haner on November 29, 2011 at 8:19 PM

Come on! If you are going to try and slam someone for their position at least get the facts about it straight. Having legal residency does not grant you citizenship or the right to vote. Only having legal status means you can still be deported pretty easily if you break the law. You make it sound like Newt is in support for an open borders policy which is the furthest from the truth. I know there are a lot of butt hurt folks out there that are mad because their candidate chose not to run in the first place or can’t seem to get over 5% in any poll or really have no coherent ideas on policy, can’t debate or cannot admit that they were wrong on passing some huge piece of legislation. There is at least one though that admits they were wrong to do some of the things that they did and gave them better clarity on how to go forward.

BACHMANN 2012!!! The candidate with convictions.

Congratulations. There’s nothing in life as good the feeling of being in love.
Basilsbest on November 29, 2011 at 10:29 PM

I’m a Gingrich worshipper! Yes, that must be it.

If you can’t see the proactive energy and basic dramatic structure in a Gingrich answer — the obvious sense enjoyment in getting into the issue — as opposed to Romney’s choppy defensiveness and uneasiness, that’s a shame.

He constantly refers to his “book,” a true tell as to his discomfort with extemporizing on the issues.

If you want to dispute that, I understand. I don’t deny Romney is glib and talks up a storm

Good grief rrpjr, make up your mind.

Gingrich, on the other hands, makes the salient points from his books come to life in the moment

Congratulations. There’s nothing in life as good the feeling of being in love.

There are three possible solutions. The first one is presumably the libertarian position: turn them away. Good luck defending that.

The second solution is to provide treatment and then chase the patient into bankruptcy and then tax the public to pay the deficiency. This position is so inefficient it sounds like it must be the liberal position (but apparently it’s not).

The third solution is the individual mandate. Everyone is responsible to provide for their own coverage. (This solution is efficient and rational. It must be the conservative position but, curiously, apparently, it’s not).

Those who oppose the individual mandate at the state level do so based on confused ideology rather than reason.

You can have the coercion of the individual mandate or the coercion of higher taxes which make the responsible pick up the costs of the irresponsible. Either way you have coercion. Romney’s coercion is more rational than the coercion of taxing the responsible to pay for the irresponsible.

Romney wasn’t being attacked, so your use of the expression stand up is a tell.

What tell? He can’t stand up. Period.

How did he misrepresent Gingrich’s views? He did not.

He made a throwaway remark about Gingrich’s support of amnesty. Gingrich does not support amnesty. This was a continuation to his earlier opportunistic attack — which was a hasty and weasely rejoinder to begin with. Romney has made the same statements about long-term illegal residents as Gingrich.

The list of alleged inconsistencies was accurate, but he took issue with whether he has in fact been inconsistent on those issues. He stood up to the claim he has been inconsistent on a lot of issues.

Huh? The list was accurate. Period. The tapes exist of his flip-flopping on each issue.

And Romney responded appropriately to each one. Charles Krauthammer, whose intelligence and objectivity are preferable to some anonymous commenter like you, said Romney he did fine.

Strawman. I’m referring to his remark about the “unusual” interview. As to whether he responded “appropriately” to each question, I think you are correct — his answers were appropriate for Mitt Romney. (But if Krauthammer reports that the RINO did well, I guess that settles it.)

No, this is classic anti-Romney moronism

If you say it’s moronic to point out a tic of noticeable rhetorical oddity in the heat of political engagement, so be it. This tic was evident in his debates with Ted Kennedy in 1994 as well. He has a habit of blurting odd comments under pressure. Some men bear down and focus under pressure, but Romney, in addition to these peculiar eruptions, just prattles on more rapidly and squirmily. It is not confidence inspiring.

Romney speaks extemporaneously with ease. Read the book. You won’t be so ignorant.
Basilsbest on November 29, 2011 at 9:40 PM

I’m not sure how reading the book (or, more to the point, how writing the book) has anything to do with my judgment about his extemporaneous skills or his actual skills. They are different forms of communication. Again, the fact he refers to the book so many times indicates to me that he wishes to escape the interview. “Read the book,” he keeps saying, as a way of releasing the pressure. Gingrich, on the other hands, makes the salient points from his books come to life in the moment. If you want to dispute that, I understand. I don’t deny Romney is glib and talks up a storm. But, unlike Gingrich, and even some of the others, he doesn’t ever seem confidently engaged in the moment. He’s filling up the air with words. Like a game show getting through to the next commercial break.

