Compare and contrast: Obama and Romney on health care
posted at 6:50 pm on January 27, 2012 by Allahpundit
Via the lefties at Think Progress, a video salute to Mitt’s cavalier assurance at last night’s debate that there’s nothing to get angry about when it comes to health-care mandates. Get ready for a long, long line of liberal attack ads in this vein once it’s clear that he’s the nominee: Even if they end up losing the election, the PR value to the left of having the Republican standard-bearer mimicking O’s rhetoric on ObamaCare is incalculable for the repeal battle ahead. That was always one of the greatest pitfalls in choosing Mitt — at a minimum, the right will have to temper its criticism of mandates during the general election — but darned if we’re not poised to go ahead and choose him anyway. And as Peter Suderman at Reason notes, this clip doesn’t even exhaust the similarities between RomneyCare and its much larger younger brother:
During last night’s debate, Romney also defended his plan from charges that it resembled ObamaCare by arguing that in Massachusetts, “there’s no government plan.” He’s used this line before, but it’s never helped distinguish Romney’s health overhaul from Obama’s: There’s no “government plan” in ObamaCare either, or at least no more of one than there is in RomneyCare. Both ObamaCare and RomneyCare rely on a regulated market and an expansion of Medicaid. Nor is Romney the only one to point this out in order to defend the structure both plans share: In his State of the Union address earlier this week, President Obama touted the fact that “our health care law relies on a reformed private market, not a government program.”
In the end, Romney only ended up reinforcing the similarities between his plan and President Obama’s. It’s hard to make a convincing case that the RomneyCare is somehow dramatically different from ObamaCare while relying on virtually the same arguments employed by ObamaCare’s most prominent defender.
No worries: The line about there being “no government plan” will be included in the inevitable MoveOn version of this clip, replete with copious citations to the new study out this week confirming that RomneyCare was indeed the “template” for ObamaCare. And yet, and yet, if you ask the average Republican about this, the answer you get might not be what you expect:
Republican opposition to the Democrats’ 2010 health care overhaul law is intense, with 73% of Republicans having an unfavorable view of it. By contrast, 62% of Democrats view it favorably.
The survey also found that most Republican voters don’t agree with the attack on GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney that the health care law he signed as governor of Massachusetts is similar to the federal law. Some 30% said they felt Mr. Romney’s views on health care were akin to President Barack Obama’s, but almost half said the former governor’s views are different, and 22% didn’t answer.
So Romney’s big federalism talking point was enough to defuse this issue for fully half of the Republican electorate, notwithstanding his comfort with mandates in the abstract. I wonder if that’s a testament to the effectiveness of his campaign’s messaging or the catastrophic failure by his opponents to put this issue front and center. Only Santorum has scored real points on it, after all, and only in the debates this week.
Question: Has Romney addressed at length the core ideological problem that most conservatives have with health-insurance mandates, namely, their potential to expand into non-insurance realms? George Will likes to use the hypothetical of Congress forcing overweight people to enroll in Weight Watchers; Romney would oppose that on federalism grounds, but what if the Massachusetts legislature did the same thing as a cost-effective way to reduce the expense of treating obesity-related illnesses later? Would that be constitutional? (The Commerce Clause wouldn’t apply but privacy/bodily autonomy rights might.) Should we shrug it off on grounds that residents who object can vote with their feet and move to Vermont or New Hampshire? What’s the limiting principle on your freedom to decide how to spend your money on your own health? Exit quotation from NPR, quoting a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health: “Romney has given in this entire presidential campaign last evening what I believe is the most effective and persuasive rationale and defense of the individual mandate.” Terrific.









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: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
I suppose, you up in the north lands? Mountains for me.
Bmore on January 27, 2012 at 7:43 PM
Agreed. I hope Obama tries to make ObamaCare relative to RomneyCare, as an issue. Romney needs to run on Clinton’s 1992 message, “It’s the economy, stupid”.
PatMac on January 27, 2012 at 7:44 PM
States have their own constitutions, dummy. Any thing not explicity forbidden in the U.S. Consititution is up to the states.
Here’s a dollar…go buy a clue.
