February 28, 2011

Obama: RomneyCare Is Kind Of Cool, Don't You Think?
— DrewM

Via Ben Domenech, this is going to leave a mark.

President Obama pointedly praised on Monday the healthcare program Republican Mitt Romney installed as governor of Massachusetts.

Obama singled out Romney for praise over his state's healthcare plan, which shares similarities with the president's national healthcare reform, in a bit of backhanded praise for the likely Republican presidential candidate.

"I agree with Mitt Romney, who's recently said he's proud of what he accomplished in Massachusetts," Obama said at a gathering of governors at the White House.

I'm sure Team Romney would like to spin this as proof Obama doesn't want to run against Mitt because he has the best shot at beating him. The problem is they can't do that without admitting that RomneyCare sucks. So they will have to spend a lot of time making the case that RomneyCare and ObamaCare aren't the same at all.

The problem with this is exactly what I wrote about last April.

He (Romney) might still be able to come up with a convincing narrative to explain the differences between MassCare and ObamaCare as well as his role in the former. But then the debate will be about Mitt and what he thought then vs. now and whether he can be reliable going forward. Meanwhile the focus will be off Obama and the damage done by this health care scheme.

Republicans need the issue to be a clean and clear choice...we have to nominate someone who was opposed to ObamaCare from the start. Only then will the focus stay on Obama and what he has wrought.

As I've said many times before, I'm not a big Mitt fan but I'm not a hater either. He's just not the guy this time if you want to make repealing ObamaCare (and its job killing nature) an issue in the 2012 election.

Posted by: DrewM at 08:56 AM | Comments (98)
Post contains 324 words, total size 2 kb.

1 But I have majic underwear!

Posted by: Mitt Romney at February 28, 2011 08:58 AM (4yjiA)

2 There is a fucking Prius ad on my screen. The world is coming to an end.

Posted by: AngelEm at February 28, 2011 08:59 AM (18RR9)

3 I agree but The Stupid Party probably considers it to be "Mitt's Turn" so we may in fact be screwed.

Posted by: BlackOrchid at February 28, 2011 08:59 AM (SB0V2)

4 It's so wonderful that Gov Devil Patrick is going to do the unthinkable -- impose Price Ceilings on the cost of insurance.

Posted by: Soothsayer al dente at February 28, 2011 09:01 AM (uFokq)

5 But then the debate will be about Mitt and what he thought then vs. now and whether he can be reliable going forward.

This is often the debate with Mitt.

Posted by: Tami at February 28, 2011 09:01 AM (VuLos)

6 This has been Mitt's big problem ever since ObamaCare became a central issue and it's not going away. 

He's a dead man walking if he tries to run in 2012 and he should admit that to himself.

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at February 28, 2011 09:01 AM (bxvFd)

7 This jug-eared communist White-hating POS ain't smart or principled but he is very very clever and he's got many ruthless evil scumbags whispering in his giant shell-like ears

He's the Worst of Times, with too much power and too little decency or sense

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at February 28, 2011 09:01 AM (UqKQV)

8

A calculated move by Obama's handlers.

Forget Romney. The failed Massachusetts state Mini-Obamacare debacle is a killer. It's not just a real-world ball and chain for Romney, it also reveals a politician who can't be expected to have the right instincts.

Posted by: Equivocation Czar at February 28, 2011 09:01 AM (w41GQ)

9 Guess the memo went out to push this message now to take out Romney. But, Romney has to take responsibility for this - he owns it. Why he never came out and just said it was a bad idea I will never understand. Nothing special about Romney to take it to Obama - the biggest issue out there and he is on the same said as Obama.

Posted by: gesc at February 28, 2011 09:01 AM (/+HcM)

10 Romney's Health care in Mass. is a huge problem for him and for the Republicans. Just like it became harder for McCain to campaign ( well that is if he had actually ever really campaigned?) against Obama's inexperience after he picked Sarah Palin. If he is the nominee it will undercut one of the Our big issues- Obamacare. And also fiscal responsibility since Gov Health Care of ANY kind is a budget buster.

Posted by: nevergiveup at February 28, 2011 09:01 AM (0GFWk)

11 I don't see how it's anybody's "turn". We're not on the playground here, or trying to decide if it's mommy's or daddy's turn to get up with the kid. Nobody deserves something this big because it's "their turn". Screw that.

Posted by: AngelEm at February 28, 2011 09:02 AM (18RR9)

12 I agree with you, Ace.  Mitt wouldn't be the worst president we'd ever had, but the fact that he keeps doubling down on the defining issue of our time is a non-starter.

He had a huge presence at the Ames straw poll, spent lots of money and was clearly the big man on campus.  There'll be boos for him all over the place now.

Obama boxed him in, here.  Mitt won't be able to evolve his position now that Obama's called him out.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 28, 2011 09:02 AM (T0NGe)

13 I agree AngelEm but that is how the Rs tend to operate. In my lifetime anyway (and I'm old)

Posted by: BlackOrchid at February 28, 2011 09:03 AM (SB0V2)

14 Mitt does have a half-decent defense, though. He made it clear that states alone should be able to decide what, if anything, they want to do with health care reform.

Posted by: Soothsayer al dente at February 28, 2011 09:03 AM (uFokq)

15 The question is when will Massachusetts healthcare implode? Patrick is putting price controls on small business policies that is _certain_ to make the insurance companies pull out.

“Any unreasonable rate will be disapproved under existing power that the insurance commissioner has today,” Patrick said. “We have to deal with this and deal with it now. This is about dialing it up.”

