Another leftwing Globe article.
The more they hate him, the more that any conservative shouldn’t.
Is that all the Boston Glob prints any more? Anti-Romney hit pieces seem to be their stock-and-trade.
Mitt is a lefty dressed up like a decent human being.
Lisa Wangsness? Boy, if I were her, I’d go back to the name store and demand a refund.
Reminds me of the Dukakis “Massachusetts Miracle”, which lost it’s sheen long before he lost his bid for the Presidency.
I ask again, when did the Boston Globe start reporting reality!?
He certainly isn't telling the whole truth.
Oh, and the Boston Globe is now reporting the truth!? Since when?
You've really got to examine your own position if you're constantly quoting from, defending, and consider truthful a leftist piece of trash like the Boston Globe.
Lisa Wangsness and The Globe are so concerned over these Republicans being fooled by Romney, the last thing they would ever want is for a RINO to gain the GOP nomination. Thus the Globe is a veritable mill of anti-Romney hit pieces. Uh,huh.
Were Romney as liberal as the Globe (and the Globe's Freeper fans) purport, there would be nothing but Romney puff-pieces.
You can always depend on the MSM's ideological evaluation of a Republican candidate. As a bear does your food, the MSM can sniff out a RINO from a mile away. By glowing MSM coverage you will know RINO's. If the MSM's RINOdar identifies a conservative, then you'll get the daily hit piece such as leads this thread.
There is a magazine in Orange County California call Red County that compares Mitts healthcare to Arnolds.
It is actually in the 4th, I have at home only the third is online but check there next month.
http://www.redcounty.com/CURRENTISSUE/tabid/150/Default.aspx
Last time I checked the elderly are NOT a part of MA Healthcare Reform. They're on Medicare...
Boston Globe bs hit piece, with the last paragraphs pure gems:
“It is a characterization disputed by many Democrats, especially because Romney vetoed an assessment on businesses that do not provide adequate health coverage for employees. The provision, charging these employers up to $295 per worker per year, was critical to the compromise reached by the House and Senate, and legislative leaders were incensed that Romney vetoed it. The Legislature swiftly overrode the veto. Romney rarely, if ever, mentions the assessment on the stump.
“On healthcare, it’s nothing new from Mitt Romney — he supports our law when it suits him and runs away from it when it benefits his political ambition,” House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi said in a statement yesterday. “His vetoes gutted the very essence of the bill, and if his ideas stood, the number of uninsured in Massachusetts would have only grown. It’s fairer to say our bill, with the hallmark provision of shared responsibility from individuals, employers, and providers, became law despite Mitt Romney, not because of him.”
Romney’s vetoes of course being most conservative. Also note, Romney wanted the self-insured option offered and that was shot down by the ever liberal MA legislature.
Oh and on this:
“But he does not mention aspects of the plan that may hold less appeal for his Republican audiences. For example, he decries “socialized medicine” and says the Massachusetts plan is “all a private initiative, a private-based, market-based healthcare” — omitting the fact that the state and federal governments subsidize much of the overall cost and that A PUBLIC BOARD NEGOTIATED THE BENEFITS AND PRICES THAT PRIVATE INSURERS NOW OFFER.”
He vetoed that too.
The state and federal government were already subsidizing the hospital bailouts and Medicaid coverage the Commonwealth was making. Romney never once hid that the 1.3 billion the Commonwealth was spending on bailing out hospitals was going to be utilized instead to subsidize health insurance premiums. We were also at risk of losing well over $300 million in payments from the Federal government because our uninsured pool was too high (too many folks getting treatment for free).
This of course is my favorite line:
“Under the Massachusetts healthcare law, which requires every adult to have health insurance, the state does not provide insurance directly to people.”
but....but.....I thought this was socialized medicine.....
“Shocking!
Blogger Harry Forbes notes a hilarious passage in a Boston Globe piece about Mitt Romney:
But some of Romney’s critics and political foes—all strong supporters of the state’s healthcare law—say he is resorting to tricks used by candidates trying to put the best spin on their records: accentuating the positive, deleting difficult details, and taking too much credit.
Maybe Romney should take a page from Karl Rove and accentuate the negative instead. That’s called “reverse psychology” and it’s even more sneaky and underhanded!”
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110010506