18 Replies to “"White House Quotes Romney In Defense Of Obamacare"”

1. proudvastrightwingconspirator says:

   September 30, 2011 at 10:17 am

   Don’t forget, they can quote Gingrich on the horrors of AGW, Perry’s comments supporting The Dream Act and aid to illegals should prove helpful and Ron Paul can demonstrate how we have NOTHING to fear from little, old Iran.

   It’s a veritable RINO smorgasbord!!

2. LBascom says:

   September 30, 2011 at 10:32 am

   It was seen as a conservative idea to say, you know what, people have a responsibility for caring for themselves if they can. We’ll help people who can’t care for themselves, but if you can care for yourself, you’ve got to take care of yourself and pay your own bills.’

   Ohh, soo close!

   Responsibility to take care of yourself? Conservative. Government forcing people to take care of them self? Not so much.

3. scooter says:

   September 30, 2011 at 10:33 am

   I wonder if “anyone but Obama” syndrome is going to push a marginal Republican into office that will ultimately damage the brand.

   Or is that what you’ve been saying all along?

4. proudvastrightwingconspirator says:

   September 30, 2011 at 10:38 am

   “I wonder if “anyone but Obama” syndrome is going to push a marginal Republican into office that will ultimately damage the brand.”

   Didn’t we already try that for 8 years with Chimpy McHitlerburton?

5. happyfeet says:

   September 30, 2011 at 10:54 am

   let me go on like a blister in the sun

6. scooter says:

   September 30, 2011 at 11:04 am

   pvrwc – that’s a very good point, actually. I think there’s enough difference between “Chimpy” and the current field (or the last GOP nominee for that matter) to think that we’re continuing to trend in the wrong direction but maybe the brand was already damaged and this is a result of what’s already happened, and not the cause of what I imagine might happen.

   That cabin in the woods is sounding better all the time.

7. Joe says:

   September 30, 2011 at 11:14 am

   Primaries matter.

   Don’t want Romney? You better fight hard in the primaries.

8. Joe says:

   September 30, 2011 at 11:14 am

   Because if the pramatic republicans cannot get Fatty McAwesome, they will be backing Mitt.

9. Pablo says:

   September 30, 2011 at 11:18 am

   Responsibility to take care of yourself? Conservative. Government forcing people to take care of them self? Not so much.

   Better yet, government dictating how you have to do that, not so much.

10. Jeff G. says:

    September 30, 2011 at 11:18 am

    It’ll be clarifying. Again.

    Not that it matters.

11. DarthLevin says:

    September 30, 2011 at 11:20 am

    I’ve been thinking about how the country can reverse direction, and not happily.

    A core principle of the classical liberalism we espouse is the constitutionally-limited power of government. We agree that government has (or at least has arrogated to itself) powers in excess of what is proper. How do we divorce government and these powers?

    1. We, the People, forcibly wrest them from the agents and agencies of government.
    2. We, the People, simply ignore government when they call on their improperly acquired or assumed powers.
    3. The government willingly lays down those powers that exceed the Constitutional limits.

    (feel free to point out what I missed)

    The problem with 1.? – Agents and agencies of government have more-better guns and might use them.
    The problem with 2.? – Agents and agencies of government can issue warrants to people with handcuffs, more-better guns, etc.

    So now we come to option 3, where the government lays their powers down. Here’s the problem. In order for government to lay the powers down, it first has to pick them up. Meaning, we have to trust some elected official(s) with that power in the first place, and trust that they will surrender that power rather than exercise it.

    And that’s where my thinking has gone lately. I have little hope that we can find enough people willing to run for President and Congress that they will willingly dismantle the source of their own power before the whole system collapses.

    Man, I depress myself. With the parents are coming into town tonight, too. And chickens yet to cook and shred for the yummy dinnertime feastings.

12. sdferr says:

    September 30, 2011 at 11:36 am

    Darth, which of the remedy categories includes the ballot? 1 alone, or 1 and 3?

13. scooter says:

    September 30, 2011 at 11:46 am

    Darth – behold the 2010 midterm elections. It’s admittedly too soon to tell whether the Tea Party Republicans elected to Congress will become the same sort of entrenched incumbents that are part of the American political landscape or not but I am, perhaps foolishly, optimistic that they won’t.

    I think the sentiment is there – to elect people willing to correct Washington’s balance of power – amongst the electorate. It’s what happens once they’re there that will decide the outcome, of course.

14. Pablo says:

    September 30, 2011 at 11:46 am

    I’d say 3 alone. 1 is pitchforks and torches.

15. bgbear says:

    September 30, 2011 at 1:08 pm

    Regardless of how stupid an idea “Romneycare” is, someone should point out that it was Massachusetts decision on healthcare and not a one size fits all approach from Washington forced on all other states.

    Has Romney even made a federalism defense of Romneycare?

    I have tried to point out to more “liberal” friends that even if they support expansion of government ran healthcare, why would they support it coming from Washington rather than from their state capitol. It seems pretty clear that Idaho’s problems are not the same as New York’s.

16. Squid says:

    September 30, 2011 at 1:26 pm

    The closer to home the program is, the harder it is to sell the idea that “somebody else” is paying for it.

    It’s never been about medicine; that’s just an excuse. It’s always been about punishing “other people” who happen to have “too much” money.

17. LBascom says:

    September 30, 2011 at 1:50 pm

    “It’s always been about punishing “other people” who happen to have “too much” money.”

    I’m pretty sure that “other people” is the nub of the matter. After all, no one wants to punish Bill Clinton or James Cameron for having too much money.

18. Swen says:

    October 1, 2011 at 6:47 pm

    The closer to home the program is, the harder it is to sell the idea that “somebody else” is paying for it.

    So you’d think, but state and local governments are very fond of spending what they perceive as “free money”. The usual refrain is “It didn’t cost us a thing! We bought it with federal grant money”. Or “What do you care how much it cost? We didn’t spend hardly any of our county sales tax money, we got matching funds from the state”. Or… No matter what level of government you’re dealing with they’ll always try to convince you that the money grew on trees, or they’re taking it from someone else, to pay for all the goodies they provide you.

    State and local governments also have the advantage of the irrefutable logic that if they hadn’t taken the money and pissed it away someone else would have. So don’t complain about their irresponsible spending because it’s better to piss the money away here than to let it get wasted by the neighboring county.

Comments are closed.