June 04, 2012
— DrewM Mike Leavitt, former Governor of Utah and HHS Secretary Under George W. Bush, is heading up planning for Mitt Romney's transition effort should Romney win.
It turns out he's a big supporter of ObamaCare and has been fighting to have states implement the "exchanges" which are the mechanism the federal government will use to regulate personal insurance once the law is fully in force.
Ben Domenech, who has been a guest poster here and who does health care policy work for a living lays out some the "highlights" of Leavitt's support for the law.
Leavitt’s status as one of the few Republicans supporting Obamacare implementation has been a matter of significant concern for those on the right, as he and his consultancy represent the most prominent figures in the party urging states to bow to Washington’s wishes in this regard. I wrote about his work here, but here are a few examples:Last year he spoke to the National Governors Association, urging “the governors not defend their ‘partisan flags’ over the interests of their states.”
A month later, Leavitt wrote: “I’m surprised that many states are waiting for the political stars to align and produce repeal or a major revision. Some are doing little of substance, hoping that the federal government will relax the calendar. Both approaches are a mistake. Smart states will proceed to develop exchanges based on a strategy of self-determination and the benefits that come from enhancing insurance offerings within their states.”
It’s little surprise Leavitt and his staff decried the conservatives arguing against implementation. “In recent weeks health insurance exchanges have become the target of those who oppose Obamacare. This is very unfortunate as exchanges make sense for a number of reasons and exchanges should not be used as a scapegoat to defeat Obamacare… Regardless of your opinion of Obamacare, exchanges just make sense.”
They suggested that “Resistance to exchange establishment also seems to come from a general aversion to change.” They scoffed at the policy wonks: “When you work at a think-tank, it’s really easy to come up with these really high-risk plans.”
There's a lot more at the link.
Consider this, Leavitt is to the left on ObamaCare of Mr. RINO Chris Christie.
When I heard about Leavitt I just thought he was in it to make a buck for his consulting firm but really opposed ObamaCare like every other Republican in the country. That's simply not the case.
Mike Leavitt, the former secretary of HHS under President George W. Bush and current Romney adviser, said the federal government's historic $15 trillion debt will drive “hard” changes in healthcare system to reduce its costs. Those changes, including moving across healthcare from a fee-for-service model to outcomes based payment, may be facilitated by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Romney has repeatedly urged repeal and replacement of the law.The law “gives the secretary authority to do certain things that are clearly aimed at trying to move us in this direction,” he said in a brief interview after addressing a Washington gathering of the Cancer Action Network. “A lot of it will depend on how aggressively the secretary chooses to use the authorities in the law to move us in that direction.”
So Leavitt's concern about ObamaCare was that Kathleen Sebilius might not be aggressive enough in using the power given to her by ObamaCare? Was that your first reaction or the reaction of any conservative/Republican you know?
Romney's camp says don't worry, only Mitt makes decisions and he's on board with repeal.
Romney says the right things about ObamaCare (usually) but his actions on healthcare reform, including picking a transition director who is thought to be a leading candidate to be his Chief of Staff often are at odds with his words.
I was torn about whether or not to post this but I think it's important enough. I was on a self-imposed hiatus from posting about Mitt for most of the primary season. I'm happy to help by hitting the MFM, Obama and The Democrats but saying something nice about Mitt is usually a bridge too far for me. Since he's "our" guy though, I wasn't looking for reasons to hit him.
I'm not trying to re-litigate the primaries. Mitt won and we have to make the best of that. But I seem to remember the deal was if we nominate Mitt we would have to hold his feet to the fire. Well, this is one of those times. If we don't do it now because we have to beat Obama, we'll never do it. There will always be a reason to cut him some slack. We either are serious about keeping him on the straight and narrow or not.
Personnel is often policy, especially when it's the guy staffing the whole administration.
I think this is worth taking Mitt on over. If not now, when?
You can say, "well, we need a conservative Congress to keep Romney in line". That's true put it's hard to keep several hundred legislators in line all the time. It's easier to keep one guy in check, especially now when we have the power.
Added: Just to be perfectly clear- I'm not saying don't work for Mitt or to not vote for him if you live in a swing state. I'm saying we need to keep him on a short leash and make it uncomfortable for him when he strays too far.
Can you imagine in 2008 if Obama named as his transition director someone who supported the Bush Tax cuts? No you can't. Why should we accept this?
Posted by: DrewM at
06:23 AM
| Comments (347)
Post contains 951 words, total size 6 kb.
Posted by: joncelli, heartless Con and all around unpleasant guy at June 04, 2012 06:26 AM (RD7QR)
And I hate to say this, but I agree with DrewM...this is definitely an issue that deserves a fight.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at June 04, 2012 06:26 AM (nEUpB)
The Obama campaign aired its first national TV ad of the election cycle Sunday night - a 30-second spot on the MTV Network that features actress Sarah Jessica Parker plugging President Obama's record and soliciting donations for a campaign sweepstakes.
"OK, the guy who ended the war in Iraq; the guy who says you should be able to marry anyone you want; the guy who created 4 million new jobs. That guy - President Obama - and his wife Michelle are coming to my house for dinner on June 14th," Parker says to camera.
"And I want you to be there too. But, you have to go to JoinObama.com for a chance to win and the contest ends tomorrow night. So go right here right now because we need him and he needs us."
Anyone want to go feed oats to Mrs. Ed and rub elbows with all of those 99%ers? 4 million new jobs? They must have got that number from the choom mobile
Posted by: TheQuietMan at June 04, 2012 06:29 AM (1Jaio)
Posted by: eman at June 04, 2012 06:29 AM (6KkLK)
Doesn't matter, Romneycare can't win in November without us true conservatives. Sure, he'll get you so called republicans that live in the suburbs to turn out, but we rural folks aren't going to be voting for president this year, we'll be concentrating on the Congressional races.
How could anyone vote for someone to be President that they know is just lying to them? .......Oh, yeah, but the other guy is lying more.
Posted by: doug at June 04, 2012 06:30 AM (gUGI6)
Posted by: steevy at June 04, 2012 06:32 AM (Xb3hu)
I always had reservations about "obama lite" Romney, whose only redeeming feature is that is NOT Obama. Now he pulls this shit. I will still vote for him (while thowing up in the booth).
Maybe them Ron Paul fellers were right.
Posted by: Judge Roy Bean at June 04, 2012 06:32 AM (dG1/b)
I don't see how it's possible to hold Mitt's feet to the fire.
All you're doing is providing him an opportunity to distance himself from the right, in a display of how centrist he is. I realize this isn't your intent. And I also think you've made a very good point and that this is a major indicator of the entire tenor of the White House staff, when Romney wins the election.
I don't think Mitt will be replacing personnel over conservative objections. He is going to do his best to avoid the Etch A Sketch meme, and that alone is how his feet are held to the fire. Not ideology.
Romney will be a substantial improvement over SCOAMF, but he will be an average president at best if he doesn't fight hard against the ind. mandate and fight hard for a balanced budget. It's not like in the 1980s or 2000s. This is a pressing, urgent issue.
Should Romney win the fight for a balanced budget, then they should put his face on Mount Rushmore. Of course, this isn't going to happen, but I urge everyone to turn out to vote for Romney anyway, because an average president is a lot better than an awful one.
Posted by: Dustin at June 04, 2012 06:33 AM (z36s0)
Don't need a federal law for that...
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at June 04, 2012 06:33 AM (/kI1Q)
Posted by: The Mega Independent at June 04, 2012 06:34 AM (goVJX)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at June 04, 2012 06:35 AM (MCDCp)
Posted by: blaster at June 04, 2012 06:35 AM (7vSU0)
I'd go, just to do a Breitbart ("this cheese is the bomb") but I'm pretty sure I'd never pass the background check.
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at June 04, 2012 06:36 AM (/kI1Q)
"It's easier to keep one guy in check, especially now when we have the power."
We don't have any power right now. If someone here were to even suggest staying home and not voting for Mitt, he would be ridiculed and called a concern troll, etc.
