Readers of this column know that The Prairie Editor said right after it filled with hot air that the poll bubble of Rick Santorum would not last long. Nevertheless, the former senator from Pennsylvania has enjoyed several heady days of leading in many state and national polls, and of shaking up the Republican establishment which had anticipated Mitt Romney winning his party’s nomination for president. As the last of more than six or seven persons mentioned for the top GOP spot on the 2012 ticket, and to have “bubbles” showing them briefly ahead of the long-time frontrunner, it was probably inevitable that Mr. Santorum would have his moment in the political sun. But there was a reason he did not emerge earlier, and had to wait until everyone else had their turn in the spotlight.
That reason was telegraphed in 2006 when Mr. Santorum, after two terms in the U.S. house and two in the U.S. senate, was defeated by 18 points for re-election in Pennsylvania. Although Mr. Santorum worked hard and persistently in Iowa to gain attention and votes, and ultimately did win the Iowa caucus, he was not vetted until very late in the process. That vetting has revealed someone who held contrary views on social issues when he entered politics to the ones he now so passionately espouses, and who behaved as a typical politician throughout most of his time in the nation’s capital. In regard to the views he now holds, many of them are expressed in such absolutist terms that, while they may please some in the Republican “anybody-but-Romney” base, they are almost certain to turn away most in the political center that is the vital component of victory every U.S. presidential election.
Predictions are always a risky endeavor in politics, but it now appears that Mr Santorum’s bubble is bursting in advance of the Arizona and Michigan primaries, and Mr. Romney will win both. If this happens, the media, so sensitive to its own opportunities to create melodramatic news environments, will proclaim Mr. Romney “back on track” until Super Tuesday when, like a “ghost of Christmas past,” Newt Gingrich will likely arise one more time from the media-created political ashes to be that “last” obstacle to Mr. Romney’s nomination in Tampa.
In fact, Charles Dickens could have not written a better script for this cycle of the presidential election. Mr. Obama says it is “the best of times,” and the Republicans contend it is “the worst of times.” The Prairie Editor does not have to labor with difficulty to suggest that the latter argument will likely prevail in voters’ minds on election day.
________________________________________________________________________________
-Please visit Mr. Casselman’s personal site.
February 25th, 2012 at 8:17 am
Yes, that is highly likely.
February 25th, 2012 at 8:18 am
Good morning Michigan.
Let’s ruin the wingnuts day on Tuesday in support of the true Comeback Kid.
Give em severe hell ” Ford field American car driving loving” Mitt!
February 25th, 2012 at 8:19 am
BREAKING:
Jan Brewer just said on Fox News that she will be making an endorsement before Tuesday.
February 25th, 2012 at 8:23 am
2.
Keep up your good works.
Jan better late then never.
Give em severe hell “Mass Con loving” Mitt!
February 25th, 2012 at 8:32 am
Yep to all of that…
February 25th, 2012 at 8:34 am
I wonder what Mitt wins in AZ and MI plus the bursting Santy bubble will do for Mitt in the Washington caucus.
It would be nice if Mitt could win that one as well…
February 25th, 2012 at 8:36 am
Newt!
It is foolhardy to doubt me
if you know what I mean
February 25th, 2012 at 8:43 am
Jerald.
Just relax and enjoy the weekend.
Let Teledude fixate on that old guy from Georgia.
Give em severe hell ” Not foolhardy ” Mitt!
February 25th, 2012 at 8:59 am
#3 It will be interesting to see where Jan stands. As I’ve said before, our long time local talk show Roger Hedgecock, which plays world wide actually, is no Mitt fan but has become resigned to Mitt, has said over and over Mitt is the very strongest on border issues.
Mitt will take some serious heat because (I believe) he said in the last debate a AZ 1070 law should go into effect throughout the country. He also touted AZ’s policies across the board as encouraging “self-deportation.”
Of course, a lot self-deported to CA, which is essentially a sanctuary state providing liberal social benefits instead of jobs.
If Brewer were to endorse anybody but Mitt, it would be a pretty big surprise to me.
February 25th, 2012 at 9:08 am
McCain’s daughter was on MSNBC earlier talking about AZ and immigration. She pointed
out AZ’s unique problems as a border state, giving rise to its immigration laws, but
added that it was “crazy” for the candidates to endorse them. She suggested Romney’s
embrace of AZ as a model for the nation would alienate hispanics in the GE.
