Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 1:55 PM ET, 02/14/2011

Conservatives won't let poor Mitt Romney off hook on health care

By Greg Sargent

On Friday I argued that Mitt Romney's health care dilemma is akin to a Gordian Knot. Conservatives are insistent that Romney explain his previous support for the individual mandate, in order to prove he's not ideologically suspect, but when he does try to explain it, he only reinforces the sense that he's ideologically malleable and opportunistic.

Don't take my word for it, though. Righty blogger Jennifer Rubin reports that this is exactly how conservatives see it, and adds that his only way out is to repudiate Romneycare completely:

Romney has a huge problem that a wide array of Tea Partyers, Republican activists and officials, and conservative operatives think he can't overcome: RomneyCare. He leads in polls a year before the first primary because of name recognition...

However, if there is one point of consensus among plugged-in Republicans on the 2012 field, it is that Romney can't win unless he does a mea culpa on RomneyCare. Since he didn't and he won't do that, he's not going to be the nominee. Other than Romney admirers (and even some of them!) it's hard to find serious Republican players who disagree with that.

And so when Romney ignored the topic at CPAC, he hardly did "no harm." To the contrary, he simply reinforced the notion that he has an insuperable problem.

David Frum added bluntly: "If Romney does not apologize for Romneycare, he's dead."

This is why Romney's health care problem is akin to a Gordian Knot: It is an intractable problem that won't be solved if Romney keeps picking at the knot with his fingers. That is all he's doing with his various and shifting justifications for supporting the mandate as Governor of Massachusetts. And that's all he's doing when he blusters loudly about the evils of Obamacare, as if so doing will hoodwink conservatives into forgetting that he once embraced the very policy tool that makes Obamacare akin to tyranny.

The only way to cut the Gordian Knot, as Rubin and Frum both observe, is to figure out a way to repudiate Romneycare once and for all. That would be the political equivalent of how Alexander the Great is said to have handled the Gordian Knot after failing to untie it (though the legend differs in the telling): He cut it in half with a sharp sword.

Of course, this is easier said than done, and as one wag observed on Twitter recently, it's not clear that Romney wields a sword as sharp as Alexander did.

By Greg Sargent  | February 14, 2011; 1:55 PM ET
Categories:  2012, Health reform  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: House GOPer against big government health care enjoys taxpayer-funded state government insurance
Next: How Obama views the budget fight

Comments

Once again, I will vote Romney for President, but I won't vote for Obama.

Posted by: clawrence12 | February 14, 2011 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Maybe I'm crazy and giving voters too much credit, particularly conservative voters on the issue of health care, but can't Romney hide behind a Federalist argument? I thought conservatives would be fine with states passing a mandate or just about any type of health care reform. Why apologize for doing what those who voted for him wanted him to do?

Posted by: ashotinthedark | February 14, 2011 2:07 PM | Report abuse

That key word "apologize" rings a bell for me. Everyone wanted Clinton to apologize for her Iraq war vote. She never did, tried to have it both ways like Kerry did.

How'd that work out for her?

Posted by: trevorjackson | February 14, 2011 2:07 PM | Report abuse

The MSM is so easy to track no this.

Some "TeaParty" libertarian nut jobs want Romney to apologize for Romneycare because they think that the MSM's comparison of Obamacare and Romneycare is accurate.

MSM hit squads change "Teaparty Conservatives" to "Conservatives" and prepare the hit piece.

Here's one for Jennifer and you Greg. If Romneycare is such the HUGE issue, then why is Romney polling high among GOP voters? Why is Romney beating, or just at the same numbers as President Obama in hypothetical matchups?

Hello?

Newt Gingrinch responded to the critical view of Romneycare:

• Romney is firmly committed to repeal of Obamacare
• It’s not accurate or fair to compare Obamacare and Romneycare
• Romney vetoed many provisions of the Mass bill and Romney was overridden by Democrats
• The original Romney bill was better and practical than what the liberal Democrats did to it
• The Democrats overrode Romney’s original bill on a whole series of items
• The issue is not as clear cut as Tea Partiers think or the liberal media has made the issue out to be

http://www.knrs.com/onair/Rod-.....ycare.html

Conservative Think-tank = the Heritage Foundation responded to Romneycare:

– Heritage On Romney’s Individual Mandate: “Not an unreasonable position, and one that is clearly consistent with conservative values.” [Heritage, 1/28/06]

– Heritage On Romney’s Insurance Exchange: An “innovative mechanism to promote real consumer choice.” [Heritage, 4/20/06]

– Heritage On Romney’s Medicaid Expansion: Reduced “the total cost to taxpayers” by taking people out of the “uncompensated care pool.” [Heritage, 1/28/06]

Romney's accomplishments:
* Earned over 260 million in the private sector - 25 years
* Took 2002 Utah Winter Olympics’ 300 million deficit and turned it into a 100 million dollar surplus - the most successful games on record.
* Took Massachusetts 1.5 BILLION dollar deficit and turned it into a 600 million dollar surplus withOUT raising income and other taxes (he did raise some "fees" on other services - about 2 million worth.)


Posted by: tommyh9999yahoocom | February 14, 2011 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Maybe I'm crazy and giving voters too much credit, particularly conservative voters on the issue of health care, but can't Romney hide behind a Federalist argument?
-------------------------------------------------
He has been trying to argue the Federalist position. That appears too subtle for the R. base. The previous post about Rep. Lance's healthcare coming from the state, not the feds, will play in the court of public opinion as hypocritical since people don't parse these things too much. People really don't see much of a difference between state and federal and Ms. Rubin's column is proof of that.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | February 14, 2011 2:15 PM | Report abuse

I would note that McCain beat a hasty retreat on his support for comprehensive immigration reform and still won the nomination.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | February 14, 2011 2:18 PM | Report abuse

12barblues- I think you are right about the thinking of most voters. They are simply not interested in the federalism argument, which is strange to me as well considering the Tea Party emphasis on the Constitution, which was at least as much about the relationships among the states and federal government as it was about the relationship of the federal government to the people.

I wish this line of thinking was more appealing, since it happens to be my perspective. I think ACA is a great idea that happens to be unconstitutional and should be adopted by the states.

Posted by: mobrien83 | February 14, 2011 2:19 PM | Report abuse

ashotinthedark -- you'd think he could. But conservatives have decided that the mandate as a policy tool is tyranny, whether practiced on the state or federal level, and they are not allowing the distinction to have any meaning

Posted by: Greg Sargent | February 14, 2011 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Romney is never going to get anywhere with the "values voters" of CPAC, wing nut the base. The health care thing provides convenient cover for the real reason...he put his dog into the roof box for an xc trip.

Posted by: shrink2 | February 14, 2011 2:20 PM | Report abuse

12BarBlues- Thanks for the reply, makes sense to me and not the least bit surprising. Apology seems to be the only way to go, I guess.
I'm not sure what is worse, that Romney has to run away from a former bragging point and moderate position or that people should agree with his Federalist position, but are too irrational to have any subtlty in their position.

