From Politico this afternoon comes news on Pawlenty’s healthcare reform views in 2006.
Commenting on how to insure the uninsured, Pawlenty said:
“If you simply go to the marketplace and mandate coverage, that is an incomplete solution. And Massachusetts didn’t do that and neither would I.
The problem, Pawlenty went on to explain, was that you can’t simply mandate people have something that they cannot afford. He maintains that mandates are desirable, however:
And so, the question then becomes – if you’re going to require insurance — and I think that is a worthy goal and one that we’re intrigued by and I think at least open to, how then do you enable people to access the insurance?”
The solution proposed by Pawlenty?
“‘A combination of new efficiencies in health care and new subsidies’ from the government to help people pay for the insurance being mandated.”
Just like MassCare. As they say, be sure to read the whole thing.
As noted here and across the blogosphere, mandates used to be championed by conservatives as a legitimate tool to solve the problem of the uninsured and the strain they were placing on the system. It was only when Pelosi and the Democrats centered ObamaCare around a mandate that conservatives railed against it. It will be interesting to see how hard Pawlenty fights against Romney and the very ideas he once spoke in favor of… and how T-Paw will choose to reinvent himself on this issue.
(As an interesting side note — in this speech, Pawlenty also recommended limiting or outright banning pharmaceutical companies from advertising prescription drugs…)
May 27th, 2011 at 2:25 pm
Just wait until everyone hears about this, zzpaws 4% will tank!
May 27th, 2011 at 2:25 pm
This is also in the article.
“Pawlenty does not appear ever to have advanced a mandate as part of his own health policy initiatives, and actually shelved the recommendations of two commissions that backed it. But he expressed openness in the 2006 speech to a mandate as part of a “holistic” health care package, and certainly never suggested that state mandates are illegal or immoral — only ineffective. (There’s no discussion in the speech of a national mandate, the subject of current litigation.)”
Moral reason he was open…but they would be ineffective.
For those who are trying to blur the lines with Mitt and TPAW…it will not work.
May 27th, 2011 at 2:26 pm
Ah the Mitten$ psy-ops hard at work.
I don’t think it’s going to work. People don’t like Mitt, they just don’t feel comfortable around him.
They are just looking for an excuse , a reason not to support him. RomneyCare? Okay, that’ll work. That’s why we don’t like him.
May 27th, 2011 at 2:27 pm
And the vetting begins.
May 27th, 2011 at 2:27 pm
…and poor T-Paw has to be the collateral damage…
May 27th, 2011 at 2:31 pm
Smacks, the only reason he said they’d be ineffective was because people couldn’t afford insurance – that’s why he recommended government subsidies to help low income people pay for insurance.
Just like Mitt did in Massachusetts.
T-Paw’s saving grace (the thing he can cling to) on this issue is that he never had the guts to actually implement what he recommended in this speech here.
May 27th, 2011 at 2:31 pm
3
Wow! I never knew I’d hear the truth admitted. But you hit the nail on the head Teledude. You’re absolutely right, every argument against Romney is just fabricated BS.
May 27th, 2011 at 2:33 pm
“For those who are trying to blur the lines with Mitt and TPAW…it will not work.”
It’s not tough to do, because the two men are very much alike. That’s why they are my number one and number two choices, respectively, in this race.
Both are moderate, pragmatic governors of liberal states. Both managed their states with fiscal strength. Both suffer from being less than fiery, charismatic speakers. Both have beautiful wives and family lives.
If the base wasn’t so caught up with hating everything about Obamacare, or Pawlenty had actually implemented mandates in Minnesota, then the two men could be mirror images of one another.
May 27th, 2011 at 2:34 pm
I don’t buy that. Evidence does not support the assertion that the “uninsured” are placing a strain on the system. Having a single, monthly flat-rate fee (the misnamed health insurance most are familiar with) that permits unlimited consumption has driven up demand and prices. And the only effort at containing costs from policy eggheads has been to reduce reimbursements to service providers. The direct result of this is to further reduce health service supply/the number of providers.
May 27th, 2011 at 2:36 pm
If you guys don’t have the abilty to read an article and comprehend it then there is not much hope for you guys.
To somehow go from this:
“Pawlenty does not appear ever to have advanced a mandate as part of his own health policy initiatives, and actually shelved the recommendations of two commissions that backed it.
to this.
TPAW = Romneycare.
It’s a incredible ADMISSION on how desperate you ROMBOTS are with regards to this issue.
wow.
May 27th, 2011 at 2:36 pm
Damn. There is just nobody running I feel comfortable supporting.
