Redstate

The TV preacher? Perish the thought that he should ever enter into national politics.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

Rose, you really need to find another place in the universe to post. You will find that you are a "Committee of One" with respect to who should represent the Repbulican Party in '08.

Bolton isn't a politician, and while that may appeal to you, I doubt he'd be interested if you GAVE him the job let alone having to get elected to it. Rumsfeld is too old. John Hagee is smart enough to know he's better off in his calling without getting his ego out in front.

Please go away and find reality.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

and I don't remember him as a departure from the norm - save for his excellence and perhaps a few minor quibbles.

But what's more disturbing is what Romney is willing to say to get elected. I don't care whether Reagan is his hero now or not. But how can I tell who I'm really electing, if Romney changes his positions for political convenience?

And yes, I mind a "moderate" Republican. I remember the first Bush all too well. I'll hold my nose in the general, but let's try to get a better standard-bearer for the party.

abortion law in the nation when he was Governor. He'd have real problems with that today.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

You romney supporters have long attempted to use this arguement to support your guy's support of abortion. This assertion that reagan signed the law doesn't help your guy. Here's why. Reagan was pro life when he signed the bill. What reagan signed was a bill that almost all of us would sign ourselves. Reagan signed a bill that said abortion is legal in cases of rape, incest, and health of the mother. Problem is reagan didn't see the health clause being abused like it eventually was. Reagan realized this a year later and said it was a mistake.

What reagan did and what romney did are completely opposite. Reagan never ran around acting like a champion of abortion and then flip flopped completely on the issue.

Save the planet, Kill yourself

As it happens I don't support Romney. I'm a SoCon/Icon Rudy guy.

I'm just making the point that Reagan would likely have big problems today. Reagan signed a bill that almost all of us would veto today. It was patently obvious what was going to happen with the "health clause", I lived in CA at the time.

Look, the bottom line is I don't give a rip what Romney's position was 10 years ago or 2 years ago. All I care about is his judicial nomination standard. If that's good, he'll be good on the issue of abortion. The BEST we're gonna see in the foreseeable future is that Roe is overturned and abortion is sent back to the states to ban, regulate or not regulate.

We need to stop crawling up politicians orifices with a microscope and start looking really hard at how they will act NOW. I don't know what Romney's judicial philosophy is, but we'll find out. Same for Rudy. He's pro-choice but right now, my opinion is that he will appoint very conservative judges and will govern much more conservatively than Bush. Again, we'll see.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

I'm on the rudy bandwagon too and i'm a social conservative as well. In my book there is a big difference between rudy and romney. Rudy hasn't gone back and gone, oh look i'm a social conservative yeehaw. He promised though to appoint scalias/alito's/roberts. Romney on the other hand just says whatever his audience wants to hear and there's a big difference between that.

We need to stop crawling up politicians orifices with a microscope and start looking really hard at how they will act NOW. I don't know what Romney's judicial philosophy is, but we'll find out. Same for Rudy. He's pro-choice but right now, my opinion is that he will appoint very conservative judges and will govern much more conservatively than Bush. Again, we'll see.

The problem with romney is that romney's never had a long track record of holding any one position. You make the point we want to know how they will act now. With romney we may know how he says he'll act now, but what happens after he's elected? What happens when things get tough, does he go rino on us again?

Save the planet, Kill yourself

elected in California, rather than getting elected nationally.

Just as national politics have changed, so have California politics.

I remember watching a TV interview over the abortion bill he signed, and he says that the bill he thought he was signing, wasn't the bill it ended up being, and if he had it to do over again, he wouldn't have signed the bill.

That said, I do agree that if you want to get elected in Massachussette's as a republican, you aren't going to get elected running at the right end of the party spectrum, but where Romney makes me uncomfortable is that his positions seem to change with whether or not they make him electable, and that bothers me. I can jump on board with somebody who argues a heartfelt change on a subject, Lord knows my position on abortion now isn't what it was, when I was a teen and in college, but I have to trust that the belief came from a change of heart not from a finger to the wind to determine which way the political winds are blowing-I have the gut feeling that many of Romney's positions were from the finger in the wind rather than the heart, now we just have to figure out was he compromising to get elected in Mass or is he compromising now, and if he change once, will he do it again.

elected Ronald Reagan. Today we just don't know if anyone to the right of Arnold Schwarzenegger can get elected to high office there.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

Having lived in California for several years, I disagree. A lot of the Republican party's problems there are self-made. For example, being pro-life won more votes than it lost for one of the our better Senatorial candidates, if you look at people who had abortion as their top issue. There is room for a good saleman, particularly if like Reagan he's a fiscal conservative first.