FairlingtonBlade- McCain beat a relatively unknown Tea Partier and spent 10X his opponent. Romney won't have either of those advantages in trying to win the nomination.

Posted by: ashotinthedark | February 14, 2011 2:23 PM | Report abuse

Greg- Don't you think it's strange that Rs cast their opposition to ACA as a federal overreach that is inconsistent with the Commerce/Necessary and Proper Clauses, but they refuse to acknowledge that Romneycare doesn't raise the same Constitutional questions?

Posted by: mobrien83 | February 14, 2011 2:23 PM | Report abuse

The best argument for ObamaCare is the fact that it stops The Insurance Companies from dropping people with pre-existing conditions, which will allow millions of people to keep their homes and life savings.

Democrats should keep their eye on the prize, instead of getting lost in the weeds, such as this thread is all about.

Posted by: Liam-still | February 14, 2011 2:23 PM | Report abuse

"Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) announces bid to succeed Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ)."

..................

Too easy, so make up your own punchlines, you lazy buggers.

Posted by: Liam-still | February 14, 2011 2:26 PM | Report abuse

Rs do "allow the distinction" to have meaning when they claim to support compassionate reform of our health care system but base their opposition to the ACA on unconstitutional federal overreach. It is when they oppose plans like Romneycare that one realizes that for many on the right, their constitutionally principled opposition to the ACA is really just a red herring for their opposition to a government role in health care.

Posted by: mobrien83 | February 14, 2011 2:27 PM | Report abuse

I thought this thread was about the (Southern) right wingers rejecting Romney, that has always been so, the health care thing just provides cover.

Posted by: shrink2 | February 14, 2011 2:27 PM | Report abuse

mobrien, I think in fairness some conservatives do label Romneycare in similar terms...what I usually read from them is that Romneycare should be struck down too...

Posted by: Greg Sargent | February 14, 2011 2:29 PM | Report abuse

I thought this thread was about the (Southern) right wingers rejecting Romney, that has always been so, the health care thing just provides cover.
-----------------------------------------------
The LDS-are-not-Christians folks don't like Romney because, well, he's not a Christian. The rest of the base don't like him because insurance mandates are tyranny no matter how they're done. Still Romney polls higher than everyone else on the GOP slate. Makes you wonder how all of this makes sense. They don't want Romney, but they don't want anyone else either?

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | February 14, 2011 2:34 PM | Report abuse

mobrien, I think in fairness some conservatives do label Romneycare in similar terms...what I usually read from them is that Romneycare should be struck down too...
---------------------------------------------------------
GOP reaps what it sows. Sow "tyranny" and pretty soon the base believes it. What a bunch of dopes.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | February 14, 2011 2:38 PM | Report abuse

"Romney is never going to get anywhere with the "values voters" of CPAC, wing nut the base."

Did someone call me? ;-)

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | February 14, 2011 2:38 PM | Report abuse

"If Romney does not apologize for Romneycare, he's dead."

Hoist on his own petard. Couldn't happen to a nicer (or phonier) guy.

Posted by: wbgonne | February 14, 2011 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Poor, poor Mitt Romney. It's so sad that conservatives won't let him forget what a socialist he was as Chief Executive of Massachusetts.

Posted by: kindness1 | February 14, 2011 2:39 PM | Report abuse

An apology to get through the primaries would give Obama a lot of flip-flop ammunition in the general. There is just no way out for Mittens.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | February 14, 2011 2:39 PM | Report abuse

And speaking of hypocrites, what do we think of GOP pols who have nothing good the say about Washington DC ever but do anything they can to get there and even more to stay? I'm looking at you, Orin Hatch.

Posted by: wbgonne | February 14, 2011 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Greg- To be honest, I haven't seen a lot of the stuff specifically about Romneycare. What I have seen is that when people on the right are challenged to defend their opposition to ACA's reasonable reforms that make our health care system more accessible and compassionate, the response is often that they don't oppose expanding the availability and affordability of care, they oppose the individual mandate as exceeding the Commerce Clause (this happens to be my position). However, these same people then turn around and condemn Romneycare, which doesn't raise the same Constitutional issues as far as I can see.

Posted by: mobrien83 | February 14, 2011 2:43 PM | Report abuse

"I thought this thread was about the (Southern) right wingers rejecting Romney, that has always been so, the health care thing just provides cover."

Reporting for duty! ;-)

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | February 14, 2011 2:44 PM | Report abuse

If not Mitt, maybe they can get behind Haley Barbour, who apparently lobbied on behalf of the Embassy of Mexico in 2001 for a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.... LOL

-----

Michael Scherer of Time's Swampland blog reports that Barbour's former lobbying firm, Griffith & Rogers, lobbied on behalf of the Embassy of Mexico in 2001 to promote a bill related to Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. This provision would have provided a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants in the United States, through family connections or job skills, without a requirement that they return to their home country for the requisite 3-10 years. This is what's often referred to as "amnesty."

Scherer reports that in the State Department filing, dated August, 2001, Lanny Griffith, a BG&R partner, wrote that he and Barbour would "lead the BG&R team" in support of the provision:

According to subsequent filings, Barbour's work included "building support in the legislative branch for passage of a bill related to Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act." As part of that work, Barbour's firm arranged meetings and briefings with "Senators, members of Congress and their staffs, as well as Executive Branch Officials in the White House, National Security Council, State Department, and Immigration & Naturalization Service." Barbour's firm charged Mexico $35,000 a month, plus expenses.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/haley-barbour-lobbied-on-behalf-of-mexico-for-amnesty-for-illegal-immigrants.php

Posted by: suekzoo1 | February 14, 2011 2:44 PM | Report abuse

"What a bunch of dopes."

Here Sir! ;-)

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | February 14, 2011 2:46 PM | Report abuse

TrollMcWingnut

Is it my imagination or have you become funny all of a sudden?

Posted by: wbgonne | February 14, 2011 2:47 PM | Report abuse

However, these same people then turn around and condemn Romneycare, which doesn't raise the same Constitutional issues as far as I can see.
------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, you do see the problem. It's not about constitutionality after all. As Gomer says "Surprise, surprise, surprise".

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | February 14, 2011 2:48 PM | Report abuse

O/T but I like it:

"Clinton expresses support for Iranian protesters"

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h8FbZs6TFPJfA2vilXLZN06-TjDQ?docId=2a3c518297044165b71e8b98a7901856

I hope the Iranian People can muster some momentum.

Posted by: wbgonne | February 14, 2011 2:49 PM | Report abuse

I think this just points to the R's larger problem. There is no real viable candidate to have emerged from the pack. The current field is carrying more baggage than a porter at a cruise ship terminal.

Of course the hope is that an "Obama" type will come out of nowhere to rescue them.
Problem is that most R's smart enough to qualify as such a possible candidate...e.g. Chris Cristie, Marco Rubio are also to bright to offer themselves up as the sacrificial lamb to the Obama juggernaut in 2012.

