Posted on 02/25/2009 8:25:01 AM PST by restornu
WASHINGTON - From a Lexington office complex, Mitt Romney's political action committee has ensured the former presidential candidate's omnipresence on cable news shows, ....
But for the next year and a half, the center of Romney's political universe will shift west to Sacramento, where key parts of his operation have reassembled on behalf of Meg Whitman, a longtime friend and former business colleague ....
The former eBay CEO is still readying her headquarters, but it has already become something of a campaign-in-exile for Romney's ambitions, which could include another presidential run in 2012....
"Mitt's going to be involved in dozens and dozens of races, but one that he's particularly excited about is the race for governor of California," said Eric Fehrnstrom, a Romney spokesman....
A Whitman victory could deliver Romney a valuable foothold in a state that will likely be a big, early prize on the Republican nominating calendar. Her 2010 campaign will also offer a...
Romney and Whitman both harshly criticized the $787 billion stimulus package championed by President Obama and congressional Democrats, saying it includes too much bloated spending and not enough tax cuts. Whitman is also railing against the plan, signed into law yesterday, of tax increases and spending cuts to plug California's $42 billion budget deficit, saying in a statement it "will kill jobs, hurt families, and make future deficits worse."
The parallel careers of Romney and Whitman - ...
Yet Romney is the only one of the three considered a possible 2012 presidential candidate, ...
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
April 26, 2006 - Sending a sharp rebuke to Gov. Mitt Romney, House lawmakers voted overwhelmingly to overturn his vetoes to the state's landmark health care law, including the controversial $295 fee on businesses who don't offer insurance.The predominantly Democratic House broke from debate of the state budget to begin the override process, first voting to restore a portion of the law guaranteeing dental benefits to Medicaid recipients.
The House overrides had been expected, and Senate President Robert Travaglini said that he expects the Senate will override all eight of Romney's vetoes. The Republican governor's spokesman said the differences were not essential to the larger goal of health care coverage.
Debate lasted only a few minutes before the House voted 136-20 in the override of the $295 annual, per-worker fee on businesses with more than 11 workers that don't offer insurance. Romney said the fee is unnecessary and wouldn't raise that much money.
Democratic leaders said it was important because the law already asks individuals and the state to take some responsibility to expand health care, and businesses should be required to chip in, too.
'"This assessment forces everyone to contribute equally. This forces everyone to participate,'' said Ronald Mariano, D-Quincy.
Rep. Vinny deMacedo, R-Plymouth, called on lawmakers to sustain Romney's veto of the assessment, saying it unfairly targets some struggling, smaller businesses.
"These are the small mom and pops that can't afford insurance for themselves, let alone their employees,'' he said.
Romney had vetoed the dental benefit saying 60 percent of employers in Massachusetts don't offer the benefit to their workers. He also said the provision was unsustainable because it would cost $75 million a year.
Rep. Patricia Walrath, D-Stow, said the price tag for the dental benefit is closer to $42 million. She said lawmakers reluctantly cut the dental benefit in 2002 during the state's fiscal plunge. She said people on Medicaid deserve access to health care for their teeth and eyes.
"They can't get jobs without teeth,'' Walrath said.
Rep. Mary Rogeness, R-Longmeadow, defended Romney's veto saying the cost could jeopardize the success of the new law.
The House overturned four of the vetoes during the afternoon and then returned in the evening to override the remaining four, including a provision to give MassHealth coverage to so-called "special status aliens,'' legal immigrants who have come with the sponsorship of an individual who agreed to be financial responsible for them.
Romney said the law should take into account the financial status of the sponsor. The House overrode the veto by a 137-19 vote.
House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi said the vetoes reflected the House's determination to provide access to health care to everyone in the state.
"An overwhelming majority of House members have gone on record in support of the principle of shared responsibility in order to achieve universal coverage here in Massachusetts,'' said DiMasi, D-Boston, in a written statement.
Romney's communications director Eric Fehrnstrom said the vetoes were relatively minor compared with the sweeping ambitions of the new law.
"These differences with the Legislature are not essential to the goal of getting everyone covered with insurance,'' Fehrnstrom said.
The House overrides came as Romney was defending the new health care initiative to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington. The law is intended to require coverage for nearly all of Massachusetts' estimated 550,000 uninsured.
The law would require everyone in Massachusetts be insured by July 2007, providing subsidies and sliding-scale premiums to get poor and low-income residents into health plans. Those deemed able to afford insurance but who still refuse will face increasing tax penalties.
In Washington, Romney fended off criticism of the new law.
"Most impressions at this point are inaccurate and partially baked,'' Romney told reporters after his chamber of commerce speech.
Foes have labeled the plan a big-government solution that does little to curb the state's high health care costs. A Wall Street Journal editorial this week entitled "Mitt's Market Misfire'' rapped the measure for failing to reform state regulations that drive up costs.
Romney, a possible candidate for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination, will need to court conservatives who dominate the Republican primary contests should he decide to run. The health care law is the signature accomplishment of his tenure in office.
"Some of my libertarian friends forget is that today everybody who doesn't have insurance is getting free coverage from the government,'' Romney said.
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/east/2006/04/26/67613.htm
‘I’m so sick of those who run around alleging that “A conservative can’t win” or calling others “single issue voters” who won’t aid in electing more liberals.
It sounds like the same campaign nonsense spewed in the 1960s against Reagan.’
I understand what you are saying here. My point is the California you recall from the 1960’s with Reagan, and its voting demographics, no longer exist.
Its gone. Has been since the late 1980’s, Pete Wilson caught the tail end and won, but since then its been a giant sucking sound, as Conservatives of various stripes have fled to adjoining states, as I’m sure you know.
Combine that with the influx of leftwingnuts of every stripe, the ‘sanctuary city’ nonsense, the 200K per year per homeless person in SF, the exessive taxation of everything from license plates to fuel, to ‘whatever’...that state Reagan won easily is as long gone as the Confederacy, with zero hope of returning to that era IMHO.
California is actually losing residents right now, isn’t it?
If thats correct - I thought I heard that earlier this year - it isn’t the homeless, or the illegals, or the liberals that are fleeing.
“I know.
but he’s ‘out there’ today, isn’t he?”
But where was he in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and the 2000s (until about 2007)?
Conservatism could have used some help from this newly discovered (minted) republican hero.
Facts are a dangerous thing. If he did not want this monstrosity, perhaps he should of not even started it to begin with. If he truly follows conservative ideas he should never even thought of it to begin with.
However he did, and was proud of it, as your article so plainly says:
Romney, a possible candidate for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination, will need to court conservatives who dominate the Republican primary contests should he decide to run. The health care law is the signature accomplishment of his tenure in office.
Signature indeeed, a sign of a moderate at best conservative wannabe...
‘But where was he in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and the 2000s (until about 2007)?’
For most of it turning around dying companies, turning a profit with the Olympics, and winning election as Governor in a liberal state..and making babies with the only woman he’s ever been married to.
who else is running?
“For most of it turning around dying companies, turning a profit with the Olympics, and winning election as Governor in a liberal state..and making babies with the only woman he’s ever been married to.”
1960s- storming out on Goldwater at the 1964 convention with his father, dodging the draft while his father ran for president as the anti-war candidate. Living in France.
1970s-Supporting his mothers 1970 pro choice (he claims)senate race. Bishop and Stake President in the Mormon church teaching Mormon ‘stuff’ while the Mormons had their black thing going on. Remaining pro abortion and staying out of the post Roe vs Wade pro life movement.
1980s-Is against Reagan and participates enough in politics to register as independent and starts donating exclusively to liberal democrat politicians.
1990s continues donating exclusively to liberal democrat politicians in multiple states. Re registers as republican in 1993, stops giving money to democrat politicians but still supports Planned Parenthood fundraising both by attending and giving. Comes out against the Gingrich Revolution. Runs a losing race for office against Ted Kennedy taking a position to the left of Kennedy on the Gay Power question. He stays liberal and is no help to any conservative movements.
2000s- Still liberal wins his one and only election. In the second half of the decade he has a startling series of stroke like epiphanies and emerges as a die hard right winger on all issues, past, present, and future, just in time to start running for the presidential race of 2008.
Good point. That remark was definitely an opinion.
My opinion. I still hold it, but in reality, it is moot.
*sigh*
It isn't I who am confused, FRiend.
I think you have things a tick or two backwards...
Not surprising...
Oh, fer cryin' out loud!
YOU are the one who jumped in to the posting between EV and me. My post WAS about EV and about HIS comments. I never CLAIMED you wrote "naive or stupid".
Steve Poizner (R)
Tom Campbell (R)
Meg Whitman (R)
All liberals.
Thanks for the information!
You know of course that I have great respect for you. still, I think that (As I have said before) your hostility toward Romney is simply over the top.
Seriously, look at what we have now in the White House.
Personally, I'd rather have Obama than Hillary or McCain in the Office because they are seriously horrific options. Of the dark side concerning the former and more than treacherously inept when it comes to the latter.
I realize that reasonable people will often disagree, but I simply cannot compute the angst toward Romney.
It does not make sense unless it is about his personal religion which I agree is an apostasy credited to one Joseph Smith.
Too bad that I do not have issues with Mormons that will likely ever impact my precious vote. I'd have the entire Congress be LDS if it meant getting Government off of my back.
I am not disagreeing in many of the things your are saying.
But in this time in history we are this place and neither side wants to budge
I get angry like anyone else but I also realizing that this hard nose attitude is not working or going to change people behavior it only makes them dig their heels in more.
So I or those who feel what I am recognizing that a different approach is needed.
I would not put someone who is a pro abortion in a position to select those who would be nominated on the supreme court.
As a governor they can only do so much.
This is California who will drop off someday if they don’t change their ways!
I feel when people try to persuade and pray for those who are out of step to ponder more and let the Lord touch their conscience there is possibility that we as people become more in harmony.
We have Obama because our American family is fracture at odds with one another.
You assume too much.
I have made it very clear out here on FR.com several times that the Health Care Bill signed by Romney was a huge mistake.
We were going to get it anyhow (same as gay marriage) but he should not have signed off on it.
Go do some actual research and you will find the demographics are not that much different than when Reagan won.
Remember, this was the state of Tom Mooney, Communist infiltration of Hollywood, Jane Fonda (I know, that’s redundant) Haight Ashbury, and a whole slew of liberalism for almost a century.
A winning conservative needs one thing: support from it’s party. Unfortunately, as is more than evident on this thread, some are more interested in moving the party to the left and selling middle-mush “moderation” instead of teaching the basic principles of conservatism. We can’t win a war if our so-called leaders start the fight by waving a big white flag.
Um yes you did, in the tone and context of your post that is EXACTLY what you imply.
Being slick is a requirment for a Mitt supporter. I just wish you guys would turn that off when called on it.
It's not the liberals that are leaving? Have you ever heard a non-California freeper complain about all of those Conservatives moving in from California? I thought not.
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.