Nonetheless, say it's true that a Republican govenor of Massachusetts or California has to be somewhat squishy on conservatism to win. Is that any particular reason to nominate them to a federal office, let alone the highest one? Let them serve where they can - certainly they're a blessing to their states. But let's get someone solid for the presidency.

too.

Lately I've mused that we could use some Las Vegas Republicans in office, but I guess all those guys are happier in the private sector.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

is neither conservative nor centrist. what's more, if the man's positions have "evolved" this much in such a short period of time he should stay out of politics until he's done "evolving."

http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/6550/107/1600/565201/romneylcr.jpg

Having tasted a life wasted, I ain't ever going back again.
-E.V.

n/t

When we voted for him, he was the best choice we had.
I'm not ashamed of voting for him, and against those Dims who were running against him.

But I don't say that for these RINOS - like Newt, Rudi, McCain, and Romney, etc.

I'm convinced that this batch of RINOS is no different than the DIMS we cannot stomach.

Some here can make fun of me, but I listed out the types of character I'm looking for on the McCain post, now on page 2 - and also my own voting history - which shows that those I voted against didn't make it, and some I voted FOR almost did not.

Because of a big block of legitimate conservatives.

I know where lots of Conservatives TO THE RIGHT OF ME are, and you who are doing so, now, you can sneer at me, but when you do, those to the right of me are sneering back at YOU - THEY won't bail you out, either.

You set your heart on these RINOS like a girl with a jr high crush on a movie star.

GET OVER IT and find someone that unites the party base. You have two years to do so.

To compare it to California, they'd vote for Tom McClintock - you'd NEVER win their support for Arnold.

And since a lot of DIMS voted for Arnold, he made it - but California isn't like the rest of the midwest and the South.

We ain't as dazzled by Arnold and his friends like Danny deVito.

These other Conservatives will watch you sink, and they will walk away from you - because you have already walked away from us.

I am not even sure what your basis for Newt being a RINO is, but I think the label is unfair for McCain.

McCain sure enough has advocated some doozy legislation, and his name on the anti free speech legislation appalls me, and will keep me from voting for him, until he renounces the piece of crap.

McCain loves playing maverick, and he is certainly addicted to media attention, but he still holds some very conservative, non rinoish positions.

I think we toss the label RINO around a lot-what exactly is the definition of RINO?

While John McCain is much debated round here, with many sharing your view (and mine) that calling him a RINO is unfair and others taking the opposite view, Rose seems to be the only person who thinks Newt is a RINO. She is the only person who thinks that this is a credible assertion, and one of her reasons for believing it is that Dole beat him in the 1996 primaries. A rather ridiculous criterion, even when applied to people who actually contested the 1996 primaries.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

Someone who holds themselves out to be a Republican not because they believe in any Republican principles but only so that they can use that status to attack Republicans and/or undermine the GOP.

It doesn’t automatically apply to “moderate” or “liberal” Republicans or even Republicans who publicly disagree with their own party because many of them are quite loyal Republicans who believe generally in Republican principles but may voice disagreements with their party and try to worth within the process to change it (it’s what conservatives did and being a big tent, “liberals” and “moderates” have the same right to try to get their views heard and brought into play). Someone like Governor Schwarzenegger or Mayor Giuliani may be to the left of where the party is and openly critical from time to time but their criticism is constructive and they’ve never failed to support the GOP and GOP candidates because they genuinely agree with Republicans more than Democrats.

I'd like to know why you think the architect of the conservative-driven 1994 takeover of Congress is a RINO.

Also, as I recall, Martin A Knight and I had an agreement that we'd call out any users of RedState or my site where terms like RINO were branded about, and remind people that they are just as offensive and unacceptable for use in actual political discourse as is branding other Republicans "extremists" or "zealots."

Personally, it seems to me that if you have an issue with Newt or any of these others, you would do better to say what it is instead of just insulting genuine leaders of our party with whom you (apparently) disagree. A reminder from an editor/director to this effect would also no go amiss...

Martin, care to step in? Remember our agreement...

Liz Mair is the editor of WWW.GOPPROGRESS.COM, a RedState-style blog for libertarian, mainstream and moderate Republicans

I'm still trying to figure out if Rose is actually far-right or just a lefty troll who is quite talented. But whichever is the truth, it doesn't matter much. No one listens to her views because they are so far afield from reality. You can even see mbecker, who is no McCain fan nor moderate, at the top of the thread telling Rose to find somewhere else to peddle her views.

