PPP (D) Montana 2012 Republican Primary Survey
- Sarah Palin 20% (23%)
- Michele Bachmann 18%
- Mitt Romney 17% (12%)
- Newt Gingrich 9% (16%)
- Ron Paul 9% (9%)
- Herman Cain 8%
- Tim Pawlenty 7% (3%)
- Jon Huntsman 4%
- Someone else/Not sure 9% (10%)
If Sarah Palin didn’t run, and the choices were just Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, and Mitt Romney, who would you most like to see as the nominee?
- Michele Bachmann 25%
- Mitt Romney 22%
- Newt Gingrich 11%
- Ron Paul 10%
- Tim Pawlenty 9%
- Herman Cain 8%
- Jon Huntsman 4%
- Someone else/Not sure 10%
Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}
- Sarah Palin 72% (76%) / 21% (18%) {+51%}
- Herman Cain 44% / 15% {+29%}
- Michele Bachmann 50% / 25% {+25%}
- Tim Pawlenty 38% / 20% {+18%}
- Mitt Romney 47% (58%) / 36% (24%) {+11%}
Survey of 382 usual Montana Republican primary voters was conducted June 16-19, 2011. The margin of error is +/- 5 percentage points. Political ideology: 39% Very conservative; 39% Somewhat conservative; 15% Moderate; 3% Somewhat liberal; 3% Very liberal. Results from the poll conducted November 10-13, 2010 are in parentheses.
–Data compilation and analysis courtesy of The Argo Journal.
June 28th, 2011 at 1:57 pm
Irrevelant. Montana will swing to Romney and Paul as they did Super Tuesday 2008.
June 28th, 2011 at 2:13 pm
Isn’t it a caucus state anyways? T-Paw continues to show poorly . . . even in a state not too far from his home in MN. I expected Palin to do better here, but I’m sure Bachman is cutting into her demographic big time.
June 28th, 2011 at 2:15 pm
Romney continues to do pretty good in polls despite the Fox/WSJ/Rush/Bloggosphere campaign against him . . . driving up his negatives among the GOP. He needs some more debates to take his case right to the electorate.
June 28th, 2011 at 2:26 pm
Wow! Game on! (this was good for a giggle or two!)
June 28th, 2011 at 2:27 pm
Jeff Fuller,
Sounds like you are in panic mode there buddy.
TPAW 9% is a good showing for him in Montana, plus TPAW’s FAV/UNFAVS ratio is much better then Mitt’s….much better.
And now the ROMBOTS are starting to blame the Conservative Media for Romney’s bad FAV numbers that are starting to pop up…
…hhhuuuuummmmm.
….wait for it…..
……wait for it…….
The Rommney Slide!!!
June 28th, 2011 at 2:27 pm
Bachmann’s having her day in the sun which comes as a much-needed boon for Romney. Get the attention off of him and let the media expose and eviscerate her.
She’s a flash in the pan, the cool, organized marathon runner will win the day.
June 28th, 2011 at 2:35 pm
Smack1968 Says:
….wait for it…..
……wait for it…….
The Rommney Slide!!!
================================
You will be saying this as Romney’s being sworn in.
June 28th, 2011 at 2:37 pm
How is montana close to minnesota? LOL.
June 28th, 2011 at 2:37 pm
The RomRejection is coming!
Mark my words!!!!!
June 28th, 2011 at 2:46 pm
I have to laugh at the RomNots who think this poll matters one single bit.
First, it’s PPP.
Second, it’s Montana.
Third, Mitt leads nationally by 10% and is dominating NH and NV, still leading IA, SC, and FL.
Don’t count your chickens.
June 28th, 2011 at 2:48 pm
8. Troy, Montana and Caledonia, MN are only 1500 miles apart…thats not THAT far, right? lol. I mean, its only 1400 miles from portland maine to orland florida, but who is counting?!
June 28th, 2011 at 2:53 pm
Massachusetts Conservative,
Sure…
Mitt will win NV….not going to mean much….no one else is even going to show up.
Mitt, if he does win NH, will perform under expectations.
Mitt will get beat in Iowa & South Carolina…Mitt is not even playing to win in those two states.
So it comes downs to Florida….hhuuummmmm.
You better hope it’s Bachmann facing Mitt..otherwise…lights out..Mitt is not getting a key to the White House front door.
Romney’s numbers are starting to sink slowly.
June 28th, 2011 at 2:55 pm
12
“Romney’s numbers are starting to sink slowly.”
Really? Where’s the proof? Do you have an older PPP poll from Montana?
June 28th, 2011 at 2:59 pm
“First, it’s PPP.” Of course they love PPP whenever they put Mr. Romney on top.
June 28th, 2011 at 3:01 pm
must be caribu hunting there
June 28th, 2011 at 3:03 pm
Smack…I thought a couple of weeks ago, TPAW was in double digits. What happened?
Isn’t is sad Smack, that someone like Bachman, even with her gaffes, is outperforming TPAW??
What happened to the argument that Palin’s supporters would flock to TPAW…once Palin is out, TPAW only gets 1/10 of her support…wait for it…TPAW surge!
June 28th, 2011 at 3:12 pm
14
Wrong. I always bash PPP regardless of who wins.
June 28th, 2011 at 3:14 pm
Truth is….this poll only means something if Mitt loses everything early. Or if Palin jumps in and it ends up a contest between Mitt and Palin. Otherwise…no.
June 28th, 2011 at 3:17 pm
The poll does show continued weakness on Romney’s part out of the northeast. By itself it doesn’t mean much – but when you couple it with Bachmann’s rise in Iowa it shows that there remains a very large contingent of the party that isn’t sold on Mitt and probably never will be.
How and where that very large contingent divides is going to be the decisive factor.
June 28th, 2011 at 3:20 pm
Smack lets review your score card.
1. Romney is dead now because of Health care…. It has been months since your prophesied fall out?…. = 0 for 1
2. In the first debate Pawlenty will dominate everyone and then destroy Romney and it will be all over trust me….. you were horribly wrong = 0 for 2
3. The T -paw surge is here wait for it wait for it, trust smack daddy…. you were horribly wrong again = 0 for 3
Hopefully for your sake your next predictions will meet with better success.
4. Here comes the Romney slide he wont win.
5. Pawlenty will win the ames straw poll.
6. and the Iowa caususes
I hope you get one right because 0 for 6 would humiliate most people.
June 28th, 2011 at 3:29 pm
zeek,
Romney may easily be dead because of health care. It’s underdetermined. We had one debate with a very large number of candidate – and none chose to attack each other. That won’t last. We’ll see.
It also remains to be seen whether or not Pawlenty destroys Romney. It looks less likely now – but someone is going to emerge as the anti-Romney.
Don’t declare victory before the game begins.
June 28th, 2011 at 3:50 pm
Moving up 5 points, then 10 points without Palin doesn’t constitute a slide.
June 28th, 2011 at 3:50 pm
Texas: Perry does 7 points worse against Obama than Rick Perry.
June 28th, 2011 at 3:51 pm
Correction: Perry 7 points worse than Ron Paul.
June 28th, 2011 at 4:11 pm
Jeff Fuller,
“T-Paw continues to show poorly . . . even in a state not too far from his home in MN”
Dude. At it’s closest, Minnesota is about as “close” to Montana as Virginia is to Connecticut. The easternmost point of Minnesota is about the same distance from the westernmost part of Montana as it is New Hampshire.
June 28th, 2011 at 4:14 pm
Everybody that hears Mitt’s side of the story on health care comes away impressed. He has that question nailed. The bigger story is that healthcare isn’t that important in this election. It’s the 6th opr 7th priority in most polls. This is all about job creation and growing the economy. All Mitt has to say is that some candidates are primarily concerned with healthcare while Americans can’t even put food on their tables. It’s the same mistake Obama made.
June 28th, 2011 at 4:21 pm
As others have pointed out, Mitt is actually up five points in Montana since the last poll, which he wasn’t winning either. He was in third place last time, and he’s in third place no, the only difference is he’s got a bigger slice of the pie this time while a new flavor of the month (Bachmann instead of Gingrich) takes an overblown second. I don’t see how this is in any way a sign of a slide.
June 28th, 2011 at 4:26 pm
Greg,
“Everybody that hears Mitt’s side of the story on health care comes away impressed.”
Not me. So you can scratch that theory. He wants extra credit because he only screwed up in Massachusetts, not the whole country.
Watcinitall and I had a moving discussion about generalization at the end of the last Palin thread. Perhaps you could review it?
June 28th, 2011 at 4:27 pm
Well yeah, except for WSJ, Heritage, and pretty much everyone else.
