Supreme Court upholds ObamaCare.

#426
#426
BigPapaVol said:
Surely you don't think Romney more of a slick, lying sales empty suit than Obama? If the two are exactly equal on the slimy scale (and I don't think they are in any way), at least Romney has an uber-successful professional career in finance to lean back upon. Obama can idiotically campaign against Romney's success, but it doesn't change that he was a founding partner at one of the most successful equity funds in the world, and that's much harder to pull off than anything Obama's done, aside from lie to be elected.
Click to expand...

Both are liars, its hard to distinguish which is worse.
 
#430
#430
utvolpj said:
you forgot about the day LG discovered gifs? It was like an 12yo boy with his mom's Cosmo
Click to expand...


266.gif



That's ridiculous!
 
#434
#434
lawgator1 said:
LOL.

Romney wrote an editorial in 2009 expressly calling for Obama to institute it on the national level.

In fact, Romney added this:

"There's a better way. And the lessons we learned in Massachusetts could help Washington find it. ... First, we established incentives for those who were uninsured to buy insurance. Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages "free riders" to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others."


Romney flatly endorsed this exact plan just three years ago. Any effort to distinguish it, to claim it is something different, is imply an outright lie.
Click to expand...
I didn't say I liked it or that it wasnt disingenuous. I was speaking more to the argument he needs to make now.
 
#435
#435
GAVol said:
I didn't say I liked it or that it wasnt disingenuous. I was speaking more to the argument he needs to make now.
Click to expand...


Oh, I understand what you are saying.

I said months ago that in nominating Romney the GOP had essentially given up on the health insurance reform as a campaign issue. Now that the SCOTUS upheld it, and all they are left with is that its unwise policy, I think my original position is even more true.

Romney should roll the dice on making the case that the economy still sucks under Obama and that he can do better. While conservative commentators might hate the ACA, Romney complaining about a policy that he adopted and just a few years ago touted to Obama is a losing argument, imo.
 
#436
#436
GAVol said:
I didn't say I liked it or that it wasnt disingenuous. I was speaking more to the argument he needs to make now.
Click to expand...

Romney is going to have a hard time shaking his flipflopping on the issues and his history of saying whatever appeals to the group he is speaking to....oh that is also a form of flipflopping.
 
#437
#437
Romney has basically been echoing what most of the public thinks of the aca. They like the ability for people to be allowed to buy coverage, they like lifting limits on lifetime coverage, etc but they don't like how it's paid for.

It's typical of the undecided voter, they love goodies but hate having to pay for them.
 
#441
#441
GAVol said:
As long as Romney sticks to his argument that it was a state solution to a state problem, I think he's OK.
Click to expand...

Even you have doubts that he can stick to that argument, though. It's almost like you typed this with your fingers crossed.
 
#442
#442
Yeah, Romney is in a tight spot on this issue. He has to agree with the penalty argument or else face the same accusations against him - that if Obama passed the largest tax increase in US history Romney passed the largest one in MA history. Add to the fact there is still no unified position on What exactly replaces. If people feel threatened that some new coverage will be taken away with no decent or better replacement then they will side with Obama on the issue. Right now broad statements on replacing with a free market version won't cut it. Like this, Romney's really lacking in any sort of specific plan on the major issues. The closer it gets to November, it will be even more dangerous to keep this strategy. Kerry failed at this in 2004. People hated Bush but Kerry really never offered any substance on which to change who resides at 1600.
 
#443
#443
CSpindizzy said:
Yeah, Romney is in a tight spot on this issue. He has to agree with the penalty argument or else face the same accusations against him - that if Obama passed the largest tax increase in US history Romney passed the largest one in MA history. Add to the fact there is still no unified position on What exactly replaces. If people feel threatened that some new coverage will be taken away with no decent or better replacement then they will side with Obama on the issue. Right now broad statements on replacing with a free market version won't cut it. Like this, Romney's really lacking in any sort of specific plan on the major issues. The closer it gets to November, it will be even more dangerous to keep this strategy. Kerry failed at this in 2004. People hated Bush but Kerry really never offered any substance on which to change who resides at 1600.
Click to expand...