I do something simpler. I just skip reading all of her comments since they so rarely add anything useful.

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

... I'm way ahead of you.

Did that since yesterday.

Either way, please do not assume that this means I'm actually going to be Miss Manners here. First of all, it's not my place. Second; I don't have that kinda time. Third; sooner or later, there would some people who would deserve the RiNO label - like Lincoln Chafee.

PS: Notice that most of us here have already put Rose on the dismiss list?

PPS: How you doing, by the way?

level as Giuliani or McCain? The only positive I've seen for Romney's Presidential aspirations is some rabidly loyal supporters. That's valuable, but Howard Dean had the same and went nowhere. (Please. I'm in no way equating Romney and that slug Howard Dean; neither am I equating Romney's supporters with those quaint Deaniacs of yore.)

I'd like to find a reason to take Romney seriously. (McCain and Rudy I have to take seriously, to that extent, simply because they are McCain and Rudy. They enter the ring with plausibility.)

If that Romney quote is accurate, I am going to have a very difficult time taking him seriously.

But I believe Romney has the 2nd biggest campaign infrastructure (far ahead of #3) next to McCain. I would say that puts him in the top three.

All Rudy has is name recognition... which is about the most overrated attribute I can think of. How many people knew who George W Bush was, outside of Texas, in 1998? The answer would be in the single digits, no doubt. Whoever becomes the nominee will have astronomical name ID come election day so I don't see it as a factor worth anything in my analysis.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Among those supporters of Mitt Romney is a man sometimes referred to only as "41". That has to count for something, particularly in the quest for delegates.

on national security, world stability, and fiscal responsibility .. you know, the issues that are important. He should declare moratorium on social reconstitution and simply let Romney become moot while he out-bates votes from the other B-candidates.

Did you manage to find anything in there to explain Romney's change of heart, besides:

1) Reagan dying
2) Romney deciding not to run for office in Massachusetts again
3) Romney deciding to run for President

?

"Administrative Law is not for sissies." - Justice Antonin Scalia

Yeah. Maybe the world became a different place, and Romney got to see in his role as Governor how significant Reagan was.

No matter what, Romney is still the only candidate who's run a large private business and a large state. That puts him way out front.

I, for one, think it's time we got past abortion and gay marriage, and on to issues that the President actually has to deal with a majority of the time.

I know this. I was ambivalent on the issue of abortion until I saw my daughter stick her thumb in her mouth during an early ultrasound. That changed my mind, unequivocably and in an instant. Romney explained his conversion on abortion due to a similar situation. He hasn't changed on gay marriage, and I bet if you asked him today, he'd say he still doesn't want to go back to the 1980's, that he wants to move forward.

Did he try to distance himself from people like Jesse Helms when he ran in '94 in Massachusetts? Sure. Doing otherwise would have been political suicide.

Romney governed as a conservative, arguably more conservative than Reagan did as Governor. Isn't that what matters?

1) You know that Reagan won Massachusetts, right?
2) You know that Romney claimed in 1994 that he became pro-choice because of a personal family situation, right? So what leads you to believe that this time, he really won't change?
3) All of that misses the point, which is really not about abortion, gay marriage, or Ronald Reagan - it's about the lengths to which Romney will go in order to get votes, and what that says about the convictions that he truly does hold.

"Administrative Law is not for sissies." - Justice Antonin Scalia

this is how you get elected in Mass

http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/6550/107/1600/565201/romneylcr.jpg

i don't begrudge supporters of Romney, but i don't think i'm missing the context of this letter, either.

Having tasted a life wasted, I ain't ever going back again.
-E.V.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

very sorry about that. thanx for the heads-up

here’s the boston globe story:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/blog/2006/12/romney_spoke_of.h...

here’s the letter in pdf form:

http://www.boston.com/news/daily/11/romneyletterbaywindows.pdf

Having tasted a life wasted, I ain't ever going back again.
-E.V.

I read the letter in full and what I understand from it is that he supports homosexual civil rights. This is not a problem for me. What I do have a little concern about, and something a president would have a great deal of influence over, is an openly homosexual soldier.

I am undecided about it and I think that Generals should evaluate the effects. However this should be a consideration.

A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. -John Adams

it's the pandering and about-face that bothers me.

Having tasted a life wasted, I ain't ever going back again.
-E.V.

And not support SSM at the same time. There is no inconsistency there. You have any quotes saying he is now against civil rights for gay people?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

and the answer to your question is “no.” However, I don’t think I need quotes to claim that Romney has done an about-face. Does today’s Mitt Romney, like yesterday’s Mitt Romney, think equality for gays and lesbians should be a “mainstream concern”? My gut, if you will, says no. Does today’s Mitt Romney, like yesterday’s Mitt Romney, support the creation of a FEDERAL panel to reduce gay and lesbian suicide? My gut doubts it very much.

Having tasted a life wasted, I ain't ever going back again.
-E.V.

Let's take, for example, this little tidbit, in which you explain Romney's flip thusly:

Romney said he did not want to return Massachusetts to the 80s.

Which necessarily involves you ignoring the part which you pointed out in this very comment, which is that it came in the context of Romney being compared to conservatives. Not Romney being compared to Billy Idol. Romney wasn't repudiating a particular time period, he was repudiating the notion that he was conservative, and he did it by specifically distancing himself from a man who he now claims is his hero.

By the way, exactly 100 per cent of the people on this blog (that includes me) are aware that Reagan used to be a Democrat, but that has precisely zero relevance to the point of this post, since (as you well know), Kennedy wasn't trying to tag Romney by comparing him to Reagan during Reagan's Democrat days. But then, I don't suppose that there's anything ridiculous enough that some Romney supporter will not say it in support of their man, is there?

>But you aren't interested in getting elected are you? You are just interested in little games were you can make people you don't like sound in-consistant. Well people do the same thing with the Bible. You can make anyone sound inconsistant.

Romney said he did not want to return Massachusetts to the 80s. If this means you will not vote for him, if you are unwilling to look at his actual record, or take what he said in context with other things he has said, well good luck, because I would like to see your candidate that has never said anthing that can be made to sound to disagree with something else he said...

Wow, you got me. All along, I was hoping that people wouldn't notice that I'm actually a blogger, and not a Presidential candidate for the year 2008. I hereby apologize to any who may have been confused by my admittedly ambiguous stance on this issue.

I notice also that you continuously skirt over what my stated issue with Romney is - not that he has any position, not that he has changed position, but rather that he changes position without semeingly feeling the need to explain those changes, or repudiate his past positions, or really even to provide a plausible explanation. The fact that this is really such a small thing bothers me even more (as I said in the update), because there is no good reason for Romney to be doing this on this issue. At least on abortion it's somewhat understandable.

And yes, I will be here throughout 2007 and 2008, pointing out when candidates are inconsistent - especially when they haven't owned up to their inconsistency. Sorry that's inconvenient for your man. If it's something you can't handle - well, the great thing about the Internet is that you don't even have a door to close on your way out.

"Administrative Law is not for sissies." - Justice Antonin Scalia

"I notice also that you continuously skirt over what my stated issue with Romney is - not that he has any position, not that he has changed position, but rather that he changes position without semeingly feeling the need to explain those changes, or repudiate his past positions, or really even to provide a plausible explanation."

He's not even a declared candidate yet. I imagine when he becomes a candidate, he will have to answer questions like these. Can you hold off on your judgment until you hear his explanation? I thought his explanation of his switch to a pro-life stance after what he discovered during his research on stem cells was more than adequate. Perhaps he has an explanation for this as well.

He clearly governed as a Reagan conservative - reducing the size of government, promoting abstinence, fighting gay marriage. I give more weight to a person's actions than his words. Don't you?

"I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush."

"I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush." He said that he was not a part of the Reagan revolution. That's fine. Many principled conservatives were not, often for reason's of youthful confusion.

"I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush." That is clearly a rejection of the conservatism of the Reagan Administration, conservatism as practiced by President Reagan.

He's changed his mind, evidently, and he does a lot of that.

I'm not anti-Romney, but I certainly cannot take him seriously.

The point is this guy will say or endorse whatever he needs to become President or before that Governor or before that Senator.

The fact is he has run for office twice; both times as a moderate to liberal republican and is now running (assuming he runs) as a conservative republican. Doesn't this give you a bit of pause???

Mitt Clinton?

Rudy Giuliani ran for office as a moderate to liberal Republican and is now running (assuming he runs) as a conservative Republican. I suppose the fact that both men ran for office in very liberal places (NY and MA) has a lot to do with it. It does leave us guessing a bit as to what they really believe.

Which is as about as close to a repudiation of Reagan as you’re going to get.

...get excited about the prospect of New Yorkers finding a way to set aside the election of Bloomburg to keep Rudi on as Mayor - and it took him 2 weeks to apologize, and he apologized the Liberal way, without renouncing what he said or did. Just that he was "misunderstood", or something!

That won't cut it - I don't care WHAT party he belongs to, or who he lost his office to or under what circumstances - the process was legitimate, and he was willing to find a way to set it aside, his eyes really lit up in his acceptance of the flattery.