June 28th, 2011 at 4:35 pm
26,
No he doesn’t. VETO THE BILL. That is the only acceptable answer to the question. He should say, i should have VETOED and accepted the consequences. I should have vetoed with my exceptions listed….and when they overrode me, i could’ve claimed the conservative mantle. Instead, i signed a liberal bill.
It’s bogus to say that Romney has a good answer on healthcare…unless the answer begins with I WAS WRONG.
June 28th, 2011 at 4:41 pm
I’m looking at Bachmann and Palin numbers and I’m thinkin’ the Republican party’s losing me.
If the Tea Party’s push to purge and purify the Republican ranks has been successful, then when is the traditional establishment gonna begin to fight back…
June 28th, 2011 at 4:45 pm
Wow! Looks like more and more people are paying attention to the “real” Mitt Romney:
Sheesh, Mitt. Have you now totally unfriended conservatism before a single vote has been cast?
June 28th, 2011 at 4:51 pm
#32
Reagan knew the only way to get things done was to work with the Democrats too!
June 28th, 2011 at 4:56 pm
33,
Except in 2008 when Romney was pretending (comically to most of us) to be Mr. Three Legged Stool conservative….there was no talk of working with Demcrats. No no no – the Rombot party line then was that Mitt was much better than Johnny McRino.
Now that Romney has changed emphasis and tone, all of the robot Rombots dutifully follow along like lemmings.
June 28th, 2011 at 4:57 pm
Democrats had solid majorities in Reagan’s time. But he ran against them hard in elections.
Mitt’s already signaling an almost giddy eagerness to abandon Repubs so he can work with his Dem buds.
It looks increasingly as if Mitt wants to be Barry’s second-term veep.
June 28th, 2011 at 5:11 pm
If you look at PPP’s generally unreliable general election numbers, Obama is doing significantly worse in Montana than he did in 2008. That more or less bolsters my theory that Democrats have lost the west, and that it’s there that Republicans win this race. Of course the GOP nominee needs Ohio, Virginia, Florida, and North Carolina, too, but if you’re looking for that final state that wins this election, it’s Colorado.
If Colorado goes Republican, which I think stands a very, very good chance, then Nevada may come along, too. But there is a shift in the west much more dramatic than any other part of the country–even the midwest–away from Obama. And that would be a very good thing for whomever ends up with the GOP nomination, so long as they make it a top priority to win Colorado.
June 28th, 2011 at 5:12 pm
When I saw this article, I knew you would all go nuts over it.
Are you kidding?
You don’t want a president who gets things done?
Working with Democrats doesn’t mean raising taxes and spiraling debt out of control.
You guys should all be in straight jackets. You need to chill out and respect Mitt’s ability to GET. THINGS. DONE.
June 28th, 2011 at 5:17 pm
37,
Why didn’t the Rombots like McCain’s ability to Get. Things. Done.
?????
June 28th, 2011 at 5:17 pm
30. I’m going to call bogus to trump your bogus. For the last decade Republican governors have been at the forefront of healthcare reform, striving creatively to address screamingly complicated issues. Huck worked on getting insurance to children. T-Paw tried to use package deals to eliminate the abuse of itemized charges. Daniels creatively used HSAs to give consumers incentives to reduce costs. Romney’s approach focused on universal coverage. Each of these efforts were positive. Romney’s was the most far-reaching. Drawing on conservative think-tank policy blueprints, Romney pulled Mass away from single-payer and instead used market based private insurance as the foundation for his program. Private insurance was threatened under Hilary care. When Romney ran in 2008 the issue was barely raised or contested.
Romney’s approach to achieving universal care was reasonable. It was conservatively framed. He didn’t scuttle the good he could accomplish because it wasn’t perfect.
The folks who get the most hung up on this are the folks who didn’t like Romney in the first place. Demint was fine with Romney last go around. Is he a conservative? he liked what Romney accomplished in Mass. Is he bogus? Romney is disliked by an increasingly smaller group of Republicans. If you never come around, it will mostly because you wouldn’t let the facts get in the way.
June 28th, 2011 at 5:20 pm
It’s a sad state of affairs when just the idea of working with the other side causes people to go into fits. I get questioning his sincerity on this as he didn’t emphasize it last time, but it’s rather incredible to attack the idea of working together. We simply don’t live in a dictotorship where you can get things done without working together. We don’t even live in a country that is majority conservative – at least not by talk radio’s “True Conservative” definition. Therefore, working with the other side is just a fact of life.
June 28th, 2011 at 5:24 pm
No one has answered my question yet. If Mitt did such a terrible job in Mass. with health care, what would you Romnots have done differently given the circumstances?
Read this for the circumstances:
http://articles.boston.com/2011-05-30/lifestyle/29600244_1_health-care-mitt-romney-individual-mandate
June 28th, 2011 at 5:27 pm
MWS: Insurance tends to create a situation where consumers treat medical care like a smorgasbord, but insurance is also the primary market force at work in the healtcare industry. Daniels was on a productive track with his work to expand the reach of HSAs. Romney was on the right track to keep insurance as the foundational market force, since no other market force exists in the healthcare industry.
No insurance is single payer, Hilarycare. Single payer has merit, but it is all government mandated and comes at a high price in terms of inflexibility and rationed by panels . . . very different from our current system.
Romney turned Mass away from single payer. Cost savings down the road may still be achieved because of long term benefits of maintenance care for all, reducing substantially emergency care and the high cost of delayed care.
These issues are complex, but conservative principles still apply.
If you want total government abstention from involvement in healthcare, you are too late, but you do have a candidate in the race: Ron Paul. His Ayn Rand inspired, survival of the fittest approach can be confused for conservative, and is the heartless, gutless way of letting the poor suffer the natural consequences of poverty and rid us of what Ebeneezer Scrooge would call, “the surplus population”.
June 28th, 2011 at 5:28 pm
37
“You need to chill out and respect Mitt’s ability to GET. THINGS. DONE.”
==================================
Done what?
RomneyCare?The blueprint for Obamacare that he cooked up with his liberal friends?
June 28th, 2011 at 5:34 pm
43,
Seriously.
Where were the Rombots when McCain wanted to “GET. THINGS. DONE.” re: comprehensive immigration reform?
They pitched a fit about McCain’s lack of conservative principles.
It sort of matters exactly what THINGS. GET. DONE.
Unless, you know, you have a curious connection to Romney – actual issue positions be damned.
June 28th, 2011 at 5:36 pm
Jeff Fuller, how can you say this is a bad poll for Pawlenty?
He more than doubled his support from the last poll and without Palin in the race, he adds even more support.
Slow and steady wins the race for Pawlenty.
June 28th, 2011 at 5:38 pm
Just wait until the Architect of Alaskan Awesomeness unleashes the Tundra Thunder on the Milquetoast Massachusetts Moderate Mitt. Her poll numbers will be through the roof!
June 28th, 2011 at 5:40 pm
Still waiting for the answer to 41. Choices have consequences. What would you have done? Stand by and let the legislature push through an employer mandate or a single payer system?
June 28th, 2011 at 5:41 pm
44 – Are you saying McCain was a conservative?
June 28th, 2011 at 5:48 pm
44,
I’m saying that Rombots FEVERISHLY kept asserting that McCain wasn’t conservative in 2008 while Romney tried to “out conservative” everyone else and failed.
Now that that strategy failed there seems to be some sort of miraculous metamorphosis on the part of the Mitt brigade where proclaiming the value of “working with the other side” is now in vogue.
That shift in tack is as convenient as Romney’s conversion to pro-life at age 60.
June 28th, 2011 at 5:55 pm
Well, I don’t remember any of that. Romney has been pretty consistent about his ability to work with the other side and get things done.
Are you going to answer my question in 41? If not, why not make that known so everyone can now how weak of a critic you actually are.
June 28th, 2011 at 5:58 pm
41,
I would never have signed the bill. I don’t care what the consequences were. I don’t care about free loaders and I don’t care about universal health care.
I don’t the government, state or local, to force me to buy a commodity or service that I don’t want. I won’t support any candidate, Republican or Democrat, who would implement such a policy. I won’t be badgered or persuaded into voting for Romney and I’ll actively work wherever possible to dissuade others for voting for the man.
Period. End of story.
June 28th, 2011 at 6:06 pm
Mitt does have a record of working with Dems. Wasn’t Massachusetts the first state to “legalize” gay marriage? What other state mandated healthcare & used taxpayer dollars to help fund abortions while under Republican leadership? I can understand bragging about working with Dems on conservative causes BUT Romney’s bipartisan achievements were in liberal causes. Thanks but no thanks!
