Sorry, Ann
Peter Robinson ·
January 27, 2012 at 6:07am
I missed the exchange, but, after reading Mollie's post below, I went looking for it--and found that it had already been put up on YouTube.
Why I still can't support Mitt Romney:
Liberty--liberty--"not worth getting angry about." That would have come as news to certain residents of Massachusetts, including John Hancock, John Adams, and, come to think of it, all those who participated in the very first tea party.
- Comment (102)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (9)
Comments:
Dec '11
Re: Sorry, Ann
Lucky for Mitt that Samuel Adams isn't stalking around with a bucket of tar and a bag full of feathers.
Dec '10
Re: Sorry, Ann
Exactly. Romney apparently does not understand what is wrong with the individual mandate. He needs to learn that repentance is not a flip-flop. Metanoia, Mitt, metanoia.
An addendum. Does the state pick up the tab for free riders or do doctors and hospitals have to eat the cost (which means passing it on to those who do pay through higher prices)?
Edited on January 27, 2012 at 6:16amOct '10
Re: Sorry, Ann
Mitt Romney is a very nice fellow. He thinks Obama is in a little over his head.
Mar '11
Re: Sorry, Ann
Anyone who does not get angry about the loss of liberty, much less anyone who worked to legislate its loss, has no business being president of the United States of America.
Jan '11
Re: Sorry, Ann
Good grief Peter, your continual search for reasons to not support Romney never ends does it? The thing is, you don't seem to be able to find a reason to support anyone else.
We get it, Peter, you don't like Romney. He disavowed your favorite boss 18 years ago, and you won't forgive him. Duly noted. How about spreading around the criticisms of the other candidates which can also be easily made? It was revealed yesterday that Newt had plenty of terrible things to say about Reagan on the floor of Congress. Somehow that hasn't gotten much attention from you.
Romney's point wasn't that liberty isn't worth fighting over, it was that losing your temper isn't a way to win arguments. He is right. The reason Santorum can't catch fire is precisely because of the constant state of outrage he projects, and the sour looks he can't get off of his face. I think you understand that, but you willingly misread the point because you'd rather take another swipe at Romney.
Feb '11
Re: Sorry, Ann
Peter, that is exactly what is wrong with Mitt. He is an intelligent man, and there have been many a intelligent man who did not have due regard for individual freedom. It took thousands of years before the aforementioned Founding Fathers gave us the Declaration of Independence; but Mitt, you stand on the shoulders of giants take advantage of their lessons!
Edited on January 27, 2012 at 6:36amApr '11
Re: Sorry, Ann
He didn't say that liberty wasn't worth getting angry about. He said "it's not worth getting angry about". Santorum later suggested that Mitt was referring to liberty, but I think Mitt was referring to the tactical political concerns for the race against Obama; hence the "angry" which Rick was when he was talking about the horse race stuff, but wasn't so much immediately before Mitt talked about it.
There were a lot of problems with his answer, which should have been about federalism (he gets this right slightly over half the time), but "Liberty--liberty--"not worth getting angry about." "... That's a cheap shot.
Not supporting Romney until he repeals Romneycare, is selected as nominee, or hell freezes over (whichever is first), well, that's your privilege.
Oct '10
Re: Sorry, Ann
Here's Romney tearing Gingrich a new one.
Jun '10
Re: Sorry, Ann
A more telling freeze frame:
Oct '11
Re: Sorry, Ann
Peter Robinson: I missed the exchange, but, after reading Mollie's post below, I went looking for it--and found that it had already been put up on YouTube.
Why I still can't support Mitt Romney:
Liberty--liberty--"not worth getting angry about." That would have come as news to certain residents of Massachusetts, including John Hancock, John Adams, and, come to think of it, all those who participated in the very first tea party. · · 25 minutes ago
I am with you, Santorum had a great night but Mitt still has holes I wonder about..
Jul '10
Re: Sorry, Ann
If Romney cannot adequately respond to Santorum, easily the least well-read and least well-spoken of the bunch (yes, I believe Ron Paul is much more on his game all-around than Santorum), then how is he supposed to respond adequately to a highly intelligent and very effective debater like Obama?
And while I'm on the topic of "how is he supposed to..." if Gingrich could not muster enough signatures to get his name on the primary ballot in VA, then how is he supposed to energize and organize a national campaign against the man that fired up and motivated millions of Americans that normally wouldn't vote in 2008 and already has over a billion cash in hand ready to spend?
And this is all after the three candidates most easy to ridicule (Bachmann, Cain and Perry) dropped out, and with the most easily ridiculed politician in the country (Palin) sitting this one out. Even after all we've been through, I'm still ripping out what's left of my hair shouting "Why, oh why, do we have to choose from these guys??"
Mitch, Mitch, oh heavens, please, MITCH! Come back!
Edited on January 27, 2012 at 6:39amJan '11
Re: Sorry, Ann
Didn't see the debate (family commitments also), and all I have are these excerpts. But if this excerpt is representative, then Mitt's argument is a loser.
Mitt says that it's perfectly reasonable to require people to pay for health services when you don't carry your own insurance and you use the services.
Why is that important? Because skipping health insurance comes from one of two reasons:
It doesn't take long to see the real conflict. The mandate is a mechanism that subsidizes the people who can't afford it. The state demands that you pay for something that you won't need because they want your dollars to pay for the people who can't afford it.
That's just enforced transfer of wealth.
Apr '11
Re: Sorry, Ann
BThompson: Good grief Peter, your continual search for reasons to not support Romney never ends does it? The thing is, you don't seem to be able to find a reason to support anyone else.
We get it, Peter, you don't like Romney. He disavowed your favorite boss 18 years ago, and you won't forgive him. Duly noted. How about spreading around the criticisms of the other candidates which can also be easily made? It was revealed yesterday that Newt had plenty of terrible things to say about Reagan on the floor of Congress. Somehow that hasn't gotten much attention from you.
Peter has responded to the Newt stuff. Essentially, he agrees with some of Newt's issues, so Newt is off the hook. Peter says that it's a congressman's job to disagree with the President. Romney's line while auditioning for that job, though, was vague, so any bad motive desired can be read into it.
It may also be that criticizing Reagan while in office was acceptable, but criticizing him later was not... Peter hasn't raised this, but that seems like another obvious line.
Sep '10
Re: Sorry, Ann
There is a difference between knowledge and wisdom: the base is looking to Romney to show that he has the wisdom to lead not just the knowledge. Wisdom is the knowledge of first not secondary causes and I believe that Ricochet's Paul Rahe has expressed the same doubts that you have Peter.
You can't light the fire of freedom in the electorate without showing you know the difference between heat and light.
Apr '11
Re: Sorry, Ann
It was easily Mitt's worst moment of the night. Hence the two threads responding to it. If this moment had been representative of the night, Gingrich would be storming Florida on Tuesday.
I'm still not sure that Mitt'll win on Tuesday, but he won the Mitt- Newt portions of the debate in a very big way, and Newt will have to fight for Tuesday. As an indication, we had two livechat polls. One had 5% thinking Newt was winning, the other 0%. With a fair number of Newt partisans present. Unprecedented in this cycle.
Dec '10
Re: Sorry, Ann
Peter,
I missed this. Huge point scored by Santorum. I like him anyway and don't like Romney. Newt scored with me on the Embassy moved to Jerusalem. This is even more important. If we don't slam the door on Obamacare right now, Justice Kennedy will cave and we won't be able to win 5 to 4. Even Richard Epsteins Legal Radar can't bring Victory! We must be, just as Santorum said, absolutely clear on this issue. We can't afford the Romnesia on this.
Santorum has the ace of trump. In my soul he is in the lead. Only four days to zero hour here in Florida. Ann Coulter lives right up the block. If she looks at me with those baby blues and talks with that 194 IQ my knees will wiggle a little. However, as I said before, even if Hell does freeze over, I'M NOT VOTING FOR ROMNEY!!!!!!
Rick Santorum is in The Horse Race.
Edited on January 27, 2012 at 6:52amJan '11
Re: Sorry, Ann
I think you meant to direct that to Santorum. He needs that advice more than any of them.
Sep '10
Re: Sorry, Ann
That was fabulous. I didn't see the debate except for the tail end. Nice to see some heat and light from Mitt.
Sep '10
Re: Sorry, Ann
BThompson
I think you meant to direct that to Santorum. He needs that advice more than any of them. · 0 minutes ago
If you re-read my distinction between wisdom and knowledge and first and secondary causes (or ultimate principles) I think you'll catch what I'm driving at and who I'm directing it to.
May '10
Re: Sorry, Ann
If the people of Mass. are content with their healthcare system -- hey, they're liberals -- then I confess I can't muster anger over it, so long as it's not forced upon me. They wanted it, they got it, they're happy with it. To each state, its own. That's federalism.
And most people's revulsion at Obamacare was the jam-down nature of the thing -- that it was passed over bi-partisan opposition with only partisan support. That Newt supported a federal mandate in 2008, or that Romney (arguably) supported one in 2006, or that Santorum did so in the 90's will not prevent any of them from arguing forcefully against Obamacare.