Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

It is worth getting angry about

It is worth getting angry about

Whatever my criticisms of Rick Santorum, we owe him a debt of gratitude for this segment last night, which confirmed that Mitt Romney loves him some Romneycare:

As Jeffrey Anderson writes, Romney’s defense of Romneycare will be political death in the general election:

Romney then replied by issuing a defense of Romneycare that sounded a lot like the defense that Obama (who might have even been taking notes) is likely to give of Obamacare: “I didn’t say I’m in favor of top-down government-run health care. Ninety-two percent of the people in my state had insurance before our plan went in place.” (For Obamacare, it’s nearly the same percentage of people, only nationwide) “And nothing changes for them. They own the same private insurance they had before.” (As Obama likes to say, “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.”) “And for the 8 percent of people who didn’t have insurance, we said to them, if you can afford insurance, buy it yourself, any one of the plans out there, you can choose any plan.” (The same is true for Obamacare — except, as in Romneycare, for the large numbers of people who get shuttled onto Medicaid.) “There’s no government plan.” (There isn’t one in Obamacare either, as the public outcry caused the “public option” to be nixed.) ….

So if Republicans are going to have a mandate to repeal [Obamacare’s] unprecedented threat to liberty and fiscal solvency, they will have to bring it up — or, rather, their nominee will have to bring it up. And he will have to know why he opposes it — not merely that he does.

There was a time when the loudest mouths in the Republican party recognized the disastrous reality of Romney’s refusal to walk away from Romneycare.  But that was then:

The Romney team expects that the distinction between a state individual mandate and a national one will be good enough to get through a primary against lesser-known opponents. He’ll just talk about other things, the reasoning goes, even though opposition to ObamaCare and the growth of the federal government has been the driving force behind the conservative movement for a couple of years. Most Republicans I speak with think Romney’s problem is insoluble. But a smart Republican insider cautioned me yesterday, “In a divided field you just never know.” I suppose. But still.

This is now, and we deserve to be angry.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

I never watch these “debates”, so it is interesting to read the take of others on who won, lost, scored, etc.

I am…disappointed…in our nomination process, which seems the near-absolutely the worst possible that could be designed.

Not one of these people really has “limited government” stamped in their hearts. (I am not including Paul, because he is just nuts.)

A moon base? Really?

    Brian Epps in reply to Ragspierre. | January 27, 2012 at 8:55 am

    Really. A privately developed, privately funded moon base in exchange for a prize that would not equal half of NASA’s current budget. A prize-based system that does not pay a dime until the conditions of the prize are met.

    This isn’t, as Romney and Santorum were saying when they deliberately lied to the audience, pie in the sky, bye and bye. It is, “You don’t get paid until I get the damned PIE!”

    Then these clowns use NASA estimates for a price tag. NASA estimated that Burt Rutan would never make space and that the x-prize was a fantasy. If it weren’t for F-ing NASA we would already be mining the atens and have a 51st state called Luna,or at least a significant space industry to take advantage of micro-gravity manufacture.

    Hint to Romney and Santorum, and to you too, Rags: Private enterprise would never have to pay that kind of money on setting up a base on the moon, because private enterprise will not take five years to do a study to decide what they need to do a ten year study on to discuss preliminary planning stages on the concept of deciding whether to start collecting ideas about a possible design.

    Of course both of them know this, just as they know that Newt did NOT propose what they so vehemently opposed. Both lied through their teeth.

      Ragspierre in reply to Brian Epps. | January 27, 2012 at 9:06 am

      A back-loaded subsidy is still a subsidy, Brian.

      Free enterprise will, I am confident, eventually support moon exploration. I trust the market to know when that would be in the interests of market players.

      In the meantime, we have an real question of national survival.

      We don’t have the money.

        Brian Epps in reply to Ragspierre. | January 27, 2012 at 10:23 am

        Yes, we do. We are just wasting it on bureaucrats instead.
        So in your mind the government should not have given that back-loaded subsidy of free land to Sooners in OK. The government should not give back-loaded subsidies to weapon suppliers? If you bothered to look seriously at space industry ideas, you would realize it’s a gold mine up there, we just have to go and dig it out.

        Asa for expense? Chump change in a trillion dollar budget, much less a multi-trillion dollar one.

        I suggest you go here and read what Jerry Pournelle has to say. Also here.

        And before you dismiss him as just a sci-fi writer, read his bio. He actually knows, economically, physically, and politically what he is talking about.

        Private enterprise rarely invests in fomething that is very long term without an offsetting consideration, like stability. If you want to achieve a long-term goal, the application of short term rewards, like a tax deferment for saving in a 401K.

        Again, a chump change reward for a huge boost in revenue potential? And you say we can’t afford to speed up the race with pocket money? The prizes are a freaking ROUNDING ERROR in the current budget.

