1. I suggest that the three most difficult words to say in the English language are “I was wrong,” and when you get to the level of presidential politics (and the ego required to survive at that level) it becomes, apparently, nigh impossible to speak those words.

   Romney’s exit strategy should simply be to say “I was governor of a particularly liberal populace. We tried what sounded like a good idea. That idea has proven not to work. We were wrong, and for that reason along with STATE’S rights, I will not support Obamacare.”

   Liberal sin forgiven; Romney for president. See how easy that was? But nooooooo. . . .

2. For me there are two aspects to this: Romney’s inability to admit error, and his evident lack of sound instincts regarding the big picture. I think he would make a fine cabinet member and, if given a task, would carry it to success. But I don’t want him to be the one choosing the tasks.

3. To heck with the healthcare angle. How much of a rudderless panderer do you have to be to get elected in a state you admit doesn’t share your values?

4. I voted for Mitt in 2002, hoping that he would run for President after a successful governorship.

   I expected Romney to seek reelection in 2006, thereby confirming the public’s endorsement of his gubernatorial record. I changed my mind about him when he decided not to run. (Thereby he did not stick around to oversee the implementation of his healthcare plan.)

   Too clever by half, afaic.

5. It’s too bad, because his proposal for fixing Obamacare sounds pretty reasonable to me.

   really?

   then i don’t think you get what is implied to make any point actually work..

   Give states the responsibility, flexibility and resources to care for citizens who are poor, uninsured or chronically ill.

   where do they get the resources to steal from and impoverish one for the health benefit of another?

   that different states will experiment with and settle on the solutions that suit their residents best.

   where does either the fed or the state gain the right to experiment in peoples lives? just cause we do it to children like Joseph mengele tried to do, doesn’t mean its normal or good. [why did Joseph do what he did to those children? to make them citizens that serve the purpose of the state not their own individual purpose. why do our doctors do the same to our children? to make then citizens that serve the purpose of the state and not their own individual purpose… whats different? English? how is the pedagogy proven other than selecting some kids, putting them through it claiming it will work (like mengele), pay them for the idea, and then wait to see if the numbers on the reports work out, then claim it was their idea that did it (out of the many many of these things one kid gets over their lives)]

   We can empower states to expand health care access to low-income Americans by block-granting funds for Medicaid and the uninsured.

   how can you do that without a constitutional change which allows the state to delegate power? oh yeah… we already violate the delegation of powers, which is why child protection can take children and police cant.

   My reforms also offer the states resources to help the chronically ill – both to improve their access to care and to improve the functioning of insurance markets for others.

   the state only has the power of inhibition..
   it cant promote ANYTHING… it can only inhibit..

   so, how does it promote women and minorities, by inhibiting poor white males (nih diversity program, sba8a, etc). punish the wealthy ones and they may stop contributing.

   how does it propose to do these things and not violate individual self determinism? (freedom)
   after all, we screw with kids heads and think that they are free despite it… no?

   Reform the tax code to promote the individual ownership of health insurance.

   sure!!! why not? may i ask anyone here to point out where in the constitiotn and such that it says you can use taxes as a means of social control and arbitrary engineering of peoples lives for the sake of better report nuimbers?

   by what power granted by the people do they have the right to use taxes as a whip and carrot to control the people from which their power is derived from?

   by what right do they get to say my wife and i cant have children i cant have the career i want, and i have to fit into the box they are designing for all of us, and if i dont comply, use taxes.

   and if i dont comply, then what?
   the tax man commmeth… yes?
   and if i say, get off MY property, i wont pay for them to force me to pay… if thats the case the people have no power and are slaves!

   and so they call out the police..

   and then, they murder me if i continue to resist.

   so all romney is doing is saying that once he is president he will kill anyone that don’t comply with his tax policy of population control and outcome engineering.

   they have no right to murder or threaten such, or threaten imprisonment by pretending they have a power that they technically don’t have. (just as techically the president does not have the power to avoid the termsof office as he pleases, one of them being his records)

   how is this reasonable neo?