May 27th, 2011 at 2:37 pm
Mitt implemented the mandate. That’s (as Joe Biden would say) a big friggin’ deal.
May 27th, 2011 at 2:38 pm
Having said that… a new contender like Palin or Perry could make some trouble out of this for Pawlenty.
May 27th, 2011 at 2:38 pm
9
There may be some studies to the contrary, but I think it’s more principle than anything else. There’s also a lot of “varying” data on whether or not illegals are destroying America, yet securing the border is a foundational principle of Conservatism.
Requiring people to pay oe responsible for themselves is Conservative. It’s the complete opposite from Socialism and Communism.
I could argue that I should not be FORCED into paying for my own groceries as well. I should have the RIGHT and FREEDOM to walk out of the grocery store without having to pay for it. Does this sound Conservative? No. And neither does having the RIGHT to (metaphorically) “walk” out of a hospital without paying your bill.
May 27th, 2011 at 2:41 pm
MarqueG, Massachusetts was spending over $1 billion a year to pay for the uninsured in their state. How is that not a drain on the system? I’d recommend reading this piece from R4’12s very own Dr. Jeff Fuller for more info on conservative support for mandates.
Samck (#10) — which is exactly what I said. Both men found mandates desirable and worthy. Mitt acted on that; T-Paw did not. That may be his saving grace on this issue. But it also means he has to (at the least) nuance his attacks on Mitt on this issue.
May 27th, 2011 at 2:41 pm
Mitt has reached his ceiling.
It’s ALL downhill from here.
People just don’t like him.
Not to worry Smack, this attempt to legitimize RomneyCare mandates won’t tar Pawlenty too badly.
Rombots arguing the mandates point won’t help him. That’s not the real issue, that’s just the most convenient one at hand.
People just don’t like him.
May 27th, 2011 at 2:42 pm
13. Barring some unforeseen development, it looks like it’s going to be a cakewalk for Palin.
May 27th, 2011 at 2:44 pm
Matt Coulter,
Pawlenty has not once attacked Romney on his healthcare plan and has repeatedly and pointedly declined to do so. Since I was actually following him in ’06, I knew that he’d been open to a Romneycare style reform and I assumed that was the reason he’d laid off Romneycare. He’s careful. He’ll let other people beat up on Mitt about Romneycare.
May 27th, 2011 at 2:44 pm
17,
What do you think happens if Perry jumps in?
A four term governor of Texas is going to have a contrast in experience compared to Palin and they probably will share the same pool of support.
I’m curious what you think of Perry’s chances.
May 27th, 2011 at 2:47 pm
17
And when faced with tough choices as Governor of Alaska, what did Palin do? She ran away.
May 27th, 2011 at 2:52 pm
Matt C 15. What I don’t buy is the attempt to make an impression that there was widespread conservative — or even Republican — support for mandates. Had that been the case, there would have been some bills that passed the Republican-majority congresses between 1994 and 2006.
May 27th, 2011 at 2:52 pm
“but they would be ineffective.”
No, in fact, they were not ineffective. MASS had the lowest uninsured population of any in the nation. The people really objecting to the Commonwealth plan are the libertarians who have ideological objections to requiring young, healthy, financially sound people to contribute to the system, but lack the cajones to point out that the thing that made the program expensive wasn’t the mandate, but the assistance to poor people.
May 27th, 2011 at 2:53 pm
21,
There was never widespread support for it. There were a few liberal Republicans that floated the idea in 1994 as an alternative to HillaryCare. Chief among them was Chafee of RI. Mitt, in his more liberal/moderate Republican incarnation, supported those efforts.
May 27th, 2011 at 2:54 pm
I really don’t know a lot about Perry, other than he and Palin are very close friends.
People have speculated that when she said she would see if anyone got in that she liked before deciding if she would get in, that she was speaking about Perry.
It’s possible if he gets in she really might not.
But I don’t think it has ever been his plan to run. I think he might be flattered by the questions, but I don’t think he will do it.
May 27th, 2011 at 2:54 pm
All the “technocrats” supported this garbage before Obama took it up.
This is why we can’t support these soulless wannabes who only want another title to add to their resume. Mitt, Pawlenty, Gingrich — fraudulent power-lusters.
May 27th, 2011 at 2:55 pm
MEM (#18) — great point.
May 27th, 2011 at 2:55 pm
tele –
“Barring some unforeseen development, it looks like it’s going to be a cakewalk for Palin.”
Is she stoping by a school year end carnival on her bus tour barring any attempts to insert herself into other “hometown” type of activities?
