nothing “un-conservative” about doing your best to ensure the requirements in your state’s Constitution are being carried out correctly.

powerpro on May 12, 2011 at 9:41 PM

Agreed. He may even offer Mitch some serious financial backing in exchange for the veep nod.

Kataklysmic on May 12, 2011 at 9:28 PM

I think at this point Mitt is so damaged that no one would want him on the ticket as VP. I can see Sec of Treasury or something like that in a mitch admin. In a Palin admin Mitt can be street cleaner.

unseen on May 12, 2011 at 9:42 PM

Everyone needs to go read Mr. Barone’s post in the Headlines..It will be good for everyone!..:)

Dire Straits on May 12, 2011 at 9:30 PM

I read Barone’s piece. He’s correct that Mitt is a condender and that there is no front-runner. But I have a feeling that Mitt will see almost a Trump-like drop in the polls after his speech today.

Kataklysmic on May 12, 2011 at 9:44 PM

He’s arrogant, two faced and guile.

He really is Obozo-lite.

KMC1 on May 12, 2011 at 9:46 PM

unseen on May 12, 2011 at 9:42 PM

Outreach Czar to self-loathing Republicans?

Kataklysmic on May 12, 2011 at 9:47 PM

Kataklysmic on May 12, 2011 at 9:44 PM

Maybe?..We will see!..:)

Dire Straits on May 12, 2011 at 9:48 PM

powerpro on May 12, 2011 at 9:41 PM

I wasn’t looking for you to take the bait.

CTSherman on May 12, 2011 at 9:55 PM

I wasn’t looking for you to take the bait.

CTSherman on May 12, 2011 at 9:55 PM

:D

I’ve been having an off-night.

powerpro on May 12, 2011 at 10:03 PM

Outreach Czar to self-loathing Republicans?

Kataklysmic on May 12, 2011 at 9:47 PM

I don’t really see Pres Palin having Czars of any kind. Depends on the congress I guess if they hold up her appointments then Czars are an option. I think Palin might tap Mitt to be ambassodor to the congo.

unseen on May 12, 2011 at 10:06 PM

Fork…toast…done and done. What the heck is he even doing beside diluting the mix with even the question of apologies, sucking air out of the campaign before it even starts? Any discussion of that disgusting Mass law is a drag on the whole effort to turn the country around. Get the hook.

curved space on May 12, 2011 at 10:17 PM

He’s either getting terrible advice or not taking good advice. This was a disaster.

alwaysfiredup on May 12, 2011 at 10:19 PM

Ronald Reagan signed an abortion bill into law in California, and thus was a flip flopper on the matter later.

Romney vetoed a bill authorizing the deliberate creation and destruction of embryos for research.

Not that anyone here cares about consistency in how they judge a candidate though.

scotash on May 12, 2011 at 10:31 PM

Rand Paul says what Mitt should have said:

“With regard to the idea of whether you have a right to health care, you have realize what that implies. It’s not an abstraction. I’m a physician. That means you have a right to come to my house and conscript me. It means you believe in slavery.”

Firefly_76 on May 12, 2011 at 10:31 PM

Not that anyone here cares about consistency in how they judge a candidate though.

scotash on May 12, 2011 at 10:31 PM

I actually want him to flip-flop here.

alwaysfiredup on May 12, 2011 at 10:32 PM

you all ARE paying for romneycare- the only thing that has kept the state from declaring bankruptcy because of it is the continual influx of federal dollars. for just passing the law, the feds dropped a wad of cash on MA for the delusion that they were then covering “everyone” even though previously we had one of the highest rates of insurance coverage in the nation.

romney was and is pwnd by teddy kennedy i.e. the commie wing of the democrat party. it’s all so he could have a glimmer of hope to be elected POTUS- because he was a ‘republican’ governor of one of the bluest states. romneycare was a liberal trinket/accessory in his get elected nationally murse. he signed it then strapped the family dog to the roof of the car and fled the state to campaign . used by willard the oily rat to get what he wants- and i still feel dirty.