And that makes sense...why fight the power of incumbency head on when it can be diminished by waiting until 2016. In addition by then the tea party wackos will have faded back into the wood work. Notice Rubio has already distanced himself from them, cleverly coming up with an excuse to not join their caucus. After an Obama rout a "sensible" Republican (I know currently that is an oxymoron but it wasn't always so) will be able to make the case for more "realistic" policies after showing them what happens when the extreme fringe get control of a party.

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 14, 2011 2:52 PM | Report abuse

How come no ones writing "TeaBagger" and "drooling monosyllabic knuckle-dragging racists"?  It's like you're just phoning it in! ;-P

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | February 14, 2011 2:54 PM | Report abuse

WingNut- It's Valentine's Day is my guess.

Posted by: mobrien83 | February 14, 2011 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Also O/T but a fascinating summary of the ME/NA countries with current civil unrest. This could be a watershed moment in history. I still don't see Saudi Arabia on the list, however, probably because -- as someone else pointed out the other day -- the Saudis are too rich to complain (except for the Religious Nuts like bin Laden).

Posted by: wbgonne | February 14, 2011 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Oops:

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/02/14/arab.region.unrest/

Posted by: wbgonne | February 14, 2011 3:00 PM | Report abuse

ruk: "There is no real viable candidate to have emerged from the pack. The current field is carrying more baggage than a porter at a cruise ship terminal."

So GOP really ought to run a wacko like Palin, lose 48 or 49 states, and then they can really isolate and maginalize their nuts in 2016.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | February 14, 2011 3:00 PM | Report abuse

"Haley Barbour"

Too Boss Hog-ish. The country's had enough Good Ol Boys for a while. I sure have anyway.

Posted by: wbgonne | February 14, 2011 3:01 PM | Report abuse

What are the odds on Chris Chris? I assume he's a long-shot and that's where I'd put my money. If I were a gambling man, that is.

Posted by: wbgonne | February 14, 2011 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Later.

Posted by: wbgonne | February 14, 2011 3:05 PM | Report abuse

So GOP really ought to run a wacko like Palin, lose 48 or 49 states, and then they can really isolate and maginalize their nuts in 2016.
---------------------------------------------
They did this in 1964 when Barry Goldwater ran. Goldwater received 38.4% of the popular vote, and carried six states: Arizona (with only 50.45% of the popular vote) and the core states of the Deep South: Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina, where for the last time the electorate was practically all white.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | February 14, 2011 3:05 PM | Report abuse

"WingNut- It's Valentine's Day is my guess."

Well, we're not gonna reduce ourselves into two-dimensional caricature's, are we?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | February 14, 2011 3:07 PM | Report abuse

I believe that most people can nolonger use the word: "drooling" because Bilgeman/AKA Kadaffi has copyrighted it.

Posted by: Liam-still | February 14, 2011 3:09 PM | Report abuse

I believe that most people can no longer use the word: "drooling" because Bilgeman/AKA Kadaffi has copyrighted it.

Posted by: Liam-still | February 14, 2011 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Haley Barbour is going to run into some strong headwinds with the Nativist crowd, now that it has been revealed that he was once hired by The Mexican Government, to lobby for Amnesty for undocumented workers in the US.

Posted by: Liam-still | February 14, 2011 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Just curious...

"Once again, I will vote Romney for President, but I won't vote for Obama."

Considering the poster..is this as SHOCKING to everyone else as it is to me. I appreciate that poster stating this because WHO could have ever guessed. I mean it's good to know something new isn't it.

We get it claw...you suffer from such a terminal case of ODS that you'd vote for a ticket of Abramoff/Madoff while they were STILL in jail before you'd vote for Obama.
It's unthinking folks like you that have saddled the state of Florida with a Fraud as Governor!

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 14, 2011 3:15 PM | Report abuse

@ashot: "Maybe I'm crazy and giving voters too much credit, particularly conservative voters on the issue of health care, but can't Romney hide behind a Federalist argument?"

For some folks. I think that's a perfectly legitimate argument but, with a few exceptions (tanning tax, eliminating personal healthcare savings account) I didn't find HCR nearly as appalling as many of my conservative brethren. I think Romney is a right-of-center technocrat, and wouldn't be a bad president.

David Frum's powers of prognostication aren't great. And, if you look at history, the runner-up tends to get the nod, the "old warhorse" tends to get the nod, and if Romney runs, history says it'd be a battle between Romney and, if he runs, Huckabee.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | February 14, 2011 3:19 PM | Report abuse

@ashotinthedark

No he can't because while the Constitutionality (or complete lack of such, in the case of federal individual mandate) it is also extremely bad policy on its own merits and his initial support for it was in itself almost completely disqualifying.

Politically the distinction will be much to fine for many in the general electorate and will make it very difficult (probably impossible) to effectively challenge Obama on on of his most vulnerable points (and probably worst policies - at least in scope, many are are less significant but just as bad or worse).

An early mea culpa with an acknowledgement of the failure of RomneyCare and the defects associated with the individual mandate might have alleviated Mitt's trouble's to an extent. At this point it would look even more opportunistic.

Posted by: cavalier4 | February 14, 2011 3:20 PM | Report abuse

@Sue

"So GOP really ought to run a wacko like Palin, lose 48 or 49 states, and then they can really isolate and maginalize their nuts in 2016."

Yep. That's my thought anyway Sue. Don't get me wrong, as a Floridian I detest Marco Rubio...as a progressive however he does make me nervous...he is a silver tongued devil...good looking...personal life story as strong as Obama's, son of impoverished Cuban immigrants who had to give up everything to escape communism, and like Obama he would be a "first"...the first Hispanic American President.

If Palin runs and gets pasted that also takes care of her disruptive influence in the GOP.

Posted by: rukidding7 | February 14, 2011 3:22 PM | Report abuse

@wbgonne: "What are the odds on Chris Chris? I assume he's a long-shot and that's where I'd put my money. If I were a gambling man, that is."

I think Christie is a practical man. If he wants to run for the president, he needs to do it in 2016. 2012 is not the year to run. Incumbents tend to win. They are very, very hard to beat. He's much more like to win after 8 years of Obama than 4.

I'd vote for him. But I think he'd be much better set in 2016 for a serious bid.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | February 14, 2011 3:22 PM | Report abuse

As Homer wrote, paraphrasing Cicero: "Cry wingnut! And let loose the two minute hate!"

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | February 14, 2011 3:23 PM | Report abuse

I know people have been quiet on it but when is McCain going to announce his run?

Has anyone asked yet? I'm anxiously waiting for the big flip of the suck up to Maverick once again.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | February 14, 2011 3:23 PM | Report abuse

12Bar: "They did this in 1964 when Barry Goldwater ran. Goldwater received 38.4% of the popular vote, and carried six states"

And Goldwater would seem downright centrist, in most ways, today. Just goes to show ya . . . something.

