PDA

View Full Version : Mitt Romney... our current biggest 2012 obstacle?




nathanmn
04-17-2010, 12:14 PM
Mitt Romney is filthy rich so he can self fund his campaign, has a large and experienced campaign staff, gets tons of media attention, and generally looks like he is going to be going into 2012 with a huge head start for the presidential nomination. However, he has tons of weaknesses that can be exploited. He passed Romney Care in Massachusetts, which is very similar to Obama care. He passed an assault weapons ban in Massachusetts. He has an overall liberal record and positions(until campaigning for president, of course...), but the previously mentioned issues I think would be great to rub in his face as much as possible.

Does everyone here remember how Giuliani had Ron Paul people protesting his events? There were Ron Paul signs and supporters everywhere he went for a while. I even remember a hilarious photo-shopped picture of him surrounded by the signs. I think Romney should get that same treatment. Everywhere he goes we should be there reminding everyone that:
"Mitt care=Obama care, say no to socialism"
"Mitt Romney thinks the 2nd amendment is about hunting"
"Go back to Massachusetts, and keep your socialism there where it belongs"
"The next Arlen Specter?"
Etc.

Thoughts?

dr. hfn
04-17-2010, 12:24 PM
Mittens attack website anyone?

nathanmn
04-17-2010, 12:33 PM
Mittens attack website anyone?

Yeah, that and maybe youtube attack ads, complete with ominous music and scary voice. People eat that shit up.

South Park Fan
04-17-2010, 12:51 PM
Yeah Mittens is probably the main obstacle for the presidency, which means we must have a really good shot. :)

Pointing out inconsistencies with Romney's record and highlighting Ron Paul's support for homeschooling ought to win over many primary voters.

RileyE104
04-17-2010, 01:03 PM
I've always wanted to get back at Romney ever since this:

YouTube - Romney Booed after mocking Ron Paul (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK35CVFVVac)


Furthermore, I can't believe people would actually support Romney after this:

YouTube - Ron Paul tells Mitt Romney to read the Constitution! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3BbIPbLSRw)

Smitty
04-17-2010, 01:06 PM
Romney isn't going very far.

The media has already started hammering him about how the health care plan he established for Massachusetts has much in common with what Obama pushed through Congress.

My guess is, Rick Perry will be the "chosen one".

He's talking a bunch of populist sounding rhetoric which is entwined with neocon warmongering.

Sentient Void
04-17-2010, 01:14 PM
Romney isn't going very far.

The media has already started hammering him about how the health care plan he established for Massachusetts has much in common with what Obama pushed through Congress.

My guess is, Rick Perry will be the "chosen one".

He's talking a bunch of populist sounding rhetoric which is entwined with neocon warmongering.

Yeah, they have definitely called him out on RomneyCare out in the MSM... but I feel they have been letting him get away with his half-assed explanations for it way too easily. But of course you can't expect anything less from the MSM on letting people spin their way out of a situation.

Although I'm not a big O'Reilly fan - he did do a pretty good job on slamming him about RomneyCare in MA, and didn't really let him spin his way out of it as easily.

I suggest we rename Mitt Romney to Mitt 'The Mandate' Romney :D

RileyE104
04-17-2010, 01:21 PM
Yeah, they have definitely called him out on RomneyCare out in the MSM... but I feel they have been letting him get away with his half-assed explanations for it way too easily. But of course you can't expect anything less from the MSM on letting people spin their way out of a situation.

Although I'm not a big O'Reilly fan - he did do a pretty good job on slamming him about RomneyCare in MA, and didn't really let him spin his way out of it as easily.

I suggest we rename Mitt Romney to Mitt 'The Mandate' Romney :D

YouTube - See Mitt Romney Promote an Individual Mandate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6DrH6P9OC0)

Anyone else remember the scene @ 44 seconds? :D

Smitty
04-17-2010, 01:22 PM
.
Although I'm not a big O'Reilly fan - he did do a pretty good job on slamming him about RomneyCare in MA, and didn't really let him spin his way out of it as easily.



For the most part, FOX network is the propaganda arm of the GOP.

If O'Reilly is grilling Romney, it means that Romney doesn't have favor with the republican party machine.

Sentient Void
04-17-2010, 02:36 PM
YouTube - See Mitt Romney Promote an Individual Mandate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6DrH6P9OC0)

Anyone else remember the scene @ 44 seconds? :D

Haha, I'm totally sending this viral.

Sentient Void
04-17-2010, 02:57 PM
So, I decided to do a quick search to find Romney's main grassroots central forums... this is I think the best I could find...

http://mittromneycentral.com/forum/

[Admin note: Text cut- please do not initiate anything that could start a forum war. Thanks.]

They have like NO topics or replies... especially compared to us.

Tend yer biscuits.
04-17-2010, 03:01 PM
"Most users ever online was 5."

Ha!

dr. hfn
04-17-2010, 03:12 PM
"most users ever online was 5."

ha!

lmao!

Aratus
04-17-2010, 03:20 PM
its an ACTUAL gentleman mitt forum and is NOT a spoof one? :D okaaaay...

Tend yer biscuits.
04-17-2010, 03:25 PM
[Admin note: Text cut- please do not initiate anything that could start a forum war. Thanks.]


Downside: blowback. Could any other group pull off the same here?

Sentient Void
04-17-2010, 03:30 PM
I dunno if such forums even have enough traffic for it to be of any real impact... the ROI would be minimal.

lol

Tend yer biscuits.
04-17-2010, 03:39 PM
How about here?

http://mittromneycentral.com/community/links/

First five comments in blog and news entries might do some damage.

Nate G.
04-17-2010, 04:03 PM
It's funny to me that you guys scoff at the forums I installed just last week and not even officially announced yet.

You see that there are only 10 members, that's because I've only sent an email to 8 people to join the forum to help me test settings and permissions and such until we announce on our facebook page and blog that it is open. ( http://facebook.com/mittromneycentral )

Our whole site is relatively new since it was established just 7 months ago, yet we are already at a 5 google ranking. Daily Paul is a 5 also, these forums are a 4.

We are new and we are growing. Thanks for you interest in "bombing our site".

BTW - It doesn't reflect well on Dr. Paul (whom I have a lot of respect for) when his supporters go about seeking to destroy other sites.

~Nate G.

Sentient Void
04-17-2010, 04:33 PM
Wow, I'm surprised how quickly of a response we got after merely a few hours of talking about it!

As we can all tell - our forums are being watched by pretty much everyone - we must be even more popular than we thought.

Nate - I'm glad you guys found a place to concentrate your efforts and ideas, discussion, etc. Just so you know by 'infiltrate' I never meant anything of an attack.

What I do mean, however, is that if you guys truly value free markets, liberty and the constitution - then you should all be easily converted to the ideas of true liberty, and that of Ron Paul... as opposed to Mitt 'The Mandate' Romney.

Either way, good luck.

Flash
04-17-2010, 04:37 PM
Biggest obstacle? I'm not so sure. I have a feeling he might actually become the Giuliani of 2012. His health care plan is too similar to Obama's to gain any real credit amongst the conservative wing of the Republican Party. Early polls may show him as the front runner but no one, with the exception of Palin & Paul, has been campaigning for the white house yet.

Nate G.
04-17-2010, 04:42 PM
Wow, I'm surprised how quickly of a response we got after merely a few hours of talking about it!

As we can all tell - our forums are being watched by pretty much everyone - we must be even more popular than we thought.

Nate - I'm glad you guys found a place to concentrate your efforts and ideas, discussion, etc. Just so you know by 'infiltrate' I never meant anything of an attack.

What I do mean, however, is that if you guys truly value free markets, liberty and the constitution - then you should all be easily converted to the ideas of true liberty, and that of Ron Paul... as opposed to Mitt 'The Mandate' Romney.

