Replies

I was hoping one of you Romney supporters would do what I predicted, and point out that the lousy parts of Romney's bill weren't "part of the original plan." Thank you, Barnie, nice that it was YOU -- a proven liar on Free Republic with regard to Romney (you have written on this forum the blatant, provable falsehoods that Romney was "supported" and "endorsed" by Rush and Michael Reagan and that Rush "said he voted for Romney in the primaries on his show"; you've also stated REPEATEDLY, and never proved nor attempted to prove, that posters and flyers of Romney's appeals to the homosexual faction during his Mass gov. run were forgeries) ....

Anyway, I was hoping one of you guys would make that argument that the only reason Romney's Mass health insurance mandate is a failure is because they didn't implement it the way Romney wanted. The minute government presumes to interfere and meddle, punishing with fines and fees and invading all kinds of privacies by trying to take control of personal, business, and private decisions such as health care and insurance and the relationships regarding them between employee, employer, ensurer, and doctor, it is guaranteed that the consequences will be negative and loss of individual freedom, choice, and responsibility will follow.

The only way Romney could have prevented this from happening was to FIGHT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH A BILL IN THE FIRST PLACE, which would have been the conservative thing to do and would have promoted individual liberty and free enterprise. But Romney was (and still is) arrogant enough to think that he could come up with just the right "conservative" version, and of course it failed because it was oxymoronic to conservatism.

As for the folks at the NRA welcoming Romney (I think in an earlier post you said they welcomed Romney warmly or enthusiastically) -- well, you're the kind of guy who willfully misinterprets Rush Limbaugh and Michael Reagan's very lukewarm words about Romney as "support" and endorsement," so I know that all the NRA folks had to do was for half the folks in the audience to clap politely (the way the audience responded to Mitt's CPAC speech, in fact), and you'd call it a standing ovation.

Thank you, Barnie, nice that it was YOU -- a proven liar on Free Republic with regard to Romney (you have written on this forum the blatant, provable falsehoods that Romney was "supported" and "endorsed" by Rush and Michael Reagan and that Rush "said he voted for Romney in the primaries on his show";

Do you have the link for the,"Rush voted for Romney"?

I have the link for his claims that Governor Palin campaigned for Romney.

That massresistance is an Obama blog.

That the Romney family did have a male serve the United States in uniform.

"The only way Romney could have prevented this from happening was to FIGHT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH A BILL IN THE FIRST PLACE, which would have been the conservative thing to do"

Ok, we are in agreement. Romney fought against the bill but was outnumbered and had no choice but to sign it:

House Overrides Romney's Health Care Vetoes

By Steve LeBlanc, Associated Press Writer | April 25, 2006

BOSTON --Sending a sharp rebuke to Gov. Mitt Romney, House lawmakers voted overwhelmingly Tuesday 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 Tuesday that he expects the Senate will override all eight of Romney's vetoes.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/04/25/house_begins_overrides_of_romneys_health_care_vetoes/

And since you mentioned Michael Reagan I'm sure you'll agree with his analysis, given all the indisputable evidence:

One of the criticisms about former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney focuses on his record concerning the abortion issue. We are told by the modern day Diogenes clones that he can’t be trusted to fight abortion because he once, more or less, supported a woman’s right to butcher her baby.

It may come as a surprise to these purists, but Ronald Reagan once supported abortion too. Yet nobody ever questioned his strong pro-life credentials after his conversion to Republicanism. They accepted his sincerity. Why can’t they accept Mitt Romney’s?

Romney’s record shows he should be totally acceptable to all conservatives, yet because of one dubious question concerning the validity of his conversion to the pro-life side, he is deemed unsuitable to carry the conservative banner.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19462

Notice that instead of calling you names and accusing you of making claims you never did, I only posted the facts, included links, etc.. You antis have no support for a reason.