« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Further Proof Romney Supported a National Individual Mandate In 2009

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  March 3rd, 2012 at 07:54 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

As I mentioned yesterday, back in 2009 Mitt Romney took to the pages of USA Today to tell President Obama that as he came up with a healthcare plan he should consider using “tax penalties” as Massachusetts did or “tax credits, as others have proposed” to help cover the costs of health care.

The “tax penalties” is Mitt Romney’s individual mandate, a key portion the Obama Administration has credited all along as having been embraced in Obamacare.

Since pointing out yesterday that, in his own words, Mitt Romney supported a national individual mandate, his supporters have gone totally insane on twitter fully denying and trying to spin their way out of this story. Despite Romney’s own words in his editorial, Mitt Romney’s supporters are denying Romney’s own words.

But Romney did not just write an op-ed. He went on Meet the Press too. You can hear Mitt Romney on Meet the Press recommend the President take one of two approaches in formulating health care.

The first approach Romney suggests is Romneycare, which Mitt Romney now claims was never intended to be a model for the nation.

The second approach Romney suggests is the Wyden-Bennett health reform measure then pending in the United States Senate. Wyden-Bennett, like Romneycare, contained an individual mandate.

In other words, skipping the diplomatic phrasing of some, Mitt Romney lies each time he says he never supported a national individual mandate.

Tags: ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • redmymind

    n/t

  • haners

    Your candidate Newt Gingrich supported a national individual mandate for Obamacare also:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSXJLZx5mpY
    (May 2009)

  • haners

    23 counties so far:

    36.3% Romney
    24.1% Paul
    24.5% Santorum,
    11.9% Gingrinch

  • Ender

    of Washington Caucuses? Probably not considering Romney is about to win big. Keep on keeping on, while Romney proceeds to get the nomination.

  • haners

    Romney 35.6
    Santorum 24.6
    Paul 24.6
    Gingrich 11.8

    Seattle’s King county still at large….

  • haners

    I wonder why….

  • acat

    Either defend Romney, or don’t. Leave the rest of the candidates out of it.

    I notice you’ve moved the goalposts from your previous kvetching – never replied to anyone there, did ya? … now you’re demanding an E.E. front story instead of the one Ben Howe wrote.

    At this rate, bring back the Paulbots.

    Mew

  • onemovoter

    <a href="http://whynotromney.blogspot.com/2011/03/romney-loves-mandates.html"

    I think this mandate is the ONLY thing Romney has been consistent on over the years.

  • onemovoter
  • matt2hews

    … how Romney aficionados were so enthusiastic about him.

    All of the remaining candidates have some major turn-offs. It’s mind-boggling to see people demonstrate immutable zeal for any of the individual candidates. Three of the candidates will be glorified Bush III and the other will be unable to garner legislative support for his policy ideas.

    Even if we can toss Obama to the curb, it’s not like the GOP has any will to lead our country in a positive, productive manner. What an awful election year.

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Jacobson get2djnow

    See that your guy is gonna lose.\sarc off

  • Ender

    to have a genuine business problem-solver as a candidate.Frankly I couldn’t care less over rehashing the individual mandate thing from 2009, that was obviously brought up a thousand times already, each time with new outrage.

    But considering the way Romney is winning, obviously many conservatives support him just fine.

  • haners

    Romney 37.2
    Paul 24.1
    Santorum 23.9
    Gingrich 11.4

    Seattle’s King county only 25% reporting, with 50+ for Romney.

  • brah

    he’s criticizing the fact that EE has 10,000 posts critical of Romney and not one critical of Newt who also supported an individual mandate and praised Romneycare when it first came out….I know, I know, he included the caveat of posting a bond so that saves him :-)

  • haners

    Voters get the final say, not EE’s spin.

  • bpgmswv1646

    We are going to get Mondaled in November with Mitt on the top of the ticket.

  • snowshooze

    Seeing the vote being shredded to this extent is no surprise whatever.
    I figured even my dog could beat Obama. Buy even my dog won’t come out from under the porch to vote for Romney.

  • jamesm

    lol

  • snowshooze

    It’s a mighty thin one.

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

    …because I recall my dismay during recent months when noting insufficient “positives” about both Perry and The Newt.

    Thus, it’s preferable not to thread-jack and focus on the issue-at-hand.

    It is particularly enlightening that, as The Newt rises in the polls and as Mitt and Rick slip, that tonight’s Jobs-Forum on FNC will be followed tomorrow by The Newt appearing on ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN [with Santorum on FNC] during tomorrow’s interview-shows.

    The weekend of backpedaling by Mitt [notwithstanding Washington State, where he is also not passing 40%] on this issue cannot bode well for him on Super Tuesday.

    So, Mitt-supporters, rationalize away!

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

    …is unsettling to the GOP-base, because he’s gone-negative so regularly.

  • jamesm

    Straw poll,

  • Ender

    Sour grapes.

  • jamesm

    ..

  • brah

    but The Newt is hardly passing 10% :-)

    Are you really an MD? So am I. I quit the AMA over their support for Obamacare. I think we’re in for a rough ride with reimbursements no matter what happens, because there has to be drastic changes in healthcare expenditure if we are to survive as a country. But repealing Obamacare would certainly help, if anything to get rid of the independent medicare committee. Alright, now I am threadjacking, so I’ll stop.

  • Ender

    presidential years examples of more than 3 candidates running in primaries where the leader was consistently racking up 50%+?

  • Ender

    for pluralities of Republican conservatives voting for Romney.

  • brah

    :-)

  • Ender

    to the campaign, and got reimbursed for all the good support I’ve provided him here.

  • APA Guy

    Shine his shoes…hold his coat…whatever he needs.

    Sheesh…do you pine this badly for all your favorite candidates?

  • Ender

    of the anti-Mitt Romney vote % is absurd considering the large field of candidates.

  • clintonformccain

    it probably is unsettling to see a campaign that is actually funded well enough to run proper attack ads…

    Heck, most of these guys couldn’t even afford enough organization to get on the ballots in every state or field full slates of candidates.

  • snowshooze

    Mitt Romney is jumping out to an early lead in the Washington state caucuses, opening up a double-digit advantage over his Republican presidential rivals in the last contest before Super Tuesday

    If he wins the Nomination, iy is the last thing he will win.

  • Ender

    someone’s gotta be cheerful at this RS funeral :)

  • APA Guy

    Bank on that, sparky. The non-Romney is split 3 ways…that is the ONLY reason he is winning any primaries not stationed in NH.

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

    …and concur with your conduct.

    I was deeply involved in Organized Medicine for two decades, ending in this millennium after I failed to note implementation of my resolutions, particularly by the PA-Med-Soc.

    I had [literally] composed HUNDREDS of proposals via multiple pathways [and had served as Prez of the PA Soc. of Int. Med.] including the Hospital/Organized-Medical Staff Section and the Young Physicians Section and the Interspecialty Section…on all levels [Philly-County, PMS and AMA].

    I also “diagnosed” what happened after a “site-visit” to Chicago [noting that the locals were opposed...the state was neutral...and the national was positive], yielding this essay [generated solely by empiric knowledge, later corroborated in the American Medical News].

    http://www.doctor-bob.biz/AA-Political%20Essays/Domestic%20Concerns/ama.htm

    [I'm a Medical Oncologist, Hematologist, Internist...and I passed the boards for IME during that Chicago visit...before I testified in a Med-Mal case.]

    Did I sufficiently clarify your concerns?

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

    …I remain hopeful [after having vigorously supported Perry].

  • APA Guy

    that NO president gets reelected with $4.50-5/gal gasoline…I don’t care if he is running against Fred Flintstone.

  • redmymind

    as much as social misfits are capable of generating.

  • acat

    Bringing in Gingrich serves only one purpose – distracting from Romney’s support for Obamacare… and does so dishonestly, as was explained in the front page diary I linked.

    Further, this is not the first time haners has changed the subject, squid-like injecting ink into the water to cover Romney’s retreat.

    It’s gotten old. Either defend Romney on the merits of his support for Obamacare or remain silent, eh?

    Mew

  • jamesm

    of clear thinking when it comes to their candidate. Just like Obamamania now we have to suffer this fool. Omg what has this country come to. Whoever lies and covers up wins? It will be left for the next generation to pick up the Obama/Romney mess. There are just too many fuzzy thinkers

  • haners

    Romney 38.1
    Paul 24.2
    Santorum 23.6
    Gingrich 11.2

    54.4% reporting. Seattle’s King County still only 25% reporting.

  • redmymind

    Thanks for the heads-up, jamesm.

  • jon11

    Mitt is the only candidate in the race who’s had a real job.

    Call me old fashioned, i think thats significant.

    We’re 5 years away from being Greece. He’s the best qualified to reverse that trend.

    Im sure either rick or newt would do a better job on the economy than obama but the reality is between the three of them, Newt, Rick, and Obama, there isn’t a day of private sector work experience…nor is there any executive experience.

    That should genuinely bother you. On the job training doesn’t get it. Obama prooves that.

    Newt and Rick have also lost big elections but instead of going back to work in the real world they hung around DC and lobbied.

    That should genuinely bother you. That says a lot more about who they are, about their character, than any silly stump speech or campaign platform.

  • brah

    I’m a neuroradiologist. But too chicken to post my real identity because I’m in the cesspool of libs. Hang in there Dr. Sklaroff, I wouldn’t be too upset of The Newt came storming back.

  • jamesm

    and covers up? Don’t give me any generic stuff like “they all do it”
    You should be ashamed of your support for a serial liar. Didnt your grandparents teach you anything?

  • redmymind

    Worry not, though. BHO will reward them generously for helping him get re-elected!!!

  • jon11

    If debates were all there was to running for president i might take newt but thats a very small part of it and its the only part newt is any good at.

    incidentaly, romney isn’t a bad debater either.

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

    …because of the impending tilt of the SCOTUS if BHO wins.

  • haners

    Straw polls also

  • jamesm

    Not looking for Obama money. You want Romney money. Lol

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

    …on the big election The Newt lost.

    Then tell us why his having run four small businesses [lobbying AND educational] doesn’t reflect experience in the private-sector.

    Then you’ll know why the non-Mitt electorate isn’t “bothered” when weighing support for The Newt.

  • acat

    (see, this vote discussion is a threadjack – if you wanted to discuss it, you should have created your own diary…)

  • CarolT

    FNC has become a tool for the Republican establishment. They never had a positive store about Rick Perry once he became a candidate. There were many positive interviews with Cavuto in May or of June last year. I used to have the sites saved, I may still have some of them.
    Karl Rove started FNC’s bias against Perry because of a long time feud.

  • jamesm

    All speculation. This guy needs to be defeated

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    Their collective IQ of late wouldn’t approach 100.

  • acat

    or just troll?

    Mew

  • jamesm

    this guy if you think the other three are worse, But to actively support him is unfathomable

  • elayman

    As a private-equity investor, Romney could tell people to do what he wanted or he’d withdraw funding. As president, he’d be more likely to get that message from Congress. Without popular backing for hugely difficult reforms there is no way Mitt can convince average Americans he understands the difference between business and politics, between being a CEO and the president. The problem is basically that not only is he the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time, electorally speaking, he has no natural constituency outside of the Republican elite ? and that’s what’s keeping him mired below forty percent against an extremely weak field of competitors.

  • jamesm

    Karl Rove is biased tumor to legitmate conservatives

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

    …and provide critique of my op-eds!

  • Whacker77

    For the second time in a row, the Republican party will nominate someone who is substantially to the left of the base of the party. Had you told me one year ago we would be on the door step of nominating Mitt Romney, I would have said you’re crazy. Sadly, here we are.

    I’m demoralized because I feel quite certain the general election has already been decided. Romney is a terrible politician and will wilt under the barrage of attacks launched against him by Obama. Right now, I see Romney losing by roughly the same margin McCain did. He’ll win back Indiana, but I’m not sure of any other states.

    Having said that, I’m totally disgusted with the entire primary process. I’m mad at Jeb Bush and Chris Christie for not running and I’m mad at conservatives for not realizing stopping Romney, however painful, was necessary. We need to be smarter than we were. We can’t indulge in such fantasies as Michelle Bachmann and Herman Cain. Next time around, we must demand real, substantive and proven candidates.

    Already, I’m looking towards 2016, but I think it will be a much tougher race than anyone might think. I just hope no one on the Supreme Court falls ill.

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

    …is illustrative of the benefits of competition.

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

    …he has focused on Georgia [for obvious reasons] rather than Michigan/Ohio/Washington.

    He needs a win, so as to sustain while the others fall.

  • quill67

    Is this what you Romney supporters are saying?

    But time and again we find out that he is not telling the truth. We know his actions have not been conservative, and that he will lie to cover up his mistaken views. BE A MAN ROMNEY. There is no sin in changing one’s mind. I once believed in a mandate until I learned the problems associated with it.

    Santorum has his problems with his voting record but give the guy credit. He sure did oppose the Health Insurance Mandate.

  • Ender

    why do you support whoever it is you support? I support my candidate because of his positive attributes not the negative. Everyone is flawed.

    I not an idealistic pie in the sky ideologue. I want Obama defeated and capitalism supported and reinforced. I want a practical problem-solver, not someone who will stick with a position even if shown to be wrong. So yeah, Romney’s flip flops don’t bug me much at all. His intelligence, experience, and no nonsense campaigning reinforce that my choice was well made.

  • acat

    Kinda explains how often we see the same arguments, same tactics, same recommendations….

    Just a theory.

    Mew

  • CarolT

    I meant to reply to Dr. S about the lack of positive stores about Newt and Perry, especially on Fox News.
    I won’t vote for Mitt because of Romney care and what he’s done to us in MA and he continues to say we’re happy with it. we are not.

  • Ender

    nt

  • brah

    Unfortunately.

  • Ender

    back in the day, based on your theory.

  • haners

    Epiphany

  • acat

    Alf Landon
    Wendell Willkie
    Thomas Dewey. Twice.

    Nixon
    Goldwater
    Nixon (a regrettably non-rare example of winning being worse than losing)
    Ford

    …

    We’re the stupid party.

    Mew

  • redmymind

    How could I forget???

  • acat

    (null)

  • WillWong

    Yeah, Jon, why wouldn’t you answer the question? Need some help? The last election Newt won was the 1998 House seat. He resigned from that seat. As far as I know, thst was his last election, unless you know something we don’t!

  • youngthegiant

    once this nomination battle is sewn up.

    I wish that EE would get off of his high horse and just accept the fact that Romney will be the nominee.

    Trying to tear down Romney at this stage is bad for the party and should be embarassing to EE.

  • redmymind

    Romney’s new way to finally “connect,” I take it?

  • youngthegiant

    To EE, Newt Gingrich can do no wrong.

    Teaming up with Nancy Pelosi on climate change? No problem.

    Supporting the individual mandate? No problem.

    EE just doesn’t like Romney because Romney is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS).

    EE has not yet arrived at the realization that “those who are not against us are for us.” (Mark 9:40)

  • Ender

    against your allegation that we are socks? I answered your nonsense with a joke. I’ve been around Redstate since 2006. Not that much but still.

  • youngthegiant

    Ever think about it that way? Currently, over 75% of the Republican Party is voting for “not Santorum”.

    Given Santorum’s quixotic stand on birth control, this should come as a surprise to no one.

  • youngthegiant

    I love how the right wing fanatics can find a way to see every single election, caucus or straw poll as being a refutation of Romney, even if Romney wins!

    Enjoy your stay in fantasyland, jamesm.

    Romney will be the nominee.

  • redmymind

    Man these Rombot drones are fun to watch feeding on Romney puke!!!

  • youngthegiant

    Romney will bring conservatives and independents together. Obama is history!

  • youngthegiant

    He is there to placate the anti-Mormons voters within the party.

    He has zero chance of beating Romney and is about to finish third in a state that he could have won had he not been such a lightweight.

    Santorum is a sideshow.

  • mikelindell2

    Newt originally supported that in a fight to defeat Hillarycare. He has always been honest about having once supported it and has said it was a mistake. On the other hand, Romney has consistently LIED about wanting a mandate at the national level and has never backed away from the idea of a mandate in MA. Having openly changed your position and lying about what your position is = totally different.

  • mikelindell2

    So they decided to just try and lie his mandate position away.

  • acat

    Go ahead. Stand and defend.

    Why should I trust Romney to repeal Obamacare when he thinks it’s a great idea?

    Do not mention any other candidates or lobbying outfits, think tanks, etc. Just defend Romney’s position.

    Go ahead.

    Mew

  • mikelindell2

    Romney=stimulus-supporting, mandate-imposing, gun tax increasing, business tax increasing, pro-abortion. Basically, liberal on almost every issue. add to that now liar.

    Santorum=big government, big spending, big labor-backing, ear marker. “politics is a team sport, folks” and christians are wrong for using contraception and protestants have been corrupted by satan. college is for snobs. unqualified

    Newt=only conservative record (highest acu rating), only record of achievement, most conservative proposals-only proposed flat tax (15%), most articulate and knowledgeable

  • acat

    - give him any money
    - give him any time
    - try to talk potential voters around to him in the general.

    He thinks he can buy the white house, let him.

    Mew

  • Ender

    then why is he about to win MA republicans by almost 50%?

    Romney 64% Santorum 16% Gingrich 6%

  • redmymind

    BHO will run circles around BHO Lite . . . regardless of how many “debate coaches” he buys and goes through in a week!!! Hee, hee, hee! A good one, though, jon11. We could all use some humor!

    Love how these Rombots get so uptight and defensive over nothing, which is exactly what their leader is!

  • trickamsterdam

    No, and neither has, Romney.

    Now it’s grasping at straws just like all of us hoping for a “White Knight” but Romney’s hoping “they’re really not the Base!”.

    As I patiently tried to instruct you, enders, it doesn’t take much of a percentage to swing an election.

    Nader got 2.75%. And voting for Nader is the same exact thing as conservatives staying home, except you expect the Green Party people to be at least voting down ticket for Democrats.

    I think Romney will lose that percentage equally, and I don’t know if enough conservative actually go physically into the voting booth to help the House and Senate.

    Romney will destroy the Conservative Movement. And Romney will destroy the Republican Party. And Romney (unlike Nader) will KILL the hopes of taking the Senate or not being decimated in the House.

    Look at Romney closely. You’ll see when you see him clearly…he’s the death of every political idea or ideal you’ve ever had. And he’s not electable or even close.

    There’s still time to PULL BACK.

    brokered.convention.now.or.Obama.again.Soon.

  • Ender

    a big problem with individual mandates, until such time as someone can show me a better way to have people pay for their own healthcare instead of freeloading off others.

    If the Supreme Court rules it to be unconstitutional, so be it. If not then I think Romney, as President, should tinker with it.

    I’ve thought individual mandates were a decent idea when almost all leading conservatives did, and I still do. I just don’t change my mind that often. I also supported Romney in 2008.

    So you see, Romney’s support for individual mandates is not a negative with me.

    The reason GOP mostly changed their mind on mandates is only because Obama is for them. I’m extremely skeptical that it’s a profound ideological change but more of a way to drum up votes.

    The fact that you guys can easily accept everyone’s change of mind at about the time the Dems started championing it, is pretty funny.

    I think Newt is lying straight to everyone’s face when he says he now thinks mandates are wrong. He is just going where the votes are.

  • Ender

    but it just pisses me off that people are buying these “conversions” just because they like their candidates. I only care about actions, not words. Lots of pretty conservative words flying around.

  • John6078

    It’s over. Get over it.

  • CarolT

    The few that are republicans are going to vote for Mitt, only because he is republican. They are not conservatives.
    I know some independents that hate Mitt, liked Perry and don’t know who to vote for, I have told them to vote for Newt.

    I tried to explain infanticide and how Obama voted for it in IL as a state senator, to some of my older cousins in 2008. I was asked to show it to them on non-replican television.
    What more can I add to prove that the people here are libs and do not understand that the dem party of JFK has been taken over by progressives.

  • WillWong

    To say that EE doesn’t like Romney because Romney is a member of the LDS church is a very dwarfish and idiotic statement!

  • snowshooze

    And Obama must be contributing to Romney to keep him on his feet long enough to beat him.

  • carolina

    on the Huckabee forum. He even recast his 59 points down to 7 requirements for a healthy economy ( or something like that, based on the “7 habits for successful people”)
    Santorum did well also – especially re the bank bailout he was against.
    I got a phone call and missed Newt.

  • carolina

    on the Huckabee forum. He even recast his 59 points down to 7 requirements for a healthy economy ( or something like that, based on the “7 habits for successful people”)
    Santorum did well also – especially re the bank bailout he was against.
    I got a phone call and missed Newt.

  • acat

    It has to be about someone other than Romney.

    Your para. 3 – “everyone else was doing it”. Not naming names, but diversifying blame.

    Your para. 6 – “it’s everyone else who changed”.

    Your para. 7 – “Newt”.

    To your first point, I’ll say this. I’ve thought government mandating that people purchase insurance is a terrible idea since I first heard it – the last time we tried this was with flood insurance, and now only the government sells it, and their mandated premiums don’t bring in near enough to pay for the claims. I haven’t changed my mind.

    It seems that, rather than address the roots of the problem – the requirement that emergency rooms treat without confirmation of ability to pay – outrageous malpractice judgements – a patchwork and inefficient health insurance industry – you’d like to just demand that everyone play along.

    Sorry. No sale.

    Mew

  • snowshooze

    I think his turnout was poor.

  • haners

    That east enough for you?

  • jon11

    …So what the not-bots have to demonstrate to me is that they know something i don’t.

    Even if i ignore the fact that Romney continues to beat these guys that are supposedly stronger, can anyone present one piece of objective evidence (your gut feeling about what the election will turn on IS NOT objective evidence) that suggests Newt or Rick Santorum or Ron Paul or Rick Perry or Herman Cain or Michelle Bachmann or anyone else NOT RUNNING has a better chance of beating Obama than Romney?

    The answer, obviously, is no.

    But it’d entertaining to have people try.

  • acat

    See what Ben Howe had to say on the subject.

    As for actions, shall we discuss Gov. Romney’s record of tax and fee hikes and liberal judges, or would you rather discuss Venture Capitalist Romney’s layoffs?

    The guy’s a lousy candidate, Ender.

    Mew

  • youngthegiant

    Instead of demanding that ender defend a statement that Romney never made, why don’t you offer some proof that Romney in fact supported Obamacare?

