Posted on 11/21/2008 7:50:09 AM PST by Retired Greyhound
Gleeful, Dictator-backstabber-RINO-Romney signs RomneyCARE=HillaryCARE
into Massachusetts law, without a vote except from Utah and the DNC.
Sen. John Kerry to Don Imus: "I like this (Romney) health care bill".
Sen. Hillary Clinton: "To come up with a bipartisan (RomneyCARE=HillaryCARE) plan in this polarized environment is commendable."
James Carville: "It's a feel-good story, this Romney thing. Romney is an ascendant guy."
No, the primaries weren’t spread out, this year. Too many of them were held in Feb. 22 states voted on Feb. 5. Spreading them, over four months, will prolong the nomination process, especially if at least six candidates remain in the race, at least until May.
However, even with Palin on the ticket, approximately 7 million conservatives still stayed home compared to 2004. It's possible, some of them were Mormons or just "too principled" to vote for moderate McCain. It's possible Romney may have brought in more indies or moderates with his economic background to make up for this deficit. Nobody knows what might have been and it doesn't really help us to speculate.
What we do know is that Mitt had days when he collected more than 6 million dollars in one day during his campaign and he could have done so again.
Romney and Palin were my top two choices for VP, but most likely neither of them could have salvaged the sinking USS McCain alone, given the circumstances.
One thing is for sure, however, Romney/Palin would have had a better chance of distancing themselves from the "more of the same" stigma Obama so successfully pinned on Washington-insider McCain. They would have had a better shot at winning, but any GOP ticket would have faced terrible odds this year.
“The main problem with Romney is that he is slick.”
Understand the thought, but what do we want, inarticulate stick-in-the-muds? Some people are actually afraid of Romney because he can articulate a thought without sounding like a buffoon.
” I doubt he would ever be able to rile the social conservative footsoldiers we need for a repeat of the 2004 Bush ground game.”
If 4 years of Obama cant make socons get active, nothing will.
“Which is ashame because on economic issues, he clearly is one of the few Republicans that knows what he is doing and can talk with fluidity on the issues.”
Articulate and knowledgable, yes.
Romney or Jindhal would work in 2012.
“He couldn’t win the primaries, so what makes anybody think he could win the general?”
He would have run a better campaign than McCain I suspect.
“The only way to defeat and enemy is to destroy that enemy, not sympathize with them.”
Romney wants to do that.
This needs to be tattooed on our foreheads for the next 4 years so we see in the mirror every day. Important reminder!... Stand for conservative principles and not personalities. Principle centered activists can be united and strong, but divisions into personalities lead to a disastrous result. It's too early for us to get into divisions over 2012. FIRST, lets focus on 2010 - and any GOP leader wo does not contribute to 2010 success is not fit to lead as our 2012 nominee.
Drawing crowds, in and of itself, while impressive, doesn't do much for the conservative cause. Drawing crowds and ispiring the people to work for conservative causes, that would be accomplishing something. I don't see any evidence that she did this.
Her popularity appears to be more of a personality cult.
When Gov. Palin had the crowds she kept true to her pro-life; pro-gun; pro-drilling stands.
99% of the people in those crowds were already pro-gun, pro-life and pro-drilling. The crowds she draws prove nothing more than she's very good at preaching to the converted.
It doesn't take much, especially if you're from a place like Alaska, to say you're pro-life, pro-gun and pro-drilling. Furthermore, merely saying the right things on these issues, which is all she's done, doesn't accomplish anything.
She spoke as a true conservative to thousands!!! No wishy washy RINO she is a true Reagan Republican
She's shown herself to be a true conservative on exactly three issues. There's a lot more to being conservative.
Furthermore, she's revealed herself to be somewhat left of center on other important issues, such as immigration and fiscal policy.
...and her ideas were well received!!!
What ideas?
Talking points on exactly three issues aren't ideas.
Nonsense. Switzerland has had a system similar to the one in Massachusetts for decades, and they have not had a government takeover of healthcare.
Please cite one instance in which a country first adopted a system like the one in Massachusetts before a government takeover.
Most free market capitalists believe it we’re on the road to nationalized healthcare. JimRob believes it and I believe it too.
I agree we are going down the road and we will get there unless we can can devise a market-based system that can deliver healthcare that is affordable for the vast majority of the population.
The systems in Massachusetts and Switzerland, while not perfect, accomplish that. Adopting an improved version of either the Swiss or MA system will prevent nationalized healthcare, not bring it.
There is a reason the conservative Heritage foundation supports the essentials of the Massachusetts and Swiss systems.
Free Republic doesn’t support socialism of any kind. Government enforced auto insurance is a form of socialism.
LOL. So Free Republic officially opposes compulsory auto insurance? Where? I'm very curious where this official statement of Freerepublic can be found. Please direct me to it.
When I moved to Colorado in the 1970`s there was no mandatory auto insurance required. Things were working just fine.
I'm sure it was great, so long as you didn't get hit by an uninsured driver. LOL.
Personality CULT? left of center?
You mean Mitt Romney, the tuberculosis of the GOP.
Across Mass., wait to see doctors grows [because of ROmney's socialized medicine]
Sen. John Kerry to Don Imus on RomneyCARE=HillaryCARE: "I like this (Romney socialized medicine) health care bill".
The Price of RomneyCare The Wall Street Journal July 29, 2008; Page A16
Gearing up for 2009, liberals are eager to claim Massachusetts as a Valhalla of health reform. Their enthusiasm is apparently evidence-proof.
Even Mitt Romney, who should know better, took to these pages recently to proclaim, "Health-care reform is working in Massachusetts." Shortly after Mr. Romney's self-tribute, Governor Deval Patrick wheeled out a new $129 million tax plan to make up for this year's health spending shortfalls. Yet partisans are cheering the cost overruns as a sign of success.
Supporters are exultant because 350,000 people are newly covered since former Governor Romney's parley with Beacon Hill Democrats in 2006; this cuts the state's uninsured rate by about half. That's not the promised "universal" system, but never mind. The ominous news is that only about 18,000 people -- or 5% of the newly insured -- have taken advantage of the "connector," which was supposed to be the plan's free-market innovation linking individuals to private insurers.
Most of this growth in coverage has instead come via a new state entitlement called Commonwealth Care. This provides subsidized insurance to those under 300% of the poverty level, or about $63,000 for a family of four. About 174,000 have joined this low- or no-cost program, a trend that is likely to speed up.
As this public option gets overwhelmed, budget gaskets are blowing everywhere. Mr. Patrick had already bumped up this year's spending to $869 million, $144 million over its original estimate. Liberals duly noted that these tax hikes are necessary because enrollment in Commonwealth Care is much higher than anticipated. But of course more people will have coverage if government gives it to them for free. The problem is that someone has to pay for it.
Thus the extra tab of $129 million, which may need to go higher because it relies on uncertain federal funds from Medicaid. For now, Mr. Patrick wants one-time (yeah, right) charges of $33 million on insurers and $28 million on providers, plus some shuffling of state funds. The balance comes from an estimated $33 million boost in the state's "pay or play" tax: If businesses don't offer "fair and reasonable" insurance to their employees, they get hit.
This is a textbook example of how business taxes evolve into "pay or pay," the first recourse of state-funded health systems. Politicians love levies on business because they disguise the overall bill from voters. But such taxes are merely passed along to workers in the form of reduced take-home pay, since all health costs are part of compensation.
The main reason people are uninsured is because coverage is too expensive. Massachusetts didn't have many options for reforming the way health dollars are laundered in the third-party payment system created by the federal tax code. But it could have helped make insurance cheaper by reforming its private market before defaulting to public programs.
The Bay State has long served up coverage-specific insurance mandates, such as for fertility treatments, which raise costs. Yet in a just-deserts twist, Massachusetts health planners are now reviewing ways to trim mandates because the state is footing more of the bill, even if they didn't care when imposing them on individuals and small business. A state-sponsored study shows that total spending on mandates was $1.32 billion in 2005, or 12% of premiums. The study is devastating despite its pro-mandate slant.
Not that such practical lessons have stopped liberals from joining the Massachusetts parade. They have to gussy up the state's model because the extravagant claim that led to its creation -- that health care will be less expensive if everyone is covered -- is being relentlessly discredited. It's the same claim they want to make when they try to pass a similar plan for the whole country in next year's Congress.
In Mass. the criminal illegal aliens were all invited in by Mitt Romney,
where many served him at his Belmont sanctuary on his home,
until 30 days before the end of his term.
Yet Romney supports spending nearly $1 Trillion of our money to bail out Wall Street.
Not quite, nor would I support marxist egalitarianism if its only saving graces was to strictly prohibit abortion. Being a single issue voter gets you into all kind of trouble.
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.