Maybe you guys shoulda taken Goldwater when you had the chance. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | February 14, 2011 3:25 PM | Report abuse

@mikefromArlington: "I know people have been quiet on it but when is McCain going to announce his run?"

He's old, and he lost to Obama in 2008. He won't win the primary. In fact, he will be broomed early on, if he runs. I don't expect that's what he wants.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | February 14, 2011 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Assuming you are not being sarcastic, rukidding7, you're welcome. At least I'm not the one who said that the alleged "Fraud Governor" be put up against a wall and shot.

Posted by: clawrence12 | February 14, 2011 3:27 PM | Report abuse

If Palin runs and gets pasted that also takes care of her disruptive influence in the GOP.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I doubt it. First, she will demand a 49 state recount because everyone is against her.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | February 14, 2011 3:28 PM | Report abuse

@Troll: "How come no ones writing 'TeaBagger' and 'drooling monosyllabic knuckle-dragging racists'? It's like you're just phoning it in! "

Don't despair. Cao will be back soon. :P

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | February 14, 2011 3:28 PM | Report abuse

@wbgonne: "Too Boss Hog-ish. The country's had enough Good Ol Boys for a while. I sure have anyway."

Plus, his negatives inside the party are too high. He may be popular in Mississippi, but the GOP establishment doesn't want him in the presidential primaries any more than they wanted Christine "I'm Not a Witch" O'Donnell running for senate.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | February 14, 2011 3:30 PM | Report abuse

"And Goldwater would seem downright centrist, in most ways, today. Just goes to show ya . . . something."

Goldwater (may your dark blessings fall upon your prodigy, Cheney) campaigned on eliminating SS. Is that now centrist? ;-)

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | February 14, 2011 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Goldwater (may your dark blessings fall upon your prodigy, Cheney) campaigned on eliminating SS. Is that now centrist? ;-)
-----------------------------------------------------
Oh, yeah, now it comes back to me why he lost in a landslide.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | February 14, 2011 3:34 PM | Report abuse

'he [Romney] put his dog into the roof box for an xc trip"

True, but Gingrich did something similar with one of his wives.

Posted by: bernielatham | February 14, 2011 3:39 PM | Report abuse

"Goldwater (may your dark blessings fall upon your prodigy, Cheney) campaigned on eliminating SS. Is that now centrist? ;-)"

Well, duh. I meant •except• for that.

@12Bar: "Oh, yeah, now it comes back to me why he lost in a landslide."

Yet, not as big a landslide as Carter lost to Reagan in 1980 or as Mondale lost to Reagan in 1984. And what were those fellows promising to do? ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | February 14, 2011 3:41 PM | Report abuse

"Goldwater (may your dark blessings fall upon your prodigy, Cheney) campaigned on eliminating SS. Is that now centrist? ;-)
-----------------------------------------------------
Oh, yeah, now it comes back to me why he lost in a landslide.".

 I thought it was because he was gonna nuke the Ruskies (no offense intended Bernie)? ;-)

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | February 14, 2011 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Kevin:

""And Goldwater would seem downright centrist, in most ways, today.""

Just curious...are you being serious or facetious?

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 14, 2011 3:42 PM | Report abuse

No problem here, I'm voting ABO... Anybody But Obama

Posted by: TonyV1 | February 14, 2011 3:42 PM | Report abuse

trevorjackson, Hillary Clinton losing the Democratic nomination had 0% to do with her not apologizing for her Iraq war vote and 100% to do with young Democrats having orgasms about electing the first black president. Add to that the high number of caucus states, where you had to be there in person to vote for the nominee, at a specific time (and in rural areas sometimes 50 or 60 miles from where you lived), and if you were physically disabled, well, that was just too bad.

So who was most likely to be available to vote in the caucuses? Those between the ages of 18 and 25. And we all know who they supported.

Posted by: superbu | February 14, 2011 3:45 PM | Report abuse

12Bar:

""Goldwater (may your dark blessings fall upon your prodigy, Cheney) campaigned on eliminating SS."

Hmmm. From a Goldwater campaign brochure, 1964:

"I favor a sound Social Security system and I want to see it strengthened. I want to see every participant receive all the benefits this system provides. And I want to see these benefits paid in dollars with real purchasing power.

"Social Security is a system of basic protection for the aged. In addition, most Americans now participate in private pension plans while many have their own savings and investments Social Security was never intended to replace these voluntary programs. Its prime purpose was and is to supplement them, to provide a basic floor. I am convinced it can do this job, the job for which it was created.

Essentially, protection against need in America depends upon a free economy which produces an ever-growing abundance and an ever-greater opportunity for all. In this framework, I believe Social Security has a vital and legitimate supporting role."

http://www.4president.org/brochures/goldwater1964brochure.htm

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 14, 2011 3:47 PM | Report abuse

@ScottC3: "Just curious...are you being serious or facetious?"

I prefer "jocular and ironic". I've actually heard liberals say many positive things about Mr. G, and even suggest Goldwater was reasonable, in comparison to the vilified conservative of the moment (Gingrich, Dubya, et al).

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | February 14, 2011 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Maybe you guys shoulda taken Goldwater when you had the chance. ;)

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | February 14, 2011 3:25 PM

......................

We did, to the woodshed!

Posted by: Liam-still | February 14, 2011 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Troll asked: "Did someone call me?"

If the voice you heard had a deep, resonant rumble which was utterly compelling in the manner of truth and dominance, then it was either God or myself.

Posted by: bernielatham | February 14, 2011 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Kevin:

""I've actually heard liberals say many positive things about Mr. G, and even suggest Goldwater was reasonable, in comparison to the vilified conservative of the moment (Gingrich, Dubya, et al).""

Me too. As Jonah Goldberg has noted, for liberals, the only good conservatives are dead ones.

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 14, 2011 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Yet, not as big a landslide as Carter lost to Reagan in 1980 or as Mondale lost to Reagan in 1984. And what were those fellows promising to do? ;)
------------------------------------------------
Not true. Goldwater loss was about 23 points, much bigger than the Carter/Mondale losses.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | February 14, 2011 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Obama's proposed budget cuts the deficit by $1.1 trillion over the next ten years. Let's see if the Republicans can cut even more.

Posted by: clawrence12 | February 14, 2011 3:52 PM | Report abuse

""the only good conservatives are dead ones.""

Yeah, until liberals resurrect them and try to claim they weren't conservative. What's up with that?

Posted by: lmsinca | February 14, 2011 3:53 PM | Report abuse

To quote a 1994 interview with Goldwater: ""When you say "radical right" today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.""

Goldwater reportedly viewed abortion as a matter of personal choice (an issue that only came up post Roe V. Wade), was a critic of Reagan (especially in regards to Iran-Contra), urged Republicans to lay off Bill Clinton in regards with Whitewater (a position I concurred with) and was critical of the military's ban on homosexuals. Goldwater endorsed an Arizona initiative to legalize medical marijuana in 1996. He even expressed amazement to Bob Dole that he and dole were now "the liberals of the Republican party".

