Posted on 01/09/2007 6:41:03 PM PST by Reagan Man
With the 2008 presidential campaign looming just on the horizon, speculation about political fortunes abounds. On the Democrat side, Lady Hillary is waiting in the wings, and the media's profilers have found their fair-haired boy in Barack Obama. On the Republican side, the picture is murkier. Often the Vice-president would be the logical choice to carry the incumbent party's torch, but Dick Cheney won't be running and, even if he did, he wouldn't win. Of course, Arizona Senator John McCain is still around, but he arouses suspicion among conservatives. Seeming worn, tired, erratic and untrustworthy, many think the old soldier should just fade away.
Enter Mitt Romney. Inching ever closer to a presidential run, the former CEO and outgoing Governor of Massachusetts is emerging as the Barack Obama of the GOP. And the analogy is apt. He has the resonant voice, the good looks, the statesman-like bearing and, going Obama two better, great hair and unobtrusive ears.
But Romney shares another commonality with Obama: He's a liberal in his party masquerading as something more palatable. Yes, sugar and spice and dealing the deck twice, that's what little politicians are made of.
As to this point, another politico he can be compared to is Al Gore. Like Gore, Romney has flip-flopped on abortion, only in the other direction. While he now claims to be pro-life, he supported legalization of the "morning-after" abortion pill, RU-486. Moreover, as recently as his 2002 run for governor his platform stated,
"The choice to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not the government's."
Of course, Romney says that his views have "evolved." But I strongly suspect his adaptation relates more to the evolution of political ambitions than that of conscience. Call me cynical, but unless you've been cloistered in an ancient monastery for the duration, I'm very suspicious of deep personal growth occurring between ages 55 and 59.
According to Romney, unlike himself, the "paradigm" of marriage is not "evolving," and his high profile stand against anti-marriage has garnered him much publicity of late. But here, too, Romney has been about as consistent as March weather, with a track record that belies his newfound traditionalism.
In a letter to the Log Cabin Republicans, Romney hailed Bill Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" policy as a "step in the right direction" and "the first of a number of steps" toward homosexuals serving "openly" in the military.
Then, Brian Camenker points out the following in The Mitt Romney Deception:
- "Romney's campaign distributed pro-gay rights campaign literature during Boston's ‘Gay Pride' events," issuing pink fliers stating, "Mitt and Kerry [running mate Kerry Healey] wish you a great Pride weekend! All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual preference."
- Romney advocated governmental recognition of homosexual adoption rights, domestic partnerships and homosexual civil unions.
- Romney opposed the Boy Scouts' policy prohibiting homosexuals from serving as scoutmasters and prevented the organization from participating publicly in the 2002 Olympics.
- The Boston Globe wrote in 2005, "Governor Mitt Romney, who touts his conservative credentials to out-of-state Republicans, has passed over GOP lawyers for three-quarters of the 36 judicial vacancies he has faced, instead tapping registered Democrats or independents - including two gay lawyers who have supported expanded same-sex rights."
- Romney promoted homosexual propaganda in Massachusetts schools through the "Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth," funding this bureaucracy of social engineering instead of eliminating it.
Thus, it's no wonder that while campaigning against Ted Kennedy in 1994, Romney said that anti-marriage "is not appropriate at this time." My guess is that the time will be right when the electorate is left.
Equally damning, though, is that in a very ominous way he can be compared to yet another infamous poseur, Hillary Clinton. On April 12, 2006, Romney signed a bill into law that creates a universal health system intrusive enough to be the envy of socialists everywhere. The plan mandates that every Ma. resident must obtain health insurance by July 1, 2007, or face a fine that could exceed 1,200 dollars a year. Of course, this scheme includes the creation of a new bureaucracy, one that will, using Big Brother's infinite wisdom, determine how much you can afford to pay. Wow, thanks for the help, Mitt. Or, is it "Vinny the Chin"? I mean, this sounds like an offer you just can't refuse.
To justify his socialist brainchild, Romney uses the argument that it is no different from requiring people to carry car insurance. Ah, speciousness, thy name is Romney. Mr. Governor, you can choose not to own a car.
Everyone must have a body.
But remember this when Romney touts his credentials as a fiscal conservative. While he may boast of his steadfast refusal to raise taxes, it rings hollow when he turns around and mandates citizen expenditures and levies fines. But liberals are adept at revenue-raising sleight-of-hand; when another tax increase would raise voter ire, they simply deem it a toll, fine, fee or, I love this one, a "surcharge." I prefer honest theft myself.
