Posted on 09/19/2006 5:22:13 AM PDT by bitt
clear statement about illegals and security - "squarely behind the President" in regards to security".
That doesn't cut it.
Will bookmark for, after election results.
No, I've watched very carefully. But cast your vote for a RINO if you choose.
Fair enough. Not knowing too much about him, it's always helpful to listen to all voices.
I don't care for the government mandates and levies--that's just an incremental step toward single payer, IMO.
From the Boston Globe - April 14, 2006
"But nationally, Massachusetts' individual mandate -- which requires that all residents obtain health insurance as long as ''affordable" policies are available -- has been attacked from the right and left of the political spectrum, illustrating the problems other states would have passing similar legislation.
Some conservatives consider the mandate a government intrusion on individual rights. Liberals say it is unfair to force people to purchase insurance that they fear will be too expensive for many even if the state deems it affordable.
The state's $295-per-employee annual levy on businesses that do not offer health coverage also is being greeted with some skepticism in other parts of the country.
''Massachusetts is a very liberal state. The political culture in other states is so different. I don't think you can expect employer mandates to go anywhere in other states," said Robert E. Moffit, director of the health policy center at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative nonprofit organization in Washington.
Some less sweeping elements of the Massachusetts reform plan could gain traction elsewhere, said some observers. Moffit and Timothy Murphy, Romney's secretary of health and human services, cited the provision to combine individual and small-group insurance policies under a central agency, called a ''connector," to offer a range of lower-cost insurance options.
''This idea of creating a consumer-based insurance market is different," Moffit said. ''Nobody in America has ever done anything like this."
Murphy said another facet that could be attractive to other states is the reform plan's call for public disclosure of hospital costs and performance to help consumers and insurers choose lower-cost, high-quality medical care.
Republicans, then, need to put forth a candidate who can win.
Not McCain
Not Romney
Not Allen
Not Giuliani
Who?
Romney? Are you insane? As Massachusetts resident, I'm sure you're completely familiar with something called the General Court, yes, which is 100% controlled by the Democrat party?
I think he and Hillary will get along real well since they both believe in a socialist medical insurance program.
By the way, I don't question his morals, I just think he is not exactly what he portrays himself to be.
Add to that list:
Not Huckabee [pro illegals, he loves them as must as GW does]
Not Gingrich [more baggage than a cargo plane and the Dems would bring up every aspect of it]
Not Frist [has continually failed to be able to corral his own party members in the Senate, so how can he corral problems and policies as President?]
Not Jeb [most of the nation has had enough of the Bush family and dynasty government; there should be other decent candidates --beyond families Clinton or Bush -- out of 250 million adults in this Nation.]
The GOP has allot of wannabes, but very, very few 'stand out' names at this stage.
Have faith - someone will come along. Someone conservative and electable.
Maybe you see only what the MSM wants you to see. In this state, we see Mitt as a strong Republican, constantly fighting against a tax and spend/liberal House and Senate. He has managed to block many more foolish issues by constantly going over the heads of the elected and addressing the voters to confront them. He calls a spade a spade and doesn't suffer fools.
I stand by the post. If you don't like it, then by all means vote for him!
The current crop of names for 2008 is certainly a bit disappointing. If a decent, articulate governor from the South or West jumped in I'd vote for him/her in a second.
Romney just wouldn't cut it as President. No skeletons in his closet and he can manage, but he has no significant accomplishments as governor. His mandatory health insurance law is a Big Government disaster. And he waffles all over the place on the social issues.
I am a Texan, but W was not on my list of possibles in '98, so who knows who will show up?
You're entirely correct. He is unelectable.
Your worst nightmare...Romney vs Clinton or Kerry? What would you do?
You stand by calling the man a tax-and-spend Marxist because he happens to be the governor of one of the most (if not the most) liberal state governments in the United States? He has absolutely zero veto power. If Romney put forth a bill that simply said cookies are good, the General Court would oppose it on principle.
It's fine if you want to oppose a possible Romney presidential run, but at least have the common sense to oppose him for intelligent reasons. He's hardly a tax-and-spender, and he's hardly a Marxist.
Haley Barbour or Dick Armey, for starters. Both are strong conservatives with long recordsand name recognition, and both are publicly articulate.
Whether either will agree to run or not is another question. However, I understand Armey is going up to visit in Iowa for a while so maybe he is testing the waters.
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.