Really? Price controls don't work Commissar Patrick.

Posted by: Quilly Mammoth at February 28, 2011 09:04 AM (4yjiA)

16 Why he never came out and just said it was a bad idea I will never understand.

Me either.  All he had to say was that he was backed into a corner and tried to broker the best deal he could.  He knew it would be terrible, but he was hoping he could at least salvage something.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 28, 2011 09:05 AM (T0NGe)

17 Christie / Daniels   -- a spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down

the Socio-Cons will have to Suck It Up and Do The Right Thing next year

otherwise Trump will intrude--and Cain, and God knows who else

( and Christie adds the 'ie' to Christ; maybe that's a sign or something )


Posted by: SantaRosaStan, Rip, Torn, etc at February 28, 2011 09:06 AM (UqKQV)

18 He made it clear that states alone should be able to decide what, if anything, they want to do with health care reform.

Posted by: Soothsayer al dente at February 28, 2011 02:03 PM (uFokq)

100% true.  Except...it's also a bad idea to have Masscare type medicine, aside from the federal aspects.  A true conservative president should say that if Mass wants to bankrupt itself with this kind of system, the feds won't prevent it, but it's still a bad idea.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 28, 2011 09:06 AM (T0NGe)

19 Wisconsin Dem to Republican Representative "You're f'ing dead" 

Posted by: Quilly Mammoth at February 28, 2011 09:08 AM (4yjiA)

20 Daniels

Sorry, Daniels may have all that sweet sweet anti-socon talk, but he's talked up a VAT and there's the whole union/Dem walkout debacle.

Just because somebody dismisses socons doesn't mean they're a reliable fiscon.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 28, 2011 09:09 AM (T0NGe)

21 19 Wisconsin Dem to Republican Representative "You're f'ing dead"

He's just upset that she didn't give him a "happy ending", like the chick at the massage parlor where he was busted recently.

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at February 28, 2011 09:09 AM (bxvFd)

22

I agree that Mitt has a federalist defense (I personally don't buy it), but I just don't think the average American can give any definition of what federalism means, nor do they care. I imagine that Obama making a commercial about how RomneyCare is the 'same thing' as ObamaCare for example will be more powerful than Romney trying to educate the public on federalist solutions to health problems. It is just one of those explanations that sounds better to the political class (or people who follow politics a lot) than the general voting public.

And come on, just because a person believes in federalism doesn't excuse their actions. If a Republican governor supported 'abortion rights' in his state and signed a particular law that gives more 'rights' than the federal government does, that is federalism in action. It still doesn't mean that I can't use his judgement in that decision in my vote just because it is a state and states are different.

Posted by: Paper at February 28, 2011 09:09 AM (VoSja)

23 Posted by: AmishDude at February 28, 2011 02:05 PM (T0NGe)

That would be kinda tough for him to do after he had the bill included sitting on his desk in his official portrait and called it his proudest accomplishment. Yucking it up with Ted Kennedy at the signing ceremony didn't help either. His best bet would be to simply say it was an experiment at the state level and it could never work at the federal level.

Posted by: ol_dirty_/b/tard at February 28, 2011 09:10 AM (IoUF1)

24 19 Wisconsin Dem to Republican Representative "You're f'ing dead" 

Posted by: Quilly Mammoth at February 28, 2011 02:08 PM (4yjiA)

Not just a Rep. Rep., but a woman and a hot one.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 28, 2011 09:10 AM (T0NGe)

25 Yeah, Mitt screwed the pooch by not being able to admit that he was wrong.....not unlike a certain current President. That you can't look at the result of RomneyCare, even if it wasn't all his doing, and admit the plan was flawed shows lousy leadership abilities. We don't live in a perfect world. So, all the guy had to do was say- "Well, we used the best info we had at the time, but it didn't work."- then go on to say why Obamacare is a lousy plan as well. Having had experience with socialized healthcare would've given Mitt the whiphand in any debate. But he through that away... Poor judgement/ poor leadership- not presidential material. But he'd make a good number 2 or some high position in a Rep administration.

Posted by: naturalfake at February 28, 2011 09:13 AM (+kzvp)

26 All Mitt had to do was write a white paper on the effects of Masscare on the state's economy since implemented.  All he had to do was prove he's as smart as he's purported to be and show that Masscare was a mistake even for Massachusetts.  But he refuses to do that. 

I wish he'd not run, but from what I've heard around here, he's got his folks out garnering support and soliciting money.  It's such a waste.

Posted by: Y-not at February 28, 2011 09:13 AM (pW2o8)

27 I prefer Jack Daniels care. Its what is best for my state.

Posted by: dananjcon at February 28, 2011 09:15 AM (pr+up)

28 What's increasingly obvious is the Crazy Hatred of so many on the left.  Forty + years of indoctrination has turned more than a few vulnerable flawed people into violence-prone haters who 'project' their Madness onto us

'What is to be done?', as Vladimir U. famously asked. 

They're attacking people every day at these 'demonstrations' and shouting down FOKS News.  They're the SturmAbteilung, reborn with purple instead of brown shirts

Posted by: ex-PFC Wintergreen at February 28, 2011 09:17 AM (UqKQV)

29 Mitt is a hardcore tenther!

Posted by: dananjcon at February 28, 2011 09:17 AM (pr+up)

30 I just don't think the average American can give any definition of what federalism means, nor do they care. I imagine that Obama making a commercial about how RomneyCare is the 'same thing' as ObamaCare for example will be more powerful than Romney trying to educate the public on federalist solutions to health problems. No freaking kidding. What, am I going to say I hate Obamacare but if Jerry Brown institutes Moonbeamcare in CA, that's all copacetic and founding fatherly? Oh, and Hugh Hewitt hardest hit.