Jailbreak on January 27, 2012 at 7:44 PM
The Patrician Mortician
Christien on January 27, 2012 at 7:44 PM
He understands them, he’s trying to go around them in the primary. Romney’s strategy is to cobble together his 25% of the establishment republicans, and enough of the Independent vote to beat Obama in the general. Like McCain he will chose some conservative eye candy for his Vice President pick, and hope to pick off enough stray conservatives to carry him over the finish line. It didn’t work for McCain in 2008 and he beat Romney in the last republican presidential primary.
Dr Evil on January 27, 2012 at 7:44 PM
You are the biggesst hack on here.
You don’t just prefer Romney to the other candidates. You want to have sex with him, or at least cuddle.
Dr. Tesla on January 27, 2012 at 7:45 PM
Hey, look.. it’s Alternate Reality guy. What’s up, Alternate Reality guy?
Go RBNY on January 27, 2012 at 7:45 PM
Oh and one other thing, I would like to take dissenting view from that held by the one who likes bread balls. Allah Great post!
Bmore on January 27, 2012 at 7:46 PM
INC on January 27, 2012 at 7:46 PM
Well I think Romney will be tougher on Obama than McCain was, b/c Romney is all about Romney winning.
I dont’ see how he can honestly contrast himself with Obama on most issues though, especially healthcare.
It’s a tough year to be a Republican voter.
Dr. Tesla on January 27, 2012 at 7:47 PM
Am I to understand you to say, Rick Santorum did not have an effect on Mitt with the exchange on Romney’s health care mandate?
Bmore on January 27, 2012 at 7:48 PM
There is little difference. The conceptis the same. Force
people to purchase something while cutting services and raising
costs.
Amjean on January 27, 2012 at 7:48 PM
Speak for yourself. Others are perfectly happy to have Mitt as a candidate.
Go RBNY on January 27, 2012 at 7:48 PM
I love this argument that RomneyCare is cool b/c it was only done at the state level. Justifying big intrusive government b/c it’s only at the state level isn’t a conservative principle. The state rights argument was used to defend slavery too.
Dr. Tesla on January 27, 2012 at 7:49 PM
Romney is a POS and a total poozer.
Conservchik on January 27, 2012 at 7:50 PM
Yeah, 20 to 25% of Republicans love the guy. The problem is the other 80 to 75% don’t want him.
Dr. Tesla on January 27, 2012 at 7:50 PM
It’s why the Independent voters numbers are growing. Romney is looking to Independents and not conservative republicans to support him in the general. It’s a plan I guess, but there is a reason Independents aren’t republicans in the first place, there is no investment in the republican party brand.
Dr Evil on January 27, 2012 at 7:50 PM
I always thought moderate Republicans were supposed to be moderate on things like gay marriage and abortion but solid on fiscal issues like taxes and healthcare policy.
That seems to have gone out the window with Romney.
Dr. Tesla on January 27, 2012 at 7:51 PM
And this will beat Obama. Santorum gets it. Oromney supporters are nothing more than liberals in Rino clothing.
they lie on January 27, 2012 at 7:54 PM
Waiting……
Bmore on January 27, 2012 at 7:56 PM
Yep.
I’d be curious to see some polling which tests the knee-jerk assumption that Independents are in the center. I wouldn’t be surprised to find a good number of Independents to the right of the GOP these days.
ElectricPhase on January 27, 2012 at 7:56 PM
Great post! I have been saying that Mitt was Obama-Lite, but you are correct that he is Obama Light-Skinned.
famous amos on January 27, 2012 at 7:57 PM
Yes, Rick drew blood before a GOP audience — by arguing that the mandate is un-Constitutional, big government, top-down socialism. Obama is not going to do that. He can’t do that. All he can do is shuck and jive, grin that big ‘ole grin, and say, “Hey, thanks, Mitt, for giving us the roadmap to Obamacare.” And Mitt will turn around and list off the differences — no higher taxes, no robbing Medicare, total bipartisan support, supported by the citizens of Massachusetts — ending with “And I will do everything in my power to repeal Obamacare from day one — it won’t just be your union friends getting waivers and being protected from your disastrous legislation anymore.”