Both events were covered on National TV news.

There is nothing to consider, there.

I ain't interested.
I don't care to try to spit at the difference, either.

I think that those are the most important words in the passage. What were the “policies” that Kennedy referred to which Romney took offense at being accused of supporting? High deficits? A lack of attention to domestic affairs? Keep in mind that (a) the substance and (b) the perception of those “policies” may be two different things and unless we know what Romney was referring to, there’s nothing really to judge him on.

Also I think it’s worth nothing that he was being compared to Jesse Helms. Helms, for those who have forgotten, had a reputation as a segregationist and was a symbol of the supposed “Southern Strategy*” in which Republicans supposedly were courting Southern racists to woo them into the GOP. Repudiating Helms was repudiating racism. Whether you agree or not with the characterization of Helms, more likely than not that was what Romney was distancing himself from.

* I think that the charge in general was bogus.

And that is, of course, that Romney didn't say, "I'm not trying to return to the days of Jesse Helms." Otherwise, you're pretty much spot on.

Oh, except for the first paragraph, too. See, while it's handy to dissect the statement into two separate sentences (the easier to construct a dissemblance with), you read them together and it's pretty clear what he was saying - I didn't support Reagan then and I don't now.

And again, I could care less if the man wasn't a great fan of Reagan - I have some criticisms of Reagan myself. That isn't even what my beef is with. It's with him claiming now that Reagan is one of his "heroes" when he couldn't run away from Reagan fast enough in 1994. It's possible that some honest reason for the change of heart has occurred - besides, of course, the death of Reagan and Romney's own candidacy - but the fact that this explanation will be forthcoming (if at all) only after his condradiction was caught makes it suspicious.

"Administrative Law is not for sissies." - Justice Antonin Scalia

"And that is, of course, that Romney didn't say, "I'm not trying to return to the days of Jesse Helms." Otherwise, you're pretty much spot on."

That's probably because the 'days of Jesse Helms' were still occuring in 1994, since Helms held office from 1973-2003. So that statement would be ridiculous. But IIRC, they tried harder to tie Romney to Helms than to Reagan.

After watching the MNF intro that what this country needs is Barack Obama as President. Henceforth, he gets my support.

:-)

"Administrative Law is not for sissies." - Justice Antonin Scalia

Deval "Free 'em ALL!" Patrick ran precisely the stealth - don't say nothing that isn't a bromide (a la "Politics of Hope!"), cry about "negativity" if someone dares ask you for specifics, yadda yadda yadda - campaign I expect Barack RockStar™ Obama to run against Saint Hillary.

It worked like a charm for Patrick. I suppose we'll get to see if it works nationally.

But let's face it, if notariety is going to replace experience and achievement as qualifications for high office (and that, to my mind, is all Obama offers at this point), then I suggest the blockbuster, indpendent candidacy of the Heir Head and the Has-Been in 08! Hey, at least they wouldn't be too hard to look at while we're facing Mecca 5x a day.

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"

He's been about as conservative as Nixon in office, and outside of a few issues he really cares about, it seems he is willing to go whichever way the wind is blowing. I believe the rest he takes whatever advice he's given on. That's where the "compassionate" part or "compassionate conservatism" comes in. There's been a lot of horribly unsuccessful triangulation going on under 43's watch.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

you think he's a lying opportunist. maybe nancy pelosi is a hard-core conservative who is just trying to get elected in sanfran.

Having tasted a life wasted, I ain't ever going back again.
-E.V.

I think all successful politicians lie about or at least are not completely honest about their positions at one time or another. I just have to make my guesses as to what they really think and go with my gut. Sometimes that jives with what they are saying, sometimes it does not. If I ruled out everyone who I thought was not completely honest, I would never have to go out and vote.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

from my pov, a complete lack of candor goes with the territory, but 180's (especially regarding social issues) put prickers under my saddle.

Having tasted a life wasted, I ain't ever going back again.
-E.V.

Most of Leon’s post has nothing to do with anything Romney has said or done but rather consists of him putting words in Romney’s mouth. Sort of like the thread that popped up after Governor Romney spoke to Redstate which accused him of “lying” about his position on abortion and completely distorted with Romney had actually said.

If by "putting words in Romney's mouth" you mean "quoting him accurately," then I'm guilty as charged. Why not just call it "swiftboating" and be done with it?

"Administrative Law is not for sissies." - Justice Antonin Scalia

Do you mean to say that we should expect the imposition of socialized medicine with Romney as President?

"Administrative Law is not for sissies." - Justice Antonin Scalia

You won't have to worry about that since MA didn't even come near socialized medicine under him as governor.

www.mymanmitt.com
www.illinoisansforromney.com

I have no idea what I was thinking.

"Administrative Law is not for sissies." - Justice Antonin Scalia

"I have no idea what I was thinking."

Now I do agree with you on that. It looks like you forgot to read the article you cite. I quote you the second paragraph.

"I don't like calling it universal coverage," he told me last week. "That smacks of Hillarycare. But I do think we've come up with a way to get everybody covered through the free-market system." Romney's way is not new: policy wonks call it an "individual mandate" system, but the Governor doesn't like that term either. "I call it a personal responsibility system," he said.

I didn't know that was socialism. I was under the impression that...

"Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control.[1] This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or it may be indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often associated with state, community or worker ownership of the means of production."

I see little if any resemblance between Romney's health care plan (crafted by him and the Heritage Foundation) and socialized Medical care as found in Europe and Canada.

But details of his programs and his record as governor seem to evade your thinking.

www.mymanmitt.com
www.illinoisansforromney.com

And that problem is that Hillarycare was also an individual mandate system. I know, because here in Tennessee we had an experiment with this exact kind of system (called Tenncare) which we are still dealing with. The bottom line - and the experience in Tennessee has borne this out - is that if you say, "you should go get your own health insurance, but if you don't, we'll provide your health insurance," that everyone is going to take the government health insurance - or at least, that enough people are going to take it to destroy the financial viability of private health insurance.

If you're not willing to see it as Hillarycare, are you at least willing to see that this is exactly the same system that Kerry proposed in the 2004 election?

"Administrative Law is not for sissies." - Justice Antonin Scalia

It's funny to see someone use exactly in such a loose way!

What matters to me is the way the plan works. Kerry's plan can be summed up in a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/gratzer200409280828.asp">this NRO peice:

Kerry has a plan to shave $1,000 off every employee's premium, and also to cut the number of uninsured in half and cover more children. He offers something for everyone: For employers struggling with rising costs, he promises that Washington will pay 75 percent of extraordinary health bills. He promises to create massive purchasing pools, so that employers and individuals can join together to buy insurance, cutting premiums further. He offers tax credits for the uninsured and an expansion of public programs, such as Medicaid, to cover most of America's kids. And for anyone taking prescription drugs, which is to say most of the country, he promises lower prices by allowing importation of Canadian drugs (and thus Canadian price controls).

Kerry's plan involved expanding who fits the criteria for Medicare. Romney's plan involves taking those who already do qualify and get them insured so that his deficit ridden state would no longer have to flip the Emergency Room bill, not expanding who fits.

I have no problem with Canadian Drugs. Actually as someone who is self-employed I purchase my medicine from Canada. Romney's plan does nothing with the Canadian question.

I have no problem with purchasing pools, they are a great idea. I don't remember purchasing pools in Romney's plan.

Romney's plan does not expand goverment payout. Rather it redistributes what it is already paying out into a more effective manner. I see no problem with that. You seem to forget the reality of getting a plan passed in a state like MA is vastly different as it would be in Indiana or Wyoming, as are the needs of the state.

It's a cute thought to cut Medicare/aid, one that would be great if possible to do in a healthy manner, but we need a leader who can lead us in the reality of the day, not the theoretical world we create in the blogosphere.

www.mymanmitt.com
www.illinoisansforromney.com

Kerry's plan involved expanding who fits the criteria for Medicare. Romney's plan involves taking those who already do qualify and get them insured so that his deficit ridden state would no longer have to flip the Emergency Room bill, not expanding who fits.

You've just described the difference between the federal government's role in defining Medicare, and the State's role in managing Medicaid. The last sentence in your paragraph is a justification for aggressive Medicaid expansion, not something to distinguish it policy-wise from Kerry's vision for Medicare.

Romney's plan does not expand goverment payout. Rather it redistributes what it is already paying out into a more effective manner. I see no problem with that. You seem to forget the reality of getting a plan passed in a state like MA is vastly different as it would be in Indiana or Wyoming, as are the needs of the state.

Again - this may or may not be a good justification for Medicaid expansion (it isn't) - but that doesn't change what it is. Again I feel compelled to point out that we had the exact same package sold here in Tennessee, and it came to eventually occupy almost 40 per cent of the State's entire budget in less than a decade. You'd be surprised how many people suddenly "can't get" private health insurance when the government is handing it out "free" down the street.