        Believe it or not, I once believed as you do that it wasn’t worth it. Then I actually tried to seriously rebut the arguments of people like Niven and Pourrnelle, and was converted (Is my convert’s passion showing a bit?).

        This is a no-risk proposal for the taxpayer. Even if the prize is never won, the tech development needed to try will benefit us all at no cost to the government. The economic rewards of success will, very quickly, vastly outweigh the small cost, and we will reap the benefit of the spin-off all the while.

          Ragspierre in reply to Brian Epps. | January 27, 2012 at 11:54 am

          “This is a no-risk proposal for the taxpayer.”

          Good-FLUCKING-grief! How many times CAN that be said…about OTHER PEOPLE’S money…???

          I start from first principles. Like “subsidies are market distortions”, and “market distortions are bad”.

        Right and of course there has been no successful federal acquisitions of Territory, like Louisiana, Alaska and the south west? That was all done with private armies? Actually there were private armies trying to do that, they all failed for the most part and none enjoyed the success of what the US government did. Then you have which is probably the greatest era of discovery which were initiated as outward looking government programs, Columbus’s Discovery of America. Was that a waste of taxpayer money as well?

        Now granted I think private enterprise can and should do this as well ask we should rely on them to help us get there and develop the technologies we need, but the truth is we first need to stop getting in the way of space exploration such as the excessive regulation of the industry as well as allowing them to use nuclear technology to propel us into space. That would make it vastly more economically feasible by a factor of at least 100.

The biggest concern for me about Romney is how he reacted to Santorum’s criticisms. This guy is so programmed that he is in capable of thinking on his feet. He was so shaken by what Santorum said that you could see it on his face. It was a combination of fear, desperation, and anger. I half expected to see smoke start billowing out from his neck as if his circuitry was being overloaded.

Barack Obama and his crew will make mincemeat out of Mitt Romney. Yeah, Newt didn’t give a knock out performance last night, but Mitt came across as worse than weak. He was scared to death.

Yes, yes, yes. People act like the Tea Party and 2010 never happened. It was historic. And it was almost wholly due to Obamacare. We did not go away and we are still angry as hell and Romney’s “don’t get angry” is a huge insult. I am not stupid enough to say I won’t vote for Romney if he wins the primary but I will do everything in my power to prevent that from ever happening.

    At the heart of RomneyCare is the individual mandate.

    Romneycare’s individual mandate is antithetical to the core philosophy of the Republican party. It is anti-liberty.

    So, the Establishment would like the party to nominate a man who is fundamentally at odds with the party’s core philosophy.

    And this same man is supposed to be the defender of free enterprise and liberty?

    Unfortunately, Mitt Romney didn’t seem to be too concerned about free enterprise and liberty when he enacted Romneycare, the building block for Obamacare.

    The Republican Establishment thinks that conservatives and Tea Party people will flock to support Mitt Romney?

    Amazing.

DINORightMarie | January 27, 2012 at 8:49 am

The sound bite on the “moon base” is of course being used to ridicule and marginalize Newt by the MSM and his “enemies”. But his visionary ideas, when done by the private sector (as he noted, but that got lost in the spin, I guess), are what Americans need after this fiasco Obama regime, IMHO!

(BTW – I believe all this anti-Newt stuff is working in his favor already; I’ve been reading that many believe that if so many DC insiders and Republican “elite” are so against Newt, then he MUST be the right one to go for! TEA Party groups are endorsing him……we’ll see, but interesting!)

Repealing ObamaCare is essential to our nation turning back onto the right track. Romney won’t do it, no matter what he says. He believes what he said last night – and not just for the states, IMHO. And his adviser is on record saying they won’t/can’t repeal it all, and he just can’t walk that back.

Santorum did us all a service by exposing Romney – and Romney’s snarky responses made him look cheap and weak, thin-skinned, I thought.

I was hoping Newt would jump in more on this, but I suppose he just let Santorum do the work this time, which was perhaps more effective after all the back-and-forth of these two on the tax issue, etc.

I was hoping Newt would expose Romney more on the 48-hour deluge of excrement, but his point that a debate should focus on the issues was correct. Unfortunately, it leaves that load lying around to fester………

Thank you for linking Mark Levin’s show last night! When I heard Mark come out swinging against these fabricated, coordinated attacks, I was cheering in my car! His interview with Jeffrey Lord was excellent, as well; two people who were there, who KNOW what did and did not happen. And, they both attest to Nancy’s integrity; the adamant defense of Ronald Reagan by his wife Nancy. She would never say “Ronnie passed that torch on to Newt….” if there was even a whiff of disloyalty from Newt toward “Ronnie.”

I hope the FL voters saw Romney for the disaster he is, and will vote for Newt over Romney!!