June 28th, 2011 at 6:15 pm
Romney’s ability to work with Dems in MA led to a constant decline in Repub representation in the MA legislature. His ability to persuade potential voters is apparently limited to persuading them to vote for Dems.
As it is, the Dems he’s eager to go to work with in DC have become even more leftist, since their moderate members were tossed out unceremoniously last November, in particular because they caved and voted for ObamneyCare.
June 28th, 2011 at 6:40 pm
52
You are totally clueless.
Gay marriage and taxpayer funding of abortions were BOTH COURT ISSUES that Mitt had ZERO ABILITY to stop. He opposed them publicly, but had NO POWER under the MA Constitution to stop the Massachusetts Supreme Court.
June 28th, 2011 at 6:41 pm
53
“Romney’s ability to work with Dems in MA led to a constant decline in Repub representation in the MA legislature. His ability to persuade potential voters is apparently limited to persuading them to vote for Dems.”
That is utterly absurd and false. What the hell are you even talking about?
June 28th, 2011 at 6:42 pm
You all DO REALIZE that NOTHING can get done without bipartisan efforts, right? Name the last time Republicans were able to pass a bill in the federal government with ZERO Democrats.
June 28th, 2011 at 6:52 pm
“I don’t care what the consequences were.”
That’s why you’re better off a sniping gadfly and not a leader.
June 28th, 2011 at 6:59 pm
51 — The word was “circumstances” NOT “consequences”. Please revise your biased answer. Oh wait…
June 28th, 2011 at 7:09 pm
Well, Palin might be winning the Montana primary, but things aren’t so good at home:
Poll: Obama beating Palin in Alaska
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57971.html
June 28th, 2011 at 7:16 pm
#59 – Jonathan,
Pfft. Whatever. Alaska is a RINO state filled with RINO politicians. No good conservative EVER came out of Alaska!
I received this on my twitter feed not too long ago. Someone asked Palin tonight if she was getting any closer to making a decision about running this year. Her response? “No. Not so much.” Fine. Wait til December. That’ll be REALLY unconventional.
I liked Palin in 2008. I still admire her strength for putting up with all the mud that has been thrown at her since the minute she was announced as McCain’s running mate. If she wants to run an “unconventional” candidacy, then fine. But she should lose the charade and commit one way or the other.
June 28th, 2011 at 7:18 pm
Watch,
Now, don’t go confusing me with the libertarians…
As far as broad outlines for health reform. I’d favor lower premiums, higher deductibles, more competition, and HSAs. Untether insurance from work. The government can provide a safety net for the truly difficult cases and destitute. So I believe in a kind of hybrid approach, where we utilize some market efficiency, to bring costs down, but don’t let the weak get ground into dust.
June 28th, 2011 at 7:19 pm
Shane,
“Alaska is a RINO state filled with RINO politicians.”
Exactly. When was the last time Alaska voted Republican, anyway?
June 28th, 2011 at 7:23 pm
#62:
The only politicians who come from Alaska are tree-hugging, climate-change loving RINO’s whose economy is mostly based on government subsides. It’s a socialist paradise where no true conservative could ever be from. After all, why else would they support Obama over the Artic Goldfish?
June 28th, 2011 at 7:24 pm
For the record, I think it’s important to have a President who can work with Democrats in a good faith and principled way. Our country is on the precipice, fiscally speaking, and we can’t afford a bunch of showmanship. Now, I’m not saying Mitt is that guy, but there’s nothing wrong- and a lot right- with a President who wants to be a statesman.
June 28th, 2011 at 7:25 pm
Jonathan,
You forgot that they’re all crony capitalist milquetoast squishes.
June 28th, 2011 at 7:26 pm
#65:
OF course. And lest we forget, they are also Quisling traitor neo-cons with the blood of trillons on their hands.
June 28th, 2011 at 7:28 pm
Seriously, if Palin is losing her homestate of Alaska we would be looking at an Alf Landon sized debacle, to a President whose approvals are slipping into the low 40s.
If Palin loses Alaska, then she maybe wins three states; Utah, Wyoming, and Oklahoma. But they’d be close.
June 28th, 2011 at 7:28 pm
Mitt really is the top,the national leader that fit to be the president, a president must be able to work with all party across the country and Mitt had proven record about that,Mitt is smarter,stronger,has better vision for America,he is not only republican leader,he is the entire nation leader that cover all the American people,he is the real deal,the man of people that can work with every situation even in the family,in the public,in the company,in the politic that no one ever done it, the American people really need Mitt leadership right now, only the more experienced can get the job done in the America’s history,no company ever never hire an in-experienced for the job and it is time for republican to unite behind their true leader Mitt to be a strong party and defeat Obama in 2012,the republican must not fight ourselves and repeat one more loser at this time.Mitt is the most Obama and democrats scare that means Mitt is the real,no one else.
June 28th, 2011 at 7:28 pm
64
I appreciate the honesty coming from a RomNot.
June 28th, 2011 at 7:29 pm
I’m coming to the conclusion that America simply doesn’t deserve Palin, and she should sit this one out, just to teach us all a lesson.
June 28th, 2011 at 7:30 pm
#67:
We’d probably lose Utah but if we work real hard and make an intense effort, we might take Alabama. It’ll take hours to call on election night, but we might eke out a win in the state.
June 28th, 2011 at 7:31 pm
MassCon,
I’m honest at least 32% of the time.
And .320 is a guaranteed Hall of Fame average……..
June 28th, 2011 at 7:31 pm
with a President who wants to be a statesman.
I assume you’re including all 57 states in this calculation. Or is it 59 states? I know there were two states he wasn’t allowed to go to.
/end snark (for now)
I would have to agree. We’re going to need SOMEONE who can leverage spending cuts with inevitable (and hopefully somewhat small) tax increases in an effort to prevent a financial catastrophe. I’m a kind of small stature guy, and I really don’t have the strength to push a wheelbarrow full of money up a hill just to buy a packet of Slim Jims and a 6 pack of root beer. An ability to work with Democrats will be a requirement (note: working with Democrats does not simply entail calling them commies and walking out of the room).
Jonathan, does the arctic even have goldfish? It’s been a while since I took Zoology, so I can’t really remember. Maybe she can be the arctic salmon? Salmon can be vicious.
June 28th, 2011 at 7:33 pm
Jonathan,
If Palin is the nominee, our GOTV efforts won’t just be confined to the Alamo, they’d be completely devoted to a single bathroom stall within the Alamo.
June 28th, 2011 at 7:34 pm
#73:
It really is just pick your animal. She’s been called the Artic Wolf or the Mama Grizzly, so I just decided on a completely random animal metaphor.
We can go with Artic Salmon, or maybe the Artic Penguin.
June 28th, 2011 at 7:34 pm
Shane,
It’s 57 states. Don’t be a moron.
June 28th, 2011 at 7:35 pm
“I’m coming to the conclusion that America simply doesn’t deserve Palin, and she should sit this one out, just to teach us all a lesson.” I would not blame her.
June 28th, 2011 at 7:35 pm
In “The Undefeated” they even used a zebra metaphor.
June 28th, 2011 at 7:36 pm
#74:
I just assume that by that point Rick Perry will have led Texas to reestablish the Lone Star Republic. He’s determined to be President of someplace and he clearly isn’t going to be President of the United States.
June 28th, 2011 at 7:39 pm
Salmon can be vicious, but remember that Alaska has King Crabs.
Now, I’m not saying Palin is a crab, or has crabs, but she is tough like a crab.
June 28th, 2011 at 7:41 pm
I’m fine with Arctic Penguin, too. Just as long as the methaphor has nothing to do with the platypus, I’m good. I really don’t care for platypuses (platypi?)
On a more serious note (yeah, I know…), Palin has had more mud flung at her than any candidate I can remember. There are still quite a few members of the left who continue to investigate the birth of Trig. These people are vile. In that sense, I can sort of understand Palin’s (potential) desire to run again, just to show that she made it through once, and she can make it again. I don’t discount that she cares for her country and wants to see it prosper; I’m just not sure she’s the person for the job (then again, I still don’t know who *is* the person for the job).
June 28th, 2011 at 7:41 pm
79
Maybe Perry can be president of Merck.
June 28th, 2011 at 7:43 pm
83,
And maybe Mitt can be General Secretary of the Communist Party of China.
After all – he was happy to ship jobs over there.
And on top of that, he LOVES mandates.
June 28th, 2011 at 7:43 pm
#80 – MC,
Your talk of crabs has now put that Florence Henderson story back in my mind. Thanks for that. (And in case you missed it: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20074639-10391704.html ) Have fun with the brain bleach after reading that…
June 28th, 2011 at 7:45 pm
83
“And on top of that, he LOVES mandates.”
