Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

“Romneycare is okay because Romney has the best chance of winning in November”

“Romneycare is okay because Romney has the best chance of winning in November”

That statement, by a Romney supporter on the Mark Levin show, pretty much sums up the problem with the primary season, and the willing disbelief about the problem we face with Romney as the nominee.

Here’s the full segment, if you want to jump in for the quote, click here:

(added) If you don’t want to listen to the entire segment, also listen to this truly clairvoyant caller.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

OMGosh… talk about circular logic.

Mitt The Messenger is at it again…

“I’m not concerned about the very poor…”

Just great.

I think the sheep and goat are divided on this–

Some of us see this as an existential cusp for America;

Mitt supporters see it as another election.

    StrangernFiction in reply to Ragspierre. | February 1, 2012 at 12:52 pm

    The Mitt supporters that I get an especially big kick out of are the ones that believe conservatism can’t win in this election. But many, if not most, if not the vast majority of these people will tell you they are optimistic about America and believe we can turn things around. Somehow if we can just buy a little more time there will come a point when conservatism can win.

When someone resorts to shrill arguments they lose me almost immediately. This radio host like many others is only expressing “his” personal opinion and based on what???

Romney time after time has stated that such programs should be decided by individual states. I can not find one lucid argument against this line of thinking.

I’m supporting Romney simply because he’s a proven problem solver. So was Cain. The rest are politicians pure and simple…

    MerryCarol in reply to GrumpyOne. | February 1, 2012 at 12:16 pm

    Agreed, the 10th Amendment argument is strong.

    Romney did not shove the healthcare reform bill down the throats of people of Massachusetts.

    The liberal Massachusetts legislature overwhelmingly voted for the bill 198 yeas to 2 nays.

    Furthermore, Romney vetoed 8 sections of the bill, and the legislature overrode all but 2 of those vetoes.

      SmokeVanThorn in reply to MerryCarol. | February 1, 2012 at 1:33 pm

      I will believe the “Romney did what he had to do to prevent something much worse in Massachusetts” rationale when Mitt Romney himself says that RomneyCare is not a good program but the least worst he could do under the circumstances.

      Neither will happen.

        Then what is to stop Romney from making Obamacare work because it might be the lesser evil of a Single Payer Health legislation the Democrats will try to pass next? That’s exactly what is going to happen, it’s what Norm Coleman doesn’t want to explicitly say.

          GrumpyOne in reply to McCoy2k. | February 1, 2012 at 9:52 pm

          Because Romney’s feet will be held to fire in this and other matters after January 20, 2013. I fully expect the House to remain solidly in Republican hands but the Senate will see a Republican majority below the magic sixty which will keep alive potential democrat filibusters…

      GrumpyOne in reply to MerryCarol. | February 1, 2012 at 9:57 pm

      RerryCarol,

      Heh… I noticed that I got 18 negatives but not one of ’em bothered to contest my thinking logic.

      With all of that said, Romney’s record in MA is a whole lot better than any of the Republican governors in my home state of RI. Both states have an overwhelming democrat majority.

      This just confirms my gut feeling that he’s a capable problem solver as is Chris Christie in another democrat bastion, NJ.

      I want a “doer” not a talker…

    And how, pray tell, does he solve those problems?

    With your tax dollars.

    Whether state or federal.

    Government programs are the answer.

    Are you aware of one of his “job-creating” measures as Governor? Giving the unemployed free auto insurance for a year. Ooops, not free; paid for by the government. How did that create jobs?

    janitor in reply to GrumpyOne. | February 1, 2012 at 12:27 pm

    What problems/whose problems has Romney solved?

    Jack Long in reply to GrumpyOne. | February 1, 2012 at 1:24 pm

    “proven problem solver

    Oh great.

    One of the phrases you should never write on a resume.

    i.e.:

    http://career-advice.monster.com/resumes-cover-letters/resume-writing-tips/10-words-ruin-resume/article.aspx

    5. “Problem-solving skills”

    You know who else has problem-solving skills? Monkeys. Dogs. On your resume, stick to skills that require a human.

I know this is a Newt site for now, and the professor has a lot he doesn’t like about Santorum, but I was just made aware of something I think we can all agree on.

Newt isn’t on the ballet in Missouri, and Santorum has very good numbers.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/show-me-santorum_620806.html

If Santorum can pull off a very credible win it the state, even though it isn’t worth delegates, it is the next opportunity to derail Romney. Especially after he said this epically stupid comment.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/mitt-romney-im-not-concerned-very-poor_620825.html

Personally, I’m still looking for a brokered convention. I don’t pretend to know who would be the best in the general among the C-team we have to choose between.

    William A. Jacobson in reply to mikehinton. | February 1, 2012 at 12:01 pm

    I have nothing against Santorum as such, it’s just that he’s so preachy and prosecutorial it’s hard to stomach sometimes. Like last night where the theme of his speech was that candidates should stop attacking each other, and then he spent almost the entire speech attacking other candidates. He was a big govt conservative, and his record has escaped scrutiny so far mostly because he has not been a threat to Romney’s nomination.

      You’re sounding a little contradictory a la Santorum yourself, Professor.

      “I have nothing against Santorum BUT…

      he’s preachy
      he’s prosecutorial
      he’s hard to stomach
      he’s big govt
      he’s escaped scrutiny”

      🙂

      Did anyone else notice in the Florida debate, in which the candidates were asked about their wives, that Paul was glowing, Romney was complimentary, Gingrich was admiring — and Santorum looked like it was choking to eek out any nice words about his wife.

        Henry Hawkins in reply to janitor. | February 1, 2012 at 1:23 pm

        Well, since we’re practicing clairvoyance here, my ESP read on that was that mention of Santorum’s wife immediately brought to mind his very ill daughter, took him home in his heart, and that put the choke on the guy.

        See how easy it is to spin nonsense from bullshit?

Joseph Farnsworth | February 1, 2012 at 11:55 am

The Washington Post online is very bloated and doggy. It frequently will crash my pc (which has XP and is admittedly old – 6 years or so). But it doesn’t hold a candle to the destructiveness of this website – Gawd!
What sort of content has been shoehorned into LegalInsurrection to do this?

    William A. Jacobson in reply to Joseph Farnsworth. | February 1, 2012 at 12:02 pm

    What are you talking about?

      shh stop having opinions and voicing them on the service you pay for.

      but if its is destructive to flitter more power to ya 🙂

      Joseph Farnsworth in reply to William A. Jacobson. | February 1, 2012 at 12:56 pm

      I like this site but it takes a long time to load. It sometimes crashes my computer (with a pop-up saying something like “site not responding”…)Maybe I should just be patient or get a new computer but blogs with less advertizing and the like are much faster and less tempermental. The Washington Post is slow too and its ombudsman acknowledges that the need to get more online revenue with various advertizing content is the reason (vs. the New York Times which is much faster but requires a subscription fee for more than 20 articles a month.)

        I was having issues today too, was very slow earlier and I block all ads/popups. so I think (could be wrong) it was a higher level issue and not just your setup.

          Henry Hawkins in reply to dmacleo. | February 1, 2012 at 1:26 pm

          I rarely have issues here, but I have identified a peculiarity that happens only here – my back button won’t work on LI. Any other site I go to, the <- BACK arrow button works, but not here.

          No big deal and I only share as data for the webmaster who may be checking things out.

          Henry Hawkins in reply to dmacleo. | February 1, 2012 at 3:41 pm

          Thanks to Blogrescue for confirming I’m not nuts. It seemed on odd thing, and I assumed it was somehow ‘pilot error’.

          My back button issue just started 1-2 days ago, but prior to that I had the multiple clicks thing, so many, that after posting I had to click on the LI masthead logo to reload the page, then scroll down to the next story.

          Yes, I do like this place well enough to do that. Plus there are the great music videos. Toss in a nekkid woman once in a while and I’d pay for the site.

        Joseph, what browser and version and what operating system are you using?

          Joseph Farnsworth in reply to Blogrescue. | February 1, 2012 at 1:54 pm

          I use XP with all the updates and IE 8.

          Hmm. I’m testing on XP / IE8 (virtual machine) and it seems to be loading fine for me. I do see some oddness with the back button in bth IE8 and IE9. This is definitely not by design and I will investigate that.

          After playing with IE (shudder) for a while, I’ve noticed that there are a tremendous number of sites for which the back button does not work. Actually – it does work kind of. It just may require multiple clicks. (Anywhere between 2 and 11 clicks which is a pretty serious issue as far as basic navigation goes…it almost seems like IE is stepping back through every ad that has been loaded, and then once you get past all of them, the next click on Back goes to the previous page loaded.)

          Aha – it happens on sites that use adsense…which is about 50% of the web. Researching a cure, but not hopeful. (Chrome and Firefox do not have the issue)

          dmacleo in reply to Blogrescue. | February 1, 2012 at 4:37 pm

          was a known issue a bit back for ie 8 (or ie 9 in comp mode) with js, cannot find info now though.

        theduchessofkitty in reply to Joseph Farnsworth. | February 1, 2012 at 4:47 pm

        Are you using a computer with Windows XP or an earlier version of that operating system? Or maybe you have a computer with slower RAM, or less hard drive storage.

        Check on your Temporary Internet files in your computer using a software that cleans up your Web history and all the content downloaded from the sites you visit. In my case, I have something called Registry Mechanic by PC Tools. It cleans out your registry of stuff that doesn’t belong there, and it also optimizes your hard drive. It costs some, but it is worth having in your computer. You can allow it to check your machine daily. I’d say find it online, buy yourself a copy of it, download it and give your machine a nice clean-up. It will thank you.

          Joseph Farnsworth in reply to theduchessofkitty. | February 1, 2012 at 5:46 pm

          Thanks to all (esp dmadeo and blogrescue) for your comments. I too have noticed the seemingly recent stickiness of the back-arrow button.
          My brother-in-law the computer genius recommends Google’s CHROME as the answer to all my prayers. I use Microsoft’s Essentials as it has less demand on my limited RAM and u-processor capacities.

          ccleaner is free and less destructive to registry.

        I’m gonna have a “Ron Paul” moment here, (not literally), as I have a late ’09 Mac Mini running SeaMonkey and have had absolutely no problems…

The clairvoyant lady caller got it right about the future and, after all these years, you’d think idiots would realize it is not a good idea to call into the Levin Show.

I like Mark Levin. However, one aspect of his show I just find unacceptable and that’s his tendency to cut off those who disagreed with him!

Back in the bad old days, before Rush came onto the scene, most talk show hosts, most of them raving Progressive / Socialists, would customarily cut off comments from anyone who disagreed with them. So, is Levin a former Progressive, now reborn as a Conservative? I’m trying to come up with another conclusion yet that’s the only one that makes sense.

Just throwing that comment out there. OTOH, Levin’s approach might be designed to attract those Socialist crazies to his show and perhaps convert them to sanity. Nah, they can’t stand the truth.

    Levin just doesn’t cut people off, he’s making a point. He offered the guy a chance to defend and advance his candidates cause by explaining why we should for him because of his candidates attributes. he wouldn’t do it

    Jaynie59 in reply to Doug Wright. | February 1, 2012 at 1:15 pm

    You’re wrong about Mark Levin cutting off callers who disagree with him. Mark treats all of his callers pretty much the same. If they are articulate and concise and get to the point he’ll talk to them. But he has no patience with people who don’t get to the point. Even his fans who love him. Mark is the perfect example of the old saying “he doesn’t suffer fools gladly”. That’s Mark Levin to a T. He loves his fans, and he tries very hard to be nice to them, but he just doesn’t have the patience with people who can’t articulate a point. Even when they’re gushing their love for him. Part of it is embarrassment, part is humility, but it’s mainly a lack of patience.

    I love Mark Levin but I would never call his show. And it pains me when “conservatives” criticize him for being arrogant and unfeeling. Just read Rescuing Sprite. The man is an intellectual giant with a heart as big as the sun.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to Jaynie59. | February 1, 2012 at 2:43 pm

      That’s it. Levin will allow anyone to talk as long as it’s to the point and articulated halfway well. To be sure, if it’s on-point, well spoken liberal crap, he allows it so as to properly skewer it, as he should. He doesn’t tolerate conservatives who are hesitant and scattered either. He also cuts off anyone who won’t answer the specific question he’s asked of the caller, lib or con.

      I think he just wants to minimize the mindless stuff, make caller input as efficient as possible. Some talkers let the caller go on and on, and… on and on and on and on, waiting for the point to peek its head out from the rhetorical bushes. Radio time is dear, and Levin protects his from being boring.

        Your last sentence is spot on. I think Mark empathizes so much with his audience, and has to be aware of what would turn them off, that he just won’t put up with a boring or inarticulate caller no matter what point they’re trying to spit out. Ten seconds of listening to a stuttering, stammering caller is an eternity on the radio.

        Rush had a caller yesterday that drove me nuts. She went on and on and didn’t seem to have a point. That’s pretty rare for Rush’s show. Snerdley does a great job screening the calls.

If you have a right to health care someone has an obligation to provide it. That’s slavery. Its wrong and immoral. Its like they want tio turn the whole country into a giant plantation.

StrangernFiction | February 1, 2012 at 12:38 pm

The one caller argues that Romney was giving the liberals in Massachusetts what they wanted. One problem with this defense: ROMNEY SAYS IT’S WORKING.

TeaPartyPatriot4ever | February 1, 2012 at 10:04 pm

Please, people actually voted for Romney because they swallowed that theme meme of “Romney’s electable” Malarky BS..

They said the same crap about GHW Bush in 1980. The only reason why the Bush’s won their elections in 1988, then his son in 2000 and 2004, was because of their connection with President Ronald Reagan as his VP-GHW Bush 41, then his son G.W. Bush 43- so the conservative voters mistakenly thought they could trust them.

A GOP RINO establishment Republican, will never beat a real Reagan Cosnervative, period. Only with massive amounts of political establishment apparatus and corporate coffer money, can they persude these gullible and naive people of this BS..

And what will they get for their votes- “Here’s the new boss, same as the old boss”..

All their doing in Florida is replacing one corrupt lying socialist liberal with Obamacare, with a corrupt lying corporate socialist liberal with Romneycare..

How all too easily fooled these gullible and naive, let alone indoctrinated, Florida voters are, and is why these corrupt lying liberal politicians have permeated and infested the American political system to the point of completely destroying the whole Founding Father’s U.S. Constitutional Republic of governance, from the inside out, like a cancer.

This article does a great job of explaining what I have just said.

“Our Elective Despotism”
by Lawrence Sellin January 31, 2012

Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve and a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend