Here is the link to the Mit Romney presentation on health care from May 12, 2011. Your comments below… Is there a communication problem here? Has Romney changed his mind now that he’s saying stuff like he knows how to “get costs down” and will do so at “a national level?” Mitt Romney’s health care reform presentation.
I just thought I would take a moment to put up a few of my favorite moments from last night’s Republican debate in New Hampshire. There’s no transcript, just clips, but they are sure sweet and to the point, and I think kind of entertaining. Read more
a la McCain. I’m seeing the set up. I’m pretty certain the main stream media could see Mitt Romney as a “reasonable” presidential candidate for the Republicans. I’m not at all interested in the lefty media making the choice for conservatives, but it’s worked in the past.
On Thursday, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (R.?) gave a speech extolling the virtues of Romneycare (the Massachusetts precursor of Obamacare), while at the same time criticizing Obamacare. We covered the speech here. After listening to it, I can only assume that Governor Romney hasn’t been in Massachusetts for a while. Read more
Without a doubt, one of Mitt Romney’s hurdles for conservatives will be his support for a state government health care mandate in Massachusetts. But something immediately caught my eye while reviewing his presentation today. For those of you who read my stuff, can you guess what it is?
Yes, they can. They are. They can be bigots and elitist too. We saw it with John McCain & Huckabee concerning the border and immigration issues. Michelle Malkin’s column just scratches the surface, politicians these days all seem to be pandering to special groups; they are populist candidates.
What can the government do for you today? Read more
Jed Babbin writing for HumanEvents.com. (My emphasis added and the full article is here.)
Tomorrow, both McCain and Romney will address the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, DC. (Huckabee will appear on Saturday morning). The speech McCain will give could be the best opportunity McCain will have to reach out to conservatives and bring them into the fold before the September 1-4 St. Paul, Minnesota Republican convention.
One source told me last night that McCain is planning an all-out push at CPAC. At 3 pm tomorrow, McCain is scheduled to address the crowd expected to number over 6,000 activists. And McCain plans a very special introduction.
According to my source, McCain has prepared a video featuring President Ronald Reagan to make the introduction. If McCain uses this video, it is very likely to backfire badly. This is the group before which Ronald Reagan said in 1975 that, “A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency or simply to swell its numbers.”
Stop this. Just please stop all of this talk about Reagan.
McCain, Romney and Huckabee, all taking their turns comparing themselves to Reagan is flat out annoying. We are not looking for another Reagan, simply a conservative.
Mitt Romney is a politician that looks slick. There’s something about him that’s just not right, but nobody can put a finger on it. He’s smooth. No, he’s not too perfect, he’s just, well, a politician.
I’m going to vote for Romney in tomorrows primary here in Connecticut, but here are some reasons why most conservatives do not want to vote for him.
I’ve got some serious issues with Romney when it comes to his lack of support for the 2nd Amendment. He’s pandering to the top 2nd Amendment lobby – the members of the NRA – by signing up for a Life membership within the past year and saying he’s a hunter. That’s like telling people I’m a deep-sea fisherman since I watched my friend pull in a Marlin off the Tongue of the Ocean with some friends three years ago.
When it comes to the 2nd Amendment, he supports the “feel good” legislation of assault weapon bans. They do nothing, and I mean nothing to stop crime. What is an assault weapon anyway? A clear definition is not even possible. Kind of like “I don’t know exactly what an assault weapon is, but I’ll know it when I see one.” So if it looks mean – ban it! Stupid.
Q: Are you still for the Brady Bill?
A: The Brady Bill has changed over time, and, of course, technology has changed over time. I would have supported the original assault weapon ban. I signed an assault weapon ban in Massachusetts governor because it provided for a relaxation of licensing requirements for gun owners in Massachusetts, which was a big plus. And so both the pro-gun and the anti-gun lobby came together with a bill, and I signed that. And if there is determined to be, from time to time, a weapon of such lethality that it poses a grave risk to our law enforcement personnel, that’s something I would consider signing. There’s nothing of that nature that’s being proposed today in Washington. But I would look at weapons that pose extraordinary lethality.
What the heck is a weapon that poses extraordinary lethality? Is there going to be some line drawn where some weapons are lethal and some are really lethal? Dead is dead governor.
We all know about the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but what does the Massachusetts Constitution say? It’s covered in Article XVII:
Article XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.
By the way, why does the Commonwealth charge an unreasonable fee – more than $100 per year – to get a non-resident permit to carry a handgun? Thanks for helping us out on that one Mitt.
He likes the plan put in place by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to force everyone to buy healthcare insurance. He signed it and think it’s working.
On Sunday, December 16, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romny told NBC’s “Meet the Press” host Tim Russert, “The plan we put together in Massachusetts I think is working in Massachusetts.…I happen to like what we did. I think it’s a good model for other states.”
Oh yeah? Let’s see how well it works after the first year or two it’s been implemented.
Massachusetts was the first state in the country to impose an “individual mandate,” which requires everyone in the state to have health coverage or face some significant penalties. Most employers — those with 11 employees or more — also face a mandate: Provide health insurance or pay a fine.
This is not a conservative position. And if you do not buy insurance you can get fined!
But this argument ignores some other important conservative principles: one being that we don’t like the government’s micromanaging our healthcare.
Romney and others like to respond by noting that almost every state requires people to buy auto insurance. True enough, but the auto insurance mandate has been so unsuccessful that millions of Americans buy uninsured motorist coverage to protect themselves against uninsured drivers. The fact is that the auto insurance mandate is seldom enforced in most states, and when it is, the penalties are usually minor.
Not so with the Massachusetts mandate. Those who don’t get coverage will face a $219 fine (tax?) for the first year (2008), but that fine will go up to at least $150 per person per month in the following year, according to the Boston Herald.
And that’s why some of the other Republicans were chiding Romney: An annual $1,800 for each uninsured person can be a significant penalty on a lower-income family of three or four. So significant, in fact, that the state recently decided to exempt 20% of the low-income uninsured from the mandate.
Right there – the plan is blown to bits. Feel good legislation. Worthless. This simply translates into another entitlement program. They steal money from one group and give it to another.
Romney is not too bad when it comes to tax reform, but his example about why the Fair Tax will not work does not fly with me at all.
Q: The FairTax would eliminate the income tax, estate tax, payroll tax and capital gains tax and replace it with a 23% sales tax. Do you support it?
A: It’s good, but it’s not that good. There are a lot of features that are very attractive about a FairTax. Getting rid of the IRS is something we’d all love. But the truth is, we’re going to have to pay taxes. Completely throwing out our tax system and coming up with an entirely new one is something we have to do very, very carefully. The president’s commission on tax reform looked at this and said: Not a good idea. Some of the reasons are the FairTax, for instance, charges a 23% tax, plus state sales tax, on a new home, when you purchase a new home. But if you buy an old home, there’s no tax. Think what that might do to the construction industry. We need to thoroughly take it apart before we make a change of that nature. That’s why my view is, get rid of the tax on savings and let middle-income people save their money tax-free.
For what it’s worth, I can come up with better reasons why the Fair Tax will not get implemented. What Romney fails to mention is that due to all of the embedded taxes that contractors have to pay when they are building the new house, the price of new houses would actually drop about 23 percent when – and if – the Fair Tax is implemented.
When running for Senate in 1994, he wanted to abolish the Department of Education, but now his position has changed and he likes No Child Left Behind. A true conservative understands that there is no benefit at all to the federal government getting involved with local education programs.
For a Republican candidate, I think he may be the best choice when compared to McCain. But he’s not a conservative either.