It's a cute thought to cut Medicare/aid, one that would be great if possible to do in a healthy manner, but we need a leader who can lead us in the reality of the day, not the theoretical world we create in the blogosphere.

I'd settle for not expanding it, actually. Or at least expanding it at a level consistent with inflation.

"Administrative Law is not for sissies." - Justice Antonin Scalia

The last sentence in your paragraph is a justification for aggressive Medicaid expansion, not something to distinguish it policy-wise from Kerry's vision for Medicare.

I guess people see it as they want. Romney was not acting to save the nations health care problems, but rather his own state's. Romney's plan wasn't meant to be a thumbs up or down on Medicare, but rather a way to cut the deficit by getting unisured off of the state roles. His number one target was not those in poverty, rather those who made plenty of money to afford insurance but refused to get it because they see no value in being insured. They could never qualify for Medicare. Actually statistaclly that was the number one group of uninsured in MA.

I think you have tried to frame it as Romney is expanding who qualifies for Medicare, thus insuring more people. Nothing could be further from the truth. That would be Blago's plan here in IL.

In all truthfulness I am very familiar with the habits of those who rely on govement welfare. Having spent last year working with individuals hooked on welfare to teach them the principles of self sufficiency, I am very familiar with human nature.

Human Nature operates on incentives. That is why I like Romney's plan. It provides incentives to get people to find insurance themselves, by allowing competition in the market, less goverment requlation in the industry allowing more affordability thus taking those with money out of the state emergency room plan.

I would also add that Romney has said this is not a solution for the nation, it probably wouldn't work, but rather it is a solution for his state. So far Romney has a very good track record of turning around broken systems.

www.mymanmitt.com
www.illinoisansforromney.com

I hope we can agree that your original statement of Romney's HEalth plan being socialized is off base.

www.mymanmitt.com
www.illinoisansforromney.com

"Socialized" was hyperbole, which comes across poorly in written form, especially during the middle of a policy debate, and I shouldn't have used it.

However, I do find it indistinguishable from the Hillarycare we have/had (Bredesen has been busy subjecting it to death by a thousand cuts) here in Tennessee, and especially indistinguishable from Kerry's healthcare plan.

"Administrative Law is not for sissies." - Justice Antonin Scalia

Unfortunately it’s hard to have a serious discussion about health care when you’re dealing with people who think all they need to do is cry “socialized medicine” (or “Hillarycare”) to discredit any reform proposals. I’m not completely sold on Romney’s health plan but the major criticisms of it that I’ve read are generally because it didn’t go far enough (e.g. the unfunded mandates for prepaid health care are still in place and they’re what’s largely keeping it so expensive) and the employer mandate – both of which Romney disavowed and has been upfront about every time I’ve seem him discuss the issue.

whether his values have shifted. That's some cause for concern, since unlike Reagan, he hasn't had many years in office afterward. Thus it's hard to judge whether those new values are now stable. But it's certainly not a disqualifier in itself.

What's much worse is the other interpetation: that he radically changes positions according to political convenience. It is arguably not convenient to be very conservative after the primary. Can we trust him to not change again? Or is he the Republican equivalent of the flip-flopping Kerry?

Yes, it's clear that Mitt Romney was distancing himself from Ronald Reagan, and did not then want to be associated with that Reagan stood for.

Well, why should we now believe it when he suddenly does want to associate himself with what Reagan stands for? If he's already been proven willing to say what he thinks he has to in order to win...
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge

Maybe you'll remember, this phrase was being thrown around as an all-purpose insult by the Democrats in every race around the country in the mid-90s. It was the "Culture of Corruption" of its time. It's not like he invented the term to repudiate Reagan's principles. I'm sure he was being attacked with "Reagan-Bush" over and over again during the campaign and rather than try to defend "Reagan-Bush," (whatever that means, even) that is how he chose to deal with it.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

If he becomes President, or even just our nominee, the press will create all sorts of things to attack him with.

What else will he repudiate in order to get along?
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge

I don't even know what the "Reagan-Bush" insult was supposed to mean back when they were flinging it around. It was just completely nonsensical. So what does a repudiation of "Reagan-Bush" mean? Bush 41 didn't have anything at all in common with Reagan. And as great as Reagan was, the last few years of his last term were not good ones. So, if we were talking about the last half of "Reagan-Bush": 86-92, yea, I would be quick to repudiate that too.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I'm not quite ready to toss out Romney, but I want from him a clear, unequivocal, and convincing explanation of exactly what he meant and why he said it.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge

I doubt anyone can articulate what it ever meant. I take the comment as a "na-uh... am not!" in reply to some ridiculous and meaningless taunt. I don't feel I need an explanation.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

You never, ever, stop asking questions of politicians. Always make them clarify.