    Can’t do it?

    Figures.

  • CarolT

    I noticed in an earlier comment that you mentioned you had a website. Would you please put the address up? Or email it to me: ctarasewicz@comcast.net
    Thank you,

  • acat

    He’s a manager, not a leader. He’s too in-the-weeds, not enough on the big picture, and he’s got a serious charisma deficit.

    Show me the last time such a dismal presidential candidate won.

    Mew

  • youngthegiant

    Obviously, you’re too young to remember that even stalwarts like Reagan put moderates like Kennedy and O’Connor on the Supreme Court.

    Romney would pick judges like Scalia, Alito, and Roberts.

    I’m more interested in facts than your baseless opinions. Let’s stick to facts.

  • youngthegiant

    Newt’s “private-sector experience” involves lobbying for Freddie Mac while disingenuously calling himself a “historian”.

    I expected more from you, doctor.

  • youngthegiant

    He is the only Republican who can beat Obama this year.

    Santorum is just dragging out what would otherwise be a sewn-up nomination.

    Romney is the nominee. Anyone who says otherwise is kidding himself.

  • youngthegiant

    Santorum has yet to prove that he can win in the South, the west coast, the northeast, or the mid-Atlantic. He’s picked off a few wins in the midwest and Colorado largely by relying on the support of bigots.

    He will not be in the general election, so I’m not really worried about him at all.

  • acat

    Did you bother to read before you posted?

    Mew

  • youngthegiant

    Romney was to the right of McCain in 2008 and had the support of conservative stalwarts like Jim Demint and Ann Coulter.

    Just because a few Tea Party fanatics decide to move to the right doesn’t mean that Romney is to the left of the mainstream of the Republican Party. The mainstream of the Republican Party picked Romney over the fanatics in New Hampshire, Florida, Michigan, Arizona, Wyoming, and now Washington.

    After Romney wins the mainstream of the party in Ohio, Santorum should endorse Romney and drop out. For the sake of beating Obama.

  • youngthegiant

    Romney has been a conservative throughout his entire life. Even conservatives like Newt Gingrich occasionally make deals with the other side in order to get business done.

    Reagan did it. Santorum did it. Romney did it.

    To single Romney out for being pragmatic is asinine.

  • youngthegiant

    Most of the posters here just float opinions and bluster.

    Facts are nice. ; )

  • jamesm

    This makes him the worst to try to defeat Obama. Romney has no better chance to beat Obama then Santorum.

  • brah

    The individual mandate does address a root problem of freeloaders, which cost hospitals and taxpayers real money. As a radiologist, I read several studies a day that are not reimbursed, because the patient is uninsured. We all then “pay” for that. I don’t believe it should be a Federal mandate, but totally understand individual states doing it. Now, it may be unconstitutional…I don’t pretend to know the law, which we’ll find out soon enough.

    but +/- individual mandate, that doesn’t preclude support for tort reform, more monetary investment by patients in healthcare decisions, and addressing fee-for-service payment principles for physicians – which are the major drivers of healthcare costs.

  • youngthegiant

    So I won’t waste my time trying to educate you.

    Romney will bring conservatives and independents together this year to throw out Obama.

    Don’t like it? Stay home. We’ll win without you.

  • jamesm

    …You are delusional if you think Spokane as a whole is conservative

  • acat

    Because if your candidate can’t get behind repealing Obamacare, he’s going to have a terrible time winning.

    Mew

  • youngthegiant

    Santorum couldn’t win in South Carolina, Michigan, Arizona, or Washington.

    He has no money, almost no charisma, and only the support of a few bigots and malcontents to prop up his floundering campaign.

    You will always remember Santorum with a silly grin on your face. His campaign is like comic relief during an otherwise serious election year.

  • youngthegiant

    Ever been there?

    Didn’t think so.

  • jamesm

    going to fool anyone here that understands Mitt Romney. Romney has not been a conservative all his life. Garbage.

  • jamesm

    Lived in Washington for two years. Have family that still does. More garbage

  • texasref

    Even Mondale won his home state. Can’t be so sure about Mittens. But who am I kidding, Mitt won’t be the nominee. Not with him failing ever to get a majority in any Super Tuesday state. You watch and see.

  • youngthegiant

    EE is just kvetching about the fact that a Mormon is about to win the nomination and force poor old EE to choose between a Mormon and a liberal democrat.

    EE’s claim that Romney is for Obamacare is ridiculous and baseless.

    Romney has been against Obamacare from day one and has in fact said that he would repeal it after he is sworn in.

    I don’t see the point in tearing down the man who will be the nominee. Unless you are a bigot. Which wouldn’t surprise me.

  • youngthegiant

    Do you ever look at a newspaper?

  • lapert

    Of course, when a politician changes his mind between being an advocate of the idea in 2009 when it was being crafted as legislating to recognizing it as a mistake when running in an election with an electorate that thinks it is a mistake it must be an honest change of heart. Newt sure is good at those, I mean he is able to acknowledge the mistake he made sitting with Nancy and his mistakes on Cap & Trade – it is almost as though he is as good at changing his mind as Romney.

    We need one of those red alert lights – we just learned that politicians say they changed their mind at convenient times.

    I won’t pretend to concoct some defense of Romeny’s flip flops – some may be genuine but I’m sure most are political expediency, that is what politicians do including every one of the people in this race. What is ridiculous though is how supporters of one candidate rationalize the ‘changes’ of their candidate than jump on the changes of the others – as you seem so want to do with Newt.

    Not that it matters one way or the other, the nomination fight never materialized and this is all mental masturbation. Let’s get it out of the way now so everyone is focused and productive come November.

  • snowshooze

    Did that hurt or something? It makes me delusional?

  • youngthegiant

    Or baptist. Or Methodist. Or evangelical. Or Jewish.

    Basically anything but Mormon.

    The base will get on board once they have to choose between Romney and Obama. I’m not worried about the real base of the Republican Party. I’m only worried about wing-nuts like EE trying to tear down the nominee out of pettiness.

  • Kyle-MI

    It is still Romney’s stated position to enact Obamacare waivers on his first day in office and then work toward repealing Obamacare. What is not to like about that?

    Does he have a perfect record to back it up? No. Do any of the other candidates? Does it matter when the majority of likely voters want Obamacare repealed? Who is more likely to give them that repeal, Obama or Romney? Can you tell me with a straight face that the majority of likely voters who support an Obamacare repeal are going to vote against Romney in the general election?

  • youngthegiant

    A smart party would agree that fighting over religion is a dumb thing to do when there is a liberal in the White House who is trying to bankrupt the treasury before voters show him the door.

    Acat, you and EE are not exactly shining examples of how smart the party is or should be. You are proving to be nothing more than bitter reactionaries.

  • Ender

    those oh so genuine changes of hearts. I laugh at those.

  • Kyle-MI

    NT

  • youngthegiant

    If you’re going to call Romney a liberal, you might as well call Gingrich and Santorum liberals, too.

    Romney is a conservative on taxes, abortion, social issues, and the economy. That’s conservative enough for me.

  • lineholder

    For crying out loud, this constant whining about “poor Romney” and who is or is not attacking “poor Romney” is getting old.

    If you want to convince voters to side with Romney, you guys really need to choose a different approach, okay?

  • acat

    Romney saying it. Consistently.

    Because, y’see, Romney’s buddy Norm Coleman seems to think Obamacare’s just fine….

    …and Romney hasn’t put any distance between himself and ol’ Norm.

    Personnel is politics, Romney is pro-Obamacare.

    Mew

  • Ender

    just because I support individual mandate as the only current way to bring more money in, in a fair manner, doesn’t mean I don’t want the problems you listed addressed.

  • youngthegiant

    You act like you’ve never even been to the place.

  • youngthegiant

    I don’t know why you think that Romney needs to win in every county. If Santorum would just drop out, this race would be over and we could focus on beating Obama.

  • jamesm

    talk the talk. His record is not a conservative record. The spin won’t work

  • snowshooze

    He doesn’t have any convictions.

  • acat

    Romney raised taxes and fees in Massachusetts.
    Romney has been both pro-abortion and anti-abortion.
    Romney has been both pro-gay-marriage and anti-gay-marriage.

    The whole record is open to discussion.

    Failure to actually defend based on the whole record is a severe weakness among Rombots.

    Stop with the cafeteria-style “I choose these three sound bites” crap and start defending Romney’s waffling.

    Mew

  • snowshooze

    So far as that goes.

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

    This level of voter analysis is the way a leftist would approach the Republican primary, not a conservative. There are a number of areas in which Santorum is vulnerable, but appealing to bigots is not one of them.

    I suggest you start looking for a comfortable bridge to settle under.

  • acat

    Why can’t you Romney supporters stay on target?

    Not that it’s any of your business, but a cat is older than he looks.

    Mew

  • filobeddoe

    No one else is reporting this. Not Fox News. No one.

  • acat

    Yep, you Romney-bots are as predictable as .. actual robots.

    Mew

  • snowshooze

    There isn’t really anything good there..
    Even Romney himself.. can’t tell me why I would ever want to vote for him.
    But he is quick to point out what he believes is wrong with everyone else.
    Well, we got it straight now. Obama will blame Bush, and Romney will blame everyone else… what a race.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    if you weren’t such an ignorant jackass.

  • acat

    Maybe we need a little MAD….

    Mew

  • antisesquipedalion

    Newt thinks like an er doc. he identifies the problem and quickly proposes a solution. compare/ contrast the answers given on the FNC jobs forum. of course he got to talk about trade deficits while Williard (not a typo) was asked about the poor kids with lemonade stands. i don’t know how anyone with a brain can listen to these candidates and not simply being amazed at Newt. ( but i remember that 300k people voted for Alvin greene, in the 2010 SC senate race, and it begins to make sense.)
    . instead, people worry about “baggage”. outside of being found with a dead woman or a live boy, i don’t need no STINKIN’ baggage

  • snowshooze

    That was strapped to his car roof on a cross country trip?
    It was so freaked out it pooped all over the car. Fortunately, Romney noticed and did the right thing… he pulled over and hosed the car down…

  • acat

    Isn’t that thing maxed out yet?

    Mew

  • acat

    I haven’t pulled this one out of the archives in a while …

    Mew

  • Bill S

    …I might not have noticed that you’re a retread.

    Sayonara.

  • Flagstaff

    I won’t be giving him any money, either, because I don’t have it to give away. But I will be trying to convert anybody I can to voting for our guy, whoever it is.

  • haners

    Perhaps it’s a good thing that EE hasn’t yet supported Romney. Maybe he should wait after the general election.

    In the old days, EE’s kind of miserable track record would disqualify one from being a pundit.

  • tracker

    …that Spokane is “conservative,” that explains a lot. About you and your support of Romney.

    Conservative: I do not think that word means what you think it does….

  • snowshooze

    But I guess.. well.. how could anyone defend anything that stupid?
    I betcha ten grand and I’m not really worried about the poor..

  • David123

    :-)

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Conservatives are for clean cars…smile

  • acat

    Mew

  • Bill S

    acat is obviously a lot sharper than you. He’s still here and you are not.

    Heh.

  • acat

    Wow, you sure can’t stay on a topic, can you?

    Mew

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    It’s not a winning strategy to call voters fanatics and bigots just because they don’t support your candidate.

    But it is a good way to get banned again, so by all means, keep it up.

  • David123

    nt

  • CarolT

    If you are referring to George HW Bush, the man was a War Hero, Head of the CIA, VP, and he won.
    Is Mitt a patriot in amy way? Except his sons were patriots because they were working on their father’s election instead of joining the service. I did not make that up, Mitt said it himself when asked why none of sons were fighting the wars. Mitt has a bad habit of putting his foot in his mouth.

  • lineholder

    was Josh Dunn? Again?

  • CarolT

    Early in the primary process, last fall, I was getting daily emails from Dick Morris. He said they were not to promote any one GOP candidate but to educate us about each one. Newt, Bachmann, Romney, Cain, and the others but not one about Perry. Think about it, who does Morris work for? Fox. Fox and/or Rove put a stop to any Perry coverage, except bad news.
    I stopped my subscription and wonder why Fox did this? We know they are a tool for Romney but why? Did Romney buy them off? Is it Rove’s grudge with Perry?
    A few months ago Mitt couldn’t make it through an interview with Brett with our losing it. I think that was in December, though I am not sure.

    Does anyone know what the reason is?

  • acat

    because George H. W. Bush’s resume’ didn’t get him very far in the Republican primary .. but it got him far *enough* that Reagan brought him inside to get enough of the insiders to support their ticket.

    There are some very interesting parallels between what Reagan did starting in 1977 and what Romney did starting in 2009…

    Mew

  • Flagstaff

    The subject of the thread is Romney and his support for the individual mandate. The intent is to prove by that support he has a handicap the other three don’t have. It is perfectly reasonable, in that context, to point out that another of the three, in fact the one who many of us with could be elected, did exactly the same thing.

    Now, if the intent is to prove that Romeny “lied” by claiming he never supported the Obamacare individual mandate,* I’d have to see or read the instance where he did that. If I remember right, St. Peter denied Christ three times, yet he was chosen to lead the Church. So maybe Mitt can deny his own words yet still lead us out of the wilderness, to mix a metaphor. (I’m a recovering Presbyterian, so I can do that.)

    Incidentally, everybody who hates the individual mandate (as I do) had better get on board with me and hate with equal fervor the “guaranteed insurability” requirement. As Newt points out in the link provided above, it’s the mandate which makes post-incident-insurability possible; eventually, there will be no pre-insurance-effective date incidents because everybody will be insured.

    Republicans raced headlong into support for the insurability requirement (a “mandate” directed at insurance companies) without considering its unintended consequences. IN FACT, WE WOULD ALL BE BETTER OF IF THEY HAD DONE NOTHING; therefore, there is no reason NOT to repeal Ocare in its entirety. It is cheaper to pay hospitals to treat the indigent for free than it is to force everybody in the country to buy health insurance, given that most of them have it WITHOUT A MANDATE.

    We live in a country run by morons who can’t see beyond their noses. Only the fools in Europe can make us look good. We have been saved FROM OURSELVES by our constitutional government many times. We now have a president who wants to remove our constitutional safety net and replace it with a tiger trap.

  • lineholder

    and/or people who understand health care policy, and who have considered what’s included in the timeline for O-care, have NO illusions of any sort about what lies ahead if O-care continues on it current trajectory.

    But the Repubs (other than perhaps Paul Ryan) aren’t letting the general public have an idea of what’s heading our way.

    Within the context of what lies ahead, given the comments he’s made and his emphasis on free-market principles, I think Newt’s the one who would be most likely to face the worst case scenario, i.e. that we don’t get O-care repealed, by turning the legislation “on its head” and utilizing anything and everything he can find to alter the trajectory of this legislation in a way that favor free-market solutions.

    Yeah, he’s got baggage. But I’ve yet to find enough evidence to persuade me that either Santorum or Romney is up to this worst-care scenario task.

  • acat

    (Cheshire grin)

  • falconrap

    Even Reagan got divorced. Quite frankly, they all lie. They all cheat. They all do things for their own personal power. It’s what politicians do, and people would be wise to remember that those who don’t are the exception. Having stated that, people need to be more focus on who actually gets the things done that they say they will, and which one has the tendency to do what we conservatives want done in D.C. Newt is the guy when you view things from this perspective. All of these guys are flawed, but Newt is a Churchill. Maybe we bring him in for 4 years and move on? Who knows? The important thing is to get someone in office that will actually attempt to turn us back to limited government principles.

    Once people can come to this realization, that politicians are what they are, we can start making better decisions by turning our ears off and simply looking at what they do when they are in power, what ever that sphere of power may be. Reagan was hated and vilified before the elections (and for 8 years after), but came back from being down 25 points. Newt doesn’t even have that large of a deficit to overcome. If Romney gets in, he’ll do to the Republican party, much the same as the last 4 years of W did, and it will be harder to come back again.

  • WillWong

    I thought calling out EE for not liking Romney because of his LDS religion was quite telling!

    You can tell that he was on a vengeance and was posting very prolifically, thanking his lucky stars he wasn’t banned earlier!

  • dajeeps

    Town hall meeting in N Virginia – Eric Cantor, Mitt Romney & Jeb Bush attending.

    This isn’t quite a smoking gun, but it shows just how excited Romney was to share his healthcare plan with Obama.

    http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Conversationf/start/1606/stop/1669

  • acat

    R.I.P. youngthegiant, whoever you used to be.

  • dajeeps

    Had a typo in the date.

  • Bill S

    …that none of us can overcome… :-)

  • SoFiMil

    Uncut for 8 minutes, 41 seconds.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUkbuhXzbvI&sns=em

  • WillWong

    If there is anything which can depicts the worship of money, this sure came the closest I have ever seen! And please don’t beat me up for being an anti-capitalist because I am not! :)

  • falconrap

    politicians who actually enact conservative principles into law. Romney hasn’t done that, while Newt has. On a few instances Santorum has too, but not on enough.

    Who cares what any of these guys say? I only care about what they do, and voting for Romney is voting for a moderate liberal, who happens to be conservative on some business issues. That’s not a choice I want in November.

  • JSobieski

    and it just so happens that Obamacare was the most substantial public policy enactment since that time.

    If you can’t get your mind and thoughts rapped around that, it is no one’s fault but your own.

  • falconrap

    The only time moderates matter in an election is when both bases are relatively energized to the same level. When that happens, you get an election close enough for moderates to truly make a difference. In most elections, the candidate that wins is the one that can get their base to turn out. Romney is less likely to get base turnout than McCain, who only got as much as he did because of Palin. If you get your wish, then my bet is that conservative turnout will be low. If that happens, there is a very good chance that Obama will get re-elected, and, more importantly, the down ticket races will suffer.

    It’s too bad the media has managed to brain wash so many, when all one has to do is actually research past voting results.

  • acat

    unless we’re to believe they’re regurgitating money…

    Thing is, it fits in reasonably well with the times…

    Mew

    (not sure if this will work…)

  • SoFiMil

    Stop playing the agrieved Mormon-card. You sound like a little kid who is spoiled rotten. I feel absolutely no sympathy toward you. You’re hurting the cause of the few honest Romney supporters out there (of which I am not one).

  • WillWong

    I cannot imagine any of our past Presidents, with the possible exception of the current one being caught in such potentially damaging light! But again, kids do stupid things sometimes! I was brought up never to flaunt my riches, not that we had much to flaunt anyway!

  • lineholder

    Bill bid him/her “Sayonara”

  • SoFiMil

    .

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

    …and perhaps wonder if a mini-”sub-group” is emerging on RS!

  • CarolT

    My mother was from a family of 9 children, there are several generation gaps between the cousins. I have one 25 years older than me and one ten years younger than me, there are probably more gaps but these are the cousins I am closest with.
    Thank you, it may sway some of the older cousins with computers. Some have them but do not use them daily.

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

    …a presumed native-son.

  • SoFiMil

    ..

  • acat

    Because Gingrich is on record recanting.

    Romney’s not.

    Equating the two is a falsehood.

    Mew

  • ZootSuit

    In 2008, Mitt Romney

    1) Was supporting an auto bailout in the Michigan Primary, which McCain opposed (probably McCain’s second finest moment since Vietnam)

    2) Was supporting Charlie Crist’s idiot idea for Federal Hurricane insurance, which McCain opposed. (giving credit where credit is due, I will give Crist credit for coming out in support of McCain even after McCain publicly opposed his idea)

    3) Was running “push polls” against McCain in Florida asking seniors if they would still support John McCain if they knew that McCain opposed Bush’s Medicare Part D program (which was probably McCain’s finest moment since Vietnam).

    4) And let’s not forget “RomneyCare”; the blueprint for ObamaCare.

    Romney may occasionally talk the talk of conservatism — that is, when he not not running in Massachusetts, telling everyone that he was an independent during the Reagan/Bush years and that he would be a better protector of “gay rights” than Ted Kennedy — but he has very rarely walked the walk.

    But you are correct, despite everything, “conservatives” like Jim Demint (my Senator) and Ann Coulter were supporting him. but more than anything, that just shows how stupid and ignorant conservatives have become. We don’t want someone who is truly conservatives; we just want someone who yells and screams about how conservative they are and how “un-conservative” everyone else is.

    But I will give you this, compared to Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum,, Mitt Romney may actually be the most conservative, at least economically. For every dollar Newt would cut he would add double in his own insane ideas like a moon colony by 2020 that would become the 51st state while Santorum would give us even more of the big government “compassionate conservatism” that George W. Bush gave us: After all, “when the people hurt, the government’s got to do something.”

    But don’t worry, whomever GOP candidate is nominated, we’ll start convincing ourselves that they really are conservative. After all, conservatives did that under Bush; the fourth biggest domestic spender after Obama, LBJ (who he narrowly outspends) and FDR. Domestic spending and bailouts, all while hypocritically complaining against it = conservatism in the 21st Century.

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

    …and remember both EMTALA and Hill-Burton, as proof.

  • lineholder

    yeah, that’s how it turned out, LOL.

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

    …although I wish The Newt had not re-cited [in his two recent books] the desirability of everyone posting a bond [if not insured].

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

    …and it is why The Newt can grow to dominate.

  • SoFiMil

    Not that there’s anything wrong with being a Mormon, of which I am one.

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

    …because its negativity appears to supplant the positivity you say you honor.

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

    …for he energized conservatives and attracted indies.

  • acat

    I agree with much that you’ve written here, especially the rationalizations around W. As pleased as I am with the guy over the Roberts court and the handling of 9/11, I’m quite disappointed with him fiscally, especially around TARP.

    The only place I disagree is over which of the candidates is more fiscally conservative – I’m not convinced, at this point, that Romney is better than Gingrich.

    Yes, yes, Gingrich proposed a private-sector moon base. (and got rightly skewered on SNL for it …) The Santorum campaign have been spreading the idea that it’s a NASA deal….which is not true. In any case, so what? Newt’s an idea factory, he proposes a lot of crap. His record in the House is one of streamlining.and reducing government waste. Romney’s record, on the other paw, is of increasing fees and taxes while leaving waste in place.

    Again, glad to see you’re around.

    Mew

  • acat

    Part of the genius of Ronald Reagan was recognizing he had to turn the candidates he defeated in the primary into allies (and, in the case of George H. W. Bush, a running mate) in the general.