Mitt knows that he doesn't have to try anymore. I suspect he's going to go further and further left before election day, knowing our only other choice is Obama.
Posted by: JustLikeDavidHasselhoff at June 04, 2012 06:36 AM (QyMDY)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at June 04, 2012 06:36 AM (05RcU)
Leavitt apparently thinks the exchanges are a good idea, regardless of whether Obamacare is implemented or not. He seems to be saying they would be helpful at the state level for governors.
I donÂ’t know enough about the mechanics of the exchanges to comment on it, but I havenÂ’t read anything that suggests he gives a full-throated endorsement of Obamacare as is suggested. It might be a good idea to look a little further into this before condemning the guy.
Posted by: jwest at June 04, 2012 06:36 AM (ZDsRL)
Posted by: blaster at June 04, 2012 06:38 AM (7vSU0)
This is no different, Romney game out quick to address this as far as I am concerned itis a non issue unless later we are shown differently.
Hell I am not even a Romney fan but at some point we need to wear big boy pants and realize the world, people and candidates are not perfect and show some understanding of how relationships and teams actually are put together and work.
That being said if the guy comes out publicly or demonstrates privately a penchant to push Obamacare forward we should crucify both him and his boss Romney.
Posted by: Fire with Fire at June 04, 2012 06:38 AM (lcwvr)
house for dinner on June 14th,"
Michelle!? At your house?! For dinner?! Do NOT get between her and the buffet, horseface. She'll mow you over!
Posted by: Tami at June 04, 2012 06:38 AM (X6akg)
Posted by: Cthluthu at June 04, 2012 06:39 AM (6RslH)
It turns out he's a big supporter of ObamaCare
I am on a new kick of trying to be positive about things so, um, well, um hey! At least conservatives got stabbed in the face instead of the back! So that's good then.
Arrrgggghhh, I think I just broke out in hives from trying not to be my normal cheery Princess of Death self.
Posted by: alexthechick at June 04, 2012 06:40 AM (VtjlW)
Posted by: soothsayer, for your own good at June 04, 2012 06:40 AM (xIzGn)
Personnel matters. And we should never fail to scrutinize all appointments by our leaders, regardless of party. Thenk God we have Justice Alito today and not Justice Harriet Myers.
The insurance exchanges are one of those Rube-Goldberg contraptions designed to fix a problem that is largely caused by stupid government rules and has a much more elegant solution, though it might be considered radical by many. Get employers out of the health insurance business entirely. Eliminate the tax preference for employer-provided health insurance. Eliminate Obamacare's community rating and guaranteed issue requirements. Allow the sale of health insurance across state lines. Give every individual a tax credit for the average cost of an individual or family policy.
States can then fix the problem of uninsured and high-risk people, without a bureaucratic exchange.
Posted by: rockmom at June 04, 2012 06:41 AM (NYnoe)
The choice of Mrs. Ed is probably to shore up his numbers among stupid women (i.e. viewers of Slutty in The City, or whatever they called that stupid show she was on).
Posted by: RightWingProf at June 04, 2012 06:41 AM (IC6Er)
And I need to remind all of you viewers that Obama "created four million jobs*" because none of you currently hold any of them. As is indicated by the fact that you're currently at home, watching my commercial, instead of at one.
*Number not validated by any form of actual mathematics. Any similarities to an actual performance metric of any president, past, present or future, is completely coincidental. No numbers were harmed in the pulling of this figure out of thin air.
Posted by: reason at June 04, 2012 06:42 AM (XiVKO)
Leavitt serves as a co-leader of the Nutrition and Physical Activity Initiative at the Bipartisan Policy Center.
The Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) is a non-profit organization that "drives principled solutions through rigorous analysis, reasoned negotiation, and respectful dialogue." Founded in 2007 by former Senate Majority Leaders Howard Baker, Tom Daschle, Bob Dole, and George J. Mitchell, "BPC combines politically-balanced policymaking with strong, proactive advocacy and outreach.
BPC currently has projects focused on economic policy, energy, health care and nutrition, housing, national security, and transportation. Actively promoting bipartisanship, BPC hosts events like "Bridge-Builder Breakfasts", political summits, and policy discussions to foster an ongoing conversation about how to overcome political divides.
You know.....
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at June 04, 2012 06:42 AM (kdS6q)
According to Sarah Jessica Parker, you should be able to marry her too.
Posted by: AmishDude at June 04, 2012 06:43 AM (1dt/1)
Posted by: Dave in Fla at June 04, 2012 06:43 AM (w86ft)
Posted by: Clemenza at June 04, 2012 06:43 AM (blVu5)
Okay, I'm on board with keeping Mitt's feet to the fire (I do wonder about the advisability of posts like this, since they seem almost designed to depress turnout, but that's an 'editorial' decision, and I can see why others would make the call). But the above statement is just false.
Here's the deal. It's a lot easier for me to have an impact on what, say, Joe Barton does than it is for me to have an impact on what Mitt Romney says or does. This will be true once Romney is President, too. Keeping Congress in check is much easier than keeping the Presidency in check, because the electoral realities of the two (three really, since Senators have to consider things differently than Reps, too) are such that a great hew and cry from people to a Representative will almost always be enough to sway his opinion, will usually be enough for a Senator, but may fall on completely deaf ears when addressed to a President.
Obviously those aren't set in stone, but I can't agree that it's easier to "keep one guy in check" when he's the President, than it is to keep your guy (ie: Your Senator or Rep) in check.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at June 04, 2012 06:43 AM (8y9MW)
As I was told by a 3 Star Admiral once...STAFF IS POLICY.
The guy in charge does not have time, or energy, to make every decision, to be briefed on every plan... and Staff controls the information a Leader has.... and so his choices.
A large part of Obama's problem is who he chose to listen to... who is on his staff.
Now, the head of his transition team is a Pro ObamaCare BUSHY????
/facepalm
Posted by: Romeo13 at June 04, 2012 06:43 AM (lZBBB)
Putting a cheery face on this is like being upbeat about the hoped-for reach-around.
Come back alexthechick...come back to the dark side!
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at June 04, 2012 06:44 AM (nEUpB)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at June 04, 2012 06:44 AM (05RcU)
Posted by: RightWingProf at June 04, 2012 10:41 AM (IC6Er)
.
The title was "Metaphor for Gay Men in the City"
Posted by: AmishDude at June 04, 2012 06:45 AM (1dt/1)
Posted by: eman at June 04, 2012 06:45 AM (6KkLK)
Posted by: toby928© at June 04, 2012 06:45 AM (NG097)
Uh, when the fuck is it time for Romney to put on his Big Boy pants and realize that trying to be Mr. Socialist Lite is going to mean another Obama style Heavy Communist defeating him in 2016?
Out here in PrivateSectorLand, we need something to work with if you want us to be able to pull a recovery out of our ass.
Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain at June 04, 2012 06:45 AM (BY55s)
According to Sarah Jessica Parker, you should be able to marry her too.
Posted by: AmishDude at June 04, 2012 10:43 AM (1dt/1)
You ever see my sister?
You ever see Sarah Jessica Parker?
Posted by: AmishDude at June 04, 2012 06:46 AM (1dt/1)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at June 04, 2012 06:47 AM (05RcU)
I am damned sick of the "its his turn" wins.
Posted by: Vic at June 04, 2012 06:47 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: Nevergiveup's sister at June 04, 2012 06:47 AM (XiVKO)
Posted by: polynikes at June 04, 2012 06:48 AM (PkV4/)
To be fair...she has a nice body, and when she was younger she was sort of cute.
But the horse face and the brain-dead politics is a nasty combination. She's definitely a two-bagger plus a ball gag.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at June 04, 2012 06:48 AM (nEUpB)
Posted by: Clemenza at June 04, 2012 06:48 AM (blVu5)
Once is chance, twice is coincidence. Let's not get to enemy action, 'kay Willard?
