Oh my: Pawlenty attacks “ObamneyCare”

posted at 2:00 pm on June 12, 2011 by Allahpundit

Via the Corner, I can’t shake the strange feeling that (a) we might hear him use this coinage again on the trail a time or two, starting tomorrow night in New Hampshire, and (b) the expected gang-up on Romney at the CNN debate is going to be way fiercer — and more entertaining — than anyone expected.

Just one question: Will it work?

According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Sunday morning, three-quarters of Republicans and GOP leaning independent voters say they want a party nominee who can defeat President Barack Obama in 2012, even if that person doesn’t agree with them on every issue. That’s up seven percentage points from January…

The poll takes a closer look at how Republicans perceive the five best-known candidates or potential candidates for the nomination. Two-thirds say that Romney can beat the president in the general election; a majority also say that about Giuliani, but most Republicans think that Obama would beat Palin, Gingrich or Paul.

Who is qualified to be president? According to the survey, three-quarters say that Giuliani and Romney are qualified; six in 10 say the same about Palin, but she still lags well behind on that score.

Palin’s got the highest favorable rating in the field, and fully eight in 10 Republicans think she agrees with them on the issues that matter most (versus just 64 percent who say the same of Romney). Eight in 10 also say she represents the values of Republicans like themselves. So there’s your not-at-all surprising narrative frame for a potential Romney/Palin showdown, or maybe even a potential Romney/Perry showdown: How much ObamneyCare-type heresy will primary voters tolerate from Mitt before they decide that they can’t pull that lever, even if he has an electability advantage in the general that they covet?

Two clips for you here, one of Pawlenty this morning and the other of Pawlenty from five years ago where he heaps praise on Romney for his health-care initiative. Note the part in the latter where he says requiring insurance is a “worthy goal and one that we’re intrigued by and, I think, at least open to,” and also the bit near the end where he acknowledges that “I think a mandate by itself is potentially helpful.” If you missed this clip the first time I posted it, watch it now, because Romney’s surely preparing to throw it back in his face tomorrow night. Exit question: When T-Paw told Chris Wallace this morning, vis-a-vis the more confrontational candidates in the field, that “I’m not running for comedian- in-chief, or entertainer-in-chief,” who did he mean? Hmmmm.

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 6 7 8

Romney can’t win the general election.

A) there is not enough difference between him and Obama (he is, after all, the architect of Obamacare by virture of Romeycare);

B) despite our wish that it were not so, there is a percentage of the gop base – evenagelicals – who are likely to sit out rather than vote for a mormon;

C) There is probably a decent percentage of conservatives that will sit out rather than vote for someone as non-conservative as Romney;

D) he is boring – he is not going to excite independents or anyone else to vote for him – buch less donate $$ or volunteer for him;

E) he is a terrible campaigner. His campaign will be McCain II – weak, timid and unwilling or unable to take on Obama in an agressive way;

B and C alone will probably sink Romney. In this 50/50 country, if 5% of your normal voting base stays home, you can’t win. When you add in that independents are not going to be won over by Romney in any kind of large #s, how does he win. His only path to victory in the general is to hope that the economy continues to tank and that he doesn’t make any huge gaffs. That is theoretically possible, but his odds are not as good as polls suggest or people want to think.

In this environment B and C might not kill Romey if it weren for “D” (boring) and “E” (lousy campaining). But when you lose part of your base and can’t pick up very many indendents or dems, how do you win?

I just don’t see Romney beating Obama. I know conventional wisdom is that he has the best chance out of all the current GOP field, but I don’t buy it. He polls well now in head-to-head polls b/c people are dissatisfied with Obama and Romney is well known and non-threatening. But wait until the media/Obama onslaught, plus the conservative defections and the liberal base coming home to Obama.

I don’t hate Romney and would vote for him if he is the nominee (he is not even close to my top choice, but I would pull the lever for him over Obama), but I don’t think a persuasive reason to vote for Romney in the primary is that “he could win the general”. I don’t think that is really true.

Monkeytoe on June 13, 2011 at 8:45 AM

The thread’s about Pawlenty who is no Reagan, though Tim wishes otherwise.

scotash on June 13, 2011 at 5:39 AM

We were young marrieds during the Carter and Reagan administrations. Economically, it was a no win for those entering the work force and for those lacking seniority in the work force. Under the Democrats, there was secure employment that suffered horrendously high taxation and obscenely high 30%+ interest rates. Under the Republicans, we suffered the depletion of America’s manufacturing industry (aerospace, auto, etc.) and unemployment was horrendous, but taxes and interest rates were lower. So the two parties played out poorly with six of one, half dozen of the other for deciding who was “best” at that point.

