Feb 29 2012
Stuck With Mitt – For Now
Mitt Romney pulled out a weak win in Michigan last night. So that means we are stuck with him as the GOP candidate against Obama.
I don’t need to emphasize how underwhelmed I am. I was happier with the McCain selection in 2008 – and I was not thrilled then either.
Mitt has no more Mulligans. None.
I repeat: He has no more Mulligans.
One misstep and many independents, tea partiers and others will determine that a neutered Obama facing a GOP controlled Congress (with subpoena power) is far more preferable than a big-government Romney.
Here is the list of Must Not Do’s Romney has to abide from here on out or he will lose to Obama:
- Never give an inch to the human-created Global Warming nonsense. Promise to over turn all the regulations calling CO2 a pollutant, close down CO2 exchanges, end all Green subsidies and tell the EU no US company is paying their stupid green taxes.
- Open up all areas of the US to oil and gas exploration and production. Hold companies to those environmental laws that make sure exploiting our resources do not harm are national treasures, overly impact animals and plants or do harm to humans. We have these rules already so this should not be a challenge.
- Overturn ObamaCare. If you want to keep some pieces force them to be revoted into existence. Make sure we now the pros and cons of any holdovers.
- Cut spending now (not in 5-10 years). And no net tax increases anywhere. No new revenues unless it is 100% offset by closing down existing streams. Government may only shrink – not grow.
These are his 4 weakest areas and the ones I doubt the man can hold to. But he must abide by these boundaries to win. They are also non-negotiable. He best stop rationalizing and excusing. This is what he must promise.
If he slides even a fraction on any of them, or hints at any wiggle room or gray area, or appears to be just giving lip service so he can explore beyond these boundaries when elected, he will not be elected. I promise you that.
It will be far better and easier to block a President Obama on all fronts with a GOP Congress (and real investigations into his administration’s screw ups) than to have Romney come in, give a blanket amnesty to the prior President’s sins and then demand fealty from HIS GOP Congress. Our Imperial President needs to be Imperial only when cutting the size of government and doing The People’s bidding. No playing with government. He needs to oppose out of control government on every front.
Government has to be the solution of last resort. Closing down useless, wasteful and corrupt government can take the time required to minimize or avoid hurting those simply doing their jobs or those who need to break their government support addiction (those who truly need it will always be covered). But a GOP president in this day and age cannot slip up and start imposing his warped version of government intrusion using the powers that now exist.
And there better not be a hint of crony capitalism and lining of pockets. None.
If he remains true to these conditions he will win. He steps one inch out of line he will lose.
Redteam
but Jan, since you are heavily defending Romneycare, would you please take a few minutes to tell me why you think they needed it.
The federal government was threatening to cut off over 300 million in medicaid funding if MA didn’t come up with a way to insure more people. That was the impetus for finding a way to medically cover more people. I’m repeating myself here, however, there were already two ideas in the mill, both of which would have put the state on more of a government option plan (Hillarycare-like). Romney chose to work, in a bipartisan manner, with multiple private insurance plans, along with mandates to close the gap of free service to medical free riders. In a perfect world, making two-thirds of a state’s residents happy might not be enough. However, in an imperfect world, such as ours, given the diversity of ideological stances regarding what is the right thing to do, making two-thirds of the people happy is a pretty solid accomplishment, IMO, whether they are democrats, republicans or indies.
Also, my so-called “defense of Romneycare” is solely given because of where and how it’s being implemented, which is in the liberal state of MA. I support a given state’s right to create and impose policies that are in cooperation with the residents living there. Trying to extend that policy, though, imposing it on the other 49 states, when the people don’t want it, is a whole other issue. And, Romney has repeatedly said, that this was not his intention. He has also said he strongly endorses getting rid of Obamacare should he become president.
I personally differentiate between Romneycare and Obamacare.
The former is a plan customized for that state and apparently accepted by the majority as working for the greater good. If or when those people decide differently they can go about repealing it in that state.
The latter, Obamacare, is a big clumsy tarp covering every state, embroiling people in limited choices of plans and totally rebuffed by the majority of people and physicians who know anything about it. Even more vital is that should this program get rolling, it will be next to impossible to defuse or repeal.
Consequently, to morally equate the two like they are one, simply because Obama used one as a framework to build his albatross on, seems off-kilter, consuming far too much energy on a state’s right prerogative when we should be focusing our verbal muscle on the massive federal government intrusion which loiters on our doorstep.
Why Reagan won the election: watch this speech. Not once does he mention gay rights, abortion, contraceptives. It is a message about AMERICA. This speech is just as pertinent today as it was when he gave it in 1981. EVERYONE needs to see this speech. THIS is how you win an election.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpPt7xGx4Xo
jan, thanks for your response. I believe we could continue it indefinitely and neither of us would change our beliefs. The state of Mass ended up with a system where the people that were paying for everyone’s health care (including those that did and will continue to get it free) had it embedded into law that they were now legally responsible for providing it at their increased cost to the free loaders, with no increase in benefits to the providers, only increased cost. You have clearly made the argument that the people that had their taxes (excuse me, fees) increased to provide the freeloaders free insurance are very happy with the situation. I’m afraid if I were one of those taxpayers (excuse me, fees payers) that was now paying 10% more in fees with no additional benefits, I wouldn’t like it, but then I’m not one of those liberals that think I should involuntarily support others. You clearly see Romney as being a great leader that took an inevitable poor situation and attempted to make it better, Since he certainly saw this from his basic liberal position, it would never occur to him to think in the direction of trying to abort the whole fiasco, but to just moderate the effects of the shafting everyone was about to get. But with 80% of the people from Mass being of liberal persuasion and desiring to foster the socialist society, they were thrilled that they had found, perhaps the one Republican in the state that thought as they did. (Nope, I don’t wonder how he got elected)
I don’t think there is a good candidate running for president, in either party. Two of the ones running have, in my opinion, proven themselves to not be good leaders (Obama and Romney) the other 3 are untested (have not held a leaders position) So it just kinda gets down to if we want to select a proven poor leader or try someone that is unproven. I’m not sure it makes much difference (except in the case of Obama he’s not a proven poor leader, he’s a proven disaster) It seems as if all politicians think in terms of giving ‘their’ side a little more than the ‘other’ side, but give everyone ‘something’ to keep them all happy. That’s expected because the government owns the printing presses and have no limitations on paper and printing ink. I think in terms of cutting spending today, not next week or next year, but I’m not a politician. If you see the official governors photo of Romney as Governor, it includes his Romney care bill in the photo, his single most proud accomplishment
I responded in one posting but it is in moderation, since it sometimes takes two or more days to clear, I’m reposting in 2 or more parts.
jan, thanks for your response. I believe we could continue it indefinitely and neither of us would change our beliefs. The state of Mass ended up with a system where the people that were paying for everyone’s health care (including those that did and will continue to get it free) had it embedded into law that they were now legally responsible for providing it at their increased cost to the free loaders, with no increase in benefits to the providers, only increased cost. You have clearly made the argument that the people that had their taxes (excuse me, fees) increased to provide the freeloaders free insurance are very happy with the situation. I’m afraid if I were one of those taxpayers (excuse me, fees payers) that was now paying 10% more in fees with no additional benefits, I wouldn’t like it, but then I’m not one of those liberals that think I should involuntarily support others.
You clearly see Romney as being a great leader that took an inevitable poor situation and attempted to make it better, Since he certainly saw this from his basic liberal position, it would never occur to him to think in the direction of trying to abort the whole fiasco, but to just moderate the effects of the shafting everyone was about to get. But with 80% of the people from Mass being of liberal persuasion and desiring to foster the socialist society, they were thrilled that they had found, perhaps the one Republican in the state that thought as they did. (Nope, I don’t wonder how he got elected)
You clearly see Romney as being a great leader that took an inevitable poor situation and attempted to make it better, Since he certainly saw this from his basic liberal position, it would never occur to him to think in the direction of trying to abort the whole fiasco, but to just moderate the effects of the shafting everyone was about to get. But with 80% of the people from Mass being of liberal persuasion and desiring to foster the s-o-c-i-a-l-i-s-t society, they were thrilled that they had found, perhaps the one Republican in the state that thought as they did. (Nope, I don’t wonder how he got elected)
I don’t think there is a good candidate running for president, in either party. Two of the ones running have, in my opinion, proven themselves to not be good leaders (Obama and Romney) the other 3 are untested (have not held a leaders position) So it just kinda gets down to if we want to select a proven poor leader or try someone that is unproven. I’m not sure it makes much difference (except in the case of Obama he’s not a proven poor leader, he’s a proven disaster) It seems as if all politicians think in terms of giving ‘their’ side a little more than the ‘other’ side, but give everyone ‘something’ to keep them all happy. That’s expected because the government owns the printing presses and have no limitations on paper and printing ink. I think in terms of cutting spending today, not next week or next year, but I’m not a politician. If you see the official governors photo of Romney as Governor, it includes his Romney care bill in the photo, his single most proud accomplishment
end of part 3
the word socialist was in the second part and it kicked it into moderation. I don’t understand why a word that describes the politics of the President of the US trigger moderation.
the word s-o-c-i-a-l-i-s-t was in the second part and it kicked it into moderation. I don’t understand why a word that describes the politics of the President of the US trigger moderation.
Redteam
I agree that you and I could probably go on indefinitely in sharing a POV that is at odds with each other. Therefore, I will respectfully agree to disagree with you. However, I do want you to know that I don’t see Romney as a ‘great’ leader. His role in MA negotiated a better policy than ones that were facing MA without his participation. So, I give him kudos for that rather than a kick in the shins. At this point, though, I would rate Romney as an ‘adequate’ leader with potential.
Also, while I don’t see the need to interfer or pass judgement on the peoples’ political bent in MA, their kind of health care reform is not something I would want. I don’t like anyone telling me what to do..even my husband!
Redteam,
I just read this piece on NRO, Re: Romney urged Obama to adopt individual healthcare mandate, and it expands on the scenario leading up to Romney’s entrance into helping to formulate MA HC reform policies. I have included an excerpt of it below. However, it is well worth reading the whole piece to get the full context of the medical health care dilemma MA was facing when Mitt Romney first became governor.
jan: I read the entire article, puts it more in perspective. The Obama Care is the scary thing, it will completely bankrupt the treasury within 5 years of implementation. It has to be repealed.
Redteam,
Sorry for the moderation stuff. I have no idea what it is you trigger. Heck, I could never post if I had to deal with that.
Anyway, been under the weather and under water so I have not been checking on comments as much as usual.
All cleared.
Redteam
I appreciate your feedback after reading the linked article above. I especially like the phrase liberals in his state naturally wanted to to double down on what had created the disaster in the first place, as liberals seem genetically programmed to want to do whenever their policies go south. Isn’t that what Obama does at every failed turn of the road! Geeez….
Also 100% agree about the impact Obamacare will have on this country should it not get repealed, which also means repealing Obama’s ability to have another 4-year term in the Oval Office.
Tom Coburn’s endorsement of Mitt Romney. His words deal with the leaderhip component that has been discussed on this thread.