Posted by: George Orwell at February 28, 2011 09:19 AM (AZGON)

31 He continues to twist in the wind because he refuses, for ego or image reasons, to say "I was wrong." It's horrible politics and I judge politicians on their ability to be smart about politics.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2011 09:20 AM (nj1bB)

32 They're attacking people every day at these 'demonstrations' and shouting down FOKS News.  They're the SturmAbteilung, reborn with purple instead of brown shirts

Posted by: ex-PFC Wintergreen at February 28, 2011 02:17 PM (UqKQV)

OH...if this shit keeps up, I'm gonna break me off a piece of dirty hippie commie ass sooner than later. 

You can make book on that!

 

Posted by: Mike "The Hammer" Tobin at February 28, 2011 09:22 AM (pr+up)

33 I still support him, but the nomination is his to lose.  The "let a state be stupid if it wants to--better than Washington being stupid" argument won't fly when he supports The Stupid in question.

The only solutions for Romney:

--admit what he did is a failure; or

--explain that what he did isn't a failure, but hasn't worked as well as he hoped.

I heard the Huckster slamming Romney in gentle terms last week.  Huckster left out that MA had the highest insurance premiums in the country pre-Romneycare--and still does.  That's a MITTigating factor.

Romney needs to explain why Romneycare is NOT a failure; the burden, fairly or not has shifted. 

I hope he does it, because I think he is otherwise the PERFECT candidate for 2012.  He is a great, low-ego manager with a good foreign policy outlook.  The states and Congress have begun doing the heavy lifting, so not having uberconservative isn't as important is it once seemed.

You may cringe at the reality, but Romney is also the only one with the money raising and organizational skills to hit the ground running, and give Obamao a serious run in the fall of next year.


Posted by: ParisParamus at February 28, 2011 09:25 AM (aOpxx)

34 17...that didn't take long...I'll pass on both, thank you.

If Romney, Christie, or Daniels are the best we can do after 4 years of Obama, then it's not a matter of if, but when we truly implode.

I just find it hard to believe that our bench strength is so weak that we can't do better than any of these guys.  I find it hard to believe that the country's appetite for conservatism goes no further than this.

Posted by: The Hammer at February 28, 2011 09:25 AM (Ma+CH)

35 From the transcript of Obama's remarks to the governor's conference:

Now, that doesn’t mean that the job of health care reform is complete. We still have to implement the law, and we have to implement it in a smart and non-bureaucratic way. I know that many of you have asked for flexibility for your states under this law. In fact, I agree with Mitt Romney, who recently said he’s proud of what he accomplished on health care in Massachusetts and supports giving states the power to determine their own health care solutions. He’s right. Alabama is not going to have exactly the same needs as Massachusetts or California or North Dakota. We believe in that flexibility.

So right now, under the law, under the Affordable Care Act,
Massachusetts and Utah already operate exchanges of their own that are very different — operate them in their own way. And we made sure that the law allowed that. The same applies for other requests, like choosing benefit rules that meet the needs of your citizens, or allowing for consumer-driven plans and health savings accounts.


So, Obama is using the "Federalism Yay!" gambit, which is also how Mitt is currently defending his actions.  So, great minds think alike, I guess.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 28, 2011 09:27 AM (DsqGb)

36 But it's not Romneycare anymore. It's more Patrickcare after Deval Patrick fucked it up the entire concept to pander to special interest.

Posted by: Kaitian at February 28, 2011 09:29 AM (bkOJN)

37 Sooner or later the Lefties will clip a few Republicans or TEA partiers.  And the Right will do nothing, as always.  It's the circle of life, Simba.

Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at February 28, 2011 09:29 AM (xy9wk)

38

@34: "I find it hard to believe that the country's appetite for conservatism goes no further than this. "

It sucks being the "less free shit" party in a nation that largely wants "more free shit."

Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at February 28, 2011 09:30 AM (xy9wk)

39 Um, Mitt raised tons of cash and spent boxcars of his own money on the last cycle. He never broke out in the primaries and eventually lost to John Fucking McCain. Not an impressive track record. Nice hair, though.

Posted by: George Orwell at February 28, 2011 09:31 AM (AZGON)

40 Posted by: The Hammer at February 28, 2011 02:25 PM (Ma+CH)

weak, our bench strength is.  You want Huckabee? 

You want Trump and his hair crapping all over Everything ( turning a prez race into a circus, in re Perot in 1992 ) ??  One zany billionaire with a bad haircut / toupee / comb-over can poison things

You no like the Fat Man?  Who you want?

Posted by: ex-PFC Wintergreen at February 28, 2011 09:31 AM (UqKQV)

41

#33

I agree with much of this, and Romney's organizational and fundraising advantages count for a lot.

That said, for someone who should be the frontrunner, shouldn't he be running at more than 20% of Republican primary voters right now? That really frightens me. He has name recognition, money, organization, yet he is still stuck around 20% support.

If he can't convince more than 1/5 of the Republican base that he is sincere and the first choice for a nominee (with all of his many advantageous that you mentioned above), how the hell is he supposed to get a majority of electoral votes?