Either way, good luck.

I wasn't actually monitoring your forum, but monitoring our live feed via feedjit: http://live.feedjit.com/live/mittromneycentral.com/0/

When I saw the links coming in I took a look to see what was up.

paulitics
04-17-2010, 04:43 PM
Mitt Romney is everything that is wrong with America.

BlackTerrel
04-17-2010, 04:45 PM
Here's the way I break it down. With the caveat that a lot can change between now and the next couple years.

Palin/Huckabee - Very popular with Republican base (IE those that vote in Republican primaries). But very limited support outside the base. Nominating Huckabee or Palin probably gifts Obama another four years.

Paul/Romney - Less popular with Republican base but have a very good chance of defeating Obama.

The big question is whether the Republican base will vote for their ideal candidate who has no chance of winning. Or whether they'll suck it up and vote for someone who has a chance of becoming President.

Romney's religion will be a much bigger deal in the primaries than in the general.

Nate G.
04-17-2010, 04:48 PM
Mitt Romney is everything that is wrong with America.


I'd beg to differ with you on that. BARACK OBAMA is everything that is wrong with America.

Sentient Void
04-17-2010, 04:50 PM
I don't see any reason to believe why Paul would even think of having Romney as his VP.

Paul is a man of pure principle, Romney is man of little to no principle. A true flip-flopper with an obvious desire for power and special interests (through his loveable mandates).

Flash
04-17-2010, 04:52 PM
“I think that’s unfortunate because when you actually look at the bill itself, it incorporates all sorts of Republican ideas. I mean, a lot of commentators have said, you know, this is this is similar to the bill that Mitt Rommey, the Republican governor and now presidential candidate, passed in Massachusetts.”-- Obama


Paul/Romney - Less popular with Republican base but have a very good chance of defeating Obama.


I see Obama portraying Mitt Romney as a complete opportunist hypocrite.


I'd beg to differ with you on that. BARACK OBAMA is everything that is wrong with America.

Actually, Obama hasn't done anything really different than the Republican Party of the last few decades. The GOP in my state passed a type of socialized health care locally and the GOP is famous for resorting to Obama's tactics when it came to Congress voting on bills, ie the Patriot Act. And by "Obama's tactics" I mean giving Congress only a few hours to read a bill that is 1,000 pages long. But when Bill Clinton or Obama do these things, all hell breaks loose. You see my point?

Thats why our Tea Party movement has to completely reform the GOP and in part the Democratic Party too in order to get America back on track.

Sentient Void
04-17-2010, 04:53 PM
I'd beg to differ with you on that. BARACK OBAMA is everything that is wrong with America.

Mitt Romney & Obama are both what's wrong with america.

They are both corporatist shills. In bed with the military-industrial complex and the pharmaceutical/medical-industrial complex.

How would ANYONE who supports free market values support FORCING a consumer to buy from health insurance cartels/monopolies? It's utterly ridiculous and filled with hypocrisy.

Anyone who has any sense of principle and believe in the free market should shun Romney and support Paul, hands down.

sratiug
04-17-2010, 05:03 PM
It's funny to me that you guys scoff at the forums I installed just last week and not even officially announced yet.

You see that there are only 10 members, that's because I've only sent an email to 8 people to join the forum to help me test settings and permissions and such until we announce on our facebook page and blog that it is open. ( http://facebook.com/mittromneycentral )

Our whole site is relatively new since it was established just 7 months ago, yet we are already at a 5 google ranking. Daily Paul is a 5 also, these forums are a 4.

We are new and we are growing. Thanks for you interest in "bombing our site".

BTW - It doesn't reflect well on Dr. Paul (whom I have a lot of respect for) when his supporters go about seeking to destroy other sites.

~Nate G.

By the way, it doesn't reflect well on Mitt Romney (or his Christian principles) when he accuses Dr. Paul of taking orders from Ahmedenijad in a nationally televised debate only because Dr. Paul doesn't want to provoke another needless unholy war with Iran.

Welcome to the forums.

paulitics
04-17-2010, 05:05 PM
I'd beg to differ with you on that. BARACK OBAMA is everything that is wrong with America.

There is no excuse for Mitt Romney's actions. What he did was beyond liberal, it was downright socialist.. I put him in the same tired group of rinos as Lindsey Graham and John McCain.

I would have more respect for him if he ran as a hawkish democrat, than pose as a conservative. He is pro big government, period. It's guys like Romney, that make it impossible for us to fight Obama on the really big issues without appearing like hypocrites.

Nate G.
04-17-2010, 05:08 PM
By the way, it doesn't reflect well on Mitt Romney (or his Christian principles) when he accuses Dr. Paul of taking orders from Ahmedenijad in a nationally televised debate only because Dr. Paul doesn't want to provoke another needless unholy war with Iran.



Mitt Romney can speak for himself, and it wasn't me who said it. Whether you or I disapprove of him or not is our own choice. I'm inclined to think you wouldn't like him anyway.

parocks
04-17-2010, 05:12 PM
I don't like Romney. I like Ron Paul, and to a lesser degree, Sarah Palin.

But you, a Romney supporter, do have the genius that is often lacking here when you recognize that Obama is really really unpopular with Republican Primary Voters.

The Republican Nominee will be getting the Nomination from the votes of people who strongly dislike Obama, and never liked Obama one bit. You understand that. Many here don't. There are people here that like Obama, or believe that the Republicans are just as bad as Obama and the Democrats. They'd recommend criticising Democrats and Republicans equally. You, and Romney have the kind of genius (which is actually common sense) to recognize that if you're running for the Republican Nomination, you want to present yourself as a Republican, who has Republican beliefs and a Republican track records. The things you dislike are Democrats and Obama.

I don't believe for a second that Romney is a conservative, but he certainly wants people to think he is one. Ron Paul most certainly is the most conservative (in a Tea Party / limited government sense). But people here want to talk antiwar and protest the tea party.


I'd beg to differ with you on that. BARACK OBAMA is everything that is wrong with America.

Flash
04-17-2010, 05:19 PM
They'd recommend criticising Democrats and Republicans equally. You, and Romney have the kind of genius (which is actually common sense) to recognize that if you're running for the Republican Nomination, you want to present yourself as a Republican, who has Republican beliefs and a Republican track records. The things you dislike are Democrats and Obama.

You fail to understand there's a difference between talking to someone one-on-one on an internet forum and mass marketing to a national [conservative] audience. I'm not suggesting Ron Paul runs ads saying "REPUBLICANS = DEMOCRATS" at all. What I do suggest is going out there and talking to theses Romney supporters about how his policies in Massachusetts were identical with the MA Democratic Party. And point out how Romney's health care bill had a considerable influence on Obama's health care plan, as admitted by Obama himself.

I guarantee once more people are aware of Romney's policies (which WILL come up during the 2011 debates) they will drop him. It happened in 2007 when polls were showing Romney to be the front runner. Everyone tag teamed to take him down.

Nate G.
04-17-2010, 05:21 PM
Open the flood gates on Romney! He must be pure evil...

Guys, I'm not going to try to persuade you to support Romney, I know it's impossible. I can't but help to try to correct what I feel are misconceptions about him. Here are a few from just that last few minutes:

Paulitics says "He is pro big government, period." Not really true sir. If he were you would expect that MA government would have expanded during his tenure. The opposite is true in fact. When Romney left office there were 600 less state government employees than when he started. Has that ever happened in the Fed gov?

Sentient Void says that Romney is a corporatist schill. I think what you are trying to say is that he is only in politics to protect his interests and his money. His actions provide evidence to the contrary. Romney has not taken a salary for any of his work since he left Bain Capital in 1998. He took no salary for doing the Olympics. He took no salary as Gov. of MA. He has donated all of his profits from his book to charity as well his speaking fees at several events. Romney is not in it for money. Nor even power. He is in it because he loves this country, and he loves his family, and hopes to leave the country in a better state for their inheritance.