Obama will not want to go there the way you folks think he will. It is a much more dangerous attack for him than it is for Mitt. Obama does NOT want to talk about Obamacare. He didn’t even talk about it in his last SOTU as president, for heaven’s sake!
Rational Thought on January 27, 2012 at 7:57 PM
Michelle Malkin:
Confirmed: Romneycare = Obamacare
INC on January 27, 2012 at 7:58 PM
Mitt Romney is The Poseur.
Christien on January 27, 2012 at 7:58 PM
That’s an interesting question. Certainly there’s no federal argument that can be made for an individual mandate. The Constitution enumerates specific powers. On the State level though, I think a Bill of Rights type argument can be made, but I’m not too sure how it would resolve.
I look at our natural rights as the freedom to do anything we please, just so long as nothing we do abrogates another citizen’s right to do the same. Kind of like a bubble of rights surrounding each of us, and as long as we don’t get into anybody else’s bubble-space, we have the natural-born right to be unharassed. And I mean the bubble-space of individuals, not collective bubble-space. IOW, social engineering for the “greater good” is out.
So I think it’s completely rational to say that no State can force a citizen to buy an insurance product. That is, just as long as no other citizen is FORCED to help or otherwise care for those who choose not to. It’s unfair to mandate public policy which requires patient treatment if we’re not holding the citizen who uses it responsible for payment. We’re getting into the bubble-space of individual citizens who are required to either provide services without payment or citizens who are taxed for another citizen’s care.
If there is no law which prescribes treatment for the ill or injured regardless of their ability to pay… no problem. If there is such a law, then requiring each citizen to bear some responsibility for it would be a matter of correcting an otherwise unfair law.
We have to choose the society we wish to live in. At the State level, I think we’re more able to do that, although I do appreciate Will’s argument. But if we use that argument, wouldn’t it apply to nearly everything a State does? Why should one have to pay taxes to incarcerate a criminal that had nothing to do with him? Or pay a fireman to put out his neighbor’s chimney fire? Or pay a teacher when he doesn’t have children? I think we do these things because we might have need of them at some point. Just like we might become sick or injured and unable to pay for our healthcare.
When we get right down to it, State laws are a rather murky issue which deal with the design of the society we wish to live in. If we choose to be Randian about it, we can successfully argue that we shouldn’t have any responsibilities to other citizens at all, and be perfectly correct, I think. But do we have a responsibility to the safety net we want for ourselves? If we look at it as an insurance policy rather than a social benefit, there is a monetary value that can be attached at the individual level.
Murf76 on January 27, 2012 at 7:59 PM
Obamacare is the economy. Some of you don’t seen to appreciate what a job-killer it is.
Y-not on January 27, 2012 at 7:59 PM
Romney seems like a decent candidate for some cabinet position in which he does not have to wade into the political philosophy thing, which is kind of essential for a president to do. He doesn’t seem interested in that aspect of being president. We can find him something to manage in the government where he doesn’t have to fake like he cares about stuff that he doesn’t.
Dr. Tesla on January 27, 2012 at 8:00 PM
It was Santorum that continued to reinforce the similarities, not Romney, and there is no truth in it.
Romney health insurance was set up so people could buy it. An good example of the difference would be this: Romney did not want to roll everyone who claimed they could not afford to pay onto Medicaid, so he used the money to subsidize private insurance. That money was paying for hospital visits already, but he turned it into insurance plans instead.
With Obama Care, all those people are put into Medicaid in Massachusetts. People who had private insurance before. Sen. Scott Brown asked Gov. Duval Patrick if he should try to get a waiver for Massachusetts, but Patrick and Kerry said no, they want the people on Medicaid instead. SO, Obama gave them a Cornhusker Kickback for 5 years to pay for Medicaid in Massachusetts, so they can undo the Romney insurance.
Obama care is 2000 pages before it is all written and we know what the Secretary shall decide. Mass health insurance reform was only 80 pages, and only affect 6-8% of people and gave waivers completely out of the mandate if you documented that you could not pay.
There is evidence that Obama intends to roll lots and lots of people into Medicaid and make Medicaid the single payer government insurance of choice. That is a huge difference.