As wonderful an American icon as he was representing “American Exceptionalism” (as if an export commodity), the great Ronald Reagan was not perfect. But he most certainly was “a great American” with his heart in the right place, and I do admire his memory.

Reagan’s administration was neoconservative. He was not an ideologue, but ready to do whatever it took to be a forcefully sovereign power. He did not represent constitutional conservatism across the board, nor was he fiscally conservative when push came to shove. Under the veneer of his Myth constructed by the GOP, of course one recognizes some failure alongside Reagan’s grand accomplishments.

Get past the “exceptionalism” fetish that uses US tax funds to finance wars abroad without congressional approval, being the POTUS responsible for establishing precedence to independently instigate foreign revolutions to depose one strong man for another of his own (Reagan’s) choosing (read Jean Kirkpatrick).

Re: Constitutional Rights
Finding himself the target of an attempted assassination, Reagan promoted the Brady Bill erosion of the American constitutional right to legally own and carry a gun.

No one is perfect. Realizing his flaws hardly makes Reagan a bad person or a bad president. But when calling yourself a “Reagan Conservative” realize what all that means. Look just how far out of control things have spun from the Oval Office since Reagan established the precedence to deceive Americans with the best intentions, of course.

As far as I was concerned, American Exceptionalism meant “being our best”. I really like Reagan’s memory. While he was POTUS and since, I’ve shared his love of America and his love for the American traditional ideals of “being our best” that he promoted without rancor. No one can accurately charge Reagan as an ideologue. He knew what was “right” and did his best to make things work out for the right. He relied heavily on his neoconservative Cabinet of advisers; and had he the chance to do everything differently, he would not be so obtuse as to say that he wouldn’t change a thing from his record.

Finally, I’m not going to fight over uncomfortable historical records that some readers just won’t face from the epic era of Reagan’s administration. My views aren’t simply formed from having been there, but are shaped further by what all has come since from the eventful Reagan era and each subsequent administration.

maverick muse on June 13, 2011 at 9:25 AM

E) he is a terrible campaigner.

His supporters will sing of his fundraising success with fat cats.

That Mitt Romney is NOT conservative is why I will vote for a candidate who is conservative, specifically a constitutional conservative for limited government (limited powers and spending) and limited taxes.

Romney launched his ’12 campaign where his ’08 campaign failed: “PROMISE THEM ANYTHING FOR THEIR VOTE.”

maverick muse on June 13, 2011 at 9:31 AM

apparent foreordination.

csdeven on June 13, 2011 at 6:37 AM

Ha ha ha. What a funny joke.

Why don’t you drive your Conestoga Wagon into the Pacific now.

steebo77 on June 13, 2011 at 9:39 AM

Ha ha ha. What a funny joke.

Why don’t you drive your Conestoga Wagon into the Pacific now.

steebo77 on June 13, 2011 at 9:39 AM

FINALLY!!! After what three hints?

Now, can you figure out the “LOUIS” reference?

csdeven on June 13, 2011 at 10:07 AM

Like Newt, Romney’s negatives outweigh his positives. He looks too much like a Democrat running for a Republican nomination. Of course he will skip the Iowa straw poll; the more people know him the worse he does.

Pawlenty or Perry look more likely to win the nomination.

Roy Rogers on June 13, 2011 at 10:19 AM

Ronald Reagan created a mandate that forces hospitals to treat all patients who cannot pay.

Tea Party, how will you pay for Reagan’s mandate?

scotash on June 13, 2011 at 5:39 AM

Desperation. Romneycare can’t be defended any other way than to pretend that individual mandates have always been a conservative position! and Reagan did it too!

Of course, everyone who says this gives away that he’s a Romney supporter. So when it’s coupled with an attack on Palin criticizing “mandates,” then you know where it’s coming from.

tom on June 13, 2011 at 10:19 AM

FINALLY!!! After what three hints?

Now, can you figure out the “LOUIS” reference?

csdeven on June 13, 2011 at 10:07 AM

No one still has any idea what you’re talking about with all of this “apparent foreordination” crap. What point were/are you still/will you be forever trying to make?

steebo77 on June 13, 2011 at 10:29 AM

No one still has any idea what you’re talking about with all of this “apparent foreordination” crap. What point were/are you still/will you be forever trying to make?

steebo77 on June 13, 2011 at 10:29 AM

Holy crap! I thought you figured it out! You are soooooo close!

csdeven on June 13, 2011 at 10:33 AM

Desperation. Romneycare can’t be defended any other way than to pretend that individual mandates have always been a conservative position! and Reagan did it too!