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0511/Palin_invited_herself_to_motorcycle_rally.html
May 27th, 2011 at 2:55 pm
20. CF
This is a misinformed statement.
It wasn’t tough choices that caused her resignation.
Thanks for your opinion though.
I can shed more light on the subject if you’re interested.
May 27th, 2011 at 2:56 pm
Off the subject,what happened to residents “beard scratchers”?
May 27th, 2011 at 3:00 pm
27. Ben, Ben, Ben…
You see, this is how they try to bring her down with disinformation.
They cannot tell the truth about her. ANYTHING she does engenders these ‘attacks.’
Here’s the update to the Polutico article you linked:
UPDATE: Rolling Thunder clarifies: “An invitation had been extendd to governor and she accepted,” said the group’s National Parliamentarian, Mike De Paulo. “She was not invited to speak — she wass invited to participate. She wanted to experience the run and see who we are and what we’re about.”
She was invited and her and Todd will be riding in the procession down Constitution Ave.
Just about anything you may have heard in the media is probably as truthful as that headline
She is the only one who gets this dishonest treatment.
Don’t you wonder why?
Because they know.
May 27th, 2011 at 3:01 pm
Adam X (#23) — yep, just liberal Republicans like Lamar Alexander, Orrin Hatch, Charles Grassley, and Kit Bond.
All of whom were consistently some of the most conservative senators rated by the ACU.
But don’t let your blind hatred of Romney stand in the way of facts.
May 27th, 2011 at 3:04 pm
tele -
I was only using it for the humor. If she wants to go on a bike ride w her biker beeotch on the back with her on her way to the school carnival – more power to her.
Take it easy. Enjoy the holiday weekend.
May 27th, 2011 at 3:05 pm
31,
Alexander has frequently been tagged as insufficiently conservative. We both know that Orrin Hatch is going to have to seriously worry about getting the Bennett treatment.
None of those guys you listed are conservative darlings. It’s a fact that the senators who supported the Chafee legislation were on the left side of the political spectrum within the GOP and the party has moved to the right.
It has nothing to do with blind hatred of Romney.
May 27th, 2011 at 3:11 pm
I call them douche bags, but I have too much respect for Massingill…
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0511/Palin_had_invite_to_bike_rally.html
May 27th, 2011 at 3:17 pm
Matt,
Excellent article! There are two kinds of Republicans — pre-2009 Republicans and post-2009 Republicans. Pre-2009 Republicans either support and individual mandate or don’t really mind it. Post-2009 Republicans believe it is government takeover of the health care industry and socialism.
I really believe that part of the reason why the establishment has not taken a fancy to Romney in this cycle is because his presence reminds everyone of the past support of the individual mandate by Republicans. In today’s political context, the establishment must at least half-way obey the base and talk radio, so it puts them in a real awkward position with Romney in the lead.
May 27th, 2011 at 3:17 pm
many conservatives mandate that you pay after (that is why conservatives get branded as heartless since many can’t pay it) you use the service but don’t mandate that you pay before (that is 1 reason why health care costs rise, for those who pay insurance, due to the many who can’t pay for it) you use it.
Oh the dilemma of the conservatives, what shall we do?
May 27th, 2011 at 3:24 pm
Pablo 35:
You just can’t get away with that claim without pointing to the bill mandating folks to buy health insurance that was passed during Republican congressional majorities.
May 27th, 2011 at 3:26 pm
Couldn’t agree more! You’re SPOT ON! That’s what I have been arguing for a year.
We have an energized base. They need to be coddled somewhat so they are motivated to vote. Nominating Romney would be like peeing on their campfire.
May 27th, 2011 at 3:29 pm
33 -
They may not be Conservative darlings now, but they most definitely were when they were elected. Don’t forget that George HW Bush liked the Mandate and Paul Ryan admits his plan has a mandate. I don’t think you can get any more “darling” than Paul Ryan can you?
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/88059/yes-ryancare-has-mandate
http://www.slate.com/id/2292901/
http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/paul-ryan-admits-theres-indvidual-manda
Heck, -RONALD REAGAN- MANDATED hospitals to give service to those who couldn’t pay for it. You can’t tell me Reagan isn’t a “darling” even by today’s standards on the right.
May 27th, 2011 at 3:33 pm
This is the story:
The right loved individual HC mandates for years and years, and it was Mitt Romney who FINALLY got what the right always wanted. At the time he was applauded as a hero.
Now we’re all supposed to bag on him because he only did what Republicans wanted all those years and applauded him for doing it? Sorry, but the real argument should be that Obama and the left finally caved and gave in to the Republicans on this issue.