Posted by: Paper at February 28, 2011 09:32 AM (VoSja)

42 #36, that can't be the primary argument because the mechanism was put in Place/signed off by Romney.  Even if it's true, even if Patrick would have initiated something worse on his watch, it's an argument that will get completely lost.  You need a bright-line argument.

The other MITTigating factor, which could potentially be a jujitsu reversal factor/advantage is that Romney's tangle with heathcare de-demonizes him to independent and Dem voters--irrespective of how conservative his policies will be.

Posted by: ParisParamus at February 28, 2011 09:33 AM (aOpxx)

43

As I've said many times before, I'm not a big Mitt fan but I'm not a hater either. He's just not the guy this time if you want to make repealing ObamaCare (and its job killing nature) an issue in the 2012 election.

My point of view exactly.

Posted by: maddogg at February 28, 2011 09:34 AM (OlN4e)

44 #41 No one is perfect.  And as we've seen with Pain, Daniels, and everyone else, when people move from Great White Hope to possible real candidate, a lot of there appeal turns out to have been our own ink blot.

Romney/West is now my favorite, with Romney/Christie second (yes, East Coast, but alternatives, please?)

Posted by: ParisParamus at February 28, 2011 09:35 AM (aOpxx)

45 @17 We did already. McCain 2008 ring any bells?

Some other Republicans?  Not so much.

Were those social conservatives I saw falling all over themselves to laud Obama during the 2008 Campaign?  Did a social conservative quit McCain's campaign in order to avoid working against the election of the first African-American presidency.  Did a socially conservative former secretary of state and chairman of the joint chiefs shill for Obama largely on the basis of racial solidarity?  What about the hordes of so-called conservative pundits who nearly trampled over one another in their rush to acclaim Obama as the messiah-were they socially conservative?

We'll do it again in 2012.  One can only hope the RINOs have recovered suffiently from their infatuation with Obama to come back on the team for the big win.

Mote in our eye-lumberyard in yours, physician heal thyself, make sure one's own troops are ready for battle before castigating those who show up every single time, yada yada yada.

Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at February 28, 2011 09:36 AM (0IPsJ)

46 So, Obama is using the "Federalism Yay!" gambit, which is also how Mitt is currently defending his actions.  So, great minds think alike, I guess. Well noted. Anyhow, when I want to get a solidly conservative message to someone in a direct, pithy and concise manner, nothing beats a lecture on Federalism. It has been the lynchpin of every major election. Uh oh, I can't figure out how to close the sarcasm tag.

Posted by: George Orwell at February 28, 2011 09:37 AM (AZGON)

47 @44
Christie/Rubio

I can't vote for Romney until/unless he shows me that he knows Masscare was a mistake. 

Of course, by "can't" I mean in the primary. 

Posted by: Y-not at February 28, 2011 09:37 AM (pW2o8)

48 OT: Egyptian Army opens fire on Coptic Christian church

Video

The shots start at about 1:40 in the video.  At 2:20 you can see a man carrying a child that has been hit and is bleeding.

http://tinyurl.com/4shoat4

You all saw this on the MSM, right?  Yeah, didn't think so.


Posted by: Tami at February 28, 2011 09:37 AM (VuLos)

49 #42, I know and that's why I've been frustrated with it when conservatives like myself don't see that point. At times I wish people are aware that Democrats do what they do best at, start manipulating or gaming the system in cater to their special interest groups including the union damn the consequences of it.

Posted by: Kaitian at February 28, 2011 09:38 AM (bkOJN)

50 P.S. Anyone but Ron Fucking Paul, and I am OK with that.

P.P.S.  Mitt Romney thread.  where is that useless Mittbot, Dan the linkspammer?

Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at February 28, 2011 09:39 AM (0IPsJ)

51 Romney is a politician and will therefore do whatever will save him the most face.  The problem is, he didn't even get that right with refusing to disavow Romneycare as a failed experiment.  Therefore, he would not be my primary choice.

It's not a particularly strong argument to say, "Look, stupid, I tried it, and it didn't work", but it's a lot better than saying "Mine was great and yours sucks because you nibbled around the edges of my plan" or "The federal government can't force you to buy anything, but the 10th Amendment allows states to force you to buy whatever they want."

Posted by: Rich C at February 28, 2011 09:39 AM (Vqcn4)

52 I like Romney, and I think he gets too bad of a rap for trying out universal health care (hey, it was MA and aren't the states supposed to be laboratories for this kind of thing?). But he best strategy to beat Obama is to keep the public's focus trained squarely on him and his policies. 

Candidate Romney, however, would have to spend a huge chunk of media time having to defend and/or explain his past record, which would take a significant amount of attention away from Obama and our present mess.

Remember, Obama won by keeping serious attention away from himself.  Romney as candidate would allow him and the media to do that all over again.

Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at February 28, 2011 09:40 AM (Y5I9o)

53 He never broke out in the primaries

Uh, he finished a close second behind.  Oh the one hand, he is less fresh; on the other the environment is now much more everything's the economy; and no, we were betrayed by Mr. Charisma/Mr. Messiah.  Does this outweight the healthcare albatross?  Maybe not in the primaries, but definitely in the general. Romney is very anti-Obama.

Posted by: ParisParamus at February 28, 2011 09:41 AM (aOpxx)

54 A true conservative president should say that if Mass wants to bankrupt itself with this kind of system, the feds won't prevent it, but it's still a bad idea.

And then add, "but the Feds won't bail out the states either, so don't count on it."

