Romney Urges Republicans to 'Stand Up' to Obama's Policies [as he extols the virtues of Romney Care]

At this stage, I welcome anyone who urges “stand up to Obama.” The Supreme Court nominee gives me the creeps. Absurd to gripe over this statement unless one is an Obama supporter. And no, one does not have to be a Romney supporter to see the need for it.

I would give him benefit if the doubt, but I have seen that same interview bit (needs handlers yada yada yada) used by other Mittbots here.

When it comes to all that, given how organized they have been these many months, my ability to believe in coincidence has diminished exponentially...

Please. I've been here for a long time. I've watched the Romneyites and the "real conservative" purity nut-jobs go at it for a few years now. I stupidly always try for an intellectually honest conversation. I usually end up getting attacked because I don't saddle up and join the "ban 'em all" mob with their pitchforks and torches.

No I'm not a Romney supporter but here's my confession: I did vote for him when I lived in Mass - what choice did I have? And damn it, I'd vote for him again knowing what I know considering what would run against him. That's the compromise at the end of the day you spoke of. If that makes me a "RINO-breath", "RNC insider", "liar", "Mormon" or any other the other names I've been called by the usual gang of RINO-hunters well that's got to be better than the alternative.

The anti-Romney patriot squads would do better to drop the "enemies list" RINO hunt against people who they'd expect would support their "real-conservative" great pumpkin candidate who I have to remind you is still an un-named and mythical phantom as yet. I'm not asking you to roll over and play dead just engage in a little discussion to make your point, a little less name calling and certainly fewer personal attacks. Hell, I'm surrounded here in Democrat land. That's what they do.

All that being said, I'm grateful for your attempted explanation after your initial challenge. Some would have whipped the dead horse all day long. Enough?

I try and avoid name calling, but I am passionate in defending my beliefs, especially from those seek to represent them in a less the straight forward manor.

I suspect I will have a battle on my hands in some purity circles because I am a Haley Barbour supporter. But that will be a totally different horse than Romney, who had numerous issues and numerous “changes”. Indeed I started out with him number two on my list 2-3 years ago, but know I know way more than I wanted to.

There is ‘purity” then there is “not even close”...

No candidate is perfect. But I want to discuss pros and cons objectively. Anyone we would put up would be miles ahead of having a democrat. And I don’t believe Republicans should resolve who is the nominee by trying to destroy anyone who is not your choice hoping your choice is the last one standing. What that results in is a weakened final nominee and a lot of bruised feelings and “no shows” on election day.

Because I live up in Global Colding land, I don’t know too much about Haley Barbour but he’s reported to have done a hell of a job during Katrina - so refreshing after the New Orleans whine. Here would be my concern. I expect the MSM would really go after him with all sorts of “Southern Sheriff” stereotypes and of course the Mississippi flag with the Confederate battle flag on it. There’s no way the liberals won’t go after that stuff. It’s definitely wrong to stereotype like that but that’s what they think is funny - Bush is a cowboy, Palin is a crazy housewife, Romney is a rich-boy capitalist, McCain’s Insane. Can’t you just see the pictures of Boss Haley Hogg standing in front of the CSA battleflag? They’d probably put a few nooses in the cartoons just to get some NAACP loot. But if Barbour ran against Obama, he’d have my vote. Someone’s going to have to clean up another Democrat mess. :-)

...as well as the fact you are using the boiler plate “critique” of Palin...

Oh, so this is Palin-bashing:

Yup, Romney can do the wide-ranging interview with Fox, or even hostile MSM interviewers, with no drama, no handlers, no teleprompter, no mis-steps, no uhms, speak in complete paragraphs, make good sound bites, and take on Obama and the Democrats.

Teleprompters and uhms are associated with Obama. Remember him, the leftist-in-chief we are looking to remove from office? Complete paragraphs would be more like a GWB. None of this pertains with any specificity to Palin.