   The tax code offers open-ended subsidies for the purchase of insurance through employers.

   again.. by what right do they have to impoverish me and my family so that someone else can benefit, while they skim for gain..

   who are they to pick winners and losers and say you have more, you worked hard, you get to pay for him, he has less, he is a sex addict who raped 4 little girls and is on parole, but he is more important than you as he doesn’t have money…

   well, great…

   just like stalin said.. the americans would have a SOVIET system and would be TOO STUPID to realize it.

   This subsidy is unfair – as it doesn’t apply to insurance purchased on one’s own. I propose to give individuals a choice between the current system and a tax deduction to buy insurance on their own.

   but either way, they cant decide what their own money will go to. if they want a child, too bad… if they want a home, too bad… if they work hard. too bad… if they are healthy and can defer for their own gain, like family and home… too freaking bad

   this is soviet freedom..

   This simple change creates the best of both worlds. Absolutely nothing will change for those who like their current coverage. And individuals who don’t get coverage through their employers will have portable, lower-cost options.

   and not only that, everyone gets a chicken in every pot….

   you dont want vegetables
   how about a choice between carrots and peas?

   you can have spam, eggs spam spam and spam.. that only has a little bit of spam

   but i dont want any spam…

   well, everything on the menu has spam, maybe spam spam, eggs and spam? it has less spam..

   Focus federal regulation of health care on making markets work.

   since the state has no power but punishment, how do you whip us into that?

   This means both correcting common failures in insurance markets as well as eliminating counterproductive federal rules.

   i worked for 10 years developing actuarial software on main frame and just in time printing.

   he is relying on the fact that your MORE ignorant than he is..

   For example, individuals who are continuously covered for a specified period of time may not be denied access to insurance because of pre-existing conditions.

   great… so why bother to buy insurance.

   and what will happen when every person in the world takes a plane here to be treated for the worst deseases for free?

   think deeply on what the outcome of sounds reasonable is..

   individuals should be allowed to purchase insurance across state lines, free from costly state benefit requirements. Finally, individuals and small businesses should be allowed to form purchasing pools to lower insurance costs and improve choice.

   but how will that work when you switch jobs?

   basically he is making impossible claims, and the people are too stupid to know, or care,a s they ASSUME both sides only make valid claims.

   welcome to soviet amerika.

   Reform medical liability. We should cap non-economic damages in medical malpractice litigation. The federal government would also provide innovation grants to states for reforms, such as alternative dispute resolution or health care courts.

   this is great as now that the state is responsible for your health, they limit the payouts… but when doctors where, tey put a huge industry between you and the doc, mandated it, and some how hmo and all that crap is not even in the discussion

   anyone otehr than me remember that before that improvemetn which has impoverished us…

   doctors made house calls.
   i know. i used to get them.
   and i was a poor inner city youth in a slum!!!!!

   Step 5: Make health care more like a consumer market and less like a government program.

   this statement contradicts all previous points as there is no consumer market outside of nazi germany, fascist italy, etc.. that runs a consumer market that way.

   This can be done by strengthening health savings accounts that help consumers save for health expenses and choose cost-effective insurance. For example, we should eliminate the minimum deductible requirement for HSAs. The market reforms I am proposing will drive down costs, better inform consumers and improve the quality of health care in our nation.

   HOW…

   government inteference ALWAYS slows things down

   who decoded the genome, the fed or venter?

   whose monopoly in first class mail is bankrupt, while corporations that mail packages arent?

   why can companies supply our military better than the fed can and used to?

   wait.

   the options for action by a state are different than the options of action for a company.

   a company cant murder their clients to get better numbers, but a state can..