My point is Brewer may be radioactive in a GE.
February 25th, 2012 at 9:09 am
6
I fear it won’t be enough, but it may well be. Washington should be Romney territory, but since it’s a caucus, it will be tough. He was down 10-14% a week ago, and is probably currently down 8-10% and we’ll see what happens after Tuesday. WA votes a week from today so there’s room for movement.
February 25th, 2012 at 9:10 am
10.
Good rule of thumb, whatever Megan McCain says, do the opposite.
February 25th, 2012 at 9:30 am
At least one person here will be shocked to learn that Mitt is the real extreme-wing rightist after he is nominated. The rest of us wingnutz will be dismayed.
February 25th, 2012 at 9:35 am
13.
Confused by the meaning of your post but not shocked.
Give em severe hell ” ruin their day” Mitt!
February 25th, 2012 at 9:39 am
He means, once nominated Romney will be branded as extreme as as GOP voters think
he is a moderate/liberal.
Dems are alreading pointing out how Romney has had to move farther right during this
contest – on immigration, taxes even contraceptives.
February 25th, 2012 at 9:53 am
15.
Will be foolhardy for the lefties to try to brand MR as extreme rightist when all know that for the entire primary season the wingnuts have wrongfully argued otherwise. That is called innoculation.
Give em hell ” extremist ” Mitt!
February 25th, 2012 at 9:58 am
5# Is it not amazing when and intelligent man can make pragmatic decisions based upon principles that there will always be the pendulum swingers that scream. That is why it has been, and will be so interesting to observe the ever changing romnots.
February 25th, 2012 at 10:03 am
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Poll Watch: American Research Group Arizona 2012 Republican Primary Survey
ARG Arizona 2012 GOP Primary Poll
•Mitt Romney 39% [38%] (32%)
•Rick Santorum 35% [31%] (10%)
•Newt Gingrich 11% [15%] (32%)
•Ron Paul 9% [11%] (12%)
•Undecided 5% [5%] (12%)
Have Already Voted (48%)
•Mitt Romney 50%
•Rick Santorum 29%
•Newt Gingrich 13%
•Ron Paul 8%
Will Definitely/Probably Vote (52%)
•Rick Santorum 41%
•Mitt Romney 29%
•Ron Paul 10%
•Newt Gingrich 9%
•Other 2%
•Undecided 9%
Among Men (54%)
•Rick Santorum 43% [37%] (9%)
•Mitt Romney 32% [30%] (30%)
•Newt Gingrich 13% [17%] (35%)
•Ron Paul 10% [13%] (12%)
•Undecided 1% [3%] (13%)
Among Women (46%)
•Mitt Romney 47% [47%] (34%)
•Rick Santorum 26% [24%] (11%)
•Newt Gingrich 9% [13%] (28%)
•Ron Paul 8% [9%] (12%)
•Undecided 9% [7%] (12%)
Among Tea Party Supporters (52%)
•Rick Santorum 44% [34%] (13%)
•Mitt Romney 34% [41%] (23%)
•Newt Gingrich 18% [10%] (40%)
•Ron Paul 1% [7%] (11%)
•Undecided 3% [8%] (13%)
Among Non-Tea Party GOP Primary Voters (48%)
•Mitt Romney 44% [35%] (40%)
•Rick Santorum 25% [28%] (7%)
•Ron Paul 18% [15%] (13%)
•Newt Gingrich 3% [20%] (25%)
•Undecided 8% [2%] (11%)
February 25th, 2012 at 10:08 am
18
Um, no.
There is no possible way that:
(1) The gender gap is that big
(2) Tea Partiers like Santorum MORE after seeing that debate
or (3) that Arizona is even close.
February 25th, 2012 at 10:12 am
Rasmussen daily:
Obama 46
Romney 43
Obama 47
Santorum 42
February 25th, 2012 at 10:13 am
30+ Gender gap in a state sounds way out of range.
February 25th, 2012 at 10:15 am
#21 makes total sense to me, men can see through Romney’s slick talking used car salesman stick, women are fooled by it
February 25th, 2012 at 10:21 am
22.
>>#21 makes total sense to me, men can see through Romney’s slick talking used car salesman stick, women are fooled by it
Sounds like a typical Santorum supporter, the women folk are too dumb to see the truth.
