« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Romney Advisor: No Obamacare Repeal

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  January 25th, 2012 at 09:10 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

As Ben Domenech notes in his Transom, Mitt Romney’s advisors have now advised him to support “a $2 gas tax, a VAT, and open Taliban talks.” Add to that list not repealing Obamacare. Norm Coleman, an advisor to Romney, went on record saying

We’re not going to do repeal. You’re not going to repeal Obamacare… It’s not a total repeal… You will not repeal the act in its entirety, but you will see major changes, particularly if there is a Republican president… You can’t whole-cloth throw it out. But you can substantially change what’s been done.

We’ve had this dribble out at the Romney Fan Club over at National Review too — just fix it, don’t repeal it. There are practical reasons for doing so, but we should not lose our perspective. The base of the Republican party is energized by the prospects of complete repeal. All the candidates have said they would repeal it. Mitt Romney, within the past two years, flipped his position going from nibbling to full repeal.

In the South Carolina debate on CNN last week, Newt Gingrich said he did not trust the congressional staffs (plural) and would therefore insist on full repeal via reconciliation, which is how the Democrats passed it in the first place through the Senate. His was a wise point. The congressional staffs, both Democrat and Republican, have started functioning as an entrenched legislative branch bureaucracy both doing what they think best for the country even when the voters want otherwise.

In fact, the entrenched legislative bureaucracy has a great deal to do with congressional disapproval in the public. Republican staffers want to inch the ball down the field instead of fighting. Democrat staffers are far more aggressive.

If a Republican gets into the White House and does not sweat blood trying to repeal Obamacare in its entirety (regardless of success), I predict the end of the Republican Party legitimately. It won’t be worth fighting for if the party itself does not think it worth fighting for its voters. If the GOP takes back the White House, it’s voters will expect a real fight, not a half-hearted attempt.

Tags: ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • In The Hook

    That will NOT go over well with anybody.

  • http://www.plumbbobblog.com Plumb_Bob

    If we cannot achieve the repeal of bad ideas that happen to touch the easy sound bites, then the nation is lost, and collapse is inevitable.

    The pre-existing conditions provision is not only wrong on the same grounds as the rest of the law — over-regulation of free enterprise — but it literally spells the death of the insurance industry. Insurance works by pooling the risk of a large population. If people can join at the point where their risk is 100%, then there is no incentive to join the pool any sooner than that — and then there is no pool at all.

  • mikelindell2

    Anyone in FL please vote 4 Newt. Romney is an unbelievable IMPOSTOR. Santorum needs to go now. Can you imagine how far left Romney would run in a general

  • http://www.skiloveland.com skicougar

    The day Ben Nelson was bought, I knew obamacare was here forever and just “hoped” it would be repealed.

    When you see that all those conservatives elected in 2010 havent amounted to squat and spending has increased still, it easy to believe nothing will get done in DC.

    I have hope the US turns around to the days under Reagan, but thats all I have is hope.

  • d_lamar

    It’s no different than insuring your car after you have an accident or your home after it’s already on fire.

    Let’s call it what it is, welfare. It’s not insurance.

  • daveinthed

    What is this, the RedState site or the RomneySucks site? Every day, lead stories trashing and undermining Romney, , .whilepromoting Gingrich. Is this guy getting paid by Newt’s people?

    Romney isn’t the “perfect” or “most conservative” Republican we’ve ever seen, but the guy is a great advocate for the cause and, more importantly, has the experience to “turn around” the lost ship.

    If Romney picks Ryan as his running mate, then adds some key names to the roster….Palin at Energy….Newt at Education….Rudy G at Justice or CIA…Cain at Treasury….Paul as an economic/budget advisor….etc…. then we will defeat Obama.

    If Newt is the nominee, we lose, and the far-righties get to blame Romney and other conservatives for it.

  • obamney2000

    Really how unpopular is the mandate going to be when the rubber meets the road?

    We oppose it on a consititutional & theoretical basis. But how many real americans are going to be affected negatively by a mandate?

    I’m guessing not very many.

    Most people already have insurance, the mandate doesnt affect those on medicare or medicaid, and there are exemptions and subsidies if you are really unable to afford the insurance.

  • mikelindell2

    To further the cause, he’s been fighting conservatism evey step of his carrer. Whether it’s guns, abortion, taxes, Reagan, health care,he’s been on the wrong side of it all. He’s left with no choice left but to attack Newt becausr Mitt stands for nothing. Don’t be fooled by this epic impostor and the establishment that is relentlessly pushing him.

  • septembergurl

    in the unlikely event he were elected President. That’s quite obvious. He would not even make the effort.

    In my opinion this makes him a disastrous President, because given a reasonably stalwart republican Congress, this refusal would lead to impeachment and an irrevocable national crisis.

    So, I hope the elite Repubs forcing Mittens on us will provide him with a reliable conservative constitutionalist VP, because he/she will be needed.

    As for Newt, he would fight for repeal, as Erick says. He understands the historical necessity for repeal, nothing less, in order to keep the bond with the voters. He understands the difficulty and the suicidal nature of fulfilling this promise. ACA repeal would be for Newt the equivalent of the WOT/Iraq War for Bush. It has to be done and it has to be done by him, but it will seriously damage his presidency and his party. Newt gets the historical imperative and he has the courage to commit to it.

    It would be done very badly, though, because of the faults we have seen in Newt. No need to go into them.. Newt would pursue repeal but we would pay a big price.

    We do have some candidates — former, never-ran, potential, has-beens, etc — who both understand that it has to be done and could do it without blowing up the Party. These would be candidates who have done things as executives at the state level that were considered difficult or impossible or bad or painful but were accomplished through skill and dedication and patience and force.

    But of course a candidate’s actual record has not been a qualifier in this contest, and matters not at all to the Limbaughs and Coulters who are calling the shots.

    Repeal of Obamacare will not be serious unless accompanied by deficit reduction and entitlement reform ie Medicare privatization. Try selling that one to the American people as your first act. Romney won’t even try.

  • bfelger

    No thanks. That’s one used car I’m not buying.

  • Tbone

    will doom conservatives. Hopefully, you are actually a Democrat as I would hate to think some one such as you thinks they are on our side.

  • carolina

    Newt is capturing the populist reaction to elites that have failed.

    Romney is an OBVIOUS elite, supported by the political elite.
    Romney’s economic plan is hopelessly out of touch with this core divide. His 59 points are right out of an elite consultant’s play book and it is such obvious rhetorical crap to anyone who didn’t go to Harvard Business School, anyone with common sense and an experience of main street business.

    The successfull political candidate has to show how it is the small busnessess that we look to for producing jobs, but we make them pay the highest taxes and the heavy burden of regulation and social benefit that they cannot scale as public corps can. They have to show that the rule by elites for elites creates a preditory dynamic of cronyism that allows public corps to prey on and limit competition from private corps.

    Reject all keynesian demand stimulus schemes no matter if they are tax based or government spending based and reform individual income taxes to be flat…with no complicating deducitons.

    Keep a lid on spending…and then leave it alone…there has to be a promise of long term policy stability if you want to attact long term capital investment.

  • Ann_W

    And it’s him, not Romney.

    But Romney needs to publicly chastise him, and get in front of this, because he has said he would repeal it, and it needs to be repealed.

  • scook84

    If the RNC pushes Romney, then the party must be disbanded. If the party will not support its voters then it should not exist.

    I am no longer listening to “moderation”. There is no place for it in this political climate. The rule of law is being ignored. I will not be a party to it.

    Sorry. Keep your Romney’s, McCain’s, Bush’s, etc. If a candidate will not support conservative principles then it will not have my support.

  • Tbone

    is either genetically or traumatically brain damaged.

  • edintexas

    NOT! As I’ve posted before, the content the media missed, (deliberately in the MSM?) when reporting on his “like to fire” comment, was that physician choice was “one thing” he wanted to fix about Obamacare. You don’t fix “one thing” if you plan to work for repeal.

    And, logically, how could Romney still be all in on supporting Romneycare, and yet be totally opposed to Obamacare? He based his alleged opposition to Obamacare on the basis of it being a national program. That is pretty thin for a person who alleges to be a Conservative.

  • http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

    This is excellent news:
    FreedomWorks President Wants New GOP Candidate: Tea Party Hasn’t ‘Coalesced’ Around Gingrich

    Not sure if Mitch Daniels will be the guy, but he would be a major improvement over Romney and Gingrich.

  • johnt

    Statist pimps and hustlers get highs just thinking about it, Start low for the suckers sake, say a “modest” 3% and then Wham, take off.
    Spare me the guff about it being a replacement. Didn’t know this about Romney, but it fits.
    And of course a hike in the gas tax, our perpetually run down roads and bridges that we spend billions on [ all sources] for upkeep.

  • Ben Howe

    Do you read this site to get the actual opinions of the writers? Or is it to have someone echo only what you think?

    I wonder if you’d be so indignant if it was Newt that was being attacked from the front page instead of Romney?

    You want to write stuff in favor of Romney, go right ahead. I know of no reason you can’t write a diary that expresses your views.

    But stop getting your stomach in knots because the people that write on the front page have opinions that differ from your own.

  • Tbone

    If he wins the election, it’s terminal.

  • In The Hook

    I make one point about tactics and people immediately say “oh jeez, this guy must be a Democrat, or giving in already are we?” It’s Mitch Daniels Syndrome!

    Romney’s people are terribly inarticulate here, but they are correct. We’re never going to sell the people “repeal Obamacare and go back to the old system” because we conceded that the old system was unsustainable too! And we’re right about that by the way.

    Repeal and replace is the way to go. As a party in power we will indeed be tasked with having an alternative because we were headed for financial ruin before Obamacare. Obamacare just increased the speed at which the train was headed for the cliff.

    So when we are asked to replace it with something, think we’re going to get a lot of support for allowing companies to ban pre-existing conditions once again without providing for some kind of alternative? No. We’re not. And that’s the consequences of getting destroyed in ’06 and ’08.

  • daveinthed

    Yes, as conservatives we should back the man who:

    - is a serial philanderer and has been married 3 times
    - is the ultimate hypocrite for going after BJC for Monica Lewinski while he was doing the same thing!
    - got run out of Congress
    - was slapped with a $300,000 fine for violations
    - sat on the couch with Pelosi lecturing us on “global warming”
    - was on the payroll of Freddie Mac for many years, right up to the crash
    - called Ryan’s entitlement reform plan “right-wing social engineering”
    - said he’d run a clean campaign, then went all-slime a week later, even using Obama’s class warfare talking points against Romney!
    - slimed the Swift-Boaters, again using class warfare to do it. Unreal.
    - what else….oh yes…
    - supported cap and trade
    - supported the individual mandate

    What else? There’s plenty more.

    Look, you’re kidding yourselves. Newt is, by far, the least desirable conservative of the 4 left. I once backed him to the hilt until he poked conservatism in the eye 8 too many times. He’s a joke and is a devisive, emotional, unsteady, career Washington bureaucrat and Big Baby.

    Romney, by contrast, is a class American success story who’s led an exemplary life and has had an incredible, versatile and successful career. And he made his money doing things the old-fashioned way…the “right way”. He didn’t cheat, steal, lie and waste other peoples’ money like those who actually wrecked the economy….those Democrats on Wall Street and in Washington …Rubin, Summers, Johnson, Blankfein, Daley, Mozilla, Frank, Dodd, Gorelick, Daley, Corzine, Madoff…

    Mitt Romney should be held up as a model of what’s makes America great. He studied well, went to college, got a good education, a good job…succeeded immensely and helped create 10s of thousands of jobs along the way. Instead, we get sites like RS trashing him every day in favor of Newt the serial philanderer. That’s a “good conservative”? Please.

  • CrabCakes

    I agree that he’ll do nothing or nearly nothing to repeal ObamaCare. Just like the GOP lined up behind W to pass Medicare Part D, though, with only the hardcore base complaining (and even then not very vocally; can you imagine the response on the Right if Obama had passed it?) and just like the Democrats sat silent when Obama went into Libya without even asking (can you imagine how they would’ve responded if Bush had done the same?), Romney will get a pass from his own party.

    If Obama gets reelected, then ObamaCare is here to stay, and the GOP will run against it every year until it becomes popular and untouchable like Medicare has. If Romney gets elected, then ObamaCare is here to stay, and it becomes a dead issue for the GOP. If Gingrich gets elected and carries a landslide in the House and the Senate, then maybe ObamaCare gets repealed. I don’t see that last scenario happening, though.

    (Full disclosure: I’m a lefty lurker and sometimes commenter, so take my opinion with as many grains of salt as desired.)

  • Bob_Frazier

    If we do not repeal ubamacare, our country as we have always known it is over. This takes precedence over everything. If this is true, I could never vote for Mitt Romney.

    I think Rick Santorum is a better choice than Newt. But as long as both would repeal ubamacare I could support them.

    FYI if the press can change the name of Osama to Usama, I can change the name of Obama to Ubama.

  • benko

    …

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    After that homerun SOTU response where Mitch Daniels said everything (or most) of what needed to be said, and did it well, I’m on board the Draft Mitch Daniels bandwagon. It’s amazing how good a mere midwest governor looks after weeks of 2nd wives/ Cayman island accounts/ lobbying vs vulture capitalist charges.

    Frankly, brokered convention is extremely unlikely to happen. I think Gingrich will win Florida and the nomination, and that Romney is just fundamentally flawed and if he loses Florida he will know it and pull out.

    I respect Dick Armey and FreedomWorks and find that viewpoint telling. If Dick Armey wont endorse Gingrich, after having worked with him … hmmmm.

  • mikelindell2

    Yes attack Newt’s personal life congrats, very good point. Let the country collapse because newt’s made mistakes in his personal life. His era as speaker was a true example of conservative achievement and success.

  • Right Reason

    None of these Rombots do. All they have is criticisms and attacks on other candidates. They know they cannot make a successful argument on why anyone should vote FOR Romney, so they need to argue that you can’t vote for anyone else.

  • Juggernaut

    especially BOCare. So its campaign suicide, wait till Newt throws this punch in his face. This should help some Romney fans and undecided make the move towards the least moderate candidate who espouses the conservative anthem.

  • In The Hook

    But I don’t see it happening. Unless something like a very, very narrow Gingrich win in Florida followed by Romney sweeping the February contests and then a draw on Super Tuesday.

  • Juggernaut

    yes, the one that called Marco Rubio “a crook”. This is clear proof Romney not only thinks like a moderate who is stuck in the 1990′s but it also shows he’s not afraid to hire firms known to pander to moderates, dems and independents…….who don’t understand Florida voters.

  • daveinthed

    Allow me to let some of you on a secret. Conservatism is not the far-right extremism that some of you think it is. There are a multitude of issues, including the usual suspects…abortion….gay rights….gun rights….even taxes…that many, if not most conservatives can comfortably find a rational, sensible “compromise” on. In fact, I’ll argue that if we as a party take some sensible “compromise” positions, we can put LIBs largely out of business.

    I resent the “far-righties” who yell and scream, a la Levin, at those of us who actually believe in liberty and thus, can find a sensible compromise on some of these issues. It is the right-wing extremists who give our party a bad name by seeking to limit individual liberty on a host of issues.

    Romney will govern center-right…leaning right because of the damage that the Democrats have done. Those who keep saying he’s a “liberal” are just not being honest. Listen to what he says, not the images you have in your mind from things he said during a campiagn years ago in Massoftaxes.

    We don’t have the “perfect” candidate. So we have to pick the one we think has the best chance to “right the ship”. Newt, for all his bluster and his one-time success, has been a very UNDESIRABLE CONSERVATIVE for the better part of the last 15 years! Romney has much more experience, OUTSIDE of Washington, and is better suited to confront the fiscal problems we are having. Newt is not a fiscal or economic genius. He’s a historian and an orator.

  • paladin1

    who has so recently “converted” to conservatism after a long career of liberal big government ideas and love from the Party elite would pull another of his famous flip-flops. Here’s a dose of reality; Romney has never believed in any of the conservative values he has professed since losing the 2008 primary. His conservative epiphany is nothing more than words of convenience uttered to lull the uninformed lazy voters into submission.

    RedState is doing what it has always done to expose the subterfuge of charlatans like Romney. If we succumb to the siren song of his “electabilty” argument or his false promises of conservatism, then the Republican Party will have finished off Obama’s plan to turn this nation into a third world country, dependent on the whims of the global elites whom our current Party leaders seem to so desperately want to emulate.

    Gingrich is not a perfect man and he is not a perfect conservative but he is infinitely better than Romney in terms of his ability to do what he has said he will do; repeal Obamacare, encourage self-sufficiency through a pride in work brought on by the notion that anyone has the opportunity to succeed if they take advantage of a renewed and robust economic recovery, a recovery brought on by reduced deficits and spending, reduced regulations to encourage business, and a sense that those who would invest in this new positive atmosphere of business can succeed.

    If we as a party choose to go the way of Romney, our party is doomed to extinction because we will have proven we no longer adhere to our principles but only pay lip service to them to propagandize the voters and trick them into believing there is a choice between the R’s and D’s on a ballot.

  • http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

    Like Newt’s support for redistribution of wealth and Health Care mandates.

    Video: Gingrich and mandates

    The Establishmenthmen is working to cut off Gingrich’s funding. Newt is running a “red meat” campaign and now that they have banned the audience from cheering there’s no angry mob to back him up.

    I suspect there will be more and more revelations coming out as the year wares on.

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    we need a 3-way split to get to a brokered convention.
    If voters decide to go with Santorum instead of Gingrich, as happened in Iowa, or he gets a boost in some states, then we could see delegates fracturing.

    Very unlikely, but …

    The ONLY other way out is for Romney to withdraw, get the new entrant in, and then have ROmney endorse the new entrant… Very tough to do … but do-able.

    Texas’ primary is getting pushed back into maybe May, due to redistricting fight.

  • bfelger

    We already have a good family man in the White House who runs to the left, and would never repeal ObamneyCare, thus making Romney completely superfluous as a candidate.

  • sigmasix

    Team Romney is in big trouble in Florida!

  • maddawg

    well, yeah, if the shoe fits. Name me something Mittens stands for that can be documented not to change in the last five or so years, other than him making money and I’ll change my mind.

  • joecollins

    And this article supports my underlying distrust in Willard.. He will say whatever he thinks we want to hear to get him elected. Then he will do whatever he wants. RomneyCare for all. VAT for a new revenue stream that will never go away. Liberal Supremes who will last decades.

    No thank you.

  • paladin1

    not only very unlikely but would only further fracture the conservative base of support for the party. People are dreamers if they think Daniels, Christie, Ryan, or any of the others are a party savior, much less a panacea. Each of them have their own issues and a change at this time in the process guarantees an Obama win, just as does if Romney wins the nomination.

  • paladin1

    lefty. In its current state, I agree with you in the bulk of what you say except that I take issue with your statement that the Gingrich wins scenario is unlikely. I believe the pulse of the voters is being drastically underestimated by the current leadership and many of the congressional members of both parties; the voters only need a candidate to coalesce around and that is Gingrich’s appeal to people. He is seen as someone who can be rallied around and counted on to fight the conservative fight. (OK, mostly conservative but much more so than Romney).

  • In The Hook

    http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/content/marco-rubio-mitt-romney-no-charlie-crist

    And then Rubio personally came out and blasted Gingrich’s “Romney’s anti-immigrant” ads.

    http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/01/25/2607255/sen-marco-rubio-scolds-newt-gingrichs.html

    So please spare me. If Gingrich continues to irritate him, Rubio might just endorse Romney. Mitt did, after all, give Rubio a ton of cash and endorsed him over Crist.

  • Whacker77

    It’s as simple as that. We’re screwed. On the one hand, we’ve got Romney who has come down on every side of every issue. Despite facing a field of candidates better suited for a SNL skit, he was unable to consolidate conservative support after five years of trying.

    On the other hand, we’ve got Newt and his penchant to do and say absolutely crazy things. He got into this race not be president, but to sell books. Somehow, it morphed into a campaign with the ability to win the nomination. Of course, that happened because every other candidate not named Mitt blew himself or herself up.

    Debate all you want whether one will have a worse effect on the generel election, but the fact is both will lose to Obama. If Romney is the nominee, the Tea Party will revolt. If Newt is the nominee, the mainline portion of the Republican Party will revolt. Either way, the overall party will be fractured.

    It’s a disgrace that a conservative party, coming off the resurgance of 2010, has nothing better to offer than Newt and Mitt. More disgraceful though is the fact our best candidates chose to sit out this race and effectively become Nero watching Rome burn. We should all remember this when the same people pop up in four years wanting our support.

    Unless a new candidate enters the race ensuring a brokered convention, Republicans will miss a chance to defeat the most vulnerable incumbant since Herbert Hoover.

  • septembergurl

    a Republican President, because of failure to carry out the GOP program. They went along with the (threat of) impeachment of Richard Nixon.

    Of course, the action against Romney would be taken to save their own behinds against the wrath of the voters (as the examples above are).

    The Congressional GOP was deeply committed to Bush as a wartime president or you might have seen more opposition to programs like NCLB and Medicare Part D. Romney won’t have that — unless he takes us to war somewhere.

  • acat

    Are we going to see another bitter woman being interviewed about old news?

    Regarding the “individual mandate”, it sure seems like what Gingrich wanted to mandate was “people will pay their bills” rather than what Obama and Romney wanted to mandate, “people will buy insurance”…

    I don’t see that as notably different than the deliberate media attempts to squint so the Texas Dream Act looks like the Federal Dream Act…

    Mew

  • http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com RoguePolitics

    My post of Jan, 8 2010. Total War means TOTAL WAR

    Your post today combined with yesterdays post shows you’re coming along nicely.

    The country can stand 4 more years of Obama just as easily as it can stand 4 more years of Neville Boehner.

    At least you are beginning to recognize the party can’t survive this marriage.

    The real question is, Do you want to win?

    Are you willing to face up the failures of the current cuddle with RINO’s approach and make a solid break?

  • renny

    I thought the whole purpose of the GOP was to present the opposite vision of the nightmare o and his thugs have created.

    If Romney has no control of his staff and the policies it is producing, he surely will not make an effective pres.

    Reps. should run on lower gov’t spending (eliminate the 24% more hires and “job” creation o did in DC for one), less taxation, open all fields of energy for exploration and production, repeal o’care, and ax the regulatory agencies that have made a no productivity America their vision.

    If Romney really cannot see a way to dump the Patient Protection and Affordability (commie-speak) Act, what good is he?

    Newt has his issues (but he is more a serial monogamist than a simple cheat) and he did some consulting that the right may not like but not anything illegal or even unethical (he needs to live like the rest of us), but mostly he has the best policy mind of all in the race, including the Dems.

    I think his biggest problem is money and org. of the Newt campaign, whereas Mitt has been preparing for years for this run. Regardless, as I have posted before, we must no eat our own and make these self-defeating and negative declarations “If my dog doesn’t win the fight, I am retiring to the far Tartugas and taking my vote with me.” No one who seriously wants to change the direction the o admin. has taken us can call him/herself a conservative and make those assertions.

  • http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

    I have lots and lots of popcorn. Mmmmmmmmmmmm….

  • http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

    “POLL: 33% of GOP Voters Want New Candidate To Enter Race… Developing… ”

    Popcorn!! Get your popcorn!!

  • Marcus_Traianus

    But now he has seen the error of his ways and does not. I’m confused.

    I will wait to hear from Romney on repeal. Not an adviser who seemed to mealy-mouth and dissemble through an article.

    This is what Romney says on his website. I will take it as his official position until otherwise noted;

    Our next president must repeal Obamacare and replace it with market-based reforms that empower states and individuals and reduce health care costs. States and private markets, not the federal government, hold the key to improving our health care system.

    This whole game is getting pretty silly and destructive.

  • Juggernaut

    just like Jim Demint. Anti-immigrant is fair game considering Romney saying he’d throw out illegals, then flip flopped last night with Self-Deportation…..so dumb sounding. Both men are using liberal tactics, Mitt started the negative crap in Iowa and now we have 3 out of 4 doing it constantly.

    The good about Newt is his conscious when people object, he stops using something while Romney using lib tactics and continues the lies that the media have debunked………he looks as weak as the kid who threatens to kick someone’s arse but never gets close to the tougher man.

  • Spartan4Life

    Nailed it!

  • acat

    Willard needs to throw his hat over the wall, not just in the ring. He must burn his ships. Knock off the egg-laying and butcher the hog.

    What is the cat talking about?

    Romney’s commitment to conservatism, so far, is purely in words. Just words. Worse, words that sound carefully focus-grouped and poll-tested. Nothing more… and it’s, not surprisingly, unconvincing.

    It is, in fact, sufficiently non-convincing that Gingrich is winning.

    I’m not saying Willard needs to start throwing red meat, or “get angry”. For one thing, that’s still just words. For another, it would sound completely inauthentic.

    I’m saying the Romney campaign need to show some fight, show some grit, raise the stakes. One simple change would be to remove the gloves where Obama is concerned.

    Ace of Spades spells it out, better than I can.

    Romney can’t win without engaging conservatism effectively .. and he’s gonna have to burn some bridges to do it.

    Mew

  • paladin1

    but GOP voters don’t run the convention. That a third of the voters are dissatisfied with the current choices is nothing new; dissatisfaction is rife this cycle because the public is dissatisfied with everything and that includes politicians and candidates. Everyone realizes we can’t stay where we are and is looking for the ideal dream candidate who can make all the bad things go away. If we really want to win an election however, we need to quit daydreaming and go with the most conservative candidate we have who can get elected because that dream candidate is as fictional as Beowulf . Lots of us believe Gingrich can and Romney can’t. Lots of us believe Romney can and Gingrich can’t. One group is going to win and then we will see if we picked right. We didn’t do so well with Dewey in 1948 and the Dems didn’t do well with Stevenson in 1952. Modern brokered candidates are few, far between, and losers.

  • CrabCakes

    There wasn’t any war going on then. Bush ran as a “compassionate conservative,” and the President’s party always rallies to support his agenda, just like the GOP would if Romney were elected.

    Also, Johnson was a Democrat.

  • acat

    Don’t get caught in the trap of assuming that two things with the same label are the same, eh?

    Sounded to me like Gingrich wanted to mandate that people pay their bills, while Romney wants to mandate that they buy insurance, and Obama wants to mandate that everyone be on Medicare.

    Mew

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    Or are we back to 5 different 5% candidates …
    I keep coming up Mitch Daniels or Bobby Jindhal or bust.

    It aint Paul Ryan (no exec experience), Chris Christie (RomneyBot), Jeb Bush (another Bush!?!?), or any who was in the field and left (Pawlenty, Huntsman, etc).

    What we really need is a poll: Daniels, Gingrich, Paul, Romney, Santorum… if that was the field, what would be the support?

    If the ‘new guy’ doesnt top the field, or get in the 20% range, its a pipedream.

  • paladin1

    the mainline party will revolt if Gingrich wins the nomination. They will be forced to prop up anyone they see as winning in order to protect themselves.

    The Tea Party, on the other hand, has nothing to lose by revolting if Romney wins, because Romney is proving more and more to be much like Obama in the areas of Tea Party concern. I could see the Tea Party trying to go third party and dividing the Republican Party if Romney is the next candidate in the long line of Dole, Bush I, McCain, and now the guy who couldn’t beat the guy who got beat by Obama, Romney.

    That would insure that the Republican Party could never count on winning another major election for a generation.

    I do agree with you about the shame of having nothing better to offer than what we have, but there is nothing better on the horizon. Too many people dream of the ideal candidate to save us all from liberalism. He is not there in the ideal form and a brokered convention is even worse than the fight going on now.

  • http://www.ArchitecturalShots.com mdyou

    …is just so much stupidity. A healthy young person pays a pittance for a policy, compared to the costs that are heaped upon everyone’s policy compared due to the mandate. It’s just another tax. More cost for less service.

  • red_oakster

    Newt simply has made too many enemies over the years to cobble together a majority inside a brokered convention.

    In a brokered convention, the party establishment will need to compromise, but they’ll get someone they’re OK with. The upside is that there will be enough conservative tea party types to insist on a solid conservative. In such a scenario, my guesses are Jindal, Ryan, Rubio, Jeb Bush, and McDonnell.

    If I had to choose between only Newt and Willard, I’d go for Newt. But my best scenario is that Newt wins Florida and then we have an inconclusive brawl through June.

  • benko

    If he had Christie’s “fortitute” he would not be flip flopping all over the place.

    And how in the world did a man with no spine function effectively as an executive?

  • lizzie

    effective Jan. 1, 2012.
    This is another Romney legacy – to mandate shutdown of fossil fuel electricity generation in favor of “green” alternatives.
    The shutdowns are on schedule, but the green alternatives are not.

    So, anyone who lambasts Newt for sitting on a sofa?

    Romney’s legacy on reducing CO2 emissions in Massachusetts just raised my generation cost per KWH by 10%, but more than half my cost is in transmission charges, and they appear to have gone down enough to temporarily offset the 10% generation cost per KWH. It is so complex that I guess I have to wait for February to see what was temporary and what was permanent in the delivery cost/KWH, but the generation cost IS up 10%, and THAT IS a Romney legacy program.

    Why would anyone trust Mr. Romney to do anything he promises?
    Huntsman was spot on with that weathervane metaphor.

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    I am sorry you are clueless about how much of a burden the mandate is. It tells us that we are not educating people to the real costs of Obamacare.

    Obamacare’s real cost is in the trillions of dollars, and would force expensive healthcare on millions.
    People have insurance, yes, but the bill forces FEDERAL GOVT APPROVED versions, that now require added mandates, eliminated low-cost high-deductable alternatives, and are channelling everyone on to ‘exchanges’ controlled by the government.

  • TexasTami

    …support something (or not support it) to curb Congress’ actions? Most Americans did not support ObamaCare and yet, it was pushed through. Polls show that most Americans still do not want ObamaCare. And yes, it comes down to freedom. I don’t have insurance by choice. I don’t want the Government coming in and telling me I have to purchase it–or anything. If we don’t want ObamaCare, then let’s put a plan in place that ensures personal freedom. I’m tired of losing my freedoms.

  • acat

    (recipe here)

    .. if we get to a brokered convention.

    As it is traditional for the convention to name both the POTUS and VEEP noms, I would look for an Establishment type on top and a Tea Party fave on the bottom.

    I would also not expect any of the names who threw hats in and later suspended to be on the top.

    Something like a Jeb Bush / Paul Ryan, or Daniels / Rubio pairing, coming out of the convention, could be quite effective.

    If, on the other hand, the rumors that Ron Paul is planning ahead and lining up “unfaithful delegates” mean we could end up with an “interesting times” ticket of McDonnell / Rand Paul….

    I’m not hoping for a brokered convention. I just don’t see anyone who would accept the nomination that way – selected, not elected – as being all that great at winning the general.

    Of course, it would hit the Reset button on the Obama side … and that alone may make it worthwhile.

    Mew

  • mikelindell2

    Yes, 4.2% unemployment, 11 million new jobs, balanced budgets and surpluses, welfare reform…yuck! Who would want that! I want the gov of MA who was 47th in job creation!

  • In The Hook

    “We said, look, we’re finding people that can afford health insurance, that are going to the hospital and getting the state to pay for them–people who are free riders. We said, you know what? We’re going to insist that those people who can afford to pay for themselves do so. That was our conclusion.” – Romney at the Ames debate.

    It’s all the same thing to be honest. Romney and Gingrich were both trying to eliminate the free riders and expand access to insurance. The only way they thought to do it was to force everyone to have insurance. Romney is right to not try and re-hash this argument and to stick with the federalist approach, especially since his system is running up costs in Mass. But you know what? That’s their prerogative. If Vermonters want to institute single-payer healthcare, they have that right. If Utah wants to get rid of Medicaid and Medicare entirely, they should be able to do that. We need the laboratories of democracy involved in different experiments, but we should not try and replicate ANY of them at the federal level.

  • lineholder

    they would have been better to simply say instead in insinuating that may do nothing more than nibble around the edges. That’s the worse case scenario that many people would be inclined to think of when they hear comments about leaving the bill intact and changing what’s been done.

    Repeal does need to take place. The foundation of O-care needs to be ripped up and replaced with something totally different. If they want to include things that they don’t think the general public would accept right now, such as pre-existing conditions, that’s their choice. But if the foundation for this legislation is left in place, then the next time we have a Dem President and Dem Congress, they will take and run with it much in the same way that the Obama admin has been doing.

    The greater point pertaining to Romney is whether he sees the negative economic impact of this type of socialized health care model in any way, shape, form or fashion. Apparently he either didn’t recognize it or wasn’t willing to fight against it when he signed it into law in Mass, because he didn’t say word one to the people of the state about the long-term negative economic implications of it, i.e. rising taxes to cover the cost of sustaining it, possible rationing of care, etc.

    He still praises the socialized health care model to this day every time he talks about how proud he is that he was part of implementing this model in Mass. It’s been one of THE biggest questions I’ve had about Romney all along…will he actually put forth the effort that is required to get O-care repealed?

  • lizzie

    I just watched Daniels SOTU response (I was watching “Justified” last night since I need no new traumas this week.)

    Well, it’s your GOP.

    I am just a fiscal conservative looking for a new President, and, altho not in the betting business, I think Romney is now a spoiled mayonnaise sandwich, and y’all are going to have to support Newt – even Daniels has baggage that has nothing to do with Cherie. Daniels was Bush43′s budget director, and made his private sector money at Big Pharma, Eli Lilly.

    Daniels is very Coolidge, and HE should be SecTreas – a post which is 100% about restoring confidence in America. (and anyone thinking Mr. Cain belongs in any cabinet above managing the school lunch program inside the DoAgriculture needs a detox)

    Just read the Miami Herald (linked at RCP) about the fight for Miami, where Romney’s Iowa hard-core immigration stance is not playing well. Seems the Dream Act IS popular with legal Hispanic voters. And how McCain won FL in 2008.

    Perry & Texas had it correct on in-state tuition. and was demonized for that before his gaffes did any real harm.

    Anyone dreaming of a brokered convention risks Rand Paul as the GOP nominee. Do not forget Ron Paul’s goal is enough delegates to force a second vote.

    Jon Stewart’s Daily Show was brilliant on Tuesday night. He destroyed every aspect of Romney-ism. the weathervane, the tax loophole, and being bested by Newt in the Monday debate. Truly brilliant.

    And, as far as I know, Jon Stewart never bashed or has mentioned Rick Perry since his tactical retreat on Jan 19. I appreciate that, and hope the rest of the juvenile media also gives Perry a rest.

    what a time for such fracturing, on both sides. sigh.

  • septembergurl

    But Medicare Part D (arguably worse) was passed in 2003 and Republicans also went to the mat in support of W’s immigration amnesty as well.

    Part of me wants to riposte to Johnson was a Democrap by saying so is Romney…in effect he will carry out the program of the Party he represents.

  • lizzie

    I meant how McCain won the GOP primary in 2008 – he overwhelmed Romney with the Cuban voters.
    the stats are in the Miami Herald article linked at RCP this morning.

  • goodgovernance

    He’s been telling us he’ll repeal Obamacare completely, all the while never meaning it.

    You can see the calculus now, can’t you? Once he’s in the presidency, he appeals to moderates and independents by leaning on what he did with Romneycare in Massachusetts to “fix” Obamacare’s mistakes, thus showing everyone he’s not a big, mean, conservative, but a cuddly papa bear the country will surely award with a second term for being such a great fixer-upper. “I can do what the Dems do, only better!” will be his rallying cry.

  • fightnright

    Here’s why I’m beginning to think (again) that Mitt has a better chance than Newt…

    There’s a whole new demographic of voters out there made up of moderate Dems, independent voters, former firm-Dem Obama supporters (including jobless African -Americans) who did not understand how far left the shiny new ‘moderate’ that they voted for would pull the country and how badly it would affect their wallets, along with moderate Republicans who flipped to Dem because of the 2008 fall economic condition of the country, their disapproval of the Iraq invasion and the long, costly war that followed.

    **These are the only folks whose votes will be up for grabs this fall**. Not the conservative thinkers, whose votes this year will vastly go (R) in any case. Yes, there will be some stay-at-homes in any election, but their numbers will probably be lower this time out with a radical president in the WH, and because the results of last election’s opt-out had extreme consequences.

    This new huge demographic of ‘anybody but Obama’ voters are struck by their shrinking paychecks, diminished careers, their small businesses faltering or closing, their houses underwater, the everyday inflation index rising, etc. And a reality that must be faced is that these voters (actually at this point in time, most voters not solidly politically aligned) are wary of what they see as the excesses of both liberals and conservatives, or as they would probably frame it, don’t want anything to do with (what they see as) the far right OR the far left.

    Mitt Romney is deliberately and carefully positioning himself to be precisely that candidate and to appeal to precisely these voters – the safe option for the ‘anybody but Obama’ voter – when all is said and done by November, when that voter is alone in the voting booth. This may be the greatest boon – sadly perhaps the ONLY boon – for the Republican party this fall, despite the understandable resistance from the conservative wing. Does anybody here really believe that this huge demographic of moderate voters, purple voters, secularists and even former Obama voters would be more likely to pull the lever for Newt Gingrich than for the less divisive Mitt Romney? Especially after an ad barrage aimed against Newt’s conservative, Tea Party leaning record? (Like it or not, the pop media and the MSM has made the Tea Party more radioactive with the moderate/swing voter than nearly any other movement or idea).

    This huge swath of voters may be swayed by Dem attacks on Mitt’s Bain history, but they are also *more* aware of Obama’s jobs record, which already has destroyed their own job/business prospects, turning them into ‘unpersons’ on the BLS rolls. Further, these voters have proven that they are willing to let a reasonable new candidate try to effect change, as evidenced by their last vote.

    The fact is as the primary chips have fallen, we probably have only two choices this fall, as given ample proof by the destructive division within our party, demonstrated by the polls and the rancor on the right wing blogs and websites. The choices may only be between a moderate Republican, and a radical liberal. For conservatives afraid of a moderate Republican agenda, Mitt is highly unlike to offend the conservatives he has been courting to win the White House in his first term, and he is so self-controlled and ambitious that there is little chance he will let himself go down as a one term president. (think the Harriet Myers dynamic). Even conservatives recognize that – Mitt is not a rigid idealogue like Obama, who is on the record as saying he would rather have one term achieving the agenda he believes in. Newt is far less reliable in the long term and in every sense, too easily swayed by his emotions, his ego and his sense of pique, and is less likely to go the distance in steering a much more radicalized Congress, unions, court system, and bureaucracy . And in practice, Newt has also demonstrated his own propensity in recent years to betray conservative principles, enjoys being a ‘go-along, get along’ Washingtonian, and has his own record of DC insider advocacy and waste. In fact, I’m not even certain any more that Newt will stay in till November, or that he genuinely wants to. And after last night’s SOTU, I’m no longer sure that is the worst thing that may happen.

  • lineholder

    “if they want to include things that they don’t think the general public would accept going without right now”…

  • bonnman

    because it is mandated under Federal and State laws that require hospitals to care for people whether they can afford it or not, its been this way since the 1980s at least.

    The expense just gets passed on to everyone else who is actually paying their own way because hospitals raise their prices to cover the free services they are required to give. You already pay a higher cost for health care because there are a bunch of people who aren’t insured and can’t pay for themselves.

  • lizfstone

    NO politician from Massachusetts.

  • lineholder

    The only way that the socialized health care model on which O-care is based has managed to reduce percentage of health care spending in relation to GDP in other nations is via rationing of care, elimination of specific types of care, elimination of research and development that could promote more efficient types of care or processing of care, etc. In other words, you don’t get care when you need it, and the kind of care you need may not be allowed due to cost of that care. And the system never becomes more efficient because the mechanism that would allow for changes to be made via R&D don’t exist.

    Projections are that health care costs under O-care will reach 25% of our GDP within a few years. That’s a conservative estimate at best, because no one knows at this point how many employers will engage in employee dumping. If this particular phenomenon is widespread and profuse, then subsidy cost for the public health exchange will go through the roof! Dems grossly and very negligently underestimated the cost of subsidy via the exchange so that they could present the bill as being close to budget neutral as possible.

    When O-care was first being considered, we were all concerned about the government having control over 16% of our GDP. Remember that? Well, soon it will be up to at least 25% of our GDP. In addition, the health care industry has surpassed the automotive industry in the leading employer industry in the US, and government will have control over this as well.

  • unclefred

    Lets accept as a given that there is no Republican who can be selected who can’t be pilloried by the left. We must understand that means that all September will be spent trying to introduce the nominee in the head winds of negative ads and press hatchet jobs. That will be the focus, not Obama’s record.

    A brokered convention is not the panacea that folks might think. I’m not sure we really want to hope for one.

  • acat

    slap down the challengers on his right in the *general*.

    By playing the centrist, Romney is setting himself up for the same problem George H. W. Bush had, a strong challenger to his right in the general…. and there are at least two folks who will be auditioning for this part.

    Given his history, Romney may be able to strangle their runs in their respective cribs, but .. if he fails to do so effectively, we could end up re-electing Obama in a plurality, as we elected and then re-elected Bubba Clinton.

    Mew

  • benko

    ..

  • ceili_dancer

    If it is repealed, then there is no issue to issue a waiver over.
    In other words, it sounds like he will keep it, but try to circumvent it. Which would be a mistake, the bureaucracy is still there with all of its infrastructure and spending, just not enforced.

  • dajeeps

    Maybe we should toss out arbitrary numbers like 7% unemployment is good? Or maybe just a $1T deficit instead of !1.5T?

    That’s it, just split the baby down the middle, who cares of there still unnecessary misery.

  • ceili_dancer

    He’d have to spend another year in each state knocking on doors and meeting people at shopping centers and pandering to whichever lobby defines that particular state.

  • fightnright

    and toughen up!

    If Newt does not last through this primary (and I LOVE LOVE LOVE his example for future Repubs on the secrets of winning debates) , I am going to start hearing black helicopters and begin thinking that was the only reason Newt threw his hat in the ring in the first place – to TAKE WIMPY REPUBS TO DEBATING SCHOOL – live action style – and help the cause of conservatism this fall.

  • synergist777

    there’s also the usually reliable Jewish voting bloc, who are disgusted by Obama’s attitude towards Israel, but deathly afraid of evangelicals. Romney gives them a “safe choice” other than Obama.

  • miconservative

    How many times does it have to be said that Bill Clinton was not impeached for whatever fun he had with Monica in the Oval Office. He was impeached because he committed perjury in the Paula Jones case which also got him stripped of his law license. Did the Supreme Court strip him of his law license because of his daliances?

    Cap and Trade…Newt Gingrich actually testified AGAINST the Dems Cap and Trade Bill the same day that Al Gore testified IN FAVOR of it. Mitt Romney also formerly bragged about enacting the first carbon limitation law of any state in the nation.

  • miconservative

    How many times does it have to be said that Bill Clinton was not impeached for whatever fun he had with Monica in the Oval Office. He was impeached because he committed perjury in the Paula Jones case which also got him stripped of his law license. Did the Supreme Court strip him of his law license because of his daliances?

    Cap and Trade…Newt Gingrich actually testified AGAINST the Dems Cap and Trade Bill the same day that Al Gore testified IN FAVOR of it. Mitt Romney also formerly bragged about enacting the first carbon limitation law of any state in the nation.

  • acat

    Repeal it and appoint a blue-ribbon bipartisan group (I’m sure Romney can find enough Dems …) to study a real replacement.

    Mew

  • carolynr

    Notice that when he is speaking of Obamacare..he is saying “replacing”…and he has been saying that all along. How about when he was in Iowa…he was ALL IN FOR SUBSIDIES…now he’s in FL and he doesn’t WANT ANY.

    Nobody would listen to Perry…oh he didn’t say it eloquently enough for the MSM…it was a gaffe…etc. The man is a flip flopper. He continues to do the same thing over and over and over…and the sad part about it is this…WE BELIEVE what he says at a particular moment and forget his lies.

    Folks…I know some of you will not like this…BUT WE ARE ELECTING A DEMOCRAT IF WE VOTE FOR ROMNEY…in fact, Democrat…might be a compliment.

    I’d rather vote for Ron Paul than Romney. At least I know what I am getting and the positions don’t change by the moment.

  • aj_0000

    Romney must be stopped. I’ve been saying that for a while. But this confirmation of what many of us already suspected has cemented for me the fact that I will not vote for Romney in November if he’s the nominee.

    Not only will conservatives stay home, costing the (R)s the White House and possibly Congress, but as the article suggests, this really could be the end of the Republican Party. The “establishment” has gone completely off the rails, and must be fired so that they can join the Democratic Party where they belong. That’s what Romney will be doing if he loses, Charlie Crist style.

  • dajeeps

    It was really stupid for Romney to go down to FL and attack Newt on his support of Medicare part D. He has almost no political accomplishment he can brag about to the base, and plenty of stuff he needs to shove under the rug. He has to try to fake conservatism, and he needs to keep his staff on a short leash or they let the mask slip. It’s too much of a masquerade to keep up and it’s is only a matter of time until he makes just one attack too many, if it hasn’t happened already.

  • eruthk

    What a nasty pile of lies. I’m only going to make one point. Newt did not “go after” Clinton because of his affair with Monica Lewinsky. This was originally about Paula Jones who was suing Clinton for sexual harassment, etc. CLINTON LIED UNDER OATH and obstructed justice. It was the duty of Congress to look into that, whether or not the Speaker was a good husband or not. There is no hypocrisy here.

  • eruthk

    What a nasty pile of lies. I’m only going to make one point. Newt did not “go after” Clinton because of his affair with Monica Lewinsky. This was originally about Paula Jones who was suing Clinton for sexual harassment, etc. CLINTON LIED UNDER OATH and obstructed justice. It was the duty of Congress to look into that, whether or not the Speaker was a good husband or not. There is no hypocrisy here.

  • bonnman

    Sure during the campaign they will pay it lip service but in practice it would be way to difficult. First, it requires control of the Presidency, the Senate and the House with decent margins. Second, there are popular parts of ACA that are kicking in, like covering those with pre-existing conditions, the 2.6 million young adults who now have coverage with the children under 26 provision and covering the gaps in Medicare prescription costs, the “donut hole”. Third and maybe most importantly, the insurance industry will lobby hard to keep the windfall of new customers that now HAVE to buy insurance. There is no way this gets repealed in its entirety.

  • papabear

    Other contributions? Not so much.

    But if he gets told that Republicans will only elect a conservative and than asked what he is, he will definitely tell you that he is a “conservative”.

    As Newt’s superpac so ably pointed out, when the liberal Mass. media asked, he told them he was “progressive” and “moderate”.

  • acat

    Or .. ability to breed?

    That’s just peachy. /sarc

    Mew

  • aj_0000

    Thanks to Newt Gingrich.

  • joecollins

    This is getting attention in the conservative media circles. Good.

    I sent Willard an email asking him if he supports Norm Coleman’s statement, but I am not holding my breath waiting for a personal reply.

  • tetrisd85

    Actually there is an incentive — the individual mandate. Like you said, all the bad parts are interwoven with the easy parts.

  • eruthk

    I really don’t see Sarah Palin or Newt Gingrich joining a Romney administration If Romney is the nominee. I suspec they will both tepidly endorse him but I doubt very much they will do more than that.

  • DVPTEXFLA

    Mr. Romney has a continuing problem with the conservative base of the republican party. Mr. Coleman’s comments are not going to help Mr. Romney convince conservatives that Mr. Romney will fight for them.

    If Mr. Romney does not publicly address Mr. Coleman’s comments immediately, I can see a new commercial for Mr. Gingrich in the primaries and Mr. Obama in a general election, to help suppress conservative voter enthusiasm. Mr. Romney somehow needs to show conservative voters he will fight for them.

    Mr. Coleman is more of the same old get along to go along crowd, that helped get this government in the mess it is in.

    My guy has already bowed out, I will support the eventual republican nominee.

  • benko

    …..

  • satchman3

    I think you’re right that neither will repeal Obamacare. They might nibble at it to sort of keep their campaign promise but my expectation that much of Ocare will be untouched. I also think they will tack left on this issue once the primary concludes.

    It’s going to be nearly impossible to get that toothpaste back into the tube. You won’t see anyone talking about repealing Medicare which is a bigger abomination than Obamacare.

  • acat

    Increasing the percentage of the insured has, as one of its’ underlying assumptions, the idea that costs aren’t going to go down.

    That assumption means we’re going to keep the current balance of supply and demand .. an assumption I question.

    One of the things Gingrich tried to do with HIPPA is increase standardization – using billing as a starting point. A side effect of this is to make increasing supply relatively easier, as the procedures are already defined as are the qualifications necessary to perform them.

    The trouble is that supply is still artificially restricted .. not by the AMA, but by malpractice insurance. It’s just not as profitable to run a general medicine practice as it used to be. Fix malpractice by pushing through tort reform – as Perry did in Texas, I’ll note – and we make supply able to increase to the point where costs come down. ..

    Looping back to our starting point, if costs get low enough that health care can be paid for out of pocket (or out of an HSA) then we have much less of a need for expensive insurance plans.

    Mew

  • earlgrey

    I wanted Romney before SC landslide and pretty much up until yesterday.

    Now I want Gingrich. Of course today I see polls out now having Romney ahead in FL.

    If you want to know who is going to win a primary race, just ask me who I don’t want to win, and that will be your answer.

  • acat

    The nauseating part is, if he’s the nominee, we’ll still vote for him because he’s still better than the Dem alternative.

    Mew

  • acat

    (Cheshire grin)

  • Whacker77

    Folks, there is no rule stating we must march ourselves off the cliff with these awful candidates. We have a convention for a reason and that reason is to validate or invalidate the choices of the primary. Maybe the convention is a relic of the past, but we still have it so we ought to use it.

    I’m not sure how many states still have open access to their ballots, but I do believe that number is close to 20. One I know for certain is Pennsylvannia. Its deadline is February 14 and someone who might want to save us from these clowns could use that as a jumping off point. A win there would be a big boost to the perception a new candidate can win.

    A new candidate wouldn’t need to do much more than throw a monkey wrench into the process. Jeb, Mitch, Christie, or any other person could come into the race and, by winning six or seven states, ensure a contested convention. At least if that happened, we would have one last chance to correct the ills the primary process has created.

    Yes, it’s likely a Quixotic hope, but there is time for a late entrant to ensure that the convention has a say in what happens this Fall. We deserve better than a Goldwater style wipeout.

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    could you switch back to Romney? LOL.

    Be of good cheer. Our team still looks better than Obama.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    I’ve actually read much of the documentation around the development of RomneyCare. Indeed as the gentlemen “ITH” points out above one of the goals was identical to what Newt was spouting.

    Truth be told, there was not much sunlight between what Romney did and what Gingrich was espousing. Except that Romney was governor and actually did it and Gingrich simply spouted it off theoretically. Coincidentally- it’s obviously a lot easier to walk back the latter. When you’re the “ideas” guy, you don’t execute. Just live off your past reputation and armchair quarterback. Or work with people who influence the legislative process (or are overseen by it) to try and implement your ideas. But it’s not lobbying. I would say it’s more like history.

    Frankly, I could care less about any of this and think it’s silly, Whatever both Romney and Gingrich did in the past is, well, history. I have no doubt, based on contemporary policies both have publicly espoused, Gingrich and Romney will repeal Obamacare. That is, to the extent they can as POTUS.

  • JSobieski

    Any talk of replacement has to occur later.

  • benko

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/24/former-rnc-chair-idea-of-new-gop-prez-entrant-in-february-just-outright-stupid/

    Granted it is Steele, but with a new candidate there is still all the vetting. Plus unless it is Christie, how many others can stand the heat of the attacks they will have to deal with?

  • HaroldHutchison

    The Tea Party will back the GOP at a higher rate than the GOP as a whole.

    So a Romney win doesn’t mean a Tea Party revolt.

  • lineholder

    They do need to deal with a few things immediately after repeal takes place or we’re likely to find ourselves in another “too big to fail” type of situation where government may be called upon to bail out health care organizations.

    Up until a few weeks ago, I would have been inclined to say otherwise. But since DHHS implemented the requirement that health care organizations have to actively pursue enrollment for those without insurance into Medicaid or be penalized for failure to do so, the situation has started changing dramatically.

    I don’t have time to go into what’s started happening at the moment, because I have to go to work very shortly. But I’ll leave a note here later, okay? I’d love to get your feedback on it.

  • paladin1

    He is no more than a Romney moderate who has made a reputation yelling at the unions. We need a conservative and the closest thing to that is Gingrich.

    The ones marching us off the cliff are the party bosses who are trying to shove Romney down our throats. Why substitute one moderate for another?

  • acat

    on the other side of the scale, not to grab the scale entirely.

    Just one example – moving emergency room billing to the front of the queue to be paid in a bankruptcy – is something the government could encourage without significantly changing the private sector.

    Another example – allowing hospitals to collect biometric data in place of proof of insurance or ability to pay* – would, when coupled with the above and the existing ability to garnish wages, tax refunds, or other sources of income, would help to dissuade the “free riders”.

    This also sets up hospitals to be able to bring criminal prosecution for fraud in the event someone uses a false ID to evade the bill.

    Mew

    * Think about it. They’re *hospitals*. If you have blood drawn for a test, they *have* your DNA already… why not give your fingerprints?

  • Whacker77

    The number of states left with open deadlines does matter, but the goal of a late entrant wouldn’t be to win the nomination of the first ballot. The goal of the late entrant would be to ensure no one gains the majority needed on the first ballot. After the first ballot, delegates can vote for whomever they choose.

    There are several people who could be “compromise” choices. Jeb Bush, Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie, and Paul Ryan could all gain wide support on an open convention ballot. I do not, however believe, Pain could. Regardless, we would have chance to avoid a self inflicted gunshot wound to the head.

    As for the vetting, it would be an issue, but anyone who would want to win at the convention would likely have to spend some time before hand setting up a campaign so there names would be out there to vet.

  • gracie

    n/t

  • hobiecat

    Well it looks like Newt’s back to saying crazy stuff again. Called Romney anti Imigration on Spanish channel and upset Marco Rubio. I’m a Newt supporter but why does he do this stuff every time he’s riding a tide.
    It’s like he cant handle success.

  • earlgrey

    do.

    He just isn’t reaching people (or me for that matter). I feel like I am watching a very bad actor pretend to run for President. He has no passion for the job that he is willing to show.

    gingrich is passionate. he is phony, but he is passionate. I dont know how dull and boring is going to get people out to the polls to vote against Obama.

  • hobiecat

    You said it. You are 100% correct. And this has been the conventional wisdome in the RNC for some time now, and why party leaders field the candidates they do. This is where the elections are won. And you know what happens.

    THEY LOSE!

  • bonnman

    What you described might work but it doesn’t GUARANTEE that the hospitals will see the money they are owed. It would give them more legal leverage to try and get it. The Obama mandate guarantees that money, either by people voluntarily paying into the insurance pool or by the tax penalty where the government takes roughly the equivalent amount from you and puts it in the pool anyway. Guaranteed money (without any legal fees) is always better than potential money, from the hospital’s perspective anyway, they’ll lobby to keep it in place too.

  • http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

    I would agree that a brokered convention would be a disaster, but look at the field: Mitt Romney and 2 Fox News contributors.

    I said it was a weak field last year and I patiently endured the verbal abuse. Well here we are….

    Romney is a weak candidates at best who can’t even beat a fast talking con man like Newt Gingrich. How will he beat a fast talking con man with a billion dollars in the general election?

    The idea that Gingrich can smuggle all his baggage past the MSM and One-bama is laughable.

    via Drudge: Conservatives should not be surprised by the scandals that lie ahead if they stick with him [Gingrich]

    I think we’re headed for a brokered convention whether we like it of not.

  • http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

    Sad that he ran such a bad campaign. Not sure he could do that well against One-bama.

    Jindal is great!!! I think Allen West would be awesome but he’s too new, but then again we actually considered Cain who had zero time in office. So West could be the long shot that pays off.

    The field we have now is very weak. I think every one of them would have a tough time beating One-bama once the MSM started hammering them.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …from Romney’s campaign that rescinded Coleman’s quote.

  • http://www.planettron.com NickDeringer

    Erick has been dreaming of a brokered convention and so are more and more conservatives.

    Newt is headed for his second collapse. It will drag this out for months and leave us with no clear cut winner.

  • Ann_W

    The waivers were to stop the states from having to comply, then they would go for repeal.

    I would like to hear more detail on this, maybe it’s on his website.

  • Ann_W

    This is what he says he’ll do.
    “Mitt Romney believes that Obamacare must be repealed. On his first day in office, he will issue an executive order paving the way for waivers from Obamacare for all 50 states. Subsequently, he will call on Congress to fully repeal Obamacare, and advocate reforms that return power to the states, improve access by slowing health care cost increases, and make health insurance portable and flexible for today?s economy.”

    Norm needs to be quiet.

  • acat

    Naturally, the Romney campaign are backpedaling on this …

    The problem I have is that personnel are policy, and .. bluntly .. Norm still works there, and is still apparently on the list for Sec HHS, i.e. the guy responsible to implement Obamacare.

    Mere denials aren’t going to cut it. Romney must show some grit, some fight, some fire-in-the-belly (or at least some short hairs in the vise) on this.

    Mew

  • jaykali

    I’d like to hear from the horses mouth but these are senior advisers. You can’t be going around saying you aren’t going to fight for full repeal. Man I just feel hopeless ab this whole deal. And can we stop talking ab stupid brokered conventions where someone is going to come in on their white horse and fix everything? It’s not going to happen people.

  • acat

    make it a tad difficult.

    Mew

  • Raven

    Opportunities are free market.

  • ATGinCT

    so in that vein I think the record shows that Norm actually won that contest based on the voter fraud investigations that came after the fact.

  • http://teresainfortworth.wordpress.com/ Teresa in Fort Worth, TX

    ….and that their co-pay under the least expensive government plan is going to be 40% of the cost of each non-covered procedure?

    And that this is EXACTLY how Social Security started out – voluntary at first, then mandatory, then confiscatory, and now the money is all gone, and people are told that if they “make too much money” they might not be given any of their “investment” back.

    I hate every Democrat who voted for this travesty with the heat of 10,000 blazing suns…….

  • johnt

    from there it gets worse.

  • acat

    and Norm’s team lost it. Badly. It’s as though nobody had considered that the Dems might resort to dirty tricks.

    One hopes that Team Romney doesn’t make the same error.

    Mew

  • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

    and the simple fact is, all Team Romney is doing is pushing people like me towards Newt. When all is said and done, I will have believed this primary season was a total waste, but beating the establishment, even if it is with a former lobbyist named Newt Gingrich, will be worth.

    If the Republican establishment is against Newt, then I am for him. The stuff coming out of the Romney Team is making my stomach hurt.

  • JSobieski

    Regulations are based on statutory authority. Without that authority, the regs should wither on the vine.

    To make it certain, the repeal bill should be explicit on this point.

  • dlg00

    Get rid of it all….then put a couple new laws in place that are in keeping with the things that are ok in the law.

    Has anyone here owned a small business? Have you tried to figure out a way to get insurance for your employees? My husband and I would become so angry because the answer was right in front of everyones face.

    Let all small businesses below a certain level of employee pool together as a larger corp…let it go across state lines, free enterprise with insurance companies would have helped. With all the tort reform here in Texas….why wouldn’t a insurance company want our business?

  • ATGinCT

    A case where the Soros project to elect the “right” people to the Sec Of State positions achieved it’s design.

  • krish

    You are just repeating the talking points from Romney’s camp! Romney is the biggest fraud – check out his record! After he decided to run for President, he went 180 degrees in every position he took during his MA tenure!

    By your logic you should vote for Obama – he came from more humble beginnings than Romney (born with a silver spoon) & made it to Harvard! Phlosphically there is not much differnce between the two! You should reconsider since at least Obama has a core (socilaist values) while Romney is hollow individual who just wants to be President!

  • krish

    He did the same in 2008 – did not work! We have to make sure that it does not work again! Newt & Rick should really go after his record because he does not want republican primary voters to know what he did in MA

  • krish

    He did the same in 2008 – did not work! We have to make sure that it does not work again! Newt & Rick should really go after his record because he does not want republican primary voters to know what he did in MA

  • acat

    Do. The. Math.

    Mew

  • krish

    I used to live MA & people need to listen to conservatives (there are still few left!) or even Republicans who had to endure this guy!

    We had a chance (similar to CA) to showcase a republican who had a chance to showcase how conservative principles could bring back prosperity to a blue state. What this fraud did was enact all liberal policies one after the other appointing liberal judges.

    You can ask any republican in MA (not even a conservative) on how much setback this is to Republican party in that state because things became worse under a republican in so many areas!

    I do not want the same thing happening to Conservative at the national level! We already had GW Bush – compassionate conservatism (= moderate policies) that led to disaster to conservative movement if this guy wins it will put us back another 10 years – we will lose the house & senate!

    Wanted to give some background to fellow visitors to this forum on why some of us are strongly against Romney because of what he did to conservatives & republicans in MA —- DO NOT WANT THAT TO HAPPEN NATIONALLY!

  • krish

    I used to live MA & people need to listen to conservatives (there are still few left!) or even Republicans who had to endure this guy!

    We had a chance (similar to CA) to showcase a republican who had a chance to showcase how conservative principles could bring back prosperity to a blue state. What this fraud did was enact all liberal policies one after the other appointing liberal judges.

    You can ask any republican in MA (not even a conservative) on how much setback this is to Republican party in that state because things became worse under a republican in so many areas!

    I do not want the same thing happening to Conservative at the national level! We already had GW Bush – compassionate conservatism (= moderate policies) that led to disaster to conservative movement if this guy wins it will put us back another 10 years – we will lose the house & senate!

    Wanted to give some background to fellow visitors to this forum on why some of us are strongly against Romney because of what he did to conservatives & republicans in MA —- DO NOT WANT THAT TO HAPPEN NATIONALLY!

  • carolina

    He is a statist pupit for the elites.
    The elites just want to keep the power that they have. Romney will take care of the elites.

  • fightnright

    (not an easy decision these days) and help fund them, but the primary voters have a final say after that. And you know what has happened? (see: American History; Republican Presidents)

    They sometimes win!

  • John6078

    Romney is down by 9 for Monday & Tuesday in CNN Poll. This, along with the Marco Rubio smackdown may be trouble for the speaker. http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/01/25/topstate5.pdf

  • bluerose75

    Smackdown by Rubio??what joke…Marco was just chided by Levin and others for calling Mitt a conservative when as Levin said “there is not ONE THING CONSERVATIVE about Romneycare!!” He also questioned Romney’s decisions on who is advising him….

    I see nowhere that Newt is fading….CNN Poll….what a joke!

  • maybenexttime

    I agree. A brokered convention is pure fantasy and would make a bad situation worse in terms of winning the White House.

    Romney simply can’t be trusted at this point. He flips way too often. He is off-message way too often. This is a case where both of those have converged. Not only is he backing out of his oft-made promise to repeal Obamacare, but now he is trying to change the underlying premise of that promise.

  • JSobieski

    Levin is an absolute @$$.

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    Fact is, we face the choice of a Massachusetts flip-flopper 0.01% er who will be a patsy for the liberal MSM, or a guy who runs 10 points down in the polls against the worst President in our lifetime.

    So we nominate the guy who wont repeal Obamacare or nominate the guy who will ensure Obamacare stays law by losing to Obama.

    That’s why the brokered convention fantasy is being spoken of; it beats the harsh reality where conservatism loses no matter what.

  • acat

    investing in real estate … (the Titan II site in Arizona looks like it’d work …)

    Mew

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    “Let the country collapse because newt?s made mistakes in his personal life. ”

    It’s all well and good to insist we Republicans line up and take the bitter medicine of a guy with a messed up personal life history, but the issue is not us – it’s with the independents who decide elections.

    We cant force them to like Newt, and Newt has truly horrible fav/unfav numbers. His image is in the ‘loathsome toad’ area.

    If Newt stays unpopular, he loses to Obama, and the country will collapse.

    I would like to see both Newt and Romney stop with the negative attacks and get into gear creating a positive image for themselves … otherwise the whole point of the nomination is lost. We are supposed to WIN in November.

  • lineholder

    I might be inclined to agree with you. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, it isn’t. There are previous pieces of legislation that established certain precedents, and due to the many “the Secretary will determine” statements in O-care, it’s given DHHS the leeway to pull from those precedents in a way that impacts O-care implementation. That’s where it gets sticky and why I believe it will be necessary to have some sort of “replace” policy on stand-by.

    General information pertaining to reimbursement….market price set by doctor =A. Private health insurance reimbursement rates approximately equal 1.0A. Medicare is at .85-.90A, but then various add ons can bring up closer to 1.0A. Medicaid is at .70-.75A. Uninsured patients can run anywhere from 0.0A to 1.0A, with health care providers making provisions for patient payment schedules. (And believe it or not, there are still more full pays than write-offs.)

    Higher reimbursement rates have to been used to offset loss of potential profit due to lower reimbursement rates. And just like what would exist in any other capitalistic venture, it’s necessary to maintain a balance between the type of reimbursement rates (i.e., sales of product/service) in order to operate “in the black”. The “medical necessity” ruling will kick any attempts to “play the system” for the sake profits in the teeth, so health care orgs don’t have any options on that matter.

    As unemployment increases, enrollment in private health insurance decreases. Potential for 1.0A is decreased. In addition, DHHS increased the upper limit to qualify for Medicaid, requiring health care providers to act as enrollment agents (or else), moving more people into this bracket in advance of the public health exchange. In a really ironic sort of way, this actually ends up reducing the other potential for 1.0A reimbursement that health care providers have had. When you add in the Medicare SGR formula conflict into the equation, then the full scope of the reimbursement vs. profits challenges that the health care industry is facing hit home pretty hard. (The site address provided below explains SGR better than I could)

    http://www.bankruptingamerica.org/2012/01/the-sustainable-growth-rate-formula-medicare%E2%80%99s-payment-to-doctors-2/

    So what we end up with is a situation where independent practices (IPA) can’t survive, hospitals would take on a butt-load of debt if too many IPAs bail out of the system (more than they can afford), so IPAs are either contracting with private health insurance companies at reduced rates but enough to stay in the black OR they’re selling out their practices to expanding regionally-located integrated health care orgs.

    So, here’s how I see this as going in the future, if nothing is altered….

    If SGR isn’t resolved and enrollment into Medicaid exceeds enrollment in private health insurance, then even these regional integrated entities will find themselves hard put to stay out of debt. They’ll start making deals with bigger national entities in order to survive, but at some point this cost trend will catch up to the national entities as well. We’ll end up having very large health care entities that can’t afford to continue to operate, and either the government will buy up interest in those entities (just like they did with GM), bail them out, or let them sink.

    This is just the tip of the iceberg of what’s going on right now, JSobieski, and trying to deal with one isolated element of it is difficult because there are so many different legislative elements involved in it. But we badly need something to replace O-care that will turn back the tide of these trending patterns.

    If you see something different, I’d appreciate your input on how, where and why, JSobieski.

    (Sorry for the long post everyone!)

  • JSobieski

    If Obamacare is not yet impacting pricing, how is Obamacare impacting Medicare pricing based on the formula?

    Are you saying that this impact will start happening as of Jan 1, 2013? Or that it is happening now?

    I will read the article and get back to you tomorrow.

  • lineholder

    The only way I know how to explain it that it has to do with the methodology of what has been implemented under the many “the Secretary will determine” allowances in PPACA, JSobieski.

    And that there most definitely is a reason for Obama to want unemployment to stay high enough long enough for specific goals to be achieved.

    I’ll be looking for your response tomorrow.

  • lineholder

    I wish I knew how to present this is table form, i.e. showing what happens as the ratios of reimbursement rates changes and how it impacts profit margins. Because that’s where it is getting tricky right now and no one knows for certain how quickly this trend is going to move.

  • bs61

    n/t

  • JSobieski

    Regs don’t stand on their own. They must be grounded in a statute. So if Obamacare is repealed, the regs are repealed.

    Bottom Line: Repeal of Obamacare solves the problem…if it is repealed.

    If it is “fixed”, it will be a legal mess if some regs survive and others don’t.

  • lineholder

    the enrollment stands, with periodic review, until such time as the person either withdraws or enrollment is revoked for financial reasons (like exceeding income or asset requirements).

    Repealing the regs in O-care won’t automatically alter enrollment status. It could prevent enrollments that might lead to an excessive imbalance in the reimbursement rates that I’ve mentioned above, but that’s about it.

    SGR stems out of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, not O-care.

    Both of these factors impact the reimbursement ratio that is necessary for health care providers to maintain adequate profit margins. No one in the health care arena has any idea at all of how quickly things could move in these shifting trends or how much damage could ultimately be done, but they are already starting to plan for the worst. Lots of questions going on right now, believe me.

    Thanks for taking the time to look at it, JSobieski

  • JSobieski

    I don’t doubt that unplugging Obamacare is not a trivial thing. That is why people trying to be cute about “fixing” it or replacing it with something as part of the repeal are misguided. We need to cut out the entire thing—-and then start with a blank slate.

  • lineholder

    Make no mistake about that. I just think that depending on how quickly things move between now and Jan 2013 (the date of the inauguration of the next President) we might need to consider having a back-up plan that can be put into place fairly quickly. With or without repeal in advance.

    And in all reality, JSobieski, that what I’m referring to when I say “replace”. A back-up plan. At least something to work with if things go too quickly during the next year.

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    … and Perry kept his flap shut about ‘heartless’ anti-illegals sentiment …

    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/25/gingrich-romney-lacks-concern-for-the-humanity-of-illegal-immigrants/

    …. we might see Perry up there challenging Romney.

    It seems the 87 or so debates warped the whole campaign process and we ended up picking a masterful set of debate captains who are in other respects ill-suited for various reasons.

  • Adjoran

    Coleman’s belief it won’t be repealed is based on two presumptions: 1) that the SCOTUS will make the mandate severable even without a severability clause, which would be a new precedent on its own, AND 2) that the 60 vote cloture rule is beyond reach and absolutely applicable.

    We will know the answer to the first only when the ruling comes. A big enough Senate majority might frighten a few Democrats from the Class of the 2008 Wave before they face voters in 2014, so cloture might be attainable even without 60 seats if we are close.

    Also, it seems impossible that the repeal of a law passed under reconciliation could not be structured to pass the same way. Every aspect of the law is the same as before, only the direction is changed, it only need be attached to a budget reconciliation.

    In any event, it is Congress which alone must pass repeal. The President will have little role beyond cheerleader: he will have no need to convince Republicans and no chance to convince most Democrats. So it is up to Congress in the first place, the President mainly must sign the repeal into law.

    Your post leaves the impression Coleman is advocating or advising against repeal when in fact he is expressing his political view of the practical chances of it happening. The effect is somewhat misleading, and it shows it some comments.

  • Juggernaut

    go over the top and has backed off. Romney thinks illegals will self deport with more enforcement, they’ll run more as they have under Bush and Obama.

  • circlegranch

    ah, the Romney PAC’s version of ‘influence peddling’surfaces again. In every early state thus far, there’s been at least one key legislator, governor or other high profile pol that was endowed in the last few election cycles with maximum campaign contributions coming from one (or all) of Romney’s PAC’s.

    Romney would definitely benefit from Rubio’s endorsement to help repair the wounds he has created with his ‘Ann Coulter thinks I should round them up and ship them home’ immigration policy. (He’s flipped now to ‘self deportation’ just in time to try and garner the significant Hispanic vote in FL) Rubio has refrained from endorsing yet and he may want to consider the backfire Nikki Haley experienced by coming out early for Romney, infuriating her base–the tea party–and setting herself up for scrutiny due to the large donation for her own campaign she rec’d from the Mitt PAC’s.

    For political expendiency, Mr. Romney is desperately playing all sides of the issues. He knows Charlie Crist was kingmaker for McCain in FL and Crist still holds some sway in the millionaires club of the FL GOP, a sect Romney has always enjoyed support from. Rubio represents the average working man and woman voting block which Romney has never connected with, so Rubio offers a gold mine opportunity.

    At least the weather is warm enough in FL to wear flip flops.

  • circlegranch

    and that’s why he’s switched (or flipped) to his new immigration policy: self deportation. Gone are the heated debates about ‘magnets’ such as instate tuition. Florida voters will be happy to know he saw the light just in time for their primary. This newly developed position will serve him well also heading into Colorado on Feb 7 and other western states with heavy Hispanic populations. Think what we may, it must be noted that when Romney flips on an issue, he does so with near perfect timing.

    Operating under this new and revised opinion of how to deal with our immigration problems, Romney stated on Univision’s “Meet the Candidates” :

    “I would love to be able to convince people of that (being Mexican-American), particularly in a Florida primary!” He was asked if he considers himself a Mexican American since his dad was born in Mexico, to which Mitt said he does not claim that heritage because his grandparents were United States citizens living in Mexico when he father was born. (article can be found at www.dailycaller.com) Reminiscent of his debate comment about the hiring of illegals to do his landscaping work….Romney told his lawn care guy that he couldn’t have illegals working on his property because he’s running for president, for Pete’s sake!

    Rasmussens’ website is posting that 58% of Americans favor a welcoming position toward dealing with the immigration problem. Looks like Mr. Romney’s team saw that poll also–in the nick of time.

    Joe Scarborough stated today that Mitt Romney will say anything to give him an advantage ‘that day’. We’ll be waiting to see what position change develops today in time for the debate tonight.

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    It’s actually the ONLY practical and real solution to the problem. Groups that support immigration law enforcement have themselves advocated this for years.

    Amnesty will only incentivize more illegal immigration.
    Rounding up folks is impractical, raises constitutional issues and will be politically impossible. Enforce the law and let attrition/self-deportation reduce illegal alien population.

    The interesting thing is that, in Florida, Romney had the cohones to advocate that, while Newt decided to his-pander and push this “Mitt is heartless” line … in effect Newt is just repeating the mistake Perry made, calling US heartless for daring to oppose Amnesty.

    He’s turned into Newt Lindsay Graham-grich!

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    is starting to look more appealling for Obama’s 2nd term.

  • jaykali

    Just bc he is more stable. And his stuff has been scrutinized more than Gingrich. You see a flood of Gingrich stuff from the past coming out that I think will damage him.

    That being said I don’t feel great ab either of these guys. Maybe once 1 guy pulls away we’ll feel better. I just think the amount of baggage Gingrich has is overwhelming.

  • acat

    Romney has been riding behind his inevitable-next-in-line-frontrunner status for years now. He hasn’t done a hostile interview in over a year, and his friendly interview at Fox ended badly. I just don’t see any accuracy in the claim that he’s “been scrutinized”.

    While Gingrich does have a more colourful background, and it will probably hurt him, it looks to this cat like Romney’s not exactly teflon coated iron.. we already know Willard has a glass jaw and a number of weaknesses – especially healthcare and jobs.

    In short, Gingrich fights, Romney … who knows?

    I agree with your hypothesis, by the way – but I question how Romney could “move to the right” in a way I’d believe. It’d need to be more than “Words. Just words.”, y’see.

    Mew

  • circlegranch

    www.americanthinker.com, author, James Simpson.

    Guess others are noticing, too.

  • ethos

    http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/11/08/mitt-romney-as-the-nominee-conservatism-dies-and-barack-obama-wins/

    That is just a taste. This is Romney’s second credible go around after all, to assume him lacking scrutiny in the face of that fact and the fact of there existing a 200 page oppositional research file on him is building a narrative on fanciful delusion.

  • acat

    Do you have one?

    Mew

  • jaykali

    I am saying that there hasn’t been a lot of new dirt on Romney, similar to the way Clinton’s baggage had already been out there a while since she was so high profile. I think there are much more skeletons in Gingrich’s closet.

  • acat

    simply because McCain didn’t run that kind of campaign, and there hasn’t been much this go’around… not in the mainstream press.

    Red State coverage, y’see, does not really count….

    Mew

  • jaykali

    There wasn’t any reason to dig up dirt on Gingrich til now and so now you see ex-wife interviews and the Bob Doles and the various goofy soundbites coming out that dont look so great.

    Also today we heard some more OWS-style arguments from Gingrich which was very encouraging coming from a Reagan conservative.

  • david1313

    Where have you been. Romney is the one who has not been vetted. His work will be a problem. If it is just captolism that is fine, but I think there is more to this story and it will come out. He will have to release more tax information and that is going to kill him. He is exactly what Obama needs, a timid Rich guy to beat up on. It will work.