   Via FaithFreedom.org:

   The newspaper Asr-e Iran reported that passersby spotted two patients in a field outside of Tehran. The two patients were hospitalized in the state funded Khomeini Hospital. Despite being public and allegedly free, they were loaded in an ambulance and dropped in a field for not having the money to pay the bills.

   http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2011/05/islam-socialism.html

   well.. look at the pictures, and now you know how the world bank and others can claim that free health care is better outside the US and use statistics to prove it.

   they just dont conut the people they dump to die.

   we wont either..
   the old will be dying of a crisis in falls, not that their care is substandard so they fell trying to get water to drink..

   time to be a skeptic at the magic bean auction

6. Most politicians of both parties have a very hard time admitting they’ve made bad policy. Romney, however, has a history of flip-flopping. So refusing to acknowledge Romneycare has turned out to be bad policy is strange considering his history of flip-flopping and knowing how repulsive Obamacare, and by extension Romneycare, is to most Republican primary voters.

   To illustrate the point that politicians refuse to accept responsibility for bad policy, how many Republicans have repudiated their votes for Medicare Part D — the prescription drug entitlement enacted during the Bush administration that was not paid for with new taxes but will cost nearly $1 trillion in its first 10 years? As far as I know, not even fiscal hawk Paul Ryan, who voted for it, has said it was a mistake.

7. Maybe we actually owe Romney our thanks (not the same as our vote). Romneycare has made concrete what is wrong with a national healthcare system. More people now have facts about the results that they can use to counter Obamablather.

8. It’s okay for Obama to flip flop and not Romney? Obama’s performance is defined by flip flop and Romney’s much less “guilt” defines him while Obama gets a free-free ride?

   An important question is can one trust Romney’s promise to first grant waivers to all the states, which would effectively end Obamacare? I believe so.

   But, I am actually glad for Romney’s Catch-22 because it eliminates one more moderate from the field and I don’t believe a moderate can win. Moderates will not be able to generate the force needed to turn out all the Republicans.

9. Romney’s problem – speaking for myself and presumably in agreement with many others – is how phony he is.

   It isn’t “just” any one thing – not merely the flip-flop on abortion (no, I can tolerate flip-flops, even of that magnitude – I’m cynical enough), not merely the hair through which a bucket of water couldn’t reach his scalp, not only the insufferably pandering and robotic way he speaks, as if he is accessing programs (“beep bzzz beep – Show Emotion;” “dzzzp bzzz beep – Show Sincerity”), not only the stain on his soul, and indirectly on the nation, that is Romneycare… No, it’s the “togetherness,” the transcendental unity in him, AS him, of all that phoniness, and that’s why he’s in a no-win situation with Romneycare. That’s why no one will believe him no matter what he does.

   Put it like this: “A snowball has a chance in hell” and “Mitt found a principle to stick to” – the sense is that one would be better off betting on the former proposition.

   Contrast with Tim Pawlenty, who had some pretty near brushes with cap-and-trade, and his line is: “I was wrong.” Pawlenty can say that because at heart he’s not a phony, he’s just a politician (thin difference, I know, but if we don’t distinguish we prove too much by rendering even the good ones like Churchill, Reagan, and Paul Ryan ‘phonies’).

   Indeed, the case of Pawlenty reveals what makes Mitt so appalling – one fully expects the usual fakery and pandering from politicians; it goes with the territory and to a great extent they are bound to do it. It’s the nature of the democratic beast. But at no point should any politician (or human being) let themselves become so consumed with ambition that they conspicuously display a willingness to abandon all principle. That, I believe, is intrinsically corrupting. In short, cynicism yes; nihilism no.

   I can only think of a few politicians who pretty clearly did that, and the sight was horrific enough without them running for president – the sight of them exposed was similar to cockroaches who had to flee or get stomped when the lights turned on. Arlen Specter. Charlie Crist (a touchy case for me because he was governor of my state, which has a knack for producing loons at all levels of government – only countered recently with Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and Allen West). There’s an expertise in phoniness they displayed that could, ironically, only come from their essence – they were utterly sincere in their phoniness. They were true fakes.

   Mitt may not be quite at their level yet, but he’s way too close for comfort.

   The fact that he thinks this is all about more efficient technocracy and opportunistically invoked federalism just makes it worse – he’s actually defending socialism to appeal to conservatives as a way to demonstrate “toughness” (“No apologies” and all that). So the one freaking thing he DOES take a stand on is… centralized health care and the mandate.

   That really, really pisses me off.

10. Romney can’t overcome RomneyCare in an election that is going to be focused on repealing ObamaCare. It is beyond me why he and his advisors can’t see the simplicity and honesty of saying “for a host of reasons we tried it and it doesn’t work and knowing what I know now, I would have never supported it.” He could go on to say that when he enacted RomneyCare there was no comparable program. However, when Obama enacted ObamaCare he could already see it didn’t work on the state level and would never work on the federal level. Use it as a positive.

    This is going to ruin his candidacy before he gets started. Far, far worse to nip around the edges now and then take the “I was wrong” approach mid-way through when every other candidate is tying it around his neck. Then he’ll look more foolish. Whatever “position” he is taking now is going to be the one he has to adhere to through the election, no turning back now.

11. Leaving aside the question of whether a stupid idea becomes a good idea if it isn’t illegal there is the Godzilla in the room which is that the whole mandate thing has to exist because of the pre-existing condition foolishness.

    There is no such thing as insuring against a pre-existing condition. If there were I would be out getting huge life insurance policies for all my ancestors. One might want to create a special fund for such things because that is seen as a social good, like tax credits for locating a business in a barren area, or tuition help for doctoring in rural areas, but calling it insurance is stupid and what we don’t need right now is more stupid.

12. Any smart captain worth his salt knows when to turn around, or stay in port in the face of a storm. Mitt thinks that a slight course correction will allow him to sail through. He is going to be lost at sea.

13. There are two kinds of flip flops: good ones and bad ones. Romney, on the social issues, had good flip flops. Think of the difficulty one gets into by assuming that a change of policy means duplicity. I would rather have had Romney flip flopped than not. The ship of state seems to have righted itself. He’s pretty much ruined his presidential ambitions. Too many flip flops and that’s the result. But consider Romney’s flip flops are doubtfully opportunistic: abortion, gay marriage, gun control. These are not populist causes and unnecessary for a moderate presidential candidate.

14. It was a mistake and he should admit it, but I do agree that the states have rights that the federal government does not.

15. Curtis says, “Moderates will not be able to generate the force needed to turn out all the Republicans.” Egad, the force field to turn out all should be the motto _”ANYONE BUT OBAMA!”

    I agree that Mitt has made a terrible mistake in trying to defend Romneycare. His ideas for health care reform are not great but just about anything that reduces the taxes and meddling that come with Obamacare looks like manna from Heaven. (Artfldgr excluded. Wow, Art you really don’t like him do you?)

    Mitt has spent too many years among the liberal elites in Massachusetts. Thus his tendency to believe that government has a role in social services that would best be left to churches, and charities. His one redeeming trait is his ability to understand that less government interference
    in the economy is the right way to go.

    At this juncture we need a president who knows that the government should be encouraging economic activity not discouraging it. On that count most of the potential candidates would probably do an acceptable job if they have a Republican Congress to work with.

    On the other hand we have an existential struggle with a group of pre-medieval barbarians that must be prosecuted. Therefore it is highly desirable that the president be equipped with a spine of steel and determination that I don’t see in many of the candidates so far. Herman Cain? Yep. Newt Gingrich? Yep.Tim Pawlenty? Not so much. Mitt Romney? Not so much. Huckabee? Not so much. Ron Paul? Are you kidding? Gary Johnson? Don’t make me laugh.