As I’ve said before, there’s PLENTY of reasons to hate ObamaCare. The individual mandate, at least on principle, isn’t one of those reasons.
May 27th, 2011 at 3:35 pm
Well there it is.
Mitt is all for Ethanol subsidies to continue…he just said this in Iowa.
He once again is getting blasted by every Right Winger who has a web site.
Good luck Mitt….ya going to need it.
May 27th, 2011 at 3:38 pm
Yup, just like every other Republican before Obama hijacked the issue. The GOP has flopped on the issue and so is Pawlenty now. At least Romney’s staying consistent.
I have no problem with mandates at the state level. Don’t want the feds doing it, it is outside of their constitutional powers, but if an individual state wants to mandate it, more power to ‘em. We already have a system where everyone gets basic healthcare. If a person goes to an emergency room they must be treated and that is a drain on our tax dollars. If more people are insured and are paying for it themselves, that is a good thing. I thought we were the party of personal responsibility and free markets. Mandates put the onus on the individual and also creates a stronger health care market place.
May 27th, 2011 at 3:40 pm
40,
SYSTEM INITIALIZED
ROMBOT STRATEGY 1: Buy Iowans’ love.
FAILURE
RECALCULATING
ROMBOT STRATEGY 2: Pander to gain Iowans’ love.
May 27th, 2011 at 3:45 pm
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/27/romney_in_iowa_i_support_the_subsidy_of_ethanol_110011.html
Romney is for Federal Ethanol Subsidy.
TPAW is against Federal Ethanol Subsidy.
Ok, ROMBOTS it’s time to try to blur this line as well…good luck.
hehhhheeeeehheee.
May 27th, 2011 at 3:46 pm
Jeez! Nobody on this site agrees with anybody on anything. How in hell are we going to fix this country if there is no compromised middle- ground? It will, and probably already has become an exercise in finger pointing. No matter what specific solutions any candidate comes up with for any problem, there is a sizable retinue of no-sayers willing to castigate the source of the recommendation or policy just because they are who they are. Lord knows how you ever expect to replace Obama if the political center is radioactive.
CraigS
May 27th, 2011 at 3:48 pm
44. Losers always want to compromise.
Winners always want to stand on principle.
Same as it ever was.
May 27th, 2011 at 3:51 pm
Pawlenty nor Romney will be our nominee.
May 27th, 2011 at 3:57 pm
46
Except when that principle is to “finish what you started” and not quit your job half-way through like Palin did, right?
May 27th, 2011 at 3:59 pm
Test
May 27th, 2011 at 4:00 pm
47.No CF.
You have some bad information.
I can explain it to you if you’d like.
May 27th, 2011 at 4:02 pm
Apparently the latest Romney directive, coming down from Mitt Mountain, the aptly-named lair of Team Romney due to volcanic smoke that it emits, bearing a strong resemblance to Mitt’s hair, is to morph Romney and Pawlenty into a single candidate, thus hoping Republicans will go with the more familiar brand.
I don’t think this is going to work. And even if it does, Mitt needs to remember the old adage, “He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.” Romney has done nothing since 2006 other than make enemies of his fellow Republicans. If he does manage to somehow eliminate all viable contenders to the nomination other than himself, he just may find that Republican voters are so resentful towards him that they’ll jump off the proverbial cliff with Palin or Bachmann rather than nominate “The Hair.” Even if they don’t, good luck getting the base to come out to the polls in the general election for a man who has been making war on his fellow Republicans from Day One.
May 27th, 2011 at 4:02 pm
50
Explain away.
May 27th, 2011 at 4:05 pm
51 -
“Romney has done nothing since 2006 other than make enemies of his fellow Republicans.”
What complete lunacy. Lie harder.
Romney gave more money to Republicans than any other candidate between 2008 and today, and he campaigned all over the country in 2010. I doubt that he has many enemies. Especially considering that he’s already picked up quite a few nice endorsements from Republicans.
May 27th, 2011 at 4:06 pm
#43-
Romney might lose my support over that one. I’m going to have to think long and hard about it after this very important weekend. This weekend won’t be wasted on politics instead it will be spent remembering those that have made the greatest sacrifice for this great nation.
May 27th, 2011 at 4:09 pm
Hmmmm. I thought this was compelling. Pawlenty is not opposed to mandates in principle. I am, at the federal level. Romney has clarified his stance. Pawlenty has not.
May 27th, 2011 at 4:09 pm
#50-
I think you’re a bit off base there. I am a big fan of you and your FPP’s but you’ve gone quite a bit overboard with your propositions that Romney has done nothing but make enemies inside the GOP ranks.
May 27th, 2011 at 4:10 pm
CF,
How about this whole post…for starters
TPAW has always been against Mandates but thought it was a worthy goal morally…..rejected the idea twice as GOV because he said it would not work…but yet the ROMBOTS here says he flipped on the issue…..and was just like Mitt..
BULLSH&$!!!!
Read the DAMMMM article!!
Blur away ROMBOTS, but it won’t get you anywhere.
I guarantee to you CF that within 24 hours we will have ROMBOTS here trying to blur the lines between TPAW & MITT in regards to FED ethanol subsidies for 2012.
It’s not going to work.
TPAW is against.
Mitt is for.
Now let’s play!
May 27th, 2011 at 4:11 pm
Poor Michele.
This is too bad.
http://theiowarepublican.com/home/2011/05/27/bachmann%E2%80%99s-debacle/
May 27th, 2011 at 4:13 pm
57-
“TPAW has always been against Mandates but thought it was a worthy goal morally”
So what you’re saying is TPaw thought HC mandates were morally good, but he refused to implement it? Isn’t that like being “morally” Pro Life, but still refuse to ban abortion in your state?
May 27th, 2011 at 4:13 pm
LIZ,
TPAW was/is..rejected madates as GOV.
TPAW was open to the idea morally and for his committee to look into it.
But he rejected it twice.
Either no one knows how to read here or it’s just a case of wanting to blur the lines.
It’s not going to work LIZ.
Get a grip.
I smell desperation in the air.
This is sweet!
May 27th, 2011 at 4:13 pm
TPaw in his own words 2006 -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E01OCQcvrHc
Brace for it Smack!
He praises Romney, Masscare, and Mandates!
Tim Pawlenty is one of our two best candidates, however, cheap shots on Masscare will not get him the nod.
May 27th, 2011 at 4:14 pm
I can’t speak for DaveG – but I suspect he is talking about Mitt’s Republican opponents for the GOP nomination.
It’s a fact that Mitt got every single one of his 2008 opponents to absolutely hate his guts by his smears and hypocritical “holier than thou” tack.
May 27th, 2011 at 4:17 pm
CF,
Did you read the article?
For GOD sakes man..do you know how to read?
You are just guessing aren’t you?
TPAW had his committee look into the idea of mandates..it was worthy to do so..the idea was worthy.but rejected it twice because it would not work.
TPAW expalined the reasons it would not work in the article.
That’s not flipping.
That’s not agreeing with Mitt.
What is wrong with you people?
May 27th, 2011 at 4:17 pm
50 Its to be hard to cast blurring differences as a hostililty. The Junkies who like TPAW may view it as hostile, but it will be hard to get that perception to spread.
May 27th, 2011 at 4:17 pm
…you’ve gone quite a bit overboard with your propositions that Romney has done nothing but make enemies inside the GOP ranks.
Let me clarify a bit. Back in 2008, it was evident that all of the other GOP contenders hated Romney. Just couldn’t stand him. They would gang up on him at the debates and such. The word on the street was that this contempt was very real, and it was due to the way Team Mitt would systematically attack each of the contenders for being RINOs of various sorts. There was a sense that this was dirty pool coming from someone who had moved from “not being a Republican during Reagan/Bush” all the way over to his status as a down the line conservative in 2008. There was a sense that Romney was shameless, hence the strong emotions he generated on the part of his opponents. That’s why it got personal. It’s going to get personal again. Just wait until Giuliani, who was one of the targets of Mitt in 2008, gets in and attempts to employ a scorched earth policy in New Hampshire, ensuring that Romney’s campaign doesn’t make it out alive.
May 27th, 2011 at 4:20 pm
61 -
Wow! That’s a smoking gun if I ever saw one. TPaw says he supports “Universal Coverage”??? “A mandate by itself…is not enough” WOW!!!!
So Pawlenty wanted to take it even further than Romney.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E01OCQcvrHc&safety_mode=true&persist_safety_mode=1
May 27th, 2011 at 4:21 pm
64. Excellent post.
Lovin’ that last line:
“Just wait until Giuliani, who was one of the targets of Mitt in 2008, gets in and attempts to employ a scorched earth policy in New Hampshire, ensuring that Romney’s campaign doesn’t make it out alive.”
Good stuff.
May 27th, 2011 at 4:22 pm
Rudy has more character than to simply get in to take someone down. If he gets in, he is planning to take it.
May 27th, 2011 at 4:22 pm
64, This may be, but I don’t really see it effecting the general election. It’s political junkies who know the word on the street, not the voters at large.
May 27th, 2011 at 4:23 pm
SteveT,
I already saw it Steve.
TPAW rejected the mandate idea twice in his state.
Brace yourself….Mitt is the one who implemented MASSCARE for his state.
TPAW rejected the idea and gave multiple reasons why.
If you guys want to play the Obama playbook and smear everyone with this mandate brush go ahead.
But Mitt will need to answer the mandate question..and the question of Romneycare..not TPAW.
TPAW SURGE has got you guys sweating…
May 27th, 2011 at 4:23 pm
65
“it was evident that all of the other GOP contenders hated Romney”
You’re right, “the other GOP contenders” hated him. Your original statement was that the entire GOP in general hated him. There’s quite a difference between the idiots Romney ran against in 08 and the Republican party as a whole.
May 27th, 2011 at 4:24 pm
#54: Do you remember the story about how all the other candidates were in the men’s room just before one of the debates, trash-talking Mitt, and then he walked in?
May 27th, 2011 at 4:25 pm
64.
May 27th, 2011 at 4:26 pm
71 Metro,
Yes I vaguely remember that story. Always gave me a chuckle.
May 27th, 2011 at 4:28 pm
Then there was Romney, cutting McCain off 1 minute into his Michigan concession speech to give his victory speech.
And his supporters say he’s a gentleman.
May 27th, 2011 at 4:29 pm
teledude hit the nail on the head in #3.
May 27th, 2011 at 4:31 pm
I think that’s right too. Most people in the GOP have this vague sense of distrust with Mitt. That’s why he never really caught on. The Mandate Mishap is a perfect reason for people already distrustful of Romney to write him off.
May 27th, 2011 at 4:32 pm
It really surprises me how state mandates have become the antithesis of everything conservative and Republican (I’m still waiting for an argument that adequately explains why a state can’t do this, but can do for Car Insurance on personal responsibility grounds).
CF exaggerates when she says it was backed by strong conservatives, but, it was backed by the right. The Heritage Foundation (and you can argue how conservative they are), even though they now have renounced them, were big backers of state health insurance mandates. I followed the 2008 nomination pretty closely and hardly heard a negative blip about MASS-Care.
If you were already diametrically apposed to them before Obamacare, then I can respect that. At the state level, I don’t think you could ever argue that it is illegal. There is a very legitimate debate on its effectiveness, or if government at any level (whether legal or not) should do this.
However, it is really hard not to think that everyone saying state mandates are now the biggest sin only after Obamacare has passed are just deluded sheep.
If this is your single issue against Romney, then I think you probably fit in with comment # 3 by Tele.
If your argument is Romney won’t be able to go Against Obama and Obamacare because of Romney care, but otherwise he would be the best choice, I think you think too little of the Intelligence of voting Americans (hoping not to be proven wrong here).
Besides, I think there are bigger reasons not to vote for Romney.
May 27th, 2011 at 5:04 pm
Romney can’t beat Obama.
May 27th, 2011 at 5:21 pm
What a homer.
May 27th, 2011 at 5:27 pm
#78 – That is open to debate. One thing is certian – Huckabee will never get a shot at it. God, in is hin infinite wisdom and mercy, told him – “NO!”
May 27th, 2011 at 5:28 pm
#80 – Looks like Craigster has re-surfaced. Set your anti-Spamware to MAXIMUM
May 27th, 2011 at 5:28 pm
#3…….After all the denials here by the RomNots, Palinista Extraordinaire Telly comes out and confirms what we Rombots have been saying all along:
“People don’t like Mitt, they just don’t feel comfortable around him.
They are just looking for an excuse , a reason not to support him. RomneyCare? Okay, that’ll work. That’s why we don’t like him.”
I rest my case…
Fortunatelly, there are a lot of folks who think Mitt is just fine….once you pull your head out of the echo chamber…
May 27th, 2011 at 5:33 pm
DaveG-
Thanks for the clarification.
May 27th, 2011 at 5:41 pm
63.
So mandates were worthy to look at? Worthy? How could they be worthy to even consider? Of course he decided against them. There have to be certain factors/characteristics in place for a state to even consider it, e.g. existing percentage of population covered.
It sounds like TPaw was open to the idea of mandates, but decided the concept wouldn’t work in Minnesota. No harm, no foul. But not consistent with the rabid anti-Mitt, anti-mandate fervor certain commenters on here are trying to push.
Selective outrage.
May 27th, 2011 at 5:57 pm
May 27th, 2011 at 6:53 pm
Can anyone listen to this – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E01OCQcvrHc – and honestly bash Mitt’s healthcare stance while defending TPaw’s?
Now maybe this was one of those “clunkers” in his record.
Maybe you love TPaw but are not too crazy about his views on this issue (at least in 2006).
But let’s not kid ourselves with trying to find drastic differences between TPaw and Mitt on this issue.
May 27th, 2011 at 6:59 pm
A simple case of implemention of Mandates vs. rejection of Mandates.
Another report comes out on how Romneycare is crippling the state of MASS.
http://reason.com/blog/2011/05/27/health-insurance-premiums-cont
May 27th, 2011 at 7:00 pm
46 tele.. “Lossers always want to compromise ..winners always stand on principle” And this would be demonstrated by palin as president when it gets tough for her like it did in alaska by doing what?… quiting and then having a movie made about it. I think Sarah is a good person, and I hope she runs so she can step up and take her swings.
May 27th, 2011 at 7:09 pm
3
Teledude, you just earned a lot of respect from me. Your honesty is refreshing.
61
TPaw is no longer credible when attacking state level mandates or Mass Care. Case closed.
May 27th, 2011 at 7:10 pm
85
“selective outrage” – yes indeed.
Seems Mitt’s entire national prescence has been subject to selective outrage this year.
May 27th, 2011 at 7:17 pm
JHO,
TPAW’s Statement on Ryan’s
plan.
“First of all, I applaud Congressman Ryan for his courage and his leadership in putting his plan forward. At least he has a plan. President Obama doesn’t have a plan. The Democrats don’t have a plan. And I really applaud his leadership and his courage in putting a plan on the table. Number two, we will have our own plan; it will have many similarities to Congressman Ryan’s plan, but it will have some differences, one of which will be we’ll address Social Security. He chose not to; we are addressing Social Security. And the Medicare part of our plan will have some differences, too. It will have some similarities also. So we’ll have our own plan. But if I can’t have my own plan — as president, I’ll have my own plan [but] if I can’t have that, and the bill came to my desk and I had to choose between signing or not Congressman Ryan’s plan, of course I would sign it.”
If Mitt can’t get his plan through…would he sign Ryan’s plan like TPAW would?
May 27th, 2011 at 7:27 pm
TPaw was open to mandates, but decided against them for MN. Nothing wrong with that.
But the very fact that he was open to them, just not specifically for Minnesota, did not mean a wholesale rejection of the concept nationwide for any state–and is consistent with Mitt’s position, i.e. let each state decide what works for them.
May 27th, 2011 at 7:33 pm
92
Nice attempt at changing the subject.
TPaw knows the Ryan plan will never get to his desk, so he can boast his falsely-described Conservative bonafides all he wants. TPaw has stolen at least five of Mitt’s major talking points.
And now he is copying McCain’s Straight Talk tour.
He really has no personality. He is a chameleon. He will do and say whatever he thinks will get him nominated.
Too bad, he seems like a nice guy.
And his love for Romneycare has doomed his appeal.
He is now the boring Mitt Romney, instead of the boring Mitt Romney who never supported Romneycare.
Tisk Tisk…
TPAW SLIP!!!!!!!!!
May 27th, 2011 at 7:35 pm
Let me clarify:
TPaw is the boring Mitt Romney who never had much experience creating jobs or learning the ins and outs of the economy and never turned around the Olympics.
May 27th, 2011 at 7:43 pm
TPaw supporters painted themselves into a corner by attacking RomneyCare to the extent they did. Now they are doing backflips and contortions to try to wiggle their way away from it given TPaw’s comments.
No one is disputing that Tim chose not to implement mandates in MN. But his comments are clear that he was considering it and thought that under certain circumstances it would be a worthy solution–even for MN.
Very different than the line we were being fed before. You don’t consider something if you are vociferously against the very principle.
May 27th, 2011 at 7:43 pm
hamaca,
TPAW decision of rejection for his state is better then the decision of implementation of Mitt’s in his state..
…IMO
..check out TPAW’s new youtube video on the debt clock. I don’t have a link.
I’m surprised that NEWT and some others are not using this tool of communication yet in the campaign.
TPAW’s new vid, is again getting good reviews.
May 27th, 2011 at 7:44 pm
Smack @44
Ethonal subsidies are the same a oil subsidies….they all get it…If the oil companies get Federal subisdies, why would the Federal Government deny the ethonal producers if they are both important sources of our energy?
May 27th, 2011 at 7:49 pm
97
Better? Maybe, maybe not.
Enough to win enough votes to win the primary? No.