    I don’t think Romney gets that.

    Mew

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

    http://www.doctor-bob.biz

    please critique!

    [it is frozen-in-time because it was created more than a decade ago via now-defunct Microsoft FrontPage]

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

    …because The Newt could be perceived as formidable if permitted to do so by the MSM/LSM/ELM [Establishment-Leaning Media].

    Let’s see how he handles the quadrifecta of interview shows in a few hours….

  • CarolT

    That turns conservatives off, I don’t care that Mitt is mormon. I do have an issue with a man so religious pulling the dirty tricks and filthy ads and politics he;s been up to since he made a career of running for POTUS.
    Do Mormons believe in The Golden Rule, treat others as you would like to be treated?

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

    …it is possible Santorum loses PA [per Guzzardi's "Liberty Blog"].

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

    …also consult my Diary.

  • snowshooze

    Due to lack of capacity. Hearsay at this point…

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

    …because the core-belief espoused is support for the Individual Mandate.

    I believe there is a consensus in these parts that it’s unconstitutional but, regardless, it may be OK for a state to implement; I also believe that there is a consensus that it represents a Big Government/Brother intrusion into personal liberty.

    Nevertheless, abhorrence of freeloaders is said to be a motivating-force, notwithstanding EMTALA and Hill-Burton mandating hospitals provide emergency care.

    As was exhaustively argued [with Wonkish1, who withdrew, and with JSobieski], the customary debt-collection process in our capitalist society could handle these concerns, for the key-issue with the uninsured/underinsured is the impact of catastrophic illness.

    That is why–since the time of Reagan–Medical/Health Savings Accounts have been promoted [along with high-deductible plans]. The idea was presented to RR in 1982 by George Ross Fisher, III, MD [retired endocrinologist @ PA Hospital, AMA-Delegate for decades] and promoted still by John Goodman [and others].

    This is a nose-under-tent wedge-argument; the private system must be allowed to compete, with patient-empowerment mandating the type of enterprise [choosing based on quality/price considerations] that conservatives should espouse.

  • haners

    Santorum 24
    Newt 10
    Combined 34

    Romney 38

  • Flagstaff

    and that’s what you reply to? (^;^)

    So, let’s add it to the list of things that Newt has recanted. I’ve lost track of whether Santo ever said a word about it in 2010 or not. He has plenty of other things he’s said he is sorry he voted for. (Not Arlen Specter, though.) I suspect that Ron Paul is in the clear.

    That isn’t really a slam at Rick and Newt, though. It’s just an observation that people in public life occasionally make mistakes. Sometimes they agree they were mistakes, sometimes they continue to believe they were right. Sometimes it’s a gray area.

    But I can’t bring myself to throw out the man who I think gives us the best chance to get the White House because of his op-ed column giving the President advice, MOST OF WHICH I AGREE WITH. And I say that it isn’t any worse than any mistake anybody else has made.

  • http://tuleya.com Tuleya

    Romney does NOT call for a national mandate in that Meet the Press. HE was saying there are options instead of national health care.

    However, while I am a Romney supporter, I do hope he eventually sees that even a state mandate is a totalitarian idea. I hated the idea back when even Newt and the Heritage Foundation were pushing it. The excuse over and over is that “because the federal government illegally requires hospitals to treat those who don’t pay, therefore, we need to force others who pay.”

  • CarolT

    When I first found this site in the summer of 2008 there was a waiting period of a few days before I would be accepted to post here, etc,
    With all the Romney-bots today, have the rules been changed so that trolls etc can posit here? Thank you, Carol

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

    …because the specifics of the issue should be permitted to emerge.

    Mitt’s ACTIONS in Mass. are problematic [implementing unabashedly an expansionist role of government over individuals]…and his WORDS are hardly reassuring [issuing 50 potential-exemptions wouldn't work in D-controlled states].

  • haners

    Romney 38
    Paul 25
    Santorum 24
    Gingrich 10

    Santorum + Gingrich combined < Romney

    It's really telling that there is no mention of the WA caucus on the RedState front page.

  • snowshooze

    Spin as you wish.

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

    …as I wrote then…and continue to believe now.

  • ZootSuit

    arguing which is healthier, strychnine or cyanide.

    Newt Gingrich permanently lost me when, immediately after completing the “Contract with America,” he went on “This Week” talking about how he wanted a Federal program to give poor kids laptops. George Will’s reponse was right on target, “I thought we elected Republicans in order to get rid of nonsense like this.”

    Newt Gingrich is psychologically incapable of understanding that his big government programs are just as bad (if not worse) than other’s. Indeed, although even I confess it is a different subject, his excoriating Cinton for his adultery (yes, yes, I know .. it was the lying) while he himself was engaging in an adulteries affair highlights his ignorance and self-deluded hypocrisy. Did he honestly not think that people would recognize his hypocrisy?

    But somehow, in Newt’s mind, it was different. And that is the thing with Newt Gingrich: somehow, he thinks his big government ideas are “different”.

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

    …I am not yet so cynical that I can’t trust people who change their minds justifiably.

    This is why I can permit myself to support The Newt over Mitt, following the lead of my initial candidate, Perry.

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

    …which can be handled by subsequent acquisition of health insurance.

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

    …and justifiably so.

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

    …but this discussion focuses on how Mitt has adhered to an untenable stance…and then has proceeded to misrepresent his previously-held position…all without having admitted error!

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

    …as was documented a few days ago here @ RS.

    Year-by-year, if memory serves, he chose a lot of D’s.

  • northeastred

    Obamacare has destroyed this country’s health care system, paying government money for illegal immigrant diseases and gunshot wounds in emergency rooms, and FORCING insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions.

    Ask anyone in Massachusetts. They hate Romneycare. It’s ruined their state and nearly bankrupted the state’s economy. And he’ll do the same thing if he’s president. This man does not believe abortions should be legal. He doesn’t believe that companies should have the right to deny medicines to employees that they are morally opposed to. I’ll bet if you pressed him, he’d even agree to continue with Obama’s disastrous foreign policies of ignoring Pakistan, our ally in the war on terror, and their concerns about US troops going into their country uninvited. That is no way to treat a friendly nation in the war against terror. Romney would be the same milktoast moderate, droning on and on about diplomacy and back channel negotiations, instead of using strength and American threats first.

    Santorum is the only Republican in this race, IMO.

  • CarolT

    I am 52 and did not know about why Reagan brought in Bush in 1980 until a few years ago, Now you have me stumped about what he did starting in 1977 to what Romney ddi staring in 2009? Please fill me in.
    I know Romney helped to elect Nikki Haley, Scott Brown(I’m glad to have a R in that seat but not happy with Scott, he was the only one to support Reid’s amendment to increase the debt ceiling, though Harry didn’t support his own amendment. I knowBrown is the only one to say he supported Obama’s recess appt of Cordary, etc) Brown will get my vote but nothing I did two years ago to help him win the seat.
    Back to the question, what did Ronnie do in1977?

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

    …so that such retreads as this won’t be necessary much longer.

    The Newt did a lot of “lobbying” [although he didn't meet the legal requirements for this term, apparently] and the only public statements that emerged were to advise against Congressional funding of largess [if memory serves].

    This was but one client, and the focus of the posting was to have demonstrated private-sector experience, remember?

    Let’s get real, ok?

  • demsaresatanic

    Romney and Santorum both supported insurance mandates, The Romney position is all over yesterday’s thread, I posted the Santorum link yesterday and do so again;
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frenchrevolution/2012/01/07/santorum-supported-individual-mandate-before-he-was-morally-aghast-by-it/
    and haners posted the Newt quote and a video yesterday. The Romney and Santorum quotes mandate the purchase of insurance or a penalty, Newt’s quote includes the bond option, which is a conservative approach to the issue of free riders. A bond is not a mandate to purchase insurance, and failing to make that distinction is bs.

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

    [he has since been banned]

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

    …and there is still hope The Newt can sequentially predominate.

  • northeastred

    Whoever we put up in November is going to be destroyed. We all know it. Republican in DC are already grumbling, behind the scenes, about focusing on the Senate. This primary season has been devastating to the party, and I don’t see Obama losing with the economy PERCEIVED as recovering.

    We’ll have to go back to the drawing board and modernized the party for 2016 to stay competitive. But think of this: Obama is more to the right than Richard Nixon if you’re honest and you look at the facts. So haven’t we really won?

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

    …but the questioners didn’t seem to transcend sound-bites with follow-ups, perhaps because they had been deluged by verbiage.

  • Eyeofnewt

    It is the part about Obama being to the right of Nixon. I know it’s late, but I don’t see it.

  • Flagstaff

    at 1:01:34 of my recording, Romney says, “If I’m president, I will repeal Obamacare for a lot of reasons.” He then lists three of those reasons, all having to do with its outrageous cost, and then says again, “…and therefore, I will repeal Obamacare.”

    I don’t know if that’s the same as recanting or not, but it’s good enough for me, and he can make the argument better than Santorum can.

    He then turned the argument back on Santo, noting that if Pat Toomey, instead of Arlen Specter (whom Santo supported for Senate), had been in the Senate, Obamacare would not have passed. Santorum’s reply went very deep into the theoretical weeds. I mention this only because it was an example of good debating technique, which was a criticism of Romney in the past.

    Of course, NO president can repeal anything. The only thing he can do is sign the repeal legislation. But that’s a problem they all have.

    There are characteristics of Newt, Rick, and RonPaul that I like better than the corresponding characteristic in Mitt, but on balance I’m starting to support Romney, because there are other aspects of campaigning and leadership where I think Romney is better.

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

    …because he was incessantly prejudiced in his comments.

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

    …perhaps you should rectify identified-error [by me], supra.

  • aesthete

    is that he really doesn’t get that government can’t solve everything. He’s someone afflicted with what Thomas Sowell calls “The Vision of the Anointed”. In many ways, he’s similar to economist Jeffrey Sachs — smart guy who mostly believes in and understands markets, but who is wrapped up in himself and his ideas and doesn’t pause long enough to think about the practicality of his statements.

    I’d still take him over Romney and Santorum, but them’s some slim pickings in our Presidential lineup.

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

    …before I had a Diary [so I can't ID them], and it has been suggested that FNC supports Mitt [despite his having mishandled Baer while sitting stage-right uncomfortably on a high-stool] because of fealty to NE-USA “Rockefeller”-Republican roots.

    I don’t know, but I do recall a lot of people writing of how they have been migrating to CNN…and it now emerges that Breritbart was negotiating for a show [with Weiner!].

    The bottom-lines about the MSM/LSM/ELM are troubling, particularly because there have been so few pundits who have emerged in-favor of Perry…and now The Newt.

    For example, the dismissive comment on “WSJ Report” on FNC @ 2 p.m. was that The Newt would be able to justify withdrawing from the race if he were to lose Georgia [to Adelson], as if he harbored a death-wish. THAT WAS ALL! It was @ the tail-end of a segment coupling him with Santorum, after the first one focused on Mitt…and his momentum [narrowly achieved in MI].

    So, I share your misgivings, and perhaps we’ll all learn more someday about why people such as Hannity [who loved Perry, two years ago] eschewed praising him [after quality debate performances, post-"Oops!"]….

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

    {It recognizes reality and attempts to rectify it prospectively}

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

    …so the numbers are potentially misleading when applied nationally.

  • demsaresatanic

    1.I recall laptops for schools but not “he wanted a Federal program to give poor kids laptops,”
    do you have a link to that “laptop” interview?

    2. “Newt Gingrich is psychologically incapable of understanding that his big government programs are just as bad (if not worse) than other?s (sic)”
    is vague psychobabble without any specifics beyond the trivial and questionable laptop issue mentioned above.

    3.”his excoriating Cinton(sic) for his adultery (yes, yes, I know .. it was the lying) while he himself was engaging in an adulteries(sic) affair highlights his ignorance and self-deluded hypocrisy”
    tries to have it both ways by pretending to acknowledge that the issue Newt had with Clinton was lying (under oath) while gratuitously throwing in adultery and the false claim that Newt went after Clinton for adultery, with a dose of psychobabble thrown in.

    Nice piece of work indeed.

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Jacobson get2djnow

    n/t.

  • minister_of_war

    If only we would have known before about this super top secret interview that was played live on a national news program called “Meet the Press” in June of 2009! If only national television programs wouldn’t have been forbidden to the masses before. Thank you Erick Erickson for uncovering this sinister plot.

    Now, back to reality again, this interview does not show Romney saying that he endorsed a national law with an individual mandate. What he said was that healthcare reform should be a priority & that Obama’s goals & priorities in healthcare reform were all screwed up. Romney said that making healthcare costs more affordable needs to be something that is looked at & Romney attacks a single-payer system very well in this interview.

    But nice try once again, Erick Erickson, you sleuth you.

    Remembering how well Mitt Vader & his Evil Empire have kept this national TV interview hidden from us all, it is amazing that I was able to transpose the entire clip that Erick Erickson mentions in his post. And remember that “many Bothans died to bring us this information”.

    Mitt Vader in his own words on “Meet the Press”:

    “We have a model that worked. One State America, my state, was able to put in place a plan that got everybody health insurance, and it did not require a public-government insurance company. That’s the last thing America needs. You know exactly what it is. President Obama, when he was campaigning said he wanted a single-payer system. That’s what it would lead to. He would subsidize this over time. It would become larger and larger, drive the private options out of the healthcare industry. It would be just disastrous for healthcare in this country. And therefore, the right way to proceed is to reform healthcare. That we can do, as we did it in Massachusetts, as Wyden-Bennett is proposing to do it at the national level. We can do it for the nation. We can get everybody insured,. We can get the cost of healthcare down, but we don’t have to have government insurance and government running healthcare to get that done.”

  • Flagstaff

    But assuming you agree, I think you make a good point. Both links hit good points. Both illustrate that earlier in the process, all three of them supported some sort of mandate, and since then they’ve changed their minds. It seems ludicrous to me to hold that against one of them but not the others.

    Regarding the Newtron Bond, I do disagree there. It may not be a mandate to purchase insurance but as they say, it’s a distinction without a difference–it requires a person to spend money simply because he is breathing (and it doesn’t have a thing to do with the EPA). Practically speaking, unless the bond would be really low, it wouldn’t make sense to choose that option–a bond gives no protection, while insurance does.

    And as I said, it really costs less to give life-saving treatment to the indigent when they need it than to provide government subsidized health insurance to them, ESPECIALLY when they don’t have to pay anything for treatment. It’s a sure recipe to add geometrically to the demand for health services.

    I think it’s interesting that the first page of the 1994 article (linked within your link) tells us that annual expenses for health care were at $800B and 14% of GNP. Hasn’t gone up much since then, has it? What does that mean? It means they were inflating costs THEN to make it easier to show savings, and they are inflating “savings” NOW as they underreport PROJECTED costs.

    And this quote from Harris Wofford, the Democrat that Santorum defeated for the Senate in 1994:

    “That was Harry Truman’s goal 50 years ago. It was Richard Nixon’s goal 20 years ago. And it’s Bill Clinton’s goal this year,” he said. “It’s time for us to work together to achieve it.”

    So if something hasn’t been convincing enough for 50 years to get passed, that is a good reason to pass it now? Laughable logic. And it WAS laughed out of court in the Clinton Administration by the public.

    And I was going to comment to you elsewhere. Don’t you know that you can’t mention “Satan” anymore? I heard “diabolical” the other day, and thought the speaker must not have gotten the memo that Devil talk means you are crazy. (^:^)

  • minister_of_war

    Both of your guys lost to Ron freakin Paul!

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

    …and, as noted by DuraMater, yields “features” over time.

  • minister_of_war

    Did you notice that this was a Republican Party Caucus, not a Democrat Party Caucus, so whether or not there are libs in Washington State makes no difference in a Republican Party Caucus.

    If you’re going to go by that logic, then the only reason that Ronald Reagan won the nomination to be Governor of California is because California is a liberal state.

    It’s seriously like the anti-Romney “conservatives” are really getting stupider and stupider.

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

    …namely, empowering Big Government.

    Do not allow your principles to be eroded by the pressures of time…and those who would divert your attention from reality.

  • Flagstaff

    A recent poll, quoted on Fox News, told us that the enthusiasm gap is widening, and it’s in the favor of Republicans. That is good news.

    For the truly committed, I again state that the question we’re all discussing is, “Can Romney get more moderate/independents + ‘real’ conservatives than Newt or Rick?”

    The rest of these discussions is just a smokescreen.

  • minister_of_war

    … if all Romney supporters on RedState keep getting banned, who’s going to be left on here to defend Mitt once he gets the nomination & after he gets elected President in November?

  • Flagstaff

    This was in the context of a response to an accusation made by Santorum during the debate. John King “tried” to keep Mitt’s answer under 30 seconds in length (but he didn’t try hard); Mitt started his reply with my suggested comparison of the 70 MA bill to the 2700 page Fed bill (they really can’t be the same, not can they?), then he made his declarative statements about his intentions when elected.

    Just because he didn’t recite a litany of reasons that you think are important doesn’t mean he doesn’t agree with you and think they’re important, too; they were just examples, reasons why he’d repeal the bill, which after all, is the important item he wanted to say.

    It’s funny, to me, that Romney blames Santorum for Obamacare (because he supported Specter over Toomey), and Santorum blames Romney for Obamacare (because of Romney care). If I had to choose, Romneys charge makes a bit more sense. Are we really supposed to believe that without Romneycare in Mass, Obama would NOT have done exactly what he did? I don’t believe it. It is key to his grand scheme to bankrupt the US.

    It’s OK to say you don’t believe Romney about anything, but once you do there isn’t much point in saying more.

  • minister_of_war

    Romney = for giving the Moon base statehood if they can get 13,000 inhabitants.

    Santorom = said that Paul Ryan’s plan was “right-wing social engineering”

    Paul = cheated on his first two wives too.

    You’re right, Newt’s the only true conservative choice.

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

    …because it is untrue that “A bond is not a mandate to purchase insurance, and failing to make that distinction is bs.”

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

    …and adore your signature picture/quote.

  • Flagstaff

    He’s also been way too “understanding” of the other guys’ viewpoints, which is a big drawback for me. Same for Santorum. I obviously have a different idea about what a Governor’s proper role is in dealing with his legislature and the public and the Feds, but I can see why he has his problems, too. Heck, even RonPaul has some troubles with the earmarks question, but I like him.

    The 800 pound gorilla is the MSM, or MSM/LSM/ELM as you call them, or SCUM to me (so-called unbiased media). They will be in Obama’s pocket. No matter what WE think, the mandate question will be much harder for them to use against use with independents than it will be for us to use Obamacare against Obama. There will be plenty of independents who recognize that Obama is a financial disaster, and they will vote for Romney. It isn’t clear that they’d all vote for Newt or Rick.

  • minister_of_war

    … since you already brought up looking towards 2016.

    Who do you think the Democrat candidate against incumbent President Romney will be?

    Hillary? Probably too old but maybe their best shot.

    Cuomo? His gay marriage support will hurt him nationally.

    Obama trying to get his old job back? With the economy on a much better track, nobody will want to go back to Obama’s days of high unemployment, high inflation & his massive government expansion.

    Honestly, right now, I can’t think of any Democrats who will be qualified to take on President Romney during his reelection campaign.

  • demsaresatanic

    “it is perfectly reasonable, in that context, to point out that another of the three, in fact the one who many of us with could be elected, did exactly the same thing,”
    because Romney and Santorum have both supported what is accurately called a mandate (forced purchase or penalty) and Newt provided the bond option.

    Also, that is not a distinction without a difference in my view, as it allows for conscientious objection for those who otherwise might be penalized for refusing insurance which covered abortion, morning after pill, etc. Obviously a bond is still a burden, but preferable to penalty.

  • Flagstaff

    via Fox.

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

    I find his self-assurance on PMSNBC’s “Morning Joe” almost never correct/justified/documented.

    I hate smug.

    I don’t see this demeanor/content in The Newt.

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

    …based upon having been briefed privately regarding the h/o RS.

    The Romney supporters are not universally banned, but when they demonstrate rank-prejudice, they suffer the same fate as to those who evince this conduct when pushing Paul.

    My son sometimes complains that other sites have more heterogeneity [such as Hot Air], but I counter with the assertion that there is more documentation/levity here.

    That is why, despite disingenuous postings such as that of the Minister [vide supra, replying to ML], he survives/flourishes here.

    Perhaps the fact that so many Mitt-supporters are reduced to name-calling [after a few hot-exchanges in this "kitchen"] bespeaks the thinness of the foundation for their postings.

  • Flagstaff

    I guess it’s OK if I suggest that you listen up.

    There is a big difference between making a suggestion to the Prez before-the-fact via op-ed column and thinking Obamacare is “a great idea.”

    Did the op-ed mention the constitutionality of the mandate? No. Did anybody else at the time? I don’t know, but I don’t remember it happening. Did the Republicans IN CONGRESS, THE ONES WHO WERE ACTUALLY ELECTED TO DO THE JOB, pull out all the stops to block ObamaCare? No, they didn’t.

    Fact: There are a lot of people on both sides of the aisle who think there should be “something” done about our health delivery system (I’m not one of them).

    There is nothing wrong with publicly advising the President that he should do “something.” If it’s bad advice, so what? You’re trying to make it appear that Mitt Romney was guiding the Prez throughout the whole process. GEORGE SOROS or someone like him was doing the guiding. Even Harry Reid and Nancy P seemed to know more than O did.

    As it may turn out, that “bad” advice might just be what kills the law, if the SC finds it unconstitutional because of it. Maybe that’s why Mitt wrote that piece. It was a trap. Yeah, that’s it, a trap.

    Goodnight, Irene.

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

    …Reid, if memory serves, often votes against a bill he supports so that he can re-raise it subsequently [per parliamentary procedure].

    acat may simply be noting how RR converted defeat into victory four years hence, after having spent the interim-period pursuing a strong get-to-know-you initiative [among those who would then "owe" him, and his conservatism, a bit].

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

    …because, in a liberal state such as Mass., such sentiments bleed into the GOP [e.g., Sen. Brown].

    For example, do you think Scoop ["The Senator from Boeing"] Jackson could be elected in Washington State today?

    This may also explain why Paul [who was very disappointed, in his appearance, on FNC a few hours ago] didn’t live up to expectations.

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

    …don’t you see the “wolf in sheep’s clothing” component to what Mitt views as a contrast with BHO’s ultimate goal of a single-payor-system?

    It matters not whether there is private-insurance, if the BIG GOVERNMENT honchos mandate the contents of the policies; largess would be financed by the citizenry in both instances.

    So, touting this “solution” [particularly when others have noted that his initial federal approval led to generous financing of Mass. healthcare from D.C.] does not do you proud.

  • mikelindell2

    you can’t be a conservative if you’ve ever been divorced, sorry Reagan you’re not allowed in the party. We judge conservatism based on what we know about your personal life from decades ago, not on your record or your proposals! And certainly you are out if you want a privately funded space program with the same goals that the Russians and Chinese have both publicly stated. If you’re a conservative, you cede space exploration to China! We don’t want to be #1 anymore, too much pressure. And I definitely do not want the only person in this race who has ever reformed entitlements, no way no how. That kind of achievement is something i want to stay away from. I want someone with rhetoric not someone with a record of conservative accomplishments. newt being the only one in the race to balance the federal budget and reform an entitlement program makes me want to throw up!!

  • mikelindell2

    Other candidates are polling better against Obama than Romney. Obviously this is subject to change, but a couple of months or so ago Newt was beating Obama head to head when Romney was not (Dec. 1 Rasmussen poll) and Newt was beating him in the 12 key swing states in Dec. 16 USA Today/Gallup poll. It’s so far from the election that the polls now are meaningless. One thing is for sure, Romney has to suppress the vote to win by outspending his opponents by huge margins. The only time there has been increased turnout is when Newt won SC. In a general election, Romney will have no money advantage and he has shown absolutely no way to win without outspending his opponents hugely on negative attack ads, thus keep voters home. In a general, Romney will be forced to spend an overwhelming amount of time trying to defend his blatant flip-flops and strange gaffes. Also, even if he won, he won’t repeal Obamacare according to his advisors, in 2010 said himself he wants to keep the good parts of it, and he supported the stimulus in 09. What’s the point even if he could win??

  • mikelindell2

    totally in the tank for Romney, with brief moments of support for Santorum so to suppress Newt from becoming the not-Romney candidate, as he represents the biggest threat to King Mitt?

  • trickamsterdam

    No he wasn’t. He got this ridiculous comment in and that was that:

    “The base will get on board once they have to choose between Romney and Obama.” – haners or enders or whatever his name was

    Everything he said before and after that contradicted that sentence, which was his main point. But that’s what it is to be a Romney’bot…none of it makes any sense and you don’t care. You’re “just livin’ for today” when you’re a Romney’bot.

    Thing is though…at some point you [not you Willwong, I'm taking to the Romney people now] Wall St guys and accountants and “turn around specialists” are going to have to realize this…he’s not gonna take the Base and if he can’t take the Base the math just doesn’t add up.

    And math is math is math is math. LOL, is the fact that Romney people don’t get math the reason that China is beating us???

    ***

    brokered.convention.now.or.Obama.again.Soon.

  • mikelindell2

    It used to be very Republican. Please don’t post on here spewing your ignorance. Also, questioning whether the people who do not favor Romney are “conservative” is a bit absurd. He has been a liberal on every major issue, including recently Obamacare AND the stiumlus. Hey, I think Fox and Friends is starting soon, they probably have some nice propaganda to fill your simple mind with.

  • mikelindell2

    /

  • minister_of_war

    When Romney came to speak at a dinner for the Arizona Republican Party way back in 2005 or 2006, I asked Romney pointblank if he thought that his healthcare proposal, which hadn’t passed yet at the time, should be a model for every state including Arizona.

    My specific problem with it at the time was that it didn’t solve our big problem in Arizona because so many people who are getting free healthcare in Arizona hospitals are illegal aliens anyway. He said to me, even way back then, that each state should be able to craft its own program or plan. He’s actually been pretty consistent on this issue since then, and he acknowledged that the free-rider problem because of Arizona’s huge number of illegal aliens meant that his proposal for Massachusetts might not work in Arizona & that it wasn’t his intention for a one size fits all top down approach to healthcare reform.

    My biggest problem with RomneyCare was that Romney talks about how it didn’t cost his state much more at all. And you’re right, a lot of that is because George W Bush gave Mitt Romney and Massachusetts a huge grant to help pay for their new healthcare law. So, it was like robbing Peter to pay Paul. Whenever I hear of any new government program, plan or anything else, my first reaction is always wondering how much it will cost, how we can afford it & I don’t believe that the funding structure for RomneyCare was sound because the federal government just picked up the bill.

  • minister_of_war

    Yes, there are more liberal areas of the country. But we’re not talking about Maine here, which elected Snowe & Collins or New Jersey, which elected Christine Todd Whitman, or even Massachusetts which elected Scott Brown.

    We’re talking about a place out west, where individual liberties are typically very important. Washington State has a lot of conservatives, but conservatives always outnumber libs Republican in nominating contests anyway.

  • minister_of_war

    … but because Romney won, it’s no big deal. In fact, Washington probably doesn’t even really exist & there’s no way in an imaginary place like Washington that real Republicans would go out & vote in a real Republican Caucus.

  • minister_of_war

    … Once Romney wins the nomination, who’s going to be left here on RedState to defend him against Obama if every Romney supporter keeps getting banned?

  • Martin Knight

    There’s an elected body called the Governor’s Council in Massachusetts that signs off on all Governors’ nominations – including judicial nominations.

    It’s a 100% Democrat.

  • mikelindell2

    Nice straw men you Romney supporters have to construct. Of course, I didn’t even mention anything about Washington. I’m just a simple Newt supporter though, so maybe I’m just confused. Your Romney-powered intellect must be too much for me to handle..

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Ohio is the new SC.

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

    …Washington and Oregon are viewed as more liberal than other western states, perhaps due to emigration from California.

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

    …noting its caucus-status and that it merited brief visits.

    The most that occurred was recognition that it could be viewed as transitional [for trending purposes] between the two Tuesdays and that it served as a disappointment for Paul [because it was a caucus-state, presumably his strength].

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

    …I too x-examined him on RomneyCare.

    He cited federalism [as you did] but I persisted…and that’s when he claimed he was pressured by the legislature ["sign this or you'll get single-payor"].

    John Gibson [on XM, when I called-in last summer] debunked this claim, which was also attacked by subsequent quotations [from Mitt himself].

    So, his two-facedness has a “history,” you might say.

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

    …when he says he’ll sign a 50-state waiver.
    “?
    This wouldn’t suffice.

    He knows some governors wouldn’t honor it.

    He knows, therefore, that ObamaCare wouldn’t be wiped away.

    This is the nose of the camel under the tent.

    Remember how “polling shows people like some aspects of ObamaCare, such as no rejection of prior illnesses and mandated coverage of children until age-26″?

    These are actually methods to impose NATIONAL STANDARDS.

    If he truly opposes ALL big-government “solutions,” he must be courageous enough to oppose these “candies” and to explain why to the electorate.

    THAT is why his reply is totally unsatisfactory!

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

    …and this is why I still seek CLARITY from The Newt [s/p input of Perry].

  • bobguzzardi

    Santorum can’t win Penna. and if Penna. primary means anything, it is most likely that Romney wins. He has an organization here. He helped Pat Toomey when he needed help in 2010 (and Rick Santorum did nothing in 2010).

    Conservative votes will go to Ron Paul or even some to Newt Gingrich. Ron Paul has a presence even in more liberal southeast.

    Romney appears to be the Republican nominee and than all the liberal positions become positives in the general.

    then what? ….. another Big Government Liberal unwilling to face the financial catastrophe ahead. The Costa Concordia capsized when it went off course and we are off the fiscal course.

  • lapert

    Yes, you are not cyncial enough that you can’t trust ‘The Newt’ (because you are also childish enough to refer to you candidate as if he was a WWE character) but you are cynical enough that you see Romney as the flip-flopping politician he is.

    Sure, he advocated for it for almost two decades until after it became law and then, coincidentally when politically expedient, he no longer believes in it. It doesn’t require cynicism not to believe him it requires naivete to do so.

  • circlegranch

    Apologies in advance, Dr. Bob, for thread-jack. Knew you’d be interested in this, if you hadn’t heard already.

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

    …and i appreciate your perspective.

    i look @ the situation with perhaps-na?ve simplicity [per my son and Guzzardi, who again pummeled me last night].

    i like the Breitbart approach to politics, certainly emulated by The Newt, and I draw upon RR’s ability to have prevailed in ’80 against another malaise-POTUS.

    Thus, i express fealty for the activists who want to view the GOP as their vessel for renewal of the Founders/Framers…and this is why wearing evangelism on the sleeve [? la Santorum] is off-putting…and this is certainly why Mitt’s scorched-earth antagonism towards his competitors is so problematic.

    The electoral calculations can be simplified; we get fly-over America [basically], just as long as we help people appreciate the fact that they have overcome whatever latent racism they feel they may have needed to expiate in ’08.

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

    …we go:

    I refer to him as “The Newt” just as people cite “The Donald.”

    Glad to note you concur Mitt is a pathological/opportunistic flip-flopper.

    There is no “cynicism” metric afoot, when elucidating fundamental truths.

  • Ender

    strongly for Romney.So it only hurt him as he would’ve gotten more votes.

  • bpgmswv1646

    This morning endorsing Mitt Romney.

    Cantor said on MTP that Romney is the best candidate for “this year”,

  • trickamsterdam

    Arguing which is healthier, strychnine or cyanide.” – zootsuit

    No. Romney’s whole strategy is to argue that the others are no worse than him. Then his electability argument kicks in, that is “if we all blow or have blown why not vote for me as the most electable?”.

    Putting aside that he’s not the most electable (Santorum has a better chance of taking OH and PA in the general election, and you’re not getting to 270 without OH, and PA will help if you lose VA or someplace like that) that’s his whole thing…”they’re no better than me so why not chose me?”.

    What’s pathetic is apparently it works.

    Here’s the situation as far as “conservatism”:

    Newt – 92% ACU Lifetime Record

    Santorum – 88%ACU Lifetime Record

    Romney – Barely right of center one term Governor, whose signature achievement was RomneyCare

    Sorry, it’s just not the same or even close to being the same. The fact that you’d try to make that argument, though, and that naturally, as if everyone would agree w/ you, shows me…Romney’s winning this thing.

    He’s actually convinced everyone he’s “more or less” as conservative as everyone else and more electable so why not end all these primaries right now?

    Whatever, man. Understand…Romney’s gonna lose at least the percentage of the R Base that Gore lost of the D Base in 2000 (2.75% to a Nader protest vote) and so he’s not going to be the next President of the United States for similar reasons that Gore wasn’t.

    The real question is: Do you want to fast-forward through this Primary, like you’re going through the commercials on some TV show you’ve taped? Or rage against the dying of the light?

    ***

    brokered.convention.now.or.Obama.again.Soon.

  • lapert

    Yes, and ‘The Donald’ is a caricature, a character he plays as an entertainer – that you want to treat Newt the same way says all anyone needs to know.

    And yes Mitt, like Newt and most any other successful politician is a pathological, opportunistic flip-flopper. That you think your caricatured version of Newt is somehow different again, says all anyone needs to know to dismiss the rest of your gibberish (like your last sentence which has the content value of a poor high school student’s pseudo-philosophy paper).

  • falconrap

    matters in the context of the election. This November, the Dem base will have a lower turnout than last time. To win this election, we need a high turnout amongst the base. Looking for a candidate that “brings in moderates” will just dampen the Rep base turnout and make the election closer than it needs to be. Too many people have listened to the media experts and not just look at election history. Moderates only win you elections when both bases are energized and you need a tie-breaker. Reagan would have beat Mondale without any of the moderates. They just turned it into an utter blow-out.

    Romney is the worst candidate to put up because a majority of the base can’t stand him. If the party elects him, the base will turn out in much less numbers, much the same as with McCain. Just look at the turnout in SC when Newt was the perceived front runner (it was much higher than 2008 – up 13% if I remember correctly) versus when Newt fell back and Mitt became the perceived front-runner again (lower than 2008′s low turnout numbers in Florida). In the areas of Florida where the base turned out Newt one by a mile. I don’t know why so many don’t simply look at the data and see the pattern. It’s obvious. When “experts” tell you the Repub candidate must be one the moderates like, they are either a) trying to get you to select the candidate that will help them get their liberal candidates elected or b) they are clueless and don’t know what they are talking about.

    For all of his baggage, Newt has shown the ability to turnout the base. He is the only one that has. If you want to win the election, he’s the guy we need nominated, barring picking another candidate in a brokered convention. Even Karl Rove understood that turn out was key. Bush managed to eek out a victory over Kerry only because it was an election where both bases turned out, but where the swift boating of Kerry made him unappealing to the moderates. If we nominate Romney, we won’t be running that type of election, because, for all of Bush’s faults, he was much better than Romney, and the base can’t stand this flip flopping Moderate Liberal. Santorum has a shot at making this election one like Bush/Kerry, but he’s vulnerable at being labeled by Obama as the guy who wants to tell the moderates what they can do in the bedroom, and that would be a problem. The punditry is wrong on who has the best chance to win, because they aren’t paying attention to the trends and what the base is telling them.

  • Ender

    because it’s impossible for there to be actually many conservative Romney supporters… Wonder who keeps voting for him in all these states? Too many moderate and liberals in GOP, don’t you think?

  • westcoastpatriette

    They have that bullying nature about them — which really is designed to cover up their cowardice. Cannot understand people who think they are helping by going around insulting people who are supposed to be in their camp. But, then I think that is the only way Romney thinks he can win…by either buying your vote or bullying you into submission.

  • WillWong

    By successful, i meant he was able to get in quite a few nonsensical posts before getting banned! Quite annoying to be honest!

  • westcoastpatriette

    they are socially inept and leave a stench everywhere they go as a result. Pathetic.

  • falconrap

    Newt support a mandate that if you sought help at a hospital/Dr’s office, that you had to show proof of insurance, an ability to pay (assets), or had to get a bond, similar to when you get a jail bond stating you’ll pay it back. It wasn’t a mandate to purchase insurance. Just a mandate that you had to have some funding avenue in place to get treatment, thereby making such that the free loaders were at least on the hook for paying back the bond. This would actually alleviate some of the pricing pressure in the system.

    What it clearly is not, is a mandate to buy a specific level of health insurance, whether from the government or private companies. If I am incorrect, someone can correct me, but that is what I got from what I had read on the issue.

  • Cowboy

    You sound like an OWS/class envy lefty.

  • AceInTX

    I will not, however…

    - give him any money
    - give him any time
    - try to talk potential voters around to him in the general.

    He thinks he can buy the white house, let him.

  • AceInTX

    ….I will be trying to convert anybody I can to voting for our guy, whoever it is.

    Good luck with that Flagstaff…

  • AceInTX

    I’ve challenged you clowns for months now to come up with a rationale for Romney as President that doesn’t involve attacking his republican opponents and mouthing the obvious “he’s better than Obama” or parroting the Romney talking point about inevitability and I have yet to find a taker…

    are you up to the challenge?

  • Ender

    Any other garbage that you’d like to share about us?

  • Scope

    “They go around in lock-step insulting and bullying those that don’t support Romney.” According to the Romney supporters, everyone who doesn’t support him is either bigoted or envious. You people are pretty sad.

  • westcoastpatriette

    Proved my point…you’re way off base in your discernment.

    Has not a thing to do with envy. It’s pathetic as in has to pay people to get behind him since he is unable to attract them through his character. Get it? Oh, never mind. I’m sure you cannot relate at all.

  • westcoastpatriette

    Social misfits.

  • lapert

    No seriously, why don’t you go prove that he paid the ~2,000,000 or so people who have voted for him? Since I don’t see any evidence that money exchanged hand I would think the safer assumption is that he attracted them through his character and positions (at least relative to the other choices around).

    Or did you not mean that literally, did you mean he had enough money to put distribute his message more effectively? Which of course is what any half capable politician who is running a serious campaign would be doing.

    Maybe you aren’t envious, just have sour grapes because your chosen candidate(s) couldn’t compete with such an average front runner.

  • westcoastpatriette

    No comment.

  • lapert

    Because I know how important logical thought is to you and I knew pointing out how your emotional envy and sour grapes drive you to say stupid thing would be appreciated.

  • Ender

    examples that show how we are social misfits? Or you are just throwing stuff out there without a rational basis?

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

    http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/romney-judicial-record-liberals-running-wild/

    http://www.confirmthem.com/what_would_president_romneys_judicial_nominations_look_like

    http://whynotromney.blogspot.com/2011/03/romneys-spotty-record-on-judicial.html

    http://www.amycontrada.com/Romney_s_Judiciary.html

    http://bluemassgroup.com/2011/12/romneys-craven-dodge-on-judicial-appointments/

    http://poorrichardsnews.com/post/6634402544/mitt-romney-is-a-liberal-part-2-romney-appointed

    http://www.rightspeak.net/2011/03/romneys-spotty-record-on-judicial.html

    *

    Did he ever nominate someone who was opposed by this entity?

  • goodgovernance

    “I’m a big believer in getting money where the money is. And the money’s in Washington. …And I want to go after every grant, every project, every department in Washington to assure that we’re taking advantage…”

    Spoken by Willard Mitt Romney, in 2002. This of course, didn’t stop him from going after Santorum on the subject of bringing money to Pennsylvania. This didn’t stop Mitt from trying to make himself look pristine on the matter of pork.

    This two-faced Janus has done this again and again. It’s why all the candidates ganged up on him in 2008, and why so many true conservatives despise him now. Romney ultimately is willing to lie, lie, lie and deny to get what he wants.

    If he behaves this way on the campaign trail, without even a shred of a conscience to hold him back or hesitate to the slightest degree, what would he be like in office?

  • ZootSuit

    http://besser.tsoa.nyu.edu/impact/w95/RN/mar24news/Merc-news-laptop.html

    This is not the “This Week” interview but it is an article talking about Newt’s plan to give laptops to poor kids. Indeed, all you need to do is “google”

    Newt Gingrich laptop

    and a whole bunch of links will pop up. Of course, that may require you actually researching your preferred candidate and that is probably way beyond your comfort zone.

  • ZootSuit

    Pick your poison.

    To be honest, I am not trying to convince anyone that Romney, Santorrum, or Gingrich (or Ron Paul, for that matter) is preferable to the others. To me, they are all bad. And the reason they are bad is because “conservatism” is bad: predominated by a bunch of ignorant, self-deluded hypocrites who condemn the rent-seeking Democrats for doing the exact same things that the Republicans they put in office.

    It’s just that unlike most people here, I absolutely refuse to lie to myself to try to convince myself otherwise.

  • ZootSuit

    More smug, too.

    Which is why I don’t think he is any better and possibly worse than Romney and Santorum.

  • kowalski

    Sigh. I’m so disgusted by this whole thing – the short-sightedness of it all, the surrealism of watching a *known train wreck* happen for several years in slow motion…that I wasn’t going to comment in this thread. I’m getting so sick and tired of slow-motion train wrecks that everyone can see coming 100 miles away.

    But….as I noted in my blog entry a while back, MIT’s Gruber, the guy who provided a lot of the intellectual undergirding for the Massachusetts law and who also advised the Obama administration, is apoplectic about Romney trying to back away from what Romneycare really is.

    In his exasperated words:
    ———————————————
    ?Basically, they?re the same ****ng bill,? Jonathan Gruber, a healthcare economist and MIT professor who helped shape Romney?s healthcare plan, told Capital New York this week.
    ?
    ?He just can?t have his cake and eat it too. Basically, you know it?s the same bill. He can try to draw distinctions and stuff, but he?s just lying,? said Gruber.
    —————————-

    Here’s my post about that:

    http://www.redstate.com/kowalski/2012/02/12/three-serious-questions/

    They’re “basically the same ****ing bill” *because* of the individual mandate, which creates the kind of market the economic modeling requires in order for the plan to *work*. At the link above you can read about what the effects of the mandate are — to eliminate what the architects call “free riders” – healthy people who don’t have insurance and don’t buy insurance until they need to, or go to the emergency room in lieu of buying insurance.

    It’s exactly the same thing Romney says in the 2009 Op-Ed.
    ——————–
    ?Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages ?free riders? to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others.?
    ——————–

    The only thing I can say is to lament how selfish and short-sighted all these guys really are. Newt Gingrich *DID* advocate for an individual mandate as well, though he has now disavowed it. The problem for Romney is that he *CAN’T* disavow it without torpedoing his own campaign. All of Ann Coulter’s attempts to try to move the goalposts can’t change the fact that Romneycare was *founded* on the individual mandate, Obamacare was *founded* on the individual mandate, and unless our nominee is going to explicitly disavow the individual mandate and propose something else, that’s all there is to it – because it is the central feature of both plans.

    Romney cannot have it both ways. I suspect he knows that, but he thinks he can talk his way out of it.

  • lineholder

    I’m not Melody. She can speak for herself, I’m sure.

    My own answer to your question is…I have no idea. None at all. I suspect that if Romney wins the nomination, there will be people who do not particularly support him now who will be inclined to strongly support him, for the sake of beating Obama. Their love of country will come first, and they’ll support whoever ends up winning the nomination for the sake of trying to protect this nation from furthering advances into socialism. For others, they will find the idea of it so repulsive that they will focus more on supporting elections in Congress.

    The Romney supporters who come to RS and then spout this never-ending narrative about people being bigots and opposing Romney solely because of his religious views…that’s a bunch of hooey, MOW. I think you know that as well as I do. And then to vilify and attack people who exercise the right to make their own choice in the primaries rather than simply acting as sheeples and conforming to what is expected of them in supporting Romney….that’s goes beyond the pale a lot of times. It isn’t necessary. It doesn’t help Romney. All it succeeds in doing, more or less, is to set up people’s backs and cause them to become resolved in their opposition to Romney.

    If those Romney’s supporters continue to approach it that way, are they genuinely contributing anything of substance to the conversation? No, they aren’t. They’re a hindrance more than a help, all the way around. On that basis, I think the mods are justified in making the choice to eliminate them from participating at RS.

  • Flagstaff

    where he says, “I will repeal Obamacare”?

  • acat

    IIRC, insurance costs went up, not down, and as a result, the taxpayers were on the hook for more than before…. one reason Deval Patrick can’t repeat Romney’s balancing of the budget.

    The history you need to look at is flood insurance.

    Mew

  • northeastred

    Under Nixon..

    <>

    I think we conservatives sometimes get so caught up in the battle, we lose sense of historical context. Sure, we have weak Republican candidates right now, but it’s only because Democrats are smart enough to claim many of our issues as their own, and force us to defend the “Tea Party” fringe, which will be a loser for us.

  • acat

    I will follow the old rule of not saying anything about Romney because I cannot say anything nice.

    Mew

  • northeastred

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/06/opinion/the-madman-theory.html?scp=4&sq=Richard%20Nixon&st=Search

  • kowalski

    I agree with Erick, et. al., (puking in my mouth a little, not at them, but at the absurdity of it all) that Romney’s Minefield is already laid and that moreover he has no choice but to step on a mine during the first debate with Obama.

    Because the very first question he’s going to be asked is something along the lines of: “Governor Romney, the centerpiece of your health care plan in Massachusetts was the individual mandate….”

    And when he tries to doubletalk his way out of that, Obama is going to run up one side of his head and down the other with it. I don’t even know if Bill Clinton at the height of his powers possessed the Reality Distortion Field ability to spin his way out of that question.

    .

  • WillWong

    Who are all these guys? You only mentioned Newt and Romney! How is Newt being short sighted and selfish here? I am a Newt supporter but would like to hear you out in order to be better informed so that I can make a better case for Newt!

    From what I know, back in those days when all the rage was on Hillarycare, many conservatives of the day, including Newt and the Heritage Foundation were opening advocating some form of the individual mandate to counter Hillarycare. Was Hillarycare based on the even more despicable single payer healthcare system?

  • kowalski

    I don’t understand how they could do it with a straight face. It amounts to the federal government forcing everyone in the country to purchase insurance. I’m sorry but I’m not conversant on the political minute-by-minute blow-by-blow that Heritage and Gingrich might have been acting upon to propose that as an “alternative.”

    Wow, some great alternative. Talk about being careful of what you wish for!

    Didn’t any of these guys have the sense to sit back and self-criticize and say: “OK, Hillarycare is bad. But what we’re proposing is an individual mandate that’s just as bad?”

    Do they think these things THROUGH? Or do they just put up an asinine proposal to counter a more-asinine proposal.

  • Flagstaff

    IF this is a “static” truth.

    “This November, the Dem base will have a lower turnout than last time.”

    I suspect that it will be hard to whip up the Democrat base against Romney, but both Newt and Santorum can be demonized to the point that they will get those short-attention-spanned college students and other low-interest-level Dems out and voting.

    “a majority of the base can?t stand him”

    I don’t think so. A majority MIGHT prefer a different candidate, but when asked, almost all of them say they will vote for “anybody but Obama.”

    Fair or not, a lot of women dislike both Newt and Santo, whereas they like Romney, and women are a demographic we have to make inroads on to beat Obama.

    “Newt has shown the ability to turnout the base. He is the only one that has.”

    Really? Why hasn’t he done better, then? On this topic, you need to insert the name RonPaul if you don’t want to say “Romney.”

    “In the areas of Florida where the base turned out Newt one by a mile. I don?t know why so many don?t simply look at the data and see the pattern. It?s obvious.”

    The pattern is, they don’t turn out everywhere. It’s obvious. Newt made his moves after winning arguments with Wolf Blitzer, et al. But Wolf and the others are not on the ballot. When the memory of those zingers faded, so did the turnout for Newt. Don’t misunderstand. I like Newt. I was ready to go for him until he started talking about a moon base in he same paragraph with “smaller, less costly government.” And his demographics are as bad as Obama’s.

    “Bush managed to eek out a victory over Kerry only because it was an election where both bases turned out, but where the swift boating of Kerry made him unappealing to the moderates.”

    Haven’t you noticed that both Newt and Santorum are “unappealing to the moderates”?

    ==========

    Ask a candidate the time–

    RonPaul will tell you that the Fed has set all the clocks back 50 years.

    Rick Santorum will tell you that whatever time it is, it’s almost up.

    Newt Gingrich will tell you that time is a fundamentally flawed concept and that the media spend too much time giving us the wrong time.

    Mitt Romney will tell you how to build a watch.

    Barack Obama will decide that if you don’t know the time the government should give you a watch, make it illegal for anybody to not own a watch, and create a government program to subsidize watchmaking in all union-organized states.

  • falconrap

    including recent numbers on turnout, say no, Romney can’t get enough voters to the polls, of any stripes. The biggest problem I see is that the turnout numbers for our side are lower than 2008, and we lost that election. The Dems will have less turnout as well, but the numbers for both sides make this look like a big risk going with Romney. Worse, even, is that a depressed turnout of the Rep base will mean fewer conservatives winning House and Senate seats, even if Romney wins.

    This election should be about getting the person who can turnout the base, not the moderates. It’s even better if the candidate can pull moderates/independents in. Something Newt did do in SC before the Mitt Super PAC went hog wild.

  • acat

    Thing is, and ntrepid put it pretty well – Speaker Gingrich is no more, we’re talking about the same guy but .. there have been some clear changes.

    As for the laptop thing, some of the results – anecdotal to be sure – from the One Laptop One Child folks indicate Gingrich’s idea may be sound, although his proposal for government to be involved is problematic.

    As President, he couldn’t hand out laptops .. but he could encourage school boards to invest in teaching kids the basics they’ll need to work in any business infested with Microsoft Office.

    Unless Santorum can prove his theory that unskilled manufacturing jobs can be brought back, employees need to know how to compose an e-mail or read and manipulate a spreadsheet at some point, eh?

    Regarding poisons, I’ll admit to borrowing a bit from Bombastus von Hoenheim. Since Riboflavin and Flavonid are out of the race, the question becomes which of the toxins the country is better equipped to handle … and I find that a titration of Gingrich would be less damaging than of the unknown dosage of Romney.

    Mew

    (for the curious, Riboflavin is vitamin b-2 and Flavonids are an antioxidant)

  • acat

    that is, to win hearts-and-minds – to get enough supporters to win the primary.

    What Reagan did differently was to start, not in 1979 nor 1978, but immediately after Carter’s inaugural. It can be accurately stated that Reagan ran, continually, from 1974 to 1980 with the result that, in 1980, the conservatives were able to quickly unite behind him instead of distributing in blocs behind a group of candidates, and getting defeated in detail, as has happened in most elections.

    The parallel to Romney is clear – Willard has been running since 2006… but instead of reaching out to conservatives, he’s consolidated the insiders – Lt. Gov. Bolling in VA, who controls ballot access and ensured only Romney and Luap Nor could run – the MI GOP leadership, who granted Willard a “win”, disenfranchising many Santorum voters – and .. it’s working because as usual, conservatives fragmented.

    I wonder if Cassandra ever got tired of being proven right.

    Mew

  • Flagstaff

    It dates back to Adams/Jefferson. It was no more illuminating then than it is now, but it generated heat then, too.

    All else aside, the election MAY turn on how well the Repubs can turn Obama’s mistakes into sound bites. We have a veritable treasure trove of Obamations, but if we use them clumsily they can hurt us, as the SCUM will turn them around if at all possible (see my tag line).

    You may like the end of this comment–

    http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/03/03/further-proof-romney-supported-a-national-individual-mandate-in-2009/#comment-175262

    Finally, I don’t find any of them to be particularly good at being CONSERVATIVES. As a result, I don’t quite understand the hate (not from you) for Romney. Nor do I quite understand why evangelical Christians dislike Mormons–of all sects, LDS is the most conservative. Ralph Reed said as much last night.

  • AndrewHyman

    He said: “Republicans are not the party of ‘no’ when it comes to health care reform. This Republican is proud to be the first governor to insure all his state?s citizens. Other Republicans such as Rep. Paul Ryan and Sens. Bob Bennett and John McCain, among others, have proposed their own plans.”

    It doesn’t sound to me like he endorsed the Bennett plan over McCain’s or Ryan’s. But I could be mistaken.

  • Flagstaff

    The guy who can help the most in winning the Congress is not the one who can do the most to win the White House. I know that isn’t your idea, but it is mine.

    If we nominate Newt, and Newt loses, what then?

    I think all four candidates are flawed. Three of them are NOT the staunch conservative we’d like to elect and they claim to be, and the fourth doesn’t even claim to be a conservative.

    I’d like to go with the one whose flaws hurt us the least, and that’s a hard choice because different flaws hurt in different ways.

  • Flagstaff

    You don’t like Romney’s statements on mandates.

    What about other issues? Is this the only one you disagree one? Or is it the only one that matters to you?

  • WillWong

    would say that Newt, after having being for the individual mandate for years then switched position for political expediency?

    In fairness, there probably wasn’t much discussion on the individual mandate until Obamacare came along. Changing position then is reasonable and can be construed as seeing the errors of one’s way!

    So not a great issue for Newt but much better than Romney who couldn’t bring himself to disawow Romneycare but still wanting to attack Obama for Obamacare.

  • acat

    On a more serious note, there aren’t any three-legged conservatives still in this race, the last of ‘em suspended a while ago. We’re left with a group of uneven stools and a golf tee.

    To your point that Romney may be the best to face Obama, I’ll admit it’s an attractive argument. The trouble is .. it doesn’t hold up. In order to make the campaign about Obama, we need a candidate who can Reagan – “There you go again”, “I’m not holding my opponent’s youth and inexperience against him”, etc. etc. – but with Romney, we’re getting a brittle, glass-jawed manager.

    Just look at how poorly Romney does with a *friendly* interviewer, and imagine him in an unfriendly one….

    Mew

  • kowalski

    And as a politician the first thing you try to do is avoid stepping on the mines your opponent is going to be forced to step on. Gingrich could more credibly side step it by saying: “The facts changed. A fuller interpretation came to me and now I’m against it.” Because after all, he is not the one who is trumpeting it as an achievement.

    Is there some expediency there? Sure there is. That’s how politics works. He knows Romney has boxed himself in pretty well. He wants to beat him. He can step aside and he can say with some creduilty that he changed his mind, whereas Romney keeps digging himself in deeper, walking himself deeper into the minefield.

  • vastrightwingconspiracy

    “Further Proof that EE is a Hack, and about 5 months late with his “Breaking Headline”

    Good Lord, how many times has this “landmine” been brought up in debates?!

    Besides the “mandate” being possibly unconstitutional, is the problem with Obamacare that it mandates healthcare, or is it the fact that it is terrible, economically?

    On a side note – Why is it that Santorum can use the Federalist argument for Right-to-Work legislation but that argument can’t be used when it comes to healthcare?

  • lapert

    Except Gingrich was advocating for it after Obama’s election before Obama was for it. He wasn’t just for it for 15 years, it was a key aspect of the overall approach he was pushing through his Center for Health Transformation for the better part of the 00′s.

  • lineholder

    To the point that I may choose to back away from the political situation for a few days, just to regain my sense of perspective.

    Usually, I can remain relatively objective. But after thinking it all through, i.e. the individual mandate coupled with Medicaid as a vehicle for expansion of health care insurance (used by Romney in MA, information provided to Obama admin, and now being implemented in O-care)…it makes me nauseous to an extreme, and I’m developing a rather heavy dose of resentment towards both Romney and Obama for doing it.

    They’re basically coercing poor people, who might be trying to maintain some degree of self-reliance and have chosen not to buy into Medicaid right of the bat for this reason, into a position where they HAVE to be dependent on government social programs.

    If it weren’t for a few circumstances in my own personal life, I’d be as vulnerable to their machinations on this point as it comes. It’s rubbing me raw to think of it, and with each day that goes by, I just seem to see it as that much more despicable.

    Since when did it become right in this nation of ours to force people into a subservient position greater than the individual might choose by coercing them into social programs via a mandate????

    Yeah, I’d say I need a break.

  • Flagstaff

    Ben’s words:

    “[Romney's] state?s rights position plays ok with the base, but I believe it will be less than compelling to the general electorate when it comes time to decide what separates Obama & Romney on [Obamacare].”

    I don’t think this is really significant for any of them. For most voters, if the difference isn’t clear, it doesn’t matter that much. And most of them will be comparing Obama’s ENTIRE record to what they’d rather have, not just one issue.

    More Ben Howe:

    “If we?re going to have a good candidate, these issues which could mire them in the generals, must be flushed out and must be talked about. I?ve already publicly acknowledged that my favorite candidate among the remaining 4 is Newt Gingrich. I?ve even gone on record as saying that if we are going to lose, I?d rather lose with Newt because at least it will be an honest campaign and Newt will go down fighting harder than anyone else on that stage.

    However, if he can?t provide a better and more substantive answer as to why this wouldn?t be a problem, then we are going to have trouble with a Newt nominee.

    The answer here, for Newt & Romney, is to provide true analysis of the mistake. A real answer as to what changed and what is going to be better. We aren?t going to win if either of these two guys gets the nomination and gives the kind of half-assed answers they?ve been giving on this question.”

    I guess he wasn’t assured by Gingrich’s response, either.

  • vastrightwingconspiracy

    …doesn’t Newt have to be right about some decision he made?

    How many times do we have to hear “I was wrong” before seriously asking the question of whether he is competent or not?

  • Flagstaff

    I’m an atheist. I don’t agree with any of them about THEOLOGY, so to me, it’s ludicrous that they divide themselves, with one group disliking the other because of sectarian theology.

    Sometimes a comment is only a comment.

    I saw the interview live. It wasn’t Romney’s best moment, but it was about November 30. He’s improved his demeanor since then. What can I say. I agree, it was thin-skinned and outright wrong of Mitt.

    Other people have noticed that he’s become a good debater. He wasn’t before. He still has some problems. But you can’t say he “won’t’ stand up to Obama.” Well, you can, but it wouldn’t be correct.

  • falconrap

    that I try to make with everyone. You can’t take what any of these guys say as what they truly believe. Instead, you need to look at their actual actions. How they stand when it comes time to vote, execute, and/or testify. It is solely by the actions of the candidates that I judge them. This is why, of those who are left, I support Newt.

    He led the conservative movement on the hill during the Reagan years through the Republican revolution. He led the country to a balanced budget and welfare reform despite a slight majority in the Senate and a Democratic President. He actually testified against Fannie and Freddie getting anymore money, despite his firm being paid consultants for them. He testified AGAINST Cap and Trade despite trying to make sure Republicans were at the table of Global Warming by sitting with Nancy (I understand why he did, but disagree with it – it’s not worth caring about, though).

    The fact that the establishment pols did everything they could to drive him off the hill impresses me even further. He got to them and actually drove the nation to a balanced budget. What have these other guys actually done? Once you honestly sit back and look at what the top three candidates have actually done over the years, ignoring publicity stunts and stupid statements, it becomes quite clear who we should vote for, out of the remaining candidates.

  • haners

    Everyone is a RINO except EE and his followers who bash the Republican Party endlessly. Perhaps just perhaps EE is the real RINO.

  • bs61

    That’s what I’ll be saying.

    I hate Romney, but as far as I’ve read he is not a communist or marxist, nor has he had any friends in college that are bombers!

  • acat

    Further, you’re right, I can’t say conclusively say Romney won’t stand up to Obama. The trouble is, I can’t conclusively say Romney will stand up.

    I can say, conclusively, that Romney is not a natural leader, and that he has not displayed good leadership thus far in the campaign.

    Romney is, by nature and training, a manager. That’s not an insult, it’s a description – I’ve had enough lousy managers inflicted on me that I recognize what a good one is and can do … and from what I can tell, Romney’s a decent one. The problem is, it’s a separate skill set from leadership.. and that’s the skill Romney needs to win in November.

    Can you point me to any interviews Romney’s done within calendar 2012 where he does better than he did in November?

    Mew

  • antisesquipedalion

    a lot of very smart people that i know bought the anthropogenic global warming schtick.. very logical , considering the tripe put out by the IPCC. , which was basically accepted as “gospel” at the time. i was curious as to why , if CO2 was rapidly increasing, was is not getting warmer, so i was always a idiotic skeptic..
    to change your mind when the facts change, is to be commended. however , Newt still favors ethanol subsidies— his bad

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    are jealous of how well Mormon children behave as compared to our own. But the place where there is anti-Mormon bigotry is on the Left, where most all religious bigotry exists.

    I also agree that Mitt will stand up to Obama well, because notwithstanding his anti-red meat for the base comment (and see the link to my column on same etc below), he regularly does call out Obama’s failures rather well and much better than McCain did.

    http://www.redstate.com/gamecock/2012/03/03/the-red-meat-economy-part-of-a-so-called-improving-economy-dooms-obama-re-election-prospects/

    Finally, as per the revelation (pun intended) of Flagstaffian atheism, this Bible -believing Christian would only mention that given your love for Baseball, if you would only get Baptized you can get into Heaven without having to spend any time in Purgatory.

    A good book to read would be The Holy Bible! sorry, the missionary in me came out…smile

  • kowalski

    The SC is going to decide whether this vast expansion of federal power is within their purview. Knowing what I know now, I have to step back and say: “My God, why would you ever open that can of worms by proposing it in the first place as a Conservative or a Republican or a Conservative/Republican Think Tank?” Hindsight is always 20/20.

    I don’t think Romney’s crystal ball is any clearer than anyone else’s about which side they’re going to come down on. The fate of the Individual Mandate at the Federal Level is now squarely in the hands of those Justices. They are the most Important People in the World. And it’s the most important case in, perhaps, the history of this Republic.

    Either way, this is the Tums Election for me too, Lineholder.

    I suppose it’s a question that would eventually have to be answered, though. At some point the Supreme Court was going to have to weigh in on the simple idea: “What if the Federal Government of the United States decides that everyone in the country, wherever they live, has to purchase insurance or be subject to criminal and monetary penalties if they do not?”

    And we are going to find out what their answer to that simple question is.

  • haners

    “In life, and especially politics, our choices are seldom perfect and often difficult. But it is critically important to make a choice and support the person who is best equipped to solve the urgent problems before us. In my view, that person is Mitt Romney.

    “From my experience, Washington tends to be divided between two groups ? leaders and career politicians. Leaders tend to have a wealth of real-world experience outside of politics and are in office to give rather than take something from their position. Career politicians, on the other hand, mean well but are ill-equipped to solve problems. Their greatest skill is getting re-elected.

    “I?m proud to support Romney because he is a leader. What Romney has done in his 25 years in the private sector is precisely what we need a president to do in Washington. Romney has done hard things. He has turned businesses around, told people hard truths about what needed to be done, inspired confidence and overcome excuses. Romney is not a career politician or a career legislator. As a former governor and business leader, he is an executive who knows how to use executive power.”

  • lineholder

    Like I said, it’s just really rubbing me the wrong way rather badly for the time being. I’m more emotional about it in my response than I would like to be, and I don’t want to get to the point being totally irrational about it.

    I know that the people who may have once supported the individual mandate could have had good intentions, but…surely there is a better way of resolving it than this?

    Either way it goes, I’m looking forward to SCOTUS ruling. At least then, we’ll have a solid idea of what we’re facing. And even if they rule in favor of the mandate, that doesn’t mean our options all go away. So we should continue to fight against this. We do have the general public on our side on this issue. The American people do not support the individual mandate.

  • Scope

    The only thing that surprises me is that it took him this long to endorse Romney.

    Back in 2010-1, Cantor held a townhall at a University where he told them that the Republicans don’t want to get rid of the “good parts” of Obamacare, such as the pre-existing condition mandate, and the portion allowing “children” to stay on their parents health insurance until the age of 26.

    Just as EE said in a post from a few days ago, McConnell doesn’t want any votes to repeal any parts of Obamacare to come up for a vote until after the election. There is no question that Boehner and Cantor are right there with him. These are the very same people who would give cover to a president Romney to only tinker around the edges of Obamacare, but would not push for full repeal.

    It’s bad enough that if Obama wins re-election that the full implementation of Obamacare with all it’s horrors, and yet defined provisions, will be on a fast track come 2013. It will be even more destructive to the Republican party to have a president who sees the law on it’s way, with a few minor changes. With that outcome I don’t see how the Republican party can survive. The majority of people in this country are not slowly accepting Obamacare, on the country the number of those in favor of full repeal is growing as more and more of the law is revealed.

  • minister_of_war

    I like Col. North A LOT, but it’s an interesting endorsement since last thing I knew Col. North was a resident of Virginia, where he ran for US Senate, a few years back. And guess who’s not on the Virginia ballot because getting the proper number of signatures was too difficult for him, even though it’s his own State of residence & voter registration? Well, that would be Newt Gingrich himself, of course.

    So, I guess that Col. North can join Newt at the polling place in Virginia in not voting for himself. I guess they could both pull together and vote for Ron Paul. But even as a joke or some sinister plot against Romney (like Santorum begging for Democrats to support him in Michigan) I don’t know if they could force themselves to pull the lever for someone who is viewed by so many their own political circles as anti-military.

    It really wouldn’t have been that bad of a political strategy to help Paul win in Virginia to make Romney look bad in a 1-on-1 match-up, but obviously strategy in Virginia isn’t either Gingrich or Santorum’s strong suit since neither of them made the ballot there in the first place.

  • acat

    one wonders if the seven dwarves did the design work.

    That said, it’s a fair point – Romney does – in his overly wordy way – bring the heat … but his reasons for doing so are not notably conservative.

    Just an observation or two.

    Mew

  • minister_of_war

    … Romney doesn’t win there. Because if Romney wins there then there will be all sorts of excuses. Here’s a few to help other anti-Romney RedStaters out ahead of time. You can refer back here at any time if you need an excuse:

    1) Ohio went for Obama in 2008, so it has become too liberal.

    2) Romney outspent his opponents there 12 million to 1, so when you look at the per voter cost, Santorum actually won on being cost effective. Romney spent roughly $3 million per vote & Santorum only bought coffee in the State one time. That was his only expense.

    3) Romney scared all of the senior citizens in Ohio that Santorum was going to take their Medicare away. …. wait not that was Florida & Newt, so don’t use this excuse. I get my anti-Romney excuses confused sometimes.

    4) It was very cold on election day in Ohio & only Mitt Romney’s millionaire Ohio friends had the money to pay for the heating in their cars necessary to get to the polling place on election day.

    5) If the liberal media wouldn’t have kept showing clips of Santorum saying things over & over again, then he would have had a chance.

    6) Ohio used to be the home-base of the Mormon Church back in the 1830s, so there’s a lot of Mormon influence there.

    ————————
    This exercise was actually quite fun for me & I’m sure there are plenty of other excuses that could be made too with very little work required. But like I said, if Romney wins Ohio, everyone in the anti-Romney camp here can please feel free to cut & paste any of these in their excuse comments here on RedState.

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    When this primary season started, Romney was in the middle of the pack for me. I actually had some level of respect for him because I saw him to be a good husband and father, and I thought he was most likely a decent man. Based on how he has run his campaign and his attitude toward conservatives, tea partiers and the other candidates, I’ve hit not just a level of distaste for the man, but absolute disgust.

    On a side note, what’s interesting to me is that I have relatives who are not at all plugged into politics at the same level as I am. Other than my discussions with her, my 81 year old mother reads the local newspaper, and for the most part, watches local news and Fox. Occasionally, she’ll watch one of the political shows on another network. Before I ever reached the level I have with Romney, my mother commented to me more than once that she couldn’t stand Romney anymore (she was a fan after the Olympics). She sees an arrogant man who thinks he deserves the nomination rather than having to earn it. If he gets the nomination, it will probably take a lot of prodding to get her to even go vote (although I’m sure I can convince her of the need to vote down ticket).

    So back to the question. I think there are probably a lot of folks like me who will vote Romney as a Not Obama vote, That’s the only reason I can come up with to vote for Romney, and I just don’t have it in me to be dishonest enough to tell people to vote Romney because he’s a good candidate when I don’t think he is. I think he would be marginally better than Obama, i.e., he would slow the move toward socialism. Based on his record of governance, I have no confidence that he would repeal Obamacare, nor do I think he would appoint judges like Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Alito.

    As for the Romney supporters who have been banned, perhaps it’s a bit myopic to blame Romney for their behavior, but that’s human nature. There are those (like Flagstaff and Mike DeVine) who attempted to make a case for voting Romney. Those that have been banned resorted to name-calling and attacking other candidates. It’s hardly a defense of Romney to call a non-supporter a bigot or right wing extremist or fanatic. If his supporters can’t even make a case for him, how and why would they ever expect me to do so? So the bottom line is, I don’t think there are many who will give a vigorous defense if he gets the nod. Neither do I think he’ll be elected because voting Not Obama isn’t enough. I suspect that for many of us the focus will be to elect as many conservatives down ticket as possible. In fact, I think that’s already started.

  • rightland1111

    Youngthegiant, kiss WILLARD’S ring. I would give anything…anything at all if I did not have to vote in this primary. The stakes are too high. I think that there is a 50/50 chance on this election. WILLARD will do nothing to advance America. The man is a Progressive. He wants to be president…that’s it. He doesn’t have any ideas that come even close to Conservatism.

    Not only am I disappointed in the House Republicans that won’t “take it to Obama” for the American people, I can’t stand the leadership of McConnell…who I hope is primaried.

    We want American values back. Mandating someone to pay for insurance is against the Constitution…even if you try to hide it under the Commerce Clause and call it a tax. We’re tired of all the smoke and mirrors. We should not be required to buy health insurance…and a mother should be allowed to give her child the lunch she fixed…not the government’s mandate…and the Catholic Church or any other Church should not be required to perform or distribute actions or items against the tenets of their religion.

    Now…this is what is call Progressive…and guess who was the first with the mandate on health…WILLARD.

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

    just found this

    http://cincinnati.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/20/romney-will-repeal-obamacare-on-day-one/

    it’s reassuring [note date]

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

    …but, frankly, i look forward to reading that assessment [after he's nominated]

  • minister_of_war

    Divorce happens. A lot. And many times it is for very valid reasons. I don’t like divorce, just like most people do not, but I do see it as justified in many circumstances.

    What I did say was that we shouldn’t vote for Ron Paul because he CHEATED on his first two wives. Cheating & divorce are two different things. And regarding Reagan, even his divorce was difficult for some conservative voters to swallow, but one divorce is very different than 2 adulterous affairs when married to different women.

    (And obviously, I’m not really knocking on Ron Paul about this. I think that last I heard, Ron Paul has been married & faithful to his wife for 55 years or something like that. Maybe Newt could learn from Ron Paul about fidelity.)

  • clintonformccain

    It’s time for EE to call for Santorum and Gingrich to do what’s right for their country and step aside in advance of the Super Tuesday primaries and give Ron Paul a clear shot at consolidating the anybody-but-Romney vote.

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

    …but it really doesn’t suffice.

    In what other area of the economy is it mandatory to submit any type of bond before receiving a product/service?

    The free-market should allow for whatever occurs in healthcare to be NO DIFFERENT from whatever occurs in all other contexts.

    People would seek access/quality/low-cost just like in any economic transaction, drawing from whatever resources/sources they may be able to tap.

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

    i postulate the reason, infra

  • kowalski

    I think as a matter of politics, and I touched on this in a response in another thread here (Thomas’) – if you asked them straight up:

    “Do you want the Federal Government to have the authority to mandate you purchase insurance and levy monetary and/or criminal penalties against you if you do not?”

    The answer would be, overwhelmingly, “NO.”

    At the State level, there are States and places where if you recast that question in terms of State politics they would say, “YES” but it *still* would not be something the State found wise to do as a matter of overly coercive behavior. In Massachusetts, of course, with a 9:1 Senate and something like a 4:1 House, people DID agree to that.

    But I submit that Massachusetts is an OUTLIER of a State Government. It doesn’t represent the United States as a whole. It doesn’t even come close! It’s *far* outside the mainstream in terms of the composition of its legislature. Massachusetts is so comprehensively unbalanced in terms of its legislature that I don’t how the decisions made here can plausibly be said to represent the rest of the United States.

    That’s really why Americans should be puking: the MA Legislature with a 9:1 supermajority in the Senate and a 4:1 or 5:1 supermajority in the State House are now being used, basically, as the template for the rest of the COUNTRY. If the Supreme Court has any justice left in it at all, it will recognize how wrong it is to apply the decisions made here to the rest of the country.

  • lapert

    Have you looked at your chosen wrestler’s polling with moderates? My guess is you haven’t noted it because you choose ignorance to the truth. Of course you wouldn’t want to look at that assessment until it was too late – it might give you reason to change your mind. But no matter, he has no chance of winning the nomination and will likely formally withdraw from the race in the next week or so so you will never give yourself that chance to see the truth.

  • rightland1111

    not overturn….what is going to be the reaction of the 26 states that have brought it to the Supremes? What do you think the people are going to do? If Romney can’t repeal it…then we are left with the Congress…that can’t even get the XL Pipeline in and Harry Reid who will refurse to bring it up for a vote. Does anyone see what a terrible place we are in if SCOTUS does not come through for we the people…and yes…the doctors…who, I hear…hate the bill.

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

    1. The SCUM is noting that the robocalls from The Donald [now in their 4th state, Ohio] have greatly benefited Mitt, so he is far more than a showman; if nothing else, his anti-China rhetoric has resonated.

    2. I do not apply the “cynicism” metric to this discussion because it is [i would hope] more substantive than you would wish to characterize it to be; i am unapologetic when claiming you should not equate the flip-flops of an unprincipled Mitt [who JUST issued a tax-plan that Eric Cantor can laud] vs. the incisiveness of The Newt.

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

    …whereas Sachs [watch PMSNBC's Morning-Joe] cites factoids that are selective and inconclusive…with aplomb.

  • mikelindell2

    You mean the henchman who is in cahoots with Mitt? I think you might be more comfortable over at Infowars…

  • mikelindell2

    Anyone thinking of voting for “politics is a team sport” Santorum over Newt ought to watch it.

  • kowalski

    Essentially, is to start wearing:

    “MASSACHUSETTS IS A NICE PLACE, MAYBE, BUT WE’RE NOT MASSACHUSETTS”

    T-shirts, coffee mugs, mouse pads, insurance policies, legislative votes, judgeships, letters to editors, letters to Senators, letters to Representatives, etc., etc.

    Because what’s really happening here is that MA is being used to – essentialy – DICTATE the policies of the rest of the country.

    The rest of this Country is not the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. And I don’t think it wants to be the Commonwealth. We’re going to find out whether or not the Supreme Court thinks Massachusetts *IS* the United States when it comes to the largest expansion of Federal power in our history.

    Mitt Romney has got it wrong. He shouldn’t be proud of what Massachusetts wrought. That’s why he’s unacceptable to me as the nominee.

  • rightland1111

    God and Country. I hope that McConnell is knocked out this election cycle. Cantor has done nothing to stop the spending…and nbody in the House will do anything about the XL Pipeline. Meanwhile gas is going through the roof as is food and Obama says we don’t have inflation.

    I wonder if I should move the heck out of this country. No matter how hard I try…and I try hard, locally, calling, giving money to people that say they will do something, blogging…it doesn’t seem to matter. The truth is gone…I’m down today.

  • lapert

    Please show me anyone noting that Trump’s robocalls are impacting electoral results. If you don’t realize he is a joke, a showman and a walking caricature than you really are hopeless.

    And for Newt, you just call his flip-flops something else because you prefer naivete to actual acceptance of what politicians are – and Newt is just another politician, has been for decades.. You probably think his farts don’t stink too.

    His principled stance was being in favor of a mandate to support a ‘must issue’ regime which he has insisted is a noble goal for society for the past two decades – his unprincipled stance is switching sides when he saw his last opportunity to run for President required it. After having squandered his best chance at a run ahead of 2000, and wisely avoiding the inevitable Republican loss in 2008, his incisive mind realized it was the only, and an easy way, to pull in the naive such as yourself – unfortunately there just aren’t enough of you around to make him competitive in the end.

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

    …because RS pledges to support the POTUS-GOP nominee.

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

    …for I also evolved from advertising a photo of myself/Toomey with Romney on my cell-’phone to preferring a sand-dune background [which highlights blue icons on an orange background].

  • Scope

    this morning he would have gotten worked over by the liberal Chris Wallace also. The only one who doesn’t get thrown on the Wallace hot coals is Romney. Wallace made it pretty clear long ago that he is all in for Romney. I’d rather watch Chrissy Matthews than be forced to suffer through an hour with Chris Wallace. Wallace, Hume, Baier and Krauthammer are all do everything they can to insure a Romney presidency. So you can knock away at Santorum in the hot seat but Gingrich would be treated the same. Did he ask Santorum if he was a flake?

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

    …during the interview-shows, a few hours ago.

    the hosts didn’t refute…although they kept trying to divert discussion from the economy/jobs to the pill.

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

    …as per this documentation:

    http://conservatives4newt.blogspot.com/2012/02/at-cpac-oliver-north-endorses-newt.html

    I would want to reply to the MOW, but the cynicism poisons whatever message he might have wanted to contribute.

    This is an all-too-common phenomenon when the tide-of-conversation turns against…and isolates…the vacuousness of support for the unsustainable meme.

  • minister_of_war

    What I’d say about it first is that I’d like to start by talking about your grandmother. Here on RedState, many people complain how FOXNews is in the can for Romney. As a Romney supporter, and as most Romney supporters have realized, I will not even watch FOXNews because I think it is so anti-Romney. I just go online for my news or on election nights, I’ve been turning to CNN. I’m old enough & well-trained enough that I can sift through the liberal garbage if it’s being spouted on CNN, but I cannot tolerate the people who pretend they’re conservatives on FOXNews & demand a following because of it.

    My point is that if your grandmother has been watching FOXNews a lot, then even & especially as a political novice/outsider, she could be getting what I felt was always happening on FOXNews & that was constant bashing of & contempt for Romney. I really think that in many ways, FOXNews is an unreliable source for conservative media anymore. I’ve always been skeptical of them because I don’t want to put all of my media eggs in one basket, but it’s gotten much worse now.

    Now, regarding name-calling & people getting banned for name-calling, I’ve seen a number of Romney supporters on here be called all sorts of things. But when they improperly react or lash out, that’s when the Romney supporters get banned. I just think that RedState for a very long time has had too much of the group think type of issue, where there is no dissent allowed or tolerated by many of the most prolific commentators here. There are definitely anti-Romney RedState followers who are really quite the bullies on here. I used to complain about the bullying on here, but I’m come to grips with the fact that it is what it is. There is actually quite a bit about the way that RedState culture is set up that it could be quite intimidating & uninviting to new users.

    But my concern is that RedState & Erick Erickson in particular will have backed themselves so far into a corner once Romney is the nominee that it will be very difficult to back out of. We all want to win the Senate & retain the US House, but with the ever-expanding Presidential powers, can we really think having both Houses of Congress will be enough if Obama is still President?

    What made me support Romney early on was the fact that he did go in & see how businesses were operating and, as a professional, would streamline those businesses & cut waste. My grandfather was an efficiency expert by trade, so I have a love for people who make things work the way that they are supposed to. I’d love to see Romney do that with the Federal government. It won’t be easy, but it will be easier with someone who’s not known as a flamethrower. I think that’s the main issue that some conservatives have with Romney this time around, since in 2008 Romney was the conservative candidate.

    We want someone who will attack & attack the other side. That’s not really Romney’s style. I admit the campaign has been negative (not only from Romney’s side), but there has been a lot of negative campaigning. But Romney will use those same resources to go negative against Obama in the General Election. But once elected, and I do believe that Romney will be the next President of the United States, Romney will also be able to accomplish a lot because of his even temperament & his managerial style.

    And regarding the Supreme Court, if Romney has the chance to nominate any candidates for it, just remember the name “Harriet Myers”. We conservatives are no longer going to take Supreme Court nominees from one of our own sitting down. Nominees to the Supreme Court will be vetted by our guys & girls too. And we will be sure to fight for those nominees if they are the right ones & to fight against them if they are not. We will not allow any more David Souters.

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

    …for the upcoming months, when it’s your-guy Mitt vs. our-guy The Newt.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    lock it up for Mitt. So I guess I’m with you on this. Now, I want Santorum to win Ohio and Newt to win GA and TN and…people in jail want out! smile

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    and I really enjoyed Newt on MTP today. Also like Rick and Gasparino on Huck last night.

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

    …due to imprecise interpretation of the impact of $ upon the political discourse?

    The Newt didn’t become agitated until the negativity-pattern emerged; this is what is destructive to the party, and this is the source of the lament that Mitt has so much $ to devote to this facet of his campaign.

    WCP, did I capture the essence of your concern?

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

    And the key-message is that Santorum can’t be assumed to be dominating PA.

  • acat

    I do disagree with your apparent assertion that Gingrich couldn’t handle Wallace. I suspect Wallace would not have retained his liver…

    Mew

  • lapert

    Newt didn’t want anyone going negative because he didn’t have the resources to compete. It has nothing to do with being destructive to the party.

    If Newt had enough money to keep up with Mitt he would have done so with glee – it isn’t like he doesn’t know how to go negative.

    This is like courting Democratic voters in primary fights – whenever it benefits the other candidate it is wrong, when it benefits you it isn’t.They are all disingenuous.

    Newt is just another politician like the rest.

  • independentconservative

    You aren’t that great on CNN either but then again, Red State has been going down hill the last few years anyway. The bottom line is, we want a candidate that can win and is the most electable. We also know in the end you are going to support the nominee, so really this daily Romney bashing is useless and is only hurting his brand and our unity. Unlike you I don’t have to convert to his side, since I am already there, while you will be coming late to the party and reluctantly so.

    Think Romney can’t win? Then why is he closing the gap (to which I predicted check my archives) in Ohio the same way he did in Michigan? Romney has the best ground game and the best more organized national campaign. Money=influene and staying power and Romney’s got it all. Why are you trying to crush Romney’s momentum? The longer this drags on (at least June with TX moving their primary to May 29) the more money citizens have to waste on people like Gingrich and Paul that aren’t going to win anyway and instead give it to Romney where we’ll need every dime we have to go up against $1 billion by November.

  • vangoghssister

    …because he has to work so hard to convince me he’s conservative. Of course he’s not, but it’s still amusing and pathetic. Oh, I suppose he does seem conservative in states in the northeast, the west coast, in fact in all of the states Obama took in 2008.

    In fact, as so many here have pointed out, even his supporters can’t make a convincing argument on his behalf. For instance, they aren’t able to tell me how he’s going to counter the 1% argument Obama is sure to make, nor the Bain negative points, the dog on the car roof, flip-flops on abortion, Romneycare vs Obamacare et cetera without sounding like a hypocrite. He reminds me of the worst sort of used car salesman, the one who knows he’s selling you a lemon but will deny it until his last breath.

  • Scope

    many of us have been down, or at least feeling anxious for a good while. When Romney was being touted by so many as the “inevitable” long before the first primary vote was cast, I was sure that the voters, especially after the Tea Party rebellion, were not going to be willing to sit back and allow the elites, pundits and RINO’s in Congress to shove their chosen one down our collective throats. Boy was I wrong. It just proves to me that those that were considered the sheeple, are still willing to be just exactly that, sheeple.

    It is depressing when so many are not only trying to fight the liberals, but now we are forced to fight those that are supposed to be on our side as well. Sometimes I wonder if I would rather majorities in both the House and Senate, or to win the WH, if I couldn’t have both. With the current makeup in the Congress, even if we win, we lose, and if we win with a president Romney, we lose. To me we lose no matter what happens as long as we have McConnell, Boehner, Cantor, Hatch, Brown etc. One ray of sunshine is the old hag the Snowe job is going home, and hopefully Lugar will be voted out also and replaced with Mourdock. (sp)

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

    …which is why it would be desirable for The Newt to clarify, accordingly.

  • Scope

    and more than a little dumb. Give Ron Paul a shot at super Tues.? You’re jesting right?

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

    …the difference between Santorum’s Federalism and that of RomneyCare is elucidated in my Diary; Santorum lied when he claimed that he [like everyone else from states that aren't right-to-work] voted comparably.

    *

    Santorum vote against Right-to-Work Legislation

    During the POTUS-Debate, he said he opposed it because:

    ?I represented the state of Pennsylvania, which is one of the — which is not a right-to-work state. If you look at who voted for the right-to-work bill in the Congress, those who came from right-to-work states voted for it. Those who came from non-right-to-work states represented their states. I wasn’t going to vote in Washington, D.C., to change the law in my state.

    ?I support right-to-work. I actually, as president, will sign and advocate for a right-to-work bill, but when I represented the people of Pennsylvania, I made the decision that I wasn’t going to do in Washington and change the law in my state when my state didn’t want to have that provision in their laws.?

    http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2012/01/fox_news_south_carolina_jan_16.html

    SANTORUM LIED!

    This is the list of Right-to-Work States

    ? Alabama
    ? Arizona
    ? Arkansas
    ? Florida
    ? Georgia
    ? Idaho
    ? Iowa
    ? Kansas
    ? Louisiana
    ? Mississippi
    ? Nebraska
    ? Nevada
    ? North Carolina
    ? North Dakota
    ? Oklahoma
    ? South Carolina
    ? South Dakota
    ? Tennessee
    ? Texas
    ? Utah
    ? Virginia
    ? Wyoming

    THEREFORE, the following states do not mandate union-membership to obtain federal contracts:

    Colorado, Indiana, Montana, and New Hampshire.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law#U.S._states_with_right-to-work_laws

    This is the XML U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 104th Congress – 2nd Session.

    It should be noted that Santorum?s vote of ?Nay? served to uphold mandatory unionization. Thus, the task-at-hand is to identify any senator who also represented a state [comparable to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania] that was not right-to-work [i.e., that mandated union-membership] but who voted ?Yea? on this legislation.

    In 1996, the following senators represented these four states: Colorado (Smith), Indiana (Lugar and Coats), Montana (Burns), and New Hampshire (Gregg and Smith).

    EACH voted FOR this Right-to-Work Act!

    http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00188

    Question: On the Cloture Motion (motion to invoke cloture on motion to proceed to consider s.1788 )

    Vote Number: 188 Vote Date: July 10, 1996, 12:35 PM
    Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Cloture Motion Rejected
    Measure Number: S. 1788 (National Right to Work Act of 1995 )

    Measure Title: A bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act and the Railway Labor Act to repeal those provisions of Federal law that require employees to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment, and for other purposes.
    Vote Counts: YEAs 31
    NAYs 68
    Not Voting 1
    Vote Summary
    By Senator Name
    By Vote Position
    By Home State

    Alphabetical by Senator Name
    Abraham (R-MI), Nay
    Akaka (D-HI), Nay
    Ashcroft (R-MO), Nay
    Baucus (D-MT), Nay
    Bennett (R-UT), Yea
    Biden (D-DE), Nay
    Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
    Bond (R-MO), Nay
    Boxer (D-CA), Nay
    Bradley (D-NJ), Nay
    Breaux (D-LA), Nay
    Brown (R-CO), Yea
    Bryan (D-NV), Nay
    Bumpers (D-AR), Nay
    Burns (R-MT), Yea
    Byrd (D-WV), Nay
    Campbell (R-CO), Nay
    Chafee (R-RI), Nay
    Coats (R-IN), Yea
    Cochran (R-MS), Not Voting
    Cohen (R-ME), Nay
    Conrad (D-ND), Nay
    Coverdell (R-GA), Yea
    Craig (R-ID), Yea
    D’Amato (R-NY), Nay
    Daschle (D-SD), Nay
    DeWine (R-OH), Nay
    Dodd (D-CT), Nay
    Domenici (R-NM), Nay
    Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
    Exon (D-NE), Nay
    Faircloth (R-NC), Yea
    Feingold (D-WI), Nay
    Feinstein (D-CA), Nay Ford (D-KY), Nay
    Frahm (R-KS), Yea
    Frist (R-TN), Yea
    Glenn (D-OH), Nay
    Gorton (R-WA), Nay
    Graham (D-FL), Nay
    Gramm (R-TX), Yea
    Grams (R-MN), Nay
    Grassley (R-IA), Yea
    Gregg (R-NH), Yea
    Harkin (D-IA), Nay
    Hatch (R-UT), Yea
    Hatfield (R-OR), Nay
    Heflin (D-AL), Nay
    Helms (R-NC), Yea
    Hollings (D-SC), Nay
    Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
    Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
    Inouye (D-HI), Nay
    Jeffords (R-VT), Nay
    Johnston (D-LA), Nay
    Kassebaum (R-KS), Nay
    Kempthorne (R-ID), Yea
    Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
    Kerrey (D-NE), Nay
    Kerry (D-MA), Nay
    Kohl (D-WI), Nay
    Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
    Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay
    Leahy (D-VT), Nay
    Levin (D-MI), Nay
    Lieberman (D-CT), Nay
    Lott (R-MS), Yea
    Lugar (R-IN), Yea Mack (R-FL), Yea
    McCain (R-AZ), Yea
    McConnell (R-KY), Nay
    Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
    Moseley-Braun (D-IL), Nay
    Moynihan (D-NY), Nay
    Murkowski (R-AK), Nay
    Murray (D-WA), Nay
    Nickles (R-OK), Yea
    Nunn (D-GA), Nay
    Pell (D-RI), Nay
    Pressler (R-SD), Yea
    Pryor (D-AR), Nay
    Reid (D-NV), Nay
    Robb (D-VA), Nay
    Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
    Roth (R-DE), Nay
    Santorum (R-PA), Nay
    Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
    Shelby (R-AL), Yea
    Simon (D-IL), Nay
    Simpson (R-WY), Yea
    Smith (R-NH), Yea
    Snowe (R-ME), Nay
    Specter (R-PA), Nay
    Stevens (R-AK), Nay
    Thomas (R-WY), Yea
    Thompson (R-TN), Yea
    Thurmond (R-SC), Yea
    Warner (R-VA), Yea
    Wellstone (D-MN), Nay
    Wyden (D-OR), Nay
    Vote Summary
    By Senator Name
    By Vote Position
    By Home State

    Grouped By Vote Position
    YEAs —31
    Bennett (R-UT)
    Brown (R-CO)
    Burns (R-MT)
    Coats (R-IN)
    Coverdell (R-GA)
    Craig (R-ID)
    Faircloth (R-NC)
    Frahm (R-KS)
    Frist (R-TN)
    Gramm (R-TX)
    Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH)
    Hatch (R-UT)
    Helms (R-NC)
    Hutchison (R-TX)
    Inhofe (R-OK)
    Kempthorne (R-ID)
    Kyl (R-AZ)
    Lott (R-MS)
    Lugar (R-IN)
    Mack (R-FL)
    McCain (R-AZ) Nickles (R-OK)
    Pressler (R-SD)
    Shelby (R-AL)
    Simpson (R-WY)
    Smith (R-NH)
    Thomas (R-WY)
    Thompson (R-TN)
    Thurmond (R-SC)
    Warner (R-VA)
    NAYs —68
    Abraham (R-MI)
    Akaka (D-HI)
    Ashcroft (R-MO)
    Baucus (D-MT)
    Biden (D-DE)
    Bingaman (D-NM)
    Bond (R-MO)
    Boxer (D-CA)
    Bradley (D-NJ)
    Breaux (D-LA)
    Bryan (D-NV)
    Bumpers (D-AR)
    Byrd (D-WV)
    Campbell (R-CO)
    Chafee (R-RI)
    Cohen (R-ME)
    Conrad (D-ND)
    D’Amato (R-NY)
    Daschle (D-SD)
    DeWine (R-OH)
    Dodd (D-CT)
    Domenici (R-NM)
    Dorgan (D-ND) Exon (D-NE)
    Feingold (D-WI)
    Feinstein (D-CA)
    Ford (D-KY)
    Glenn (D-OH)
    Gorton (R-WA)
    Graham (D-FL)
    Grams (R-MN)
    Harkin (D-IA)
    Hatfield (R-OR)
    Heflin (D-AL)
    Hollings (D-SC)
    Inouye (D-HI)
    Jeffords (R-VT)
    Johnston (D-LA)
    Kassebaum (R-KS)
    Kennedy (D-MA)
    Kerrey (D-NE)
    Kerry (D-MA)
    Kohl (D-WI)
    Lautenberg (D-NJ)
    Leahy (D-VT)
    Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (D-CT)
    McConnell (R-KY)
    Mikulski (D-MD)
    Moseley-Braun (D-IL)
    Moynihan (D-NY)
    Murkowski (R-AK)
    Murray (D-WA)
    Nunn (D-GA)
    Pell (D-RI)
    Pryor (D-AR)
    Reid (D-NV)
    Robb (D-VA)
    Rockefeller (D-WV)
    Roth (R-DE)
    Santorum (R-PA)
    Sarbanes (D-MD)
    Simon (D-IL)
    Snowe (R-ME)
    Specter (R-PA)
    Stevens (R-AK)
    Wellstone (D-MN)
    Wyden (D-OR)
    Not Voting – 1
    Cochran (R-MS)
    Vote Summary
    By Senator Name
    By Vote Position
    By Home State

    Grouped by Home State
    Alabama: Heflin (D-AL), Nay Shelby (R-AL), Yea
    Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Nay Stevens (R-AK), Nay
    Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
    Arkansas: Bumpers (D-AR), Nay Pryor (D-AR), Nay
    California: Boxer (D-CA), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
    Colorado: Brown (R-CO), Yea Campbell (R-CO), Nay
    Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Nay Lieberman (D-CT), Nay
    Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Nay Roth (R-DE), Nay
    Florida: Graham (D-FL), Nay Mack (R-FL), Yea
    Georgia: Coverdell (R-GA), Yea Nunn (D-GA), Nay
    Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Nay
    Idaho: Craig (R-ID), Yea Kempthorne (R-ID), Yea
    Illinois: Moseley-Braun (D-IL), Nay Simon (D-IL), Nay
    Indiana: Coats (R-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea
    Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay
    Kansas: Frahm (R-KS), Yea Kassebaum (R-KS), Nay
    Kentucky: Ford (D-KY), Nay McConnell (R-KY), Nay
    Louisiana: Breaux (D-LA), Nay Johnston (D-LA), Nay
    Maine: Cohen (R-ME), Nay Snowe (R-ME), Nay
    Maryland: Mikulski (D-MD), Nay Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
    Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Nay Kerry (D-MA), Nay
    Michigan: Abraham (R-MI), Nay Levin (D-MI), Nay
    Minnesota: Grams (R-MN), Nay Wellstone (D-MN), Nay
    Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Not Voting Lott (R-MS), Yea
    Missouri: Ashcroft (R-MO), Nay Bond (R-MO), Nay
    Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Nay Burns (R-MT), Yea
    Nebraska: Exon (D-NE), Nay Kerrey (D-NE), Nay
    Nevada: Bryan (D-NV), Nay Reid (D-NV), Nay
    New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Yea Smith (R-NH), Yea
    New Jersey: Bradley (D-NJ), Nay Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay
    New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Domenici (R-NM), Nay
    New York: D’Amato (R-NY), Nay Moynihan (D-NY), Nay
    North Carolina: Faircloth (R-NC), Yea Helms (R-NC), Yea
    North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Nay Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
    Ohio: DeWine (R-OH), Nay Glenn (D-OH), Nay
    Oklahoma: Inhofe (R-OK), Yea Nickles (R-OK), Yea
    Oregon: Hatfield (R-OR), Nay Wyden (D-OR), Nay
    Pennsylvania: Santorum (R-PA), Nay Specter (R-PA), Nay
    Rhode Island: Chafee (R-RI), Nay Pell (D-RI), Nay
    South Carolina: Hollings (D-SC), Nay Thurmond (R-SC), Yea
    South Dakota: Daschle (D-SD), Nay Pressler (R-SD), Yea
    Tennessee: Frist (R-TN), Yea Thompson (R-TN), Yea
    Texas: Gramm (R-TX), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
    Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Yea
    Vermont: Jeffords (R-VT), Nay Leahy (D-VT), Nay
    Virginia: Robb (D-VA), Nay Warner (R-VA), Yea
    Washington: Gorton (R-WA), Nay Murray (D-WA), Nay
    West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Nay Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
    Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Nay
    Wyoming: Simpson (R-WY), Yea Thomas (R-WY), Yea

  • acat

    Funny, that’s usually a tactic of the left…. Are you sure you’re really an independent?

    Mew

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

    …the problem is that it is BOTH unconstitutional [nationally] and a reflection of Big Government [on the state-level]; that it is also costly is part of the Medicaid-component of the SCOTUS litigation, but it’s not the key-concern. [The Medicare-component and the severability-components are, in many respects, secondary considerations; the key is the Individual Mandate.]

  • minister_of_war

    … for the upcoming months? Newt’s won a single primary. Newt willl probably win the state that he represented in Congress for years, which he’s expected to do, but after that, he’ll pretty much be done. I’d be interested to see what the justification for staying in the race would be after Georgia – well other than Sheldon Adelson following through with his promise that he might dump another $100 million into Newt’s Super PAC.

    Newt is expected to win Georgia. But I don’t see him winning the state where he’s registered to vote: Virginia since he couldn’t even muster the proper number of signatures to make the ballot and Newt won’t likely win his home-state of Pennsylvania where he was born & raised.

    Santorum should do better on Super Tuesday, but I still think that Romney will win far & wide on that day & it will really help to continue Mitt’s momentum.

  • Scope

    and give your guy Obama the presidency for 4 more years or longer, no general election required.

    I’ve seen a comment here a time or two that RS doesn’t ban for stupidity, even though some who have that ability would love to.

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

    we will ko BHO; despite all the good-news he has received during recent months, he’s still in a dead-heat with most republicans.

    when unemployment/gas-$ rise, he will sink

  • lineholder

    If you can find the answers to these questions, it is possible that it will alleviate some of the genuine concerns that a few of us, especially the ones associated with the healthcare industry, have about Romney. This is to his benefit, guys, okay?

    There are some things already under way in the health care industry as a response to regulatory measures included in O-care that will NOT be rolled back via full repeal of the law.

    For example, as it currently stands, expansion of Medicaid has begun. Health care insurance is being mandated. Of the roughly 32 million people that the Dems want to get covered by health insurance, 1/2 of those are slotted to go into Medicaid. 16 million people. The “due date” for this, so to speak, is 2014. Add the recently unemployed that were previously covered by insurance in 2009 but have since lost their jobs, and we’re looking at closer to 20 million people. This would bring the total number of people enrolled in Medicaid up to about 70 million, and by 2015-2016, Medicaid costs will exceed Medicare costs.

    In 2014, the federal gov’t will carry 100% of the costs of expansion. In 2015, this drops to 95% with 5% of costs shifting to the states. In 2016, this drops another 5%….10% will be covered by the states. At 10% burden of costs at the state level, it has been projected that tax increases to cover the costs will be an average of 34%. That’s just for the states. It doesn’t include the 90% of costs at the federal level.

    Once again, the expansion of Medicaid will not be rolled back simply by repealing O-care. Medicaid is provided via the Social Security Act. They’re two totally different pieces of legislation.

    There’s more than one way of addressing this. It could be addressed from the angle of generating a private-sector friendly environment that produces more jobs, thus reducing the need for more people to go into Medicaid. Another way would be to utilize certain provisions included in O-care as a means of attempting to redirect the legislation in a more market-favorable direction. (vouchers, privatization, etc.)

    Can you show, in the economic plan that Romney currently has or in statements he has made, how the approach he has stated he will be taking will be adequate in addressing these kinds of issues? If so, then please do so.

    This is just one piece of the big picture. That’s all. There’s a lot more to it than just this. But if he’s got a plan in mind, then I’d like to hear what it is.

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

    …and it’s off-putting to rely upon them, when substantive issues fester.

  • minister_of_war

    …how the spin after Tuesday goes if Romney does win Ohio. I don’t see Newt’s path forward, but I can’t imagine both Newt & Santorum dropping out at the same time. They might have a stare-down to see who flinches first.

  • minister_of_war

    …for the longest comment ever. ;)

  • Scope

    Gingrich went after Romney in a debate for owning Fannie and Freddie stock, until Romney reminded him in that same debate that he (Gingrich) also owned the same stocks. Gingrich couldn’t seem to recover for the rest of that debate. Wasn’t that about when Gingrich’s poll numbers started tanking?

    You know as well as I that Wallace plays videos and audios, or shows articles written of unflattering moments suffered by the one he is interviewing. Do you really think that he wouldn’t do the same to Gingrich? There are plenty of those available to Wallace, and he would go for the killer ones with Newt. What would Newt do, say I didn’t say that, you misunderstand what I said, I changed my mind, or your just playing gotcha? Some choose to believe that everyone’s liver is at stake when confronting Gingrich, however, he has had his own liver handed back to him a time or two.

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

    …he was repeatedly reduced to stuttering.

    The climax came when Wallace showed a tape of him asserting the classic-Catholic line that sex must be devoted to procreation.

    http://video.foxnews.com/v/1488497577001/rick-santorum-looks-ahead-to-super-tuesday/?playlist_id=87937

    [listen @ 6:30 and watch the squint convert a scowl]

    *

    He also was on the hot-seat last night, when demonstrated to have lied regarding BHO’s alleged aspiration for 100% college grads.

    http://video.foxnews.com/v/1487657850001/rick-santorum-defends-controversial-college-comment

    *

    Sarah also attacked Mitt’s attack on Santorum:

    http://video.foxnews.com/v/1487190258001/sarah-palin-on-super-tuesday/?playlist_id=87937

    [sometimes, to get the video to start, you need to "reload" it]

  • acat

    and the backblast seems to have damaged Romney, so .. silver lining.

    That said, yes, Gingrich does have a lot of faults on the record, but he does have answers for many of them.

    I’m not saying Gingrich would come away unscathed, just that underestimating him is a risky venture.

    Mew

  • minister_of_war

    … Arizona has voted Republican consistently more than any other state in the entire country. We have super majorities of Republicans in BOTH Houses of the Arizona State Legislature, a Republican Governor, a Republican Attorney General, a Republican Secretary of State, a Republican State Treasurer, a Republican State Mine Inspector… In fact, every single statewide elected leader who won in Arizona in 2010 was Republican.

    The only Presidential Election that Arizona went Democrat since 1952 was in 1996 when Bill Clinton was pretending to be a Republican after getting smacked around in the 1994 Republican Congressional landslide. In fact, up to that point, Arizona had the longest streak in the entire country of voting Republican in Presidential Elections. I’ll thank Dick Morris for helping Clinton see the light & sign a lot of good Republican bills after 1994.

    But once again, Romney’s Arizona smackdown will be downplayed because there is a high number of Mormons in Arizona. I’ll just yawn at that one.

    So, vangoghssister, I will allow you to amend your last comment to remove Arizona from your list of 2008 pro-Obama states.

  • mikelindell2

    Who tried to go after him and wound up regretting it. Worth watching the interaction on Meet the Press if you get a chance

  • westcoastpatriette

    Mitt bullies and smears anyone — not just Newt — because he is not liked and he knows it. Deep down he must dislike himself terribly as, of all people, he knows how much he lies and deceives to win at any cost. How does he look himself in the mirror or sleep at night?

    So there’s the bullying and when all else fails, he bribes and buys all the other types who can be bought.

    It’s the only way he thinks he can win. But alas, it will not work.

    And his Rombots behave the same distasteful ways here at RS. Guess it takes one to campaign for one.

  • texasref

    It would be refreshing to hear of a Mormon on redstate who supports one of the other 3 guys.

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

    …but Gregory persisted, spending 50% of the time on social issues.

  • texasref

    because I’ve always wondered when hell would freeze over.

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

    …but not with moderates/independents.

    Please enlighten!

  • CarolT

    Romney should have reached out to us, the conservatives. Now I will vote for him if he is the GOP nominee but I will do nothing, no donations, signs, calls to help him because he is a weak candidate and I do not think he can beat Obama.

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    First, it’s my mother, not grandmother, and she’s pretty savvy even with the limited resources (no computer or sources of info other than those I noted). We’ve had some lengthy discussions because she knows I’m more tuned in re records, policies, proposals, etc. of the candidates. She did watch a few of the debates and has been a fan of Newt’s, but pretty much remains undecided. Regardless of whether her news comes from Fox (who I think is in the tank for Romney) or otherwise, her reaction to Romney comes from her gut. I could tell her I’d changed my mind about him tomorrow, and even though she trusts my judgment, I doubt it would sway her opinion. I would also note that I have other family members whose level of participation in politics is somewhere between her level and mine who have had the same reaction to Romney. This is anecdotal, to be sure, but it is the consensus among the people I know.

    Early on, I was a Cain supporter. Not trying to go all victim here, but Cain supporters certainly weren’t treated with kid gloves and were every bit as maligned for our support of Cain as Romney supporters are. Idiot, fool, white guilt voter, racist – you name it. There were some who responded in kind, and they were banned. I daresay, it’s been somewhat the same with each of the candidates. Personally, there came a time that I got sick of another candidate’s supporters and backed away from redstate for a while. But even then, they had an answer ready to defend their candidate rather than just attacks. It just seems to me there is a larger number of Romney supporters who say little to advance their candidate (not including you in that mix).

    Yes, I want a candidate who will attack the liberal policies that have gotten us in this mess, as well as take on those in the GOP who have done little to prevent it. You said this isn’t Romney’s style, yet he seems to have no problem attacking other candidates but won’t go after Obama. Was there really that much negative campaigning until Florida which was his response to Newt winning SC?

    I might feel differently about Romney had I seen evidence that he isn’t moderate, but his refusal to pan Romneycare, his waffling on Obamacare, including this recent revelation on the mandate, his record of judges, his comments about the safety net for the poor, and a dozen other things just aren’t convincing. If Romney were to win the general, I think the GOP will use it to further marginalize conservatives. Regardless of the fact that, historically, we are the good soldiers who show up to vote even when forced to hold our noses, they’ll point to a Romney victory as one for reaching across the aisle, moving toward the center, anything to keep their fiefdom of power, and I have little confidence that they’ll do much to fully repeal Obamacare, push the conservative agenda or appoint constitutional judges. I vehemently disagree with the path President Bush eventually chose with regard to spending, “compassionate conservatism,” and even how to fight and finish a war, but his SCOTUS appointments were stellar. Unfortunately, I don’t think Romney is as conservative as President Bush.

  • haners

    How come your candidate Newt will only get about 38% in his home state of Georgia?

    It’s pretty hard to get majority in a field of four, including the Paulbots.

  • kowalski

    .

  • texasref

    he will have more delegates than Santorum, and so Santorum needs to drop out on Wednesday. That’s Newt’s path forward.

  • haners

    Newt grew up in PA and now lives in Virginia. There’s a reason Newt doesn’t have a Southern accent. But could Newt win PA?

    Romney lived in Mass for 40+ years and had political office in the state. He also still currently lives there. I think that’s pretty close to home state as it gets.

  • rightland1111

    this is. we are going to bypass Europe, going bankrupt…which I guess we already are. This does not even take into account the number of doctors that are leaving the medical field because they will not work for minimum wage. Lots of them have student loans to pay off.

    Vision for the future: The less money people have…the more crime and the more corruption. Sad…huh

  • texasref

    to the percentage Romney got in Michigan. I welcome that contrast.

  • lapert

    They are awful. When your unfavorables are in the mid-50′s or 60′s it either reflects a huge problem with your base and the other base or with moderates/independents.

  • texasref

    (Gingrich to Romney, respectively)

  • texasref

    Go figure!

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

    …i would first note that MITT feels The Donald is helpful, else he wouldn’t have him record serial robo-calls.

    Thus, although you may disagree, in the cauldron of ideas, the MANIFESTATION of internal strategizing supports the view that his input is perceived as a political-positive.

    Regarding The Newt’s stance on the Individual Mandate, I grappled with J.Sob. [and Wonkish1] on this issue aggressively, and I don’t like the “Bond” idea that he had promulgated in his books…but this is a far cry from continuing to defend state-level Individual Mandates [as Mitt keeps doing].

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

    …and shoot me an e-mail if you reply to this, because I have to go out to dinner and don’t want to miss the opportunity to drive-home these concepts [in public, subject to RESPECTFUL commentary, as per the rules].

  • texasref

    and Newt will be the Not Romney.

    However, Santorum being the establishment team player that he is, will surely endorse Romney, so I don’t know that it will do any good to be the last one standing against Romney.

  • texasref

    and here I thought he was the conservative keeping Boehner’s moderate liberality in check.

    He’s just Boehner-lite.

  • texasref

    These establishment rethuglicans don’t care that America is in decline; all they care about is that they stay in power over the decline. Addressing the real issues presents a risk that one of the apples in the apple cart that gets overturned could be THEIR apple.

  • texasref

    nt

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

    …then there will be only resting-spot for the non-Mitts.

    As my father used to advise, as a GP in the late-1930′s, before he became a radiation oncologist [s/p Burma-Road], “I prescribe ‘tincture of time’!”

  • texasref

    question the authenticity of the rare position changes Gingrich has had given the list of smelly laundry that Romney’s been toting around.

    (not that you’re necessarily a Rombot, just commenting)

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

    …just for you!

    [seriously, it is illustrative of the fa?ade which the SCUM has erected around him...until it's convenient to KO him in favor of Mitt]

  • CarolT

    Everyone loved Perry until he became a threat to Romney. He had a lot of interviews when Fed Up came out, etc.

  • redcal

    ..they sincerely thought Santorum had a shot with middle class white independents (that they know Obama has a major problem with) until Santorum’s culture-war overreaching last week, and were even more worried about Jeb Bush (with his easy ties to the growing Hispanic vote).

    Romney makes them rub their hands and practically jump with liberal glee. He plays into every liberal trope about the right. Even the Rush Limbaugh thing made him look bad — all three Sunday political shows were wondering why Romney was so ‘timid’ about pulling back from the Sandra Fluke comments. Every week the libs around here (Cal) get happier and I get a little more disgruntled.

  • lapert

    You didn’t say that Mitt found it useful – and I have no insight into their strategy discussions to know if that is so. You said the media is claiming it – I would like to know who and where. I did see some people note that he was doing robocalls, mostly in the context of it reflecting desperation, but I didn’t see anyone credit it with actual impact.

    As for the individual mandate, Gingrich most certainly thought that was the preference. He always threw out the ‘bond’ as an option for the most libertarian but with the addition that, and this is a direct quote,”Most people would discover that?s irrational, I think, and they?d buy insurance.? You should find the audio from one of his roadshows in 2008/9, they are scattered online – he was very clear about his preference for mandated insurance for everyone – must carry so we can have must issue.

  • lapert

    Pennsylvania is in late April, by then Santorum will be out as will Newt and the Non-Romney candidate will be Obama. Hopefully, we will all be solidly behind the Non-Obama candidate at that point.

    It requires quite the imagination to see Newt staying in after winning just GA on Tuesday (with a good chance that he doesn’t finish better than third anywhere else).

  • trickamsterdam

    So he’s not really “supporting” him, which implies talking him up, donations and/or volunteering, working in all sorts of ways to get him elected.

    Granted, many of us won’t even be voting for him, so in that sense he’s supporting him more than we will be.

    As for this:

    “Think Romney can?t win? Then why is he closing the gap (to which I predicted check my archives) in Ohio the same way he did in Michigan?” – Ind. Con.

    You admitted in this very post that it’s his money that gives him his influence and staying power, not his ideas (he has none).

    Since Obama will have far more money (and people better get real: it’s not even going to be close) in the general election, by your own logic, Obama will have more influence and staying power…that is to say, he’ll spank Romney.

    PS – With the moderates angry that conservatives didn’t support Romney hard enough or soon enough, and conservatives and libertarians furious that
    moderates forced another loser on us, after Romney’s sure defeat, I foresee the Republican Party being at its weakest point since at least post-Watergate. Far weaker than in 2009, when everyone was pretty much united against Obama. And it will all be the doing of Romney and Romney supporters, of which you are one.

  • tomrt

    with dishonest negative attacks. That’s a staggering amount of nastiness to be aimed at a single individual in 3 state primaries (IA, SC, FL), and Newt’s numbers across the board became soft from that. Newt has time to turn his numbers around, and he is the only GOP contender who has spearheaded and won a nationwide campaign before (1994 GOP comeback.)

  • SoFiMil

    and now Santorum, with Newt following closing behind. In a distant 3rd place of the remaining candidates is Romney. I refuse to even place Ron Paul on the list at all.

    4 years ago, I originally supported Brownback, then Fred Thompson, and with McCain, Romney, and Huckabee, went with McCain.

  • Scope

    in the early 90″s, when Newt was the speaker, he came up with his “solution” to fight Hillarcare, or government run socialized healthcare. Back then, and as late as last year, Newt’s Republican solution was to say that one must purchase healthcare insurance, post a bond for something like $250,000., or if you are under $50,000 in income level, apply for government subsidized healthcare monies, which I consider to be Medicaid. Newt equated his position to the mandate to purchase auto insurance, which is absolutely not the same thing. In Iowa this year, Newt, in a townhall, again talked about personal responsibility in people not being responsible for the healthcare costs of their neighbors that haven’t purchased healthcare insurance. Newt said his position was the Republican alternative to federal mandates. He claims that he gives options to people. So my question is, if you demand/require people to buy healthcare insurance, post a bond, or apply for Medicaid depending on your income situation, how is that not a mandate. He is still requiring people to do one of his options, and that is a government mandate, with one or two more options. He said that government run healthcare, that puts price controls on healthcare industry policies, then results in lower quality healthcare, and a lack of availability of healthcare. Were the ever increasing healthcare insurance company premiums just born when Obamacare was born? Was there a problem with ever increasing healthcare premiums in existence before before Obama? Yes. Can we have found other alternatives to socialized mandated healthcare other than Obamacare? Yes. Purchasing insurance across state lines was a great idea. Tort reform was another great idea.

    Has he said anything about getting rid of the government mandates that have been in place longer than Ocare. Has he ever addressed the fact that states themselves, including Republican run states, favor one healthcare provider over any others, to decrease competition, and we all know that without competition companies can charge whatever they want. In VA, Anthem Blue Cross holds something like 95% of the healthcare insurance policies on insured Virginians. It’s a state game. Governors and state legislators promise everything to one healthcare provider, promising none to little competition for moving into their state, in exchange for providing jobs, and campaign donations. It’s a game that both parties play. I’ll support any candidate that tackles that state non-competitive problem.

    I’ve read that Santorum also supported the individual mandate. I’m still trying to find that support. In the early 90′s, when Gingrich was proposing his alternative’s to Hillary, Santorum supported individuals getting off employers insurance policies, and being able to have portable insurance. Santorum supported individuals having high deductible major medical insurance, along with participating in Medisave. Medisave was his version of personal healthcare savings accounts, that all contributions were tax free. If I am missing something about Santorums support of the Gramm bill, which included personal savings accounts, please correct me.

  • antisesquipedalion

    a quote from “The Princess Bride” is always welcome

  • clintonformccain

    NT

  • avagreen

    Google (or Bing……I’ve excorcized Google ;) ) Clear Channel and Romney and Bain.

    You’ll get your answer. I’ve posted this several times in the past.

  • minister_of_war

    I’m sorry that I confused your mother & your grandmother. I’m not sure why I thought you said that. It does sound like you know what I’m talking about when it comes to banning people on here for getting frustrated when they fightback after being called names by certain RedState bullies. I guess it just takes a while to get used to the rules here & understand that they don’t always seem to be evenly applied, but regardless rules are rules & they can be used against anybody.

    You mention Florida as the beginning of the negative campaign, but according to Newt, Romney attacked him mercilessly in Iowa & according to Newt, that is why Newt didn’t win the Iowa Caucuses. We all saw Newt’s reaction to that & many believed that Newt decided that he would then begin a scorched Earth payback campaign to ruin Romney regardless of what that meant for the General Election. Newt’s speech after losing Florida was the biggest example of this.

    But while Romney & his supporters have attacked Romney’s primary opponents, Romney has no problem attacking Obama. In fact, Romney is constantly attacking the President & his policies. Yet Romney does also have to focus on the contests at hand. Just yesterday, it was reported that Romney commented that he doesn’t even know how Obama can sleep at night. According to ABCNews, “After a military mother told him her daughter doesn?t understand her mission in the Air Force. Romney questioned how President Obama can ‘sleep at night,’ knowing troops overseas don?t understand ‘precisely what they?re doing there.’”

    Romney will attack Obama & he will hit him hard & I am confident that Romney will win the General Election because Romney will not back down to the Obama political machine.

    I disagree that Romney intends to “further marginalize conservatives”. In someways some conservatives are trying to marginalize themselves by going so anti-Romney, but even then Romney will definitely include many conservatives as a major part of in his inner circle. This is plain to see based upon who Romney has advising him on the various issues that a President will face. It is a valid fear that we face though because so many Republican Administrations have let us conservatives down & used conservatives to win yet shunned us while developing or implementing political policy. This is why it is of absolute importance to always be paying attention to what any Administration (Republican or Democrat) does at any time so that nothing gets pushed through without our knowledge. This is also why the internet really changes things when it comes to what politicians can get away with.

    But I disagree with you completely & think that Romney is much more conservative than President Bush was. We can just look at their differing stances on amnesty for illegal aliens as one example. Also, there is no evidence that Romney is pushing a proposal to expand the Federal Government like Bush did. Bush passed No Child Left Behind, he created the enormous Department of Homeland Security, he pushed & passed Medicare Part D, and there are many other things that Bush did that angered conservatives, and there is no evidence Romney would behave in the same manner on a national scale. And you speak of Bush’s excellent picks for the Supreme Court, but remember that those picks included Harriet Myers & if it weren’t for conservatives, she would have likely been on the Court today as a completely unreliable jurist regarding the issues that are most important to conservative voters.

    Regarding healthcare, I really do see a difference between what a state does & what the Constitution would allow the Federal Government to implement nationally. ObamaCare is unconstitutional for any number of reasons. RomneyCare doesn’t have that same problem. The problem with RomneyCare, as someone else here pointed out here, is that in order to pay for it, Romney received large grants from the Federal Government. But likewise, it would be difficult to say whether or not that money was money that really did belong in Massachusetts in the first place & should have never been in the Federal Government’s hands due to their overtaxing of the citizens of Massachusetts along with the rest of us. But regarding whether or not the statements made in Romney’s USAToday op-ed or on ?Meet the Press? were any kinds of revelations, I’ve already gone into that. I think that Erick Erickson is grasping at straws & his ends justify his means. But I did take the time to traspose on this page exactly what Romney said in that ?Meet the Press? interview, and I don’t agree that the assumptions reached by Erickson are necessarily justified.

  • minister_of_war

    nt

  • texasref

    Santorum will be out well before it gets to Pennsylvania, and we can finally have one single non-Ron-Paul non-Romney candidate to rally behind.

  • vastrightwingconspiracy

    Howzabout the position change that Newt’s a conservative? Or that he was tight with Reagan? Or the “Individual Mandate?” Or that his utter bewilderment that Romney owned bonds in Fannie/Freddie?

    That’s just for starters.

    I think there’s enough position changes by 3 of the 4 candidates to choke an elephant. Paul is the only truly consistent candidate, which is why he’s been a largely ineffective legislator.

  • antisesquipedalion

    the only thing worse than Fox in that regard is Fox news on line

  • antisesquipedalion

    what am i supposed to google ?

  • vangoghssister

    then tell me where I mentioned ARIZONA by name??? You will find that I did not, unless of course you think Arizona has a border that touches the Pacific ocean in which case, I can’t help you.

    In fact, I mentioned no state by name, only some regions.

    So Minister-of-War, I will allow you to apologize to me for putting words in my mouth.

  • lapert

    Want to bet on that? He is going to finish ahead of Santorum in one state (Georgia) – no way he ends up with a higher delegate count from Tuesday let alone enough to be ahead of Santorum come Wednesday morning. Are your dreams based on anything more than hope and delusion because they sure ain’t based on polling or patterns of the other primaries and caucuses.

    But I guess we can meet back here on Wednesday and see. You willing to bet on it – how about the loser write a diary regaling the wonder of the winning candidate?

  • lapert

    His high unfavorables go back long before this primary season. I count 47 polls since January 2011 and he was under 50% unfavorable only 15 times – not once did his favorables exceed his unfavorables.

    Newt’s long past the time to turn those numbers around – they are what they are.

  • antisesquipedalion

    does Pawlenty have a copyright/trade mark on that term

  • antisesquipedalion

    but who would fetch the fava beans

  • antisesquipedalion

    would be great to have an ad with Mr Severely Conservative at the beginning and follow with 20-30 seconds of rip roaring laughter

  • texasref

    I’m referring to, lapert, and given that clarification, yes, the bet is on if you agree to it.

  • lapert

    Good, the bet is on. By the way, I want to say I think your recent posts on the gay marriage thread were very well presented.

    Oh, and you might want to check out fiverthityeight’s analysis of Tuesday’s delegate allocations (forgetting for a second Silver’s obvious political biases I find his electoral analysis generally pretty good and his statistical predictive models as good as any on the internet).

  • acat

    and sending some reinforcements to help Mark Kirk.

    Mew

  • demsaresatanic

    for the actual interview.

  • acat

    the problem with the Gingrich proposal is that he wanted to use government to implement it. This is not the right job for the government, and/or the wrong tool for the job .. but that doesn’t surprise me.

    What surprises me is the Dems didn’t pick up and run with it…

    Mew

  • JSobieski

    and providing kids with the tools of self-learning is bad?

    We don’t live in an ideal world. Government wastes a whole lot of money, much of that on the “education” of kids.

    A non-indoctrination learning tool is hardly a crazy idea.

    Frankly, online learning could be the silver bullet for a lot of education and monetary problems.

  • acat

    The information age, internet age, computer age, whatever the recorders of history end up calling it, is going to change how kids learn, how they interact …

    I had a conversation earlier today with a couple friends and their kids – the kids were trying to imagine a world before smart phones …and failing! “How would you find out where you need to go without GPS?” “How would you check what all your friends are doing without calling or texting them?” …

    The trouble – and what surprised me – is how much control the education industry, especially the unions, are able to exert over Dems to keep technology out of the classroom.

    Mew

  • JSobieski

    A lof of subjects like math are better off being taught systematically in a 1 on 1 setting (online, with materials created by the best teachers) than they are in a live classroom where the teacher isn’t really qualified to teach math (which happens more than one might think).

    There is a reason why India wants to have special low-end mass produced inexpensive laptops for its students.

    The days of the NEA are numbered.

  • lineholder

    Math is a good subject to teach via computers. So are other subjects such as spelling and vocabulary. I’ve used computers for those in learning medical terminology. And this really great site called “visible body” that teaches anatomy of the human body. Anyone interested should check it! It’s 3-D and you can peel away surfaces to see other anatomical parts.

    http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/03/03/further-proof-romney-supported-a-national-individual-mandate-in-2009/#comment-175439

    We could go to have classroom assistants in the classroom with teachers on hand for those students who need mentoring. The computerized programs would establish more consistent standards. The outcomes for education programs would be clearly defined. If you have students who learn more quickly than others, than don’t have to wait for the remainder of the class…they can be given advanced problems to work on.

    Lots of options with education! Maybe some enterprising person will pick up a few ideas, take it, run with it, and challenge what we have in place.

    This would be a good time to start thinking about, too, when states are cash-strapped.

  • lineholder

    http://www.visiblebody.com/tour_what_is_it

  • aesthete

    IMO, if state control (rather than funding) of education were not so pervasive in the modern world, we would already have had significant sectors of the K-12 market move towards online/alternative methods of teaching long ago. The higher ed market (which has much more diverse curricula and generally more technical/higher level material) has a much larger online and tech component than the current K-12 market. That is even more true of the tutoring market, which is an even freer market than higher ed. In a sane world, we would be using technology to re-visualize K-12 education as something fun and exciting. We would use technology and multimedia to present education in an attention-grabbing way, do away with the brick-and-mortar experience, and have a more healthy, Montessori-like approach to student-teacher relationships instead — or other approaches which allow a student’s creativity and intelligence to flourish.

    This insistence on operating under an archaic regimen that didn’t work even when it was first established, is killing us. As a society, we have forced children to live their formative years in a prison where their actions are governed by agents of the state, where they are not taught how to think but what to think, and where non-conformists are squelched — parroting the teacher is the name of the game. OTOH, students otherwise exist in cruel hierarchies created by their fellow (very immature and emotionally stunted) peers, wherein success and popularity is achieved through following the crowd, no matter how cruel or immoral that crowd can be to “outsiders”. Adults interfere with this process only when they absolutely have to, and are otherwise discouraged (by regs and unions) to rock the boat to much by moving away from the established paradigm. And we wonder why we have a society filled with supine cowards who worship democracy instead of rights, and a people who look to their peers or their temporal authority for cues about the “right answer” when it comes to any subject?

  • JSobieski

    http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm

    I know that even in Public K-12, kids with special needs are relying substantially on online courses.

  • JSobieski

    Although I did learn how to fight pretty well.

  • lineholder

    That’s the Obama admin’s new education initiative. I was just reading about it at Town Hall.

    http://townhall.com/columnists/luritadoan/2012/03/05/team_obama_continues_regulatory_juggernaut

    It moves teaching away from outcome accountability, but expands the program to allow for volunteers via AmeriCorps. These volunteers get paid housing, meals, medical benefits (limited), up to $400 per month for child care (if needed) and a $400 per month stipend.

    http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/obama-administration-announces-together-tomorrow

    http://www.americorps.gov/Default.asp

    http://www.nationalservice.gov/pdf/300006-000CBJ_2012_final.pdf
    (make sure you check out the pages requesting expansion of funds at this site!)

    This is supposed to be included in Obama’s 2013 fiscal budget. Did it even pass Congress yet? Or are they doing another “end-around”?

  • lineholder

    You’ll get no backlash from me for it, I can promise you that. I think going high-tech could be the best thing that ever happened to our education system.

    And I definitely like the idea of altering the current system in such a way that it minimizes the indoctrination influence of those teachers who have bought into the left’s narrative so deep that THEY can’t think for themselves anymore.

  • http://MichaelHarrington.org Michael Harrington

    Would you start a diary so I could keep up with this discussion?

  • Martin Knight

    All 9 of the Governor’s Council’s members are Democrats. And after they give their approval, the nominee still has to go through the MA Senate which has 35 Democrats to 5 Republicans. There’s no way any nominee who is even suspected of being squeamish about abortion would make it through.

    So what was Romney to do? Refuse to nominate anyone to the courts for four years?

    Besides, it won’t make a difference to you either way, would it? I mean, Romney issued 800+ vetoes during his time as Governor, but I’ve seen it being dismissed as window-dressing because 700 of those vetoes were overturned.

    PS: All of your links are useless if not a single one of them was honest enough to mention the Governor’s Council and the role they play in vetting the Governor’s judicial nominations.

  • jakeofalltrades

    In addition to hand-to-hand combat, I also learned algebra in junior high.

  • http://www.terinewman.com teridavisnewman

    teridavisnewman (Diary) Monday, March 5th at 6:37AM EST (link)
    Romney may be Obama-Lite but I believe that he loves America. Even the Democrats realize that Obama is a Commie and he?s not raising NEARLY the money he thought he would raise because even his own party realizes what a huge mistake his election was. Hillary was ready. Obama is not?still.
    I started a doomsday strategy in 2008 as a backup plan. I?d suggest everyone take whatever steps are needed to ride out a second Obama term just in case. Romney isn?t my first choice?he?s not not even my third choice. Bush wasn?t that hot of a POTUS either, but I never doubted his patriotism but the blatant corruption that is Obama and Co. is frightening. Protect your assets hide your money and stock up on non-perishables and ammo. It will be a long 4 years if we don?t support the Republican nominee NO MATTER WHO IT IS. It?s survival time for America and Americans and I do not believe America will exist as we know it if Obama gets a second term. Grow up people and get rid of Obama?we?ll have plenty of time to find a GOOD candidate for 2016 to primary Romney with, but OBAMA MUST NOT?MUST NOT BE ELECTED TO A SECOND TERM. That?s the bottom line folks. A ham sandwich is a better choice than Obama and Romney is at least good enough to stop the hemorrhage while we look for a real conservative for 2016. We are playing into the hands of Obama?s people as they pump and dump candidates to keep us from uniting behind one candidate to ensure Obama?s defeat November 6, 2012. Nothing else matter except that OBAMA MUST NOT BE RE-ELECTED!!!

  • edintexas

    A 3 day wonder with lots of posts. Romneybot or paid campaign worker?

  • acat

    Somehow, I do not see an aide who the teacher has to spend classroom time training as an asset.

    Mew

  • lineholder

    My idea, which I referenced above, used classroom assistants also, but I was thinking in lieu of teachers not in addition to teachers. Cut down on the number of teachers. Used a computerized format for educational purposes. The format would provide greater consistency in the curriculum. Our outcomes would probably improve. The cost would be reduced. Students who have the initiative and desire to do so could be motivated to learn more by using advanced curriculum formats.

    acat, the Dems are up to something on this, and I’m not exactly sure what their objective is. They drop NCLB. Then they announce this “Together for Tommorrow” initiative, which decreases emphasis on outcomes. They throw in a mini-WPA via AmeriCorps to make the “community” part of it sound good. But then when you consider the speculative ruling made by the EEOC in December about requiring employers to provide substantiation that jobs require graduation from high school to be employed, and that such requirements can infringe on the rights of people who are “educationally challenged”….where are they going with this? These are Dems we’re talking about. They don’t do things “coincidentally”. It’s all part of an objective. That’s how they work.

    What are they aiming for on this? Just another dumbing down of America stage?

  • JSobieski

    Home schooling before it was called home schooling.

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    or Subsidized Crap At Best (SCAB).

  • lineholder

    It’s another bleeding-heart, touchy-feely, high-dollar, hidden under the context of good social program that probably won’t contribute much of anything to improving educational outcomes for young Americans.

    I’d like to believe differently, but I don’t. Not when they kick accountability for outcomes out of the loop.

  • Seedyrom

    talking about.

  • Seedyrom

    for the worlds shortest time till flip flopping on the Blunt bill.

  • http://www.BillBowenAuthor.com RightinSanFrancisco

    So this is new news? Back when Romney did healthcare in Massachusetts he gave the people of the state what they wanted. He was – and perhaps still is – inadequately concerned about the mandate, but has not done a flip on what he did as governor. That hurts him badly in the primaries, but will help in the general. That is part of the reason that the Democrats are lining up with Santorum in running ads and making news releases against him now. I like Romney for his broad understanding and ability in the private sector economy – and his strength as a turnarpound guy.

    www.RightinSanFrancisco.com

  • WillWong

    I have written a Diary on the smears which questioned Newt’s support of Reagan. It is here:-

    http://www.redstate.com/willwong/2012/02/24/newt-rush-reagan-and-elliot-abrams-the-truth-behind-newts-march-21st-1986-special-order-speech/

  • vangoghssister

    :-) a little text, mostly a grin

  • texasref

    for the compliment.

  • avagreen

    Clear Channel and Romney and Bain.
    I use Bing, not Google since their “privacy policies ” changed on March 1, 2012.

    https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/02/how-remove-your-google-search-history-googles-new-privacy-policy-takes-effect#update

    https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/02/what-actually-changed-google%27s-privacy-policy

    https://www.eff.org/wp/six-tips-protect-your-search-privacy

  • demsaresatanic

    This is beside the point, ER’s must provide services whether or not they get paid, they can’t operate like other businesses.

  • Flagstaff

    I did smile. And I was baptized many years ago. As I said maybe somewhere else, I’m a recovering Presbyterian. (^:^) I know it doesn’t satisfy most other Christians, but I believe the best way to live is following the example and teachings of Christ the best I can. (Aside: I would bet a lot that what I just wrote is what many others believe, but don’t say.) But that’s all basically irrelevant to this blog.

    My reference to Ralph Reed may be off a bit. It was when he was on the Hannity panel last week. I had only memory to refer to and… well, you know, I had to work at it to remember his name. But the gist of his statement was that Mormons and evangelicals are very close to each other. Perhaps I interjected my own observation that the MSM seems to think there is a lot of antipathy to Romney among evangelicals because he’s a Mormon. I do know they were strong supporters of Santorum (odd that Catholics seem to prefer Romney), but of course that doesn’t mean evangelicals don’t like Romney too. Just less.

    I missed the Red Meat blog, but I’ll read it tomorrow. It looks tasty!

  • Flagstaff

    Plenty of good answers by all three “contestants.” Mike may not be Jim Lange, but he did a good job and kept things moving. The only bad spot was near the end, when the “civilian” lady asked Santorum a question about whether he intended to make cuts to Social Security immediately, which he didn’t answer directly. Instead, he gave us a history of Social Security and reiterated why Social Security needs to be fixed..

    She tried to ask again, “But Senator…,” but she was cut off for equal-time reasons. Understandable, but not satisfying.

    OTOH, it was a great example of how a politician doesn’t really catch the nuanced question that the citizen is asking, and so he instead answers his own question.