President Bush is often excoriated for betraying his conservative base, a perception that contributes to poll numbers lower than Ted Kennedy's jowls. What is forgotten, however, is that while campaigning for the presidency in 2000, Bush accused the Republican Congress of trying ". . . to balance the budget on the backs of the poor," a line that could have been culled from Democrat talking points. Folks, the president never cast himself as anything but exactly what he is. We just weren't listening.
Are we listening now?
Ah, those Massachusetts liberals: Studds, Frank, Kennedy and Willard Mitt Romney. It just seems to roll off the tongue.
Bernie Sanders for veep, anyone?
Disneyland has a gay day but I still take my kids to Disneyland. I'm not going to let gay people ruin my life. Live and let live. Do you want Mitt Romney to make it illegal for gay people to attend the Olympics or compete in the Olympics. Get your brain out of you rearend.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI&eurl=
HAR HAR HAR , that was 13 yearrs ago, a L O N G time ago!
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/01/romney_i_was_wr.html
.... yes, when he wasn't running for president, and he has repeated and enhanced his support of gay rights issues (aside from marriage) consistently up through his 2002 election at LEAST. Which brings us to 5 years ago. Not so long ago, is it? and the most recent time he was forced to go on record before an electorate.
That WAS pretty funny, especially when he says he will never, ever "impose his beliefs" (lol, whatever that means) on abortion (whatever those beliefs are) on others. So if he's pro-life he won't support pro-life policies, and if he's pro-abortion he won't support pro-abortion policies ..... directly opposed to my policy, that people should stand up for what they think is right.
Pretty thuper.
Nice try , but the mental health loophole virtually allows abortion on demand, so Reagan's signing of that act means he was atleast initially pro choice who changed his view later in politics.
I cannot believe that people who call themselves conservatives can support mandatory health insurance. The free riders are the types who make it so that it costs many hundreds of dollars a MONTH for health insurance -- more in one month than I spend on medical stuff over the course of YEARS! I take care of myself. I eat right. I exercise. I don't consider any little ache or pain or irregularity cause to go to the doctor. I IGNORE media hoopla about the latest malady (restless leg syndrome, Adult ADD, depresstion, etc.). I use the same common sense regarding my health as my great grandmother, who lived to be in her late 90s and was sharp as a tack.
My parents raised FIVE KIDS with no health insurance -- believe me, they never burdened the taxpayer because they used common sense. That alone proves to me that politics and pop culture is what has made health insurance so "vital," because human health hasn't changed that much since I was a kid! When I DO go the doctor, I pay CASH and usually get a pretty tidy discount because they don't have to go through the BS paperwork of insurance.
You are telling EVERYONE that the government is superior to common sense.
You talk about freeloaders! An emergency is just that -- an emergency. That's not what's causing this "crisis," and "the rest of us" are not paying for that nearly as much as we are morons who unquestioningly believe every latest health scare and go to the doctor more than they need.
Auto insurance is a choice -- you choose to have and drive a car, you must have car insurance. I don't like it, but I don't think it's unconstitutional. Where in the constitution does it say that just because you're alive, the government has a right to require you to own health insurance? Again, I can't believe you people call yourselves conservatives.
"It was a subject I'd never given much thought to and one upon which I didn't really have an opinion." Reagan went onto say, he did extensive research on abortion and "soul searching" and concluded that abortion was the taking of a human life. Roe v Wade change everything. To conclude that Reagan supported abortion on demand is revisionism of the first order. A total fabrication.
Read my post at #556. Then read the entire article by Fred Barnes: How a Cause Was Born: Ronald Reagan, father of the pro-life movement.
For the lazy people who won't read the article, or my post:
"Within a year after signing the abortion bill, Mr. Reagan told political writer Lou Cannon that he'd never have done so if he'd been more experienced in office. It was "the only time as governor or president that Reagan acknowledged a mistake on major legislation," Mr. Cannon writes in his new book, "Governor Reagan: His Rise to Power." By 1980, Mr. Reagan was campaigning for president in favor of banning abortion in all but rare cases."
From the San Francisco Chronicle:
"The California Legislature sent Reagan a measure in 1967 that legalized abortion in cases of rape and incest and when a doctor found that a pregnancy would endanger the life or health of the woman. Reagan agonized over the measure, fearing that doctors would exploit a mental heath loophole to approve many abortions. But in the end he signed it."
Conservatives believe in personal responsibility. Not having health insurance is irresponsible. Say an uninsured person catches some treatable communicable disease, like TB. Without health insurance, he won't be able to afford treatment. If he doesn't get treated, he poses a health risk to the public. Who compensates me when some uninsured freeloader causes me to catch TB?
Suppose he gets something that isn't communicable, and let's pretend we live in a libertarian fantasy land of no welfare state. He's still more than likely impose costs on society. If he doesn't get treatment, pretty soon he won't be able to work. If he can't work, won't be able to pay his rent. Who compensates the landlord for his costs of evicting him? Once he's evicted and starts living on the streets and begging, who compensates all the poeple who have to walk by him and endure his smell? Who compensates the businesses in front of which he stands who as a result lose customers? Maybe in your fantasy land, the cops will prevent panhandlers from standing in front of stores. Who pays the cops to keep them away? Suppose the cops keep him away from public areas and the uninsured freeloader dies. Who pays for his funeral?
So even in a libertarian fantasy land, uninsured people who get sick will impose social costs. Now if we come back to reality in which there is a welfare state, which is impossible to abolish, the costs are even higher.
The free riders are the types who make it so that it costs many hundreds of dollars a MONTH for health insurance -- more in one month than I spend on medical stuff over the course of YEARS!
The Romney plan addresses this problem by allowing insurance companies to offer policies with high deductibles and copayments. It is already begining to make non-subsidized private insurance affordable for many who previously could not afford it. In some ways, it reduces government, as it reduces restrictions on what kinds of policies insurance companies are allowed to offer.
I take care of myself. I eat right. I exercise. I don't consider any little ache or pain or irregularity cause to go to the doctor. I IGNORE media hoopla about the latest malady (restless leg syndrome, Adult ADD, depresstion, etc.). I use the same common sense regarding my health as my great grandmother, who lived to be in her late 90s and was sharp as a tack.
Good for you and her, but you have both been lucky. Even people who take care of themselves have a non-negligible probability of getting seriously sick. Not all aspects of your health are under your control. Suppose a mosquito bites you and you get incephelitis. Suppose a cook in restuarant you visit forgot to wash his hands and you catch Hepatitis. Suppose you stand next to someone in an elevator who, unbeknownst to you, has TB and you catch it from him. These things happen to even the most careful people.
My parents raised FIVE KIDS with no health insurance -- believe me, they never burdened the taxpayer because they used common sense.
They were also very lucky.
That alone proves to me that politics and pop culture is what has made health insurance so "vital," because human health hasn't changed that much since I was a kid!
LOL. You're basing your inference on a single anecdote! Please, take a class in statistics. There are thousands of careful people who go bankrupt every year because they get seriously sick and have no insurance.
You are telling EVERYONE that the government is superior to common sense.
No, I'm telling you that it is common sense to have insurance, and if you don't, you are potentially free riding on everyone else. Conservatives oppose free riders and insist that everyone pays their way.
An emergency is just that -- an emergency. That's not what's causing this "crisis,"
Actually, it is a big part of it (though not all of it). Look at the data. Uninsured emergency room visits are causing hospitals to shut down emergency rooms in some areas, and they significantly add to the healthcare costs of the rest of us.
and "the rest of us" are not paying for that nearly as much as we are morons who unquestioningly believe every latest health scare and go to the doctor more than they need
Yes, that's a big problem, and it can be solved by increasing the copayments and deductibles on routine visits, and insurance companies would have already done it were it not for state regulations. Loosening those regulations is a huge part of the Romney plan.
Where in the constitution does it say that just because you're alive, the government has a right to require you to own health insurance?
It doesn't have to. The Federal government doesn't have the power to require it, and the states are not prohibited from requiring it. Therefore, by the 10th Amendment, states have the power to require it.
Again, I can't believe you people call yourselves conservatives.
A conservative believes in personal responsibility. Having health insurance is the only responsible thing. You may have gotten lucky, but by refusing to carry it, you are incurring a significant risk of becoming a burden to society.
You are muddling and confusing the issue, i dont question or doubt Reagan's anti-abortion/ pro-life credentials and I think he does not approve of Roe/wade decision. However he did sign a law which was pro-choice and you agree that Reagan felt that it was a mistake on his behalf to sign that legislation.
The question is if Reagan is allowed to acknowledge his mistake, why cant Romney . Why cannot Romney change his position on this issue, there are many who have changed from pro-choice( when they were indifferent to the issue) to pro-life, so romney change of heart is not suprising.
I cannot the believe the people who call themselves FReepers who cannot read. I do NOT support mandatory health insurance.
By any honest evaluation and analysis, Ronald Reagan never favored abortion on demand. Never mentioned it in public or private, and for good reason. As a freshly elected Governor of California, Reagan reluctantly signed a bill which allowed the abortion exceptions of rape, incest and to save the life/health of the mother. From the time he signed that 1967 bill into law, Reagan was troubled by his decision and said it was a mistake. At that point, Reagan was already becoming a strong pro-lifer. By 1973, the SCOTUS decision in Roe v Wade made many Americans pause, to reevaluate their position on abortion. Roe v Wade was the final straw for Ronald Reagan and other anti-abortion conservatives.
Seems like Mitt Romney's position on abortion has changed several times over the years for reasons of political expediency. Romney clearly supported abortion on demand as a matter of public policy right up until July 2005, when he suddenly announced his views had evolved. Romney is caught by his own remarks.
*** "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice."
*** "The choice to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not the government's."
*** "I respect and will protect a women's right to choose...."
*** "Gubernatorial candidates Shannon O'Brien and Mitt Romney sparred (in 2002) over who was the strongest abortion rights supporter by touting endorsements from abortion rights groups and challenging each other's records on the issue."
The LDS church does not adopt to homosexuals (similar to Catholic Charities). I doubt Romney supports it. IMO, however, Romney should have done more to help Catholic Charities in Boston when they got shut down over the matter.
I've disagreed with EV's political asessments of Mitt before (though I am not convinced Mitt's conservative enough) however, joking aside, he wouldn't criticize Christ.
hyperbole: def. 1) obvious intentional exaggeration; 2) an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as "to wait for an eternity"; 3) a figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect.
Signing a bill that is basically a pro-choice bill means Reagan is somehow responsible for it and it does not really matter whether Reagan was pro-choice or not at that period. You kind of slippery slop arguments doesn't add, Reagan did regret signing that bill and most of his supporters dont hold any grudge against him and respect his anti-abortion/pro life views even though he had signed a pro choice bill.
Mitt position on abortion has changed once- from prochoice to prolife and not many times as you claim. People are allowed to change their views and especially on the abortion issue where people get more educated and hold prolife views over the course of the period. Reagan or Romney, i like them both. Simply attempting to drive a wedge among Republicans would not work.
You have liability insurance on your car to protect the other drivers on the road, and maybe collision insurance to protect the lien holder on your car.
You might be forced in some states to have medical insurance on yourself in your car policy.
You have health insurance to protect yourself. Nobody else is hurt if you don't have health insurance. It's a risk to your self you should be allowed to take.
Forcing medical insurance is just the statist way of covering their conscience cheaply. I can't count the folks who say that without it other folks would be forced to pay for your care. They tend to get real mad when I point out that in no other place do they expect charitable impulses to be repaid.
>>>>>Signing a bill that is basically a pro-choice bill ...
We know Reagan signed that liberalized abortion bill into law in 1967. Lets not get carried away, however. There is a strong tendency among some FReepers to employ 20/20 hindsight and engage in historic revisionism when dicussing the Reagan legacy and record. This one seems a bit over the top. Exceptions for rape, incest and to save the health/life of the mother, have never been associated with the term, "pro-choice". Most pro-lifers today, like Pres Bush & VP Cheney, actually support the three exceptions as legitimate in the overall context of abortion ethics. While still opposing 95% of abortions. Besides, had the new Governor vetoed that bill, from what I've read its likely the California State legislature would have overridden his veto. Most serious pro-lifers see the SCOTUS decision in Roe v Wade as the pivotal point in the abortion debate. Thereby making Reagan's change on abortion over several years, consistent with historic factors of the times in which he lived. Reagan's decision was based on principled conservatism, not on political expediency.
I'm getting tired of repeating this stuff. Why is this so hard for some people? You are not entirely correct. If you have a heart attack and have no health insurance and are brought to an emergency room then I and many others get to pay for your health care.
Again, I am not pushing this. But I find his approach to at least be ased on some logic and is certainly preferable to the government paying for everyone's health care.
That's your choice, as represented by the votes of your representatives. Giving to someone in a charitable spirit should not give you any rights over the recipient.
This is just another of the dialetic processes for putting everybody under tight control. The Hillaries of the world force Peter for Pauls care, so Peter is willing to force Paul to do something to keep the cost to Peter down. This way the Hillaries get the Peters and Pauls to push each other deeper into the arms of the State, without getting blamed for the final mess.
There is no choice really. The representatives are not going to turn away people from emergency rooms. Just like they are not going to stop requiring people to have auto insurance. Your original point that a person's health imposes no liability on others is incorrect.
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.