So, if I drive drunk and kill someone, that’s the fault Anheuser Busch and Honda? Give me a break….Romney is responsible for signing Romneycare…..not Newt, and not Heritage. A bad idea is a bad idea, no matter who proposes it. Universal health care wouldn’t be a good conservative idea if Heritage proposed it. Using your own silly logic, Obama isn’t responsible for Obamacare, and we should be ok with it anyway since Newt and Heritage proposed a similar theft of liberty.
a health care mandate didn’t originate with the Heritage Foundation.

xblade on November 29, 2011 at 9:02 PM

The concept of “moral courage” is utterly blasphemous evil to Romney supporters.

If Romney is the nominee, he’s going to choose *drum roll*…Bob McDonnell (Governor of Virginia).

SouthernGent on November 29, 2011 at 7:50 PM

Romney would still lose Virginia in the General Election. :-(

But the anger towards Romney is undeserved and misplaced.

Conservative Samizdat

Gee, maybe the conjunction of the heroic efforts of Soviet citizens against tyranny with the base moral cowardice of Mitt Romney might irritate a few people.

I think what it is is some people just don’t want Romney to show any strength because that runs contrary to your needs to ruin and embarrass the man.

Lourdes on November 29, 2011 at 9:54 PM

Keep pluckin’ that chicken.

Since it always seems to take Hot Air a really looong time to vet the flavors of the month, here’s a story about Newt’s flip flopping on the healthcare mandate.

Newt supported the healthcare mandate strongly as recently as 2005, even 2008.

At least Mitt has framed his support within the 10th amendment of the US Constitution and the MA Constitution.

Newt has nowhere to go on this, he clearly wanted the mandate on a national scale.

“I mean, I am very opposed to a single-payer system — but I’m actually in favor of a 300 million-payer system.” Newt Gingrich

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/11/flashback-gingrich-championed-the-mandate-as-300-million-payer-system—-in-2005.php

BTW, why does anyone think Newt can win a general election? Has he ever run a national campaign before? Has he ever won in a blue state as a Republican? Is there evidence that he has any crossover appeal? Why do people think Newt from the House of Reps can win the presidency and Michelle Bachmann can’t?

sheryl on November 29, 2011 at 8:07 PM

Great post sheryl, but don’t expect a substantive response from anyone on this site.

Are you suggesting The Heritage Foundation didn’t support an individual mandate? If not, what’s your point?

Basilsbest on November 29, 2011 at 9:46 PM

Well, at least Heritage has seen the error of its ways. Romney hasn’t.

McCain’s enthusiasm numbers went from 30% to 70% among registered Republicans. Romney will likely need a similar bump.
====================================================

Or,a Miracle!!

canopfor on November 29, 2011 at 8:10 PM

True. The funny thing is, Bachmann — who’s all but dropped off the radar — is going to build enthusiasm for Romney? LOL

portlandon on November 29, 2011 at 7:46 PM

TXUS on November 29, 2011 at 8:03 PM

And where was all this intense worry when McCain was loop-dee-looing all over the issues and trying to slap the knuckles of Republican voters?

Romney didn’t behave abnormally, wasn’t a problem for anyone including himself, didn’t display bad temper, he WADED THROUGH Brett’s questions with patience and repetition, despite it being obvious to everyone (including Romney) that Brett was posing rhetorical editorializing “questions” about issues that Romney’s addressed hundreds of thousands of times already.

I think what it is is some people just don’t want Romney to show any strength because that runs contrary to your needs to ruin and embarrass the man.

If Bachmann’s former campaign manager Ed Rollins is to be believed, she’s gunning to be Romney’s No. 2.

Some of us were called insane tinfoil-hat-wearing h8ers for even suggesting such a horrible thing just a few months ago. Good times, good times.

I heard Mitt got testy with Brett Bair on Fox. Can anyone confirm this?

portlandon on November 29, 2011 at 7:46 PM

Yes, actually pissy, on three or four occasions. In one such instance, he implied that Brett hadn’t done his homework, in another that Brett was being disingenuous in only partially quoting him, and in another, if I recall, that he, Romney, had already answered the Romneycare questions “100 times” even in the last debate in case “you missed what I had to say”, or something to that effect.

Romney was uncharacteristically and overly defensive, almost in attack mode, and unnecessary, IMO. He did himself no favors in the interview.

TXUS on November 29, 2011 at 8:03 PM

Oh, for Heaven’s sake, the two of you sound like girly boys in the girls’ locker room trying to look serious that you’ve a reason to be there.