and does all this mean, mitty, that the bill of rights does not apply to the states but only the federal government? what difference is it if it is the state that’s the plantation master or if it’s the conglomerate of states? we’re still made the slaves. unconstitutional is unconstitutional for the state and the feds or else there is no constitution.

romenycare is most certainly NOT working in MA unless mittens thinks stripping people of the right to their own bodies and earnings and forcing them into insolvency just to drive up insurance and medical costs while being dangerously short of doctors is a successful experiment to be proud of. is over a month long wait to be seen by a doctor if you even can get a primary doctor and filling the ER with free care illegals and the insured but doctor-less success to business genius mittens romney? maybe if MA admitted the failure and scrapped romenycare- but not now.

keep digging, chump.

mittens on May 12, 2011 at 10:33 PM

Not that anyone here cares about consistency in how they judge a candidate though.

scotash on May 12, 2011 at 10:31 PM

Romney’s consistent in his doubling- and tripling-down on the propriety of Romneycare. That’s good enough for me to decide he doesn’t get my vote.

gryphon202 on May 12, 2011 at 10:33 PM

mittens on May 12, 2011 at 10:33 PM

Your post is somewhat amusing given your name.
When Romney loses the guy named Mittens its really over!

sharrukin on May 12, 2011 at 10:36 PM

Ronald Reagan signed an abortion bill into law in California, and thus was a flip flopper on the matter later.

Romney vetoed a bill authorizing the deliberate creation and destruction of embryos for research.

Not that anyone here cares about consistency in how they judge a candidate though.

scotash on May 12, 2011 at 10:31 PM

Yes because the scenarios are ENTIRELY analogous.

powerpro on May 12, 2011 at 10:39 PM

I have been attempting objectively to compare and contrast the attacks on Romney and on Palin. I don’t see Romney overcoming the deeply held criticisms of him, whereas it seems to me that Palin could overcome what has been thrown at her.

GaltBlvnAtty on May 12, 2011 at 10:45 PM

I have been attempting objectively to compare and contrast the attacks on Romney and on Palin. I don’t see Romney overcoming the deeply held criticisms of him, whereas it seems to me that Palin could overcome what has been thrown at her.

GaltBlvnAtty on May 12, 2011 at 10:45 PM

Whether Sarah Palin runs or not, you can take it to the ever-loving bank that she is not going away.

gryphon202 on May 12, 2011 at 10:46 PM

After all these many months preparing, running and campaigning, brainstorming, strategerizing and THIS is what he decided to do? A simple ‘I effed up, big time. I’ve seen the light.’ would suffice. A genuine mea culpa would do. None of the other candidates is pure or unblemished. He could have said this back in ’09. He waits ’til now? Sorry, but this makes me conclude once and for all that Mitt stands for nothing, has no ideas, cannot learn and has lousy political instincts. I think he’s totally done as far as getting the nomination. Huckabee must be dancing a jig tonight.

JimP on May 12, 2011 at 10:54 PM

Huckabee must be dancing a jig tonight.

JimP on May 12, 2011 at 10:54 PM

Huck’s got problems of his own. They’ll surface soon enough.

gryphon202 on May 12, 2011 at 10:55 PM

I have been attempting objectively to compare and contrast the attacks on Romney and on Palin. I don’t see Romney overcoming the deeply held criticisms of him, whereas it seems to me that Palin could overcome what has been thrown at her.

GaltBlvnAtty on May 12, 2011 at 10:45 PM

Time will tell. If it weren’t for Reagan having walked a similar path before her (not comparing their qualifications, simply their politics and public perception) I would think her task was insurmountable. Someone of lesser political talents (see Romney) has no hope of overcoming it. If what she pulled off in Alaska weren’t such a perfect microcosm of the challenge that lay before her (taking on the GOP establishment in addition to usual suspects Dems and MSM) I would have already written her off, assuming that her mountain was too tall to climb. If she is the person I think she is, she will pull it off. If she can convince the handwringers in our party, she can convince the electorate at large.