That is why the administration granted so many waivers to people who said the $750 threashold was too high for their mini plans, like unions and fast food restaurants have. Those people wont get a waiver in Obamacare they will have to take Medicaid.
If you keep looking at what the liberals hold up for you, you will miss the important stuff.
Fleuries on January 27, 2012 at 8:00 PM
A valid point and one I have considered.
Bmore on January 27, 2012 at 8:01 PM
Maybe. The problem is that Mitt won’t go there. It’s off the table.
BoxHead1 on January 27, 2012 at 8:02 PM
Obama would use RomneyCare to attack Romney from the right in order to point out his hypocrisy, use all the stats on all its problems to damage Romney in the eyes on those on the right and center right.
He would point out none of the similarities with Obamacare, he would lie about it and the MSM would cover for him.
Romney couldn’t possible retaliate with any facts because there are none on his side.
INC on January 27, 2012 at 8:02 PM
u could say the R-Care was a tangential (on the side) intervention that left the private sector undistubed, intact; in sharp contrast, O-Care was a fundamental / central intervention that will destroy the private sector as we know it
U could say that, but is it accurate?
anotherJoe on January 27, 2012 at 8:02 PM
Still waiting……
Bmore on January 27, 2012 at 8:03 PM
Both the Mormon’s and the Muslim’s argument for the mandate is this: ‘If you don’t buy health insurance, then you have to help pay for the aggregate cost of unpaid medical bills so that everyone else doesn’t get penalized because of you.’
But for most of the people who don’t have health insurance, it’s not a matter of them simply refusing to buy it, it’s that they can’t afford it. So if they can’t afford health insurance, how can the government force them to pay for it via this other route. If you don’t have the money, you don’t have it, whether there’s a mandate or not. Is the government going to force people to become homeless or send them to jail simply because they can’t afford health insurance, even in cases where they haven’t received health care and don’t need health care at the time in question? It’s a retarded argument, and a socialist fantasy.
Furthermore, all businesses adjust their costs slightly by factoring in that they’re going to get stiffed by a certain percentage of customers. It’s not exclusive to health care. Using Mitt-bama’s rationale for the mandate, the government could start charging every US citizen a penalty fee theoretically applied to virtually all services of any kind offered in the US that they could conceivably default on, whether they purchase the service or not. This is the opposite of a free market system.
WhatSlushfund on January 27, 2012 at 8:06 PM
That is exactly why character matters in a president. And it’s why I would not take a risk on Newt.
Santorum, yes, he has character. But he’s untested as a leader and, frankly, it’s true about senators not making good presidents.
Priscilla on January 27, 2012 at 8:06 PM
He did, but that’s not what you said. You said Mitt looked terrible last night. Most people seem to think was the night’s biggest winner.
Go RBNY on January 27, 2012 at 8:06 PM
Obama will go there.
Don’t think he won’t. His fingers may not be on it or maybe they will be, but he will go there.
INC on January 27, 2012 at 8:06 PM
The problem is with Romney’s veracity.
INC on January 27, 2012 at 8:08 PM
This.
Go RBNY on January 27, 2012 at 8:09 PM
Christien on January 27, 2012 at 8:10 PM
Nah, Palin went after Odumbo tooth and nail, and McCain, Schmidt, Brooks, Frum, Noonan, Parker, and the rest of the establishment tools either undermined her or outright demonized her for it. But I’m quite convinced that McCain intentionally threw the election. Palin’s mistake was signing on with that mouldering corpse and the worthless band of scurrilous miscreants otherwise known as his campaign. She’d probably still be governing with a 70% approval rating instead of being a national joke.
Walter Sobchak on January 27, 2012 at 8:10 PM
Unscientific as it may be, my count had most people saying Santorum won the debate by quite a bit. Of course most followed that assessment with something like “but who cares–it’s only Santorum.”
ElectricPhase on January 27, 2012 at 8:11 PM
You’re right. Obama will use Romneycare as a shield, in the hope that it will totally neutralize Romney’s attacks on it. I wish that Romney wasn’t saddled with it, but it will be a handicap, not a game changer. Newt will be protrayed as an emotionally unstable egomaniac who is hated by his own party and who exaggerates his ties to Reagan the way Joh Kerry exaggerated his “heroism” in VietNam.
Priscilla on January 27, 2012 at 8:11 PM
Take off your (in Mitts corner blinders) off. Santorum tagged him good and it showed. No need to parse my comments.
Bmore on January 27, 2012 at 8:11 PM
So you agree?
Bmore on January 27, 2012 at 8:14 PM
So Obama has surrogates put up an ad “attacking Mitt from the right” on Romneycare. Let’s say the ad says, “…and just like with Obamacare, Romneycare caused taxes to go up.”
So at the next debate, Mitt says, “Mr. president you’ve got an ad up saying the Massachusetts health care law increased taxes — which is a lie — but your ad also said Obamacare will most certainly increase middle class taxes. It is about time that you admitted to the country that YOUR 2,000-page health care plan passed only with democrat votes is going to cost this bankrupt country more money that it doesn’t have and hurt the middle class even more than your policies already have. It is about time you got honest about that.”
Obama will not want to go there. He will be killed by it. This is his signature legislative achievement. He isn’t going to bloody it up.
Rational Thought on January 27, 2012 at 8:14 PM
Like I said, Romney supporters haven’t read the 10th Amendment, but they can say it. Take note:
Do you see the word “forbidden?” Me neither.
In fact, there wasn’t going to be a bill of rights at all because the founders were concerned that it would spell out what rights people have – and the founders were loathe to enumerate our rights in such a document. We have the right to choose the direction of our own lives. They saw that right as endowed by our Creator. The state, whether federal or otherwise, doesn’t have rights, nor can it curtail our natural rights.
The 10th Amendment was written to keep the federal government from running roughshod over the states, not to allow the states to declare its own powers to run roughshod over us.
You might pick up a copy of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. You’d be a better man for reading them.
beatcanvas on January 27, 2012 at 8:14 PM
I would never believe Romney on anything. He will screw over the conservatives in a heartbeat if he’s the prez.
Conservchik on January 27, 2012 at 8:15 PM
He shoots pretty straight as politicians go. If he wanted to get all of your votes, he’d lie and say he was sorry that he did Romneycare. You think Newt is a paragon of veracity?
Priscilla on January 27, 2012 at 8:16 PM
That ThinkProgress ad is exactly the ad that Perry should have run. Instead of the slick tripe.
I’m picking on Perry because he had money and was real, unlike the book-tour pop entertainment types.
Of course: People would have screamed that Perry annihilated GOP chances in November if he nuked Mitt that absolutely and then imploded. But hey…
kunegetikos on January 27, 2012 at 8:19 PM
This is an excuse. Not a reason to dislike Romney.
For people who need cover the real reasons they are opposed to Romney this is the best you could come up with.
In truth without what Romney did in MA we would all have single payer healthcare right now.
Romney stopped the push for single payer in MA and replaced it with the Heritage Foundation and Newt Gingrich’s healthcare plan.
Then Obama copied Romney. Badly.
So if Romney was really a liberal he would have helped bring in single payer Eurostyle healthcare… as they wanted before he stopped them…
And Obamacare would be a single payer system which would be constitutional and we could do nothing about it.
Every single one of the other candidates and most other conservatives praised Romney to the heavens for the Conservative work he did in MA. Until obamacare… then they stabbed him in the back.
Now even though it has no relevance at all to anything… people who want to oppose Romney use this thin veneer as a mask…
I know. I did it too.
I didnt’ want Romney to run for my own reasons… but after seeing the other candidates… he had no choice.
None of those people were any good.
MA was liberal when Romney got there he made it more conservtive while in office and it stayed liberal when he left…
Romney didn’t make MA liberal. He did an excellent job as the most conservative governor they have ever had.
You think we don’t see through this ever thinner excuse? We do.
It is getting sillier everyday to pretend that Romney will not keep his word. Romney always keeps his word. His integrity is spotless. His reputation for honesty saved the 2002 Olympics.
Your excuse is a facade. You have no reason to keep it up.
Romney will be our next President. You need to get used to it… you should have done it long ago and our party would be united and strong right now instead of fractured and weak.
Romney is the knight on the white horse comming to save the day… just like he did the Olympics of 2002 and all those failing companies.
Put you religion aside (or your employer’s… allah), separate church and state in your minds.
Do the right thing, stop the pretense.
Support our next President of the Untited States, Willard Mitt Romney.
I do and proudly. He has run a very honest and clean campaign in the face of the most horrible politics of personal distruction I have seen in my lifetime… by people who should have been his friends and allies.
petunia on January 27, 2012 at 8:20 PM
Well?
Bmore on January 27, 2012 at 8:20 PM
That’s my fear with Newt, too. He is too easy to caricature as a wacko, right wing, racist, adulterous, hypocritical bogeyman — a caricature voters easily latch on to. The arguments Obama will have to make about Romneycare are much tougher for Obama, without straight up admitting that his signature piece of legislation is a total loser. He can grin and prance and say “You’re just like me, Mitt? Heh, heh, heh,” but Mitt can come back with “Not quite. Let me list the ways…” and Obama will be standing there looking like a fool. A complete fool.
Rational Thought on January 27, 2012 at 8:21 PM
RomneyCare now has a past with facts and figures that can be used to blast it.
ObamaCare has only begun to have a past, and Obama will lie handily about it.
INC on January 27, 2012 at 8:21 PM
Maybe we should start with asking the question about the federal healthcare mandate signed by Ronald Reagan in 1986 the EMTLA?
which then leads me to this AP question:
“but what if the Massachusetts legislature did the same thing as a cost-effective way to reduce the expense of treating obesity-related illnesses later?”
Body Mass Index already effects private health insurance coverage with high premiums and/or denial of insurance.
So because some states may have different BMI folks than others these budgetary items like healthcare costs should not be addressed at the federal level but at the state level.
And it seems Obama has conceded to that fact to Romney….he just waits until 2017.
Best to have Romney tell it to him now. And because Obama has made Romney such a hero on this subject, he’ll have to listen.
sheryl on January 27, 2012 at 8:23 PM
You are clueless. Romney has had presidential candidates in 2 campaigns now (2008 and 2012) who have complained about his dirty politics (Huckabee, McCain, Guliani, Thompson, Gingrich, Santorum). Everyone is well aware of his tendency to tear others down to build himself up. I will absolutely not vote for such a sleeze.
KickandSwimMom on January 27, 2012 at 8:23 PM
It’s not going to play out like this. Romney won’t be able to do full throated assualt on Obamacare b/c there is no difference b/t the two. He’s going to look uncomfortable talking about the issue in general. At best, it’s a draw on this issue, and people will vote Romney b/c they think he can create jobs but Obama’s going to demonize him as the face of layoffs in a time when a lot of people have been laid off and are angry about it.
Dr. Tesla on January 27, 2012 at 8:25 PM
Thank you my engineering colleague. I was wondering the same thing.
jjnco73 on January 27, 2012 at 8:26 PM
Romney was liberal when he got there. He increased the state budget by 14.1% and enacted the blueprint for Obamacare. He stayed liberal when he left.
Prove me wrong.
ElectricPhase on January 27, 2012 at 8:26 PM
SHE TRIED!!! McCain did not let her. She even was not allowed to call him by his name Hussein! She called him a terrorist because of his friends she was stoned for it. You should know that!
American Dream 246 on January 27, 2012 at 8:26 PM
Just one last observation, this is directed at anyone who has commented here before me. Do not presume to know who my choice for nominee is. As of yet I don’t have one. Nothing much more to see here. Later. Oh and Go RBMY, get back to me when you have a chance.
Bmore on January 27, 2012 at 8:27 PM
I think Romney has the right look and personality, and people always get duped by looks and personality.
Dr. Tesla on January 27, 2012 at 8:28 PM
…and then everyone tunes out and it becomes a choice between Dem and Dem Lite; and then Dem wins. Again.
ddrintn on January 27, 2012 at 8:29 PM
art 1 sec 10 says
kinda reads like a state cant interfere in agreements between privatge parties, which would also mean they couldnt require them.
chasdal on January 27, 2012 at 8:29 PM
That he looked terrible? Because that’s what you said. No I don’t agree that Mitt looked terrible last night. The teeth gnashing here today by the ABR’s proves that Mitt didn’t look terrible.
Go RBNY on January 27, 2012 at 8:30 PM
Exactly. Did you see the part of last night’s debate where Santorum, Paul, and Gingrich and the audience all tried to move on from Blitzer’s distractions to more substantive issues, but Romney insisted on siding with Blitzer in wallowing in distractions?
Christien on January 27, 2012 at 8:31 PM
What are you talking about Allah? Everybody understood that he was talking about Santorum needing to calm down. //
Flora Duh on January 27, 2012 at 8:33 PM
Politics ain’t beanbag. If you seriously think that your list of guys have not each used some pretty sleazy campaign tactics, you are misinformed. And most, if not all of them, are already or will support Romney when he is the nominee. Including Newt.
Priscilla on January 27, 2012 at 8:34 PM
What teeth-gnashing? We all know the fix is in. You know, there’s a big part of me that WANTS Romney to be the nominee. I want to see the Mittbots lead us to victory!!!!! It’ll be fun to watch.
ddrintn on January 27, 2012 at 8:34 PM
Gingrich didn’t go negative on Romney at first. The reason he rose in the polls is that during the debate he focused on Obama. Then as he rose in the polls Team Romney used its trademark slime campaign to the delight of the Mittbot Brigade. When Gingrich replied in kind, they squealed in agony. Come on.
ddrintn on January 27, 2012 at 8:36 PM
Fascinating point. How many of them understand grassroots organization and GOTV?
beatcanvas on January 27, 2012 at 8:37 PM
you really don’t make any sense…so, you are saying now that the people in the individual states should not get the things they want/like, etc, or should not be allowed to? And how do you expect to prevent that from happening in future, if I may ask? …Assume they put the issue on the ballot in MA and people voted ‘yes to mandated care’, how do you propose to undo that? have the courts involved, or how exactly…I thought you didn’t like when the courts got involved and overruled proposition 8 in CA…so, make up your mind…you people are all for states rights when it fits your argument (smaller fed govt, etc), and against it when people in the respective states vote for stuff that you don’t like…well, you know, you can’t have the cake and eat it too…
jimver on January 27, 2012 at 8:39 PM
Count me among those who think this is a non-issue. Even with Mitt as the nominee, among those for whom this is *the* issue, those in favor of Obamacare will vote for Obama and those opposed to Obamacare will not. I mean, is there really anyone who will vote for Obama over Romney on the sole basis of Romneycare?
Syzygy on January 27, 2012 at 8:40 PM
Syzygy on January 27, 2012 at 8:40 PM
The point is: He’s unrepentant concerning Roneycare. Why should we believe he will repeal Obamacare when his adviser said that they will “keep the good parts”?
kingsjester on January 27, 2012 at 8:43 PM
Oh yea, this will be a huge issue during the general. Just got my notification via mail this week about 8% increase in premium effective July 1, 2012.
jjnco73 on January 27, 2012 at 8:47 PM
Yeah, wouldn’t want to nominate someone who would use a slime campaign against Obama. /
Syzygy on January 27, 2012 at 8:48 PM
As an example, let’s take it to the extreme – let’s say that the majority of people in Massachusetts wanted a socialist government that would mandate the purchase of health care, whether the individual wanted it or not. Can the state override your freedom? The founding fathers would resoundingly say no, and James Madison would argue that the 10th Amendment he wrote wasn’t intended to be used to override our freedoms.
I don’t live in CA, so I have no idea what Prop 8 is. Personally, I like it when courts determine that laws are unconstitutional.
beatcanvas on January 27, 2012 at 8:50 PM
People who are understandably pissed off about something important to them don’t usually take it well when someone whom they view as part of the problem tells them flippantly to chill out/”It’s not worth getting angry about.”
Christien on January 27, 2012 at 8:50 PM
I get why Rs would have qualms about voting for him in the primary, but how does that translate into the general if he gets the nomination? If you don’t believe he’ll repeal Obamacare, you’ll vote for Obama? Or stay home in protest?
Syzygy on January 27, 2012 at 8:52 PM
Prop 8 banned gay marriage in CA. Apples and oranges, as it did not mandate buying a product or service.