Yes, Perry loves mandates. Mandating pre-teen girls get STD vaccines, mandated by EXECUTIVE ORDER, using a drug that had not been deemed safe by the FDA, and was known not to stop all forms of HPV.
You don’t want to damage your credibility further by attacking Mitt on things your guy has a worse record on. After all, doing such a thing is EXACTLY why you hate Mitt, from 2008, right?
June 28th, 2011 at 7:47 pm
85,
But where’s the waiver for RomneyCare?
Last I heard, it didn’t exist.
June 28th, 2011 at 7:48 pm
84
Lol. Well, Palin shouldn’t have this problem, since Arctic Furs reproduce asexually.
June 28th, 2011 at 7:48 pm
Mass Con and Adam:
Come on, we were having a serious discussion about the merits of salmon vs. penguins and you two have to bring this frivolous stuff up. Stay on topic please.
June 28th, 2011 at 7:49 pm
51 – So in other words, you wouldn’t govern?
June 28th, 2011 at 7:49 pm
Shane,
I totally agree with #80, except the part about platypieses.
June 28th, 2011 at 7:49 pm
86
Exemptions for those who cannot afford it and also for religious reasons
http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/02/massachusetts_gives_more_healt.html
June 28th, 2011 at 7:50 pm
89,
It’s called a veto. I would have done that.
June 28th, 2011 at 7:50 pm
Doing nothing would have been worse Adam X. That is a fact. The Dems were going to adopt an employer mandate. That is a fact. So standing on your principle rather than governing would have resulted in a much worse system. Is that really what you want our politicians to be doing?
That is just asinine.
June 28th, 2011 at 7:51 pm
92 – Wow! Are you really that naive? Do you know how many times the legislature overrode Mitt’s veto?
June 28th, 2011 at 7:51 pm
91,
What about those who just don’t want it?
June 28th, 2011 at 7:52 pm
#90:
The ones you have to watch out for are cats. We all know that they are up to something. Cats are too blase’ to not be up to something. Just like Switzerland, they’re just too… neutral.
June 28th, 2011 at 7:52 pm
94,
Sure. But then he signed it. While Kennedy laughed. He also said it was a good model. He should have fought tooth and nail, consequences be damned.
June 28th, 2011 at 7:53 pm
92
If the legislature WILL NOT pass what you want, what happens then? Total chaos?
That is what is happening NOW to Obama. He and his party REFUSE to work with us. And soon we will have massive disruptions resulting from not solving the debt crisis.
And OBAMA is going to take the heat, because he is president.
He ought to know better.
Well, Mitt knows better.
And you are a total jackass.
June 28th, 2011 at 7:54 pm
#88
Thank you, Jonathan. Now if we could PLEASE stay on topic. As I was saying about Salmon…
Okay, fine, I’ll talk about the Perry vs. Romney issue (as if anyone cares what my opinion is): Perry wouldn’t be very successful on that line of attack. While Perry’s mandate may have had a waiver, it addressed a vaccination issue that should be very private, and between a parent and their adolescent girl. I’m not sure how more strict social conservatives will react to the idea that a governor thinks your 12 year old needs to have a vaccine because she may be sexually active at that age. Either way, I still like Perry. I still like Romney. I’m confused, and I really wish Mitch Daniels would have run.
June 28th, 2011 at 7:56 pm
Adam
“The House speaker, Salvatore F. DiMasi, a Democrat, pressed for two liberal provisions that Mr. Romney opposed: a fee for employers who do not provide insurance and a Medicaid expansion. The final bill includes weaker versions of the two items. ”
“A confluence of other factors also pushed the parties to an agreement. The first was a threat by the federal government to cut $385 million in aid if the number of uninsured people was not reduced.
John E. McDonough, executive director of Health Care for All, an advocacy group, said a looming deadline “became very much a driving force.”
Another factor was a coalition of advocates and religious leaders who gathered 112,000 petition signatures, enough to put on the ballot a measure more liberal than Mr. DiMasi’s bill.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/us/06health.html?fta=y
June 28th, 2011 at 7:57 pm
86 – It would have existed if Mitt had his way. He pushed for an opt out.
June 28th, 2011 at 7:58 pm
#99:
“I really wish Mitch Daniels would have run.”
Me too Shane, me too.
As for Romney v. Perry, I’d rather have Romney. Polls show he can beat Obama, he won’t have the spectre of George W. Bush hanging over him (even though I like President Bush, he is still a political liability), and he hasn’t advocated secession.
Romney has also, I think really showed that he learned his lessons from 2008. He’s running a much more disciplined campaign this time than he did back then, and he’s a better candidate than he was.
June 28th, 2011 at 7:58 pm
97 – And the alternative would have been an employer mandate. Would you have preferred that?
June 28th, 2011 at 7:58 pm
You act as if nothing could have happened if Mitt had just sat on his ass and done nothing.
June 28th, 2011 at 8:02 pm
103,
I would rather see Mitt fight against it. I’d rather see him go down swinging. This is exactly the sort of thing that people don’t like about Mitt. He was just a technocrat that was only too happy to go along. He should have made waves. He should have fought. That’s what everyone else did on the national level. And guess what? It worked. The Dems had their asses handed to them in 2010 and Obama is on the run over his national health care.
That’s the way you advance the ball.
June 28th, 2011 at 8:05 pm
These polls have very small samples so it seems that broad assumptions are the only thing that you can make of them. It seems that Palin is still in the mix despite Bachmann’s rise. The second is the possibility that Romney could be in for a tough fight once it comes down to a one-on-one battle.
I’m sure that people are going to vote for 9-10% unemployment. Maybe $4-5 gasoline. If Palin is so toxic then why are they not pushing her instead of Bachmann? The media wouldn’t be attacking Palin if she was going nowhere. They know their polls are crap.
June 28th, 2011 at 8:05 pm
#102 – Jonathan,
I agree with your points. I can see Perry winning back Indiana, North Carolina, and MAYBE Ohio and Florida. The problem is, we need a lot more than just those states. Romney can also win Indiana and North Carolina, but has the added bonus of (most likely) doing better in Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and New Hampshire (which nets the magic 270 needed to win). He could also compete in Colorado, Nevada and Michigan. While he may not win those states, he will at least make the (D)s direct some resources there, perhaps allowing him to squeak out a win elsewhere. I’m still not sold on Romney, but overall I think he’s a more solid general election candidate than Perry.
June 28th, 2011 at 8:06 pm
I just wonder why all of a sudden now the Romney supporters are extolling the virtues of “getting along.”
I find it awfully curious that now that Romney essentially can’t back away from his RomneyCare (or REALLY look flip floppy) all of a sudden it’s GOOD to compromise.
When Romney was an attack dog against illegal immigration and foaming at the mouth during a debate, “Do they have to go back to their home country first?” – it didn’t seem to me that he would have been willing to compromise on comprehensive immigration. And all the Rombots were fine with that position then – and McCain was a RINO.
All of a sudden NOW when it’s to Romney’s advantage (or at least pereived as such) it’s GOOD t o not take a hard line. Interesting stuff indeed.
June 28th, 2011 at 8:07 pm
105
“Going down swinging” is not the way you CAN do things as governor.
The fact is, governors and presidents are expected to get things done. If they don’t get done, it makes you look HORRIBLE.
It’s one thing to talk out of your ass in the Congress, it’s another to talk out of your ass as governor, when everyone is demanding action. If you don’t do something, YOUR PARTY LOSES.
Now if Mitt were a legislator, he could stonewall and kcik and scream all he wanted, and the GOVERNOR would take all the heat.
June 28th, 2011 at 8:09 pm
105 – In other word, you would like him to be a protestor and not a governor. That is the most asinine thing I have ever heard. Seriously! Who would vote for a guy that sits and pouts when they don’t like a piece of legislation rather than try to improve it?
I’m glad you are exposing us to all your insane political thoughts tonight. It is good to now how weak the opposition is.
June 28th, 2011 at 8:10 pm
#110:
“Seriously! Who would vote for a guy that sits and pouts when they don’t like a piece of legislation rather than try to improve it?”
We have a name for them. They’re called Democrats.
June 28th, 2011 at 8:10 pm
I just wonder why all of a sudden now the Romney supporters are extolling the virtues of “getting along.”
I find it awfully curious that now that Romney essentially can’t back away from his RomneyCare (or REALLY look flip floppy) all of a sudden it’s GOOD to compromise.
When Romney was an attack dog against illegal immigration and foaming at the mouth during a debate, “Do they have to go back to their home country first?” – it didn’t seem to me that he would have been willing to compromise on comprehensive immigration. And all the Rombots were fine with that position then – and McCain was a RINO.