You can disagree with the his policies, and I know you do, but Romney is in politics for the right reasons and motives.

Flash
04-17-2010, 05:24 PM
That doesn't even make sense. If he is not in it for the power as you claimed (you said earlier you couldn't speak for him) then why would he have been Governor and held influence over the Massachusetts GOP? Common sense. If he didn't desire power then he would either just be a regular businessman or an anarchist.
And if he really values principles over power, then why does he repeatedly change his mind on the policies he had WHILE campaigning and the policies he had after being elected? The abortion issue comes to mind.

Nate G.
04-17-2010, 05:27 PM
Regarding Republicans.... I have at times been very disappointed with the Republican party. Their record on spending when they had the majority is an embarrassment. Even so it is absolutely nothing compared to what the Dems are doing in congress right now.

As embarrassing as the GOP can be sometimes, I believe (and I think Dr. Paul would agree) that it is the best vehicle to use to promote conservative values. If Dr. Paul didn't think so he wouldn't have tried to win the GOP nomination in 2008. I'm sure he sees many errors in the GOP, but he seeks to improve it, rather than abandon it. I agree with this posture.

paulitics
04-17-2010, 05:32 PM
Open the flood gates on Romney! He must be pure evil...

Guys, I'm not going to try to persuade you to support Romney, I know it's impossible. I can't but help to try to correct what I feel are misconceptions about him. Here are a few from just that last few minutes:

Paulitics says "He is pro big government, period." Not really true sir. If he were you would expect that MA government would have expanded during his tenure. The opposite is true in fact. When Romney left office there were 600 less state government employees than when he started. Has that ever happened in the Fed gov?



Who cares if (assuming your stat isn't hogwash) there were less state employees the year he left office. Romney permanently and dramatically increased the size of government, and helped provide a prototype for Obama to go around and say "A republican tried it, and it worked."

The argument you make is the same one Obama is making right now, that he isn't increasing taxes TODAY. But he is, and it will come a few years down the road because of these programs.

So, are you saying that a state mandated health insurance program is ok with you? Are you for cap and tax on the state level as well?

Nate G.
04-17-2010, 05:34 PM
That doesn't even make sense. If he is not in it for the power as you claimed (you said earlier you couldn't speak for him) then why would he have been Governor and held influence over the Massachusetts GOP? Common sense. If he didn't desire power then he would either just be a regular businessman or an anarchist.
And if he really values principles over power, then why does he repeatedly change his mind on the policies he had WHILE campaigning and the policies he had after being elected? The abortion issue comes to mind.

There are different types of power, and I should have clarified better. There are those who seek to influence the national agenda, legislation etc, because they feel they can change it for the better. This if fine. This is what Romney does, as well as Dr. Paul.

Then there are those who seek to control the government, markets, for their own purposes. Neither Romney nor Paul are in it for those reasons.

Regarding change in policies. The substantial change in policy that Romney has had is in regards to abortion. There are many who say that he changed his stance on gay marriage. That simply is not true, he was never for it. There are many who've twisted his words on other matters. But abortion alone is the issue in which he flipped on. Note that it was a flip and not a flop, because he has never gone back to his previous held position.

Tend yer biscuits.
04-17-2010, 05:34 PM
Re: Forum war

My bad. I didn't know that was taboo.

parocks
04-17-2010, 05:35 PM
Well in 2011, 2012 (assuming Romney runs) Romney's opponents will bring up elements of his record that do not appeal to Republican Primary voters. There's a lot there to work with.


You fail to understand there's a difference between talking to someone one-on-one on an internet forum and mass marketing to a national [conservative] audience. I'm not suggesting Ron Paul runs ads saying "REPUBLICANS = DEMOCRATS" at all. What I do suggest is going out there and talking to theses Romney supporters about how his policies in Massachusetts were identical with the MA Democratic Party. And point out how Romney's health care bill had a considerable influence on Obama's health care plan, as admitted by Obama himself.

I guarantee once more people are aware of Romney's policies (which WILL come up during the 2011 debates) they will drop him. It happened in 2007 when polls were showing Romney to be the front runner. Everyone tag teamed to take him down.

Nate G.
04-17-2010, 05:41 PM
Who cares if (assuming your stat isn't hogwash) there were less state employees the year he left office. Romney permanently and dramatically increased the size of government, and helped provide a prototype for Obama to go around and say "A republican tried it, and it worked."

The argument you make is the same one Obama is making right now, that he isn't increasing taxes TODAY. But he is, and it will come a few years down the road because of these programs.

So, are you saying that a state mandated health insurance program is ok with you? Are you for cap and tax on the state level as well?

The state has the right to issue such a program, but the Fed government does not, but I'm sure a constitutionalist as yourself would already know that. Also, the government doesn't oversee that program, the Commonwealth connector does. The MA plan is not perfect. And I readily admit that I would not want it in my state. Even Romney admits that his plan is not perfect. But neither was it implemented in the manner he sought to do it as the MA legislature over wrote many of his vetoes.

I am not for cap and tax on any level. But if a state chose to that it would have the right. I would fight it tooth and nail.

BTW- Dems are lying when they say they used MA care as a template. They never once spoke with Romney about it. The plans they tried to push were very different. And the end result is much different than MA care is as well. Don't succumb to their propaganda by equating the two. The differences are numerous.

Sentient Void
04-17-2010, 05:43 PM
He advocated, supported and helped pass a bill that increased govt intervention by *forcing* individuals buy health insurance. If someone doesn't, than they are PUNISHED by *much* higher taxes. If they don't acknowledge such authority and fight paying those taxes, they will be brought to jail. If they resist being brought to jail - they will be shot.

How is this NOT being for big govt and increased govt power? This is not only a clear violation of the free market, but also a violation of civil liberties.

Romney is no conservative and no believer in limited govt.

Nate G.
04-17-2010, 05:52 PM
He advocated, supported and helped pass a bill that increased govt intervention by *forcing* individuals buy health insurance. If someone doesn't, than they are PUNISHED by *much* higher taxes. If they don't acknowledge such authority and fight paying those taxes, they will be brought to jail. If they resist being brought to jail - they will be shot.

How is this NOT being for big govt and increased govt power? This is not only a clear violation of the free market, but also a violation of civil liberties.

Romney is no conservative, no believer in the constitution, and no believer in limited govt.

Well to answer... you are wrong in your premise. Romney didn't seek to mandate insurance coverage for everyone. He wanted to created incentives for people to get insurane through tax credits, not punish them through fines. He was overridden on that. After that he tried to make it possible for people to opt out if they could prove that they could afford to pay their own expense in a health problem. Over-ridden again. Another thing he tried was for people to be able to post a bond to use for their expenses if they need them and then be able to opt out of the plan. No go. Regarding jail... you are wrong there. You are thinking of Pelosi's plan. There is no jail for non-conformity.

It appears to me that you don't fully understand Romney's plan. I don't expect you'll ever approve of it, but perhaps, if you are going to rail against it you should know the details. You seem to think that Romney wrote the bill himself. Many of the things wrong with it are things he fought against. It more complicated than saying it is simply RomneyCare and he's completely responsible for it.

sratiug
04-17-2010, 06:01 PM
Well to answer... you are wrong in your premise. Romney didn't seek to mandate insurance coverage for everyone. He wanted to created incentives for people to get insurane through tax credits, not punish them through fines. He was overridden on that. After that he tried to make it possible for people to opt out if they could prove that they could afford to pay their own expense in a health problem. Over-ridden again. Another thing he tried was for people to be able to post a bond to use for their expenses if they need them and then be able to opt out of the plan. No go. Regarding jail... you are wrong there. You are thinking of Pelosi's plan. There is no jail for non-conformity.