Mew
Posted by: acat at June 04, 2012 06:49 AM (4UkCP)
Posted by: TX at June 04, 2012 06:50 AM (XiVKO)
Posted by: Cthluthu at June 04, 2012 06:50 AM (6RslH)
Posted by: Spillane at June 04, 2012 06:50 AM (+l3L1)
Posted by: JQ Public, We said No Mitt. Try again. at June 04, 2012 06:50 AM (NBj0d)
Sure, but it's also a function of having a campaign structure in place, name recognition, and probably some leftover money to jump-start the campaign.
It's a complicated problem that can't be solved with modified primary rules.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at June 04, 2012 06:51 AM (nEUpB)
Can you imagine in 2008 if Obama named as his transition director someone who supported the Bush Tax cuts? No you can't. Why should we accept this?
-------
Because you will and you will like it.
This won't be the last time this shit happens, and thats why he'll peel off some dems from SCoaMF. What we need is an (R) congress.
Posted by: Jimmah at June 04, 2012 06:51 AM (cWkOB)
Posted by: The Mega Independent at June 04, 2012 06:51 AM (goVJX)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at June 04, 2012 06:52 AM (05RcU)
I did not get the same impression from the quote as you did, Drew.
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at June 04, 2012 06:52 AM (f9c2L)
This just feels so "etch-a-sketchy" to me.
Posted by: Bill Mitchell at June 04, 2012 06:53 AM (hlUJY)
Posted by: R. Polanski at June 04, 2012 06:53 AM (05RcU)
Posted by: meh at June 04, 2012 06:54 AM (HOOye)
Not really, but I want the preference cascade to accelerate, not fade.
I will be voting early and often.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at June 04, 2012 06:54 AM (nEUpB)
Posted by: The Mega Independent
.........
Bah.. there's absolutely nothing wrong with states having exchanges. The larger a pool, the better a deal you can get on insurance because you are pooling risk. As long as you are not forced into a pool or exchange or even forced to have insurance, WTF do you care if there is a state-level exchange available?
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at June 04, 2012 06:54 AM (f9c2L)
Posted by: Dang at June 04, 2012 06:54 AM (Ky1+e)
I think part of the reason for this is simply that no one who has not run a national campaign and has a massive team in place can survive a very skeptical and cynical Republican electorate as well as the sheer media onslaught.
Democrats can play hopenchange because they have a gullible electorate and the media plays nice with them.
Remember, this time around, the Republican electorate was looking for Anybody But Mitt and they found him wanting.
Posted by: AmishDude at June 04, 2012 06:54 AM (1dt/1)
Posted by: Bill Mitchell at June 04, 2012 06:55 AM (hlUJY)
Posted by: eman at June 04, 2012 06:55 AM (6KkLK)
Dude may not have any official reach into health care policy *right now*, but this is how this shit starts. Once they're in, bureaucrats just keep getting shuffled position to position. I don't want this commie shuffled to anything anywhere near the repeal effort. And we need to remind Mitt that we plan to hold him accountable right fing now.
Sorry, I decline to jump into the pot of warm water, not matter how low the flame is at the beginning.
Posted by: Filly at June 04, 2012 06:56 AM (247Qj)
Posted by: RonReich at June 04, 2012 06:56 AM (uptjT)
@16...."He should offer the job to the homo guy that quit"
Bwah, hah, hah, hah, hah!
That there was funny, I dont care who ya are! Real Comedy gold there!
Posted by: Judge Roy Bean at June 04, 2012 06:56 AM (dG1/b)
And then we would have gotten Perry (my first choice) into a commanding lead that he would have lost because of his lack of preparation and physical liabilities.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at June 04, 2012 06:56 AM (nEUpB)
Posted by: Mitt Romney at June 04, 2012 06:57 AM (uaEZS)
"Facebook developing technology to allow access to children under 13
Published June 04, 2012 "
SOMEBODY CALL MY STOCK BROKER!
Posted by: Pedobear at June 04, 2012 06:57 AM (XiVKO)
Posted by: Velvet Ambition at June 04, 2012 06:59 AM (mFxQX)
Posted by: Boston12GS at June 04, 2012 06:59 AM (rdSyJ)
PWNED.
Posted by: Barack Obama at June 04, 2012 06:59 AM (uaEZS)
**Shakes head slowly and sadly**
Posted by: BeckoningChasm at June 04, 2012 06:59 AM (i0App)
As difficult as it may be to accept, there are actually a few good things in Obamacare. The exchanges are one of them. They create competition which theoretically will bring prices down. Opening them up across state lines should be the ultimate goal.
This is coming from a HUGE Obamacare critic.
Posted by: Jaydee at June 04, 2012 07:00 AM (5YMB7)
It's a non-issue. But you'll try your fucking hardest to make it one!
Posted by: Jeff B. at June 04, 2012 07:00 AM (KVOrU)
"And then we would have gotten Perry (my first choice) into a commanding lead that he would have lost because of his lack of preparation and physical liabilities."
Who knows. In the realm of What If, maybe that commanding lead would have inspired Team Perry to take debate prep and the "tinytype" on Perry's prescriptions a little more seriously... Or he still might have crashed and burned, but given the rotation of "Not Mitts" a different spin.
Posted by: reason, giving a 9th look at Herman Cain at June 04, 2012 07:00 AM (XiVKO)
Posted by: Barney Frank at June 04, 2012 07:02 AM (XiVKO)
Just force him back to the right, that way Mitt, c'mon back it up.
Posted by: Dagny at June 04, 2012 07:02 AM (WCAIB)
Posted by: Guy Who Is Always Late at June 04, 2012 07:02 AM (rX1N2)
Posted by: Bob Saget at June 04, 2012 07:03 AM (SDkq3)
Posted by: polynikes at June 04, 2012 07:03 AM (PkV4/)
Whats interesting is we don't know this guys stances on OTHER issues...
But this one... one where he was profesionaly involved is Pro Government Control.
Posted by: Romeo13 at June 04, 2012 07:04 AM (lZBBB)
Then for four years we're going to have a war over keeping Mitt away from libs and their infections--because Mitt ain't Reagan..
This changes nothing.
Posted by: SantaRosaStan. doch gesiegt at June 04, 2012 07:05 AM (Dll6b)
Posted by: slatz at June 04, 2012 07:05 AM (mE0Rl)
Posted by: what % indian? at June 04, 2012 07:05 AM (HOOye)
Posted by: Brother Cavil, New Caprica City DMV at June 04, 2012 07:05 AM (GBXon)
Education? To preside over its abolition, right? Right?
Someone get me a beer.
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at June 04, 2012 07:07 AM (/kI1Q)
Posted by: Jay at June 04, 2012 07:07 AM (nojhZ)
I don't care how squishy a RINO Mitt is. He has the nomination locked up and no matter how squishy he is, he is far far better than the SCOAMT.
Posted by: Jimbo at June 04, 2012 07:08 AM (O3R/2)
Posted by: SantaRosaStan. doch gesiegt at June 04, 2012 07:08 AM (Dll6b)
Posted by: HowardDevore at June 04, 2012 07:08 AM (cXJVt)
Yeah, I'm going to take a lesson in conservative purity from one of the cob loggers who was dripping with condescension during the debt ceiling debate about how it wasn't the hill to die on.
You'd swear Romney kicked his dog or fucked his sister. The Eeyorism vice Romney is getting to be a bit much.
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 04, 2012 07:09 AM (+wClG)
But of course you are. You and Domenech the Plagiarist Scumbag, who are quickly turning into the online conservative movement's fifth column. How wonderful that they both get posting privileges here at the one blog that should be better than this sort of two-bit stunt-demoralizing over piddly crap.
Man, Drew...you have let your hatreds and petty resentments consume your soul. Please fuck off with this sort of shit from now on. At least until and unless it's a REAL issue, like say something Romney actually SAID or a position he actually TOOK, instead of this tea-leaf-reading crap designed exclusively to give you yet another 'platform' to bitch about how sensible people nominated the better candidate (Romney) over your preferred loser (Gingrich).
Posted by: Jeff B. at June 04, 2012 07:09 AM (KVOrU)
Posted by: elliot m at June 04, 2012 07:10 AM (zPich)
And, remember, the exchanges (under ObamaCare) would be regulated by the Feds: if they don't think your state's exchange is good enough, they'll can it and implement their own.
