Sarah Palin: Repealing Obamacare should be Romney's first priority as president

The Capitol Column ^ | July 1, 2012 | The Capitol Column

[Jeff Head]

Yeep...Palin and all of these others have been struck bny the Romney memerizing, thought changing, heart capturing ROmnmey Stare...except for you of course and that very small number like you who "know better."

Sorry, that dog don't hunt.

These people know the score. They, like us, wish it had been someone different...but now we have Romney and we have the issues he has set forth over the last five years. Which of themselves are really not that bad when you read them.

To think that he would not only betray the commitments he has made to the peolpe as well as to all of these high ranking and influential conservatives who do not follow him blindly in the least...is just several bridges too far.

Romney is not an ideolog. The proposals he is making will actually work. The House and Senate, if we do out part, will support him and hold him to them and the nation will be changed for the better.

Why would he turn away from that, for the which he and his dministration will get credit and ensure him another four years?

And the answer is: He wont.

Like Palin says, along with all those others, he will implement these things and they will turn the nation around.

[Servant of the Cross]

Did Gov. Palin just say “Replace”?!

[tsowellfan]

when you consider that $40 you are paying also pays the aspirin bill for 39 illegal criminal Mexicans

That's not something new introduced by ObamaCare. That was also the case under the programs ObamaCare replaced. That is indeed something that needs to be fixed after ObamaCare is repealed.

[JimRed]

Reinstating the Bush era tax cuts should be on the desk for the same seating. Sign ‘em both, either one first.

[Graybeard58]

That's not something new introduced by ObamaCare. That was also the case under the programs ObamaCare replaced.

That's why I wrote this in the same post:

Socialized medicine has been around for a long time. Obama/romneycare is just an expansion of it.

[tsowellfan]

I was referring to benefits to illegal aliens. Socialized medicine is bad enough. Giving benefits to the world is a step lower on the idiocy scale.

[Kinder Gentler Machinegun Hand]

Romney is not going to pick someone as VP who has not endorsed him and who is not currently campaigning with him.

Would YOU pick someone as a running mate who cannot or will not officially endorse you?

[Kinder Gentler Machinegun Hand]

Eternal Vigilance- Palin 2012!!!!

[CharacterCounts]

I’ve been hearing for months here on FR that when someone says they want to “repeal and replace” Obamacare then this means that they don’t really want to repeal it.

I have been to Romney's site and he is pretty darn sketchy about what he wants to replace Obamcare with. He makes it clear that he wants State plans, but most conservatives are concerned that this means state run Romney care which includes mandates.

He could help his cause, if he is really interested in attracting conservative votes, to indicate that his plan would not include mandates.

[2ndDivisionVet]

If she’d push me into the oval office for eight years? You betcha!!

[rogue yam]

Why would he turn away from that, for the which he and his administration will get credit and ensure him another four years?

The anti-Romneys are forced to claim that Romney will alienate and enrage his GOP base, and jeopardize his Presidency, in pursuit of an ideologically liberal agenda that he supposedly holds dear to his heart.

It makes much more sense to assume that Romney wants to be a successful and popular President, and that he's smart enough to realize that the best way to do this is to repeal Obamacare, develop American energy resources, cut taxes and regulation, and then watch the economy come roaring back to the delight of (almost) all.

[Kazan]

It makes much more sense to assume that Romney wants to be a successful and popular President, and that he's smart enough to realize that the best way to do this is to repeal Obamacare, develop American energy resources, cut taxes and regulation, and then watch the economy come roaring back to the delight of (almost) all.

No, it makes the most sense that he will do what he has always done -- govern by the polls and out of political expediency.

What are the polls telling weathervane Mitt? The American people want deficit reduction, don't want entitlements reformed and don't mind taxes increases on the rich. So, let's put that in the blender and see what Willard will do -- he'll raise taxes on the rich, throw in as many tax increases as he can get away with (his advisers have already floated the idea of a VAT tax), make insignificant "cuts" in spending and proclaim himself to be bipartisan. That, in turn, will harm the economy and the debt will continue to soar.

What does weathervane Mitt about illegal immigration? He and the establishment believe it is vital to gain a larger share of the Hispanic vote. Amnesty or some form of it is the best way to do achieve that objective. So, we'll get some form of amnesty from a Romney administration, especially if Little Ricky Rubio is the VP.

And, do you really think Romney will put judges on the Supreme Court that will overturn Roe or lift a finger to stop gay marriage when the polls (accurate or not) are telling him not to? You're crazy if you think so.

This what is going to happen when you elect someone that has NO principles and governs by the polls rather than a conservative. If you don't understand that, you're part of the problem and the reason this nation keeps drifting to the left.

[rogue yam]

So, let's put that in the blender and see what Willard will do -- he'll raise taxes on the rich, throw in as many tax increases as he can get away with (his advisers have already floated the idea of a VAT tax), make insignificant "cuts" in spending and proclaim himself to be bipartisan. That, in turn, will harm the economy and the debt will continue to soar.

So, to your mind, does Romney not understand that these policies you say he'll adopt will hurt the economy, or does he know this and intend to adopt them anyway? If the latter, how does that make sense? If the economy is harmed, Romney will be unpopular and his Presidency will be considered a failure. What does he achieve to offset that in your scenario?

And, do you really think Romney will put judges on the Supreme Court that will overturn Roe or lift a finger to stop gay marriage when the polls (accurate or not) are telling him not to? You're crazy if you think so.

I wonder if you are capable of understanding that this isn't an argument?

[Kazan]

So, to your mind, does Romney not understand that these policies you say he'll adopt will hurt the economy, or does he know this and intend to adopt them anyway?

Obviously, he didn't understand it Massachusetts because he DID raise taxes on corporations:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/287415/romney-s-tax-hikes-deroy-murdock

In fact, Romney increased taxes by $309 million, mainly on corporations. These tax hikes, described by Romney apologists as “loophole closures,” totaled $128 million in 2003, $95.5 million in 2004, and $85 million in 2005. That final year, Romney proposed $170 million in higher business taxes, the Boston Globe reports. However, the Bay State’s liberal, Democratic legislature balked and approved only the less onerous $85 million increase.

“Tax rates on many corporations almost doubled because of legislation supported by Romney,” Peter Nicholas, chairman of Boston Science Corporation, explained in the Jan. 6, 2008, Boston Herald. “His portrayal of himself as a reliable tax cutter,” Nicholas added, “is undercut by the facts.” Also, Romney raised the tax — from 5.3 to 9.8 percent — on subchapter S corporations owned by business trusts. Nicholas called this 85 percent tax hike “an important disincentive to investment, growth, and job creation.” Joseph Crosby of the Council on State Taxation observed, “Romney went further than any other governor in trying to wring money out of corporations.”

###

“Romney did not even fight higher death-tax rates,” notes Steve Baldwin, former minority whip of the California state Assembly.“When the legislature considered this issue, Romney’s official position was ‘no position.’ This echoed Barack Obama’s ‘present’ votes in the Illinois state Senate.”