Kataklysmic on May 12, 2011 at 10:58 PM

“Huck’s got problems of his own. They’ll surface soon enough.
gryphon202 on May 12, 2011 at 10:55 PM”

Oh yes. I’m no Huck fan. I just know how much he hates Romney. In fact we should all help to ‘out’ Huck’s issues. I know I’ve been trying to get the word out whenever I can.

JimP on May 12, 2011 at 10:59 PM

Oh yes. I’m no Huck fan. I just know how much he hates Romney. In fact we should all help to ‘out’ Huck’s issues. I know I’ve been trying to get the word out whenever I can.

JimP on May 12, 2011 at 10:59 PM

Huck’s flaws can be summed up in five words:

Maurice
Clemmons
Three
Officers
Dead

gryphon202 on May 12, 2011 at 11:01 PM

If she can convince the handwringers in our party, she can convince the electorate at large.

Kataklysmic on May 12, 2011 at 10:58 PM

Correct

CTSherman on May 12, 2011 at 11:06 PM

“I’m not sorry, it wouldn’t be honets”

So says the reigning world record holder of beach footwear…

Gohawgs on May 12, 2011 at 11:17 PM

He’s either getting terrible advice or not taking good advice. This was a disaster.

alwaysfiredup on May 12, 2011 at 10:19 PM

Well he did suck up all of McCain’s advisors after the eelction….so there is that data point…

unseen on May 12, 2011 at 11:49 PM

. It means you believe in slavery.”
Firefly_76 on May 12, 2011 at 10:31 PM

i have been saying this since Obamacare passed. The madate is involuntary servitude and is outlawed by the 13th amendment. tha tis how you attack Obamacare and the mandates. The government is outlawed from forcing anyone to work to benefit another. With the mandate we are forced by law to work to increase the profits of the insurance industry.

unseen on May 12, 2011 at 11:53 PM

Romney’s speech on RomneyCare: I’m not sorry electable.

That is all.

Tennman on May 12, 2011 at 11:56 PM

I have been attempting objectively to compare and contrast the attacks on Romney and on Palin. I don’t see Romney overcoming the deeply held criticisms of him, whereas it seems to me that Palin could overcome what has been thrown at her.

GaltBlvnAtty on May 12, 2011 at 10:45 PM

That is because the attacks on mitt are based on the truth and Palin’s are based on lies. So when people do research about the attacks they find Palin’s don’t hold up yet Mitt’s do.

unseen on May 12, 2011 at 11:56 PM

He could just have said: “look the states are where we conduct poltical and governmental experiments and boy was this a failed experiment. Now that we know how bad this thing is in practice let’s move on.” But, no, he has to explain that if only we had a really, really good technocrat in charge everything would be fine (and, by the way, I’ll repeal Obamacare, if you insist. But I can come up with something that’s almost the same but better. Just you watch).

Fred 2 on May 13, 2011 at 12:19 AM

Romney also said that O.care was responsible for the continuing econ problems…which is true (of course barry isn’t that concerned about that, more about fairness)

r keller on May 13, 2011 at 12:31 AM

I jumped up on the fence after 08 watching the RNC and GOP self destruct. Now, in 11, I’m glad I did. After 40+ years of voting the party line I get the watch the wreck unfold just as it was scripted. The good old boys are about to be towed to pit row.

Limerick on May 13, 2011 at 12:40 AM

ugh- i have never been a mittens for mitt.my cat defends her litter box accidents more convincingly than willard has ever justified romenycare.

romney is a post modern carpetbagger if ever there was one, like all republicans and ‘conservatives’ who attempt to go a-courting liberal voters.

his signing of romneycare is unforgivable- proof he supports modern slavery of the individual to the state as long as it’s local governance wielding the “experimental” whip- a whip that’s being funded by taxes from the entire country. it’s no accident romenycare has been overseen after the fact by obama mini-me de-evolve patrick, hat tricked back into office by MA unions and a bought and paid for faux independent candidate( and the republican wasn’t much better , a health insurance company and big dig hack.)

