Posted on 03/27/2010 2:22:03 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
Let me see if I get this right...
The AP article says that the Heritage Foundation, Nixon and the GOP were for the individual mandate in the past. They say that the GOP was for the mandate as an alternative to HillaryCare in 1994. They then bring up Mitt Romney recently being for the individual mandate.
First of all, I didn't see a run down of just how many in the GOP supported the individual mandate in 1994.
Secondly, they don't show how many of them are still in office after that.
Third, to not list who in the GOP supported the individual mandate as an alternative to Hillarycare in 1994 seems to imply that the whole GOP then wholeheartedly supported the individual mandate.
Fourth, how does way back in 1994 mean anything now?
Fifth, who thinks that Mitt Romney is truly representative of the GOP?
Lastly, why won't the MSM talk about how Obama - when running for president - said to Hillary when debating her (and to people in the MSM then) - that he wasn't for the individual mandate?
He also said that you couldn't have an individual mandate anymore than you could mandate home ownership.
Progressive Change has a youtube video "Obama Promised" where Obama says that you couldn't have an individual mandate anymore than you could mandate home ownership.
So, when the lawsuits against ObamaCare by Republican state AG's come to full force, using Obama's own words against him might be a good thing to do.
Obama was against the individual mandate before he was for it....
YouTube
Obama Promised
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acc6Wn_BWlk
Obama was against the individual mandate before he was for it.
It’s the AP. You got better news from Pravda back in the day than you get from the AP now.
The mandate was backed by Chaffee and 18 other pinko RINOs during the Hillarycare debate.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
So if it was just 19 people, then it would be a broad brush stroke by the AP to imply that the whole GOP supported the individual mandate.
Therefore, since the AP piece would then be using a broad brush stroke, what the AP wrote is a worthless article/news piece.
That usually goes without saying.
Isn’t that the truth.
This is considered “journalism”???
I doubt that you could have gotten the Dem Party to vote for national health insurance in the 60’s. The Dems controlled both Houses of Congress and the White House through 1969, and never passed it.
What I wrote in the OP, what i linked to (”Obama Promised”)in the post after that, and what I wrote in my post after that “So, just 19 people in the GOP...” effectively rips to shred the arguments that Democrats are going to try to make:
That this is just political posturing by the GOP, that the whole GOP was for it, that the GOP is hypocritical - while they try to hide the fact that Obama is truly a hypocrite by being against the individual mandate before being for it.
Comparing the AP to Pravda would not doubt offend people who wrote for Pravda back in the day.
How dare you!
LOL.
But does the AP surpass Pravda in its accuracy?
It passes for “journalism” today.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.