Geez, this is something, this dualist Manichean view of the world, wherein there is evil, represented by Romney, and good, the opposite of Romney. Isn't that just a maybe a tad stilted? We've got friggin' Obama wreaking havoc on the country but that doesn't seem to trouble you nearly as much as Romney giving an interview on Fox. This has you dashing pell mell to your keyboard to heap more vituperation on Romney, never mind that Romney is rare Republican who is taking on Obama directly in a media interview. Obama will have us in chains but you'll be fine, so long as Romney gets no traction in the GOP.

Why should Team Romney be lauded after THROWING
Election2008 to Obama?

Why not apologize first -— starting to Gov.Palin,
her children, the Mauck family, and the citizens
of Massachusetts, and the people who lost jobs
of companies Romney wiped out — for starters?

It would be nice if in 2012, conservatives would pick a person to support who actually wants to run for the office and will seriously pursue it, so we can all support the same person and maybe get them through the primaries.

I generally feel that if I have to use a sarcasm tag, I haven’t done my job.

Why should Team Romney be lauded after THROWING Election2008 to Obama?

Is this your deranged pet theory, or do other political commentators agree with you? Maybe you could provide a supporting link. All those Romney appearances in support of McCain, that seemed effective, were those distractions? How exactly did Romney manage to throw this election to Obama in this la la land you occupy?

Increasing numbers of political reporters agree:
Mitt Brutus Romney and his Team of Hate are GUILTY.

Late in October, The American Spectator's The Prowler revealed:
"Former Mitt Romney presidential campaign staffers, some of whom are currently working for Sen. John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin's bid for the White House,
have been involved in spreading anti-Palin spin to reporters, seeking to diminish her standing after the election.
'Sarah Palin is a lightweight, she won't be the first, not even the third, person people will think of when it comes to 2012,'
says one former Romney aide, now working for McCain-Palin.
'The only serious candidate ready to challenge to lead the Republican Party is Mitt Romney.
He's in charge on November 5th.'"
The Prowler added: "Some former Romney aides were behind the recent leaks to media, including CNN, that Governor Sarah Palin was a 'diva' and was going off message intentionally."
The Romney supporters in the McCain campaign had access to internal polling which indicated well in advance of the November 4 election that McCain had no chance to win.
So they began working to position their man Mitt for a run in 2012. Just two days after the election,The Palmetto Scoop reported:
"One of the first stories to hit the national airwaves was the claim of a major internal strife between close McCain aides and the folks handling his running mate Sarah Palin."
"I’m told by very good sources that this was indeed the case and that a rift had developed, but it was between Palin’s people and the staffers brought on from the failed presidential campaign of former Gov. Mitt Romney, not McCain aides."
"The sources said nearly 80 percent of Romney’s former staff was absorbed by McCain and these individuals were responsible for what amounts to a premeditated, last-minute sabotage of Palin."
These aides loyal to Romney inside the McCain campaign, said The Scoop, reportedly saw that Palin would be a serious contender for the Republican nomination in 2012 or 2016, which made her a threat to another presidential quest by Romney.
Erick Erickson, who organized Operation Leper, said:
"Here’s what I think: I think there are some staffers on the McCain campaign who seriously screwed up the roll out of Sarah Palin, to which Governor Palin herself objected.
These staffers are now out trying to finish her off thinking, as typical D.C. types do, that if they don’t do it to her, she’ll do it to them. They just never understood who Palin is or what she is about."
"Likewise, I do think there are some staffers and others who expect Mitt Romney to run again in 2012,
they decided McCain could not win, and decided to undermine Sarah Palin and her chances hoping it would ingratiate themselves with Mitt Romney."

"Who's the Palin Leaker from the McCain Campaign? (Mark Wallace, Romney pimp)
National Review Online The publication of a Vanity Fair profile of Sarah Palin
appears to have opened old wounds in the McCain campaign.
... the source of the “Diva” leak was Nicolle Wallace’s husband."

Who benefits most from Sanford meltdown? Californian (that's right) Mitt Romney

"Peeking Out From the McCain Wreckage: Mitt Romney"

"Someone's got to say it: IS MITT ROMNEY RESPONSIBLE FOR OBAMA'S VICTORY?"

"Vanity: Team Romney Sabotaged Palin and Continuing to Do So?"

"Romney Supporters Trashing Palin"

"Romney advisors sniping at Palin?"

Poor sport spoiler Romney doing what he does best:

Novak: "Fred Thompson drop-out rumors traced to Romney campaign"

Said Novak: "The rumors were traced in part to Mitt Romney's campaign,
trying to stir up strife between McCain and Thompson."

"Despite outspending his rivals by huge margins throughout the primaries,
(Mitt Romney, Carpetbagger UT,CA,MA,NH,Mexico) lost Iowa, South Carolina, Florida and California.
The only primaries he won were in Michigan, where Dad was governor; LDS states;
and a few states on Super Tuesday in which his California-obsessed rivals
couldn't spare the cash to advertise.
Only John Connolly in 1968 had a worse cash-to-delegates ratio.
And John McCain rightly did not like Romney's tactics during the primaries.
(W)hen (Romney's early leads) started slipping away, he resorted to unfair,
distorted, scorched-earth negative ads, betting that his opponents couldn't
afford to spend enough for the truth to catch up to his charges."
[Romney: A Mistake for McCain, 7/23/2008, Dick Morris]

I guess the GOP plans to do the same stupid thing over and over and expect a different result.

First, recognize that each of you are different from the typical Mitt enthusiasts here.

Each of you make good points and I personally agree with much of what you have posted here. Anyone blasting zer0 on his policies is a welcome thing (even Helen Thomas!). IMO Romney threads are greeted as they are here (and I have joined in) because 1) we lived through this in Primary 2008 (Primary from Hell?) where conscientious Mitt policy objectors were accused of being Mormon bigots immediately by the significant number of Mitt supporters and 2) it is a 'Groundhog's Day' thing where fatigue sets in when a different Mitt-devotee reposts the same admiring media article even though the issues have been vetted before.

as ej22 points out, I have learned a lot more about Romney team's tactics behind the scenes than I knew before which has also soured my perspective on him. With this history at FR unfortunately, a Romney post may never be able to be taken at face value but viewed in a manner that fears it could lead to his nomination in 2012. I'll fight in primary to have it be someone other than him, but if he wins the nomination, he'll have my vote.

It would be nice if in 2012, conservatives would pick a person to support who actually wants to run for the office and will seriously pursue it, so we can all support the same person and maybe get them through the primaries.

Amen to that. The problem is finding a candidate who will commit to run this early. As soon as anyone does of course they come under a constant barrage of attacks. Since Reagan is our success model for all things, he had the advantage of having run multiple times so he'd already taken the barrage. By his third? run it was old news when libs once again said he was old, crazy and likely to blow up the world. Plus, after the country veered so far to the left under Carter & the Dems the mushy middle was less afraid to veer further right with a guy who was positive and unapologetic about America. I'm wondering how many states in the late 70s had "open-primaries" back then? That's a problem I think in getting more conservatives through the primaries during these times.

The issue should be: What has Romney wrought?

Election2008 Spoiler Mitt Romney chortles,
as he inflicts his socialized medicine (HillaryCARE=RomneyCARE)
upon the Massachusetts citizens, of course without any of their votes (The ROMNEY-Way).

"Massachusetts Universal Healthcare System Breaking Down Already
When Governor Mitt Romney instituted a universal healthcare plan for Massachusetts in 2006 he proclaimed it a conservative idea.
But has it worked? Has it been successful?
For a time, many thought it might but cracks in the system are already being seen.
These cracks are instructive as a lesson on how Obamacare will crash and burn just like Romneycare is now in the process of doing.

One of the early claims that helped push Romneycare through to law was the insistence by its supporters that Emergency Room visits would fall as more and more citizens became covered under healthcare insurance.
Since ER care is far more expensive than a doctor's care, it was thought that more people with insurance would ease the overcrowding of ERs as well as lower the overall costs of healthcare.
However, a flaw in this logic has been seen throughout the state. As more people became insured, more people demanded the care of doctors. These doctors became overloaded with patients and waiting lists for doctors got longer and longer.
As a result, ERs in Massachusetts have not seen a downturn in visits. On the contrary, it seems that ER visits are actually on the upswing in the Bay State. In fact, in 2007 they were higher than the national average by 20 percent...

"Hospital patients 'left in agony'"
"Patients were allegedly left screaming in pain and drinking from flower vases on a nightmare hospital ward.
Between 400 and 1,200 more people died than would have been expected at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust over three years, a damning Healthcare Commission report said.
The watchdog's investigation found inadequately trained staff who were too few in number, junior doctors left alone in charge at night and patients left without food, drink or medication as their operations were repeatedly cancelled.
Patients were left in pain or forced to sit in soiled bedding for hours at a time and were not given their regular medication, the Commission heard.
Receptionists with no medical training were expected to assess patients coming in to A&E, some of whom needed urgent care.
Sir Bruce Keogh, medical director of the NHS, said there had been a "gross and terrible breach" of patients' trust and a "complete failure of leadership".
The Healthcare Commission's chairman Sir Ian Kennedy said the investigation followed concerns about a higher than normal death rate at the Trust, which senior managers could not explain.
He said: "The resulting report is a shocking story. Our report tells a story of appalling standards of care and chaotic systems for looking after patients. These are words I have not previously used in any report.
"There were inadequacies in almost every stage of caring for patients. There was no doubt that patients will have suffered and some of them will have died as a result."
Julie Bailey, 47, was so concerned about the care being given to her 86-year-old mother Bella at Stafford Hospital that she and her relatives slept in a chair at her bedside for eight weeks.
She said: "We saw patients drinking out of..."

"Paramedics told: 'Let accident victims die if they want to' in new row over patient rights (UK)"
Health Service paramedics have been told not to resuscitate terminally-ill patients who register on a controversial new database to say they want to die.
It has been set up by the ambulance service in London for hundreds of people who have only a few months to live so that they may register their 'death wishes' in advance.
It is believed to be the first in the country, but other trusts around the country are expected to follow suit to comply with Government guidelines which state that patients' wishes should be taken into account, even at the point of death.
Patients' groups and doctors have welcomed the scheme, but it has met opposition from pro-life groups who say it violates the sanctity of life.
The system would come into play if a cancer patient, for example, was in serious pain and rang 999 for help to alleviate the suffering.
But if the paramedics arrived and the patient was close to death, he or she would not be resuscitated if such a request was registered on the database.
This would also be the case if a patient on the database was being transferred between hospitals, and had a heart attack.
Dominica Roberts from the Pro-Life Alliance said: 'This is very sad and very dangerous. It's another step along the slippery slope, at the bottom of which is euthanasia as we see in Holland. 'Paramedics should be there to save lives. They should not be there to let patients die. The medical profession should not agree with someone's belief that their life is worthless.'"

"National Health Preview - The Massachusetts debacle, coming soon to your neighborhood."
"Three years ago, the former Massachusetts Governor had the inadvertent good sense to create the "universal" health-care program that the White House and Congress now want to inflict on the entire country.
It is proving to be instructive, as Mr. Romney's foresight previews what President Obama, Max Baucus, Ted Kennedy and Pete Stark are cooking up for everyone else.
In Massachusetts's latest crisis, Governor Deval Patrick and his Democratic colleagues are starting to move down the path that government health plans always follow when spending collides with reality -- i.e., price controls.
As costs continue to rise, the inevitable results are coverage restrictions and waiting periods. It was only a matter of time.

They're trying to manage the huge costs of the subsidized middle-class insurance program that is gradually swallowing the state budget.
The program provides low- or no-cost coverage to about 165,000 residents, or three-fifths of the newly insured, and is budgeted at $880 million for 2010, a 7.3% single-year increase that is likely to be optimistic.
The state's overall costs on health programs have increased by 42% (!) since 2006.