“if the slaves are said by their masters to be happy on the romneycare plantation, the bill of rights need not apply and i am proud of my daring -do in forging it?” mitt romney- such a profile in courage. what a tool.

my cat also seems to have more business sense than willard. it wouldn’t have taken a degree from B school to see romneycare was going to drive up prices and send the state reeling into financial dire straits. we’re suppose to believe he’s some mastermind of finances we so desperately need nationally after signing that piece of irresponsible filth?

freedom isn’t a trifling that some weasel elected to public office has the right to define for themselves , tailored to the requirements of their personal ambitions to power and the pocketbooks of their donors.

willard is a disgrace to the fine feline name of Mittens.

mittens on May 13, 2011 at 12:46 AM

MA: the canary in the coal mine.

AshleyTKing on May 13, 2011 at 12:47 AM

his signing of romneycare is unforgivable- proof he supports modern slavery of the individual to the state as long as it’s local governance wielding the “experimental

mittens on May 13, 2011 at 12:46 AM

Nah….just another example that flavor-of-the-month is a hard thing to let go of. They are clinging to those polls and headlines of yesteryear. Hell it worked for 40 some years and they (he) ain’t giving it up.

Triangulation, the stuff of yesterday.

Limerick on May 13, 2011 at 12:50 AM

Been away from the computer all day, but it is telling to read about the reaction to Romney’s doubling down on stupid. Uniform condemnation, and he deserves it.

Listen, he is toast. He will never be president, nor even a contender for the GOP nomination. I suspect his numbers will take a Trump-like fall in the coming months. Great news for the other contenders for the establishment GOP vote (Gingrich and Pawlenty). I know some people include Mitch Daniels on this list, but I don’t consider Daniels a viable candidate (he is in Buddy Roemer category).

Norwegian on May 13, 2011 at 1:00 AM

in the businesses that romney “saved”, did he hire more managers and supervisors per store, set up more rules, hire diversity administrators, set up classes for sexual awareness training, hire grief counselars for people in fear of losing their jobs . . . or did he cut spending, cut staffing, cut losing locations, cut, cut, cut?
you cannot cut costs by adding expenses.

mydogwonthunt on May 13, 2011 at 1:04 AM

Ronald Reagan signed an abortion bill into law in California, and thus was a flip flopper on the matter later.

Romney vetoed a bill authorizing the deliberate creation and destruction of embryos for research.

Not that anyone here cares about consistency in how they judge a candidate though.

scotash on May 12, 2011 at 10:31 PM

Reagan also later stated he regretted signing that bill. In contrast, Mittens signed Massachusetts on for socialized medicine and he apparently doesn’t regret it in the least. So your argument is not even remotely on point. Try again.

NoLeftTurn on May 13, 2011 at 1:14 AM

House Republicans have abandoned a campaign proposal by Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to draft spending bills by agency instead of lumping Cabinet departments together in bulky appropriations measures.

Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Wyo.), said drafting separate bills for each agency “decreases the flexibility” for lawmakers because it would make it harder for members to shift funds between departments during an open amendment process on the floor. from an ed morrissey story today

we all pay for health care entirely, right now. it is just that the government is not taking in enough of our money to pay for everything else that they have promised us. they shift money from one project to another.

we pay multiple insurances, gov and private. we pay for it in property taxes by county and state laws.

we pay for it in donations to organizations, and churches, and in tax credits . . .

everyone pays for it now. the government just wants more money from us.

these REPUBLICANS are CINOS: conservatives in name only.

mydogwonthunt on May 13, 2011 at 1:19 AM

Ah deception – the god of the politician. Like a powerful drug -it can make you fly – and when you get caught pretending to fly, why just spread your wings and fly some more. What do the terra-cotta challenged folks know?

