Posted on 03/11/2012 3:10:49 PM PDT by no dems
I just heard on FOX News around 4:30 p.m. (CDT) this afternoon, that there are tapes of Mitt Romney endorsing individual mandates in Universal Health Care coverage. The political panel of two (2) Democratic strategists (Doug Schoen and Pat Caddell) and one Republican Congressman said this virtually kills any chance the GOP has of making ObamaCare an issue in the General Election, this Fall, if Romney is the GOP nominee.
Tell us something we didn't know. This is the biggest issue that dealt Obama and the Dems a huge defeat in the 2010 Midterm Elections. Now, it looks like, because Rick and Newt keep splitting the Conservative vote, we will have Mitt Romney, the Establshiment RINO, as our Party's Standard Bearer and we lose ObamaCare as a campaign issue.
There are also tapes of Newt saying the same. I’ve heard him say it in person, as well as a whole lot more that would have been reminiscent of Obamacare, except that Obama was still battling Hilary at the time. Santorum has been pointing this out for some time, but Newt’s fans here aren’t paying attention. Rick has the only clean record, on this, the biggest of our issues. Rick can beat Obama running on it.
All Romney has to say he he will repeal it and Obama will keep it. End of story.
That would make it a huge issue. If you like Obamacare, vote Obama.
This is why the Republican Party elite have been forcing Romney down our throats. Despite the fact that most Republicans are Conservative, the GOP itself is Socialist Party B.
Oh, now it makes sense as to why they cannot kick Obama out, because, to them, it all is a non-issue.
Too bad if Santorum were nominated to take on Obama the Obamamedia would keep the focus on contraception, and the separation of church and state.
Obviously not a political strategist are you?
Santorum gave the issue of the economy away today. He agrees with Obama that it’s getting better.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2857625/posts
Right, which he already has. Plus, Newt also supported individual mandates, so this issue doesn’t seem to be a big deal right now.
I think you are right, because if the GOP thinks it can become groupies of Obama’s plans and be elected as groupies, we shall see a return of the moderate to vote for the guy who OWNs the plan, and not for the groupies, ie. OBama himself.
McCAin and the others can lay the blame on conservatives, it does not change a thing. A groupie is a groupie and nothing more nothing less.
Newt has said flat out he would rid us of Obamacare.
I know Romney will not.
I don’t think Santorum has the Juice.
If you like Obamacare, vote Obama.
______________________________________________________________LOL.... Surely you’re not smoking that wacky tobacky again. I don’t like ObamaCare and I’d vote for a one-eyed, s**t eating dog before I’d vote for Obama.
... if Santorum were the nominee, he would be aligned with top advisers to keep him focused on the economy.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Too little too late. He’s a “marked man”. He’s the 21st Century Pat Robertson. Besides, no matter what “advisers” would tell him, Rick never knows when to shut up.
Politicians (and they are all politicians of many years duration) have a deserved reputation as a group of not always saying what they mean. Some of them are better at that than others, e.g. Bob Kerrey's comment that "Bill Clinton was an unusually good liar." Just because they say it really well doesn't prove to me that they mean it; I look for independent evidence. They have to earn my giving them the benefit of the doubt. A track record of consistently saying the same thing is somewhat helpful. More helpful is things they've done that were in accord with their statements, especially when they've taken such actions when they were politically difficult. Predictions based on such considerations fare better than just taking politicians at their word, although you still can be surprised... in either direction!
It helps if you've been paying some attention to them for a long time, because what they NOW say they did a long time ago is not always the same as I remember them doing at the time. 'Evidence' they now present for what they did "then" doesn't always match my memories of the times nor any evidence I still have on file. One of the virtues of FR is large number of folks here with long memories who've been trying to pay attention. Our memories aren't always correct and may be flavored by personal bias, but collectively they are a valuable resource. I have at least some memories of both Newt and Rick from early in their Congressional careers when they began to be noticed outside of their own districts and I remember somewhat Romney running against Ted Kennedy.
On this issue Rick has never said he was in favor of government run health care, with our without any individual mandate. He's been the leading proponent of the best conservative alternative, Health Care Savings Accounts, was one of its original creators. He pushed it through legislation against fierce liberal opposition for years. His opposition isn't just rational and political it also is emotional as he understands what Obamacare would do to children like his Bella or like his dead son Gabriel, whose life was nearly saved by experimental surgery. No one should doubt that a President Santorum would do all in his power to get rid of Obamacare. Whether or not one can get Santorum to the White House is alas a different question.
Romney is a quite different case. He pushed through RomneyCare and has been denying various aspects of that ever since yet refuses to repudiate the whole thing. My guess is he'll want to stay on both sides of the issue. He'll get rid of parts of it, claim he got rid of all of it, but keep too dang much of something similar under a different name. He'll continue to drive us nuts with his explanations. He's wishy washy enough that he might get rid of it if enough political pressure could be brought on him. With from where his political support was coming in '08 that base might have drug him across the line. With from where his support is coming now I'm much more skeptical.
Newt very clearly states he'll get rid of it. Now. The problem is he'd very clearly stated his support for such things for over a decade, up until a year ago. I've heard him lecture on the subject. He was a dang convincing spokesman for the other side, shattering my faith in him. I'd like to think his conversion is real, but am unconvinced. His old healthcare position melded too well with his long term interests in futuristic high tech solutions. He spent too much time trying to butter up the media and the left after leaving Congress. I'm afraid he'd kill Obamacare and replace it with some Gingrich Group model he'd say was different, but I'd say was much the same. I can see where those who have minimal knowledge of Newt in the 2000s would be impressed but I'm not. And if you think Mitt and Newt have been having fun running clips of Rick's brief endorsement of Romney from 2000 you haven't seen nothing yet. What Obama would do with old clips of Mitt or Newt pushing things h'd say were just like Obamacare will be excruciating.
I agree with you on many points.
I just don’t think Santorum can pull it off.
He may indeed be the best Conservative,but does he have the strength of character to go up against the Socialist Rino leadership of his own party, or will he bow the the RIONO leadership.
I believe Newt to be the best candidate, because I believe he can go up against the leadership.
IMO none of the three are really a good choice, but they are the choice we have. I don’t know which is right, I can only hope top pick the best of a bad lot. I believe Newt can win and I do not believe the others can.
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.