    This Floridian will be casting her vote for Newt. Romney is a disaster waiting to happen. I’ve said elsewhere that another Obama term will put this country on the expressway to Hell. A Romney presidency will send the country to the same destination, but the trip will take slightly longer.

    I don’t buy the line that Romney is the only candidate who can beat Obama. The fact is that Romney and Obama have too much in common for Romney to be effective in the general election. We need someone who can present a clear distinction between his policies and those of Obama and Romney is not that person.

Romney better believe that Obamacare and it’s consequent war on the Catholic Church (i.e., the First Amendment) is plenty to get angry about. PUMA. If Romney is the nominee I’m voting third party.

That was the line of the century. Thank you, Rick Santorum! I hope it follows Mitt everywhere he goes.

Too bad Newt performed poorly.

Billionaire investor George Soros explains why there wouldn’t be much difference between President Obama and Mitt Romney.

http://www.breitbart.tv/george-soros-admits-hes-one-of-lenins-useful-idiots-no-difference-between-romney-and-obama/

listingstarboard | January 27, 2012 at 9:15 am

Wow, how can anyone support Romney. He is standing up there lying through his teeth and it is ridiculously obvious.

It has always been obvious that a vote for Romney is a vote for Obamacare.

What is becoming ever more evident is that a vote for Romney is a vote for the entire status quo. Neither Romney, nor his henchmen, will ever go after Obama with the same ferocity that they have opposed Gingrich and Santorum.

The establishment brigades, with their vindictiveness and intellectual dishonesty, are displaying an Ahab like focus on making Romney the nominee. All the while failing to realize that they are placing the entire party at risk.

The small government/libertarian wing will split off if they recognize that their interests are not being adequately represented. Given enough rumblings about such moves Ron Paul just might decide to drive that schism by announcing his third party bid for POTUS.

Many traditionalists, recognizing that politics has come to be dominated by modern progressivism/liberalism – regardless of whether it is presided over by a Republican or Democrat – will simply choose to withdraw from overt politics and tend more closely to the remaining private aspects of their lives.

Axelrod, and others on the left recognize these fault lines, and surely attempt to create others. There is little doubt they have wanted Romney as their opponent, and already plan to conduct a campaign designed to accentuate and pressure them – expect a major media push to accentuate tensions between Mormonism and mainstream Christianity – thereby driving off another component of the conservative coalition.

A collection of lifeboats leaving a battered and sinking ship.

I despise Romney. Let’s say he is nominated, and wins election. If there is a Republican congress, can they push forth a veto-proof repeal? He would have no choice but to sign it. For all his vehemence in repealing/signing an EO (which doesn’t really have a whole lot of teeth to it), what has he said would replace Obamneycare? He has put forth no plan….hence, I will NEVER believe what this man states about repeal. He has no plans to repeal this monstrosity.

Also,let’s say he does repeal it, what happens to all the monies we have had to pay thus far into the coffers of Obamneycare? We have been paying since 2010 for a plan that doesn’t take effect until 2014.

    Sherlock in reply to herm2416. | January 27, 2012 at 9:39 am

    His own advisor has said that he won’t repeal it: http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/01/25/romney-advisor-no-obamacare-repeal/

      Yes, I saw that yesterday. I’m not sure what Coleman meant by that, and I hope a voter or a reporter questions Romney about it.

      That said, the President cannot repeal anything by himself, so unless we take 13 Senate seats in ’12, there will have to be some carrot to entice a nominal number of Democrats not to filibuster a repeal. I assume that’s what Coleman was referring to (the legislative hurdles), and again, I’d like to see Romney pressed on it.

    Ragspierre in reply to herm2416. | January 27, 2012 at 9:48 am

    “If there is a Republican congress, can they push forth a veto-proof repeal? He would have no choice but to sign it.”

    The math on that is VERY unpromising.

    We can hope for relief from the individual mandate (at least) from the Supremes, but that is only a hope.

    Ultimately, we may have to do what our ancestors did with Prohibition…a massive act of civil disobedience. Just say, NO!.

No doubt we’ll be seeing Romney’s “It isn’t worth getting angry about” line in future campaign ads.

But I’m wondering if the “inevitable” showdown with Obama on Obamacare is being overblown. There’s nary a mention of Obamacare in the State of the Union address which means that Obama is going to avoid the issue like the plague in his campaign.

I despise Romneycare, and I don’t buy Romney’s federalism explanation. I thought it would doom his candidacy from the start.

But the thing you and others aren’t acknowledging, Professor, is that the Republican primary electorate (thus far) doesn’t seem to think it’s a big enough problem to not select him as a candidate. The one place where Romney was clearly trounced–South Carolina–it’s hard to make any argument that Romneycare was the reason.