Don L on May 13, 2011 at 5:42 AM

We can now expect the leftist (redundancy) media to champion Romney for the losing GOP nominee. Nothing like setting up paper tiger opponents for the Obama-messiah to chew up.

Don L on May 13, 2011 at 5:47 AM

He’s so big government voting for him would be pointless. His only good point is that he’s not (quite) as bad for the country as Obama.

{^_^}

herself on May 13, 2011 at 5:48 AM

He should primary Obama.

Saltysam on May 13, 2011 at 6:47 AM

in the businesses that romney “saved”, did he hire more managers and supervisors per store, set up more rules, hire diversity administrators, set up classes for sexual awareness training, hire grief counselars for people in fear of losing their jobs . . . or did he cut spending, cut staffing, cut losing locations, cut, cut, cut?
you cannot cut costs by adding expenses.</

What Romney did was leverage a companies assets to secure loans to pay off investors. He basically created a false positive cash flow. He kicked the can down the road leaving companies saddled with debt long after he moved on. Even his business partner at Bain said what Romney was doing is not normally done, let alone advisable if your intent is to have a healthy company years down the road.

Many of these companies failed and went bankrupt.

Sound familiar? Romney is perfect if you want to keep kicking economic responsibilities down the road. That he is great at. Don’t we already have a President and elected officials who do that now?

As for Romneycare. It was and always had been a political ploy designed to be a feather in his cap when he ran for President. A quote from the Boston Globe:

Mr. Romney assembled a team and presented proposals in late 2004, the same time that Mr. Travaglini gave a speech urging expanded health coverage, but with a more incremental plan. Mr. Kennedy, often a rival of Mr. Romney, gave the governor’s more ambitious proposal a guardedly positive reception that encouraged Democratic leaders to work with Mr. Romney’s template.
Boston Globe 4/6/2006

The often argued Romney was forced into signing Romneycare is an absolute lie. He had been planning this as far back as 2002:

In November 2004, nearly two years after his meeting with Stemberg, Romney was finally ready to go public with the beginnings of a plan. As it evolved, it became a proposal to achieve an end that liberals had long dreamed of”
TIme 11/2/2007

In short, it is my opinion the guy is a carpetbagging hustler who is about as authentic as plastic flowers, Obama’s birth certificate, and Kieth Olbermann as a real hard hitting journalist.

mikkins on May 13, 2011 at 6:50 AM

How refreshing, an honest progressive!

csdeven on May 13, 2011 at 8:02 AM

Palin’s are based on lies. So when people do research about the attacks they find Palin’s don’t hold up yet Mitt’s do.

unseen on May 12, 2011 at 11:56 PM

Bwahahahahaha!!!! Riiiiight! I’m glad you keep reminding everyone that Palin did not abdicate her governorship.

csdeven on May 13, 2011 at 8:06 AM

Better to stand firm and at least try to undo the perception that he’ll say anything to get elected.

But he won’t get elected anyway.

Sherman1864 on May 13, 2011 at 8:08 AM

8:06 am = child in the backseat poking others…

Gohawgs on May 13, 2011 at 8:10 AM

As sayeth the Bard, “The whole world is a stage” and politicians are always the best actors. But, then it is the audience who applauds them for the high quality of their professional deceit, that is the problem.

As St Paul told us, we would seek out those who would tickle our ears.

Don L on May 13, 2011 at 8:22 AM

8:06 am = child in the backseat poking others…

Gohawgs on May 13, 2011 at 8:10 AM

So Palin DID NOT abdicate her governorship? Your idiotic narrative on Palin so well known that you don’t dare defend her and would rather use the ad hominem attack to deflect.

Yeah, that will work to get her elected. hahahahaha

csdeven on May 13, 2011 at 8:53 AM

csdeven on May 13, 2011 at 8:53 AM

Haha.

I laugh at you.