A poll taken after Santorum’s awful debate in AZ shows him gaining? Yeah, I don’t think so.
February 25th, 2012 at 10:22 am
#23 well.. Romney is 21 points ahead with those that have already voted… so I don’t think he is in danger of losing Arizona
February 25th, 2012 at 10:23 am
22
Um, again, no. That sort of gender gap has not appeared anywhere. Not in CO, not in MO, not in MN, not in NV, not in FL, not in SC, not in NH, not in IA, not in ME.
So, no, that poll is incorrect. Unfortunately for you.
You are one of those posters who buries his head in the sand. Be here on Tuesday, and you’ll hear how wrong you and your favorite hack pollsters were.
February 25th, 2012 at 10:23 am
Good Morning.
I have just come back from Wisonsin after a business meeting and I’m playng catch up to all of what has been going on. I see Mitt has moved the needle and is in good position to win MI on Tuesday. That’s not good news for Santorum..although, it sure does seem Rick has been playing for delegates in MI, and not for the win…which I think is a mistake. Santorum is already heading off to TENN today…I don’t get it…but what do I know.
I have read what appen yesterday, and from what I can gather it does not sound like Santorum had a good event at his speech yesterday. And it also sounds like Mitt might have stepped on his own message with the poor optics in Ford Field, and reminding everybody that he is rich…it’s not bad to be rich, but just don’t remind everybody during an election…..reminds me of Kerry in that way…don’t need to do that.
I hope Mitt can avoid stepping into his own negative narratives on his own during the General. Santorum,Newt,Perry & Bachmann walked into their own Negative narratives more than once on their own during this election cycle and I can tell you it’s not helpful for a candidate and his or her candidacy..
That’s all I got for now. Need to take shower and sleep. Working too many hours lately….need to start having some fun again.
February 25th, 2012 at 10:24 am
Amen, brother.
February 25th, 2012 at 10:25 am
#25 Romney has always polled worse with men than women.
February 25th, 2012 at 10:27 am
28
Not by 33, genius.
February 25th, 2012 at 10:31 am
“She suggested Romney’s embrace of AZ as a model for the nation would alienate hispanics in the GE.”
This country can’t continue to grovel at the feet of people who choose racial affinity over the interests and needs of their adopted country. Its a poor argument for immigration of ANY sort when you have large groups of people who will cast their ballots on the basis of which politicians are more willing to look the other way at law breaking from those of a similar national background.
I’ve said for a long time that the best way to solve this problem would be to create a guest worker program, bring in a whole new batch of people who DID NOT break our laws, allow them to work here on a temporary basis in the jobs we can’t fill, and then return home after a year…when we’ll bring new people in. No permanent residency, no citizenship; but our labor needs are met, and people who want the opportunity to earn a better living have it.
Romney was absolutely right when he talked about self-deportation. Take away the opportunity to work and go to school, and the vast majority of illegals will go home. And the ones who will not – the ones who will just end up being supported by relatives, but not taking up jobs, well, I’m ok with that.
February 25th, 2012 at 10:31 am
I am guessing that Santorum’s remarks on contraception drove down his numbers with women recently and increased the gap
February 25th, 2012 at 10:32 am
31
Not to 33. To 10? Sure. 15? maybe. 20? Highly unlikely.
33?
Nope.
February 25th, 2012 at 10:34 am
Killjoy,
I love your energy brother….just don’t sip from the ARG cup of broth to get it.
ARG internals are numbers we enjoy laughing at, not numbers we take seriously.
February 25th, 2012 at 10:35 am
just curious #32 where are you getting the 33 number?
February 25th, 2012 at 10:38 am
34
Well, ARG, the crappiest and most consistently worthless pollster, has Romney losing among men by 11 and leading among women by 21 in Arizona. That’s a gender gap of 32 (not 33, but same damn thing).
Nothing like that has occurred anywhere in this race, at any time.
February 25th, 2012 at 10:39 am
Nothing even close to that, I might add.
February 25th, 2012 at 10:39 am
Killjoy….even you must conclude that ARG poll is idiotic. Even ARG must come to that conclusion. The statistical idea that Romney is up 21% among voters BEFORE the debate and is down 12% AFTER the debate implies a 33% swing to Santorum. This totally redefines the term OUTLIER….with the emphasis on lie. Do people, including you, really believe this stuff or is it just the media and their not so hidden agenda?
February 25th, 2012 at 10:47 am
Smack….The optics are what the media want to make of the Detroit Ford meeting.
First, the venue was not Romneys, it was the Detroit Economic Clubs venue for which they charged $50 to $100 dollars admission.
Second, they, the Economic Club, were responsible for the venue, not Romney. They changed it to Ford Field to accommodate 1200 guests. Santorum spoke to the same club and had 300 so the smaller venue was fine for Rick
Third, the venue was first moved to The Atrium , but security overruled that choice so it was finally moved to the stadium itself.
Fourth, there was a snowstorm
Fifth….Romneys two Cadillacs, a 2010 and a 2007 were built in Michigan and put some Cadillac folks to work. Santorums Audi was built in…….Germany
The media will make what they want…..but they won’t vote GOP anyway
February 25th, 2012 at 10:48 am
My one area of disagreement is in Barry’s assumption that Gingrich can rise again. Killjoy’s ARG poll shows Gingrich heading way down in Arizona, which is the source of the state tightening. Mitt isn’t advertising there, or doing anything to run up the score, but SoCons seem to be making a move of their own.
Gingrich, in the guise of ‘bad Newt’, is in the same position as Perry….once people have seen that side of him, he can’t be revived…..no matter how much really good stuff he does after that. Newt’s blown his window…..and he had too much baggage to exploit.
February 25th, 2012 at 10:54 am
38.
Well said.
Give em hell “Mr. Drive American” Mitt!
February 25th, 2012 at 10:55 am
Yes, I agree – Newt will re-emerge. Romney camp beware…don’t get too cozy and Santorum descends. We have seen this movie before…we know people will be RE reminded of his follies…but the herd panics and starts running to what is comfortable – Newt.
And then they remember…again
February 25th, 2012 at 10:57 am
Craigs,
I’m sure those all are fine points…..but you won’t see TEAM MITT do that again. Which is evidence 1 of a bad event.
I also heard that Santorum speech went flat. The press (mostly liberals) described the attendees at the event getting bored….just the way it is…fair or not fair.
Sometimes things don’t work out, and it’s not always fair what the CW perception is of an event.
I saw the optics this morning in a replay of yesterday…they were brutal for the Romney event. I didn’t need the press to tell me they were..they were. Does this hurt Mitt in MI?…nope..no way. But yesterday will not be repeated by TEAM MITT..they knew they stumbled…it’s ok to say it. The remark of the cars…of course it’s ok to say this in a regular converstion. But just don’t be stepping on your political message..and that is what Mitt did. Is it really bad?…nope. But again, it won’t be repeated by Mitt.
February 25th, 2012 at 10:59 am
Gingrich could rise again, but each time Romney peaks, he peaks just a little bit higher than the last time. Newt probably will climb after Super Tuesday, but remember, there are no more debates…and those are what really propelled him…so the danger of him ever getting back up near the top is, in my view, unlikely.
February 25th, 2012 at 11:04 am
“Fourth, there was a snowstorm”
Eh…nice try. I’m at college all of two miles from Ford Field, I assure you, there was not enough snow to stop anyone who DID buy a $100 ticket from getting there.
It was just a lousy choice of venue for this kind of speech. Comparable in size to the venue where Obama gave his ACCEPTANCE speech, all for what was basically a policy forum.
February 25th, 2012 at 11:04 am
#43 actually… Romney peaked at almost exactly the same level both times, it is Santorum that has peaked higher each time
February 25th, 2012 at 11:05 am
I did not think the optics or even the remark about his cars was as bad for
Romney as the press is making it. But in politics what is fair or even true
often falls victim to the press narrative, which for Romney is “rich and out of
touch.” And that is how the press is playing it.
What surprises me is how little coverage the substance of the speech is getting,
even from conservatives.
February 25th, 2012 at 11:07 am
#46 conservatives don’t care what Romney says, because we think he is lying.
February 25th, 2012 at 11:08 am
42.
You are sounding quite rational and learned today.
45.
The sweater is unraveling.
Give em severe Cadillac hell Mitt!
