Sorry, Ann
Peter Robinson ·
Jan 26 at 9:07pm
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 :
Feb '11
Re: Sorry, Ann
Humza Ahmad: .....
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. .....
And it's solid conservatives that have to bear the purity attacks? Why in the world would you want to ridicule any of these people?? They may not be your cup of tea, but surely they're worthy of some respect, right?
May '10
Re: Sorry, Ann
And on what basis?
An odd, out-of-proportion accentuation of the negative, and downplaying of the positive about Romney.
You're free to disagree. I like PR immensely, but still, this is what I sense. I will say no more.
Dec '10
Re: Sorry, Ann
BThompson
I'll let others defend the mischaracterization of their points themselves, but I never called Peter a hothead, nor do I accuse him of hating Romney. So if your head is spinning, perhaps it's because you're reading things that haven't been written and letting yourself get carried away.
Right. You didn't use the words "hothead" or "hate." Here's what you said:
Let me concede up front that I've taken these out of context. The point is you are the one using inflammatory language, you are the one who appears emotionally brittle about criticism of your favorite, and you are accusing Peter of irrationality.
May '10
Re: Sorry, Ann
Western Chauvinist: This thread has my head spinning. So far, I've learned that ...
2.The loss of liberty due to rising insurance premiums to cover the cost of treating the uninsured is equivalent to the loss of liberty in Obamacare (#38, #53)
Hello? I'm looking for the right-of-center conversation site, Ricochet. Am I in the right place?
Does "right-of-center" mean everyone on the site conforms to your opinions?
Anyway, in comment 53 I didn't say the "increase in premiums" is a loss of liberty. I said the requirement to provide service with no prospect of being reimbursed is a loss of liberty. You know, if the government can require you to provide a service, what can't it require you to do?
Oct '11
Re: Sorry, Ann
James Gawron: 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. · 15 hours ago
Edited 15 hours ago
Total agreement. Coulter may be cute but so is my little toe. Santorum is sincere and passionate...
Dec '10
Re: Sorry, Ann
Mark Wilson
Western Chauvinist: This thread has my head spinning. So far, I've learned that ...
2.The loss of liberty due to rising insurance premiums to cover the cost of treating the uninsured is equivalent to the loss of liberty in Obamacare (#38, #53)
Does "right-of-center" mean everyone on the site conforms to your opinions?
Anyway, in comment 53 I didn't say the "increase in premiums" is a loss of liberty. I said the requirement to provide service with no prospect of being reimbursed is a loss of liberty. You know, if the government can require you to provide a service, what can't it require you to do?
You're right, Mark. That's exactly where the loss of liberty arises. So, then what? Individual mandate to cover the expense? That's what Romney did in MA.
I just want to make this perfectly clear. I am first and foremost an ABOer. I'll vote for Romney in the general and I'll knock on doors for him, if that's what it takes. I don't expect everyone to agree with me on everything, but I think we pretty much agree on that. (cont.)
Dec '10
Re: Sorry, Ann
My greatest desire, apart from finding someone to beat Obama like a drum, is that we stop ascribing irrationality (see above), knuckle-dragging stupidity (see Ann Coulter), bigotry (anti-Mormonism) and anger (oy, the anger!) to those who haven't gotten on board with our favorite. Conservatives get plenty of that from the Left.
If you don't know that Peter Robinson, Professor Rahe, yours truly, et al, are troubled by selecting Romney as the GOP standard bearer almost exclusively because of Romneycare and the implications it has for his political philosophy, you either haven't been listening, or you obstinately refuse to hear.
We've got to start to make a positive case. And I mean that in the sense of conversationalists on Ricochet and whoever the GOP nominee is. Unfortunately, if the nominee is Romney and he refuses to disavow Romneycare going forward, your case has to include an argument for the individual mandate. And that's where I'm going to get stubborn.
P.S. Seeing as Obamacare is the most unpopular legislation in American history, even among moderates, I'd say any argument for the individual mandate coming from our side of the aisle saves Obama.
Dec '10
Re: Sorry, Ann
Western Chauvinist: This thread has my head spinning. So far, I've learned that
Please pardon my Newtonian rhetorical flourishes. I consider these logical extensions of the arguments made, not the original arguments.
I actually pray #7 is true on all counts (Romney becomes president, if nominated, and is great), but I think people making such prognostications should not accuse ABRers of irrational wishful thinking.
Oct '10
Re: Sorry, Ann
Ed G.
I'm wondering how you draw that conclusion. Seems to me that Santorum is usually intelligent and detailed on all the issues and even has a resume item related. · 6 hours ago
Based on most of the debates i've watched, i can't agree with Ahmad on this one.
Oct '10
Re: Sorry, Ann
Jul '10
Re: Sorry, Ann
Santorum might be good at listening to advisors and consultants (which Romney is too, as we just saw), but compared to depths of understanding and knowledge on US politics, policy and history demonstrated by Gingrich and Paul, and the ability to be on point (policy-wise) that comes with being a professional presidential campaigner for six years, he just seems like a lightweight. But more importantly, as I've said before, billing himself as the "values" candidate will not help him an ounce in a general election. He will not turn one independent. Of course his social issues are important to many conservative voters, and I'm not trying to diminish the importance of values voting in the primary. But let's face it, outside of conservative political junkie circles like ourselves, he is known for being the guy who hates gays and wants to strip women of their rights, but really not much else. Period. Such a candidate is unelectable, and had it not been for his freak finish in Iowa, we wouldn't be wasting our time and energy on following him right now.
Jul '10
Re: Sorry, Ann
On Bachmann, Cain and Perry, they are easily ridiculed by those that would want to ridicule the Republican candidate. Each of them have gaffe after gaffe to their record and it is delusional to think that just because they are "real conservatives" this would somehow makeup for looking like lightweights next to Obama and neutralize attacks from him and the mainstream media.
Cain is a walking PR nightmare, plain and simple. Bachmann was a total lightweight until she took some choice advice from debate coaches, but she quickly puttered out. Perry does have a good professional executive record, but the widely held perception of him as a cowboy not intelligent enough to hold national office, be it true or untrue, is only given credence by his disastrous mid-debate brain freeze. It is not that the event said anything about him substantively, but he simply could never recover from such a goof, especially since the liberal line of attack was that he was not the sharpest tool in the shed.
Now, I've been very tame. Do you think the mainstream media and Team-O would be as forgiving as me?
Nov '11
Re: Sorry, Ann
Mark Wilson
Western Chauvinist: This thread has my head spinning. So far, I've learned that ...
2.The loss of liberty due to rising insurance premiums to cover the cost of treating the uninsured is equivalent to the loss of liberty in Obamacare (#38, #53)
Hello? I'm looking for the right-of-center conversation site, Ricochet. Am I in the right place?
Does "right-of-center" mean everyone on the site conforms to your opinions?
Anyway, in comment 53 I didn't say the "increase in premiums" is a loss of liberty. I said the requirement to provide service with no prospect of being reimbursed is a loss of liberty. You know, if the government can require you to provide a service, what can't it require you to do? · 7 hours ago
Why don't conservatives complain about EMTALA, anyway? I've been asking myself that recently. Is it because it passed under Reagan? It's only for emergency medical care, but still.. why is it any of the Federal government's business?
Jul '10
Re: Sorry, Ann
I'd like some chicken wings. But that's a close second.
You really hit the nail on the head, WC.
Of course you folks have legit concerns. They aren't driven by bigotry, pettiness, or stupidity.
The same presumption of good will should apply to those of us supporting Mitt.
We aren't necessarily establishment, defeatist, or Progressive (managerial or otherwise) merely because we think the right approach to beating Barry is to pick the guy we think will beat Barry.
Feb '11
Re: Sorry, Ann
Humza Ahmad: .....
Now, I've been very tame. Do you think the mainstream media and Team-O would be as forgiving as me? · 14 hours ago
Congratulations: you've behaved marginally better than the msm and the Obama campaign.
After two long posts, I'm still left wondering why you think Santorum is a "lightweight" and "easily the least well-read"; I'm now also wondering where Paul has demonstrated "depths of understanding and knowledge on US politics, policy, and history". Also, assuming that you agree that Santorum is unfairly labeled as "the guy who hates gays and wants to strip women of their rights", shouldn't we want to combat that characterization rather than surrender to it? If being unfairly labeled by the opposition is sufficient reason to be disqualified then we'd better just save all those campaign contributions and surrender now - because any of the candidates will be subject to that treatment.
Feb '11
Re: Sorry, Ann
Humza Ahmad: On Bachmann, Cain and Perry, they are easily ridiculed by those that would want to ridicule the Republican candidate. Each of them have gaffe after gaffe to their record and it is delusional to think that just because they are "real conservatives" this would somehow makeup for looking like lightweights next to Obama and neutralize attacks from him and the mainstream media.
Cain is a walking PR nightmare, plain and simple. Bachmann was a total lightweight until she took some choice advice from debate coaches, but she quickly puttered out. .....
You toss around terms like "lightweight", "nightmare", and "delusional" as if you're discussing objective fact. I don't care that you have differing opinions, but I'd sincerely like to understand them. Terms like this dont help.
What made Bachmann a lightweight, in your opinion? Before his woman troubles, what made Cain a nightmare? What gaffes are you thinking of, and are they really useful in our deliberation? Do we ever need to defend our candidates, or should we toss them overboard the moment we hear a snicker from the peanut gallery? Don't you think that Mitt, Rick, Newt, or Ron will face the same problems?
Edited on Jan 28 at 10:59amJul '10
Re: Sorry, Ann
Thankfully, we don't have to try and defend Bachmann, Cain or Perry anymore, so whatever either of us has to say about them is moot anyway.
And about Santorum, if you support him, then by all means defend him. As you can tell, I'm clearly not in favor of him getting the nomination, so it does not fall upon me or anyone else who isn't sold on his protectionist, big-spending record to defend him against liberal assaults. In fact, I am in diametric opposition to position on gay marriage, and so are most independents. So not only do Santorum's positions and history on a number of issues not ring well with me, but because they do not ring well with independents, he is completely unelectable. Plus he's doing miserable in the primary polls.
It thus becomes simply a matter of pride to defend Santorum, a person who has next to no chance of the nomination. I say again, we are only wasting time and energy on this person because of a fluke in Iowa.
Jul '10
Re: Sorry, Ann
Apr '11
Re: Sorry, Ann
Jonathan Cast
James Of England
Palaeologus
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. · 12 hours ago
This is a terrible example. No one would deny that such an article would be struck down today under the 1st ammendment, nor would anyone today deny that such an article would be a grave infringement on personal liberty. ·
Article III isn't an argument for Romneycare today. It is an argument that John Adams was fine with personal mandates at a state level, such as the one he put in place. Peter wasn't just arguing that conservatives today don't like it, but also specific people in the past.
Feb '11
Re: Sorry, Ann
Humza Ahmad: Thankfully, we don't have to try and defend Bachmann, Cain or Perry anymore, so whatever either of us has to say about them is moot anyway.
.....
I disagree. Not responding to unfair attacks and characterizations tarnishes our brand. If no one is refuting the nonsense then the nonsense will start to stick, and even if they're out of the race the nonsense sticks to our brand.