Posted on 07/10/2012 4:32:51 AM PDT by scottfactor
Again it comes to this: voting for the “lesser of two evils.” This is assuming, of course, that Mitt “Stealth Leftist” Romney wins the Republican nomination for President. I had decided that I was through voting for the less evil candidate, but then I know that our elections may be heavily compromised at this point, as the Left gets its voter-fraud-voting-machine-hacking down to an Argonne National Laboratory science.
However, since the horrendous John “Quisling” Roberts Supreme Court decision to uphold the clearly unconstitutional “Obamacare” monster, I have decided to go ahead and vote for the Republican nominee, no matter who he is, even the liberal Mitt Romney.
Mitt Romney keeps saying that on Day One in office, he will move to repeal Obamacare. He also adds what I do not want to hear—“replace.” “Repeal and replace.” I am sick of hearing that from “our side.” Do not tell me you are going to “replace” something that should never have been in the first place! Just kill it! Put it out of our misery!
Do I even believe Romney’s promise, as it is? This is not a brand new story, though it was new to me yesterday, so it may be new to others. The top aide to Romney’s transition team for the White House is a fellow Mormon, former Utah Governor, former head of the Environmental Protection Agency and Health and Human Services Secretary under President George W. Bush. While he is an amazingly accomplished man, and apparently very talented and driven, former Governor Mike Leavitt is also a supporter of the states implementing Obamacare “exchanges.” Yes, that’s right. And, the reason he supports it likely has everything to do with the fact that Leavitt owns Leavitt Partners, a health care consultancy firm based in Utah.
On June 3rd, the Politico’s Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns had a fairly glowing write-up about Leavitt (which should tell us something right there). The piece made it quite clear that Leavitt is a moderate, a pragmatist, and not necessarily as conservative as actual conservatives would like to see in the Romney administration, especially when it comes to his position on the wretched Obamacare legislation.
From the Politico piece,
Leavitt has said some relatively positive things about certain elements of Obama’s health reform law, suggesting earlier this year that “Obamacare” empowers the HHS secretary “to do certain things that are clearly aimed at trying to move us in the right direction.”
[Leavitt’s longtime chief aide, Rich] McKeown, who still works with Leavitt at his Utah-based health care consultancy, acknowledged that the former governor does not want to undo one key part of the controversial legislation.
“We believe that the exchanges are the solution to small business insurance market and that’s gotten us sideways with some conservatives,” he said.
The exchanges are not only a matter of principle for Leavitt — they’re also a cash cow.
The size of his firm, Leavitt Partners, doubled in the year after the bill was signed as they won contracts to help states set up the exchanges funded by the legislation.
“There is a group [of states] that feels as though they don’t want to be associated with the Affordable Care Act,” Leavitt told POLITICO in 2011. “Privately, though, it’s clear that several of those are planning behind the scenes, because they don’t want to have a federal exchange.” The law is written so that those states that don’t create their own exchanges by 2014 may be pushed into a federal exchange.
This angers the right, however.
“These Exchanges … are the government bureaucracies that will make health insurance more expensive, induce employers to drop coverage, entrench Obamacare, and dole out hundreds billions of debt-financed government subsidies to insurance companies,” fumed the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute.
So, Leavitt, who stands to make a great deal more money from the implementation of Obamacare than from its repeal, is the one guy Romney chooses to set up a Romney administration, if Romney wins the White House. Could there be more of a conflict of interests than this—that is—if Romney is serious about repealing the hellish, anti-American, anti-freedom Obamacare dictate?
When this story broke, there was some conservative backlash which led to the Romney campaign issuing a statement that was reported by the Daily Caller,
… Team Romney was quick to dismiss those worries. Reached for comment, Romney spokesman Lenny Alcivar said: “Unlike President Obama, voters can rest assured that a Romney Administration will put America back on track. That starts with repealing Obamacare, starting Day One. Make no mistake, the only person who will make policy decisions under a Romney Administration is Mitt Romney.”
Oh, well that makes me feel all better! This man, Leavitt, could end up being Romney’s chief of staff (according to rumors), and we are supposed to believe his money-powered desire to have the states implement Obamacare exchanges will in no way affect Romney’s stated desire to repeal that detestable law? I am in full support of Mike Leavitt making a successful living, but the thought that someone with such a potent interest in keeping Obamacare alive could end up in one of the highest positions in a Romney administration is quite disturbing.
In your scenario Santorum is probably the better choice. He’s the one that was beating or tying Romney and winning in both north and south.
Not saying I expect much but I could definitely continue to back him.
I’m not sure whether your bigotry or ignorance is more embarrassing?
Well make a choice man. Why are you embarrassed by me?
And Romney in the LDS
And Romney in the LDS
Ignorance or bigotry. Tough choice.
While I give you that Santorum is the more “pastoral” candidate, and was not wiped out like Newt, by Romney’s cash machine, neither of these two have the convention rules and numbers and ground game in place that even begins to compare with that of the Paul delegates (and his stealth delegates).
Ron Paul is measurably resisted by all of us rather equally. That is something to unify around. LOL! AND, he didn’t cave, suspend, or run off, or run up debt to be bought off by Romney like all the rest.
I believe we fall back into “my guy-your guy” arguments kills us and time is out. At this hour, there is only one left standing with guns. He has a name, he is relentless on fiscal policy and tyranny, and he is honest to a fault.
We are at a tipping point and, like him or not, we need a radical who can’t spell c-o-m-p-r-o-m-i-s-e, or intimidation, or buy off. The whole bunch of them have fallen out on that point.
“getting Obama again would be a form of wake-up call...maybe...for their foolishness and lack of principle.”
This is foolishness I’m talking about.... Tell me, please, when this strategy actually worked. In my entire life or my knowledge of 20th century, I have no knowledge of this strategy ever working, in fact it always backfires.
In this country we need majorities.... so let me point out the obvious:
1. America is Center-Right by nature, which is typical of most of the world. There is lots of history to back that up. (So extremes don’t work in elections)
2. If more Americans are put on the government dole (as will happen with another Obama term) these people will not vote themselves a pay cut, so we will go the way Europe flip-flopping forever into massive debt. (so waiting is dangerous)
3. Those who think our nominee isn’t good enough might as well just say they are ok with liberalism. Because in essence you are voting for it - if you throw it away or stay home.
So stop the crap and vote Obama out of office - use your “rebellion” to influence the people in office, or the nomination process. We vote against Obama.... period. To change the culture takes a lasting and vigilant “rebellion”, lots of small steps. 2008 was a step backwards, let’s not repeat that.
God gave us all a choice - and I really think his will is beyond election cycles.
I am not saying I won’t rise for ABR, so please hold that thought. I am just looking at the horse from hell already able to tip the convention/coronation. The others have no heart beat and are thrown in with the program. They couldn’t get an army together if they had to, because they haven’t.
I’m not a Mitt fan... but we gotta be voting for the person who has the best chance of getting Obama out of office. My guess is that Mitt will do what a conservative congress tells him.
Virgil looks like a good guy... I wonder why he didn’t show up in the primaries.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.