I'm not a fan of Leavitt on this issue; but if he's been in the campaign from near the beginning, then he's probably the guy who was behind "We'll get rid of the bad parts and keep the good parts" and was almost certainly eventually overruled when the clamor got loud enough that that wasn't good enough. That indicates that Mittens knows exactly how unpopular ObamaCare is with his base, and likely knows he will not be forgiven if he flinches from full repeal- if the Supremes don't knock it down first.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at June 04, 2012 07:10 AM (8y9MW)
ain't no base sittin' nuthin out, no how, no way
Posted by: SantaRosaStan. doch gesiegt at June 04, 2012 07:11 AM (Dll6b)
No, seriously: fuck you. You're lying either to us or to yourself. Take a pick.
Posted by: Jeff B. at June 04, 2012 07:11 AM (KVOrU)
Posted by: Whoops There It Is at June 04, 2012 07:11 AM (hHKUs)
numbers among stupid women (i.e. viewers of Slutty in The City, or
whatever they called that stupid show she was on).
Posted by: RightWingProf at June 04, 2012 10:41 AM (IC6Er)
.The title was "Metaphor for Gay Men in the City"
Posted by: AmishDude at June 04, 2012 10:45 AM
Coulda swore it was "Urban Skanks".
Posted by: irright at June 04, 2012 07:11 AM (RzLbD)
Posted by: Boston12GS at June 04, 2012 07:12 AM (rdSyJ)
I really hope the next five months (and thereafter) aren't one step forward; two back with this guy.
Posted by: laceyunderalls at June 04, 2012 07:12 AM (pLTLS)
So lemme get this straight, we have people advocating for government creating a market for businesses to set up business because of government regulations? On this website?
Fucking surreal.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at June 04, 2012 07:12 AM (rX1N2)
Posted by: Who cares at June 04, 2012 07:13 AM (gI9Bk)
Again, though: He would be stupid (and he's given every indication that stupidity is not one of his failings) if he failed to push for a full repeal of ObamaCare- no matter what one of his subordinates thinks.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at June 04, 2012 07:13 AM (8y9MW)
Not up to the elbow at first, okay sweety?
Nice. And. Slow.
Posted by: Clutch Cargo at June 04, 2012 07:15 AM (Qxdfp)
Surely no one argues that our health care system before Obamacare was perfect?
Posted by: Boston12GS at June 04, 2012 10:59 AM (rdSyJ)
This is the jumping off point of every liberal/socialist/totalitarian argument for government action. Well, sorry, but I reject the premise that just because reality is imperfect then government gets to keep meddling in my life until nirvana has been achieved. The pre-Obamacare health system was already subject to government intervention on a mind boggling scale, and many of those faults in that system that you mention were the direct result of those interventions. There is nothing about Obamacare that should survive, and there is nothing decent or honorable about a man who decides to make a killing off of the destruction of my liberty.
Posted by: somebody else, not me at June 04, 2012 07:15 AM (nZvGM)
Posted by: maddogg at June 04, 2012 07:16 AM (OlN4e)
This post raises some questions about Ace.
Is he as smart and talented as we think he is, or does he just appear that way in comparison to Drew?
Posted by: jwest at June 04, 2012 07:16 AM (ZDsRL)
Good Lord, will no one relieve us of all things craptastic? I mean Winston Wolf was starting to flex his digits.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at June 04, 2012 07:17 AM (eHIJJ)
Posted by: h/t daily caller at June 04, 2012 07:17 AM (HOOye)
Occasionally, Jeff B. slices like a fuckin hammer. This is one of those occasions.
Get the whiners below deck and take this bitch up to ramming speed. We've got an election to win.
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 04, 2012 07:18 AM (+wClG)
Posted by: Jay at June 04, 2012 07:18 AM (nojhZ)
So lemme get this straight, we have people advocating for government creating a market for businesses to set up business because of government regulations? On this website?
Posted by: Burn the Witch
Republican and Conservative aren't synonyms, unfortunalary.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at June 04, 2012 07:19 AM (kdS6q)
McCain lost because he was as exciting as soggy toast and Obama garnered the votes of zillions of folks who don't vote regularly.
Obama won because the great uneducated electorate bought his bullshit. That won't happen again.
Posted by: Jimbo at June 04, 2012 07:20 AM (O3R/2)
2. Quit believing what you read in Politico.
Posted by: elliot m at June 04, 2012 07:21 AM (zPich)
Posted by: Boston12GS at June 04, 2012 07:21 AM (rdSyJ)
Head, desk. Repeat ad nauseum.
Posted by: Kinley Ardal at June 04, 2012 07:21 AM (ShJFQ)
Posted by: maddogg at June 04, 2012 07:22 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: Mitt claims to be a "states rights" guy at June 04, 2012 07:22 AM (HOOye)
Back to WI. I snipped this comment from the YouTube vid of the pro-Walker-guy-with-sign at the Barrett/Clinton thing in Milwaukee, him getting arrested, the union assholes in the crowd cheering the cops doing the arrest.
Pull quote.
fuck walker. he needs shot! .. but this is wrong.
End quote.
So these words, "he needs shot!" are permissible now?
Or will this poster soon be getting a 4 a.m. wakeup, and marched off in cuffs?
Posted by: TheLittlShiningMan at June 04, 2012 07:23 AM (PH+2B)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at June 04, 2012 07:23 AM (tmzN0)
Posted by: Mitt claims to be a at June 04, 2012 07:23 AM (HOOye)
Posted by: Valerie Jarrett at June 04, 2012 07:24 AM (eHIJJ)
Posted by: Infidelswine at June 04, 2012 07:24 AM (BHG6O)
Posted by: Jean at June 04, 2012 07:25 AM (/FT0A)
Posted by: jwb7605 at June 04, 2012 07:26 AM (Qxe/p)
Posted by: sauropod at June 04, 2012 07:26 AM (iAkDQ)
Posted by: Drexl Spivey at June 04, 2012 07:26 AM (YmPwQ)
posted by: Chi-Town Jerry
Because, as I understand it, the insurance company receives a "subsidy" to pay for the people who opt in. That subsidy comes from you and me.
Posted by: The Mega Independent at June 04, 2012 07:26 AM (goVJX)
Just look at some of the comments thus far. You may have written this with some type of noble, constructive purpose. But that's not how its been received.
I don't have any issue with keeping Mitt's feet to the fire. But this is simply drama, and the drama queen zombies are now out in force.
Take a look back at past presidents and how there were people in their cabinets that didn't agree with some of their positions. You won't find it all that unusual. That's what we call context. But that also takes more time to write and research- that is as opposed to some stream-of-conscious, philosophical waxing.
Posted by: Exile at June 04, 2012 07:26 AM (O0lVq)
Hey Mitt *stamps foot* change the batteries in your hearing aids!!
This is not what we want in our candidate.
Posted by: mpfs at June 04, 2012 07:27 AM (iYbLN)
No, it isn't, but no, it can't. Not as currently legislated, at least, and probably never if mandated at the Federal Level.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at June 04, 2012 07:27 AM (8y9MW)
Go read up on Utah's health care system (rated one of the most efficient in the nation).
Posted by: elliot m
Because of the Mormon take on smoking, drinking and all the rest, Utah tends to be an outlier on health related statistics.
So, healthy people -- reduced need for health services.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at June 04, 2012 07:28 AM (kdS6q)
Posted by: maddogg at June 04, 2012 07:28 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: hehe at June 04, 2012 07:31 AM (HOOye)
We'll keep them alive to row.
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at June 04, 2012 07:31 AM (/kI1Q)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at June 04, 2012 07:31 AM (05RcU)
Posted by: Journolist at June 04, 2012 07:32 AM (qyly4)
Posted by: Say What? at June 04, 2012 07:32 AM (b7L99)
Posted by: BP NJ at June 04, 2012 07:32 AM (ph70Q)
Posted by: Lincolntf at June 04, 2012 07:33 AM (HethX)
175Oh my God, Romney has someone on staff who doesn't agree with him on Healthcare?