Goldwater also thought the government was withholding evidence of UFOs from the general public.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | February 14, 2011 3:53 PM | Report abuse

12Bar:

""Not true. Goldwater loss was about 23 points, much bigger than the Carter/Mondale losses.""

Well, I guess it depends on how you look at it. Goldwater won 6 states. Mondale won 1. And as Professor Gore will attest, the popular vote isn't all it's cracked up to be.

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 14, 2011 3:54 PM | Report abuse

@12Bar: ""Not true. Goldwater loss was about 23 points, much bigger than the Carter/Mondale losses.""

I mean electorally, given that's how presidential elections are decided (not popular vote) . . . but, fair enough!

Though I still stand by my original assertion: both Carter and Mondale's electoral losses were even bigger than Goldwater's.

But, as Al Gore found out in 2000, it's not the popular vote that decides the election . . .

It's the Supreme Court!

Ba-da-dum!

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | February 14, 2011 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Come on all you Liberals. Say something nice about some living Conservatives, just as a Valentine for ScottC. After all, look at all the times he says so many nice things about President Obama.

Posted by: Liam-still | February 14, 2011 3:57 PM | Report abuse

All, my take on Obama's handling of budget fight:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/02/how_obama_views_the_budget_fig.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | February 14, 2011 3:57 PM | Report abuse

kevin: "Goldwater reportedly viewed abortion as a matter of personal choice (an issue that only came up post Roe V. Wade"

So did Mitten's dad, George, a former governor here.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | February 14, 2011 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Scott: ""Me too. As Jonah Goldberg has noted, for liberals, the only good conservatives are dead ones.""

Well, for many, I'm sure this is true. More universally, I think they only good conservative is one who can be used as a contrast against a more influential or powerful conservative, and made to seem wanting.

More to the point, the only good conservative is one whose usefulness to liberals outweighs the level of his conservatism (a formula that has caught up with more than one centrist Republican, who has suddenly found their usefulness on the wane).

I'm sure it works that way in reverse (false equivalence!) but once I think I've made a good point, I lose interest in the argument. :P

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | February 14, 2011 4:01 PM | Report abuse

@suekzoo: "So did Mitten's dad, George, a former governor here."

Yes, but what about Mitt? And what about his view on UFOs? And, more specifically, do any of them know the secret location of the lost Ark of the Covenant?

I hear it's in a government warehouse somewhere.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | February 14, 2011 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Kevin:

""I'm sure it works that way in reverse (false equivalence!) but once I think I've made a good point, I lose interest in the argument.""

Heh.

Posted by: ScottC3 | February 14, 2011 4:05 PM | Report abuse

"If the voice you heard had a deep, resonant rumble which was utterly compelling in the manner of truth and dominance, then it was either God or myself."

False alarm. It was just Rove with my daily Talking Points. ;-)

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | February 14, 2011 4:08 PM | Report abuse

kevin: "Yes, but what about Mitt? "

Which Mitt? Old Mitt? New Mitt? Governor Mitt? Candidate Mitt? CPAC Mitt? Too many choices...

Posted by: suekzoo1 | February 14, 2011 4:13 PM | Report abuse

The nutjobs insist that it's not racism to hate Obama, it's because Obama is a "radical socialist". Same here. They hate Romney because he's a Mormon but they'll insist it's because of RomneyCare. The fact is, they're radical and extreme. Logic and Rationality have little to do with it.

Posted by: thebobbob | February 14, 2011 4:15 PM | Report abuse

@sue: "Which Mitt? Old Mitt? New Mitt? Governor Mitt? Candidate Mitt? CPAC Mitt? Too many choices..."

Sun-n-Surf Malibu Mittens with MagiChange™ Wonder Hair.

:P

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | February 14, 2011 4:15 PM | Report abuse

What does Mitt believe? What ever his pollsters tell him their results say he should believe.

Yeats once remarked: "Poets are the unelected legislators of the world". Were WB around today, he would have to change that to: Pollsters are the.........

Posted by: Liam-still | February 14, 2011 4:18 PM | Report abuse

@thebobbob: ""The nutjobs insist that it's not racism to hate Obama, it's because Obama is a "radical socialist". Same here. They hate Romney because he's a Mormon but they'll insist it's because of RomneyCare. The fact is, they're radical and extreme. Logic and Rationality have little to do with it.""

Well, that's an interesting opinion, but I'm pretty sure you're wrong.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | February 14, 2011 4:18 PM | Report abuse

I'm a conservative and don't put Romney on the hook for what Obama did. That is ludicrous. Romney would not have done nor did he do healthcare the way Obama did it. Romney is Mr. Private Sector and Obama...not so much. Obama deliberately placed a plan that will put insurance companies under government control and private practice medicine on the road to obsolescence. That is so unRomneylike that its guaranteed never to happen if Romney is elected.

Posted by: SteadfastImmovable | February 14, 2011 4:22 PM | Report abuse

@Liam-still; ""Yeats once remarked: "Poets are the unelected legislators of the world". Were WB around today, he would have to change that to: Pollsters are the.........""

That's why so much poll reportage starts with: "A shocking number of the electorate feel that political pollsters are tragically underpaid, should get a big bonus on Christmas and on their birthdays, and should get at least a month off paid vacation each year. With shocking unanimity, 100% of respondents agreed that they would not vote for any politician who didn't give their political pollsters a big raise, right away."

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | February 14, 2011 4:22 PM | Report abuse

"The nutjobs insist that it's not racism to hate Obama, it's because Obama is a "radical socialist". Same here. They hate Romney because he's a Mormon but they'll insist it's because of RomneyCare. The fact is, they're radical and extreme. Logic and Rationality have little to do with it."

Wait... Now I'm hearing the voices again! Now, where the heck is my drool cup? I'm clinging to my Bible, guns and illegal immigrant antipathy.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | February 14, 2011 4:24 PM | Report abuse

It can not be just because he is A Mormon. After all they love Glen Beck, and he too is a Mormon; although it be from that modern day offshot: The Church Of The Latter Day Insane.

Rim Shot Please, Kevin!

Posted by: Liam-still | February 14, 2011 4:26 PM | Report abuse

kevin: "Sun-n-Surf Malibu Mittens with MagiChange™ Wonder Hair."

Now that is seriously funny! Gold star!

Posted by: suekzoo1 | February 14, 2011 4:26 PM | Report abuse

"No problem here, I'm voting ABO... Anybody But Obama"

And this in a (wing)nut shell is why the Republicans have no chance to gain the White House in 2012.

Posted by: shrink2 | February 14, 2011 4:28 PM | Report abuse

ru said: "I think this just points to the R's larger problem. There is no real viable candidate to have emerged from the pack"

I read or heard someone last week (Brooks?) state that it was understood by Republicans that this was the weakest slate of candidates * in their lifetimes*.

That's not just an "ouch", though it is certainly that. I think it points to a very real problem for the party.

The extremisms that now dominate movement ideology - and the rise in power of movement ideologues - limit not only the candidates who remain viable through the primary process but also push the youth of the party into extremist views while marginalizing those who might be strong but aren't willing to subscribe to the litmus regimes.

Further, because the movement is as anti-intellectual as it is by its very nature, bright, thoughtful, independent-minded individuals aren't usually welcome.

One last factor, too, seems to be proving quite destructive to the party producing a cadre of good candidates - the increasing reliance upon right wing media to define "conservativism" and to promote or demean individuals and ideas in other than the most shallow and cynical ways. "Is the person marketable?" rather than "Would this person be competent?"

The lack of good candidates isn't merely luck of the draw here. It's deeply structural.

Posted by: bernielatham | February 14, 2011 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Liam: "After all they love Glen Beck, and he too is a Mormon"

Wait...didn't he become Moses last week?

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/244897/GLENN-BECK.jpg


Posted by: suekzoo1 | February 14, 2011 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Man, that David Brooks has a great scam working for him. He writes a column, and he then appears on several weekly national TV shows, where he says exactly the same thing that he said in his column.

It is amazing to hear him spout the exact same points, that he wrote in his column, on PBS on a Friday, and then on some Network show on a Sunday morning.

Posted by: Liam-still | February 14, 2011 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Sue,

Like I said: and that adds further proof to my claim: Beck is a member of The Church Of The Latter Day Insane.

All that drug abuse he engaged in, is causing him to have more a more psychotic episodes.

Posted by: Liam-still | February 14, 2011 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Romney may have the clout within the leadership of the party to get nominated, but, like Dole and McCain, he is unelectable.

It speaks to his basic stupidity that he isn't able to get past his blind ambition and see this.

Posted by: plaasjaapie | February 14, 2011 4:55 PM | Report abuse

@Liam - All in all, I like Brooks. He's bright, knowledgeable, and not a movement guy. I expect I could sit down with him and have a very good conversation and learn lots. He's now something of a rarity.

Posted by: bernielatham | February 14, 2011 5:01 PM | Report abuse

plaasjaapie, I think that anybody but Obama attitude emanating from the base contributes to the ambition of all of the Republican hopefuls, they think, all I have to do is get nominated and surely I'll win, America will elect anybody but Obama, they'll never make that mistake twice. Yeah, so Republicans will make the same mistake twice and put up another unelectable ticket.

Posted by: shrink2 | February 14, 2011 5:02 PM | Report abuse

"One last factor, too, seems to be proving quite destructive to the party producing a cadre of good candidates - the increasing reliance upon right wing media to define "conservativism" and to promote or demean individuals and ideas in other than the most shallow and cynical ways. "Is the person marketable?" rather than "Would this person be competent?""

Bernie, your comments are always deeply thought provoking and provide deep, deep insight into what can only be described as your mind.  I thank you for what you do for my benefit.

Back to this particular comment, who should Conservatives let decide what Conservatism is?

Again thank you for your insights, and thanks in advance for your answer (should you decide to provide one.  I'm good with either of your choices.)! :-)

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | February 14, 2011 5:05 PM | Report abuse

When Obama flip flopped on the individual mandate, it was OK for Libs. Obama did not apologize for anything, and he shoved his @#$% through our throats, a whole country!!! Romney did not shove anything. Libs are so afraid of Romney but cannot influence anything.

Posted by: paulnyoko | February 14, 2011 5:05 PM | Report abuse

As a liberal, I am scared of a Romney candidacy. That, combined with some bad luck and bad breaks for Obama in the next 18 months, could mean a loss of the White House.

The fact that Repubs won't let Mitt through the primary process is music to my ears...

Posted by: BobGreenpoint | February 14, 2011 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Romney is the clear choice. Blue states vs red states, that is it. The tea partiers and Christian are in the Republican blocs, so are the red states. Romney can get many of the battleground states without trying very hard. Michigan and the auto industry, of course, it is his. New Hampshire is his. New Mexico, Colorado, et al, mormon country, no problem. Romney may not even spend a dime in many battleground states, just for what he is. And other battleground states? Florida is not going Obama's way, not with the Egyptian fiasco. What Israeli is with Obama now, what a fall out. Romney may even get Massachussets, Scott Brown would surely help. Chris Christie may even make NJ close, force Obama to spend $$$.

Posted by: paulnyoko | February 14, 2011 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Democrats are not afraid of a guy who is afraid to talk about his own legislative history.

Today's Mitt is scared to death of yesterday's Mitt.

No need for anyone to worry about Mitt. He comes pre-scared!

Posted by: Liam-still | February 14, 2011 5:19 PM | Report abuse

"plaasjaapie, I think that anybody but Obama attitude emanating from the base contributes to the ambition of all of the Republican hopefuls, they think, all I have to do is get nominated and surely I'll win, America will elect anybody but Obama, they'll never make that mistake twice. Yeah, so Republicans will make the same mistake twice and put up another unelectable ticket."

Wow!  Very insightful post.  Shrink, just like Bernie, your intellect is... well, it's hard to describe! :-) Thank you for your comments.

In regards to your most recent comment, do you really think that, Romny for example, is oblivious to the difficulty of unseating an incumbent President?  Further, that every Republican that is or will run for the Presidency is, well, to stupid if you will, to understand the difficulty of unseating an incumbent?

Thanks in advance!

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | February 14, 2011 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Left-wing nonsense from the Jewish staff at the Washington POST

Romney's HC plan in Massachusetts is VERY POPULAR with 60% to 70% of State residents LOVING their STATE PLAN.......

Romney and the Democrat Legislature did it without raising taxes $1 dollar and with PRIVATE plans only.......

Now, today 98% of adults and 99% of children have insurance in Massachusetts and don't have to hang out in Emergency rooms..........

Romney HC plan = POPULAR WITH THE PEOPLE of Mass.

Obamacare HC plan - VERY UNPOPULAR one-size fits all........

Big difference POST.......... Romney is right Obamacare is unconstitutional and Romney will sign legislation from the GOP Senate in 2012 to REPEAL it........

Romney is correct.........Let each US State decide if they want a State plan or not...........

Romney's the one in 2012 ! smart, clean Fiscal Conservative just what America needs.........

Posted by: allenridge | February 14, 2011 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Romney is the man, libs have every right to be afraid. Romney is not going away, he is got many battleground states without even trying. And it is electoral college -battleground states - not sheer number of votes that counts.

Posted by: paulnyoko | February 14, 2011 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Romney is the clear choice. Blue states vs red states, that is it. The tea partiers and Christian are in the Republican blocs, so are the red states. Romney can get many of the battleground states without trying very hard. Michigan and the auto industry, of course, it is his. New Hampshire is his. New Mexico, Colorado, et al, mormon country, no problem. Romney may not even spend a dime in many battleground states, just for what he is. And other battleground states? Florida is not going Obama's way, not with the Egyptian fiasco. What Israeli is with Obama now, what a fall out. Romney may even get Massachussets, Scott Brown would surely help. Chris Christie may even make NJ close, force Obama to spend $$$.