Brian1972 on May 13, 2011 at 8:58 AM

In the last election cycle I supported him. Now that I have more info I feel no enthusiasm about him. He is pretty much toast. When a person cannot admit that they made a mistake they cannot lead in the way that we really need at this time in history.

ReneePA on May 13, 2011 at 9:19 AM

csdeven on May 13, 2011 at 8:53 AM

Abdicate? That’s all you got? LOL.

littleguy on May 13, 2011 at 9:22 AM

So Palin DID NOT abdicate her governorship? Your idiotic narrative on Palin so well known that you don’t dare defend her and would rather use the ad hominem attack to deflect.

Yeah, that will work to get her elected. hahahahaha

csdeven on May 13, 2011 at 8:53 AM

As usual, you stink of ignorance and failure, worm. No one said she didn’t abdicate her governorship. It’s all the information that you leave out that makes you Grade-A PATHETIC. Try again, douchebag.

gryphon202 on May 13, 2011 at 9:23 AM

When a person cannot admit that they made a mistake ….

It’s not about making a mistake, but in getting caught in a lie. And now, just as Satan quoted scripture to God,we hear him hiding behind the virtue of honesty-as if honesty is a stand-alone virtue.

For the morally challenged folks who are taken in with his flawed defense: “I’m gonna kill you buddy, after I take all your money and do your wife,” is honesty too.

Don L on May 13, 2011 at 9:25 AM

csdeven on May 13, 2011 at 8:06 AM

I find your constant Bwahahahahaha-ing rather grating. Two has would be sufficient to convey your meaning–although, at this point, seeing your handle apart from any comment would be enough for most here to divine what you are thinking (i.e., “Quitter!!1!1″ “Abdication!!1!1″ “Unelectable!!1!1″).

steebo77 on May 13, 2011 at 9:39 AM

It’s not that he doesn’t think this issue is hanging over his head like a sword…
It’s that he thinks, even if it falls, it won’t get through that hair.

SKYFOX on May 13, 2011 at 9:57 AM

Abdicate? That’s all you got? LOL.

littleguy on May 13, 2011 at 9:22 AM

That is all that is needed.

csdeven on May 13, 2011 at 9:59 AM

gryphon202 on May 13, 2011 at 9:23 AM

Look up the definition of “abdicate” idiot. Oh that’s right, you don’t have to because in the Palin universe, facts do not matter.

csdeven on May 13, 2011 at 10:00 AM

Look up the definition of “abdicate” idiot. Oh that’s right, you don’t have to because in the Palin universe, facts do not matter.

csdeven on May 13, 2011 at 10:00 AM

Facts do matter. It’s all the facts that you leave out that make you look like an idiot.

gryphon202 on May 13, 2011 at 10:04 AM

Abdicate? That’s all you got? LOL.

littleguy on May 13, 2011 at 9:22 AM

That is all that is needed.

csdeven on May 13, 2011 at 9:59 AM

Well, you hope anyway. Which is why you have to keep repeating it 768 times a thread.

pseudoforce on May 13, 2011 at 10:20 AM

Well, you hope anyway. Which is why you have to keep repeating it 768 times a thread.

pseudoforce on May 13, 2011 at 10:20 AM

Which is simply a response to the 768 claims by the Palinista’s that she didn’t abdicate.

csdeven on May 13, 2011 at 10:34 AM

Which is simply a response to the 768 claims by the Palinista’s that she didn’t abdicate.

csdeven on May 13, 2011 at 10:34 AM

Bwahahahahaha! What a douchebag! Spin any faster, and you’ll upchuck from the vertigo!

/snark

gryphon202 on May 13, 2011 at 10:37 AM

Facts do matter. It’s all the facts that you leave out that make you look like an idiot.

gryphon202 on May 13, 2011 at 10:04 AM

The definition of abdicate doesn’t require a reason for the abdication. Palin abdicated and all the reasons you cite for it do not mitigate that fact. It may inform your opinion as to the so-called righteousness of her abdication. As I have pointed out to you several times, no one except the Palinista will sit through the 10 minute explanation of why she did it. People will simply ask “Did she quit?”. The 15 second answer, that her opponents, dem and rep alike will use in TV ads, is most assuredly “YES!”.