February 25th, 2012 at 11:13 am
I am still waiting for the new polling from PPP of Michigan that they are doing this weekend. I hope they tweet some of the early finding as they come in like they have done in the past. At my specific request they are also breaking out the numbers for those that already voted seperately so we can easily see the difference between those that have already voted and those that are likely to vote. Those that already voted were included in past polls (confirmed directly by PPP via private email to me) but since they didn’t break those numbers out many assumed especially in Arizona with massive early voting that they needed to add to the PPP poll #’s to account for the massive lead Romney has in the early voting which was not the case. And this will be made clear with the release of their polling this weekend
February 25th, 2012 at 11:15 am
47
Who are you speaking for?
I’ll tell you what, radio sheep, I am a Conservative. I have my own opinions. I don’t claim to speak for anyone else, and no one speaks for me but myself.
February 25th, 2012 at 11:15 am
Economic reporters received Romney’s speech at Ford yesterday very well. I was watching Kudlow last night and he had Robert Costa of NRO and Steve Moore of the WSJ editorial board on his show and all of them were gushing over Romney’s supply side tax cuts and language. Kudlow was saying it was the boldest supply side plan since Reagan.
I expect Romney will continue to hammer these themes and once the political talking heads stop focusing on “optics” and start focusing on content he will continue to get good press.
February 25th, 2012 at 11:15 am
Why should anyone focus on the substance of Romney’s speeches? Given his record of flip flopping why should anyone believe him? He says he will repeal Obamacare yet his people are saying it will not be repealed. I would rather roll the dice on a lame duck Obama rather than 8 years of Romney.
February 25th, 2012 at 11:17 am
Romney still should be concerned he doesn’t sell well…if any of the non roms were worthwhile, romney would be in huge trouble but the competition is weak. Bottom line, if romney gets the nomination, his veep pick will be huge.
February 25th, 2012 at 11:18 am
52
You’re nuts, pal.
February 25th, 2012 at 11:18 am
#50 Romney has polled poorly with the “very conservative” the entire primary. That’s just a fact. (on a side note, Romney does well with the “severly” conservative) hehe
February 25th, 2012 at 11:19 am
52.
Your dice will come up snake eyes.
Give em severe “Repeal Obamacare” hell Mitt!
February 25th, 2012 at 11:20 am
All that shows is that Kudlow and crowd are closet Romney supporters. Gingrich and Santorum have both put out bolder tax plans than Romney. Also interesting that they forgot to mention that Romney sounded like Obama when he said those rich people aren’t going to get a 0 capital gains rate. Don’t remember Reagan playing the class warfare card.
February 25th, 2012 at 11:21 am
#53 I wouldn’t vote for Romney in the general if he reanimated Reagan to run as his VP or even got Palin to take the spot, and I am a 30 year straight ticket Republican voter.
February 25th, 2012 at 11:22 am
Kudlow and Moore did receive Romney’s revised plan well, but they also said why -
They have been advocating it!
Interestingly, though, Kudlow has acknowledged that Romney will have to be more
specific on spending cuts because otherwise the plan will made the deficit and debt
worse.
February 25th, 2012 at 11:23 am
Average American household has 2.3 vehicles, wouldn’t be surprised if it was for more rural and sub urban Republican electorate much higher than that.
February 25th, 2012 at 11:23 am
Pandering to the base with a VP isn’t going to work this time, Romney might as well nominate another moderate RINO. Maybe Romney/McCain? Romney/Spector? Romney/Liberman? I say embrace your inner moderate Romney!
February 25th, 2012 at 11:24 am
55
If you’re suggesting that Conservatives think Romney is a liar, does that mean they view him unfavorably?
Because, if that’s what you’re suggesting, you’re wrong. He’s viewed favorably by a large margin among Conservatives. Most Conservatives who support someone else do so because they think he’s too incremental, not because they think he’s a liar or a jerk.
February 25th, 2012 at 11:25 am
61
Specter isn’t a moderate. He’s a Democrat.
And Santorum endorsed him.
And Specter passed Obamacare.
February 25th, 2012 at 11:26 am
52.
So you are totally concerned that Romney won’t repeal Obamacare, leaving aside for the moment he has said he would over and over, and your bold plan is to support Obama because you think he will repeal his signature accomplishment?
Further proof the not Romneys don’t give a damn about facts or rationality. All they care about is stopping Romney.
The simple fact is Romney has changed his position on a couple things like moving from a pro-choice position in his public life to a staunchly pro-life position and none of his position changes have a damn thing to do with his economic positions in which he has been the most fiscally conservative candidate in the race. He is the only one in the race who has ever cut spending and the size of government. The only one. And if we don’t cut the size of government dramatically and soon nothing else matters.
So again, your position of supporting the biggest spending President we have ever had who has not only kept us on the road to insolvency but escalated the pace is absurd.
Not Romneys. Where commonsense fears to tread.
February 25th, 2012 at 11:26 am
Your dice will come up snake eyes.
==========================
Oh really. They haven’t gone to work on Romney yet. I can imagine the debate.
Romney attacks Obama on Obamacare and Obama says that Romneycare is the same thing.
Romney attacks Obama on crony capitalism and Obama says that Romney also supports what he calls crony capitalism such as ethanol subsidies.
Romney attacks Obama on global warming and Obama says that Romney supports it.
Obama can also point out that Romneycare required insurers and employees to provide contraception services yet Romney is criticizing him for doing the same thing.
February 25th, 2012 at 11:28 am
#62 I layed out clearly in another thread the other day that nearly everyone thinks Romney is lying. Liberal and Moderates think he is secretly one one of them (and thus lying) so they support him. Conservative, particularly those who consider themselves very conseravative think he is secretly a liberal or moderate (and thus lying) so they oppose him.
February 25th, 2012 at 11:30 am
>>All that shows is that Kudlow and crowd are closet Romney supporters. Gingrich and Santorum have both put out bolder tax plans than Romney. Also interesting that they forgot to mention that Romney sounded like Obama when he said those rich people aren’t going to get a 0 capital gains rate. Don’t remember Reagan playing the class warfare card.
Then your memory is no better than your logic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgbJ-Fs1ikA
February 25th, 2012 at 11:31 am
#64 here is exactly what I think Romney would do if elected in regards to Obamacare… he would make a half hearted attempt to repeal it… and after quickly announcing that a full repeal can’t be done, he will simple start “fixing” it. The problem is Obamacare can’t be “fixed” it has to be repealed in it’s entirety, and we need someone who will not rest until it is.
February 25th, 2012 at 11:31 am
66
People view liars unfavorably. If they truly thought he was lying, his favorables would be in the gutter.
Get your head out of the sand. You are a parody of yourself. And I’m wasting my time engaging you, so I’m done here.
February 25th, 2012 at 11:33 am
#69 people also know that most politicians are liars, and yet they often support them wholeheartedly anyway
February 25th, 2012 at 11:33 am
65
Worthless comment. Romney will not be attacking Obama on those grounds. He will be doing so on the economy, on foreign policy, on the debt and deficits, and on his divisiveness.
February 25th, 2012 at 11:35 am
everyone knows that most politicians can’t say how they really feels on a variety of subjects, it would be political suicide. Everyone knows this. But people often have a gut feeling about how the candidate “really” feels on an array of subjects. The problem with Romney is that many feel that he is far more liberal than he is letting on. While often just the reverse is true, that they feel that republican candidate ______ is actually far more conservative than he is letting on.
February 25th, 2012 at 11:36 am
72
You are speaking for yourself, not anyone else.
February 25th, 2012 at 11:39 am
#73 so you think most politicians tell the truth all the time? lol you must be the only person in America that thinks politicians and lawyers tell the truth
February 25th, 2012 at 11:40 am
From Romney advisor, Norm Coleman.
‘You will not repeal the act in its entirety, but you will see major changes, particularly if there is a Republican president. You can’t whole-cloth throw it out.’”
The fact is that the establishment and lobbyists like it because it brings more power to Washington even if the mandate is kicked out. Who are the establishment and lobbyists backing?
Romney. Also the provisions that they think people like will likely stay in because Republicans are too cowardly to take them on.
February 25th, 2012 at 11:43 am
74
No one supports a candidate they think is an outright liar. Most of them are weasels, some are liars.
Newt is a liar.
Santorum is a weasel.
February 25th, 2012 at 11:44 am
75
Coleman speaks for himself, not Romney. Wake up.
February 25th, 2012 at 11:44 am
#75 now that sounds like the truth, thus why Norm Coleman is an advisor and not a politician. Romney will go up in front of audiences and claim he is going to repeal Obamacare, when he knows darn well that he probably wont be able to do it. But that is understandable, all politicians do that. Where I have a problem with Romney is that I don’t really think he even wants to repeal it. I think he would rather morph it into some sort of more privatized market driven model closer to Romneycare, when what really needs to be done is a complete repeal.
February 25th, 2012 at 11:48 am
Then your memory is no better than your logic.
=========================================
We are not talking about tax loopholes. Reagan was talking about loopholes that only millionaires can access. When Reagan was selling Kemp-Roth there were no provisions that excluded certain groups of people. The fact is that if everyone can’t get a 0% capital gains tax rate then why should anyone? This is what makes the tax code so complex. Romney is engaging in pandering rather than a coherent plan.
February 25th, 2012 at 11:50 am
Coleman speaks for himself, not Romney. Wake up.
=================================
I suppose you spoke to Coleman. Maybe you need to wake up.
February 25th, 2012 at 12:06 pm
On his first day in office, Mitt will issue a waiver to any state that wants to take advantage of it to be exempt from ObamaCare…..this will be an executive order, backed by the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. Since a majority of states are challenging the constitutionality of the law, a majority will take advantage of the exemption.
After this has been done, the cost structure of the states that have exempted themselves, will be far lower than that of the other states, and more and more states will exempt themselves….the law will become moot…..and the opposition to repeal will wither away.
Ultimately, the law will be formally repealed.
February 25th, 2012 at 12:13 pm
There is little chance Obamacare will be repealed. For one, as Romney points out,
there are a ton of taxes and medicare cuts baked in. If you repeal it you have
to make up for that revenue (not all of revenue goes to healthcare). The hole
repeal would create in the budget would be enormous.
Two, a waiver does not cover the entire law. As the VA AG pointed out, a prez
can’t waive a law.
And third, to me it is silly to talk of repeal instead of reform. Look at the
debate over contraceptives. Repeal would ignite a firestorm.
February 25th, 2012 at 12:20 pm
82
Actually, the voters favor repeal 52 to 40 according to Quinnipiac.
The trouble is, you need a 60-40 vote to repeal it, unless done by reconciliation. That’s why we need the Senate, and we can’t ruin our chances at the Senate by nominating a loser like Santorum or Gingrich.
February 25th, 2012 at 12:53 pm
82. I think a program like ObamaCare only works if it’s spread out across a large group. If enough states opt out through Mitt’s exemptions, the plan won’t work. Once it doesn’t work, there’s every incentive for congress to repeal it.
February 25th, 2012 at 1:00 pm
After getting crushed, trounced, trampled, demolished, and destroyed in Pennsylvania only a narcissistic Washington insider looking to gain notoriety and fame in the lobbying and talk-show arena would come to the conclusion that he should next run for the office of POTUS. Look, Pennsylvania doesn’t want him, and neither does the rest of the country.
February 25th, 2012 at 1:03 pm
85. In fairness, there was a lot of anti Republican backlash that year. I doubt any Republican could have won.
February 25th, 2012 at 1:55 pm
Repealing Obamacare would not blow a hole in the budget. It is supposed to be revenue neutral yet we know it will cost more than expected. That means a big hole in the deficit.
The fact is that waivers do not get rid of the bureaucracy and taxes associated with Obamacare. Washington will have enormous power and bureaucrats will use it.
February 25th, 2012 at 2:29 pm
86. In fairness, the backlash is a poor excuse for such complete and utter failure. Plenty of other Republican Senators were able to win in spite of Democratic backlash. As a few examples, John Kyl of Arizona, Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, Orrin Hatch of Utah, John Ensign of Nevada, Richard Lugar of Indiana, and quite a few others. The only viable explanation is that Pennsylvanians did not want any more of Santorum, plain and simple.
February 25th, 2012 at 7:32 pm
88. How many Republicans won that year in PA?
February 25th, 2012 at 9:35 pm
#64 Awesome! All the rest of you, go back and read that again
February 25th, 2012 at 9:53 pm
89. You asked, “How many Republicans won that year in PA?” Your question is irrelevant unless you believe that PA voters are mindless sheep who didn’t know anything about Santorum. Even though the question is irrelevant, I’ll still give you the obvious answer: “Only the good ones” (which possibly means none, I’m not sure).