May 27th, 2011 at 7:49 pm
Wow what a hypocrite T/Paw is!
May 27th, 2011 at 7:49 pm
I have not painted myself into a corner.
Mitt did.
The implementation of Romneycare is a disaster.
To bring up Daniels looking into it..or TPAW finding it worthy to look into it, doesn’t change the fact that Romney “bearhugged” MASSCARE again 3 weeks ago.
TPAW looked into the mileage tax as well…but in the end he rejected it. Does that mean TPAW is pro-mileage tax?
No, of course not.
May 27th, 2011 at 7:53 pm
97.
No problem. But that’s not the point. MN and MA are two different states. What might work in one state may not work in another state. It’s up to the state to decide.
If Tim had been governor of MA and Mitt governor of MN, there’s no evidence that we wouldn’t be discussing PawlentyCare in MA and Mitt not having implementing anything in MN.
Point is that it’s disingenuous to state that Tim has always been entirely against the principle of mandates just because he decided against using them for MN.
May 27th, 2011 at 7:53 pm
The pages of Rombot lore are writing themselves again!
Mitt and Tim governed blue states. Both favored forcing their citizens to buy health insurance at the threat of a public handout. But it was only Mitt who could deliver! Mitt made his blue-state denizens’ dreams come true!
Take that, helpless T-Prawns! Your dude epic FAILED at delivering the handouts his own Dem-side cheerleaders demanded.
May 27th, 2011 at 7:54 pm
LV,
Do you think the Conservative movement is in agreement with TPAW or Mitt on cutting Subsidies for Ethanol?
I often find it fascinating what ROMBOTS actually believe the Conservatives believe in.
May 27th, 2011 at 7:55 pm
103
Try with all your might, there is no way to spin this.
TPaw is not the Conservative health care hawk you all wished he was.
No, he did not pass a mandate.
But he is not the hawk you thought he was.
I will let you grieve now.
May 27th, 2011 at 7:56 pm
104
Mitt supported ethanol subsidies in 2007, he cannot back away now.
May 27th, 2011 at 7:57 pm
100.
There is no evidence to support this. Tim himself has been a gentleman and very fair on the issue, because he knows that mandates are not the liberal tool some of his supporters try to make them out to be. They are certainly not for every situation, probably bad for most states, in fact.
May 27th, 2011 at 7:58 pm
MarqueG,
TPAW rejected the idea twice as GOV.
Rejected not fail to deliver.
Get it.
May 27th, 2011 at 8:02 pm
JHO,
No spin needed.
TPAW rejected twice.
It was in the news at the time…no surprise.
TPAW is ok with Mitt trying it.
I’m not.
Mitt implemented it..it’s horrible
ROMBOTS like it…go ahead run with it.
No spin needed.
I’m quite happy, thank you.
May 27th, 2011 at 8:04 pm
101.
Yes, you have your studies and we Rombots have ours we like to quote. The proverbial truth is somewhere in the middle. Mitt did not bearhug MassCare as you like to exaggerate. He just doesn’t regret having tried the experiment–there were some worthwhile lessons and there have been some benefits along with the bad stuff.
It’s comments like the above that have painted you into the corner. You can’t have Tim even thinking about the concept of a mandate much less verbalize that they’re not a bad idea and are worth considering.
May 27th, 2011 at 8:10 pm
Exactly!
When it comes to political accomplishment rather that blather, Mitt has been the only man of action ever seen. Conservatism be damned! He’ll back any idea and get it passed, despite the naysayers neighing at him, whatever their political stripes or supposed fictional considerations like “affordability”! If he says it’s affordable, that’s all the peasantry need to know. Now shut up and get to work and pay those taxes.
Willard Milton Romney: Figure of Action!
May 27th, 2011 at 8:39 pm
Romney’s Masscare plan was crafted in conservative circles with much support from GOP leadership. We can’t forget this fact.
May 27th, 2011 at 8:41 pm
The Club for Growth is really luke warm on Pawlenty, and their opinion matters a ton to the fiscal conservatives. They paint him as somebody who is spineless and will quickly bow to the pressure of his constituents. Interesting.
May 27th, 2011 at 9:14 pm
111. Do you talk the way you write?
May 28th, 2011 at 9:29 am
111
Who were the naysayers neighing at him in 2006?
The Heritage Foundation? No…
Jim DeMint? No…
T-Paw? No…
Rick Santorum? No…
Masachusetts? No…
Republicans in Massachusetts? No…
Who then?
I CHALLENGE you to find any significant figures or groups who opposed Romneycare in 2006. Good luck with that.