Christien on January 27, 2012 at 8:52 PM
Syzygy on January 27, 2012 at 8:52 PM
I will not vote for a socialist. We’ll see what happens.
kingsjester on January 27, 2012 at 8:54 PM
At least I am not the only one to see it that way.
astonerii on January 27, 2012 at 8:59 PM
I calculate it as being roughly equal to that of having a Republican presidential frontrunner demagogue venture capitalism.
netster007x on January 27, 2012 at 9:05 PM
So they say. Don’t believe it.
Priscilla on January 27, 2012 at 9:09 PM
It’s devastating. That is why everybody wants a waiver.
Sorry son, no bandaid. I have a waiver.
KirknBurker on January 27, 2012 at 9:16 PM
Romney is right. Why should I pay for your health care? The IM is the conservative approach. Requiring that taxpayers pay for the free riders is the socialist approach.
Basilsbest on January 27, 2012 at 9:17 PM
Josh Romney, everyone. Give it up for Josh Romney.
By the way, did you know that you’re helping to foot the bill for RomneyCare? Yeah, half the funding for it is federal. Didn’t your dad tell you that?
beatcanvas on January 27, 2012 at 9:33 PM
You fail to appreciate that as Gov of Mass Dad’s job was to get the best deal for us. Which he did. Dad is brilliant. And a conservative. You have nothing.
Basilsbest on January 27, 2012 at 9:43 PM
Hahaha You Romtards are so delusional. Do you actually think that Prince Zero, the Phony King of America, is going to attack RomneyCare? He’s and his hordes will do nothing of the sort. Rather, they’ll wait for Mitt the Rombot to go on the offensive on Obamacare and then say, “Oh really Mitt? Well you said it was nothing to get angry about. Your advisors said that we shouldn’t repeal it, just fix it. Well we happen to want to fix it too but those darn obstructionist republicans in Congress won’t let us.” The Democratic Socialists will simply use Mitts own words to diffuse and deflect any attack he makes on Obama that relates to Obamacare.
God you Romtards suck. No foresight, no seeing the forest for the trees. You’re so blinded by electability that you abandoned your principles in favor of a (R) who is on marginally more conservative then Prince Zero. When Prince Zero is coming from the far left, that makes Rombot your average Bluedog Democrat and/or liberal.
No wonder this Country is circling the drain.
Speakeasy on January 27, 2012 at 9:47 PM
He’s should be He and Mitts should be Mitt’s
Speakeasy on January 27, 2012 at 9:48 PM
I’m so glad you two found each other. Think of the bulk savings on tinfoil.
Basilsbest on January 27, 2012 at 9:48 PM
Ahh yes, he had to govern as a liberal because he was in a liberal state, yet somehow managed to pass a radical, so-called CONSERVATIVE health care bill in the same liberal state, lol. Next up….stupetunia manages to spin abortion as conservative.
xblade on January 27, 2012 at 9:51 PM
FIFY.
Myron Falwell on January 27, 2012 at 9:57 PM
Keep on parsing, it suits you.
Bmore on January 27, 2012 at 9:58 PM
Why? Why will we have to “temper” the criticism? The issue is not just about mandates in the theoretical sense. It’s about the specifics of the legislation. It’s 2,000 pages of BS. It’s bad legislation and the goal will be to make Obama defend every page of it. Why is this so hard for people to understand? Maybe some people just enjoy wallowing in it, whining and complaining.
cicerone on January 27, 2012 at 9:58 PM
Somewhere between “none” and “less than none.”
It’s gonna be brutal, folks.
Myron Falwell on January 27, 2012 at 10:00 PM
Face it. The Republicans just want to lose. And they are in the process of doing so, falling for the farce known as “electability.”
Myron Falwell on January 27, 2012 at 10:04 PM
I am sure you know about those savings first hand. I do not and have no need.
astonerii on January 27, 2012 at 10:05 PM
I can just picture it: “Now you inbred, idiotic, Constitution waving teabaggers are going to vote for Romney or…..or…..hey, listen….I could slip you a twenty for Pete’s sake.”
ElectricPhase on January 27, 2012 at 10:20 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »