Good news: Leader of Romney’s transition wants to implement ObamaCare exchanges

posted at 4:23 pm on June 4, 2012 by Allahpundit

Remember, under ObamaCare states have a “choice” of either introducing their own exchanges — subject to federal regulations, natch — by 2014 or letting their citizens participate in the new federal exchange when it finally comes online. If you’re a Republican governor who opposes O-Care, the obvious move is to do nothing. By creating a state exchange now, you’re legitimizing Obama’s pet boondoggle before Republicans in Congress get a serious crack at repealing it and burdening yourself with a program that may yet be micromanaged by federal regulators even if the mandate is struck down by the Supreme Court. Resist implementation as long as you can and hope for the best in November.

Romney’s point man on his presidential transition, former Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt, disagrees. Ben Domenech explains:

One can argue about the merits of an exchange absent Obamacare’s rules, regulations, authority shifts, price controls, and taxpayer funded subsidies. But the overwhelming majority of conservative policymakers understand that Obamacare’s exchanges are nothing more than delivery mechanisms for massive taxpayer-funded subsidies and bureaucratic regulations from Washington. What’s more, states which avoid implementing exchanges may be able to avoid the implementation of Obamacare almost in its entirety…

What’s most concerning about all of this is not that Romney selected one of the few Republicans in the country who backs implementation of Obamacare’s exchanges. It’s what the selection of Leavitt means as an indication of how Romney would potentially “fix” Obamacare if repeal proves impossible. According to Politico, “already, plugged-in Republicans from Washington to Salt Lake City are buzzing that Leavitt could make his own transition next January into the job of White House chief of staff or as a Valerie Jarrett-like personal counselor to a President Romney.”

Should the Supreme Court strike down only a portion of Obamacare, it seems clear Leavitt would be a major voice in deciding how to replace it. And he is convinced that “exchanges are part of the future, no matter what.”

Team Mitt answered an e-mail about this from Matt Lewis by insisting that they’re committed to repeal, but that’s a dodge. A four-seat pick-up in the Senate in November isn’t guaranteed, and even if it happens, it’s not fully clear which parts of ObamaCare can be repealed via reconciliation, which requires just 51 votes, and which can’t. Domenech’s worry, quite understandably, is that if full repeal ends up being derailed due to procedural roadblocks, Leavitt will convince Romney to keep both the exchanges and the federal “oversight” mechanisms that govern them. Imagine how useful those mechanisms will prove to the next Democratic administration that wants to reclaim the dream of top-down command and control of health-care policy.

It gets worse. Turns out that Leavitt’s consulting firm has done some nice business in advising states on … how to set up health care exchanges. Philip Klein marvels at the possibility of Romney’s decisions on one of his key vulnerabilities being driven by the magical combo of big-government impulses and crony capitalism:

Romney has been incredibly vague about how he would reform the health care system in the absence of Obamacare. The danger is that he could end up replacing it with a system that still has exchanges, but exchanges that are billed as having fewer regulations, lower subsidies and giving more flexibility to states. The problem is that this would still put the basic exchange infrastructure in place that a future Democratic administration could build on so the country would eventually wind up with Obamacare anyway – or something worse.

Beyond the health care issue, there’s the cronyism issue involved. One of the biggest dangers of a Romney “CEO presidency” is that his business background would make him conflate being pro-business with being pro-free market. But as we’ve seen time and again, these are two separate things. As somebody who stands to personally profit if more states implement Obamacare exchanges, Leavitt clearly comes from the tradition of a Republican Party that’s perfectly okay with expanding government in the name of helping business. This is something we saw during the Bush administration, most prominently, with the subsidies for drug companies in the Medicare prescription drug law (which Leavitt helped implement ass HHS Secretary) and the Wall Street bailout.

Follow the last link for background on Leavitt’s time as governor. As Klein puts it, “Leavitt, in short, was exactly the type of Republican the Tea Party was founded to oppose.” The only reassurance I feel that Mitt won’t follow him down the path to supporting federally-managed state exchanges is that he simply can’t afford to. He has no political capital to spend on defending Obama’s signature government expansion given the suspicions that surround him because of RomneyCare. And he also won’t be able to count on this issue fading into the background after he takes office. The Supreme Court’s going to force it front and center in the next few weeks with its ruling on O-Care; unless the law is upheld in its entirety and the GOP fails to win a Senate majority in November, Romney will have to deal with either repealing or “fixing” the statute ASAP after he’s sworn in next year. If he betrays the right straight out of the gate, he’ll be left with no base of support for his presidency virtually from day one. And the risk of a primary challenge in 2016 is more real for him than it’s been for incumbent presidents past. The tea party proved its staying power by knocking off Lugar and propelling Deb Fischer to victory, and there’s already speculation that Rand Paul and Paulworld might be ready to challenge Romney if he veers too far left. Frankly, I wonder if some grassroots conservatives might not relish the chance to primary Mitt if he betrays the cause, partly to make up for him having won the nomination this time and partly because there’ll be no fear of a new Obama term in 2016 if a primary battle weakens Romney. (There may, however, be fear of a Hillary term.) Exit question: Can he really afford to alienate his base on something this huge and visible? C’mon.


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 6 7 8

I actually like most post promoted to here as well. I think the senior editors do a great job.

Steveangell on June 5, 2012 at 12:16 AM

Also, the format is great. Headlines to Blogs to Top Picks. THe pictures are great. It’s great that the comments can’t be edited. Makes it more natural. And best of all ,there is no comment tree. Cutting and pasting comment segments is fun, fun fun! For everyone. No sarc.

I read HA everyday back in the old days(<2009) and yes, the needle seems to have moved left since the open reg (of which I am a member of)

BoxHead1 on June 5, 2012 at 12:38 AM

LMAO…are you mad?

cuz…um….you seem mad.

Tim_CA on June 5, 2012 at 12:33 AM

Ha! Now you’re projecting your bile on to me. Classic.

Buy Danish on June 5, 2012 at 12:42 AM

Cutting and pasting comment segments is fun, fun fun! For everyone. No sarc.

BoxHead1 on June 5, 2012 at 12:38 AM

I agree though would like a like button. Would also like to be able to click on a name and see when they joined. Of course that would benefit me.

I actually liked Captains Quarters better. Ed had more time then. He is doing a great job here but while I am happy for Ed’s success I do miss the old blog.

Steveangell on June 5, 2012 at 12:47 AM

Ha! Now you’re projecting your bile on to me. Classic.

Buy Danish on June 5, 2012 at 12:42 AM

Remember to add a /s to all his post.

But do go back to the first few pages where he posted the most. Many were well thought out and you would at least appreciate the thoughtfulness of them. Probably if I got /s I would like the others just as much but I seldom get it.

I do have strong opinions but try very hard to not judge others just provide facts. You should always feel free to ignore any post in a blog. If it gets you too upset just ignore that person. I have done that. I hate going to daily Koss or other left blogs as all do that to me lol.

Steveangell on June 5, 2012 at 12:51 AM

Too late.

May GOD bless all of you.

Love the discussion and some of you do change my mind on some things. You have made me like Mitt less tonight for example. /s

Steveangell on June 5, 2012 at 12:54 AM

I said “name one” project that he’ll work to abolish. Ethanol? He’s for it. Subsidies? He’s for it. Gun control? He’s still for it. ObamneyCare? He’ll replace it. SS? He’ll fix the holes in the net tighter.

Once again, you fail to defend his policies beyond just words.

AH_C on June 4, 2012 at 11:38 PM

No, you didn’t say “Name one”; you said “Not one”:

Not one instance of vowing to abolish this or that pet progressive project?
AH_C on June 4, 2012 at 11:09 PM

I responded to that blatantly false and “asinine” claim by suggesting you go to his website. And FTR, I don’t support ethanol subsidies, but then again I don’t support making Iowa the first stop on the nomination trail.

Buy Danish on June 5, 2012 at 12:18 AM

Nice shift on words. Like always, you’re focused on words to the exclusion of content. So let me quote what I originally said in full context:

Coincidently, can anyone point to just one bold contrast that Mittness has offered up, other than “NOT-Obama”? Not one instance of vowing to abolish this or that pet progressive project? Just like 1980, Pappy Bush wanted to patch and manage things while Reagan offered up bold ideas to move us forward.

AH_C on June 4, 2012 at 11:09 PM

You then referred me to his site. I was asking someone to point to/cite/regurgitate/explain/expound/”you name it” just one thing where Mittness offers a bold contrast to Oboobi. I didn’t ask for a link to milquetoasty platitudes. Crickets…

And so, you prove my point by not answering the thrust of my question, because you can’t. Thank you.

Ok, so I’ll give you a second chance. Can you point to one thing where Mittness ever gave a significantly mea-culpa along the lines of “I used to believe in X but have come to realize I was totally wrong and that Y is the correct policy”? I’m thinking along the lines of “I don’t believe in Reaganomincs and now realize he had it right”.

And no, “severely conservative” doesn’t qualify.

And oh BTW

And FTR, I don’t support ethanol subsidies,

only means that you agree with him 99% of the time, instead of 100% like the breadball nibbler. Unfortunately, I only agree with him on about 65-70% and that makes him far below my 80% threshold and thus eminently unacceptable to me.

AH_C on June 5, 2012 at 12:54 AM

Romney’s chief economic advisor was on CNBC I think on Friday. He laid out plans for healthcare and it was free market all the way.

I think this article is smoke and mirrors and meant to upset the base from ABR peeps.

MaggiePoo on June 5, 2012 at 2:20 AM

Romney supporters shouldn’t have to win anyone over.

1984 in real life on June 4, 2012 at 7:46 PM

Woah!

This is incredible! I’m on record here as saying that by the end of Romney’s campaign, he will have alienated so much of the GOP base that his election would be impossible.

Look’s like shite’s going down much sooner than expected!

PEREGRUZKA!

…that means “overcharged”. Or was it “reset”?

sartana on June 5, 2012 at 4:56 AM

For many of us, if the opposition to Obama is Romney, then it isn’t quite so unthinkable to “support Obama” by refusing to vote for Romney — not nearly as unthinkable as the Romney pushers think it is.

It’s pretty funny how calling people crybabies for months hasn’t changed that. Telling people they’re being stupid by supporting Obama by not getting in line seemed to work a little better, but that tactic is losing its effectiveness too.

Aitch748 on June 5, 2012 at 6:36 AM

We were told to accept Mr. Etch-a-sketch only because we can control his liberal impulses by holding his feet to the fire. I’m waiting for the heat of flame starting from those anti-Palin(she isn’t ready- but Mitt is) forces like Coulter, Rove, Ingraham, Will, Cheney, Noonan, Parker, Krauthammer and their superior wisdom ilk….waiting…

How do you get the republican party to become socialist? You put a socialist candidate up against a radical socialist and you say -but he’s better than Obama.

What a charade. If I didn’t know better, I’d swear that the ruling class in Washington had this planned exactly this way.

Don L on June 5, 2012 at 6:46 AM

Wow. Barn burner of a thread. Anyway, man, Allah really went out of his way to stir this one up.

Still, having a guy on one’s campaign who’s profiting from O-care is lame. What, no one else can do this?

Dongemaharu on June 5, 2012 at 7:07 AM

OT: Has Breitbart been hacked???

Dongemaharu on June 5, 2012 at 7:12 AM

I only agree with him on about 65-70% and that makes him far below my 80% threshold and thus eminently unacceptable to me.
AH_C on June 5, 2012 at 12:54 AM

.
Well there’s only one thing you can do as a conscientious ABR and vote for Obama. Go for O- and show that mean Mitt you will not be taken for granted. Give him a lesson in True Conservatism and vote for the non- etch-a-sketch candidate.
How will you be able to live with yourself if you vote Romney and he wins ?

Think about it – Who would you be able to blame then?

FlaMurph on June 5, 2012 at 7:36 AM

Exit question: Can he really afford to alienate his base on something this huge and visible? C’mon.

-Allahpundit, pot-stirring pessimist blogger

It seems like Allahpundit goes out of his way to try to stir the pot in order to get more page views/comments for his posts.

This habit of his, along with his non-stop pessimism and his annoying habit of injecting his own persona into ALL blog posts (including posts about serious topics), has led me to skip over much of his work in favor of other HotAir bloggers.

I find Ed Morrissey’s work a lot more empowering, and Jazz Shaw has an upbeat, likeable style and has a fresh way of looking at things.

bluegill on June 4, 2012 at 11:58 PM

Too Long, Didn’t Read version: Mitt-bot #681 complains that Allahpundit is posting as per his normal M.O. Demands to know why he and others haven’t joined the Romney group-think collective. Decides that ignoring a problem rather than answering problem is a “better” solution.

It’s like I’m watching 2008 all over again, except instead of just dealing with a weak on conservative issues candidate, now I also have to deal with Republican version of Obama Zombies, just mindlessly droning on about Romney instead.

Razgriez on June 5, 2012 at 7:41 AM

How do you get the republican party to become socialist? You put a socialist candidate up against a radical socialist and you say -but he’s better than Obama.

What a charade. If I didn’t know better, I’d swear that the ruling class in Washington had this planned exactly this way.

Don L on June 5, 2012 at 6:46 AM

Ah, you get it, don’t you?

The reason why the Rombots and the Bushies hate Palin so much is that, by and large, she actually believes in markets. Regulated ones, of course-her record in Alaska shows that she wasn’t about to let the oil industry take the citizenry of the state for a ride, but markets by and large.

Mittens and the Bushtards don’t believe in Markets, they believe in State Capitalism, only to a smaller, narrower degree than does Chicago Jesus.

They don’t want Palin and the Ronulans to reach any kind of critical mass where the Reagan/Libertarian wing of the GOP threatens their hold on the swag. That’s what’s going on here. The piggie pile wants it’s share of the loot.

Mitt Romney is an Ayn Rand villain. Period. Just one of the nicer ones. Maybe Peter Keating, not as bad as the Ellsworth Toohey we have in the White House.

victor82 on June 5, 2012 at 7:46 AM

It’s like I’m watching 2008 all over again, except instead of just dealing with a weak on conservative issues candidate, now I also have to deal with Republican version of Obama Zombies, just mindlessly droning on about Romney instead.

Razgriez on June 5, 2012 at 7:41 AM

Give the Mittbots this much due; they don’t have Big Character Posters of the Dear Leader plastered all over the country with “HOPE” emblazoned underneath the photoshopped mug of Mitt looking confidently off into the distance.

And we haven’t seen a gaggle of rich kids from Beacon Hill singing the praises of Romney-As-Savior yet, have we? Nope, we have yet to witness that horror.

So there IS some restraint from Team Mannequin.

victor82 on June 5, 2012 at 7:49 AM

the anti-romney feeling is strong this morning. good.

renalin on June 5, 2012 at 7:55 AM

Wow. Barn burner of a thread. Anyway, man, Allah really went out of his way to stir this one up.

Dongemaharu on June 5, 2012 at 7:07 AM

Haha, yep. You could predict the comments just from reading the headline. You knew we were going to hear the same things from the same Obama-supporting Romney bashers, who are now newly excited about a few morsels of chow thrown to them by AP to keep them satisfied. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. Could these people be any more tiresome? They have been a bit starved lately, with the primaries over, the Romney campaign gaining in strength and with the fact that Romney has not only solidified his support among the conservative base, but also continues to make gains among independents who are crucial to winning in November.

The only thing that might have made this a juicier comment-attracting post would have been if Sarah Palin had chimed in on the topic. Those obsessed Sarah Palin fanatics can give the Paulbots a run for their money.

This minor non-story about Leavitt will be forgotten in a day, if it hasn’t been already. The handful of disgruntled, Obama-supporting Romney bashers on here will now have to wait until AP decides to throw them another crumb or two.

bluegill on June 5, 2012 at 7:57 AM

I am (and have always been) UNenthusiastic about Romney, but I love my country – so I am totally enthused about kicking Obama’s sorry socialist ass out of the White House. So I’m voting Romney.

This story is just a media attempt to split the base and help Obama, so I refuse to get worked up about it. If Romney gets elected and tries to implement exchanges, we’ll kick him in the nads then.

DRayRaven on June 5, 2012 at 8:07 AM

victor82 on June 5, 2012 at 7:46 AM

Both Ron Paul and Sarah Palin will endorse Romney.

Unlike the small handful of sore loser fake conservative commenters on this site who want Obama to be reelected, Palin and Paul know that we must defeat Obama this November by electing Mitt Romney.

We had a primary season, and the Republican voters overwhelmingly (and rightly!) selected the candidate who can and will defeat Obama. Paul did admirably, but didn’t win. Palin didn’t even run. Face the facts, people.

Paul’s endorsement will probably help more than Palin’s. Palin’s ardent fans will already be voting for Romney. Let’s hope that Romney doesn’t associate himself too much with Palin (who I agree with on most issues) this fall, since she is terribly unpopular among independent voters and fires up Obama’s base more than anything. Let’s also hope that Palin doesn’t decide to do another one of her attention-grabbing stunts this summer or in the fall… she needs to remember that defeating Obama is priority #1 and that the conservative world doesn’t revolve around her. This is Romney’s time to shine, and we will need her help to defeat Obama (even if her help doesn’t come in the form of having her out there often front and center during the fall campaigning).

The fact is, anyone who doesn’t support Romney is supporting Obama. Ron Paul knows it. Sarah Palin knows it. It’s pretty obvious.

bluegill on June 5, 2012 at 8:10 AM

By the way, always amusing to see how PDSers are not only first to bring up Palin, but constantly mention her in non sequitur posts(this thread, yep). Just shows you who the truly obsessed ones are.

Dongemaharu on June 5, 2012 at 8:12 AM

bluegill on June 5, 2012 at 7:57 AM

And then you have the Romney voting Romney bashers, such as myself. Same-old-same-old gets real old after a while, Butch. Doesn’t it?

gryphon202 on June 5, 2012 at 8:16 AM

Ok, so I’ll give you a second chance. Can you point to one thing where Mittness ever gave a significantly mea-culpa along the lines of “I used to believe in X but have come to realize I was totally wrong and that Y is the correct policy”? I’m thinking along the lines of “I don’t believe in Reaganomincs and now realize he had it right”.

And no, “severely conservative” doesn’t qualify.

AH_C on June 5, 2012 at 12:54 AM

Well, -someone- is utterly incompetent to respond because of her total lack of character, but here is a video making the claim that Mittens did just that:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBGRLk–JHM

ebrown2 on June 5, 2012 at 8:16 AM

Well, -someone- is utterly incompetent to respond because of her total lack of character, but here is a video making the claim that Mittens did just that:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBGRLk–JHM

ebrown2 on June 5, 2012 at 8:16 AM

Romney to voters:

Who ya gonna believe? Me, or your lying eyes?

gryphon202 on June 5, 2012 at 8:21 AM

bluegill on June 5, 2012 at 7:57 AM

Oh for Pete’s sake, will you please take that tiresome accusation meme that any one who dares challenge Mitten’s the Chosen One, for his rather liberal record is somehow secretly an Obama supporter and shove it. I don’t get how you can jump to the conclusion that those of us Conservatives, Constitutionalists, and Libertarians all sharing our concerns about Romney being Pro-Big Gov, and not Pro Small Gov, is somehow working to support a Big Gov Democrat.

Romney has a problem, He is a flip flopper who has a record, and then has words that don’t match up. He and his group thinking drones can continue to ignore this problem with more empty words and false accusations, which in the end, which will almost be guaranteed come back to bite them in the rear, because come November, that ignorance will make significant portions of the Republican bitter and disenchanted with the party and continue the mass exodus from the GOP to the Independent parties. Because that ignorance proves to those like me, that the Republican party has decided it’s more convenient to surrender every Conservative value it claims to hold dear, for the sake, or rather, greed for power. If will solidify the Tea Party and Independent concerns that both parties are essentially the same: Do you want Big Government, or Big Government Lite. Do you want Liberalism or Liberalism Lite?

If you can’t get that through your head, and continue to just scoff at us before resuming your blissful ignorant, than I fear that the GOP is doomed then to continue repeating 2008, over and over, and over again.

Razgriez on June 5, 2012 at 8:25 AM

By the way, always amusing to see how PDSers are not only first to bring up Palin, but constantly mention her in non sequitur posts(this thread, yep). Just shows you who the truly obsessed ones are.

Dongemaharu on June 5, 2012 at 8:12 AM

As someone who greatly admires Palin (though was happy she didn’t run), I am disturbed to see these tiny pockets of self-described Palin fans campaigning against our Republican nominee and trying to help Obama get reelected. These few dozen or so loudmouth, Obama-supporting Romney-bashers give Palin supporters a bad name and HotAir an even worse one.

Palin would be the first one to call them out on their Obama-supporting, Romney-bashing antics.

bluegill on June 5, 2012 at 8:26 AM

bluegill on June 5, 2012 at 8:26 AM

i’m for a candidate that won’t raise my taxes or my private health insurance.

you keep trying to shove a big government elitist down everyones throat.

not going to happen, fishy. LOL

renalin on June 5, 2012 at 8:38 AM

I have no problem with criticism of Romney. I did my fair share of it during the primaries, especially early in the primaries when it mattered most.

I do have a problem with the “Romney is just the same as Obama” jackasses.

There is only one way left to defeat Obama, and that way is Romney. Refusing to vote for him is acceptance of the status quo, namely Obama. The jackasses can howl all they want that that is not what they are doing, but the proof is in the action. Their howls are lies.

fadetogray on June 5, 2012 at 8:48 AM

bluegill on June 5, 2012 at 8:26 AM
you keep trying to shove a big government elitist down everyones throat.
not going to happen, fishy. LOL
renalin on June 5, 2012 at 8:38 AM

.
Looks like November will be a lose-lose for you then. Don’t compromise your core integrity- send a message with a write in vote for ” none of the above”

FlaMurph on June 5, 2012 at 8:52 AM

fadetogray on June 5, 2012 at 8:48 AM

you do realize that the title of the thread exposes the fact that key advisors to rmoney are going only actively advocating, but indeed, stand to profit from obamaromney care.

call us every name in the book you want. The truth is the truth.

mitt = obama.

renalin on June 5, 2012 at 8:55 AM

More and more it’s looking like the republicans will be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. With Romney, they’ll screw things up as usual and we’re destined to lose this one even against a disaster like Obama. One of the few consolations in that scenario, if there are any, is that Romney then won’t be the face of the future for the republican party. That is definitely a good thing because even if by a freak of nature he were to win, he’s already showing lousy judgment and a preview of what kind of “leader” he’d be. Plus there are a gaggle of Romneys waiting in the wings to continue that dynasty. Blech! Is it too late to dump this guy and start from scratch? Etch-a-sketch him and start with a clean slate. This is too important and scary for politics-as-usual.

mozalf on June 5, 2012 at 9:03 AM

There is only one way left to defeat Obama, and that way is Romney. Refusing to vote for him is acceptance of the status quo, namely Obama. The jackasses can howl all they want that that is not what they are doing, but the proof is in the action. Their howls are lies.

fadetogray on June 5, 2012 at 8:48 AM

So be it.

To some of us, BOTH candidates are unacceptable, but it’s obvious that we’re going to get one or the other, and it’s equally obvious that there’s nothing we can do that won’t help one candidate or the other in some tiny way. If that makes us part of the opposition in the eyes of the Romney fanatics, then so be it.

Aitch748 on June 5, 2012 at 9:04 AM

fadetogray on June 5, 2012 at 8:48 AM

If the “Only” solution to the status quo, is to replace it with the status quo, then I will take my own path, and vote Neither. I rather howl defiantly than bow my head and keep silent. I will not assist the GOP in it’s self-destruction for the sake of power. Because this is what will likely happen:

-Romney Losses: GOP Fractures, and we’ll have a repeat of post 2008, The GOP Elite blaming Conservatives for not being supportive enough, and the Conservatives blaming the Elite for not wanting to fight the Conservative fight.
-Romney Wins: The GOP Elite takes this as their cue to return to Status Quo Big Government, and when the Conservatives who did vote for Romney come to make their demands for Romney to actually prove he’s a Conservative, he’ll instead return to his record as a Massachusetts Liberal, filled with Big Government payoffs and cronyism.

So tell me, how is that “better”?

Razgriez on June 5, 2012 at 9:08 AM

You then referred me to his site. I was asking someone to point to/cite/regurgitate/explain/expound/”you name it” just one thing where Mittness offers a bold contrast to Oboobi. I didn’t ask for a link to milquetoasty platitudes. Crickets…
AH_C on June 5, 2012 at 12:54 AM

I didn’t read your entire tedious rant. I quoted one sentence from it which was abjectly false.

Romney’s agenda is to: Repeal the “Progressive” ObamaCare, open up drilling in the gulf, ANWR, fracking, Keystone Pipeline, et cetera; cut and simplify taxes; cut regulations (notably EPA regs which are a “progressive” disaster); repeal Dodds-Frank, cap and balance the budget; appoint conservative judges; strengthen our military; reset the “progressive” foreign policy agenda of Clinton/Obama, and so on. All this (and more) is in “bold contrast” to Obama and does not consist of “platitudes”. Every item is actionable and has significant, beneficial consequences. The alternative, four more years of Obama, is to continue on a calamitous course of precipitous decline, “forward” over the precipice.

~finis~

Buy Danish on June 5, 2012 at 9:12 AM

you do realize that the title of the thread exposes the fact that key advisors to rmoney are going only actively advocating, but indeed, stand to profit from obamaromney care.

call us every name in the book you want. The truth is the truth.

mitt = obama.

renalin on June 5, 2012 at 8:55 AM

Of course I realize it. I despise it. However, I am also stating an objective fact. Those of you who insist “mitt = obama” are jackasses. You are braying brainlessly because it suits how you feel.

I wish a had a better choice. Romney wasn’t my choice. He was way down my list. So what? I am an adult. There are many things I have to do that I do not like having to do.

You are not acting like adults. You behave exactly like irresponsible children who can’t get their way. If you did not get the toy you wanted, you’ll try your best to break the one you got. That’ll who “them!”

fadetogray on June 5, 2012 at 9:20 AM

That’ll who “them!”

fadetogray on June 5, 2012 at 9:20 AM

Crap. That should have been: That’ll show “them!”

fadetogray on June 5, 2012 at 9:21 AM

That’s a rather niggling problem I have with many of my fellow Romney detractors, particularly as embodied by Madisonconservative. “A vote for Romney is a vote for Romney, a vote for Obama is a vote for Obama, and a vote for neither is a vote for neither.” That’s kind of a flimsy hill to die on, since we won’t be getting a “President Neither” in November. It will be either Romney or Obama.

gryphon202 on June 5, 2012 at 9:37 AM

That’s kind of a flimsy hill to die on, since we won’t be getting a “President Neither” in November. It will be either Romney or Obama.

gryphon202 on June 5, 2012 at 9:37 AM

You’re right. It’s like refusing to bear arms and fight an advancing army because he’s deluded himself into thinking the invasion won’t do any damage that can’t be remedied by the emergence of the perfect candidate/general in 4 years.

Buy Danish on June 5, 2012 at 9:52 AM

Of course I realize it. I despise it. However, I am also stating an objective fact. Those of you who insist “mitt = obama” are jackasses. You are braying brainlessly because it suits how you feel.

I wish a had a better choice. Romney wasn’t my choice. He was way down my list. So what? I am an adult. There are many things I have to do that I do not like having to do.

You are not acting like adults. You behave exactly like irresponsible children who can’t get their way. If you did not get the toy you wanted, you’ll try your best to break the one you got. That’ll who “them!”

fadetogray on June 5, 2012 at 9:20 AM

So as an adult, the solution is to go with Group think mentality, and and lie to your self that somehow a guy whose records holds very few key differences between himself and the current president is some how going to be much better for the country, than who we have now?

That’s somehow responsible? That’s some how intelligent? That’s somehow acting like an adult? And then you dare call folks like me “Brainless”, that we’re “Braying” like mindless donkeys? So claiming you have views and beliefs you will toss out the window for an empty victory is a great idea? Fine, if that’s the fairy tale you want to believe in, be my guest, but don’t try force me to share it, nor insult me for choosing not to believe in it.

I believed in that lie once in 2008, that voting for someone with R by your name is somehow by default. Reality is, it isn’t, NY-23 further proved that. 2010 in my state confirmed my growing doubts. You don’t win elections by simply sticking your GOP Elephant badge or your chest and saying “Vote for me because I have an R by my name”. You win elections by bringing substance, not empty words and promises.

You might as well be trying to hold up 2 drinks and say “Glass A has poison in it. Glass B, also has the same poison in it, but less of it. Therefore, glass B is better for you to drink it”. Why yes, I suppose in the most narrow of senses with a bit of cherry picking, glass be is “less harmful” for me. But wouldn’t Option C. saying “Errr no thanks, I’m going to go walk away from this, and not intentionally harm myself, and pour myself a glass of a non-poisoned drink” make the best sense? Or does being an “adult” in your view also involve giving a complete disregard for common sense and better judgement?

Razgriez on June 5, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Hmmm, eight pages, must not be a big deal for Rmoney™ after all.

Bmore on June 5, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Well there’s only one thing you can do as a conscientious ABR and vote for Obama. Go for O- and show that mean Mitt you will not be taken for granted. Give him a lesson in True Conservatism and vote for the non- etch-a-sketch candidate.
How will you be able to live with yourself if you vote Romney and he wins ?

Think about it – Who would you be able to blame then?

FlaMurph on June 5, 2012 at 7:36 AM

Sqhishy

Hot

Gas

Serving the Center Right since 2012

Tim_CA on June 5, 2012 at 10:51 AM

As someone who greatly admires Palin
bluegill on June 5, 2012 at 8:26 AM

I know you must have been ROFL when typing that statement. Those of us that have been here longer, know you. LOL

bluefox on June 5, 2012 at 10:52 AM

You’re right. It’s like refusing to bear arms and fight an advancing army because he’s deluded himself into thinking the invasion won’t do any damage that can’t be remedied by the emergence of the perfect candidate/general in 4 years.

Buy Danish on June 5, 2012 at 9:52 AM

Hot

Gas

“Your slightly Center Right News Source”

Join us and stand for nothing!

Tim_CA on June 5, 2012 at 10:57 AM

You are not acting like adults. You behave exactly like irresponsible children who can’t get their way. If you did not get the toy you wanted, you’ll try your best to break the one you got. That’ll who “them!”
fadetogray on June 5, 2012 at 9:20 AM

so now your suppose to be the adult? why then do you want to raise my taxes and take away my private insurance.

do you expect me to lay down and vote for someone who will take away my hard earned money and give it away to welfare queens and illegals?

you must be living on another planet.

renalin on June 5, 2012 at 11:10 AM

You are not acting like adults. You behave exactly like irresponsible children who can’t get their way. If you did not get the toy you wanted, you’ll try your best to break the one you got. That’ll who “them!”
fadetogray on June 5, 2012 at 9:20 AM

Projection, thy name is mittbot.

Hot

Gas

squishy…

formless…

Hot

Gas

“Your Moderate News Source – Lean Sideways”

Tim_CA on June 5, 2012 at 11:15 AM

Another day, another Mittbot calling somebody a spoiled crybaby brat and failing to notice (or not caring) that it isn’t changing anybody’s mind.

Aitch748 on June 5, 2012 at 11:26 AM

Good news: Leader of Romney’s transition wants to implement ObamaCare exchanges

Of course…there’s tons of money to be made off of this…and carbon credits. Unless I’ve missed something, I haven’t noticed the insurance companies complaining about Obama/Romneycare. They now have a way to get money from those who aren’t buying insurance from them now…and of course we’ll foot the bill for those that can’t afford it…it’s a scam.

The odd thing is, if Obama/Romneycare were not a mandate but merely privatization of health care (possibly replacing Medicare and Medicaid), or quasi privatization as in the case of CHAMPUS/Tricare, this thread would not exist on this Conservative forum.

Why is it that we are OK being ripped off by certain private concerns (of course, we never like the government doing that ’cause government is evil) as long as we’re not told we must? It’s still a rip-off of the American taxpayer no matter how you cut it.

To me the best solution is to do away with the collusion between the government and the insurance industry where they’ve made it so that you have few competitive options when trying to buy health care whether you’re an individual, labor union, or company. But who in their right mind would toss aside a perfectly good monopoly?

Dr. ZhivBlago on June 5, 2012 at 11:27 AM

“Your Moderate News Source – Lean Sideways”

Tim_CA on June 5, 2012 at 11:15 AM

Its come to this.

What is moderate news anyways ? What do those parameters look like Charlie?

Are there moderate foods as well ?

And should we be censored from other kinds of news that are not approved of by the central committee ?

Cogito ergo sum ….NOT a close-minded ABR trying to escape to a theoretical fantasyland.

FlaMurph on June 5, 2012 at 11:35 AM

What is moderate news anyways ? What do those parameters look like Charlie?

Are there moderate foods as well ?

And should we be censored from other kinds of news that are not approved of by the central committee ?

Cogito ergo sum ….NOT a close-minded ABR trying to escape to a theoretical fantasyland.

FlaMurph on June 5, 2012 at 11:35 AM

If you have to ask mitbott…you just might be a RINO

LMFAO.

Hot

Gas

“having no backbone is easy…just ask us”!!

Lean Sideways

Tim_CA on June 5, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Just when I thought the drive back over here to see this thread one last time wouldn’t yeild anything worth the drive. This appears. Funny! Funniest thing I have read all day. Funny! Bread Ball?

As someone who greatly admires Palin
bluegill on June 5, 2012 at 8:26 AM

Bmore on June 5, 2012 at 12:59 PM

I guess the rule is that anyone who thinks Romney and Obama are not just the same is a “mittbot.” Doesn’t matter if you opposed Romney in the primaries. You’re still a mittbot.

I am sorry. I insulted children and jackasses. I apologize to them. Neither of them is nearly as brainless and wilfully irresponsible as the phony “conservatives” who would let Obama have four more years to finish the job he’s been doing on us completely free of the constraint of having to win reelection.

fadetogray on June 5, 2012 at 1:06 PM

You are not acting like adults. You behave exactly like irresponsible children who can’t get their way. If you did not get the toy you wanted, you’ll try your best to break the one you got. That’ll who “them!”
fadetogray on June 5, 2012 at 9:20 AM

I guess the rule is that anyone who thinks Romney and Obama are not just the same is a “mittbot.” Doesn’t matter if you opposed Romney in the primaries. You’re still a mittbot.

I am sorry. I insulted children and jackasses. I apologize to them. Neither of them is nearly as brainless and wilfully irresponsible as the phony “conservatives” who would let Obama have four more years to finish the job he’s been doing on us completely free of the constraint of having to win reelection.

fadetogray on June 5, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Flail about much?

Hot

Gas

“Stand with us in the mushy middle”

and

Lean Sideways

Tim_CA on June 5, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Tim_CA on June 5, 2012 at 10:57 AM

Timmy reporting from a sandbox in CA – Your Elementary School News Source for The Weekly Reader (the uncensored version).

Buy Danish on June 5, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Timmy reporting from a sandbox in CA – Your Elementary School News Source for The Weekly Reader (the uncensored version).

Buy Danish on June 5, 2012 at 1:29 PM

awwww…..mad again sugar pants?

are you really mad or just “Moderately” mad?

Tim_CA on June 5, 2012 at 1:34 PM

I must say that as I read through the comments on this thread, that I am happy to see that not all of the conservatives have left this site yet or given in to the Mitten’s brigade.

Buckshot Bill on June 5, 2012 at 1:47 PM

I must say that as I read through the comments on this thread, that I am happy to see that not all of the conservatives have left this site yet or given in to the Mitten’s brigade.

Buckshot Bill on June 5, 2012 at 1:47 PM

Amen my brother…..but we’re rapidly becoming an endangered species here.

Tim_CA on June 5, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain ye olde CONSERVATIVE SLAVES!!

You must STILL VOTE for WILLARD in November!!

LOL

Bunch o fools

HondaV65 on June 5, 2012 at 3:01 PM

More and more it’s looking like the republicans will be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. With Romney, they’ll screw things up as usual and we’re destined to lose this one even against a disaster like Obama. One of the few consolations in that scenario, if there are any, is that Romney then won’t be the face of the future for the republican party. That is definitely a good thing because even if by a freak of nature he were to win, he’s already showing lousy judgment and a preview of what kind of “leader” he’d be. Plus there are a gaggle of Romneys waiting in the wings to continue that dynasty. Blech! Is it too late to dump this guy and start from scratch? Etch-a-sketch him and start with a clean slate. This is too important and scary for politics-as-usual.

mozalf on June 5, 2012 at 9:03 AM

You speaketh the truth!
NOMITTNOBAMA 2012! America Deserves Much, Much Better!

Pragmatic on June 5, 2012 at 3:18 PM

One of the few consolations in that scenario, if there are any, is that Romney then won’t be the face of the future for the republican party.

That part is true. It will be Huntsman, or someone further to the Left. The Party elites will figure they shouldn’t have gone so far to the right of McCain by choosing Romney. They should have gone left of McCain.

You guys really do not grasp how politics really works. It doesn’t work the way you think is should or dream it would. When the guy furthest to the Left wins, all politicians tack further toward the Left, not to the Right, and voters in the squishy middle figure that’s the way that must be correct, so they adjust their worldviews accordingly.

fadetogray on June 5, 2012 at 3:27 PM

That part is true. It will be Huntsman, or someone further to the Left. The Party elites will figure they shouldn’t have gone so far to the right of McCain by choosing Romney. They should have gone left of McCain.

You guys really do not grasp how politics really works. It doesn’t work the way you think is should or dream it would. When the guy furthest to the Left wins, all politicians tack further toward the Left, not to the Right, and voters in the squishy middle figure that’s the way that must be correct, so they adjust their worldviews accordingly.

fadetogray on June 5, 2012 at 3:27 PM

Mittens is a liberal, so is McCain, so is Boehner, so is McConnell. None of them is to the right of the other. Electing Mittens won’t move the country towards conservatism, so why bother pretending it will?

Better to not vote at all. Politicians only care about the votes they don’t already have by default. If the GOP loses the conservative voting block, they will either move right or die off like the Whigs, and be replaced. Which is the best possible option at this point, anyway.

A vote for Mittens is a vote to continue moving the GOP in the wrong direction and the Country with it.

Buckshot Bill on June 5, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Yeah, I see here a few different definitions of “conservative”. Those who believe they’re ‘pure’ are fooling themselves because they’re only one-trick ponies.

Ron Paul compromises but has the best definition I’ve seen. If your principles are to cut spending and lower taxes then you can compromise ONLY IF the result is still in the direction you’re aiming for.

If you want to cut spending a lot you can compromise and cut less as long as the result is a cut. The same, obviously, goes for taxes.

If you want to cut spending but the Dems want to increase it, then NO compromise is to be allowed that merely increases spending less.

Isn’t that obvious?

For decades compromise has led to what the Democrats want, just a little bit less.

No longer.

But if there is NO compromise on how much to cut and over what period and there are only demands to do it all NOW, you will lose.

Thus, I’m backing Romney and believe the anti-Romney folks are losers.

MaggiePoo on June 5, 2012 at 3:40 PM

But if there is NO compromise on how much to cut and over what period and there are only demands to do it all NOW, you will lose.

Thus, I’m backing Romney and believe the anti-Romney folks are losers.

MaggiePoo on June 5, 2012 at 3:40 PM

Romney doesn’t want to cut anything, and never will. You’re compromising your beliefs for nothing. Or you don’t actually have beliefs, whichever.

Buckshot Bill on June 5, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Romney doesn’t want to cut anything, and never will. You’re compromising your beliefs for nothing. Or you don’t actually have beliefs, whichever.

Buckshot Bill on June 5, 2012 at 3:46 PM

And you know this how? You’ve got your own fevered swamp you’re mucking around in.

MaggiePoo on June 5, 2012 at 3:48 PM

And you know this how? You’ve got your own fevered swamp you’re mucking around in.

MaggiePoo on June 5, 2012 at 3:48 PM

Romney has a history, ignoring it may make him more palatable, but doesn’t change who he is and will always be. If he wins in November, the government won’t decrease in size by a single job over the next 4 years, spending won’t decrease by one penny, and the deficit will continue to balloon at a record pace.

And you’ll be here defending him just like the O-bots defend their loser-in-chief, no matter how obviously useless he is.

Buckshot Bill on June 5, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Romney has a history, ignoring it may make him more palatable, but doesn’t change who he is and will always be. If he wins in November, the government won’t decrease in size by a single job over the next 4 years, spending won’t decrease by one penny, and the deficit will continue to balloon at a record pace.

And you’ll be here defending him just like the O-bots defend their loser-in-chief, no matter how obviously useless he is.

Buckshot Bill on June 5, 2012 at 3:53 PM

I didn’t know you were a Democrat, that changes things. They’re the ones who cite history and ignore context. The deficit won’t be reduced in year one or two or even three. But the structure of our spending will change for the better and the curve will go down along with higher revenues coming in because the tax code will be cleaned up to a large extent and the economy will grow.

You’re just afraid Romney will win so you’ll have to eat your words.

Unless you’re a loser who believes (out of principle, of course) that America will fail if the deficit increases by even a penny.

Get a life.

MaggiePoo on June 5, 2012 at 4:07 PM

When I said ‘deficit’ I meant ‘debt’. The deficit WILL be reduced each year. Count it.

MaggiePoo on June 5, 2012 at 4:10 PM

When I said ‘deficit’ I meant ‘debt’. The deficit WILL be reduced each year. Count it.

MaggiePoo on June 5, 2012 at 4:10 PM

And if you wish really hard, he’ll give you a skittle-shiting unicorn just like Obama promised you in 2008.

Buckshot Bill on June 5, 2012 at 4:15 PM

When I said ‘deficit’ I meant ‘debt’. The deficit WILL be reduced each year. Count it.

MaggiePoo on June 5, 2012 at 4:10 PM

behold! an example of a rabid mittbot. shamelessly lying. what about leavitt=crony capitalist extraordinaire. who do you think is going to pay for his fancy cars and airplanes.

you mittbots will cut your nose off to spite your face. yeeeeecch.

renalin on June 5, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Buckshot Bill
renalin
HondaV65

You are in the desert of discontent.

Get out of the desert.

Newt and Santy aren’t coming back.

Put your big boy pants on and stop crying like little girls.

FlaMurph on June 5, 2012 at 6:34 PM

Cogito ergo sum ….NOT a close-minded ABR trying to escape to a theoretical fantasyland.

FlaMurph on June 5, 2012 at 11:35 AM

Put your big boy pants on and stop crying like little girls.

FlaMurph on June 5, 2012 at 6:34 PM

lol.

Hot

Gassssss

“were so moderate…we don’t even understand ourselves”

Hot

Gas

“PROUDLY Center-Right”

Tim_CA on June 5, 2012 at 7:58 PM

Is he strongly Conservative, too?

kingsjester on June 4, 2012 at 4:28 PM

No he is severely conservative !!!

cableguy615 on June 5, 2012 at 9:07 PM

I am sorry. I insulted children and jackasses. I apologize to them. Neither of them is nearly as brainless and wilfully irresponsible as the phony “conservatives” who would let Obama have four more years to finish the job he’s been doing on us completely free of the constraint of having to win reelection.

fadetogray on June 5, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Just empty words and childish insults with false apologies from someone whose pretending he’s somehow the “Adult” of this debate. I am well aware of the risk of Obama, I however, do not ignore the risk of Romney.

You can take poison from the Blue cup and put it in the Red cup, it’s still poison. It doesn’t magically stop being poison just because you serve the poisonous ideas inside of a different cup. You do not end a concern about the poison by force feeding it to someone who doesn’t want to drink it. You end the concern, by pouring out the poison from the cup, cleaning it out, and serving a fresh, clean drink.

Again, because I have to state this apparently over and over again to even get this through to you.
There is a problem: Romney has a very Liberal, very R.I.N.O. record that can not be ignored except by blind ignorance. To this day, despite his supposed changes in outlooks (many of which come all too conveniently when an election rolls around) he still flirts too often with big government liberalism and crony capitalism. If we’re going to say it’s bad when a Democrat does it, then we can not afford to ignore it and say “But it’s ok when a Republican does it”. Wearing the Party blinders, ends up with Big Government elitism. And right now, the only “assurance” we who share a more independent Small Government view have, is mere words from Romney, which he has proven all too often, are just that, mere empty words, and this nebulous “Well it’s ok if he wins, because we’re “sure” he’ll lean conservative”

To jump blindly onboard, is to be a hypocrite. It would be saying: “We’ll criticize Eric Holder for trying to cook the books via Operation Fast and Furious to boost his chances at taking away 2nd amendment rights, but we’ll support a R.I.N.O. who supports laws that strip away our 2nd amendment rights, as long as it’s to beat Obama.” It would be saying “Yea, we’re ok supporting the guy whose responsible for passing the foundation to Obamacare and many of the unconstitutional pieces of Obamacare, if it means we can defeat Obama” and so on and so forth.

Tell me, how is that a victory? Yea, I’ll support those who I feel are for small government, local, and federal for House and Senate, but don’t try to force me to be a hypocrite for sake of sports team mentality. That’s not going to fix the problems we have in the U.S. it’s only going to tell the major parties that they can continue to take advantage of us, and take further money from our wallets, and gain further unchecked power, and completely ignore the problems our nation has.

Razgriez on June 5, 2012 at 9:11 PM

Yep! Willard is nothing like Romney 0bama. /s

DannoJyd on June 24, 2012 at 4:24 AM

Comment pages: 1 6 7 8