It appears to me that you don't fully understand Romney's plan. I don't expect you'll ever approve of it, but perhaps, if you are going to rail against it you should know the details. You seem to think that Romney wrote the bill himself. Many of the things wrong with it are things he fought against. It more complicated than saying it is simply RomneyCare and he's completely responsible for it.

Did he sign the healthcare bill?

As far as it being constitutional for states to force you to buy health insurance, it's not. Slavery was outlawed a long time ago.

The state has the power to tax and would have been better off to just build public hospitals where all the state citizens could go for free than to mandate the buying of private insurance. People don't need insurance, they need health care. They are two different things. But then that wouldn't benefit the insurance companies, which is why Romney is a corporatist.

Ninja Homer
04-17-2010, 06:07 PM
The biggest 2012 obstacle is MSM. Get equal air time and Ron Paul wins hands down. The same would have been true for '08 as well. As MSM news credibility goes down, Ron Paul popularity goes up.

paulitics
04-17-2010, 06:08 PM
The state has the right to issue such a program, but the Fed government does not, but I'm sure a constitutionalist as yourself would already know that. Also, the government doesn't oversee that program, the Commonwealth connector does. The MA plan is not perfect. And I readily admit that I would not want it in my state. Even Romney admits that his plan is not perfect. But neither was it implemented in the manner he sought to do it as the MA legislature over wrote many of his vetoes.

I am not for cap and tax on any level. But if a state chose to that it would have the right. I would fight it tooth and nail.

BTW- Dems are lying when they say they used MA care as a template. They never once spoke with Romney about it. The plans they tried to push were very different. And the end result is much different than MA care is as well. Don't succumb to their propaganda by equating the two. The differences are numerous.


His signature is on the bill, therefore he must accept credit for what he signs into law. His hands were not tied, he could have easily not have moved the ball in the socialist direction in the first place. This was his baby. He needs to take ownership of what he creates and be a man about it.

If he sincerely changed, then he needs to make some aplogies ASAP, and explain how he was wrong.

America is in dire shape. We really don't have anymore time left for the Romney politician, where we overlook their past and hope their rhetoric is sincere.

Nate G.
04-18-2010, 02:56 PM
For those of you asking if Romney's name was on the bill, I'd like to remind you that of two things.

1- Massachessetts allows for a line item veto. No, he did not sign the portions of the bill that mandated people must buy insurance or be fined by the state. The part he did sign was to divert funds that were already coming into the state for Medicaid and to pay hospitals for their losses, divert those funds to help poorer families obtain their own insurance and take some responsibility for the expenses of their health-care.

2-The MA legislature is vastly Dems, almost 80%. They overrode his veto on all 7 of the items in the bill that he vetoed.

When you say that the governor is solely responsible for a bill, when his legislature overrode his vetoes, then you are being intellectually dishonest. You WANT to pin the whole thing on him, irregardless of the facts. Since Romney may run as a contender in 2012 he is the enemy and you NEED him to be wrong on everything.

I have shown you the facts here. Most of which I'm sure most of you did not know. But you have it so ingrained in you heart that Romney is to blame for everything in MA Care that you simply will no longer listen to reason. That's when our conversation comes to an end.

wgadget
04-18-2010, 03:41 PM
Pardon me, I only read the thread title, and.....


BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA!

sratiug
04-18-2010, 04:19 PM
For those of you asking if Romney's name was on the bill, I'd like to remind you that of two things.

1- Massachessetts allows for a line item veto. No, he did not sign the portions of the bill that mandated people must buy insurance or be fined by the state. The part he did sign was to divert funds that were already coming into the state for Medicaid and to pay hospitals for their losses, divert those funds to help poorer families obtain their own insurance and take some responsibility for the expenses of their health-care.

2-The MA legislature is vastly Dems, almost 80%. They overrode his veto on all 7 of the items in the bill that he vetoed.

When you say that the governor is solely responsible for a bill, when his legislature overrode his vetoes, then you are being intellectually dishonest. You WANT to pin the whole thing on him, irregardless of the facts. Since Romney may run as a contender in 2012 he is the enemy and you NEED him to be wrong on everything.

I have shown you the facts here. Most of which I'm sure most of you did not know. But you have it so ingrained in you heart that Romney is to blame for everything in MA Care that you simply will no longer listen to reason. That's when our conversation comes to an end.

Then why does he say he supports the mandates? And why does he support terrorism?

Smitty
04-18-2010, 06:04 PM
Romney is owned.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/10/20/address_by_mitt_romney_at_aipac_national_summit_98 789.html

Fortunately, his health insurance mandate will prevent him from being a serious contender for the GOP nomination.

He could save himself a lot of time and money by choosing not to run.

ninepointfive
04-18-2010, 06:42 PM
I would like to extend a hand towards Nate G, and thank him for providing some great feedback here. I would also like to remind some of our rpf members to remain mature and debate intelligently.

wgadget
04-18-2010, 07:06 PM
I would like to extend a hand towards Nate G, and thank him for providing some great feedback here. I would also like to remind some of our rpf members to remain mature and debate intelligently.



Yes, ma'am. :D

sofia
04-18-2010, 07:32 PM
For those of you asking if Romney's name was on the bill, I'd like to remind you that of two things.

1- Massachessetts allows for a line item veto. No, he did not sign the portions of the bill that mandated people must buy insurance or be fined by the state. The part he did sign was to divert funds that were already coming into the state for Medicaid and to pay hospitals for their losses, divert those funds to help poorer families obtain their own insurance and take some responsibility for the expenses of their health-care.

2-The MA legislature is vastly Dems, almost 80%. They overrode his veto on all 7 of the items in the bill that he vetoed.

When you say that the governor is solely responsible for a bill, when his legislature overrode his vetoes, then you are being intellectually dishonest. You WANT to pin the whole thing on him, irregardless of the facts. Since Romney may run as a contender in 2012 he is the enemy and you NEED him to be wrong on everything.

I have shown you the facts here. Most of which I'm sure most of you did not know. But you have it so ingrained in you heart that Romney is to blame for everything in MA Care that you simply will no longer listen to reason. That's when our conversation comes to an end.

Mitt IS the enemy. He is a despeccable hypocrite.

....An Israeli bootlicker and warmonger with FIVE able bodied sons that refuse to fight.

...A donor to Planned Parenthood until he decided he wanted to be a national candidate and is now "pro-life"

... a sleazy Botoxed con man who would sell his own mother to fulfill his political ambitions.

...a peddler of the Global Warming Hoax

...a big government Republican who wont cut a dime from the budget

...a supporter of the Bailout

take your Romney garbage someplace else....we aint buyin it....

Dan Chisholm
04-18-2010, 07:49 PM
We need to move Mitt closer to libertarianism. He isn't the enemy. Progressivism, liberalism, and the growing dependency culture is the enemy. We need to acknowledge areas where we agree and work to convince others on what we disagree. We also need to realize that some of the issues that Mitt is attacked for are made-up or taken out of context political attacks cooked up by the DNC in 2006 and 2007. Mitt's not perfect to be sure and neither are any other republican candidates, but if we focus on each other too much, we won't be able to stop Obama in 2012. If he wins one more election, our country will be too far gone to save. We're almost there right now, but we still have one last chance in 2012 to Bring America Back.

low preference guy
04-18-2010, 07:51 PM
We need to move Mitt closer to libertarianism. He isn't the enemy. Progressivism, liberalism, and the growing dependency culture is the enemy. We need to acknowledge areas where we agree and work to convince others on what we disagree. We also need to realize that some of the issues that Mitt is attacked for are made-up or taken out of context political attacks cooked up by the DNC in 2006 and 2007. Mitt's not perfect to be sure and neither are any other republican candidates, but if we focus on each other too much, we won't be able to stop Obama in 2012. If he wins one more election, our country will be too far gone to save. We're almost there right now, but we still have one last chance in 2012 to Bring America Back.

