Replies

With due respect, and with the preface that I voted for Newt here in Georgia, this 'Obama only did on a national level what Mitt did in Massachusetts at the state level' doesn't really cut it with me.

My reading of the US Constitution, its founders' intent, and the many instances of each amendment stipulating that the Federal Government shall not.......et al, just reinforces my belief that the intent was to give STATES the power to decide their will, with many, many safeguards to them by capping and restraining the power of the Federal Government to infringe on the rights of states.

That said, if the blue blue state of Massachusetts wanted to hogtie their residents and cripple their futures, it is that state's right, provided they can pass muster through the USOC on review. It is not, however, Hussein's right to inflict that rights abortion on the rest of us without collective states rights' consent

Some fear that, while being willing to derail Obamacare per se, Mitt will try to get Congress to replace it with inducements for states to duplicate from their end what Massachusetts did. That sounds like a hard sell to me, because it would only be replacing one profligate spending package with another, but never say never.

Thank you Gaffer, for pointing that out. Mitt had every right as a STATE Governor to pass such BS, so Obama can sure try to say “same thing” but it isn’t. Mitt can say “mine was Constitutional, yours isn’t.” That argument disappears.

I want to give my LAST CHOICE CANDIDATE Mitt one more accolade, but without my pompoms. We always complain we cannot get anyone to fight on our side, to really shove it. Newt was bringing it, but didn’t get there. Mitt has shown a hunger for the fight. If we can shove him to the right (assuming, of course he gains the nomination), he can de-pants Obama and even provide a sliver of coat tail, IF he’ll pick someone staunchly conservative as a Veep.

Please don’t ban me, Jim!

That said, if the blue blue state of Massachusetts wanted to hogtie their residents and cripple their futures, it is that state's right, provided they can pass muster through the USOC on review. It is not, however, Hussein's right to inflict that rights abortion on the rest of us without collective states rights' consent

I posted the same thing before reading your comments. As governor, Romney did what he thought was best for their state, and I believe the law and program was pretty popular within their state. If we conservatives are for states' rights, we have to accept that. I don't believe that Romney passed that with the intent of taking it country-wide however, so there are a number of key differences between the two.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not yet an ardent Romney supporter, but he has ways of arguing what he did was within his rights as a state. Furthermore, it appears that overwhelming majorities within Massachusetts wanted the program, and it was passed in the daylight, without lots of shennanigans. Obama can't say ANY of that about his.