All of a sudden NOW when it’s to Romney’s advantage (or at least pereived as such) it’s GOOD to not take a hard line. Interesting stuff indeed.
June 28th, 2011 at 8:11 pm
#111 continued:
After all, 53% of the country voted for Obama.
June 28th, 2011 at 8:11 pm
108 – Do you have any evidence that people didn’t want to get along in 2007? This seems like a straw man to me.
June 28th, 2011 at 8:17 pm
So, according to Adam X, the best thing that Mitt could have done as Governor was to yell really loudly when the leader of the Mass legislature announced he was pursuing a health care plan that included an employer mandate (which would have driven businesses from the state). Then, when the legislature passed the bill, he should have vetoed the bill and yelled again, in order to make some kind of scene. And then, when the legislature overrode his veto, maybe he could have yelled again.
Honestly. Would anyone vote for someone that would govern that way? I think the answer is obvious.
Now, since we realize that Adam X’s answer is a total failure, would any of the other RomNots care to suggest a better path that Romney could have taken?
June 28th, 2011 at 8:25 pm
Adam
McCain was a RINO because he was a RINO. He is anti-wealth, anti-business, supported McCain-Feingold, Bush’s Amnesty bill, and was called “maverick” for a reason.
June 28th, 2011 at 8:27 pm
Okay, one things that’s a tad disingenuous in this Rombot/AdamX kerfuffle is the implication from the Rombots that Mitt had to sign something and was swept away by forces beyond his control. During the ’08 cycle, when Mitt was proud of RomneyCare, and brought it up whenever he could, he portrayed himself as the man who made it happen. He was the governor who broke years of health reform gridlock in MA. It was his baby. Now that it’s not so popular, the Rombots want us to believe Mitt was simply and nobly stepping up to the plate, and adopting someone else’s bastard child.
June 28th, 2011 at 8:28 pm
These polls show that a Romney/Bachmann race has the potential to backfire on those members of Team Romney that view Bachmann as a Romney foil, who can do the dirty work of knocking out folks like Pawlenty and Newt in Iowa. Bachmann would be hopeless in a general election against Obama, but remember, this is the party that nominated Christine O’Donnell. Romney had better hope that Perry runs to split the anti-Romney vote, because I don’t think Palin is getting into this thing. Otherwise, Mitt had better have some real goods on Bachmann.
June 28th, 2011 at 8:28 pm
So in other words, Mitt was incapable of taking the fight for his cause to the other side’s turf. That’s what Reagan did in negotiations: Target stubborn Dems’ districts for aggressive appeals straight to the voters. This is what Chris Christie has done to get his agenda passed in Trenton.
But Mitt flopped, squished, and floundered like a Massachusetts sea cucumber as the Dem majority ground his agenda into a fine powder.
It’d be better to scare the bejesus out of the country for another four years than to have a pliant, acquiescent Mitt use his skills of advance capitulation that would demolish the GOP from within.
June 28th, 2011 at 8:30 pm
Dave,
What if Perry ends up splitting the anti-Bachmann vote?
June 28th, 2011 at 8:32 pm
One thing the Rombots are also forgetting is when the Proud Papa signed his baby’s birth certificate (with the godfather, Ted Kennedy, beaming over his shoulder), Mitt affectionately gushed that his new baby was “everything we wanted.”
June 28th, 2011 at 8:33 pm
117
It’s not that he HAD to sign it, it’s that what he signed was better than what would have been shoved down his throat.
And he is still proud of Romneycare, in case you haven’t noticed.
Now, he isn’t bringing it up at every opportunity. I don’t think any intellectually honest person can expect a politician to focus on an issue that went from a positive to a negative.
June 28th, 2011 at 8:37 pm
MassCon,
“And he is still proud of Romneycare, in case you haven’t noticed.”
So why are you guys treating it like the redheaded stepchild?
June 28th, 2011 at 8:37 pm
117 – False! Read the Boston Globe article I posted. He was reacting to a bill that was on the verge of going through that would have instituted an employer mandate. If he sat around and did nothing, the status quo would not have stayed the same. You are making up facts. Go read the article and then try again.
June 28th, 2011 at 8:38 pm
119 – You’re an idiot! That doesn’t make any sense at all.
June 28th, 2011 at 8:39 pm
Jax,
So you don’t remember Romney characterizing himself as the guy who broke the gridlock and made health reform happen?
June 28th, 2011 at 8:40 pm
121 – It is what they wanted. It was the best he could do. Do you have a better suggestion? I’m still waiting for the answer to that question from you.
June 28th, 2011 at 8:40 pm
So Mitt’s proud of the accomplishments that were foisted upon him?
That’s an interesting concept to wrap your mind around, I’ll grant you that much. Downright inspirational.
June 28th, 2011 at 8:41 pm
126 – I don’t see how that statement is inaccurate. Are you going to refuse to answer my question? What would you have done MWS?
June 28th, 2011 at 8:42 pm
128 – Do you know how to read? It wasn’t foisted on him. They tried to foist the employer mandate on him. He is proud that he was able to stop that and replace it with something a lot more mild.
What would you have done MarqueG?
June 28th, 2011 at 8:43 pm
Jax,
For starters. I wouldn’t have called RomneyCare “everything we wanted”.
June 28th, 2011 at 8:45 pm
131 – Hahaha! Can you give a substantive answer now? Or are you incapable of it.
June 28th, 2011 at 8:47 pm
112 – I would love to see Romney “foaming” at the mouth. Exaggerate much?
The man (we all agree) lacks that bit of theatre.
June 28th, 2011 at 8:49 pm
Marque, MWS
I never said Romneycare was foisted upon him or shoved down his throat. I’m saying that the nature of being an effective leader is that you push as hard as you can to get what you want, and if the bill isn’t perfect, you still sign it as long as you think it will work the way it is intended.
The fact is, Romneycare is much better than what DiMasi was going to put on the ballot. So Mitt had to settle with a watered-down employer mandate (as opposed to an extreme one DiMasi wanted) and a Medicaid expansion.
But he still loves the bill because IT WORKS AS INTENDED. It returned the responsiblity for health insurance to individuals, and expanded access without breaking the bank or requiring an increase in taxes.
It is not perfect, and Mitt always admitted it’s not perfect.
But he still is proud of the work he’s done, and so are the people of Massachusetts.
And if he stonewalled and screamed, he would have taken the heat.
June 28th, 2011 at 8:52 pm
This one’s for Smackaroo:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/28/ex-bachmann-chief-backs-pawlenty-for-prez/
June 28th, 2011 at 8:52 pm
Dunno. Guess I would have abandoned the state half-way through my first term to campaign for prez by running against it, and subsequently sold off my residences there and renounced it completely.
June 28th, 2011 at 8:52 pm
136
So you clearly have no answer.
June 28th, 2011 at 8:52 pm
134 – or he could have just resigned.
Isn’t that what “true conservative” governors do?
That would have really shown his true moxy and fortitude.
June 28th, 2011 at 8:54 pm
In the ’08 cycle, Mitt portrayed himself as a much more proactive hero in the Saga of Massachusetts Health Reform than you guys are giving him credit for now. To hear him tell it then, he took the bull by the horns and ended many years of dithering in Boston.
Now, to hear you guys tell it, he was the paladin tying to hold back the irrepressible heathen hordes, having to resign himself to saving as many virgins as he could.
June 28th, 2011 at 8:54 pm
136 – More jokes? You guys are hilarious. Have you ever thought of standup?
June 28th, 2011 at 8:55 pm
136 – hahahaha – exactly. Pull a Wisconsin democrat. Beautiful, (all except for the residences part).
June 28th, 2011 at 8:55 pm
MACon, actually, my answer was hidden in plain sight in #119, approximately here:
…just for the sake of citing myself with reckless abandon.
June 28th, 2011 at 8:56 pm
139 – Do you have a link for that? I’m sorry … I don’t trust your account of what happened in 2007. Mitt took a very active role. I have never denied that. I haven’t seen anyone else deny it either. In all honesty, I have no idea what you are talking about.
June 28th, 2011 at 8:57 pm
142 – What would you say to them?
June 28th, 2011 at 8:57 pm
Mitt left the distinct impression in ’08 that health reform would not have happened in Massachusetts without his efforts.
No bill is better than a bad bill, so if he was being truthful then, what I would have done is……. nothing, if I couldn’t get a good bill.
June 28th, 2011 at 8:59 pm
139 – I disagree; I remember that many pundits wondered why he didn’t stump on his actions about health reform more often. Mitt would briefly touch on it during a speech – give it 1 or 2 sentences. Health reform had/has always been a democratic rallying point and it made no sense for Mitt to use it during the 08 primary cycle.
June 28th, 2011 at 8:59 pm
144: “Do you have any idea what the Democrats’ plans are going to mean for the cost of your health insurance, for your sales and income taxes? Well, let me tell you!”
But instead, I figure Mitt relied on a bunch of business consultants and insurance industry bigwigs (read: lobbyists) to hammer out a win-win for all involved. Except for the taxpayers of the type that a Reagan or Christie would have appealed to directly.
June 28th, 2011 at 9:02 pm
145 – toning it down a bit, eh? Mitt didn’t campaign on being the savior of the Massachusetts health system.
Heritage attributed his work to making the legislation much more conservative and business friendly.
June 28th, 2011 at 9:02 pm
145 – Where did he say that?
June 28th, 2011 at 9:02 pm
147 – did not raise taxes, so what are you referring to?
June 28th, 2011 at 9:04 pm
146
That’s how I remember it.
147
Totally, and utterly false. The bill was a win-win for taxpayers as well. Everyone in my state has health insurance, and our taxes had not gone up whatsoever.
June 28th, 2011 at 9:05 pm
147 – That is a good response. It is definitely something he could have done. I’m not sure if it would have worked or not, but I like that approach to governing. There is definitely plenty of Christie that could rub off on Romney. He would be smart to look at the way he has governed.
June 28th, 2011 at 9:06 pm
151 – I think he was referring to the Democrats employer mandate plan.
June 28th, 2011 at 9:10 pm
In Mitt’s defense, he seems to have passed along a lot of the credit to Ted Kennedy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4r9dMP21hM (0:45 mark in the video)
I understand and agree with much of what MWS and MarqueG say on this matter. On the other hand, I also agree with much of what Mass Con and Jax say on this matter. Which only underscores the fact that I should never run for an executive position, because I’d never make a decision either way. In the end, Mitt did the best he could with the turd sandwich he was given. Sure, he probably could have done things differently to make it a better situation; however, his options were still somewhat limited. I just hope he learned from the experience, because if current trends continue, he’ll be challenging Obama a year from now, and he can’t afford (m)any missteps.
June 28th, 2011 at 9:10 pm
Gosh, this article from the time the deal was being hammered out doesn’t make it sound like Mitt was simply making the best of a horrible situation. In fact, it shows that comprehensive reform in MA had stalled but the Romney administration kept pushing to make something happen, just as he said in the ’08 campaign. A couple highlights:
Romney. Made. It. Happen.
June 28th, 2011 at 9:15 pm
155
No, the $385 million cut in state medicaid funding “Made. It. Happen.”
So Mitt saved thousands of elderly and poor from having their lifelines taken from them.
Well done Mitt.
June 28th, 2011 at 9:15 pm
155 – As I said –
Romney. DID. NOT. Campaign. as. the. savior. of. Mass. Healthcare.
June 28th, 2011 at 9:15 pm
And I will add that he kept them from being cut without raising taxes and without a government takeover.
June 28th, 2011 at 9:17 pm
“Except for the taxpayers of the type that a Reagan or Christie would have appealed to directly.”
You do realize that it’s the tax-payers that voted in the huge Democratic majorities in the first place. It’s not like there’s a majority conservative electorate in MA that’s just waiting for the second coming of Reagan.
June 28th, 2011 at 9:18 pm
155 – You are taking a snapshot of the whole process. Read the Boston Globe piece (certainly not a paper friendly to Mitt). It paints the bigger picture. You are talking about one piece of the story.
June 28th, 2011 at 9:19 pm
MWS, how about those quotes from last campaign? I don’t doubt you, I would just like to see how you are taking them out of context.
June 28th, 2011 at 9:20 pm
MassCon,
“No, the $385 million cut in state medicaid funding “Made. It. Happen.”
Don’t confuse the motive with the agent. The funding might have provided motivation, but Mitt was the active agent. As the article noted, negotiations were stalled. The House and Senate were at each others’ throats. Nothing was happening. It wasn’t anything like you guys characterized above- that SOMETHING HORRIBLE WAS GOING TO HAPPEN NO MATTER WHAT.
June 28th, 2011 at 9:22 pm
jaaron,
“155 – As I said –
Romney. DID. NOT. Campaign. as. the. savior. of. Mass. Healthcare.”
The article doesn’t address how he campaigned on the issue. It addresses the fact that- contra the current Rombot narrative- health reform was gridlocked, and Mitt helped break that gridlock.
June 28th, 2011 at 9:23 pm
155 – not sure that legislation would have died without Romney, but whatever. Romney saw a problem and fixed it to the best of his ability. Problems with it, yes. But it was better FOR Massachusetts than their current system. Round and round we will go, but it always comes back to this.
So to recap – you think Romney wanted to pass the legislation because passing health care (a real republican crowd pleaser) would endear him to conservatives or because he was truly a liberal/RINO?
It was not to get something done that would have a positive impact on healthcare in Mass (and yes, I know you can debate the positive impact comment, but just focus on the questions).
June 28th, 2011 at 9:24 pm
MWS
So… Mitt was the primary agent who pushed to get something done when all the legislators were bickering and cowering.
Wouldn’t it be nice to have this man in the White House now?
The House and Senate… at each others’ throats. Negotiations stalled. Sound familiar?
You just made me love Mitt more than I already did.
June 28th, 2011 at 9:24 pm
Jax,
“MWS, how about those quotes from last campaign? I don’t doubt you, I would just like to see how you are taking them out of context.”
Give me a minute. I don’t have many internet resources, and I suck at searching this stuff. Let me at least glory for a moment in demolishing the Irrepressible Heathen Horde narrative in #155.
June 28th, 2011 at 9:25 pm
You still haven’t answered my question MWS. What would you have done differently?
June 28th, 2011 at 9:26 pm
MWS has a great find with that article. There is now ZERO excuse for Romney to say he made the best of a bad situation.
Face it – Romney is a technocrat. He wanted to get his “mitts” on the levers of government and he wanted to write a law that restricted the activities of those who might be opposed to it.
The Republican Party doesn’t want a technocrat. Certainly not in this environment. That’s not to say that Romney can’t win – but like I’ve said all along, it’s going to be with a plurality borne out of dividing the conservative ote several ways. A Romny nomination, should it occur, will be without the enthusiasm of the GOP base.
June 28th, 2011 at 9:26 pm
166 – You might want to focus a little more on your current mission. It isn’t succeeding very well.
June 28th, 2011 at 9:27 pm
MassCon,
“So… Mitt was the primary agent who pushed to get something done when all the legislators were bickering and cowering.”
Yes.
“Wouldn’t it be nice to have this man in the White House now?”
Not necessarily. If the outcome looks like RomneyCare, then no.
“The House and Senate… at each others’ throats. Negotiations stalled. Sound familiar?”
Yup. But then Barack got them all to the table, and got a health care bill passed. Bravo.
June 28th, 2011 at 9:27 pm
168 – Except not (see 160)
June 28th, 2011 at 9:27 pm
163 – I know what the article addresses. I was referring to your earlier statements that Romney was campaigning in 08 as the savior of health care and figuratively “grabbing the bull by the horns.” in campaign speeches.
June 28th, 2011 at 9:27 pm
Jax,
“You still haven’t answered my question MWS. What would you have done differently?”
See #145.
June 28th, 2011 at 9:27 pm
John Mark, I firmly believe that people vote with their wallets, not some obscure ideology or party loyalty. There’s no way to rerun the MA experiment, but judging by outcomes, competent and capable politicians can make voters wake up and realize that evergreen, ever growing entitlements promised as free eventually are anything but.
June 28th, 2011 at 9:28 pm
170 – I disagree with MassCon. Mitt wasn’t the primary agent here. You can’t cherry pick points in time and act like you are telling the whole story. Read the Boston Globe article if you really care about what happened (for some reason I don’t think you do).
June 28th, 2011 at 9:29 pm
173 – Well that doesn’t comport with reality. There is no such thing as “no bill”. There was clearly going to be a bill. The question is which bill.
June 28th, 2011 at 9:31 pm
174 – That’s a tough sell in Massachusetts. Hard to fault Romney for not considering it. I’m sure you will (and have) though.
June 28th, 2011 at 9:31 pm
Scariest quote of the day, today from MACon:
June 28th, 2011 at 9:31 pm
168
Your assessment of Mitt’s motives is totally baseless and laughable. Did you ever think that Mitt thought there was a need for personal responsiblity on health insurance, and he would possibly get praise for it?
You think Mitt is just some tyrannical progressive power monger?
You need to get out more.
June 28th, 2011 at 9:33 pm
Hmm…the Romney health care argument on Race42008..err, I mean Race42012:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsMr0Rqk6tU#t=3m26s
/I have nothing of substance to add
June 28th, 2011 at 9:34 pm
168 – Romney never said that he made the best of a bad situation. He said there was a problem and he did his best to fix it with what he had to work with. I have heard his stump speech on this ad nauseum, I don’t know what else there is to debate on this. He even said that there are problems with the plan.
He isn’t denouncing the plan – he is being honest about it. He got something done.
And yes he did it because secretly he wanted to take over the minds and enslave the populace of Massachusetts – end sarcasm.
June 28th, 2011 at 9:35 pm
170
“Not necessarily. If the outcome looks like RomneyCare, then no.”
Yeah, right. So, in your view, Obamacare and Romneycare are the same, but Mitt wants to replace Obamacare with nationalized Romneycare?
Do you realize how ridiculous your assertion is?
Mitt opposed natonalized Romneycare when it was POPULAR in 2007. And have you read his plan?
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care
On another note… you said Obama brought both sides together to pass Obamacare.
WRONG.
Not a SINGLE Republican voted for it. He passed it because of maneuvering and abuse of emergency measures.
June 28th, 2011 at 9:35 pm
No. I worry more that he has no ideological core. That’s hardly an unfounded fear given your man’s propensity to shift tone, emphasis and substance.
Mitt thought that signing the law would be a resume booster for his presidential run. The ideological underpinnings probably never even occurred to him.
Not a tyrannical progressive power monger – but a TECHNOCRAT who enables progressive politicians.
June 28th, 2011 at 9:38 pm
Here’s another point in time. Highlights:
The truth is, the Senate wanted a more “scaled back version” and Romney pushed them to more comprehensive reform!
June 28th, 2011 at 9:38 pm
Mitt supported the Chafee bill in 1994. He clearly supported state level mandates. In his book he thought they should have been exported elsewhere across the country.
Then the ideological wind shifted and Mitt came out forcefull against ObamaCare.
I have no idea what Mitt believes.
What I do think is that Mitt will sell out whichever group he needs to in order to gain power.
June 28th, 2011 at 9:42 pm
MassCon,
“Yeah, right. So, in your view, Obamacare and Romneycare are the same, but Mitt wants to replace Obamacare with nationalized Romneycare?”
You completely missed my point. My point was not that Romney was going to bring RomneyCare to the nation, my point is that doing something is sometimes worse than doing nothing. So in answer to the question, “Wouldn’t it be nice to get something done” I’d say, it depends on what that SOMETHING is. If that something is bad, then no.
June 28th, 2011 at 9:43 pm
The other interesting thing that comes out of the Globe article is how involved the Heritage Foundation was with this plan. They pretty much invented a huge part of it (including spawning the idea for the connector). If anyone is the “co-conspirator” on ObamaCare it is them. I have lost a little respect for them, given their complete abandonment of Romney on this issue.
June 28th, 2011 at 9:43 pm
184
And Mitt believed the federal government wouldn’t support his plan if he hadn’t gotten a mandate.
185
Mitt opposes Obamacare because it is bad law, not because of political wind shifting.
June 28th, 2011 at 9:44 pm
MassCon,
“On another note… you said Obama brought both sides together to pass Obamacare…..Not a SINGLE Republican voted for it.”
No, I said Obama brought the House and Senate together, just as you posed in your question. To refresh your memory, here is your question to which I was responding:
“The House and Senate… at each others’ throats. Negotiations stalled. Sound familiar?”
June 28th, 2011 at 9:45 pm
186
So then why does Romneycare even matter to whether Mitt should be president? He isn’t running for governor.
And he is the ONLY CANDIDATE in the field with a plan to reduce costs in a plan that replaces Obamacare.
June 28th, 2011 at 9:47 pm
MassCon,
“And Mitt believed the federal government wouldn’t support his plan if he hadn’t gotten a mandate.”
I don’t think we lost any federal money here in Illinois, and WE don’t have a mandate. But for Mitt- as he said repeatedly- the Mandate wasn’t just about the money. He believes in it in principle, as he told Fred Thompson and millions of viewers in the SC debate.
June 28th, 2011 at 9:50 pm
MassCon,
“So then why does Romneycare even matter to whether Mitt should be president? He isn’t running for governor.”
Because he’s got it on his resume.
Do you not consider the past decisions of job applicants in assessing their judgment? We’d be hiring Mitt to make lots of future decisions; many of them we can’t even envision today. So I prefer someone who didn’t show the terrible judgement of grabbing the ball and running RomneyCare into the end zone.
How’s that for mixing metaphors?
June 28th, 2011 at 9:54 pm
191
Mitt believes in state-level individual mandates (if appropriate for the given state) along with Heritage Foundation, Jim DeMint, Rick Santorum, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, and Mark Levin.
It’s about personal responsibility. People shouldn’t expect government to give them free care.
The fact is, everyone in their lives will need health care. So who pays?
The government, or the patient?
Which position is Conservative?
If you support emergency rooms giving free care to free riders on the government tab, why don’t you support free food and housing for everyone too?
Should people be responsible for their own food, housing, health care, and clothing?
YES.
Case closed.
June 28th, 2011 at 9:54 pm
184 – More facetiousness.
Here is another “point in time”:
“Travaglini and DiMasi also had colliding visions of what health reform should look like. Travaglini provided early impetus, but DiMasi, who became speaker in fall 2004 and is now on trial on federal corruption charges, drove much of the debate near the end. His views, including a payroll tax on employers who did not offer insurance, were aligned with the Health Care for All-led coalition of activists.
……..
“Travaglini’s relationship with Romney was warm and collegial; DiMasi’s was strained.
“Unlike his Republican predecessors, Weld and Paul Cellucci, Romney never enjoyed very good relations with the Democratic Legislature. But with the stakes so high on overhauling health care, he wisely left most of the grubby work of politicking and horse trading to others.
……..
“The next day, Murphy was out shopping when his BlackBerry buzzed with an e-mail from Romney’s personal account. The governor had a personal letter he wanted to deliver to DiMasi and Travaglini to get the bill back on track. “The plane is circling, and we have to land it,’’ Murphy quoted Romney as saying.
“On Sunday, Romney showed up at the lawmakers’ homes. DiMasi wasn’t there, so he taped the letter on his door. Travaglini was home, wearing a sweat suit and slippers and invited Romney in. Romney made his pitch, warning of the impending loss of the precious federal funds if they did not resolve the matter soon. They talked for about five minutes.
“Then, about two weeks later, Romney invited DiMasi to his office for a rare one-on-one meeting, according to DiMasi. Romney, always unflappable, was agitated, DiMasi said.
“’He did everything he could to put pressure on me to change my position on the business assessment,’ he said. ‘I tried to walk out, and he wouldn’t let me go out the door. I actually opened the door, and he said, ‘No, no, no. Get back in here. I have to talk to you.’ ’’
“When he left, the matter remained unresolved.
……..
“The following day, the legislative leaders met with the business group at a closed-door session at the State House, emerging to announce an agreement on the $295 employer assessment.
“And finally on April 4, the landmark law, Chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006, was passed by the House, 155 to 2, and the Senate, 37 to 0. Its title was “An Act Providing Access to Affordable, Quality, Accountable Health Care.’’
June 28th, 2011 at 9:55 pm
I can’t believe I have to hold your hand through this.
June 28th, 2011 at 9:56 pm
185 – LOL … like we’re supposed to believe you read his book. You are full of it.
June 28th, 2011 at 10:00 pm
I love this brilliant contrast.
Jax: The other interesting thing that comes out of the Globe article is how involved the Heritage Foundation was with this plan. They pretty much invented a huge part of it (including spawning the idea for the connector).
MACon: And Mitt believed the federal government wouldn’t support his plan if he hadn’t gotten a mandate.
MWS: I don’t think we lost any federal money here in Illinois, and WE don’t have a mandate. But for Mitt- as he said repeatedly- the Mandate wasn’t just about the money.
Again, the pro-Romney claim appears to be: The RomneyCare law is the greatest thing since sliced bread. But don’t blame Mitt for it because it was produced by a nefarious deal struck between the feds and the Heritage Foundation (at least when it isn’t “blamed” on the Dems).
In sum: I’m proud of what the devil made me do!
Has there ever been a worse politician in the history of mankind?
June 28th, 2011 at 10:00 pm
MassCon,
#193, whatever, the point was whether or not Mitt only pushed the mandate because it was necessary to get the federal dough. The point was not whether he is correct in supporting the mandate. We’ve been over that plenty, and surely will again.
June 28th, 2011 at 10:02 pm
Anyone that wants a REAL assesment of his health care plan can look here:
http://articles.boston.com/2011-06-26/lifestyle/29706413_1_overhaul-mitt-romney-health-care
Haters shouldn’t waste their time (as nothing will change your mind anyways).
June 28th, 2011 at 10:04 pm
197 – Uh nope. No one said that. More straw men.
June 28th, 2011 at 10:04 pm
Jax,
#194. That’s lots of interesting detail……. that reinforces my thesis that Mitt made RomneyCare happen.
Is that what you wanted to reinforce?
June 28th, 2011 at 10:04 pm
198
Do you at least see my point I made at #93?
I mean, you might think Romneycare is bad law, or damages the party’s credibility, but do you at least see my point?
The point Heritage, Jim DeMint, Rick Santorum, and everyone who endorsed Mitt saw?
June 28th, 2011 at 10:05 pm
My post at #202
Should read, “my point I made at #193″
June 28th, 2011 at 10:07 pm
196,
I never claimed to have read it and have no intention of doing so. I don’t need to read it when excerpts are all over the internet.
http://elections.americablog.com/2011/02/romney-edits-romneycare-out-of-his-book.html
June 28th, 2011 at 10:07 pm
Jax,
Do you realize that your link in #199 provides an example of what you demanded I show evidence of earlier in the thread- that Mitt portrayed himself in ’08 as the man who made it happen?
June 28th, 2011 at 10:10 pm
MassCare,
Yes, I understand your point in #193. And there is no doubt that some who embraced aspects of RomneyCare in the past, have moved away from them as they were grafted into ObamaCare. I can understand the frustration Rombots would have towards these fickle “allies.”
June 28th, 2011 at 10:11 pm
205
That’s politics. You should be used to this by now.
The fact is, candidates emphasize what they perceive to be their strengths, and downplay what they perceive to be weaknesses.
Remember when Mike Huckabee kept saying how he cut taxes 96 times, but avoided the fact that taxes went up overall?
That’s politics.
June 28th, 2011 at 10:12 pm
205 – Where did I ever deny that? I just asked for some evidence (which I had to dig up myself). Mitt was the one that made his plan happen. Without him, a different plan would have happened.
June 28th, 2011 at 10:15 pm
208
Important point.
June 28th, 2011 at 10:15 pm
I love the ultimatums – worse politician ever…really? take some ritalin and get yourself under control. You are too emotionally involved in this one.
June 28th, 2011 at 10:15 pm
201 – I’m not going to post the entire article. You can read it for yourself if you are really interested.
June 28th, 2011 at 10:16 pm
205 – Besides, that article didn’t say anything about the 2007 campaign.
June 28th, 2011 at 10:20 pm
MassCon,
“That’s politics. You should be used to this by now.”
Absolutely. I’ve been following this stuff since I was 10, in 1986. The question is whether Mitt portrayed himself in the ’08 campaign as an active agent who made MassCare happen. I say he did, Jax demanded proof, and then unwittingly provided it himself.
June 28th, 2011 at 10:23 pm
Jax,
“Besides, that article didn’t say anything about the 2007 campaign.”
First page of your link says, “At the time, Romney thought the revolution in health care that he, more than anyone, drove into law would redound to his benefit as a presidential candidate. Who else on the Republican side had tried to do anything as difficult or ambitious — much less gotten it done?
June 28th, 2011 at 10:24 pm
Jax,
“Without him, a different plan would have happened.”
I haven’t seen evidence for that, but have provided evidence to the contrary.
June 28th, 2011 at 10:28 pm
213 – And never once denied it. I was looking for proof that he positioned himself that way in the campaign (which was your claim … and you haven’t proved it yet).
June 28th, 2011 at 10:28 pm
214 – That doesn’t say anything about what he did in the campaign.
June 28th, 2011 at 10:29 pm
215 – That’s because you aren’t reading what I have posted. I don’t know what else I can do for you. I can post more articles if that would help. Maybe you don’t know how to read Bostonian English?
June 28th, 2011 at 10:31 pm
213 – Who ever denied that Mitt was not an “active agent” in making his health care plan happen?
June 28th, 2011 at 10:31 pm
Oops … sorry for the double negative in 219.
June 28th, 2011 at 10:35 pm
Jax,
It would seem, 220 comments into this thread, that we are talking past each other now. Your comments seem like a mess of contradictions to me, and apparently my comments seem to you to not understand you. I think we’d best leave it where it is tonight. I’m sure we’ve both got a few more rounds of this before Mitt drops out next March.
June 28th, 2011 at 10:37 pm
221 – Sounds good. You might want to brush up on your RomneyCare knowledge though.
June 28th, 2011 at 10:39 pm
221
By “drops out” you mean… “begins the general election process” of selecting Bobby Jindal as VP.
June 28th, 2011 at 10:41 pm
Jax,
Let me take one more stab at this, for the sake of clarification, and you can have the last word…..
If I understand you correctly, you contend that…..
1) Some kind of MassCare would have happened no matter what Mitt did, and it would have been worse.
2) Mitt did not campaign on the notion that it would not have happened without him
On the other hand I am contending:
1) MassCare would NOT have happened, in any form, without Mitt making it happen.
2) Mitt more or less said that during the ’08 campaign.
June 28th, 2011 at 10:45 pm
MassCon,
“By “drops out” you mean… “begins the general election process” of selecting Bobby Jindal as VP.”
Ummmm…… I think you missed my point again.
But I do think Jindal would be a good pair for Mitt. Solid SoCon cred, Southern, wonky, and could probably bring a big haul of Indian-American money to the campaign.
June 28th, 2011 at 10:52 pm
224
The way I see it:
1) There was a large national push for health care reform in 2004, coinciding with the Bush v. Kerry campaign. There was an effort in the Republican Party to take charge of the issue and make it into a political winner. Mitt saw this as an opportunity and was granted Republican support as a result.
2) If Mitt did nothing, Democrats were determined to take the issue to their side for political gain nationally. They almost won on the issue in several election cycles before 2006.
3) In 2007, Mitt’s bill was popular because it was seen by the Establishment and thought leaders to be a political winner. So Mitt campaigned on it, albeit VERY lightly.
4) Obama screwed up the health care issue for Democrats in 2009-10 by attempting to make the issue a political winner. The miscalculation was that Obama and the Dems did not anticipate the backlash that would coincide with a tanking economy. Once they started the push, they figured they could ram the bill down our throats, and use threats of repeal (and coinciding repeals of consumer protections) against republicans to scare people into opposing repeal.
4) Since Obama’s single-payer option had little support, he had to adopt an individual mandate. Perhaps in an effort to beat Romney in 2012, perhaps not.
June 28th, 2011 at 10:53 pm
225
I was being facetious. I saw your point, and I bet you caught the hint
June 28th, 2011 at 10:57 pm
And to my point in the first (4) in post 226, I think Mitt has unique credibility on health care. He is the only candidate in the race who can campaign on repealing Obamacare (based on its upcoming striking-down by the Supreme Court, its size, its raising of taxes, and the way it was forced down our throats). He is unique because he can support repeal, and use his record of doing SOMETHING, along with his widely-praised plan to replace Obamacare, to credibly promise a repeal of Obamacare.
Any other candidate would be seen as “just saying no” without ever having done anything.
June 28th, 2011 at 10:57 pm
MassCon,
Making sure we catch each others’ sarcasm without the benefit of audio or visual cues is yet more evidence that the first ever Twitter debate is the dumbest political idea since Specter ’96.
June 28th, 2011 at 11:01 pm
229
Amen
June 29th, 2011 at 12:23 am
224 – You are right on 1. You are wrong on 2. Actually I don’t really get what you are arguing with regards to two. There is no question in my mind that Massachusetts was going to end up with some kind of health care plan, with or without Romney. That seems pretty clear if you look at the timeline of what happened and the pressures the state was facing. Mitt didn’t invent the health care problem.
With that said, there is no way Mass would have gotten the health care plan they did without Mitt. He was a key part of getting the plan done that did get done. He rightfully pointed to that in his campaign. He wasn’t arguing that there would have been no health care plan at all without him. He was arguing that the deal that did get done was a deal that he was instrumental in getting done.
That is my understanding anyways (you are free to correct me if I am wrong).
June 29th, 2011 at 12:25 am
#5. Ha ha! Smack told Jeff he was in panic mode over Palin winning (according to 1 poll) one single state…Montana! LOL!!! Oh I love this comedy, thanks Smackdaddy. Oh that was a good one, LOL!
June 29th, 2011 at 12:26 am
226 – Exactly