All the things you say are true and we should consider Mitt Romney again. But only after after these two things happen:

1. He apologizes for supporting the bailout.
2. He apologizes for supporting an individual mandate to buy health care, and repudiates his "I like mandates" statement at a Republican Presidential debate in 2007.

sofia
04-18-2010, 07:54 PM
We need to move Mitt closer to libertarianism. He isn't the enemy. Progressivism, liberalism, and the growing dependency culture is the enemy. We need to acknowledge areas where we agree and work to convince others on what we disagree. We also need to realize that some of the issues that Mitt is attacked for are made-up or taken out of context political attacks cooked up by the DNC in 2006 and 2007. Mitt's not perfect to be sure and neither are any other republican candidates, but if we focus on each other too much, we won't be able to stop Obama in 2012. If he wins one more election, our country will be too far gone to save. We're almost there right now, but we still have one last chance in 2012 to Bring America Back.

So...Romney, Bonior, and McConnell are gonna save us from socialism???:rolleyes:

What is this....Romney troll night?

If Romney or any other GOP fool besides Ron paul is the nominee.....i aint voting

radiofriendly
04-18-2010, 07:56 PM
YouTube - Mitt Romney is Gorgeous (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-qBHJuhnKg)

sofia
04-18-2010, 07:56 PM
All the things you say are true and we should consider Mitt Romney again. But only after after these two things happen:

1. He apologizes for supporting the bailout.
2. He apologizes for supporting an individual mandate to buy health care, and repudiates his "I like mandates" statement at a Republican Presidential debate in 2007.

LPG... they're getting to you!...say it aint so...


Romney will tell you anything to get elected....Reject ANY republican who aint Ron Paul

low preference guy
04-18-2010, 08:04 PM
LPG... they're getting to you!...say it aint so...


Romney will tell you anything to get elected....Reject ANY republican who aint Ron Paul

I said I'll consider him.

I didn't say I'd support him.

:cool:

Flash
04-18-2010, 08:39 PM
For those of you asking if Romney's name was on the bill, I'd like to remind you that of two things.

1- Massachessetts allows for a line item veto. No, he did not sign the portions of the bill that mandated people must buy insurance or be fined by the state. The part he did sign was to divert funds that were already coming into the state for Medicaid and to pay hospitals for their losses, divert those funds to help poorer families obtain their own insurance and take some responsibility for the expenses of their health-care.

2-The MA legislature is vastly Dems, almost 80%. They overrode his veto on all 7 of the items in the bill that he vetoed.

When you say that the governor is solely responsible for a bill, when his legislature overrode his vetoes, then you are being intellectually dishonest. You WANT to pin the whole thing on him, irregardless of the facts. Since Romney may run as a contender in 2012 he is the enemy and you NEED him to be wrong on everything.

I have shown you the facts here. Most of which I'm sure most of you did not know. But you have it so ingrained in you heart that Romney is to blame for everything in MA Care that you simply will no longer listen to reason. That's when our conversation comes to an end.


Ah, so he swallowed his pride, negotiated his principles for the good of the state! But once he gets into that white house.. he'll pull off his fake moderate uniform and transform into Super-Conservative. Just like Obama became an anti-war president, only lying about supporting the iraqi war during the debates. You completely won us over with your superior logic.

Yeah he's the 'enemy.' We don't like him because hes running against a 77 year old man. Not because the guy supports a hawkish foreign interventionist policy, not because he spent his entire time into office pandering to democrats, not because he influenced Obama's health care plan, not because he endorsed loony-tunes John Mccain. But because hes going to run against a man pushing 80 that we're all obsessed with. :rolleyes:


Seriously, nominating Romney is a sure way to ensure an extended Obama Presidency. Just like nominating Sarah Palin. I'm not saying Ron Paul is the only guy that can take Obama down, I'm saying a guy that supported a form of health care similar to Obama is going to look like a total hypocrite to most Americans. It just goes to show why sticking to your principles is a little more important than pandering to the Ted Kennedy mafia.

Nate G.
04-18-2010, 09:09 PM
Ah, so he swallowed his pride, negotiated his principles for the good of the state! But once he gets into that white house.. he'll pull off his fake moderate uniform and transform into Super-Conservative. Just like Obama became an anti-war president, only lying about supporting the iraqi war during the debates. You completely won us over with your superior logic.

Yeah he's the 'enemy.' We don't like him because hes running against a 77 year old man. Not because the guy supports a hawkish foreign interventionist policy, not because he spent his entire time into office pandering to democrats, not because he influenced Obama's health care plan, not because he endorsed loony-tunes John Mccain. But because hes going to run against a man pushing 80 that we're all obsessed with. :rolleyes:


Seriously, nominating Romney is a sure way to ensure an extended Obama Presidency. Just like nominating Sarah Palin. I'm not saying Ron Paul is the only guy that can take Obama down, I'm saying a guy that supported a form of health care similar to Obama is going to look like a total hypocrite to most Americans. It just goes to show why sticking to your principles is a little more important than pandering to the Ted Kennedy mafia.

You're argument still shows that you know very little about Romney. Pandering to Dems in MA. You must not realize that the Dems hated him as Governor. Why? Because he was relentless with his veto pen. He vetoed billions from their budget. He vetoed provisions that would expand access to abortion in the state. He fought against raising the minimum wage. He did not negotiate his principles. Having your veto over-ridden is not negotiating.

BTW- I fully support his foreign policy. I won't even attempt to argue that because it is moot. That is the one area where I differ greatly from the good Dr. Paul. You can bash me all you want for that. My feelings and opinion will stay intact.

sofia
04-18-2010, 09:15 PM
You're argument still shows that you know very little about Romney. Pandering to Dems in MA. You must not realize that the Dems hated him as Governor. Why? Because he was relentless with his veto pen. He vetoed billions from their budget. He vetoed provisions that would expand access to abortion in the state. He fought against raising the minimum wage. He did not negotiate his principles. Having your veto over-ridden is not negotiating.

BTW- I fully support his foreign policy. I won't even attempt to argue that because it is moot. That is the one area where I differ greatly from the good Dr. Paul. You can bash me all you want for that. My feelings and opinion will stay intact.

Being slightly less leftist than the Democrats are is hardly an accomplishment...

Romney is elitist scum and we're not buying your infiltration act here....

Nate G.
04-18-2010, 09:16 PM
Mitt IS the enemy. He is a despeccable hypocrite.

....An Israeli bootlicker and warmonger with FIVE able bodied sons that refuse to fight.

...A donor to Planned Parenthood until he decided he wanted to be a national candidate and is now "pro-life"

... a sleazy Botoxed con man who would sell his own mother to fulfill his political ambitions.

...a peddler of the Global Warming Hoax

...a big government Republican who wont cut a dime from the budget

...a supporter of the Bailout

take your Romney garbage someplace else....we aint buyin it....
Refuse to fight? I don't think anyone ever asked. If they were called upon they would certainly do it.

Donor? His wife did once, not him. 19 YEARS AGO.

BOTOX? I don't know if he uses it, regardless that's childish attack worthy of the dems.

Global Warming? Get your facts straight. I'm sure you've read a comment from his post book. Try reading the rest of the page to enlighten you mind on his position.

He cut billions from the budget in MA. Did you accidentally over look that?

Baseless attacks and catchy rants. I could criticize Romney myself with better argument than you have.

Flash
04-18-2010, 09:16 PM
You're argument still shows that you know very little about Romney. Pandering to Dems in MA. You must not realize that the Dems hated him as Governor. Why? Because he was relentless with his veto pen. He vetoed billions from their budget. He vetoed provisions that would expand access to abortion in the state. He fought against raising the minimum wage. He did not negotiate his principles. Having your veto over-ridden is not negotiating.

BTW- I fully support his foreign policy. I won't even attempt to argue that because it is moot. That is the one area where I differ greatly from the good Dr. Paul. You can bash me all you want for that. My feelings and opinion will stay intact.

My comment was relating to the issues in the post I quoted, not the ones you just mentioned. But if you must..

"The minimum wage is important to our economy and Mitt Romney supports minimum wage increase, at least in line with inflation."
- Romney 2002 campaign website

Note: Democrats of MA proposed minimum wage increase in line with inflation. Romney backed away from his promise to make himself look good and put the dems in a bad light. Partisan nonsense.

Romney's anti-federalist/anti-civil liberties positions:

"Boy, I sure do. You know, that's a topic that's really, I think, very important to the country because marriage is not just about adults. Marriage is about the development and nurturing of kids, and in my view, the development of a child is enhanced by having a mom and dad. And so, I think it's very important that we have a national standard because marriage is a status. You get married in one place and then you move to another, you're still married at least in the eyes of the community and the children and the benefits may not follow you, but ultimately we're going to have one standard of marriage in this country and that standard ought to be one man and one woman."
- MSNBC's "Morning Joe"

Note: while governor, Romney was a critic of a gay marriage ban included in the Constitution.

Criticism of gun rights activists while Governor:

"That's not going to make me the hero of the NRA," Romney told the Boston Herald in 1994.

At another campaign stop that year, he told reporters: "I don't line up with the NRA."

If it's possible, I'm finding less and less redeemable qualities about him.

Nate G.
04-18-2010, 09:17 PM
Being slightly less leftist than the Democrats are is hardly an accomplishment...

Romney is elitist scum and we're not buying your infiltration act here....

Slightly less leftist. Again, any evidence? Your perspective on left versus right perplexes me.

sofia
04-18-2010, 09:21 PM
Slightly less leftist. Again, any evidence? Your perspective on left versus right perplexes me.

what's so hard to understans? 8 years of a GOP president and a GOP congress ended with a 400 billion dollar annual deficit, trillion dollar bailout, stimulus, bigger government......

the only thing that GOP scum can brag about is that it wasnt as bad as Obama's spending....

u think Romney will change this????


no thanks

sofia
04-18-2010, 09:22 PM
Slightly less leftist. Again, any evidence? Your perspective on left versus right perplexes me.

what's so hard to understand? 8 years of a GOP president and a GOP congress ended with a 400 billion dollar annual deficit, trillion dollar bailout, stimulus, bigger government......

the only thing that GOP scum can brag about is that it wasnt as bad as Obama's spending....


no thanks

low preference guy
04-18-2010, 09:22 PM
Slightly less leftist. Again, any evidence? Your perspective on left versus right perplexes me.

Has Romney apologized for supporting the bailout?

Has he repudiated his "I like mandates" remark during a 2007 Presidential debate?

The first position I mentioned makes him a corporatist.

The second position makes him a leftist.

ninepointfive
04-18-2010, 09:23 PM
BTW- I fully support his foreign policy. I won't even attempt to argue that because it is moot. That is the one area where I differ greatly from the good Dr. Paul. You can bash me all you want for that. My feelings and opinion will stay intact.

You've said you like Ron Paul in an earlier post. I'm wondering, besides foreign policy, what do you see in a Romney presidency as compared to Paul?

sofia
04-18-2010, 09:23 PM
Refuse to fight? I don't think anyone ever asked. If they were called upon they would certainly do it.

Donor? His wife did once, not him. 19 YEARS AGO.

BOTOX? I don't know if he uses it, regardless that's childish attack worthy of the dems.

Global Warming? Get your facts straight. I'm sure you've read a comment from his post book. Try reading the rest of the page to enlighten you mind on his position.

He cut billions from the budget in MA. Did you accidentally over look that?

Baseless attacks and catchy rants. I could criticize Romney myself with better argument than you have.


How much does Mitt pay you guys to blog for him? I hear his straw poll drones get paid rather generously.

Nate G.
04-18-2010, 09:25 PM
Has Romney apologized for supporting the bailout?

Has he repudiated his "I like mandates" remark during a 2007 Presidential debate?

The first position I mentioned makes him a corporatist.

The second position makes him a leftist.

I'll answer that, if you can tell me what Romney said after that sentence. Let me know if you understand the full context of what he said and I'll respond.

low preference guy
04-18-2010, 09:29 PM
I'll answer that, if you can tell me what Romney said after that sentence. Let me know if you understand the full context of what he said and I'll respond.

What about the answer to the first question?

As for the second question, it was about supporting a national mandate. Go to 0:43. What he said after was some Orwellian speak about how individuals are responsible when the government is forcing them to buy insurance.

YouTube - See Mitt Romney Promote an Individual Mandate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6DrH6P9OC0)

sofia
04-18-2010, 09:29 PM
Romney calls for Global carbon caps and he also supports the Ethanol scam


YouTube - Romney answers global warming question in NH (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMtV8xQlZSg)

Nate G.
04-18-2010, 09:42 PM
How much does Mitt pay you guys to blog for him? I hear his straw poll drones get paid rather generously.

Sofia, you are full of baseless accusations today.

Regarding my site, I have paid the full amount to set up the site. It cost me less that $100 to set it up and host it because I did all the work myself and used all free software. I did the artwork myself, designed the site. We do the SEO and promotion ourselves. We are not paid to blog. The items we have for sale in the store I have designed and actually manufactured myself. I've never asked for a donation to operate the site, and noone has ever given one. All the work on the blog is done in my no-so-spare-time as I work 55 hours a week, young kids and church responsibilities. Our team members are all amateur volunteers who sacrifice time to work on the site. It's not easy and requires a lot of work and dedication to keep it up. At times it feels very burdensome, but I believe in the cause and must plug along.

I have never talked to Romney himself, though I've shaken hands with him about 5 times. I had a short conversation with his spokesperson a couple months ago and he didn't know who I was.

I assume you are referring to the SRLC Straw Poll. The group Evangelicals for Mitt did that operation and had absolutely no support (money or info) or any sort of connection to Romney or his PAC. They found their own donors, contacted all the people themselves to go to the conference. It was a pure grassroots effort.

Nate G.
04-18-2010, 09:44 PM
What about the answer to the first question?

As for the second question, it was about supporting a national mandate. Go to 0:43. What he said after was some Orwellian speak about how individuals are responsible when the government is forcing them to buy insurance.



I'd answer you're question but you failed to answer correctly. It was not about supporting a national mandate. Try again.

low preference guy
04-18-2010, 09:45 PM
I'd answer you're question but you failed to answer correctly. It was not about supporting a national mandate. Try again.

Yes, it was about national mandate. The interviewer asked him about national mandates just before Romney answered. You're just spinning.

If you think it was about something else, say what it was about and justify your guy. Also, don't forget to comment on whether he apologized for supporting the bailout.

RM918
04-18-2010, 10:10 PM
This guy's pretty brave to last this long tangling around here, a shame he's supporting a corporatist who'll probably do the exact same stuff as Bush would. They'll wise up too late, I figure.

HOLLYWOOD
04-18-2010, 10:20 PM
http://spectator.org/assets/db/12713967927647.jpg

Nothing like the good ole boys club in Mass... Has anyone looked into how
Mitt profited from Governor?

How about BAIN Capital... anyone take a look there? The Great Destroyer of businesses...


Manchurian Mitt is the prefect candidate for the Democrats... He should of been
Obama's VP, instead of Joe. They're almost all the same with the exception of very few with integrity and honesty... their entire life, not just for the next election or political goal.

How Romney Could Kill the ObamaCare Repeal Movement (http://spectator.org/archives/2010/04/16/how-romney-could-kill-the-obam)

Over the past several weeks, political observers have speculated about how passage of the national health care law modeled after the one Mitt Romney signed in Massachusetts could hurt his presidential ambitions. But more significant for conservatives is how Romney's presidential ambitions could stymie the effort to repeal ObamaCare.
As it is, achieving a full repeal of the recently-passed health care law will be extremely difficult. Given that Obama would veto any bill to undo his signature legislative accomplishment, it means that to get rid of the law, Republicans will have to not only take back Congress, but capture the White House. It also means that conservatives will have to relentlessly campaign against ObamaCare during the next two elections and keep public outrage at an elevated level for at least the next three years. And even if they achieve all of this, they will have a short window to repeal the bill in 2013, because by 2014 the federal government will begin to dole out hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies, which will create a whole new constituency to preserve the law.



If Romney were the Republican presidential nominee in 2012, it would make this already challenging fight even harder. Romney's role in creating a health care program quite similar to the one that just passed nationally would allow Obama to neutralize the issue during an election that would otherwise be a prime opportunity to make the case for repeal.
The health care program Romney enacted as governor has the same basic architecture as the national health care law President Obama signed last month. Both programs rely on mandating that individuals purchase insurance and they provide government subsidies to people to buy government-designed insurance policies on a government-run exchange.
Jonathan Gruber, the MIT health care economist who advised both Romney and Obama, told (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304830104575172370615310084.html?m od=rss_Today) the Wall Street Journal, "If any one person in the world deserves credit for where we are now [with the passage of the new federal law], it's Mitt Romney... He designed the structure of the federal bill."



Romney and his loyal backers have tested a number of arguments in an attempt to distinguish RomneyCare from ObamaCare. For instance, they have tried to argue that the Massachusetts plan was made worse by the state's heavily Democratic legislature, over Romney's objections. But Romney signed the bill in 2006 anyway, with Ted Kennedy at his side, and did so knowing that he would not be seeking reelection as governor and that the law would almost definitely be implemented by a Democratic successor. Plus, there's wranglings that Romney lined up business for his long term colleagues and business partners.



Romneyites also argue that his was a state-based reform effort, rather than a one-size fits all federal approach. While this is true, it's also true that 20 percent (http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributors/content/CT_cannon9_08-09-09_73F9ICH_v9.3f8e6eb.html) of the cost of RomneyCare is being paid by federal taxpayers as a result of its Medicaid expansion.
Even if one believes that there are genuine policy differences between the two programs, from a pure political perspective, there are clearly enough similarities for Obama to exploit over the course of a general election.



One need look no further than President Bush's 2004 reelection bid to see how such a strategy could play out. Though the Iraq war was growing increasingly unpopular at the time, the fact that John Kerry voted for the war resolution made it difficult for Democrats to present a clear contrast on the issue, and this allowed President Bush to muddy the waters. Likewise, if Romney tries to attack Obama on the national health care law, Democrats could counter that Romney was for it before he was against it. Partisan Republicans may scramble to explain the differences, but such distinctions would likely get blurred in the minds of the typical voters. In the end, the GOP wouldn't have a clean shot at ObamaCare.
This would have repercussions down ballot as well. For instance, any attacks Republican candidates might want to make against the individual mandate would be blunted if the party nominated somebody who is on record YouTube - See Mitt Romney Promote an Individual Mandate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6DrH6P9OC0), "I like mandates."



The White House understands this, and it's no surprise that Obama has been drawing parallels between the new law and the Massachusetts system at every opportunity.
"You know, you've got a former governor of Massachusetts who's running around saying 'What's this health reform bill?'" Obama joked (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-dnc-reception-boston-massachusetts) at recent fundraiser in Boston. "And I keep on scratching my head and I say, boy, this Massachusetts thing, who designed that?"



In an interview with CBS, Obama got a little ahead of himself, and said (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/04/obama-current-republican-nominee-mitt-romney/38366/) that the Democrats' legislation was "the sort of plan proposed by current Republican nominee Mitt Romney."
Romney's response hasn't engendered much confidence that he'd be able to lead an effective campaign against ObamaCare.



"(Obama is) saying that I was the guy that came up with the idea for what he did," Romney said at a recent appearance in New Hampshire, according to (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/10/us/politics/10romney.html) the New York Times. "If ever again somewhere down the road I would be debating him, I would be happy to take credit for his accomplishment."



Romney's Free and Strong America PAC recently announced (http://www.freestrongamerica.com/press/item/release_romney_launches_prescription_for_repeal) a "Prescription for Repeal" initiative to contribute to conservative candidates. But the language leaves a lot of wiggle room. The press release announcing the program says the PAC will support candidates who vow to support a repeal of "the worst aspects of Obamacare." But it doesn't define which aspects Romney considers "the worst" and which ones he finds acceptable. This is no trivial matter given that Romney has repeatedly defended the individual mandate on conservative grounds.



Just as John McCain was able to win the Republican nomination in 2008 despite his problems with the conservative base, Romney may be able to overcome his health care record in the primaries. And perhaps there are circumstances under which he could beat Obama by emphasizing economic and foreign policy issues. But win or lose, Romney would not be able to credibly campaign against the national health care law. And as a result, were he the Republican nominee, it would kill the movement to repeal ObamaCare.

ord33
04-18-2010, 10:38 PM
This guy's pretty brave to last this long tangling around here, a shame he's supporting a corporatist who'll probably do the exact same stuff as Bush would. They'll wise up too late, I figure.

At least he is being civil and for the most part bringing up rational discussions. There is not a chance in the world I could ever support Mitt Romney, but I am learning some things (such as how the MA health care thing went down).

Not to totally back up this guy, but think of it like this. People wrongly accuse Dr. Paul of being a racist because of the newsletters when they don't even really know the whole story behind it (or probably never even read the actual words in there). Also, think about all of the people who think Dr. Paul's ideas are radical because they hear two second soundbites thinking he IMMEDIATELY wants to End the Fed, abolish the IRS, cut medicare/SS, shut down all military bases abroad, etc and they don't know that he really has a logical approach to do it over time (well other than Ending the Fed which could be done nearly immediately).

I think it is good to have this sort of discussion - he is being civil and bringing up points to contradict the 2 second soundbites that we hear.

Still, Romney's policies are WAY to the left of Dr. Paul and there is absolutely no way I could foresee any member of this forum chaning their mind about Romney - so what harm is it?

ninepointfive
04-19-2010, 12:26 AM
Well, there you have it. The reason Romney has support, is because of the Mormon church.

In this off year election, my caucus was empty of Romney supporters organized by the Mormon church. This meant the caucus wasn't so split apart, and no one candidate for the delegation was pitted against another. If Romney runs, I think I'd see those numbers again on caucus night.

silus
04-19-2010, 12:59 AM
I like Romney as a person. He sounds like a great bloke...

sratiug
04-19-2010, 01:35 AM
I like Romney as a person. He sounds like a great bloke...

I would too, except he wants to put crippling sanctions on Iran, even though Iran helped us in Afghanistan against the Taliban. That means he is a terrorist. Fuck the terrorists.

And he wants to mandate people to buy health insurance. Health insurance is not health care, it is welfare for corporations. He wants people to give their money to rich corporations. They'll have to work more, have less time with their kids, and not be able to spend as much on healthy food for their children. If they wanted to give everybody in Massachusetts healthcare, they should have just built a public hospital and hired some doctors and nurses.

Nate G.
04-19-2010, 08:29 AM
If they wanted to give everybody in Massachusetts healthcare, they should have just built a public hospital and hired some doctors and nurses.

Now there is a truly liberal answer. Turn it over to the government.... right.