Heh. Right, Doesn't agree with Mitt on healthcare. Sounds like a prayer.
Posted by: maddogg at June 04, 2012 07:34 AM (OlN4e)
Beginning of a preference cascade?
http://tinyurl.com/853bfme
Posted by: TheLittlShiningMan at June 04, 2012 07:35 AM (PH+2B)
Posted by: Jean at June 04, 2012 07:35 AM (/FT0A)
Well that killed my Romney buzz for the day. Hope it's just Drewspin.
Posted by: eleven at June 04, 2012 07:35 AM (KXm42)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at June 04, 2012 07:36 AM (05RcU)
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at June 04, 2012 07:36 AM (1hM1d)
A): that's a promise a president cannot truly keep. If Obamacare is repealed, congress gets credit. If it isn't, congress gets the blame. It's convenient that Romney set this up so that he has an out.
B): they will replace it with something. What, specifically? Hopefully Romney wisely sees how Obamacare was ruinous to jobs and pursues a replacement that will help Romney be reelected. I worry Romney won't be as conservative as Medicare Part D George W Bush, though.
Obama's gotta go, but the GOP has got to fix its primary system. Conservative leaders have got to rally earlier instead of nit picking why the candidates most like them are unacceptable, as though they assume the ones even less acceptable won't benefit.
Right now what we have is a Mccain candidate who simply wants to win fare more than Mccain did. A Mccain with teeth and an intelligent campaign. And that's good, because I want Romney to beat Obama. And then I want him to be primaried in 2016, perhaps in a way that changes the dynamic. What we need is for the democrats and lesser republicans to combine into a political party and for a sane political party to emerge to support freedom and a balanced budget.
Posted by: Dustin at June 04, 2012 07:37 AM (z36s0)
Seriously now, fuck Eeyorism. We have so little to feel Eeyorish ABOUT right now, for fuck's sake! The politico-economic stars are aligning for us, we actually have a candidate who exudes a potent combination of hyper-competence and aggression, he's taken all the right positions, and...oh no, ZOMG a fellow Mormon who's running Romney's transition team because they have a personal relationship built on trust said that the idea of exchanges is not too terrible! (Which is actually TRUE to a point -- a good idea doesn't become a shit one merely because Obama cynically tossed it into Obamacare.)
WE MUST ALL ABANDON HOPE AND START STICKING IT TO THIS LITTLE RINO SHIT AGAIN!! DREWM HAS *RAISED THE ALARM*.
Posted by: Jeff B. at June 04, 2012 07:37 AM (KVOrU)
All politicians are politicians. Let me repeat that, it's very important.
All. Politicians. Are. Politicians.
Trust, favor, liking - these are not concepts that should ever be applied to anyone seeking, or sitting, in office. When the phrase "government is a necessary evil" is used, we must remind ourselves to actually stop and think about what it means.
All mankind is flawed. Give a man power, he will misuse it. Trust a man with power, he will burn you.
>.> No one in America should ever trust any politician. We are not their friends, and they are damned well not our friends. They are a necessary evil in an evil world. Let's not ever make the mistake of ascribing friendly feelings to any leader - this is business, not friendship.
Posted by: Kinley Ardal at June 04, 2012 07:38 AM (ShJFQ)
Posted by: phoenixgirl clinging to my bible, gun and coca cola at June 04, 2012 07:39 AM (Ho2rs)
Careful phoenixgirl. You wouldn't want to be the cause of JeffB's final vapor lock now wouldja?
Posted by: maddogg at June 04, 2012 07:40 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: Neville Chamberlain at June 04, 2012 07:41 AM (qyly4)
<.< Should we simply ignore this matter? Should we pretend that we do not have to make fundamental changes to everything about our country and politics, and simply trust the last remaining candidate?
Posted by: Kinley Ardal at June 04, 2012 07:41 AM (ShJFQ)
Posted by: Boston12GS at June 04, 2012 07:42 AM (rdSyJ)
But don't be fooled by any of it.
This selection demonstrates the real stuff that Romney is made of - pure unadulterated Wall Street crony cozying, big government statist loving squish.
He's ruling class all the way, but what else would you expect from a Taxachussets RINO?
He's gonna do for conservatism what Obama done for progressivism.
Posted by: ThomasD at June 04, 2012 07:42 AM (9yHeH)
Oh, hey, how 'bout that. What a coincidence. But I'm sure he'll advise Romney to dump the single thing he's most enamored with just for the folks. The prospect of personal gain or crony capitalism shouldn't worry anyone's pretty little heads.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at June 04, 2012 07:42 AM (eHIJJ)
Posted by: Lincolntf at June 04, 2012 07:43 AM (HethX)
Posted by: phoenixgirl clinging to my bible, gun and coca cola at June 04, 2012 11:39 AM (Ho2rs)
Indeed. This is why we must trust no politician.
Romney fans (I say this with no rancor), you need to stop and realize that the man is not your friend, nor will he ever be. He's a man with ego sufficient to deem himself worthy of leading three hundred million men and women, and helming the affairs of state for the largest economy and most powerful military in the world.
The same can be said of any politician, but that's the point. No trust. No leeway. We are way, way, way past leeway at this point in American history, or world history, for that matter.
Posted by: Kinley Ardal at June 04, 2012 07:43 AM (ShJFQ)
In hey here's someone we call all agree to hate on news, link in my sig (hopefully) to a hilarious article by Frank J on Nanny Bloomberg that's fantastic by just how many ways he manages to find to call Bloomberg a midget.
Posted by: alexthechick at June 04, 2012 07:44 AM (VtjlW)
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at June 04, 2012 07:44 AM (1hM1d)
How exactly? By abandoning the open primary with nomination election system and just nominating people you approve of? Winner take all and runoff elections in *every* state? This cycle's conservatives were terrible politicians, at least in the primary. And, they lost. Them's the breaks. We need better conservative candidates not some ambiguous primary system overhaul.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Troll Hunter! at June 04, 2012 07:44 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: Hollowpoint at June 04, 2012 07:44 AM (75ggp)
Posted by: Red herring at June 04, 2012 07:44 AM (egHP5)
I agree with you, but please dial it back a bit. Both sides are overreacting. OTOH, it's been awhile since we had a full-fledged bloodletting. Maybe we need those periodically to keep everyone motivated.
Take a look back at past presidents and how there were people in their cabinets that didn't agree with some of their positions.
Lincoln = RINO!
Posted by: pep at June 04, 2012 07:44 AM (YXmuI)
Romney has a clear path to a win in November IF he continues to make the right moves. Either repudiating this guy's positions or getting rid of him would be the right move. Anything else, and he makes his election that much harder.
The ball is in his court, as it always has been. Whatcha gonna do, Mitt?
Posted by: BurtTC at June 04, 2012 07:44 AM (TOk1P)
Keeps people from being killed...
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at June 04, 2012 07:44 AM (/kI1Q)
"And he said he believes heath care markets will become more consumer oriented, with more employers giving employees a “defined contribution” that employees can choose to spend how they wish in health insurance exchanges and co-ops." http://tinyurl.com/crptkm7
Posted by: Buzzsaw at June 04, 2012 07:46 AM (tf9Ne)
Past performance is the best predictor of future performance.
So yeah, given what he did as Governor I don't think this in any way breaks his pattern, more like BLATANTLY CONFIRMS IT.
But keep fooling yourselves.
Posted by: ThomasD at June 04, 2012 07:47 AM (9yHeH)
Posted by: Jimbo at June 04, 2012 07:47 AM (O3R/2)
He could have been 5'10" if only someone would have forced him to make "healthier choices."
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at June 04, 2012 07:47 AM (/kI1Q)
Posted by: nickless at June 04, 2012 07:47 AM (MMC8r)
Posted by: Velvet Ambition at June 04, 2012 07:47 AM (mFxQX)
Posted by: alexthechick at June 04, 2012 11:44 AM (VtjlW)
I kinda thought the writer was done making cracks about his height, then I hit "halfling warrior". Damn near choked laughing.
I do so love a good roast. Epic link. XD
Posted by: Kinley Ardal at June 04, 2012 07:48 AM (ShJFQ)
People in politics seem to love to telegraph to you what they are planning to do, right in front of you. But, like many, people can't fathom that their candidate would do that and assume he's not telling them exactly what he's doing, ie. hope and change.
romneycare.....is obamacare.....
I wonder how many folks just aren't going to go out to vote republican when this comes to light in a couple of days in the media....
They'll play it up, it helps their guy...
Posted by: rainbow at June 04, 2012 07:49 AM (oZfic)
Romney Appoints Mike Leavitt, former Governor of Utah and HHS Secretary Under George W. Bush, To Head His Transition Effort
don't go all allahpundit-eyeore on us
Posted by: Jones in CO at June 04, 2012 07:50 AM (8sCoq)
"If you're referring to my posts, you DON'T have it straight. Providing a public forum in which people can voluntarily engage in commerce is NOT the same thing as "creating a market for businesses to set up business because of government regulations."
Posted by: Boston12GS at June 04, 2012 11:21 AM (rdSyJ)"
So who was the person who wrote this, in this very thread:
"The fact that someone might believe this to be the case, and would go on to build a substantial business around implementing exchanges, doesn't mean they are "FOR Obamacare"."
Did you mis-speak, or did someone else type that?
Posted by: Burn the Witch at June 04, 2012 07:50 AM (rX1N2)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at June 04, 2012 07:51 AM (9TTOe)
Posted by: Velvet Ambition at June 04, 2012 11:47 AM (mFxQX)
hey i happen to own a bridge in brooklyn and because the economy is so interesting these days I can give you a great deal on the bridge....
Posted by: rainbow at June 04, 2012 07:51 AM (oZfic)
As several people have pointed out, Leavitt appears to be in favor of just one provision of Obamacare, namely insurance exchanges.
Posted by: sauropod
Stated -- not supported.
Here's the statement from the Health Project of Leavitt's Bipartisan Poliy Center: http://tinyurl.com/d8h8o8x
Excerpt: "Now that health reform has been signed into law, the BPC will turn to the next logical step—developing a bipartisan approach to help states meet their ongoing budgetary, demographic and health reform challenges."
Nothing about changing or reversing Obamacare -- just implementation and dialog to sell it to the suckers.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at June 04, 2012 07:51 AM (kdS6q)
Posted by: maddogg at June 04, 2012 07:52 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: Jean at June 04, 2012 07:52 AM (X6eYN)
Posted by: Lincolntf at June 04, 2012 07:52 AM (HethX)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at June 04, 2012 07:53 AM (hjRtO)
Posted by: Hollowpoint at June 04, 2012 07:54 AM (75ggp)
Meh. His firm was not in political advocacy, so I'm not too concerned about that.
I don't like this guy generally, though, and hope that Romney does something to convince us that he's legit about getting rid- completely rid- of ObamaCare. And yes, "does" not "says." I need him to take someone CATO approved as his Health Care advisor, or something.
Personnel is policy, so if he surrounds himself with experts in their subject matter (like Bolton and foreign policy), then I can accept that Leavitt may have been chosen for his expertise as an administrator, and that he really won't have much (if any) say about Health Care.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at June 04, 2012 07:54 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Theresa at June 04, 2012 07:55 AM (UoRLe)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at June 04, 2012 07:55 AM (9TTOe)
Posted by: Journalist at June 04, 2012 07:55 AM (qyly4)
Posted by: Hollowpoint at June 04, 2012 11:54 AM (75ggp)
Interesting....you wish me dead, nice conservative you are....they don't even do that on the uber liberal blogs....
Independents aren't going to like this.....you all said "he's going to shoot himself in the foot"....he just did
Posted by: rainbow at June 04, 2012 07:55 AM (oZfic)
Posted by: nickless at June 04, 2012 07:55 AM (MMC8r)
Posted by: pep at June 04, 2012 07:57 AM (YXmuI)
Posted by: gm at June 04, 2012 07:57 AM (K0tm3)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at June 04, 2012 07:59 AM (9TTOe)
Stolen.
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at June 04, 2012 07:59 AM (/kI1Q)
This is why I fear an all-GOP Congress and Executive. There are many in the GOP who are in it just for the money and power and wold be happy for socialism--as long as they get to control it.
Posted by: pj at June 04, 2012 07:59 AM (DQHjw)
Posted by: gm at June 04, 2012 07:59 AM (K0tm3)
Posted by: rainbow at June 04, 2012 07:59 AM (oZfic)
Posted by: meh, again at June 04, 2012 08:00 AM (HOOye)
Hey alex, I think I finally figured out what "something something" is. Does it have to do with delivering mail.
Posted by: The Mega Independent at June 04, 2012 08:00 AM (goVJX)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at June 04, 2012 08:01 AM (9TTOe)
Posted by: Boston12GS at June 04, 2012 08:01 AM (rdSyJ)
Posted by: rainbow at June 04, 2012 11:55 AM (oZfic)"
Dude, can you lay off the ellipsis? Walt Whitman liked cock, but that doesn't mean you also have to ape his writing style.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at June 04, 2012 08:01 AM (rX1N2)
OK folks... the Exchange, as I understand them.
They are set up so companies can join, but only after they have 'qualified' plans.. ie plans setup and controlled by the Fed Government.
They then use tax dollars, AND fees placed on other outside the Exchange insurance to fund low income folks, and folks with no insurance.
So... if a company does not want to pay for your insurance, a 2K per person fine is paid, which supposedly goes to this fund? And a 900 fine is paid per individual if they don't self insure...
But someone can not pay.... wait until they are sick, opt into the Exchange, get coverage (because they can't be denied), then once well, opt out next year?
Exchanges are NOT simply a State run place to buy insurance... heck... a couple grand on a website could do that... these are Multimillion dollar monstrosities which are built to fail... and will grow until they kill healthcare... ie... these are a Cancer.
Posted by: Romeo13 at June 04, 2012 08:02 AM (lZBBB)
Posted by: gm at June 04, 2012 08:02 AM (K0tm3)
They'll see this and figure, just leave the guy in there then, there is no difference between them....
slick move romney, glad he told us in advance....
Posted by: rainbow at June 04, 2012 08:02 AM (oZfic)
Posted by: Mekan at June 04, 2012 08:03 AM (hm8tW)
Posted by: Lincolntf at June 04, 2012 08:04 AM (HethX)
Posted by: Dick Nixon at June 04, 2012 08:04 AM (Jw8fq)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at June 04, 2012 12:01 PM (9TTOe)
Heh... and Note to Self: don't ask someone a question when the thread is over.
Posted by: The Mega Independent at June 04, 2012 08:04 AM (goVJX)
Meh. His firm was not in political advocacy
Posted by: AllenG
Leavitt Partners is his consulting firm, the Bipartisan Policy Center is the advocacy organization that he's part of.
Looks like he's most active in the Nutrition and Physical Activity Initiative. So, mandatory sit-ups and no Slurpees for all of us.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at June 04, 2012 08:04 AM (kdS6q)
Posted by: gm at June 04, 2012 08:04 AM (K0tm3)
Posted by: Boston12GS at June 04, 2012 08:06 AM (rdSyJ)
"What we have here is a failure to communicate.
Posted by: Boston12GS at June 04, 2012 12:01 PM (rdSyJ) "
What do you mean "we" white man?
"Voluntary" exchanges don't require government involvement.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at June 04, 2012 08:06 AM (rX1N2)
. The man is a decent. honorable and immensely skilled executive. Those are the key ingredients, not the policy fetishes of aides.
Good lord.
Posted by: maddogg at June 04, 2012 08:06 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: gm at June 04, 2012 08:06 AM (K0tm3)
Posted by: Lincolntf at June 04, 2012 08:07 AM (HethX)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at June 04, 2012 08:08 AM (9TTOe)
Posted by: Waterhouse at June 04, 2012 08:09 AM (FtYM2)
Posted by: Boston12GS at June 04, 2012 08:09 AM (rdSyJ)
Posted by: gm at June 04, 2012 08:10 AM (K0tm3)
links? explanation?
instead of trying to run over everyone...
Posted by: rainbow at June 04, 2012 08:11 AM (oZfic)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at June 04, 2012 08:11 AM (i330i)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at June 04, 2012 08:11 AM (9TTOe)
How to ruin your credibility in one post:
"There aren't many folks with whom I'd have absolutely no interest in engaging in dialogue, but anyone who self-identifies as "Journalist" floats right to the top.
Posted by: Boston12GS at June 04, 2012 12:06 PM (rdSyJ)"
I believe you where whining about "substance" further upthread. And then you respond to it like a liberal - a petulant child.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at June 04, 2012 08:12 AM (rX1N2)
Posted by: rainbow at June 04, 2012 08:12 AM (oZfic)
254What's the matter, maddogg? You think he's a thieving, lying, incompetent?
No, I think your criteria is foolish. Policy is everything, and a leader surrounds himself with people who are like minded. People he is comfortable with and in agreement with for the most part. This Leavitt clown is a symptom. A clear symptom of how Romney thinks. Don't shit yourself. I'll vote for the guy because hes much better than da Zero. But I don't kid myself that hes conservative. He ain't. And being honest and competent does not make a leader. LBJ was very effective administrator. Very effective at fucking up the country.
Posted by: maddogg at June 04, 2012 08:13 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: eleven at June 04, 2012 08:13 AM (KXm42)
Posted by: gm at June 04, 2012 08:14 AM (K0tm3)
Posted by: Valiant at June 04, 2012 08:14 AM (aFxlY)
Posted by: Boston12GS at June 04, 2012 08:14 AM (rdSyJ)
Posted by: Boston12GS at June 04, 2012 12:14 PM (rdSyJ)
but, even if they don't make you use it, they make you pay for it, so they are making you do something...
Posted by: rainbow at June 04, 2012 08:15 AM (oZfic)
Posted by: Dick Nixon at June 04, 2012 08:15 AM (Jw8fq)
Ok. I'm supposed to stay home,or even vote for Obama, because of this Leavitt guy.
I'm gonna just have to accept 4 more years of Zero, Holder, a couple more Scotus picks, etc, etc. Sounds reasonable.
Posted by: Drexl Spivey at June 04, 2012 08:16 AM (YmPwQ)
Posted by: Boston12GS at June 04, 2012 12:14 PM (rdSyJ)
But golly Boston, where does the money come from to build, staff, administer, and maintain it?
You're a clown.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at June 04, 2012 08:16 AM (rX1N2)
Posted by: Boston12GS at June 04, 2012 08:18 AM (rdSyJ)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at June 04, 2012 08:18 AM (9TTOe)
Posted by: Lincolntf at June 04, 2012 08:18 AM (HethX)
She was asked, you don't take any government money, nothing? Her reply "with government money, there are usually rules attached".....
I thought she was so smart, doing a great job, having a wonderful new exhibit to engage kids....and doing it all, PRIVATELY......funded by donations....
Posted by: rainbow at June 04, 2012 08:19 AM (oZfic)
Posted by: Boston12GS at June 04, 2012 08:19 AM (rdSyJ)
"Why, because living in a free society means I'm mandated to converse with every idiot who wants my attention?
Liberty--I don't think it means what you think it means.
Posted by: Boston12GS at June 04, 2012 12:18 PM (rdSyJ)"
No, but someone pining for substantive dialogue would suggest that they would engage in it when presented the opportunity.
Nice tie-in to FREEEEEDOM! Though. A bit overwrought, but a really nice try.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at June 04, 2012 08:21 AM (rX1N2)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at June 04, 2012 08:22 AM (9TTOe)
Posted by: Boston12GS at June 04, 2012 12:19 PM (rdSyJ)
Maybe you should look at your pocket constitution for the government functions.
Posted by: rainbow at June 04, 2012 08:22 AM (oZfic)
Posted by: Boston12GS at June 04, 2012 08:23 AM (rdSyJ)
Looks like he's most active in the Nutrition and Physical Activity Initiative. So, mandatory sit-ups and no Slurpees for all of us.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at June 04, 2012 12:04 PM (kdS6q)
That is OK then... because we have Squishys! no slupees!
But that Bloomberg guy?
Posted by: Romeo13 at June 04, 2012 08:23 AM (lZBBB)
Posted by: Lincolntf at June 04, 2012 12:18 PM (HethX)"
No, his one term as an elected official at the executive level would reveal key information. Unfortunately, he's not all that attractive when you examine that far more relevant context.
Of course, everyone seems to be forgetting the "Replace" part of Romney's view on repealing Obamacare.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at June 04, 2012 08:24 AM (rX1N2)
Posted by: Boston12GS at June 04, 2012 08:24 AM (rdSyJ)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at June 04, 2012 08:25 AM (9TTOe)
Posted by: Lincolntf at June 04, 2012 12:18 PM (HethX)
We shall see. At the very least, this was about as bone headed a move as Romney has made in a long time. I will be here to watch you explain away the next one.
Posted by: maddogg at June 04, 2012 08:25 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: Boston12GS at June 04, 2012 12:19 PM (rdSyJ)
And now we're gone into full on non-sequitur.
Yep, we've got a lib here.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at June 04, 2012 08:26 AM (rX1N2)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at June 04, 2012 08:27 AM (9TTOe)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at June 04, 2012 12:08 PM (9TTOe)
Of course not.
It's like sex-selective abortion versus simple abortion before you know the sex of the
I hope that clears the matter up for you.
Posted by: jwb7605 at June 04, 2012 08:27 AM (Qxe/p)
Posted by: Lincolntf at June 04, 2012 08:28 AM (HethX)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at June 04, 2012 08:29 AM (9TTOe)
We don't need government exchanges for health care! We don't have them for any other kind of insurance, do we?
Posted by: pj at June 04, 2012 08:30 AM (DQHjw)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at June 04, 2012 08:31 AM (kdfQ/)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at June 04, 2012 08:31 AM (i330i)
Posted by: Lincolntf at June 04, 2012 12:28 PM (HethX)
I'll bet you would love to see Christie on the ticket with Mitt. Right?
Posted by: maddogg at June 04, 2012 08:34 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at June 04, 2012 12:31 PM (i330i)
Hmmm.... actualy opens up a Second and WORSE line of attack...
Romneys Head of the Transition team is a Bush guy???? So now Obama can run on, "Do you Want Bush Back?"
/bangs head on desk...
Posted by: Romeo13 at June 04, 2012 08:35 AM (lZBBB)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at June 04, 2012 08:35 AM (i330i)
Posted by: Lincolntf at June 04, 2012 08:39 AM (HethX)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at June 04, 2012 08:41 AM (9TTOe)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at June 04, 2012 08:42 AM (i330i)
Posted by: Paul Krugman NYT Resident Pseudo Economist and Nobel Laureate in Blood Libel at June 04, 2012 08:43 AM (eThkM)
Posted by: Boston12GS at June 04, 2012 12:24 PM (rdSyJ)
to quote larry kudlow, who said I could quote him, "free market capitalism is the best path to prosperity".
Posted by: rainbow at June 04, 2012 08:44 AM (oZfic)
Posted by: Paul Krugman NYT Resident Pseudo Economist and Nobel Laureate in Blood Libel at June 04, 2012 08:44 AM (eThkM)
That's like giving points to herpes.
Posted by: Waterhouse at June 04, 2012 08:45 AM (FtYM2)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at June 04, 2012 08:45 AM (i330i)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at June 04, 2012 08:45 AM (9TTOe)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at June 04, 2012 08:47 AM (9TTOe)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 04, 2012 08:49 AM (z7X0E)
Posted by: DangerGirl at June 04, 2012 08:52 AM (U7Ivf)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at June 04, 2012 08:55 AM (9TTOe)
Posted by: Boston12GS at June 04, 2012 08:56 AM (rdSyJ)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at June 04, 2012 08:59 AM (9TTOe)
Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at June 04, 2012 09:00 AM (p7SSh)
Because Romney's the nominee and you have to like whatever he does because Ace likes him now or something...
...I knew Romney's mask would slip. I just didn't realize it would be this soon.