What really whipped along RomneyCare were claims that health care would be less expensive if everyone were covered.
But reducing costs while increasing access are irreconcilable issues.
Mr. Romney should have known better before signing on to this not-so-grand experiment, especially since the state's "free market" reforms that he boasts about have proven to be irrelevant when not fictional.
Only 21,000 people have used the "connector" that was supposed to link individuals to private insurers."

A Very Sick Health Plan; Bay State’s ‘Grand Experiment’ Fails [RomneyCare]
"The Daily News Record, Harrisonburg, Va. - 2009-03-31 "
"For folks increasingly leery of President Obama’s plan to radically overhaul America’s health-care system,
or 17 percent of the nation’s economy, all this could hardly have come at a better time —
that is, fiscal troubles aplenty within Repubican Mitt Romney’s brainchild, Massachusetts’ “grand experiment” in “universal” health care."

"Initiated on Mr. Romney’s gubernatorial watch in 2006, this “experiment” has fallen on hard times, and predictably so.
Even though the Bay State commenced its program with a far smaller percentage of uninsured residents than exists nationwide,
“RomneyCare” is threatening to bankrupt the state. Budgeted for Fiscal Year 2010 at $880 million,
or 7.3 percent more than a year ago, this plan, aimed at providing low- or no-cost health coverage to roughly 165,000 residents,
has caused Massachusetts’ overall expenditures on all health-related programs to jump an astounding 42 percent since 2006.

So what does Mr. Romney’s successor, Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick, propose as a remedy for these skyrocketing costs?
Well, whaddya think? The standard litany of prescriptions (no pun intended) — price controls and spending caps, for a start, and then, again predictably, waiting periods and limitations on coverage.
As in Europe and Canada, so too in Massachusetts. And, we feel certain, everyone from Mr. Romney to Mr. Patrick said, “It would never happen here.”
But then, such things are inevitable when best-laid plans, with all their monstrous costs, run smack-dab into fiscal reality.

"Dem Congresswoman Admits Obama Health Care Plan Will Destroy Private Health Insurance Industry"

Thousands of patients with terminal cancer were dealt a blow last night after a decision was made to deny them life prolonging drugs.
The Government's rationing body said two drugs for advanced breast cancer and a rare form of stomach cancer were too expensive for the NHS.
The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence is expected to confirm guidance in the next few weeks that will effectively ban their use.
The move comes despite a pledge by Nice to be more flexible in giving life-extending drugs
to terminally-ill cancer patients after a public outcry last year over 'death sentence' decisions."

"Patients Forced To Wait Hours In Ambulances Parked Outside A&E Departments
"An investigation by The Sunday Telegraph has found that thousands of 999 patients are being left to wait in ambulances in car parks and holding bays, or in hospital corridors – in some cases for more than five hours – before they can even join the queue for urgent treatment.

Experts warn that hospitals are deliberately delaying when they accept patients – or are diverting them to different sites –
in order to meet Government targets to treat people within fours hours of admitting them."

each of you are different from the typical Mitt enthusiasts here

Let's just say I've been treated with more respect by the "Mitt enthusiasts" than by the anti-Mitt enthusiasts. And if you're an anti-Mitt enthusiast, foot-soldiers like that ain't gonna win no elections for your guy or gal whoever that turns out to be.

You would have a point, and I would even agree with you except for this one statement:

Anyone we would put up would be miles ahead of having a democrat.

Of that I am not so sure, and while it maybe a matter of degree, the differerenc between 1000 degrees and 800 is not enough to keep one from burning to death...

That is Haley’s specialty, disaster recovery...

Nice try once again there, but it ain't moving the product.

I would give benefit of the doubt, and yes the same has been (truthfully) said about Obama, but given what the Mitt supporters here have been saying to trash Palin, and seeing as you have been one of the worst Mittoids over the last few months, let's just color me skeptical...

Also don't assume I am not also concerned about Obama, but the cure for cancer is not a heart attack...