Posted by: pep at February 28, 2011 09:41 AM (GMG6W)

55 If the economy is in the Shitter, any Prez election will be an Economy Election

So it was in 2008, 1980, 1932, etc

If not, then social issues ( including corruption ) can be the basis of an election--unless there is a popular incumbent, who becomes the de facto primary factor

So it was in 1860, 1948, 1960, etc

The economy is in the Mother of All Shitters. So economic issues rule

It's nice to get a Reagan ( who add social issues to economic ones ) but Reagans are rare.  If you wanna win an economic election like 2012, you better grab a Fiscon and hope for the best on social issues.  --- Because if you don't. you're gonna get 4 More Years of  Unbearable Chittiness and maybe a civil war


Posted by: SantaRosaStan, whose Rip is no longer Torn at February 28, 2011 09:42 AM (UqKQV)

56 @51 What you say is so obvious. It is regrettable but a major, strategic hole in Romney's credibility.

Posted by: George Orwell at February 28, 2011 09:42 AM (AZGON)

57 Why didn't Mitt Romney repudiate RomneyCare?

He likes Mitt Romney more than he likes Massachusetts or the USA. Simple.

Posted by: Oschisms at February 28, 2011 09:44 AM (GqM5k)

58 Romneycare is disqualifying for Romney. Period. No way the GOP can run against Obamacare with Romney as the standard-bearer. Unless, as in 2008, the GOP brain trust really doesn't want to use anything that might, you know, WORK.

Posted by: tsj017 at February 28, 2011 09:44 AM (4YUWF)

59 50 P.S. Anyone but Ron Fucking Paul, and I am OK with that.

Yes.  I'm down with that.  I'd even vote for Huckabee and I really loathe Huckster.


BTW, the folks from our "side" who make the Mormon "jokes"... piece of advice.  You're starting to push this little black (Roman Catholic) duck into "anyone but an Evangelical" territory.  Just sayin'.  The jokes are not funny.  Your inability to resist making them whenever Romney (or Huntsman) comes up suggests to me that some segment of our population is so irrational as to be avoided at all costs. 

Posted by: Y-not at February 28, 2011 09:44 AM (pW2o8)

60 But it's not Romneycare anymore. It's more Patrickcare after Deval Patrick fucked it up the entire concept to pander to special interest.
Posted by: Kaitian


Unfortunately, Patrick is also in on the "Hail Mitt!" meme:

Patrick, appearing on ABC’s Sunday news show “This Week’’ while attending the winter meeting of the National Governors Association, singled out health care as an issue the former Massachusetts Republican governor “deserves a lot of credit’’ for. “One of the best things he did was to be the coauthor of our health care reform, which has been a model for national health care reform,’’ Patrick said.

Patrick is a close ally of Obama who will probably serve as a proxy for the president on health care and other issues during the upcoming presidential campaign. With his words highlighting Romney’s hand in the Massachusetts law, Patrick also lumps his predecessor in with the federal plan it spawned.

Immediately after the appearance, Patrick sat on a panel about Medicaid, the system of health care insurance for the poor, in which he again discussed the Massachusetts overhaul effort. Afterward, Patrick scoffed at the notion that politics were at play in his praise of Romney. “It’s just the truth,’’ he said, and insisted that he was doing nothing more than paying Romney a deserved compliment.

“He signed our bill. That’s all I said, and I congratulated him for it. I told him so at the time, and I’ve said it publicly,’’ Patrick said. “It was a great thing. It showed that there was another choice than the usual two, which is the perfect solution or no solution.’’


Ouch....

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 28, 2011 09:45 AM (DsqGb)

61 @53  People also forget that McCain had Huckleberry as a stalking horse during the last bunch of primaries.

I don't know, given how fucked up Massachusetts is, and what I understand (not overly much) about how that law actually got passed (Massachusetts.  Legislature.  Democrat Supermajority?) I am becoming more sympathetic with the helmet-haired bastard.

Am I wrong that universal healthcare was pretty much a fait accompli in Massachusetts and maybe Romney just made it less worse than it otherwise would have been?

Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at February 28, 2011 09:46 AM (0IPsJ)

62 For the cash Romney spent that was a distant second. But if he has the cash to burn, so be it. The anti-Romney ads write themselves... Until he disavows Masscare. Even then it is a hard slog and Mr. Charisma is still out there for 2012, with the slavish MBM army behind him. Romney/Christie 2012. Ann Coulter is howling with laughter somewhere.

Posted by: George Orwell at February 28, 2011 09:46 AM (AZGON)

63 Candidate Romney, however, would have to spend a huge chunk of media time having to defend and/or explain his past record, which would take a significant amount of attention away from Obama and our present mess.

I disagree that is necessarily true.  Even if the recipe goes wrong, being in the kitchen confers some credibility on the cook (especially if other things have gone well).  To put it another way, even some very good commanders lose battles, make mistakes.  It depends on how Romney deals with the issue. 

Posted by: ParisParamus at February 28, 2011 09:47 AM (aOpxx)

64 Obama should have stayed quiet on this unless facing Romney in the election.

Posted by: somebody else, not me at February 28, 2011 09:47 AM (7EV/g)

65 @55 Why is that, do you think? Who really sits at home and pouts when their guy doesn't get the nomination? Or worse, runs and jumps into bed with whatever marxist halfwit gets thrown up by the Democrats?

Just promise to do us low-forehead socon types a solid, and show up no matter who gets the nod.

Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at February 28, 2011 09:49 AM (0IPsJ)

66 Why he never came out and just said it was a bad idea I will never understand.
Posted by: gesc at February 28, 2011 02:01 PM

CHARACTER. INTELLECTUAL HONESTY.

This is why you find pro-choice Palinistas. Romney's wishy-wash about abortion is more of a turnoff than Sarah's full-on support of the opposite side.

Posted by: arhooley at February 28, 2011 09:50 AM (oGCCc)

67 48 OT: Egyptian Army opens fire on Coptic Christian church The shots start at about 1:40 in the video.  At 2:20 you can see a man carrying a child that has been hit and is bleeding. Of course he only saves her to deny her the right to an abortion and a gay marriage.

Posted by: Average HuffPo reader at February 28, 2011 09:50 AM (AZGON)

68

@53  People also forget that McCain had Huckleberry as a stalking horse during the last bunch of primaries.

Except that Hucksters supporters could just as easily claim that Mitt was a "stalking horse" for McCain.

McCain won because old people and "moderates" liked him, and because the other front-runners were deeply flawed with regards to ideology and/or their campaign.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 28, 2011 09:50 AM (SY2Kh)

69 @59  Yeah, unfortunately, I have not seen much clowning on Mormons here-or anywhere else, for that matter.

Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at February 28, 2011 09:51 AM (0IPsJ)

70

I agree but The Stupid Party probably considers it to be "Mitt's Turn" so we may in fact be screwed.

The Stupid Party, or large parts of it, may consider it to be "Huck's Turn", so we may be "saved" by that.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at February 28, 2011 09:51 AM (ujg0T)

71 This is why you find pro-choice Palinistas. Romney's wishy-wash about abortion is more of a turnoff than Sarah's full-on support of the opposite side. Excellent point. Or, perhaps Mitt really believes in some form of socialized medicine. It can only be that or ego.

Posted by: George Orwell at February 28, 2011 09:52 AM (AZGON)

72 Yes.  I'm down with that.  I'd even vote for Huckabee and I really loathe Huckster.

Really?  Huckabee would probably be the one that I would NOT vote for.  There's not a hair's difference between him and Obama.

And, as far as I know, Ron Paul has never released murderers so they're free to murder again. 

Posted by: Tami at February 28, 2011 09:53 AM (VuLos)

73 Am I wrong that universal healthcare was pretty much a fait accompli in Massachusetts and maybe Romney just made it less worse than it otherwise would have been?

For me the sticking point isn't the fact of Masscare, it's his failure to critically analyze how it has been implemented and failed

I would prefer someone who is currently running something (either a company or a state) or who is currently in office over someone who's on the sidelines now, but Romney could make himself on the top of the second-tier for me if he'd just start showing us he learned from his mistake in Massachusetts. 

Posted by: Y-not at February 28, 2011 09:53 AM (pW2o8)

74 @68 Maybe

Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at February 28, 2011 09:54 AM (0IPsJ)

75 The Stupid Party, or large parts of it, may consider it to be "Huck's Turn", so we may be "saved" by that. Finally, an excuse to start drinking early. Off to the beer stash.

Posted by: George Orwell at February 28, 2011 09:54 AM (AZGON)

76 And, as far as I know, Ron Paul has never released murderers so they're free to murder again

Ron Paul would be a huge disaster on foreign policy.  And he's completely uncontrollable. 

Posted by: Y-not at February 28, 2011 09:56 AM (pW2o8)

77 For me the sticking point isn't the fact of Masscare, it's his failure to critically analyze how it has been implemented and failed.  A thousand times, yes.

Posted by: George Orwell at February 28, 2011 09:56 AM (AZGON)

78 The average voter doesn't give a fig about federalism or any other splitting of hairs the mane man will try comb into the health care debate. They like simple narratives which don't require much thought and may even indeed be fallacious in substance. Many voters are inherently lazy or indifferent and therefore susceptible to ad nauseam themes parroted by MSM, et al.

That is why ROMNEYCARE=OBAMACARE is a winning calculation. It sidelines the debate away from substantive issues which highlight Obama's destructive handling of our country.

On that basis alone, Romney should take his well-coiffed act and become a spokesman for The Hair Club for Men or something less consequential to our countries well being.

Oh, BTW watch when things get tough for Romney in the primaries. His bots will go out and destroy every other candidate with a chance to win, thus giving Obama another term.  

Posted by: Marcus at February 28, 2011 09:56 AM (CHrmZ)

79

Really?  Huckabee would probably be the one that I would NOT vote for.  There's not a hair's difference between him and Obama.

Really really? I can't see Huck running American Exceptionalism down and appeasing and surrendering, can you?

Honestly, I give Huck credit on his Fox News show for backpedaling from some regrettable statements of his last campaign. That puts him ahead of Mitt.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at February 28, 2011 09:57 AM (ujg0T)

80 Ron Paul would be a huge disaster on foreign policy.  And he's completely uncontrollable. 

Posted by: Y-not at February 28, 2011 02:56 PM (pW2o

Yes, I know....he'll never be the nominee either.  I was using him as a comparison to Huckabee.

Posted by: Tami at February 28, 2011 09:57 AM (VuLos)

81 @80
I agree with Curmudgeon. 

Huck is not nearly as bad as Obama... or Ron Paul. 

Posted by: Y-not at February 28, 2011 09:59 AM (pW2o8)

82

And, as far as I know, Ron Paul has never released murderers so they're free to murder again

Ron Paul would be a huge disaster on foreign policy.  And he's completely uncontrollable. 