Posted by: paulnyoko | February 14, 2011 5:17 PM
=======================
Dude paulnyoko..........you are 100% correct and we Americans are seeing our dirty dishonest MSM wolfpack press coming out now, before Romney even announces, to attack and smear him.....

Every Democrat knows Romney's their biggest threat.........and their pals in the press will smear and attack him from now til November 2012.........

Posted by: allenridge | February 14, 2011 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Romney is the clear choice. Blue states vs red states, that is it. The tea partiers and Christian are in the Republican blocs, so are the red states. Romney can get many of the battleground states without trying very hard. Michigan and the auto industry, of course, it is his. New Hampshire is his. New Mexico, Colorado, et al, mormon country, no problem. Romney may not even spend a dime in many battleground states, just for what he is. And other battleground states? Florida is not going Obama's way, not with the Egyptian fiasco. What Israeli is with Obama now, what a fall out. Romney may even get Massachussets, Scott Brown would surely help. Chris Christie may even make NJ close, force Obama to spend $$$.

Posted by: paulnyoko | February 14, 2011 5:17 PM
=======================
Dude paulnyoko..........you are 100% correct and we Americans are seeing our dirty dishonest MSM wolfpack press coming out now, before Romney even announces, to attack and smear him.....

Every Democrat knows Romney's their biggest threat.........and their pals in the press will smear and attack him from now til November 2012.........

Posted by: allenridge | February 14, 2011 5:41 PM | Report abuse

My daughter, a devout Christian, put it right: the democrats are so reckless against God, with gay rights, etc. She will vote for Romney, a mormon, because Republicans are not reckless.

Posted by: paulnyoko | February 14, 2011 5:43 PM | Report abuse

Democrats are not afraid of a guy who is afraid to talk about his own legislative history.

Today's Mitt is scared to death of yesterday's Mitt.

No need for anyone to worry about Mitt. He comes pre-scared!

When the subject of health care reform comes up, Mitt will have to engage in a heated debate with himself.

Posted by: Liam-still | February 14, 2011 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Troll, I thought the vigorous rogering we took in November was the big hurt for the Democratic party if not liberalism in general and that it ensured a one term Obama Presidency; now the cold light of dawn must have revealed what that what was about and what you are up against. Ok, but I don't think a lot of Republicans get that, see for example, 108 and 109 above.

Posted by: shrink2 | February 14, 2011 5:47 PM | Report abuse

I remember when Romney signed the healthcare bill. Teddy Kennedy was there and they all had a good laugh.

Posted by: adm454 | February 14, 2011 5:53 PM | Report abuse

shrink: "Ok, but I don't think a lot of Republicans get that, see for example, 108 and 109 above."

Keep in mind, post numbering is a feature of the WaPo Troll Hunter™, and doesn't show up for anybody not running the troll hunter (thus, they'd be like, "108? 109? what the heck is he talking about?")

This has been a public service announcement.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | February 14, 2011 5:58 PM | Report abuse

"Like McCain, he is unelectable.

It speaks to his basic stupidity that he isn't able to get past his blind ambition and see this.
Posted by: plaasjaapie
========================
It speaks to plaasjaapie's stupidity that he calls Romney stupid. Romany may be a dork, may be a little too facile on positions and too religious for some...particularly the overly fundie Christians. But no one. No one who has the facility for critical thinking would call Romney stupid.
When a Harvard professor says that he remembered Mitt standing out at Harvard Law because an electric intelligence rare in his experience.....you know Mitt is not dumb.
Bill Gates is a Dork as well.


Posted by: ChrisFord1 | February 14, 2011 6:23 PM | Report abuse

Shrink, thanks for your comment! Are you saying that the current crop of Republican hopefuls are intellectually incapable of realizing the difficulty of unseating an incumbent? Even considering the 2004 Democratic lesson about wicshcasting?

Thanks in advance!

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | February 14, 2011 6:25 PM | Report abuse

What I want to know is why do we care about Healthcare law in Massachusetts or for any State other than the one we live in? This wasn't even an issue in 2008. Nobody cared. Why do they care so much now? Is it because Barry, Harry and Scary had absolutely no idea of how to reform Healthcare, so they decided to rip off Massachusetts law, then distort into the current disaster? This is hardly Romney's fault.

This is a Massachusetts law, for the people of that State. It is what they wanted and what they voted for. By all accounts the majority of people in Massachusetts still like it and don't think it is a disaster. So why should Romney apologize? He has never once advocated this law be universal for the entire United States. He has not now or ever run with Universal Healthcare as part of his platform. He took the Federalist position before he ran for President. He hasn't flipped on this issue, and I don't think he should.

When Romney signed this bill, (which has since been perverted) it did not affect me one iota. It still doesn't. We need someone who can lead this country, and apply sound principals to turn things around. Whenever I ask my fellow Tea Party Patriots these questions, they have no answer. Let's not throw a good candidate under the bus for something that doesn't even matter.

Posted by: Clorinda1 | February 14, 2011 6:25 PM | Report abuse

Troll, no I am saying what I said, the anyone-but-Obama must surely win attitude emanating from your base seems to me to contribute to the ambition of many folks said to be considering a run at Obama. I say this because from my perspective, they appear to be non-starters at least for this cycle, as for example I thought of the McCain/Palin ticket, but I am biased.

Posted by: shrink2 | February 14, 2011 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Where are all these supposed "insistent conservatives'? I'm a conservative, and I don't think he should reject the Mass healthcare. My friends who are also conservative don't say that. I've yet to see anyone on Fox News say that. The only people who seem to say that are the liberals who hope to stir up discontent with Romney. I think there is fear that he'll beat Obama so this is a lame attempt to bring him down. I see it for what it is. And personally, I think the states should solve health care rather than the Fed Gov. Let each state come up with an improvement on the Mass plan and eventually someone will completely perfect it.

Posted by: dixielea | February 14, 2011 7:48 PM | Report abuse

You people are SO wrong on the Mormon issue. Conservatives won't vote for Romney because he is not conservative enough. When you couple that with the religion issue he drops enough support he can't win. I am not what you would call evangelical (Presbyterian) and his Mormon faith makes me extremely uncomfortable. I am very politically active, would probably abstain or vote 3rd party if he got the nomination. I would have trouble pulling the lever for someone who follows a religion that I see as blasphemous. If I really believed in his conservative credentials I might be able to overcome that, as it is I see him as no better than Obama.

Posted by: JohnJC | February 14, 2011 8:09 PM | Report abuse

I cringe when I hear pundits or politicians say that Romney needs to apologize or repudiate "Romneycare". It is icredibly disingenuous. Everyone knows that to do so would be political suicide for Romney. And make no mistake, that's exactly what these people want. Besides, Romney has absolutely nothing to apologize for! Romney was able to do what no one else has been able to do. He got nearly everyone in his state healthcare without raising taxes, with no new spending and with wide bipartisan support. It was popular when it was passed and for the most part, remains so today.