While I don't think Leon's summary of Romney's views in any way equate to the ones in direct quotes, the direct quotes certainly leave some questions to be answered.

No doubt these questions are going to be asked pretty frequently as long as Romney is contesting leadership positions.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

To dig into and relive Democrat talking point mass fax gotchas from a decade ago, however. That is what makes this special, IMO. I had completely forgotten all about the "12 years of Reagan-Bush" smear that went around in the 90s until these stupid quotes were dug up. Let's not bring it back.

I'm more concerned with what he thinks about specific issues. From what I've seen lately on minimum wage and affirmative action I'm not all that impressed. It looks to me like the primary is quickly shaping up to be a lesser of evils sort of deal.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I am anti-McCain, in point of fact. But not to the extent that I wouldn't vote for him, if I became sufficiently disgusted with everyone else.

And, as I tried to make clear in my post, I could care less whether he said things that were critical of Reagan - I've said some things that were critical of Reagan on this very blog - what bothers me is (as I think you noted) that he sees fit now to claim Reagan as a hero - meanwhile offering no explanation for his change of heart.

"Administrative Law is not for sissies." - Justice Antonin Scalia

Leon,

You sum up quite well: "what bothers me is (as I think you noted) that he sees fit now to claim Reagan as a hero - meanwhile offering no explanation for his change of heart."

1. Most are complaining that his change of heart conveniently occurred now to suit his "upcoming run at the Presidency".

Answer: Wrong, he had a change of heart sometime before a year into his Govenorship in 2004 and restated in 2005 as shown in mikelaub's post "More Romney Quotes on Reagan"

2. You are complaining that he has offered no explanation for his change of heart.

Answer: Patience grasshopper. Although a few weeks are an eternity in blogland, he's still Governor and out of respect for his Govenorship, he is not declaring he's intensions for a presidential run until his term is finished. Once he declares his intents and starts talking to the press, these questions will come up. If his people are wise, they have been watching many of the posts and will have popular forums and chances to answer your concern. I imagine that until you posted your concern, Romney probably never knew he needed to explain his personal reasonings to you about this specific issue. Now he does. In a few weeks he'll have the opportunity to talk and we'll get to see if his people are on the ball and reading the blogs and concerns of those in the market for a good 08 candidate.

In Survey USA's 2008 polling, Reagan gets thumped by FDR in a hypothetical matchup. It's scary, but true.

Newt is polling with Romney in the high single digits for the GOP nomination, while McCain and Giuliani are in the high 20's.

To the fact that most of the population has only been exposed to the version of FDR that appears in liberal textbooks. The same ones that talk about how the new deal and the WPA brought about the end of the depression (which was, of course, caused by greedy and evil capitalists).
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Have to wonder if their polling would have Carter beat Reagan, too.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge

What is more amazing is how someone could honestly say a man the believes in curtailing free speech and conservative judicial appointments is somehow a conservatie. I would put free speech above anything else, since withn out it we have nothing else.

Maybe your idea of conservative is a little different though.

Name something Romney has done that has been anti-family while governor. I doubt you can, actually no one here can. They can qute some old quotes from 94 (It's fair game to bring them up, I don't care) but they can do nothing to show that he has governed as anything other than pro-life and pro-family.

He vetoed bills and took on a liberal establishment. Something McCain has no idea how to do. He has done more pro-life than even GW with his recent tacit support of over te counter abortives.

It's hard to believe that someone would consider fair treatment before the law for a homosexual as not conservative. From Day 1 (yes even in 1994) Romney has stood against Gay Marriage. Who has fought as hard? Who else has taken on the State supreme court as Romney has? Who offered as compelling an argument to congresss?

The sad thing is if Romney gets sunked (which he won't) for saying that Gays deserve equal treatment, can you imagine how that will play in a national election. Like it or not the GOP will have even more expaining then than you think Romney does now. You think the NYTimes are downing Romney because of his comments in 94? I can tell you that is not the case. It's probably because they would like nothing more than to see the ouster of the man who is currently leading the way in the SSM fight.

www.mymanmitt.com
www.illinoisansforromney.com

Romney is more conservative than McCain on at least 4 issues: CFR, immigration, taxes and terrorist interrogations. Romney also slashed state spending, so he's at least equal to McCain on budget concerns.

Plus, the biggest thing McCain has ever run is a Senate office. Romney's run hundreds of companies, and Olympics and the 13th largest state in the country. That has to count for something.

...an Olympics.