Romney will be weaker in the general on this issue, but I have no reason to believe that pre-dooms his candidacy to failure as you do. And I don’t have any reason to disbelieve his assertion that he will try to kill it once in office.

Romney always reveals himself, and almost always in the incidental remark which troublesome debates and interviews provoke — the moment which slips beyond his programmed control. But “It’s not worth getting angry over” revealed much more. A smart opponent would flog it from now to eternity.

For this line might as well serve as the credo of the GOP Establishment. It distills their arrogant and weak-willed governing philosphy and conciliation to the eternal liberal expansion, as well their dismissive attitude toward reform and the rise of the Tea Party, to a clear, perfect essence.

“Why are you getting angry? We know what we’re doing, and far better than you do. Mind your own business. This is how it works. It isn’t worth it anyway–nothing will ever change. We’re the Ruling Class and this is how we’ve arranged the world.”

Could there have been a more politically revelatory and contemptuous remark made even under hypnosis?

What has so distressed the Establishment and thrown their world out of kilter if not our anger? What does Romney fear more among the Republican voters right now than a kindling anger over the status quo?

Santorum did himself a great deal of good with that exchange.

Beware of this: Santorum’s opposition is beginning to post claims that he voiced support for an individual mandate in 1994, the evidence being quotes from a PA newspaper article. What Santorum said was that he favored individuals being responsible for providing their own health insurance as opposed to forcing employers to provide it as a mandated benefit. This is being spun as support for an individual mandate by Santorum. He said nothing about *forcing* individuals to provide themselves health insurance.

that line should be in every newt ad. it says to tea party that thing you were so angry about is no big deal. it says you were wrong to be angryabout us being able to issue commands to free citizems. ive always had trouble with the word mandate. it is a euphemism for command. call it what it is.

btw what is florida gov doing? crist put mclame over the top in the last primary

Come June or so, when the Supreme Court hands down ((hopefully) that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, it tosses yet another weighty albatross around the neck of Obama, whose administration will be forced to discuss ‘what now, genius?’. It does the same to Romney, due to Romneycare’s individual mandate. Two nearly identical programs move from “horrible idea” to “horrible and illegal idea with no acceptable fix”.

In one case, the trustee for one of the Romney trusts sent two letters to the Internal Revenue Service electing to use an apparently irrelevant section of the tax code, and in the process misstated the facts involved.

That mistake did not affect the taxes owed, but another error was more significant. It appears that the return filed by that trust overstated capital gains realized by nearly $300,000, causing Mr. Romney and his wife to pay about $44,000 more in taxes than they owed.

The guy can’t even hire the right people to do his own taxes. The last thing we need is somebody who has a habit of overpaying.

JimMtnViewCaUSA | January 27, 2012 at 11:12 am

I did not leave the Republican Party.
The Republican Party left me.

I want to wipe that smirk off Romney’s face so bad it makes me ache.

Let me tell you all a story. A young lady, hard to get, principled met a young man who was only looking for a piece. She wasn’t into that. The young man then began courting her, diligently, assiduously. He did everything a guy with good intentions would do to impress a woman that he was Mr. Right. A year and more after the courtship began, the young lady slept with the guy. That was the last time she saw him. All he’d wanted was a hit, and he was willing to say and do anything to get it.

That’s how Romney wants the POTUS. What he will do when he gets it, we don’t know because Romney isn’t making a case for us. He wants the POTUS as a notch on his belt, and dadgummit, he’ll destroy everyone who stands in his way.

    Good point.

    Let’s take it a step further.

    Newt’s goal is to be elected President and implement an agenda. Romney’s goal is to be the GOP nominee, and um…uh…yeah. To be the GOP nominee. Just like John McCain. Neither has any vision.

    “It’s nothing to get angry about.” Sorry, Mr. Superior, I AM angry. First the elites force Obamacare onto us. Now they’re telling us to shut up about it.

    Romney is as unscrupulous a politician as I have ever seen. So are his “conservative” co-conspirators. The chips are down; we’re finding out friends are really enemies.

    I truly believe the GOP and Democrats are cooperating to destroy Gingrich and the conservative movement. Having already co-opted and ruined lots of conservative institutions and people, they’re doing quite well so far. Electing Romney is secondary.

The title of this post sums it up and I think that Romney just lost a huge chunk of undecideds with his comment. He doesn’t get it.

I hate to say it and I hope I’m wrong, but is Obamacare even that big of an issue anymore to most people? I’ve raised the issue to some folks, and they all seem ho-hum about it, resigned to their fates.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Dynamism. | January 27, 2012 at 1:47 pm

    You’ve measured their attention span, not concern over Obamacare. Polls agree that the majority of Americans remain angry about it.

The people in this house weren’t angry.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/4453307340/

“President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, and senior staff, react in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, as the House passes the health care reform bill, March 21, 2010. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)”

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend