-Part 2 in a developing series of in-depth analysis by Dr. Jeff Fuller (See part 1 here)
It’s often revealing to turn conventional wisdom on its head and see what’s really hidden underneath. You’ve all heard it, I’m sure, that RomneyCare is Mitt’s doom, an albatross around his neck, his biggest weakness as a potential candidate. In Part 1 of this series I detailed not only how grave some people feel this issue is for Romney’s chances, but also pointed out that Obama and his team of key operatives (Axelrod, Gibbs, and Daley) are all praising RomneyCare as ObamaCare’s predecessor in an effort to hurt Mitt with the GOP’s conservative and libertarian bases. However, below I present what a great asset and strength Romney’s history and experience with health care will be to him as a general election candidate against Obama.
Yes . . . for the purposes of this post I am skipping the GOP primary altogether and how health care will effect that outcome. Don’t worry, I will address those issues thoroughly in later installments of this series. But sometimes it’s important to see the light at the end of the tunnel, the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, the carrot at the end of the stick, to give a proper and more accurate assessment of the situation one is currently in. Winning the GOP nomination and imagining how well Mitt could tackle Obama on health care is that light/pot/carrot. Some Mitt fans or fence-sitters may be guilty of hand wringing and fretting over how RomneyCare might really be the big problem that so many are saying it will be. This post is for you folks in particular.
First off, it’s always wise to take a step back and look at the big picture. Health Care promises to be a big topic in the upcoming 2012 presidential election no doubt . . . but I can guarantee that it will not be the biggest. It never has been the number one issue on people’s minds and I see no reason for that to change (“It’s the Economy Stupid!“). The Exit polls from our most recent election cycle show “The Economy” dominating voter’s hearts and minds:
The economy isn’t just the most important issue to voters this year . . . it’s roughly twice as important to them as the other top issues of concern combined . . . Sixty-two percent of voters name the economy as their most important issue this year. Health care ranks a distant second, at 19 percent. Illegal immigration and Afghanistan follow at 8 and 7 percent.
The 2008 Presidential exit polls also showed that “The Economy” was far and away the biggest issue on people’s minds:
The economy dominated voters’ concerns at historical levels in the presidential election . . . Fully 62 percent of voters said the economy was the most important issue, six times more than cited the war in Iraq (10 percent), health care (9 percent) or terrorism (9 percent)
“The Economy” topped the 2004 presidental exit polls , and it was, again, more than triple the importance of “Health Care” in the 2000 exit polls (26% vs 8%). And, lest you think I’m quoting outdated info, Gallup release poll results earlier this month confirming the currency of these sentiments. “Unemployment” and ”The Economy in General” totaled 64% while “Health Care” was only 16%. And in the crosstabs of all these polls, “Health Care” is consistently a top issue for more Democrats than either Independents or Republicans. The Gallup poll showed it being the top issue of only 13% of Independents and 13% of Republicans, compared to 24% of Democrats. That split along political affiliation is important as each nominee works to bring the Independent voters into the fold while keeping their base.
I think it’s plain to see that the GOP needs a nominee with “street cred” on economic issues, and there is no one better than Mitt Romney in this regard. Hypothetically, even if Romney were the worst candidate the GOP could put up against Obama on the issue of Health Care, his economic bona fides would “cover a multitude of [health care] sins.” There are others who also take the perspective that Romney will likely get a “pass” on health care from much of the GOP base because of the other strengths he brings to the table (article titled “Don’t count on health care ruining Romney in ’12” and, yes, it’s from Salon and is written from a snarky liberal perspective, but it makes some good points none the less). However, I’m sticking to my guns and, as I said before, I aim to prove that Romney is actually the best nominee to go toe-to-toe with Obama on the issue of Health Care.
I read with great joy the ruling out of Florida declaring ObamaCare unconstitutional on grounds of “Federalism;” the 10th Amendment Constitutional guaranteed that states reserve all powers not specifically granted to the Federal government. It is looking promising that the Supreme Court will uphold this ruling. Assuming this happens, the GOP nominee will have to be someone who has not only supported the idea of federalism for Health Care, but has put it into practice. Mitt has consistently and forcefully denounced ObamaCare (while largely supporting RomneyCare) on grounds of Federalism. He’s said from the beginning that RomneyCare was something crafted for Massachusetts and would not work for the whole country (nor should it be implemented federally even if it would work)
Why is this important? Imagine if Mike Huckabee were the GOP nominee. A DNC attack ad could run: “Mike Huckabee says that he supports the Supreme Court’s overturning of the health care law. He agrees with the ruling that the federal government shouldn’t try to fix heath care because that’s the responsibilities of the states. But Governor Huckabee did nothing to improve the health care coverage of his people in the state of Arkansas during over 10 years at the helm. If he couldn’t improve health care in a state as small as Arkansas, why would the American people trust him to fix health care problems nationally?” Obama could play the victim during a debate claiming that the States have been derelict in their duty to fix health care problems and could jibe ”Mike, you’re at fault for that!” Obviously, the same could be said of most of the other serious potential candidates seeing that the were governors as well: Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Gov. Sarah Palin, Gov. Mitch Daniels, Gov. Christ Christie, Gov. Jeb Bush, etc . . . but not of Gov. Mitt Romney.
In fact, whether or not ObamaCare is declared unconstitutional, Obama could argue that these governors were actually responsible for ObamaCare happening in the first place because they did nothing substantial to fix health care during their tenures in their own states; that therefore, the Federal government had to step in and act to avert crisis. That’s a much more substantial and potentially damaging argument than “ObamaCare and RomneyCare are similar so Romney is a hypocrite to reject one and embrace the other,” wouldn’t you say?
Whether or not ObamaCare gets ruled unconstitutional, Romney stands on the best grounds to go toe to toe with Obama in a Presidential debate. After Obama expresses disbelief that Romney could be against ObamaCare since it’s so similar to RomneyCare, Mitt could retort:
“You keep saying the law was crafted after ours in Massachusetts, but neither you, nor any Democratic leaders in congress (Pelosi/Reid) even so much as gave me a call or asked my opinion about what was working and what wasn’t. If you’re going to use something as a template, common sense says that you do your due diligence in assuring that the template is adequate and functional. If you were using my law as a template, why did you never contact me to discuss it?”
Romney has shared this idea before in an interview:
Q: There are obvious similarities between ObamaCare and what you did in Massachusetts. Do you acknowledge that what you did in Massachusetts has become a model for nation under Obama, whether you wanted it to or not?
A: I can’t speak for what the president has done. I don’t know what he looks at. He never gave me a call. Neither he nor any of his colleagues [gave me] a call to ask what worked and did not work, and how would they improve upon it and so forth. If what was done at the state level, they applied at the federal level, they made a mistake. It was not designed for the nation.
Potentially the most powerful and effective tactic Romney could use is to turn the tables on Obama and point out how fiscally irresponsible it was to pass such large and sweeping legislation during a time of “double-digit unemployment, economic crisis, and record-setting federal deficits.” That he was ramming through a partisan and liberal bill with no honest or realistic foresight to it’s long-term economic implications. After sourcing warnings, statistics and estimates of ObamaCare’s ever-expanding cost projections (including the CBO’s projection that it will cost 800,000 jobs and the “fuzzy math” used to estimate the bill’s costs), Romney could say:
“Mr. President, where is the money coming to pay for ObamaCare? From your ”stash?” Your version of health care reform won’t balance the budget, it will break the bank and bankrupt businesses! I would never sign a bill that was projected to put nearly one million Americans out of work and I’m disappointed that you did.”
Romney will be effective at turning “Health Care” into an economic issue and this will hit home with voters more than any perceived “inconsistency” between ObamaCare vs. RomneyCare. Remember, “It’s the economy stupid!”
Romney could also effectively highlight his own differences in leadership and procedure in reforming Health Care between Massachusetts compared to what Obama did for his plan (this will be expounded upon and sourced in great more depth in a separate and forthcoming installment). Mitt could draw a powerful contrast in a debate as such:
When we reformed Health Care in Massachusetts we spent two years working toward a consensus. We had overwhelming public opinion support, input from the entire political spectrum (From The Heritage Foundation to Ted Kennedy), and finally passed a 72 page bill with a vote of 198-2 in the state legislature . . . getting whopping majorities from Republican, Democratic, and Independent lawmakers.
Contrast that to the bill you rammed through Congress in a matter of a few weeks and foisted upon the American people . . . a 2,700 page monstrosity that we were told would have to be passed before we could know what’s in it. A bill that squeaked through Congress by the slimmest of margins (219-212; meaning that it would have failed if only four Representatives had voted differently) only after well-documented strong-arming and promised political favors . . . all this with not a single Republican voting in favor of it and 34 members of your own party voting against it. A bill that is a ugly stain on the fabric of our nation both for the ends that it aims to achieve AND the means by which it became law.
Mr President, based on the current unpopularity of your bill, and, in light of the 2010 repudiation of your party at the ballot box, I think it’s clear which type of leadership the American people prefer. Leadership that is deliberate and wise, that is not in a rush to score a political victory no matter the cost, that respects their voices and works for THEIR best interests. Wouldn’t you agree?
One other advantage Romney has is that he would never be “out of his depth” while discussing matters of health care. I can think of some potential nominees who might be. Mitt is more versed on this issue in knowledge and in experience than anyone else the GOP has to offer. To boot, Romney always comes off as competent and knowledgeable in interviews and debates . . . especially when he’s discussing core issues such as economics or health care.
You see, all the other potential GOP nominees may be able to cast stones at Obama’s attempt at health care reform from their seats on the sidelines. They will be able to make some solid arguments for sure. But, Romney has “skin in the game” on health care and won’t come off as simply a critic who has no better alternative to point towards. He is someone who can and will personalize his objections to ObamaCare by drawing contrasts to his own plan and his own experience. This will resonate with voters and it will make Romney, hands down, the best GOP nominee to debate Obama on health care.
February 23rd, 2011 at 1:41 pm
Thank you Jeff for this article! This is one of the many reasons why I believe Romney is the best candidate to run against Obama. On the issue of health care, he’s the ONLY candidate that can put Obama on the defensive for enacting the unconstitutional Obamacare.
February 23rd, 2011 at 1:44 pm
Take that anti-rombots!
February 23rd, 2011 at 1:46 pm
Jeff,
Kudos!! While I, and others, have made most of these points here, at ROS, and at the old Race42008 site, among other places, we have done it piecemeal. Given as a totality, the argument is overwhelming and dispositive.
Let the word go forth that Mitt isn’t just the best candidate to address the economy and create a pro-business environment for the financial well-being of the country. He’s also the most electable, and this is partially true because, concerning ObamaCare, he can hoist the President on his own petard.
February 23rd, 2011 at 1:50 pm
You’re completely insane. The public hates being told that they have to buy insurance. Poll after poll continues to show this. Nominating Romney disarms the party of the best weapon it has in trashing health insurance mandates.
You’re completely and utterly wrong. It’s good that you didn’t talk about the GOP primary – because this is totally an albatross around Mitt’s neck.
The worst part about all of this is this cult like devotion that you Rombots have to your candidate. It’s scary shit. It really is. And it’s a complete turnoff to everyone else in the party.
At this point I can’t wait for Mitt to fail. I’m going to be thoroughly and totally ecstatic on that day.
February 23rd, 2011 at 1:52 pm
On the issue of health care, he’s the ONLY candidate that can put Obama on the defensive for enacting the unconstitutional Obamacare. ,/i>
Obama. Already. IS. On. The. Defensive.
See 2010, November of.
February 23rd, 2011 at 1:53 pm
I believe the scientific term for this is:
“Whistling past the graveyard.”
February 23rd, 2011 at 1:55 pm
sorry Adam, my post #6 was aimed at the authors and initial butt boy responses.
February 23rd, 2011 at 1:59 pm
While you make some good points… but these are mostly about the ‘process’ of how healthcare was passed. Many people don’t like the process but this is not the most important reason they don’t like obamacare. The fact the dems passed it by ramming it thru or obama didn’t call romney are not great ways to differentiate mass. from the obamacare. When I have heard Mitt contrast his plan to obamacare I fall asleep. Only policy wonks will care/understand the differences. I like Mitt but he needs a crisp, 1-line or 30 second way to articulate differences in a way the vast public will understand. I have not heard it yet.
February 23rd, 2011 at 1:59 pm
The thing the Rombots don’t want to acknowledge (aside from the fact that some of them can’t fathom that it’s possible to both have a Mormon candidate AND not necessarly have that Mormon candidate be the bestest thing ever) is that we don’t need to convince the public that ObamaCare is bad. They already agree with us. Nominating Romney is the worst thing we can do because it shows a backpedaling on a position where we already have majority support
No.
What we need to do is nominate someone that can credibly argue against the proposal who never agreed with any of it, and have THAT candidate draw folks out who already agree with us to the polls.
February 23rd, 2011 at 2:00 pm
Adam X says “At this point I can’t wait for Mitt to fail. I’m going to be thoroughly and totally ecstatic on that day.
Nice way to totally discredit youself and your arguments about Mitt. Or maybe I’m wrong, do you actually know him? What has caused this level of vitriol and personal vendetta against Mitt?
February 23rd, 2011 at 2:00 pm
I like Mitt but he needs a crisp, 1-line or 30 second way to articulate differences in a way the vast public will understand. I have not heard it yet.
He’s never going to be able to make that case.
Obama’s, “Great idea Mitt. Your idea inspired us” is FAR FAR more effective.
February 23rd, 2011 at 2:01 pm
Obama. Already. IS. On. The. Defensive.
This article is really out of the land of delusion.
We’ll just skip the whole primary thing and assume Milt has this wrapped up. (yes, I call him Milt, like Sarah did)- Delusional!
If you have to lie to yourselves, it doesn’t bode well for a successful campaign.
I’d say as of now, a Romney run is about 50/50.
weak sauce
February 23rd, 2011 at 2:01 pm
What has caused this level of vitriol and personal vendetta against Mitt?
The fact that it seems that only those with a cult-like devotion to the guy fail to see the obvious.
The fact that I genuinely believe (like Ann Coulter) that a Romney nomination means the Republicans lose.
And I REALLY want to beat Obama.
That’s it. Nothing more. Nothing less.
February 23rd, 2011 at 2:02 pm
The RomneyCare/ObamaCare liberal philosophy of big government mandates, massive subsidies, and overpaid bureaucrat ran exchanges will sink him. As it also should sink Obama in 2012 versus anyone not named Mitt Romney, the architect of intrusive government run health care.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49929.html#ixzz1EoFOE2c2
February 23rd, 2011 at 2:02 pm
And thanks to the supportive comments. I am trying to add to the conversation on the big issue of Mitt and Health Care. I know not everyone will agree and (espeicially on this site) there are those with HUGE biases and will try to discredit anything “Pro-Mitt” . . . but I enjoy the discussion anyways.
February 23rd, 2011 at 2:03 pm
Karl Rove says that Romney needs to apologize for RomneyCare.
Is Rove wrong too?
No offense to the esteemed Jeff Fuller, MD, but I trust Rove’s political instincts (and my own) more than yours.
February 23rd, 2011 at 2:06 pm
11.Adam X Says:
February 23rd, 2011 at 2:00 pm
“Obama’s, “Great idea Mitt. Your idea inspired us” is FAR FAR more effective.”
===
EXACTLY, Adam. It is what it is.
February 23rd, 2011 at 2:08 pm
So, Obama imposed his health care plan through pure partisanship. Romney got consensus to do it. Now that’s an exciting debate.
Also, I reject the idea that only Romney has the authority to challenge the President on this issue. I refer you to the Weekly Standard and Mitch Daniels’s plan in Indiana:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/277bjeer.asp
February 23rd, 2011 at 2:10 pm
There is another problem in this health care fiasco he finds himself in.
This will be seen as another flip flop.
He’s been pro-gay marriage and anti-gay marriage, pro-choice and pro-life, pro- government health care and now anti-government health care.
This just reinforces the narrative that he’s already been tagged with. no one knows his core beliefs, because he is willing to change them for political expediency. All the time.
But he does have nice hair, for those of you who obviously find that compelling.
He is damaged goods and has zero chance of winning the nomination. The establishment backers are now recognizing this, hence all the Daniels talk. That kind of blew up in their face a little yesterday, but they may be able to recover.
What’s a moderate establishment Republican supposed to do these days?
February 23rd, 2011 at 2:11 pm
#12 I’d say as of now, a Romney run is about 50/50.
Now THAT’S funny. It’s an absolute gaurantee my friend. Now who is delusional? lol
February 23rd, 2011 at 2:11 pm
Adam X:
You don’t think that the Left and Evangelical Right would absolutely nail Romney to the wall if he flip-flopped on his support for the Massachusetts health plan? It would fit perfectly within the manufactured narrative that he is a chronic flip-flopper. Ain’t gonna happen.
Mitt Romney’s passage of Health Care in Mass. is as Federalist as you can get (aka Thomas Jefferson’s views on States rights). I think you give Conservatives far less credit than they deserve to simply write off MassCare as identical to ObamaCare.
Most Conservaties are much smarter than you, Adam X. They actually understand the Constitution and the legality for passing State laws vs Federal laws. I’m sorry that you don’t.
February 23rd, 2011 at 2:13 pm
#13 – Like McCain did in 2008? Romney had better chances than McCain, how ever did we end up with McCain? I would have preferred Huckabee at the bat over McCain, but alas… you can only do so much.
February 23rd, 2011 at 2:13 pm
I discussed Rove’s comments in Part 1 of this series that was posted here seperately and linked as in the post above.
Sometimes I think people can’t wait to bash Mitt and don’t even read what’s written.
Rove’s way off base on this one if he thinks Mitt can “flip-flop” on RomneyCare . . . that’s the worst political advise I’ve ever heard.
February 23rd, 2011 at 2:14 pm
Gotta run to lunch and see some patients. Have fun commenting folks!
February 23rd, 2011 at 2:18 pm
You don’t think that the Left and Evangelical Right would absolutely nail Romney to the wall if he flip-flopped on his support for the Massachusetts health plan? It would fit perfectly within the manufactured narrative that he is a chronic flip-flopper. Ain’t gonna happen.
Agree 100 percent. That only further increases his toxicity if he makes it to the general election. That’s just MORE reason we can’t afford to nominate Romney.
is as Federalist as you can get…..Most Conservaties are much smarter than you, Adam X. They actually understand the Constitution and the legality for passing State laws vs Federal laws. I’m sorry that you don’t….
You know what Joe Blow thinks of Federalism? He thinks it’s a pussy’s way out of actually having to take a position on a given issue. You think the pro-lifers care about federalism? You think the Tea Partiers are going to care about federalism when the dicussion about mandates occurs? If you are as smart as you clearly like to fancy yourself – you already know the answer to that question.
Argue in a hypothetical sense about State’s Rights and Federalism – but in the real world of politics, if you look deep into your gut, you know it’s not going to make a nickel’s worth of difference.
And honestly, your little smug condescension means exactly nothing to me.
February 23rd, 2011 at 2:21 pm
Rove’s way off base on this one if he thinks Mitt can “flip-flop” on RomneyCare . . . that’s the worst political advise I’ve ever heard.
No. It’s just that Romney has no good options. Either he flip flops and deals with the consequences or he takes himself out of the running by holding to a position that is ideologically out of step.
February 23rd, 2011 at 2:22 pm
#19 – teledude – you’re propagating lies. Mitt was never pro gay marriage. Pro gay rights yes, but not marriage, are you going to argue against me on that one?
Second, he is pro-life convert from MA. Even though he was always personally Pro-Life, no one would have had a chance to win in MA running Pro-Life? Can you drop that one now?
Third, Health Care was an issue that was already brewing up in MA. Romney provided the best possible bi-partisan solution available. There were many things on Romneycare that were forced on him by the overwhelming majority of democrats that live there.
I find your comments very irresponsible, untruthful and borderline disrespectful. I hope you do more research on Mitt before attacking him by parroting liberal points against him.
February 23rd, 2011 at 2:23 pm
… *liberal media point against him.
February 23rd, 2011 at 2:24 pm
Lunch can wait
Adam X “Either he flip flops and deals with the consequences or he takes himself out of the running by holding to a position that is ideologically out of step.”>
Just like McCain couldn’t secure the nomination because of his position on Immigration, right?
February 23rd, 2011 at 2:24 pm
Even though he was always personally Pro-Life
I call bullshit on this. No one ever tried the “I’m personally pro-life” or “I’m effectively pro-choice”. Whatever. The guy flopped. He just DID. If it makes you feel better to say that he had to lie to someone in Mass (either the liberals or the pro-lifers) to sleep better then fine. But let’s call a spade a spade. Romney flip-flopped (for whatever reason) on the life question at precisely the moment it was most beneficial to him. There is no debate about it.
February 23rd, 2011 at 2:26 pm
Just like McCain couldn’t secure the nomination because of his position on Immigration, right?
McCain barely won, by default, AFTER HE MODIFIED THAT POSITION in an environment where the discussion completely turned to something else. In this case, the war.
Now you’re telling me that Romney is going to go guns blazing in support of his role in RomneyCare. And the SCOTUS will keep this issue alive.
Good luck with that.
February 23rd, 2011 at 2:26 pm
4, I love the powerful logic of your comment. To call someone “insane” is a convincing argument in and of itself, but that’s just the beginning. You take this brilliant piece of rhetoric and add the word completely so we really know what you mean. And it only gets better, you couple this first argument with telling Jeff that he is utterly and completely wrong. At this point, I think you pretty much destroyed Jeff’s argument. I mean if you had just said that he was wrong that would have been convincing, but to say he was completely wrong, well, you just can’t argue with logic like that. But then to say he is utterly AND completely wrong, well I think everyone has to be convinced now. But if everyone’s not convinced yet, they only need to read the next line, where you combine personal attack and broad generalization to an art in order to make the most crushing logical argument ever. And then as impossible as it might seem it gets better, and this is really too profound for me summarize so I’ll have to quote: “It’s scary #$%&.” and if anyone’s still doubting you: “It really is.” Adam its people like you, who take substantive logical debate seriously, who are a real inspiration. It really is.
February 23rd, 2011 at 2:28 pm
John,
Well it’s a good thing you offered such subtantive debate there.
Excellent work.
February 23rd, 2011 at 2:32 pm
Mitt Romney, unlike all of the rest of the clowns gunning for the presidency, can actually beat Obama. It’s really quite plain and simple. He has the widest appeal from all corners of the country.
Romney will win because of the Bandwagon Effect. He will win the important early states like New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada, Colorado and, most importantly, Florida. These are the only states that matter because they are battleground states and the ones that represent America the most. After that, Super Tuesday will be a cake-walk for Romney.
Mike Huckabee is nothing more than a Social Liberal. He vastly raised taxes in Arkansas, he stole from the coffers for his own family, he helped support illegal immigrants into public schools, and he gave pardons to criminals who went on to murder 4 cops in Seattle.
Most importantly, he has no money to campaign with. Wake up people! Mike Huckabee CANNOT carry moderate America or the West in the General Election. He will get stomped by Obama because he only appeals to the hard South
Sarah Palin’s career is also finished. Republicans are NOT sensationalists like Democrats. We like our candidates to walk the refiners fire first before electing them to the highest office. Sarah Palin has been proven to be a great motivator, but a poor head of state for Presidency. Republicans know this.
Ron Paul fans suffer from a chronic delusional illness where they believe that robo-calling and ballot-stuffing actually means something. They think that screaming at everyone to blow up the federal government is going to convince someone. These kids who support him are absolutely sick in the head.
Paul, himself, is also very ANTI-Constitutional (yes you heard that right). He and his supporters actually believe that there is verbiage in the Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution that requires Congress to use the words, “Declaration of War” in order to go to war. THIS IS MADE UP BS that does not exist in the Constitution!
Romney is the best candidate we have, and a very good candidate at that. His life and history is very close to Ronald Reagan (who also flipped on abortion). Don’t let personal qualms about Romney’s Faith or past positions give us another 4 nightmarish years of Obama. Can you imagine what an untethered Obama would do to this country with no worry of another election to keep him, at least, “pretending” to moderat? It would be an absolute disaster for this country.
February 23rd, 2011 at 2:36 pm
Well, I do think we do each other a disservice when we just attack other people. Lets debate respectfully and thoughtfully.
Yes, Romney flipped on Pro-Life, has he ever taken a step back? No? In his record as Governor did he advance the Pro-Choice movement? Hell no!! Even Ronald Reagan had a conversion from being a democrat.
The inability to not be able to change your mind or reason with the other side of the aisle is a trait of stubbornness that I wouldn’t want in a President.
So Adam, at least personally… I don’t take your comments seriously. Most of the time I just skip your comments when I see your name beside it.
February 23rd, 2011 at 2:38 pm
Mitt Romney, unlike all of the rest of the clowns gunning for the presidency, can actually beat Obama. It’s really quite plain and simple. He has the widest appeal from all corners of the country.
And you quantify this, how? He can’t even muster favorable showings among Republicans and gets blown away through the south and the Midwest. His favorables are low among GOPers and he sports similar head to head numbers against Obama as Huckabee.
Romney will win because of the Bandwagon Effect. He will win the important early states like New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada, Colorado and, most importantly, Florida
More fluff. You didn’t mention SC – which actually has a history of being determinative. No one cares about CO, Romney is not doing well in FL, and only the Rombots even bother to mention NV.
Mike Huckabee is nothing more than a Social Liberal
Hahaha. Then what does that make Romney? A social multiple choice?
He vastly raised taxes in Arkansas, he stole from the coffers for his own family, he helped support illegal immigrants into public schools, and he gave pardons to criminals who went on to murder 4 cops in Seattle.
Without unpacking the charges, in a GOP primary all of that pales in comparison to Mitt’s admitted affinity for mandates .
Romney is the best candidate we have, and a very good candidate at that
A very good candidate would at the very least inspire confidence and enthusiasm among the base. Mitt has yet to do that. He’s like McCain. And Kerry. They didn’t do so well…
February 23rd, 2011 at 2:42 pm
Adam X:
You’re wrong about the Health Care issue. The left has been publishing articles practically every day since ObamaCare was passed absolutely BASHING Mitt Romney on his Mass. plan.
Look at the polls…it’s not working. Romney is still consistently running in front, or near the front in every poll imaginable. That proves that people are, indeed, smarter than you have been led to believe. They know the difference.
It’s you that knows, deep in your gut, that the people are not being swayed by it. The people know that “It’s the Economy, stupid” and Mitt Romney is best qualified to fix it. All your yelling and screaming is not going to change that. It’s plain and simple.
February 23rd, 2011 at 2:42 pm
The inability to not be able to change your mind or reason with the other side of the aisle is a trait of stubbornness that I wouldn’t want in a President.
Oh yeah. I feel the same way. So since your contention clearly is that Romney is NOT a serial flip flopper I’m sure you would agree with me that he should quit being stubborn and jettison his past support of RomneyCare. Right?
February 23rd, 2011 at 2:43 pm
It is so funny how everybody seems to think they know everything about politics and what will and or should happen 100%. Everybody on here is a genius it appears. Thus giving rationale for being able to use verbal attacks and insults. I am smarter than you so I can call you dumb. Makes complete sense (please note the heavy sarcasm here).
Get over yourselves. There will be some that see MassCare/RomneyCare as a problem – and others will see it as a benefit. That is obviously evident in reading through the comments thus far. Just because somebody else thinks something different than you do does not make them mindless, stupid, a butt boy, insance, etc.
The infighting in the republican party is what will make whoever the candidate a weaker candidate because we will all have crawled into our corner with our own little toy (favorite candidate) and not want anything to do with another toy (candidate) if ours isn’t the one chosen to be played with. It is so childish it makes me want to scream at times.
I hope we can all get past this stuff sooner than later.
February 23rd, 2011 at 2:44 pm
To those of you who are bashing Mitt…
Some of you have obviously not read the article and allowed yourselves to consider the arguments Jeff Fuller lays out here. I suggest you actually read the article and consider what he actually has to say.
For example: Adam X says:
“What we need to do is nominate someone that can credibly argue against the proposal who never agreed with any of it, and have THAT candidate draw folks out who already agree with us to the polls.”
Adam, did you read what Jeff Fuller said?:
“Why is this important? Imagine if Mike Huckabee were the GOP nominee. A DNC attack ad could run: “Mike Huckabee says that he supports the Supreme Court’s overturning of the health care law. He agrees with the ruling that the federal government shouldn’t try to fix heath care because that’s the responsibilities of the states. But Governor Huckabee did nothing to improve the health care coverage of his people in the state of Arkansas during over 10 years at the helm. If he couldn’t improve health care in a state as small as Arkansas, why would the American people trust him to fix health care problems nationally?” Obama could play the victim during a debate claiming that the States have been derelict in their duty to fix health care problems and could jibe ”Mike, you’re at fault for that!” Obviously, the same could be said of most of the other serious potential candidates seeing that the were governors as well: Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Gov. Sarah Palin, Gov. Mitch Daniels, Gov. Christ Christie, Gov. Jeb Bush, etc . . . but not of Gov. Mitt Romney.”
And how about this?:
“Q: There are obvious similarities between ObamaCare and what you did in Massachusetts. Do you acknowledge that what you did in Massachusetts has become a model for nation under Obama, whether you wanted it to or not?
A: I can’t speak for what the president has done. I don’t know what he looks at. He never gave me a call. Neither he nor any of his colleagues [gave me] a call to ask what worked and did not work, and how would they improve upon it and so forth. If what was done at the state level, they applied at the federal level, they made a mistake. It was not designed for the nation.”
You have been defeated. Mitt Romney is the best candidate. hands down.
Your desperate willingness to avoid the facts shows us that you simply hate the man, and really don’t give a rat’s ass what he, or anyone else has to say. Grow up and whine on YouTube where you belong.
February 23rd, 2011 at 2:45 pm
Adam X:
Ah, so you’re a Huckabee fan. So the cat is out of the bag and the bait worked.
It’s his Mormonism isn’t it, Adam? No wonder why you’re so passionate about slandering Mitt. You can’t stand that a Mormon could become president and “legitimize” the Faith you hate more than anything in the world.
We all know why you want Huckabee to run and Romney to lose. Because you can’t stand, can’t STAND, a Mormon in the white house.
February 23rd, 2011 at 2:45 pm
33, Oh, really you think so?! It would mean the world if a great debater thought this! In truth though, I am afraid that merely commenting on a great debater does not make me one.
February 23rd, 2011 at 2:46 pm
CF,
Part of Romney’s support should be inflated due to high name ID from the 2008 campaign. That Romney can’t even muster numbers in the 30′s like Giuliani and McCain did at thsi point in the last cycle should be very troubling to Romney supporters.
The polling on the individual mandate is clear and doesn’t need to be debated. Watch and see what happens when those people who don’t read political blogs frequently are reminded of Mitt’s position on the issue.
It’s grossly underdetermined that Romney’s campaign would be at all beneficial by a focus on the economy. Like Huckabee said, people don’t like to vote for someone who reminds you of the person that just layed you off.
February 23rd, 2011 at 2:50 pm
41,
Aboslutely CF. Kill all the Mormons. Then all of the people with brown hair. And all of the cat owners. /sarc
I don’t care what religion Mitt is. Really I don’t.
I do find it interesting though that it seems that the vast majority of people (especially on this blog) who don’t recognize how big of a problem Romney’s nomination would be for the GOP electoral prospects (given his ties to RomneyCare) seem to be Mormon.
If we’re going to get into conspiracy theories let’s ponder why that is.
Again – green – blue – Mormon – Catholic. I couldn’t care less. But I don’t want to tkae the ammunition out of our gun before we go into battle – and that’s exactly what I fear a Romney nomination will do to the Republican Party.
Then again maybe Ann Coulter, Karl Rove, John Podheretz are all anti-Mormon bigots too.
We can be a sneaky bunch…
February 23rd, 2011 at 2:52 pm
I want to beat Obama like most people here but it does not seem like we have a strong candidate at this point, even with the favorable electorial shift and Obama negatives. Hopefully someone will emerge but it is hard to see at this point.
February 23rd, 2011 at 2:52 pm
CF:
Ttat is totally uncalled for and a great way to alienate on the fence voters. Declaring that the only reason to oppose Romney is religious based is slander and libel.
I highly suggest you reframe from religion bating in the future.
February 23rd, 2011 at 2:54 pm
Now, to a serious comment. What’s going to matter in regards to health care is the results. While there is a chunk of Americans that are ideological they’re not the swing voters that each canidate is going to be courting come Fall of 2012. Obama’s plan may not be in action long enough to have results but if it has that will be the discussion. Romney’s plan had had results and I imagine that will be the discussion regarding his plan.
February 23rd, 2011 at 2:54 pm
#43 – Did you just get laid off Adam? I’m sorry, I understand you now. Perhaps, you’d like a liberal EI to help you get by issued by your buddy Huck – Raising taxes at my expense – thanks a lot!!!
February 23rd, 2011 at 2:59 pm
46, Slander and libel is a bit hyperbolic. However, I agree that Romney fans should drop the “anyone who opposes Romney is a Mormon-hater” line. It makes it seem like they just can’t see the possibility that their canidate could have the least little flaw, and that’s a rather cult – like attitude. Not unlike the opinion that any opposition to Palin must be part of vast lamestream media Rino establishment conspiracy.
February 23rd, 2011 at 2:59 pm
#48:
That is missing the point. Huckabee has an ability to connect with blue-collar voters in a way that Romney lacks. You don’t have to like Huckabee or loathe Romney to accept that point.
If everyone could take off their blinders and start analyzing instead of cheer-leading, these discussions would be more productive.
February 23rd, 2011 at 2:59 pm
Jonathan and Adam X:
I’ve touched a nerve haven’t I? It’s all about his Mormonism for Huckabee fanatics. There’s really no other way to classify the abject viciousness they permeate for Romney. After his admission as a Huckabee fan, I can’t take his arguments seriously anymore. They’re coming from his passion, not from his brain.
February 23rd, 2011 at 3:01 pm
GOPinIL is right, I don’t mind thoughtful debate, but borderline hate, disrespect, name calling has gotten me upset. I normally don’t post here. I just read the comments and just shake my head saying no, no, no….
I think I have expressed my point of view today. I won’t be engaging any personal comments like I have with Teledude and Adam X.
February 23rd, 2011 at 3:03 pm
#49:
I see the “everyone against Romney is anti-Mormon” and “opposing Palin makes you a RINO” tripe as two sides of the same coin. It’s part of the danger, I think, of personality driven politics. It ends up being more about the person instead of their actual ideas or policies.
#51:
You haven’t touched a nerve. You’ve struck gold in the mines of idiocy.
February 23rd, 2011 at 3:05 pm
Adam X is utterly and completely unable to contribute substantively to the debate and unable to refrain from the type of condescension he accuses other of having. He promotes anti-Romney propaganda rather than facts. His refutations are really just distortions of facts. I would prefer he address Jeff Fuller’s points in this 2nd installment than cough up talking points meant to distract and distort.
Is not the economy the greatest issue concerning voters?
Did Romney rather than force his plan down the throats of Massachusetts citizens have overwhelming support from all concerned?
Is Romney most fluent and well-versed with the healthcare industry moreso than any other?
Was Romney willing to share the successes and failures with others so they might learn from the experiment when anyone asked?
Did Obama not ask because he was determined to move healthcare under government control?
Is Obamacare unconstitutional contrary to Romney’s plan because of federalism?
Was Obamacare an overblown takeover of 2700 pages moving government control over an entire industry? (Did the docfix offer hundereds of additional pages?)
Was Romney’s plan 70 pages and left healthcare decisions to patients and doctors?
Jeff Fuller submits the answers to these questions are all YES.
Dearest Adamx is it your opinion that the answers are no? If you believe that, please provide supporting facts. We are interested if these suppositions are wrong. But if you do not have supporting facts, you don’t really add anything.
February 23rd, 2011 at 3:05 pm
#50 I’ll admit that I like Huckabee a lot too… he has some great one liners that I like. I’ve even considered Romney/Huckabee ticket. But somehow we have created this scenario were Romney Fan’s and Huckabee Fan’s are sworn enemies. This shouldn’t be the case.
I do think we have reasons to believe that Huckabee is less conservative in ideology than Romney though.
February 23rd, 2011 at 3:08 pm
“The inability to not be able to change your mind or reason with the other side of the aisle is a trait of stubbornness that I wouldn’t want in a President.”
It is nice to have a President willing to learn from his mistakes and change course when he is not right. I’m okay with Romney being able to change his mind.
But his predicament is entirely a result of his ’08 campaign. But what is Romney going to say to defend his healthcare law. It’s a state issue? It was only meant to ensure all people of Massachusetts, not control costs? He sounds like Obama, perpetually dodging the tough questions. And Obamacare is still terminally unpopular especially among Republicans. Why would Romneycare be any different?
Romney’s best bet is to declare good intentions but confess that his healthcare push is not done, he never controlled costs, and that was a killer. Say we cannot have meaningful reform without controlling costs and that’s what he’d do at the national level. At least people would know that Romney gets the problem.
He spends so much time dodging his own past on questions rather than facing it that Republicans are naturally left thinking that he stands for nothing more than getting elected.
I firmly believe he would lose any head to head matchup in the party save perhaps against Palin. Yes, he’d even lose to Ron Paul.
February 23rd, 2011 at 3:09 pm
Huckabee opposed TARP. Romney supported it.
Whence then this “Huckabee is less conservative in ideology than Romney”?
February 23rd, 2011 at 3:11 pm
I’ll be the first to join up with Romney the minute he shows some spine and starts talking bluntly, without hedging or without equivocation. I like everything else about him, except for his opportunistic political persona.
February 23rd, 2011 at 3:12 pm
#55:
It depends on the issue as to who’s more conservative. On economics, probably Romney. Social issues go to Huckabee. Both are reliably conservative on foreign affairs.
The bitterness between their supporters are leftover wounds from 2008. It’s partially why I say we shouldn’t nominate anyone from 2008. Why fight the wars of yester year?
February 23rd, 2011 at 3:16 pm
Agree with Lori.
I think it’s silly that so many so-called “Conservatives” never took issue with Romney’s Health plan in the 2008 primary. When the law passed in Mass., it was supported by the Heritage Foundation for crying out loud.
Furthermore, the plan that came out was far different than what Romney had originally intended it to be. Romney vetoed eight liberal provisions in the bill, which was overridden by the Democrat-controlled Legislature.
The plan was supported by the great majority of people in Mass. as well. Romney served something that was crafted by the people, for the people. He gave the state in which he served exactly what THEY wanted, not what Georgia wanted, not what Florida wanted, not what Texas wanted, but what MASSACHUSETTS wanted.
Romney has never been for a national mandate on Health Care. In my opinion, Romney is a true servant of his people. He came in and fixed the 2002 Olympics making it extremely profitable for Utah. He turned around businesses, making hard decisions at times (meaning he had to lay off people for the greater good), and saved jobs. Staples and Dominos would not be where it is today without Mitt Romney.
I just think this attack on Romney’s Mass Health plan is way overblown. Reagan did practically the same thing in California when he supported Public Unions and Abortion. He turned out to be one of the greatest presidents in history. Should we throw Romney out just because he did things that Reagan did? Does judging past records in this manner really have meaningful effects on the success of a president? In the case of Ronald Reagan – of course not.
February 23rd, 2011 at 3:20 pm
@#50 – So would you find it a good idea to promote your blue collar co-employee to CEO of a multi-billion dollar company or would you put it in the hands of an experienced fiscally sound former CEO of a multi billion dollar company that excelled at his job?
I don’t like the class-envy/class-hatred comments made by Huckabee parties to try to knock Mitt. Try something else and I may listen.
February 23rd, 2011 at 3:21 pm
Lori,
Just for you.
Is not the economy the greatest issue concerning voters?
Sure is. That being the case it’s an awful shame in this economy to saddle the poor folks with excess bills in the form of mandatory health care that they wouldn’t have had to pay prior to Romney’s big idea.
Did Romney rather than force his plan down the throats of Massachusetts citizens have overwhelming support from all concerned?
So the majority of Republicans who opposed the idea don’t count? The significant minority of residents in Mass. opposed to this plan did indeed have it FORCED upon them.
And is that the argument you want to make? If Obama convinces 51 percent of the public that they have to pay for some brand new social program, are you going to shrug your shoulders and be content with that?
Is Romney most fluent and well-versed with the healthcare industry moreso than any other?
Does that matter even a bit of 80-90 percent of the party DISAGREES with Romney’s position?
As for the Obama stuff – whatever. I don’t care to speculate why Obama didn’t ask Romney’s opinion on forming the law. I care about how Romney’s support for the state law impacts the debate and how it will affect our chances in 2012. My contention continues to be that Romney’s nomination only undermines our chances of victory.
February 23rd, 2011 at 3:22 pm
Successful candidates cannot be evaluated based on how similar to Ronald Reagan they are.
Reagan while possessing many attributes we should admire in a leader had to face entirely different challenges in his time than we have in ours. In many ways Reagan had a far easier challenge than we do. He just had to do some overdue policy tweaks to keep things running. We have to face challenges to the most basic levels of our economy and society, which will demand major action within the next few years to head off catastrophe.
February 23rd, 2011 at 3:25 pm
“I see the “everyone against Romney is anti-Mormon” and “opposing Palin makes you a RINO” tripe as two sides of the same coin. It’s part of the danger, I think, of personality driven politics. It ends up being more about the person instead of their actual ideas or policies.”
Agreed. While, it should be about the person to an extent seeing as how we don’t elect policies, it should be a discussion that doesn’t deify the person. Alas, however, the impulse behind emperor worship seems to be alive.
February 23rd, 2011 at 3:25 pm
Adam X:
“So the majority of Republicans who opposed the idea don’t count? The significant minority of residents in Mass. opposed to this plan did indeed have it FORCED upon them.
And is that the argument you want to make? If Obama convinces 51 percent of the public that they have to pay for some brand new social program, are you going to shrug your shoulders and be content with that?”
Like it or not, but that is the Federalist way. This is exactly how the framers of the Constitution intended States to pass laws – with elected majorities.
You seriously need to stop acting as if Obama has the same power as States do. HE DOES NOT. Judge Vinson made that clear, and James Madison and Thomas Jefferson made that clear. If you do not understand this KEY difference, you should not call yourself a true “Classic Liberal” or Federalist Conservative.
February 23rd, 2011 at 3:26 pm
#61:
Oh please. I’m no Huckabee fan (I voted for Giuliani in 2008), but simply to ignore the fact that blue collar voters have shown they like Huckabee more than Romney is willful blindness.
I’ve said since 2008 that Romney supporters shouldn’t underestimate Mike Huckabee, yet it seems they are willing to make that mistake again.
(I have to go to class so I won’t be responding for a while).
February 23rd, 2011 at 3:27 pm
In the General, the debate will be about increasing the % of covered, pre-existing conditions, costs, and little johnny who died because he didn’t have insurance. I don’t know if Romney is the best guy to address those, but the mandates will play a much greater role in the primaries and a lesser role in the General.
February 23rd, 2011 at 3:33 pm
Jonathan:
How can we underestimate him when he hasn’t even made any inclination whatsoever that he even wants the job. Romney has been campaigning incessantly since his very graceful exit from the 2008 Primary. He gave more money to more candidates than any other 2012 hopeful, including Sarah Palin.
People are going to see that Romney is the one doing the hard work, when Huckabee has been enjoying making money at Fox. More importantly, however, is that all of those candidates that Romney helped out are going to come back, big time, with their support in 2012. That gives Romney more than enough edge that he will need to beat out the rest.
February 23rd, 2011 at 3:34 pm
#66 – and although you claim to not be a Huckabee fan you use one of his quotes to try to slam a candidate on his financial status/acumen. If people follow that logic then I feel sorry for the general blue collar group as they would not have their blue collar job if it wasn’t for the management/owners/”Guy that looks like he would lay you off”. I’m not disputing the thought that Huckabee is a force to be reconed with. I just dislike the propogating of this kind of mindset in the blue collar working class of the country – Hate the wealthy! It doesn’t bode well for society, in my opinon.
February 23rd, 2011 at 3:35 pm
Like it or not, but that is the Federalist way. This is exactly how the framers of the Constitution intended States to pass laws – with elected majorities.
And it’s exactly why SCOTUS can strike these laws down if they are not in keeping with the constitution. It’s hard to see how government forcing a person to buy a product (insurance) is not constitutional nationally – but somehow okay on the state level. If SCOTUS rules against the individual mandate in ObamaCare there WILL be a trickle down to the states.
February 23rd, 2011 at 3:38 pm
I’ve felt this way for a long time. Who else has even touched healthcare, much less in a way that garners support of the majority of the state and its representatives? Nobody. I don’t see it as a liability, that’s just a line for haters. The man is principled and experienced.
Mitt ROMNEY/Allen WEST 2012
February 23rd, 2011 at 3:39 pm
In the General, the debate will be about increasing the % of covered, pre-existing conditions, costs, and little johnny who died because he didn’t have insurance. I don’t know if Romney is the best guy to address those, but the mandates will play a much greater role in the primaries and a lesser role in the General.
I can respect that argument – but I really believe the GOP has made a persuasive case against the individual mandate. Polling among all voters (not just Republicans) suggests a lack of public support for the plan.
I think you’re right. The Dems will try their typical tack of using people as props. Dick Gephart was famous for this kind of thing. But the Dems usually lost their arguments. Given the newfound fiscal hawkishness the answer to the Dems demand for increased coverage will be met with the GOP retort of, “At what cost?” I believe that THAT message is going to have a lot of resonance in the next election.
February 23rd, 2011 at 3:39 pm
Beat that team. Together they are the whole package.
February 23rd, 2011 at 3:39 pm
And neither one is a career politician. Baby.
February 23rd, 2011 at 3:48 pm
Ben,
Dismissing it as “class envy” is something like telling the ignorant peasants to go eat cake.
What would you do if you were a blue-collar industrial worker who had his job shipped overseas by a CEO like Mitt who was determined to increase company profitability via cheap labor? Would you feel good about watching your nice town collapse into ruin while Mitt rakes in some multi-million dollar paychecks? I’m not trying to demagogue anything here. That’s just the reality of what America today faces.
Did you know America has greater levels of income inequality than Egypt? And by far the greatest levels of wealth stratification within the developed world?
Our problem today isn’t so much that there is no money in America, it is that all profits are being concentrated in just a few hands. Would we be a better country if instead of allowing the gurus of the financial sector to rake in massive profits, these were slashed by driving up wages? Do you believe it is a good thing, that so few of the profits of industry and commerce today are distributed to the actual workers in these sectors?
February 23rd, 2011 at 3:51 pm
Adam X:
“It’s hard to see how government forcing a person to buy a product (insurance) is not constitutional nationally – but somehow okay on the state level”
It’s hard to see? Is this how you’ve come up with what is Constitutional and what isn’t? Adam X thinks, therefore it is??
Try James Madison:
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.
The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”
Take note with the line that says “States [powers] extend to ALL objects”. As you can clearly read, the federal government has power solely over “external objects”, whereas states have power over ALL “internal” affairs.
February 23rd, 2011 at 3:52 pm
“It’s hard to see how government forcing a person to buy a product (insurance) is not constitutional nationally – but somehow okay on the state level.”
Maybe, because federalism and the tenth amendment is all about things not being constitutional on the National level being okay on the state level.
February 23rd, 2011 at 3:52 pm
Does this website really need another Romney apologist?
February 23rd, 2011 at 3:52 pm
“Income inequality?” OK just that phrase hints at idiocy.
I was a millionaire last year, this year I’m broke. So when the class warfare breaks out, which side do I sympathize with?
I am white, but much of my family is Hispanic. When the race war intensifies under liberal rule, which group do I side with? In the US of A, this class and race warfare is kind of pointless, since we are all upwardly and downwardly mobile, and there are no race or gender barriers (compared to the rest of the world). So everyone belongs to many different groups.
It’s awesome, really. And it shows why “progressives” are obsolete.
February 23rd, 2011 at 3:53 pm
Except maybe on this website as of late.
February 23rd, 2011 at 3:54 pm
76,
It doesn’t matter what I think is unconstitutional. It’s just a simple fact that if the federal government can’t force people to buy insurance (and again – there is a strong chance that is what the Supreme Court will decide) you can bet your ass that the constitutionality will be questioned at the state level.
Is it really hard for you to see that happening?
February 23rd, 2011 at 3:55 pm
The mandate is a red herring. Everybody wants health care. Nobody wants to pay for it. The states have made suicide a crime, therefore, the state has mandated that you live. Maybe we should have a rally against the mandate to live? How dare the state tell me I have to live!
February 23rd, 2011 at 3:55 pm
Boo hoo, it’s not that there’s no money, it’s just that the rich have more of it than I do. WAHHHHHHHHAHHAHHHHHHH
February 23rd, 2011 at 3:55 pm
The only way to declare the State law unconstitutional as far as I can tell would be too use the fourteenth amendment due process or privileges and immunities clause ( the privileges and immunities which hasn’t really been used since it was unfortunately shot down in the slaughter house cases of 1873), this would be a very broad interpretation of the 14th amendment – the kind that Conservatives have tended to oppose.
February 23rd, 2011 at 3:56 pm
AHHAHAHHAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
February 23rd, 2011 at 3:57 pm
…and don’t forget the important issue that Massachusettians don’t WANT to challenge the constitutionality of Masscare. Have you overlooked the importance of people who willingly submit to more government, as opposed to having government control forced on you?
Big distinction.
February 23rd, 2011 at 3:59 pm
and don’t forget the important issue that Massachusettians don’t WANT to challenge the constitutionality of Masscare. Have you overlooked the importance of people who willingly submit to more government, as opposed to having government control forced on you?
Jesus.
For DECADES…MOST people didn’t want gay marriage. Did that stop the gays from trying to change the law?
What the hell difference does that make?
I don’t know whether or not the state law could be overturned – but it’s INARGUABLE that a case won’t be made by someone or some group if the federal law is overturned.
February 23rd, 2011 at 3:59 pm
Did you all see Allen West shut down the CAIR plant? It was Chris Christiesh, plus. West comes across as having real strength, and real integrity. That would be very attractive in a candidate at the federal level, since it is utterly lacking in the current administration. He is not a wild card, either. He seems very deliberate and well thought out. Plus, all that military experience. A guy like that should sky rocket into the national arena.
February 23rd, 2011 at 4:00 pm
Adam X – You are wrong. State-level health care programs are constitutional. The 10th Amendment grants all rights not delegated to the feds to the states.
February 23rd, 2011 at 4:00 pm
Does Malcolms brother always descend into angry profanity when he feels provoked in some way? I haven’t seen him around and don’t know if this is a fluke or if he is hair trigger all the time.
February 23rd, 2011 at 4:03 pm
89,
So state laws are never overturned after federal statutes are looked at? Or after other states decide questions of constitutionality differently? That’s news to me.
February 23rd, 2011 at 4:03 pm
(I wouldn’t say that to Adam if i were you…he is getting vewy, vewwy angwy)
February 23rd, 2011 at 4:04 pm
I think attacking the mandate will prove to be ineffective in the long run. In the end I don’t think it will be struck down by the Supreme Court. For the Federal Govt is already involved in health care through Medicare and Medicaid. The real argument should always have been the massive subsidy involved in health care and that we can’t afford it. So when the Supreme Court upholds Obamacare, what are you going to do next? Whine about how expensive it is? The Supreme Court has already upheld its constitutionality. You will never get rid of it. This is why complaining about the mandate is bad.
February 23rd, 2011 at 4:04 pm
Adam X, that is news to you. You are very honest about your ignorance. You can get a free copy of the U.S. Constitution from the Heritage organization. Pocket size. I’ll send you a red pencil to mark it up and excise the parts you don’t like.
February 23rd, 2011 at 4:05 pm
Adam X:
“It’s just a simple fact that if the federal government can’t force people to buy insurance (and again – there is a strong chance that is what the Supreme Court will decide) you can bet your ass that the constitutionality will be questioned at the state level.
Is it really hard for you to see that happening?”
No, I don’t see that happening ever. Everyone in America, except for you, including hardcore Conservatives and Libertarians, believe that States should have as much power as possible.
February 23rd, 2011 at 4:06 pm
CF,
No they don’t. They believe that INDIVIDUALS should have as much power as possible. Then states. Then the federal government.
In that order.
February 23rd, 2011 at 4:06 pm
To the Veggie Tales Rep: I believe the strongest argument against Obamacare is that the Federal Government has few enumerated powers, and healthcare is not one. Second best argument, the mandate is unconstitutional. Third, why don’t we require birth certificates and other documentation from presidential candidates? You have to cough one up to go international on a plane, for goodness sakes.
February 23rd, 2011 at 4:06 pm
“It’s just a simple fact that if the federal government can’t force people to buy insurance (and again – there is a strong chance that is what the Supreme Court will decide) you can bet your ass that the constitutionality will be questioned at the state level”
If you think that calling into question the constitutionality of a federal law automaticaly means calling into question a similar state law, you really need to take a crash course in Constitutional law as it relates to federalism. I believe the current challenge to Obamacare is being made on the grounds of it not falling under the delegated or implied powers of Congress, which has nothing to do with State law. Now, if they were challenging mandates on the issue of personal freedom and making a case on the fourteenth amendment you would have a point.
February 23rd, 2011 at 4:07 pm
Sorry Jeff Fuller. You can keep telling yourself that Mitt Romney is the best to confront Obama on Obamacare. But I can tell you down here in Texas, the local talk radio hosts and those that call into the station want no part of Mitt Romney and his Romneycare.
There are also many national radio show hosts who have talked against a Romney nomination because of Romneycare: Mike Gallagher, Dennis Praeger, John Gibson, Scott Alan Miller, Rich Lowry (Angry Rich), Glenn Beck, etc.
February 23rd, 2011 at 4:07 pm
Someone commented at X’s terminal while he was in the banyo. First comment of his that makes sense.
February 23rd, 2011 at 4:09 pm
Tex CON, I’m moving to Texas this summer, how do you like it, don’t you hate the toll roads, is property tax too stiff for you, and are there really poisonous snakes in the lakes and ponds. If you would be so kind.
February 23rd, 2011 at 4:10 pm
Liz,
Idiocy? Did you know that America actually has lower levels of income mobility than the majority of the developed world? Statistics demonstrate that the “American Dream” of poor people being able to rise to success and prosperity is more of a reality in, say, Spain, than it is in America today.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/08/research_desk_investigates_how.html
You may not like the arguments but the statistics are impossible to argue with.
So Liz, do you think that the fact that the vast majority of profits go into the hands of a few is a good thing? Is it healthy for American society to have such sharp class divisions? And do you think there may be something more than simply character or intelligence that explains the existence of these divisions, which have risen sharply since the 1970′s?
February 23rd, 2011 at 4:10 pm
So radio talk show hosts and their callers want nothing to do with Mitt Romney. Are you tracking that, people?
So we’re going to have to do it without Texas radio personalities. Ouch.
February 23rd, 2011 at 4:11 pm
Adam X:
You’re really just digging yourself deeper and deeper in a hole. Why not stop now and cut your losses on this one?
I’ve quoted James Madison, and others have pointed to the 10th Amendment about State powers. You’re on extremely shaky ground if you think anybody will side with your argument.
February 23rd, 2011 at 4:13 pm
MPC, the reason I know you’re wrong is because I went from having $64 dollars to having over a million in 18 months. Now I’m back to less than $64. I have whiplash from the ride. And that’s just my personal story.
Most of my family has had a milder, but similar ride as most are unemployed under Obama’s rule. The ones that are self-made still continue on.
But to your point, everyone knows that wealth is OLD in Europe, mobility is limited. Shoot, I’ve been to England. You have to pay for your ketchup packets at McDonalds. You should get out more.
February 23rd, 2011 at 4:15 pm
As to your fantasy of whether other people earning more money than I have bothers me, the answer is NOT NEARLY AS MUCH AS THIS ADMINISTRATIONS WASTEFUL SPENDING OF AMERICAN TAX DOLLARS ON ABSOLUTELY NOTHING OF VALUE EXCEPT THEIR OWN RE ELECTION. I think too much wealth is confiscated and used against Americans by Unions, government agencies, and associated crooks. Does that bother you? As a socialist, I mean.
February 23rd, 2011 at 4:17 pm
the biggest TRUST is government and unions that harness Americans and force them to pay for the re-election of government crooks that stick it to the American worker even further. OUCH.
February 23rd, 2011 at 4:17 pm
. “Everyone in America, except for you, including hardcore Conservatives and Libertarians, believe that States should have as much power as possible.”
Uh, no. No libertarian has that idea, as by definition you would not be a libertarian if you thought states should have as much power as possible. This was the philosophy of the South during and after the Civil War, happily the idea that State power trumps individual rights has been soundly defeated and that defeat has been recorded in the Constitution through the Fourteenth Amendment. Adam X isn’t wrong in suggesting that individual freedoms are protected against state power in the constitution. I just think he’s wrong that the issue is being raised in the constitutional challenge regarding Obamacare.
February 23rd, 2011 at 4:20 pm
I think we should just let the primaries play out… and let the best winner win. Let the candidates express their message, let the people choose for themselves who we want represented. Lets not vote for those who are the noisiest… that would be just obnoxious.
February 23rd, 2011 at 4:21 pm
Adam & Jonathan –
Do you think that Mitt’s work at Bain was a net loss or a net gain on jobs? Just because he has made a lot of money does not = jobs lost. Newt Gingrich is quoted as much talking about how Romney has created many jobs through his work. So again you are just propogating the idea that wealthy = greedy and loss of jobs for the others. In your mind you are slipping towards the need for socialism because we need to have equal pay to make is seem like we like everybody in the work force. Economy is #1 across the board and it will be through the primaries and generals. Thus my disdain for people trying to play the class warfare card against Mitt. And yes, that is what you are doing with your comments.
February 23rd, 2011 at 4:23 pm
99, Considering no one gets elected that Talk Radio dislikes I’m sure that ends it for Romney. They’ll destroy Romney’s canidacy just like they destroyed McCain and Huckabee’s last primary season.
February 23rd, 2011 at 4:26 pm
Adam X is a total nutcase.
February 23rd, 2011 at 4:27 pm
110,
Honestly I don’t know whether it’s a net loss or net gain on jobs. And no one here is playing class warfare. All I did was dispute the notion that a national conversation on the economy automatically benefits Mitt. Regardless of what ANYONE might want, there is no guarantee that it will.
Class warfare does exist. And for people who had manufacturing jobs for decades in the Rust Belt, who now work at Wal-Mart for $10 per hour because the manufacturing now takes place in China, I can’t say that I blame them.
February 23rd, 2011 at 4:35 pm
Adam -
So you are saying that due to an industrial overhaul in the US that it means the wealthy are where the target of blame for jobs lost should be placed? Are you saying that somebody needs to be blamed for the flow of industry changes?
Yes – job loss sucks. Been there done that. Then you find something else to do to make money and you move on with your life.
You can’t argue against history when it comes to Romney and knowledge of economy and job creation. Health care issues – sure – I could see both sides of that argument. But not economy.
February 23rd, 2011 at 4:37 pm
Hee hee I suspected as much. Why aren’t you out on the picket line?
February 23rd, 2011 at 4:39 pm
thanks Dr. Jeff! Excellent facts and figures.
February 23rd, 2011 at 5:00 pm
114,
Look man – you don’t need to convince me. But it’s stilly to think there isn’t an element of the electorate that is going to be resentful of a CEO candidate.
I’m not saying it’s what it should be – but it’s hard to argue that it isn’t the case. And it relates to Romney in the fact that some argue that any debate can only help his electoral fortunes. It just isn’t necessarily so, and for the same reason that the country generally elects Democrats in an economic downturn.
February 23rd, 2011 at 5:10 pm
I hate absolutes as well Adam. I do not think that any debate could help. And you are right that there will be a fraction of the electorate that will think so – but for people like Huckabee to be out there instigating that vitrial between the blue collar workers and the white collar workers frustrates me because I think it is just detrimental to our societal make up. Most of my reactions have not been with you but with Jonathan.
February 23rd, 2011 at 5:10 pm
It’s common knowledge in business that consultants like Romney have one golden rule for profitability: fire people. Consultants don’t care about people. Consultants would be 100% behind creating slave sweatshops paid in pennies if it were feasible (oh, excuse me, they already do that when they offshore). Whatever ups the bottom line, is the consultant’s friend. It’s eating the company’s future in order to drive short-term profitability jumps which pay off nice for management and who can jump out before the place goes up in flames. Sounds about like what government in this country is all about, too.
Look, I’m a finance student, and the more you get into business the more you realize that 95% of corporations have no souls. They were designed to fulfill one of the basest desires of men – the pursuit of money without social responsibility. Only those with a very strong founding culture (ex Chick-Fil-A’s Christian principles) can manage to offset the allure of the bottom line.
Elites in America are really nothing more than a glorified class of cannibals who are trying to swindle as much as they can from the country before it implodes. Honest men among them do exist, but they are very few and far between. This is the direct result of a me-first culture.
And Liz,
Data demonstrates that a poor Spaniard has significantly better chances of escaping his humble upbringing than a poor American does. Did you even read the thing?
You can pretend a problem doesn’t exist and that your anecdotal evidence somehow outweighs measurable data, but that would just be consistent with what we’ve been doing in this country – hiding from the truth and from the consequences of our choices.
February 23rd, 2011 at 5:20 pm
MPC,
I agree with a lot of what you write (re: mobility, income inequality, etc). I was an econ student, but now work in an unrelated field. I was just curious: what would you suggest as methods to remedy these problems? I’m somewhat partial to the European corporate model in which labor has position on corporate boards, but I still bristle at the notion of “Europeanizing” our economy, especially at a time when Europe’s economy is facing so much trouble. I could see a slash in the corporate tax rate combined with a labor/corporate board as a way to strengthen the position of both sides. It’s a toughie…
February 23rd, 2011 at 5:23 pm
The wealthy are not to blame for outsourcing even if they are the ones that carry it out – if you were to kill them all off but not change the system, the new wealthy would just do the same thing.
This is the consequence of a materialistic culture that takes no interest in the community or the well-being of others around us, only ourselves. If Americans thought more of their neighbor and less of the perpetual acquisition of wealth, we would not allow our fellow countrymen to suffer and would impose heavy tariffs on most manufactured goods.
Wealth inequality and stratification has a terrible price paid in the moral and social well being of a nation that watches as communities crumble and fracture while the beneficiaries erect ever larger palatial estates to remove themselves from the decay.
February 23rd, 2011 at 5:24 pm
Oh – so this is not the land of opportunity then MPC? We have been sold a bunch of lies. I need to get my aluminum foil cap on to keep all the evil ones out of my head and try to bring down all corporations because they are evil.
Oh my gosh! Finance student where? Yes, a corporation’s task is to build profits. They do that by being as efficient as possible. Do you want a bloated government/corporation with “lots of jobs to make everybody happy” that will only fail in the long run because it can’t stay afloat from continuing to take on the added fat? Go hold a sign for Obama this next election cycle then.
I guess nobody is meant to be wealth in this country anymore. If you are wealthy you are evil – as per MPC
February 23rd, 2011 at 5:27 pm
If you don’t like being blue collar do what you need to build your own corporation so that you can become one of the Dr. Evils that MPC is talking about. LOL – Shane says he likes the European concept of corporations and in the same breath tells us that Europe’s economy is a shambles. Oh the irony.
February 23rd, 2011 at 5:37 pm
MPC -
You’re a finance student? Good, you have a lot to learn about the real world then.
You know what is ironic about your attack on “big bad” business? All of that “evil” you talk of has created a country with the highest median household income in the world. How do you explain that?
Even families in California and Connecticut alone have higher incomes per household than the second highest (Canada).
Yes big business is driven purely buy profits, but in their pursuit of profits, they have made the rest of us little people more wealthy than anyone else in the world.
Romney understands that. He may be “White Collar” and made himself rich in the process, but as America has proven, the little guy greatly benefits from it as well.
February 23rd, 2011 at 5:39 pm
Labor on boards would be a good start. I think Europe’s problems are largely related to their public, not their private sectors – they simply have way too many unfunded liabilities on the books. European nations that have maintained strong domestic industry, Germany in particular, seem to be doing all right.
I think we have to avoid just copying Europe as you said, they are facing troubles too. New crises generally demand new responses we wouldn’t have considered before.
The most direct way I see of helping is simply slapping massive tariffs on manufactured imports, forcing much of it to relocate back here. Tariffs are indeed economically inefficient from a broad standpoint, and previously I would have hated any notion of imposing them, but I think that almost all the benefit to freer trade has gone into the subsidization of useless consumption and the stratification of profits to those who don’t need them. It’s costs have been borne disproportionately by the working classes, and insofar as we cannot exist as a nation of derivatives traders, free trade has simply been a transfer payment from the middle class to the wealthy.
Domestic investment will rise tremendously, consumption will fall, unemployment will decrease, income inequality will shrink hugely, and Americans will lead overall healthier lives and have a healthier society.
The challenge to just throwing up tariffs is of course ensuring that the structure exists to welcome domestic industry once more.
February 23rd, 2011 at 5:44 pm
Scott Alan Miller and Rich Lowry had a real interesting time talking about when they lived in MA under Mitt Romney. They were very upset about the passage of Romneycare, how it has turned out for the state, and how Romney did not step up to the plate when Obamacare was coming down the pike.
But don’t worry, I am sure that K-Lo will still be pushing for Romney over at NRO.
February 23rd, 2011 at 5:45 pm
Adam,
You observed earlier that your only argument with Mitt is electability. As someone who’s read your comments for 4 years, you don’t really expect me to believe that, do you? 4 years ago you were all for Giuliani…..and were convinced he was the most electable, but you stayed with him even after he was smashed in every contest.
This year you support Huckabee on grounds of electability…..the one guy we have incapable of raising enough money to even RUN a campaign, much less win one. Every poll shows Mitt at the top, or statistically tied, of the electability ladder. Beyond the polls, however, he has a 1st-class organizational capacity, while Huckabee doesn’t know the first thing about putting an organization together.
It’s guys like you that nominated McCain….a sure-fire loser. Mitt might not have won, but he would have run a better campaign and he would have come a lot closer….and he MIGHT have won.
Thanks to guys like you, we’ll never know.
February 23rd, 2011 at 5:46 pm
“step up to the plate” – in what way? What do you think he should have done TC?
February 23rd, 2011 at 5:47 pm
Texas,
Oh, really?? Rich Lowry helped write the National Review editorial endorsing Mitt for the Presidency during the 2008 campaign. MassCare was passed in 2005.
February 23rd, 2011 at 5:56 pm
It is hard to understand how the argument that Huckabeee made last year about how the people like him because he reminds them of someone they could stand around the water cooler with and that Romney reminds them of the man who would lay them off can even hold water (pun intended.) Since when can a person who remains around the water cooler create one job for another person? The man at the cooler (when maybe he should be working instead) may be fun to hang out with, but he has no ability whatsoever to create jobs for others. Meanwhile, those who may have to lay people off from time to time usually hire many more than those they lay off. This especially applies to Mitt Romney. The jobs he has created number in the thousands and even more.
February 23rd, 2011 at 6:01 pm
Those two arguing over how to limit profits in this country, are they for real? Or is their dialogue a joke at our expense? I refuse to fall for it. No one can seriously be thinking that “labor”, aka “union thugs” actually represent the interests of the American worker. They are the biggest wealth destroying force in this country to date, and they are practically inseparable from big corrupt government today.
Labor? Good grief. As if they need any more power, wealth, or representation.
Go find some new suckers on some other blog.
February 23rd, 2011 at 6:09 pm
“Mitt might not have won, but he would have run a better campaign and he would have come a lot closer….and he MIGHT have won.”
He likely would have run a better campaign due to the fact that he had economic experience and the election became 100% about the economy.However, he would have started out further back than McCain did, and I don’t think there’s anyway of knowing whether he would have made up the distance and actually finished better than McCain. I think its very unlikely any Republican would have won in 2008. We were fighting a tough uphill battle all along, but the economic crash pretty well sealed the Republicans fate and there was no way for us to escape from being tied to the sinking Bush presidency. Rombots should be happy Romney lost the primary, he would not be a contender this year if he had won the nomination.
February 23rd, 2011 at 6:13 pm
Rich Lowry goes by “Angry Rich” and sits in on John Gibson’s radio show. That day, Scott Alan Miller was hosting the show. Miller was pushing for Daniels. They both talked about living in MA under Romney. Yes the same Rich Lowry who writes for NRO. They also discussed cons of other potential candidates. They did not talk about Huckabee at all. Maybe they thought he was not running. But they were not happy with what Romney did with Romneycare. They talked about how they lived there when Romney was running the state.
Don’t believe me? Why don’t you ask Rich Lowry yourself?
comments.lowry@nationalreview.com
Not sure about Millers email.
February 23rd, 2011 at 6:15 pm
Ben and Dave. My comments were not about me. I was just letting you know what they discussed. They both were pushing for Daniels. They both were disappointed with Romney regarding Romneycare.
February 23rd, 2011 at 6:19 pm
We need someone presidential as our nominee to defeat PRESIDENT Obama.
Someone with economic credentials. A fiscal conservative. Someone with a strong, well-founded foreign policy.
Do we get that in anyone except Mitt Romney? NO.
Mitt Romney is the only one who can defeat Obama on the economy, and foreign policy. The polls show it.
February 23rd, 2011 at 6:27 pm
“the little guy greatly benefits from it as well.”
I once believed that too. But I couldn’t keep lying in the face of the data.
http://www.slate.com/id/2266025/entry/2266026
When adjusted for inflation, real wages for the majority of Americans haven’t gone anywhere at all over the past thirty years as nearly all the increase in wealth in the nation has gone to the wealthy. However, credit has grown tremendously. This is of course false, nonexistent wealth.
America is tremendous at generating wealth, but as all data indicates, and I would hope our present malaise forces us to examine, it is not being done in a very good way. We can’t live on what is likely near 20% unemployment.
I have said what is plainly clear about business. Unless a company is directed by some overriding moral principles that are imbued into all levels of its organization (Chick-Fil-A), a company has one pursuit, which is money. If they could kill someone, if they could use slavery, if they could lie, cheat, steal, and con via monopolistic power or government influence, and it increases the bottom line, then to a corporation it is good. Now, if we were a society that was based on Christian principles, or some sort of necessity of social solidarity and tradition (like Europe), we would not allow corporations to place the pursuit of money above all other moral objectives. However, since America is largely materialistic in personal attitudes, a very me-first society, it is natural that our corporations would act the same way, and use any means possible to acquire more money. In America, money is the ultimate good.
It’s obvious likewise that businesses pursue short term benefit over long-term gains because of the profit mechanism. Managers aren’t paid to think long term. They are paid now, and few have any long-term vested interests in their company. In the short term it’s great to outsource all the jobs. In the long term, they are cannibalizing their workers, who are also the consumers in society. A few rich guys that profit from the process end up owning the whole country, which isn’t worth much anymore, and everyone else can’t find any job other than what the rich guys (like Romney) hire illegals to do. These guys are so amoral they not only export their neighbor’s job, they import slave labor illegally to help them live lives of luxury with the proceeds. And yet, amorality was not a conscious choice they made – it was the result of a culture that values money and possessions more than anything else.
Yes Ben, you have ultimately been sold a lot of lies. I am guessing that you are likely more established in life than I and therefore have some sort of interest and faith in the status quo. Didn’t the government tell us that Obamacare was going to do us so much good? That our foreign policy spending lots of dollars to mess around with Arab countries was something these people loved and that made us safer? How about that the Bush tax cuts were good for the economy, despite the alternative being tax rates comparable to those in the Reagan years? No fool from my generation would be caught dead trusting anything the government or business said about anything – there’s always an ulterior motive to what they are doing.
February 23rd, 2011 at 6:36 pm
MPC:
You still haven’t answered my question. How do you explain America having the highest median household income in the world?
You’re a student though, so it’s understandable that you’ve been spoonfed a crapload of lies at your school.
February 23rd, 2011 at 6:41 pm
What a spirited, bright, and optimistic outlook you have of America MPC. Sheesh! You have just as much opportunity/right to start up your own business/corporation if you want to.
You sir have been fed a liberal line in your “finance classes” and have “been sold a lot of lies”. Let me guess. Ron Paul supporter?
In my best impression of Bobby Boucher – MRC said that corporations are of the debil! It must be true. Go find your safety bunker to hide back in so that the nasties don’t come and meld your mind. Or better yet – go to one of those European countries that you find so appealing in their government/business style. Leave me to the greatest country on the face of the earth to seek happiness for me and my family.
February 23rd, 2011 at 6:44 pm
Liz,
It’s because of people like you that don’t take a thought to anything *but* profits that countries organized on a socialist model have better income mobility than America. You’ve helped turn the nation into one big rat race for money at any and all costs, and where money protects its own, instead of one where we help and look out for each other. I don’t need the government to coerce me to do that, but since materialism is so rampant, maybe European-style socialism is the only solution to prevent our society from imploding.
That we’ve gotten to the point where I am derided for suggesting that businesses should be returning more profits to their workers and less to the already-rich owners and managers, because working-class America is collapsing economically and socially (evidenced in income mobility), is evidence to how far deluded politics in our country has gotten. Not even the left, who used to reliably defend the working classes under leaders like Truman and Kennedy, will do this anymore.
The Romans went through this before, they wiped out their working and middle class because of greed and instituted a permanent class of urban poor reliant on the government (today’s left wing base), while the wealthy through their sole ownership of the means of production became the precursors to medieval feudalism (today’s right wing base). The free citizens who had provided the basis for the Roman state disappeared, and eventually so did Rome.
Hope you enjoy being slave labor somewhere Liz, because that’s the future you are advocating.
February 23rd, 2011 at 6:47 pm
It’s always the young students like MPC that hate big business. I find it interesting because they are the ones who are yet to have real jobs, still live with mommy and daddy, and goof-off with their friends at parties using financial aid and government loans.
MPC hates big business because he doesn’t want to go out and get a job and make a living for himself. He’d rather live off mommy and daddy’s health insurance until he’s 26. He’d rather have the government take care of him the rest of his life so he can continue to smoke pot and hang out in his dorm room.
February 23rd, 2011 at 6:54 pm
Yup – I’m a greedy money hoarding slave driver to be. That is my goal in life MRC. That is my one and only concept that I am following to the end. I want to be wealthy and work hard to get there so that I can make people my slave.
My gosh – I don’t even think you are a Ron Paulite. You are more and more liberal the more you keep spewing out. It is pathetic actually. You probably think that the minimum wage should be raised to $20 so that we all get what “everybody deserves”. Everybody should get a free education because if not then just the elite slave drivers would become educated and be able to become the evil empire lords.
Take a step away from your text book MPC. For your your own best interest.
February 23rd, 2011 at 6:55 pm
For you to be recommending socialism makes me know for certain that you have fallen off the deep end. This conversation has gone as far as it can go.
February 23rd, 2011 at 7:14 pm
CF and Ben,
I attend one of the most conservative schools in the country, and have argued with professors from the left, not the right. I recently got on one for believing that financial markets should be deregulated and then supporting TARP, which is as inconsistent a position as you can get. You either let the market run the thing in good and bad times, or we place adequate restraints against excessive risktaking. I favor the former but Americans are too shortsighted and run by the corruption of money to have a true free market, so a few socialist policies like financial regulation are needed to prevent outright oligopoly.
I am not an active Ron Paul supporter but sympathize with many of his views and have a few friends that are active supporters. I viewed him as deluded in ’08 but wish I had not, I was much like you are today in dismissing his ideas and arguments without being open to the truth of them. He said a lot of things I wasn’t ready to hear, and I think most Republicans still aren’t ready to hear. We like it when they say things our enemies aren’t ready to hear, but when it’s us, look at what happens to Daniels, to Ron Paul. They are beaten ferociously by the guardians of the status quo.
——
“Leave me to the greatest country on the face of the earth to seek happiness for me and my family.”
I’m sorry, I’ll try to stay out of your way as you amass material possessions.
——
“You still haven’t answered my question. How do you explain America having the highest median household income in the world?”
Besides the fact that we work like slaves compared to other developed countries, it is quite easy. Let me show you with an example. Rich American venture capitalist (Mitt Romney) goes into the office when he’s not cruising Hawaii and has hundreds of millions. Most are kept in tax reserves in the Cayman Islands. American workers make $30000 a year working like dogs, no benefits. The can’t afford the good lobbyists the venture capitalist can. Meanwhile, Frenchie capitalist faces a socialist taxation scheme and tariff policies that makes him suffer, so he has just a few million. Still enough for a nice Spanish vacation though. And French workers thanks to the socialist taxation and tariff policies make $40000 a year with a light workweek, huge employer benefits, and luxurious pensions. They get nice Spanish vacations in their ample offtime too.
We have high average income, but it is very, very inequal compared with the rest of the developed world. It’s actually more unequal than Egypt’s, and Egypt’s people threw a revolt against the lack of opportunity they had.
February 23rd, 2011 at 7:16 pm
You guys just want to prattle on your red meat slogans and ignore facts, data, and history. Go right ahead, just don’t come running to me looking for sympathy later on.
February 23rd, 2011 at 7:21 pm
Ben,
I’m not advocating for a European economy. I did say that I liked the concept of labor representation on a corporate board, but I also said the European model was failing; therefore, perhaps there should be an intermediate step (i.e. not the adoption of the European model, but something different, and which would work for America).
I think MPC brings up a lot of good points. You were no doubt being facetious when you said the minimum wage should be raised to $20 an hour, and I also agree that is impossible. However, if you were to track how inflation and loose monetary policies have destroyed the middle class, you would also see how ironic that statement is. In 1960, when the minimum wage was $1 per hour, that $1 could be turned in to the bank for .775 ounces of silver. What would .775 ounces of silver be worth today? Roughly $20. So, as MPC has said, real wages have been stagnant and/or declining for nearly 30 years, which also matches up with the dismantling of our manufacturing base and the rise of free trade agreements. All actions have consequences, and no doubt our incessant deficit-spending combined with the loss of jobs that actually produced products rather than just consumed them, has led to quite a few of the problems we face today.
February 23rd, 2011 at 7:27 pm
“It’s always the young students like MPC that hate big business. I find it interesting because they are the ones who are yet to have real jobs, still live with mommy and daddy, and goof-off with their friends at parties using financial aid and government loans.
MPC hates big business because he doesn’t want to go out and get a job and make a living for himself. He’d rather live off mommy and daddy’s health insurance until he’s 26. He’d rather have the government take care of him the rest of his life so he can continue to smoke pot and hang out in his dorm room.”
Don’t be an idiot, I’m the one looking ahead and seeing how lemmings like you have sold out my generation’s chances to live a life free of debt. You favor the extension of a disgusting corporatist system because it’s promised you you can have it all.
No wonder you are Romney supporters.
I have never taken government aid for school, I work 18-20 hours a week which is as much as I reasonably can in school. I avoid pretty much any luxury I can, never eat out, party, buy all sorts of useless consumer trinkets you no doubt are loading up on. Pretty much 100% of my money is invested into my future or into the very basic necessities of life. I’ve had to learn to economize, it wasn’t easy at first since as a kid I’d been far less responsible.
February 23rd, 2011 at 7:34 pm
Some possible sound bite come backs for Mitt to use while maneuvering the health care issue:
“MassCare has a mandate — a mandate to be personally responsible.”
“A state can’t make a mandate. Only the federal government can.”
“A classic sign of intellectual immaturity is to see a solution work in a local case and therefore to blindly apply it to global one. A state solution is not a federal solution for a reason.”
“Before ObamaCare the whole country already had a mandate — a mandate protecting freeloaders. Well, the whole country except my state.”
“What’s fine for a state is sometimes inappropriate for the country as a whole. If not, then the federal government might as well spank our kids for us.”
“The difference? The people wanted mine.”
Any others?
February 23rd, 2011 at 7:41 pm
MPC, you are what we call a “socialist.”
Socialism doesn’t work in Spain, it doesn’t work in France, it doesn’t work in Greece, it doesn’t work anywhere.
In Europe, the rich/poor gap is smaller, granted. BUT, MONEY DOESN’T BUY HAPPINESS!
And SOCIALISM DOESN’T CREATE JOBS!
And, Americans making $30,000/year have smartphones, LCD TVs, decent cars, a roof over their heads, clothes to wear, public schools to go to.
Let’s face it. The poor in America are FAR better off than the poor anywhere else.
The rich/poor gap actually comes from investing and hedge funds. People like Mitt Romney get wealthy from their salaries, and invest their money in foreign companies who are expanding.
In a global economy, the rich of one country DO NOT necessarily get rich on the backs of their fellow citizens. They get rich by reaping dividends from companies that are growing and hiring people.
The working class in America is not extremely wealthy because America’s tax burden is so high. The 2nd highest corporate income taxes in the world, combined with personal income taxes over 15% hurt jobs, and hurt the working class.
I think you need to stop dwelling on the idea that the rich are bad people.
February 23rd, 2011 at 7:43 pm
MPC, the minumum wage hurts employment. Simple math. And it’s proven.
What’s worse, 6 people being payed 30,000?
or 4 people being payed 45,000?
In the 2nd case, 2 people are unemployed.
February 23rd, 2011 at 8:38 pm
I generally favor a very free market that is only limited by a safety net provided for those who can demonstrate they absolutely need it for basic necessities. However, I have a few problems with the general attitude of a great deal of free market types. One problem, is the broad generalization without any willingness to look at the data. For example I’m going to guess that the comment: “Let’s face it. The poor in America are FAR better off than the poor anywhere else.” Is not based on a look at any numbers, but simply a gut feeling that everything American must be the best. Another example of this, would be the common conservative wisdom that tax-cuts always increase revenue. Even the economist who supported Bush’s tax-cuts argued that they did not increase revenue. If we’re going to be taken seriously we need to look at empirical data rather than just assume that its all going to line up with our cherished theories.
Another problem is tthe impression that the hardcore free markets types give that we should have no safety net. I don’t know if there’s really many that favor this, but some give off this impression. Its not going to happen and we only hurt ourselves by making it sound like we would support it.
My final problem, which has especially been coming to me today is this romantic idea of corporations and sinnister view of labor organization. Both groups are run by humans. Humans are generally selfish, though some have been refined by grace. It seems to me that in a free market system both groups should be allowed to operate freely. However, some seem to be of the idea that any action taken by an employer is an act of the free market and therefore, good, and noble; while any action taken by other players in the market is an act of evil that should be destroyed by the government. Someone, on another thread today suggested that Unions should be banned – I fail to see how that classifies as free market. I believe in the free market, but think that if it is considered infallible it will destroy itself. I also do not believe that everything favored by big business classifies as free market.
February 23rd, 2011 at 9:20 pm
@150
Nothing you said applies to anything I said.
First of all, the poor are in fact better off in America than in any other country. It’s not because they are Americans. It’s because the bottom percentages of income in America are higher in USD than in any other nation. Refer to the BLS for the data.
Also, you are making the assumption that I want the government to “play favorites” with corporations over unions. That is simply not the case, and I resent having words put in my mouth.
February 23rd, 2011 at 9:36 pm
151, Sorry the comment was not all addressed to you. As to the poor in America, if you based that statement on data, then that’s my bad. It came across as a generalization someone would spout off based on nationalistic gut feeling rather than data, and you didn’t cite any data, but if that’s not the case I stand corrected. As to the rest of my comment it wasn’t directed specifically or even mostly at you but rather the general feeling I get from hardcore economic conservatives/libertarians. Obviously generalizations are never 100% correct. In regards to Unions I was thinking more about a comment regarding labor further up the thread made by Liz, and a series of comments in a previous thread which were very anti – Union, one person who went so far as to say that they should be banned.
February 23rd, 2011 at 10:03 pm
“I also do not believe that everything favored by big business classifies as free market.”
Thank you John!
Guys, I’m not an enemy of free market practices. I favor the market when properly structure to ensure it doesn’t cannibalize itself due to the selfishness and greed inherent in humanity. I think a market that can be prevented from destroying itself is ideal. Ideally, we’d be good moral people and subdue the profit motive in society ourselves. We would not do immoral things even if they profited us. However, as that is not the case, a pure reliance on the free market without bounds is a reliance on greed, avarice, and corruption to run society, and those things will destroy a free market immediately as it does not profit them.
To put profits-uber-alles is to favor any number of immoral and antisocial behaviors. It is a betrayal of the fundamental commandment to love our God and the second to love our neighbors as ourselves, for we make money our God and would sell our neighbors for it. The profit motive gone haywire is why individuals perpetuate great frauds against this nation without concern to the impact they have on their fellow men. We have become far too materialistic and me-first as a society and it shows in our inability to look out for and stick up for each other. It shows in the fact that supposedly capitalist America is both less equal and less mobile than supposedly socialist Europe. Again, those are the consequences of a profit-oriented society, as money protects its own and has zero motivation not to crush others to increase itself.
Just blindly saying “America is #1!” is being ignorant of the reality of the data and this mentality is what cripples political reform in this nation. We are afraid to face reality, and the right is just as blind and enslaved to its ideologies, slogans, and euphemisms as the left is. America’s huge levels of wealth inequality bear a huge cost as working class society collapses and produces millions of new dependents on the state with a small class of removed elites that own amongst themselves the vast majority of wealth having gotten it by cannibalizing their country. This is why me-first societies do not work and quickly degrade. Do you believe this sort of a division is tenable? The sort that we see born out in economic data that show us continually more stratified since the 1980′s? The ultimate consequence is serfdom.
February 23rd, 2011 at 10:36 pm
Sam,
I do not believe the rich are bad people. If you switched places between the poor and the rich in today’s society, the poor would begin to act the very same way. I believe we live in a materialistic society of people who look out for themselves first and view happiness as the result of material possessions and are driven almost robotically in the acquisition of wealth and profits. The poor and the rich are no different in this. The poor use the government’s legal power. The rich use the financial sector and their ownership and control over the means of production.
It is this, not the existence of rich people, that is destroying our country. People inclined to take far more than they give. CEO’s and consultants that extract profit by erasing middle-class employment. Poor folks that have no shame in taking as much from the workers and taxpayers of the nation as they can get their hands on.
It is the me-first spirit, antithetical to the community spirit, that is destroying us. And it continues unabated today. America must either repent and cast off her love of money to live free (not darn likely), or she must accept some basic restrictions and constraints to ensure the public good is realized. Outsourcing of industrial jobs boosts profits for the wealthy but does so by taking the jobs of the middle and working classes. Do you believe this transfer of wealth is any more legitimate or good than an abuse of welfare by a poor person?
It is not, and if corporations actually had souls, they would recognize that despite the gain in profits, it is wrong to do so.
February 23rd, 2011 at 11:05 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Mitt Romney in 2012!, Daniel Arlt. Daniel Arlt said: Mitt Romney vs. Health Care: “Why RomneyCare Makes Mitt the BEST …: But Governor Huckabee did nothing to impro… http://bit.ly/dLkY3n [...]
February 24th, 2011 at 8:21 am
Ow. My ears hurt. Can we turn it down in here? Adam X, you, in particular, are a real pain to listen to.
February 24th, 2011 at 10:53 am
#30
Adam, did he “flip”, or did he “flip flop”. There’s a difference, he didn’t go back and forth.
February 24th, 2011 at 10:53 am
#156,
“Adam X, you, in particular, are a real pain to listen to”
Agreed.
February 24th, 2011 at 11:26 am
MPC:
I’m sorry you are so ignorant with the facts about our nation. Have you ever lived in a foreign country before? I have. I can tell you that the bottom 5% of our nation lives better, has more toys, and has a better lifestyle overall, than about 75% of the rest of the world.
I only question your education level, because you seem to have not studied the issue very well. If you want to ignore the statistics and other data that I have presented, that is up to you, but don’t act like you know better. You don’t.
I know where you are at right now, I was at your point as well a very long time ago. I firmly believed that Ron Paul was the answer to our problems. But I studied the issue and discovered that he did not understand the Constitution and he did not understand the world at large. Libertarians need to grow up and learn that Ron Paul is a fraud, a charlatan, out to confuse and befuddle uneducated children such as yourself.
I’m sure you will come to your senses eventually, as I did.
February 24th, 2011 at 3:20 pm
“Have you ever lived in a foreign country before?”
Yes, I have lived a couple of years in Argentina and visit often for a few weeks at a time when I can. My fiancee is from Argentina. They have their share of problems especially a lack of respect for the rule of law, but that same lack prevents them from developing the same sort of practices that are cannibalizing our communities and society. Corporations detached from the public good cannot thrive there the same way they do here. Argentines by necessity are family-oriented people.
I have already come to my senses regarding America. She is still fundamentally a good nation with good people, but every last problem she has today is a result of our love of money and material possessions above all other things, which is promoted through our increasing detachment from close communities and through the antisocial nature of corporations which prosper in our legal structure and allow their managers to destroy the country for profits. That is what is slowly destroying us. It has made our people into cannibals. There is no solid republic in history, from Rome onwards, that has not ended up cannibalizing itself in pursuit of short-term gain and in the long term destroyed its society. And we aren’t immune from history.
It is you sir that is ignoring the statistics and the data which show declining income mobility, detached communities, ever-greater income inequality, an economy propped up by easy money and credit cards, a healthcare system designed to make money, and a foreign policy which is inherently repressive in the name of “national security”. We have led the world since before either you or I can remember but our decline is evident to all who are willing to see the truth now. I don’t believe that you were ever a supporter of Ron Paul who is one of the few Republicans that understands how vulnerable a republic is. I believe you’ve always been a deluded Rombot that would rather look the other way and throw red meat slogans than face our country’s challenges head on.
I was not a supporter of Ron Paul last time nor am I this time (though I do believe he is one of the few honest men there), and believed most of his distinguishing ideas were insane, but guess what – when your country is imploding and you are facing entering the adult world for the first time in that country, it humbles you. I realized the truth in what he had said for years and Republicans like myself were too deluded to understand. Things will change – my generation, who came of age after the financial crisis, have never known the days of unfailing optimism except as images from our childhood. We grew up to a nation in a crisis it didn’t want to recognize from the government on down. And we may not agree on solutions, but there is one thing all of us agree with – the status quo cannot be defended.
You are probably comfortable in your situation in life right now. You therefore like things generally as they are. You have already accumulated your toys and your comfortable lifestyle. Therefore, you refuse to see the data and statistics that suggest that may not be the lifestyle your children and grandchildren will face.
February 24th, 2011 at 3:46 pm
#160
You are totally correct about easy money, credit cards, and focus on material wealth.
READ CAREFULLY, THINK ABOUT IT, AND FOLLOW MY LOGIC.
I don’t blame just the corporations for that problem. Ultimately, people are responsible for themselves. It’s your choice how much effort you put into school. It’s your choice whether you smoke pot instead of go to college. It’s your choice.
People are to be held responsible for themselves in a free society. THUS, it is up to the parents and teachers to guide children in the right direction to make wise choices.
Wih that said, where our country goes wrong is its poor parenting and poor schooling.
The corporations are on the sidelines. They profit off of stupidity, because they can. They don’t make people stupid and they don’t make people be ignorant.
OUR SOCIETY has broken down.
February 24th, 2011 at 4:20 pm
You can see though how corporations make evil, antisocial behavior profitable, yes?
Ultimately I do agree with you that responsibility for our moral condition lies with us. But we tend to abrogate that by saying, it is legal, we are free to do it, therefore it is moral. We cannot attempt to remove all consequences of vice without expecting that naturally vice will become more attractive.
Corporations allow individuals to hide behind an entity with no face that allows them to satisfy evil desires – individual profit at the expense of society – if they so choose at little cost to themselves. Our legal structure affords them vast protections and relies on the moral senses of people to do the right thing while removing the consequences of doing the wrong thing. Among real people there are steep consequences of lying, cheating, stealing, and mistreating your neighbor. Even if the law protects you from a bloody reprisal, it does not protect you from the fact that you will be ostracized and cast out from participation in social activity. However, corporations can do all of these things while removing from the individual owners and managers the responsibility for their actions. This is why we have massive firms that buy Congress their way and gladly outsource jobs to up the bottom line all over the place. Evil behavior’s consequences are removed, leaving only the lucrative perks of evil. Evil organizations will therefore naturally outperform good ones unless the good ones are recognized for being good (5% of firms take this strategy) but even then, good corporations are powerfully incentivized to cheat under the table and do immoral things. Profit-seeking at the expense of society therefore naturally dominates the immoral environment in which corporations exist.
By deferring to personal freedom and personal choice (“it’s your choice”) Americans abrogate a sense of social responsibility. It is your choice, yes, but we have created a society that deludes itself into thinking our choices have no consequences. That’s my point. Not that we aren’t free to decide for ourselves, but that we have created a society, part of which is our deference to the profit-motive of corporations as morally justified in themselves, that says no matter what we do, there are no consequences that matter besides what we ourselves get out of it. The natural result is me-first materialism.
February 24th, 2011 at 4:27 pm
MPC:
You use every Ron Paul talking point in the book. I know that you are a Ron Paul supporter, please stop denying it. You need to understand that Ron Paul does not understand the Constitution.
You still dodge my question about the United States having the highest median household income. You continue to use arguments that we have higher income disparity, and therefore we are in a bad position. It doesn’t really matter if there is a high income disparity when the lowest class citizen still lives better than those at the top.
I am a part of your generation, so stop the patronizing. I have a young wife and 3 small children. I am a college grad in Computer Science and have a great career now and ahead of me. I learned to stop blaming other people, as you do now, and simply work my butt off to be the best that -I- can be.
We need less of people like you in society, people that blame others for their others. You say that we live in an economy that is in credit card debt, yet the rest of us are propping up people like you because you refuse to work. A little ironic and hypocritical don’t you think?
I am very comfortable in my life right now. I don’t blame society for my problems. I love this country and what it stands for. I believe that the strength of America comes from FREEDOM – freedom to be as rich as you want to be. It DOES NOT come from people like you that have let others take the blame for your own faults.
February 24th, 2011 at 4:40 pm
MPC:
And another thing. You are so positively, absolutely, without question, NAIVE about what it means to run a corporation. Corporations are made up of people just like you and me, they wake up every morning, eat breakfast, go to work and run a business to help it succeed. They make products to help the every day man live a better life. If they treat everyone like dirt, and produce poor products, the consumer and employee has a right to go elsewhere.
You are absolutely childish in your assumptions and prejudices toward corporations. You simply do not understand that “BIG BAD BUSINESS” started out as mom-and-pop shops selling to their local towns. They grew because people liked what they did. They didn’t steal or cheat their way to the top – they provided things that people were willing to pay money for.
If you are so anti-big-business and so miserable about it, I’d like to challenge you to remove everything in your life that was created by a big corporation. You can thank big business for what you eat, what you drink, where and how you live, and even how you are able to type so proudly on your computer.
It’s a little ironic, and very hypocritical that the very way that you rip on big business on your computer, is the very thing that provided you with the ability to do so in the first place. You can thank big bad rich people like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Linus Torvalds for your freedom to rip on them today. How does that make you feel?
Take a moment and think about the wonderful things big business has done for you today, instead of bashing it. Otherwise, put your money where your pathetic mouth is, and stop using it.
February 24th, 2011 at 4:51 pm
164, I don’t necessarily share MPC dark view of corporations, however, the fact that they produce useful things like the computer is hardly a great defense of them. The southern slave economy produced very useful cotton. Its for greed to be unethical go way too far and still produce useful things.
February 24th, 2011 at 4:53 pm
John Mark:
The south FORCED people to work for them using whips, chains and lynchings. You compare someone getting paid $6.25 an hour to getting beaten and killed? You’re sick.
February 24th, 2011 at 5:02 pm
No I clearly did not say that. I merely said that the production of useful items is not a good defense of an economic system. The fact that you could not read two sentences without entirely misinterpreting it make me think you’re probably not interested in actual discussion, but merely bomb throwing.
February 24th, 2011 at 5:11 pm
John Mark:
I know exactly what you were saying. You believe that success in business can be done at the expense and suffering of the people it employs.
My response was sound. You are saying that people today who are employed by big business can suffer in a “comparable” fashion to the African Slaves employed by Southern Slave Owners. This is an utterly, and completely ridiculous assertion.
There is just a TINY bit of difference between someone who makes minimum wage today (which, by the way, is still more wealth than most people on the planet receive in a week), and someone who was forced out of their homeland and forced to work all day for nothing at the threat of beatings or death.
Don’t dodge it, you know full well you tripped up there with the comparison.
A system which provides extremely useful items, which is sold so that nearly everyone in the country can afford, is a great way to determine if it is a good economic system. It’s also a good economic system when even the people making minimum hourly wage are making far more to what the rest of the world makes in that same hour.
February 24th, 2011 at 7:20 pm
No, I was only commenting on the validity of your argument I said nothing about the conclusion of your argument and the condition of the American worker. I’m sorry you can’t see the difference. Anyway enough with the meta-conversation.
As to the conditions of American workers, I’d say that for the most part they’re not too bad. Pretty much everyone in America except a small percentage who somehow slip through the cracks get food, a roof over their heads, and clothes on their backs. The only basic necessity that a great deal of people are missing is health care, but that’s another discussion. So yes I’d tend to say that the condition of the American worker is not to bad, and America is relatively speaking a good country to be a poor person. The problem comes when you consider what corporations, the government, and individuals (which ultimately make up corporations and the government) are all doing to our future economic health. Yes right now we’re all still pretty comfortable, but if you take into consideration the amount of debt that comfort is built upon we’re in trouble. So there’s my opinion on working conditions for Americans which has nothing to do with my original comment which was meta conversation.
February 25th, 2011 at 1:18 pm
I think Dr. Fuller is right! Nice to see a look forward to a Mitt vs. Obama matchup.
February 26th, 2011 at 4:56 am
#58 I like everything else about him, except for his opportunistic political persona.
I disagree with your perception of Mitt. He has many fine attributes. Mitt is intelligent, kind, honest, trustworthy, hardworking, charitable and is successful in many areas of society: business, volunteerism, government and mentorship’s.
Jeff Fuller is quite right, Mitt having “skin in the game” on healthcare is an enormous advantage in the general election. For or against either plan, fact is Romney and Obama are the two national leaders that led on this issue; everyone else is just a media critic.
That’s especially why Huckabee would be an awful candidate for the Republican Party to run. He (and Sarah, Newt, Santorum for that matter) have really become apart of the chattering class with talk shows, television show, news updates and can/will be lumped in with all the other folks in talk radio, Fox News staff, etc.
America isn’t about to replace the very presidential Obama with someone who has spent the last couple of years as a TV host/commentator.
While I like both Daniels and Pawlenty, it would be a mistake to run a candidate who hasn’t been in a national campaign before. It would be like a welterweight versus a heavyweight (yes skinny Obama is the heavyweight in this metaphor, his ego makes up a lot of the weight). There is just too much unproven about them as they’ve not been on a campaign trail from state to state.
I think our best chance at winning the White House from an incumbent president is to give Romney a good healthy primary fight, short but meaningful and then he’ll be in top form to enter the ring with Obama.
I think he can win it too. Romney’s new motto “Believe in America” is a winner. It’s a powerful statement about our country. Empirically you can tell Mitt has lived his life by this principle.
And it’s very good branding too!
February 26th, 2011 at 2:00 pm
Thanks to Dr. Fuller for his thoughts and I look forward to the next installment. Please don’t be discouraged by much of what has been said here. The perspective that you bring to healthcare debate is valued and your insight is appreciated.
Our political hero, President Reagan, signed the 1986 law requiring healthcare providers to treat everyone without regard to their ability to pay. This law set into motion the chain of events that we have today where certian elements of the population elect not to acquire health insurance knowing that they will be treated anyway should they get sick. Romney and many others have attempted to devise solutions to the problem this law created. Perhaps we’d be better off to repeal the law.
If we can’t constitutionally require people to buy insurance, can we constitutionally require a doctor to provide his services to anyone that walks through the door? Anyone who has visited an American emergency room in the last 10 years knows that they are overrun with illegals awaiting free care. Why not allow doctors to refuse treatment again? It strikes me that this entire debate could go away if medical care acted like a free market again. It is available for those who can pay for it but if you can’t, then you are out of luck. There are millions of restaurants in this country providing nurishing food. It’s available to all who can pay but they aren’t required to give it away to those who can’t even though we all know a person will die without food. Yet, with medicine we’ve adopted an attitude that says it must be provided whether one can afford it or not.
March 10th, 2011 at 1:02 pm
Regarding the Obama administration’s illegal immigration policies, which is pretty much the same as those of the last three previous presidencies, “fuzzy logic” seems to be the order of the day. The reality is that we have somewhere around 20 million people living in the United States illegally. They became outlaws the day they entered. Those who are working are breaking more laws by committing fraud. Additionally, since we have no way of screening these lawbreakers, we should not be surprised to find that 30% of all prison inmates are illegal aliens. Federal law requires that all illegal aliens be arrested, and deported. Yet the fuzzy logic is to ignore the law and look at the potential for increasing the tax base and political power. Even if amnesty were even remotely acceptable, the failure to stem the tide of this insidious invasion gives new definition to the term “fuzzy logic”.