Posted on 09/09/2012 7:28:36 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
Edited on 09/09/2012 7:33:01 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who has called for scrapping President Barack Obama's 2010 U.S. healthcare law, said in remarks aired on Sunday that he likes key parts of "Obamacare" despite his party's loathing of it and wants to retain them.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
This is no surprise, Romney was unmasked long ago. This doesn’t alter the facts that we have to beat obama and that will not be accomplished by a no vote in the presidential race or by supporting a third party. Romney is stupid for even getting into this now. He will have to continue this discussion and explain himself and this is just another distraction from the task at hand which is to beat obama.
Of course he did. Some people here are getting hysterical, attempting to convince others the Republicans are not running another leftist liberal.
As if this is some secret.
Er, well, they sorta did, actually.
Actually it was yesterday.
I'm not voting for Obama. Contrary, to some vote spinners, that does not mean a vote for Romney.
my gfrown children are 19 and 16, the 19-yo is in college.
They are covered under my employee health plan. My employee gets tax breaks for offering to buy me health insurance. I pay for part of that insurance, and ai have the choice to NOT take that insurance and get my own, but then I’d lose the 80% that my employee is paying, and since I work for that money, I’d prefer to get it.
I would like the government to stop pushing employees to provide insurance, so they cvould just pay me more, and let me find my own insurance.
My employee insurance has always covered my children until they graduated from college, or turned 25 even if they were still in college (if I remember that part correctly — I can’t look that up anymore becuase of Obamacare).
I believe in familial society, and so I am fine with my children living at home until they get married if they want, and we can share our resources and our expenses. If it’s cheaper for me to keep them on my car and health insurance, I would do that to save money. If they have jobs, they could pay for the cost of their insurance.
I don’t need government or others to require we live the way they live, or to do what the government wants.
There is nothing “conservative” or “liberal” about a choice of how to handle health care. Some might decide to self-insure, or to partly self-insure and cover themselves with a catastrophic policy. Others can decide to get a cadallac plan where everything is covered, with low deductables, so we never have to think twice about going to the doctor, we just go. In a free market, the 2nd group would get charged enough more than the 1st group to cover the extra expense of people making more visits to the doctor.
And again, it’s not conservative to do the 1st, and liberal to do the 2nd. It’s conservative to let individuals choose what they want to buy, and to enter freely into private contracts to do either; it’s liberal for the government to intervene and tell me what to do.
GW Bush signed a bill outlawing partial birth abortion. The other did not do anything. The president is very limited in what they can do. A governor and state legislature can actually do more.
LOL, you sound like my post hurt your feelings, your response read like a 12 year old girl.
Reagan was pro-life and made a bad rookie decision in 1967, falling for something that many of us were naive enough to believe back then,that the “health of the mother” meant life and death.
Two weeks ago Mitt Romney, who has been pro-abortion since 1963, and then campaigned as having switched to pro-life to run for the GOP nomination, announced that he was reverting back to his pro-abortion position.
Romney has reverted back to his lifelong position of supporting abortion. Rape, Incest, and “health” of mother.
Mitt Romney admits that his views on abortion are more lenient than the Republican Platform.
I am basing everything I’m saying off of watching Meet the Press. I pulled the clip up on New York Post just to be certain I was remembering correctly.
I think he’ll favor free market too, and I prefer his plans to Obamacare, but in reality he’s going to have to make concessions and ultimately we’re keeping Obamacare.
Meet the Press wanted to trap him into saying he either wanted to keep Obamacare or he wanted to hurt people. Romney skillfully used politician-speak to get out of it, partially by stating that he wants to keep some parts of what we call Obamacare. “So you would keep that as part of the federal plan.” “Oh I’m not getting rid of ALL of healthcare reform, of course, there are a number of things that I like in healthcare reform,” is in direct response to that “so you would keep that as part of the federal plan.”
He needs to distance himself from the word “Obamacare” because of the word “Romneycare.” He knows he can’t win the conservative vote if he’s associated with it, but voicing support for aspects of the federal plan does voice support for aspects of Obamacare no matter how you slice it.
Not necessarily a bad thing, since the piece of garbage was so bloated it actually does have some aspects of Republican health care reform slipped into it. And, he’s a very good liar. I’m sure he was lying to someone with that response. We can cross our fingers and hope that he’s lying in our favor.
Do you need to use that kind of language when you write for public consumption?
“Mitt and the Curate’s Egg” - a primer for trimmers.
Not generally, or even usually. I would say occasionally, or even infrequently.
I don’t know why you waste your time.
Whether it is to Elagabolus or to Diocletian, almost every Roman will burn incense to Caesar, and reap the reward for that.
After the warning, your duty is discharged.
Pearls and swine. ‘Nuff said.
AS I HAVE WRITTEN, ABORTION IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE NO MATTER WHO IS PRESIDENT, IDIOT. NOT ONE BIT.
IF SANTORUM WAS PRESIDENT, THERE WOULD BE ABORTIONS EVERY DAY OF HIS PRESIDENCY. THERE WOULD BE MILLIONS OF THEM. IF HUCKABEE WAS PRESIDENT, THERE WOULD BE MILLIONS OF ABORTIONS.
This election is not a social issues election, but more of an economic one. I am as conservative as can be, but I am also a realist.
Furthermore, if you want to stop abortions, you have to change hearts first, then the law. And that is not going to happen in our lifetime.
So get over it, quit whining and get Romney elected. If you don't like him, I could care less. If you don't want to vote for him, I could care less, but get off this site because you are a whiner and a divider.
The focus NEEDS to be getting Obama out of office. Frankly, if that is not your focus then you are helping Obama to win and implement his agenda. Obama is much much worse than Romney.
I am fed up and sick of holier than thou, self righteous jerks who are on the sidelines whining about Romney this or Romney that. Your choice lost in the primary and you are a sore loser - I understand that, but act like an adult and get over it.
I have learned that people like you are incredibly self centered and focused only on you. You are the equivalent of the one that owns the ball on the playground and you are so unhappy, so you are going to take your ball and go home
I was a Rick Santorum supporter, but I came to realize that Santorum could not have won the election and winning is everything this time, more than anything else. I am an ANYONE BUT OBAMA VOTER.
I am just praying that if we win this, Romney doesn’t betray our confidence. Praying is all that I can do.
You seem even more hysterical with every post. You posted about Reagan and abortion and I corrected you, and you have yet to acknowledge what I posted, instead you went personal, and now hysterical.
Ronald Reagan was always pro-life, and Mitt Romney has always been pro-abortion.
Romney has returned to his lifelong position of supporting abortion. Rape, incest, and “health” of mother now that the primary is over, and he tells us that he was always very clear that this was his position, do you consider that a truthful claim? Personally I don’t recall him campaigning on that position during the primary.
GOP-E and McCain redux. It's a natural move for Mitt.
Second, you did not correct me concerning Reagan. My original post was very accurate. I know Reagan was pro-life, but we all know Reagan signed the most liberal abortion law in the entire US. I don't care if Reagan made a rookie mistake or not, but he DID sign the most liberal abortion law in the country. You have made a poor excuse for Reagan and you are looking the other way. The fact is Reagan is responsible for more abortions than Romney will ever be.
Next, Roe v. Wade occurred in the early 70s and it really does not matter who is president since abortion is legal and that's that. No president can change that.
Nothing has changed from my earlier post. This election is not about abortion.
I repeat, this election has nothing to do with abortion. I know your candidate did not win the primary (neither did mine), but at least I understand basic concepts of common sense, that this election is about getting Obama out of the White House. Romney is better than Obama. My suggestion to you is to say that five times every hour on the hour from now until election day. It may help.
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.