Now Palin can spend 60 seconds explaining why she abdicated, but rather than change any ones mind, she will simply be compared to the ad which ran saying…”I am not a witch.”.

That my obtuse Palinista, is a loser.

csdeven on May 13, 2011 at 10:40 AM

The definition of abdicate doesn’t require a reason for the abdication. Palin abdicated and all the reasons you cite for it do not mitigate that fact. It may inform your opinion as to the so-called righteousness of her abdication. As I have pointed out to you several times, no one except the Palinista will sit through the 10 minute explanation of why she did it. People will simply ask “Did she quit?”. The 15 second answer, that her opponents, dem and rep alike will use in TV ads, is most assuredly “YES!”.

Now Palin can spend 60 seconds explaining why she abdicated, but rather than change any ones mind, she will simply be compared to the ad which ran saying…”I am not a witch.”.

That my obtuse Palinista, is a loser.

csdeven on May 13, 2011 at 10:40 AM

Indeed, everything you have just said is correct on its face. But that you would accuse me, of all people, of being obtuse, is laughably ironic, since you say her reasons for quitting have no bearing on her electability. In the end, your opinions are of little consequence to me. As long as you continue to obscure the difference between fact and opinion, you are and will continue to be a spineless low-crawling worm.

gryphon202 on May 13, 2011 at 10:44 AM

csdeven on May 13, 2011 at 10:40 AM

So, you finally admit that Palin’s decision, announced on July 3, 2009, was a righteous one?

steebo77 on May 13, 2011 at 10:46 AM

People will simply ask “Did she quit?”. The 15 second answer, that her opponents, dem and rep alike will use in TV ads, is most assuredly “YES!”.

csdeven on May 13, 2011 at 10:40 AM

Opponents will have a hard time making an issue of her decision in the primary. As for the general, her 5-second answer to your “YES!” would be “When hasn’t Obama quit?”

steebo77 on May 13, 2011 at 10:49 AM

Huck’s flaws can be summed up in five words:

Maurice
Clemmons
ThreeOfficers
Dead

gryphon202 on May 12, 2011 at 11:01 PM

FIFY

But, Maurice “found Jesus” in jail. THAT’S THE PROBLEM with having a Baptist Preacher for Gov. (however, my daddy was one and he’d fry everyone !- he was hard-a$$ on crime)

stenwin77 on May 13, 2011 at 10:52 AM

Huck’s flaws can be summed up in five words:

Maurice
Clemmons
ThreeFOUR
Officers
Dead

gryphon202 on May 12, 2011 at 11:01 PM

FIFM

stenwin77 on May 13, 2011 at 10:52 AM

Indeed, everything you have just said is correct on its face.

gryphon202 on May 13, 2011 at 10:44 AM

The fact is that no one will sit and listen to her explanation. And even if they did, they would have to be convinced. Some will reject it out of hand, others will dig a little deeper. And still others will not judge her for her actions, but rather wonder how she can expect anyone to vote for her when she felt her responsibility to finish out her term was not as important as her family’s wealth and having to defend herself. They will extrapolate that over to the presidency. And that being a much tougher job, and considering the attacks that are leveled against her now, it’s clear that the attacks on her will become more vicious. If she can’t/wont handle a little state like Alaska, how can she handle the world?

And that is ONLY the issue of her abdication! She will then have all the problems any other republican candidate will have is the area of conservatism.

csdeven on May 13, 2011 at 10:53 AM

I’m going to step away from the keyboard before someone gets hurt.