Luv & hugs you red headed bastage
 
#444
#444
I'm not convinced that Romney has to tread carefully re: his arguments against Obamacare. Romneycare is still popular in MA despite the increased costs and other associated effects. In other words, the voters in MA like Romneycare and have not tried to repeal it. Meanwhile, Obamacare is hugely unpopular and voters are indicating that they do not want Romneycare implemented on a national scale.

What works in MA (or what MA voters like) may not work or be liked by voters on a national scale. Whether voters believe that he will repeal it is a separate issue re: trust. To suggest that he can't attack Obamacare is silly.

Note: Romney's 2009 (2008?) op-Ed may be detrimental, but the argument that "he did it in MA, thus he has no standing to criticize" is nonsense
 
#445
#445
That op-ed is the key. It's "He did it in MA and advocated for it on the federal level since Barack Obama has been president."
 
#447
#447
It's actually not nonsense. He's limited in what he can say to criticize. He's on record for recommending his policy as a federal model. He cannot criticize the tax aspect since he did the same - he would be attacking his own tax hiking policy. The only thing he has is Constitutional power at the federal level. The law and policy itself is almost carbon copy.

He also cannot sit there and say well it was what the voters wanted in MA. So if this is his response, he is saying that his standard is "I will do what the majority of voters wants despite my claim to being a conservative." This plays into the hands that he is a flip flopper. So what is he? A principled conservative who will stand his ground? Or one who will do what the majority of the time wants him to do?

As I said, he is weak on several fronts with this issue alone. Hard to argue his conservative bonafides if he's using the 'I had to do what worked for MA and what the MA voters wanted' card. Odds are conservatives will still vote for 'Squishy' just because they hate Obama so much. But to say this guy will stand his ground and fight for conservative principles is 'silly' and 'nonsense'. Mitt's on documented record repeatedly as caving and bending - mainly just as an opportunist to stay in office and pad his resume to get to the next level - no different than the current guy rewriting his own biography to get to higher office.
 
#448
#448
milohimself said:
That op-ed is the key. It's "He did it in MA and advocated for it on the federal level since Barack Obama has been president."
Click to expand...

in retrospect, I wonder what advantge he or his advisers saw in publishing the op-Ed?

I'm guessing he considered (considers?) himself an expert on the issue b/c he signed Romneycare into law in MA. Then again, I don't remember there being a groundswell of support for the ACA when it was being written and debated. It seems like he unnecessarily injected himself into the debate, particularly when the GOP was antagonistic to the legislation and process.

Am I misremembering?
 
#449
#449
You have to keep in mind that the dude has basically been campaigning for president since like 2006. Candidates tend to interject themselves into a lot of topics of debate.
 
#450
#450
milohimself said:
You have to keep in mind that the dude has basically been campaigning for president since like 2006. Candidates tend to interject themselves into a lot of topics of debate.
Click to expand...

Even before that. I spent some time in Boston back in 2004 and MAGOP staff that I spent time with told me many stories of positions Romney took to ensure he had little nuggets to run for higher office. He took liberal positions to get elected and to get certain things passed by the Dem majority. And when he needed conservative positions he could suddenly turn right knowing they would never be passed. It was convenience for him. He could be both when it suited him. This way no matter what came up he could show a record of a conservative and one of a liberal. And now in this election with him being the only Republican left, conservatives can overlook his liberal record because he is the only one left and conservatives hate Obama so much they will do anything to get him out. Romney is no principled candidate. He is a survivalist. If anything this sort of candidate is far worse than the type we currently have in office. Look at many of his own statements - note the one about him hiring an illegal. Remember, he's running for office for Pete's sake? Republicans have erred in elevating this guy. I don't think he wins but if he does, conservatives will lose on many fronts.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top