Oh yeah, and it's a smart idea too to let Iran get nukes so they can blow Israel out of existence and use them on us if in any way possible. That will definitely keep us and the middle-east much safer. Now that's the kind of peace I'm talking about.

sratiug
04-19-2010, 10:18 AM
Now there is a truly liberal answer. Turn it over to the government.... right.

Oh yeah, and it's a smart idea too to let Iran get nukes so they can blow Israel out of existence and use them on us if in any way possible. That will definitely keep us and the middle-east much safer. Now that's the kind of peace I'm talking about.

Romney turned it over to the corporations. Fascism is not greater than socialism.

We just threatened Iran with nukes, Israel consistently calls for military strikes on Iran. Explain why Israelis have more right to live in the Middle East than Iranians. I didn't tell Israelis to steal land in that neighborhood. Thieves usually make people angry.

Israel has attacked America in the Levon affair and the murderous USS Liberty attack, and with countless spies stealing our secrets. They are not our ally, and our generals are warning us that Israeli actions are putting our servicemen in danger.

Aratus
04-19-2010, 10:37 AM
ex-speaker newt G. has arrived... his 527 and its 2.7 million campaign
fund seyz he is a player who could crowd into gentleman mitt's turf!!!

nathanmn
04-19-2010, 11:32 AM
First off, the Mitt care/Obama care issue aside, Mitt is a known liar and an admitted gun banner. He lied and said he was a lifelong hunter, which was verified as a lie when he was found to have never had any type of hunting license. He has openly and repeatedly supporting banning so called "assault weapons" nationally. For most people into individual liberty and the constitution, gun control and someone's position on this is a pretty good litmus test as to where their heart really lies when it comes to individual liberty and the constitution. It is pretty obvious that he isn't on our side... hence the reason I started this thread in the first place.

Does anyone have any more thoughts on the OP?

parocks
04-19-2010, 11:59 AM
Now there is a truly liberal answer. Turn it over to the government.... right.

Oh yeah, and it's a smart idea too to let Iran get nukes so they can blow Israel out of existence and use them on us if in any way possible. That will definitely keep us and the middle-east much safer. Now that's the kind of peace I'm talking about.

I'd like to add gay marriage to the list of things that makes Romney unlikely to get the Republican Nomination in 2012.

Aratus
04-19-2010, 12:05 PM
if sen. cornyn (R) of texas and mitch mcconnell met up with wall street people recently to
the degree where president obama wonders why the foot dragging on campaign reform,
does this have anything to do with the 2.7 million newt now has, rather than goldman sachs...

Aratus
04-19-2010, 12:08 PM
what if the cambling casino mentality on WALL STREET and the skim
on the federal gov't bailout funds that is morphing into PAC & 527 monies
is the many headed hydra of politcal corruption all true reformers are fighting?

sratiug
04-19-2010, 05:34 PM
Now there is a truly liberal answer. Turn it over to the government.... right.

Oh yeah, and it's a smart idea too to let Iran get nukes so they can blow Israel out of existence and use them on us if in any way possible. That will definitely keep us and the middle-east much safer. Now that's the kind of peace I'm talking about.

Nate, do you have any quotes from Ahmedenijad saying he wanted to destroy Israel as opposed to merely removing the zionist government of Israel? It doesn't seem logical for Iran to nuke Israel to ashes if their concern is the plight of the Palestinian people.

Carole
04-19-2010, 05:49 PM
I pegged Mitt Romney as a big government phoney poitician the first time I saw and heard him speak on television. This man would be poison and CANNOT win against BO.

Dan Chisholm
04-19-2010, 06:27 PM
Does anyone have any problems with what Mitt says at YouTube - Mitt Romney at Emory's Goizueta Business School (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_wuYjV1RZs)

wgadget
04-19-2010, 06:32 PM
Does anyone have any problems with what Mitt says at YouTube - Mitt Romney at Emory's Goizueta Business School (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_wuYjV1RZs)

I dunno..Let me check with my lawyer.:D

MRoCkEd
08-04-2010, 05:16 PM
For those of you asking if Romney's name was on the bill, I'd like to remind you that of two things.

1- Massachessetts allows for a line item veto. No, he did not sign the portions of the bill that mandated people must buy insurance or be fined by the state. The part he did sign was to divert funds that were already coming into the state for Medicaid and to pay hospitals for their losses, divert those funds to help poorer families obtain their own insurance and take some responsibility for the expenses of their health-care.

2-The MA legislature is vastly Dems, almost 80%. They overrode his veto on all 7 of the items in the bill that he vetoed.

When you say that the governor is solely responsible for a bill, when his legislature overrode his vetoes, then you are being intellectually dishonest. You WANT to pin the whole thing on him, irregardless of the facts. Since Romney may run as a contender in 2012 he is the enemy and you NEED him to be wrong on everything.

I have shown you the facts here. Most of which I'm sure most of you did not know. But you have it so ingrained in you heart that Romney is to blame for everything in MA Care that you simply will no longer listen to reason. That's when our conversation comes to an end.

YouTube - ObamaCare is RomneyCare 2.0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IJsiBHYTFg)

specsaregood
08-04-2010, 05:23 PM
Oh Romney, the smart business man that couldn't see the recession coming when he was already in the midst of it.

Legend1104
08-04-2010, 09:29 PM
Our current biggest 2012 obstacle... the American People.

trey4sports
08-04-2010, 09:38 PM
Does anyone have any problems with what Mitt says at YouTube - ‪Mitt Romney at Emory's Goizueta Business School‬‎ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_wuYjV1RZs)

He supports insurance mandates, National ID card, the drug war, war in iraq, and Afghanistan, supported abortion law despite "opposing" it, supports "One Strike, You’re Ours: lifetime GPS tracking." with regards to crime. believes in no child left behind, supports assault weapon ban, wants to raise military spending,

WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

freshjiva
08-04-2010, 09:51 PM
I really, really, really don't like Romney. I can at least bear others like Huckabee and Gingrich, but Romney always has this smirk on his face that wreaks of an inflated ego.

It doesn't matter, though. As I've said before, the more heavyweights we have running in the 2012 Republican pool, the better for Ron Paul. Let Gingrich and Romney beat each other up and split their votes. Paul will thrive as the darkhorse.

jclay2
08-04-2010, 10:02 PM
I really, really, really don't like Romney. I can at least bear others like Huckabee and Gingrich, but Romney always has this smirk on his face that wreaks of an inflated ego.

It doesn't matter, though. As I've said before, the more heavyweights we have running in the 2012 Republican pool, the better for Ron Paul. Let Gingrich and Romney beat each other up and split their votes. Paul will thrive as the darkhorse.

You know I think you have a point. Especially given ron paul's exposure during his last run and the incredible base he has to help dominate the early primaries.

Kregisen
08-04-2010, 10:11 PM
I really, really, really don't like Romney. I can at least bear others like Huckabee and Gingrich, but Romney always has this smirk on his face that wreaks of an inflated ego.

It doesn't matter, though. As I've said before, the more heavyweights we have running in the 2012 Republican pool, the better for Ron Paul. Let Gingrich and Romney beat each other up and split their votes. Paul will thrive as the darkhorse.

I think Huckabee is just as bad.....atleast Romney doesn't want a federal ban on smoking, that includes businesses on private property.



But yes, here's hoping Romney, Huckabee, Gingrich, Palin, Pawlenty, Petraeus, Pence, Jindal, Christie, and Brewer all run.


Split that neo-con vote!! :D

Beanie_N
08-04-2010, 11:10 PM
I personally don't mind Christie but I don't think he'll run. As for all the others, I hope they all split the votes allowing Paul the opportunity to win!

jasonxe
09-26-2011, 07:41 PM
Oh Romney, the smart business man that couldn't see the recession coming when he was already in the midst of it.

http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-ash2/41780_2222523022_6987_n.jpg

mitten 4 kittens!