Ran Paul's foreign policy is tantamount to releasing millions of foreign murderers.

Again to try to create a Synthesis out of the Ron Paul Thesis and its Antihesis:

Ron Paul rules when it comes to domestic policy.

Ron Paul sucks when it comes to foreign policy.

That rests the case for, and against, Ron Paul.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at February 28, 2011 10:00 AM (ujg0T)

83 O/T:  Someone (Kemp?) was giving me shit on a thread yesterday for watching the NFL Draft every year...

Well, NOW I'M WATCHING THE NFL COMBINE! 

Booyah!

Posted by: Y-not at February 28, 2011 10:03 AM (pW2o8)

84 Really really? I can't see Huck running American Exceptionalism down and appeasing and surrendering, can you?

Honestly, I give Huck credit on his Fox News show for backpedaling from some regrettable statements of his last campaign. That puts him ahead of Mitt.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at February 28, 2011 02:57 PM (ujg0T)

No, he probably wouldn't do that.  Wonder why he's backpedaling previous statements?  Hmmm.....

I had no idea we had so many Huck fans here. 

Posted by: Tami at February 28, 2011 10:03 AM (VuLos)

85

Wonder why he's backpedaling previous statements?  Hmmm.....

Because (1) he stepped in it badly in 2008, and (2) he's man enough and wise enough to admit it. I do give Huck lots of credit for that. Especially since he has been doing so on his Fox News show for the last two years, indeed since Fox hired him.

I had no idea we had so many Huck fans here. 

So far, he is making the right moves, and atoning for the wrong ones. I would love to see a better RepublicanSuperCandidate crush the Obamunist. But so far, I'm not seeing it. To paraphrase Don Rumsfeld, we go to battle with the Obamunists with the candidate we have... 

Posted by: Curmudgeon at February 28, 2011 10:07 AM (ujg0T)

86

It wouldn't be an easy sell to a general public that barely knows what federalism means much less give a damn about it, but I don't think that Romneycare is a complete and total deal-killer if he plays it right.

I'm pretty far from a Romney fan, but I'd tell him not to get too entangled in Constitutional arguments but instead frame opposition to Obamacare as being against the growth of the federal government and DC bureaucrats.  A fairly simple message of non-interference in state matters while coming out against new federal entitlements could convincingly be made.

It wouldn't be easy, but I suspect it's too late for Romney to denounce Romneycare after years of defending it without looking like an even greater opportunist / panderer / flip-flopper.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at February 28, 2011 10:11 AM (SY2Kh)

87 Laura Ingraham was hammering well known GOP names this morning, for refusing to take on the potus bid for '12, fearful of the propaganda mantra that Obama is bound to win re-election. We should be counting our blessings that the likes of Huck, Jeb et al. are holding out for '16.

Jesus concluded by telling the recipients of miraculous blessings to be grateful to God and that their faith is what made them whole.

So if it's a matter of Goliath and the mighty Philistine Army vs. US Constitutional Governance without a champion, I'll support a newcomer to the scene with the faith of David in Divine Providence to confront the uncircumcised Philistine giant against whom the King and all of his mighty warriors and even the King's son cowered while refusing to confront, let alone combat. 

It makes no sense to argue for term limits on one hand, while demanding an "experienced"-in-corruption politician to run the show.

Neither Andrew Jackson nor Dwight Eisenhower held public office prior to becoming POTUS.

Col. Allen West '12 is fine by me.

Posted by: by any other name at February 28, 2011 10:30 AM (H+LJc)

88 I realize I'm late to this discussion, but his response isn't exactly that hard to articulate:

We live in a big country. Maybe there is no "red" America, or no "blue" America, but there are geographical differences, there are cultural differences. Each state should be able to set it's own course.

I was governor of mother-fuckin' Massachusetts. After a successful career in the private sector and overseeing the formerly failing Salt Lake City Olympics, I saw my state of MA in need of leadership. As the CEO of that state, we developed and enacted a healthcare plan that is representative of Massachusetts.

President Obama's fault is that he believes it's his right and privilege to dictate a solution that might work well for the more liberal people of Massachusetts and apply it globally to all the citizens of the United States. No, sir, you mother fuckin' can not.

I understand the difference between being a governor and overseeing the desires of a more homogenous state and being president over 300M unique Americans. I will not impose the beliefs of a small elitist liberal community on the US.... etc

done.

Posted by: Vince at February 28, 2011 10:30 AM (hbq4i)

89 Establishment Republicans probably think Romneycare was a great idea which is why he will be our nominee and will lose in the fashion of McCain.

Posted by: Valiant at February 28, 2011 10:37 AM (UKSRV)

90 Having read/heard alot of what he had to say, I can only recall once (with Beck, IIRC) in which he said that he cant be blamed for the Dems f'n it up after he left, and with it, the only bulwark against hyperstupidity. I dont quite get it when it comes to Mitt and health care... he is usually ideologically sound and consistent until it comes to this one issue. The explanations he usually gives when questioned on it border on the absurd. It makes it difficult for me to give him a pass on this issue for that. But then, I find the appalling corruption in the legislation more offensive than the universality of health care. And speaking of which, the next president should just be able to grant a universal waiver as a means to destroy much of ObamaCare (worst case scenario). And yeah, I think Obama and Deval mentioning him are designed to (a) sabotage him, and (b) try to take some moderate mantle by claiming to back a "republican" plan.

Posted by: A.G. at February 28, 2011 10:37 AM (oAVyq)

91 Ron Paul sucks when it comes to foreign policy.

George W. Bush sucks when it comes to foreign policy; open borders and nation building of Islamist democracies based upon PC mandates punitive to our Military. Talk about a convolution of lies packaged as "compassion" for public sale, Bush sucks internationally as well as domestically.

I'd gladly vote for Ron Paul rather than another neoconservative after their decades augmenting federal authoritarianism so grossly that readers reject the thought outright rather than admit reality. To make the Sec./Treasury autonomous means that regardless of political affiliation, whatever the Potus wants will be financed without the encumbrance of Congressional oversight, particularly while the globalist racketeers of the Federal Reserve "own" our nation's treasury yet refuse to answer Congressional investigations.

And you quibble over economic scrutiny because it seems so mean spirited to now refuse bail-outs of globalist banking monopolies, and to consider the realization that our nation's economic ruin demands that our taxes be spent at home cleaning our own house rather than squandered as gifted bribes to foreign governments and sovereign agencies with no allegiance to the USA.

Our 20th Century national experience is not what "made" America great. What our Founders established made us unique with great promise. Subsequent to Wilson, much of what America "accomplished" was the progressive disintegration of our Constitutional Republic. And while bankrupt, a period of economic healing is in order. And while our borders are open, a period of secured national boundaries is definitely in order. Our National Guard belong at home securing our borders. And our military should not be consigned to be everything to all people, to be the Muslim's doctor, nurse, mayor, teacher, plumber, construction worker, counselor, which is what both George W. Bush and Obama have ordered them to be while "winning the hearts and minds of our enemies" adhering to insane PC Rules of Engagement. The repeated and non-stop deployments of our military men and women has already taken the psychological toll on their sanity established by rising suicide rates, recognized by retired military brass discussing that trend in military journals.

Posted by: by any other name at February 28, 2011 10:59 AM (H+LJc)

92 @72 Tami Eh, this kinda makes me crazy. Honestly, the Reps could run Satan at this point and I'd vote for him to get the jug-Eared jackass out of the White House. Then count on a conservative House and Senate(I hope!), to keep him under control. The country can't survive another four years of BO. If for no other reason than by that time our energy production will be crippled for a decade and inflation rampant.

Posted by: naturalfake at February 28, 2011 11:01 AM (+kzvp)

93

George W. Bush sucks when it comes to foreign policy; open borders

Definition game here--I define immigration as a domestic matter.

and nation building of Islamist democracies based upon PC mandates punitive to our Military.

All of us despise Commiecrat PC.

 

Posted by: Curmudgeon at February 28, 2011 11:22 AM (ujg0T)

94 He (Romney) might still be able to come up with a convincing narrative to explain the differences between MassCare and ObamaCare as well as his role in the former.

... and why he claimed repeated to be porud of the former, and why it's horribly over budget, and why it's starting to really drain the State's economy... is he still proud of it?

Either he's proud of a bill that he knew would go way over budget and require extra spending and debt... or he got suckered by a bill that he thought would be reasonably priced but instead went over budget significantly.

Either of those sound like the President we need for cost cutting and budget balancing?  Is there a third option that is going to make him sound better? 

Either a spending machine who lies to get the spending through; or a sucker who can't tell when he's being played on spending... I'm going to want a third option here that seems reasonable for a "balance the budget" President.

Anyone have that third option?  Because I don't see a way to unf*** that chicken.

Posted by: gekkobear at February 28, 2011 11:42 AM (X0NX1)

95 Posted by: naturalfake at February 28, 2011 04:01 PM (+kzvp)

I know....I know.  If he's the nominee, I'll probably drag myself to vote but....it will require 2 showers and a hot, hot bath!

Posted by: Tami at February 28, 2011 11:45 AM (VuLos)

96 @95 You and me both.

Posted by: naturalfake at February 28, 2011 12:05 PM (+kzvp)

97

Everything is calculated...the comment about Romenycare, the "racist" undertones of the Tea Party. Look at his eyes when he says this---he is angry. Dear Leader does not pass wind without teleprompter and round-table planning by Jarrett and the rest. All calculated moves towards 2012, with him figuring Romney has some clout. Romney and/or Christie and/or Paul Ryan and/or Bobby Jindal and/or anyone would tear him up----shred him---in a national debate about anything.

What he is not considering is $5/gallon gasoline, steady 10% unemployment, and the Middle East continuing to implode. People will tire of of his yapping, as well as the smelly hippies in unions protesting. With gas going up, so will heating/cooling homes and the price of bread and food.

Keep praying morons and moronettes, for a strong GOP leader to emerge and unite Americans. Yeah, I said GOP, not a third party to divide the pie. Perhaps they should change it to ABO (anyone but O) party.

Posted by: ChristyBlinky at February 28, 2011 02:26 PM (oTjfX)

98 Although its basic performance should be similar to deep groove ball bearings, but since majority of such bearings are already used in crude machinery, and the installing and orientation are also not so accurate, the centering between axes and axes of race hole is very poor, or axes is too long together with bigger bending, moreover, the precision of bearing itself also not too high, someone even with crude structure, therefore, the actual performance of such bearings is not so good as same standard deep groove ball bearings. For examples

Posted by: China Bearing at March 03, 2011 12:21 AM (3W4Ou)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
137kb generated in CPU 0.39, elapsed 1.2972 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.1737 seconds, 334 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.