16. I hit submit by mistake. My punch line is that most of the candidates are flawed in one way or another, but all, even Ron Paul, are preferable to Barack Hussein Obama. My favorite right now is Herman Cain. My personal preferences will govern my vote in the primary, but when it comes to the election – ABO!!

17. Romney stirs no one. He’s not a smart pol; and not quite a virtuous one. heck. He’s a coward. He hasn’t defended Palin or any of the Rs on the front lines taking all the shots.

    His defense of RomneyCare was brutal. He still thinks it’s a good idea!

    Okay. We’ll believe you that you do! Get lost then and don’t let the nominating process door hit you on your way out.

18. kolnai: well put. There is something about Romney that has always come across as slick and false.

19. Friends and neighbors, gather round.

    We need to talk about something. Huddle up. That’s right. Get yerself in here.

    Now, I’ve been a salesman for, well, how long Ted? (By the way, can I get a cigarette from ya? Thanks) Now, ahem, slaggem, cough, cough, cough, this here nations’ dying. We got them there lesbian lovers teachin the sex studies department and they aint gonna never vote for anything but what can upset a grown man’s stomach. Aint that about right? We got nuttin but queers upsettin a whole lot of tradition and common sense knowin.

    This speech was ended when the speaker was arrested for hate speech. Everyone was united in their condemnation of the speaker.

20. The problem is, if we vote for “ANYONE BUT OBAMA”, then that’s what we’re likely to get.

    An elitist, authoritarian, big government Republican isn’t much of an improvement, if any.

    It would cement Big Government into our future, permanently. The old Republic would be truly dead and buried.

    I, for one, have had it with voting for the lesser of two evils, and I do not intend to do it again. I know I am not the only one who feels that way. If the Republicans nominate another RINO squish, then more than likely it means a second term for Obama. That in turn will mean that the ballot box has been exhausted and it is time for the cartridge box. So be it.

    I will not vote for Romney if he is the Republican nominee.

21. rickl,
    We all share your angst. But, until this country’s electorate becomes 45-50% strong conservatives, we will not get a bona fide conservative as president. I don’t like it, but it is the mathematics of of the electorate. The cartridge box is not a solution. Unless we are to go back to 1776, which as much as we would like to believe it so, cannot be repeated. We must do it just like the progressives have. With determination, endurance and small gains where we can take them.

    The good thing about Obama is that the masks have dropped. The progressives, their communications arm – the MSM, and their foot soldiers – academia are now out in the open. More people are understanding what they are up to. The Internet and the TEA Party are making a difference. But it is going to be a long hard slog. Do not drop out because the candidate does not meet your specifications.

    Once again, I ask, “Would we be in the straits we are in if McCain was president?” I’m positive that he (McCain) would have been more fiscally conservative, business friendly, and energy wise. Those three factors would have gone a long way toward getting us out of this economic mess and down the road toward a better future.

    I can’t find the article, but Michael Barone analyzed the difference between the 2004 and 2008 elections. The 2008 turnout was 1.6% lower than in 2004, yet the turnout among voters under 40 (Obama’s voters) was way up. Barone stated that if the same number of Republicans/conservatives who voted for Bush in 2004 had voted in 2008, McCain could have won in a squeaker. In other words, stay at home voters were instrumental in giving the election to Obama. This time around the unemployed young are not likely to come out and many independents who voted for Obama have seen the light. Still, every vote counts, even if you have to hold your nose.

22. J.J. formerly Jimmy J.:

    I sympathize very much with rickl. I reluctantly and painfully voted for McCain in 2008. I’ve called it the hardest vote I’ve ever cast because I disliked him so much.

    In hindsight, I could not be happier that McCain lost. Here’s why.

    I remember when the Democrats took control of the House in 2006, Pelosi gave a speech saying she was going to ensure President Bush was a true lame duck by stopping anything he proposed in his last two years. Now fast forward to 2008. The Democrats got an even bigger majority in the House AND (after Stuart Smalley stole the senate seat in MN and Arlen Specter switched parties) a filibuster proof Democrat majority in the Senate. So, McCain would have been an even lamer duck in his first two years than Bush was during his last two years UNLESS McCain worked with Pelosi and Reid on their terms.

    I have no doubt he would have forced all his RINO buddies to work with Pelosi and Reid to pass most of the legislation Pelosi and Reid wanted passed. I bet we’d have an even more intrusive healthcare law on the books, in addition to an amnesty/immigration law, and probably even a cap and trade law. And it all would have been bi-partisan, so there would be no chance for repeal.

    That’s my view. We can’t prove the counter-factual so who knows if my analysis is right — it could just be my view is wrong and is unduly influenced by my dislike for McCain.

23. Scott:
    I agree, except for one thing. I happily and enthusiastically voted for Sarah Palin in 2008.

24. These problems are all of Romney’s own making. He has been ducking and weaving all his political life. Now he has to make a stand and either defend or disown his biggest achievement. If he disowns it, then he is a flipper. If he defends it, he is a fool. I do not envy the spot he is in. However, none of this would have happened if he would have just generated some core principles (apart from the conviction of his own goodness) and then stood by them.

25. Scott and rickl,

    All the more reason to keep up pressure from the bottom. Work for more conservatives in local elections. Make sure that when the candidates make their primary jaunts to the states, they find a well-informed electorate that is tired of platitudes. Remember that congressmen are not term-limited, so keep the heat on those who are becoming too comfortable with the status quo. Note that Steny Hoyer is now standing up to Obama, and would probably love to assume Pelosi’s post. Make sure the people are aware that Dems are vulnerable and divided. This gives any decent candidate a chance to win votes among the disillusioned Dems and Independents. There is a lot to do.

26. I, too, was voting for Palin, not McCain, as well as voting against Democrats – which I always do regardless of candidate.

27. The problem is not wholly that of politicians like Romney. We would have seen Dwight Eisenhower and Hubert Humphrie morph into the same type of rudderless panderers if the voting age had been reduced to 8 year olds for their times. Which is defacto what has happened in todays elections from people who vote having never grown up.

28. Romney’s job was to govern the state of Mass. That is not the same as being President of the United States of America.

    State’s rights is described exactly as it is in the OP. If states want government funded medical care, the Constitution allows them to do so via state legislatures and state taxes. Federal taxation, however, is un-Constitutional for the funding of things the Constitution doesn’t allow the federal government to do.

    The fact, the de facto state of affairs, that this is exactly what happens in DC is a negative, not a bonus plus. Washington DC spends federal tax dollars on anything and everything, including their own personal bank accounts, golf vacations, private jets polluting Gaia, and so forth.

    What is right for Mass is not right for Georgia and it certainly isn’t so for all 50 states. 50, not 60 or 57. Publicly educated people need to stop making numbers mistakes like that.

    This isn’t enough to say that Romney would do what is right for the US. Only that his previous actions in Mass does not condemn him to hypocrisy or 100% failure.

29. Underneath the fury and the noise, there is real reform. A paradigm shift if you will. This is great news. An “awakening” is occurring. I think I’ll do some study on the “awakenings” in the 18th century which many historians credit with being essential to the American revolution. It’s happening now.

    The general epiphany is not universal. Zombies resist because that’s what zombies do. But look at Gingrich, Daniels, and Romney. They reflect the awakening. They are not Zombies but men who had to compromise but now that we the people provide a base from which they may be more pure, then they will be. In other words, their sins are our sins.

    And Romney is an especially revealing case: Mormon background meets the ascendant and prevailing cultural hegamon of multiculturalism. He waffled, but it wasn’t in his inner core. I sympathize and I dare any reasoning person to not have been challenged. In fact, there are good things from the challenge of multiculturalism. We are tasked to clarify, to purify, and to defend. This is life.

30. One of the best versions:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2NEU6Xf7lM

    Hallelujah.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>