Posted by: Sgt. York at June 04, 2012 09:03 AM (qIJKi)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at June 04, 2012 09:05 AM (9TTOe)
Posted by: Boston12GS at June 04, 2012 09:06 AM (rdSyJ)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at June 04, 2012 09:10 AM (9TTOe)
Posted by: Boston12GS at June 04, 2012 09:13 AM (rdSyJ)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 04, 2012 09:16 AM (r4wIV)
Posted by: Jean at June 04, 2012 09:20 AM (WkuV6)
Posted by: Jean at June 04, 2012 09:24 AM (WkuV6)
probably posting to a dead thread (as usual), but this particular point has baffled and dismayed me for so long I just had to say something ......
rockmom said it quite well up above (way up above): (my translation) WTF with these "exchanges", anyway?
I have an idea - hey, let's set up exchanges where people can decide to buy soda (16-oz and below only, please), peanuts, maybe a quart of milk. They can be put at convenient locations (hey! even as part of gas stations!). They will be so convenient ..... wait, what's that? You say we already have them? Called 7-11, AM/PM? Damn, isn't that something! How did that ever happen without government help? And the help of these "smart" consultants and "wonks"?? Puzzling.
The suggestion that a state entity (fed or state-level) is needed to "help" create efficient markets for health insurance is so idiotic, on its face, that it confirms huge parts of the public square are far off into orwellian double-speak, and Alice in Wonderland make-believe "economics". Health insurance (actual insurance, not welfare or subsidy or cost-transfers hidden or camouflaged as part of real insurance costs) can instantly develop just as efficient a market as cement or petroleum or home remodeling. Just get out of the way.
When I call up insurance plans on the website that is - hey! - an actual "exchange" for the pathetic state of CA, I get about 4 choices of plans (all, of course, massively over-priced due to hidden cross-subsidies and welfare components and govt. & tax-code induced gigantic inefficiencies and over-regulation). Four f**king choices! For just about ANY other service I am seeking - from custom yacht-builders to ditch-digging to house-painting - a similar, easy online search yields almost as many choices as we now confront when looking for BBQ sauce at the supermarket. Dozens, or more.
The economic illiteracy of the EDUCATED, successful, busy population implied by the very existence of this idiotic concept of "exchanges" (made only more head-slappingly bizarre in the age of web-based information) is shocking, and probably unfixable.
End the giganic distortions of ANY tax preference for ANY sort of medical/health insurance or anything else, state or federal, end the insanity of limiting cross-border competition, end the nonsense of "required" coverages (OK, humanitarian issues can be addressed directly, as line budget items, by public subsidies, as are all other widely supported safety net measures). Watch health insurance instantly resemble all other kinds of services. Surprise!! (for an actually under-stated example of what would happen, check out cost curves for elective non-insured surgery, and most veterinary services, alongside general medical cost curves).
As a last item, retaking the language to ensure it means something - no matter the offense taken by the delicate among us - is also important. You cannot "insure" a burning house. "Pre-existing conditions" is among the most idiotic euphemisms in the history of idiotic euphemisms. Taking care of those with certain medical problems, when they cannot affort it themselves, is a safety-net problem - NOT "insurance". It's likely that a majority would support subsidies (welfare) to help cover these particular costs (means-tested), just as a majority supports disaster relief, some safety net for widows and orphans, food stamps for the truly destitute, etc. But that's what this would be - not "insurance". Insurance is an incredibly powerful way of spreading risk that can be actuarially measured. It is NOT covering special needs.
Posted by: non-purist at June 04, 2012 09:24 AM (yJ3Du)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at June 04, 2012 09:37 AM (i330i)
Posted by: Bob from Ohio at June 04, 2012 09:45 AM (ROFkf)
Posted by: Iter aut moriuntur. at June 04, 2012 09:45 AM (HhO/o)
Mittens Milquetoast Romeny says: SUCKERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HA-HA-HA!
NOMITTNOBAMA 2012!
"Now that I have the nomination locked up . . . .you conservatives can just Kiss my A$$!!!!!"
Posted by: Pragmatic at June 04, 2012 09:45 AM (lTnzg)
Posted by: SH at June 04, 2012 09:46 AM (gmeXX)
To: Conservatives Everywhere
From: Mittens
By the way, don't forget to send me that campaign donation!
Hugs and Kisses!
Posted by: Pragmatic at June 04, 2012 09:49 AM (lTnzg)
Posted by: SH at June 04, 2012 09:54 AM (gmeXX)
"Now that I have the nomination locked up . . . .you conservatives can just Kiss my A$$!!!!!"
Posted by: Pragmatic at June 04, 2012 01:45 PM (lTnzg)
Why do people say this? They haven't had the convention. You'd like to think the process is democratic and that anything can happen at the convention.
Posted by: rainbow at June 04, 2012 09:55 AM (oZfic)
Plus Romney pushed it through in MA.
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at June 04, 2012 01:37 PM
a LIAR.
Posted by: Adjoran at June 04, 2012 09:56 AM (VfmLu)
Posted by: SDN at June 04, 2012 10:02 AM (i9d/E)
Posted by: Say What? at June 04, 2012 10:05 AM (b7L99)
This is why my enthusiasm level is near zero for him, while having high regards for his campaign mechanics compared to McLame. I know he will disappoint me, in large and small ways and do it frequently.
Even loathing him as a politician, I'll embrace the suck and pull the lever.
Posted by: Purp (@PurpAv) at June 04, 2012 10:14 AM (DGfSo)
Posted by: K. Rove Chevalier of the House of Bush at June 04, 2012 10:32 AM (eThkM)
Posted by: Jay at June 04, 2012 10:33 AM (nojhZ)
Posted by: Bow Tying White Boy at June 04, 2012 10:34 AM (eThkM)
Posted by: Tommy v at June 04, 2012 10:44 AM (iJ5jJ)
Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet at June 04, 2012 10:54 AM (YmPwQ)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 04, 2012 11:07 AM (r4wIV)
IMO this post is just moby and ABR bait.
And the drama queen ultimatums, demands that Romney repudiate and fire the guy for having a suspect RINO view on some topic: isn't that just like the "true con" version of demands that Romney repudiate and refuse to associate with Trump for his suspect "birther" views?
Trump doesn't speak for Romney re birtherism; Leavitt doesn't speak for Romney re Obamacare. The Romney camp has said that explicitly: Trump and Leavitt *don't* speak for Romney on those issues, don't represent his position on those issues. To pretend that they do speak for him, do represent Romney on birtherism or Obamacare, and drum up a big controversy over either Trump or Leavitt's views (as opposed to Romney's views and positions, explicitly stated and reiterated) is a big effing DISTRACTION.
Posted by: lael at June 04, 2012 11:15 AM (T6tvG)
Posted by: buzzion at June 04, 2012 11:15 AM (hJmDz)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at June 04, 2012 11:28 AM (i330i)
Posted by: Random at June 04, 2012 11:30 AM (ieFeF)
Posted by: LizLem at June 04, 2012 11:30 AM (2UNtL)
Posted by: buzzion at June 04, 2012 11:34 AM (GULKT)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at June 04, 2012 11:51 AM (i330i)
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at June 04, 2012 11:59 AM (i330i)
Posted by: jmb at June 04, 2012 12:29 PM (QaKfX)
Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at June 04, 2012 01:57 PM (4pIQI)
Look, I'm gonna vote for the guy and he's better than 4 more years of Obama but... lets be sane here. Mitt Romney will tell you anything you want to hear. He'll say whatever it is he has to in order to get elected. If you say you want free radishes to shove up your nostrils, he'll lay out a 5 point plan to fund that by the federal government, then turn and assure your friend that he's anti-Radish subsidy.
So let's not act like Romney's word is good on anything. Let's be honest here.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 04, 2012 02:04 PM (r4wIV)
Posted by: Midnight Clad at June 04, 2012 02:31 PM (W9F2O)
Posted by: Rich K at June 04, 2012 03:47 PM (X4l3T)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.4071 seconds, 475 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at June 04, 2012 06:25 AM (8y9MW)