Of course, everyone who says this gives away that he’s a Romney supporter. So when it’s coupled with an attack on Palin criticizing “mandates,” then you know where it’s coming from.

tom on June 13, 2011 at 10:19 AM

I don’t think that mandates are a conservative position, but it was the idea that a private company had to provide for citizens that opened the door for folks to start believing that health care is a God given right to be provided by the federal government. Now that the burden has become onerous, the politicians are looking for ways to keep the program. And their solution is to expand the program! Absolutely misguided thinking!

csdeven on June 13, 2011 at 10:37 AM

tom – you nailed it.

res ipsa loquitur

Roy Rogers on June 13, 2011 at 10:40 AM

Holy crap! I thought you figured it out! You are soooooo close!

csdeven on June 13, 2011 at 10:33 AM

What was/is your point as it relates to the original focus of that thread? What does it have to do with Palin and the topic that was being discussed?

steebo77 on June 13, 2011 at 10:44 AM

steebo77 on June 13, 2011 at 10:29 AM

I’m not really understanding the deeper meaning of the term either.

Then again I don’t go for people who throw out odd or obscure comments and then apparently feel superior because no one else “gets” it.

Bishop on June 13, 2011 at 10:53 AM

Then again I don’t go for people who throw out odd or obscure comments and then apparently feel superior because no one else “gets” it.

Bishop on June 13, 2011 at 10:53 AM

csdeven channels Oswald Bates

Roy Rogers on June 13, 2011 at 10:55 AM

steebo77 on June 13, 2011 at 10:29 AM

I’m not really understanding the deeper meaning of the term either.

Then again I don’t go for people who throw out odd or obscure comments and then apparently feel superior because no one else “gets” it.

Bishop on June 13, 2011 at 10:53 AM

But …. they’re so cool! Logically, then, everyone else is not!

tom on June 13, 2011 at 10:55 AM

Ronald Reagan created a mandate that forces hospitals to treat all patients who cannot pay.

Tea Party, how will you pay for Reagan’s mandate?

scotash on June 13, 2011 at 5:39 AM

Those mandates were just as wrong as any being discussed now. the idea that b/c Reagan made some mistake, we cannot realize the mistake and be against it now is infantile. I, for one, believe that private institutions should be able to turn away anyone who can’t pay full price for services.

If we are truly as a society to decide that health care is a “right” taht must be provided, then there is simply no way for it to not be socialized. And, mandating that a private institution provide services regardless of ability to pay is a form of enslavement. why is that any different than mandating that a restaurant serve anyone who comes in even if you know the person is not going to pay?

We have to defeat teh idea that health care is a “right.” Now, we as a society may decide that we want gov’t to provide some level of health care to those unable to pay for their own, but that is not the same thing as health care being a “right”.

If it is a right, then you are entitled to the very latest, up-to-date treatment, tests, medicines, etc., regardless of cost and/or benefit (i.e., a 95 year old getting a heart transplant). If gov’t merely provides some level of care for those most in need – then it is a whole different ball game, and is much more reasonable.

Monkeytoe on June 13, 2011 at 10:56 AM

I’m not really understanding the deeper meaning of the term either.

Then again I don’t go for people who throw out odd or obscure comments and then apparently feel superior because no one else “gets” it.

Bishop on June 13, 2011 at 10:53 AM

He’s (repeatedly) making an oblique reference to Manifest Destiny, but for what purpose no one knows.

steebo77 on June 13, 2011 at 11:15 AM

No one still has any idea what you’re talking about with all of this “apparent foreordination” crap. What point were/are you still/will you be forever trying to make?

steebo77 on June 13, 2011 at 10:29 AM

Stop feeding the troll.

fossten on June 13, 2011 at 11:17 AM

Stop feeding the troll.

fossten on June 13, 2011 at 11:17 AM

Alright.

steebo77 on June 13, 2011 at 11:30 AM

I didn’t like Pawlenty’s politician-typical evasive answer. The question wasn’t about the similarities, it was, IMO, about the constitutionality of state versus federal right to make such mandates. Politicians are generally worthless to hear from and he seems like another waste-your-time politician. Real information is just not part of their game.

Chessplayer on June 13, 2011 at 11:31 AM

He’s (repeatedly) making an oblique reference to Manifest Destiny, but for what purpose no one knows.

steebo77 on June 13, 2011 at 11:15 AM

See! You did finally get it. And do you know who coined the term?

csdeven on June 13, 2011 at 2:23 PM

See! You did finally get it. And do you know who coined the term?

csdeven on June 13, 2011 at 2:23 PM

I always got it. What I don’t get is its relevance to anything that was being discussed, ever. Furthermore, what relevance does the origins of the term have to anything that was being discussed, ever?

steebo77 on June 13, 2011 at 3:06 PM

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8