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:
Jan '11
Re: Sorry, Ann
He was good in the debate tonight, but social issues weren't really discussed. When Rick get's fired up, he does come off as contemptuous and judgmental. Again, it's fine and appropriate to draw distinctions and have moral clarity. But it takes a deft touch. Santorum doesn't have it.
Edited on January 27, 2012 at 7:24amRe: Sorry, Ann
BT, with respect, you're being, simply, ridiculous. I keep searching for reasons to support Romney. And whenever I think I've found one or two, Mitt himself pulls the carpet from beneath me.
A personal disliking? Again, I'm sorry to say, ridiculous. Individual liberty is a matter, very obviously, of principle.
Apr '11
Re: Sorry, Ann
Mothership_Greg
James Of England
Newt supported the individual mandate in 1994, and has campaigned vigorously for it, or a functional equivalent ever since. It's still on his campaign site today (in relabeled form, plus a tax cut)
Can you direct me to the language on his site you are referring to? ·
Huh. His site appears to be down (!). Still, when it goes up again, if you go to newt.org click Newt Solutions, go to the toolbar on the right that says legislative solutions, and then go to healthcare, you'll get to his plan. This involves a tax credit for buying health insurance, rather than a fine for not. During the race, he has talked about "a variation on the individual mandate". The relabeling is important from a constitutional perspective, but makes zero practical difference.
Jul '10
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:
I'm not so sure, Peter. Would the Johns really find it appropriate for a former Pennsylvania legislator to angrily dictate to the former Gov. of MA, regarding MA law?
I have a tough time picturing that.
It's a terrible law. But it is MA law. States are independent political entities, or they aren't states.
Right?
Jan '11
Re: Sorry, Ann
Peter, with respect, I think you've got a real blind spot here. You do not show anywhere near the interest in pointing out the flaws of the other candidates as you do Romney, even though those flaws are as numerous and as manifest as Mitt's. If you look at your posts and comments on the horse race you will find they are overwhelmingly critical of Mitt, by a country mile more than the other candidates. And that would be fine if it were in service to promoting someone you wanted to support. Instead it's just a daily pile on by you that isn't balanced out with even a fig leaf of commentary of the other candidates shortcomings.
Edited on January 27, 2012 at 7:29amJun '10
Re: Sorry, Ann
BThompson
...he is too easy to paint as socially conservative extremist whom the media and Obama will all too easily pick apart in the general election. [...] That doesn't mean that you can't or shouldn't talk about them, it means that to do so successfully you can't come off as a finger wagging prig full of contempt. The emotional component behind social issues demands someone with special emotional sensitivity and and ability to emanate warmth and empathy. Santorum lacks that, and seeing as social issues are his big point of differentiation, that's a huge problem.
Santorum gets asked over and over again, by the press, about social issues because the press thinks it's what will sink him, but that's not his main campaign issue. And just because he has very traditional Catholic views about birth control and sodomy, doesn't mean that he intends to force his religion on anybody. It's when homosexuals come to the courthouse to be married, that it starts to be the Public's business, and then becomes a different story.
Dec '11
Re: Sorry, Ann
I think that what Mitt said about liberty is just something that he said in haste not a Freudian slip. I'll give him that much. However I do find his comfort with health care to be uncomfortable.
What I don't understand is why he didn't say something along the lines of: "Massachusetts is a state and it is okay for states to try and pass and fail based on what they pass so long as it does not violate federal law. What president Obama passed is a federal mandate that will take away from the citizens of the entire nation the freedom to choose their healthcare. So if it fails the entire country fails. What I did is in lines with the idea of federalism. What Obama did is not."
Something like that. He will probably make it more eloquent though. There still is an avenue of attack that Romney could use against Obama Care.
Apr '11
Re: Sorry, Ann
Peter Robinson
BT, with respect, you're being, simply, ridiculous. I keep searching for reasons to support Romney. And whenever I think I've found one or two, Mitt himself pulls the carpet from beneath me.
A personal disliking? Again, I'm sorry to say, ridiculous. Individual liberty is a matter, very obviously, of principle. · 2 minutes ago
Peter, when BT says "Romney doesn't deny that liberty is important, but wasn't talking about individual liberty", he is not saying that individual liberty isn't important, but is denying that Romney was talking about it. Man, this is recursive.
I've listened to every ricochet podcast and many UKs, and think that the Romney Reagan '94 line is the only thing I've heard that brings out emotions that impinge on your professional demeanor, and can make it sound as if you emotionally dislike Mitt.
I don't know if I was fair in drawing out your distinctions with Newt (comment #13), but it was a genuine effort and I would greatly appreciate any corrections or further thoughts.
Jan '11
Re: Sorry, Ann
Of course it is, but I think you're being, as I said before, very niggardly in your interpretation of the remark. It was an off the cuff comment in the heat of a serious exchange. Do you really believe Romney doesn't think personal liberty is worth fighting for? Really?
I think a fair viewing would concede at least the possibility that Romney was simply pointing out that Santorum's heated style can sometimes be counterproductive to the point he's trying to defend.
You don't have to breathe fire to defend personal liberty. Ask your friend Gov. Daniels.
Apr '11
Re: Sorry, Ann
Palaeologus
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:
I'm not so sure, Peter. Would the Johns really find it appropriate for a former Pennsylvania legislator to angrily dictate to the former Gov. of MA, regarding MA law?
I have a tough time picturing that.
It's a terrible law. But it is MA law. States are independent political entities, or they aren't states.
Right? · 6 minutes ago
While there is no federal equivalent, the Massachusetts practice of demanding that a church of the citizen's choice was financially supported forms a key part of article III of John Adam's Constitution of Massachusetts. Even though churches often provided medical care, this does not mean that he would have been comfortable with an individual mandate applying to health insurance, but it does mean that an individual mandate as a "tax on breathing" was something he could support.
Jun '10
Re: Sorry, Ann
Maybe we should wait till Mitt Romney's very recent conversion to conservatism is more complete. His stubbornness in defending the Massachusetts health care mandate is troubling. He would've won a lot of points with conservatives by just saying, "in hindsight, it was a mistake. It's a mistake that I certainly won't repeat." What's so hard about that? That's what grown-ups do. When you can't admit your mistakes, you begin to remind us of another person in the news a lot.
Dec '10
Re: Sorry, Ann
Once again, Santorum hotwires Mitt's control circuits to demonstrate that Mitt is just too easy to throw off track. Of course, that doesn't mean that Rick will be the only beneficiary from the exchange: he may have reinforced some voters' doubts about Romney, but those voters may decide that Rick isn't the best non-Romney to go with. Santorum may - may - have done Newt a big favor by keeping some of Newt's voters from switching to Mitt.
May '10
Re: Sorry, Ann
Scott Reusser:
I don't know the solution to this problem, but let's not pretend that only a mandate constitutes an assault on liberty. That assault takes place either way.
Scott is right. The real infringement on liberty is the federal requirement that hospitals must treat everyone regardless of their means to pay. I'm not sure I'm comfortable opposing such a law. There are plenty of other things like taxes that infringe on liberty, but which we tolerate in order to support public goods like freeways, airports, schools, and the military.
Now if the government mandates private healthcare providers to give out their services to nonpaying customers, couldn't you argue that it's a form of public good? And that you could rightfully tax people to pay for it? A fine for not buying insurance is more selective than a general tax. And, of course, we don't tax the indigent, but they get the benefits of the national defense, police forces, schools, and national parks anyway.
So like Scott, I oppose the individual mandate as a policy but I have trouble getting really worked up about the way Romney implemented it.
Dec '10
Re: Sorry, Ann
etoiledunord, it looked to me like Romney doesn't think Romneycare is a mistake in any way, shape or form, that indeed he's pretty proud of it. Which of course amplifies Santorum's critique: Santorum points out that Romneycare isn't actually making health care more affordable and available to citizens of Massachusetts. Romney's only available viable argument is that it was an experiment worth attempting in a "state as laboratory" but that he now sees how badly it has failed. Too bad he can't see that.
Jul '10
Re: Sorry, Ann
That line is tailor-made for a Saturday Night Live style parody. The scene is St John's Church, 1775, Patrick Henry shouts, "Give me liberty or give me death!"
From the next seat over, "It's not worth getting angry about."
Apr '11
Re: Sorry, Ann
He's admitted mistakes. Does so endlessly on Life, Reagan, and not going to Vietnam. He can't now; flip flopping is far and away the biggest charge against him. On the plus side, it means that you can be confident that he will repeal Obamacare. On the downside, waiting for him to shift in a direction you want is sure to lead to disappointment. The dude is not for turning.
A couple of years into office, he'll have new problems, new stereotypes, and he'll be able to be more flexible. For now, though, the central character charge is tactically worth losing some conservatives over.
Re: Sorry, Ann
Over at the Weekly Standard, nicely put:
May '10
Re: Sorry, Ann
Translucent:
What I don't understand is why he didn't say something along the lines of: "Massachusetts is a state and it is okay for states to try and pass and fail based on what they pass so long as it does not violate federal law. What president Obama passed is a federal mandate that will take away from the citizens of the entire nation the freedom to choose their healthcare. So if it fails the entire country fails. What I did is in lines with the idea of federalism. What Obama did is not."
Something like that. He will probably make it more eloquent though. There still is an avenue of attack that Romney could use against Obama Care. · 40 minutes ago
Yes, and he also should point out that Massachusetts voters wanted Romneycare.
In contrast, a clear majority of Americans did not want Obamacare. Obama and the Democrats knowingly did this against the will of the American people. It was shoved down our throats with a party-line vote, legislative gimmicks and sleight-of-hand to make it happen.
I think that is a huge, huge distinction.
May '11
Re: Sorry, Ann
This exchange between Santorum and Romney is terrifying to me. There is only one issue that dominates every single other issue and that is the healthcare plan that is about to destroy everything about our freedom in this nation. Romney has no philosophical objection to that healthcare plan and this exchange is the proof of that. He only objects to it for political tactical reasons.
This is not a stand that will win against Obama.
How this man has gotten so far with the Republican party astounds me.
I'm no fan of Newt Gingrich, but he is the last not-romney standing. The party has self-destructed. We are doomed. I might vote for Romney over Obama, but only out of sheer terror. This is not a winning strategy.
Apr '11
Re: Sorry, Ann
BThompson
Of course it is, but I think you're being, as I said before, very niggardly in your interpretation of the remark. It was an off the cuff comment in the heat of a serious exchange. Do you really believe Romney doesn't think personal liberty is worth fighting for? Really?
I think a fair viewing would concede at least the possibility that Romney was simply pointing out that Santorum's heated style can sometimes be counterproductive to the point he's trying to defend.
You don't have to breathe fire to defend personal liberty. Ask your friend Gov. Daniels. · 1 hour ago
You're fired.
Political Correctness Police