Mitt Romney: Getting called the "grandfather of Obamacare" is a "compliment"

[Keystone Phil]

I'm staring dagers at every moron - every last one - that thought this was a good idea. Hope you're happy.

[Likely Voter]

Up until now the conservative media lost their s--t every time Romney Etch-A-Sketched. However, now that he is losing I think they will cut him some slack. I think they are going to give him a get out of conservative dogma jail free card between now and the election and let him let that moderate flag fly as they may see it as his only way to win. So he can start talking vaguely about immigration reform, liking parts of Obamacare, not being so harsh on gays and abortion, etc.

I'm surprised he hasn't pivoted sooner, it is what you are supposed to do.

[Niemeyerite]

Politico, please explain.

Romney supports Romneycare in his state, not at the federal level. Romney is proud of his achievement in Massachusetts because it is what Massachusetts wanted. What Massachusetts wants, and what Massachusetts can afford, is not necessarily what 49 other states want, let alone can afford. Romney realizes this and respects this fact, unlike Obama. On day one, Romney will grant waivers to the states via executive order. States will be free to choose whether or not to have the individual mandate.

Romney believes in state diversity, not Obama's federal conformity. Romney believes the states control Washington whereas Obama believes Washington controls the states. Romney favors decentralized government whereas Obama favors Big Government. Romney wants an America of opportunities, freedom and personal responsibility. Obama wants more and more government until we are without opportunities, without freedom and without responsibility.

Good night, and good luck.

So hje supports central planned socialized medicine that takes away freedom, but only imposed by state governments rather than the feds. Got it.

We both know that Massachusetts is about the only place where it plays. It helps kids and poor students, and people in Massachusetts like it, so there is no real harm. A veto by Governor Romney would have been overridden, so Romney got the initial proposal reformed in such a way that taxes would not need to be raised to pay for it. You should at least give him some credit for that.

So, being a liberal in Massachusetts but a conservative in the rest of the USA is OK. That's a firm ideology.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Have any of the conservative posters here given him slack for going full Obama?

[Likely Voter]

Have we seen Laura Ingram, Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, etc go after him  for his Telemundo appearance which was full of etch a sketching? They seem to still be in full "Romney was right about the 47% and Obama is a redistributing socialist" mode. It's time to get pragmatic and give up on Mitt winning as a pure conservative and just hope he wins.

[Badger]

Politico, please explain.

Romney supports Romneycare in his state, not at the federal level. Romney is proud of his achievement in Massachusetts because it is what Massachusetts wanted. What Massachusetts wants, and what Massachusetts can afford, is not necessarily what 49 other states want, let alone can afford. Romney realizes this and respects this fact, unlike Obama. On day one, Romney will grant waivers to the states via executive order. States will be free to choose whether or not to have the individual mandate.

Romney believes in state diversity, not Obama's federal conformity. Romney believes the states control Washington whereas Obama believes Washington controls the states. Romney favors decentralized government whereas Obama favors Big Government. Romney wants an America of opportunities, freedom and personal responsibility. Obama wants more and more government until we are without opportunities, without freedom and without responsibility.

Good night, and good luck.

So hje supports central planned socialized medicine that takes away freedom, but only imposed by state governments rather than the feds. Got it.

We both know that Massachusetts is about the only place where it plays. It helps kids and poor students, and people in Massachusetts like it, so there is no real harm. A veto by Governor Romney would have been overridden, so Romney got the initial proposal reformed in such a way that taxes would not need to be raised to pay for it. You should at least give him some credit for that.

Politico, for someone who idolizes Romney so much you should be familiar with him and his history enough to know that what you just wrote is a pile of crap. Romney didn't have this pushed down his throat by a liberal Democrat juggarnaut to which he grudgingly acceeded to the inevitable; he actively and aggressively presented his similar plan and had a full part in negotiating the final result.

Yes, the Democrats overrode some line item vetos he made in the final product, most notably the employer (with over 10 employees) assessment for not providing health insurance--(but NOT the individual mandate--surely a "tax", no?), plus some other relatively minor changes like extenstion of dental services to the poor. But ultimately the final legislation very much had Romney's mark on it. There's a reason Bay Staters call it "Romneycare". And Romney has (or at least had, before running for president) characterized it as one of, if the triumphs of his administration.

A poll from two years ago showed approval/disapproval of Romneycare at 69-22. Other polls since have shown consistently that approximate 3-1 advantage. You really want to blame that kind of overwhelming support merely on MA's pro-D PVI? Fine, decrease support state by state for increasingly Republican PVI voting and note how many conservative red states would apparantly support Romneycare if it passed in their state in similar form. But fundamentally more important than whether liberal "Taxachusetts" voters support it; ROMNEY obviously supported it!

The point, Politico, is Romney simply can't run against Obamacare having established a not-quite-identical-but-very-closely-resembled program when he was governor. If the Republicans wanted to run against Obamacare, they should've nominated someone with a true conservative record of opposing it for real, or at least not someone who birthed it's fraternal twin at the state level.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

[Badger]

So succinctly and eloquently put, Clarence. Another reason Newt would've had just as much problem running against Obamacare.

[Politico]

I'm staring dagers at every moron - every last one - that thought this was a good idea. Hope you're happy.

This is how we win, and this is how Bush won in 2000 and Reagan in 1980 (i.e., toning down the rhetoric in the areas of the platform that scare the 20% in the middle; putting forth a tolerant face all the way with rhetoric that soothes the average female's ear). Your way leads to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Pennsylvania,_2006

Losing by twenty points to a bald guy? GIMME A BREAK, PHIL.

[Politico]

Politico, please explain.

Romney supports Romneycare in his state, not at the federal level. Romney is proud of his achievement in Massachusetts because it is what Massachusetts wanted. What Massachusetts wants, and what Massachusetts can afford, is not necessarily what 49 other states want, let alone can afford. Romney realizes this and respects this fact, unlike Obama. On day one, Romney will grant waivers to the states via executive order. States will be free to choose whether or not to have the individual mandate.

Romney believes in state diversity, not Obama's federal conformity. Romney believes the states control Washington whereas Obama believes Washington controls the states. Romney favors decentralized government whereas Obama favors Big Government. Romney wants an America of opportunities, freedom and personal responsibility. Obama wants more and more government until we are without opportunities, without freedom and without responsibility.

Good night, and good luck.

So hje supports central planned socialized medicine that takes away freedom, but only imposed by state governments rather than the feds. Got it.

We both know that Massachusetts is about the only place where it plays. It helps kids and poor students, and people in Massachusetts like it, so there is no real harm. A veto by Governor Romney would have been overridden, so Romney got the initial proposal reformed in such a way that taxes would not need to be raised to pay for it. You should at least give him some credit for that.

Politico, for someone who idolizes Romney so much you should be familiar with him and his history enough to know that what you just wrote is a pile of crap. Romney didn't have this pushed down his throat by a liberal Democrat juggarnaut to which he grudgingly acceeded to the inevitable; he actively and aggressively presented his similar plan and had a full part in negotiating the final result.

Yes, the Democrats overrode some line item vetos he made in the final product, most notably the employer (with over 10 employees) assessment for not providing health insurance--(but NOT the individual mandate--surely a "tax", no?), plus some other relatively minor changes like extenstion of dental services to the poor. But ultimately the final legislation very much had Romney's mark on it. There's a reason Bay Staters call it "Romneycare". And Romney has (or at least had, before running for president) characterized it as one of, if the triumphs of his administration.

A poll from two years ago showed approval/disapproval of Romneycare at 69-22. Other polls since have shown consistently that approximate 3-1 advantage. You really want to blame that kind of overwhelming support merely on MA's pro-D PVI? Fine, decrease support state by state for increasingly Republican PVI voting and note how many conservative red states would apparantly support Romneycare if it passed in their state in similar form. But fundamentally more important than whether liberal "Taxachusetts" voters support it; ROMNEY obviously supported it!

The point, Politico, is Romney simply can't run against Obamacare having established a not-quite-identical-but-very-closely-resembled program when he was governor. If the Republicans wanted to run against Obamacare, they should've nominated someone with a true conservative record of opposing it for real, or at least not someone who birthed it's fraternal twin at the state level.

Like I said, Romney is proud of his accomplishment and Massachusetts likes it. What works for Massachusetts does not necessarily work for 49 other states. Romney believes in the states controlling Washington, not the other way around as Obama believes. Experimentation at the state level will produce the best results, not conformity forced upon the states from Washington. That's Romney's stance, and it's reasonable from a historical perspective.

[Keystone Phil]

I'm staring dagers at every moron - every last one - that thought this was a good idea. Hope you're happy.

This is how we win

Until you and your candidate lose this one. Badly. Enjoy.

[Northeast Rep Snowball]

This is how we win, and this is how Bush won in 2000 and Reagan in 1980 (i.e., toning down the rhetoric in the areas of the platform that scare the 20% in the middle; putting forth a tolerant face all the way with rhetoric that soothes the average female's ear).

But the problem is that he already offended those 20% with his 47% thing, and Obama has a large percentage of women voters. Yes he is changing his position (again) to try to win more of the swing voters, as well as targeting swing states, but I doubt that this re-reversal of his opinion will reflect well on him. While I do think that the election could go either way, there is a huge favor for Obama and this is not going to help Romney much, but it might help him, I do concede that.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Didn't I say this would happen, Phil?

[Mister Twister]

For someone so against handouts, Mitt Romney sure likes giving this election away

[Adam Griffin]

For someone so against handouts, Mitt Romney sure likes giving this election away

Uh, sig-worthy.

[Politico]

I'm staring dagers at every moron - every last one - that thought this was a good idea. Hope you're happy.

This is how we win

Until you and your candidate lose this one. Badly. Enjoy.

Don't worry, Phil: Romney's Supreme Court Justices will live up to your personal expectations in the sense that they will generally rule in favor of state autonomy with regards to various social issues that concern you. That's the reward for social conservatives marking the ballot for Romney despite their reservations. Just because Romney is more concerned with the fiscal than the social does not mean he is going to abandon a significant half of the coalition. That said, a commitment to state autonomy is the key on the social front in order to keep winning nationally in the 21st century. Let's keep this on the downlow, though...

[Badger]

This is how we win; putting forth a tolerant face all the way with rhetoric that soothes the average female's ear).

Wow.

This explains at lot not only why there's such huge gender gap in this race, but also why women don't post here.

But whaddya expect from a guy who's on record as envying his uber-wealthy client's having trophy wives and wanting to emulate their practice someday?

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If it's half the coalition, how could it be insignificant? He just did by going Full Obama on us.

[Politico]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If it's half the coalition, how could it be insignificant? He just did by going Full Obama on us.

What matters is what Mitt will do for social conservatives like you. What he is going to do is install Supreme Court Justices who respect the autonomy of each state. This is a direct contrast to the type of Justices that Obama will appoint if given a second term (i.e., those who prefer Washington controlling the states). This is a pretty easy choice for you, buddy. Hold your nose and mark the ballot for Mitt. Trust me, you'll feel good about it in four more years.

[Badger]

Politico, please explain.

Romney supports Romneycare in his state, not at the federal level. Romney is proud of his achievement in Massachusetts because it is what Massachusetts wanted. What Massachusetts wants, and what Massachusetts can afford, is not necessarily what 49 other states want, let alone can afford. Romney realizes this and respects this fact, unlike Obama. On day one, Romney will grant waivers to the states via executive order. States will be free to choose whether or not to have the individual mandate.

Romney believes in state diversity, not Obama's federal conformity. Romney believes the states control Washington whereas Obama believes Washington controls the states. Romney favors decentralized government whereas Obama favors Big Government. Romney wants an America of opportunities, freedom and personal responsibility. Obama wants more and more government until we are without opportunities, without freedom and without responsibility.

Good night, and good luck.

So hje supports central planned socialized medicine that takes away freedom, but only imposed by state governments rather than the feds. Got it.

We both know that Massachusetts is about the only place where it plays. It helps kids and poor students, and people in Massachusetts like it, so there is no real harm. A veto by Governor Romney would have been overridden, so Romney got the initial proposal reformed in such a way that taxes would not need to be raised to pay for it. You should at least give him some credit for that.

Politico, for someone who idolizes Romney so much you should be familiar with him and his history enough to know that what you just wrote is a pile of crap. Romney didn't have this pushed down his throat by a liberal Democrat juggarnaut to which he grudgingly acceeded to the inevitable; he actively and aggressively presented his similar plan and had a full part in negotiating the final result.

Yes, the Democrats overrode some line item vetos he made in the final product, most notably the employer (with over 10 employees) assessment for not providing health insurance--(but NOT the individual mandate--surely a "tax", no?), plus some other relatively minor changes like extenstion of dental services to the poor. But ultimately the final legislation very much had Romney's mark on it. There's a reason Bay Staters call it "Romneycare". And Romney has (or at least had, before running for president) characterized it as one of, if the triumphs of his administration.

A poll from two years ago showed approval/disapproval of Romneycare at 69-22. Other polls since have shown consistently that approximate 3-1 advantage. You really want to blame that kind of overwhelming support merely on MA's pro-D PVI? Fine, decrease support state by state for increasingly Republican PVI voting and note how many conservative red states would apparantly support Romneycare if it passed in their state in similar form. But fundamentally more important than whether liberal "Taxachusetts" voters support it; ROMNEY obviously supported it!

The point, Politico, is Romney simply can't run against Obamacare having established a not-quite-identical-but-very-closely-resembled program when he was governor. If the Republicans wanted to run against Obamacare, they should've nominated someone with a true conservative record of opposing it for real, or at least not someone who birthed it's fraternal twin at the state level.

Like I said, Romney is proud of his accomplishment and Massachusetts likes it. What works for Massachusetts does not necessarily work for 49 other states. Romney believes in the states controlling Washington, not the other way around as Obama believes. Experimentation at the state level will produce the best results, not conformity forced upon the states from Washington. That's Romney's stance, and it's reasonable from a historical perspective.

Feh. Either it's a good idea or it isn't. Romney hasn't begun to try explaining why romneycare isn't an adaptable model for the NATIONAL health care crisis, because he can't run against a system he spent so much time and effort setting up as governor.

Or are you saying his experience as governor won't translate as president? Or more likely are you simply parroting the party line knowing there's no rational defene for Romney trying to destroy what he himself tried to create.

Wait a minute! You've just admitted he CAN'T and WON'T provide leadership on health care as president. He apparantly wants the healthcare system to be addressed by 50 state governors and legilatures rather than as a nation. Wow. Thanks for being so uncharacteristicallyy frank about Romney's shortcomings.

[Politico]

Politico, please explain.

Romney supports Romneycare in his state, not at the federal level. Romney is proud of his achievement in Massachusetts because it is what Massachusetts wanted. What Massachusetts wants, and what Massachusetts can afford, is not necessarily what 49 other states want, let alone can afford. Romney realizes this and respects this fact, unlike Obama. On day one, Romney will grant waivers to the states via executive order. States will be free to choose whether or not to have the individual mandate.

Romney believes in state diversity, not Obama's federal conformity. Romney believes the states control Washington whereas Obama believes Washington controls the states. Romney favors decentralized government whereas Obama favors Big Government. Romney wants an America of opportunities, freedom and personal responsibility. Obama wants more and more government until we are without opportunities, without freedom and without responsibility.

Good night, and good luck.

So hje supports central planned socialized medicine that takes away freedom, but only imposed by state governments rather than the feds. Got it.

We both know that Massachusetts is about the only place where it plays. It helps kids and poor students, and people in Massachusetts like it, so there is no real harm. A veto by Governor Romney would have been overridden, so Romney got the initial proposal reformed in such a way that taxes would not need to be raised to pay for it. You should at least give him some credit for that.

Politico, for someone who idolizes Romney so much you should be familiar with him and his history enough to know that what you just wrote is a pile of crap. Romney didn't have this pushed down his throat by a liberal Democrat juggarnaut to which he grudgingly acceeded to the inevitable; he actively and aggressively presented his similar plan and had a full part in negotiating the final result.

Yes, the Democrats overrode some line item vetos he made in the final product, most notably the employer (with over 10 employees) assessment for not providing health insurance--(but NOT the individual mandate--surely a "tax", no?), plus some other relatively minor changes like extenstion of dental services to the poor. But ultimately the final legislation very much had Romney's mark on it. There's a reason Bay Staters call it "Romneycare". And Romney has (or at least had, before running for president) characterized it as one of, if the triumphs of his administration.

A poll from two years ago showed approval/disapproval of Romneycare at 69-22. Other polls since have shown consistently that approximate 3-1 advantage. You really want to blame that kind of overwhelming support merely on MA's pro-D PVI? Fine, decrease support state by state for increasingly Republican PVI voting and note how many conservative red states would apparantly support Romneycare if it passed in their state in similar form. But fundamentally more important than whether liberal "Taxachusetts" voters support it; ROMNEY obviously supported it!

The point, Politico, is Romney simply can't run against Obamacare having established a not-quite-identical-but-very-closely-resembled program when he was governor. If the Republicans wanted to run against Obamacare, they should've nominated someone with a true conservative record of opposing it for real, or at least not someone who birthed it's fraternal twin at the state level.

Like I said, Romney is proud of his accomplishment and Massachusetts likes it. What works for Massachusetts does not necessarily work for 49 other states. Romney believes in the states controlling Washington, not the other way around as Obama believes. Experimentation at the state level will produce the best results, not conformity forced upon the states from Washington. That's Romney's stance, and it's reasonable from a historical perspective.

Feh. Either it's a good idea or it isn't. Romney hasn't begun to try explaining why romneycare isn't an adaptable model for the NATIONAL health care crisis, because he can't run against a system he spent so much time and effort setting up as governor.

Or are you saying his experience as governor won't translate as president? Or more likely are you simply parroting the party line knowing there's no rational defene for Romney trying to destroy what he himself tried to create.

Wait a minute! You've just admitted he CAN'T and WON'T provide leadership on health care as president. He apparantly wants the healthcare system to be addressed by 50 state governors and legilatures rather than as a nation. Wow. Thanks for being so uncharacteristicallyy frank about Romney's shortcomings.

Again, Romney believes in the states controlling Washington, not the other way around. Romneycare does not work everywhere, nor is it wanted everywhere, so Romney does not support forcing Romneycare upon those states. If you do not like that, do not vote for him. If you want the next four years to look like the past four years, vote for Obama.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Again, Romney believes in the states controlling Washington, not the other way around.

Which is why Romney supports letting the states control how TANF funds are spent without any mandates from Washington, right?  After all, if that truly is what he believes, then he would think that Obama granting those waivers requested by governors of both parties was a good thing.

[Niemeyerite]

So, Politico believes Joe Manchin can run as a liberal democrat in 2016 and he'd not be a flip-flopper. WV is a conservative state, so you have to be a conservative Governor. Buuut you can have a liberal plan for the entire USA at the same time. I'm sure democrats would love that.

I'm sure there are many people who support death penalty in conservative states and are against it in liberal ones. Obama should make same-sex marriage legal only in blue states. That's the solution. 2 Americas. Or 3. Or 4.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

So, Politico believes Joe Manchin can run as a liberal democrat in 2016 and he'd not be a flip-flopper. WV is a conservative state, so you have to be a conservative Governor. Buuut you can have a liberal plan for the entire USA at the same time. I'm sure democrats would love that.

I'm sure there are many people who support death penalty in conservative states and are against it in liberal ones. Obama should make same-sex marriage legal only in blue states. That's the solution. 2 Americas. Or 3. Or 4.

50 actually.  True federalism calls for 50 Americas.

[Badger]

Politico, please explain.

Romney supports Romneycare in his state, not at the federal level. Romney is proud of his achievement in Massachusetts because it is what Massachusetts wanted. What Massachusetts wants, and what Massachusetts can afford, is not necessarily what 49 other states want, let alone can afford. Romney realizes this and respects this fact, unlike Obama. On day one, Romney will grant waivers to the states via executive order. States will be free to choose whether or not to have the individual mandate.

Romney believes in state diversity, not Obama's federal conformity. Romney believes the states control Washington whereas Obama believes Washington controls the states. Romney favors decentralized government whereas Obama favors Big Government. Romney wants an America of opportunities, freedom and personal responsibility. Obama wants more and more government until we are without opportunities, without freedom and without responsibility.

Good night, and good luck.

So hje supports central planned socialized medicine that takes away freedom, but only imposed by state governments rather than the feds. Got it.

We both know that Massachusetts is about the only place where it plays. It helps kids and poor students, and people in Massachusetts like it, so there is no real harm. A veto by Governor Romney would have been overridden, so Romney got the initial proposal reformed in such a way that taxes would not need to be raised to pay for it. You should at least give him some credit for that.

Politico, for someone who idolizes Romney so much you should be familiar with him and his history enough to know that what you just wrote is a pile of crap. Romney didn't have this pushed down his throat by a liberal Democrat juggarnaut to which he grudgingly acceeded to the inevitable; he actively and aggressively presented his similar plan and had a full part in negotiating the final result.

Yes, the Democrats overrode some line item vetos he made in the final product, most notably the employer (with over 10 employees) assessment for not providing health insurance--(but NOT the individual mandate--surely a "tax", no?), plus some other relatively minor changes like extenstion of dental services to the poor. But ultimately the final legislation very much had Romney's mark on it. There's a reason Bay Staters call it "Romneycare". And Romney has (or at least had, before running for president) characterized it as one of, if the triumphs of his administration.

A poll from two years ago showed approval/disapproval of Romneycare at 69-22. Other polls since have shown consistently that approximate 3-1 advantage. You really want to blame that kind of overwhelming support merely on MA's pro-D PVI? Fine, decrease support state by state for increasingly Republican PVI voting and note how many conservative red states would apparantly support Romneycare if it passed in their state in similar form. But fundamentally more important than whether liberal "Taxachusetts" voters support it; ROMNEY obviously supported it!

The point, Politico, is Romney simply can't run against Obamacare having established a not-quite-identical-but-very-closely-resembled program when he was governor. If the Republicans wanted to run against Obamacare, they should've nominated someone with a true conservative record of opposing it for real, or at least not someone who birthed it's fraternal twin at the state level.

Like I said, Romney is proud of his accomplishment and Massachusetts likes it. What works for Massachusetts does not necessarily work for 49 other states. Romney believes in the states controlling Washington, not the other way around as Obama believes. Experimentation at the state level will produce the best results, not conformity forced upon the states from Washington. That's Romney's stance, and it's reasonable from a historical perspective.

Feh. Either it's a good idea or it isn't. Romney hasn't begun to try explaining why romneycare isn't an adaptable model for the NATIONAL health care crisis, because he can't run against a system he spent so much time and effort setting up as governor.

Or are you saying his experience as governor won't translate as president? Or more likely are you simply parroting the party line knowing there's no rational defene for Romney trying to destroy what he himself tried to create.

Wait a minute! You've just admitted he CAN'T and WON'T provide leadership on health care as president. He apparantly wants the healthcare system to be addressed by 50 state governors and legilatures rather than as a nation. Wow. Thanks for being so uncharacteristicallyy frank about Romney's shortcomings.

Again, Romney believes in the states controlling Washington, not the other way around. Romneycare does not work everywhere, nor is it wanted everywhere, so Romney does not support forcing Romneycare upon those states. If you do not like that, do not vote for him. If you want the next four years to look like the past four years, vote for Obama.

The question isn't about Obama, its about Romney. Good job ducking the question.