IT WAS FOUR OFFICERS THAT WERE KILLED !

stenwin77 on May 13, 2011 at 10:53 AM

“When hasn’t Obama quit?”

steebo77 on May 13, 2011 at 10:49 AM

Walking back the insanity of Obama’s policies does not mean electing another quitter.

csdeven on May 13, 2011 at 10:54 AM

csdeven on May 13, 2011 at 10:40 AM
So, you finally admit that Palin’s decision, announced on July 3, 2009, was a righteous one?

steebo77 on May 13, 2011 at 10:46 AM

She effectively “quit” to be VP. How would it have been any different if she were VP?

After her run, they were after her. Her state was in excellent shape (thanks to HER) and she didn’t see how all the constant legal costs would help her state in any way.

I think it was the ABSOLUTE right thing to do. She accomplished more in 2 years than most govs do in 8.

(down deep, don’t you wish Obama would resign before he does any more damage?

stenwin77 on May 13, 2011 at 10:56 AM

So, you finally admit that Palin’s decision, announced on July 3, 2009, was a righteous one?

steebo77 on May 13, 2011 at 10:46 AM

I have purposely refused to give you my opinion because it is not germane to the point. You Palinista’s would then focus on me instead of the facts that will play out in the primary and the general if she gets the nomination. Your 10:46 comment is the perfect example. Instead of addressing the comment, you want to make it about me. A favorite tactic of you Palinista’s. Your argument is defeated, so you resort to the ad hominem attack.

csdeven on May 13, 2011 at 10:57 AM

Walking back the insanity of Obama’s policies does not mean electing another quitter.

csdeven on May 13, 2011 at 10:54 AM

It doesn’t not mean it either.

steebo77 on May 13, 2011 at 10:58 AM

Instead of addressing the comment, you want to make it about me. A favorite tactic of you Palinista’s. Your argument is defeated, so you resort to the ad hominem attack.

csdeven on May 13, 2011 at 10:57 AM

Who is responsible for the comments you make? You, or the strawman?

portlandon on May 13, 2011 at 11:00 AM

Instead of addressing the comment, you want to make it about me. A favorite tactic of you Palinista’s. Your argument is defeated, so you resort to the ad hominem attack.

csdeven on May 13, 2011 at 10:57 AM

My argument has been defeated? That’s news to me.

And how was my 10:46 comment an ad hominem? Asking your opinion is now considered an attack? I was just pointing out that you seem to have more or less ceded the point that her “abdication” was “righteous” (to use your words). If you can be convinced of that, then why not any other American? (Wait, is that an ad hominem attack on all Americans?)

steebo77 on May 13, 2011 at 11:01 AM

She effectively “quit” to be VP.

I think it was the ABSOLUTE right thing to do. She accomplished more in 2 years than most govs do in 8.

stenwin77 on May 13, 2011 at 10:56 AM

How can she quit to be the VP when she lost the election 9 months before she quit? This sounds like more Palinista’s pretzel logic.

So, all politicians should quit while they are ahead instead of fulfilling their obligation?

csdeven on May 13, 2011 at 11:01 AM

csdeven on May 13, 2011 at 11:01 AM

She would have had to quit to become VP if the campaign had been successful. Everyone knew this when she signed on. How is that pretzel logic?

steebo77 on May 13, 2011 at 11:05 AM

I was just pointing out that you seem to have more or less ceded the point that her “abdication” was “righteous” (to use your words).

steebo77 on May 13, 2011 at 11:01 AM

Bwahahahaha!!! You Palinista’s are shameless! The context of “righteousness” was clearly not ceding the point!

your opinion as to the so-called righteousness of her abdication.

Palin: “I did not quit, er um uhhh,…..I AM NOT A WITCH!”

csdeven on May 13, 2011 at 11:06 AM

She would have had to quit to become VP if the campaign had been successful. Everyone knew this when she signed on. How is that pretzel logic?

steebo77 on May 13, 2011 at 11:05 AM

Exactly what grade are you in? Or are you subscribing to the Clinton definition of the word “IF”? IF she had won, then she would have quit to take up a different job. That is vastly different than abdication of ones governorship because things got too tough.

csdeven on May 13, 2011 at 11:09 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5