Posted by: sambunderson | February 14, 2011 8:29 PM | Report abuse

When Obama flip flopped on the individual mandate, it was OK for Libs. Obama did not apologize for anything, and he shoved his @#$% through our throats, a whole country!!! Romney did not shove anything. Libs are so afraid of Romney but cannot influence anything.

==

WHAT is it with you guys and the oral rape imagery?!? Can't you come up with a less lurid way to say this? ACA wasn't forced on anyone, it was passed legitimately and its greatest flaws are the result of compromises with conservatives. The public option should have been central to it.

Bernie re: structural .. spot on.

Troll, stick a cork in the cutesy crap, it's getting old real fast. Yeah you're a member of the vast right wing conspiracy huh huh huh winky winky winky. We already have Jake to hold up the stupid caricature contingent and one is enough.

Posted by: caothien9 | February 14, 2011 9:58 PM | Report abuse

Thank Goodness.!!!

As there is nothing more revolting and repulsive, to a Real Constitutional Conservative, than an Obama Lookalike, Liberal Republican Party Establishment Pre-Approved RINO, like Romney, and his Obama lookalike RomenyCare, which Real Constitutional Conservatives, absolutely hates, more than anything else, period.!!!

Posted by: sonny119 | February 14, 2011 11:19 PM | Report abuse

This conservative will be supporting Mitt Romney. He will make a great President. I pray he gets the opportunity to prove it.

Posted by: wdwrightii | February 14, 2011 11:35 PM | Report abuse

i had completely written romney off but he made an argument about his healthcare v. obamacare that caused me to at least not see it as the thing that wipes him out.

romney said his plan differs from obama's in that it was a STATE decision and not suited for all states. furthermore, he explained, he would never attempt to ram a healthcare that is suitable for MA down the throats of every american citizen(not verbatim but u get the idea).

now my issue with him is his position on gay marriage. if he's signing off on this and approving of it then again he's off my list. we need people with backbone who are willing to take the punches come what may not what they hope will get them votes. do what is right because it is right.

Posted by: ChooseBestCandidate | February 14, 2011 11:36 PM | Report abuse

"Righty blogger Jennifer Rubin reports...", and what are you, sfb, a "lefty blogger"?

Posted by: mvd78209 | February 14, 2011 11:55 PM | Report abuse

Regardless of the reasons why Romney passed Romey-Care, mainly due to a deep blue legislature that would not let him make it to conservative, he is royally hosed. Republican primary voters of the conservative variety and primary voters do not deal well with context years after the fact. Romney is dead even with this weak a field and that says a lot. I doubt if Romney even apologized for passing it he could win.

Posted by: iacoboni04 | February 15, 2011 12:54 AM | Report abuse

sonny119, et al., there's at least one person more revolting and repulsive to a Real Constitutional Conservative. Please review my first post above.

Posted by: clawrence12 | February 15, 2011 7:32 AM | Report abuse

I think you need to talk to a real Conservative, like the kind that voted against Obama, Pelosi and Reid, et al.
First off, Obama won't run again. Stop reading the MSM's polls and PSYOP. Obama has a better chance of tarred and feathered than re-elected.
Sarah Palin took down Obama by herself. Remember that Obama rally in Wisconsin with, what, maybe shellshocked 250 Democrats in attendance. Gov. Palin had crowds between 30,000-500,000 people. She was the draw at the biggest rally since MLK.
Hey Democrats, did you attend the tribute to MLK?
Romney is dead meat because Romney's Bain Co. bought Burlington Coat Co., spun off the Lower Manhattan store and sold the building to the Jihadi to build the Victory Mosque.
2. Romney has been on every position on every issue. Are you pro-abortion or pro-life? He's your guy.
Look up the Victory Mosque brochure and see backers: # Carnegie Corporation of New York
# Rockefeller Brothers
# Rockefeller Philanthropy
# Rockefeller Brothers Fund
# Global Fund for Women
# William & Mary Greve Foundation
# The Sister Fund
# The Russell Family Foundation
# Danny Kaye & Sylvia Fine Foundation
# Graham Charitable Foundation
# Deak Family Foundation
# Henry Luce Foundation
# The Elizabeth Foundation
# The Ms. Foundation
# Hunt Alternatives
Romney is just another Globalist, like Bush, Clinton and Obama.
The hope for America is that patriots join together against the Globalists and the Islamists.
Palin, Sen. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have made the most sense that I've heard the past two years. On the Republican side, Lt. Col. Allen West., Rep. Steve King, Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Marco Rubio. Like Ron Paul, I would like to see if all the gold is still in Fort Knox and see if the Federal Reserve's books balance.

Posted by: GodofHellfire | February 16, 2011 5:19 AM | Report abuse

Romney's refusal to disavow Romneycare is probably fatal. Additionally, his religion is detested by legions of religious bigots. This will come into play if Huckabee runs again. MSM support for Romney is calculated on his weakness among conservatives.

Posted by: doctorfixit | February 16, 2011 6:46 AM | Report abuse

Despite the political diatribe, most of which is innuendo and false accusations from the uneducated against Romney…

It’s still going to be about the economy, stupid!

He knows and understands world economics. He has successfully and profitably managed large businesses, helped turn around large companies that were sinking and helped other companies get started, saving and creating thousands of jobs, Domino’s Pizza and Staples to name just a few. What other presidential candidate has done that?

Funny. Half of MA loves what Romney did, the other half hate him, maybe because he left after completing only one term. Maybe he is not a “career” politician, do you always need a “career” politician to get the job done?

Yes, he worked as the MA governor for his entire term for FREE!!! Who else would have done that!?

MA had a huge deficit when he started, and he left MA with a surplus and balanced budget without raising taxes at the end of his term (yes, he raised state “fees”, but still kept them below the national average). He can't help it if the government screwed up after he left.

The MA’s super majority Democrat controlled legislature wanted desperately some kind of Universal Health care program. Most uncovered were going to emergency for free. He worked with them to create one that would work, similar to mandated auto insurance. It is estimated that 98% of the residents are now covered. It was within projected budget while Mr. Romney insisted that everyone should pay something for coverage, except after Romney left MA had to make changes to the program and now it is costing them. Romney believes that states -- not the federal government -- should be free to design their own plans for covering the uninsured if that is what they want to do.

He compromised on some things in order to keep the state government working together and moving forward.

He turned around a struggling 2002 Winter Olympics and made it into one of the most profitable Olympics in history. And only took a $1 dollar salary. Who else would have done that!?

He is against federalization and big government and believes in state’s rights to govern their own affairs.

He lives the example and believes in the importance of family.

He is for a strong military and believes the borders should be better protected.

The list of real positives is far greater than the supposed list of negatives.

Posted by: dcdinnell | February 16, 2011 8:16 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company