If anyone was weird in that interview, it was Brett Baier (spelled?) who looked like he was holding back the tears while asking repetitive, nearly lame ‘questions’ of Romney.

Romney answered his questions and appeared to understand and even acknowledge that there was a “more lame than usual” aspect to the questioner, Brett.

Sometimes you boys have to grow up and let a man confront a taunt or two and not get all vaklempt about him doing it.

You know, with Gingrich’s bombastic snarling at nearly every turn at nearly everyone at some point or another, and Palin’s screaming ridicule of just about everyone else except ‘Alahhsakah’…then Romney comes on a Fox interview and is more direct than some people are comfortable with while not raising his voice or ridiculing anyone but answering the repetitive “questions” that he’s answered now five hundred thousand times while interviewers continue to bear that “we don’t understand this”…you know, I’m surprised Romney didn’t get up and end the interview just to make Brett feel more comfortable in his hour of near-tears.

Try again. The idea of a health care mandate didn’t originate with the Heritage Foundation. xblade on November 29, 2011 at 9:02 PM

Are you suggesting The Heritage Foundation didn’t support an individual mandate? If not, what’s your point?

PappyD61 on November 29, 2011 at 8:40 PM

C’mon, Pappy! Bachmann and Santorum are the bug-eyed conservatives in the race. Palin outclasses them by far, but Rubio… a squish? That guy is amazing at articulating conservative principles.

And that’s coming from a huge fan of the Pappy plan, although after Obama, I’d call for more aggressive cuts across the board.

You can’t watch this interview and come away with any confidence this man can stand up to the national media.

Romney wasn’t being attacked, so your use of the expression stand up is a tell.

First, he misrepresents Gingrich’s view on immigration — again — then explains away his lie by saying “I’ll let him state his own position.” And laughing. Odd, pointless laughter.

How did he misrepresent Gingrich’s views? He did not.

Then he’s barely brushed with questions about his larger pattern of inconsistencies before growing visibly agitated. He calls Baier’s list “inaccurate.” The list was totally accurate and not even complete. So a lie.

The list of alleged inconsistencies was accurate, but he took issue with whether he has in fact been inconsistent on those issues. He stood up to the claim he has been inconsistent on a lot of issues.

“This is an unusual interview,” he says, bizarrely, followed by another awkward ad inappropriate laugh.

Your comment is weird and awkward. You’ve obviously never been questioned in public. Mitt has a nice sense of humour.

Why was it an unusual interview? Baier’s questions were simple, polite and pertinent. They were tame by comparison to what he can expect from a hostile media.

And Romney responded appropriately to each one. Charles Krauthammer, whose intelligence and objectivity are preferable to some anonymous commenter like you, said Romney he did fine.

But this is classic Romney – the weird interjection puttied over with insincere laughter.

No, this is classic anti-Romney moronism.

He constantly refers to his “book,” a true tell as to his discomfort with extemporizing on the issues.

The rest was just words — zero inspiration, clarity, command. A game show host.rrpjr on November 29, 2011 at 8:57 PM

Romney speaks extemporaneously with ease. Read the book. You won’t be so ignorant.

Try again. The idea of a health care mandate didn’t originate with the Heritage Foundation.

xblade on November 29, 2011 at 9:02 PM

Okay, I’m game: where do you say the idea originated? Both Romney and Gingrich justified their prior support for the healthcare mandate based on its conservative Heritage Foundation imprimatur. True enough, the individual mandate has been discussed whenever the conversation turned to health care reform even prior to early 80′s–probably since the Truman Administration since President Truman liked the idea of government-furnished healthcare, but when we talk about RomneyCare or ObamaCare mandates or the individual mandate idea Newt supported, the seminal work in that area is usually identified with the healthcare reform ideas promulgated by the Heritage Foundation.

You could bring up Otto Von Bismark, I suppose. He’s the first national leader to formulate and implement an early version of socialized medicine as it is recognized today. Or you could bring up the Progressive Era in the United States starting at the beginning of the 20th century.

Why was it an unusual interview? Baier’s questions were simple, polite and pertinent. They were tame by comparison to what he can expect from a hostile media.

But this is classic Romney – the weird interjection puttied over with insincere laughter.

He constantly refers to his “book,” a true tell as to his discomfort with extemporizing on the issues.

The rest was just words — zero inspiration, clarity, command. A game show host.

rrpjr on November 29, 2011 at 8:57 PM

It’s unusual for him because he’s not used to being challenged.